Nutritional Value of U S Nutritional Value of U.S. DDGS in Swine, Poultry, and Aquaculture Diets Dr. Jerry Shurson Professor Professor Department of Animal Science University of Minnesota
Nutritional Value of U SNutritional Value of U.S. DDGS in Swine, Poultry,
and Aquaculture Diets
Dr. Jerry ShursonProfessorProfessor
Department of Animal ScienceUniversity of Minnesota
Comparison of Nutrient Composition of High Quality CornComparison of Nutrient Composition of High Quality Corn DDGS to Corn Gluten Feed, Corn Gluten Meal, and Brewer’s Dried Grains (As Fed Basis)
High Quality Corn DDGS
Corn Gluten Feed
Corn Gluten Meal
Brewer’s Dried Grains
Crude Protein, % 27.2 21.5 60.2 26.5, %Crude Fat, % 9.5 3.0 2.9 7.3NDF, % 38.8 33.3 8.7 48.7DE kcal/kg (swine) 3 639 2 990 4 225 2 100DE, kcal/kg (swine) 3,639 2,990 4,225 2,100ME, kcal/kg (swine) 3,378 2,605 3,830 1,960Lys, % 0.74 0.63 1.02 1.08Met % 0 49 0 35 1 43 0 45Met, % 0.49 0.35 1.43 0.45Thr, % 1.01 0.74 2.08 0.95Trp, % 0.21 0.07 0.31 0.26
Ca % 0 05 0 22 0 05 0 32Ca, % 0.05 0.22 0.05 0.32Available P, % 0.71 0.49 0.07 0.19
DDGS Color and Digestibility Varies Among DDGS Sources
High Quality,Highly DigestibleDDGS
Lower Quality,Less DigestibleDDGS DDGSDDGS
Variation in Digestible Amino Acids in 34 Sources of Corn DDGS (%)
Amino Acid
Max Min CV
Lys 0.77 0.33 18.4
Met 0 66 0 40 12 6Met 0.66 0.40 12.6
Thr 0.96 0.68 10.2
Trp 0.21 0.10 15.8
Urriola et al. (2007)
Relationship Between Lightness of Color (L*) and p g ( )Digestible Lysine Content of Corn DDGS
0.80
Dlys = 0.02(L*) - 0.25R2 = 0.480.60
0.70
nten
t, %
Dlys = 0.01(L*) + 0.320.50
0.60
ig. l
ys c
on
y ( )R2 = 0.03
0 30
0.40
Di
0.3030 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Color parameter L*
Use of U.S. Corn DDGS in S i Di tSwine Diets
Nutritional Characteristics of DDGS f S iDDGS for Swine DDGS ME = corn ME DDGS ME = corn ME Amino acid content and digestibility variable Total lysine (0 61-1 06% DM basis) Total lysine (0.61 1.06% DM basis) Standardized true lysine digestibility (44-67%)
High digestible P High digestible P Reduce diet inorganic P supplementation May reduce manure P excretion
Partially replaces some corn, soybean meal, and inorganic phosphate and reduces diet cost
Comparison of Phosphorus Level and Relative Availability of DDGS for SwineRelative Availability of DDGS for Swine(88% dry matter basis)
High Quality DDGS
DDGSNRC (1998)
Corn NRC (1998)
Total P, % 0.78Range
0.73 0.25
0.62-0.87P Availability, % 90
Range77 14
Range88-92
Available P, % 0.70 0.56 0.03
Diet Composition When 18.8% DDGS and Ph t Add d t S i G Di tPhytase are Added to a Swine Grower Diet
Ingredient Corn-SBM-1.5 kg Lysine 18.8% DDGS + Phytase
Corn, kg 798.3 636.3
Soybean meal 44% kg 176 9 159 4Soybean meal 44%, kg 176.9 159.4
DDGS, kg 0.0 188
Dicalcium phosphate, kg 11.6 0.0
Li k 2 9 8Limestone, kg 7.2 9.8
Salt, kg 3.0 3.0
L-lysine HCl, kg 1.5 1.5
VTM premix, kg 1.5 1.5
Phytase, 500 FTU/kg 0.0 0.5
TOTAL, kg 1000.0 1000.0, g
Quick Calculation of Feed Cost S iSavings Thumb rule:
Additions/1000 kg diet
+ 100 kg DDGS x $/kg = $+ 100 kg DDGS x ______ $/kg $______+ 1.5 kg limestone x ______ $/kg = $______TOTAL ADDITIONS (A) $______
S bt ti /1000 k di tSubtractions/1000 kg diet
- 88.5 kg corn x ______ $/kg = $______- 10 kg SBM (44%) x $/kg = $g ( ) ______ $ g $______- 3 kg dical. phos. x ______ $/kg = $______TOTAL SUBTRACTIONS (S) $______
(S A) = Feed cost savings/ton by adding 10% DDGS to the diet(S – A) = Feed cost savings/ton by adding 10% DDGS to the diet
Current U.S. Dietary DDGS Inclusion yRates and Estimated Usage Grower-finisher diets ~85-90% Grower-finisher diets 85-90% 10-40% of the diet
Sow diets ~5-10% Gestation – 10-40% of the diet Lactation - 5-10% of the diet Lactation 5 10% of the diet
Late nursery diets < 5% Added at 5-10% of the diet
Maximum Inclusion Rates of Golden High Quality U.S DDGS in Swine Diets(B d U U i it T i l )(Based Upon University Trials)
Nursery pigs (> 7 kg) Nursery pigs (> 7 kg) Up to 30%
Grow-finish pigs Up to 30%
Gestating sows Up to 50% Up to 50%
Lactating sows Up to 30%
Assumptions: no mycotoxinsp yformulate on a digestible amino acid and available phosphorus basis
Feeding High Quality DDGS to Weaned PigsPigs
Summary of U.S. University R h T i lResearch Trials
7 experiments have been conducted 7 experiments have been conducted Pigs fed diets containing up to 30% DDGS have
resulted in no differences in:resulted in no differences in: ADG ADFI Feed/Gain (feed conversion was improved by adding DDGS in some
studies)studies)
Feeding High Quality DDGS to G Fi i h PiGrower-Finisher Pigs
Summary of Growth Performance Responses from U.S. University Research Trials
17 experiments have been conducted to evaluate adding 0–30% DDGS p gto corn-soybean meal grower-finisher diets
ADG Improved in 1 experiment Improved in 1 experiment Not affected in 10 experiments Reduced in 6 experiments
ADFI ADFI Improved in 1 experiment Not affected in 10 experiments Reduced in 6 experimentsp
Gain:Feed Improved in 4 experiments Not affected in 10 experiments Not affected in 10 experiments Reduced in 3 experiments
Effect of Formulating G-F Diets on a Digestible Amino Acid Basis, with Increasing Levels of DDGS, on Overall Growth Performance
0% DDGS 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS0% DDGS 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS
Initial wt., kg 22.5 22.8 22.5 22.5
Final wt., kg 114 115 114 113
ADG kg/d 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 91ADG, kg/d 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91
ADFI, kg/da 2.57 2.55 2.49 2.46
F/Ga 2.79 2.76 2.71 2.70
a Linear effect of DDGS levelData from 64 pens, 16 pens/treatment (Xu et al., 2007)
Effects of Feeding Increasing Levels of DDGS on Carcass Composition and Pork pQuality
Adding Increasing Levels of DDGS to G-F Diets Slightly Reduces Carcass Yield
Effect of Dietary DDGS Level on Dressing Percentage
77.9 77.777.1
76.777
78
74
75
76
%
71
72
73
74
70
71
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 %Diet
Xu et al. (2007)Linear effect (P < 0.01)
Effects of Dietary DDGS Level on L t Rib B kf tLast Rib Backfat
1
1.25
0.75 0 % DDGS10% DDGS
0.25
0.5 20% DDGS30% DDGS
0Backfat, inches
Xu et al. (2007)30% DDGS tended to be lower than 0% DDGS (P = 0.09)
Effects of Dietary DDGS Level on % C L% Carcass Lean
55
500 % DDGS10% DDGS20% DDGS30% DDGS
45% Lean
Xu et al. (2007)30% DDGS tended to be higher than 0% DDGS (P = 0.11)
Effects of Dietary DDGS Level on Ultimate Muscle pHUltimate Muscle pH
5
3
40% DDGS10% DDGS
1
220% DDGS30% DDGS
0
1
pH
Effects of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Loin CharacteristicsLevel on Loin Characteristics
Loin firmness was linearly reducedy Due to reduced marbling Within accepted U.S. quality standards
Marbling was linearly reduced Marbling was linearly reduced Due to trend for reduced backfat Within accepted U.S. quality standards
Pi f d th 30% DDGS di t h d l i th t li htl l d Pigs fed the 30% DDGS diets had loins that were slightly less red Within accepted U.S. quality standards
No overall differences in subjective color scorej
No differences in drip loss on day 0, 14, 21, or 28 post-harvest
N diff i li id id ti i l i t 28 d f h lf t No differences in lipid oxidation in loins at 28 days of shelf storage
Effects of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Cook Loss and Off Flavor of Pork LoinsCook Loss and Off Flavor of Pork Loins
1.41.61.8
0 81
1.20% DDGS10% DDGS
0.40.60.8 20% DDGS
30% DDGS
00.2
Cook loss, % Off Flavor
No significant differences among dietary treatments.
Effects of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Eating Characteristics of Pork Loinson Eating Characteristics of Pork Loins
44.5
5
2.53
3.50% DDGS10% DDGS
11.5
2 20% DDGS30% DDGS
00.5
Flavor Juiciness
No significant differences among dietary treatments.
Adding Increasing Levels of DDGS to G-F Diets Linearly Reduces Belly Firmness
Effects of Dietary DDGS Level on Belly Firmness
40
45
25
30
35
0
GR
EE
5
10
15
20DEG
0
5
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 %Diet
Xu et al. (2007)
Effects of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on B ll d B kf t Ch t i tiBelly and Backfat Characteristics
No effect on belly thickness No effect on belly thickness
No differences in belly fat color No differences in belly fat color Japanese color score Minolta L*, a*, b*
No differences in backfat color Japanese color score Japanese color score Minolta a*, b*
Effects of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Belly and Backfat Characteristics
Backfat thickness is unaffected, and may be slightly Backfat thickness is unaffected, and may be slightly reduced, with increasing dietary levels of DDGS
Bellies will be less firm as higher dietary levels of DDGS Bellies will be less firm as higher dietary levels of DDGS are fed
Belly thickness may or may not be affected by increasing Belly thickness may or may not be affected by increasing dietary DDGS levels
N b t d d h lf lif d f t id ti i No concern about reduced shelf life and fat oxidation in loins under typical retail storage conditions for at least 28 days.
Does Feeding DDGS Improve Gut Health of Growing Pigs?
Healthy Ileitis
Effect of Dietary Treatment on Lesion Length (21 d Post-Challenge)
20
25
, cm
NCPC
SE = 3.3 0.9 0.1 0.3
20
25
, cm
NCPC
SE = 3.3 0.9 0.1 0.3
20
25
, cm
NCPC
SE = 3.3 0.9 0.1 0.3
D10 (P = .02)
10
15
on le
ngth
,
D10PC+ARD10+AR
D10 (P = .02)
10
15
on le
ngth
,
D10PC+ARD10+AR10
15
on le
ngth
,
D10PC+ARD10+AR
D10 (P = .02)
0
5Lesi
o
D10 (P = .02)
0
5Lesi
o
0
5Lesi
o
Jejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*
Section of gastro-intestinal tractJejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*
Section of gastro-intestinal tractJejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*
Section of gastro-intestinal tract
* Effect of disease challenge (P < .01).
Effect of Dietary Treatment on Lesion S it (21 d P t Ch ll )Severity (21 d Post-Challenge)
1.5
1.8
0-4)
NCPC
AR (P 03)
D10 (P = .02)SE = 0.16 0.17 0.08 0.11
1.5
1.8
0-4)
NCPC
AR (P 03)
D10 (P = .02)SE = 0.16 0.17 0.08 0.11
0 6
0.9
1.2
on s
core
(0 D10PC+ARD10+AR
AR (P = .03)
D10 (P = .09)
D10 (P = .10)
0 6
0.9
1.2
on s
core
(0 D10PC+ARD10+AR
AR (P = .03)
D10 (P = .09)
D10 (P = .10)
0.0
0.3
0.6
Lesi
o
0.0
0.3
0.6
Lesi
o
Jejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*
Section of gastro-intestinal tractJejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*
Section of gastro-intestinal tract
* Effect of disease challenge (P < .01).
Effect of Dietary Treatment on Lesion Pre alence (21 d Post Challenge)Prevalence (21 d Post-Challenge)
80
100
s
NCPCD10AR (P = 04)
D10 (P = .02)
SE = 6.3 6.4 3.6 5.0
80
100
s
NCPCD10AR (P = 04)
D10 (P = .02)
SE = 6.3 6.4 3.6 5.0
40
60
% o
f pig
s D10PC+ARD10+AR
AR (P = .04)
D10 (P = .03)40
60
% o
f pig
s D10PC+ARD10+AR
AR (P = .04)
D10 (P = .03)
0
20
Jejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*0
20
Jejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*Jejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*
Section of gastro-intestinal tractJejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*
Section of gastro-intestinal tract
* Effect of disease challenge (P < .01).
F di DDGS t SFeeding DDGS to Sows
Producer Perceptions and Ob tiObservations Perception Perception DDGS is a risky ingredient because of mycotoxin concerns
Has limited DDGS use compared to potentialp p
Observations Increased lactation feed intake Sows are more content Fewer constipation problems Fewer constipation problems
University of Minnesota –Wil t l (2003)Wilson et al. (2003)
Used 93 sows Used 93 sows randomly assigned to 1 of 4 dietary treatment combinations
i d di h h 2 d i sows remained on dietary treatments through 2 reproductive cycles
Each dietary treatment combination consisted of both a gestation and lactation diet
Corn-SBM Gestation and Corn-SBM Lactation Corn-SBM Gestation and 20% DDGS Lactation 50% DDGS Gestation and Corn-SBM Lactation 50% DDGS Gestation and 20% DDGS Lactation
Effect of Feeding a 50% DDGS Diet on Sow W i ht G i D i G t tiWeight Gain During Gestation
40
50
g
a a
20
30
40
ht G
ain,
kg
Cycle 1Cycle 2
x x
0
10
20
Wei
gh
Cycle 2
0Control DDGS
Gestation Dietary Treatment
a,b,x,y Different superscripts indicate significant difference (P < .10).
Effect of Feeding 0 or 50% DDGS Gestation Diets and 0 or 20% DDGS Lactation Diets on Pigs Weaned/Litter
10.012.0
Pigs
a x a y a y a y
2 04.06.08.0
umbe
r of P Cycle 1
Cycle 2
0.02.0
Control
/DDGS
Control
/DDGS
Nu
Control/C
o
Control/D
DDGS/Co
DDGS/D
Dietary treatmentDietary treatmenta,b,x,y Different superscripts indicate significant difference (P < .10).
Effect of Dietary Treatment Combination on Sow Lactation ADFI
45678
ke, k
g/da
y
Cycle 1
a xy b x a y a xy
01234
Feed
Inta
k Cycle 2
0
ol/Contro
l
trol/D
DGS
S/Control
GS/DDGS
F
Control/
Contro
DDGS/
DDG
Dietary Treatmenta,b,x,y Different superscripts indicate significant difference (P < .10).
University of Minnesota –S t l (2007)Song et al. (2007)
To determine the effects of increasing levels To determine the effects of increasing levels of DDGS in lactation diets on:
Sow and litter performance
Energy and nitrogen balance in sows
Milk fat and protein concentrations
Analyzed Nutrient Composition of Experimental Diets
C t l 10% 20% 30% 30%Control 10% DDGS
20% DDGS
30% DDGS
30% DDGS
HPCrude protein % 17 81 18 00 17 33 16 99 20 27Crude protein, % 17.81 18.00 17.33 16.99 20.27ADF, % 8.94 4.37 5.29 6.98 8.48Total calcium, % 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.82 0.76Total phosphorus, % 0.81 0.78 0.75 0.74 0.73
Gross energy, Mcal/kg 3.95 4.03 4.10 4.18 4.02Metabolizable energy, Mcal/kg 3.34 3.37 3.51 3.57 3.42gy g
Song et al. (2007)
Genetics and HousingGenetics and Housing
Used 307 mixed parity sows
- Group housed = 147 sows - Individual crates = 160 sows
English Belle, GAP genetics, Winnipeg, MB, Canada Average initial weight of about 222 ± 15 kg
Group housingGroup housing Individual housingIndividual housing
Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Sow ADFI in Lactation
8
5
6
7
8
2
3
4
5
kg
0
1
2
Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGSHP
No significant difference (P = 0.10)No significant difference (P = 0.10)
Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level S B d W i ht Ch
8
on Sow Body Weight Change
a
5678
ab
ab
1234
kg
ab
b
-2-101
Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGSHP
-3
a,ba,b Means with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05) Means with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05)
Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Litter Size at WeaningLitter Size at Weaning
11
789
10
ets
3456
# of
pig
le
012
Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGSHP
No significant difference (P = 0.31) No significant difference (P = 0.31)
Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Litter Weight Gain
60
40
50
20
30kg
0
10
Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGSHP
No significant difference (P = 0 67)No significant difference (P = 0 67)
HP
No significant difference (P = 0.67)No significant difference (P = 0.67)
Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Average Daily Piglet Weight Gain
200
250
300
100
150
00
g
0
50
Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
10, 20, and 30% DDGS vs. 30% DDGS HP (P < 0.1)10, 20, and 30% DDGS vs. 30% DDGS HP (P < 0.1)10 20 d 30% DDGS C t l (P 0 1)10 20 d 30% DDGS C t l (P 0 1)
HP
10, 20, and 30% DDGS vs. Control (P < 0.1)10, 20, and 30% DDGS vs. Control (P < 0.1)
Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on g yWean to Estrus Interval
6
4
5
6
2
3
4
days
0
1
Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGSHP
No significant difference (P = 0.35)No significant difference (P = 0.35)
Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on g yPre-Weaning Mortality
14
10
12
14
6
8
%
0
2
4
0Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
HP
No significant difference (P = 0.71) No significant difference (P = 0.71)
Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Coefficient of Variation of Individual Pig Weight within Litters
CV D0 d D19CV- D0 and D19
20
10
15
%
0
5
Control 10%D 20%D 30%D 30%DHPControl 10%D 20%D 30%D 30%DHP
D0 D19
No significant difference on Day 0 (P = 0.85) and Day 19 (P = 0.53)No significant difference on Day 0 (P = 0.85) and Day 19 (P = 0.53)
Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on g yMetabolizable Energy
100
708090
100
405060
% o
f GE
0102030
0Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGS
HP
No significant difference (P = 0.37)No significant difference (P = 0.37)
Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on g yNitrogen Digestibility
100
708090
100
40506070
%
102030
0Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGS HP
No significant difference (P = 0.29)No significant difference (P = 0.29)
Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Nitrogen Content of Sow Milk
Nitrogen in milk - D0 and D19Nitrogen in milk D0 and D19
2
2.5
1
1.5
%
0
0.5
Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGS HP
D0 D19
No significant difference at Day 0 (P = 0.73) and Day 19 (P=0.41)No significant difference at Day 0 (P = 0.73) and Day 19 (P=0.41)
Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Fat Concentration in Sow Milk
Fat in milk - D0 and D19Fat in milk D0 and D19
789
34567
%
012
Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGSHP
D0 D19
No significant difference on Day 0 (P = 0.99) and Day 19 (P = 0.59)No significant difference on Day 0 (P = 0.99) and Day 19 (P = 0.59)
C l iConclusion Inclusion of up to 30% DDGS in sow lactation p
diets did not affect: Sow and litter performance
Digestible and metabolizable energy
Nitrogen retention and digestibility Nitrogen retention and digestibility
Milk nitrogen and fat concentration
U f C DDGS i P lt Di tUse of Corn DDGS in Poultry Diets
Benefits and Limitations for Poultryy
Benefits Limitations
Good energy and amino acid source when limited to < 15% f th di t
Energy value ~ 84% of corn Low protein quality
< 15% of the diet Source of highly available P
Reduce manure PMay improve egg yolk and
add other supplements high in lys, arg, trp
Sources high in sodium may increase litter moisture
May improve egg yolk and skin color (xanthophyll)
Source of “unidentified growth factors”?
may increase litter moisture if adjustments to dietary salt levels are not made
growth factors ? “Golden” DDGS gives best
performance Highly palatableg y p
Recommended Inclusion Rates of DDGS for Poultry Broilers Broilers
10% inclusion rates Without energy adjustmentsgy j
> 10% With adjustments for lys, met, thr, trp, and energy
Chi k E L Chicken Egg Layers 10% inclusion rate > 10% > 10%
With adjustments for lys, met, thr, trp, and energy
Use of Corn DDGS in Aquaculture Di tUse of Corn DDGS in Aquaculture Diets
qDiets
Current Recommendations for Maximum Dietary Inclusion Rates of DDGS for yVarious Species of Fish
Species % DDGS CommentsCatfish Up to 30%
Trout Up to 15% Without synthetic lys and met supplementation
Trout Up to 22.5% With synthetic lys and met supplementation
Salmon Up to 10%
Freshwater Prawns
Up to 40% Can replace some or all of the fish meal in the diet
Shrimp Up to 10% No studies are available but based upon research results with freshwater prawns, a minimum of 10% DDGS in shrimp should be acceptable.
Tilapia Up to 35% Without synthetic lys and supplementation in high protein diets (40% CP)(40% CP)
Tilapia Up to 82% With synthetic lys and trp supplementation in low protein diets (28% CP)
University of Minnesota DDGS Web SiteDDGS Web Site
www.ddgs.umn.eduWe have developed a DDGS web site featuring:* nutrient profiles and photos of DDGS samples
* research summaries
- swine, poultry, dairy, & beefp y y
- DDGS quality
* presentations given* links to other DDGS related web sites* international audiences