Distillers Grains Use in Dairy Cattle Operations

and Effect on production and Milk Characterics:

What Does the Research Say?

Ethanol Co-Product Storage and Utilization In Grazing Systems

UNL Ag Research and Development Center
Mead, NE
June 3, 2009
US Cow Population
Milk/cow
1924-2007
 Issues:
Corn Milling co-products
- Low levels of LYS
- High levels of 18:2
- Low levels of starch
 Research Objectives
Understand Nutrient Utilization
Understand Feed Chemical
Composition

Animal

Rumen
Microbe

Milk Yield

Understand Effects of Production

Chemical Composition
Mobile Bag Technique: RUP and dRUP
(Kononoff et al., 2007)

Protein
 Ruminal and Intestinal Protein Digestibility
RUP dRUP TT CP
%DM %CP
Feedstuff (%CP) (%CP) Digest. (%CP)
Corn Bran 90.7 13.5 20.7 65.8 93.1
Corn Germ 91.0 16.3 16.5 66.8 94.5
WCGF 55.9 26.7 11.5 51.1 94.4
DDGS 86.9 28.9 56.3 91.9 95.4
WDGS 45.6 29.9 44.7 93.1 96.9
HP-DDGS 94.7 47.2 55.2 97.7 98.7
SBM1 89.1 49.9 24.3 93.0 N/A
Bloodmeal1 90.2 95.5 70.9 80.0 N/A

1Kelzer et al., 2007

 AA Conc. in the RUP
[ ] (% CP)

1Kelzer et al., 2007

 NDF and rumen fermentation

Rate, %/h NDF Digestion NDF Digestion

(24 h) (48 h)
Bran 6.2 79.8 86.6
Germ 7.6 83.1 89.6
HP-DDGS 12.0 70.6 84.8
DDGS 6.8 75.6 86.3

Tedeschi et al. (2008)

Rumen Biohydrogenation

Bamguard et al., 2000

Lipid Fractions of Co-products

1Kelzer et al., 2007

Milk Production
and Co-Products
WCGF and 305 d Milk Yield

Objective:
To determine the effects of feeding WCGF during lactation
(and the dry period).

Experimental Units:
36 Primiparous Holstein Cows
40 Multiparous Holstein Cows
 Control (%DM) WCGF (%DM)

Diets Alfalfa Haylage 17.8 10.4

Alfalfa Hay 12.0 8.5

Corn Silage 29.8 18.9

Soypass 1.7 1.7

Corn, ground 20.3 12.5

SBM, 48% CP 6.0 0.45

Cottonseed 8.7 5.1

Blood Meal 0.6 0.5

Tallow 0.7 0.7

Urea 0.08 0

WCGF 0.0 38.0

Mineral/Vit Mix 2.4 2.9

○ WCGF-L
● WCGF-DL
▲ Control
 Effect of diet on milk production over 43 weeks of
lactation.

Treatment P-Value
WCGF-
Control WCGF-L1 SEM DIET PARITY T*P3
DL2
DMI, pd/d 46.6b 55.9a 52.4a 0.8 < 0.01 < 0.01 NS
Milk, pd/d 68.4b 77.0a 76.3a 4.6 0.03 < 0.01 NS
3.5 % FCM 76.3b 85.6a 79.9ab 4.2 0.10 0.04 NS
Milk/DMI, pd/pd 1.50 1.43 1.55 0.09 NS NS NS
 Effect of diet on test day milk composition over
43 weeks of lactation.

Treatment P-Value
WCGF-
Control WCGF-L1 SEM DIET PARITY T*P3
DL2
Fat,
Percent 4.15a 3.94ab 3.74b 0.08 < 0.01 NS NS
Yield, pd/d 2.86 3.15 2.86 0.15 NS NS NS
Protein,
Percent 3.19 3.17 3.16 0.04 NS NS NS
Yield, pd/d 2.4b 2.53a 2.42ab 0.13 0.03 0.04 NS
 3.6
BCS (0-5 scale) 3.5
Control
3.4
WCGF-L
3.3
WCGF-DL
3.2
3.1
0 10 20 30 40 50

Week Of Lactation

Body condition score means for the respective

treatments over the entire lactation were 3.33, 3.36,
3.34 (SE 0.04, P = 0.84).
The Effect of Feeding Increasing Levels of Dried
Distillers Grains Plus Solubles to Dairy Cows
4 Dietary Treatments
 Control, no Dried Distillers Grains
 10% diet DM
 20% diet DM
 30% diet DM

Four 28d periods

 20 cows
 76 + 24 DIM

Janicek et al., 2008

Experimental Diets
Control, 0% 30% DDGS
Corn Silage 30.05 23.95
Alfalfa Haylage 10.88 9.34
Alfalfa Hay 10.88 9.44
Soybean Meal 4.77 0
Soybean Hulls 10.36 10.36
Cottonseed 6.61 0
DDGS 0 30.0
Ground Corn 16.28 12.10
Soy Pass 5.60 1.14
Urea 0.26 0
Tallow 1.04 0.92
Bloodmeal 0.68 0.68

Vit/Min premix 2.6 2.01

Chemical Composition
Control, 0% 30% DDGS

DM, % 57.79 61.72

NEL, (Mcal/lb) 0.78 0.78

CP, % DM 18.7 18.9

Fat, % DM 4.3 5.17

NDF, %DM 33.7 34.7

P, % DM 0.40 0.42

RUP, % CP 39.8 47.9

Janicek et al., 2008

Results - DMI
pds/d

Linear effect; P = 0.03

Results – Milk Production

Janicek et al., 2008 Linear effect; P = 0.08

Fat and Protein Yield, kg/d

Janicek et al., 2008

 DDGS and milk CLA
0% 10% 20% 30% SEM P-Value
DDGS DDGS DDGS DDGS
Milk
% 3.70 3.64 3.73 3.55 0.15 0.31
C18:0 15.5 15.1 15.0 14.6 0.44 0.10
C18:1, c9 2.02 2.22 3.19 3.31 0.22 < 0.01
C18:1 t9 24.0 24.6 24.6 24.8 0.66 0.33
CLA c9, t11 0.34 0.55 0.80 0.98 0.06 <0.01
C18:2 2.96 3.82 4.78 5.59 0.21 < 0.01

Janicek et al., 2008

 Dairy Rations that Maximize the
Inclusion of Corn Milling Co-Products
Objective:
To determine nutritional strategies that support maximal
inclusion of corn milling co-products in dairy rations.

Experimental Design:
5X5 Latin square
40 cows fed 5 diets during 4 periods

Experimental Measures:
Daily Feed Intake
Milk Production
Nutrient Digestibility
Modified WDGS Wet Corn Gluten Feed
DM = 45.6 DM = 55.9
NDF = 30.8 NDF = 36.9
CP = 30.2 CP = 23.1
Fat = 13.5 Fat = 5.1
 Control MWDGS WCGF 15% Blend 30% Blend

Modified DGS --- 15.0 --- 7.5 15.0

WCGF --- --- 15.0 7.5 15.0

Corn silage 28.0 25.5 23.0 24.3 24.0

Alfalfa haylage 9.8 9.0 8.0 8.5 3.5

Alfalfa hay 9.8 9.8 8.0 8.9 3.5

Brome hay 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.0

Ground corn 17.5 13.5 14.5 14.0 9.5

SBM 6.0 3.5 5.5 4.5 3.2

Soy Pass 6.0 4.0 4.5 4.3 3.5

Cottonseed 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0

Soybean hulls 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.1 10.0

Tallow 1.0 --- 1.0 0.5 ---

Urea 0.24 --- --- --- ---

Vitamins and minerals 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.8

 Control MWDGS WCGF 15% 30%
Blend Blend

CP 18.5 18.7 18.6 18.7 18.6

RUP, %CP 39.2 43.0 37.8 40.4 41.8

NDF 35.0 36.6 35.0 35.8 37.0

Starch 23.7 20.4 21.6 21.0 18.8

EE 4.0 5.8 4.0 4.9 5.6

Dry Matter Intake (pds/d)

Observed Difference: P < 0.05

Gehman and Kononoff
(2007)
Milk Production (pds/d)

Observed Difference: P < 0.05

Gehman and Kononoff
(2007)
Digestibility, %

Observed Difference: P < 0.05

Gehman and Kononoff (2007)

Purine Metabolism
Dietary Nucleic Acids

Degraded

Degraded Microbial Nucleic Acids

PD
Liver Duodenum
Rumen
Excreted in urine
Crawford et al., 2005
Purine Derivatives, mmol/d

Observed Difference: P = 0.04

Gehman and Kononoff (2007)
All generalizations are
false, including this one.
Mark Twain
New Dry Milling Process
Corn Endosperm and Gluten

Grind, Wet, Cook,

Fermentation

Bran Yeasts and Enzymes

Still
Ethanol
Germ
Stillage

Coarse Grains
Solubles/Syrup

Distillers Grains

High Protein Dried

Distillers Grains
Control and Treatment Diets
Treatments
Ingredients (%DM) Control HPDDGS
Corn Silage 31.4 28.2
Alfalfa Haylage 15.6 14.1
Corn Grain 13.7 13.7
Brome Hay 12.3 12.2
Soybean Meal 9.66 ---
Soybean Hulls 9.03 9.01
Bypass Soy 5.64 ---
Vitamins and Minerals 2.39 2.59
HPDDGS --- 20.0

Chemical Composition
CP, % DM 18.5 18.6
NDF, % DM 37.3 38.9
Ether Extract, % DM 3.4 3.80
Lys:Met 3.41:1 1.96:1
Results
Milk production and composition
Control HPDDG SEM P-Value
Intake, lbs/d 50.2 47.1 1.64 0.06
Milk, lbs/d 70.2 74.2 4.68 0.02
Fat, % 3.85 4.08 0.19 0.12
Protein, % 3.05 3.02 0.08 0.47
Fat, lbs/d 2.67 3.02 0.18 0.01
Protein lbs/d 2.11 2.22 0.11 0.01
MUN, mg/dL 112.8 14.6 0.66 < 0.01
FC1 1.47 1.73 0.09 < 0.01

1Feed Conversion = 3.5% FCM/DMI

 Dairy rations and co-products

• Co-products may be included and rumen

biohydrogenation may not affect milk fat yield
• Co-products are low in LYS but high levels may
not affect milk protein
• Energy contribution from starch may be
replaced with fat, fermentable fiber
CHO Composition and Bacterial Growth
Ingredient High NSC High SC
Alfalfa 39.3 36.1
Barley 38.6 .
Corn . 20.0
SBM 9.7 8.2
Brewers Grain . 12.6
Beet Pulp . 20.7
Molasses 9.7 .
Blood Meal 0.8 .
Min/Vit 2.5 2.4
NDF 26.1 34.1
aNDF1 22.0 29.2
NFC (STA)2 47.8 (26.7) 40.3 (17.7)
1 aNDF = available NDF = NDF – (lignin X 2.4)
2 NFC= 100-CP-(NDF-NDIN)-Ash-EE, STA =Starch
Hristov and Ropp (2003)
CPM vs Observed Microbial Protein Flow (g/d)

CPM Difference:
2233g/d – 1985 g/d = 248g/d
Observed Difference (not statistically different):
2125 g/d – 2006 g/d = 119 g/d
Hristov and Ropp (2003)
 Acknowledgments
Nebraska Corn Board
Cargill Corn Milling
Poet Nutrition
ADM
UNL Dairy Research Unit
Undergraduate Students
Anna Geis
Christina Heine
Kristina Hubbard
UNL Dairy Nutrition Graduate Students
Amanda Gehman (PhD candidate)
Brandy Janicek (MS)
Jolene Kelzner (MS)
Kim Mahacheck (MAg candidate)
Ezequias Lopez (MS Candidate)
Hugo Rameriz (MS Candidate)
Thank-you