Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:41:29.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The energy and protein value of wheat, maize and blend DDGS for cattle and evaluation of prediction methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2014

J. L. De Boever ,
M. C. Blok ,
S. Millet ,
J. Vanacker  and
S. De Campeneere
J. L. De Boever*
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, ILVO (Institute for Agriculture and Fisheries Research), 9090 Melle, Belgium
M. C. Blok
Affiliation:
Product Board Animal Feed, 2719EK Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
S. Millet
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, ILVO (Institute for Agriculture and Fisheries Research), 9090 Melle, Belgium
J. Vanacker
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, ILVO (Institute for Agriculture and Fisheries Research), 9090 Melle, Belgium
S. De Campeneere
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, ILVO (Institute for Agriculture and Fisheries Research), 9090 Melle, Belgium
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The chemical composition inclusive amino acids (AAs) and the energy and protein value of three wheat, three maize and seven blend (mainly wheat) dried distillers grains and solubles (DDGS) were determined. The net energy for lactation (NEL) was derived from digestion coefficients obtained with sheep. The digestible protein in the intestines (DVE) and the degraded protein balance (OEB) were determined by nylon bag incubations in the rumen and the intestines of cannulated cows. Additional chemical parameters like acid-detergent insoluble CP (ADICP), protein solubility in water, in borate-phosphate buffer and in pepsin-HCl, in vitro digestibility (cellulase, protease, rumen fluid) and colour scores (L*, a*, b*) were evaluated as potential predictors of the energy and protein value. Compared to wheat DDGS (WDDGS), maize DDGS (MDDGS) had a higher NEL-value (8.49 v. 7.38 MJ/kg DM), a higher DVE-content (216 v. 198 g/kg DM) and a lower OEB-value (14 v. 66 g/kg DM). The higher energy value of MDDGS was mainly due to the higher crude fat (CFA) content (145 v. 76 g/kg DM) and also to better digestible cell-walls, whereas the higher protein value was mainly due to the higher percentage of rumen bypass protein (RBP: 69.8 v. 55.6%). The NEL-value of blend DDGS (BDDGS) was in between that of the pure DDGS-types, whereas its DVE-value was similar to MDDGS. Although lower in CP and total AAs, MDDGS provided a similar amount of essential AAs as the other DDGS-types. Lysine content was most reduced in the production of WDDGS and cysteine in MDDGS. Fat content explained 68.6% of the variation in NEL, with hemicellulose and crude ash as extra explaining variables. The best predictor for RBP as well as for OEB was the protein solubility in pepsin-HCl (R 2=77.3% and 83.5%). Intestinal digestibility of RBP could best be predicted by ADF (R 3=73.6%) and the combination of CFA and NDF could explain 60.2% of the variation in the content of absorbable microbial protein. The availability of AAs could accurately be predicted from the rumen bypass and intestinal digestibility of CP.

Keywords

distillers grains and solublesnutritive valueruminantslab parameters
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 11 , November 2014 , pp. 1839 - 1850
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Azarfar, A, Jonker, A, Hettiarachchi-Gamage, IK and Yu, P 2012. Nutrient profile and availability of co-products from bioethanol processing. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 96, 450–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berger, LL 2007. Distillers dried grains plus solubles for ruminants. In Biofuels: implications for the feed industry (ed. J Doppenberg and P van der Aar), pp. 103–111. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Cao, ZJ, Anderson, JL and Kalscheur, KF 2009. Ruminal degradation and intestinal digestibility of dried or wet distillers grains with increasing concentrations of condensed distillers solubles. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3013–3019.Google Scholar
Cone, JW, Van Gelder, AH and Van Vuuren, AM 1995. Further research on in vitro methods to determine the content of rumen bypass protein (In Dutch). Report 269 of the Institute of Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO). Lelystad, The Netherlands, 49pp.Google Scholar
Cozannet, P, Primot, Y, Gady, C, Métayer, JP, Lessire, M, Skiba, F and Noblet, J 2010. Energy value of wheat distillers grains with solubles for growing pigs and adult sows. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2382–2391.Google Scholar
Cromwell, GL, Herkelman, KL and Stahly, TS 1993. Physical, chemical, and nutritional characteristics of distillers dried grains with solubles for chicks and pigs. Journal of Animal Science 71, 679–686.Google Scholar
CVB 1996. Protocol voor een faecale verteringsproef met hamels. Centraal Veevoederbureau, Product Board Animal Feed, The Netherlands, 8pp.Google Scholar
CVB 2004. Protocol voor in situ pens incubatie: bepaling van afbraaksnelheid en uitwasbare fracties van eiwit, zetmeel, celwanden en organische restfractie. Centraal Veevoederbureau, Product Board Animal Feed, The Netherlands, 14pp.Google Scholar
CVB 2011. The CVB feed table. CVB, Den Haag, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
De Boever, JL, Cottyn, BG, Buysse, FX, Wainman, FW and Vanacker, JM 1986. The use of an enzymatic technique to predict digestibility, metabolizable and net energy of compound feedstuffs for ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 14, 203–214.Google Scholar
EC 1971a. Determination of sugar. Official Journal of the European Communities L155, 17–20.Google Scholar
EC 1971b. Determination of moisture. Official Journal of the European Communities L279, 3–5.Google Scholar
EC 1992. Determination of crude fibre. Official Journal of the European Communities L344, 35–37.Google Scholar
EC 1998. Determination of amino acids. Official Journal of the European Communities L257, 16–23.Google Scholar
EC 1999. Determination of crude protein dissolved by pepsin and hydrochloric acid. Official Journal of the European Communities 1972L0199, 8–9.Google Scholar
EC 2000. Determination of tryptophan. Official Journal of the European Communities L174, 45–80.Google Scholar
Fahmy, WG, Aufrère, J, Graviou, D, Demarquilly, C and El-Shazly, K 1991. Comparison between the mechanism of protein degradation of two cereals by enzymatic and in situ methods, using gel electrophoresis. Animal Feed Science and Technology 35, 115–130.Google Scholar
Han, JC and Liu, KS 2010. Changes in the composition and amino acid profile during dry grind ethanol processing from corn and estimation of yeast contribution toward DDGS proteins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 58, 3430–3437.Google Scholar
ISO 1998. Animal feedingstuffs, animal products, and faeces or urine – determination of gross calorific value: bomb calorimeter method, standard 9831. International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 23pp.Google Scholar
ISO 1999. Animal feeding stuffs – determination of fat content, standard 6492. International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 9pp.Google Scholar
ISO 2002. Animal feeding stuffs – determination of crude ash, standard 5984. International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 6pp.Google Scholar
ISO 2005. Animal feeding stuffs – determination of nitrogen content and calculation of crude protein content - Part 2: Block digestion/steam distillation method, standard 5983-2. International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 14pp.Google Scholar
Kim, BG, Kil, DY, Zhang, Y and Stein, HH 2012. Concentrations of analyzed or reactive lysine, but not crude protein, may predict the concentration of digestible lysine in distillers dried grains with solubles fed to pigs. Journal of Animal Science 90, 3798–3808.Google Scholar
Li, C, Li, JQ, Yang, WZ and Beauchemin, KA 2012. Ruminal and intestinal amino acid digestion of distiller’s grain vary with grain source and milling process. Animal Feed Science and Technology 175, 121–130.Google Scholar
Mjoun, K, Kalscheur, KF, Hippen, AR and Schingoethe, DJ 2010. Ruminal degradability and intestinal digestibility of protein and amino acids in soybean and corn distillers grains products. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 4144–4154.Google Scholar
Moughan, PJ and Rutherfurd, SM 1996. A new method for determining digestible reactive lysine in foods. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 44, 2202–2209.Google Scholar
NEN 1974. Onderzoekingsmethoden voor veevoeders. Bepaling van het gehalte aan zetmeel m.b.v. enzymatische hydrolyse, standard 3574. Nederlandse Norm, Delft, The Netherlands, 4pp.Google Scholar
Nuez-Ortin, WC and Yu, P 2009. Nutrient variation and availability of wheat DDGS, corn DDGS and blend DDGS from bioethanol plants. Journal of the Science in Food and Agriculture 89, 1754–1761.Google Scholar
Nuez-Ortín, WG and Yu, P 2010. Effects of bioethanol plant and coproduct type on the metabolic characteristics of the proteins in cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3775–3783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuez-Ortín, WG and Yu, P 2011. Using the NRC chemical summary and biological approaches to predict energy values of new co-product from bio-ethanol production for dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 170, 165–170.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER and McDonald, I 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge) 92, 499–503.Google Scholar
Schiemann, R, Nehring, K, Hoffmann, L, Jentsch, L and Chudy, A 1971. Energetische Futterbewertung und Energienormen. VEB Deutscher Lantwirtschaftsverlag, Berlin, Germany, 344pp.Google Scholar
Tamminga, S, Van Straalen, WM, Subnel, APJ, Meijer, RGM, Steg, A, Wever, CJG and Blok, MC 1994. The Dutch protein evaluation system: the DVE/OEB-system. Livestock Production Science 40, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, JMA and Terry, RA 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Duinkerken, G and Blok, MC 1998. Berekening van het gehalte aan darmverteerbaar methionine en lysine in voedermiddelen voor herkauwers. CVB Report 22, CVB, The Netherlands, 56pp.Google Scholar
Van Duinkerken, G, Blok, MC, Bannink, A, Cone, JW, Dijkstra, J, Van Vuuren, AM and Tamminga, S 2011. Update of the Dutch protein evaluation system for ruminants: the DVE/OEB2010 system. Journal of Agricultural Science 149, 351–367.Google Scholar
Van Es, AJH 1975. Feed evaluation for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 2, 95–107.Google Scholar
Van Es, AJH 1978. Feed evaluation for ruminants. I. The system in use from May 1977 onwards in The Netherlands. Livestock Production Science 5, 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Westreicher-Kristen, E, Steingass, H and Rodehutscord, M 2012. Variations in chemical composition and in vivo and in situ ruminal degradation characteristics of dried distillers’ grains with solubles from European ethanol plants. Archives of Animal Nutrition 66, 458–472.Google Scholar