A finishing study was conducted to determine the value of the fiber, protein, fat, and solubles components from wet distillers grains plus solubles (WDGS) alone or in combination for feedlot cattle in comparison to WDGS diets. The fiber portion alone did not improve F:G. When protein was included in the composite with fiber, F:G improved. With fat and solubles both added separately, F:G continued to improve. None of the components alone could make up the feeding value of WDGS, however the composite diet of fiber, protein, fat, and solubles combined matched the performance observed when WDGS is fed

Bittner, Curtis J.

Erickson, Galen E.

Hilscher, F. Henry, Hilscher

Luebbe, Matt K.

MacDonald, Jim C.

Oglesbee, Rachel A.

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department
2016
Evaluation of Distillers Grains Components Singly
or in Combination in a Calf Fed Feedlot Study
Rachel A. Oglesbee
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Curtis J. Bittner
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, curtis.bittner@unl.edu
F. Henry Hilscher Hilscher
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, henry.hilscher@unl.edu
Galen E. Erickson
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.edu
Jim C. MacDonald
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jmacdonald2@unl.edu
See next page for additional authors
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr
Part of the Meat Science Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Oglesbee, Rachel A.; Bittner, Curtis J.; Hilscher, F. Henry Hilscher; Erickson, Galen E.; MacDonald, Jim C.; and Luebbe, Matt K.,
"Evaluation of Distillers Grains Components Singly or in Combination in a Calf Fed Feedlot Study" (2016). Nebraska Beef Cattle
Reports. 899.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/899
Authors
Rachel A. Oglesbee, Curtis J. Bittner, F. Henry Hilscher Hilscher, Galen E. Erickson, Jim C. MacDonald, and
Matt K. Luebbe
This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/899
124 · 2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report
©  Th e Board Regents of the University of 
Nebraska. All rights reserved.
(Greater Omaha Packing, Omaha, Neb.) 
with HCW taken at slaughter. Carcass 12th 
rib fat, LM area, and USDA marbling score 
were recorded aft er a 48- hour chill. Yield 
Grade was calculated using the USDA 
Yield Grade equation [YG = 2.5 + (2.5 × 
12th Rib Fat thickness, in) − (0.32 × LM 
area, in2) + (0.2 × KPH fat, %) + (0.0038 × 
HCW, lb)]. Final BW, ADG, and F:G were 
calculated using the HCW adjusted to 63% 
common dress.
Data were analyzed using the Mixed 
procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., 
Cary, N.C.) as a randomized block design 
with pen as experimental unit. Linear 
and quadratic simple eff ects were evalu-
ated for WDGS20 and WDGS40 and for 
Fiber20 and Fiber40 with the control diet 
as a common intercept. Th e fi ber content 
was also evaluated comparing WDGS20 
and WDGS40 vs. Fiber20 and Fiber40. 
Preplanned contrasts were also used to 
evaluate: 1) the protein eff ect (Fiber40, 
Fiber40 Sol vs. Fiber40 CGM, Fiber40 
CGM Sol), 2) the fat eff ect (Fiber40 CGM, 
Fiber40 CGM Sol vs. Fiber40 CGM Germ, 
Fiber40 CGM Germ Sol), and 3) the solu-
bles eff ect (Fiber40, Fiber40 CGM, Fiber40 
CGM Germ vs. Fiber40 Sol, Fiber40 CGM 
Sol, Fiber40 CGM Germ Sol). Th e feeding 
value of each diet was calculated relative to 
the control corn diet using the calculation: 
Feeding Value = ((Treatment G:F − Con-
trol G:F) / Control G:F) / inclusion rate of 
compared treatment.
Results
Linear and Quadratic Simple Eff ects: 
WDGS and Fiber
Final BW, HCW, DMI, and ADG 
increased quadratically as WDGS replaced 
the corn blend in the diet (P ≤ 0.02, Table 
2). Gain increased at a greater magnitude 
compared with DMI causing a decrease 
in F:G (P = 0.02). Yield grade increased 
linearly (P = 0.03) and had a tenden-
cy to increase quadratically (P = 0.06) 
with the inclusion of WDGS in the diet. 
ites of feed ingredients similar to nutrient 
composition of WDGS.
Procedure
A fi nishing experiment was conducted 
using 600 crossbred steers (initial BW = 
680 ± 40 lb) in a randomized block design 
to evaluate the feeding value of the fi ber, 
protein, fat, and solubles in WDGS. Steers 
were limit- fed to 2% BW for fi ve days 
before the start of the trial. Steers were 
weighed on two consecutive d (0 and 1) to 
determine initial BW. On day 1, steers were 
implanted with Revalor- XS (Merck Animal 
Health). Steers were blocked by BW into 
four blocks, stratifi ed by BW within each 
block and assigned randomly to pen. Pens 
were assigned randomly to one of ten 
treatments with 6 pens per treatment and 
ten steers per pen.
Diets were formulated to contain the 
same amount of the fat, fi ber and protein as 
in WDGS. Control diet (Table 1) had a 1:1 
mix of dry rolled corn (DRC):high mois-
ture corn (HMC) with a 5% inclusion of 
sorghum silage and 2.5% inclusion of grass 
hay. Th e WDGS20 and WDGS40 had 20% 
and 40% inclusion of WDGS, respectively. 
Th e Fiber20 contained corn bran at 7% 
and solvent extracted germ meal at 1.5% 
inclusion to mimic the fi ber portion of the 
WDGS20. In the Fiber40 diet corn bran 
and solvent extracted germ meal inclusion 
were increased to 14% and 3%, respectively 
to mimic the WDGS40 fi ber. Protein was 
then added to the diet in the form of corn 
gluten meal at 17.5% to mimic the crude 
protein in WDGS40. Whole fat germ was 
used to mimic the fat portion at 7.5% inclu-
sion. Solubles was added to each Fiber diet 
at 8% to evaluate its contribution to energy. 
All diets were formulated to provide 30 g/
ton DM daily of Rumensin® (Elanco Ani-
mal Health) and 90 mg/steer daily of Tylan® 
(Elanco Animal Health).
Th e fi rst two blocks were harvested on 
d 182 and the second two blocks were har-
vested on d 188 at a commercial abattoir 
Summary
A fi nishing study was conducted to 
determine the value of the fi ber, protein, fat, 
and solubles components from wet distillers 
grains plus solubles (WDGS) alone or in 
combination for feedlot cattle in comparison 
to WDGS diets. Th e fi ber portion alone did 
not improve F:G. When protein was includ-
ed in the composite with fi ber, F:G improved. 
With fat and solubles both added separate-
ly, F:G continued to improve. None of the 
components alone could make up the feeding 
value of WDGS, however the composite diet 
of fi ber, protein, fat, and solubles combined 
matched the performance observed when 
WDGS is fed.
Introduction
Th e ethanol industry is interested in 
ways to make use of portions of distillers 
grains to sell as separate commodities or to 
use in other processes. Ethanol plants are 
able to remove portions of fi ber, protein, 
fat, and solubles from the distillers grains 
to be sold separately. Previous research 
suggests a feed composite can mimic wet 
distillers grains plus solubles (WDGS) to 
improve feed effi  ciency when compared to 
wet corn gluten feed (WCGF), however the 
question remained as to what interactions 
of the fi ber, protein and fat contributed to 
the feeding value of WDGS (1997 Nebraska 
Cattle Beef Report, pp. 63– 64). Recent 
research found the fi ber portion to have the 
closest performance to that of a DGS diet 
out of the individual feeding components 
of fi ber, fat, and protein of WDGS (2016 
Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, pp. 122–23). 
Th erefore, the objective of this study was to 
determine the nutritional energy value of 
the fi ber, protein, fat, and solubles and their 
interactions in WDGS in terms of their 
contribution to fi nishing performance and 
carcass characteristics by using compos-
 Evaluation of Distillers Grains Components Singly 
or in Combination in a Calf Fed Feedlot Study
Rachel A. Oglesbee, Curtis J. Bittner, F. Henry Hilscher, Galen E. Erickson, 
Jim C. MacDonald, and Matt K. Luebbe
2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 125 
Table 1. Composition of dietary treatments (% of dietary DM) fed to fi nishing steers to evaluate components within WDGS
Ingredient Control WDGS20 WDGS40 Fiber20 Fiber40 Fiber Solb Fiber 
Protein
Fiber 
Protein 
Solb
Fiber 
Protein 
Fat
Fiber 
Protein 
Fat Sola
DRCa 43.75 33.75 23.75 39.5 35.25 31.25 26.5 22.5 24.25 20.25
HMCa 43.75 33.75 23.75 39.5 35.25 31.25 26.5 22.5 24.25 20.25
Sorghum Silage 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Grass Hay 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
WDGSa — 20 40 — — — — — — — 
Corn Bran — — — 7 14 14 14 14 14 14
SEMa — — — 1.5 3 3 3 3 — — 
CGMa — — — — — 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5
Whole Fat Germ — — — — — — — — 7.5 7.5
CDSa — — — — — 8 — 8 — 8
Urea 1.45 — — 1.45 1.45 0.91 — — — — 
Supplementc 3.55 5 5 3.55 3.55 4.09 5 5 5 5
Analyzed Composition, % of diet
Crude Protein 11.1 15.4 19.7 11.3 11.5 13.4 21.8 23.7 21.7 23.6
NDF   14.2 18.7 23.2 19.9 25.5 25.3 24.6 24.4 25.7 25.5
Crude Fat   4.03 5.71 7.38 3.81 3.60 3.83 3.30 3.51 6.12 6.32
Sulfur  0.12 0.23 0.35 0.13 0.14 0.20 0.30 0.36 0.30 0.36
aDRC = Dry Rolled Corn, HMC = High Moisture Corn, WDGS = Wet distillers grains plus solubles, SEM = Solvent extracted germ meal, CGM = Corn gluten meal, 
CDS = Condensed Distillers Solubles
bSol = Solubles
cFormulated for 30 g/ton for Rumensin®, 90 mg/steer daily of Tylan®, and 300 mg/steer daily of Optafl exx the last 28d for blocks 1 and 2 and the last 35 d for blocks 3 and 4
Table 2. Linear and quadratic simple eff ects for increasing levels of WDGS and Fiber diets on fi nishing performance
Con WDGS20 WDGS40 Fiber20 Fiber40 SEM Fiber 
Contenta
Linb 
WDGS
Quadb 
WDGS
Linb Fiber Quadb 
Fiber
Initial BW, lb 693 691 692 692 692 1 0.70 0.26 0.35 0.37 0.47
Final BW, lbc 1374 1458 1442 1384 1361 12 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.45 0.25
DMI, lb/day 23.0 23.6 22.6 23.0 23.3 0.2 0.82 0.26 0.02 0.44 0.68
ADG, lb 3.69 4.15 4.06 3.75 3.62 0.06 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.47 0.23
F:Gd 6.25 5.68 5.57 6.15 6.44 0.002 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.07
HCW, lb 866 919 909 872 858 7.4 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.45 0.25
LM area, inb 13.5 13.5 13.5 14.1 13.7 0.18 0.02 0.74 0.91 0.46 0.04
12th Rib Fat, in 0.57 0.65 0.63 0.49 0.50 0.03 < 0.01 0.12 0.1 0.06 0.16
Marbling scoree 494 512 507 467 471 12 < 0.01 0.45 0.45 0.19 0.29
Calculated YGf 3.39 3.80 3.72 3.03 3.11 .10 < 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.09
aFiber content analyzed by comparing the average of WDGS20 and 40 vs average of Fiber20 and 40.
bLinear and quadratic simple eff ects term
cFinal BW calculated from hot carcass weight adjusted to a common dressing percentage of 63%
dAnalyzed as G:F, reciprocal of F:G
eMarbling score:400 = Small00
fCalculated YG = 2.5 + (2.5 × 12th rib fat thickness) − (0.32 × LM area in2) + (0.2 × KPH) + (0.0038 × HCW)
126 · 2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report
Protein Eff ect
Th e addition of corn gluten meal to the 
Fiber40 and Fiber40 Sol diet signifi cantly 
increased fi nal BW, HCW, DMI, ADG, 12th 
rib fat, and yield grade while improving 
F:G (P < 0.01, Table 3). With the addition 
of corn gluten meal to the fi ber diet, the 
feeding value increased 17% to 47%. With 
this increased performance and value, 
protein is a major part of the positive 
performance observed with WDGS, 
however, numerically WDGS still had a 
better feeding value at 130% compared to 
the protein diets that are 121% and 117%. 
Th e protein eff ect is when protein is fed in 
excess as rumen undegradable protein and 
used for energy.
Fat Eff ect
With the addition of fat to the diet, 
DMI decreased and F:G also decreased 
(improved) (P < 0.01, Table 3), along with 
increasing the feeding value an additional 
to the control diet, the Fiber20 diet had 
an increased feeding value of 119%, 
while the Fiber40 diet decreased to 83%. 
Neither diet matched the feeding value 
of WDGS40 at 130%, indicating the fi ber 
portion alone of the WDGS contributes 
only a portion of the positive performance 
that we see from WDGS.
Solubles Eff ect
When comparing diets with and 
without solubles inclusion, fi nal BW, HCW, 
DMI, ADG, 12th rib fat, marbling score, 
and yield grade all increased signifi cantly 
with the inclusion of solubles (P ≤ 0.05, 
Table 3), while having no eff ect on F:G 
(P = 0.18, Table 3) or LM area (P = 0.57).
Th ese data suggest the inclusion of solubles 
to the diet increases performance while 
increasing the feeding value 0% to 20%, but 
with no improvement in F:G, the solubles 
addition by itself cannot match the feeding 
value of WDGS at 130%.
Th e increased performance with higher 
inclusion of WDGS agrees with previous 
research where increased levels of WDGS 
improved performance (2006 Nebraska 
Cattle Beef Report, pp 51– 53). Th e LM area 
increased quadratically with the increased 
inclusion of corn bran and SEM in the 
Fiber diets (P = 0.04, Table 2). In addition, 
the fi ber diets had a tendency to increase 
F:G quadratically (P = 0.07, Table 2) as the 
fi ber inclusion increased.
Fiber Content vs WDGS
Feeding WDGS at 20 and 40% resulted 
in greater fi nal BW, HCW, ADG, 12th rib 
fat, marbling score, and yield grade when 
compared to the cattle fed Fiber20 and 
Fiber40 diets (P < 0.01, Table 2). Due to 
similar DMI and greater ADG, F:G was 
improved for WDGS compared to feeding 
fi ber (P < 0.01, Table 2). However, LM 
area was signifi cantly less for the WDGS 
diets than for the Fiber20 and Fiber40 
diets (P = 0.02, Table 2). When compared 
Table 3. Eff ects of soluble, protein and fat in the diet
Con WDGS 
20
WDGS 
40
Fiber 
20
Fiber
40
Fiber
Sol
Fiber
Protein
Fiber
Protein 
Sol
Fiber
Protein 
Fat
Fiber
Protein 
Fat Sol
SEM Solubles
Eff ecta
Protein 
Eff ectb
Fat 
Eff ectc
Initial BW 693 691 692 692 692 691 690 690 692 692 1 0.99 0.26 0.05
Final BW, 
lbd
1374 1458 1442 1384 1361 1396 1417 1429 1396 1443 12 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.78
DMI, lb/
day
23.0 23.6 22.6 23.0 23.3 24.2 22.9 23.2 21.8 22.5 0.2 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
ADG, lb 3.69 4.15 4.06 3.75 3.62 3.81 3.93 3.99 3.81 4.06 0.06 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.68
F:Ge 6.25 5.68 5.57 6.15 6.44 6.35 5.82 5.82 5.71 5.54 0.002 0.19 < 0.01 < 0.01
HCW, lb 866 919 909 872 858 880 892 900 879 909 7.4 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.78
LM area, 
inb
13.5 13.5 13.5 14.1 13.7 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.4 13.6 0.18 0.57 0.43 0.41
12th Rib 
Fat, in
0.57 0.65 0.70 0.49 0.50 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.55 0.62 0.03 0.03 < 0.01 0.38
Marbling 
scoref
494 512 507 467 471 492 473 496 467 483 12 0.05 0.80 0.44
Calculated 
YGg
3.39 3.80 3.72 3.03 3.11 3.32 3.50 3.66 3.45 3.66 0.10 0.03 < 0.01 0.76
aSolubles eff ect analyzed by comparing average of Fiber 40, Fiber Protein, and Fiber Protein Fat vs Fiber Sol, Fiber Protein Sol, Fiber Protein Fat Sol
bProtein eff ect analyzed by taking the average of Fiber 40 and Fiber Sol vs the average of Fiber Protein and Fiber Protein Sol
cFat eff ect analyzed by comparing average of Fiber Protein and Fiber Protein Sol vs the average of Fiber Protein Fat and Fiber Protein Fat Sol
dFinal BW calculated from hot carcass weight adjusted to a common dressing percentage of 63%
eAnalyzed as G:F, reciprocal of F:G
fMarbling Score: 400 = Small00
gCalculated YG = 2.5 + (2.5 × 12th rib fat thickness) − (0.32 × LM area in2) + (0.2 × KPH) + (0.0038 × HCW)
2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 127 
Rachel A. Oglesbee, graduate student
Curtis J. Bittner and F. Henry Hilscher, 
research technicians
Galen E. Erickson, professor
Jim C. MacDonald, associate professor
Matt K. Luebbe, assistant professor, Uni-
versity of Nebraska- Lincoln Department of 
Animal Science, Lincoln, Neb.
diet. When comparing the WDGS diets to 
the mimicking diets, the inclusion of fi ber, 
protein, fat, and solubles together gave 
the same performance as the WDGS diet 
at 40% inclusion. Th e WDGS40 diets had 
improved feed effi  ciencies compared to 
WDGS20. Th is research demonstrates that 
the interactions between fi ber, protein, fat, 
and solubles in WDGS are all important, 
and have a similar feeding value to WDGS.
2% to 8%.With the improved conversions, 
fat inclusion with protein and solubles in 
the diet shows that it is a major part of the 
WDGS that improves performance with 
a feeding value at 127% almost matching 
WDGS40 at 130%.
Th e fi ber portion alone of WDGS is not 
responsible for its increased performance 
in a feedlot. Protein, fat, and solubles 
inclusion in the diet each further increased 
performance when added to the basal fi ber 


Evaluation of Distillers Grains Components Singly
or in Combination in a Calf Fed Feedlot Study

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - LincolnDigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - LincolnNebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department2016Evaluation of Distillers Grains Components Singlyor in Combination in a Calf Fed Feedlot StudyRachel A. OglesbeeUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnCurtis J. BittnerUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, curtis.bittner@unl.eduF. Henry Hilscher HilscherUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, henry.hilscher@unl.eduGalen E. EricksonUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.eduJim C. MacDonaldUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, jmacdonald2@unl.eduSee next page for additional authorsFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcrPart of the Meat Science CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.Oglesbee, Rachel A.; Bittner, Curtis J.; Hilscher, F. Henry Hilscher; Erickson, Galen E.; MacDonald, Jim C.; and Luebbe, Matt K.,"Evaluation of Distillers Grains Components Singly or in Combination in a Calf Fed Feedlot Study" (2016). Nebraska Beef CattleReports. 899.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/899AuthorsRachel A. Oglesbee, Curtis J. Bittner, F. Henry Hilscher Hilscher, Galen E. Erickson, Jim C. MacDonald, andMatt K. LuebbeThis article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/899124 · 2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report©  Th e Board Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.(Greater Omaha Packing, Omaha, Neb.) with HCW taken at slaughter. Carcass 12th rib fat, LM area, and USDA marbling score were recorded aft er a 48- hour chill. Yield Grade was calculated using the USDA Yield Grade equation [YG = 2.5 + (2.5 × 12th Rib Fat thickness, in) − (0.32 × LM area, in2) + (0.2 × KPH fat, %) + (0.0038 × HCW, lb)]. Final BW, ADG, and F:G were calculated using the HCW adjusted to 63% common dress.Data were analyzed using the Mixed procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, N.C.) as a randomized block design with pen as experimental unit. Linear and quadratic simple eff ects were evalu-ated for WDGS20 and WDGS40 and for Fiber20 and Fiber40 with the control diet as a common intercept. Th e fi ber content was also evaluated comparing WDGS20 and WDGS40 vs. Fiber20 and Fiber40. Preplanned contrasts were also used to evaluate: 1) the protein eff ect (Fiber40, Fiber40 Sol vs. Fiber40 CGM, Fiber40 CGM Sol), 2) the fat eff ect (Fiber40 CGM, Fiber40 CGM Sol vs. Fiber40 CGM Germ, Fiber40 CGM Germ Sol), and 3) the solu-bles eff ect (Fiber40, Fiber40 CGM, Fiber40 CGM Germ vs. Fiber40 Sol, Fiber40 CGM Sol, Fiber40 CGM Germ Sol). Th e feeding value of each diet was calculated relative to the control corn diet using the calculation: Feeding Value = ((Treatment G:F − Con-trol G:F) / Control G:F) / inclusion rate of compared treatment.ResultsLinear and Quadratic Simple Eff ects: WDGS and FiberFinal BW, HCW, DMI, and ADG increased quadratically as WDGS replaced the corn blend in the diet (P ≤ 0.02, Table 2). Gain increased at a greater magnitude compared with DMI causing a decrease in F:G (P = 0.02). Yield grade increased linearly (P = 0.03) and had a tenden-cy to increase quadratically (P = 0.06) with the inclusion of WDGS in the diet. ites of feed ingredients similar to nutrient composition of WDGS.ProcedureA fi nishing experiment was conducted using 600 crossbred steers (initial BW = 680 ± 40 lb) in a randomized block design to evaluate the feeding value of the fi ber, protein, fat, and solubles in WDGS. Steers were limit- fed to 2% BW for fi ve days before the start of the trial. Steers were weighed on two consecutive d (0 and 1) to determine initial BW. On day 1, steers were implanted with Revalor- XS (Merck Animal Health). Steers were blocked by BW into four blocks, stratifi ed by BW within each block and assigned randomly to pen. Pens were assigned randomly to one of ten treatments with 6 pens per treatment and ten steers per pen.Diets were formulated to contain the same amount of the fat, fi ber and protein as in WDGS. Control diet (Table 1) had a 1:1 mix of dry rolled corn (DRC):high mois-ture corn (HMC) with a 5% inclusion of sorghum silage and 2.5% inclusion of grass hay. Th e WDGS20 and WDGS40 had 20% and 40% inclusion of WDGS, respectively. Th e Fiber20 contained corn bran at 7% and solvent extracted germ meal at 1.5% inclusion to mimic the fi ber portion of the WDGS20. In the Fiber40 diet corn bran and solvent extracted germ meal inclusion were increased to 14% and 3%, respectively to mimic the WDGS40 fi ber. Protein was then added to the diet in the form of corn gluten meal at 17.5% to mimic the crude protein in WDGS40. Whole fat germ was used to mimic the fat portion at 7.5% inclu-sion. Solubles was added to each Fiber diet at 8% to evaluate its contribution to energy. All diets were formulated to provide 30 g/ton DM daily of Rumensin® (Elanco Ani-mal Health) and 90 mg/steer daily of Tylan® (Elanco Animal Health).Th e fi rst two blocks were harvested on d 182 and the second two blocks were har-vested on d 188 at a commercial abattoir SummaryA fi nishing study was conducted to determine the value of the fi ber, protein, fat, and solubles components from wet distillers grains plus solubles (WDGS) alone or in combination for feedlot cattle in comparison to WDGS diets. Th e fi ber portion alone did not improve F:G. When protein was includ-ed in the composite with fi ber, F:G improved. With fat and solubles both added separate-ly, F:G continued to improve. None of the components alone could make up the feeding value of WDGS, however the composite diet of fi ber, protein, fat, and solubles combined matched the performance observed when WDGS is fed.IntroductionTh e ethanol industry is interested in ways to make use of portions of distillers grains to sell as separate commodities or to use in other processes. Ethanol plants are able to remove portions of fi ber, protein, fat, and solubles from the distillers grains to be sold separately. Previous research suggests a feed composite can mimic wet distillers grains plus solubles (WDGS) to improve feed effi  ciency when compared to wet corn gluten feed (WCGF), however the question remained as to what interactions of the fi ber, protein and fat contributed to the feeding value of WDGS (1997 Nebraska Cattle Beef Report, pp. 63– 64). Recent research found the fi ber portion to have the closest performance to that of a DGS diet out of the individual feeding components of fi ber, fat, and protein of WDGS (2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, pp. 122–23). Th erefore, the objective of this study was to determine the nutritional energy value of the fi ber, protein, fat, and solubles and their interactions in WDGS in terms of their contribution to fi nishing performance and carcass characteristics by using compos- Evaluation of Distillers Grains Components Singly or in Combination in a Calf Fed Feedlot StudyRachel A. Oglesbee, Curtis J. Bittner, F. Henry Hilscher, Galen E. Erickson, Jim C. MacDonald, and Matt K. Luebbe2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 125 Table 1. Composition of dietary treatments (% of dietary DM) fed to fi nishing steers to evaluate components within WDGSIngredient Control WDGS20 WDGS40 Fiber20 Fiber40 Fiber Solb Fiber ProteinFiber Protein SolbFiber Protein FatFiber Protein Fat SolaDRCa 43.75 33.75 23.75 39.5 35.25 31.25 26.5 22.5 24.25 20.25HMCa 43.75 33.75 23.75 39.5 35.25 31.25 26.5 22.5 24.25 20.25Sorghum Silage 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Grass Hay 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5WDGSa — 20 40 — — — — — — — Corn Bran — — — 7 14 14 14 14 14 14SEMa — — — 1.5 3 3 3 3 — — CGMa — — — — — 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5Whole Fat Germ — — — — — — — — 7.5 7.5CDSa — — — — — 8 — 8 — 8Urea 1.45 — — 1.45 1.45 0.91 — — — — Supplementc 3.55 5 5 3.55 3.55 4.09 5 5 5 5Analyzed Composition, % of dietCrude Protein 11.1 15.4 19.7 11.3 11.5 13.4 21.8 23.7 21.7 23.6NDF   14.2 18.7 23.2 19.9 25.5 25.3 24.6 24.4 25.7 25.5Crude Fat   4.03 5.71 7.38 3.81 3.60 3.83 3.30 3.51 6.12 6.32Sulfur  0.12 0.23 0.35 0.13 0.14 0.20 0.30 0.36 0.30 0.36aDRC = Dry Rolled Corn, HMC = High Moisture Corn, WDGS = Wet distillers grains plus solubles, SEM = Solvent extracted germ meal, CGM = Corn gluten meal, CDS = Condensed Distillers SolublesbSol = SolublescFormulated for 30 g/ton for Rumensin®, 90 mg/steer daily of Tylan®, and 300 mg/steer daily of Optafl exx the last 28d for blocks 1 and 2 and the last 35 d for blocks 3 and 4Table 2. Linear and quadratic simple eff ects for increasing levels of WDGS and Fiber diets on fi nishing performanceCon WDGS20 WDGS40 Fiber20 Fiber40 SEM Fiber ContentaLinb WDGSQuadb WDGSLinb Fiber Quadb FiberInitial BW, lb 693 691 692 692 692 1 0.70 0.26 0.35 0.37 0.47Final BW, lbc 1374 1458 1442 1384 1361 12 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.45 0.25DMI, lb/day 23.0 23.6 22.6 23.0 23.3 0.2 0.82 0.26 0.02 0.44 0.68ADG, lb 3.69 4.15 4.06 3.75 3.62 0.06 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.47 0.23F:Gd 6.25 5.68 5.57 6.15 6.44 0.002 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.07HCW, lb 866 919 909 872 858 7.4 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.45 0.25LM area, inb 13.5 13.5 13.5 14.1 13.7 0.18 0.02 0.74 0.91 0.46 0.0412th Rib Fat, in 0.57 0.65 0.63 0.49 0.50 0.03 < 0.01 0.12 0.1 0.06 0.16Marbling scoree 494 512 507 467 471 12 < 0.01 0.45 0.45 0.19 0.29Calculated YGf 3.39 3.80 3.72 3.03 3.11 .10 < 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.09aFiber content analyzed by comparing the average of WDGS20 and 40 vs average of Fiber20 and 40.bLinear and quadratic simple eff ects termcFinal BW calculated from hot carcass weight adjusted to a common dressing percentage of 63%dAnalyzed as G:F, reciprocal of F:GeMarbling score:400 = Small00fCalculated YG = 2.5 + (2.5 × 12th rib fat thickness) − (0.32 × LM area in2) + (0.2 × KPH) + (0.0038 × HCW)126 · 2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle ReportProtein Eff ectTh e addition of corn gluten meal to the Fiber40 and Fiber40 Sol diet signifi cantly increased fi nal BW, HCW, DMI, ADG, 12th rib fat, and yield grade while improving F:G (P < 0.01, Table 3). With the addition of corn gluten meal to the fi ber diet, the feeding value increased 17% to 47%. With this increased performance and value, protein is a major part of the positive performance observed with WDGS, however, numerically WDGS still had a better feeding value at 130% compared to the protein diets that are 121% and 117%. Th e protein eff ect is when protein is fed in excess as rumen undegradable protein and used for energy.Fat Eff ectWith the addition of fat to the diet, DMI decreased and F:G also decreased (improved) (P < 0.01, Table 3), along with increasing the feeding value an additional to the control diet, the Fiber20 diet had an increased feeding value of 119%, while the Fiber40 diet decreased to 83%. Neither diet matched the feeding value of WDGS40 at 130%, indicating the fi ber portion alone of the WDGS contributes only a portion of the positive performance that we see from WDGS.Solubles Eff ectWhen comparing diets with and without solubles inclusion, fi nal BW, HCW, DMI, ADG, 12th rib fat, marbling score, and yield grade all increased signifi cantly with the inclusion of solubles (P ≤ 0.05, Table 3), while having no eff ect on F:G (P = 0.18, Table 3) or LM area (P = 0.57).Th ese data suggest the inclusion of solubles to the diet increases performance while increasing the feeding value 0% to 20%, but with no improvement in F:G, the solubles addition by itself cannot match the feeding value of WDGS at 130%.Th e increased performance with higher inclusion of WDGS agrees with previous research where increased levels of WDGS improved performance (2006 Nebraska Cattle Beef Report, pp 51– 53). Th e LM area increased quadratically with the increased inclusion of corn bran and SEM in the Fiber diets (P = 0.04, Table 2). In addition, the fi ber diets had a tendency to increase F:G quadratically (P = 0.07, Table 2) as the fi ber inclusion increased.Fiber Content vs WDGSFeeding WDGS at 20 and 40% resulted in greater fi nal BW, HCW, ADG, 12th rib fat, marbling score, and yield grade when compared to the cattle fed Fiber20 and Fiber40 diets (P < 0.01, Table 2). Due to similar DMI and greater ADG, F:G was improved for WDGS compared to feeding fi ber (P < 0.01, Table 2). However, LM area was signifi cantly less for the WDGS diets than for the Fiber20 and Fiber40 diets (P = 0.02, Table 2). When compared Table 3. Eff ects of soluble, protein and fat in the dietCon WDGS 20WDGS 40Fiber 20Fiber40FiberSolFiberProteinFiberProtein SolFiberProtein FatFiberProtein Fat SolSEM SolublesEff ectaProtein Eff ectbFat Eff ectcInitial BW 693 691 692 692 692 691 690 690 692 692 1 0.99 0.26 0.05Final BW, lbd1374 1458 1442 1384 1361 1396 1417 1429 1396 1443 12 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.78DMI, lb/day23.0 23.6 22.6 23.0 23.3 24.2 22.9 23.2 21.8 22.5 0.2 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01ADG, lb 3.69 4.15 4.06 3.75 3.62 3.81 3.93 3.99 3.81 4.06 0.06 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.68F:Ge 6.25 5.68 5.57 6.15 6.44 6.35 5.82 5.82 5.71 5.54 0.002 0.19 < 0.01 < 0.01HCW, lb 866 919 909 872 858 880 892 900 879 909 7.4 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.78LM area, inb13.5 13.5 13.5 14.1 13.7 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.4 13.6 0.18 0.57 0.43 0.4112th Rib Fat, in0.57 0.65 0.70 0.49 0.50 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.55 0.62 0.03 0.03 < 0.01 0.38Marbling scoref494 512 507 467 471 492 473 496 467 483 12 0.05 0.80 0.44Calculated YGg3.39 3.80 3.72 3.03 3.11 3.32 3.50 3.66 3.45 3.66 0.10 0.03 < 0.01 0.76aSolubles eff ect analyzed by comparing average of Fiber 40, Fiber Protein, and Fiber Protein Fat vs Fiber Sol, Fiber Protein Sol, Fiber Protein Fat SolbProtein eff ect analyzed by taking the average of Fiber 40 and Fiber Sol vs the average of Fiber Protein and Fiber Protein SolcFat eff ect analyzed by comparing average of Fiber Protein and Fiber Protein Sol vs the average of Fiber Protein Fat and Fiber Protein Fat SoldFinal BW calculated from hot carcass weight adjusted to a common dressing percentage of 63%eAnalyzed as G:F, reciprocal of F:GfMarbling Score: 400 = Small00gCalculated YG = 2.5 + (2.5 × 12th rib fat thickness) − (0.32 × LM area in2) + (0.2 × KPH) + (0.0038 × HCW)2016 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report · 127 Rachel A. Oglesbee, graduate studentCurtis J. Bittner and F. Henry Hilscher, research techniciansGalen E. Erickson, professorJim C. MacDonald, associate professorMatt K. Luebbe, assistant professor, Uni-versity of Nebraska- Lincoln Department of Animal Science, Lincoln, Neb.diet. When comparing the WDGS diets to the mimicking diets, the inclusion of fi ber, protein, fat, and solubles together gave the same performance as the WDGS diet at 40% inclusion. Th e WDGS40 diets had improved feed effi  ciencies compared to WDGS20. Th is research demonstrates that the interactions between fi ber, protein, fat, and solubles in WDGS are all important, and have a similar feeding value to WDGS.2% to 8%.With the improved conversions, fat inclusion with protein and solubles in the diet shows that it is a major part of the WDGS that improves performance with a feeding value at 127% almost matching WDGS40 at 130%.Th e fi ber portion alone of WDGS is not responsible for its increased performance in a feedlot. Protein, fat, and solubles inclusion in the diet each further increased performance when added to the basal fi ber 

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1915&context=animalscinbcr

Evaluation of Distillers Grains Components Singly or in Combination in a Calf Fed Feedlot Study

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska