Feed Guide

Edition 1.1, 2013

2

The Feed Opportunities from BioFuels Industries (FOBI) Network, which operated from May 2009 to March 2011, was a collaborative and multidisciplinary network composed of researchers from public and private research institutes. The vision of FOBI was to stimulate the sustainable growth of the bio-ethanol and livestock sectors in support of economic activities in rural Canada. FOBI focused on optimization of the feed value chain of wheat dry distillers grains with solubles (wheat DDGS) as well as on value addition to bio-ethanol co-products. The University of Saskatchewan served as the “network lead” with the Feeds Innovation Institute taking the lead administrative role. A contribution of $5.58 million was provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) through its Agriculture and Bioproducts Innovation Program, with the total value of the FOBI research program being $6.18 million.

The FOBI Network had 63 researchers representing AAFC, Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Feedlot Health Management Services Ltd., University of Alberta, University of Calgary, Saskatchewan Research Council, Prairie Swine Centre, Western Beef Development Centre and University of Saskatchewan. The FOBI research program provided training for more than 30 highly qualified personnel with the majority expected to continue working within the Canadian bio-economy.

The network also partnered with five bio-ethanol producers in Alberta and Saskatchewan provinces: Terra Grain Fuels Inc., Belle Plain SK; NorAmera BioEnergy Corp., Weyburn SK; Pound-Maker Agventures Ltd., Lanigan SK; North West Bio-Energy Ltd., Unity SK; and Highland Feeders Ltd., Vegreville AB. Active collaboration with ethanol manufacturers, related commercial entities and feedlots ensured that “market-pull” rather than “technology-push” drove the FOBI Network.

The FOBI Network investigated feed constituents from wheat DDGS and their functionality in relation to multiple livestock species. The wheat breeding group of FOBI focused on identifying opportunities to improve the input side with new wheat varieties from existing germplasm specifically for bio-ethanol and co-product output. The value added group focused on optimization of ethanol processes leading to improvements in the ethanol production systems. FOBI also assessed the impact of the ethanol industry on economics of the livestock industry and governance implications, leading to the development of new markets and the policies required to support them.

This feed guide is based on the livestock nutrition work developed by the FOBI Network. For more information on the FOBI Network or wheat DDGS visit www.ddgs.usask.ca.

The Feed Opportunities from the Biofuels Industries (FOBI)

3

WHEAT DDGS – BACKGROUND AND MARKET 4

WHEAT DDGS – PROCESSING 5

WHEAT DDGS – NUTRIENT COMPOSITION 9

WHEAT DDGS IN RUMINANT DIETS 12

WHEAT DDGS IN POULTRY DIETS 20

WHEAT DDGS IN SWINE DIETS 25

WHEAT DDGS IN AQUACULTURE DIETS 29

REFERENCES 30

WHEAT DDGS NUTRIENT COMPOSITION TABLES 34

Table of Contents

The Canadian biofuels industry continues to expand, fostered by demand supported by legislated inclusion rates of ethanol in gasoline and biodiesel in diesel fuel. With the Prairies commonly referred to as ‘Canada’s Bread Basket’ Canadian wheat is a natural fit for use in ethanol production. Valuable byproducts such as wet distillers grains, thin stillage, dry distillers grains, and dry distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) have become available for the Canadian livestock feed industry with wheat DDGS providing a concentrated source of nutrients. This publication provides useful information on wheat DDGS as a feeding option in Canadian livestock production. A copy of this publication can be found on the Canadian International Grains Institute’s web site (www.cigi.ca).

Thank you to Janice Bruynooghe, Julie Mackenzie and Sandy Russell, Spring Creek Land and Cattle Consulting; and Dr. Mary-Lou Swift, Pacific Agri Technologies Ltd.; for their significant contributions to this guide, edited by Dr. Rex Newkirk, Canadian International Grains Institute (Cigi).

Introduction

4

When one considers wheat production in Canada, thoughts of warm bread, freshly baked cookies and flakey pie crusts may come to mind rather than ethanol production. However, in 2010, Canadian plants produced approximately 1.36 billion litres of ethanol derived from 64% corn, 31% wheat, and 1% other feedstocks (USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 2010). As a byproduct of ethanol production, wheat DDGS is in essence a dried combination of the condensed liquid fraction (solubles) remaining after ethanol is extracted and then added back into the coarse ethanol-free solids (distillers grains). Wheat DDGS is used almost exclusively as an animal feedstuff although other minor uses have been explored such as for experimental soil fertility trials (Schoenau, 2010).

If ethanol production did not occur, wheat DDGS as a byproduct would not exist. Also, if ethanol were not cost effective to produce, mandated by governments, or in demand, wheat DDGS production would be insignificant. As such, fuel markets and biofuel policy are important to understand.

In 2009/2010, Canadian ethanol plants produced approximately 0.26 million tonnes of wheat DDGS per year (International Grains Council, 2010) valued at approximately $51 million annually.

There are many factors at play within the biofuels industry in Canada. Unlike the U.S.A., fuels security is not a driving force behind ethanol production in Canada. Federal and provincial commitment to renewable fuels in Canada provides an incentive to industry growth. The Renewable Fuels Regulations, as part of the Government of Canada’s Renewable Fuels Strategy, came into effect in December 2010. By requiring 5% renewable fuel content (ethanol) in fuels produced or imported, the Government of Canada estimates “a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of one megatonne per year over and above the reductions attributable to existing provincial requirements. This is the equivalent of taking a quarter of a million vehicles off the road.” (Environment Canada, 2010).

To meet these new regulations, ethanol production is set to increase across Canada (CRFA, 2010) and the production of wheat DDGS is also likely to increase. Canadian farmers produce an average of 23.2 million tonnes of wheat annually (Canadian Wheat Board, 2010), with the majority exported worldwide. Wheat is a readily available and relatively low-cost grain and its production into ethanol results in wheat DDGS as a highly desirable livestock feedstuff.

Wheat Dry Distillers Grains With Solubles (Wheat DDGS) - Background And Market

BA

CK

GR

OU

ND

AN

D M

AR

KE

T

5

Producing high-volume, quality ethanol from grain is the end goal of the distillation process in which DDGS is a byproduct. At the end of June 2010, 20 plants existed or were under construction in Canada to process feedstocks such as wheat, corn, wood waste, wheat straw, and municipal landfill waste into ethanol (USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 2010).

ETHANOL AND DDGS PRODUCTION PROCESS

Ethanol plants utilizing grain feedstocks follow a process (Figure 1) that takes approximately 60 hours. On average, for every kilogram of wheat processed, one third of that wheat will be converted to ethanol, one third to DDGS and one third to carbon dioxide (http://www.ddgs.usask.ca/MarketingandTechInfo/EthanolIndustryStatusinWestern Canada.aspx).

GRAIN INTAKE

High-starch, low-protein wheat such as winter wheat, soft white wheat and Canadian Prairie Red Spring wheat are purchased with the quality approximately equivalent to a Canadian Grain Commission Grade No. 2 and free of such impurities as ergot, fusarium and vomitoxin. These impurities do not break down in ethanol production, so if infected grains were used they would be concentrated approximately threefold in the DDGS byproduct.

CLEANING

Wheat is cleaned to remove impurities such as pebbles and dirt.

Wheat DDGS - ProcessingP

RO

CE

SS

ING

6

DRy GRINDING

Wheat is ground to increase the surface area of the grain and expose the starch which accounts for approximately 70% of its weight (Gibb et al., 2008). Individual ethanol plants have their own specifications as to what particle size the wheat is ground or ‘milled.’

LIqUEFACTION

Ground wheat is mixed with water and the enzyme alpha-amylase then cooked to create a mash. Starches are gelatinized and liquefied.

PR

OC

ES

SIN

G

GRAIN Cleaning Dry grinding SLURRY

Centrifuge

MASH Cooker Liquefaction

WaterAlpha-amylaseOther enzymes

Saccharification

Fermentation

YeastAntibiotic

GlucoamylaseH2SO4 / H3PO4

CO2

BEERBeer well

ETHANOL Sieve

WHOLESTILLAGE

THINSTILLAGE

Heat exchanges

WETDISTILLERS

GRAINS

Evaporator

CONDENSEDDISTILLERSSOLUBLES

Destillation

MODIFIED WETDISTILLERS

GRAINS WITH SOLUBLES

DRIEDDISTILLERS

GRAINS

DRIEDDISTILLERS

GRAINS WITHSOLUBLESWET

DISTILLERSGRAINS WITH

SOLUBLES

Dryer

7

SACCHARIFICATION AND FERMENTATION

Today, simultaneous saccharification and fermentation occur in most new ethanol plants. The mash is cooled, gluco-amylase emzymes are added to break down the liquefied starches into fermentable sugars, and yeast is added to ferment the sugars. Urea, thin stillage, antibiotics, and a sulfur source may also be added.

“BEER”

The result of fermentation is a slurry “beer” of approximately 12.5% ethanol by volume.

DISTILLATION

The fermented “beer” slurry is pumped continually into a multi-column distillation system where 95% pure ethanol is removed off the top and whole stillage is removed from the bottom. Whole stillage contains water, fibre, oil, protein, yeast cells, and unfermented grain particles. Ethanol is dehydrated further to remove all water and produce anhydrous ethanol.

CENTRIFUGE

The liquid component of whole stillage is removed from the solid components. Thin stillage and wet distillers grains are produced.

THIN STILLAGE EVAPORATION

Thin stillage can be condensed through evaporation, resulting in a syrup called condensed distillers solubles (CDS) of approximately 30% dry matter (DM) (Gibb et al., 2008). Relatively large amounts of fat, minerals, water soluble sugars, proteins and organic acids are contained within CDS.

WET DISTILLERS GRAINS

At this point in processing, ethanol plants may vary in end byproduct type produced: condensed distillers solubles, wet distillers grains, wet distillers grains with solubles, modified wet distillers grains with solubles, dried distillers grains, and dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS). Any byproducts that remain ‘wet’ are limited by the need for close proximity of livestock to the bioethanol plant. For such a high-moisture feed, storage time is short because of spoilage and transportation costs are high.

DRyER

Wet distillers grains, condensed distillers solubles, and freshly dried DDGS are combined in a ratio resulting in the mix entering the dryer at 65% DM and 35-40% CDS (Ileleji and Rosentrater 2008). Rotary drum or ring dryers are used at varying temperatures and air speeds to dry DDGS.

By the end of processing, one tonne of wheat has produced 375 litres of ethanol and 370 kilograms (37%) of wheat DDGS (CRFA, 2010) which contains a threefold concentration of protein, fibre and minerals compared to grain entering the ethanol plant.

PR

OC

ES

SIN

G

8

SECONDARy PROCESSING OPPORTUNITIES

Currently, secondary processing of wheat DDGS is not carried out on a commercial scale. However, researchers have indicated that processing opportunities exist to enhance nutrient digestibility for non-ruminants.

Twin-screw extrusion could be used as a process to enhance nutrient digestibility and decrease anti-nutritional effects in monogastrics. Extrusion physically disrupts cells with the cleavage of non-starch polysaccharides into smaller fragments (Oryschak et al., 2009).

Pilot-scale dry fractioning of wheat DDGS has been developed in Alberta (Hein, 2010) where particles are separated by size and weight. Although the high-fibre content of DDGS limits nutrient utilization by monogastrics, a carefully dried wheat DDGS can have a very high crude protein (CP) content. Eduardo Beltranena’s FOBI team found that pilot-scale fractioning operations resulted in two categories of feedstuffs: a fraction with 29% protein (CP) and 36% fibre suitable for ruminants, and a fraction with 49% CP and 18% fibre well-suited for monogastrics (All About Feeds, 2010). Researchers estimate that returns would be high on investment when fractioning equipment was added to the end of the processing chain.

Tumuluru et al. (2010) have tested many processes that could be used to pellet wheat DDGS to overcome challenges in its transport, flowability and animal feed-sorting. Dense, dry, durable pellets were obtained through a 6.4 mm die with the addition of steam at 50-80oC and 5.1% feed moisture content.

PR

OC

ES

SIN

G

9

Wheat DDGS - Nutrient Composition

The average nutrient composition of wheat and corn DDGS are provided in the nutrient composition tables at the end of this guide. Product inconsistency is one of the main issues challenging wheat DDGS acceptance as livestock feed (Neuz, 2010). Because wheat DDGS is a byproduct rather than an end product, quality control in the past has been overlooked on occasion. Variations in nutrient values and moisture content have not only been seen in wheat DDGS from plant to plant, but from batch to batch (Nuez and yu, 2009; Walter, 2010; Tumuluru et al., 2010). Individualized, plant-specific processing techniques such as fermentation conditions, drying method, amount of solubles added back, and grinding procedure or type of grain used can all contribute to product variability as does the nutrient content of the starting grains.

Ethanol plants are designed to process high-starch grain and convert it to ethanol (Katzen International Inc., 2011). A pure wheat DDGS will have a different nutrient composition than a 70:30 corn blend or straight corn DDGS (Tables 1-3). As well, soil nutrients and growing conditions will vary from one region to the next, impacting the wheat nutrient composition. Starting with a feedstock of consistent type and origin improves the ability to produce consistent DDGS.

The addition of enzymes, yeasts or sulfur, and the efficiency of fermentation (the ability to capture as much ethanol as possible, leaving minimal starch in the whole stillage fraction) may vary between ethanol plants. The drying process can add significant variability to the end product (Nuez and yu, 2009). Overheating, variations in particle size, and differing moisture contents are linked to drying. The quantity of solubles added back to distillers grains at drying impacts nutritional values, the binding of feed particles and overall wheat DDGS particle size (Nuez, 2010).

In the past, corn DDGS was often used as a reference point for wheat DDGS. It has been well studied and consistencies in the product have been achieved. However, through the work of the FOBI Network the nutrient composition of wheat DDGS has been researched.

As discussed in the previous section, ethanol production processes and feedstock sources vary, with the process causing fibre, protein and minerals to concentrate approximately three times within wheat DDGS. When wheat is processed into wheat DDGS, dry matter crude protein levels increase from 8.5-14.0% to 20.0-38.0%, and fat levels increase from 1.6-2.0% to 2.5-6.7% (Aldai et al., 2009). When corn is processed into DDGS, crude protein increases from 7.4-10% to 23-32% and fat increases from 3.5-4.7% to 9.0-12.0% (Aldai et al., 2009). Wheat DDGS

NU

TRIE

NT C

OM

PO

SITIO

N

10

NU

TRIE

NT

CO

MP

OS

ITIO

Nis typically higher in protein (40 vs 30%) and considerably lower in oil (5 vs 10%) than corn DDGS (Gibb et al., 2008).

Protein molecular structures are altered during ethanol production (yu et al., 2010; yu et al., 2009) and although it is too early in the research to know how this impacts nutritive values, it is known that the amide I:II ratio is significantly different between wheat and wheat DDGS (yu et al., 2010; yu et al., 2009).

High-protein wheat DDGS (38-40% of DM) is a result of gentle drying and care not to scorch the product (All About Feeds, 2010). Walter (2010) and Nuez (2010) noted that lysine is susceptible to heat damage and variability between wheat DDGS batches exists.

The quantity of solubles added to wet distillers grains pre-drying is the most easily controlled process that can potentially create increased variability in wheat DDGS (Nuez and yu, 2009; Neuz, 2010). Solubles are high in fat (up to 34%) and low in neutral detergent fibre (NDF), so the more solubles added to wheat DDGS the higher the fat and lower the NDF content.

Mineral content in wheat DDGS can vary as different lots of wheat are sourced (Nuez and yu, 2010). Differences between grain lots may be attributed to wheat class, soil parameters within each field (plants take up minerals from parent soil) and/or year (moisture-stressed plants concentrate nutrients). A statistically insignificant mineral difference between two lots of wheat that is amplified three times when manufactured into wheat DDGS may cause the difference to become significant.

Component Wheat DDGS Wheat/Corn DDGS (wt/wt) Corn DDGS

70/30 50/50 30/70

Crude Protein 37.5 33.7 34.3 32.0 28.1

Ether Extract 4.1 5.9 9.6 8.8 9.9

Ash 4.6 5.7 5.4 4.9 3.8

Calcium 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.05

Phosphorus 0.96 0.83 0.92 0.90 0.77

Non-Phytate P 0.78 0.64 0.72 0.62 0.57

Simple Sugars 0.9 1.1 - - 1.9

Starch 1.6 3.3 2.2 2.4 6.6

NSP 20.0 23.2 18.6 22.6 20.6

NDF 24.5 27.0 35.9 40.3 30.0

Total Fibre 30.9 35.5 38.1 45.2 32.7

Amino Acid Wheat DDGS Wheat/Corn DDGS (wt/wt) Corn DDGS

70/30 50/50 30/70

Arginine 1.48 1.46 1.35 1.29 1.23

Histidine 0.73 0.75 0.80 0.79 0.75

Isoleucine 1.11 1.09 1.38 1.17 1.02

Leucine 2.45 2.59 3.42 2.97 3.24

Lysine 0.92 0.97 0.79 0.84 0.86

Methionine 0.73 0.67 0.68 0.64 0.57

Cystine 0.34 0.77 0.60 0.60 0.50

Phenylalanine 1.65 1.56 1.76 1.62 1.32

Tyrosine 1.03 0.97 1.14 1.18 1.24

Threonine 1.17 1.16 1.19 1.19 1.06

Tryptophan 0.40 - - - 0.23

Valine 1.71 1.67 1.55 1.36 1.35

11

Source: B.A. Slominski, A. Rogiewicz, M. Nyachoti, K. Wittenberg, 2010.

Amino AcidWheat DDGS Wheat/Corn DDGS Corn DDGS

50/50 30/70

Argine 82.7 76.5 77.2 82.7

Histidine 76.1 68.9 71.9 76.0

Isoleucine 79.3 69.8 73.7 76.0

Leucine 83.3 81.3 83.4 85.7

Lysine 59.0 51.2 55.4 62.7

Methionine 81.2 71.0 74.7 81.3

Cystine 77.5 55.1 65.7 72.4

Phenylalanine 85.4 82.6 82.9 83.2

Tyrosine 93.9 86.9 88.0 89.0

Threonine 70.7 68.3 62.4 68.3

Valine 78.2 76.6 74.3 75.6

Source: B.A. Slominski, A. Rogiewicz, M. Nyachoti, K. Wittenberg, 2010.

Component Equation R2

Crude Protein (%) % wheat grain x 0.0869 + 28.775 0.93

Non-Phytate P (%) % wheat grain x 0.0021 + 0.6196 0.74

AMEn (kcal/kg) % wheat grain x (-3.67) + 2902.8 0.95

TMEn % wheat grain x (-3.0506) + 3205.2 0.99

Ethanol plants in Canada commonly use a blend of grains to produce ethanol. The ratios of corn and wheat in the feed stock are likely the greatest source of variation in wheat DDGS. Researchers at the University of Manitoba (B.A. Slominski, A. Rogiewicz, M. Nyachoti, K. Wittenberg) have studied the impact of corn/wheat ratio on the nutritive value of wheat DDGS for swine and poultry. Tables 1-4 show the impact of changing this ratio on the DDGS nutrient composition based on their research. Table 4 contains equations that can be used to calculate the nutrient content of DDGS based on the proportion of wheat and corn used to generate the DDGS product.

TABLE 4. Equations to calculate the approximate nutrient content of corn/wheat DDGS based on the proportion of wheat in the product (8% moisture basis).

NU

TRIE

NT C

OM

PO

SITIO

N

12

RU

MIN

AN

T D

IETS

Wheat DDGS In Ruminant Diets

Ethanol byproducts such as wheat DDGS, corn DDGS, and wet distillers grains are an excellent feedstuff for inclusion in ruminant diets. Microbes within the rumen enable ruminants to utilize feeds that are high in fibre and low in starch. Ruminants can also utilize poorer quality protein sources and non-protein nitrogen (Walter, 2010).

Overall, wheat DDGS research has shown that ruminant performance is favourable with dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG), gain:feed ratio, days on feed, milk production, milk quality and meat quality being equivalent to, or slightly better than standard industry diets.

Wheat DDGS can act as an energy and/or protein source for ruminants at 15% inclusion (Walters, 2010; Klopfenstein et al., 2008). Zhang et al. (2010b) carried out a separate parallel trial with a corn DDGS/wheat DDGS mix (70:30) used to replace the forage component for one set of animals, and the concentrate component for another. The animals responded well in both instances.

Wheat DDGS can provide an excellent source of rumen undegraded protein (RUP) (Nuez 2010; Walter 2010). RUP of crude protein (CP) is 54.5% in wheat DDGS vs 26.2% in wheat grain. Nuez and yu (2010) noted that optimal heating/drying, starch removal, breakdown of readily available proteins during fermentation, and addition of solubles all contribute to RUP.

Ruminants fed high levels of corn DDGS have a decreased DMI. This effect has been linked to the high oil content (11.2% ether extract [Schingoethe et al. 2009] ) of corn DDGS which helps meet animal requirements at a lower DMI (Anderson et al., 2006; Walter et al. 2010). Diets formulated with 20-40% wheat DDGS rather than barley grain maintain fat levels equivalent to barley-based diets (Walter et al., 2010). Wheat DDGS has consistently been reported to maintain or increase DMI (Beliveau and McKinnon 2009; McKinnon and Walker 2008; Walter et al. 2010; Gibb et al. 2009).

The concentration of nutrients from cereal grains in the resulting DDGS is an issue that requires careful monitoring in the ration. For example, in wheat DDGS the sulfur content is typically 0.35-0.45% (see nutrient composition tables at the end of this guide). However, depending on the plant of origin, DDGS sulfur content can vary from 0.3-1.1% (DM basis) in both corn and wheat DDGS (Nunez, 2010). Sulfur levels in excess of 0.4% (DM basis) in beef and dairy cattle can cause depression, behavioural changes, and neurological disorders (Nuez, 2010). In some instances, supplemental copper may need to be fed in order to guard against any sulfur-induced copper deficiencies (Walter, 2010).

RaviH

13

The calcium (Ca):phosphorus (P) ratio in wheat DDGS is approximately 0.18:1 (see nutrient composition tables at the end of this guide). Wheat DDGS may contain more than 1% phosphorus compared to 0.3% in barley grain, while calcium levels are typically 0.15% of DM (McKinnon and Walker, 2008). A 2:1 Ca:P ratio in ruminant feeds has been the industry standard formulation to prevent metabolic and urinary problems associated with an imbalance of these two minerals (NRC, 1996). Most ruminant diets, particularly finishing diets, will require supplemental calcium when DDGS are fed. The implication of excess dietary phosphorous in DDGS-based diets is further discussed in the ruminant manure management sub-section.

Sub-Acute Rumen Acidosis (SARA) is a condition that can occur in ruminants when rumen pH drops below 5.8 for extended periods of time (Li et al., 2010). The cause is most likely due to diet fibre not being ‘physically effective1’ coupled with a diet high in starch. SARA lowers feed intake, decreases gains and can result in liver abscess problems (Walter, 2010; Beliveau and McKinnon, 2009).

Until recently, researchers hypothesized that wheat DDGS may decrease the occurrence of SARA due to its relatively low-starch and high-fibre content. However, Beliveau and McKinnon (2009) have shown that even though wheat DDGS is a low-starch, high-fibre product, the small particle size does not allow it to be physically effective in reducing SARA. As a result wheat DDGS is not effective in stimulating sufficient chewing activity to generate saliva production that would help buffer rumen pH when DDGS replaces a portion of the barley grain in an 89% barley grain diet. Beliveau and McKinnon (2009) also suggest that the low pH (4.3) of wheat DDGS may negatively impact rumen pH. Similar results were noted by Walter et al. (2010) who concluded that replacing barley grain with up to 40% wheat DDGS did not mitigate rumen fermentation processes associated with acidosis. Li et al. (2010) reported that feeding a concentrate-based diet, where wheat DDGS replaced mainly barley silage at 30% (5% silage remaining) and 35% DM (silage excluded), lowered rumen pH below 5.8 for 14 hours. Feeding 25% DDGS (10% silage remaining) resulted in no change in the amount of time (10 hours) rumen pH was lowered, as compared to the control.

COW/CALF PRODUCTION

The current trend within the cow/calf industry is towards low-cost extensive winter feeding with a focus on environmental sustainability. Typically lower-quality forages high in fibre and low in protein are the basis for these operations. Forage-based wintering beef cow diets normally require supplementation to meet late pregnancy nutritional requirements (Van De Kerckhove and Lardner, 2008).

Van De Kerckhove and Lardner (2008) found that in an extensive chaff/hay grazing system2 supplemented with rolled barley, wheat DDGS or 50:50 rolled barley:wheat DDGS fed at levels to meet the cows’ total digestible nutrients (TDN) needs, that wheat DDGS was an acceptable alternative to barley grain as an energy and protein supplement. In this work, all supplementation regimes resulted in similar weight increases (-2.27 to + 11.79 kilograms), and positive changes to body condition scores (0.1-0.2 change) and rump (1-3 millimeters) and rib fat (0.6-1.1 millimeters) increase.

BACKGROUNDING

Backgrounding is the process of growing cattle at moderate rates of gain. The goal is to develop frame and muscle, yet minimize fat deposition. Typically target gains are 0.9-1.2 kg/day, depending on the type of cattle being backgrounded. Such gains can be achieved in a feedlot or on-farm through a forage-based diet supplemented with a protein and energy source (Clark and Lardner, 2009).

1Physical effectiveness is calculated by multiplying total NDF by particles sized over 1.18 mm (Mertens, 1997).

2With the addition of equipment and slight modifications to a combine, chaff can be collected during combining and left in the field or hauled to a centralized location to be utilized as a feedstuff.

RU

MIN

AN

T DIE

TS

14

RU

MIN

AN

T D

IETS

Demand is high for research and information on lowering backgrounding costs and using alternative feedstuffs. Clark and Lardner (2009) determined that bale grazing3 weaned calves and supplementing them with 0.8-1.0 % body weight of wheat DDGS or 50:50 wheat DDGS:barley combination had no adverse impact and produced 3.5-4.0 % higher gains. Summer pasture-grazed stockers supplemented with 0.5% body weight wheat DDGS or 50:50 wheat DDGS:barley grain combination consistently gained equal to or slightly more than straight barley-supplemented animals (Clark and Lardner, 2009).

McKinnon and Walker (2008) determined that wheat DDGS could be included at levels of 25-50% of the ration dry matter (replacing barley grain) without any adverse impact on cattle performance. A 50% wheat DDGS diet, at approximately 21% CP, did not provide any additional growth response over a 25% wheat DDGS diet (McKinnon and Walker, 2008).

In agreement are results from Gibb et al. (2008). Replacing half (20% DM) or all (40% DM) of the barley grain in a backgrounding diet with wheat DDGS did not impact DMI, ADG, or gain:feed ratio. The rate at which to include wheat DDGS as a replacement for barley grain is a matter of cost as there is no improvement in performance when wheat DDGS is included at levels greater than 25% of the diet DM.

It is clear that backgrounded cattle fed in dry lots or on pasture have the potential to use wheat DDGS as a supplemental source of protein and energy. Depending on the relative cost of wheat DDGS versus barley grain, inclusion rates as high as 25% of diet DM can be fed without adverse effects on performance.

TABLE 5. Impact of DDGS on beef performance in feedlot rations.

Relative to Control Results

Study DDGS Replacement DMI ADGGain:

feed ratioDays on

feed

Alberta - Gibb, Hao & McAllister (2008)

20% of diet DM replacing steam rolled barley

Equal Equal Equal -

Alberta - Gibb, Hao & McAllister (2008)

40% of diet DM replacing steam rolled barley

Equal Equal Equal -

Alberta - Gibb, Hao & McAllister (2008)

60% of diet DM replacing steam rolled barley

Equal Equal Equal -

Alberta - Gibb, Hao & McAllister (2008)

60% of diet DM + calcium replacing steam rolled barley

Equal Equal Equal -

Saskatchewan - Walter, Aalhus, Robertson, McAllister, Gibb, Dugan, Aldai & McKinnon (2010)

Replacement of 20% of rolled barley grain

Equal Equal Equal3 days

less

Saskatchewan - Walter, Aalhus, Robertson, McAllister, Gibb, Dugan, Aldai & McKinnon (2010)

Replacement of 40% of rolled barley grain

Increase of 0.5 kg/day

Equal Equal15 days

less

3Bale grazing is a feeding technique where bales are set out in an area and livestock are allowed to feed free choice on the bale without a feeder around it or it being further processed.

15

FINISHING

A beef finishing feedlot diet is unique. Animals are expected to gain at a rate to maximize growth, lay down adequate marbling, deposit backfat, and maximize carcass yield all within a limited time frame. Usually, cattle are gradually introduced to an 85% grain-based finishing diet (Gibb et al, 2008). Wheat DDGS can be substituted for a portion of the concentrate (grain) in the ration depending on opportunity costs.

As seen in Table 5, wheat DDGS can be successfully incorporated to replace a portion of grain within finishing diets with no identified adverse impact on animal productivity.

When evaluating a potential new feedstuff for feedlot cattle, productivity is typically the first thing that is looked at. However, product quality and meeting consumer expectations is just as important. In many ways, corn DDGS research has provided insight into the impact that feeding wheat DDGS will have on ruminants. The effect that corn DDGS has on meat quality and carcass traits has been debated. In a review of the literature, Walter (2010) noted that marbling scores steadily decreased with increases in corn DDGS at inclusion rates over 23%. Concurrently, carcass hot weight and yield grade increased. Meat quality, including shelf life and colour and stability, has been noted to decrease with higher levels (40-50 %) of corn DDGS feeding (Aldai et al., 2009). In contrast, Swanson (2010) found that when corn DDGS was included in finishing diets at 0%, 17%, 33%, and 50% there were no significant differences between dressing percentage, marbling score, and yield grade.

With these contradictions and some obvious differences in wheat DDGS nutrient composition, FOBI researchers led an in-depth study of meat quality and carcass traits to compare wheat DDGS to corn DDGS on performance, carcass and meat quality characteristics of cattle (Aldai et al., 2009; Walter et al., 2010; Aldai et al., 2010). Walter et al. (2010) included 40% wheat DDGS or corn DDGS in finishing diets with no identified negative impact on carcass quality or sub-primal boneless boxed beef yields. Animals fed wheat DDGS included at 20% or 40% produced backfat, yield, ribeye area and marbling scores consistent with barley-finished cattle (Aldai et al., 2009). Within the same trial, animals fed corn DDGS had greater backfat, lower lean yield, and less ribeye area in comparison to animals fed barley and wheat DDGS (Aldai et al., 2009). Aldai et al. (2009) noted that three other Canadian studies agreed with their findings.

Meat quality from animals fed wheat DDGS is comparable with that currently produced with more traditional diets in Canadian beef production systems. Aldai et al. (2009) fed animals 20% and 40% wheat DDGS with no change in meat quality (chemical composition, cooking time, cooking loss, tenderness, drip loss, colour) or differences in sensory tests (taste, smell, sight). Stoll et al. (2010) found steaks from steers fed wheat DDGS were lighter, but meat and cooking characteristics were not affected. Although steaks from barley-fed steers held their colour better, steaks from animals fed wheat DDGS had better colour stability than steaks from animals fed corn DDGS (Stoll et al., 2010).

When ethanol is produced, starch is removed from the grain and as a result the byproduct has minimal starch content and other nutrients such as protein, fibre and oil are concentrated. The increased fat content, particularly with corn DDGS, has the potential to alter fat composition of the beef carcass. The addition of wheat DDGS to the diet (20-40% DMI) decreased the fatty acid isomers 10t-18:1 (unhealthy trans fat isomer) and increased the fatty acid isomer 11t:18:1 (health promoting isomer) in studies conducted by Aldai et al. (2010) and Dugan et al. (2010). These researchers concluded that the change was not great enough to warrant the addition of wheat DDGS in diets simply to alter trans 18:1 (11t:10t ratio) for the benefit of consumers.

RU

MIN

AN

T DIE

TS

16

RU

MIN

AN

T D

IETS

DAIRy Due to the small particle size of wheat DDGS resulting from the processes involved in ethanol production, dairy producers and nutritionists formulate dairy rations to ensure cow chewing time is sufficient to maintain rumen pH which is linked to maintaining milk fat concentrations (Nuez, 2010; Chibisa et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2010a; Zhang et al., 2010b).

Penner and Christensen (2009) found that wheat DDGS or corn DDGS could effectively replace 19% of the concentrate (e.g. barley, canola meal) without negatively impacting milk yield, milk composition or chewing. Zhang et al. (2010) replaced a portion of the barley silage with 20% DDGS or 20% DDGS + 10% alfalfa hay. DMI, milk yield and milk protein yields were increased slightly with overall DDGS inclusion.

Somewhat contrary to Penner and Christensen’s findings (2009), eating, chewing time and ruminating time were reduced for cows on DDGS-containing diets (Zhang et al., 2010b). No differences were seen by including 10% alfalfa hay. Further studies on higher rates of alfalfa hay inclusion may clarify the effectiveness of including hay in the diets with wheat DDGS to maintain milk fat.

Significantly more research has been carried out on feeding corn DDGS to dairy cattle than on wheat DDGS (Schingoethe, 2009). Today in Canada and the U.S., corn DDGS is frequently included in dairy herd rations. In a lactation performance study Anderson et al. (2006) concluded that corn wet or dry corn-based DDGS improved feed efficiency by increasing milk yields, protein yields, and milk fat yields while tending to decrease DMI when included at up to 20% of dietary DM.

TABLE 6. Effect of wheat DDGS on milk yield, milk fat yield, and dry matter intake in dairy cattle rations.

Relative to Control Results

Study Wheat DDGS Replacement Milk Yield Milk Fat Yield DMI

Germany - Franke et al. (2009)

Replaced 16.5% rape seed meal

No change No change No change

Saskatchewan - Chibisa et al. (2012)

Replaced 10% canola meal (protein)

2.0 kg/day 0.08 kg/day 1.0 kg/day

Saskatchewan - Chibisa et al. (2012)

Replaced 15% canola meal (protein)

1.2 kg/day 0.14 kg/day 0.3 kg/day

Saskatchewan - Chibisa, et al. (2012)

Replaced 20% canola meal (protein)

1.6 kg/day 0.07 kg/day 2 kg/day

Alberta - Zhang et al. (2010b)

Replaced part of barley silage at 20% of diet DM

2.8 kg/day higher

No change2 kg/day

higher

Alberta - Zhang et al. (2010b)

Replaced part of barley silage at 20% of diet DM + add 10%

alfalfa hay

3.6 kg/day higher

No change2.6 kg/day

higher

Alberta - Zhang et al. (2010a)

70/30 corn/wheat DDGS fed to replace 20% barley silage

(forage portion),

3.4kg/day higher

No change3.6 kg/day

higher

Alberta - Zhang et al. (2010a)

70/30 corn/wheat DDGS fed to replace 20% barley grain

(protein portion)No change No change No change

Saskatchewan - Penner et al. (2009)

Replaced 19% of concentrate fed

No change No change No change

17

As discussed previously, the oil content of corn DDGS has been shown to meet animal requirements while decreasing DMI (Anderson et al., 2006), whereas wheat DDGS is lower in oil content. Studies consistently show the inclusion of wheat DDGS in diets results in no DMI reduction.

As seen in Table 6, feeding wheat DDGS to dairy cattle has been evaluated under many different parameters to determine suitability for use in dairy rations. Feeding wheat DDGS compared to control diets did not negatively affect animal performance, and often increased milk yield, milk fat yield, and dry matter intake.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR OTHER RUMINANTS

Limited research has been conducted globally on feeding wheat DDGS to other ruminants including bison, sheep and goats. The basic nutritional qualities, chemical properties, and feeding principles of wheat DDGS for the bovine industries should be taken into consideration when applying wheat DDGS to the rearing of other ruminants.

The exact nutritional requirements of bison have not yet been researched, calculated, or tested on-farm (Hauer, 2005). The species differences between bison and cattle in respect to seasonality, rate of gain, and ability to digest forages may alter how bison react to different feedstuffs (Feist, 2005), including wheat DDGS.

The Canadian sheep industry is poised for expansion. Currently, lamb has the highest red meat growth potential in Canada while the overall national herd and individual herd size is low (Canadian Sheep Federation, September 2010). Research on feeding wheat DDGS to sheep has been limited worldwide.

Indications from research in Bulgaria show that wheat DDGS can be successfully fed to dairy ewes during lactation. No significant differences in milk yield or composition, wool yield, fertility of lambed ewes, overall flock fertility, or weaned lamb weights were seen between 101 ewes fed a standard roughage/sunflower meal compound feed diet and 101 ewes fed roughage/wheat DDGS/grain diet of equal CP and energy (Dimova et al., 2009). This is in agreement with bovine wheat DDGS research within Canada.

Although goats are ranked tenth behind other livestock in production numbers in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2006), ongoing opportunities exist in the marketplace. Wheat DDGS and corn DDGS feed intake data has not been compiled for goats. Initial indications from a small-scale corn DDGS feeding trial in Alabama (Gurung et al., 2009) point toward success in feeding male goats for slaughter up to 31% corn DDGS (DM) in the ration. No differences in feed intake, growth performance (ADG, gain:feed) and carcass quality (dressing percentage, ribeye, body wall fat, longissisimus muscle) were seen between control diets and corn DDGS inclusion diets (Gurung et al., 2009). Inclusion of corn DDGS above 31% DM was not explored.

Distillers grains, solubles, and DDGS are discussed as a viable feeding option for sheep and goats within the Sheep & Goat Management in Alberta - Nutrition Manual produced by the Lamb Producers and Alberta Goat Breeders Association (2009). If wheat DDGS is chosen as a feedstuff for sheep and goats, species-specific feeding principles should be taken into account:

- Nutritional requirements of a 150-pound (68 kilogram) sheep range from 9% crude protein (CP), 55% total digestible nutrients (TDN) with intake of 1.58 kg/day during gestation to 15% CP and 69% TDN with intake of 3.18 kg/day in heavy lactation (North Dakota State University Extension, 1996).

RU

MIN

AN

T DIE

TS

18

RU

MIN

AN

T D

IETS

- Sheep and goats have the ability and tendency to sort feeds – pelleted complete feeds are ultimately best (Alberta Lamb Producers & Alberta Goat Breeders Association, 2009)

- Lamb creep rations should contain 18-20 % CP. The protein in creep feed should be urea free (Schoenian, 2009). Wheat DDGS high-protein levels may have an opportunity to fill this role.

- Goats are very sensitive to phosphorous levels. Recommendations are to include no more than 0.40% in the feed (Alberta Lamb Producers & Alberta Goat Breeders Association, 2009). Care should be taken as wheat DDGS is a high-phosphorus feed stuff.

- Male sheep and goats are susceptible to urinary calculi (stone-like mineral crystals) that can block the urethral tract and normal urination (Canadian Sheep Federation, 2011). Urinary calculi form when calcium (Ca) to phosphorous (P) ratios are not balanced at 2:1. Wheat DDGS is a high P, low Ca feedstuff. The addition of limestone (Ca) can be used to meet Ca:P ratio requirements within the diet.

MANURE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS FROM RUMINANTS FED WHEAT DDGS

As provinces move away from nitrogen-based to phosphorus-based manure management legislation, the concerns focused on preventing excess phosphorus run-off have become more clear and stewardship within the livestock feeding industry even more critical.

The threefold concentration of nutrients in wheat DDGS from processing, as compared to the grain from which it was derived, has the potential to alter the standard calculated manure composition (phosphorus (P), nitrogen (N) and its form, pH, C:N ratio) used to set current allowable manure application rates (Hao et al., 2010, Hao et al., 2009, Benke et al., 2010). Windrowed, composted manure from cattle fed 60% wheat DDGS has been found to have higher available N and total N than manure derived from barley grain-based diets according to FOBI funded researcher, Hao et al., (2010). Hao et al. (2010) and Hao et al. (2009) determined that elevated electrical conductivity and water soluble ammonium (NH4

+), potassium (K), and sulfate (SO42+) within wheat DDGS feeds

would result in a greater N and salt excretion into the manure. Both can be difficult to mitigate against repeated land application without irrigation as salinity problems may develop (Hao et al., 2009).

19

RU

MIN

AN

T DIE

TSThe impact that ruminant production has on greenhouse gas emissions [nitrous oxide (N2O)] and the ability for feeding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions continues to be an important issue for producers and industry stakeholders. Hao et al. (2010) caution that although an increase in N nutrients passed into manure may be beneficial for crop or forage production, N2O was produced and emitted at significantly higher levels in 60% of cattle fed wheat DDGS, with a potential 37% increase in global warming.

Hao et al. (2009) found that when feeding 40% or 60% wheat DDGS, fecal total P and manure total P were positively correlated to feed total P indicating that increased feed P intake also increased P excretion. Benke et al. (2009) have shown that repeated applications of DDGS manure to soils continue to raise available P levels to nearly two times that of conventional manure. The generally high water solubility of P negatively impacts water quality and aquatic life. Hao et al. (2009) did determine that water-soluble P levels from 60% DDGS manure can be maintained at control levels. The addition of Ca (limestone) to the diet fostered the formation of calcium phosphate with low water-solubility.

Although this publication’s main focus is on feed characteristics and quality, animal care and manure management implications must also be considered prior to implementing any feeding strategy. Therefore, it is important to test manure to ensure spreading is in compliance with provincial manure regulations or agricultural operations acts. Up to 75% more land may be required to apply 35% DDGS feedlot manure at proper nutrient rates for crop uptake (Benson et al., 2005). Feeding above 20% wheat DDGS (at 40% and 60% wheat DDGS) has shown significant negative differences in odour-causing volatile fatty acids, water-soluble P, and greenhouse gas emissions versus controls (Hao et al., 2009, Hao et al., 2010). Mitigation may include moderation of wheat DDGS levels (20% wheat DDGS inclusion is no different than manure produced from the current barley ration), maintaining 2:1 Ca:P levels in the ration or spreading manure at lower rates over a larger land base.

20

PO

ULT

RY

DIE

TSWheat DDGS In Poultry Diets

INTRODUCTION

Ethanol byproducts such as wheat DDGS can be an effective ingredient for inclusion in poultry diets. Wheat DDGS can effectively comprise 10% of practical broiler diets if xylanase enzyme is not used and 15% if it is. Due to the more mature digestive tract of the laying hen and its specific nutrient requirements, a practical inclusion level of wheat DDGS would be 20%. However, as stated earlier, the nutrient content and feeding value of wheat DDGS for poultry can be inconsistent due to variation within the feedstock itself and the processing conditions which, in some cases, may limit inclusion levels in poultry diets. For example, Vilariño et al. (2007) showed that leaving the bran layer on the kernel during the fermentation process resulted in wheat DDGS having greater protein, ash, lipid and fibre content and decreased starch and sugar content as compared to wheat DDGS manufactured by removing the bran pre-fermentation and adding it back to the dried fraction post-fermentation. A comparison of the nutrient content of wheat DDGS reported in the studies reviewed and soybean and canola meal is presented in Table 7. Overall, wheat DDGS contains similar amounts of protein and branched chain amino acids (isoleucine, leucine and valine) as canola meal, and is comparable to soybean meal in crude fibre and total sulphur amino acids. Wheat DDGS contains more lipid but significantly less arginine, histidine, lysine and threonine than canola or soybean meal.

21

PO

ULTR

Y D

IETS

TABLE 7. Composition of wheat DDGS in scientific studies (first author listed) to determine energy, protein and amino acid content and digestibility and growth (values in brackets represent range of samples used in the study). Soybean meal and canola meal are included for comparison.

Thacker Cozannet Bandega Kluth Oryschak Vilariño VilariñoSoybean Meal (44)*

Canola Meal*

Protein (% DM) 35.7 36.1 (32.6-38.9)

39.9 (38.2 – 41.3) 36.1 39.2 32.1 35.1 44 38.0

Ash (% DM) 4.6 5.2 (4.3 – 6.7) 5.5 4.7 5.8

Lipid (% DM) 5.4 4.6 (3.6 – 5.6) 5.8 7.0 5.7 6.4 0.80 3.8

Crude Fiber (% DM) 8.6 7.8 6.1 8.5 7.0 12.0

NDF** (% DM) 33.2 29.2 (25.1 – 33.8) 46.8 21.8 24.8

ADF** (% DM) 12.0 (7.7 – 17.9) 10.5 7.4 9.8

Starch (% DM) 4.1 (2.5 – 9.5) 11.7 3.0

Sugar (% DM) 5.1 (3.6 – 8.7) 6.5 3.9Calcium (% DM) 0.18 0.24 0.13 0.15 0.29 0.68Phosphorus (% DM)

0.91 0.99 0.81 0.90 0.27 1.17

Gross Energy (kcal/kg) 4724 4974 (4883 – 5064) 5160

Arginine (% DM) 1.59 1.61 (1.53 -1.67) 1.52 1.67 1.40 1.52 3.14 2.08

Histidine (% DM) 0.77 0.82 (0.78-0.85) 0.77 0.66 0.72 1.17 0.93

Isoleucine (% DM) 1.42 1.37 (1.3 -1.41) 1.26 1.43 1.09 1.20 1.96 1.37

Leucine (% DM) 2.45 2.63 (2.51 -2.77) 2.46 2.65 2.09 2.33 3.39 2.47

Lysine (% DM) 0.92 0.74 (0.69 -0.79) 0.69 1.01 0.70 0.64 2.69 1.94

Methionine (% DM) 0.61 (0.59 -0.62) 0.52 0.59 0.46 0.51 0.62 0.71

Total Sulphur AA (% DM)

1.50 1.36 (1.30–1.39) 1.27 1.08 1.17 1.28 1.58

Phenylalanine (% DM)

1.03 1.81 (1.72 – 1.9) 1.73 1.71 1.38 1.54 2.16 1.44

Threonine (% DM) 1.13 1.18 (1.13-1.19) 1.13 1.24 0.99 1.06 1.72 1.53

Valine (% DM) 1.64 1.70 (1.63-1.74) 1.49 1.75 1.37 1.52 2.07 1.76

*Values taken from Nutrient Requirement of Poultry, Ninth Revised Edition, 1994. **NDF, neutral detergent fibre; ADF, acid detergent fibre

ENERGy CONTENT

Energy digestibility, apparent metabolizable energy (AME) and AME corrected for endogenous nitrogen excretion (AMEn) of wheat DDGS has been determined in roosters, broilers, layers, and turkeys (Table 8). The estimations of Vilariño et al. (2007) appear high in relation to the other published values. These values were determined using pelleted diets which may have improved the energy digestibility in relation to the other studies in which mash diets were used. The diets used in the determination of energy digestibility in Oryschak et al. (2010) and Thacker and Widyaratne (2007) included an exogenous commercial enzyme designed for wheat-based diets. Cozannet et al. (2010) showed that AMEn was highly correlated to ADF content (r = 0.80 to 0.93) regardless of poultry type.

22

PO

ULT

RY

DIE

TS

PROTEIN AND AMINO ACID CONTENT AND DIGESTIBILITy

Unlike energy, there are widely divergent estimates of amino acid content and digestibility (Table 9) within the literature. Lysine content of wheat DDGS ranged from 0.69% DM (Kluth and Rodehutscord, 2010) to 1.01% DM (Oryschak et al. 2010) (Table 1). Expressed as a percentage of protein, lysine content ranged from 1.82% (Vilariño et al. 2007) to 2.58% (Thacker and Widyaratne, 2007; Oryschak et al. 2010). This may be due, in part, to the variation in lysine content of the feedstock used to manufacture wheat DDGS. Wheat protein content, and therefore lysine and other amino acid content, varies significantly between and within classes of wheat. Soft white wheat, the primary class of wheat used for ethanol production in Canada, contains approximately 2-3% less protein than Canadian hard red spring wheat, the primary wheat produced in western Canada for milling. Changing the ratio of soft to hard wheat used to produce ethanol would be expected to have significant affects on protein and amino acid content of the DDGS produced.

Estimates of protein and amino acid digestibility are shown in Table 9. Cady et al. (2009) reported that lysine digestibility ranged from 26-54% in eight samples of wheat DDGS collected from six countries. The report of Bandegan et al. (2009) is of interest in that the data was generated from batches of wheat DDGS manufactured from five different feedstocks within the same plant under the same manufacturing procedures. The lysine content in the five batches of wheat DDGS ranged from 0.69-0.74% DM but the digestibility of lysine within those same batches ranged from 24.4-45.7%.

Energy Digestibility

(%)

AME (kcal/kg)

AMEn (kcal/kg)

Roosters

Metayer et al. (2009) 2345

Cozzanet et al. (2010) 2464 2469

Vilariño et al. (2007) 2701/2562* 2672/2524*

Broiler

Cozzanet et al. (2010) 2421 2371

Metayer et al. (2009) 2047

Oryschak et al. (2010) 54 (48)**Thacker and Widyaratne (2007)

68.6***

Layers

Cozzanet et al. (2010) 2412 2300

Turkeys

Cozzanet et al. (2010) 2314 2164

23

The manufacturing process for wheat DDGS may involve high temperatures which can affect the digestibility of lysine and other nutrients through the Maillard reaction. Cozannet et al. (2010) showed that energy content, protein and amino acid digestibility is related to colour as measured by a colour meter and luminance measurements. A summary of their findings comparing dark versus light is presented in Table 10.

FEEDING STUDIES

Several studies have investigated the growth of broiler chickens fed diets incorporating wheat DDGS. Thacker and Widyaratne (2007) substituted equal parts of wheat and soybean meal with wheat DDGS at 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% inclusion levels. An exogenous enzyme, commonly used in wheat-based diets, was included in all diets. Although no statistical difference in broiler weight gain, feed intake or feed conversion (feed:gain) was noted between treatments, these authors recommended a maximum inclusion of 15% wheat DDGS in broiler diets. However, in this study the researchers did not base the formulation on digestible amino acid content and the numerical trend to reduced performance at the 20% inclusion level is likely a result of insufficient digestible essential amino acids. In contrast, Métayer et al. (2009) measured the AME and digestibility of amino acids prior to formulating the diets and reported that growth was not different between broiler birds fed starter diets containing 0% or 3% wheat DDGS, and grower-finisher diets containing 0%, 10% and 15% wheat DDGS. However, feed intake increased which reduced feed efficiency (gain:feed) by 4% and 5%, respectively, for birds consuming diets containing 10% and 15% wheat DDGS. The authors also investigated the effect of an exogenous enzyme addition and found that performance was equalized between birds consuming 15% wheat DDGS and enzyme, and birds consuming the diet containing 10% wheat DDGS. Oryschak et al. (2010) reported that inclusion of wheat DDGS at 5% or 10% in broiler diets (0-42 days) had no effect on body weight, feed intake, feed efficiency (gain:feed), breast weight or yield.

In a study designed to determine the AMEn of DDGS samples, average daily gain decreased when wheat DDGS was incorporated into broiler and turkey diets at 25%, but feed intake was not affected in either poultry type (Cozannet et al. 2010). The diets were not formulated to meet digestible amino acid requirements and this may account for the reduction in average daily gain. Vilariño (2007) reported a slight reduction in feed intake (1.9%) in broilers consuming diets containing 10% wheat DDGS. The reduction in feed intake was significant (5.4%) in birds consuming diets containing 20% wheat DDGS, which resulted in a significant decrease in final body weight. The authors (Vilariño et al. 2007) noted a difference in feed conversion in the first 10 days of the experiment and attributed this effect to an overestimation of the digestible lysine content during the formulation of the diets. The feed conversion ratio of broilers consuming control, 10% and 20% wheat DDGS treatments were 1.43, 1.56 and 1.61, respectively.

Bandegan Kluth Oryschak et al. (2010)

Mean (Range) Mean 15% Inclusion

30% Inclusion

Protein 67.0 (64.1 - 71.0) 65.0 72.8 69.4

Arginine 68.2 (63.3 -73.3) 74.0 82.2 80.5

Histidine 63.7 (57.4 – 69.1) -- 76.1 74.4

Isoleucine 68.8 (67.3 -72.4) 63.0 78.3 76.0

Leucine 73.4 (68.8 - 77.0) 65.0 82.8 81.1

Lysine 35.6 (24.4 - 45.7) 73.0 68.2 63.6

Methionine 73.7 (69.3 - 76.4) 70.0 86.5 84.3

Total Sulphur Amino Acids 67.3 (76.0 - 81.6)

Phenylalanine 79.2 (76.0 – 81.6) 71.0 81.8 80.6

Threonine 54.8 (48.2 – 60.9) 61.0 71.9 68.3

Valine 64.7 (58.6 – 69.7) 67.0 79.6 76.3

PO

ULTR

Y D

IETS

24

PO

ULT

RY

DIE

TSSUMMARy AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In summary, the energy content and digestibility of energy, protein and amino acids are related to the processing conditions used in manufacturing. Indicators such as acid detergent fibre content and the amount of protein (nitrogen) in the acid detergent fibre fraction can provide some information regarding energy content and protein digestibility, respectively. Colour (dark vs light) is another indicator of product quality with dark-coloured wheat DDGS, indicating overheating and loss in nutrient content and quality. From the data presented in the literature, it would appear that the AME content of good quality wheat DDGS is in the range of 2400-2500 kcal/kg for roosters, broilers and layers, and 2300-2400 kcal/kg for turkeys. Standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids in wheat DDGS is lower than for soybean and canola meals. For example, the true ileal digestibility of threonine in soybean meal, canola meal and wheat DDGS (NRC, 1994; Brandegan et al. 2010) is 88%, 78% and 62%, respectively.

Wheat DDGS

Dark Light

Luminance (L)* 46.2 57.4

NDF (% DM) 33.6 30.1

ADF (% DM) 18.4 10.7

ADCIP (% DM)** 41.2 11.6

Lysine (% CP) 1.01 2.29

Digestibility

Protein 59.8 81.8

Non-Essential Amino Acids 64.1 83.9

Essential Amino Acids 51.0 78.0

Lysine 11.8 60.7

AME kcal/kg

Rooster 2235 2564

Layer 2257 2519

Broiler 2164 2531

Turkey 2058 2424

TABLE 10. Digestive utilization of nutrients in wheat DDGS and the impact of colour (from Cozannet et al. (2009 and 2010).

25

Wheat DDGS In Swine Diets

Ethanol co-products such as wheat DDGS can be included in swine diets. Under current pricing scenarios, wheat DDGS is cost effective and can be included in mash diets. Wheat DDGS of good quality can be included up to 10% in a weaner/nursery diet and up to 20% in a grower or finisher diet.

Wheat DDGS contains more non-starch polysaccharide (NSP) than wheat grain. The NSP content of wheat DDGS is also slightly higher than in corn DDGS. Within the NSP, the content of xylose and arabinose sugar is increased, indicating that the content of arabinoxylans is substantially higher in wheat DDGS than in the parent wheat. Wheat DDGS contains more xylose than corn DDGS (Table 11) but has similar arabinose content. These data indicate that the ratio of arabinose to xylose in the arabinoxylans in wheat DDGS is different than in corn DDGS.

ENERGy DIGESTIBILITy AND CONTENT

Increased wheat NSP is related to reduced energy digestibility for swine (Zijlstra et al. 1999). Estimations of energy digestibility and energy content differ substantially among studies, depending on study design, wheat DDGS inclusion level, feedstock quality and fermentation, and drying technologies used in the manufacturing process. Widyaratne and Zijlstra (2008) reported apparent total tract energy digestibility of 68.3% and 67.1% for wheat DDGS and a 4:1 mixture of wheat:corn DDGS when each replaced 40% wheat in the diet. Nyachoti et al. (2005) also replaced 40% of the wheat in the basal diet with wheat DDGS from two different lots and reported total digestibility of energy as 65% and 68% as compared to wheat at 86%. The diets in the studies of Widyaratne and Zijlstra (2007) and Nyachoti et al. (2005) were not balanced for energy or amino acid content.

The impact of fibre-degrading enzymes on digestibility of wheat DDGS is not clear. The addition of a commercial xylanase to a diet containing 40% wheat DDGS did not improve total tract energy digestibility (Widyaratne et al., 2009). Thacker (2009) incorporated 20% of wheat DDGS into diets for growing pigs and reported the total tract digestibility of dietary energy was 76.5% with no improvement with the addition of a xylanase and ß-glucanase cocktail (76.7%). Some ethanol plants add fibre-degrading enzymes during the production process, making a positive enzyme effect on DDGS less likely.

SW

INE

DIE

TS

26

DDGSVariable Wheat Corn Wheat/corn2 WheatTotal NSPSoluble 2.15 1.39 5.35 7.76Insoluble 7.57 17.85 16.56 15.13Total 9.72 19.24 21.91 22.89

XyloseSoluble 1.03 0.29 2.53 3.08Insoluble 2.39 5.86 5.58 5.00Total 3.42 6.15 8.11 8.08

ArabinoseSoluble 0.68 0.21 1.22 1.58Insoluble 1.64 4.06 3.51 3.29Total 2.32 4.27 4.73 4.87

TABLE 11. Non-starch polysaccharide (NSP) including part of the constituent sugar profile of wheat, and corn, wheat/corn, and wheat DDGS (% DM)1.

Emiola et al. (2009) reported total tract and ileal dietary energy digestibility estimates of 68% and 65.6% when wheat DDGS was added at 30% to pig diets balanced for energy and amino acid content. In this study, diets were formulated to meet nutrient requirements (positive control, NRC, 1998) or formulated to be 4% and 5% below requirements for digestibility energy and lysine (negative control), respectively. Two enzyme mixtures containing glucanase, xylanase, and cellulase (low vs high) were each added to individual negative control dietary treatments. The diet high in enzymes was equal in growth, efficiency and energy digestibility to that of the positive control diet.

Recently, yáñez et al. (2011) reported results of a study that incorporated 43.7% of a co-fermented wheat:corn (1:1) DDGS in ground or unground form, with or without xylanase and/or phytase. Grinding wheat DDGS before inclusion in the diet increased apparent total tract digestibility (70.9% vs 69.6%) and DE content (3.34 vs 3.28 Mcal/kg).

PHOSPHORUS DIGESTIBILITy

Digestibility of phosphorous (P) in wheat DDGS differed among studies. P digestibility in wheat DDGS was substantially higher (62%) than in wheat (15%) (Widyaratne and Zijlstra 2008). In contrast, P digestibility did not differ between two batches of wheat DDGS (50% and 55%) and wheat (44%) in another study (Nyachoti et al., 2005). The difference might be due to difference in phytate and intrinsic phytase content among wheat samples. Widyaratne and Zijlstra (2007) reported a phytate content of 1.39% DM in wheat versus 0.30% (air-dry basis) for the wheat used in the study of Nyachoti et al. (2005). The remaining phytate in wheat DDGS still reduces P digestibility, because the addition of phytase improved P digestibility of diets containing wheat DDGS (yáñez et al., 2011). The phytate content of the wheat:corn DDGS in this study was 1.05% DM.

SW

INE

DIE

TS

27

AMINO ACID DIGESTIBILITy

The standardized ileal digestibility (SID) of amino acids was higher in wheat than in wheat DDGS (Widyaratne and Zijlstra 2008), especially for lysine (71.4% vs 46.4%), indicating that heat damage of lysine during the manufacturing process likely occurred. Nonetheless, the SID content of amino acids was higher in wheat DDGS due to the higher content of total amino acids. The reduced (apparent) digestibility of amino acids for wheat DDGS compared to wheat was also observed by Nyachoti et al. (2005). yan et al. (2008) reported SID values for lysine, threonine, and methionine of 49%, 72.3% and 78%, respectively. Cozannet et al. (2010) reported a mean SID of lysine in wheat DDGS to be 55.6%. However, these authors also showed that lysine SID was dependent on processing conditions, as shown by colour of the final wheat DDGS product. Samples with dark colouration, indicating the browning (Maillard) reaction occurred during processing, had a mean SID of lysine of 55% while lighter-coloured samples had a mean SID of lysine of 79%. The mean SID values for threonine and methionine were 75% and 72%, respectively. These authors also showed that the SID of lysine was highly correlated (-0.84) to the protein content of the acid detergent fibre (ADF) in wheat DDGS.

The addition of xylanase did not improve the apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of lysine in wheat DDGS (Emiola et al. 2009) regardless of inclusion level (15% or 30%). However, the AID of lysine in this study was approximately 74%, indicating that less damage had occurred during the drying process. Similarly, yáñez et al. (2011) reported that the addition of phytase, with or without xylanase, did not improve the SID of amino acids in wheat:corn (1:1) DDGS. Grinding the wheat:corn DDGS did improve SID for lysine (70.5% versus 64.3%) but not for threonine or methionine.

DIETARy INCLUSION AND GROWTH

Thacker et al. (2006) replaced wheat and soybean meal with up to 25% (5% increments) wheat DDGS in grower diets, and up to 15% (3% increments) in finishing pig diets. Weight gain of grower hogs decreased with increased wheat DDGS inclusion due to decreased feed intake. However, no effect of wheat DDGS inclusion was noted in finishing hogs. The DDGS came from an old-style ethanol plant so the nutrient availability (e.g. lysine) of the wheat DDGS in this study may have been limiting due to high drying temperatures used in the manufacturing process.

In a follow-up study, Thacker (2009) reported that dietary inclusion of 20% and 12% wheat DDGS in grower (19.7-43.6 kg) and finisher (43.6-114.3 kg) diets, respectively, did not affect on weight gain, feed intake, or feed conversion.

Wheat DDGS has been studied in nursery pig diets. Increasing wheat DDGS inclusion from 0-20% at the expense of soybean meal and wheat was studied in diets balanced for net energy and SID content (Avelar et al., 2010). Increasing wheat DDGS in the nursery diet reduced feed intake, weight gain and feed efficiency. Up to 10% inclusion growth performance was maintained, whereas inclusion of 15% and 20% wheat DDGS in the diet decreased body weight of weaned pigs by 0.4 and 5.4 kg, respectively. Therefore wheat DDGS should be limited to 10% inclusion in nursery diets.

In a commercial-size study by FOBI researchers, wheat DDGS was included in the diets for growing pigs at 0%, 7%, 15%, 22.5% and 30% (Beltranena and Zijlstra, 2010). For every 7.5% increase in wheat DDGS inclusion, feed efficiency decreased because pigs consumed 42 g/day more feed per kg of body weight gain. As a result, the monetary return decreased linearly with increasing wheat DDGS inclusion. These authors recommended a maximum of 20% inclusion of wheat DDGS in diets for growing hogs.

SW

INE

DIE

TS

28

CARCASS qUALITy

Feeding high levels of corn DDGS in finishing pig diets has been shown to reduce backfat hardness so as a result some have suggested limiting amounts in the finishing diet (Beltranena and Zijlstra, 2010). However, feeding wheat DDGS has not been shown to have the same impact on carcass quality and therefore it can be used at higher levels in finishing pig diets (Beltranena and Zijlstra, 2010). The reduction in backfat hardness when feeding corn DDGS is attributed to the high levels of polyunsaturated fat in the oil. Both corn and wheat germ oil contain large quantities of polyunsaturated fatty acids, but the total fat content of wheat DDGS is markedly less than corn DDGS (5.4 vs 13.6%) so the impact of wheat DDGS on carcass quality is relatively minor.

SUMMARy

Wheat DDGS is a co-product that can potentially be used as a feed ingredient in swine diets. To properly characterize wheat DDGS, samples should be evaluated for digestible or available energy and amino acid content. Energy and amino acid values can be predicted using protein, lipid and fibre content (detergent fractions). In addition, a measure of protein content of the acid detergent fibre fraction might provide valuable information regarding amino acid availability. Growth performance can be maintained if wheat DDGS is of good and known quality and diets are formulated to an equal energy and amino acid profile. Published studies to date indicate that the inclusion of wheat DDGS in nursery and grower/finisher formulations should be limited to 10% and 20%, respectively. Fibre content of wheat DDGS will increase the size of viscera, thereby reducing dressing percentage. Feeding corn DDGS reduces backfat hardness but wheat DDGS has a relatively small impact on carcass quality due to the lower fat content of the product and can therefore be used in higher quantities than corn DDGS in the finishing diet.

The energy value of wheat DDGS is less than wheat. Formulation values for digestible energy content vary but range between 13.4 (Nyachoti et al. 2005) and 14.6 MJ/kg (Cozannet et al. 2010) for growing pigs. The availability of amino acids, particularly lysine, is dependent on processing conditions, especially during drying. A weak link exists with colour, with darker wheat DDGS having decreased lysine availability.

SW

INE

DIE

TS

29

Wheat DDGS In Aquaculture Diets

Limited information is available on feeding wheat DDGS to aquaculture species. Hilton and Slinger (1986) demonstrated that it is feasible to use 10% corn DDGS in rainbow trout diets. However, as a salmonid species which, like other carnivorous fish, require high levels of protein and fat and have little to no capacity to digest fibre, corn DDGS is only marginally feasible as it contains high levels of fibre and only modest levels of protein and fat. Wheat DDGS contains significantly higher levels of protein but less fat and more fibre than corn DDGS, limiting its use in salmonid diets. Randall and Drew (2010) fractionated wheat DDGS, based on particle size, and found that the fine components of the product are elevated in protein (43.2% vs 37.2% as fed basis) and contained less neutral detergent fibre (21.6% vs 27.12% as fed basis), rendering the product more suitable for salmonid diets. The digestibility of the energy and dry matter of the fine fractions of wheat DDGS (83% and 79%, respectively) were higher than in the starting material (75% and 66%, respectively) and were similar in composition and digestibility to that of soybean meal.

Further improvements in the nutritive value of wheat DDGS were obtained through aqueous extraction of protein from wet wheat distillers grains (WWDG). This method has the advantage of performing all fractionation steps on WWDG before the drying process. Therefore, no additional drying costs are incurred in the production of this product. This process increased the protein content of WWDG from 43.2-68.5% and decreased non-starch polysaccharides from 27.2-8.1%. The product also had significantly increased the apparent digestibility coefficients for dry matter, gross energy and acid ether extract (P < 0.05) when fed to rainbow trout. The addition of this product at up to 30% of the diet did not decrease the growth performance of rainbow trout. Wheat DDGS may be added to salmonid diets at low levels but fractionation prior to feeding offers significant benefits nutritionally and makes it more practical as an aquaculture feed.

AQ

UA

CU

LTUR

E D

IETS

30

References

Aldai, N., J.L. Aalhus, M.E.R. Dugan, T.A. McAllister, L.J. Walter and J.J. McKinnon. 2009. Retail and sensory quality of Longissimus thoracis from steers fed corn- or wheat-based dry distillers’ grains plus solubles (DDGS). J. Anim. Sci. 87: E-Suppl. Abstract Joint Annual Meeting.

Aldai, N., J.L. Aalhus, M.E.R. Dugan, W.M. Robertson, T.A. McAllister, L.J. Walter and J.J. McKinnon. 2010. Comparison of wheat- versus corn-based dried distilllers’ grains with solubles on meat quality of feedlot cattle. Meat Sci. 84:569-577.

Aldai, N., M.E.R. Dugan, J.L. Aalhus, T.A. McAllister, L.J. Walter, and J.J. McKinnon. 2010. Differences in the trans-18:1 profile of the backfat of feedlot steers fed wheat or corn based dried distillers’ grains. Anim. Sci. Tech. 157:168-172.

Alotaibi, K. and J.J. Schoenau. 2010. Crop growth as affected by bioenergy by-products application. Proceedings of Soils and Crops Workshop 2010, University of Saskatchewan.

Anderson, J.L., D.J. Schingoethe, K.F. Kalscheur and A.R. Hippen. 2006. Evaluation of dried and wet distillers grains included at two concentrations in the diets of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 89(8): 3133-3142.

Avelar, E., R. Jha, E. Beltranena, M. Cervantes, A. Morales and R.T. Zijlstra. 2010. The effect of feeding wheat distillers dried grain with solubles on growth performance and nutrient digestibility in weaned pigs. Anim. Feed Sc. Tech. 160:73-77.

Beliveau, R.M. and J.J. McKinnon. 2009. Effect of graded levels of wheat-based dried distillers’ grains with solubles on rumen fermentation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 89:513-520.

Beltranena, E. and R. T. Zijlstra. 2010. Research Update: Alternative feedstuffs for swine. Adv. Pork Prod. 21:167-175.

Benke, M.B, X. Hao, Caffyn, P. J. Schoenau. McAllister, T.A. 2010. Using manure from cattle fed dried distillers’ grains with solubles (DDGS) as fertilizer: Effects on nutrient accumulation in soil and uptake by barley. Ag. Eco. Environ. 139:720-727.

Bandegan, A., W. Guenter, D. Hoehler, G.H. Crow and C. M. Nyachoti. 2009. Standardized ileal amino acid digestibility in wheat distillers dried grains with solubles for broilers. Poultry Sci. 88:2692-2599.

Boila, R.J. and J.R. Ingalls. 1994. The post ruminal digestion of dry matter nitrogen and amino acids in wheat-based distillers’ dried grains and canola meal. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 49: 173-188.

Canadian Sheep Federation. Accessed 2011. Virtual Tool Box: Flock Health & Nutrition sections. Available: www.cansheep.ca.

Chibisa, G.E., D.A. Christensen and T. Mutsvangwa. 2012. Effect of replacing canola meal as the major protein source with wheat dried distillers grains with solubles on ruminal function, microbial protein synthesis, omasal flow, and milk production in cows. J. Dairy Sci. 95: 824-841.

Clark, L. and H.A. Lardner. 2009. Wheat-based dried distillers grains supplementation in backgrounding and stocker programs. WBDC Fact Sheet #2009-01, PAMI. Humboldt SK.

Cozannet, P., M. Lessire, J.P. Métayer, C. Gady, Y. Primot, F. Skiba and J. Noblet. 2009. Nutritional value of distillers grains in poultry (invited paper). 17th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition, World Poultry Science Association. 23-27 August, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Cozannet, P., M. Lessire, C. Gady, J.P. Métayer, Y. Primot, F. Skiba and J. Noblet. 2010. Energy value of wheat dried distillers grains with solubles in roosters, broilers, layers, and turkey. Poultry Sci. 89:2230-2241.

Cozannet, P., Y. Primot, C. Gady, J.P. Métayer and P. Callu. 2010. Ileal digestibility of amino acids in wheat distillers dried grains with solubles for pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 158:177-186.

Cozannet, P., Y. Primot, C. Gady, J.P. Métayer, M. Lessire, F. Skiba and J. Noblet. 2010. Energy value of wheat distillers grains with solubles for growing pigs and adult sows. J. Anim. Sci. 88:2382-2392.

Domova, N., I. Ivanova, M. Mihailova and N. Todorov. 2009. Wheat distiller’s grains as a source of protein in dairy sheep. Bulgarian J. Agric. Sci. 15(6):574-582.

RE

FER

EN

CE

S

31

Dugan, M.E.R., N. Aldai, J.K.G. Kramer, D.J. Gibb, M. Juarez and T.A. McAllister. 2010. Feeding wheat dried distillers’ grains with solubles improves beef trans and conjugated linoleic acid profiles. J. Anim. Sci. 88:1842-1847.

Emiola, I.A., F.O. Opapeju, B.A. Slominski and C.M. Nyachoti. 2009. Growth performance and nutrient digestibility in pigs fed wheat distillers dried grains with solubles-based diets supplemented with a multicarbohydrase enzyme. J. Anim. Sci. 87:2315-2322.

Franke, K., U. Meyer and G. Flachowsky. 2009. Distillers dried grains with solubles compared with rapeseed meal in rations of dairy cows. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 18:601-612.

Gady, C., P. Dalibard and P.A. Geraert. 2008. Nutritional variability of major co-products of the bio-ethanol industry. Poster presentation proceedings. Poultry Sci. 87 (Suppl 1):111.

Gibb, D.J., X. Hao and T.A. McAllister. 2008. Effect of dried distillers’ grains from wheat on diet digestibility and performance in feedlot cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 88:659-665.

Gurung, N.K., S.G. Solaiman, D.L. Rankins and W.H. McElhenney. 2009. Effects of distillers dried grains with solubles on feed intake, growth performance, gain efficiency and carcass quality of growing Kiko X Spanish male goats. J. Anim. Vet. Advances. 8 (10):2087-2093.

Hao, X., M.B. Benke, D.J. Gibb, A. Stronks, G.R. Travis and T.A. McAllister. 2009. Effect of dried distillers grains with solubles (wheat-based) in feedlot cattle diets on feces and manure composition. J. Environ. qual. 38:1709-1718.

Hao, X., M. Benke, F.J. Larney and T.A. McAllister. 2011. Greenhouse gas emissions when composting manure from cattle fed dried distillers’ grains with solubles. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 89:105-114.

Hein, T. 2010. Novel fractionation for DDGS. Canadian Poultry Magazine, July 2010. Available: www.canadianpoultrymag.com.

Hilton, J.W. and S.J. Slinger. 1986. Digestibility and utilization of canola meal in practical-type diets for rainbow trout. Can. J. Fish Aquacult. Sci. 43:149-155.

Ileleji, K. E. and K.A. Rosentrater. 2008. On the physical properties of distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS). Proceedings ASABE. Rhode Island, Ny, USA.

Katzen International. Accessed 2011. Advances in Ethanol. Available: www.katzen.com/daccomp.html.

Kluth, H. and M. Rodehutscord. 2010. Effect of the duration of pre-feeding on amino acid digestibility of wheat distillers dried grains with solubles in broiler chicken. Poultry Sci. 89:681-687.

Lan, Y., F.O. Opapeju and C.M. Nyachoti. 2008. True ileal protein and amino acid digestibilities in wheat dried distillers’ grains with solubles fed to finishing pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 140:155-163.

Li, Y.L., W.Z. Yang, T.A. McAllister and K.A. Beauchemin. 2010. Effect of wheat distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) as a replacement for barley grain and barley silage on ruminal pH and fermentation in finishing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 88: E-Suppl. 2 Joint Annual Meeting.

McKinnon, J. J. and A.M. Walker. 2008. Comparison of wheat-based dried distillers’ grains with solubles to barley as an energy source for backgrounding cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 88:721-724.

Métayer, J. P., J.M. Gaüzere, C. Gady, F. Skiba and M. Vilariño. 2009. Valeur nutritionnelle d’une drêche de ble chez le coq et le poulet et effet du niveau d’incorporation et del’ajout d’un complex multi-enzymatique sur les performances de croissance des poulets standards. Huitièmes Journées de la Recherche Avicole, St. Malo, 25 et 26 March 2009.

National Research Council, 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, 9th Revised Edition.

Oryschak, M., D. Korver, M. Zuidhof, X. Meng and E. Beltranena. 2010. Comparative feeding value of extruded and non-extruded wheat and corn distillers grains with solubles for broilers. Poultry Sci. 89:2183-2196.

North Dakota State University. 1996. North Dakota sheep pocket guide. AS-989. Available: www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/sheep/as989-3.htm.

Nyachoti, C.M., J.D. House, B.A. Slominski and I.R. Seddon. 2005. Energy and nutrient digestibilities in wheat dried distillers grains with solubles fed to growing pigs. J. Sci. Food Agric. 85:2581-2586.

RE

FER

EN

CE

S

32

Nuez Ortín, W.G. and P. Yu. 2009. Nutrient Variation and Availability of Wheat DDGS, Corn DDGS and Blend DDGS from BioEthanol Plants. J. Sci. Food Agric. 89:1754–1761.

Nuez Ortin, W.G. and P. Yu. 2010. Estimation of ruminal and intestinal digestion profiles, hourly effective degradation ratio and potential N to energy synchronization of co-products from bioethanol processing. J. Sci. Food Agric. 90:2058-2067.

Nuez Ortin, W.G. 2010. Variation and availability of nutrients in co-products from bio-ethanol production fed to ruminants. MSc Thesis. University of Saskatchewan.

Oryschak, M., D. Korver, M. Zuidhof, X. Meng and E. Beltranena. 2010. Comparative feeding value of extruded and non-extruded wheat and corn DDGS for broilers. Poultry Sci. 89:2183-2196.

Pedersen, C. and J.E. Lindberg. 2010. Ileal and total tract nutrient digestibility in wheat wet distillers solubles and wheat dried distillers grains with solubles when fed to growing pigs. Livestock Sci. 132:145-151.

Penner, G. and D.A. Christensen. 2009. Effect of replacing forage or concentrate with wet or dry distillers’ grains on the productivity and chewing activity of dairy cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 153: 1-10.

Randall, K.M. and M.D. Drew. 2010. Fractionation of wheat distiller’s dried grains and solubles using sieving increases digestible nutrient content in rainbow trout. Anim. Feed. Sci. and Technol. 159:138-142.

Rausch and Belyea. 2006. The future of co-products from corn processing. Appl. Biochem. Biotech. 128:47-86.

Schingoethe, D.J., K.F. Kalscheur, A.R. Hippen and A.D. Garcia. 2009. Invited review: The use of distillers products in dairy cattle diets. J. Dairy Sci. 92:5802-5813.

Schoenian, S. 2009. Sheep 201: A Beginner’s Guide to Raising Sheep. Available:http://www.sheep101.info/201/index.html

Slominski, B.A, A. Rogiewicz, M. Nyachoti and K. Wittenberg. Husky Wheat and Wheat/Corn DDGS for Poultry Nutrition. University of Manitoba. Available: http://umanitoba.ca/afs/animal_science.

Stoll, L.C., J.J. McKinnon and P.J. Shand. 2010. A comparison of wheat and corn DDGS on quality of beef longissimus. Abstract: Conf. Am. Meat Sci. Assoc. Lubbock, Texas, June 20-23.

Swanson, K. 2010. Effects of feeding corn distillers’ grains on animal health, performance and carcass value. Beef Cattle Research Council Research Review. Canadian Cattlemen’s Association. Available: www.cattle.ca/research.

Terra Grain Fuels. Accessed 2011. Ethanol Facts. Available: www.terragrainfuels.com/ethanol_facts.php.

Thacker, P.A. 2006. Nutrient digestibility, performance and carcass traits of growing-finishing pigs fed diets containing dried wheat distillers grains with solubles. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 86:527-529.

Thacker, P.A. 2009. Effects of supplementary threonine, canola oil or enzyme on nutrient digestibility, performance and carcass traits of growing-finishing pigs fed diets containing wheat distillers grains with solubles. Asian-Austral. J Anim. Sci. 22:1676-1685.

Thacker, P.A. and G.P. Widyaratne. 2007. Nutritional value of diets containing graded levels of wheat distillers grains with solubles fed to broiler chicks. J. Sci. Food Agric 87:1386-1390.

Tumuluru, J. S., L. Tabil, A. Opoku, M.R. Mosqueda and O. Fadeyi. 2010. Effect of process variables on the quality characteristics of pelleted wheat distiller’s dried grains with solubles. Biosystems Engineering 105:466-475.

University of Manitoba. 2009. Feed Research: Nutritive values of pig feed ingredients. Available: http://umanitoba.ca/afs/animal_science.

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service Global Agricultural Information Network. 2010. Canada Biofuels Annual. Gain report number: CA0023. Available: http://gain.fas.usda.gov.

Van De Kerckhove, A. and H. Lardner. 2008. Effects of supplementing beef cows grazing crop residue with dried distillers’ grain. WBDC Fact Sheet # 2008-05. PAMI. Humboldt SK.

Vilariño, M., J.M. Gaüzere, J.P. Métayer and F. Skiba. 2007. Energy value of wheat DDGS in adult cockerels and growth performances of broiler chickens. 16th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition. Strasbourg, France. August 26-30, 2007.

RE

FER

EN

CE

S

33

Walter, L.J., T.A. McAllister, W.Z. Yang, K.A. Beauchemin and J.J. McKinnon. 2010. Comparison of wheat or corn dried distillers grains with solubles on rumen fermentation and nutrient digestibility in feedlot heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 88: E-Suppl. 2 ABS#199.

Walter, L.J., J.L. Aalhus, W.M. Robertson, T.A. McAllister, D.J. Gibb, M.E.R. Dugan and J.J. McKinnon. 2010. Evaluation of wheat or corn dried distillers’ grains with solubles on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 90: 259-269.

Walter, L.J. 2010. Comparison of wheat or corn dried distillers grains with solubles on performance, carcass characteristics, rumen fermentation parameters and diet digestibility of feedlot cattle. MSc Thesis, University of Saskatchewan.

Widyaratne, G.P. and R.T. Zijlstra. 2007. Nutritional value of wheat and corn distillers dried grain with solubles: digestibility and digestible contents of energy, amino acids and phosphorus, nutrient excretion and growth performance of grower-finisher pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 87:103-114.

Widyaratne, G.P. and R.T. Zijlstra. 2008. Erratum. Nutritional value of wheat and corn distillers dried grain with solubles: digestibility and digestible contents of energy, amino acids and phosphorus, nutrient excretion and growth performance of grower-finisher pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 88:515-516.

Widyaratne, G.P., J.F. Patience and R.T. Zijlstra. 2009. Effect of xylanase supplementation of diets containing wheat distillers grains with solubles on energy, amino acids and phosphorus digestibility and growth performance of grower-finisher pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 89:91-95.

Yáñez, J.L., E. Beltranena, M. Cervantes and R.T. Zijlstra. 2011. Effect of phytase and xylanase supplementation or particle size on nutrient digestibility of diets containing distillers dried grains with solubles co-fermented from wheat and corn in ileal-cannulated grower pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 89:113-123.

Yang, Y., E. Kiarie, B.A. Slominski, A. Brule-Babel and C.M. Nyachoti. 2010. Amino acid and fiber digestibility, intestinal bacterial profile, and enzyme activity in growing pigs fed dried distillers grains with solubles-based diets. J. Anim. Sci. 88: 3304-3312.

Yu, P., D. Damiran and W. Nuez Ortin. 2009. Characterization of protein structure of the new co-products from bioethanol production in western Canada using DRIFT Spectroscopy: comparison among blend DDGS, wheat DDGS and corn DDGS, between wheat and wheat DDGS, and corn and corn DDGS. Abstract for the 2009 Joint ADSA-CSAS-ASAS Annual Meeting. July 12-16, 2009.

Yu, P., Z. Niu and D. Damiran. 2010. Protein molecular structures and protein fraction profiles of new co-products of bioethanol production: A novel approach. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58: 3460–3464.

Zhang, S.Z., G.B. Penner, M. Abdelqader and M. Oba. 2010. Effects of feeding alfalfa hay on chewing, rumen pH, and milk fat concentration of dairy cows fed wheat DDGS as a partial substitute for barley silage. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 3243-3252.

Zhang, S.Z., G.B. Penner, W.Z. Yang and M. Oba. 2010. Effects of partially replacing barley silage or barley grain with DDGS on rumen fermentation and milk production of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci.93: 3231-3242.

Zijlstra, R.T., C.F.M. de Lange, and J.F. Patience. 1999. Nutritional value of wheat for growing pigs: chemical composition and digestible energy content. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79:187-194.

RE

FER

EN

CE

S

34

COMPONENT Wheat Grain100% Wheat

DDGS70% Wheat DDGS/ 30% Corn DDGS

50% Wheat DDGS/ 50% Corn DDGS

100% Corn DDGS

Moisture (%) 11.7 7.6 8.5 7.6 8.7(10.5-12.6) (3.7-9.7) (6.5-11.5) (6.3-8.6) (8.0-9.4)

CP (%DM) 15.3 39.3 35.9 33.9 30.5(13.3-17.2) (32.1-45.8) (33.8-36.8) (30.6-37.3) (28.4-32.0)

NPN (%CP) 25.4 19.2 12.8 51.7 NASV SV SV SV

SCP (%CP) 24.7 16.8 11.1 19.6 10.7(24.6-24.9) (15.7-17.7) (7.4-14.9) SV (9.9-11.4)

ADICP (%CP) 0.1 13.3 2 6.1 6.4(0.0-0.9) (4.85-23.98) (1.2-2.9) SV SV

NDICP (%CP) 12.3 55.6 57 47.3 34.4(11.0-13.5) (47.7-60.7) (54.4-59.5) SV SV

RUP(%CP) 26.3 54.4 63.8 NA 60.5SV SV SV NA (55.0-66.1)

ADF (%DM) 3.6 15.1 13.8 11.2 15(2.97-3.9) (7.4-22.9) (10.8-18.1) (10.2-12.1) (9.5-23.2)

NDF (%DM) 16.1 38.8 42.3 42.1 38.1(15.02-17.22) (21.8-54.1) (29.3-55.4) (39.0-43.9) (31.6-49.5)

NDFn (%DM) 14.6 29.7 34.9 29.4 NASV SV SV SV

NDF with Na2SO3 (%DM)

14.4 32 32.6 NA NA

SV SV SV NACrude Fat (%DM) 1.9 5.4 7.6 8.2 13.6

(1.6-1.9) (3.9-7.0) (6.4-8.5) (5.3-10.4) (10.8-16.8)Starch (%DM) 61.7 3.2 3.8 3.4 4.9

(60.35-63.0) (0.0-6.2) SV (2.2-5.5) (4.0-7.2)GE (cal/g) 4814 5178 5273 5126 5221

(4543-5086) (5160-5197) SV (5099-5153) SVAsh (%DM) 2.0 5.3 5.5 4.9 4.6

(2.0-2.12) (4.6-6.3) (5.2-6.2) (3.3-5.4) (4.1-5.7)Ca (%DM) 0.09 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.05P (%DM) 0.43 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.81Mg (%) 0.15 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.32K (%DM) 0.5 1.22 1.17 1.13 1.04S (%DM) 0.15 0.62 0.65 0.67 0.71Na (%DM) 0.01 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.17Fe (PPM) 72 275 215 175 74Mn (PPM) 42 115 85 65 14Zn (PPM) 40 95 84 77 58Cu (PPM) 5 12 10 9 5ADL (%DM) 0.8 4.8 4.7 4.3 2.8

(0.6-0.99) (4.3-5.3) (3.66-5.8) SV SV

Wheat DDGS Nutrient Composition Tables (Range Of Values Shown Below Average Value In Brackets)

*values in brackets represent the range reported in literatureSV – value based on single value found in literature

NU

TRIE

NT

CO

MP

OS

ITIO

N T

AB

LES

35

DM basis100% Wheat

DDGS

70% Wheat DDGS/ 30% Corn DDGS*

50% Wheat DDGS/ 50% Corn DDGS*

100% Corn DDGS

Poultry AMEn (kcal/kg) 2782 2901 2981 3180

Pigs DE (Kcal/kg) 3924 3991 4036 4147

Cattle TDN (%) 76 76 77 77

NEM (kcal/kg) 2080 2077 2075 2070

NEG kcal/kg) 1410 1410 1410 1410

NEL (kcal/kg) 1940 2036 2100 2260

Component Wheat Grain100% Wheat

DDGS

70% Wheat DDGS/ 30% Corn DDGS

50% Wheat DDGS/ 50% Corn DDGS

100% Corn DDGS

Arginine (% DM) 0.76 1.62 1.59 1.57 1.4

Histidine (% DM) 0.38 0.79 0.82 0.87 0.81

Isoleucine (% DM) 0.6 1.32 1.19 1.47 1.15

Leucine (% DM) 1.14 2.56 2.82 3.37 3.54

Lysine (% DM) 0.46 0.89 1.05 1.00 (0.86-1.14) 0.99

Methionine (% DM) 0.27 0.64 0.73 0.67 0.61

Total Sulphur AA (% DM) NA 1.16 NA NA NA

Phenylalanine (% DM) 0.8 1.67 1.7 1.97 1.47

Threonine (% DM) 0.48 1.18 1.26 1.27 1.17

Tryptophan 0.21 0.41 0.3 0.24

Valine (% DM) 0.74 1.7 1.82 1.66 1.6

Phytate (% DM) NA NA 1.63 11.49 mg/g DM NA

Alanine (% DM) 0.59 1.55 2.05 1.67 2.16

Aspartic acid (% DM) 0.82 2.04 0.85 1.97 2.11

Cystine (% DM) 0.37 0.62 10.41 0.68 0.57

Glutamic acid (% DM) 5.24 10.36 1.55 7.23 5.02

Glycine (% DM) 0.69 1.66 3.3 1.47 1.23

Proline (% DM) 1.66 3.59 1.83 2.8 2.26

Serine (% DM) 0.69 1.71 1.06 1.5 1.42

Tyrosine (% DM) 0.46 1.17 NA 1.38 1.22

Available Lysine (% DM) NA 0.89 NA 1.07 0.97

All values are on a 100% dry matter basis

NU

TRIE

NT C

OM

PO

SITIO

N TA

BLE

S

Publication design, layout and coordination provided by:Canadian International Grains Institute (Cigi)