WO2009120665A2 - Compositions including de-oiled distillers dried grains with solubles and methods of using the same - Google Patents

Abstract

De-oiled dried distillers grains with solubles are described herein. Feed compositions and methods of using de-oiled dried distillers grains with solubles are also provided.

Description

COMPOSITIONS INCLUDING DE-OILED DISTILLERS DRIED

GRAINS WITH SOLUBLES AND METHODS

OF USING THE SAME

Technical Field

[0001] This disclosure relates generally to compositions including de-oiled distillers dried grains with solubles (dDGS) and methods involving the use of dDGS as a feed or feed supplement for animals. Background

[0002] Ethanol production using grain-based biorefineries has increased in recent years. Distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) are a co-product of grain-based ethanol biorefining processes, and due to recent increases in ethanol production, it is estimated that approximately 12 million tons of DDGS are produced just from corn- based ethanol biorefineries in the United States annually. It is also estimated that, in the near future, the amount of corn DDGS produced in the United States could grow to 18 to 20 million tons per year.

[0003] Achieving ethanol products from grain-based biorefineries that are cost effective to produce has proven challenging over the years. One way to reduce the effective cost of grain-based ethanol production is to identify and sell commercially valuable co-products of the biorefining process. DDGS are co-products of grain- based ethanol production processes that have recognized commercial value. For example, DDGS are sold as a livestock feed supplement. Because it is primarily the starch of the grain that is consumed in the production of ethanol, the DDGS remaining after fermentation and distillation contain nutritionally valuable fiber, protein, and fat in the form of vegetable oils.

[0004] The oil retained in DDGS resulting from ethanol production processes may also be extracted to provide yet another co-product of commercial value. For example, the vegetable oils removed from DDGS may be further processed for consumption or for use as a stock material in other industrially applicable processes, such as in the production of biodiesel and/or glycerin. Though the oil-extracted or de-oiled DDGS (dDGS) may retain some oil content, it will be appreciated that removal of significant quantities of oil from the DDGS alters the nutritional characteristics of the resulting dDGS. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0005] FIG. 1 provides a flow-chart representation of an example of a solvent extraction process by which oil can be extracted from DDGS in order to produce dDGS as described herein. Detailed Description

[0006] The suitability of dDGS as an animal feed is described herein. Methods for obtaining dDGS are also described herein, as are the nutritional characteristics of exemplary dDGS materials. In addition, animal feed compositions including dDGS and methods using dDGS are provided herein.

[0007] It will be understood that the materials and methods described herein are exemplary, providing representative examples of various embodiments of the subject matter recited in the appended claims. Thus, the following more detailed description of the dDGS, methods for obtaining dDGS and methods of using dDGS are not intended to limit the scope of the claims, but to allow practice of the subject matter described herein commensurate with the scope of the appended claims. [0008] DDGS from grain-based ethanol production processes can be further processed to provide commercially useful products. In particular, the oil contained within the DDGS can be extracted and further processed to provide, for example, food grade oil, such as food grade corn oil where the DDGS are derived from an ethanol biorefinery that utilizes corn grain as biomass. Alternatively, the oil extracted from DDGS can be used as a stock material for additional industrially relevant processes, such as processes for the production of biodiesel and glycerin (e.g., a transesterification process, as known in the art). In addition to the potential commercial value of the extracted oil, as is described herein, the dDGS that result from oil extraction of DDGS are suitable for use as a feed, a feed supplement or feed constituent for domestic pets, livestock or poultry. Therefore, the dDGS resulting from oil extraction of DDGS provide a feed material that can be used in methods of feeding or achieving desired feed performance in animals such as domestic pets, livestock and poultry.

[0009] Ethanol production, oil extraction of DDGS, and refining of the oil removed from the DDGS can occur in a single facility. For example, a grain-based ethanol biorefinery may further include facilities for solvent extraction of the DDGS and production of dDGS. Further, a grain-based ethanol biorefinery may further include facilities for processing the oil extracted from the DDGS to provide a food-grade oil suitable for consumer use or an oil of sufficient quality for use as a stock material in subsequent industrially applicable processes, such as a process for the production of biodiesel and/or glycerin. Even further, a grain-based ethanol biorefinery may further include facilities for processing and refining the oil extracted from the DDGS to produce biodiesel and glycerin. By integrating these operations within a single facility, process efficiencies may be gained and costs of solvent extracting the DDGS and processing or refining the extracted oil may be reduced. Production ofdDGS

[0010] dDGS can be created from DDGS generated by any grain-based ethanol production process. For example, the dDGS described herein may be created from DDGS generated by an ethanol production process that utilizes one or more grain selected from corn, barley, rye, and soybean grain, any other grain or plant material suitable for use in an ethanol production process, or any combination thereof. [0011] The dDGS can be produced by subjecting DDGS derived from an ethanol production process to an oil extraction process suitable for achieving dDGS having a desired or targeted residual oil content. In one embodiment, the process for removing oil from the subject DDGS is a solvent extraction process. Therefore, in one embodiment, the dDGS described herein are achieved by subjecting DDGS produced as a co-product of grain-based ethanol production to a solvent extraction process. For example, the dDGS described herein may be produced by subjecting the DDGS produced in an ethanol refinery utilizing one or more grain selected from corn, barley, rye, or soybean grain, or any other grain or plant material suitable for use in an ethanol production process, including any combinations thereof, to a solvent extraction process. In one embodiment, the dDGS described herein are produced by subjection corn DDGS, barley DDGS, rye DDGS, or soybean DDGS, or DDGS derived from any other grain or plant material suitable for use in an ethanol production process, including any combinations thereof, to a solvent extraction process. In another embodiment, the dDGS described herein are produced by subjecting corn DDGS generated from a dry-grind corn ethanol biorefinery to a solvent extraction process.

[0012] Solvent extraction processes suitable for producing the dDGS described herein include processes that utilize ethanol, hexane, iso-hexane, petroleum distillate, mixtures thereof, or one or more other suitable solvents, as known in the art, for oil extraction of DDGS. In one embodiment, dDGS are produced by a solvent extraction process that utilizes a solvent, such as, for example, hexane, to remove oil from the DDGS without substantially altering the protein or fiber content of the DDGS.

[0013] The dDGS described herein may be produced to have a targeted oil content. In particular, where desired, dDGS may be produced by subjecting DDGS to an oil extraction process tailored to remove about 75% or more, about 80% or more, or about 90% or more of the oil present in the DDGS. In one embodiment, dDGS as described herein are produced by subjecting DDGS to a solvent extraction process that removes about 75% or more, about 80% or more, or about 90% or more of the oil present in the DDGS. A solvent extraction process used to product the dDGS described herein may use, for example, a solvent selected from ethanol, hexane, iso-hexane, petroleum distillate, mixtures thereof, or one or more other suitable solvents. In yet another embodiment, the solvent extraction process is a hexane extraction process that removes about 75% or more, about 80% or more, or about 90% or more of the oil present in DDGS produced at a dry-grind corn ethanol biorefinery. Corn DDGS typically include 10-15% oil by weight, and in one embodiment, the dDGS described herein are produced by subjecting com DDGS to a solvent extraction process, wherein the solvent extraction process is a hexane extraction process that results in dDGS having a residual oil content selected from about 1% to about 5%, by weight. In specific examples of such an embodiment, the solvent extraction process provides dDGS having a residual oil content, by weight, selected from about 1% to about 4%, about 1 % to about 3%, about 1% to about 2%, 2% to about 5%, about 2% to about 4%, about 2% to about 3%, about 3% to about 5%, about 3% to about 4%, about 1.5%, about 2.5% about 3.5%, and about 4.5%. [0014] Examples of methods of extracting oil from corn DDGS are discussed in Sing et. a/., "Extraction of Oil From Corn Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles", Transactions of the ASAE 41(6), 1775-1777 (1998), the teachings of which are incorporated by reference herein. In addition, solvent extraction technologies and equipment are available from, for example, Crown Iron Works Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S.A. Moreover, technology directed to removal of the oil from vegetable particles, removal of residual solvent from solvent extracted materials, and recovery of solvents used in solvent extraction processes are described in, for example, U.S. Patent No. 6,996,817, U.S. Patent No. 6,766,595,

U.S. Patent No. 6,732,454, and U.S. Patent No. 6,509,051. These patents are assigned to Crown Iron Works Company, and the teachings of each of these patents are incorporated by reference herein.

[0015] A flow-chart representation of an embodiment of a suitable hexane extraction process is shown in FIG. 1. As shown in FIG. 1 , as a first step, DDGS meal is fed into an extractor. In the extractor, the DDGS meal is washed with solvent, and in one embodiment, the DDGS meal is turned at least once in order to ensure that all sides of the DDGS particles are washed with solvent. After washing, the resulting mixture of oil and solvent, called miscella, is collected for separation of the extracted oil from the solvent. During the extraction process, as the solvent washes over the DDGS flakes, the solvent not only brings oil into solution, but it collects fine, solid DDGS particles. These "fines" are generally undesirable impurities in the miscella, and in one embodiment, the miscella is discharged from the separator through a device that separates or scrubs the fines from the miscella as the miscella is collected for separation of the oil from the solvent. [0016] In order to separate the oil and the solvent contained in the miscella, the miscella may be subjected to a distillation step. In this step, the miscella can, for example, be processed through an evaporator, which heats the miscella to a temperature that is high enough to cause vaporization of the solvent, but is not sufficiently high to adversely affect or vaporize the extracted oil. As the solvent evaporates, it may be collected, for example, in a condenser, and recycled for future use. Separation of the solvent from the miscella results in a stock of crude oil, which may be further processed to provide, for example, food grade oil for consumer use or an oil product suitable for use in a transesterification process that yields biodiesel and glycerin.

[0017] After extraction of the oil, the wet, de-oiled meal may be conveyed out of the extractor and subjected to a drying process that removes residual solvent. Removal of residual solvent is important to production of dDGS suitable for use as an animal feed supplement. In one embodiment, the wet meal can be conveyed in a vapor tight environment to preserve and collect solvent that transiently evaporates from the wet meal as it is conveyed into the desolventizer. As the meal enters the desolventizer, it may be heated to vaporize and remove the residual solvent. In order to heat the meal, the desolventizer may include a mechanism for distributing the meal over one or more trays, and the meal may be heated directly, such as through direct contact with heated air or steam, or indirectly, such as by heating the tray carrying the meal. The desolventizer may further include multiple different trays for carrying the meal through different processing steps within the desolventizer. In order to facilitate transfer of the meal from one tray to another, the trays carrying the meal may include openings that allow the meal to pass from one tray to the next. [0018] If desired, the dDGS product resulting from the solvent extraction may be conveyed to a dryer where it is dried of residual water and cooled. For example, as it is conveyed into the dryer, the dDGS meal may be deposited into drying trays and it is warmed by heated air. As the dDGS meal is heated, residual water and remaining solvent are vaporized. After drying, the dDGS meal may be cooled using ambient air. The desolventized, dried and cooled dDGS may be stored, further processed, or prepared for sale, distribution, or use.

[0019] In addition to tailoring the process to achieve dDGS having desired solvent and water content, solvent extraction processed may be tailored to ensure a finished dDGS product having desired nutritional contents. For example, in one embodiment, dDGS are produced by subjecting DDGS to a solvent extraction process that provides dDGS that retain substantially all the crude protein and fiber content of the DDGS prior to solvent extraction. In another embodiment, corn dDGS are produced by subjecting corn DDGS to a solvent extraction process that utilizes a solvent selected from one or more of ethanol, hexane, iso-hexane, petroleum distillate, mixtures thereof, or one or more other suitable solvents to provide a corn dDGS that retain substantially all the crude protein and fiber content of the corn DDGS prior to solvent extraction. Where corn DDGS are used to create dDGS as described herein, the corn DDGS may be produced or derived from a dry-grind corn ethanol biorefinery dDGS and Compositions of dDGS

[0020] The dDGS described herein may be produced to have desired nutritional characteristics. In one embodiment, the dDGS described herein exhibit the following nutrient content by % weight on a dry matter basis: crude protein content selected from about 25% to about 40%, about 28% to about 36%, about 30% to about 36%, about 25%, about 26%, about 27%, about 28%, about 29%, about 30%, about 31 %, about 32%, about 33%, about 34%, about 35%, about 36%, about 37%, about 38%, about 39%, and about 40%; total nitrogen content selected from about 4% to about 6%, about 4%, about 5%, and about 6%; crude fat content selected from about 1% to about 5%, about 1%, about 2%, about 3%, about 4%, and about 5%; ash content selected from about 4% to about 6%, about 4%, about 5%, and about 6%; crude fiber content selected from about 5% to about 7%, about 5%, about 6%, and about 7%; acid detergent fiber ("ADF") content selected from about 10% to about 20%, about 11% to about 19%, about 11.5% to about 18.5%, about 11%, about 12%, about 13%, about 14%, about 15%, about 16%, about 17%, about 18%, about 19%, and about 20%; neutral detergent fiber ("NDF") content selected from about 25% to about 40%, about 30% to about 40%, about 25% to about 30%, about 25%, about 26%, about 27%, about 28%, about 29%, about 30%, about 31%, about 32%, about 33%, about 34%, about 35%, about 36%, about 37%, about 38%, about 39%, and about 40%; nitrogen free extract selected from about 50% to about 55%, about 50%, about 51%, about 52%, about 53%, about 54%, and about 55%; total digestible nutrients ("TDN") content selected from about 75% to about 80%, about 75%, about 76%, about 77%, about 78%, about 79%, and about 80%; or a combination of two or more of any of the forgoing nutritional properties.

[0021] In addition to the preceding nutritional qualities, or in the alternative, dDGS according to the present description may exhibit one or more of the following nutritional characteristics on a dry matter basis; a net energy lactation (NE/Lactation) selected from about 0.75 to about 0.85 Mcal/lb, about 0.80 to about 0.85 Mcal/lb, about 0.75 Mcal/lb, about 0.76 Mcal/lb, about 0.77 Mcal/lb, about 0.78 Mcal/lb, about 0.79 Mcal/lb, about 0.80Mcal/lb, about 0.81 Mcal/lb, about 0.82 Mcal/lb, about 0.83 Mcal/lb, about 0.84 Mcal/lb, and about 0.85Mcal/lb; a net energy maintenance (NE/maintenance) selected from about 0.80 to about 0.90 Mcal/lb, about 0.85 to about 0.89 Mcal/lb, about 0.80 Mcal/lb, about 0.81 Mcal/lb, about 0.82 Mcal/lb, about 0.83 Mcal/lb, about 0.84 Mcal/lb, about 0.85 Mcal/lb, about 0.86 Mcal/lb, about 0.87 Mcal/lb, about 0.88 Mcal/lb, about 0.89 Mcal/lb, and about 0.90 Mcal/lb; a metabolizable energy selected from about 1150 to about 1300 kcal/lb, about 1150 to about 1250 kcal/lb, about 1180 to about 1300 kcal/lb, about 1200 to about 1300 kcal/lb, about 1250 to about 1300 kcal/lb, about 1150 to about 1200 kcal/lb, and about 1180 to about 1200 kcal/lb; a net energy gain (NE/gain) selected from about 0.50 to about 0.60 Mcal/lb, 0.55 to about 0.60 Mcal/lb, about 0.51 Mcal/lb, about 0.52 Mcal/lb, about 0.53 Mcal/lb, about 0.54 Mcal/lb, about 0.55 Mcal/lb, about 0.56 Mcal/lb, about 0.57 Mcal/lb, about 0.58 Mcal/lb, about 0.59 Mcal/lb, and about 0.60 Mcal/lb; a net energy selected from about 800 to about 1100 kcal/lb, about 800 to about 1000 kcal/lb, about 850 to about 950 kcal/lb, about 900 to about 1000 kcal/lb, and about 900 to about 950 kcal/lb; a gross energy selected from about 1800 kcal/lb to about 2200 kcal/lb, about 1900 kcal/lb to about 2200 kcal/lb, about 2000 kcal/lb to about 2150 kcal/lb, about 2100 kcal/lb to about 2150 kcal/lb, and about 2100 kca/lb to about 2120 kcal/lb; a digestible energy selected from about 1000 to about 1500 kcal/lb, about 1100 to about 1500 kcal/l, about 1200 to about 1500 kcal/lb, about 1300 to about 1500 kcal/lb, about 1400 to about 1500 kcal/lb, about 1400 to about 1450 kcal/lb, and about 1400 to about 1420 kcal/lb; or any combination of two or more such characteristics.

[0022] In addition to the preceding nutritional qualities, or in the alternative, dDGS according to the present description may exhibit one or more of the following digestibility characteristics as measured by standardized Ileal digestibility ("SID"), herein reported as % (calculated using equations described in Example 5, below): SID of Arginine selected from above about 80%, between about 80% and 85%, between about 81% and 83%, about 80%, about 81%, about 82%, about 83%, about 84%, and about 85%; SID of Histidine selected from above about 70%, between about 70% and about 75%, between about 73% and 75%, about 70%, about 71%, about 72%, about 73%, about 74%, and about 75%; SID of lsoleucine selected from above 70%, between about 70% and about 75%, between about 73% and 75%, about 70%, about 71%, about 72%, about 73%, about 74%, and about 75%; SID of Leucine selected from above about 80%, between about 80% and 85%, between about 83% and 85%, about 80%, about 81%, about 82%, about 83%, about 84%, and about 85%; SID of Lysine selected from above about 50%, between about 50% and 55%, between about 50% and 52%, about 50%, about 51%, about 52%, about 53%, about 54%, and about 55%; SID of Methionine selected from above about 80%, between about 80% and 85%, between about 80% and 82%, about 80%, about 81%, about 82%, about 83%, about 84%, and about 85%; SID of Phenylalanine selected from above about 80%, between about 80% and 85%, between about 80% and 82%, about 80%, about 81%, about 82%, about 83%, about 84%, and about 85%; SID of Threonine selected from above about 60%, between about 60% and about 70%, between about 60% and about 65%, about 60%, about 61%, about 62%, about 63%, about 64%, and about 65%; SID of Tryptophan selected from above about 75%, about 70% to about 80%, about 75% to about 80%, about 75%, about 76%, about 77%, about 78%, about 79%, and about 80%; SID of

Valine selected from above about 70%, between about 70% and about 75%, between about 73% and 75%, about 70%, about 71 %, about 72%, about 73%, about 74%, and about 75%; SID of Alanine selected from above 70%, between about 70% and about 75%, between about 73% and 75%, about 70%, about 71%, about 72%, about 73%, about 74%, and about 75%; SID of Aspartic acid selected from above about 60%, between about 60% and about 70%, between about 60% and about 65%, about 60%, about 61%, about 62%, about 63%, about 64%, and about 65%; SID of Cysteine selected from above about 55%, between about 55% and 60%, between about 55% and 58%, about 55%, about 56%, about 57%, about 58%, about 59%, and about 60%; SID of Glutamic acid selected from above about 75%, about 70% to about 80%, about 75% to about 80%, about 75%, about 76%, about 77%, about 78%, about 79%, and about 80%; SID of Glycine selected from above about 55%, between about 55% and 60%, between about 55% and 58%, about 55%, about 56%, about 57%, about 58%, about 59%, and about 60%; SID of Proline selected from above about 80%, between about 80% and 85%, between about 80% and 82%, about 80%, about 81%, about 82%, about 83%, about 84%, and about 85%; SID of Serine selected from above about 70%, between about 70% and about 75%, between about 70% and about 73%, about 70%, about 71%, about 72%, about 73%, about 74%, and about 75%; and an SID of Tyrosine selected from above about 75%, about 70% to about 80%, about 75% to about 80%, about 75%, about 76%, about 77%, about 78%, about 79%, and about 80%.

[0023] The dDGS may be further processed, as desired, to provide a dDGS product having desired characteristics, such as, for example, a desired flowabilty or density. Moreover, the dDGS may be further processed to provide a product that is more easily packaged and distributed as a feed or feed supplement. Even further, the dDGS may be processed to incorporate additional constituents to increase the feedability or nutritional quality. For example, in one embodiment, the dDGS may be further processed to incorporate a salt or a syrup from another manufacturing process that provides additional protein content.

[0024] In another embodiment, the dDGS may be pelleted to provide a feed material that is more readily packaged for sale and transport and is more easily incorporated into or used as an animal feed. For instance, Example 2 provides a description of an embodiment of corn dDGS according to the description provided herein, as well as suitable process conditions for pelletizing the dDGS described therein. Tables presented in Example 2 set out the process conditions under which the dDGS material was pelletized, describe a selection of physical properties exhibited by the non-pelleted and the pelleted dDGS material, and highlight a selection of nutritional properties exhibited by the non-pelleted and the pelleted dDGS.

[0025] dDGS as described herein may be prepared as an animal feed or included in an animal diet at a desired percentage of the total diet. The dDGS may be provided in meal form or in pellet form or other forms useful for feeding, for example, domestic animals, livestock or poultry, as would be recognized in the art. The dDGS may also be premixed with other desired ingredients to provide an animal feed in a ready-to-feed form. In addition to dDGS as described herein, an animal feed or diet as described herein may further include, for example, other components such as feed corn, corn meal, soybean meal, urea, hay, pre-prepared livestock feeds, protein supplements, mineral supplements, liquid supplements, fat or oil supplements, such as, for example, choice white grease, and other feed components as known and used in the art. Additional acceptable materials for use in domestic pet, livestock, and poultry feeds may include, for example, soybeans, soy hulls, soybean protein derivatives, wheat, wheat middling, wheat straw, alfalfa, sugar beet tailings, sugar beet pulp, sugar beets, corn stalks, corn cobs, popcorn husks, sweet bran, silage, meat and bone meal, molasses, oats, oat straw, barley, barley straw, sunflower seeds and hulls, milo, and wild grass, cottonseed by-products, such as delinted whole cottonseed, fuzzy cottonseed, and by-products of other oil seeds. [0026] As evidenced by the Examples provided herein, an animal feed or diet may include dDGS according to the present description combined, as desired, with any one or more of the forgoing materials to achieve a feed or diet that provides a desired nutritional profile. Specific examples of diets utilizing dDGS as described herein and formulated to provide desired nutritional performance are described in Example 3 and Example 5 through Example 8.

[0027] In one embodiment, dDGS may be used to provide approximately 50% to approximately 75% by weight, on a dry matter basis, of a total diet for use in an animal feed. In one such embodiment, the dDGS provides about 50% to about 55%, about 50% to about 60%, about 50% to about 65%, or about 50% to about 70% by weight, on a dry matter basis, of the total diet. In another such embodiment, the dDGS provide about 50% to about 55%, about 55% to about 60%, about 55% to about 70%, about 60% to about 65%, about 60% to about 70%, or about 70% to about 75% by weight, on a dry matter basis, of the total diet. The dDGS included in such embodiments may be any dDGS material described herein. [0028] In another embodiment, dDGS as described herein may be included in an animal diet by weight on a dry matter basis at a percentage selected from up to about 5%, up to about 10%, up to about 15%, up to about 20%, up to about 25%, up to about 30%, up to about 35%, up to about 40%, up to about 45%, up to about 50%, between about 5% and about 10%, between about 5% and about 15%, between about 5% and about 25%, between about 5% and about 30%, between about 10% and about 15%, between about 15% and about 20%, between about 20% and about 25%, between about 25% and about 30%, between about 30% and about 35%, between about 35% and 40%, between about 40% and about 45%, between about 45% and about 50%, about 1%, about 2%, about 3%, about 4%, about 5%, about 6%, about 7%, about 8%, about 9&, about 10%, about 11%, about 12%, about 13%, about 14%, about 15%, about 16%, about 17%, about 18%, about 19%, about 20%, about 21%, about 22%, about 23%, about 24%, about 25%, about 26%, about 27%, about 28%, about 29%, about 30%, about 35%, about 40%, about 45%, and about 50%.

[0029] In one embodiment, the dDGS may be used as a CP supplement in livestock and poultry feed diets. In addition, the dDGS described herein may also be used as an animal feed or feed supplement that provides desired amounts of carbohydrates, fiber or non-protein nitrogen (NPN) containing compounds. The dDGS can be used at a percentage of the total feed that maximizes the nutritional components of the feed. The relative amount of dDGS incorporated into an animal diet may depend on, for example, the species, sex, or agricultural use of the animal being fed. Additionally, the relative amount of dDGS incorporated into a particular diet may depend on the nutritional goals of the diet.

[0030] In one such embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a CP supplement in a diet for livestock selected from, for example, dairy cattle, finishing cattle, nursery pigs, and finishing pigs, and the dDGS is included in the diet by weight on a dry matter basis at a percentage selected from up to about 30%, between about 5% and about 15%, between about 5% and about 10%, between about 5% and about 20%, between about 5% and about 25%, between about 5% and about 30%, between about 10% and about 15%, between about 10% and about

20%, between about 10% and about 25%, between about 10% and about 30%, between about 15% and about 20%, between about 15% and about 25%, between about 15% and about 30%, between about 20% and about 25%, between about 20% and about 30%, between about 25% and about 30%, between about 10% and about 12%, and between about 7% and about 12%. Methods of Using dDGS compositions

[0031] In another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a feed supplement for cattle to achieve a desired F/G ratio. As it is used herein, the term "F/G" refers to the ratio of pounds of feed per pound of daily gain. In one embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a cattle feed supplement to achieve an F/G ratio of 4.5 or less after 4 weeks of feeding. In another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a cattle feed supplement to achieve an F/G ratio of 5.0 or less after 8 weeks of feeding. In yet another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a cattle feed supplement to achieve an F/G ratio of 6.5 or less after 12 weeks of feeding. In yet another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a cattle feed supplement to achieve an F/G ratio of 7.0 or less after 16 weeks of feeding. In yet another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a cattle feed supplement to achieve an F/G ratio of 6.5 or less through 18 weeks of feeding. In each of the embodiments described herein pertaining to use of dDGS as a feed supplement in cattle to achieve a desired F/G ratio, the dDGS may be dDGS, the cattle may be, for example, finishing cattle, and the corn dDGS may provide, for example, approximately 5% to 15%, 5% to 10%, 7%-12%, or 10% to 12% by weight, on a dry matter basis, of the total diet. Alternatively, in each of the embodiments described herein pertaining to use of dDGS as a feed supplement in cattle to achieve a desired F/G ratio, the dDGS may be corn dDGS, the cattle may be, for example, finishing cattle, and the corn dDGS may provide, for example, approximately 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 11%, 12%, 13%, 14%, or 15% by weight, on a dry matter basis, of the total diet.

[0032] In yet another embodiment, dDGS as described herein may be used as a feed supplement for cattle to achieve a desired average daily gain (ADG). In one embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a cattle feed supplement to achieve an ADG of 4.0 lbs or greater after 4 weeks of feeding. In another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a cattle feed supplement to achieve an ADG of 4.5 lbs or greater after 8 weeks of feeding. In yet another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a cattle feed supplement to achieve an ADG of 3.5 lbs or greater after 12 weeks of feeding. In yet another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a cattle feed supplement to achieve and maintain an ADG of 3.5 lbs or greater through 16 weeks of feeding. In yet another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a cattle feed supplement to achieve and maintain an ADG of 3.5 lbs or greater through 18 weeks of feeding. In yet another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a cattle feed supplement to achieve an ADG of 4.0 lbs or greater after 18 weeks of feeding. In each of the embodiments described herein pertaining to use of dDGS as a feed supplement in cattle to achieve a desired ADG, the dDGS may be corn dDGS, the cattle may be, for example, finishing cattle, and the corn dDGS may provide, for example, approximately 5% to 15%, 5% to 10%, 7%-12%, or 10% to 12% by weight, on a dry matter basis, of the total diet. Alternatively, in each of the embodiments described herein pertaining to use of dDGS as a feed supplement in cattle to achieve a desired ADG, the dDGS may be corn dDGS, the cattle may be, for example, finishing cattle, and the corn dDGS may provide, for example, approximately 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 11%, 12%, 13%, 14%, or 15% by weight, on a dry matter basis, of the total diet.

[0033] In another method, dDGS as described herein, is used in a method for growing and finishing pigs, wherein the pigs are fed a feed diet that included dDGS. In one such embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a feed supplement for finishing pigs to achieve an ADG selected from 1.0 Ib or greater, 1.5 lbs or greater, about 2.0 lbs, between about 1.0 and about 2.0 lbs, between about 1.5 and about 2.5 lbs, and between about 2.0 and 2.5 lbs after approximately twelve weeks of feeding. In another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a feed supplement for finishing pigs to achieve an ADFI selected from greater than about 3 lbs, greater than about 4 lbs, greater than about 5 lbs, between about 3 lbs and about 5 lbs, between about 4 lbs and about 5lbs, between about 4 lbs and about 6 lbs, about 3 lbs, about 4 lbs, about 5 lbs, and about 6 lbs after approximately twelve weeks of feeding. In yet another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a feed supplement for finishing pigs to achieve an F/G ratio selected from about 5 or less, about 4 or less, about 3 or less, about 2 or less, between about 5 and about 1 , between about 5 and about 2, between about 4 and about 1 , between about 4 and about 2, and between about 3 and about 2 after approximately 12 weeks of feeding. [0034] In another method, dDGS as described herein, is used in a method for growing nursery, wherein the nursery pigs are fed a feed diet that includes dDGS. In one such embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a feed supplement for nursery pigs to achieve an ADG selected from, about 0.5 Ib or greater, about .6Ib or greater, about 0.7 Ib or greater, about 0.8 Ib or greater, about 0.9 Ib or greater, about 1.0 Ib or greater, and between about 0.5 Ib and about 1.5 Ib or greater after approximately four weeks of feeding. In another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a feed supplement for nursery pigs to achieve an ADGI selected from between about 0.5 and about 2 lbs, between about 1.0 Ib and about 2 lbs, between about 1.0 lbs and about 1.5 lbs, between about 1.5 lbs and about 2.0 lbs, about 1.0 Ib, about 1.5 Ib, about 2.0 Ib, and about 2.5 Ib after approximately four weeks of feeding. In yet another embodiment, dDGS as described herein is used as a feed supplement for nursery pigs to achieve an F/G selected from about 1.5 or lower, about 2.0 or lower, between about 1.5 and about 2.0, about 1.5, about 1.6, about 1.7, about 1.8, about 1.9, and about 2.0 after approximately four weeks of feeding.

[0035] In each of the embodiments described herein pertaining to use of dDGS as a feed supplement in finishing and/or nursery pigs to achieve, for example a desired ADG, ADFI or F/G ratio, the dDGS may be dDGS as described herein, and the dDGS may be included in the diet by weight on a dry matter basis at a percentage selected from up to about 5%, up to about 10%, up to about 15%, up to about 20%, up to about 25%, up to about 30%, between about 5% and about 10%, between about 5% and about 15%, between about 5% and about 25%, between about 5% and about 30%, between about 10% and about 15%, between about 15% and about 20%, between about 20% and about 25%, between about 25% and about 30%, between about 30% and about 35%, about 1%, about 2%, about 3%, about 4%, about 5%, about 6%, about 7%, about 8%, about 9%, about 10%, about 11%, about 12%, about 13%, about 14%, about 15%, about 16%, about 17%, about 18%, about 19%, about 20%, about 21%, about 22%, about 23%, about 24%, about 25%, about 26%, about 27%, about 28%, about 29%, and about 30%. [0036] In another method, dDGS as described herein is used as a feed supplement in a method for feeding dairy cows. In one embodiment, dDGS are included in a dairy cow diet at inclusion rates that increase feed efficiency in dairy cows. In another embodiment, dDGS are included in a dairy cow diet at inclusion rates that increase milk fat percentage in milk produced by the dairy cows fed. In yet another embodiment, dDGS are included in a dairy cow diet at inclusion rates that increase milk fat yield in the milk produced by the dairy cows fed. In still another embodiment, dDGS are included in a dairy cow diet at inclusion rates that decrease MUN. In each of the embodiments described herein pertaining to use of dDGS as a feed supplement for dairy cows to achieve, for example a desired feed efficiency, milk fat production, milk fat yield, or MUN, the dDGS may be dDGS as described herein, and the dDGS may be included in the diet by weight on a dry matter basis at a percentage selected from up to about 5%, up to about 10%, up to about 15%, up to about 20%, up to about 25%, up to about 30%, between about 5% and about 10%, between about 5% and about 15%, between about 5% and about 25%, between about 5% and about 30%, between about 10% and about 15%, between about 15% and about 20%, between about 20% and about 25%, between about 25% and about 30%, about 1%, about 2%, about 3%, about 4%, about 5%, about 6%, about 7%, about 8%, about 9%, about 10%, about 11%, about 12%, about 13%, about 14%, about 15%, about 16%, about 17%, about 18%, about 19%, about 20%, about 21%, about 22%, about 23%, about 24%, about 25%, about 26%, about 27%, about 28%, about 29%, and about 30%. Examples Example 1 :

[0037] Corn DDGS from a dry grind corn ethanol biorefinery were subjected to a hexane extraction process as described herein to achieve de-oiled corn dDGS (dDGS) having desired nutritional qualities. A selection of the nutritional properties of the dDGS is provided in Table 1.

Table 1

Nutritional Properties of De-Oiled Corn DDGS (dDGS)

As Received 100% Dry

Basis Matter Basis

06S-05686 DDG DE-OILED PLANT TRIAL Total Moisture, % 400 0000 Total Dry Matter, % 960 100 Karl Fisher Moisture, % 263 Crude Protein, Combustion, % 320 333 Crude Fat (Diethyl Ether Extract), % 303 316 Ash, % 466 485

Crude Fiber, Crucible Method, % 706 735 Acid Detergent Fiber, % 115 120 Neutral Detergent Fiber, % 256 267 Nitrogen Free Extract, % 490 510 Alanine - Total, % 226 235 Ammonia - Total, % 0700 0729 Arginine - Total, % 124 129 Aspartic Acid - Total, % 236 246 Glutamic Acid - Total, % 513 534 Glycine - Total, % 117 122 Histidine - Total, % 0704 0733 lsoleucine - Total, % 0838 0873 Leucine - Total, % 357 372 Lysine - Total, % 0735 0766 Phenylalanine - Total, % 141 147 Proline - Total, % 250 260 Serine - Total, % 158 165 Threonine - Total, % 113 118 Tyrosine - Total, % 120 125 Valine - Total, % 121 126 TDN (Proximate), % 757 789 NE/Lactation (Proximate), Mcal/lb 079 082 NE/Maintenance (Proximate), Mcal/lb 083 086 Metabolizable Energy, kcai/lb 1180 1230 NE/Gain (Proximate), Mcal/lb 055 057

Example 2:

[0038] Corn DDGS from a dry grind corn ethanol biorefinery were subjected to a hexane extraction process as described herein to achieve de-oiled corn DDGS (dDGS) having desired physical and nutritional properties. A selection of the physical and nutritional properties of the dDGS is provided below in Table 3 and Table 4. [0039] The dDGS was then subjected to two different pelleting processes. The pelleting conditions are described below in Table 2, with "Run 1" representing the first pelleting process and "Run 2" representing the second pelleting process. A selection of the physical and nutritional properties of the pelleted dDGS produced in the two pelleting runs is provided below in Table 3 and Table 4.

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Example 3:

[0040] In the following example, dDGS as described herein was used as a feed supplement in finishing cattle diets. The performance of the diets supplemented with the dDGS was compared to a control diet that did not utilized dDGS as a feed supplement.

[0041] Three finishing cattle diets, including a control diet lacking dDGS and two finishing cattle diets including a supplement of dDGS, were designed for the study. Substitutions were iso-nitrogenous where dDGS replaced corn, soy bean mean ("SBM") and urea. As shown in Table 5, the three diets all contained a fixed amount of a liquid supplement formulation including urea, monensin and tylosin, and other micro-ingredients at the same concentration for all three diets. The three diets were: 1) SBM/urea as a control diet typical for feed lots; 2) dDGS replacing SBM and dry urea; and 3) dDGS/SBM where dDGS replaced 90% of the SBM and the dry urea.

Table 5¹

Selected Diet Characteristics

¹ All values except dry matter (DM) on DM basis.

² Contained 45% CP from Urea; 678 g/T monensin; 164 g/T tylosin; fortified with minerals and vitamins to meet or exceed NRC requirements.

³ Values in parentheses are totaled as Pelleted Supplement. a Treatments differ (P<0.01)

[0042] The cattle had been in the feedlot for more than 60 days prior to beginning the study. There were 48 steers randomly assigned to each of the three diets, 6 steers in 8 pens for each diet. The total number of steers was 144. Cattle were fed twice daily in equal proportions over the course of the 132 day study. All individual steer body weights were measured in the morning before feed was delivered. There was no fasting or water deprivation. Step-up diets were used to acclimatize the steers to the study diets and the final diets were first offered on day 22 of the study. On day 28 of the study, the steers were implanted with Revalor ® S, available from Intervet Inc.

[0043] The data for average daily gain (ADG), dry matter intake (DMI), and pounds feed/average daily gain (F/G) were collected and compiled along with body weight and feed records. For all interim period reporting, performance calculations were made using unshrunk body weights. For cumulative performance calculations, final body weight (BW) was shrunk by 3%. The final live body weight of each of the study animals was calculated as hot carcass weight (HCW) divided by a constant dressing percentage of 62.5%. On day 132 of the feedlot study, only the morning feed was delivered and the cattle were harvested the following morning. Example 3 Results

[0044] The results of this study show that dDGS can be used as a feed supplement and source of CP without any loss of carcass quality or steer health. More particularly, the study indicates that dDGS may be used as a feed supplement for carbohydrates, protein, as well as non-protein nitrogen (NPN) containing compounds. As shown by Table 5, the dDGS was used in Diet 2 and Diet 3 as a substitute for at least part of the CP from SBM, along with approximately 0.42% by weight of urea, and approximately 6.5% by weight of dietary corn, relative to the control diet.

[0045] Referring to Table 6, steers fed dDGS had significantly higher (P<0.05) initial ADG at day 28 and day 56, when compared to steers fed the control diet. The dDGS diet contained more neutral detergent fiber than the control diet and digesta retention time and water holding may therefore be increased. Diet 2 and Diet 3 had a marginally higher DMI, relative to the control diet. However, as shown in Table 6, the slightly higher DMI did not correspond to significant differences in ADG for the study.

[0046] With continued reference to Table 6, after day 112, the ADG was very similar for each of the diets at each of the testing intervals. Also, the F/G ratio of the de-oiled diets was comparable to the SBM/urea control diet — ranging from approximately 6.67-6.83 pounds on day 112 and from approximately 5.91-6.13 pounds on day 132.

Table 6

a^b Means without common superscripts differ (P<0.05)

[0047] Tables 7 and 8 show the cumulative data collected during the study and the carcass traits of the harvested steers. As shown in Table 6, the slightly higher DMI for the dDGS substituted diets did not correspond to significant differences in diet ADG for the length of the study. The cumulative DMI was less than 3% greater for dDGS in contrast to the SBM/urea control diet. As shown in the bottom half of Table 7, the carcass adjusted final body weight, as derived from the hot carcass weight (HCW), were very similar among the test diets. The final F/G ratio, carcass adjusted, was 5.83 lbs in the SBM/urea control diet. The F/G ratio in the dDGS diets was 5.81 lbs and 5.76 lbs. The comparable F/G ratios indicate that the dDGS substituted diets are just as effective as the control diet for inducing a steadily increasing body weight for the length of the study. Moreover, as shown in Table 5, the carcass traits of the dDGS diet were similar to the carcass traits of the control diet.

Table 7

¹ 3% pencil shrink applied.

² Derived from HCW lb/0.625.

Table 8

¹ Pen basis.

² Includes 3% shrink of final live weight.

4.00=Select°; 5.0=Small° Example 4:

[0048] Corn DDGS from a dry grind corn ethanol biorefinery were subjected to a hexane extraction process as described herein to achieve de-oiled corn dDGS (dDGS) having desired nutritional qualities. A selection of the nutritional properties of the dDGS is provided in Tables 9A - 9C.

Table 9A - Analyzed Nutrient Content of dDGS

Nutrient, % DM basis As-is basis

DM 100.00 87.69

Crude protein 35.58 31.20

Crude fat 4.56 4.00

ADF 18.36 16.1

NDF 39.46 34.60

Ca 0.06 0.05

P 0.87 0.76

Ash 5.29 4.64

Amino acids, %

Arginine 1.50 1.31

Histidine 0.93 0.82 lsoleucine 1.38 1.21

Leucine 4.15 3.64

Lysine 0.99 0.87

Methionine 0.67 0.58

Phenylalanine 1.92 1.69

Threonine 1.26 1.10

Tryptophan 0.22 0.19

Valine 1.75 1.54

Alanine 2.43 2.13

Aspartic acid 2.10 1.84

Cysteine 0.62 0.54

Glutamic acid 4.85 4.26

Glycine 1.35 1.18

Proline 2.41 2.1 1

Serine 1.48 1.30

Tyrosine 1.29 1.13 Table 9B - Standardized ("SID") and Apparent ("AID") Ileal Digestibility of Amino Acids in dDGS

Amino acid SID, %^b AID, % o/ c

Indispensable amino acids

Arginine 82 70 79 65

Histidine 74 63 72 79 lsoleucine 74 52 72 46

Leucine 83 79 82 68

Lysine 50 38 47 20

Methionine 80 41 79 42

Phenylalanine 80 77 79 35

Threonine 66 31 64 09

Tryptophan 77 96 73 72

Valine 73 75 71 75

Dispensable amino acids

Alanine 74 04 77 22

Aspartic acid 62 79 61 31

Cysteine 57 90 64 14

Glutamic acid 76 62 77 45

Glycine 57 26 52 69

Proline 83 45 73 44

Serine 71 08 73 20

Tyrosine 77 77 80 60 aValues are means of 5 pigs (initially 150 Ib) used in a crossover design Standardized ileal digestibility cApparent ileal digestibility

Table 9C - Energy Analysis of dDGS

Energy, kcal/lb DM Basis As-is Basis

Gross energy 2,116 1,855

Digestible energy 1 ,406 1,233

Metabolizable energy^b 1 ,296 1 ,137

Net energy⁰ 927 813 aValues are means of 5 observations per treatment bThe ME value of corn distillers meal was calculated using the equation

ME = 1 * DE - 0 68 * CP (Noblet and Perez, 1993) °The NE value of com distillers meal was calculated by using the equation

NE = (0 87 * ME) - 442 (Noblet et al , 1994)

Example 5

[0049] In the following example, dDGS as described herein was used as a feed supplement for pigs to determine amino acid (AA) and energy digestibility Five growing barrows (initially 150 Ib) were allotted to one of two diets in a crossover design One diet contained dDGS (66 7%) as the sole protein source. The second diet was nitrogen-free to determine basal endogenous AA losses Ileal digesta and fecal samples were collected during each period and analyzed for amino acid and

SaltLake-436786 1 0063531-00105 24 energy contents. Based on these analyses, apparent ileal digestibility (AID), standardized ileal digestibility (SID), gross energy (GE), digestible energy (DE), metabolizable energy (ME), and net energy (NE) were calculated. [0050] This experiment was done concurrently in a digestibility study with 2 different feed ingredients utilizing the same animals. Five growing barrows (initially 65 Ib) were fitted with a T-cannula on their right flank approximately 15 cm anterior to the ileocecal valve, through which samples were taken for analysis. Pigs were then randomly allotted in a balanced crossover design with an initial starting weight of 150 Ib. Two diets were utilized for this experiment with one diet formulated to contain the dDGS while the second diet was formulated to be nitrogen-free to determine the basal AA endogenous losses (Table 10). Both diets contained 0.25% chromic oxide as an indigestible marker.

Table 10 Diet Composition (as-fed basis)

Ingredient, % dDGS N-Free

Corn starch 27.05 81.15 dDGS 66.70

Soybean oil 1.00 3.00

Monocalcium P (21% P) — 1.75

Limestone 1.25 0.40

Salt 0.35 0.45

Vitamin premix 0.25 0.25

Trace mineral premix 0.15 0.15

Potassium chloride — 0.50

Magnessium oxide — 0.10

Chromic oxide 0.25 0.25

Solka floe — 3.00

Sucrose 3.00 9.00

Total 100.0 100.00

Calculated analysis, %

Total lysine 0.58 0.00

CP 20.80 0.00

Ca 0.51 0.38

P 0.51 0.30

Available P 0.39 0.30 [0051] Each feeding period consisted of 7 d with the first 4 d as adaptation period to the diet. On d 5 and 6, feces were collected in the morning and ileal digesta was collected on d 6 and 7 throughout a 10 h period (between 0600 and 1800 each day). Pigs were weighed at the beginning of each period to determine the amount of feed to be given each day. Feed was given at a daily level of 3 times the estimated maintenance requirement for energy. Feeding was done twice a day at 0600 and 1800 with the allocated daily amount divided into two equal meals. At the end of each period, all the pigs were taken off feed overnight before the next experimental diet was fed the following morning. The pigs were given free access to water through a nipple waterer throughout the duration of the experiment. Chromic oxide served as the indigestible marker for calculation of AA and energy digestibility values. dDGS, diets, and digesta samples were also analyzed for dry matter (DM) and crude protein (CP).

[0052] The AID for AA in the dDGS diet was calculated as: AID = [1 - (AAd/AAf) * (Crf/Crd)] x 100%, where AID is the apparent ileal digestibility of an AA (%), AAd is the concentration of that AA in the ileal digesta (g/kg of DM), AAf is the concentration of that AA in the diets (g/kg of DM), Crf is the chromium concentration in the diet (g/kg of DM), and Crd is the chromium concentration in the ileal digesta (g/kg of DM). [0053] The basal endogenous loss of each amino acid at the ileum was determined based on the digesta samples obtained after feeding the N-free diet using the equation: IAAend = [AAd x (Crf/Crd)], where IAAend is the basal ileal endogenous loss of an AA (g/kg of DMI).

[0054] SID value for each AA was calculated using the equation: SID = [AID + (lAAend/AAf)], where SID is the standardized ileal digestibility of an AA (%). [0055] Digestible Energy value (DE) of dDGS diet was calculated using the same equation for AID to determine the apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of energy. This value was then multiplied by the analyzed concentration of GE in the diets to get the DE of the diet. DE of the dDGS was calculated by subtracting 33% of the N- free DE from the DE of the dDGS. Metabolizable Energy (ME) and Net Energy (NE) were calculated using the following equations: ME = 1 ^* DE - 0.68 * CP; NE = (0.87 * ME) - 442.

[0056] Example 5 Results: CP content of dDGS, which was 31.2% (Al) was higher than CP content of typical distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS). As expected, the fat level of dDGS was lower than of typical DDGS. Also, ADF, NDG and most AA levels were higher in dDGS than DDGS. Table 11 reports the analyzed nutrient composition of dDGS on a DM and as-is (Al) basis.

Table 11 Analyzed Nutrient Composition of dDGS

Nutrient, % DM basis As-is basis

DM 100.00 87.69

Crude protein 35.58 31.20

Crude fat 4.56 4.00

ADF 18.36 16.1

NDF 39.46 34.60

Ca 0.06 0.05

P 0.87 0.76

Ash 5.29 4.64

Amino acids, %

Arginine 1.50 1.31

Histidine 0.93 0.82 lsoleucine 1.38 1.21

Leucine 4.15 3.64

Lysine 0.99 0.87

Methionine 0.67 0.58

Phenylalanine 1.92 1.69

Threonine 1.26 1.10

Tryptophan 0.22 0.19

Valine 1.75 1.54

Alanine 2.43 2.13

Aspartic acid 2.10 1.84

Cysteine 0.62 0.54

Glutamic acid 4.85 4.26

Glycine 1.35 1.18

Proline 2.41 2.11

Serine 1.48 1.30

Tyrosine 1.29 1.13

[0057] Table 12 reports standardized and apparent ileal digestibility of amino acids in dDGS. Other than lysine, most other AA AID values for the dDGS were higher than published DDGS values. The lysine SID value was lower than most published values; however, it has been proposed that a lysine to CP ratio of greater than 2.8 indicates a DDGS co product with higher amino acid digestibility. The ratio for the instant dDGS was 2.8, which suggests that the herein described dDGS exhibit a relatively higher amino acid digestibility. Table 12

Standardized and Apparent Ileal Digestibility of Amino Acids in dDGS.

Arginine 82.70 79.65

Histidine 74.63 72.79 lsoleucine 74.52 72.46

Leucine 83.79 82.68

Lysine 50.38 47.20

Methionine 80.41 79.42

Phenylalanine 80.77 79.35

Threonine 66.31 64.09

Tryptophan 77.96 73.72

Valine 73.75 71.75

Dispensable amino acids

Alanine 74.04 77.22

Aspartic acid 62.79 61.31

Cysteine 57.90 64.14

Glutamic acid 76.62 77.45

Glycine 57.26 52.69

Proline 83.45 73.44

Serine 71.08 73.20

Tyrosine 77.77 80.60 a

Values are means of 5 pigs (initially 150 Ib) used in a crossover design. b

Standardized ileal digestibility.

C

Apparent ileal digestibility.

[0058] Table 13 reports the energy analysis of dDGS. Because the dDGS were prepare from oil extracted DDGS, as compared to reported values for DDGS, the dDGS exhibited relatively lower DE, ME, and NE values.

Table 13 Energy Analysis of dDGS

Energy, kcal/lb DM Basis As-is Basis

Gross energy 2,116 1 ,855 Digestible energy 1 ,406 1 ,233 b

Metabolizable energy 1 ,296 1 ,137

C

Net energy 927 813 a

Values are means of 5 observations per treatment. b

The ME value of dDGS was calculated using the equation: ME = 1 ^* DE - 0.68 ^* CP (Noblet and Perez, 1993).

C

The NE value of dDGS was calculated by using the equation: NE = (0.87 ^* ME) 442 (Noblet et al., 1994).

[0059] The AA and energy digestibility values for dDGS provided herein, as well as the methods for evaluating such values, can be used in formulating animal diets having desired nutritional characteristics. The dDGS exhibited relatively increased CP and AA levels when compared with traditional DDGS. Though the dDGS exhibited lower DE, ME, and NE values, lower energy and slightly lower lysine digestibility compared to traditional DDGS, in aggregate, the instant data and findings provided herein indicate the suitability of dDGS as a feed or feed supplement. Example 6:

[0060] In the following example, dDGS as described in Example 5 herein was used as a feed supplement for growing and finishing pigs. A total of 1 ,215 pigs were used in a 99-day (d) growth study. Pigs were blocked based on pen weights and randomly allotted to 1 of 5 dietary treatments in meal form. Diets contained 0, 5, 10, 20, or 30% dDGS. There were initially 27 pigs in each pen. Diets were formulated to contain a similar metabolizable energy (ME) and standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine content (calculated from data provided in Example 5). Choice white grease was added as an energy source to the dDGS diets to equalize dietary ME levels between the 5 treatments. Dietary treatments were fed in 4 phases with Phase 1 fed from approximately 65 to 120 Ib body weight (BW); Phase 2 from 120 to 170 Ib BW; Phase 3 from 170 to 220 Ib BW; and Phase 4 from 220 to 265 Ib BW. [0061] Pen weights were obtained on d 0; every 14 d until d 70; and on d 78, 93, and 99 to determine average daily gain (ADG). Two middle-weight pigs from each pen were pulled and slaughtered on d 93 to collect jowl, belly, and backfat samples. Feed intake (Fl) and feed to gain ratio (F/G) were determined based on the feed delivery data generated through an automated feeding system and based on the amount of feed remaining in each pen's feeder on each weigh date. [0062] Standard carcass criteria of loin and backfat (BF) depth, hot carcass weight, lean percentage, and yield were collected. Fat-free lean index (FFLI) was determined using the equation 50.767 + (0.035 * hot carcass weight) - (8.979 x BF). Statistical analysis was performed by Analysis of Variance using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC). Data was analyzed as randomized complete block design with pen as the experimental unit and initial average pig weight as the block. Carcass weight was used as a covariate for BF, loin depth, percent lean, and FFLI. Linear and polynomial contrasts were used to determine the effects of increasing dDGS. Contrast coefficients were determined for unequally spaced treatments using the IML procedure of SAS.

Table 14

Phase 1 and 2 Diet Composition (as-fed basis)¹ dDGS, %

Diet Phase 1 Phase 2

Item 0 5 10 20 30 0 5 10 20 30

Ingredient, %

Corn 73 11 68 36 63 61 54 13 44 50 78 78 74 06 69 28 59 81 50 09

Soybean meal

(46 5% CP) 24 79 23 62 22 44 20 09 17 75 19 22 18 04 16 87 14 52 12 18 dDGS — 5 00 10 00 20 00 30 00 — 5 00 10 00 20 00 30 00

Choice white grease — 0 95 1 93 3 80 5 75 — 0 95 1 93 3 80 5 80

Monocalcium phosphate (21% P) 0 60 0 48 0 35 0 13 — 0 50 0 35 0 25 — —

Limestone 0 85 0 93 0 98 1 10 1 20 0 85 0 93 0 98 1 13 1 13

Salt 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35

Vitamin premix with phytase² 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08

Trace mineral premix 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08 0 08

L— lysine HCI 0 15 0 18 0 20 0 25 0 30 0 15 0 18 0 20 0 25 0 30

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Calculated Analysis

Standardized ileal digestible ammo acids

Lysine, % 0 94 0 94 0 94 0 94 0 94 0 80 0 80 0 80 0 80 0 80

Methionine lysine ratio, % 28 29 30 32 34 30 31 32 34 36

Met & cys lysine ratio, % 58 59 60 62 64 61 62 64 66 68

Threonine lysine ratio, % 61 62 62 64 65 62 63 64 65 67

Tryptophan lysine ratio, % 19 19 19 19 18 19 19 19 18 18

Total lysine, % 1 06 1 07 1 09 1 12 1 15 0 90 0 92 0 93 0 96 0 99

CP, % 17 89 18 52 19 15 20 42 21 68 15 78 16 41 17 04 18 31 19 57

SID Lysine calorie ratio g/Mcal ME 2 81 2 81 2 81 2 81 2 81 2 39 2 39 2 39 2 39 2 39

ME, kcal/lb 1 ,517 1 ,517 1 ,517 1 ,517 1 ,517 1 ,520 1 ,520 1 ,520 1 ,520 1 ,520

Ca, % 0 54 0 54 0 54 0 54 0 54 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 P, % 0 50 0 49 0 48 0 47 0 48 0 46 0 44 0 44 O 42 O 45

Available P, % 0 27 0 27 0 27 0 27 0 30 0 24 0 24 0 24 O 24 O 29

¹ Phase 1 fed from approximately 65 to 120 Ib and Phase 2 fed from 120 to 170 Ib

²Provided 450 FTU/kg phytase with an expected phytate P release of 0.08% in Phases 1 and 2.

Table 15 Phase 3 and 4 Diet Composition (as-fed basis)¹ dDGS, %

Diet Phase 3 Phase 4

Item 0 5 10 20 30 0 5 10 20 30

Ingredient, %

Corn 83 21 78 47 73 71 64 21 54 49 73 03 68 26 63 53 53 93 44 07

Soybean meal

(46 5% CP) 14 84 13 66 12 49 10 14 7 81 25 17 23 99 22 82 20 47 18 15 dDGS 5 00 10 00 20 00 30 00 — 5 00 10 00 20 00 30 00

Choice white grease — 0 95 1 9 3 8 5 8 — 0 98 1 90 3 85 5 90

Monocalcium phosphate (21% P) 0 45 0 34 0 23 — — 0 35 0 23 0 1 — —

Limestone 0 88 0 93 1 00 1 13 1 13 0 8 0 88 0 95 1 00 1 08

Salt 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 35

Vitamin premix with phytase² 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06

Trace mineral premix 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06 0 06

L-lysine HCI 0 15 0 18 0 20 0 25 0 30 0 15 0 18 0 20 0 25 0 30

Paylean (9 g/lb) — — — — — 0 025 0 025 0 025 0 025 0 025

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Calculated Analysis

Standardized ileal digestible ammo acids

Lysine, % 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95 0 95

Methionine lysine ratio, % 32 33 34 37 39 28 29 30 32 33

Met & cys lysine ratio, % 65 66 68 70 73 58 58 59 61 63

Threonine lysine ratio, % 63 64 65 67 69 61 62 62 64 65

Tryptophan lysine ratio, % 19 18 18 18 17 19 19 19 19 18

Total lysine, % 0 78 0 8 0 81 0 84 0 87 1 07 1 08 1 10 1 13 1 16

CP, % 14 12 14 75 15 38 16 65 17 91 18 05 18 69 19 32 20 58 21 83

SID Lysine calorie ratio g/Mcal ME 2 06 2 06 2 06 2 06 2 06 2 83 2 83 2 83 2 83 2 83

ME, kcal/lb 1 ,521 1 ,521 1 ,521 1 ,521 1 ,521 1 ,522 1 ,522 1 ,522 1 ,522 1 ,522

Ca, % 0 49 0 49 0 49 0 49 0 49 0 48 0 48 0 48 0 48 0 50

P, % 0 43 0 42 0 42 0 4 0 43 0 45 0 44 0 43 0 44 0 48 Available P, % 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.28 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.29

¹Phase 3 fed from 170 to 220 Ib and Phase 4 fed from 220 to 265 Ib.

²Provided 375 FTU/kg phytase with an expected phytate P release of 0.07% in Phases 3 and 4.

[0063] Example 6 Results: Table 16 reports the effects of increasing dDGS on growth performance and carcass characteristics for the pigs of the instant example. Overall, ADG and ADFI decreased (linear; P < 0.01) from d 0 to d 99 with increasing levels of dDGS. These effects were due to a modest reduction at low levels of dDGS inclusion with a further reduction when fed at 30% of the diet. However, F/G was not affected (P > 0.12) by increasing the level of dDGS in the diet. [0064] Carcass weight and percent yield decreased (linear; P < 0.01) as levels of dDGS in the diet increased. There was a tendency for loin depth to decrease (linear; P < 0.09) as dDGS diet inclusions increased. There was no difference in backfat (P > 0.25), percent lean (P > 0.16) and FFLI (P > 0.19). The reduction in carcass weight can be attributed to the decreased ADG and yield as pigs were fed increasing dDGS levels.

[0065] Results from this trial appear to be similar to previous research evaluating traditional DDGS where feed intake was reduced at levels above 20% of the diet. The addition of dDGS to growing and finishing diets appears to negatively affected palatability, but reasons for the decrease in feed intake are not clear. However, these data validate the accuracy of the previously determined ME (1 ,137 kcal/lb) and SID AA values for dDGS due to no changes in feed efficiency when fed at increasing levels in the diet.

Table 16 Effects of Increasing dDGS on Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics⁸

dDGS, % Probability, P <

Item 0 10 20 30 Linear Quadratic SE d 0 to 99

Weight (d 0), Ib 65.2 65.2 65.2 65.3 65.3 0.94 0.99 1.0

Weight (d 99), Ib 267.6 262.9 262.0 260.5 256.3 0.001 0.68 2.1

ADG₅ Ib 2.00 1.97 1.96 1.96 1.93 0.01 0.61 0.02

ADFI, Ib 4.76 4.78 4.64 4.65 4.49 0.003 0.72 0.07

F/G 2.38 2.43 2.37 2.38 2.33 0.12 0.44 0.03

Slaughter wt, Ib 265.8 261.9 262.1 259.2 255.7 0.001 0.89 2.1

Carcass wt, Ib 200.9 196.2 196.5 193.4 190.2 0.0001 0.66 1.8

Yield, % 75.5 75.0 75.0 74.7 74.3 0.01 0.73 0.3

Backfat, in^b 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.67 0.26 0.25 0.01

Loin depth, mm^b 2.50 2.45 2.46 2.48 2.39 0.09 0.55 0.03

Lean, %^b 56.5 55.9 56.3 56.4 55.8 0.16 0.28 0.2

FFLI, %^bc 50.4 50.4 50.4 50.5 50.2 0.20 0.19 0.1

aA total of 1 ,215 pigs, initially 65.2 Ib, with 27 pigs per pen were used in this study with 9 replications per treatment. bData analyzed using carcass weight as a covariate. cFat-free lean index.

Example 7:

[0066] In the following example, dDGS as described herein was used in varying percentages as a feed supplement for nursery pigs. A total of 210 pigs (initial BW 9.9 kg) were used in a 28-day study to evaluate the effect of dDGS on nursery pig performance. From weaning to just prior to start of the trial, all pigs were placed on a common diet until they reached an average of 10 kg BW. Pigs were then blocked based on pen weights and each pen was randomly assigned to 1 of 5 dietary treatments. The treatments provided 0, 5, 10, 20, and 30% dDGS formulated to contain equivalent dietary ME and standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine based on the data reproduced in Example 5. Pen weights were obtained on d 0, 14, and 28 feed intake recorded on a pen basis.

[0067] Example 7 Results: Table 17 reports the effects on nursery pig growth performance of feeding diets comprising varying percentages of dDGS. Average growth rate (ADG) (P > 0.52), average daily feed intake (ADFI) (P > 0.95), and feed efficiency (Feed/Growth) (P > 0.55) were similar between treatments regardless of the level of dDGS in the diet. Results from this experiment suggest that dDGS can be included in nursery pig diets of up to inclusion levels of 30% without affecting growth performance.

Table 17

Effect of dDGS on Nursery Pig Growth Performance

dDGS, %

Item 0 5 10 20 30 SE

Final wt, kg 22.7 22.8 22.2 22.4 22.3 0.6 ADG, g 455 459 452 445 442 19.7 ADFI, g 749 771 760 751 761 8.9 G:F 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.03

Example 8:

[0068] In the following example, diets comprising varying percentages of dDGS, as described herein, were fed to lactating cows. It was found that feeding up to 30% of dDGS to mid lactation Holsteins did not adversely affected milk production and DMI. It resulted in higher feed efficiency, milk fat percentage and yield and lower MUN. However, there was a quadratic response for DMI, milk protein percentage, and protein yield such that cows fed the 30% dDGS diet had the lowest values. Inclusion of dDGS resulted in a linear increase in arterial concentrations of His, Leu, Met, Phe, GIy, Pro, Ser, and Tyr and a linear decrease in Lys and Arg. The linear increase in milk yield up to 20% of dDGS may be explained by the overall improvement in AA profile, whereas the decrease in milk yield and protein yield observed at 30% of dDGS confirms a Lys deficiency at this level of inclusion. [0069] The lactation performance and amino acid utilization of the cows was determined for each of the diets. Forty-two Holstein cows [23 muciparous (BW: 1658 ± 115 kg; DIM: 181 ± 46) and 19 primiparous (BW: 1485 ± 119 kg; DIM: 193 ± 48)] were fed diets containing either soybean products or increasing concentrations of dDGS as the main protein source. Inclusion of dDGS proportionally replaced soybean products while the inclusion rates of forages and corn were maintained constant across diets. Dietary treatments were: 1) 0% dDGS; 2) 10% dDGS; 3) 20% dDGS; and 4) 30% dDGS. Cows were blocked by parity and days in milk and randomly assigned one of the four treatments in a randomized complete block design. The dDGS fed throughout study was from a single batch supplied by VeraSun, Brookings, SD. Total mixed rations were formulated to be isoenergetic (1.57 Mcal/kg NEL), isonitrogenous (18% CP), and isofibrous 37% (NDF) according to NRC 2001. Cows were fed for ad libitum intake a common diet for two-wk, followed by the experimental diets for 6 weeks (Table 18). Cows were fed once daily at 0800 h. Diet composition was adjusted weekly to account for forage DM variation. [0070] Data collected during the 2-wk prior the experimental period were used as covariables in data analysis. Individual forages, concentrate mixtures, and TMR samples were collected weekly at the time of feeding, dried at 55°C for 48 h and composited by a three-wk period. Individual ingredients of the concentrate mixtures were sampled during the preparation of the concentrate mixtures. All feed samples were ground to pass through a 2-mm screen of a Wiley mill (model 3; Arthur H. Thomas Co., Philadelphia, PA), then reground through a 1-mm screen of an ultracentrifuge mill (Brinkman Instruments Co., Westbury, NY) and analyzed for DM (105 ⁰C for 24 h), NDF with sodium sulfite and α-amylase (Van Soest et al., 1991), ADF (Robertson and Van Soest, 1981) sequentially using an ANKOM fiber analyzer (ANKOM Technology Corp., Fairport, NY).

[0071] Crude protein, ether extract, ash, Ca, P, K, Mg, and S were analyzed according to AOAC procedures (AOAC, 2000). Samples of corn silage, alfalfa, dDGS, and concentrate mixtures were composited to yield a single sample and analyzed for AA composition. Dietary chemical composition was calculated based on analysis of individual forages, and concentrate mixtures and the dietary proportions of each ingredient in the ration. Samples of TMR were also analyzed to validate the calculated chemical composition (Table 19). Particle size distributions were evaluated for all TMR using the PSPS (Heinrichs, 1996). The contents of each fraction were weighted and analyzed for DM and NDF as described earlier. Physically effective NDF (peNDF) was calculated using as the proportion of DM retained by 2 sieves (19 and 8-mm screens) or by 3 sieves (19, 8, and 1.18 mm screens) multiplied by dietary NDF content (Lammers et al., 1996). [0072] Cows were milked three times daily at 0600, 1400, and 2100 h and total yields were recorded. Milk samples were collected for each milking, during 3 consecutive days, during the final week of the covariate period and one day per week during the 6-wk experimental period. Samples were pooled based on yield and analyzed by Heart of America DHIA Laboratory (Manhattan, KS) according to approved procedures of AOAC (1997). Milk true protein, fat, and lactose were determined by near infrared spectroscopy (Bentley 2000 Infrared Milk Analyzer, Bentley Instruments, Chaska, MN). Concentration of MUN was determined using chemical methodology based on a modified Berthelot reaction (ChemSpec 150 Analyzer, Bentley Instruments) and somatic cells were counted using a flow cytometer laser (Somacount 500, Bentley Instruments).

[0073] Cows were weighed and scored for body condition (1 = emaciated to 5 = obese) at the initiation and the end of the study (Wildman et al., 1982) approximately 3 h post feeding on three consecutive days. To measure AV differences of AA across the mammary gland, blood samples were collected during three consecutive days in the final week of the experiment at approximately 3h post feeding. Blood samples were collected by venipuncture from the coccygeal artery (arterial sample) and the caudal superficial epigastric vein (mammary veinous sample) into heparin vacutainer tubes (Becton Dickinson and Co., Franklin Lakes, NJ). Plasma was obtained by centrifuging at 2000 * g for 20 min, and stored at -20⁰C until assayed for AA via HPLC. Samples from the three days were composited to give one pair of arterial and venous samples for each cow.

[0074] Mammary plasma flow was estimated according to the Fick principle, using Phe and Tyr as internal markers (Mepham, 1982), with allowance for a 3.5% contribution from blood-born proteins according to Cant et al. (1993) with the exception that the free milk Phe and Tyr values were neglected. [0075] Mammary plasma flow = [(milk Phe + Tyr) x 0.965/ (arterial-venous difference of (Phe + Tyr)) Estimates of Phe and Tyr concentrations in milk of 4.9 and 5.1 g/100 g of milk protein respectively were used (Swaisgood, 1995). Extraction efficiency and mammary uptake of AA were calculated as follow: Extraction efficiency= AV difference / arterial concentration ^*100 Mammary uptake - AV difference * mammary plasma flow. [0076] Amino acids were grouped according to their essentiality for milk protein synthesis in lactating cow (Clark et al., 1978). Essential amino acids (EAA) included Arg, His, lie, Leu, Lys, Met, Phe, Thr, Trp, and VaI; nonessential amino acids (NEAA) were Ala, Asn, Asp, Cys, GIn, GIu, GIy, Pro, Ser, and Tyr; and branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) were lie, Leu, and VaI.

[0077] Weekly means of DMI, milk yield and composition (SCC data were log transformed) and plasma AA concentrations, BW and BCS during week 6 of the experimental period were used for statistical analysis. Analysis of variance was conducted using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, 2001). Pretreatment values for all measurements except plasma AA compositions were used as covariables during the analysis. The covariance structure corresponding to the lowest value (closest to zero) given by the Akaike's information criterion was retained. Week was used in the repeated measure statement with cow (treatment parity) as the random effect. Orthogonal contrasts were used to test the linear, quadratic, and cubic effects of dDGS inclusion. Data are reported as least squares means with the highest standard error for each variable. Statistical significance of main effects was declared at P ≤ 0.05, and tendencies were discussed at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10. The statistical model used cow as the experimental unit. The model was: YiJk= μ + ai + βj + ak +bl+ αi^*βj+ αi^*lj + βj ^*bl + α^* βj* bl + eijk where; Y/y/c = observed response, μ=overall mean, αi = effect of treatment, βj = effect of parity; ak = random effect of cow, bl = effect of week, αi*βj = interaction between treatment and week, αi^*βj = interaction between treatment and parity, βj *bl = interaction between parity and week, αi ^* βj^* bl = interaction between treatment, parity, and week, and eijkl =residual error. Insignificant interactions were removed from the model. [0078] Example 8 Results: Tables 18, 19, and 20 present data relevant to the chemical and nutrient composition and content of dietary treatments and concentrate mixtures used in the instant example. The amounts of various ingredients of the treatment diets are presented in Table 18. The chemical composition of individual ingredients is presented in Table 19. The nutrient concentrations reported in Table 19 are higher than usually reported values for CP (30.2%), NDF (42.1%) and lower for ADF (16.2%) and EE (10.9%) (Spiehs et al. 2002). Chemical composition of dietary treatments is presented in Table 20. Table 18 Composition and Nutrient Content of Dietary Treatments (DM% Basis)

Control 10% dDGS 20% dDGS 30% dDGS

Corn silage 38 38 38 38

Alfalfa hay 12 12 12 12

Ground corn 17.6 17.3 16.8 16.3 dDGS 0 10 20 30

Soybean meal, 44% 8.1 5.3 2.7 0

Expeller soybean meal 9.3 6.2 3.1 0

Soybean hulls 12 8 4 0

Limestone 1.21 1.39 1.54 1.71

Dicalcium phosphate 0.29 0.18 0.09 0

Salt 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

Magnesium oxide 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Vitamin Premix 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

¹SoyPlus (West Central Soy, Ralston, IA).

Table 19

Chemical Composition of Concentrate Mixtures (DM% Basis)

Control 10% dDGS 20% dDGS 30% dDGS Corn Silage Alfalfa hay dDGS

DM, % 89.3 89.1 89 88.4 23.9 88.1 86

CP 23.9 24 23.9 23.8 8.1 22 34.5

NDF 27.5 30.2 28.7 29.9 59.4 36.4 45

ADF 12.6 11.9 9.7 8.4 31.1 23.3 12.9

Ash 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.4 5.5 12.3 5.2

Ca 1.78 1.74 2.2 1.84 0.35 1.85 0.16

P 0.49 0.49 0.56 0.53 0.23 0.32 0.85

Mg 0.46 0.57 0.54 0.59 0.26 0.42 0.37

K 1.22 1.04 0.89 0.69 1.11 2.04 1.02

S 0.22 0.27 0.44 0.47 0.11 0.23 0.82

Table 20 Chemical composition of Dietary Treatments (DM% Basis)

10% 20% 30%

Control dDGS dDGS dDGS

DM, % 46.0 46.0 45.5 45.5

CP 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.6

RDP² 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

RUP² 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1

NDF 40.7 42.0 41.3 41.9

ADF 20.9 20.6 19.5 18.8

NDF from forage 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9

Ash 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.3

Ca 1.24 1.22 1.45 1.27

P 0.37 0.37 0.40 0.39

K 1.28 1.19 1.11 1.01

Mg 0.38 0.43 0.42 0.44

S 0.18 0.20 0.29 0.30

NE_L Mcal/kg⁶ 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.56

Calculated at 50:38:12 of concentrate mix, corn silage and alfalfa hay respectively Estimated from NRC (2001)

[0079] Table 21 reports particle size distribution of dietary treatments employed in the instant example. As expected, the proportion of particles retained on the 8 and 9-mm sieves was similar to all diet. However, the proportion of material retained by the 1.18-mm decreased with increasing dDGS inclusion in the diets and averaged 39.3, 36.1 , 33.1 , and 30.0%. As result, peNDFps-2 and pef-2s were similar across all diets and were less sensitive to dietary treatments because all treatment included similar proportions of forages; however as dDGS replaced soybean products, less particle were retained by the 1.18 mm sieve and as consequence, the peNDFps-3 and pef-3s decreased with increasing dDGS levels in the diets. Overall, those proportions, based either on 2 or 3 sieves, follow the recommendations for particle size based on total mixed rations consisting of very low to no inclusion of byproducts: 2-8% of the ration on the upper sieve (>19 mm), 30-50% in the middle sieve (8-19 mm), 50% in the lower sieve (1.18-8 mm) and less than 20% on the bottom sieve (<1.18 mm) (Heinrichs and Kononoff, 2002). Table 21 Particle Distribution Using PSPS and Effective Fiber of Dietary Treatments

10% 20% 30%

Control dDGS dDGS dDGS

PSPS distribution (% retained, as fed-basis)

19 mm 10 2 10 2 10 0 9 2

8 mm 37 4 37 8 38 6 38 7

1 18 mm 39 3 36 1 33 1 30 0

Pan 13 1 16 0 18 3 22 1

(% retained, DM basis)

19 m 4 8 4 8 4 6 4 3

8 mm 16 9 17 1 17 2 17 2

1 18 mm 18 3 16 7 15 1 13 7

Pan 6 1 7 4 8 4 10.2 pefps-2s¹ 47 6 48 0 48 6 47 8 pefps-3s² 86 9 84 0 81 7 77 7 peNDFps-2, % of DM³ 19 9 20 1 20 7 20 1 peNDFps-3, % of DM⁴ 36 5 35 3 35 0 32 7

Physical effectiveness factor (pef2s) = Proportion of particles retained by 2 sieves

(19 and 8 mm)

²Physιcal effectiveness factor (pef3s) = Proportion of particles by 3 sieves (19, 8, and 1 18 mm) 3peNDF = Physically effective NDF = Ration NDF x amount of DM > 8 mm 4peNDF = Physically effective NDF = Ration NDF x amount of DM > 1 18 mm

[0080] Table 22 presents dry matter intake and milk production. Dry matter intake was not affected by including dDGS as a replacement of soybean products as the primary source of protein. However, increasing dDGS in diets tended (P = 0.09) to affect DMI in a quadratic manner, such that cows fed the 20% dDGS had the highest DMI (24.4 kg/d) and those fed the 30% dDGS diet had the lowest DMI (22.1 kg/d). Intake of CP was similar to all diets and averaged 4.1 kg/d. [0081] Milk yield was similar (P > 0.10) and averaged 34.9 kg/d during the entire experimental period Yields of 4% FCM and ECM tended to linearly increase (P < 0 01) when dDGS increased. In this experiment, the RUP remained constant for all diets. Milk fat percentage and fat yield tended (P < 0.09) to increase linearly with increasing levels of dDGS in the diet. In fact, inclusion of dDGS at 30% of diet DM increased fat yield by 200 g/d compared with the control diet. This trend indicates that rumen fermentation was similar or improved with increasing levels of dDGS. In most cases, inclusion of traditional DDGS resulted in similar milk fat percentage when compared with SBM based diets with few reports indicating an increase in milk fat percentage (Clark and Armentano, 1993; Kleinschmit et al., 2006) and others indicating a decrease in milk fat percentage (Leonardi et al., 2005). [0082] There was a quadratic response (P < 0.01) in milk protein percentage such that cows fed the 10 and 20% dDGS had the highest milk protein percentage (3.08 and 3.11%, respectively). Similar to milk percentage, protein yield responded in a quadratic manner (P = 0.01) such that cows fed 20% dDGS had the highest protein yield, while cows fed the 0 and 30% dDGS produced the lowest protein yield. [0083] Lactose content (4.96%) and yield (1.74 kg/d) was not affected by including dDGS in the diet. There was a linear increase (P = 0.05) for total solids when cows consumed increased amounts of dDGS. Although dietary CP was similar to all diets, MUN decreased linearly (P <0.01) as dDGS increased in the diets. Nitrogen efficiency expressed as milk N output (kg/d) per N intake (kg/d) was not affected by feeding increased levels of dDGS. Efficiency of milk production expressed either as FCM/DMI or ECM/DMI (P < 0.05) increased linearly with increasing dDGS concentration in the diet. Body weight and BCS averaged 712 ± 6.4 kg and 3.5 ± 0.10 respectively.

Table 22

Effect of Level of dDGS on Dry Matter Intake, MMk Yield, Milk Composition, and Feed Efficiency

Treatment P-value

10% 20% 30%

Control dDGS dDGS dDGS SEM Linear Quadratic Cubic

Intake (kg/d)

DM 2261 231 244 221 086 092 009 021

CP 408 416 445 406 017 076 016 020

Production (kg/d)

Milk 342 351 356 348 063 041 021 069

ECM' 326 347 358 357 140 010 039 097

FCM^? 300 319 330 336 142 008 055 095

Fat yield 109 120 124 129 008 008 071 084

Protein yield 102 108 110 103 002 055 001 067

Lactose yield 170 174 175 175 004 087 062 038

Total solids 121 124 124 126 016 005 079 047

Milk composition, %

Fat 321 339 343 364 017 009 093 068

Protein 298 308 311 297 004 095 0005 064

Lactose 497 498 487 503 008 086 026 027

Total solids 1210 1239 1239 1259 016 005 079 047

MUN, mg/dl 1551 1486 1370 1311 048 <001 095 058

Efficiency

Feed Efficiency³ 147 153 149 162 005 005 043 015

Feed Efficiency⁴ 135 141 137 151 004 004 037 018

Nitrogen efficiency⁵ 0253 0268 0255 0261 0008 077 052 014

Somatic cells score⁶ 445 404 444 427 023 093 071 032

BW 7073 7074 7209 7123 78 040 055 027

BCS⁷ 357 357 335 353 007 068 001 097

BW change, kg/d -013 -020 020 -003 019 040 066 018

BCS change, per d 016 -005 -007 016 009 012 056 090

¹ECM = 0327x milk yield (kg) + 1295 fat yield (kg) = 72 x protein yield (kg)

²FCM = 04 x milk yield (kg) + 15 x fat yield (kg)

³Feed efficiency (ECMOMI)

"Feed efficiency (FCM/DMI)

⁵Nιtrogen efficiency [milk N (kg/d)/N intake (kg/d)]

⁸SCS= log (SCC)

'Body condition score 1 = emaciated to 5 = obese (Wildman et al , 1982)

[0084] Table 23 presents arterial concentrations of individual AA, EEA, NEAA, BCAA, TAA, and urea. Arterial His, Leu, Met, Phe, GIy, Pro, Ser, Tyr linearly increased (P < 0.01) as dDGS replaced soybean products in the diet, whereas arterial Lys, Arg, lie, and urea linearly decreased. Nonessential amino acids and TAA increased linearly. It is well known that Lys is deficient where corn feedstuffs are the predominant ingredients in the diet. Arterial Lys concentration was decreased when DDGS replaced SBM (Nichols et al., 1998; Kleinschmit et al., 2006). Table 23

Least squares means for Arterial Plasma Concentration of AA

Treatments P-value

10% 20% 30%

Control dDGS dDGS dDGS SEM Linear Quad Cubic

— μM/fc

Essential

Arg 700 692 666 576 77 005 033 082

His 514 501 551 591 24 001 025 049 lie 1183 1100 1038 918 68 O 01 078 078

Leu 1384 1681 1952 2031 110 <001 033 073

Lys 660 576 519 447 33 <001 085 078

Met 165 179 225 293 16 <001 010 088

Phe 405 436 492 526 30 007 030 028

Thr 667 645 644 654 51 087 075 097

Trp 206 248 225 218 18 089 019 030

VaI 2475 2454 2431 2327 133 048 077 090

Nonessential

Ala 2435 2400 2230 2745 126 020 004 014

Asn 350 326 364 378 31 038 051 051

Asp 90 86 88 77 07 029 059 056

GIn 2826 2573 2631 2864 123 075 005 079

GIu 372 41 1 394 412 43 058 080 061

GIy 2385 2069 2214 2486 150 <001 024 <001

Pro 591 639 816 958 61 <001 047 057

Ser 729 598 818 1115 78 <001 003 094

Tau 444 407 421 475 37 053 022 093

Tyr 451 532 640 790 44 <001 043 094

EAA 836 851 874 858 43 064 071 080

NEAA 1015 967 1013 1183 38 <001 001 086

BCAA 504 523 542 528 29 053 058 081

TAA 1851 1819 1887 2041 71 005 018 096

Urea 6363 6040 5809 4924 265 <001 027 050

[0085] Table 24 presents the least squares means values for arteriovenous differences of AA. The AV differences of plasma, Lys, Trp, and Ser were significantly decreased (P < 0.05) with increasing dDGS in the diets.

Table 24

Least squares means for Arteriovenous Differences of AA

Treatments P-value

10% 20% 30%

Control dDGS dDGS dDGS SEM Linear Quad Cubic

— μM/L-

Essential

Arg 250 329 290 in 80 081 025 040

His 131 123 110 116 16 042 063 071

He 408 402 408 350 41 036 051 065

Leu 583 644 659 671 70 040 074 090

Lys 426 371 365 324 29 002 080 050

Met 121 104 118 124 16 074 045 057

Phe 189 197 186 190 23 093 093 073

Thr 233 262 225 246 40 099 051 001

Trp 48 53 49 16 19 O 01 028 082

VaI 524 537 487 514 66 080 091 063

Nonessential

Ala 293 2790 77 130 78 005 065 019

Asn 224 3638 260 213 39 044 002 008

Asp 35 310 28 24 07 029 097 090

GIn 897 7190 652 654 11 1 066 072 095

GIu 201 2346 205 241 39 059 099 044

GIy 77 370 470 44 41 071 092 099

Pro 65 617 470 44 88 071 099 092

Ser 109 1857 134 83 96 <001 <001 058

Tau 19 12 -24 23 15 073 007 009

Tyr 183 207 168 140 25 012 046 042

EAA 292 302 290 280 29 072 072 084

NEAA 186 181 123 141 25 012 067 028

BCAA 152 158 156 153 18 097 080 089

TAA 478 484 412 420 51 031 098 049

[0086] Table 25 presents the least squares means values for extraction efficiency of AA Extraction efficiency of His, Leu, Met, Trp, and Tyr decreased linearly (P < 0.01) with increasing dDGS in the diets. Similarly Phe, Ala, and GIy tended to decrease linearly. The extraction efficiency of Lys increased linearly (P < 0.01) with as dDGS increased. The supply of His, Leu, Met, Trp, Tyr, Phe, Al, GIy in dDGS diets was probably exceeding the animal requirements of these AA reflecting in the low extraction efficiency of these AA. Higher extraction efficiency of Lys confirms a Lys deficiency in dDGS diets. Nonessential AA and TAA extraction efficiencies tended also to decrease in dDGS diets. [0087] Table 26 presents the least squares means values for mammary uptakes of AA per kilogram of milk. Mammary uptakes of AA per kilogram of milk were not affected by treatment except a tendency for a linear increase in uptakes of lie and GIu in dDGS diets.

Table 25

Least squares means for Extraction Efficiency of AA

Treatments P-value

10% 20% 30%

Control dDGS dDGS dDGS SEM Linear Quad Cubic

— %

Essential

Arg 358 473 403 475 12 015 061 008

His 253 245 191 197 24 004 076 030

Me 349 365 392 380 30 039 035 051

Leu 420 383 273 334 48 002 050 058

Lys 643 644 706 721 23 001 081 037

Met 716 575 508 427 56 <001 058 071

Phe 461 444 373 365 44 007 092 053

Thr 348 444 345 346 68 088 052 038

Trp 157 200 189 49 90 O 01 <001 085

VaI 209 221 196 220 24 094 079 041

Nonessential

Ala 114 121 37 49 30 006 095 019

Asn 224 364 316 213 49 071 001 053

Asp 367 341 291 31 1 76 052 075 078

GIn 31 1 28 235 229 35 007 071 072

GIu 480 567 481 563 58 050 095 016

GIy 22 05 -49 -01 42 059 015 041

Pro 26 244 619 48 72 086 083 066

Ser 128 244 1932 78 72 073 002 050

Tau 40 27 -58 37 37 057 013 011

Tyr 41 1 371 243 181 35 <001 076 033

EAA 345 356 325 328 25 046 086 049

NEAA 176 189 121 119 26 005 075 019

BCAA 299 303 282 292 27 071 092 073

TAA 388 422 351 319 36 009 035 036

Table 26

Least squares means for Mammary Uptake of AA

Treatments P-value

10% 20% 30%

Control dDGS dDGS dDGS SEM Linear Quad Cubic g/κg ox miiK"~~

Essential

Arg 2 07 2 87 2 37 2 85 0 45 0 36 0 71 0 23

His 0 94 0 90 0 78 0 99 0 12 0 94 0 29 0 41 lie 3 50 3 91 4 23 4 89 0 50 0 05 0 80 0 84

Leu 3 50 3 79 3 16 4 89 0 77 0 39 0 57 0 29

Lys 2 88 2 60 2 63 2 69 0 30 0 69 0 57 0 82

Met 0 82 0 76 0 90 0 99 0 18 0 41 0 68 0 72

Phe 1 44 1 40 1 46 1 66 0 16 0 33 0 44 0 95

Thr 1 32 1 48 1 39 1 77 0 27 0 30 0 66 0 50

Trp 0 38 0 39 0 45 0 41 0 29 0 91 0 92 0 89

VaI 2 76 2 90 2 63 3 26 0 39 0 48 0 52 042

Nonessential

Ala 1 09 1 18 029 066 0 31 0 12 064 0 10

Asn 0 56 0 72 0 68 0 63 0 14 0 82 0 40 0 65

Asp 0 21 0 18 0 17 0 15 0 05 0 33 0 88 0 83

GIn 6 04 4 91 4 15 5 40 0 77 0 43 0 12 0 61

GIu 0 75 1 16 1 35 1 72 0 38 0 07 0 94 0 80

GIy 0 15 0 01 -063 -0 19 0 29 0 19 0 30 021

Pro 0 27 0 47 0 26 0 32 0 26 0 97 0 84 0 78

Ser 0 51 1 05 068 0 53 0 30 0 82 0 24 0 36

Ta u 0 08 0 01 -0 16 0 04 0 13 0 58 0 24 0 35

Tyr 1 49 1 58 1 40 1 30 0 17 0 37 0 60 0 66

EAA 18 55 19 68 19 54 21 91 2 31 0 33 0 78 0 70

NEAA 11 08 11 36 8 34 10 54 1 56 0 50 0 53 0 20

BCAA 8 67 9 29 9 55 10 71 1 14 0 21 0 80 0 79

TAA 29 63 31 05 27 89 32 46 3 65 0 74 0 65 042

[0088] The instant example demonstrates that feeding up to 30% of dDGS to mid lactation Holsteins did not adversely affected milk production and DMI. It resulted in higher feed efficiency, milk fat percentage and yield and lower MUN. [0089] It should be emphasized that the described embodiments of this disclosure are merely possible examples of implementations and are set forth for a clear understanding of the principles of this disclosure. Many variations and modifications may be made to the described embodiments of this disclosure without departing substantially from the spirit and principles of this disclosure. All such modifications and variations are intended to be included herein within the scope of this disclosure and protected by the following claims.

[0090] Furthermore, any methods disclosed herein comprise one or more steps or actions for performing the described method. The method steps and/or actions may be interchanged with one another. In other words, unless a specific order of steps or actions is required for proper operation of the embodiment, the order and/or use of specific steps and/or actions may be modified.

Claims

Claims

1. De-oiled dried distillers grains with solubles (dDGS) comprising: a crude protein content ranging from approximately 25% to approximately 40% by weight; a crude fat content ranging from approximately 1 % to approximately 5% by weight; a neutral detergent fiber content ranging from approximately 25% to approximately 40% by weight; and an acid detergent fiber content ranging from approximately 10% to approximately 20% by weight.

2. The dDGS of claim 1 , wherein the crude protein content is between about 31% and about 33% by weight, the crude fat content is between about 2% and about 4% by weight, the neutral detergent fiber content is between about 28% and about 32% by weight, and the acid detergent fiber content is between about 14% and about 18%.

3. The dDGS of claim 1 , wherein the dDGS is selected from corn dDGS, barley dDGS, rye dDGS, soybean dDGS, and combinations thereof produced by a solvent extraction process.

4. The dDGS of claim 3, wherein the solvent extraction process is a hexane extraction process.

5. The dDGS of claim 4, wherein the dDGS is corn dDGS comprising between about 28% and about 35% by weight crude protein, between about 2% and about 4% by weight crude fat, between about 28% and about 32% by weight neutral detergent fiber content, and between about 14% and about 18% by weight acid detergent fiber.

6. The dDGS of claim 1 , further comprising one or more nutritional characteristics selected from the group consisting of a net energy lactation of between about 0.75 and about 0.85 Mcal/lb, a net energy maintenance of between about 0.80 Mcal/lb and about 0.90 Mcal/lb, a metabolizable energy of between about 1150 kcal/lb and about 1300 kcal/lb, a net energy gain of between about 0.50 Mcal/lb and about 0.60 Mcal/lb, a net energy of between about 800 kcal/lb and about 1100 kcla/lb, a gross energy of between about 1800 kcal/lb and about 2200 kcal/lb, a digestible energy of between about 1000 kcal/lb and about 1500 kcal/lb.

7. An animal feed comprising: dDGS in an amount ranging from approximately 5% to approximately 75% by weight of the total feed on a dry matter basis.

8. The animal feed of claim 7, wherein the dDGS crude protein content is between about 25% and about 40% by weight, the crude fat content is between about 1% and about 5% by weight, the neutral detergent fiber content is between about 25% and about 40% by weight, and the acid detergent fiber content is between about 10% and about 20%.

9. The animal feed of claim 8, wherein the dDGS further comprises one or more nutritional characteristics selected from the group consisting of a net energy lactation of between about 0.75 and about 0.85 Mcal/lb, a net energy maintenance of between about 0.80 Mcal/lb and about 0.90 Mcal/lb, a metabolizable energy of between about 1150 kcal/lb and about 1300 kcal/lb, a net energy gain of between about 0.50 Mcal/lb and about 0.60 Mcal/lb, a net energy of between about 800 kcal/lb and about 1100 kcla/lb, a gross energy of between about 1800 kcal/lb and about 2200 kcal/lb, a digestible energy of between about 1000 kcal/lb and about 1500 kcal/lb.

10. The animal feed of claim 9, wherein the dDGS comprises approximately 5% to approximately 30% by weight of the total feed on a dry matter basis.

11. The animal feed of claim 9, wherein the dDGS comprises approximately 5% to approximately 15% by weight of the total feed on a dry matter basis.

12. The animal feed of claim 9, wherein the dDGS comprises approximately 10% to approximately 20% by weight of the total feed on a dry matter basis.

13. A method of feeding livestock, the method comprising: providing an animal feed to the livestock; and supplementing the animal feed with dDGS in an amount ranging from approximately 5% to approximately 30% by weight of the total animal feed, on a dry matter basis.

14. The method of claim 21 , wherein the livestock are selected from finishing cattle, dairy cattle, finishing pigs, and nursery pigs and the wherein the dDGS crude protein content is between about 25% and about 40% by weight, the crude fat content is between about 1% and about 5% by weight, the neutral detergent fiber content is between about 25% and about 40% by weight, and the acid detergent fiber content is between about 10% and about 20%.

15. The method of claim 13, wherein providing the animal feed to the livestock comprises providing the animal feed to cattle.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein supplementing the animal feed with dDGS produces, in the cattle, an F/G ratio ranging from about 7 lbs to about 3 lbs, or less.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein supplementing the animal feed with dDGS produces, in the cattle, an F/G ratio selected from 4.5 lbs or less after 4 weeks of feeding, 5.0 lbs or less after 8 weeks of feeding, 6.5 lbs or less after 12 weeks of feeding, 7.0 lbs. or less after 16 weeks of feeding, and 6.5 lbs or less through 18 weeks of feeding.

18. The method of claim 15, wherein supplementing animal feed with dDGS produces an average daily gain in the cattle selected from an average daily gain of 4.0 lbs or greater after 4 weeks of feeding, 4.5 lbs. or greater after 8 weeks of feeding, 3.5 lbs or greater after 12 weeks of feeding, 3.5 lbs. or greater through 16 weeks of feeding, 3.5 lbs or greater through 18 weeks of feeding, and 4.0 lbs or greater after 18 weeks of feeding.

19. The method of claim 13, wherein providing the animal feed to the livestock comprises providing the animal feed to dairy cattle.

20. The method of claim 19, wherein supplementing the animal feed with dDGS results in an increased feed efficiency in the dairy cattle.

21. The method of claim 19, wherein supplementing the animal feed with dDGS results in an increase in milk fat percentage of milk produced by the dairy cattle.

22. The method of claim 19, wherein supplementing the animal feed with dDGS results in a decrease in MUN.