TY - JOUR
AU1 - Lundy, E. L.
AU2 - Loy, D. D.
AU3 - Hansen, S. L.
AB - ABSTRACT Two experiments evaluated the effects on animal performance of traditional wet distillers grains (T-WDG) compared to cellulosic wet distillers grains (C-WDG) from a new process converting corn kernel fiber into cellulosic ethanol. The resulting coproduct has greater CP and decreased starch and ether extract (EE) concentrations (34.0% CP, 1.6% starch, 7.3% EE) compared to T-WDG (32.5% CP, 5.1% starch, 7.7% EE). In Exp. 1, 10 wethers (34.1 ± 2.35 kg, SD) were used in a replicated 5 × 5 Latin square to evaluate digestibility of DM, fiber, EE, and N. Diets including a corn-based control with 7.5% T-WDG and 7.5% C-WDG (CORN); 30% or 45% inclusion of T-WDG; and 30% or 45% inclusion of C-WDG. Between CORN, 30% T-WDG, 45% T-WDG, or 45% C-WDG, DMI was not different (P ≥ 0.11), but lambs fed 30% C-WDG had decreased (P ≤ 0.05) DMI compared to other diets. Compared to CORN and 30% T-WDG, DM digestibility was lesser (P < 0.05) for 45% T-WDG or 30% C-WDG, while 45% C-WDG has lesser (P ≤ 0.05) DM digestibility than all other treatments. Digestibility of NDF was not affected by treatment (P = 0.13), and ADF digestibility was not different (P ≥ 0.21) between CORN, 30% T-WDG, 30% C-WDG, or 45% C-WDG. However, digestibility of ADF tended to differ (P = 0.06) between 30% T-WDG and 45% C-WDG and was greater (P ≤ 0.05) in lambs fed 45% T-WDG compared to other treatments. In Exp. 2, 168 steers (421 ± 23.9 kg, SD) were used in a randomized complete block design to determine the impact of C-WDG or T-WDG on growth performance and carcass characteristics. Diets included a corn-based control (CON), 30% T-WDG (TRAD), 30% C-WDG (CEL), and 18% C-WDG and 12% condensed corn distillers solubles (CEL+CCDS; n = 7 pens of 6 steers/pen). Steers fed TRAD had improved (P ≤ 0.01) ADG, G:F, and HCW compared to steers fed the CON diet. No differences (P ≥ 0.16) in ADG and HCW were noted for steers fed CEL compared to TRAD; however, steers fed CEL had decreased (P = 0.01) G:F due to increased (P = 0.02) DMI compared to TRAD-fed steers. Steers fed CEL or CEL+CCDS did not differ (P = 0.50) in G:F, but CEL+CCDS-fed steers had lesser (P ≤ 0.01) DMI and ADG likely due to greater S content of the CEL+CCDS diet. Overall, while DM digestibility of lambs fed 30% C-WDG was lesser than 30% T-WDG, performance of steers finished on C-WDG was similar to those fed T-WDG. However, WDG from the secondary fermentation appeared to have lesser energy than T-WDG, while maintaining similar cattle performance to corn-fed controls. INTRODUCTION Ethanol has proven to be a renewable resource (RFA, 2013), and distillers grains (DG) produced from the ethanol process provides a high-quality, cost-effective alternative to corn that is rich in protein and energy (Klopfenstein et al., 2008). An expanding trend for ethanol plants to extract corn oil during production is resulting in decreased oil content in DG. This is primarily accomplished through prefermentation fractionation, which involves separation of the corn kernel before fermentation of the endosperm or through partial oil-removal from condensed corn DG (CCDS) via centrifugation after fermentation (U.S. Grains Council, 2012). Although it has been estimated that more than 85% of ethanol plants are currently extracting corn oil from DG (U.S. Grains Council, 2012), limited research has been conducted regarding the use of decreased fat DG in cattle diets. Due to variation in oil and fiber extraction methods the nutrient profile of DG varies greatly across ethanol plants (Berger and Singh, 2010). Previous research with new generation DG have shown varying results in cattle performance compared to traditional DG ranging from decreased performance (Depenbusch et al., 2008; Gigax et al., 2011; DiCostanzo and Crawford, 2013) to no difference (Jolly, 2013). With advancements in technology, the industry is moving beyond oil extraction toward cellulosic ethanol production. Unlike the typical cellulosic ethanol process that utilizes cellulose from biomass feedstocks such as trees, plants, and grasses (Solomon et al., 2007; Dwivedi et al., 2009), this novel process (Cellerate; Syngenta, Wilmington, DE and Cellulosic Ethanol Technologies, LLC, Galva, IA) utilizes corn kernel fiber to produce ethanol and results in a novel, cellulosic wet DG (C-WDG). Therefore, 2 experiments were designed to determine the effects of wet DG (WDG) from a secondary fermentation process (C-WDG) compared to traditional WDG on nutrient digestibility in lambs and feedlot cattle performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS All animal procedures and protocols were approved by the Iowa State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (6-13-7590-B and 8-13-7623-B). Production of Experimental Distillers Grains. During the traditional ethanol process, after distillation or removal of the ethanol, the resulting product known as the whole stillage is centrifuged to separate the DG from the CCDS (Rosentrater et al., 2011). With this secondary fermentation process, cellulosic enzymes and yeast are added and additional heat is applied to the whole stillage before centrifugation. The enzymes are responsible for facilitating the use of more cellulose while the yeast aides in metabolizing additional sugar, thus the majority of the residual starch from the corn kernel is removed, resulting in additional ethanol production. The WDG used in these studies were produced within 2 consecutive days at Quad County Corn Processors (Galva, IA) utilizing the same corn source to minimize variation between the two products. Each product was shipped the day after production to the Iowa State University Beef Nutrition Research Unit in Ames, Iowa, where it was bagged (Ag Bag; Up North Plastics, Hammond, WI) for storage until the initiation of the feedlot trial. At the time of arrival to the farm, WDG to be used in the lamb study was stored in barrels and sealed for storage until fed. The nutrient profiles of the T-WDG and C-WDG fed in these experiments are shown in Table 1. While fiber is the primary substrate for additional ethanol production in the secondary fermentation process, the NDF and ADF concentrations between T-WDG and C-WDG are similar. The secondary fermentation process associated with C-WDG production results in approximately a 20% decrease in coproduct yield compared to the traditional ethanol production process. Table 1. Nutrient composition of coproducts (% DM basis) Item  T-WDG1  C-WDG2  CCDS3  DM  32.5  34.0  25.7  CP  34.1  39.1  22.2  NDF  32.2  32.7  –  ADF  13.3  15.2  –  Ether extract  7.7  7.3  10.3  Starch  5.1  1.6  –  Lignin  1.0  1.4  –  S  0.74  0.72  2.10  Item  T-WDG1  C-WDG2  CCDS3  DM  32.5  34.0  25.7  CP  34.1  39.1  22.2  NDF  32.2  32.7  –  ADF  13.3  15.2  –  Ether extract  7.7  7.3  10.3  Starch  5.1  1.6  –  Lignin  1.0  1.4  –  S  0.74  0.72  2.10  1Traditional wet distillers grains. 2Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber. 3Corn condensed distillers solubles. View Large Table 1. Nutrient composition of coproducts (% DM basis) Item  T-WDG1  C-WDG2  CCDS3  DM  32.5  34.0  25.7  CP  34.1  39.1  22.2  NDF  32.2  32.7  –  ADF  13.3  15.2  –  Ether extract  7.7  7.3  10.3  Starch  5.1  1.6  –  Lignin  1.0  1.4  –  S  0.74  0.72  2.10  Item  T-WDG1  C-WDG2  CCDS3  DM  32.5  34.0  25.7  CP  34.1  39.1  22.2  NDF  32.2  32.7  –  ADF  13.3  15.2  –  Ether extract  7.7  7.3  10.3  Starch  5.1  1.6  –  Lignin  1.0  1.4  –  S  0.74  0.72  2.10  1Traditional wet distillers grains. 2Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber. 3Corn condensed distillers solubles. View Large Exp. 1 was conducted in a controlled environment metabolism facility located on the campus of Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. Exp. 2 was conducted at the Iowa State University Beef Nutrition Research Unit in Ames, Iowa. Experiment 1 Animals and Experimental Design. Ten crossbred whiteface wethers (34.1 ± 2.35 kg, SD) were used in a replicated 5 × 5 Latin square design to determine the impact of increasing inclusion of T-WDG or C-WDG on total tract nutrient digestibility. There were 5 periods, 15 d in length, which included 10 d of diet adaptation and 5 d of total fecal and urine collection. Before the start of the trial, lambs were adapted to a concentrate-based diet and then allowed 5 d to adapt to the controlled-environment facilities. Each period, lambs received 1 of 5 diets: a corn-based control diet containing 7.5% T-WDG and 7.5% C-WDG to meet the protein needs of the lambs (CORN), and 30% or 45% inclusion of T-WDG (30% T-WDG or 45% T-WDG) or C-WDG (30% C-WDG or 45% C-WDG) on a DM basis (Table 2). Each WDG product replaced dry rolled corn within the diet (DM basis). For the first 3 d of each period, lambs on the same diet were paired in a pen (1.1 m2/lamb) to allow for adaption to their respective diet before moving to individual metabolism crates [123.2 cm (length) × 41.9 cm (width) × 93.4 cm (height)] for another 7 d of adaptation. Total fecal and urine collections were then conducted over a 5 d period. This process was repeated for a total of 5 periods with 2 lambs∙treatment-1∙period-1 resulting in 10 lambs/treatment in total. Table 2. Ingredient composition of diets fed to lambs in Exp. 1 (% DM basis)     T-WDG2  C-WDG3  Item  CORN1  30%  45%  30%  45%  Dry rolled corn  65  50  35  50  35  Chopped bromegrass hay  10  10  10  10  10  Traditional wet distillers grains  7.5  30  45  –  –  CEL wet distillers grains3  7.5  –  –  30  45  Finely ground corn4  7.4  7.4  7.4  7.4  7.4  Limestone  1.7  1.7  1.7  1.7  1.7  Ammonium chloride  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Salt  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.31  Vitamin A, D and E premix5  0.1  0.1  0.1  0.1  0.1  Trace mineral premix6  0.027  0.027  0.027  0.027  0.027  Bovatec7  0.0125  0.0125  0.0125  0.0125  0.0125      T-WDG2  C-WDG3  Item  CORN1  30%  45%  30%  45%  Dry rolled corn  65  50  35  50  35  Chopped bromegrass hay  10  10  10  10  10  Traditional wet distillers grains  7.5  30  45  –  –  CEL wet distillers grains3  7.5  –  –  30  45  Finely ground corn4  7.4  7.4  7.4  7.4  7.4  Limestone  1.7  1.7  1.7  1.7  1.7  Ammonium chloride  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Salt  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.31  Vitamin A, D and E premix5  0.1  0.1  0.1  0.1  0.1  Trace mineral premix6  0.027  0.027  0.027  0.027  0.027  Bovatec7  0.0125  0.0125  0.0125  0.0125  0.0125  1CORN: corn-based control diet with 7.5% traditional wet distillers grains and 7.5% cellulosic wet distillers grains (DM basis). 2Traditional wet distillers grains included at 30% and 45% of the diet (DM basis). 3Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber included at 30% and 45% of the diet (DM basis). 4Carrier for microingredients. 5Vitamin A, D, and E premix contained 4,410,000 IU/kg-1 of Vitamin A, 1,100,000 IU/kg-1 of Vitamin D, and 900 IU/kg-1 of Vitamin E. 6Provided per kg of diet DM: 30 mg of Zn (zinc sulfate), 25 mg of Mn (manganese sulfate), 0.6 mg of I (calcium iodate), 0.22 mg Se (sodium selenite), and 0.2 mg of Co (cobalt carbonate). 7Provided lasalocid at 25g/t of diet (Zoetis, New York, NY). View Large Table 2. Ingredient composition of diets fed to lambs in Exp. 1 (% DM basis)     T-WDG2  C-WDG3  Item  CORN1  30%  45%  30%  45%  Dry rolled corn  65  50  35  50  35  Chopped bromegrass hay  10  10  10  10  10  Traditional wet distillers grains  7.5  30  45  –  –  CEL wet distillers grains3  7.5  –  –  30  45  Finely ground corn4  7.4  7.4  7.4  7.4  7.4  Limestone  1.7  1.7  1.7  1.7  1.7  Ammonium chloride  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Salt  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.31  Vitamin A, D and E premix5  0.1  0.1  0.1  0.1  0.1  Trace mineral premix6  0.027  0.027  0.027  0.027  0.027  Bovatec7  0.0125  0.0125  0.0125  0.0125  0.0125      T-WDG2  C-WDG3  Item  CORN1  30%  45%  30%  45%  Dry rolled corn  65  50  35  50  35  Chopped bromegrass hay  10  10  10  10  10  Traditional wet distillers grains  7.5  30  45  –  –  CEL wet distillers grains3  7.5  –  –  30  45  Finely ground corn4  7.4  7.4  7.4  7.4  7.4  Limestone  1.7  1.7  1.7  1.7  1.7  Ammonium chloride  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Salt  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.31  Vitamin A, D and E premix5  0.1  0.1  0.1  0.1  0.1  Trace mineral premix6  0.027  0.027  0.027  0.027  0.027  Bovatec7  0.0125  0.0125  0.0125  0.0125  0.0125  1CORN: corn-based control diet with 7.5% traditional wet distillers grains and 7.5% cellulosic wet distillers grains (DM basis). 2Traditional wet distillers grains included at 30% and 45% of the diet (DM basis). 3Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber included at 30% and 45% of the diet (DM basis). 4Carrier for microingredients. 5Vitamin A, D, and E premix contained 4,410,000 IU/kg-1 of Vitamin A, 1,100,000 IU/kg-1 of Vitamin D, and 900 IU/kg-1 of Vitamin E. 6Provided per kg of diet DM: 30 mg of Zn (zinc sulfate), 25 mg of Mn (manganese sulfate), 0.6 mg of I (calcium iodate), 0.22 mg Se (sodium selenite), and 0.2 mg of Co (cobalt carbonate). 7Provided lasalocid at 25g/t of diet (Zoetis, New York, NY). View Large Sample Collection and Analytical Procedures. Lambs were fed once daily at 0800 h, and the previous day's feed refusals, urine, and feces were removed at 0700 h daily. Feed was offered at 105% of the average intake from the previous 5 d. From d 10 to 15 of each period, a composite of each total mixed ration (TMR) was made, representing samples collected daily. Total feed refusals were weighed each day, and a sample was taken during the collection period. To maintain urine pH below 3 and prevent volatilization of urine N, 200 mL of 6 N acetic acid was added daily to urine pans during the collection period. Total weight and volume were recorded for individual lamb urine output each day, and a 10% aliquot (weight basis) was collected daily to create a composite sample for that period. During the collection period, urine composite samples were stored at 4°C, then frozen at -20°C for later analysis following the collection period. Total fecal output for each individual lamb was recorded daily with a 10% aliquot (wet weight basis) from each day collected for a composite. Approximately 10 mL of blood was collected via jugular vein in a heparinized vacutainer (158 IU of sodium heparin; Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ) 4 h postfeeding (1200 h) on d 10–15 of each period. Blood samples were immediately placed on ice for transportation to the lab, centrifuged (1,200 × g, 4°C, 12 min), and plasma was extracted and stored at –80°C until analysis of plasma urea nitrogen (PUN). Total mixed rations, feces, and feed refusals were initially dried in a 70°C convection oven for 96 h before TMR and feed refusals were ground through a 2-mm screen in a Wiley mill (Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ) and fecal samples were ground through a 2-mm screen in a Retsch ZM 100 grinding mill (Retsch GmbH, Haan, Germany). Dried and ground fecal and feed refusal samples were then composited by lamb per period on an equal DM weight basis for further analysis. Individual animal DMI and digestibility of dietary DM, OM, fiber (NDF and ADF), ether extract (EE), and N were determined. True DM (105°C) and OM content, DMI, OM intake, and digestibility calculations of composited TMR, feed refusals, and fecal samples were determined as described by Pogge et al. (2014). Dried and ground samples of TMR, feed refusals, and feces were subjected to sequential analysis for determination of NDF (Van Soest et al., 1991) and ADF (Goering and Van Soest, 1970) concentrations utilizing an ANKOM200 Fiber Analyzer (ANKOM Technology, Macedon, NY), with α-amylase used during the NDF analysis procedure. A hay standard (Brome grass hay, average NDF was 63.1% and ADF was 33.25%) was included with each run to verify intra-assay accuracy (intra-assay CV of 1.1% for NDF and 1.2% for ADF). A subsample of TMR, feed refusals, and fecal composites were sent to the University of Arkansas Central Analytical Laboratory (Poultry Science Center, Fayetteville, AR) for EE analysis (AOAC, 1990). Dried and ground TMR samples from each period were prepared for S analysis by acid digestion (CEMS MarsXpress, Matthews, NC) before analysis using inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (Optima 700 DV; PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA) as previously described by Richter et al. (2012). Nitrogen analysis of TMR, fecal samples, feed refusals, and urine composites from each period was determined by combustion (AOAC, 1990) using a Leco Tru-Mac (Leco Corporation, St. Joseph, MI). Crude protein was calculated as N × 6.25 and EDTA was used daily as a calibration standard. Plasma urea N concentration was determined using a commercially available assay (Stanbio Laboratory, Boerne, TX) utilizing a standard and pooled bovine plasma sample with each run as an intra-assay standard (intra-assay CV of 7.4%) and spectrophotometer (Eon Microplate Spectrophotometer; BioTek, Winooski, VT) at a wavelength of 600 nm. Nitrogen balance (retention) was calculated as N intake minus N excreted and was expressed as the average daily retention in grams per d. Nitrogen intake is equivalent to the quantity of N offered (percentage of N of the feed offered times the quantity of feed offered) minus the quantity of N in feed refusals (percentage of N of the feed refused times the quantity of feed refused). Nitrogen excreted is defined as quantity of N in urine (the percentage of N in total urine times the quantity [mass] of urine excreted) and feces (percentage of N of in the fecal output times quantity of feces) during the collection period. Experiment 2 Animals and Experimental Design. To evaluate the impact of C-WDG on steer growth performance and carcass characteristics during the finishing phase, Angus-influenced crossbreed steers (n = 168) were purchased from 2 sources and transported to the ISU Beef Nutrition Research Unit (Ames, IA). Upon arrival, steers from source one were vaccinated with Bovi-shield GOLD 5 (Zoetis, New York, NY) and dewormed with Ivomec Eprinex Pour-On (Merial Animal Health, Duluth, GA) and started on a growing diet. Steers from the second source were dewormed before arrival to the research farm and vaccinated with Bovi-Shield GOLD 5 (Zoetis) and One Shot Ultra7 (Zoetis) on arrival. All steers were fed a series of transition diets based on previous management to assure steers were prepared for a concentrate-based diet. Steers from source 1 were fed a series of 2 transition diets over 14 d while the second source was fed a series of 4 transition diets over a period of 21 d. The final transition diet for all steers consisted of 12% roughage, 53% corn, 30% WDG, with the remaining 5% including DG as the carrier for the micronutrients and was fed for 4 d before the start of the trial. At the initiation of the study, BW were collected on 2 consecutive d before feeding (d 0 and 1). Steers were blocked by initial BW (421 ± 23.9 kg, SD), stratified by source, and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 dietary treatments (7 pens/treatment, 6 steers/pen): corn-based control with 13% T-WDG (CON), 30% T-WDG (TRAD), 30% C-WDG (CEL), and 18% C-WDG and 12% dietary CCDS (CEL+CCDS) on a DM basis (Table 3). For each treatment, T-WDG or C-WDG were added at the expense of dry rolled corn on a DM basis. Steers were housed in a partial-confinement building (7.5 m2/steer) with ad libitum access to water. Cattle were fed their respective diets once daily in the morning, targeting a clean bunk management protocol (Pritchard and Bruns, 2003). Bunks were scored and feed calls were made at the same time each d before feeding, and a 5% increase (DM basis) in feed delivered was made after 3 consecutive d of clean bunk scores. Table 3. Ingredient and nutrient composition of diets fed to steers in Exp. 2 (% DM basis) Item  CON1  TRAD1  CEL1  CEL+CCDS1  Dry rolled corn  70  53  53  53  Chopped bromegrass hay  12  12  12  12  Traditional wet distillers grains  13  30  –  –  CEL wet distillers grains2  –  –  30  18  Corn condensed distillers solubles  –  –  –  12  Dried distillers grains plus solubles3  3.13  3.13  3.13  3.13  Limestone  1.41  1.41  1.41  1.41  Salt  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.31  Vitamin A premix4  0.11  0.11  0.11  0.11  Trace mineral premix5  0.024  0.024  0.024  0.024  Rumensin906  0.01  0.01  0.01  0.01  Analyzed composition          CP  12.29  16.63  18.12  16.08  NDF  23.85  26.48  25.89  22.46  ADF  11.90  12.72  13.27  11.00  Starch  48.91  37.98  39.92  39.03  Ether extract  4.97  6.13  6.29  7.35  S  0.21  0.36  0.34  0.47  Item  CON1  TRAD1  CEL1  CEL+CCDS1  Dry rolled corn  70  53  53  53  Chopped bromegrass hay  12  12  12  12  Traditional wet distillers grains  13  30  –  –  CEL wet distillers grains2  –  –  30  18  Corn condensed distillers solubles  –  –  –  12  Dried distillers grains plus solubles3  3.13  3.13  3.13  3.13  Limestone  1.41  1.41  1.41  1.41  Salt  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.31  Vitamin A premix4  0.11  0.11  0.11  0.11  Trace mineral premix5  0.024  0.024  0.024  0.024  Rumensin906  0.01  0.01  0.01  0.01  Analyzed composition          CP  12.29  16.63  18.12  16.08  NDF  23.85  26.48  25.89  22.46  ADF  11.90  12.72  13.27  11.00  Starch  48.91  37.98  39.92  39.03  Ether extract  4.97  6.13  6.29  7.35  S  0.21  0.36  0.34  0.47  1Treatments: CON, control; TRAD, 30% traditional wet distillers grains; CEL, 30% cellulosic wet distillers grains; CEL+CCDS, 18% cellulosic wet distillers grains and 12% corn condensed distillers solubles. 2Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber. 3Carrier for microingredients. 4Vitamin A premix contained 4,400,000 IU/kg-1. 5Provided per kg of diet DM: 30 mg Zn (zinc sulfate), 20 mg Mn (manganese sulfate), 10 mg Cu (copper sulfate), 0.5 mg I (calcium iodate), 0.1 mg Se (sodium selenite), and 0.1 mg Co (cobalt carbonate). 6Provided monensin at 27g/t of diet (Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN). View Large Table 3. Ingredient and nutrient composition of diets fed to steers in Exp. 2 (% DM basis) Item  CON1  TRAD1  CEL1  CEL+CCDS1  Dry rolled corn  70  53  53  53  Chopped bromegrass hay  12  12  12  12  Traditional wet distillers grains  13  30  –  –  CEL wet distillers grains2  –  –  30  18  Corn condensed distillers solubles  –  –  –  12  Dried distillers grains plus solubles3  3.13  3.13  3.13  3.13  Limestone  1.41  1.41  1.41  1.41  Salt  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.31  Vitamin A premix4  0.11  0.11  0.11  0.11  Trace mineral premix5  0.024  0.024  0.024  0.024  Rumensin906  0.01  0.01  0.01  0.01  Analyzed composition          CP  12.29  16.63  18.12  16.08  NDF  23.85  26.48  25.89  22.46  ADF  11.90  12.72  13.27  11.00  Starch  48.91  37.98  39.92  39.03  Ether extract  4.97  6.13  6.29  7.35  S  0.21  0.36  0.34  0.47  Item  CON1  TRAD1  CEL1  CEL+CCDS1  Dry rolled corn  70  53  53  53  Chopped bromegrass hay  12  12  12  12  Traditional wet distillers grains  13  30  –  –  CEL wet distillers grains2  –  –  30  18  Corn condensed distillers solubles  –  –  –  12  Dried distillers grains plus solubles3  3.13  3.13  3.13  3.13  Limestone  1.41  1.41  1.41  1.41  Salt  0.31  0.31  0.31  0.31  Vitamin A premix4  0.11  0.11  0.11  0.11  Trace mineral premix5  0.024  0.024  0.024  0.024  Rumensin906  0.01  0.01  0.01  0.01  Analyzed composition          CP  12.29  16.63  18.12  16.08  NDF  23.85  26.48  25.89  22.46  ADF  11.90  12.72  13.27  11.00  Starch  48.91  37.98  39.92  39.03  Ether extract  4.97  6.13  6.29  7.35  S  0.21  0.36  0.34  0.47  1Treatments: CON, control; TRAD, 30% traditional wet distillers grains; CEL, 30% cellulosic wet distillers grains; CEL+CCDS, 18% cellulosic wet distillers grains and 12% corn condensed distillers solubles. 2Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber. 3Carrier for microingredients. 4Vitamin A premix contained 4,400,000 IU/kg-1. 5Provided per kg of diet DM: 30 mg Zn (zinc sulfate), 20 mg Mn (manganese sulfate), 10 mg Cu (copper sulfate), 0.5 mg I (calcium iodate), 0.1 mg Se (sodium selenite), and 0.1 mg Co (cobalt carbonate). 6Provided monensin at 27g/t of diet (Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN). View Large Throughout the duration of the trial, interim BW were collected before feeding on d 28, 56, and 66. Steers were implanted with Component TE-IS (donated by Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN) on d 28 of the trial. On d 66, steers were started on ractopamine hydrochloride (Optaflexx; donated by Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN) and fed at a rate of 300 mg·steer-1·d-1 for the last 28 d of the trial. Consecutive d final BW were taken at the end of the study (d 93 and 94), and steers were shipped to a commercial abattoir (Tyson Fresh Meats, Denison, IA) on d 94. Sample Collection and Analytical Procedures. Pen feed delivery and bunk scores were recorded daily, and DMI was calculated. Average daily gain and G:F were determined using pen DMI and BW gain over the duration of the trial. Based on the observed mean pen performance, the energy value (expressed as ME and NEg) was calculated using the equation described by Plascencia et al. (1999). Samples of individual ingredients and TMR were collected weekly, and pen feed refusals were collected monthly for DM determination. Samples were dried in a 70°C forced-air oven for 48 h to determine DM. Total mixed rations were ground through a 2-mm screen in a Wiley mill (Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ), and a subsample was sent to Dairyland Laboratories, Inc. (Arcadia, WI) for wet chemistry analysis of NDF (AOAC, 2005; method 2002.04), ADF (AOAC, 1995; method 973.18), starch (Hall, 2009), and EE (AOAC, 1995; method 920.39). Individual ingredients were sent to Dairyland Laboratories, Inc. for CP analysis (AOAC, 1995, method 990.03), and dietary CP concentrations were calculated based on ingredient CP analysis and inclusion in the diet. Dietary S concentrations of TMR samples were determined as described in Exp. 1. At the initiation and completion of the study (d 0 and 94), all steers were scanned via real time ultrasound (Scanner 200, model 41480; Pie Medical, Masstricht, Netherlands) by a certified technician for LM area, percent intramuscular fat (IMF), and 12th rib backfat thickness (BF). Images were analyzed by Centralized Ultrasound Processing (CUP) Lab (Walter & Associates, LLC, Ames, IA). Steers were harvested on d 95 at a commercial abattoir, and HCW data were collected. Individual carcass data were collected after a 24 h chill by representatives of Tri County Steer Futurity (Iowa State University Beef Extension, Lewis, IA), who were blind to treatments. Carcass data collected included BF, LM area, marbling score, yield grade (YG), and quality grade (QG). A 4% pencil shrink was applied to initial BW, and final BW (FBW) was calculated from HCW using the average dressing percentage of 63.55% to determine carcass-adjusted performance. Statistical Analysis Experiment 1. Data were analyzed by ANOVA using the Mixed procedure of SAS 9.3 (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) with lamb as the experimental unit (n = 10/treatment). The model included the fixed effects of treatment and lamb nested within the square and the random effect of period. When the overall F-test was significant (P ≤ 0.05), treatment means were separated using the PDIFF statement in SAS. Experiment 2. Data were analyzed by ANOVA in SAS 9.3 (SAS Inst. Inc.) as a randomized complete block design with pen as the experimental unit (n = 7/treatment). The model included the fixed effect of treatment and random effect of block. Final ultrasound data were analyzed using the initial scan measurements as a covariate. Performance and carcass characteristic data were analyzed using PROC Mixed, while YG and QG distribution data were analyzed using PROC Glimmix of SAS. Three a priori single df contrast statements were constructed: 1) CON vs. TRAD, 2) TRAD vs. CEL, and 3) CEL vs. CEL+CCDS. For both experiments, outliers were determined using Cook's D statistics, and if Cook's D values were greater than 0.5, outliers would have been removed; however, no outliers were identified. Significance was declared at P ≤ 0.05 and tendencies were declared from P = 0.06 to 0.10. Means reported are least squares means (LSMEANS) ± SEM. RESULTS Experiment 1 Dry matter intake, diet digestibility, and fecal and urine output are presented in Table 4. While DMI and OMI were not different (P ≥ 0.11) between CORN, 30% T-WDG, 45% T-WDG, or 45% C-WDG, lambs fed 30% C-WDG had decreased (P ≤ 0.05) DMI and OMI compared to the other treatments. Dry matter digestibility was affected (P ≤ 0.01) by treatment. Compared to lambs fed CORN or 30% T-WDG, DM digestibility of lambs fed 45% T-WDG or 30% C-WDG was lesser (P < 0.05), while lambs fed 45% C-WDG had lesser (P ≤ 0.05) DM digestibility than all other treatments. Daily fecal output was less (P ≤ 0.01) for lambs fed the lesser inclusions of WDG (CORN, 30% T-WDG, and 30% C-WDG) compared to those fed 45% WDG, regardless of WDG source. Urine output was also influenced by treatment (P = 0.02) with lambs fed CORN having lesser (P ≤ 0.05) urine output than all other treatments. Table 4. Influence of traditional and cellulosic wet distillers grains on lamb daily dry matter intake, diet digestibility, and fecal and urine output (Exp. 1)1     T-WDG3  C-WDG4      Item  CORN2  30%  45%  30%  45%  SEM  P-value  Lambs, n  10  10  10  10  10      DM intake, kg/d  1.18a  1.17a  1.23a  1.08b  1.16a  0.04  0.02  OM intake, kg/d  1.14a  1.12a  1.17a  1.04b  1.11a  0.03  0.02  DM digestibility, %  80.6a  80.0a  77.4b  78.3b  75.3c  0.91  < 0.01  OM digestibility, %  81.8a  81.2a  78.6b  79.4b  76.5c  0.83  < 0.01  Daily output                Fecal, kg DM/d  0.23b  0.23b  0.28a  0.24b  0.29a  0.01  < 0.01  Urine, L/d  1.76b  2.31a  2.41a  2.23a  2.54a  0.17  0.02      T-WDG3  C-WDG4      Item  CORN2  30%  45%  30%  45%  SEM  P-value  Lambs, n  10  10  10  10  10      DM intake, kg/d  1.18a  1.17a  1.23a  1.08b  1.16a  0.04  0.02  OM intake, kg/d  1.14a  1.12a  1.17a  1.04b  1.11a  0.03  0.02  DM digestibility, %  80.6a  80.0a  77.4b  78.3b  75.3c  0.91  < 0.01  OM digestibility, %  81.8a  81.2a  78.6b  79.4b  76.5c  0.83  < 0.01  Daily output                Fecal, kg DM/d  0.23b  0.23b  0.28a  0.24b  0.29a  0.01  < 0.01  Urine, L/d  1.76b  2.31a  2.41a  2.23a  2.54a  0.17  0.02  1Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber. 2CORN: corn-based control diet with 7.5% traditional wet distillers grains and 7.5% cellulosic wet distillers grains (DM basis). 3Traditional wet distillers grains included at 30% and 45% of the diet (DM basis). 4Cellulosic wet distillers grains included at 30% and 45% of the diet (DM basis). abcMeans within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05). View Large Table 4. Influence of traditional and cellulosic wet distillers grains on lamb daily dry matter intake, diet digestibility, and fecal and urine output (Exp. 1)1     T-WDG3  C-WDG4      Item  CORN2  30%  45%  30%  45%  SEM  P-value  Lambs, n  10  10  10  10  10      DM intake, kg/d  1.18a  1.17a  1.23a  1.08b  1.16a  0.04  0.02  OM intake, kg/d  1.14a  1.12a  1.17a  1.04b  1.11a  0.03  0.02  DM digestibility, %  80.6a  80.0a  77.4b  78.3b  75.3c  0.91  < 0.01  OM digestibility, %  81.8a  81.2a  78.6b  79.4b  76.5c  0.83  < 0.01  Daily output                Fecal, kg DM/d  0.23b  0.23b  0.28a  0.24b  0.29a  0.01  < 0.01  Urine, L/d  1.76b  2.31a  2.41a  2.23a  2.54a  0.17  0.02      T-WDG3  C-WDG4      Item  CORN2  30%  45%  30%  45%  SEM  P-value  Lambs, n  10  10  10  10  10      DM intake, kg/d  1.18a  1.17a  1.23a  1.08b  1.16a  0.04  0.02  OM intake, kg/d  1.14a  1.12a  1.17a  1.04b  1.11a  0.03  0.02  DM digestibility, %  80.6a  80.0a  77.4b  78.3b  75.3c  0.91  < 0.01  OM digestibility, %  81.8a  81.2a  78.6b  79.4b  76.5c  0.83  < 0.01  Daily output                Fecal, kg DM/d  0.23b  0.23b  0.28a  0.24b  0.29a  0.01  < 0.01  Urine, L/d  1.76b  2.31a  2.41a  2.23a  2.54a  0.17  0.02  1Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber. 2CORN: corn-based control diet with 7.5% traditional wet distillers grains and 7.5% cellulosic wet distillers grains (DM basis). 3Traditional wet distillers grains included at 30% and 45% of the diet (DM basis). 4Cellulosic wet distillers grains included at 30% and 45% of the diet (DM basis). abcMeans within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05). View Large As expected, increasing concentrations of T-WDG or C-WDG increased NDF and ADF concentrations in the diets (P ≤ 0.01; Table 5). At the 30% inclusion, dietary concentrations of NDF were greater (P ≤ 0.05) in C-WDG compared to T-WDG and dietary concentrations of ADF were not different (P = 0.63) between the 2 WDG sources. Digestibility of NDF was not different (P = 0.13) due to treatment. Digestibility of ADF by lambs fed 30% T-WDG, 30% C-WDG, or 45% C-WDG were not different (P ≥ 0.21) compared to CORN, but tended to differ (P = 0.06) between 30% T-WDG and 45% C-WDG and was greater (P ≤ 0.05) in lambs fed 45% T-WDG compared to CORN, 30% T-WDG, 30% C-WDG, or 45% C-WDG. Table 5. Influence of traditional and cellulosic wet distillers grains on dietary concentrations and digestibility of nutrients by lambs (Exp. 1)1     T-WDG3  C-WDG4      Item  CORN2  30%  45%  30%  45%  SEM  P-value  Diet concentration, %          NDF  24.6d  26.9c  32.2ab  31.0b  33.6a  0.83  < 0.01      ADF  8.8c  9.7bc  11.4a  10.4ab  10.3b  0.42  < 0.01      Ether extract  2.7c  3.5b  4.1a  3.6b  4.3a  0.14  < 0.01      N  2.1e  2.6d  3.2b  2.9c  3.6a  0.07  < 0.01      S  0.21c  0.32b  0.41a  0.33b  0.41a  0.02  < 0.01  Digestibility, %                  NDF  50.8  51.8  55.1  53.0  50.2  1.80  0.13      ADF  50.2b  51.8b  57.2a  50.6b  47.0b  1.74  0.01      Ether extract  81.5c  84.1abc  82.8bc  85.1ab  86.9a  1.40  0.02      N  73.9c  79.5b  80.8b  80.8b  82.7a  1.03  < 0.01      N balance, g/d  6.4  6.3  7.6  5.9  9.1  1.14  0.27      PUN5, mg/dL  12.3d  17.2c  20.6b  18.0c  23.7a  0.65  0.01      T-WDG3  C-WDG4      Item  CORN2  30%  45%  30%  45%  SEM  P-value  Diet concentration, %          NDF  24.6d  26.9c  32.2ab  31.0b  33.6a  0.83  < 0.01      ADF  8.8c  9.7bc  11.4a  10.4ab  10.3b  0.42  < 0.01      Ether extract  2.7c  3.5b  4.1a  3.6b  4.3a  0.14  < 0.01      N  2.1e  2.6d  3.2b  2.9c  3.6a  0.07  < 0.01      S  0.21c  0.32b  0.41a  0.33b  0.41a  0.02  < 0.01  Digestibility, %                  NDF  50.8  51.8  55.1  53.0  50.2  1.80  0.13      ADF  50.2b  51.8b  57.2a  50.6b  47.0b  1.74  0.01      Ether extract  81.5c  84.1abc  82.8bc  85.1ab  86.9a  1.40  0.02      N  73.9c  79.5b  80.8b  80.8b  82.7a  1.03  < 0.01      N balance, g/d  6.4  6.3  7.6  5.9  9.1  1.14  0.27      PUN5, mg/dL  12.3d  17.2c  20.6b  18.0c  23.7a  0.65  0.01  1Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber. 2CORN: corn-based control diet with 7.5% traditional wet distillers grains and 7.5% cellulosic wet distillers grains (DM basis). 3Traditional wet distillers grains included at 30% and 45% of the diet (DM basis). 4Cellulosic wet distillers grains included at 30% and 45% of the diet (DM basis). 5Plasma urea nitrogen concentration. a–cMeans within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05). View Large Table 5. Influence of traditional and cellulosic wet distillers grains on dietary concentrations and digestibility of nutrients by lambs (Exp. 1)1     T-WDG3  C-WDG4      Item  CORN2  30%  45%  30%  45%  SEM  P-value  Diet concentration, %          NDF  24.6d  26.9c  32.2ab  31.0b  33.6a  0.83  < 0.01      ADF  8.8c  9.7bc  11.4a  10.4ab  10.3b  0.42  < 0.01      Ether extract  2.7c  3.5b  4.1a  3.6b  4.3a  0.14  < 0.01      N  2.1e  2.6d  3.2b  2.9c  3.6a  0.07  < 0.01      S  0.21c  0.32b  0.41a  0.33b  0.41a  0.02  < 0.01  Digestibility, %                  NDF  50.8  51.8  55.1  53.0  50.2  1.80  0.13      ADF  50.2b  51.8b  57.2a  50.6b  47.0b  1.74  0.01      Ether extract  81.5c  84.1abc  82.8bc  85.1ab  86.9a  1.40  0.02      N  73.9c  79.5b  80.8b  80.8b  82.7a  1.03  < 0.01      N balance, g/d  6.4  6.3  7.6  5.9  9.1  1.14  0.27      PUN5, mg/dL  12.3d  17.2c  20.6b  18.0c  23.7a  0.65  0.01      T-WDG3  C-WDG4      Item  CORN2  30%  45%  30%  45%  SEM  P-value  Diet concentration, %          NDF  24.6d  26.9c  32.2ab  31.0b  33.6a  0.83  < 0.01      ADF  8.8c  9.7bc  11.4a  10.4ab  10.3b  0.42  < 0.01      Ether extract  2.7c  3.5b  4.1a  3.6b  4.3a  0.14  < 0.01      N  2.1e  2.6d  3.2b  2.9c  3.6a  0.07  < 0.01      S  0.21c  0.32b  0.41a  0.33b  0.41a  0.02  < 0.01  Digestibility, %                  NDF  50.8  51.8  55.1  53.0  50.2  1.80  0.13      ADF  50.2b  51.8b  57.2a  50.6b  47.0b  1.74  0.01      Ether extract  81.5c  84.1abc  82.8bc  85.1ab  86.9a  1.40  0.02      N  73.9c  79.5b  80.8b  80.8b  82.7a  1.03  < 0.01      N balance, g/d  6.4  6.3  7.6  5.9  9.1  1.14  0.27      PUN5, mg/dL  12.3d  17.2c  20.6b  18.0c  23.7a  0.65  0.01  1Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber. 2CORN: corn-based control diet with 7.5% traditional wet distillers grains and 7.5% cellulosic wet distillers grains (DM basis). 3Traditional wet distillers grains included at 30% and 45% of the diet (DM basis). 4Cellulosic wet distillers grains included at 30% and 45% of the diet (DM basis). 5Plasma urea nitrogen concentration. a–cMeans within a row without a common superscript differ (P ≤ 0.05). View Large Ether extract concentrations of the diet were not affected by source of WDG but increased as inclusions of WDG increased in the diet (P < 0.01; Table 5). While EE digestibility was not different (P = 0.54) between the 2 sources of WDG at 30% inclusion, at the 45% inclusion, EE digestibility was greater (P < 0.05) for C-WDG compared to T-WDG. Dietary N concentrations increased (P ≤ 0.01) as inclusion of WDG increased in the diets, and concentrations were greater (P ≤ 0.05) for C-WDG compared to T-WDG at both 30% and 45% inclusions of WDG. Sulfur concentrations in the diets increased (P ≤ 0.01) as inclusion of WDG increased, but were not different due to source of WDG. Digestibility of N was lesser for CORN and greater for 45% C-WDG compared to all other treatments (P ≤ 0.05), while N digestibility was similar across 30% and 45% T-WDG and 30% C-WDG (P ≥ 0.12). Similarly, PUN concentrations were different due to treatment (P = 0.01; Table 5). Compared to the CORN-fed lambs, PUN concentration was greater (P ≤ 0.05) at 30% WDG inclusion regardless of source, followed by 45% T-WDG fed lambs (P ≤ 0.05), and greatest (P ≤ 0.05) in lambs fed 45% C-WDG. Nitrogen balance was not affected (P = 0.27) by addition of WDG, regardless of source. Experiment 2 Live animal performance and carcass data are presented in Table 6. While DMI did not differ (P = 0.31) between CON or TRAD, TRAD-fed steers had improved ADG (P < 0.01) and thus improved G:F (P < 0.01) compared to steers fed CON. Likewise, energy values (ME and NEg) calculated from steer performance were greater (P < 0.01) for steers finished on TRAD compared to those finished on CON. Steers finished on TRAD had heavier FBW and HCW (P = 0.01) compared to CON-fed steers. Marbling score, BF, and YG did not differ (P ≥ 0.52) between CON and TRAD; however, steers finished on TRAD tended (P = 0.07) to have a larger LM area compared to steers fed CON. Table 6. Influence of traditional and cellulosic wet distillers grains on steer performance and carcass characteristics (Exp. 2)1             P-value  Item  CON2  TRAD2  CEL2  CEL+ CCDS2  SEM  CON vs.TRAD3  TRAD vs. CEL4  CEL vs. CEL+CCDS5  Performance                      Initial BW6, kg  422  421  420  421  9.6  0.17  0.24  0.14      Final BW7, kg  572  586  578  570  11.1  0.01  0.12  0.09      DMI, kg/d  10.7  10.5  10.9  10.0  0.24  0.31  0.02  < 0.01      ADG, kg/d  1.59  1.75  1.68  1.58  0.04  < 0.01  0.17  0.04      Gain:feed  0.149  0.166  0.154  0.157  0.004  < 0.01  0.01  0.50      ME8, Mcal/kg  2.84  2.96  2.84  2.92  0.03  < 0.01  < 0.01  0.02      NEg8, Mcal/kg  1.26  1.35  1.26  1.32  0.02  < 0.01  < 0.01  0.01  Carcass characteristics                  HCW, kg  364  372  368  362  7.1  0.01  0.16  0.07      Backfat thickness, cm  1.21  1.24  1.13  1.21  0.05  0.52  0.04  0.15      LM area, cm2  82.54  85.41  85.71  84.67  1.54  0.07  0.84  0.50      Marbling score9  455  450  450  441  10.20  0.75  0.98  0.56      Yield grade  3.1  3.1  2.8  3.0  0.08  0.75  0.03  0.16              P-value  Item  CON2  TRAD2  CEL2  CEL+ CCDS2  SEM  CON vs.TRAD3  TRAD vs. CEL4  CEL vs. CEL+CCDS5  Performance                      Initial BW6, kg  422  421  420  421  9.6  0.17  0.24  0.14      Final BW7, kg  572  586  578  570  11.1  0.01  0.12  0.09      DMI, kg/d  10.7  10.5  10.9  10.0  0.24  0.31  0.02  < 0.01      ADG, kg/d  1.59  1.75  1.68  1.58  0.04  < 0.01  0.17  0.04      Gain:feed  0.149  0.166  0.154  0.157  0.004  < 0.01  0.01  0.50      ME8, Mcal/kg  2.84  2.96  2.84  2.92  0.03  < 0.01  < 0.01  0.02      NEg8, Mcal/kg  1.26  1.35  1.26  1.32  0.02  < 0.01  < 0.01  0.01  Carcass characteristics                  HCW, kg  364  372  368  362  7.1  0.01  0.16  0.07      Backfat thickness, cm  1.21  1.24  1.13  1.21  0.05  0.52  0.04  0.15      LM area, cm2  82.54  85.41  85.71  84.67  1.54  0.07  0.84  0.50      Marbling score9  455  450  450  441  10.20  0.75  0.98  0.56      Yield grade  3.1  3.1  2.8  3.0  0.08  0.75  0.03  0.16  1Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber. 2Treatments: CON, corn-based control with 13% traditional wet distillers grains; TRAD, 30% traditional wet distillers grains; CEL, 30% cellulosic wet distillers grains; CEL+CCDS, 18% cellulosic wet distillers grains and 12% corn condensed distillers solubles. 3Contrast comparing CON and TRAD. 4Contrast comparing TRAD and CEL. 5Constract comparing CEL and CEL+CCDS. 6A 4% pencil shrink was applied to all live weights. 7Final body weights were calculated from HCW using a common dressing percentage of 63.55%. 8Energy values calculated based on cattle performance using equations by Plascencia et al. (1999). 9Marbling score: 300 = slight, 400 = small, and 500 = modest. View Large Table 6. Influence of traditional and cellulosic wet distillers grains on steer performance and carcass characteristics (Exp. 2)1             P-value  Item  CON2  TRAD2  CEL2  CEL+ CCDS2  SEM  CON vs.TRAD3  TRAD vs. CEL4  CEL vs. CEL+CCDS5  Performance                      Initial BW6, kg  422  421  420  421  9.6  0.17  0.24  0.14      Final BW7, kg  572  586  578  570  11.1  0.01  0.12  0.09      DMI, kg/d  10.7  10.5  10.9  10.0  0.24  0.31  0.02  < 0.01      ADG, kg/d  1.59  1.75  1.68  1.58  0.04  < 0.01  0.17  0.04      Gain:feed  0.149  0.166  0.154  0.157  0.004  < 0.01  0.01  0.50      ME8, Mcal/kg  2.84  2.96  2.84  2.92  0.03  < 0.01  < 0.01  0.02      NEg8, Mcal/kg  1.26  1.35  1.26  1.32  0.02  < 0.01  < 0.01  0.01  Carcass characteristics                  HCW, kg  364  372  368  362  7.1  0.01  0.16  0.07      Backfat thickness, cm  1.21  1.24  1.13  1.21  0.05  0.52  0.04  0.15      LM area, cm2  82.54  85.41  85.71  84.67  1.54  0.07  0.84  0.50      Marbling score9  455  450  450  441  10.20  0.75  0.98  0.56      Yield grade  3.1  3.1  2.8  3.0  0.08  0.75  0.03  0.16              P-value  Item  CON2  TRAD2  CEL2  CEL+ CCDS2  SEM  CON vs.TRAD3  TRAD vs. CEL4  CEL vs. CEL+CCDS5  Performance                      Initial BW6, kg  422  421  420  421  9.6  0.17  0.24  0.14      Final BW7, kg  572  586  578  570  11.1  0.01  0.12  0.09      DMI, kg/d  10.7  10.5  10.9  10.0  0.24  0.31  0.02  < 0.01      ADG, kg/d  1.59  1.75  1.68  1.58  0.04  < 0.01  0.17  0.04      Gain:feed  0.149  0.166  0.154  0.157  0.004  < 0.01  0.01  0.50      ME8, Mcal/kg  2.84  2.96  2.84  2.92  0.03  < 0.01  < 0.01  0.02      NEg8, Mcal/kg  1.26  1.35  1.26  1.32  0.02  < 0.01  < 0.01  0.01  Carcass characteristics                  HCW, kg  364  372  368  362  7.1  0.01  0.16  0.07      Backfat thickness, cm  1.21  1.24  1.13  1.21  0.05  0.52  0.04  0.15      LM area, cm2  82.54  85.41  85.71  84.67  1.54  0.07  0.84  0.50      Marbling score9  455  450  450  441  10.20  0.75  0.98  0.56      Yield grade  3.1  3.1  2.8  3.0  0.08  0.75  0.03  0.16  1Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber. 2Treatments: CON, corn-based control with 13% traditional wet distillers grains; TRAD, 30% traditional wet distillers grains; CEL, 30% cellulosic wet distillers grains; CEL+CCDS, 18% cellulosic wet distillers grains and 12% corn condensed distillers solubles. 3Contrast comparing CON and TRAD. 4Contrast comparing TRAD and CEL. 5Constract comparing CEL and CEL+CCDS. 6A 4% pencil shrink was applied to all live weights. 7Final body weights were calculated from HCW using a common dressing percentage of 63.55%. 8Energy values calculated based on cattle performance using equations by Plascencia et al. (1999). 9Marbling score: 300 = slight, 400 = small, and 500 = modest. View Large No differences (P ≥ 0.12; Table 6) were observed among steers fed CEL or TRAD for ADG, FBW, HCW, LM area, or marbling score. However, steers fed CEL had decreased G:F, ME, and NEg (P ≤ 0.01) and increased DMI (P = 0.02) compared to TRAD-fed steers. Steers fed CEL had leaner carcasses as indicated by lesser USDA YG (P = 0.03) and decreased BF (P = 0.04) compared to steers fed TRAD. Among steers fed CEL and CEL+CCDS, G:F was not different (P = 0.50). However, steers fed CEL+CCDS had lesser (P ≤ 0.04) DMI and ADG compared to steers finished on CEL. This resulted in a tendency (P = 0.09) for steers fed CEL+CCDS to have lesser FBW and HCW compared to CEL steers. Based on steer performance, the CEL+CCDS diet tended to have greater (P ≤ 0.06) calculated ME and NEg values compared to CEL. Marbling score, BF, LM area, and YG did not differ (P ≥ 0.15) between steers fed CEL and CEL+CCDS. Distributions of YG were not affected (P ≥ 0.15; data not shown) by treatment and averaged 3.6%, 45.6%, 44.6%, and 4.8%, SEM of 7.35, for YG 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Likewise, QG distributions did not differ (P ≥ 0.12; data not shown) due to treatment and averaged 18.8%, 65.7%, and 13.2%, SEM of 6.26 for average choice or higher, low choice, and select, respectively. Real-time ultrasound measurements are presented in Table 7. Final ultrasound measurements showed that steers fed CEL had decreased BF (P = 0.03) compared to steers fed TRAD, but LM area and IMF did not differ (P ≥ 0.27) between treatments. Steers finished on CEL had a decreased rate of external fat deposition (P = 0.04) without negatively affecting marbling score (P = 0.59) compared to TRAD-fed steers. Table 7. Influence of traditional and cellulosic wet distillers grains on real time ultrasound measurements of steers (Exp. 2)1             P-value    CON2  TRAD2  CEL2  CEL+ CCDS2  SEM  CON vs. TRAD3  TRAD vs. CEL4  CEL vs. CEL+CCDS5  Initial (d 0)                  Backfat, cm  0.70  0.73  0.72  0.68  0.03  0.53  0.83  0.30  LM area, cm2  71.28  72.63  72.02  71.33  1.07  0.39  0.69  0.65  IMF6, %  3.72  3.50  3.48  3.57  0.17  0.36  0.95  0.71  Final (d 94)7                  Backfat, cm  1.17  1.17  1.09  1.07  0.03  0.80  0.03  0.74  LM area, cm2  90.81  91.76  92.72  91.25  1.00  0.49  0.49  0.29  IMF, %  3.84  3.83  3.96  3.76  0.08  0.92  0.27  0.11              P-value    CON2  TRAD2  CEL2  CEL+ CCDS2  SEM  CON vs. TRAD3  TRAD vs. CEL4  CEL vs. CEL+CCDS5  Initial (d 0)                  Backfat, cm  0.70  0.73  0.72  0.68  0.03  0.53  0.83  0.30  LM area, cm2  71.28  72.63  72.02  71.33  1.07  0.39  0.69  0.65  IMF6, %  3.72  3.50  3.48  3.57  0.17  0.36  0.95  0.71  Final (d 94)7                  Backfat, cm  1.17  1.17  1.09  1.07  0.03  0.80  0.03  0.74  LM area, cm2  90.81  91.76  92.72  91.25  1.00  0.49  0.49  0.29  IMF, %  3.84  3.83  3.96  3.76  0.08  0.92  0.27  0.11  1Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber. 2Treatments: CON, control; TRAD, 30% traditional wet distillers grains; CEL, 30% cellulosic wet distillers grains; CEL+CCDS, 18% cellulosic wet distillers grains and 12% corn condensed distillers solubles. 3Contrast comparing CON and TRAD. 4Contrast comparing TRAD and CEL. 5Contrast comparing CEL and CEL+CCDS. 6Percent intramuscular fat of the LM area. 7Analyzed using the initial scan measurements as a covariate. View Large Table 7. Influence of traditional and cellulosic wet distillers grains on real time ultrasound measurements of steers (Exp. 2)1             P-value    CON2  TRAD2  CEL2  CEL+ CCDS2  SEM  CON vs. TRAD3  TRAD vs. CEL4  CEL vs. CEL+CCDS5  Initial (d 0)                  Backfat, cm  0.70  0.73  0.72  0.68  0.03  0.53  0.83  0.30  LM area, cm2  71.28  72.63  72.02  71.33  1.07  0.39  0.69  0.65  IMF6, %  3.72  3.50  3.48  3.57  0.17  0.36  0.95  0.71  Final (d 94)7                  Backfat, cm  1.17  1.17  1.09  1.07  0.03  0.80  0.03  0.74  LM area, cm2  90.81  91.76  92.72  91.25  1.00  0.49  0.49  0.29  IMF, %  3.84  3.83  3.96  3.76  0.08  0.92  0.27  0.11              P-value    CON2  TRAD2  CEL2  CEL+ CCDS2  SEM  CON vs. TRAD3  TRAD vs. CEL4  CEL vs. CEL+CCDS5  Initial (d 0)                  Backfat, cm  0.70  0.73  0.72  0.68  0.03  0.53  0.83  0.30  LM area, cm2  71.28  72.63  72.02  71.33  1.07  0.39  0.69  0.65  IMF6, %  3.72  3.50  3.48  3.57  0.17  0.36  0.95  0.71  Final (d 94)7                  Backfat, cm  1.17  1.17  1.09  1.07  0.03  0.80  0.03  0.74  LM area, cm2  90.81  91.76  92.72  91.25  1.00  0.49  0.49  0.29  IMF, %  3.84  3.83  3.96  3.76  0.08  0.92  0.27  0.11  1Cellulosic wet distillers grains derived from secondary fermentation of corn kernel fiber. 2Treatments: CON, control; TRAD, 30% traditional wet distillers grains; CEL, 30% cellulosic wet distillers grains; CEL+CCDS, 18% cellulosic wet distillers grains and 12% corn condensed distillers solubles. 3Contrast comparing CON and TRAD. 4Contrast comparing TRAD and CEL. 5Contrast comparing CEL and CEL+CCDS. 6Percent intramuscular fat of the LM area. 7Analyzed using the initial scan measurements as a covariate. View Large DISCUSSION While corn oil extraction has become standard in the ethanol industry, generation of cellulosic ethanol via corn fiber fermentation has only recently become possible due to technological advancements. This research was conducted to better understand how a coproduct of a cellulosic ethanol process from corn fiber (C-WDG) may influence nutrient digestibility and cattle performance compared to traditional WDG (T-WDG) in finishing diets. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report on the influence of coproducts produced from corn kernel fiber derived cellulosic ethanol production on ruminant digestibility or performance. The ethanol plant responsible for C-WDG technology has commercially been producing C-WDG since July 2014, and to date, the nutrient composition has been similar to the C-WDG produced in the test run for use of this research. In the lamb study, NDF digestibility was not different between treatments and ADF digestibility was similar between sources of WDG at 30% inclusion. However, at the 45% inclusion of WDG, ADF digestibility was greater for lambs fed 45% T-WDG compared to those fed 45% C-WDG, suggesting that the secondary fermentation process may have hindered the bioavailability of some portion of the remaining fiber in the C-WDG. Previous in vitro research with a pretreatment of corn fiber utilizing cellulase and additional heat resulted in almost 80% of the kernel fiber being dissolved during the first 24 h of the pretreatment process (Mosier et al., 2005), suggesting that after pretreatment processing of the corn kernel, only the less soluble fiber remains. It appears that the secondary fermentation process may impact digestion of the residual fiber; however, additional research is needed to further clarify this finding. At the 30% inclusions, T-WDG and C-WDG resulted in similar digestibility for NDF, EE, and N in lambs. However, DM and ADF digestibility were decreased in 30% C-WDG-fed lambs compared to 30% T-WDG. While growth did not differ between CEL and TRAD-fed cattle, G:F was less efficient in CEL-fed steers, which may be attributed to the reduction in DM digestibility of C-WDG. The increase in EE digestibility of C-WDG at the 45% inclusion compared to 45% T-WDG suggests that although slightly more oil was removed from DG following the secondary fermentation process, the remaining oil was more available to the animal for utilization compared to the T-WDG. Previous research providing equivalent dietary EE from corn oil or WDG plus solubles (WDGS) indicated that cattle fed WDGS had improved performance, and thus the authors concluded that oil in DG is more digestible than free corn oil (Vander Pol et al., 2009). However, free corn oil has also been attributed to interfering with fiber digestion (Jenkins and Fotouhi, 1990), which could explain why ADF and DM digestion were lesser in C-WDG-fed lambs compared with T-WDG-fed lambs in Exp. 1. While this is the first research to be conducted with WDG from a secondary fermentation process and no data are available for direct comparison, previous research has compared deoiled and low-fat DG to traditional DG. Gigax et al. (2011) found that steers fed 35% traditional-fat WDGS (12.9% fat; 6.91% total dietary fat) had improved feed conversion and heavier FBW and HCW compared to steers fed 35% low-fat WDGS (6.7% fat; 4.72% total dietary fat). However, similar EE concentrations among the 2 WDG sources used in the present experiment (7.7% and 7.3% EE for T-WDG and C-WDG, respectively) may partially explain why steer growth was not different between cattle fed 30% WDG of either source. Similar to results in Exp. 2, Ceconi et al. (2013) fed diets containing 35% traditional-fat dried DG plus solubles (DDGS; 6.7% total dietary fat) or 35% low-fat DDGS (4.5% total dietary fat) to steers and observed no difference in DMI. However, OM digestibility also did not differ (Ceconi et al., 2013), whereas in Exp. 1, DM and OM digestibilities of lambs fed diets containing T-WDG were greater than those fed C-WDG. Much of the digestibility differences in the lamb trial (Exp. 1) were driven by the 45% inclusions of WDG, which were not evaluated in the steer study (Exp. 2). One difference between C-WDG and T-WDG that was not directly measured in Exp. 1 was digestibility of starch, which may have potentially impacted results of Exp. 2 as there was less starch in C-WDG (1.6%) compared to T-WDG (5.1%). Although starch concentrations are decreased in DG (Klopfenstein et al., 2008), starch is a rapidly fermentable carbohydrate that supplies energy and supports performance of the ruminant (Huntington, 1997). While starch remained a small component of the final diets, removal of residual starch during the C-WDG process may have contributed to the decreased feed efficiency of steers fed C-WDG compared to steers fed T-WDG. Compared to CORN, increasing inclusions of C-WDG and T-WDG in the diets of Exp. 1 increased N digestibility. Urine output was increased as WDG increased in the diet, regardless of source, and may in part be due to increased S concentrations of the diets. This is consistent with previous studies where urine output increased linearly in lambs fed up to 60% DDGS as dietary S concentrations increased from 0.22% to 0.84% (Neville et al., 2011) or 0.12% to 0.47% (Felix et al., 2012). As inclusions of WDG increased in the diets regardless of source, lamb PUN concentrations also increased, which was reflective of the increase of N dietary concentrations and N digestibility of diets. Plasma urea concentrations reported in other feedlot lamb trials were lesser than results from Exp. 1, but the N content of the diets fed in previous trials were also lesser than the present study (Bohnert et al., 2002; Sunny et al., 2007). However, Radunz et al. (2011) fed gestating ewes diets containing similar dietary concentrations of N to those fed in Exp. 1 and noted PUN concentrations similar to those observed in the present study. In the current study, the increase in PUN concentrations as WDG increased, regardless of source, along with the positive N balance, suggest that diets exceeded the lamb protein requirements (NRC, 2007) to support maintenance and growth. The lack of N balance differences between treatments could be explained by the large variation between lambs; however, the focus of Exp. 1 was on nutrient digestibility rather than N retention. In a study by Pritchard et al. (2012), feeding 40% WDGS (12.2% fat; 6.58% total dietary fat) to steers increased DMI, ADG, and improved feed conversion compared to feeding 40% WDG (8.9% fat; 5.34% total dietary fat). However, in Exp. 2 of the present report, the addition of CCDS to the C-WDG (CEL+CCDS diet) appeared to hinder DMI and ADG compared to steers fed CEL. The decreased performance of steers finished on CEL+CCDS is most likely attributed to the S content of the CCDS, which were analyzed to be 2.10% S (Dairyland Laboratories Inc., Acardia, WI), corresponding to 0.47% dietary S for CEL+CCDS compared to 0.34% S for CEL diet. Diets containing greater than 0.40% S have been shown to decrease DMI and growth performance in cattle in numerous studies (DiCostanzo and Crawford, 2013; Pogge and Hansen, 2013; Drewnoski et al., 2014). In this study, CCDS were included at 12% of the diet (DM basis); therefore, more moderate inclusions of CCDS to C-WDG may be feasible without decreasing DMI and hindering ADG as observed in Exp. 2. Results from the present studies are consistent with previous research reiterating that traditional WDG are superior to corn in energy value in finishing cattle diets (Gigax et al., 2011; Pritchard et al., 2012; Jolly, 2013; Watson et al., 2014). Although diets were formulated to meet or exceed NRC (2000) requirements, DIP may have limited cattle performance in the CON diet, contributing to performance differences between CON and TRAD-fed steers. Based on the dietary ME and NEg values calculated from cattle performance in Exp. 2, the energy value of T-WDG was calculated to be 25% greater than C-WDG. While not statistically compared, dietary energy content was similar between CON and CEL based on cattle growth and DMI. In summary, feeding 30% T-WDG in the present experiments resulted in similar digestibility and improved performance compared to feeding corn-based control diets. Wet DG from a novel, secondary fermentation process to produce cellulosic ethanol from corn kernel fiber (C-WDG) resulted in similar fiber, EE, and N digestibilities at 30% of the diet compared to 30% T-WDG. Although DM digestibility was slightly decreased in C-WDG compared to T-WDG at 30% inclusion in the lamb digestibility study, growth and carcass performance of steers fed 30% C-WDG was similar to those fed 30% T-WDG while feed efficiency was decreased. Therefore, incorporation of a coproduct from a novel, secondary fermentation process for conversion of corn kernel fiber into cellulosic ethanol maintained growth performance of cattle when replacing corn in feedlot diets. LITERATURE CITED AOAC 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arlington, VA. AOAC 1995. Official methods of analysis. 16th ed. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arlington, VA. AOAC 2005. Official methods of analysis. 18th ed. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arlington, VA. Berger L. Singh V. 2010. Changes and evolution of corn coproducts for beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci.  88: E143– E150. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bohnert D. W. Schauer C. S. DelCurto T. 2002. Influence of rumen protein degradability and supplementation frequency on performance and nitrogen use in ruminants consuming low-quality forage: Cow performance and efficiency of nitrogen use in wethers. J. Anim. Sci.  80: 1629– 1637. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Ceconi I. DiCostanzo A. Crawford G. 2013. Effect of low-fat dried distillers grains inclusion in finishing diets on feedlot cattle total tract digestibility and ruminal fermentation parameters. Univ. of Minnesota Final Report. Agricultural Utilization Research Institute. Project AIC125. Depenbusch B. E. Loe E. R. Quinn M. J. Corrigan M. E. Gibson M. L. Karges K. K. Drouillard J. S. 2008. Corn distillers grains with solubles derived from a traditional or partial fractionation process: Growth performance and carcass characteristics of finishing feedlot heifers. J. Anim. Sci.  86: 2338– 2343. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  DiCostanzo A. Crawford G. 2013. Effect of finishing cattle on low fat distillers grains on animal performance and carcass and meat characteristics. http://www.auri.org/assets/2013/05/AIC024.DG-finishing-cattle.pdf. (Accessed 1 February 2014.) Drewnoski M. E. Pogge D. J. Hansen S. L. 2014. High-sulfur in beef cattle diets: A review. J. Anim. Sci.  92: 3763– 3780. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dwivedi P. Alavalapati J. R. Lal P. 2009. Cellulosic ethanol production in the United States: Conversion technologies, current production status, economics, and emerging developments. Energy Sustainable Dev.  13: 174– 182. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Felix T. L. Zerby H. N. Moeller S. J. Loerch S. C. 2012. Effects of increasing dried distillers grains with solubles on performance, carcass characteristics, and digestibility of feedlot lambs. J. Anim. Sci.  90: 1356– 1363. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Gigax J. A. Nuttlemen B. L. Griffin W. A. Klopfenstein T. J. 2011. Performance and carcass characteristics of finishing steers fed low-fat and normal-fat wet distillers grains. In: 2011 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report. Rep. No. 610. Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln. p. 44– 45. Goering H. K. Van Soest P. J. 1970. Forage ðber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures, and applications). Agric. Handbook No. 379. ARS-USDA, Washington, DC. Hall M. B 2009. Determination of starch, including maltooligosaccharides, in animal feeds: Comparison of methods and a method recommended for AOAC collaborative study. J. AOAC Int.  92: 42– 49. Google Scholar PubMed  Huntington G. B 1997. Starch utilization by ruminants: From basics to the bunk. J. Anim. Sci.  75: 852– 867. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jenkins T. C. Fotouhi N. 1990. Effects of lecithin and corn oil on site of digestion, ruminal fermentation and microbial protein synthesis in sheep. J. Anim. Sci.  68: 460– 466. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jolly M. L 2013. Evaluation of oil extraction on corn dry-milling byproducts in growing and finishing cattle diets. MS thesis. Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln. Klopfenstein T. J. Erickson G. E. Bremer V. R. 2008. BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: Use of distillers grains by-products in the beef cattle feeding industry. J. Anim. Sci.  86: 1223– 1231. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mosier N. S. Henderickson R. Brewer M. Ho N. Sedlak M. Dreshel R. Welch G. Dien B. S. Aden A. Ladisch M. R. 2005. Industrial scale-up of pH-controlled liquid hot water pretreatment of corn fiber for fuel ethanol production. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.  125: 77– 97. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Neville B. W. Lardy G. P. Karges K. K. Kirschten L. A. Schauer C. S. 2011. Sulfur intake, excretion, and ruminal hydrogen sulfide concentrations in lambs fed increasing concentrations of distillers dried grains with solubles. Sheep Goat Res. J.  26: 13– 19. NRC 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, D.C. NRC 2007. Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: Sheep, goats, cervids, and new world camelids. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. Plascencia A. Estrada M. Zinn R. A. 1999. Influence of free fatty acid content on the feeding value of yellow grease in finishing diets for feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci.  77: 2603– 2609. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Pogge D. J. Hansen S. L. 2013. Supplemental vitamin C improves marbling in feedlot cattle consuming high sulfur diets. J. Anim. Sci.  91: 4303– 4314. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Pogge D. J. Drewnoski M. E. Hansen S. L. 2014. High dietary sulfur decreases the retention of copper, manganese, and zinc in steers. J. Anim. Sci.  92: 2182– 2191. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Pritchard R. H. Bruns K. W. 2003. Controlling variation in feed intake through bunk management. J. Anim. Sci.  81: E133– E138. Pritchard R. Loe E. Milton T. 2012. Relationship between fat content and NE values for some ethanol byproducts. In: 2012 South Dakota Beef Report. Rep. No. 2012-06. South Dakota State Univ., Brookings. p. 29– 35. Radunz A. E. Fluharty F. L. Zerby H. N. Loerch S. C. 2011. Winter-feeding systems for gestating sheep I. Effects on pre- and postpartum ewe performance and lamb progeny preweaning performance. J. Anim. Sci.  89: 467– 477. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Renewable Fuels Association 2013. Ethanol industry outlook: Battling for the barrel. http://ethanolrfa.org/page//PDFs/RFA/2013/Ethanol/Industry/Outlook.pdf?nocdn=1. (Accessed 4 February 2015.) Richter E. L. Drewnoski M. E. Hansen S. L. 2012. Effects of increased dietary sulfur on beef steer mineral status, performance, and meat fatty acid composition. J. Anim. Sci.  90: 3945– 3953. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rosentrater K. A. Ileleji K. Johnston D. B. 2011. Manufacturing of fuel ethanol and distillers grains-current and evolving processes. In: Lui K. Rosentrater K. A. editors, Distillers grains: Production, properties, and utilization.  CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 73– 84. Solomon B. D. Barnes J. R. Halvorsen K. E. 2007. Grain and cellulosic ethanol: History, economics, and energy policy. Biomass Bioenergy  31: 416– 425. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sunny N. E. Owens S. L. Baldwin R. L.VI El-Kadi S. W. Kohn R. A. Bequette B. J. 2007. Salvage of blood urea nitrogen in sheep in highly dependent on plasma urea concentration and the efficiency of capture within the digestive tract. J. Anim. Sci.  85: 1006– 1013. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  U.S. Grains Council 2012. A guide to distiller's dried grains with solubles. 3rd ed.http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@ansci/documents/asset/cfans_asset_417244.pdf. (Accessed 4 February 2015). Vander Pol K. J. Luebbe M. K. Crawford G. I. Erickson G. E. Klopfenstein T. J. 2009. Performance and digestibility characteristics of finishing diets containing distillers grains, composites of corn processing co-products, or supplemental corn oil. J. Anim. Sci.  87: 639– 652. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Van Soest P. J. Robertson J. B. Lewis B. A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci.  74: 3583– 3597. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Watson A. K. Vander Pol K. J. Huls T. J. Luebbe M. K. Erickson G. E. Klopfenstein T. J. Greenquist M. A. 2014. Effect of dietary inclusion of wet or modified distillers grains plus solubles on performance of finishing cattle. Prof. Anim. Sci.  30: 585– 596. American Society of Animal Science
TI - Influence of distillers grains resulting from a cellulosic ethanol process utilizing corn kernel fiber on nutrient digestibility of lambs and steer feedlot performance
JF - Journal of Animal Science
DO - 10.2527/jas.2014-8572
DA - 2015-05-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/influence-of-distillers-grains-resulting-from-a-cellulosic-ethanol-ZTB0pSGasu
SP - 2265
EP - 2274
VL - 93
IS - 5
DP - DeepDyve
ER -