tips to evaluate co-products

[Sir Loin]

tips to evaluate co-products
Just an FYI, take it for what it's worth.
SL

It's a subtle change in wording, but a byproduct refers to a secondary or incidental product of a manufacturing process.
A co-product is a product produced along with another product.
When the price of distillers grains began trading relative to the price of corn, it was no longer a byproduct, but a co-product of ethanol production, he said.

Sulfur content. "When you think about distillers and the process, anytime you remove oil, you change the composition of distillers. Sulfur is still something we need to look at, although as an industry we've gotten better at managing that."

IMO, " Better" isn't good enough, the issue of excess sulfur in cattle feed needs to be resolved.

Source: http://www.minnesotafarmguide.com/news/ ... 963f4.html

 

[TexasBred]

#1....Learn the definition of cattle feed
#2....Learn the definition of a "cattle feed ingredient".
#3....Note the difference.

I challenge you to go to any feed store or your choice, pull a representative sample of any 20 feeds in the store, send them to a reputable laboratory and have them analyzed for sulfur content. I'll give you $100 for each feed sample that fails to fall within the recognized "safe limits of sulfur". You give me $50 for every sample that passes. While you're at it read the feeding directions on the tag as well as any warnings it might contain. Then contact the national research council and see what the inclusion limitations are on the various "ingredients" used in a feed formulation. ie; 10%, 20% etc. How about it??

 

[Sir Loin]

TB,
You really need to calm down and look at the facts presented to you.

If you want to challenge " Chad Zehnder, a nutritionist for Purina Animal Nutrition LLC ",
who is admitting there is a problem with sulfur in feed stock from ethanol, that's fine with me. Have at it! I would like to hear your side of the issue. But I see no reason for you to challenge me.

Now common sense tell me if Purina is having problems with sulfur from ethanol co-products, so is everyone else who is using this co-product.
Especially cattleman who have no nutritionist on staff to guide them in using ethanol co-products properly when it is bought in bulk with no analysis sheet being provided.

Now cheer up and remember, the first step to solving any problem is to first admit there is a problem, which Purina has now done.

SL

 

[TexasBred]

TB,


If you want to challenge " Chad Zehnder, a nutritionist for Purina Animal Nutrition LLC ",
who is admitting there is a problem with sulfur in feed stock from ethanol, that's fine with me. Have at it! I would like to hear your side of the issue. But I see no reason for you to challenge me.

Now common sense tell me if Purina is having problems with sulfur from ethanol co-products, so is everyone else who is using this co-product.
Especially cattleman who have no nutritionist on staff to guide them in using ethanol co-products properly when it is bought in bulk with no analysis sheet being provided.

Now cheer up and remember, the first step to solving any problem is to first admit there is a problem, which Purina has now done.

SL

Knowing he works for Purina gives me an advantage. lolol.....IF Purina is having a problem it is not with the ingredient. It is with the "dude" formulating the rations as well as their highly advertised "quality control" system. Yet they have more recalls and fail more guarantees than any feed company. Now how about my challenge to you Mr. Sulfur.

 

[Lucky_P]

SulfurLoins,
TB hit the nail square on the head. You'd do well to accept his challenge.

Sulfur-associated polio is a documented occurrence - but one has to consider ALL sulfur sources, including sulfur content of drinking water, as well as levels of S-containing ingredients in the total ration.

Ethanol byproducts/coproducts, corn gluten feed, etc. are not evil incarnate. Contrary to your claims, not everyone utilizing them as a part of ration formulation is encountering problems.
As a pathologist in a veterinary diagnostic laboratory serving producers in the western half of KY, portions of middle & western TN, and portions of southern IL & IN - all areas in which ethanolcoproducts and CGF are widely utilized as livestock feeds - I have never seen a case of polioencephalomalacia in cattle being fed distiller's grains or corn gluten feed. Have seen it in Holstein steers being fed a hominy-based ration, but never with DDG, MDG, WDG, or CGF.
Yes, it could potentially happen, but I've not seen it - and if I did, I'd also recommend the producer test their water in order to determine if it's also adding to total S.

I've been feeding modified distiller's grain product - and nothing more, other than free-choice access to a balanced mineral mix - as a supplement to limit-fed hay - to my beef herd for the past 6 years; as much as 8-10#/hd/day, from October through February. We have experienced NO PROBLEMS of any sort, in dry cows, bred/lactating cows, yearling heifers, or fall-born calves.

 

[Lucky_P]

oops. double post.

 

[larryshoat]

I feed a semi load of DDGS a month and have for years. It's great feed, a little high priced now. We do feed a premix with thiamine in it.

Larry

 

[TexasBred]

oops. double post.

Should have left it up Doc...it was worth reading twice.

 

[Sir Loin]

TB,
Re:

Now how about my challenge to you Mr. Sulfur.

I really have no interest in engaging in a pizzing contest with you, as it servers no purpose.
I'm only interested if facts that may help resolve this issue.
That is not to say your opposing points of view are not welcome, it simply means lets deal with the facts as we know them and not impose your special interests views.

Now please note, " Chad Zehnder, a nutritionist for Purina Animal Nutrition LLC " said:
"Sulfur is still something we need to look at, although as an industry we've gotten better at managing that"
Do you see the word "industry" That tells me it is more then just a Purina problem but is in fact an "industry" problem.



Now as for: the " national research council"
My research goes all the way back to 1936 and up to present time and their position has been and still is:
Nutrient requirement: 0.10 % of ration dry matter with a range of 0.08 - 0.15 %
Toxic level as 0.40% of the ration dry matter.

Practical sources of sulfur are:
Feeds high in protein are usually high in sulfur. The microbial population of the rumen has the ability to convert inorganic sulfur into organic sulfur compounds that can be used by the animal. So either organic or inorganic sulfur can be utilized by cattle. Most feedstuffs provided to beef cattle contain sufficient sulfur to meet their needs.

Now lets apply those facts to a bottle fed calf in transition to feed.
If you select a calf starter feed to put this calf on, and it lists the protein content, then based on the NRC it must contain some sulfur.
And the higher the protein content, the higher the sulfur content.

So, if the salesman says there is no sulfur listed on the tag, there is no sulfur in this feed, politely tell him he is full of chit. If it has protein, it has to have some sulfur in it.

TB,
Now my question for you is,
Why would the manufacture not put the sulfur content on the tag, which they did up until around 1995, fully knowing if it contains protein it must contain sulfur?

SL

 

[James T]

From the several articles I have read, Chad Zehnder is NOT referring to sulphur levels in bagged feed sold by the major suppliers but rather referring to the sulphur levels in the cheaper bi-products (not co-products) that individuals have access to. As commercial feed prices keep rising, those who have to feed cattle are constantly motivated to find something cheaper. This is what he is pointing at, because the sulphur levels are not consistent in these unregulated sources and vary from batch to batch. "We're starting to pull some oil out of the distillers grains, and it's starting to change our distillers products." Chad is merely saying "be careful" when using these bi-products unless your able to test for sulphur content. And, I read in many of these articles, and as Lucky P mentioned, that the water our cattle are drinking also contains sulphur. So, yes sulphur could pose a health problem but, not likely from providing bagged feed from a reputable manufacturer.

 

[Sir Loin]

Luck-P
Re:

Sulfur-associated polio is a documented occurrence

Agreed!

Re:

one has to consider ALL sulfur sources, including sulfur content of drinking water,

True, but water should not be a problem for bottle baby or other calves on city water.
Plus cattle who have been drinking water for the same source, and showed no sign of ill effect for many many years leads one to think that water is not the problem.

Re:

as well as levels of S-containing ingredients in the total ration.

True, but if S is not listed on the tag or no analysis sheet is given when buying in bulk, there is no way to know the S content in the total ration, even if there is a high level of S in the water.
Re:

Ethanol byproducts/coproducts, corn gluten feed, etc. are not evil incarnate.

For now I will respectfully disagree.
Re:

Contrary to your claims, not everyone utilizing them as a part of ration formulation is encountering problems.

Again I will respectfully disagree.
IMO they simply may not be recognizing many of their problem for what they really are.
Such as a poor reproduction rate or sick and dead cows and calves.
Hey, it took me 4 years before I figured it out even with 4 different vets working on it with me.
Re:

As a pathologist in a veterinary diagnostic laboratory serving producers in the western half of KY, portions of middle & western TN, and portions of southern IL & IN - all areas in which ethanolcoproducts and CGF are widely utilized as livestock feeds - I have never seen a case of polioencephalomalacia in cattle being fed distiller's grains or corn gluten feed. Have seen it in Holstein steers being fed a hominy-based ration, but never with DDG, MDG, WDG, or CGF.
Yes, it could potentially happen, but I've not seen it

Now please don't take this the wrong way, but you most likely have seen it, as probably have many cattleman.
Yes, you probably haven't seen the end result, but you most likely have seen a calf down with polio ( calf can't get up due to neurological damage) because they usual die from dehydration or malnutrition ( compromised immune system ) before they are properly diagnosed as polio.
To properly diagnose polio, you must first return the calf to good health when he should be able to stand on his own.
He must eat and drink on his own. Food goes in and excrement comes out as a healthy calf will do.
Blood test shows he should have plenty of energy and muscle coordination to stand on his own.
If he is still unable to stand on his own, a full necropsy is indicated.
If all vital organs are found to be OK, neurological damage should be suspected.
And as I understand it, the only way to check for neurological damage is to euthanize the animal and immediately remove the brain for study.

Now if all you are receiving is blood and vital organ samples to work with there is no way you can reach a diagnosis of polio. (or brainers )

Should you have a true interest in pursuing this, if/when I have another calf that I suspect of having polio, I would be happy to deliver it live to you.
Hope I didn't offend you.
SL

 

[TexasBred]

TB, Now my question for you is, Why would the manufacture not put the sulfur content on the tag, which they did up until around 1995, fully knowing if it contains protein it must contain sulfur?

SL

For the very same reason that the hundreds of other macro and micro minerals and amino acids are not listed on the tag. As formulated and fed according to instructions, the sulfur levels will be within normal limits. Knowing you may have excessive sulfur coming from other sources should be enough for you to want to also have them tested and amounts confirmed. No pizzing contest SirLoin. My offer stands. The feed test WILL pass testing 99.9% of the time if the person doing the formulations knows what he is working with and takes all these things into consideration. In the cases you mentioned, if the nutritionist put a limiter on the maximum sulfur level for a particular feed, those ingredients which might be higher in sulfur (DDG, CGF etc) would be extremely limited in their inclusion rate. You don't simply load a cow up with an ingredient because it is cheap (which I think you may have done in the past). You consider these other limiting factors.

Now....let's assume your feed contains NPN....what would be the affect of decreased or increased sulfur levels in the ration and why??

 

[Lucky_P]

In my hands - I am a pathologist - the diagnosis of polioencephalomalacia is made at necropsy, by examining the brain.
Most of them that come to me (dead) have visible brain swelling and separation of cerebrocortical lamina that I can see grossly - and examination under a Wood's Lamp(black light) produces characteristic autofluorescence, like this: http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com ... 792370.png

Now, I can't differentiate between sulfur-induced polio and thiamine-deficient polio from gross or histologic appearance - it's the same lesion regardless of cause; but, by gathering a good clinical history - feeding program, water supply, etc., and testing suspect water, feed, etc., I can deduce which is the likely culprit.
Haven't yet seen a case of polio in calves being fed DDG, CGF. Most that I see are on a ration containing a high % of corn grain.

I did see a few cases when I was in practice, back in the '80s, and the diagnosis was based on history and clinical signs, confirmed by response to treatment with thiamine - or at necropsy; some of 'em are gonna die regardless of what you do for them.

 

[Sir Loin]

And the beat goes on.
FYI;
Re: Water.

Today I spent an hour with the manager of our local water company discussing the sulfur level in our water supply.

We have 3 plants, each with their own source of water.
One is supplied by a reservoir ( spring feed and runoff ) and the other 2 are supplied by well water.
Once every 3 years or so they all are tested by the state of Tennessee

The last Tennessee state tests show that the 3 sources and the treated product delivered to the customer show below detectable levels of sulfur.

Now add that to the fact that cattle have been drinking this same water for over 50 years with no ill effects, one should be able to conclude that the water is not the source of the toxic levels of the sulfur in my area.

Case closed on the water issue!!

SL
PS: That is why Tennessee whiskey is so good. NO SULFUR.