See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335528205

Effect of feeding rice distillers dried grain with solubles as major protein
source on nutrient digestibility and growth performance of Jersey crossbred
calves

Article  in  Indian Journal of Animal Research · August 2019

CITATIONS READS

4 885

7 authors, including:

Dipak Dey Bharti Sharma

Asif Mohammad
National Dairy Research Institute
41 PUBLICATIONS   121 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cattle View project

Camel management, Camelus dromedaries, Farmers, Milk, Desert eco-systems, Climate change, Camel use, View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dipak Dey on 01 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Indian J. Anim. Res., AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE

Effect of feeding rice distillers dried grain with solubles as major protein source
on nutrient digestibility and growth performance of Jersey crossbred calves
Dipak Dey*, Bharti Sharma1, Asif Mohammad, D.K. Mandal, C. Bhakat, T.K. Dutta and A. Chatterjee
Eastern Regional Station,
ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Kalyani-741 235, West Bengal, India.
Received: 24-01-2019 Accepted: 17-05-2019 DOI: 10.18805/ijar.B-3788
ABSTRACT
Rice Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (RDDGS) is a byproduct of alcohol industry obtained by distillation of fer-
mented rice. In the present experiment, chemical composition of RDDGS and the effect of supplementing RDDGS replac-
ing soybean meal (SBM) on growth performance and feed conversion efficiency of crossbred Jersey calves have been
studied. The DM content of RDDGS was 89.58 ± 0.09%. The chemical composition (% DM) in terms of OM, CP, EE, CF,
NFE, TA, NDF, ADF, TCHO and AIA were 94.97±0.09, 48.43± 0.69, 5.45 ± 0.16, 6.50±0.27, 34.58±1.01, 5.03 ± 0.09,
40.50 ± 0.93, 16.82 ± 0.65, 42.91 ± 1.52 and 0.95 ± 0.06, respectively. Chemical analysis indicated that it is a good source
of protein and other nutrients. The effect of feeding RDDGS in crossbred cattle was studied in a growth trial of 120 days
and a digestibility trial of six days collection period. The animals in control group (T0) were fed on soya bean meal based
concentrate mixture with paddy straw and green fodder as per requirement. In the treatment group (T1) soya bean meal in
concentrate mixture was totally replaced by RDDGS. There was no significant difference between two groups of animals
in terms of average DMI, CPI and TDNI. The blood parameters such as plasma glucose, protein, albumin, globulin,
enzymes (AST and ALT) and urea also remained unaffected. The digestibility of DM, CP and EE were significantly higher
in treatment group fed with RDDGS. The average daily gain (ADLG) was significantly higher in RDDGS supplemented
group as a result of which feed conversion efficiency improved and thus economized the ration.
Key words: Chemical composition, Growth, Jersey crossbred calves, Nutrient digestibility, Rice distillers dried grain
with solubles, Soyabean meal.

INTRODUCTION tion (Huang et al., 1999). From fermentation liquor the al-
India is the leading producer of milk but produc- cohol is distilled and then leftover is known as RDDGS. It
tivity of our animals is much lower than the global average, contains 47% protein (NRC, 1989) and around 3500 kcal/
due to inadequate and unbalanced feeding. Feed cost ac- kg metabolisable energy. Since it is recovered from fer-
counts up to 60 percent of total expenditure of a farm. At mented grains it is more nutritious than the cereal grains
present, the country faces a net deficit of 35.6% green fod- from which it is made up of. It does not contain any
der, 10.95% dry crop residues and 44% concentrate feed antinutritional factor, as might be the case with trypsin in-
ingredients (IGFRI, 2013). The high cost and less supply of hibitors in soybean. Distillers grains with solubles have been
conventional animal feed ingredients in most of the devel- reported to be a good source of rumen undegradable protein
oping countries has increased the demand for alternative in- (RUP) and energy for ruminants and may be included up to
gredients. This situation has given an impetus to search newer approximately one third of the diet for lactating dairy cows
and alternative feed resources to bridge the gap between (Schingoethe et al., 2009). The positive effect of feeding
demand and supply. Use of unconventional feed resources DDGS have been reported by some earlier workers on growth
in place of conventional feed can reduce the cost of produc- (Benson et al., 2005; Engel et al, 2014) and feed conversion
tion. For production of biofuel, different types of cereals efficiency (He et al., 2015; Vander Pol et al., 2009). Scien-
are in use and millions of tons of fermentation residues are tific studies regarding the effect of inclusion of RDDGS
available to the feed industry for its use as animal feed. Rice in ration replacing Soybean Meal (SBM) on growing Jer-
Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (RDDGS) is a sey crossbred calves is limited. Therefore, the present
byproduct of the processing of alcohol industry which is investigation was carried out to study the effect of feed-
produced from the distillation of fermented rice. In process- ing RDDGS on digestibility of nutrients, growth perfor-
ing of rice alcohol, rice is cooked at 131C and 2.6 kg/ m2 mance and feed conversion efficiency of crossbred Jersey
pressure and yeast is added to the cooked rice for fermenta- calves.
*Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected]
1
ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal-132 001, Haryana, India.
 2 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH
MATERIALS AND METHODS collected samples were analysed for DM, OM, CP and EE
Selection, care and feeding of animals: From the as per AOAC (2005). NDF and ADF were analysed accord-
herd of ERS, NDRI, Kalyani twelve growing Jersey cross- ing to Van Soest et al. (1991). Nutrient digestibility was es-
bred calves were selected, randomly divided into Control timated by using difference method.
(T0) and Treatment (T1) groups of six animals each having Statistical analysis: The data obtained during the growth
similar average age (7.5 months) and body weight study were subjected to statistical analysis in accordance
(113.1±12.1 and 113.9±13.1 kg in T0 and T1 , respectively). with Snedecor and Cochran (1968) using SPSS software.
Experimental animals were dewormed and vaccinated as per
farm schedule. Animals in T0 and T1 groups were fed indi- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
vidually with paddy straw, green fodder and concentrate Chemical composition of RDDGS: The chemical compo-
mixture as per ICAR (2013) requirements for 120 days. Two sition of RDDGS and SBM has been presented in Table 2.
types of iso-nitrogenous concentrate mixtures were The DM content of RDDGS was 89.58±0.09%. The proxi-
preparedand their ingredient composition is presented in mate composition (% DM) in terms of OM, CP, EE, NFE
Table 1. Clean and fresh drinking water was offered adlibitum and total ash were 94.97±0.09, 48.43± 0.69, 5.45 ± 0.16,
twice to each animal daily at 10.00 and 16.00 h. 34.58±1.15 and 5.03 ± 0.09, respectively. The cell wall con-
stituents (% DM) in RDDGS in terms of NDF, ADF, TCHO
Record of intake and body weight: Dry Matter Intake and AIA were 40.50±0.9, 16.82±0.65, 42.91±1.5 and
(DMI) was recorded daily for individual animal. Animals 0.95±0.06, respectively. Liu (2011) also reported similar
were weighed at the start of experiment and then at fort- nutrient values for RDDGS. Crude protein content of
nightly interval for two consecutive days before feeding and RDDGS was similar to SBM (48.43 and 48.50%, respec-
watering. The average of two days was considered as the tively) but EE, NDF and ADF content were comparatively
body weight for that fortnight. higher in RDDGS than SBM.
Sample collection and chemical analysis: Samples of Chemical composition of feeds and fodder: The chemical
RDDGS, feeds and fodders offered andresidue left were composition of straw, green fodder and concentrate mixtures
collected, pooled and processed weekly for further analy- have been presented in Table 3. The average CP content of
sis. The samples were analyzed for different nutritional pa- paddy straw and green fodder were 3.25 and 14.34 percent
rameters as per AOAC (2005). Cell wall fractions in samples of DM, respectively. There was not much difference in
were analysed according to Van Soest et al. (1991). Blood chemical composition of the two concentrate mixtures. The
samples were collected in heparinized tubes (10 ml) from CP content of control and treatment concentrate mixtures
Jugular vein before offering feed in morning at 0, 60th and were 24.24 and 24.04 percent of DM, respectively indicat-
120th days of growth trial. The collected blood samples were ing the two diets offered to control and treatment groups
centrifuged (3000 × g for 30 min at 4C) and the plasma were isonitrogenous. The EE content was slightly higher in
samples were frozen immediately at -20C for further analy- treatment concentrate mixture due to higher EE content in
sis. Plasma glucose, total protein, albumin, globulin, blood RDDGS than SBM.
urea, ALT and AST levels were estimated using analytical Effect of RDDGS feeding on nutrient digestibility: The
kits (Span Arkray Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. India) as per stan- digestibility coefficients of various nutrients have been pre-
dard procedure. sented in Table 4. Inclusion of RDDGS in place of SBM in
Estimation of digestibility of nutrients: After 75 days of concentrate mixture improved the digestibility of DM and
experimental feeding a six days digestion trial was conducted CP significantly (P<0.05) in T1. The reason for higher di-
to determine the nutrients digestibility. Well-mixed repre- gestibility of CP could be the bypass protein and residual
sentative samples of concentrate, paddy straw and green Table 2: Comparative Chemical Composition of RDDGS and SBM.
fodder were collected. In the morning, the record of residue Parameter (% DM) Rice Distillers Soybean
left and feaces voided by each animal was taken and repre- Dried Grains meal
sentative samples were collected for further analysis. The with Solubles
Table 1: Parts of ingredients in concentrate mixture. Dry Mater (DM) 89.58±0.09 89.55±0.06
Organic Matter (OM) 94.97±0.09 91.85±0.08
Ingredient T0 T1 Crude Protein (CP) 48.43±0.69 48.50±0.46
Maize grain 32 32 Ether Extract (EE) 5.45±0.16 1.52±0.09
SBM 25 0 Nitrogen Free Extract (NFE) 34.58±1.01 34.75±1.21
RDDGS 0 25 Total Ash (TA) 5.03±0.09 8.15±0.08
Wheat bran 30 30 Acid Insoluble Ash (AIA) 0.95±0.06 0.67±0.11
Mustard oil cake 10 10 Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) 40.50±0.93 27.54±0.54
Mineral mixture 2 2 Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF) 16.82±0.65 11.13±0.08
Common salt 1 1 Total Carbohydrates (TCHO) 42.91±1.52 41.83±0.51
 Vol. Issue , ()
yeast single cell protein content of the RDDGS (Castillo- Effect of feeding RDDGS on intake parameters of Jer-
Lopez et al., 2010). Ojowi et al. (1996) reported that wet sey crossbred calves during digestibility trial: The data
distillers grains have lower rumen undegradable crude pro- on DM, CP and TDN intakeduring digestibility trial have
tein values than dried distillers' grains. Schingoethe et al. been presented in Table 5. The average DMI as percent of
(2009), suggested that the RUP contained in DDGS is 55% bodyweight were 2.51±0.04 and 2.77±0.09 in T0 and T1
when fed to dairy cows. Paz et al. (2013) determined the groups, respectively. The roughage: concentrate ratio in T0
average RUP digestibility to be 83.9 %. and T1 groups were 38.2:61.8 and 41.6:58.4, respectively
The digestibility coefficient for the EE was also indicating slightly higher proportion of concentrate intake
significantly higher in T1 (P<0.01) than T0 group. Due to in control group. There was no significant difference
higher EE content in treatment concentrate mixture the EE (P>0.05) in DM, CP, DCP and TDN intake between two
intake was comparatively higher in the treatment group. The groups indicating replacement of SBM by RDDGS in treat-
source of this increased EE in the treatment diet is RDDGS, ment diet has no adverse effect on intake parameters. Higher
which is having very good fatty acid profile. The incorpora- DCP and TDN intake, though statistically non-significant,
tion of RDDGS replacing SBM in treatment diet positively in treatment group as compared to control group may be
influenced the ether extract supply both quantitatively and attributed to significantly higher DM, CP and EE
qualitatively. These may be the possible reasons for signifi- digestibilityin treatment group as compared to control group.
cant increase in EE digestibility. Vander Pol et al. (2009) Effect of RDDGS feeding in concentrate mixture on blood
found higher proportions of elaidic, oleic, and linoleic reach- biochemical profile: The data on blood parameters have
ing the duodenum in WDGS fed cattle when compared to been presented in Table 6. The plasma glucose, total pro-
corn fed. Corrigan et al. (2009) observed a 3.4% increase tein, albumin, globulin,AST and ALT concentration did not
for fat digestibility for diets containing 40% WDGS. vary significantly and were within normal range between
Statistical analysis of the data showed that ADF, the control and treatment groups, indicated that there was
NDF and total carbohydrate (TCHO) digestibility was simi- no adverse effect of feeding RDDGS replacing SBM.
lar in T1 and T0 groups. Castillo-Lopez et al. (2010) fed di- Effect of RDDGS feeding on intake and growth perfor-
ets with increasing increments of reduced fat DDGS from 0 mance of Jersey crossbred calves: The average intake of
to 30 % to lactating dairy cows and reported no difference nutrients, average daily gain (ADG), feed conversion effi-
in DM or NDF digestibilities. Diets containing DDGS were ciency (FCE) and Feed conversion ratio (FCR) have been
not different for total-tract starch digestibility compared to presented in Table 7. The average DMI (kg/d/100kg body
diets containing no DDGS (Corrigan et al., 2009). weight) were 2.49±0.04 and 2.51±0.08 in T0 and T1 groups,
Table 3: Chemical composition (% on DM basis) of feeds and fodder fed to crossbred calves during growth trial.
Parameter(% DM) Straw Green Concentrate mixture(T0) Concentrate mixture(T1)
DM 88.39 14.55 88.45 88.93
OM 86.10 90.21 92.54 92.80
CP 3.25 14.34 24.24 24.04
EE 1.71 3.15 4.61 5.40
Total ash 13.90 9.79 7.46 7.20
AIA 12.70 2.91 1.19 0.90
NDF 69.79 58.67 33.77 34.75
ADF 58.23 31.65 10.72 11.94
TCHO 81.14 72.72 62.69 63.66

Table 4: Nutrient digestibility (%) of crossbred calves fed diets having concentrate mixture with or without RDDGS.
Nutrients Digestibility coefficients (%) Statistical
Control Group(T0) Treatment Group(T1) Significance
DM 59.34±1.21 63.12±0.87 Significant(P<0.05)
OM 71.70±0.96 70.48±0.76 NS
CP 66.13±1.12 69.34±0.55 Significant(P<0.05)
EE 73.14±0.86 78.06±0.54 Significant ( P<0.01)
NFE 69.53±0.98 71.49±0.71 NS
ADF 51.45±1.6 51.22±1.44 NS
NDF 60.8±1.06 60.5±1.16 NS
TCHO 72.06±0.78 70.55±0.82 NS
NS: Difference is statistically Non Significant (P>0.05)
 4 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH
Table 5: Nutrient intake during digestibility trial by the growing crossbred calves fed on control and treatment diet.
Attributes Control group (T0) Treatment group (T1) Statistical Significance
Total DM intake(Kg/d) 3.90±0.09 4.349±0.09 NS
DMI (kg/100kg BW/d) 2.51±0.04 2.77±0.09 NS
DMI (g/kg W0.75 /d) 88.49±1.14 97.30±2.13 NS
Roughage: concentrate ratio 38.2 : 61.8 41.6 : 58.4 NS
Total CPI (g/d) 0.676±0.01 0.729±0.02 NS
CPI (g/kg W0.75/d) 15.37±0.12 16.19±0.24 NS
DCP intake (kg/d) 0.450±0.02 0.506±0.01 NS
DCP intake (g/kg W0.75 /d) 10.17±0.21 11.22±0.17 NS
TDNI (kg/d) 2.49±0.08 2.93±0.06 NS
TDNI (g/kg W0.75/d) 56.54±1.33 66.10±1.90 NS
NS: Difference is statistically Non Significant (P>0.05)

Table 6: Influence of diets having concentrate mixture with or without RDDGS on blood biochemical parameters in crossbred calves.
Parameters Days of collection Control Treatment Statistical Significance
Blood Glucose (mg/dl) Initial (0 day) 74.14±1.39 77.58±3.03 NS
Mid (60th day) 84.75±1.93 83.84±2.14 NS
Final(120 th day) 80.90±0.71 80.00±1.22 NS
Total Protein (g/dl) Initial (0 day) 6.16±0.05 6.32±0.13 NS
Mid (60th day) 6.07±0.11 6.03±0.16 NS
Final(120 th day) 6.53±0.07 6.60±0.12 NS
Total Albumin (g/dl) Initial (0 day) 2.91±0.05 3.06±0.04 NS
Mid (60th day) 2.93±0.06 2.95±0.05 NS
Final(120 th day) 2.87±0.03 2.89±0.63 NS
Total Globulin (g/dl) Initial (0 day) 3.25±0.07 3.26±0.14 NS
Mid (60th day) 3.14±0.09 3.08±0.13 NS
Final(120 th day) 3.66±0.09 3.71±0.15 NS
Urea (mg/dl) Initial (0 day) 16.50±3.35 15.90±3.03 NS
Mid (60th day) 19.71±1.74 17.75±2.83 NS
Final(120 th day) 20.29±2.41 18.38±3.35 NS
AST (IU/ml) Initial (0 day) 44.03±6.3 45.9±4.1 NS
Mid (60th day) 37.69±3.9 40.25±6.0 NS
Final(120 th day) 34.61±2.1 37.64±2.5 NS
ALT (IU/ml) Initial (0 day) 16.26±2.5 16.77±1.3 NS
Mid (60th day) 14.44±1.0 11.96±1.3 NS
Final(120 th day) 12.65±4.4 11.04±1.9 NS
NS: Difference is statistically Non Significant (P>0.05)

Table 7: Intake, Growth Rate and Feed Conversion Efficiency of Jersey crossbred calves fed diets having concentrate mixture with or
without RDDGS during growth trial.
parameters Control Treatment Statistical Significance
TDMI (kg/d) 3.70±0.08 3.84±0.09 NS
DMI (kg/d/100 kg BW) 2.49±0.04 2.57±0.08 NS
DMI ( g/d/kg W0.75 ) 86.57±1.2 88.81±1.80 NS
CP Intake (g/d/kgW0.75) 15.07 ±0.46 14.87 ±0.42 NS
TDN Intake (g/d/kgW0.75) 55.19 ±1.68 60.07±1.71 NS
Average Daily Live weight Gain (g/day) 550.69±16.70 688.89±29.73 Significant(P<0.05)
Feed Conversion Efficiency (gain as % of DMI) 15.40±0.70 18.17±0.73 NS
Feed Conversion Ratio ( kg DMI/ kg Gain) 7.03±0.27 6.07±0.34 NS
NS: Difference is statistically Non Significant (P>0.05).
 Vol. Issue , ()
respectively without any significant difference. Similarly RDDGS, which might have resulted in significant improve-
there was no significant (P>0.05) difference in CP intake (g/ ment in growth performance. There are reports on reduction
kg W0.75) between two groups. The TDN intake (g/kg W0.75) in methane production with inclusion of DDGS in dairy and
was higher (though statistically nonsignificant) in T 1 beef cattle (Benchaar et al., 2013; Hunerberg et al., 2013),
(60.07±1.71) as compared to T0 (55.19±1.68) which may which may be due to increased fat in diet inhibiting growth
be due to higher digestibility of some nutrients as obtained of the protozoa population (Knapp et al., 2014). In the
for treatment group (Table 3). The results were in accordance present study also inclusion of RDDGS replacing SBM have
with Sihag et al. (2018) who replaced GNC in control group increased the fat percent of the diet. This suggests that at
with DDGS at three different levels and reported no differ- least a portion of energy retained from reduced methane loss
ences among treatments for DMI in crossbred dairy cattle. was utilized for growth. Castillo-Lopez et al. (2010) deter-
The ADLG (g/d) was significantly (P<0.01) higher mined that the concentration of yeast protein contained in
in T1 (688.9 ± 29.7) than T0 (550.7 ± 16.7). Engel et al. DDGS was 1.4% (DM-basis). Ingledew (1999) suggested
(2014) also found similar result in heifers. The improved that 3.9% of the dry weight of DDGS may be contributed by
digestibility of EE, CP and DM as a result of RDDGS incor- yeast cell biomass and that the greater value of distillers
poration, might have resulted in significant improvement in byproducts (average daily gain, feed efficiency) may be at
growth performance. Similar to the current findings,Benson least partially explained by the contribution of yeast com-
et al. (2005) evaluated the effects of replacing 15, 25, or 35 ponents that influence ruminal fermentation.
percent cracked corn with DDGS in steers and reported The improvement of production performance may
greater ADG at 25 percent DDGS in diet. The also improved be the resultant of several factors such as better chemical
by around 17 percent in T1, though the difference between profile of RDDGS, improvement of nutrient digestibility,
two groups were statistically non significant. Inclusion of reduction of methane production due to increased fat in diet,
DDGS in Holstein calf diet increased papillae length and presence of yeast cells and some other hidden factors. Keep-
width (Jun et al., 2014) and improved FCR (He et al., 2015). ing in view, lower price of RDDGS, it can economically
Vander Pol et al. (2009) showed that including WDGS in replace SBM fully in concentrate mixture of ruminants with-
the diet increased FCE when compared to corn. out any adverse effect and thus enhance the net profit. How-
In the present experiment the only difference be- ever, long term feeding trial in cattle or other ruminants is
tween the two groups was that the SBM in the control con- recommended to ascertain the effects of feeding such dis-
centrate mixture (25%) was totally replaced by RDDGS in tillery by-product on productive performance and health.
the treatment concentrate mixture. Thereby, any significant ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
change in intake, digestibility and growth parameters should Financial and Material support from the Director,
be considered as the impact of incorporation of ICAR-NDRI, Karnal and IFB Agro Industries Limited,
RDDGSreplacing SBM. The digestibility of EE, CP and DM Kolkata for carrying out the study are thankfully acknowl-
improved significantly as a result of incorporation of edged.

REFERENCES
AOAC. (2005). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Official Methods of Analysis. 18th Edition., Maryland, USA.
Benchaar, C., Hassanat, F., Gervais, R., Chouinard, P.Y., Julien, C., Petit, H.V. and Massé, D.I. (2013). Effects of increasing amounts
of corn dried distillers grains with solubles in dairy cow diets on methane production, ruminal fermentation, digestion, N
balance, and milk production. J. Dairy Sci., 96: 2413-2427.
Benson, C.S., Wright, C.L., Tjardes, K.E., Nicolai, R.E. and Rops, B.D. (2005). Effects of feeding varying concentrations of dry
distillers grains with solubles to finishing steers on feedlot performance, nutrient management and odorant emissions. South
Dakota State Univ. Beef Cattle Res. Rep., 13: 59.
Castillo-Lopez, E., Kononoff, P. J. and Miner, J. (2010). Short communication: Detection of yeast DNA in omasaldigesta of dairy cows
consuming dried distiller’s grains and solubles. J. Dairy Sci., 93: 5926-5929.
Corrigan, M.E., Erickson, G.E., Klopfenstein, T.J., Luebbe, M.K., Vander Pol, K.J., Meyer, N.F., Buckner, C.D., Vaness, S.J. and
Hanford, K.J. (2009). Effect of corn processing method and corn wet distillers grains plus solubles inclusion level in finish
-ing steers. J. Anim. Sci., 87: 3351-3362.
Engel, C. L., Patterson, H. H. and Perry, G. A. 2014. Effect of dried corn distillers grains plus solubles compared with soybean hulls
in late gestation heifer diets, on animal and reproductive performance. J AniM. Sci. 86 (7): 1697-1708.
He, Z.X., He, M.L., Zhao, Y.L., Xu, L., Walker, N.D. Beauchemin, K.A., McAllister, T.A. and Yang, W.Z. (2015). Effect of wheat
dried distillers grains and enzyme supplementation on growth rates, feed conversion ratio and beef fatty acid profile in
feedlot steers. Animal. 9(10): 1740-1746.
Huang, H.J., Chioua, P.W. S., Chiang, C.R. C.J.K., Yu, B. (1999). Effects of dried rice distillers' and grain supplementation on the
performance of lactating cows.Anim. Feed Sci. Technology. 77: 303-315.
 6 INDIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL RESEARCH
Hunerberg, M., McGinn, S.M., Beauchemin, K.A., Okine, E.K., Harstad, O.M.and McAllister, T.A. (2013). Effect of dried distillers’
grains with solubles on enteric methane emissions and nitrogen excretion from finishing beef cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 93:
373-385.
ICAR. (2013). Nutrient requirements of livestock and poultry. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
IGFRI. (2013). Vision 2050. Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) Gwalior Road,
Jhansi - 284 003.
Ingledew, W.M. (1999). Yeast could you base business on this bug? In: T.P. Lyons and K.A. Jacques, editors. Under the microscope-
focal points for the new millennium-biotechnology in the feed industry. Proceedings of Alltech’s 15 th Annual Symposium.
Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK. Pages 27-47
Jun. Xu., Hou, Y.J., Zhao, G.Q., Yu, A.B., Su, Y.J., Huo, Y.J. and Zhu, J. (2014). Replacement of forage fiber sources with dried
distillers grains with solubles and corn germ meal in holstein calf diets. Journal of Integr. Agric., 13: 1753-1758.
Knapp, J.R., Laur, G.L., Vadas, P.A., Weiss, W.P. and Tricarico, J.M. (2014). Invited review: Enteric methane in dairy cattle produc
tion: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. J. Dairy Sci., 97: 3231-3261.
Liu, K., (2011). Chemical composition of distillers grains: a review. J. Agric. Food Chem., 59: 1508–1526.
NRC. (1989). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 7th Revised edition. National research council, National Academy Press, Washing
ton, DC.
Ojowi, M.O., Christensen, D.A., McKinnon, J.J. and Mustafa, A.F. (1996). Thin stillage from wheat based ethanol production as a
nutrient supplement for cattle grazing crested wheatgrass pastures. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 76: 547-553.
Paz, H.A., M.J. de Veth, Ordway, R.S. and Kononoff, P.J. (2013). Evaluation of rumenprotected lysine supplementation to lactating
dairy cows consuming increasing amounts of distillers dried grains with solubles. J. Dairy. Sci., 96: 7210-7222.
Schingoethe, D.J., Kalscheur, K.F., Hippen, A.R. and Garcia, A.D. (2009). Invited review: The use of distillers products in dairy cattle
diets. J. Dairy Sci., 92: 5802-5813.
Sihag, S., Sihag Z. S., Kumar, S. and Singh, N. (2018). Effect of Feeding Dried Ditller’s grain plus solubles on milk yield and its
composition in dairy cattle. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci., 7(03): 1861-1867.
Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1989). Statistical Methods. Oxford and IBH Pub. Co., New Delhi.
Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B. and Lewis, B.A. (1991). Symposium: carbohydrate methodology, metabolism and nutritional implica
-tions in dairy cattle. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fibre and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal
nutrition. J. Dairy Sci., 74: 3583-3597.
Vander Pol,K., Luebbe, M., Crawford, G.I., Erickson, G.E. and Klopfenstein, T.J. (2009). Performance and digestibility characteristics
of finishing diets containing distillers grains, composites of corn processing coproducts. J. Anim. Sci., 87: 639-652.

View publication stats