U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Committee on Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle: Eighth Revised Edition. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2021 Aug 30.

Cover of Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle

Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle: Eighth Revised Edition.

Show details

15Feed By-Products

INTRODUCTION

By-product feeds are defined as “secondary products produced in addition to the principal product” (AAFCO, 2016). These secondary products originate from a wide range of industries, including the food, fiber, beverage, and bioenergy industries. By-products usually originate from production processes where at least a portion of the nutrients from the raw input is removed, the extent of which varies both within and by production process. By-products often represent cost-effective sources of protein and energy and may even improve palatability of many rations (Van Soest, 1994). Byproducts are often considered inedible by humans, but when fed to a dairy cow, they are converted to high-quality human food. The nutrient and chemical composition of by-products can vary depending on manufacturer, geographical region, or site of origin and often changes over time. Production processes such as excessive heating during drying can reduce the nutritional value and overall quality of by-products.

Beyond their nutritional value, feeding by-products to livestock is advantageous for several reasons. First, most cannot be consumed by humans, and consequently, the use of by-product feeds increases the overall efficiency of human-consumable inputs by the dairy industry. Second, by-products reduce the amount of grain used by livestock, resulting in increased grain available for human consumption (Karlsson et al., 2018). Third, the feeding of by-products to livestock eliminates the need for waste disposal from a variety of industries (Bampidis and Robinson, 2006). Fourth, the production of by-products may even represent a safer feed for cattle. Such is the case with sugar beets, which, if fed, are more likely to cause ruminal acidosis than the fibrous but highly digestible by-product, beet pulp (Crawshaw, 2004). Furthermore, many of these feeds originate from human food production, which follows higher standards than that of feed production. The inclusion of by-products into diets of dairy cattle may be limited by a number of nutritional, technical, and socioeconomic aspects.

The objective of this chapter is to identify major feed byproducts used in the dairy industry and to provide clarity for the origin and nomenclature of feeds that are listed, with the chemical composition described in Chapter 19, while also noting any limitations or challenges associated with their use. Where applicable, published reviews are emphasized. Many published studies have been designed to include one or more by-products and replace forages or common commodities such as corn or soybean meal. In some cases, the inclusion rates are high, and often such experiments illustrate the adaptability of the modern dairy cow to produce a high-quality food product. This chapter will summarize key studies but will stop short of recommending so-called optimal inclusion rates as such justification is multifactorial in nature. Furthermore, safe and effective use of these products should follow general feeding recommendations outlined in this report. Inclusion of by-products may result in positive associative effects that are not properly accounted for in many nutrition models, such as the case when rumen pH is increased when starch is replaced with digestible fiber (Bradford and Mullins, 2012). This chapter groups each by-product feed into one of five categories and includes a brief description of feeds, including nutrient composition, availability, and impact on milk production.

POORLY DIGESTIBLE FIBER

Feeds in this class can be useful because they provide effective fiber that stimulates rumination and the formation of a rumen mat; they can be useful in diluting the diet concentrations of highly fermentable carbohydrates such as starch, which can reduce or modify the concentrations of organic acids produced in the rumen (Allen et al., 2009). Compared to forages, many of these feeds have a smaller particle size, and this may have a faster rumen passage rate and greater feed intake. When not used as feed, some products within this category are used in other applications on the dairy farm such as a source of bedding.

Corncobs and Residue

The structural makeup of corn residue is about 21 percent cobs, 54 percent stalks, 22 percent leaves, and 13 percent husks (NRC, 1983). Corncobs are high in fiber, low in protein, and poorly digested (Nangole et al., 1983), but compared to most by-products, the particle size of corncobs is fairly coarse (Mertens, 1997). Partial replacement of alfalfa silage with corncobs has been evaluated, and despite the fact that the concentration of energy in the diet was reduced, cows consumed more feed and milk yield was not negatively affected (Depies and Armentano, 1995). When used to replace corn, the addition of corncobs negatively affected milk yield likely because of reduced supply of digestible energy (Soper et al., 1977). In general, crop residues such as corn stover are poorly digested but may be improved through alkaline treatment (Klopfenstein and Owen, 1981). Example of these treatments includes sodium hydroxide (NaOH), ammonia (NH3), calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), potassium hydroxide (KOH), and calcium oxide (CaO) (Watson et al., 2015). Although safety concerns surround alkaline treatment, replacing wheat hay with corn residue treated with NaOH in rations fed to dairy cattle increased fiber digestibility and energy-corrected milk (Jami et al., 2014). The replacement of Chinese wild rye, corn silage, or corn grain with distillers grains and corn stover treated with CaO has shown promise to maintain production and reduce feed costs, but more research is needed, especially in high-producing cows (Shi et al., 2015).

Cottonseed Hulls

Cottonseed hulls are the outer covering of cottonseed (AAFCO, 2016) and a product of the mechanical removal of oil and meal from the cottonseed. Despite the low nutrient content, cottonseed hulls are highly palatable to cattle (Rogers et al., 2002). Cottonseed hulls may be used to partially replace forage fiber, but to maintain milk production, increased inclusion of energy sources such as corn grain is likely required (Shin et al., 2012). When cottonseed hulls were included at 8 percent of the diet dry matter (DM), rumination activities were reduced while feed intake was increased (Kononoff and Heinrichs, 2003). Cottonseed hulls may be useful when included in the starter diet of calves (Hopkins, 1997), but it should be noted that young animals may be particularly sensitive to gossypol. The addition of cottonseed hulls in a low-fiber calf starter mix increased feed intake, average daily gain, and postweaning body weight (Hill et al., 2009a). Although generally low in protein, the concentration may increase if greater internal portions of the seed itself are present.

Cotton Gin Trash

This is the lowest-value residue produced from the ginning of cotton and formally referred to as “cotton plant by-product” and contains cotton burrs (husks), leaves, stems, lint, immature seeds, and/or dirt (AAFCO, 2016). Cotton gin trash is generally considered a poor-quality feed for dairy cattle, and the chemical composition is highly variable. Gin trash is high in lignin and, due to contamination of soil, is also high in ash. Cotton gin trash is also very coarse in texture and possess a low bulk density, making transportation difficult. Historically, there has been risk of cattle consuming this feed experiencing toxicity due to the insecticide known as disulfoton; however, use of this has been reduced (Rogers et al., 2002). When cotton gin trash replaced dehydrated alfalfa cubes, milk yield was reduced (Brown et al., 1979).

Oat Hulls

Oat hulls are a by-product of oat milling and are a high-fiber feed. This fiber is also highly lignified. Although the extent of fiber digested in the rumen is poor, the degree of cell wall lignification varies by genotype, and this affects the extent to which fiber is digested (Thompson et al., 2000). Methods of increasing the digestibility of fiber through chemical treatment such as alkaline hydrogen peroxide (Cameron et al., 1991a,b Titgemeyer et al., 1991) have been evaluated, and when treated oat hulls were fed to cows in mid-lactation in place of alfalfa and corn silage, feed intake and production of fat-corrected milk increased (Cameron et al., 1991a). This method has not been widely adopted due to the caustic nature of the substance and associated safety risks (Shreck, 2013).

Peanut Hulls and Peanut Skins

Peanut by-products may contain mycotoxins, with aflatoxins being the most common. Producers should obtain an analysis of aflatoxin content to prevent possible aflatoxin poisoning of cattle and contamination of milk (Hill, 2002). Peanut hulls are not commonly fed to dairy cattle because the digestibility is extremely low (Huffman and Duncan, 1952). Ruminal DM digestibility of peanut hulls is 25 percent but may be increased to 40 percent through chemical treatment with NH3 or NaOH (Barton et al., 1974). Peanut hulls are often ground and, as a result, low in effective fiber. Compared to hulls, peanut skins are higher in protein and fat while also lower in fiber. Peanut skins are also high in tannins, which may react with proteins and form protein–tannin complexes and reduce protein availability and may negatively affect palatability (West et al., 1993).

Pineapple Cannery Waste

In regions of the world where pineapples are grown, planting and harvesting of pineapple occur year round (Bartholomew et al., 2003). The nutrient content and in vitro digestibility of postharvest pineapple plant material, namely roots, stump, ratoon stems, green leaves, and dried leaves, have been evaluated (Kellems et al., 1979). Pineapple cannery waste is composed of the outer peel (shell), crown and bud ends of the fruit, fruit trimmings, the inner core, and the pomace. The exact proportions of these parts and their associated chemical composition vary by variety and processing methods (Devendra, 1985). This feed may be fed either fresh or ensiled (Suksathit et al., 2011; Gowda et al., 2015), but the DM content is low, and if not stored correctly, it may spoil quickly (Nhan et al., 2009).

Rice Hulls

Rice hulls or husks consist of the outer covering of the rice grain and along with rice bran is a by-product of rice grain milling (Vadiveloo et al., 2009; AAFCO, 2016). This feed is low in protein and high in fiber and ash. It may be used as a low-quality animal feed but also as a fertilizer, an industrial energy source, or even as a filler for lignocellulosic fiber-thermoplastic composites (Vadiveloo et al., 2009). The digestibility of rice hulls is poor, and this is rarely fed to dairy cattle as a source of energy (Daniels and Hashim, 1977).

Sugarcane Bagasse, Silage, or Hay

This is a poor-quality roughage and is the pulp remaining from the removal of leaves and tops and the extraction of sugar from sugar cane (Fadel, 1999; AAFCO, 2016). This fibrous feed contains approximately 80 percent neutral detergent fiber (NDF), but the digestibility is poor because it is high in silica and lignin (Walford, 2008). Chemical treatment of bagasse increases its digestibility and milk production when fed (Randel et al., 1972).

Tomato Pomace

This by-product is produced during the production of tomato paste, juice, sauce, or ketchup and is usually composed of water, skins, seeds, and other hard tissues of the fruit (El Boushy and Poel, 1994). When produced, the moisture content is high, and as a result, it is often dried to aid in transportation and storage (Weiss et al., 1997). Tomato pomace is high in fiber but also contains approximately 5 percent pectin (Del Valle et al., 2007). A recent advancement in processing allows the separation of seeds from pulp and skin/peel with the seeds being produced as a feed by-product. Compared to tomato pomace, this feed is high in fat and protein and can replace whole cottonseed in rations fed to lactating cows without affecting milk production (Cassinerio et al., 2015).

DIGESTIBLE ENERGY

This class of by-product feeds is fed to dairy cattle because they have moderate to high digestibility and can be used to replace either forages or grains. These by-products are low in starch, but they often contain sugars, digestible fiber, and soluble fiber that contribute energy to rumen microbes, which, in turn, produce volatile fatty acids (FAs) and microbial protein (Dann et al., 2014). These products can replace higher-starch feeds. For example, concentration of starch was reduced from 27 to 18 percent with the addition of nonforage fiber sources, namely, beet pulp and brewers grains, without affecting the flow of microbial protein out of the rumen (Hristov and Ropp, 2003). The inclusion rate of these by-products can be exceptionally high without any negative effects on milk production if diets are formulated properly.

Almond Hulls

Almond hulls are a by-product from harvesting procedures for almond nuts (Fadel, 1999). Almond hulls are composed of primarily the mesocarp surrounding the fruit (Grasser et al., 1995). High in digestible fiber, this byproduct is also high in fermentable sugars, which varies by variety (Offeman et al., 2014). Although a common feedstuff, few studies have evaluated its effect on milk production. As a partial replacement for forage, almond hulls have maintained milk production in one study (Aguilar et al., 1984) but not in another (Williams et al., 2018). The chemical composition of almond hulls has been reported to be affected not only by the variety of almond but also by the amount of debris present (DePeters et al., 2020). Like many by-products, proper dry storage is important to maintain the nutritional quality of this feedstuff as moisture may lead to mold growth and washout loss of sugars.

Beet Pulp

The production, chemical composition, and nutritional value of beet pulp have been reviewed (Kelly, 1983; Münnich et al., 2017). Beet pulp is the by-product when sugar is extracted from sugar beets (Fadel, 1999) and may be fed in wet, dry, pelleted, or ensiled forms and may also contain varying amounts of added molasses (Asadi, 2007). Beet pulp is high in NDF but also contains appreciable and variable concentrations of soluble fiber and sugars (DePeters et al., 2000). Beet pulp can be used as a replacement of high-starch grains in rations fed to dairy cattle. When beet pulp replaced high moisture corn and was included at up to 24 percent of the diet DM, milk production was maintained and rumen microbial nitrogen efficiency was not affected (Voelker and Allen, 2003a,b,c). The ruminal digestibility of fiber in beet pulp is rapid (DePeters et al., 1997) and is thought to at least be in part due to the higher arabinose content of hemicellulose. Adding molasses increases the sugar content and dilutes the concentration of fiber (Fadel et al., 2000). Sugar beet pulp silages in France were assayed for common mycotoxins, and although low concentrations were detected in 20 percent of the samples, the concentrations were not high enough to present a health risk for either animals or consumers (Boudra et al., 2015). Like many by-products, the chemical composition of beet pulp is known to vary among sources, and thus chemical composition based on source may be useful for diet formulation procedures (Arosemena et al., 1995).

Citrus Pulp

Resulting from the extraction of juice, citrus pulp is made up of the ground peel, pulp, and seed residues of citrus fruit. Although this feed may contain any citrus crop, based on worldwide citrus production, oranges probably are the source of more than two-thirds of the citrus pulp produced (Crawshaw, 2004; Bampidis and Robinson, 2006). Citrus pulp is low in protein but supplies energy in the form of fermentable fiber, pectin, and sugars. The production and physical characteristics as well as the nutrient composition and value of citrus pulp have been reviewed (Bampidis and Robinson, 2006). Cattle consume this feedstuff in the wet form, but it is often dried to improve shelf-life and to enhance delivery logistics. When fresh citrus pulp is used, it should not be stored for long periods of time as remaining sugars will support secondary fermentation and mold growth and may attract insects (Bampidis and Robinson, 2006). Dehydrated citrus pulp containing mold can be the cause of citrinin toxicosis. Citrinin is produced by Aspergillus and Penicillium spp. (Gupta, 2007). During the dehydration process, CaO or Ca(OH)2 may be added to the residue to release bound water (Arthington et al., 2002). Therefore, dried citrus pulp is usually high in Ca but low in phosphorus (P) and must be considered when formulating diets (Bath et al., 1980). A summary of studies in which citrus pulp was fed to lactating dairy cattle replacing corn grain or other high-starch ingredients concluded milk production and composition are usually maintained (Bampidis and Robinson, 2006). Although citrus pulp is commonly fed to dairy cattle with no ill effects, a delayed or type IV hypersensitivity reaction has occurred in a small number of cows consuming citrus pulp and is lethal (Saunders et al., 2000; Iizuka et al., 2005). Citrus pulp naturally contains phytochemicals, such as essential oils, which are antimicrobial, and feeding citrus pulp to ruminants has reduced both cecal and rectal populations of Escherichia coli O157:H7 (Callaway et al., 2011). Citrus pulp may contain pesticide residues, but given the concentrations commonly detected and typical inclusion rates, milk safety concerns are not likely (Fink-Gremmels, 2012).

Crude Glycerol

A by-product of biodiesel production, as the name implies, this by-product is high in glycerin but also contains low concentrations of water, ash, trace minerals, free FAs, and methanol (Ma and Hanna, 1999). A portion of glycerol may escape rumen fermentation and be available as a glucogenic substrate (Werner Omazic et al., 2015). The use of glycerol in dairy rations has been reviewed (Donkin, 2008; Meral et al., 2015). This feed has been used to replace energy sources in the diets of lactating cows and has maintained (Donkin et al., 2009; Carvalho et al., 2011) or increased (Shin et al., 2012; Gaillard et al., 2018) milk yield.

Fruit and Vegetable By-Product

The chemical composition and nutritional characterization of fruit and vegetable waste have been reviewed (Angulo et al., 2012). This feed is usually used where the fruits and vegetables are grown, but occasionally it is transported further distances (Froetschel et al., 2014). Because this feed may contain almost any fruit or vegetable in either a whole or processed state, the chemical composition is highly variable. As a result, adequate sampling and analysis of this feed are important. Given the high moisture content, this feed is highly perishable but in some cases may be ensiled and then fed to dairy cattle (Yang et al., 2010; Kotsampasi et al., 2017). Several studies have attempted to characterize microbes, which may be present in this by-product, and although present, these studies did not detect levels that would be considered dangerous for livestock (Sancho et al., 2004; Angulo et al., 2012). Nonetheless, care should be taken to store it in conditions that will not encourage spoilage and contamination.

Potato Waste

Potato waste by-products can contain filter cake, steam peel, potato screenings, cull potatoes, and cooked or dried potato products (Crawshaw, 2004; Nelson, 2010). The different potato by-products, their associated chemical composition, and their use as a feed for cattle have been reviewed (Nelson, 2010). In addition, the use of the potato for feed has been reviewed (Whittemore, 1977). The chemical composition of these by-products varies widely. Consequently, it is important to adequately sample and analyze the product that is fed. The DM content of potato waste is usually low, and consequently, cost of transportation and storage may be a challenge. However, the high moisture and starch content often enable producers to ensile this feedstuff effectively. Compared to potato waste from processing, the DM and fat contents of dried potato products are higher (Rooke et al., 1997). The starch from potatoes is approximately 25 percent amylose and 75 percent amylopectin (French, 1973) and is generally less fermentable in the rumen than the starch found in most grains (Monteils et al., 2002; Mosavi et al., 2012). Potato waste may contain a number of antinutritional constituents or toxic substances. Sprouted and sunburned or green potatoes may contain toxic glycoalkaloids most commonly α-chaconine and α-solanine (see Chapter 17). Although pesticides are used in potato production, if used properly, the risk to animal health is minimal (Nelson, 2010). Although animals may learn how to safely chew whole or coarsely chopped potatoes, feeding these to cattle may result in choking and death (Bradshaw et al., 2002).

Soyhulls

Early in the oil recovery process, the hull or seed coat is removed from the soybean. The hull accounts for about 8 percent of bean DM. Historically, soyhulls were finely ground and blended with the meal to obtain a crude protein (CP) content of 44 percent. This practice was a means of disposing of the hulls, which were of low value. Today, much of the soybean meal marketed does not contain soyhulls making them available for cattle fed. Soyhulls are often ground because it increases bulk density, aiding in pelleting and transportation (Anderson et al., 1988). Soyhulls are often heated to inactivate antinutritional factors (Johnson et al., 2008). The characteristics and nutritional value of soyhulls have been reviewed (Ipharraguerre and Clark, 2003). Although the fiber may be extensively digested by rumen microbes, in vivo digestion is lower than that in vitro or in situ digestibility (Ipharraguerre and Clark, 2003). This discrepancy may be in part due to the fine particle size of soyhulls, making them pass out of the rumen rapidly and as a consequence limit the extent of rumen digestion (Drackley, 2000). The concentration of CP is about 10 percent and can contribute appreciable amounts of rumen-degradable protein. Soybean hulls are generally included in the rations of lactating dairy cattle as a source of digestible energy and may replace either forages or concentrates (Firkins and Eastridge, 1992; Ipharraguerre and Clark, 2003; Ranathunga et al., 2010). Replacing corn grain with soyhulls can have positive effects on rumen fermentation because they contain little if any starch, which helps maintain rumen pH. When corn grain in a diet was reduced from 40 to 1 percent by replacing it with soyhulls, yield of milk and milk components was maintained (Ipharraguerre et al., 2002a,b. As much as 30 percent of the diet DM may be soyhulls without negatively affecting ruminal fermentation, diet digestibility, or production of dairy cows.

Wheat Middlings

A by-product of the wheat milling process, wheat middlings are composed of wheat bran, shorts, germ, flour, and other assorted portions from the tail of the mill such as red dog (AAFCO, 2016). Shorts are mostly made up of fine bran particles while red dog consists mostly of the aleurone layer with small particles of bran, germ, and flour (Blasi et al., 1998). The chemical composition of wheat middlings has been reviewed (Boros et al., 2004; Slominski et al., 2004; Rosenfelder et al., 2013). This by-product is considered an energy feed because it is higher in starch and fiber but moderate in protein. It is also a good source of P (Erickson et al., 1985). The protein contained in this feed is highly degradable in the rumen (Batajoo and Shaver, 1998). Wheat middlings are commonly used to replace high-starch grains such as corn (Acedo et al., 1987; Bernard, 1997; Dann et al., 2014) but may also be used to replace some forage fiber (Wagner et al., 1993), but the small particle size reduces the effectiveness of fiber (Depies and Armentano, 1995). The chemical composition of wheat middlings may vary and is influenced by wheat type and variety as well as growing conditions, grade of flour produced, and the proportion of bran included (Blasi et al., 1998; Rosenfelder et al., 2013). Although preparatory processes carried out before milling reduce the mycotoxin content of the grain, mycotoxins in these by-products may be up to 8-fold higher than the flour (Cheli et al., 2013).

Wheat Bran

Wheat bran originates from the wheat milling process and is composed of the pericarp and outer seed tissues, including the aleurone layer, while also containing varying amounts of endosperm (Rosenfelder et al., 2013; AAFCO, 2016). Compared to middlings, the feeding of wheat bran to dairy cattle is less common (Ertl et al., 2016), but it has greater nutritional value than rice bran (Tahir et al., 2002).

PROTEIN FEEDS

This class of by-product feeds is fed to dairy cattle because they contain high concentrations of protein. The extent to which protein is digested in the rumen and in the small intestine varies by feedstuff (Paz et al., 2014).

Animal Products

The use and safety of animal feed ingredients has been reviewed (Clark et al., 1987; Sapkota et al., 2007; Jayathilakan et al., 2012). About 30 to 50 percent of each animal used in the production of food is not consumed by humans. Instead, it goes through the rendering process in which it is exposed to heat while moisture is extracted and fat is separated. The resulting feed by-products include meat and bone meal, meat meal, poultry meal, hydrolyzed feather meal, blood meal, and animal fats (Meeker, 2006). Compared to oilseed meals, animal by-products supply more essential amino acids (AAs), especially lysine (Lys; Ravindran and Blair, 1993). The 2003 discovery of the first U.S. case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and concerns for bacterial contamination of animal feed on human bacterial illnesses have brought about establishment of new adjustments to existing restrictions on the use of many of these products (Garcia et al., 2006; Sapkota et al., 2007). In an attempt to prevent the spread of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy in the United States, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA, 2008) prohibits this use of specific cattle origin materials from the feed of all animals (see Chapter 17 for details). Regulations can change with time, and users of animal products for feed must be aware of and follow all current regulations regarding their use.

Blood Meal

Blood meal is high in CP, rumen-undegradable protein (RUP), and Lys (Boucher et al., 2009b). Subsequent to the slaughter of cattle, pigs, or poultry, blood is collected while avoiding contamination of hair, ingesta, or urine and processed to produce blood meal. The aim of blood processing is to obtain a dry, stable, nutrient-rich product that can be ground to an even particle size. Blood meal is hydroscopic and must be processed to less than 12 percent DM and stored in dry facilities (Leoci, 2014). Blood is dried using several methods; the process begins with a coagulation process followed by batch drying, flash drying, or spray drying (Almeida et al., 2013). Very little blood meal is produced using batch-drying techniques, which essentially involve removal of water by cooking, steaming, or hydrolyzation. In flash drying, moisture in blood is first removed using a mechanical dewatering process, and it may be further condensed by cooking. The remaining semisolid material then undergoes rapid drying using a drum or ring drying process (AAFCO, 2016). In drum drying, blood is applied as a thin layer onto the outer surface of revolving horizontal drums that are internally heated by steam. After the product is dried, it is removed from the drum with a scraper and the dried blood is ground into flakes or powder (Tang et al., 2003). In ring drying, blood is simultaneously ground and dispersed into a high-velocity air stream (Pearson and Dutson, 1992). Whole blood or separated plasma and red albumin may be dried through the spray-dried process (Almeida et al., 2013). In spray drying, moisture is removed using low temperatures and evaporators under vacuum until the material is approximately 30 percent solids, after which it is further dried by spraying with a draft of warm dry air (AAFCO, 2016). The method of drying affects the availability of protein and AAs in this by-product (Batterham et al., 1986; Messman and Weiss, 1994).

Fish Meal

Fish meal is high in undegradable protein and methionine (Met; Chalupa and Sniffen, 1996; Santos et al., 1998); however, the consistency of the rumen-undegradable portion of protein can vary greatly across sources (Boucher et al., 2009a). The intestinal digestibility of RUP of this feed is high and the Na content may vary (Taghizadeh et al., 2005). Fish meal is also a good source of essential FAs (Ravindran and Blair, 1993). Fish meal can be made of clean, dried, ground tissue of whole fish and/or cuttings (AAFCO, 2016), which are then cooked, pressed, dried, and ground. Resulting fish meal may originate from a variety of different types of fish, including anchovy, herring, menhaden, pilchards, sardines, sharks, grayfish, catfish, and pollock (Ockerman and Hansen, 2000). The production process of fish meal has been reviewed (Ghaly et al., 2013), as has the use of fish meal in ruminant diets (Hussein and Jordan, 1991). The type of fish and drying temperatures can affect its chemical composition, the ruminal disappearance, and the intestinal digestibility (Opstvedt et al., 1984; González et al., 1998; Boucher et al., 2009b). There are essentially two different methods used in the production of fish meal. In the wet process, which is most common, oil is removed while it is not removed in dry processing (Pearson and Dutson, 1992). Replacing blood meal with fish meal can have positive effects on milk production (Moussavi et al., 2007) but not always (Mattos et al., 2002). Replacing soybean meal with fish meal often increases the yield of milk protein, a response likely due to increasing the supply of limiting AAs such as Lys or Met (Polan et al., 1997). Feeding of fish meal can increase the intake of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, which may have positive effects on cow fertility (Burke et al., 1997; Mattos et al., 2002; Staples et al., 2005). These FAs will also be found in the milk, but the observed differences are not directly proportional to intake (Wright et al., 2003) because of extensive rumen biohydrogenation and preferential deposition into body tissue (AbuGhazaleh et al., 2004). No effects of feeding fish meal were observed on the physical, chemical, sensory, and processing properties of milk. However, fat globule size was smaller, churning time of cream was longer, and butter possessed a soft texture—effects all likely a result of changes in the FA composition of milk fat (Avramis et al., 2003). The inclusion of fish meal may negatively affect palatability of a total mixed ration (Shaver, 2005). This by-product is used in pet foods and in aquaculture, and as a result, less is available for livestock feed.

Feather Meal

Approximately 5 to 7 percent of the total body weight of domestic fowl is composed of feathers (Onifade et al., 1998). The production processes of feather meal have been reviewed (Papadopoulos, 1985; El Boushy et al., 1990). Using steam and pressure, feather meal is usually hydrolyzed to disrupt the structure of keratin to increase digestibility and to produce a sterilized product (Blasi et al., 1991; El Boushy and van der Poel, 1994). During this process, sulfur (S) is volatilized, and as a result, the S content of feather meal may be used to evaluate the extent of hydrolysis (Moritz and Latshaw, 2001). In some cases, both acidic and enzymatic additives may be used to reduce odor and improve nutritive value (El Boushy et al., 1990). Although high in CP and sulfur AAs, feather meal is low in histidine (His), Lys, and Met (Goedeken et al., 1990; Klemesrud et al., 2000; Stahel et al., 2014). Combining both feather meal and blood meal is an effective way to increase RUP and essential AA content (Grant and Haddad, 1998; Bargo et al., 2001). The combination of adding feather meal to bone meal to increase the supply of cysteine (Cys) to spare Met did not meet the Met needs of lactating cows (Pruekvimolphan and Grummer, 2001).

Meat and Bone Meal, Porcine

A rendered product made up of porcine tissues, meat and bone meal does not contain added blood, hair, hoof, hide, manure, or digesta (AAFCO, 2016). This by-product is high in RUP and essential AAs. Intestinal digestibility of RUP is also high (Howie et al., 1996; Klemesrud et al., 1997). When compared to all animal protein sources, this by-product usually has the lowest concentration of protein but is high in Ca and P because of the varying presence of bone (Ravindran and Blair, 1993; Traylor et al., 2005). The nutritional quality and sources of variation of meat and bone meal have been reviewed (Hendriks et al., 2002, 2004). When replacing soybean meal, meat and bone meal can increase efficiency of protein utilization, likely due to the high concentration of RUP, high intestinal digestibility of this feed, and increasing the supply of essential AAs (Akayezu et al., 1997).

Poultry By-Product Meal

Poultry by-product meal consists of ground, rendered carcass parts and, except what may be unavoidable, does not contain feathers (AAFCO, 2016). This by-product is extensively used by the pet food industry, and as a result, less is available for livestock feed (Dozier and Dale, 2005). Its chemical composition has been reviewed (Dale et al., 1993; Dozier and Dale, 2005). In addition to a high protein content, this feed is high in fat, P, Ca, and essential AAs. It can be fed to cattle and used as a source of RUP (Bohnert et al., 1998, 1999) and essential AAs (Mäntysaari et al., 1989; Polan et al., 1997).

Whey

The composition of whey and several whey components as well as responses to animals consuming these products has been reviewed (Schingoethe, 1976; Kosikowski, 1979). Whey is high in moisture, lactose, and Na. Despite the fact that casein is removed during the cheese-making process, it contains moderate concentrations of protein. Like all dairy products, whey is also a good source of Ca and P. Whey is the principal by-product of the dairy processing industry. Sweet whey is a by-product of cheese production while acid whey is a by-product of the production of acidified products, namely, cottage cheese, yogurt, or casein. Given the diversity of milk processing techniques and products produced, variation in chemical composition of by-products designated as whey or whey products is high. The increased use of microfiltration and production of Greek yogurt has increased the production of acid whey. Acid whey is lower in protein and higher in minerals, notably Ca, than sweet whey (Smith et al., 2016). This difference in composition has made the development of methods to produce dry whey ingredients from Greek yogurt problematic. Therefore, the liquid products are available for animal feed (Lagrange et al., 2015). Animals consuming whey may exhibit increased urination, likely a response to the high concentration of Na. Animals may also scour while the erosion of teeth has also been observed. Whey may also be deproteinized, resulting in the by-product called whey permeate, which is much lower in protein but is still high in lactose, minerals, and moisture.

Canola Meal

Canola is a trademarked name for rapeseed, which contains <2 percent erucic acid in the oil and <30 µmol alkenyl glucosinolates per gram of oil-free DM. This is reduced from 25 to 45 percent erucic acid and 50 to 100 µmol glucosinolates in conventional rapeseed meal (Bell, 1993). Glucosinolates are bitter, they impair palatability, and interfere with the synthesis of thyroid hormones by impairing the uptake of iodine (Woyengo et al., 2016). Canola meal is the meal remaining after the extraction of oil from Brassica campestris, Brassica napus, or Brassica juncea seeds by either mechanical or solvent extraction methods (AAFCO, 2016). The chemical composition, ruminal degradability, and lactational performances of dairy cows consuming canola meal have been reviewed (Mustafa et al., 2000; Huhtanen et al., 2011; Martineau et al., 2013). Compared to soybean meal, canola meal contains less protein and energy, but the protein is less degradable in the rumen. In a meta-analysis, Huhtanen et al. (2011) found that canola meal was at least as good as soybean meal and that some improved responses are due to increases in feed intake. A more recent meta-analysis conducted by Martineau et al. (2013) evaluated the replacement of other sources of protein with canola meal. In general, milk and milk protein yields increased with canola meal. Canola meal contains goitrogenic compounds that can reduce the transfer of iodine into milk (Laarveld et al., 1981; Weiss et al., 2015). See Chapter 7 for more details. Bell (1993) outlined other constituents of canola meal that may exert antinutritional effects. Canola meal contains sinapine, which may negatively affect palatability, but this has not been reported in cattle. Sinapine affects the flavor of eggs from chickens, but no research has been conducted on potential effects on milk flavor. Canola meal contains approximately 1.5 to 3.0 percent tannins, which may interfere with protein digestion.

Cottonseed Meal

This by-product is produced when the oil from cottonseed has been removed. Oil may be removed either through mechanical or solvent extraction, and the resulting meal must not contain less than 36 percent CP (AAFCO, 2016). The protein content and quality of cottonseed meal are high, and when replacing either soybean meal or canola meal, little difference in milk production is usually observed (Brito and Broderick, 2007). In a number of studies, milk protein decreased when cows consume cottonseed meal (Maesoomi et al., 2006; Brito and Broderick, 2007). This may be because of the lower concentration of Lys. In addition, the bioavailability of Lys in cottonseed meal may be low because under heat, gossypol binds to proteins, notably the epsilon amino group of Lys (Reiser and Fu, 1962; Blauwiekel et al., 1997).

Soybean Meal

Soybean meal products are discussed in Chapter 19.

Sunflower Meal

A by-product of the process of extracting oil from sunflower seed, sunflower meal has moderate concentrations of protein and fiber (Arieli et al., 1999). In general, it is a good source of digestible protein, but the fiber is highly resistant to rumen digestion (Van Soest, 1994). The chemical composition of sunflower meal has been reviewed (Lardy and Anderson, 2002; Lomascolo et al., 2012; Ítavo et al., 2015). Sunflower meal is high in copper and has been documented to contribute to copper toxicity in sheep, which are particularly sensitive to this mineral (García-Fernández et al., 1999). This feed is also high in S containing AAs, such as Met, but compared to soybean meal is low in Lys. The chemical composition of sunflower meal varies depending on the method of processing. Solvent extraction methods are most efficient at removing oil, resulting in sunflower seed with a low fat content, but mechanical expeller or extrusion methods also exist (Drackley and Schingoethe, 1986; Lardy and Anderson, 2002). The extent of hull removal affects the chemical composition. Sunflower meal probably contains more degradable protein than soybean meal or canola meal (Lardy and Anderson, 2002). Sunflower meal has been used effectively as a replacement for soybean meal without affecting the yield or composition of milk (Schingoethe et al., 1977). Sunflower meal is also used in calf starter diets (Drackley and Schingoethe, 1986) and was more palatable than canola meal (Miller-Cushon et al., 2014).

TABLE 15-1Major Coproducts Resulting from the Dry Grain Corn-Milling Process

NameBrief Description
Condensed distillers solubles
  • Resulting from the removal of ethyl alcohol by the distillation from the yeast fermentation of grain by condensing this stillage to a semisolid state.
Corn bran
  • Produced when the corn ethanol facility dehulls and degerms the grain subsequent to fermentation. This feed has not gone through the fermentation process.
Corn germ
  • Produced when the corn ethanol facility dehulls and degerms the grain subsequent to fermentation. This feed has not gone through the fermentation process. Because the germ contains much of the fat found in the corn kernel, in addition to fiber, the product is also high in fat.
Deoiled distillers dried grains with solubles
  • Resulting product from solvent extraction of oil from corn distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS), and fat content may be as low as 3 percent on an as-fed basis. Term solvent extracted is not required by AAFCO (2016).
Distillers dried grains with solubles
  • Resulting from the removal of ethyl alcohol by distillation from the yeast fermentation of grain or a grain mixture by condensing and drying at least 75 percent of the solids of the whole stillage.
Distillers dried solubles
  • Resulting from the removal of ethyl alcohol by distillation from the yeast fermentation of grain or a grain mixture by separating the coarse grain fraction of the whole stillage and drying it.
High-protein distillers grains
  • Remains after the corn ethanol facility dehulls and degerms the grain and then is fermented. In most cases, solubles are not added back as traditionally done in the dry milling process, but when this does occur, this product is called high-protein distillers with solubles. The protein content of this feed is similar to soybean meal and contains less phosphorus than traditional DDGS.
Modified wet distillers grains with solubles
Reduced-fat distillers dried grains with solubles
  • Produced when the solubles are centrifuged before they are added to the distillers grains.
Wet distillers grains
  • Resulting from the removal of ethyl alcohol by the distillation from yeast fermentation of grains.
Wet distillers grains with solubles
  • Resulting from the removal of ethyl alcohol by distillation from the yeast fermentation of grain or a grain mixture by condensing and drying at least 75 percent of the solids of the whole stillage.

Safflower Meal

Compared to soybean or canola, safflower is a minor oilseed crop (Ekin, 2005). A by-product of the process in which oil is extracted out of the safflower seed, safflower meal is good source of both protein and fiber. The crude fat content varies depending on the extraction process but is lowest when solvent extraction is used. The protein appears to be relatively resistant to degradation by rumen microbes (Dixon et al., 2003a,b. The feed contains two phenolic glucosides, namely, matairesinol-β-glucoside and the purgative 2-hydroxyarctiin-β-glucoside that may make the feed bitter and unpalatable to cattle (Jin et al., 2010). Glucosinolates have been reviewed (Tripathi and Mishra, 2007).

ENERGY/PROTEIN BY-PRODUCTS

Corn Ethanol Production, the Dry Grind Process

Over 30 percent of the corn crop in the United States is probably used to produce fuel ethanol. Since approximately 2004, the fuel ethanol industry has experienced dramatic growth. A number of reviews have been published outlining the chemical composition and use of corn milling coproducts in rations for dairy cattle (Schingoethe et al., 2009; Hollmann et al., 2011a,b Bradford and Mullins, 2012; Paz et al., 2014; Böttger and Südekum, 2018). The growth of the dry milling industry has brought about increased availability of corn milling coproducts (see Table 15-1). The dry milling process (see Figure 15-1) is used at approximately 80 percent of the corn ethanol facilities in the United States, and it begins when the entire corn kernel is ground through a hammer mill and hot water is added (Rosentrater, 2015). After about 50 to 60 hours of fermentation, the resulting mash contains about 15 percent ethanol (Bothast and Schlicher, 2005). The ethanol is distilled off, and the remaining residue is called whole stillage and contains yeast cells, nonfermented solids, and water. The stillage can be centrifuged, resulting in “thin stillage,” which contains 5 to 10 percent solids, and wet distillers grains (WDG). The thin stillage can be evaporated, producing syrup that can be blended with WDG to produce WDG with solubles that are often dried to produce dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS). Compared to corn grain, protein, fat, and most minerals increase about 3-fold, but concentrations of Na, S, and Ca may be greater because exogenous sources of these minerals may be added during the production process (NRC, 2012).

A flowchart that represents the dry milling ethanol process. The flowchart is composed of ovals, which denote either a product or a feed coproduct, and diamonds, which indicate a processing step. These shapes are linked by unidirectional arrows, each of which points to one shape representing the next step or the resulting product. The flowchart begins with corn product. Corn undergoes the process of grinding plus water, resulting in slurry product. This undergoes the process of fermentation plus enzymes, which results in alcohol product, carbon dioxide product, and whole stillage product. Whole stillage undergoes the centrifugation process resulting in thin stillage product and the feed coproduct wet distillers grain. Thin stillage undergoes evaporation, resulting in feed coproduct condensed distillers solubles. This undergoes centrifugation to create separate feed coproducts corn oil and de-oiled condensed distillers solubles. The latter becomes three feed coproducts: wet distillers grains with solubles, modified wet distillers grains with solubles, and dried distillers grains with solubles. Each of these can also be created by drying the wet distillers grains from the original centrifugation of whole stillage.

FIGURE 15-1

Schematic representation of the dry milling ethanol process for corn ethanol production. Diamonds denote a processing step and ovals denote a product. Feed coproducts are shaded gray.

Corn milling coproducts may contain mycotoxin that were present in the incoming grain. If they withstand the fermentation process, the concentrations of these toxins can increase 3-fold in the final feedstock because a large proportion of starch is removed during the process (Fink-Gremmels, 2012). The toxins can include aflatoxins, deoxynivalenol, fumonisins, ergot alkaloids, and zearalenone. A 2-year (2006 to 2008) study evaluating 235 DDGS samples collected from 20 U.S. corn ethanol plants and 23 export shipping containers found that none of the samples contained aflatoxins or deoxynivalenol concentrations greater than FDA guidelines, and no more than 10 percent of the samples contained fumonisin at concentrations higher than the recommendation for feeding equids and rabbits (Zhang et al., 2009). Fumonisins were detected at concentrations lower than FDA guidelines for use in animal feed. In addition, none of the samples contained T-2 toxins higher than the detection limit, while zearalenone concentrations were lower than the detection limit in most samples.

The Wet Milling Process

Compared to the dry grind process, the wet milling process (see Figure 15-2) is more energy and capital intensive (Bothast and Schlicher, 2005). After cleaning, the corn is steeped in a dilute solution of sulfurous dioxide for approximately 40 hours to start breaking down the protein in the grain. The resulting steepwater can be condensed, resulting in a product that may be sold as steep corn liquor (referred to by AAFCO [2016] as condensed fermented corn extractives) or used as a source of nutrients for subsequent fermentation. This liquor is composed of a mixture of soluble components of corn grain containing both protein and complex sugars (Crawshaw, 2004). At this point, the corn kernel goes through a series of grinds, differential separations, and centrifuges. The germ is isolated, from which the oil is extracted. The remaining coproduct at this stage is corn germmeal (wet milled) (Crawshaw, 2004; AAFCO, 2016). Once the germ is removed, the residue is milled to release the starch and aid in removal of the hull or bran. The bran is then pressed, and usually the corn steep liquor is added back to produce corn gluten feed. Corn gluten feed may be sold in either wet or dry forms. With much of the fiber removed, the remaining material is centrifuged to separate the gluten and starch fractions. The remaining corn gluten meal is high in zein protein and usually is used in the pet food and poultry industries. The starch from the wet milling process can be further converted to dextrose and then fermented to produce fuel ethanol or used in other industrial fermentation processes. If used to produce ethanol, a resulting coproduct is distillers solubles. The solubles produced by the wet milling industry contain yeast cells and unfermented sugars and protein, but because the germ has been removed, it does not contain high concentrations of fat. The starch may be further processed into a number of food-grade products such as corn syrup and high-fructose corn sweetener (Stock et al., 2000). Corn germ from the wet milling process has been fed to dairy cattle (Miller et al., 2009).

A flowchart that represents the wet milling process for high-fructose corn syrup and corn ethanol. The flowchart is composed of ovals, which denote either a product or a feed coproduct, and diamonds, which indicate a processing step. These shapes are linked by unidirectional arrows, each of which points to one shape representing the next step or the resulting product. The flowchart begins with corn product. Corn undergoes the steep process, resulting in steepwater product. When steepwater evaporates, it results in feed coproduct steep corn liquor, which results in feed coproduct wet corn gluten feed. Drying this creates feed coproduct dry corn gluten feed. Steeping can also be followed by the coarse grind process and degermination, which results in germ product. Further refining of germ creates feed coproduct corn oil. Fine grinding and screening can also follow degermination to create bran product, which results in wet corn gluten feed. Or centrifugation can follow fine grinding to create gluten product and starch product. Drying gluten creates feed coproduct corn gluten meal. Drying starch creates dry starch. Saccharification of starch creates sugar syrup product. Evaporating sugar syrup creates high fructose corn syrup product, while fermenting it creates alcohol product and feed coproduct condensed distillers solubles.

FIGURE 15-2

Schematic representation of the wet milling process for corn ethanol and high-fructose corn syrup. Diamonds denote a processing step while the ovals are products; feed coproducts are shaded gray.

Brewers Grains

Beer ranks among the top five most consumed beverages in the world (Fillaudeau et al., 2006), and its by-product is brewers grains, or brewers spent grains. Brewers grains are mostly made up of the husk-pericarp-seed coat layers of the barley grain while hop residue will also be present (Mussatto et al., 2006; McCarthy et al., 2013). Brewers grains may also include corn, wheat, rice, and other common sources of carbohydrates. Chemical variations of this by-product exist both across and within a brewery (Westendorf et al., 2014) and are largely a function of barley variety, harvest time, malting, and mashing conditions as well as the quality and type of added adjuncts (Mussatto et al., 2006). Brewers grains contain cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, protein, vitamins, and minerals (Priest and Stewart, 2006). The phenolic component is believed to have bioactive antioxidant potential but has not been studied in ruminants (McCarthy et al., 2013). As with other by-products from the food industry, fresh brewers grains are almost always a safe and nutrient-dense feed for dairy cows. The high moisture content of wet brewers grains makes it an unstable feedstuff, but it can be preserved by reducing the moisture content by pressing and then drying at the production facility (Aliyu and Bala, 2013). Brewers yeast is a by-product of the brewing industry and can be fed to cattle (Grieve, 1979). Brewers yeast is distinguished from yeast culture and yeast extract and other yeast-containing feeds (AOAC, 2016). Yeast used by brewers was selected or developed based on their effects on beer flavor or to optimize beer-making fermentation. Yeast used as direct feed additives was selected or developed for effects in the rumen (see Chapter 16). Usually available in a wet form, brewers yeast may be dried (Steckley et al., 1979a,b. When wet brewers grains were added to the rations of lactating dairy cattle at 9 and 17 percent of the diet DM in replacement of forage, no effects on milk production were observed (Firkins et al., 2002). The RUP content of wet brewers grains is usually lower than that of WDG because RUP is lower in barley (brewers grains) than it is for corn (distillers grains). In addition, brewers grains are not exposed to heat during a distillation process. Drying brewers grain increases the RUP content because of heat exposure.

Bakery Waste

The chemical composition of bakery waste can be highly variable (Waldroup et al., 1982; Slominski et al., 2004) and originates from bread, cereal, or cookie production. The feed composition database of this publication distinguishes these sources. All types are high in starch while cookie waste is usually high in crude fat and sucrose or other simple sugars. In general, bakery waste contains a high concentration of energy and may be used as a partial replacement for cereal grains (Humer et al., 2018).

Cottonseed, Whole

The nutrient composition and impact on animal performance of cottonseed and cottonseed meal has been reviewed (Coppock et al., 1987; Arieli, 1998). There are two types of cottonseed available in the United States: (1) upland cotton (gossypium hirsutum) or high lint and (2) Pima cotton (gossypium barbadense), which is delinted. Pima cottonseed makes up only about 5.5 percent of the U.S. cotton production and is higher in fat, protein, and gossypol (Broderick et al., 2013). This by-product is usually fed after it has been cracked. Upland cottonseed is usually fed whole and is higher in fiber and should be stored in a facility where it is protected from moisture and well ventilated to prevent the formation of condensation and mold. Cottonseed should be tested for gossypol and mycotoxins. Details on both those toxins are in Chapter 17. Whole cottonseed is an excellent source of effective fiber for dairy cattle and often increases milk fat when fed (Clark and Armentano, 1993). The seed coat at least partially protects the oil from rumen microbes and biohydrogenation (Palmquist and Jenkins, 1980). Partial replacement (15 percent of diet DM) of both corn silage and alfalfa silage with whole cottonseed did not affect milk production and composition (Firkins et al., 2002). Cottonseed is an excellent source of protein and can effectively replace soybean meal in the ration of lactating dairy cows (Broderick et al., 2013).

High-Fat By-Products

Animal Fats

Animal fats are a by-product of the meat industry, and in the United States, these most commonly originate from beef or pork processing. In the rendering process, heat and pressure are used to separate lipid material from meat tissues. The American Fats and Oils Association (Columbia, SC) outlines marketing grades for animal fats that are based on characteristics such as melting point, color, density, moisture, and impurities (USDA, 2013). These grades include tallow, choice white grease, and yellow grease. These specifications are not based on the species of origin but rather outline the technical specifications above (Pearson and Dutson, 1992). Commercially rendered fat from cattle is often referred to as tallow, but it is technically defined as fat possessing titer temperature (temperature at which FAs of a given fat solidify) greater than 40°C. Rendered fat from swine is usually commercially referred to as lard or grease, but technically, lard and grease have a titer equal to or less than 40°C (Ockerman and Hansen, 2000). The nutritional quality of different animal fats is dependent on the FA composition, which is a function of the animal species from which they originate. The FA profile of the diet fed to swine has a major impact on the FA profile of rendered pork fat. Because of rumen biohydrogenation by rumen microbes, diet has less of an impact on the FA profile of rendered beef fat. Compared to beef fat, pork fat is softer, and this is a due to the higher concentration of linoleic acid. Pork fat is also lower in myristic acid (unless pigs are fed beef fat) and is also essentially void of trans unsaturated FAs (Berger, 1997). Yellow grease originates from restaurant cooking practices but may also originate from rendering plants producing lower-quality greases. The impact of animal fats on milk production is related to the associated effects on intake, rumen fermentation, and digestibility of the FAs (see Chapter 4). Animal fats are also added to milk replacers (Jenkins et al., 1986; Hill et al., 2009b) to increase energy density. Animal fats may be added to calf starters (Hill et al., 2015) to increase energy density but are more frequently used to control dust. Because animal fat sources are susceptible to oxidation (Shurson et al., 2015; Joseph, 2016), antioxidants are often added (Buck, 1991).

Rice Bran

Rice bran is largely made up of the pericarp and germ of the rice grain but may also contain other constituents of the rice plant. In some cases, a portion of the oil is removed through the use of solvents (AAFCO, 2016). Both conventional (Nörnberg et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2015; Criscioni and Fernández, 2016) and defatted (Chaudhary et al., 2001) rice bran can be fed successfully to cattle.

REFERENCES

  • AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials). 2016 Official Publication: Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated. Oxford, UK: Association of American Feed Control; 2016.
  • AbuGhazaleh AA, Schingoethe DJ, Hippen AR, Kalscheur KF. Conjugated linoleic acid increases in milk when cows fed fish meal and extruded soybeans for an extended period of time. J. Dairy Sci. 2004;87:1758–1766. [PubMed: 15453490]
  • Acedo C, Bush LJ, Adams GD. Responses of dairy cows to different amounts of wheat middlings in the concentrate mixture. J. Dairy Sci. 1987;70:635–638.
  • Aguilar AA, Smith NE, Baldwin RL. Nutritional value of almond hulls for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1984;67:97–103.
  • Akayezu JM, Hansen WP, Otterby DE, Crooker BA, Marx GD. Yield response of lactating Holstein dairy cows to dietary fish meal or meat and bone meal. J. Dairy Sci. 1997;80:2950–2963. [PubMed: 9406088]
  • Aliyu S, Bala M. Brewer's spent grain: A review of its potentials and applications. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2013;10:324–331.
  • Allen MS, Bradford BJ, Oba M. Board-invited review: The hepatic oxidation theory of the control of feed intake and its application to ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 2009;87:3317–3334. [PubMed: 19648500]
  • Almeida FN, Htoo JK, Thomson J, Stein HH. Comparative amino acid digestibility in US blood products fed to weanling pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2013;181:80–86.
  • Anderson SJ, Merrill JK, McDonnell ML, Klopfenstein TJ. Digestibility and utilization of mechanically processed soybean hulls by lambs and steers. J. Anim. Sci. 1988;66:2965–2976.
  • Anderson TJ, Lamsal BP. Zein extraction from corn, corn products, and coproducts and modifications for various applications: A review. Cereal Chem. 2011;88:159–173.
  • Angulo J, Mahecha L, Yepes SA, Yepes AM, Bustamante G, Jaramillo H, Valencia E, Villamil T, Gallo J. Quantitative and nutritional characterization of fruit and vegetable waste from marketplace: A potential use as bovine feedstuff? J. Environ. Manage. 2012;95:S203–S209. [PubMed: 21277675]
  • Arieli A. Whole cottonseed in dairy cattle feeding: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1998;72:97–110.
  • Arieli A, Shahar K, Mabjeesh SJ, Zamwel S, Sklan D. Estimation of the digestible energy of ruminant feedstuffs by the combined bag technique. J. Dairy Sci. 1999;82:566–573. [PubMed: 10194675]
  • Arthington JD, Kunkle WE, Martin AM. Citrus pulp for cattle. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2002;18:317–326. [PubMed: 12235663]
  • Asadi M. Beet-Sugar handbook. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience; 2007
  • Avramis CA, Wang H, McBride BW, Wright TC, Hill AR. Physical and processing properties of milk, butter, and cheddar cheese from cows fed supplemental fish meal. J. Dairy Sci. 2003;86:2568–2576. [PubMed: 12939080]
  • Bampidis VA, Robinson PH. Citrus by-products as ruminant feeds: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2006;128:175–217.
  • Bargo F, Rearte DH, Santini FJ, Muller LD. Ruminal digestion by dairy cows grazing winter oats pasture supplemented with different levels and sources of protein. J. Dairy Sci. 2001;84:2260–2272. [PubMed: 11699458]
  • Bartholomew DP, Paull RE, Rohrbach KG, editors. The Pineapple: Botany, Production, and Uses. Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing; 2003.
  • Barton FE, Amos HE, Albrecht WJ, Burdick D. Treating peanut hulls to improve digestibility for ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 1974;38:860–864.
  • Batajoo KK, Shaver RD. In situ dry matter, crude protein, and starch degradabilities of selected grains and by-product feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1998;71:165–176.
  • Bath DL, Dunbar JR, King JM, Berry SL, Leonard RO, Olbrich SE. By-products and Unusual Feedstuffs in Livestock Rations. Western Regional Extension Publication No. 39. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service; 1980.
  • Batterham ES, Lowe RF, Darnell RE, Major EJ. Availability of lysine in meat meal, meat and bone meal and blood meal as determined by the slope-ratio assay with growing pigs, rats and chicks and by chemical techniques. Br. J. Nutr. 1986;55:427–440. [PubMed: 3118934]
  • Bell JM. Factors affecting the nutritional value of canola meal: A review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1993;73:689–697.
  • Berger KG. AnimalFats—BSE andAfter: Proceedings ofthe Joint Meeting of the SCI Oils Fats group and SCI Food Commodities & Ingredients group. June 10, 1997 London. Bridgewater, UK: PJ Barnes & Associates; 1997.
  • Bernard JK. Milk production and composition responses to the source of protein supplements in diets containing wheat middlings. J. Dairy Sci. 1997;80:938–942. [PubMed: 9178134]
  • Blasi DA, Klopfenstein TJ, Drouillard JS, Sindt MH. Hydrolysis time as a factor affecting the nutritive value of feather meal and feather meal-blood meal combinations for growing calves. J. Anim. Sci. 1991;69:1272–1278. [PubMed: 2061255]
  • Blasi DA, Kuhl GL, Drouillard JS. Wheat Middlings: Composition, Feeding Value, and Storage guidelines. MF-2353. Manhattan: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service; 1998. [July 5, 2018]. https://www​.bookstore​.ksre.ksu.edu/pubs/mf2353.pdf .
  • Blauwiekel R, Xu S, Harrison JH, Loney KA, Riley RE, Calhoun MC. Effect of whole cottonseed, gossypol, and ruminally protected lysine supplementation on milk yield and composition. J. Dairy Sci. 1997;80:1358–1365. [PubMed: 9241597]
  • Bohnert DW, Larson BT, Bauer ML, Branco AF, McLeod KR, Harmon DL, Mitchell GE. Nutritional evaluation of poultry byproduct meal as a protein source for ruminants: Effects on performance and nutrient flow and disappearance in steers. J. Anim. Sci. 1998;76:2474–2484. [PubMed: 9781503]
  • Bohnert DW, Larson BT, Bauer ML, Branco AF, McLeod KR, Harmon DL, Mitchell GE. Nutritional evaluation of poultry byproduct meal as a protein source for ruminants: Small intestinal amino acid flow and disappearance in steers. J. Anim. Sci. 1999;77:1000–1007. [PubMed: 10328368]
  • Boros D, Slominski BA, Guenter W, Campbell LD, Jones O. Wheat by-products in poultry nutrition. Part II. Nutritive value of wheat screenings, bakery by-products and wheat mill run and their improved utilization by enzyme supplementation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2004;84:429–435.
  • Bothast RJ, Schlicher MA. Biotechnological processes for conversion of corn into ethanol. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005;67:19–25. [PubMed: 15599517]
  • Böttger C, Südekum K-H. Review: Protein value of distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) in animal nutrition as affected by the ethanol production process. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2018;244:11–17.
  • Boucher SE, Calsamiglia S, Parsons CM, Stein HH, Stern MD, Erickson PS, Utterback PL, Schwab CG. Intestinal digestibility of amino acids in rumen-undegraded protein estimated using a precision-fed cecectomized rooster bioassay: II. Distillers dried grains with solubles and fish meal. J. Dairy Sci. 2009a;92:6056–6067. [PubMed: 19923609]
  • Boucher SE, Calsamiglia S, Parsons CM, Stern MD, Ruiz Moreno M, Vázquez-Añón M, Schwab CG. In vitro digestibility of individual amino acids in rumen-undegraded protein: The modified three-step procedure and the immobilized digestive enzyme assay. J. Dairy Sci. 2009b;92:3939–3950. [PubMed: 19620677]
  • Boudra H, Rouillé B, Lyan B, Morgavi DP. Presence of mycotoxins in sugar beet pulp silage collected in France. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2015;205:131–135.
  • Bradford BJ, Mullins CR. Invited review: Strategies for promoting productivity and health of dairy cattle by feeding nonforage fiber sources. J. Dairy Sci. 2012;95:4735–4746. [PubMed: 22916877]
  • Bradshaw L, MacGregor S, Olsen T. Potato by-product feeding in the Pacific Northwest. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2002;18:339–347. [PubMed: 12235665]
  • Brito AF, Broderick GA. Effects of different protein supplements on milk production and nutrient utilization in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2007;90:1816–1827. [PubMed: 17369223]
  • Broderick GA, Kerkman TM, Sullivan HM, Dowd MK, Funk PA. Effect of replacing soybean meal protein with protein from upland cottonseed, Pima cottonseed, or extruded Pima cottonseed on production of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2013;96:2374–2386. [PubMed: 23462167]
  • Brown WH, Halbach GD, Stull JW, Whiting FM. Utilization of cotton gin trash by lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1979;62:793–796.
  • Buck DF. Antioxidants. In: Smith J, editor. Food Additive User's handbook. New York: Springer; 1991. pp. 1–46.
  • Burke JM, Staples CR, Risco CA, De La Sota RL, Thatcher WW. Effect of ruminant grade menhaden fish meal on reproductive and productive performance of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1997;80:3386–3398. [PubMed: 9436121]
  • Callaway TR, Carroll JA, Arthington JD, Edrington TS, Rossman ML, Carr MA, Krueger NA, Ricke SC, Crandall P, Nisbet DJ. Escherichia coli O157:H7 populations in ruminants can be reduced by orange peel product feeding. J. Food Protect. 2011;74:1917–1921. [PubMed: 22054194]
  • Cameron MG, Cameron MR, Fahey GC, Clark JH, Berger LL, Merchen NR. Effects of Treating oat hulls with alkaline hydrogen peroxide on intake and digestion by midlactation dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1991a;74:177–189.
  • Cameron MG, Cremin JD, Fahey GC, Clark JH, Berger LL, Merchen NR. Chemically treated oat hulls in diets for dairy heifers and wethers: Effects on intake and digestion. J. Dairy Sci. 1991b;74:190–201.
  • Carvalho ER, Schmelz-Roberts NS, White HM, Doane PH, Donkin SS. Replacing corn with glycerol in diets for transition dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2011;94:908–916. [PubMed: 21257059]
  • Cassinerio CA, Fadel JG, Asmus J, Heguy JM, Taylor SJ, DePeters EJ. Tomato seeds as a novel by-product feed for lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2015;98:4811–4828. [PubMed: 25981076]
  • Chalupa W, Sniffen CJ. Protein and amino acid nutrition of lactating dairy cattle—today and tomorrow. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1996;58:65–75. [PubMed: 1893276]
  • Chaudhary LC, Sahoo A, Agarwal N, Kamra DN, Pathak NN. Effect of replacing grain with deoiled rice bran and molasses from the diet of lactating cows. Asian Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2001;14:646–650.
  • Cheli F, Pinotti L, Rossi L, Dell'Orto V. Effect of milling procedures on mycotoxin distribution in wheat fractions: A review. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2013;54:307–314.
  • Clark JH, Murphy MR, Crooker BA. Supplying the protein needs of dairy cattle from by-product feeds. J. Dairy Sci. 1987;70:1092–1109. [PubMed: 3298341]
  • Clark PW, Armentano LE. Effectiveness of neutral detergent fiber in whole cottonseed and dried distillers grains compared with alfalfa haylage. J. Dairy Sci. 1993;76:2644–2650. [PubMed: 8227666]
  • Coppock CE, Lanham JK, Horner JL. A review of the nutritive value and utilization of whole cottonseed, cottonseed meal and associated by-products by dairy cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1987;18:89–129.
  • Crawshaw R. Co-Product Feeds: Animal Feeds from the Food and Drinks Industries. Nottingham, UK: Nottingham University Press; 2004. Reprinted.
  • Criscioni P, Fernández C. Effect of rice bran as a replacement for oat grain in energy and nitrogen balance, methane emissions, and milk performance of Murciano-Granadina goats. J. Dairy Sci. 2016;99:280–290. [PubMed: 26547653]
  • Dale N, Fancher B, Zumbado M, Villacres A. Metabolizable energy content of poultry offal meal. J. Appl. Poultry Res. 1993;2:40–42.
  • Daniels LB, Hashim RB. Evaluation of fungal cellulases in rice hull base diets for ruminants. J. Dairy Sci. 1977;60:1563–1567.
  • Dann HM, Tucker HA, Cotanch KW, Krawczel PD, Mooney CS, Grant RJ, Eguchi T. Evaluation of lower-starch diets for lactating Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2014;97:7151–7161. [PubMed: 25242424]
  • Del Valle M, Camara M, Torija ME. The nutritional and functional potential of tomato by-products. Acta horticulturae. 2007;758:165–172.
  • DePeters EJ, Fadel JG, Arosemena A. Digestion kinetics of neutral detergent fiber and chemical composition within some selected by-product feedstuffs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1997;67:127–140.
  • DePeters EJ, Fadel JG, Arana MJ, Ohanesian N, Etchebarne MA, Hamilton CA, Hinders RG, Maloney MD, Old CA, Riordan TJ, Perez-Monti H, Pareas JW. Variability in the chemical composition of seventeen selected by-product feedstuffs used by the California dairy industry. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2000;16:69–99.
  • DePeters EJ, Swanson KL, Bill HM, Asmus J, Heguy JM. Nutritional composition of almond hulls. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2020;36:761–770.
  • Depies KK, Armentano LE. Partial replacement of alfalfa fiber with fiber from ground corn cobs or wheat middlings. J. Dairy Sci. 1995;78:1328–1335. [PubMed: 7673522]
  • Devendra C. Non-conventional Feed Resources in Asia and the Pacific. 2nd ed. Bangkok: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia, the Far East and the South-West Pacific; 1985. [July 5, 2018]. (APHCA/FAO Monograph No. 6). https:​//idl-bnc-idrc​.dspacedirect.org/bitstream​/handle/10625/6867/66144​.pdf?sequence=1 .
  • Dixon R, Hosking B, Egan A. Effects of oilseed meal and grain-urea supplements fed infrequently on digestion in sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2003a;110:75–94.
  • Dixon R, Karda W, Hosking B, Egan A. Effects of oilseed meals and grain–urea supplements fed infrequently on digestion in sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2003b;110:95–110.
  • Donkin SS. Glycerol from biodiesel production: The new corn for dairy cattle. Rev. Brasil. Zootec. 2008;37:280–286.
  • Donkin SS, Koser SL, White HM, Doane PH, Cecava MJ. Feeding value of glycerol as a replacement for corn grain in rations fed to lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2009;92:5111–5119. [PubMed: 19762829]
  • Dozier WA, Dale NM. Metabolizable energy of feed-grade and pet food-grade poultry by-product meals. J. Appl. Poultry Res. 2005;14:349–351.
  • Drackley JK, editor. Soy in Animal Nutrition. Savoy, IL: Federation of Animal Science Societies; 2000.
  • Drackley JK, Schingoethe DJ. Extruded blend of soybean meal and sunflower seeds for dairy cattle in early lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 1986;69:371–384. [PubMed: 3700790]
  • Ekin Z. Resurgence of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) utilization: A global view. J. Agronomy. 2005;4:83–87.
  • El Boushy AR, van der Poel AFB, Walraven OED. Feather meal—a biological waste: Its processing and utilization as a feedstuff for poultry. Biol. Wastes. 1990;32:39–74.
  • El Boushy ARY, van der Poel AFB. Poultry Feed from Waste: Processing and Use. London, UK: Chapman & Hall; 1994.
  • Erickson JP, Miller ER, Ku PK, Collings GF, Black JR. Wheat middlings as a source of energy, amino acids, phosphorus and pellet binding quality for swine diets. J. Anim. Sci. 1985;60:1012.
  • Ertl P, Zebeli Q, Zollitsch W, Knaus W. Feeding of wheat bran and sugar beet pulp as sole supplements in high-forage diets emphasizes the potential of dairy cattle for human food supply. J. Dairy Sci. 2016;99:1228–1236. [PubMed: 26709167]
  • Fadel JG. Quantitative analyses of selected plant by-product feedstuffs, a global perspective. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1999;79:255–268.
  • Fadel JG, DePeters EJ, Arosemena A. Composition and digestibility of beet pulp with and without molasses and dried using three methods. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2000;85:121–129.
  • FDA (U.S. Food and DrugAdministration). Bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Feed ban enhancement: Implementation questions and answers. 2008. [July 1, 2016]. http://www​.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary​/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement​/ComplianceEnforcement​/BovineSpongiformEncephalopathy​/ucm114453​.htm#The_2008_Regulation .
  • Fillaudeau L, Blanpain-Avet P, Daufin G. Water, wastewater and waste management in brewing industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2006;14:463–471.
  • Fink-Gremmels J, editor. Animal Feed Contamination: Effects on Livestock and Food Safety. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2012.
  • Firkins JL, Eastridge ML. Replacement of forage or concentrate with combinations of soyhulls, sodium bicarbonate, or fat for lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1992;75:2752–2761. [PubMed: 1331214]
  • Firkins JL, Harvatine DI, Sylvester JT, Eastridge ML. Lactation performance by dairy cows fed wet brewers grains or whole cottonseed to replace forage. J. Dairy Sci. 2002;85:2662–2668. [PubMed: 12416820]
  • French D. Chemical and physical properties of starch. J. Anim. Sci. 1973;37:1048–1061. [PubMed: 4583690]
  • Friedman M, Roitman JN, Kozukue N. Glycoalkaloid and calystegine contents of eight potato cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003;51:2964–2973. [PubMed: 12720378]
  • Froetschel MA, Ross CL, Stewart RL, Azain MJ, Michot P, Rekaya R. Nutritional value of ensiled grocery food waste for cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2014;92:5124–5133. [PubMed: 25349356]
  • Gaillard C, Sørensen MT, Vestergaard M, Weisbjerg MR, Larsen MK, Martinussen H, Kidmose U, Sehested J. Effect of substituting barley with glycerol as energy feed on feed intake, milk production and milk quality in dairy cows in mid or late lactation. Livestock Sci. 2018;209:25–31.
  • Garcia RA, Rosentrater KA, Flores RA. Characteristics of North American meat and bone meal relevant to the development of non-feed applications. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2006;22(5):729–736.
  • García-Fernández AJ, Motas-Guzman M, Navas I, María-Mojica P, Romero D. Sunflower meal as cause of chronic copper poisoning in lambs in southeastern Spain. Can. Vet. J. 1999;40:799. [PMC free article: PMC1539993] [PubMed: 10563240]
  • Ghaly AE, Ramakrishnan VV, Brooks MS, Budge SM, Dave D. Fish processing wastes as a potential source of proteins, amino acids and oils: A critical review. J. Microb. Biochem. Technol. 2013;5:107–129.
  • Goedeken FK, Klopfenstein TJ, Stock RA, Britton RA, Sindt MH. Protein value of feather meal for ruminants as affected by blood additions. J. Anim. Sci. 1990;68:2936–2944. [PubMed: 2211422]
  • González J, Rodrıguez CA, Andrés SG, Alvir MR. Rumen degradability and microbial contamination of fish meal and meat meal measured by the in situ technique. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1998;73:71–84.
  • Gowda NKS, Vallesha NC, Awachat VB, Anandan S, Pal DT, Prasad CS. Study on evaluation of silage from pineapple (Ananas comosus) fruit residue as livestock feed. Trop. Anim. health Prod. 2015;47:557–561. [PubMed: 25633915]
  • Grant RJ, Haddad SG. Effect of a mixture of feather and blood meals on lactational performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1998;81:1358–1363. [PubMed: 9621239]
  • Grasser LA, Fadel JG, Garnett I, DePeters EJ. Quantity and economic importance of nine selected by-products used in California dairy rations. J. Dairy Sci. 1995;78:962–971. [PubMed: 7790589]
  • Grieve DG. Feed intake and growth of cattle fed liquid brewer's yeast. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1979;59:89–94.
  • Gupta RC, editor. Veterinary Toxicology: Basic and Clinical Principles. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2007.
  • Hendriks WH, Butts CA, Thomas DV, James KAC, Morel PCA, Verstegen MWA. Nutritional quality and variation of meat and bone meal. Asian Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2002;15:1507–1516.
  • Hendriks WH, Cottam YH, Morel PCH, Thomas DV. Source of the variation in meat and bone meal nutritional quality. Asian Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2004;17:94–101.
  • Hill GM. Peanut by-products fed to cattle. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2002;18:295–315. [PubMed: 12235662]
  • Hill SR, Hopkins BA, Davidson S, Bolt SM, Diaz DE, Brownie C, Brown T, Huntington GB, Whitlow LW. The addition of cottonseed hulls to the starter and supplementation of live yeast or mannanoligosaccharide in the milk for young calves. J. Dairy Sci. 2009a;92:790–798. [PubMed: 19164693]
  • Hill TM, Bateman HG, Aldrich JM, Schlotterbeck RL. Effects of fat concentration of a high-protein milk replacer on calf performance. J. Dairy Sci. 2009b;92:5147–5153. [PubMed: 19762833]
  • Hill TM, Bateman HG, Aldrich JM, Quigley JD, Schlotterbeck RL. Inclusion of tallow and soybean oil to calf starters fed to dairy calves from birth to four months of age on calf performance and digestion. J. Dairy Sci. 2015;98:4882–4888. [PubMed: 25912868]
  • Hollmann M, Allen MS, Beede DK. Diet fermentability influences lactational performance responses to corn distillers grains: A meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 2011a;94:2007–2021. [PubMed: 21426992]
  • Hollmann M, Allen MS, Beede DK. Dietary protein quality and quantity affect lactational responses to corn distillers grains: A meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 2011b;94:2022–2030. [PubMed: 21426993]
  • Hopkins BA. Effects of the method of calf starter delivery and effects of weaning age on starter intake and growth of Holstein calves fed milk once daily. J. Dairy Sci. 1997;80:2200–2203. [PubMed: 9313165]
  • Howie SA, Calsamiglia S, Stern MD. Variation in ruminal degradation and intestinal digestion of animal byproduct proteins. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1996;63:1–7.
  • Hristov AN, Ropp JK. Effect of dietary carbohydrate composition and availability on utilization of ruminal ammonia nitrogen for milk protein synthesis in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2003;86:2416–2427. [PubMed: 12906060]
  • Huffman CF, Duncan CW. Unidentified dietary factors in dairy cattle nutrition: I. Digestibility of peanut hulls and their use in “ballast” studies with milking cows depleted on hay alone. J. Dairy Sci. 1952;35:30–40.
  • Huhtanen P, Hetta M, Swensson C. Evaluation of canola meal as a protein supplement for dairy cows: A review and a meta-analysis. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2011;91:529–543.
  • Humer E, Aditya S, Kaltenegger A, Klevenhusen F, Petri RM, Zebeli Q. Graded substitution of grains with bakery by-products modulates ruminal fermentation, nutrient degradation, and microbial community composition in vitro. J. Dairy Sci. 2018;101:3085–3098. [PubMed: 29428759]
  • Hussein HS, Jordan RM. Fish meal as a protein supplement in ruminant diets: A review. J. Anim. Sci. 1991;69:2147–2156. [PubMed: 2066324]
  • Iizuka A, Haritani M, Shiono M, Sato M, Fukuda O, Hagiwara A, Miyazaki S, Tanimura N, Kimura K, Nakazawa K, Kobayashi M, Takahashi T, Saito T, Fukai K. An outbreak of systemic granulomatous disease in cows with high milk yields. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2005;67:693–699. [PubMed: 16082117]
  • Ipharraguerre IR, Clark JH. Soyhulls as an alternative feed for lactating dairy cows: A review. J. Dairy Sci. 2003;86:1052–1073. [PubMed: 12741530]
  • Ipharraguerre IR, Ipharraguerre RR, Clark JH. Performance of lactating dairy cows fed varying amounts of soyhulls as a replacement for corn grain. J. Dairy Sci. 2002a;85:2905–2912. [PubMed: 12487458]
  • Ipharraguerre IR, Shabi Z, Clark JH, Freeman DE. Ruminal fermentation and nutrient digestion by dairy cows fed varying amounts of soyhulls as a replacement for corn grain. J. Dairy Sci. 2002b;85:2890–2904. [PubMed: 12487457]
  • Ítavo LCV, Soares CM, Ítavo CCBF, Dias AM, Petit HV, Leal ES, de Souza ADV. Calorimetry, chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of oilseeds. Food Chem. 2015;185:219–225. [PubMed: 25952861]
  • Jami E, Shterzer N, Yosef E, Nikbachat M, Miron J, Mizrahi I. Effects of including NaOH-treated corn straw as a substitute for wheat hay in the ration of lactating cows on performance, digestibility, and rumen microbial profile. J. Dairy Sci. 2014;97:1623–1633. [PubMed: 24440253]
  • Jayathilakan K, Sultana K, Radhakrishna K, Bawa AS. Utilization of byproducts and waste materials from meat, poultry and fish processing industries: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012;49:278–293. [PMC free article: PMC3614052] [PubMed: 23729848]
  • Jenkins KJ, Kramer JKG, Emmons DB. Effect of lipids in milk replacers on calf performance and lipids in blood plasma, liver, and perirenal fat. J. Dairy Sci. 1986;69:447–459. [PubMed: 3700792]
  • Jin Q-Z, Zou X-Q, Shan L, Wang X-G, Qiu A-Y. β-Dglucosidase-catalyzed deglucosidation of phenylpropanoid amides of 5-hydroxytryptamine glucoside in safflower seed extracts optimized by response surface methodology. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010;58:155–160. [PubMed: 19911845]
  • Johnson LA, White PJ, Galloway R, editors. Soybeans: Chemistry, Production, Processing, and Utilization. Urbana, IL: AOCS Press; 2008.
  • Joseph P. Oxidative stability and shelf life of bulk animal fats and poultry fats. In: Hu M, Jacobsen C, editors. Oxidative Stability and Shelf Life of Foods Containing Oils and Fats. New York: Elsevier; 2016. pp. 233–249.
  • Karlsson J, Spörndly R, Lindberg M, Holtenius K. Replacing human-edible feed ingredients with by-products increases net food production efficiency in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2018;101:7146–7155. [PubMed: 29753487]
  • Kellems RO, Wayman O, Nguyen AH, Nolan JC, Campbell CM, Carpenter JR, Ho-a EB. Post-harvest pineapple plant forage as a potential feedstuff for beef cattle: Evaluated by laboratory analyses in vitro and in vivo digestibility and feedlot trials. J. Anim. Sci. 1979;48:1040–1048.
  • Kelly P. Sugar beet pulp—A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1983;8:1–18.
  • Klemesrud MJ, Klopfenstein TJ, Lewis AJ, Shain DH, Herold DW. Limiting amino acids in meat and bone and poultry byproduct meals. J. Anim. Sci. 1997;75:3294–3300. [PubMed: 9420004]
  • Klemesrud MJ, Klopfenstein TJ, Lewis AJ. Evaluation of feather meal as a source of sulfur amino acids for growing steers. J. Anim. Sci. 2000;78:207–215. [PubMed: 10682823]
  • Klopfenstein T, Owen FG. Value and potential use of crop residues and by-products in dairy rations. J. Dairy Sci. 1981;64:1250–1268.
  • Kononoff PJ, Heinrichs AJ. The effect of decreasing corn silage particle size and the inclusion of cottonseed hulls on effective fiber values and ruminal fermentation. J. Dairy Sci. 2003;86:3343–3353.
  • Kosikowski FV. Whey utilization and whey products. J. Dairy Sci. 1979;62:1149–1160.
  • Kotsampasi Β, Christodoulou C, Tsiplakou E, Mavrommatis A, Mitsiopoulou C, Karaiskou C, Dotas V, Robinson PH, Bampidis VA, Christodoulou V, Zervas G. Effects of dietary pomegranate pulp silage supplementation on milk yield and composition, milk fatty acid profile and blood plasma antioxidant status of lactating dairy cows. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017;234:228–236.
  • Laarveld B, Christensen D, Brockman R. The effects of Tower and Midas rapeseed meals on milk production and concentrations of goitrogens and iodide in milk. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1981;61:131–139.
  • Lagrange V, Whitsett D, Burris C. Global market for dairy proteins. J. Food Sci. 2015;80:A16–A22. [PubMed: 25757893]
  • Lardy GP, Anderson V. Canola and sunflower meal in beef cattle diets. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2002;18:327–338. [PubMed: 12235664]
  • Lee S, Shah YT, editors. Biofuels and Bioenergy: Processes and Technologies. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis; 2012.
  • Leoci R. Animal By-Products (ABP): Origins, Uses, and European Regulations. Mantova, Italy: Universitas Studiorum; 2014.
  • Lomascolo A, Uzan-Boukhris E, Sigoillot J-C, Fine F. Rapeseed and sunflower meal: A review on biotechnology status and challenges. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012;95:1105–1114. [PubMed: 22752367]
  • Ma F, Hanna MA. Biodiesel production: A review. Bioresource Technol. 1999;70:1–15.
  • Maesoomi SM, Ghorbani GR, Alikhani M, Nikkhah A. Short communication: Canola meal as a substitute for cottonseed meal in diet of midlactation Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 2006;89:1673–1677. [PubMed: 16606737]
  • Mäntysaari PE, Sniffen CJ, Muscato TV, Lynch JM, Barbano DM. Performance of cows in early lactation fed isonitrogenous diets containing soybean meal or animal by-product meals. J. Dairy Sci. 1989;72:2958–2967. [PubMed: 2625486]
  • Martineau R, Ouellet DR, Lapierre H. Feeding canola meal to dairy cows: A meta-analysis on lactational responses. J. Dairy Sci. 2013;96:1701–1714. [PubMed: 23295114]
  • Mattos R, Staples CR, Williams J, Amorocho A, McGuire MA, Thatcher WW. Uterine, ovarian, and production responses of lactating dairy cows to increasing dietary concentrations of menhaden fish meal. J. Dairy Sci. 2002;85:755–764. [PubMed: 12018420]
  • McCarthy AL, O'Callaghan YC, Piggott CO, FitzGerald RJ, O'Brien NM. Brewers' spent grain; bioactivity of phenolic component, its role in animal nutrition and potential for incorporation in functional foods: A review. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2013;72:117–125. [PubMed: 23137812]
  • Meeker DL, editor. Essential Rendering: All About the Animal Byproducts Industry. Alexandria, VA: National Renderers Association, Fats and Proteins Research Foundation, and the Animal Protein Producers Industry; 2006.
  • Mello AS, Jenschke BE, Senaratne LS, Carr TP, Erickson GE, Calkins CR. Effects of feeding modified distillers grains plus solubles on marbling attributes, proximate composition, and fatty acid profile of beef. J. Anim. Sci. 2012;90:4634–4640. [PubMed: 22859752]
  • Meral Y, Kara Ç, Biricik H. Influence of glycerol supplementation to dairy and feedlot cattle diets on performance and health: A review. J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2015;9:109–117.
  • Mertens DR. Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1997;80:1463–1481. [PubMed: 9241608]
  • Messman MA, Weiss WP. Use of electrophoresis to quantify ruminal degradability of protein from concentrate feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1994;49:25–35.
  • Miller WF, Shirley JE, Titgemeyer EC, Brouk MJ. Comparison of full-fat corn germ, whole cottonseed, and tallow as fat sources for lactating dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2009;92:3386–3391. [PubMed: 19528615]
  • Miller-Cushon EK, Montoro C, Ipharraguerre IR, Bach A. Dietary preference in dairy calves for feed ingredients high in energy and protein. J. Dairy Sci. 2014;97:1634–1644. [PubMed: 24418273]
  • Monteils V, Jurjanz S, Colin-Schoellen, Blanchart G, Laurent F. Kinetics of ruminal degradation of wheat and potato starches in total mixed rations. J. Anim. Sci. 2002;80:235–241. [PubMed: 11831523]
  • Moritz JS, Latshaw JD. Indicators of nutritional value of hydrolyzed feather meal. Poultry Sci. 2001;80:79–86. [PubMed: 11214340]
  • Mosavi G, Fatahnia F, Mirzaei Alamouti H, Mehrabi A, Darmani Kohi H. Effect of dietary starch source on milk production and composition of lactating Holstein cows. South Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2012;42:201–209.
  • Moussavi AH, Gilbert RO, Overton TR, Bauman DE, Butler WR. Effects of feeding fish meal and n-3 fatty acids on milk yield and metabolic responses in early lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2007;90:136–144. [PubMed: 17183082]
  • Münnich M, Khiaosa-Ard R, Klevenhusen F, Hilpold A, Khol-Parisini A, Zebeli Q. A meta-analysis of feeding sugar beet pulp in dairy cows: effects on feed intake, ruminal fermentation, performance, and net food production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017;224:78–89.
  • Mussatto SI, Dragone G, Roberto IC. Brewers' spent grain: Generation, characteristics and potential applications. J. Cereal Sci. 2006;43:1–14.
  • Mustafa AF, McKinnon JJ, Christensen DA. Protection of canola (low glucosinolate rapeseed) meal and seed protein from ruminal degradation. Asian Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2000;13:535–542.
  • Nangole FN, Kayongo-Male H, Said AN. Chemical composition, digestibility and feeding value of maize cobs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1983;9:121–130.
  • Nelson ML. Utilization and application of wet potato processing coproducts for finishing cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2010;88:E133–E142. [PubMed: 19897632]
  • Nema PK, Ramayya N, Duncan E, Niranjan K. Potato glycoalkaloids: formation and strategies for mitigation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2008;88:1869–1881.
  • Nhan NTH, Hon NV, Preston TR. Ensiling with or without additives to preserve pineapple residue and reduce pollution of the environment. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 2009;21:96. [July 2, 2016]; http://www​.lrrd.org/lrrd21/7/nhan21096​.htm .
  • Nörnberg JL, Stumpf Júnior W, López J, Costa PB. Valor do farelo de arroz integral como fonte de gordura na dieta de vacas Jersey na fase inicial de lactação: Digestibilidade aparente de nutrientes. Rev. Brasil. Zootec. 2004;33:2412–2421.
  • NRC (National Research Council). Feeding Value of Ethanol Production By-products. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1981.
  • NRC. Underutilized Resources as Animal Feedstuffs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1983.
  • NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Swine. 11th rev. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012.
  • Ockerman HW, Hansen CL. Animal By-product Processing & Utilization. Lancaster, PA: Technomic; 2000.
  • Offeman RD, Holtman KM, Covello KM, Orts WJ. Almond hulls as a biofuels feedstock: Variations in carbohydrates by variety and location in California. Industrial Crops Products. 2014;54:109–114.
  • Onifade AA, Al-Sane NA, Al-Musallam AA, Al-Zarban S. A review: Potentials for biotechnological applications of keratin-degrading microorganisms and their enzymes for nutritional improvement of feathers and other keratins as livestock feed resources. Bioresource Technol. 1998;66:1–11.
  • Opstvedt J, Miller R, Hardy RW, Spinelli J. Heat-induced changes in sulfhydryl groups and disulfide bonds in fish protein and their effect on protein and amino acid digestibility in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). J. Agric. Food Chem. 1984;32:929–935.
  • Palmquist DL, Jenkins TC. Fat in lactation rations: Review. J. Dairy Sci. 1980;63:1–14. [PubMed: 6989864]
  • Papadopoulos MC. Processed chicken feathers as feedstuff for poultry and swine: A review. Agric. Wastes. 1985;14:275–290.
  • Paz HA, Klopfenstein TJ, Hostetler D, Fernando SC, Castillo-Lopez E, Kononoff PJ. Ruminal degradation and intestinal digestibility of protein and amino acids in high-protein feedstuffs commonly used in dairy diets. J. Dairy Sci. 2014;97:6485–6498. [PubMed: 25108871]
  • Pearson AM, Dutson TR, editors. Inedible Meat By-Products. London, UK: Elsevier Science; 1992.
  • Polan CE, Cozzi G, Berzaghi P, Andrighetto I. A blend of animal and cereal protein or fish meal as partial replacement for soybean meal in the diets of lactating Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1997;80:160–166. [PubMed: 9120086]
  • Priest FG, Stewart GG, editors. handbook of Brewing. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor & Francis; 2006.
  • Pruekvimolphan S, Grummer RR. Lactation responses to sulfur-containing amino acids from feather meal or rumen-protected methionine. J. Dairy Sci. 2001;84:2515–2522. [PubMed: 11768093]
  • Ranathunga SD, Kalscheur KF, Hippen AR, Schingoethe DJ. Replacement of starch from corn with nonforage fiber from distillers grains and soyhulls in diets of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2010;93:1086–1097. [PubMed: 20172230]
  • Randel PF, Ramirez A, Carrero R, Valencia I. Alkali-treated and raw sugarcane bagasse as roughages in complete rations for lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1972;55:1492–1495.
  • Ravindran V, Blair R. Feed resources for poultry production in Asia and the Pacific: III. Animal protein sources. Worlds Poultry Sci. J. 1993;49:219–235.
  • Reiser R, Fu HC. The mechanism of gossypol detoxification by ruminant animals. J. Nutr. 1962;76:215–218. [PubMed: 14491326]
  • Rogers GM, Poore MH, Paschal JC. Feeding cotton products to cattle. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2002;18:267–294. [PubMed: 12235661]
  • Rooke JA, Moss AR, Mathers AI, Crawshaw R. Assessment using sheep of the nutritive value of liquid potato feed and partially fried potato chips (French fries). Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1997;64:243–256.
  • Rosenfelder P, Eklund M, Mosenthin R. Nutritive value of wheat and wheat by-products in pig nutrition: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2013;185:107–125.
  • Rosentrater KA. Production and use of evolving corn-based fuel ethanol coproducts in the U.S. In: Biernat K, editor. Biofuels—Status and Perspective. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech Open Access; 2015. pp. 81–98.
  • Sancho P, Pinacho A, Ramos P, Tejedor C. Microbiological characterization of food residues for animal feeding. Waste Manage. 2004;24:919–926. [PubMed: 15504669]
  • Santos FAP, Santos JEP, Theurer CB, Huber JT. Effects of rumen-undegradable protein on dairy cow performance: A 12-year literature review. J. Dairy Sci. 1998;81:3182–3213. [PubMed: 9891265]
  • Sapkota AR, Lefferts LY, McKenzie S, Walker P. What do we feed to food-production animals? A review of animal feed ingredients and their potential impacts on human health. Environ. health Perspect. 2007;115:663–670. [PMC free article: PMC1867957] [PubMed: 17520050]
  • Saunders GK, Blodgett DJ, Hutchins TA, Prater RM, Robertson JL, Friday PA, Scarratt WK. Suspected citrus pulp toxicosis in dairy cattle. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 2000;12:269–271. [PubMed: 10826844]
  • Schingoethe DJ. Whey utilization in animal feeding: A summary and evaluation. J. Dairy Sci. 1976;59:556–570.
  • Schingoethe DJ, Rook JA, Ludens F. Evaluation of sunflower meal as a protein supplement for lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1977;60:591–595.
  • Schingoethe DJ, Kalscheur KF, Hippen AR, Garcia AD. Invited review: The use of distillers products in dairy cattle diets. J. Dairy Sci. 2009;92:5802–5813. [PubMed: 19923586]
  • Shaver RD. By-product feedstuffs in dairy cattle diets in the Upper Midwest. 2005. [September 6, 2018]. https://shaverlab​.dysci​.wisc.edu/wp-content​/uploads/sites/204​/2015/04/byproductfeedsrevised2008.pdf .
  • Shi HT, Li SL, Cao ZJ, Wang YJ, Alugongo GM, Doane PH. Effects of replacing wild rye, corn silage, or corn grain with CaOtreated corn stover and dried distillers grains with solubles in lactating cow diets on performance, digestibility, and profitability. J. Dairy Sci. 2015;98:7183–7193. [PubMed: 26210280]
  • Shin JH, Wang D, Kim SC, Adesogan AT, Staples CR. Effects of feeding crude glycerin on performance and ruminal kinetics of lactating Holstein cows fed corn silage- or cottonseed hull-based, low-fiber diets. J. Dairy Sci. 2012;95:4006–4016. [PubMed: 22720955]
  • Shreck AL. University of Nebraska; Lincoln: 2013. Use of alkaline-treated crop residues as partial grain replacements for finishing cattle PhD.
  • Shurson GC, Kerr BJ, Hanson AR. Evaluating the quality of feed fats and oils and their effects on pig growth performance. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015;6:10–21. [PMC free article: PMC4384276] [PubMed: 25844168]
  • Slominski BA, Boros D, Campbell LD, Guenter W, Jones O. Wheat by-products in poultry nutrition: Part I. Chemical and nutritive composition of wheat screenings, bakery by-products and wheat mill run. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2004;84:421–428.
  • Smith S, Smith TJ, Drake MA. Short communication: Flavor and flavor stability of cheese, rennet, and acid wheys. J. Dairy Sci. 2016;99:3434–3444. [PubMed: 26947298]
  • Soper IG, Owen FG, Nielsen MK. Hydroxide treated corn cobs fed with corn silages in complete rations. J. Dairy Sci. 1977;60:596–601.
  • Stahel P, Purdie NG, Cant JP. Use of dietary feather meal to induce histidine deficiency or imbalance in dairy cows and effects on milk composition. J. Dairy Sci. 2014;97:439–445. [PubMed: 24268836]
  • Staples CR, Mattos R, Risco CS, Thatcher WW. Improving cow fertility through fish meal supplementation. 2005. [September 6, 2018]. https://edis​.ifas.ufl​.edu/pdffiles/AN/AN10900.pdf .
  • Steckley JD, Grieve DG, Macleod GK, Moran ET. Brewer's yeast slurry: II. A Source of supplementary protein for lactating dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 1979a;62:947–953.
  • Steckley JD, Grieve GD, Macleod GK, Moran ET. Brewer's yeast slurry: I. Composition as affected by length of storage, temperature, and chemical treatment. J. Dairy Sci. 1979b;62:941–946.
  • Stock RA, Lewis JM, Klopfenstein TJ, Milton CT. Review of new information on the use of wet and dry milling feed by-products in feedlot diets. J. Anim. Sci. 2000;77:1–12.
  • Suksathit S, Wachirapakorn C, Opatpatanakit Y. Effects of levels of ensiled pineapple waste and pangola hay fed as roughage sources on feed intake, nutrient digestibility and ruminal fermentation of Southern Thai native cattle. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2011;33:271–280.
  • Taghizadeh A, Mesgaran MD, Valizadeh R, Shahroodi FE, Stanford K. Digestion of feed amino acids in the rumen and intestine of steers measured using a mobile nylon bag technique. J. Dairy Sci. 2005;88:1807–1814. [PubMed: 15829674]
  • Tahir MI, Khalique A, Pasha TN, Bhatti JA. Comparative evaluation of maize bran, wheat bran and rice bran on milk production of Holstein Friesian cattle. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2002;4:559–60.
  • Tang J, Feng H, Shen G-Q. Drum drying. In: Heldman DR, Moraru CI, editors. Encyclopedia of Agricultural, Food, and Biological Engineering. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2003. pp. 211–214.
  • Thompson RK, Mustafa AF, McKinnon JJ, Maenz D, Rossnagel B. Genotypic differences in chemical composition and ruminal degradability of oat hulls. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2000;80:377–379.
  • Titgemeyer EC, Cameron MG, Bourquin LD, Fahey GC. Digestion of cell wall components by dairy heifers fed diets based on alfalfa and chemically treated oat hulls. J. Dairy Sci. 1991;74:1026–1037. [PubMed: 1649201]
  • Traylor SL, Cromwell GL, Lindemann MD. Bioavailability of phosphorus in meat and bone meal for swine. J. Anim. Sci. 2005;83:1054–1061. [PubMed: 15827250]
  • Tripathi MK, Mishra AS. Glucosinolates in animal nutrition: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2007;132:1–27.
  • USDA (US Department of Agriculture). Commodity requirements Bot2 bulk oil and tallow. For use in international food assistance programs. 2013. [July 6, 2018]. https://www​.fsa.usda​.gov/Internet/FSA_File/bot2.pdf .
  • Vadiveloo J, Nurfariza B, Fadel JG. Nutritional improvement of rice husks. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2009;151:299–305.
  • Van Soest PJ. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Comstock; 1994.
  • Voelker JA, Allen MS. Pelleted beet pulp substituted for high-moisture corn: 1. Effects on feed intake, chewing behavior, and milk production of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2003a;86:3542–3552. [PubMed: 14672184]
  • Voelker JA, Allen MS. Pelleted beet pulp substituted for high-moisture corn: 2. Effects on digestion and ruminal digestion kinetics in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2003b;86:3553–3561. [PubMed: 14672185]
  • Voelker JA, Allen MS. Pelleted beet pulp substituted for high-moisture corn: 3. Effects on ruminal fermentation, pH, and microbial protein efficiency in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2003c;86:3562–3570. [PubMed: 14672186]
  • Wagner KM, Firkins JL, Eastridge ML, Hull BL. Replacement of corn silage with wheat middlings and calcium chloride or sodium bicarbonate for lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1993;76:564–574.
  • Waldroup PW, Whelchel DL, Johnson ZB. Variation in nutrient content of samples of dried bakery product. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1982;7:419–421.
  • Walford SN. Proceedings of the 81st Annual Congress of the South African Sugar Technologists' Association. July 29–31, 2008, Durban, South Africa. Mount Edgecombe, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: South African Sugar Technologists' Association; 2008. Sugarcane bagasse: How easy is it to measure its constituents? pp. 266–273.
  • Wang S, Panter KE, Gaffield W, Evans RC, Bunch TD. Effects of steroidal glycoalkaloids from potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) on in vitro bovine embryo development. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2005;85:243–250. [PubMed: 15581508]
  • Wang Y, Zhang YG, Liu X, Kopparapu NK, Xin H, Liu J, Guo J. Measurement of the intestinal digestibility of rumen undegraded protein using different methods and correlation analysis. Asian Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2015;28:1454–1464. [PMC free article: PMC4554853] [PubMed: 26323402]
  • Watson AK, MacDonald JC, Erickson GE, Kononoff PJ, Klopfenstein TJ. Forages and pastures symposium: Optimizing the use of fibrous residues in beef and dairy diets. J. Anim. Sci. 2015;93:2616–2625. [PubMed: 26115250]
  • Weiss WP, Frobose DL, Koch ME. Wet tomato pomace ensiled with corn plants for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1997;80:2896–2900. [PubMed: 9406082]
  • Weiss WP, Wyatt DJ, Kleinschmit DH, Socha MT. Effect of including canola meal and supplemental iodine in diets of dairy cows on short-term changes in iodine concentrations in milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2015;98:4841–4849. [PubMed: 25958290]
  • Werner Omazic A, Kronqvist C, Zhongyan L, Martens H, Holtenius K. The fate of glycerol entering the rumen of dairy cows and sheep. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2015;99:258–264. [PubMed: 25250664]
  • West JW, Hill GM, Utley PR. Peanut skins as a feed ingredient for lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1993;76:590–599.
  • Westendorf ML, Wohlt JE, Sniffen CJ, Ward RT. Nutrient content of brewers grains produced at a commercial brewery: Variation in protein/nitrogen, fiber, carbohydrate, fat, and minerals. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2014;30:400–406.
  • Whittemore CT. The potato (Solanum tuberosum) as a source of nutrients for pigs, calves and fowl—A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1977;2:171–190.
  • Williams SRO, Chaves AV, Deighton MH, Jacobs JL, Hannah MC, Ribaux BE, Morris GL, Wales WJ, Moate PJ. Influence of feeding supplements of almond hulls and ensiled citrus pulp on the milk production, milk composition, and methane emissions of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2018;101(3):2072–2083. [PubMed: 29290453]
  • Woyengo TA, Beltranena E, Zijlstra RT. Effect of antinutritional factors of oilseed co-products on feed intake of pigs and poultry. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016;233:76–86.
  • Wright TC, Holub BJ, Hill AR, McBride BW. Effect of combinations of fish meal and feather meal on milk fatty acid content and nitrogen utilization in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2003;86:861–869. [PubMed: 12703623]
  • Yang J, Cao Y, Cai Y, Terada F. Natural populations of lactic acid bacteria isolated from vegetable residues and silage fermentation. J. Dairy Sci. 2010;93:3136–3145. [PubMed: 20630231]
  • Zhang Y, Caupert J, Imerman PM, Richard JL, Shurson GC. The occurrence and concentration of mycotoxins in U.S. distillers dried grains with solubles. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009;57:9828–9837. [PubMed: 19791773]
Copyright 2021 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Bookshelf ID: NBK600591
Contents

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (17M)

In this Page

Related information

  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

ClearTurn OffTurn On

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...