Nutrient Profile
   

Moisture

CP (%)

 RUP

Ash (%)

EE (%)

ADF (%)

NDF (%)1

NDF 2
with Na2SO3

Corrected NDF 3

   

%

dry basis

 %CP

dry basis

dry basis

dry basis

dry basis

dry basis

dry basis

100% wheat feedstock                
  Mean

11.8

13.3

 26.2

1.8

1.6

3.9

17.1

14.4

14.6

  n

22

22

 3

22

20

15

20

6

7

  Min

10.8

11.5

 22.9

1.5

1.2

3.1

13.9

12.9

12.4

  Max

13.4

16.5

 30.2

2.2

2.3

4.9

20.8

17.6

16.3

  St Dev

0.6

1.3

 3.7

0.2

0.3

0.5

2.0

1.8

1.6

                     
100% wheat DDGS                
  Mean

8.2

38.9

 54.4

5.3

5.1

15.0

42.5

32.8

28.8

  n

24

24

 5

24

24

9

22

9

9

  Min

5.4

33.8

 47.9

4.5

3.7

11.3

31.0

26.6

21.0

  Max

12.5

44.5

 63.1

6.4

7.9

23.3

54.1

39.2

34.1

  St Dev

1.7

2.4

 5.8

0.5

1.0

3.6

7.3

4.2

4.2

                     
70% wheat feedstock                
  Mean

12.9

12.3

 

1.7

2.5

4.7

15.0

11.9

14.0

  n

3

3

 

3

3

3

3

3

3

  Min

12.5

11.9

 

1.7

2.4

4.1

12.9

11.3

11.8

  Max

13.4

12.8

 

1.8

2.6

5.3

16.3

12.9

15.3

  St Dev

0.5

0.5

 

0.1

0.1

0.6

1.8

0.9

1.9

                     
70% wheat DDGS                
  Mean

8.4

33.6

 63.8

4.4

6.7

11.5

49.0

32.6

33.5

  n

10

10

 3

10

10

8

9

4

8

  Min

5.1

31.6

 54.1

3.2

5.1

9.9

39.4

31.4

28.9

  Max

12.5

35.7

 78.9

5.4

8.4

13.3

56.3

34.9

37.3

  St Dev

2.8

1.2

 13.3

0.9

1.2

1.3

7.0

1.6

2.8

                     
 50% Wheat 50% Corn DDGS              
   Mean

6.3 

 30.6

 

3.3 

5.3 

 10.2

 43.9

 

 29.4

   n

 6

 6

 

 6

 6

 2

 6

 

 6

   Min

 5.1

 27.1

 

 2.3

 4.8

 9.5

 40.2

 

 22.4

   Max   

 7.5

 33.7

 

 4.3

 5.7

 10.9

 50.6

 

 37.5

   St Dev

 1.2

 3.5

 

 1.1

 0.3

 1.0

 3.9

 

 6.0

                   
All DDGS                
  Mean

8.0

36.3

57.9 

4.8

5.5

13.0

44.3

32.7

30.6

  n

40

40

 8

40

40

19

37

13

23

  Min

5.1

27.1

 47.9

2.3

3.7

9.5

31.0

26.6

21.0

  Max

12.5

44.5

 78.9

6.4

8.4

23.3

56.3

39.2

37.5

                     

1 NDF analysis with α-amylase; Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B. and Lewis, B.A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharidesin relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3583.

2 Van Soest et al. (1991) method with sodium sulfite added
3 NDF corrected for nitrogen: NDF - [NDICP * .01 * CP]; Sniffen, C.J., O'Connor, J.D., Van Soest, P.J., Fox, D.G. and Russel, J.B. 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability.    J. Anim. Sci. 70:3562-3577.
 
 
   

ADICP 

NDICP 

ADL (%)

Starch (%)

GE (cal/g)

NPN (%CP)

SCP (%CP)

Ca (%)

P (%)

 

 

%CP

%CP

 

dry basis

dry basis

dry basis

dry basis

dry basis

dry basis

100% wheat feedstock            
  Mean

0.9

11.0

0.6

63.0

4464.6

25.4

24.9

0.1

0.4

  n

14

7

7

7

22

7

7

7

7

  Min

0.0

8.7

0.2

60.4

4378.6

23.1

18.3

0.0

0.4

  Max

4.3

12.7

1.0

66.2

4696.5

28.9

30.0

0.1

0.4

  St Dev

1.4

1.5

0.3

2.5

72.2

2.0

4.4

0.0

0.0

                     
100% wheat DDGS            
  Mean

5.0

57.0

6.5

4.2

5082.7

18.9

15.4

0.2

0.9

  n

15

9

20

9

39

9

9

9

9

  Min

0.6

51.7

2.8

1.1

4942.4

10.6

5.8

0.1

0.7

  Max

10.1

64.8

10.2

9.5

5484.1

24.2

21.1

0.3

1.2

  St Dev

3.42.9

4.4

1.8

2.6

97.4

3.8

4.3

0.1

0.1

                     
70% wheat feedstock            
  Mean

0.5

8.6

0.4

69.5

4521

24.2

20.6

0.1

0.3

  n

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

  Min

0.0

8.1

0.3

68.3

4475

21.7

16.8

0.0

0.3

  Max

1.6

9.3

0.4

70.2

4587

26.7

23.7

0.2

0.4

  St Dev

0.9

0.6

0.1

1.1

58.7

2.5

3.5

0.1

0.0

                     
70% wheat DDGS            
  Mean

4.3

45.5

4.7

5.1

5191.4

12.8

7.4

0.2

1.0

  n

10

9

8

10

10

4

4

4

4

  Min

2.0

28.4

2.7

2.5

5080.2

9.1

5.5

0.1

0.9

  Max

6.9

61.4

6.4

8.0

5393.4

18.0

9.1

0.2

1.0

  St Dev

1.5

14.1

1.5

1.8

94.8

3.7

1.5

0.1

0.1

                     
50% Wheat 50% Corn DDGS              
   Mean

6.1 

47.3 

4.3 

5.5 

5099.8 

 51.7

 19.6

   
   n

 6

 6

 5

 3

 6

 6

 3

   
   Min

 3.8

 39.2

 2.9

 5.3

 5021.7

 48.4

 18.7

   
   Max

 9.5

 53.0

 5.9

 5.6

 5177.5

 54.1

 20.6

   
   St Dev

 2.2

 5.2

 1.5

 0.1

 51.7

 2.5

 0.9

   
                     
All DDGS            
  Mean

5.9

50.3

5.7

4.8

5104

28.0

14.2

0.2

0.9

  n

26

24

33

22

55

19

16

13

13

  Min

0.6

28.4

2.7

1.1

4942

9.1

5.5

0.1

0.7

  Max

10.1

64.8

10.2

9.5

5484

54.1

21.1

0.3

1.2

 
*All analysis reported on a Dry Matter Basis
This data will be updated on a regular basis to add analysis from more samples as they become available.

 
Analytical Procedures:

Moisture: AOAC 930.15 - Moisure in Animal Feed, Drying at 135
Ash: AOAC 942.05, Ash of Animal Feed
CP: AOAC 984.13 - Protein (Crude) in Animal Feed, Cu Catalyst Kjeldahl Method
EE: AOAC 920.39 - Fat (Crude) or Ether Extract in Animal Feed
ADF: AOAC 978.10 - Fiber (Crude) in Animal Feed, Fritted Glass Crucible Method
NDF: Van Soest et al., 1991
ADICP/NDICP: Licitra et al., 1996
Gross Energy: PARR 1281 Bomb Calorimeter
 
 

It is important to note there are several considerations to keep in mind when evaluating the chemical analysis data from wheat DDGS samples:

  1. At this time, there appears to be a rather large amount of variability in the production processes of wheat-based DDGS, especially with regard to the drying process, which causes subsequent variation in the nutritional characteristics. 
  2. Inconsistencies in the feedstock, ranging from variability in wheat variety to variability in the blend of different grains (corn, wheat, barley, etc.), have an effect on the nutritional characteristics of the DDGS produced.
  3. Uneven mixing and variability in the quantity and quality of solubles added back to the wet cake during the drying process will certainly affect the nutrient content of the resulting DDGS. Fluctuation in the ratio of solubles to wet cake entering the dryer occurs as the rates are often adjusted in order to improve the drying characteristics. The ratio of solubles to wet cake may vary with the type and amount of wheat in the original feedstock. Aggregation and lumping during the drying process often occurs if the ratio of solubles to wet cake is too high. It is thought that gluten content may also affect the drying characteristics of the material.
  4. Sampling of the material itself can be a challenge and must include a large pooled sample comprised of multiple samples per batch through the production process. Sampling problems may also be an issue as only a very small sample (0.5 to 1 g) is used for chemical analysis. Aggregation and inconsistent physical characteristics of the DDGS may lead to issues with obtaining a truly representative sample from such a small quantity of material.
  5. There is much discussion on the appropriate methodology to use for determination of NDF in DDGS samples. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) is an important nutritional component with respect to utilization and feeding value of DDGS for various classes of livestock, and therefore, accurate and consistent determination of NDF in DDGS is essential. Most of the discrepancies among laboratories in NDF resuls may be due to differences in methodology. Specifically, NDF analysis performed with or without the use of sodium sulfite can yield significantly different results. Removing sodium sulfite from NDF analysis will increase the proportion of protein that is insoluble in neutral detergent. This protein fraction therefore remains in the neutral detergent residue and contributes to the total NDF content that is measured. In general, NDF analysis performed WITHOUT the use of sodium sulfite will yield higher NDF values than when it is used. The NDF analysis carried out in our laboratory and reported here were according to the NDF method of Van Soest et al. (1991) which does not use sodium sulfite.
The intent of posting this data is to provide an idea of the average nutrient composition that can be expected of wheat DDGS. However, as with any type of nutrient analysis, these results need to be viewed within the context of processing and sampling conditions.