AFIA Releases DDGS Reports and Recommendations on Analytical Recommendations and Ingredient Guidelines
Published: March 25, 2007
Source : AFIA
A working group of over 60 from 40 member firms participated in the development and review of the reports and recommendations.
The recommendations grew out of a concern by purchasers and suppliers of ethanol co-products for which there seemed to be no mutual agreement on analytical methodology for trade of DDGS.
DDGS producers claimed that the most frequent methods utilized provide differing estimates of the nutrient values for moisture and crude fat.
Working with the Renewable Fuels Association and the National Corn Growers Association, funds were committed to contract with the Olsen Biochemistry Laboratory of South Dakota State University to examine common analytical methods being utilized in the marketplace and conduct both intralaboratory and interlaboratory studies to determine which methods provided the best estimates of these nutrients.
The study was broadened to include crude protein and crude fiber assays as well.
The study director was Nancy Thiex, who also chairs the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) Laboratory Methods and Services Committee.
DDGS samples were collected from six facilities and utilized for comparison of 13 methods among the four nutrient components (moisture, fat, fiber, and protein).
These methods were found to be those most commonly used in the marketplace.
Of concern was the use of different methods by the purchaser and supplier that frequently would provide differing estimates of the true nutrient value.
One firm discovered over 3% variation in moisture by four different “loss on drying” methods.
The most common method used to determine moisture actually determines any material that evaporates on drying the DDGS product.
At higher temperatures and longer drying times, it’s clear that more than moisture can evaporate, thus providing a false moisture value.
The only method recognized for actual moisture measurement, the Karl Fischer Method, is not likely to be used in daily trade due to the high cost of equipment.
All other moisture methods are based on heating/drying for specified time and temperatures.
These provide an indirect measure of the water contained in a tested product known as "loss on drying.”
The study found five analytical methods from the 13 evaluated provide the best estimates for moisture (one method from National Forage Testing Association, NFTA 2.2.2.5), crude protein (two nearly equivalent methods, both from AOAC International, AOAC 990.03 and AOAC 2001.11), crude fat (one method using AOAC 945.16), and crude fiber (one method, AOAC 978.10).
A nearly equivalent crude fiber method was deemed to be problematic due to the unavailability of essential equipment used in the testing.
AFIA and the other cosponsors plan to distribute this report and recommendations widely and urge its use.
As guidelines, firms may have other alternatives, but these method guidelines are based on a valid scientific study.
The second report deals with how AFIA describes ethanol co-product ingredients to the industry and public from AFIA’s Electronic Feed Ingredient Guide (E-FIG).
The working group dealing with this issue recommended some changes to two ingredients guidelines AFIA developed many years ago.
The suggested changes bring the guidelines in line with recent changes in the industry and describe these two ingredients in a realistic current-time fashion.
However, due to the changing industry, these ingredient guidelines may be changed more frequently and others developed to meet the needs of this dynamic industry.
Source
AFIARelated topics:
Recommend
Comment
Share
Would you like to discuss another topic? Create a new post to engage with experts in the community.
Featured users in Animal Feed
