energy content. For example, brewers and distillers dried grains presently 

 account for about 1.5 percent of the feed ingredients used in formulating 

 commercially mixed feed rations in the U.S. However, both of these byproduct 

 feeds have a high energy component on the level of ten million BTU per ton of 

 product. Good feed substitutes, for example, exist for these dried grains, and a 

 substantial energy savings could be achieved by feeding these other ingredients. 

 Yet, the implications of such substitutions must be considered. 



For instance, what would be done with these byproduct feeds if they were 

 not fed to livestock? What would be the economic and energy cost of alternative 

 means of disposal? If they were to be disposed of by sanitary landfill, for 

 example, one would have to consider the environmental impact of burying the 

 byproducts in a wet form. On a more positive side, one should ask if there are 

 alternative technologies available which could reduce the energy used in drying 

 the wet grains. Further, to what extent could these byproducts be fed in a wet 

 form to livestock? 



There are other high energy feed ingredients in current use: corn gluten feed 

 and meal, dried beet and citrus pulp, fish meal, dried whey, suncured and 

 dehydrated alfalfa meal, and urea. Of these, alfalfa meal and urea are of 

 particular interest. In 1976 it is likely that some 1.5 million tons of alfalfa meal 

 and about one-half million tons of urea will be fed in the U.S. Yet, the energy 

 embodied in these protein ingredients is substantial: about 16 million BTU per 

 ton of dehydrated alfalfa meal, 10 million per ton of suncured alfalfa meal and 

 25 million per ton of urea. Protein substitutes which are lower in energy content 

 are available; for example, soybean oil meal has an energy level of less than five 

 million BTU per ton. However, the economic impact of no longer utilizing these 

 protein ingredients could be severe. The impact of no longer feeding alfalfa meal, 

 for instance, would manifest itself not only within the processing industry 

 associated with alfalfa meal, but also would extend to the farm level and affect 

 many local economies. Such ramifications demand attention before any 

 conservation policy be considered which would either limit or eliminate the 

 feeding of these (or other) ingredients. 



Alternative Feed Ingredients. An obvious extension of the present research 

 would be to expand its scope. New and unusual feed ingredients should be 

 considered. At present a number of agricultural experiment stations are 

 conducting research on the feeding of dried poultry litter and manure to 

 livestock and poultry. However, while this may be an economic feed ingredient, 

 it appears to have a high energy content (somewhat less than 12 million BTU per 

 ton) due to the dehydration involved. 



Further, this study has considered only the most commonly fed ingredients; 

 many feedstuffs in short supply and limited use such as peanut hulls, flaxseed 

 meal, cull peas and triticale have not been considered in the analysis. Equally 

 important would be the consideration of food processing wastes that could be 

 utilized as feed ingredients. This would entail, however, a technological 

 assessment of the fossil fuel energy that might be required in utilizing the waste 

 in feed rations; further, examination would have to be given to public health 

 considerations and other possible legal constraints. It is possible that some of 

 these neglected ingredients could have a good feeding value and yet a low energy 

 component — and there may be room for expanding the supply of the 

 ingredients given a competitive price. 



10 



I 



