United States 

Department 

of Agriculture 

www.ers.usda.gov 

 A Report from the Economic Research Service

Linwood A. Hoffman and Allen Baker1

Estimating the Substitution 

of Distillers’ Grains for Corn 

and Soybean Meal in the 

U.S. Feed Complex

FDS-11-I-01

October 2011

Contents

Approved by USDA’s 

World Agricultural 

Outlook Board

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Feeding DDGS to Livestock/ 

Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Potential U.S. Feed Consumption 

of DDGS, by Type of Livestock/ 

Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Substitution Rates of DDGS for 

Corn and Soybean Meal, by Type 

of Livestock/Poultry . . . . . . . . . . 22

U.S. DDGS Feed Consumption 

(Market Share), by Type of Livestock/Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Aggregate Substitution of 

Distillers’ Grains for Corn 

and Soybean Meal . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Effects of Dry-Mill Ethanol 

Production on U.S. Feed 

Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix A: Estimating Potential 

DDGS Use, by Livestock/Poultry 

Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Appendix B: Effects of Alternative 

Market Share Assumptions Upon 

DDGS Substitution for Corn and 

Soybean Meal, by Type of 

Livestock/Poultry . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Abstract

Corn-based dry-mill ethanol production and that of its coproducts—notably distillers’ 

dried grains with solubles (DDGS)—has surged in the past several years. The U.S.

feed industry has focused on the size of this new feed source and its impact on the U.S.

feed market, particularly the degree that DDGS substitute for corn and soybean meal 

in livestock/poultry diets and reduce ethanol’s impact on the feed market. This study 

develops a method to estimate the potential use of U.S. DDGS and its substitutability 

for corn and soybean meal in U.S. feed rations. Findings demonstrate that, in aggregate (including major types of livestock/poultry), a metric ton of DDGS can replace, 

on average, 1.22 metric tons of feed consisting of corn and soybean meal in the United 

States. Over time, DDGS may substitute for less corn and more soybean meal as the 

share of beef cattle consumption of DDGS declines slightly (although increasing in 

absolute terms), with offsetting share increases in dairy cattle, swine, and poultry. Feed 

market impacts of increased corn use for ethanol are smaller than that indicated by the 

total amount of corn used for ethanol production because of DDGS.

Keywords: Distillers’ grains, feed potential, substitution, corn, and soybean meal

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the input and review comments of Paul Westcott, Ken Mathews, Don Blayney, Janet Perry, Erik Dohlman, Molly Garber, and 

Greg Pompelli of USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS); Jerry Norton of 

USDA’s World Agricultural Outlook Board; Marina Denicoff of USDA’s Agricultural 

Marketing Service; Michelle Wittenberger, Oliver Flake, Richard Omeara, and Mike 

Jewison of USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service; Kurt A. Rosentrater of USDA’s Agricultural Research Service; Terry J. Klopfenstein of University of Nebraska; Gerald C.

Shurson of University of Minnesota; Robert Wisner of Iowa State University at Ames; 

Frank J. Dooley of Purdue University; and Charles Staff of the Distillers’ Grain Technology Council at Louisville, Kentucky. Thanks to Angela Anderson and Cynthia A.

Ray of ERS for editorial and design guidance.

1 Allen Baker is a retired agricultural economist from USDA, Economic Research Service.

The use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA.
2

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. ethanol production growth has been stimulated partly by higher energy 

prices and the influence of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Government Printing Office, 2006 and 

2007).

1 The 2007 Energy Act mandates the use of as much as 15 billion gallons 

of starch-based ethanol (mostly from corn) in the United States by 2015. In 

2005/06, 4.5 billion gallons of ethanol were produced. By 2008/09, production more than doubled to 10.2 billion gallons, and in 2009/10, it rose to 12.5 

billion gallons.

2, 3 Accompanying this growth in ethanol production, distillers’ 

grain production has expanded substantially, increasing from an estimated 10.4 

million metric tons (mmt) in 2005/06 to an estimated 33.4 mmt in 2009/10.

4

Distillers’ dried grains with solubles (DDGS) have long been substituted 

for corn and soybean meal in livestock and poultry diets, supplying both 

energy and protein.

5 Incorporating DDGS into these diets, however, may 

be constrained by nutritional and/or price considerations. For example, 

DDGS may not provide some of the nutrients needed by a particular type of 

livestock or poultry to achieve its desired weight gain or maintain its body 

weight. Assuming DDGS provide the desired nutrients, the price of DDGS 

must be favorable for feeding. Hoffman and Baker (2010) show that DDGS 

prices relative to alternative feed ingredients have declined into a favorable 

feeding range for many different types of livestock and poultry.

6

How does the continued market expansion of DDGS affect the U.S. feed 

complex (or processed feeds fed) and to what extent do DDGS substitute 

for corn and soybean meal, thereby reducing the grain market impact of 

using corn to produce ethanol? A bushel of corn used for dry-mill ethanol 

production yields DDGS equal to about a third of the corn’s original weight.

Researchers are less sure, however, how this coproduct substitutes for corn 

and soybean meal in the diets of different types of livestock and poultry.

Understanding of the characteristics of DDGS may demonstrate more effectively how they can be substituted into different livestock/poultry diets and 

the impact this substitution may have on the U.S. feed complex. To compute 

the overall or aggregate DDGS substitution rate for corn and soybean meal, 

multiply each type of livestock/poultry’s DDGS substitution rate for corn 

(energy) and soybean meal (protein) times the market share of DDGS 

consumption by type of livestock/poultry and then sum each of the products.

This report provides a transparent method to estimate the substitution potential of DDGS for corn (energy) and soybean meal (protein) and the corresponding impact this has upon the U.S. feed complex. First, the feeding 

characteristics of DDGS are reviewed along with potential inclusion rates for 

each type of livestock/poultry. Second, potential U.S. DDGS inclusion rates 

per livestock/poultry are determined. Third, substitution rates of DDGS for 

corn and soybean meal are determined by type of livestock/poultry. Fourth, 

DDGS consumption estimates (market share) by crop year are estimated by 

type of livestock/poultry. Fifth, the aggregate substitution of DDGS for corn 

and soybean meal is computed by multiplying the market share times the 

substitution rates between DDGS and corn and soybean meal by type of livestock/poultry. Lastly, impacts on the U.S. feed complex are determined from 

the substitution of DDGS for corn and soybean meal.

1In addition to Government policies 

and higher energy prices in the long 

run, ethanol production growth depends 

partly on feedstock costs and changes 

in technological advancements.

2Ethanol production numbers are 

expressed in terms of the corn crop year 

(September-August).

3Monthly ethanol production data 

were converted to corn crop years from 

the usual ethanol calendar year (U.S.

Energy Information Administration, 

2010).

41 metric ton = 2,204.622 pounds.

5Distillers’ grains refer to coproducts 

generated by dry-mill ethanol plants, 

including distillers’ wet grains (DWG), 

distillers’ dried grains (DDG), distillers’ wet grains with solubles (DWGS), 

distillers’ dried grains with solubles 

(DDGS), and condensed distillers’ solubles (CDS). Unless otherwise specified, 

distillers’ grains will refer to distillers’ 

dried grains with solubles (DDGS).

See Hoffman and Baker (2010) for 

additional details about the market for 

distillers’ grains. The Renewable Fuels 

Association (2011) estimates that 61 

percent of distillers’ grains products 

were sold in dry form and 39 percent 

in wet form for calendar year 2010.

The USDA report Ethanol Co-Products 

Used in Livestock Feed, summarizes 

the average annual quantities of these 

different coproducts fed by selected 

livestock producers (USDA/NASS, 

2007). Since these statistics could not 

be used to compute the total amount of 

these feed products consumed by type 

of livestock/poultry and since there are 

no reliable statistics on the production 

of different ethanol coproducts, we had 

to simplify the estimation process for 

each coproduct’s substitution potential 

for corn and soybean meal. We converted all coproducts into what we refer 

to throughout this report as DDGS. Dry 

matter basis is used to estimate the substitution of DDGS for corn and soybean 

meal.

6New technology will affect the composition of DDGS, and may change the 

substitution rates for corn and protein 

meal.

Introduction
3 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Feeders that choose to include DDGS into the diets of livestock/poultry need 

to be aware of DDGS nutritional content and feeding issues related to the use 

of these nutrients. The amount of DDGS that can be included in the diet of a 

particular type of livestock/poultry varies by its nutrient requirements and the 

nutrient availability and cost of alternative diet ingredients.

DDGS Nutritional Content Issues 

DDGS are used by the livestock and poultry industries as a source of protein 

and energy in feed rations. DDGS are considered a mid-protein feed that 

offers the same or greater energy as corn but contains less protein than 

soybean meal (table 1). Ruminant animals, such as beef and dairy cattle, can 

use distillers’ grains nutrients more readily than monogastric animals, such as 

hogs and poultry.

7 Compared with corn, DDGS are higher in calcium, phosphorus, and sulfur (table 1) so that, depending on the inclusion rate, adding 

DDGS to an animal’s diet may negate the need for supplemental phosphorus 

(Tjardes and Wright, 2002). Since DDGS go through a drying process, overheating may occur and potentially cause a chemical reaction detrimental to 

DDGS feeding quality. In such cases, some of the carbohydrates and protein 

in DDGS may become chemically bound, thus making the product indigestible to the animal. Consequently, a lighter colored DDGS may generally be 

preferable to a darker one that is associated with heat damage.

8

DDGS can also contain more sulfur than corn, thereby adding significant 

amounts of sulfur to the diet (Berger and Good, 2007). Sulfuric acid may be 

used during fermentation of the ethanol feedstock mash for pH adjustment, 

but that process can increase the sulfur content of the distillers’ grains. If 

cattle consume more than 0.4 percent sulfur (dry matter) from feed and water, 

they may contract polioencephalomalacia.

9, 10, 11 Some feeders add thiamine 

to reduce the risk of this disorder, but the proper inclusion level of thiamine 

and the likelihood of it completely eliminating the disorder is not certain. In 

addition, excessive sulfur interferes with an animal’s ability to absorb copper 

and its metabolic rate. Thus, in geographic regions with high levels of sulfur 

in forages and water, feeders may need to reduce the levels of DDGS added 

to diets.

As mentioned previously, phosphorus levels in DDGS (0.89 percent) are 

greater than those in corn (0.25 percent) (see table 1), so adding DDGS to 

an animal’s diet may negate the need for phosphorus supplements, which are 

costly. Phosphorus concentrations may determine inclusion rate in many diets 

where nutrient management of the waste is a problem.

12 Research is being 

conducted to develop methods for removing phosphorus from DDGS (Berger 

and Good, 2007).

The sodium content of DDGS may vary from 0.01 percent to 0.48 percent, 

averaging 0.11 percent (Shurson and Alghandi, 2008). In comparison, corn 

contains about 0.02 percent of sodium. Salt is formed as a result of pH 

adjustments during processing. Salt contains a large amount of sodium and, 

if poultry are fed sodium above required levels, the resulting increased water 

consumption may cause wet litter and dirty eggs. Wet litter can encourage 

7A ruminant is an animal with a 

rumen compartment in its stomach 

(e.g., cattle, sheep, goats, deer, elk, and 

bison). Unlike animals with a single 

compartment stomach (monogastric), 

ruminants are able to convert cellulose 

in its various forms into starches and 

sugars, which can then be metabolized.

8The precise color preferred by some 

animal feeders may also depend on the 

livestock/poultry being fed. Also, color 

may be a function of type of feedstock 

used, not always an indicator of protein 

damage.

9Dry matter basis means an adjustment is made for the moisture content, 

compared with an “as fed” or “as is” 

basis, where no adjustment is made for 

moisture content.

10Polioencephalomalacia (PEM) is 

a neurologic disease of ruminants. The 

term PEM denotes a lesion with certain 

gross and microscopic features. Historically, PEM has been associated with a 

thiamine (Vitamin B1) deficiency but 

more recently has been associated with 

high sulfur intake.

11Recent feeding studies indicate 

that this limit in diets is 0.53 percent 

(Erickson et al., 2005).

12Excessive phosphorus released into 

the environment (e.g., through animal 

waste) may contribute to eutrophication in the Nation’s lakes and streams 

(Rausch and Belyea, 2005). Regulations 

for disposal of animal wastes are becoming increasingly stringent depending on 

phosphorus content. Since phosphorus 

content from DDGS is high relative 

to corn and to requirements of most 

ruminants, high phosphorus levels in 

diets can increase phosphorus in animal 

wastes. Disposal of these wastes must 

comply with established regulations.

Feeding DDGS to Livestock/Poultry
4

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

greater bacterial growth, increasing an animal’s susceptibility to intestinal 

infections.

Mycotoxins—toxic chemical compounds produced by certain fungi—are 

also a concern for livestock/poultry feeders (USDA/GIPSA, 2006). Mycotoxins also may be associated with corn ear rot diseases and may be pathogenic for animals and humans (Siegel, 2010). If present in corn, mycotoxins 

become concentrated in DDGS approximately three-fold during the fermentation process. In addition, mycotoxins can be produced during storage if 

the distillers’ grains are allowed to mold (Whitlow, 2008). The U.S. Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) has been responsible for establishing and 

monitoring acceptable levels of mycotoxins and antibiotics in feedstuffs since 

1965 (FDA, 2006). The FDA encourages livestock/poultry feeders to test 

their feed ingredients, ensuring that mycotoxins do not exceed acceptable 

levels.

Antibiotics also may be an issue when feeding DDGS. Antibiotics are used 

occasionally in some ethanol plants to kill unwanted bacteria during the 

Table 1

Nutrient profiles of selected feedstuffs1

Nutrients

Distillers’ dried 

grains with 

solubles (corn)

Corn 

(yellow 

grain)

Soybean 

meal 

(dehulled, 

solvent)

Corn 

gluten 

meal

Corn 

gluten 

feed Hominy

Cottonseed meal 

(41 percent 

solvent)

Wheat 

middlings

Percent

Dry matter2 92.00 87.00 88.00 90.00 88.00 89.00 90.00 89.00

Crude protein3 27.00 7.50 47.80 60.00 21.00 11.50 41.00 15.00

Ether extract3 9.00 3.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 6.50 2.10 3.60

Crude fiber3 8.50 1.90 3.00 2.50 10.00 5.00 11.30 8.50

Calcium3 0.14 0.01 0.20 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.16 0.15

Phosphorus3 0.89 0.25 0.65 0.50 0.90 0.50 1.00 0.91

Ruminant digestible 

protein3

21.10 5.80 46.60 47.40 19.30 8.00 29.50 12.20

Ruminant TDN3 82.00 80.00 79.00 86.00 75.00 86.00 72.00 81.00

Metabolizable energy for poultry 

 Kcal/lb 1,270 1,540 1,115 1,700 795 1,390 915 950

 Kcal/kg 2,800 3,390 2,458 3,740 1,750 3,060 2,010 2,090

Metabolizable energy for swine

 Kcal/lb 1,497 1,520 1,425 n/a 1,090 1,530 1,225 1,000

 Kcal/kg 3,300 3,350 3,140 n/a 2,400 3,365 2,690 2,200

Percent

Methionine (percent)3 0.51 0.18 0.70 1.90 0.50 0.22 0.51 0.12

Lysine (percent)3 0.80 0.24 3.02 1.00 0.60 0.45 1.70 0.70

Sulfur (percent)3 0.30 0.19 0.43 0.50 0.16 4 0.30 0.16

Kcal/lb=Kilocalories per pound. Kcal/kg=Kilocalories per kilogram. n/a = Data not available.

1All data other than dry matter content are expressed in an “as fed” basis. 

2Dry matter content of the unit of feed being examined. 

3Nutrient content of the unit of feed being examined. 

4Insignificant amount. 

Source: Lundeen, p.16, 2011. 
5 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

fermentation process. The only antibiotic currently approved for use in 

ethanol production is virginiamycin (Shurson and Alghandi, 2008). The 

FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) does not object to using virginiamycin in the fermentation phase of alcohol production at 2 to 6 parts per 

million (ppm) (National Grain and Feed Association, 2009). The CVM also 

sets a maximum level for distillers’ co-products containing residual levels of 

virginiamycin of 0.2 to 0.5 ppm. Any residues present may have been deactivated by the ethanol production process, as the antibiotics are exposed to 

high and low temperatures and a wide pH range. CVM is conducting further 

studies to determine the implications of feeding DDGS with antibiotic residues (FDA, 2009). Livestock/poultry feeders are encouraged to test their 

DDGS to make sure they do not exceed acceptable levels.

Understanding DDGS Nutrient Variability Is Essential 

Because DDGS’s nutritional content varies, feeders are urged to use caution 

before adding them to their animals’ diets (Tjardes and Wright, 2002).

Actual nutrient analyses of the coproducts intended for use from the truck or 

railcar can vary widely for batches from the same plant and for batches from 

different plants. DDGS nutrient concentrations may vary due to changes in 

the nutrient content of the corn (a 1-percent difference in grain content results 

in approximately a 3-percent difference in DDGS content) being processed 

due, in part, to agronomic conditions or corn variety. Additional DDGS 

nutrient variation may be caused by fermentation and distillation efficiencies, 

drying processes and temperatures, and/or the amount of condensed distillers’ 

solubles blended into co-products (Shurson and Alghandi, 2008).

Reducing nutrient variation in DDGS has become a higher priority for 

ethanol producers as margins tighten and producers count on revenue 

derived from coproducts (DDGS). Consequently, producers strive to provide 

more uniform quality DDGS. In addition to sampling the specific load of 

purchased DDGS, feeders can obtain an idea of the DDGS nutrient content 

from several different sources, such as ethanol plants (University of Minnesota) or from feed analyses (Dairy One).

In addition to issues of product variability, Mathews and McConnell (2009) 

discuss ethanol feed coproducts in the diets of cattle (beef and dairy) and 

hogs. The limitations of these coproducts, such as variable moisture content, 

product availability, and nutrient excesses or deficiencies, affect how they 

must be handled and stored, impacting costs to feed buyers.

Potential Inclusion Levels of DDGS, 

by Type of Livestock/Poultry

The amount of DDGS that can be included in the diet of a particular type of 

livestock/poultry varies by its nutrient requirements, nutrient availability, and 

cost of alternative diet ingredients. Nutritionists typically use energy, protein, 

amino acid, and mineral content in balancing livestock/poultry diets.

13 The 

optimal choice of commodities to supply these ingredients may change over 

time with the changing prices of competing feed ingredients, the age of the 

livestock/poultry, or whether the livestock/poultry is used for breeding or 

market stock.

13Diet formulation with specific 

nutrient requirements by livestock/

poultry species along with a nutrient 

value for selected feed ingredients can 

be obtained from the National Research 

Council (1994, 1998, 2000, and 2001) 

for poultry, swine, beef, and dairy, 

respectively.
6

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Many studies that include DDGS in the diet of a particular type of livestock/

poultry are conducted only on the basis of meeting nutrient requirements, 

but some may assume the cost of alternative ingredients. In this section 

we provide a brief review of the literature on potential inclusion levels of 

DDGS in diets by type of livestock and poultry.

14 Results may vary based on 

whether data came from university feeding trials, an experimental setting, or 

from actual feeding levels by industry. Potential inclusion levels are derived 

based on the following discussion and will be used later in this study’s estimates of potential DDGS feeding by type of livestock/poultry.

Beef Cattle—DDGS are a good source of energy and protein for beef cattle 

in all phases of production (U.S. Grains Council, 2007). Since most of the 

starch in corn is converted to ethanol during the fermentation process, the 

fat and fiber concentrations in DDGS are increased by a factor of three 

compared with that in corn. DDGS contain high amounts of neutral detergent 

fiber (NDF) but low amounts of lignin, making DDGS a highly digestible 

fiber source for cattle that reduces digestive upsets compared with corn. The 

availability of highly digestible fiber in DDGS also allows them to serve as a 

partial replacement for forages and concentrates (Schingoethe, 2006).

DDGS in beef cattle diets supports inclusion for growing calves, supplementation of grazing and high-roughage diets or low phosphorus diets for 

beef cows, wintering cows or developing heifers, and fed cattle. DDGS 

can contribute to lower feed costs, fewer sub-acute acidosis occurrences 

than from a low-roughage diet, and improved fiber digestion in the rumen 

(National Corn Growers Association, 2008).

15 Growing and finishing cattle 

offer the largest potential use of DDGS. Feedlot diets that use DDGS at 

levels lower than 15-20 percent of diet dry matter serve as a protein source 

for the animal; at levels higher than 20 percent, DDGS serve as an energy 

source (Erickson et al., 2007).

Finishing cattle have been fed as much as 40 percent DDGS of diet dry 

matter as an energy source with excellent growth performance (table 2) (U.S.

Grains Council, 2007; Klopfenstein, 2008). This inclusion rate, however, 

creates an excess of protein and phosphorus and may cause waste disposal 

issues that impact manure management plans. Feeding DDGS does not 

change the quality or yield of beef carcasses and has no effect on the taste or 

other sensory characteristics of beef (U.S. Grains Council, 2007).

Klopfenstein et al. (2008) reports on a meta-analysis where various levels 

of wet distillers’ grains were fed to feedlot cattle. Results indicate that wet 

distillers’ grains with solubles produced higher average daily gains and 

higher feed-to-gain values compared with cattle fed corn-based diets without 

DDGS. For example, the feeding value of wet distillers’ grains with solubles 

at a 20-percent inclusion level was 142 percent with a decline to 131 percent 

at the 40-percent inclusion level. A similar analysis of dry distillers’ grains 

with solubles showed a similar positive response but with less feeding value 

for dry versus wet distillers’ grains. For example, the feeding value of DDGS 

at a 20-percent inclusion rate was 123 percent and at the 40-percent inclusion 

rate it declined to 100 percent. Erickson et al. (2007) reports that the biological optimum inclusion levels for dry distillers’ grains with solubles (DDGS) 

is 20 percent for cattle on feed; however, higher levels of DDGS inclusion 

14This brief review is intended 

to provide a basic understanding of 

feeding DDGS to different types of 

livestock/poultry and does not cover 

all possible references and information 

about this feeding. For more information about the physiology of each type 

of livestock/poultry or why they might 

consume different amounts of distillers’ 

spent grains, see Tisch (2006).

15Acidosis can be an acute or subacute condition in rumen livestock.

Acute acidosis occurs with rapid 

grain overload and may result in liver 

abscesses, severe illness, and even 

death. If these problems are prolonged, 

the low rumenal pH may damage the 

rumenal wall and reduce absorption 

capacity. Thus, even animals that survive may develop chronic conditions.

A major symptom of subacute acidosis 

is reduced feed intake, making it difficult to diagnose and separate from 

other problems or events that reduce 

feed consumption, such as digestibility 

of the grain. Other symptoms include 

lethargy, diarrhea, panting, excessive 

salivation, kicking at the belly, and 

general signs of discomfort and stress.
7 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

also provide positive feeding values. For wet distillers’ grains with solubles, 

he reports biological optimal inclusion levels of 30 to 40 percent.

Erickson et al. (2005) suggests supplementing protein when finishing cattle 

diets contain less than 20 percent DDGS, as recommended by the National 

Research Council (2000). However, Vander Pol et al. (2005) reported that 

there was no benefit to supplementing finishing cattle diets with urea when 

diets contained 10-20 percent DDGS.

Forage diets usually maintain beef cows and replacement heifers but may 

require supplemental protein, energy, and phosphorus to achieve expected 

maintenance and growth levels. Most forage protein is degraded in the 

rumen, but cattle also need bypass protein (or protein not degraded in the 

rumen) (Stanton, 1998). DDGS provide a good source of bypass protein.

DDGS fed to cattle grazing high-forage diets increases weight gains and 

reduces forage consumption, thereby, providing producers with an opportunity to extend the grazing period (U.S. Grains Council, 2007). The U.S.

Grains Council (2007) reports that inclusion rates of 10-30 percent yielded 

beneficial results for beef cows and replacement heifers (table 2). Other 

potential uses of DDGS include feed for nursing and growing calves that 

Table 2

Daily DDGS inclusion rates for livestock/poultry as a percent 

of daily dry matter intake

NASS actual1

Range of selected maximum 

potential inclusion rates

Type of livestock/poultry Low High 

Percent of dry matter intake

Beef

 Cows 22 10 302

 Replacement heifers N/A 10 302

 Cattle on feed 23 20 403

 Other N/A 10 302, 4

Dairy

 Cows 8 10 305

 Replacement heifers N/A 10 305

Hogs

 Breeding swine 10 10 502, 6

 Market swine 10 10 302, 6

Poultry

 Layers N/A 10 152, 7

 Pullets N/A 10 152, 7

 Broilers N/A 10 152, 7

 Turkeys N/A 10 152, 7

NASS=National Agricultural Statistics Service. N/A=Not applicable. 

1USDA, NASS, 2007.

2U.S. Grains Council, 2007.

3Klopfenstein et al., 2008; Erickson et al., 2007.

4National Corn Growers Association, 2008.

5Schingoethe, 2008.

6Stein, 2008.

7Bregendahl, 2008.
8

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

require more protein. The National Corn Growers Association (2008) recommends a 10-20 percent inclusion rate for other cattle.

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) survey, Ethanol 

Co-Products Used for Livestock Feed, provides a 2006 estimate of annual 

usage and inclusion rate of distillers’ grains for cattle and hogs from 

Midwestern feeders (USDA/NASS, 2007).

16 This survey reported that beef 

cattle (cow/calf) were fed an average of 396 pounds of DDGS in 2006 at a 

22-percent inclusion rate (see table 2). Cattle on feed consumed an average of 

916 pounds in 2006 at a dry matter inclusion rate of 23 percent.

Dairy Cattle—DDGS provide a source of protein, fat, phosphorus, and 

energy for dairy cows. DDGS are a particularly good source of protein for 

cattle that is undegradable in the rumen (or by-pass protein). DDGS provide 

high amounts of neutral detergent fiber but offer low amounts of lignin, 

making them a highly digestible fiber source that reduce digestive upset more 

effectively than corn. Although they usually replace concentrate ingredients, 

the highly digestible fiber in DDGS also serves as a partial replacement 

for forages and concentrates in diets for dairy cattle although they usually 

replace concentrate ingredients (Shingoethe, 2008). The quality of protein in 

DDGS is fairly good, but lysine is the first limiting amino acid. (See Shcingoethe (2008) for further discussion of dairy cattle protein needs and amino 

acids.) Thus, milk production can sometimes be increased when cows are 

fed rations containing supplemental lysine and methionine that is protected 

in the rumen or when DDGS are blended with other high-lysine ingredients.

Feeding DDGS to dairy cattle results in milk production as high or higher 

than when dairy cows are fed rations containing soybean meal as the protein 

source (U.S. Grains Council, 2007).

DDGS inclusion levels are not the only factor to consider when formulating 

the dairy cow diet. Other factors that could affect milk production and milk 

composition when DDGS are added to the diet include the type of forage, the 

ratio of forage to concentrate, the high oil content of DDGS, and the formulation of diets on an amino acid basis. In addition, the nutrient differences 

between DDGS and WDGS may affect the cow’s ability to produce milk.

DDGS can also be used in diets of dairy calves, heifers, and dry cows.

Dry cows were fed about 10 percent of dry matter and calves 28 percent.

Different levels of DDGS have been fed to dairy heifers along with a 

blending of other feeds (Schingoethe, 2008).

Milk fat content may decrease if inadequate amounts of forage fiber are fed 

to dairy cattle. DDGS can be included in dairy cow diets at up to 20 percent 

of the ration without decreasing dry matter intake, milk production, and milk 

fat and protein percentage (see table 2). Inclusion of DDGS at 20-30 percent 

also supports milk production equal to or greater than diets with no DDGS; 

however, milk production from cows fed diets containing WDGS decreases 

when fed at more than 20 percent of the diet (U.S. Grains Council, 2007).

Thus, dairy producers can feed more than the typical 5-10 percent that many 

have been feeding. When feeding DDGS at more than 20 percent of the 

ration, however, DDGS lacks a nutritional advantage because such diets may 

contain excess protein and phosphorus, even though milk production perfor16This study was a joint effort 

between USDA’s National Agricultural 

Statistics Service and the Nebraska 

Corn Development, Utilization & Marketing Board (an agency of the State 

of Nebraska). Approximately 9,400 

livestock operations in Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin 

were contacted by mail in February 

2007 with a second mailing 2 weeks 

later and telephone follow-up in March.

Caution should be used while interpreting the results of the survey due to its 

regional nature.
9 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

mance is high with inclusion levels greater than 20 percent (Schingoethe, 

2008).

NASS survey results suggest that Midwestern dairy cow feeders fed an 

average of 1,002 pounds of DDGS during 2006 at a dry matter inclusion rate 

of 8 percent (USDA/NASS, 2007) (see table 2).

Swine—DDGS can be used in the gestation, lactation, nursery, growing, and 

finishing diets for swine (Stein, 2008). DDGS can be an economical source 

of energy, amino acids, and phosphorus for swine. Swine, however, cannot 

efficiently digest the fiber in DDGS, and the corn oil present in DDGS can 

potentially affect meat quality. The amount of dicalcium phosphate normally 

fed can be reduced when feeding DDGS to swine because distillers’ grains 

have a greater level of digestible phosphorus than corn. According to Stein 

(2008), DDGS included in the diet may have a positive effect on the health of 

the swine. For example, the incidence and severity of proliferative ileitis, an 

inflammation of the lower part of the small intestine common in young pigs, 

can be reduced by including 10 percent DDGS in feed rations.

Wilson et al. (2003) shows that DDGS can be fed to gestating sows at an 

inclusion rate of up to 50 percent with no negative effects on the animals.

DDGS in the diets of gestating sows did not affect lactation feed intake, litter 

weight gain, and reproduction cycle. Negative effects were not seen in sow 

gestation weight gain, pigs born alive per litter, litter birth weight, or average 

pig birth weight for sows fed 0-50 percent of DDGS during gestation. Stein 

(2008) reports of research results that feeding DDGS to lactating sows at diet 

inclusion rates from 15 percent to 30 percent resulted in no negative effects.

Thus, DDGS can be included in diets of gestating sows at inclusion rates of 

up to 50 percent and in diets of lactating sows at inclusion rates of up to 30 

percent if diets are formulated based on concentrations of digestible energy, 

amino acids, and phosphorus (Stein, 2008).

Stein (2008) reports the results of eight experiments of DDGS inclusion in 

nursery pigs. From the day of weaning, a DDGS inclusion rate of 7.5 percent 

could be included in the diet without negative effects on the animals. Other 

findings suggest that an inclusion rate of up to 25 percent may be included in 

the diet during the initial 2 weeks after weaning and an inclusion rate of up to 

30 percent may be used 2-3 weeks after weaning with no negative effects on 

pig performance.

Stein (2008) also reports on research results from feeding DDGS to growfinish hogs. Generally, there was no change in performance by including 

DDGS in the diets of grow-finish hogs but there were experiments where 

reduced performance was observed. Stein (2008) reports of many experiments where DDGS can be included in diets to grow-finish hogs at up to 30 

percent without negatively affecting hog performance. For experiments with 

reduced performance, a linear reduction in pig performance was reported 

when hogs were fed diets including 10, 20, and 30 percent DDGS. Reduced 

performance in these cases may have been due to reduced feed intake as 

a result of reduced DDGS quality or palatability. If DDGS had low lysine 

digestibility, pig performance could decline because lysine limits protein 

formation. Also, excessive protein intake could lead to reduced performance.

If this were the case, it is impossible to determine if the performance decline 
10

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

was due to DDGS in the diet or increased crude protein. Including crystalline lysine or tryptophan in hog diets may reduce the negative impact of 

increasing crude protein (Stein, 2007).

Effects of DDGS upon pig carcass composition and quality are mixed. Stein’s 

(2008) summary of research results found a reduced dressing percentage 

from grow-finish hogs fed DDGS. These results may be due to increased 

fiber concentrations in DDGS-containing diets leading to increased intestinal 

tissue weight and reduced dressing percentage. While DDGS quality or diet 

formulation may account for these differences, further research is required to 

determine why the dressing percentage was reduced for some experiments.

In approximately half of the experiments, however, the dressing percentage 

remained the same.

Stein’s (2008) summary of research results also indicates that backfat thickness, lean meat percentage, and loin depth were not affected by the inclusion of corn DDGS in hog finishing diets. Some research results did show 

a decrease in swine belly thickness for some but not all experiments. Other 

findings showed that including DDGS in diets reduced swine belly firmness 

and increased iodine values of carcass fat (Stein, 2008). The increased iodine 

values of carcass fat may be due to the large quantities of unsaturated lipids 

present in corn DDGS, whereby the lipids are incorporated into carcass fat 

without hydrogenation. Increased unsaturated fatty acids reduce the firmness 

of the fat and increase the iodine values.

An experiment by White et al. (2007) demonstrated that the inclusion of 1 

percent of conjugated linoleic acid in DDGS-containing diets during the 10 

days prior to slaughter may reduce iodine values and could be used to mitigate soft fat in DDGS-fed hogs. Additional research shows that if DDGS are 

removed from diets in the 3-4 weeks prior to slaughter, acceptable iodine 

values are reported in pigs fed DDGS during early stages of growth (Hill et 

al., 2008; Xu et al., 2008).

The U.S. Grains Council (2007) recommends up to 30 percent inclusion of 

DDGS for nursery pigs. Due to concerns of reduced belly firmness and soft 

pork fat at higher levels of DDGS inclusion, however, the council recommends a 20-percent inclusion level for grower-finisher and developing gilts.

For sows, feeders can include up to 50 percent of DDGS to gestation diets 

and 20 percent to lactation diets. We assumed that all diets were formulated 

on a digestible amino acid and available phosphorus basis.

Stein (2008) recommends that approximately 30 percent of DDGS can be 

included in diets fed to lactating sows, weanling pigs, and grow-finish pigs, 

and 50 percent can be included in gestating sow diets, assuming average or 

above-average-quality DDGS are used. USDA, NASS survey results from 

2006 provide annual average DDGS consumption rates (60 pounds per head) 

and the dry matter inclusion percentage (10 percent) for hog diets (USDA/

NASS, 2007).

Poultry—Corn DDGS can contribute energy, protein, and phosphorus to 

poultry diets (Bregendahl, 2008).

17 DDGS inclusion in poultry diets initially 

was set at a low level due to high fiber, poor amino acid quality, and low 

energy concentration. Bregendahl (2008) reports that energy and amino 

17For more information about feeding DDGS to poultry, see Bregendahl 

(2008).
11 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

acid levels in DDGS, however, are higher than indicated by the National 

Research Council (1994). The phosphorus bioavailability found in DDGS, 

an economic asset, is higher than in corn and can be used to replace some 

supplemental phosphorus sources in the diet. Phosphorus is the third most 

expensive ingredient in poultry rations. Feeding DDGS to poultry may 

increase sodium intake, and overall sodium intake needs to be monitored in 

the diets for poultry. High sodium levels cause increased water consumption, potentially causing wet liter, dirty eggs, and susceptibility to intestinal 

infections (Bregendahl, 2008). Xanthophyll—a carotenoid pigment found in 

corn—is also found in corn DDGS and has been shown to improve desired 

egg yolk color (more yellow or red) when fed to laying hens and to increase 

the yellow skin color of broilers (U.S. Grains Council, 2007).

Layers—Lumpkins et al. (2005) reported that feeding 0-15 percent corn 

DDGS to laying hens did not affect egg production, egg weight, feed 

consumption, or feed utilization. Lumpkins et al. (2005) recommended 

feeding laying hens DDGS at no more than 10-12 percent. Roberson et al.

(2005) conducted two experiments of diets that contained 0-15 percent of 

DDGS and focused on the effects on egg production or yolk color. Roberson 

et al. (2005) found that including 15 percent of DDGS in the diet did not 

affect egg production but, due to variable research results, recommended less 

than 15 percent in the laying hen diet. Both experiments used diets formulated using total amino acids.

Shurson et al. (2003b) conducted a commercial layer feeding trial in Jalisco, 

Mexico, to evaluate effects on egg production and egg quality by including 

10 percent or more of DDGS into the layers’ diet under practical feeding 

conditions. Shurson concluded that including 10 percent DDGS in the layers’

diet can significantly improve egg production and egg yolk color.

Since these experiments, Bregendahl (2008) reported that the layer industry 

in the U.S. Midwest has used diets containing 5-20 percent DDGS with an 

average of 9 percent. These inclusion rates are affected by economics, as 

many commercial diets are based on a least-cost basis where the relative 

prices of all competing ingredients are considered. Furthermore, Bregendahl 

(2008) reported that the U.S. Midwest laying-hen industry fed DDGS to 

pullets at the same levels as routinely fed to laying hens, or up to about 15 

percent.

Broilers—Lumpkins et al. (2004) focused on feeding inclusion rates of 0, 

6, 12, and 18 percent DDGS to young broiler chicks. Body weight and feed 

utilization were not affected at up to 12 percent DDGS, but gain and feed 

utilization were reduced when broilers were fed at an inclusion rate of 18 

percent, most likely due to an amino acid deficiency in the starter diet. Due 

to the high fiber content and low amino acid digestibility of DDGS, feeding 

high levels (25-30 percent) of DDGS to starter broilers is not recommended.

Based on this study, researchers recommended a 6-percent inclusion rate 

of DDGS in starter diets, but grow-finish diets could contain 12-15 percent 

DDGS. Lumpkin’s et al. (2004) study results were confirmed by feeding 

trials sponsored by the U.S. Grains Council (2007) and conducted in Taiwan.

These feeding trials found that growth performance can be maintained 

when including 10 percent DDGS in the diets of starter, grower, and finisher 

broiler diets. Results from the Lumpkins et al. (2004) study were obtained 
12

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

from an experiment based on a total amino acid basis. The reduced growth 

performance found at high levels of DDGS inclusion may be due to amino 

acid deficiencies (such as lysine or arginine) because of the low amino acid 

digestibility of DGGS.

Wang et al. (2007a) evaluated the use of constant or increasing levels of 

DDGS in diets for broilers. Diets were formulated on digestible amino acid 

basis. Diets containing 15 percent DDGS could be fed throughout the feeding 

period with no adverse effects on live performance or carcass composition. Inclusion of 30 percent DDGS in the broiler diet during the starter and 

grower periods, however, reduced body weight, elevated feed conversion, and 

generally reduced breast meat yield, compared with results found for broilers 

fed 15 percent DDGS or broilers fed the control diet.

In another study, Wang et al. (2007b) evaluated the effects of moderate to 

high levels of DDGS in broiler diets and the effects of rapid and multiple 

changes in the level of DDGS inclusion in the diet during the growth period.

Diets ranged from 0 to 30 percent DDGS inclusion and were formulated 

based on digestible amino acids. Broilers fed diets containing 15 percent 

DDGS did not differ from the control diet in terms of live performance or 

carcass characteristics, whether fed on a continuous basis or whether alternated weekly between a 0-15 percent inclusion rate of DDGS. Broilers fed 

a continuous diet with 30 percent DDGS inclusion experienced significant 

reductions in body weight, feed intake, and breast meat yield. Broilers fed 

0-30 percent DDGS inclusion rates alternating on a weekly basis experienced 

live performance at about half that of broilers fed diets with inclusion rates 

of 0-30 percent DDGS continuously and similar to those fed 15-percent 

inclusion rate on a constant basis, although breast meat yield in the latter 

case tended to decline. Study results reflect the effective use of diets with 15 

percent DDGS inclusion rates and showed that the abrupt removal of this 

level of DDGS did not adversely affect broiler performance.

Turkeys—Noll (2004) fed turkey toms diets up to 12 percent DDGS during 

the grower-finisher period and found no difference in body weight gain 

and feed conversion compared with turkeys fed the control corn-soybean 

meal diet. Also, the diets had no negative effects on breast meat yield.

Roberson (2003) reported that DDGS could be included in turkey diets at the 

10-percent level without affecting body weight gain or feed conversion of the 

turkeys, suggesting that DDGS can successfully be included at a 10-percent 

level for the grow-finish diets.

The U.S. Grains Council (2007) recommended maximum dietary inclusion 

levels for DDGS at 10 percent for broilers and turkeys and 15 percent for 

layers. The council added, however, that higher levels of DDGS can be used 

successfully with appropriate diet formulation adjustments for energy and 

amino acids. It further mentioned that diet formulation with DDGS should 

use digestible amino acid values, especially for lysine, methionine, cystine, 

and threonine, and minimum acceptable levels for tryptophan and arginine 

due to the second limiting nature of these amino acids in DDGS protein.

Bregendahl (2008) concludes that DDGS can be fed to broilers, turkeys, and 

laying hens at the 15-percent inclusion level or higher, when diets are formulated on a digestible-amino-acid basis. He recommends that younger broilers 
13 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

should receive lower inclusion levels, but inclusion levels should be increased 

as the broiler matures.

The USDA, NASS survey did not report on DDGS fed to poultry.

DDGS Feeding Information 

Additional sources of information on feeding DDGS to livestock/poultry can 

also be obtained from the following references: 

•	 Journal of Animal Science: http://jas.fass.org/

•	 The Journal of Applied Poultry Research: http://japr.fass.org/

•	 Poultry Science: http://ps.fass.org/

•	 International Journal of Poultry Sciences: http://www.pjbs.org/ijps/ijps.htm

•	 Journal of Dairy Science: http://www.journalofdairyscience.org/

•	 Babcock et al. (2008): http://www.card.iastate.edu/books/

distillers_grains/

•	 University of Minnesota: http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/

•	 University of Illinois: http://ilift.traill.uiuc.edu/distillers/

•	 University of Nebraska: http://beef.unl.edu/byproducts.shtml

•	 National Corn Growers Association: http://www.ncga.com/files/pdf/

DistillersGrains9-08.pdf

•	 U.S. Grains Council: http://www.grains.org/

ddgs-information/217-ddgs-user-handbook

•	 Distillers Grain Technology Council: http://www.distillersgrains.org/

feedsource/

Furthermore, information may be found at other land grant universities not 

listed above.
14

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

After examining DDGS inclusion rates in livestock/poultry diets, we estimated the potential daily amount of DDGS fed (as fed basis) and multiplied 

it by the number of days fed and the number of head fed per crop year (a 

proxy for the number of head fed equals the inventory number or number 

slaughtered per year) to arrive at an annual estimate of potential U.S. DDGS 

feed consumption for a given crop year.

18 We used the low to mid-point 

range for maximum DDGS inclusion rates established by type of livestock/

poultry as identified previously (see table 2).

19 The optimum set of ingredients may change over time depending on changes in the prices of competing 

feed ingredients, the age of the livestock/poultry, or the intended use of the 

livestock/poultry (i.e., breeding or market stock). Our estimates of DDGS 

inclusion in the diets of livestock/poultry are approximations based on literature from livestock/poultry scientists. Consequently, our estimates may not 

precisely match current feeding levels because higher grain prices tend to 

increase use of lower priced DDGS in diets of a particular group of livestock/

poultry.

The estimates of potential U.S. DDGS feed consumption are useful in two 

ways.

•	 Estimates assist with the market share calculations of U.S. DDGS fed by

livestock/poultry species which will be covered later in this report.

•	 Estimates of potential U.S. DDGS feed consumption provide information

on whether rapidly rising levels of DDGS supply will exceed potential 

feed use.

We relied on a fairly uniform method to estimate potential DDGS 

consumption: 

1. Daily intake of DDGS (on an “as fed” basis) is established for each 

species (see Appendix A for derivation of these estimates).

20

2. Daily intake is then multiplied by the days fed per year to derive an 

annual intake.

3. The annual intake estimate is multiplied by the annual head (specified as 

an annual inventory number or an annual number produced) of selected 

beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, and poultry taken from USDA/NASS 

(see tables 3 through 7 for all data sources).

4. Summing for each type of livestock/poultry provides an estimation of 

potential U.S. DDGS consumption levels for the respective crop year.

5. Potential consumption data are based on the assumption that DDGS 

prices will not be a barrier to feeding DDGS. Currently, higher grain 

prices may increase DDGS utilization in rations.

We estimated potential DDGS consumption by type of livestock/poultry 

for 5 crop years—2006/07 through 2010/11. Our DDGS estimates of U.S.

potential feed use for the past 5 crop years averaged 61.8 million metric 

tons (mmt), with a range of 60.7-63.2 mmt. These estimates assume a near 

18See Appendix A for details on 

estimating daily potential consumption 

of DDGS by livestock/poultry.

19A least-cost feed ration model 

(Dahlke and Lawrence, 2008) is 

another method to compute potential 

DDGS consumption. However, this option and its massive data requirements 

for national estimates are beyond the 

scope of this study.

20We assume a potential inclusion rate that is recommended in the 

literature. This rate may be the low or 

mid-point of any suggested maximum 

potential inclusion rate. In doing so, 

we realize that actual inclusion in any 

given diet may be lower or higher than 

our assumed amounts due to local feed 

availability or relative prices of feed 

ingredients.

Potential U.S. Feed Consumption 

of DDGS, by Type of Livestock/Poultry
15 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

constant daily quantity of DDGS fed and a constant number of days fed for 

each of the crop years analyzed (first three columns are the same or nearly 

so in tables 3-7) and assume a variation among crop years due to different 

numbers of livestock/poultry fed each crop year based on changing inventory 

or slaughter numbers (column 4 and subsequent calculations in columns 5 

and 6 may differ in tables 3 through 7).

21 21These estimates assume a composition of DDGS from dry-mill corn 

ethanol plants without new technology 

applied to the production process. Coproducts from new technology dry-mill 

plants are discussed by Hoffman and 

Baker (2010).

Table 3

Potential consumption of U.S. distillers’ dried grains with solubles, crop year 2006/07

Type of livestock/poultry

Potential 

intake of 

DDGS per day 

(as fed)1

Days fed per 

crop year

Consumption 

per head and 

per crop year2

Number of 

livestock/ 

poultry fed per 

crop year

Potential 

DDGS 

consumption Share 

-------------Pounds------------- 1,000 head 1,000 metric 

tons

Percent 

of total

Beef 31,178 50.1

 Cows 3.55 90 319.8 32,6443 4,735 7.6

 Replacement heifers 3.89 120 466.6 5,8353 1,235 2.0

 Cattle on feed 8.51 365 3,105.6 14,6473 20,633 33.2

 Other 2.80 120 336.5 29,9773, 4 4,576 7.4

Dairy 16,154 26.0

 Cows 10.05 365 3,668.6 9,1453 15,218 24.5

 Replacement heifers 3.98 120 477.5 4,3253 937 1.5

Hogs 7,781 12.5

 Breeding swine 1.34 365 488.6 6,1335 1,359 2.2

 Market swine 0.68 365 249.7 56,6885 6,421 10.3

Poultry 7,063 11.4

 Layers 0.026 365 9.4 347,0636 1,479 2.4

 Pullets 0.017 365 6.3 100,1126 287 0.5

 Broilers 0.022 49 1.1 8,893,7467 4,284 6.9

 Turkeys 0.057 147 8.4 265,3737 1,013 1.6

Total 62,177 100.0

1See Appendix A for explanation of daily DDGS potential consumption. 

2May not be the same animal due to turnover. 

3Inventory as of January 1, 2007.

4Other cattle not in feedlots include other heifers, steers, bulls over 500 pounds, and calves under 500 pounds.

5Average quarterly inventory for corn crop year, September-August.

6Average monthly (number as of beginning of month) inventory for corn crop year, September-August.

7Number produced during crop year (.333 x calendar year number for 2006 + .667 x calendar year number for 2007). 

Source: Cattle inventory numbers for 2007 are from Cattle Final Estimates, 2004-2008, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB989/

sb1019.pdf; Quarterly hogs and pigs data from Hogs and Pigs Final Estimates, 2004-2007, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB986/

sb1020.pdf; Layers and pullets data from Chicken and Egg Annual Summary, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.

do?documentID=1509; Broilers and turkeys data from Poultry Production and Value, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1130.
16

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 4

Potential consumption of U.S. distillers’ dried grains with solubles, crop year 2007/08

Type of livestock/poultry

Potential 

intake of 

DDGS per day 

(as fed)1

Days fed per 

crop year

Consumption 

per head and 

per crop year2

Number of 

livestock/ 

poultry fed per 

crop year

Potential 

DDGS 

consumption Share 

-------------Pounds------------- 1,000 head 1,000 metric 

tons

Percent 

of total

Beef 31,273 49.5

 Cows 3.55 90 319.8 32,4353 4,705 7.4

 Replacement heifers 3.88 120 466.1 5,6473 1,194 1.9

 Cattle on feed 8.51 365 3,105.6 14,8273 20,886 33.1

 Other 2.80 120 336.0 29,4543, 4 4,488 7.1

Dairy 16,362 25.9

 Cows 10.05 365 3,668.6 9,2573 15,404 24.4

 Replacement heifers 3.99 120 478.3 4,4153 958 1.5

Hogs 8,439 13.4

 Breeding swine 1.34 365 488.6 6,1935 1,373 2.2

 Market swine 0.70 365 254.0 61,3255 7,067 11.2

Poultry 7,109 11.3

 Layers 0.026 365 9.4 341,7336 1,456 2.3

 Pullets 0.017 365 6.3 102,8476 295 0.5

 Broilers 0.022 49 1.1 8,975,1347 4,323 6.8

 Turkeys 0.057 147 8.4 271,0037 1,035 1.6

Total 63,184 100.0

1See Appendix A for explanation of daily DDGS potential consumption. 

2May not be the same animal due to turnover. 

3Inventory as of January 1, 2008.

4Other cattle not in feedlots include other heifers, steers, bulls over 500 pounds, and calves under 500 pounds.

5Average quarterly inventory for corn crop year, September-August.

6Average monthly (number as of beginning of month) inventory for corn crop year, September-August.

7Number produced during crop year (.333 x calendar year number for 2006 + .667 x calendar year number for 2007). 

Source: Cattle inventory numbers for 2008 are from Cattle Final Estimates, 2004-2008, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB989/

sb1019.pdf; Quarterly hogs and pigs data from Hogs and Pigs Final Estimates, 2004-2007, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB986/

sb1020.pdf; Layers and pullets data from Chicken and Egg Annual Summary, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.

do?documentID=1509; Broilers and turkeys data from Poultry Production and Value, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1130.
17 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 5

Potential consumption of U.S. distillers’ dried grains with solubles, crop year 2008/09

Type of livestock/poultry

Potential 

intake of 

DDGS per day 

(as fed)1

Days fed per 

crop year

Consumption 

per head and 

per crop year2

Number of 

livestock/ 

poultry fed per 

crop year

Potential 

DDGS 

consumption Share 

-------------Pounds------------- 1,000 head 1,000 metric 

tons

Percent 

of total

Beef 29,831 48.3

 Cows 3.55 90 319.8 31,7123 4,600 7.4

 Replacement heifers 3.89 120 466.5 5,5313 1,170 1.9

 Cattle on feed 8.51 365 3,105.6 13,8563 19,519 31.6

 Other 2.81 120 337.4 29,6803, 4 4,542 7.3

Dairy 16,487 26.7

 Cows 10.05 365 3,668.6 9,3333 15,531 25.1

 Replacement heifers 3.98 120 478.0 4,4103 956 1.5

Hogs 8,604 13.9

 Breeding swine 1.34 365 488.6 6,0205 1,334 2.2

 Market swine 0.72 365 262.8 60,9745 7,269 11.8

Poultry 6,898 11.2

 Layers 0.026 365 9.4 337,5946 1,438 2.3

 Pullets 0.017 365 6.3 101,2156 290 0.5

 Broilers 0.022 49 1.1 8,703,0807 4,192 6.8

 Turkeys 0.057 147 8.4 255,9277 977 1.6

Total 61,819 100.0

1See Appendix A for explanation of daily DDGS potential consumption. 

2May not be the same animal due to turnover. 

3Inventory as of January 1, 2009.

4Other cattle not in feedlots include other heifers, steers, bulls over 500 pounds, and calves under 500 pounds.

5Average quarterly inventory for corn crop year, September-August.

6Average monthly (number as of beginning of month) inventory for corn crop year, September-August.

7Number produced during crop year (.333 x calendar year number for 2006 + .667 x calendar year number for 2007). 

Source: Cattle inventory numbers for 2009 are from Cattle, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Catt//2010s/2010/Catt-01-29-2010.

pdf; Quarterly hogs and pigs data from Quarterly Hogs and Pigs report, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.

do?documentID=1086; Layers and pullets data from Chicken and Egg Annual Summary, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1509; Broilers and turkeys data from Poultry Production and Value, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1130.
18

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 6

Potential consumption of U.S. distillers’ dried grains with solubles, crop year 2009/10

Type of livestock/poultry

Potential 

intake of 

DDGS per day 

(as fed)1

Days fed per 

crop year

Consumption 

per head and 

per crop year2

Number of 

livestock/ 

poultry fed per 

crop year

Potential 

DDGS 

consumption Share 

-------------Pounds------------- 1,000 head 1,000 metric 

tons

Percent 

of total

Beef 29,484 48.5

 Cows 3.55 90 319.8 31,3713 4,550 7.5

 Replacement heifers 3.90 120 466.1 5,4513 1,156 1.9

 Cattle on feed 8.51 365 3,105.6 13,6423 19,217 31.6

 Other 2.81 120 336.0 29,8063, 4 4,560 7.5

Dairy 16,099 26.5

 Cows 10.05 365 3,668.6 9,0863 15,119 24.9

 Replacement heifers 3.98 120 477.3 4,5263 980 1.6

Hogs 8,344 13.7

 Breeding swine 1.34 365 488.6 5,8375 1,294 2.1

 Market swine 0.72 365 262.8 59,1385 7,050 11.6

Poultry 6,820 11.2

 Layers 0.026 365 9.4 339,2846 1,446 2.4

 Pullets 0.017 365 6.3 102,9276 295 0.5

 Broilers 0.022 49 1.1 8,600,2257 4,143 6.8

 Turkeys 0.057 147 8.4 245,2447 937 1.5

Total 60,748 100.0

1See Appendix A for explanation of daily DDGS potential consumption. 

2May not be the same animal due to turnover. 

3Inventory as of January 1, 2010.

4Other cattle not in feedlots include other heifers, steers, bulls over 500 pounds, and calves under 500 pounds.

5Average quarterly inventory for corn crop year, September-August.

6Average monthly (number as of beginning of month) inventory for corn crop year, September-August.

7Number produced during crop year (.333 x calendar year number for 2006 + .667 x calendar year number for 2007). 

Source: Cattle inventory numbers for 2010 are from Cattle, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1017; 

Quarterly hogs and pigs data from Hogs and Pigs report, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1086; 

Layers and pullets data from Chicken and Egg Annual Summary, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.

do?documentID=1509; Broilers and turkeys data from Poultry Production and Value, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1130.
19 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

The estimated average market share of potential DDGS consumption by 

type of livestock/poultry for 2006/07 through 2010/11 was 49.0 percent for 

beef cattle, 26.3 percent for dairy cattle, 13.4 percent for swine, and 11.3 

percent for poultry (table 8). In comparison, if we use livestock/poultry 

numbers from USDA (February 2011) projected for crop year 2020/21 and 

assume DDGS inclusion rates are similar to our current analysis, we estimate a potential 64 mmt feed consumption of DDGS with a potential set of 

market shares similar to our average for the past 5 crop years. For example, 

for 2020/21, we estimated a market share of 49 percent for beef cattle, 25 

percent for dairy cattle, 14 percent for hogs, and 12 percent for poultry. Thus, 

this potential feed quantity and market shares are not much different than the 

average estimated for the past 5 crop years.

Table 7

Potential consumption of U.S. distillers’ dried grains with solubles, crop year 2010/11

Type of livestock/poultry

Potential 

intake of 

DDGS per day 

(as fed)1

Days fed per 

crop year

Consumption 

per head and 

per crop year2

Number of 

livestock/ 

poultry fed per 

crop year

Potential 

DDGS 

consumption Share 

-------------Pounds------------- 1,000 head 1,000 metric 

tons

Percent 

of total

Beef 29,736 48.7

 Cows 3.55 90 319.8 30,8653 4,477 7.3

 Replacement heifers 3.89 120 466.9 5,1583 1,092 1.8

 Cattle on feed 8.51 365 3,105.6 14,0233 19,754 32.3

 Other 2.81 120 337.5 28,8303, 4 4,413 7.2

Dairy 16,216 26.5

 Cows 10.05 365 3,668.6 9,1503 15,226 24.9

 Replacement heifers 3.99 120 478.7 4,5573 990 1.6

Hogs 8,324 13.6

 Breeding swine 1.34 365 488.6 5,7815 1,281 2.1

 Market swine 0.72 365 262.8 59,0755 7,043 11.5

Poultry 6,831 11.2

 Layers 0.026 365 9.4 339,0736 1,445 2.4

 Pullets 0.017 365 6.3 104,2046 299 0.5

 Broilers 0.022 49 1.1 8,625,2007 4,155 6.8

 Turkeys 0.057 147 8.4 244,1887 933 1.5

Total 61,107 100.0

1See Appendix A for explanation of daily DDGS potential consumption. 

2May not be the same animal due to turnover. 

3Inventory as of January 1, 2011.

4Other cattle not in feedlots include other heifers, steers, bulls over 500 pounds, and calves under 500 pounds.

5Average quarterly inventory for corn crop year, September-August.

6Average monthly (number as of beginning of month) inventory for corn crop year, September-August.

7Number produced during crop year (.333 x calendar year number for 2006 + .667 x calendar year number for 2007). 

Source: Cattle inventory numbers for 2011 are from Cattle, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1017; 

Quarterly hogs and pigs data from Hogs and Pigs report, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1086; 

Layers and pullets data from Chicken and Egg Annual Summary, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.

do?documentID=1509; Broilers and turkeys data from Poultry Production and Value, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1130.
20

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Our estimates of U.S. DDGS potential consumption exceeded similar 

estimates found in the literature. For example, some recent estimates averaged 46.7 mmt, with a range of 35.2-55.3 mmt (table 9) (Dhuyvetter et al., 

2005; Berger and Good, 2007; Dooley, 2008; Fox, 2008). These potential 

U.S. DDGS consumption estimates from the literature were for calendar 

years 2007 or 2008, or an average of earlier years, 2000-2004. Our analysis 

focused on the 5 different crop years—2006/07 through 2010/11—that represent a period of accelerating DDGS production. In addition to the effects 

of using different study periods, several other items account for differences 

between our study estimates and those found in the literature. First, the 

average potential consumption for dairy cattle and hogs from these selected 

studies was about half the estimated potential consumption for dairy cattle 

and hogs in our study, primarily due to a much lower DDGS inclusion rate 

for dairy cattle and hogs. Also, Dooley (2008) and Fox (2008) applied a 

DDGS usage adoption rate of less than 100 percent by type of livestock/

poultry, which automatically would lower final estimates of potential DDGS 

consumption.

22 In contrast, our study did not use adoption rates due to lack 

of data but instead relied on DDGS potential inclusion rates that reflected the 

22Dooley (2008) computed an adoption rate based on the livestock/poultry 

herd/flock size and its ability to consume a truckload of DDGS. While this 

is a plausible approach, it raises questions about smaller dairy or beef cow 

farms/ranches that consume DDGS in 

less than a truckload lot. For example, 

many smaller dairy farms can consume 

DDGS by having less than truckload 

quantities mixed and delivered with 

their typical concentrates. Fox (2008) 

used adoption rates derived from the 

2007 USDA, NASS survey and applied 

these somewhat dated adoption rates to 

estimates of potential DDGS consumption for calendar year 2008.

Table 8

Estimates of potential annual DDGS consumption, by selected crop year and type of livestock/poultry

Crop year

Type of livestock/poultry 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Average of all 

estimates

1,000 

metric 

tons Percent

1,000 

metric 

tons Percent

1,000 

metric 

tons Percent

1,000 

metric 

tons Percent

1,000 

metric 

tons Percent

1,000 

metric 

tons Percent

Beef 31,178 50.1 31,273 49.5 29,831 48.3 29,484 48.5 29,736 48.7 30,301 49.0

 Cows 4,735 7.6 4,705 7.4 4,600 7.4 4,550 7.5 4,477 7.3 4,613 7.5

 Replacement 

 heifers 1,235 2.0 1,194 1.9 1,170 1.9 1,156 1.9 1,092 1.8 1,170 1.9

 Cattle on feed 20,633 33.2 20,886 33.1 19,519 31.6 19,217 31.6 19,754 32.3 20,002 32.4

 Other cattle 4,576 7.4 4,488 7.1 4,542 7.3 4,560 7.5 4,413 7.2 4,516 7.3

Dairy 16,154 26.0 16,362 25.9 16,487 26.7 16,100 26.5 16,216 26.5 16,264 26.3

 Cows 15,218 24.5 15,404 24.4 15,531 25.1 15,119 24.9 15,226 24.9 15,300 24.8

 Replacement 

 heifers 937 1.5 958 1.5 956 1.5 980 1.6 990 1.6 964 1.6

Hogs 7,781 12.5 8,439 13.4 8,604 13.9 8,344 13.7 8,324 13.6 8,298 13.4

 Breeding 

 swine 1,359 2.2 1,373 2.2 1,334 2.2 1,294 2.1 1,281 2.1 1,328 2.1

 Market swine 6,421 10.3 7,067 11.2 7,269 11.8 7,050 11.6 7,043 11.5 6,970 11.3

Poultry 7,063 11.4 7,109 11.3 6,898 11.2 6,820 11.2 6,831 11.2 6,944 11.2

 Layers 1,479 2.4 1,456 2.3 1,438 2.3 1,446 2.4 1,445 2.4 1,453 2.4

 Pullets 287 0.5 295 0.5 290 0.5 295 0.5 299 0.5 293 0.5

 Broilers 4,284 6.9 4,323 6.8 4,192 6.8 4,143 6.8 4,155 6.8 4,220 6.8

 Turkeys 1,013 1.6 1,035 1.6 977 1.6 937 1.5 933 1.5 979 1.6

 Total 62,177 100.0 63,184 100.0 61,819 100.0 60,748 100.0 61,107 100.0 61,807 100.0

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Sources: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
21 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

low to mid-point range of maximum DDGS inclusion rates. Our approach 

also recognizes the DDGS feeding constraints as identified in USDA, NASS 

(2007). Furthermore, our study did not include DDGS usage in sheep, goats, 

fish, and horses for which DDGS feeding levels have been established, 

nor did the Berger and Good (2007) and Dooley (2008) studies, but the 

Dhuyvetter et al. (2007) and Fox (2008) studies included sheep and lambs.

Our estimated average potential U.S. DDGS feed consumption was 61.8 mmt 

for 2006/07 through 2010/11, an amount much higher than the estimated 

DDGS supply of 37.4 mmt for 2010/11 or a DDGS supply of 42.5 mmt from 

an assumed production of 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol.

23 These 

estimates also support Hoffman and Baker’s (2010) findings that projected 

DDGS supplies would not exceed potential U.S. DDGS feed consumption.

Furthermore, in addition to providing a measure of domestic feeding potential, their estimates identify a sizable export potential.

23If we assume 15 billion gallons of 

corn-based ethanol are produced, corn 

use for dry-mill fuel ethanol would total 

5.17 billion bushels (2.7 gallons ethanol 

per bushel of corn and 93 percent of 

ethanol produced from dry-mill plants), 

or 41.0 mmt, 1 mmt from beverage 

distilleries, and .5 mmt from imports 

equal a total supply of about 42.5 mmt.

Table 9

Selected studies from the literature that estimate potential annual DDGS consumption, 

by type of livestock/poultry

Dhuyvetter et al. Berger and Good Dooley Fox

Average of all 

estimates

Calendar year

Livestock class 2000-04 average 2007 2008 2008

1,000 

metric 

tons

Percent

1,000 

metric 

tons

Percent

1,000 

metric 

tons

Percent

1,000 

metric 

tons

Percent

1,000 

metric 

tons

Percent

Beef cattle 29,446 63.1 38,709 70.0 34,524 69.1 20,774 59.1 30,863 65.4

 Beef cows 9,803 21.0 10,859 19.7 5,703 11.4 4,807 13.7 7,793 16.4

 Cattle on feed 12,261 26.3 15,450 28.0 16,591 33.2 12,761 36.3 14,266 30.9

 Other cattle 7,381 15.8 12,400 22.4 12,230 24.5 3,206 9.1 8,804 18.0

Dairy cattle 6,276 13.5 6,779 12.3 5,347 10.7 7,693 21.9 6,524 14.6

 Dairy cows 6,276 13.5 6,779 12.3 5,347 10.7 7,693 21.9 6,524 14.6

Swine 3,663 7.9 3,824 6.9 3,842 7.7 3,677 10.5 3,752 8.2

 Breeding swine 1,037 2.2 1,031 1.9 973 1.9 642 1.8 921 2.0

 Market swine 2,626 5.6 2,793 5.1 2,869 5.7 3,035 8.6 2,831 6.3

Poultry 7,245 15.5 5,950 10.8 6,215 12.4 3,014 8.6 5,606 11.8

 Broilers 4,486 9.6 4,263 7.7 3,709 7.4 1,809 5.1 3,567 7.5

 Layers 1,818 3.9 1,686 3.1 1,644 3.3 683 1.9 1,458 3.0

 Pullets 161 0.3 104 0.2 133 0.1

 Turkeys 780 1.7 757 1.5 522 1.5 686 1.2

 Total 46,630 100.0 55,261 100.0 49,929 100.0 35,158 100.0 46,744 100.0

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Sources: Dhuyvetter et al., 2005; Berger and Good, 2007; Dooley, 2008; Fox, 2008. 
22

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

One of the major variables needed to compute the aggregate substitution rate 

of DDGS for corn and soybean meal is the substitution rate by type of livestock/poultry. Substitution rates of DDGS for corn and soybean meal vary 

by type of livestock/poultry. This substitution calculation takes into consideration the nutrient requirements of each type of livestock/poultry. The estimates we used were taken from the literature.

Two alternative sets of estimates are provided. The first set of estimates 

(alternative #1) was developed based on conservative substitution assumptions. The second set (alternative #2) is considered the substitution potential 

for current conditions. For example, these substitution rates reflect improved 

beef cattle and dairy cattle performance from feeding DDGS, which led to 

faster weight gain for beef cattle and increased milk production for dairy 

cattle. Substitution rates may change in the future based on new research 

from the animal science community. Based on our findings, we formed a 

range of substitution rates (table 10) and later demonstrate the effect that 

such a range has on the aggregate substitution rate of DDGS for corn and 

soybean meal.

Alternative #1 Substitution Rates—Based on the substitution rates found in 

table 10, 1 pound of DDGS could replace mostly corn and soybean meal and 

some other items, depending on the type of livestock/poultry (table 10). For 

example, DDGS replaced some dicalcium phosphate but also required some 

additional limestone in swine diets. The substitution rate of DDGS for corn or 

soybean meal, however, differs by each type of livestock/poultry. Therefore, 

Table 10

DDGS substitution rates for corn and soybean meal, 

by type of livestock/poultry 

One pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn and soybean meal?

Type of livestock/poultry 

Alternative substitution rates Beef cattle Dairy cattle Swine Poultry1

Pounds

Alternative #1

Corn 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51

Soybean meal 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50

 Total 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.01

Alternative #2 

Corn 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61

Soybean meal 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44

 Total 1.20 1.36 1.00 1.05

1Weighted average substitution rates based on layers, broilers, and turkeys. Weights based on 

inventory numbers or slaughter numbers for 2006/07.

Source: Alternative #1: Beef cattle data from Vander Pol et al., 2006; Trenkle, 2003. Dairy cattle 

data from Anderson et al., 2006. Swine data from Shurson et al., 2002 and 2003. Poultry data 

from Lumpkins et al., 2004 and 2005; Roberson, 2003. Alternative #2: Beef and dairy cattle 

data from Arora et al., 2008. Swine and poultry data from Shurson, March and August 2009. 

Substitution Rates of DDGS for Corn and 

Soybean Meal, by Type of Livestock/Poultry 
23 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

to derive an aggregate substitution rate of DDGS for corn and soybean meal, 

substitution rates for each major type of livestock/poultry must be examined.

Beef Cattle–One pound of DDGS or WDGS can replace 1 pound of corn 

for 10-40 percent of diet dry matter intake and generally zero to minimal 

amounts of soybean meal or urea (Vander Pol et al., 2006; Trenkle, 2003).

Dairy Cattle—One pound of DDGS or WDGS can substitute for 0.45 pounds 

of corn and 0.55 pounds of soybean meal for up to 20 percent of the dry 

matter intake for dairy cattle diets (Anderson et al., 2006).

24 

Swine—One pound of DDGS can generally substitute for 0.89 pounds of 

corn and 0.10 pounds of soybean meal for up to 20 percent of the swine diet 

(nursery, grow-finish, developing gilts, and lactating sows) (Shurson et al., 

2002 and 2003a).

Poultry—For layers, 1 pound of DDGS can replace about 0.46 pounds of 

corn and 0.54 pounds of soybean meal for up to 12-15 percent of the diet 

(Lumpkins et al., 2005). We applied these same substitution rates to pullets.

For broilers, 1 pound of DDGS can replace about 0.51 pounds of corn and 

0.50 pounds of soybean meal for up to 15 percent of the diet during the 

grower and finisher periods (Lumpkins et al., 2004). For turkeys, 1 pound 

of DDGS can replace about 0.58 pounds of corn and 0.465 pounds of 

soybean meal for up to 10 percent of the grow-finish diet (Roberson, 2003).

A weighted average (based on inventory numbers or numbers slaughtered 

for 2006/07) represents all poultry, and 1 pound of DDGS can replace 0.51 

pounds of corn and 0.50 pounds of soybean meal.

Alternative #2 Substitution Rates—More recent estimates of the substitution rate of DDGS for corn and soybean meal reveal that 1 pound of DDGS 

replaces more than a pound of corn and soybean meal combined for beef and 

dairy cattle (see table 10). However, 1 pound of DDGS was found to continue 

to replace about a pound of corn and soybean meal combined for swine and 

poultry.

Arora et al. (2008) found that feeding distillers’ grains to beef and dairy cattle 

leads to improved animal performance in terms of faster weight gain for beef 

cattle and increased milk production for dairy cattle. Earlier estimates did not 

account for this performance improvement. For beef cattle, researchers estimated that 1 pound of DDGS substitutes for 1.196 pounds of corn and 0.056 

pounds of urea. For dairy cattle, they reported that 1 pound of DDGS substituted for 0.731 pounds of corn and 0.633 pounds of soybean meal. Both the 

beef and dairy cattle estimates were weighted for the feeding of both DDGS 

and WDGS. Arora et al. claimed that swine growth performance remains 

unchanged from earlier estimates, supporting substitution rates at 1 pound of 

DDGS for 0.89 pounds of corn and 0.10 pounds of soybean meal for up to 

15 percent of the swine ration. Their data did not provide DDGS substitution 

rates for poultry.

More recently, Shurson (March 2009 and August 2009) provided updated 

substitution rates of DDGS for corn and soybean meal by type of livestock/

poultry (see table 10). Shurson’s substitution estimates for both beef and 

dairy cattle agree with Arora et al. (2008) when accounting for substantially 

24Feeding studies at South Dakota 

State University have also shown that 

DDGS and soy hulls can replace all 

soybean meal (Staff, 2011).
24

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

higher energy values, undegradeable protein in the rumen, and improved 

performance when feeding DDGS to cattle. Shurson’s findings show that 1 

pound of DDGS substitutes for 1.196 pounds of corn and 0.056 pounds of 

urea (nonprotein nitrogen) in beef cattle diets. Similarly, 1 pound of DDGS 

substitutes for 0.731 pounds of corn and 0.633 pounds of soybean meal in 

dairy cow diets. Shurson provides a set of substitution rates for hogs and 

poultry that differ from earlier estimates found in the literature. Compared 

with cattle, the energy value and protein quality of DDGS is lower for 

swine and poultry, but this fact has not limited the use of DDGS in swine 

and poultry rations. One advantage of feeding DDGS to swine and poultry 

is the reduction in inorganic phosphate supplementation. In swine diets, 

Shurson (March 2009) calculated that 1 pound of DDGS substitutes for 0.699 

pounds of corn, 0.295 pounds of soybean meal, and 0.03 pounds of inorganic phosphate, with small supplementation of synthetic amino acids and 

calcium necessary. For poultry, Shurson (March 2009) found that 1 pound 

of DDGS can replace 0.608 pounds of corn and 0.438 pounds of soybean 

meal for layers. For broilers, he found that 1 pound of DDGS can replace 

0.612 pounds of corn and 0.44 pounds of soybean meal. For turkeys, Shurson 

(March 2009) found that 1 pound of DDGS can replace 0.547 pounds of 

corn and 0.460 pounds of soybean meal. He then computed a simple average 

for a composite set of substitution rates for poultry. For example, 1 pound 

of DDGS replaced 0.589 pounds of corn and 0.446 pounds of soybean meal 

and 0.02 lbs of inorganic phosphate, or up to 20 percent of the ration, with 

small supplementation of synthetic amino acids, fat, and calcium necessary.

Instead, we have computed a weighted average (based on inventory numbers 

or numbers slaughtered for 2006/07) substitution rate for poultry with 1 

pound of DDGS replacing 0.61 pounds of corn and 0.44 pounds of soybean 

meal (see table 10).
25 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

The second major variable needed to compute the aggregate substitution rate 

of DDGS for corn and soybean meal is the market share of DDGS consumption for each type of livestock/poultry. These estimates must be computed 

since an official Government source does not provide these statistics.

25 

Market share estimates of U.S. DDGS feed consumption by type of livestock/poultry for 2006/07 were estimated based on information contained in 

the 2007 USDA/NASS survey and information contained in table 11 (table 

12). Market share estimates for the remaining crop years—2007/08 through 

2010/11—were estimated based on the allocation of remaining potential 

consumption (potential minus actual consumption) by type of livestock/

poultry multiplied by the annual increase of U.S. DDGS feed use (table 13).

Beef cattle were estimated to consume about 66 percent of the DDGS fed in 

2006/07 followed by dairy cattle at 24 percent, hogs at 6 percent, and poultry 

at 4 percent (table 12). In 2010/11, we estimated that beef cattle continued to 

consume more DDGS than any other type of livestock/poultry in the 5-year 

analysis period. While the market share for beef cattle is estimated to have 

declined to 56 percent over the period, that for dairy cattle, hogs, and poultry 

increased. Dairy cattle ranked second in estimated consumption of U.S.

DDGS during the study period and saw market share of DDGS consumption 

rise from 24 to 27 percent. Although DDGS were first fed to dairy cattle from 

beverage distilleries and now corn dry-mill ethanol plants, beef cattle show 

greater DDGS consumption potential than dairy cattle because beef cattle far 

outnumber dairy cattle. Hogs ranked third with a market share of 6 percent 

in 2006/07, increasing to 10 percent in 2010/11, as inclusion rates rose along 

with research demonstrating DDGS potential in swine diets. Poultry ranked 

fourth with an estimated market share of 5 percent in 2006/07, increasing to 

7 percent in 2010/11. Continuing research demonstrates that DDGS inclusion 

rates for poultry could increase from around the 5-10 percent range to a range 

of 10-15 percent and above.

The growth potential for U.S. feed consumption of DDGS is expected to 

follow a similar trend, with beef cattle consuming the majority of DDGS, 

followed by dairy cattle, swine, and poultry (table 13).

26 Some in industry 

or other researchers believe that consumption of DDGS by dairy cattle is 

nearing maximum use levels (Deutscher, 2009; Dooley, 2008). We do not 

find such a constraint at this time. Dooley mentions that dairy cattle, beef 

cattle, hogs, and poultry will be constrained by smaller operations in their 

inability to use truckload lots. We would argue that smaller farms could find 

alternate solutions. For example, DDGS can be mixed in with the concentrate 

mix and delivered to the farm and stored in the working storage located on 

the farm. For some beef cow operations, DDGS can be fed in range cubes, 

stored in bunker silos as is, or mixed with other materials, such as straw or 

corn fodder.

25One survey provided DDGS 

consumption estimates for beef cattle, 

fed cattle, dairy cattle, and swine for 

selected States in calendar year 2006 

(USDA/NASS, 2007). However, estimates for poultry were not made. This 

survey focused on a selected number of 

Midwestern States, but lacks a national 

scope.

26The greatest potential for increased 

DDGS feeding remains with beef cattle.

For example, based on an assumed 

production level of 15 billion gallons 

of ethanol and estimated domestic 

consumption levels of 31.5 mmt, the 

market share by type of livestock/poultry is estimated to be 55.7 percent for 

beef cattle, 27.2 percent for dairy cattle, 

10.5 percent for swine, and 6.6 percent 

for poultry (table 13).

U.S. DDGS Feed Consumption (Market 

Share), by Type of Livestock/Poultry
26

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Estimation Methodology 

We used results from a survey that reported DDGS feeding by type of livestock to estimate consumption by type of livestock for crop year 2006/07 

(USDA, NASS, 2007). We multiplied the reported amounts of DDGS fed per 

crop year per animal by the number of head per crop year (specified as an 

annual inventory number or an annual number produced) and by the adoption rate (table 12). Since this survey did not report DDGS usage by poultry, 

we computed it as the difference between the total DDGS consumed in 

2006/07 less amounts consumed by beef cattle, dairy cattle, and swine in that 

crop year (table 12). We assumed inclusion amounts as listed in table 3 for 

each of the different types of poultry and the adoption rate (8 percent) was a 

residual figure required to equal the total amount fed to all types of poultry.

Table 11

Supply and disappearance of corn-based distillers’ grains

 Supply Disappearance 

Production Imports

Feed and 

residual

Exports 

Total

Distillers’ spent 

grains from 

beverage 

distilleries

Distillers’ spent 

grains from 

dry-mill plants 

producing fuel 

ethanol1 Total

Brewers’ 

and distillers’ 

dregs and 

wastes2,3 Total

Brewers’ and 

distillers’ dregs 

and wastes2

Marketing 

year

Percent 

of total 

production

Percent 

of total 

production

Percent 

of total 

supply

Percent 

of total 

supply

Percent 

of total 

disappearance

Percent 

of total 

disappearance

mmt Percent mmt Percent mmt Percent mmt Percent mmt mmt Percent mmt Percent mmt

1992/93 0.8 40 1.2 60 2.0 97 0.1 3 2.1 2.1 100 0.0 0 2.1

1993/94 0.6 27 1.6 73 2.2 96 0.1 4 2.3 2.1 92 0.2 8 2.3

1994/95 0.5 35 1.0 65 1.5 94 0.1 6 1.6 0.9 55 0.7 45 1.6

1995/96 0.8 77 0.2 23 1.0 93 0.1 7 1.1 0.5 41 0.6 59 1.1

1996/97 0.8 64 0.5 36 1.3 91 0.1 9 1.4 0.8 53 0.7 47 1.4

1997/98 0.9 52 0.8 48 1.6 94 0.1 6 1.7 1.1 65 0.6 35 1.7

1998/99 0.8 47 1.0 53 1.8 93 0.1 7 1.9 1.2 62 0.7 38 1.9

1999/00 0.9 51 0.9 49 1.7 92 0.1 8 1.9 1.1 59 0.8 41 1.9

2000/01 0.9 36 1.6 64 2.5 95 0.1 5 2.6 1.8 70 0.8 30 2.6

2001/02 0.9 31 2.0 69 2.9 96 0.1 4 3.0 2.1 72 0.9 28 3.0

2002/03 0.9 17 4.3 83 5.2 98 0.1 2 5.3 4.6 86 0.8 14 5.3

2003/04 0.9 13 6.1 87 7.0 99 0.1 1 7.1 6.4 90 0.7 10 7.1

2004/05 0.9 11 7.3 89 8.2 99 0.1 1 8.3 7.4 88 1.0 12 8.3

2005/06 0.9 9 9.5 91 10.4 99 0.1 1 10.5 9.3 88 1.2 12 10.5

2006/07 0.9 7 13.2 93 14.1 99 0.2 1 14.3 12.5 88 1.8 12 14.3

2007/08 0.9 4 20.5 96 21.4 100 0.1 0 21.5 17.6 82 3.9 18 21.5

2008/09 0.9 3 25.6 97 26.5 99 0.3 1 26.8 21.8 81 5.0 19 26.8

2009/10 0.9 3 32.5 97 33.4 99 0.4 1 33.8 25.5 75 8.3 25 33.8

2010/114 0.9 2 36.1 98 37.0 99 0.4 1 37.4 29.1 78 8.3 22 37.4

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Does not account for noncorn spent grains.

2Assumes brewers spent grains are minor.

3May contain noncorn brewers’ and distillers’ dregs and wastes.

4Estimates from the September 12, 2011 WASDE and Feed Grains Database.

Source: Update of Hoffman and Baker (table 1, p. 5, 2010) 
27 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

The resulting market share for each class of livestock/poultry for 2006/07 

was then computed by dividing the amount of DDGS fed to each type of livestock/poultry by the estimated total U.S. DDGS feed consumption for that 

year (table 12).

DDGS feed use and market shares were computed for the remaining crop 

years 2007/08 through 2010/11 (table 13, column 1). We calculated these 

numbers for each crop year based on annual DDGS feed use per year (table 

11) and each crop year’s remaining adoption potential (potential consumption (table 13, column 2) - actual DDGS feed consumption (table 13, column 

3) = remaining potential consumption) for each type of livestock/poultry 

Table 12

Estimated actual consumption of U.S. distillers’ dried grains with solubles, by type of livestock/poultry, 

2006/07 crop year

Type of livestock/poultry

Annual DDGS 

consumption 

per head1, 2 Adoption rate3

Number of livestock/ 

poultry fed per 

crop year

2006/07 

acutal DDGS 

consumption Share 

 Pounds Percent 1,000 head 1,000 metric tons Percent of total

Beef 8,203 65.5

 Cows 396 43 32,6444 2,521 20.1

 Replacement heifers 396 43 5,8354 451 3.6

 Cattle on feed 916 70 14,6474 4,260 34.0

 Other 166 43 29,9774, 5 971 7.7

Dairy 2,960 23.6

 Cows 1002 60 9,1454 2,494 19.9

 Replacement heifers 396 60 4,3254 466 3.7

Hogs 804 6.4

 Breeding swine 60 47 6,1336 78 0.6

 Market swine 60 47 56,6886 725 5.8

Poultry 563 4.5

 Layers 9.4 87 347,0638 115 0.9

 Pullets 6.3 87 100,1128 22 0.2

 Broilers 1.1 87 8,893,7469 346 2.8

 Turkeys 8.4 87 265,3739 79 0.6

Total 12,529 100.0

1Numbers for beef, dairy, and hogs taken from USDA, NASS (2007). Poultry numbers (potential) taken from table 3. 

2May not be the same animal due to turnover. 

3Numbers for beef, dairy, and hogs taken from USDA, NASS (2007). Poultry adoption rate was computed (see text for method). 

4Inventory as of January 1, 2007. 

5Other cattle not in feedlots include other heifers, steers, bulls over 500 pounds, and calves under 500 pounds. 

6Average quarterly inventory for corn crop year, September - August. 

7Represents an adoption rate necessary for total consumption minus amounts consumed by beef, dairy, and hogs to equal the amount consumed by poultry. 

8Average monthly (number as of beginning of month) inventory for corn crop year, September - August. 

9Number produced during crop year (.333 x calendar year number for 2006 + .667 x calendar year number for 2007). 

Source: Cattle inventory numbers for 2007 from Cattle Final Estimates, 2004-2008, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB989/sb1019.

pdf; Quarterly hogs and pigs data from Hogs and Pigs Final Estimates, 2004-2007, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB986/

sb1020.pdf; Layers and pullets data from Chicken and Egg Annual Summary, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.

do?documentID=1509; Broilers and turkeys data from Poultry Production and Value, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1130.
28

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 13

Estimated quantity and market share of U.S. distillers grains fed, by type of livestock/poultry, 

crop years 2006/07 through 2010/111

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6

Crop year by type of 

livestock/poultry

Estimated quantity 

and market share 

of DDGS fed2

Estimated 

potential 

DDGS to be fed

( - ) Less: 

estimated 

DDGS fed2

( = ) equals 

remaining 

DDGS feed 

potential3

Percent of 

remaining 

potential to 

be fed 

Allocation of 

change in 

DDGS fed 

next year4

mmt Percent —————mmt———— Percent mmt

2006/07

(from table 12) (from table 3)

Beef 8.2 65.5 31.2 8.2 23.0 51.5 2.6

Dairy 2.9 23.6 16.1 2.9 13.2 29.5 1.5

Swine 0.8 6.4 7.8 0.8 5.3 11.7 0.6

Poultry 0.6 4.5 7.1 0.6 3.3 7.3 0.4

Total 12.5 100.0 62.2 12.5 44.7 100.0 5.1

2007/08 (from table 4) 

Beef 10.8 61.5 31.3 10.8 20.5 50.2 2.1

Dairy 4.4 25.0 16.4 4.4 12.0 29.4 1.2

Swine 1.4 7.9 8.4 1.4 5.3 12.9 0.5

Poultry 1.0 5.5 7.1 1.0 3.1 7.5 0.3

Total 17.6 100.0 63.2 17.6 40.8 100.0 4.2

2008/09 (from table 5)

Beef 12.9 59.3 29.8 12.9 16.9 47.5 1.8

Dairy 5.6 25.9 16.5 5.6 10.9 30.6 1.1

Swine 1.9 8.9 8.6 1.9 5.0 14.1 0.5

Poultry 1.3 5.9 6.9 1.3 2.8 7.9 0.3

Total 21.8 100.0 61.8 21.8 35.5 100.0 3.7

2009/10 (from table 6)

Beef 14.7 57.6 29.5 14.7 14.8 47.6 1.7

Dairy 6.8 26.6 16.1 6.8 9.3 30.0 1.1

Swine 2.5 9.6 8.3 2.5 4.4 14.1 0.5

Poultry 1.6 6.2 6.8 1.6 2.6 8.4 0.3

Total 25.5 100.0 60.7 25.5 31.1 100.0 3.6

2010/11 (from table 7)

Beef 16.4 56.4 29.7 16.4 13.3 47.3 1.1

Dairy 7.9 27.0 16.2 7.9 8.3 29.7 0.7

Swine 3.0 10.2 8.3 3.0 4.0 14.2 0.3

Poultry 1.9 6.5 6.8 1.9 2.5 8.8 0.2

Total 29.1 100.0 61.1 29.1 28.1 100.0 2.4

15 billion gallon ethanol production level5

Beef 17.5 55.7 17.5

Dairy 8.6 27.2 8.6

Swine 3.3 10.5 3.3

Poultry 2.1 6.6 2.1

Total 31.5 100.0 31.5

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Some columns may not sum due to rounding.

2Estimates of total U.S. DDGS fed comes from table 11. 

3Remaining potential to be fed = (estimated potential to be fed minus estimated quantity fed) for beef, dairy, swine, and poultry. Remaining 

potential was reduced for swine and poultry. Swine was reduced by 25 percent per year because of industry concern that excessive oil would 

cause soft meat. Poultry was reduced by 50 percent per year because of slow adoption reported by industry. 

4The allocation of change in DDGS fed the next year was based on the proportion of the remaining potential to be fed for the current year. 

5If one were to assume 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol would be produced, corn use for this dry-mill fuel ethanol could total 5.17 billion 

bushels (2.7 gallons ethanol per bushel of corn and 93 percent of ethanol produced from dry-mill plants) which would produce about 41.0 mmt 

plus 1 mmt from beverage distilleries and .5 mmt from imports = about 42.5 mmt supply. From this supply, we subtract an estimated 11 mmt of 

exports and arrive at an estimated 31.5 mmt of DDGS fed under these assumptions. 

Source: Calculations by USDA’s Economic Research Service. 
29 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

(see table 13, column 4). The proportion of this remaining potential by type 

of livestock/poultry was used to allocate (see table 13, column 5) the change 

in DDGS feed consumption for the next year (see table 13, column 6).

27

Thus, the sum of the current year’s estimated DDGS feed consumption (see 

table 13, column 3) and the allocated change in total consumption for the 

upcoming year (see table 13, column 6) was equal to the upcoming year’s 

DDGS feed consumption (see table 13, column 1 and 3). Adoption rates were 

not assumed for this calculation since potential consumption by type of livestock/poultry could be greater than or less than the estimated amount. The 

DDGS inclusion rate used for potential DDGS consumption (see table 13, 

column 2) was on the low to mid-part of a range of maximum inclusion rates.

Previous market experience has shown that both DDGS inclusion levels and 

adoption increased when grain prices are higher. 28

The share of remaining potential to be fed by type of livestock/poultry is 

shown in table 13, column 5. These numbers tend to differ somewhat by crop 

year but were used to allocate the change in annual feed consumption of 

DDGS to the different types of livestock/poultry. For example, in 2010/11, 

the percentage of remaining potential to be fed for beef, dairy, swine, and 

poultry was 48, 30, 14, and 9 percent, respectively. These shares are then 

used to allocate, by type of livestock/poultry, the increase in DDGS feed 

consumption for 2011/12.

As seen in table 13, actual U.S. feed use of DDGS by type of livestock/

poultry remains below U.S. potential feed use. We use this remaining potential feed consumption to allocate the annual increase in DDGS feed consumption by type of livestock/poultry. Others have allocated annual increases in 

domestic DDGS feed consumption by assuming a fixed percentage by type of 

livestock/poultry (see Westcott, 2008). In contrast, Dooley (2008) reduced his 

potential DDGS feed consumption numbers by assuming farms will require 

a minimum of a truckload, creating an adoption rate by type of livestock/

poultry.

In addition to our estimates of DDGS consumption (market share) by type 

of livestock/poultry, other estimates are available in the literature. For 

example, one set of estimates is available from the Renewable Fuels Association, although it is generally produced in conjunction with CHS, Inc.

29

Annual calendar year estimates can usually be obtained from annual industry 

outlook reports (Renewable Fuels Association, various years). For comparability with corn supply and demand estimates, we converted these estimates 

from a calendar year to a corn crop year (table 14). Another set of estimates 

comes from Wisner (2011) and listed in table 14. Compared with the other 

market share estimates, we found that our calculations for beef cattle were 

highest in all years and those for dairy cattle were lowest for all years. For 

swine and poultry, our estimates tended to be in the middle of the other two 

estimates. The estimates from our study and Wisner’s (2011) converged for 

the later 2 years. Despite the various methods employed to compute these 

estimates, each set of market shares trends toward the past 5-year average 

potential market share that was computed earlier in our study—beef cattle at 

49 percent, dairy cattle at 26.3 percent, swine at 13.4 percent, and poultry at 

11.3 percent.

27Beef and dairy cattle received their 

full remaining potential for each crop 

year, but swine was reduced by 25 percent and poultry by 50 percent for each 

crop year because of slower adoption 

as reported by the industry (see earlier 

discussion on DDGS inclusion in swine 

and poultry diets).

28For example, Shurson (March 

2009) reported that some hogs were fed 

at a DDGS inclusion rate of over 30 

percent during 2008 and 2009, when 

corn and soybean meal prices were high 

and prices of DDGS were relatively 

low. Furthermore, some turkeys were 

fed at a DDGS inclusion rate of 20-30 

percent between 2008 and 2009. In 

both examples, the inclusion rates are 

higher than those used in our analysis.

29CHS Inc. (http://www.chsinc.

com/ ) is a Fortune 500 company that 

is diversified in energy, grains, and 

food. It is owned by farmers, ranchers, 

cooperatives, and preferred stockholders covering a geographic area from the 

Great Lakes to the Pacific Northwest and 

from the Canadian border to Texas. CHS 

provides products and services ranging 

from grain marketing to food processing, 

operates petroleum refineries/pipelines 

and, through a broad range of working 

partnerships, markets and distributes 

Cenex® brand energy products and 

renewable fuels, along with agronomic 

inputs and livestock feed. CHS Inc. is 

a prominent marketer of DDGS in both 

the domestic and export market.
30

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 14

Market share estimates of U.S. feed consumption of distillers’ grains, 

by crop year and type of livestock/poultry

Crop year, by type 

of livestock/poultry

Renewable Fuels 

Association Wisner (2011)

Current ERS 

study

2006/07 Percent

Beef cattle 42.0 45.2 65.5

Dairy cattle 43.3 42.8 23.6

Swine 10.4 6.0 6.4

Poultry 4.3 6.0 4.5

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

2007/08

Beef cattle 39.3 47.6 61.5

Dairy cattle 42.0 40.4 25.0

Swine 13.0 6.0 7.9

Poultry 5.7 6.0 5.5

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

2008/09

Beef cattle 38.3 50.0 59.3

Dairy cattle 40.3 38.0 25.9

Swine 14.7 6.0 8.9

Poultry 6.7 6.0 5.9

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

2009/10

Beef cattle 40.4 52.4 57.6

Dairy cattle 39.4 35.6 26.6

Swine 11.8 6.0 9.6

Poultry 8.4 6.0 6.2

 Total 100 100.0 100.0

2010/111

Beef cattle 41.4 53.4 56.4

Dairy cattle 39.4 34.1 27.0

Swine 10.1 6.9 10.2

Poultry 9.1 5.6 6.5

 Total 100 100.0 100.0

1Renewable Fuels Association’s estimates for 2010/11 are based on calendar year 2010.

Source: Renewable Fuels Association outlook reports, various years; Wisner (2011); table 13.
31 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

How does the substitution of DDGS for corn and soybean meal affect the 

total U.S. feed supply? A bushel of corn used for dry-mill ethanol production 

results in a feed coproduct (DDGS) that is about equal to a third of the corn’s 

original weight. What is less understood, however, is how this coproduct 

substitutes for corn and soybean meal differently for each type of livestock/

poultry and also in aggregate across all types of livestock/poultry. Estimating 

this aggregate rate requires a summation of the weighted average of market 

share and substitution rate for each type of livestock/poultry. We provide 

a range of estimates for both sets of substitution rates—alternative #1 and 

alternative #2 (see table 10)—and for the three different sets of market share 

estimates (see table 14), since it is imperative to show how these different 

estimates affect aggregate substitution of DDGS for corn and soybean meal.

Using the substitution rates of DDGS for corn and soybean meal, by type of 

livestock/poultry and the estimated actual DDGS consumed (market share) 

by type of livestock/poultry, we computed the aggregate substitution rate for 

crop years 2006/07 through 20010/11 (tables 15-19). Our findings illustrate 

the effects of a range of substitution rates by type of livestock/poultry, but 

Aggregate Substitution of Distillers’ Grains 

for Corn and Soybean Meal

Table 15 

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2006/07

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef 

cattle

Dairy 

cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 65.5 23.6 6.4 4.5 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 8.2 2.9 0.8 0.6 12.5

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.84

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 1.03

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.16

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.19

12.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 8.2 1.3 0.7 0.3 10.5

 Alternative #2 9.8 2.1 0.6 0.4 12.8

12.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.3 2.0

 Alternative #2 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.3 2.3

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons, the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes 

for 1 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.84 metric ton of corn and 0.16 metric ton of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric 

ton of DDGS substitutes for 1.22 metric ton of feed consisting of 1.03 metric ton of corn and 0.19 metric ton of soybean meal. 

Source: Tables 10 and 13. 
32

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

our study results focus on substitution rates from alternative #2. These 

substitution rates are deemed to be the most current and have been verified 

by an animal scientist (Shurson, March 2009 and September 2009).

30 We 

also computed the aggregate substitution rate based on a set of market share 

estimates from the Renewable Fuels Association (appendix tables 1-5) and 

Wisner (2011) (appendix tables 6-10), multiplied by our range of substitution 

rates by type of livestock/poultry, but later in the study focus only on our 

study’s results from alternative #2 set of substitution rates. We then derived 

some generalizations from the range of these estimates (table 20).

Based on our study’s estimates, we find that, on average, for the past 5 crop 

years (2006/07-2010/11), 1 metric ton (mt) of DDGS can substitute for about 

1.22 mt of corn and soybean meal combined in the United States (table 20).

31

We also find that not only does the aggregate substitution rate change over 

time but also the amount of corn and soybean meal that is substituted for 

by DDGS. For example, 12.5 mmt of U.S. DDGS substitutes for 12.8 mmt 

of corn and 2.3 mmt of soybean meal in 2006/07 (see table 15). Thus, each 

metric ton of DDGS substitutes for 1.22 mt of feed consisting of 1.03 mt of 

corn and 0.19 mt of soybean meal. For the current crop year, 2010/11, our 

estimates suggest that 29.1 mmt of U.S. DDGS substitutes for 28.6 mmt of 

corn and 6.7 mmt of soybean meal. Thus for 2010/11, our aggregate substitution rate drops slightly to 1.21 compared with 1.22 for 2006/07. One mt of 

30Note that some commercial feeders 

are finding ways to use higher levels 

of DDGS that have not been tested by 

university feeding studies or peer reviewed publications. For example, there 

can be a complete replacement of corn 

with WDGS and a corn stalk or straw 

mixture for beef cattle.

31These finding apply to DDGS fed 

in the United States. DDGS exports 

may have the same substitution effect, 

assuming that all substitution rates and 

market shares by type of livestock/poultry were similar to the United States.

However, this is probably not the case.

Thus, substitution rates for each country would have to be analyzed to assess 

U.S. DDGS imports to substitute for 

corn and soybean meal in that country.

Table 16 

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2007/08

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef 

cattle

Dairy 

cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 61.5 25.0 7.9 5.5 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 10.8 4.4 1.4 1.0 17.6

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.83

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 1.01

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.17

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.21

17.6 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 10.8 2.0 1.3 0.5 14.5

 Alternative #2 12.9 3.2 1.0 0.6 17.8

17.6 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.5 3.1

 Alternative #2 0.0 2.8 0.4 0.4 3.6

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons, the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes 

for 1 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.83 metric ton of corn and 0.17 metric ton of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric 

ton of DDGS substitutes for 1.22 metric ton of feed consisting of 1.01 metric ton of corn and 0.21 metric ton of soybean meal.

Source: Tables 10 and 13. 
33 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

DDGS substitutes for 1.21 mt of corn and soybean meal combined, but the 

composition of feed (corn and soybean meal) substituted for changes to 0.98 

mt of corn and 0.23 mt of soybean meal (table 19).

As the use of U.S. DDGS increases in each crop year (2006/07-2010/11), 

the aggregate substitution rate of 1 mt of DDGS for combined corn and 

soybean meal declines slightly from 1.22 to 1.21 mt (see table 20). This 

slight decline in aggregate substitution rate occurs because of the shift in 

market shares from beef cattle to dairy cattle, hogs, and poultry (see tables 

15 through 19). The composition of feed (corn and soybean meal) substituted 

for also changes. This change is due to the smaller share of DDGS going to 

beef cattle over time, but also an increasing share to dairy cattle, swine, and 

poultry (see tables 15-19). Beef cattle have the largest substitution rate for 

corn of any type of livestock/poultry, but the smallest substitution rate for 

soybean meal. Dairy cattle, swine, and poultry have a smaller substitution 

rate for corn than do beef cattle, but a larger substitution rate for soybean 

meal. This change in the aggregate substitution rate for both corn and 

soybean meal is expected to slow as changes in annual market shares by type 

of livestock/poultry stabilize.

An alternative set of aggregate substitution rates for corn and soybean meal 

were computed based on a different set of market share estimates provided by 

Table 17 

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2008/09

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef 

cattle

Dairy 

cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 59.3 25.9 8.9 5.9 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 12.9 5.6 1.9 1.3 21.8

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.82

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 1.00

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.18

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.22

21.8 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 12.9 2.6 1.7 0.7 17.9

 Alternative #2 15.5 4.1 1.4 0.8 21.7

21.8 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 3.1 0.2 0.6 3.9

 Alternative #2 0.0 3.6 0.6 0.6 4.7

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons, the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes 

for 1 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.82 metric ton of corn and 0.18 metric ton of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric 

ton of DDGS substitutes for 1.22 metric ton of feed consisting of 1.00 metric ton of corn and 0.22 metric ton of soybean meal. 

Source: Tables 10 and 13. 
34

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

the Renewable Fuels Association (various outlook years) and Wisner (2011).

Their market share estimates (appendix tables 1-10) suggest a larger market 

share of DDGS consumption for dairy, swine, and poultry, but a smaller 

market share for beef cattle, than do our study’s estimates (tables 15-19).

Consequently, their average aggregate substitution rate of 1.23 for crop years 

2006/07 through 2010/11 is slightly higher than our study’s average estimate 

of 1.22 (table 20). Their estimates suggest a smaller substitution of DDGS 

for corn, but a greater substitution of DDGS for soybean meal, than estimates 

from our analysis over the past 5 crop years. Again this is due to the larger 

market share of DDGS consumption for dairy, swine, and poultry, than 

estimates from our study. We present these alternative results to illustrate 

the effects of different market share estimates, but will focus on our study’s 

estimates for the remainder of this report.

Elsewhere in the literature, other aggregate substitution rates of DDGS 

for corn and soybean meal were derived by various authors to estimate the 

impacts of ethanol production on feed use or land use. For example, Westcott 

(2007 and 2008) provided estimates based on 1 mt of DDGS replacing 1 mt 

of corn and soybean meal combined, comprised of 91.5 percent of corn and 

8.5 percent of soybean meal. Shurson (March 2009 and September 2009) 

provided a critique for the Renewable Fuels Association of different studies 

that used DDGS substitution rates for corn and soybean meal relative to 

Table 18 

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2009/10

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef 

cattle

Dairy 

cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 57.6 26.6 9.6 6.2 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 14.7 6.8 2.5 1.6 25.5

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.81

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 0.99

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.19

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.22

25.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 14.7 3.0 2.2 0.8 20.7

 Alternative #2 17.6 4.9 1.7 0.9 25.2

25.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.8 4.8

 Alternative #2 0.0 4.2 0.7 0.7 5.7

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons, the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes 

for 1 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.81 metric ton of corn and 0.19 metric ton of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric 

ton of DDGS substitutes for 1.21 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.99 metric ton of corn and 0.22 metric ton of soybean meal. 

Source: Tables 10 and 13. 
35 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

land-use credits associated with the low carbon fuel standard for ethanol.

Compared with our analysis that estimated an average aggregate DDGS 

substitution rate of 1 mt of DDGS for 1.22 mt of corn and soybean meal 

combined, Shurson provided a discussion of why aggregate substitution rates 

from other studies that ranged from 1.0 to 1.28 should be closer to his estimate of 1.23. As discussed earlier, these alternative aggregate estimates are 

a function of assumed DDGS substitution rates for corn and soybean meal 

for different types of livestock/poultry and the assumed market shares of 

domestic DDGS consumption by the different types of livestock/poultry.

Table 19 

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2010/11

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef 

cattle

Dairy 

cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 56.4 27.0 10.2 6.5 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 16.4 7.9 3.0 1.9 29.1

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.81

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 0.98

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.19

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.23

29.1 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 16.4 3.5 2.6 1.0 23.5

 Alternative #2 19.6 5.7 2.1 1.1 28.6

29.1 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 4.3 0.3 0.9 5.6

 Alternative #2 0.0 5.0 0.9 0.8 6.7

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons, the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes 

for 1 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.81 metric ton of corn and 0.19 metric ton of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric 

ton of DDGS substitutes for 1.21 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.98 metric ton of corn and 0.23 metric ton of soybean meal. 

Source: Tables 10 and 13. 
36

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 20 

Aggregate substitution rates of distillers’ dried grains with solubles for corn and soybean meal, 

by crop year and alternative substitution rate

Alternative aggregate 

substitution rate, by crop year 

Quantity of 

DDGS fed in 

the United 

States

One metric ton of 

DDGS replaces how 

many metric tons of 

corn and soybean 

meal combined?

Quantity of DDGS fed in U.S. 

replaces how many tons of corn 

and soybean meal?

Total

Corn Soybean meal

Quantity Percent Quantity Percent

mmt mt mmt Percent mmt Percent mmt Percent

Crop year 2006/07 12.5

Renewable Fuels Association 

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 9.1 73 3.4 27 12.5 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.24 11.5 92 4.0 32 15.5 124

Wisner (2011)

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 9.0 73 3.4 27 12.5 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.24 11.6 93 3.9 31 15.5 124

This study’s estimates 

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 10.5 84 2.0 16 12.5 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.22 12.8 103 2.3 19 15.1 122

Crop year 2007/08 17.6

Renewable Fuels Association 

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 12.8 73 4.8 27 17.6 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.23 15.9 90 5.8 33 21.7 123

Wisner (2011)

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 13.1 74 4.5 26 17.6 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.24 16.6 94 5.2 30 21.8 124

This study’s estimates 

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 14.5 83 3.1 17 17.6 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.22 17.8 101 3.6 21 21.4 122

Crop year 2008/09 21.8

Renewable Fuels Association 

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 15.9 73 5.9 27 21.8 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.22 19.6 89 7.1 33 26.7 122

Wisner (2011)

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 16.5 76 5.3 24 21.8 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.23 20.8 95 6.2 28 27.0 123

This study’s estimates 

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 17.9 82 3.9 18 21.8 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.22 21.7 100 4.7 22 26.4 122

Crop year 2009/10 25.5

Renewable Fuels Association 

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 18.6 73 6.9 27 25.5 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.22 23.1 90 8.2 32 31.3 122

Wisner (2011)

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 19.6 77 5.9 23 25.5 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.23 24.6 96 6.9 27 31.5 123

This study’s estimates 

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 20.7 81 4.8 19 25.5 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.21 25.2 99 5.7 22 30.9 121

—continued
37 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 20 

Aggregate substitution rates of distillers’ dried grains with solubles for corn and soybean meal, 

by crop year and alternative substitution rate—continued

Alternative aggregate 

substitution rate, by crop year 

Quantity of 

DDGS fed in 

the United 

States

One metric ton of 

DDGS replaces how 

many metric tons of 

corn and soybean 

meal combined?

Quantity of DDGS fed in U.S. 

replaces how many tons of corn 

and soybean meal?

Total

Corn Soybean meal

Quantity Percent Quantity Percent

mmt mt mmt Percent mmt Percent mmt Percent

Crop year 2010/11 29.1

Renewable Fuels Association 

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 21.2 73 7.9 27 29.1 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.23 26.5 91 9.3 32 35.8 123

Wisner (2011)

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 22.6 78 6.5 22 29.1 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.23 28.2 97 7.6 26 35.8 123

This study’s estimates 

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 23.5 81 5.6 19 29.1 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.21 28.6 98 6.7 23 35.3 121

Average for crop year 

2006/07 to 2010/11 21.3

Renewable Fuels Association 

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 15.5 73 5.8 27 21.3 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.23 19.3 90 6.9 32 26.2 123

Wisner (2011)

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 16.2 76 5.1 24 21.3 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.23 20.4 95 6.0 28 26.3 123

This study’s estimates 

Substitution rates, alternative #1 1.00 17.4 82 3.9 18 21.3 100

Substitution rates, alternative #2 1.22 21.2 100 4.6 21 25.8 122

mt=Metric tons.

mmt=Million metric tons.

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on tables 15-19 and appendix tables 1-10.
38

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Concerns among livestock/poultry feeders and other segments of the public 

arose over the use of corn for ethanol because of the shift away from corn 

used for other purposes (feed, food, seed, other nonethanol industrial uses, 

and exports) (fig. 1). While increased use of corn for ethanol production may 

be one reason that feed prices initially rose, its longer term impact on prices 

may be somewhat mitigated by the ethanol coproduct, DDGS, which can 

substitute for some of the corn used to produce ethanol but also for soybean 

meal. (See Trostle et al. (2011) for a longer explanation of feed and food 

commodity price increases.)

While ethanol expansion raised demand for corn, DDGS from the dry-mill 

production process provided some partially offsetting effects in the feed 

market. Consequently, the net effect in the domestic feed market of a bushel 

of corn being used for ethanol production is less than a bushel. For example, 

for crop year 2006/07, 1 mt of DDGS used in the domestic feed market 

substituted for an estimated 1.22 mt of corn and soybean meal combined, 

or the equivalent of about 37.8 percent (by weight) of the corn used in the 

associated ethanol production process.

33 We estimated that 12.5 mmt of 

DDGS were fed to U.S. livestock and poultry in 2006/07 and these DDGS 

substituted for 12.8 mmt of corn (103 percent of domestic DDGS fed) and 

2.3 mmt of soybean meal (19 percent of domestic DDGS fed) (see table 15).

Similarly, in 2010/11, we estimated that 29.1 mmt of DDGS were fed to U.S.

livestock and poultry and these DDGS substituted for 28.6 mmt of corn (98 

percent of domestic DDGS fed) and 6.7 mmt of soybean meal (23 percent of 

domestic DDGS fed) (see table 18).

34 Note that for either crop year 2006/07 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Feed Grains Database.

Figure 1

U.S. corn use, crop years 1990/91 through 2010/11

Million bushels

Crop year

1990/91

1992/93

1994/95

1996/97

1998/99

2000/01

2002/03

2004/05

2006/07

2008/09

2010/11

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Food seed and industrial

less fuel ethanol

Ending stocks Exports

Fuel ethanol

Feed and residual

Effects of Dry-Mill Ethanol Production 

on U.S. Feed Supply32

32Projections from the September 12, 

2011WASDE report show that 5.02 billion bushels of corn will be used in the 

production of fuel ethanol for crop year 

2010/11. Note that not all corn used 

to produce fuel ethanol is consumed 

by corn dry-mill plants. Based on an 

update of Hoffman and Baker’s (2010) 

estimates, 444.0 million bushels, or 

8.8 percent of this total, will be used 

for ethanol by corn wet-mill plants and 

4,576 million bushels, or 91.2 percent 

of this total, will be used for ethanol by 

corn dry-mill plants.

33The amount of corn used to produce these DDGS in 2006/07 was 40 

mmt ((12.5 mmt/0.3125) = 40 mmt)).

A 17.5 pound yield of DDGS from a 56 

pound bushel of corn used to produce 

ethanol from a dry-mill corn ethanol 

plant (17.5 pounds /56 pounds) equaled 

31.25 percent of the corn’s original 

weight. DDGS used in the 2006/07 

domestic feed market (12.5 mmt (table 

11)) substituted for an estimated 15.1 

mmt of corn and soybean meal (see 

table 15), the equivalent of about 37.8 

percent (by weight) of the corn used 

in the associated ethanol production 

process (15.1 mmt / 40 mmt) = 37.8 

percent.

34The amount of corn used to 

produce these DDGS in 2010/11 was 

estimated to be 93.1 mmt ((29.1 mmt / 

.3125) = 93.1 mmt). DDGS estimated 

to be used in the 2010/11 domestic feed 

market, (29.1 mmt (table 13)), substituted for an estimated 35.3 mmt of corn 

and soybean meal or the equivalent of 

37.8 percent (weight basis) of the corn 

used in the associated ethanol production process (35.3 mmt / 93.1 mmt) = 

37.8 percent.
39 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

or 2010/11, the amount of feed (corn and soybean meal) substituted for by 

the DDGS represents, on a weight basis, the equivalent of about 37.8 percent 

of the corn used in the associated ethanol production process for the given 

crop year.

35

The effects of DDGS substituting for corn and soybean meal can be seen in 

table 21. While there are other factors contributing to changes in the amount 

of U.S. corn and soybean meal fed annually, a clear increase can be seen in 

the amount of DDGS being fed while corn and soybean meal being fed is 

moderating or declining in recent years.

36 Overall, in the past several years, 

ethanol coproduct feeds (DDGS, corn gluten feed, and corn gluten meal) 

have gained market share in the market for U. S. feedstuffs fed, reaching an 

estimated 17.5 percent in 2010/11. Most of this increased market share can 

be attributed to the significant increase in domestic feed consumption of 

DDGS in recent years. As of 2010/11, DDGS replaced soybean meal as the 

number two feedstuff fed, and is second only to corn.

35Assuming production of corn-based 

ethanol equals 15 billion gallons, corn 

use for this dry-mill fuel ethanol production could total 5.17 billion bushels 

(2.7 gallons of ethanol per bushel 

of corn with 93 percent of ethanol 

produced from dry-mill plants) which 

would produce about 41.0 mmt plus 1 

mmt from beverage distilleries and .5 

mmt from imports = about 42.5 mmt 

supply. Assuming a 25-percent export 

share domestic consumption would 

equal 31.5 mmt. The amount of corn 

used to produce these DDGS (assuming 15 billion gallon ethanol production 

from corn) is 100.8 mmt ((31.5 mmt / 

.3125) = 100.8 mmt). DDGS estimated 

to be used in this domestic feed market, 

31.5 mmt, substituted for an estimated 

38.1 mmt of corn and soybean meal, or 

the equivalent of 37.8 percent (weight 

basis) of the corn used in the associated 

ethanol production process (38.1 mmt / 

100.8 mmt) = 37.8 percent.

36Changing numbers of livestock/

poultry being fed and the relative feed 

costs of the individual ingredients are 

contributing factors to changes in the 

amounts of feedstuffs being fed. For 

example, tables 3-7 reflect a general 

decline in the number of beef and dairy 

cattle being fed over the past 5 years 

(2006/07 through 2010/11). Also, the 

price of DDGS has generally been 

lower than prices for corn and soybean 

meal. A more detailed analysis of the 

factors explaining feed use is not part 

of this report.
40

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 21

U.S. processed feeds fed, by crop year

Feed1 (1,000 mt) 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02

Energy feeds

Corn (September-August) 133,409 118,874 138,682 119,195 134,043 138,448 138,497 143,333 147,887 148,565

Sorghum 

(September-August) 11,614 11,178 9,577 7,495 13,106 9,270 6,652 7,230 5,652 5,843

Barley (September-August) 3,722 5,952 4,846 4,634 3,642 3,586 3,076 3,428 2,350 2,102

Oats (September-August) 3,625 3,924 3,432 2,773 2,880 3,088 3,036 2,809 2,946 2,250

Wheat (September-August) 3,908 9,585 7,440 6,155 7,681 8,798 6,379 8,943 5,999 3,500

Total energy feeds 156,279 149,512 163,976 140,252 161,352 163,191 157,641 165,744 164,833 162,259

Percent of total 82.5 80.0 80.8 78.3 80.0 77.6 75.5 76.4 75.8 75.0

Oilseed meals

Soybean meal 

(October-September)2 22,000 22,936 24,079 24,141 24,784 26,213 27,812 27,529 28,706 30,001

Cottonseed meal 

(October-September) 1,045 2,393 2,965 2,685 2,824 2,682 2,298 2,638 2,590 3,030

Rapeseed (canola) meal 

(October-September) 1,002 952 1,172 1,102 1,552 1,470 1,565 1,519 1,247

Linseed meal (June-May) 92 99 92 117 135 168 153 171 178 112

Peanut meal (August-July) 103 175 164 128 86 85 125 100 131

Sunflower meal (OctoberSeptember) 291 565 434 419 482 576 528 450 358

Total oilseed meals 23,138 26,824 28,827 28,713 29,392 31,183 32,394 32,556 33,543 34,879

Percent of total 12.2 14.3 14.2 16.0 14.6 14.8 15.5 15.0 15.4 16.1

Animal-protein feeds

Meat and bone meal tankage (September-August) 2,166 2,204 2,456 2,394 2,369 2,253 2,439 2,069 1,925 1,750

Fishmeal and solubles 

(September-August) 422 649 338 255 282 260 296 249 214 255

Milk products (OctoberSeptember) 421 426 420 381 388 373 248 277 275 227

Total animal-protein feeds 3,008 3,280 3,214 3,030 3,039 2,886 2,982 2,595 2,413 2,232

Percent of total 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0

Other byproduct feeds

Wheat millfeeds 

(September-August) 80 238 129 142 177 4,199 6,365 6,627 6,647 6,257

Rice millfeeds (August-July) 580 592 659 600 560 545 592 650 627 618

Fats and oils (SeptemberAugust) 982 1,053 1,051 1,113 1,124 1,280 1,409 1,263 1,195 1,228

Miscellaneous byproduct 

feeds (September-August)3 1,376 1,390 1,404 1,418 1,432 1,446 1,461 1,476 1,490 1,506

Total other byproduct feeds4 3,018 3,273 3,243 3,274 3,293 7,470 9,827 10,015 9,959 9,609

Percent of total 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.6 3.6 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.4

Grain protein feeds

Corn gluten feed 

(September – August) 1,200 1,400 2,000 2,500 3,100 3,600 3,700 4,000 4,200 4,400

Corn gluten meal 

(September – August) 700 700 1,000 800 800 900 1,100 1,100 900 1,000

Distillers’ grains (DDGS) 

(September – August) 2,100 2,100 900 500 800 1,100 1,200 1,100 1,800 2,100

Total grain protein feeds5

(September – August) 4,000 4,200 3,900 3,800 4,700 5,600 6,000 6,200 6,900 7,500

Percent of total 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.5

Total feeds fed 189,442.3 187,088.7 203,160.1 179,069.2 201,776.4 210,329.5 208,843.1 217,110.0 217,648.8 216,479.0

—continued
41 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 21

U.S. processed feeds fed, by crop year—continued

Feed1 (1,000 mt) 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Energy feeds

Corn (September-August) 140,934 146,850 155,838 155,330 140,726 148,793 131,625 130,174 127,006

Sorghum (September-August) 4,328 4,623 4,859 3,548 2,868 4,188 5,907 3,573 3,175

Barley (September-August) 1,999 1,723 1,428 1,041 1,360 911 990 931 1,178

Oats (September-August) 2,518 2,279 2,215 2,137 2,088 2,024 1,977 1,796 1,606

Wheat (September-August) 6,700 4,121 4,850 2,720 4,601 4,133 3,351 4,054 5,194

Total energy feeds 156,479 159,596 169,190 164,776 151,643 160,049 143,851 140,528 138,159

Percent of total 73.5 73.4 73.1 71.8 68.4 68.5 65.8 64.3 62.6

Oilseed meals

Soybean meal (October-September)2 29,357 28,530 30,446 30,114 31,186 30,148 27,898 27,796 27,896

Cottonseed meal (October-September) 2,441 2,527 3,133 3,044 2,766 2,349 1,639 1,592 2,213

Rapeseed (canola) meal 

(October-September) 1,244 1,883 1,869 2,018 2,030 2,373 2,285 1,805 2,600

Linseed meal (June-May) 161 179 187 244 249 191 117 190 190

Peanut meal (August-July) 161 111 86 106 108 105 93 83 102

Sunflower meal (October-September) 232 317 133 278 323 311 327 368 373

Total oilseed meals 33,598 33,546 35,855 35,803 36,663 35,476 32,359 31,834 33,274

Percent of total 15.8 15.4 15.5 15.6 16.5 15.2 14.8 14.6 15.1

Animal-protein feeds

Meat and bone meal tankage 

(September-August)

1,721 1,906 1,984 2,062 2,154 2,147 2,088 2,049 2,010

Fishmeal and solubles 

(September-August)

234 186 172 187 194 178 165 157 180

Milk products (October-September) 393 339 243 225 285 325 324 227 225

Total animal-protein feeds 2,349 2,431 2,399 2,475 2,634 2,651 2,577 2,433 2,415

Percent of total 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1

Other byproduct feeds

Wheat millfeeds 

(September-August)

6,287 6,155 6,131 6,203 6,218 6,119 5,928 5,795 5,128

Rice millfeeds (August-July) 628 543 558 592 497 511 560 608 525

Fats and oils (September-August) 1,222 1,310 1,448 1,427 1,354 1,301 1,081 878 905

Miscellaneous byproduct feeds 

(September-August)3

1,521 1,536 1,552 1,567 1,583 1,588 1,592 1,597 1,600

Total other byproduct feeds4 9,658 9,544 9,690 9,789 9,652 9,518 9,161 8,877 8,158

Percent of total 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.7

Grain protein feeds

Corn gluten feed 

(September – August)

5,300 5,300 6,000 6,300 7,800 7,800 8,000 8,300 8,400

Corn gluten meal (September – 

August)

1,000 800 800 900 800 700 1,000 1,100 1,100

Distillers’ grains (DDGS) 

(September – August)

4,600 6,400 7,400 9,300 12,500 17,600 21,800 25,500 29,100

Total grain protein feeds5

(September – August)

10,900 12,500 14,200 16,500 21,100 26,100 30,800 34,900 38,600

Percent of total 5.1 5.7 6.1 7.2 9.5 11.2 14.1 16.0 17.5

Total feeds fed 212,983.1 217,617.2 231,333.5 229,342.9 221,691.5 233,794.3 218,748.0 218,572.4 220,606.0

mt=Metric tons. 

1Adjusted for stocks, production, foreign trade, and nonfeed uses where applicable. Latest data may be preliminary or projected.

2Includes use in edible soy products and shipments to U.S. territories.

3Includes dried beet pulp and inedible molasses due to unavailability of production data. 

4Excludes dried beet pulp, molasses beet pulp, and inedible molasses due to unavailability of production data.

5Excludes brewers’ dried grains.

Source: Data for feeds fed from USDA, Economic Research Service, Feed Grains Database, Yearbook Tables, (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FeedGrains/Table.

asp?t=29); data for grain protein feeds from Hoffman and Baker, (2010, tables 1, 5, and 6) updated as of September 12, 2011 WASDE. 
42

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

This report addressed the substitution effect of distillers’ grains for corn and 

soybean meal on the U.S feed complex. The amount of corn and soybean 

meal that can be substituted in livestock/poultry diets by DDGS depends 

upon the actual amount (market share) of DDGS fed by type of livestock/

poultry and the substitution rates of DDGS for corn and soybean meal by 

type of livestock/poultry ration. We found that, on average, for the past 5 crop 

years (2006/07-2010/11), 1 mt of distillers’ grains substitutes for about 1.22 

mt of corn and soybean meal combined in the United States.

As the market shares of U.S. distillers’ grains consumed by the different types 

of livestock/poultry change, so do the aggregate substitution rates for corn 

and soybean meal. For example, in 2006/07, we estimated that 1 mt of DDGS 

substituted for 1.22 mt of corn and soybean meal feed. Of the estimated 12.5 

mmt of U.S. DDGS fed in 2006/07, DDGS substituted for 12.8 mmt of corn 

(103 percent of the DDGS fed) and 2.3 mmt of soybean meal (19 percent of 

the DDGS fed). For 2010/11, we estimate an aggregate substitution rate of 1.21 

mt, but the portion of substituted corn declines and the portion of soybean meal 

increases. For example, we estimate that 29.1 mmt of DDGS will be fed during 

2010/11 and that it will substitute for 28.6 mmt of corn (98 percent of the 

DDGS fed) and 6.7 mmt of soybean meal (23 percent of the DDGS fed).

Thus, aggregate substitution rates declined slightly between 2006/07 and 2010/11 

but the portion of corn declined and soybean meal increased. Substitution rates 

changed because, as greater amounts of DDGS were fed, a declining share was 

estimated to be consumed by beef cattle, so relatively less corn was replaced 

in the U.S. feed market than was replaced by soybean meal. Furthermore, our 

findings show that as the market share for beef cattle declined, market shares for 

dairy cattle, swine, and poultry increased. Beef cattle’s DDGS substitution rate 

for corn is higher than any other type of livestock/poultry but is the lowest for 

soybean meal. Changes in aggregate substitution rates are expected to slow as 

annual market shares by type of livestock/poultry stabilize.

Corn and soybean meal quantities fed in the United States have moderated 

or declined in recent years, due partly to the substitution of DDGS or other 

ethanol coproducts (corn gluten feed or corn gluten meal) for corn and/or 

soybean meal. As of 2010/11, DDGS replaced soybean meal as the number 

two feedstuff fed, and is second only to corn. While ethanol expansion raised 

demand for corn, DDGS from the dry-mill production process partially 

offsets the impact on the feed market. Consequently, the net effect in the 

domestic feed market of a bushel of corn being used for ethanol production is 

less than a bushel. For example, the amount of feed (corn and soybean meal) 

replaced by the DDGS represents about 38 percent (weight basis) of the corn 

used in the associated ethanol production process for a given crop year.

Future industry surveys could provide additional information on DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, including information on the market share 

of DDGS consumed by type of livestock/poultry and the substitution rates of 

DDGS for corn and soybean meal by type of livestock/poultry. Furthermore, 

if information were available for each individual ethanol coproduct—DDG, 

DWG, DDGS, DWGS, CDS, corn gluten feed (CGF), wet corn gluten feed 

(WCGF), and corn gluten meal (CGM)—estimating the effects of ethanol 

coproducts on the U.S. feed complex could be more precise.

Conclusions
43 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Anderson, J.L., D.J. Schingoethe, K.F. Kalscheur, and A.R. Hippen, “Evaluation of Dried and Wet Distillers Grains Included at Two Concentrations in 

the Diets of Lactating Dairy Cows,” Journal of Dairy Science 89(8): pp.

3133–42, 2006, http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/8/3133.

Arora, Salil, May Wu, and Michael Wang. Update of Distillers Grains 

Displacement Ratios for Corn Ethanol Life-Cycle Analysis, Center for 

Transportation Research, Energy System Division, Argonne National 

Laboratory, September 2008, www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/527.

pdf.

Babcock, Bruce A., Dermot J. Hayes, and John D. Lawrence (eds). Using 

Distillers Grains in the U.S. and International Livestock and Poultry 

Industries, Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center 

at the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, 2008, http://www.card.iastate.edu/books/distillers_grains/.

Berger, Larry L., and Darrel L. Good. “Distillers Dried Grains Plus Solubles 

Utilization by Livestock and Poultry,” Corn-Based Ethanol in Illinois and 

the U.S.: A Report from the Department of Agricultural and Consumer 

Economics, University of Illinois, pp. 97-111, November 2007, http://

www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/policy/research_reports/ethanol_report/

Ethanol%20Report.pdf.

Bregendahl, Kristjan. “Use of Distillers Co-products in Diets Fed to Poultry,” 

Using Distillers Grains in the U.S. and International Livestock and 

Poultry Industries, Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information 

Center at the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State 

University, pp. 99-133, 2008, http://www.card.iastate.edu/books/distillers_

grains/pdfs/chapter5.pdf.

Dahlke, Garland, and John D. Lawrence. “Ingredient Value and Cost Calculator For Livestock and Poultry Diets,” Using Distillers Grains in the U.S. 

and International Livestock and Poultry Industries, Midwest Agribusiness 

Trade Research and Information Center at the Center for Agricultural and 

Rural Development, Iowa State University, pp. 179-98, 2008, http://www.

card.iastate.edu/books/distillers_grains/pdfs/chapter8.pdf.

Dairy One. Forage Feed Composition. http://www.dairyone.com/Forage/

FeedComp/MainLibrary.asp

Deutscher, Hope. “IDGC: Distillers Grains Products Markets Grow,” Ethanol 

Producer Magazine, August 2009, http://www.ethanolproducer.com/

articles/5816/idgc-distillers-grains-products-markets-grow.

Dhuyvetter, Kevin C., Terry L. Kastens, and Michael Boland. The U.S. 

Ethanol Industry: Where will it be located in the future? University of 

California, Agricultural Issues Center, November 2005, http://www.

agmanager.info/agribus/energy/Ethanol%20Industry(AgMRC)—11.25.05.

pdf.

References
44

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Dooley, Frank J. U.S. Market Potential for Dried Distillers Grains with 

Solubles, working paper # 08-12, Department of Agricultural Economics, 

Purdue University, December 2008.

Ensminger, M.E., J.E. Oldfield, and W.W. Heinemann. Feeds and Nutrition, 

Second Edition, The Ensminger Publishing Company: Clovis, California, 

1990.

Erickson, G.E., T.J. Klopfenstein, D.C. Adams, and R. J. Rasby. Corn 

Processing Co-products Manual: A Review of Current Research on 

Distillers Grains and Corn Gluten, Nebraska Corn Board and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 

Agricultural Research Division, Cooperative Extension Division, January 

2005.

Erickson, G.E., Virgil R. Bremer, Terry J. Klopfenstein, Aaron Stalker, and 

Rick Rasby. “Feeding of Corn Milling Co-Products to Beef Cattle,” 

Utilization of Corn Co-Products in the Beef Industry, Second Edition, 

Nebraska Corn Board and the University of Nebraska Lincoln, Institute 

of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Agricultural Research Division, 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension, August 2007, http://beef.unl.

edu/byprodfeeds/manual_01_01.shtml.

Fox, John A. “The Value of Distillers Dried Grains in Large International 

Markets,” Using Distillers Grains in the U.S. and International Livestock 

and Poultry Industries, Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center at the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, 

Iowa State University, pp. 135-53, 2008, www.card.iastate.edu/books/

distillers_grains/pdfs/chapter6.pdf.

Government Printing Office. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

December 19, 2007, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/

html/PLAW-110publ140.htm.

Government Printing Office. Energy Policy Act of 2005, August 8, 2006, 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_

bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf.

Hill, G.M., J.E. Link, D.O.Liptrap, M.A. Giesemann, M.J. Dawes, J.A.

Snedegar, N.M.Bello, and R. J. Tempelman. “Withdrawal of Distillers 

Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) Prior to Slaughter in Finishing Pigs,” 

Journal of Animal Science 86(Supplement 2): p. 52 (Abstract), 2008.

Hoffman, Linwood A., and Allen Baker. Market Issues and Prospects for 

U.S. Distillers’ Grains Supply, Use, and Price Relationships, FDS-10K01, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

December 2010, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/FDS/2010/11Nov/

FDS10K01/.

Hutjens, Mike. Feeding Guide, Third Edition, W.D. Hoard and Sons 

Company: Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin, 2008.

Klopfenstein, T.J. Personal communication, September 20, 2010.
45 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Klopfenstein, Terry J., Galen E. Erickson, and Virgil R. Bremer. “Use of 

Distillers Co-Products in Diets Fed to Beef Cattle,” Using Distillers 

Grains in the U.S. and International Livestock and Poultry Industries, 

Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center at the 

Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, pp.

6-55, 2008, www.card.iastate.edu/books/distillers_grains/pdfs/chapter2.

pdf.

Lumpkins, B.S., A.B. Batal, and N.M. Dale. “Evaluation of Distillers Dried 

Grains with Solubles as a Feed Ingredient for Broilers,” Poultry Science

83: pp. 1891-96, 2004, http://ps.fass.org/cgi/reprint/83/11/1891.

Lumpkins, B.S., A.B. Batal, and N.M. Dale. “Use of Distillers Dried 

Grains Plus Solubles in Laying Hen Diets,” The Journal of Applied 

Poultry Research 14: pp. 25-31, 2005, http://japr.fass.org/cgi/content/

abstract/14/1/25.

Lundeen, Tim (ed.). “Feedstuffs Ingredients Analysis Table 2011 Edition,” 

Feedstuffs 2011, Reference Issue and Buyers Guide, Minnetonka, Minnesota, p. 16, September 15, 2011.

Mathews, Kenneth H. and Michael J. McConnell. Ethanol Co-Product Use in 

U.S. Cattle Feeding: Lessons Learned and Considerations, FDS-09D-01, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April 2009, 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/FDS/2009/04Apr/FDS09D01/.

National Corn Growers Association. Corn Distillers Grain: Value-added Feed 

Source for Beef, Dairy Beef, Dairy, Poultry, Swine, and Sheep, September 9, 

2008, http://www.ncga.com/files/pdf/DistillersGrains9-08.pdf.

National Grain and Feed Association. “FDA Sampling Detects Antibiotic 

Residues in Ethanol Distillers Products,” NGFA Newsletter Volume 61, 

Number 2, pp. 1 and 6, January 29, 2009, http://www.ngfa.org/files/misc/

News1-29-09.pdf.

 National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, Seventh 

Revised Edition: Update 2000, National Academies Press: Washington, 

DC, 2000, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309069343.

National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, Seventh 

Revised Edition, National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2001, 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309069971.

National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, Ninth Revised 

Edition, National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1994, http://www.

nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309048923.

National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Swine, Tenth Revised 

Edition, National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1998, http://www.

nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309059933.
46

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Noll, S.L., J. Brannon, and V. Stangeland. “Market Turkey Performance and 

Inclusion Level of Corn Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles,” Poultry 

Science 82(Supplement 1): p. 321, 2004.

Rausch, Kent D., and Ronald L. Belyea. “Coproducts from Bioprocessing 

of Corn,” paper presentation at annual meeting of the American Society 

of Agricultural Engineers, Tampa, Florida, July 17-20, 2005, http://www.

ddgs.umn.edu/articles-proc-storage-quality/2005-Rausch-%20Coproducts%20from%20bioprocessing--.pdf.

Renewable Fuels Association. 2009 Corn Quality Issues and Considerations 

for Ethanol Production, November 2009, http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/

ffe71cb4be159b0042_njm6iyb8p.pdf.

Renewable Fuels Association. 2009 Ethanol Industry Outlook: Growing 

Innovation, p. 24. 2009, http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/9a54006afdf842b174_

rlm626rio.pdf.

Renewable Fuels Association. 2010 Ethanol Industry Outlook: Climate of 

Opportunity, p. 7, 2010, http://ethanolrfa.org/page/-/objects/pdf/outlook/

RFAoutlook2010_fin.pdf?nocdn=1.

Renewable Fuels Association. 2011 Ethanol Industry Outlook; Building 

Bridges to a More Sustainable Future, p. 7, 2011, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/2011%20RFA%20Ethanol%20Industry%20Outlook.

pdf?nocdn=1.

Renewable Fuels Association. Changing the Climate: Ethanol Industry 

Outlook 2008, p. 14, 2008, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/objects/pdf/

outlook/RFA_Outlook_2008.pdf?nocdn=1.

Renewable Fuels Association. Ethanol Industry Outlook 2007: Building 

New Horizons, p. 13, 2007, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/objects/pdf/

outlook/RFA_Outlook_2007.pdf?nocdn=1.

Roberson, K.D. “Use of Dried Distillers’ Grains with Solubles in Growingfinishing Diets of Turkey Hens,” International Journal of Poultry Science

2 (6): pp. 389-93, 2003, http://scialert.net/qredirect.php?doi=ijps.2003.38

9.393&linkid=pdf.

Roberson, K.D., J.L. Kalbfleisch, W. Pan, and R.A. Charbeneau. “Effect of 

Corn Distillers’ Dried Grains with Solubles at Various Levels on Performance of Laying Hens and Egg Yolk Color,” International Journal of 

Poultry Science 2: pp. 389-93, 2005.

Schingoethe, David J. “Distillers Grains for Dairy Cattle,” presentation at 

Iowa Regional Distillers Grains Workshops, Calmar, Waverly, and Cherokee, Iowa, February 2004. http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/articles-dairy/2001-

Schingoethe-%20IA%20DDGS%20workshops.pdf.

Schingoethe, David J. “Use of Distillers Co-products in Diets Fed to Dairy 

Cattle,” Using Distillers Grains in the U.S. and International Livestock 

and Poultry Industries, Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Infor-
47 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

mation Center at the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa 

State University, pp. 57-78, 2008, http://www.card.iastate.edu/books/

distillers_grains/pdfs/chapter3.pdf.

Schingoethe, David J. “Utilization of DDGS by Cattle,” presentation and 

paper at the 27th Western Nutrition Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 

Canada, pp. 61-74, September 19-20, 2006, http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/

articles-dairy/2006-Schingoethe-%20Utilization%20of%20DDGS%20

by%20cattle.pdf.

Shurson, Jerry. “Analysis of Current Feeding Practices of Distiller’s Grains 

with Solubles in Livestock and Poultry Feed Relative to Land Use 

Credits Associated with Determining the Low Carbon Fuels Standard for 

Ethanol,” Renewable Fuel Association, March 25, 2009, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/objects/documents/2290/shurson.pdf?nocdn=1.

Shurson, Jerry, “A Scientific Assessment of the Role of Distiller’s Grains 

(DGS) and Predictions of the Impact of Corn Co-Products Produced by 

Front-End Fractionation and Back-End Oil Extraction Technologies on 

Indirect Land Use Change,” Renewable Fuels Association, September 10, 

2009, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/rfa-association-site/studies/assessmentofdgs.pdf?nocdn=1.

Shurson, Jerry. Impact of Distillers’ Grains on Indirect Land Use, presentation at the National Corn Grower Land Use Conference, St. Louis, 

MO, August 25-26, 2009, http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/ppt-swine/2009-

Shurson-%20Impact%20of%20distillers%20grains%20on%20indirect%20land%20use%20change.pdf.

Shurson, Jerry, and Abdorrahman S. Alghandi. “Quality and New Technologies to Create Corn Co-Products from Ethanol Production,” Using 

Distillers Grains in the U.S. and International Livestock and Poultry 

Industries, Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center 

at the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, pp. 231-59, 2008, http://www.card.iastate.edu/books/distillers_grains/

pdfs/chapter10.pdf.

Shurson, Jerry, and Mindy Spiehs. Feeding Recommendations and Example 

Diets Containing Minnesota-South Dakota Produced DDGS for Swine, 

Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, 2002, http://

www.ddgs.umn.edu/feeding-swine/exampleswinediets-revised.pdf.

Shurson, Jerry, Mindy Spiehs, Jennifer Wilson, and Mark Whitney. “Value 

and use of “new generation” distillers’ dried grains with solubles in swine 

diets,” presented at the 19th International Alltech Conference, Lexington, 

KY, May 13, 2003a, http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/articles-swine/2003-

Shurson-%2019th%20Internatl%20Alltech%20Conf.pdf.

Shurson, J., C. Santos, J. Aguirre, and S. Hernandez. “Effects of Feeding 

Babcock B300 Laying Hens Conventional Sanfandila Layer Diets 

Compared to Diets Containing 10 percent Norgold DDGS on Performance 

and Egg Quality,” Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council and 

the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 2003b.
48

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Siegel, Victoria. “Corn Dried Distillers Grains and Mycotoxins,” presentation 

made at the 14th Annual Distillers Grain Technology Council Symposium, Indianapolis, Indiana, May 12-13, 2010.

Staff, Charles, Executive Director, Distillers Grain Technology Council.

Written communication, March 14, 2011.

Stanton, T.G. Bypass Protein for Cattle no. 1.609, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, June 1998, http://docs.google.com/viewer?a

=v&q=cache:g1Z8eXUzig8J:www.cheboygancoop.com/animalscience/

beef/01609.pdf+bypass+protein+for+cattle,+no.+1.609.+colorado+

state+extension,+t.l.+stanton&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADG

EESgF1gNWlusRRGeec26TVPMDEQZfwmb7XO5Q7UDpBnKKxbe6Op5cZEdjeVv7CiCXYrefKTa3dZCEhReSDZ2tAJvupa1sJzG2gPzyiJVllaDuvzqCmBwlyfxlA32IOjxnIodtpUNd&sig=AHIE

tbSY_TsSfddwEN5k6qxwAcInldpzbA.

Stein, Hans H. “Distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) in diets fed to 

swine,” Swine Focus #001, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 

Department of Animal Science, 2007, http://www.distillersgrains.org/files/

feedsource/swine_brochure.pdf.

Stein, Hans H. “Use of Distillers Co-products in Diets Fed to Swine,” Using 

Distillers Grains in the U.S. and International Livestock and Poultry 

Industries, Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center 

at the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, pp. 79-97, 2008, www.card.iastate.edu/books/distillers_grains/pdfs/

chapter4.pdf.

Tisch, David. Animal Feeds, Feeding and Nutrition, and Ration Evaluation 

with CD-Rom, Delmar Cengage Learning: Clifton Park, New York, 2006.

Tjardes, Kent, and Cody Wright. “Feeding Corn Distiller’s Co-Products 

to Beef Cattle,” ExEx 2036, South Dakota State University, College of 

Agriculture & Biological Sciences and USDA Cooperative Extension 

Service, 2002, http://pubstorage.sdstate.edu/AgBio_Publications/articles/

ExEx2036.pdf.

Trenkle, Allen. “Evaluation of Wet and Dry Distillers Grains with Solubles 

for Finishing Holstein Steers,” report to the Iowa Corn Promotion 

Board, November 2003, http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/articles-beef/2003-

Trenkle-%20FINAL%20ISU12-03.pdf.

Trostle, Ronald, Daniel Marti, Stacey Rosen, and Paul Westcott. Why Have 

Food Commodity Prices Risen Again? WRS-1103, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, June 2011, http://www.ers.usda.

gov/Publications/WRS1103/.

University of Minnesota. Distillers Grains By-products in Livestock and 

Poultry Feeds, http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/.

University of Minnesota. Nutrient Profiles: Archived Data (U.S.), 

http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/profiles-archived-us.htm.
49 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Feed Grains

Database, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/feedgrains/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 

Administration. “What are Mycotoxins?” Grain Fungal Diseases & 

Mycotoxin Reference, pp. 7-12, September 2006, http://archive.gipsa.usda.

gov/pubs/mycobook.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Cattle. January 29, 2010, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/

Catt//2010s/2010/Catt-01-29-2010.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Cattle Final Estimates, 2004-2008, SB-1019, March 2009, http://usda.

mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB989/sb1019.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Chicken and Egg Annual Summary, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/

MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1509.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

Ethanol Co-Products Used for Livestock Feed, 2007, http://usda.mannlib.

cornell.edu/usda/current/EthFeed/EthFeed-06-29-2007_revision.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Hogs and Pigs: Final Estimates, SB-1020, March 2009, http://usda.

mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB986/sb1020.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Poultry Production and Value, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/

viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1130.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Quarterly Hogs and Pigs, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/

viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1086.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, World Agricultural Outlook Board (USDA, WAOB). USDA Agricultural Projections 

to 2020, OCE-111, February 2011, http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/

archive_projections/USDAAgriculturalProjections2019.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, World 

Agricultural Outlook Board (USDA, WAOB). World Agricultural Supply 

and Demand Estimates, WASDE-498, September 12, 2011, http://usda.

mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/wasde/wasde-09-12-2011.pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. Petroleum Supply Monthly, October 

28, 2010, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/

petroleum_supply_monthly/psm.html.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FY 2010 Nationwide Survey of Distillers 

Grains for Antibiotic Residues, memorandum from Director, Office of 

Surveillance and Compliance, September 30, 2009, http://www.fda.gov/
50

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

AnimalVeterinary/Products/AnimalFoodFeeds/Contaminants/ucm190907.

htm.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Mycotoxins in Feeds: CVM’s Perspective,” presentation made to Risk Management Agency by Michael Henry, 

Division of Animal Feeds, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug 

Administration, August 23, 2006, http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/

Products/AnimalFoodFeeds/Contaminants/ucm050974.htm.

U.S. Grains Council. DDGS User Handbook, March 2007, http://www.

grains.org/ddgs-information/217-ddgs-user-handbook.

Vander Pol, Kyle J., Galen E. Erickson, Matthew A. Greenquist, Terry J.

Klopfenstein, and Thomas Robb. “Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Wet 

Distillers Grains on Feedlot Performance of Finishing Cattle and Energy 

Value Relative to Corn,” Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports, University of 

Nebraska-Lincoln, Animal Science Department, pp. 51-3, 2006.

Vander Pol, Kyle J., Galen E. Erickson, and Terry J. Klopfenstein. “Degradable Intake Protein in Finishing Diets Containing Dried Distillers Grains,” 

Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Animal 

Science Department, pp. 42-4, 2005.

Wang, Z., S. Cerrate, C. Coto, F. Yan, and P.W. Waldroup. “Use of Constant 

or Increasing Levels of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) in 

Broiler Diets,” International Journal of Poultry Science 6(7): pp. 501-7, 

2007a.

--------, “Effect of Rapid and Multiple Changes in Level of Distillers Dried 

Grain with Solubles (DDGS) in Broiler Diets on Performance and Carcass 

Characteristics,” International Journal of Poultry Science 6(7): pp.

725-31, 2007b.

Westcott, Paul. “Distillers Grains: Livestock Sector Uses and Implications 

for Feed Use of Corn and Soybean Meal,” presented at World Commodity 

Outlook Conference, Washington, DC, May 2008.

Westcott, Paul. Ethanol Expansion in the United States: How Will the Agricultural Sector Adjust? FDS-07D-01, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, May 2007, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fds/2007/05may/fds07d01/fds07d01.pdf.

White, H., B. Richert, S. Radcliffe, A. Schnickel, and M. Latour. “Distillers 

Dried Grains Decreases Bacon Lean and Increases Fat Iodine Values 

(IV) and the Ratio of n6n:n3 but Conjugated Linoleic Acids Partially 

Recovers Fat Quality,” Journal of Animal Science 85(Supplement 2): p. 78 

(Abstract), 2007.

Whitlow, Lon. “Mycotoxins and Distillers Grains,” Know Mycotoxins, North 

Carolina State University, http://www.knowmycotoxins.com/documents/

WhitlowEnglish.pdf.
51 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Wilson, J.A., M.H. Whitney, G.C. Shurson, and S.K. Baidoo. “Effects of 

Feeding Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) to Gestation and 

Lactation Diets on Reproductive Performance and Nutrient Balance in 

Sows,” Journal of Animal Science 81(Supplement 2): pp. 47-8 (Abstract), 

2003.

Wisner, Robert. Estimated U.S. Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles 

(DDGS) Production and Use, Iowa State University, University Extension, April 2011, http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/outlook/

dgsbalancesheet.pdf.

Xu, G., S.K. Baidoo, L.J. Johnston, J.E. Cannon, D. Bibus, and G.C.

Shurson. “Effects of Dietary Corn Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles 

(DDGS) and DDGS Withdrawal Intervals, on Pig Growth Performance, 

Carcass Traits, and Fat Quality,” Journal of Animal Science 86 (Supplement 2): p. 52 (Abstract), 2008.
52

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

We estimated the potential amounts of DDGS fed per corn crop year by 

computing the potential daily use of DDGS by livestock/poultry, multiplied 

by the number of days fed per year, multiplied by the number fed during the 

year, and then summed by type of livestock/poultry for the potential DDGS 

fed per year. Our potential daily inclusion levels of DDGS into the diets of 

livestock/poultry were taken from current literature (see table 2). Nutritionists typically use energy, protein, amino acid, and mineral content to balance 

livestock/poultry diets. The optimum set of ingredients may change over 

time depending on changing prices of competing feed ingredients, age of 

the livestock/poultry, or whether the livestock/poultry is used for breeding or 

market stock. Our estimates attempted to incorporate most of these variables.

We assume that DDGS are priced so that they are economical to include in 

the diet of livestock/poultry. In most cases, we used a DDGS inclusion rate 

for the livestock/poultry diet that represented either the low end or mid-point 

range of maximum potential inclusion rates established in the literature (see 

table 2). We do not use the extreme maximum inclusion rate because we do 

not assume an adoption rate. Thus, we use a lower inclusion rate to compensate for the unknown adoption rate.

Beef Cattle

Cows—Our research was based on a 22.3 pound dry matter intake for a 

1,175 pound beef cow in the last trimester of pregnancy (National Research 

Council, 2000). We assumed the cow was on a low quality grazing/highroughage diet over the winter and in need of diet supplementation. A 20 

percent DDGS inclusion rate was used for the cow on a high roughage diet 

(U.S. Grains Council, 2007). For the cow on a grazing diet, we assumed that 

2 pounds per day of DDGS were fed (Klopfenstein, 2010). The daily potential amount of DDGS fed to beef cows (as fed) = a weighted average of 3.55 

pounds (((22.3 pounds of dry matter per day x 20 percent DDGS inclusion 

rate (high-roughage diet)) + (2 pounds per day for the grazing diet)) x 110 

percent to convert to an as fed basis. We assumed that these cows were fed 

over the winter for a period of 90 days. The cattle numbers fed were derived 

from a January 1st inventory number (USDA/NASS) (see tables 3 through 7).

Beef cow replacement heifers—We assumed that two classes of heifers were 

fed based on annual inventory numbers provided by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, annual cattle inventory report (USDA/NASS, 2009-11). NASS 

reported the number of heifers for beef cow replacement and the number 

expected to calve. Younger heifers not expected to calve equaled the difference between these two inventory numbers. Heifers expected to calve were 

assumed to be 900 pound animals with an average daily dry matter intake 

of 19.0 pounds during the last 4 months prior to calving (Ensminger et al., 

1990). Heifers not expected to calve were assumed to be 650 pound animals 

with an average daily dry matter intake of 15.6 pounds (Ensminger et al., 

1990). We assumed that both types of heifers were fed at a 20-percent DDGS 

inclusion rate (Klopfenstein et al., 2008; U.S. Grain Council, 2007). The 

daily potential amount of DDGS fed to heifers = a weighted average of 3.89 

Appendix A: Estimating Potential DDGS 

Use by Livestock/Poultry Industry
53 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

pounds ((19.0 pounds daily dry matter intake x 20 percent inclusion rate x 

percent of all beef cow replacement heifers expected to calf (3,563/5,835 = 

60.7 percent as of January 1, 2007)) + (15.6 pounds daily dry matter intake 

x 20-percent inclusion rate x percent of all beef cow replacement heifers not 

expected to calf (2,272/5,835 = 39.3 percent as of January 1, 2007))) x 110 

percent to convert to an as fed basis. These animals were assumed to be fed 

DDGS for 120 days.

Cattle on feed—We assumed that 950 pound steers consumed 22.1 pounds 

of dry matter per day with a 35-percent DDGS inclusion rate (Klopfenstien 

et al., 2008; Erickson et al., 2007). The daily amount of DDGS fed to cattle 

on feed = 8.51 pounds (22.1pounds of daily dry matter intake x 35-percent 

DDGS inclusion rate) x 110 percent to convert to an as fed basis. The 

35-percent inclusion rate represents either wet or dry feeding of distillers’ 

grains with solubles. We assumed that these animals were fed 365 days of the 

year. The number of cattle fed came from USDA, NASS, 2009-11.

Other cattle—This category included other heifers, steers, and bulls 

weighing more than 500 pounds not in a feedlot and calves weighing less 

than 500 pounds. For the heavier animals, we assumed that a 650 pound 

animal consumed 15.6 pounds of daily dry matter (National Research 

Council, 2000), and for the calves, we assumed that a 350 pound animal 

consumed 10 pounds of daily dry matter (Ensminger et al., 1990). The daily 

potential amount of DDGS fed to other cattle = a weighted average of 2.80 

pounds ((15.6 pounds daily dry matter intake x 20-percent inclusion rate x 

percent of heifers, steers, and bulls over 500 pounds not in a feedlot (48.9 

percent as of January 1, 2007)) + (10.0 pounds daily dry matter intake x 

20-percent inclusion rate x percent of calves under 500 pounds and not in a 

feedlot (51.1 percent as of January 1, 2007))) x 110 percent to convert to an 

as fed basis. We assumed that these animals for both categories were fed 120 

days of the year.

Dairy Cattle

Cows—We used a 52.0 pound mid-lactation daily dry matter intake times a 

20-percent DDGS inclusion rate to arrive at the daily amount fed (Hutjens, 

2008; Schingoethe, 2008). We computed a weighted daily average amount of 

DDGS fed to account for lactating and dry cows. For example, we assumed 

that the cows lactated for 305 days and were dry for 60 days per year. We 

assumed that a 1,500 pound dry cow was fed an average daily dry matter of 

27 pounds (average during the dry period) (Hutjens, 2008) with a 10-percent 

DDGS inclusion rate (Schingoethe, 2008). Daily potential amount of DDGS 

fed to dairy cows = a weighted average of 10.05 pounds ((52.0 pounds daily 

dry matter intake x 20-percent inclusion rate x 305/365 days fed per year) 

+ (27.0 pounds average daily dry matter intake x 10-percent inclusion rate 

x 60/365 days fed per year)) x 110 percent to covert to an as fed basis. The 

inclusion rates represent either WDGS or DDGS.

Milk cow replacement heifers—We made assumptions on two classes of 

heifers based on the annual inventory numbers provided by USDA’s annual 

cattle inventory report (USDA/NASS, 2009-11). These findings included 

the number of heifers for milk cow replacement and the number expected to 

calve. Younger heifers not expected to calve equaled the difference between 
54

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

these two inventory numbers. Heifers expected to calve were assumed to be 

880 pound animals with a daily dry matter intake of 19.4 pounds (Hutjens, 

2008). Heifers not expected to calve were assumed to be 660 pound animals 

with a 15.6-daily dry matter intake. The daily potential amount of DDGS 

fed to heifers = a weighted average of 3.98 pounds ((19.4 pounds daily dry 

matter intake x 20-percent inclusion rate x percent of heifers expected to 

calve as a percent of all milk cow replacement heifers (2,831/4,325 = 65.8 

percent as of January 1, 2007) x 110 percent to convert to an as fed basis.) 

+ (15.6 pounds daily dry matter intake x 20-percent inclusion rate x percent 

of heifers not expected to calve as a percent of all milk cow replacement 

heifers(1,494/4,325 = 34.2 percent as of January 1, 2007) x 110 percent to 

convert to an as fed basis)). We assumed these animals were fed DDGS for 

120 days per year.

Swine

To calculate the potential amount of DDGS fed to swine in a given crop year, 

we determined the average quarterly number of breeding swine per crop year 

and the average quarterly number of market hogs per weight group (USDA/

NASS, Quarterly Hogs and Pigs report, various years and quarters). We 

determined the inventory numbers for each category and assumed that they 

were fed for 365 days of the year.

Breeding swine—We assumed that each hog in the breeding swine category 

had two production cycles per year. So we assumed an average weight of 

358.3 pounds for a bred gilt, sow, and adult boar with a daily feed intake 

of 4.2 pounds per day and assumed that they were fed this diet for about 4 

months per production cycle, or a total of 8 months per year (Ensminger 

et al., 1990). We also assumed an average 363.8 pound lactating gilt and 

sow consumed 11.7 pounds of feed per day for 2 months per production 

cycle, or 4 months per year (Ensminger et al., 1990). We used a 20-percent 

DDGS inclusion rate in our calculations. The daily quantity of DDGS fed to 

breeding swine = a weighted average of 1.34 pounds (4.2 pounds of feed per 

day x 20-percent DDGS inclusion x 8/12 months) + (11.7 pounds of feed 

per day x 20-percent DDGS inclusion rate per day x 4/12 months).

Market swine—We calculated the number of market hogs fed based on the 

average quarterly inventory of market hogs by weight category. For example, 

we considered the following weight groups: 

1. Under 50 pounds market hogs were assumed to have been fed a ration of 

2 pounds per day with a 10- percent DDGS inclusion rate.

2. The 50-119 pound market hogs were assumed to have been fed a ration 

of 4.2 pounds per day with a 20-percent DDGS inclusion rate.

3. The 120-179 pound market hogs were assumed to have been fed a ration 

of 6.9 pounds per day with a 20-percent DDGS inclusion rate.

4. The 180 pounds and over market hogs were assumed to have been fed a 

ration of 6.9 pounds per day with a DDGS inclusion rate of 10 percent 

(Ensminger et al., 1990).
55 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

The daily quantity of DDGS fed to market hogs during 2006/07 = a weighted 

average of 0.68 pounds per day (2 pounds of feed per day x 20- percent 

DDGS inclusion rate x portion of all market hogs in the under 50 pounds 

category ( 20,823/56,688 = 37 percent) + (4.2 pounds of feed fed per day x 

20-percent DDGS inclusion rate x portion of all market hogs in the 50-119 

pound category (13,958/56,688 = 25 percent) + (6.9 pounds of feed fed per 

day x 20-percent DDGS inclusion rate x portion of all market hogs in the 

120-179 pound category (11,606/56,688 = 20 percent ) + (6.9 pounds of feed 

fed per day x 10-percent DDGS inclusion rate x portion of all market hogs in 

the 180 pounds and over category (10,301/56,688 = 18 percent ).

Poultry

To compute the potential amount of DDGS that poultry could be fed during 

the corn crop year, we calculated the amount of DDGS fed per day times the 

days fed per year times the number of birds fed. For the number of birds fed 

during the crop year, we used an average beginning-of-the-month inventory 

number for layers and pullets and the number of birds slaughtered for broilers 

and turkeys (see tables 3 through 7).

Layers—We assumed that layers were fed for 10 months of the year for 

egg production and 2 months of the year were allocated to molting. During 

the molting period, they receive nothing but water for 2 weeks, and for 

the remaining 6 weeks, they receive a maintenance ration (Ensminger et 

al., 1990). We assumed a DDGS inclusion rate of 12 percent. We assumed 

that a 60 week old layer consumed 1.65 pounds of feed per week while 

producing eggs and a maintenance diet of 1.01 pounds per week during 

molting (Ensminger et al., 1990). The daily amount of DDGS fed to layers = 

a weighted average of 0.026 pounds (( 0.2357 pounds of feed consumption 

per day x 12-percent DDGS inclusion x 10/12 months) + (0 pounds of feed 

consumption per day for 2 weeks) + (0.1442 pounds of feed consumption per 

day x 12-percent DDGS inclusion x 1.5/12 months)).

Pullets—We assumed that pullets were fed a 12-percent DDGS inclusion rate 

from 2 to 25 weeks, receiving an average of 0.1442 pounds per day for 365 

days (Ensminger et al., 1990). The daily amount of DDGS fed to pullets = 

0.017 pounds (0.1442 pounds of feed per day x 12-percent DDGS inclusion 

rate).

Broilers—We assumed that broilers were fed for 8 weeks, but for the first 

week DDGS were not included in the ration. The grow-finish ration lasted 7 

weeks, for which we assumed a 10- percent DDGS inclusion rate. We averaged the cumulative amount fed to male and female broilers for the 7 weeks 

and divided by 49 days for an average daily amount fed times the DDGS 

inclusion rate. The daily amount of DDGS fed to broilers = a weighted 

average of 0.022 pounds ((((11.49 total pounds for male broilers weeks 

2-7) + (9.75 total pounds for female broilers weeks 2-7) / 2) / 49days) x 10- 

percent DDGS inclusion rate in daily feed intake) (Ensminger et al., 1990).
56

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Turkeys—We assumed that turkeys were fed for 6 months (male) and 5 

months (female). DDGS were not fed to turkeys for the first 3 weeks. Starting 

week 4 and each week thereafter, DDGS were included in the ration at a 

10-percent inclusion rate. We assumed that during this period male turkeys 

consumed 114.09 pounds of feed and females consumed 54.3 pounds of 

feed. We summed and divided these numbers by 2 to get an average and then 

divided by 147 days (the number of days fed DDGS). The daily amount of 

DDGS fed to turkeys = a weighted average of 0.057 pounds ((((114.09 total 

pounds of feed for males turkeys weeks 4-24 + 54.3 total pounds of feed for 

female turkeys weeks 4-20 ) / 2) / 147 days ) x 10-percent of DDGS inclusion 

in daily feed intake) (Ensminger et al., 1990).
57 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix B: Effects of Alternative Market 

Share Assumptions Upon DDGS 

Substitution for Corn and Soybean Meal, 

by Type of Livestock/Poultry

Appendix table 1

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2006/07

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef cattle Dairy cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 42.0 43.3 10.4 4.3 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 5.3 5.4 1.3 0.5 12.5

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.73

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 0.92

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.27

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.32

12.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 5.3 2.4 1.2 0.3 9.1

 Alternative #2 6.3 4.0 0.9 0.3 11.5

12.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.3 3.4

 Alternative #2 0.0 3.4 0.4 0.2 4.0

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes for 1 

metric ton of feed consisting of 0.73 metric ton of corn and 0.27 metric ton soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton DDGS 

substitutes for 1.24 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.92 metric ton of corn and 0.32 metric ton of soybean meal.

Source: Renewable Fuels Association market share estimates and tables 10, 11, and 14 from this report.
58

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 2

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2007/08

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef cattle Dairy cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 39.3 42.0 13.0 5.7 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 6.9 7.4 2.3 1.0 17.6

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.73

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 0.90

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.27

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.33

17.6 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 6.9 3.3 2.0 0.5 12.8

 Alternative #2 8.3 5.4 1.6 0.6 15.9

17.6 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 4.1 0.2 0.5 4.8

 Alternative #2 0.0 4.7 0.7 0.4 5.8

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes for 

1 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.73 metric ton of corn and 0.27 metric of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric of DDGS 

substitutes for 1.23 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.90 metric ton of corn and 0.33 metric ton of soybean meal.

Source: Renewable Fuels Association market share estimates and tables 10, 11, and 14 from this report.

Appendix table 3

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2008/09

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef cattle Dairy cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 38.3 40.3 14.7 6.7 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 8.3 8.8 3.2 1.5 21.8

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.73

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 0.89

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.27

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.33

21.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 8.3 4.0 2.9 0.8 15.9

 Alternative #2 10.0 6.4 2.3 0.9 19.6

21.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 4.8 0.3 0.7 5.9

 Alternative #2 0.0 5.5 1.0 0.7 7.1

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes for 

1 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.73 metric ton of corn and 0.27 metric of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric of DDGS 

substitutes for 1.22 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.89 metric ton of corn and 0.33 metric ton of soybean meal.

Source: Renewable Fuels Association market share estimates and tables 10, 11, and 14 from this report.
59 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 4

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2009/10

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef cattle Dairy cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 40.4 39.4 11.8 8.4 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 10.3 10.0 3.0 2.1 25.5

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.73

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 0.90

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.27

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.32

25.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 10.3 4.5 2.7 1.1 18.6

 Alternative #2 12.3 7.3 2.1 1.3 23.1

25.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 5.5 0.3 1.1 6.9

 Alternative #2 0.0 6.3 0.9 0.9 8.2

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes for 

1.00 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.73 metric ton of corn and 0.27 metric ton of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton 

of DDGS substitutes for 1.22 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.90 metric ton of corn and 0.32 metric ton of soybean meal.

Source: Renewable Fuels Association market share estimates and tables 10, 11, and 14 from this report.

Appendix table 5

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2010/11

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef cattle Dairy cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 41.4 39.4 10.1 9.1 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 12.0 11.5 2.9 2.6 29.1

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.73

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 0.91

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.27

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.32

29.1mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 12.0 5.2 2.6 1.4 21.2

 Alternative #2 14.4 8.4 2.1 1.6 26.5

29.1 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 6.3 0.3 1.3 7.9

 Alternative #2 0.0 7.2 0.9 1.2 9.3

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes for 

1.00 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.73 metric ton of corn and 0.27 metric ton of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton 

of DDGS substitutes for 1.22 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.91 metric ton of corn and 0.32 metric ton of soybean meal.

Source: Renewable Fuels Association market share estimates and tables 10, 11, and 14 from this report.
60

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 6

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2006/07

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef cattle Dairy cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 45.2 42.8 6.0 6.0 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 5.6 5.3 0.8 0.8 12.5

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.73

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 0.93

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.27

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.31

12.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 5.6 2.4 0.7 0.4 9.0

 Alternative #2 6.7 3.9 0.5 0.5 11.6

12.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 2.9 0.1 0.4 3.4

 Alternative #2 0.0 3.3 0.2 0.3 3.9

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes for 

1 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.73 metric ton of corn and 0.27 metric ton of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of 

DDGS substitutes for 1.24 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.93 metric ton of corn and 0.31 metric ton of soybean meal.

Source: Wisner (2011) market share estimates and tables 10, 11, and 14 from this report.

Appendix table 7

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2007/08

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef cattle Dairy cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 47.6 40.4 6.0 6.0 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 8.4 7.0 1.1 1.1 17.6

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.74

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 0.94

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.26

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.30

17.6 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 8.4 3.2 0.9 1.3 13.1

 Alternative #2 10.0 5.1 0.7 1.6 16.6

17.6 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 3.9 0.1 1.3 4.5

 Alternative #2 0.0 4.4 0.3 1.1 5.2

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes for 

1 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.74 metric ton of corn and 0.26 metric ton of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of 

DDGS substitutes for 1.24 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.94 metric ton of corn and 0.30 metric ton of soybean meal.

Source: Wisner (2011) market share estimates and tables 10, 11, and 14 from this report.
61 

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 8

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2008/09

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef cattle Dairy cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 50.0 38.0 6.0 6.0 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 10.9 8.3 1.3 1.3 21.8

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.76

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 0.95

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.24

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.28

21.8 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 10.9 3.7 1.2 0.7 16.5

 Alternative #2 13.0 6.1 0.9 0.8 20.8

21.8 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 4.6 0.1 0.7 5.3

 Alternative #2 0.0 5.2 0.4 0.6 6.2

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes for 

1 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.76 metric ton of corn and 0.24 metric ton of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of 

DDGS substitutes for 1.23 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.95 metric ton of corn and 0.28 metric ton of soybean meal.

Source: Wisner (2011) market share estimates and tables 10, 11, and 14 from this report.

Appendix table 9

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2009/10

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef cattle Dairy cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 52.4 35.6 6.0 6.0 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 13.4 9.1 1.5 1.5 25.5

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.77

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 0.96

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.23

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.27

25.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 13.4 4.1 1.4 0.8 19.6

 Alternative #2 16.0 6.6 1.1 0.9 24.6

25.5 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 5.0 0.2 0.8 5.9

 Alternative #2 0.0 5.7 0.5 0.7 6.9

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes for 

1 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.77 metric ton of corn and 0.23 metric ton of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of 

DDGS substitutes for 1.23 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.96 metric ton of corn and 0.27 metric ton of soybean meal.

Source: Wisner (2011) market share estimates and tables 10, 11, and 14 from this report.
62

Estimating the Substitution of Distillers’ Grains for Corn and Soybean Meal in the U.S. Feed Complex / FDS-11-I-01

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 10

Total U.S. DDGS substitution for corn and soybean meal, by livestock/poultry type, crop year 2010/11

Type of livestock/poultry

Beef cattle Dairy cattle Swine Poultry Total

Estimated: 

 Market share (percent) 53.4 34.1 6.9 5.6 100.0

 Consumption (mmt) 15.5 9.9 2.0 1.6 29.1

Substitution rate for...1

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds of corn: Pounds

 Alternative #1 1.00 0.45 0.89 0.51 0.78

 Alternative #2 1.20 0.73 0.70 0.61 0.97

1 pound of DDGS substitutes for how many pounds 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.00 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.22

 Alternative #2 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.44 0.26

29.1 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt of corn: mmt

 Alternative #1 15.5 4.5 1.8 0.8 22.6

 Alternative #2 18.6 7.3 1.4 1.0 28.2

29.1 mmt of DDGS substitutes for how many mmt 

of soybean meal: 

 Alternative #1 0.0 5.5 0.2 0.8 6.5

 Alternative #2 0.0 6.3 0.6 0.7 7.6

mmt=Million metric tons.

1Converting from pounds to metric tons the substitution rate becomes—Alternative #1: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of DDGS substitutes for 

1 metric ton of feed consisting of 0.78 metric ton of corn and 0.22 metric ton of soybean meal. Alternative #2: Substitution rate = 1 metric ton of 

DDGS substitutes for 1.23 metric ton of feed consisting of .97 metric ton of corn and 0.26 metric ton of soybean meal.

Source: Wisner (2011) market share estimates and tables 10, 11, and 14 from this report.