 Like Carl said, we have an opportunity to sit and have a conversation today with Dr. Galen Erickson, who is the University of Nebraska's Extension Feedlot Specialist. And him and his researchers have spent a great deal of time working in the area of co-product or byproduct research. And we asked him to, well, I think who went on the tour this morning of the ethanol plant? They have primarily worked in the area of corn, ethanol byproducts, and he'll tell you a little bit more. I won't do the justice needed to give him an introduction. But I twisted his arm a little bit to help us put on this presentation with the help of Dr. Greg Lardy, who's done extensive research in the sugar beet byproduct area. So without further ado, I hope we can go ahead and get started. Galen, can you hear us or see us or take the camera off me up here in my room? Prima, can you hear me? Yep. Prima, can you hear me? Prima. Prima. Prima. Prima. Prima. Prima. Prima. Prima. Prima. Prima. Prima. It is nice to not talk to you, but the challenge is that I want you to know that you're spending up any water. I'm not sure if you're spending up any water. We are experiencing flooding, but not here. The matter didn't matter. They're saying it made traveling quite difficult, and so we decided we would do it this way. I'm happy to share with you all some things we've done. I'm going to share with you some things we've done on you. There was great green. And I hope that you at least all the children today are in that calm land because I'm going to kind of jump right in to feeding the stillers green and what it's like. If you can hear me OK, Scott, maybe type me a note or something, but I will go ahead and get started. I want to recognize that there are a lot of people involved in the work that I'm going to be sharing here today. And again, I'm going to focus a little bit on you as a new bill was created here initially about diet, as well as the cow cast situation. OK, it's a PowerPoint that should be up, and I will go ahead. So this is a list of what I would call byproducts that we deal with in the cattle operation. On the top here is primarily byproducts of the ethanol plant. And so they are the stillers grains. And I'll talk about that there is traditional the stillers grains, which is 65% water, 35% dry matter. And then there is modified the stillers grains, which is 50% to 55% water and 45% to 50% dry matter. Then you can have dry to stillers grains if the plant chooses to dry it down. And then there's also a liquid that comes out of those plants called syrup or distiller soluble, sometimes called CCDS or condensed corn distiller soluble. Now, I don't want to forget about though that we have products like corn gluten feed either in the wet or dry form, which come out of plants like cargill's plant there and wapidin, which I think would be fairly close, and you can get it from other parts. Now, if all that's not confusing enough, and there is a lot of confusion over what's the stillers grains, what is gluten feed, it's going to get more and more challenging in the future because these plants are doing more and more things in their plants, such as removing oil or making other distiller products. And so I worry a little bit that there's still confusion out there over, OK, what is distiller's grains? What is gluten feed? And they're not the same thing. And we can talk about differences, but I'm going to focus today mostly on distiller's grains because that, I think, was the topic that they wanted to discuss. Now, all plants produce wet distiller's grains. Plants that are not close to livestock may dry that down and produce a product that's called dry distiller's grains. It's generally in a meal form. I hope those arrows are showing up, but those are, it's just like soybean meal and other canola meal that you'd probably be familiar with. Now, what many producers want, of course, is they don't want to feed the meal if they want to use dry and so they try and pellet it, or even in some cases, put it into a range cube. And I just want to point out that that's not an easy task because it doesn't pellet or go into a cube really well. Now, we've been able to get it mostly distiller's grains, but it's not a very hard cube with integrity. Now, there's really two ways to use these, both in feedlots and in cow calf situations, and I would say in general, you include it at low levels, less than 15% of what they eat on the cow calf side, two pounds, maybe, or three. And if you're doing it that way, you're using it as a protein source. And you know what, that works great. It's been done for all roughly 100 years because we've been doing that with whiskey distiller's grains forever. So that's not a real new concept, but I do want to make sure it's clear that using distiller's grains as a protein supplement is very cost effective in most cases, and works quite well. Now, what we've been focused on here the last 10 or 15 years though is how can we use much, much more and primarily use it as an energy source. And that could be an energy source and a cow calf situation as well with backgrounding calves or with cows that you may want to put a condition on. So point is, is that with all this distiller's that we have at least across the US, but particularly here in Nebraska, we've been focused on how much can we use feeding much greater amounts than 15%. So the questions that we get commonly is, okay, how does this feed relative to corn? And so we went back and we wanted to summarize wet distiller's grains experiments we've done, which included 20 different trials. We wanted to look at modified distiller's grains, which we had four experiments on. And then we wanted to look at dry distiller's grains, which again, we had four trials on. And so I'm just gonna give you the summary of that and that's in this table. So if you're a feedlot producer and you're buying either wet, modified or dry distiller's grains and you're feeding it at either 10, 20, 30 or 40%, this is the value, if you will, to the cattle relative to corn. So what does that mean? That means that if you're gonna buy dry distiller's grains and feed it at 30% of the diet, it is going to result in performance that's about 110, 111% the energy of corn. Now notice that if you look at wet distiller's grains, it's about 137% at 30% inclusion. And again, that's a summary of lots of different trials. The wet distiller's grains, the one we've studied the most and that's 20 experiments there over the last 18 years. So my point is, is that buying distiller's grains, you should expect better performance than corn. If they were all 100, that means you would expect identical performance as if you were just replacing corn or feeding corn, that they're all greater than 100 means that in fact the performance is better than what you would see with just feeding corn. So that's a good thing because historically you can purchase them considerably cheaper than corn. And that's why we see everybody in Nebraska particularly using this and using it at fairly high levels. My guess is that the inclusion level on average in Nebraska is somewhere between 30% and 40%. Now I've got to point out here that that's on a dry matter basis. And that's important when you look at wet feed. It's sort of like feeding silage if you have experience with silage. You've got to include even more on an as-fed basis to account for the, because that ingredient's wetter. So I want to make sure that's clear to everybody that those inclusions in the diet are on a dry matter basis and we'll talk more about that later on today. Now the other thing to notice is that the modified is sort of in between the dry and the wet and that the dry doesn't give you as good a performance as feeding wet. And that's the case at least with feedlot cattle. Now notice that none of those were compared in the same experiment. And so we thought that wet was gonna give us better performance than dry and that's been done in certain experiments. But the modified we were unsure of and our data if you just look at averaging all these different experiments looks like it's in between. So to test that, oh I'm sorry, here before I get to that here is sort of the analysis that gives you those data in pounds per day. So this is available in our Nebraska beef reports which you can have access to. But this looks at how average daily gain and feed the gain change when you go from zero to 40%. And I hope that shows up okay. But for dry to stillers grains gain will go from three, five to four pounds a day and conversions go from six, five to six, two. And that's again across all of these different studies. Wet to stillers grains on the other hand, notice is that gain goes from three, five. I'm sorry, I think that's a mistake. That first one here is a mistake. That's wet to stillers grains. This is modified to stillers grains and this is dry to stillers grains down here. I apologize, there's a mistake on that slide. Point is that wet to stillers grains conversions got better. Modified to stillers grains conversions get better and dry to stillers grains conversions get better but not as dramatic as with the wet. Now like I mentioned, none of those had been compared in the same experiment. And so Brandon Nuttelman, a PhD student is going to release this in our 2012 Nebraska beef report where he compared feeding wet, modified and dry to stillers grains listed across the top there in the same experiment to the same cattle and we wanted to compare performance. I couldn't have made these data up better because if you look at the average daily gain, it is identical across those three types of feed. They all gained about four pounds a day but the cattle fed wet to stillers grains it only took 25 pounds of feed to put on that four pounds a gain. For the cattle fed modified, it took 26.4 and for the cattle fed dry, it took 27.1. So a very typical energy response at least for finishing cattle. And so that gives you conversions that went from six one to six seven and the modified is sort of right in between at six three. No effect on carcass trait or quality grade or yield grade. And so basically just tells us that wet better than dry. Now, in all cases, in this study, we did have a corn control in all cases the cattle fed, any of the stillers grains did better than the cattle fed corn. But not the dry to stillers grains is not a good feed. It's that the wet appears though to give you better energy performance than the dry. I also wanna point out that this was included at either 20, 30 or 40% in the diet and this is the average then of about a 30% inclusion. Now, there's also been a lot of questions before I sort of wrap up the feedback stuff. There's been a lot of questions about what does feeding to stillers grains due to carcass characteristics. And ironically, a few years ago when quality grades were getting poorer, people said, well, it's because we're feeding more to stillers grains. And now this last year, a year and a half quality grades as an industry been very good. And ironically, it's because we're feeding more to stillers grains is what people say now. My point is, is that in all of our studies, this is looking at back fat thickness as you increase the level of the stillers grains in the diet on the X axis, fat depth gets better or they get a little fatter with same days on feed. And marbling score, which is really your measure of quality grade certainly isn't depressed. It actually gets a little better as we feed increasing levels. And then it does start to tail off some but that's about exactly the same as what the average daily gain graph looks like. I have all of these slides I think are available to you as well, I've cut out some for the sake of time so you'll have to kind of see where those are at if you have those available to you. Okay, the other thing that we see a lot of people doing is that as we feed to stillers grains and particularly wet to stillers grains, they want to look at what happens to how much roughage I have to feed. And so Josh Benton as part of his PhD looked at feeding no roughage, three to 6% roughage or six to 12% roughage. And you may wonder why we have a range on those. The reason there's a range there is because we were comparing corn silage, corn stalks and alfalfa hay. And so for example, in this normal level of roughage that's 12% corn silage, 6% corn stalks or 8% alfalfa hay. And the reason we use those levels is because that was equal fiber in the diet from roughage. Notice that as we added roughage, intake went up in a linear manner. Average daily gain increased as well in a linear manner. And feed to gain, that's a mistake. This is actually pounds of feed per pound to gain was actually best for the cattle fed no roughage, which by the way is not an untypical response or atypical response. But notice that when we feed roughage, intake goes up, gain goes up, maybe equal or even slightly poor conversion. Here's the point though, because of the extra gain and intake, we don't recommend pulling roughage out of diets when we put in the stillers grains and place the corn, which I know is a common thought process, but we just don't see that as a benefit. However, what we do see is that when you compare alfalfa hay to corn silage to corn stalk, in other words, the lower quality roughage, historically the alfalfa would do a little better than silage, which would be quite a bit better. Those two would be quite a bit better than corn stalk. And what we see in this case is no effect on average daily gain and no effect on feed conversion. Now this wasn't significant, but if anything, a little better profit because the corn stalks are cheaper and you can buy them and you're replacing corn, generally speaking, at lower inclusions. Okay, I wanna talk a little bit more about sulfur and then I'll talk about cow calf, but before I get to the sulfur, I just wanted to touch on this. There are limitations to how much we can use and to be honest, that's what we're studying down here now is not can we feed it at 30% and that it works well, it's can we feed it at 60% and make that work well. And so I just wanna talk about what we perceive by the limitation. Eventually, fat in the diet becomes a limitation for cattle and we've gone very high in terms of dietary fat and we've had some mixed results, but the only time we've had trouble with high fat in the diet wasn't because of distillers grains, it was because of a different source of fat besides the distillers grains. So I don't see fat being a major limitation in my opinion, based on our data. Sulfur is a limitation and I wanna talk about that. Protein and phosphorus and the fiber that come with the distillers grains are not much of an issue. Now I did not discuss the process, but it's because I was hoping you were on the plant tour and they would have gone through this, but essentially you take grain and you remove the starch out of the grain to make ethanol. So all the things left in corn or in the grain that you use can be other grains, but let's just say it's corn. All the things left in corn besides starch are increased three times. And the reason they're increased three times is because there's about two-thirds starch in the corn. So if you take two-thirds away, all the other things left besides starch, such as protein, fiber, phosphorus, fat are all increased three-fold. So example is if corn is 4% oil or fat, the distillers grain should be 12% fat. If protein is 10% protein in corn, the distillers grain should be 30. So I just wanna point that out. But the protein and the phosphorus and the fiber are not really issues in terms of limiting how much is good for performance. They are certainly more challenging from an environmental perspective, which is important to us, but it won't hurt the cattle per se. So why are producers feeding more and more is because generally speaking, it's worth more than corn and they're buying it cheaper than corn and that's why they wanna feed as much as possible. I just wanna end though on this with one comment that our data suggests that there's really not a lot of incentives to going above 40% economically. This doesn't seem to pay. 40% inclusion is a good inclusion. Unless corn goes much greater than the price it is today, we don't see a large incentive to go at more than 40% inclusion in feedlot diets. That might be the same by the way in growing diets as well. Okay, before I touch on sulfur, we gotta discuss what is the stillers grain and that the plants that you buy from are the plants you need to find out what they produce. But we wanna know just in general, what is the stillers grains like? So we worked with six Nebraska ethanol plant. We sampled those plants, 10 semi loads a day for five days in a row and we did that for four different months. And our distillers grains was 31% protein across the state, 12% fat, 0.8% phosphorus and about 0.8% sulfur. And the last thing I wanna point out before we talk about sulfur is the fat provides a lot of energy and there's a lot of discussion on removing some of that fat. And so you really need to find out if the plan is removing fat or not. And then a lot of people use DDGs. They say DDGs and I think they think the S is the plural. That's not the case. The S stands for the soluble, which is important component to add back to the grain. I hope that was discussed in the tour that you had. Okay, why is sulfur important? Well, there's pockets, especially in the Dakotas. I'm assuming that that's the case in parts of North Dakota where the water can be high in sulfur. And that may limit how much you can feed these products because they're 0.8% sulfur. We can talk about why that's the case, but they're also variable. Well, the NRC says that cattle can tolerate a maximum of 0.4% sulfur. And then in a newer book on mineral tolerances, they actually say 0.3% sulfur and grain-based diet. We didn't believe that was right because we fed a lot of cattle more sulfur than that. So we went back and we looked at $17,000 head of cattle that we finished in our university research feedlot over an eight-year period. And here's the problem with sulfur, if you're not familiar with it. If cattle get too much sulfur, it can cause a disease called sulfur-induced polio in Cephalo-Malacia. Now that's a mouthful, and so no one calls it that. They call them either polios or even a better term I like is brainers. And they call them that because it's a central nervous system problem where the cattle actually are uncoordinated and can fall down, can lead to death that goes untreated. We just completed this analysis and it's being released now in our new beef report and in different venues. Okay, so here's what we observed. If you look at dietary sulfur, and this is in the Stiller's Grains Diet, and a no fiber diet or no roughage, excuse me, a normal roughage diet which is in blue or a higher 2X normal if you will roughage diet, what happens is is that as you feed more sulfur, polio incidence gradually increases at some point. And that's really the key is what point does the polios increase? You'll notice that with no roughage in the diet, that point is back here around point four. With normal levels of roughage, we estimate that it's around point five. If you have higher levels of roughage, it seems to help reduce the incidence of polio. Now, this might be for Karina and Karl and Greg and some of those more interested in the nutrition, but looking at total dietary sulfur is also not a good idea. We think it's better to look at it the same way we look at protein and look at it as degradable sulfur. Frankly, for producers, that's probably not a big deal, but this is looking at room and degradable sulfur is here on the X axis and the same trend occurs. Point is, is somewhere between point four and point 5% sulfur is where we've got to really be watching dietary sulfur. And again, I'll remind you that if your water is high in sulfur, that just exasperates this problem. You have to account for how much is in, how much sulfur is in your water. This is the graph of the first month that we were out sampling those plants. So sample zero to 50 is one plant. Notice that this plant varied from point four, point four, five to as high as 1.7% sulfur. So it had the lowest and easily by far the highest. Notice that this plant, which goes from here to here, ran higher than all the rest, but was fairly consistent around one to 1.2. This is what we have to deal with, is that if you're buying from this plant versus this plant, you have to know. And especially if you happen to be the producer that gets that load. So that's why we are interested in sulfur. Now we did this the first month and then we went out and talked with the plants and this is what it looked like the last month. So I'd like to take all the credit for the improvement that these plants made, but they basically paid more attention and now it's all running point seven. And you know what? We can deal with this. We know how to deal with this and how much we can feed if it's always gonna be, excuse me, if it's always gonna be point seven. Now, before Polio happened, we also wanted to look at Kansas State did a very nice experiment looking at levels of sulfur in distillers grains. And we looked at feeding either a low sulfur or a high sulfur, what we thought were anyway low and high sulfur distillers grains and what that does to perform it. And what we saw is that this line right here, the solid lines are the high sulfur distillers grains. We fed it either wet or dry and we fed it at either 20, 30 or 40% inclusion. And notice that as you fed higher inclusion of the high sulfur distillers grains, intake drop compared to the low sulfur, how much they gained, which it shows up here as hot carcass weight drops off as sulfur gets either either high sulfur distillers grains and it has to be fed at high inclusions, intake dropped off, gain and carcass weights dropped off. Interestingly, there was really no effect on feed conversion. These two lines here are the wet, these two lines here are the dry. So in general, feeding more sulfur, even if it doesn't cause Polio, generally will reduce intakes and reduce gain probably with little to no impact on feed conversion. And I know there's been work on sulfur in the Dakotas as well. And that data is very similar that cattle tend to eat less, gain less and not a big impact on feed conversion. Okay, so to wrap up the feed lot part, wetter's better and the distillers have been very economical. We've got to think about how much we've got to feed, especially as grain gets more expensive. Okay, so a few things then on the carcass side, experiences that we've had here at Nebraska and things to think about. You know, we've looked at feeding it to cows on a limit feeding basis. We've looked at winter supplementation and the impact on reproduction. We've looked at feeding different forms of it, meaning the dry, the wet, the pellets, et cetera. We've looked at replacing low quality forages primarily. And then we've looked at winter and summer programs. And we're currently looking at what happens if you supplement this at higher levels, will they replace some of the forage? I'm sure this isn't the case in North Dakota, but forages are fairly, pastures getting more and more expensive here. And so we're very interested in ways to reduce the needs for forages in the pasture as well. Very similar to what we did in the feed lot side. Will Griffon summarized, I think it was 18 experiments, looking at feeding more and more distillers grains. This is in pounds per head per day, supplement on cattle fed forage based diets in dry lot or on pasture. And the point of these two lines is that they're a little bit different, but both lines increase. If you have cattle fed a forage based diet, in this case they were gaining one, two to one, five. As you add the distillers grains to the diet, you will see fairly dramatic increases in average daily gains. We've looked at it, we use a lot of corn stock residue for grazing. This would be, I presume be very similar to native range response in the wintertime. Nice response in terms of gain on stock grazing as well. Out west at our Goodminton Ranch in the Sandhills, Dr. Lardy is very familiar with this ranch, did a lot of research there in the past. We've looked at supplementing in bunks or on the grounds and what the impact of that is. We've looked at supplementing dry distillers, and in this case this was wet distillers on the ground. Aaron Stocker took this picture who's at North Platte and he took it on a day when we had snow cover so you could see it, because after they eat it, you don't get to see any of it. And so one of the questions he had is well is it okay to supplement on the ground or not? Before I do that, he also in that study looked at three days a week versus six days a week. And this is with cows over the wintertime from December first to March first and supplementing as a protein source more or less at about a pound per cow per day. And basically if you supplemented three days versus six days a week, no difference in body weight and no difference in body condition score. However, if you looked at whether we put that supplement in a bunk or if they were supplemented on the ground, he was surprised that actually the bunk supplemented, cow supplemented in a bunk actually had less body weight loss. And if anything a difference, but if anything a slight increase in body condition score, compared to supplementing on the ground, wit suggests that they're not getting all that distillers grains picked up. Same idea with calves, growing calves in the winter, they were pretty light. Weaned calves, weaned about 400 pounds supplemented over the winter. In this case a little over two pounds a day from October to December. And here again, the calves supplemented on the bunks in the bunks gained more weight than calves supplemented on the ground suggesting that they're not picking it all up. So I'll let him discuss that with you if you ever have questions, but I think their arguments are is that bunks are best if you can do it. There's some advantages I know of supplementing on the ground, but something for you to think about. Oh, this is another study of the second year. Sorry, that was looking at 440 pound calves supplemented two pounds a day. In this case, it was from March to May. And I think this might have been on meadows as well, which is different than the upland range. But again, saw the very same difference if you will between supplementing in the bunk versus supplementing on ground. Now the last question I think I have on this issue for 4-H fed cattle is for backgrounding calves. And I know my time's about up, but this is probably the best summary of what we have looking at energy value of the stillers grains and it's relative to corn. So this is expressed as a percentage of corn again, but it's in 4-H based diet. And you just see there that there's five studies, excuse me, four studies, and the value's varied from 114 to 150%. And I know that's not great to have that much variation. And that's why I wanted to show you all the different numbers that we've observed over the last few years in 4-H based experiment. So here are the issues I see anyway. This is my opinion on the stillers grains in 4-H based diets. We do not see a very big difference between the wet and dry to stillers grains in 4-H based diets, which is kind of puzzling. It's an excellent protein source. There's no doubt about that. Again, that's been done for 100 years. It does work well in 4-H based diets because you don't have the starch that normally comes from supplementing corn or grain energy to cattle in 4-H based diets. The sulfur concern is less with 4-H based diets or with cows, it's not completely eliminated, but it's just less of a concern. To me, the challenge with cows is that if you wanna feed a lot of the stillers grains, the challenge is giving a poor enough quality 4-H. Maybe that won't be a challenge this year, but normally I think to be honest, you've gotta find as low a quality of 4-H to mix with the stillers. That's a challenge on the cow side. Otherwise, the cows are just getting weight and more weight than you may want. The biggest difference though is that in the 4-H side, you've gotta think about, do I wanna have wet or dry? How do I wanna handle that? If I'm gonna bring in wet, how do I store it? And then how am I gonna get it out there to those cows or those calves in extensive 4-H systems? Those are the challenges to me. Of course, it's always a challenge to make sure you get them economically. I'll be with you here all day, but I wanted to bring this up now as I've shared our best estimates of what we think feeding these the stillers grains and byproducts and feed lot diets and in 4-H based situations, what our data say, and we've provided that to you. I certainly, all of our data is also available on our beef website, just like what North Dakota State would do. And I just gotta recognize our Nebraska Corn Board because they fund a lot of our research on this issue. So Karina and Carl, I would turn it back to you guys and I don't know if people are still awake because I can't see you, but I hope this has worked okay and be open to any questions. I know I've taken at least my 30 minutes, so maybe there isn't time, but everybody throw back. Hold on one second. How does it affect birth weight stillers if you fed two pregnant cows? Did you hear that question, Galen? I could. My volume was turned down on purpose. Could you repeat that one quick? What have you seen as far as birth weight on calves when feeding two pregnant cows? That's a good question. Rick Funston's done a lot of work and we've looked at a systems approach to where supplementing the cows in the winter time, what was the impact on that cast birth weight, weaning weights, frankly, feedlot performance, et cetera. And I don't remember all of the data that I have seen it all and I could look it up for you quickly, but birth weight, I know there was very little impact of supplementing the cow, the stillers grain, on subsequent birth weight of that calf if she was supplemented while the calf was in utero. Now there is impacts on the calf later in life and that's why I mentioned Rick Funston who's out at North Platte at our research station there. He and I know there's a lot of reproduction physiologists who are interested in this, but he's very excited about what we do to the cow and the long-term impacts or carryover effects on those calves, the fetal program and concept. And the stillers does have some positive benefits on that calf's lifetime production, but doesn't seem to influence birth weight as far as I recall the data. Have you done any research using distillers solubles? Yes, I knew I was gonna be long on my talk so I purposely left that out. We've looked at feeding solubles, the syrup, those are used interchangeably on both forage situations and in the feedlot and I don't know which one you might have wanted to know more about. Basically, and I'm a feedlot focused person so I'm more familiar with that feedlot work. On the forage side, we're starting to study it more and more and the solubles work well. We've looked at storing solubles by mixing it with hay and supplementing it to cattle. We've looked at supplementing solubles to growing calves. And to be honest, we're into breeding heifers, first calf heifers, basically backgrounding heifers. And to be honest, the solubles don't give us quite the same performance as supplementing distillers grains, but clearly it's much better than forage. So the thing we're trying to look at is, is that because it's limited in the kind of protein that it has or is it too much fat? Because the solubles are quite high in fat and the fat becomes the limitation in a forage-based diet. I should have pointed that out. I said fat was not a concern in feedlot diets, in my opinion. It is a concern in forage-based diets and Greg and Carl and them there can discuss that more better than I can even. On the feedlot side, we've looked at feeding it. Alan Trenkel, who is at Iowa State, has probably done as much in the past on feeding solubles as anybody. He had fed it at zero to 15%. And to be honest, always saw nice performances, performance responses to feeding solubles. This last year we've looked at two studies we've done and we've fed it from zero to 36% in the diet and a corn-based diet alone as the only byproduct and the best level was 27% and that's on a dry basis. We went back and just completed a study though because no one's gonna just be feeding solubles in our state anyway. They're gonna feed the distillers grains at a certain level and then wanna feed more solubles on top of it. And so what we've done is we've looked at feeding 20% wet distillers grains and then adding solubles on top of it. And we did that up to another 21%. And the best level was 20% distillers, 14% solubles. That was a long answer, I hope that addressed it. All of that information, again, all of our research is available to you and Carl and Karina and them know how to get access to that. Much of this though that I just mentioned will not be out until December and our 2012 Nebraska DECA report. At what level protein will affect consumption? Excuse me, not consumption, conception. This is, that's an excellent question. Again, I'm a feedlot person so I hope that we don't have to deal with any conceptions in the feedlot. But Rick Funston, again, I keep discussing him. He would be a good person to consult on this. He's not seen any concerns on conception at the supplement levels that we've been feeding. And he's compared feeding anywhere from none up to roughly five pounds of dry matter of the distillers supplementation. And we thought, excuse me, I know we thought that he thought that early on that that excess protein would hurt conception. And that was based on quite a bit of work out of I think the Southwest, New Mexico, that excess protein hurts conception. We've not seen that here with the distillers grains feeding it at moderate levels. To be frank, there's no reason why you would be feeding five pounds per head per day for protein. In that case, you'd be feeding it for protein and energy. But regardless, he did not see any real negative impacts on conception. Again, Carl and Greg and Rick Funston and them might be able to address your question better than me. But I know protein has been a concern in the past on conception. It doesn't appear to be a concern with this source of protein. I should make it clear that that's up to that five pounds inclusion of dry matter per day. If you go real high, I don't know what the impact would be.