A survey of purchasers of wheat middlings: storage, feeding A survey of purchasers of wheat middlings: storage, feeding practices, and problems practices, and problems

We surveyed 290 purchasers of wheat middlings (WM) from a single f lour mill located in central Kansas to characterize the incidence of transport and storage problems and to determine intended animal us e and method of feeding. Over 30% of the 106 respondents had encountered st orage problems with WM; mold, spoilage


Introduction
Wheat middlings (WM) is a high volume, economicall y important byproduct of milling wheat for flour.Often, the price of WM is lowest in the spring and early summer then increases in the fal l and winter.However, users making purchases during those low price periods have reported a variet y of problems, especially during extende d storage.Our objectives were to: 1) profile purchasers of WM from a flour mill located i n central Kansas; 2) characterize the incidence of transport and storage problems as affected by manner of storage and length of storage; and 3) determine intended animal use and manner of feeding.

Experimental Procedures
Questionnaires were mailed to 2 9 0 livestock producer s who had purchased WM directly from a flour mill in central Kansas.This mill has been pelleting and selling WM directly to producers since 1991.
A self-addressed stampe d envelope was enclosed with each questionnaire to improv e the response rate.Respondents were allowed 3 weeks to return the questionnaire before the data was summarized.We received 12 3 responses (42%), of which 17 were removed because of incomplete answers.

Producer Profile
Users from 23 Kansa s counties returned the questionnaires .Over 72% resided within 50 miles of the flour mill.The remaining 27% were split evenly between 51 to 75 and 76 to 100 miles.Respondents learned of the availability of WM from numerous sources; 15% becam e aware of WM through the Kansas Cooperative Extensi on Service.Private consultants and the news media eac h informed another 24%.Cost was the mo st important factor in the WM purchasin g decision.Nutrient content and WM availability were identified only as minor factors.Onl y 44% of the respondents indicated that they routinely analyze feedstuffs.
The primary use of WM was in beef cow and stocker/feedlot operations.Respondents owned or managed 12,272 beef cows and 27,496 stockers/feeders.Collectively, the respondents ha d purchased an average of 7,639 tons of WM annually during the past 3 years.

Transportation and Handling Considerations
Over 75% of the respondents transported 50% of the total WM tonnage by farm truck, whereas 1 4% transported over 35% of the total WM via semitrailer.Only 3% of the respondent s related problems with unloading pellete d WM.According to several user comments, pellets unload easier than bulk WM, although pe llet breakage can result in excessive concentrations of fines.

Storage Methods and Problems
Over 48% of respondents stored WM in bulk bins.Several (16.7%) reported storing WM on their farm truck s and other implements.Other means of storage included overhead bins (7.4%), wooden bins (6.5%), and hopper bins (5.6%).Approximately 2% reported flat storage and silos.
Thirty percent of the respondents encountered problems such as mold, spoilage, and bridging.They attributed the causes to direct m oisture contact, to the ability of WM to draw moistur e during periods of high humidity, and to high temperature of the WM when loaded at the mill.
Over 75% of the respondents reporting no storage problems purchased WM primarily during the winter months.In contrast, respondent s who experienced storage problems purchase d WM during the remainder of the year, especially during the summer.Respondents indicating no storage problems stored WM for 4 weeks or fewer.

Feeding Practices
Approximatel y 46% of respondents fed pellete d WM in bunks.Many commented that 3/16 in.pellets were not ideal for range or pasture use , especially in windy, wet, or muddy conditions, be cause of fines and wastage.Over 65% of the respondents were interested in buying 3/4 in.pellets.
Only 10.2% of the survey respondents experience d feeding problems with WM.Approximately 73% of s t ocker and 68% of cow operators fed between 2 an d 6 lb per head daily.Accordin g to the summary of comments, WM has caused diarrhea when overfed (10 lb or more ).Only one respondent indicated fed refusal of WM.A few respondents indicated poor feedlot p erformance with WM in finishing diets.Only 32% of the survey respondents indicated that they modified their mineral program to account for WM in the diet.