BE CRITICAL WHILE SELECTING THE PROTEIN SOURCEvcn.gov.np/uploads/files/Be critical while selecting...

BE CRITICAL WHILE SELECTING THE PROTEIN SOURCE

A GOOD QUALITY SOYBEAN MEAL PAYS DIVIDEND

Sudipto Haldar, PhD

Critical judgment is required while selecting the protein meal

• Protein rich ingredients constitute 20 to 30% of a poultry diet.

• Dietary protein/amino acids are one of the major contributors to the total feedcost next to the dietary energy.

• Quality of protein meal should be judged by their amino acid composition andnot by their crude protein content since animals need amino acids and notprotein per se.

• It is not always true that a higher crude protein value will result in a good aminoacid profile.

• A clear idea about the digestibility/availability of the protein meal has to be takeninto consideration.

• An incorrect assessment leads to either under-feeding or over-feeding of aminoacids leading either to under-performance or drainage of money.

Agrivet Consultancy P Ltd 2

Excess protein robs profitability

• Poultry birds, like all other animals do not need protein – what they need is the aminoacid in protein.

• The amino acids are required at certain ratios and mixing of different raw materials tomeet the most critical amino acid often leads to excess supply of the others.

• Roughly, to meet the requirement of Met, Lys, Thr and Try (the four most critical aminoacids) approximately 4% points of excess protein to be supplied which is otherwise notneeded.

• The amino acids in this excess protein get absorbed at a cost (mainly energy).

• The unabsorbed amino acids reaching hind gut create further trouble.

• The absorbed amino acids in excess can not be stored and need to be excreted afterdeamination.

• The whole process leads to negative energy balance.



Excess protein robs profitability: the basic biochemical basis

Deamination of excess amino acids Conversion to urea

• The undigested part of the protein which is supplied in excess of requirement and thus escapes digestion becomessubstrate for hind gut pathogen.

• The problem of wet litter increases since for every 1% increase in crude protein intake leads to 3% increase in waterintake in broilers – a paradoxical situation in hot summer…


Excess protein robs profitability: From science to practice

Lysine requirement (black) against supplied (red) Energy and lysine supplied in commercial diets

• Supply of lysine (applicable to other amino acids as well) is UNDERFED more towards the harvesting period.• Energy is mostly UNDERFED in the early phases while it remains slightly excess in the later phase of life.• Excess protein in the early phase should exaggerate the energy deficiency.



Hedging formula Consequences

Ascites, Sudden death

Lameness, skeletal deformity

• Nutrient requirement of birds varies on a day to day basis. However, it is not possible to formulate diet to meet the daily requirements.

• Excessive safety margin is not only eats up profit but at the same time puts pressure on bird’s performance.• Safety needs to be rationalized … BUT IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE?

Increasing the protein digestibility:

• Can be achieved by using some additives like proteases.

• However, there is no other way but to rely more on good quality vegetable protein sources,which really do not have any replacement.

• Selection criteria of vegetable protein sources must be very stringent

Using synthetic amino acids beyond L-threonine:

• Crude protein can be safely reduced by 2 percentage points by formulating on digestibleamino acid basis using feed grade amino acids.

• This can be brought down to 4 percentage points by a very experienced nutritionist.

• However, lowering the level of crude protein below a certain point is always risky consideringthe requirement of NEAA.

• Unfortunately, despite L-valine, L-arginine and L-tryptophan being available their price is stillnot feasible enough to slide into formulation.

• And there are two most important NEAA – serine and glycine…



SELECT THE RIGHT PROTEIN MEAL FOR MAXIMUM PROFIT


47

.21

45

.4 49

.89

40

.78

36

.85

33

.17

44

.6

34

.74

63

.22

48

.91

46

.52

40

.38

41

.57 4

9.0

1

35

.1

32

.65

23

.3

35

.98

29

.99

54

.2

41

.82

26

.54

51

.5

46

52

.95

46

.76

39

.13

40

.14

49

.56

38

.87

72

.65

54

.03

62

.42

SBM-1 SBM-2 SBM-3 CSM MDOC SFM GNC FFS CGM GUAR RICE DDGS

Mean Max Min


Vegetable protein meals and soybean meal: Crude protein (%)

Source: Evonik Ingredient Report 2017 (Asia South)

49

.89 58

.35

44

.67

60

.31

81

.94

49

.47

91

.05

49

.01

39

.68

36

.89 4

6.9

5

65

.3

40

.07

84

.64

52

.95

70

.81

58

.07 6

8

88

.35

67

.75

94

.69

SBM-HP FISH MEAL MBM POULTRY MEAL FEATHER MEAL MEAT MEAL BLOOD MEAL

Mean Max Min


Animal protein meals and soybean meal: Crude protein (%)


• Apparently, soybean meal can be replaced by any other protein meals.• The replacement should give either price benefit at the face value, or• Should compensate in terms of protein value of the meal. • However, variability is the lowest in soybean meal amongst all.


Soybean meal and other protein meals1

.37

1.7

1.2

9

6.1

2.5

5

15

.17

7.8

4

2.5

5.2

1

3.9

7.9

2

13

.55

6.5

2

5.3

9

3.1

2

5.8

5

2.0

4

SBM -R SBM -P SBM -HP CSM MDOC SFM GNC FFS CGM GUAR RICE DDGS

FISH MEAL

MBM POULTRY MEAL

FEATHER MEAL

MEAT MEAL

BLOOD MEAL

Coefficient of variation in protein content (%) of different protein meals



Soybean meal and other protein meals: Corn gluten meal and meat-bone meal

CP LYS MET M+C THR TRP ARG ILE LEU VAL

Mean 61.47 1.02 1.43 2.50 2.05 0.34 1.96 2.43 9.95 2.75

CV% 4.86 5.83 6.62 5.21 4.90 5.37 5.00 5.19 5.63 4.40

Min 47.97 0.78 0.91 1.72 1.59 0.23 1.50 1.86 7.26 2.09

Max 70.43 1.37 1.78 2.95 2.36 0.41 2.27 2.83 11.70 3.14

SID% 76 88 78 83 79 66 86 91 85


Mean 47.48 2.38 0.61 1.06 1.46 0.27 3.31 1.26 2.77 1.95

CV% 7.19 12.83 14.95 17.02 14.19 25.72 6.27 15.04 15.40 14.33

Min 34.50 1.25 0.30 0.49 0.75 0.04 2.19 0.66 1.51 1.08

Max 66.17 4.15 1.14 2.21 2.68 0.67 4.49 2.49 5.34 3.59

SID% 69 72 62 62 53 77 69 71 70

Meat – bone meal (n = 7428)

Corn gluten meal (n = 5451)


Soybean meal and other protein meals: Fish mealFish meal (n = 2904)


Mean 60.00 4.17 1.53 2.03 2.38 0.59 3.40 2.29 4.10 2.74

CV% 7.63 15.8 14.6 13.7 10.9 20.0 9.41 14.6 12.8 13.0

Min 44.74 2.17 0.90 1.28 1.53 0.28 1.93 1.39 2.57 1.69

Max 73.46 6.26 2.37 3.02 3.10 0.90 4.69 3.29 5.42 3.67

SID% 86 86 82 80 78 82 85 85 83

Fish meal Peru (n = 77)


Mean 66.19 5.09 1.83 2.40 2.70 0.74 3.65 2.68 4.69 3.16

CV% 3.94 6.27 6.93 6.13 5.25 7.07 4.03 5.57 5.18 5.67

Min 53.75 3.62 1.38 1.83 2.19 0.54 3.07 2.07 3.72 2.59

Max 71.46 5.71 2.08 2.70 2.98 0.86 4.00 3.01 5.19 3.53


What does a wide variation in protein meal mean for animal performance?

• Assume a feed formulation where 5% fish meal is used. Lysine content of fish meal is considered to be 2.38% andcontribution of lysine in diet from fish meal is assumed to be 5% x 2.38% = 0.119%.

• In reality, Lys in FM in different lots varied from 1.25 to 4.15%.• Diet containing FM with 1.25% Lys contributes 0.063% leading to a Lys deficiency of 0.056%.• What will be the consequences?

773

716

706

1.66

1.68

1.70

1.72

1.74

1.76

1.78

1.80

1.82

1.84

1.86

1.88

660.0

680.0

700.0

720.0

740.0

760.0

780.0

Control Protein CV 10% Protein CV20%

Gain g FCR

Wider the CV% in FM …1. Lower was the body weight gain2. Poorer was the FCR

On the other hand, if the FM batch actually usedin the feed mill was of high quality and contained4.15% lysine then it will lead to nutrient wastagewhich is again an additional cost that could havebeen saved if the actual analysed value was used. Source: Duncan 1988; Doranalli et al., 2014

• The profitability of production should get eaten up if there is a consistency

loss in terms of the quality of the protein supplied.

• This is the reason that soybean meal is the most preferred protein meal

amongst all.

• However, all soybean meals are not the same and variations do occur.


Soybean meal and profitability

Maintaining the quality of soybean meal is essential because:

1. Economics:

• With high quality soybean meal you get the most nutrients for your money.

2. PERFORMANCE:

• High quality soybean meal supports better growth, better feed efficiency and higher egg

production.

3. MORE PROFIT:

• Better performance generally results in lower cost per unit of production and greater

profits.


Soybean meal and profitability

• Protein content: the higher the better

• Fibre content: the lower the better

• Ash content: the lower the better

• Moisture content: about 12% and certainly not more than 15%

• Fat content: usually 1 to 2%

• Urea: must be negative as this may be added to increase the protein value

• Mycotoxins: Usually not an issue

Crude fibre is one of the major quality determinants because it indicates towards theextent of de-hulling performed.

The hulls are low in protein and hence to get a same quantity of protein it is necessary topurchase more weight of the low protein soybean meal.


Soybean meal quality determinants: The basic qualities

Optimum heat processing for maximum available amino acid contents.

• Heating improves digestibility of amino acids and improves performance.

• Overheating destroys amino acids and reduces performance.


Soybean meal quality determinants: The advance quality traits

Autoclave time min Lysine Methionine Cysteine Threonine

0 73 65 67 64

9 78 70 70 68

18 87 86 83 82

40 69 62 83 80

SID% 89 90 79 83

Effect of temperature on digestibility (%) of soybean meal amino acids

Parsons et al., 1992; Anderson-Haferman et al., 1992

Heat processing of soybean meal is essential to ensure that the anti-nutritional factors aredestroyed as much a possible with minimum impact on the nutrient quality.

• Perfect toasting is the best for optimum animal performance.

• The nutrients most vulnerable to heat damage are amino acids lysine and methionine.

• However, other amino acids and energy may also get destroyed by over heating.

Key indicators towards optimum processing:

• KOH solubility

• Protein dispersibility index

• Urease activity

• Reactive lysine

• Heat damage index



Meals with a KOH between 73 and 88% are considered acceptable quality. However, the best meals within this KOHacceptable range can be determined using protein dispersibility index (in water) or PDI. Soybean meal tested to have PDIbetween 20% and 35% with urease levels below 0.3 delta pH units but above 0.02 gives the best animal performance.



• KOH Protein Solubility: This assay is good at detecting over processing of SBM but not a sensitivemethod of detecting if the meal is under-processed. Optimum value suggested: 74 to 85%.

• Urease activity: This assay shows that enough heat is applied to destroy similar anti-nutritional factorslike trypsin inhibitor. The assay is useful for detecting if the meal is under-processed or not. Optimumvalue (∆pH) is 0.02 to 0.20.

• Trypsin inhibitor assay: Indicates optimum heating to destroy all ANFs. Optimum value is < 5mg/g.Good for assessing under-processing but not over-processing. Moreover, can not be done as a regularQC process as this is difficult and more time consuming.

• Protein dispersibility index: PDI is by far the best method of detecting if the meal is over heated ornot. PDI between 20 to 35% along with UA less than 0.2% ∆pH gives the best performance.

• Energy value: Energy content is overlooked because it is expensive. However, at least 25% of the totalcalculated dietary energy comes from soybean meal and hence due consideration should be given onthis account. De-hulling not only improves the protein content but also increases the ME value and inpurchase specifications this point must be taken care of.



De-hulling is more important than thermal processing in improving the energy value of soybean

47.6 45.5 45.8 45.8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

USA India Argentina Brazil

CP% Insoluble NSP% KOH solubility% Fiber%

2429

21612357 2400

2146

1861

2112 2128

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

USA India Argentina Brazil

AME kcal/kg AMEn Kcal/kg Fiber%

• A higher crude fibre and a higher insoluble NSP in the non-dehulled variant of soybean resulted in considerably lower energy availability as compared to the soybeans which were de-hulled in a better way.

• Note the almost similar KOH solubility and crude protein contents in the soybeans of India, Argentina and Brazil.


Soybean meal quality determinants: De-hulling improves the quality traits

Chick assays indicate almost a perfect correlationbetween the energy value and the lysine content ofsoybean meal.Since both the criteria do improve by a goodprocessing technology, so it may not be inappropriateto say that it is the de-hulling which actuallydetermines the quality of the soybean in terms of notonly available lysine content but also the ME value.

Adopted from Soon Bin 2008


Soybean meal quality determinants: The advance quality traitsThermal processing affects the amino acid quality of soybean meal: chick assay

Autoclaving time min Chick BWG g KOH solubility % UA Index PDI

0 178a 97 2.4 76

6 180a 93 2.2 63

12 189b 93 2.1 63

24 207b 81 0.2 30

36 210b 78 0.1 24

Autoclaving time min Chick BWG g Gain : feed KOH solubility % UA Index PDI

0 219a 0.472a 90 1.76 84

3 257b 0.496b 85 0.86 72

6 259b 0.505b 84 0.48 69

9 275b 0.512b 72 0.14 55

12 277b 0.521b 79 0.02 40



UA TI UA TI

0.03 3.3 1.24 4.8

0.27 2.6 0.17 2.7

0.35 3.7 1.83 8.2

0.20 4.3 1.05 4.6

1.61 5.2 0.15 2.9

1.92 8.5 0.11 3.4

0.36 4.1 0.45 3.7

1.04 6.1 1.18 7.7

0.02 2.8 0.05 1.6

1.36 6.1 1.97 8.3

0.33 5.7 1.69 7.5

0.02 2.7 0.21 3.6

Urease activity ∆pH units is highly correlated with the trypsin inhibitor value mg/g (R2 = 0.805)

Mustakas et al 1981


Soybean meal quality determinants: The Reactive Lysine

Maillard reaction due to over-heatingreduces the reactive total lysine keepingthe absolute value of lysine unchanged.

Maillard reaction due to over-heatingreduces the reactive total lysine keepingthe absolute value of lysine unchanged.


Soybean meal quality determinants: The advanced traits give insight

Based on the amount of reactive lysine to total lysine ratio thefollowing Quality Classes have been defined for soybean meal andother protein meals:1. QC Class 1: 5% samples with lowest ratio of reactive to total

lysine.2. QC class 2: The next 15%.3. QC Class 3: The next 60%.4. QC Class 4: The next 15%.5. QC Class 5: The last 5% with the highest ratio of reactive to total

lysine.A wider ratio stands for a higher reactive lysine value indicating agreater amount of undamaged lysine and thus a better quality.

Frequency distribution of quality classes. As the curve moves towards right the quality improves.

The reactive lysine species data is now available for soybean meal, rapeseed meal, sunflower meal, fish meal, fish mealand meat and bone meal. However, NIR spectra needs to be generated and analysed for getting access to these values.


Soybean meal quality determinants: The advanced traits give insight

Reactive lysine analysis offers a lot to the entrepreneur…

• Improve the management of raw materials in the feed plant.

• Separate low quality and high quality raw materials into different stacks.

• Renegotiating the purchase price of the raw materials according to their quality.

• Undertake the supplier analysis.

• Carry out extra analysis of the anti nutritional factors when the category of reactive lysine level is

high and the heat damage is low (in case of soybean meal). The product might be under-processed

and hence may be high in ANFs.


All soybean meals are not the same: Chemical composition

Parameter USA India Argentina Brazil

CP% 47.6 45.5 45.8 45.8

Crude fat% 1.4 1.0 1.8 2.0

Fiber% 3.8 5.6 3.7 3.8

Insoluble NSP% 14.1 18.1 15.8 15.3

Urease Index 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.0

KOH solubility% 78.1 70.0 69.6 72.6

AME kcal/kg 2429 2161 2357 2400

AMEn Kcal/kg 2146 1861 2112 2128

Massey University report (2012) for US soybean export council


Amino acid% USA India Argentina Brazil

Lysine 3.09 2.80 2.81 2.86

Met 0.70 0.64 0.62 0.62

Cysteine 0.79 0.68 0.70 0.72

Threonine 1.84 1.69 1.76 1.76

Arginine 3.42 3.29 3.40 3.31

Isoleucine 2.23 2.17 2.18 2.12

Valine 2.44 2.11 2.21 2.18

Reactive lysine 2.81 2.46 2.54 2.58

As% total lysine 91.1 87.8 90.3 90.0

All soybean meals are not the same: Amino acid values



All soybean meals are not the same: amino acid digestibility%

Parameter US India – NDH India – DH Argentina Brazil Thailand Full fat soy

Protein 82.5 77.9 81.7 77.8 80.2 78.9 67.8

Lysine 85.4 80.8 85.1 81.5 82.1 82.7 66.1

Methionine 86.4 82.4 85.6 82.6 85.3 84.8 68.2

Cysteine 68.9 56.4 67.8 55.0 63.6 67.2 53.3

Threonine 79.2 73.3 78.4 74.3 77.2 74.7 63.4

Arginine 88.9 84.8 87.9 85.4 86.9 85.8 77.6

Isoleucine 83.7 79.0 83.3 79.6 81.6 81.0 64.0

Valine 82.6 77.7 82.3 78.5 80.5 79.7 63.7

Serine 83.7 77.3 82.5 79.6 81.7 78.5 65.3

Glycine 79.2 71.9 79.7 72.5 76.4 73.9 62.4

Mean of all AA 83.5 78.0 82.8 78.6 81.2 80.2 67.7



All soybean meals are not the same

Nutrients Malaysian US Argentine Indian Thai

ME kcal/kg 2650 2450 2340 2160 2450

D. Lysine% 2.739 2.554 2.464 2.423 2.607

D. Met% 0.601 0.576 0.576 0.543 0.587

D. M+C% 1.223 1.178 1.142 1.037 1.168

D. Thr% 1.681 1.564 1.547 1.476 1.615

D.Try% 0.616 0.576 0.570 0.539 0.594

D. Arg% 3.367 3.192 3.039 3.221 3.248

D.Ile% 2.011 1.922 1.848 1.806 1.975

D.Val% 2.097 1.966 1.923 1.820 2.018



Smart purchase decision is necessary: Scenario 1

Parameter Supplier A Supplier B

Crude protein % 44.0 48.0

Price USD/t 510.00 560.00

Price USD per % protein 11.59 11.67

ME kcal/kg 2150 2350

ME obtained kcal/US$ spent 4215 4610

Lysine content kg/t 28.0 31.0

Lysine digestibility% 80.8 85.4

Digestible lysine kg/t 22.62 26.47

Digestible lysine obtained kg/1000 US$ spent 44.36 47.28

Despite spending US$ 50 per ton to Supplier B it will be wiser to go with supplier B since the net value earned will bemuch higher while going with Supplier B.



Parameter Supplier A Supplier B

Crude protein % 46.0 47.4

Price USD/t 450 452

Price USD per % protein 9.78 9.53

CV% 1.60 4.80

Standard deviation% 0.7 2.3

CP adjusted to lower SD point% 45.3 45.1

Recalculated price per % protein 9.93 10.02

• Apparently it will be wiser to go with Supplier B considering the protein content. • When the variability in the consignments is considered then it will be wiser to be with Supplier A.• If the feed manufacturer buys 100,000 MT soybean meal per year then he saves US$ 9000 in a year with this decision.



• Lets consider a broiler grower diet formulated for 15-28 d of age.

• The diet was formulated for digestible amino acids (%) at 1.10 Lysine, 0.44 Met, 0.81 Met + Cys, 0.70 Thr,

0.18 Tryptophan, 0.75 Isoleucine and 0.85 valine .

• Protein content of SBM from the USA and Brazil was considered to be similar (close to 48%) but their

digestible amino acid content was considered to be different.


Smart purchase decision is necessary: Scenario 3Ingredients Cost US$/t SBM-Asia SBM-USA SBM-Brazil SBM-Argentina SBM-India

Corn 220 58.7 59.94 59.57 58.55 58.35

Soybean meal 600 30.66 29.78 30.12 30.97 31.14

Meat-bone meal 640 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Soybean oil 1150 3.16 2.78 2.85 3.01 3.04

DCP 600 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55

Salt 65 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28

Soda-bi-carb 350 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

LS-Powder 72 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09

Vit-Min Premix 2000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

DL-methionine 4800 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.27

L-lysine HCl 2400 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.13

L-threonine 3000 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05

Diet cost US$/ton 422.3 415.5 416.8 421.8 423.2

Shadow prices for SBM at SBM-Asia price 578 600 596 580 575

• In absence of detailed information about the protein meal a typical approach is to assume the worst.This results in all products being described in terms of the lower portion of the quality spectrum andvalued accordingly.

• One result is that a majority of product ends up being underutilized and undervalued. This is a lostefficiency that, if reclaimed, has an immediate impact on the product’s value proposition.

• While soybean meal is typically considered to be more consistent in composition than other bulkingredient sources of supplemental protein, it does still vary. Whether this variation represents a costor an opportunity depends upon how it is managed.

• One way to reclaim this lost value is through measurement. Tools are available for the bettermanagement of compositional variation as it currently exists.

• A second approach is to reduce the extent of variation by eliminating lower-quality product from beingpurchased. This adds value not only because it reduces variation-associated risk but, at the same time,raises the overall average of the stock.

• Being critical in selecting the right soybean meal and adding selection parameters beyond crudeprotein should be the focus area of any purchase decision in order to maximize performance andminimize the variation associated costs.


Purchase decision must be prudent and safe

• Protein and amino acid contents vary widely in protein meals and the reason for thesevariations are largely related to the processing methods.

• Soybean meal is by far the most stable and trustworthy protein meal though itscomposition also does vary.

• The relationship between crude protein and amino acid levels is not constant and crudeprotein level may not indicate the availability of amino acids at the bird’s level.

• Heat processing affects the availability of the amino acids and this happens with all theprotein meals.

• Formulation exercises must be conducted based on the assayed values of amino acidsand tests must be stretched beyond the conventional assays to check the actualavailability of the amino acids.

• Optimum animal performance, quality of the finished products and profitability dependson the nutrient variation in the complete feeds. Therefore, systemic sampling androutine analysis of ingredients is necessary for better purchase decision and moreaccurate feed formulation.


The Final Call

BE CRITICAL WHILE SELECTING THE PROTEIN SOURCEvcn.gov.np/uploads/files/Be critical while selecting...

Documents

Transcript of BE CRITICAL WHILE SELECTING THE PROTEIN SOURCEvcn.gov.np/uploads/files/Be critical while selecting...