Nutritional value of soybean meal: Influence of origin and opportunities for improvement - G.G....
-
Upload
dsm-animal-nutrition-health -
Category
Science
-
view
690 -
download
1
Transcript of Nutritional value of soybean meal: Influence of origin and opportunities for improvement - G.G....
Nutritional value of soybean meal:
Influence of origin and opportunities
for improvement
DSM European Poultry Symposium. Istanbul, November 2013
Gonzalo G. MateosDepartment of Animal Science, UP Madrid
High protein SBM, 47% CPEnergy content, poultry
Institution Year CP (%) AMEn (Mcal/kg)
NRC 1994 48.5 2.44
INRA 2002 47.2 2.32
Japan 2009 47.1 2.47
Fedna 2010 47.5 2.38
CVB 2011 47.5 2.22
Brazil 2011 48.1 2.30
NRC(1994)
INRA(2002)
Japan(2009)
Fedna(2010)
Braz(2011)
CVB(2011)
MOI 10.0 12.4 11.0 12.0 10.8 12.6
CP 48.5 47.2 47.0 47.0 48.1 47.5
EE 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.8
Ash 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.2 5.7 6.5
NDF 8.5 8.9 11.1 9.1 14.9 8.2
74.3 76.3 77.1 76.2 81.0 76.6
What is missing?
SBM, 47% CPProximal analyses, %
AMEn content of SBM1
European tables
AMEn = 37.5 x CP + 46.4 x EE + 14.9 x NFE
Digestibility of the CP fraction?
83-93%
How ether extract is determined?
1.0 vs. 2.2% EE content (HCl hydrolisis?)
What is the composition of the NFE fraction?
Sucrose (4 to 9%) vs. pectins vs. lignin1 Jansen, 1989 (kcal/kg)
Objectives
To test the effects of origin of the beans on chemical characteristics and nutritive value of commercial SBM
To verify the need of using different matrixes of chemical composition andnutritive value for SBM according to theorigin of the beans
Samples collected from 2007 to 2013Country of origin (63%) and Europeanports (37%)
Analysis conducted in duplicateProximal, AA, sugars, and mineralsAmino acids (NIR)TIA, KOH, PDI, urease, HDI (AminoRed)
Same lab, same technician
n= 491SBM survey, SpainLaboratory studies
SBM surveyChemical composition1, 88% DM
n CP CF NDF EE
ARG 158 45.5c 4.7b 9.1b 1.7ab
BRA1 148 46.7b 5.5a 10.5a 1.8a
USA2 185 47.2ª 3.8c 7.8c 1.6b
SEM 0.13 0.08 0.14 0.04
P *** *** *** **
1SBM, 48% CP and profat2Mississippi river and East Cost procedure
n Ash P Fe Sucrose Oligo.1
ARG 128 6.6ª 0.66b 109b 6.7b 6.1b
BRA 136 6.3b 0.62c 168a 5.7c 6.0b
USA 168 6.6ª 0.69a 113b 7.3ª 6.6a
SEM 0.04 0.005 4.3 0.08 0.05
P *** *** *** *** ***
SBM surveyMineral and sugars, 88% DM
1Stachyose+raffinose. Brazil higher raffinose content
n = 451
SBM surveyAmino acid profile, % CP
n Lys TSAA Thr Trp
ARG
BRA
USA
SEM
P
141
144
183
6.10b
6.05c
6.16a
0.005
***
2.87ª
2.81b
2.87a
0.005
***
3.93a
3.88b
3.91a
0.002
***
1.37a
1.34c
1.36b
0.001
***
SBM, all origins (n=403)LYS:CP ratio
2,4
2,6
2,8
3,0
3,2
42 44 46 48 50 52CP (%)
LYS (%)
ARG BRA USA
y = 0.062x - 0.04R2 = 0.90 P<0.001
SBM by originCP vs. Lys content
y = 0.059x + 0.105R²= 0.92 P<0.001
2,4
2,6
2,8
3,0
42 44 46 48 50CP (%)
LYS (%)
RSD = ± 0.026CV (%)= 0.91Bias = + 0.0006
ARG (n=114)
y = 0.066x - 0.249R² = 0.89 P<0.001
2,4
2,6
2,8
3,0
3,2
42 44 46 48 50 52CP (%)
LYS (%)
RSD = ± 0.029CV = 1.00%Bias= + 0.0009
y = 0.054x + 0.375R²= 0.93 P<0.001
2,6
2,8
3,0
3,2
44 46 48 50 52CP (%)
LYS (%)
RSD = ±0.023CV = 0.80%Bias = + 0.0007
BRA (n=124)
USA (n=159)
BRA USA
5,8
6,0
6,2
6,4
42 44 46 48 50 52CP (%)
LYS (% CP)
NS ; P= 0.54
5,8
6,0
6,2
6,4
42 44 46 48 50 52CP (%)
LYS (%CP)
r= + 0.21 ; P < 0.05
5,8
6,0
6,2
6,4
44 46 48 50 52CP (%)
LYS (%CP)
r= 0.47 ; P< 0.001
n=397
n=124 n=159
SBM by origin vs. Lys profile
ARGBRAUSA
KOH solubility, %: 75-85PD index, %: 15-30Urease activity, mg N/g: 0.00-0.10TI activity, mg/g: < 2.2-3.5
“Poor agreement between Research Institutions and Industry for suitable
values for protein quality of SBM”
SBM protein qualityIndustry standards
TIA PDI KOH HDI
n (mg/g) (%) (%) AminoRed2
ARG 135 2.5b 16.3b 81.5c 12.5b
BRA 135 2.6b 15.3c 82.6b 15.6a
USA 170 3.1a 19.5a 86.4a 9.0c
SEM 0.05 0.34 0.33 0.38
P *** *** *** ***
SBM protein qualitySurvey
1 Urease < 0.03 mg N/g for all origins (P < 0.01)2 Evonik-Degussa
ItemStorage (d) SEM
(n = 8)0 30 60 90 120
Ureaseactivity1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PDI2 (%) 21.9a 21.5a 20.1b 18.8c 17.7d 0.21
KOH solubi.(%) 83.8 83.6 83.2 83.8 83.8 0.47
TIA3 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.072
1mg N/g x min2Linear effect, P < 0.0013mg/g SBM
JAPR, 2013
SBM qualityLength of storage
SBM surveyAminoRed (HDI1)
Year ARG BRA USA
Evonik2 2007200820092010201120122013
14.613.111.913.313.611.812.9
14.312.613.913.715.515.411.6
6.99.77.39.69.53.14.5
UP Madrid n 9612.7b
11315.5a
1509.0c
1Heat Damage Indicator2n > 2,500 to 2011 and > 4,800 in 20133n = 359 (P<0.001), SEM = 0.42 (2007 a 2013)
* Adapted from FEDNA (2010) for SBM, 47%CP
76
78
80
82
84
86
%CP (88% DM)
ARG
USABRA
Anim. FST, 2012
SBMSID (%) of Cys
SBM, all origins1
SID of CP vs. quality indexes
Variable r P
Crude proteinReactive lysKOH solubilityTI activity
+ 0.51+ 0.56+ 0.70+ 0.54
0.050.01
0.0010.01
1 Broiler trial (n = 22 SBM of 3 origins) Frikha et al., 2012
n LightnessL*
Rednessa*
Yellownessb*
ARG 87 67.2b 6.5b 25.2b
BRA 95 65.0c 7.6a 24.6c
USA 148 70.7a 6.0c 26.3a
SEM 0.28 0.10 0.14
P *** *** ***
1 Minolta (ground at 1mm)
Soybean meal colour1
All origins1,2 PDI KOH UA TIA
Lightness L* 63*** 52*** 14* 56***
Redness a* - 67*** - 50*** - 23*** -56***
Yellowness b* 12*** 31*** - 18** NS
1 n = 3472 Ground at 1 mm
SBM correlations (r, P <)Protein quality vs. color variables
ARG BRA USA All
n 89 102 156 347
L* 58*** 27** 55*** 56***
a* - 49*** - 26** - 65*** - 56***
b* ns ns - 17* ns
1 Ground at 1 mm
SBM1
TIA vs. color variables (r, P<)
n GMD1 SD
ARG 91 1,363b 472
BRA 92 1,522a 474
USA 85 856c 168
SEM 50.4
P ***1GMD: Geometric mean diameter. 7 Sieves ( m) : 2500, 1250, 660, 330, 80, 40 and residue
Average particle sizeSBM origin
Particle size distribution in SBM byorigin1
0
10
20
30
40
50
2500 1250 630 315 160 80 40 < 40
Perc
enta
geof
tota
l in
each
siev
e
Sieve size(µm)
ARGBRAUSA
1n=268
324 samplesNIRS 5000 (1,100-2,500 nm)
As received
Validation set 1/3 of samples
Training set 2/3 of samples origins
n = 255 n = 69
Soybean mealQualitative analysis (NIRS)
Origin n ARG BRA USA
ARG 20 19 0 1BRA 13 0 13 0USA 36 2 0 34
Soybean meal validation set (NIRS)
Correctly classified = 96%
ARG
BRA USA
12007-2011
Validation SBM surveyMain findings (88% DM)
Argentina Brazil USA
5 y1 12/13 5 y1 12/13 5 y1 12/13
nCPNDFSucroseTotal PFeLys (% CP)
13045.49.46.7
0.6511260.09
2245.97.77.3
0.761166.14
11246.510.55.8
0.6119360.05
2747.110.25.6
0.631716.04
14847.57.87.2
0.6911760.15
2646.08.08.2
0.681016.14
12007-20112Kakade, method (88% DM)
Validation SBM surveyProtein quality
Argentina Brazil USA
5 y1 2012 5 y1 2012 5 y1 2012
n
PDI (%)
KOH sol. (%)
HDI (Evonik)
TIA (mg/g)
112
17.1
82.5
13.2
2.5
17
13.2
75.0
8.9
2.3
109
15.2
83.6
16.2
2.5
27
15.8
77.7
12.7
2.7
148
19.9
87.3
9.7
3.2
20
18.1
82.0
3.9
2.7
SID (%) of SBM in broilers New Zealand, Exp. 1
USA(n = 3)
ARG(n = 4)
BRA(n = 3)
IND(n = 4)
LysMetCysThrAvge AAAMEn1
91.0a
89.5ab
76.3a
83.3a
87.02,146ª
90.9a
89.7a
71.4ab
83.4a
86.62,112ª
89.9a
89.9a
70.6ab
83.1a
86.12,128ª
87.4b
87.2b
62.9b
79.8b
83.21,861b
1Kcal/kg, as fed Ravindran and Bootwalla, 2011
SID (%) of SBM in broilersNew Zealand, Exp. 2
USA(n = 7)
ARG(n = 6)
BRA(n = 3)
IND(n = 4)
CPLysCysMetThrAvge AA
85.787.874.688.582.585.6
84.786.869.887.681.184.3
83.285.167.985.678.482.5
78.280.157.382.873.877.9
Ravindran, 2013
SID (%) of Lys of SBM (range)Broilers (New Zealand, Exp. 2)
USA(n = 7)
ARG(n = 6)
BRA(n = 3)
IND(n = 4)
Total Lys (% CP)
SID Lys (%)
React. Lys (%)
4.946.61
84.490.6
96.4
5.306.39
82.088.5
90.5
5.525.77
82.788.2
93.5
4.796.39
76.383.3
89.7
Ravindran, 2013
HP-SBM had 100 kcal more AMEn than R-SBMDetermined AA content
Same availability for all AAThree ratios Lys:ME for each SBM
Low: 380Medium: 415High: 450
Experimental dietsAssumptions
De Coca et al., 2010
SBM qualityBroiler performance
R-SBM HP-SBMCP, %Total Lys, %Sucrose, %NDF, %TIA, mg/kgKOH sol., %AMEn
46.32.755.8
10.24.8
80.72,200
48.63.046.77.01.8
84.32,300
De Coca et al., 2010
Broiler performance, 1-10 dMain effects1
ADG (g) FCR (g/g)
SBM typeR-SBMHP-SBMSEM (n = 30)
Lys:ME ratioLowMediumHighSEM (n = 20)
22.3b
23.5a
0.24
21.3c
23.0b
24.3a
0.30
1.225a
1.168b
0.005
1.275a
1.181b
1.133a
0.006
De Coca et al., 2010
1 Interaction (P < 0.01): Higher positive response of the use of HP-SBM at the low CP level of the diet
Processing conditionsTIA vs. Maillard reactions
Origin of the beansGrowing, storage conditions
Gastrointestinal conditions in the birdGizzard function and pHPepsine activity
Use of enzymesProteases
Improvement in digestibilitySoybean meal
OriginBacteria, fungi (fermentation)Animal and plants (extraction)
pH rangeAcid, neutral, alkaline
Bond specificityEndo- and exopeptidasesSpecific (AA) protease
Classification of proteases
Angel, 2012
ExamplesTrypsin and chymotrhypsinElastaseEnteroquinase
PROACTBacterialAlkalineSerine protease
Bond specifitySerine proteases
Protease and fullfat soybeansAID of amino acids, %
Control Protease200 mg/T P
ArgLysCysMetThr
81.982.548.880.763.2
86.084.059.585.069.8
**+******
Rostagno et al., 2009
General commentsUSA SBM vs. others
BrazilLess sucrose and P and more fiber and FeLess indispensable AA per unit of CPLower KOH, PDI, and HDI (lower AA digestibility)
ArgentinaLess CPLower KOH, PDI, and HDI (lower AA digestibility)
IndiaMore ash, crude fiber, and Fe (less energy)Less fat, sucrose, and indispensable AA per unit ofCPLower KOH (lower AA digestibility)
General conclusions
Current methods used by the industry to evaluate protein quality are not capable of detecting existing differences among SBM
The composition and the protein quality of SBM vary with the origin of the bean
Different matrixes should be used for SBM of different origins, NIR technology might help
Proteases might improve the uniformity and nutritive value of SBM batches