Formulating broiler diets for least cost and maximum ...

Formulating poultry diets for least cost and maximum performance

Sudipto Haldar, PhD

BASICS OF POULTRY FEED FORMULATION

PART - ISteps towards a least cost formulation

2Agrivet Consultancy P Ltd

Select the goal with a good home work

1. Establish the nutrient requirements

2. Establish the ingredient specifications

3. Selection and usage of major ingredients

4. Selection and usage of calcium and phosphorus sources

5. Selection and usage of oil

6. Selection and usage of enzymes

7. Selection and usage of additives

8. Suggestions on formulations

9. Suggestion on number of feeds


Establish the nutrient requirements

• Determine the energy levels to be fed for the different periods.

• Energy levels will normally be in the range of 2900-3200 kcal/kg ME as these levels have been found to give the best growth and FCR.

– ME level may be determined by economic analysis which includes costs of energy so that with high energy costs a lower energy level may be chosen and vice versa.

• Establish the digestible lysine levels for these periods.

– This may be established as the ratio of digestible lysine to energy.

• Once ME and digestible lysine levels are established other essential amino acids are calculated by using the ideal protein ratios.


Establish the energy to lysine (digestible) ratio

5

Nutrients Starter Grower Finisher

ME kcal/kg (MJ/kg) 2900 (12.1) 3000 (12.6) 3150 (13.2)

Dig lysine g/MJ 4.17 3.39 3.02

Digestible Lysine % 1.21 1.02 0.95

Important:1. It is suggested to not to use a crude protein minimum as a constraint unless it is needed

to meet the requirement for a specific amino acid (especially serine and glycine) or toinclude a specific raw material (eg. Corn gluten meal) which is costly and gets generallyrejected considering the price of the main protein source (mainly soybean meal).

2. Putting a protein minimum as a constraining factor is likely to increase the cost offormulation.

3. Selecting a good quality soybean meal and using synthetic amino acids take care of mostof the amino acid needs leading to a good formula at lower cost.

Agrivet Consultancy P Ltd

Select the essential amino acids : The 7 + 1 Concept

The primary focus should be on the following:1.Lysine2.Methionine3.Methionine + cysteine4.Threonine5.Tryptophan6.Arginine7.Isoleucine8.Valine

• These amino acids are essential which may be limiting in some situations when notformulating with a minimum protein level.

• However, amino acids beyond valine (serine + glycine) are gaining importance and theyneed to be considered provided accurate data is available.


Balance the essential amino acids: The ideal protein ratio for broilers

7

Amino acids Starter Grower Finisher

Lysine 100 100 100

Methionine 37 38 40

M + C 70 73 76

Threonine 62 64 68

Tryptophan 16 17 18

Arginine 105 108 110

Isoleucine 65 67 69

Valine 77 78 79

The above ratio is adopted from the works of Baker et al., Creswell and Tillman. There are other ratios suggested byEvonik and Ajinomoto and any of the ratios should work well provided the raw material quality is judged.


Balance the essential amino acids: The ideal protein ratio for Layers

8

Amino acids Chick Grower Developer Pre-layer Layer

Lysine 100 100 100 100 100

Methionine 37 38 40 46 47

M + C 72 75 78 76 90

Threonine 65 68 70 59 77

Tryptophan 16 17 18 21 22

Arginine 105 108 110 92 103

Isoleucine 67 69 70 62 79

Valine 77 80 81 72 93

Feed the layers to meet their daily requirement and fix the percentage of nutrients based on their daily feedintake. Close monitoring of daily feed intake is of utmost importance to formulate a good layer diet.


Standardized ileal digestibility of amino acids

9

Ingredient Lysine Methionine M+C Tryptophan Arginine Threonine Isoleucine Valine

Corn

Sorghum

Wheat

Wheat middlings

Wheat bran

Corn gluten meal

Corn gluten feed

DDGS

Rice bran, full fat

Rice bran, extracted

Brown rice

Lupins

Peas

Canola meal

Canola full fat

Cottonseed meal

Soybean meal1

Soybean meal2

Soybean meal 3

Sunflower meal

Full fat soy extruded

Full fat soy expanded

Full fat soy toasted

Groundnut meal

Coconut meal

Palm kernel meal

Sesame meal

Fishmeal

Feather meal

Meat and bone meal

Blood meal

Poultry meal

92

90

86

80

81

76

70

68

76

73

80

87

85

80

87

65

89

85

91

87

88

92

81

78

50

59

88

86

57

69

89

83

94

89

91

83

80

88

84

86

71

77

90

89

73

84

80

72

90

89

91

92

86

92

82

86

84

84

94

86

61

72

92

89

90

84

91

78

75

83

75

82

68

72

88

85

68

80

80

73

86

81

88

87

81

90

79

82

69

75

88

82

51

62

86

81

81

87

86

79

84

66

75

84

50

79

91

82

66

80

82

80

90

87

92

87

84

92

80

76

51

75

80

78

46

55

89

80

93

88

85

80

87

86

88

85

78

86

92

91

87

87

92

88

92

91

93

93

91

95

85

89

84

89

92

82

68

77

89

90

85

83

87

73

79

79

75

75

66

68

84

83

78

73

80

68

85

82

88

82

85

91

79

83

63

69

87

80

53

62

89

84

95

90

94

82

82

86

82

82

66

74

86

85

77

79

85

71

89

86

91

89

87

90

79

89

77

81

92

85

73

69

83

88

92

87

90

77

82

85

82

81

68

75

86

84

72

79

85

74

87

82

90

87

86

92

77

89

79

80

91

83

67

70

90

87


PART - IICritically assess the major raw materials

Agrivet Consultancy P Ltd 10

Select the main energy source: Corn

• By far corn is the most important energy source for all categories of poultry in this subcontinent.

• Corn sources:

– India: locally available

– Nepal and Bhutan: Highly dependent on Indian imports

– Bangladesh: Imports from USA, Latin America, Ukraine, and some times from India. Local sources are also exploited depending on the crop.

• There are alternatives to corn as well:

– Broken rice and millets in the Indian subcontinent market and wheat in many other parts.

– In the Indian subcontinent the decision on including the alternatives depend on corn availability and price to a large extent.


Corn quality varies a lot: Fungus and moulds

12

Excellent quality Corn Poor quality Corn

Poor quality corn with excessive dusts Doubtful corn


Doubtful corn

Corn quality varies a lot: Moisture is inversely proportional to ME

13

2950

3000

3050

3100

3150

3200

3250

3300

3350

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Moisture % and ME kcal/kg in Indian corn samples (n =323)

Moisture% AME kcal/kg

Min moisture: 9.96%, Max moisture: 19.70%;

Min ME: 2987 kcal, Max ME: 3313 Kcal

Predicted AME = 2864.1+21.5*Moisture

Type Moisture% Protein% Fibre % Fat % Ash% NFE % DM% ME Kcal/kg

Corn – 1 12 8.5 2.5 3.8 1.2 72.0 88.0 3386

Corn – 2 12 7.5 2.5 3.8 1.2 73.0 88.0 3386

Corn – 3 14 7.5 2.8 3.5 1.2 71.0 86.0 3285

Corn – 4 16 7.5 3.0 3.0 1.2 69.3 84.0 3177

How to predict ME of corn based on moisture and other nutrients

ME = (4.31*0.87*(CP*10)+9.298*0.92*(EE*10)+4.14*0.92*(NFE*10) Rostagno et al 2011


14

Corn quality varies a lot: Starch digestibility

Corn starch content and digestibility values may vary up to 20%. This shatters the long standing myth surroundingthe corn’s consistent feed value and puts substantial economic implication for the poultry producers.


Chose the correct energy value of corn

Nutrients Corn – 1 Corn -2 Corn -3 Corn -4

Lysine 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.22

Met 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15

M+C 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.29

Thr 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.20

Try 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04

Arg 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.30

Ile 0.29 0.25 0.25 0.23

Val 0.39 0.34 0.34 0.35

15

Corn has fairly constant amino acid profile (values in %) Adjust the value for ME lossMEL = -0.064+1.62BRK+6.98FRIM+10.06MOLD+12.28INS+5.87ADCBRK: Broken grain %FRIM: Fragmented grains%MOLD: Mould affected grains%INS: Insect infested grains%ADC: Grains affected by other causes%

Type BRK FRIM MOLD INS ADC ME-Loss ME-Calc ME-Act

Corn -1 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 69.7 3386 3316

Corn -2 3.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 125.2 3386 3262

Corn -3 4.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 4.0 196.6 3285 3088

Corn -4 5.0 6.0 9.0 5.0 3.0 207.2 3177 2970

Example of ME calculation in a correct way


Oil is the bulk energy supplier: The right way to use oil

Is it necessary to use oil in formulations?

The answer is perhaps: YES … because

• Increase palatability and therefore intake of feed, perhaps mash feed only.

• Reduce dustiness and separation of ingredient particles in mash feed.

• Increase pellet mill output by lubrication, but reduce pellet quality (PDI).

• Decrease rate of passage of digesta, thereby increasing the utilisation of nutrients.

16

Oil addition to broiler feeds is perhaps desirable but not essential and probably uneconomic at highprices. However, if oils are to be included in broiler feeds, ME values of available products should bemeasured, calculated or estimated and the most cost effective ones chosen for use.


Determine the quality of oil through the following assays: 1. MIU: Moisture, insoluble impurities, un-saponifiable matter

Trading standards for MIU are usually < 2% for feed grade oils and < 1% for higher quality products.However, much higher MIU levels are possible because of poor processing (e.g. filtering) ordeliberate adulteration (e.g. water). Most MIU compounds have little if any nutritional value andshould not be allowed in ME calculation.

2. Free fatty acids

3. Unsaturated to saturated fatty acid ratioIodine value (IV) is a measure of unsaturation (number of double bonds) but is not useful forME calculation because increased degree of unsaturation, generally is not associated withhigher digestibility.

4. NEM: Non Elutable Materials

Mostly found in over heated oils and recycled vegetable oils.

17

The right way to use oil: Know the oil first


The most practical way to predict the oil to be used is the Wiseman Equation which is based on FFA and U:S ratio.

ME (kcal/kg) = (A + B*FFA g/kg) + C*exp (D*U:S)/0.004184 where A, B, C and D are constants as follows

18

The right way to use oil: know the energy value

Constant 1.5 weeks Bird 7.5 weeks Bird

A 38.1118 39.0245

B -0.0090 0.0056

C -15.3368 -8.5054

D -0.5089 -0.4025

ME values (kcal/kg) of fat varies with age of birds and type of oil

Fat type 1.5 week bird 7.5 weeks bird

Palm oil 6740 7870

Palm oelin 7070 8050

Soy oil 8800 9060

Poultry fat 8140 8620

Tallow 6800 7900


29

40

53

00 6

45

0

65

00

40

00

85

00

90

00

90

00

42

00

75

00

79

00

84

00

43

00

80

00

84

00

84

00

38

00

78

00

83

00

84

00

19

The right way to use oil: ME value varies with age0

.37

0.6

5 0.7

4

0.7

4

0.5

9

0.8

9

0.9

5

0.9

5

0.5

0.8

3

0.8

3

0.8

5

0.6

0.8

5

0.9

3

0.9

3

0.6

0.8

3

0.8

5

0.8

5

WEEK -1 WEEK-2 WEEK-3 WEEK-5

Tallow Soy oil Tallow:Soy oil Poultry fat Palm oil

Points to be noted:1. For accurate formulation age

specific ME values to be assigned tooils.

2. Given a choice palm oil is preferredover tallow. Presence of more C18fatty acids makes tallow lessdigestible.

3. Fats rich in stearic acid to beavoided as stearic acid is an inhibitorof intrinsic lipase activity.



PART - IIIUnconventional raw materials …

Do they really reduce cost of formulation?


• The unconventional raw materials refer to all those raw materials that have not been

traditionally used in animal feeding and or are not normally used in commercially produced

rations for livestock.

• These include commonly, a variety of raw materials from perennial crops and feeds of

animal and industrial origin.

Unconventional raw materials … what do it mean?

Unconventional raw materials: when are they considered?

22

Perhaps never when raw material prices are soft.

With soft raw material prices when market is down.

Inclination remains more towards protein sources..

Options are more with protein than energy.

Rich protein sources are available.

Question remains about their amino acid profile and digestibility and presence of anti-nutritional factors.


Unconventional raw materials : Examples … from an Indian perspective


▪ There are many ... amongst protein sources

▪ Cotton seed meal

▪ Roasted guar meal/guar korma

▪ DDGS obtained from rice fermentation

▪ Leather meal

▪ Some may be considered as semi-conventional ... mostly energy

▪ Bajra (pearl millet)

▪ Broken rice

There are other sources as well but a comprehensive description of all may not be possible here.

Unconventional raw materials : the deciding factors

▪ Chemical composition of the test material.

▪ The price of the test material (unconventional).

▪ The price of the reference raw material.

▪ The shadow price of the test as well as the reference raw material.

▪ Target cost of the formulation.

▪ The basis of formulation.


Unconventional raw materials : Look at the chemical composition


45.26 47.2450.29

42.0044.64

49.55

32.33

81.75

59.61

90.03

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Soybean meal -1 Soybean meal -2 Soybean meal-3 Cotton seedmeal

Rice DDGS Guar meal Sunflower meal Feather meal Poultry Meal Blood meal

Vegetable proteinsSoybean meal

Animal proteinsCrude protein content (%)

Considering the protein values these meals are quite lucrative to a formulator



0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Lysine Methionine M+C Tryptophan Arginine Threonine Isoleucine ValineSoybean meal Cottonseed meal Canola meal Guar meal Coconut meal Rice DDGS Sunflower meal

Amino acid (%) in protein meals – reference soybean meal (44-45% crude protein)

Compared to soybean meal the total amino acid profiles of the meals are not really poor.



40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Lysine Methionine M+C Tryptophan Arginine Threonine Isoleucine Valine

Soybean meal Cottonseed meal Canola meal Groundnut meal Coconut meal Palm kernel meal Sunflower meal

Digestibility of amino acid (%) in protein meals – reference soybean meal (44-45% crude protein)

Considering soybean meal as the reference all other protein meals have inferior digestibility of amino acids.



Digestible amino acid (%) in protein meals – reference soybean meal (44-45% crude protein)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Lysine Methionine M+C Threonine Tryptophan Arginine Isoleucine Valine

SBM 45% SBM 47% SBM 50% Cotton seed meal Rice DDGS Guar meal Sunflower meal Feather meal Poultry Meal

The overall digestible amino acid contents, albeit a bit erratic, should not be a constraint towards their inclusion in the formula. Negative interactions between amino acids must be kept in mind while taking decision.



1. High crude fibre, sand silica and phytate phosphorus impede the utilization of the unconventional raw materials.

2. Cotton seed meal may contain >13% crude fiber while sunflower meal may contain >18% crude fibre while a regular

soybean meal contain only 6-7% of crude fibre.

3. Excess fibre impedes nutrient utilization and should bring down the flock performance.

4. Intervention strategy (enzymatic) should be drawn while using these unconventional raw materials.

5. Though mostly free from toxic elements the anti-nutritional factors should be paid heed to – fortunately many of the

inherent anti-nutritional factors are destroyed while processing.

The other nutrients must not be ignored

▪ For an unconventional raw material sliding into the formula a softer cost of the

concerned raw material and an equally harder price of the conventional raw

material is needed simultaneously.

▪ Since the gap between these two cost factors are not very wide for cereals the

scope of unconventional cereals becomes limited unless there is some scarcity.

▪ The scope is wider for proteins as the pricing of main protein source – soybean

meal – undergoes frequent fluctuations and availability of alternatives are more.


Unconventional raw materials : The cost factor and basis of formulation


Unconventional raw materials : Apply the nutritional acumen

▪ Consider a broiler starter diet (1-14 d of age):

▪ ME 2925 kcal/kg, digestible lysine 1.28% (rest calculated according to ideal protein ratio),Ca 0.9%, av P 0.5%, Na 0.22%.

▪ Conditions:

1. Maximum level of guar meal inclusion fixed at 5%.

2. For all calculations soybean meal price was fixed at INR 29.00/kg.

3. Based on that Guar meal shadow price for a no CP minimum diet was calculated to be INR26.12 per kg.

4. Market price of guar meal was INR 26.20 per kg.



BROILER STARTER DIET INGREDIENTS

Price INR/kg Inclusion Price INR/kg Inclusion Price INR/kg InclusionCase - 1 kg/t Case - 2 kg/t Case - 3 Kg/t

Maize 15.00 582.40 15.00 570.00 15.00 575.00SBM 46.5% CP 29.00 342.40 29.00 308.00 29.00 320.00Guar meal 55% CP 26.20 REJECT 26.12 50.00 26.20 31.30MBM 44% CP 26.00 25.00 26.00 25.00 26.00 25.00Rice bran oil 56.00 16.00 56.00 13.60 56.00 15.00DCP 38.50 9.80 38.50 9.30 38.50 9.30Limestone 2.30 4.90 2.30 5.00 2.30 5.00Lysine Sulfate 88.00 3.70 88.00 3.60 88.00 3.70DL Methionine 240.00 2.70 240.00 2.60 240.00 2.60L-threonine 160.00 1.00 160.00 1.00 160.00 1.00Salt 4.90 2.50 4.90 2.50 4.90 2.50Soda 30.00 1.50 30.00 1.50 30.00 1.50Phytase 5000 495.00 0.20 495.00 0.20 495.00 0.20NSPase 650.00 0.50 650.00 0.50 650.00 0.50Premix 242.20 7.40 242.20 7.40 242.20 7.40Cost/kg INR CP= 21.85% 24.07 CP = 22.88% 23.96 CP= 22.5% 23.96

NO CP MINIMUM PRICE NEGOTIATED 22.5% CP MINIMUM

1. Case – 1: Guar meal was rejected when diet was formulated on ideal protein ratio (CP = 21.85%).

2. Case -2: Guar meal price was negotiated by only INR 80.00 per ton and this slides into formula to the maximum

permissible limit of 5% (CP = 22.88%)

3. When keeping the same price (INR 26.20 per kg) the diet was formulated using a minimum CP of 22.5% roasted guar

meal was introduced by close to 3%.

4. There was some price reductions in cases 2 and 3.

5. Should one go for this now? – Lets have a look below:



Guar Meal

Galactomannan

Trypsin inhibitor

Saponin etc.

Should one invite so many anti-nutritional factors tosave something in the formula cost?The answer should be NO.


Unconventional raw materials : Apply the nutritional acumen – a case study

Treatments:1. All SBM diet2. SBM was replaced by 2% in starter and 5% in grower

and finisher by roasted guar meal (RGM).3. Soybean was priced at INR 38/kg and guar at INR 32/kg

Nutrient specs (starter, grower and finisher respectively):1. CP% = 22.2, 20.2 and 18.5.2. ME kcal/kg = 2900, 3000 and 3100.3. Ca 0.9, 0.85 and 0.80% .4. Available P 0.50, 0.48 and 0.45%

Diet BW 14 d BW 28 d BW 35 d Feed intake g FCR

Control - SBM 529.4 1440.0 1872.2 3191.1 1.812

RGM 20/50 524.4 1427.1 1836.6 3441.8 1.953

• Feed intake was higher in the guar fed group. • Plausibly guar meal induced viscosity depressed digestibility of starch and other nutrients and birds attempted to

compensate for that by consuming more feed.• In this case reduction of formula cost did not pay any dividend.

Source: Mishra et al. 2013


Unconventional raw materials : The cost factor

▪ The diets were formulated without any CP minimum.

▪ Cotton seed meal was introduced at 5.0, 7.5 and 10%.

▪ The diets were balanced according to the SID of the diets.

▪ Soybean meal was priced at INR 34.50/kg and CS meal

was priced at INR 26.00/kg.

Nutrients Starter Grower Finisher

ME kcal/kg 2900 3000 3150

Crude Protein%* *** *** ***

Lysine 1.22 1.10 0.98

Methionine 0.45 0.42 0.40

M+C 0.85 0.80 0.74

Threonine 0.78 0.70 0.66

Tryptophan 0.20 0.19 0.18

Arginine 1.28 1.18 1.08

Isoleucine 0.79 0.73 0.67

Valine 0.94 0.85 0.77

Calcium% 0.90 0.80 0.70

Available P % 0.45 0.40 0.36

Diet CS-0 CS-5.0 CS-7.5 CS-10

Starter 25.33 25.57 25.72 25.84

Grower 24.11 24.49 24.62 24.93

Finisher 23.81 24.36 24.66 24.96

Introduction of CS meal increased cost.


Unconventional raw materials : The cost factor

37.00

38.00

39.00

40.00

41.00

42.00

43.00

44.00

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

CS-0 CS-5 CS-7.5 CS-10

Final BW FCR Feed cost/kg BW

Inclusion of cotton seed meal almost linearly depressed body weight leading to poorer feed conversion and increased feedcost/kg live weight (Source: ACPL, Internal Research)

Decision: Cotton seed meal proves to be infeasible at this level of pricing when diet was formulated for adjusting theSID% of amino acids.


Unconventional raw materials : A compromised approach

A volume to volume replacement of soybean meal with cotton seed meal reduces cost of formulation

25.37

24.18

23.63

25.24

24.04

23.5

25.15

23.95

23.41

25.07

23.87

23.36

24.98

23.78

23.27

23.00

23.50

24.00

24.50

25.00

25.50

Starter Grower Finisher

CSC-0 CSC-15 CSC-25 CSC-35 CSC-45

• Soybean meal was replaced with Cotton Seed meal volume to volume by 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5% without any othercompositional changes.

• Soybean meal was priced at INR 34.50/kg and CS meal was priced at INR 26.00/kg.


Unconventional raw materials : The compromised approach worked better

47.01

45.6846.83

45.8146.53

35.00

37.00

39.00

41.00

43.00

45.00

47.00

49.00

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

CSC-0 CSC-15 CSC-25 CSC-35 CSC-45

Body weight kg Feed conversion ratio Feed cost per kg live weight

A volume to volume replacement of soybean with a modest amount of CS meal (3.5%) yielded better return on investmentwithout impacting performance (Source: ACPL Internal Research).

• The scope of using unconventional raw materials in poultry feedingsystem comes mostly with the protein sources.

• The driving force for using the unconventional raw materials isdefinitely the price of the main protein source used in diet.

• Variability in the composition of the unconventional raw material is aconstraining factor towards their inclusion in diets of broilers.

• Presence of anti-nutritional factors confounds their inclusion further.


Unconventional raw materials : The final call

1. The decision of using unconventional raw materials in any formulations must be very cautious and

judicious.

2. Simply going by the price and cost of formulation may not pay back always and there may be

severe down fall in flock performance leading to overall loss in profitability.

3. Judgment must be based on nutritional acumen and that should take into account the chemical

composition of the unconventional raw materials and their digestibility values and presence of

anti-nutritional factors.

4. In cases where their usage becomes inevitable owing to non-availability of the conventional raw

materials, there must be an upper cap to prevent any untoward effect on flock performance.


Unconventional raw materials : The final call

PART - IVThe right way to use enzymes in formulations


Variability in raw material composition: The biggest enemy

• In animal production systems feed is the biggest single cost, and on-farm profitability depends onthe relative cost and nutritive value of the feed ingredients available.

• If feeds are not digested by the animal as efficiently as they could be, there is a cost to theproducer.

• Variability costs a lot to the producer….

• It limits the inclusion level of many potential raw materials to avoid risk in feed formulation.

• It increases the use of amino acids as overages.

• Overall cost of formulation increases

Enzyme application offers an excellent solution to fight against the variabilityby unwrapping the bound nutrients.



Variability in raw material composition: The biggest enemy

43.0

44.0

45.0

46.0

47.0

48.0

49.0

50.0

51.0

52.0

2.50

2.60

2.70

2.80

2.90

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

Soybean meal crude protein % Soybean meal Lysine %

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00Meat-bone meal crude protein % Meat-bone meal Lysine %

Enzymes commonly used in formulations


Enzyme Substrate Target raw materialsPhytase Phytic acid All plant derived ingredients

ß-glucanase ß-glucan Barley, oats and rye

Xylanase Arabinoxylan Wheat, rye, triticale, barley, fibrous plants

α-galactosidase Oligosaccharides Soybean meal, grain legumes

Proteases Proteins All plant protein sources

Amylases Starch Cereal grains, grain legumes

Mannanase, cellulase Cell wall matrix Plant derived ingredients, fibrous plant materials

Source: Ravindran, 2013

How these enzymes are used?

Option I

• Reformulation of feed to reduce feed cost without impacting the growth,production and feed conversion efficiency … the matrix concept.

Option II

• Addition of the enzyme on top of a standard feed formulation to improve betterfeed utilization efficiency and improved performance ... Over the top application.


• In practice matrix values for least cost feed formulation are assigned to the enzyme.

• These matrix values are generated from animal studies and are typically for calcium, phosphorus, sodium, amino

acids and energy.

• The authenticity of these matrix values depends to a great extent on the stability of the enzyme product during the

steps of feed processing.

Should enzyme use be prioritized? - YES

1. Phytase: To destroy all the phytates and yield some extra-phosphoric effects.

2. Xylanase and β-Glucanase: To degrade the fibrous caging of the plant materials and make the

trapped starch and protein available for digestion.

• The decision should be based on the targeted effects to be obtained over and above

those already achieved by the phytase.

• The selection is governed by the raw materials – in a wheat based diet xylanase is a must.

3. Proteases: To make the protein of relatively lower digestibility available to the host and get

some extra-protease effects.


Phytase is the first choice: A good phytase offers a lot

How a phytase works?

• Making P available from ingredients…from plant materials P digestibility goes hardlybeyond 30% and its unwrapping can open up a Pandora’s Box.

• Makes Ca released from the calcium phytate complex

• Makes Na and many other trace elements released from the claws of phytate.

• Releases amino acids and energy by direct and indirect ways.


As a thumb rule, phytase comes in the formulation as an automatic choice. The selection of the secondenzyme may be a bit tricky but always a xylanase/beta glucanase/NSPase combination is a better bet. Thechoice of the third enzyme is optional. If the diet contains a substantial quantity of un-conventionalprotein sources, then protease should pay the dividend. The benefits of protease applications are in manycases intangible yet substantial.

Trademark Quantum Blue Phytaverse Axtra Phy Hi Phos Ronozyme NP Natuphos

Manufacturer AB Vista Novus Danisco DSM DSM BASF

Donor E. Coli Buttiauxella Cytrobacter P. lycii A. niger

Produced in T. reesei T. Reesei A. niger A oryzae A. niger

Available P 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.12


Phytase is the first choice: A good phytase offers a lot

The above information is for illustration purpose and states the values for 500 ftu phytase. Does not include the new variants of the products.

All commercial phytases come with very lucrative matrix. The matrix must be judged very carefullycrosschecked if the matrix is an exaggeration or is a reality.

Apply the phytase matrix requires nutrition acumen


Price = RS 27.76/kg


Price = RS 26.83/kg




Increasing the phytase concentration from 500 to 1000 and

then to 1500 ftu increases phytase activity. The response is

curvilinear. However, enzymes need substrates – and phytase is

not an exception. To get better responses from a higher dose of

phytase either phytate affinity of the phytase should be high or

the amount of substrate (phytate) to be increased.

• Keeping a similar matrix increasing phytase activitylowers the feed cost.

• The savings comes through reduction of inclusion ofmainly oil and also to some extent the P source.

• Remember, phytase can release P from plant sourcesand not from animal protein sources.

• Hence, a complete removal of P sources will not beprudent at all.

• Similarly, the formulator must keep in mind that aminimum quantity of oil is also needed in formula.

Price = RS 26.31/kg


Pay attention towards increasing phytase efficacy

• Lowering Ca level according to phytase matrix ...

• Gives space in formulation

• Alleviates the negative interaction with other minerals

• Increasing the energy and protein digestibility

• Increases P digestibility and improves performance.

• Thus, by playing with the Ca matrix of phytase it is possible to reduce unnecessaryinclusion of limestone in formula and maintain a good performance with a lower feed cost.


Pay attention towards increasing phytase efficacy

• Applying the energy matrix of phytase takes away some quantities of energy rich rawmaterials like corn and oil.

• Allows inclusion of low energy raw material like de-oiled rice bran.• This in turn increases the volume of the feed … if it is a mash feed and birds spend more

time on feed (increased clean up time).• Thus, indirectly, flock uniformity should be better when the trick is applied.

• Xylanase + B-glucanase make substrates available for digestion

• Not only energy but also amino acids become digested

• Realistically there should be both energy and amino acid matrix for this category of

enzymes

• The decision should be based on the targeted effects to be obtained over and above thosealready achieved by the phytase.

• The selection is governed by the raw materials – in a wheat based diet xylanase is a must.


The second enzyme – xylanase and β-glucanase ?

A xylanase + β-Glucanase or NSPase is apt to be the second most important enzyme provided enough digestible substrates are there in the formula the enzymes can work on.


Application of the combined matrix must be done cautiously

Phytase + Xylanase (full matrix) Price = RS 25.32/kg Phytase + Xylanase (part matrix) Price = RS 26.37/kg


Phytase Ca, P + Xylanase Price = RS 27.19/kg

Application of the combined matrix must be done cautiously

• Not all undigested energy can be digested by any enzymeor enzyme combination.

• If a xylanase has the potential to increase digestibility by80 kcal the effect will be augmented by addition of aphytase.

Total energy contribution by a combination of phytase 6xylanase will be 50+70 = 120 kcal and not 50 + 80 = 130 kcal – asub additive effect.


Phytase and xylanase complements each other

Nutrients in raw materials are notisolated criteria. They exist ascomplexes with various linkages toprotein, fat, fiber and other complexcarbohydrates. Multiple enzymeapplication results in synergisticeffects by providing greater substrateaccess and reducing the anti-nutritiveeffects of the substrates.

The above citation shows that supplementation of xylanase alone may not be as beneficial as it would be when goes along with a phytase (Selle et al. 2003).

However, the effects may not be 2+ 2 = 4.Rather it may be 2 + 2 = 3 or evenless.


Protease the third enzyme: does it work ?

• Despite inconsistency reported in literature protease has enough potential to augment the actions of

phytase and xylanase.

• Phytin (the storage form of P in plants) is a globoid protein which is possibly resistant to phytase and

protease facilitates the breakdown of the phytin globoid and helps phytase to access the phytate.

• Allows inclusion of low digestible protein sources and makes some NEAA available – like glycine and

glutamine thus boosting up the growth of enterocytes which depend on glutamine.

• Cuts supply of protein to potential gut pathogens leading to a ‘good gut’.

• Proteases preferentially target the cereal portion of the ration and also the trypsin inhibitors and the

lectins.

• Unfortunately, either their matrix values are exaggerated or they are too complicated to apply on a day

to day basis.


Definitely it does but … note the following points:

• Protease significantly improves amino acid digestibility but a concomitant improvement in performance may

not be there always (Angel et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2013).

• Variation in protease responses might be due to the ingredients used in ration and may not be discernible if

tested at the background of a phytase and/or xylanase (Sultan et al., 2011; Kalmendel, 2012).

• Effects are likely to be more when used together with a phytase and a carbohydrase.

• Diet formulation is extremely important to elicit the maximum benefit from a protease. Inclusion of some

less digestible protein meals should yield more discernible effects from a given dose of protease.




2188.33

2033.182095.70

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

2150

2200

2250

2300

PC NC NC + Protease

Body weight (g) of chickens at 42 d of age The experimental diet contained de-oiled mustard cakewhich is rich in phytate and is less digestible than soy.Protease was supplemented on top.

Without protease and phytase FCR showed severedepression. The recovery in FCR suggested thepositive effect of protease + phytase.

1.725

1.801

1.754

1.68

1.7

1.72

1.74

1.76

1.78

1.8

1.82

PC NC NC + Protease

Feed conversion ratio 1-42 d

The data indicates that when de-oiled mustard cake wasincorporated into the diet protease got a better opportunity towork owing to a greater availability of substrate to work on.


Protease the third enzyme: a xylanase makes a protease more effective

Protease along with xylanase and phytase improves bodyweight, feed conversion and nutrient digestibility inbroilers (28-d trial period)

The nutrient release effect should be kept in mind whileformulating the diets especially when body weight is aconcern.


Protease the third enzyme: when it will not work ?

Phytase + Protease + Xylanase full matrix Price = RS 25.82

Phytase Ca and Av P/Protease + Xylanase full matrix Price = RS 27.48

FORMULA-1 FORMULA-2

A nutritionally marginal diet allows the enzyme to work efficiently

63

• The maximum efficacy of a feed enzyme is obtained when the digestibility of the diet isat a lower plane.

• Enzyme efficacy drops by 50% for every 10% increase in digestibility of diet.

• If the digestibility of a diet is 70% then by enzyme intervention it can be increased to77% - a clear improvement of 10%.

• But, if the digestibility of a diet is as high as 90%,

• then enzyme supplementation can increase the digestibility by a meagre 2% only to91.8%.



Source: Cowieson et al . 2012

A nutritionally marginal diet allows the enzyme to work efficiently

Combination of enzyme matrices – the paradox

65

Combination of enzyme matrices is an art and formulation advise must not result in loss in performance.


Combination of enzyme matrices - the correct approach

66

The most important part is to reduce reliance on the virtual matrices and judge how much actual nutrient is supplied to the bird – here lies the importance of nutrition acumen.


Points to remember while going back

• Realistically, it is really difficult to increase nutrient digestibility beyond 88-90% by applying enzymes in

formulations.

• Extraction of the maximum benefits from enzyme application depends totally on the raw material being used in

formulations.

• Nutrition acumen is very important when enzyme matrix values are applied and an over-simplification may prove

suicidal.

• In breeding hen feeding programs enzyme application should be used as a tool to get the benefits which are more

of satellite in nature though in commercial broilers and layers the main focus should be cost reduction without

any impact on productivity.


Formulating broiler diets for least cost and maximum ...

Documents

Transcript of Formulating broiler diets for least cost and maximum ...