Have you Checked your Soybean´s Pedigree Lately?:
Evaluating the Nutritive Value of SBM in Poultry
Diets
Gonzalo G. Mateos
UP Madrid
Others1
17%
SBM65%
RSM13%
CSM6%
SFM6%
PKM+Copra3%
1999/20021Fish, peanut, etc meals
Others 6%
SBM68%
RSM13%
CSM5%
SFM5%
PKM+Copra3%
2014/2016Total 310 Mt
World protein meals supply% of total
Protein ingredient balance, 2013/2014EU-281
Production Consumption Self Suffic, %
Soya 497 14,752 3
Rapes + Sunseed 5,680 7,379 77
Pulses 417 393 106
Dried forages 613 570 108
Other veg protein2 786 1,276 62
Fish meal 270 351 77
Total of proteins3 8,263 24,721 33
1 Protein equivalents (1,000 t) Terves Univia, 20152 Palm, cotton, gluten feed, copra3 Stable for last 5-10 years
World feed productionSpecies (2016)
Broilers34%
Layers9%
Turkeys5%
Pigs26%
Beef10%
Dairy9%
Others1
7%
Total: 1 US billion tons1Aquaculture (4%), pets (2%), horses (1%)
World protein production, x 106 t
2014 2015 2050
Bovine 68 68 107
Poultry 110 112 202
Pigs 118 119 150
Aqua 74 78 114
Milk 789 806 1,120
Total 1,159 1,182 1,693
FAO, 2016
World feed production, 2015/2016Total production: 1 US billion tons
Several sources
18%
17%
16%
7%
India3%
Mexico3%
Russia3%
33%
China
USA
EU-28
Rest
world
Brazil
Feed production, 2016World (x 106 Mt)
Company Country X 106 Mt
CP Group Thailand 27.6
Cargill USA 19.5
New Hope Group China 18.7
Purina Animal Nutrition1 USA 13.5
Wen´s Food Group China 12.0
BRF2 Brazil 10.4
Tyson Foods USA 10.0
1Land o Lakes Statistic, 20172Banvit not included Feed Manage, 2016
World top producers
Poultry, 2016
Company CountryBirds
(x 106)
Tyson Foods USA 1,737
BRF1 Brazil 1,724
JBS Aves Brazil 1,675
Pilgrim´s USA 1,500
New Hope Group China 800
Wen´s Food Group China 744
Perdue Foods USA 675
Bachoco Mexico 672
1 Without new purchase of Benvit (Turkey and Romania)
Poult. Int., 2016
Feed production, 2016Europe (x 106 Mt)
Company Country X 106 Mt
ForFarmers B.V. Netherlands 9.1
Agrifirm Netherlands 7.1
Deheus Netherlands 6.0
Nutreco Netherlands 5.9
DLG Group Denmark 4.5
Agrovis Raiffeisen Germany 4.1
Avril/Sanders France 3.4
Veronesi Italy 3.2
Feed Int., 2016
Europe top producers
Poultry, 2016
Company CountryBirds
(x 106)
LDC France 460
Plukon Food Group Netherlands 360
AIA Italy 350
PHW Group Germany 350
2 Sisters Food Group UK 320
MHP Ukraine 312
Moy Park Ltd UK 260
Amadori Italy 250
Poult. Int., 2016
Crude protein in dietsNon-ruminants
Future trend: “↓CP content of the feeds”
✓ Environmental concerns
Sustainability
✓ Wet litter problems
Carcass quality
✓ Animal health
✓ Feed cost
Ideal protein concept
↓ Relative cost of crystalline AA
Enzymes (protease) and additives
Lys content of SBM, % as fed
Instit. Country Year CP (%) Lys (%)
INRA France 2002 47.2 2.89
NARO Japan 2009 47.0 3.05
Viçosa Brazil 2011 47.1 2.86
NRC USA 2012 47.7 2.96
RPRI Russia 2014 47.0 3.04
Premier UK 2014 47.0 2.93
Evonik1 Germany 2016 47.5 2.87
CVB Netherlands 2016 46.8 2.90
Fedna Spain 2017 47.0 2.90
1 Brazil
Soybean meal, 47% CPAmino acid profile, % CP
Instit. Country Year Lys TSAA Thr
INRA France 2002 6.10 2.90 3.90
NARO Japan 2009 6.41 2.82 3.91
Viçosa Brazil 2011 6.14 2.81 3.90
NRC USA 2012 6.20 2.85 3.90
RPRI Russia 2014 6.46 2.94 4.00
Premier UK 2014 6.08 2.82 3.91
Evonik1 Germany 2016 6.04 2.72 3.87
CVB Netherlands 2016 6.20 2.90 3.90
Fedna Spain 2017 6.17 2.87 3.90
1 Brazil
Soybean meal, 47% CPEnergy content, broilers
Instit. Country Year CP (%)AMEn
(Mcal/kg)
NRC USA 1994 47.2 2.38
INRA France 2002 47.2 2.32
NARO Japan 2009 47.0 2.45
Viçosa Brazil 2011 47.0 2.32
Feedipedia France 2012 47.1 2.32
RPRI Russia 2014 47.0 2.55
Premier UK 2014 47.0 2.42
CVB Netherlands 2016 46.8 2.16
Evonik Germany 2016 46.6 2.33
Fedna Spain 2017 47.0 2.33
European Tables, 1989AMEn, SBM (kJ/kg DM)1
“15.69 × CP + 29.51 × EE + 6.236 × NFE”
✓ Crude protein vs. digestible protein
✓ EE vs. HCl EE
✓ NFE: sugar vs. ADF
1 Data on g/kg DM
Same chemical
values. But, same
energy content?
Soybean meal, 47% CPProximal analyses, %
INRA
(2002)
Japan
(2009)
Brazil
(2011)
NRC
(2012)
Russia
(2014)
CVB
(2016)
Evonik2
(2016)
Fedna
(2017)
Moist. 12.4 11.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 11.3 12.0 12.0
NDF1 8.9 11.6 14.5 8.2 12.1 8.6 10.7 9.2
CP 47.2 47.0 47.0 47.7 47.0 46.8 46.6 47.0
EE 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.6 2.1 1.8
Ash 6.3 6.4 5.8 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.6 6.2
∑ 76.3 77.6 79.9 73.7 77.8 74.7 77.0 76.2
What is missing?
1Estimated from CF for Russia2 Avge of USA and BRA meals
Amino acid digestibility trials
Growth performance trials
Field trials
Feed formulation, SpainBroilers, 20-35 d
✓ Diet profile
Corn/SBM diet
AMEn: 3,140 kcal/kg
SID Lysine: 1.06% (Ideal protein)
✓ AMEn content of SBM, 47% CP (kcal/kg)
CVB (2016): 2,160
Fedna (2017): 2,330
Russia (2014): 2,550
✓ Other nutrients including AA
Same for all SBM
Feed formulation, SpainCost of ingredients, €/ton
✓ Corn 185
✓ SBM, 47% CP 382
✓ Soy oil 855
✓ L-Lys, 78% 1,540
✓ DL-Met, 99% 2,250
✓ L-Threonine, 99% 1,600
✓ Dicalcium phosphate 385
SBM matrix and formula costBroilers, December 2016
SBM, 47% CP, matrix used
CVB
(2016)
Fedna
(2017)
Russia
(2014)
AMEn of SBM (kcal/kg) 2,160 2,330 2,550
SBM in diet, % 30.9 30.7 30.5
Soy oil in diet, % 5.0 3.9 2.9
SBM relative value, €/t 361 382 409
Diet cost, €/ton 289 282 274
n = 515
USA35%
ARG33%
BRA32%
EU survey, 2007-2015Origin of the samples
Animal Feed Science Technology, 2016
SBM survey, SpainLaboratory analyses
✓ Samples collected from 2007 to 2015
Country of origin (60%) and European ports (40%)
✓ Analyzed in duplicate
Proximal, fiber, sugars, and minerals
Amino acids (NIR and wet chemistry)
TIA, KOH, PDI, urease, HDI (AminoRed)
✓ Same lab, same technician
SBM by origin, 88% DMEuropean survey (%)
n CP NDF Sucrose1 Oligo.2
ARG 170 45.5b 9.0b 6.8b 6.2b
BRA 165 46.8a 10.4a 5.6c 6.0b
USA 180 46.8a 7.9c 7.4a 6.6a
SEM 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.05
P *** *** *** ***
1 Stachyose + raffinose
SBM survey, 2007-2015Amino acid profile1, % CP
n Lys TSAA Thr Trp
ARG 170 6.11b 2.87a 3.94a 1.37a
BRA 165 6.07c 2.81b 3.89b 1.35c
USA 180 6.17a 2.88a 3.92a 1.37B
SEM 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.002
P *** *** *** ***
1 88% DM
SBM, all origins (n=515)LYS vs. CP content
2,90
3,00
3,10
3,20
3,30
3,40
3,50
3,60
48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0 58,0
Lys
(% D
M)
CP of the SBM (% DM)
ARG
BRA
USA
y = 0.061x + 0.024
R2 = 0.853; P<0.001
RSD = 0.040
SBM by origin, Lys vs. CP content
2,90
3,00
3,10
3,20
3,30
3,40
3,50
3,60
48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0 58,0
Lys
(%
DM
)
CP of the SBM (% DM)
y = 0.069x - 0.418
R2 = 0.879; P<0.001
RSD = 0.039
2,90
3,00
3,10
3,20
3,30
3,40
3,50
3,60
48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0
Lys
(%
D
M)
CP of the SBM (% DM)
y = 0.059x + 0.083
R2 = 0.914; P<0.001
RSD = 0.029
2,90
3,00
3,10
3,20
3,30
3,40
3,50
3,60
48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0 58,0
Lys
(% D
M)
CP of the SBM (% DM)
y = 0.049x + 0.650
R2 = 0.834; P<0.001
RSD = 0.028
USA (n = 180) BRA (n = 165)
ARG (n = 170)
SBM by origin, Lys profile (% CP)
5,80
5,90
6,00
6,10
6,20
6,30
6,40
48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0 58,0
Lys
(%
CP
)
CP of the SBM (% DM)
y = − 0.023x + 7.40
R2 = 0.237; P<0.001
RSD = 0.052
5,80
5,90
6,00
6,10
6,20
6,30
6,40
48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0 58,0
Lys
(%
CP
)
CP of the SBM (% DM)
y = 0.015x + 5.27
R2 = 0.088; P<0.001
RSD = 0.074
5,80
5,90
6,00
6,10
6,20
6,30
6,40
48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0
Lys
(%
CP
)
CP of the SBM (% DM)
NS (P>0.10)
USA (n = 180)BRA (n = 165)
ARG (n = 170)
SBM protein qualityIndustry standards
KOH solubility, % 75-85
PD index, % 15-30
Urease activity, mg N/g 0.00-0.10
TI activity, mg/g < 2.2-3.5
“Poor agreement between Research
Institutions and Industry for suitable values for
protein quality of SBM”
SBM survey, 2007-2015Protein quality
nTIA
(mg/g)
PDI
(%)
KOH
(%)
HDI
AminoRed2
ARG 170 2.6b 16.0b 81.2c 12.5b
BRA 165 2.7b 15.0b 82.0b 15.6a
USA 180 3.5a 19.5a 86.1ª 9.0c
SEM 0.08 0.40 0.23 0.37
P *** *** *** ***
1 Urease < 0.03 mg N/g for all origins (P < 0.01)
2 Evonik index
Soybean meal color
✓ Heating and processing
✓ Particle size
✓ Country of origin (Fe content)
India vs. Brazil vs. Argentina vs. USA
nLightness
L*
Redness
a*
Yellowness
b*
ARG 128 67.1b 7.1b 27.7b
BRA 108 65.5c 8.2a 27.7b
USA 169 69.3a 6.8c 28.6a
SEM 0.28 0.10 0.14
P *** *** ***
1 Minolta
Soybean meal colour1
Samples ground at 1 mm
Average particle size by SBM origin
7 Sieves (μm) : 2500, 1250, 660, 330, 80, 40, and residue
n GMD1 SD
ARG 91 1363b 472
BRA 92 1522a 474
USA 85 856c 168
SEM 50.4
P < ***
1GMD: Geometric mean diameter
Average particle size by SBM origin
n GMD1 SD
ARG 41 1295b 258
BRA 13 1645ª 215
USA 21 1381b 319
SEM 50.4
P < ***
7 Sieves (μm) : 2500, 1250, 660, 330, 80, 40, and residue
1GMD: Geometric mean diameter
324 samples
NIRS 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)
NIRS external validation
ORIGIN N = 69 ARG BRA USA % True
Argentine 20 19 0 1 95.0
Brazil 13 0 13 0 100
USA 36 2 0 34 94.4
True = 96% USA
BRA
ARG
Soybean mealQuality control
✓ Quality of the original beans
Bean grade and crop and harvest conditions
✓ Crude protein content and quality
Amino acid profile and availability
KOH, PDI, HDI, urease?
TI vs. Maillard reactions
✓ Energy content
Digestible protein
Sucrose, oligosaccharides, EE
Sandy
Broken & Splitted Greenish
Moldy
Soybean grades
Toasted Burnt
Sprouted
Soybean grades
Soybeans storage, Argentina
SBM in broilers, in vivo trialSID of Cys (%)
Adapted from FEDNA (2010) for SBM, 47%CP
76
78
80
82
84
86
%CP (88% DM)
ARG
USABRA
Frikha et al., 2012
Energy content by origin of the beanSBM (kcal/kg as fed)
USA BRA ARG Reference value3
(n = 180) (n = 165) (n =170) NRC Fedna
CP, % 47.1 47.0 45.8 47.7 47.0
AMEn1, poultry 2,308a 2,292b 2,267c 2,332 2,330
AMEn2, pigs 3,469a 3,359c 3,422b 3,294 3,240
NE2, pigs 2,098a 2,033c 2,067b 2,087 2,025
1 WPSA European Tables, 1986 (88% DM, kcal/kg)
2 Noblet et al., 2003 (kcal/kg)
3 NRC (1994) and Fedna (2017)
AME of SBM by origin of the beanEnergy content, poultry
n CP (%)AME
(kcal/kg)
AME
(range)
USA 16 47.3 2,375 2,130-2,541
ARG 16 46.9 2,227 1,796-2,417
BRA 10 48.2 2,317 2,003-2,531
India 13 46.4 2,000 1,567-2,299
P value ** ***
1 In vitro trial Ravindran et al., 2014
Massey U.2 (2014)
(In vivo)
UP Madrid3 (2016)
(Predicted)
ARG 2,227b 2,267c
BRA 2,317ab 2,292b
USA 2,375a 2,308a
1 Book values ≈ 2,300-2,350 kcal AMEn/kcal
2 Ravindran et al., 2014 (n = 55)
3 García-Rebollar et al., 2016 (WPSA, 1986) (n= 515)
SBM by origin of the beansAMEn content1, poultry (kcal/kg)
SBM by bean origin1
Argentina Brazil USA
AMEn, kcal/kg 2,252 2,292 2,347
CP, % 45.5 46.8 46.8
SID Lys, % 2.44 2.52 2.63
SBM in diet, % 33.1 31.7 31.6
∑ AA (Lys + Met + Thr) in diet, % 0.53 0.55 0.47
Soy oil in diet, % 4.9 4.5 4.1
SBM relative value, €/ton 355 370 382
Diet cost €/ton 292 287 283
SBM matrix and fomula costBroilers, January 2017
1 AFST, 2016. Considering digestible CP and sugar contents in the estimation of
the AMEn content.
General commentsUSA SBM vs. other origins
✓Brazil vs, USA meal ↓ Sucrose, K and P and ↑ CF and Fe
↓ KOH, PDI and TI, and ↑ HDI (↓ AA digestibility?)
↓ Indispensable AA per unit of CP and AMEn
✓ Argentina vs. USA meal
Less CP, intermediate AA profile
↓ KOH, PDI, and ↑ HDI (↓ AA digestibility?)
Less AMEn
India ↑ Ash, CF, and Fe and ↓ fat, sucrose
↑ KOH, PDI, and ↑ HDI (↓ AA digestibility?)
↓ Indispensable AA (% CP) and AMEn
General conclusions
✓ The chemical composition and protein quality of the SBM
vary with the country of origin of the beans
✓ Current methods used by the industry to evaluate protein
quality and nutritive value of SBM do not detect existing
differences among SBM
✓ Different matrices should be used for SBM of different
origins. NIR technology proved to be useful
While the U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC) does not guarantee the forecasts or statements of USSEC Staff or Contractors, we have taken care
in selecting them to represent our organization. We believe they are knowledgeable and their presentations and opinions will provide listeners with
detailed information and valuable insights into the U.S. Soy and U.S. Ag Industry. We welcome further questions and always encourage listeners to
seek a wide array of opinions before making any financial decisions based on the information presented. Accordingly, USSEC will not accept any
liability stemming from the information contained in this presentation.
Thanks
Top Related