NUTRITION ▶▶▶
Near-infrared spectrometry Over the years the industry has depended on wet chemistry analyses to determine the macronutrients in feed. Proxi- mate analyses of feed ingredients typically include mois- ture, crude ash, crude protein, ether extracts, crude fibre and nitrogen-free extractive contents. In some instances, urease activity and mycotoxin analyses may be conducted. Most integrators can perform wet chemistry analyses in their feed mills. The constraints on wet chemistry analy- ses include the time it takes to perform the analysis, the numbre of chemical reagents needed and the cost. If these analyses are done by an independent laboratory, there may be variability from lab to lab which must be taken into consideration. Currently, NIRS technology is widely accepted as a means of performing nutrient analyses of feed ingredients. NIRS provides a quick, non-destructive quantitative analysis of feed ingredients commonly used in the poultry industry. Each organic component of feed absorbs and reflects near-infrared light differently. The feed is exposed to the light and by measuring the different reflectance character- istics, the amount of the feed components in the sample is determined. The benefits of using an NIRS system is that the analysis takes considerably less time, is considered safer because there is no use of reagents, more analyses can be conducted per day and the sample preparation is simpler compared to wet chemistry analyses. NIRS analyses also enable nutrition- ists to control nutrient variability in feed formulation which is important as variability in the nutritional quality of feed- stuffs may result in incorrectly balanced feeds. There may be periods when nutritionists could be over or under-formu- lating energy and amino acids which can definitely impact performance and production costs. During periods of high ingredient prices, integrators could be losing a lot of mon- ey. NIRS systems can provide nutritionists with real-time nutrient analyses of ingredients and diets. In the US NIRS technology has had limited use due to its high initial investment and the labour costs associated with its use. In some parts of the world integrators can dedicate one employee to manage the NIRS system. Another factor is
that the US generally has good quality feed ingredients which is not always the case in other parts of the world. For example, some countries in Europe import their soybean meal from the US, Argentina or Brazil at different times of the year which can vary significantly in nutritional composi- tion (Table 2). Additionally, more alternative feed ingredi- ents are used in other parts of the world, mainly driven by the high cost of importing corn and soybean meal. These al- ternative feed ingredients tend to be highly variable and thus must be analyzed for nutritional composition.
Alternative feed ingredients Market price volatility and the availability of raw ingredients for poultry diets are increasing the pressure to reduce feed costs. When the price of dietary raw ingredients dramatical- ly increases, the use of alternative, less traditional, raw in- gredients may become more economically attractive. An al- ternative feed ingredient would be one that is not used on a regular basis, whose nutrient composition has not been ful- ly defined and for which a maximum level of inclusion is un- clear. Alternative ingredients therefore vary from region to region. An ingredient may be considered alternative in one region but be commonly used in another. The continued pressure to reduce feed costs demands a better understanding of the various ingredient alternatives, their potential use and limitations. Some commonly known alternative feed ingredients are corn distillers, dried grains with solubles, sorghum, corn gluten meal, canola meal, cas- sava meal, rice bran, bakery meal, palm kernel meal and cottonseed meal. Considerations such as availability, nutri- tional composition, antinutritional factors, handling proper- ties and processing characteristics should be evaluated be- fore using an alternative feed ingredient. Some ingredients are also more suitable for broilers than broiler breeders, and vice versa. Nutritionists must first become confident of the quality of the alternative ingredients and reduce risk by for- mulating low inclusion levels. To take advantage of the re- duced costs that can be gained from using alternative feed ingredients, nutritionists could consider increasing the rate of sampling analyses and sourcing the ingredient from one supplier, if possible.
Table 2 – Crude protein and total amino acid content from soybean meals of different origins. *
Country
USA (n=108) Brazil (n= 68)
Argentina (n=62)
* 88% Dry matter * Adapted from Mateos, 2009
▶ POULTRY WORLD | No. 1, 2022 31 Crude Protein %
48.2 47.1 45.9
Lysine 2.99 2.87 2.81
Methionine 0.66 0.62 0.63
Total Amino Acid % Cystine 0.73 0.68 0.70
Tryptophan 0.66 0.64 0.63
PHOTO: COBB VANTRESS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
