Reducing emissions from poultry production whilst improving profitability


By Rob ten Doeschate & Gustavo Cordero, AB Vista


Recent years have seen an increasing interest from consumers regarding how food is produced, which is influencing how the animal production and feed industry is having to behave. Whilst originally this pressure was basically a request for improvement of animal welfare, more recently the environmental impact of food production has become more of a focus. The animal industry as a whole and nutritionists specifically should then look into how to improve broiler production not only from a performance perspective but also taking into account these new and less familiar parameters. Specifically, regarding environmental impact, the metric most


traditionally used is to calculate the emissions back to CO2 equivalent (CO2


e) using an accredited model based on IPCC standards. This


is a clearly defined way where different emissions are corrected based on their pollutant factors to produce one single value. When assessing the emission of broiler production using an IPCC standard, we have observed that feed formulation represents around 75% of these emissions, reinforcing the key role that nutritionists can play in reducing emission from feed and consequently from the broiler production. As improvement of performance has always been part of the responsibility of nutritionists when formulating diets, this statement can be oversimplified as animals with better performance would logically obtain the target weight consuming less feed and consequently have lower environmental impact. But the fact is that animals with similar performance and costing can have wide differences in CO2


performance is equivalent. However, most nutritionists are reluctant to use the full matrix values supplied by additive suppliers, often applying substantial ‘safety’ margins. Additionally it is clear that whilst a matrix value for one additive may be 100% correct, it doesn’t mean that one could apply such a matrix in diets where more than one additive is in use: The additive matrix values are not additive! This is because the first additive in use improves nutrient utilisation, which then leaves less room for improvement for the second additive and so on. A typical approach to this dilemma is to use 80% of the combined matrix values of a combination of additives, for instance when calculating with both phytase and xylanase in a diet. Today, phytases and carbohydrases are widely accepted in poultry nutrition but, despite this, the way in which feed enzymes are applied to diets remains conservative. Historically, this has been based on a limited understanding of the level and nutritional influences of enzyme substrates and of the changes enzymes can bring about to animal metabolism and physiology. In recent times our understanding in each of these areas has progressed, opening up new opportunities to exploit the full potential of feed enzyme application. The concept of using the full recommended nutrient release values like this has been called Maximum Matrix Nutrition or MMN. This strategy capitalises on the properties of Quantum Blue, an


e/kg of meat


and so such environmental impact need to be seen beyond simply performance and cost benefits but rather how to improve the usage of the nutrients presents in the diet. When you use the model to compare different feed treatments any effect on CO2


e is calculated from the


combination of changes in feed composition and animal performance. As an example, a lower protein diet with less soybean meal inclusion most likely has a lower amount of CO2


animal performance is not as good then the CO2


e per tonne of feed, but if the e per kg of broiler


produced may not be reduced. However, if equivalent performance can be achieved then the CO2


e per kg of broiler produced will be lower. At


the same time it is also likely that the diet cost has reduced, giving a win-win situation. One specific example of this is through the use of enzymes in feed


formulation. Enzymes have long been recognised as ways to reduce environmental impact, improve animal performance and reduce feed cost, but most of this was through an on over the top use or minimal use of matrix values. When utilising the full matrix for enzymes it typically results in lower


levels of soybean meal in the diet and thus the environmental footprint of broiler production can be substantially reduced, provided animal


PAGE 38 MARCH/APRIL 2020 FEED COMPOUNDER


enhanced E. coli phytase with a high affinity for phytate resulting in maximum reduction of the negative effects of phytate. Combining this with a stimbiotic product containing a thermostable and inhibitor- resistant xylanase as well as fermentable xylo-oligosaccharides (Signis) enables customers to take higher dietary nutrient contributions whilst maintaining animal performance, enabling considerable cost savings and a reduction in the excretion of nutrients. Extensive research has been conducted to determine the effect


of targeted enzyme application to degrade both phytate and NSP, reducing the antinutritive effects of both substrates. These risks can be mitigated in a precision enzyme combination strategy which delivers complete phytate breakdown whilst reducing viscosity and increasing fibre fermentability. Lee et al. (2018) and Aftab & Bedford (2018) published two studies demonstrating that there are important systemic effects when using higher doses of phytase and xylanase, aiming a strong action on both substrates (phytate and NSP), reducing the deleterious effects of these antinutritional factors, resulting in a great cost saving opportunity of formulation with maintenance of zootechnical performance At the European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition in Gdansk in


2019 a trial was presented to test whether this approach is valid. In this broiler trial a control diet (PC) was formulated to normal nutrient levels utilising the expected nutrient release of a standard 500 FTU/kg dose


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  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68