Pesti, Gene

Tahir, Muhammad

Pesti, Gene; Tahir, Muhammad. (2013). Calculating the Costs of Amino Acid Supplementation. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/204381

University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy

Calculating the Costs of Amino Acid Supplementation Gene Pesti Department of Poultry Science, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA Muhammad Tahir Department of Animal Nutrition, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University, Peshawar, Pakistan Take-Home Message This study showed how using different database values for digestible amino acid contents influences ingredient usage and feed costs for example broiler diets with recent (2012) ingredient costs from the USA. A series of feeds were formulated to compare results from using two commercial ingredient composition databases: Ajinomoto Heartland Inc. (AHi, rooster assay values) and Evonik Industries (Evonik, chick assay values). The ingredient composition matrix was based on NRC (1994) tables except for digestible amino acids and protein. Requirements were for broiler starter, grower and finisher diets and are the authors' estimates for example purposes only diets. Formula costs were higher using the Evonik digestible amino acid values, $8.01, $8.08 and $8.41 for the starter, grower and finisher diets, respectively (about 2.5%). Differences in formulation costs were due to higher levels of supplemental amino acids, soybean meal and fat when using the Evonik database. The shadow price of wheat in the broiler finisher diet was $229.5/ton using AHi values but only $220.71 with Evonik digestible amino acid values. Not knowing the digestible amino acid levels in feed ingredients or choosing inappropriate digestible amino acid values may result (at least) in inefficiencies of approximately $8/ton of finished feed for broilers. Differences in feed cost from using the different digestibility • values can give an estimate of potential savings (costs) from using a particular database versus the other. The cost difference could be used to demonstrate the magnitude of research monies that should be dedicated to most accurately estimating amino acid digestibility values, many millions of dollars! Introduction Tahir and Pesti (2012) published a study comparing the results of feed formulation models based on two different analytical approaches to determine amino acid digestibility. They used breeding company recommendations for digestible amino acid requirements. Interestingly, the breeding companies do not specify which feed ingredient values correspond to their stated requirements. Using the different databases resulted in differences of $1/ton for a turkey finisher, but $8/ton for a turkey starter. Broiler diets were intermediate. In the study presented here we update and extend those results with prices more typical of 2012 and requirements and ingredient compositions more similar to what we estimate is being used during 2012-2013. Poultry and swine feed formulation was based on the total amino acids (AA) in ingredients for most of the 20th century (NRC 1994 ). Digestible amino acids are determined in animal assays as the product of digestion and absorption (Han and Parsons, 1990; Lemme et al., 2004). To minimize overfeeding, digestible amino acids are now generally used in place of total amino acids (Albino, et al., 1992; Green, 1986; Jolly, 1989; Rostagno, et al. , 1995). Digestible amino 227 acid formulation has been shown to increase performance in broilers (Fernandez, et al., 1995; Rostagno, et al., 1995), lowering costs. There are two competing schools of thought on the best model to use for determining digestible amino acids for poultry: Ajinomoto Heartland Inc. (AHi) values are based on rooster assays and the Evonik Industries (Evonik) values are based on chick assays (Fernandez and Parsons, 1996; Firman, 1992; Huang, et al., 2000; Johns, et al., 1986; Lemme, et al., 2001; Parsons, 1986; Rostagno, et al., 1995; Sibbald, 1987). Amino acid digestibility values determined with roosters are widely used in feed formulation for broilers, laying hens and turkeys (NRC, 1994). Tahir and Pesti (2010) showed that the amino acid digestibility values from the different methods are clearly not interchangeable. They observed that digestible amino acids (% of diets) averaged 14.4% higher in the rooster than chick assays across 20 common poultry feed ingredients. Wang (1996) also observed that the rooster digestibility assay might have overestimated the bioavailability of TSAA for chick growth. The questions addressed here are 1) how different amino acid digestibility database values influence ingredient usage and feed costs for broiler starter, grower and finisher diets with recent ingredient costs from the USA, and 2) the relative values of wheat in a broiler finisher diet with digestibility values from the two databases. This analysis using the different digestibility values can give an estimate of potential savings (costs) from using particular values but does not address potential response differences from feeding the different diets. The cost difference may be used to demonstrate the magnitude and importance of research monies that should be dedicated to accurately estimating amino acid digestibility values. Materials and Methods A series of feeds were formulated with values from Ajinomoto Heartland Inc. (AHi; rooster) and Evonik Industries [Evonik; chick) databases. A matrix for formulating feeds was compiled in Windows User-Friendly Feed Formulation (WUFFDA) from several sources: 1) the ingredient composition was from the NRC (1994) ingredient composition table except for digestible amino acids and crude protein levels; 2) the digestible amino acid values were compiled from two commercial companies' databases: Evonik Aminodat 4.0; http://www.aminodat.com and AHi; http://aaa.lysine.com/AA Table/lngredients.aspx; Table 1 accessed 08/06/2013. Costs were estimated from several sources for an American producer during 2012 (Table 1 ); 3) Digestible amino acid requirements were from an American broiler producer. Microsoft Excel version 1.2 was used for formulation and sensitivity analysis implemented with Windows User-Friendly Feed Formulation (WUFFDA). Values for "as-is" amino acid concentrations and digestibilities were used in the formulations. Ingredients were chosen based on discussion with several formulating and allied industry nutritionists during the summer of 2013 (Tables 2 and 3). 228 Table 1. The feed formulation matrix used to compare digestible amino acid values from Evonik Industries (Evonik) and Ajinomoto Heartland, Inc. (AHi) databases. Wheat, DOGS and meat and bone meals were fixed at 5, 3.5 and 3% in the starter diet, 6, 4.5 and 4% in the grower diet and 10, 6.5 and 5% in the finisher diet, respectively. Cost Min. Max. M.E. Protein Ca aP dLYS dMET dTSAA dTHR $/ton % % Kcal/g % % % % % % % Corn, Grain EVK 264 0 100 3.35 7.8 0.02 0.10 0.22 0.15 0.30 0.29 Corn, Grain AHi 264 0 100 3.35 8.4 0.02 0.10 0.22 0.15 0.32 0.27 SBM -48% EVK 421 0 100 2.44 47.8 0.27 0.24 2.60 0.59 1.14 1.57 SBM -48% AHi 421 0 100 2.44 48.72 0.27 0.24 2.77 0.61 1.26 1.68 Wheat EVK 250 10 10 2.80 11.5 0.05 0.11 0.29 0.16 0.41 0.30 Wheat AHi 250 10 10 2.80 14.1 0.05 0.11 0.34 0.19 0.50 0.33 DOGS EVK 261 6.5 6.5 2.48 26.1 0.17 0.41 0.57 0.43 0.80 0.71 N DOGS AHi 261 6.5 6.5 2.48 26.87 0.17 0.41 0.60 0.47 0.85 0.72 N co Meat&Bone EVK 462 5 5 1.96 53.7 10.30 5.10 1.74 0.51 0.79 1.05 Meat&Bone AHi 462 5 5 1.96 52.7 10.30 5.10 2.29 1.22 1.66 2.97 DL-Methionine 3380 0 100 3.61 58.1 0 0 0 99 99 0 L-Lysine HCI 2160 0 100 2.81 95.8 0 0 78 0 0 0 L-Threonine 2410 0 100 3.15 73.5 0 0 0 0 0 98.5 Poultry Fat 768 0 100 8.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Limestone 48 0 100 0.00 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 Defluor. Phos. 494 0 100 0.00 0 32 18 0 0 0 0 Common Salt 106 0.4 0.4 0.00 0 0.30 0 0 0 0 0 Vitamin Premix 3600 0.25 0.25 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mineral Premix 1000 0.09 0.09 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 2. The feed formulation nutrient restriction used to compare amino acid digestibility databases. Starter Grower Finisher Units Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. M.E. Kcal/g 3.00 100 3.07 100 3.12 100 Protein % 22.40 100 20.15 100 18.14 100 Calcium % 0.90 100 0.80 100 0.70 100 Avail. Phos. % 0.45 100 0.40 100 0.35 100 dLYS % 1.20 100 1.06 100 0.94 100 dMET % 0.58 100 0.52 100 0.46 100 dTSAA % 0.90 100 0.81 100 0.72 100 dTHR % 0.80 100 0.74 100 0.67 100 Results and Discussion The coefficient of determination (R2) between the critical amino acids in corn, soybean meal, wheat and DOGS of >0.998 is quite remarkable (Figure 1 ). The slope of the line shows that the AHi (rooster) values are about 7% higher for these amino acids and ingredients. Including the values for meat and bone meal decreased the R2 values from >0.998 to ~0.731. The exceptionally poor agreement for meat and bone meal is also remarkable and suggests that either there were big differences in the samples assayed with the different methods, or something about the meat and bone meal particularly inhibits either amino acid absorption or digestion when high concentrations are fed to chicks. Perhaps the high concentrations of Ca or P are having this effect in chicks but not roosters. Formula costs were higher using the Evonik digestible amino acid values, ranging from $8.01/ton for the broiler starter to $8.41/ton for the broiler finisher (Table 3). The broiler starter and finisher diets were $6.2 and $2.6/ton higher using the Evonik digestible amino acid values in the earlier study (Tahir and Pesti, 2012). Cost differences were due to higher levels of supplemental amino acids, soybean meal and fat when using the Evonik database. Digestibility values of standard and alternative ingredients may also influence the values of alternative ingredients as evidenced by their shadow prices (Figure 2). The shadow prices of wheat and corresponding usage levels demonstrate the magnitude of such differences. In this case, about $9/ton, almost a 4% difference. Tahir and Pesti (2012) suggested: "Differences in feed costs from using the different digestibility values can give an estimate of potential savings (costs) from using a particular database. The cost difference may be used to demonstrate the magnitude of research monies that should be dedicated to most accurately estimating amino acid digestibility values". Their study found about $4/ton differences in broiler feed, approximately a $160,000,000 per year difference from using one set of values versus the others for the American broiler industry. In Table 3 we show approximately an $8/ton difference using what we think are more appropriate requirements and ingredient choices. The cost and potential savings from using the right values would seem to indicate that a very serious evaluation by the producers themselves could have a very high return on investment. 230 Table 3. Least-costs linear programming results of solving the matrix in Table 1 and restrictions in Table 2. Starter Grower Finisher Evonik AHi Evonik AHi Evonik AHi Feed Cost 353.86 345.82 343.80 335.72 334.82 326.41 $/ton % % % % % % Corn, Grain 264 52.87 54.91 57.62 59.61 57.94 60.09 SBM -48% 421 30.70 29.11 23.28 21.74 15.80 14.14 Wheat 250 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 10.00 10.00 DOGS 261 3.50 3.50 4.50 4.50 6.50 6.50 Meat+Bone 462 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 DL-Methionine 3380 0.32 0.26 0.28 0.22 0.24 0.17 L-Lysine HCL 2160 0.25 0.21 0.28 0.24 0.32 0.29 L-Threonine 2410 0.09 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.13 0.04 Poultry Fat 768 2.10 1.81 2.34 2.06 2.84 2.52 Limestone 48 0.58 0.58 0.53 0.53 0.50 0.50 Defluor. Phos. 494 0.84 0.85 0.32 0.33 0.00 0.00 Common Salt 106 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Vitamin Premix 9060 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Mineral Premix 2092 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 M.E. Kcal/g 3.00 3.00 3.07 3.07 3.12 3.12 Protein % 22.40 22.40 20.15 20.15 18.14 18.14 Calcium % 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.78 0.77 Avail. Phos. % 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 LYS % 1.20 1.20 1.06 1.06 0.94 0.94 MET % 0.62 0.58 0.55 0.52 0.48 0.46 CYS % 0.29 0.32 0.27 0.30 0.24 0.27 TSAA % 0.90 0.90 0.81 0.82 0.72 0.73 THR % 0.80 0.80 0.74 0.74 0.67 0.67 TRP % 0.22 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.15 VAL % 0.91 0.92 0.81 0.82 0.73 0.73 231 Figure 1. A comparison of the digestible amino acids in corn, soybean meal, wheat and distillers dried grains with solubles from the Ajinomoto Heartland, Inc. (AHi) and Evonik Industries (Evonik) databases. Including meat and bone meal decreased the R2 value to 0.731. 3.00111 ..-------------------------------. ~ 2.50111 :c ~ l!!l V') 9 2.00111 u ~ 0 z ~ 1.50111 ~ LI.I ...., co j:: 1.00111 V') LI.I C, c 0.50111 ... ,, Al ., JII' ,,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, .,, ,,• ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,A y@l:IIL.0671xllHID.0027111 R2@!:llD.99845111 0.00111 ..__ _________________________ ___, 0.00111 0.50111 1.00111 1.50111 2.00111 2.50111 3.00111 DIGESTIBLE~MINO~CIDS111~VONIKl1l Figure 2. Parametric cost ranging of wheat in a broiler finisher diet (Tables 1 and 2) based on corn, soybean meal and 10% DOGS. Shadow prices are $229.25 for the Ajinomoto Heartland, Inc. (AHi) dAA values and $220.71 for the Evonik Industries (Evonik) dAA values. 801ll -701ll - BroilerlJ=inisher!with~jinomoto!JieartlandlJfAA111 ~ 601ll -~ BroilerlJ=inisher!with!IvoniklJfAMI ~SO!ll -t:10 nJ ~ 40!ll -.... nJ 130lll -;: 201ll -101ll -0lll 1801ll 2001ll 2201ll 2401ll Wheatll:ostr$/Tonllll 232 Bibliography Adedokun, S.A, 0 . Adeola, C.M. Parsons, M.S. Lilburn and T.J. Applegate. 2008. Standardized lleal Amino Acid Digestibility of Plant Feedstuffs in Broiler Chickens and Turkey Poults Using a Nitrogen-Free or Casein Diet. Poult. Sci. 87:2535-2548. Albino, L.F.T., H.S. Rostagno, J.F. Fonseca and M.L. Tafury, 1992. Uso de aminoacidos disponiveis e proteina digestive! na formulacao de racoes para pintos de corte. Rev. Soc. Bras. Zoot. 21 :1069-1076. Baum, E.L., H.B. Fletcher and W.J. Standelman. 1953. An application of profit maximizing techniques to experimental input-out data. Poult. Sci. 32:378-381. Chung, T.K. and D.H. Baker. 1992. Apparent and true amino acid digestibility of a crystalline amino acid mixture and of casein: comparison of values obtained with ileal-cannulated pigs and cecectomized cockerels. J. Anim. Sci. 70:3781-3790. Costa, E.R., B.R. Miller, J.E. Houston and G.M. Pesti. 2001. Production and profitability responses to alternative protein sources and levels in broiler rations. J. Agric. Applied Econ. 33.3:567-581. Costa, E.R., J.E. Houston, L. Gunter and G.M. Pesti. 2002. Part or whole? Efficient broiler production responses to consumer-driven market. J. Food Dist. Res. 61-71 . Dent, J.B. and H. Casey. 1967. Linear programming and animal nutrition. J. P. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, PA. Fernandez, S.R., Y. Zhang and C.M. Parsons. 1995. Dietary formation with cottonseed meal on a total amino acid versus a digestible amino acid basis. Poult. Sci. 74: 1168-1179. Fernandez, S. R. and C. M. Parsons. 1996. Bioavailability of the lysine and valine in cottonseed and soybean meals for chicks. Poult. Sci. 75:216-223. Firman, J.D. 1992. Amino acid digestibilities of soybean meal and meat meal in male and female Turkeys. J. Applied Poult. Res. 1 :350-354. Green, S., 1986. Digestibility of amino acids: A role in practical feed formulation. Proceedings of AFTAA Meeting, (AFTAAM'86), Paris, France, pp.: 1-29. Han, Y. and C.M. Parsons. 1990. Determination of available amino acid and energy in alfalfa meal, feather meal, and poultry by-products by various methods. Poult. Sci. 69:1544-1552. Heady, E. 0 ., S. Balloun and R. McAlexander. 1956. Least cost rations and optimum marketing weights for broilers. Iowa Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 442:833-64. Huang, K., W.L. Bryden, V. Ravindran and X. Li. 2000. lleal protein digestibility of selected feedstuffs determined with adult cockerels, layers and broilers. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 13:137-137. Johns, D.C., C.K. Low, J.R. Sedcoles and K.A.C. James. 1986. Determination of amino acid digestibility using caecectomized and intact adult cockerels. Br. Poult. Sci. 27:451-461. Jolly, P., 1989. ISA Technical Service Bulletin No. 25. Journals. cambridge.org/production/ action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=618872. 233 Knight, C.D. and J.J. Dibner. 1984. Comparative Absorption of 2-Hydroxy-4-(Methylthio)-butanoic Acid and L-Methionine in the Broiler Chick. J. Nutr. 114:2179-2186. Lemme, A., S. Cremers, J. Pallauf, H.S. Rostagno, M. Pack and A. Petri, 2001. Apparent and true ileal amino acid digestibility of vegetable and animal protein of different origin in broilers. Proceedings of 13th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition, (ESPN'01 i, Blankenberge, Belgium, pp.: 169-170. Lemme, A., V. Ravindran and W.L. Bryden. 2004. lleal digestibility of amino acids in feed ingredients for broilers. World's Poult. Sci. J. 60:423-437. NRC, 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th Edn., National Academy Press, Washington, DC., USA., ISBN-13: 978-0-309-04892-7. Parsons, C.M., 1986. Determination of digestible and available amino acids in meat meal using conventional and caecectomized cockerels or chick growth assays. Br. J. Nutr. 56:227-240. Perez, L., I. Fernandez-Figares, R. Nieto, J.F. Aguilera and C. Preite, 1993. Amino acid ileal digestibility of some grain legume seeds in growing chickens. Anim. Prod. 56:261-267. Rostagno, H.S., J.M.R. Pupa and M. Pack, 1995. Diet formulation for broilers based on total versus digestible amino acids. J. Applied Poult. Res. 4:293-299. Sibbald, I. R., 1987. Estimation of available amino acids feeding stuffs for poultry and pigs: A review with emphasis on balance experiments. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 67:221-300. Sklan, D. 2001. Development of the digestive tract in poultry. World's Poult. Sci. J. 57:415-428. Tahir, M. and G.M. Pesti. 2010. A comparison of digestible amino acid data bases: relationship between amino acid concentration and digestibility. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 21 :693-705. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2010. Poultry -Production and Value 2009 Summary Pou 3-1 (10) http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/ PoulProdVa/PoulProdVa-04-29-201 0.pdf Waldroup, P.W. (mimeo, n.d). Using the MPS/360 linear programming system for feed formulation. Dept. of Animal Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. Wang, X. 1996. Effect of processing methods and raw material sources on protein quality of animal protein meals. M.S. thesis, University of lllinios, Urbana, IL. Windows User-Friendly Feed Formulation (WUFFDA). http://www.caes.uga.edu/publications/ displayHTML.cfm?pk id=7886 234 feed-additives@evonik.com www.evonik.com/feed-additives Evonik. Power to create. 235 MetAMINO® BiOlys· ThreAMINO® IryQAMINO® ~ eprc~ AMINONJR AMINOChick AMINOPig AMINO Cow AMINONews 

Calculating the Costs of Amino Acid Supplementation

https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/204381/SF95_M658a-74-2013_magr56355.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Calculating the Costs of Amino Acid Supplementation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy