quality parameters of sbm and utilization of fermented soy...

Quality Parameters of SBM and Utilization of fermented soy in livestock feeding.

.J. van Eys

Budapest Sept. 2017

Organization:

1. Introduction2. Differentiation among soy products: quality characteristics

(with special reference to: ANF)4. Potential of 2nd generation soy products ; fermented

products.5. Conclusions.

• Soy and SBM: the primary source of amino acids in animal feeds (esp. compound feeds).

• There exist limitations to the use of SBM – especially in sensitive spp or age groups.

• Alternative proteins are expensive (FM, Whey, a.o.) or limitations to use legal or consumer considerations.

• Potential to remove the ANFs that limit SBM limitations.• Potential to use “enhanced” or “ improved” soy products.

…. Which and how?

Organization:

1. Introduction 2. Differentiation among soy products: quality characteristics



• Technological treatment

• Crusher

• Storage time

Factors affecting NUTRIENT and ANF content of Plant protein products; sources of differentiation.

• Nutrient composition

- Ash, CP, EE, CF. etc.

• NFE / Carbohydrates

• ANF - Anti Nutritional Factors

Origin,

Genetics

Growing conditions

Additional

sources of

variation and

differentiation

• Varietal

• Environmental

• Crop disease

• Crop Mgmt

• Storage

Anti-nutritional factors

(ANF)in raw soybeans:

➢ NSP (non-starch poly-saccharides)

➢ Phytic acid

➢ Phyto-estrogens Heat

➢Saponins stable

➢Goitrogens

➢ Trypsin inhibitors:

▪ Kunitz Heat

▪ Bowman-Birk Labile➢ Lectins (hema-glutenins)

➢ Anti-vitamins

• Varietal

• Environmental

• Crop disease

• Crop Mgmt

• Storage

Heat treatment:

Governs nutrient availability

“Complicated” analysis

Quality differentiation

Historical information

(supplier classification)

SBM quality parameters:

• Protein; EAA; Lys.; NEAA ……………• NPN;

• wide range (2.9 to 7.8%) of the 12 varieties of soybeans.

• SBM: < 1.0%• Adulteration?

• ANF, • TI, • UI, • PDI, • KOH• others

30 60 50 30

200140

440

540

720

100

450 560

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

SBM SPC Potato Protein Whey FM Poultry BP

g/k

g

Crude Protein and NPN in some Feed Ingredients; g/kg (As Is).

NPN AA

(Andersen, Hamlet Protein, 2013)

ANTI-NUTRITIONAL FACTORS

BEFORE And AFTER PROCESSING

OBJECTIVE

of

Soybeans Processing

thru

HEATING

is to

MINIMIZE LEVELS

of

HEAT LABILE

Anti-Nutritional

Factors

From : Li and Piesker 2004; Liener, 1980

FACTORS Unit BEANS MEAL

Trypsin inhibitors mg/g 40-50 <5

Glycinin antigen ppm 180.000 66.000

Lectins ppm 3.500 10-200

Saponins % 0,5 0,6

Phytoestrogens ppm 0,1 0,5

Oligosaccharides % 14,0 15

Not sensitive to heat

Urease

TIA

Purushotham et al (2007)

Thermal treatment reduces TIA (mg/g DM)

of soy products

Effect of heat treatment on some SBM protein quality criteria; KOHsol, PDI, NSI.

0

0,005

0,01

0,015

0,02

0,025

0,03

0,035

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

UI

Pro

tein

So

l., K

OH

.2,%

Minutes

Effect of duration of heat treatment at 120ºC.

KOH PDI NSI UI

Maillard Reaction:

H. H. Stein

Lysine

Shiff Bases

Armadori

Melanoidins

Reduces Lys Digest.

Reduces Lys conc.

LysLys

H H

N

Unreactive LysReactive Lys

H

N

Effect on Lys/CP:

Soybean meal

Item Cntrl Autoclaved

for 15 min

Autoclaved

for 30 min

Oven dried

for 30 min

CP, % 48.5 49.2 48.3 49.1

(Gonzalez-Vega et al., 2011)

Lys 3.05 2.83 2.69 3.07

Lys/CP, % 6.29 5.75 5.57 6.25

Heat Treatment and the use of lysine as heat-damage indicator (Dr. Stein, Il. Univ.)

1. Calculate Lys as % of crude protein in SBM

2. If Lys is greater than 6.0% of crude protein, the meal is not damaged

3. If Lys is less than 6.0% of crude protein, the meal is heat damaged

H. H. Stein

ANF in some Soy products.Fullfat High-Pro Fermented HP SPC

soya SBM SBM HP 300

TI, mg/g protein 10 - 25 4 - 8 3 - 8 2 - 3 2 - 3

B-conglycinin, mg/g 50 - 100 10 - 50 1 - 10 0.002 < 0.002

Stachyose (%) 4 - 4.5 4.5 - 5 1 - 1.5 < 0.5 1 - 3

Raffinose (%) 0.8 - 1 1 - 1.2 0.2 - 0.8 < 0.1 < 0.2

Phytic acid (%) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6


Under-processing Over-processing

Optimal T.

Protein

& A.A.

Digestibility.

Con-

centration

anti-

nutritional

factors

Effect of heat treatment on protein or amino acid

digestibility and anti-nutritional factors.

Under-processing Over-processing

Optimal T.

Protein

& A.A.

Diges-

tibility:

Q. C. methods and effect of heat treatment on anti-

nut. factors and protein or amino acid digestibility.

Concentration

anti-nutritional

factors

T.I.: 25 - - - 20 --------------- 5 2 -------- 1

U.I.: .3 .02 - - - - - 0

0.2 % KOH: 90 - - 85 70 (over heating)

PDI: - - 40 - 30 15 (under heating)

Reactive Lys (Lys/CP) 6.4 - - - - - - 6.0 - - - - - -5.4 (heat damaged)

Temp.

SBM, all origins1

SID of CP vs. quality indexes

Variable r P

Crude protein + 0.51 0.05

Reactive Lys + 0.56 0.01

KOH solubility + 0.70 0.001

TI activity + 0.54 0.01

1Broiler trial (n = 22 SBM of 3 origins); Frikha et al., 2012

Prediction equations of the coefficient of standardized ileal digestibility (CSID)

of crude protein (CP) and lysine (Lys) of soybean meal (n = 22);

based on g/100 g dry matter.

CSID Regression equation3 R2 RSDb

CP 75.5 (±3.10) + 0.161 (±0.0372) KOH solubility 0.485 0.882

59.7 (±5.82) + 0.146 (±0.0317) KOH solubility+ 0.318 (±0.105) CP 0.654 0.742

29.3 (±16.7)+ 0.123 (±0.032) KOH solubility+ 0.284 (±0.099) CP+

+0.395 (±0.206) Reactive lysine 0.713 0.695

Lys 81.0 (±3.00)+ 0.127 (±0.036) KOH solubility 0.383 0.855

71.6 (±6.43)+ 0.118 (±0.035) KOH solubility+ 0.190 (±0.116) CP 0.459 0.821

1Broiler trial (n = 22 SBM of 3 origins); Frikha et al., 2012

Approx. Chemical analyses, %;SBM, 47% CP

Proximate analyses (no NFE): 70 - 72NFE: 28 – 30NSP* + 20.0Oligosacch.+ simple sugars 7.5 – 18.3

- Arabinose * 2.6- Galactose/galactosides * 5.0- Uronic acids 3.3- Sucrose 6.0- -(galacto) mannans * 1.6- Stachyose 4.0- others (…Raffinose) 1.5

Σ 100.0

(*From Irish et al. 1995; Choct, 1997 and Leske and Coon, 1999)

Variable concentrations:

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND NUTRITIVE VALUEApprox. Chemical analyses, %; SBM, 47% CP

(*From Irish et al. 1995; Choct, 1997 and Leske and Coon, 1999)

Va

ria

ble

co

nc

en

tra

tio

ns

:

% Digest.**

Proximate analyses (no NFE) 70-72 ~80.0

NFE 28-30 27.7

NSP* + 20.0 12.0

Oligosacch + simple sugars

• Arabinose*

• Galactose/Galactosides*

• Uronic acids

• Sucrose• -(galacto) mannans

• Stachyose

• Others (…Raffinose)

7.5-18.3

2.6

5.0

3.3

6.0

1.6

4.0

1.5

10.6

0.8

5.0

>70.0

60.0

33.0

~(<1.0)

Σ 100.0 (?)

• “Secondary

fermentation”

• Increased

osmotic

pressure;

• Microbial “over-

growth”

• Wet litter /

diarrhea -

Reduced

intake/metabolic

stress/Mortality

In young animals:

• Limited digestion

/metab. capacity

• Poor food utilization

• Reduced Intake

• Suppressed immune

function

• ↓ Heat shock protein

• ∆ Anti-oxidant status

↓

Morbidity / Mortality

72

Effect of StachyoseWeanling pigs, 21 d post-weaning

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

ADG, kg ADFI, kg

Control

1% Stach.

2% Stach.

a b c

Liying et al., 2003

(Court. Dr. Stein)

73

Effect of StachyoseWeanling pigs, 21 d post-weaning

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

F:G Diarrhea, %

Control

1% Stach.

2% Stach.

a b c

Liying et al.,

2003(Court. Dr. Stein)

ANF in some Soy products.Fullfat High-Pro Fermented HP SPC

soya SBM SBM HP 300

TI, mg/g protein 10 - 25 4 - 8 3 - 8 2 - 3 2 - 3

B-conglycinin, mg/g 50 - 100 10 - 50 1 - 10 0.002 < 0.002

Stachyose (%) 4 - 4.5 4.5 - 5 1 - 1.5 < 0.5 1 - 3

Raffinose (%) 0.8 – 1.0 1.0 - 1.2 0.2 - 0.8 < 0.1 < 0.2

Phytic acid (%) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6


Effect of processing on crude protein and ANF

composition of soy products.

Crude

protein,

%

Oligo-

saccha-

rides, %

Carbo-

hydrates

(NFE), %

Starch,

%

TI,

mg/g

protein

β-con-

gly-

cinin,

mg/g

Phytic

P, %

Full-fat soy beans

(FFSB-raw) 36 14 26 5 25 - 50 50 –100 0.38

SBM–Hi-Pro SBM 47 15 32 6 2 – 8 3 - 40 + 0.45

Fermented Soy –

FSBM 52 5 27 - 3 –8 1–10 + 0.3

Enzyme treated soy –

E-SBM 56 <1 23 0 - 3 1 – 3 <0.01 + 0.25

SPC 65 <2 17 - 2 –3 <0.01 <0.5

<70

80

84

85

88

DM

Dig

estibili

ty*

Organization:




Removal of Oligosaccharides and other ANFs via Fermentation (or Enzymatic Hydrolysis).

78

Fermentation of SBM

• Addition of innoculum (fungi – spores-, bacteria) and fermentation (SSF)

(Ex. S. ceriviseae, Aspergillus Oryzae, Niger y Bacillus subtillis, Lactobacilli, etc.)

– Reduced concentration of antigenic substances

– Reduced concentration of oligosaccharides

– Production of org acids

– Reduced size of proteins

– Probiotic effect

– Etc.

Results.

Lab-test = pH changes

6,35 6,3 6,46,35

5,5

5,3

6,35

5,6

5,1

4,9

6,35

5,6

5,4

4,6

6,35

5,7

5,2

4,6

4,5

6,35

5,4

4,8

6,35

5,5

4,64,6

6,35

5,5

5,2

4,6

6,35

5,5

5,3

4,6

4,4

6,35

6,8

6,7

6,35

5,6

5,1

4,6

6,35

6,0

5,1

4,6

4,4

y = -1,356ln(x) + 6,3437R² = 0,9449

y = -1,327ln(x) + 6,5424R² = 0,9358

4

4,5

5

5,5

6

6,5

7

pH-0 h pH-24 h pH-48 h pH-72 h pH-96 h

pH

Time, h

Average pH changes over time in fermentation vessels; by Trt.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Log. (7)

Log. (12)

Log. (12)

• Fastest pH drop with trt 6, 7

(up to 48 h).

• No pH drop (fermentation?)

with trt 1 and 10 (1: 13 %

hum.; 10: 50 % hum; mixed

culture from t=0h)

• Best pH drop (formation of

org. acids from sugars)

with A.o. alone at a

humidity of 30 – 40 %.

• A.o. spores or mycelium

seem to work equally well

(in terms of pH effect).

Concentration of sugars in SBM and Fermented

SBM.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Ctrl. 1 Ctrl. 2 Ctrl. 3 TRT 3 TRT 4 TRT 5 TRT 6 TRT 7 TRT 8 TRT 9

% A

s Is

% SACAROSA

% RAFINOSA

% ESTAQUIOSA

T.

–H

um

.

(%)

--

96

-1

3

96

-1

3

96

-3

0/5

0

96

-3

0/5

0

96

–4

0/5

0

48

-4

5

72

-4

5

96

-4

5

96

–3

0/5

0

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5

HnaSoja

1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7

TQ

, %

Sugar concentration in SBM and fermented (96h) – Pilot Production.

SACAROSA

RAFINOSA

ESTAQUIOSA

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

45,0

50,0

55,0

60,0

65,0

70,0

75,0

80,0

85,0

90,0

Try

psin

In

hib

.; U

IT/m

g

CP

Co

nc.

an

d P

rote

in S

ol (K

OH

); %

Protein Solubility

Protein Concentration - DM

Trypsin Inhibitor, UIT/mg

Trypsin Inhibitor and Protein Concentration;

Solubility (KOH.02) in FSBM after 2-stage fermentation; DM-basis.T, h

.

--

24/4

8

24/4

8

24/7

2

48/7

2

48/9

6

24/4

8

24/7

2

48/7

2

48/9

6

48

24/7

2

48/9

6

Hu

m.

%

--

13

/14-

30

/35

30

/35

30

/50

30

/50

40

/45

40

/45

40

/50

40

/50

45

30

/35

30

/50

UI: .02 .01 .03 .02 .05 .02 .04 .01 .02 .01 .01 .04 .03

Effects in piglets

86

Items SBM FSBMA FSBMA+L SPC SEM

Crude protein (%) 43.09c 47.78b 47.50b 61.87a 0.978

Ileal Protein Digestibility, % 81.56b 83.54ab 84.95ab 89.14a 1.67

KOH protein solubility (%) 83.58a 74.69b 76.32b 75.87b 2.186

TCA sol. protein (μmole/g) 65.26c 110.33b 1,010.32a 70.26c 5.211

Lysine, % 2.87b 3.00b 3.07ab 4.23a 0.30

Available lysine (%)1 3.02b 3.22b 4.18a 4.26a 0.123Methionine 0.66 0.68 0.75 0.91 0.10

Comparative Nutrient quality of SBM, fermented SBM (single

and two-stage) and SPC (swine).

12,4,6-trinitrobenzenesulphonic acid (TNP) according to Hall et al. (1973).

SBM = Soybean meal; FSBMA = Fermented soybean meal with Aspergillus.

FSBMA+L = Fermented soybean meal with Aspergillus+Lactobacillus; SPC = Soybean protein concentrate.

(Chen et al., 2010)

Peformance of piglets weaned at 21 d.MP %

Corn 45.5 50.0 50.3 47.9 50.3 49.0

SBM 40.0 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4

FM - Menhaden — 5.0 — — — 2.5

Ferment. SBM — — — 6.0 1.8 3.0

Dried Porcine Solubles — — 3.5 — 1.8 —

Whey – spray dried 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

(Jones et al., 2010)

d 0-14

ADG, g 252a 268a 313b 269a 302b 255a

ADFI, g 331a 356ab 366b 343ab 355ab 334a

G:F 0.75a 0.75a 0.86c 0.79ab 0.85bc 0.76a

Diets Ctrl FM. DPS FS SF+DPS SF+FM.

d 0-28

ADG, g 383a 402ab 421b 407ab 401ab 396ab

ADFI, g 525 540 544 541 528 538

G:F 0.73b 0.74ab 0.77a 0.75ab 0.76ab 0.74b

1,281,291,31,311,321,331,341,351,361,371,38

370

375

380

385

390

395

400

405

410

CTRL Pesc. SF SF+DPS SF+Pesc

F.C

.

AD

G, g

ADG and FC of piglets at 28 days post-weaning.

GMD - 28 d IC - 28 d

FM FS FS+ DPS SF + FM

Rojas and Stein, 2015

Growth performance of nursery pigs fed experimental diets; Exp.1.

Item

Control FSBM

SEM P-valuePositive Negative Low High

SBM48 18 34 17 19.75

FSBM 0 0 10 19

Whey 15 15 15 15

FM 8 0 0 0

Plasma Protein 3.5 0 3.5 0

ADG, g/d

Day 0 - 14 184ab 165b 197a 154b 10.71 0.04

Day 14-26 446 414 387 412 21.02 0.18

ADFI,

Day 0 - 14 260 254 276 236 12.64 0.08

Day 14-26 655 647 644 625 25.24 0.75

G:F

Day 0 - 14 0.71 0.65 0.72 0.66 0.04 0.26

Day 14-26 0.68a 0.64ab 0.60b 0.66a 0.01 0.01

331

282 292 295260

1,41

1,49

1,59

1,47

1,52

1,30

1,35

1,40

1,45

1,50

1,55

1,60

1,65

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Po

siti

ve-P

esc

.

Ne

gati

vo

Baj

o -

9

Me

d. -

20

Alt

o -

19

Testigo FSBM

FC

AD

G g

ADG and FC in weaned piglets

GDM 0 - 28, g/d

Effects in broiler chicks.

Effects of fermented SBM on the growth performance

and feed cost of broilers.1

Treatment2 Control FSBM I FSBM II FSBM III

d 1 to 21:ADG,g 29.35 29.93 30.32 30.25FCR 1.65a 1.69a 1.62ab 1.57b

d 22 to 42ADG,g 75.82 73.63 74.32 74.52FCR 2.22 2.19 2.15 2.17

d 1 to 4ADG, g 52.58 51.77 52.33 52.37FCR 2.06 2.04 2.00 2.00

Feed cost/BW,3

US$/kg of BW 0.921 0.915 0.899 0.901Cost disparity, % 100.00 99.35 97.61 97.83

a,bP<.05

2Control = basal diet; FSBM I = 1% fermented soybean meal (FSBM); FSBM II = 2% FSBM; FSBM III = 3% FSBM.

(Wang et al., 2012)

Effect of a pre-starter ration (7d) with Fermented SBM (SF) on Growth, FC, Cecal Flora and Physiological changes in in broiler chicks.

(Kim et al., 2016)

RM CTRL BF-SBM YBF-SBM LF-SBM 1 LF-SBM 2 SPC

Corn 46.1 46.1 46.1 45.9 46.0 46.2

Wheat 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

Corn gluten meal 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

Wheat Bran 3.2 4.4 4.2 4.0 4.0 5.1

Soy oil 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

SBM 30.8 26.6 26.7 27.1 27.1 25.7

Fermented SBM 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0

SPC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0

Control BF-SBM YBF-SBM LF-SBM 1 LF-SBM 2 SPC SEM p-value

ADG, g

1–21 d 39.1c 42.0ab 42.6a 38.5c 39.5c 39.9bc 0.78 0.006

1–35 d 52.0c 57.7a 58.5a 52.0c 56.7ab 53.5bc 1.12 <0.001

FC (Feed/Growth)

1–21 d 1.54 1.43 1.43 1.53 1.5 1.5 0.04 0.171

1–35 d 1.70a 1.58bc 1.57c 1.66ab 1.58bc 1.69a 0.03 0.008

Total microbes (log 10cfu/g)

7 d 5.3b 5.9a 5.9a 5.9a 6.1a 6.1a 0.11 <0.001

35 d 5.2b 5.2b 5.5a 5.1b 5.4a 5.4a 0.06 <0.001

Coliformes (log 10cfu/g)

35 d 5.0a 4.4b 4.2b 5.2a 5.1a 5.2a 0.15 <0.001

Bacillus spp. (log 10cfu/g)

35 d 5.9b 7.3a 7.2a 6.4b 7.1a 6.9a 0.16 <0.001

Longitud de las vellosidades intestinales; 7 d. de edad

Jejunum 412.6b 536.1a 522.3a 572.9a 498.8a 533.3a 24.9 <0.001

Ileum 424.4ab 395.9ab 435.7a 434.5a 407.0ab 369.2b 19.3 0.044

92

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

5,4

5,6

5,8

6

6,2

Control BF-SBM YBF-SBM LF-SBM 1 LF-SBM 2 SPC

Villi len

gth

, μ

m

Mic

rob

ial

Co

nc.

log

10C

FU

/g

Ceacal Microbial Population and villi length (jejunum and Ileum) by type of ration.

Longitud de las vellosidades intestinales; 7 d. de edad - yeyuno

Longitud de las vellosidades intestinales; 7 d. de edad - íleon

Total de microbios (log 10cfu/g) 7días

Jejunal villi length – 7d

Ileal villi length – 7d

Total Microbes (Log 10 CFU/g) – 7d

(Kim et al., 2016)

Organization:




Conclusion:

• A major limitation to SBM usage are the residual ANF – esp. in young animal nutrition/aqua.

• To replace more expensive animal proteins (FM, MBM, Milk proteins) SBM can be treated to remove ANF and improve utilization.

• Among the value-added (2nd generation) soy product fermented soy occupies a major place and offers an excellent alternative in sustainable and biological production.

96

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.

USSEC.ORG | USSOY.ORG

quality parameters of sbm and utilization of fermented soy...

Documents