Reducing the costs of

broiler production
 Protein Level Is Not A
Determinant Of Quality For
Soybean Meal

Poultry Feed Quality Conference

Bangkok, Thailand
25-26 July, 2011

Neoh Soon Bin, David Creswell and Ng Liew Ee

Contribution of SBM in Poultry Feed

Protein
Protein and
and amino
amino acids?
acids?
about 70% from SBM !

Energy?
Energy ?
about 25% from SBM !
 Commercial Trading Specifications
of Soybean Meal
Percent composition
Parameters
Non-dehulled Dehulled
Protein, % 42.5 – 44.0 46.5 – 48.0
Moisture, % 12.0 – 12.5 12.0 – 12.5
Fiber, % 7.0 max 3.5 max
Delta pH < 0.2 < 0.2
KOHPS, % > 72.0 > 72.0

• Protein deficiency compensate at 1:1 (Annex) and 2:1 (NOPA)

• Therefore protein is considered the primary determinant of quality
for soybean meal.
• Currently dehulled soybean meal at 50% protein is selling at large
premium.
 Conventional thinking
Higher Protein = Higher Price

• Does the evidence from current broiler

growth trials support this believe?

• Also almost all broiler feeds are formulated

using digestible amino acids.
 Summary of Growth performance of broilers
vs protein levels of soybean meal,
1995- 2010
Overall growth performance (0 - 42 days) Overall growth performance (0- 42 days)

3000
2.200
2800
R2 = 0.001
2600 2.000
B o d y w e ig h t g a in , g

R2 = 0.0269
2400
2200 1.800
2000

FCR
1.600
1800
1600 1.400
1400
1200 1.200
1000 1.000
44.0 45.0 46.0 47.0 48.0 49.0 50.0 44.0 45.0 46.0 47.0 48.0 49.0 50.0
Protein level, % Protein level, %

Note : 1. Trials done by Soon Soon, ASA and Creswell.

2. some trials use different levels of digestible amino acids for individual
soybean meals
 Broiler performance of 4 soybean meals when
formulated with a common specification for energy
and digestible amino acids (40 days).
Type of
Live • Different in body weight
soybean FCR up to 3.3%
weight, g
meal
• Different in FCR up to
Indian 2812b 1.765c 7.9%
• Economical value
difference calculated to
Argentine 2837b 1.672b
be up to USD 120/mt
• Saving in formulated feed
USA 2869ab 1.693b up to USD34.41/mt

SoonSoon 2908a 1.625a Source : Creswell and Swick, 2008

 Key Questions
That Needs To Be Answered
With better processing
• Can a well processed dehulled SBM performs as
well as a normal dehulled SBM with much higher
protein level?

• Can the protein level of a well processed dehulled

SBM be lowered substantially still achieve results
comparable to a dehulled SBM with much higher
protein?

• Is paying a large premium for higher protein

soybean meal a waste of money?
 Trial 1
• Can a well processed dehulled SBM with
46.7% protein (SBM A) perform as well as
a normal dehulled high protein soybean
meal with 49.9% protein (SBM B)
• SBM A provided by Soon Soon Oilmills
• SBM B obtained from a Thai crusher
• What is the economic value of these
soybean meals?
 Trial 1- Well processed normal protein
SBM vs Normal high protein SBM
Proximate SBM A SBM B
results SS SBM Thai SBM
Moisture, % 12.1 11.0 Difference
of 7%
Protein, % 46.7 49.9

Crude Fiber, % 2.3 2.4

Crude Fat, % 2.2 0.9

Ash,% 6.1 6.0

KOHPS, % 83.0 83.0

Delta pH 0.05 0.03

 Trial Design
Location: Bangkok Animal Research Center

Trial was conducted in 2 arms , one arm using a common nutrient matrix and another using
a nutrient matrix deemed appropriate for the individual soybean meals based on analysis
and previous trial results

Birds: 240 Arbor Acres Plus male

Trial replicates: 4 treatments x 6 replicates x 10 birds

Trial period
• Starter (0- 16 days) & grower (17- 34 days)

Feeding program
• Feed & water were provided ad libitum
• Crumble form for diet (0-14 days) & pellet form for diet (15- 34 days)

Measuring parameter
• Body weight gain
• Feed intake
• Feed conversion ratio
• Mortality and cull
• Fecal scores
 Arm 1
• Both soybean meals used same nutrients
matrix as per US dehulled SBM

Protein Difference = 7%
 US
Soybean meal Thai SS common

Arm 2 nutrient
matrix
Nutrient
matrix
nutrient
matrix
nutrient
matrix

ME, Kcal/kg 2450 2650 2450

• SBM A used SS nutrient
matrix with 8% higher Protein, % 50.3 48.15 47.5

AME and up to 6% Dig. Lys, % 2.691 2.706 2.554

higher dig AA than US
Dig. Met % 0.593 0.596 0.576
dehulled SBM.
• SBM B used Thai nutrient Dig M+C, % 1.174 1.183 1.178
matrix with same AME Dig.Tryp, % 0.586 0.593 0.576
and up to 5.4 % higher
dig AA than US dehulled Dig.Thr % 1.631 1.611 1.564
SBM Dig. Arg, % 3.358 3.289 3.192
• Digestible amino acid values for SS and
Thai meals were as assayed by Evonik Dig.Isoleu% 1.999 1.956 1.922
Degussa.
• US specs were derived from previous Dig. Val, % 2.056 2.021 1.966
work.
 Results of Trial 1
Feed Fecal
SBM Nutrient FBW, intake, Livabilit score
types spec IBW, (g) (g) BWG,(g) (g) FCR y,%

SBM B Thai 43 2411 2368 3711 1.567 98.33 2.33

SBM A SS 43 2398 2355 3642 1.547 98.33 2.17

SBM B US 43 2380 2337 3647 1.561 100.00 2.33

SBM A US 43 2430 2387 3694 1.548 98.33 2.33

P-value 0.3985 0.4025 0.4397 0.6638 0.7656 0.8948

Pooled SEM 20.854 20.842 35.101 0.014 1.344 0.186

C.V.% 2.12 2.16 2.34 2.14 3.33 19.92

 Results of Trial 1
• No statistical significant for FCR and weight gain
between the 4 diets.
• However when using the same nutrient matrix, SBM A
gave 2.2% better weight gain and 0.8% better FCR than
SBM B despite a 7% protein handicap
• When SBM A used a nutrient matrix which was higher in
AME by 8% and dig AA up to 6% higher, the diet arising
still performed as well or better than the diet with SBM B
using the dehulled US SBM nutrient matrix

Overall Performance is
SBM A (US) > SBM A (SS) > SBM B (US) > SBM B(Thai)
 Relative economics of using soybean meal
A and B in broiler diets using their own
individual nutrient matrix

SBM A (SS SBM B (Thai Difference

nutrient nutrient
matrix), matrix),
USD/mt USD/mt

Starter 430 439 9.00

Grower 441 450 9.00

* Diets’ cost were based on current price (July) of ingredients in Malaysia.

 Conclusion of Trial 1
• Protein level of dehulled soybean meal may not have any
bearing on its performance in broiler feedings.
• A well processed soybean meal with a normal protein level of
46.5% can perform as well or better than a dehulled soybean
meal with about 50% protein.
• A well processed soybean meal such as SBM A has more
AME and dig AA than stated in the US dehulled soybean meal
nutrient matrix. This is in the range of 5 to 14% as proven in
previous trials.
• However surprisingly SBM A using a nutrient matrix deemed
appropriate to it, with 8% higher AME and up to 6% higher in
dig AA still performed as well or better than SBM B using the
normal US dehulled nutrient matrix, despite having a 7%
protein handicap.
• Assuming SBM A and SBM B are at the same cost,
formulating starter and grower feeds using their individual
nutrient matrixes resulted in a saving of USD 9.00/mt when
using SBM A. However 50% protein SBM is selling at up
USD30/MT premium
 Trial 2
• Can a well processed dehulled soybean meal of
protein 44.8% (SBM C) still perform adequately
without compensating for the lower protein?
• Can such a low protein soybean meal perform
as well as a much higher protein normal
dehulled soybean meal of 48.4% (SBM D)?
• SBM C is a specially produced low protein
dehulled SBM by Soon Soon Oilmills
• SBM D is an Indian dehulled soybean meal.
 Trial 2 Design
Location: Bangkok Animal Research Center

The trial was conducted in 2 arms, one arm used a common nutrient matrix
and the other a nutrient matrix deemed appropriate to the individual soybean
Meals as determined by analysis and results from previous trials

Birds: 240 Arbor Acres Plus male

Trial replicates: 4 treatments x 6 replicates x 10 birds

Trial period
• Starter (0- 18 days) & grower (19- 34 days)

Feeding program
• Feed & water were provided ad libitum
• Diet in crumble and pellet form

• Measuring parameter
• Body weight gain
• Feed intake
• Feed conversion ratio
• Mortality and cull
• Fecal scores
 Trial 2
SBM C SBM D
Proximate results
SS SBM Ind. SBM

Moisture, % 12.9 11.8 Difference

of 8%
Protein, % 44.8 48.4

Crude Fiber, % 2.3 4.2

Crude Fat, % 2.2 1.2

Ash,% 5.8 8.7

KOHPS, % 83.1 81.7

Delta pH 0.02 0.04

 Trial 2 – Arm 1
• Both soybean meal using the same
nutrient matrix as US dehulled soybean
meal

Protein difference = 8%
 US3
Trial 2- Arm 2 soybean
meal
nutrient
SS1
nutrient
Indian2
Nutrient
Common
nutrient
matrix matrix matrix matrix
• Using individual nutrient ME, Kcal/kg 2650 2340 2450
matrixes, the difference in
digestible lysine is set at Protein, % 47 46.5 47.5
11% higher (or effectively Dig. Lys, % 2.739 2.464 2.554
19%higher) and the AME Dig. Met % 0.601 0.576 0.576
is set 13.2% higher for
SBM C over SBM D Dig M+C, % 1.223 1.142 1.178

Dig.Tryp, % 0.616 0.57 0.576

• Is this possible? Dig.Thr % 1.681 1.547 1.564
1,3 Derived largely from research Dig. Arg, % 3.367 3.039 3.192
conducted in Thailand in 2008
2 Derived from research on similar Dig.Isoleu% 2.011 1.848 1.922
types of soybean meals
Dig. Val, % 2.097 1.923 1.966
 Results of Trial 2
Feed
SBM Nutrient intake, Livability
types spec IBW, (g) FBW, (g) BWG,(g) (g) FCR ,%

44 2338 2294 3710 1.618 b 98.3

SBM C SS

SBM C US 44 2426 2382 3858 1.621 b 98.0

44 2442 2398 3761 1.568 a 100.0

SBM D Indian

SBM D US 44 2464 2420 3705 1.532 a 98.3

Pooled SEM 31.577 31.563 52.678 0.012 1.444

C.V.% 3.20 3.26 3.44 1.92 3.59

Finally Soon Soon is defeated. WHY ?

 Why ?
• In absolute term, SBM C performed closed to the Breed
Standard ie slightly higher weight gain and slightly worst
FCR.
• The weight gain of SBM C using US dehulled SBM
specification was 4% higher than when using its own
individual specification. This is to be expected as the
AME was set at 8% higher in the individual spec.
• However the FCR for both SBM C diets were close at
1.618 and 1.621 despite a 7% difference in digestible
lysine levels . This could suggest there may be one or
more limiting amino acids other than lysine or M+C,
threonine and valine appears to be potentially limiting.
• The FCRs obtained from diets using SBM D were
significantly better than those from diets using SBM C by
3.2% and 5.8%. Surprisingly by assigning SBM D a
lower dig lysine of 3.7%, the FCR of the diet worsen by
2%.
 Conclusion
• There was no statistical difference in weight gain, feed
intake, and mortality between all the diets.
• The highest weight gain was achieved with SBM D using
the dehulled US SBM nutrient matrix Similarly when
using a nutrient matrix which reduce the AME of SBM D
by 4.7% also gave a slightly lower weight gain of 1%.
• In general SBM D performed well but it is not clear what
nutrient matrix best suit this soybean meal since
lowering the AME and dig AA of the soybean meal seem
to make the performance worst.
 So what are the real determinants
of quality for Soybean meal?
• Not Sure !
• But recent trial by Creswell and Swick showed
that AME and Dig AA is well correlated with FCR
and weight gain of broilers
• However the actual testing for AME and dig AA
are not practical. Some efforts have been made
to calibrate NIR for these parameters.
• The results of heat damage indicator tested by
the new AminoRed method by Evonik Degussa
are SBM A =9, SBM B=17?
 Final Conclusions
• Within reasonable limits protein is not a determinant of
soybean meal quality.
• Using a higher protein soybean meal of 50% protein
does not necessary resulted in better performance.
• Using a well processed but lower protein dehulled
soybean meal without protein compensation can achieve
reasonable results but it appears that in this case certain
other amino acids may become limiting.
• There is a need to look into available AA and net energy
systems for broilers. In the 2nd trial there is in one arm a
theoretical difference in dig lysine of 19% between the 2
soybean meals (also a 13.2% different in AME), and yet
the performance difference between the 2 soybean
meals under these circumstances did not reflect the big
difference in assumed nutrient levels.
 AME vs FCR AME vs BWG
2600
2600 2550
2500
R2 = 0.9353 2500 R2 = 0.9379
2450
2400 2400
2350
2300 2300
2250
2200
2200
2100 2150
2100
1.6 1.62 1.64 1.66 1.68 1.7 1.72 1.74
2760 2780 2800 2820 2840 2860 2880
FCR
BWG (g)

Correlation between FCR Correlation between BWG

and AME and AME
 BWG vs Digestible LYS FCR vc Digetible LYS

2880

2860
2
R = 0.894
1.74
1.72
R2 = 0.9000
1.7
2840
1.68
2820
1.66
2800
1.64
2780 1.62
2760 1.6
2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75 2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75

D i ge st i bl e LYS , % D i ge st i bl e LYS , %

Correlation between BWG and Correlation between BWG and

Digestible Lysine Digestible Lysine
 AME vs Digestible LYS

2600 R2 = 0.8866
2550
2500
2450
2400
2350
2300
2250
2200
2150
2100
2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75

Digestible LYS, %

Correlation between AME and digestible lysine

 The way Forward
• The results of trial 2 would seem to suggest that digestible amino
acids and even AME may not be the best predictor or indicator of
performance of soybean meal , in one arm there was effectively a
19% difference in digestible lysine and 310kcal/kg difference in AME
between the 2 soybean meals and yet the performance of the 2
diets were similar especially for weight gain

• Batterham et al and others has proven that in pigs the level of

available amino acids in processed feed ingredients can be much
lower than its digestible amino acid . If this is true for our trial
soybean meals than the difference in available lysine for example
could be much less than the 19% assumed in this trial. Similarly the
net energy difference between the soybean meals could be less
than the AME of 310 kcal/kg

• It is time to start research into available amino acids and net energy
for poultry
 Thank You
neohsb@soonsoongroup.com