Quality Parameters of SBM and Utilization of fermented soy in livestock feeding. . J. van Eys Budapest Sept. 2017
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
(with special reference to: ANF)4. Potential of 2nd generation soy products ; fermented
products.5. Conclusions.
• 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
(Andersen, Hamlet Protein, 2013)
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
(Andersen, Hamlet Protein, 2013)
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:
1. Introduction 2. Differentiation among soy products: quality characteristics
(with special reference to: ANF)4. Potential of 2nd generation soy products ; fermented
products.5. Conclusions.
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:
1. Introduction 2. Differentiation among soy products: quality characteristics
(with special reference to: ANF)4. Potential of 2nd generation soy products ; fermented
products.5. Conclusions.
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