Enzyme Solutions for Poultry Diets

Forum: Characteristics of Effective Enzyme Solutions for Poultry Diets

Published on: 08/27/2012
Author/s : Gwendolyn Jones (Danisco Animal Nutrition)
Enzymes are widely accepted to improve the utilization of nutrients in poultry diets and increase the capacity of birds to perform on less digestible feed ingredients. However, increasing volatility in raw material prices for feed ingredients and stricter regulations on feed safety to control salmonella in poultry production, are changing the way we formulate and process poultry diets and requires...
remove_red_eye 6870 forum 54 bar_chart Statistics share print
Share :
close
Rachid  Mohra Rachid Mohra
Owner
August 27, 2012

Thanks for this report Enzyme Solutions for Poultry Diets. I do agree with the conclusion...

Reply
August 28, 2012

Interesting article about Enzyme Solutions for Poultry Diets.
What might be useful is a table of potential enzyme activity for different feed raw materials. This would be particularly useful when trying to add on a new raw material to the feed ration

Reply
Dr Muhammad Arshad  Manj Dr Muhammad Arshad Manj
Doctor of Veterinary Medicine
August 28, 2012
AOA , good finding fo the use of non available nutrients. more information is needed for precise use of enzymes
Reply
August 29, 2012

Congratulations Gwen. Good article about Enzyme Solutions for Poultry Diets. You cannot explain more, in such a clear way, with less words. Greetings. Rafa

Reply
Sergio Velez Sergio Velez
Animal Nutritionist
September 17, 2012

The reality - in my view- is that results with other enzymes different than Phytases are VERY equivocal. It is so for many reasons including:

1. Lack of precise info on feed substrate for the enzyme
2. Poorly estimated energy values for ingredientes and formulas
3. Inter brand enzyme activities comparison today is close to impossible: units are completely different.
4. It is not certain if "purified" enzymes are better or not than multienzymatic complexes with all their side activities.
4. In may experiments the negative control diet with added enzymes already exceeds animal requirements and therefore results can be very misleading
5. Other criteria, different than whole animal on farm performance such as digestibility and ingesta viscosity reductions do not correlate well or clearly explain treatment effects. I speculate that overall cell wall structures (in case of carbohydrases) are so complex and recalcitrant that perhaps we need much more powerfull or complex enzume activities.

Enzymes are extremely powerful, are here to stay but i have the feeling - as i think many other do- that today we are only at the beginning of the their intellogent use and that somehow we do have more of a merchandising than a very precise scientific base use and that industry is partially responsible for the difficulties in their use. Time will tell and most probably this is one of those issues that we in the future may look backwards in time and be very surprised as how crude users we were.....

Reply
September 17, 2012
Dear Segio I respect your opinion but I have to strongly disagree with you. It is not the space to show data, results, experiments, but I offer you the chance to meet any of my AMCAS colleagues who will with great pleasure show how much knowledge we have about the substrates we must digest, how much science there is behind each enzyme we put in the market place and how many data, including lots of OTT (over the top) results in trials where those current-commercial feeds with enzymes on top gave very good results, outperforming those without enzymes. I have to agree in the sense that this enzymatic world is still growing and will ring many more changes, but as said, we in DuPont offer a great technology on how best relate the exact enzyme to help digestion of the right substrate. Cheers from Colmenar Viejo, Madrid, Spain.
Reply
September 17, 2012

Good job; the value of feed enzyme as pro-nutrient feed additive is well, perhaps better quantified by growth perfromance and mechanisticaaly so by digestibility. The ability to find and evolve the next generation of feed enzymes will be driven by understanding of target substrates and the implications to the animal nutrition. However, the gut is populated with diverse assemblage of microbiota (billions of metabolically active cells) that plays a critical role not only for the overall well-being of the animal, but also for it’s nutrition, performance and quality of the products produced. In this context, there is greater need to integrate animal performance/digestibility & gut microbial profiling in feed enzyme research.

Reply
Sergio Velez Sergio Velez
Animal Nutritionist
September 17, 2012
With no intention at all to generate controvery ( i am a carbohydarse user) i am sure that most users will agree with me that the industry has not done a good job in providing clarity to end users 1. Activity units are not comparable through different providers 2. Enzyme names do not comply with standard enzyme naming procedures 3. I insist: its common to read experiments with differences in growth parameters unsopported via changes in digestibility and, for example, viscosity. 4. I pérsonally do not now if its better /or not. to use coctails made of pure activities or complex enxymatic products with all "side activities." ( have heard arguments and papers both ways). And yes Dr. Rafael ( this is not the forum for in depth discusion I agree) I would much appreciate a personal visit to discuss these matters. Best regards. Sergio Velez, Bogota, Colombia
Reply
October 25, 2012
Dear Sergio, you have your point with what you say and I would love meeting you, but unfortunately Colombia is not of my countries. In case you would at any point visit Spain, do not hesitate and contact me. I also guess you could have the chance to meet any of my colleagues in South America. Cheers
Reply
Saif Ul Haq Saif Ul Haq
Animal Nutritionist
July 11, 2013
In my opinion enzyme producers should offer complete customised formulation for the end users instead of offering different cocktails because the diet composition is variable for different age segments of birds as well as the availability of different types of feed ingredients round the year
Reply
Rahat Mobeen Rahat Mobeen
M.Phil Animal Nutrition
September 25, 2019

I have an questioned.
All enzyme manufacturer companies give the recommended dosage level 200g, 30g, 400g etc
But how we calculate the dosage of enzyme according to available Substrate in the feed.
Can we increase the or decrease the dosage of enzyme according to substrate.

Thanks

Reg# Rahat Mobeen

Reply
Steffen Hansen Steffen Hansen
Animal Nutritionist
October 3, 2019

Rahat Mobeen You should pay attention to the enzymatic activity in the product you are offered not the dosage in g/ton feed. When you formulate the diet you must include the phytase content in FTU/kg or whatever other phytase units that are used for the phytase product.
Most if not all manufacturers of feed enzymes offer products with various enzymatic activity. You should also pay attention to whether your mixer can handle very small dosages of an additive. If you do not mix in an enzyme homogenously, it may have a negative effect on animal performance.
NIR methods have been developed for the content of phytate in the feed, however, as far as I am concerned there is no easy or cheap way of analysing and characterising the NSP content in for example cereals.

Reply
Rahat Mobeen Rahat Mobeen
M.Phil Animal Nutrition
October 24, 2019

Steffen Hansen Yes Dear, But now many peoples work on the NSP not on Phytic P or phytase. If you have any NSP analyzing procedure detail then please share with me. I want to lean it more about NSP. My Question is not answered, How much enzyme supplemented according to Substrate. My research also on NSP enzyme supplementation in the Quail Diets.

Reply
September 26, 2019

Dear Rahat, in case you'd like to know more about what you ask, then there is a need of a F2F meeting or a more detailed conversation. Are you by any means in the area of any DuPont office? At least I would say there is a clear relationship enzyme dosage substrate when it comes to the phytase. Cheers.

Reply
Rahat Mobeen Rahat Mobeen
M.Phil Animal Nutrition
October 14, 2019
Dear Rafael Duran
I know better about NIR, it gives the value of phytic P , AME, Proximate, Total Amino Acid, %Dig Amino Acid etc but now working on the NSP content measured with NIR in research phase.
I Want to F2F meeting please. If DuPont office in lahore please tell me the adress.
Thanks
Reply
October 2, 2019

Yes I will like to know more about it.

Reply
October 12, 2019

in our many studies involving numerous phytase products, it seems like the term FTU is totally meaningless. supposedly 500 FTU from phytase A should be equal to 500 FTU from phytase b but seldom is.

Reply
Aaron Cowieson Aaron Cowieson
Research
DSM DSM
October 17, 2019

Park W. Waldroup I think FTU, in a generic sense, is largely meaningless from a biological effect perspective but provides a moderately useful index against which phytases can be traded and registered with the appropriate authorities. From the perspective of the animal though, FTU (which is typically measured with substrate, cation, pH etc conditions of limited practical relevance), is poorly correlated to phenotypic effect. It's even worse in other enzyme classes though where unit definitions vary considerably.

Reply
Lode Nollet Lode Nollet
Product Manager Enzymes
October 17, 2019
Park W. Waldroup

yes this is because FTU is measured at a pH of 5.5 in the method, while the phytase needs to work at lower pH levels. so any phytase which has a pH optimum at 2-4 will have a high activity but might have a lower FTU analysed at pH 5.5 compared to a phytase which has a pH optimum at around 5.5 but much lower activity at pH 2 to 4.
Reply
Haroon Mushtaq Haroon Mushtaq
PostDoc in Poultry Nutrition
October 17, 2019
Park W. Waldroup can you elaborate a bit more how one kind of FTU isn’t equal to other FTU?
Reply
October 18, 2019
Lode Nollet that is precisely my point. An FTU is a totally useless measurement of how one phytase may compare to another. we have run numerous trials with different phytases and have often reported this.
Reply
Steffen Hansen Steffen Hansen
Animal Nutritionist
October 21, 2019

Park W. Waldroup It is not completely useless if you know the relative value of each phytase product. I suppose the efficacy of each phytase mainly depends on pH optimums and how fast the phytase works and that is why one FTU is not always one FTU in vivo. In Danish pig production, we do not use phytase matrix values when we formulate feed. Instead, each raw material has individual values for the amount of dig. P depending on whether 100%, 200%, ....400% phytase dosages are applied. The Danish feed recommendations are stating the relative value of commonly used (EU approved) phytase products. To give you an example: 100 % = 500 FTU from Natuphos or Phyzyme XP = 400 FTU Axtra Phy or Quantum Blue.
As a side note; for the control of correct supplementation of phytase and survival after pelleting, FTU is a good tool.

Reply
Andres Felipe Belalcazar Andres Felipe Belalcazar
MSc Food technology
October 22, 2019

Hello all,

From the point of view of enzyme activities, the standard measure is how many moles of the product (the result of the chemical reaction) is released by a specific amount of the enzyme during a specific time and pH conditions. Although I am a biotechnologist I have worked in the animal industry and know that information does not translate well with industrial enzyme users.
However, in the realm of purified laboratory grade enzymes (companies such as Megazyme Sigma Aldrich are pioneer of this) this is the way we classify enzymes. Now is important to consider that in animal feed (pigs/poultry) the substrates are very diverse, as an example you can have b-glucans from barley and xyloglucans from soybeans in a diet made with barley and soy, these substrates are different although their backbone is the same (a chain of glucose units very similar to cellulose). Now a glucanase (let's imagine is a purified glucanse) may have higher activity towards b-glucans from barley than xyloglucans from soy. It's possible to do this at laboratory level, to take a sample of the raw material, the commercial enzyme and compared to the activity of a laboratory grade enzyme, then you have a true comparison of the activity of the enzyme toward a substrate at standard conditions. That is what actually an FTU definition wanted to be, however, the fact that other companies can say that a certain amount of FTU´s are the same as other units is just a commercial play that end up confusing the final user in an already confusing subject (if you change the pH of the measurement then the activities are not equivalent). What the enzyme industry should give to the customer is the real activity of an enzyme connected to a specific substrate and raw material, let's say the activity of the phytase to release phosphorus from soybean will be different from the activity of the same phytase releasing phosphorus from rape seed meal or corn. Plus add the ionic strength or pH of the medium (for those around liking the calcium story), I would ask in this type of reports the conditions and ionic strength to see if the enzyme I am using will work on the raw material I am buying.
Just let's remember that enzymes are catalyzers that work on a substrate to release a product (and reduce antinutritional effects), is not energy or amino acids, therefore, the matrix values are not reliable numbers for comparison between enzymes.

Reply
November 5, 2019
Andres Felipe Belalcazar well said.:)

Reply
Maxx Performance Maxx Performance
Roanoke, Virginia, United States
November 7, 2019
Andres Felipe Belalcazar

Our company uses microencapsulation technology as a tool to stabilize and deliver enzymes. Stabilized enzymes used in pelleted feeds show a 96% recovery.
Reply
January 21, 2020
Winston Samuels I am very interest your product and you company , you give me your list and price list.
Reply
Maxx Performance Maxx Performance
Roanoke, Virginia, United States
February 26, 2020
Andres Felipe Belalcazar

Where are you located? Please contact me at winston@maxxperformance.com so that we can dialogue.
Reply
Alvaro Dubois Alvaro Dubois
Technical Consultant at Cargill
October 24, 2019

I think Rahat Mobeen raised an interesting point that was only partially addressed by later participants. With phytases, besides the characterization of different efficiencies of different enzymes in the market (the meaning of FTU discussion), there's a great deal of knowledge and commercial application of the concept of using different dosages based, not only on the amount of substrate and type of ingredient, but also what to expect in each specific situation from the use of higher than typical historical doses (like 500 ftu/kg) and it's economical impact. With carbohydrases, we still face a general fixed recommendation that does not take into account (usually) more than the fact that the basic cereal is corn or wheat (or other winter cereal). The difficulty of analyzing the proper substrates might account in part for this situation but in my opinion, it also reflects a more conservative approach. It's not like using a product at the suggested dosage (let's say 100 g/t) works 100% and then at 80 g/ton it doesn't produce any result. There's always a dose:response curve that follows the law of diminishing returns and if we know it then we might decide for a more economical dose to be used. Looks to me we are far from it for carbohydrases.

Reply
Rahat Mobeen Rahat Mobeen
M.Phil Animal Nutrition
October 24, 2019
Alvaro Dubois are better understand my point. Please share if any information available regarding Enzyme supplementation according to NSP or Phytic P Substrate in diet, not according to recommended company dosage.
Reply
Edwin T Moran Edwin T Moran
Animal Nutritionist
October 24, 2019

Each phytase has an optimum pH with ftu’s conveying its relative activity under that specific condition. Phytases first act during storage in the crop with pH’s varying between 4-6 over varying durations. This ingests is conveyed into gizzard where pH’s decrease to 2-3 again over varying durations. Phytases of different pH optima continue to function through crop and gizzard only to varying extents. The Ftu units simply approximate expectations of action through highly variable terms of “gastric digestion.” Don’t be surprised with results varying with any defined ftu.

Reply
October 26, 2019

I think everyone in this discussion made good comments. It seems to me that all that is needed is an underlying theory to fit all the various pieces into. This is the same for phytase and all the other enzymes:
First, it should be accepted that responses to enzymes follow Michaelis-Menten kinetics. Enzymes do not give linear responses. This was very nicely illustrated by Shirley and Edwards, Jr. (Graded Levels of Phytase Past Industry Standards Improves Broiler Performance, 2003 Poultry Science 82:671–680). Ignoring this approach, animal nutritionists seem absolutely fixated with the linear programming least-cost paradigm of feed formulation. They have just got to find a single number for everything in their feed formulation problem. A good metaphor? Round pegs into square holes? They want to drive in screws, but their only tool is a hammer? Animal nutritionists tend to like biology much more than mathematics. Our brains like to work with straight lines in two dimensions. But the linear programming approach of finding one number to put in a matrix just doesn’t work in this case: “However, this approach is flawed from the economic perspective because it implicitly assumes that there is a single relative value of the sources, regardless of the cost of feed components and the price of live birds” (Vedenov & Pesti, An economic analysis of a methionine source comparison response model, 2010 Poultry Science 89:2514–2520).
Second, once it is accepted that the responses are not linear, it should be a simple matter of applying production economic theory to the curves to find economic optimums (Pesti & Vedenov, An economic comparison of several models fitted to nutritional response data. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89:3344–3349). Transforming complex equations into economic space is just not what nutritionists want to do. And with ingredient and meat and egg prices changing daily, economic optimums change daily. I am glad I don’t have to explain that relative values are changing daily to a purchasing agent, but such a discussion may prove prudent.
Third, to try to understand the economic implications of the technical problems observed in animal nutrition, my approach was to team up with a very good agricultural economist, in these cases, Dmitry Vedenov. It is not easy to get even agricultural economists to understand the finer points of animal nutrition, like FTU’s. And it is not easy to understand exactly what they mean when they start talking in terms of Greek symbols. But they are really good at solving non-linear problems. With large sums of money at stake in using the right products at the right levels, it may be worth considering involving a professional economist in the decision-making process.

Reply
Helen Ajayi Helen Ajayi
BSc. Biochemistry, MSc. & PhD Agric.Biochemistry & Nutrition
November 5, 2019
Gene Pesti, I agree with you absolutely to involve professionals. In my opinion, this is a point in favour of multidisciplinary research because it gives room for a more rounded approach that will be most applicable and effective. Studies on feed enzymes will turn out results that better address these perennial issues when a multidisciplinary approach is employed.
Reply
Aaron Cowieson Aaron Cowieson
Research
DSM DSM
November 4, 2019

For sure enzyme responses are non-linear but in the range, we test them in animal nutrition they occasionally appear linear. I think it is crucial to also examine available/reactive substrate concentration when interpreting enzyme response. Systems may be saturated with the substrate in which case enzyme responses may be exaggerated across a wide range of inclusion concentrations, or they may be saturated with enzyme (low substrate concentrations) in which case the enzyme effects may reach a plateau very quickly. Relative substrate/enzyme concentrations should be quantified as often as practically possible before concluding on optimum doses. The next moving part is the limiting nutrients in the diet and which biological response you want to measure as an indication of enzyme value e.g. FCR, uniformity, digestibility, bone ash, etc. In the enzyme domain we have not been as consistent as we should have been in measuring and reporting these points in a systematic way.

Reply
November 11, 2019

Over last decade enzymes have become more and more prominent from standard to super dosing to double dosing reasons could be two either the substrate is higher or efficacy of enzyme is lower. Current recommendations to first calculate all anti nutrition factors and make a cocktail enzyme mic to get synergistic effect. What is the ideal PH it is up to 6.5 and optimum temp? In areas where drinking water with 7.5 plus PH
in the upper track body will not be able to reduce the PH particularly in summer when water intake is about 3.5 times instead of 1.8 to 2.it definitely affect feed digestion and passing out of undigested feed to different extent is common, that phenomena will definitely affect the efficacy of enzyme. Technical comments in this regard will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.

Reply
print
(6870)
(54)
Engormix reserves the right to delete and/or modify comments. See more details
Post a comment
Create new discussion :
If this discussion does not cover topics of interest or raises new questions, you can create another discussion.
Consult a professional in private:
If you have a specific problem you can perform a consultation privately to a professional in our community.
Fred Hoerr
Fred Hoerr
DVM, PhD, Diplomate ACVP, ACPV
  Nashville, Tennessee, United States
 
   | 
Copyright © 1999-2020 Engormix - All Rights Reserved