Protein reduction by up to 1.5% in commercial broiler production did not affect performance but had several benefits
Thanks a lot for this very comprehensive article discussing all relevant issues with regard to protein reduction in broiler diets
During the last decade, nutritionists recommended high protein in broiler diets. Up to 23%
Maybe that was too high. Not needed.
1. Focus on amino acid balancing rather than protein.
Focus on new amino acids like threonine.
2. Yearly genetic improvement in feed conversion by selection.
Has led to a reduction in crude protein in broiler feed.
Indeed, genetic potential of broilers is continuously improving and if diets are formulated accordingly, unbelievable performances can be achieved. A feed conversion ratio of 1.35 at 40 days is commercially achieved in some regions of the world. Our research on balanced protein very clearly suggest that high balanced protein levels (which result in high crude protein) in all phases maximise growth, meat yield and minimise FCR. Economics repeatedly confirm that such diets are cost-effective.
When such optimal balanced protein level is determined, we may think about reducing dietary protein while maintaining the high performance.
However, high balanced protein levels may be economic at first glance but often result in wet droppings, litter quality issues and health problems including footpad health but also spread of other diseases. Then, protein reduction is clearly an additional economic factor to be considered.
(one remark: I would not agree that Threonine is new as such but established for 25 years at least - however, as mentioned in the article, there is need to better understand Thr metabolism in the context of protein reduction)
(Like threonine 67% Of ideal 100% lysine recommended by Ross manual)
METAMINO®
As stated above, it may be related to protein quality. The better the quality of protein, the better its digestibility and the less protein needed. It may even be possible to lower the protein by 2%. A combination of good quality protein, a better balance of amino acids, and more synthetic amino acids to reach that ideal balance can go a long way in lowering protein percentage.
Reduction of dietary protein had a positive response on the performance of commercial broilers and to mitigate the N pollution by balancing amino acid ratio to Lysine. The quality of the Dietary protein and its digestibility also matters.
Evonik’s Nutrition services
This is typically not practical for day-to-day formulation. However, it should be possible to do periodic amino acid analysis of ingredients to determine the total amino acid protein and non protein nitrogen component of each ingredient and use this as tool to measure protein quality.
Keep in mind that some ingredients, e.g., meat & fish meals may contain important amounts of non protein nitrogen that may give spurious results when measured by methods which quantify nitrogen to determine a crude protein level. This may occur in animal protein meals which are not processed while fresh resulting in their putrefaction and subsequent production of biogenic amines during the production process.
It would be my suggestion for each nutritionist in the field:
* to evaluate their ingredient suppliers,
* to understand their production processes,
* to work with them to reduce variation in order to receive a more consistent ingredient.
As hopefully everybody agrees, crude protein is nutritionally meaningless and the factor 6.25 is almost always not correct.....
It depends on several factors like quality of protein, adulterations in protein sources, season,etc
The main focus is on balancing amino acids and keeping in mind lysine as an ideal or reference amino acid. Other digestible amino acids ratios should be maintained.
Arginine, tryptophan levels help better performance in summer.
So in present days no need to focus on Protein levels, need to focus on balancing and keeping ideal amino acids ratios in broiler feed.
METAMINO®
Hi to everyone
Reading the article and all valuable comments, I personally feel a deficiency in highlighting an important factor, and that's the quantity and quality of the non-essential amino acids in our formulated feed ingredients. Like the SID of Essential AA, SID of non-essential AAs is also very important.
SID of non-essential Amino Acids decides the limit of Feed CP reduction, because if we reduce the CP behind a limit, the deficiency of non-essential AAs deepens and more essential AAs will be required to fulfill the synthesis of the non-essential AAs. This will result in a deficiency of the essential AAs.
So by knowing the total Amino Acids (essential+non-essential) profile, we will be able to understand how much CP of the formulated feeds can be reduced and how much quantity of the essential AAs will be required practically, and also if some non-essential AAs are required or not.
I think this is the main reason that CP reduction for different feed ingredient formulations is different.
Indeed, research has shown, that Gly but also Gln and Asp can become performance limiting not at least because they are needed for uric acid formation (see research by Hofmann et al). Other research has shown that we can go as deep as 16.5% CP in grower diets without compromising performance - but considering the entire EAA list - you can find many examples in research by Dr. Sonia Liu of Univ. Sydney.
Thanks Sir,.
Thank
Jorge Ramos Rodríguez
Evonik’s Nutrition services
There is an interaction between dietary protein level and digestive health. If we use maximum protein levels, the effect on digestive health will be greater.
