Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hello, my name is Kurtis Goebel, Master's student with Dr. Stein here at the University
of Illinois. I will be presenting phosphorus and energy digestibility in enzyme-treated
soybean meal.
So as a review, for the production of soybean meal, we'll first start with raw soybeans.
Then the next steps will be, they will be cleaned, cracked, dehulled, and flaked, followed
by hexane treatment to remove soybean oil, then we'll get our dehulled and defatted soybean
meal. Then our next process will be heat treatment. And lastly we will produce our end product,
which is our heat treated, dehulled and defatted soybean meal.
For the development of Hamlet Protein products, we'll take this same heat treated, dehulled,
and defatted soybean meal that we get from our convetional soybean meal process, and
we'll treat this with a proprietary blend of enzymes. These enzymes will then be inactivated
by enzyme inactivation process. Then these products will be dried, milled, and lastly
we will get our Hamlet Protein products. So, when we measured our phosphorus and energy
digestibility in these two experiments I will present later, we used several Hamlet Protein
products. These products were sourced from the same soybeans that our conventaional soybean
meal that we used in these experiments as well.
So the first Hamlet Protein product that we used is HP-200, which is the standard enzyme-treated
soybean meal. This is a product we used in our energy digestibility experiment. This
product was processed at a faster rate, therefore we left more sugars and antinutritional factors
as well as an added fraction of fibers was added back to the product. So we'll see an
increase in crude fiber percentage in this product.
The next three products that we used: First, it was HP-310, which is an enzyme-treated
soybean meal. And we used this product both in the phosphorus and energy experiments.
And this was sourced from a non-GMO soybean, and the reason why this is a non-GMO soybean
is that Hamlet Protein Company is from Denmark, therefore the UK has restrictions in using
genetically modified organisms. So to be able to satisfy their regulations, they have to
use soybeans that were from a non-GMO source, so as you remember from the HP-200, this was
actually a GMO sourced soybean to make that product. However, these three products were
sourced from a non-GMO soybean. The second enzyme-treated soybean is HP-340, which is
the same enzyme-treated soybean meal as in HP-310, however, this had added phytase. And
as you can expect, we used this in our phosphorus experiment to determine if the phytase improves
phosphorus digestibility. And lastly, as I mentioned before, we used a conventioanl soybean
meal. And again, this is the same soybean meal source as our HP product that was sourced
from the same soybeans.
So the overall benefits of using enzyme treatment is, first we inactivate our trypsin inhibitors.
Secondly, we removed our antinutritional factors, first being antigens, as I'll express as beta-conglycinin
or glycinin. Secondly, we removed our sugars, such as our sucrose. And lastly, we removed
oligosaccharides, as I'll express as stachyose or raffinose. Third, we have increased our
crude protein percent, and lastly you'll see a tendency for fat percentage to also increase.
So looking into our analysis of our enzyme-treated soybean meal, as you can see, over the top
we have HP-200, HP-310, HP-340, and conventional soybean meal. When you look at dry matter
percentages, you see a tendency for the enzyme-treated soybean meal to have higher dry percentages.
When you have more water taken out of these products as you see, you'll have a tendency
for the energy concentration to increase as well as your crude protein percent. Our GE,
expressed as kcal/kg, we have 4400 kcal/kg in our enzyme-treated soybean meal, roughly,
compared to our 4100 for soybean meal. When you look at crude protein percentage, you
see a much greater crude protein percentage for enzyme-treated soybean meal, and this
is again because we have removed more water so we should expect to see higher crude protein
percentage when compared to our conventional soybean meal. When you look at total lysine
percent in these products, we see an increase, actually, in our lysine percent when compared
to our conventional soybean meal, and this again is because we have an increase in total
crude protein percentage. For fat percentage in these products, we see a tendency for an
increase, but not a substantial increase when compared to our conventional soybean meal.
When we continue with our other analysis that we performed on these enzyme-treated soybean
meals, we'll first look at total phosphorus. And as you can see, we see a similar total
phosphorus percentage when compared to conventional soybean meal, and maybe even an increase in
total phosphorus. As I mentioned before, we were able to remove the trypsin inhibitors
by using enzyme-treated soybean treatment. So when you compare to conventional soybean
meal at 5.7 trypsin inhibitor units per mg, after enzyme treatment with our HP-200, we
see a reduction almost in 2 trypsin inhibitor units, as well as when we look at HP-340,
we see a very substantial, even, decrease when compared to our conventional soybean
meal. The two antigens that we expressed and analyzed for were beta-conglycinin and glycinin.
These were expressed in parts per million. When you first look at conventional soybean
meal, we have 130,000 parts per million, whereas when we enzyme-treat the soybean meal, we
see significant reduction in 3, 4, and 5 parts per million for HP-200, 310, and 340. Similarly,
in our glycinin concentration, for conventional soybean meal, we have 420,000 parts per million,
whereas when we enzyme-treat these products, we see 17,000, 3300, and 90 parts per million
for HP-200, 310, and 340. So we can conclude that the enzyme treatment was very successful
in removing these antigen concentrations.
So the additional benefit of using enzyme treatment was to not only remove the antigens,
but like I said, we were able to remove the sucrose, stachyose, and raffinose. I first
want to direct your attention to the bottom of the graph, where we analyze the conventional
soybean meal that hasn't been processed with the enzyme treatment. So for the sucrose,
we see 5.78% sucrose in conventional soybean meal. And as you look up across the HP-200,
310, and 340, we see a substantial decrease in the amount of sucrose. Similarly, for oligosaccharides
of stachyose and raffinose, we see soybean meal at the bottom of the graph at 3.8%, roughly,
for stachyose and 1% for raffinose. And as you look across your HP-200, 310, and 340,
we see a substantial decrease in our concentrations for these oligosaccharides when we have enzyme-treated.
So some of the implications: Again we can decrease sugars and oligosaccharide concentration
in these enzyme-treated soybean meals. However, by decreasing the sugars and oligosaccharides
we saw an increase in crude protein and fat.
So when we compare how the conventional soybean meal and compare against how the Hamlet Protein
products can be fed, as we know the conventional soybean meal is restricted in weanling pig
diets, and this is because of the presence of antigens. However, when we look at the
Hamlet Protein products, we can suggest that they could replace the high-priced animal
proteins, and this is because we have removed the antigens. At the current time, amino acid
digestibility has been measured in these products, however, phosphorus and energy digestibility
have not.
Therefore, it was our thought to measure phosphorus digestibility.
For our objective of this experiment, we wanted to measure phosphorus digestibility in enzyme
treated soybean meal. Next, we wanted to determine if enzyme treamtent of soybean meal compromises
phosphorus digestibility compared to conventional soybean meal.
I'll first discuss the Hamlet soybean products that we used. We used two of the Hamlet Protein
products, one being Hamlet Protein 310 as I'll express as HP-310, and this is our standard
enzyme-treated soybean meal. The second is HP-340, which is the same HP-310 but we've
added phytase. And last, we'll test this against our conventional soybean meal, which again
is sourced from the same soybeans. However, this product hasn't been put to the enzyme
treatment like HP-310 and HP-340.
So for our materials and methods, we placed 36 barrows in metabolism cages. We used six
diets, with six pigs per diet. They were fed at three times their maintenance energy requirement.
Feces were collected underneath a screen that was placed underneath the cage that they were
housed in.
So getting into our results, when you look at the total phosphorus in the feces, we first
will set up the slide. At the bottom of the graph, you'll see HP-310, HP-340, and conventional
soybean meal. On the left side is the percentage of phosphorus in the feces. The yellow bar
is the diet without phytase. The blue bar is the diet with phytase. So as you can see,
the diet that contained HP-310, when we have added phytase, we see significant reduction
from 3.5% phosphorus to 2% phosphorus in the feces. However, when you look at HP-340, we
do not see a statistical difference between the diets that had phytase added. Similarly
to the HP-310, our conventional soybean meal had the same results as we have 3.5% phosphorus
in the feces taken down to 2% phosphorus in the feces when we added phytase to the diet.
So when we look at the apparent total tract digestibility of phosphorus, we see again
similar results with HP-310 and conventional soybean meal as when we added phytase: we
have increased our apparent total tract digestibility of phosphorus. However, with our HP-340, again
is the enzyme-treated soybean meal with phytase, we do not see an additional benefit when we
add 500 units of phytase to the diet. So you can conclude already that the phytase added
to the HP-340 during the enzyme treatment is successful in maintaining the apparent
total tract digestibility of phosphorus.
So as we discuss some of the same points that I just went over in the last two graphs, again,
our phosphorus in our feces was reduced when phytase was added. Pigs fed the Hamlet Protein
340 had a lower concentration of phosphorus in the feces than pigs fed HP-310 and conventional
soybean meal regardless of phytase inclusion.
Without dietary phytase, the apparent total tract digestibility of phosphorus was greater
for HP-340 than for HP-310 and conventional soybean meal. With dietary phytase, the apparent
total tract digestibility of phosphorus in HP-340 was greater than in HP-310.
So our second experiment we looked at energy digestibility in enzyme treated soybean meal.
So our objective again was to test whether enzyme treatment of soybean meal compromises
the digestibility of energy compared to conventional soybean meal.
We used two Hamlet soybean products in this experiment. One being HP-200, which is enzyme-treated
soybean meal that was put through the enzyme treatment at a faster rate, leaving more crude
fiber but decreasing our crude protein percentage to 52% compared to 56% as in our HP-310 and
340. The second Hamlet Protein product that we used was HP-310 and again, this is a standard
enzyme treated soybean meal. And lastly, we compared this to our conventional soybean
meal that we used as a standard that, again, was sourced from the same soybeans that was
taken out from the process prior to enzyme treatment.
For our materials and methods, we placed 28 barrows in metabolism cages. We used four
diets with seven pigs per diet. We had total collection of urine and fecal materials. These
pigs were fed at three times their maintenance energy requirement.
So as in our phosphorus digestibility experiment, our collection of fecals was collected underneath
a screen that was placed under their cages. And then for urine, another screen that had
a funnel built into it collected our urine.
So when we look at our apparent total tract digestibility of energy, our yellow bar symbolized
our corn diet, our red bar is our HP-200 diet, our white bar is our HP-310 diet, and our
blue bar is our conventional soybean meal diet. And you see, there are not statistical
differences regardless of the diet we fed.
However, on a dry matter basis, when you look at digestible energy for the individual ingredients,
we see a reduction in digestible energy in corn when compared to our soy products. Then
when you examine the soy products, we do not compromise our digestible energy in HP-200
and HP-310 that have been enzyme treated compared to our conventional soybean meal that has
not been enzyme treated.
However, on a dry matter basis, our metabolizable energy in these same ingredients, we do not
see a statistical difference in all these ingredients. However, there is a tendency,
maybe, for corn to be slightly less than our soy products.
So for a few points to wrap up, our HP-200 and HP-310 and conventional soybean meal had
similar digestible energy but all were greater than corn. And this is surprising because
even with decreases in sugars, oligosaccharides, and an increase in crude fiber, we were still
able to maintain the same level of digestibility than we did with our conventional soybean
meal when we used an enzyme-treated soybean meal. Secondly, our metabolizable energy was
not different among all treatments.
So my take home message for both experiments is: Hamlet Protein soy products can be fed
to young pigs -- and this is because we have removed the sugars (as I express with sucrose),
oligosaccharides, antigens, and trypsin inhibitors -- and still be able to have similar phosphorus
and energy digestibility as conventional soybean meal. Therefore, these soybean products can
be used successfully in diets fed to young pigs.
Thank you for your attention.