Feed enzyme innovation - Danisco Animal...
4
1 INTERNATIONAL POULTRY PRODUCTION – SEPTEMBER 2014 DANISCO ANIMAL NUTRITION - ENZYMES SUPPLEMENT B ack in the 1980s, it was becoming clear that there was a need to produce more high quality protein more quickly in order to meet the needs of the world’s growing population. It was also obvi- ous that converting feed to protein was not a very efficient process. Poultry do not digest upwards of a quarter of what they eat even if the diet is quite simple and young birds are particularly lacking in the relevant enzymes to digest common diets like barley and oats. The late 1980s saw the introduc- tion of xylanase and beta-glucanase, fibre-degrading enzymes that cleave non-starch polysaccharides (NSPs, for example, arabinoxylans and beta- glucans) in ‘viscous’ cereals. Xylanase and beta glucanase com- binations improve nutrient digestion and feed utilisation by releasing encapsulated nutrients, reducing digesta viscosity and reducing endogenous losses.These benefits were viewed as a genuine break- through by producers in parts of the world where wheat and barley are poultry diet staples, notably Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Poultry also excrete around 45% of bound minerals from the feed, including phosphorus (P). When manure containing P is spread onto the land, it can cause a threat to already scarce fresh water supplies, causing eutrophication as a result of algae blooms. In the 1980s, the Dutch authorities started imposing fines designed to limit the amount of P that can be dis- posed of on land to limit the leaching of P, from manure, into fresh water supplies. Phytase was first introduced into the feed in the late 1980s to help Dutch producers avoid this ‘P tax’. German producers faced similar legislation and also adopted phytase but because it was still relatively expensive, its use was limited in other countries that were not under immediate legislative threat. The 1990s saw the animal feed industry increasingly acknowledge the importance of carbohydrase and proteases enzyme use in diets con- taining a range of different raw mate- rials, including non-viscous feed such as sorghum and corn. This was the point when these combinations started to be seen as a means of reducing variability – both in raw materials (techniques like mechanical drying were altering the starch structure in corn and making it more variable) and in flock perfor- mance. The turn of the century; a turning point for feed enzyme use From 2000 onwards, state regula- tions setting new limits on the levels of phosphorus that could be released into the environment became more common. However, the commercial turning point for phytase came when inorganic phosphorus sources started to shoot up in price in the 1990s. It was also established around this time that phytase application could maximise animal performance by improving absorption of P, a vital mineral for skeletal growth, cell func- tion and energy metabolism. This was because phytase had been found to make inaccessible P in phytate accessible. Bans in the European Union and Japan on the use of bovine meat and bone meal (MBM), which was the main means for producers to cost effectively improve mineral and pro- tein uptake, were in place by 2001 and this was another factor that has accelerated the growth of phytase utilisation. The last decade has also seen demand for protein soar in line with population and income growth, with poultry consumption rising by 32%. This increasing demand is set against a backdrop of unpredictable challenges for animal producers such as soaring raw ingredient prices, extreme weather conditions and pandemics. Tackling variability has become a major concern for animal producers. More research had been under- taken into the variation of NSP con- tent of viscous grains and the ability of xylanase and beta-glucanase enzymes to reduce feed costs, which were now taking up almost three quarters of production budgets. Some recent trials have demon- strated the major digestibility improvements which application of xylanase and beta-glucanase can make. After energy, protein is the greatest cost in poultry feed so there has been a move in recent years to use less expensive, protein rich ingre- dients to improve profitability. Due to government led initiatives to produce more sustainable fuels, corn DDGS, a by-product from bioethanol production, has become readily available. This and other inex- pensive, protein rich by-products – such as rice bran – are also much more fibrous and less easily digestible. The move from simple diets to these more complex ones has a significant effect on the dietary substrates available for digestion by the animal and decreases the starch levels and digestible amino acids in the diet (Fig. 1). Cultivation methods and harvest conditions can produce varying feed substrate levels, which in turn lead to similar digestibility and performance issues. Corn, for example, is the Feed enzyme innovation – past, present and potential The catalytic properties of enzymes were first truly recognised as a means of optimising nutrition when the first US patent was granted in 1894 to Dr Jokichi Takamine, one of the pioneers of biotechnology. Phytase, which is used in around 90% of poultry diets today and its substrate phytate – identified more recently as the anti-nutrient that phytase tackles – were discovered not long afterwards in the early 1900s. The first article pointing to the benefits of using exogenous enzymes in feed was published around 20 years later. Despite the fact that feed enzyme application in diets for poultry is one of the most researched fields in poultry science today, with over 2,500 independent enzyme trials conducted with broilers alone, the mainstream use of exogenous enzymes in animal feed only really began in the 1980s. Universal acknowledgement of the value of feed enzymes was not truly gained until the late 1990s. In this supplement, Danisco Animal Nutrition looks at the key milestones in the history of animal feed enzyme innovation and how feed enzyme develop- ments can help support food security in years to come. Fig. 1. Changes in the level of crude protein and fibre, substrates and subsequent starch and amino acid digestibility when DDGS and rice bran are added to standard corn-soy diets. Percentage Increase n Standard diet +10% corn DDGS n Standard diet +10% rice bran Decrease 60 40 20 0 -20 Crude protein Amino acid digestibility Starch Crude fibre Arabin- oxylan Phytate 1.5% 0% -2% -0.7% -15% -11% 20% 20% 5% 25% 11% 44%
Transcript of Feed enzyme innovation - Danisco Animal...
1I N T E R N A T I O N A L P O U L T R Y P R O D U C T I O N – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 4
D A N I S C O A N I M A L N U T R I T I O N - E N Z Y M E S S U P P L E M E N T
Back in the 1980s, it wasbecoming clear that there wasa need to produce more high
quality protein more quickly in orderto meet the needs of the world’sgrowing population. It was also obvi-ous that converting feed to proteinwas not a very efficient process.Poultry do not digest upwards of aquarter of what they eat even if thediet is quite simple and young birdsare particularly lacking in the relevantenzymes to digest common diets likebarley and oats. The late 1980s saw the introduc-
tion of xylanase and beta-glucanase,fibre-degrading enzymes that cleavenon-starch polysaccharides (NSPs,for example, arabinoxylans and beta-glucans) in ‘viscous’ cereals. Xylanase and beta glucanase com-
binations improve nutrient digestionand feed utilisation by releasingencapsulated nutrients, reducingdigesta viscosity and reducingendogenous losses.These benefitswere viewed as a genuine break-through by producers in parts of theworld where wheat and barley arepoultry diet staples, notably Europe,Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Poultry also excrete around 45% of
bound minerals from the feed,including phosphorus (P). Whenmanure containing P is spread ontothe land, it can cause a threat toalready scarce fresh water supplies,causing eutrophication as a result ofalgae blooms.
In the 1980s, the Dutch authoritiesstarted imposing fines designed tolimit the amount of P that can be dis-posed of on land to limit the leachingof P, from manure, into fresh watersupplies. Phytase was first introducedinto the feed in the late 1980s tohelp Dutch producers avoid this ‘Ptax’. German producers faced similarlegislation and also adopted phytasebut because it was still relativelyexpensive, its use was limited inother countries that were not underimmediate legislative threat. The 1990s saw the animal feed
industry increasingly acknowledgethe importance of carbohydrase and
proteases enzyme use in diets con-taining a range of different raw mate-rials, including non-viscous feed suchas sorghum and corn. This was the point when these
combinations started to be seen as ameans of reducing variability – bothin raw materials (techniques likemechanical drying were altering thestarch structure in corn and making itmore variable) and in flock perfor-mance.
The turn of the century; a turning point for feed enzyme use
From 2000 onwards, state regula-tions setting new limits on the levelsof phosphorus that could be releasedinto the environment became morecommon. However, the commercialturning point for phytase came wheninorganic phosphorus sourcesstarted to shoot up in price in the1990s. It was also established aroundthis time that phytase applicationcould maximise animal performanceby improving absorption of P, a vitalmineral for skeletal growth, cell func-tion and energy metabolism. Thiswas because phytase had been foundto make inaccessible P in phytateaccessible.
Bans in the European Union andJapan on the use of bovine meat andbone meal (MBM), which was themain means for producers to costeffectively improve mineral and pro-tein uptake, were in place by 2001and this was another factor that hasaccelerated the growth of phytaseutilisation. The last decade has also seen
demand for protein soar in line withpopulation and income growth, withpoultry consumption rising by 32%. This increasing demand is set
against a backdrop of unpredictablechallenges for animal producers suchas soaring raw ingredient prices,extreme weather conditions andpandemics. Tackling variability hasbecome a major concern for animalproducers. More research had been under-
taken into the variation of NSP con-tent of viscous grains and the abilityof xylanase and beta-glucanaseenzymes to reduce feed costs, whichwere now taking up almost threequarters of production budgets. Some recent trials have demon-
strated the major digestibilityimprovements which application ofxylanase and beta-glucanase canmake. After energy, protein is thegreatest cost in poultry feed so therehas been a move in recent years touse less expensive, protein rich ingre-dients to improve profitability. Due to government led initiatives
to produce more sustainable fuels,corn DDGS, a by-product frombioethanol production, has becomereadily available. This and other inex-pensive, protein rich by-products –such as rice bran – are also muchmore fibrous and less easilydigestible. The move from simplediets to these more complex oneshas a significant effect on the dietarysubstrates available for digestion bythe animal and decreases the starchlevels and digestible amino acids inthe diet (Fig. 1). Cultivation methods and harvest
conditions can produce varying feedsubstrate levels, which in turn lead tosimilar digestibility and performanceissues. Corn, for example, is the
Feed enzyme innovation – past, present and potentialThe catalytic properties of enzymes were first truly recognised as a means ofoptimising nutrition when the first US patent was granted in 1894 to DrJokichi Takamine, one of the pioneers of biotechnology. Phytase, which is usedin around 90% of poultry diets today and its substrate phytate – identifiedmore recently as the anti-nutrient that phytase tackles – were discovered notlong afterwards in the early 1900s. The first article pointing to the benefits ofusing exogenous enzymes in feed was published around 20 years later.Despite the fact that feed enzyme application in diets for poultry is one of the
most researched fields in poultry science today, with over 2,500 independentenzyme trials conducted with broilers alone, the mainstream use ofexogenous enzymes in animal feed only really began in the 1980s. Universalacknowledgement of the value of feed enzymes was not truly gained until thelate 1990s.In this supplement, Danisco Animal Nutrition looks at the key milestones in
the history of animal feed enzyme innovation and how feed enzyme develop-ments can help support food security in years to come.
Fig. 1. Changes in the level of crude protein and fibre, substrates andsubsequent starch and amino acid digestibility when DDGS and ricebran are added to standard corn-soy diets.
Percentage
Increase
n Standard diet +10% corn DDGS
n Standard diet +10% rice bran
Decrease
60
40
20
0
-20Crude protein
Amino aciddigestibility
Starch Crudefibre
Arabin-oxylan
Phytate
1.5% 0%
-2% -0.7%
-15%-11%
20% 20%
5%
25%
11%
44%
25,26,27,28 Danisco Supplement 04/09/2014 Week 36 15:00 Page 1
D A N I S C O A N I M A L N U T R I T I O N - E N Z Y M E S S U P P L E M E N T
I N T E R N A T I O N A L P O U L T R Y P R O D U C T I O N – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 42
energy to fuel growth. Increasingstarch digestibility also reducespotential substrate for non-beneficialbacteria. l Protease increases proteindigestibility through hydrolysis ofstorage and structural proteins, anddisrupts interactions of proteins withstarch and fibre in the diet.Additionally, it targets other anti-
nutritional factors in the diet, forexample residual trypsin inhibitorsand lectins in soybean meal andsome other vegetable proteinsthereby improving nutrient digestibil-ity.Synergistic effects of using these
enzymes in combination are due tothe fact that the effects of theenzymes are not limited to their spe-cific substrate. By disrupting fibrous fractions with
a xylanase, for example, proteindigestibility can be increased by mak-ing the protein substrates moreaccessible to other enzymes. Theseeffects, which radically improvegrowth performance (Fig. 3), havebeen extensively documented inrecent peer reviewed literature. A recent digestibility study demon-
strated the positive effects of carbo-
hydrase and protease enzymes incombination on ileal digestibleenergy from starch, fat and protein inbroilers fed corn-soy diets and corn-soy based diets with added DDGsand canola. There was a greaterresponse to the enzymes in the morechallenging mixed diet compared tothe corn-soy diet. The work also demonstrated the
additive effect of the proteaseenzyme on top of the xylanase andamylase enzymes (Fig. 4).Additionally, digestibility of alterna-
tive raw materials in corn diets hasbeen shown to be improved usingxylanase and beta-glucanase combi-nations. In this study (Fig. 5) broilers were
fed diets made up of corn, cornDDGS, soy bean meal and rapeseedmeal – supplemented with eitherxylanase or xylanase and beta-glu-canase. The enzyme combination sig-nificantly improved feed conversionratio (FCR) and ileal digestibilityenergy, compared to the control.It is recognised that the poultry gut
is a complicated environment. It isalso increasingly acknowledged that a
healthy gut is of vital importance interms of achieving optimum bird per-formance. Although many factors throughout
the production process cumulativelyaffect the composition of themicroflora and the number of non-beneficial bacteria in the intestine,research has shown that the type,amount and availability of undigestednutrient substrate present in varioussegments of the gastro-intestinaltract (GIT) is highly significant. Research has also indicated the
role that carbohydrase and proteaseenzymes have in supporting guthealth through changes in the avail-able substrates for the gut micro-biota. The effect of these enzymes ismultifaceted. For example, xylanasenot only reduces digesta viscositythrough the hydrolysis of soluble arabinoxylans, but the solubilisationof arabinoxylans also generates arabino-xylo-oligosaccharides. These act as prebiotics, promoting
the growth of beneficial bacteria andthe production of short chain fattyacids (SCFA), which can be utilisedas an energy source by the animal.
most common feed grain used glob-ally, but its feed value is universallyrecognised as being variable – some-times just as variable as viscous grainssuch as wheat. Broiler trials (Fig. 2)have shown that variability in feedconversion ratio caused by variabilityin corn and its digestibility can beimproved by a combination ofxylanase, amylase and proteaseenzymes, each targeting a differentproblematic substrate in the diet,with the aim of maximising bird per-formance through the alleviation ofanti-nutritive effects and optimisingnutrient digestibility as follows:l Xylanases and beta-glucanasesbreak down the non-starch polysac-charides (NSPs), including solubleand insoluble arabinoxylans, in thefibre fraction of plant cell walls, aswell as reducing digesta viscosity andimproving digestibility, nutrientrelease and feed passage rates. This’door opening effect’ makes cellcomponents more accessible byother enzymes. l Amylase acts on starch, increasingits hydrolysis and thereby improvingits digestibility. Its actions comple-ment the secretion of endogenousamylases by the bird, freeing up
Fig. 3. Cost savings, following application of xylanase, amylase andprotease combinations in poultry diets.
Fig. 4. Contribution of protein, starch, and fat to the apparent ilealdigestible energy of corn and wheat based broiler diets in response toexogenous xylanase and amylase without or with protease.
Fig. 5. Improvements in ileal starch and ileal protein digestibility withthe addition of xylanase only and xylanase and beta-glucanase combination to corn/DDGS/soy/rapeseed meal-based broiler diets versus control. 21 day trial, three dietary treatments (Amerah andRavindran, Massey University, 2014).
Improvem
ent of ileal digestible energy
from
starch, fat and protein (kcal/kg DM) 120
100
80
60
40
20
0Xylanase +amylase;
without DDGSand canola
Xylanase +amylase + protease
without DDGSand canola
Xylanase +amylase;
with DDGS and canola
Xylanase +amylase + proteasewith DDGS and canola
57.0 48.7
83.092.2
73.6 77.3
97.3
117.3
Saving (%
)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0Axtra XAP +10% low cost
by-product+ 10% Axtra XAP
Simple corn-based diet
3%2.5%
1.5%(Corn DDGS)
2.3%(Rice bran)
4.4%
5.1%
Apparent ileal digestible energy
(MJ/kg dry matter)
15
14Control Xylanase Xylanase +
b-glucanase
14.41b
14.58ab
14.78a
+0.37 MJ/Kg (2.6%)
+0.20 MJ/Kg (1.4%)
P<0.05
Fig. 2. The impact of xylanase, amylase and protease addition to 56different corn samples included in broiler diets reduced the variation inperformance measured as FCR (Danisco Animal Nutrition, 2011).
Frequency of population
Broiler FCR
+XAP enzyme
No enzyme
5.04.54.03.53.02.52.01.51.00.50
1.33
1.40
1.44
1.49
1.53
1.58
1.62
1.67
1.71
1.76
1.81
1.85
1.90
1.99
n US marketn Asian market
Average additional feed cost savingwith Axtra XAP +2.8%
25,26,27,28 Danisco Supplement 04/09/2014 Week 36 15:01 Page 2
3I N T E R N A T I O N A L P O U L T R Y P R O D U C T I O N – S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 4
D A N I S C O A N I M A L N U T R I T I O N - E N Z Y M E S S U P P L E M E N T
Reducing the viscosity of the digestaalso enables other endogenous andexogenous enzymes to access previ-ously unavailable substrates, whichresults in increased nutrient diges-tion. By maximising the digestibility of
substrates in the gut, not only aremore nutrients available for the birdsto utilise for growth, but there arefewer undigested fractions that couldact as substrate for pathogenic bac-terial strains. This is particularly thecase for undigested protein, which islinked to Clostridium perfringens, thebacteria responsible for necroticenteritis.Our growing understanding in
recent years of the impact of phytateon dietary amino acid and energydigestibility has raised the recognitionof phytase beyond its value as a con-tributor to phosphorus (and calcium)nutrition. Phytate is now seen as a potent
anti-nutrient which can form com-plexes with minerals, peptides andstarch reducing the bird’s utilisationof protein and energy.Research has also suggested that
phytate is also responsible forincreasing the endogenous losses ofminerals and amino acids. The com-bination of these factors and the factthat the bird cannot break downphytate with its own enzymes suffi-ciently often results in variable nega-tive effects on performance.As diets have become more com-
plex, levels of phytate have increased(Fig. 6) and the need to find moreeffective ways of tackling phytatemore quickly has increased.Research in the last decade has
centred on the need for a phytase tohave high affinity with the anti-nutri-tive IP6 phytate molecules and highactivity at a low pH to ensure it isfast acting on phytate destruction inthe upper digestive tract. At thispoint, bio-efficacy became thewatchword of the day where phytasewas concerned.The first E. coli phytase on the
market was launched in 2003, offer-ing a 20% improvement in bio-effi-cacy and associated feed cost savingscompared to traditional fungal phy-tases available at that time. The E. coli phytase also improved
ileal protein and amino aciddigestibility at all phytate concentra-tions, but its impact was greatestwhen phytate levels were high.Further advancements were made
in 2007 when unique developmentsin Thermo Protection Technology(TPT) involving coating of dry phy-tase were announced. The coating, which makes the phy-
tase heat stable up to 95°C (203°F),ensures that the phytase remainsactive during steam conditioning andsubsequent pelleting of feed, savingmoney and production headaches.The same coating technology has
been used in best-in-class carbohy-drase and protease products toenable high recovery in pelleteddiets.In 2013, an advanced range of phy-
tase products, originating from aButtiauxella species, was launchedand independent trials at theSchothorst Feed Research Institute in2012 showed that this phytase offers
79% higher bioefficacy than an E. coliphytase (Fig. 7). An analysis of ten broiler studies,
run over three years testing this newadvanced phytase clearly demon-strated the correlation originallydemonstrated by Sands et albetween the level of dietary phytateand amino acid digestibility response.The amount of data behind a phy-
tase will also determine how confi-dent producers can be in applyingthe matrix values in a feed formula-tion. Pigs and poultry respond differently
to phytase and the age of an animalcan also influence how responsivethey are to different doses of phy-tase. Likewise, the level of phytate inthe diet is fundamental to optimisingphytase dose rates and to quantifyingthe release of ‘extra-phosphoric’nutrients, for example amino acidsand energy (Fig. 8).
What’s next?
Understanding synergies betweenphytase, carbohydrase and proteaseofferings, and the additional cost sav-ings that can be made by using them
in combination is an area of focusmoving forward. The combination of different
groups of feed additives with poten-tially complementary modes-of-action – for example, probiotics andenzymes – has also been investigatedin terms of the impact on liveabilityas well as growth performance. Intrials with non-challenged broilersfed a corn-soy diet containing somefibrous cereal by-products, Romeroet al. (2013) observed significantincremental increases in nitrogencorrected apparent metabolisableenergy (AMEn) with additions of athree strain Bacillus probiotic andxylanase, amylase and proteaseenzymes. The results indicated athree-to-one return on investment,resulting from significantly improveddigestibility and gut health support.The next step was to check whetherthe benefits could extend to a spe-cific necrotic enteritis (NE) challengemodel. The improvements in bodyweight
corrected FCR in both experimentswith the combination product gavenet benefits of 14% in relative costper kg live weight gain versus thechallenged control at current feedprices, illustrating the strong eco-nomic value of this concept underexperimental NE challenge condi-tions.Developments in enzyme technol-
ogy will also open up future opportu-nities for the use of new, cheapernon-conventional feed raw materials.Researchers are already looking atpotentially upgrading raw materialsfrom both first and second genera-tion bio-ethanol processes to beused as animal feed. Advances in this area could help
reduce the price volatility that hasplagued the animal feed industry inrecent years and radically reduce thecost and sustainability of animal pro-tein production. n
References are available on requestfrom [email protected]
Fig. 6. Levels of phytate found in commonly used feed raw materials.Number of samples used are provided in parentheses (Harvest data,Danisco Animal Nutrition, 2013).
Fig. 7. Different phytases have different pH optima and different relative activity at low pH, versus ph5.5 (at which FTU are defined).
Fig. 8. The relationship between the digestibility coefficient of lysinewith phytase dose (Buttiauxella spp.) and dietary phytate levels usingmodified Chung-Pfost Model (from Plumstead et al., 2013).
% relative to pH 5.5
pH
Axtra PHY
Citrobacter phytase
E. coli phytase
Peniophora phytase
2001801601401201008060402002 3 4 5 6 7
Rice po
lish (2)
Rice bran (2)
Wheat bran (22)
Sunflower meal (17)
Wheat middlings (12)
Canola meal (14)
SBM (36)
Corn gluten meal (11)
Full fat soybean (19)
Wheat (9)
Corn (52)
Barley (9)
Sorghum (7)
Corn DDGS (18)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
IP6 (%
)
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
30002500
200015001000
0.90-0.95 0.85-0.90 0.80-0.85 0.75-0.80
50000.16
0.200.24
0.280.32
0.36
Lysine digestibility
Phytase dose(FTU/kg feed)
Phytase P (%)
n Min. n Mean n Max.
25,26,27,28 Danisco Supplement 04/09/2014 Week 36 15:01 Page 3
25,26,27,28 Danisco Supplement 04/09/2014 Week 36 15:01 Page 4
