The quest for alternative ingredients

According to recent Rabobank figures (2022), soybean still dominates the world markets, with the US, Brazil and Argentina being the three largest producers. Soybean meal is one of the main ingredients in animal diets around the world because of its nutritional value, its stability in quality and availability, and has hence been called ‘the gold standard’ in animal feeds. However, with the double digit spikes in market prices observed over the last year, soy is – metaphorically – not far behind from being equally valued as real gold.

Because of the soaring prices (together with with environmental concerns about soybean production amongst others), animal nutritionists and farmers are looking for new ways to reduce feed costs. This is not an easy task, as there is a limited availability of alternative protein sources, such as rapeseed meal, sunflower meal, peanut meal and cottonseed meal.

Extra attention is needed for optimal use

In spite of their limited availability, the use of alternative ingredients has become a must in most regions in the world. When replacing soybean meal (completely or partly) with alternative ingredients (often from new and different suppliers), it is crucial to determine their nutritional value and their overall quality. Using alternative and less common feed ingredients can be particularly beneficial from a cost and nutritional perspective, but it may require paying extra attention to find the best way to use them in animal diets. Alternative ingredients may have a fickle and inconsistent fiber and protein level (see Table 1), can contain elevated mycotoxin levels and may react differently in (already existing) feed processing equipment. It should be kept in mind that there are no bad feed ingredients, and they should simply be used in the right way.

Table 1 – Some of the characteristics of a selection of alternative ingredients (compared with soybean meal).

Canola/rapeseed meal	Higher fiber content and more variations AntiNutritional Factors (ANFs) Lower lysine digestibility
Cottonseed meal	Higher variations in CP %, due to the processing methods ANFs (gossypol) Lower lysine digestibility
Sunflower meal	Variations in the fiber %, due to the processing methods ANFs Lower in lysine
Copra (coconut) meal	Large variations in the energy level (oil residual) Low lysine digestibility, due to the drying process Mannan and galactomanna
Palm kernel meal	High in fiber (~20%), with medium levels of CP (~15%) Deficiency in lysine and methionine Large variations in the energy level (oil residual) Manan and galactomannan
DDGS	Rich in protein, and low in lysine Lower digestibility of the amino acids Variability in quality, due to the process Risk of mycotoxin contamination Negative impact on fat quality

Adapting the practices in the feed mill

Using alternative or new feed ingredients can have an effect at different levels (and on the costs) in feed production plants. Before making the decision to start using something new, it is necessary to know that the ingredient is safe to use, compatible with the existing plant equipment and should not increase the feed processing costs. This can be a challenge, as new ingredients may come in smaller quantities (smaller bags for instance), may be sourced from different regions, and may not be suitable for storage in silos. This can lead to the requirement of more manpower and a greater storage space.

The density of the material, its resistance to pests and molds, and the levels of shrinkage can also deviate from those of commonly used ingredients. Moreover, the feedstuff properties (such as hardness, moisture content, fiber content and particle size) can have an effect on the throughput (kg/hour) and energy consumption of the feed processing equipment. For example, some alternative ingredients may require a longer mixing time, thus leading to an increase in energy costs. Using alternative ingredients can also increase the quality control costs, as more feed analyses are on average conducted on unknown raw materials.

Preventing nutrient losses due to contaminants

The performance and health of animals can also be compromised when ingredients are contaminated. The presence of molds, bacteria and oxidized lipids are examples that can lead to severe nutrient losses, reduced palatability and reduced feed intake levels. When there are mycotoxin producing molds present in the feeds, the effects on animals’ performance and economic losses can be even more serious. Mycotoxins are a particular challenge for alternative feed ingredients, and even a low inclusion rate in the diet can contribute to the final risk. Such commonly used alternative ingredients as DDGS, wheat bran and wheat millings, all have a relatively high risk of containing mycotoxins. However, all types of raw materials are prone to molds and mycotoxin formation, which depend on the weather conditions, crop production, harvest, transport, storage conditions and feed processing. There is also a lack of rapid test kits to test mycotoxins in alternative materials, and it takes longer to monitor a diverse range of variable quality materials. It is recommended to test the finished feeds more often when different (new) ingredients are used and to not use too many new ingredients at once, thus avoiding multiple challenges at the same time.

Solutions to maintain diet quality and animal performance

Several effective approaches are available to help make the right decision when using alternative feed ingredients in times of volatile and uncertain market conditions.

Rapid feed testing methods: Using NIR is a fast and accurate way of determining the nutritional values, which is key for the optimum quality control of alternative feed ingredients that are prone to variable nutrient contents. The finished feeds should be regularly tested for mycotoxins. Learn more about PNE service.
Enzymes: The use of enzymes can increase the digestibility of alternative feed ingredients that are prone to a high fiber content and can help to buffer the variability of ingredients. Learn more about Rovabio® Advance.
Mycotoxins inactivators: The use of these in-feed products help the animals overcome mycotoxin challenge in high risk feed ingredients (such as DDGS). Lear more about our mycotoxin deactivator range: Unike Plus, Toxy-Nil Plus and Toxy-Nil.
Antioxidants: The supplementation of animal diets with antioxidants such as Oxy-Nil, can help prevent fat and protein oxidation of alternative feed ingredients that are sensitive to this type of degradation.

Adisseo offers a variety of solutions that are key to making alternative feed ingredients work in animal diets. These solutions include NIR services (Adisseo’s Precise Nutrition Evaluation platform), digestibility boosters and products to manage feed preservation and mycotoxins. The positive effect of Adisseo’s multi-NSPase (Rovabio®) on dry matter degradability has been shown in an in vitro trial. Table 2 shows the results of adding enzymes on the dry matter degradability and variance.

Table 2 – The dry matter degradability of a range of feed ingredients, with and without enzymes.

	Number of samples	DM degradability without enzymes (%)	DM degradability with Rovabio® (%)	Difference (%)
Wheat	13	58.0 ± 7.1	86.2 ± 2.3	28.2
Wheat DDGS	23	41.3 ± 6.0	50.9 ± 5.5	9.6
Corn DDGS	16	20.5 ± 12.1	26.7 ± 13.4	6.2
Cassava	9	50.5 ± 18.7	70.3 ± 14.6	19.8

In summary, the use of alternative feed ingredients is currently increasing due to the high prices of such commonly used ingredients as soybean meal. However, the availability of alternative feed ingredients, such as rapeseed meal and DDGS, is still way below the previously produced volumes of soybean meal and can differ in quality.

Therefore, the quality and nutritional value of alternative feed ingredients should be carefully monitored. Variations in the protein and fiber contents, higher risks of mycotoxins and the presence of some bitter components may lead to lower feed intake levels, and to losses in nutrients. A cheap ingredient may therefore end up being an extra cost, because of the loss of animal performance. The use of feed additives (such as Rovabio®), regular testing of the nutritional values with quick methods (NIRS as PNE) and regular testing of the finished feeds for contaminants all help to control the problems that arise when using feed ingredients that are new to the nutritionist, farmer and animals.

We look forward to discussing our products and solutions with you individually to help you make better informed decisions when you are thinking of using alternative feed ingredients in your feed formulations.

Product names and availability may vary by region, please contact your local Adisseo representative for more information.