Amino acid digestibility and net energy concentration in soybean meal for broiler chickens

Apparent metabolizable energy and ileal amino acid digestibility of commercial soybean meals of different origins in broilers

“…The AA content of the experimental SBM were within the range reported in the literature ( Adedokun et al, 2008 ; Ibáñez et al, 2020 ; Aguirre et al, 2022 ; Sung et al, 2023 ) and in general, higher for the BRA meals than for the USA and ARG meals, mostly because of their higher CP content ( García-Rebollar et al, 2016 ; Lagos and Stein, 2017 ; Galkanda-Arachchige et al, 2021 ). In fact, when the data are presented on CP bases, most of the differences disappears, with the USA meals showing better profile for Lys, TSAA, and ∑ 5 AA, than the South American meals.…”

“…In the current experiment, the difference between AME and AMEn values was of 165 ± 10 kcal/kg, as an average, consistent with data of Bertechini et al (2018) and Khalil et al (2021) . However, differences of 850, 300, and 464 kcal/kg have been reported by Leung and Kiarie (2020) , Abdollahi et al (2021) , and Sung et al (2023) , respectively. The reasons for these differences are not clear but might be related, at least in part to the nature and composition (e.g., CP content) of the basal diet used ( Lopez and Leeson, 2008 ; Adeola and Ileji, 2009 ; Veluri and Olukosi, 2020 ).…”

“…The AMEn content (88% DM basis) of the SBM, independently of the origin of the soybeans, varied between 2,277 and 2,334 kcal/kg, values that are within the range reported by most international tables on the composition of feed ingredients used by the industry ( Mateos et al, 2019 ). However, in vivo trials conducted for the last 12 yr, with high protein SBM (45.7 and 46.7% CP), show a range of values (on 88% DM basis) between 2,000 and 2,340 kcal AMEn/kg ( Perryman and Dozier 2012 ; Ravindran et al, 2014 ; Bertechini et al, 2018 ; Khalil et al, 2021 ; Sung et al, 2023 ). The reasons for the high variability in AMEn content reported for SBM samples with similar chemical composition, are not apparent but in addition to the intrinsic quality of the tested SBM, factors such as the experimental procedure used (e.g., total excreta collection vs. index), the characteristics and nutrient content of the basal diet (e.g., level of SBM and antinutritional factors content), and the assay methodology (e.g., difference vs. regression), might affect, at least in part, the disparity of values observed ( Adeola and Ileji, 2009 ; Loeffler et al, 2013 ; West, 2018 ; Veluri and Olukosi, 2020 ).…”

“…Similarly, the differences in energy values among international tables on the composition of feed ingredients for high protein SBM, exceeds in many cases 300 kcal AMEn/kg ( Mateos et al, 2019 ). Moreover, the energy content of SBM samples with similar moisture, CP, and neutral detergent fiber ( NDF ) contents reported in the literature varies, on DM basis, between 2,082 and 2,545 kcal/kg ( Ravindran et al, 2014 ; Bertechini et al, 2018 ; Abdollahi et al, 2021 ; Sung et al, 2023 ). The reasons for the high variability in energy values observed, are not apparent but factors such as the country of origin and the quality of the raw soybeans, the conditions applied during the heat process as well as the protocol and methodology used for the determinations, are relevant ( Adedokun et al, 2008 ; Perryman and Dozier, 2012 ; Ravindran et al, 2014 ; West, 2018 ; Veluri and Olukosi, 2020 ).…”

“…The standardized ileal digestibility coefficients ( SID ) for the CP of the SBM, commonly used in feed formulation, are usually obtained from tables recommended by different institutions, with values that vary from 85.0 to 91.4% ( Rostagno et al, 2017 ; FEDNA, 2021 ; CVB, 2022 ; AMINODat 6.2, 2023 ). Even a wider range of values (83.3 to 92.9%) has been published for the last years in scientific journals ( Frikha et al, 2012 ; Ravindran et al, 2014 ; Ali et al, 2023 ; Sung et al, 2023 ). Similarly, the differences in energy values among international tables on the composition of feed ingredients for high protein SBM, exceeds in many cases 300 kcal AMEn/kg ( Mateos et al, 2019 ).…”