Feed producers and farmers have options to protect livestock, says Rob Patterson
Feed producers and farmers have sound options to mitigate in-feed trypsin inhibitors (TI), to protect against these anti-nutritional factors undermining livestock performance and profitability, says a feed expert.
Rob Patterson, VP of Innovation and Commercialization with CBS Bio Platforms, has examined the question of whether TI exposure – related to increasing use of alternative protein sources – is being overlooked, in a three-part series of articles.
In Part I he provided an overview of the issue and why these anti-nutritional factors should be managed. In Part II he discussed detection and monitoring options. Now in Part III he delves into the final step in managing TI – the implementation of one or more mitigation strategies.
“The good news is feed producers and farmers have effective options to mitigate in-feed TI,” says Patterson. “Using a combination of strategies where possible is typically the best approach to manage the risk and minimize any potential losses.”
Feed formulation options
The threat of TI has risen to the forefront with increasing use of alternative protein sources, in response to cost pressures. Using alternative soybean ingredients such as cooked, whole and full fat soybeans as well as expelled and extruded soybean meal, comes with increased TI exposure that can reduce feed quality for pigs, poultry and ruminants.
Once a monitoring program is established and verified, one approach to consider is managing TI exposure via feed formulation, says Patterson. This involves integrating ingredient and final feed TI levels into existing formulation software programs, to enable strategies such as having a maximum value that would trigger ingredient rejection prior to being made available into a final feed.
However, this is “easier said than done,” he notes, because “the amount of TI acceptable in final feeds is a nebulous number and is dependent on the species being fed as well as the stage of production.”
Feed processing technology
Another option is the use of feed processing technology, for example the use of heat and pressure treatment of the final ration via a pellet mill, expander or extruder.
Patterson notes the upfront and recurring costs associated with equipment installation, maintenance and management could be prohibitive. However, the approach could be feasible if this equipment is already in place for the management of feed-borne pathogens such as Salmonella.
Another strategy to manage TI in commercial feed production is the use of exogenous enzyme technology. “Although the typical use case for dietary enzymes is for improving nutrient digestion and feed efficiency, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that using certain proteases can enzymatically denature feed TIs.”
The enzyme approach tends to have a cost advantage, Patterson notes. “It can be combined with additional feed formulation strategies to result in substantial savings on a per tonne of feed basis.”
Read Rob Patterson’s in-depth Part III article for full insights on in-feed mitigation options, including details on the physical structure of soybean TI and the mechanism of action underpinning enzyme results.