ARTICLE FEED & ADDITIVE MAGAZINE June 2022 69 in combination the feed cost savings are appreciable (>US$30/metric ton of feed) and these feed cost savings can be inflated by simultaneously relaxing constraints on by-product maximums. DSM and Novozymes have worked in a cooperative alliance for more than 20 years and have brought several disruptive enzyme technologies to the market during this time (Table). The combined use of these enzymes can generate substantial nutrient release values that mitigate feed cost pressure. Our recommendations also consider the lack of full additivity on nutritional matrices of adjacent enzymes and are all fully supported by peer-reviewed meta-analyses and independent studies with opinion leading professors. OPTIMIZING VALUE OF FEED ENZYMES 1. Substrate surveillance. Unlike many feed additives (e.g., essential oils or organic acids), feed enzymes hydrolyze specific and measurable substrates in raw materials. Near infrared spectroscopy (NIR) calibrations now exist for most of these substrates including non-starch polysaccharide fractions, protein solubility, cereal quality and phytic acid. As feed cost pressure increases motivation to proportionately elevate matrices for feed enzymes, the importance of mapping the substrate landscape in feed also increases so that animal performance does not suffer. There are several strategies that can be employed. For example, if a given diet is analytically confirmed to have relatively high phytic acid concentrations (>0.25% phytate phosphorus), higher doses of phytase and more aggressive displacement of inorganic phosphate can be accommodated. Increasing access to phytate to further optimize its complete removal can also be accomplished by use of adjacent additives such as accessory enzymes (especially protease), organic acids, vitamin D3 and 25-OH D3, management of drinking water pH, etc. A similar approach can be taken to align energy matrices with cereal quality. Corn or wheat with a high fiber concentration or a protein/starch matrix that is mechanically resistant to solubilization in the intestine may have a relatively low metabolizable energy concentration and in such cases the energy assumptions for carbohydrase can be inflated. 2. Cheaper feed ingredients. Relaxing maximum constraints on high fiber by-products and lower cost, locally sourced raw materials can also result in substantial reductions in feed cost but may come at the expense of FCR if this is not managed strategically. Higher fiber ingredients such as wheat bran, rice bran, Table: DSM Enzyme portfolio, enzyme activities, target substrates and dose recommendations Enzyme activity Fourth-generation phytase Third-generation phytase Second-generation protease First-generation protease Amylase Xylanase Xylanase, beta-glucanase, xyloglucanase and arabinoxylan de-branching enzymes Perctinases and mannanases DSM Enzymes HiPhorius™ RONOZYME® HiPhos ProAct 360™ RONOZYME® ProAct RONOZYME® HiStarch RONOZYME® WX RONOZYME® MultiGrain RONOZYME® VP Substrate Phytate Protein Starch Arabinoxylans Arabinoxylans, beta-glucans and Xylo-glucan network Pebtic polymer matrix and beta mannans Dose recommendations 500-3000 FYT/kg feed 500-3000 FYT/kg feed 50 g/mT 200 g/mT 60-120 KNU/kg feed 100-300 FXU/kg feed 80-150 g/mT 150-400 g/mT
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUxNjkxNQ==