Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 52

18/09/2018

AMINONIR®

Ms. Sheila Heidi M. Ramos


Senior Technical Service Manager
Evonik SEA PTE LTD

Validation Results

Customer: PT. Universal Agri Bisnisindo


N = number of samples measured at the host

Achieved N Goal
Parameters Conditions
% 40 %
DM <0.75 85 34 60
0.75-1.25 13 5 30
>1.25 3 1 10
CP <3.0 90 36 80
3-5 10 4 15
>5.0 0 0 5
AA <5 88 424 80
5.0 - 10.0 10 47 15
>10 2 9 5
2

1
18/09/2018

Agenda

Introduction
− AMINONIR®
− AMINOProx®
− AMINONRG®
Importance of grinding
Interpretation of Analytical Data
How to maximize the analytical data
Global Analysis Overview
Comparison of key raw materials
Conclusion

Your Challenges:

• Do we use the most cost-effective raw materials?


• Do we screen and monitor raw materials frequently?
• Do we utilize the most up-to-date assays to control our feed specs?
• Do we use current assay data in our
nutritional matrix?
• Is our data accessible for all decision-
makers?

Amino acid analysis is costly, huge number of samples are required


to be analyzed to capture raw material variation….
4

2
18/09/2018

Importance of evaluating raw material quality

Ingredient quality is the foundation upon which


an animal ration is built.

Establishing an ingredient quality evaluation


program is an essential component of a
successful feed processing plant.

Routine evaluation of incoming feed ingredients


will help insure the adequate use and proper
storage are performed.

Variation is additive and costs money!

The main contributors to nutrient variation and increased safety


margins in compound feed are:

- Raw material variation (batch to batch)

- Inconsistent feed mixing (within batch)

3
18/09/2018

Factors that contribute to raw material variation:

Technical Raw material

Weighing Breed/Variety

Dosing Nutrient Origin

Mixing variation Fertilizer

Transportation Processing

Analytical/Human Storage
factor

Introduction:
- AMINONIR®
- AMINOProx®
- AMINONRG®

4
18/09/2018

NIR Spectroscopy Basics

NIR Spectroscopy Basics

• NIRS = Near InfraRed Spectroscopy


• Non-visible light
• Typical spectral range for feed raw material analysis:
1100 – 2500 nm

Light Prism Sample

Reflection

Detector

10

5
18/09/2018

NIR Calibration Development


Spectra Reference Analysis

Collect spectra and corresponding reference analysis.

There are correlations between spectra and reference values.

Calculation of multiple regression equations.

11

Spectral range for feed parameters

12

6
18/09/2018

NIR Calibration requirements


NIR Calibration requirements

• Calibrations need accurate wet chemistry reference values


• Minimum 100 selected samples needed for a first calibration
version

• At least 30 more samples needed for independent


validations

• Samples must cover a wide range of variation in nutrient


contents, by global origin and different genotypes,
processing conditions

13

AMINOLab®:
The most reliable reference for amino acid analysis

• 55 years of experience in wet chemistry amino acids analysis


• Data basis of more than 50,000 analysed feed ingredients
• Continuous participation at „ring tests“ to check for the precision
and accuracy of our analytical methods (AAFCO, BIPEA, VDLUFA)

AMINOLab® ‒ the ideal basis for accurate NIR-calibrations

14

7
18/09/2018

AMINOLab®
Since 1960 Evonik (former Degussa) supports their customers in the feed
industry with AMINOLab® and AMINOBatch® services for raw material
selection and procurement, quality control, feed formulation and feed mill
management.

Wet Chemical Analysis

− Total amino acid content (Ion Exchange Chromatography)

− Supplemented amino acid content (Ion Exchange Chromatography)

− Total and supplemented Tryptophan (HPLC)

− MHA-FA / MHA-Ca (HPLC)

− Dry Matter (TGA)

− Crude Protein (Dumas)

− 13 Biochrom Amino Acid Analysers (Ion Exchange Chromatography)

− 7 Shimadzu HPLC UV/Fluorescence (HPLC)

− 4 Elementar Nitrogen Analysers

15

AMINOLab®
− 58 years of experience in wet chemistry amino
acids analysis
− Data basis of more than 100.000 analysed feed
ingredients
− Continuous participation at „ring tests“ to check
for the precision
and accuracy of our analytical methods (AAFCO,
BIPEA, VDLUFA)
− Confirmed performance according to stringent
standards leads to EC directives and official US
methods:
• Total content after Oxidation • AOAC 994.12 (1994), EU Commission
and Hydrolysis (Directive 1998, Regulation 2009)

• Supplemented Amino Acids • EU Commission


(Directive 1998, Regulation 2009)
• Lysine, Methionine und Threonine in
trade products and premixes • AOAC 999.13 (1999),
VDLUFA 4.11.6 (1999)
• Tryptophan total content and
supplemented Tryptophan • EU Commission
(Directive 2000, Regulation 2009)
• Methionine in supplemental feed with
high chlorine content • VDLUFA 4.11.5 (1997)

16

8
18/09/2018

AMINONIR®

Prediction Accuracy

17

Validation of Soya Products

Validation with independent samples is the only


way to ensure the accuracy of a NIR calibration

NIR-value (%)
55
Crude protein
50
Argentina
Brazil
USA
45

40 ideal line

35 y = 0.42 + 0.99x R2 = 0.99

30
30 35 40 45 50 55
Lab-value (%)

18 NIRS prediction compared to reference analysis (n = 260)

9
18/09/2018

Validation of Soya Products

NIRS prediction compared to reference analysis (n = 260)

NIR-value (%)

Argentina Methionine
Brazil
USA

ideal line

y = 0.06 + 0.98x R2 = 0.95

Lab-value (%)

19

Evonik AMINONIR® and


AMINOProx® Calibrations

20

10
18/09/2018

AMINONIR® calibration list


Animal by-products Cereal by products
Blood meal Bakery meal
Plasma protein Corn gluten meal
Feather meal Corn products*
Fish meal Noodle by product
Meat meal products Rice bran and polishings
Poultry by-product meal Wheat bran
Poultry meal, feather rich
Pulses
Guar meal
Brewing and Distilling Lupines
Distillers Dried Grains and Solubles Peas
(DDGS), Corn
Distillers Dried Grains and Solubles Milk by-products (includes % lactose)
(DDGS), non-corn
Yeast Milk powder
Whey powder
Cereals
Barley Oil seeds and meal
Corn Coconut meal (Copra)
Millet Cotton seed meal
Oats Mustard meal
Rice Palm kernel meal and expeller
Rye Peanut, Ground meal
Sorghum Rapeseed, Canola meal and expeller
Triticale Sesame
Wheat Soybean hulls
Soybean meal, full fat
Silages Soybean meal and expeller
Alfalfa Soybean protein concentrate
Grass Sunflower meal and expeller

21 Corn by-products (corn bran, corn germ, corn germ meal (de-oiled) , corn gluten feed, corn
hominy feed, corn feed flour)

AMINONIR®

Evonik’s AMINONIR® calibration series to predict nutrients from feed raw


materials by near infrared (NIR) technology
Essential Amino Acids Non-Essential Amino Acids

Methionine Glycine
Cystine Serine
Methionine + Cystine Alanine
Lysine Aspartic Acid
Arginine Glutamic Acid
Isoleucine
Threonine Ammonia (NH3)
Tryptophan Total Amino Acids with NH3
Leucine Total Amino Acids without
Valine NH3
Histidine
Phenylalanine Dry Matter
Crude Protein

22

11
18/09/2018

AMINOProx® Raw Materials and Feed

• Evonik’s calibration series to predict nutrients


from feed raw materials by near infrared (NIR)
technology

• Evonik’s new calibration series to predict nutrients


from poultry and layer feed by near infrared
(NIR) technology

Proximate analysis
(Weende Analysis)
Phosphorus

23

AMINOProx® calibrations

• AMINOProx® reports the following crude nutrients based on


internationally agreed standard methods of extended Weende
Analysis:

− Dry Matter
− Crude Ash
− Crude Protein
− Crude Fat
− Sugars
− Starch
− Crude Fibre
− Neutral Detergent Fibre
− Acid Detergent Fibre
− Phosphorus
− Phytic Phosphorus

24

12
18/09/2018

Equipment used for Proximate Analysis

ICP

25

AMINONRG® Feeds and Raw Materials

• Estimation of energy contents in feed raw


materials and finished poultry and layer feed by
near infrared (NIR) technology

AMINONRG® *:
Swine:
Gross Energy (GE) – Ewan, 1989
Digestible Energy (DE) – Noblet & Perez, 1993
Metabolizable Energy (ME) GP – NRC, 2012
Metabolizable Energy (ME) S – INRA, 2004
Net Energy (NE) – Noblet et al., 1994

Poultry:
Apparent Metabolizable Energy (AMEn) – WPSA, 1989

*AMINONRG® estimates the energy (GE, DE, ME, NE and AMEn) contents of different Feed Raw materials by
using selected regression equations that link the proximate composition predicted by AMINOProx® via Near
Infrared (NIR) spectroscopy.
26

13
18/09/2018

Continue maintaining existing and developing new NIR


calibrations

• Raw material qualities are ever-changing and mandate calibration updates


• With insufficient global supplies and higher prices of standard raw materials
there is a trend towards increased use of alternative ingredients
• It is important that those raw materials are well described in terms of their
quality and variability

This requires NIR calibrations and Evonik is


well positioned to support in that respect

27

Calibration Fact Sheets

Calibration Fact Sheets are


available containing all
information about:

• Version
• Products
• Number of Calibration
Samples
• Collection Time of
Calibration Samples
• Origin of Calibration
Samples
• Calibration Parameters
• Calibration Statistics

28

14
18/09/2018

AMINONIR® Advanced - Outliers

Results are quality checked


− False and incorrect predictions are eliminated
− Results are checked on agreement to AMINONIR®
and AMINOProx® calibration limits
− Results are checked with regard to gH / MD values
− Regular ring tests and comparisons to validate all
NIRS spectrometers in the Evonik network
Enhanced data handling
− PDF-reports and Excel data can be downloaded within
3 minutes
− Amino acid and nutrient contents presented as
needed (standardized DM, as is, AA/CP)
− Data base functionality of „ Analytical Data Advanced”
available online in the Evonik portal

29

AMINONIR® Fact Sheet: Soybean meal

30

15
18/09/2018

AMINOProx® Fact Sheet: Soybean meal

31

AMINONIR® Evonik Lab Network

32

16
18/09/2018

AMINONIR® Customer Network

Europe
181

North America ASIA North


34 228

867 NIR-Spectrometers
use
AMINONIR® calibrations
(January 2018)
Brazil MEA
81 58

ASIA South
190
Spanish-
speaking
America
95

33

AMINONIR® Advanced

Registration of the
Validation of the Upload spectra files
customer instrument
customer’s of a single ingredient
in Evonik’s NIR
instrument in Evonik portal
network

Results can be
Start spectra
downloaded in
processing
Evonik portal

34

17
18/09/2018

AMINONIR® Advanced
Application

35

AMINONIR® Advanced
- Select spectra files

Browse spectra files or


drop them directly from
Windows Explorer

36

18
18/09/2018

AMINONIR® Advanced
- Upload spectra files

Upload spectra files

Either Foss or
Bruker spectra

37

AMINONIR® Advanced
- Check suggestions

38

19
18/09/2018

AMINONIR® Advanced
- Start analysis

39

AMINONIR® Advanced
- Spectra are processed

40

20
18/09/2018

Analytical Data
Advanced 3.0

41

Analytical Data Advanced

Select the Sample Type /


Method

Select individual samples

Download report

42

21
18/09/2018

Influence of
Grinding on NIR
prediction accuracy

43

Influence of Grinding on NIR prediction accuracy

• AMINONIR® is a very quick and accurate method to analyse feed raw materials.
• Compared to wet chemistry the procedure of AMINONIR® is more simple.
• Correct grinding is the only sample preparation needed.
• Because a capable grinder is essential and grinding is time consuming the
importance of grinding often is put into question.
• To quantify and visualize the influence of grinding on NIR prediction accuracy an
extensive grinding test was performed covering all current AMINONIR®
calibrations.

44

22
18/09/2018

Influence of Grinding on NIR prediction accuracy


• Of each raw material 5 different samples have been taken out of routine AMINONIR®
service
• Samples have been divided into 5 sub-samples for the following grinding procedures:

AMINONIR®
recommended
grinding
Different grinding procedures for a Sunflower Meal

unground Coffee grinder, 15 sec Coffee grinder, 60 sec Retsch ZM200, 1 mm Retsch ZM200, 0.5 mm

45

Influence of Grinding on NIR prediction accuracy

• All samples were analysed at the Evonik master instrument.

• The optimum grinding is given with 0.5 mm Retsch grinder.

• For all other grinding procedures the relative differences are


shown related to 0.5 mm Retsch grinding.

46

23
18/09/2018

Corn: Relative differences of different grinding vs.


AMINONIR® recommendation

47

Incorrect particle size results in sample outliers

Coffee grinder 15
Raw material Samples Retsch 1 mm Coffee grinder 60 sec
sec
Barley 5 3 5
Corn 5 1 3
DDGS, Non-corn Cereals 5 2 2 2
DDGS, Corn 5 1
Fish Meal 5
Meat Meal 5 1
Peas 2 2 2
Rapeseed Meal and Expeller 10
Rice Bran 5
Rye 5 1 5 5
Sorghum 5 2 5
Soybean Meal and Full Fat 10
Sunflower Meal 5 1 2
Triticale 1 1
Wheat 10 3 10
Wheat Bran 2
Coconut Meal (Copra) 5 5 5 5
Total 90 9 24 41

48

24
18/09/2018

AMINONIR®

Requirements for customer labs to ensure good results

• Capable instrument
• Capable grinder

- Retsch ZM type with


0.5mm ring sieve
- Foss Cyclotec with
1mm screen

49

Grinding tips:
Recommended rotor speed for feed samples: (Retsch ZM200)

Sample Type Speed (rpm)


High fat content 6000

Fatty Samples include animal-based raw materials and


fatty plant-based materials:
Whole Soyabean Meat Meal
Full fat Soybean Meal Meat and Bone Meal
Whole Rapeseed Poulty by-product
Sunflower Seeds Whey
Fish Meal
Fish Feed, pelleted

Sample Type Speed (rpm)


Non-fatty 12000 - 16000

Non-fatty Samples include plant-based raw materials:


Complete/Trials feeds
(Broiler, Pig, Duck, Turkey and Layer etc.)

50

25
18/09/2018

Influence of Grinding on NIR prediction accuracy

• There is a clear effect of grinding on the AMINONIR® prediction.


• Scale of effect depends on raw material type and analytical parameter.
• For amino acid predictions grinding with a Retsch grinder using 1.0 mm ring sieve results in
differences of approx. 5% compared to a 0.5 mm sieve (reference grinding).
• In general using a coffee grinder results in higher differences than using a Retsch grinder.
• The result of the coffee grinder is significantly influenced by the grinding time and sample
type.
• Raw materials which were already homogenised by a production process (e.g. fish meal,
soya, rape) are less effected by different grinding procedures.

For accurate NIR analysis correct grinding is highly


recommended.

51

Interpretation of Analytical Data

52

26
18/09/2018

Total Amino Acid Contents

• Customer
• Sample description
• Lab code
Raw Material by Wet Chem • Date of delivery / Date of
or AMINONIR® release
• Crude Protein – standardized /
as is
• Dry matter
• Amino Acids total contents -
standardized / in CP / as is
• Sum Amino Acids (without
NH3)
• Ammonia (NH3)
Dry Matter standardized
• Total (including NH3)
information

53

Dry matter standardization

• Data for amino acids and crude protein contents are expressed on a
dry matter basis to eliminate variations in the analytical results due to
moisture

The standard dry matter (DMS) contents include:


• 88% for plant derived raw materials and feeds
• 91% for animal products
• 93% milk products

• Calculation: AAASIS
AADMS = _________ * DMSFeedIngredient
DMASIS

54

27
18/09/2018

Total Amino Acid Contents

• Customer
• Sample description
• Lab code
Raw Material by Wet Chem • Date of delivery / Date of
or AMINONIR® release
• Crude Protein – standardized /
as is
• Dry matter
• Amino Acids total contents -
standardized / in CP / as is
• Sum Amino Acids (without
NH3)
• Ammonia (NH3)
• Total (including NH3)
Crude Protein based
information

55

Crude Protein: Dumas Combustion Method

• This method does not distinguish between protein nitrogen and non-
protein nitrogen
• The CP content is calculated: CP = nitrogen content (%) x CP factor
• CP Factors:
− 6.25 for typical feed ingredients and mixed feeds
− 6.37 for dairy products
− 5.68 for collagen, gelatin
• This number is derived from the fact that the average nitrogen content
of proteins is 16%, thus 6.25 is the reciprocal of 0.16 or 16%

56

28
18/09/2018

Crude Protein: Dumas Combustion Method

• The sum of the analyzed amino acids (wet chemistry: essential and non
essential) is not 100%, compared to crude protein, but mostly 10% or
more below
• Calculation: AAASIS
AAin CP = _________ * 100
CPASIS

• The total amino acid to CP ratio is quite constant within a feedstuff type
• The CP content should not be used as the only criteria for quality
control
• The nitrogen content has its origin not only in amino acids, but also in
non-protein-nitrogen sources (NPN) potentially added to pure protein

57

Ingredient with non-protein byproduct

Raw Material by Wet Chem


or AMINONIR®

Typical CP Level for


Sesame Meal

Sum without NH3 low


(expected 70-90%)

High level of NH3


(expected 2.2-2.5%)

58

29
18/09/2018

CP is not enough as the only criteria for quality control

Meat and bone meal A Meat and bone meal B

59

Standardized ileal digestible contents

• Calculated from Wet Chemical


Raw Material by Wet Chem
and NIR analytical results, by
Std Ileal Dig. Contents multiplication with the
Digestibility Coefficient per
amino acid, per raw material,
per species (poultry, pigs)

• Digestibility coefficients are


published in AMINODat

60

30
18/09/2018

How to make use of the


Analytical Data

61

Quality Purchasing Storage/


control Warehousing

medium quality
What do we do with the information
from the Analytical Data?

Evaluation top quality ????


of quality
low
Suppliers

% Lysine
Evaluation
0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00 Formulation
1,10 1,20
of Origin

62

31
18/09/2018

Recommendations:

• Increase the number of spectra uploads based on the historical observed variation per raw material

• Standardize the raw material sample identification

Sample name Batch Container number

Sample ID Incoming date PO No.

Origin Supplier Vessel

• Analysis of the raw material data on a regular basis

• Information exchange on the results of data analysis to key persons:

Raw Material Supplier or Origin


Quality Control Feed Formulation Use/Storage Purchasing Evaluation Etc.

• Identification of additional support from Evonik (sampling, data analysis, raw material reporting, etc.)

63

Impact of different
SBM Qualities on
Diet Formulation

64

32
18/09/2018

Average Composition of SBM per Origin, %

Origin DM CP Ash EE CF NDF Sugar AMEn, MJ/kg

Argentina 89.24 47.48 6.55 1.49 3.59 7.64 11.20 10.13

Brazil 88.18 47.12 6.47 2.42 4.89 10.39 9.07 10.04

India 89.31 48.12 7.05 1.65 5.01 11.01 8.01 9.87

USA 88.97 46.67 6.70 2.22 4.08 8.63 10.80 10.20

Origin Lys Met+Cys Thr Trp Val Ile Leu

Argentina 2.93 1.40 1.88 0.65 2.25 2.12 3.57

Brazil 2.88 1.34 1.84 0.63 2.22 2.13 3.57

India 2.99 1.33 1.84 0.63 2.22 2.13 3.62

USA 2.93 1.37 1.84 0.65 2.23 2.11 3.54

65 Evonik - Animal Nutrition

Impact on Diet Formulation and Diet Costs is substantial:


1.10 – 4.93 €/ton

Broiler Starter Composition SBM SBM SBM SBM


Argentina Brazil India USA
SBM, % 37.01 37.36 36.84 37.34

Corn, % 35.34 34.71 35.11 35.06

Wheat, % 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

Soybean oil, % 3.42 3.60 3.79 3.57

Vit. + Minerals, % 3.59 3.60 3.59 3.37

MetAMINO®, % 0.275 0.297 0.300 0.283

Biolys®, % 0.266 0.305 0.237 0.257

ThreAMINO®, % 0.054 0.070 0.070 0.064

ValAMINO®, % 0.049 0.063 0.063 0.053

Diet cost*, €/ton 313.90 318.83 318.09 315.00

*Assumption that cost of all SBM is always 401 €/ton.


66 Evonik - Animal Nutrition

33
18/09/2018

Impact on Shadow Price

SBM SBM SBM SBM


Argentina Brazil India USA
SBM shadow 401.00 387.82 389.64 398.05
price, €/ton

Differences in the nutritional composition of the


different SBMs should be reflected in a price
difference of up to 13.18 €/ton of SBM!

67 Evonik - Animal Nutrition

Soybean meal: comparison of AMINODAT® v5.0


vs. 2017 Indonesia data

AMINODat® v. 5.0 Average:


n CP LYS MET CYS M+C THR TRP ARG ILE LEU VAL HIS PHE

Soybean meal 1241 Mean 46.47 2.81 0.62 0.66 1.28 1.80 0.62 3.38 2.11 3.53 2.20 1.21 2.36

2017 Indonesia Average:


n CP LYS MET CYS M+C THR TRP ARG ILE LEU VAL HIS PHE

Mean 47.26 2.92 0.63 0.67 1.30 1.84 0.63 3.48 2.18 3.62 2.26 1.24 2.43
SD 1.50 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.03 0.09
Soybean meal 8246 CV 3.17 3.15 3.16 3.80 3.40 2.64 3.13 3.28 3.63 3.08 3.05 2.79 3.72
Min 34.17 2.17 0.47 0.49 1.01 1.34 0.46 2.55 1.56 2.59 1.62 0.90 1.73
Max 51.49 3.23 0.68 0.73 1.41 1.97 0.70 3.86 2.49 3.99 2.49 1.35 2.82

68

34
18/09/2018

Impact on Feed Cost

Cost per kg: IDR 4,897 Cost per kg: IDR 4867

Difference: IDR 30/kg


≈ USD 2.22/MT of Finished Feed
If a feed producer is manufacturing 100,000MT of broiler feeds a month the cost savings on using
actual values for Corn and SBM alone in this example would amount to USD 222,000 annually

69

Stringent Quality Control will identify Sub-


populations
Example: Wheat – Different Crude Protein Content according to its Origin

70

35
18/09/2018

Histogram for Crude Protein in Wheat samples of


different Origin

Origin A Origin B
71 Evonik - Animal Nutrition

Histograms for selected Amino Acids for Wheat samples


from 2016

Origin A Origin B
72 Evonik - Animal Nutrition

36
18/09/2018

Average Composition of the Wheat Samples, %

Origin DM CP Ash EE CF ADF NDF Starch AME,


MJ/kg
A 89.35 10.51 1.62 1.97 2.24 3.05 11.48 60.27 13.20

B 90.07 13.50 1.80 2.06 2.26 3.08 11.85 59.73 13.26

Origin Lys Met + Cys Thr Trp Val Ile Leu

A 0.31 0.42 0.31 0.14 0.46 0.35 0.69

B 0.37 0.51 0.38 0.16 0.57 0.45 0.88

73 Evonik - Animal Nutrition

Impact on Diet Formulation and Diet Costs is substantial: 9.39 €/ton

Diet Composition: Wheat A Wheat B


Broiler Finisher Feed
Wheat, % 52.39 55.99
SBM, % 28.37 25.27
Corn, % 10.00 10.00
Soybean oil, % 5.97 5.40
Vit. + Minerals, % 2.78 2.81
MetAMINO®, % 0.22 0.19
Biolys®, % 0.22 0.29
ThreAMINO®, % 0.05 0.05

Diet cost*, €/ton 275.60 266.21

*Assumption: Wheat 168.00 €/ton; SBM 354.00 €/ton; Corn 164.00 €/ton; Soybean oil 761€/ton;

74 Evonik - Animal Nutrition

37
18/09/2018

Impact on Shadow Price

Price of Wheat B: 168.00 €/ton

Competitive Price of Wheat A: 150.08 €/ton

Differences in the nutritional composition of the two


different Wheat Qualities should be reflected in a price
difference of 17.92 €/ton of Wheat!

75 Evonik - Animal Nutrition

Raw material storage based on nutrient content

76

38
18/09/2018

Scatter-grams show a distinct difference in AA content in


CP depending on the origin: Soybean meal

77

Economics of using AMINONIR® to control variability


200,000 MT feed production/year
Typical ration: 60% Corn, 30% Soybean meal, 5% Rice bran, & 5% others
Needs per year:
120 KT Corn
60 KT Soybean meal
10 KT Rice bran

QC sampling program:
Corn
Soybean meal
Ricebran

78

39
18/09/2018

Economics of using AMINONIR® to control variability

Total samples/year based on actual:


Corn : 1200
SBM: 1800
Ricebran: 500

Analytical costs:
If analyzing for crude protein and then using regression equations for amino
acid values:
$280,000/year
If analyzing via wet chemistry:
$1.05 million/year

79

Global Analysis Overview

80

40
18/09/2018

AMINONIR®
Allocation of samples 2017

AMINONIR®-Countries with more than 150 uploaded spectra are listed

Brazil
USA
Brazil
India
China
Mexico
Ecuador USA Pakistan
Chile South Africa
Ukraine
Argentina
Bolivia
Indonesia
Russia
Jamaica
Australia
Germany India Germany
Australia Russia
Bolivia
Jamaica China Ukraine
Indonesia Chile
Ecuador
Argentina Spain
Philippines
Mexico Peru
South Africa Mexico Hungary
Pakistan Vietnam

81

AMINONIR® Advanced
Online NIR prediction via Internet

900000
850000 AMINONIR®-Spectra
800000 (predicted manually in Hanau)
750000
700000
650000 AMINONIR®-Advanced
600000 (fully automated application)
550000
500000
450000
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

A total of 869,840 (2016: 677,711) spectra of ingredients, ground and scanned


with NIRS in customer labs were analysed 2017 on their amino acid contents.

82

41
18/09/2018

2017 Asia South top 20 customer uploads


30000

26771 55% ( 221,590) of


spectra uploads
25000
Average: ≈ 2,000

20000

15000

10000 9202
8507 8287 8191

6576
5908
4969 4880 4724
5000 4142 4025 3681 3674
3652 3630 3584 3484 3343

83

AMINONIR® ̶ Hanau lab

Types with 100 and more analyzed samples are listed


Peas
Soya Expeller Soybean Meal
Rapeseed Meal
Corn
Meat & Bone meal
Wheat Bran Wheat
Poultry meal Barley
Meat Meal
Sorghum Sunflower Meal
Soybean Full Fat
Soya, full fat DDGS Corn Poultry Byproduct Meal
Meat and Bone Meal
Soybean Expeller
Sunflower Peas
meal Rapeseed Meal
Wheat Bran
Meat Meal
Sorghum
Soybean DDGS, Corn
Barley meal Blood Meal
Cottonseed Meal
Mixture Animal Protein Blend
Triticale
Feather Meal
Wheat Corn Coconut Meal (Copra)
Fish Meal

84

42
18/09/2018

AMINONIR® ̶ Singapore lab

Types with 10 and more analyzed samples are listed


Soybean Meal
Ricebran
Corngluten meal Corn
Poultry meal Meat and Bone Meal
Fish meal Fish Meal
DDGS, Corn
Corn Gluten Meal
Rice Bran/Polishings
Poultry Byproduct Meal
MBM Rapeseed Meal
DDGS, Corn
Rice Bran, Deoiled
Meat Meal
Coconut Meal (Copra)
Wheat
Corn
Wheat Bran
Soybean Full Fat
Cottonseed Meal
Wheat Feed Flour
Rice, Broken
Blood Meal
Soybean meal Feather Meal

85

What is the current practice?


− How do we collect our samples?
− How may samples do we collect per truck load? Per container? Per bag?
− What sampling rules/patterns do we follow?
− How do we divide our samples?
− Where do we store our samples?
− How long do we need to store our samples?

86

43
18/09/2018

Spectra information

Sample name
Sample code
Country of Origin (Imported or Local)
Supplier (trader)
Delivery date
Truck number
Analyst
P/O Number
Lot no.
…..
Information required varies, depending on what is important to the customer.

87

Pre-requisites for Collaboration with Evonik‘s NIR


Services

• Air-conditioned lab
• Experienced and reliable person who maintains
the NIR instrument and runs the analytical service
• Retsch Grinder ZM 200 (0.5 mm sieve)
• Suitable NIR instrument
• NIR instrument connected with internet
• Ongoing assessment of the analytical results
according supplier, origin or processing plant
• Standardization of the customer instrument will be
done by one of our regional NIR experts

88 Evonik - Animal Nutrition

44
18/09/2018

Comparison of key raw


materials

89

Corn: Amino Acids Profile

ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS


Region n CP
LYS MET CYS M+C THR TRP ARG ILE LEU VAL HIS PHE
Mean 8.04 0.25 0.17 0.18 0.35 0.29 0.06 0.38 0.27 0.98 0.39 0.24 0.39
SEA 13568
CV 7.50 7.02 7.25 6.50 6.63 7.18 5.32 8.28 8.15 9.11 6.66 6.81 8.93

Mean 8.25 0.25 0.17 0.18 0.36 0.30 0.06 0.40 0.28 0.97 0.39 0.24 0.40
India 9418
CV 6.15 5.67 6.40 4.92 5.20 6.05 4.57 5.79 6.85 8.32 5.87 6.14 7.52
Mean 7.52 0.24 0.15 0.17 0.32 0.27 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.91 0.36 0.22 0.37
USA 475
CV 7.31 4.17 6.67 5.88 6.25 7.41 4.71 5.56 7.69 8.79 5.56 4.55 8.11
Mean 7.80 0.23 0.16 0.18 0.34 0.28 0.06 0.37 0.27 0.95 0.37 0.23 0.38
Brazil 9515
CV 4.61 5.10 5.79 3.99 4.35 4.51 3.71 4.90 5.25 6.68 4.47 4.56 5.89
Mean 7.21 0.24 0.14 0.16 0.30 0.26 0.06 0.37 0.24 0.81 0.34 0.21 0.33
Argentina 294
CV 8.30 9.70 7.30 8.10 6.70 6.00 8.60 11.80 14.80 9.80 10.20 13.50 8.30
Poultry SIDC 91 95 89 92 89 83 89 98 93 95 97 93
Swine SIDC 75 87 83 85 80 77 89 86 89 85 87 87

Crop report, 2017

90

45
18/09/2018

DDGS Corn: Amino Acids Profile

ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS


Region n CP
LYS MET CYS M+C THR TRP ARG ILE LEU VAL HIS PHE
Mean 27.67 0.81 0.53 0.51 1.03 1.02 0.22 1.20 0.99 3.10 1.31 0.72 1.32
SEA 7935
CV 4.86 7.30 6.77 6.23 5.93 5.07 6.27 5.91 6.10 6.82 5.30 5.23 6.33
Mean 37.73 1.11 0.87 0.72 1.57 1.35 0.41 2.24 1.47 3.25 1.98 0.85 1.86
India 74
CV 23.51 29.50 31.14 25.45 30.61 22.55 40.47 41.16 28.78 11.87 29.13 18.20 25.43
Mean 27.12 0.79 0.52 0.51 1.02 1.00 0.22 1.17 0.97 3.00 1.27 0.70 1.28
USA 2667
CV 6.12 7.59 9.62 8.82 8.82 6.00 9.09 9.40 7.22 7.00 7.09 7.14 7.81
Poultry SIDC 65 86 82 85 72 81 82 80 86 78 74 80
Swine SIDC 63 83 75 76 72 77 81 78 85 77 79 82

Crop report, 2017

91

SBM: Amino Acids Profile


ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS
Region n CP
LYS MET CYS M+C THR TRP ARG ILE LEU VAL HIS PHE

Mean 47.21 2.92 0.63 0.67 1.30 1.84 0.64 3.46 2.18 3.61 2.26 1.24 2.42
SEA 14237
CV 2.90 3.13 2.72 3.58 3.02 2.43 2.88 3.21 3.49 2.93 2.88 2.59 3.58

Mean 47.14 2.88 0.61 0.64 1.26 1.80 0.62 3.48 2.16 3.58 2.22 1.23 2.41
India 10686
CV 1.72 2.35 2.45 4.92 2.70 2.22 2.57 2.14 2.17 2.09 2.17 2.26 2.08

Mean 46.12 2.87 0.62 0.67 1.30 1.79 0.64 3.38 2.11 3.50 2.21 1.20 2.32
USA 253
CV 1.41 1.39 1.61 1.49 1.54 1.12 1.56 1.48 1.42 1.43 1.36 1.67 1.72
Brazil Mean 46.50 2.87 0.62 0.67 1.28 1.81 0.63 3.39 2.14 3.56 2.22 1.21 2.38
(46-47% 8814
CP) CV 0.60 1.89 1.57 1.93 1.63 1.27 1.34 1.23 0.92 1.14 0.96 1.47 1.12

Mean 45.38 2.79 0.60 0.64 1.25 1.77 0.61 3.28 2.08 3.47 2.18 1.19 2.30
Argentina 158
CV 1.60 2.00 2.20 2.80 2.80 1.60 1.80 1.80 2.00 1.70 1.80 1.80 1.90
Poultry SIDC 89 90 79 84 83 89 92 87 88 87 90 89
Swine SIDC 90 92 85 88 88 89 95 90 89 90 91 90

Crop report, 2017

92

46
18/09/2018

Wheat: Amino Acids Profile

ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS


Region n CP
LYS MET CYS M+C THR TRP ARG ILE LEU VAL HIS PHE
Mean 10.89 0.31 0.17 0.25 0.42 0.31 0.14 0.52 0.36 0.71 0.46 0.25 0.49
SEA 8978
CV 8.00 8.55 7.90 8.79 7.92 8.12 6.57 9.74 8.16 8.08 7.51 7.85 10.23
Mean 11.92 0.31 0.19 0.27 0.44 0.33 0.14 0.52 0.40 0.79 0.49 0.26 0.56
India 47
CV 4.63 13.54 5.27 6.24 5.62 6.67 8.83 12.10 5.05 4.78 6.32 6.40 6.00
Mean 11.26 0.31 0.25 0.17 0.42 0.30 0.14 0.53 0.37 0.72 0.47 0.26 0.48
Ukraine
CV 10 8.23 7.69 7.92 7.04 8.50 6.80 9.10 9.68 9.23 8.86 9.12 10.52
Mean 11.95 0.35 0.19 0.27 0.45 0.33 0.15 0.58 0.40 0.78 0.51 0.28 0.51
Argentina 187
CV 12.30 15.50 12.70 10.30 11.00 15.10 10.70 18.30 13.00 12.60 14.40 13.70 13.50
Poultry
86 91 91 92 88 86 86 94 91 91 90 91
SIDC
Swine SIDC 83 89 89 89 86 88 92 90 90 88 91 91

Crop report, 2017

93

SBM – Jan to May 2018 – South East Asia Data

2696 1279
2308

8342

USA Argentina India Brazil

94

47
18/09/2018

SBM sources 2018 – Jan to May- Proximate composition


Proximate composition

AA n CP EE Fiber NDF ADF P Phytic


P

USA 1279 47.25 2.17 4.01 10.35 6.17 5980 3588

Argentina 2308 47.04 2.09 3.42 9.84 5.40 6242 3745

India 8342 47.97 1.87 6.02 13.76 8.09 5217 3130

Brazil 2696 48.81 2.33 3.63 9.99 5.73 6093 3656

CP EE Fiber ADF NDF


Crop report 2017
47.21 2.14 3.58 5.81 9.93

95

SBM sources 2018 – Jan to May- Proximate composition

Starch Sugar
0.8 0.71 0.74 0.69 12
0.6 10.03 9.95
10 8.82
0.6
8 6.79
0.4 6
0.2 4
0 2
0

Starch Sugar
Crop report 2017
0.76 9.07

96

48
18/09/2018

SBM sources 2018 – Amino acid composition

Total AA

AA n Lys Met Cys Thr Trp Arg Ile Val

USA 1279 2.90 0.63 0.68 1.83 0.64 3.43 2.14 2.24

Argentina 2308 2.88 0.62 0.66 1.83 0.63 3.41 2.14 2.24

India 8342 2.89 0.61 0.65 1.82 0.63 3.52 2.17 2.24

Brazil 2696 2.97 0.64 0.69 1.88 0.65 3.55 2.24 2.32

Lys Met Cys Thr Trp Val


Crop report 2017
2.92 0.63 0.67 1.84 0.64 2.26

97

SBM sources 2018 – Energy

AA n NE Growing NE sows AME


pig poultry

USA 1279 2170 2334 2366

Argentina 2308 2167 2329 2355

India 8342 2023 2177 2337

Brazil 2696 2174 2339 2402

NE growing pigs NE sows AME


Crop report 2017
2135 2301 2343

98

49
18/09/2018

Conclusions

99

Benefits for the customer

• All Raw Material Calibrations available for Amino AMINONIR®


Acids, Proximate and Energy Parameters AMINOProx®
AMINONRG®
• Amino acids, Proximate and Energy from the same
sample combine
• Quality assurance through regular ring tests and sample
performance trials processing
speed with
• No lengthy and expensive wet chemical analyses of prediction
Weende parameters
accuracy

100

50
18/09/2018

Proper raw material monitoring and evaluation of results


brings many benefits

• Raw material purchase Reliable basis for


& management separate pricing &
storage according to
nutritional value
• Feed formulation Economic use of different
qualities in least cost
formulation
Reduced diet cost due
to lower safety margin
on protein and amino
acids

• Live production More consistent


& slaughter performance

= Higher overall profitability


101

Evonik - Turning knowledge into your profit

102

51
18/09/2018

103

52