1 07 sd payne eng
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
1/14
amino acids and more.Information for the Feed Industry Volume 08/Number 01 March 2007
Special Issue
Volume 08/Number 01/March 2007
The Potential for Using Low CrudeProtein Diets for Broilers and Turkeys
Part 1: A Literature Review
byDr. Robert L. Payne
Degussa Feed Additives
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
2/14
The Potential for Using Low CrudeProtein Diets for Broilers and Turkeys Part 1: A Literature Review
Poultry
Key information
Low Crude Protein diets allow nutritionists
to formulate diets that are less expensive
and more environmental friendly.
Low Crude Protein diets support broiler and
turkey performance equal to that achieved
with typical conventional diets.
Degussa Feed Additives
Crude Protein levels in broiler diets can be
reduced by 3 4 percentage points provid-
ed supplemental amino acids are used to
maintain the levels found in conventional
diets.
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
3/14
Volume 08/Number 01 March 2007 amino acids and more.
3 Degussa Feed Additives
use of low CP diets. Since the time of his
review, reports have been published that
suggest what some of these limiting fac-
tor(s) could be. Therefore, the purpose of
this paper is to address the possibility of
using low CP diets for broilers.
Digestibility and availability of supplemental
free amino acids
Most often when we discuss digestibility
and availability, we are making some ref-
erence to the quality of a raw material.
Many factors can influence the digestibil-
ity and availability of amino acids in raw
materials, including processing condi-
tions, presence of anti-nutritional factors
or fibers, or physical and chemical com-
position of the protein (Lewis and Bay-
ley, 1995; Parsons, 2002). Several au-
thors have reported difficulties associated
with predicting poultry performance
when diets are formulated on a total
amino acid basis when using raw materi-
als containing low levels of digestible
amino acids (Esteve-Garcia et al., 1993;
Fernandez et al., 1995; Pertill et al.,
2001a; Rostagno et al., 1995). Today,
these problems are overcome by first de-termining the digestible amino acid con-
tent of raw materials and then by formu-
lating diets using these digestible rather
than total amino acid levels. This allows
raw materials to be ranked according to
their usable amino acid content, which
improves the precision of diet formula-
tion and reduces N excretion. The con-
cept of digestible amino acids, as well as
the standardized ileal digestible amino
acid contents of several commonly used
raw materials has been recently dis-
cussed and summarized by Lemme et al.,(2004b).
Conversely, we seldomly think of supple-
mental amino acids being any less than
100 % digestible and available to the
animal. Lewis and Bayley (1995) re-
viewed the research data and concluded
that supplemental free AA were 100 %
digestible and available for poultry. How-
ever, most of the research used in their
review was based on total tract or excre-
ta amino acid digestibility. Therefore, a
Non essential amino acids play an important
role in broiler nutrition.
Understanding the interactions of amino
acids in low Crude Protein diets has in-
creased over recent years.
Introduction
More than ever before, supplemental
amino acids (AA) are being incorporated
into diets for swine and poultry to re-
place a portion of the essential amino
acids provided by protein-rich raw mate-
rials. As a result, the levels of Crude Pro-
tein (CP) in todays diets are generally
decreasing. Because of these advances,
nutritionists have the ability to more
precisely formulate diets to meet the ani-
mals amino acid needs, as well as giving
them more flexibility in raw material se-
lection. The result is more environmen-
tally friendly diets via reduction in N ex-
cretion and often decreased diet cost, es-
pecially when those protein-rich raw
materials become expensive.
However, despite relative acceptance of
using low CP diets for swine and turkeys,
the utilization of low CP diets for broilersis still limited. As a result, minimum con-
straints are often placed on the CP level
or maximum constraints on the level of
supplemental AA. One potential reason
for limiting any further reduction in CP
is the concern that commercially pro-
duced amino acids are less than 100 %
digestible and available to the animal.
However, probably the greatest point of
concern is that growth and carcass per-
formance seems to be impaired when
broilers are fed diets that are low in CP
despite being formulated to meet allknown nutrient requirements. Consider-
ing that Met, Lys, Thr, and Trp are com-
mercially available today and other
amino acids, such as Arg, Ile, or Gly,
could become available in the future,
the potential for using low CP diets for
broilers could improve even further.
Waldroup (2000) reviewed the effects of
using low CP diets with broilers, and he
suggested that there were some uniden-
tified factor(s) that were still limiting the
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
4/14
Degussa Feed Additives
Volume 08/Number 01 March 2007amino acids and more.
4
trial was conducted to determine the
ileal digestibility of free AA in broilers.
After determining the apparent ileal di-
gestibility of each free AA, the digestibili-
ties were standardized by correcting for
basal endogenous losses. Lemme et al.
(2005) reported that the digestibility fig-
ures for all free AA measured were very
close to 100 % regardless of the stan-
dardization method (protein-free or en-
zymatically hydrolyzed casein diet),
which suggests a complete absorption of
the dietary AA before the terminal
ileum.
Supplemental free AA are 100 % di-
gestible and available. However, this
does not mean that they will be 100 %
utilized by the animal in every situation.
Both supplemented and protein bound
amino acids can also have adverse effects
on growth, which are widely recognized
as dietary imbalances and antagonisms.
An imbalance is defined as a change to
the pattern of dietary amino acids that
results in decreased feed intake and
growth, while an antagonism is a nega-
tive interaction between structurally
similar amino acids (DMello, 2003). An
imbalance is most often caused in prac-tice by either a small addition of an es-
sential amino acid to a low CP diet or an
unbalanced mixture of amino acids
added to a diet. An example of this
would be when a broiler diet calls for
0.20 % DL-Met but the addition of DL-
Methionione is overlooked when the
feed is being mixed. Protein synthesis,
thus, will be limited by the low dietary
methionine content which means both
reduced feed intake due to specific feed
back mechanisms as well as desamina-
tion and oxidation of the amino acidswhich are in relative excess to methion-
ine. The latter process depending on
the degree of imbalance can also be
detrimental to the animals welfare. An
antagonism, on the other hand, such as
the Arg:Lys antagonism, can occur re-
gardless of another amino acid being
more limiting. For example, a typical
broiler diet being adequate in arginine
calls for 0.10 % L-LysineHCl to meet the
Lys needs, but by a mixing error more
L-LysineHCl than desired is supplement-
ed. Then, the surplus Lys load will not
only be degraded but might also activate
the arginase activity resulting in an in-
creased arginine degradation. This in
turn might lead to a marginal arginine
deficiency limiting performance. Both
imbalances and antagonisms decrease
the efficacy of utilization of amino acids;
however, both of these adverse effects
can be easily avoided by ensuring that
diets are formulated according to the ide-
al protein concept, which ensures that
dietary essential amino acids are main-
tained in the proper ratios to each other
(Baker, 1994; NRC, 1994; Emmert and
Baker, 1997; Mack et al., 1999; Lemme,
2003).
Supplemental free AA are able to be
used to their fullest potential by:
1. ensuring that the animals are fed at or
near ad libitum levels,
2. formulating and mixing the diets on a
digestible AA basis, and
3. formulating and mixing the diets in
accordance with the ideal protein con-
cept.
In doing so, there should be no AA im-
balance or antagonism.
The effects of feeding low CP, amino acid
supplemented diets
The effects of feeding low CP diets to
turkeys and broilers on body weight or
feed conversion (gain:feed) are reviewed
in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The data
reported in Tables 1 and 2 for the low CP
treatments correspond to the low CP
treatment indicated in bold, and these
treatments were selected because theywere the most promising results out of
all low CP treatments reported by each
research group.
The effects of low CP diets in turkeys
For turkeys, there are 19 datasets sum-
marizing recent low CP research in Table
1. Of the 19 datasets, only 4 for body
weight and 3 for gain:feed (21 and 16 %,
respectively) suggest significantly differ-
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
5/14
Volume 08/Number 01 March 2007 amino acids and more.
5 Degussa Feed Additives
ent performance when turkeys were fed
low CP than those fed the conventional
diets. Most of these datasets suggest that
low CP diets have a negative effect on
body weight but, only 32 % of the data-
sets indicate any negative impact on feed
conversion. In most of the trials reported
in Table 1, CP could be lowered by ap-
proximately 4 percentage points com-
pared with the conventional diet before
a decrease in body weight was reported.
Kidd et al., (1997) reported the most neg-
ative impact on performance as body
weight was reduced by over 2.5 kg when
CP was reduced by 5 % or more from
0 to 18 weeks of grow-out. It should be
noted that Kidd et al., (1997) also report-
ed that performance was not significant-
ly affected (+/- 0.5 kg) over this same 18
week period when CP was reduced by
less than 5 %. Overall, the turkey data
reported in Table 1 suggests that low CP
diets can work well, and these data seem
to agree with those summarized by Fir-
man (1994). The reviews in Table 1, al-
beit brief, generally suggest that low CP
diets support growth performance of
turkeys similar to a typical conventional
diet.
Table1: Effects of low crude protein diets on performance of turkeys1
Age, Conventional Low CP, Low CP Relative ReferenceBreed CP, treatment(s) Performance
% % BW, kg Gain:Feed
7 to 28 d, 28.4 24.8 As-is, +Thr, +Val, or +Ile +0.03 +0.04 Waibel et al., 2000bB.U.T. 6 20.9 As-is, +Thr, Val, Ile, Arg, Lys & Trp, -Arg, -Lys & Trp, +0.02 +0.03 Exp. 1
-Ile,-Val,or -Thr
18.2 As-is or +Thr, Val, Ile, Arg, Lys, & Trp -0.01 +0.02
8 to 12 wks, 23.4 19.5 As-is, +Thr, +Val, or +Ile +0.01 -0.01 Waibel et al., 2000bB.U.T. 6 16.3 As-is, +Thr,Val,Ile, Arg,Lys & Trp, -Arg, -0.07 -0.01 Exp. 2
-Lys & Trp, -Ile,-Val,or -Thr
14.2 As-is or +Thr,Val,Ile, Arg,Lys,& Trp -0.25* -0.01
16 to 20 wks, 16.8 14.4 As-is, +Thr, +Val,or +Ile -0.18 0 Waibel et al., 2000bB.U.T. 6 12.0 As-is, +Thr,Val, Ile, Arg, Lys & Trp, -Arg, -0.25 -0.01 Exp. 3
-Lys & Trp, -Ile,-Val,or -Thr
10.4 As-is or +Thr,Val, Ile, Arg, Lys & Trp -0.36 -0.01
0 to 18 wks, 29.0/26.9/ 26.7/23.8/Nicholas 22.7/19.6/ 20.9/18.0/ +0, 0.1, or 0.2% Thr +0.03 +0.02 Kidd et al., 1997
16.8/14.2 15.4/13.1
24.4/22.6/(6 phases) 19.1/16.5/ +0, 0.1, or 0.2% Thr -0.41 +0.04
14.1/11.9
22.0/20.4/17.3/14.9/ As-is -2.61* -0.0212.7/10.8
3 to 20 wks, 26.5/24.0/ 23.9/21.6/ +EAA = Conventional AA levels or Lemme et al., 2004aB.U.T. 6 21.0/18.0/ 18.9/16.2/ + commercial avail. AA = PC -0.21 +0.01
16.0 14.4
21.2/19.3/(5 phases) 16.9/14.5/ + EAA = Conventional AA levels -0.68* +0.01*
12.9
6 to 20 wks, 23.1/20.7/ 21.2/19.0/ As-is or +Thr -0.06 0 Waibel et al., 2000a,B.U.T. 6 18.0/15.7/ 16.5/14.5 Exp. 1
(4 phases) 19.8/17.8/ As-is, +Thr, or +Ile,Val,Arg, & Trp +0.15 +0.01*15.5/13.6
6 to 21 wks, 25.3/22.2/ 23.7/20.7 As-is, +Thr, or +Trp, Lys, Met, Cys, Val, & Thr -0.16 0 Waibel et al., 2000aB.U.T. 6 20.0/17.8/ 18.7/16.6/ Exp. 2
16.0 14.9
22.1/19.3/ As-is, +Thr, or +Trp,Lys,Met, Cys,Val,& Thr -0.77* 0(5 phases) 17.3/15.4/
13.8
20.4/17.8/ As-is, +Thr, +Lys & Trp, +Lys & Trp & Ile, -0.10 +0.01*16.0/14.1/ Val,& Arg, or +All & Glu
12.7
1 Relative performance of low CP diets correlates to the low CP treatment in bold under the low CP diet section, and this performance level was the most promising result of all low CP treatments withineach dataset. All trials were conducted with males, and unless otherwise indicated,each trial was conducted over a single growth phase. Within each dataset,every attempt was made to include alltreatments pertinent to the discussion of low CP diets.
*Low CP treatment means are significantly different from the Conventional CP diet, P < 0.10.
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
6/14
Volume 08/Number 01 March 2007amino acids and more.
6Degussa Feed Additives
The effects of low CP diets in broilers
A total of 59 datasets are reported in
Table 2, which spans over 15 years worth
of research. The datasets are strongly
dedicated to the first 21 days of age with
39 of the 59 datasets dedicated to this
age group. Conversely, there are 15 and
5 datasets for 21 to 42 and 42+ days of
age, respectively. A majority of the
datasets (66 and 71 % for gain and
gain:feed, respectively) suggest that
growth performance is reduced when
broilers are fed low CP diets. However,
only 19 for average daily gain and 24 for
gain:feed (32 and 41 %, respectively) in-
dicate statistically significantly different
performance (both positive and nega-
tive) when broilers are fed low CP com-
pared with those fed conventional diets.
Of the significantly different datasets, 15
and 17 (79 and 71 %, respectively)
data-sets for daily gain and gain:feed, re-
spectively, report negative impact on
performance. Similar to the data for
turkeys, the previous statement is made
with caution, because this negative trend
of low CP diets on performance is often
in the magnitude of 2 g or less per daily
gain and approximately 0.03 or lesschange in gain:feed.
As shown in Table 2, there have been
several hypotheses and research dedicat-
ed to understanding low CP diets. These
efforts include: effects of potassium or di-
etary electrolyte balance (Fancher and
Jansen, 1989a,b; Waldroup, 2000); alter-
ations in the Trp:LNAA ratio or effects of
excessive Met (Si et al., 2004a,b); addi-
tion of a non-specific N source (Fancher
and Jensen, 1989a; Pinchasov et al.,
1990; Parr and Summers, 1991; Han etal., 1992; Kerr and Kidd, 1999a); effects
of the concentration of essential AA
(Fancher and Jansen, 1989a,b; Pin-
chasov et al., 1990; Cabel et al., 1991;
Parr and Summers, 1991; Han et al.,
1992; Kerr and Kidd, 1999a,b; Kidd and
Kerr, 2000; Bregendahl et al., 2002;
Dean, 2005); effects of the concentration
of nonessential AA (Fancher and Jansen,
1989b; Pinchasov et al., 1990; Parr and
Summers, 1991; Bregendahl et al., 2002;
Fritts et al., 2004; Dean, 2005); and ef-
fects of meeting all known nutrient re-
quirements, providing nutrients in an
ideal protein pattern or at the same or
similar level as conventional diet (Fanch-
er and Jansen, 1989a,b; Pinchasov et al.,
1990; Ferguson et al., 1998a,b; Aletor et
al., 2000; Payne, 2000; Brooks et al.,
2003; Fritts et al., 2004; Dean, 2005).
While much of the research cited above
has resulted in performance that is close
to but often lower than broilers fed a
conventional diet, some has been very
positive.
Aletor et al., (2000) reduced the dietary
CP content fed to 21 to 42-d old broilers
from 22.5 % to 21, 19, 17.2, or 15.3 %.
They reported that weight gain was simi-
lar but gain:feed and nitrogen excretion
were reduced among the broilers fed the
low CP or conventional diets. Brooks et
al., (2003) reported similar findings as CP
was reduced in 7 to 21-d old broilers
from 23 to 15 % without affecting
growth performance provided that the
low CP diets were formulated to contain
the same AA content as the conventional
diet. However, Brooks et al. (2003) also
reported that performance began to de-
crease when CP was below 15 %. Dean(2005) evaluated the effects of CP in 1 to
17-d old broilers by titrating CP from
22.2 to 16.2 % while providing the same
AA content as the conventional diet.
Dean indicated that CP could be reduced
by 3 % from 22.2 to 19.2 % before per-
formance was negatively affected. Next,
Dean (2005) supplemented a 16.2 %
low CP diet with all essential AA to
equal the levels in the conventional diet,
and again reported that performance
comparable to broilers fed a convention-
al diet could not be maintained by sup-plementing essential AA only.
The differences in broiler performance
between the low CP and conventional
treatments for each research trial are
illustrated in Figure 1. Surprisingly, the
differences in performance are not as
great in magnitude as perhaps has been
suggested over time. As stated above, the
magnitude of difference is roughly 2 g of
gain or 0.03 points of gain:feed per day.
Certainly this reduced performance can
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
7/14
Volume 08/Number 01 March 2007 amino acids and more.
7 Degussa Feed Additives
Table2: Effects of low crude protein diets on performance of broilers 1
Age (Sex) Conventional Low CP Conventional Low CP ReferenceDiet Diet(s)
CP, % CP, % ADG, g G:F ADG, g G:F1 to 17 d 22.2 20.7, 19.2, 17.7, & 16.2 29.97 0.817 28.04 0.759 Dean, 2005, Exp. 1(F)
1 to 17 d 22.2 16.2 + NEAA = Conventional 29.27 0.797 28.32 0.807 Dean, 2005, Exp. 2(F) + EAA = Conventional + EAA & NEAA
1 to 17 d 22.2 16.2 + Gly, + Glu, + Ala, + Asp, 28.70 0.766 + Gly + Gly Dean, 2005, Exp. 3(F) + Pro, or + All 28.50 0.801*
+ All + All27.79 0.806*
1 to 17 d 22.2 16.2 (1.23% Gly+Ser) + Gly = 1.35, 1.47, 26.50 0.808 25.91 0.791 Dean, 2005, Exp. 4(F) 1.59, 1.71, 1.83, 1.95, or 2.07% Gly+Ser + Glu
1 to 17 d 22.2 16.2 (1.60% Gly+Ser) + Gly = 1.72, 1.84, 28.98 0.800 29.60 0.797 Dean, 2005, Exp. 5(F) 1.96, 2.08, 2.20, or 2.32% Gly+Ser
1 to 14 d 22.8 20.9 (1.76% Gly+Ser) +EAA + EAA & Gly = 33.86 0.873 34.50 0.876 Schutte et al., 1997,(M + F) 1.85, 1.94, 2.03, or 2.12% Gly+Ser + Glu Exp. 2
1 to 21 d 22.3 18.6 (1.56% Gly+Ser) +EAA +EAA + Gly = 41.5 0.764 40.76 0.756 Schutte et al., 1997,(M + F) 1.65, 1.74, 1.83, 1.92, or 2.01% Gly+Ser + Glu Exp. 1
1 to 21 d 22.0 20.0 37.6 0.709 36.2* 0.694 Ferguson et al., 1998a(M)
1 to 21 d 26.4 21.9 37.7 0.758 36.5 0.714* Ferguson et al., 1998b(M)
1 to 21 d 23.0 22, 20, 18, & 16 1) No difference in performance between Si et al., 2004a(M) +Trp = 5 & 6 Trp: LNAA conventional and 22% CP, but BW gain
and FCR decrease as CP level decrease2) No effect of AA levels @ 100 or 110% NRC3) No effect of Trp:LNAA ratio
1 to 21 d 23.0 22, 20, 18, & 16 1) No difference in performance between Si et al., 2004b(M) +DL-Met or to meet Met and/or TSAA conventional and 22% CP, but BW gain
and FCR decrease as CP level decrease+DL-Met & L-Cys to meet Met and TSAA 2) No effect of AA levels @ 100 or 110% NRC
or of DL-Met or L-Cys
1 to 21 d 23.0 21, 19, 17, & 15 28.6 0.694 26.5* 0.640 Cabel and Waldroup,(M + F) 1991
5 to 21 d 22.0 18.0 1) No significant difference in BW gain or FCR Fritts et al., 2004(M) +Gly, +Leu, +Asp, +Glu, +Ala, +Pro, or +All between traditional and low CP + all treatments (abstract)
2) +Gly,+Asp, or +Leu treatments performedbest of single AA, but always lower thanconventional
7 to 21 d 24.0 17.0 +K intermediate +K = Conventional 33.3 0.691 29.6* 0.613* Fancher and Jensen,(M) 1989b, Exp. 3
7 to 21 d 23.0 20.0 @ 93.5 or 100% NRC 36.5 0.712 33.8 0.680* Pinchasov et al., 1990,(M) Exp. 1
17.0 @ 87.5, 93.5,or 100% NRC 31.8* 0.630*
7 to 21 d 23.0 17.0 37.0 0.703 35.1 0.690 Pinchasov et al., 1990,(M) 21,19,& 16 +Glu = Conventional CP Exp. 2
7 to 21 d 23.0 21.0 32.3 0.630 32.3 0.617 Parr and Summers,(M + F) +10% NRC Lys 1991, Exp. 1
7 to 21 d 23.0 20.3 25.3 0.559 27.8* 0.595* Parr and Summers,(M + F) +10% NRC Arg +Gly to equal 23.0 CP 1991, Exp. 2
+Gly & 10% NRC Arg
7 to 21 d 23.0 20.1 28.9 0.541 31.3* 0.585* Parr and Summers,(M + F) +10% NRC Thr +Gly & 10% NRC Thr 1991,Exp.3
19.7 31.0* 0.571*+10% NRC Trp +Gly & 10% NRC Trp
7 to 21 d 23.0 17.8 +10% NRC Ile 36.7 0.654 38.0* 0.617* Parr and Summers,(M + F) +10% NRC Phe + NEAA 1991, Exp. 4
7 to 21 d 23.0 17.4 +10% NRC Leu 33.0 0.654 34.6 0.617 Parr and Summers,(M + F) + NEAA 1991, Exp. 5
7 to 21 d 23.0 16.5 +10% NRC His 33.9 0.637 36.6 0.625 Parr and Summers,(M + F) + NEAA 1991, Exp. 6
7 to 21 d 23.2 18.6 +1% triammonium citrate 46.7 0.739 44.3* 0.679* Bregendahl et al.,(M) + 1% Gln + 1% Asn 2002, Exp. 1
7 to 21 d 24.0 18.5 52.2 0.762 46.9* 0.710* Bregendahl et al.,(M) +15, 30, or 45% more CAA 2002,Exp.2
7 to 21 d 23.4 17.6 +1, 2, or 3% NEAA (Glu-Asp) 43.9 0.753 42.6 0.723* Bregendahl et al.,(M) + 45% more CAA 2002, Exp. 3
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
8/14
Volume 08/Number 01 March 2007amino acids and more.
8Degussa Feed Additives
Table2: Effects of low crude protein diets on performance of broilers 1 (continued)
Age (Sex) Conventional Low CP Conventional Low CP ReferenceDiet Diet(s)
CP, % CP, % ADG, g G:F ADG, g G:F7 to 21 d 23.0 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, & 13 No difference in BW gain between Brooks et al., 2003(M + F) traditional and CP diets (20 trough 15%), (abstract)
but performance began to decrease at 14,and was significantly lower at 13%.
8 to 22 d 23.0 19.0 +Met,Lys,Arg,Val, & Thr +K 20.7 0.675 20.8 0.660 Han et al., 1992,(M) +AA & 3.36 or 4.62% Glu, +AA, Glu, & K Exp. 1
19.0 +EAA +K +EAA & 3.36 or 4.62% Glu 20.6 0.672+EAA,GLU & K
8 to 22 d 23.0 19.0 +4.62% Glu, +Glu & DLM, 20.5 0.671 21.1 0.687 Han et al., 1992,(M) +Glu, DLM & Lys, +Glu, DLM & Arg, Exp. 2
+Glu,DLM,Lys, & Arg,+ All & Thr+All,Thr, & Val
8 to 22 d 23.0 19.0 +4.62% Glu, +Glu & DLM, 19.7 0.682 19.9 0.680 Han et al., 1992,(M) +Glu, DLM & Lys, +Glu, DLM & Arg, Exp. 3
+Glu,DLM,Lys, & Arg,+ All & Thr,+All,Thr, & Val
8 to 22 d 23.0 19.0 +4.62% Glu, & 100,75,or 50% DLM, 19.3 0.675 19.4 0.696 Han et al., 1992,(M) Lys,& Arg +/-100 or 50% Val & Thr Exp.4
8 to 22 d 23.0 19.0 +EAA, +EAA & 1.16, 2.31, 3.47, 19.1 0.675 18.9 0.661 Han et al., 1992,(M) or 4.62% Glu Exp. 5
8 to 22 d 23.0 19.0 19.1 0.697 19.3 0.694 Han et al., 1992,(M) +EAA & 2.31% Glu Exp.6
8 to 22 d 23.0 19.0 45.4 0.776 44.9 0.771 Han et al., 1992,(M) +EAA Exp.7
9 to 21 d 20.9 17.1 41.18 0.790 37.49* 0.690* Payne, 2000(M) + soy isoflavones = Conventional
21 to 42 d 18.3 15.9 42.3 0.487 38.9* 0.463* Fancher and Jensen,(F) +7.5% EAA, +15% EAA 1989a, Exp. 1
21 to 42 d 19.0 16.6 +7.5% Met & Lys +7.5% Arg, Thr, 50.1 0.494 47.6* 0.469* Fancher and Jensen,(F) Ile, & Trp, +7.5% All 1989a, Exp. 2
16.6 +15% Met & Lys +15% Arg,Thr, 47.0* 0.474*Ile,& Trp,+15% All
21 to 42 d 19.4 16.4 44.0 0.458 43.9 0.437* Fancher and Jensen,(F) +7.5% EAA +7.5% EAA +pH-buffer 1989a, Exp. 3
16.4 +Glu = Conventional CP 44.7 0.466+7.5% EAA, +7.5%EAA +pH-buffer
21 to 42 d 22.0 19.0 61.0 0.487 60.6 0.478 Fancher and Jensen,(M) 1989b, Exp. 1
16.0 +Glu = 59.8 0.466Conventional CP +Arg, Thr,Ile, & Trp +K
21 to 42 d 22.0 19.0 +K 62.0 0.538 60.6 0.511 Fancher and Jensen,(M) 1989b, Exp. 2
16.0 +K 57.0* 0.488*+Arg,Thr, Ile,&Trp +Arg,Thr,I le, & Trp +K
21 to 42 d 22.5 21.0, 19.0, 17.2, or 15.3% Similar weight gain among all treatments, Aletor et al., 2000,(M) but gain:feed and nitrogen excretion reduced Exp. 1
21 to 42 d 22.5 21.0, 19.0, 17.2, or 15.3% No effect of adding NEAA on growth Aletor et al., 2000,(M) + NEAA = Conventional CP performance Exp. 2
21 to 43 d 17.6 13.5 73.73 0.560 68.09* 0.520* Payne, 2000(M) +soy isoflavones = Conventional
22 to 42 d 20.6 18.2 81.0 0.490 78.8 0.500 Ferguson et al.,(M) 1998a
22 to 43 d 21.5 16.5 90.6 0.479 86.4* 0.427* Ferguson et al.,(M) 1998b
28 to 42 d (M) 19.0 17,15,& 13 As-is +Glu +EAA 75.1 0.433 73.6 0.431 Kerr and Kidd,42 to 52 d (M) 18.0 16,14,& 12 As-is +Glu +EAA 1999a
28 to 45 d 19.4 18.2 +Thr 81.6 0.478 80.6 0.478 Kerr and Kidd,(M) 1999b, Exp. 1
16.7 +EAA 80.2 0.470*
42 to 52 d 17.2 15.9 +Thr 79.0 0.379 76.0 0.372 Kerr and Kidd,(M) 1999b, Exp. 2
14.7 +EAA 73.3* 0.366*
43 to 54 d 15.6 11.7 69.69 0.420 64.94* 0.440* Payne 2000(M) + soy isoflavones = Conventional
1
Relative performance of low CP diets correlates to the low CP treatment in bold under the low CP diet section, and this performance level was the most promising result of all low CP treatmentswithin each dataset.Within each dataset, every attempt was made to include all treatments pertinent to the discussion of low CP diets.. G:F = gain:feed; M = male; F = female.*Low CP treatment means are significantly different from the Conventional CP diet, P < 0.10.
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
9/14
Volume 08/Number 01 March 2007 amino acids and more.
9 Degussa Feed Additives
accept that their respective species gen-
erally have more animal to animal varia-
tion, so these minor changes are not as
troubling. Granted the data shown in
Figure 1 are the best results reported by
each group, and even then they are not
as consistent as we would wish, but they
are nonetheless impressive in their gen-
eral suggestion that broilers fed low CP
diets can grow similar to those fed a con-
ventional high CP diet.
The Role of Nonessential Amino Acids in Low
CP Diets for Broilers
In addition to the positive results report-
ed above, there also have been some po-
tential breakthroughs in our understand-
ing of low CP diets, especially concerning
the role that nonessential AA play. Fritts
et al., (2004) reported no differences in 5
to 21-d old broilers fed a low CP diet
with supplemental nonessential AA (Gly,
Leu, Asp, Glu, Ala, and Pro) compared
with those fed a conventional diet. Addi-
tionally, Fritts et al., (2004) tested a low
CP diet with single additions of each
nonessential AA, and regardless of AA
added performance was always lowerthan with a conventional diet. But, it is
interesting to note that of the single
amino acid diets, those supplemented
with Gly, Asp, or Leu outperformed the
Glu, Ala, or Pro diets. Dean (2005) also
investigated the effect of nonessential
amino acids, and he reported that broil-
ers fed the low CP supplemented with
nonessential AA (Gly, Leu, Asp, Glu, Ala,
and Pro) performed comparable with
those fed a conventional CP diet, which
agrees with the results of Fritts et al.,
(2004). Dean (2005) confirmed these re-sults in a follow-up trial, and then he at-
tempted to determine which nonessen-
tial amino acid stimulated growth in a
low CP diet similar to the conventional
diet. Dean reported that broilers fed a
diet with the single addition of Gly per-
formed as well as those fed the conven-
tional diet.
Corzo et al., (2004) and Dean (2005)
each conducted trials to determine the
Gly needs of broilers fed low CP diets
add up considering the number of broil-
ers produced commercially today, but
these results are very much in line with
the magnitude of difference for both
swine and turkeys. Perhaps some of the
reasons for claiming that low CP diets do
not work in broilers or that they do work
in swine and turkeys is simply the signi-
ficantly different growth phases for these
species. That is, perhaps swine and
turkey nutritionists can more willingly
accept minor changes in gain or
gain:feed because of the longer feeding
period to reach processing weights. Or
perhaps swine and turkey nutritionists
Figure 1: Average daily gain (top) and gain:feed (bottom) performance of
broilers fed Low CP diets (dots) compared with broilers fed con-
ventional CP diets (bars) across all experiments in Table 4.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
Conventional
Low CP,%
Conventional CP, %
17.1
20.0
19.2
16.2
16.2
16.2
16.2
16.2
18.6
20.9
21.0
21.0
21.0
20.3
20.1
20.0
19.7
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
17.8
17.4
17.0
16.9
16.5
18.6
17.6
18.5
17.0
21.9
20.9
22.0
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.3
22.8
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.2
23.4
24.0
24.0
26.4
AD
G,g
Low CP
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
Conventional
Low CP,%
Conventional CP, %
17.1
20.0
19.2
16.2
16.2
16.2
16.2
16.2
18.6
20.9
21.0
21.0
21.0
20.3
20.1
20.0
19.7
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
17.8
17.4
17.0
16.9
16.5
18.6
17.6
18.5
17.0
21.9
20.9
22.0
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.3
22.8
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.2
23.4
24.0
24.0
26.4
ADG,g
Low CP
0.50 0.50
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
10/14
Volume 08/Number 01 March 2007amino acids and more.
10Degussa Feed Additives
from 7 to 20 and 1 to 17 d, respectively.
Each reported that growth performance
was improved as Gly level was increased.
Corzo et al., (2004) estimated that the
Gly level necessary to support growth
was 1.00 % Gly (1.78 % Gly+Ser).
Dean (2005), however, suggested that
the Gly level needed for broilers fed low
CP diets to grow similar to those fed a
conventional diet was 1.57 % Gly
(2.14 % Gly+Ser). It is unlikely that the
Gly requirement of broilers changes as
much as suggested by these authors over
the first 21 d of life, so perhaps some of
these differences could be due to the de-
gree by which CP was reduced (18.0 vs.
16.2 %). Another potential reason is that
the trial by Corzo et al. (2004) was de-
signed to determine the Gly require-
ment, whereas Dean (2005) trial was
designed to determine what level of Gly
(or Gly+Ser) would maintain growth
similar to that in a conventional diet.
Corzo et al. (2004) did not use a positive
control conventional diet in their trial.
These are not the first indications of a
larger role for Gly in broiler nutrition. As
early as 1944, Almquist and Grau sug-
gested that Gly could limit the growth ofbroilers, which was supported by Parr
and Summers (1991), especially when
CP is reduced. Heger and Pack (1996)
estimated that the Gly+Ser requirement
ranged from 1.50 to 1.80 % in 5 to 22-d
old broilers depending on CP level
(Gly+Ser needs increase as CP increases).
Schutte et al., (1997) estimated that the
Gly+Ser requirement for 1 to 21-d old
broilers ranged from 1.80 to 1.90 %.
Their results also supported those of Parr
and Summers (1991), as the supplemen-
tation of Gly into a low CP (19.0 %) dietallowed broilers to grow at levels equal
to a conventional CP diet (22.3 %).
These data combined with the findings of
Corzo et al. (2004) and Dean (2005) defi-
nitely indicate that the Gly+Ser require-
ment for broilers is higher than 1.25 %
as suggested by the NRC (1994). It is
known that Gly is essential for a number
of metabolic functions including synthe-
sis of proteins, purines, glutathione, and
creatine (Corzo et al., 2004). Perhaps the
most important role of Gly in broiler nu-
trition is that of synthesizing uric acid in
order to excrete excess nitrogen. Regard-
less of its exact role, it is clear that Gly is
more than just a non-specific nitrogen
source in low CP diets. Nutritionists are
encouraged to be mindful of the Gly or
Gly+Ser levels in their diets, regardless of
CP level, if they wish to achieve optimal
growth performance.
Conclusions
The overall results of this review suggest
that we have made great progress in un-
derstanding how to utilize low CP diets
in broiler production. It seems that the
CP levels in broilers diets can be reduced
by 3 to 4 % percentage points without
sacrificing performance provided that
free AA are supplemented in the diet to
equal the AA nutrient levels in a con-
ventional diet. Furthermore, the results
of Fritts et al. (2004), Corzo et al. (2004),
and Dean (2005) highlight the important
role that nonessential AA play in broiler
nutrition. Their results emphasize the
importance of Gly in broiler nutrition,
particularly when low CP diets are used.
Although more research needs to beconducted to fully understand the role of
Gly, it seems that Gly is at least a semi-
essential AA. The advancement of our
understanding of low CP diets will allow
nutritionists to formulate diets that are
less expensive and more environmental-
ly friendly without sacrificing growth
performance.
Outlook
In trials recently conducted in coopera-tion with Degussa Feed Additives the po-
tential of low protein diets in poultry
diets has been further evaluated. The
technical results as well as some eco-
nomic considerations will be presented
in part 2 of this article in a future
AminoNews.
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
11/14
Volume 08/Number 01 March 2007 amino acids and more.
11 Degussa Feed Additives
Fancher, B. I., and L. S. Jensen. 1989a. Di-
etary protein level and essential amino acid
content: Influence upon female broiler perfor-
mance during the grower period. Poult. Sci.
68: 897-908.
Fancher, B. I., and L. S. Jensen. 1989b. Male
broiler performance during the starting and
growing periods as affected by dietary protein,
essential amino acids, and potassium levels.
Poult. Sci. 68: 1385-1395.
Ferguson, N. S., R. S. Gates, J. L. Taraba, A.
H. Cantor, A. J. Pescatore, M. L. Straw, M. J.
Ford, and D. J. Burnham. 1998a. The effect of
dietary protein and phosphorus on ammonia
concentration and litter composition in broil-ers. Poult. Sci. 77: 1085-1093.
Ferguson, N. S., R. S. Gates, J. L. Taraba, A.
H. Cantor, A. J. Pescatore, M. L. Straw, M. J.
Ford, and D. J. Burnham. 1998b. The effect of
dietary crude protein on growth, ammonia
concentration and litter composition in broil-
ers. Poult. Sci. 77: 1481-1487.
Figueroa, J. L., A. J. Lewis, P. S. Miller, R. L.
Fischer, R. S. Gomez, and R. M. Diedrichsen.
2002. Nitrogen metabolism and growth per-
formance of gilts fed standard corn-soybeanmeal diets or low-crude protein, amino acid-
supplemented diets. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 2911-
2919.
Firman, J. 1994. Utilization of low protein di-
ets for turkeys. Biokyowa Technical Review
#7.
Fritts, C. A., A. Corzo, and M. T. Kidd. 2004.
Chick responses to diets differing in essential
and nonessential amino acids. Poult. Sci.
83(Suppl. 1): 433. (Abstr.)
Gomez, R. S., A. J. Lewis, P. S. Miller, and H.
Y. Chen. 2002. Growth performance, diet ap-
parent digestibility, and plasma metabolite
concentrations of barrows fed corn-soybean
meal diets or low-protein, amino acid-supple-
mented diets at difference feeding levels.
J. Anim. Sci. 80: 644-653.
Han, Y., H. Suzuki, C. M. Parsons, and D. H.
Baker. 1992. Amino acid fortification of a
low-protein corn and soybean meal diet for
chicks. Poult. Sci. 71: 1168-1178.
References
Aletor, V. A., I. I . Hamid, and E. Pfeffer.
2000. Low protein amino acid-supplemented
diets in broiler chickens: Effects on perfor-
mance, carcass characteristics, whole-body
composition and efficiencies of nutrient uti-
lization. J. Sci. Food and Agric. 80: 547-554.
Almquist, H. J. and C. R. Grau. 1944. The
amino acid requirements of the chick. J. Nutr.
28: 325-331.
Bregendahl, K., J. L. Sell, and D. R. Zimmer-
man. 2002. Effect of low-protein diets on
growth performance and body composition of
broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 81: 1156-1167.
Brooks, S. E., H. M. Allen, and J. D. Firman.
2003. Utilization of low crude protein diets fed
to 0-3 wk broilers. Poult. Sci. 82 (Suppl. 1):
37. (Abstr.)
Brudevold, A. B., and L. L. Southern. 1994.
Low-protein, crystalline amino acid-supple-
mented, sorghum-soybean meal diets for the
10- to 20-kilogram pig. J. Anim. Sci. 72: 638-
647.
Cabel, M. C., and P. W. Waldroup. 1991. Ef-fect of dietary protein level and length of feed-
ing on performance and abdominal fat pad
content of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 70:
1550-1558.
Corzo, A., M. T. Kidd, D. J. Burnham, and B.
J. Kerr. 2004. Dietary glycine needs of broiler
chicks. Poult. Sci. 83: 1382-1384.
DMello, J. P. F. 2003. Adverse Effects of
Amino Acids. In: Amino acids in animal nu-
trition. Ed. J. P. F. DMello CAB Internation-
al, Wallingford, UK.
Dean, D. 2005. Amino acid requirements and
low crude protein, amino acid supplemented
diets for swine and poultry. Ph. D. Disserta-
tion, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Emmert, J. L., and D. H. Baker. 1997. Use of
the ideal protein concept for precision formu-
lation of amino acid levels in broiler diets. J.
Appl. Poult. Res. 6: 462-470.
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
12/14
Volume 08/Number 01 March 2007amino acids and more.
12Degussa Feed Additives
Lemme, A. 2003. The Ideal Protein Concept in
broiler nutrition. 2. Experimental data on
varying dietary ideal protein levels.
AminoNews 4 (2): 7-14.
Lemme, A., U. Frackenpohl, A. Petri, and H.
Meyer. 2004a. Effects of reduced dietary pro-
tein concentrations with amino acid supple-
mentation on performance and carcass quality
in turkey toms 14 to 140 days of age. Int. J.
Poult. Sci. 3: 391-399.
Lemme, A., V. Ravindran, and W. L. Bryden.
2004b. Ileal digestibility of amino acids in
feed ingredients for broilers. Worlds Poult .
Sci. J. 60: 423-437.
Lemme, A., H. S. Rostagno, A. Petri, and L. F.
T. Albino, 2005. Standardised ileal digestibili-
ty of crystalline amino acids. Proceedings of
the 15th European Symposium on Poultry Nu-
trition, 25.-29. Sept., Balatonfred, Hungary:
444-446.
Lewis, A. J. and J. S. Bayley. 1995. Amino
acid bioavailability. In: Bioavailability of nu-
trients for animals, edited by C. B. Ammer-
mann, D. H. Baker, and A. J. Lewis Academic
Press, San Diego, USA: 35-65.
Mack, S., D. Bercovici , G. de Groote, B.
Leclerc, M. Lippens, M. Pack, J. B. Schutte,
and S. van Cauwenberghe. 1999. Ideal amino
acid profile and dietary lysine specification for
broiler chickens of 20 to 40 days of age. Br.
Poult. Sci. 40: 257-265.
NRC. 1994. Nutrient requirement of poultry -
9th revised edition. National Academy Press,
Washington D. C., USA.
Parr, J. F., and J. D. Summers. 1991. The ef-
fect of minimizing amino acid excesses inbroiler diets. Poult. Sci. 70: 1540-1549.
Parsons, C. M. 2002. Digestibility and avail-
ability of protein and amino acids. In Poultry
Feedstuffs: Supply Composition and Nutritive
Value. Eds. J. M. McNab, and K. N. Boor-
man, CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Payne, R. L. 2000. Effects of soy isoflavones on
growth, carcass traits, and meat quality in
nonruminant animals. M.S. thesis, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge.
Heger, J. and M. Pack. 1996. Effects of dietary
glycine + serine on starting broiler chick per-
formance as influenced by dietary crude pro-
tein levels. Agribiol. Res. 49: 257-265.
Kerr, B. J., and M. T. Kidd. 1999a. Amino
acid supplementation of low-protein broiler
diets: 1. Glutamic acid and indispensable
amino acid supplementation. J. App. Poult.
Res. 8: 298-309.
Kerr, B. J., and M. T. Kidd. 1999b. Amino
acid supplementation of low-protein broiler
diets: 2. Formulation on an ideal amino acid
basis. J. App. Poult. Res. 8: 310-320.
Kerr, B. J., F. K. McKeith, and R. A. Easter.1995. Effect of performance and carcass char-
acteristics of nursery to finisher pigs fed re-
duced crude protein, amino-acid supplement-
ed diets. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 433-440.
Kerr, B. J., J. T. Yen, J. A. Nienaner, and R.
A. Easter. 2003a. Influences of dietary protein
level, amino acid supplementation and envi-
ronmental temperature on performance, body
composition, organ weights, and total heat
production of growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 81:
1998-2007.
Kerr, B. J., L. L. Southern, T. D. Bidner, K. G.
Friesen, and R. A. Easter. 2003b. Influence of
dietary protein level, amino acid supplemen-
tation and dietary energy levels on growing-
finishing pig performance and carcass compo-
sition. J. Anim. Sci. 81: 3075-3087.
Kidd, M. T., B. J. Kerr, J. A. England, and P.
W. Waldroup. 1997. Performance and carcass
composition of large white toms as affected by
dietary crude protein and threonine supple-
ments. Poult. Sci. 76: 1392-1397.
Knowles, T. A., L. L. Southern, T. D. Bidner,
B. J. Kerr, and K. G. Friesen. 1998. Effect of
dietary fiber or fat in low-crude protein, crys-
talline amino acid-supplemented diets for fin-
ishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 2818-2832.
Le Bellego, L., J. van Milgen, and J. Noblet.
2002. Effect of high temperature and low-pro-
tein diets on the performance of growing-fin-
ishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 691-701.
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
13/14
Volume 08/Number 01 March 2007 amino acids and more.
13 Degussa Feed Additives
Pinchasov, Y., C. X. Mendonca, and L. S.
Jensen. 1990. Broiler chick response to low
protein diets supplemented with synthetic
amino acids. Poult. Sci. 69: 1950-1955.
Schutte, J. B., W. Smink, and M. Pack. 1997.
Requirement of young broiler chicks for
glycine + serine. Arch. Gefluegelkd. 61: 43-47.
Shriver, J. A., S. D. Carter, A. L. Sutton, B. T.
Richert, B. W. Senne, and L. A. Pettey. 2003.
Effects of adding fiber sources to reduced
crude-protein, amino acid-supplemented diets
on nitrogen excretion, growth performance,
and carcass traits of finishing pigs. J. Anim.
Sci. 81: 492-502.
Si, J., C. A. Fritts, P. W. Waldroup, and D. J.
Burnham. 2004a. Effects of tryptophan to
large neutral amino acid ratios and overall
amino acid levels on utilization of diets low in
crude protein by broilers. J. App. Poult. Res.
13: 570-578.
Si, J., C. A. Fritts, P. W. Waldroup, and D. J.
Burnham. 2004b. Effects of excess methionine
from meeting needs for total sulfur amino
acids on utilization of diets low in crude pro-
tein by broiler chicks. J. App. Poult. Res. 13:
579-587.
Tuitoek, K., L. G. Young, C. F. M. de Lange,
and B. J. Kerr. 1997. The effect of reducing ex-
cess dietary amino acids on growing-finishing
pig performance: An evaluation of the ideal
protein concept. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 1575-1583.
Waibel, P. E., C. W. Carlson, J. A. Brannon,
and S. L. Noll. 2000a. Limiting amino acids
after methionine and lysine with growing
turkeys fed low protein diets. Poult. Sci. 79:
1290-1298.
Waibel, P. E., C. W. Carlson, J. A. Brannon,
and S. L. Noll. 2000b. Identification of limit-
ing amino acids in methionine- and lysine-
supplemented low-protein diets for turkeys.
Poult. Sci. 79: 1299-1305.
Waldroup, P. W. 2000. Feeding programs for
broilers: The challenge of low protein diets.
Proc. 47thAnnual Maryland Nutrition Con-
ference, College Park, MD. March 22-24.
pages 119-134.
Dr. Robert L. Payne
email:
rob.payne@
degussa.com
-
7/27/2019 1 07 SD Payne Eng
14/14
Volumen 08/Number 01 March 2007 amino acids and more.
This information and all further technical advice is based on our present knowledge and
experience.However, it implies no liability or other legal responsibility on our part, includ-
ing with regard to existing third party intellectual property rights,especially patent rights.
In particular,no warranty, whether express or implied,or guarantee of product properties
in the legal sense is intended or implied. We reserve the right to make any changes
according to technological progress or further developments. The customer is not
released from the obligation to conduct careful inspection and testing of incoming
goods. Performance of the product described herein should be verified by testing, which
should be carried out only by qualified experts in the sole responsibility of a customer.
Reference to trade names used by other companies is neither a recommendation, nor
does it imply that similar products could not be u sed.
Headquarter
Degussa GmbHRodenbacher Chaussee 4D-63457 Hanau-WolfgangGermanyTel: +49-61 81-59-67 83Fax:+49-61 81-59-67 34
Europe & Middle East Africa
Degussa GmbHRodenbacher Chaussee 4D-63457 Hanau-WolfgangGermanyTel: +49-61 81-59-67 66Fax:+49-61 81-59-66 96
North America
Degussa Corporation1701 Barrett Lakes Blvd.,Suite 340Kennesaw,GA 30144,USATel: +1-678-797-43 00Fax:+1-678-797-43 13
Latin America
Degussa GmbHRodenbacher Chaussee 4D-63457 Hanau-WolfgangGermanyTel: +49-61 81-59-67 61Fax:+49-61 81-59-66 95
North Asia
Degussa (China) Co.,Ltd16F Sunflower Tower37 Maizidian StreetChao Yang District Beijing 10026Tel: +86 10-85 27-64 00Fax:+86 10-85 27-59 86
South Asia
Degussa (SEA) Pte Ltd3 International Business Park#07-18 Nordic European CentreSingapore 609927Tel: + 65-68 90-68 61Fax:+ 65-68 90-68 70
Degussa Feed Additives amino acids and more. [email protected] www.aminoacidsandmore.com