Optimizing the use of dietary fats: quality control, nutritional value

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY APPLIED SWINE NUTRITION

OPTIMIZING THE USE OF DIETARY FATS

Trey A. Kellner, Graduate Research Assistant and

John F. Patience, Professor Department of Animal Science

Iowa State University

PresentedatIowaSwineDay,June30th,2016


Definitions of dietary fat

•  Lipid Ø All encompassing classification of dietary fats and oils as well as

lipids contained in cereal grains or other ingredients

•  Fat Ø Animal origin (beef tallow, choice white grease)

•  Oil Ø Plant (vegetable/grain) origin (palm oil, soybean oil, corn oil)

•  Animal-vegetable blend Ø Blend of any animal (fat) and a vegetable (oil)


The roles of dietary fat

Ø To maintain the energy content of the diet Ø To improve barn throughput Ø To improve net income Ø To improve processing Ø To reduce dust


Herds differ widely in daily feed – and thus energy – intake, leading to differing outcomes when diet ME is increased

Dailyene

rgyintake

DietaryEnergyConcentra1on


Ingredient EnergyContent 2005Cost 2012Cost

McalNE/lb $/ton ¢/McalNE $/ton ¢/McalNE

Corn 1.21 72 2.7 328 12.3

Fat:AVblend 3.28 331 4.6 1,032 14.3

Mul1plier 1.7 1.2

The changing cost relationships between corn and fat


The relative value of fat depends on the energy system being used

Source DE ME NE Mcal/lb Rel. Mcal/lb Rel. Mcal/lb Rel.

Animal Sources Tallow 3.60 2.32 3.56 2.31 3.18 2.62 Choice White Grease 3.76 2.40 3.68 2.39 3.24 2.68

Plant Sources Corn oil 3.97 2.54 3.89 2.52 3.43 2.83 Soybean oil 3.97 2.54 3.89 2.52 3.43 2.83 AV blend 3.81 2.43 3.73 2.42 3.28 2.71

Source: NRC, 2012

Rel: relative to the respective energy value of corn


Requirement of dietary fat to ensure success F Economical F Well characterized F Consistent

F Quality F Composition

F Palatable F Digestible F Free of toxic contaminants


Issues to consider

Ø Quality assurance


Issues to consider


Ø Energy concentration


Issues to consider


Ø Energy concentration

Ø Other considerations


1. Quality assurance

Ø Pricing Ø Availability Ø Chemical composition Ø Nutrient supply Ø Physical properties


Recommended sourcing assays: Chemical

•  MIU: moisture, insoluble, unsaponifiables Ø  Indicator of purity and thus energy content (?) Ø Moisture: amount of water in the sample Ø  Insoluble: amount of sediment Ø Unsaponifiables: non-soaping forming in alkali Ø Cost: ~$38 ($8 for M, $10 for I, $20 for U)

•  NEM: Non-elutable material Ø Non-nutritional material: moisture, impurities, unsaponifiable

material, glycerol, and oxidized and polymerized fats Ø Cost: ?

•  Fatty acids Ø Predictor of energy content, impact on carcass Ø Cost: ~ $80


•  Due to the complexity of the lipid peroxidation process, no single measure of lipid peroxidation to date can be used as a definitive predictor of the pig to utilize a lipid source for energy (Kerr et al., 2015)

Essential analysis for… initial characterization for source selection to determine peroxidation status


•  Peroxide value (PV; $20) Ø  Amount of lipid peroxides and hydroperoxides

•  p-Anisidine value (AnV; $75) Ø  Amount of high molecular weight aldehydes

•  Active oxidation method stability (AOM; $30) Ø  Prediction of PV

•  Thiobarbituric acid reactive substance concentration (TBARS; $50) Ø  Amount of secondary lipid oxidation products formed from hydroperoxide

decomposition

•  Oil stability Index (OSI; $60) Ø  Hours required for the rate of conductivity to reach a predetermined level

•  Hexanal ($80) Ø  Measures secondary lipid oxidation products from linoleic and other omega-6

fatty acids

Peroxidation assay options


Impact of lipid peroxidation of dietary fat on growth performance in nursery pigs fed 6% soybean oil for 35 d

0.87 0.95 0.90 0.88 0.86

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Control 0 6 9 12

Aver

age

daily

gai

n (lb

s.)

Days of peroxidation

Linear effect (P = 0.024)

Rosero et al., 2015


Impact of lipid peroxidation on apparent total tract digestibility of dietary fat in pigs at 10 kg BW fed 6% soybean oil

19

73 75 75 69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Control 0 6 9 12

ATTD

of f

at, %


Quadratic effect (P = 0.023)

Rosero et al., 2015


Impact of lipid peroxidation on villus height to crypt depth ratio in nursery pigs fed 6% soybean oil

3.17 2.99 2.91

3.06 3.19

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

Control 0 6 9 12

Villu

s he

ight

:cry

pt d

epth


Quadratic effect (P = 0.022)

Rosero et al., 2015


Potential assays: Physical •  Phospholipids (lecithin; $45)

•  Metals (Cu, P, Na, Mg, Fe, Ca, Cu, Zn, Mn; $15 each)

•  Mono, di, and/or triglycerides (MAG, DAG, TAG; $150)

•  Titer ($100) Ø Solidification point fatty acids in lipids

•  Capillary melting point ($50) Ø Melting point of fat/oil source


Fatty acid profile differences between sources with the same “name”

Item A-V blend Source A

A-V blend Source B

Fatty acid, % 16:0 22.39 18.52 16:1 2.92 1.23 18:0 10.45 7.41 18:1 45.25 31.93 18:2 13.41 36.31

18:3 0.62 2.25

20:0 0.15 0.24 20:1 0.67 0.42 20:2 0.57 0.34 Free Fatty Acids, % 7.0 41.3

U:S 1.8 4.0


Recommended ongoing assays

•  Chemical –  Antioxidant content ($80)

•  If supplier is adding

•  Physical –  Free fatty acid content ($15) and fatty acid profile

($80) •  If using an animal-vegetable blend or highly variable source

–  Color ($15) •  Using current source as a reference


2. Determining the energy value of fats


Current reported NE values (Mcal/lb)

Item NRC, 1998 Kil et al., 2010 NRC, 2012 Boyd et al., 2015 Soybean oil 2.43 2.21 3.42 - Corn oil 2.43 - 3.37 - Choice white grease 2.31 2.68 3.24 3.66 Tallow 2.23 - 3.13 -


Impact of unsaturated to saturated fatty acid ratio on NE in growing and finishing pigs

Powles et al., 1995

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

1 2 3 4

NE

(Mca

l/lb)

Unsaturated to Saturated fatty acid ratio Rape seed oil with Tallow Rape seed oil with Palm oil


Essential analysis for… initial characterization for source selection to determine nutritional value

•  Free Fatty Acids (FFA) Ø  Amount of fatty acids NOT bound to glycerol as a triglyceride, diglyceride,

or monoglyceride Ø  Assay cost $15


Impact of free fatty acid level on NE in growing and finishing pig

Powles et al., 1995

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

0 20 40 60

NE

(Mca

l/lb)

Free fatty acid level, % Soybean oil Tallow


Effects of free fatty acids on ATTD of fat on d 18 post-weaning

DeRouchey et al., 2004

Item No

added fat

Free fatty acid concentration, % SE P-value

2 18 35 53 Ether extract, % 66.4 73.3 74.1 77.7 74.7 2.2 >0.15 Long-chain unsaturated fatty acids, % 69.7 77.9 79.2 81.7 79.4 2.2 >0.15

Long-chain saturated fatty acids, % 51.0 62.8 63.3 68.9 65.2 3.0 >0.15

Medium-chain fatty acids, % 91.8 89.4 89.9 91.5 89.4 0.9 >0.15


•  Energy system

•  Age

•  Endogenous losses

What else should be considered in determining the utilization of dietary fat in pigs??

“If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got”

– Albert Einstein


Impact of degree of unsaturation interaction with age of pig and free fatty acids on NE in growing and finishing pigs

Powles et al., 1995

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

NE

(Mca

l/lb)

Unsaturated to Saturated fatty acid ratio

young (12 kg), FFA = 50 g/kg young (12 kg), FFA = 500 g/kg old (30-90 kg), FFA = 50 g/kg old (30-90 kg), FFA = 500 g/kg


Effect of dietary lipid source and inclusion level on apparent digestibility (d 14 post-weaning)

18

50

72 79

51

70 76

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100 110

No lipid 2.5 5 7.5 2.5 5 7.5

CNTR Poultry fat, % Acidulated poultry fat, %

ATTD

of f

at, %

Mendoza and van Heugten, 2014

P-values: Level <0.001; Source = 0.333; Level × Source = 0.470


Impact of source of fat from the diet on digestibility of fat

Baselines SBO

Item Corn-SBM D1 D2 D1 D2 SEM P-value

ATTD (%) AEE in diets 29.6e 36.0d 47.5c 56.8b 69.8a 1.0 <0.001 AEE of SBO - - - 96.0 94.7 - -

Acosta et. al., 2015


Correcting for endogenous losses of fat

Item Regression

equation r2 IEL of AEE g/kg of

DMI TTTD of AEE, %

Est P-value Est P-value BW 40 to 70 kg

Intact fat y = 1.073x - 25.88 0.86 25.9 <0.001 107.3 <0.001

Extracted fat y = 0.985x - 22.73 0.99 22.7 <0.001 98.5 <0.001

BW 70 to 110 kg

Intact fat y = 0.923x - 18.73 0.90 18.7 <0.001 92.3 <0.001

Extracted fat y = 0.942x - 19.88 0.99 19.9 <0.001 94.2 <0.001

Acosta et. al., 2015


3. Other issues


Predictors of pork carcass iodine value (IV)

Predictor IV (g/100g) = R2 P-value Root MSE5

IVP 42.99 + (0.373 × IVP) 0.85 0.008 2.87

16:0, % 84.70 – (4.822 × dietary 16:0%) 0.08 0.596 7.22

16:0 intake 86.55 – [0.237 × 16:0 intake/d (g)] 0.10 0.547 7.14

18:0, % 81.80 – (4.699 × dietary 18:0%) 0.29 0.275 6.35

18:0 intake 83.89 – [0.596 × 18:0 intake/d (g)] 0.43 0.160 5.70

18:1, % 82.17 – (2.160 × dietary 18:1%) 0.03 0.736 7.40

18:1 intake 83.62 – [0.110 × 18:1 intake/d (g)] 0.04 0.698 7.36

18:2, % 49.94 + (7.000 × dietary 18:2%) 0.95 <0.001 1.69

18:2 intake 46.74 + [0.310 × 18:2 intake/d (g)] 0.94 0.002 1.92

18:3, % 51.33 + (202.53 × dietary 18:3%) 0.57 0.084 4.94

18:3 intake 52.13 + [8.051 × 18:3 intake/d (g)] 0.27 0.289 6.41

Kellner et al., 2016


2% CWG

4% CWG 6% CWG

2% CO 4% CO

6% CO

60

70

80

90

100

2 3 4 5 6

Car

cass

IV, g

/100

g

Dietary 18:2 concentration, %

Prediction of carcass iodine value (IV) by linoleic acid (18:2) concentration in the diet

IV = 49.94 + (7.000 × 18:2%) R2 = 0.95 P < 0.001 Root MSE = 1.69



Impact of dietary fat source and level on growth performance1


Item

Treatment

SEM P-value2 Corn oil

Choice white grease

2% 4% 6% 2% 4% 6% FS FL ADG, lbs. 1.99 2.01 2.03 1.99 1.99 2.04 0.02 0.928 0.445 ADFI, lbs. 5.73 5.67 5.45 5.69 5.50 5.43 0.09 0.428 0.094 Feed to gain ratio 2.88 2.82 2.68 2.86 2.76 2.66 0.01 0.120 <0.001 C.V. (d 0), % 19.7 19.3 19.8 19.0 20.0 20.4 1.1 0.857 0.832 C.V. (d 105), % 8.9 8.8 8.5 8.1 9.3 9.1 0.5 0.799 0.589 ME intake, Mcal/d 8.71 8.91 8.77 8.65 8.63 8.74 0.14 0.426 0.890 Average market BW, lbs. 308 310 310 308 308 310 1 0.757 0.537

Pig days/number of head sold 119 119 119 120 119 116 2 0.512 0.578

110 pens and 200 pigs per treatment. 2No significant interaction between fat source and fat level was evident (P > 0.30).


Caloric efficiency affected by heat stress and dietary fat

a,b Means among treatments with different superscripts differ, P < 0.05

5.9

4.6

6.1

0

2

4

6

8

10

TN PFTN HS

ME

inta

ke:B

W g

ain,

Mca

l/lb

ab a

5.8 5.9 5.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

CNTR TAL CO

ME

inta

ke:B

W g

ain,

Mca

l/lb

P = 0.013 P = 0.654

b



Other issues

•  Seasonal alterations Ø  If using a source that is highly unsaturated, oxidation status needs to be

monitored highly during seasonally warm periods of the year Ø  The fatty acid profile (iodine value) of animal fats (especially choice

white grease) can be altered due to ingredients (such as DDGS) formulating in and out of diets due to seasonality or pricing

•  Processing changes –  Animal-vegetable blends (if sources or percentage of blend is changed) –  Vegetable oils (can be altered if manufacturing procedures are altered)


Take home messages

1.  Fat can be an effective source of energy in the diet of the pig, when priced competitively

2.  Assays have been identified that are recommended to ensure a quality fat is being used, and does not vary over time

3.  Estimates of the energy content of fats are based on U/S ratio and FFA content; their accuracy is uncertain

4.  Apparent digestibility of fat can lead to underestimation of dietary fat, especially when present at low levels

5.  Dietary linoleic acid is the best predictor of carcass iodine value

6.  Pigs consuming less energy are most likely to respond to increases in dietary energy concentration


Thank you from the Applied Swine Nutrition Team


•  Iodine value (IV) Ø Measure of degree of unsaturation Ø Can be measured directly (g of iodine bound to a 100 g fat sample) Ø Can be calculated from a fatty acid profile

•  AOCS, 1998 –  IV = [C16:1] × 0.95 + [C18:1] × 0.86 + [C18:2] × 1.732 + [C18:3] ×

2.616 + [C20:1] × 0.785 + [C22:1] × 0.723; brackets indicate percentage concentration

•  Meadus et al., 2010 –  IV = [C16:1] × 0.95 + [C18:1] × 0.86 + [C18:2] × 1.732 + [C18:3] ×

2.616 + [C20:1] × 0.785 + [C20:2] × 1.57 + [C20:3] × 2.38 + [C20:4] × 3.19 + [C20:5] × 4.01 + [C22:4] × 2.93 + [C22:5] × 3.68 + [C22:6] × 4.64; brackets indicate percentage concentration

–  IV = Σ 100 × {[% of fatty acid methyl ester × 253.81 (molecular weight of 2 Iodines) × double bonds] / Molecular weight of fatty acid methyl ester in the triglyceride form}

Optional analysis for… initial characterization for source selection to determine “quality” of a source


The relative value of fat depends on the energy system being used

Source DE ME NEMcal/lb Rel. Mcal/lb Rel. Mcal/lb Rel.

AnimalSourcesTallow 8.00 2.32 7.84 2.31 7.00 2.62ChoiceWhiteGrease 8.29 2.40 8.12 2.39 7.15 2.68

PlantSourcesCornoil 8.75 2.54 8.58 2.52 7.55 2.83Soybeanoil 8.75 2.54 8.57 2.52 7.55 2.83AVblend 8.39 2.43 8.23 2.42 7.24 2.71

Source:NRC,2012

Rel:relaSvetotherespecSveenergyvalueofcorn

Documents

Optimizing the use of dietary fats: quality control, nutritional value