technical

Differences between corn:

a study of origin and harvest
W ith a forecasted production
of 808 million tonnes in 2009-10
in corn are arabinoxylans but, unlike
wheat, corn contains very little soluble
(+1.3% vs. 2008-09), corn is the non-starch polysaccharides (NSPs).
most abundantly grown crop Total phosphorus (P) and phytate P
Alexandre Peron

The better utilisation of corn
in poultry feeds relies on the
use of specific analytical tools
and prediction models that
can estimate corn feeding
value claim A. PERON and
C.E. GILBERT*.
worldwide. Between 2000 and
2008, corn production in Asia rose
by 59% (Table 1), whereas imports
remained relatively consistent (Table
2). Corn usage for feed manufacture
represents approximately 60% of the
total world production, making it a
major ingredient in animal rations.
For example, corn can represent up
to 65% of the metabolisable energy
and 20% of the protein contained in a
young broiler diet.
Variability of corn grain
Corn has a low crude protein content
(7.5%) compared with viscous cereal
grains such as wheat and barley
(12 and 11%). However, it contains
more starch (64%) and less non-
starch polysaccharides (9.5%) than
viscous cereal grains. As a result, corn
metabolisable energy (ME) value
for poultry is greater than wheat
or barley (3227 vs. 2988 and 2677
Kcal/kg). The main fibre components
levels are lower in corn than in wheat
(0.27 and 0.20% vs. 0.32 and 0.22%).
Moreover, endogenous phytase
activity in corn is very limited when
compared to wheat.
Unlike viscous cereals, nutritionists
and feed formulators tend to
regard corn as an ingredient which
is consistent in terms of nutritional
value. Although the chemical
composition of corn is favourable
for inclusion in poultry diets, its
quality can vary substantially from
batch to batch. Since 2006, Danisco
Animal Nutrition has collected and
analysed over 1600 corn samples from
more than 25 countries worldwide.
The results of this survey (Table
3) show variations of up to 17% in
nutrient content. Oil, protein and
phosphorus contents were among
the nutrients exhibiting the largest
variability whereas dry matter and
starch contents remained relatively
consistent.

Table 1: Corn production in Asia during the 2000-2008 period (million tonnes).
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Asia 149.1 159.1 165.5 167.6 184.7 197.5 210.2 218.0 237.6
Southeast Asia 21.5 21.5 21.7 24.1 25.7 27.2 27.3 30.5 34.5
Cambodia 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6
China 106.2 114.3 121.5 116.0 130.4 139.5 151.7 152.4 166.0
Indonesia 9.7 9.3 9.6 10.9 11.2 12.5 11.6 13.3 16.3
Laos 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.1
Philippines 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.6 5.4 5.3 6.1 6.7 6.9
South Korea 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.4
Thailand 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.8
Vietnam 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.1 3.4 3.8 3.9 4.3 4.5
Source: FAOSTAT, 2009

Reproduced courtesy of — ASIAN FEED — March/April 2011

 This paper was originally presented at the ...

Table 2: Corn imports in Asia during the 2005-2010 period (‘000 tonnes).
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10*
China 62 16 41 50 50
Indonesia 1,443 1,069 294 100 100
Malaysia 2,517 2,363 3,181 2,000 2,600
Philippines 321 163 58 400 400
storage conditions, feed processing)
South Korea 8,483 8,731 9,311 7,000 7,500
factors. Corn endosperm represents
Thailand 121 100 250 50 500 more than 80% of the total grain and
Vietnam 475 650 500 600 700 is composed of starch granules that
Source: USDA, October 2009. * Estimates
are embedded in a protein matrix
and surrounded by plant cell walls.
Other parameters that can be used to of nutrients interact with each As suggested by Cowieson (2005),
predict corn nutritional value, such as other via chemical and/or physical starch availability and utilisation is one
in vitro starch digestibility and protein associations. Ultimately, the quantity of the most important parameters
solubility index, showed even greater and availability of these nutrients determining the feeding value of
corn for poultry.
variability (up to 44%). determines the nutritional value
These results suggest that, more of the grain. In corn, nutrient and In a corn/soy-based broiler diet,
than the content itself, it is rather energy utilisation is influenced by around 40% of the metabolisable
the availability of corn starch that both intrinsic (e.g. starch structure, energy (AME) comes from corn
may influence the feeding value of presence of anti-nutritional factors) starch. Therefore, relatively small
corn (see next paragraph). Finally, and extrinsic (e.g. growing and differences in starch digestibility w
it should be noted that important
variations were also observed Table 3:
between samples originating from the Corn analytical values from harvest 2006 – 2009 (Danisco Animal Nutrition).
same country (Table 4). These data Harvest Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 Overall
confirm previous studies published
Number of samples 316 272 473 547 1608
in the scientific literature. Leeson
et al., (2003) showed that the ME Dry matter, %
Average 86.5 87.2 87.2 86.9 86.9
value of US corn samples can vary by
CV (%) 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.6
more than 478 Kcal/kg from batch
to batch. Similar observations were Starch, % (DM basis)
Average 72.4 73.3 73.0 72.4 72.7
made by D’Alfonso (2004), with 17%
CV (%) 2.2 1.3 2.5 2.5 2.4
of variation for the ileal digestible
energy (IDE) of 55%-corn-based diets Protein, % (DM basis)
Average 7.7 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.6
(mean 2831 Kcal/kg, s.d. 486 Kcal/ CV (%) 14.2 11.0 13.4 14.9 14.0
kg). Therefore, feed manufacturers
who require uniform feeds to ensure Oil, % (DM basis)
Average 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.3
consistent animal performance, both CV (%) 10.5 10.7 13.8 13.6 12.8
within and between harvest years,
face serious challenges. This point In vitro starch digestibility 1, %
Average 37.8 37.7 36.4 40.5 38.3
is perfectly illustrated by another CV (%) 13.5 14.9 27.2 13.8 19.0
study from D’Alfonso (2002). The
Protein solubility index 2
author investigated the effect of
Average 35.7 30.3 25.8 23.1 27.5
95 corn cultivars, from 15 different CV (%) 27.5 25.1 32.1 44.3 37.6
countries, on the performance of
Total phosphorus 3, %
broiler chickens fed corn/soy-based
Average — — 0.23 0.22 0.22
diets. Results showed major variations CV (%) — — 8.5 13.4 11.4
between corn samples. Bodyweight
Phytate phosphorus 4, %
gain at 28 days ranged from 743
Average — — — 0.19 0.19
to 1250 grams, and FCR at 28 days CV (%) — — — 16.9 16.9
ranged from 1.497 to 2.225. 1
RSD60 method
2
Starch binding to protein (and other compounds) – the lower the number, the greater the
Factors affecting nutritional value binding
3
Like all cereal grains, corn is a 39 samples (from US only)
4
56 samples
complex structure where a range

Reproduced courtesy of — ASIAN FEED — March/April 2011

 technical

can have a major impact on feed

Table 4:
AME. Starch granule size, starch
Variation of corn analytical values in selected countries (Danisco Animal Nutrition).
composition (amylose/amylopectin
ratio) and starch encapsulation (by Country USA Brazil China Indonesia Thailand
endosperm cell walls and protein
Number of samples 415 338 23 25 22
bodies) are among the factors that
most influence the digestion of starch. Dry matter, %
Starch from normal and waxy (i.e. low Average 86.2 86.7 86.3 86.7 87.3
CV (%) 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.4 0.6
amylose content) corn samples shows
a mixture of polygonal and spherical Starch, % (DM basis)
granules, with an average size of 10 to Average 73.1 71.3 72.9 72.3 72.2
15 microns (Sahay et al., 1996; Chen et CV (%) 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.7 0.9
al., 2006). Small starch granules have
Protein, % (DM basis)
a relatively large surface area, giving
Average 7.4 7.9 7.7 8.3 7.6
them a greater potential for hydrolysis CV (%) 12.4 13.9 4.1 6.6 6.0
by α-amylase (Knutson et al., 1982).
The composition of these corn starch Oil, % (DM basis)
granules can also be variable. Starch Average 4.1 4.6 4.4 4.9 5.3
CV (%) 8.7 3.3 7.4 2.5 4.9
from typical corn cultivars generally
contains 26% amylose and 74% In vitro starch digestibility 1, %
amylopectin. However, D’Alfonso Average 37.6 42.5 30.5 34.8 30.4
(2002) showed variations of up to CV (%) 11.0 8.1 13.5 8.7 7.9
22% in the amylose/amylopectin
Protein solubility index 2
ratio of 95 corn samples. Compared
Average 29.7 30.1 29.3 26.3 28.0
with amylopectin, amylose is more CV (%) 36.4 26.2 16.5 36.5 17.7
resistant to hydrolysis by α-amylase,
1
and more difficult to gelatinise. RSD60 method
2
Therefore, high amylose content Starch binding to protein (and other compounds) – the lower the number, the greater the
binding.
has been shown to result in reduced
starch digestibility.
Ultimately, starch encapsulation is The second cause of starch Producers commented that feeding
likely to be main factor responsible for encapsulation is the presence of the 2009 US corn resulted in increased
the variability in starch utilisation by protein bodies surrounding the feed intakes. This is likely to be
the bird. There are two major causes starch granules. Recent research related to birds having to increase
for the entrapment of starch granules suggests that heating of corn by their feed consumption in order
in corn endosperm. The first one is mechanical drying will make the to compensate for reduced starch
the presence of cell walls, composed protein less soluble and increase availability and poorer energy
of insoluble arabinoxylans. These NSP starch/protein binding, leading to utilisation. Harsh drying conditions
polymers cannot be broken down in reduced starch accessibility and and/or high feed processing
the bird’s digestive tract due to the subsequent lower AME of corn (Iji et temperatures may also result in
lack of endogenous xylanase activity. al., 2003; Kaczmarek et al., 2007). The chemical modification of starch
Previous studies have shown that determination of the protein solubility through re-arrangement of amylose
opening cell walls using mechanical index appears to be a convenient way and amylopectin chains
pressure (grinding, pelleting) can to represent and assess the extent (i.e. gelatinisation and retrogradation).
contribute to better performance of the starch/protein interaction in This last hypothesis might remain
and increased digestibility values of different batches of corn. In 2009, limited, as gelatinisation and/or
corn-based diets (Lott et al., 1992; many parts of the US had a late retrogradation only occur under very
Amerah et al., 2008). However, the spring and a wetter growing and specific moisture and temperature
optimum particle size for cereal grains harvesting season. Because of these conditions.
included in poultry diets has always unfavourable climate conditions,
been a matter of debate and it should the crop was subjected to very Differences in corn nutritional value
be noted that fine grinding of cereals high drying temperatures. As a for poultry may not be linked to
can sometimes be associated with consequence, the 2009 corn harvest variation in starch digestibility only.
reduced nutrient utilisation. Large showed lower and more variable The presence of anti-nutritional
amounts of small particles not only values for the protein solubility index factors such as phytate (IP6) is
can reduce pellet quality, but can also as compared with the 2008 harvest likely to influence the bird’s ability
lead to digestive disorders in the bird (11.1% and CV = 65% vs. 23.7% and to digest corn. Phytate is a very
(Péron et al., 2005; Svihus, 2010). CV = 14.6%). potent antinutrient and has been

Reproduced courtesy of — ASIAN FEED — March/April 2011

 This paper was originally presented at the ...

associated with numerous negative due to the energetic cost of these

effects in the gastro-intestinal tract
of monogastric animals. At low pH
(gizzard), phytate can create binary
complexes with proteins and minerals,
limiting their utilisation by the bird.
A study by Cowieson (2004) suggests
that phytate may also reduce starch
digestion. This could be related to
the formation of tertiary complexes
with starch or binary complexes
with calcium, a co-factor required
for α-amylase activity. Most cereals
also contain amylase inhibitors.
These inhibitors are susceptible
to pepsin hydrolysis and, even if
they are not totally broken-down
in the gizzard, birds can generally
compensate for their presence by
an overproduction of endogenous
amylase (Macri et al., 1977). As a
consequence, the potentially negative
influence of amylase inhibitors may
not be observed in terms of starch
digestibility values. However, it could
affect the net energy value of the feed
increased endogenous losses.
Finally, corn contamination by
mycotoxins is another potential
issue that should not be ignored in
terms of its potential effects on bird
performance.
Conclusions
Corn feeding value for poultry
depends on a complex interaction
between grain intrinsic and extrinsic
factors, and appears to be primarily
driven by starch utilisation. Crops
with different genetic backgrounds
exhibit variations in nutrient content
(eg protein and amino acid levels),
starch composition (eg amylose/
amylopectin ratio and granules
particle size distribution) and level of
anti-nutritional factors (eg phytate and
amylase inhibitors).
In addition, growing, storage and
processing conditions can also
influence corn quality through
changes in the endosperm
starch/protein matrix and/or by
contamination with fungal toxins.
Therefore, better utilisation of corn
in poultry feeds relies on the use of
specific analytical tools and
prediction models that can
estimate corn feeding value and
illustrate how this value can best be
improved by the use of technologies
such as exogenous feed enzymes
to give more consistent bird
performance. AF
* Dr Alexandre Péron (alexandre.peron@danisco.
com) and Dr C.E. Gilbert are with Danisco Animal
Nutrition, United Kingdom. This paper was
presented at the Poultry Feed Quality Conference
2010, in Kuala Lumpur, August 2010. A list of
references is available from the first author.

Bird variability a worry?

This is just one of the challenges that Danisco can help you solve.

Avizyme feed enzymes reduce feed ingredient variability, resulting in more

consistent bird growth, egg production and feed conversion. Use Avizyme for
more uniform bird performance to improve your profit.

- improving bird uniformity

To find out more please contact

Danisco Animal Nutrition
Singapore Tel: +65 6511 5600 info.animalnutrition@danisco.com
Shanghai Tel: +86 21 2307 9593 www.danisco.com/animalnutrition

Reproduced courtesy of — ASIAN FEED — March/April 2011