- Email: [email protected]
Determination of Nutrient Values for Commercial Amino Acids
C 2019 Poultry Science Association Inc.
Determination of Nutrient Values for Commercial Amino Acids Poultry Technical Nutrition Services LLC, 5813 Bayside Court, Buford, GA 30518–7015, USA Primary Audience: Nutritionists, Researchers SUMMARY Commercially available essential amino acids are primarily utilized in poultry feeds to meet a targeted amino acid requirement. Nutritionally, there are additional benefits such as providing nitrogen (i.e., protein) and energy. Therefore, using proper formulation matrix value for the added amino acids will be important. Key nutrient values N%, CP (N % × 6.25), N-corrected apparent ME (AMEn) and net energy (NE) for 100% pure amino acids have been reviewed and proposed for use in feed formulation. Key words: amino acid, protein, metabolizable energy, net energy 2019 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 0:1–5 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfz010
ABBREVIATIONS N: AMEn: NE: GE: SI: Kj: ATP:
nitrogen nitrogen-corrected apparent ME net energy gross energy International System of Units kilojoule adenosine triphosphate
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM The information presented will discuss the 20 common amino acids which are typically considered in protein chemistry. These amino acids are alanine, arginine, asparagine, aspartic acid (aspartate), cysteine (the monomer rather than the dimer, cystine), glutamic acid (glutamate), glutamine, glycine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, tryptophan, tyrosine, and valine. 1
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Nitrogen The N content of most any compound, including amino acids, is also available from numerous sources [1–5]. The historical conversion factor to calculate CP from the N percentage is 6.25. This is based upon a typical protein containing 16% N. However, it has been shown that the 6.25 factor to be incorrect for most all feed ingredients [6, 7] and the ingredient specific N to CP conversion factor for Corn and Soybean Meal was shown to be 5.68 and 5.64, respectively. The N content on a 100% potency, for 20 amino acids, on a dry matter basis is shown in Table 1 and is typically not 16%, averaging only 14.74% if each amino acid monomer were only represented once in a given protein, so the appropriate N correction factor for any given amino acid or protein is not 6.25. Amino Acid Content (Total and Digestible) The determination of the actual digestible amino acid value, for an added amino acid, is
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/japr/pfz010/5377776 by guest on 13 March 2019
P. B. Tillman1
JAPR: Workshop/symposium
2
Table 1. Molecular Formula, Molecular Mass, N Content, and Calculated CP of 20 Amino Acids.1 Amino acid
1
Molecular mass (g/mol)
Nitrogen (N, %)
Crude protein (N, % × 6.25)
C3 H7 NO2 C6 H14 N4 O2 C4 H8 N2 O3 C4 H7 NO4 C3 H7 NO2 S C5 H9 NO4 C5 H10 N2 O3 C2 H5 NO2 C6 H9 N3 O2 C6 H13 NO2 C6 H13 NO2 C6 H14 N2 O2 C5 H11 NO2 S C9 H11 NO2 C5 H9 NO2 C3 H7 NO3 C4 H9 NO3 C11 H12 N2 O2 C9 H11 NO3 C5 H11 NO2
89.09 174.20 132.12 133.10 121.16 147.13 146.14 75.07 155.15 131.17 131.17 146.19 149.21 165.19 115.13 105.09 119.12 204.23 181.19 117.15
15.72 32.16 21.20 10.52 11.56 9.52 19.17 18.66 27.08 10.68 10.68 19.16 9.39 8.48 12.17 13.33 11.76 13.72 7.73 11.96
98.25 201.00 132.50 65.75 72.25 59.50 119.81 116.63 169.25 66.75 66.75 119.75 58.69 53.00 76.06 83.31 73.50 85.75 48.31 74.75
100% pure (USP) amino acids on a dry matter basis.
not very straight-forward or easily determined. Rostagno et al. [4] has reported some true digestibility coefficient values for 17 amino acids as being determined from ileal collection using cecectomized cockerels. While the digestibility coefficients for these synthetically available amino acids ranged from 97.0% to 100%, it is most often considered as being 100%. Energy (Gross, Metabolizable, and Net) There have been numerous equations which have been generated to calculate the energy content of ingredients [8–10]. Since we use energy values during formulation for added protein ingredients, such as soybean meal, or animal byproducts, we should assign a value for added amino acids. A basic description of the various energy determining methodologies and calculations is available from numerous sources [3, 11]. It is known that the gross energy (GE) of a compound can be readily determined using a bomb calorimeter, and represents the heat of combustion for that compound. The website of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [2] is an excellent resource for heats
of combustion (C Ho ). On the NIST site, the C H◦ for 19 of the amino acids discussed here is found under the condensed phase thermochemistry section, with only arginine not having a reported value. The reported C Ho were converted using the International System of Units (SI) factors of 238.92 kcal per kilojoule (Kj), or 4.1855 Kj per kcal and expressed as kcal/kg on a molar basis (Table 2). A model examining biochemical and energy metabolism, particularly from amino acids, was published by van Milgen [12] and GE values as well as adenosine triphosphate (ATP) yield for each amino acid residue were reported. An estimation of the energy equivalence of both dietary amino acids as well as some proteins was also reported by Ferrer-Lorente et al. [13]. An indirect assessment of the GE of any compound can be calculated from its chemical composition [14, 15]. The heat of combustion of 20 L-α-amino acids based on bond energies within each amino acid was reported by Sagadeev et al. [16]. Dozier [17], at the request of this author, conducted GE determinations on 12 amino acids using their bomb calorimeter and those values are also reported in Table 2.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/japr/pfz010/5377776 by guest on 13 March 2019
Alanine Arginine Asparagine Aspartic acid Cysteine Glutamic acid Glutamine Glycine Histidine Isoleucine Leucine Lysine Methionine Phenylalanine Proline Serine Threonine Tryptophan Tyrosine Valine
Molecular formula
TILLMAN: NUTRIENT VALUES FOR AMINO ACIDS
3
Table 2. Gross Energy (GE, kcal/kg) for 20 Amino Acids.1 van Milgen INRA Ferrer-Lorente Sagadeev Schmidt-Rohr Dozier NIST Rostagno [12]
Alanine Arginine Asparagine Aspartic Acid Cysteine Glutamic Acid Glutamine Glycine Histidine Isoleucine Leucine Lysine Methionine Phenylalanine Proline Serine Threonine Tryptophan Tyrosine Valine
5,447 5,710 4,038 3,345 5,161 4,157 4,802 4,062 5,877 7,550 7,550 6,857 5,065 7,550 6,714 3,966 4,850 7,215 6,499 7,048
[11]
6,0642 5,695
4,172 6,704
et al. [13]
et al. [16]
[14,15]
4,379 5,090 3,469 2,818 4,417 3,695 4,240 3,176 4,901 6,425 6,580 6,2332 5,708 6,715 5,637 3,301 4,239 6,630 5,843 5,977
4,349 5,130 3,448 2,870 4,408 3,656 4,183 3,097 4,959 6,506 6,506 6,101 5,681 6,693 5,661 3,242 4,156 6,570 5,819 5,955
4,890 5,509 3,915 3,273 4,708 4,051 4,637 3,667 5,162 6,989 6,989 6,488 5,973 6,997 6,045 3,670 4,585 6,793 6,104 6,457
[17]
[2]
[5]
Mean
SD
4,319
4,389 4,492 3,503 2,854 4,3253 3,686 4,206 3,163 4,036 6,605 6,714 6,204 5,684 6,932 5,065 3,306 4,173 6,506 5,990 6,026
4,629 5,191 3,643 3,008 4,575 3,880 4,379 3,339 4,973 6,734 6,732 6,263 5,594 6,902 5,802 3,463 4,316 6,682 6,022 6,177
415 382 239 215 288 245 246 350 499 374 392 262 251 288 499 266 243 225 234 401
5,2162
4,257 3,103 4,958 6,550 6,256 6,136 5,548 6,693
4,213 6,456 5,828
3,487 2,886 4,433 3,658 4,204 3,103 4,917 6,514 6,527 6,020 5,396 6,735 5,693 3,292 4,140 6,585 5,874 5,946
1
100% pure (USP) amino acids on a dry matter basis. Converted from hydrogen chloride form. 3 Reported as Cystine. 2
Biochemically, it should be well accepted that amino acids enter into the Krebs cycle at various points [10] and yield energy via ATP production. As previously noted, the ATP yield for each amino acid entering the cycle has been calculated by several authors [12, 13]. The NRC [3] reported the N, CP, and AMEn content of 20 pure amino acids and these values were determined from their molecular makeup and their utilization through biochemical pathways, allowing for conversion of N into uric acid (or urea for arginine). Rostagno et al. [4] reported on the N, CP, GE, true digestibility, true digestible energy, and true MEn values of 20 crystalline amino acids. True amino acid digestibilities were determined using both cecectomized cockerels as well as with broiler chicks, by both ileal [4] and standardized ileal digestibility [5] assays. In addition, AMEn values were reported, as were NE values as well. For the calculation of AMEn, the N conversion, except for arginine into urea, was considered to be 50% for uric acid. The efficiency of utilization for AMEn was considered
to be 85% for deposition and 60% for deamination and catabolism. Furthermore, for the determination of NE, it was reported that the efficiency of utilization of amino acids was considered to be 70% for protein deposition, and 30% for deamination and catabolism. These reported energy values were updated by Rostagno [5]. The reported NE values were determined to be set at 77.5% of the reported AMEn values. This NE/AMEn ratio is in close agreement with Carr´e et al. [18–20] who reported that in a diet formulated using six added amino acids (methionine, lysine, threonine, valine, isoleucine, and tryptophan), the determined ratio was 77.5. In their subsequent paper [20], they reported that the NE/AMEn ratio was 76.0 for protein sources. The CVB [21] within their chemical composition and nutritional feed tables of feedstuffs reported on the ME value for poultry and broilers for 8 of the 10 essential amino acids, as well as for glycine, as shown in Table 3. Only the essential amino acids histidine and phenylalanine were not included.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/japr/pfz010/5377776 by guest on 13 March 2019
Amino acid
Descriptive Statistics
JAPR: Workshop/symposium
4
Table 3. N-corrected Apparent Metabolizable Energy (AMEn, kcal/kg) for 20 Amino Acids.1 INRA
CVB
Amino acid
[3]
[11]
[21]
Alanine Arginine Asparagine Aspartic Acid Cysteine Glutamic Acid Glutamine Glycine Histidine Isoleucine Leucine Lysine Methionine Phenylalanine Proline Serine Threonine Tryptophan Tyrosine Valine
3,060 2,940 1,760 2,020 4,0862 2,880 2,630 1,570 2,410 5,650 5,640 4,600 3,680 6,030 3,980 2,210 3,150 5,460 5,240 4,990
3,104
1,737
4,2453 4,682
5,827 5,686 4,719 3,687
3,056 5,290
3,443 4,107 5,094
Rostagno
Descriptive Statistics
Safety Margins
[5]
Mean
SD
0.5 SD
LCI
3,730 3,616 2,632 2,413 3,7292 3,273 3,393 2,301 2,883 6,166 6,242 5,404 5,253 6,452 4,519 2,758 3,610 5,897 5,648 5,535
3,395 3,220 2,196 2,217 3,908 3,077 3,012 1,869 2,647 5,881 5,856 4,742 4,325 6,241 4,250 2,484 3,315 5,189 5,444 5,206
335 288 436 197 179 197 382 313 237 214 274 420 673 211 270 274 222 662 204 236
3,228 3,076 1,978 2,119 3,819 2,979 2,821 1,713 2,529 5,774 5,719 4,532 3,989 6,136 4,115 2,347 3,204 4,858 5,342 5,088
2,931 2,894 1,592 1,944 3,660 2,804 2,483 1,515 2,319 5,639 5,546 4,330 3,665 5,949 3,876 2,104 3,097 4,540 5,161 4,939
1
100% pure (USP) amino acids on a dry matter basis. 2 Reported as Cystine. 3 Converted from hydrogen chloride form. 4 Safety Margin: 0.5 SD = (Mean–0.5 x SD). 5 Safety Margin: LCI = 95% lower confidence interval (Mean–1.96 x SD/SQRT(n)). Table 4. GE, AMEn, and Net Energy (NE, kcal/kg) for 20 Amino Acids1 , Along With Calculated Relative Efficiencies. Mean Amino Acid
GE AMEn NE2 ————————–(kcal/kg)—————————
Alanine Arginine Asparagine Aspartic Acid Cysteine Glutamic Acid Glutamine Glycine Histidine Isoleucine Leucine Lysine Methionine Phenylalanine Proline Serine Threonine Tryptophan Tyrosine Valine
4,629 5,191 3,643 3,008 4,575 3,880 4,379 3,339 4,973 6,734 6,732 6,263 5,594 6,902 5,802 3,463 4,316 6,682 6,022 6,177
1
3,395 3,220 2,196 2,217 3,908 3,077 3,012 1,869 2,647 5,881 5,856 4,742 4,325 6,241 4,250 2,484 3,315 5,189 5,444 5,206
100% pure (USP) amino acids on a dry matter basis. Rostagno et al. [5] 3 Reported as Cystine. 2
2,890 2,802 2,039 1,870 2,8903 2,536 2,630 1,783 2,234 4,779 4,837 4,188 4,071 5,000 3,503 2,138 2,798 4,570 4,377 4,289
AMEn/GE efficiency (%)
NE/AMEn efficiency (%)
73.3 62.0 60.3 73.7 85.4 79.3 68.8 56.0 53.2 87.3 87.0 75.7 77.3 90.4 73.3 71.7 76.8 77.7 90.4 84.3
85.1 87.0 92.9 84.3 74.0 82.4 87.3 95.4 84.4 81.3 82.6 88.3 94.1 80.1 82.4 86.1 84.4 88.1 80.4 82.4
Averages: 75.2
85.2
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/japr/pfz010/5377776 by guest on 13 March 2019
NRC
TILLMAN: NUTRIENT VALUES FOR AMINO ACIDS CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Merck Index; An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs and Biologicals. 14th ed. 2006. Merck Research Laboratories Division of MERCK & CO., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. https://www.rsc.org/merck-index. 2. NIST. http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/name-ser. html 3. NRC. 1994. Nutrient requirements of poultry. 9th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. 4. Rostagno, H. S., L. F. T. Albino, J. L. Donzele, P. C. Gomes, R. Flavia de Olveira, Lopes, A. S. Ferreira, S. L de Toledo Barreto, and R. F. Euclides. 2011. Brazilian Tables for Poult. and Swine. Composition of Feedstuffs and Nutritional Requirements. 3rd ed. 5. Rostagno, H. S. 2017. Personal communication and in 2011. Brazilian Tables for Poult. and Swine. Composition of Feedstuffs and Nutritional Requirements. 4th ed. 6. Sriperm, N., G. M. Pesti, and P. B. Tillman. 2011. Evaluation of the fixed nitrogen-to-protein (N:P) conversion factor (6.25) versus ingredient specific N:P conversion factors in feedstuffs. J. Sci. Food Agric. 91:1182–1186.
7. Sriperm, N., and P. B. Tillman, 2011. What is the correct nitrogen-to-protein conversion factor? Asian Feed. Technical Section. Nov/Dec. 3 pages. 8. Kleiber, M. 1961. The Fire of Life. An introduction to Animal Energetics. University of California, Davis, CA, USA. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, London. 9. Janssen, W. M. M. A. 1989. European Table of Energy Values for Poultry Feedstuffs. 3rd ed. Beekbergen Netherlands: Spelderholt Center for Poultry Research and Information Services. 10. Larbier, M., and B. Leclercq. 1992. Nutrition and feeding of Poultry. 11. INRA. 2004. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials. Pages 297 in Sauvant, D., J. M. Perez, and G. Tran eds. Wageningen Academic Publishers The Netherlands & INRA Paris, France. 12. van Milgen, J. 2002. Modeling biochemical aspects of energy metabolism in mammals. J. Nutr. 132:3195–3202. 13. Ferrer-Lorente, R., J. A. Fernandez-Lopez, and M. Alemany. 2007. Estimation of the metabolizable energy equivalence of dietary proteins. Eur. J. Nutr. 46;1–11. 14. Schmidt-Rohr, K. 2015. Why combustions are always exothermic, yielding about 418 kJ per mole of O2 . J. Chem. Educ. 92:2094–2099. 15. Schmidt-Rohr, K. 2015. Supporting Information for why combustions are always exothermic, yielding about 418 kJ per mole of O2 . http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/ 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00333. 16. Sagadeev, E. V., A. A. Gimadeev, and V. P. Barabanov. 2011. Heats of combustion for L-α-AminoAcids. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 85:2078–2081. 17. Dozier, W. A, III. 2016. Personal communication. 18. Carr´e, B., M. Lessire, and H. Juin. 2013. Prediction of metabolisable energy value of broiler diets and water excretion from dietary chemical analyses. Animal 7:1246–1258. 19. Carr´e, B., M. Lessire, and H. Juin. 2013. Supplementary material (additional tables and figures) for: Prediction of nutritional qualities of broiler diets from their chemical analysis: Metabolisable energy value (AMEn) and water excretion. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000359. 20. Carr´e, B., M. Lessire, and H. Juin. 2014. Prediction of the net energy value of broiler diets. Animal 8:1395–1401. 21. CVB. 2016. Feed Table–Chemical composition and nutritional values of feedstuffs. Accessed Aug 2018. www.cvbdiervoeding.nl/pagina/10081/downloads.aspx. 631 pages.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/japr/pfz010/5377776 by guest on 13 March 2019
The N (%), and hence the CP content, for any given amino acid is mathematically defined, from the molecular formula (Table 1). Protein and thus amino acids contain energy and numerous reports have determined and reported energy values for synthetic amino acids. Compiled GE, AMEn (along with means and standard deviation (SD) calculations for GE and AMEn) and NE values are reported in Tables 2 to 4. As is commonly done for most all assayed nutrients, an adjustment from the mean (i.e., safety margin) could be determined either by subtracting a portion of the SD or through the use of the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval and such determinations are shown in Table 3.
5
Determination of Nutrient Values for Commercial Amino Acids Poultry Technical Nutrition Services LLC, 5813 Bayside Court, Buford, GA 30518–7015, USA Primary Audience: Nutritionists, Researchers SUMMARY Commercially available essential amino acids are primarily utilized in poultry feeds to meet a targeted amino acid requirement. Nutritionally, there are additional benefits such as providing nitrogen (i.e., protein) and energy. Therefore, using proper formulation matrix value for the added amino acids will be important. Key nutrient values N%, CP (N % × 6.25), N-corrected apparent ME (AMEn) and net energy (NE) for 100% pure amino acids have been reviewed and proposed for use in feed formulation. Key words: amino acid, protein, metabolizable energy, net energy 2019 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 0:1–5 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfz010
ABBREVIATIONS N: AMEn: NE: GE: SI: Kj: ATP:
nitrogen nitrogen-corrected apparent ME net energy gross energy International System of Units kilojoule adenosine triphosphate
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM The information presented will discuss the 20 common amino acids which are typically considered in protein chemistry. These amino acids are alanine, arginine, asparagine, aspartic acid (aspartate), cysteine (the monomer rather than the dimer, cystine), glutamic acid (glutamate), glutamine, glycine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, tryptophan, tyrosine, and valine. 1
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Nitrogen The N content of most any compound, including amino acids, is also available from numerous sources [1–5]. The historical conversion factor to calculate CP from the N percentage is 6.25. This is based upon a typical protein containing 16% N. However, it has been shown that the 6.25 factor to be incorrect for most all feed ingredients [6, 7] and the ingredient specific N to CP conversion factor for Corn and Soybean Meal was shown to be 5.68 and 5.64, respectively. The N content on a 100% potency, for 20 amino acids, on a dry matter basis is shown in Table 1 and is typically not 16%, averaging only 14.74% if each amino acid monomer were only represented once in a given protein, so the appropriate N correction factor for any given amino acid or protein is not 6.25. Amino Acid Content (Total and Digestible) The determination of the actual digestible amino acid value, for an added amino acid, is
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/japr/pfz010/5377776 by guest on 13 March 2019
P. B. Tillman1
JAPR: Workshop/symposium
2
Table 1. Molecular Formula, Molecular Mass, N Content, and Calculated CP of 20 Amino Acids.1 Amino acid
1
Molecular mass (g/mol)
Nitrogen (N, %)
Crude protein (N, % × 6.25)
C3 H7 NO2 C6 H14 N4 O2 C4 H8 N2 O3 C4 H7 NO4 C3 H7 NO2 S C5 H9 NO4 C5 H10 N2 O3 C2 H5 NO2 C6 H9 N3 O2 C6 H13 NO2 C6 H13 NO2 C6 H14 N2 O2 C5 H11 NO2 S C9 H11 NO2 C5 H9 NO2 C3 H7 NO3 C4 H9 NO3 C11 H12 N2 O2 C9 H11 NO3 C5 H11 NO2
89.09 174.20 132.12 133.10 121.16 147.13 146.14 75.07 155.15 131.17 131.17 146.19 149.21 165.19 115.13 105.09 119.12 204.23 181.19 117.15
15.72 32.16 21.20 10.52 11.56 9.52 19.17 18.66 27.08 10.68 10.68 19.16 9.39 8.48 12.17 13.33 11.76 13.72 7.73 11.96
98.25 201.00 132.50 65.75 72.25 59.50 119.81 116.63 169.25 66.75 66.75 119.75 58.69 53.00 76.06 83.31 73.50 85.75 48.31 74.75
100% pure (USP) amino acids on a dry matter basis.
not very straight-forward or easily determined. Rostagno et al. [4] has reported some true digestibility coefficient values for 17 amino acids as being determined from ileal collection using cecectomized cockerels. While the digestibility coefficients for these synthetically available amino acids ranged from 97.0% to 100%, it is most often considered as being 100%. Energy (Gross, Metabolizable, and Net) There have been numerous equations which have been generated to calculate the energy content of ingredients [8–10]. Since we use energy values during formulation for added protein ingredients, such as soybean meal, or animal byproducts, we should assign a value for added amino acids. A basic description of the various energy determining methodologies and calculations is available from numerous sources [3, 11]. It is known that the gross energy (GE) of a compound can be readily determined using a bomb calorimeter, and represents the heat of combustion for that compound. The website of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [2] is an excellent resource for heats
of combustion (C Ho ). On the NIST site, the C H◦ for 19 of the amino acids discussed here is found under the condensed phase thermochemistry section, with only arginine not having a reported value. The reported C Ho were converted using the International System of Units (SI) factors of 238.92 kcal per kilojoule (Kj), or 4.1855 Kj per kcal and expressed as kcal/kg on a molar basis (Table 2). A model examining biochemical and energy metabolism, particularly from amino acids, was published by van Milgen [12] and GE values as well as adenosine triphosphate (ATP) yield for each amino acid residue were reported. An estimation of the energy equivalence of both dietary amino acids as well as some proteins was also reported by Ferrer-Lorente et al. [13]. An indirect assessment of the GE of any compound can be calculated from its chemical composition [14, 15]. The heat of combustion of 20 L-α-amino acids based on bond energies within each amino acid was reported by Sagadeev et al. [16]. Dozier [17], at the request of this author, conducted GE determinations on 12 amino acids using their bomb calorimeter and those values are also reported in Table 2.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/japr/pfz010/5377776 by guest on 13 March 2019
Alanine Arginine Asparagine Aspartic acid Cysteine Glutamic acid Glutamine Glycine Histidine Isoleucine Leucine Lysine Methionine Phenylalanine Proline Serine Threonine Tryptophan Tyrosine Valine
Molecular formula
TILLMAN: NUTRIENT VALUES FOR AMINO ACIDS
3
Table 2. Gross Energy (GE, kcal/kg) for 20 Amino Acids.1 van Milgen INRA Ferrer-Lorente Sagadeev Schmidt-Rohr Dozier NIST Rostagno [12]
Alanine Arginine Asparagine Aspartic Acid Cysteine Glutamic Acid Glutamine Glycine Histidine Isoleucine Leucine Lysine Methionine Phenylalanine Proline Serine Threonine Tryptophan Tyrosine Valine
5,447 5,710 4,038 3,345 5,161 4,157 4,802 4,062 5,877 7,550 7,550 6,857 5,065 7,550 6,714 3,966 4,850 7,215 6,499 7,048
[11]
6,0642 5,695
4,172 6,704
et al. [13]
et al. [16]
[14,15]
4,379 5,090 3,469 2,818 4,417 3,695 4,240 3,176 4,901 6,425 6,580 6,2332 5,708 6,715 5,637 3,301 4,239 6,630 5,843 5,977
4,349 5,130 3,448 2,870 4,408 3,656 4,183 3,097 4,959 6,506 6,506 6,101 5,681 6,693 5,661 3,242 4,156 6,570 5,819 5,955
4,890 5,509 3,915 3,273 4,708 4,051 4,637 3,667 5,162 6,989 6,989 6,488 5,973 6,997 6,045 3,670 4,585 6,793 6,104 6,457
[17]
[2]
[5]
Mean
SD
4,319
4,389 4,492 3,503 2,854 4,3253 3,686 4,206 3,163 4,036 6,605 6,714 6,204 5,684 6,932 5,065 3,306 4,173 6,506 5,990 6,026
4,629 5,191 3,643 3,008 4,575 3,880 4,379 3,339 4,973 6,734 6,732 6,263 5,594 6,902 5,802 3,463 4,316 6,682 6,022 6,177
415 382 239 215 288 245 246 350 499 374 392 262 251 288 499 266 243 225 234 401
5,2162
4,257 3,103 4,958 6,550 6,256 6,136 5,548 6,693
4,213 6,456 5,828
3,487 2,886 4,433 3,658 4,204 3,103 4,917 6,514 6,527 6,020 5,396 6,735 5,693 3,292 4,140 6,585 5,874 5,946
1
100% pure (USP) amino acids on a dry matter basis. Converted from hydrogen chloride form. 3 Reported as Cystine. 2
Biochemically, it should be well accepted that amino acids enter into the Krebs cycle at various points [10] and yield energy via ATP production. As previously noted, the ATP yield for each amino acid entering the cycle has been calculated by several authors [12, 13]. The NRC [3] reported the N, CP, and AMEn content of 20 pure amino acids and these values were determined from their molecular makeup and their utilization through biochemical pathways, allowing for conversion of N into uric acid (or urea for arginine). Rostagno et al. [4] reported on the N, CP, GE, true digestibility, true digestible energy, and true MEn values of 20 crystalline amino acids. True amino acid digestibilities were determined using both cecectomized cockerels as well as with broiler chicks, by both ileal [4] and standardized ileal digestibility [5] assays. In addition, AMEn values were reported, as were NE values as well. For the calculation of AMEn, the N conversion, except for arginine into urea, was considered to be 50% for uric acid. The efficiency of utilization for AMEn was considered
to be 85% for deposition and 60% for deamination and catabolism. Furthermore, for the determination of NE, it was reported that the efficiency of utilization of amino acids was considered to be 70% for protein deposition, and 30% for deamination and catabolism. These reported energy values were updated by Rostagno [5]. The reported NE values were determined to be set at 77.5% of the reported AMEn values. This NE/AMEn ratio is in close agreement with Carr´e et al. [18–20] who reported that in a diet formulated using six added amino acids (methionine, lysine, threonine, valine, isoleucine, and tryptophan), the determined ratio was 77.5. In their subsequent paper [20], they reported that the NE/AMEn ratio was 76.0 for protein sources. The CVB [21] within their chemical composition and nutritional feed tables of feedstuffs reported on the ME value for poultry and broilers for 8 of the 10 essential amino acids, as well as for glycine, as shown in Table 3. Only the essential amino acids histidine and phenylalanine were not included.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/japr/pfz010/5377776 by guest on 13 March 2019
Amino acid
Descriptive Statistics
JAPR: Workshop/symposium
4
Table 3. N-corrected Apparent Metabolizable Energy (AMEn, kcal/kg) for 20 Amino Acids.1 INRA
CVB
Amino acid
[3]
[11]
[21]
Alanine Arginine Asparagine Aspartic Acid Cysteine Glutamic Acid Glutamine Glycine Histidine Isoleucine Leucine Lysine Methionine Phenylalanine Proline Serine Threonine Tryptophan Tyrosine Valine
3,060 2,940 1,760 2,020 4,0862 2,880 2,630 1,570 2,410 5,650 5,640 4,600 3,680 6,030 3,980 2,210 3,150 5,460 5,240 4,990
3,104
1,737
4,2453 4,682
5,827 5,686 4,719 3,687
3,056 5,290
3,443 4,107 5,094
Rostagno
Descriptive Statistics
Safety Margins
[5]
Mean
SD
0.5 SD
LCI
3,730 3,616 2,632 2,413 3,7292 3,273 3,393 2,301 2,883 6,166 6,242 5,404 5,253 6,452 4,519 2,758 3,610 5,897 5,648 5,535
3,395 3,220 2,196 2,217 3,908 3,077 3,012 1,869 2,647 5,881 5,856 4,742 4,325 6,241 4,250 2,484 3,315 5,189 5,444 5,206
335 288 436 197 179 197 382 313 237 214 274 420 673 211 270 274 222 662 204 236
3,228 3,076 1,978 2,119 3,819 2,979 2,821 1,713 2,529 5,774 5,719 4,532 3,989 6,136 4,115 2,347 3,204 4,858 5,342 5,088
2,931 2,894 1,592 1,944 3,660 2,804 2,483 1,515 2,319 5,639 5,546 4,330 3,665 5,949 3,876 2,104 3,097 4,540 5,161 4,939
1
100% pure (USP) amino acids on a dry matter basis. 2 Reported as Cystine. 3 Converted from hydrogen chloride form. 4 Safety Margin: 0.5 SD = (Mean–0.5 x SD). 5 Safety Margin: LCI = 95% lower confidence interval (Mean–1.96 x SD/SQRT(n)). Table 4. GE, AMEn, and Net Energy (NE, kcal/kg) for 20 Amino Acids1 , Along With Calculated Relative Efficiencies. Mean Amino Acid
GE AMEn NE2 ————————–(kcal/kg)—————————
Alanine Arginine Asparagine Aspartic Acid Cysteine Glutamic Acid Glutamine Glycine Histidine Isoleucine Leucine Lysine Methionine Phenylalanine Proline Serine Threonine Tryptophan Tyrosine Valine
4,629 5,191 3,643 3,008 4,575 3,880 4,379 3,339 4,973 6,734 6,732 6,263 5,594 6,902 5,802 3,463 4,316 6,682 6,022 6,177
1
3,395 3,220 2,196 2,217 3,908 3,077 3,012 1,869 2,647 5,881 5,856 4,742 4,325 6,241 4,250 2,484 3,315 5,189 5,444 5,206
100% pure (USP) amino acids on a dry matter basis. Rostagno et al. [5] 3 Reported as Cystine. 2
2,890 2,802 2,039 1,870 2,8903 2,536 2,630 1,783 2,234 4,779 4,837 4,188 4,071 5,000 3,503 2,138 2,798 4,570 4,377 4,289
AMEn/GE efficiency (%)
NE/AMEn efficiency (%)
73.3 62.0 60.3 73.7 85.4 79.3 68.8 56.0 53.2 87.3 87.0 75.7 77.3 90.4 73.3 71.7 76.8 77.7 90.4 84.3
85.1 87.0 92.9 84.3 74.0 82.4 87.3 95.4 84.4 81.3 82.6 88.3 94.1 80.1 82.4 86.1 84.4 88.1 80.4 82.4
Averages: 75.2
85.2
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/japr/pfz010/5377776 by guest on 13 March 2019
NRC
TILLMAN: NUTRIENT VALUES FOR AMINO ACIDS CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Merck Index; An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs and Biologicals. 14th ed. 2006. Merck Research Laboratories Division of MERCK & CO., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. https://www.rsc.org/merck-index. 2. NIST. http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/name-ser. html 3. NRC. 1994. Nutrient requirements of poultry. 9th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. 4. Rostagno, H. S., L. F. T. Albino, J. L. Donzele, P. C. Gomes, R. Flavia de Olveira, Lopes, A. S. Ferreira, S. L de Toledo Barreto, and R. F. Euclides. 2011. Brazilian Tables for Poult. and Swine. Composition of Feedstuffs and Nutritional Requirements. 3rd ed. 5. Rostagno, H. S. 2017. Personal communication and in 2011. Brazilian Tables for Poult. and Swine. Composition of Feedstuffs and Nutritional Requirements. 4th ed. 6. Sriperm, N., G. M. Pesti, and P. B. Tillman. 2011. Evaluation of the fixed nitrogen-to-protein (N:P) conversion factor (6.25) versus ingredient specific N:P conversion factors in feedstuffs. J. Sci. Food Agric. 91:1182–1186.
7. Sriperm, N., and P. B. Tillman, 2011. What is the correct nitrogen-to-protein conversion factor? Asian Feed. Technical Section. Nov/Dec. 3 pages. 8. Kleiber, M. 1961. The Fire of Life. An introduction to Animal Energetics. University of California, Davis, CA, USA. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, London. 9. Janssen, W. M. M. A. 1989. European Table of Energy Values for Poultry Feedstuffs. 3rd ed. Beekbergen Netherlands: Spelderholt Center for Poultry Research and Information Services. 10. Larbier, M., and B. Leclercq. 1992. Nutrition and feeding of Poultry. 11. INRA. 2004. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials. Pages 297 in Sauvant, D., J. M. Perez, and G. Tran eds. Wageningen Academic Publishers The Netherlands & INRA Paris, France. 12. van Milgen, J. 2002. Modeling biochemical aspects of energy metabolism in mammals. J. Nutr. 132:3195–3202. 13. Ferrer-Lorente, R., J. A. Fernandez-Lopez, and M. Alemany. 2007. Estimation of the metabolizable energy equivalence of dietary proteins. Eur. J. Nutr. 46;1–11. 14. Schmidt-Rohr, K. 2015. Why combustions are always exothermic, yielding about 418 kJ per mole of O2 . J. Chem. Educ. 92:2094–2099. 15. Schmidt-Rohr, K. 2015. Supporting Information for why combustions are always exothermic, yielding about 418 kJ per mole of O2 . http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/ 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00333. 16. Sagadeev, E. V., A. A. Gimadeev, and V. P. Barabanov. 2011. Heats of combustion for L-α-AminoAcids. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 85:2078–2081. 17. Dozier, W. A, III. 2016. Personal communication. 18. Carr´e, B., M. Lessire, and H. Juin. 2013. Prediction of metabolisable energy value of broiler diets and water excretion from dietary chemical analyses. Animal 7:1246–1258. 19. Carr´e, B., M. Lessire, and H. Juin. 2013. Supplementary material (additional tables and figures) for: Prediction of nutritional qualities of broiler diets from their chemical analysis: Metabolisable energy value (AMEn) and water excretion. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000359. 20. Carr´e, B., M. Lessire, and H. Juin. 2014. Prediction of the net energy value of broiler diets. Animal 8:1395–1401. 21. CVB. 2016. Feed Table–Chemical composition and nutritional values of feedstuffs. Accessed Aug 2018. www.cvbdiervoeding.nl/pagina/10081/downloads.aspx. 631 pages.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/japr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.3382/japr/pfz010/5377776 by guest on 13 March 2019
The N (%), and hence the CP content, for any given amino acid is mathematically defined, from the molecular formula (Table 1). Protein and thus amino acids contain energy and numerous reports have determined and reported energy values for synthetic amino acids. Compiled GE, AMEn (along with means and standard deviation (SD) calculations for GE and AMEn) and NE values are reported in Tables 2 to 4. As is commonly done for most all assayed nutrients, an adjustment from the mean (i.e., safety margin) could be determined either by subtracting a portion of the SD or through the use of the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval and such determinations are shown in Table 3.
5