Assessment of Soybean Meal Quality and Detection of Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS) Adulteration
B. Sravanthi
*
Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, PVNRTGVU, Telangana, India.
D. Rohith
Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, PVNRTGVU, Telangana, India.
M. Vinisha
Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, PVNRTGVU, Telangana, India.
S. Raju
Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science, Mamnoor, PVNRTGVU, Telangana, India.
N. Nalini Kumari
Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, PVNRTGVU, Telangana, India.
M. Shankar
Soil Health Management, PJTAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, Telangana, India.
J. Raju
Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science, Korutla, PVNRTGVU, Telangana, India.
N. Bhanuprasad
Livestock Products Technology, College of Veterinary Science,Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, PVNRTGVU, Telangana, India.
G. Vinay
Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, PVNRTGVU, Telangana, India.
J. Venkat Aditya
Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, PVNRTGVU, Telangana, India.
A. Laxman
Animal Nutrition, College of Veterinary Science, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30, PVNRTGVU, Telangana, India.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Background: Soybean meal (SBM) is a cornerstone protein source in livestock feed. But its high cost has led to its adulteration with cheaper substitutes like dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS). High volumes of maize being used for ethanol production and consequently large quantities of corn DDGS has become available. Some suppliers are intentionally adding corn DDGS to raw soyabean meal causing economic losses and harming animal performance with higher mycotoxins and sulphur levels.
Aim: This study aimed to estimate the impact of low-level DDGS adulteration on the nutritional composition of SBM and its potential economic implications for farmers.
Method: Ten samples of SBM were analyzed by separating the fine portion and meal portion using rotap sieve shaker and further analysis done by using proximate analysis.
Results: The pH analysis revealed significant differences between fractions, indicating signs of DDGS adulteration and the results also revealed significant reductions in crude protein (CP) and increases ether extract (EE) in adulterated samples. Significant differences were observed in micromineral (Cu, Mn, Fe and Zn) composition of two fractions. The combination of pH assessment, proximate analysis, aflatoxin quantification and micromineral profiling proved effective in detecting adulteration and evaluating its impact on ingredient quality.
Conclusion: Extrapolating the findings to livestock performance highlighted significant economic losses, particularly in broilers and dairy cattle.
Keywords: Soyabean meal, DDGS, adulteration, feed quality monitoring