C 2016 Poultry Science Association Inc.

Formulation challenges of organic poultry diets with

readily available ingredients and limited synthetic
methionine
H. K. Burley,∗,1 K. E. Anderson,† P. H. Patterson,∗ and P. B. Tillman‡
∗
Department of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
16802; † Prestage Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh; and ‡ Poultry Technical Nutrition Services LLC, Buford, GA

Primary Audience: Nutritionists, Organic Poultry Flock Supervisors, Researchers

SUMMARY
Organic agriculture has increased greatly over the past several years as consumer demand
for these products has risen. Organic meat production, including poultry, has grown especially
quickly, resulting in increasingly stringent guidelines being put in place to ensure safe, uniform,
and ideal products for these consumers. Feed formulation and manufacturing for organic poultry
in the United States are strictly regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture
National Organic Program. Currently, no synthetic amino acids are allowed to be used in organic
poultry diets in the United States except for limited quantities of synthetic methionine since it
is typically considered the first or second limiting amino acid in corn and soybean meal based
poultry diets and it is a critical nutrient for maintaining bird growth and productive performance,
especially regarding egg size in laying hens. The aim of the review herein is to discuss the impacts
that current organic regulations on synthetic methionine have on diet formulation when using
readily available ingredients. High levels of crude protein must be used to meet bird methionine
requirements with this restriction in place, which both increases feed costs and can have negative
impacts on bird health and on air quality and the surrounding environment due to increased
ammonia emissions. Atypical feed formulation strategies have been explored to address this
issue, including such methods as feeding alternative ingredients and providing forage materials.
Another possibility would be to use an average lifetime maximum inclusion rate for synthetic
methionine, which may allow for better flexibility to provide sufficient methionine throughout
various phases of growth and production since the requirements of the bird change with age.

Key words: methionine, organic poultry, feed formulation

2016 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 25:443–454

http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfw012

METHIONINE AS AN ESSENTIAL nine (Met) is an essential AA for poultry since

AMINO ACID FOR POULTRY
Amino acids (AA), the building blocks of pro-
teins, are key nutrients in poultry diets. Methio-
1
Corresponding author: hkburley@gmail.com
it cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities
by the bird and therefore must be supplied by
the diet. Corn, soybean meal (SBM), and other
common plant based ingredients used in typical
poultry diets have low Met levels and so this
AA is often considered the first limiting AA for
444
laying hens and the second for broilers, after ly-
sine (Lys), when these birds are provided corn
and soybean meal based diets.
Methionine plays a critical role in synthe-
sizing proteins within the avian body, includ-
ing those that make up muscles, organs, and
feathers [1]. In its active form, coenzyme S-
adenosylmethionine (SAMe), Met acts as a
labile methyl-group donor to numerous com-
pounds, which then allows for creation of
choline, creatine, epinephrine, DNA, glutathio-
nine, and many other important compounds in
the body [1, 2]. Additionally, Met and Cys-
teine (Cys) (both sulfur-containing AA) are ma-
jor providers of organic sulfur within the body,
which plays a significant role in the support of
connective tissues [2, 3]. Due to the close rela-
tionship of Met and Cys, these two AA are typi-
cally referred to as total sulfur AA (TSAA) and,
in formulation of poultry diets, Met and TSAA
levels must always be considered together since
it has been found that excess Cys supplementa-
tion (at or above 50% of the TSAA requirement)
in TSAA deficient diets can cause reduced feed
intake, growth, and feed conversion efficiency
[4, 5]. Methionine is also highly involved in im-
mune system responses. It is a precursor of glu-
tathione, which is a tripeptide that reduces re-
active oxygen species (ROS) and thus protects
cells from oxidative stress. It is also required for
the synthesis of the polyamines spermine and
spermidine, which take part in nucleus and cell
division events. Rao et al. [6] showed that in-
creased dietary Met improved antibody produc-
tion in broilers. Maroufyan et al. [7] additionally
showed that the antibody response was highest
and bursa lesions lowest in broilers receiving di-
ets supplemented with greater than the NRC rec-
ommended levels of Met and Threonine (Thr).
Broiler chickens that are not provided ade-
quate dietary Met have been found to exhibit de-
creased feed intake, feed conversion efficiency,
uniformity, gain, and breast yield, and increased
thigh, wing, and fat pad percentages [8–11].
Poorer feed conversion, lower albumen wt, yolk
wt and egg solids, and reduced egg size also have
been found to result from an inadequate sup-
ply of dietary Met for laying hens [12–15]. Me-
thionine deficiency also can result in increased
feather pecking and subsequent feather eating as
the birds attempt to meet their Met requirements
JAPR: Review Article
through the consumption of the homocystine in
the feathers [16]. Poorer feather coat increases
the likelihood of scratches from toenails and
abrasions from equipment or other birds (leading
to more carcass downgrades and greater levels of
fear displayed in the flock) [17]. Providing high
levels of dietary crude protein (CP) can help
prevent Met deficiencies in poultry when syn-
thetic AA use is restricted; however, this prac-
tice leads to bird health and environmental issues
from feeding many other AA in excess of their
requirements.
As of March 15, 2011, the United States De-
partment of Agriculture (USDA) National Or-
ganic Program (NOP) ruled that synthetic Met
was to be limited for use in organic poultry di-
ets in the United States to 4, 5, and 6 lbs per
ton for laying hens, broilers, and turkeys and
other poultry, respectively [18]. Since that time,
synthetic Met was further restricted in use to 2,
2, and 3 lbs per ton for laying hens, broilers,
and turkeys and other poultry, respectively, as of
October 2, 2012 [19]. The European Union has
already banned all synthetic AA (including Met)
from organic poultry diets; however, the Euro-
pean Union still has a small allowance for non-
organic ingredients until 2017, whereas organic
poultry diets in the United States currently must
contain 100% organically approved ingredients,
which considerably limits the potential of using
many Met-rich ingredients not often available
in organic form (i.e., corn gluten meal, potato
protein, etc.) [20]. There are no known negative
health consequences of supplementing synthetic
Met at levels to meet bird requirements. How-
ever, the provision of synthetic AA to organic
livestock does not meet consumer expectations
for an ideal organic product since it is a chem-
ically synthesized ingredient, thus alternatives
are being investigated. Unfortunately, there are
currently no organically approved alternatives
that can effectively replace synthetic Met in or-
ganic poultry diets. Since Met is such a critical
AA for the health and productivity of poultry,
especially for those fed corn and soybean meal
based diets, synthetic Met is being reduced in or-
ganic poultry diets in a stepwise process, rather
than being removed altogether before a practical
and economical solution is realized. The aim of
this review is to discuss the impacts of current re-
strictions on synthetic Met supplementation for
BURLEY ET AL.: LIMITING SYNTHETIC METHIONINE 445

organic poultry in the United States on diet for- limit of 4, 5, and 6 lbs per ton for laying hens,
mulation when using readily available ingredi- broilers, and turkeys and other poultry, respec-
ents. tively, is demonstrated in formulations in the far
left column of each table. These levels enabled
diets to still be formulated with typical synthetic
FORMULATING ORGANIC DIETS Met levels and led to no changes in standard
WITH LIMITED SYNTHETIC practice.
METHIONINE The new synthetic Met limit of 2, 2, and
3 lbs per ton for laying hens, broilers, and turkeys
Formulation Challenges
and other poultry, respectively, set on October 2,
Examples of organic broiler starter, brown 2012, by the NOP, is demonstrated in formula-
pullet starter, brown laying hen peaking, turkey tions in the center column of each table. These
starter, and duck starter diets are shown in new restrictions allow for only half (or less) of
Tables 1 through 5, respectively, to illustrate the the synthetic Met levels that were permitted in
challenges faced in formulating diets for these the previous guidelines. As demonstrated in the
birds utilizing readily available ingredients and tables below, the following impacts on dietary
various restricted levels of synthetic Met. Me- formulations can be observed when compared
thionine concentration was formulated to meet to the diet formulations that previously allowed
the specified requirements of the bird and to be the higher levels of synthetic Met inclusion: 1)
equal across all diets for each bird type. The im- increases in CP level (from 0.15% for duck
pact of the March 15, 2011, NOP synthetic Met starter diets up to 4.64% for broiler starter di-
ets), 2) increases in amounts of expeller SBM
needed in these formulations to meet Met re-
Table 1. Nutrient composition of broiler starter diets
quirements (from 0.70% for duck starter diets
formulated to meet requirements of the birds with up to 14.57% for broiler starter diets) (which
varying maximum levels of synthetic methionine could increase manure moisture, litter quality,
inclusion (as-is basis).1
and ammonia emission issues as well as breast
Broiler starter diet blisters and footpad lesions), and 3) increases in
5 lb/ton 2 lb/ton 0 lb/ton
diet costs (from $3.59/ton for duck starter diets
up to $94.13/ton for broiler starter diets). Inter-
Ingredient (%)
Corn 41.39 38.86 15.29
estingly, these newly implemented synthetic Met
Soybean meal (expeller) 41.69 56.26 78.32 limits impact duck diet formulations the least
Wheat middlings 10.00 – – compared to all other bird types (Table 5). This
Soybean oil 2.93 1.03 2.79 is likely due to the fact that 3 lb per ton syn-
Limestone 1.38 0.50 1.30 thetic Met may still be used in duck diets, unlike
Di-calcium phosphate 1.55 1.51 1.41
Salt 0.50 0.50 0.50
in broiler diets in which only 2 lb per ton is
Vit-TM premix 0.40 0.40 0.40 currently allowed, while the Met requirement of
DL-Methionine 0.166 0.100 – starting ducks is only slightly lower than that of
Calculated composition broilers (0.48 versus 0.51% total Met for duck
ME (kcal/kg) 3,025 3,025 3,025 versus broiler starter diets, respectively.
Crude protein 23.68 28.32 36.05
Ether extract 7.77 6.67 9.69
When no synthetic Met is allowed in organic
Total Lys 1.31 1.64 2.19 poultry diets, the difficulties faced in formulat-
Total Met 0.51 0.51 0.51 ing these diets with limited levels are only ex-
Total TSAA 0.90 0.96 1.08 acerbated, in many cases to the extremes. Un-
Total Trp 0.30 0.37 0.49 reasonably high levels of CP and exorbitant diet
Total Ile 1.00 1.23 1.61
Total Thr 0.90 1.10 1.42
costs would be incurred if no synthetic Met were
Total Val 1.11 1.34 1.73 allowed in organic poultry diets (when expeller
Calcium 1.00 1.00 1.00 SBM is used as the only major protein-based
Available Phosphorus 0.45 0.45 0.45 ingredient in these diets). In addition to higher
Cost ($/ton) 757.59 851.72 1,004.00 CP and diet costs compared to limited synthetic
1
Source of broiler starter diet nutrient specifications [3, 37]. Met diets, higher levels of dietary soybean oil
446 JAPR: Review Article

also were needed to meet the energy needs of Table 2. Nutrient composition of brown pullet starter
diets formulated to meet requirements of the birds
the birds, since protein and Met rich expeller with varying maximum levels of synthetic methionine
SBM are needed in large quantities, replacing inclusion (as-is basis).1
corn that would otherwise have provided en- Brown pullet starter diet
ergy to these diets. This results in diets high
in fat content (ranging from 6.85 to 9.69% ether 4 lb/ton 2 lb/ton 0 lb/ton
extract). Ingredient (%)
Organic turkey starter diet formulation is the Corn 46.54 40.33 22.87
most challenging in this scenario. It is not pos- Soybean meal (expeller) 39.90 48.40 70.47
Wheat middlings 10.00 7.80 3.10
sible to meet required Met levels for these birds Soybean oil – – 0.33
when using corn and expeller SBM based diets Limestone 1.39 1.37 1.32
and no synthetic Met. Diets can be formulated to Di-calcium phosphate 1.53 1.50 1.41
reach 0.58% total Met, which is still short of the Salt 0.30 0.30 0.30
0.62% requirement, and this is even considering Vit-TM premix 0.20 0.20 0.20
DL-Methionine 0.138 0.100 –
that this theoretical diet would contain 93.42% Calculated composition
SBM, no corn, and cost $1,099.40/ton ($242.57 ME (kcal/kg) 2,900 2,900 2,900
more per ton than diets with 6 lb/ton synthetic Crude protein 23.33 26.21 33.72
Met) and still be Met deficient (Table 4). Starter Ether extract 4.82 5.30 6.87
diets for organic broilers without synthetic Met Total Lys 1.28 1.48 2.01
Total Met 0.48 0.48 0.48
are theoretically possible to formulate while Total TSAA 0.87 0.91 1.02
meeting total Met requirement of the birds; how- Total Trp 0.29 0.34 0.45
ever, these diets are still completely impractical, Total Ile 0.98 1.12 1.49
requiring 78.32% SBM, 15.29% corn, and cost- Total Thr 0.88 1.00 1.32
ing $1,004.00/ton ($246.41 more per ton than di- Total Val 1.09 1.24 1.61
Calcium 1.00 1.00 1.00
ets with 5 lb/ton synthetic Met) to reach the Met Available phosphorus 0.45 0.45 0.45
requirement of these birds. Brown pullet starter Cost ($/ton) 729.42 786.68 936.05
and layer peaking diets are slightly simpler to for- 1
Source of brown pullet starter diet nutrient specifi
mulate under these restrictions due to lower Met cations [38].
requirements than turkey and broiler starter di-
ets. Pullet starter and peaking layer diets with no
synthetic Met would still need to contain 70.47 Alternative Ingredients
and 67.35% SBM, consist of 33.72 and 31.51%
CP, and cost $894.20/ton and $947.99/ton, re- There is currently no known natural organic
spectively, to meet Met requirements (Tables 2 ingredient with levels of Met high enough to
and 3). Even duck starter diets, which did not compensate for the Met needed in the diet of
change much in formulation when only 3 lb/ton present day organic poultry. There is a search
instead of 6 lb/ton synthetic Met could be used, for feed components that would be readily avail-
would require dramatically increased dietary in- able to allow producers to compensate for the
clusion of SBM and CP 70.66% and 33.62%, re- increased Met needs of the birds, but this in-
spectively, and elevate diet price to $940.46/ton vestigation is ongoing. Burley et al. [21] pro-
(Table 5). vides an extensive review of promising alter-
With limited to no synthetic Met allowed in native ingredients that could be used for this
organic poultry diets, numerous challenges are purpose.
faced both to meet the requirement of the birds
for normal growth and production and to keep Nutrient Provision through Foraging
feed prices economical for producers to afford.
Implementing these stringent regulations prior As demonstrated in Tables 1 through 5, the
to identifying a viable, cost-effective natural al- current limitations on DL-Met inclusion in or-
ternative to synthetic Met will put a great strain ganic poultry diets will unquestionably lead to
on the entire organic poultry industry, regardless increases in CP level in order to meet Met needs
of species of bird or size of the operation. of the birds (which could lead to subsequent
BURLEY ET AL.: LIMITING SYNTHETIC METHIONINE 447

Table 3. Nutrient composition of brown layer peaking
diets formulated to meet requirements of the birds
with varying levels of synthetic methionine inclusion
(as-is basis).1
Brown layer peaking diet
Table 4. Nutrient composition of organic turkey starter
diets formulated to meet requirements of the birds
with varying levels of synthetic methionine inclusion
(as-is basis).1
Organic turkey starter diet

4 lb/ton 2 lb/ton 0 lb/ton 6 lb/ton 3 lb/ton 0 lb/ton

Ingredient (%) Ingredient (%)
Corn 37.52 42.63 19.05 Organic corn 32.55 24.18 –
Soybean meal (expeller) 37.86 45.29 67.35 Organic soybean meal (expeller) 57.97 69.46 93.42
Wheat middlings 10.00 – – Organic wheat middlings 4.05 1.05 –
Soybean oil 3.12 0.64 2.41 Organic soybean oil – – 1.57
Limestone 9.30 9.27 9.23 Limestone 1.51 1.49 1.44
Di-calcium phosphate 1.56 1.57 1.46 Di-calcium phosphate 3.12 3.08 2.97
Salt 0.30 0.30 0.30 Salt 0.40 0.40 0.40
Vit-TM premix 0.20 0.20 0.20 Vit-TM premix 0.20 0.20 0.20
DL-Methionine 0.134 0.100 – DL-Methionine 0.202 0.150 –
Calculated composition Calculated composition
ME (kcal/kg) 2,800 2,800 2,800 ME (kcal/kg) 2,850 2,850 2,850
Crude protein 21.64 23.78 31.51 Crude protein 29.17 33.06 41.41
Ether extract 7.54 5.51 8.50 Ether extract 5.78 6.43 9.33
Total Lys 1.20 1.35 1.90 Total Lys 1.70 1.98 2.57
Total Met 0.45 0.45 0.45 Total Met 0.62 0.62 0.58
Total TSAA 0.81 0.83 0.95 Total TSAA 1.09 1.14 1.22
Total Trp 0.27 0.30 0.42 Total Trp 0.38 0.44 0.57
Total Ile 0.91 1.02 1.40 Total Ile 1.27 1.46 1.87
Total Thr 0.82 0.92 1.24 Total Thr 1.13 1.30 1.64
Total Val 1.02 1.12 1.51 Total Val 1.39 1.58 2.00
Calcium 4.00 4.00 4.00 Calcium 1.40 1.40 1.40
Available phosphorus 0.44 0.44 0.44 Available phosphorus 0.75 0.75 0.75
Cost ($/ton) 697.08 741.85 894.20 Cost ($/ton) 856.83 936.64 1,099.40
1 1
Source of brown layer peaking diet nutrient specifi Source of turkey starter diet nutrient specifications [39].
cations [38].

contribution to the overall nutrition is limited,

negative consequences for the environment) and
also to increases in dietary costs, both of which
will be detrimental to organic poultry producers
(regardless of the size of the operation). The 2
lb/ton synthetic Met limit for broilers and laying
hens and 3 lb/ton limit for turkey and other poul-
try will affect all producers equally regardless of
the size or the extent of pasture space or forage
cover.
There is a fallacy that the foraging of poultry
on the paddock or pasture would overcome po-
tential Met deficiencies. Foraging has only been
shown to make up for an extremely marginal
0.02% Met deficiency in starting broiler diets
[22], which is of very limited use considering
the current synthetic Met restrictions. Chick-
ens do not have the digestive system to utilize
great amounts of the fiber contained in the for-
ages, and the Met concentration on a fresh, as-
is basis is very low. They do derive vitamins
and carotenes from the forages, but the forage
especially in high producing strains of poultry
[23]. Primary sources of protein from foraging
would be derived from seeds produced and in-
sects inhabiting the paddocks [23]. Research has
shown that the feed conversion for poultry on
range is the same or worse than that of hens in
cages or cage-free systems [24, 25]. The added
nutrients hens get off of the range (paddock) sup-
port the added activity levels of the hens and the
body heat production needed in cooler climates
and seasons.
Lifetime Limit for Synthetic Methionine Use
The issue with the 2 lb/ton synthetic Met limit
for broilers, pullets, and laying hens is that bal-
ancing the diet for Met requires that the CP
level increase by 2.14 to 2.88%, as shown in
Tables 1 through 3. One proposed alternative
solution would be to allow a 2 lb/ton limit av-
eraged over the life of the flock. In a young,
448 JAPR: Review Article

Table 5. Nutrient composition of duck starter diets support optimal performance. This would al-
formulated to meet requirements of the birds with
varying levels of synthetic methionine inclusion (as-is
low the DL-Met level to fluctuate higher when
basis).1 the bird eats less feed and requires more Met
Duck Starter Diet (young or high production) and then, as the birds
age, feed intake increases, and the Met require-
6 lb/ton 3 lb/ton 0 lb/ton ment declines; the supplemental DL-Met needed
would be much lower, ultimately satisfying the
Ingredient (%)
Corn 49.39 51.13 25.72 average 2 lb/ton lifetime limit. The aim of this
Soybean meal (expeller) 36.80 37.50 70.66 strategy would be to offer a more flexible so-
Wheat middlings 10.00 8.10 0.40 lution and allow for formulation of diets with
Soybean oil 0.53 0.00 0.30 restricted synthetic Met use as birds increase in
Limestone 1.15 1.14 1.07
age.
Di-calcium phosphate 1.28 1.28 1.15
Salt 0.40 0.40 0.40 An example of this formulation method for
Vit-TM premix 0.30 0.30 0.30 broilers is given in Table 6. It is demonstrated
DL-Methionine 0.153 0.150 – herein that it is possible to use the strategy to
Calculated composition meet a specific weighted average limit of DL-
ME (kcal/kg) 2,950 2,950 2,950
Met that may be used (2.02 lb/ton in this case
Crude protein 22.21 22.36 33.62
Ether extract 5.17 4.68 6.85 instead of 2.00 lb/ton since DL-Met has only a
Total Lys 1.20 1.21 2.01 99% equivalency to pure 100% Met). This was
Total Met 0.48 0.48 0.48 done by providing the greatest DL-Met concen-
Total TSAA 0.85 0.85 1.01 tration (3.00 lb/ton) in the starter diet (where only
Total Trp 0.27 0.28 0.45
13.6% of total feed for grow-out is consumed)
Total Ile 0.92 0.93 1.48
Total Thr 0.84 0.84 1.32 and then providing progressively lower DL-Met
Total Val 1.04 1.04 1.61 concentrations in later phases (2.50, 2.00, and
Calcium 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.37 lb/ton for the grower, finisher 1, and fin-
Available phosphorus 0.40 0.40 0.40 isher 2 phases, respectively, where 22.7, 27.3,
Cost ($/ton) 712.82 716.41 940.46
and 36.4% of total grow-out feed are consumed,
1
Source of duck starter diet nutrient specifications. [39]. respectively).
However, there are several issues with this
rapidly growing bird, the Met requirement in formulation strategy. Regarding this example
the feed is highest and it then declines as the specifically, broiler diets would typically use
bird ages. The age of the bird therefore im- more than 2.02 lb/ton of added DL-Met in ev-
pacts the level of Met needed in the diet to ery phase if allowed to meet Met requirements

Table 6. Methionine lifetime limit example for broiler chickens.1

Diet Feed required Percent of total DL-Met to meet DL-Met to meet
phase (lb/bird) feed (%) needs (g) needs (lb/ton)
Starter 1.50 13.6 0.687 3.00
Grower 2.50 22.7 1.145 2.50
Finisher 1 3.00 27.3 1.374 2.00
Finisher 2 4.00 36.4 1.833 1.37
Total 11.00 100 5.039 –
Weighted average2 – – – 2.02
1
Limit of 2 lb of 100% (pure) Met is equivalent to 2.02 lb DL Met (99% Met equivalency), 2.27 lb
Met hydroxyl analog, (88% Met equivalency), and 2.38 lb Met hydroxy analog calcium (84% Met
equivalency).
2
Weighted Average = (“Starter” Percent of Total Feed/100 x “Starter” lb/ton DL-Met to Meet Needs)
+ (“Grower” Percent of Total Feed/100 x “Grower” lb/ton DL-Met to Meet Needs) + (“Finisher 1”
Percent of Total Feed/100 x “Finisher 1” lb/ton DL-Met to Meet Needs) + (“Finisher 2” Percent of
Total Feed/100 x “Finisher 2” lb/ton DL-Met to Meet Needs).
BURLEY ET AL.: LIMITING SYNTHETIC METHIONINE 449

in an economically effective way. As a result,
cost savings would occur in phases in which the
diet contained more than 2.02 lb/ton (starter and
grower in this example), but then for the diets
in which less had to be used to meet the maxi-
mum weighted average constraint (finisher 1 and
finisher 2 in this example), the cost would go
up. Therefore, using an average lifetime lb/ton
synthetic Met limitation (if the average lifetime
limit remains at 2 lb/ton synthetic Met) would
be largely the same as having a maximum lb/ton
limitation across all phases and would offer lit-
tle to no advantage economically or for provid-
ing more Met to the birds. There would also
be no particular advantage from a performance
or nutrient deficiency standpoint. An advantage
would only potentially come if the average max-
imum Met inclusion rate were increased under
the lifetime approach. Using an average lifetime
lb/ton synthetic Met limitation also makes it con-
siderably more difficult to implement and mon-
itor with changing feed intakes for each flock
since the maximum inclusions allowed for each
phase would have to be adjusted accordingly. As
a result, an out of tolerance synthetic Met intake
scenario could easily occur if feed intakes were
not as designed.
A second example of this method in pullets
and laying hens is provided in Table 7 using
the feed consumption from the 39th NCLP&MT
[26, 27]. This also provides an example of how
it is possible to use a specific weighted aver-
age limit of DL-Met (2.02 lb/ton in this case of
DL-Met since it has only a 99% equivalency to
pure 100% Met). This was done by providing
the greatest DL-Met concentration (4.6 lb/ton)
in the pullet starter diet (in which only 2.0%
of total feed is consumed) and then providing
progressively lower DL-Met concentrations in
later growing phases (3.23 and 2.39 lb/ton for
the grower and finisher pullet phases, respec-
tively, in which 10.6% of the remaining grow-out
feed is consumed). Once into the laying phases
of feeding, even lower levels of DL-Met than the
finisher pullet phase can be fed to meet the needs
of the hens for production and egg size.
However, there are several issues with this
formulation strategy. Regarding this example
specifically, layer diets would typically use more
than 2.0 lb/ton of added DL-Met in every phase

Table 7. Methionine1 lifetime limit example for pullet and a single cycle laying hens flock.1
Diet Feed required Percent of total DL-Met to meet DL-Met to meet
phase (wks) (lb./bird) feed (%) needs (g) needs (lb/ton)
0 to 6 “Starter” 2.68 2.0 1.972 4.06
7 to 12 “Grower” 7.61 5.8 5.644 3.23
13 to 17 “Finisher” 6.29 4.8 4.738 2.39
17 to 20 “Pre-Lay” 4.98 3.8 1.829 1.62
21 to 28 “Pre-Peak” 12.74 9.7 6.904 2.38
29 to 34 “Peak” 10.16 7.8 4.383 1.90
35 to 56 “Post-Peak” 34.86 26.6 13.925 1.76
57 to 69 “Mid-Cycle” 21.38 16.3 8.443 1.74
70 to 88 “Late-Cycle” 30.26 23.1 13.131 1.91
Lifetime total 130.97 100.00 60.970 –
Weighted average2 – – – 2.02
1
Limit of 2 lb of 100% (pure) Met is equivalent to 2.02 lb DL Met (99% Met equivalency), 2.27 lb
Met hydroxyl analog, (88% Met equivalency), and 2.38 lb Met hydroxy analog calcium (84% Met
equivalency).
2
Weighted Average = (“Starter” Percent of Total Feed/100 x “Starter” lb/ton DL-Met to Meet Needs)
+ (“Grower” Percent of Total Feed/100 x “Grower” lb/ton DL-Met to Meet Needs) + (“Finisher
1” Percent of Total Feed/100 x “Finisher” lb/ton DL-Met to Meet Needs) + (“Pre-Lay” Percent of
Total Feed/100 x “Pre-Lay” lb/ton DL-Met to Meet Needs) + (“Pre-Peak” Percent of Total Feed/100
x “Pre-Peak” lb/ton DL-Met to Meet Needs) + (“Peak” Percent of Total Feed/100 x “Peak” lb/ton
DL-Met to Meet Needs) + (“Post-Peak” Percent of Total Feed/100 x “Post-peak” lb/ton DL-Met to
Meet Needs) + (“Mid-Cycle” Percent of Total Feed/100 x “Mid-Cycle” lb/ton DL-Met to Meet Needs)
+ (“Late-Cycle” Percent of Total Feed/100 x “Late-Cycle” lb/ton DL-Met to Meet Needs).
450
if allowed to meet Met requirements in an eco-
nomically effective way. As a result, cost savings
would occur in phases in which the diet con-
tained more than 2.0 lb/ton (during laying phases
of high production early in the laying phase in
this example). Using an average lifetime 2 lb/ton
of synthetic Met limitation in this example, the
average Met consumption does not exceed the
2 lb/ton limit, which gives the impression that
the average lifetime limit could remain at 2 lb/ton
synthetic Met without issue. Based upon the cal-
culations, there would be no particular disadvan-
tage from a performance or nutrient deficiency
prevention standpoint. Since we are meeting the
basic needs, there may be an advantage, but this
would only likely be possible if the average max-
imum Met inclusion rate were increased under
the lifetime approach in low consumption laying
hens. The second issue is related to the varia-
tion across laying hen strains, which was not ac-
counted for in this example. Differences in feed
intake can be ±5 g between white egg strains
over a lifetime. As a result, low feed consump-
tion hens would end up being in a deficient state
in this scenario due to the limitation on AA bal-
ancing in the diets.
As with broilers, using an average lifetime
lb/ton synthetic Met limitation also makes it
more challenging to make nutrient adjustments
as feed intakes change from flock to flock,
especially with maximum inclusions needing
to be changed for each phase. Out of tol-
erance synthetic Met intakes could therefore
Figure 1. Amino acid balance of a 23% CP corn and soybean meal diet vs. the amino acid requirements of broiler
chickens (NRC [3]).
JAPR: Review Article
easily occur if feed intakes were higher than
anticipated.
IMPACTS OF FEEDING HIGH
CRUDE PROTEIN DIETS
Ideal Protein Ratio Concept
In poultry and other animals an ideal protein
is one that has a complete balance of AA that
meets the requirements of the bird for its spe-
cific stage of life or level of production, without
under-feeding or over-feeding any AA. Under-
feeding a single AA would result in a defi-
ciency of that limiting AA, which would result
in reduced growth in young birds. Over-feeding
one or multiple AA beyond bird requirements
is wasting nutrients, adding unnecessary cost to
diets, and can be an environmental, health, and
welfare issue for the birds. An ideal protein is
one that just meets bird AA requirements with-
out deficiency or excess.
Figure 1 presents an example of the AA lev-
els provided by a 23% CP corn and soybean
meal based diet compared to the NRC [3] AA re-
quirements of broilers. In this example, only Thr
level is ideal (i.e., the Thr concentration in the
diet just matches the requirement established by
the NRC [3]). However, at the same time, there
are excesses of arginine, histidine, isoleucine,
valine, and tryptophan beyond the requirement,
with glycine + serine, phenylalanine + tyrosine,
BURLEY ET AL.: LIMITING SYNTHETIC METHIONINE
and leucine at levels from 25 to 35% more than
is necessary. Additionally, Met and Lys are de-
ficient in this diet, with Met much more so than
Lys, making Met the first limiting AA. Broiler
growth would be stunted if a diet like the one
presented in this example were fed without sup-
plementing additional synthetic Met and Lys or
providing more dietary CP to raise the Met and
Lys levels. However, providing greater levels of
CP would only exacerbate the excess of the re-
maining AA above.
Dean and Scott [28] were the first to begin
testing the ideal protein concept with poultry.
This later evolved into development of the ideal
protein ratio, first evaluated with pigs [29] and
later with chicks [30]. The difficulty and reality
in formulation of poultry diets is that no sin-
gle set of AA requirements applies in all sit-
uations; for example, in broilers there are dif-
ferences for males vs. females, final body wt
desired, body composition, environmental con-
ditions, and available dietary ingredients. How-
ever, it is possible to benchmark the AA require-
ments of the bird relative to the Lys requirement.
Lysine was chosen to develop ratios to the other
essential AA because if the Lys requirements of
birds change because of genetics or another rea-
son, the ratio of other AA to Lys will remain
the same for protein accretion. Other reasons to
benchmark on Lys are: 1) there is a large body
of literature on digestible Lys, 2) Lys analysis in
feedstuffs is relatively simple compared to other
AA, and 3) absorbed Lys is used only for protein
accretion [30]. Effectively, the digestible Lys re-
quirement can be determined through research
for the variety of conditions mentioned above
(e.g., male vs. female), then diets can be formu-
lated based on the established ideal ratios of the
remaining essential AA.
Environmental Impacts
Excesses of AA beyond bird requirements can
be excreted by the bird, but this process is phys-
iologically taxing to the bird and harmful to the
environment. If AA are overfed to the animal
they have to be detoxified and then the nitrogen
excretion takes place via uric acid in the case
of poultry [31]. Hydrolyzing the AA in prepara-
tion for excretion also requires metabolic energy,
which is thus wasted in the conversion. The ex-
451
cess nitrogen is a burden on the kidneys and
can result in urolithiasis, since the osmotic draw
of greater fecal nitrogen pulls water from the
bird. This creates feces with greater moisture and
therefore wetter litter. Finally, greater litter uric
acid, nitrogen, and moisture encourage microbial
growth and ammonia volatilization in the birds’
environment. Over-feeding CP by 3% increased
nitrogen excretion by ∼2 g/bird/d [32]. Similar
results were found in a number of studies in the
review by Powers and Angel [33]. This combi-
nation of bedding contaminants (moisture, uric
acid, nitrogen, ammonia, and microorganisms)
are cumulative factors in the etiology of breast
blisters, infectious process, eye burning, footpad
lesions, respiratory distress, and an impaired im-
mune system and disease tolerance. These same
litter and air contaminates are an issue for poul-
try caretakers as well. The ammonia exhausted
from the poultry house also can be dry deposited
on the ground and in surface water leading to
contamination and eutrophication. Furthermore,
while the EPA does not regulate ammonia per
se, it does regulate particulate matter, and atmo-
spheric ammonia is a precursor of fine particu-
lates (PM2.5, particulate matter 2.5 microns).
Health Impacts
In addition to high CP diets (to compensate
for limited synthetic Met allowance) increas-
ing diet price and consequently higher N excre-
tion/ammonia gas release into the environment,
diets with CP levels that greatly exceed require-
ments (e.g., if synthetic Met were banned from
use entirely – see CP levels in Tables 1 to 5) also
could be detrimental to the health of the birds.
Chandra et al. [34] followed renal and biochemi-
cal changes in 18-day-old broiler chickens when
these birds were fed diets containing 42.28% CP
over a period of 15 wks. It was found that this
type of diet induced greater blood serum lev-
els of glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase and
glutamate pyruvate transaminase activity, uric
acid, and non-protein nitrogen (NPN) in these
birds, with concentrations progressively increas-
ing with the amount of time the diets were fed.
Both macro- and microscopic kidney lesions also
were observed in these birds after 6 wk on the
high CP diets (e.g., presence of various amounts
of urates in the kidneys and ureters, enteritis
452
and congested/swollen kidneys, edemous fluid
in the thoracic cavity and hydropericardium, di-
latation of the ureters and plugging of the cloaca
with urates and urate deposition on the surface
of kidneys and other organs, atrophy of kidney
lobes, and uric acid peritonitis), which increased
in severity over the time that birds were fed these
diets. All of these lesions are indicative of the
experimentally induced nephritis caused by ex-
cessive N load in these birds. Ward et al. [35]
additionally found that when roosters were fed a
33% CP diet, water consumption, urine flow, and
uric acid/ammonia excretion rates all increased
(compared to those fed an 11% CP diet), which
could lead to wet litter and corresponding foot-
pad lesions and air quality issues.
Economics for Small, Medium, and Large
Scale Producers
There have not been any complete economic
impact studies relating to the removal of Met
from organic feeds or placing a maximum limit
on the Met diet content. The economics related
to Met limits is not a simple model due to the
interactions between Met and the other AA in
the diet, as well as the changes in bird per-
formance and growth, and the environmental
impact of increased N excretion. In a review,
Sundrum et al. [36] indicated a potential in-
crease in costs for organic producers in the 20 to
40% range for broilers and 50% for egg produc-
ers with a synthetic Met restriction. Production
cost increases for organic producers would likely
be significantly greater than if this policy were
implemented in a conventional system due to
already higher production costs. This would be
composed of the drop in feed efficiency, reduced
growth, lower production of diminished quality,
and higher feed costs.
In all cases, diet costs will be higher for all
feeds if the intent is to meet the Met requirements
with limited use of synthetic Met (see Tables 1
to 5). However, small producers (with fewer
than 3,000 birds) may be subjected to a greater
penalty since their bulk purchases would be lim-
ited or they will be purchasing feed in bags. In
some regions of the country—for example, in
the southeast region—organic feed sold in bags
costs $1.00/lb. If a 2 lb/ton limit is implemented,
their feed has the potential to increase at least
JAPR: Review Article
10%, if not more, depending on their location in
the country. If the cost for the feed is prohibitive,
then producers may need to consider leaving out
the added protein to meet the Met requirements.
In this case, productivity and egg size, quality,
and welfare could be compromised. Economi-
cally, producers would have to weigh the cost
benefit to each approach.
Diet costs increased for broilers, turkeys, pul-
lets, layers, and ducks, as shown in the example
formulations in Tables 1 through 5, because of
the move to the new 2012 synthetic Met lim-
its. The cost to the medium and large producers
would be similar in nature to the impact on the
small producers, except that their feed cost in-
creases may be slightly less due to their capacity
to purchase feed in bulk quantities. Allowing for
changes in formulations are essential to meet
the minimum Met requirements under the cur-
rent Met limits, if producers do not want to face
production losses. This will mean increases in
protein levels in the feed, making them more
expensive, and resulting in greater N excretion,
ammonia, and health and welfare issues.
CONCLUSIONS AND
APPLICATIONS
1. Methionine is an essential amino acid for
protein synthesis, methyl group donation,
connective tissue composition, and immune
function. Birds lacking adequate Met in
their diet exhibit reduced feed intake and
growth rate, poorer feed conversion, greater
body fat, impaired plumage, and increased
feather pecking.
2. Diet formulation for broilers, pullets, layers,
turkeys, and ducks with no synthetic Met, or
limited levels, results in the need for greater
dietary protein, excessive quantities of soy-
bean meal in corn/soybean meal based diets,
and high diet prices to meet the minimum
Met requirement.
3. The impact of bird diets with limited or
no synthetic Met is multifaceted, including
negative health impacts on the urogenital
system, environmental issues that are also
detrimental to bird welfare, and greater fi-
nancial burdens, particularly for small flock
owners.
BURLEY ET AL.: LIMITING SYNTHETIC METHIONINE
REFERENCES
1. Fanatico, A. 2010. Organic poultry production: pro-
viding adequate methionine. in Book Organic Poultry Pro-
duction: Providing Adequate Methionine. Editor ed. eds.
ATTRA-National Sustainable Agriculture Information Ser-
vice (19 pp.), City.
2. Harper, H. A. 1965. Review of Physiological Chem-
istry, 10 Ed. (Lange medical Publications, Los Altose, CA).
3. NRC. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th
rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
4. Baker, D. H., and R. N. Dilger. 2008. Excess
cyst(e)ine and L-methionine precursor utilization. Pages 82–
87 in Proc. 6th Mid Atlantic Nutrition Conference. Timo-
nium, MD.
5. Dilger, R. N., and D. H. Baker. 2007. DL-Methionine
is as efficacious as L-methionine, but modest L-cystine ex-
cesses are anorexigenic in sulfur amino acid-deficient pu-
rified and practical-type diets fed to chicks. Poult. Sci.
86:2367–2374.
6. Rao, R. S. V., N. K. Praharaj, A. K. Panda, and M.
R. Reddy. 2003. Interaction between genotype and dietary
concentrations of methionine for immune function in com-
mercial broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 44:104–112.
7. Maroufyan, E., A. Kasin, S. R. Hashemi, T. C. Loh,
M. H. Bejo, and H. Davoodi. 2010. The effect of methionine
and threonine supplementations on immune responses of
broiler chickens challenged with infectious bursal disease.
Am. J. Appl. Sci. 7:44–50.
8. Carew, L. B., J. P. McMurtry, and F. A. Alster. 2003.
Effects of methionine deficiencies on plasma levels of thy-
roid hormones, insulin-like growth factors-I and -II, liver and
body weights, and feed intake in growing chickens. Poult.
Sci. 82:1932–1938.
9. Leclercq, B. 1983. The influence of dietary protein
content on the performance of genetically lean or fat growing
chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 24:581–587.
10. Vieira, S. L., A. Lemme, D. B. Goldenberg, and I.
Brugalli. 2004. Responses of growing broilers to diets with
increased sulfur amino acids to lysine ratios at two dietary
protein levels. Poult. Sci. 83:1307–1313.
11. Corzo, A., M. T. Kidd, W. A. Dozier, III, L. A. Shack,
and S. C. Burgess. 2006. Protein expression of pectoralis
major muscle in chickens in response to dietary methionine
status. Br. J. Nutr. 95:703–708.
12. Ambrosen, T., and V. Petersen. 1997. The influence
of protein level in the diet on cannibalism and quality of
plumage of layers. Poult. Sci. 76:559–563.
13. Elwinger, K., M. Tufvesson, G. Lagerkvist, and R.
Tauson. 2008. Feeding layers of different genotypes in or-
ganic feed environments. Brit. Poult. Sci. 49:654–665.
14. Schutte, J. B., E. J. Van Weerden, and H. L. Bertram.
1983. Sulphur amino acid requirement of laying hens and the
effects of excess dietary methionine on laying performance.
Br. Poult. Sci. 24:319–326.
15. Shafer, D. J., J. B. Carey, and J. F. Prochaska. 1996.
Effect of dietary methionine intake on egg component yield
and composition. Poult. Sci. 75:1080–1085.
16. Hybrid Turkeys. 2013. Aggressive Behaviour in
Turkeys, As Affected by Feed Nutrition and Formula-
tion. Last Accessed 9/25/2013 http://www.hybridturkeys.
com/en/hybrid-resources/infosheets/∼/media/Files/Hybrid/
Hybrid%20Library/InfoSheets/Aggressive%20Behaviour%
20in%20Turkeys%20May%202012.ashx.
453
17. Lee, Y., and J. V. Craig. 1991. Breeding and ge-
netics beak trimming effects on behavior patterns, fearful-
ness, feathering, and mortality among three stocks of White
Leghorn pullets in cages or floor pens. Poult. Sci. 70:211–
221.
18. USDA. 2011. National organic program; amendment
to the national list of allowed and prohibited substances (live-
stock). Fed. Regist. 76:13501–13504.
19. USDA. 2012. National organic program; amendment
to the national list of allowed and prohibited substances (live-
stock). Fed. Regist. 77:57985–57990.
20. Van Krimpen, M. M., F. Leenstra, V. Maurer, and
M. Bestman. 2015. How to fulfill EU requirements to feed
organic laying hens 100% organic ingredients. J. Appl. Poult
Res.
21. Burley, H. K., P. H. Patterson, and K. E. Anderson.
2015. Alternative ingredients for providing adequate methio-
nine in organic poultry diets in the United States with limited
synthetic amino acid use. World Poult. Sci. J. 71:493–504.
22. Moritz, J. S., A. S. Parsons, N. P. Buchanan, N. J.
Baker, J. Jaczynski, O. J. Gekara, and W. B. Bryan. 2005.
Synthetic methionine and feed restriction effects on perfor-
mance and meat quality of organically reared broiler chick-
ens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14:521–535.
23. Anderson, K. E. 2011. Comparison of fatty acid,
cholesterol, and vitamin A and E composition in eggs from
hens housed in conventional cage and range production fa-
cilities. Poult. Sci. 90:1600–1609.
24. Anderson, K. E. 2011. Single production cycle
report of the thirty eighth North Carolina Layer Perfomance
and Management Test: Alternative Production Environ-
ments. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service,
Raleigh, NC 27695, Vol. 38, No. 4. November, 2011.
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/tech manuals/layer
reports/38 single cycle report.pdf.
25. Golden, J. B., D. V. Arbona, and K. E. Anderson.
2012. A comparative examinatation of rearing parameters
and layer production performance for brown egg-type pullets
grown for either free-range or cage production. J. Appl. Poult
Res. 21:95–102.
26. Anderson, K. E. 2014. Grow Report of the Thirty
Ninth North Carolina Layer Performance and Manage-
ment Test: Summary. Vol. 39, No. 2, January 2014;
http://poultry.ces.ncsu.edu/layer-performance/.
27. Anderson, K. E. 2015. Single Production Cy-
cle Report of the Thirty Ninth North Carolina Layer
Performance and Management Test: Alternative Pro-
duction Environments. Vol. 39, No.4. August 2015;
http://poultry.ces.ncsu.edu/layer-performance/.
28. Dean, W. F., and H. M. Scott. 1965. The development
of an amino acid reference diet for the early growth of chicks.
Poult. Sci. 44:803.
29. Fuller, M. F., R. McWilliam, T. C. Wang, and L. R.
Giles. 1989. The optimum dietary amino acid pattern for
growing pigs. Br. J. Nutr. 62:255–267.
30. Baker, D. H., and Y. Han. 1994. Ideal amino acid
profile for chicks during the first three weeks post hatching.
Poult. Sci. 73:1441–1447.
31. Evonik Industries. 2013. Basics of Animal Nutrition:
Basics of Animal Production. Evonik Industries AG, Hanau-
Wolfgang, Germany.
32. Leeson, S., and J. D. Summers. 2001. Nutrition of the
Chicken. S., Leeson, and J. D. Summers, ed. Univ. Books,
Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
454
33. Powers, W., and R. Angel. 2008. A review of the
capacity of nutritional strategies to address environmental
challenges in poultry production. Poult. Sci. 87:1929–1938.
34. Chandra, M., B. Singh, G. L. Soni, and S. P. Ahuja.
1984. Renal and biochemical changes produced in broilers
by high-protein, high-calcium, urea-containing, and vitamin-
A-deficient diets. Avian Dis. 28:1–11.
35. Ward, J. M., R. A. McNabb, and F. M. Anne McNabb.
1975. The effects of changes in dietary protein and water
availability on urinary nitrogen compounds in the rooster,
Gallus domesticus— I. Urine flow and the excretion of uric
acid and ammonia. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 51A:165–169.
JAPR: Review Article
36. Sundrum, A., L. Bütfering, M. Henning, and K. H.
Hoppenbrock. 2000. Effects of on-farm diets for organic pig
production on performance and carcass quality. J. Anim. Sci.
78:1199–1205.
37. Aviagen. 2009. Ross Broiler Nutrition Supplement
Aviagen, Scotland, UK.
38. Hy-Line. 2009. Hy-Line Variety Brown Commercial
Management Guide 2009–2011, Hy-Line International, Des
Moines, IA.
39. Leeson, S., and J. D. Summers. 2009. Commercial
Poultry Nutrition. 3 ed. University Books, Guelph, Ontario,
Canada.