Organic nutrition in the XXI century. Jack Garret (QualiTech)

Dr. Rath, First I apologize for the delay in responding to your comments. You are absolutely correct, minerals are inorganic components of daily nutritional needs. It is the form that the mineral is presented to the animal (or human) in the diet that created this classification. Back in the late 1950s and 1960s, it was found that binding a mineral to an organic compound could potentially improve its bio-availability to animals, but it could also reduce it as well. Minerals within feedstuffs tend to have lower bio-availability than those from inorganic sources such as sulfates or oxides. Just for clarification, the iron in the heme component of blood would be considered an organic source of iron. That iron is considered chelated to the heme protein in blood. So companies and researchers started evaluating compounds that could bind or chelate trace minerals to see if they would improve the bio-availability or value of the mineral to animals. It was discovered that proteins, amino acids and carbohydrates could all bind or chelate with these trace minerals. The degree of binding or chelating varied with mineral and organic compound. Generally, it has been hypothesized and observed that trace minerals in these chelated form improved the delivery of the mineral for absorption by the mechanism in the intestinal mucosa that facilitates transport from there to the blood stream and then to target tissues. The primary thought has been that when the minerals are in this bound form it prevents "antagonists" from binding with the trace mineral and thus reducing its overall absorption. So when providing "organic trace minerals" to livestock it is in a value added form that is more available to the animal. If it is more available, then one would not have to feed as much in the diet to obtain the same level of performance. That also reduces the level of mineral excretion into the environment creating a positive effect. How the animal uses the trace mineral once it has entered the blood stream would be similar regardless of source, but it is the delivery to the absorption sites that gives the organic trace mineral its advantage. I hope that provides a satisfactory response to your post. Regards, Dr Jack Garrett

Checa Alltech.com

dear sir, I was happy to see your presentation through the net though engeromix circulation provisions. I have some question for clarification:why the term organic used for mineral when mineral is classified under chemistry law as inorganic substances. Such mineral are supplemented when there is deficiency in the food specially for commercial stocks of chicken and dairy cows.When you talk on trace minerals do you feel the trace mineral of inorganic source is less effective than any trace minerals extracted from any biological organism? If we extract organic sources of trace mineral from chicken and feed to chicken would it be more effective or use of bacterial based or plant based is more effective to show the better commercial out put through feed metabolism? Finally do we get better performance than the genetic potency of any chicken genetic stock like in terms of all commercial traits like egg size, shell quality,etc when feed organic trace mineral. Do the primary breeder suggest that their stock would be requiring organic trace mineral products for getting full expression of genetic potency of their commercial or parent stocks in chicken stocks.As regards lows in environment stipulation when over doses are fed minerals there is changes of more fecal contents which may react as the soil pollutant but a good nutritionist need to know how much he has to feed the trace mineral with reference to ingredients incorporated.Can we thing up to have some enzyme which would also make available the binding form of trace minerals in feed ingredients like phytase. Organic concept is new and based on trails.But life science is a combination of organic and inorganic substances in biological process.Scientist also name many products as organic like manure, vegetable, egg, milk , meat etc linked with organic base. If a chicken grow at 42 days 2.5kg with fcr at 1.65 and we feel in Asian environment of open housing system the growth is very good. will this organic trace mineral would still make a break through in the biological system for giving more than the optimum genetic levels. Thus perhaps the extra cost which spend on organic trace mineral will you term as safety food for human being can opt for such items. Do we feel organic trace mineral is the key for success in chicken production and if so can we expect we can be doing still better if we can think about other micro minerals or macro minerals from organic source for poultry and fishery and dairy sector as all are food for human? For example MCP is rock based and DCP is also bone based and rock based. Which one would be organic phosphorous ? Sorry for changing the subject. I thank you very much for great presentation and valuable information on Organic trace mineral and their impact in biology and bio-availability. with regds, dr m rath