Common mistakes using enzymes in poultry nutrition
Hi Pirzado M.Zakria
There is a matrix for multienzymes use. The general rule is: minerals from Phytase, energy from NSP and protein from protease (as 100%). From other enzymes, we take 50-25%. This is a simplification, of course, and the composition must be considered individually. For exact calculation please ask the producer/distributor as DSM, Danisco, AB or Addiseo.
I am asking for use of individual enzyme not a complex of enzymes. How can we manage in that case?
What individual enzyme you mean?
The correlation of enzymes is an aspect that interferes in the performance results and gather this improvement is truly a challenge but possible with the growth model, it becomes more elucidative.
@Dr. Fiodor S. Marchenkov, totally agree, but there is also a big problem that impacts response of enzymes, most individual matrices are also evaluated under conditions that do not apply in practice, look values from phytase commercial phytases, blame 5 - 10 improvement on amino acids digestibilities at 500 ftu, but several New publications confirm papers published with Dr. Parsons lab, matrices due to secondary effects are wrong, so values from phosphorus-deficient diets are not correct to arrive conclusions, when put phosphorus levels in the right value, this is a secundary effect, we need phosphorus to absorb aminoácids, Dr. Hans Stein, showed recently, phytases release from 0 to 5 % amino acids and some times, to get that release, need more than 2000 ftus, be careful not only with cocktails, but also with individual matrices
.jpg&w=3840&q=75)
@Alvaro Dubois Nutrient Matrix Value.
1. Matrix values describes the amount of additional nutrients that are released when you add the enzymes.
2. Nutrient matrix values indicate the amount of Metablizable energy(ME), Protein and Amino Acids that are anticipated to be released once an Enzyme is added to the feed formulation.
3 ME that can be adjusted may lie in the range of 50-125 KCal.
4. In cases, where more than one feed additive is used to adjust the ME, the maximum ME that can be adjusted would be upto 125Kcal to 150Kcal.
5. Different feed additives manufacturers claim variable ME that will be released after adding the additives.
6. Please note that aggregate ME will be maximum 150 ME that will be released from the substrate.
Dr V.Rajendra Prasad
Please send me an email luisluna@allegrolf.com.br, and we can run some cases with the model BroilerOpt.
Dear @Alvaro Dubois, the modern usage of enzymes from phytase up to muramidase faces two different perspectives for me: nutrient releases and antinutritional and allergenic mitigation effects.
Nutrient Releases are not so complex as it is possible to take the information from the lab.
Antinutritional effects reduction is more complex as even in large production units there are different sensibilities patterns, in this case, working with the big data and growth models helps a lot to properly allocate the enzymes and their combinations.
Furthermore, we are also in the time that safety margins are costing a lot, so ME per kg of live birds in each age and Lys deposition are good information for building proper confidence in the growth models calibration.
Hi Everyone. Thanks for addressing the good and the bad about formulating multiple enzymes in the same diet. As a result of the great improvements in Enzymes and other Additives, people like Dr. Frank Ivey with his Broiler Opt, and others who know how to model animals have in effect taken the problem out of the structured Linear Programs that i and others have developed over the last 40 years. And, basically, they have demonstrated that one cannot just put matrix values into the Formulation Program and hope that one gets a "usable solution" let alone a "Better Solution".
In effect we have to change the tools to allow the knowledge to get into the solution with a useable result. The good news is this is relatively easy.
The problem is not the "Better Solution". The problem is integrating your "Better Solution" with the existing Formulation Systems since they do a very good job before and after a solution is arrived at.
Looking back, it comes down to providing a way to get needed data into the matrix, adding a capability to review a solution automatically, and then, keeping a solution that somebody says is a "Better Solution".
Hello, your content is correct. But the age of the bird and the operation or physiological activity of the digestive system. They are more important with the ingredients of the food than the ingredients of the enzyme. Because the composition of the enzyme depends on the age of the bird according to the growth or genetic development and the composition of the food. You are reminded of the activity of enzymes and the amount of calories they are able to release. It is necessary to consider the strength or activity of the endogenous enzyme inside the bird's body in relation to the bird's age. On the other hand, the activity of bacteria or fungi in probiotics or the origin of enzymes must be observed in terms of the need for nutrients and energy inside the bird's body, which is itself considered a living organism. However, it is not easy to say how much energy metabolism has.
Thanks for valuable information and contributions, the gut environment is also important and gut maturation is also essential as well as the strain of chickens broilers vs. layers, ducks and quail.
There are many contributing factors to the nutrient matrix value of enzymes.
Hello
It is respectfully recalled that according to the results of the experiment using multi-enzyme with barley in the diet of laying hens, the quality of eggs, especially the shell, decreased. Please, if your scientific colleagues have observed such results and scientific articles in their farm or research experiments, please send them to the email below. Thanks
Yaqabfar@yahoo.moshatahe
It is respectfully recalled that according to the results of the experiment using multi-enzyme with barley in the diet of laying hens, the quality of eggs, especially the shell, decreased. Please, if your scientific colleagues have observed such results and scientific articles in their farm or research experiments, please send them to the email below. Thanks
Yaqabfar@yahoo.moshatahe
The best way to use an enzyme product would be to know how each bulk ingredient is affected by the product. That prevents us from limiting the choices we have when formulating in changing ingredient markets. We cannot be sure that the enzyme product will provide the same value if we see reducing one energy source or protein source for another when the prices are favorable unless we know how each ingredient will be affected.
In my opinion, companies marketing enzyme products should have a set of nutrient values for each ingredient the user may feed. Without this, we lose the ability to accurately formulate feeds. As bulk ingredient costs change, the formulas change. If more energy is released from maize, we will undervalue maize in a formulation because we fail to give it credit for the additional energy our chosen enzyme product releases. Then, when costs dictate that we replace maize with a suddenly less expensive source of energy and protein, we cannot be sure that we get the same benefit from the enzyme product.
The difficulty is knowing the actual contribution from each ingredient. The fact that the percentages of each bulk ingredient in each diet we use does vary allows us to begin to interpret the results. The only piece of data that we need to determine an enzyme product impact, after feeding, is to know what nutritional values must have been fed to get the observed outcome. Accurate prediction of flock growth from nutrition is the key and can come from accurate growth programs that do that prediction.
Obviously, the amount of energy released from maize in a starter feed cannot be the same as the energy released from maize in a finisher diet. Also, the sum of energy released from the different ingredients must be equal to the energy required to match the growth. So, a series of simultaneous equations are required, finding the matching energy expression that fits the minimum nutritional change that gives the growth.
This is the challenge, and, in my opinion, the results should be expressed and percent change of the initial ingredient values. Now, the ingredient plus its share of enzyme product cost can be fairly evaluated in formulations. Obviously, the formulation cannot contain native products and enzyme enhanced products together as the decision to add the enzyme impacts all ingredients.
Dear Dr. Ivey.
It's always a pleasure to read your comments, especially the ones related to the use of mathematical modeling. I do understand (at least I hope) the concept you put forward on how to establish impact of enzymes on individual ingredients' nutritional matrix. I think it might work reasonably well as long as we are dealing with very simple diets. As we increase the number of ingredients (energy/protein supplying ones) the proposed mathematics proposed becomes quite complicated in trying to separate the individual contributions. Maybe the most important reason is that you start to have large confounding between ingredient variations (ingredients going up or down together), turning any estimation heavily biased. A second problem I see is that enzymes (whatever phytase, carbohydrases, proteases, etc) do not provide only improvement in energy digestibility but also in amino acids (see Dr. Cowieson's many meta-analysis papers). You can have basically the same change in performance with different combinations of energy and amino acids (ideal protein). In this way, when considering both problems together, I have a hard time believing we can, from a trial and based only on performance impact, generate the individual ingredients' contributions to an added enzyme.
Hoping to hear your comments (and others, of course).
.jpg&w=3840&q=75)