Minimize Condemnations: Protect Profits Through Supplementation of HMTBa

Some Thoughts... Broiler Condemnations Yes, HMTBa is an organic acid; but so is methionine (an amino acid, clue is in the name…). Being an acid does not imply easier absorption. Independent studies show NO HMTBa activity against a range of bacteria and moulds, and little or no impact on gut pH. Different Acids, Different Results We have no reason to dispute the numbers of birds fed on either DL Methionine or HMTBa. We also agree with the statement “each has a different chemical structure which affects the end result of supplementation in performance”; however, our long term research on the impact of the different sources of methionine clearly shows that DL Methionine is superior to HTMBa. The basic problem with this article is that it uses data from a source with no control at all. Different feeds from different companies will vary in terms of energy; other amino acids; Calcium; Phosphorus; etc. Then we need to consider the variance in age to which the birds are fed; and management of said birds will vary from farm to farm; and that condemnation regimes will vary from state to state, plant to plant. Finally, the author does not even have data on inclusion levels of different methionine sources. In other words, the ONLY correct way to compare performance of birds fed EITHER DL Methionine OR HTMBa is to carry out a trial where all the above factors are controlled ie kept the same, so that any difference CAN ONLY BE caused by the different M+C source. Both figures presented try to correlate a difference in profitability / livability of broilers with a methionine source. Because of the differing environments discussed above, this correlation is not correct; for other examples of this kind of “poor science” one should look at http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations