Discussion created on 05/30/2014

Out of the Box Study - Which Feed Ingredients Carry more Harmful Microflora - Veg or Non Neg ? & Are Acidifiers plays role to reduce it ?

OUT of THE BOX:
Which feed ingredient carries more harmful bacteria’s – veg or non veg? & up to what extent feed acidifiers plays role to reduce those counts....

Introduction:

It has been observed that there are lots of controversies in poultry nutrition regarding the use of feed ingredients from Animal source origins. Many poultry experts are against to use animal protein & energy sources such as Meat cum bone meal, Blood Meal, Fish/Fish meal, Animal fat etc in poultry feed.

But now a days due to use of high tech Rendering equipments the by- products of Abattoirs such as MBM & Animal Fat produced are of best nutritional quality. Also Sterilized fish meal is available with good nutritional values. Those products are sterilized & having a good shelf-life. Due to those properties now its need of poultry feed industry to use those products in poultry feed as a good Protein & energy sources.

Now all poultry feed manufactures are using Meat cum bone meal, Blood Meal, Animal Fat & Fish Meal in poultry feed as a conventional items but some controversies are still there & everybody feel that by use of more Nov-Veg sources in feed may lead to more heath issues related to micro flora such as Salmonella, E-colli, Streptococci, Staphylococci, Clostridia etc .

In concern to this we have conducted the field trials to know the exact bacterial loads carried in feed with use of Non Veg protein sources at its different inclusion levels Viz. 4%, 6% & 8%.

Materials & Methods

We have selected the different feed ingredients both Veg & Non-Veg to formulate the Broiler Finisher diet which are listed below..
1) Maize
2) Groundnut Deoiled Cake
3) Soya Deoiled Cake
4) Flaked Full Fat Soya
5) Meat Cum Bone Meal
6) Blood Meal
7) Animal Fat
8) Rapeseed Deoiled Cake
9) Maize Gluten meal





Sampling Method:

We are collected the different feed samples for microbiological analysis by “Random Sampling method” & details of which are as....


CONTROL SAMPLES:

Batch No.1. Sample Name - Finisher 2 ( Only Veg Sources)

Pure Vegetarian Feed without addition of any Non Veg sources Viz. MBM, Fish Meal(MBM), Blood Meal(BM), Animal Fat(AF) etc.

Batch No. 2. Sample Name - Finisher 2 (4% Non Veg Sources)

4% Non-veg inclusion ( MBM + BM + AF)

Batch No.3. Sample Name - Finisher 2 (8% Non Veg Sources)

8% Non-veg inclusion (MBM + BM + AF)

TEST SAMPLES:


Batch No. 4. Finisher-2(6% Non Veg Source) with addition of Feed Acidifier - I @600 g/ Mts of Feed up to Batch No. 13

Batch No. 14. Sample Name - Finisher 2 (6%Non Veg with addition of Feed Acidifier – I @ 600 g/ Mts)

Batch No. 15. Finisher-2 (6% Non Veg Source) WITHOUT addition of Feed Acidifier - I up to Batch No.. 24

Batch No. 25. Finisher-2 (6% Non Veg Source) with addition of Feed Acidifier - II @500 g/ Mts of Feed up to Batch No. 34

Batch No. 35. Sample Name - Finisher 2 (6%Non Veg with addition of Feed Acidifier – II @ 500g / Mts)


Batch No. 36. Finisher-2 (6% Non Veg Source) with addition of Feed Acidifier - II @1000 g/ Mts of Feed up to Batch No. 40

Batch No. 41. Sample Name - Finisher 2 (6%Non Veg with addition of Feed Acidifier – II @ 1000g / Mts)


Batch No. 42. Finisher-2 (6% Non Veg Source) WITHOUT addition of Feed Acidifier - II up to Batch No.51

Batch No. 52. Finisher-2 (6% Non Veg Source) with addition of Feed Acidifier - III @500 g/ Mts of Feed up to Batch No. 61

Batch No. 62. Sample Name - Finisher 2 (6%Non Veg with addition of Feed Acidifier – III @500g / Mts)


Batch No. 63. Finisher-2 (6% Non Veg Source) with addition of Feed Acidifier - III @1000 g/ Mts of Feed up to Batch No. 67

Batch No. 68. Sample Name - - Finisher 2 (6%Non Veg with addition of Feed Acidifier – III @1000g / Mts)

Results:

Sample Description Aerobic Plate Count Cfu/gm E.coli Cfu/gm Staph aureus Cfu/gm Fecal Streptococci Cfu/gm Salmonellae Cfu/gm Sulphite Reducing Clostridia Cfu/gm

Finisher 2 - II 1000 A 89000 30 100 400 -ve 10
K 700 90 - - 10 140
Finisher 2 - III 1000 A 12900 NIL NIL NIL -ve NIL
K 2000 370 - - 10 30
Finisher 2 - III 500 A 3700 NIL NIL NIL -ve NIL
K 1400 20 - - 10 10
Finisher 2 -II 500 A 11700 NIL 100 200 -ve 150
K 1400 140 - - 10 180
Finisher 2( VEG) Control A 119000 50 400 2700 -ve NIL
K 1100 400 - - 10 270
Finisher 2 (8%)Non Veg Control A 1600 NIL NIL 100 -ve 170
K 1000 80 - - 10 10
Finisher 2 (4%)Non Veg Control A 1700 NIL NIL 100 -ve 20
K 300 210 - - 10 190
Finisher 2 - I 600 A 1500 NIL NIL 400 -ve 50
K 1000 110 - - 10 230
Note: “A” and “K” Stands for the names of different analytical Laboratories.
Discussions:

1) Microbiological analysis shows that feed containing only Veg. Ingredients carries more bacterial count as compare to other samples collected.
2) There is no any co-relation found as per reports that with increase in inclusion levels of Non-Veg sources in feed, the microbial count increases.
3) There are deviations in the report of both laboratories as the dates of analysis started are different for same samples.
4) There is no significant difference in the microbial counts of “Treated & Non Treated Samples”.

Conclusion:

The study clearly indicates that there are some Veg. Feed ingredients in the feed which carries more harmful micro-flora & its need to identify the same.

If Non-Veg protein sources are of good quality then you can use the same utmost in our feed formulations looking after feed economics.

Study found that uses of different feed acidifiers in feed at different doses are not effective to reduce or nullify the microbial count.

References:

Laboratory - A


Analysis Report For animal feeds

Test Finisher-2(III-1000) Finisher-2 (III 500)
Protein % 21.24 20.64
Fat % 4.25 5.96
Ash % 4.77 5.66
Moisture % 8.1 8.43
Phosphorus 0.39 0.54








Microbiological Parameters

Received From Date of Analysis Sample Description Aerobic Plate Count Cfu/gm E.coli Cfu/gm Staph aureus Cfu/gm Fecal Streptococci Cfu/gm Salmonellae Cfu/gm Sulphite Reducing Clostridia Cfu/gm

Broiler FEED 03.05.2014 Finisher 2 -II 1000 89000 30 100 400 -ve 10
- - - - -
Finisher 2 - III 1000 12900 NIL NIL NIL -ve NIL
- - - - -
Finisher 2 - III 500 3700 NIL NIL NIL -ve NIL
- - - - -
Finisher 2 - II 500 11700 NIL 100 200 -ve 150
- - - - -
Finisher 2( VEG) 119000 50 400 2700 -ve NIL
- - - - -
Finisher 2 (8% Non Veg) 1600 NIL NIL 100 -ve 170
- - - - -
Finisher 2 (4% Non Veg ) 1700 NIL NIL 100 -ve 20
- - - - -
Finisher 2 - I 600 1500 NIL NIL 400 -ve 50
- - - - -












: Broiler Mash Feed
Sample description
Sample particulars
Sample Name : Broiler Finisher Mash Feed Samples
Manufacturing date :
Sample package and Quantity : Zip Lock Covers, 200g
Sampled by : Laboratory "K"
Sampling location : -
Sampling protocol : -
Sample condition : Normal
Date of receipt of sample : 25.04.2014
Date of analysis started : 26.04.2014
Date of Completion : 29.04.2014
Note : The above tested sample has been submitted by the customer

Report No: CHN/F (C&M)/14/828

Parameters Unit Finisher Mash 2 VEG Finisher Finisher Finisher Finisher Finisher Finisher Finisher
Mash 2 (4% NV) Mash 2 (8% NV ) Mash 2 III (500) Mash 2 III (1000) Mash 2 I(600) Mash 2 II(500) Mash 2 II (1000)
Moisture g/100g (%) 9.8 10.4 9.8 10 9 8.8 10 9.8
Water Activity - 0.596 0.614 0.589 0.6 0.545 0.528 0.611 0.601
Mold count cfu/g 12400 6500 7000 < 100 12000 4000 9000 3500
Enterobacteriaceae cfu/g 1100 300 1000 1400 2000 1000 1400 700
Salmonella cfu/g < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
E.coli cfu/g 400 210 80 20 370 110 140 90
Clostridium perfringens cfu/g 270 190 < 10 < 10 30 230 180 140
Crude Protein g/100g (%) 20.39 19.55 - -
Ether Extract g/100g (%) 6.79 7.92 - -
Total Ash g/100g (%) 7.14 7.09 - -
Aflatoxin B ppb <8 <8 - -
Ochratoxin ppb <8 <8 - -
Citrinin ppb <8 <8 - -
Trichothecene ( T2) ppb <8 <8 - -

Dr Jaydip Mulik
Doctor of Veterinary Medicine
remove_red_eye 116 forum 0 bar_chart Statistics share print
Share :
close
Engormix reserves the right to delete and/or modify comments. See more details
Post a comment
Create new discussion :
If this discussion does not cover topics of interest or raises new questions, you can create another discussion.
Consult a professional in private:
If you have a specific problem you can perform a consultation privately to a professional in our community.
Fred Hoerr
Fred Hoerr
DVM, PhD, Diplomate ACVP, ACPV
  Nashville, Tennessee, United States
 
Copyright © 1999-2021 Engormix - All Rights Reserved