Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Value of Biosaf in Swine diets
2015
Biosaf (Biosaf +, Actisaf, Sc 47)
ActiSaf = BioSaf
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 2
ActiSaf = BioSaf
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 3
Actisaf is Heat Resistant: A unique manufacturing process
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 4
In classical conditions of use: conditionner + press
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
50 60 70 80 90 100
Die temperature (°C)
Ye
as
t lo
ss
es
(lo
gC
FU
/g o
f fe
ed
)
Non-protected vermicilli
yeast
Non-protected vermicilli
yeast
Microgranules
Micro-encapsulated
vermicilli yeast
Sc 47 HR microgranules
Sc 47 HR+ microgranules83°C 92°C
Stability to pelleting process
ActiSaf benefits in Grow-Finish Pigs
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 6
Meta-analysis of ActiSaf effects on grow-finish performance
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 7
European data
Evaluation of Performance of Finishing Pigs Fed Diets Containing BioSaf® or Biosaf® plus Safmannan® • 320 pigs (~ 56 d of age; ½ gilts and ½ barrows; Danbred genetics)
• Pigs were PRRS, PEDv and APP negative, and Myco positive.
• Management of the pigs prior to weaning and in the nursery prior to arrival was in accordance with
standard industry practice (iron injections, castration, needle teeth clipping, tail docking, etc.).
• Pigs were sorted, tagged and weighed and then allotted to their assigned pen based on weight & sex.
• Diets were randomly assigned to one pen of each sex within each block and each block contained 10
pens, dietary treatments were:
1) Control
2) Control plus 250 g/ton Biosaf
3) Control plus 500 g/ton Biosaf
4) Control plus 750 g/ton Biosaf
5) Control plus 250 g/ton Biosaf and 250g/ton Safmannan
• Research facility contained 40 pens that were 6’ by 12’ in size, and contained a lidded, double holed
(opposite sides) stainless steel feeder, and one water nipple. The building was a deep pitted, tunnel
ventilated, concrete slatted (3/4 inch gap) commercial research facility.
• Stocking density was eight (8) pigs, allowing approximately 9 sq ft/pig.
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved
8
Arkansas, 2014
Wgt 0 Wgt 1 Wgt 2 Wgt 3 Wgt4 Wgt 5
Treatment (lb) (lb) (lb) (lb) (lb) (lb)
Control 50.33 101.18 162.13 204.81 254.72 267.06
Biosaf 250g 50.35 101.74 163.04 203.92 253.38 264.54
Biosaf 500g 50.68 101.90 162.62 206.68 254.94 267.47
Biosaf 750g 49.37 101.64 163.30 206.79 257.21 268.17
Biosaf 250g & Safmannan 250g 50.68 101.92 161.97 205.03 254.34 265.13
Std. Err. 0.72 0.84 1.63 2.31 3.43 3.40
TMT P Value 0.6955 0.9718 0.9733 0.8814 0.9522 0.9299
Linear Biosaf P Value 0.4742 0.7118 0.6899 0.3799 0.5622 0.6753
Quadratic Biosaf P Value 0.4030 0.6649 0.9479 0.8209 0.6025 0.6318
Sex
Barrows 51.17 a 103.81 a 167.35 a 211.86 a 261.81 a 273.85 a
Gilts 49.40 b 99.54 b 157.88 b 199.03 b 248.03 b 259.09 b
Std. Err. 0.46 0.53 1.03 1.46 2.17 2.15
Sex P Value 0.0107 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001 <.0001
Std. Err. 1.02 1.19 2.31 3.27 4.86 4.81
Sex * Treatment P Value 0.5558 0.1708 0.4423 0.3978 0.8863 0.7523
Sex * Linear Biosaf 0.4594 0.0399 0.1224 0.0447 0.3387 0.2220
Sex * Quadratic Biosaf 0.3654 0.5994 0.5071 0.6836 0.9244 0.9240
a,bMeans with different superscripts are different (P < .05)
Weights of Finishing Pigs Fed Diets Containing BioSaf® or Biosaf® plus Safmannan
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 9
Arkansas, 2014
Wgt 0 Wgt 1 Wgt 2 Wgt 3 Wgt4 Wgt 5
Treatment (lb) (lb) (lb) (lb) (lb) (lb)
Sex by Treatment Interactions
Barrows Control 51.04 101.47 164.33 207.66 259.68 272.04
Barrows Biosaf 250g 51.61 103.98 168.52 210.10 258.35 269.82
Barrows Biosaf 500g 51.54 104.22 168.01 214.40 263.14 277.45
Barrows Biosaf 750g 49.33 104.93 169.66 216.04 266.08 277.80
Barrows Bio & Saf 250 52.33 104.45 166.22 211.10 261.77 272.15
Gilts Control 49.62 100.89 159.93 201.96 249.76 262.07
Gilts Biosaf 250g 49.09 99.50 157.56 197.75 248.40 259.26
Gilts Biosaf 500g 49.82 99.58 157.23 198.96 246.73 257.49
Gilts Biosaf 750g 49.41 98.36 156.95 197.54 248.33 258.55
Gilts Bio & Saf 250 49.04 99.38 157.73 198.96 246.91 258.10
Std. Err. 1.02 1.19 2.31 3.27 4.86 4.81
Sex * Treatment P Value 0.5558 0.1708 0.4423 0.3978 0.8863 0.7523
Sex * Linear Biosaf 0.4594 0.0399 0.1224 0.0447 0.3387 0.2220
Sex * Quadratic Biosaf 0.3654 0.5994 0.5071 0.6836 0.9244 0.9240
Weights of Finishing Pigs by Sex Fed Diets Containing BioSaf® or Biosaf® plus Safmannan
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 10
Final Weight (WT5)
245.00
250.00
255.00
260.00
265.00
270.00
0 200 400 600 800
BoSaf Level
Weig
ht
(lb
)
Barrow s
Gilts
Arkansas, 2014
ADG of Finishing Pigs by Sex Fed Diets Containing BioSaf® or Biosaf® plus Safmann
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 11
ADG Overall (0 to 5)
2.050
2.100
2.150
2.200
2.250
2.300
2.350
0 200 400 600 800
Biosaf Level
AD
G (
lb/d
ay)
Barrow s
Gilts
an
Arkansas, 2014
ADG of Finishing Pigs by Sex Fed Diets Containing BioSaf® or Biosaf® plus Safmannan
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 12
ADFI Overall (0 to 5)
5.200
5.400
5.600
5.800
6.000
6.200
6.400
0 200 400 600 800
BioSaf Level
AD
FI (l
b/d
ay)
Barrow s
Gilts
Increase in ADG and the associated increase in ADFI resulted in no differences
in Feed Efficiency (lb gain/lb feed) Arkansas, 2014
Summary
The barrows tended to respond to increasing level of Biosaf by eating more
feed and growing faster.
However the gilts tended to respond by consuming less feed and growing
more slowly as Biosaf level increased.
The data suggest that if Biosaf were fed to barrows it would reduce their
time to market, but if it were fed to gilts they would not respond similarly.
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 13
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 14
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 15
Water bath
Buffer lines (in)
Overflow directed to liquid and gas collection
Propulsion rod
Porous feed container
Motor
Cecum + proximal colon content from finishing pigs: - Step 1: feed = freeze-dried content - Step 2: live inoculum - 48h solid particles retention time in nylon bag (50μM)
Poster and short presentation at Digestive Physiology of Pigs (DPP Denver 2012) and accepted in JAS0
Use of Cositec in-vitro model of the pig colon to assess the effect of live yeast on fermentation parameters and microbiota.
Experimental design
•Cecum + proximal colon content from finishing pigs ~ 100kg
(commercial farm, barley based diet with no yeast)
•2 doses of S. cerevisiae (Sc47):
•10 mg/d = L1 (105 CFUs/mL)
•100 mg/d = L2 (106 CFUs/mL)
•4 replicates/treatment, 8 days adaptation, 2 days sampling.
•VFAs, ammonia, pH, Eh, yeast counts, total gas, methane,
digestibility, T-RFLP.
•Randomised block design/repeated measure and MANOVA
Fermentation parameters
Live yeast = 2 log CFUs loss (24h)
No effect: pH, Eh, total gas or methane
Improved digestibility: C= 58%, L2 = 61%
Increase NH3 and most of VFAs production
VFAs (mM) C L1 L2
Acetic 7.79 7.65 8.24
Propionic 3.51b 3.52b 3.81a
Butyric 1.69 1.71 1.73
Valeric 0.28c 0.32b 0.35a
Iso_butyric 0.37b 0.38b 0.42a
Iso_valeric 0.45b 0.46b 0.53a 30
40
50
60
70
0 2 4 6 8
Time (h)
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/L)
C
L1
L2
a, b, c: P<0.05
Item Diet1 P-value2
Positive
control
Negative
control
0.03%
BioSaf HR+
0.06%
BioSaf HR+ SEM Diet Linear Quadratic
d 0
Acetate, μmol/g 71.96 84.21 83.25 78.44 12.40 0.08 0.26 0.66
Propionate, μmol/g 19.47b 27.57a 27.50a 21.87ab 5.94 <0.05 0.06 0.26
Isobutyrate, μmol/g 1.27 1.19 1.45 1.70 0.37 0.16 <0.05 0.97
Butyrate, μmol/g 14.68 19.98 21.07 15.95 5.24 0.06 0.16 0.19
Isovalerate, μmol/g 1.77 1.69 2.32 2.41 0.62 0.17 0.08 0.43
Valerate, μmol/g 2.06b 3.05ab 3.66a 2.66b 0.90 <0.05 0.44 0.06
Total SCFA, μmol/g 95.05b 111.22b 144.76a 166.36a 8.07 <0.01 <0.01 0.55
pH 6.26 6.03 5.99 6.14 0.21 0.07 0.32 0.35
d 18
Acetate, μmol/g 61.94 62.12 60.86 67.32 5.00 0.31 0.19 0.27
Propionate, μmol/g 15.26b 19.07b 19.23b 23.90a 1.89 <0.05 <0.05 0.99
Isobutyrate, μmol/g 1.53 1.52 1.45 1.77 0.21 0.63 0.37 0.39
Butyrate, μmol/g 13.38 13.68 14.56 16.53 1.00 0.10 <0.05 0.65
Isovalerate, μmol/g 1.90 1.87 1.83 2.35 0.31 0.39 0.19 0.35
Valerate, μmol/g 1.53b 2.39ab 2.53ab 2.89a 0.49 <0.05 <0.01 0.43
Total SCFA, μmol/g 110.31 108.29 100.57 92.74 8.82 0.62 0.23 1.00
pH 6.39 6.46 6.48 6.38 0.18 0.07 <0.05 0.33
Effects of live yeast on pH and the concentration of volatile fatty acids of feces in growing-finishing pigs
a-cWithin a row, means followed by the same or no superscript letter are not different. 1Each least squares mean represents 12 observations.
2Linear and quadratic P-values are for the negative control and the 2 treatments containing Biosaf HR.
*PC corn/soy/DDG diet; NC corn/soy/DDGS/midds (-90 Kcal/kg) ; NC + BioSaf corn/soy/DDGS/midds (-130 Kcal/kg)
University of Illinois, 2014
Mexico Live Yeast Trial
•Growing-Finishing Experiment
•Nutritional value of yeast
•63 animals in individual cages •21 males 42 females Landrace X Duroc
•Three treatments: 1. Normal energy (NE)
2. Low energy + 700 g Procreatin 7/ton of feed (LEP)
3. Low energy (LE)
•Three phases of feeding •22 to 60 kg of weight
•60 to 90 kg of weight
•90 to 113 kg of weight
Formulations in the experiment
Phase I
22-60 kg
Phase II
60-90 kg
Phase III
90-113 kg
Ingredient NE LEP NE NE LEP LE NE LEP LE
Sorgo (9 % PC) 670.00 702.30 703.00 760.00 789.30 790.00 772.00 804.30 805.00
Soya (46 % PC) 265.00 250.00 250.00 180.00 165.00 165.00 185.00 170.00 170.00
Supreme fata 35.00 35.00 35.00 - - - - - -
End Fatb - - - 30.00 30.00 30.00 - - -
TermRactopc - - - - - - 25.00 25.00 25.00
Fat 30.00 12.00 12.00 30.00 15.00 15.00 18.00 0.00 0.00
Procreatin P7 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00
Total 1,000.0
0000000
1,000.
00 1,000.00
1,000.0
0
1,000.0
0
1,000.0
0
1,000.0
0
1,000.0
0
1,000.0
0
Nutrient Content in the three treatment diets
Phase I
22-60 kg
Phase II
60-90 kg
Phase III
90-113 kg
Nutriente NE LEP LE NE LEP LE NE LEP LE
EM (MC/KG) 3.35 3.26 3.26 3.34 3.27 3.27 3.30 3.21 3.21
Fat (%) 5.04 3.33 3.33 5.12 3.70 3.70 3.98 2.27 2.27
Lysine total (%) 1.19 1.16 1.16 0.96 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.96 0.96
Lys. Dig. (%) 1.06 1.03 1.03 0.86 0.83 0.83 0.91 0.88 0.88
Dry Matter (%) 88.9 88.7 88.7 88.7 88.5 88.5 88.6 88.4 88.4
Protein (%) 18.1 17.7 17.7 14.9 14.4 14.4 15.1 14.7 14.7
Ca (%) 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.57 0.56 0.56
P (%) 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.26
Moisture (%) 10.9 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.3 11.3 11.2 11.4 11.4
Performance Parameter 22-113 KG
Treatments P Valuea
Variables NE LEP LE SE C1
LEP vs NE
C2
LEP vs LE
DMI (kg) 2.493 2.488 2.397 0.186 0.9267 0.1222
ADG (kg) 0.913 0.945 0.891 0.078 0.1917 0.0293
FC (kg/kg) 2.735 2.635 2.697 0.183 0.0832 0.2737
Total Gain (kg) 91.314 94.534 89.062 7.831 0.1917 0.0293
Diseases Presence
Disease Treatment
NE LEP LE
Diarrhea 23.80% 0.00% 52.40%
Cough 38.10% 4.80% 52.40%
Carcass Characteristics Treatment P valuea
Variables NE LEP LE SE C1
LEP vs NE
C2
LEP vs LE
Carcass Wt (kg) 91.329 92.957 88.471 7.223 0.4693 0.0510
Dressing (%) 82.66 81.28 81.60 0.065 0.4126 0.7505
Mm Fat(mm) 16.833 17.150 16.357 4.860 0.5230 0.3419
Mm Lean (mm) 55.000 55.200 53.905 10.976 0.7094 0.9588
Lean Yield (%) 51.533 51.100 51.657 2.119 0.5114 0.3994
Class (%) 102.55 102.37 101.68 4.230 0.3692 0.8110
Variable Treatment
NE LEP LE
Total Gain (kg) 1917.25 1984.5 1869.75
Feed consumption (kg) 5236.02 5224.89 5034.00
Feed Conversion 2.731 2.633 2.692
$/Kg Feed 5.51 5.38 5.34
$/Kg produced $15.047 $14.152 $14.377
Economic Analysis
All pigs included ($ = pesos)
Summary of ActiSaf Benefits in Swine
© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved
27
Actisaf effects: Actisaf Benefits:
Grow-Finish pig