search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
to differential effects on digesta retention time, gut morphology and proteolytic enzymatic activities, ultimately resulting in differences in protein digestibility. In their study, the following was observed: • The apparent ileal digestibility of methionine tended to increase when butyrate and/or propionate was present in colonic and caecal contents, possibly due to modifications of GIT development and digesta transit time. • Butyrate presence in the digesta of the crop, proventriculus and gizzard, on the contrary, tended to decrease the apparent ileal digestibility of several AA. • In addition, butyrate presence beyond the gizzard elicited anorexic effect that might be attributable to changes in intestinal enteroendocrine L-cells secretory activities. • Conclusion - effects of butyrate on digestive processes are conditioned by the GIT segment wherein the molecule is present and indicates its influence on digestive function and bioavailability of AA.


B. Uptake, metabolism and immune response Expression of uptake, and metabolism The following was observed (Moque et al., 2018): • Butyrate uptake is a passive process in the gastric region while being facilitated by putative (sodium-dependent) monocarboxylate transporters in the small and large intestine. • Increasing digesta butyrate concentration in the gastric region seemed to increase the β-oxidation of lipids. A similar effect was observed in the ileum and colon. • Increasing digesta butyrate concentration in the duodenum seemed, however, to promote glycolysis. Butyrate has, therefore, a location-dependent effect on energy metabolism in the gut. • Despite such specificities, intracellular butyrate concentration remained low across GIT segments and diets. • Butyrate increased the expression of preprocholecystokinin in the duodenum. This may explain the anorectic effect of dietary butyrate supplementation in poultry.


Immune response Study in broilers showed that butyrate presence in the digesta of distinct


GIT segments leads to different immune responses when broilers are subjected to non-infectious immune challenges. They observed that natural antibody levels are conditioned by the GIT segment wherein the molecule is present.


CONCLUDING REMARKS • Butyrate when present in the colon and ceca of broilers increases intestinal retention time - improving digestibility of nutrients. • Transport of butyrate across the epithelium is a passive process in the gastric region and an active process in the small intestine and colon. The extent of butyrate oxidation depends on GIT segment considered. • Butyrate having effects that may be positive or negative depending on the GIT location considered and the concentration present. • Broilers appear to react strongly to increases in digesta butyrate concentration in GIT segments where butyrate production is normally limited (crop, proventriculus, small intestine). • The colon and caeca appear to have a higher tolerance for the presence of butyrate in the digesta. • Increasing butyrate concentration in the colon and caeca seemed to influence positively digestive processes and performance without degrading the inflammatory status of the gut and the microbiota composition of broilers • Butyrate exerts not only direct effects on bacteria, but also elicits effects on the host that may affect indirectly microbiota composition. • Feeding fat-coated butyrate to broilers is thought to increase the availability of butyrate beyond the ileum (van den Borne et al., 2015) – it is therefore advised to include fat-coated butyrate in the starter diets of broilers (0-10 d of age) to ensure that this location is provided with butyrate until the caecal microbiota are fully developed. • Characterization of existing additives and development of targeted-release formulations are, therefore, important to gain insight in the impact of butyrate on gut health of broiler chickens.


IN HIS OWN WORDS CONT’D…….. Anthony Bamber has written to say a big ‘Thank You’ for the great response to his article regarding vessel allowance claims on imported raw materials in the Sept/Oct 2018 edition. “The article was well received all the way from Aberdeenshire to Cornwall with many feed and blend companies contacting me to discuss this area,” he says. “It is an important area for consideration and should not be overlooked. At no extra cost to you, and with 2019 just begun why not get


in touch to get the back log up to date and let me professionally do your allowance claims through shippers and merchants. Perhaps this task is always at the bottom of the list so this is a simple opportunity to bring it to the top and start 2019 knowing it is all in hand. Please note we do not handle any of the funds from claims made - these are paid directly to our clients. In most cases, there are claims available. If there is no claim, then no fee, it’s as simple as that.”


You can call Anthony Bamber BA(Hons) on 07841 198733 or email – rmccommodityclaims@yahoo.co.uk


FEED COMPOUNDER JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 PAGE 19


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60