search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
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
E.C.O.TRACE®


MULTI SPECIES


protein (nitrogen) and gross energy was observed in this study. The feed utilisation efficiency (Gain: Feed ratio) was also improved with increasing levels of molasses. Although the improvement in growth was not big, it was attributed to the observed improvement in nutrient digestibility.


NOXIOUS GAS EMISSION Faecal noxious gas emission can indirectly indicate the health of the pigs and can directly affect the housing environment. Poor housing environment may cause health problems in pigs. In this study, differences in faecal noxious gas emission were observed among dietary treatments. The amount of ammonia emission and acetic acid production was measured for a period of 7 days. Compared to the control diet, ammonia emission was reduced by 2% when molasses was fed at 2.5%, whereas with 5% inclusion, the emission was reduced by 11%. A similar pattern was observed with acetic acid. The improvement in growth performance observed in this study suggests improvement in the absorption and utilisation of nutrients. Improved digestibility does not only mean more nutrients are available for growth, but that there are fewer undigested fractions that could act as substrate for pathogenic bacterial strains. This is particularly the case for undigested protein, which is linked to Clostridium perfringens, the bacteria responsible for necrotic enteritis. Reduced undigested materials in the lower GIT means less fermentation and gas production.


Contact:    


MEAT QUALITY Pigs fed diets which included molasses showed no difference in meat colour, pH, and drip loss. However, the longissimus muscle area increased with increasing molasses inclusion level. Molasses at 5% inclusion resulted in a 4% increase in the longissimus muscle. A similar pattern was observed with cooking loss, which decreased by about 3% in the 2.5% inclusion level and by 4% in the 5% inclusion level.


SMALL INPUT – GREAT EFFECT


  


IMMUNITY Lymphocytes are one of the main cells of the immune system. There was a significant increase in lymphocytes with the supplementation of both the 2.5% and the 5% molasses levels compared to the control. Compared to the control diet, the 2.5% molasses had 6% higher lymphocytes, whereas the 5% molasses had 8% higher lymphocytes. The red blood cells and white blood cells were also measured and showed a similar pattern.


RECOMMENDATION From this study, molasses included at 5% can be considered a replacement for maize in finishing pig diets as it improves growth, immune status, and meat quality of finisher pigs. The ammonia emission was lower at this inclusion level. For practical reasons, it would be valuable to use a wider inclusion range to determine the possible detrimental level in finisher pig diets. In general, molasses has the potential to reduce the cost of pig


www.biochem.net Feed Safety for Food Safety®


diets, however the economics of feeding molasses will depend on its price relative to available cereal. Another ‘plus’ for molasses is that it improves the environment by reducing dust during feed processing.


PAGE 24 MARCH/APRIL 2021 FEED COMPOUNDER 19-04-15 HW Anzeige - E.C.O.Trace - 86x254 mm.indd 1 23.04.2019 14:49:24


Comment section is sponsored by Compound Feed Engineering Ltd www.cfegroup.com


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  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76