In this trial, the effect of the MMN concept in poultry meat production is studied by evaluating four treatments. 1. Positive control, where no enzymes are used and all nutritional requirements are met by the ingredients. 2. Industrial control, with a conservative strategy in the use of enzyme doses and formulation matrix, where only a mineral matrix (phosphorus, calcium and sodium) was used for phytase and some energy for xylanase. 3. Negative control, applying MMN strategy (use of a high matrix for mineral, energy, protein and amino acids) but without actually adding the enzymes. 4. MMN strategy, (utilisation of the phytase and xylanase matrix: mineral, energy, protein and amino acids) and with the addition of enzymes, Quantum Blue 2000 FTU/kg and Econase XT .9,600 BXU/kg. NC is worse so reducing nutrient levels has an impact, it is not


Table 1: Productive results of the different treatments


Body weight, g/bird


Feed intake, g/bird


FCR, g: g


Viability %


EPEF


Feed cost per bird


 Graph 1: Percentage difference compared to the PC 


      


   PAGE 36 MARCH/APRIL 2021 FEED COMPOUNDER      


Positive control 3,539a


Industry control 3,549a


Negative control 2,868b


MMN P Value 3,509a <0.001


just the safety margin you reduce, and then adding the enzymes to the NC restores performance which validates the matrix values. There is a clear decrease in the price of feed with the MMN


strategy. Due to the joint use of phytase and xylanase and the application of full matrices in phosphorus, calcium, sodium, amino acids and energy. The conservative strategy, called industry control, improved feed cost by 2.4% compared to the positive control. So, the industry standard way of using enzymes already delivers a substantial cost reduction, however, the MMN strategy reduced feed cost by 5.7% compared to the positive control. As a result, the difference between the conservative strategy and MMN strategy was a further 3.3% reduction in feed cost.


Graph 2: Relative feed cost (%) compared to the PC


 


5,047a 5,126a 4,413b 5,149a <0.001


        





1.426c 97.4a


576a 100.0a


1.444bc 96.9ab


567a 97.6b


1.538a 92.2b


409b 98.4ab


1.468b <0.001 99.0a


0.007


564a 94.3c


<0.001 <0.001


 


  


 


 As an example, if a bird eats 5 kg of feed during its cycle, and


the feed price might be 300 pounds/tonne, a poultry integration which is producing 500,000 birds per week, the cost saving due to feed cost reduction, would be around 18,000 pounds per week in the conservative strategy and 42,750 pounds per week in MMN


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