Table 3: The effect of different readily fermetable substrates on NDFom digestibility (% differences compared to control forage)


!"#$% &' !"#$#%%#&'$(%$)*%%#+#,'$+#-)*./$%#+0#,'-1.#$2312'+-'#2$(,$ -456(0)*7#2'*1*.*'/$89 )*%%#+#,&#2$&(0:-+#)$'($&(,'+(.$%(+-7#;


()


,"-%./$"00%0 789% :;"9<) >$?<%9/$


.A$BC)%? ."$;


DEFG."- #$%-H%H $AI8AH


123452 1645=


12343( 1=45(


1@436 1&426


*+)


12646( 12+4*5 1@4+3 1*4*6


12546& 1*=4+=


+()


1*3426 12=43& 1@4@@ 1*4=+


12@4&( 1*@42(


the straight cane molasses had the biggest impact on the digestibility of fibre in the diet.


Practical implications The challenges facing dairy nutritionists are complex. You need to formulate rations which are adequate in terms of rumen and intestinal digestible nutrients to meet the cow’s requirements, to stimulate milk and milk constituent production while reducing the risks of metabolic disease. To achieve this is hard enough in perfect controlled conditions,


but becomes harder still when we factor in on-farm factors such as forage and feed variability, overcrowding, accuracy of diet mixing and presentation and general management. The new research shows that the addition of molasses does


more than supply a direct energy source, improve diet presentation and palatability. We understand how it influences rumen function and


impacts on a range of factors that can improve performance. The industry needs to treat sugars as a nutrient in their own


right, rather than bundling them up with starch when accessing rapidly fermentable carbohydrates, because they perform differently and sugars deliver significant additional benefits. To optimise rumen fermentation we should be formulating diets to


include 6-8% sugar in the dry matter with a high proportion of six carbon sugars. Starch content should be 22-30% in cows 20-200 days in milk, falling to 18-27% in cows more than 200 days in milk. This will require a change in the way rationing programmes treat


molasses. Currently we often see diets include 1kg per cow per day as much to aid palatability and to reduce dust as to include a source of this key nutrient. Feed rates of 1.5-2.0kg/day in dairy diets (typically 1-1.5kg for beef)


will ensure adequate sugar to stimulate rumen fermentation and dry matter intake to increase the consumption and utilisation of forage. Feed miller and blenders have different production and nutritional


requirements, and this is why ED&F Man offer a range of molasses blends to suit individual needs. Developed as a result of extensive customer research, our high


sugar Millspec range offers a choice of sugar, protein and energy levels and handling characteristics to suit individual customer needs. We also have the flexibility to offer bespoke products to suit specific feed production needs. As we understand more of the unique benefits of molasses blends in adding sugars to ruminant rations, we expect to see nutritionists looking to take advantage of these benefits and working together with formulators and buyers to optimise feed formulations.


The future of additives based on plant extracts By Elisa Arnaud and Jennifer Maurin, Pancosma SA


In a European regulatory context for the re-evaluation of plant extracts, the future of these innovative solutions has potentially been compromised. Although FEFANA’s (European Association of Specialty Feed Ingredients and their Mixture) Consortium FFAC (Feed Flavouring Authorization Consortium) still supports 190 raw materials, 70 of them have recently been banned. According to AFCA CIAL (The Supplements Manufacturers


Association for Animal Feed), the main reason they have been banned is the complexity of documents required to be provided in order to obtain an authorization on the market. Indeed, the wide diversity of plant extracts (extraction method, variability in solvents, etc.) and their compounds (breed, origin, etc.) lead to technical difficulties defining them from an analytical point of view. And of course, the costs to run these studies are relatively high. Banning these raw materials will lead to their removal from the market and will further restrict the list of molecules available for formulation. Actives companies and members of the FFAC continue to fight to ensure a future for this category of promising raw materials. Final products using these natural raw materials are mostly recognized in Europe as ‘sensory additives’ with aromatic properties for feed. This regulatory category does not allow claims to be made relating


PAGE 30 MAY/JUNE 2019 FEED COMPOUNDER


to performance improvement (body weight gain or feed efficiency). Claims relating to disease prevention or treatment are restricted to veterinary products. This framework strictly limits communications from manufacturers and undermines the efficacy of these products, even though many are recognized in human nutrition.


Plant extracts are riding high! Products inspired from natural substances seem to fit perfectly with the current needs of the industry. Indeed, current challenges for animal feeding related to feed demedicalisation offer great possibilities for the application of botanical extracts. After significant efforts from the community to reduce the use of colistin, zinc oxide and amoxicillin, coccidiostats are now being targeted. No one can ignore the beneficial effects of plant extracts as a replacement for these molecules, not by destroying infectious agents, but by helping animals to better cope with them. Numerous publications demonstrate the ability of some extracts to reduce inflammation generated by the infectious agent (e.g. capsaicinoids derived from capsicum oleoresin from red chili peppers) or to potentiate the response of the acquired immune system (e.g. curcuminoids only present in turmeric oleoresin).


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