Value of Biosaf in Swine diets - Amazon Web Servicesphibromarketing.s3.amazonaws.com/_documents/201506/... · Live yeast = 2 log CFUs loss (24h) No effect: pH, Eh, total gas or methane

Value of Biosaf in Swine diets

2015

Biosaf (Biosaf +, Actisaf, Sc 47)

ActiSaf = BioSaf

© 2013 Lesaffre – All right reserved 2

ActiSaf = BioSaf


Actisaf is Heat Resistant: A unique manufacturing process


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


Meta-analysis of ActiSaf effects on grow-finish performance


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



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


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


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


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


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.




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

Value of Biosaf in Swine diets - Amazon Web Servicesphibromarketing.s3.amazonaws.com/_documents/201506/... · Live yeast = 2 log CFUs loss (24h) No effect: pH, Eh, total gas or methane

Documents