Report no. 402
05.10.1998
Bact-a-cid for finishers
Abstract
The products Bact-a-cid and a modified version of the same product
were tested for finishers from 27 to 107 kg live weight in one
herd.
The products were compared to a control feed without antibiotic
growth promoter. This trial was carried out in cooperation with
Agil and Nurtiscan A/S, who supplied the products tested. In the
trial there were 12 repetitions of each treatment and in total 120
pigs per group.
The trial included the following treatments:
- Control feed without growth promoter
- Bact-a-cid (dosage 3 kg per tonne for growers and 2.5 kg per
tonne for finishers)
- Modified Bact-a-cid (dosage 3 kg per tonne for growers and 2.5 kg
per tonne for finishers).
The result of the chemical analysis of the feed showed a good
concordance with the calculated nutritional content.
The production value of the individual diets was calculated on the
basis of the production results achieved and stated as gross margin
per pen per year at equal prices for the feed.
The trial showed that addition of Bact-a-cid and Modified
Bact-a-cid to finisher feed did not result in any significant
effect on the production value when compared to the control group
without growth promoter. Neither was there a difference between the
two tested products.
Background
The use of antibiotic growth promoter in feed is presumed to
increase the risk of developing bacteria, resistant to antibiotics
used in human medicine. Therefore, it is a desire to find
alternative products which can improve feed conversion and daily
gain.
The market offers an increasing number of products as alternative
to growth promoters. Documentation for the effectiveness of the
products is, however, necessary to be able to estimate the
financial gain of using the products in feed for finishers. The
object of testing commercial products for finishers is to provide
documentation for the production value of the products. The effect
of the products is measured by the production results: feed
conversion, daily gain and lean meat percentage.
The purpose of the trial was to examine if the products Bact-a-cid
and Modified Bact-a-cid with a dosage of 3 and 2.5 kg per tonne of
growers and finisher feed, respectively, resulted in an improved
production value compared to a control feed without growth
promoter.
The effect of the product was measured as the gross margin per pen
per year, which were calculated on the basis of the production
results: feed conversion ratio, daily weight gain and lean meat
percentage.
Materials and methods
This trial was carried out in one herd with finishers, where
addition of Bact-a-cid and Modified Bact-a-cid were compared to a
control feed without growth promoter. Moreover the two products
were compared mutual. The experimental design is shown in table
1.
|
Table 1. Experimental design
|
|
Group
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
Grower feed (27-57 kg)
|
Control
|
0.30% Bact-a-cid
|
0.30% Modified
Bact-a-cid
|
|
Finisher feed (57-107 kg)
|
Control
|
0.25% Bact-a-cid
|
0.25% Modified
Bact-a-cid
|
All feed mixtures were produced at Aarhusegnens Andels
Grovvareforening a.m.b.a. A description of the products tested is
shown in appendix 3. In all groups the feed was heat treated and
pelleted at a minimum temperature of 81 degrees Celsius. Grower and
finisher feed were produced in one and three batches, respectively.
At each delivery all three mixes were tested for content of energy
(EFOS), amino acids, calcium, phosphor and copper. The starter diet
was screened for antibiotics. The content of essential amino acids
in both grower and finisher diet were 5 per cent above the
recommendations. This was done in order to counteract fluctuation
in the crude protein contents of the raw materials.
The trial was carried out in a herd which had conventional health
status and own production of piglets. The finisher herd had fully
slatted floor. The pigs entered the trial at an average live weight
of 27 kg. In total 360 pigs in the trial were distributed in 12
blocks (repetitions), in total 120 pigs per treatment. When
entering the trial the pigs were divided according to sex firstly
and then after weight in groups of 30 pigs. The 30 biggest
castrates were distributed randomly in block 1 and the next biggest
castrates were distributed randomly in block 2 and so on. There
were 10 pigs in each pen. Within each block (three pens) the
distribution of sexes were equal.
Each pen had one simple dry feed dispenser and one nipple drinker.
The pigs were fed ad libitum and had access to feed day and night.
Feed was dispensed manually twice a day. The pigs were weighted
when shifting the feed approximately 5 weeks after the start of the
trial.
The primary parameters in the analysis of production value were
daily weight gain, feed conversion rate, carcass weight and lean
meat percentage. As secondary parameters - registration of
treatment of diseases as well as dead were analysed. Data were
subjected to an analysis of variance according to GLM procedure in
SAS. The production value stated as gross margin per pen per year
was calculated based on the production results achieved and was
adjusted to the same weight at entry and at slaughter.
The gross margin per pen per year was calculated as:
|
Gross margin per pig
|
=
|
Sales price ÷ purchase price ÷ feed expenses ÷ various
expenses.
|
|
Gross margin per pen per year
|
=
|
Gross margin per pig x (365 days/feeding days per pig) x per
cent utilization of herd.
|
The following assumptions have been used in the calculations:
average price for piglets the last 12 months: 342 DKK per 30 kg
piglet (±4,82 DKK per kg 25-30 kg) and for finishers 9.65 DKK per
kg slaughter weight. The feed prices used were 1.35 and 1.23 DKK
per FUs for growers and finishers, respectively, and were
calculated as an average of the prices the last 12 months. Various
expenses amount to 20 DKK per pig and the utilization of the pens
was calculated as 95 per cent.
The following class variables were included in the statistical
model: block and group. Three comparisons in pair were made (group
1 against 2, group 1 against 3 and group 2 against 3).
Statistically significant differences are stated at 5 per cent
level and are corrected for the three comparison in pairs by a
Bonferroni t-test.
Results and discussion
Feed analysis
The composition of the feed mixtures is shown in appendix 1 and
the chemical analysis of the feed is shown in appendix 2. The
results of the chemical analysis of the grower and finishers feed
showed good concordance with the calculated nutritional
content.
Treatment of disease
No differences between the groups in frequency of treatments or
the number of dead and culled pigs within the three groups were
found.
In the period from insertion until intermediate weighing, three
pigs died in group 3. In the period from intermediate weighing
until slaughter two pigs died in group 3. In the control group,
group 2 and 3, four, six and four pigs, respectively, were culled
from the trial.
Production results
The production results are shown for the period before and
after the intermediate weighting as well as for the whole test
period (table 2). The results are stated as average corrected to
the same weight at insertion, intermediate weighing and at
slaughter.
Table 2. Production results corrected to the same weight at
entry, at intermediate weighting and at delivery. | Feed mixture | 1
Control without growth promoter | 2
Bact-a-cid | 3
Modified
Bact-a-cid | Number of blocks (replications)
Number of pigs delivered | 12
116 | 12
114 | 12
112 | 27-57 kg:
Daily feed intake, FUs
Daily weight gain, g
FUs per kg weight gain |
1.65
674
2.44
|
1.58
687
2.29
|
1.69
706
2.39
| 57-107 kg:
Daily feed intake. FUs
Daily weight gain. g
FUs per kg weight gain |
2.78
990
2.81
|
2.78
971
2.86
|
2.80
964
2.90
| 27-107 kg:
Daily feed intake. FUs
Daily weight gain. g
FUs per kg weight gain
Lean meat percentage |
2.25
840
2.67
59.6
|
2.22
839
2.65
59.6
|
2.29
846
2.71
59.3
|
The production values stated as gross margin per pen place per
year are shown in table 3. The production values were calculated on
the basis of the production results achieved (daily weight gain,
FUs per kg weight gain and lean meat content). The price for
addition of the products is not included.
The actual production value where the sales price of the products
tested has been added to the price of the control feed without
growth promoter is stated in table 3. The price for the two
products tested was stated by the supplier of the product and
reflects the price which the pig producer has to pay for the
products, inclusive profit for the feedstuff companies.
Table 3. Production value and gross margin at actual
prices | Feed mixture | 1
Control without
growth promoter | 2
Bact-a-cid | 3
Modified
Bact-a-cid | Production value:
Gross margin/pen place/year 1),
DKK 2)
Index 2) |
634a
100
|
646a
102
|
615a
97
| Actual production value
gross margin/pen place/year 3)
Index |
634
100
|
620
98
|
588
93
|
1) | Daily weight gain and feed conversion rate is adjusted to the
same weight at entry and at slaughter | 2) | There has to be a difference in gross margin per pen place per
year at minimum 53 DKK or 8 index points, before there is a
significant difference between the groups. | 3) | There is not performed a statistical calculation on the
differences in the gross margin. |
In the growth period from 27 to 57 kg, group 2 had a lower feed
intake and feed conversion ratio, than the other groups. This
difference was not maintained in the last growth period from 57 to
107 kg. In total addition of the product Bact-a-cid and Modified
Bact-a-cid for growing and finishing pigs did not show any
significant difference in the production value. Neither was there a
significant difference in production value when comparing the two
products.
Appendix 1
Grower, mixes ingredients percentage
Group | 1
Control | 2
Bact-a-cid | 3
Modified
Bact-a-cid | Wheat | 45.00 | 45.02 | 45.02 | Soya meal toasted | 26.43 | 26.54 | 26.54 | Barley | 22.00 | 21.48 | 21.48 | Animal fat | 2.25 | 2.36 | 2.36 | Molasses | 1.50 | 1.50 | 1.50 | Chalk | 1.19 | 1.18 | 1.18 | Mocalciumphosphate | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.71 | NaCl | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.40 | LKF special finisher | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | L-Lysine hydrochloride | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | DL-Methionine 40 % | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.12 | L-Threonine 50 % | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | Bact-a-cid | - | 0.30 | - | Modified Bact-a-cid | - | - | 0.30 |
Finishers, mixes ingredients percentage
Group | 1
Control | 2
Bact-a-cid | 3
Modified
Bact-a-cid | Wheat | 26.00 | 26.00 | 26.00 | Soya meal toasted | 19.51 | 19.47 | 19.47 | Barley | 48.81 | 48.6 | 48.60 | Animal fat | 1.50 | 1.50 | 1.50 | Molasses sugar canes | 1.50 | 1.50 | 1.50 | Chalk | 1.22 | 1.22 | 1.22 | Monocalciumphosphat | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.62 | NaCl | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.43 | LKF-special finisher | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | L-Lysine hydrochloride | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | DL-Methionine 40 % | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | L-Threonine 50 % | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | Bact-a-cid | - | 0.25 | - | Modified Bact-a-cid | - | - | 0.25 |
Appendix 2
Calculated and analysed nutritional content of the mixes for
growers - one delivery
Group
Mix | All groups | 1
Control | 2
Bact-a-cid | 3
Modified
Bact-a-cid | Calculated / analysed 1) | Calculated | Analysed | Analysed | Analysed | FUs per 100 kg 2) | 110 | 110 | 111 | 110 | Crude protein, % 2) | 19.1 | 19.2 | 19.4 | 19.4 | Lysine, g/kg | 10.4 | 10.7 | 10.7 | 10.5 | Methionine, g/kg | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 3.4 | Threonine, g/kg | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.3 | 7.3 | Calcium, g/kg | 7.7 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.1 | Total-phosphor, g/kg | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.5 | Copper, mg/kg | 31 | 39.0 | 35.0 | 29.0 | Antibiotic screening | - | negative | negative | negative |
1) | Analysed content is based on one analysis if nothing else is
mentioned. | 2) | Average of four analyses. |
Calculated and analysed nutritional content of the mixes for
finishers - three deliveries
Group:
Mix: | All groups | 1
Control | 2
Bact-a-cid | 3
Modified
Bact-a-cid | Calculated / analysed 1) | Calculated | Analysed | Analysed | Analysed | FUs per 100 kg 2) | 105 | 108 | 108 | 108 | Crude protein, % 2) | 16.7 | 17.0 | 17.1 | 17.0 | Lysine, g/kg | 8.9 | 9.2 | 8.9 | 8.9 | Methionine, g/kg | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.6 | Threonine, g/kg | 6.0 | 6.3 | 6.0 | 6.0 | Calcium, g/kg | 7.4 | 7.8 | 6.9 | 7.5 | Total-phosphor, g/kg | 5.4 | 5.9 | 5.1 | 5.4 | Cobber, mg/kg | 29 | 35 | 33 | 27 |
1) | Analysed content is an average of three analyses if nothing else
is mentioned. | 2) | Average of six analyses. |
Appendix 3 - Product description based on company
information´
Products: | Bact-a-cid and Modified Bact-a-cid | Supplier:
| Agil
c/o Nutriscan A/S
Rørsangervej 8
8300 Odder
Denmark
Tel: +45 86 54 24 88 | Bact-a-cid
Contents: | A combination of the following acids: Formic acid;
ammoniunformiate, propione acid, ammoniumpropionate. Dosage 0.2-0.4
%. | Price:
| 13 DKK per kg product corresponding to: 3.90 and 3.25 DKK per
100 kg feed when the dosage is 0.30% and 0.25% for growers and
finishers, respectively. | Modified Bact-a-cid
Contents: | A combination of the following protected acids: Formic acid,
propione acid and metylpropione acid. Dosage 0.2-0.4%. | Price: | 13.50 DKK per kg of the product corresponding to: 4.05 and 3.38
DKK per 100 kg feed when the dosage is 0.30% and 0.25% for growers
and finishers, respectively. |
Toastning betyder opvarmning til 100-115 ºC i 20 minutter. En toastning reducerer indholdet af skadelige stoffer i en råvare.
Forkortelse af: World Health Organization.
|
To the top