The application of VevoVitall (4d210) in fattening pig feed is now regulated according to the new EU Regulation (EU 2020/1031 - annex): minimum 0.3% - maximum 1.0%.

 

The 1% dose remains recommended for maximum reduction of ammonia emissions. This level of application was recognized in the 'Stoppersregeling' (The Dutch Cessation Scheme[LL1] ) as well as within the Flemish and Dutch PAS (Integrated Approach to Nitrogen) regulations.
 

Those looking for a maximum effect on the reduction of urine pH and ammonia emissions should also opt for the 1% dose.

Adding 0.5% VevoVitall in fattening pig feed?

The 0.5% dose is mainly used for improved zootechnical results and stable intestinal health in fattening pigs. Based on 19 - mainly European - pig trials involving more than 10,000 fattening pigs, addition of 0.5% VevoVitall appears to increase daily growth by an average of 4.5%, while feed conversion decreases by 4.5% on average. Few other zootechnical feed additives can produce such recorded results. Most test show that increasing the dosage above that level shows no additional improvement in the technical results. 

 

If you are aiming for maximum improvement of zootechnical results, it is best to opt for 0.5% dosage. And therefore, this remains the recommended dosage for use in piglet [JS2] [LL3] and fattening pig feeds.

 

This inclusion is also still recommended for preventing formation of yeasts in liquid feed.

 

Although the effects of 0.5% VevoVitall in fattening pig feed are particularly positive, the main drawback of using it lies in the substantial increase in the gross feed cost (€/T). But not every pig farmer seems willing to invest heavily in higher feed costs early on in a production cycle, only to reap the benefits three months later. And that is certainly so in periods when pig prices are low and feed costs are high.

 

In view of that, in August 2017, DSM initiated a procedure to lower the legal minimum VevoVitall dosage in fattening pig feed from 0.5 to 0.3%. This effectively reduces the cost of including the additive by 40%, making application in that part of production much more cost-bearable.

 

Of course, the obvious question arises as to what this means in terms of the effect on the zootechnical results. Three new fattening pig trials (included in the EFSA report below) show that 0.3% VevoVitall continues to increase daily growth by between 3.1 and 4.4%. This means that roughly 75-80% of the improved result is retained when using the lower dosage. A logical and obvious consequence of this is that the return on investment (ROI) of using the additive also increases when applying the 0.3% dosage.

 

Those looking for the highest economic return are advised to start with the 0.5% dosage in the starter [LL4] feed (25-45 kg) and then switch to the 0.3% dosage in the finishing feed (45 - 115 kg). Several tests have shown that this achieves the best return on investment (ROI).

 

This feed additive schedule is also recommended in concepts aimed at protecting gut health. Especially now that the pig farmer is facing important challenges (more and more pressure on the use of antibiotics, phasing out the use of ZnO in piglet feed, etc.), application of 0.3% VevoVitall can also be considered when developing specific health concepts for heavier fattening pigs. But those who want to build in maximum protection should stick to the 0.5% dose (or even higher...).

 

- This regulatin enters into force on 4 August 2020 and is binding in every EU member state

- Mdification of benzoic acid content to be reported on the feed label

 

- Legal maximum in piglet feed (0.5%)

- Legal minimum (0.5%) and maximum (1.0%) in sw feed

- EU registratin number 4d210 (on label!)

- Items listed n the label: 'Animal feed additives containing benzoic acid should not, as such, be fed to fattening pigs.'      'Animal feed additives containing benzoic acid must be well mixed with the other feed materials in the daily ration.'

 

If you would like more information about this adapted EU legislation: please get in touch with your contact person at Twilmij!

 

 

 

 

RONOZYME® WX is a pure endo-1.4-xylanase (= mono-carbohydrase) which is added to animal feed to increase the digestibility of the fraction non-starch polysaccharides (NSP). In other words, it does not contain any other additional or side activities and only breaks down the arabinoxylans, being by far the most important NSP fraction in both poultry and pig feed. The range of carbohydrase enzymes in the market is extensive: more than 10 commercial carbohydrase preparations are EU registered. This often faces nutritionists with a difficult choice. One frequently recurring question from the sector is whether we should opt for pure xylanase (e.g. RONOZYME® WX) or for a multi-carbohydrase (e.g. RONOZYME® MultiGrain).

 

Mono or multi-carbohydrase?
It goes without saying that the NSP composition of a feed depends on its raw material composition. Nevertheless, the arabinoxylans form the largest NSP fraction in almost all types of animal feed. In addition, feeds also contain the ß-glucans, cellulose, pectins, etc., which the animal itself cannot break down neither. Particularly in feeds containing much barley, oats or soy alternatives (rapeseed and sunflower meal), the NSP composition can look entirely different than it does in a wheat/soy feed. 

 

A recent broiler trial in the Netherlands (PRIC, Emmen) compared two mono and two multi-carbohydrases in a feed containing 10% oats and 7% rapeseed and sunflower meal. Two other registered carbohydrases were tested in addition to RONOZYME® WX and RONOZYME® MultiGrain. The various enzymes were added on top of the feed, at their recommended dose. Only the mono-carbohydrases showed a significant improvement in feed conversion. In fact, one of the multi-carbohydrases that was tested, resulted even in a significant drop in final weight compared to the other enzymes. When chickens were fed RONOZYME® WX or RONOZYME® MultiGrain, a trend towards drier litter was noted. In this trial, the use of a multi-carbohydrase offered no added value, despite the presence of additional oat and soy alternatives in the trial feeds. 

 

Use in laying hens
The beneficial effects of RONOZYME WX have not only been proven in broilers. As part of the registration process, several trials were also performed with laying hens in collaboration with universities or research centres (e.g. Schothorst, IRTA, SCUR...). All these trials observed improved feed conversion: more egg mass with less feed. Furthermore, adding RONOZYME® WX resulted in a decrease in the number of dirty eggs, which may be a direct consequence of reduced viscosity in the intestine. 

In all trials, RONOZYME® WX was added on top, resulting in improved feed utilisation. In practice, calculation with a matrix value for RONOZYME® WX is often the method of choice. This ultimately results in a more economical laying hen feed, with constant production levels. 

 

Use in lactating sows
In lactating sows, the use of a carbohydrase is relatively new and not standard as yet. Until a few years ago, not a single carbohydrase was EU registered for sows. In contrast to young pigs, adult sows were assumed to have a fully developed intestinal microbiome that can normally break down the NSP fraction to a sufficient degree, even without adding a carbohydrase to the feed. 

Three trials have now shown that adding RONOZYME® WX to the feed of lactating sows increases the faecal nutrient digestibility by 2 to 3%. As a result, even “adult” pigs get more nutrients released from the feed. The increased nutrient uptake is particularly important after farrowing, when the sow comes into a negative energy balance. With the addition of RONOZYME® WX to the feed, the sow has to rely less on her own body reserves during lactation, so that she will be losing less weight during lactation. There is no doubt that this ultimately benefits fertility and longevity. 

In lactating sows, we recommend adding RONOZYME® WX on top, i.e. without using a matrix value for the enzyme. This way, the sow can use all additional energy released by the enzyme for milk production. Carbohydrases have not yet been registered in feeds for pregnant sows. 

 

Recommended doses
RONOZYME® WX 2000 (CT) is a dry, granulated product which is heat stable in pelleted feed thanks to its special coating. At higher temperatures (> 85°C) in combination with added steam, RONOZYME WX 2000 Liquid is recommended. 

 

The minimum and recommended doses for RONOZYME® WX are: 

 

[Article written by animal nutritionist ir. Luc Levrouw]

 

We did not randomly select vitamin A for investigation in this case. We chose it because it is one of the most degradation-prone vitamins and therefore very difficult to offer in a stable form for application in animal feed. This is because vitamin A is by nature an oil, which degrades very fast through oxidation when exposed to light, air and oxygen. That is also the reason why vitamin A oil without any protection is completely unusable for application in animal feed. Thus, Vitamin A must be protected against these external factors to minimise the degradation, to prevent the vitamin degrading even before it enters the animal's body.

 

You can protect vitamin A against degradation by coating the product. This sounds simple, but that is by no means the case with the Vitamin A manufacturing process. After all, a “normal” coating (fat) is insufficient – the vitamin must literally be encapsulated in and bound to a protective matrix. This is an extremely complex process in which the producer must look for a balance between stability and bioavailability. The fact is that if the vitamin is bound too strongly to the protective matrix, this can be problematic for the bioavailability of the vitamin in the animal. And the animal's metabolism will not release the vitamin A from the protective matrix. Furthermore, the standard practice is to add an antioxidant to the vitamin before it is encapsulated. This provides additional protection against oxidation. In the past, Ethoxyquin did the job excellently. It ensured optimal stability, even in vitamin A preparations with inferior coating technology.

 

But then the long-awaited ethoxyquin ban came into force for animal feed and vitamin preparations. This meant that producers had to look for an alternative. There was not much choice and, after consideration, most players in the sector decided to use BHT, the second-best alternative for EMQ. But BHT and ethoxyquin differ significantly in several ways. For example, BHT is a solid product and ethoxyquin is a liquid. It quickly became apparent that the imposed switchover had made formulating and coating technology know-how, in particular, much more important than it was previously. Ethoxyquin had the capacity to mask the disadvantages of a lower quality encapsulation somewhat, but that didn't seem to be the case with BHT. Very soon, several vitamin producers were facing a problem. Chinese vitamin A producers faced an additional challenge associated with this switchover. If they added more than 2.5% BHT to the vitamin A preparation, the product became subject to obligatory labelling as a hazardous substance. And that means extra storage and transport costs. So, one major Chinese producer initially restricted the amount of added BHT to 2.5%. It soon became apparent that the combination of inferior encapsulation with a reduced quantity of antioxidant caused major stability problems.

Yet, this inferior material still came onto on the market, albeit at greatly reduced prices. Under pressure from European distributors, the Chinese producer in question was reprimanded and obliged to raise the level of BHT to 10%. That seemed to be a step in the right direction, but it eventually became apparent that the material still did not match the previous quality.

 

In the search for an adapted EMQ-free product form DSM also opted to replace the additive with BHT. A minimum dosage of 10% appears to be appropriate for optimal protection. No other additives were applied here. Moreover, with decades of experience as a European producer of vitamins, DSM has the necessary know-how regarding different applicable formulation techniques for vitamin protection. Various studies - conducted by both DSM and its customers - demonstrate that the new, EMQ-free form of Rovimix A1000 is as stable as the earlier version. This is mainly attributed to the high standards used in formulating the coating and protective matrix. And additional studies show that the bioavailability of the vitamin remains assured.

 

During the period since the ban, several vitamin A producers have faced a real nightmare regarding the EMQ ban. This changeover initially even led to problems with spontaneous combustion of the material. During a race against time, new modifications were carried out, but there was insufficient time to perform the required tests. Nevertheless, this "off spec" material also ended up on the market - along with a shocking and never previously seen advice to significantly overdose the preparation - and of course it was sold at significantly reduced prices ... Overdosing with less stable vitamin A preparations is, legally speaking, not a good idea. After all, there is a legal maximum for vitamin A content in very many types of feed, and this practice can easily lead to that being exceeded. In addition, the level of degradation mainly depends on the circumstances that the premix and feed have experienced. And these are not always determinable in advance.

It is now clear that there are currently extremely wide-ranging differences in quality - and particularly in stability - between the various vitamin A preparations currently being offered on the world market. On paper they all contain the same amount of vitamin A, which is fine until the bag is opened. Meanwhile, DSM has not only extensively researched the stability of Rovimix A1000, but also that of products from the main global players in the vitamin A market.

Five preparations - from European and Chinese manufacture - were extensively tested on stability, both in premixes and in (pelleted) final feed form, each time after a storage period of three months. Although the vitamin A stability of our EMQ-free Rovimix A1000 is fully comparable to that of the earlier (EMQ) form, this does not mean that there is no possibility of vitamin A breakdown after processing in an (aggressive) premix process + processing into pelleted feed. But the level of breakdown with the new form is no greater than it was when use of EMQ as an antioxidant was still permitted. Furthermore, these tests show that the level of degradation is significantly less with Rovimix A1000 than with the other tested preparations. On average, the losses in these other products (after three months of storage of premix and final feed) was a good 30% higher than the those found when using Rovimix A1000. The tests make it painfully clear that some vitamin A producers have still not got the stability problem under control... Although quite tough, the conditions used in setting up these comparative tests are certainly not unrealistic. You can compare them with circumstances such as those that occur in countries with a warm climate: 25-30° C during the day, > 50% relative humidity, and storage of premix and final feed through a period of three months. Less extreme conditions could possibly lead to less degradation, but the conclusion would remain true, i.e. not all vitamin A preparations on the market today are 1: 1 comparable, even though they specify the same vitamin A content on paper ...