Analysis of interesting phenomena in formulation, my third insight on formulation
Some interesting phenomena in formulation - my third insight on formulation
During my university years, to be honest, I had no interest at all in my major, until 2004 when I went to work as a technician at a feed company during my undergraduate studies. After about half a year there, I realized there were really many areas I knew nothing about, so I quit and went to graduate school. In 2007 I started doing formulation again, and up to now I find myself increasingly unable to do it. But I have also discovered some interesting phenomena in feed formulation.
Some of us formulators, when making poultry feed formulas, have always adhered to a creed: poultry eat for energy. I remember one time when I went to the market, I found that the feed intake of meat ducks was very high, so after coming back I adjusted the formula according to feed intake. After adjusting, I was stunned. If calculated according to feed intake, lysine only needed to be set at 0.5, but this result is obviously impossible. There are also times when some of us formulators, when making formulas, change all other nutrient indicators whenever energy changes. In my current view, this approach may not be very reasonable.
Because when energy decreases, the breakdown rate of protein in raw materials and the synthesis rate of amino acids will be affected, and the consequence is that the growth rate of animals will decrease. Therefore, when lowering or raising the energy level, the amino acid level in the formula should not be changed accordingly. Because under low-energy nutritional levels, protein digestion requires high lysine support. Other results show that under high-energy diets, for example for broilers (energy 3000, 3100, 3200), the effect on animal feed intake is not as great as we imagine.
Energy does affect animal feed intake, but what energy level affects most in animals is the growth rate of animals. The higher the energy, the faster the animal grows and the greater the body weight, so we sometimes find that high-energy diets instead show a higher feed conversion ratio than low-energy diets. In my current view, it is possible that the greatest influence on animal feed intake is environmental temperature, because when we make duck feed formulas we find that feed intake in winter is much higher than in summer, and growth rate also changes greatly. So I think when we change energy (high-energy diets), there is no reason to correspondingly change the amino acid values.
Feed formulation is a systems engineering. A decrease in one nutrient component must be accompanied by an increase in another nutrient component or by keeping the original level unchanged. This may be the balance law of nature. Sometimes we see that some companies' macro-ingredient formulas are very ordinary, but the effects, animal appearance, and the difference from some companies' high-grade feed are not very great. The difference may lie in the core premix. Undoubtedly, the bulk raw materials in the formula are the principal contradiction in the formula. Perhaps some formulators think that the quality of a formula mainly depends on the macro-ingredient formula, and perhaps the micro-ingredients in the formula are merely a psychological comfort. But from a dialectical point of view, nothing exists in isolation; everything has countless ties. The core premix in the formula, although a secondary contradiction, may become the principal contradiction at a specific location and in a specific environment. Once I saw Teacher Lu Liang's slides talking about how riboflavin at 5 ppm and 9 ppm would have a great impact on animal feed conversion ratio. I never believed that just such a tiny amount in the formula could change animal production performance. It was not until one day when I used maduramicin in a formula that I suddenly understood. When maduramicin is used at 5 ppm, it can treat coccidiosis in chickens, but when it reaches 6 ppm, it will cause poisoning in chickens. This is still a viewpoint of balance. When anything exceeds its bottom line, it can cause the possibility of quantitative change turning into qualitative change.
For example, when we make formulas, we often fail to grasp well the upper limit usage of some raw materials. Peanut meal is a good protein raw material, with the advantages of good palatability, high protein, and high arginine. In most cases, many formulators only dare to use 4%, but some formulators use 10%, and still receive no complaints, while some formulators who use 10% do receive complaints from the market... the feed conversion ratio is too high. The reason may be that arginine in peanut meal inhibits the absorption of lysine. When peanut meal is used at 10%, it becomes the principal contradiction in the formula, and most of the amino acids needed by the animals come from peanut meal. So I think the most important reason is that the digestible amino acids available for animal utilization provided in the feed are reduced. But when we go to our formulation software to look at the nutritional indicators, the total amino acids in it have not changed, and even the amino acid balance is very good. This may have committed the error of "metaphysics", only looking at the development of a thing mechanically and statically, without seeing the internality and regularity of the thing. Then again, when we use too much of one raw material in a formula, how should we adjust the formula to maintain the same effect as when this raw material is used less? This requires us formulators to slowly experience and explore through practice.
Many people think mathematics is a dry, monotonous discipline. But I think mathematics is one of the most rational, most romantic, and most human-feeling disciplines. For example, the golden ratio theory in mathematics. In real life, we find that when we look at a certain part of a person (or object) alone, we think it is quite ordinary, but when we look at the person (or object) as a whole, we find a kind of harmonious beauty and holistic beauty. There is also a golden ratio theory in formulation: phytase can generally replace 40% of the dicalcium phosphate in a formula; in layer feed, the ratio of limestone particles to limestone powder is 40:60; these data are all close to the golden ratio. Sometimes in our warehouse there is one raw material of relatively good quality and one of relatively poor quality. How should we match their proportions in the formula? Perhaps the golden ratio theory can provide us with an idea. Having said this, specifically which one to use at 40% and which one at 60%? That depends on which contradiction is the principal contradiction. Phytase replacing dicalcium phosphate - which do you think is the principal contradiction? Wheat and cassava, these two unconventional raw materials? Specifically, how much can the upper limit be used in medium and large ducks? Is it also somewhat related to the golden ratio theory? In fact, there are still many places in feed formulation where the golden ratio theory can be applied. Friends can apply it in actual work, and it may help you solve many problems.
I borrowed some viewpoints from Dr. Wang, Dr. Lu, and Dr. Peng Huanwei. Don't sue me for infringement, haha.
--------------------------------------
Hehe, the original poster is very talented. I learned from this. I really have not had such deep experience.
--------------------------------------
Thank you for sharing, original poster. Constant summarizing leads to progress.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Good, I benefited greatly! Thank you for the inspiration, original poster.
--------------------------------------
"Once I saw Teacher Lu Liang's slides talking about how riboflavin at 5 ppm and 9 ppm would have a great impact on animal feed conversion ratio. I never believed that just such a tiny amount in the formula could change animal production performance. It was not until one day when I used maduramicin in a formula that I suddenly understood. When maduramicin is used at 5 ppm, it can treat coccidiosis in chickens, but when it reaches 6 ppm, it will cause poisoning in chickens. This is still a viewpoint of balance. When anything exceeds its bottom line, it can cause the possibility of quantitative change turning into qualitative change."
Comparing a highly toxic drug with a vitamin is not quite appropriate.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Well said. Although some of the content, as said on the 6th floor, is not quite an appropriate analogy, it is thought-provoking!
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Although I do not know how to make formulas, I still gained a lot.
--------------------------------------
I dare not call myself a senior. Let us exchange ideas and learn from each other in the future.
--------------------------------------
The analysis is very much on point. Thank you, original poster.
Some of us formulators, when making poultry feed formulas, have always adhered to a creed: poultry eat for energy. I remember one time when I went to the market, I found that the feed intake of meat ducks was very high, so after coming back I adjusted the formula according to feed intake. After adjusting, I was stunned. If calculated according to feed intake, lysine only needed to be set at 0.5, but this result is obviously impossible. There are also times when some of us formulators, when making formulas, change all other nutrient indicators whenever energy changes. In my current view, this approach may not be very reasonable.
Because when energy decreases, the breakdown rate of protein in raw materials and the synthesis rate of amino acids will be affected, and the consequence is that the growth rate of animals will decrease. Therefore, when lowering or raising the energy level, the amino acid level in the formula should not be changed accordingly. Because under low-energy nutritional levels, protein digestion requires high lysine support. Other results show that under high-energy diets, for example for broilers (energy 3000, 3100, 3200), the effect on animal feed intake is not as great as we imagine.
Energy does affect animal feed intake, but what energy level affects most in animals is the growth rate of animals. The higher the energy, the faster the animal grows and the greater the body weight, so we sometimes find that high-energy diets instead show a higher feed conversion ratio than low-energy diets. In my current view, it is possible that the greatest influence on animal feed intake is environmental temperature, because when we make duck feed formulas we find that feed intake in winter is much higher than in summer, and growth rate also changes greatly. So I think when we change energy (high-energy diets), there is no reason to correspondingly change the amino acid values.
Feed formulation is a systems engineering. A decrease in one nutrient component must be accompanied by an increase in another nutrient component or by keeping the original level unchanged. This may be the balance law of nature. Sometimes we see that some companies' macro-ingredient formulas are very ordinary, but the effects, animal appearance, and the difference from some companies' high-grade feed are not very great. The difference may lie in the core premix. Undoubtedly, the bulk raw materials in the formula are the principal contradiction in the formula. Perhaps some formulators think that the quality of a formula mainly depends on the macro-ingredient formula, and perhaps the micro-ingredients in the formula are merely a psychological comfort. But from a dialectical point of view, nothing exists in isolation; everything has countless ties. The core premix in the formula, although a secondary contradiction, may become the principal contradiction at a specific location and in a specific environment. Once I saw Teacher Lu Liang's slides talking about how riboflavin at 5 ppm and 9 ppm would have a great impact on animal feed conversion ratio. I never believed that just such a tiny amount in the formula could change animal production performance. It was not until one day when I used maduramicin in a formula that I suddenly understood. When maduramicin is used at 5 ppm, it can treat coccidiosis in chickens, but when it reaches 6 ppm, it will cause poisoning in chickens. This is still a viewpoint of balance. When anything exceeds its bottom line, it can cause the possibility of quantitative change turning into qualitative change.
For example, when we make formulas, we often fail to grasp well the upper limit usage of some raw materials. Peanut meal is a good protein raw material, with the advantages of good palatability, high protein, and high arginine. In most cases, many formulators only dare to use 4%, but some formulators use 10%, and still receive no complaints, while some formulators who use 10% do receive complaints from the market... the feed conversion ratio is too high. The reason may be that arginine in peanut meal inhibits the absorption of lysine. When peanut meal is used at 10%, it becomes the principal contradiction in the formula, and most of the amino acids needed by the animals come from peanut meal. So I think the most important reason is that the digestible amino acids available for animal utilization provided in the feed are reduced. But when we go to our formulation software to look at the nutritional indicators, the total amino acids in it have not changed, and even the amino acid balance is very good. This may have committed the error of "metaphysics", only looking at the development of a thing mechanically and statically, without seeing the internality and regularity of the thing. Then again, when we use too much of one raw material in a formula, how should we adjust the formula to maintain the same effect as when this raw material is used less? This requires us formulators to slowly experience and explore through practice.
Many people think mathematics is a dry, monotonous discipline. But I think mathematics is one of the most rational, most romantic, and most human-feeling disciplines. For example, the golden ratio theory in mathematics. In real life, we find that when we look at a certain part of a person (or object) alone, we think it is quite ordinary, but when we look at the person (or object) as a whole, we find a kind of harmonious beauty and holistic beauty. There is also a golden ratio theory in formulation: phytase can generally replace 40% of the dicalcium phosphate in a formula; in layer feed, the ratio of limestone particles to limestone powder is 40:60; these data are all close to the golden ratio. Sometimes in our warehouse there is one raw material of relatively good quality and one of relatively poor quality. How should we match their proportions in the formula? Perhaps the golden ratio theory can provide us with an idea. Having said this, specifically which one to use at 40% and which one at 60%? That depends on which contradiction is the principal contradiction. Phytase replacing dicalcium phosphate - which do you think is the principal contradiction? Wheat and cassava, these two unconventional raw materials? Specifically, how much can the upper limit be used in medium and large ducks? Is it also somewhat related to the golden ratio theory? In fact, there are still many places in feed formulation where the golden ratio theory can be applied. Friends can apply it in actual work, and it may help you solve many problems.
I borrowed some viewpoints from Dr. Wang, Dr. Lu, and Dr. Peng Huanwei. Don't sue me for infringement, haha.
--------------------------------------
Hehe, the original poster is very talented. I learned from this. I really have not had such deep experience.
--------------------------------------
Thank you for sharing, original poster. Constant summarizing leads to progress.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Good, I benefited greatly! Thank you for the inspiration, original poster.
--------------------------------------
"Once I saw Teacher Lu Liang's slides talking about how riboflavin at 5 ppm and 9 ppm would have a great impact on animal feed conversion ratio. I never believed that just such a tiny amount in the formula could change animal production performance. It was not until one day when I used maduramicin in a formula that I suddenly understood. When maduramicin is used at 5 ppm, it can treat coccidiosis in chickens, but when it reaches 6 ppm, it will cause poisoning in chickens. This is still a viewpoint of balance. When anything exceeds its bottom line, it can cause the possibility of quantitative change turning into qualitative change."
Comparing a highly toxic drug with a vitamin is not quite appropriate.
--------------------------------------
Quoted from 321hsn, posted on 2009-7-24 20:51Thank you for your guidance.
"Once I saw Teacher Lu Liang's slides talking about how riboflavin at 5 ppm and 9 ppm would have a great impact on animal feed conversion ratio. I never believed that just such a tiny amount in the formula could change animal production performance. It was not until one day when I used maduramicin in a formula that I suddenly understood. When maduramicin is used at 5
--------------------------------------
Well said. Although some of the content, as said on the 6th floor, is not quite an appropriate analogy, it is thought-provoking!
--------------------------------------
Quoted from Meng Junying, posted on 2009-7-24 21:11Thank you, senior. Please give me much guidance.
Well said. Although some of the content, as said on the 6th floor, is not quite an appropriate analogy, it is thought-provoking!
--------------------------------------
Although I do not know how to make formulas, I still gained a lot.
--------------------------------------
I dare not call myself a senior. Let us exchange ideas and learn from each other in the future.
--------------------------------------
The analysis is very much on point. Thank you, original poster.