Some interesting phenomena in the recipe-- the third lesson of my recipe

When I was in college, to tell you the truth, I was not interested in this major at all. I didn't know anything about it until I went to a feed company in 2004. After doing it for about half a year, I found that I really knew nothing about many aspects. So I resigned to go to graduate school. I started to make recipes again in 2007, and now I find myself more and more unable to do it. But we also found some interesting phenomena in the feed formulation. we have some formulators who always adhere to a creed when making poultry formula: birds eat for energy. I remember once when I went to the market, I found that the feed intake of meat ducks was very high, so I came back to adjust the formula according to the feed intake. After adjusting it, I was dumbfounded. If calculated according to the feed intake, lys would be fine to 0.5, but this result is obviously impossible. Sometimes, some of our formulators change all other nutritional indicators when the energy changes. In my opinion, this may not be very reasonable. Because when the energy decreases, the decomposition rate of proteins in the raw material and the synthesis rate of amino acids will be affected, as a result, the growth rate of animals will slow down. Therefore, when reducing or increasing the energy level, the amino acid level in the formula should not be changed accordingly. Because at low energy levels, protein digestion needs high lys support. Other results show that in the case of high-energy diets, such as broilers (energy 3000, 3100, 3200), the feed intake of animals is not as large as we thought. Energy will affect the feed intake of animals, but the greatest impact of energy level on animals is the growth rate of animals. The higher the energy, the faster the growth rate and the greater the body weight. So we sometimes find that diets with high energy ratio are higher than those with lower energy ratio. Now it seems to me that the greatest impact on animal feed intake is the ambient temperature, because when we make duck formula, we will find that the food intake in winter is much higher than that in summer, and the growth rate has changed greatly. So I think when we change energy (high-energy diet), there is no reason to change the value of amino acids accordingly. Feed formula is a kind of systematic engineering, the decrease of one kind of nutrition must have the increase of another kind of nutrition or keep the original level unchanged. This may be the law of balance in nature. Sometimes we see that the big ingredients of some companies are very common, but the effect and the appearance of the animals are not very different from the high-end materials of some companies, and the difference may appear in the core materials. There is no doubt that the bulk raw materials in the formula are the main contradiction in the formula. Perhaps some formulators will think that the quality of a formula is mainly a large formula, maybe the small ingredients in the formula is just a kind of psychological comfort. But from a dialectical point of view, everything is not isolated, there are inextricably linked. Although the core material in the formula is a secondary contradiction, in a particular location, a particular environment may become a principal contradiction. Once I saw teacher Lu Liang's slide saying that riboflavin in 5ppm and 9ppm would have a great impact on the feed ratio of animals. I never believed that so little in the formula would change the production performance of animals. It wasn't until one day that I used Madumycin in the formula to realize that Madumycin can treat chicken coccidiosis when it is used in 5ppm, but it will cause chicken poisoning when it reaches 6ppm. This is still a balanced point of view, anything that exceeds its bottom line will cause quantitative change to the possibility of qualitative change. For example, when we make recipes, we often don't have a good grasp of the upper limit of some ingredients. Peanut meal is a good protein raw material, which has 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 do not complain, but some prescribers who use 10% are complained by the market. The material ratio is too high. The reason may be that arginine in peanut meal inhibits the absorption of lys. When peanut meal is used at 10%, it becomes the main contradiction in the formula. Most of the amino acids needed by animals come from peanut meal, so I think the most important reason is that the digestible amino acids provided in the feed are reduced. But when we went to our formula software to see the nutritional indicators, the total amino acids in it did not change, and even the amino acid balance was very good. This may make a "metaphysical" mistake, only mechanically and still look at the development of a thing, but do not see the internality and regularity of things. Then again, when we use too much of an ingredient in the formula, how should we adjust the formula to maintain the same effect as when the ingredient is used less? it requires our formulators to slowly understand and explore from practice. Many people think that mathematics is a kind of boring and monotonous knowledge. But I think mathematics is one of the most rational, romantic and human subjects. For example, the theory of golden section in mathematics, in real life, we find that when we look at a certain part of a person (thing) alone, we feel very general, when we look at this person (thing) as a whole, but will find that there is a kind of harmonious beauty and overall beauty. There is also a golden section theory in the formula: phytase can generally replace 40 per cent of the calcium hydrogen phosphate in the formula, and the ratio of stone to powder in egg feed is 40:60, which is close to the golden ratio. Sometimes, there is a kind of raw material in our warehouse, one kind of quality is better, the other is poor. How should we match their proportion in the formula? Maybe the golden section theory can provide us with a way of thinking. At this point, which one uses 40% and which one uses 60%? Well, that depends on that kind of contradiction is the main contradiction. Which do you think is the main contradiction for phytase to replace calcium hydrogen phosphate? Wheat and cassava are two very raw materials? How much can the upper limit be used in Zhongda duck? Does it have something to do with the golden section theory? In fact, there are many places where the golden section theory can be used in the feed formula, and friends can apply it in practical work, which may help you solve many problems. It draws lessons from some of the views of Dr. Wang, Dr. Lu, and Dr. Peng Huanwei, don't sue me for infringement, -- ha, the landlord is very talented. I studied. I really don't have such a deep experience-- thank you for sharing. If you keep summing up, you can make progress-good, a lot of benefits! Thank you for your inspiration-"once I saw teacher Lu Liang's slide saying that riboflavin in 5ppm and 9ppm would have a great impact on the feed ratio of animals. I never believed that so little in the formula would change the production performance of animals. It wasn't until one day that I used Madumycin in the formula to realize that Madumycin can treat chicken coccidiosis when it is used in 5ppm, but it will cause chicken poisoning when it reaches 6ppm. This is still a balanced point of view, anything beyond its bottom line will lead to quantitative change to the possibility of qualitative change. " The analogy between highly toxic drugs and vitamins seems inappropriate.-- quoted from 321hsn published at 20:51 on 2009-7-24. "once I saw teacher Lu Liang's slide saying that riboflavin in 5ppm and 9ppm had a great effect on animal feed ratio. I never believed that just a little bit in the formula would change the performance of animals. It wasn't until one day that I suddenly realized that Madumycin should be used in 5 thank you for your guidance-- that's right, although some of the contents, such as those on the sixth floor, are not appropriate, but they are thought-provoking! -- the content quoted from Meng Junying published at 21:11 on 2009-7-24 is right, although some of it, as said on the sixth floor, the analogy is not appropriate, but it is thought-provoking! Thank you, seniors, please give me a lot of advice-although I don't know how to make a recipe, I still have a lot to gain. The elders don't deserve it. Let's communicate and learn from each other in the future. Thank you for your analysis.