Methionine has always been, and will remain, the first limiting amino acid for efficient poultry production, be it for meat or eggs
So ensuring that the most cost effective source is used, has always been, and remains, crucially important. How should one decide between the two most commonly used sources, DLMethionine and MHA-FA? Price is obviously important; but of equal importance is bioefficacy, the amount of DL Methionine that is required to replace MHA-FA. This important number is 65%; in other words, every 1 kg of MHA-FA only needs 650 g of DL-Methionine to ensure the same supply of methionine to the animal.
This number is backed up by numerous scientific trials carried out across the globe. Consistently – in poultry, pigs and aqua species – the evidence continues to confirm the 65% bioefficacy number.
Such trials range from simple comparisons to complex university studies. The simple comparison is just as important as trials conducted in research facilities; while one confirms the fact of 65%, the others explain the reason behind it.
Typically a simple farm trial will take two houses, side by side. One house of birds is fed on feed containing an MHA product, while the other has feed of exactly the same composition except, every one kg of MHA product is replaced by 650 g DL Methionine.
The outcome: birds in both houses perform the same in terms of growth, FCR and carcass composition; but those fed using DL Methionine produce more profit, because the feed is cheaper.
The University studies help us to understand why there is a difference. As MHA products are absorbed more slowly than DL Methionine from the gut, there is more opportunity for the gut microbiota to “steal” it, preventing its absorption. This slow rate of transfer is due to the presence of polymers (in the MHA-FA liquid) and the slow transport system used by gut cells. Furthermore, MHA products need to be converted to L methionine in the liver. The consequence of all of this is that less methionine is available for muscle cells to grow when MHA products are used in feed at the wrong bioefficacy value; and so growth is slower and less efficient.
By radio-labelling, both DL Methionine and MHA products, it can be shown that far more methionine is incorporated into muscle tissue when DL Methionine is used, when compared to birds fed with MHA products.
All of these data and reports will be available for customers, through their local Evonik contact. Now customers can make the calculations themselves. If they visit https://metamino.evonik.com/ they can see the economic benefits of using MetAMINO – DL-Methionine from Evonik.
They can also read the most up to date research on the bioefficacy question, and weigh up the evidence. They can make the calculations, and choose the best from Evonik and MetAMINO.
