WO2005032268A2

WO2005032268A2 - Animal/marine feed supplement in the improvement of feed efficiency

Info

Publication number: WO2005032268A2
Application number: PCT/PH2004/000009
Authority: WO
Inventors: Dante C. Dizon
Original assignee: Dizon Dante C
Priority date: 2003-10-06
Filing date: 2004-10-01
Publication date: 2005-04-14
Also published as: WO2005032268A3; WO2005032268A9

Abstract

The animal and marine feed supplement of the present invention is mainly a two component system, that when combined with any animal feed can be a substitute for antibiotics for prophylaxis, produces a substantial increase bio-availability of nutrients and appetite of animals, reduces mortality, increases live weight, increases resistance to diseases, environmental stress, and reduces the smell of feces, urine and body odor. In addition, it reduces scouring of young piglets and produces lean meat. The feed supplement is mixed with any animal and rnarine feed formulation in mash, crumbles, treat or pellets; and may be made or concentrated in treat, pellet, capsule or tablet form.

Description

ANI ΛL/MΛ RINE FEED SUPPLEMENT IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF FEED FFIf TW-

FIELD OF INVENTION The present invention relates to an animal and marine feed supplement comprising of

ιηai.ι components: a combination of zeolite or zeolite with rare earth metals (ZRF.M), and huniic acid or, lulvi.c a d. It also includes a combination of fulvic acid and humic acid with zeolite or ZREM. This serves as a substitute h<r antibiotics as prophylaxis for the prevention of diseases; and the improvement of growth and health of animal and marine life. Furthermore, it reduces the stress of animals, and also reduces the smell of feces, urine and body odor.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION With an ever-increasing demand for mass production in animal husbandry worldwide, there is a strong need to improve health and growth of animals. Vitamins, antibiotics and hormones have been used extensively as prophylaxis and growth hormones for livestock production. However, studies show that such growth promoters based on hormones and antibiotics have negative effects on both animal and human health. Consequently, there is a need to search of natural-based growth ^'promoter which does not cause environmental or residue problems. In the past, there were already concerns about microbial resistance to antibiotics; and in late 1990, Europe started to ban the use of antibiotics as animal feed additive. There is considerable evidence that antibiotic arsenal is being depleted due to the development of resistant organisms. The more microorganisms become resistant to antibiotics, the greater the risk of a resurgence of unbeatable infectious diseases. It must be noted that the majority of the antibiotics used as animal feeds are used as prophylaxis, and not to treat sick animals. Some of these are antibiotics are systemic and stay in the food chain. They have a direct impact on humans, wherein they cause human resistance to antibiotics. The status of certain chcmo-antibacterial drugs which have been widely used in animal feeds is also uncertain. The United States Federal Drug Administration has already withdrawn its approval of the use in feeds of four nitrofurans (furazolidone, furaltone, nitrofurazone and nihydrazone), because they arc suspected of producing cancer in humans. Also, a high percentage of pork carcass continue to show high levels of sulfur (over 0.1 ppm). While certain combinations of antibiotics and chemo-antibacterial compounds have been used extensively as feed additives; the use of penicillin or tetracycline looks doubtful in the future. Diethylstilbestrol (DES) is generally recognized as an original performance stimulant, and was introduced to the industry about five decades ago. It was banned because it was suspected to be carcinogenic in humans. There are numerous performance stimulants in the market, like Zeronal, Snovex, Melangcstrol acetate, which are all steroid-based. They are being closely monitored by the American government so that (heir side effects in humans can be properly documented. Presently, the following are being used in the animal feed industry: Use of enzymes to improve digestibility of proteins, carbohydrates and fats Use of microorganisms like yeast, bacteria and fungus to improve digestion Use of organic and inorganic acids like hydrochloric acid, propionic acid, phosphoric acid, citric acid. formic acid, lactic acid, fumaric acid, fulvic acid, humic acid and others to improve digestion Use of copper sulphate and zinc oxide to improve digestion Use of probiotic base of actobacillas, acidophihis, Laclobacilhis casei, Enlerococc s damns, Aspergillas, Saccharomyces, Aspergilhts oiγzae and others Use of zeolite or aluminum silicate base as toxin binder is known to improve also digestibility of feeds Aside from chemical intervention, proper balance of nutrition is adapted, and proper cleaning of cages and hygiene is promoted by constant use of disinfectants. Proper design of housing and reduced population density in pens are ensured. Also, there is proper training of farm staff who are responsible for feeding and cleaning the animal houses, hi brief, there is no substitute for proper management of the farm, which also includes vaccination and prevention disease. In highly developed countries, companion pets live in compact quarters like high-rise condominiums with limited hired helpers. Owners encounter problems in handling malodorous smells coming rom the lives, urine and body of the animals. Proper hygiene using medicated shampoos and absorbent litter is used; and Yucca extract is added to the animal feed to remove ammonia and the malodorous smell of leccs and urine. These do not eradicate the mentioned problems.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Chemobaclerial drugs, which arc commonly used as prophylaxis and growth promoters in the animal feed industry, have found their way into the food system. There is a big concern about microbiological resistance to antibiotics in humans. Some performance stimulants which are based on steroids have questionable side eifects. Due to the above problems and the ever-increasing demand for niass .pipduςtion in^' animal husbandry worldwide, there is a need to search for a natural-based product as an antibiotic prophylaxis and growth promoter which does not cause side effects to humans, environment or residue problems'. • Presently, there is a number of common feed additives, aside from vitamins and minerals, su.ch as enzymes called probiotics, inorganic salts and organic acids and combinations, used to improve production. Problems of rearing companion pets like dogs and cats in compact quarters, have a serious problem in the control of malodorous smell of urine, feces and body odor. There is a need to address the above problems. Surprisingly,^' the animal/marine feed supplement, according to the present invention, comprising mainly of humic acid or fulvic acid with Zeolite and ZREM and combination of humic acid and fulvic acid with Zeolite or ZREM has effectively addressed and solved the abovementioned problem in the prior art. Generally, the present invention increases feed efficiency above 15%, improves appetite and increases feed uptake, live weight and growth rate. Likewise, it drastically decreases the odor of feces, urine and body. Furthermore, it reduces stress and improves resistance to disease. The optimum combination is as follows: • 20% humic acid with 80% Zeolite or ZREM • 40% humic acid with 60% zeolite or ZREM • 1.5% parts fulvic acid with 98.5% Zeolite or ZREM • 27% fulvic acid with 73% humic acid, totals 18.34% combines with 81.66% Zeolite or ZREM Generally, our compound is added to traditional ration feed by pre-mixing with a conventional, horizontal or vertical mixer for livestock ration, during preparation of the feed ration. It is an add-on to the traditional feed ration. For companion pets, our compound is made into capsule, tablet or pellet form and added to the traditional feed ration at a rate between 1-8 capsules per day, depending on the weight of the animal. For fighting cocks, it is fed at the rate of one capsule per day for a period between 10-21^' days, depending on the condition of the fighting cock. For floating-type feeds for fish, it is pre-mixed during the manufacturing process of feeds and led as traditional feed ration.

For individual groups of animals, our findings are as follows: I.A. Canine (dogs) as companion pets A composition mainly of 40% humic acid and 60% either zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results. Likewise, a composition mainly of 1.5% fulvic acid with 98.5% either zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results.

- There was drastic reduction of smell of feces and urine (dogs have the highest volume per unit weight :>f urine and notoriously strong ammonical smell, perhaps because dogs do not perspire like other aniiwal._".).

- Surprisingly, body odor was reduced drastically.

- It was observed also that mosquitoes were repelled after feeding on our compound.

- It was difficult to assemble groups of dogs with similar breeds to conduct scientific studies. Comparison was done only before and after feeding with our compound.

LB. Canine Optimum formulation with composition of 60 parts humic acid, either with 40% zeolite or ZREM. and composition with 27% fulvic acid with 73% humic acid, a total 18.34% combined with either 81.66% .colile or ZREM, gave the best and rapid results on drastic reduction of malodorous smell of urine, fpces .and Iwul of the most malodorous breeds of dogs. There was no quantitative comparison between composition since evaluation was mainly subjective. π.A. Poultry (Fowl) A composition of 20 % humic acid with 80% either zeolite or ZREM, gave optimum re.su I is. Likewise, a composition mainly of 1.5% fulvic acid with 98.5% zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results. a. Broilers Reduced growing period by 10% to attain target weight Reduced mortality by 50% in crowded pens during the summer Poultry Broiler Broilers Pail II Composition of 27% fulvic acid with 73% humic acid, with a total of 18.34% combined with 81.6% either zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results as follows: Weight increase with ZREM was 30.0% Weight increase with zeolite was 20.5% Percent mortality with ZREM was 76.0% Percent mortality with zeolite was 79.0% FCR with ZREM was 19.3% FCR with zeolite was 15.44% b. Layers Increased egg production by 15% Increased egg sizes by 60% or marketable grade Reduced egg breakage by 65% Significantly reduced cannibalization De-beaking is a common practice for layers which reduces ability of the chicken to pick-up feeds. Thus, it is a waste of energy on the part of the chicken. De-beaking was no longer necessary with the use of our compound. Drastically reduced smell of feces and urine. This translated into reduction of ammonia pollution elfe'cL ami fly population, which are both major problems of the animal industry. There was extension of egg production period due to improved health. Layers Part II • • Composition of 27% fulvic acid with 73% humic acid, with a total of 18.34% combined with K l .6 . cither zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results as follows: Increase in egg production efficiency with ZREM was 19.6% Increase in egg production efficiency with zeolite was 20.0% Increase in jumbo sizes with ZREM was 49.0% Increase in jumbo sizes with zeolite was 64.0% Decrease in egg breakage with ZREM was 33.0% Decrease in egg breakage with zeolite was 28.0% Feed consumption improvement per egg with ZREM was 21.0% Feed consumption improvement per egg with zeolite was 18.0% c. Fighting Cocks It was observed based on body language that the fighting cocks became smarter, more alert, confident, calmer and agile. During the fight, they had better resistance and endurance. Composition comprising of 40.0% humic acid with 60.0% Zeolite, gave similar subjective performance with our second composition comprising of 73.0% humic acid and 27.0% fulvic acid, which constituted 18.34% with 81.66% zeolite. Performance of humic acid or fulvic acid or Zeolite or ZREM alone gave almost identical performance, except usage of high dosage of either Zeolite or ZREM reduced egg breakage significantly. This was due to a high percentage of aluminum silicate of either Zeolite or ZREM, which increased the strength of the egg slicll. d. Ducks Further studies were made to investigate effects of the combination of fulvic acid and humic acid with either Zeolite or ZREM. This time, we used ducks to make preliminary studies on how a different combination performs, since it was much easier to assemble ducks with identical sex, age and size. Ducks are known to have watery feces, regardless of their feed intake. Composition comprising.73.0% of humic acid and 27.0% fulvic acid which constitute 18.3'!% with 81.66% ZREM gave optimum results by increasing egg efficiency as compared to control. F ef.es

l. o noted to be drier. , •

1U.A. Swine A composition of 20% humic acid with 80% either zeolite or ZREM, gave optimum results. Likewise, a composition mainly of 1.5% fulvic acid with 98.5% zeolite or ZREM gave optimum resiills. a. Piglets Mortality was reduced by 75%. "Scouring" happens during the transition from milk feeding to feeding of commercial feeds, 'which is normally spiked with antibiotics. With the use of our compound, "scouring" was reduced significantly without antibiotics. Reduction of mortality was also attributed to the antibiotic properties of our compound. Piglets became healthier due to increased lactation of sows. b. Weaner to Grower Stage (10 to 70kg) Rate of growth was faster. There was lesser number of stunted weaners. This may have been due to lesser competition during feeding and improved appetite. e. Hnisher (Marketable Weight) Surprisingly, there was lesser back fat. Expectations, subject for further studies: Improvement of the size of litter due to improvement of health of the sow and the boar. Swine Part II Composition of 27% fulvic acid with 73% humic acid, with a total of 18.34% combined with 81.6% either zeolite or ZREM gave results as follows: Only the evaluation of mortality of young piglets was done. The reason was that the researchers had some security problems in their trials, and could not afford to reveal their technology to other parties. Reduction of mortality of young piglets was reduced from 25.0% to 0%, inspite of the poor weather conditions, which make the piglets conducive to scouring and pneumonia

IV. Marine, Tilapia Nilotlca A composition mainly 40% humic acid and 60% either zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results. Likewise, a composition mainly of 1.5% fulvic acid with 98.5% either zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results

- Unit weight was increased by 23%.

- Feed conversion ratio was improved by 21%.

- Mortality rate was reduced by 50%.

- Our compound efficiency can be further increased if it is incorporated during production of floating feed. - Compound was merely coated on finish floating feed and used molasses as stickers; so it was beneficial that the tilapia gobbled the floating feed within 5 minutes.

- The compound was leached -out because molasses binder is water soluble.

V.A. Cows for beef production A composition mainly 40% humic acid and 60% either zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results. Likewise, a composition mainly of 1.5% fulvic acid with 98.5% either zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results. Cows under trial were directly imported from Australia. They were subjected to severe stress during transport conditions from Australia to the growing pens.

- It was generally observed that using our compound, the cows' stress was reduced from 4 weeks to 2 weeks.

- There was an increase in appetite and rate of weight increase was rapid.

- Cows' dung was drier and their urine clearer.

- Increase in weight improved by 28.0% Most likely feeding efficiency was increased, but this qould not be quantified because they were ^ d libitum.

Cows for Beef Production Part II Composition comprising 73.0% humic acid with 27.0% fulvic acid, which constitute 18.3% combined with 81.66% Zeolite gave optimum results of average daily gain (ADG) of 1.41, compared with 1.0 for control.

VI.A. Water Buffalo for milk production A composition mainly 40% humic acid and 60% either zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results. Likewise, a composition mainly of 1.5% fulvic acid with 98.5% either zeolite or ZRGM gave optimum results

- Milk production was increased by 23.8%.

- Dung was drier and urine clearer.

- Rate of growth of calf was observed to be faster.

Water Buffalo for milk production Part II For the second part, cows were used instead of water buffalo in the first phase of our trial. Composition comprising 73.0% humic acid with 27.0% fulvic acid, which constitute 18.3'% combined with 81.66% ZREM gave optimum results, with increase of milk production by 21.74% as compared to the control. Also, there was a rapid increase of milk production from day one as compared to the first trial with water buffalo. Composition of 27% fulvic acid with 73% humic acid, with a total of 18.34% combined w it 81.6% either zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results as follows: There was an increase of average daily weight gain (ADG) of 24.0%. Other composition results were not far behind from the mentioned best composition. Vrr. Feline A study on cats showed that basically all six compounds per Table VII with best results of our pi cyiuus trials for livestock did not yield much difference on bioeflicacy because evaluation, mainly the smell ol li_i.es. after treatment with our compound, is very subjective.

Vm. Equine A composition mainly of 40.% humic acid with 60.0% zeolite, 1.5% fulvic acid with 98.5% zeolilc and a composition of 27.0% fulvic acid with 73.0% ZREM with total 18.3% combmed with 81.6% zeolite gave identical performance with improvement of stamina and endurance of race horses.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION The animal/marine feed of the present composition can be prepared in different shapes and form depending on the intended use thereof. The composition of the present invention is prepared by mixing the desired amounts of the components in any mixing apparatus such as horizontal mixer to form a powder composition ready for use as add-on to traditional feed ration. The powder composition are packed in individual pouches according to desired amount per pouch. The powder composition may also be processed further to make it available in different forms or shapes such as pellet, treat, capsule or tablet form. Any forming machines such as extruder, pellet-making or stamping machine are used in producing the desired shape and form. In making the pellet or treat form, a desired concentrate or mix is fust prepared and this concentrate is then added to a base composition for mal ing dog pellets or treats comprising of flour, oil and water. Other additives may also be added such as flavoring, stabilizer, and color-enhancer before all the ingredients are mixed to form a dough-like mixture. T is dough-like mixture is then passed thru a pellet machine to form pellets or a stamping machine to form treats. The pellets or treats are then baked and cooled to room temperature prior to packaging. In preparing the capsule-form or tablet, any capsule-making or tablet-making machine and/or set-up can be utilized. Conventional excipients or additives may be added to the powder mix to form a stable tablet or capsule. The following are examples of preparing the composition of the present invention: Example 1: Preparation of ready-mix Concentrate A ready-mix powder composition was prepared by mixing 60 parts zeolite with 40 parts humic acid in a horizontal mixer. The powder composition was then packed in individual pouches.

Example 2: Preparation of ready-mix Concentrate A ready-mix powder concentrate was prepared by mixing 60 parts ZREM with 10 parts fulvic acid and 30 parts humic acid in a horizontal mixer. The powder concentrate was then packed in individual pouches .

Example 3: Preparation of Treat A concentrate was prepared by mixing 60 parts ZREM with 40 parts humic acid in a horizontal ixer. A dough' was prepared by mixing 16 parts of the concentrate, 64 parts flour, 9.6 parts oil and 9.6 puits water in a dough mixer. The dough was kneaded and passed thru a stamping machine to form treats. The treats were then baked, cooled to room temperature, and packed in individual pouches.

Example 4: Preparation of Pellets A concentrate was prepared by mixing 60 parts ZREM with 40 parts humic acid in a horizontal rav er A dough was prepared by mixing 16 parts of the concentrate, 64 parts flour, 9.6 parts oi,l and 9.6 pai ls water in a dough mixer. The dough was kneaded and passed thru a pellet machine to form raw pellets. The i aw pel lets were then baked, cooled to room temperature, and packed in individual pouches.

Example 5: Preparation of Capsule A concentrate was prepared by mixing 60 parts of ZREM with 40 parts of humic acid in a horizontal mixer. The concentrate was then transferred to a capsule machine to obtain capsules containing the concentrate.

Example 6: Preparation of Crumbles 59.4 parts zeolite, 39.6 parts humic acid and 1 part molasses were mixed in a horizontal mixer to f^'oi m crumbles.

Example 7: Preparation of Feed 64.88 parts silage, 6.4 parts rice bran, 6.4 parts molasses, 0.064 parts salt. 4.8 parts ZREM and 2.2 parts humic acid was mixed in a horizontal mixer to form a ready-mix feed. The ready mix feed was then packed in individual pouches.

Dog trials It was very difficult to assemble dogs with identical breeds, ages, and weight. However, it was very easy to observe individual dogs behavior and reaction in evaluating trends and the bio-efficacy of the combination of our compound as a starter. Individual age groups of dogs were fed and the smell of feces and dtιw<>> \H obseivcd. Likewise, feeding intake and activity were noted. For dog trials, our compound is added and pre-mixed with traditional dogfood ration during reeding. Table 1. Formulas Used In Dog Trials (K): K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 _< Humic acid 8.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 0.120 Fulvic acid 0.30 0.30 Zeolite 12.0 16.0 19.7 3.1.80 ZREM 19.70 16.0 12.0 Kg/ton feed 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 35.0 Remarks: The above trial was initiated to determine the initial feedback of various mixtures. It was noted that the smell of dung and urine and body odor were drastically reduced. This is a big factor for companion pets in limited space where it is veiy difficult to observe proper hygiene. No control I'toiip was observed because it is difficult to assemble a big group of dogs for a scientific trial. Dog Trials Outline: Group I First Week: Combination No. 1 ( -l) Breed: Native Number of Dogs: 5 Average weight of Dog: 10 kg Normal Weight of Feed: 0.2 kg/dog Feeding Rate: Twice a day (morning and early evening) Type of Food: Rice with cooked chicken heads or low quality fish with soy sauce was mixed with K-l. The living space of the dogs was cleaned and sanitized with Chlorox. Observations: After 24 hours, the density of flies and ammonical odor of urine were reduced. This obser vation remained consistent even after seven days of feeding the dogs. Second Week: K-l was replaced with K-7. Feeding rate and time were unchanged.

Living space of the dogs were cleaned and sanitized with Chlorox. Observations: Density of the flics and ammonical odor were further reduced. Third Week: > K-7 was replaced with K-4.

Living space was cleaned and saniti/cd with Chlorox.

Feeding rate was reduced to once a day (in the morning) and reduced from 2.5 kg to 2.0 kg. Observations: The flics were almost gone; and there was only a faint ammonical odor. The dogs were calm and did not whine.

Group II ,

Number of dogs: 3 Dalmatians, average age of 2 years old, average weight of 15 kg/dog

Type of Food: 100% imported dog food

Feeding Rate: Twice per dog, 150 g/dog/day

Dogs were kept in individual cages

K-2 was mixed.

Cages were cleaned and the surroundings sanitized with Chlorox.

Observations: On the first day, the dogs were hesitant to eat. After twelve hours, their appetite increased, and ^'they finally accepted the mix. After two days, fly density was reduced, the urine became clear, and its ammonical odor significantly reduced. After one week, the dogs were veiy calm and restful. The feeding rate was reduced to once daily (early morning). They did not whine nor bark, nor show other signs of hunger. After two weeks, the feed was reduced to 135 grams per day per dog, and there were no signs of hunger. After four weeks, combination K-6 was used. Observations similar to that seen in the use of K-2 were seen until eight weeks. Group HI Number of Dogs: Two (male and female) Breed: German shepherd Age of dogs: 1 year old Average weight of dogs: 15 kg/day Type of food: 100% imported dogfood Feeding Rate: Once a day Average weight of food per day: 150 grams Dogs were kept in individual cages. Cages were cleaned and surroundings were sanitized with Chlorox. In the first three weeks, mix with K-3 was used. Observations: At first, the dogs were hesitant to eat, but after twelve hours, their appetite increased and they accepted the mix.^' After 48 hours, the fly density and the ammonical odor of urine were reduced. The dogs were calm and restful. After five days, feed was reduced to 135 grams/dog day. The dogs were found to be even more alert. On the fourth week, IC-5 was used instead of K-3 at the same rate of 150 grams/dog/day. Similar observations were made, and feeding was continued until 10 weeks. Group IV Number of Dogs: One (male) Breed: German Shepherd Age: Seven years old, geriatric, non-active, vety lethargic Weight of Dog: 12 kg The dog was unleashed, and roamed freely in the house and yard Food: 50/50 rice and leftover viand Feeding Rate: Twice a day, with an average of 200 grams/day. K-4 was used. Observations: At the start, the dog was hesitant to eat. Soy sauce was added, and it accepted the mix. AΛcr 48 hours, fly density around its dung and ammonical odor of its urine were reduced. Urine color was cle r. After four days, it was noted to be more active. Feeding was continued at the same rate, and it was observed that the dog became more alert and active. K-4 was added at a similar feeding rate.

- A composition mainly 40% humic acid and 60% either zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results. Likewise a composition mainly of 1.5% fulvic acid with 98.5% either zeolite or ZREM gave optimum results

- There was drastic reduction of smell of feces and urine (dogs have the highest volume per unit weight of urine and notoriously strong ammonical smell, perhaps because dogs do not perspire like other animals). - Surprisingly, body odor was reduced drastically. - It was observed also that mosquitoes were repelled after feeding on our compound.

- It was difficult to assemble groups of dogs with similar breeds to conduct scientific studies. Comparison was done only before and after feeding with our compound. -Presently undergoing studies on the effect compound on dogs ' external parasites like lice and miles Canines Part II It was observed that when the compound was withdrawn from the dogs, the original smell of urine, feces and the body returned. Using the best results from poultry, swine and bovine, trials were done with the worst breed of dogs noted for their body odor. As the previous trials, they were observed before and alter treatment. Table 1 2 3 4 Humic Acid (kg) 8.0 8.0 2.0 2.0^' Fulvic Acid (kg) - - 0.75 0.75 Zeolite (kg) 12.0 - 12.25 - ZREM (ke) _ 12.0 - 12.25 Kg/ton feed 20.0 20.0 15.0 15.0 Summary of the Results Breed: Shar-pei, noted for its malodorous body odor Number of dogs: 2 Average Weight (kg): 10.0 kg Type of Food: Commercial feed Net weight of Capsule: 800 mg Number of capsules per dog: 3 Frequency of shampoo treatment before treatment with capsule: every 2 days

Formula No. 1:

Observations: Before feeding with our compound, bedding was washed, and Chlorox was applied to sanitize the suiToundings, and shampooed. The dogs were observed after 24 hours. It was observed that body odor was absent; urine and fecal smell were drastically reduced. After five days, the dogs were shampooed again because the malodorous smell began to build up as prior to treatment. Breed: Dalmatian, noted also for its malodorous body odor Number of dogs: 3 Average Weight (kg): 15.0 kg Type of Food: Commercial feed Net weight of Capsule: 800 mg Number of capsules per dog: 4 Frequency of shampoo treatment before treatment with capsule: every 3 days

Formula No. 2:

Observations: Before feeding with our compound, bedding was washed, and Chlorox was applied to sanitize the surroundings, and shampooed. The dogs were observed after 24 hours. It was observed that body odor was absent; urine and fecal smell were drastically reduced. After five days, the dogs were shampooed again because the malodorous smell began to build up as prior to treatment. Breed: German Shepherd, noted also for its malodorous body odor Number of dogs: 2 Average Weight (kg): 18.0 kg Type of Food: Commercial feed Net weight of Capsule: 800 mg Number of capsules per dog: 4 Frequency of shampoo treatment before treatment with capsule: every 5 days

Formula No. 3:

Observations: Before feeding with our compound, bedding was washed, and Chlorox was applied tw sanitize the surroundings, and shampooed. The dogs were observed after 24 hours. It was observed that body odor was absent; urine and fecal smell were drastically reduced. After eight days, the dogs were shampooed^' again because the malodorous smell began to build up as prior to treatment.

Breed: Labrador, noted also for its malodorous body odor Number of dogs: 1 Average Weight (kg): 20.0 kg Type of Food: Commercial feed Net weight of Capsule: 800 mg Number of capsules per dog: 5 Frequency of shampoo treatment before treatment with capsule: every 3 days

Formula No. 4

Observations: Before feeding with our compound, bedding ^"was washed, and Chlorox was applied to sanili/e the surroundings, and shampooed. The dogs were observed after 24 hours. It was observed that body odor was absent; urine and fecal smell were drastically reduced. After five days, the dogs were shampooed again because the malodorous smell began to build up as prior to treatment. '

LIVESTOCK A Animal feeds are produced in batches or continuous process either in a horizontal ribbon blender or vertical centrifugal mixers. Smaller components are pre-mixed with macro-components as master bitten to obtain optimum uniform distribution. There are three forms. First is mash, which has component sizes between 20-100 mesh number. Crumble form is produced by the addition of binder like oil, fats or molasses to agglomerate fine particles. This form is used to minimize waste of fine particles left in the feeding troys. Pellets are made by pre-mϊxing ingredients either in a horizontal or vertical mixer. Binders like bentonite or Iignosulfonales are added and passed through pelletizing machines or extruders and finally cut to the desired length. Pelletezing is done to avoid fine particles and to be easily picked up and eaten by animals with minimum wastage. During the pelletizing process, extrusion temperature is raised to 80-70 degrees Celsius, which caitscs some ingredients like vitamins to deteriorate chemically. Some of our trials were pelletized to determine if there is any degradation of any of the components. We found them very stable. Since we have common components of all the test animals, pellets were used on only on a few animals. A typical poultry, swine and fish feed formulation is as follows: Dosage Range % Macro Corn or wheat 55-70 Soya Meal 10- 15 Fish Meal 5-10 Pollard or rice bran 5-10 Copra meal 5- 15 Semi- Macro Skim milk 1-3 Fats 1-5 Dicalcium phsophate 1-2 Amino acids like choline, 1-2 Chloride, d L methionine, Lysine and thrconine, etc. Micro Antioxidanls 250-350 ppm Vitamins 0.05-1.0% Anti-molds 0.25-0.5% Micronutrients 0.50-1.0% Antibiotics 0.25-0.5% Growth promoters 0.01-0.5% Poultry Broiler To a farm cooperator, standard feed mash ration form for chick booster was added to our compound per Table ϋ-A.a-d.. No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. This was fed for a period often days. After ten days, broiler grower ration, in crumble form was mixed to our compound per Table II. A.a-d. No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. This was fed for a period of 18 days. After 18 days, broiler grower ration, in crumble form was mixed to our compound per Table II. A.a-d. No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. This was fed for a period of 18 days. There were 500 broilers per pen or trial. Balance three pens were considered controls since there wece ten pens per poultry house. Consumption and total mortality during the period were recorded. The remaining broilers per pen were weighed by twenty heads to determine total weight per pen and average weight per head. Other variables were kept constant. Table II.A.a. Poultry Broilers

RESULTS

Summary: 1) Humic acid or Zeolite alone, improved the average weight by only 5.0% and improved feed conversion ration (FCR) by only 5.0% against control. 2) Mortality improved by 4.45%; whereas per trial number 5 gave optimum results with 20% humic acid and 80% Zeolite. 3) Average weight increased by 18.6% mortality reduced by 63.0% and FCR improved by 15.5%

Summary: 1) Fulvic acid or ZREM alone increased average weight per feed by 3.9% 2) Mortality was reduced by 28.0% and FCR improved by 4.3%. 3) Whereas, trial 5 with combination of 1.5% fulvic acid and 98.5% ZREM gave optimum result's with average weight increase of 16.3% mortality reduced by 71.0% and FCR improved by 14.3%

RESULTS

Summary: 1) Humic acid or ZREM alone^' increased average weight per head by 4.6% mortality reduced by 15.0% and FCR improves by 4.68%. 2) Whereas, trial no.4 with combination of 20% humic acid and 80% ZREM gave optimum results with average weight increase by 15.71%. Mortality was reduced by 59.0% and FCR improved by 18.6% Table II.A.d. Poultry, Broiler Com ound: k Fulvic acid and Zeolite er ton feed

Summary 1) Fulvic acid or Zeolite alone average increased weight by 3.1%, mortality was reduced by 19.0% and FCR improved by 3.14%. 2) Whereas, trial No.5 with combination 1.5% ftilvic acid with 98.5% Zeolite gave optimum results., .μi I h average increase in weigh! by 13.4%, mortality reduced by 40.0% and FCR improved by 13.35% Poultry Broiler Part II To a farm cooperator, standard feed mash ration form for chick booster was added to our 'compound pet- Table I. No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. This was fed for a period often days. After ten days, broiler grower ration, in crumble form was mixed to our compound per Table I LB. No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. This was fed for a period of 18 days. After 18 days, broiler grower ration, in crumble form was mixed to our compound per Table II. \i. INIO antibiotics and growth promoters were added. This was fed for a period of 18 days. There were 500 broilers per pen or trials. Balance three pens were considered controls since there ere lαi pens per poultry house. Consumption and tυlal mortality during the period were recorded. The remaining broilers per pen wcire weighed by twenty heads to determine total weight per pen and average weight per head. Other variables were kept constant. Table H.B. Poultr Broiler Part II

Trial No.3 with composition 73% humic acid and 27% fulvic acid which constitutes 18.34% and 81.66% ZREM gave optimum results with improvement of unit weight by 30%, reduced mortality by 76% and increased FCR by 19.30% Trial No.3 with composition 73% humic and 27% fulvic acid, which constitutes 18.34% and 1.6.6% Zeolite, gave optimum results with improvement of unit weight by 25%, reduced mortality by 7 ),% and increased FCR by 15.47% General Remarks: Combination of humic/lulvic with ZREM gave better results than Zeolite. Comparing using humic acid or fulvic acid alone with Zeolite or ZREM, the new combination with humic acid/fulvic acid had maximum unit weight increase of only 18.0% vs 30%. Mortality reduction was only 72% vs 86% and FCR improvement of only 14.92% vs 19.3θ Poultry Layers To a farm cooperator, feed mash ration for chick booster and our compound, per Table II. A.a-d, were mixed together. No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. This was fed for a period often dais tsVnhqul 200 chicks per pen. After 10 days, they were divided into two pens with about 500 chicks per pen. To starter mash riιl>iwn our compound, per Table II. A.a-d were mixed together.. There were no antibiotics and growth promoters^' added. This was fed for a period of 40 days. After 50 days, to pullet crumble ration, our compound was added per Table II. A.a-d were

together. No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. This was fed until the chickens were 1 0 clays old. Mortality and feed consumption per pen was recorded. The unhealthy chickens were culled before being transferred to the laying pens. In the laying pen, there were 5 birds per cage. One hundred cages per row were considered as a sincle pen or trial. Our compound per Table II. A.a-d was premixed with the layer ration without antibiotics and pro /Mi promoter and pelletized with a laboratory extruder-type pelletizer. Eveiyday, eggs were collected per pen and sized accordingly with an automatic egg sizcr. Number of egg breakages per thousand were recorded everyday. Feed consumption per pen were recorded wcel-Jy. Our trials were terminated after five months of feeding. Data per Table II. A.a-d was prepared. With our best formula, we are extending our trials until they maintain egg production of 75%. Other variables were kept constant.

Results

Summary: 1) Humic acid or ZREM alone, increased egg production by 4.28%. 2) Jumbo sizes increased by 34.5% 3) Egg breakage was reduced by 39.0% and FCR improved by 4.4%. 4) Whereas, trial No.4 gave optimum results with increase of egg production by 14.98%, jumbo sizes increased by 60.0%, egg breakage reduced by 39.0% and FCR improved by 13.8%

Summary: 1) Fulvic acid or Zeolite alone increased egg production by 4.85%. Jumbo sizes increased by 12.5%, egg breakage reduced by 35.68% and FCR improved by 4.35% 2) Whereas, trial No.5 gave optimum results with combination of 1.5% fulvic acid with 98.5% Zeolite, egg production increased by 15.93%, jumbo sizes increased by 52.0%, egg breakage reduced by 18.0% anii FCR improved by 13.7%

Summary: 1) Fulvic acid or ZREM alone increase degg production by 5.28%, jumbo sizes increased by 15.44%. Egg breakage reduced by 122.4% and FCR improve by 5.16%. 2) Whereas, trial no.5 gave optimum results with combination 1.5% fulvic acid and 98.5% ZREM. Egg production increased by 14.59%, jumbo sizes increased by 57.0%, egg breakage reduced by 43.0% and FCR improved by 14.59%

RESULTS

Summary: Humic acid or Zeolite alone resulted in: 1) Egg production increased by 6.54%. 2) Jumbo size increased by 100%. 3) Egg breakage reduced by 157%. 4) FCR improved by 8.48% Trial number 4 with a combination of 20% humic acid and 80% Zeolite gives optimum results

improvement of: 1) Increase in egg production by 16.80%, 2) Jumbo size increased by 285%, 3) Egg breakage was reduced by 125% and 4) FCR improves by 14% Poultry Layer Part H To a farm cooperator, feed mash ration for chick booster and our compound, per Table II.H.a-li. were mixed together. No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. This was fed for a period often days to about 200 chicks per pen. After 10 days, they were transferred to another pen with about 500 chicks per pen. To starter mash ration our compound, per Table Il.B.a-b were mixed together. There were no antibiotics and growth promoters added. This was fed for a period of 40 days. After 50 days, to pullet crumble ration, our compound was added per Table U.B.a-b were mixed together. No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. This was fed until the chickens were 150 days old. Mortality and feed consumption per pen was recorded. The unhealthy chickens were culled before being transferred to the laying pens. In the laying pen, there were 5 birds per cage. One hundred cages per row were considered as a single pen or trial. Our compound per Table JJ.B.a-b was premixed with the layer ration without antibiotics and grqsvlh promoter and pelletized with a laboratory extruder-type pelletizer. Everyday, eggs were collected per pen and sized accordingly with an automatic egg sizcr. Hiimbcr <••^' egg breakages per thousand were recorded everyday. Feed consumption per pen were recorded wee ly. ' Our trials were terminated after live months of feeding. Data per ' able π.B.a-b ar. prcpyivd. With out best formula, 'we are extending our trials until they maintain egg production of 75%. Other variables were kept constant. . Table II.B.a. Co osition of Humic Acid, Fulvic Acid and Zeolite

Trial No.3, with composition 73% humic acid by weight + 27% Fulvic Acid by weight, constituting 14.66% by weight combined with 85.3% by weight Zeolite , gave optimum results with improvement of egg production efficiency by 26%, jumbo egg size increased by 180%, breakage's reduced by 28%, and FCR improved by 18.8% Table II.B.b. Com osition of Humic Acid, Fulvic Acid and ZREM

Trial lcsulls with composition 73% humic acid by weight and 27% fulvic acid by wcij il. whk h constitutes 18.34% with 81.66% ZREM, gave optimum lesults with improvement of egg production clfiru-m \ by 24%, jumbo sizes increased by 98%, egg breakage reduced by 33% and FCR ratio improved b) 17.0% General Remarks Combination of humic acid, with Zeolite was comparatively better than ZREM. Compared to the hi sj combination of humic acid and fulvic acid alone, with Zeolite or ZREM, the best combination w ilh composit ion fulvic acid and humic acid with Zeolite is better in egg production efficiency, 26% vs. 16.80%. jumbo i/cs increased by 180% vs 74%. egg breakage decreased by 55% vs 33% and FCR improved 18.8% vs. 14.8% Fighting Cocks Evaluation of our compound with fighting cocks was subjective rather than objective as compared to livestock animals. About ten fighting cock breeders tried our compound in capsule form for their 50 fighting cocks. They fed them for 21 days, as conditioners before fighting. All other individual breeders qualitative and quantitative conditions were fixed. They observed that the fighting cocks, through body language, were more agile, aggressive and had improved stamina and endurance during the fight. Two types of compound were divided equally among the ten breeders. The first composition is 40% humic acid with 60% zeolite. The second composition is 73% humic acid and 27% fulvic acid which constitute 18.34% with 81.66% zeolite. We found out that performance of the two compounds were almost identical. Performance and ability of the fighting cocks depend more on the blood lines; second on the ti iπiπg efficiency; and finally, on the type of food supplement added. Forty out of the 50 fighting cocks that were tried with our compounds won the game with various degrees of wounds and valor. Ducks Ducks by nature produce an average of 15 eggs per cycle, hatch them and slop laying eggs. Wlvn our compound was added to their feed rate ol^'2.0%, they kept laying eggs during the hatching period, the opl-miu result is shown with Trial No.3. The drier the feces, the better egg production. Table II. . Composition of Humic Acid, Fulvic Acid and ZREM

DUCKS

Legend on Feces

A Very Watery, control

B Viscous

C Very Viscous

D Hard and Dry A composition of 73% humic acid and 27% fulvic acid which constitute 18.34% and 81.66% /RHI gave optimum results with increase of egg production by 90%. Swine _, To a farm coopcrator, baby pig booster in mash form was added to our compound per Table III. A. jd.- No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. This was fed to piglets 5 days old until 20 days old a - so ^'s milk supplement. At the start, they were handled so that they could lcara to feed themselves. "Scouriii wa observed because it is very prevalent at this stage. Mortality per sow liter was recorded. After twenty days, piglets were transferred to a pen with a density of about 30 piglets per pen. Twenlsy days after, the wcaner ration in mash form was mixed our compound per Table III. A. a-d. . No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. This was fed until the piglets were 50 days old. After 50 days, the health}' piglets were transferred together in a pen with a density of 20 piglets per pen. Slow growers were separated to other pens. The unhealthy piglets were terminated. After 50 days, to hog starter ration in mash form, our compound was added per Table HI. A. a-d. No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. It was observed that slow growers fed with our compound were able to catch up in weight with normal growers. They were transferred to hog starter pens with a density of 20 pigs per pen. After 90 days, to hog grower ration, our compound was mixed per Table . DT. A. a-d No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. Feed consumption per pen was recorded. After 130 days, to hog finisher ration, our compound was mixed per Table TV and pelletized in our laboratory extruder pelletizer. No antibiotics and growth promoters were added. Feed consumption per pen was closely monitored. At the age of 165 days, individual pigs were weighed. Average weight per pen was calculated. Other variables were kept constant.

Results

Summary: 1) Humic acid or Zeolite alone reduced scouring by 40.0%, mortality by 25.0%. 2) Average increased by 6.6%. 3) Whereas, trial 4 with composition of 20% humic acid and 80% Zeolite gave optimum results, which reduced scouring by 55%, reduced mortality by 50%, improved FCR by 17%.

Results

Summary: ' 1) Iluniic acid or ZREM alone reduced scouring by 25.0% mortality reduced by 33%. average weight p:,τ head increased by 5.9%, and FCR improved by 5.8%. 2) WTicreas, trial 4 with composition of 20% humic acid plus 80% ZREM gave optimum results with p.-dncμd scouring by 45.0% mortality reduced by 100% average weight per head increased by 20.8% iiud .l/CIJ imrpυvcd by 17.15% ,

Results

Summary: 1) Fulvic acid or ZREM alone reduces scouring by 50.0%, mortality is reduced by 25%, average wjcight per head increase by 7.2% and FCR improves by 7.14%. 2) Whereas, trial 5 with composition 1.5% fulvic acid plus 97.5% of ZREM reduces scouring by 45.0,%, mortality is reduced by 50%, average weight over head increased by 20.6% and FCR improved by 17.3'%

Results

Summary: 1) Fulvic acid or Zeolite alone reduced scouring by 40.0%, reduced mortality by 25%, increased average weight per head by 7.15%, and improved FCR by 6.5%. 2) Whereas, trial 5 with composition, 1.5% fulvic acid plus 97.5% Zeolite reduced scouring by 100%, reduced mortality by 100%, increased average weight per head by 21.11 % and improved FCR by 16.9%. Swine Part II Combination of humic acid with fulvic acid either with Zeolite, ZREM tried on swine for a one to font week period. This was done to observe scouring,and mortality rate of growth of piglets which is very crucial for this period. We were not able to wait to see for weeks 4 to 20 or the finisher stage. Since wc have to prepare our patent for security reasons, we had been tiying to conduct trial discreetly for the last 12 months. One liter was used per trial. It was not easy organize trials with several liters bom at 'the same time. During the period of the trial, the weather was very erratic. It rained heavily in the evening or early morning. It was very hot and humid in the morning until afternoon. These conditions were very critical for young piglets because they are very prone to scouring and pneumonia, which increased mortality of young piglets. Our compound alone reduced mortality very significantly. Control mortality is 37.8% whereas our best composition is zero mortality. Table IH.B. Composition of Humic Acid, Fulvic Acid and ZREM

Swine Kg Compound per ton/feed

Trial No.3, with composition 73% humic acid with 27% fulvic acid-, which constitutes I R.3 with 81.66% of ZREM gave optimum results with zero mortality, considering poor environmental conditions during the heat period. Controlled mortality is high at 37.50%, which is fatal. This proves anti-bacterial cflccl f the compound. Comparing with humic acid or fulvic acid alone, with either Zeolite or ZREM, results were belter with fulvic/humic acid combination since control mortality is only normal at 10% during the former trials, compared with 37.5% of latter trials. Tilapia nilotica Area per trial was extrapolated to one hectare and depth of water was one meter. To a farm cooperator, commercial starter ration in mash form, molasses was added as binder to our compound per Table IV.B and sun-dried to reduce water solubility. Tilapia are voracious eaters, and all'T a lew minutes, they gobble the feeds with minimum amount of sinking at the bottom. After three weeks, to a commercial floating starter feeds, molasses was mixed together, with όur compound per Table IV.B and sun-dried. After seven weeks, to commercial-type floating gr s r- feeds, molasses was mixed with our compound per Table V and sun-dried. After 14 weeks, to commercial floating type finisher feeds, molasses was mixed with our coniri und per Table IV.B, and fed until harvest time of 16 weeks. During harvest, 100 pieces of Tilapia were ei hed. and the average weight per fish was determined. Mortality rate was determined. Feed added , er eeling sviis^' kepi constant. Feed conversion was determined after computing total weight of yield and total weight of tco-l per hectare.

Summary: 1) Composition with 40% humic acid water with 60% Zeolite or ZREM gave better results than 20% humic acid, with Zeolite or ZREM, improving mortality rate by 31.8%, FCR improved by 6.66%, weight was heavier by 0.9%, and yield improved by 5.6% respectively. Compared to no treatment, mortality rate was reduced by 4.2%, FCR improved by 14.3%, size was he vier by 13%, and yield increased by 17%. More so, we expect better performance of the compound , if we pre-mix it with the floating ration. Composition with 40% humic acid with 60% Zeolite or ZREM gave better results compared with 20% humic with Zeolite or ZREM. The prior mixture increased in net by 16%; whereas composition of 2.6% fulvic acid, plus either 97.4% of Zeolite or ZREM gave better results compared with composition_' of 0.33% of Fulvic- acid plus 99.67% of Zeolite or ZREM, which increased by 7.55% respectively. 5) However, comparing without treatment of our compound, there was an improved increase off weight by an average of 12.75% against untreated. Cows for Beef Production Imported Australian cows with an average weight of 325 kg were used. They were 'noted to be stressed after a few weeks of sea transport, after being held in limited space with poor sanitary conditions and limited food. To farm cooperator feed ration, our compound was mixed per Table V, and fed to the cows. There were five cows per trial. Feeding was done for a period of two months until they were ready for the market. 6.0% of our ■ compound was added against the said ration, and feeding was ad libitum. Individual weights were recorded before the cows were sent to the market. The average weight increase was determined after deducting the liπal. weight from the pre-trial weight. TABLE V.A. COWS FOR BEEF PRODUCTION

Summary: Composition with 40% humic acid either with 60% Zeolite or ZREM gave better results eoiηparcd to 20% humic acid with zeolite or ZREM. Increase in weight by 16% whereas composition with 2.6% fulwic acid and either 97.4% of zeolite or ZREM gave better results compared to the composition of 0.33% fulvic. aς^'id plus either 99.67% zeolite or ZREM is increased by 7.5% respectively. However, comparing without treatment of our compound, there was an increase in weight by 12.75% against untreated. Cows for Beef Production Part II Cows were kept in-pen, 5 cows per pen constituted a trial lot. Cows were on their month of producing milk.. Compound mainly a combination of humic acid, fulvic acid and zeolite in ZREM, were mixed with the standard ratio mainly silage, copra, meal, corn, molasses and salt were feed ad-libitum. About 8.0% our compound is led against said standard ratio. A composition of humic acid and fulvic acid with Zeolite or ZREM are added to the standard, feed ration for the period of 60 days. Initial and final weight where recorded to determine average daily gain sy.eight. Other variable were kept contacts.

It was observed that average daily gain weight using combination of Fulvic / Humic Λcid either with Zeolite ZREM is much superior than using ftilvic or humic acid alone with Zeolite or ZRKIv;l. th<.' best of former and latter composition is 27.7% and 36.5% respectively . Water Buffalo for Milk Production The breeds used were a mix of Philippine and Indian water buffaloes, with an average age of lour years old. There were two buffalos per trial. During the day, the water buffaloes were fed by grazing; and at night, they were fed with their normal rations mixed with our compound per Table VI.A. The amount of compound added is 15% against their πit.io.i . Average daily milk production was recorded; and average milk production was calculated for lliV.ee months. Table VI. Λ. Water BnflMo For Milk Production

Summary: Water buffalo for milk products composition with 40% humic acid with 60% Zeolite or ZREM gave better results comparing with 20% humic acid plus either 80% Zeolite or ZREM, will increase yield of milk by 11%, whereas composition of 2.6% fulvic acid plus either 97.4% of ZREM compounds with composition of 0.33% fulvic acid plus 99.7% with Zeolite or ZREM improved by 7.0% Furthermore comparing with or without treatement, with our compound, yield increases by 10.87% Feeding trial was only made for a period of 45 days. It was observed using ftilvic humic combination with either Zeolite or ZREM, increased of milk production level for only 4 days compound for 9 days, with Humic or Fulvic acid alone with Zeolite or ZREM. Increase in milk production was above 18.0.%

Cows for Milk Production Part ΪI Cows were kept in pens, 5 cows constituted each trial lot. Cows were on their fifth month of producing milk. Compound mainly was a combination of humic acid, fulvic acid and Zeolite or ZREM- mi zed with the standard rations of mainly silage, copra, meal, corn, molasses and salt. These were fed ad-libitum. About 8.0% of our compound was fed against the said standard ratio. Table VLB. Cows for Milk Production

Feeding trial was only made for a period of 45 days. It was observed using fulvic-humic combination of milk productyion levels for only 4days compound for 9 days with Humic Aicd of Fulvic acid alone, cither with- Zeolite or ZREM. Increase in milk production was above 18.0%

Feline A study was made of cats, which tackled the problem on feces. Studies were done by subjective observations of the smell of the feces before and after treatment. The following compositions were observed: Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 Humic Acid (kg) 4.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 Fulvic Acid (kg) 0.75 0.75 Zcolitc(kg) , 16,0 12.0 12.25 ZREM (kg) l. .O.. ] 2Λ 12.25 Kg/ton feed 20.0^' 20, ) 20.0 20.0 15.0 15.0 Our compound was added to commercial cat feed. A pair of cats per trial number were used as subjects . A scientific study could not be organized because it was difficult to assemble a group of cats with similar age, weight and sex. Summary of Results Results between trial numbers 1 and 2 showed no difference. Results between trial numbers 3 and 4 showed no difference. Results between trial numbers 5 and 6 showed no difference. Results of trial numbers 3 and 4, and 5 and 6 were better than trial numbers 1 and 2 in terms of diyncss as fecal odor. Results of trial numbers 5 and 6 were slightly better than trial numbers 3 and 4.

Equine To a horse ration, mainly rice bran, corn, oats and molasses, fed per horse at a rate of 4.0 kg per day, per below composition of our compound. Table VIII. Composition of Humic Acid, Fulvic Acid, Zeolite and ZREM 1 2 3 Humic Acid (kg) 8.0 - 2.67 Fulvic Acid (kg) - 0.33 0.98 Zeolite(kg) 12.0 19.70 ZREM (kg) _: ;__ 16.32 Kg/ton feed 20.0 20.0 20.0 To three different horse, owned by three different breeders, with three different compounds, stamina_,. endurance and speed were subjectively evaluated by the owners during a one kilometer dash race. This was after feeding with our feed compound per Table VHI for a period of 30 days prior to the race. Since trials w.eι;e done subjectively with different breeders, comparison in performance between the three compounds could not objectively be evaluated. However, all three breeders claimed that their individual horse's perlbπnanpe improved significantly after feeding with our compound.

Claims

1. An animal/marine feed supplement comprising mainly of two components, the first combination is selected from the group consisting of humic acid and fulvic acid; and the second component '.is selected from the group consisting of zeolite and zeolite with rare earth metals (ZREM) wherein the first component is present in the amount of 0.33-40.0% by weight, and the second component is in the amount of 60.0-99.7% by weight.

2. An animal feed supplement, according to claim 1 comprising mainly of humic acid and Z'R-EM with composition betweem 10-40% humic acid and 90-60% ZREM; with optimum com ositi n of 20% humic acid and 80% ZREM for poultry and swine.

3. An animal feed supplement, according to claim no. 1, comprising of fulvic acid and zeolite with composition between 0.33% to 2.6% fulvic acid and 99.7% to 94.4% zeolite; with optimum composition of 1.55 fulvic acid with 98.5% zeolite for poultry and swine.

4. An animal feed supplement, according to claim I comprising of fulvic acid and 7ΪREM .with composition between 0.33 to 2.6% fulvic acid and 99.7 to 94.4% ZREM; with .optimum, compositiom of 1.5% fulvic acid with 98.5% ZREM for poultry and swine.

5. An animal and marine feed supplement according to claim 1 comprising of humic acid and zeolite with composition between 20% to 40% humic acid and 80% to 60% of zeolite: with optimum composition of 40% of humic acid and 60% zeolite for beef and milk production of bυviinc. lisli and dogs.

6. An animal and marine feed supplement according to claim 1, comprising of humic aeid and ZREM with composition between 20% to 40% humic acid and 80% to 60% of ZREM: with optimum composition of 40% of humic acid and 60% ZREM for beef and milk productiqn of bovine, fish and dogs.

7. An animal and marine feed supplement according to claim no. 1 comprising of fulvic aci ai|id zeolite with composition between 0.33% to 2.6% fulvic acid and 99.7% to 97.4% of zeolite; with optimum composition of 1.5% of fulvic acid and 98.5% zeolite for beef and milk production o'f bovine, fish and dogs.

8. An animal and marine feed supplement , according to claim no. 1, comprising of fulvic acid nd ZREM with composition between 0.33% to 2.6% fulvic acid and 99.7% to 97.4% of ZREtyl: with optimum composition of 1.5% of fulvic acid and 98.5% ZREM for beef and milk production of bovine, fish and dogs.

9. An animal/marine feed supplement according to claim 1, 2, 3, or 4, the composition pre-mixed with any traditional feed ingredients in mash.

10. An animal/marine feed supplement according to claim 1, 2, 3, or 4, the composition pre-mixed with any traditional feed ingredients in crumble form.

11. An animal/marine feed supplement according to claim 1, 2, 3, or 4, the composition pre-mixed with any traditional feed ingredients in pellet form.

12. An animal and marine feed supplement according to claim 5, 6, 7, or 8 (inclusive for fish only,), the composition pre-mixed with any traditional feed ingredients in floating form.

13. An animal and marine feed supplement according to claim 1, 2, 3, or 4, the composition used as concentrate in mash form.

14. An animal/marine feed supplement according to claim 1, 2, 3, or 4, the composition used -as concentrate in crumble form.

15. Λn animal/marine feed supplement according to claim 1, 2, 3, or 4, the composition used - as concentrate in pellet or treat form.

16. An animal feed supplement comprising mainly of two components, the first combination is selected from the group consisting of a combination of fulvic acid with humic acid, the second component is selected from the group consisting of zeolite and zeolite with rare earth metals (ZREM), wherein the first component is present in the amount of 50-99% by weight hurnic'acid. in combination with fulvic acid present in the amount of 50-1% by weight of fulvic acid and the second component is in the amount of 60-73% be weight.

17. An animal feed supplement according to claim 16 comprising mainly of humic acid, fulvic -aci.d, and zeolite with composition between 50-99% by weight humic acid, 50-1% by weight fulvic acid, with combined composition 40-27% by weight with 60-73% zeolite, with optimum composition of 73% humic acid, 27% ftilvic acid by weight, constituting 19% by

combined with 81% zeolite for poultry and swine.

18. An animal feed supplement according to claim 16 comprising mainly of humic acid, fulvic acid and ZREM with composition between 50-99% by weight humic acid, 50-1% by weight fulvic acid, with combined composition 40-27% by weight with 60-73% by weight ZREM, with optimum composition of 73% humic acid, 27% fulvic acid by weight, constituting 19% by weight combined with 81% ZREM for poultry and swine.

19. An animal feed supplement according to claim 16 comprising mainly of humic acid. fu!,vic ,aιsid and zeolite with composition between 90-98% by weight humic acid, 2-10% by weight I^'ύlϋ.e acid with combined composition 75.7-85.34% by weight zeolite for bovine. ill), optiiji ilj composition of 90% by weight humic acid, 10% by weight fulvic acid constituting 14.66% hy weight combined with 85.34% by weight ZREM for bovine.

20. An animal feed supplement according to claim 16, comprising mainly of humic acid, fulvic acid and ZREM with composition between 90-98% by weight humic acid, 2-10% by weight fulvic acid with combined composition 75.7-85.34% by weight ZREM for bovine.

21. An animal feed supplement according to claim 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20, the composition pre-mixed with any traditional feed ingredients in mash form.

22. An animal feed supplement according to claim 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20, the composition pre-mixed with any traditional feed ingredients in crumble form.

23. An animal feed supplement according to claim 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20, the composition pre-mixed with any traditional feed ingredients in pellet or treat form.

24. An animal feed supplement according to claim 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20, the composition used as concentrate in mash form.

25. An animal feed supplement according to claim 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20, the composition used as concentrate in crumble form.

26. An animal feed supplement according to claim 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20, the composition used as concentrate in pellet or treat form.

27. A canine and feline feed supplement comprising theanimal feed supplement according to cl im 5,6,7, or 8, wherein a flavor-enhancer compound is added to increase palatability.