Relación óptima de metionina+cistina/lisina digestibles en gallinas isa Brown de 34 a 42 semanas de edad.

Los trabajos previos en los que se han estudiado las recomendaciones de metionina+cistina para gallinas ponedoras son muy numerosos, pero los resultados obtenidos presentan una gran variabilidad y, en algunos casos, son contradictorios. Esta variabilidad se explica por las condiciones en las que se ha realizado el estudio, la edad de las gallinas, la genética y el parámetro a optimizar. En este sentido, Novak et al. (2004) observaron que las necesidades totales de metionina+cistina eran mayores para maximizar el peso del huevo que para optimizar la producción de huevos o la eficacia alimenticia. Estas diferencias fueron menos importantes entre las 20 y 43 semanas (8%), que de las 44 a las 63 semanas de edad (16%). Además, las recomendaciones para optimizar la producción y el peso del huevo fueron un 17% y 11% mayores, respectivamente, en el primer periodo con respecto al segundo. Por el contrario, Waldroup y Hellwig (1995) encontraron que las necesidades totales de metionina+cistina para optimizar la producción y masa de huevo fueron más elevadas (12 y 10%, respectivamente) de 51 a 71 semanas de edad que de 25 a 45. Cuando las recomendaciones se expresan en unidades digestibles, el rango de necesidades de metionina+cistina digestibles con respecto a lisina digestible varía desde un 81 a un 107% (81%: Coon and Zhang, 1999; 90%: FEDNA, 2008; 91%: Rostagno et al., 2005; 93%: CVB, 1996; 94%: Bregendahl et al., 2008; 99%: Brumano et al., 2010a; 100%: Cupertino et al., 2009; Brumano et al., 2010a; 101%: Brumano et al., 2010b; 107%: Schmidt et al., 2009). Como consecuencia de esta alta variabilidad, es necesario seguir investigando sobre cuál sería el ratio óptimo metionina+cistina/lisina digestible para optimizar los rendimientos de gallinas ponedoras. Por tanto, el objetivo de este trabajo es determinar las necesidades óptimas de metionina+cistina digestibles con respecto a lisina digestible de gallinas Isa Brown desde las 34 a las 42 semanas de edad

British Balance of Competence Reviews, Part III: More reform than renegotiation or repatriation. EPIN [Working] Paper No. 42/December 2014. [see Abstract for I and II]

This paper, the third in a series for a CEPS project on the ‘The British Question’, is pegged on an ambitious exercise by the British government to review all the competences of the European Union on the basis of evidence submitted by independent stakeholders. The reviews considered in this paper cover the following EU policies: the single market for services, financial markets, the free movement of people, cohesion, energy, agriculture, fisheries, competition, social and employment policies, and fundamental rights. The declared objective of Prime Minister Cameron is to secure a ‘new settlement’ between the UK and the EU. From political speeches in the UK one can identify three different types of possible demand: reform of EU policies, renegotiation of the UK’s specific terms of membership, and repatriation of competences from the EU back to the member states. As most of the reviews are now complete, three points are becoming increasingly clear: i) The reform agenda – past, present or future - concerns virtually every branch of EU policy, including several cases reviewed here that are central to stated UK economic interests. The argument that the EU is ‘unreformable’ is shown to be a myth. ii) The highly sensitive cases of immigration from the EU and social policies may translate into requests for renegotiation of specific conditions for the UK, but further large-scale opt-outs, as in the case of the euro and justice and home affairs, are implausible. iii) While demands for repatriation of EU competences are voiced in general terms in public debate in the UK, no specific proposals emerge from the evidence as regards competences at the level at which they are identified in the treaties, and there is no chance of achieving consensus for such ideas among member states. Michael Emerson and Steven Blockmans, “British Balance of Competence Reviews, Part I: ‘Competences about right, so far’”, CEPS/EPIN Working Paper No. 35, October 2013 (www.ceps.eu/book/british-balance-competence-reviews-part-i-%E2%80%98competences-about-right-so-far%E2%80%99)(http://aei.pitt.edu/45599/); Michael Emerson, Steven Blockmans, Steve Peers and Michael Wriglesworth, “British Balance of Competence Reviews, Part II: Again, a huge contradiction between the evidence and Eurosceptic populism”, CEPS/EPIN Working Paper No. 40, June 2014 (www.ceps.eu/book/british-balance-competence-reviews-part-ii-again-huge-contradiction-between-evidence-and-eurosc)(http://aei.pitt.edu/52452/).