Engormix
Login o register me
The following technical article is related to the event:
XXII Latin American Poultry Congress 2011

Evaluation of a probiotic and an acidifier as an alternative to the use of antibiotic growth promoters in broilers

Published on:
Author/s :
(1226)
(0)
Summary

The ban since 2006 by the European Union regarding the use of antibiotic growth promoters has raised the interest in developing different alternatives such as probiotics and acidifiers, among others. The effect of the probiotic BioPro® and the sodium-enriched acidifier AES on chicken performance was evaluated in the this study. BMD 11% was incorporated into the feed as Positive Control, and as Negative Control the same diets where used without addition of the growth promoter. A challenge model based on the supply of diets with suboptimal levels of amino acids (especially lysine, methionine+cystine and threonine), vaccination against coccidiosis (five times the recommended dose), use of reutilized litter and increased E. coli load in the litter was used. As a result of this challenge, a lower weight and weight/conversion ratio was observed when comparing the Negative Control vs. the Positive Control. This result confirms that the challenge applied was enough to affect bird performance. With the inclusion of BioPro®, birds had a higher feed intake over the negative control, so that they showed improved weight and weight/feed conversion ratio, but without affecting feed conversion. Birds consuming AES® had similar results than with BioPro®, but to a lesser extent; both products had a similar behavior to that of the positive control. Keywords: Challenge model, Escherichia coli, Bird performance, Enterococcus faecium, Sodium salts.

Introduction

Since January 2006, there is a total banning of antibiotic growth promoters (AGP) in animal feeding in the European Union (EU).  Despite being a controversial subject because there is both, information for and against it, the Scientific Steering Committee of the European Commission proposed a ban on AGP based on the "precautionary principle". As of 2012 the use of salinomycin and monensin will also be prohibited, currently used as coccidiostats (Cepero Briz, 2005).

Other factors related to feeds, in addition to prohibiting the use of AGP, would act as aggravating factors. For example, in 2001, the EU banned the use of meat and bone meals, thus increasing the use of soybean meal and the risk of anti-nutritional factors when it is not properly processed. The ban has also stimulated a greater level of inclusion of oils and fats, which may predispose to enteric problems (Cepero Briz, 2005).

Since the ban on the use of AGP, a resurgence of certain diseases such as necrotic enteritis (NE) caused by Clostridium perfringens types A and C, has been observed. NE is a multifactorial disease and its incidence depends on nutrition, management (poor environmental conditions, high stocking densities), health (very short health gaps), among others (Santomá et al., 2006).

As a result of this type of pathologies an average increase in mortality, lower weight, increased conversion rates and less homogeneous flocks were observed.

As an alternative to AGP, different products have emerged such as probiotics and acidifiers, among others. In order to evaluate this type of additives, experimental methodologies have been developed based on generating challenge conditions (Iglesias et al., 2011).

Objective

To evaluate the effect of inclusion of BioPro® and AES® sodium-enriched  acidifier in broiler chicken diets on the performance of challenged birds.

Materials & Methods

A total of 576 male Cobb 500 broilers housed on the floor on wood ss litter were used. Four treatments were evaluated (Table 1) with 8 replicates of 18 birds each, arranged in a randomized complete block design using the Duncan test for mean separation (InfoSTAT®,2001).

Table 1. Treatments

Treatments

Description

1.- Control +

Basal + BMD 11% (540 g/ton)

2.- Control -

Basal without ATB

3.- BioPro®1

Idem T2 + BioPro 2 L/ton up to 14 d, then 1 L/ton

4.- AES2

Idem T2 + AES 2 kg/ton

1Probiotic based on a strain of Enterococcus faecium; 2Acidifier enriched with sodium. BMD: Bacitracin methyl disalicylate 11%.

The feeding program was: Starter (1 - 7 days), Grower (8 - 28 days), Finisher (29 - 43 days) and Last week (44 - 49 days) (Table 2) and feed was supplied as a meal. Diets were formulated based on the recommendations of Cobb using the DAPP software. 

N-utrition® 2.0 (2003).

Table 2. Composition and nutrient contribution of diets

Age (Days)

1 - 14 days

15 - 28 days

29 - 42 days

43 - 49 days

Corn

61.03

65.48

66.66

69.96

Soybean meal 44

24.97

16.26

17.83

7.78

Soybeans, Steam

6.60

11.10

8.86

15.55

Meat meal 41

6.34

6.16

5.74

5.80

Shell

0.43

0.42

0.41

0.41

Salt

0.33

0.26

0.25

0.24

Methionine

0.05

0.07

0.08

0.08

Premix

0.20

0.20

0.15

0.15

Choline

0.05

0.05

0.03

0.03

Nutrients (%)

 

 

 

 

TME (Kcal/Kg)

3288

3383

3476

3476

Lipids

4.64

5.35

6.23

6.03

Protein

21.00

19.00

18.00

17.00

Lysine

1.10

0.97

0.91

0.84

Methionine + Cystine

0.71

0.67

0.65

0.62

Threonine

0.80

0.71

0.67

0.63

Arginine

1.40

1.25

1.17

1.08

Ca

1.00

0.96

0.90

0.90

P Av.

0.50

0.48

0.45

0.45

Coccidiostat was not used because the chickens were challenged with coccidia oocysts.

Challenge
In order to be in an area of a greater animal production response to any change in nutrient absorption, methionine + cystine, lysine and threonine requirements were lowered to 80% of the recommendation of the farm and consequently synthesis amino acid inclusion was reduced in all feeds.

On the third day of life, chicks were vaccinated with coccidia oocysts using 5 times the manufacturer recommended dose. Litter of previous production cycles was also used and to raise bacteria counts, it was sprayed with a solution containing 109 CFU/ml of E. coli (20 ml of this solution every 1.8 m2 brought to 50 ml with saline 0.9% w/v). This operation was performed on 3 occasions throughout the production cycle (7, 14, and 21 days). Litter moisture was maintained by sprinkling 500 ml of water per pen every other day while brooders were burning.

Measurements

Body weight, feed intake adjusted for mortality, calculated feed conversion and weight/conversion ratio were determined on a weekly basis.

Results & Discussion

Tables 3 to 6 and Figure 1 show results obtained.

Table 3. Consumption (g)

Treatments

Days

 

7

14

21

28

34

42

49

1.- Control +

81

428

976

1869AB

2844B

4376B

5894

2.- Control -

86

434

961

1855B

2803B

4346B

5855

3.- BioPro®

86

437

979

1847B

2897A

4475A

6022

4.- AES®

82

429

977

1902A

2880A

4445A

5997

CV%

5.1

4.8

1.6

2.4

2.6

2.4

2.9

Probability

0.29

0.92

0.19

0.10

0.09

0.08

0.20

                 

Means in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (p≤0.10).

Table 4. Weight (g)

Treatments

Days

 

7

14

21

28

34

42

49

1.- Control +

112

344

647ab

1131ab

1616a

2292ab

2890AB

2.- Control -

111

347

633c

1110c

1667b

2243b

2816B

3.- BioPro®

112

351

641bc

1151a

1634a

2342a

2931A

4.- AES®

108

353

656a

1154a

1616a

2308a

2902A

CV%

3.8

5.1

1.9

1.6

2.5

2.4

3.0

Probability

0.67

0.90

<0.01

<0.01

0.02

0.01

0.09

                 

Means in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (small letter p≤0.05; capital letter p≤0.10).

Table 5. Conversion

Treatments

Days

7

14

21

28

34

42

49

1.- Control +

0.726

1.246

1.509AB

1.652

1.761

1.909

2.040

2.- Control -

0.770

1.250

1.520A

1.671

1.789

1.938

2.080

3.- BioPro®

0.766

1.247

1.519A

1.655

1.772

1.911

2.055

4.- AES®

0.756

1.214

1.491B

1.649

1.783

1.926

2.067

CV%

3.7

2.7

1.4

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.6

Probability

0.18

0.44

0.06

0.54

0.38

0.33

0.15

Means in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (p≤0.10).

Table 6. Weight/Conversion

Treatments

Days

7

14

21

28

34

42

49

1.- Control +

153

277

429ab

686a

918a

1202ab

1417A

2.- Control -

145

279

417b

665b

876b

1158b

1354B

3.- BioPro®

146

282

423b

696a

923a

1226a

1427A

4.- AES®

143

291

440a

700a

908ab

1199ab

1405A

CV%

5.4

6.5

3.0

2.6

3.7

3.5

3.9

Probability

0.40

0.70

0.01

<0.01

0.05

0.03

0.07

Means in the same column with different superscript differ significantly (small letter p≤0.05; capital letter p≤0.10).

Graph 1. Percentage ratio of different treatments with respect to the Positive Control (100%) at 49 days of life



Challenge model

No differences in feed consumption were observed between Negative Control and Positive Control.
Live weight of birds fed the negative control diet was lower than that of birds in the positive control group. Such differences were significant between 21 and 34 days (p<0.05).
No differences in conversion between controls were observed.
The weight/conversion ratio was lower in the negative control with significant differences at 28 and 34 days (P<0.05) and 49 days (P<0.10).

These results show that the challenge model used affected bird performance, which is necessary to compare the effect of the tested additives.

BioPro®

No differences in production response between birds fed with BioPro® and BMD (positive control) were observed.
Feed consumption observed with BioPro® was greater than with the negative control, significant differences (P<0.10) at 34 and 42 days.
The weight reached with BioPro® was greater with respect to the negative control group, with significant differences (P<0.05) from the 28 days to 42 days. The same trend (P<0.10) was observed at 49 days.
No differences in feed conversion were observed between BioPro®and the Negative Control.
Response in terms of the weight/conversion ratio was similar to that described for weight.

AES®

No differences in production response between birds fed with AES® and BMD (positive control) were observed.
No differences in feed consumption were observed between birds fed with AES® and the negative control.
Body weight obtained with AES exceeded Negative Control from 21 days to 42 days (P <0.05).
There was a trend (P<0.10) to a better conversion with AES observed at 21 days.
The weight/conversion ratio achieved with AES exceeded that of the negative control, with significant differences (P<0.05) at 21 and 28 days and a trend (P<0.10) at 49 days.

Conclusions

  • The challenge model applied negatively affected bird performance.
  • Results show that with the inclusion of BioPro® or AES® this situation can be reverted, which positions these additives as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters.

References

Cepero Briz R. 2005. Retirada de los antibióticos promotores de crecimiento en la unión europea: causas y consecuencias. En XII Congreso Bienal Asociación Mexicana de Nutrición Animal (AMENA) Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco. URL:http://www.wpsa-aeca.es/aeca_imgs_docs/24_01_30_
MEXICO05-RCB.pdf. Acceso: 01/04/11.

DAPP, N-utrition. 2003. Software para formulación de raciones a mínimo costo. Versión 2.0. Colón, Entre Ríos, Argentina.

Iglesias BF, Azcona JO, Charriere MV, Lago C. 2011. Effect of BioPro on broiler chickens performance. pp 58. In: Proceeding of the International Poultry Scientific Forum, 24 y 25 de enero de 2011. Atlanta, GA, USA.

InfoSTAT. 2008. Software estadístico. Versión 2008p para Windows®. Córdoba, Argentina.

Santomá G, Pérez de Ayala P, Gutiérrez del Alamo A. 2006. Producción de broilers sin antibióticos promotores del crecimiento. Conocimientos actuales. En XLIII Simposio Científico de Avicultura, Barcelona, España. URL:http://www.wpsa-aeca.es/aeca_imgs_docs/wpsa11617
71886a.pdf. Acceso: 01/04/11.

 

 

(1226)
(0)
Would you like to discuss about this topic: Evaluation of a probiotic and an acidifier as an alternative to the use of antibiotic growth promoters in broilers?
Engormix reserves the right to delete and/or modify comments. See more details

Comments that contain the following items won´t be published:

  • Repeated spelling mistakes.
  • Advertisements, Web sites and/or e-mail addresses.
  • Questions or answers not relevant to the topic discussed in the Forum.
POST A COMMENT
INTRODUCTION During the last three decades, a great attention was paid towar...
 
INTRODUCTION The biggest challenge of commercial poultry production is the a...
Dear Ms. Midi-Pyrenees, My name is Dr. Mahadi Hasan from Bangladesh. I know abou...
 
a - Richard Phillips - I am interested to know which MOS product was used in the...
Professional Services
Dr. Elijah Kiarie Dr. Elijah Kiarie
Winnipeg, Manitoba, United States of America
Fred Hoerr Fred Hoerr
Auburn, Alabama, United States
Rudolf Hein Rudolf Hein
Georgetown, Delaware, United States
W. S. Gibson W. S. Gibson
East Ryegate, Vermont, United States
    |     Who are we?     |     Advertise on Engormix
Copyright © 1999-2014 Engormix.com - All Rights Reserved