Antibiotic Concerns Prompt a Different Approach

Dr. Shirish NigamMD - EW Nutrition India Pvt Ltd

Overview

Ban of AGP‘s in European Community

Feed quality influencing factors- Quality of used raw materials- Anti-nutritional factors (ANF‘s)- Technical feed quality- Nutrient content and digestibility- Additives

Enzymes Probiotics and Prebiotics Organic acids Secondary plant compounds

Take-Home Message

Antimicrobial Growth Promotors (AGPs)

When Sweden joined the EU in 1995, they maintained their total ban on AGPs from 1986 based on the safeguard clause (an exemption from the Acquis Com.)

In 1996: First scientific proof of cross-resistance in a Dutch turkey farmer

Political discussion on EU level started somewhere in the second half of the 90s

Relatively quickly political agreement reached (mainly initiated by The Netherlands and Sweden) that the use of antimicrobials as growth promotors (AGPs) is unwanted (‘used to disguise management failures’)

Prohibition on AGPs in Europe

1997: EU ban on Avoparcin 1998: ban on Carbadox and Olaquindox in The Netherlands (safeguard clause)1999: EU ban on Tylosin, Spiramycin, Virginiamycin and Bacitracin-ZincIn 1999 Sweden applied for the safeguard clause for the remaining AGPs (Flavophospholipol, Avilamycin, Monensin and Salinomycin)Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003: total ban on all remaining AGPs as from 01.01.2006Use of selected coccidiostats is still allowedThe use of some antibiotics as therapeutic VMP is still allowed (only after prescription by a veterinarian)

Challenge: how to support health in GIT and performance?

Solution: Bundle of different actions needs to be considered.

Prohibition on AGPs in Europe

Feed quality influencing factors

Feed measures can‘t replace

Hygiene on farmBiosecurity in the barns

important actions of farmers to keep the flock in the best possible health condition.

Quality of used raw materials

Hygienic status of raw materialsMicrobial contamination should be as low as possible

Load with mycotoxins must be considered closely

→ High standard in manufacturing practice, in the chain from field to storage and feedmill

→ Grain and corn should be cleaned technically before used as raw material for feed production

→ Specifically adjusted use of Mycotoxin risk Managment tool

Mycotoxins – influence of sieve cleaning actions

Source: Persak, P.; Jarnjak,M. (2015)

10

The GIT – complex environmentFeeding

Crop: pH 5.550 min

Proventiculus90 min (including gizzard)

Gizzard

Duodenum5 – 8 min

Jejunum20 – 30 min

Ileum50 – 70 min

Caecainfrequent emptying up to 24 h – 48 h

Colon25 min

IMPORTANT TO KNOW:Rapid inflammatory response (12 h – mammals 3 to 4 days)epithelial turnover rate 48 to 96 h

11

absorbed nutrients

Optimal digestion rate leads to reduced amount of nutritive substances for bacteria

less bacteria

starch

fat

protein

Graphic according Bedford (2002),

Dysbacteriosis

12

less absorbed nutrients

Incomplete digestion leads to higher amount of nutritive substances for bacteria in the caecum / colon

more bacteria

starch

fat

protein

Graphic according Bedford (2002),

Acute Effect:• Dysbacteriosis • Insufficient feed

conversion

Longterm Effect:• Increased

production of endogenous enzymes

• Immune reaction• Growth of organs

related to digestion• Consumption of

nutrients (energy)

Dysbacteriosis

Grinding process- Technology- Screen perforation- distance hammer - sieve

Components- Materials- Structure e.g. premixes- Structure e.g. byproducts

Agglomeration- Pelleting- Pelleting technique- Granulation and screening

Effect on structure of the feed and physical properties in feeding

systems and the GIT- Particle size distribution -

Influences on physical properties of feed

Technical feed quality

Ingredient FPQF Ingredient FPQF Ingredient FPQFCorn 5 Soybean meal 4 Corn gluten meal 4Barley 5 Fish meal 4 Ground nut meal 8Wheat 8 Sunflower meal 6 Guar meal 7DDGS 5 Linseed meal 7 Rice bran 2Brewers grains 3 Coconut cake 5 Vit./Min. premix 2.5Oil -40 Palm kernel meal 6 Binder: lignin 50Molasses 7 Rape seed meal 6

Prediction of pellet quality by „Feed Pellet Quality Factor (FPQF)“

Source: FARAHAT, M. (2015): Good pellet quality – does it makes sense?http://www.allaboutfeed.net/Processing/Pelleting/2015/7/Good-quality-feed-pellets-Does-it-make-sense-1785760W/

Technical feed quality

Source: KLEINE KLAUSING, H. (2011): Aspects of feed structure and technological treatment of grain on intestinal healthIFF Feed Processing Conference at Victam International 2011 Cologne - 03 May 2011

Nutrient content and digestibility

(1) Adapted to the different production phases

(2) According to actual practical-scientific knowledge, published by the breeding companies

(3) Formulating on basis of digestible nutrients, especially AA

(4) Considering actual knowledge on support of health in GIT through fermentable fiber in the diets

Anti-nutritional factors (ANF‘s)

→Protease inhibitors→Non-starch polysaccharides (NSP‘s)→Phytate

How to handle such challenges?

Processing of raw materials toasting, expansion, extrusionAddition of selected enzymes like phytase, glucanase,

xylanase, ….

Feeding

In animal nutrition the following groups of additives are often used to balance microflora in order to have a positive influence on gut stability and intestinal health:

Enzymes Prebiotics Probiotics Organic acids (Essential oils) Secondary plant compounds (standardized

combination of extracts from e.g. essential oils and other plant parts)

Enzymes

Use of enzymes is common in European poultry diets

→ Phytase→ Xylanase, Glucanase and combination of them→ Protease

They appear to be important as part of an integral approach to animal health that is less reliant on antibiotic compounds.

Probiotics and Prebiotics

Probiotics→Balancing intestinal microflora by …..

→competitive exclusion and antagonism→taking influence on digestive enzyme activity→stimulating immune system

Prebiotics→Non-digestible ingredients taking beneficially influence on

microbiota in the GIT→ substrate for beneficial gastrointestinal microbes→ Able to alter microflora and reduce colonization of pathogens→ FOS and MOS→ Hydrothermally processed fiber-rich raw materials

„fermentable fiber“

Organic acids

Use of organic acids in feeding is popular in the EC.

→Maintenance of hygienic status of feed raw material or complete feed.

→Achieving a positive influence on digestion in the stomach.

Which organic acids should be used for which target?

Does feed composition influence efficacy of organic acids?

Organic acids

g/mol pKA

Propionic acid (C3H6O2 ) 74,1 4,90

Butyric acid (C4H8O2 ) 88,1 4,80

Sorbic acid (C6H8O2) 112,1 4,80

Acetic acid (C2H4O2) 60,0 4,76

Lactic acid (C3H6O3) 90,1 3,87

Formic acid (CH2O2) 46,0 3,75

Citric acid (C6H8O7) 192,4 3,14

strong acids pKA -1,74 – 4,5 medium acids pKA 4,5 – 9

weak acids pKA 9,0 – 15,74

How to evaluate organic acids?

Organic acids

Feed composition and efficacy of organic acids

Protein content buffer capacity Limited protein content AA digestibility and protein

source

Calcium content and source buffer capacity Partly use of organic calcium source Phytase and limited content of Ca and P

Organic acids in animal feed

The supplementation of the right organic acids at the right doses in animal feed can ….

decrease microbial count (bacteria and fungi) in the feed take positive influence on animal performance reduce colonization of pathogens in the intestine

But practical experiences show even so that ….

only doses of at least 3 to 5 kg liquid formic acid or combination of formic and lactic acid (80/20) per MT animal feed can be effective

usually liquid organic acids on an inorganic carrier (e.g. 55 to 65 % formic acid on silicate) in low doses of 1 to 3 kg per MT animal feed are ineffective and doesn’t make sense

Organic acids in drinking water

The supplementation of the right organic acids at the right doses in drinking water can lead to ….

decreased microbial count (bacteria and fungi) in the drinking water

increased animal performance reduced colonization of pathogens in the intestine

But practical experiences show even so that ….

only doses of at least 0.5 to 2.5 kg liquid organic acids like formic acid or combination of formic and lactic acid (80/20) per 1000 liter drinking water can be effective

Secondary plant compounds

GroupsPhenolic and polyphenolic substancesEssential oilsTanning agentsBitter and pungent substancesAlkaloids and saponins

MOAStimulation of sensor cells in GIT activation of digestionIncrease of permeability of cell membrane of the bacteriaDegradation of the enzyme system of the bacteriaIncrease of anti-oxidative activities

LTLC (Long Term Conditioning and Liquification)Unique technology for processing feed materials to change their properties (nutrition-wise and physical)

MOISTURE

TEMPERATURE

HIGH PRESSURE

feed materials

Refined product with improved

nutritional value

TIME

SHEAR FORCES

Combining expanding + extrusion: LTCL

Principle of LTLC (Long Term Conditioning and Liquification)

Energy transfer via steam, mechanical energy, pressure; expansion of the materialCharacteristic changes in the matrix structure of the products

Modification of the starch granula as well, as the structural carbohydrates like NDF / ADF right down into molecular rangeEnlargement of the starch granula surface and far-reaching desintegration of the semi-cristalline and cristalline structure of the amlyopectin and amylose resp. of the cristalline carbohydrate structure in NDF / ADF-rich raw materials

Combined advantages of a moist extrusion like in a HTST extruder (intensive material transformation), and of an expander (only product cooling, no drying)

Significant reduction of ANF‘s

Combining expanding + extrusion: LTCL

Broiler feed formulation “fermentable fiber”

% BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4Corn 35,000 39,995 42,294 43,988LTCL cooked corn 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000LTCL cooked soybeans 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000LTCL cooked sunflowermeal 6,000 6,650 8,330 9,000LTCL cooked canola expeller 6,091 6,683 8,337 9,333Soybean meal 46 18,050 11,632 5,676 2,372Limestone 1,426 1,467 1,210 1,195Soy oil 0,706 0,813 1,718 1,922MCP 0,844 0,811 0,759 0,661Lysine sulphate 70% 0,480 0,466 0,433 0,369Methionine-HA 0,264 0,323 0,210 0,200Premix 497 0,250 0,250 0,240 0,240Premix 499 0,250 0,250 0,240 0,240Sodium bicarbonate 0,200 0,230 0,230 0,230Salt 0,117 0,130 0,073 0,074Pigment 40 0,050 0,100 0,100 0,100L-Threonine 0,072 0,090 0,041 0,026Coccidiostat premix 0,060 0,060 0,060NSP Enzymes 250 g/t 0,025 0,025 0,025 0,025Secondary plant compounds 0,015 0,015 0,015 0,015Phytase 100 g/t 0,010 0,010 0,010 0,010

g/kg BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4Dry matter 890 890 891 891ME poultry MJ/kg 12,3 12,5 12,8 12,9ME poultry kcal/kg 2938 2986 3057 3081Crude protein 221,131 199,608 184,684 175,884Digestible protein 193,32 174,388 160,564 152,462Lysine 14,04 12,5 11,264 10,32Methionine 5,68 5,922 4,92 4,78M+C 9,523 9,5 8,37 8,153Threonine 9,161 8,5 7,481 7,018Tryptophane 2,651 2,326 2,111 1,986Valine 10,412 9,397 8,748 8,369Arginine 14,724 13 11,826 11,146SID Lysine 12,7 11,262 10,057 9,135SID Meth 5,36 5,623 4,624 4,487SID M+C 9,525 9,569 8,469 8,271SID Thr 8,382 7,809 6,839 6,404SID Try 2,408 2,114 1,911 1,793SID Val 9,525 8,599 7,996 7,646SID Arg 13,531 11,948 10,861 10,233Crude fats & oils 66,164 68,894 79,702 82,811C 18:2 31,042 32,316 37,331 38,662C 18:3 3,295 3,372 4,096 4,273Crude fiber 44,037 47,175 53,332 56,537NDF 139,475 141,528 146,96 149,972ADF 66,03 65,546 68,846 70,444Starch 310,107 341,028 355,231 365,718Sugar 39,045 38,107 38,796 39,087Crude ash 56,36 54,207 49,394 46,963Ca 9 9 8 7,8P 6,7 6,469 6,372 6,152Available P 4,4 4,3 4,2 4Na 1,7 1,82 1,6 1,6K 9,812 8,769 8,038 7,617Cl 1,527 1,6 1,24 1,245Mg 1,503 1,39 1,392 1,385

There‘s not the „one measure-solution“ – a bundle of different actions in feed quality, feed processing and formulation concepts must be taken.

Innovative feed formulation without antibiotics means …..

• Considering SID AA – not only the first three to four ones

• Continous evaluation of the different raw materials and their quality on basis of digestible nutrients (even SID AA as well as further nutrients)

• Take care for support of digestion in gizzard and controlled passage rate particle size in feed!

• Support digestion of usually not or less digestible substances in feed Phytin-P and „NSP“ use the right enzymes

• Support the balance of the microflora in the whole GIT and the performance figures in a natural way alternative feed additives like secondary plant compounds from natural sources, based on farm-specific consultation

Take-Home Message

Thank you for your attention.Dr. Shirish Nigam

Shirish.nigam@ew-nutrition.comDr. Heinrich Kleine Klausing

EW Nutrition GmbHkk@ew-nutrition.com