Raising Drug Free Poultry

1
Raising Drug- Free Poultry What are the
Alternatives?
A.Pishnamazi Department of Poultry
Science, College of Agriculture, Isfahan
University of Technology
2
Important of Digestive Tract
3
Maintaining the structure of the digestive tract
in good health is critical for successful rearing
of broilers.
Table1- Changes with age in relative weights of
digestive organs of the chick ( BW).
Age, days
0 4 8
15 21 Proventriculus 0.87 1.46
1.19 0.98 0.75 Gizzard 5.28 5.28 5.75
4.34 3.37 2.72 Pancreas
0.15 0.57 0.59 0.49 0.40
Liver 2.55 4.36 4.22 3.74
3.17 Small intestine 2.74 6.09 6.87 4.80
4.33
Mathew et al, 2004
4
Changes in GIT conditions due to disease have a
significant impact on the efficiency and
requirements for nutrients in the chicks.
Bacterial challenges redirect nutrients from
growth toward host defense ( Obled, 2002).
5
Factors Influence on Digestive Tract Growth and
Health
6
Nutrition, intestinal health, and the well-being
of animals are intricately related.
Dietary factors disrupting mucosal integrity or
motility of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT)
might induce enteric disorders, wet litter
problems, poor pigmentation and inefficient
growth.
Physical structure of the feed (wet feeding,
particle size, feed form, and inclusion of whole
grains) influences GIT structure, composition of
the microflora, nutrient digestibility, and feed
intake.
Fine particles produce atrophy of the gizzard, a
major regulator of intestinal motility (Nir et
al., 1994).
7
Adequate type and quantity of fiber could reduce
digestive disturbances and improve the adaptation
of the GIT of monogastric animals to current
production systems ( Sklan et al., 2003).
Fiber source ADG (g) FI (g/day)
FC (g/g) 0-4 days None
13.8 18.7 1.36 Oat
hulls, 3 14.1 18.4
1.31 Soy hulls, 3 14.0 18.5
1.32 P2 NS
NS 0.05 0-21 days None
30.7b 42.7
1.39a Oat hulls, 3 32.2ab 43.1
1.34b Soy hulls, 3
32.7a 44.2 1.35b P2
0.01 NS 0.001

8
Certain amino acids (glutamine, arginine, and
ornithine).
Cereal grains and the high levels of crude
protein in the diet (Drew et al., 2004).
Antinutritional factors diet, including
mycotoxins, lectins and trypsin inhibitors (
Mathew et al, 2004).
Good barn sanitation, pest control, biosecurity
practices, and litter or manure management and
Water and drinkers management ( Ferket, 2004).
9
Antibiotic
10
Addition of certain antibiotics to feed at low
levels is a common practice in poultry production
and has been shown to improve weight gain and
feed efficiency in the range of 1 to 5.
1. Favor the growth of nutrient synthesizing
microbes. 2. Inhibit produce excessive amount
of ammonia and other toxic nitrogenous waste
products. 3. Improve availability or absorption
of certain nutrients. 4. Improve feed and water
consumption. 5. Prevent or cure actual
pathological disease. 6. Maintenance cost
associated with turnover of the intestinal
epithelium.
11
European Union banned the use of subtherapeutic
levels of antibiotics to prevent disease or
promote growth, starting with a ban on avoparcin
in 1997 and a ban on virginiamycin, bacitracin,
spiromycin, and tylosin in 1999. Antimicrobials
scheduled to be banned by 2006 include
avilamycin, bambermycin, salinomycin and monensin.
12
Body weight decreased 0.03 to 0.04 lb. Feed
conversion ratio increased by 0.012 to 0.016 lb
feed/lb body weight. Livability declined 0.14 to
0.20 (Engster et al, 2002).
13

• Major antibiotic replacement

• Acidifiers
• Probiotics
• Botanicals
• Enzymes
• Oligosaccharides

14

Day 13
Average
numbers
(log cfu/mL) SD Group
pH Campylobacter
Enterobacteriaceae 1 6.68
0.20 NF 6.12
0.86 2 6.71 0.11
2.16 2.06 7.67 1.01 3
3.86 0.06 NF
0.48 1.06 4 3.89 0.08
NF 1.85 1.95
1- ordinary drinking water and chickens
inoculated with 103 cfu/mL of Campylobacter 2-
ordinary drinking water and chickens inoculated
with 105 cfu/mL of Campylobacter 3- acidified
drinking water and chickens inoculated with 103
cfu/mL of Campylobacter 4- acidified drinking
water and chickens inoculated with 105 cfu/mL of
Campylobacter
Chaveerach et al, 2004
15

Day 15
Average
numbers
(log cfu/mL) SD Group
pH Campylobacter
Enterobacteriaceae 1 6.66
0.20 0.58 0.80 8.38 0.75
2 6.68 0.09 2.16
2.06 5.63 3.16 3
3.87 0.15 NF
2.01 2.79 4 3.83 0.03
NF 4.16 0.65
1- ordinary drinking water and chickens
inoculated with 103 cfu/mL of Campylobacter 2-
ordinary drinking water and chickens inoculated
with 105 cfu/mL of Campylobacter 3- acidified
drinking water and chickens inoculated with 103
cfu/mL of Campylobacter 4- acidified drinking
water and chickens inoculated with 105 cfu/mL of
Campylobacter
Chaveerach et al, 2004
16

Day 19
Average
numbers
(log cfu/mL) SD Group
pH Campylobacter
Enterobacteriaceae 1 4.78
0.90 1.22 1.74 7.37 0.58
2 5.32 0.80 2.64
2.15 8.45 1.02 3
3.84 0.06 NF
1.76 1.77 4 3.94 0.33
NF 1.95 1.46
1- ordinary drinking water and chickens
inoculated with 103 cfu/mL of Campylobacter 2-
ordinary drinking water and chickens inoculated
with 105 cfu/mL of Campylobacter 3- acidified
drinking water and chickens inoculated with 103
cfu/mL of Campylobacter 4- acidified drinking
water and chickens inoculated with 105 cfu/mL of
Campylobacter
Chaveerach et al, 2004
17
Probiotics
A. Beneficial change in gut flora with reduction
in the population of E.Coli.
B. Lactate production with subsequent change in
intestinal PH.
C. Production antibiotic type substances.
D. Reduction of toxin release.
18
Botanicals
Application of LWGeff and FCReff models to assess
the results of a comparative test on a Chinese
herbal formulation vs virginiamycin for
LWGC1,098 g and FCRC1.554 on 7-28 dayold female
birds.
Product Dosage Basis LWGeff
FCReff (ppm)
(g)
Chinese herbal 938 tested 15
0.012 Virginiamycin 2 0
tested -6 -0.027 Control
predicted 3
-0.056
Rosen, 2004
19
Enzymes
Dietary
enzyme2 levels, mg/kg Item
0 200 400 600
800 1,000 SEM P-value Initial BW,
g 134.3 134.8 135.0 133.3 134.9
134.4 1.86 lt0.01 7- 21 d 21 d BW, g 651
676 695 703 711 714 4.5 lt0.01
ADFI, g 58.6 61.6 62.2 62.3 63.4
63.4 0.427 lt0.01 ADG, g
36.9 38.7 40.1 40.5 41.1 41.4 0.315
lt0.01 FCR 1.59 1.59 1.55
1.54 1.54 1.53 0.013 lt0.01 Wang et al,
2005
20
Enzymes
Effects of enzyme supplementation on growth
performance of broilers
Dietary
enzyme2 levels, mg/kg Item
0 200 400 600
800 1,000 SEM P-value 7- 42
d ADFI, g 107.8 105.5
105.8 106.8 108.2 107.6 1.121
0.40 ADG, g 52.3
53.2 53.9 54.4 54.8
54.9 0.365 lt0.01 FCR
2.07 1.98 1.96 1.96
1.98 1.96 0.029 0.03 Wang et
al, 2005
21
Effects of enzyme inclusion on AME and apparent
crude protein digestibility (ACPD) on d 20 to 21
and d 41 to 42.
Dietary enzyme2 levels, mg/kg
Item 0 200 400
600 800 1,000 SEM
P-value 2021 d AME, kcal/kg
3,107 3,123 3,162 3,153 3,146
3,140 19.98 0.18 ACPD,
60.89 61.68 62.32 63.33 62.3
63.82 0.561 lt0.01 4142 d
AME, kcal/kg 3,096 3,121
3,150 3,161 3,172 3,182 29.21
0.39 ACPD, 61.51 62.77
63.33 63.92 63.17 64.98 1.115
0.05 Wang et al, 2005
22
Oligosaccharides
Fructooligosaccharides
Mannanoligosaccharides
23
Fructooligosaccharides
Fructooligosaccharides are found in numerous
plants such as the onion, garlic, banana, and
wheat.
Fructooligosaccharides are well utilized by the
majority of bifidobacteria strains ( ß-fructoside
enzyme).
While E. coli and Clostridium failed to utilize
FOS.
Bifidobacteria may inhibit other microbes because
of their acidic surroundings from the high
production of VFAs or the secretion of
bacteriocin-like peptides.

Ferket, 2004
24
Viable cell counts of microflora in small
intestinal and cecal digesta of male broilers
Site and microflora
Dietary FOS level (g/kg)
0 2.0
4.0 8.0 Small intestine
Total anaerobes
8.47a 8.69a 8.75a 8.81a
Bifidobacterium 7.22b
7.82ab 8.11a 7.64ab Lactobacillus
7.46b 8.11ab 8.47a
8.20ab Escherichia coli
7.03b 6.46ab 6.18a 6.71ab Cecum
Total anaerobes
9.55b 9.73ab 9.85a 9.73ab
Bifidobacterium 8.36b
8.81ab 8.94a 8.68ab Lactobacillus
8.42b 9.02a 9.08a
8.80ab Escherichia coli
7.72a 7.11b 7.17b 7.73a


Xu, 2003
25
Effect of FOS on growth performance of male
broilers
Item Dietary FOS
level (g/kg) 0
2.0 4.0
8.0 ADG (g) 47.16b
50.22ab 52.53a 49.41ab
ADFI (g) 104.75a 105.46a
106.11a 104.76a F/G
2.22a 2.10b
2.02b 2.12ab

Xu, 2003
26
Effects of FOS on the digestive enzyme activities
in the small intestinal contents of male
broilers.
Enzyme Dietary
FOS level (g/kg)
0 2.0 4.0
8.0 Protease (unit)
65.97b 75.53ab 83.91a 77.35ab
Amylase (Somogyi unit) 8.42c
12.80ab 14.75a 10.68bc Lipase
(Sigma-Tietz unit) 22.68a 24.37a
20.91a 25.86a
Effects of fructooligosaccharide (FOS) on the
microvillus height at different sites in the
small intestine.

Dietary FOS level (g/kg) Site
0 2.0 4.0
8.0 Duodenum (µm)
1.96a 2.04a 2.12a
2.06a Jejunum (µm) 2.15b
2.42ab 2.61a
2.43ab Ileum (µm) 1.40c
1.75ab 1.94a 1.54bc


Xu, 2003
27
Mannanoligosaccharides
Bio-Mos enhances resistance to enteric disease
and promotes growth by the following means
1) Inhibits colonization of enteric pathogens by
blocking bacterial adhesion to gut lining.
2) Enhances immunity.
3) modifies microflora fermentation to favor
nutrient availability for the host.
4) Enhances the brush border mucin barrier.
5) reduces enterocyte turnover rate.
6) enhances the integrity of the gut lining.
28
Inhibition of pathogen colonization
Gram-negative pathogens with the mannose-specific
Type-1 fimbriae attach to the MOS instead of
attaching to intestinal epithelial cells and they
move through the gut without colonization.

Ferket, 2004
29
Effect of dietary Bio-Mos on cecal S. typhimurium
29E concentrations of chicks 7 days after
Salmonella challenge (Shane, 2001).
30
Concentrations (log10 cfu/g) of specific bacteria
in the large intestines of turkeys (6 wk of age)
fed negative control (CON), bacitracin methylene
disalicylate (BMD), mannan oligosaccharide (MOS),
or BMD MOS diets ( Sims et al, 2004).
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
Enhancement of immune function

• 
  Dietary treatment
• Immunological stress CON
  MOS
  VM
• Cloacal temperature (oC) 8 hr post-injection
• - LPS
  41.40a 41.49a
  41.38a LPS
  41.80a
  41.48b 41.73a
  Liver
  weight (g)
• LPS
  2.38a 2.49a
  2.33a LPS
  2.44b
  2.78a 2.45b Small
  intestine weight (g)
• LPS
  3.82a 3.66a
  3.36a LPS
  3.33b
  3.67a 3.14b
  Spleen weight (g)
• - LPS
  0.14a 0.15a
  0.13a LPS
  0.16a
  0.17a 0.15a
  Bursa weight (g)
• - LPS
  0.15a 0.15a
  0.13a LPS
  0.13a
  0.13a
  0.14a
• 
  
  Ferket et al, 2002

34
Effects on gut microflora fermentation and
dietary energy utilization
Dietary
treatment Measurement Control
MOS BM VM pH level
6.63bc 6.52c
6.72ab 6.93a
mmol/L Ammonia 2.71a
2.16a 2.10a
2.12a Lactic acid 4.62a 4.27a
5.64a 4.15a Acetic acid
8.63a 5.59a 7.08a
6.47a Propionic acid 11.70a
6.40b 6.33b 7.24b
Butyric acid 2.18a 1.68a
2.20a 1.94a Total VFA
21.33a 12.68b 13.26b
15.85ab Kcal AMEn/kg 2853b
2937a 2847b 2931a
difference - 2.94
-0.21 2.73 relative to
control
Ferket et al, 2002
35
Effects on gut tissue integrity and health
Effect of virginiamycin (VM) and mannan
oligosaccharides (MOS) on the intestinal
morphology of the jejunum of 14-day old hen
poults (Ferket et al, 2002).
Treatment Villus height Crypt depth
Muscularis thickness Goblet cells (µm)

(No./villus) Control 905a
104a 163a
104a MOS 823a 86a
128b
137a VM 855a 98a
136b
120a P-value 0.30 0.08
0.01 0.07
36
Body weight, feed conversion ratio, and mortality
of Ross Ross broiler chickens at 22 and 49 d of
age as affected by dietary treatments.
0 to 22 d
0 to 49 d 7 to 49 d
Treatment 22-d BW Feed/BW
49-d BW (g) Feed/BW Mortality()
nCON 726 1.665 2,390b
2.014b 7.08 BMD
691 1.669 2,578a
1.815a 5.42 MOS 695
1.657 2,505a 1.830a
4.58

Hooge et al,2003
37
Question