the problems associated with antimicrobial resistance have also gained more attention. Consumers in many major markets are increasingly aware of the quality aspects of poultry production, not least when it comes to microbiological quality, the use of anti-infectives, and animal welfare.
Global trend towards the regular use of CE Although the concept of CE has been utilised for decades in some markets, in particular to control Salmonella spp., the concept of CE has only recently been applied on a global scale, in order to limit the need for anti-infective treatments and meet the expectations of quality conscious customers. A common practical application of the CE concept in poultry is the hatchery treatment of newly hatched chickens with bacterial preparations originating from healthy adult birds. The concept of CE was originally developed to control Salmonella in chickens, but it has been later expanded to involve other pathogenic bacteria, like pathogenic E. coli, C. perfringens, Listeria and Campylobacter spp. Currently, there are two true CE products for poultry commer- cially available on the market: Broilact from Orion Pharma, and Aviguard from Lallemand. These products contain a large variety of selected microbes (“non-defined mixed culture”) originating from healthy donor birds, and can thus be used to establish the complex, healthy intestinal microbiota in day- old chicks within hours of treatment. The use of the CE method in controlling Salmonella spp. and some other pathogens in poultry has been quite widely documented in the published literature over the past few decades. In some markets, such as Finland, CE products have also been quite extensively used in poultry for decades, also in production broilers. However, wide-scale global interest in the CE method for poultry has increased significantly in recent years, in parallel with raised awareness of the problems associated with antimicrobial resistance. Over the past few decades, several studies have been published concerning the use of CE in controlling various bacterial pathogens in poultry, such as Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. One of the most interesting recent studies, was a challenge study* conducted in Curitiba, Brazil, where a single dose of a CE product at day 0 was found to effectively reduce bacterial
colonisation of broiler caeca with S. Heidelberg at 28 days of age. S. Heidelberg represents a significant challenge in Brazil, as it has been reported to be frequently multi-drug resistant.
Difference between CE and probiotic products In addition to the CE products used to establish a normal intestinal microbiota, there are a number of commercial probiotic products for poultry on the market. In contrast to actual CE products (“non-defined mixed cul- tures”), probiotic products (“defined cultures”), are not used to establish a complex intestinal microbiota, but to introduce only one or a few strains of microbes into the intestine (Figure 1). Also, probiotics are often claimed to be beneficial for the health and performance of the birds by having a positive impact on the intestinal microbiota of the birds in one way or other. Even the term “Competitive Exclusion” is sometimes used in a fairly confusing way in the marketing of probiotic products containing only one or a few strains of bacteria. Thus, it is always advisable to carefully study the quality of available published literature demonstrating the actual efficacy of the product for the purpose intended.
Comprehensive approach needed Based on the current literature and the experience of use, Com- petitive Exclusion clearly represents a highly interesting oppor- tunity to improve health and optimise performance in poultry – without the regular or wide-scale use of anti-infectives. However, although optimal intestinal microbiota plays a key role both for health and performance, it is obvious that reaching the optimal production efficacy requires a holistic approach, where the farm conditions, feed quality, management routines, and so forth are optimised and systematically monitored also.
*Study report in process of publication
15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124
