search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
PHOTO: STEPHEN AUSMUS


Cutting costs by Campylobacter control


Campylobacter is a food safety hazard and one of the leading causes of acute diarrhoeal disease in humans in world. Infected broiler meat is a common source of Campylobacteriosis. Therefore, it is relevant to control Campylobacter on broiler farms.


BY C. P. A. VAN WAGENBERG, P. L. M. VAN HORNE, AND M. A. P. M. VAN ASSELDONK, POULTRY SCIENCE


A


number of interventions have been proposed to control Campylobacter risk factors on broiler farms and the cost-effectiveness ratio of such interven- tions has been estimated in a number of studies.


Examples of interventions with cost-effectiveness ratio stud- ies include: improved hygiene with additional hygiene barri- ers, building new farm houses, applying drink nipples with- out a cup, slaughter at 35 days, use of new slaughter technology, applying vaccination and phage therapy.


Probiotics to control Campylobactor Use of probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics could also be a good intervention strategy to control Campylobacter in broilers. The use of probiotics aims to create competition between species that are naturally present in the intestinal flora of broilers and thus both exclude and suppress colonisation of birds with Campylobacter. In the literature the results of the effects of probiotics on intestinal Campylobacter load and prevalence in broilers are not conclusive. Many factors, varying from experimental design, the level of Campylobacter contamination, application and dosage of the probiotic product, influence results. Nevertheless application of probiotics is gaining


momentum. It is likely that Campylobacter infections in broilers to some extent can be controlled by administering probiotics. In a recent Farm Accountancy Data


90 ▶ GUT HEALTH | DECEMBER 2020


Network survey in the Netherlands approximately 40% of broiler farmers indicated to have used probiotics in one form or the other in 2018. These farmers started using probiotics to improve gut health and decrease the risk of broiler illnesses using less antimicrobials, as required by Dutch law. Probiotics are easy to administer under commercial conditions. However, the cost-effectiveness ratio of using probiotics to control Campylobacter infections in broilers has not yet been estimated in literature.


Cost-effectiveness of probiotics Therefore, in this study the cost-effectiveness of probiotics use to control Campylobacter infections in broilers was esti- mated. Because the efficacy of probiotics on Campylobacter prevalence is uncertain, the on-farm relative risk of Campylo- bacter infections in broilers when using probiotics was varied to determine the cost-effectiveness ratio as function of effica- cy. The simulation study was conducted with data from Den- mark, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain. The cost-effective- ness ratio was defined as the estimated costs of probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics use divided by the estimated public health benefits expressed in Euro per “avoided disability-ad- justed life year”. The model considered differences between the countries in zootechnical and economic farm perfor- mance, in import, export, and transit of live broilers, broiler meat and meat products, and in disease burden of Campylo- bacter-related human illness. In Poland and Spain, using probi- otics can be classified as a moderately expensive intervention if efficacy is more than 10%. In the Netherlands and Denmark, using probiotics is a relatively expensive intervention irrespec- tive of efficacy. However, if probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics were assumed to enhance broiler performance, it would be- come a relatively cost-effective intervention for Campylobacter even at low efficacy levels of 1 to 10%. Simulation results re- vealed that the costs per “avoided disability-adjusted life year” were lowest in Poland and Spain (€ 4,000–30,000) and highest in the Netherlands and Denmark (€ 70,000–340,000) at an efficacy ranging from 10 to 20%.


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