managers to manage challenges previously covered with antibiotics. For example, farm workers could be trained in learning how to identify and respond properly to the earliest signs of a disruption in gut health. Thoughtful preparation should inform a realistic and affordable plan for reducing antibiotics with identified and acceptable risks.
Antibiotic reduction: One step at a time! Incremental change yields the best results when transitioning away from antibiotics. A step-by-step approach to antibiotic reduction allows farms to take an action, evaluate, improve, and progress. In practice this approach could translate to an operation removing one or two in-feed antibiotics as an initial step, while working on the specified risk factors to cover for the absence of that antibiotic. These risks might be the improvement of certain management procedures, strategic use of functional feed additives, improved health monitoring or leveraging the benefits of specialised young animal feeds. When evaluation reveals the removal of the antibiotic is covered effectively, the producer could move on to the next antibiotic challenge. A “one step at a time strategy” creates awareness and introduces alternative solutions to risk factors previously managed with antibiotics. By exploiting newly gained insights and rolling out small incremental steps to address risk factors, the effect on performance often surpasses the previous antibiotic-supported way of production. Another factor contributing to good production results when removing antibiotics lies in the relative effect preventively used antibiotics have in modern production systems. The production efficiency advantages of antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) show a clear downward trend over the last decennia. An analysis of 433 piglet experiments conducted between 1950 and 1985 revealed a +16.4% average daily gain advantage and +6.9% improved feed conversion rate through usage of AGPs. However, a large study performed in 2002 revealed only a 5% increased average daily gain advantage with AGPs and a not statistically significant minor effect on the feed conversion ratio of piglets. The same trend is also visible in broilers and grower-finishing pigs. In context with continuously improving and evolving production standards, some producers are no longer dependent on antibiotics without realising it.
Nutreco Sustainability RoadMap 2025 One step at a time also applies to Nutreco’s own ambitious an- tibiotic reduction effort for Trouw Nutrition and Skretting, to contribute towards lowering antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Referred to as RoadMap 2025, by year-end 2025, these goals include the following for products supplied by Nutreco: • Zero prophylactic antibiotics • Zero antibiotics used as growth promoters
• Zero antibiotics labelled by WHO as ‘critically important for human health’
• Antibiotics only after a valid clinical diagnosis and under supervision of a veterinarian
These commitments are to date the most ambitious antibiotic reduction goals published by any global animal nutrition company. While they will not be reached this year, nor in 2022, the solutions to replace antibiotics in the above categories are already well established for some common industry challenges.
Visit Nutreco to find out more about RoadMap 2025
Figure 2 - Survey question in global Trouw Nutrition poultry event held in September 2021. Responses from industry specialists from over 30 different countries.
ANTIBIOTIC REDUCTION TREND NOW-2025 8% 5%
A. I don’t expect any changes in antibiotic usage by 2025
B. I expect serious antibiotic reduction efforts to start between now and 2025
33% 53%
C. My market already reduced antibiotic usage significantly and will keep reducing towards 2025
D. I expect no further reduction in antibiotic usage in 2025 as the usage is already low / antibiotic-free production
▶ ANTIBIOTIC REDUCTION | DECEMBER 2021
31
PHOTO: TROUW NUTRITION
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
