Better modulation of intestinal microbiota
After the ban of AGPs in Europe in 2006, use of non-medicated gut microbiota regulators as feed additives has consequently increased. In this context, a specific and patented Copper Exchanged Clay (CeC), was developed as such as an alternative
BY PAULINE POURTAU TILLY, BUSINESS DEVELOPER MANAGER, WISIUM C
ommercial poultry production is one of the most important sources of animal protein for human con- sumption, not suffering from any cultural or reli- gious restrictions and is an important economic ac-
tivity in many countries, with over 60 billion birds used in the production of meat and eggs each year. Despite their strong impacts on technical and economical farms performance, lit- tle is known about microorganisms housed in the chicken gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Yet, the complex microbial com- munity (microbiota) of the gastrointestinal tract plays a cru- cial role in the health of the animal and can be considered as an important metabolic “organ”. Composition of the intestinal microbiota is dynamic with spatial shifts along each GIT re- gion in relation to environmental changes. The entire GIT of chicken is estimated to house 640 species of bacteria from 140 different genera, where about 90% of the species are yet to be described. Thus, when talking about the importance and influence of gut microflora, the number of bacterial cells in the host is 10 times the eukaryote cells number in the poultry body or that their genes number is 50 to 100 times higher than the total number of genes constituting the host.
Benefits of using AGPs Sub-therapeutic concentrations of antibiotics, known as Antibiotic Growth Promoters (AGPs) have long been used in the food-producing industry. Their addition enhances feed efficiency, reduces mortality and improves the overall health of livestock. Their mode of action is thought to be due to a direct or indirect overall reduction or modification in bacterial numbers, as it is strongly suggested by their lack of effect on broilers. The proposed mechanisms involve a reduction of microbial nutrient utilisation, an enhancement of nutrient absorption due to a thinner mucus layer and healthy functional enterocytes, a decrease in production of unwanted bacterial metabolites such as toxins and a reduction of intestinal infections. Direct action on the host’s intestinal immune functions have also been suggested. Finally, the
42 ▶ ANTIBIOTIC REDUCTION | DECEMBER 2021
addition of AGP in animal feed results in a decrease of nutrient amounts needed to produce a market-size chicken and enhances birds’ growth without having negative effects on the meat quality if withdrawal delays are observed. The first evidence of AGPs performance effect dates to 1940 and has since been echoed by many studies. The development of intensive livestock farming based on the confinement of a high number of birds, therefore increases the risk of bacterial disease development and an unbalanced gut microbiota. Subsequently, AGPs have been used in routine for decades to prevent disease and improve zootechnical performances. Their overuse has contributed to the emergence of drug re- sistant bacteria and to the accumulation of antibiotic residues in animal products and the environment. AGPs were banned from farming practices in 2006 in the EU, leading to an in- creased mortality rate, degraded techno-economical results and decreased animal welfare. This raised the need for safe and efficient alternatives that could increase nutrient availa- bility for the animal, improve host immunity and intestinal microbiota. Thus, many feed additives have emerged in poul- try nutrition such as probiotics, prebiotics, micro-elements, digestive enzymes, plants extracts or essential oils and clays. Particularly, among clays, action of ion-exchanged clays, especially Copper Exchanged Clay on microbiota is well described and is considered a good candidates for alternative to AGPs thanks to their antimicrobial effect. Nevertheless, regarding the microbiota, most of the studies with ion- exchanged clays focus on counts of pathogenic bacteria
Figure 1 - Family microflora diversity in the gut of each group. Control
vs
9% Proteobacteria Actinobacteria 8% 1% Non identifed
Firmicute 82% CeC
1% Proteobacteria Actinobacteria 2%
Firmicute 97%
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
