Say yes to preventive health solutions
Antibiotic resistance has a significant cost for human and animal health. By leveraging the beneficial effects of gut microbiota management and immune support, it is possible to reduce antibiotic use by strengthening intestinal health.
BY ERIC N’GUETTA, PRODUCT MANAGER INTESTINAL HEALTH AND PAULINA BUKOWSKA – RZEZAK, TECHNICAL SERVICE MANAGER INTESTINAL HEALTH, KEMIN AGRIFOODS EMENA
A Clostat
ntibiotic resistance (ABR) is viewed as one of the most pressing public health challenges of the 21st century. It is defined as the ability of bacteria to survive antibiotic concentrations known to inhibit
or kill previously sensitive strains, and clinically leads to the persistence of infections despite the administration of antibiotics. According to the World Health Organization, the human cost of antibiotic resistance is currently estimated to be at least 700,000 deaths worldwide per year. It is important to keep in mind that ABR is not only a problem for human health. In the poultry industry, first and foremost the birds are the priority and the various stakeholders of the production chain also pay a high price for ABR. For instance, failure of antibiotic therapy during bacterial infections has an important impact on animal welfare (e.g. avian pathogenic E. coli, Enterococcus sp.). The resulting deteriorated growth, culling and mortality directly impairs production performance and income. The limitations in terms of remaining treatment options further contribute to increased health costs and reduced profitability.
Figure 1 - Mortality of turkeys supplemented with Clostat alone or in combination with Aleta.
Clostat + Aleta 5,91% –32% 3,61%
The overall cost of ABR remains difficult to precisely estimate. A recent estimation suggested an indirect cost of about US$ 1,500 per kg of fluoroquinolones administered in US broiler chicken production.
Consumer expectations and strategies Since there is a lack of new systemic antibiotics, preserving the efficacy of the ones available is critical. Several initiatives have been undertaken to reduce the veterinary use of antibiotics. At EU level, the One Health action plan against ABR intends to lessen the gap between animal health and human health. In terms of long-term objectives, the Farm to Fork Strategy targets a reduction by 50% in sales of antimicrobials used for farmed animals by 2030. The societal demand to reduce antimicrobial use in meat production is also an important driver. Significant results have already been achieved in the EU in animal farming, as the European Medicine Agency reports that the sales of veterinary antimicrobials decreased by 34% between 2011 and 2018. However, continuing to endorse the rational use of antibiotics will be the key to sustain these results. Different preventive measures can be considered, either from the poultry producer’s or the health professional’s end. They require a multidimensional approach that includes compliance with good management practices, nutritional recommendations, biosecurity and correct prophylaxis along the production chain. Having healthy day-old chicks is an important factor to prevent neonatal antimicrobial use, as is controlling feed and water quality and considering the use of alternative strategies such as feed additives to support health. In terms of antibiotic use, the preventive use of critically important molecules (e.g. fluoroquinolones, 3rd
and 4th generation
cephalosporin) should be avoided, as its use is already not permitted in some countries, and sensitivity testing encouraged before their metaphylactic or therapeutic use.
0,00% 1
11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 Age (days)
52 ▶ ANTIBIOTIC REDUCTION | DECEMBER 2021
Microbiota management Several hypotheses have been formulated to explain the antibiotic growth promoting (AGP) effect of therapeutic
Mortality (%)
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
