More Answers Needed for Antibiotic Alternatives

Effect on Birds and On-farm Efficacy in Question 

The race is on to find new alternatives to replace traditional antibiotics for use in poultry feeds. However, as identified during the Poultry Industry Council’s (PIC) research day in June, barriers face the registration of antibiotic alternatives, and questions remain as to how the welfare of birds will be affected.  

Pointed out was the fact that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) doesn’t easily allow for the registration of alternative products for use in livestock.  Although Canadian research has shown that probiotic products available in Europe and the United States are effective alternatives to antibiotics, many of these products have not been approved by the CFIA. 

Registering a product in Canada is a painfully slow and expensive process that has left some companies washing their hands of the Canadian market, Dee Britney, nutritionist for Wallenstein Feed and Supply Ltd. in Ontario, told attendees. 

From the perspective of the feed industry, Britney acknowledged that antibiotic alternatives pose many challenges. 

From a strictly manufacturing point of view, she said that it would be simpler to produce feed without drugs than with them. She indicated that drugs can complicate the manufacturing process, and that incorporating fewer drugs into the feed would make the physical production of feed easier and for feed mills to meet their HACCP control points more readily. 

Dual Role
However, Britney noted that the animal welfare point of view must also be considered.  Feed manufacturers have a dual role, she said. The first is to provide nutritionally balanced feed to meet the animal’s needs, and also to provide a means to prevent or treat health-related problems.

Britney said that a number of challenges with respect to incorporating or not incorporating antibiotics in feed were identified at a seminar in 2000 sponsored by the Ontario Agri Business Association. 

First, there is a limited selection of alternatives to antibiotics registered for use in feed. Second, there is little information on how well alternatives to medications worked. Third, the costs of alternatives were either higher or unknown and fourth, it would take time to educate everyone involved about alternatives.

In Canada, there is also a lack of clarity in the procedure to get government approval to incorporate alternatives into feed. There is also a lack of appropriate categories into existing regulations, which creates much frustration for suppliers.

In Europe and the United States different procedures are in place. The U.S., for example, employs a GRAS (generally regarded as safe) standard and doesn’t require the registration of mixtures if the individual product is on the GRAS list. In Canada, the mixtures must be registered, an extra step that could work to Canada’s disadvantage.

In Europe, only natural ingredients can be employed and mixtures do not have to be registered if the ingredients comply with other criteria.

Alternatives to antibiotics and other medication include: probiotics, prebiotics, immune enhancers, enzymes, acidifiers, herbs and spices, trace minerals, vaccines, bacteriophages and others, Britney said (see box).  However the results are difficult to quantify.

Today, there is much more research being undertaken that focuses on ingredients and nutrients in relation to gut function, immune response and overall animal health, she said.

Feeds mills have a vested interest in this research and in strong, healthy animals and will continue to work in this area, she said. A number of producers are trying production systems that are antibiotic free, coccidiostat free and do not have medication in the feed.

Unanswered Questions
But the real question is how to overcome the challenge of evaluating the efficacy of these programs on-farm. 
Britney asked what the yard-stick for performance should be. “We have barely begun to sort things out and still have more questions than answers,” she said.
Some of the questions include: 
•     Do you look at usual performance parameters, such as bodyweight and feed conversion?
•    Do you use a decrease in mortality or condemns?
•    Do we even have an alternative for some health situations?
•    Do we need a combination of products?
•    Which combination?
•    Who makes this decision?
•    Who pays the cost?

When it comes to the costs, there are even more unknowns. For example, with an average medication program the performance is known and the results are predictable. With an alternative program the performance is unknown and results are somewhat inconsistent, Britney said.

Some feed mills are working with producers, suppliers, veterinarians and/or processors to evaluate performance and the cost of alternative products under field conditions, but Britney said that this is usually on a case-by-case basis.

The bottom line is that “there will be increased interest in using alternatives to drugs, especially as our knowledge of how these products perform in the field grows. But we will still be required to produce medicated feed for the treatment and prevention of disease for sometime yet to come,” she said.

In closing, she said the feed industry is proactive in ensuring prudent use of current medications and “is working diligently to expand its knowledge on the effective use of alternative products to medications as well as nutritional approaches to gut health.”