Life after antibiotics: Vaccines part of holistic solution
The poultry industry can produce
birds without the benefit of growth
promoters, but it will take a wellthought-
out holistic approach to make
it work, cautioned Dr. Peter Scott.
In a talk on poultry production without
antibiotics, Scott had harsh words for
anyone who muddies the waters of
perception about the use of antibiotics in
livestock. In the minds of consumers,
the term “growth promoters” is often mistakenly confused with “growth
hormones,’” said Scott, a senior research
fellow at the University of Melbourne
and managing director of avian and
animal health consultancy, Scolexia.
The issue of antibiotic resistance is
complex and often misconstrued. “A lot
of people are interested, and for different
reasons,” he said.
Genetic selection for resistance is well
understood; pathogens are constantly
evolving in response to antibiotics from
natural sources, not just as a result of
antibiotic use, he pointed out. Resistance
in pathogens affecting livestock does not
necessarily translate into problems for
human health, Scott asserted, but he did
concede that pathogens carried by poultry
such as salmonella and Campylobacter spp.
were of more direct concern.
During two decades working in the
Australian poultry industry, Scott has
seen an enormous drop in therapeutic antibiotic use, achieved largely by the
use of vaccines, improved husbandry,
phytosanitary procedures and biosecurity.
“Alternative treatments are
not a complete replacement
for growth promoters or a
panacea, but they can be
useful and effective.”
There is a mixed understanding in the
industry of the importance of gut
microflora in young birds, he said.
Livestock managers are often anxious to
use therapeutic antibiotics within the first
week to reduce mortality if they detect
sick birds, but this causes disruption to
natural gut flora and could lead to more
disease-control problems later on. “I tell
them it’s not warranted and shouldn’t be
done,” he added.
Forecast for alternative systems
Alternative systems, he predicted, “are
going to be much harder to run if you’re
going to avoid disease problems and the
use of therapeutic antibiotics.”
Withdrawing antibiotics in the form of
in-feed growth promoters, Scott said,
could lead to a drop-off in feed conversion
efficiency if other measures are not taken,
which has been the case in countries
where they are no longer permitted. He
urged producers to take a “multifactorial”
approach; this involves improved
husbandry practices, nutrition, use of
enzymes to prevent accumulation of
non-polysaccharide starches in the gut,
improved immunity through vaccination
and the use of alternative treatments.
“Alternative treatments are not a complete
replacement for growth promoters or a
panacea, but they can be useful and
effective,” he noted.
Removing in-feed growth promoters is a
big challenge in these tough economic
times when labor and feed costs are rising,
and Scott says he’s seen some husbandry
practices deteriorating as a result of
financial pressures. Access to therapeutic
antibiotic treatments must be maintained
for controlled and regulated use in specific
situations, such as managing risk from
pathogens that threaten food safety.
“The poultry industry can accommodate
the strategic removal of growth promoters
and limitations on the use of therapeutics
through a holistic approach and the
strategic use of alternative products and
biologicals combined with improved
husbandry,” he concluded.
Back to European Edition (#2)
