Effects of administration of antimicrobials in feed on growth rate and feed efficiency of pigs in multisite production systems

Dritz, S. S.; Tokach, Michael D.; Goodband, Robert D.; Nelssen, Jim L.

doi:10.2460/javma.2002.220.1690

Cited by 70 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 did we note any effect of narasin on pig performance. The loss of dietary effects on pig performance due to age was not surprising because of: 1-adaptation of pigs to higher-fiber diets (Gargallo and Zimmerman, 1981;Johnson, 1988;Edwards, 1993;Le Goff et al, 2002), 2-antibiotic responses are often reduced with heavier pig BW (Cromwell, 2001;Dritz et al, 2002), and 3-the current experiments were designed to evaluate energy and nutrient digestibility and not necessarily pig performance where in the current experiment pigs were individually penned, which are typical in digestibility-type trials compared to group-penned pigs and lacked the number of replications reported in commercial performance studies (Arkfeld et al, 2015). In many circumstances, ionophores have been reported to improve pig performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narasin effects on energy, nutrient, and fiber digestibility in corn-soybean meal or corn-soybean meal-dried distillers grains with solubles diets fed to 16-, 92-, and 141-kg pigs

Kerr¹,

Trabue²,

Andersen³

2017

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments were conducted to determine the effect of narasin on growth performance and on GE and nutrient digestibility in nursery, grower, and finishing pigs fed either a corn-soybean meal (CSBM) diet or a CSBM diet supplemented with distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS), in combination with either 0 or 30 mg narasin/kg of diet. In Exp. 1 (64 gilts, initial BW = 9.0 kg, SD = 1.0 kg) and Exp. 2 (60 gilts. initial BW = 81.1 kg, SD = 6.1 kg), gilts were allotted into individual pens and fed their experimental diets for 24 and 21 d, respectively. On the last 2 d of each experiment, fecal samples were collected to assess apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of GE and various nutrients. In Exp. 3, 2 separate groups of 24 gilts (initial BW = 145.1 kg, SD = 7.8 kg) were allotted to individual metabolism crates and fed their experimental diets for 30 d prior to a time-based 6-d total fecal collection period to assess GE and nutrient digestibility. In Exp. 1, there was an interaction between diet type and narasin addition for G:F and for many of the ATTD coefficients measured. When narasin was supplemented to the CSBM diet, ATTD of GE, DM, C, S, phosphorus, NDF, and ADF was either not changed or reduced, while when narasin was supplemented to DDGS diets, these same ATTD parameters were increased (interaction, P ≤ 0.05). Even though ADG and ADFI were not affected, G:F] was improved in pigs fed the CSBM diet with supplemental narasin, but was reduced in pigs fed the DDGS diet with supplemental narasin (interaction, P < 0.05). In Exp. 2, there was an interaction between diet type and narasin supplementation only for ATTD of Ca (interaction, P < 0.01), in that narasin supplementation did not change the ATTD of Ca in pigs fed the CSBM diet, while narasin supplementation reduced the ATTD of Ca in pigs fed the DDGS containing diet. In Exp. 3, there was an interaction between diet and narasin only for ATTD of C (interaction, P < 0.01) in that narasin supplementation resulted in an increased ATTD of C in pigs fed the CSBM diet, while narasin supplementation to the DDGS containing diet resulted in a reduced ATTD of Ca. In general, the data indicate that narasin interacted with and had its largest effect on pig performance and GE or nutrient digestibility in 9 to 23 kg pigs compared to pigs weighing greater than 80 kg. The data also indicate that the addition of DDGS reduced GE, DM, Ca, and N digestibility, regardless of BW.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narasin effects on energy, nutrient, and fiber digestibility in corn-soybean meal or corn-soybean meal-dried distillers grains with solubles diets fed to 16-, 92-, and 141-kg pigs

Kerr¹,

Trabue²,

Andersen³

2017

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, Dritz et al (6) found no benefit related to average daily gain or feed efficiency from administering growth promotion levels of antimicrobials to finishing pigs. More information is needed regarding the effects of reducing the use of antimicrobials in food animals or modifying the way in which antimicrobials are currently delivered.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Effect of Antimicrobial Dosage Regimen on Salmonella and Escherichia coli Isolates from Feeder Swine

Wagner

Straw

Fedorka–Cray

et al. 2008

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A body of evidence exists that suggests that antimicrobial use in food animals leads to resistance in both pathogenic and commensal bacteria. This study focused on the impact of three different antimicrobial regimes (low-level continuous, pulse, and no antimicrobial) for two antimicrobials (chlortetracycline and tylosin) on the presence of Salmonella spp. and on the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance of both Salmonella spp. and nonspecific Escherichia coli in fecal samples from feeder swine. The prevalence of fecal samples positive for Salmonella spp. significantly decreased between the samples taken at feeder placement compared to samples taken when the animals were close to market weight. Differences in resistance of Salmonella spp. did not appear to be influenced by dosing treatment including the control. Analysis of antimicrobial resistance examining both susceptibility and resistance, as well as MIC outcomes, demonstrated that only resistance to cephalothin increased in E. coli under the pulse chlortetracycline treatment. These results suggest that the dosing regimes examined in this study did not lead to an increase in either the prevalence of Salmonella spp. or the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in isolates of Salmonella spp. or E. coli.

show abstract

“…However, the institution of relatively inexpensive husbandry modifications has allowed the industry to return to levels of productivity similar to those seen before the ban (Wierup, 2001). In addition, numerous institution-based experiments (as opposed to real farm conditions) have shown that in-feed antimicrobials are at their most effective in animals being raised under sub-optimal conditions (Dritz et al, 2002). Where high welfare, high health status animals are used, as in agricultural research centres, the gains produced by in-feed antimicrobials are marginal, at best (Zeyner and Boldt, 2006).…”

Section: Do Probiotics Work? -An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probiotics – do they have a role in the pig industry?

Kenny

Smidt

Mengheri

et al. 2011

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The delivery of certain living microorganisms in food has long been suggested as having positive health effects in humans. This practice has extended into food animal production, with a variety of microorganisms being used; lactic acid bacteria, variousBacillusspecies and the yeastSaccharomyces cerevisiaehave been particularly used in the pig industry. The increased interest in probiotics is essentially due to the problem of microbial resistance to antibiotics and following the ban of the use of antibiotics in animal production, probiotics being considered an alternative means to reduce pathogen infection and improve animal health especially around the time of weaning. However, there is still a need to clarify the probiotic effectiveness in pigs, and the underlying mechanisms. When assessing the efficacy of probiotics one must consider the particular strain of organism being used and the production stage of the pigs being treated. The reproducible delivery of probiotics in industrial pig production is problematic as maintenance of viability is key to their beneficial activity, but difficult to achieve with commonly used feed processing technologies. One specific context where probiotics organisms may be reliably delivered is in systems utilising fermented liquid feeds. Liquid feed may be fermented by the activity of wild lactic acid bacteria or may be stimulated using specific isolates as ‘starters’; the latter system has advantages in terms of reproducibility and speed of fermentation. The farm context in which the organism is used is likely to be critical; the use of probiotics is more likely to result in measurable economic gains in animals living in sub-optimal conditions rather than in those reared in the highest welfare and husbandry conditions. The establishment of a beneficial lactic acid bacteria population at birth may lead to healthier animals, this may be most effectively achieved by treating sows, which provide an amplification step and flood the neonatal pigs’ environment with desirable bacterial strains. In contrast, it may be sufficient to provide a supportive, protective microbiota around the time of weaning as this is a time of major crisis with instability and loss of certain bacterial populations.

show abstract

Effects of administration of antimicrobials in feed on growth rate and feed efficiency of pigs in multisite production systems

Cited by 70 publications

References 13 publications

Narasin effects on energy, nutrient, and fiber digestibility in corn-soybean meal or corn-soybean meal-dried distillers grains with solubles diets fed to 16-, 92-, and 141-kg pigs

Narasin effects on energy, nutrient, and fiber digestibility in corn-soybean meal or corn-soybean meal-dried distillers grains with solubles diets fed to 16-, 92-, and 141-kg pigs

Effect of Antimicrobial Dosage Regimen on Salmonella and Escherichia coli Isolates from Feeder Swine

Probiotics – do they have a role in the pig industry?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About