Effects of phytobiotics (biomin® p.e.p.) on nursery pig performance (2007)

Sulabo, R. C.; Jacela, J.Y.; Neher, F.; DeRouchey, Joel M.; Tokach, Michael D.; Goodband, Robert D.; Nelssen, Jim L.; Dritz, Steven S.

doi:10.4148/2378-5977.6971

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Supplementation of piglet diets with PFAs improved feed conversion by 3-5 % Maenner et al 2011;Sulabo et al 2007). Increased weight gain of piglets fed phytogenic compounds was also reported in different studies, as reviewed by Franz et al (2010).…”

Section: Effects Of Phytogenic Feed Additives On Animal Performancementioning

confidence: 68%

Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of the World

Máthé¹

2015

Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of the World

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Effects Of Phytogenic Feed Additives On Animal Performancementioning

confidence: 68%

Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of the World

Máthé¹

2015

Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of the World

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 2: Aminoglycosides/aminocyclitols: apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin

Koutsoumanis¹,

Allende²,

Álvarez‐Ordóñez³

et al. 2021

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The specific concentrations of apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for these antimicrobials, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for apramycin and neomycin, whilst for paromomycin and spectinomycin, no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these four antimicrobials.

show abstract

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 12: Tetracyclines: tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, and doxycycline

Koutsoumanis¹,

Allende²,

Álvarez‐Ordóñez³

et al. 2021

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The specific concentrations of tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline and doxycycline in nontarget feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for these four tetracyclines was estimated. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, whilst for doxycycline no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated with the levels reported were addressed. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials.

show abstract

Effects of phytobiotics (biomin® p.e.p.) on nursery pig performance (2007)

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of the World

Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of the World

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 2: Aminoglycosides/aminocyclitols: apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 12: Tetracyclines: tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, and doxycycline

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Effects of phytobiotics (biomin® p.e.p.) on nursery pig performance (2007)

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of the World

Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of the World

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 2: Aminoglycosides/aminocyclitols: apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 12: Tetracyclines: tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, and doxycycline

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Maximum levels of cross‐contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non‐target feed. Part 2: Aminoglycosides/aminocyclitols: apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin