TOWARDS THE REPLACEMENT OF Amal Rouissi

Amal Rouissi

PhD student

Gut Health Symposium

St-Louis

November 2018

TOWARDS THE REPLACEMENT OF ANTIBIOTICS GROWTH

PROMOTERS IN CHICKEN: META-ANALYSIS APPROACH

Amal Rouissi, Boulianne M , F Guay and M. P. Létourneau-Montminy

www.ulaval.ca

Antibiotic resistance

It is a natural phenomenon of defense of the bacteria with respect to the action exerted by the antibiotic

(Bywater, 2006 ; Sorum et Sunde, 2001 ; Perry et Wright, 2013)

Introduction

www.ulaval.ca

• The impact of antimicrobial growth promoters on the development ofantimicrobial resistant bacteria has been the subject of several reportsand led to their ban in the European Union in 2006 (regulations [CE]1831/2003)

• In Canada, preventive use of antibiotics will be ban at the end of 2018

• Withdrawal of antibiotics from broiler flocks has been associated withthe resurgence of necrotic enteritis (Marie-Lou Gaucher, 2015)

Introduction

www.ulaval.ca

• Antibiotic effects on animal growth efficiency is most likely derivedfrom effects on the intestinal microbiota, which in turn may

• Reduce opportunistic subclinical infections

• Reduce host response to the gut microflora

• Reduce competition for nutrients

• improve nutrient digestibility(Dibner and Richards, 2005)

Introduction

www.ulaval.ca

Many antibiotic alternatives available are for poultry production (Gadde et al. 2017)

Introduction

www.ulaval.ca

• Organic acids may reduced colonization of pathogens in the

intestine and in turns improve growth performance due to pH

modifications and bactericidal effects

(Peter Theobald, 2018)

Introduction

www.ulaval.ca

• Prebiotics, defined as either

1. non-digestible food ingredients that beneficially affect the

host by selectively stimulating the growth and/or activity

of colonic bacteria

(Gibson and Roberfroid, 1995)

2. selectively fermented food ingredients that improve host

health by targeting indigenous components thought to

be positive

(Walton et al., 2013)

Introduction

www.ulaval.ca

Design a database of publications aimed at studying the effects of

alternatives to antibiotics growth promoters in broiler chickens and study

it with meta-analysis tool

The specific objectives are:

1. Make an inventory of the alternatives studied, the measured criteria,

the most studied ages, etc.

2. Quantify the effect of the different alternatives on the criteria

commonly measured in the trials (e.g. growth performance, mortality,

digestive physiology, digestibility)

3. Highlighting factors that modulate the response of the alternatives

tested

Objectives

www.ulaval.ca

Meta-analysis

• Statistical tool that gather data from multiple published studies and attempted to1. Increase the statistical power of an effect2. Raise a doubt about discordant results3. Test and increase the possibility of generalization4. Explain the variability of the results between tests5. Confront a test with others6. Answering a question not asked in the tests

• Each publication and experiment within publication receive a code that is included in the statistical model

Materials and Methods

www.ulaval.ca

Meta-analysis steps

Databasedesign

Selection and coding of

experiments

Users

Post-analysisevaluation

Selection of statistical model

Study of the meta-design

Graphicalanalysis

Adjustments

From Sauvant et al. (2005)

Objective(s)

Literaturesearch


www.ulaval.ca

Criteria of inclusion

1. Diet composition

2. Broiler genetic line

3. Feed conversion ratio data


www.ulaval.ca

• Studies including the keywords “broilers", "poultry“, and “organic

acids“, “prebiotics"

• Publications and experiments were specifically coded

• Each observation represented the mean of one treatment group

• All dietary nutrient profile recalculated INRA-AFZ tables (Sauvant et

al., 2004)


www.ulaval.ca

• Many publications included positive control with antibiotics (C+)

and negative control without (C-)

• The difference between C+ and C- have been calculated to have an

idea of the challenge imposed to the birds

• However, in the database only C- and C- with alternatives has

been included


www.ulaval.ca

Nb publications = 17

Nb trials= 44Nb treatment

= 107

Nb publications = 11

Nb trials= 32Nb treatment

= 75

Organic Acids

Prebiotics


www.ulaval.ca

Variables XFixed

• Metab. energy (% supply vs require)

• Crude protein (% supply vs require)

• Difference in performance C+ vs C-

• Alternative types

• Genetic line

• Presence of challenge

• Age class

Continuous

• Dose

Variables Y

• Average daily gain (ADG)

• Average daily feed intake

(ADFI)

• Feed conversion ratio

(FCR)

• ADG effect (% vs C-)

• ADFI effect (% vs C-)

• FCR effect (% vs C-)


www.ulaval.ca

Data analysis

Graphical examination

a) Relationship X and X

b) Relationship Y and X

Statistical analysis

• Minitab 18.0 and SAS 9.4

• Experiment as random effect

• Dose as covariate

• Post-analysis tests


www.ulaval.ca

Organic Acids (OA)

www.ulaval.ca

67%5%

28%Butyric Acid

Formic Acid

propionic acid +formic acid

Results and discussions

www.ulaval.ca


Consistency:

70% of OA treatment have

positive and significant effect

on the FCR

www.ulaval.ca


• No effect of age

• No effect of genetic

• No effect of challenge

• No effect of CP

• No effect of OA type

www.ulaval.ca

+ 4%

Parameters Coefficient P-value

Intercept 186 0.88

%AMEnRequirement 1.87 0.67

Linear effect of OA 3.98 0.01

Quadratic effect of OA 9.80 0.13


R2 = 99,72%

RMSE= 1,38466

www.ulaval.ca

1,75

1,80

1,85

1,90

0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35

FC

R

Dose Organic Acids (%)

+ 3%


Intercept 10.7 0.0018

%EnergyRequirement -0,0893 0.0001

Linear effect of OA -0.368 0.0016

Quadratic effect of OA 0.563 0.0385


R2 = 99,2%

RMSE= 0,0330143

www.ulaval.ca


1,6

1,7

1,8

1,9

2,0

2,1

2,2

2,3

0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35

FCR

Dose Organic Acids (%)

%requirME =99 %requirME =95 %requirME =97

www.ulaval.ca

Prebiotics

www.ulaval.ca

82%

18%

MOS

FOS


www.ulaval.ca

Consistency:

60% of Prebiotic treatment have

positive significant effect on the

FCR


www.ulaval.ca





• No effect of CP

• No effect of prebiotic type

www.ulaval.ca

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1 1,25 1,5 1,75 2 2,25 2,5 2,75 3

AD

G (

g)

Dose Prebiotics (g/kg)


Intercept 208 0.003

%EnergyRequirement 10.8 0.224

Linear effect of Prebiotic -1.50 0.025

Quadratic effect of Prebiotic -0.485 < 0.001

Linear effect of Prebiotic* %_EnergyRequirement -0.0831 0.353


the best dosage of prebiotic for

optimal growth is around 2 g /kg diet

(Tucker et al. 2003)

+ 6%

R2 = 99,77%

RMSE= 2,19618

www.ulaval.ca

1,60

1,62

1,64

1,66

1,68

1,70

1,72

1,74

0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1 1,25 1,5 1,75 2 2,25 2,5 2,75 3

FC

R

Dose Prebiotics (g/kg)


Intercept 3.62 < 0.001

%EnergyRequirement -0.573 0.023

Linear effect of Prebiotic -0.0191 0.056

Quadratic effect of Prebiotic 0.009 0.017

Linear effect of Prebiotic* %_EnergyRequirement 0.005 0.039


the best dosage of prebiotic for

optimal growth is around 2 g /kg diet

(Tucker et al. 2003)

+ 9%

R2 = 96,25%

RMSE= 0,0605137

www.ulaval.ca


www.ulaval.ca

The current study shows

• Response of OA and prebiotics depends of the dose and level of

dietary energy supply in comparison to requirements

• The most studied alternatives are butyric acid for OA and MOS for

prebiotics

Next step

• Probiotics database

• Essential oil database

• Comparing the most studied alternatives together

• Testing the best alternative in the farm

To be continued…

Conclusions and perspectives

www.ulaval.ca

Organic Acids (OA)

www.ulaval.ca

24%

76%

Lactobacillus

Bacillus


www.ulaval.ca


Consistency:

60% of Probiotic treatment

have positive and significant

effect on the FCR

www.ulaval.ca





• No effect of CP

• No effect of ME

• No effect of Probiotic type

www.ulaval.ca

+ 3%


Intercept 186 0.8

%AMEnRequirement 0,689036 0.63

Linear effect of Pro -6,776955 0.005

Quadratic effect of Pro 0,015327 0.7


R2 = 99,72%

RMSE= 1,38466

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

0 1,5 2 2,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5 8

AD

G(g

)

Dose Probiotiques (Log cfu/g)

www.ulaval.ca

+ 6%


Intercept-1,858924

0.08

%EnergyRequirement0,034598

0.46

Linear effect of Pro0,153277

0.04

Quadratic effect of Pro -0,002468 0.08


R2 = 96,9%

RMSE= 0,055

1,3

1,35

1,4

1,45

1,5

1,55

1,6

0 1,5 2 2,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5 8

FC

R

Dose Probiotiques (Log cfu/g)

www.ulaval.ca


1,35

1,40

1,45

1,50

1,55

1,60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

FC

R

Dose Probiotique( Log cfu/g)

%Ebesoin=99 % Requir ME=97 % Requir ME=95

www.ulaval.ca

www.ulaval.ca

[email protected]

http://monogastriques.fsaa.ulaval.ca/

Thank you for

your attention

http://monogastriques.fsaa.ulaval.ca/

TOWARDS THE REPLACEMENT OF Amal Rouissi

Documents

Transcript of TOWARDS THE REPLACEMENT OF Amal Rouissi