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.

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.

Regresar a European Edition (#2)