Effects of in feed removal of antimicrobials in comparison to other prophylactic alternatives in growing and finishing pigs
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Arquivo brasileiro de medicina veterinária e zootecnia (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-09352021000701381 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT The utilization of antimicrobials in animal production, causes selection of resistant bacteria. The objective of this study was to compare the utilization of alternatives in association with preventive antibiotic therapy in swine feed during the growing and finishing phases. 1,045 animals were used from 60 to 190 days of age and were subjected to six treatments with 16 repetitions as follows: 1) antibiotic free; 2) antibiotics; 3) prebiotic; 4) probiotic; 5) essential oils; and 6) organic acid. Animals were weighted, and clinical history was recorded including mortality and diarrhea. At the abattoir, pneumonia index and gastric ulcers were investigated. The cost for each treatment was discussed. No difference between treatments were observed (P>0.05) regarding feed conversion rate (2.64±0.03), overall average weight gain (107.06±0.9kg), average daily weight gain (856.49±7.7g) and carcass weight (92.4±0.7kg). The application injectable drugs in animals presenting clinical symptoms, represented US$ 0.56/intervention, without difference between the treatments (P>0.05). Furthermore, independently of the treatment, high frequency of pneumonia was observed (>0.90). No difference for the degree of gastric ulcer nor feces consistency were observed (P>0.05). The utilization of antibiotic therapy and alternatives to antibiotics in feed did not produce benefits to the production indices and sanitary performances of the animals. |
id |
UFMG-8_45c1fcd68c6fd7d390196921fd90a7d6 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0102-09352021000701381 |
network_acronym_str |
UFMG-8 |
network_name_str |
Arquivo brasileiro de medicina veterinária e zootecnia (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Effects of in feed removal of antimicrobials in comparison to other prophylactic alternatives in growing and finishing pigsessential oilsorganic acidsprebioticsprobioticsABSTRACT The utilization of antimicrobials in animal production, causes selection of resistant bacteria. The objective of this study was to compare the utilization of alternatives in association with preventive antibiotic therapy in swine feed during the growing and finishing phases. 1,045 animals were used from 60 to 190 days of age and were subjected to six treatments with 16 repetitions as follows: 1) antibiotic free; 2) antibiotics; 3) prebiotic; 4) probiotic; 5) essential oils; and 6) organic acid. Animals were weighted, and clinical history was recorded including mortality and diarrhea. At the abattoir, pneumonia index and gastric ulcers were investigated. The cost for each treatment was discussed. No difference between treatments were observed (P>0.05) regarding feed conversion rate (2.64±0.03), overall average weight gain (107.06±0.9kg), average daily weight gain (856.49±7.7g) and carcass weight (92.4±0.7kg). The application injectable drugs in animals presenting clinical symptoms, represented US$ 0.56/intervention, without difference between the treatments (P>0.05). Furthermore, independently of the treatment, high frequency of pneumonia was observed (>0.90). No difference for the degree of gastric ulcer nor feces consistency were observed (P>0.05). The utilization of antibiotic therapy and alternatives to antibiotics in feed did not produce benefits to the production indices and sanitary performances of the animals.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Escola de Veterinária2021-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-09352021000701381Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia v.73 n.6 2021reponame:Arquivo brasileiro de medicina veterinária e zootecnia (Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)instacron:UFMG10.1590/1678-4162-12450info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessTutida,Y.H.Montes,J.H.Borstnez,K.K.Siqueira,H.A.Güths,M. F.Moreira,F.Peripolli,V.Irgang,R.Morés,N.Bianchi,I.Kich,J.D.eng2021-12-16T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0102-09352021000701381Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/abmvz/PUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpjournal@vet.ufmg.br||abmvz.artigo@abmvz.org.br1678-41620102-0935opendoar:2021-12-16T00:00Arquivo brasileiro de medicina veterinária e zootecnia (Online) - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Effects of in feed removal of antimicrobials in comparison to other prophylactic alternatives in growing and finishing pigs |
title |
Effects of in feed removal of antimicrobials in comparison to other prophylactic alternatives in growing and finishing pigs |
spellingShingle |
Effects of in feed removal of antimicrobials in comparison to other prophylactic alternatives in growing and finishing pigs Tutida,Y.H. essential oils organic acids prebiotics probiotics |
title_short |
Effects of in feed removal of antimicrobials in comparison to other prophylactic alternatives in growing and finishing pigs |
title_full |
Effects of in feed removal of antimicrobials in comparison to other prophylactic alternatives in growing and finishing pigs |
title_fullStr |
Effects of in feed removal of antimicrobials in comparison to other prophylactic alternatives in growing and finishing pigs |
title_full_unstemmed |
Effects of in feed removal of antimicrobials in comparison to other prophylactic alternatives in growing and finishing pigs |
title_sort |
Effects of in feed removal of antimicrobials in comparison to other prophylactic alternatives in growing and finishing pigs |
author |
Tutida,Y.H. |
author_facet |
Tutida,Y.H. Montes,J.H. Borstnez,K.K. Siqueira,H.A. Güths,M. F. Moreira,F. Peripolli,V. Irgang,R. Morés,N. Bianchi,I. Kich,J.D. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Montes,J.H. Borstnez,K.K. Siqueira,H.A. Güths,M. F. Moreira,F. Peripolli,V. Irgang,R. Morés,N. Bianchi,I. Kich,J.D. |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Tutida,Y.H. Montes,J.H. Borstnez,K.K. Siqueira,H.A. Güths,M. F. Moreira,F. Peripolli,V. Irgang,R. Morés,N. Bianchi,I. Kich,J.D. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
essential oils organic acids prebiotics probiotics |
topic |
essential oils organic acids prebiotics probiotics |
description |
ABSTRACT The utilization of antimicrobials in animal production, causes selection of resistant bacteria. The objective of this study was to compare the utilization of alternatives in association with preventive antibiotic therapy in swine feed during the growing and finishing phases. 1,045 animals were used from 60 to 190 days of age and were subjected to six treatments with 16 repetitions as follows: 1) antibiotic free; 2) antibiotics; 3) prebiotic; 4) probiotic; 5) essential oils; and 6) organic acid. Animals were weighted, and clinical history was recorded including mortality and diarrhea. At the abattoir, pneumonia index and gastric ulcers were investigated. The cost for each treatment was discussed. No difference between treatments were observed (P>0.05) regarding feed conversion rate (2.64±0.03), overall average weight gain (107.06±0.9kg), average daily weight gain (856.49±7.7g) and carcass weight (92.4±0.7kg). The application injectable drugs in animals presenting clinical symptoms, represented US$ 0.56/intervention, without difference between the treatments (P>0.05). Furthermore, independently of the treatment, high frequency of pneumonia was observed (>0.90). No difference for the degree of gastric ulcer nor feces consistency were observed (P>0.05). The utilization of antibiotic therapy and alternatives to antibiotics in feed did not produce benefits to the production indices and sanitary performances of the animals. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-12-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-09352021000701381 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-09352021000701381 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/1678-4162-12450 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Escola de Veterinária |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Escola de Veterinária |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia v.73 n.6 2021 reponame:Arquivo brasileiro de medicina veterinária e zootecnia (Online) instname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) instacron:UFMG |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
instacron_str |
UFMG |
institution |
UFMG |
reponame_str |
Arquivo brasileiro de medicina veterinária e zootecnia (Online) |
collection |
Arquivo brasileiro de medicina veterinária e zootecnia (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Arquivo brasileiro de medicina veterinária e zootecnia (Online) - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
journal@vet.ufmg.br||abmvz.artigo@abmvz.org.br |
_version_ |
1750220895594479616 |