Effects of in feed removal of antimicrobials in comparison to other prophylactic alternatives in growing and finishing pigs

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Tutida,Y.H.
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: 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.
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