General enquiries on this form should be made to:randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=OD2016_7806... · Web viewGeneral enquiries on this form should be made to: Defra, Science

General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,Telephone No. 020 7238 1612E-mail: [email protected]

SID 5 Research Project Final Report

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 1 of 15

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code OD2016

2. Project title

Socio-economics aspects in poultry production in European countries

3. Contractororganisation(s)

Veterinary Laboratories AgencyWoodham LaneNew HawAddlestoneSurrey KT15 3NB

54. Total Defra project costs £ 32,206(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................ 01 March 2005

end date................. 28 February 2008


6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so...................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They

should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the

intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.


Projects OD2016 (Defra-funded) and EU0404 (EC-funded) formed part of Work Package 5 of the EU Framework 6 project "POULTRYFLORGUT". The main aim of POULTRYFLORGUT was to improve the quality and safety of poultry products for the consumer through the control of the intestinal flora ecology in poultry. Work Package (WP) 1 was concerned mainly with project management. Work packages 2 and 3 investigated foodborne pathogens in European poultry farms and slaughterhouses, respectively. WP4 looked at new methodologies to monitor intestinal flora in poultry. The main aim of WP5, under which OD2016 fell, was to investigate socio-economic aspects in poultry production in European countries. The VLA undertook four tasks as part of WP5. Separate technical reports were produced for Task 1 and for Tasks 2 to 4.

The objective of Task 1 was to carry out a hazard assessment and an industry/trade analysis for the broiler industry in the EU25 following the integration of new Member States into the EU in 2004. The desk-top scoping study used published information or that available in the public domain. Data were obtained for 25 EU Member States on broiler production, trade, consumption and broiler health indicators. Information gathered and summarised between March 2005 and February 2006 were presented in a technical report as EC Deliverable 5.5. It was concluded that the expansion of the EU from 15 to 25 Member States in 2004 increased the intra-trade of chicken and chicken products both in terms of imports and exports and increased the diversity of broiler farming practices in the EU.

The main objective of Task 2 was to collect data to estimate the economic costs and benefits of the removal of antimicrobial growth promoters (AGPs) and their replacement with alternative products and strategies in broiler chickens in four EU Member States. The economic analysis constituted Task 3 and the recommendations from the economic analysis, Task 4. The four countries chosen for the study were the United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic and Lithuania. They represented Member States before and after EU enlargement in 2004, broiler industry diversity across the EU and were participants in Poultryflorgut.

To determine the data required for the economic analysis, a cost-benefit analysis framework for the conduct of the study was developed. Knowledge of, and data on, the following topics were required: Structure of the broiler industry in the UK, Spain, Czech Republic and Lithuania Broiler production parameters affected by the AGP ban Use of AGPs on broiler farms in the four countries before the ban Effect of AGPs and their removal on broiler production and health Alternative products to AGPs and their effect on broiler production and health Management strategies to mitigate the effects of not using AGPs Effect of AGP ban on human health Effect of the AGP ban on trade, industry structure and the environment

Data for the cost-benefit analysis were extracted from the published literature, Internet and Government sources. A questionnaire was developed to obtain qualitative data on the impact of the AGP ban on broiler production and on the use of alternative strategies to AGPs.

A large amount of information and data were collected for the economic study and are detailed in the final technical report. A considerable body of literature was found on the effects of AGPs and their alternatives on broiler production and health, on antimicrobial resistance in the food chain and on the postulated effects on human health of AGP use in food production. However, data on the actual effects of the AGP ban on broiler producers and human health were sparse. Following discussion with UK poultry experts at a meeting in December 2006, a questionnaire was developed to obtain data from poultry companies on the effects of the AGP ban on broiler production and the uptake of alternatives to AGPs. The questionnaire was reviewed by a UK poultry company and revisions were made. However, there was insufficient time and resources available to send the questionnaire to the list of contacts in the four EU study countries, which had been compiled earlier.

Social cost-benefit analysis was chosen as the economic analysis technique for Task 3. The approach was to compare the net benefit of broiler production strategies without the use of AGPs (alternative options) with the net benefit of broiler production with AGPs (baseline option). The subject matter proved more complex than expected. Therefore, to achieve Task 3 within the time and resources available, the study focused on presenting the science and methodology underlying an economic analysis of the removal of AGPs from broiler production in the study countries and on identifying data gaps.

In the final technical report covering Tasks 2 to 4, a blueprint was set out for the cost-benefit analysis of the removal of AGPs from broiler production in the UK, Spain, Czech Republic and Lithuania. Each step of


the cost-benefit analysis was described in detail and supported by information and data from the literature. A large part of the report was devoted to the many products being suggested as alternatives to AGPs. The costs and benefits of the removal of AGPs from broiler production in the EU were identified and summarised. Methodological problems were highlighted and solutions suggested. A final project review meeting was held on 5th February 2008 with scientific, government and broiler industry experts to obtain feedback on the report and to make recommendations based on its findings. Recommendations on where future EU policy spending should be focused with regard to best practice on the use of alternatives to AGPs were included in the final technical report submitted to the EC as Deliverable 5.6. They included the need for more field trials of alternative feed additives to AGPs, and setting up systems to monitor the impact of regulatory change involving feed additives.

Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with

details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the scientific objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Projects OD2016 (Defra-funded) and EU0404 (EC-funded) formed part of Work Package 5 of the EU Framework 6 project "POULTRYFLORGUT". The main aim of POULTRYFLORGUT was to improve the quality and safety of poultry products for the consumer through the control of the intestinal flora ecology in poultry. Work Package (WP) 1 was concerned mainly with project management. Work packages 2 and 3 investigated foodborne pathogens in European poultry farms and slaughterhouses, respectively. WP4 looked at new methodologies to monitor intestinal flora in poultry. The main aim of WP5, under which OD2016 fell, was to investigate socio-economic aspects in poultry production in European countries.

The VLA had four tasks to carry out under WP5. These tasks (EU task number in brackets) with their respective objectives and milestone dates were as follows:

Task 1 (Task 5.4): Hazard identification study of the broiler industry in 25 EU Member States and candidate countries

Objective 1: Identification of the hazards associated with the integration of new Member States into the EU with specific reference to introduction of exotic poultry diseases and current and/or new emergent zoonotic pathogens into neighbouring EU Member States to be completed. (28 February 2006)

Objective 2: A report will be produced after the first year of the project that will detail the findings from the assessment of the hazards associated with the integration of new Member States into the EU. An internal review of findings will be completed and circulated for external comment from identified relevant bodies. (28 February 2006)

Task 2 (Task 5.5): Data collection for economic analysis (Task 3/Task 5.6)

Objective 3: Completion of an investigation of the data available for the analysis of the costs and benefits for increased biosecurity practices and the effect of alternative treatments post antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) with an internal review of findings and draft report sections completed. (28 February 2007)

Task 3 (Task 5.6): Estimation of the economic costs and benefits of the removal of AGPs and their replacement with alternative strategies in broilers in four EU Member States


Objective 4: An estimation of the costs and benefits when increased biosecurity practices are put in place and the effect of alternative treatments such as prebiotics, probiotics, organic acids, etc. in broilers in Great Britain and three other EU states. The relevant sections in the final report are to be drafted and subjected to review. (31 August 2007)

Task 4 (Task 5.7): Recommendations from the economic analysis

Objective 5: Recommendations on where future policy spending should be focused with regard to best practice, and to identify gaps in knowledge in this area of research will be completed. (31 December 2007)

Objective 6: The project will deliver a final scientific report that will detail the methodology and data summary together with recommendations and findings. To further disseminate the results of the work, it is intended that at least one peer reviewed publication will be produced. (28 February 2008)

Project OD2016/EU0404 generated two technical reports, which constituted deliverables under POULTRYFLORGUT. The first report covered the work carried out under Task 1 (Task 5.4) and was submitted to the EC as Deliverable 5.5. Tasks 2 to 4 (Tasks 5.5 to 5.7) were the subject of a second report, which was submitted to the EC as Deliverable 5.6. As these reports are too large to reproduce in the final SID5 report on OD2016, a summary of each study is given below.

REPORT ON TASK 1 (TASK 5.4): BROILER PRODUCTION, TRADE, CONSUMPTION AND HEALTH IN THE EU25: TRENDS AND INTEGRATION OF NEW MEMBERS

The objective of Task 1 (Task 5.4) was to identify the hazards associated with the integration of new Member States into the EU with specific reference to introduction of exotic poultry diseases and current and/or new emergent zoonotic pathogens into neighbouring EU Member States. Information was gathered and analysed between March 2005 and February 2006 in a largely desk-based study with a focus on the expansion of the EU through the addition of 10 New Member States (NMS) in 2004.

The research was split into two categories, industry/trade analysis and a hazard identification, covering four main topics:

Production Trade Industry/trade analysis Consumption Health indicators Hazard identification

The industry/trade analysis evaluated

(a) current levels of production, distribution, import and export of live poultry and poultry products within the Europe Union and the candidate and accession states,

(b) any potential changes to the market system brought about by the first wave of accession into the EU, and

(c) any areas of uncertainty and gaps in knowledge.

The hazard identification study investigated

(a) the exotic poultry disease status of all newly ascended members and candidate countries in terms of the current OIE List A diseases (Newcastle disease and highly pathogenic avian influenza) and List B diseases, as compared to Great Britain and other EU member states,

(b) any EU and accession/candidate surveillance data sources on antimicrobial resistant bacteria for poultry, and

(c) any areas of uncertainty and gaps in knowledge.

The expansion of the EU into 25 Member States has brought about some changes in trade and a more varied broiler farming practice. In 2005, Spain was the largest broiler producer, producing 15.2% of the total EU25 production by weight with the United Kingdom (UK) and France producing 15.1% and 12.9%, respectively. The fourth largest producer is a NMS, Poland, that produced an estimated 0.93 million metric tonnes, amounting to 10.7% of the total EU25. The NMS ranked mainly at the lower end of the scale with Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, and Malta producing only 2.5% of the EU25 when combined. The distribution of EU farm sizes can be split into approximately three groups: 1) those countries where only small farms exist (0-1,000 birds per farm); 2) countries dominated by a large percentage of small farms (90% in the 0-1,000 birds per farm size)


but larger farms do exist; and 3) countries with a wide distribution of farm sizes. NMS are found in each of these categories.

Between 2003 and 2005, when accession of the 10 NMS occurred, there has been an overall increase in the movement of broiler meat and products within the EU25. For some NMS there has been a large increase in imports with an estimated 481% increase into the Czech Republic, and 471% increase into Malta. Poland and Slovakia have also seen large increases (however there is no recorded import trade for the year 2003). Increases in importation for the EU15 and Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia have been more modest. In terms of exportations, there has been a mixed experience for NMS. Cyprus and Estonia have both observed a drop in their poultry exports whilst Malta and Hungary have seen little change. However, there has been a large increase in exports from Latvia (337%), Lithuania (271%), and the Czech Republic (178%).

Poultry consumption in the EU15 seems to have stabilised in recent years. It is, however, increasing in the NMS. The annual tonnages of chicken and chicken products consumed by each of the EU25 countries have been estimated; the estimates are associated with a large amount of uncertainty. From these estimates, the largest national consumers of chicken meat are the UK, Spain and Germany. The lowest amounts of chicken are consumed within the NMS: Malta, Cyprus, Latvia and Estonia.

As part of the research for this report, the status of EU25 countries with regard to former list A and B diseases, classified by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the prevalences of food borne pathogens were also reviewed. All such diseases and zoonoses are present in both the EU15 and NMS. However, there is little information available on strains, virulence and prevalence to enable further analysis. In addition, the surveillance systems and the use of different diagnostics and sampling protocols precludes an overall comparison of such data.

In conclusion, the expansion of the EU from 15 to 25 Member States has increased the intra-trade of chicken and chicken products both in terms of imports and exports and increased the diversity of broiler farming practices in the EU.

REPORT ON TASKS 2 TO 4 (TASKS 5.5 TO 5.7): COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE REMOVAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL GROWTH PROMOTERS FROM BROILER PRODUCTION IN FOUR EU MEMBER STATES

Introduction

The marketing and use of antimicrobial growth promoters (AGPs) in animal feed was prohibited in the European Union (EU) from 1 January 2006. The AGP ban was progressive with avoparcin and ardacin being withdrawn in 1997 and bacitracin zinc, spiramycin, tylosin and virginiamycin in 1999. The remaining AGPs avilamycin, flavophospholipol, monensin and salinomycin were withdrawn in 2006.

During the phasing out of AGPs, there was concern about the potential adverse effects of the ban on broiler production in the EU. Various strategies were proposed to mitigate the effects of the withdrawal of AGPs on broiler performance and health. These included the use of alternative feed additives such as enzymes, organic acids, competitive exclusion products, probiotics and prebiotics, and changes in management practices including enhanced biosecurity measures.

The main aim of the study was to estimate the economic costs and benefits of the removal of AGPs and their replacement with alternative strategies in broilers in four European Member States. It constituted Task 5.6.

The objective of Task 5.5 was to collect data for the economic analysis.

Task 5.7 was to make recommendations on where future EU policy spending should be focused with regard to best practice on AGP alternatives and on filling data gaps.

Methodology

The four case study countries were the United Kingdom (UK), Spain, the Czech Republic and Lithuania. They represented Member States before and after EU enlargement in 2004, broiler industry diversity across the EU and were participants in POULTRYFLORGUT.

Social cost-benefit analysis was chosen as the economic analysis technique for Task 5.6. A framework for the conduct of the study was developed. The chapters of the final technical report mirror the cost-benefit analysis framework and constitute the headings of this summary report.

The approach was to compare the net benefit of broiler production strategies without the use of AGPs (alternative options) with the net benefit of broiler production with AGPs (baseline option).


Data for the cost-benefit analysis were extracted from the published literature, Internet and Government sources.

A questionnaire was developed to obtain qualitative data on the impact of the AGP ban on broiler production and on the use of alternative strategies to AGPs.

The economic analysis proved complex and difficult to achieve within the resources requested. Therefore, effort was concentrated on presenting the science underlying an economic analysis and identifying data gaps.

The information presented in the final technical report was selected to give a basic understanding of the issues involved and to provide data for the economic analysis.

Structure of the broiler industry

In 2005, the per cent of broilers that were reared on farms with 10,000 or more birds were UK - 99%, Spain - 99%, Czech Republic - 95% and Lithuania - 82%. Although Spain and Lithuania had many smallholdings, these accounted for only a small proportion of broiler production.

Most commercial holdings were of the conventional production type although around 15% of UK farms were free-range.

Annual data on the distribution of broiler holdings by production type would be a useful addition to the Eurostat database.

Knowledge of the broiler industry in each EU Member State is required for policy analyses of the impact of regulatory changes on the industry. The information should be updated regularly and include projections of trends.

Broiler production parameters affected by AGP ban

The primary measures of broiler performance are growth rate, feed conversion ratio, liveability and processing yield.

Many factors affect broiler performance including genetics, stocking density, environment, feeding and nutrition, litter management, lighting and growth management, disease, AGPs, alternative feed additives and therapeutics.

A production (input-output) model that takes into account all factors affecting broiler performance would be useful to estimate the impact of the AGP ban and the use of alternative strategies, including management changes, on broiler performance.

Knowledge about commercial broiler performance and practice in each study country is required to develop appropriate production models to underpin the economic analysis.

It is important to incorporate changes in broiler performance and practice over time into the analysis, especially improvements in genetic performance that may mask the effects of no longer using AGPs.

Use of AGPs on broiler farms

The baseline option for the cost-benefit analysis was defined as broiler production with the use of AGPs.

AGP use up to their withdrawal in 2006 has changed over time with the progressive withdrawal of various AGPs between 1997 and 2006 and different regulatory regimes and industry policies in the study countries. It is suggested that the baseline option should be broiler production with AGPs as used in each study country in 1996.

Data are required on the AGPs that were commonly used in commercial broiler holdings in each study country in 1996 as well as levels of AGP usage on broiler farms.

Effect of AGPs and their removal on broiler production

There is a large body of clinical trial data on the effects of various AGPs on broiler performance.

Increased growth rates of between 0-26% have been reported in broilers given AGPs. The average increase in growth rate is between 3-10%.

Average feed efficiency gains of 3-5% have been observed in broilers given AGPs.

Data from experimental studies on the effects of AGPs on broiler performance may not be representative of the gains likely to be seen from AGP use in commercial broiler production. More studies based on field trials are required.


When measuring the effect of AGPs on broiler performance, the many factors affecting broiler performance should be taken into account in the analysis. Holo-analytical or multiple regression models may be used to analyse such data.

Field trials should include the collection of data on all the relevant factors affecting broiler performance.

Only one comprehensive study on the effect of the removal of AGPs on broiler productivity was found. In Denmark, data from the Danish Poultry Council's productivity database was used to compare broiler performance before and after the AGP ban in Denmark. The withdrawal of AGPs did not affect the weight of broilers produced per square metre nor the per cent total mortality. However, a small increase of less than 1% in the feed conversion ratio was observed over the 18-month period following the withdrawal of AGPs.

Some AGPs may play a beneficial role in preventing enteric diseases such as necrotic enteritis and dysbacteriosis in broilers. The impact of their removal on broiler health and welfare has been mitigated to some extent by the use of ionophore coccidiostats to control coccidiosis in broiler flocks.

It is recommended that Member States work with industry to establish broiler productivity databases that could be used to monitor the impact of regulatory changes in the EU on broiler performance, health and welfare. Ways to ensure commercial confidentiality would need to be built into the system.

AGPs may increase or decrease the level of shedding of enteric bacteria that cause no harm to the bird but which are pathogenic for humans, for example, Salmonella spp. and thermophilic campylobacters. The effects vary with the type of AGP used and the pathogen studied. For some AGP-pathogen combinations, the results from research studies are inconclusive.

In assessing the potential benefits of the AGP ban on salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis in humans, each AGP-pathogen combination should be considered separately.

Alternatives to AGPs and their effect on broiler production: Enzymes

Enzymes are added to poultry feed to improve the digestibility and nutrient utilisation of cereal grains, especially wheat, barley and rye, which are significant components of broiler diets in Europe.

Xylanases break down soluble non-starch polysaccharides (NSPs) in wheat and rye while -glucanases break down soluble NSPs in barley and oats.

Most clinical trials show that the use of enzymes does increase broiler performance. However, the magnitude of the response depends on the enzyme formulation and the composition of the feed to which it is added. The response also diminishes with increasing age of the bird.

Increased growth rates of around 2-5% have been reported in broilers given either -glucanase or xylanase alone or in combination. However, the differences in growth rates between treated and control groups often were not statistically significant.

The effect of exogenous enzymes on feed conversion ratio is considered more significant with feed efficiency gains of 1.6-3.2% reported.

Exogenous enzymes generally have had little effect on liveability. However, improved litter condition was noted following the addition of enzymes to the diet.

Alternatives to AGPs and their effect on broiler production: Organic acids

Organic acids are added to poultry feed to enhance the digestibility and palatability of feedstuffs and to reduce the levels of spoilage organisms and pathogenic bacteria in feed. More recently, they have been used to decrease harmful bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract of poultry.

When added to feed, mixtures of formic acid and propionic acid are effective at decreasing levels of Salmonella in the feed. They may also reduce other enteric bacteria in feed.

Organic acids are absorbed before they reach the lower gut of birds. Therefore, their addition to poultry feed is not likely to have a significant effect on enteric bacteria in the bird. Recently, coated acid products have been developed to enable acids to reach the lower gut.

Coated propionic and butyric acid products in feed have been shown to decrease Salmonella colonisation and shedding in chickens. Therefore, they may have a beneficial effect on human health.

The effect of organic acids on broiler performance and health is uncertain.

Alternatives to AGPs and their effect on broiler production: Competitive exclusion products


Competitive exclusion (CE) products are undefined cultures of live bacteria originating from the intestines of healthy adult birds. CE treatment is usually administered once to day-old chicks to replace the enteric flora that chicks reared in modern broiler production no longer obtain from their mothers.

CE products are used primarily to prevent colonisation of the broiler gut by pathogens such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridium and E. coli. Therefore, they may have a beneficial effect on broiler and human health.

CE products may decrease mortality from necrotic enteritis (Clostridium perfringens) in broiler chickens.

The effect of CE products on broiler performance is mixed but generally not significant.

Alternatives to AGPs and their effect on broiler production: Probiotics

Probiotics are live cultures of defined single bacteria or mixtures of bacteria that are administered to broilers in feed or water over their lifetime to improve the intestinal microbial balance.

Probiotics are used to enhance broiler performance.

Significant increases in growth rates of around 2-8% have been reported in broilers given probiotics.

Probiotics generally have not resulted in significant improvements in feed conversion ratios although feed efficiency gains of 0.6-10.8% have been reported.

The effect of probiotics on colonisation and shedding of Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridium and E. coli is uncertain with most studies reporting no significant effect.

Alternatives to AGPs and their effect on broiler production: Prebiotics

Prebiotics are non-digestible feed additives that stimulate the growth of beneficial bacteria in the gut at the expense of harmful bacteria. Mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS) are the mostly commonly used prebiotic although they do not meet the strict definition of a prebiotic. MOS work by inhibiting colonisation of pathogenic bacteria in the gut and by enhancing the immune system.

All MOS prebiotics on the market contain a mixture of mannan-oligosaccharides and -glucans. They are fed over the life of the broiler.

MOS prebiotics are used to enhance broiler performance.

Growth rates increases of around 1.5-5.5% have been reported in broilers given MOS prebiotics.

MOS prebiotics have also resulted in significant improvements in feed conversion ratios of around 2.1-7.7%.

MOS prebiotics have been reported to prevent colonisation of the broiler gut by pathogens such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridium and E. coli. Therefore, they may have a beneficial effect on broiler and human health.

Alternatives to AGPs and their effect on broiler production: Management practices

Many factors influence broiler performance and the risk of enteric diseases in broiler flocks. These factors include biosecurity, housing, stocking density, feed and feeding practices, litter management, AGPs (before 2006), alternative feed additives and therapeutics.

Management practices may be manipulated to mitigate the effects of the withdrawal of AGPs on broiler health and consequently, broiler performance.

The diseases of greatest concern to broiler producers following the withdrawal of AGPs are necrotic enteritis, dysbacteriosis (diarrhoea) and contact dermatitis (pododermatitis, hock burn and breast blisters).

Good biosecurity is essential to prevent the spread of enteric pathogens between flocks. Effective terminal cleaning and disinfection of broiler houses between flocks contributes to coccidiosis control, which is a major predisposing factor for necrotic enteritis.

Improving broiler house ventilation may reduce the incidence of enteric diseases.

Reducing stocking density may lower the risk of necrotic enteritis. However, a lower stocking density may have a significant impact on total meat output and farmer income.

The risk of necrotic enteritis may be lessened by reducing the protein level in broiler diets.

High levels of soluble non-starch polysaccharides in wheat- or barley-based diets may increase the risk of necrotic enteritis. Adding enzymes to the feed may mitigate their effect.

The physical form of feed may affect the level of enteric diseases in broilers. Coarsely ground feed and pellets appear to have a protective effect.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 10 of 15

Wet litter may be both caused by, and contribute to, enteric diseases in broiler flocks. Therefore, good litter management is important.

Ionophore coccidiostats are used to control coccidiosis in broiler flocks. They have an antibacterial effect and have been shown to suppress the growth of Clostridium perfringens. Their continued use may have mitigated an increase in necrotic enteric in broilers, which was expected as a result of the AGP ban.

Ionophore coccidiostats have been shown to increase broiler performance with improvements in growth rates of around 7-11.5% and in feed conversion ratios of around 1.0-6.8%.

A potential negative impact of the AGP ban is increased use of therapeutic antibiotics to treat and control those diseases previously suppressed by AGPs. Increased use of therapeutic antibiotics was noted in Norway after AGPs were withdrawn but the increase was short-lived. There is some evidence that the use of therapeutic antibiotics in food animals increased in the UK and Denmark after AGPs were withdrawn. However, when use in Denmark was calculated in Animal Defined Doses, therapeutic antimicrobial use in broiler chickens did not appear to increase.

Control of immunosuppressive diseases such as infectious bursal disease through vaccination and good cleaning and disinfection contribute to the control of enteric diseases in broilers.

Specification of alternative options to AGP use for economic analysis

The alternative options to the use of AGPs in broiler production suggested for the cost-benefit analysis were

(a) no alternative feed additive(b) use of a probiotic(c) use of a MOS prebiotic.

The selection of alternative options was based on the potential of the feed additive as an equivalent replacement for AGPs; that is, the alternative additive had to improve broiler performance and health.

Feed additives that had been in common use before the withdrawal of AGPs were not considered as replacements for AGPs, for example, enzymes and organic acids.

A range of management practices may be manipulated to improve broiler health and performance in the absence of AGPs. However, without detailed knowledge of management practices on broiler farms before the AGP ban, it was difficult to specify an alternative option to AGP use based on a "new" or improved disease prevention measure.

For the economic analysis, it was proposed that management should be assumed to be adequate to achieve average expected broiler performance and health in the study country.

Each alternative option should be analysed across a range of acceptable stocking densities.

Different feed formulations, with and without enzymes as appropriate, should be included in the analysis.

All options should be evaluated with and without the use of ionophore coccidiostats.

To estimate the costs of the replacement of AGPs with alternative strategies, data are required on the uptake of alternative products and management practices by the broiler industries in each study country.

Effect of AGP ban on human health and welfare AGPs were withdrawn from use in food-producing animals in the EU because they add to the development of

antibiotic-resistant bacteria that might be passed on to humans with serious implications for health.

The human health benefit of the EU ban on AGP use in broiler production is the value of those losses due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria that are prevented by no longer using AGPs in broilers.

The human losses caused by antibiotic resistance comprise the cost of illness and death from (a) losing an antibiotic to treat a particular infection through antibiotic resistance, and (b) the delay in the effective treatment of a particular infection because of initial treatment with an antibiotic to which the infectious agent was resistant. The cost of the losses will also be increased if human treatment requires a switch to a more expensive antibiotic because of resistance to a cheaper antibiotic.

Each AGP or AGP class has been linked to the emergence of different types of resistance in specific bacterial species.

To quantify the human health losses due to a particular AGP, the following knowledge is required:

(a) link between an AGP and its related antibiotics in human medicine

(b) human infections treated with the AGP-related antibiotics

(c) human diseases affected by the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria that might have arisen

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 11 of 15

from food animals given the AGP

(d) prevalence of human cases due to the antimicrobial-resistant bacteria,

(e) consequences of human infections with the antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in terms of treatment and outcome.

The most difficult methodological issue associated with estimating the benefit from the AGP ban in broiler production is determining how much of the human health loss from antimicrobial resistance is due to the use of AGPs in broilers (attributable risk).

An example of the process to estimate the benefit of the withdrawal of AGPs from broiler production is illustrated for the AGPs spiramycin and tylosin and the rise in macrolide-resistant Campylobacter in humans.

Costs and benefits of withdrawal of AGPs in EU Previous economic studies in Sweden and Denmark have indicated that the effect on broiler production from

not using AGPs is likely to be small to negligible.

Costs refer to the impact of the withdrawal of AGPs from broiler production on resource use in a study country. They are estimated by comparing broiler production inputs or costs with and without AGPs.

The complete withdrawal of AGPs from broiler production in the EU has resulted in a cost saving for those producers who previously used AGPs.

Additional costs are incurred if alternative feed additives are used to mitigate the effects of the AGP ban on broiler performance and health.

The removal of AGPs from broiler production will have increased the amount of feed required to raise broilers to market weight. As feed is the single biggest input cost in broiler production at around two-thirds of total cost, this is an important component of any economic assessment of the AGP ban.

Other inputs that may be affected as a result of the AGP ban include stocking density, feed composition, use of coccidiostats and therapeutic antibiotics, type of litter used and frequency of topping up or changing litter. Their inclusion in the economic analysis depends on the degree of detail built into the broiler production model and the data available.

Benefits refer to the effects or outputs generated by the removal of AGPs from food animal production. They are the losses prevented by, or occurring as a result of, the AGP ban.

In broad terms, the AGP ban may affect:

(a) chicken meat output

(b) broiler health and performance

(c) human health and welfare

(d) domestic trade in chicken meat

(e) international trade in chicken meat

(f) broiler industry structure

(g) feed additives industry

(h) environment.

To quantify the effect of the withdrawal of AGPs on broiler meat output, data are required on chicken meat output in each study country before and after the AGP ban. However, production trends must be interpreted in the light of other factors that may influence broiler meat supply.

The AGP ban may have increased the incidence of diseases such as necrotic enteritis, dysbacteriosis, pododermatitis, hock burn and breast blisters in broiler flocks. To quantify these effects, data are required on disease incidence and effects with and without the use of AGPs and with the use of alternative control strategies.

The human health benefit of the withdrawal of AGPs in the EU is the difference in human health and welfare losses with and without the AGP ban. It is very difficult to measure because of the uncertainties about the degree to which AGP use in broilers affected human health.

Quantitative risk assessment models may be needed to estimate the risk and impact of AGP use and their alternatives on human health.

Another potential benefit of the AGP ban is increased consumer confidence in the safety of chicken meat. This should result in increased consumer demand for chicken meat resulting in higher prices for producers.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 12 of 15

Data on retail sales of chicken meat before and after the AGP ban are required to quantify this benefit. However, many factors affect consumer demand for chicken meat, which would have to be taken into account in the economic analysis.

One possible effect of the AGP ban is to raise broiler production costs in the EU making the industry less competitive in what is a global market. The benefits (negative or positive) from increased imports and fewer domestic producers of chicken meat are complex.

A potential benefit of the AGP ban is the generation and growth of a new industry that is producing alternative feed additives, which may have a higher value than the AGPs they are replacing.

Recommendations As the focus of the POULTRYFLORGUT project was on poultry production, recommendations on best

practice, future policy research and filling data gaps were limited to this area of the food chain.

To support "best practice" initiatives on the use of alternative feed additives to AGPs, it is recommended that the EU support independent research on their effectiveness in commercial field situations. Field trials should include the collection of data on all relevant factors affecting broiler performance.

There are many new feed additives on the market or in the process of being approved for sale in the EU. It is recommended that a regularly updated review of feed additives and their properties is produced and placed in the public domain in order that broiler producers and their advisors can make informed decisions about their use. The review should include referenced information on their efficacy as appropriate to their recommended use.

If they have not done so already, it is recommended that EU countries review their advice to broiler producers on "best practice" to control and prevent disease to ensure that it is appropriate to production without AGPs.

To facilitate the sharing of information on "best practice" among EU countries, it would be useful to have a central EU repository of published material on "best practice" issued by each Member State.

It is recommended that when a major regulatory change is proposed, which impacts on primary producers, steps should be taken to set up systems to monitor the impact of the change on those affected.

As many regulatory changes in the food safety and animal health areas impact on food production, systems should be set up to provide on-going data on food animal production. In the case of broiler production, the productivity database run by the Danish Poultry Council is an example of the type of system required to supply the data to measure the actual impacts of a policy change on broiler production and health. As such data are commercially sensitive, safeguards would be needed to protect the confidentiality of individual producer's data.

It is recommended that governments consider making systems to monitor the use of antibiotics in different animal species mandatory. A harmonised system for expressing antimicrobial consumption data in different food animal species across the EU is required.

Annual data on the distribution of broiler holdings by production type for each EU Member Country would be a useful addition to the Eurostat database.

Knowledge of the broiler industry in each Member State is required for policy analyses of the impact of regulatory changes on the industry. The information should be updated regularly and include projections of trends.

A production (input-output) model that takes into account all factors affecting broiler performance would be useful to estimate the impact of the AGP ban and the use of alternative strategies, including management changes, on broiler performance. Holistic production models are available but not in the public domain, thus limiting their use for public policy analysis.

Knowledge about commercial broiler performance and practice in Member States is required to develop appropriate production models to underpin economic analysis.

To assess the impact of the AGP ban on EU broiler production, data are required on the AGPs that were commonly used in commercial broiler holdings in Member States before the AGP ban together with details of their use.

A range of management practices may be manipulated to improve broiler health and performance in the absence of AGPs. However, without detailed knowledge of management practices on broiler farms before the AGP ban, it is difficult to specify an alternative option to AGP use based on a "new" or improved disease prevention measure.

To estimate the costs of the replacement of AGPs with alternative strategies, data are required on the uptake of alternative products and management practices by the broiler industries in Member States since the AGP ban.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 13 of 15

References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 14 of 15

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 15 of 15

Documents

General enquiries on this form should be made to:randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=OD2016_7806... · Web viewGeneral enquiries on this form should be made to: Defra, Science