2/25/2018

Using Alternative Feed Ingredients in Livestock Diets

Dr. Brian Richert

Purdue University

March 8, 2017

“Consumers want animal protein raised with same natural supplements humans use”

 62% of Millennials (80% have changed their diets)  72% new of natural health supplements were available for livestock  43% recognized probiotics

 Cargill Feed4Thought survey of 1000 consumers - Feb 13, 2018, published in FeedStuffs

1 2/25/2018

Antimicrobial Regulatory Environment

 6 key areas of change in the next 5 years: 1. Withdrawal of growth promotion uses of antibiotics 2. Expansion of antimicrobial use reporting 3. Legislative initiatives to remove antimicrobial class for prevention or control of disease in food animals 4. Increased sensitivity of FSIS residue testing (LS-HPLC)  Penicillin example 5. Use of the AMDUCA regulations as a regulatory tool to attempt to decrease use of targeted drug classes in food animals 6. Potential for FDA/CVM hearings on the hazard status of the use of tetracyclines and penicillins (likely other drugs) in animal feed.

Antibiotic Usage Reporting – FDA 2016 (Dec. 2017) • Annually, each drug manufacturer must report the sales and distribution Route lbs of antibiotics that are approved for use Med. Import. Feed 13,173,052 in food animals. Injection 766,126 • Is reported by pounds of active ingredient Intramammary 35,578 • Limitations: Oral or 199,021 • Not actual usage data Topical • Some drugs approved for food animals AND companion animals Water 4,222,053 • Veterinarians are authorized to Total 18,395,828 change dose in non-feed related Not Med. All Routes 12,366,807 antimicrobials Import. • Not species specific.

2 2/25/2018

Medically Important Feed Grade Antibiotics

Antimicrobial Specific drugs approved for use in feed Class Aminoglycosides Apramycin, Hygromycin B, Neomycin, Streptomycin Diaminopyrimidines Ormetoprim Lincosamides Lincomycin Macrolides Erythromycin, Oleandomycin, Tylosin Penicillins Penicillin Streptogramins Virginiamycin Sulfas Sulfadimethoxine, Sulfamerazine, Sulfamethazine, Sulfaquinoxaline

Tetracycline Chlortetracycline, Oxytetracycline

3 2/25/2018

Medically Important Water Soluble Antibiotics

Antimicrobial Class Specific drugs approved for use in water Aminoglycosides Apramycin, Gentamicin, Neomycin, Spectinomycin, Streptomycin Lincosamides Lincomycin Macrolides Carbomycin, Erythromycin, Tylosin Penicillins Penicillin Sulfas Sulfachloropyrazine, Sulfachlorpyridazine, Sulfadimethoxine, Sulfamerazine, Sulfamethazine, Sulfaquinoxaline Tetracycline Chlortetracycline, Oxytetracycline, Tetracycline

Antibiotics NOT affected by Guidance 209/213

 Antibiotics that are not medically important:  Ionophores (monensin, lasalocid, narasin (Skycis,etc. )  Bacitracin (BMD, bacitracin zinc)  Bambermycins (Flavomycin)  Tiamulin (Denagard)  Carbadox (Mecadox)  Other drugs (that are not antibiotics), including:  Anthelmentics: Coumaphos, Fenbendazole, Ivermectin  Beta agonists: Ractopamine, Zilpaterol  Coccidiostats: Clopidol, Decoquinate, Diclazuril

4 2/25/2018

Key Gut Functions

 Food digestion – enzyme development.  Nutrient absorption – transport systems, etc.  Barrier function – e.g. chemical & physical barrier: pH in stomach, mucus layer, etc.  Microbiota - diversity, balance between ‘beneficial’ bacteria & pathogens.  Immune system – active system that if not over-stimulated, secrete immunomolecules

“The Search for the Magic Bullet”

 Antibiotics  They work  Results can be variable  Antibiotic alternatives  In general, positive results are less than and/or less consistent than antibiotics.  However, positive results have been observed  How do we increase/optimize their efficacy?  How do we chose the alternative product?  When do we use them?  Why? – Enteric vs Respiratory vs Systemic

5 2/25/2018

Main Antibiotic Alternatives of Interest

 Key ingredients (Plasma, TM, Syn. AA)  Direct Fed Antimicrobials (DFM) / Probiotics  Prebiotics  Organic Acids  Fiber types  Essential Oils  Enzymes  Seaweed Extracts  Others: Yeast fractions, herbal compounds

Direct Fed Antimicrobial

6 2/25/2018

Direct Fed Microbials

 Definition:  “a source of live (viable), naturally occurring microorganisms.” (FDA)

 Live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts exert a health benefit on the host’ (FAO/WHO)

Postulated Modes of Action of DFMs

 Competitive inhibition of gut epithelial receptors  Competition for nutrients  Production and secretion of antimicrobial compounds  Stimulation of the immune system  Gut – Brain axis – modifying behaviors

7 2/25/2018

Competitive inhibition of gut epithelial receptors

Pathogen

DFM

Competitive inhibition of gut epithelial receptors

 Often referred to as “competitive exclusion”  If a DFM is classified as a competitive exclusion product, then it is classified as a drug by FDA- CVM, and therefore must be approved through a new drug application.

8 2/25/2018

Competition for Nutrients

 Micoorganisms in a continuous flow culture will compete for nutrients  Therefore, it is possible that this occurs in the GIT

Production and Secretion of Antimicrobial Compounds

Bacteriocins

Hydrogen peroxide

Organic acids

Bacteriocin: A substance that certain bacteria can release which kills closely-related strains of other bacteria, but without rupturing their cell membranes.

9 2/25/2018

Microorganisms approved for use in the United States (AAFCO, 2006) 44 different organisms Aspergillus Bacillus Bacteroides Bifidobacterium Enterococcus Lactobacillus Leuconostoc

Pediococcus Propionibacterium Propionibacterium shermanii Saccharomyces cerevisiae

10 2/25/2018

Simon et al., 2003

Probiotics for pathogen control

• Competitive exclusion culture reduces E. coli shedding in challenged neonatal pigs (Genovese et al., 2000). • Competitive exclusion cultures reduce Salmonella Cholerasuis in challenged neonatal pigs (Fedorka-Cray et al., 1999; Genovese et al., 2003). • Microcin-producing E. coli does not reduce Salmonella shedding in weaned pigs (Frana et al., 2004). • Few (if any) defined probiotic strains with in vivo efficacy

11 2/25/2018

Prebiotics

What are Prebiotics ?

 “A non-digestible food ingredient that beneficially affects the host by, selectively stimulating the growth and/or activity of one or a limited number of bacteria in the colon (GI Tract) that can improve the health of the host” (Gibson and Roberfroid, 1995).

12 2/25/2018

Prebiotics

 Most common prebiotics used are oligosaccharides which include mannan- oligosaccharide and fructo-oligosaccharides etc.

 Lactose, lactulose etc., are also considered prebiotic.

How do oligosaccharides function?

Cell surface receptor

1.Prevents pathogen binding 2. Fermentable CHO 3. Immunomodulation

13 2/25/2018

Oligosaccharides for pathogen control

 Few studies in pigs

 FOS in water reduces Salmonella shedding in challenged early-weaned pigs (Letellier et al., 1999)

 No effect of MOS on E. coli K88 in challenged piglets - but lower coliform (White et al., 2002)

 No effect of MOS on Salmonella shedding in weaners (Burkey et al., 2004)

Organic Acids

14 2/25/2018

Background

 Post-weaning lag  Insufficient HCL secretion  Insufficient enzymatic secretion  Immune compromised

 Potential for opportunistic pathogenic bacterial to colonize the GIT

Diet Acidification

 Addition of Organic Acids  Improved growth rate  Improved feed efficiency  Decreased scouring  Decreased gastric pH  Increased nutrient digestibility  Altered microflora colonization of GIT

HOW?

15 2/25/2018

Mode of Action  Gastric/GIT pH  Digesta transit time  Manipulation of gut microflora  Pancreatic enzyme secretion  Intra-duodenal SCFA increase pancreatic secretions (Harada et al., 1986; Sano et al., 1995)  Gut morphology  ↑ epithelial cell proliferation with ↑ [SCFA] (Sakata et al., 1988)  ↑ microvilli length and cell number with ↑ concentrations of sodium butyrate (Galfi and Bokori, 1990)  Intermediary metabolism  Substrates for TCA cycle  ↑ aspartate transferase and succinate dehydrogenase activity with fumaric acid addition to rat diets (Tschierschwitz et al., 1982)

Citric Acid Effect on Stomach pH

3.9 3.8 3.7 3.81 3.8 3.6 0.0 3.5 3.6 1.5 3.60 0.0 3.4 3.48 3.0 3.4 2.0 3.3 Stomach pH 3.31 3.33 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 P < 0.05 P < 0.05

Radcliffe et al., 1998

16 2/25/2018

Manipulation of Gut Microflora

 Selection of “beneficial” commensal bacteria by a lowering of GIT pH  Acidic conditions favor the growth of lactobacillus in the stomach (Fuller, 1977)  Competitive exclusion  Lactobacilli → increased lactic acid → reduced pH

Manipulation of Gut Microflora

Bacteria

H+ + A- HA

H+ + A- HA

Organic acids can diffuse through semi-permeable bacterial membranes and then disassociate into H+ and conjugated bases, lowering cytosolic pH and inhibiting cytosolic enzyme activity.

17 2/25/2018

Commonly Used Category Effective Against Use Acids

Formic (C1) Organic Yeasts and some bacteria E.coli and salmonella in contaminated feed Potassium Organic Bacteria diformate (C1)

Acetic (C2) Organic Bacteria, yeasts and Prevents E.coli molds

Propionic (C3) Organic Molds Prevents E.coli

Lactic (C3) Organic Bacteria

Butyric (C4) Organic Bacteria

Citric (C6) Organic Bacteria

Sorbic (C7) Organic Yeasts, molds and some bacteria Fumaric Organic Bacteria Prevents E.coli Phosphoric Inorganic Bacteria Prevents E.coli Sulfuric Inorganic Hydrochloric Inorganic

Multifactorial Analysis of the Performance Responses to Short Chain Acids (Formic, Fumaric, Citric) and Potassium Diformate in Weaned Piglets. Item Formic Acid Fumaric Acid Citric Acid Potassium diformate Experiments 6 18 9 3 Observations 10 27 19 13 Acid levels % 0.3 – 1.8 0.5 – 2.5 0.5 – 2.5 0.4 – 2.4 Dietary CP, g/kg1 234 ± 22 208 ± 27 216 ± 21 222 ± 5 Feed intake, g/d1 Control 667 ± 87 613 ± 148 534 ± 276 764 ± 9 Experimental 710 ± 75 614 ± 152 528 ± 302 823 ± 38 Weight gain, g/d1 Control 387 ± 65 358 ± 99 382 ± 121 479 ± 4 Experimental 428 ± 62 374 ± 101 396 ± 127 536 ± 26 Feed to gain, kg/kg1 Control 1.64 ± 0.13 1.59 ± 0.16 1.67 ± 0.25 1.60 ± 0.02 Experimental 1.60 ± 0.14 1.55 ± 0.14 1.60 ± 0.24 1.54 ± 0.04

CP = Crude protein Partanen et al., 2001 1Mean ± standard deviation

18 2/25/2018

Organic acids/salts for pathogen control

 Fumaric, formic, potassium diformate, acetic, propionic, lactic, butyric, citric, sorbic, etc….& combinations

 Propionic, lactic, formic, malic, citric acids reduce diarrhoea and E. coli K88 shedding in weaned pigs (Tsiloyianis et al., 2001)

 Fumaric acid reduces E. coli K88 shedding in challenged early-weaned pigs (Owusu-Asiedu et al., 2003)

 Potassium diformate + coarse grinding reduce Salmonella shedding in challenged weaned pigs (Papenbrock et al., 2005)

 Potassium diformate reduced coliforms in finishers (Overland et al., 2000)

ADG 0.7 SE = 0.075

0.6 Day 6 Salmonella infection

0.5 P<0.05 DFM kg/d 0.4 Acid 0.3 Pos. ctrl. Neg. ctrl 0.2

0.1

0 d 0-5 d 5-8 d 8-10 d 10-14 Time

19 2/25/2018

Properties of Essential Oils

 Analgesic . Deodorant

. Diuretic  Anti-inflammatory . Expectorant  Antimicrobial . Flavouring  Antioxidant . Fungicide

 Antiseptic . Immunostimulant

 Antiviral . Insect repellent

. Neurotonic  Aphrodisiac . Sedative  Astringent . Stimulant  Decongestive

Properties of EOs Stimulation of endogenous enzymes

. There are suggestions that dietary EOs can improve digestion (Mellor, 2000).

. A number of studies have reported that spices and their active components have an effect on bile salt secretion (Bath et al. 1984; Sambaiah and Srinivasan, 1991)

. Dietary pungent principles (curcumin, capsaicin and piperin) have been shown to stimulate digestive enzyme activities of intestinal mucosa and pancreas (Platel and Srinivasan, 1996 and 2000)

20 2/25/2018

Essential Oil Blend (thymol, 2-methoxyphenol, eugenol / piperine, curcumin - CRINA® Piglets)

Trial Institute/ location Daily weight gain, g Daily Feed Intake, g Feed Conversion

Control CRINA ® % Control CRINA ® % Control CRINA® % University of Göttingen 465 496 6.7% 787 780 -0.9% 1.69 1.59 -5.9% State Institute Streitdorf 428 470 9.8% 760 810 6.6% 1.78 1.73 -2.8% Research Stat. Guernevez ** 513 520 1.4% 823 775 -5.8% 1.61 1.50 -6.8% INRA 617 641 3.9% 1170 1150 -1.7% 1.89 1.79 -5.3% University Leuven * 417 447 7.2% 642 678 5.6% 1.54 1.52 -1.3% Floor pen trial 198 214 8.1% 317 351 10.7% 1.60 1.64 2.5% Australian Research Unit ** 435 447 2.8% 538 533 -0.9% 1.24 1.19 -4.0% Customer field trial 320 350 9.4% 473 498 5.3% 1.48 1.42 -4.1% State Institute Brandenburg 276 348 26.1% 507 659 30.0% 1.83 1.89 3.3% CRNA S05-2007 255 294 15.3% 526 521 -1.0% 2.09 1.96 -6.2% CRNA S11-2007 260 279 7.3% 547 588 7.5% 1.91 1.92 0.4% Customer field trial*** 448 472 5.4% 741 765 3.2% 1.65 1.62 -1.8% University of Leuven*** 357 373 4.5% 704 719 2.1% 1.97 1.93 -2.0% Average 384 412 7.3% 657 679 3.4% 1.71 1.67 -2.6%

* Control = with growth promoter ** on top of growth promoter *** in comparison with another eubiotic

Essential Oils

21 2/25/2018

Proposed Modes of Action for Feed Enzymes

 Hydrolysis of chemical bonds in feedstuffs not degraded by animal’s own enzymes.  Elimination of nutrient encapsulation effects of cell wall polysaccharides.  Breakdown of anti-nutritional factors.  Solubilization of insoluble NSP.  Complementation of endogenous enzymes in young animals

Role of Feed Enzymes in Maintaining a Healthy Gut

 Diet type significantly affect intestinal environment and microbial composition.  Viscous fiber exacerbates post-weaning collibacillosis in weaned piglets (e.g. McDonald et., 2001; Hopwood et al., 2004)  Feed enzymes through their effects on target substrates can alter these effects.  Reduce undigested substrates  Short chain oligosaccharides - prebiotics

22 2/25/2018

Mannase

Xylanase: Response under High Health Conditions Mortality, % 40 kg to 105 kg 48 kg to 115 kg 3.5 3.2 4.5 3.9 3 4 3.5 2.5 3 1.9 2.6 2 2.5 1.5 2 Mortality % Mortality Mortality % Mortality 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 Trial 1 Trial 2 Control competitor X Control Competitor X

Trials 1, 2: Total of 1552 pigs and 1547 pigs respectively. Farm Trial under typical commercial conditions, wheat based diets, UK

23 2/25/2018

Xylanase: Response under LO Health Conditions Mortality, %

8 kg to 130 kg 28 kg to 108 kg 12 12 10.94 10.68 10 10 8.92 8 8 5.73 6 6

Mortality % Mortality 4 4

2 2 Mortality + Morbidity+% Mortality 0 0 Trial 3 Trial 4 Control Competitor X Control Competitor X

Trial 1: Total of 384 pigs under Research Conditions (C-S base; USA) Trial 2: Total of 970 pigs under Commercial Conditions (Wheat base; UK)

Seaweed Extract

 Abundant polysaccharides in brown seaweeds are laminarin, fucoidan and alginic acid  Laminarin has antimicrobial properties; influence the adherence and the translocation of bacteria across the epithelial wall; a modulator of the intestinal metabolism by its effects on mucus composition, intestinal pH, and butyrate production

24 2/25/2018

Seaweed Extract

 Laminarin and fucoidan extracts increased both daily gain (+11%) and feed efficiency in post- weaned pigs  Decrease in E. coli numbers as a result of laminarin and fucoidan inclusion between days 7-14 post weaning  Supplementation of laminarin and fucoidan extract increased nutrient digestibility

Seaweed Extract

 Laminarin also have distinctive immunomodulatory characteristics  Pro-and anti-inflammaory cytokines (IL-1, TNF-α and IL-17A) were down regulated in the colon following exposure to laminarin but had no effect in the ileum  Laminarin at 600 ppm significantly increased mucin production (MUC2 and MUC4) expression in the gut  However, considerable variation in the biochemical and solubility characteristics of β-glucans and laminarin from different sources exists  Laminaria digitate – most consitant seaweed source

25 2/25/2018

C. Vonderohe, A. Jones, B. T. Richert, and J. S. Radcliffe

 720 pigs (6.71 ±1.46 kg) were placed in 11 rooms at Purdue SERB in a wean-finish study

 6 Rooms: Antibiotic Free

 5 Rooms: Control

26 2/25/2018

Phase Antibiotic Program Antibiotic Free Program N1 Carbadox – 55 ppm + 3,000 ppm Zn Water Acidification + 3,000 ppm Zn Water Acidification – (13 days total) + N2 Carbadox – 55 ppm + 2,500 ppm Zn 2,500 ppm Zn

N3 Carbadox – 55 ppm + 2,000 ppm Zn DFM + 2,000 ppm Zn

N4 Carbadox – 55 ppm + 189 ppm Cu DFM + 250 ppm Cu

G1 CTC – 110 ppm DFM + 125 ppm Cu G2 Linco – 110 ppm DFM G3 Linco – 44 ppm DFM F1 Tylan – 22 ppm Oregano F2 Tylan – 11 ppm Oregano

1.20 Average Daily Gain * 1.00 Antibiotic Free 0.80 Control *

0.60 *

0.40 ADGkg/d

0.20 * 0.00 N1 N2 N3 N4 G1 G2 G3 F1 F2 Overall

-0.20 Phase *Indicates difference at P<0.05

27 2/25/2018

Gain: Feed 1.20

1.00 * Antibiotic Free 0.80 Control * 0.60 G:F 0.40 *

0.20

0.00 N1 N2 N3 N4 G1 G2 G3 F1 F2 Overall -0.20 Phase *Indicates difference at P<0.05

Frequency of Abnormal Pigs 4.00

3.50 * Antibiotic Free 3.00 Control 2.50 * 2.00

1.50 Abnormal Abnormal Pigs,% 1.00

0.50

0.00 Nursery Nursery Nursery Grower Grower Grower Finisher Finisher Overall 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 Dietary Phase *Indicates difference at P<0.05

28 2/25/2018

% Removal 10.00 9.00 8.6 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.7 5.00 Antibiotic Free 4.00 Control 3.00 2.00 % Pigs %Pigs Pulled / Pigs Started 1.00 0.00 Antibiotic Free Control Treatment

 Antibiotic-Free management system elicits similar performance as a conventional system under relatively good health.

 However, the increased number of removals decreases revenue and require a place for intensive treatments

 Slight reductions in CW and loin muscle also reduced revenue $1.85/pig in ABF

 2017 Industry study indicates need $6/pig more

29 2/25/2018

L-glutamine

 Conditionally essential amino acid

 Growth promotant  Enhance intestinal health and prevention of atrophy  Increase nutrient absorption  Greater oxidative defense capacity

 Antibiotic alternative  Major energy source for enterocytes and lymphocytes  Immunomodulator  Inhibits pro-inflammatory cytokines  Improved intestinal antibacterial activity and immune function (Wu and Morris, 1998; Reeds and Burrin, 2000; Yi et al., 2005; Jiang et al., 2009)

Methods

 12 hr Transportation on Weaning day  Dietary treatments following transport  A; chlortetracycline (441 ppm) + tiamulin (38.6 ppm)  NA; no dietary antibiotics  GLU; 0.20% L-glutamine  Period 1: Dietary treatments fed for 14 days in 2 phases  Period 2: Non-antibiotic common diet fed for 20 days and 2 phases  Measurements  Weekly measurements of BW and feed intake  Therapeutic treatment for enteric challenge

30 2/25/2018

ADG

600 A NA GLU 500 b ab a Average of A and GLU: 400 ↑ 9.0% b b a 300 y xy ADG, g/d x 200

100

0 Period 1 Period 2 Overall P < 0.06 P < 0.03 P < 0.01

31 2/25/2018

Treatment for Enteric Challenges

12 A NA* GLU 10 a

8

6 b % treated 4

2

P < 0.02 0 Period 1 Period 2

Glutamine Carryover to GF

• No improvement in GF growth rates • No changes in Carcass • Numerical Reduction in injectable therapies

• Just finished a titration study – 0.40% may be better

32 2/25/2018

 Cranberry products – Challenge model

 New Essential Oil blends

 Selective DFM – birth through weaning and Feeding the sow pre-farrowing

 YCW and DFM – vaccine response

 TM – sources and levels

 Mushrooms - Cordyceps

Thank You !

33 2/25/2018

DANMAP (2010) Jensen et al.(2012)

Host Signalling/Immunomodulation

Cell surface receptor Mucin

Intestinal epithelial cells

34 2/25/2018

 Water Acidification  Van der Wolf , et al., 2001; Walsh et al., 2007

 DFM . Davis et al., 2008

 Oregano . Ragland et al., 2007

Average Daily Feed Intake

4.00 Antibiotic Free 3.50 * Control 3.00 2.50 * 2.00 1.50 * 1.00 ADFI (kg/Pig/d) ADFI 0.50 0.00 N1 N2 N3 N4 G1 G2 G3 F1 F2 Overall -0.50 Phase *Indicates difference at P<0.05

35 2/25/2018

Dietary supplementation with organic acids & an oligosaccharide “Bio-Mos 'feeds the GI tract' and thus plays a n=8 Control diet critical role in animal nutrition“BACT-A-CID and production” reduces contamination in feed and helps n=8 control enteropathogens in Control diet + 1.5g/kg BioMOS™ - phosphorylatedweaners, growers, MOS finishersfrom and Finishers Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell wall sows”. ~70kg n=8 Control diet + 3.0g/kg Bact-A-Cid™ - a mixture of carboxylic acids and their ammonium salts

n=8 Control diet + 20g/kg fumaric acid - C4 dicarboxylic acid

Slaughter Enumerate gut microflora & measure pH Monitor faecal microflora, faecal pH, feed intake

28 days weigh weigh

Effect of BioMOS™ and organic acids on faecal & intestinal coliform & pH Campbell et al. Pig Journal P<0.05 Control BioMOS™ 8 Bact-A-Cid™ 7 Fumaric acid 6 5 4

Log CFU/gLog 3 2 1 0 0 7 14 21 28 Day No effects on coliform in ileum, caecum or colon No effects of any additives on faecal or intestinal pH

36 2/25/2018

Effect of BioMOS™ and organic acids on faecal lactobacilli Campbell et al. Pig Journal (submitted)

P<0.05 P<0.05 P<0.05 P<0.05 Control BioMOS™ 10 Bact-A-Cid™ 9 Fumaric acid 8 7 6 5 4

Log CFU/gLog 3 2 1 0 0 7 14 21 28 Day

Effect of BioMOS™ and organic acids on intestinal lactobacilli Campbell et al. Pig Journal (submitted)

P<0.05 P<0.05

Control 9 BioMOS™ 8 Bact-A-Cid™ 7 Fumaric Acid 6 5 4

Log CFU/g 3 2 1 0 Ileum Caecum Colon

37 2/25/2018

Effect of BioMOS™ & organic acids on bifidobacteria

No differences in faecal or intestinal bifidobacteria as a result of any treatment

Performance effects of BioMOS™ & organic acids

No effects on feed intake, weight gain, carcass FCE or kill out yield of finishing pigs (P>0.05)

DANMAP (2010) Jensen et al.(2012)

38 2/25/2018

A Possible Mechanism by Which Xylanase Improves Finish Pig Viability

Xylanases breakdown cell wall NSP esp. Arabino-Xylans to smallers Xylo Oligomers. The latter are Prebiotic Oligosaccharides which as fermented support the growth of beneficial gut microflora and suppress growth of pathogenic bacteria. This shift in Microbiome Balance is due to a change in substrate type, which favors beneficial bacteria. Pathogens tend to use Protein based substrates. Butyric acid is also produced which is important to epithelial cell growth. The beneficial Microbiome supports good Intestinal barrier function and reduces the local response to Immune challenge against pathogenic bacteria. One could envision less gut immune tissue, resulting in a higher Carcass Yield; hence improved Carcass FCR.

DANMAP (2010)

39 2/25/2018

Stomach pH over time

6

5

4 0% Citric Acid pH 3 3% Citric Acid

2

1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Time (min x 10) Rice et al., 2002

Digesta Transit Time?

 In theory gastric emptying could be slowed through a reduction in gastric pH

12

10

8 0% 6 3% 4 Recovery,% 2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112 Hour Rice et al., 2002

40