BIOAPPRAISAL OF DIFFERENT NON-ANTIBIOTIC GROWTH ENHANCERS USING BROILERS
BIOAPPRAISAL OF DIFFERENT NON-ANTIBIOTIC GROWTH ENHANCERS USING BROILERS
Using broiler chicks that were 120 days old (DOC), a bio-appraisal of various non-antibiotic growth promoters was conducted over the course of a sixty-three (63) day trial. In a completely randomised design (CRD), the DOC were randomly assigned to four treatments, each with 30 birds per group and three replications (10 birds per replication).
T1 served as the control (CT), whereas T2, T3, and T4 each contained growth promoters from commercial sources at concentrations of 400g/100kg of ElRox (EX), 500g/100kg of PolaMix (PX), and 600g/100kg of MaxiGrowth (MX), respectively.
Data on body weight, body weight increase, daily calorie intake, feed conversion ratio, protein efficiency ratio, and feed cost per kilogramme of gain were all collected on a weekly basis. At the conclusion of the experiment, the experimental groups' carcass yields were also assessed.
At the conclusion of the study, the bird's biochemical parameters were also determined. These included the protein profile, lipid profile, bilirubin, liver enzymes, and serum arsenic levels.
The study's findings demonstrated that the non-antibiotic growth promoters utilised in the study had a significant (P0.05) impact on the experimental birds' performance traits. The birds that took ElRox (T2) exhibited higher outcomes in the experimental animals' overall performance indices, such as feed cost/Kg gain.
The best edible meat sections were considerably (P0.05) present in the birds fed the ElRox in-feed diet. However, there was no difference in the liver enzymes and bilirubin levels that was statistically significant (P>0.05). Treatments had a substantial impact on serum arsenic levels (P 0.05).
It was more prevalent in the birds who ate in-feed MaxiGrowth. The effects of the treatments on the birds' protein profile were substantial (P 0.05). The level of protein was highest in birds on the control diet and lowest in those on the PolaMix.
Treatments had no appreciable (P>0.05) impact on urea or creatinine levels. Aside from LDL, the rest of the lipid profileâCHOL, HDL, VLDL, and TRIGâwas similarly not significantly (P>0.05) impacted. Birds on the control diet had the greatest level of LDL, while those on PolaMix had the lowest level.
The total experiment's findings showed that only ElRox produced a significant weight rise with a better cost-benefit ratio of all the non-antibiotic growth enhancers studied. ElRox (400g/100kg) was fed to broilers, and the results showed that the birds performed better.
1.1Â BACKGROUND DATA
It is impossible to overstate the value of meat in the human diet. In addition to its other nutritional functions, meat continues to be one of the primary sources of the amino acids needed for healthy growth.
Livestock farmers have utilised medicines that can promote growth and keep their animals in good health in an effort to raise the size of their animals. Antibiotics are one such drug that has been utilised extensively.
Low doses of antibiotics are employed in animal diets, and it is thought that this will result in meat that is higher in protein and has less fat (Brussels, 2005; Hughes and Heritage, 2003). Antibiotics have been used as growth promoters as well as to prevent and treat bacterial illnesses.
Antibiotics can be used therapeutically, metaphylactically, or prophylactically to prevent and control bacterial infections. Controlling zoonotic diseases like campylobacter, E. coli, and enterococci is another advantage of using antibiotic growth promoters (Brussels, 2005).
Antibiotic growth promoters are employed, according to the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH, 2001), to “help growing animals digest their food more efficiently, get the most benefit from it, and allow them to develop into strong and healthy individuals.”
According to Casewell et al. (2003), the term “antibiotic growth promoters” more accurately refers to any medication that kills or inhibits bacteria and is given in low, subtherapeutic doses. The Council Directive of November 23, 1970 regarding feed additives authorised the use of antibiotic growth Promoters in the European Union (FDA, 2013).
The use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feeding has been controversial, nevertheless (Hughes and Heritage, 2003). It has brought about a lot of detrimental changes. It affected the emergence of drug resistance in bacteria, among other things.
A significant source of microorganisms resistant to antibiotics is livestock. These diseases found in meat from animals entered people and swiftly spread throughout society.
In 2006, the European Union outlawed the use of antibiotic growth promoters in feeds for animals reared for human consumption. In all Union nations, the ban went into effect at the same time. Since then, only preventive additives or therapeutic animal feeds are permitted to employ antibiotics as medications.
Probiotics are included as feed additives as an alternative to antibiotic growth promoters under Regulation EC No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and Council of 22 August 2003 on the additives used in animal nutrition (Casewell et al., 2003).
Therefore, probiotics, phytogenics, organic acids growth promoters, etc. are antibiotic alternatives. Probiotics were defined by Lilly and Stillwell (1965) as microorganisms that promote the growth of other microbes. Parker (1974) used the phrase to describe substances and living things that help the host's gut microflora remain in balance.
Many bio-active substances, including alkaloids, bitter flavonoids, glycosides, mucilage, saponins, and tanins, according to Wang et al. (1998) and Wenk (2000) are next generation growth promoters.
As herbs and plant extracts, they influence the immune system and endogenous activity by stimulating pancreatic secretions. They also affect appetite and intestinal microflora.
On the other hand, prebiotics are non-digestible dietary components or chemicals that have a beneficial effect on the host by their selective development and/or activation of a specific number of bacterial strains existing in the intestines (Gibson & Roberfroid, 1995).
On the other hand, the term “synbiotics” is a relatively recent one among the additives used in poultry nutrition. They are a combination of probiotics, prebiotics, and other growth-promoting ingredients that collectively have a joint influence on the digestive tract's health, digestibility, and grill performance (Fuller, 1989).
According to research (Li et al., 2008), synbiotic mixtures are frequently more effective than individual additions.
Acidifiers, especially organic acids, have been employed in poultry nutrition.
Organic acids operate as preserving agents and prevent microbiological/microbial contamination of food by lowering the pH value of the food (Eidelsburger and Kirchgessner, 1994; Freitag et al., 1995). This action is also shown in the digestive tract of fowl.
Some of the popular non-antibiotic growth promoters are more frequently found in Nigerian marketplaces. These non-antibiotic growth enhancers come in a variety of forms,
some of which have active substances that have been restricted, while others have natural growth boosters like enzymes. For instance, Roxarsone is an active component of ElRox.
In contrast to Nigerian Market conditions, the American Feed Industry, currently known as the Food and Drug Agency (FDA), has lawfully withdrawn the production and sale of three medications used in Poultry and Pig feeds.
Roxarsone, Carbarsone, and Arsanilic Acid are these medications. Inorganic arsenics, which are known carcinogens, were found in higher concentrations in the liver of chicken treated with Roxarsone than in the untreated chickens during an FDA study of 100 grill birds, prompting Pfizer Company to halt the manufacture and sale of Roxarsone and its products (FDA, 2013).
As a result, this regulation came into effect. In the Nigerian market, there are still numerous brands of allegedly non-antibiotic growth promoters. Because the producers assert that these promoters boost growth, farmers are persuaded to apply them.
The label of ELROX, which can be purchased in Nigerian markets, warns against excessive use, which might result in weak legs in growing birds. Each gramme of ELROX contains 5mg of Roxarsone. For best results, it should be fed to animals from day old.
It improves animal pigmentation, promotes optimal digestion and nutrient absorption, gets rid of unwanted bacteria, enhances the synergistic function of antibiotics and coccidiostats, and helps animals reach marketable weight more quickly, lowering overall feeding costs.
The inclusion rate is 100g per bag of poultry feed (25kg). In order to promote feed utilisation and achieve maximum weight gain, MaxiGrowth, a different commercially available growth enhancer, suggests vitamin complexes, micro-elements, macro-elements, and amino acids.
It is applied at a rate of 150g per 25kg. Polamix is renowned for being a growth and immune booster, one that promotes weight gain, removes toxins, and one that promotes vibrancy, comb growth, and luxurious/streamed lined feathers. It is applied at a rate of 125g per 25kg.
There doesn't seem to be any academic support for how these non-antibiotic growth promoters work. Do these non-antibiotic growth promoters actually boost functionality?
If so, what impact do they have on the biochemical makeup of the birds and their carcass characteristics?
The focus of the current study's research is these and other questions.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Numerous non-antibiotic growth boosters have arrived in Nigeria. Farmers who support these promoters do so with the conviction that their birds' performance would improve. There is no established mechanism for how these growth promoters work.
There are no on-farm or on-station studies to back up the claims made by the companies who make these products. Some of them have potential active components that international regulatory agencies have already banned.
Therefore, it's crucial to conduct feeding trials and verify the claims made about these products in order to inform farmers who might be interested in using them.
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This investigation aims to evaluate the utilisation and acceptability of commercially available non-antibiotic growth promoters as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters in grill diets.
Determine the performance of grill chickens given various non-antibiotic growth promoters was one of the study's specific goals.
2. Analyse the impact of adding several non-antibiotic growth promoters to the feed on the biochemical parameters of grill fowl.
3. Calculate the carcass yield of grill chickens given various non-antibiotic growth stimulants.
4. Calculate the non-antibiotic growth potentials' ability to lower the values of muscle cholesterol.
5. Calculate the financial impact of feeding different non-antibiotic growth promoters to grill chickens.
1.4 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY
Users of various non-antibiotic growth promoters have long had concerns about the comparative performance status of these promoters.
Concerns about the toxic-free nature of the arsenic-based items since their ban by the European Union also plague people's thoughts.
All farmers and users of the bio-evaluated growth enhancers will benefit from the findings of the study on the bio-evaluation of various non-antibiotic growth promoters.
Farmers and all consumers of broilers fed these non-antibiotic growth enhancers will therefore be aware of the situation as the extent of some of the commercially obtained growth promoters' growth promoting effects and the bio-toxicity of the acidic based products have not been comparably ascertained.