Control of feed pathogens in the EU: A
novel opportunity for effective safe feed and food.
Summary
Animal feed is an integral part of the food chain and its safety has been recognized as a shared value and a shared responsibility. The use of harvest, production and distribution methods and feed additives that minimize microbial contaminants and other hazards in feed are of key importance for animal and human health. Microbial contaminants such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Clostridium spp., Staphylococcus spp and Streptococcus spp, moulds and yeasts may all be present in feed and detrimental for animal health, productivity and health, and ultimately for human health. Heat treatment and chemical preservatives are major tools used to reduce these feed-associated hazards. However more effective alternatives are sought in order to optimize safety for an increasingly pathogen-free production such as poultry. Finio is a new product technology developed by Anitox that has shown promising results and high efficacy in reducing microbial contamination and preventing recontamination. Products such as Finio that can maximize return on investment with improved health and productivity will enable the industry to provide cost-effective safe feed solutions.
The importance of safe feed for animal and human health
A rapidly growing global urban population with increasing income are driving the demand for foods of animal origin and thereby the demands for safe and high quality animal feeds. The production of safe feed is part of environmental stewardship as it improves food animal productivity, reduces feed losses and improves food quality. Animal feed quality and safety is critical to animal health, welfare and productivity. Furthermore, it has an impact on the health of feed producers, handlers and users, as well as the safety of the human food supply and sustainability of agriculture.
Hazards such as bacteria, moulds, yeasts and toxins may be introduced through feed ingredients or via contamination during production, handling, storage and transportation. The numerous hazards and risk pathways require that all available tools are used to minimize the risks associated with feed. With an increasingly pathogen free animal production, such as high biosecurity/high health production units of poultry, the need for pathogen and toxin-free feed that promotes a healthy animal has increased. Furthermore safe feed may protect public health by removing feed-source pathogens which might otherwise go on to contaminate human foods.
Antimicrobial resistance in humans, food producing animals and the environment has become one of the major global health challenges (World Health Organization, 2014). Feed safety thereby incorporates solutions to minimize the dependence on in-feed antibiotics that may render our animal and human antimicrobial therapy ineffective.
Feed-associated hazards
Microbial contamination of feed can have a profound effect on production animal health and productivity. Some of the feed microbial contaminants of concern are Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Clostridium spp., Staphylococcus spp. and Streptococcus spp. For example, necrotic enteritis in broilers, associated with Clostridium perfringens type A and C, can reduce feed conversion ratio and weight gain. The bacterial toxins produced cause damage to the small intestine and resulting in increased mortality. This disease previously controlled through the prophylactic use of antimicrobials must now be controlled by optimization of feed nutritional composition, feed microbial contamination levels and other management measures.
Salmonella present in animal feed is an important source of infection in animals (Jones, 2011). Due to the transmission of Salmonella enterica from animal feeds to animals to human food, Salmonella in animal feedstuffs is mostly a public health hazard. Animal feed ingredients, particularly animal and plant-derived protein meals, are frequently contaminated with Salmonella (Wierup and Häggblom, 2010) either from the source, from the processing plant or via recontamination in feed mills is an additional problem. The importance of Salmonella-free feed increases as the endemic prevalence levels in the production systems decrease and particularly as the day-old chicks are highly susceptible to Salmonella contaminated feed. Several chemical treatment strategies have been used to control this feed contamination, and these include organic acids and their salts, formaldehyde, and bacterial membrane disruptors such as terpenes and essential oils (Wales et al., 2010).
Methods for reduction of pathogens in feed
The methods for production of safe feed involve preventing contamination of ingredients and/or feeds, preventing the growth potential of the pathogen and eliminating or binding the pathogen or toxins. Since hazards may be introduced into various steps of feed production and delivery to the farm, products are sought that provide a long-lasting residual activity. Interventions, that not only minimize bacterial contamination but also toxin-producing moulds and undesirable yeasts, may lead to improved animal productivity and health and thereby reduced prophylactic and metaphylactic antimicrobial use.
Formaldehyde Formaldehyde has long been seen as a highly effective method of pathogen control in the feed industry and its use has recently been reviewed by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA Opinion, 2014). Formaldehyde is approved as a biocide for the use in all species at concentrations ranging from 1.0 – 5.0 kg/MT feed. It has bactericidal activity and can achieve over 3 log reduction in bacteria when added at 3.0 Kg/MT and has a residual activity at concentrations over 1.0 Kg/MT. The EFSA scientific panel concluded that there is no evidence that formaldehyde presents a risk to consumer safety or the environment when applied correctly to feed (EFSA Opinion, 2014). However, formaldehyde may present an occupational hazard if not utilized under correct training and support from suppliers. There has been some concern that organic acid and formaldehyde based feed treatments may mask the presence of Salmonella when present in the feed. Carrique-Mas et al. (2007) noted that organic acids were considerably more likely to mask Salmonella than formaldehyde.
Heat treatment Heat treatment, usually during conditioning, pelleting or extrusion, has been shown to be an effective way to reduce microbial loads in feed materials and compound feed. Heating feed between 80˚C and 85˚C for 1 min may eliminate Salmonella (Jones and Richardson, 2004). However, the elimination is dependent on the level of contamination and the set temperature and time range may not be reached in all parts of the feed. Heat treatment for more than 30 s at more than 75˚C can achieve a 1000-fold (3 log) reduction of Salmonella (Berge and Wierup, 2012). Heat treatment is an effective method to control pathogens in feed and has been implemented in many Salmonella control programs, specifically those of Nordic European countries. Heat treatment can effectively achieve a 1-2 log reduction in pathogens. However there is no residual activity after treatment and this method therefore will not prevent recontamination after treatment. Furthermore there are concerns that nutrients and enzymes may be damaged.
Organic acids Organic acids, such as formic, lactic, acetic, tannic, fumaric, propionic, caprylic acids, etc., have been used to suppress bacterial growth in feed and have been shown to exhibit beneficial effects on the intestinal health and performance of birds. Application of acids in the feed exhibit modest bacterial activity, 1 log reduction and typical application rates usually range in 6.0-10.0 kg/MT feed (Wales et al., 2013). Organic acids are sometimes used in combination with heat treatment to treat feed consignments at risk.
Other additives In addition to additives that aim to reduce microbial load in the feed, there are various feed and water additives that have been used to improve productivity, intestinal health or reduce animal or human pathogens. The use of prebiotics and probiotics to prevent dysbiosis in animals has resulted in highly variable results and has not been able to completely address the gut health challenges that emerged with the removal of antimicrobial growth promoters (Ducatelle et al., 2015). Feed additives to control Salmonella have been sought, however variability in efficacy is usually observed whether one or more products are used in combination (Berge and Wierup, 2012; Totton et al., 2012). A meta-analysis of 70 challenge studies in broilers examining the effects of feed and water additives; prebiotics (fructooligosaccharide, lactose, whey, dried milk, lactulose, lactosucrose, sucrose, maltose, mannanoligosaccharide), lactose and experimental chlorate products indicated that the odds of reducing Salmonella prevalence was low and highly variable (Totton et al., 2012). There are various other feed additives such as enzymes (Kiarie et al., 2013), essential oils, short-chain fatty acids that all may influence microbial composition of feed and performance of birds. Since results with these feed additives are unpredictable or of limited efficacy, the safe feed approach is of key importance.
.
Finio – a new exciting feed technology
Finio, a novel formulation produced by Anitox (patent pending) is a promising alternative to heat treatment and organic acid blends for effective feed pathogen control, even for feed industries operating in restrictive regulatory environments (http://www.anitox.com/finio/). Studies indicate that Finio can control a wide range of pathogens including gram negative bacteria such as Salmonella enterica (S. enterica), E. coli, and gram positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus and Clostridium perfringens. It provides additional residual protection from mill to feeder (up to 14 days) to reduce pathogen intake and challenge on the bird.
Finio exhibits bactericidal and residual activity at low doses (0.5-2.0 kg/MT). Trials have indicated that Finio has outperformed three leading organic acid blends, delivering 3 times greater control of pathogenic contaminants such as Salmonella spp. Meta-analysis has been performed on 81 studies for the ability of Finio to reduce contamination and re-contamination of feed with Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (Select Statistical Services, 2013). An inclusion of 2.0 kg Finio/MT poultry feed resulted in a pooled random effects estimate reduction of 93.3% (95% C.I. 91.9-94.6%). For recontamination, an inclusion of 3.0 kg Finio/MT, gave an estimate reduction of S. Typhimurium of 97.0% (95% C.I. 95.0%-98.9%) (2.0 kg Finio/MT, gave an estimate reduction of S. Typhimurium of 77.8% (95% C.I. 64.5%-91.2%).) The high bactericidal and residual activity at low inclusion rates makes Finio a very interesting alternative to organic acids and heat treatment.
Re-contamination is a common problem in feed mills and transport and Finio has high potential to address this challenge. Products such as Finio that can maximize return on investment with improved health and productivity and will enable the feed industry to provide cost-effective safe feed solutions.
References
Berge, A.C., Wierup, M., 2012. Nutritional strategies to combat Salmonella in mono-gastric food animal production. Animal. 6, 557-564.
Carrique-Mas, J.J., Bedford, S., Davies, R.H., 2007. Organic acid and formaldehyde treatment of animal feeds to control Salmonella: efficacy and masking during culture. J. Appl. Microbiol. 103, 88-96.
Ducatelle, R., Eeckhaut, V., Haesebrouck, F., van, I.F., 2015. A review on prebiotics and probiotics for the control of dysbiosis: present status and future perspectives. Animal. 9, 43-48.
EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2014. Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of formaldehyde for all animal species based on a dossier submitted by Regal BV. EFSA Journal 12, 3561:1-3561:24.
Jones, F.T., 2011. A review of practical Salmonella control measures in animal feed. J Appl. Poult Res. 20, 102-113.
Jones, F.T., Richardson, K.E., 2004. Salmonella in commercially manufactured feeds. Poult. Sci. 83, 384-391.
Kiarie, E., Romero, L.F., Nyachoti, C.M., 2013. The role of added feed enzymes in promoting gut health in swine and poultry. Nutr. Res. Rev. 26, 71-88.
Select Statistical Services, 2013. Percentage reduction of Salmonella Typhimurium meta-analysis for F18 studies. Exeter, Devon, UK.
Totton, S.C., Farrar, A.M., Wilkins, W., Bucher, O., Waddell, L.A., Wilhelm, B.J., McEwen, S.A., Rajic, A., 2012. The effectiveness of selected feed and water additives for reducing Salmonella spp. of public health importance in broiler chickens: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression approach. Prev. Vet. Med. 106, 197-213.
Wales, A., McLaren, I., Rabie, A., Gosling, R.J., Martelli, F., Sayers, R., Davies, R., 2013. Assessment of the anti-Salmonella activity of commercial formulations of organic acid products. Avian Pathol. 42, 268-275.
Wales, A.D., Allen, V.M., Davies, R.H., 2010. Chemical treatment of animal feed and water for the control of Salmonella. Foodborne. Pathog. Dis. 7, 3-15.
Wierup, M., Häggblom, P., 2010. An assessment of soybeans and other vegetable proteins as source of Salmonella contamination in pig production. Acta Vet Scand. 52, 15.
World Health Organization, 2014. Antimicrobial resistance: global report on surveillance 2014.
Animal feed is an integral part of the food chain and its safety has been recognized as a shared value and a shared responsibility. The use of harvest, production and distribution methods and feed additives that minimize microbial contaminants and other hazards in feed are of key importance for animal and human health. Microbial contaminants such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Clostridium spp., Staphylococcus spp and Streptococcus spp, moulds and yeasts may all be present in feed and detrimental for animal health, productivity and health, and ultimately for human health. Heat treatment and chemical preservatives are major tools used to reduce these feed-associated hazards. However more effective alternatives are sought in order to optimize safety for an increasingly pathogen-free production such as poultry. Finio is a new product technology developed by Anitox that has shown promising results and high efficacy in reducing microbial contamination and preventing recontamination. Products such as Finio that can maximize return on investment with improved health and productivity will enable the industry to provide cost-effective safe feed solutions.
The importance of safe feed for animal and human health
A rapidly growing global urban population with increasing income are driving the demand for foods of animal origin and thereby the demands for safe and high quality animal feeds. The production of safe feed is part of environmental stewardship as it improves food animal productivity, reduces feed losses and improves food quality. Animal feed quality and safety is critical to animal health, welfare and productivity. Furthermore, it has an impact on the health of feed producers, handlers and users, as well as the safety of the human food supply and sustainability of agriculture.
Hazards such as bacteria, moulds, yeasts and toxins may be introduced through feed ingredients or via contamination during production, handling, storage and transportation. The numerous hazards and risk pathways require that all available tools are used to minimize the risks associated with feed. With an increasingly pathogen free animal production, such as high biosecurity/high health production units of poultry, the need for pathogen and toxin-free feed that promotes a healthy animal has increased. Furthermore safe feed may protect public health by removing feed-source pathogens which might otherwise go on to contaminate human foods.
Antimicrobial resistance in humans, food producing animals and the environment has become one of the major global health challenges (World Health Organization, 2014). Feed safety thereby incorporates solutions to minimize the dependence on in-feed antibiotics that may render our animal and human antimicrobial therapy ineffective.
Feed-associated hazards
Microbial contamination of feed can have a profound effect on production animal health and productivity. Some of the feed microbial contaminants of concern are Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Clostridium spp., Staphylococcus spp. and Streptococcus spp. For example, necrotic enteritis in broilers, associated with Clostridium perfringens type A and C, can reduce feed conversion ratio and weight gain. The bacterial toxins produced cause damage to the small intestine and resulting in increased mortality. This disease previously controlled through the prophylactic use of antimicrobials must now be controlled by optimization of feed nutritional composition, feed microbial contamination levels and other management measures.
Salmonella present in animal feed is an important source of infection in animals (Jones, 2011). Due to the transmission of Salmonella enterica from animal feeds to animals to human food, Salmonella in animal feedstuffs is mostly a public health hazard. Animal feed ingredients, particularly animal and plant-derived protein meals, are frequently contaminated with Salmonella (Wierup and Häggblom, 2010) either from the source, from the processing plant or via recontamination in feed mills is an additional problem. The importance of Salmonella-free feed increases as the endemic prevalence levels in the production systems decrease and particularly as the day-old chicks are highly susceptible to Salmonella contaminated feed. Several chemical treatment strategies have been used to control this feed contamination, and these include organic acids and their salts, formaldehyde, and bacterial membrane disruptors such as terpenes and essential oils (Wales et al., 2010).
Methods for reduction of pathogens in feed
The methods for production of safe feed involve preventing contamination of ingredients and/or feeds, preventing the growth potential of the pathogen and eliminating or binding the pathogen or toxins. Since hazards may be introduced into various steps of feed production and delivery to the farm, products are sought that provide a long-lasting residual activity. Interventions, that not only minimize bacterial contamination but also toxin-producing moulds and undesirable yeasts, may lead to improved animal productivity and health and thereby reduced prophylactic and metaphylactic antimicrobial use.
Formaldehyde Formaldehyde has long been seen as a highly effective method of pathogen control in the feed industry and its use has recently been reviewed by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA Opinion, 2014). Formaldehyde is approved as a biocide for the use in all species at concentrations ranging from 1.0 – 5.0 kg/MT feed. It has bactericidal activity and can achieve over 3 log reduction in bacteria when added at 3.0 Kg/MT and has a residual activity at concentrations over 1.0 Kg/MT. The EFSA scientific panel concluded that there is no evidence that formaldehyde presents a risk to consumer safety or the environment when applied correctly to feed (EFSA Opinion, 2014). However, formaldehyde may present an occupational hazard if not utilized under correct training and support from suppliers. There has been some concern that organic acid and formaldehyde based feed treatments may mask the presence of Salmonella when present in the feed. Carrique-Mas et al. (2007) noted that organic acids were considerably more likely to mask Salmonella than formaldehyde.
Heat treatment Heat treatment, usually during conditioning, pelleting or extrusion, has been shown to be an effective way to reduce microbial loads in feed materials and compound feed. Heating feed between 80˚C and 85˚C for 1 min may eliminate Salmonella (Jones and Richardson, 2004). However, the elimination is dependent on the level of contamination and the set temperature and time range may not be reached in all parts of the feed. Heat treatment for more than 30 s at more than 75˚C can achieve a 1000-fold (3 log) reduction of Salmonella (Berge and Wierup, 2012). Heat treatment is an effective method to control pathogens in feed and has been implemented in many Salmonella control programs, specifically those of Nordic European countries. Heat treatment can effectively achieve a 1-2 log reduction in pathogens. However there is no residual activity after treatment and this method therefore will not prevent recontamination after treatment. Furthermore there are concerns that nutrients and enzymes may be damaged.
Organic acids Organic acids, such as formic, lactic, acetic, tannic, fumaric, propionic, caprylic acids, etc., have been used to suppress bacterial growth in feed and have been shown to exhibit beneficial effects on the intestinal health and performance of birds. Application of acids in the feed exhibit modest bacterial activity, 1 log reduction and typical application rates usually range in 6.0-10.0 kg/MT feed (Wales et al., 2013). Organic acids are sometimes used in combination with heat treatment to treat feed consignments at risk.
Other additives In addition to additives that aim to reduce microbial load in the feed, there are various feed and water additives that have been used to improve productivity, intestinal health or reduce animal or human pathogens. The use of prebiotics and probiotics to prevent dysbiosis in animals has resulted in highly variable results and has not been able to completely address the gut health challenges that emerged with the removal of antimicrobial growth promoters (Ducatelle et al., 2015). Feed additives to control Salmonella have been sought, however variability in efficacy is usually observed whether one or more products are used in combination (Berge and Wierup, 2012; Totton et al., 2012). A meta-analysis of 70 challenge studies in broilers examining the effects of feed and water additives; prebiotics (fructooligosaccharide, lactose, whey, dried milk, lactulose, lactosucrose, sucrose, maltose, mannanoligosaccharide), lactose and experimental chlorate products indicated that the odds of reducing Salmonella prevalence was low and highly variable (Totton et al., 2012). There are various other feed additives such as enzymes (Kiarie et al., 2013), essential oils, short-chain fatty acids that all may influence microbial composition of feed and performance of birds. Since results with these feed additives are unpredictable or of limited efficacy, the safe feed approach is of key importance.
.
Finio – a new exciting feed technology
Finio, a novel formulation produced by Anitox (patent pending) is a promising alternative to heat treatment and organic acid blends for effective feed pathogen control, even for feed industries operating in restrictive regulatory environments (http://www.anitox.com/finio/). Studies indicate that Finio can control a wide range of pathogens including gram negative bacteria such as Salmonella enterica (S. enterica), E. coli, and gram positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus and Clostridium perfringens. It provides additional residual protection from mill to feeder (up to 14 days) to reduce pathogen intake and challenge on the bird.
Finio exhibits bactericidal and residual activity at low doses (0.5-2.0 kg/MT). Trials have indicated that Finio has outperformed three leading organic acid blends, delivering 3 times greater control of pathogenic contaminants such as Salmonella spp. Meta-analysis has been performed on 81 studies for the ability of Finio to reduce contamination and re-contamination of feed with Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (Select Statistical Services, 2013). An inclusion of 2.0 kg Finio/MT poultry feed resulted in a pooled random effects estimate reduction of 93.3% (95% C.I. 91.9-94.6%). For recontamination, an inclusion of 3.0 kg Finio/MT, gave an estimate reduction of S. Typhimurium of 97.0% (95% C.I. 95.0%-98.9%) (2.0 kg Finio/MT, gave an estimate reduction of S. Typhimurium of 77.8% (95% C.I. 64.5%-91.2%).) The high bactericidal and residual activity at low inclusion rates makes Finio a very interesting alternative to organic acids and heat treatment.
Re-contamination is a common problem in feed mills and transport and Finio has high potential to address this challenge. Products such as Finio that can maximize return on investment with improved health and productivity and will enable the feed industry to provide cost-effective safe feed solutions.
References
Berge, A.C., Wierup, M., 2012. Nutritional strategies to combat Salmonella in mono-gastric food animal production. Animal. 6, 557-564.
Carrique-Mas, J.J., Bedford, S., Davies, R.H., 2007. Organic acid and formaldehyde treatment of animal feeds to control Salmonella: efficacy and masking during culture. J. Appl. Microbiol. 103, 88-96.
Ducatelle, R., Eeckhaut, V., Haesebrouck, F., van, I.F., 2015. A review on prebiotics and probiotics for the control of dysbiosis: present status and future perspectives. Animal. 9, 43-48.
EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2014. Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of formaldehyde for all animal species based on a dossier submitted by Regal BV. EFSA Journal 12, 3561:1-3561:24.
Jones, F.T., 2011. A review of practical Salmonella control measures in animal feed. J Appl. Poult Res. 20, 102-113.
Jones, F.T., Richardson, K.E., 2004. Salmonella in commercially manufactured feeds. Poult. Sci. 83, 384-391.
Kiarie, E., Romero, L.F., Nyachoti, C.M., 2013. The role of added feed enzymes in promoting gut health in swine and poultry. Nutr. Res. Rev. 26, 71-88.
Select Statistical Services, 2013. Percentage reduction of Salmonella Typhimurium meta-analysis for F18 studies. Exeter, Devon, UK.
Totton, S.C., Farrar, A.M., Wilkins, W., Bucher, O., Waddell, L.A., Wilhelm, B.J., McEwen, S.A., Rajic, A., 2012. The effectiveness of selected feed and water additives for reducing Salmonella spp. of public health importance in broiler chickens: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression approach. Prev. Vet. Med. 106, 197-213.
Wales, A., McLaren, I., Rabie, A., Gosling, R.J., Martelli, F., Sayers, R., Davies, R., 2013. Assessment of the anti-Salmonella activity of commercial formulations of organic acid products. Avian Pathol. 42, 268-275.
Wales, A.D., Allen, V.M., Davies, R.H., 2010. Chemical treatment of animal feed and water for the control of Salmonella. Foodborne. Pathog. Dis. 7, 3-15.
Wierup, M., Häggblom, P., 2010. An assessment of soybeans and other vegetable proteins as source of Salmonella contamination in pig production. Acta Vet Scand. 52, 15.
World Health Organization, 2014. Antimicrobial resistance: global report on surveillance 2014.