Sponsor Day on animal feeding: The post-antibiotic era – innovation & regulation of feed additives...
-
Upload
irta -
Category
Technology
-
view
389 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Sponsor Day on animal feeding: The post-antibiotic era – innovation & regulation of feed additives...
Dr. Elinor McCartney 1
The post-antibiotic era – innovation & regulation of feed additives in the EU
Dr Elinor McCartney President
Pen & Tec Consulting Group
Dr. Elinor McCartney 2
Content
• Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) – a driver of regulation & innovation
• EU/EFSA feed additive approval process in context ² Reg. 1831/2003 – definition of a feed additive
² Reg. 429/2008 guidelines, EURL/EFSA guidance – “toolkits”
² Reg. 767/2009 – feed materials
² Dir. 2011/82 – veterinary medicines
• Designing for EU/EFSA success ² Pioneer feed additives, post-AGP ban
² Novelty & EFSA challenges on quality, safety & efficacy
² EFSA-compliant efficacy data & meta-analysis
² Examples of innovation in botanical zootechnical additives
² Horizon 2020 additives & support teams/services
2
Dr. Elinor McCartney 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Avilamycin
Broilers
Pigs
Humans
resistant strains (%)
DANMAP 2006
3000
1500
Active substance (kg)
Resistance to avilamycin in Enterococcus faecium
3
Dr. Elinor McCartney 4
0
50
100
150
200
250
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
AGPs
Veterinary
Total
Consumption (Tm actives)
Animal antimicrobial consumption (Tm): -15% 1990-2006 (DANMAP 2006)
DANMAP 2006
4
Dr. Elinor McCartney 5
EURL Antimicrobial Resistance Newsletter Nº 2 2007
resistant sensitive
non- wildtype
inter-mediate
5
Dr. Elinor McCartney 6
Heavy emphasis on AMRs in animals
6
Dr. Elinor McCartney 7
*ECDC/EMEA Joint Technical Report: The bacterial challenge: time to react 2009 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/statistics/trends/index_en.htm
Most human AMR problems arise in çhospitals & the
çcommunity
AMR is reponsible for ≈25,000 EU deaths per annum*
7
Dr. Elinor McCartney 8
EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3590
Suggested citation: EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control), 2014. The European Union Summary Report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2012. EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3590, 336 pp., doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3590
Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal
© European Food Safety Authority, 2014
SCIENTIFIC REPORT OF EFSA AND ECDC
The European Union Summary Report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 20121
European Food Safety Authority2,3 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control2,3
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden
ABSTRACT The antimicrobial resistance data among zoonotic and indicator bacteria in 2012, submitted by 26 European Union Member States, were jointly analysed by the EFSA and the ECDC. Resistance in zoonotic Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates from humans, animals and food and resistance in indicator Escherichia coli, as well as data on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, in animals and food were addressed. Resistance in human isolates was mainly interpreted using clinical breakpoints, while microbiological resistance in animal and food isolates was assessed using epidemiological cut-off values. Resistance was commonly found in isolates from humans, animals and food, although marked disparities in resistance were frequently observed between Member States. In Salmonella from humans, high resistance levels were recorded to ampicillin, sulfonamides and tetracyclines, while resistance to third-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones remained low. In Salmonella and Escherichia coli isolates from fowl, pigs, cattle and meat thereof, microbiological resistance to ampicillin, tetracyclines and sulfonamides was commonly detected, while microbiological resistance to third-generation cephalosporins was generally low. High to very high microbiological resistance to (fluoro)quinolones was observed in Salmonella isolates from turkeys, fowl and broiler meat. In Campylobacter from humans, resistance to ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and tetracyclines was high, while resistance to erythromycin was low to moderate. High to extremely high microbiological resistance to ciprofloxacin, nalidixic acid and tetracyclines was observed in Campylobacter isolates from fowl, broiler meat, pigs and cattle, whereas much lower levels were observed for erythromycin and gentamicin. Increasing trends for ciprofloxacin resistance was observed in Campylobacter isolates from humans, broilers and/or pigs in several Member States. Multi-resistance and co-resistance to critically important antimicrobials in both human and animal isolates were presented, and for the first time, multi-resistance patterns in Salmonella serovars. Very few isolates from animals were co-resistant to critically important antimicrobials. A minority of isolates from animals belonging to a few Salmonella serovars (notably Kentucky and Infantis) were resistant to high levels of ciprofloxacin.
© European Food Safety Authority, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 2014
KEY WORDS antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic bacteria, indicator bacteria
1 On request from EFSA, Question No EFSA-Q-2013-00214, approved on 24 February 2014. 2 Correspondence: in EFSA: [email protected]; in ECDC: [email protected] 3 Acknowledgements: EFSA and ECDC wish to thank the members of the Scientific Network for Zoonoses Monitoring Data,
former Task Force on Zoonoses Data Collection (EFSA) and the Food and Waterborne Diseases and Zoonoses Network (ECDC) who provided the data and reviewed the report. Also, the contribution of EFSA’s staff members: Pierre-Alexandre Belœil, Pia Mäkelä, Anca Stoicescu, Valentina Rizzi, Anne-Laure Moufle, Roisin Rooney, Kenneth Mulligan, Francesca Riolo, Mario Monguidi, Saghir Bashir, Angela Cohen, Gina Cioacata and Klaudia Chrzastek, the contributions of ECDC’s staff members: Therese Westrell, Johanna Takkinen and Liselott Diaz Högberg, and the contributions of EFSA’s contractors: the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory Agency of the United Kingdom: Sarah Easthope, Catherine Tallentire and Christopher Teale, and the University of Hasselt: Stijn Jaspers and Marc Aerts, for the support provided to this scientific output.
Scientific support & advice EFSA and ECDC provide independent scientific support and advice to risk managers and decision makers on the possible emergence, spread and transfer of antimicrobial resistance, EFSA collects data on AMR in food-producing animals, while ECDC collects data on AMR in humans.
Integrated approach EFSA and ECDC monitor AMR in animals and humans, using data reported by Member States. The two agencies cooperate with the European Medicines Agency to analyse the relationship between antimicrobial use and the emergence of resistance in food-producing animals and in humans.
Europe’s fight against ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE How do EFSA and ECDC fight AMR?
8
Dr. Elinor McCartney 9
AMR crisis (WHO 2014)
2
Antimicrobial resistance – global report on surveillance
WHO 2014
Fatal scrapes & scratches in children Fatal bladder infections in elderly Fatal sequelae to routine hip replacements
Dr Keiji Fukuda WHO Director-General
End of safe medicine Funding needed for new antibiotics
UK experts
AMR travels with infectious disease Infectious diseases travels globally
Dr Daniel Lo Fo Wong Senior advisor AMR, WHO
AMR is a global threat Little is being done to tackle it AMR turns common infections into untreatable diseases. Every antibiotic will become useless
Lord Darzi, former UL health minister
UK funding inadequate (<1% R&D funds) Worse than 1980s AIDS crisis
Professor Laura Piddock University of Birmingham
UK AMR is less than elsewhere but we see patients with infections resistant to antibiotics
Dr Paul Cosford Public Health England
Dr. Elinor McCartney 10
Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics and …
(Consumer) Politics
9
Dr. Elinor McCartney 11
EU votes Population (M) Nº votes
Germany 83 29
UK 60 29
France 60 29
Italy 60 29
Spain 40 27
Poland 40 27
Romania 23 14
Netherlands 16 13
Greece 11 12
Czech Republic 10 12
Belgium 10 12
Hungary 10 12
Portugal 10 12
EU votes Population (M) Nº votes
Sweden 9 10
Bugaria 8 10
Austria 8 10
Slovakia 5 7
Denmark 5 7
Finland 5 7
Ireland 4 7
Croatia 4 7
Lithuania 4 7
Latvia 2 4
Slovenia 2 4
Estonia 1 4
Cyprus (4), Lxburg (4) Malta (3)
2 11
EU 28 500 M 452
500 M demanding consumers!
10
Dr. Elinor McCartney 12
EU legislative response to AMR & other “food” issues • White Paper on Food Safety (2000) • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA, 2002)
• Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF, 2003)
• New Regulations on “Novel” Foods/Feeds (GMOs, 2003)
• Traceability/HACCP “From Farm to Fork” (2006)
• New Regulations on undesirable substances, feed additives, feed hygiene, official controls in the food chain (2003-2006)
• New Regulations on food enzymes, additives, & flavours (2008)
• New feed regulation (2009)
• Application of the new laws to food and feed imported to the EU
• EU bans antibiotic growth promotors (AGPs) – completed in 2006
• Increased pressure to reduce use of veterinary & human antibiotics
11
Dr. Elinor McCartney 13
But, every cloud has a silver lining…
12
Dr. Elinor McCartney 14
Innovation – post-AGP ban
• Probiotics – gut flora stabilisers, immune stimulators • Feed enzymes – digestibility enhancers • Chelated minerals – better animal welfare & nutrition • Selenium yeasts – better nutrition for animals & humans • Organic acids/salts – help combat enteropathogens • Botanical preparations (herbs, spices, exotic & edible plants) • Innovative feed materials • Better quality feeds • Improved or creative delivery systems • TLC è animal health & hygiene • Horizon 2020 products? • Horizon 2020 teams! 13
Dr. Elinor McCartney 15
A Horizon 2020 team at work ….
Dr. Elinor McCartney 16
Dream teams for EC/EFSA dossiers ü Committed sponsor (cost & time)
ü ISO-17025 accredited analytical labs
ü R&D sites with EFSA “knowhow”
ü Dedicated & modern R&D feed mill
ü Life scientists – used to working with animals, people & data
ü Computer-literacy & statistical skills
ü Passion & perfectionism for work in technical & legal areas
ü Communication skills – written & team-working
ü Fluency in English & attention to detail 26
Dr. Elinor McCartney 17
Being a pioneer…. the price of innovation
15
Dr. Elinor McCartney 18
EC/EFSA feed additives – innovation index? Type EC listed –
current legal status
EFSA listed as under (re)evaluation
Comment
Feed enzymes Zootechnical Digestibility
50 90 ≅ 100, regulated since 1990s
Feed probiotics Zootechnical Gut flora
40 90 ≅ 100, regulated since 1990s
Feed flavours Sensory
600 NICs (nature identical components) 200 Botanicals
70 grouped: 50 NICs 70 botanicals
“Flavours” = most feed additives!
Zootechnical Mostly “Other”
≅ 5 NICs ≅ 1 Botanical
< 10 NICs <10 botanicals
Room for innovation?
Dr. Elinor McCartney 19
Building EU success Main dossier reference material
Commercial objectives – how to achieve within legal framework? ü EU regulations 1831/2003 & 429/2008
ü EFSA guidance (adminstrative, zootechnical, tolerance/efficacy …)
ü EURL guidance (method validations & verifications)
ü SCAN/recent EFSA opinions on similar products?
ü Previous SCF reports/opinions (e.g. use in foods)
ü EFSA, JECFA, EMEA, CoE reports & literature searches
ü GOOGLE: EFSA, DGSanCo, US FDA/EPA, etc
ü In-house & external research – EFSA-compliant?
16
Dr. Elinor McCartney 20
Building successful feed additive dossiers Consider strategic options - additive groups
1. Technological: Act on feed & feedingstuffs, e.g. preservatives, anti-oxidants, emulsifiers,stabilisers, thickeners, gelling agents, binders, anti-radionucleotides, anticakers, acidifiers, silage additives, denaturants, mycotoxin de-activators
2. Sensory: Add colour to feed/animals or flavour to feeds 3. Nutritional: Vitamins, pro-vitamins, trace elements, amino
acids, urea 4. Zootechnical: a. Improve feed digestibility, b. gut flora
equilibrium, c. the environment, or d. “other“ (performance enhancers, animal welfare, food quality ….)
5. Coccidiostats & Histomonostats
17
Dr. Elinor McCartney 21
Building successful feed additive dossiers Planning & data audit
ü Who, what, why, where, when, which, how? ü Do we need/want a feed additive approval? If yes, why? ü Which category/functional group/s & why? ü What do current guidelines/guidance require? ü What data are available & do they meet current standards? ü What data must be generated? ü Time & cost of data generation? ü What problems will arise & how do we solve them? ü Can we protect our investment? ü Iterate until project strategy & plan is clear
18
Dr. Elinor McCartney 22
Building a successful feed additive dossier What is it and what does it do?
• Product specification?
• Administered in feed, water or other route?
• Improve feed, animal products or animal colour?
• Satisfy nutritional needs?
• Improve the environment?
• Improve animal production, performance, welfare?
• Coccidiostat/histomonostat?
• Something else? ( → Comitology)
• Options to market as a feed material, premixture or complementary feed?
19
Dr. Elinor McCartney 23
Planning DATA AUDIT EXPERT ADVICE ITERATE KEY ISSUES
1. Safety e.g. use in foods e.g. calculate relative exposure
e.g. assemble supporting
literature (CoE/EMEA/JECFA)
e.g. do we need residue studies?
2. Efficacy e.g. optimum range & “claims”?
e.g. EFSA-compliant studies
e.g. select study sites
e.g. justify minimum dose?
3. Quality i.e. analytical
method validation & verification
e.g. product specification
e.g. role & legal status of coating
agents & excipient/s
e.g. stability & compatibility
4. Generate data SAFETYè EFFICACYè QUALITYè e.g. EFSA/EURL compliance
5. Reports Review in detail Check raw data Check & rerun statistics e.g. meta-analysis
6. Annexes Safety Annexes Efficacy Annexes Quality Annexes Bibliography
7. Text Safety Text Efficacy Text Quality Text Summary Text (coherence)
8. Administration EURL EU EFSA SUBMIT
Building EU success Best practice – planning ahead
20
Dr. Elinor McCartney 24
EURL EU EFSA: (1 paper copy, 2 CDs)
Cover letter & declaration form &
EU Annex I
Cover letter & application form
(EU Annex I)
Part 1 Administrative
Part 2 Technical
Part 3 Confidential
3 ref. samples (same lot)
3 ref. standards Administrative data Cover letter
Section I PubSum, ScSum, List.Doc, ConfInfo
Confidential parts
Certificate of ID/analysis
Section I Public summary
Application form (EU Annex I)
Section II Quality II Annexes From Section II
Pay EURL fees EU MSDS
Section I Scientific summary
Contact details (Annex E)
Section III Safety
III Annexes From Section III
PubSum & ScSum
Section I Dossier Index
Descript. Add Annex A
(Register entry)
Section IV Efficacy IV Annexes
From Section IV
Obtain proof of payment or fee waiver
Section I Confidential Parts
Completeness Checklist (Annex
B)
Section V PMMP
Notes ê
English
NB: Multi-tasking dossiers OK!
EURL fee proof of payment or fee
waiver
Declaration E-copy = paper
NB Bibliography to Sections II, III, IV.
PDFs <20 MB
Dr. Elinor McCartney 25
Building successful feed additive dossiers Best practice: EFSA completeness check list
22
Dr. Elinor McCartney 26
Austria Bulgaria Belgium Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK
Natugro Inc.
Natugro
25 kg
WhizzGro® Dossier
EFSA “6-month
evaluation”
Public Summary
WGs & Plenary/s
EFSA opinion published
28 Member States:
Comitology, QMV (≥3 m) → Regulation (+2-3m)
Building successful feed additive dossiers The evaluation & authorisation process
Dr. Elinor McCartney 27
EU votes Population (M) Nº votes
Germany 83 29
UK 60 29
France 60 29
Italy 60 29
Spain 40 27
Poland 40 27
Romania 23 14
Netherlands 16 13
Greece 11 12
Czech Republic 10 12
Belgium 10 12
Hungary 10 12
Portugal 10 12
EU votes Population (M) Nº votes
Sweden 9 10
Bulgaria 8 10
Austria 8 10
Slovakia 5 7
Denmark 5 7
Finland 5 7
Ireland 4 7
Croatia 4 7
Lithuania 4 7
Latvia 2 4
Slovenia 2 4
Estonia 1 4
Cyprus (4), Lxburg (4) Malta (3)
2 11
EU 28 500 M 452
Building successful feed additive dossiers QMV, EU 28, ≥50% Member States (> 60% EU population), 74% votes
24
Dr. Elinor McCartney 28
Building a successful feed additive dossier Being a pioneer….
25
Dr. Elinor McCartney 29
Building successful feed additive dossiers Best practices – learning from experience
ü Start at the beginning – if possible
ü Collect all relevant & current
EURL/EU/EFSA documents
ü Focus on key EFSA documents (e.g. sensory guidance for botanicals)
ü Check (& challenge?) product positioning & claims with the client/marketing department
ü PLAN the dossier – problems, solutions, budgets, & time to market
26
Dr. Elinor McCartney 30
Building successful feed additive dossiers Do’s
ü If in doubt, consult the EU Commission &/or EFSA by e-mail/telecon
ü Follow EU guidelines to the letter (!) (Reg 429/2008)
ü Follow relevant EFSA guidance/s to the letter (!), BUT è
ü Check legal loopholes for opportunities to reduce costs/time (read the small print in Reg. 429/2008)
ü Be ruthless with studies that are not EFSA-compliant
ü Use standard templates for efficacy & tolerance study protocols & reports
ü Monitor all studies – visit & communicate with study directors & barn crews
ü Check all study raw data & statistics!
ü Blood samples (& tissues?) in all tolerance studies! (store spare sets?) 27
Dr. Elinor McCartney 31
2. TOC (Table of Contents) Item Page 1. Title page 2. Table of Contents 3. Summary (insert in final report) 4. Quality statement 5. Target dates/reporting requirements 6. Materials & methods (inc. statistical technique/s) 7. Results (tables) 8. Discussion & conclusions (text/bullet points) 9. References 10. Appendices: CVs, CoAs., external laboratory reports, raw data, statistical outputs 11. Addenda (e.g. late additions to report) 12. EFSA Annex C (tolerance/efficacy)
Building successful feed additive dossiers Do use standard templates for study protocols & reports
28
Dr. Elinor McCartney 32
Building successful feed additive dossiers Don’ts
x Assume that commercial trials from 1985 will meet current EFSA standards
x Run studies without an EFSA-compliant, written protocol x Finalise reports without a careful review against EFSA
requirements x Submit a dossier without double-checking both e-copies &
paper copies against each other x Assume that EURL/EFSA/EU guidance/guidelines will be the
same as for the last dossier submitted, hence è do not:
x Copy & paste from the previous dossier to the current dossier (e.g. species extension) without checking & updating to fit new EURL/EFSA/EU requirements
29
Dr. Elinor McCartney 33
EFSA Evaluations GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
30
Dr. Elinor McCartney 34
EFSA FEEDAP evaluations
EFSA feed additive dossier validation process
² Informal/formal letter of receipt
² EFSA completeness check (30 working days)
² EFSA MiP – Missing Information Parts
² EFSA validation letter è Clock Zero (6 months evaluation)
² EFSA circulates dossier to EURL, EU & Member States
² EFSA requests confirmation that the Public Summary does not contain confidential information
² EFSA publishes the Public Summary of the dossier
² All this will be managed by the EFSA Applications Help Desk
31
Dr. Elinor McCartney 35
EFSA FEEDAP evaluations
EFSA working groups (WG) & plenary meetings
² Dossier evaluation is mainly undertaken by WG of independent experts – listed on EFSA web page – not all are FEEDAP panel members
² EFSA Sins!
² WGs supported by EFSA FEEDAP scientific officers (Secretariat)
² Plenary meetings consist of 21 EFSA FEEDAP scientific panel members – also listed on EFSA web page
² EFSA opinion is first drafted by WG, then discussed & adopted at EFSA plenary meetings
² EFSA plenary may request reworking of WG draft or raise additional questions for the applicant (!)
² Hence dossier usually appears at least twice on EFSA FEEDAP agenda
32
Dr. Elinor McCartney 36
EFSA FEEDAP Evaluations
EFSA SIns – Supplementary Information requests
² = “Clock-Stop”
² 30 working days to reply or
² Applicant requests time extension/s
² In theory only 1 EFSA clock-stop (SIn) with all questions from WG
² In practice, several SIns are more common è
² (Depends on applicant’s answers & EFSA plenary)
33
Dr. Elinor McCartney 37
EFSA FEEDAP Evaluations
Best practices, must do’s, recipes for success:
ü Answer all EFSA questions to the letter
ü Be realistic about time frames & request time
extension/s as necessary
ü Stick to sound technical arguments & avoid anecdotal data
ü EFSA want DATA not fairy tales!
ü Use legal arguments if necessary (Reg. 429/2008!)
ü Be prepared to yield on less important points (e.g. minimum effective dose)
ü Generate essential additional data (DTW!)
ü Keep EFSA secretariat informed by e-mail 34
Dr. Elinor McCartney 38
A few botanical examples
44
Dr. Elinor McCartney 39
Non-antibiotic feed additives – e.g. zootechnical “botanicals”
• Pioneer feed additives, post-AGP ban • Plant-derived, well-researched, & deliver consistent performance
• Patent protection
• Innovative delivery to target gut sites
• Proven quality, purity, stability & guaranteed batch uniformity
• Safe for animals, consumers, users, & the environment
• EU/EFSA-approved (2 products in piglets, 1 product in broilers) • Under evaluation (≈6 dossiers - 3 broiler, 2 piglet, 1 pig)
• Several regulatory failures – withdrawn, insufficient safety & efficacy data
• Many listed as feed “flavours”, but EFSA tough stance on safety – e.g. botanical residues of toxicological concern
14
Dr. Elinor McCartney 40
Botanical NICs in weaned piglets: coated thymol, citric/sorbic acids, vanillin
Study, duration & parameters
Control Product at 3 kg/Tm feed Probability Improvement
Study 1, 49d Growth
Feed:gain
437 g/d
1.81
462 g/d
1.76
P<0.05 P<0.05
25 g/d (6%) -0.05 (3%)
Study 2, 42 d Growth
Feed:gain
494 g/d
1.75
516 g/d
1.66
P<0.01 P<0.05
22 g/d (4%) -0.09 (5%)
Study 3, 42d Growth
Feed:gain
307 g/d
1.86
334 g/d
1.68
P<0.01 P<0.05
27 g/d (9%) -0.18 (10%)
Dr. Elinor McCartney 41
Botanical NICs in broilers: coated thymol, citric/sorbic acids, vanillin
35
Parameter T1 Control (0 g/Tm)
T2 NICs (200 g/Tm)
P value
AWG (g) 1,932a 1,970b 0.0013 AFI (g) 3,260 3,271 0.6316 FCR 1.688b 1.661a 0.0006 AWG – mean weight gain; AFI – mean feed intake; abDifferent superscripts within a row indicate significant differences (P≤0.05).
+2% AWG
-3 points FCR
Dr. Elinor McCartney 42
Botanical “naturals” in weaned piglets: coated essential caraway/lemon oils
Zootechnical efficacy in weaned piglets – meta-analysis of 5 studies Product at 250 g/Tm feed Control Caraway &
lemon oils SEM P Difference
Mortality, 28-70 days (%) 6.21 4.57 1.16 0.299 ~ Live weight, 28 days (kg) 7.55 7.56 0.05 0.938 ~ Live weight, 70 days (kg) 23.41 24.24 0.19 0.002 +3.6% Daily gain, 28-70 days (g/day) 378.2 398.0 4.63 0.002 +5.2% Feed intake, 28-70 days (g/day) 553.2 575.3 6.22 0.009 +4.0% Feed:gain, 28-70 days 1.47 1.44 0.01 0.204 ~ SEM = standard error of the mean; P = probability
35
Dr. Elinor McCartney 43
Botanical “naturals” in broilers (coated essential thyme/star anise oils): digestibility studies
Zootechnical efficacy in broilers – meta-analysis of 6 studies Product at 150 g/tm feed Control Thyme &
star anise oils SEM P Difference
Live weight (g), 21 days 793 819 35.55 0.014 +3.3% Daily gain (g/d), 1-21 days 35.7 36.9 1.65 0.014 +3.4% Feed intake (g/d), 1-21days 46.0 46.2 2.10 0.827 ~ Feed:gain, 1-21 days 1.30 1.26 0.03 0.101 ~ Nutrient digestibility Organic matter (%) 67.2 72.2 0.79 <0.001 +7.4% Crude protein (%) 77.3 81.5 1.22 <0.001 +5.4% Crude fat (%) 91.4 93.9 0.83 <0.001 +2.7% Crude ash (%) 37.5 42.2 2.26 <0.001 +12.5% Phosphorus (%) 38.4 45.7 2.51 0.002 +19.0% Calcium (%) 39.8 49.0 5.78 <0.001 +23.1% Dry matter (%) 78.6 81.2 0.21 <0.001 +3.3% SEM = standard error of the mean; P = probability
38
Dr. Elinor McCartney 44
Botanicals in broilers è skeletal strength
OM (%) CP (%) CF (%) CA (%) P (%) Ca (%) DM (%)
67.2
72.2
77.3
81.5
91.4
93.9
37.5
42.2
38.4
45.7
39.8
49.0
78.6
81.2
* P<0.001 * P<0.001 * P<0.001
* P<0.001
* P<0.002
* P<0.001
* P<0.001
40
Control vs Coated essential thyme/star anise oils Botanical product at 150 g/Tm
Dr. Elinor McCartney 45
Botanical “naturals” – broiler performance
Botanical performance in broilers – meta-analysis of 5 studies Coated product at 150 g/tm feed Control Thyme &
star anise oils
SEM P Difference
Mortality, 1-42 days (%) 5.91 6.32 3.13 0.788 ~ Live weight, 42 days (g) 2,710 2,750 113.28 0.316 ~ Daily gain, 1-42 days (g) 63.5 64.5 2.71 0.315 ~ Feed intake, 1-42 days (g) 100.2 98.5 4.12 0.288 ~ Feed:gain, 1-42 days 1.59 1.54 0.11 0.008 -3.1% SEM = standard error of the mean; P = probability
41
Dr. Elinor McCartney 46
Kidney bean lectins in piglets for gut maturation
41
Oral lectins at 11, 12, 13 days of age
T1 Control
T2 Lectins
P value
%
change
ADG, 28-70 days of age g/day
378.4 412.5 0.004 +9%
ADFI, 28-70 days of age g/day
515.7 542.5 0.0149 +5%
Feed:gain, 28-70 days of age
1.367 1.319 0.186 -4%
Dr. Elinor McCartney 47
Innovation - regulatory push or consumer pull?
Building Horizon 2020 products & teams!
43
• Education
• Resources
• Cutting edge science
• Passion for problem solving
Dr. Elinor McCartney 48
Dr Elinor McCartney EU Food Chain Legislation Expert
Thank you – any questions?
President Pen & Tec Consulting Pl. Ausiàs March, 1, 4th floor D01 Mirasol, Sant Cugat del Vallès 08195 Barcelona, Spain E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +34 93 675 80 15 www.pentec-consulting.eu
Budapest 24th – 26th June 2014
Hotel InterContinental Budapest