Because of their pH-reducing and
antimicrobial effects, gut acidifiers appear to offer promise as substitutes
for antimicrobial growth promoters where the use of the latter is banned or
severely restricted. In a recent case study, the use of a gut acidifier
improved eggshell quality in a broiler breeder flock.
Antibiotic growth promoters (AGP)
have been used for the past five decades to improve the performance of the
poultry. Sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics in poultry feed have
increased feed efficiency and growth (table 1).
Table 1:
Effects of growth-promoting
antibiotics
Physiological |
Nutritional |
Metabolic |
Others |
Increases in:
Nutrient absorption
Feed intake |
Increases in:
Energy retention
Nitrogen retention
Nutrients retention
Plasma nutrients |
Increases in:
Liverprotein synthesis
Gut alkaline phosphates |
Increases in:
Immunity |
Decreases in:
Feed transit time gut
Gut diameter, lenght & weight
Faecal moisture
Mucosal cell turnover |
Decreases in:
Gut energy loss
Vitamin synthesis |
Decreases in:
Ammonia production
Toxic amine production
Aromatic phenols
Bile degradation products
Fatty acid oxidation
Faecal fat excretion
Gut microbial urease |
Decreases in:
Secondary diseases by
E. Coli &
Clostridium perfringens |
The AGPs have been under scrutiny for
many years and have been removed from the market by the regulatory
authorities in many countries. The usefulness of AGPs has seldom been
contested but they are similar to antibiotics used in human medicine and the
possibility has been raised that they may contribute to the pool of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
As a result, the industry has been
actively looking for efficacious alternatives to AGPs. Numerous products are
considered and among these, the organic acids appear to offer a promising
alternative to antibiotics.
What is gut health?
Health of the gut is one of the major
factors governing the performance of birds and thus, the economics of
poultry production. The profile of intestinal microflora plays an important
role in gut health. The gut microflora comprises both commensals
(Gram-positive) and entheropathogens (Gram-negative). In healthy birds,
there is a balance between the Gram-positive and Gram-negative populations
of microflora at an ideal pH. A healthy gut has a predominance of
Gram-positive bacteria. The balance gets disturbed when there is a change in
the pH due to ingestion of toxic chemicals or chemotherapeutic agents or a
change in feed composition. A disease condition results when there is a
shift is towards the enteropathogenic population. The multiplication of
harmful bacteria may start from the crop itself: food stays in the crop for
a longer time and the presence of moisture, body temperature and time to
multiply favours the multiplication of these microflora. Thus, maintenance
of the ideal pH for microbial balance is essential for keeping the gut
healthy (see tables 2 and 3).
Table 2:
pH and residence time of feed in
gastrointestinal tract
Gastrointestinal section |
pH |
Residence time/minutes |
Crop |
4,5-5,3 |
45 |
Proventriculus, gizzard |
2,0-4,5 |
70 |
Ileum |
5,6-7,9 |
160-200 |
Caecum |
5,8-6,8 |
120 |
Colon, rectum |
6,3-7,7 |
30-50 |
Table 3:
Optimum pH for bacterial growth
Micro-organism |
Optimum pH |
Escherichia coli |
6,0-8,0 |
Lactobacillus spp. |
5,4-6,4 |
Most Salmonella spp. |
6,8-7,2 |
Campylobacter jejuni |
6,8-7,2 |
The role of gut acidifiers
The use of gut acidifiers has been
proven to be of immense help in maintaining the microbial balance of the
gut.
Acidifiers are acids that are
included in the feed in order to lower the pH of the feed, gut and microbial
cytoplasm by inhibiting the growth of pathogenic intestinal bacteria. This
inhibition reduces the microflora competing for the host nutrients and
results in better growth and performance of the chicken.
Most gut acidifiers consist of the
organic acids (table 4). In descending order of bactericidal effect, some
commonly used compounds are benzoic acid, fumaric acid, lactic acid, butyric
acid, formic acid and propionic acid. Benzoic acid is superior to other
acids beacause it has an effect on coliforms as well as lactic acid bacteria
in both the stomach and small intestine. Combining the acids may increase
the range of desirable antimicrobial effects.
Table 4:
Anti-bacterial spectrum of organic
acids
Acid |
Effective against |
Less effective against |
Ineffective against |
Formic acid |
Yeasts & bacteria –
(E. coli, Salmonella) |
Lactic acid bacteria & moulds |
- |
Acetic acid |
Many bacteria spp. |
Yeasts & moulds |
- |
Propionic acid |
Moulds |
Bacteria |
Yeasts |
Butyric acid |
Bacteria
(E.coli & Salmonella) |
- |
- |
Lactic acid |
Bacteria |
- |
Yeasts & moulds |
Citric acid |
- |
Bacteria |
- |
Malic acid |
Some bacteria & yeasts |
- |
- |
Sorbic acid |
Yeasts, moulds & some bacteria |
- |
- |
Functions of organic acids
-maintain
an optimum pH in the stomach, allowing correct activation and function of
proteolytic enzymes
-optimise protein digestion in
stomach
-stimulate feed consumption by
improving palatability of feed
-inhibit the growth of pathogenic
bacteria, yeasts and moulds
-improve protein and energy
digestibilities by reducing microbial competition with the host for
nutrients, as well as endogenous nitrogen losses
-lower the incidence of sub clinical
infections
-reduce the production of ammonia and
other growth-depressing microbial metabolites
-increase pancreatic secretion and
tropic effects on gastrointestinal mucosa
-favour mineral absorption by
creating an ideal pH in the intestine (table 5).
Table 5:
Effects of organic acids on
poultry performance
Acid |
Concentration (%) |
Effects |
Fumaric acid |
0,50-1,00 |
Improved weight gain in
broilers
Improved feed efficiency in
both broilers and layers |
Buffered propionic acid |
0,15-0,20 |
Increase in dressing percentage
in female broilers and reduction in abdominal fat of males |
Malic acid |
0,50-2,00 |
Increase in weight gain |
Sorbic acid |
1,12 |
Improve feed efficiency |
Tartaric acid |
0,33 |
Increase in weight gain |
Lactic acid |
2,00 |
Feed conversion significantly
improved
Increase in bodyweight gain |
Formic acid |
0,50-1,00 |
Reduction of caecal pH and
bacterial effect on salmonella |
Benzoic acid |
0,20 |
Positive influence on growth |
Butyric acid |
0,15 |
Maintain the beneficial
microflora
Increase the proliferation and
maturation of intestinal cells |
Mode of action
The antibacterial action of organic
acids depends on whether the bacteria are pH-sensitive or not. Certain
bacteria are sensitive to pH, e.g. E. coli, Salmonella spp.,
Listeria monocytogenes, Clostridium perfringens, while others are
not, e.g. Bifidobacteria, Lactobacillus spp. pH-sensitive bacteria.
Organic acids in undissociated state,
i.e. non-ionised, more lipophilic, penetrate the semi-permeable membrane of
the bacterial cell wall and enter the cytoplasm. At the internal pH of
bacteria (around pH 7,0), the organic acids dissociate, releasing hydrogen
ions (H+) and anions (A-). The internal pH of the
microbe decreases, which the bacteria are unable to tolerate.
A specific H+-ATPase pump
acts to bring the pH inside the bacteria level. This phenomenon consumes
energy and eventually stops the growth of the bacteria or even kills them.
The lowering of pH also suppresses the enzymes, e.g. decarboxylases and
catalyses, inhibits glycolysis, prevents active transport and interferes
with signal transduction. The anionic (A-) part of the acid is
trapped inside the bacteria and becomes toxic by creating anionic osmotic
problems for the bacteria. Thus, the antibacterial effects of organic acids
work though:
modification of internal pH;
inhibition of fundamental metabolic
functions;
accumulation of toxic anions;
disruption of the cellular membrane.
Non-pH-sensitive bacteria
The non-pH-sensitive bacteria are
able to tolerate a large differential between internal and external pH. At a
low internal pH, organic acids re-appear in a non-dissociated form and exit
the bacteria. Equilibrium is created and the bacteria do not suffer.
A case of study
A broiler breeder operation was
experiencing a problem of low hatchability, which was identified as being
due largely to poor eggshell quality. The most common defects were thin,
broken and rough shells.
On chemical analysis, the drinking
water on the farm was found to be alkaline and hard (table 6).
Table 6:
Chemical analysis of drinking
water
Parameter |
Sample result
(mg/litre) |
Recommended for poultry
(mg/litre) |
pH |
7,4 |
6,8-7,5 |
Total hardness as CaCO3 |
520 |
60-180 |
Calcium |
320 |
60 |
Chloride |
174 |
14 |
Iron |
0,12 |
0,2-0,3 |
Magnesium |
200 |
14-125 |
Sodium |
170 |
32 |
Sulphate |
116 |
125 |
Ruling out other possible reasons for
the poor eggshell quality, we focussed on the water alkalinity and hardness.
To counter the problem, we decided to use a gut acidifier (Acid LAC; Kemin;
at 0,25 %). The product is a synergistic combination of organic acids and
their salts to regulate gut pH. Laboratory analysis of the feed, untreated
and with two levels of the acidifier, is shown in table 7.
Table 7:
Analysis of the feed
Parameter |
pH |
B-value |
Control feed |
6,56 |
17,0 |
Feed supplemented with
acidifier (2,0 kg/t) |
6,28 |
13,8 |
Feed supplemented with
acidifier (2,5 kg/t) |
6,24 |
12,0 |
Note:
B-value measures as
millilitres (ml) of 0,1 M hydrochloric acid needed to reach a pH of 5
in feed/water mixture (10 g of material in 100 ml of water) |
Within one week, the proportions of
thin-, broken- and rough-shelled eggs began to fall. The results after 5
weeks of treatment are shown in table 8.
Table 8:
Comparative data before and after
use of gut acidifiers
Parameter |
Thin shell % |
Broken shell % |
Rough shell % |
Average of 5 weeks before
treatment |
3,64 |
1,18 |
1,26 |
Average after 5 weeks with
acidifier |
3,46 |
0,98 |
1,10 |
Conclusion
Because of their pH-reducing and
antimicrobial effects, gut acidifiers appear to be good substitutes for AGPs
where the use of the latter is banned or severely restricted.
In a recent case study, the
alkalinity of both the feed and drinking water appeared to contribute to
poor eggshell quality in a broiler breeder flock. A gut acidifier looked
promising in tackling this problem.
Dr Avinash Dhawale,
Farm Manager,
Diamond Hatcheries Private Ltd,
Hyderabad, India
Poultry International, Vol. 44, # 4,
april 2005, Watt Publishing Co., U.S.A.
www.wattpoultry.com
|