Efeito de promotores de crescimento para suínos sobre o desempenho zootécnico, a qualidade intestinal e a eficiência da biodigestão dos dejetos

Abstract

ResumoObjetivou-se avaliar em suínos em fase de crescimento e terminação os efeitos de promotores de crescimento sobre o desempenho, características de carcaça, perfil histológico intestinal, peso dos órgãos do trato digestório, e os reflexos desses tratamentos sobre os efluentes submetidos ao processo de biodigestão. Utilizaram-se 80 suínos, com peso médio inicial de 40,00 ± 1,90 kg, submetidos a quatro tratamentos, durante 61 dias, até atingirem 100,00 ± 4,50kg, correspondendo às dietas: Controle, Simbiótico; Colistina (10ppm); e Tilosina (40ppm). Constatou-se diferença na fase de crescimento, com maior consumo diário de ração para o tratamento Tilosina em relação ao tratamento Colistina. Não houve diferença para as características de carcaça, para o peso dos órgãos e para os parâmetros avaliados no processo de biodigestão dos dejetos (pH, sólidos totais, demanda química de oxigênio e demanda bioquímica de oxigênio). Quanto à morfometria intestinal, os animais do tratamento Tilosina apresentaram maior profundidade de cripta (P≤0,05) no duodeno em relação aos animais dos tratamentos Controle e Simbiótico, assim como maior profundidade de cripta no jejuno (P≤0,05). Houve diferença para a taxa vilosidade/cripta, com o tratamento Controle apresentando maior valor em relação aos demais tratamentos. Para o íleo, houve diferença para a profundidade de cripta dos animais do tratamento Controle em relação ao tratamento Tilosina. Apesar das diferenças observadas para as características de morfometria intestinal, não houve vantagem na utilização dos aditivos para os parâmetros de interesse zootécnico. Quanto aos efeitos sobre a fermentação dos efluentes provenientes dos animais submetidos aos tratamentos, os resultados não indicaram vantagens para nenhum aditivo. Palavras-chave: Antimicrobiano, dejetos, desempenho, simbiótico AbstractThis study aimed to evaluate the effects of growth promoters in growing and finishing pigs on performance and carcass characteristics, intestinal histological profile, organs weight of the digestive tract, and the consequences of these treatments on the effluent through the process of biodigestion. Were used 80 pigs

Effect of colistin and tylosin used as feed additives on the performance, diarrhea incidence, and immune response of nursery pigs

“…Tylosin is able to alter the intestinal microbiota, and its use in piglets is related to an improvement in animal performance, especially related to feed intake as observed in the present study, and feed conversion ratio (BOSI et al, 2011;YAN et al, 2011;KIM et al, 2012;GAVIOLI, 2013). One mechanism that may explain this improved performance is an increase in the relative mass of lactobacilli in the intestinal tract when compared to enterogenic bacteria, owing to a significant decrease of the latter (COLLIER et al, 2003;BOSI et al, 2011).…”

“…Thus, the positive action of tylosin on piglet growth and feed intake observed in the present study can result from the decreased costs of immune activation determined by the action on intestinal microflora or from the enhanced uptake and use of nutrients. Gavioli (2013) carried out a study comparing the performance of growing pigs that were fed diets containing colistin (10 ppm), tylosin (40 ppm), or a symbiotic product, and found a higher average daily feed intake in pigs fed tylosin when compared to other treatments, but there were no significant differences in other evaluated performance parameters. Those authors report that the higher average daily feed intake in pigs fed tylosin compared to pigs fed colistin may be due to sensory characteristics of these antibiotics, as colistin incorporates a bitter taste to the feed, leading to a reduction in dietary intake.…”

“…While some authors observed better performance in pigs fed colistin (LOVATTO et al, 2005;COSTA et al, 2007) and tylosin (YAN et al, 2011;GAVIOLI, 2013) as in-feed additives, others did not detect any performance differences in pigs fed either colistin (GOMES et al, 1981) or tylosin ( VAN LUNEN, 2003), demonstrating the need of further studies on the efficacy of these antimicrobials. In addition, no literature reports were found that studied the effect of colistin and tylosin on cell-mediated immunity of nursery pigs, or the relation between performance, health, and immunity of animals that received these feed additives.…”

Different diets with and without inclusion of antimicrobial additives alter the toxicity of swine manure to springtails and earthworms

“…However, the use of this fertilizer without prior analysis of its composition, or without adequate knowledge of the soil characteristics and the nutritional needs of the plants can result in excessive application or damage to the agricultural environment . In addition, the presence of metabolites resulting from the degradation of the antimicrobial additives in the animal organism (GAVIOLI et al, 2013) can aggravate the problem and impact on non-target organisms responsible for organic matter degradation and nutrient cycling (ALVES et al, 2008;DOMENE et al, 2008;SEGAT et al, 2015;MACCARI et al, 2016).…”

Prophylactic use of Antibiotics is Essential for Fattening Pig Production?

“…Pig farms have undergone several changes and advances in the way of production, to reach current levels in terms of productive performance, these advances were mainly in sanitation, management, genetics and nutrition (Gavioli, 2012). The high demand of animals for the market tends to force producers to increase the population density of the animals, consequently there is an increase in the health challenge as well as in the number of infectious diseases that cause problems in the productive performance of the pigs.…”