When antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) were prohibited, questions were raised about alternatives. The market offered various solutions and their compositions (eubiotics), including probiotics, prebiotics, enzymes, medium-chain fatty acids, essential oils and phytobiotics. A number of these substances can be successfully used in animal feeding. Herbs, which are a source of phytobiotics, have been known for ages, and their medicinal properties are recognised in both medicine and veterinary science.

Implementation Department Director
AdiFeed Sp. z o.o.
Although the statement that reality is perceived only from an individual perspective is a truism, it is indeed very true for the producers of phytogenic compound feeds. We are interested in feed intake, body weight, FCR and at most in animal health, but we forget that our customer is neither the farmer, nor his or her animal. Our customer is somewhere beyond our most distant plans, and we have never tried to reach to them. However, this customer keeps making choices and changing our industry at their own discretion using their wallet. Today, there is no more powerful tool than the customer’s wallet. We have little time, and we can use it either to refine our formulations in order to obtain even better FCR, or we can take a step further.
FOOD OF TODAY AND TOMORROW
It is clear that food serves not only as nourishment. Better food means better health. An aware consumer, being tired with products that merely satisfy hunger, is searching for nourishment at the cellular level. Hence the growing popularity of foods with an added value, including organic food, vege products or even nutraceutical foods, at the cost of food produced in the conventional way. Despite producers’ efforts, none of the above listed types of foods is capable of reconciling the interests of various social groups: climatologists, farmers, veterinary physicians, animal right advocates, feed manufacturers and customers. The prices of organic products still keep customers away, and the manner of their production prevents their introduction on a large scale. However, the labels of most products for vegans or vegetarians available in large supermarkets indicate a high level of processing, which does not allow one to fully exploit their potential in the race for consumer health. The market also offers products made of insect protein and so-called “cultured meat.” The former still evokes consumer concerns and disgust even though insect larvae indented for consumption do not look so much different from a popular shrimp. The process of in vitro tissue culture, however, necessitates the use of chemical compounds to prevent the development of mould or bacteria. The future will show what the consumer will be able to accept, but even today we are aware of the fact that, whatever happens, the production must be conducted on a larger scale and in a different way so as not to put so much burden on the environment as conventional production does.
Sustainable agriculture products are a solution befitting our times: not as expensive as ecological foods but fitting into the trend of climate protection and conscious resource exploitation. Some companies operating on the market are already heading towards that direction. Sustainable farming products include both fruits and vegetables as well as animal products, such as meat, milk or eggs. The production process itself and its final products together with the packaging are evaluated in terms of their impact on the natural environment, humans and animal welfare or future waste disposal, including the packaging and transport.
TRANSPARENCY
During the conference of Feed Additives Americas in Miami in 2019, Christophe Pelletier mentioned a problem that did not wane over time. The term “transparency” can be explained as “translucency” or “clarity,” but in the context outline above, it is best defined as “honesty.” If the manufacturer is fully genuine about the story of their product, i.e. if they describe the way they took to reach the presented conclusions instead of advertising, they have a chance to gain the customer’s approval. This is what modern-day consumers expect. They want to know the origin of the pork they just bought. They are interested in how it was produced, i.e. what the pig was eating, what conditions it lived in, whether it was ensured welfare or if it travelled “half the world” to finally reach the supermarket shelf. If the consumer’s questions are confronted with clear and credible answers, then this is rewarded with trust towards the manufacturer and the brand that they represent. These values are priceless today. A deceived customer is an unsatisfied customer, and this dissatisfaction becomes generalised and sometimes reaches irrational stages. A label-popular, enigmatic “E” is also a vitamin, and even though this is a huge simplification, not every preservative is altogether “bad”.
The same refers to antibiotic-free claims. The slogan “antibiotic free” can act as a potent magnet on a potential customer that cares for his or her family’s health, but is this in line with the transparency principle? What does it actually mean? Does this mean that the interval period in animal production has been observed or that the standards regarding antimicrobial residues in meat are followed, or maybe that the production was conducted with no antibiotics whatsoever (a so-called “never-ever principle”)? A once misled customer will often reject the entire segment of products. Transparency – this is what the modern-day consumers expect from a food producer. However, it is not uncommon to treat vegetables with antimicrobial agents to prevent their premature decay, or to use antibiotics in metaphylactic treatment of healthy animals in order to prevent a potential disease. Prolonged use of medical feeds to ease the process of weaning animals, antibiotic use to compensate for overstocking and shortages in animal environment: from the manufacturer’s viewpoint, these actions are the lesser evil, but for customers – this is a red card presented at the manufacturer. Until recently, the compromise was impossible for financial reasons. Today, we know that it is feasible but cannot be obtained using force.
BANS AND ORDERS VS THE WALLET
In 2017, a report was published in the United States, ranking restauranteurs, where one of the criteria was the level of use of antimicrobial agents. The report was a result of the WHO’s publication regarding the new list of antimicrobial agents and their potential application. The participation in the programme was voluntary and the restaurateurs themselves declared their targets, which was controlled and evaluated by an independent committee. The final score ranging from 1 to 100 included points for: policy, its implementation (including possible lost points) and transparency. There were numerous participants in the programme, including a number of well-known restaurants. The deciding factor for the participation in the programme was the pressure of the public opinion rather than any legal resolution or order. Even though long debates can be held regarding a common US citizen’s level of knowledge about farm animals or plant cultivation, the awareness of American consumers concerning the impact of food and its production on their and their family’s health, the planet’s well-being and animal welfare is increasing. More importantly, this can force the fulfilment of their expectations regarding food at a restaurant level.
PHYTONCIDES, FARMERS AND LESSER EVIL
When antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) were prohibited, questions were raised about alternatives. The market offered various solutions and their compositions (eubiotics), including probiotics, prebiotics, enzymes, medium-chain fatty acids, essential oils and phytobiotics. A number of these substances can be successfully used in animal feeding. Herbs, which are a source of phytobiotics, have been known for ages, and their medicinal properties are recognised in both medicine and veterinary science. Phytoncides are secondary metabolites produced and secreted by cormophytes. They have antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal properties. Phytoncides were discovered in 1928–1930 by Russian scientists: Nilov, Tokin, Filatov and Toropcev. They were interested in pasture and ruderal plants found on paddocks, pastures and wastelands, which were eagerly chosen by both domestic and wild animals. The use of single herbs, their mixes and even extracts is insufficient today.
Nowadays, farmers must face too many problems that until recently justified the use of antibiotic growth promoters and antimicrobials. The issues in question included:
• The quality of animals intended for fattening (parental flocks/herds, low immunity);
• Biosecurity (e.g. pests), animal welfare and hygiene;
• Livestock density (intensive farming, shortened sanitary intervals, a high number of cycles per year);
• No appropriate prophylaxis (inoculants, prebiotics, probiotics, alternatives to antibiotics);
• Late diagnosis due to a limited number of veterinary controls at a farm;
• An adequate analysis sample (time and manner of sampling, sample size and type, sample transport);
• Inadequate treatment resulting from an incorrect diagnosis, no antibiogram, dose/time of treatment, expired drug, no daily observation;
• Monitoring for specific diseases (e.g. mycotoxins);
• Incorrectly balanced feed;
• Lack of knowledge and low awareness.
Some of these problems are still seen today in a number of farms. Moreover, there is a problem of Salmonella and Campylobacter, and periodically also of avian influenza. As long as not much can be done about a virus, the problems of industrial animal farming can be remedied, but metaphylaxis cannot be the solution. Considering the fact that within at least two past decades, the number of effective, newly discovered/developed active substances with antimicrobial properties that meet rigorous marketing criteria can be counted using one hand only, they will not be available for animal treatment.
On 28 January 2022, Resolutions No 6/2019 on veterinary drugs and 4/2019 on medicinal feeds will become effective. Antibiotics for animals will be available only when prescribed by a veterinary physician, and their number will be limited. Some of the currently available substances for animal treatment will not be available anymore, even as prescription-only medications. Metaphylactic and prophylactic use of antibiotics will be significantly restricted, even when the risk of animal disease is high. The purchase of medicinal feeds with only one class of antimicrobial agents will be possible only when prescribed by a veterinary physician, and the duration of their use will be restricted to two weeks. The application (and not only sales) of these chemotherapeutics will be monitored at a country level in all farm animal species (full control for most of the species is to be implemented by 2024). Animal products from beyond the EU will be subject to the same restrictions. Even the veterinary medicine of companion animals will be fully inspected by 2030, which is an absolute time limit. Taking into account the “better prevent than treat” principle, is it not better to anticipate the order/ban and turn it into an advantage over the competitors rather than retreat under fire? Is it not better to start working today and implement new standards so as not to chase after the competition tomorrow? Today, we still have a choice.
TOOLS FOR VETERINARY PHYSICIANS AND FARMERS
The limitations in the use of antimicrobial agents are necessary to preserve their efficacy. The sustainable approach to animal farming, which combines knowledge from various fields of science, such as veterinary medicine, zootechnics, biology, botany, chemistry, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, is more precious today than it has ever been before. The selection of appropriate plants is a task that requires multidisciplinary knowledge and experience. It involves the consideration of the synergistic action of selected substances as well as their incompatibilities. Moreover, the mode of action and global impact on the animal organism as well as the expression of selected genes responsible for health and resistance to pathogenic agents, have to be ultimately investigated. The involvement of chromatographic, nanotechnological and molecular methods helped to utilise and adjust the knowledge on phytoncides to the conditions of industrial animal production. The effects on the digestive tract, which is crucial for digestion and absorption of nutrients, gut microbiota and intestinal integrity (which nowadays is a highly popular slogan) are all advantages of phytoncides. Taking advantage of the synergistic effects of selected substances and complexing them with metals (the oligodynamic effect) has carried the process of formulating phytobiotic products to a new level. The declared content of active substances translates to predictability and possibility to precisely use the product as needed. This necessitates the cooperation with independent academic centres and institutes to better understand the mechanisms of action of phytoncides and to create solutions to fit the needs of animal farmers in accordance with the transparency principle.
What if it was possible to maintain the profitability of animal production at a stable level and to simultaneously increase food safety and improve its quality? What if it was possible to improve welfare, immunity and health of animals and, at the same time, reduce greenhouse gas emission and increase shelf life of the obtained products? Are these not the principles of sustainable animal production? Food produced this way means more health for future generations and resource protection. By contrast with ecological farming, these changes are not local but global, and their scenarios are feasible to implement.
PER HECTARE AND PER SQUARE METRE
It is undoubted that a revolution in the agricultural industry is imminent, but this revolution will also encompass the way agriculture is perceived. Sustainability requires information and considerable precision. A consumer is inclined to pay for a product that is more or less comparable to the ecological product but even 20% cheaper. He or she is able to pay for this change. Does an agricultural manufacturer know how to implement such a change? The current perception of the profitability of production in terms of crop yield per hectare and meat yield per m2 is well-established in the awareness of food manufacturers. However, when manufacturers are to lose the quantity because of the implemented improvements for the benefit of both the consumer and the planet, they cannot be the only entity to suffer the cost of such a transformation. Manufacturers should be paid more for the resources obtained from sustainable agriculture, and the cost of sole policy implementation is not as high as in organic agriculture. Moreover, as market research indicates, the customer is ready to pay more for such products. This is different than in the case of organic foods the food market share of which was only 0.3%, which is incomparably lower than the EU average (4% of the food market share). Sustainable food may soon reach the value of tens of millions of euro, which – according to various estimations – may constitute even 40% of the market share. The increasing demand for local foods, purchased directly from the manufacturer, often bought online, is being observed today. Financial support for agriculture granted by the EU, which has already been partially implemented, will also help in the process of increasing the scale of this undertaking. The “Green Deal” may serve as an example. This approach will motivate the environment to the active search for knowledge about sustainable agriculture and its implementation in food production. The only thing that remains is to let the customer choose. However, this is not easy as a statistical customer spends not more than one second on average to study the label. But there is a way. For example, the labels of certain products available in France contain a carbon footprint presented in the same way as energy classes on household appliances: from A to F. Interestingly, soon after the introduction of this form of product marking, the products with an “F” started to disappear from shelves as they turned out to be less popular among customers. This is undoubtedly a new level of customer awareness that the market is confronting with.
ONE HEALTH = ONE PLANET
Today, the world requires far-reaching changes, not just declarations. This is being shouted out by physicians, climatologists, animal right advocates… the list is long. Even so, each of these groups sees only their own needs. We are not willing to leave our comfort zone, and this is crucial for any radical changes. This matter must be approached holistically. What is non-sustainable must go, for the sake of us all. The “always more” philosophy should be replaced by the “always enough” one. It is better to implement this principle today than to be forced to do it tomorrow. The feed industry must move beyond the trough.
A veterinary physician shaping the climate? A primary care physician influencing animal welfare? A poultry manufacturer reducing cases of sepsis in hospitals? A vegan reducing CO2 emission? A company producing complementary feeds for animals protecting the therapeutic efficacy of antibiotics? Precisely!
References available from the author.