Table 6.
Alternative | Target species | Reported data on potential efficacy | Risksa | Current regulatory framework applicable | Effects on nutrition and performances | Knowledge gaps | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Probiotics | Calves | Reduction of diarrhoeal infections | Presence of virulence factors and/or AMR determinants in strains used as probiotics | Some of the strains are authorised as zootechnical feed additives | Demonstration of performance improvements for strains authorised as zootechnical feed additives under Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 |
Mode of action of probiotics Dose response Limited controlled trials to support efficacy |
Data on efficacy as alternatives to antimicrobials are strictly strain dependent |
Pigs | Reduction of diarrhoeal infections in weaned piglets | ||||||
Chickens | Reduction of C. perfringens‐induced necrotic enteritis | ||||||
Fish, crustacea and mollusca | Reduction of mortality due to bacterial infections, mainly at larval stage | ||||||
Competitive exclusion products | Chickens | Reduction of C. perfringens‐induced necrotic enteritis |
Possible spread of viruses and pathogens Possible spread of AMR |
Not authorised under a specific EU regulatory framework |
Dose response limited controlled trials to support efficacy |
||
Predatory bacteria | Chickens | Reduced colonisation with Salmonella spp. | Not authorised under a specific EU regulatory framework | Very limited data to support efficacy | Data on efficacy as alternatives to antimicrobials are strictly dependent to the strain of predatory bacterium used and to its host range | ||
Bacteriophages | Chickens | Reduction of colibacillosis |
Emergence of phage resistant populations. Might carry AMR determinants Transduction of virulence genes in the target bacterial population |
Not authorised under a specific EU regulatory framework |
Long‐term efficacy Dose response Limited number of studies to support the efficacy |
Data on efficacy as alternatives to antimicrobials are strictly dependent to the strain of phage used and to its host range | |
Aquaculture | Reduction of bacterial infections | ||||||
Antibodies | All species | Reduction of diarrhoea in neonatal and post‐weaning pigs | Viruses and/or pathogen contamination of the products |
Few old veterinary biological products or Not authorised under a specific EU regulatory framework |
Dose response studies Limited controlled trials to support efficacy |
||
Immunomodulators | Chickens | Reduction of colibacillosis in chickens | Toxicity residue |
Veterinary medicinal products or Not authorised under a specific EU regulatory framework |
Limited number of studies to support the efficacy | ||
Fish | Reduction of bacterial infections | ||||||
Cattle | Reduction of mastitis | ||||||
Antimicrobial Peptides | Chickens | Antibacterial activity | Toxicity |
VPMs Not authorised under a specific EU regulatory framework |
Lack of controlled trials to support efficacy Pharmacolgy |
||
Organic acids | Chickens | Reduction of necrotic enteritis in chickens and of diarrhoea in pigs | Some of the molecules are authorised as technological feed additivesb | Lack of controlled trials to support efficacy | |||
Pigs | |||||||
Clays | Pigs | Binder of toxins | Risk of contaminants | Authorised as feed additives | Binders, anticaking agents | Limited controlled trials to support efficacy | |
Prebiotics | All animals |
Microbiota development Antitoxins |
Antinutritive or toxic residue | Some authorised as feed additives | Can be used as fibre sources, astringent substances, mucilaginous substances |
Mode of action Pharmacology Chemical composition Limited controlled trials to support efficacy |
Data on efficacy as alternatives to antimicrobials are strictly product/formulation dependent |
Symbiotics |
Chickens Pigs Fish |
Reduction of bacterial infections | As for probiotics and prebiotics | As for probiotics and prebiotics | As for probiotics and prebiotics | As for probiotics and prebiotics | As for probiotics and prebiotics |
Zinc oxide | Piglets | Prevention of post‐weaning diarrhoea in piglets |
Cross selection for AMR bacteria Environmental risk |
Authorised as veterinary medicinal products and as a feed additive | Nutritional additive | Limited controlled trials to support efficacy | |
Botanicals | All animals |
Antibacterial activity Immunomodulation Microbiota development |
Toxicity residue |
Some are authorised as feed additives Lack of veterinary phytobiotics assessment guidelines as veterinary products |
Natural products Botanically defined |
Mode of action Pharmacology Chemical composition Limited controlled trials to support efficacy |
Data on efficacy as alternatives to antimicrobials are strictly product/formulation dependent |
Teat sealants | Dairy cows | Reduction of intrammary infections | VMPs |
AMR: antimicrobial resistance; VMP: veterinary medicinal product.
An assessment of the risk related to the use of this potential alternative for the animals, the consumers of food of animal origin and the environment shall be performed, following the requirements of specific authorisation frameworks (e.g. VMP or Feed Additives).
Feed additives shall favourably affect animal production, performance or welfare, particularly by affecting the gastrointestinal flora, as per Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.