by Madalina Diaconu, Business Development Manager, EW Nutrition

Modern poultry production is currently battling a perfect storm of respiratory, enteric, and bacterial pressures. These overlapping challenges do more than just make birds sick; they actively erode performance, lead to higher condemnation rates at the plant, and squeeze already tight profit margins. To stay ahead, any practical health program must move beyond quick fixes and instead align interventions across everything from gut integrity and immunity to farm management and data collection.

Despite significant technological leaps in biosecurity and disease control, many “old” enemies remain stubbornly persistent:

• Coccidiosis: This remains the single largest financial drain on the industry, costing an estimated EUR 10.4 billion globally due to losses in weight gain and increased mortality. (Blake et al., 2020)
• Necrotic Enteritis (NE): Often triggered by coccidiosis, NE ranges from “silent” subclinical performance loss to sudden, fatal outbreaks. (Hargis, 2024; Skinner et al., 2010)
• Histomoniasis: In turkeys, this disease (often called Blackhead) frequently results in 80-100% mortality, made worse by the fact that there are currently no approved treatments in major markets. (Beer et al., 2022; Merck, 2024)
• APEC/Colibacillosis: This is a major driver of bird loss and processing plant condemnations, complicated by a high prevalence of multi-drug resistance. (Apostolakos et al., 2021; Joseph et al., 2023; Kazimierczak et al., 2025)
• Salmonella: This pathogen persists at critical production nodes, with varying strains moving through the production pyramid from breeders to the final product. (Siceloff et al., 2022)

Why a pillar-based approach?

Pillar 1: Pathogen pressure & epidemiology

Respiratory pathogens like IBV or NDV often show up as mixed infections, leading to high morbidity and more condemnations. MG and MS amplify these chronic issues. (Liu et al., 2025; El-Gazzar, 2025; CFSPH) Enteric pathogens like Eimeria (coccidiosis) create the groundwork for Clostridium perfringens (NE) to thrive. (Blake et al., 2020; Hargis, 2024; Skinner et al., 2010)

• The Phytogenic Lever: Essential oils and plant polyphenols can disrupt the membranes of bacteria like Salmonella and E. coli, lowering the overall intestinal load and reducing environmental shedding. (Gentile et al., 2025; Wickramasuriya et al., 2022)

Pillar 2: Immunity & Vaccination

Successful vaccination isn’t just about the bottle; it requires precise strain selection, prime/boost design, and correct application. This is especially true for managing AIV (Avian Influenza) under global risk-based strategies. (FAO/WOAH, 2025)

• The Phytogenic Lever: Certain plant-based additives act as immunomodulators, boosting macrophage activity and helping birds maintain resilience even when stressed by high stocking densities or heat. (Wickramasuriya et al., 2022)

Pillar 3: Microbiome & Gut Integrity

“Dysbacteriosis” is essentially a microbiome out of balance, which ruins nutrient absorption and weakens the gut barrier. (Aruwa et al., 2021; Aruwa & Sabiu, 2024) Protecting the gut is essential because clinical NE can kill birds quickly, while subclinical NE silently ruins efficiency. (Hargis, 2024; Skinner et al., 2010)

• The Phytogenic Lever: These additives support “good” bacteria like Lactobacilli while suppressing opportunists and strengthening the “tight junctions” in the gut lining. (Wickramasuriya et al., 2022) Multiple trials show reduced NE pressure when phytogenics accompany coccidiosis programs. (Wickramasuriya et al., 2022)

Pillar 4: Environment & Management

The environment plays a massive role; for instance, recycling litter beyond six cycles significantly increases the risk of Salmonella detection. (Machado et al., 2020) Proper ventilation is also key to preventing thermal stress, which can trigger gut dysbiosis. (Liu et al., 2025; Aruwa et al., 2021)

• The Phytogenic Lever: By stabilizing digestion and the microbiota, these additives can reduce wet litter and ammonia release, indirectly improving respiratory comfort. (Wickramasuriya et al., 2022; Aruwa et al., 2021)

Pillar 5: Biosecurity & Movement Control

Disease spreads through networks. Prioritizing biosecurity at “high-centrality” nodes – like hatcheries and common service routes – is more effective than a blanket approach. (Sequeira et al., 2025)

• The Phytogenic Lever: Reducing the amount of pathogens a flock sheds helps support structural biosecurity barriers by lowering the overall transmission risk within houses. (Gentile et al., 2025; Wickramasuriya et al., 2022)

Pillar 6: Water, Feed & Processing Interface

Water hygiene is a vital tool for microbiome stability, especially during the vulnerable brooding phase. (Wickramasuriya et al., 2022) At the processing plant, PAA chillers remain the most effective chemical intervention to reduce contamination. (Thames et al., 2022)

• The Phytogenic Lever: Using phytogenics in feed or water helps stabilize the upper-GI tract during feed transitions and can lower carcass pathogen loads. (Gentile et al., 2025; Wickramasuriya et al., 2022)

Pillar 7: Diagnostics, Genomics & Data Systems

Modern tools like Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) and RT-PCR panels allow for much faster detection of APEC or respiratory viruses, enabling “precision” interventions. (Kazimierczak et al., 2025; El-Gazzar, 2025; Liu et al., 2025)

• The Phytogenic Lever: When data shows rising pathogen pressure, phytogenics offer a flexible, rapid-response alternative that helps maintain antibiotic stewardship. (Kazimierczak et al., 2025; Gentile et al., 2025)

A 12-Month Roadmap for Implementation

• Q1: Baseline & Risk Map: Map pathogen pressure using targeted PCR/WGS panels and review movement networks to prioritize high-centrality nodes. (Kazimierczak et al., 2025; El-Gazzar, 2025; Liu et al., 2025; Siceloff et al., 2022; Sequeira et al., 2025)
• Q2: Program Design: Update vaccine strains and set up co-management plans for coccidiosis and NE, including microbiome supports with clear targets. (Liu et al., 2025; El-Gazzar, 2025; Blake et al., 2020; Hargis, 2024; Wickramasuriya et al., 2022)
• Q3: Execution & Plant Linkage: Solidify water/feed hygiene SOPs and link farm Salmonella trends to plant PAA chiller performance. (Siceloff et al., 2022; Thames et al., 2022; Sequeira et al., 2025)
• Q4: Review & Scale: Audit how well the team followed the diagnostic-driven actions and refine the playbooks for the next cycle. (Kazimierczak et al., 2025)

The Integrated View

Phytogenic feed additives aren’t “silver bullets,” but they contribute across all seven pillars. Their multi-target mode of action – acting as anti-inflammatories, antioxidants, and antimicrobials – complements traditional tools like vaccines and biosecurity to build a more resilient bird. (Wickramasuriya et al., 2022; Gentile et al., 2025; Aruwa et al., 2021)

References

Apostolakos I, et al. Occurrence of colibacillosis and APEC population structure in broilers. Front Vet Sci (2021). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.737720/full

Aruwa CE, et al. Poultry gut health – microbiome functions and engineering. J Anim Sci Biotechnol (2021). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40104-021-00640-9

Aruwa CE, Sabiu S. Interplay of poultry–microbiome interactions and dysbiosis. British Poultry Science (2024). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00071668.2024.2356666

Beer LC, et al. Histomonosis in poultry: a comprehensive review. Front Vet Sci (2022). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2022.880738/full

Blake DP, et al. Re‑calculating the cost of coccidiosis in chickens. Veterinary Research (2020). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13567-020-00837-2

CFSPH. Avian Mycoplasmosis (MG) Fact Sheet (updated). https://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Factsheets/pdfs/avian_mycoplasmosis_mycoplasma_gallisepticum.pdf

El‑Gazzar M. Mycoplasma gallisepticum infection in poultry. MSD Veterinary Manual (rev. 2025). https://www.msdvetmanual.com/poultry/mycoplasmosis/mycoplasma-gallisepticum-infection-in-poultry

FAO/WOAH. Global Strategy for HPAI Prevention and Control (2024–2033). (2025). https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2025/02/web-gf-tads-hpai-strategy-woah.pdf

Gentile N, et al. Emerging challenges in Salmonella control: innovative, sustainable disinfection strategies in poultry farming. Pathogens (2025). https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/14/9/912

Hargis BM. Necrotic enteritis in poultry. Merck Veterinary Manual (rev. 2024). https://www.merckvetmanual.com/poultry/necrotic-enteritis/necrotic-enteritis-in-poultry

Joseph J, et al. APEC in broiler breeders: an overview. Pathogens (2023). https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/12/11/1280

Kazimierczak J, et al. Rapid detection of APEC via minimal virulence markers (iroC, hlyF, wzx ‑ O78). BMC Microbiology (2025). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12866-025-03861-4

Liu H, et al. Review of respiratory syndromes in poultry: pathogens, prevention, and control measures. Veterinary Research (2025). https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s13567-025-01506-y.pdf

Machado PCJ, Chung C, Hagerman A. Modeling Salmonella spread in broiler production: determinants and control strategies. Front Vet Sci (2020). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.00564/full

Merck Vet Manual. Histomoniasis in poultry (rev. 2024). https://www.merckvetmanual.com/poultry/histomoniasis/histomoniasis-in-poultry

Pant S, et al. Economic impact assessment and disease prevalence of coccidiosis in broilers. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies (2019). https://www.entomoljournal.com/archives/2019/vol7issue5/PartK/7-4-112-882.pdf

Sequeira SC, et al. Livestock & poultry movement networks for disease surveillance/control. PLOS One (2025). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0328518

Siceloff AT, Waltman D, Shariat NW. Regional Salmonella differences in U.S. broiler production (2016–2020). Applied and Environmental Microbiology (2022). https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/aem.00204-22

Skinner JT, et al. An economic analysis of subclinical necrotic enteritis in broilers. Avian Diseases (2010). [suspicious link removed]

Thames HT, et al. Prevalence of Salmonella and Campylobacter at processing; PAA efficacy. Animals (2022). https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/18/2460

Wickramasuriya SS, et al. Role of physiology, immunity, microbiota and infectious diseases in poultry gut health. Vaccines (2022). https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/2/172

by Ilinca Anghelescu, Global Director, Marketing & Communications

CRITICAL INTELLIGENCE SNAPSHOT

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. CONFLICT TIMELINE & ESCALATION PHASES

Sources: Al Jazeera (Mar 2026), CNBC (Mar 2026), Wikipedia – 2026 Strait of Hormuz Crisis, Arab Center Washington DC, Atlas Institute for International Affairs.

3. MARITIME CHOKEPOINTS: CRITICAL BOTTLENECKS FOR THE FEED INDUSTRY

3.1 The Red Sea / Bab el-Mandeb Strait (November 2023–Present)

Sources: OECD/ITF Red Sea Crisis Report 2024; Atlas Institute for International Affairs (Mar 2025); DocShipper (Jan 2026); Infor Nexus; Pangea Network (Feb 2024).

3.2 The Strait of Hormuz (February 28, 2026 – ACTIVE CRISIS)

Sources: Kpler (Jun 2025); Al Jazeera (Mar 2026); CNBC (Mar 2026); US EIA; The Conversation (Mar 2026); Congress.gov CRS Report R45281.

Key Hormuz Alternative Routes: Pipeline alternatives exist but cover only ~17% of typical flow volumes:

• East–West Pipeline (Saudi Arabia): Capacity ~5M bbl/day; cannot replace 20M bbl/day Hormuz flow
• Habshan–Fujairah Pipeline (UAE): Capacity ~1.5M bbl/day; limited impact on total disruption
• For agricultural commodities: NO meaningful pipeline alternative exists; full rerouting via Cape of Good Hope is the only option

4. IMPACT ON ANIMAL PRODUCTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

4.1 Regional Feed Market Context

Sources: IndexBox (Dec 2025); Grand View Research (2024); Feed & Additive Magazine (2025); MarkNtel Advisors (2025).

4.2 Grain and Feed Import Vulnerability

• The MEG accounts for ~4.2% of global seaborne agricultural bulk imports (corn, wheat, barley, soybeans) – about half sourced from Brazil and Argentina (Kpler, Jun 2025)
• Iran imports ~4.3 million MT of corn annually from Brazil; in 2025 Iran was Brazil’s #1 corn destination at 24% of total exports (S&P Global, Jun 2025)
• Iran’s seaborne agricultural imports fell 38% in 2024 from 2022 highs; the 2026 conflict will accelerate this decline sharply
• Israel, entirely dependent on corn imports for feed and starch, saw poultry/egg farm destruction in the north and south; wheat stocks remain low (USDA GAIN, 2025)
• Australia–Israel cattle shipments disrupted by Red Sea closure (USDA Israel Grain and Feed Annual, 2025)
• A December 2024 UN report found 66.1 million people (~14% of the Arab region) faced hunger in 2023; projections for 2026 are materially worse

4.3 Specific Country-Level Animal Production Impacts

Israel

• October 7 attacks destroyed >100,000 acres of farmland and caused >$500M in agricultural income losses (The Media Line, Oct 2024)
• Poultry and egg production farms in northern and southern Israel destroyed by Hamas/Hezbollah actions; significant production decline
• Labor crisis: up to 1/3 of Thai agricultural workers left immediately; Palestinian workers banned; volunteer-reliant harvest is not sustainable
• Israel is entirely dependent on corn imports; barley feed use is reduced due to farm losses
• Turkey – formerly among Israel’s top 5 exporters – imposed a full trade ban in 2024; chemical imports from Turkey collapsed from $16M/month to $2M/month

Iran

• Iran’s corn imports from Brazil disrupted by rising insurance premiums, payment freezes, and wartime risks even before Feb 2026 escalation
• With Hormuz effectively closed, Iran faces catastrophic domestic food supply disruption despite being a net energy exporter
• Iranian livestock sector faces acute corn and soybean meal shortages; poultry and ruminant production under severe stress

Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar)

• GCC countries are rated ‘high’ in food security indices – but are NOT immune to port blockades (World Economic Forum, 2025)
• Jebel Ali (UAE) and Khalifa Port are major transshipment hubs for feed and additives serving broader ME/Asia markets – both now affected by missile/drone strikes
• Saudi Arabia’s large-scale integrated poultry sector (top 7 producers control 87% of slaughter volume) relies entirely on imported corn, soy, and feed additives
• Saudi Arabia’s Balady Poultry expansion plans (200M additional chicks/year) face acute disruption

5. FEED ADDITIVE SUPPLY CHAIN: RAW MATERIAL AVAILABILITY & COST IMPACT

5.1 Global Feed Additive Market Context

5.2 Supply Chain Dependency Map: Key Additive Categories

Sources: Fortune Business Insights (2024); IndexBox/IFEEDER (Nov 2025); Mordor Intelligence (Oct 2025); Feed Strategy (2024); DTN/Rabobank (2023).

5.3 The China Dependency Problem – Amplified by the Conflict

• The US relied on China for 78% of total vitamin imports and 62% of global amino acid production over 2020–2024 (IFEEDER, November 2025)
• US poultry and livestock production uses >425,000 tonnes/year of the top four amino acids and ~50,000 tonnes of supplemental vitamins (AFIA)
• Asia-Pacific (dominated by China) accounted for $14.46 billion of the global feed additives market in 2024
• The Red Sea closure adds 10–14 transit days and up to $2,100/container in surcharges on shipments from Chinese ports to European or Middle Eastern destinations
• A 40-foot container from China to Europe now costs ~$4,000–$6,000 vs. $1,148 pre-crisis – a 250–500% increase
• US tariffs on Chinese feed additives of 25% (imposed 2024–2025) compound the logistics cost surge
• Global capacity utilization for vitamins and amino acids has fallen below 80% – the threshold for financial stress on manufacturing viability, driving further price instability (IFEEDER, 2025)
• At least 25% of studied vitamins and amino acids had production capacity that was underutilized or idle – including some categories at 20–30% utilization

5.4 Israel’s Phosphate and Potash: A Secondary Supply Risk

• Israel accounts for ~7% of global potash exports and ~3% of phosphate exports (Rabobank, 2023)
• ICL (Israel Chemicals Ltd.), headquartered in Israel, is a major global supplier of phosphate and specialty fertilizers critical for feed-grade minerals
• The primary potash/phosphate resources are in the Negev Desert, ~60 miles from Gaza – currently functioning, but with logistics risk
• Turkey’s trade ban on Israel has disrupted chemical/mineral supply chains; imports of mineral products from Turkey to Israel fell from $13M to <$1M/month (US Trade.gov, 2024)
• In a broader escalation scenario, ICL’s export capabilities could be disrupted, removing a significant share of global phosphate supply

5.5 Energy Costs: The Multiplier Effect on Feed Additive Production

Source: World Bank Commodity Markets Outlook; Euronews (Oct 2023); Middle East Briefing (Mar 2026). Note: World Bank estimated every $10 sustained oil price increase reduces global GDP by 10–20 basis points.

6. TRADE FLOW CHANGES: IMPORTS, EXPORTS & ALTERNATIVE ROUTES

6.1 Major Trade Flow Disruptions for Feed & Feed Additives

Sources: S&P Global Commodity Insights (Jun 2025); USDA GAIN Israel (2025); Merco Press (2023); Trade.gov (2024).

6.2 Alternative Routes Currently Being Used or Considered

Sources: DocShipper (Jan 2026); OECD/ITF Red Sea Crisis Report; Red Sea Crisis Update (Jan 2026); Mordor Intelligence (Oct 2025).

6.3 Port Congestion: Downstream Bottlenecks

• Barcelona experienced a 23.9% increase in container traffic due to Red Sea rerouting
• Tanger Med (Morocco) handled an additional 9 million TEUs as a result of Cape rerouting
• Jebel Ali (UAE) – the largest port in the Middle East and critical for regional feed additive distribution – is now under direct threat from Iranian missile/drone strikes (Mar 2026)
• Port of Fujairah, a key bunker fuel and transshipment hub, has been referenced in UKMTO incident reports (Mar 2026)
• Egyptian Suez Canal revenues have fallen dramatically; compounding Egypt’s economic fragility and potential for further regional instability

7. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Financial Impact Analysis

7.2 Demand-Side Effects: Reduced vs. Increased Additive Demand

7.3 Regulatory and Geopolitical Trade Complications

• Turkey’s blanket import/export ban on Israel has created a significant precedent; further countries may impose quiet embargoes as the Iran conflict widens
• US tariffs of 25% on Chinese feed additive imports (effective 2024–2025) add a regulatory layer on top of the logistics cost surge
• EU regulatory push toward antibiotic-free production is increasing demand for acidifiers, probiotics, and phytogenics – growth segments still viable but supply-constrained
• The IFIF (2024) found that strategic diversification of ingredient sourcing can reduce supply disruption risks by up to 40% – a clear strategic imperative now
• The AFIA-supported ‘Securing American Agriculture Act’ specifically targets vitamin/amino acid dependency on China; similar EU initiatives are underway

8. SCENARIOS & FORWARD OUTLOOK (2026–2027)

Note: As of March 3, 2026, Scenario B is the most likely base case. The ongoing ceasefire status of the Hormuz crisis remains uncertain; Iran has not formally closed the strait but effective vessel transit has halted. 

Sources: DocShipper Scenario Analysis (Jan 2026); CNBC (Mar 2026); Middle East Briefing (Mar 2026).

9. STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS

9.1 Immediate Actions (0–90 Days)

• DECLARE SUPPLY CHAIN EMERGENCY STATUS: Convene crisis team; identify all Gulf-region inventory positions; audit vendor exposure to Hormuz-dependent routes
• INVENTORY BUILD: Target 90–120-day safety stock for critical amino acids (methionine, lysine, threonine) and vitamins (A, D3, E, B-complex) sourced from Chinese manufacturers – previously 30 days was standard; safety buffers have been exhausted (Hillebrand Gori, Dec 2025)
• CONTRACT LOCK-IN: Negotiate long-term (12–18 month) supply contracts with European-based manufacturers to reduce China routing dependency
• ACTIVATE ALTERNATIVE SOURCING: Identify Indian, Korean, or other Asian manufacturers for amino acid intermediates; note that Indian capacity is smaller but available without Hormuz dependency
• CUSTOMER COMMUNICATION: Proactively notify Gulf and ME customers of supply risk
• REVIEW ALL IRAN POSITIONS: Freeze new commercial exposure; review accounts receivable; engage legal counsel on force majeure clauses in active contracts

9.2 Medium-Term Actions (3–12 Months)

• NEARSHORING/REGIONAL MANUFACTURING: Evaluate establishing or partnering for a blending/premix facility in Morocco, Egypt, or Turkey to serve ME/African markets without Hormuz or Red Sea dependency
• SUPPLY DIVERSIFICATION: Per IFIF (2024), strategic diversification of ingredient sourcing can reduce supply disruption risk by up to 40% – set a hard target of reducing single-country sourcing above 50% for any critical raw material
• DUAL-ROUTING STRATEGY: Qualify Cape of Good Hope as permanent primary routing for all China-origin materials; do not assume Red Sea route will normalize immediately
• FREIGHT HEDGING: Explore container freight rate hedging instruments; build surcharge recovery clauses into all forward customer contracts
• REFORMULATION SUPPORT: Offer technical service to customers facing feed cost inflation – precision amino acid formulation, reducing excess protein use, enzyme programs to unlock nutrition from lower-cost local ingredients
• DIGITAL SUPPLY CHAIN INVESTMENT: Invest in real-time supply chain visibility tools (ETA monitoring, alternative route optimization, insurance cost tracking)

9.3 Long-Term Strategic Positioning (12–36 Months)

• FRIEND-SHORING: Align sourcing with geopolitically stable allies; prioritize EU, Brazil, India as long-term supply partners – less exposed to specific risks
• FOOD SECURITY POSITIONING: Middle Eastern governments (Saudi Arabia 2030 Vision, UAE, Qatar) are heavily investing in domestic food security – position your company as a strategic partner for this transition, not merely a supplier
• PRODUCT PORTFOLIO EVOLUTION: The crisis accelerates demand for precision nutrition (lower inclusion rates, higher efficacy), sustainability credentials (reduced environmental footprint), and antibiotic alternatives – invest R&D accordingly
• TURKEY OPPORTUNITY: Turkey remains the largest ME feed market (14M tons/year); its geopolitical independence from the ME conflict and improving relations with Gulf states make it a strategic distribution hub

10. SOURCES & REFERENCES

Maritime Disruption & Trade

• Al Jazeera: How US-Israel attacks on Iran threaten the Strait of Hormuz (Mar 2026)
• CNBC: Strait of Hormuz Crisis – Shipping Impact (Mar 2026)
• The Conversation: Strait of Hormuz economic chaos (Mar 2026)
• Wikipedia: 2026 Strait of Hormuz Crisis
• Middle East Briefing: Strait of Hormuz Crisis Impact (Mar 2026)
• DocShipper: Red Sea Crisis Update – Route Alternatives & Cost Impacts (Jan 2026)
• Atlas Institute: The Red Sea Shipping Crisis 2024–2025 (Mar 2025)
• OECD/ITF: The Red Sea Crisis – Impacts on Global Shipping (2024)
• Kpler: Strait of Hormuz – What’s at Stake? (Jun 2025)
• CRS Report: Iran Conflict and the Strait of Hormuz (Congress.gov)
• Hillebrand Gori: Red Sea Shipping Disruption and Global Impact (Dec 2025)
• Infor Nexus: Red Sea Crisis Supply Chain Impacts
• Pangea Network: Red Sea Shipping Crisis Explained (Feb 2024)

Animal Feed & Feed Additive Markets

• Tridge: Global Animal Feed Industry $400 Billion Analysis (Jul 2025)
• IndexBox: Middle East Animal Feed Market Overview (Dec 2025)
• Grand View Research: Middle East Animal Feed Market Report 2024
• Mordor Intelligence: Middle East Feed Additives Market (Oct 2025)
• Fortune Business Insights: Feed Additives Market Size 2024
• IndexBox/IFEEDER: US Feed Industry – Vitamin and Amino Acid Dependence (Nov 2025)
• Feed Strategy: Feed Manufacturers’ Outlook – Navigating Global Shifts
• All About Feed: Feed Additives Outlook Q4 2024 and Q1 2025 (Sep 2024)
• MarkNtel Advisors: Middle East & Africa Animal Feed Market 2025
• Ken Research: Middle East Poultry Feed Market 2024 (Nov 2025)

Geopolitical Impact on Agriculture & Food Security

• S&P Global: Israel-Iran Conflict Risks to Middle East Food Security (Jun 2025)
• USDA GAIN: Israel Grain and Feed Annual 2025
• The Media Line: Israel’s Food Crisis Worsens as War Disrupts Agricultural Output (Oct 2024)
• PMC/NIH: Food Security in Israel – Challenges and Policies (Jan 2024)
• Trade.gov: Israel Raw Materials Supply Chain Affected by Conflict
• DTN/Rabobank: Fertilizer Price Risk from Israel-Hamas War (Oct 2023)
• World Bank / Euronews: Double Shock in Oil and Food Prices (Oct 2023)
• Arab Center Washington DC: The US-Israel War on Iran – Analyses (Mar 2026)
• Al Habtoor Research Centre: What If Iran Closed the Strait of Hormuz? (Jun 2025)

DISCLAIMER

by Ilinca Anghelescu, Global Director Marketing & Communications, EW Nutrition

2025 was a year defined by four converging forces for the global feed and animal production industry: an unprecedented HPAI crisis that cost American consumers alone $14.5 billion extra in egg expenditures; historic record corn production driving feed ingredient prices lower; a highly disruptive US tariff regime that reshuffled global trade flows for soybeans, corn, chicken, and pork; and accelerating regulatory pressure on antimicrobial use across Europe and globally.

The strategic imperatives from 2025 are clear: biosecurity investment is no longer optional, ingredient price volatility demands agile procurement strategies, trade compliance is a weekly operational concern, and antibiotic-free production transitions require credible, phased plans now.

KEY METRIC: Global chicken meat production reached approximately 105 million MT in 2025 (+2%), even as egg production suffered severely. The global feed market is valued at $542 billion in 2025, growing at 3.3% CAGR. Corn hit record production of 17 billion bushels in the US alone – the highest since 1936 in terms of harvested area.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT HERE.

CHAPTER 1: HPAI & DISEASE LANDSCAPE 

1.1  The Ongoing H5N1 Crisis – Scale & Impact

The H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b strain of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) continued to dominate animal health headlines in 2025. Since its reemergence in February 2022, the US outbreak alone has resulted in the confirmed loss of over 175 million birds across 1,700+ flocks – the costliest poultry disease event in recorded history.

1.2  2025-Specific Developments

United States: Early-Year Severity, Policy Response

The first six weeks of 2025 saw 28 million layers depopulated – the worst start to any calendar year on record. Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri bore the brunt. The USDA launched a five-pronged approach in February 2025 including:

• Gold-standard biosecurity assessments (948 completed Jan 20–June 26)
• Indemnity increase from $7 to $17 per lost layer hen
• Importation of 26+ million dozen shell eggs from Brazil, Honduras, Mexico, Turkey, and South Korea
• Removal of select regulatory burdens to accelerate flock repopulation
• $793 million in HPAI research proposals received in response to USDA Innovation Grand Challenge

⚠  Price Manipulation Investigation: In April 2025, the DOJ Antitrust Division launched an investigation into the largest US egg producer after it reported a 247% increase in quarterly net income. Egg producers and retailers face ongoing scrutiny over whether crisis pricing exceeded what supply constraints warranted.

Brazil: First Commercial HPAI Outbreak – May 2025

On May 15, 2025, Brazil – the world’s largest poultry exporter, responsible for nearly 30% of global exports – confirmed its first-ever commercial HPAI case at a breeder facility in Montenegro, Rio Grande do Sul (17,000 birds). This was a watershed event for global poultry trade.

Europe: Persistent Pressure

HPAI continued to circulate widely in European poultry and wild bird populations. Key 2025 events include recurrence in Australia (February), ongoing outbreaks in Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, UK, and France, and the first confirmed domestic cat HPAI death in the Netherlands (H5N1, November 2025).

CRITICAL RISK: HPAI is now classified as enzootic (endemic) in wild birds across North America by the CDC. The virus circulates year-round in wildlife reservoirs, making seasonal recurrence in commercial flocks a structural, not episodic, risk. US egg producers are 8% below their 2022 flock baseline.

1.3  Other Priority Diseases in 2025

CHAPTER 2: GLOBAL POULTRY PRODUCTION 

2.1  Global Output – 2025 Performance

Despite HPAI disruptions, global chicken meat production grew approximately 2% in 2025 to around 105 million MT (ready-to-cook), driven by demand resilience and lower feed costs for broiler production. Total global poultry meat (including turkey, duck, and others) is forecast to exceed 152 million MT for 2025, per FAO Food Outlook June 2025.

OECD-FAO 10-Year Outlook (2025–2034)

The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025–2034, released in July 2025, projects global poultry meat production will grow by over 19% to 173.4 million MT by 2034 compared to the 2022–24 average. Poultry will account for the majority of additional meat consumption globally, driven by:

• Affordability relative to beef and pork, especially in price-sensitive emerging markets
• Population and income growth in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa
• Rapid urbanization and expansion of Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) chains
• Superior feed conversion ratio (FCR) and lower greenhouse gas emissions per kg of protein

STRATEGIC NOTE: In high-income countries, per capita poultry consumption growth is flattening as consumers focus increasingly on welfare, environment, and health attributes. Growth opportunity is almost entirely in middle-income markets. Product premiumization (antibiotic-free, cage-free, organic) is the North American and European story.

2.2  Egg Production – Crisis Sector

Egg production was the sector hardest hit by HPAI globally. In the US, 75% of all HPAI-affected birds were table-egg layers, despite layers comprising less than 4% of the total poultry population. This structural vulnerability reflects longer flock lifespans and, increasingly, cage-free housing adoption.

⚠  Cage-Free Transition & Disease Vulnerability: Some analysts link cage-free housing to higher HPAI susceptibility. Regardless of epidemiological debate, the US cage-free market is now structurally undersupplied relative to corporate commitments made in 2014–2017. Producers face a squeeze: comply with welfare commitments while managing disease risk.

CHAPTER 3: FEED INGREDIENT MARKETS 

3.1  Grain & Oilseed Prices – 2025 Summary

From a feed cost perspective, 2025 was broadly favorable for livestock and poultry producers. Record US corn production and generally adequate global grain and oilseed supplies put downward pressure on the major feed commodities, offering partial relief from the margin pressure of recent years.

PROCUREMENT SIGNAL: The US/China trade tensions created windows of soybean buying opportunity as prices swung on trade deal news. China agreed to purchase US soybeans in late 2025 as part of a limited trade deal, causing a price uptick. Procurement teams should monitor US-China negotiations as a lead indicator for soybean pricing in 2026.

3.2  Global Feed Market Overview

3.3  Key Ingredient Trends to Watch

Fertilizer Cost Relief

Fertilizer prices have declined significantly from their 2022 peak. A basket of N, P, and K fertilizers averaged $437/tonne in May 2025, down from the $815/tonne peak in April 2022, per FAO Food Outlook. This benefits grain production economics and should support adequate grain supplies into 2026.

Soybean Oil Competition: Biodiesel vs. Feed

US soybean oil demand from renewable fuel programs (the 45Z credit) competed directly with feed-grade fat supplies, pushing soy oil prices up 20.8% in 2025. Feed mills formulating with added fats should evaluate alternative lipid sources. Poultry fat and palm olein remain cost-competitive in some markets.

Alternative Proteins: Insect Meal, DDGS, Algae

While adoption remains limited in volume, regulatory acceptance of insect meal in EU poultry diets continues to expand. Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS) remain a strategically important co-product, particularly in the US and EU. Feed formulators should have up-to-date matrix values and be prepared to use them when corn prices favor inclusions.

⚠  Tariff Risk for Feed Inputs: US feed manufacturers faced effective tariff rates averaging 12%+ on key agricultural inputs from China and other countries in 2025, including herbicides, pesticides, and some micro-ingredient precursors. Amino acid supplies (predominantly Chinese-origin lysine, methionine, threonine) faced added cost and supply uncertainty.

CHAPTER 4: TRADE POLICY DISRUPTIONS 

4.1  The 2025 US Tariff Regime – Agricultural Impact

The Trump administration’s tariff policies beginning January 20, 2025, represented the most significant disruption to global agricultural trade in decades. The three largest US agricultural export markets – Mexico ($30.3B in 2024), Canada ($28.3B), and China ($24.7B) – were all targeted, triggering retaliatory measures that hit feed, grain, poultry, and pork exports.

CHINA TRADE DEAL (MAY 2025): A 90-day tariff truce agreed May 12, 2025 reduced US tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%, and China’s tariffs on US products from 125% to 10%. China agreed to purchase US soybeans. No permanent deal was signed. The limited agreement provided short-term stability but medium-term uncertainty remains.

4.2  Impact on US Agricultural Trade Flows

4.3  Strategic Trade Lessons

• Supply chain diversification is no longer a luxury: concentration of US soy exports to China created a single-point-of-failure vulnerability that became fully exposed in 2025.
• Regionalized disease zoning is a trade-preserving tool: Brazil’s rapid implementation of regionalized HPAI bans (rather than country-wide) preserved most of its export access; this is the model the industry should support with regulators globally.
• USMCA dependency is real: 70% of US corn, 60% of soybeans, 45% of poultry exports go to Mexico, Canada, China – the same three countries targeted by 2025 tariffs.
• US government announced $12B in emergency farm compensation in 2025, repeating the pattern from Trump’s first term – indicating persistent trade disruption risk.

CHAPTER 5: REGULATORY CHANGES 

5.1  EU: Feed & Food Safety Legislation Simplification

In 2025, the European Commission proposed a package to streamline EU food and feed safety legislation while maintaining high health standards. The initiative, announced mid-2025, is intended to boost competitiveness of EU producers by reducing regulatory complexity – a direct response to competitive concerns vs. non-EU producers.

5.2  EFSA 2025 Guidance on Microorganisms

On September 24, 2025, EFSA’s Scientific Committee adopted new harmonized guidance on the characterization of microorganisms in the food chain. This is a landmark shift with major implications for feed additive manufacturers, probiotics suppliers, and novel food applicants.

5.3  Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) – Regulatory Pressure

AMR remains the defining long-term regulatory risk for the animal feed and production industry. Key 2025 actions:

• EFSA/ECDC Joint Report (March 2025): Highlighted persistently high resistance to critical antimicrobials in poultry, especially Campylobacter and Salmonella, with ‘statistically significant increasing trend 2020–2024.’ This directly fuels EU legislative pressure.
• EU Regulation 2019/6 (Veterinary Medicines) – Article 118: Banning import of animal products containing antimicrobials used for growth promotion. Application delayed to 2026, raising questions about enforcement timelines – and competitive fairness regarding imports from countries still allowing AGPs.
• EU AMR Implementation Decision 2023: New harmonized monitoring requirements for AMR in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from food-producing animals – effective January 1, 2025. All EU Member States now required to collect and report standardized AMR surveillance data.
• WOAH 10-Year HPAI Strategy (2024–2033): Promotes surveillance, vaccination programs, and timely reporting as cornerstones of international HPAI management.

BOTTOM LINE ON AMR: The regulatory trajectory is clear and irreversible – sub-therapeutic antibiotic use for growth promotion is being eliminated globally. The timeline varies by region (already banned in EU since 2006; US voluntary approach from 2017; global WHO action plan). Companies that have already invested in transition are ahead; those that have not face increasing compliance risk and market access restrictions.

5.4  US Regulatory Developments

CHAPTER 6: FEED ADDITIVE & NUTRITION STRATEGIES 

PRECISION NUTRITION SIGNAL: The industry’s shift to reduced crude protein (CP) diets, precisely supplemented with industrial amino acids (L-Lys, DL-Met, L-Thr, L-Trp, L-Val) remained the dominant reformulation strategy in 2025. Lower CP diets reduce feed cost, lower N excretion (environmental benefit), and reduce substrate for pathogenic bacteria. With amino acid prices remaining favorable, there are few economic arguments for maintaining high CP diets.

6.1  The Post-AGP Transition: Where the Industry Stands

The antibiotic-free (ABF) production movement accelerated further in 2025. With the EU ban on AGPs in place since 2006 and the US moving toward voluntary phase-out, the entire industry is in active transition. The key challenge: AGP removal creates enteric health gaps that must be addressed with alternative tools. Without effective management, removal of AGPs leads to increased necrotic enteritis, Campylobacter colonization, and poorer FCR.

6.2  Heat Stress – A Growing Production Challenge

Climate-related heat stress was a highlighted research and production topic in 2025. Modern high-performance broiler genetics have been selectively bred for rapid growth under thermoneutral conditions. Heat stress impairs feed intake, FCR, immunity, meat quality, and reproduction. Management strategies:

• Dietary electrolyte balance adjustment (increase K, Na, reduce Cl where appropriate)
• Vitamin C and E supplementation at heat stress periods
• Betaine inclusion as an osmolyte; reduces supplemental methionine requirement under heat stress
• Feed schedule adjustment (limit feeding during hottest hours; early morning/evening feeding)
• Housing design investment: tunnel ventilation, evaporative cooling, adequate air velocity

6.3  In Ovo Technology

In ovo vaccination and nutrition delivery continued to advance in 2025. Key developments include high-throughput systems (3,000 eggs/hour at 99% accuracy) for in ovo vaccination and nutritional interventions. Early-life gut programming through in ovo delivery of probiotics, nutrients, and vaccine antigens is becoming an increasingly important hatchery-level biosecurity and performance tool.

CHAPTER 7: MARKET TRENDS & CONSUMER SHIFTS 

7.1  Poultry Gaining Share vs. Other Proteins

Elevated beef prices throughout 2025 – driven by tight US cattle supply (herd at decades-long lows) and high demand – continued to push consumers toward poultry as a cost-effective protein. This dynamic is a structural tailwind for the broiler industry globally.

7.2  Cage-Free & Animal Welfare Commitments

The cage-free transition is structurally undersupplied in the US. Corporate commitments made in 2014–2017 implied a need for 220 million cage-free layers by 2025–26. Current production is well below that target. This creates both a market opportunity (premium pricing) and a risk (HPAI vulnerability concerns in cage-free systems). Producers must balance welfare compliance with biosecurity protocols.

7.3  Antibiotic-Free, Organic, and Specialty Products

Consumer and corporate buyer demand for ABF, No Antibiotics Ever (NAE), organic, and pasture-raised products continued to grow in premium markets in 2025. The pasture-raised egg segment reported 30% annual growth rates despite high price points. For integrated producers, this requires dedicated production lines with separate management protocols, supply chain segregation, and robust documentation systems.

7.4  Sustainability Pressure

Feed manufacturers and integrators are under growing pressure from retail and foodservice customers, NGOs, and regulators to demonstrate reduced environmental footprint. Key metrics under scrutiny:

• GHG emissions per kg of chicken meat produced (Scope 1, 2, and 3)
• Deforestation-free supply chains for soy (EU Deforestation Regulation – EUDR)
• Feed conversion ratio improvement as a sustainability lever
• Nitrogen and phosphorus excretion reduction (enzyme use, reduced CP diets, phytase)
• Water use per unit of animal protein produced

EUDR NOTE: The EU Deforestation Regulation requires companies to ensure that soy used in feed does not originate from recently deforested land. Implementation deadlines have been debated, but traceability requirements for soy origin – particularly from Brazil – are operationally significant for EU feed manufacturers and importers.

CHAPTER 8: STRATEGIC LESSONS & ACTION PRIORITIES 

8.1  Summary: Top 10 Lessons of 2025

8.2  Action Priority Matrix for Management Teams

8.3  Key Indicators to Monitor in 2026

• HPAI detection frequency in fall-winter 2025–26 migration season – predictor of next egg price cycle
• USDA HPAI vaccine grand challenge awards – signals timeline for commercial vaccine availability
• EU feed safety simplification package progress – potential relief on additive authorization timelines
• EUDR deforestation enforcement timeline – soy traceability compliance clock
• Brazil HPAI market re-entry for China – recovery of the world’s #1 poultry export relationship
• US corn/soy 2026 planting intentions (March) – USDA Prospective Plantings report is the key 2026 procurement signal

2025 demonstrated that the feed and animal production industry operates in an environment of simultaneous, compounding risks – biological, geopolitical, regulatory, and climatic. The companies that performed best were those with robust biosecurity infrastructure, agile procurement teams, clear AMR transition roadmaps, and diversified market exposure. There is no single silver bullet. Systematic risk management, not reactive crisis response, is the competitive differentiator going forward.

  KEY SOURCES & REFERENCES 

This article draws on data and analysis from the following sources:

Visbek and Curitiba, 3rd February 2026 – EW Nutrition and GRASP are pleased to announce a significant strengthening of their collaboration through a new agreement that will see EW Nutrition increase its ownership stake in GRASP from its current position to full ownership over the next four years.

This strategic move reflects both companies’ commitment to long-term growth and their shared vision for expanding EW Nutrition’s market-leading position in the industry. The phased transition will ensure business continuity while supporting GRASP’s ongoing operations and development initiatives in Brazil.

“This agreement represents a natural evolution of our successful partnership,” said Jan Vanbrabant, CEO of EW Nutrition. “We are excited to deepen our investment in GRASP and its exceptional team, products, and operations in Brazil.”

GRASP’s portfolio includes world-leading products for toxin mitigation (Mastersorb), gut health management (Activo) and other industry-recognized solutions. The company’s dedicated team will remain focused on delivering the quality and innovation that have established GRASP as a trusted name in the market.

“We look forward to this next chapter in our partnership with EW Nutrition,” said Alysson Hoffmann Pegoraro, GRASP Managing Director. “I am confident that this agreement will help to not only continue producing and delivering innovative solutions for our customers worldwide but further increase significantly the global footprint of GRASP.”

The gradual transition to full ownership will be completed by the end of 2029, ensuring a smooth integration process that preserves GRASP’s operational strengths and further solidifies EW Nutrition’s market position.

About EW Nutrition

EW Nutrition is an animal nutrition company that offers integrators, feed producers, and self-mixing farmers comprehensive animal nutrition solutions for gut health management, feed quality, digestibility, and more. With production facilities, offices, and development centers on 6 continents, EW Nutrition researches, manufactures, markets, and services its products and programs to support customers wherever they are.

About GRASP

GRASP was founded in 2001 to provide the animal nutrition and health market with cutting-edge technological, natural, and functional products. Investment in industrial processes, manufacturing expansion, obtaining international certification (GMP+) and development and production units in Curitiba and in São Paulo ensure seamless quality and service for customers in around the world. Since 2011, it has been majority owned by EW Nutrition.

Media Contact

marketing@ew-nutrition.com

Author: Ajay Bhoyar, Senior Global Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

The global use of feed enzymes has become a central feature of efficient monogastric animal production systems. Rising feed ingredient costs, tighter margins, and increasing regulatory pressure to reduce environmental impact have all accelerated enzyme innovation. At the same time, feed mills have shifted toward higher conditioning temperatures and time in pursuit of improved pellet durability, pathogen control, and throughput. However, this creates a hostile environment for most exogenous feed enzymes, which can lose significant activity under the harsh conditions of feed processing.

Historically, enzyme manufacturers have attempted to overcome heat degradation of by coating, encapsulating, or post-pelleting liquid application (PPLA) of enzymes. While these approaches provide partial solutions, they can also have limitations, including delayed enzyme activity, uneven distribution, reduced mixing uniformity, and reliance on specialized liquid enzyme applicators.

These limitations prompted a novel direction: enzymes designed or selected to be intrinsically heat-stable, capable of surviving pelleting without protective matrices.

This article highlights recent advancements in intrinsically heat-stable xylanase technology, explains its advantages over coated and post-pelleting enzyme solutions, and outlines its practical benefits for feed manufacturers, integrators, and nutritionists operating under modern high-temperature feed pelleting conditions.

Intrinsically Thermostable Enzymes

An enzyme is considered intrinsically heat-stable when its native protein structure resists unfolding and retains catalytic activity under high temperatures associated with feed processing—typically 80–95°C for 30–90 seconds. Unlike coated enzymes that rely on external protection, intrinsically thermostable enzymes depend on their internal protein architecture for heat tolerance. Enzymes from organisms living in compost, thermal springs, and geothermal soils naturally withstand temperatures of 80–100 °C or higher. Intrinsically thermostable enzymes are often sourced from thermophiles (organisms living in hot springs and deep-sea vents) or engineered for stability. They resist denaturation (loss of shape and function) at high-temperature processing.

Limitations of Current Thermostability Solutions

Coating / Encapsulation

A method of protecting enzymes from heat is to encapsulate or coat them with a protective coating. An ideal enzyme coating for animal feed needs to:

1. Protect the enzyme through steam conditioning (typically 85–90°C or higher) and through subsequent pelleting.

2. Release the enzyme from the coating quickly in the gastrointestinal tract of the target animal, to ensure optimum efficacy. (Gilbert and Cooney, 2007)

There is some evidence, however, suggesting that the coating of enzymes may reduce the efficacy of the product, compared to an uncoated version of the same product (Kwakkel et al., 2000).

Post-Pelleting Liquid Application (PPLA)

Post-pelleting liquid enzyme application requires sophisticated applicators to minimize the risk of uneven spraying or calibration errors, which is often not feasible in small or mid-size mills. Accurate application of the liquid enzyme, as with some other critical liquid micro-ingredients, requires specialized spraying equipment and, even then, consistency of accurate enzyme application can be an issue (Bedford and Cowieson, 2009). Research has shown that as much as 30% of the enzyme activity can be found in the pellet fines, and therefore, adding the enzyme before screening would result in a lower than expected dosage in the final feed and wastage of the enzyme product (Engelen, 1998). In some cases, adjusting the pelleting machines to the output of the PPLA’s spray nozzles to ensure a homogenous and even application of the enzyme on the pellets may reduce the overall pellet production rate, especially in big feed mills with very high throughput.

These limitations of the coated or PPLA technologies strengthen the value proposition of intrinsically heat-stable enzymes.

Nutritional and Commercial Benefits of Intrinsically Heat-Stable Xylanase

The use of intrinsically heat-stable xylanase delivers consistent nutritional benefits in poultry and swine feeds, including predictable non-starch polysaccharide (NSP) degradation, a significant increase in the metabolizable energy (ME) value of the feed, and enhanced gut health resilience supporting reduced antibiotic use.

From a commercial and operational perspective, this technology simplifies enzyme application, improves mixing uniformity, reduces formulation risk, and lowers feed cost per unit of meat or egg produced.

In-Vitro Thermal Stability Profile of Axxess XY

Axxess XY is a novel, intrinsically thermostable GH10 xylanase originating from Thermotoga maritima, a hyperthermophilic bacterium found in hydrothermal vents near volcanic grounds, and commercially it is produced by proprietary strain of Bacillus subtilis.

The superior heat stability of Axxess XY has been proven under various commercial pelleting conditions across different geographies. Axxess XY showed excellent post-pelleting recovery under commercial feed-milling conditions across varying temperatures and conditioning times (Fig. 2).

In one study, in addition to excellent post-pelleting recovery, Axxess XY also demonstrated high xylanase stability in pelleted feed over a 2-month feed storage period at>40°C, with humidity around 65%.

Conclusions

As feed mills continue to operate at higher conditioning temperatures and longer retention times, enzyme heat stability has become a critical success factor in modern feed production. Intrinsically heat-stable xylanase offers a practical and reliable solution to this challenge by maintaining enzyme activity through pelleting without the need for coatings or post-pelleting liquid application systems.

By relying on its native protein structure rather than external protection, intrinsically thermostable xylanase delivers consistent post-pelleting recovery, uniform distribution in feed, and predictable nutritional performance across different feed mills and processing conditions. This reliability translates into improved nutrient utilization, better gut health support, and reduced cost per kilogram of meat or eggs produced.

From an operational standpoint, intrinsically heat-stable xylanase simplifies enzyme application, reduces dependence on specialized equipment, and minimizes the need for over-formulation or safety margins. These advantages help feed manufacturers and integrators improve efficiency, lower risk, and achieve more consistent results, especially under demanding commercial pelleting conditions.

In summary, intrinsically heat-stable xylanase aligns well with the evolving needs of today’s feed industry, offering a robust, cost-effective, and future-ready enzyme solution for high-performance animal production systems.

References:

Bedford, M. R., and A. J. Cowieson. 2009. “Phytate and Phytase Interactions.” In Proceedings of the 17th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition, 7–13. Edinburgh, UK.

Eeckhout, M., M. De Schrijver, and E. Vanderbeke. 1995. “The Influence of Process Parameters on the Stability of Feed Enzymes during Steam Pelleting.” In Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Feed Enzymes, 163–169. Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.

Engelen, G. M. A. 1998. Technology of Liquid Additives in Post-Pelleting Applications. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Institute of Animal Science.

Gilbert, T. C., and G. Cooney. 2011. “Thermostability of Feed Enzymes and Their Practical Application in the Feed Mill.” In Enzymes in Farm Animal Nutrition, 2nd ed., edited by M. R. Bedford and G. G. Partridge, 249–259. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Kwakkel, R. P., P. L. van der Togt, and K. A. B. M. Holkenborg. 2000. “Bio-Efficacy of Two Phytase Formulations Supplemented to a Corn–Soybean Broiler Diet.” In Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on Feed Enzymes, 63–64. Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.

By Ilinca Anghelescu, Dr. Andreas Michels, Predrag Persak

Our understanding of how nutrition influences growth and resilience in poultry has greatly expanded in recent years. It is now clear that animal performance stems to a large extent from a balance between metabolism, immune function, and the gut microbiome. These systems interact continuously, and even small nutritional or environmental changes can shift the animals’ physiological response. This growing knowledge has encouraged the development of nutritional strategies and feed components that work through adaptive, non-antibiotic mechanisms. One recent proposed explanation for these responses has rapidly gained ground: hormetic modeling.

Hormetic modeling describes how small or moderate doses of nutritional components can activate beneficial adaptive responses (improved resilience or metabolic efficiency), while excessive doses become harmful. This idea parallels, largely speaking, Paracelsus’s famous principle: “The dose makes the poison.” In poultry nutrition, such hormetic patterns are well recognized in nutrients like trace elements (selenium, zinc) and specific amino acids (for example, arginine). At optimal levels, these nutrients support antioxidant defense, growth, and immune balance, whereas excessive intake may cause oxidative or metabolic stress

This review examines the hormetic principle and its application to modern poultry/swine feeding concepts, exploring how balanced nutrient design and controlled inclusion of bioactive compounds can strengthen cellular adaptation, improve stress tolerance, and enhance production efficiency.

How do AGPs actually work?

Despite AGP’s widespread historical use, the precise mechanisms by which subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics enhance animal productivity remained poorly understood. Recent advances in systems biology and mitochondrial research propose new answers, much needed to develop future advanced nutritional systems.

The traditional explanations for AGP efficacy have focused primarily on antimicrobial effects:

• reducing nutrient competition from microorganisms
• decreasing harmful bacterial metabolites
• improving gut wall morphology (thinner gut wall ➡ better nutrient absorption)
• preventing subclinical infections

However, these mechanisms alone could not fully explain why different classes of antibiotics with diverse mechanisms of action produce similar growth-promoting effects (Gutierrez-Chavez et al., 2025).

Niewold (2007) hypothesized that the primary mechanism of AGPs is non-antibiotic anti-inflammatory activity, reducing the energetic costs of chronic low-grade inflammation. Inflammation diverts nutrients from growth toward immune responses, with cytokine production (particularly IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α) suppressing anabolic pathways (Kogut et al., 2018). AGPs appear to selectively inhibit pro-inflammatory cytokine production without completely suppressing immune function.

A paper published in 2024 by Fernandez Miyakawa et al. proposes that antibiotics at subtherapeutic levels act primarily through mitochondrial hormesis and adaptive stress responses, and not simply through antimicrobial activity. In this model, mitochondria act as bioenergetic hubs and signaling centers. Low-dose antibiotics trigger mild mitochondrial stress, which triggers the activation of adaptive protective pathways.  This in turn induces mitokine release, leading to systemic adaptive responses improving growth, feed efficiency, and disease tolerance.

Mechanism of action in the hormetic model of AGP efficiency

Hormesis is a biphasic mechanism whereby high doses are toxic, but low doses stimulate adaptive responses and are beneficial. In the case of AGPs, Fernandez Miyakawa et al. propose that low doses stimulate growth, stress resistance, and cellular repair.

Key signaling pathways

As Bottje et al. (2006, 2009) shows, efficient animals often have mitochondrial inner membranes that are less permeable to protons and other ions, allowing for more effective coupling between electron transport and ATP synthesis, which reduces energy loss through proton leak and maximizes the production of ATP per oxygen molecule consumed. Lower membrane permeability is influenced by factors like decreased membrane surface area per protein mass, specific membrane protein content (such as adenine nucleotide translocase), and fatty acid composition in the membrane phospholipids, all contributing to a tighter barrier that prevents unregulated electron or proton flow and supports higher energetic efficiency. Such features make mitochondria in efficient species more capable of maintaining membrane integrity and ATP generation, especially when facing environmental stress, as seen in freeze-tolerant animals whose mitochondria do not undergo damaging permeability transitions under extreme conditions.

Nrf2

Many AGPs interfere with mitochondrial protein synthesis and electron transport chain. At subtherapeutic levels, they cause a mild ROS increase, which triggers the activation of redox-sensitive transcription factor Nrf2. Since Nrf2 regulates over 250 antioxidant, detoxification, and anti-inflammatory genes, the result is improved cell survival, redox balance, and tolerance to stress.

Mitokine production

Mitokines are “signaling molecules that enable communication of local mitochondrial stress to other mitochondria in distant cells and tissues” (Burtscher 2023). Through fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15), adrenomedullin2 (ADM2) etc, these stress signals are released systemically and coordinate tissue-wide responses, leading to improved growth and resilience.

Inflammation and disease defense

While the negative side of antibiotic growth promoters is well researched and understood (Rahman et al., 2022), science can advance by isolating the positive effects and attempting to offer different pathways to the same benefits. One such lesson can be derived from understanding inflammation pathways and responses.

Chronic low-grade intestinal inflammation is common in modern poultry production, due to diet, microbiota shifts, high metabolic demands etc. This inflammation diverts energy from growth to immune responses.

AGPs reduce the energy costs of this inflammation in three main ways:

• Reduces inflammation through adaptive stress response
• Raising the threshold to trigger inflammation
• Promoting overall resilience, rather than simply killing pathogens

Fernandez Miyakawa et al. suggest, in this emerging model, that disease defense can operate two different actions: resistance to health challenges through reduction of the pathogen load (which is driven by the immune system and is energy costly); and overall resilience by reducing host damage without reducing the pathogen load. AGPs, the authors claim, mainly promote resilience by enhancing mitochondrial stress responses and tissue repair, i.e. more precisely:

• Direct mitochondrial stimulation in intestinal epithelial cells
• Systemic mitokine signaling coordinating organism-wide adaptive responses
• Selective microbiota modulation enhancing beneficial host-microbe interactions
• Improving resilience without immune system costs
• Metabolic optimization supporting growth and feed efficiency

In this context, “metabolic optimization” refers to the enhancement of metabolic processes within livestock or poultry to support efficient growth, feed conversion, and physiological resilience, without relying on immune-mediated pathways that are energetically costly. Scientific evidence shows that metabolic optimization involves improving nutrient assimilation, promoting more efficient energy production in tissues (such as mitochondrial ATP synthesis), and minimizing wasteful metabolic byproducts, resulting in reduced feed intake per unit of growth and better utilization of dietary nutrients (Rauw 2025, El-Hack 2025).

Function of feed additives and feed components

Feed additives and feed components in many ways represent the complete other side of the spectrum from antibiotics, but are there some features where antibiotics and feed additives come close in their functions? There is a good case to be made for certain feed additives ultimately working in the animal to achieve similar benefits to the desirable, non-medicinal usage of AGP´s. Especially with the emergent model of AGP mechanism described above, it is worth discussing how certain feed additives can support the same end goal: promoting animal resilience.

Lillejhoj et al (2018), Gutierrez-Chavez et al. (2025) and others outline the end-results such products must achieve:

• Growth performance & feed conversion efficiency
• Promotion of animal productivity under real-world conditions
• Support gut homeostasis
• Non-adverse effect on the immune system
• Reduction of oxidative stress
• Support organism in mitigation of enteric inflammatory consequences

Within the hormetic model, possibly the most important systemic benefit is, in one phrase, promoting resilience. Phytomolecules have long been used, in human and animal medicine, for the same end goal. The mechanisms described below should naturally be seen with caution, as phytomolecule microbiome effects can be subtler and context-dependent. However, the substantiating literature has been increasingly accumulating on these specific topics.

1. Immunometabolic regulation

Phytomolecules demonstrate remarkably similar anti-inflammatory effects to what Niewold (2007) suggested was a primary mechanism of AGPs: non-antibiotic anti-inflammatory activity, reducing the energetic costs of chronic low-grade inflammation. Inflammation diverts nutrients from growth toward immune responses, with cytokine production (particularly IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α) suppressing anabolic pathways (Kogut et al., 2018). AGPs appear to selectively inhibit pro-inflammatory cytokine production without completely suppressing immune function. A similar effect can be observed with various types of phytomolecules, which significantly reduced pro-inflammatory and/or increased anti-inflammatory cytokine expression in animals challenged with several pathogens. The anti-inflammatory mechanism appears to involve inhibition of NF-κB activation and modulation of MAPK signaling pathways (Kim et al., 2010; Long et al., 2021).

2. Mitochondrial hormesis and energy metabolism

Fernández Miyakawa et al. (2024, see above) proposed that AGPs exert growth-promoting effects through mitochondrial hormesis – subtherapeutic antibiotic doses induce mild mitochondrial stress, triggering adaptive responses that enhance mitochondrial function, energy metabolism, and cellular resilience. This mechanism, while requiring further validation, explains why different antibiotics with diverse targets produce similar growth outcomes.

The mitochondrial stress response involves activation of the IL-6 receptor family signaling cascade, which regulates metabolism, growth, regeneration, and homeostasis in liver and other tissues (Perry et al., 2024). Subtherapeutic antibiotic exposure activates proteins involved in growth and proliferation through IL-6R gp130 subunit signaling, including JAK, STAT, mTOR, and MAPK pathways.

Phytomolecules demonstrate similar mitochondrial effects. Perry et al. (2024) showed that increased activity of AMPK, mTOR, PGC-1α, PTEN, HIF, and S6K can also be available via phytomolecule activity, suggesting enhanced anabolic metabolism.

Capsicum oleoresin supplementation in broilers increased jejunal lipase and trypsin activity, enhanced ileal amylase activity, improved jejunal morphology, and modulated immune organ development, indicating enhanced digestive efficiency and nutrient utilization (Li et al., 2022).

Compounds such as vanillin, thymol, eugenol have been shown to improve glucose and lipid metabolism through TRPV1 activation and mitochondrial function enhancement (Gupta et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2017).

3. Gut microbiota modulation

AGPs selectively reduce specific microbial populations, particularly Lactobacillus species that produce bile salt hydrolase (BSH). Since BSH reduces fat digestibility and thus weight gain, AGP-mediated reduction of BSH-producing bacteria enhances energy extraction and growth (Lin, 2014; Bourgin et al., 2021).

Recent research by Zhan et al. (2025) using single-molecule real-time 16S rRNA sequencing demonstrated that therapeutic antibiotic doses (lincomycin, gentamicin, florfenicol, benzylpenicillin, ceftiofur, enrofloxacin) significantly altered chicken gut microbiota composition, with Pseudomonadota and Bacillota becoming dominant phyla after exposure. Different antibiotics produced distinct temporal effects on microbial diversity and community structure.

Phytomolecules exert targeted antimicrobial effects while promoting beneficial bacteria. Dietary supplementation with 800 mg/kg Capsicum extract in Japanese quails reduced cecal counts of pathogenic bacteria (Salmonella spp., E. coli, coliforms) while modulating Lactobacilli populations (Reda et al., 2020).

In pigs, 80 mg/kg natural capsicum extract increased cecal propionic acid and total volatile fatty acid concentrations, with increased butyric acid in the colon – indicating enhanced fermentation by beneficial bacteria (Long et al., 2021).

Capsicum and Curcuma oleoresins altered intestinal microbiota composition in commercial broilers challenged with necrotic enteritis, reducing disease severity through microbiome modulation (Kim et al., 2015).

Capsaicin demonstrates selective antimicrobial activity, inhibiting pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria while favoring development of certain Gram-positive bacteria. The antibacterial mechanism involves induction of osmotic stress and membrane structure damage (Adaszek et al., 2019; Rosca et al., 2020).

4. Intestinal barrier function and gut health

AGPs have been associated with improved intestinal morphology, including increased villus height and reduced crypt depth, which enhance absorptive capacity (Gaskins et al., 2002).

Phytomolecules produce similar or superior effects. Capsicum extract (80 mg/kg) in pigs increased ileal villus height and upregulated MUC-2 gene expression, indicating enhanced gut barrier function and integrity. The improved barrier function correlated with reduced diarrhea incidence (Liu et al., 2013; Long et al., 2021).

Allium hookeri extract increased expression of tight junction proteins (claudins, occludins, ZO-1) in LPS-challenged broiler chickens, demonstrating direct enhancement of barrier integrity (Lee et al., 2017).

5. Oxidative stress mitigation

Oxidative stress impairs growth by damaging cellular components and triggering inflammatory responses. AGPs reduce oxidative stress indirectly through anti-inflammatory effects and microbiota modulation (Bortoluzzi et al., 2021).

Phytomolecules possess direct antioxidant properties. Capsicum extract (50 mg/kg) in heat-stressed quails reduced serum and ovarian malondialdehyde (MDA) while increasing superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) activities. Ovarian transcription factors showed decreased NF-κB and increased Nrf2 and HO-1 expression (Sahin et al., 2016).

A mixture of herbal extracts including pepper reduced thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and MDA in broiler liver and muscle, while increasing glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity and improving antioxidant enzyme expression (Saleh et al., 2018).

Capsicum extract (80 mg/kg) in pigs increased total antioxidant capacity, SOD, and CAT while reducing MDA levels, demonstrating robust antioxidant effects (Long et al., 2021).

Standardization and controlled release: Critical success factors

A major criticism of phytomolecules has been inconsistent efficacy across studies. However, this variability largely reflects differences in:

• Active compound concentrations
• Bioavailability and stability
• Dosing precision
• Product quality and standardization

Microencapsulation is one of the technologies that address the standardization and bioavailability challenges. It protects volatile compounds from degradation during feed processing and storage, with encapsulated essential oils showing significantly higher retention compared to unprotected forms (Stevanović et al., 2018). By creating a protective barrier around active ingredients, microencapsulation enables controlled release in specific regions of the gastrointestinal tract, improving absorption efficiency and reducing dose variability (Bringas-Lantigua et al., 2011). The technology also masks unpalatable flavors that can reduce feed intake while standardizing active ingredient concentrations through precise manufacturing processes (Gharsallaoui et al., 2007). Studies demonstrate that spray-dried microencapsulated essential oils achieve encapsulation efficiencies exceeding 93% with minimal loss during storage (Hu et al., 2020), and can be engineered for enzyme-mediated release to ensure bioactive delivery at optimal intestinal sites (Elolimy et al., 2025).

Mechanistic synthesis: An integrated model

The evidence indicates that both AGPs and phytomolecules operate through an integrated network of effects:

1. Primary Level: Selective antimicrobial effects modify gut microbiota composition
2. Secondary Level: Reduced microbial metabolites (ammonia, endotoxins) decrease inflammatory signaling
3. Tertiary Level: Reduced inflammation conserves energy for growth; enhanced barrier function improves nutrient absorption
4. Quaternary Level: Mitochondrial hormesis and metabolic optimization increase energy efficiency
5. Systemic Level: Improved immunometabolic homeostasis supports optimal growth

This integrative model explains why multiple antibiotics with different mechanisms produce similar growth outcomes: they converge on common pathways regulating immunometabolism and mitochondrial function (Fernández Miyakawa et al., 2024).

Phytomolecules operate through the same mechanistic framework but with potential advantages:

• Multiple bioactive compounds providing redundancy
• Antioxidant effects enhancing stress resilience
• Lower AMR selection pressure
• Potential prebiotic-like effects supporting beneficial microbiota

Safety and antimicrobial resistance considerations

Antibiotic exposure significantly disrupts gut microbiota diversity and stability, with effects persisting beyond withdrawal periods. The study by Zhan et al. (2025) demonstrated that different antibiotics produce varying degrees of microbiota disruption, with florfenicol and gentamicin showing the strongest and most persistent effects.

In contrast, phytomolecules generally do not generate resistance through the same mechanisms as antibiotics. Some phytochemicals may actually enhance antibiotic efficacy and resensitize resistant bacteria through structural modifications of bacterial membranes (Khameneh et al., 2021; Suganya et al., 2022).

However, one study reported increased correlation between antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) and mobile genetic elements in pig feces after mushroom powder supplementation, suggesting that certain phytogenic compounds may increase ARG mobility (Muurinen et al., 2021). This emphasizes the need for continued surveillance of phytomolecule effects on resistance gene dynamics.

Capsaicinoids and capsinoids have well-established safety profiles. Capsiate, a non-pungent analogue of capsaicin, exhibits substantially lower toxicity while maintaining similar metabolic and growth-promoting effects (Gupta et al., 2022). No adverse effects on animal health or product quality have been reported at recommended dosages in reviewed studies.

Future directions and research needs

Despite substantial progress, several areas require further investigation:

1. Mechanistic refinement: Detailed characterization of signaling pathways, particularly the IL-6R/gp130 cascade and mitochondrial stress responses
2. Precision formulation: Development of combinations optimized for specific production stages, environmental conditions, and disease pressures
3. Bioavailability optimization: Advanced delivery systems ensuring consistent active compound release and absorption
4. Microbiome-host interaction mapping: High-resolution characterization of microbial community shifts and their functional consequences
5. Economic validation: Large-scale production trials assessing cost-effectiveness compared to AGPs and disease management costs

Conclusions

The scientific evidence demonstrates that standardized phytomolecules operate through well-characterized biological mechanisms that substantially replicate those of AGPs:

1. Anti-inflammatory effects reducing energetic costs of immune activation
2. Mitochondrial hormesis enhancing energy metabolism and cellular resilience
3. Selective microbiota modulation supporting beneficial bacteria while controlling pathogens
4. Intestinal barrier enhancement improving nutrient absorption and reducing translocation
5. Antioxidant activity mitigating oxidative stress and supporting immune function

When properly standardized and formulated for controlled release, phytomolecules deliver growth promotion, feed efficiency improvements, and disease resistance comparable to AGPs, while potentially offering advantages in AMR risk profile, stress resilience, and consumer acceptance.

The mechanistic convergence between AGPs and phytomolecules, coupled with demonstrated efficacy in controlled trials, provides producers with confidence that science-based phytomolecular interventions represent legitimate alternatives to AGPs. Success depends on product standardization, appropriate dosing, and understanding that phytomolecules work through fundamental biological pathways rather than undefined or mystical mechanisms.

As the livestock industry continues to navigate the post-AGP era, standardized phytomolecules offer a scientifically sound, mechanistically validated approach to maintaining animal performance, health, and welfare while addressing antimicrobial resistance concerns.

References

Adaszek, Ł., et al. “Properties of Capsaicin and Its Utility in Veterinary and Human Medicine.” Research in Veterinary Science, vol. 123, 2019, pp. 14 – 19.

Bottje, W., et al. “Mitochondrial proton leak kinetics and relationship with feed efficiency within a single genetic line of male broilers”. Poultry Science, Volume 88, Issue 8, 1 August 2009, p. 1683-1693.

Bortoluzzi, C., et al. “A Protected Complex of Biofactors and Antioxidants Improved Growth Performance and Modulated the Immunometabolic Phenotype of Broiler Chickens Undergoing Early Life Stress.” Poultry Science, vol. 100, 2021, p. 101176.

Bourgin, M., et al. “Bile Salt Hydrolases: At the Crossroads of Microbiota and Human Health.” Microorganisms, vol. 9, no. 1122, 2021.

Bravo, D., et al. “A Mixture of Carvacrol, Cinnamaldehyde, and Capsicum Oleoresin Improves Energy Utilization and Growth Performance of Broiler Chickens Fed Maize-Based Diet.” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 92, 2014, pp. 1531 – 1536.

Bringas-Lantigua, M., et al. “Influence of Spray-Dryer Air Temperatures on Encapsulated Mandarin Oil.” Drying Technology, vol. 29, 2011, pp. 520–526.

Burtscher, J., et al. “Mitochondrial Stress and Mitokines in Aging.” Aging Cell, vol. 22, no. 2, 2023, e13770.

El-Hack, M. et al. “Integrating metabolomics for precision nutrition in poultry: optimizing growth, feed efficiency, and health”. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, Sec. Animal Nutrition and Metabolism, Volume 12 – 2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1594749

Elolimy, Ahmed A., et al. “Effects of Microencapsulated Essential Oils and Seaweed Meal on Growth Performance, Digestive Enzymes, Intestinal Morphology, Liver Functions, and Plasma Biomarkers in Broiler Chickens.” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 103, 2025, p. skaf092, https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf092.

Fernández Miyakawa, Mariano E., et al. “How Did Antibiotic Growth Promoters Increase Growth and Feed Efficiency in Poultry?” Poultry Science, vol. 103, no. 2, 2024, article 103136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.103136

Gaskins, H. Rex, C. T. Collier, and D. B. Anderson. “Antibiotics as Growth Promotants: Mode of Action.” Animal Biotechnology, vol. 13, no. 1, 2002, pp. 29 – 42.

Gharsallaoui, A., et al. “Applications of Spray-Drying in Microencapsulation of Food Ingredients: An Overview.” Food Research International, vol. 40, no. 9, 2007, pp. 1107-21.

Gutiérrez-Chávez, Vanesa, et al. “Capsaicinoids and Capsinoids of Chilli Pepper as Feed Additives in Livestock Production: Current and Future Trends.” Animal Nutrition, vol. 22, 2025, pp. 483 – 501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2025.03.014.

Gupta, A., et al. “Capsaicin and Capsinoids: Recent Updates on Their Health Benefits and Mechanisms of Action.” Phytotherapy Research, vol. 36, no. 5, 2022, pp. 1898 – 1912.

Hu, Q., Li, X., Chen, F., Wan, R., Yu, C.-W., Li, J., McClements, D. J., & Deng, Z. (2020). “Microencapsulation of an essential oil (cinnamon oil) by spray drying: Effects of wall materials and storage conditions on microcapsule properties“. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 44(11). https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14805

Khameneh, B., et al. “Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance Resensitization by Phytochemicals: Review.” Phytomedicine, vol. 85, 2021, p. 153529.

Kim, D. K., et al. “Effects of Capsicum and Curcuma on Necrotic Enteritis in Broilers.” Poultry Science, vol. 94, 2015, pp. 2314 – 2321.

Kim, J. S., et al. “Anti-inflammatory Effects of Plant-Derived Molecules via NF-κB and MAPK Pathways.” International Immunopharmacology, vol. 10, no. 3, 2010, pp. 306 – 314.

Lee, S. H., et al. “Allium Hookeri Extract Enhances Tight Junction Proteins in Broilers.” Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, vol. 101, no. 1, 2017, pp. e48 – e56.

Li, X., et al. “Capsicum Oleoresin Supplementation Improves Digestive Enzyme Activity and Gut Morphology in Broilers.” Poultry Science, vol. 101, no. 7, 2022, p. 101844.

Lin, J. “Effect of Antibiotics on the Intestinal Microbiota and Their Role in Animal Growth.” Animal Biotechnology, vol. 25, no. 3, 2014, pp. 149 – 157.

Lillehoj, H., et al. “Phytochemicals as Antibiotic Alternatives to Promote Growth and Enhance Host Health.” Veterinary Research, vol. 49, no. 76, 2018.

Liu, Y., et al. “Dietary Capsicum Extract Enhances Intestinal Barrier Function and Growth in Pigs.” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 91, 2013, pp. 518 – 525.

Long, L., et al. “Phytogenic Feed Additives Modulate Intestinal Immunity and Antioxidant Status in Pigs and Poultry.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science, vol. 8, 2021, p. 620998.

Muurinen, J., et al. “Mushroom Powder Supplementation Increases Antibiotic Resistance Gene Mobility in Pig Feces.” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 12, 2021, p. 676678.

Niewold, T. A. “The Non-antibiotic Anti-inflammatory Effect of Antimicrobial Growth Promoters, the Real Mode of Action? A Hypothesis.” Poultry Science, vol. 86, 2007, pp. 605 – 609.

Perry, F., C. N. Johnson, L. Lahaye, E. Santin, D. R. Korver, M. H. Kogut, and R. J. Arsenault. “Protected Biofactors and Antioxidants Reduce the Negative Consequences of Virus and Cold Challenge by Modulating Immunometabolism via Changes in the Interleukin-6 Receptor Signaling Cascade in the Liver.” Poultry Science, vol. 103, no. 9, 2024, article 104044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104044

Rahman, Md, et al. “Insights in the Development and Uses of Alternatives to Antibiotic Growth Promoters in Poultry and Swine Production.” Antibiotics, vol. 11, no. 6, 2022, p. 766, https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11060766.

Rauw, W.M. et al., “Review: Feed efficiency and metabolic flexibility in livestock”. Animal. Vol. 19 (2025) 101376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101376

Reda, F. M., et al. “Capsicum Extract Supplementation Modulates Gut Microbiota and Performance in Japanese Quails.” Animal Feed Science and Technology, vol. 265, 2020, p. 114507.

Rosca, I., et al. “Capsaicin Induces Osmotic Stress in Gram-negative Pathogens.” Veterinary Sciences, vol. 7, no. 4, 2020, p. 172.

Sahin, K., et al. “Dietary Capsicum Extract Reduces Oxidative Stress in Heat-stressed Japanese Quails.” Poultry Science, vol. 95, no. 2, 2016, pp. 231 – 240.

Saleh, A. A., et al. “Herbal Extract Mixtures Improve Antioxidant Status and Performance in Broilers.” Poultry Science, vol. 97, no. 11, 2018, pp. 3927 – 3936.

Stevanović, Z. D., et al. „Essential oils as feed additives—Future perspectives”. Molecules, 23(7), 2018, pp1717.

Suganya, R., et al. “Phytochemicals in Combination with Antibiotics: Antimicrobial Resistance Breakers.” Antibiotics, vol. 11, 2022, p. 123.

Zhang, Benyuan et al. “Mitochondrial Stress and Mitokines: Therapeutic Perspectives for the Treatment of Metabolic Diseases.” Diabetes & Metabolism Journal vol. 48,1, 2024, pp. 1-18.

Zhan, Ru, et al. “Effects of Antibiotics on Chicken Gut Microbiota: Community Alterations and Pathogen Identification.” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 16, 2025, article 1562510. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1562510

Zhang, Y., et al. “Effects of Vanillin, Thymol, and Eugenol on Glucose and Lipid Metabolism via TRPV1 Activation.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 65, no. 13, 2017, pp. 2719 – 2727.

Reporting Period: November 6-12, 2025

Extracted Data by Disease Category

1. ASF in Domestic Pigs

2. ASF in Wild Boar

3. HPAI (NON-P) in Captive Birds / H5N1

4. HPAI (NON-P) in Wild Birds / H5 (N untyped)

5. HPAI (NON-P) in Wild Birds / H5N1

6. High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza Viruses (Poultry) (Inf. with) / H5N1

Summary Statistics

By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor, and Predrag Persak, Regional Technical Manager North Europe

For profitable pig production, efficient energy metabolism is essential. Every kilojoule consumed must be wisely spent – on maintenance, growth, reproduction, or defense. An impacted energy metabolism due to disease or stress impacts animal performance and farm profitability.

Different faces of energy

Energy metabolism determines how efficiently pigs convert feed into body mass. The Gross energy (GE) of the diet, which the use of a calorimeter can determine, is progressively reduced by losses in feces (→digestible energy – DE), urine, gases (→metabolizable energy – ME), and heat, resulting in the →net energy (NE), which is then available for maintenance and performance (growth, milk…).

The requirements for maintenance include the minimum energy that an organism needs to maintain essential functions under standardized conditions and at complete rest. This includes respiration, thermoregulation, tissue turnover, and immune system activity. Only energy in excess of these needs is available for performance. The ratio between additional retained energy and additional energy intake defines the incremental efficiency of nutrient utilization. Under normal conditions, healthy, fast-growing pigs display high incremental efficiencies for both protein and energy deposition by channeling energy efficiently into lean tissue and approximately 25-30% of the metabolizable energy from the feed is used for maintenance, 20-25% for lean gain, and the rest for fat deposition, driving daily gain and carcass quality (Patience, 2019).

However, disease, immune stress, and suboptimal environmental conditions can disrupt this delicate balance, diverting nutrients from growth to survival processes (Obled, 2003). The activation of the immune system leads to reduced feed efficiency, slower growth, and inferior meat quality.

Disease generates costs

The health challenge of disease causes energy loss through several key mechanisms (Patience, 2019).

1. The activation of the immune system becomes an energetic priority. It consumes significant amounts of energy and nutrients, such as glucose and specific amino acids, to produce immune cells and acute-phase proteins, such as haptoglobin and CRP, and to combat pathogens. The nutrients are redirected away from performance toward immune defense, i.e., less energy available for growth performance or even a mobilization of body reserves (fat deposits). A study conducted by Huntley et al. (2017) showed a 23.6% higher requirement for metabolizable energy to activate and maintain the immune system, resulting in a 26% lower ADG.
2. Physiological responses to disease, such as fever (heat production), shivering, or increased physical activity due to discomfort or listlessness, require energy.
3. Additional lower feed intake due to reduced appetite, leading to less energy consumption and intensifying the problem of energy repartitioning.

Environmental challenges are energy-consuming

Besides environmental conditions that cause disease due to high pathogenic pressure, environmental challenges are often related to thermoregulation.

1. Cold stress

In the case of cold stress, the ambient temperature falls below the pig’s lower critical temperature. The animal must spend extra energy to produce heat and maintain a constant body temperature. Alternatively, it can achieve this through shivering (muscle friction generates heat) and the release of thyroid hormones, which increase the metabolic rate and boost body temperature. Another possibility is huddling with other pigs. If the pigs eat more to gain extra energy for warmth, they increase production costs.

2. Heat stress

Excessive temperature leads to heat stress, and the animals attempt to cope through several mechanisms. Increased respiratory evaporation by panting is energy-intensive. Other possibilities are lying spread out on cool surfaces (conduction), seeking shade, and reducing physical activity to minimize heat production. To reduce metabolic heat production, pigs decrease their feed intake; however, this results in an energy deficit and likely mobilizes body reserves, especially in lactating sows.

3. Poor housing and management

High ventilation rates, draughts, wet floors, high stocking densities, and, too often, mixing of pigs are other stressors that require adequate energy-consuming responses. Also, an environment that facilitates excessive heat loss, e.g., through cold concrete floors, constrains the pigs to expend more ME to compensate. Poor-quality air with high levels of harmful gases, such as ammonia or hydrogen sulfide, or dust can lead to respiratory issues and energy expenditure for immune defense.

What are the detailed consequences?

Energy required for immune defense cannot be used for the production of meat, milk, or eggs. Several energy-consuming processes are triggered during an immunological challenge.

Glucose, an important energy source

Several scientists (Spurlock, 1997; Rigobelo and Ávila, 2011) have stated that glucose is primarily used to meet the increased energy demands of an activated immune system. According to Kvidera et al. (2017), the reason might be that stimulated leucocytes change their metabolism from oxidative phosphorylation to aerobic glycolysis (Palsson-McDermott and O’Neill, 2013). A trial conducted by Kvidera et al. (2017) confirmed the high need for glucose. In their trial with E. coli LPS-challenged crossbred gilts, they measured the amount of glucose required to maintain normal blood glucose levels (euglycemia). They calculated that an acutely and intensely activated immune system requires 1.1 g of glucose/kg body weight0.75/h. As they obtained similar results in ruminants (Kvidera et al., 2016 and 2017), they regard this glucose requirement as conserved across species and physiological states. In a confirming study, McGilvray and coworkers (2018) observed a significant (P<0.01) decrease in blood glucose in pigs after injection of E. coli LPS.

A further energy-consuming process is the increase in body temperature (fever): To increase body temperature by 1°C, the metabolic rate must be raised by 10-12.5% (Evans et al., 2015). 

Influence on protein metabolism

Stimulation of the immune system in growing pigs may lead to a redistribution of amino acids from protein retention to immune defense. Amino acids are needed as a ‘substrate’ to synthesize immune system metabolites, such as acute-phase proteins (e.g., haptoglobin, a-fibrinogen, antitrypsin, lipopolysaccharide-binding protein, C-reactive protein, and others (Rakhshandeh and De Lange, 2011)), immunoglobulins, and glutathione (Reeds and Jahoor, 2001). This impacts the requirements for amino acids quantitatively but also qualitatively, i.e., the amino acid profile. Various studies indicated an increased need for Methionine, cysteine, branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs), aromatic amino acids, Threonine, and Glutamine during immune system stimulation (Reeds et al., 1994; Melchior et al., 2004; Calder et al., 2006; Rakhshandeh and de Lange, 2011; Rakhshandeh et al., 2014).

If the required amino acids are not available, they must be either synthesized or obtained from body protein. This costs energy, leads to muscle mass degradation, and causes an imbalance in amino acid levels. Excess amino acids are catabolized, resulting in an increase in blood urea nitrogen (BUN). McGilvray et al. (2018), e.g., observed a 25% increase in BUN in their study, in which they stimulated pigs’ immune systems with LPS.

Another possibility is using amino acids as energy sources. L-Glutamine, for example, is a crucial energy source for immune cells and the primary energy substrate for mucosal cells (Mantwill, 2025).

Carcass and meat quality

As already mentioned, immune stimulation or disease leads to protein degradation. Plank and Hill (2000) reported a loss of up to 20% of body protein (mainly skeletal muscle) in critically ill humans over 3 weeks. This protein degradation influences carcass yield and quality by reducing the amount of muscle meat.

Another effect is a decrease in the muscle cross-sectional area of fibers and a significant shift from the myosin heavy chain (MHC)-II towards the MHC-I type (Gilvray et al, 2019)

How can feed additives support pigs in health challenges?

Health challenges can occur due to infections by bacteria, viruses, fungi, or protozoa, as well as due to myco-, exo-, or endotoxins. Phytomolecules-based and toxin-binding can help animals cope with these health challenges.

Phytomolecules have several health-supporting effects

Phytomolecules can support animals in the case of a health challenge by directly fighting bacteria – antimicrobial effect (Burt, 2004; Rowaiye et al., 2025), scavenging free radicals – antioxidant effect (Saravanan et al., 2025; Dhir, 2022), or mitigating infection – anti-inflammatory effect (Saravanan et al., 2025). 

A trial with the phytomolecules-based product Ventar D demonstrated its antimicrobial and microbiome-modulating effects (Heinzl, 2022). The product clearly reduced the populations of Salmonella enterica, E. coli, and Clostridium perfringens but spared the beneficial lactobacilli.

The anti-inflammatory effects of phytomolecules inhibit the activity of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines from endotoxin-stimulated immune cells and epithelial cells (Lang et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2020), and there is an indication that the anti-inflammatory effects might be mediated by blocking the NF-κB activation pathway (Lee et al., 2005). A trial confirmed this thesis by showing a dose-dependent reduction of NFκB activity in LPS-stimulated mouse cells (-11% & -54% with 50 & 200 ppm Ventar D, respectively) (Figure 1).

Additionally, Ventar D increases interleukin-10, a cytokine with anti-inflammatory properties, and decreases interleukin-6, a pro-inflammatory cytokine. The result is a dose-dependent decline in the ratio of IL-6 to IL-10 (Figure 2), indicating the effectiveness of the product.

The effects of Ventar D, which support the immune system and redirect energy to enhance growth performance, result in higher daily gains and improved feed conversion. This was observed in a trial conducted on a commercial farm in Germany, using, on average, 26-day-old weaned piglets with a mean body weight of approximately 8 kg. Just after weaning, young animals experience stress (new feed, new groups, and separation from the dam) and are more susceptible to disease.

Two groups of piglets were fed either the regular feed of the farm (Control) or the regular feed + 100 g Ventar per MT of feed. The results for final weight and FCR are shown in Figures 3 and 4

Toxin-binding products support animals against health challenges caused by toxins

As mentioned, various toxins, including myco-, endo-, and exotoxins, can harm animals. The danger of mycotoxins lurks in many feeds, and exo- and endotoxins derive from bacteria. Toxin-binding products, possibly supplemented with phytomolecules that support health (e.g., liver protection), can help animals cope with these challenges.

Solis Max 2.0, a toxin solution containing bentonite and phytomolecules, showed excellent binding performance for myco- and endotoxins (Figures 5 and 6).

Trial with endotoxins

Two samples were prepared: one with only 25 EU (1 EU equivalent to approximately 100 pg or 10,000 cells) of LPS of E. coli O55:B5 LPS/mL solution, and one with the same concentration of LPS but also containing 700 mg Solis Max 2.0/mL.

Solis Max 2.0 bound about 80% of endotoxin.

Trial with mycotoxins

In another in vitro trial, the binding capacity of Solis Max 2.0 for six different kinds of mycotoxins was evaluated. For that purpose, samples with 800 ppb AFB1, 400 ppb OTA, 800 ppb DON, 300 ppb T2, 2,000 ppb FB1, or 1,200 ppb ZEN were prepared, and Solis max was added at two inclusion rates, one corresponding to 1 kg/t, the other to 2 kg/t. The binding capacities ranged from 40.7% for OTA to 96% for AFB1, with the lower inclusion rate, and from 61.5% for OTA to 99% for AFB1, with the higher inclusion rate.

Health support by toxin-binding solutions improves performance

The mitigating effects of Solis Max concerning the negative impact of toxins are also reflected in performance. A trial involving 24 female weaned piglets was conducted to evaluate the mitigating effects of Solis Max in the event of a challenge with a naturally contaminated diet (3,400 ppb of DON and 700 ppb of ZEA). Solis Max was added to one half of the challenged piglets. The addition of Solis Max to the contaminated diet not only compensates for growth performance parameters, such as weight gain and feed conversion, but also for Vulva and tail necrosis scores. The results are shown in Figures 7-11.

Tools are available to prevent the unnecessary expenditure of energy for immune protection

As the various references in the article demonstrate, health challenges such as pathogens or toxins not only spoil the appetite of animals but also require energy due to the activation of the immune system. Products based on phytomolecules, as well as toxin solutions, can help animals cope with these challenges and conserve energy for improved performance.

References:

Balli, Swetha, Karlie R. Shumway, and Shweta Sharan. “Physiology, Fever.” StatPearls [Internet]., September 4, 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK562334/. 

Burt, Sara. “Essential Oils: Their Antibacterial Properties and Potential Applications in Foods—a Review.” International Journal of Food Microbiology 94, no. 3 (August 2004): 223–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.03.022. 

Calder, Phillip C. “Branched-Chain Amino Acids and Immunity ,.” The Journal of Nutrition 136, no. 1 (January 2006). https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/136.1.288s. 

Dhir, Vivek. “Emerging Prospective of Phytomolecules as Antioxidants against Chronic Diseases.” ECS Transactions 107, no. 1 (April 24, 2022): 9571–80. https://doi.org/10.1149/10701.9571ecst. 

Evans, Sharon S., Elizabeth A. Repasky, and Daniel T. Fisher. “Fever and the Thermal Regulation of Immunity: The Immune System Feels the Heat.” Nature Reviews Immunology 15, no. 6 (May 15, 2015): 335–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri3843. 

Heinzl, Inge. “Efficient Microbiome Modulation with Phytomolecules.” EW Nutrition, June 9, 2023. https://ew-nutrition.com/pushing-microbiome-in-right-direction-phytomolecules/. 

Huntley, Nichole F., John F. Patience, and C. Martin Nyachoti. “Immune Stimulation UPS Maintenance Energy Requirements.” National Hog Farmer.com, September 28, 2017. https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-health/immune-stimulation-ups-maintenance-energy-requirements. 

Kvidera, S. K., E. A. Horst, M. Abuajamieh, E. J. Mayorga, M. V. Sanz Fernandez, and L. H. Baumgard. “Technical Note: A Procedure to Estimate Glucose Requirements of an Activated Immune System in Steers.” Journal of Animal Science 94, no. 11 (November 1, 2016): 4591–99. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0765. 

Kvidera, S.K., E.A. Horst, M. Abuajamieh, E.J. Mayorga, M.V. Sanz Fernandez, and L.H. Baumgard. “Glucose Requirements of an Activated Immune System in Lactating Holstein Cows.” Journal of Dairy Science 100, no. 3 (March 2017): 2360–74. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-12001. 

LANG, A. “Allicin Inhibits Spontaneous and Tnf-$alpha; Induced Secretion of Proinflammatory Cytokines and Chemokines from Intestinal Epithelial Cells.” Clinical Nutrition, May 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0261-5614(04)00058-5. 

Lee, Seung Ho, Sun Young Lee, Dong Ju Son, Heesoon Lee, Hwan Soo Yoo, Sukgil Song, Ki Wan Oh, Dong Cho Han, Byoung Mog Kwon, and Jin Tae Hong. “Inhibitory Effect of 2′-Hydroxycinnamaldehyde on Nitric Oxide Production through Inhibition of NF-ΚB Activation in RAW 264.7 Cells.” Biochemical Pharmacology 69, no. 5 (March 2005): 791–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2004.11.013. 

Liu, S. D., M. H. Song, W. Yun, J. H. Lee, H. B. Kim, and J. H. Cho. “Effect of Carvacrol Essential Oils on Growth Performance and Intestinal Barrier Function in Broilers with Lipopolysaccharide Challenge.” Animal Production Science 60, no. 4 (January 22, 2020): 545–52. https://doi.org/10.1071/an18326. 

Liu, S. D., M. H. Song, W. Yun, J. H. Lee, H. B. Kim, and J. H. Cho. “Effect of Carvacrol Essential Oils on Growth Performance and Intestinal Barrier Function in Broilers with Lipopolysaccharide Challenge.” Animal Production Science 60, no. 4 (January 22, 2020): 545–52. https://doi.org/10.1071/an18326. 

Mantwill, Elke. “Eiweiß & Immunsystem.” sportärztezeitung, April 10, 2025. https://sportaerztezeitung.com/rubriken/ernaehrung/9197/eiweiss-immunsystem/. 

McGilvray, Whitney D, David Klein, Hailey Wooten, John A Dawson, Deltora Hewitt, Amanda R Rakhshandeh, Cornelius F de Lange, and Anoosh Rakhshandeh. “Immune System Stimulation Induced byEscherichia ColiLipopolysaccharide Alters Plasma Free Amino Acid Flux and Dietary Nitrogen Utilization in Growing Pigs1.” Journal of Animal Science 97, no. 1 (October 11, 2018): 315–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky401. 

Melchior, D., B. Sève, and N. Le Floc’h. “Chronic Lung Inflammation Affects Plasma Amino Acid Concentrations in Pigs.” Journal of Animal Science 82, no. 4 (April 1, 2004): 1091–99. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.8241091x. 

Obled, C. “Amino Acid Requirements in Inflammatory States.” Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, no. 3 (September 1, 2003): 365–73. https://doi.org/10.4141/a03-021. 

Palsson‐McDermott, Eva M., and Luke A. O’Neill. “The Warburg Effect Then and Now: From Cancer to Inflammatory Diseases.” BioEssays 35, no. 11 (September 20, 2013): 965–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201300084. 

Pastorelli, H., J. van Milgen, P. Lovatto, and L. Montagne. “Meta-Analysis of Feed Intake and Growth Responses of Growing Pigs after a Sanitary Challenge.” Animal 6, no. 6 (2012): 952–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/s175173111100228x. 

Patience, John. “One of the Most Important Decisions in Swine Production: Dietary Energy Level – Dr. John Patience by The Swine It Podcast Show.” Spotify for Creators, December 2, 2019. https://anchor.fm/swineitpodcast/episodes/One-of-the-most-important-decisions-in-swine-production-dietary-energy-level—Dr–John-Patience-e99j9u. 

Plank, Lindsay D., and Graham L. Hill. “Sequential Metabolic Changes Following Induction of Systemic Inflammatory Response in Patients with Severe Sepsis or Major Blunt Trauma.” World Journal of Surgery 24, no. 6 (June 2000): 630–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002689910104. 

Rakhshandeh, A., and C.F.M. de Lange. “Evaluation of Chronic Immune System Stimulation Models in Growing Pigs.” Animal 6, no. 2 (2012): 305–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731111001522. 

Rakhshandeh, A., and C.F.M. De Lange. “Immune System Stimulation in the Pig: Effect on Performance and Implications for Amino Acid Nutrition.” Essay. In Manipulating Pig Production XIII, 31–46. Werribee, Victoria, Australia: Australasian Pig Science Association Incorporation, 2011. 

Rakhshandeh, Anoosh, John K. Htoo, Neil Karrow, Stephen P. Miller, and Cornelis F. de Lange. “Impact of Immune System Stimulation on the Ileal Nutrient Digestibility and Utilisation of Methionine plus Cysteine Intake for Whole-Body Protein Deposition in Growing Pigs.” British Journal of Nutrition 111, no. 1 (January 14, 2014): 101–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007114513001955. 

Reeds, P., and F. Jahoor. “The Amino Acid Requirements of Disease.” Clinical Nutrition 20 (June 2001): 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1054/clnu.2001.0402. 

Reeds, Peter J, Carla R Fjeld, and Farook Jahoor. “Do the Differences between the Amino Acid Compositions of Acute-Phase and Muscle Proteins Have a Bearing on Nitrogen Loss in Traumatic States?” The Journal of Nutrition 124, no. 6 (June 1994): 906–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/124.6.906. 

Rigobelo, E. Cid, and F. A. De Ávila. “Hypoglycemia Caused by Septicemia in Pigs.” Essay. In Hypoglycemia – Causes and Occurrences., 221–38. London, UK: InTechOpen, 2011. 

Rowaiye, Adekunle, Gordon C. Ibeanu, Doofan Bur, Sandra Nnadi, Ugonna Morikwe, Akwoba Joseph Ogugua, and Chinwe Uzoma Chukwudi. “Phyto-Molecules Show Potentials to Combat Drug-Resistance in Bacterial Cell Membranes.” Microbial Pathogenesis 205 (August 2025): 107723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2025.107723. 

Saravanan, Haribabu, Maida Engels SE, and Muthiah Ramanathan. “Phytomolecules Are Multi Targeted: Understanding the Interlinking Pathway of Antioxidant, Anti Inflammatory and Anti Cancer Response.” In Silico Research in Biomedicine 1 (2025): 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.insi.2025.100002. 

Spurlock, M E. “Regulation of Metabolism and Growth during Immune Challenge: An Overview of Cytokine Function.” Journal of Animal Science 75, no. 7 (1997): 1773–83. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.7571773x. 

Suchner, U., K. S. Kuhn, and P. Fürst. “The Scientific Basis of Immunonutrition.” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 59, no. 4 (November 2000): 553–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0029665100000793.

EW Nutrition brings global poultry leaders together to chart “New Frontiers in Poultry Production”

24 October 2025 – Hurghada, Egypt. This week, EW Nutrition’s conference “New Frontiers in Poultry Production” gathered together 250 partners, customers, and peers from 40 countries.

Over three days, the participants heard talks on the critical topics of the industry. The hosts outlined a coherent vision and market approach: from Jan Wesjohann’s opening on EW Group’s long-term vision and EW Nutrition’s role in the holding company, to CEO Jan Vanbrabant, Marie Gallissot, and Madalina Diaconu’s presentations on the market challenges that EW Nutrition is solving.

Guest speakers included distinguished leading practitioners and key opinion leaders. Day 1 of the conference brought to the stage Prof. Dr. Saadia Nassik from Rabat University on the role of practical mitigation tools for antimicrobial resistance, Marcin Wolak on applied biosecurity best practices, Al Ajban/Al Ain’s Dr Mohammad Ezzat on preventive tools for poultry health, Jaroslaw Wilczinski on enteropathies in poultry production, Rani Ahmad from our sister company Hygiena on food safety hazards and solutions.

Day 2 started with Aviagen’s Murat Yakar with a clear overview of best practices in poultry production and a challenging perspective from Rainbow Chicken’s Brett Roosendaal on nutritional issues and solutions. Lohmann’s Jurek Grapentin then outlined trends in layer genetics, and Prof. Dr. Necmettin Ceylan, from Ankara University, presented holistic strategies to alleviate heat stress.

Both days ended with panel discussions where all speakers answered questions from the audience, moderated by EW Nutrition’s regional directors and event hosts, Radek Nigrin and Jedrzej Standar. On day 3, the discussions continued in more informal settings, allowing participants to network and collect more information while enjoying the impressive local history and natural offerings.

The conference showcased the industry’s potential for growth, both in geographical expansion, in genetic performance, and in better solutions allowing for safe, sustainable, affordable animal protein.

Conference Report
By M. Rosenthal, Global Application Manager Swine, EW Nutrition GmbH

Sustainability is essential for the long-term survival of our planet. In pig production, sustainability involves maintaining economically viable outputs while simultaneously safeguarding animal health and welfare and minimizing environmental impact. The goal is to produce pork that is profitable, ethical, and has a minimal ecological footprint.

Phytomolecules, the bioactive constituents of plant-derived essential oils, play a promising role in advancing this goal. With multifunctional gut health benefits including antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and digestive-supportive properties, phytomolecules help maintain gut health and reduce the need for antibiotics. By improving feed efficiency, enhancing resilience, and supporting intestinal integrity, phytomolecules contribute to both sustainability and efficiency in pig production systems.

Targeting sustainability in pig production

Achieving sustainability in pig production requires a balanced approach that considers three key perspectives: those of the producer, the pig, and the environment.
For the producer, sustainable pig production must be profitable to ensure the long-term viability of the industry. This includes factors such as efficient feed conversion, optimized production practices, and fair market prices.

Another aspect is the maintenance of animal health and well-being, which is essential for optimal pig performance and can be achieved by providing appropriate housing, nutrition, and veterinary care, as well as minimizing stress and disease.

From an environmental perspective, minimizing negative impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, and land degradation, is a key objective. Various strategies, such as improved manure management, efficient nutrient utilization, reuse of farm resources like manure and water, and the use of by-products from other industries as feed ingredients, can be applied.

Strategy for efficient pig production

Historically, pig production has relied heavily on the use of antibiotics to control enteric pathogens, promote gut health, and enhance growth. While effective in the short term, this practice led to unintended consequences, including the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (amr), disruption of microbiota across multiple organ systems, difficulties in manure management, and environmental contamination.

These outcomes triggered societal concern, regulatory interventions, and economic pressure, prompting a shift away from routine antibiotic use. The industry now faces increasing expectations for environmentally responsible practices, reduced dependence on antibiotics, and cost-effective, sustainable solutions.
Achieving both efficiency and sustainability in pig production requires a holistic, system-wide approach that includes an innovative, solution-oriented mindset, optimized management practices, and the adoption of effective gut health antibiotic alternatives.

The foundation of efficiency – the gut

The pigs gastrointestinal tract is the largest and most vulnerable interface between the pig and its external environment. It is a highly organized ecosystem comprised of epithelial cells, the mucosal immune system, and a diverse microbiome consisting of both beneficial commensal microbes and potentially harmful pathogens.
The functions of the gut include nutrient absorption, chemosensing of nutrients and other compounds, immune defence, and balancing the highly diverse microbiome within this complex environment (Furness et al. , 2013). Disruption of this ecosystems homeostasis can impair not only gut function and health but also negatively affect the overall well-being and growth efficiency of the pig.

When evaluating antibiotic alternatives to support this ecosystems homeostasis in the face of challenges, considerations include safety for humans, animals, and the environment, cost-effectiveness, antimicrobial efficacy, the ability to increase nutrient availability, and to modulate immune activation and inflammation.

Functional feed additives commonly utilized in pig nutrition, alone or in combination, include organic acids, probiotics, immunoglobulins, medium-chain fatty acids, and phytomolecules.

Phytomolecules: supporting gut health and performance

Phytomolecules are the bioactive components of plant-derived essential oils. Due to the variability in phytomolecule content and the presence of volatile and astringent components in essential oil extracts, utilizing commercial phytomolecule products is recommended. Proprietary formulations utilize encapsulation or matrix technology to protect the phytomolecules from damage or loss during storage, processing, and passage through the stomach.

Extensive research in humans and animals has identified phytomolecules as having antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, antioxidative, and coccidiostatic properties. They enhance digestibility and immunity, promote gut health through differential modulation of bacterial populations, and reduce inflammation and oxidative stress (Brenes et al., 2010; Puvaca et al. , 2013; Chitprasert et al., 2014). Phytomolecules most researched and utilized in pig feed additives to date include terpenes (e. G., carvacrol and thymol) and phenylpropenes (e.g., cinnamaldehyde and eugenol).

1. Direct antimicrobial activity of phytomolecules

Phytomolecules such as carvacrol and thymol provide broad-spectrum antimicrobial activities against Gram- and Gram+ bacteria, fungi, and yeast and are regarded as promising alternatives to antibiotics in swine production systems (Lambert et al., 2001; Delaquis et al., 2002; Abbaszadeh et al., 2014).

Phytomolecules directly target bacterial cells through multiple mechanisms, with the cell wall and membrane being major sites of action. The lipophilic structure of phytomolecules enables their entry through bacterial membranes among the fatty acid chains, causing the cell wall and membranes to expand and become more fluid. This damage collapses the cell wall and cytoplasmic membrane, resulting in the destruction of membrane proteins, the coagulation of the cytoplasm, and a reduction in proton motive force. The result is leakage of vital intracellular contents and death of the bacterial cell (Cox et al., 1998; Faleiro, 2011; Nazzaro et al., 2013; Yap et al., 2014). For example, thymol and carvacrol can damage the outer membrane of Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli o157: h7 (Helander et al., 1998).

A further direct antimicrobial action involves phytomolecules acting as trans-membrane carriers, exchanging a hydroxyl proton for a potassium ion, resulting in dissipation of the ph gradient and electrical potential over the bacterial cytoplasmic membrane. The result is a reduced proton motive force and the depletion of the intracellular adenosine triphosphate (APT) pools. Loss of potassium further inhibits bacterial function as it is needed for the activation of cytoplasmic enzymes to maintain osmotic pressure and regulate intracellular pH. (Wendakoon et al., 1995).

In summary, the primary direct antimicrobial mechanism of action for terpene and phenylpropene phytomolecules is related to their effects on cell walls and cytoplasmic membranes, and energy metabolism of pathogenic bacteria.

2. Indirect antimicrobial activity of phytomolecules

Phytomolecules indirectly impact the physiological functioning and virulence capability of pathogenic bacteria through the interference of quorum-sensing (QS). QS involves pathogenic bacteria producing signaling molecules that are released based on cell numbers. The detection of these molecules regulates pathogen population behavior such as attachment, biofilm formation, and motility, i. e. , virulence (Greenberg, 2003; Joshi et al., 2016).

QS mechanisms require signal synthesis, signal accumulation, and signal detection, providing three opportunities for QS inhibitors to disrupt pathogenic bacteria from causing disease (Czajkowski and Jafra, 2009; Lasarre and Federle, 2013). Eugenol and carvacrol have been extensively studied for their QS inhibition activities (Zhou et al., 2013; Burt et al., 2014).

3. Combinations increase efficacy

Additional antimicrobial effects can be seen when different phytomolecules are combined, and/or applied with other functional additives such as organic acids (Souza et al., 2009; Hulankova and Borilova, 2011). Zhou et al. (2007) reported that carvacrol or thymol in combination with acetic or citric acid had a better efficacy against S. typhimurium when compared to the individual phytomolecule or organic acid. In recent studies, results have shown in vivo efficacy of such synergistic dietary strategies in pigs (Diao et al., 2015; Balasubramanian et al., 2016). The combined inclusion of phytomolecules and organic acids in pig diets before slaughter may hinder Salmonella shedding and seroprevalence (Walia et al., 2017; Noirrit et al., 2016).

4. Phytomolecules are more than antimicrobials

In addition to acting as antimicrobials, phytomolecules enhance production efficiency through multiple complementary mechanisms, including direct anti-inflammatory, antioxidative, digestive, and gut barrier-supportive effects.

Anti-inflammatory effects: Gut inflammation in pigs not only compromises intestinal function and barrier integrity but also has a direct negative impact on growth performance and overall health. Chronic or excessive immune activation diverts energy away from productive processes such as growth and feed efficiency.

Phytomolecules have demonstrated the ability to modulate immune responses by influencing key cell-signalling pathways involved in inflammation. For example, compounds such as cinnamaldehyde and carvacrol can modulate the activity of critical transcription factors, including nuclear factor erythroid 2 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) and nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB). Through this dual action, phytomolecules can simultaneously activate antioxidant defences and suppress pro-inflammatory signalling, thereby reducing intestinal inflammation and supporting improved performance outcomes (Krois-mayr et al., 2008; Wondrak et al., 2010; Zou et al., 2016).

Antioxidant effects: oxidative stress is a major biological challenge in modern swine production systems, where high-performance animals are frequently exposed to stressors such as weaning, disease challenges, heat stress, mycotoxin exposure, transport, and overcrowding. These stressors promote the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), and when ROS production exceeds the capacity of the pig’s antioxidant defence systems, oxidative stress occurs.

This imbalance can negatively affect growth, immunity, muscle integrity, feed intake, milk yield, and reproductive performance, including increased abortion rates in gestating sows (Zhou et al., 2013; Burt et al., 2014). As a result, there is growing interest in the use of natural antioxidant compounds, particularly phytomolecules, to counteract these detrimental effects. For example, carvacrol and thymol (1:1 ratio) at 100 mg/kg dietary supplementation reduced weaning-associated oxidative stress by decreasing TNF-α mRNA expression in the intestinal mucosa (Wei et al., 2017).

Additionally, carvacrol supplementation in the diets of late gestation and lactating sows under oxidative stress conditions significantly improved piglet performance (Tan et al., 2015).

Digestive function: The gastrointestinal tract functions not only as a site for nutrient absorption but also as a sensory organ. Specialized chemosensors in the gut monitor the concentration and composition of nutrients, playing a crucial role in the regulation of digestive enzyme secretion, gut peptide release, feed intake, and nutrient absorption and metabolism.

Studies in weaner piglets have shown that certain phytomolecules can stimulate the secretion of digestive enzymes and enhance gastrointestinal function (Maenner et al., 2011; Li et al., 2012).

Tight junctions and gut barrier integrity: The intestinal epithelium functions as a highly dynamic and selective barrier, facilitating the absorption of fluids and solutes while preventing the translocation of pathogens and toxins into underlying tissues. This barrier function occurs through intercellular tight junctions. During episodes of mucosal inflammation, the integrity of these junctions can be compromised, leading to increased intestinal permeability, reduced nutrient absorption, and systemic immune activation and inflammation.

Research has shown that phytomolecules can enhance transepithelial electrical resistance and upregulate the expression of tight junction proteins, reducing epithelial permeability and maintaining a functional barrier, even under inflammatory conditions (Yu et al., 2020; Kim and Kim, 2019).

Sustainable efficiency in pig production supported by in-feed phytomolecules

As the pig industry moves away from reliance on in-feed antibiotics, the need for sustainable, efficient, and health-focused production strategies has never been greater. Modern pig production systems must respond to societal expectations, regulatory mandates, and environmental pressures, while still maintaining profitability and high animal welfare standards.

Central to this transformation is a holistic approach-one that includes a shift in mindset among stakeholders, optimized management across all production domains, and the strategic use of effective antibiotic alternatives. The gastrointestinal tract, as the core of nutrient absorption and immune defence, is a critical control point for supporting health and performance.

Phytomolecules and other functional feed additives have demonstrated potential to enhance gut integrity, reduce inflammation, combat oxidative stress, and improve nutrient utilization. While no single solution can fully replace antibiotics, targeted combinations of these compounds have shown the most consistent success in promoting gut health and sustainable performance.

With continued innovation, collaboration, and science-based application of these alternatives, the industry is well-positioned to achieve its goals of profitable, ethical, and ecologically responsible pork production for the future.

References

Abbaszadeh, S., A. Sharifzadeh, H. Shokri, A. Khosravi, and A. Abbaszadeh. 2014. “Antifungal Efficacy of Thymol, Carvacrol, Eugenol and Menthol as Alternative Agents to Control the Growth of Food-Relevant Fungi.” Journal de Mycologie Médicale 24 (2): 51–56.
Balasubramanian, B., J. W. Park, and I. H. Kim. 2016. “Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Supplementing Micro-Encapsulated Organic Acids and Essential Oils in Diets for Sows and Suckling Piglets.” Italian Journal of Animal Science 15 (4): 626–33.
Baschieri, A., M. D. Ajvazi, J. L. F. Tonfack, L. Valgimigli, and R. Amorati. 2017. “Explaining the Antioxidant Activity of Some Common Non-Phenolic Components of Essential Oils.” Food Chemistry 232: 656–63.
Berchieri-Ronchi, C., S. Kim, Y. Zhao, C. Correa, K.-J. Yeum, and A. Ferreira. 2011. “Oxidative Stress Status of Highly Prolific Sows During Gestation and Lactation.” Animal 5 (11): 1774–79.
Brenes, A., and E. Roura. 2010. “Essential Oils in Poultry Nutrition: Main Effects and Modes of Action.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 158 (1): 1–14.
Burt, S. A., V. T. Ojo-Fakunle, J. Woertman, and E. J. Veldhuizen. 2014. “The Natural Antimicrobial Carvacrol Inhibits Quorum Sensing in Chromobacterium violaceum and Reduces Bacterial Biofilm Formation at Sub-Lethal Concentrations.” PLoS One 9 (4): e93414.
Chitprasert, P., and P. Sutaphanit. 2014. “Holy Basil (Ocimum sanctum Linn.) Essential Oil Delivery to Swine Gastrointestinal Tract Using Gelatine Microcapsules Coated with Aluminium Carboxymethyl Cellulose and Beeswax.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 62 (52): 12641–48.
Cox, S., J. Gustafson, C. Mann, J. Markham, Y. Liew, and R. Hartland, et al. 1998. “Tea Tree Oil Causes K⁺ Leakage and Inhibits Respiration in Escherichia coli.” Letters in Applied Microbiology 26 (5): 355–58.
Czajkowski, R., and S. Jafra. 2009. “Quenching of Acyl-Homoserine Lactone-Dependent Quorum Sensing by Enzymatic Disruption of Signal Molecules.” Acta Biochimica Polonica 56 (1): 1–16.
Delaquis, P. J., K. Stanich, B. Girard, and G. Mazza. 2002. “Antimicrobial Activity of Individual and Mixed Fractions of Dill, Cilantro, Coriander and Eucalyptus Essential Oils.” International Journal of Food Microbiology 74 (1): 101–9.
Diao, H., P. Zheng, B. Yu, J. He, X. Mao, J. Yu, et al. 2015. “Effects of Benzoic Acid and Thymol on Growth Performance and Gut Characteristics of Weaned Piglets.” Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 28 (6): 827–35.
Faleiro, M. 2011. “The Mode of Antibacterial Action of Essential Oils.” In Science Against Microbial Pathogens: Communicating Current Research and Technological Advances, vol. 2, 1143–56. Badajoz, Spain: Formatex Research Center.
Furness, J., L. Rivera, and H. J. Cho, et al. 2013. “The Gut as a Sensory Organ.” Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 10: 729–40.
Greenberg, E. P. 2003. “Bacterial Communication and Group Behavior.” Journal of Clinical Investigation 112 (9): 1288–90.
Helander, I. M., H.-L. Alakomi, K. Latva-Kala, T. Mattila-Sandholm, I. Pol, E. J. Smid, et al. 1998. “Characterization of the Action of Selected Essential Oil Components on Gram-Negative Bacteria.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 46 (9): 3590–95.
Hulankova, R., and G. Borilova. 2011. “In Vitro Combined Effect of Oregano Essential Oil and Caprylic Acid Against Salmonella Serovars, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes.” Acta Veterinaria Brno 80 (4): 343–48.
Joshi, J. R., N. Khazanov, H. Senderowitz, S. Burdman, A. Lipsky, and I. Yedidia. 2016. “Plant Phenolic Volatiles Inhibit Quorum Sensing in Pectobacteria and Reduce Their Virulence by Potential Binding to ExpI and ExpR Proteins.” Scientific Reports 6: 38126.
Kim, M. S., and J. Y. Kim. 2019. “Cinnamon Subcritical Water Extract Attenuates Intestinal Inflammation and Enhances Intestinal Tight Junction in a Caco-2 and RAW264.8 Co-Culture Model.” Food & Function 20: 4350–60.
Kroismayr, A., J. Sehm, M. Pfaffl, K. Schedle, C. Plitzner, and W. Windisch. 2008. “Effects of Avilamycin and Essential Oils on mRNA Expression of Apoptotic and Inflammatory Markers and Gut Morphology of Piglets.” Czech Journal of Animal Science 53: 377–87.
Lambert, R., P. N. Skandamis, P. J. Coote, and G. J. Nychas. 2001. “A Study of the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration and Mode of Action of Oregano Essential Oil, Thymol and Carvacrol.” Journal of Applied Microbiology 91 (3): 453–62.
LaSarre, B., and M. J. Federle. 2013. “Exploiting Quorum Sensing to Confuse Bacterial Pathogens.” Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 77 (1): 73–111.
Li, P., X. Piao, Y. Ru, X. Han, L. Xue, and H. Zhang. 2012. “Effects of Adding Essential Oil to the Diet of Weaned Pigs on Performance, Nutrient Utilization, Immune Response and Intestinal Health.” Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 25 (11): 1617–26.
Maenner, K., W. Vahjen, and O. Simon. 2011. “Studies on the Effects of Essential-Oil-Based Feed Additives on Performance, Ileal Nutrient Digestibility, and Selected Bacterial Groups in the Gastrointestinal Tract of Piglets.” Journal of Animal Science 89 (7): 2106–12.
Nazzaro, F., F. Fratianni, L. De Martino, R. Coppola, and V. De Feo. 2013. “Effect of Essential Oils on Pathogenic Bacteria.” Pharmaceuticals 6 (12): 1451–74.
Noirrit, M., and F. Philippe. 2016. “Reduction of Salmonella Prevalence on Sows and Finishing Pigs by Use of a Protected Mix of Organic Acids and Essential Oils in the Feed of Lactating Sows and Weaned Piglets.” Journées Recherche Porcine 48: 351–52.
Puvaca, N., V. Stanacev, D. Glamocic, J. Levic, L. Peric, and D. Milic. 2013. “Beneficial Effects of Phytoadditives in Broiler Nutrition.” World’s Poultry Science Journal 69 (1): 27–34.
Souza, E. L., J. C. Barros, M. L. Conceiçao, N. J. Gomes Neto, and A. C. V. Costa. 2009. “Combined Application of Origanum vulgare L. Essential Oil and Acetic Acid for Controlling the Growth of Staphylococcus aureus in Foods.” Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 40 (2): 387–93.
Tan, C., H. Wei, H. Sun, J. Ao, G. Long, S. Jiang, et al. 2015. “Effects of Dietary Supplementation of Oregano Essential Oil to Sows on Oxidative Stress Status, Lactation Feed Intake of Sows, and Piglet Performance.” BioMed Research International 2015: Article ID 941754.
Walia, K., H. Argüello, H. Lynch, F. C. Leonard, J. Grant, D. Yearsley, et al. 2017. “Effect of Strategic Administration of an Encapsulated Blend of Formic Acid, Citric Acid, and Essential Oils on Salmonella Carriage, Seroprevalence, and Growth of Finishing Pigs.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 137: 28–35.
Wei, H. K., H. X. Xue, Z. Zhou, and J. Peng. 2017. “A Carvacrol-Thymol Blend Decreased Intestinal Oxidative Stress and Influenced Selected Microbes Without Changing the Messenger RNA Levels of Tight Junction Proteins in Jejunal Mucosa of Weaning Piglets.” Animal 11 (2): 193–201.
Wendakoon, C. N., and M. Sakaguchi. 1995. “Inhibition of Amino Acid Decarboxylase Activity of Enterobacter aerogenes by Active Components in Spices.” Journal of Food Protection 58 (3): 280–83.
Wondrak, G. T., N. F. Villeneuve, S. D. Lamore, A. S. Bause, T. Jiang, and D. D. Zhang. 2010. “The Cinnamon-Derived Dietary Factor Cinnamic Aldehyde Activates the Nrf2-Dependent Antioxidant Response in Human Epithelial Colon Cells.” Molecules 15 (5): 3338–55.
Yap, P. S. X., B. C. Yiap, H. C. Ping, and S. H. E. Lim. 2014. “Essential Oils, a New Horizon in Combating Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance.” Open Microbiology Journal 8 (1).
Yu, J., Y. Song, B. Yu, J. He, P. Zheng, X. Mao, Z. Huang, Y. Luo, J. Luo, H. Yan, Q. Wang, H. Wang, and D. Chen. 2020. “Tannic Acid Prevents Post-Weaning Diarrhea by Improving Intestinal Barrier Integrity and Function in Weaned Piglets.” Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 11: 87.
Zhou, F., B. Ji, H. Zhang, H. Jiang, Z. Yang, J. Li, et al. 2007. “Synergistic Effect of Thymol and Carvacrol Combined with Chelators and Organic Acids Against Salmonella Typhimurium.” Journal of Food Protection 70 (7): 1704–9.
Zhou, L., H. Zheng, Y. Tang, W. Yu, and Q. Gong. 2013. “Eugenol Inhibits Quorum Sensing at Subinhibitory Concentrations.” Biotechnology Letters 35 (4): 631–37.
Zou, Y., J. Wang, J. Peng, and H. Wei. 2016. “Oregano Essential Oil Induces SOD1 and GSH Expression Through Nrf2 Activation and Alleviates Hydrogen Peroxide-Induced Oxidative Damage in IPEC-J2 Cells.” Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 2016: Article ID 5987183.