by Madalina Diaconu, Business Development Manager, EW Nutrition GmbH, and Maria Angeles Rodriguez, Gut Health Platform Manager, EW Nutrition GmbHABSTRACT
Avian coccidiosis, caused by intracellular protozoan parasites of the genus Eimeria, remains one of the most economically damaging diseases in commercial poultry production, costing the global industry an estimated USD 10–14 billion annually. For decades, disease management relied on seven recognized Eimeria species infecting chickens. However, the formal characterization in 2021 of three previously cryptic species – Eimeria lata, Eimeria nagambie, and Eimeria zaria – has fundamentally altered this landscape. These newly described parasites are pathogenic, capable of compromising bodyweight gain, and critically, they evade immunity induced by all currently available commercial anticoccidial vaccines. This white paper reviews the biology and epidemiology of these emerging species, examines the limitations of conventional control strategies, and presents the scientific rationale for phytogenic compounds as a complementary, resistance-resilient solution. Specific attention is given to the mechanisms of action of saponins, tannins, thymol, cinnamaldehyde, cumin, licorice, and others against Eimeria infection, intestinal inflammation, and secondary pathogen susceptibility.

1. Introduction: A shifting coccidiosis landscape

Coccidiosis, driven by Eimeria spp. infection of the intestinal epithelium, causes morbidity through hemorrhagic or malabsorptive diarrhea, disrupted gut microbiota, and impaired immune responses. Even subclinical infections exert measurable production costs through reduced bodyweight gain, deteriorated feed conversion ratios (FCR), and heightened susceptibility to secondary pathogens – most notably Clostridium perfringens (necrotic enteritis). The disease is ubiquitous: Eimeria oocysts are environmentally resilient, highly reproductive, and transmitted via fecal-oral routes in all commercial production systems.

For more than seven decades, the field recognized seven Eimeria species as the causative agents of avian coccidiosis in chickens: E. acervulina, E. brunetti, E. maxima, E. mitis, E. necatrix, E. praecox, and E. tenella. Each species infects a distinct region of the intestinal tract and produces characteristic pathological signatures. This taxonomy formed the basis for all commercial coccidiosis vaccines and the design of anticoccidial rotation programs.

In 2021, this foundational assumption was overturned. A landmark study by Blake et al. formally named three cryptic species – previously described only as operational taxonomic units (OTUs) x, y, and z – as Eimeria lata, Eimeria nagambie, and Eimeria zaria. This discovery, enabled by next-generation genomic sequencing, has critical implications for every layer of coccidiosis control: diagnostics, vaccination, and pharmacological management.Economic context
Avian coccidiosis costs the global poultry industry approximately £10.4 billion annually at 2016 prices (Blake et al., 2020). These losses include poor growth performance, treatment costs, increased feed consumption, increased replacement of chicks, and enhanced susceptibility to concurrent infections such as necrotic enteritis.

2. The three new Eimeria species: Biology, pathogenicity, and global spread

2.1 Discovery and formal classification

The three cryptic Eimeria OTUs were first identified through molecular epidemiological surveys in Australia in 2007–2008 (Cantacessi et al., 2008). Initially named OTU-X, OTU-Y, and OTU-Z, these genotypes showed consistent genetic divergence from the seven recognized species but lacked formal biological characterization. Blake et al. (2021), working at the Royal Veterinary College (UK), conducted an exhaustive characterization combining oocyst morphology, pre-patent periods, pathology, and draft genome sequence assemblies. The conclusion was unambiguous: all three OTUs possess sufficient genetic and biological diversity to constitute new species.

The three new species were named:

Eimeria lata n. sp. (formerly OTU-X): Named for its unusually wide oocyst morphology – the broadest average oocyst width of any Eimeria species infecting chickens.

Eimeria nagambie n. sp. (formerly OTU-Y): Named after Nagambie, Victoria, Australia, the location of the first isolate.

Eimeria zaria n. sp. (formerly OTU-Z): Named after Zaria, Nigeria, reflecting the geographic origin of its initial isolation.

Figure 1. Sporulated oocysts of the Eimeria Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) genotypes x, y, and z collected from domestic chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Photomicrographs of sporulated oocysts are shown for (A) OTUx, (B) OTUy and (C) OTUz. Composite line drawings are shown for (D) OTUx, (E) OTUy and (F) OTUz. RB, residual body; SB, stieda body; PG, polar granule. Scale bars = 10 µm. © 2021 Blake et al., Int J Parasitol. 2021 Jul;51(8):621–634. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2020.12.004

2.2 Pathogenicity and production impact

Experimental infection trials demonstrated that all three new species are capable of compromising broiler bodyweight gain, a direct measure of economic impact. Unlike historically recognized species such as E. acervulina and E. tenella, whose pathological signatures are well-characterized, the intestinal tropism and precise pathological mechanisms of E. lata, E. nagambie, and E. zaria remain under active investigation. Their clinical presentation may overlap with existing species, complicating field diagnosis through standard lesion scoring alone.
The Eimeria-gut microbiota interaction is particularly relevant here. Research has demonstrated that Eimeria infection disrupts intestinal bacterial communities, reducing beneficial taxa and creating dysbiosis conditions that facilitate opportunistic bacterial overgrowth – most critically by C. perfringens. The bidirectional interaction between coccidiosis and necrotic enteritis leads to cumulative economic burdens. However, it remains to be determined whether the newly identified species possess distinct microbiota-modulating profiles.

2.3 Geographic distribution and diagnostic blind spots

Initially considered geographically restricted to the Southern Hemisphere, detection has since expanded significantly. One or more of the three new species have now been confirmed in Australia, multiple sub-Saharan African countries, India, Venezuela, the United States, and – as of 2023 – Europe, with the first reported detection of E. zaria in European broiler flocks (Jaramillo-Ortiz et al., 2023). The heavy reliance of existing diagnostic protocols on oocyst morphology and PCR panels developed for the original seven Eimeria species raises concerns that newly identified species are routinely underdetected in field surveillance.Critical diagnostic gap
Standard coccidiosis diagnostics – including lesion scoring, oocyst morphology, and many commercial PCR kits – were designed around the seven classical Eimeria species. E. lata, E. nagambie, and E. zaria may circulate undetected in flocks, contributing to unexplained performance losses and vaccine failures. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) targeting 18S rRNA is currently the most reliable identification tool (Blake et al., 2021).

2.4 Vaccine evasion: The central challenge

The most commercially disruptive characteristic of the three new species is their demonstrated ability to evade immunity induced by all currently available commercial anticoccidial vaccines. Live attenuated coccidiosis vaccines, the cornerstone of antibiotic-free coccidiosis control programs, are designed against the original seven species. Experimental challenge studies confirmed that prior vaccination provides no protective immunity against E. lata, E. nagambie, or E. zaria (Blake et al., 2021). This creates a significant vulnerability in integrated coccidiosis control programs, particularly in broiler production systems where vaccination programs are used as the primary long-term resistance management strategy.

The inability of current vaccines to address these new species underscores a critical need for broad-spectrum, mechanism-resilient complementary tools. Phytogenic compounds, acting through multiple simultaneous mechanisms, represent an ideal candidate for this role.

3. Current control strategies and their limitations

3.1 Chemical anticoccidials and ionophores

Chemical anticoccidials (e.g., diclazuril, toltrazuril, amprolium) and ionophore antibiotics (e.g., monensin, salinomycin) remain the primary pharmaceutical tools for coccidiosis control globally. These compounds target specific metabolic or ion transport mechanisms in Eimeria and have historically been highly effective when deployed in rotational shuttle programs. However, decades of continuous use have driven the emergence of resistance across multiple drug classes. Field resistance to monensin, robenidine, salinomycin, maduramicin, and diclazuril has been extensively documented across multiple geographic regions (Ferdji et al., 2022; Flores et al., 2022).

Resistance development occurs through multiple mechanisms: altered cell membrane permeability reducing drug uptake, use of alternative biochemical pathways, mutations at drug target sites, and genetic recombination within Eimeria populations. Crucially, resistance to one drug class does not necessarily confer resistance to compounds with different mechanisms – providing the theoretical basis for rotation programs. However, field conditions, partial compliance, and concurrent use often undermine the protective effects of rotation strategies.

3.2 Vaccines: Effective but incomplete

Live attenuated and live non-attenuated coccidiosis vaccines have represented a major advance in resistance management, offering cycle-by-cycle immunity development without driving pharmacological resistance. In broiler production, their use has grown significantly in recent years, particularly in no-anticoccidial or antibiotic-free production systems. However, as established in Section 2.4, no current commercial vaccine confers immunity against E. lata, E. nagambie, or E. zaria. This gap is not a minor caveat – it means that a vaccinated flock may be fully protected against classical species while remaining completely susceptible to the three newly described ones.

3.3 The regulatory and consumer pressure context

Across the European Union and in growing markets globally, regulatory restrictions on preventive antibiotic use, ionophore limitations in organic systems, and consumer demand for residue-free products have created strong incentives to explore alternatives. The combination of resistance pressure, vaccine limitations against new species, and regulatory trends makes the case for phytogenic integration both scientifically and commercially compelling.

4. Phytogenics as a multi-mechanism solution

4.1 Why phytogenics are relevant for coccidiosis control

Phytogenic compounds – plant-derived bioactive molecules including essential oil components, polyphenols, saponins, tannins, alkaloids, and bitter glycosides – have gained substantial scientific attention as a class of natural feed additives with demonstrated antimicrobial, antiparasitic, antioxidant, and immunomodulatory properties. Their relevance to coccidiosis management is grounded in three complementary properties: (1) direct antiparasitic action against Eimeria oocysts, sporozoites, and intracellular stages; (2) protection and restoration of intestinal mucosal integrity following Eimeria-induced damage; and (3) modulation of host immune responses to improve resilience against both Eimeria and secondary pathogens.

A key advantage of phytogenic compounds over conventional anticoccidials is their multi-target mode of action. Because each active molecule typically acts on multiple biological pathways simultaneously, the probability of resistance development through a single mutation is substantially lower than for single-target drugs. Furthermore, the inclusion of phytogenic blends in programs alongside vaccines or anticoccidials can provide synergistic or additive coverage – particularly relevant now that three new Eimeria species fall outside the protective scope of all available vaccines.

4.2 Compound-specific mechanisms of action

The following section reviews the scientific evidence for eight key phytogenic compounds relevant to coccidiosis control. A summary table is presented at the end of this section.

Saponins

Saponins are amphiphilic glycosides found in diverse plant species including Quillaja saponaria and Yucca schidigera. Their anticoccidial activity is primarily attributable to their capacity to interact with and disrupt lipid bilayer membranes. In the context of Eimeria, this membrane-disrupting action weakens the structural integrity of the parasite’s outer protective layers, rendering it more vulnerable to host immune effectors. Importantly, saponins also impair Eimeria attachment to intestinal epithelial cells, interrupting the invasion cascade. Bafundo et al. (2020) demonstrated that broilers receiving Quillaja/Yucca-derived saponin diets showed significantly reduced oocyst counts and improved weight gain compared to untreated controls challenged with Eimeria spp. Abbas et al. (2012), in a comprehensive botanical review, concluded that saponins significantly reduce both oocyst shedding and intestinal lesion scores, with efficacy approaching that of conventional anticoccidials.

Tannins

Tannins are polyphenolic compounds classified as condensed (proanthocyanidins) or hydrolysable (ellagitannins, gallotannins), found in chestnut, quebracho, and oak, among others. Their antiparasitic action against Eimeria involves protein precipitation at the parasite cell membrane – a non-specific mechanism that does not readily lend itself to resistance development. Tannins also exert strong antioxidant activity, directly reducing oxidative stress in intestinal tissue damaged by Eimeria – a crucial function given that lipid peroxidation is a primary driver of mucosal injury in coccidiosis. Masood et al. (2013) confirmed that tannin supplementation reduced intestinal oxidative stress and improved performance in broilers challenged with Eimeria. Abbas et al. (2012) further established their equivalence to chemical anticoccidials in reducing lesion severity and oocyst output.

Thymol (Thyme, Thymus vulgaris)

Thymol, the principal bioactive phenol of Thymus vulgaris essential oil, has been extensively studied for its anticoccidial properties. In vitro work by Remmal et al. (2013) demonstrated that thymol disrupts oocyst structural integrity and inhibits sporulation at concentrations of ≥2%, with maximal oocyst degeneration rates reaching 96% at 10%. At the level of intracellular parasite development, thyme essential oil was shown to inhibit the first round of schizogony in E. tenella with efficacy comparable to commercial anticoccidial drugs. Beyond direct antiparasitic action, thyme essential oil significantly downregulates pro-inflammatory mediators in Eimeria-challenged systems, reducing immune-mediated intestinal damage without suppressing protective immunity (Felici et al., 2024).

Cinnamaldehyde (Cinnamon, Cinnamomum verum)

Cinnamaldehyde, the principal aldehyde constituent of cinnamon bark, inhibits E. tenella sporozoite invasion of Madin-Darby bovine kidney (MDBK) epithelial cells in vitro, as part of a broader phenolic compound class with documented anti-invasion activity against Eimeria (Sidiropoulou et al., 2020). It reduces oocyst sporulation by approximately 79% in vitro (Remmal et al., 2013). Particularly notable is the synergistic effect between cinnamaldehyde and carvacrol (the active component of oregano oil): when used in combination, they achieve approximately 90% reduction in oocyst viability – substantially superior to either compound alone. This synergism supports the formulation of multi-compound blends. Cinnamaldehyde also demonstrates significant antimicrobial activity against Clostridium perfringens, providing simultaneous protection against the primary secondary pathogen associated with coccidiosis-driven necrotic enteritis.

Cumin (Cuminaldehyde, Cuminum cyminum)

Cumin seed contains cuminaldehyde as its primary bioactive compound, alongside cymene and other phenolic constituents. The anticoccidial relevance of cumin derives from multiple overlapping mechanisms: phenolic compounds interact with Eimeria oocyst membranes in a manner analogous to tannins, disrupting cytoplasmic membrane integrity and causing parasite cell death. Antioxidant properties protect intestinal epithelial cells from oxidative damage following Eimeria invasion. Broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity against common poultry pathogens, including C. perfringens, Salmonella spp., and E. coli, addresses the bacterial gateway mechanisms that amplify Eimeria-associated pathology. El-Shall et al. (2022) and the phytochemical coccidiosis control review (El-Shall et al., 2022) confirm cumin among the botanicals with documented anticoccidial and mucoprotective activity.

Licorice (Glycyrrhizin, Glycyrrhiza glabra)

Licorice root, through its primary bioactive compound glycyrrhizin and associated flavonoids (liquiritin, isoliquiritigenin), exerts potent immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects particularly relevant to Eimeria-associated pathology. Glycyrrhizin stimulates T-cell mediated immune responses – the primary adaptive immune mechanism governing protective immunity against Eimeria – while modulating excessive inflammatory cascades that cause collateral intestinal damage. This dual action (immune stimulation + anti-inflammatory) is uniquely valuable in coccidiosis: it supports the development of parasite-specific immunity while limiting tissue destruction. Licorice compounds also support intestinal epithelium repair following Eimeria-induced villous atrophy, contributing to faster restoration of absorptive surface and productive performance. The immunomodulatory profile of licorice makes it particularly relevant as a complement to anticoccidial vaccination programs – supporting the immune priming process against classical species while potentially reinforcing innate defenses against the new, vaccine-evading species.

The right phytogenics can support coccidiosis control

Fig. 1 Lesion scores by intestinal segment. All treatments reduced lesion scores significantly compared to the positive control, but the Phytogenic was the clear winner overall, especially dominant in the caeca (E. tenella). Notably, the phytogenic products outperformed the coccidiostat on total lesion score, which is a strong result, particularly because the coccidiostat struggled against E. tenella in the caeca, where Phytogenic excelled.

Fig. 2 Microbiota recovery by day 18 pi. All four treatment groups performed similarly and dramatically better than the untreated positive control, reducing the dysbacteriosis score by roughly 45–49% compared to the positive control. The differences between the treated groups are minor and likely not statistically significant, meaning the phytogenic products performed on par with the coccidiostat in protecting gut health after Eimeria infection.

4.3 Summary: Phytogenic compound mechanisms at a glance

5. Integration into coccidiosis control programs

5.1 Phytogenics in combination with vaccines

The ideal integration model for phytogenics in the context of the new Eimeria species is as a permanent background layer within any coccidiosis control program – regardless of whether that program is vaccine-based, chemical-based, or a shuttle combination. For vaccinated flocks, phytogenics provide complementary activity against E. lata, E. nagambie, and E. zaria – species against which vaccines offer no protection – while supporting the immune priming process for species covered by the vaccine. Their immunomodulatory effects (particularly licorice and thyme) optimize T-cell responses during the vaccination window.

5.2 Phytogenics in chemical anticoccidial programs

In flocks managed with chemical anticoccidials, phytogenics serve a dual function: reducing the parasite load and oocyst environmental contamination (through saponins, tannins, cinnamaldehyde, and anise), and protecting intestinal integrity during chemotherapy-related periods when mucosal recovery is needed. Given the documented resistance issues with current chemical classes, the multi-mechanism action of phytogenic blends provides coverage that complements rather than competes with pharmacological programs.

5.3 Resistance management and sustainability

A defining advantage of multi-component phytogenic blends is their resistance resilience. Because compounds such as saponins, tannins, essential oil phenols, and bitter glycosides act on multiple biological targets simultaneously – membrane integrity, cell adhesion, sporulation, immune activation, oxidative balance – the probability of Eimeria developing resistance to a well-formulated phytogenic blend is fundamentally lower than for single-target anticoccidials. As regulatory pressure on chemical anticoccidials increases globally, particularly in the EU, phytogenic integration offers a scientifically grounded pathway to sustainable, long-term coccidiosis management.Key message for integrators and veterinarians
The characterization of E. lata, E. nagambie, and E. zaria creates a non-negotiable gap in current vaccine-based control programs. No available commercial vaccine provides protection against these three new species. Phytogenic blends – specifically those combining saponins, tannins, thymol, cinnamaldehyde, and supporting compounds (cumin, licorice, etc.) – offer the only currently available broad-spectrum complementary tool capable of addressing this gap while simultaneously managing drug-resistant classical species.

6. Conclusions

The formal naming of Eimeria lata, Eimeria nagambie, and Eimeria zaria in 2021 represents the most significant taxonomic development in avian coccidiosis in decades. Beyond nomenclature, these new species present concrete operational challenges: they are pathogenic, performance-impairing, capable of global spread, and invisible to all currently available commercial vaccines and most routine diagnostic protocols.

This discovery reinforces the case for moving beyond single-mechanism control strategies. Phytogenic compounds, through their complementary and multi-target mechanisms of action, provide a scientifically validated layer of broad-spectrum coccidiosis management. The compound portfolio reviewed in this paper – saponins, tannins, thymol, cinnamaldehyde, cumin, licorice, etc. – collectively addresses direct parasite suppression, intestinal barrier protection, immune modulation, oxidative stress reduction, and secondary pathogen control. These mechanisms operate independently of vaccine-induced immunity and without the resistance trajectories associated with conventional anticoccidials.

As the global poultry industry adapts to a coccidiosis landscape that now includes ten recognized Eimeria species infecting chickens, phytogenic integration is no longer an optional enhancement – it is a fundamental component of resilient, future-proof flock health management.

For more information on EW Nutrition’s phytogenic solutions supporting coccidiosis control,
contact your EW Nutrition regional representative or visit ew-nutrition.com

References

Abbas, R.Z., Colwell, D.D., Gilleard, J. (2012). Botanicals: an alternative approach for the control of avian coccidiosis. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 68(2), 203–215.

Abbas, R.Z., Iqbal, Z., Blake, D., Khan, M.N., Saleemi, M.K. (2011). Anticoccidial drug resistance in fowl coccidia: the state of play revisited. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 67(2), 337–350.

Bafundo, K.W., Johnson, A.B., Mathis, G.F. (2020). The effects of a combination of Quillaja saponaria and Yucca schidigera on Eimeria spp. in broiler chickens. Avian Diseases, 64(3), 300–304.

Blake, D.P., Knox, J., Dehaeck, B., Huntington, B., Rathinam, T., Ravipati, V., Ayoade, S., Gilbert, W., Adebambo, A.O., Tiambo, C.K., Tomley, F.M. (2020). Re-calculating the cost of coccidiosis in chickens. Veterinary Research, 51, 115.

Blake, D.P., Marugan-Hernandez, V., Tomley, F.M. (2021). Spotlight on avian pathology: Eimeria and the disease coccidiosis. Avian Pathology, 50(3), 209–213.

Blake, D.P., Vrba, V., Xia, D., Jatau, I.D., Spiro, S., Nolan, M.J., Underwood, G., Tomley, F.M. (2021). Genetic and biological characterisation of three cryptic Eimeria operational taxonomic units that infect chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus). International Journal for Parasitology, 51(8), 621–634.

Cantacessi, C., Riddell, S., Morris, G.M., Doran, T., Woods, W.G., Otranto, D., Gasser, R.B. (2008). Genetic characterization of three unique operational taxonomic units of Eimeria from chickens in Australia based on nuclear spacer ribosomal DNA. Veterinary Parasitology, 152(3–4), 226–234.

El-Shall, N.A., Abd El-Hack, M.E., Albaqami, N.M., Khafaga, A.F., Taha, A.E., Swelum, A.A., El-Saadony, M.T., Salem, H.M., El-Tahan, A.M., AbuQamar, S.F., El-Tarabily, K.A., Elbestawy, A.R. (2022). Phytochemical control of poultry coccidiosis: a review. Poultry Science, 101(1), 101542.

Felici, M., Tugnoli, B., De Hoest-Thompson, C., Piva, A., Grilli, E., Marugan-Hernandez, V. (2024). Thyme, oregano, and garlic essential oils and their main active compounds influence Eimeria tenella intracellular development. Animals, 14(1), 77.

Ferdji, F., Zahraoui-Mehadji, M., Baazizi, R., Meghit-Boumediene, K. (2022). Anticoccidial drug resistance in Eimeria field isolates from broiler farms in western Algeria. Veterinary Parasitology: Regional Studies and Reports, 32, 100733.

Flores, M.I., Saldana, B., Orozco, M.M., Quijada, N.M., Bersosa, F., Mateo, E. (2022). Anticoccidial resistance to chemical compounds and ionophores in Eimeria field isolates from commercial broiler farms. Poultry Science, 101(11), 102180.

Hailat, A.M., Abdelqader, A.M., Gharaibeh, M.H. (2024). Efficacy of phyto-genic products to control field coccidiosis in broiler chickens. International Journal of Veterinary Science, 13(3), 266–272.

Jaramillo-Ortiz, J.M., Burrell, C., Adeyemi, O., Werling, D., Blake, D.P. (2023). First detection and characterisation of Eimeria zaria in European chickens. Veterinary Parasitology, 323, 109857.

Masood, S., Abbas, R.Z., Iqbal, Z., Mansoor, M.K., Sindhu, Z.U.D., Zia, M.A., Khan, J.A. (2013). Role of natural antioxidants for the control of coccidiosis in poultry. Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 33(4), 401–407.

Mesa-Pineda, C., Navarro-Ruiz, J.L., Lopez-Osorio, S., Chaparro-Gutierrez, J.J., Gomez-Osorio, L.M. (2021). Chicken coccidiosis: from the parasite lifecycle to control of the disease. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 787653.

Remmal, A., Achahbar, S., Bouddine, L., Chami, F., & Chami, N. (2013). Oocysticidal effect of essential oil components against chicken Eimeria oocysts. International Journal of Veterinary Medicine: Research & Reports, 2013, 599816.

Saeed, Z., Alkheraije, K.A. (2023). Botanicals: a promising approach for controlling cecal coccidiosis in poultry. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 10, 1157633.

Sidiropoulou, E., Skoufos, I., Marugan-Hernandez, V., Giannenas, I., Bonos, E., Aguiar-Martins, K., Lazari, D., Blake, D.P., Tzora, A. (2020). In vitro anticoccidial study of oregano and garlic essential oils and effects on growth performance, fecal oocyst output, and intestinal microbiota in vivo. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 420.

by Ivan Ilič, Application Manager EW Nutrition GmbH

Choosing the right strategy

During global client visits, I frequently observe that the primary objective of a process is disconnected from the subsequent steps and final actions. Choosing a strategy is sometimes done paradoxically – like putting worn-out winter tires on a vehicle just because they are cheap and available in your garage, and then attempting to race in the Paris-Dakar rally. To succeed, you must choose the right race or use the proper equipment; anything else is a waste of time and energy without meaningful results. Let’s examine heat treatment and Salmonella control in feed processing as a prime example.

Moisture is not merely a percentage point in the final product; it is a fundamental component of high-quality feed. While much has been written about its influence on pellet quality, energy efficiency, and starch gelatinization, its role extends much further. Moisture is one of the most critical parameters influencing the effectiveness of Salmonella control in feed manufacturing. Its impact is observed across multiple stages, including thermal treatment, chemical control using organic acids, and post-processing stability during storage and handling.

Thermal processing and microbial resistance

From a thermal processing perspective, moisture directly affects the heat resistance of Salmonella. In low-moisture environments, such as dry feed (10–11% moisture), Salmonella cells exhibit significantly increased thermal resistance. This is primarily because reduced moisture stabilizes cellular structures and limits heat-induced damage. As demonstrated by Gautam et al. (2020), decreasing moisture leads to increased survival of Salmonella during heat exposure. Consequently, higher temperatures or longer retention times are required to achieve equivalent microbial reduction in dry feed.

In contrast, the presence of moisture – especially in the form of steam during conditioning – enhances heat transfer and increases microbial susceptibility. Coe et al. (2022) showed that effective reductions (>6 log₁₀) of Salmonella in feed could be achieved under hydrothermal conditions, confirming that temperature, moisture, and time must be considered together. Moisture facilitates protein denaturation within bacterial cells and disrupts membrane integrity, significantly improving the lethality of heat treatment.

The role of organic acids

Moisture also plays a key role in the efficacy of organic acids used for Salmonella control. Organic acids act primarily through their undissociated form, which penetrates bacterial cell membranes. This mechanism is highly dependent on the presence of water. Liquid acids, already in an aqueous phase, are immediately active and capable of rapid antimicrobial action. Powder acids, on the other hand, require moisture for dissolution, diffusion, and activation. Under dry conditions, their antimicrobial effect is delayed or reduced; however, in conditioned feed, they can approach the efficacy of liquid acids.

When comparing powder versus liquid acids, it is important to distinguish between immediate efficacy in feed hygiene and biological efficacy in the bird. Liquid acids are typically more effective for rapid feed decontamination because they distribute more readily and do not require the same degree of moisture activation. Powder acids and salts may be less aggressive, easier to handle, and more stable during storage, providing a longer-lasting effect against recontamination. However, their performance depends heavily on feed moisture, conditioning, and release characteristics.

In the bird, protected or coated acids may outperform free liquid acids in later gut segments because they are designed to survive the upper digestive tract. Therefore, the definition of ‘better’ depends on the target: surface/feed kill, residual feed hygiene, or gut modulation. Direct comparative evidence remains limited, so this distinction should be viewed as a mechanistic interpretation rather than a universal ranking.

Balancing hygiene and nutritional quality

The interaction between heat treatment and organic acids also affects broiler performance. Research by Goodarzi Boroojeni et al. indicates that thermal processing severity changes nutrient digestibility. Their work shows that harsh conditioning can reduce ileal nutrient digestibility, while organic acid inclusion can improve early feed efficiency and help maintain performance. This is a vital practical point: the most aggressive hygienization strategy is not necessarily the best biological strategy. A feed mill can reduce microbial risk but may lose nutritional value if the thermal load is excessive.

Additionally, moisture improves the distribution and penetration of acids into microenvironments where bacteria may be protected, such as within dust particles or organic matrices. However, excessive moisture can dilute acids and reduce their local concentration. As in many aspects of processing, balance is the key.

Post-process hygiene and recontamination

Reviews of Salmonella in feed manufacturing emphasize that even heat-treated feed may become contaminated again via dust, coolers, conveyors, or storage. While moisture and heat determine the success of the initial ‘kill step,’ post-process hygiene determines whether those gains are maintained. This is why chemical control measures are usually discussed as complements to – not replacements for – hydrothermal processing and mill hygiene.

Practical conclusions

Moisture acts as both an enabler and a risk factor. It enhances heat and acid efficacy during processing but can increase microbial risk if not properly managed after production. Effective Salmonella control requires an integrated approach. The research supports three practical conclusions:

• Moisture significantly enhances the effectiveness of heat treatment; dry feed protects Salmonella and increases its thermal resistance.
• Moisture influences acid efficacy, with powder forms being more moisture-dependent than liquid forms for rapid action.
• Organic acids can support animal performance, particularly body weight gain and feed efficiency.

With products like Surf-Ace, we can achieve increased pellet output, improved conditioning, enhanced durability of the pelleted feed, reduced fines formation, and improved overall quality of the final feed product. However, the best feed hygiene strategy is not to rely on one tool alone, but to also integrate controlled moisture, appropriate thermal treatment, organic acid application (such as Acidomix, whose strong antimicrobial effects help improve feed hygiene and help prevent / control salmonella), and strict post-pellet hygiene into a single cohesive system. We just need to select the right tools to achieve the results we want.

References

Abd El-Ghany, W. A. (2024). Applications of organic acids in poultry production: An updated and comprehensive review. Agriculture, 14(10), 1756. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14101756

Coe, N., Wei, S., Little, C., & Shen, C. (2022). Thermal inactivation of Salmonella surrogate, Enterococcus faecium, in mash broiler feed pelleted in a university pilot feed mill. Poultry Science, 104(5), 104998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.104998

Gautam, M., Lian, K., Jin, Y., Steinbrunner, P., & Tang, J. (2020). Water activity influence on the thermal resistance of Salmonella in soy protein powder at elevated temperatures. Food Control, 113, 107160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107160

Goodarzi Boroojeni, F., Mader, A., Knorr, F., Vahjen, W., & Zentek, J. (2014). The effect of different thermal processing methods and carbohydrate sources on performance, nutrient digestibility and the intestinal microbiota of broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 93(5), 1152–1162. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03632

Polycarpo, G. V., Burbarelli, M. F., Carão, A. C., Merseguel, C. E., Dadalt, J. C., Magalhães, R., … & Albuquerque, R. (2017). Effects of organic acids, probiotics and antibiotics on performance, gastrointestinal pH, and intestinal morphology of broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 96(1), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew270

Tomičić, Z., Čabarkapa, I., Čolović, R., Đuragić, O., & Tomičić, R. (2019). Salmonella in the feed industry: Problems and potential solutions. Journal of Agronomy, Technology and Engineering Management, 2(1), 130–139.

Van Immerseel, F., Russell, J. B., Flythe, M. D., Gantois, I., Timbermont, L., Pasmans, F., … & Ducatelle, R. (2006). The use of organic acids to combat Salmonella in poultry: A mechanistic explanation of the efficacy. Avian Pathology, 35(3), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079450600711045

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

Every week, a new story promises to change how we eat. Lab-grown steaks. Vertical farms fed by LED lights. Cricket flour. The algae revolution. Regenerative everything.

Meanwhile, somewhere in Iowa, a farmer is managing soil drainage at 4 a.m. In the Yangtze River Delta, flooded paddy fields are being leveled by laser-guided equipment. In the Sahel, sorghum is being harvested by hand under brutal heat. In the Netherlands, greenhouse engineers are coaxing eight tomato harvests a year from hydroponic systems. Such professionals, such practices are, collectively, the reason 8 billion people ate today.

How we got here, and why we cannot go back

The density problem nobody talks about

In his 2024 book How to Feed the World, Czech-Canadian professor and researcher Vaclav Smil notes that, across 300 forager societies that persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries, the mean population density was 0.25 persons per square kilometer.¹ The most productive forager groups, those with access to salmon runs or seal hunting on Pacific coastlines, could reach just above one person per square kilometer. By contrast, intensive agricultural systems in southern China during the Qing dynasty supported more than 500 people per square kilometer of farmland.¹ Contemporary industrial agriculture can support between 500-900.

In Smil’s analysis, agriculture is not slightly more efficient at feeding people than foraging. Agriculture is between 500 and 2,000 times more efficient than foraging.

The thought experiment Smil runs through disposes of several popular fantasies at once, including those in which humans go back to a primitive way of eating. For instance, an adult human eating like a chimpanzee (roughly 80 percent fruit by mass) would need four to five kilograms of ripe fruit daily, requiring hours of foraging and providing almost no fat or protein.¹ To supply just the European Union’s 450 million people with adequate protein via this dietary route would require more than half a billion tons of figs per year, roughly 400 times the entire 2020 global fig harvest.¹ The chimp model, like other primitive models (whether purely foraging or hunting or a mixed model), cannot scale.

In other words, in a world currently trying to feed 8.3 billion people, the transition to agriculture cannot be undone.

The rule of 20: Why we eat so few plants

One of the more counterintuitive facts in food systems science is how narrow our dietary base actually is. Botanists have classified nearly 400,000 species of vascular plants. Roughly 12,000 of those are grasses capable of producing nutritious seeds. Of these, humanity has domesticated a tiny fraction. Just 20 plant species account for 75 percent of all annually harvested crops by weight. Two of those species, rice and wheat, alone supply 35 percent of global food energy.¹

This is not a failure of agricultural imagination but the result of stringent selection criteria that operated over thousands of years. Smil calls these criteria the “entry requirements” for staple crops: fast maturation, high yield, long shelf life, resistance to pests, and high energy density. Wheat, for example, contains roughly 350 kilocalories per 100 grams. Tomatoes contain fewer than 20 kcal/100g. Wheat is 18 times more energy-dense per unit weight.¹

The early civilizations that independently discovered the cereal-legume combination (corn and beans in the Americas, rice and soybeans in Asia, wheat and lentils in the Middle East) were solving an amino acid optimization problem without knowing it. Cereals are low in the essential amino acid lysine. Legumes are high in it. Together, they provide a complete protein profile. The world’s great cuisines, from Mexican rice and beans to Japanese miso soup over rice, are not accidents. They are dietary solutions that natural selection, mediated through human survival and culture, arrived at over millennia.¹

What the economy doesn’t count

The GDP illusion

In standard economic accounting, agriculture contributes roughly 1 to 4 percent of GDP in developed countries and somewhat more in developing ones. This number is cited constantly as evidence that farming is a residual sector, economically marginal, safely neglected in favor of “shinier” industries.

Smil dismantles this framing methodically. When you add food processing, food manufacturing, beverages, food retail, and food service, the food system in the United States accounts for approximately 5 percent of GDP and more than 10 percent of total employment.¹ But even this number, broad as it is, underestimates the true scale, because it fails to capture the full infrastructure dependency: the fuel and energy consumed by agricultural machinery, the chemical industry built to supply fertilizer, the logistics networks dedicated to food transport and cold chain management, and the healthcare costs tied to diet-related disease.

When Smil attempts a full-system accounting of global food, including production, processing, transportation, wholesale, retail, storage, and consumption, he concludes that the food system’s true share of global economic activity is on the order of 25 to 30 percent of respective totals, with standard economic accounts attributing less than 5 percent representing “grossly inaccurate and highly misleading quantifications.”¹

The energy picture is similarly startling. Smil calculates that the global food system consumes between 20 and 25 percent of the world’s annual primary energy supply.¹ This includes the energy to grow, harvest, process, refrigerate, transport, package, cook, and dispose of food. It is the single largest category of energy use in human civilization, larger than personal transportation, larger than industrial manufacturing of most goods, and yet it rarely appears in climate policy discussions with the prominence its scale demands.

Smil offers one striking comparison that has only sharpened since his original analysis. The global smartphone market in 2024 generated approximately $441 billion in wholesale revenue, calculated from approximately 1.24 billion units shipped at a record average selling price of $356.³⁴ In that same year, the global wheat harvest, some 799 million tons, was worth approximately $215 billion at reference export prices, and the global rice harvest of roughly 541 million tons was worth approximately $318 billion.^{32 33} Combined, just these two crops generated an estimated $533 billion, roughly 20 percent more than the entire global smartphone market. Two crops, grown on a fraction of Earth’s farmland, produced economic value that exceeds the most ubiquitous consumer technology device in human history.

Revolutions usually come from empty stomachs

A history lesson worth remembering

The historical relationship between food insecurity and political instability is one of the most robustly documented relationships in social science. The French Revolution of 1789 was preceded by catastrophic grain harvests in 1788. Bread prices in Paris in early 1789 consumed up to 88 percent of a worker’s daily wage.² The Arab Spring of 2010-2011 was triggered, at least in part, by a spike in global food commodity prices. Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor whose self-immolation catalyzed a regional uprising, was a food vendor who had his produce confiscated.³

The research is consistent. A 2011 preprint study published by Marco Lagi and colleagues at the New England Complex Systems Institute found that global food price spikes, as measured by the FAO Food Price Index, were a consistent precursor to social unrest and political instability events across multiple continents.³ A 2015 paper in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics extended this analysis, finding statistically significant relationships between cereal price levels and social unrest.⁴

The baseline condition for social order is that people have access to food. Everything else, including the liberal democratic institutions, the tech economies, and the climate negotiations that dominate contemporary policy attention, depends on that foundation being intact. Smil makes this point in structural rather than historical terms. When he asks whether smartphones or food matter more, the answer is obvious to him: “A world without smartphones would be poorer and less convenient. A world without food would not exist.”¹

The 9%

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, approximately 733 million people, roughly 9 percent of the global population, were undernourished in 2023.⁵ This is not primarily a production problem. As Smil notes and the FAO confirms, global food production averages around 3,000 kilocalories per person per day, which is substantially above the roughly 2,500 kilocalories required by an average active adult.¹⁵ The world produces enough calories to feed everyone.

The problem is access, poverty, and distribution. Hunger is a political economy failure, as price spikes hit the poor first and hardest. But if global food production fell by 10 percent, the 9 percent who are currently undernourished would not be the only ones suffering. Supply shocks ripple through markets and a globalized world does not allow for compartmentalized impact as much as it used to.

The real environmental cost: Agriculture and alternatives

Some immediate problems have immediate solutions

Agriculture accounts for approximately 72 percent of global freshwater withdrawals.¹ Cropland and permanent pastures together cover about 36 percent of non-glaciated land.¹ The food system is responsible for approximately 34 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, based on the most comprehensive analysis available.⁶ These figures are often presented as indictments. They should instead be understood as measures of necessity. The question is not “why does food production use so much?” but “what would we use it on instead, and would that work?”

The FAO’s global assessment of livestock’s climate impact, the famous 2006 report Livestock’s Long Shadow, attributed 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions to livestock. A revised methodology in 2013, applying the same accounting framework used for other sectors, reduced this figure to approximately 14.5 percent.⁷

The nitrogen story is more nuanced. Smil notes that global nitrogen use efficiency (the share of applied fertilizer that ends up in harvested crop rather than escaping to air or water) averages around 40 percent globally, and has been falling in intensively farmed regions.¹ In China, over-fertilization has driven efficiency from 37 percent down to 29 percent, with the difference escaping as nitrous oxide (a potent greenhouse gas), ammonia (an air pollutant), and nitrates (which contaminate groundwater and create coastal dead zones).¹ This is a genuine problem with practical and affordable solutions: better timing of fertilizer application, matching fertilizer type to soil need, and precision agriculture technologies that reduce over-application.

The problems of industrial agriculture are, to a large extent, engineering problems. They have technical solutions that can be implemented incrementally, at scale, within existing agricultural systems. They do not require abandoning food production as we know it; they require improving it.

What “organic” actually means at scale

The appeal of organic farming as an environmental solution is real but its limits are underappreciated. A 2012 meta-analysis in Nature by Seufert and colleagues found that organic farming produces, on average, 25 percent lower yields than conventional farming across all crops, with the gap widening to 43 percent below conventional yields for some cereal crops.^x8 A subsequent 2017 analysis in Agronomy for Sustainable Development by Lesur-Dumoulin and colleagues examining more than 50 studies found yield gaps of 19 to 25 percent, with significant variation by crop and region.^x9

The implication is straightforward. Feeding the current global population on fully organic agriculture would require converting an additional 16 to 30 percent of the world’s remaining non-agricultural land to farmland, in order to compensate for lower yields.^x10 The biodiversity loss from that land conversion would likely exceed the biodiversity gains from reduced pesticide use on existing farmland. This does not make organic farming in any way bad, it simply makes it a context-specific tool instead of a global solution.

Smil notes that in the centuries before synthetic fertilizers, when all farming was “organic” by definition, 80 percent of people worked in farming, doing physically exhausting work for marginal returns. The “liberation” of the majority of humanity from agricultural labor, one of the most profound quality-of-life improvements in history, was made possible by the Haber-Bosch process, the synthesis of ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen, invented in 1913. Without synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, global crop yields would fall by roughly 40 to 50 percent, and roughly half of the current human population could not be fed on existing farmland.^x11

The alternatives don’t add up

Cultured meat: Promising, not a solution

The first cultured beef burger was produced in 2013 in the Netherlands at an estimated cost of $330,000.¹ By 2020, Singapore approved the first commercial sale of cultured chicken nuggets, produced by Eat Just, at a price point still far above commodity chicken. By 2021, total investment in the sector had reached approximately $2 billion.¹

The fundamental challenge is not biological but a matter of thermodynamics. Cultured meat production requires maintaining cells in a growth medium at controlled temperature and pH, with continuous oxygen supply, nutrient input, and waste removal. A 2023 preprint study by Risner and colleagues at UC Davis found that, under current production processes, the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of cultured beef could actually be higher than conventional beef over a 1,000-year time horizon, because the production of growth media requires large amounts of purified water and energy-intensive pharmaceutical-grade inputs.^x12

The energy demand is particularly problematic. A 2019 analysis in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems by Lynch and Pierrehumbert (Oxford) found that cultured meat’s climate advantage over cattle depends heavily on whether energy production is decarbonized. Because cultured meat emissions are almost entirely CO₂ (which accumulates indefinitely) rather than methane, which breaks down within a decade, the long-term warming impact of cultured meat can exceed that of cattle under scenarios of continued high consumption. The energy advantage of cultured meat over monogastrics (pigs and poultry) is marginal at best and may reverse under realistic production conditions.”¹³

None of this means cultured meat has no future. It may eventually serve specific markets, particularly as a supplement to conventional production in regions where land is extremely constrained. But Smil’s verdict is clear: it is currently “pilot scale” technology, commercially unproven at mass market pricing, and it cannot meaningfully contribute to feeding up to 10 billion people in the next two to three decades.¹

The vegan transition?

Beef is by far the largest emitter of CO₂ equivalent per kilogram of protein, compared to chicken or pork.¹⁴ A diet shift from beef to other proteins in high-income countries would measurably reduce the food system’s climate impact.

But Smil flags an important caveat that often goes unmentioned in advocacy for plant-based diets: mass adoption of veganism in wealthy countries, if it leads to increased consumption of out-of-season fruits, nuts, avocados, and specialty protein crops, may not reduce and could even increase total environmental pressure.¹ Almonds require approximately 12 liters of water per nut.¹⁵ Avocados, with their supply chains running from Mexico to Europe, have water footprints of approximately 320 liters per fruit and contribute to deforestation in growing regions.¹⁶

There is also a structural argument that rarely gets made: production animals serve functions beyond meat (and not even mentioning milk or eggs). Approximately 57 percent of current global livestock feed consists of materials that are not edible by humans: crop residues, grass from land unsuitable for cropping, and food processing byproducts such as oilseed cakes, bran, and distillers’ grains.¹⁷ Animals convert non-human-edible biomass into high-quality protein and fat. This is not waste but efficiency.

What Would Actually Work

First target waste

Global food waste amounts to approximately 1,000 kilocalories per person per day, roughly one-third of total food production.

The FAO estimates that approximately one-third of all food produced for human consumption, roughly 1.3 billion tons per year, is lost or wasted annually.¹⁸ Losses occur throughout the supply chain, from post-harvest spoilage in developing countries (where cold chain infrastructure is inadequate) to consumer behavior and retail overproduction in wealthy ones. The environmental cost of this waste is itself enormous: the production of food that is ultimately not eaten accounts for approximately 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.¹⁹

The N fix that is already possible

Improving global nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) from its current 40 percent average to 60 to 65 percent, a target achievable through existing precision agriculture technologies (as mentioned before), would reduce the amount of synthetic nitrogen required to produce the current food output by roughly a third.²⁰ This single change would decrease nitrous oxide emissions (which are 273 times more potent than CO₂ over a 100-year timescale as a greenhouse gas, according to AR6, 2021 ²⁸), reduce freshwater nitrate contamination, and shrink coastal dead zones.

The technologies required are not exotic. Split nitrogen application (applying fertilizer in multiple smaller doses timed to crop uptake rather than one large dose at planting) can increase NUE by 15 to 20 percent with no change in yield.²¹ Soil testing and variable rate application technology, where GPS-guided equipment applies different fertilizer rates across a field based on measured soil nutrient levels, can improve NUE by a further 10 to 15 percent.²² These are available now, at commercially viable cost, for large-scale farming operations.

The barrier is not technical but rather economic and behavioral: fertilizer is cheap relative to its yield benefit, so farmers have limited financial incentive to apply it precisely. Policy tools, whether taxes on nitrogen over-application, payments for NUE improvements, or tighter limits on fertilizer application near waterways, could close this gap.

Meat mix and moderation

Smil estimates that approximately one-third of global cereal production and two-thirds of the US grain harvest are currently fed to animals.¹ Feedlot beef carries a feed conversion ratio of roughly 30 kilograms of feed per kilogram of edible product at the high end.¹ Poultry and pork convert feed to protein far more efficiently, and pasture-raised ruminants on land unsuitable for cropping represent a different calculation entirely.

The case for moderating high-end beef consumption in wealthy countries rests primarily on efficiency and emissions, not on the nutritional dispensability of meat as a food category. Meat, including beef, is a nutritionally dense and difficult-to-replicate protein source. It provides all essential amino acids in highly bioavailable form, along with heme iron, which is absorbed at rates of 15 to 35 percent compared to 2 to 20 percent for non-heme iron from plant sources, as well as zinc, vitamin B12, selenium, and conditionally essential compounds such as creatine and carnitine that are absent or negligible in unfortified plant foods.²⁹ For populations in low- and middle-income countries where protein deficiency, iron deficiency, and micronutrient gaps remain widespread public health problems, the argument for reducing meat consumption requires a different cost-benefit analysis than it does in the United States or Northern Europe, where the concern is overconsumption rather than inadequacy.

The appropriate policy lever for high-income countries is therefore not elimination of meat categories but a shift in the composition of meat consumption toward more efficient and lower-emissions sources (more poultry and pork, less feedlot beef) while maintaining total protein adequacy. This is consistent with both the environmental evidence and updated dietary guidelines in major consuming nations. A 2016 analysis by Springmann and colleagues at Oxford, published in PNAS, found that transitioning toward diets in line with standard dietary guidelines could reduce global mortality by 6 to 10 percent and food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 29 to 70 percent compared with a 2050 reference scenario. ³⁰ A subsequent 2018 modelling study by the same group in Nature confirmed that the dietary-guidelines scenario alone (without requiring full elimination of animal products) achieves a 29 percent reduction in food-related GHG emissions relative to projected baseline consumption.²³ The gains are concentrated in high-income countries, and the modelling explicitly notes that applying the same dietary shift logic to low-income countries would in several cases increase land and water use rather than reduce it.³¹

Smil’s preferred framing holds: the goal is meat moderation and mix optimization, not categorical elimination.

What happens to everything else if the food system fails?

The answer is: everything collapses. Food insecurity at scale produces predictable cascades: political instability, refugee flows, conflict over resources, public health crises, and the breakdown of governance institutions that depend on social legitimacy. The Arab Spring, which reshaped the politics of a continent (and arguably the world), was triggered in part by a global food price spike following the 2010 Russian wheat export ban and droughts in major grain-producing regions.³

By contrast, the collapse of the smartphone market, while economically painful, would likely not produce famine, mass migration, or state failure. The collapse of social media platforms, though consequential for public discourse, would not endanger human life. The collapse of the global financial system, as catastrophic as the 2008 crisis demonstrated it could be, is survivable in ways that the collapse of food production is not.

The world needs to feed 9.7 billion people in 2050, according to the UN medium-population projection.²⁴ The cultured meat industry cannot scale to meaningful market share within that timeframe under any realistic projection. Precision nitrogen management can, and is already beginning to, because it requires only incremental adoption of existing technology by existing farmers working existing land.

The nutritional transition that high-income countries have largely completed, from adequate calories to excess calories to dietary choice, is not yet available to much of the world’s population. Agricultural development policy that ignores this gradient would impose wealthy-world concerns on people or categories for whom adequate nutrition remains an unsolved problem.

Sustainability discourses must get priorities right

Food production is the prerequisite for everything else. Applying regulatory pressure to it without carefully calibrating the effects on output, price, and access is different in kind from applying regulatory pressure to other sectors. When a factory closes due to regulatory non-compliance, workers lose jobs and consumers pay more for a product. When a region’s agricultural capacity declines due to poorly designed policy, people go hungry.

The European Union’s Farm to Fork strategy, adopted in 2020, proposed reducing synthetic pesticide use by 50 percent and synthetic fertilizer use by 20 percent, while increasing organic farmland to 25 percent of total agricultural area, all by 2030.²⁵ These are admirable environmental goals. But a 2021 analysis by Beckman and colleagues at the USDA Economic Research Service found that full implementation of the Farm to Fork targets would reduce EU agricultural output by 7 to 12 percent and increase consumer food prices by 5 to 11 percent.²⁶ A JRC (Joint Research Centre of the European Commission) report from the same year found that global adoption of Farm to Fork-style policies would actually increase GHG emissions by up to 6 percent, because production displaced from Europe would move to regions with less efficient farming systems and weaker environmental controls.²⁷

Agricultural environmental policy is essential; so is designing it carefully, with quantitative impact assessment, realistic timelines, and protections for the most vulnerable consumers.

What actually reduces food system emissions

The research literature on food system decarbonization converges on a consistent set of effective interventions, none of which involve dismantling existing agricultural production:

Reducing food waste. A 30 percent reduction in food loss and waste globally would reduce food system GHG emissions by roughly 8 to 10 percent.¹⁹ This is achievable through infrastructure investment (cold chains in developing countries), behavioral change (consumer education in wealthy ones), and regulatory reform (relaxing cosmetic standards for produce that create waste at the retail level).

Sustainable diets in high-income countries with a smart mix of protein sources, including poultry, pork, legumes, and dairy. Agriculture systems, including livestock production, should indeed operate at the lowest emissions level possible and with reduced antibiotic use to protect the environment, animals, and ultimately humans.

Improving agricultural productivity in low-income countries, particularly sub-Saharan Africa. Smil notes that average nitrogen application rates in sub-Saharan Africa are approximately 3 kilograms per hectare, compared to 50 kilograms in China and 30 kilograms in Europe.¹ Increasing yields in Africa to levels achievable with modest fertilizer application and better seed varieties would allow the same food output from less land, reducing pressure on forests and biodiversity.

Improving nitrogen use efficiency in high-input farming systems through the technologies described earlier in the article.

None of these interventions require a technological revolution. They require investment, policy reform, and the political will to treat food production as the strategic priority it is.

References

1. Smil, V. (2024). How to Feed the World. Viking/Penguin Random House. (US edition 2025.)

2. Labrousse, E. (1944). La crise de l’économie française à la fin de l’Ancien Régime et au début de la Révolution. Presses Universitaires de France. Cited in McPhee, P. (2012). Liberty or Death: The French Revolution. Yale University Press.

3. Lagi, M., Bertrand, K.Z., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2011). The food crises and political instability in North Africa and the Middle East. New England Complex Systems Institute Preprint, arXiv:1108.2455. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.2455

4. Bellemare, M.F. (2015). Rising food prices, food price volatility, and social unrest. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aau038

5. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2024). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2024. FAO. https://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2024/

6. Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F.N., & Leip, A. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2, 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9

7. Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., & Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

8. Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J.A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature, 485, 229–232. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11069

9. Lesur-Dumoulin, C., Malézieux, E., Ben-Ari, T., Langlais, C., & Makowski, D. (2017). Lower average yields but similar yield variability in organic versus conventional horticulture: a meta-analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37, 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0455-5

10. Ponisio, L.C., M’Gonigle, L.K., Mace, K.C., Palomino, J., de Valpine, P., & Kremen, C. (2015). Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282, 20141396. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396

11. Erisman, J.W., Sutton, M.A., Galloway, J., Klimont, Z., & Winiwarter, W. (2008). How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nature Geoscience, 1, 636–639. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo325

12. Risner, D., Kim, Y., Nguyen, D., Simons, C.W., & Spang, E. (2023). Preliminary techno-economic assessment of animal cell-based meat. bioRxiv. https://10.1101/2023.04.21.537778

13. Lynch, J., & Pierrehumbert, R. (2019). Climate impacts of cultured meat and beef cattle. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005

14. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

15. Mekonnen, M.M., & Hoekstra, A.Y. (2010). The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15, 1577–1600. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011

16. Carrasco, L.R., Papworth, S.K., Reed, J., et al. (2017). High trade-offs between local and global demand for avocados. Nature Plants, 3, 1–3. See also Kibria, M.G., & Behrooz, M. (2022). Water footprint and environmental impact of avocado production. Sustainability, 14(2), 888.

17. Mottet, A., de Haan, C., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., Opio, C., & Gerber, P. (2017). Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Global Food Security, 14, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001

18. FAO (2011). Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/mb060e/mb060e00.htm

19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2019). Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL). Chapter 5: Food Security. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/

20. Zhang, X., Davidson, E.A., Mauzerall, D.L., Searchinger, T.D., Dumas, P., & Shen, Y. (2015). Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature, 528, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15743

21. Cassman, K.G., Dobermann, A., & Walters, D.T. (2002). Agroecosystems, nitrogen-use efficiency, and nitrogen management. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 31(2), 132–140.

22. Robertson, G.P., & Vitousek, P.M. (2009). Nitrogen in agriculture: Balancing the cost of an essential resource. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 97–125. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.032108.105046

23. Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B.L., Lassaletta, L., de Vries, W., Vermeulen, S.J., Herrero, M., Carlson, K.M., Jonell, M., Troell, M., DeClerck, F., Gordon, L.J., Zurayk, R., Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., Loken, B., Fanzo, J., Godfray, H.C.J., Tilman, D., Rockstrom, J., & Willett, W. (2018). Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature, 562, 519–525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0

24. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2022). World Population Prospects 2022. UN DESA. https://population.un.org/wpp/

25. European Commission (2020). Farm to Fork Strategy: For a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System. COM(2020) 381 final. https://ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en

26. Beckman, J., Ivanic, M., Jelliffe, J.L., Burfisher, M.E., & Scott, S.M. (2020). Economic and Food Security Impacts of Agricultural Input Reduction Under the European Union Green Deal’s Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies. USDA Economic Research Report EIB-30.

27. Barreiro-Hurle, J., Bogonos, M., Himics, M., Hristov, J., Pérez-Domínguez, I., Sahoo, A., Salputra, G., Weiss, F., Baldoni, E., and Elleby, C. (2021). Modelling environmental and climate ambition in the agricultural sector with the CAPRI model. JRC Technical Report EUR 30317 EN.

28. IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. https://10.1017/9781009157896

29. Estévez, M., & Rui Alves Soares, C. (2025). Nutrient equivalence of plant-based and cultured meat: Gaps, bioavailability, and health perspectives. Nutrients, 17(24), 3860. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17243860

30. Springmann, M., Godfray, H.C.J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2016). Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(15), 4146–4151. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113

31. Springmann, M., Wiebe, K., Mason-D’Croz, D., Sulser, T.B., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2018). Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planetary Health, 2(10), e451–e461. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30206-7

32. World Bank (2025). Commodity Markets Price Data (The Pink Sheet), December 2025. World Bank Group. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/18675f1d1639c7a34d463f59263ba0a2-0050012025/related/CMO-Pink-Sheet-December-2025.pdf

33. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (2026). World Agricultural Production, April 2026. United States Department of Agriculture. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/production.pdf

34. Counterpoint Research (2025). Global Smartphone Revenues Resume Growth in 2024 After Two Years, ASP Hits Record High, January 31, 2025. https://counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/global-smartphone-market-2024

by Dr. Ruturaj Patil, EW Nutrition GmbH

Introduction

Dirty Eggs: A Biological Outcome of Intestinal Dysfunction

Dirty eggs are produced when eggshells come into contact with faecal material or contaminated cloacal secretions during or immediately after oviposition. This contamination is strongly associated with:

• Loose, watery, or sticky droppings
• Increased faecal microbial load
• Vent and cloacal inflammation or pasting
• Compromised cuticle quality due to impaired nutrient utilization

Birds suffering from subclinical enteric disorders often maintain acceptable egg numbers while producing a higher proportion of dirty eggs, making the problem economically severe yet clinically silent.

Numerous studies confirm that intestinal microbiota composition and gut integrity influence egg hygiene, not only through faecal consistency but also via environmental contamination and pathogen shedding. Dysbiosis alters fermentation patterns, increases osmotic pressure in the intestine, and promotes inflammation – conditions that directly translate into faecal instability and eggshell contamination.

Thus, dirty eggs should be viewed not only as a hygiene issue but as a sentinel indicator of underlying gut health compromise.

Gut Health as the Foundation of Egg Hygiene and Quality

Structural and Functional Integrity of the Layer Gut

The intestinal tract of laying hens is lined with rapidly renewing epithelial cells, connected by tight junction proteins that regulate permeability. A healthy gut is characterized by:

• A stable microbiota dominated by beneficial bacteria such as Lactobacillus spp.
• Optimal villus height to crypt depth (VH:CD) ratio
• Intact mucus layer and controlled immune surveillance
• Efficient digestion and nutrient absorption

Disruption of this equilibrium leads to leaky gut syndrome, maldigestion, excessive immune activation, and altered faecal output. Increased intestinal permeability allows bacterial toxins and metabolites to translocate, fueling systemic inflammation and worsening intestinal dysfunction.

In layers, these processes not only impair nutrient utilization for egg formation but also significantly affect dropping consistency and cloacal cleanliness, thereby compromising egg hygiene.

Etiological Factors Affecting Gut Health and Dirty Egg Production

Gut health disorders in laying hens arise from a complex interaction between infectious and noninfectious factors, operating across both growing and laying phases.

1. Etiological Factors During the Growing (Pullet) Phase

The pullet phase (0–18 weeks) is critical for establishing lifelong gut health resilience. Management failures during this period often result in latent intestinal weaknesses that manifest during peak lay.

a. Early Gut Microbiota Establishment

The intestinal microbiota begins colonization immediately after hatch. Chicks acquire microorganisms from:

• Feed and water
• Litter and housing environment
• Human handling and equipment

Delayed access to feed and water, poor brooding conditions, and weak biosecurity disrupt early microbial succession, predisposing birds to persistent dysbiosis later in life.

b. Feed Quality and AntiNutritional Factors

High levels of nonstarch polysaccharides (NSPs), oxidized fats, and mycotoxins during rearing impair gut maturation and digestive enzyme activity. These insults often remain subclinical but resurface during peak metabolic demand in lay as wet droppings and dirty egg problems.

c. Management Stressors

• Inadequate brooding temperatures divert energy from gut development
• High stocking density increases stress hormones, suppressing gut immunity
• Poor vaccination programs (e.g., against coccidiosis) increase intestinal damage

2. Etiological Factors During the Laying Phase

The laying period imposes extraordinary physiological demands on the hen, particularly for calcium metabolism, energy turnover, and sustained egg output.

a. Nutritional Imbalances

Excess crude protein, poor amino acid balance, or high dietary sodium and potassium increase intestinal osmotic load. Undigested nutrients draw water into the gut lumen, resulting in watery droppings and vent soiling.

b. Infectious and Dysbiotic Challenges

Subclinical infections caused by Clostridium perfringens, Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., and Eimeria spp. damage intestinal mucosa and disrupt microbial equilibrium. These conditions increase faecal moisture and pathogen shedding, directly contaminating eggs during oviposition.

c. Aging and Extended Laying Cycles

Modern layer genetics favor extended production cycles. However, aging birds exhibit:

• Reduced antioxidant capacity
• Declining digestive efficiency
• Altered gut microbiome diversity

These changes contribute to faecal instability and increased dirty egg incidence in late lay.

Environmental and Management Drivers

Heat Stress

Heat stress reduces feed intake and redirects blood flow away from the gut, inducing intestinal hypoxia and oxidative stress. This damages epithelial integrity, increases permeability, and exacerbates diarrhea – strongly correlating with dirty egg production.

Water Quality

Water is a major yet underappreciated determinant of gut health. Poor water hygiene introduces pathogens, while high mineral load or improper pH disturbs osmotic balance and digestion, leading to diarrhoea and vent contamination.

Housing and Litter Management

Wet litter promotes pathogenic bacterial growth. In cagefree or aviary systems, increased faecaloral exposure further amplifies the impact of gut dysfunction on egg cleanliness.

Pathophysiological Link Between Gut Inflammation and Dirty Eggs

Inflamed intestines exhibit:

• Increased mucus secretion
• Sloughing of epithelial cells
• Fluid exudation into the lumen

These processes result in sticky, malformed droppings, rapid soiling of nests, and direct cloacal contamination of eggs. Moreover, chronic inflammation diverts nutrients away from eggshell and cuticle formation, promoting bacterial adhesion to shells.

PhytomoleculesBased Solutions: A MultiMode Gut Health Strategy

Definition and Rationale

Phytomolecules are standardized plantderived bioactive compounds, including essential oils, polyphenols, flavonoids, and alkaloids. Unlike conventional additives, they exert multitarget biological effects, making them particularly suitable for complex gut health challenges.

Antimicrobial Action

Phytomolecules such as carvacrol, thymol, and cinnamaldehyde:

• Disrupt bacterial cell membranes
• Interfere with quorum sensing
• Reduce virulence without fostering resistance

This selective antimicrobial action suppresses pathogens while preserving beneficial microbiota, reducing faecal pathogen load and wet droppings.

Antioxidant Action

Polyphenols and flavonoids neutralize reactive oxygen species generated by heat stress, aging, and mycotoxins. By protecting epithelial cells and tight junctions, antioxidant activity promotes stable gut morphology and firmer droppings.

AntiInflammatory Action

Phytomolecules downregulate proinflammatory cytokines (e.g., TNFα, IL6) and support mucosal immunity. Controlled inflammation prevents excessive mucus secretion and fluid leakage, breaking the gut–dirty egg cycle.

Additional Benefits Relevant to Dirty Egg Control

• Improved nutrient digestibility and shell quality
• Enhanced shortchain fatty acid (SCFA) production
• Better cloacal health and litter dryness
• Reduced environmental ammonia via improved nitrogen utilization

These combined effects make phytomoleculesbased solutions particularly effective in managing dirty egg problems in layers.

Integration into Practical Layer Management

For best results, phytomoleculesbased solutions should be:

• Introduced early during rearing to support gut maturation
• Continuously applied during lay to stabilize microbiota
• Strategically intensified during stress periods (heat, feed changes, vaccination)
• Integrated with feed, water, and environmental hygiene programs

Field Validation and Practical Integration: Evidence from Commercial and Research Trials

The practical relevance of phytomoleculesbased gut health solutions is supported by consistent responses across pullet rearing, peak lay, and extended laying periods, as demonstrated in multiple commercial and research trials using a standardized phytomolecules feed additive – ‘SPFA’ (Ventar® D from EW Nutrition GmbH, Germany).

a. Supporting Gut Health from Rearing to Lay

A commercial pullet trial in India (0–18 weeks) involving 10,000 BV300 pullets compared SPFA (100 g/t) with historical farm performance. Birds receiving the SPFA achieved target body weight (1242 g vs. 1190–1220 g), improved uniformity (+4%), and lower depletion, indicating superior early gut development and robustness – critical prerequisites for stable fecal consistency and cleaner eggs later in life.

“Overall, Ventar D has proven to be a gamechanger for our farm. The health and productivity benefits we have observed affirm our decision to continue using Ventar D.”
– Commercial layer producer, India

b. Performance and Egg Hygiene Support During Peak Lay

In a 20week controlled study with HyLine Brown layers (21–40 weeks), SPFA supplementation resulted in:

• ≈1% higher henday egg production
• 3.5 additional saleable eggs per hen housed
• Lower feed intake per egg (≈2.5 g)
• Improved feed conversion ratio (FCR)

These improvements reflect better gut efficiency and reduced inflammatory nutrient losses, directly supporting drier droppings, cleaner vents, and reduced risk of dirty egg production under commercial conditions.

c. Sustaining Persistency and Shell Quality in Late Lay

An 8week research trial in the Czech Republic (74–81 weeks) demonstrated that SPFA maintained higher laying persistency and significantly improved eggshell thickness and strength (p < 0.05). Improved shell integrity and gut nutrient utilization are particularly important in late lay, where intestinal oxidative stress and faecal instability are common contributors to dirty eggs.

Table 1. Summary of Phytomolecules Field Trial Outcomes Across Production Phases

Conclusion

Dirty egg production is fundamentally a biological outcome of impaired gut health, rather than solely a hygiene or housing issue. Nutritional imbalances, environmental stress, subclinical infections, poor water quality, and management gaps disrupt intestinal integrity, leading to dysbiosis, inflammation, and faecal instability – key contributors to eggshell contamination at lay.

Maintaining gut health throughout the entire production cycle, from pullet rearing to extended lay, is therefore essential for clean eggs and sustainable layer performance. Conventional control approaches, including antibiotics, are increasingly limited by regulatory constraints and do not adequately address the underlying causes of enteric dysfunction.

Phytomolecules‑based solutions provide a multi‑mode gut health strategy, combining antimicrobial, antioxidant, and anti‑inflammatory effects to restore intestinal balance, stabilize digestion, and normalize faecal consistency. This biological mechanism is supported by consistent field and research data demonstrating improved pullet uniformity, enhanced egg production and feed efficiency during peak lay, and maintained laying persistency with improved eggshell quality in late lay.

In summary, gut‑centric management supported by phytomolecules‑based interventions offers a scientifically validated and sustainable approach to reducing dirty egg incidence and improving long‑term layer productivity.

References available on request.

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

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.

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.