By Vinil Samraj Padmini, Global Category Manager Feed Quality, and Marisabel Caballero, Global Technical Manager Poultry, EW Nutrition

Climate across the globe has changed, with rising atmospheric temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. This change favors the growth of toxigenic fungi in crops and thus increases the risk of mycotoxin contamination. When contaminating feed, mycotoxins exert adverse effects in animals and could be transferred into products such as milk and eggs.

95% of the samples were contaminated with at least one mycotoxin

EW Nutrition constantly analyzes feed and raw material samples for their mycotoxin contamination. We report challenges from the most common mycotoxins hindering animal health around the globe.

Worldwide, more than 4,000 analyses on more than 1,000 samples were performed between June – October of the present year. The samples covered grain and by-products commonly used in animal feed worldwide. Figure 1 shows the percentage of the samples tested for which a positive result was found, detailing the number of mycotoxins per sample.

The number of mycotoxins analyzed per sample can vary based on regional risk-evaluation, including weather conditions, raw material origin and past frequency of positives. However, a minimum number of samples per region is always analyzed for the full spectrum, in order to monitor and corroborate the risk level.

3 or more mycotoxins per sample

95% of the samples were contaminated with at least one mycotoxin. In Europe and Latin America, most samples were analyzed for up to five mycotoxins, and were found contaminated with at least two. In South Asia, three mycotoxins were regularly analyzed per sample and most samples were positive for two. Worldwide, it is common to find samples with 3 or more mycotoxins, indicating that, even in raw materials, poly-contamination is the rule.

Aflatoxin: Main concern for South Asia

From all samples tested positively for mycotoxin contamination, 55% were contaminated with Aflatoxins. In all regions, the maximum levels lay over the thresholds for dairy and poultry. In Europe, less than 20% of the samples were contaminated with Aflatoxin. In Europe and the USA, the average contamination is low, hence this toxin can hardly be considered an issue for animal production in those areas (Figure 2).

In South Asia, where high temperatures and humidity are prevalent, Aflatoxin was detected in more than 95% of the samples and the average contamination is over all thresholds. Management strategies, such as the use of mold inhibitors for stored grain and toxin binders in feed, are necessary in this area to keep animals healthy and productive.

Fumonisins: Main concern for LATAM, also global

Fumonisin was found in 70% of the samples globally and roughly in 90% of the samples coming from Latin America (figure 3). Moreover, in LATAM, more than 50% of the results have values over the threshold for dairy and swine, and 14% over the threshold for poultry, making it a great concern in the area. South Asia is the second concern area, with a high proportion of contaminated samples (80%) and 14% of them representing a danger for poultry production.

Deoxynivalenol (DON): Present worldwide

All across the regions, the maximum tested levels lay over the threshold for dairy, poultry, and swine. This trichothecene was found in more than 70% of the samples analyzed worldwide. In the United States, more than 75% of the positive tested samples showed a contamination with DON and the average of the positives exceeded the thresholds for swine and poultry.

The region with highest maximum values is LATAM, followed by South Asia, and the region with the highest frequency of positives in analyzed samples is Europe. Thus, it can be concluded that the worldwide frequency and levels in which DON is found represent a high risk for production animals.

Ruminants can tolerate 10–20 times more DON than, for example, pigs. The majority of ingested DON is converted into the less toxic de-epoxy DON, but the degradation rate is influenced by different factors such as the diet, where high starch decrease the process. Moreover, DON also has a detrimental effect on rumen microorganisms, impacting its fermentative capacity.

T2: A danger for poultry producers word-wide

Average levels of T2 were over the threshold for poultry in all regions, with a high presence (>70% of the analyzed samples) in Europe, the US & LATAM.

Zearalenone: 80% positive tests globally

More than 80% of all samples tested for this mycotoxin were found positive. The maximum contaminations lay over the thresholds for dairy and swine. These high levels found should not be ignored, considering feedstuffs for long living and reproduction animals.

A bad year for crops could be a bad year for production animals

The high mycotoxin contamination found so far in 2021 is partially explained by climate events, such as high temperature and humidity. Temperate zones such as Europe or parts of the USA tend to have higher contaminations compared with previous years.

Multiple mycotoxins co-occur, increasing their impact on animals. Certain combinations of mycotoxins are known to have synergistic or additive effects, aggravating their adverse effects.

To safeguard animal performance, it is important to continually strive for low levels of contamination and to manage the risk of mycotoxins through the use effective tools to measure, interpret, and manage the risk. MasterRisk can aid in the interpretation of mycotoxin risks, weighing in the animal species, age, purpose, as well as the mycotoxin exposure and interactions.

By Predrag Persak, Regional Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

We eat with our eyes. Depending on our cultural background and our experience, we prefer foods that have a certain appearance. Moreover, we regulate our taste and health expectations based on this appearance. In that equation, color plays an essential role. Think of healthy-looking salad, fruit, eggs, meat, and more. Certain foods are more appetizing and appear healthier – and, in many cases, are indeed so – when they display a certain color.

For poultry producers,  skin color and the yolk color of table eggs are of major concern. This concern is driven by the market (in certain regions,  skin and yolk pigmentation heavily affect buying preferences), by regulations, and by an interest in using all options to increase product quality with natural solutions.

Where does poultry pigmentation come from?

Birds cannot synthesize pigments; they must take them up with their feed. Natural pigments have, besides their pigmenting properties, an antioxidant role in the bird’s organism. Unfavorable conditions can heavily influence the outcome of pigmentation. For producers looking to achieve reliable and consistent coloration, results are often unpredictable and disappointing.

Knowing the factors that affect pigmentation will help us to better understand how to achieve the desired level of pigmentation – or to identify, in hindsight what went wrong and when. In general, three different factors are decisive for efficient pigmentation:

1. The quality of the product (type, content, and stability of the pigment)
2. The amount of pigment ingested/absorbed/deposited
3. The persistence of the pigment in the final product

1. Product quality is essential

The first point to be considered is the quality of the product you use, including type, content, and stability of the pigment in the product and the feed.

Content and quality of active substances determine efficacy

Concerning type and content, what matters more than the total amount of carotenoids is the level of active substances. The trans-isomers have higher efficiency than the cis-isomers and are decisive for pigmentation.

Natural pigments originate from natural sources that often vary due to growth conditions, harvest, and handling. Therefore, producers need to control incoming materials and conduct proper formulation during the production process. This is crucial in order to obtain an adequate level of pigments for appropriate pigmentation.

Adequate measures ensure the stability of the pigment in the product

Natural pigments are sensitive to light and air; they are easily oxidized. Also in the feed formulation there are many substances (e.g. oxidized forms of trace elements, choline, chloride) enhancing the oxidation of the pigments. Some precautions can be taken to protect natural pigments from oxidation:

• Use of adequate package materials preventing the exposure to light and air
• Use of antioxidants in the product as well as in the feed formulation

With these measures in place, the pigments are given adequate protection to ensure their stability.

2. Pigment intake, absorption, and deposition affect pigmentation

Every factor reducing the amount of pigment reaching its target deteriorates the quality of pigmentation. Below are the crucial factors producers need to take into account.

Feed intake is correlated to pigment intake

Assuming that the pigment is homogeneously distributed in the feed, feed intake directly determines the intake of pigment. Consequently, anything that affects feed intake also affects pigment intake and pigmentation. To that end, what is also decisive is particle size and homogeneous distribution of the pigment in the product.

The energy concentration in the feed is also a critical factor. Antinutrients, unpleasant taste, or inconsistent feed structure negatively influence feed intake.

Feed intake is also influenced by other elements:

• the animal’s health status
• environmental conditions
• the availability of water
• the housing system (free-range, farm)
• feeding management factors (length of the feeding lines, separation of the feed in silo bins or through the feeding lines etc.).

Saponification plays a role in pigment absorption

Through saponification, the natural, esterified form of the pigment gets broken down and the pigment is separated from the fatty acid molecule. This step is necessary to enable the pigment to pass the intestinal wall. The higher the saponification, the better the bioavailability of the pigment.

Besides improving bioavailability, saponification also influences the particle size and the homogeneous distribution of the pigment particles in the product.

Some feed materials and nutrients influence pigment absorption

If pigments are used, it is essential to know that some feed materials or nutrients have a beneficial or adverse effect on the absorption or deposition of the pigments. The inclusion of saturated, low-digestible fats or fat sources decreases pigment absorption and, therefore, the efficacy of pigmentation, whereas unsaturated fats (oils) facilitate it. The addition of oil up to 5% linearly increases pigment deposition in the egg.

Nutrients such as Calcium or Vitamin A also change pigment absorption. In the case of calcium, the level and the source are decisive. High levels of fast soluble limestone or calcium levels higher than 4 % will decrease the absorption. Also, increased levels of Vitamin A are critical for the effectiveness of deposition, as Vitamin A and the pigment use the same transporters. This fact is very important in broilers if vitamin A addition is applied through the water.

Mycotoxins affect feed intake and absorption

The presence of mycotoxins in feed, especially DON, will reduce feed intake due to the bad taste. The gut health-impacting effect of the mycotoxins will increase the passage rate of the feed and will prevent adequate absorption through the intestinal wall. Additionally, the liver function is negatively impacted by the mycotoxins. This results in an affected serum transport and a lower storage capacity for the pigments, leading to lower deposition in the tissue.

Impacted gut health is bad for pigmentation, too

Good gut health is essential for good pigmentation, including the uptake/absorption of pigments, their deposition, but also already existing pigmentation. All health challenges that negatively affect digestion and absorption, such as dysbiosis, negatively influence pigment availability and pigmentation. In such cases, products or strategies improving digestibility and gut integrity can be a solution.

Specific diseases such as NCD, Coryza, helminthiasis, as well as coccidiosis are an important consideration. The first three diseases lower pigment deposition; coccidiosis, however, has multiple impacts. It not only affects digestion and absorption and, therefore, the ongoing pigmentation but also decreases the already existing one.

Coccidia cause damage to the intestinal wall and affect its activity, resulting in a lower absorption. Additionally, the animals lose weight due to an insufficient supply of energy. The consequence is a degradation of fat tissue where the pigments are stored. Furthermore, coccidiosis means oxidative stress for the animal – triggering a reaction of the organism. As pigments also serve as antioxidants, they are removed from the fatty tissues and used as antioxidants.

Within three days post-infection, pigment levels in the subcutaneous tissues, but also in the serum and the liver, drop to 0. Coccidiosis outbreaks occur more frequently in alternative housing systems, affecting broilers, but also laying hens. Paying close attention to coccidiosis and having a proper anticoccidial program in place is obligatory for good pigmentation.

3. Pigmentation ends when the final products are on the shelf

For the end consumer, an attractive color in the final products (such as pasta or the broiler carcass) is essential. Producers of these final products request to put more pigments into the feed, but is this always the solution? As described before, there are a lot of factors possibly impacting the process of pigmentation during animal production on the farm.

However, also in the pasta factory or in the slaughterhouse, pigmentation of the final products can be impacted. In the pasta factory, oxidizing enzymes can destroy the pigments making the pasta pale and unattractive. If they have issues with Salmonella in the slaughterhouse, the birds may be scalded in slightly hotter water. The defeathering afterward can cause the loss of the upper layer of the skin with the pigments.

These examples show why pigmentation is not just the responsibility of the animal producer, but rather continues up to the moment when the pasta or meat is ready for the consumer.

Control these 3 factors for best pigmentation results

Pigmentation is a dynamic process that requires knowledge and attention. The better we control the influences, the more consistent and predictable the outcome. To that end, it is essential to use the product with the best quality, the best amount of pigment that can be not just ingested, but also absorbed and deposited, and with the best persistence in the final product and along its shelf life.

Keeping everything under control is not always possible or is extremely difficult. That is why choosing the right product is a vital link that will allow us to pay more attention to those things that we can find difficult to manage.

To meet all these demands, Colortek Yellow B is the best natural yellow pigment on the market. This highly concentrated natural yellow evidences optimal flowability, homogeneous mixing in feed and high stabilit, for reliable and consistent results. In addition, it boasts high bioavailability and is produced in the EU in a state-of-the art facility, with FAMI-QS certification and strict control of undesirable substances.

Not all feed additives are born equal

Feed additives are products that are added into an animal feed to improve its value. They are typically used to improve animal performance and welfare and consequently to optimize profitability for livestock producers.

Their purpose should not be confused with that of veterinary drugs. Feed additives provide additional benefits beyond the physiological needs of the animals and should be combined with other measures to improve production efficiency. Those measures include improvements in management, selection of genetics, and a constant review of biosecurity measures.

Several categories of feed additives exist. They all have in common that they are mixed into the feed or premix or the drinking water in relatively low inclusion rates to serve a specific purpose. Examples of feed additives are organic acids, pre- and probiotics, short and medium chained fatty acids, functional yeast products, and phytogenic feed additives. Modern feed additives also blend those different additives into combination products, increasing the value of the final products.

Phytogenic feed additives are a sub-category of additives containing phytomolecules, active ingredients which originate from plants and provide a unique set of characteristics. These molecules are produced by plants to protect themselves from molds, yeasts, bacteria, and other harmful organisms. Depending on the type of molecule, phytomolecules have different properties, ranging from antimicrobial to antioxidant and anti-inflammatory.

EW Nutrition’s approach to developing Ventar D: 6 steps

The development of best-in-class phytogenic feed additives is a complex process. For Ventar D, EW Nutrition divided the process into the following steps, which can serve as a template for a successful development process:

1. Reviewing customer needs
2. Active ingredient selection
3. Technical formulation
4. Application development and scale-up
5. Performance tests
6. Safety and regulatory validation

Understanding customer needs

The most important point in developing a feed additive is customer-centricity. Understanding the challenges and needs of producers is crucial to developing feed additive solutions.

In a first step, additive producers need to evaluate and quantify customer needs wherever possible. This is achieved through communication and literature review: Producers, key opinion leaders, and research partners are interviewed, and their challenges are listed. In the next step, those challenges are further analyzed using scientific literature. In a final step, the customer needs are ranked according to their impact on the customer’s profitability.

Subsequently, the minimum requirements for the new feed additive are derived. For phytogenic feed additives, this might be, for instance, something like “Improving animal performance and reducing antibiotic use while increasing profitability”. The selected key performance parameters might be, for example, feed efficiency improvements in broilers.

Meeting unmet needs

Once the customer needs have been understood, the next phase of the development starts. Based on the intended mode of action, certain phytomolecules are chosen based on their described properties. In our example, this might be an antimicrobial mode of action that targets enteropathogenic bacteria in broilers, supporting gut health.

In this in-vitro process, the selected individual compounds will be tested for their respective antimicrobial efficacy using MIC and MBC testing. Those tests are run using high-purity compounds.

The tests will be conducted using various relevant field strains like E. Coli, S. enterica or C. perfringens. In the next step, the testing will be repeated with commercially available ingredients. The most promising compounds will be tested in more complex mixtures.

Modern phytogenic feed additives are based on the concept of combining different phytomolecules to attack bacteria in diverse ways, with their antimicrobial effects being multi-modal. This mode of action is crucial because it makes it very unlikely that bacteria can develop resistance to combinations of phytomolecules, as they do to antibiotics.

Selecting the right form of application

Feed processing is often a challenge for additives. Many phytomolecules are highly volatile and prone to volatilization and high temperatures. Especially non-protected phytogenic products are negatively affected by high pelleting temperatures and long retention times of the feed in the conditioner. The results are losses in activity.

Therefore, the development of appropriate delivery systems is a preemptive method to ensure the release of the effective compounds where they should be released – in the gut of the animals. Those delivery systems can utilize emulsifiers when applying the additive via the water for drinking, or encapsulation technologies when the new additive is administered via feed.

Due to the importance of mixability, flowability, and pelleting stability for the performance of the feed additives, the exact types of emulsifiers, carrier, and technologies used in their production is often considered corporate intellectual property.

The importance of in-vivo evaluations

In one of the last steps of the development, the newly developed feed additive prototype needs to prove its safety and efficacy in the animal. Hence the need to run evaluation studies to confirm the mode of action chosen in the initial lab phase. Typically, the additive will be tested in the target species in in-house and external research institutes.

For a phytogenic feed additive, that might entail comparing its effect on body weight gain, feed efficacy, and gut health against different control groups. Additionally, the newly developed feed additive might be compared to existing additives to get a better understanding of its capabilities.

Dose-finding studies are conducted to verify the chosen dose recommendation and additional overdosing studies are conducted to prove the safety of the additive for both animals and consumers. In certain markets or regulatory environments, additional studies might be required. Those can contain environmental safety assessments or proof that the new additive does not create residues in animal products.

Case study: Ventar D

For Ventar D, the process followed these steps meticulously, in agile iterative development loops that went from the customer need to formulation, testing, scale-up, in-house and external trials, and finally production.

These steps ensured that the final product that reaches the customer’s doorstep delivers on the expectations – and more.

Choose your phytogenic products wisely

The plethora of (phytogenic) feed additives in the market leaves producers with many options to choose from. However, only scientifically developed feed additives can be relied upon to optimize both animal health and production profitability. It is important to select reliable feed additive producers who developed their phytogenic product with the customers’ challenges in mind and went through all the steps necessary to create a high-performing and safe additive.

Singapore – November 1, 2021 – EW Nutrition has successfully passed an external audit conducted by the Cattle Council of Australia (CCA) and achieved Pasturefed Cattle Assurance System (PCAS) certification for three products: Activo Premium, Mastersorb Gold, and Prote-N. 

The PCAS is a certification program that enables grassfed cattle producers to prove claims relating to pasturefed or grassfed production methods. EW Nutrition also achieved two optional modules under the PCAS Standards relating to the freedom from antibiotics and hormone growth promotants (HGPs). As a certified supplier, EW Nutrition is able to provide feed products to the industry to support pasturefed or grassfed production methods. 

“We are pleased to receive the certification for our solution offerings in Australia. The qualification of these products is a testament of our commitment to work together with the industry to mitigate the impact of antimicrobial resistance. By pursuing our objectives in animal nutrition, our work contributes to increasing the efficacy of human healthcare.” said David Sherwood, Commercial Director Oceania with EW Nutrition. 

The PCAS certified products are: 

Activo Premium
Activo Premium contains standardized amounts of selected phytomolecules. 

Mastersorb Gold
Mastersorb Gold is part of EW Nutrition’s Toxin Risk Management Program, which also includes services, on-site advice, and expert consultancy. 

Prote-N
Prote-N is a slow-release source of nonprotein nitrogen (NPN). 

About EW Nutrition 

EW Nutrition offers animal nutrition solutions to the feed industry. The company’s focus is on gut health, supported by other product lines. EW Nutrition researches, develops, produces, sells and services most of the products it commercializes. In 50 countries, key accounts are served directly by EW Nutrition’s own personnel.  

For more information, please visit https://ew-nutrition.com. 
For more information about PCAS, please visit https://pcaspasturefed.com.au/  

Contact: 

Zack Mai
Marketing Manager, EW Nutrition South East Asia/Pacific
Phone no.: +65 6735 0038
Email: zack.mai@ew-nutrition.com 

What can the right phytogenic feed additive deliver for broiler producers?

It is essential to improve broiler gut health, as only healthy birds will perform and allow producers to be profitable. Producers can maintain flock performance through preventive management measures, a consistent hygiene concept, and the use of high-quality feed. For unproblematic flocks, the same measures also positively affect profit, generating a healthy return on investment (ROI).

What affects your return on investment?

In broiler production, the cost of feed is highest, with a share of 60 – 70 % of the total production costs. The proportion tends to be higher in markets that rely on importing feed raw materials (Tandoğan and Çiçek, 2016).

Let us take an example: With a compound feed price of 300 € / t as the basis, an increase of 10 € / t results in a profit reduction of 0.016 € / kg live weight. On the other hand, an improvement in feed conversion from 1.60 to 1.55 results in a financial advantage of 0.015 € / kg live weight. The best possible feed efficiency is always desirable to keep production costs low.

Another risk factor for high-yield broiler production lives in the poultry intestines: the most significant “invisible” losses result from subclinical necrotic enteritis (Clostridium perfringens). This disease worsens the feed conversion on average by 11 % (Skinner et al., 2010). In the previous example, this would reduce feed efficiency from 1.60 to 1.78 points and reduce the contribution margin by 0.054 € / kg live weight. In addition,  a live weight reduction of up to 12 % can be observed (Skinner et al., 2010). It is, therefore, critical to stabilizing gut health to reduce the risk of subclinical necrotic enteritis.

Practice prevention for a secure return on investment

The prophylactic use of antibiotics in compound feed was a well-known reality for decades. With the EU-wide ban on the use of antibiotic growth promoters, the occurrence of multi-resistant bacteria, and a globally increased demand for antibiotic-free chickens, producers now have had to cut down on antibiotic use.

For this reason, a lot of research has been conducted into alternative measures for maintaining good broiler health. Studies have confirmed that setting up a comprehensive hygiene concept to reduce the formation of biofilms on stable surfaces and reduce the recirculation of pathogens is a solid basis. At every production stage, irregularities can be detected through a meticulous control of performance parameters and illness symptom-centered health monitoring. Diseases can either be avoided or at least recognized earlier through targeted measures, and treatment can be carried out more efficiently.

A thorough hygiene concept and careful monitoring at every production stage are key to ensuring broiler performance.

Feed additives for intestinal stabilization

Hygienically impeccable compound feed is the wish of every animal producer to promote the development of a balanced intestinal flora. However, the quality of the available raw materials is subject to fluctuations and can therefore not be 100 % anticipated. Consequently, producers are now commonly balancing these uncertainties by using feed additives, which positively influence the intestinal flora. These products must prove their positive effects in scientific studies before they can be used in practice.

An effective solution: Encapsulated phytogenic feed additives

Studies have found that certain phytomolecules, which are secondary plant metabolites, can support broiler gut health. By stimulating digestive enzyme activities and stabilizing the gut microflora, feed utilization improves, and broilers are less prone to developing enteric disorders (Zhai et al., 2018).

The encapsulation of these naturally volatile substances in a high-performance delivery system is critical for the success of a phytogenic feed additive. This protective cover, which is often a simple coating, provides good storage stability in many cases. However, in addition to the high temperatures, mechanical forces also act on these coatings during pelleting. The combination of pressure and temperature can break the protective coating of the product and lead to the loss of active substances.

A complete solution: How Ventar D maximizes your ROI

Because of the difficulties mentioned, the use of modern delivery system technologies is therefore necessary. EW Nutrition has many years of experience in the development of phytogenic products. Due to an original, innovative delivery system technology, Ventar D can offer high pelleting stability for optimal improvement of animal performance.

In particular, the positive influence of the phytogenic feed additive Ventar D on intestinal health under increased infection pressure was assessed in multiple studies. In two studies carried out in the United Kingdom, birds were challenged by being housed on used litter harvested from a previous trial. Moreover, increasing levels of rye were introduced into the diet, adding a nutritional challenge to provoke an increased risk of intestinal infections in the broilers. The use of 75 g of Ventar D per t compound feed increased the EPEF (European Production Efficiency Factor) by 4.1% and feed efficiency from 1.63 to 1.60.

With Ventar D use at 100 g / t compound feed under comparable conditions, EPEF increased by 8.9 %, and feed efficiency improved by 5 points (0.05), compared to a non-supplemented control group (NC).

Another study was carried out in the USA. In addition to performance parameters, data on intestinal health were also recorded. In the group fed with Ventar D (100 g / t compound feed), 50 % fewer necrotic enteritis-related lesions of the intestinal wall were found after 42 days. Compared to the group fed with Ventar D, the broilers of the control group showed a performance decrease of 11.8 % with an 8% lower final fattening weight and a 3 points poorer FCR.

Based on the results of the above studies, the ROI for Ventar D due to the improvement in feed efficiency by 3 and 5 points could be 1:3.5 and 1:6.5, respectively. Similarly, the net returns for using Ventar D could be 0.007 and 0.013 € / kg live weight, given the 3 and 5 points improvements in feed efficiency. The ROI for Ventar D use could be even higher thanks to additional benefits such as improvements in litter condition and foot pad lesions, reduced veterinary cost, etc., depending on the prevailing challenges.

The future of feeding is here

The first study results for Ventar D underscore that, if combined and delivered right, phytomolecules can transform broiler performance from inside the gut. Ventar D’s stable delivery system ensures a constant amount of active molecules in targeted intestinal sites and, therefore, supports a favorable intestinal flora. With Ventar D supplementation, subclinical intestinal infections due to C. perfringens or other enteric bacteria can be very well kept in check, ensuring improved broiler productivity and production profitability.

References

Skinner, James T., Sharon Bauer, Virginia Young, Gail Pauling, and Jeff Wilson. “An Economic Analysis of the Impact of Subclinical (Mild) Necrotic Enteritis in Broiler Chickens.” Avian Diseases 54, no. 4 (December 1, 2010): 1237–40. https://doi.org/10.1637/9399-052110-reg.1.

Tandoğan, M., and H. Çiçek. “Technical Performance and Cost Analysis of Broiler Production in Turkey.” Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 18, no. 1 (2016): 169–74. https://doi.org/10.1590/18069061-2015-0017.

Zhai, Hengxiao, Hong Liu, Shikui Wang, Jinlong Wu, and Anna-Maria Kluenter. “Potential of Essential Oils for Poultry and Pigs.” Animal Nutrition 4, no. 2 (June 2018): 179–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2018.01.005

By Dr. Twan van Gerwe, Global Technical Director, EW Nutrition

A year ago, the European Commission announced regulation (EU) 2020/1400 – restricting the use of ethyl ester of β-apo-8’-carotenoic acid (generally known as ‘apo-ester’). Starting on 26 October 2021, this legislation restricts the use of apo-ester in poultry feed to 5 mg/kg for laying hens and 15 mg/kg for broilers.  

As apo-esters is a synthetic pigment – not naturally occurring in nature – this measure was taken because the authorities could not guarantee safety upon exposure to the user. Limiting the concentration in feed would reduce this risk to acceptable levels, according to the legislators’ decision.  

Why use apo-esters in the first place? 

Apo-ester is a synthetic yellow colorant, with good stability in premixtures and complete feed. It also has a high deposition rate in the yolk, making it an effective egg yolk colorant.  

Its ability to be applied through premix facilitates the proper dispersion in the final feed, which is relevant if micro-dosing systems are lacking in the feed mill. 

Why was the legislative change necessary? 

The legislative change which limits the use of synthetic apo-ester is based on the precautionary principle and in line with a broader market trend: away from synthetic (non-natural) components, towards the use of naturally occurring alternatives.  

The alternative to apo-ester

Natural yellow pigments, typically based on lutein and zeaxanthin produced from marigold oleoresin, are available in the market and can be used to reach the egg yolk pigmentation desired by the consumer. In contrast to apo-ester, these natural solutions are functional antioxidants, further contributing to the egg’s nutritious composition. 

Challenges for natural alternatives 

However, stability in premixtures and complete feed can be a challenge, with inconsistent yolk coloration as a risk. Safety can also be an issue, so it is important to ask for Quality Control measures routinely applied to avoid contamination with undesired substances (e.g., dioxins). To limit the risk of producing eggs with insufficient yolk coloration, it is important to select natural pigments with excellent stability and deposition efficiency. 

What is the best natural alternative to apo-ester? 

EW Nutrition’s natural pigment Colortek® Yellow B, produced with a proprietary technology, withstands the harsh conditions in premixtures, while the unique saponification process provides unparalleled deposition rates.  

Moreover, Colortek® Yellow B is the most concentrated natural pigment on the market, making it the perfect premix-delivered colorant in the egg industry. If you want to produce all-natural eggs without worrying about the stability of the product or the reliability of your egg coloration, please contact your local EW Nutrition person. 

The EW Nutrition team is excited to announce our participation at this year’s VIV MEA. The international Feed to Food trade show takes place at the Abu Dhabi National Exhibition Centre (ADNEC) on November 23 – 25, 2021. The time has finally come to meet in person again – and EW Nutrition has prepared an exceptional stand to celebrate. Of course, we have used the pandemic downtime to develop our product and service portfolio further.

We are proud to showcase our new Feed Quality and Pigment lines. Discover Pretect D, a novel phytomolecules-based gut health solution for poultry, which offers natural support even during Eimeria-related challenges. Visitors to EW Nutrition’s stand will get access to our dedicated technical experts. They look forward to discussing topics such as the critical role of biosecurity for successful antibiotic reduction. Also, you can explore together how our poultry gut health and toxin risk mitigation solutions help increase profitability.

This year, VIV MEA will coincide with the first edition of the Abu Dhabi Agriculture & Food Security Week 2021, providing extra networking and business opportunities. There are no quarantine requirements for vaccinated travelers, making it easy to visit Abu Dhabi and be part of VIV MEA 2021. Visitor registration is open at www.vivmea.nl, and you can find EW Nutrition at booth #D062, in ADNEC Hall 7. We are thrilled to see you soon!

About EW Nutrition

For the global animal production and feed industries, EW Nutrition offers innovative, comprehensive solutions for gut health, feed quality, pigmentation, digestibility, on-farm performance, and more.

Headquartered in Germany, with R&D and manufacturing facilities around the world, EW Nutrition offers complete backward integration for a seamless customer experience: from development and scale-up to production, distribution, and support. Delivered across 90+ markets, with own personnel in over 50 countries.

Contact

Dr. Ihsan Swaidat, Area Sales Manager (ME & NA)
M +49 172 2656 182
T   +49 4445 9868 123
ihsan.swaidat@ew-nutrition.com

VISBEK, 18 October – EW Nutrition announces the launch of a best-in-class next generation gut health modifier. Ventar D is an innovative proprietary blend of phytomolecules with a novel delivery mechanism. 

Ventar D addresses key requirements of the animal nutrition industry. The product has been formulated to support gut health and improve performance, resulting in an increase in profitability for the customer.  Ventar D has been the result of an integrated joint effort of EW Nutrition’s research, development, production, sales and services teams.

Michael Gerrits, Managing Director EW Nutrition, emphasizes the success of the company’s in-house holistic research and development processes: “EW Nutrition is committed to delivering top-notch gut health solutions to reduce the dependency of the animal nutrition industry on antibiotics. Starting from the in-depth understanding of customer needs, a 100% backward integrated approach allows for seamless support by EW Nutrition throughout the customer’s journey.”

Ruturaj Patil, EW Nutrition’s Product Manager Ventar D, speaks of the benefits that Ventar D brings to its customers: “The efficacy of any effective gut health solution lies in its formulation, stability and delivery in the gastro-intestinal tract . Ventar D offers a proprietary formulation, best in class pelleting stability and an innovative delivery system. We are excited to bring this novel solution to our customers and be part of their journey to make animal production more sustainable, while increasing profitability.”

For more information, please visit https://ew-nutrition.com/animal-nutrition/products/ventar-d/.

About EW Nutrition

EW Nutrition offers animal nutrition solutions to the feed industry. The company’s focus is on gut health, supported by other product lines. EW Nutrition researches, develops, produces, sells and services most of the products it commercializes. In 50 countries, key accounts are served directly by EW Nutrition’s own personnel.

Water hygiene is essential for achieving antibiotic-free poultry production

Significant resources are spent on the correct nutrients in the diet and the correct additives for bird health. Water quality should be a priority, and a water quality monitoring program is essential for success in an ABF program. All things being equal, animals will perform better if they have access to high-quality water.

The variability of water quality in the grow-out region should determine how many water quality samples are taken. In highly variable areas, water quality should be measured at every season change on enough farms in every region to know if the solutes are changing. If the water quality is good and consistent, monitoring may be reduced significantly. Water quality should be a part of a “problem farm” work up or related to otherwise unexplained poor performance.

Water-soluble additives: Prevent biofilm

The use of water-soluble products is common in ABF production systems and their frequent use may provide a carbon source for bacteria. This, along with warm temperatures and slow water flow in enclosed water systems, makes the perfect environment for biofilm development.

It is important to frequently flush lines, give birds access to fresh water between additives, and sanitize water lines after using a product that can provide nutrients to bacteria in the line. The biofilm is a perfect location to harbor and protect pathogens from acids and mild or under-dosed disinfectants.

Designing a water quality program

Sample collection

The first step to building a water quality program is to understand the challenge on every farm. Correct sample collection is critical to achieving good results. Take a water sample from as close to the well as possible and submit for water quality analysis: pH, hardness, and minerals. This sample should also be submitted for bacterial load: total aerobic plate count (CFU) per mL and total coliforms per mL.

Monitor bacterial load

A drip sample should be collected from the end of the line for bacterial load analysis as well. This will help determine if the bacterial challenge begins at the source or is limited to the house. Additionally, a swab from the inside of the end of the water line should be taken to determine the level of biofilm. The total bacterial count should be less than 1,000 CFU/mL without fecal coliforms in a free-flowing sample, and total bacteria should be less than 10,000 CFU/mL on a biofilm swab.

Monitor water pH

Water should have a pH between 5 and 8. Water with a pH consistently lower than 5 can be damaging to equipment, while a pH over 8 reduces the efficacy of many disinfectants and can have a bitter taste to birds. Hard water can increase scaling of lines and equipment, leading to leaking seals. Scale also provides a matrix for biofilm formation, making cleaning and disinfection more difficult.

Clean and disinfect water lines

Cleaning water lines between flocks is the minimum program for ABF production. Stabilized hydrogen peroxide products are excellent for disinfecting water lines between flocks. The levels needed for proper disinfection of lines are generally too strong for birds, and the lines must be flushed prior to bird placement.

Water lines are often only cleaned in the house; it is important to periodically clean the lines that transport water from the well or water source to the poultry house as this may be a significant reservoir for bacteria. If the well is identified as a source of contamination, it is essential to seek the help of a qualified technician before adding any sanitizing product to a wellhead.

Continuous disinfection

Ideally, water should be continuously disinfected with a product that is approved for poultry consumption. One of the best products for continuous disinfection is chlorine dioxide, which is effective at reducing bacteria and also reducing the concentrations of some mineral components. High levels of iron in the water can create a favorable environment for E. coli and other bacteria such as C. perfringens.

In addition to disinfection, chlorine dioxide is an effective treatment to reduce soluble iron levels. High sodium and chloride levels can lead to flushing and promote the growth of some bacteria. If high levels of sodium and chloride are consistent across a grow-out region, it may be possible to decrease the levels in the feed to reduce flushing. If the levels of sodium and chloride are considerably high, reverse osmosis should be considered to improve water quality.

Bottom line: invest in high-quality water

Another effective product is stabilized hydrogen peroxide at an appropriate residual level for bird consumption. There are other options for water line sanitation that can be explored on a case-by-case basis.

There are excellent online resources [link] for poultry water quality. The important message remains, in any case, that investment in high-quality water is a critical step for success in ABF poultry production.

References

Austin, B.J., J. Payne, S.E. Watkins, M. Daniels, and B.E. Haggard. 2016. How to Collect Your Water Sample and Interpret the Results for the Poultry Analytical Package. Arkansas Water Resources Center, Fayetteville, AR, FS-2017-01: 8 pp.

Scantling, M. and Watkins, S. 2013. Identify Poultry Water System Contamination Challenges. FSA8011. University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Research and Extension.

Watkins, S. 2008. Water: Identifying and correcting challenges. Avian Advice 10(3):10-15. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, Fayetteville, AR