Reporting Period: November 6-12, 2025

Extracted Data by Disease Category

1. ASF in Domestic Pigs

2. ASF in Wild Boar

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

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

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

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

Summary Statistics

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

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

Different faces of energy

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

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

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

Disease generates costs

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

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

Environmental challenges are energy-consuming

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

1. Cold stress

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

2. Heat stress

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

3. Poor housing and management

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

What are the detailed consequences?

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

Glucose, an important energy source

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

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

Influence on protein metabolism

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

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

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

Carcass and meat quality

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

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

How can feed additives support pigs in health challenges?

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

Phytomolecules have several health-supporting effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial with endotoxins

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

Solis Max 2.0 bound about 80% of endotoxin.

Trial with mycotoxins

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

Health support by toxin-binding solutions improves performance

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Targeting sustainability in pig production

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

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

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

Strategy for efficient pig production

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

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

The foundation of efficiency – the gut

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

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

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

Phytomolecules: supporting gut health and performance

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

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

1. Direct antimicrobial activity of phytomolecules

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

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

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

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

2. Indirect antimicrobial activity of phytomolecules

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

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

3. Combinations increase efficacy

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

4. Phytomolecules are more than antimicrobials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustainable efficiency in pig production supported by in-feed phytomolecules

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

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

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

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

References

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

By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor EW Nutrition

Gut health is a critical factor in poultry production, influencing growth performance, feed efficiency, and overall bird health. A well-functioning digestive system ensures optimal nutrient absorption and ultimately contributes to economic sustainability in poultry farming.

However, another essential function of the gut is its significant role in immune defense, as evidenced by the fact that 80% of all active immune cells are in the gut. It is essential for the organism to keep a sensitive balance by eliminating invading pathogens while maintaining self-tolerance to avoid autoimmunity. Being 1.5 to 2.3 m long and with a big contact area to the external environment, the gut is the first line of defense when pathogens have orally entered the organism. For this purpose, the intestine has several specialized cells and a plethora of diverse microorganisms – the microbiome.

A balanced gut environment, therefore, enhances resistance to diseases, helps prevent infections, and reduces the need for antibiotics.

Which tools are available in the gut to counteract pathogenic attacks?

The gut wall, per se, has several fixed tools to fight pathogenic offenses, such as the mucus layers and the epithelium with highly specialized cells. Figure 1 shows in detail the different parts of the gut immune system.

1. Mucus layers

The mucus layers form the first host-derived line of defense. They help trap invasive bacteria and facilitate their removal via luminal flow. The protective properties may depend on whether the mucin is neutral or acidic, sialylated or sulfated (Broom and Kogut, 2018). The glycoprotein mucins forming the mucus layer (mainly MUC2 in the small and large intestine and MUC5ac in the proventriculus) are produced by the goblet cells, part of the intestinal epithelium just beneath.

2. Intestinal epithelium

The one-layered intestinal epithelium represents a physical barrier and consists of normal enterocytes, as well as specialized cells. All the cells are closely linked by tight junctions, consisting of claudin, occludin, and junctional adhesion molecules (JAM).
The following diverse specialized cells protect the organism from pathogenic attacks:

2.1 Proliferating stem cells

These cells are ready to replace damaged epithelial cells in the case of inflammation.

2.2 Paneth cells

Paneth cells are situated at the bottom of the Lieberkühn crypts, neighboring the stem cells in the jejunum and the ileum. Paneth cells have different tasks:
In normal conditions, they maintain homeostasis by regulating the microbiome’s composition via the secretion of antimicrobial peptides, which are accumulated in apically oriented secretory granules, performing phagocytosis and efferocytosis. Additionally, the Paneth cells provide niche factors for the intestinal stem cell compartment, absorb heavy metals, and preserve the integrity of the intestinal barrier. If one or more of these functions are impaired, intestinal and systemic inflammations or infections can develop (Wallaeys et al., 2022). The number of Paneth cells and their diameter can be enhanced via feeding. Agarwal et al. (2022) noticed a significant increase in the number and diameter of Paneth cells after feeding quinoa soluble fiber and/or quercetin 3-glucoside.

2.3 M cells

M cells (M coming from microfold and indicating the structure) are specialized epithelial cells localized along the antimesenteric border in the epithelium of the ileum. They are crucial for the immune system and an essential part of the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), a sub-system of the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT).
M cells play an important role in the function of the immune system. They act as a transport system for antigens. They sample antigens (macromolecules, bacteria, viruses, small parasites) via the apical membrane. After the phagocytosis of the foreign organism/substance, the antigen gets through the cell and is consigned to cells of the adaptive immune system (e.g., the B-cells) at the basal side. The exact transport and the handover to the cells of the adaptive immune system are still unclear. It is also not clarified whether the antigens are processed inside the cells.

2.4 Dendritic cells

Dendritic cells are a kind of leucocyte derived from the bone marrow. Immature dendritic cells have a star-like shape. They are specialized to identify, uptake, transport, process, and present antigens to other immune system cells on their surface. To identify and uptake harmful substances/microbes, they carry receptors on their surface that recognize the attributes often occurring in pathogenic viruses, bacteria, and fungi. After contact with the antigen, the cell moves to secondary lymphoid tissue, and in the intestine, this is predominantly Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue (MALT). Arriving as mature and not phagocytizing dendritic cells, they present the antigens of the pathogens to the T-lymphocytes. For this purpose, they use cell surface proteins (MHC proteins). This presentation, together with co-stimulators and cytokines, activates naïve T-lymphocytes to develop into the relevant T-cell (fighting viruses, bacteria…) and proliferate, leading to the clearance of the pathogen.
On the other hand, dendritic cells can also suppress an immune reaction if the “suspicious subjects” are harmless or belong to the organism. Dendritic cells are the most potent antigen-presenting cells of the immune system.

2.5 Goblet cells

Goblet cells originate from pluripotent stem cells and are located between the enterocytes in the inner mucus layer of the intestine. Goblet cells develop and mature rapidly after hatching due to external stimuli such as environmental and dietary factors, but also intestinal microbiota (Duangnumsawang et al., 2021). They derive their name from their goblet-like appearance. The basal site is thin, but the cell gets thicker toward the apical side. In the thicker cell organisms, vesicles with mucins are stored and explosively released to the surface by exocytosis.

The mucins (MUC2) are viscous, slime-forming substances consisting of a protein string bound to many sugar chains. Due to their oligosaccharide chain structure, they offer adhesion binding sites for intestinal commensal bacteria and enhance probiotic colonization (Liu et al, 2020). They have a high water-binding capacity, which is responsible for their slimy and protective characteristics. In the case of inflammation, mucin production can increase strongly.

By providing bicarbonate for proper mucin unfolding in the small intestine, goblet cells help maintain homeostasis and the intestinal barrier function. Furthermore, goblet cells can form goblet cell-associated passages (GAPs) and deliver luminal substances to the antigen-presenting cells in the underlying lamina propria that can start an adaptive immune response (Knoop and Newberry, 2018).
As with Paneth cells, the number of goblet cells also increases by feeding quinoa soluble fibers.

2.6 Neuroendocrine cells

Enterochromaffin cells are neuroendocrine cells found in the epithelium of the whole digestive tract, mainly in the small intestine, the colon, and the ceca. They belong to the enteric endocrine system, are part of the diffuse neuroendocrine system, and produce 95% of the serotonin in the organism. Enterochromaffin cells act as chemo- and mechanosensors. They react to free fatty acids, amino acids, and other chemicals as well as physical forces occurring during peristaltic activity in the gut, thus modulating the secretion of water and electrolytes as well as gut motility and visceral sensation of pain (Linan-Rico et al., 2016; Diwakarla et al., 2018).

Serotonin, on its side, has been shown to affect the composition of the gut microbiota (Kwon et al., 2019) and to modulate bacterial physiology (Knecht et al., 2016). Gut-derived serotonin is responsible for immune responses (Baganz and Blakely, 2012) but also for the regulation of other functions such as bone development (Chabbi-Achengli et al., 2012), gut motility, and platelet aggregation (Berger et al., 2009). A deficient serotonergic system can cause psychopathological behaviors such as feather pecking.

3. Last but not least – the microbiome

The poultry gut microbiome consists of bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses. Beneficial microbes, such as Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Bacteroides, contribute to gut health and immunity. 

On the one hand, microbes are involved in digestion and nutrient synthesis. They assist in breaking down fiber, producing short-chain fatty acids, and synthesizing essential vitamins. On the other hand, they contribute to immune defense:

Beneficial bacteria (BB) prevent the colonization of harmful microbes:
The bacteria inhabiting the poultry gut act against pathogens by competing with them for nutrients and binding sites at the intestinal mucosa.

Beneficial bacteria prevent/reduce inflammation and stabilize the intestinal mucosa
Abaidullah et al. (2019) showed in their review how beneficial bacteria influence the immune response to diverse viruses (AIV, IBDV, MDV, NDV).
Bacteria such as Collinsella, Faecalibacterium, Oscillibacter, etc., increase the release of IFN-α, IFN-β, and IL-22. These substances control virus replication and repair mucosal tissue damage. Other bacteria, such as Clostridium XIVa or Firmicutes, provoke T-cells to produce anti-inflammatory cytokines to suppress inflammation. By promoting the antimicrobial peptides such as MUC, TFF, ZO, and tight junction proteins comprised of claudins, occludin, and zona occludens mRNA expression, Bacteroides, Candidatus, SMB53, Parabacteroides, Lactobacillus, Paenibacillus, Enterococcus, and Streptococcus spp. inhibit pathobiont colonization and translocation, and suppress inflammation. Butyrate succinate and lactate, produced by Faecalibacterium and Blautia spp., provide energy and reduce inflammation.
Bacteroides fragilis produce bacterial polysaccharides that communicate with the immune system and influence the transformation of CD4+ (T-helper cells) and Foxp3+ cells (the master transcription factor of regulatory T cells in mammals, but also present in chicken (Burkhardt et al., 2022)). 

“Negative” bacteria increase inflammation and enhance viral shedding
Clostridium Cluster XI, Salmonella, and Shigella downregulate the anti-inflammatory and tight junction-stabilizing substances, which would be increased by the beneficial bacteria and increase IFN-γ and IF-17A to cause mucosal inflammation and tissue damage, as well as increased virus replication and fecal shedding. Further bacteria, which enhance mucosal and GIT inflammation, are Desulfovibrionaceae, producing hydrogen sulfides, Vampirovibrio, Clostridium cluster XIVb, and the genus Rumicoccus. They induce the pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and IL-1β. The latter three bacteria also increase viral shedding. Salmonella typhimurium and Campylobacter jejuni also achieve higher viral shedding by decreasing viral-specific IgG and IgA production (Abaidullah et al., 2019)

Factors impairing intestinal immune defense

As the previous paragraph indicates, an imbalance of the intestinal microbiome called dysbiosis makes chickens more prone to diseases such as necrotic enteritis (Stanley et al., 2014). Several factors are disturbing the balance in the microbiome (Heinzl,  2020):

• An abrupt change of feed
• High contents of non-starch polysaccharides increase viscosity, decrease passage rate, lower the digestibility of other nutrients, and serve as nutrients for, e.g., Clostridium perfringens
• High protein levels can also serve as a substrate for pathogens and cause a shift in the balance of the intestinal flora
• Finely ground feed does not stimulate the gizzard muscles to do their work. pH increases, transit time decreases, and pathogenic microbes such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Clostridia proliferate.
• Stress (heat or cold stress, re-assembling of groups, high stocking densities)
• Mycotoxins

However, besides all these factors causing an overgrowth of commensal bacteria such as E. coli, ingested pathogens such as Marek’s or Newcastle Disease viruses can also cause this imbalance.

Immune defense in the gut – an interplay of different tools that must be protected

The first line of defense, the intestine, comprises different tools working together to fight pathogens and harmful substances. Besides the mucus layers and the specialized cells, the intestinal microbiome plays an essential role in immune defense by competing with pathogens for nutrients and binding sites, enhancing the secretion of anti-inflammatory substances, and stimulating the production of interferons, which fight the pathogens. However, several factors can impact the balance of the microbiome and cause dysbiosis. The best protection of this sensitive equilibrium can support the organism in defending against diseases and maintaining immunity and performance. Understanding the interplay between microbiota, immune function, and nutrition allows for effective strategies to enhance poultry health while reducing reliance on antibiotics. Future research will continue to provide insights into optimizing gut-immune interactions in poultry production.

References

Abaidullah, Muhammad, Shuwei Peng, Muhammad Kamran, Xu Song, and Zhongqiong Yin. “Current Findings on Gut Microbiota Mediated Immune Modulation against Viral Diseases in Chicken.” Viruses 11, no. 8 (July 25, 2019): 681. https://doi.org/10.3390/v11080681. 

Baganz, Nicole L., and Randy D. Blakely. “A Dialogue between the Immune System and Brain, Spoken in the Language of Serotonin.” ACS Chemical Neuroscience 4, no. 1 (December 24, 2012): 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1021/cn300186b. 

Berger, Miles, John A. Gray, and Bryan L. Roth. “The Expanded Biology of Serotonin.” Annual Review of Medicine 60, no. 1 (February 1, 2009): 355–66. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.60.042307.110802. 

Broom, Leon J., and Michael H. Kogut. “The Role of the Gut Microbiome in Shaping the Immune System of Chickens.” Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 204 (October 2018): 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2018.10.002. 

Burkhardt, Nina B, Daniel Elleder, Benjamin Schusser, Veronika Krchlíková, Thomas W Göbel, Sonja Härtle, and Bernd Kaspers. “The Discovery of Chicken Foxp3 Demands Redefinition of Avian Regulatory T Cells.” The Journal of Immunology 208, no. 5 (March 1, 2022): 1128–38. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.2000301. 

Chabbi-Achengli, Yasmine, Amélie E. Coudert, Jacques Callebert, Valérie Geoffroy, Francine Côté, Corinne Collet, and Marie-Christine de Vernejoul. “Decreased Osteoclastogenesis in Serotonin-Deficient Mice.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 7 (January 30, 2012): 2567–72. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117792109. 

Clarke, G, S Grenham, P Scully, P Fitzgerald, R D Moloney, F Shanahan, T G Dinan, and J F Cryan. “The Microbiome-Gut-Brain Axis during Early Life Regulates the Hippocampal Serotonergic System in a Sex-Dependent Manner.” Molecular Psychiatry 18, no. 6 (June 2013): 666–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2012.77. 

Diwakarla, S., L. J. Fothergill, J. Fakhry, B. Callaghan, and J. B. Furness. “Heterogeneity of Enterochromaffin Cells within the Gastrointestinal Tract.” Neurogastroenterology &amp; Motility 29, no. 6 (May 9, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.13101. 

Duangnumsawang, Yada, Jürgen Zentek, and Farshad Goodarzi Boroojeni. “Development and Functional Properties of Intestinal Mucus Layer in Poultry.” Frontiers in Immunology 12 (October 4, 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.745849. 

Heinzl, Inge. “Necrotic Enteritis: The Complete Overview.” EW Nutrition, August 8, 2023. https://ew-nutrition.com/necrotic-enteritis-complete-overview/. 

Knecht, Leslie D., Gregory O’Connor, Rahul Mittal, Xue Z. Liu, Pirouz Daftarian, Sapna K. Deo, and Sylvia Daunert. “Serotonin Activates Bacterial Quorum Sensing and Enhances the Virulence of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa in the Host.” EBioMedicine 9 (July 2016): 161–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.05.037. 

Kong, Shanshan, Yanhui H. Zhang, and Weiqiang Zhang. “Regulation of Intestinal Epithelial Cells Properties and Functions by Amino Acids.” BioMed Research International 2018 (2018): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2819154. 

Kwon, Yun Han, Huaqing Wang, Emmanuel Denou, Jean-Eric Ghia, Laura Rossi, Michelle E. Fontes, Steve P. Bernier, et al. “Modulation of Gut Microbiota Composition by Serotonin Signaling Influences Intestinal Immune Response and Susceptibility to Colitis.” Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology 7, no. 4 (2019): 709–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.01.004. 

Linan-Rico, Andromeda, Fernando Ochoa-Cortes, Arthur Beyder, Suren Soghomonyan, Alix Zuleta-Alarcon, Vincenzo Coppola, and Fievos L. Christofi. “Mechanosensory Signaling in Enterochromaffin Cells and 5-HT Release: Potential Implications for Gut Inflammation.” Frontiers in Neuroscience 10 (December 19, 2016). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00564. 

Liu, Yang, Xinjie Yu, Jianxin Zhao, Hao Zhang, Qixiao Zhai, and Wei Chen. “The Role of MUC2 Mucin in Intestinal Homeostasis and the Impact of Dietary Components on MUC2 Expression.” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 164 (December 2020): 884–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.07.191. 

Lyte, Mark. “Microbial Endocrinology in the Microbiome-Gut-Brain Axis: How Bacterial Production and Utilization of Neurochemicals Influence Behavior.” PLoS Pathogens 9, no. 11 (November 14, 2013). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003726. 

Marcobal, A., P. C. Kashyap, T. A. Nelson, P. A. Aronov, M. S. Donia, A. Spormann, M. A. Fischbach, and J. L. Sonnenburg. “A Metabolomic View of How the Human Gut Microbiota Impacts the Host Metabolome Using Humanized and Gnotobiotic Mice.” The ISME Journal 7, no. 10 (June 6, 2013): 1933–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.89. 

Stanley, Dragana, Shu-Biao Wu, Nicholas Rodgers, Robert A. Swick, and Robert J. Moore. “Differential Responses of Cecal Microbiota to Fishmeal, Eimeria and Clostridium Perfringens in a Necrotic Enteritis Challenge Model in Chickens.” PLoS ONE 9, no. 8 (August 28, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104739. 

Wallaeys, Charlotte, Natalia Garcia‐Gonzalez, and Claude Libert. “Paneth Cells as the Cornerstones of Intestinal and Organismal Health: A Primer.” EMBO Molecular Medicine 15, no. 2 (December 27, 2022). https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.202216427. 

Yano, Jessica M., Kristie Yu, Gregory P. Donaldson, Gauri G. Shastri, Phoebe Ann, Liang Ma, Cathryn R. Nagler, Rustem F. Ismagilov, Sarkis K. Mazmanian, and Elaine Y. Hsiao. “Indigenous Bacteria from the Gut Microbiota Regulate Host Serotonin Biosynthesis.” Cell 163, no. 1 (September 2015): 258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.017.

Recently, The Poultry Site’s Sarah Mikesell interviewed Predrag Persak, EW Nutrition’s Regional Technical Manager for Northern Europe. The conversation covered topics as wide as sustainability and challenges in poultry production, and as narrow as intestinal permeability. Thanks to The Poultry Site for the great talk!

Watch the video

Sarah Mikesell, The Poultry Site: Hi, this is Sarah Mikesell with The Poultry Site, and today we are here with Predrag Peršak. He is the Regional Technical Manager for Northern Europe with EW Nutrition. Thanks for being with us today, Predrag.

Predrag Peršak, EW Nutrition: Nice to be here, Sarah. Thank you for inviting me.

SM: Very good. It’s nice to visit with you. And today, Predrag and I are in Berlin, Germany, at an exclusive event for the poultry industry called Producing for the Future, which is sponsored by EW Nutrition. You are one of our speakers today, Predrag, so I’m going to ask you just a few questions to let everybody know a little bit about your presentation.

You’ve described animal nutrition as “never boring and never finished.” What makes this field so dynamic and constantly evolving for you?

PP: I’ve been in animal nutrition for about 25 years. And in those 25 years, I would say that not even half a year passed without something extraordinary happening. From genetics to animal husbandry, especially here in Europe, we also have a lot of pressure from consumers and slaughterhouses to adapt production to the needs of the customers.

Sustainability, sourcing raw materials, and the variety of raw materials available in Europe – and the constant development of new ones – make life for an animal nutritionist very, very interesting. It’s also very challenging, and through these challenges you learn a lot.

So, applying what we learned 20 years ago is simply not enough anymore. For someone who wants to be challenged every day with new things, this is definitely the right industry to be in – especially now.

SM: Excellent. Can you explain your holistic approach to animal nutrition and how considering multiple factors benefits practical applications on farms?

PP: The concept of a holistic approach in animal nutrition is not new. But for me – being both a veterinarian and a nutritionist – it means having deeper insight into the animal itself, into all the metabolic processes, and also into the external influences: husbandry, genetics, diseases, and management. Looking at how all of these interact, we can only really solve problems by looking at the animal as a whole system.

The same applies to feed production. You cannot look at a feed mill as just one compartment. You have to look at sourcing raw materials, their quality, how they are processed – milling, pelleting, and other technologies – and then see how that feed performs on the farm.

So, a holistic approach can be applied both from the animal perspective and from the feed production perspective, across all steps and processes. This is something we use and promote daily in our work with customers.

SM: Very good. You’ve worked with unconventional protein and fiber sources. We’re hearing a lot more about that recently. What are those, and what potential do they bring to animal nutrition?

PP: When I talk about unconventional protein and fiber sources, we need to remember that the global feed production scene is very diverse. What applies in the U.S. or Brazil does not necessarily apply in Europe or the Far East.

Here in Europe, we try to use not by-products but co-products of food production. For example, different fractions of rapeseed or sunflower meal, which are widely produced in Europe but not often used by mainstream nutritionists due to certain limitations. By finding the right processing methods and combining them with technologies, we can make these unconventional materials usable in mainstream nutrition.

The same goes for fiber sources. Both fermentable and structural fibers are increasingly important for intestinal and digestive development, as well as for overall animal health. So, processing fibers in ways that maximize usability while minimizing negative effects is a big part of my work.

SM: From a cost standpoint for producers, are those lower-cost inputs, or just alternatives they need to look at?

PP: In Germany we have a perfect expression for this: “yes and no.” There is always pressure on price, especially in poultry, because food must be accessible to everyone. But at the same time, food must not harm the environment or human health, and we should use all resources not fit for humans but still usable for animals.

So, it’s not only about cost – about availability and sustainability. Working with just two, three, or five raw materials for a long time is not the way forward. The way forward is to think of everything that can be used properly, for the benefit of the animals, and ultimately to produce enough food for the world.

Also, using locally available products is important. Feed production is very diverse around the world—raw materials in Southeast Asia differ completely from those in Europe, Brazil, or the U.S. Using technologies to enable the use of locally produced by-products makes production not only sustainable, but also economically viable for local communities. That’s really the core of the feed industry: using what is produced locally.

SM: Interesting. Very cool. How does your interdisciplinary work across poultry, pigs, and ruminants give you unique insights that might be missed with a narrower focus?

PP: I come from a small feed mill in a small country, Croatia. There, you don’t have deep specialization by species or even by category, as you find in larger markets. Specialization has its advantages, but it can also limit creativity and “outside-the-box” thinking.

By working with ruminants, I learned about fermentation processes – knowledge that can be applied to pigs and even to poultry. For example, fermentation can reduce anti-nutritional factors, allowing higher inclusion levels of certain raw materials in poultry diets.

With pigs, fermentation of fibers – especially in piglets – is crucial, and some of that knowledge could be applied to turkeys, where we still face health issues.

So, working across species demands a lot – it leaves little time for other things – but it opens up unique perspectives and cross-species applications that benefit the entire livestock industry.

SM: I was talking with someone yesterday about mycotoxins – there’s a lot of research in pigs but less in poultry. That’s kind of what you’re talking about, right? Applying knowledge across species?

PP: Absolutely. We’re focused now on poultry, but we can learn from poultry too – not only about feeding but also about farm management, biosecurity, and more. These lessons can also apply to pigs or ruminants.

It’s all holistic – you cannot solve everything with nutrition alone. It’s always a package.

SM: You presented today about the importance of intestinal permeability. Why is it important, and how can understanding it impact animal health and performance outcomes?

PP: Intestinal permeability is one of the key features we use to describe gut health. Personally, I’m very practical. For 20 years we’ve talked about “gut health,” but the real question for veterinarians and nutritionists is: what do we actually do with that knowledge?

In my presentation, I explained intestinal permeability as a “point of no return” in gut health. When leaky gut develops, everything else can deteriorate – faster or slower – but it won’t return to normal without intervention.

By comparing how different stressors or pathogens impact intestinal permeability, we can better understand severity and decide where to focus. Nutritionists already pay attention to thousands of factors, but we need to identify the most impactful ones. That was my key message: focus on the most important drivers.

SM: And leaky gut has really become something the whole industry is talking about, right? I’ve even seen it in human health – my doctor has posters about it.

PP: Exactly. Across cows, pigs, and poultry, leaky gut is getting a lot of attention. It’s a physiological or pathophysiological feature that marks the point of no return.

We can talk about dysbiosis and all the causes, but once you reach leaky gut, you understand where intervention is needed. And it’s not just hype. For example, recently Nature published research showing certain types of human bone marrow conditions are linked to leaky gut and microbial influence on blood processes.

So, this is not a passing trend. It’s fundamental. And once we solve one issue, another door opens. That’s why this industry is never boring.

SM: Very good. Well, thank you for all the information today, Predrag.

PP: Thank you, Sarah. It was a pleasure to talk with you.

Watch the video on The Poultry Site.

Author: Ajay Bhoyar, Sr. Global Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

As the poultry industry seeks economical and nutritious feed ingredients, distillers’ dried grains with solubles (DDGS), a co-product of grain-based ethanol production, presents a valuable option providing beneficial protein, energy, water-soluble vitamins, xanthophylls, and linoleic acid. However, the inherent variability in DDGS nutrient composition and high fiber content can pose challenges for consistent inclusion in poultry feeds. The strategic use of feed enzymes has become a significant area of focus to overcome these limitations and further enhance the nutritional value of DDGS in poultry diets. This article will explore the optimization of DDGS utilization in poultry feeds by emphasizing the inclusion of xylanase enzyme that can efficiently degrade the insoluble arabinoxylans. By understanding the factors affecting DDGS quality and strategically employing xylanase, poultry producers can potentially achieve higher inclusion rates of this readily available byproduct, aiming to reduce feed costs while maintaining or even improving production performance and overall health.

Price competitiveness of DDGS

The price of DDGS relative to other feed ingredients, primarily corn and soybean meal, is a significant factor in its global utilization. DDGS often partially replaces these traditional energy (corn) and protein (soybean meal) sources in animal feeds, leading to significant diet cost savings for poultry producers. DDGS contains a high amount of a combination of energy, amino acids, and phosphorus. However, it is usually undervalued as its price is mainly determined based on the prevailing prices of corn and soybean meal.

Variability in the nutritional quality of DDGS

The nutrient composition of DDGS varies based on the starting grain, ethanol production methods, and drying processes. Generally, DDGS contains high levels of protein, fiber, and minerals, with varying amounts of fat and starch depending on the type of grain used and how it is processed. DDGS has a reputation for having variable nutrient composition, protein quality, and a high content of mycotoxins (Stein et al., 2006; Pedersen et al., 2007; Anderson et al., 2012). High quantities of DDGS in feed increase dietary fiber, adversely affecting nutrient digestibility.

The variations in production methods lead to significant differences in the following nutritional components of DDGS:

Crude Fat: This is one of the most variable components, ranging from 5 to 9 percent in reduced-oil DDGS and greater than 10 percent in traditional high-oil DDGS.

Energy: The apparent metabolizable energy (AMEn) for poultry varies among DDGS sources. Fiber digestibility and the digestibility of the extracted oil also contribute to this variability. The high temperatures during the drying stage of DDGS production accelerate lipid peroxidation, forming breakdown products from the fats. This peroxidation contributes to the changes and variability observed in the fat component of DDGS and is a factor that can affect nutrient digestibility and overall energy value.

Crude Protein and Amino Acids (especially Lysine): While crude protein content might not always increase inversely with fat reduction, the digestibility of amino acids, especially lysine, can be affected by drying temperatures. Lysine digestibility of DDGS is a primary concern of poultry nutritionists due to the susceptibility of this amino acid to Maillard reactions during the drying process of DDGS, which can reduce both the concentration and digestibility of lysine (Almeida et al. 2013). Prediction equations have been developed to accurately estimate actual AMEn and standardized ileal digestible amino acid content of DDGS sources based on chemical composition.

Phosphorus: The phosphorus content can vary depending on the amount of Condensed Distiller’s Solubles (CDS) added. The bioavailability of phosphorus can also be influenced by processing. The phosphorus content in the corn DDGS may vary from 0.69 to 0.98 % (Olukosi and Adebiyi, 2013).

Fiber: The neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content is another variable component. Differences in processing conditions among ethanol plants can lead to variations in fiber digestibility.

Table 1. Variation in composition of corn DDGS sources (dry matter basis; adapted from (Pederson et al., 2014)

Nonstarch Polysaccharides (NSP) in DDGS

Non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) are a significant component of DDGS. The NSP profile of DDGS is crucial for understanding its digestibility and energy content.​ The corn DDGS has a complex fiber structure that may limit its digestibility in swine and poultry. NSPs in corn DDGS represent 25-34% of its composition, primarily insoluble (Pedersen et al. 2014). The complexity of the fiber structure in corn DDGS makes it more challenging to degrade with enzymes than wheat DDGS. Therefore, while including DDGS in the poultry feeds, choosing an exogenous xylanase enzyme that is highly efficient in breaking down both soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans is essential for maximum energy utilization.

Use of xylanase in DDGS diets for poultry

Supplementing exogenous enzymes in swine and poultry diets have numerous potential benefits including: reduction of digesta viscosity to enhance lipid and protein digestion; increase the metabolizable energy content of the diet; increase feed intake, growth rate and feed conversion; decreased size and alter the microbial population of the gastrointestinal tract; reduce water consumption and water content of excreta in poultry; reduce the amount of excreta as well as ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorus content (Khattak et al., 2006). The selection of a specific enzyme must be based on the type and availability of the target substrate in the diet.

The improved energy utilization of DDGS in poultry can be achieved through the enzymatic degradation of fiber (NSP). Nonstarch polysaccharides within DDGS exist in matrices with starch and protein, so NSP degradation via exogenous enzymes can also release other nutrients for subsequent digestion and absorption (Jha et al. 2015).

The cell wall matrix in corn DDGS is more complex. Moreover, the most readily degradable arabinoxylan for the fiber-degrading enzymes is modified during DDGS production (Pedersen et al. 2014). Many studies reported a greater branch density and complexity of corn arabinoxylan than wheat (Bedford, 1995; Saulnier et al.,1995a; Jilek and Bunzel, 2013; Yang et al., 2013). These observations indicate that the fiber-degrading enzymes applied for the degradation of corn DDGS need to be targeted towards highly complex substrates. This calls for selecting xylanase, which effectively breaks down the insoluble arabinoxylans in diets.

Axxess XY: Highly effective xylanase in breaking down soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans

A bacterial GH10 family xylanase, like Axxess XY, is more beneficial in animal production due to their efficient mechanism of action, broader substrate specificity, and better thermostability. Generally, the GH10 xylanases exhibit broader substrate specificity and can efficiently hydrolyze various forms of xylan, including soluble and insoluble substrates. GH10 xylanases exhibit higher catalytic versatility and can catalyze the cleavage of the xylan backbone at the non-reducing side of substituted xylose residues, whereas GH11 enzymes require unsubstituted regions of the xylan backbone (Collins et al., 2005; Chakdar et al., 2016).

Fig.1. Activity of a bacterial GH10 xylanase against soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans

Axxess XY facilitates DDGS use and reduces the cost of broiler production.

Including xylanase enzyme, which is highly effective in breaking down soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans in poultry feeds, can reduce feed costs, allowing higher inclusion of DDGS while maintaining the bird’s commercial performance.

In a recently conducted 42-day trial at a commercial farm, Axxess XY maintained broiler performance with a 100 kcal/kg reduction in metabolizable energy and 8% use of Corn DDGS in a corn-SBM based diet (Figure 2). This significantly reduced feed cost/kg body weight.

Incorporating DDGS into poultry diets presents a sustainable and cost-effective solution, but its full potential is often limited by variability in nutrient composition and high fiber content. Xylanase enzymes, particularly those in the GH10 family like Axxess XY, can overcome these barriers by breaking down complex arabinoxylans and unlocking inaccessible nutrients. With proven benefits in energy utilization, nutrient digestibility, and overall production efficiency, xylanase inclusion emerges as a strategic approach to optimize DDGS usage, ultimately supporting economic and environmental sustainability goals in poultry production.

References

Almeida, F.N.; Htoo, J.K.; Thomson, J.; Stein, H.H. Amino acid digestibility of heat-damaged distillers’ dried grains with soluble fed to pigs. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2013, 4, 2–11.

Bedford, M.R., 1995. Mechanism of action and potential environmental benefits from the use of feed enzymes. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 53, 145–155.

Chakdar, Hillol, Murugan Kumar, Kuppusamy Pandiyan, Arjun Singh, Karthikeyan Nanjappan, Prem Lal Kashyap, and Alok Kumar Srivastava. “Bacterial Xylanases: Biology to Biotechnology.” 3 Biotech 6, no. 2 (June 30, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0457-z.

Collins, Tony, Charles Gerday, and Georges Feller. “Xylanases, Xylanase Families and Extremophilic Xylanases.” FEMS Microbiology Reviews 29, no. 1 (January 2005): 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsre.2004.06.005.

Jha, R.; Woyengo, T.A.; Li, J.; Bedford, M.R.; Vasanthan, T.; Zijlstra, R.T. Enzymes enhance degradation of the fiber–starch–protein matrix of distillers dried grains with solubles as revealed by a porcine in vitro fermentation model and microscopy. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 1039–1051.

Jilek, M.L., Bunzel, M., 2013. Dehydrotriferulic and dehydrodiferulic acid profiles of cereal and pseudocereal flours. Cereal Chem. J. 90, 507–514

Jones, C.K., Bergstrom, J.R., Tokach, M.D., DeRouchey, J.M., Goodband, R.D., Nelssen, J.L., Dritz, S.S., 2010. Efficacy of commercial enzymes in diets containing various concentrations and sources of dried distillers’ grains with solubles for nursery pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 88, 2084–2091.

Khattak, F.M., T.N. Pasha, Z. Hayat, and A. Mahmud. 2006. Enzymes in poultry nutrition. J. Anim. Pl. Sci. 16:1-7.

Olukosi, O.A., and A.O. Adebiyi. 2013. Chemical composition and prediction of amino acid content of maize- and wheat-distillers’ Dried Grains with Soluble. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 185:182-189.

Pedersen M. B., Dalsgaard S., Bach Knudsen K.E., Yu S., Lærke H.N., Compositional profile and variation of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles from various origins with focus on non-starch polysaccharides, Animal Feed Science and Technology, Volume 197, 2014, Pages 130–14.

Saulnier, L., Vigouroux, J., Thibault, J.-F., 1995a. Isolation and partial characterization of feruloylated oligosaccharides from maize bran. Carbohydr. Res. 272,241–253.

Yang, J., Maldonado-Gómez, M.X., Hutkins, R.W., Rose, D.J., 2013. Production and in vitro fermentation of soluble, non-digestible, feruloylated oligo- andpolysaccharides from maize and wheat brans. J. Agric. Food Chem.

Yoon, S.Y., Yang, Y.X., Shinde, P.L., Choi, J.Y., Kim, J.S., Kim, Y.W., Yun, K., Jo, J.K., Lee, J.H., Ohh, S.J., Kwon, I.K., Chae, B.J., 2010. Effects of mannanase and distillers’ dried grain with solubles on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics of grower-finisher pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 88,181–191.

By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor EW Nutrition and
Marie Gallissot, Global Manager Feed Quality Solutions EW Nutrition

Antibiotic resistance is a growing global health concern, making infections more complicated to treat and increasing the risk of disease spread, severe illness, and death. While overuse and misuse of antibiotics are the primary causes, recent research has uncovered another unexpected contributor: mycotoxins. Among these, deoxynivalenol (DON), a toxin commonly found in contaminated grains, has been shown to significantly alter gut microbiota and promote antibiotic resistance. This article examines how DON impacts gut bacteria, influences antibiotic resistance, and highlights why this issue warrants urgent attention.

Mycotoxins – originators of antimicrobial resistance?

Actually, it would be logical…

Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin when he returned after the summer holidays and saw that a mold had grown on the agar plate he had prepared. Around the mold, Staphylococcus was unable to proliferate. The reason was a substance produced by the mold – penicillin, which, like other toxins produced by molds, is a mycotoxin. In his article about the origin of antibiotics and mycotoxins, Shier (2011) stated that antibiotics and mycotoxins share considerable similarities in structure, metabolic roles, and biosynthesis.

A short excursus to antimicrobial resistance

In general, the primary mechanisms of resistance involve the prevention or limitation of the antimicrobial substance’s uptake, modifying the drug target, inactivating the drug, or facilitating its discharge with efflux pumps.

There are two types of resistance: natural resistance, which is further divided into intrinsic and induced resistance, and acquired resistance.

Intrinsic resistance is a “characteristic” of a bacterial species and is not dependent on antibiotic exposure. An example is the reduced permeability of the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria, which prevents certain antibiotics from entering.

Induced resistance, however, needs to be initiated by antibiotics. Here, multidrug-efflux pumps can be mentioned.

The third one, acquired resistance, refers to the process by which bacteria acquire genetic material, the resistance genes, from other bacteria that are resistant. The mechanisms include vertical transfer to daughter cells and horizontal transfer, such as the transfer from dead bacteria to living ones, by viruses, or the transfer of plasmids (Reygaert, 2018).

Deoxynivalenol (DON) promotes resistance in gut microbiota

A Chinese group of researchers (Deng et al., 2025) examined for the first time the influence of DON on the intestinal microbiota of chickens. One of the most alarming findings is DON’s ability to enhance antibiotic resistance. It contributes to this issue in several ways:

1. Encouraging resistant bacteria – By disrupting microbial balance, DON provides a survival advantage to bacteria that carry resistance genes.
2. Activating resistance genes – Studies suggest that DON can increase the expression of genes that help bacteria withstand antibiotics.
3. Enhancing gene transfer – Bacteria can share resistance genes through horizontal gene transfer. DON appears to promote this process, making antibiotic-resistant strains spread more rapidly.
4. Weakening antibiotic effectiveness – DON-induced changes in the gut environment can reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics, making treatments less successful.

A further indication that mycotoxins can enhance resistance is the significant overlap in the geographical distribution of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria and genes with that of mycotoxins, as noted by Deng et al.

Which protection mechanisms do bacteria have against mycotoxins?

In the case of mycotoxins, bacteria employ similar molecular mechanisms to those used against antibiotics. In an in vitro experiment, Hassan et al. (2019) challenged Devosia mutans, a gram-negative bacterium, with DON in the growth medium. DON inhibits protein synthesis, induces oxidative stress, and compromises cell membrane integrity in eucaryotic cells. Hassan et al. asserted three adaptive mechanisms as the response to the challenge:

1. Activation of cellular membrane proteins (adenosine 5’-triphosphate-binding cassette -ABC- transporters) responsible for the unidirectional transport of substrates, either outward or inward. These ABC transporters can work as drug efflux pumps.
2. Production of DON-specific deactivation enzymes, thereby engaging a toxin-specific pyrroloquinoline quinone-dependent detoxification pathway. This enables the bacterial isolate to transform DON to a non-toxic stereoisomer.
3. Upregulation of auxiliary coping proteins, such as porins (transmembrane proteins involved in metabolite exchange), glutathione S-transferases, and phosphotransferases, both of which are likely involved in the detoxification of xenobiotics.

Public health implications and preventive measures

Given the widespread presence of DON in food and animal feed, its potential role in antibiotic resistance poses a serious threat. The combination of increased bacterial resistance and weakened antibiotic efficacy could lead to more difficult-to-treat infections. This is particularly concerning in hospital settings, where antibiotic-resistant infections already cause high mortality rates.

To address the issue, several strategies can be implemented:

1. Reducing DON contamination: Implementing improved agricultural practices, such as crop rotation, the use of fungal-resistant crop varieties, and maintaining proper storage conditions, can help limit fungal growth and DON production.
2. Monitoring food and feed supply – Strict regulations and testing for DON contamination in grains and animal feed are essential to minimize human and animal exposure.
3. Effective mycotoxin risk management at feed mill and farm levels: Using tools such as MasterRisk and effective products combatting mycotoxins.
4. Maintaining gut health: A healthy diet rich in fiber, probiotics, and gut health-supporting feed supplements, such as Ventar D or products from the Activo line, may help counteract some of the adverse effects of DON on gut microbiota.
5. Developing new treatments: Research into alternative therapies and new antibiotics is crucial to combat the rise of antibiotic resistance.

Antimicrobial resistance: Be aware of the mycotoxins!

The connection between mycotoxins, such as DON, and antibiotic resistance underscores the need for a broader perspective on public health and food safety and once again brings the “One Health Concept” into focus. While antibiotic overuse remains the primary driver of resistance, environmental factors, such as exposure to mycotoxins, should not be overlooked. By increasing awareness, enhancing food safety regulations, and investing in research, we can take steps to mitigate this emerging threat and safeguard the effectiveness of antibiotics for future generations.

References:

Deng, Fengru, Chuying Yao, Linyu Ke, Meichan Chen, Mi Huang, Jikai Wen, Qingmei Chen, Jun Jiang, and Yiqun Deng. “Emerging Threat to Antibiotic Resistance: Impact of Mycotoxin Deoxynivalenol on Gut Microbiota and Clonal Expansion of Extensively Drug-Resistant Enterococci.” Environment International 197 (March 2025): 109353.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2025.109353.

Hassan, Yousef I., Jian Wei He, Dion Lepp, and Ting Zhou. “Understanding the Bacterial Response to Mycotoxins: The Transcriptomic Analysis of Deoxynivalenol-Induced Changes in Devosia Mutans 17-2-E-8.” Frontiers in Pharmacology 10 (November 14, 2019).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.01098.

Reygaert, Wanda C. “An Overview of the Antimicrobial Resistance Mechanisms of Bacteria.” AIMS Microbiology 4, no. 3 (2018): 482–501.
https://doi.org/10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.482.

Shier, W. Thomas. “On the Origin of Antibiotics and Mycotoxins.” Toxin Reviews 30, no. 1 (January 28, 2011): 6–30.
https://doi.org/10.3109/15569543.2011.550862.

Smith, William P., Benjamin R. Wucher, Carey D. Nadell, and Kevin R. Foster. “Bacterial Defences: Mechanisms, Evolution and Antimicrobial Resistance.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 21, no. 8 (April 24, 2023): 519–34.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-023-00877-3.

Dr. Inge Heinzl – Editor of EW Nutrition, and Dr. Merideth Parke – Global Application Manager for Swine, EW Nutrition

The first of the two articles focused on general aspects to be observed to achieve a particular stock of healthy and well-performing sows, as well as high productivity on the farm. In addition to general measures, feed supplements can be used to further support the sows. Phytomolecules with characteristics supporting gut and overall health are effective for this purpose.

Phytomolecules – how can they help?

Phytogenics, also known as phytomolecules, are plant-derived, natural bioactive compounds that promote livestock health and well-being, as well as improve growth performance and production efficiency. Phytomolecules encompass a diverse range of compounds, including terpenes, phenols, glycosides, saccharides, aldehydes, esters, and alcohols.

The literature describes some of their effects, including stimulation of digestive secretions, immune stimulation and anti-inflammatory activity, intestinal microflora modulation, and antioxidant effects (Durmic and Blanche, 2012; Ehrlinger, 2007; Zhao et al., 2023), as well as estrogenic and hyperprolactinemic properties (Farmer, 2018) and effects on colostrum and milk porcine sensory profiles (Val-Laillet et al., 2018). They represent exciting antibiotic alternatives in swine production (Omonijo et al., 2018).

1. Phytomolecules modulate intestinal microbiota

Phytomolecules are microbiome modulators through different mechanisms. They can directly impact pathogenic bacteria by damaging the cell membrane, cell wall, or cytoplasm, interrupting the anion exchange, resulting in changes to cellular pH, and inhibiting the cell’s energy production system. Additionally, phytomolecules interfere with the virulence capacity of pathogenic bacteria through the indirect quorum quenching mechanism. (Rutherford and Bassler, 2012).

The favorable consequence of this differential microbial modulation is maintaining gut microbiome diversity, shifting it to a bacterial population with reduced pathogenic and increased beneficial microbes.

Proof of Ventar D’s pathogen-inhibiting effect

An in vitro study evaluated the effect of Ventar D on pathogenic Clostridium perfringens and beneficial Lactobacillus spp.

Process

To test the effect of Ventar D on four different beneficial Lactobacillus spp., and pathogenic Clostridium perfringens, the phytogenic formulation (Ventar D) was added to the respective culture medium in the following concentrations: 0 µg/mL – control, 500 µg/mL (only C. perfr.), 750 µg/mL, 1000 mg/mL (only C. perfr.), and 1250 µg/mL.

After cultivating the bacteria in the culture medium, the colony-forming units (CFU) were counted.

Results and discussion

The study demonstrated a dose-dependent decrease in the Clostridium perfringens population. At the lowest tested concentration (500 µg/mL), Ventar D’s antimicrobial effect was already detectable; at 750 µg/mL, scarce colonies were observed; and at 1000 µg/mL, C. perfringens could no longer grow.

In contrast, even at higher concentrations of Ventar D, the beneficial L. agilis S73 and L. agilis S1 populations were only mildly affected, and L. casei and L. plantarum were unaffected.

These findings confirm the differential antimicrobial activity of Ventar D’s formulation, specifically a bactericidal effect on pathogenic C. perfringens populations and a mild to no inhibition of beneficial Lactobacillus spp.

2. Phytomolecules improve intestinal integrity

The gut barrier is semipermeable and is responsible for immune sensing and regulating the movement of nutrients and undesirable microbes and substances.

The “gatekeepers” are tight junctions (TJ), adherent junctions (AJ), and desmosomes situated between the intestinal enteric cells (IEC). The tight junctions regulate the transport of small molecules and ions. The adherent junctions and desmosomes maintain the integrity of the intestinal barrier by keeping the IECs together through cell-adhesion bonds.

Oxidative stress resulting from factors such as heat stress or fat oxidation in the feed, as well as dysbacteriosis caused by changes in diet, out-of-feed events, poor dietary formulation, or bacterial contamination, can compromise the integrity of these critical adhesions and junctions between enterocytes.

The support of these tight junctions prevents bacteria and toxins from passing into the organism. Besides reducing disease occurrence, it also reduces the activation of the immune system and inflammatory processes. Ingested nutrients can be used for growth and need not be spent for the defense of the organism.

Proof of Ventar D’s gut barrier-stabilizing effect

An experiment was conducted to determine the level of tight junction gene expression biomarkers closely related to gut integrity.

Process

The experiment was conducted in broilers. They were fed 100 g of Ventar D/ t of feed, and the gene expression of Claudin and Occludin was measured (the higher the gene expression, the higher the level of gut barrier damage).

Results

The lower levels of both gut tight junction gene expression biomarkers, Claudin and Occludin, in Ventar D-supplemented birds support a lower level of damage and a more robust gut barrier function (Figure 3).

3. Phytomolecules act as antioxidants

As mentioned, oxidative stress can disrupt gut barrier function and negatively impact the health of sows and piglets. Therefore, it is vital to scavenge reactive oxygen species (ROS) to reduce the damage these free radicals can cause to enterocytes and tight junctions.

Proof of Ventar D’s antioxidant effect in vitro

In this case, an in vitro trial was conducted to show Ventar D’s antioxidant effects.

Process

Ventar D’s antioxidant activity was tested in vitro using the ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbent Capacity) test. The ORAC test measures the antioxidant activity of a compound compared to that of the Vitamin E analog Trolox.

Result

The components in Ventar D demonstrated its capacity as an antioxidant, with a more substantial effect than the Vitamin E analog Trolox (see Figure 4).

4. Phytomolecules decrease inflammation

In intensive production, animals face daily inflammation associated with various stressors, including gut incidents and intestinal dysbiosis, social hierarchy-associated fighting resulting in musculoskeletal or skin injuries, farrowing and lactation trauma to reproductive organs, and diseases affecting any system in the pig.

Animals with high-performance expectations, such as gestating, farrowing, and lactating sows, are particularly susceptible to high nutrient diversion, which can lead to inflammation and activation of the immune system. To mitigate the excessive continuation of inflammatory processes, phytomolecules with anti-inflammatory effects can be utilized.

Proof of Ventar D’s anti-inflammatory effect in vitro

The anti-inflammatory effect of Ventar D was shown in an in vitro trial conducted in the Netherlands.

Process

For the trial, cells from mice (Murine macrophages, RAW264.7) were stressed with lipopolysaccharides (LPS, Endotoxin) from E. coli O111:B4 (0.25 µg/ml) to provoke an immune response. To evaluate the effects of Ventar D, two different concentrations (50 and 200 ppm) were tested, and the levels of NF-κB, IL-6, and IL-10 were determined. IL-6 and IL-10 could be measured directly using specific ELISA kits, whereas, in the case of NF-κB activity, an enzyme induced by NF-κB (secreted embryonic alkaline phosphatase – SEAP) was used for measurement. The trial design was as follows (Figure 5):

Results

The trial results showed a dose-dependent reduction of NF-κB activity in LPS-stimulated mouse cells, with 11% and 54% reductions at 50 and 200 ppm Ventar D, respectively. The pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6 was downregulated, and the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 was upregulated by 84% and 20%, respectively, resulting in a decrease in the IL-6 to IL-10 ratio. This ratio is essential in balancing the pro- and anti-inflammatory outcomes of cellular signaling.

5. Phytomolecules improve production performance and efficiency

The intensive production systems of today encompass many factors that create stress in the animals. Phytomolecules exhibiting the positive characteristics mentioned in points 1 to 4 result in better performance in animals.

In pigs in suboptimal conditions, the antimicrobial effect of phytomolecules is the most important. However, in pigs held under optimal conditions and with extraordinary growth, the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects are most relevant. Anabolic processes, driven by strong growth, increase oxidative stress, while non-infectious inflammations burden the immune system.

Proof of Ventar D’s performance-promoting effect in pigs

To evaluate growth-promoting effects in pigs, a study was conducted on a commercial farm in the United States.

Process

A total of 532 approx. 24-day-old weaned piglets were housed in 28 pens, each containing 19 non-castrated males or gilts. Piglets were blocked by body weight and fed a three-phase feeding program (Table 1). Phase 1 and 2 diets were pellets, and phase 3 was mash. Diets were based on corn and soybeans, and a concentrate including soy protein concentrate, whey permeate, and fish meal was added in phases 1 and 2, at a ratio of 50% of the total feed in phase 1 and 25% in phase 2. No feed medication was used in this trial.

Table 1: Feeding scheme and product application

Results

Adding Ventar D increased final body weight and improved FCR (see Figures 8 to 10). Furthermore, the addition of Ventar D to the feed reduced mortality.

Figures 8-10: Performance of piglets fed Ventar D in comparison to a negative control

Phytomolecules can help to keep sows healthy and productive

Intensive animal production places a significant strain on animal organisms. High stocking density often accompanies high pathogenic pressure and stress, and high growth performance can lead to increased oxidative stress and inflammation. It isn’t easy to keep all challenges under control. However, phytomolecules can be a solution as their modes of action cover different relevant topics.

References

Durmic, Z., and D. Blache. “Bioactive Plants and Plant Products: Effects on Animal Function, Health and Welfare.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 176, no. 1–4 (September 2012): 150–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.07.018.

Ehrlinger, Miriam. “Phytogene Zusatzstoffe in der Tierernährung.” 2007. https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6824/1/Ehrlinger_Miriam.pdf

Farmer, Chantal. “Nutritional Impact on Mammary Development in Pigs: A Review.” Journal of Animal Science 96, no. 9 (June 15, 2018): 3748–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky243.

Omonijo, Faith A., Liju Ni, Joshua Gong, Qi Wang, Ludovic Lahaye, and Chengbo Yang. “Essential Oils as Alternatives to Antibiotics in Swine Production.” Animal Nutrition 4, no. 2 (June 2018): 126–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2017.09.001.

Rutherford, S. T., and B. L. Bassler. “Bacterial Quorum Sensing: Its Role in Virulence and Possibilities for Its Control.” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine 2, no. 11 (November 1, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a012427.

Val-Laillet, David, J Stephen Elmore, David Baines, Peter Naylor, and Robert Naylor. “Long-Term Exposure to Sensory Feed Additives during the Gestational and Postnatal Periods Affects Sows’ Colostrum and Milk Sensory Profiles, Piglets’ Growth, and Feed Intake1.” Journal of Animal Science, June 29, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky171.

Zhao, Bi-Chen, Tian-Hao Wang, Jian Chen, Bai-Hao Qiu, Ya-Ru Xu, Qing Zhang, Jian-Jie Li, Chun-Jiang Wang, Qiu-Feng Nie, and Jin-Long Li. “Effects of Dietary Supplementation with a Carvacrol–Cinnamaldehyde–Thymol Blend on Growth Performance and Intestinal Health of Nursery Pigs.” Porcine Health Management 9, no. 24 (May 23, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-023-00317-x.

VISBEK, 20 March 2025 – EW Nutrition, a global provider of animal nutrition solutions, announced today that it has acquired the majority stake in Austrian company Green Innovation, producer and patent-holder of several in-feed solutions in the gut health space.

Green Innovation, based in Innsbruck, and EW Nutrition, headquartered in Northern Germany, have signed the agreement on Thursday 20 March. “By acquiring 52% of our company, EW Nutrition implicitly recognizes the strength of our solutions, know-how, and technologies. We are happy that we found such a solid and dynamic partner, and we are excited to work together for the next level of animal gut health,” says Alexander Herbst, CEO of Green Innovation.

For EW Nutrition, solutions such as Ventar D, Pretect D, Activo or Activo Liquid have already carved an important space in the gut health arena. “With the addition of Green Innovation’s solutions, we see a great opportunity to complete our gut health portfolio and to position ourselves for the future. Challenges are evolving and so our solutions must evolve as well,” notes CEO Jan Vanbrabant.

With the fourth acquisition in the last five years, the company shows its continued drive toward further development and expansion. The new deal gives EW Nutrition majority ownership of innovative brands such as Argat or Oxilem, as well as patents, know-how, and a number of team members who will manage the transfer together with their legacy counterparts.

Green Innovation customers will be supported to the usual high standards, while the assets, brands, and go-to-market will be transitioned to EW Nutrition in the coming period.

The financial details of the sale remain confidential.

***

About EW Nutrition

EW Nutrition is a global animal nutrition company that offers comprehensive, customer-focused solutions for gut health management, feed quality, digestibility, and more.

Contact: info@ew-nutrition.com