By Ilinca Anghelescu, EW Nutrition

“Supply chain issues” is now a buzzword that has gone beyond the realm of business into our lives and households. We know holiday gifts might be delayed because of supply chain issues, mobile phones or electric cars are facing essential parts shortages never before imagined, and entire companies’ production and delivery are affected by supply chain issues. Why is this happening and what can be done?

Supply chains are nearly invisible – until something happens

The supply chain is an interdependent network of companies, individuals, databases, and actions whose ultimate goal is to ensure product or service delivery. The supply chain goes from the raw material to the end product or service that reaches the buyer. In most cases, this also includes the return of the goods or product servicing.

In the case of feed or food, for instance, a simplified version of the chain includes harvesting, storage, transportation, receiving and processing other raw materials, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, sale to the end customer, as well as potential returns at every stage along the way.

Supply chains are absolutely essential to the functioning of nearly everything in today’s society. If you eat tomatoes grown in your own garden, you are indeed outside the tomato supply chain; but your tools and fertilizer are probably not.

Supply chains are usually long, complex, highly interdependent, and often global because of cost pressure. No wonder, then, that one blow can bring down the whole domino chain. What is worse, the last year and a half brought not just one, but two concomitant blows.

Blow no. 1: Diminished capacity

The world is still reeling from the effects of COVID-19 – not just in terms of healthcare, but in terms of economic impact as well. In the immediate months after COVID-19 became a global concern, several things happened simultaneously to constrict the supply chain:

• many factories limited the number of workers allowed on premises
• ports (especially in China) shut down temporarily to halt the progress of the virus
• face-to-face businesses shut down as a reaction to COVID-19 regulations

These and other similar measures put pressure on the global supply chain. Employee layoffs or furloughs, together with output decreases, meant fewer people could operate within the supply chain, which then translated into diminished production and delivery capacity.

To cope with the immediate state of things and with the predicted economic downturn, lots of companies (among those who did not shut down altogether) decided to reduce their output in order to save costs.

Blow no. 2: Increased demand

Despite the decreased demand for restaurant or hotel deliveries, lockdowns around the world brought about one other change: demand for endpoint deliveries soared. This would normally spell great news for producers, if only the supply chain weren’t in the way.

Supply chains are built to be as efficient as possible: fast, agile, and as economical as can be. In other words, “lean”. That also means that massive disruptions – whether positive or negative – are not easily handled. When demand for home deliveries went up dramatically, that would have been a good opportunity to beef up the delivery chain. Unfortunately, that increase in demand coincided with a limited personnel and product availability (because of blow no. 1), as well as shipping issues around the world.

How so? From the beginning of the pandemic until now, ships have been queuing up in ports around the world. The first Corona aftershock relocated production around the world and created unexpected demand. Containers were filled with high-margin goods (such as facial masks or home electronics) for the richer countries, while low-margin goods for other areas had to wait for free space.

This short-term unexpected move created competition for the limited number of containers on the market. Prices soared and containers traded at five times the cost of the previous year. (The Ever Given crisis in mid-2021 did not help, of course.) At the same time, unloading the cargo at the destination point had to be managed with reduced personnel, as pandemic restrictions still applied and docking availability remained the same. Ships had to wait for days to unload their cargo, despite high demand for their empty containers.

Collateral victim: semiconductors

It turns out, not surprisingly, that we have all grown more addicted to technology during the pandemic. Increased demand in home electronics, coupled with issues in the production of silicone-based parts (mostly led by a drive to reduce power consumption in China), led to a worldwide chip shortage that is affecting companies across many industries. Most notably, Tesla, Apple or Qualcomm are struggling to deliver orders and are readjusting their launch and delivery plans. If your mobile phone is delivered weeks late, blame it on the supply chain.

How to handle the supply-chain crisis

In 2022, keep your expectations low. The issues will not be resolved in a couple of months, so you must prepare for a year of very slow progress.

Prepare for at least two more years of high costs. Delivery delays will hit some markets more dramatically. Chip manufacturers have already announced shortage expectations throughout 2023, with lead times growing from 9 to 20+ weeks. Many large players in tech have announced plans to build their own plants or replace chips (as Tesla did) with different technologies. Do not be overly optimistic, though: such plans take a long time – and ports are reeling from a new wave of COVID-19 infections and restrictions. At this point, it is not just the shipping costs that are running a little wild, with no incentive for the cargo players to lower them; it is also the ports themselves. In the port of Los Angeles, as in many around the world, it is not unusual for cargo to wait a month out at sea to be given access to docking and unloading.

Order early. This seems like a commonsensical step – and it is, at this point. As mentioned above – do not expect things to be resolved quickly and painlessly. Protein markets are hit just as much as tech components; ship and truck deliveries will take a very long time to recover across all sectors. Demand is increasing and supply is still low – and slow. Order early and strategize to cover the new cost structures.

Explore options around the world. With China and Western Europe getting hit by new variants and suboptimal vaccination levels, the rest of the world remains to be explored. Options in richer countries, that once seemed too expensive, now may have an edge. Look closer to home rather to what was formerly a more cost-effective source. With shipping costs 3x to 10x what they were two years ago, the incentive is gone. (Even so, air freight is prohibitively expensive, so land access may be the most realistic option where accessible.)

Expand your capacity. Not everyone can start building plants at the drop of a hat, like Apple; but many companies can consider adding production lines or partnering with allies (and even competitors) to build or exploit resources. Since the supply chain issues are expected to last a couple more years on the optimistic side, it’s a good idea to explore your options not just in geography, but in partnerships for capacity as well.

Prepare for worse times before the good ones. It’s always a good idea to be prepared, but even more so now. Some ports are already closing again in early December (for instance, Dalian, China, took early measures against an outbreak) and the world is reacting to another potential large-scale lockdown.
On top of that, recession seems inevitable in many industries, and the new Corona mutations have already pushed the stock market down a few notches. Inflation has increased – 6.2% in the US in October versus last year, and in the eurozone the 4.1% inflation is the highest in the past 13 years. Some industries fare well simply because the market need is there (food and feed among them), but remember that the supply chain has companies across industries fighting for the same cargo space.

The answer to the supply chain challenge is to practice caution, spread risk, and actively seek out opportunities – including partnerships, new business, and unexpected collaborations. But then, these are good business practices at all times.

By Ilinca Anghelescu, EW Nutrition

Momentous changes are happening in our lives and our industry. A lot of them are caused by globalization – COVID-19 or the effects of supply chain disruptions, among the more recent ones. Many more, though, that impact our personal and professional lives, are caused by digital advances omnipresent in contemporary society. And, although some view agribusinesses as a conservative industry, that has long not been the case. Mature companies have their eyes on the fourth agricultural revolution – and digitalization is a large part of it.

What is an agricultural revolution, anyway?

Agriculture has long been a motor of progress in human lives. Each agricultural revolution has brought about enormous improvements in living standards and consequently in life expectancy.

The first agricultural revolution took place about 10,000 ago, when hunter/gatherer communities began to settle and grow crops for sustenance. The revolution largely consisted of the domestication of plants and animals, as well as with agricultural processes. This revolution, it is widely believed, altered the course of human history and even biology: humans were able to form settlements and have predictable and nourishing food sources. Through that we also developed caries, body fat, and deficiencies in fiber and micronutrients.

The second agricultural revolution happened much later, from the mid-17th to the late 19^th century, starting in the British Isles. The revolution consisted largely of enormous production improvements, not just from increased human labor but also from innovations such as advanced ploughing techniques, crop rotation, plus selective animal breeding, improved transportation, and land drainage. These developments helped the empire sustain a demographic, as well and geographic expansion.

The third agricultural revolution, in the 1950s and ‘60s, was prompted by enormous strides made in chemical fertilizers, irrigation, mechanization, and the development of new, high-yielding crops. These advances made possible a yield increase of over 40% in the course of less than 50 years. The changes were even more dramatic in developing nations, where the standard of life saw huge improvements with the advent of high-yield rice, wheat, and corn.

Naturally, poverty is still a major concern. However, if poverty has declined by 85% between the 1860s and 2020, we largely have agriculture to thank for.

The fourth revolution is already happening (somewhat)

The fourth agricultural revolution has been touted for years now. Part of the wider 4IR (Fourth Industrial Revolution), it is widely seen as the next dramatic improvement in the quality and quantity of agricultural and livestock output. The fourth agricultural revolution (alternatively, Agriculture 4.0) has been prompted, just like 4IR, first and foremost by digital advances. It relies, among many other innovations, on automation, gene editing, nutrigenics, traceability, and precision livestock farming.

In many cases, these advances are not yet fully developed, not fully embraced, or not yet fully integrated into one standardized system. However, the trend is unmistakable and unstoppable: the fourth agricultural revolution has started.

EW Nutrition is starting a series of articles on the challenges of digitalization and digital transformation in the livestock production industry and in industry in general. These advances in the way crops and livestock are being developed, grown, processed, and delivered from the farm to the end consumer’s home are indeed radical.

More important, however, is to prepare the ground for what’s coming. If organizations are not digitally savvy and technologically advanced, how will they deal with the abundance of data that Agriculture 4.0 relies on?

Digitization –> Digitalization –> Digital Transformation

There is a lot of confusion about the three terms, especially because digitization and digitalization are often used interchangeably. However, in terms of business strategy there are clear differences which could be clarified if we visualize the three terms as a funnel.

Digitization is the top level which most companies can easily reach. It refers to transferring a physical object to a digital representation. Think of it in terms of converting a 19^th century novel to an e-book or turning a company ledger into an Excel spreadsheet.

Digitalization is the middle level of the funnel; fewer companies easily accede here, although it is nowadays an essential part of most businesses. Digitalization means using digital technologies to improve business processes and work more efficiently. Examples would be cloud storage for company files, virtual platforms for team conversations and project tracking, etc.

Digital transformation is transforming a business by using digital technologies, platforms, and processes to enable change, optimize the business model, and deliver better results for the organization. Examples would be an e-commerce company that leverages information from machine learning and combines it with big data across its vertical to collect prospect information, pool data into a SSoT (single source of truth), and conduct analytics that inform predictive algorithms.

Sure, not all companies can – or should – move completely into the bottom layer of the funnel. Digital transformation can be partial and should only be leveraged in companies and industries where it makes sense.

Where exactly is your company along the funnel? Assessing your current status is essential to developing a strategy to meet Agriculture 4.0 head on. And meeting it head on we must; it is no longer an option, but a necessity for organizations and businesses to remain relevant in tomorrow’s world.

 

Why are digitally mature companies better?

Regardless of the vertical in which you are operating, in 2022 your organization should be able to check most of the boxes suggested by Deloitte in the table above.

At the most superficial level, digital maturity is a good predictor of improved financial performance. The more digitally savvy companies are cashing in on their maturity.

Behind this predictive factor, however, is the reason why. Digitally mature companies

• can better leverage the richness of data in their industry and ancillary verticals

• • better analytics-led decision-making
  • better positioning through market data
  • better product development through predictive analysis

• can better hold together distributed businesses

• • provide tools, platforms, and processes that bring together distributed employees
  • collect information from multiple points into a SSoT (for instance, distributed ledgers or even less advanced, real-time tools)

• can inspire more confidence in current and future employees

• • provide a sense of oneness and belonging through common tools and platforms
    inspire confidence through responsiveness and clear and transparent processes

 

How do companies begin on the road to digitalization?

The road to digitalization begins, first and foremost, with the will to change. Digitalization is change – and change is not easy, especially in more conservative industries or companies. Once the management understands the benefits of undertaking this process (which benefits are confirmed in multiple studies), there are several roads to choose from. However, to enable the process of digitalization in general, McKinsey identifies five key factors:

• having the right, digital-savvy leaders in place
• building capabilities for the workforce of the future
• empowering people to work in new ways
• giving day-to-day tools a digital upgrade
• communicating frequently via traditional and digital methods

Once the organization has undergone the basics of change, the company can then strategize on how to take advantage of the trends in its specific market. In the animal production industry, these trends – briefly mentioned at the beginning – amount to a revolution.

The revolution is already underway. For the moment, however, it is developing on so many disparate fronts that there is no formal coherence and very little oversight. Because of that, but most especially because of digital immaturity, very few companies or institutions are prepared to deal with what is coming. Now is the time to get in shape and get the process started.

A peek at what’s coming

As we grew over the past few years, both organically and through M&As, we faced a few challenges that many will be familiar with:

• a global team of 30+ nationalities that had to rally around one mission
• over 400 diverse, vocal, highly individual employees
• divergent value chains depending on country, region, and offered solution
• a large work-from-home or distributed team in various locations, closely working with on-site colleagues
• 10+ time zones
• a sometimes dizzyingly fast pace of change

We were fortunately prepared to deal with most of the challenges. Even so, we were not 100% prepared. We have learned enormously in the course of these years and are now a few steps ahead.

Over the next couple of months, EW Nutrition is going to look at some of the most important topics around digitalization in general, digitalization in livestock and feed production, and obstacles to building a digitally mature company:

• Digitalization-enabled change in distributed companies
• The digitalization of animal farming
• Digitalization in the workspace: Hurdles and benefits
• …and more.

The process is never complete, of course. We just hope that, by learning in public and sharing our discoveries, we make our journey clearer – and perhaps other companies’ journey easier.

 

---

References

FAO. The role of digital technologies in livestock traceability and trade, 2020

Gartner. Manufacturing Industry Scenarios in 2023: Leading Through Innovation, published September 2018, updated February 2020.

Gartner, Top Strategic Technology Trends for 2021, 2020

Gurumurthy, Ragu and David Schatsky, Pivoting to digital maturity: Seven capabilities central to digital transformation, Deloitte Insights, March 13, 2019

Gurumurthy, Ragu et al., Uncovering the connection between digital maturity and financial performance, Deloitte Insights, May 2020, 2020

Kane, Gerald C., “Accelerating digital innovation inside and out: Agile teams, ecosystems, and ethics,” MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte Digital, June 4, 2019

McKinsey. Unlocking success in digital transformations, October 2018

Moatsos, Michail. Global extreme poverty: Present and past since 1820. In How Was Life? Volume II : New Perspectives on Well-being and Global Inequality since 1820, OECD 2021

Sharma, Deepak et al., Customer-centric digital transformation: Making customer success integral to the new organization, Deloitte Insights, September 5, 2019

Schwab, Klaus, The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond, World Economic Forum, 14 Jan 2016

World Economic Forum, Innovation with a Purpose: The role of technology innovation in accelerating food systems transformation, January 2018

World Economic Forum, Technology Futures: Projecting the Possible, Navigating What’s Next. Insight Report, April 2021

By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor, EW Nutrition

Since early 2020, COVID-19 has been keeping the world under a cloud of uncertainty. With all eyes focused on this pandemic, we nevertheless must not forget that another, silent pandemic is developing: antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Unfortunately, the COVID-19 could easily exacerbate the AMR pandemic.   

What is the relationship between COVID-19 and AMR? 

The COVID-19 pandemic, as well as AMR, have a direct health impact on people: they get ill, suffer from its short- and long-term effects, or even die. AMR, on the other hand, is not a disease in itself but makes various bacterial infections difficult to treat and is considered a pandemic due to its dramatic global scope (Cars et al., 2021). Both pandemics, the ‘loud’ COVID-19 and the ‘silent’ AMR pandemic, are monitored by official institutions. Still, for both, significant uncertainties around actual case figures exist, especially in low-income countries. 

Beginning in China in around December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 spread to the rest of the world within a few months. Figures collated by the WHO show over 250 million confirmed cases and over 5 million deaths to date, with excess mortality rates indicating this to be an underestimation. Quantifying the death toll due to AMR is far more challenging, as disease conditions vary, resistant bacteria go undetected, or the causative pathogens are not identified in the first place (Giattino et al., 2021).

O’Neill (2014) reported about 700,000 people dying from infections with resistant pathogens every year. He forecasted that, by 2050, 10 million people per year will die if we don’t change anything. This figure would represent twice the number of people who died from COVID-19 within the last two years.  In the US and the EU, according to CDC, antibiotic resistance causes 23,000 and 25,000 deaths per year, respectively. In Thailand, 38,000 deaths are attributable to ABR. And in India, 58,000+ babies died from infections with resistant bacteria, usually passed on from their mothers. 

Woerther et al. (2013) note a continuous increase of resistant strains globally. In 2010/11, ESBL carriage rates of 3 to 20 % were the “norm”, but some WHO regions already showed 60 to 70% carriage rates by 2011. In the US, 223,900 cases of Clostridium difficile occurred in 2017, and at least 12,800 people died (CDC, 2019). 

As in the case of SARS-CoV-2, the spread of AMR organisms can be prevented by hygiene measures. Except for hospital settings reported in developed countries, the spread of resistant bacteria is invisible. Regardless of how little we know about it from official reports, there are indications that bacteria resistance is ubiquitous, triggered to a large extent by the (over)use of antibiotics in community settings. Moreover, it is far more difficult to identify that a patient suffers from AMR infection than from SARS-CoV-2. The latter is easily detected with widespread testing systems, including self-testing.  

COVID and AMR have severe economic consequences 

Besides claiming many lives, both COVID and AMR increase the costs for healthcare. Additionally, due to high sickness ratios and lockdowns, economic losses are tremendous. For COVID as well as for AMR patients, the hospitals need specialized systems and procedures (ventilation apparatus, extraordinary hygiene measures) and specially qualified personnel to treat the infected persons. In addition to the cases of infection, mental illness increases due to these exceptional circumstances. 

US study extrapolates ten-figure costs due to AMR 

In a US cohort study based on records of 25,000 patients from 2007-2015, Nelson et al. (2021a) calculated the treatment costs for infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter to be $4.6 billion.  

Another study done by Nelson et al. (2021b) with 87,509 elderly patients suffering from infections with the same resistant pathogens showed estimated costs of $1.9 billion, with 11,852 deaths and 448,224 inpatient days. In these two studies, only two resistant bacteria species were considered – and they alone triggered costs of more than 4 billion US dollars. 

Estimation of COVID costs shows long-lasting negative economic impact 

In the case of COVID, an estimation done by Tan-Torres Edejer et al. (2020) yielded $52.45 billion in added healthcare costs worldwide over four weeks in a status quo scenario. The costs would increase/decrease if the transmission increases/decrease. More detailed consideration is provided by Cutler and Summers (2020).   

Category	Cost (billions) in USD
Lost GDP	7592
Health loss
Premature death	4375
Long-term health impairment	2572
Mental health impairment	1581
Total	16121
% of annual GDP	90

Estimated Projected health cost of the COVID-19 crisis (Cutler and Summers, 2020)  

Economic losses due to Corona are tremendous – What about losses due to AMR?  

Some of the costs arising during the corona pandemic are partially compensated. New jobs within the health system, industries providing healthcare materials or developing vaccines/medicine partially cover the damages caused to the economy.  

Additional to the healthcare costs, costs due to the impact on the economy arise. According to Maliszewska et al. (2020), financial losses because of the COVID-19 pandemic can be attributed to four categories: 

1. the direct impact of a reduction in employment (shutdowns of operations), but also labor shortage due to illness of the personnel 
2. the increase in costs of international transactions 
3. the sharp drop in travel (caused by travel bans in certain countries) 
4. the decline in demand for services that require proximity between people (e.g., down periods of restaurants). 

According to a UN (2020) early estimate, the “economic uncertainty it has sparked will likely cost the global economy $1 trillion in 2020”.  

Comparing the costs for both pandemics, AMR does not seem to be as scary as COVID. However, we are only at the beginning. AMR figures are constantly increasing. If O’Neill (2014)’s scenario occurs, we will witness more AMR-caused deaths than deaths from COVID-19, as well as higher costs.  

Antibiotic use promotes the development of resistances 

Antimicrobial resistance is natural; Alexander Fleming mentioned it as early as 1929, soon after discovering penicillin. Most of the antibiotics are derived from natural substances. Penicillin, for instance, is produced by a mold fungus. This is why completely isolated cultures such as the Yanomami in Venezuela, who have never taken antibiotics, can also show resistant bacteria in their gut flora (Lahrtz, 2015). Every contact with an antibiotic has the potential to promote resistance.

Bacteria develop resistance in different ways 

In a typical situation, an antibiotic has an impact on “good” and “bad” bacteria. One bacterium, due to a random mutation, can develop resistance to antibiotic treatment. Suddenly, that resistant bacterium has survived the battle, remains the “king of the castle”, and can use all the space and nutrients to proliferate. 

Different types of resistance are possible (Levy, 1998). The bacteria can  

• stimulate the production of enzymes, modifying or breaking down (and, therefore, inactivating) the antibiotic 
• eliminate access ways for antibiotics or develop pumps discharging the antibiotic before it takes effect 
• change or eliminate the targets of the antibiotics, the molecules they would bind. 

Bacteria spread their ability to resist 

The problem of antibiotic resistance is not only that one bacterium, due to mutation, can withstand an antibiotic treatment. The more dangerous possibility is that it can also transfer this ability to other, potentially more harmful bacteria. How is this transfer achieved? Bacteria can acquire these mutated “resistance genes” through 

• vertical transfer from mother to daughter cells 
• the intake of these genes from dead bacteria, which is also possible between different strains (including between “good” and “bad” ones) 
• plasmids transporting the genes from one bacterium to another (horizontal transfer), which is also possible between strains 
• viruses transporting the genes.   

Due to this exchange of resistance genes, harmful bacteria can become resistant because they acquire the mutated gene and, therefore, the ability to resist antibiotics from a harmless bacterium.  

Enhanced antibiotic resistance due to COVID-19? 

Just as influenza (Morris et al., 2017), the COVID-19 pandemic is reported to influence the transmission of bacterial infections and the development of antimicrobial resistance. Several reasons and facts argue for this statement. 

1. Bacterial co-infections are often identified on top of viral respiratory infections. These are then the main reasons for higher morbidity and mortality (Mahmoudi, 2020). Also, COVID-19 weakens the immune system of people and paves the way for secondary infections. This is the reason why, in some cases, COVID-19 patients are given antibiotics prophylactically. Langford and co-workers (2020) published a summary of different studies concerning this topic, and other authors confirm this tendency (Garcia-Vidal et al., 2021; Rawson et al., 2020; Rodríguez-Baños, 2021; Russel et al., 2021). They reported a relatively low incidence of bacterial co-infections of 3.5% (95% CI 0.4-6.7%) and secondary bacterial infections of 14.3% (95% CI 9.6-18.9%). However, high use of antibiotics (70%) could be observed, most of them broad-spectrum antibiotics such as third-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones (Langford et al., 2020). 
2. Contrary to influenza patients, who get bacterial secondary infections or co-infections in the community, COVID patients are more likely to get these infections in the hospital. There, the risk of “catching” a resistant pathogen is higher.  
3. This risk increases during a pandemic such as COVID simply because more people spend more time in the hospital. The hospital staff is overloaded; often, hygiene compliance is less than perfect. 
4. Due to the high number of patients, the determination of bacteria strains is often delayed, and, therefore, doctors more often resort to broad-spectrum antibiotics.  

Antibiotics in animal production contribute to AMR development 

In animal production, antibiotics are not only used for the treatment of diseases but also prophylaxis of the whole herd or growth-promoting purposes. Data collected in the US in 2017 (human) and 2018 (animals) revealed that, in total, nearly 80% of the antibiotics were used in animals. 

Use of antibiotics in animals and humans in the US 2017/18 (according to Benning, 2021) 

Reduction of antibiotics leads to a decrease in resistances 

A report published by the CDDEP in 2015 showed an earlier example (Dutil, 2010).  When the 3rd generation extended-spectrum cefalosporin (Ceftiofur) was used at the egg stage of broiler chicken farming in Canada, the prevalence of E. coli and Salmonella strains resistant to this antibiotic increased in chicken, but also humans. After discontinuing the antibiotics, the resistance dropped by one-half to one-quarter of the previous year’s value within one year. 

This decrease makes perfect sense. An antibiotic-resistant gene is not worth the organism’s effort if the associated antibiotic is not used, converting the gene into a negative factor for “fitness”. It only costs energy and, in the end, disappearance from the microbiome. 

Antibiotic reduction in animals shows first benefits 

Besides antibiotic stewardship in human medicine (no broad-spectrum antibiotics, targeted use, and only against bacteria rather than viral diseases), reducing antibiotic use in animal production is vital. The European Union has already made strides and banned antibiotics as growth promoters in animal production in 2006. The Netherlands has been leading the way when it comes to a reduction in veterinary prescribed antibiotics. From 2009 to 2018, antibiotic sales decreased by 70% (de Greeff et al., MARAN Report, 2020). First decreases of resistance have already be documented, among which: 

• no carbapenemase-producing Salmonella in 2019 
• only 19 ESBL-producing Salmonella isolates were confirmed, mainly from humans 
• the resistance percentage in commensal E. coli (caecal samples) has halved for most antibiotics, converting into consistently low values during recent years 
• no E. coli isolates resistant to extended-spectrum cephalosporins were detected in fecal samples from farm animals.  

Preserving the effectiveness of antibiotics is key  

Various feed supplements can support the animals at different stages of their life in order to reduce antibiotic use in animal production. In the long run, this will be a game-changer in ensuring that animal products and the process of animal production itself are not part of the problem. 

Antibiotic reduction has become an increasingly stringent task. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has gained a renewed awareness of the importance of infectious diseases. We saw how fast progress in healthcare could suffer setbacks and we were forced to recognize the need for resilient health systems (Cars, 2021).  

The pandemic can teach us a valuable lesson in this respect. We must realize that it is essential to use antibiotics further as an effective tool to treat harmful diseases. To that end, we must do everything we can to keep this weapon sharp. The first step is to reduce antibiotic use in human health, as well as in livestock production. It will not be an easy way. It is, however, the only effective way in the long run. 

 

References

Benning, Reinhild, and By. “Antibiotics: Useless Medicines: Heinrich Böll Stiftung: Brussels Office – European Union.” Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, September 7, 2021. https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/09/07/antibiotics-useless-medicines.

Bergevoet, R.H.M., Marcel van Asseldonk, Nico Bondt, Peter van Horne, Robert Hoste, Carolien de Lauwere, and Linda Puister-Jansen. “Economics of Antibiotic Usage on Dutch Farms: The Impact of Antibiotic Reduction on Economic Results of Pig and Broiler Farms in the Netherlands.” Research@WUR. Wageningen Economic Research, June 2019. https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/economics-of-antibiotic-usage-on-dutch-farms-the-impact-of-antibi.

Cars, Otto, Sujith J Chandy, Mirfin Mpundu, Arturo Quizhpe Peralta, Anna Zorzet, and Anthony D So. “Resetting the Agenda for Antibiotic Resistance through a Health Systems Perspective.” The Lancet Global Health 9, no. 7 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(21)00163-7.

CDC. “Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA. 2019.

http://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:82532.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Antibiotics Don’t Work on COVID-19.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed October 7, 2021. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/107496.

Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy (CDDEP). “The State of the World’s Antibiotics, 2015.” June 8, 2018. https://cddep.org/publications/state_worlds_antibiotics_2015/.

Cutler, David M., and Lawrence H. Summers. “The COVID-19 Pandemic and the $16 Trillion Virus.” JAMA 324, no. 15 (2020): 1495. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.19759.

de Greeff, S. C., A. F. Schoffelen, and C. M. Verduin. “Maran Reports.” WUR. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, June 2020. https://www.wur.nl/en/Research-Results/Research-Institutes/Bioveterinary-Research/In-the-spotlight/Antibiotic-resistance/MARAN-reports.htm.

Dutil, Lucie, Rebecca Irwin, Rita Finley, Lai King Ng, Brent Avery, Patrick Boerlin, Anne-Marie Bourgault, et al. “Ceftiofur resistance in Salmonella Enterica serovar Heidelberg from Chicken Meat and Humans, Canada.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 16, no. 1 (2010): 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1601.090729.

Edris, Amr E. “Pharmaceutical and Therapeutic Potentials of Essential Oils and Their Individual Volatile Constituents: A Review.” Phytotherapy Research 21, no. 4 (2007): 308–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.2072.

Garcia-Vidal, Carolina, Gemma Sanjuan, Estela Moreno-García, Pedro Puerta-Alcalde, Nicole Garcia-Pouton, Mariana Chumbita, Mariana Fernandez-Pittol, et al. “Incidence of Co-Infections and Superinfections in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.” Clinical Microbiology and Infection 27, no. 1 (2021): 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.041.

Gelband, Hellen, Molly Miller-Petry, Suraj Pant, Sumanth Gandra, Jordan Levinson, Devra Barter, Andrea White, and Ramanan Laxminarayan. “The State of the World’s Antibiotics, 2015.” Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy (CDDEP), June 8, 2018. https://cddep.org/publications/state_worlds_antibiotics_2015/.

Heckert, R.A., I. Estevez, E. Russek-Cohen, and R. Pettit-Riley. “Effects of Density and Perch Availability on the Immune Status of Broilers.” Poultry Science 81, no. 4 (2002): 451–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/81.4.451.

Hutchins Coe, Erica, Kana Enomoto, Patrick Finn, John Stenson, and Kyle Weber. “Is Covid over? | Page 12 | Debate Politics.” Mc Kinsey and Company, September 2020. https://debatepolitics.com/threads/is-covid-over.425042/page-12.

Lahrtz, Stephanie. “Resistenzgene auch im Dschungel.” Neue Zürcher Zeitung, April 21, 2015. https://www.nzz.ch/wissenschaft/medizin/resistenzgene-auch-im-dschungel-1.18526784.

Langford, Bradley J., Miranda So, Sumit Raybardhan, Valerie Leung, Duncan Westwood, Derek R. MacFadden, Jean-Paul R. Soucy, and Nick Daneman. “Bacterial Co-Infection and Secondary Infection in Patients with COVID-19: A Living Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis.” Clinical Microbiology and Infection 26, no. 12 (2020): 1622–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.016.

Levy, Stuart B. “The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance.” Scientific American 278, no. 3 (1998): 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0398-46.

Mahmoudi, Hassan. “Bacterial Co-Infections and Antibiotic Resistance in Patients with COVID-19.” GMS Hyg Infect Control 15, no. Doc35 (2020). https://dx.doi.org/10.3205/dgkh000370

Maliszewska, Maryla, Aaditya Mattoo, and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe. “The Potential Impact of Covid-19 on GDP and Trade: A Preliminary Assessment.” Policy Research Working Papers. World Bank Group, March 2020. https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/1813-9450-9211.

Morris, Denise E., David W. Cleary, and Stuart C. Clarke. “Secondary Bacterial Infections Associated with Influenza Pandemics.” Frontiers in Microbiology 8 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01041.

Muniz, EC, VB Fascina, PP Pires, AS Carrijo, and EB Guimarães. “Histomorphology of Bursa of Fabricius: Effects of Stock Densities on Commercial Broilers.” Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 8, no. 4 (2006): 217–20. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1516-635×2006000400003.

Nelson, Richard E, Kelly M Hatfield, Hannah Wolford, Matthew H Samore, R Douglas Scott, Sujan C Reddy, Babatunde Olubajo, Prabasaj Paul, John A Jernigan, and James Baggs. “National Estimates of Healthcare Costs Associated with Multidrug-Resistant Bacterial Infections among Hospitalized Patients in the United States.” Clinical Infectious Diseases 72, no. Supplement_1 (2021a): S17–S26. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1581.

Nelson, Richard E, David Hyun, Amanda Jezek, and Matthew H Samore. “Mortality, Length of Stay, and Healthcare Costs Associated with Multidrug-Resistant Bacterial Infections among Elderly Hospitalized Patients in the United States.” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2021b. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab696.

O’Neill, J. “Antimicrobial Resistance: Tackling a Crisis for the Health …” amr-review.org. Wellcome Trust and HM Government, 2014. https://amr-review.org/sites/default/files/AMR%20Review%20Paper%20-%20Tackling%20a%20crisis%20for%20the%20health%20and%20wealth%20of%20nations_1.pdf.

Partanen, Krisi H, and Zdzislaw Mroz. “Organic Acids for Performance Enhancement in Pig Diets.” Nutrition Research Reviews 12, no. 1 (1999): 117–45. https://doi.org/10.1079/095442299108728884.

Rawson, Timothy M, Luke S Moore, Nina Zhu, Nishanthy Ranganathan, Keira Skolimowska, Mark Gilchrist, Giovanni Satta, Graham Cooke, and Alison Holmes. “Bacterial and Fungal Coinfection in Individuals with Coronavirus: A Rapid Review to Support COVID-19 Antimicrobial Prescribing.” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa530.

Rodríguez-Baño, Jesús, Gian Maria Rossolini, Constance Schultsz, Evelina Tacconelli, Srinivas Murthy, Norio Ohmagari, Alison Holmes, et al. “Antimicrobial Resistance Research in a Post-Pandemic World: Insights on Antimicrobial Resistance Research in the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance 25 (2021): 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2021.02.013.

Russell, Clark Donald, Cameron J. Fairfield, Thomas M. Drake, Lance Turtle, R Andrew Seaton, Dan G. Wootton, Louise Sigfrid, et al. “Co-Infections, Secondary Infections, and Antimicrobial Usage in Hospitalised Patients with Covid-19 from the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK Study: A Prospective, Multicentre Cohort Study.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3786694.

Tan-Torres Edejer, Tessa, Odd Hanssen, Andrew Mirelman, Paul Verboom, Glenn Lolong, Oliver John Watson, Lucy Linda Boulanger, and Agnès Soucat. “Projected Health-Care Resource Needs for an Effective Response to Covid-19 in 73 Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries: A Modelling Study.” The Lancet Global Health 8, no. 11 (2020): e1372–e1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30383-1.

United Nations. “Coronavirus Update: Covid-19 likely to cost economy $1 trillion during 2020, says UN trade agency.” March 2020. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2020/03/coronavirus-update-covid-19-likely-to-cost-economy-1-trillion-during-2020-says-un-trade-agency/.

Woerther, Paul-Louis, Charles Burdet, Elisabeth Chachaty, and Antoine Andremont. “Trends in Human Fecal Carriage of Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases in the Community: Toward the Globalization of CTX-M.” Clinical Microbiology Reviews 26, no. 4 (2013): 744–58. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.00023-13.

WHO. “Who Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard.” World Health Organization. Accessed October 7, 2021. https://covid19.who.int/.

 

By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Marisabel Caballero, Dr. Twan van Gerwe, and Dr. Ajay Bhoyar – EW Nutrition

Concerns about antibiotic resistance in humans and production animals have prompted a push across the board to reduce antibiotic use, including in livestock rearing. To meet these demands, the industry must keep the pathogenic pressure in production units as low as possible, enabling production with no antibiotics or minimum use of antibiotics.

The 3 essential steps for reducing antibiotics in broiler production

In the following, we discuss experience-based insights and practical advice concerning best practices for broiler meat production with reduced antibiotic use, focusing on the following points:

• Farm biosecurity
• Management of the broiler house, including cleaning & disinfection, and environment & litter management
• Management of the flock, including DOC quality, disease prevention, and nutrition

1. General farm biosecurity

Biosecurity is the foundation for all disease prevention programs (Dewulf et al., 2018). Thus, it is essential in antibiotic reduction scenarios. It includes all measures taken to reduce the risk of introducing and spreading diseases, preventing diseases, and protecting against infectious agents. Its fundament is the knowledge of disease transmission processes.

The application of consistently high biosecurity standards substantially reduces antimicrobial resistance by preventing the introduction of resistance genes into the farm and lowering the need to use antimicrobials (Davies & DWales, 2019).

First of all: everyone must act in concert!

Biosecurity is one of the preconditions for the success of an ABR program, and it is crucial to bring all workers/staff on track through regular training on the best practices and their subsequent rigorous implementation.  The biosecurity plan can only be effective if everyone on the operation follows it – all the time. Farm managers, poultry workers, and other persons entering the facility should adhere to the farm biosecurity measures, 24/24h – 7/7d.

Separation helps to prevent the spread of pathogens

One essential component for biosecurity is implementing a “line of separation” for the farm and each house. It is vital to have a good separation between high and low-risk animals and between areas on the farm that are dirty (general traffic) and clean (internal movements). In this way, it is not only possible to avoid the entrance but also the spread of disease, as potential sources of infection (e.g., wild birds) cannot reach the farm population.

The farm must be well isolated, not allowing the entry or passage of persons who do not work there and animals, including pets.

Inside the farm, the walls of the poultry house form the first line of separation, and the “Two-zone Danish Entry Protocol” constitutes a second line. This system utilizes a bench to divide the anteroom of a poultry house into two sides (outdoor / ‘dirty area’ and indoor / ‘clean area’). At a minimum, footwear should be changed, and hands washed or disinfected when passing over the bench; it is even better when workers have house-specific clothing and hairnets when entering the poultry area.

Figure 1: Safety procedures on the poultry farm – the Danish entry method

The room is divided into “dirty” and “clean” zones.

1. After the entrance from outside, workers/visitors step into a disinfectant boot tray.
2. They take off their street shoes and leave them on the dirty side of the entrance zone.
3. Then, they turn from the dirty to the clean side by swinging their legs without touching the floor.
4. They wash their hands and disinfect them by using the hand.
5. They must put on an overall, cap, mask, and boots of the poultry house.
6. Completely clothed, they can enter the poultry house.
7. When they leave the house, a reversed process must be followed.

Still more needs to be done to prevent the entrance and spread of disease.

Separate materials for each house

For each house, separate materials must be used, keeping a dedicated set of tools and equipment necessary for daily work.

Very important: no materials should be moved from one house to another unless thoroughly disinfected. Crates for bird transport in the case of thinning (partial depopulation of a broiler flock) are an important example.

Practice clean disposal of mortality

First, dead birds’ removal must be frequent (minimum twice a day) as carcasses are a source of infection. The next point is to make sure the route of birds’ disposal is strictly unidirectional, and the buckets or wheelbarrows for the transport of the dead birds do not reenter the poultry house. Finally, the carcasses should remain outside the farm or as far from the buildings as possible until collection, incineration, or composting.

2. Broiler house management

After the general organization on the farm, let’s move on to the poultry houses.

Cleaning and disinfection of the house are the first steps – and check their efficacy!

Cleaning and disinfection are essential components in preventing the persistence and spread of pathogens. Both together aim to decrease microbial numbers on surfaces (and in the air) to a level that will ensure that most -if not all- pathogens and zoonotic agents are eliminated.

Cleaning refers to the physical removal of organic matter and biofilms, so the microorganisms and pathogens are afterward exposed to the disinfectant.

For effective cleaning and disinfection, the all-out/all-in system has proven of value. When birds are collected, all organic material, including feed residues and litter/feces, is removed.

Effective detergents and hot water are used to remove any grease or organic material. Pay special attention to the floors! Also, all surfaces and equipment should be sufficiently cleaned and given final disinfection.

Cleaning is crucial

A study by Luyckx and collaborators (2015) revealed that the mean total aerobic bacterial count on swab samples taken in broiler houses decreases significantly already after cleaning (figure 2). Good cleaning not only strongly reduces microbiological contamination and organic material but also ensures that the subsequent disinfection has a stronger impact on the remaining microorganisms. Consider that all disinfectants, even in high concentrations, are barely effective in the presence of organic material.

Figure 2: % of reduction of bacteria on surfaces after cleaning and after cleaning and disinfection (adapted from Luyckx et al., 2015)

Keep an eye on cleaning & disinfection efficacy

After cleaning and disinfection are complete, it is good practice to check the floors for Total Viable Count (TVC), Salmonella, and E. coli to test the efficacy of the cleaning and disinfection process. Recommended levels of TVC should be less than ten colony forming units per square centimeter (CFU/cm²), and E. coli and Salmonella levels should be undetectable.

When high TVC are found, the cleaning and disinfection procedure must be evaluated, including the products (a rotation is recommended) and their application (e.g., dosage, dilution, water temperature, and exposure time). Also, possible reinfection by vermin or personnel during the downtime must be controlled.

Downtime: After cleaning and disinfection, a down-time time of 10 days allows disease-causing pathogens to die (UC Davis, 2019).

Cleaning and disinfection of the waterline against biofilm

In the waterlines, the build-up of biofilms can be an issue. Biofilm is a sticky film that can be found inside water lines, regulators, and nipple drinkers. It starts when bacteria attach to a surface and produce a matrix of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), including proteins and sugars, giving the biofilm the stickiness that traps other bacteria and organic matter. It provides the bacteria with protection from the external environment, and thus they multiply and thrive.

Biofilms not only block the water flow, but they can also include pathogenic bacteria. Thus, the waterline must be regularly cleaned and disinfected, not only between flocks but also within each flock.

Between flocks, an effective waterline cleaning should include:

• Application of hydrogen peroxide at high concentration, leaving it in the system for 24-48 hours to remove the biofilm from the pipelines)
• Flush the line to remove the detached biofilm, also activate the nipples with a broom or stick to flush them
• Immediately before the placement of the new chicks, the water lines should be flushed to have fresh drinking water available to the chicks
• The water pressure must be adjusted so that a droplet of water is visible at the end of each nipple, and the drinkers are put to the correct height to stimulate water intake and avoid spilling

During the life of the birds, a water disinfectant should be used to prevent biofilm formation, e.g., hydrogen peroxide in weekly applications or the continuous use of chlorine. Also, flushing is a good practice during the whole cycle to make sure that biofilm is removed and the birds count with fresh drinking water.

To a certain extent, biofilm build-up can be prevented by using organic acidifiers in the water, which improves the sanitizers’ effectiveness and reduces bacterial growth in water lines.

Correct ventilation helps to prevent respiratory diseases

To keep broilers healthy, providing optimal ventilation in the poultry house is crucial. CO₂ and temperature are the most critical parameters. CO₂ should never exceed 2500 ppm and should be monitored continuously, most notably in the early morning before birds increase activity (e.g., eating). Ventilation rates should be adjusted to keep CO₂ below this limit. Draught or cold spots resulting in uneven distribution of birds in the house should be avoided, and causes should be investigated and repaired immediately.

Incorrect ventilation often is the reason for respiratory diseases and the need for antibiotic treatment. No matter if natural or power ventilation is used, proper monitoring of the system is indispensable to ensure the well-functioning of the equipment and, therefore, appropriate air quality (Neetzon et al., 2017).

Litter management to keep diseases in check

Effective litter management is another step on the road to keeping the birds healthy. Dryness of litter and ammonia level at bird’s level are two significant key success factors in raising broilers. Dry litter preserves the footpads, so litter material should have a good moisture-absorbing capacity (e.g., chopped straw, wood shaving, rice husks, sunflower husks). When using build-up litter, litter sanitation and treatments need more attention.

Litter treatment (with acidifying or binding substances) and adequate ventilation are the most practical measures to control ammonia and improve littler quality (Malone, 2005). Keep litter temperature at 28 – 30°C (82.4 – 86°F), and use only litter tested or certified to have a TVC <10 CFU/g.

3. Flock management

The basis: healthy, high-quality day-old chicks

To produce good-quality day-old chicks, the parent flocks (PS) must be of good health status. PS should be free from vertically transmitted diseases such as Mycoplasma and Salmonella and be vaccinated/protected against important diseases:

• Salmonella pullorum/Salmonella Gallinari should be assessed in PS by RPA serology in week 25-30, at least 60 samples per flock.
• Mycoplasma gallisepticum should be checked by RPA/ELISA serology on a regular basis, preferably at least monthly, with a minimum of 30 samples per flock.

Parent flock vaccination leads to the production of maternal antibodies that help prevent horizontal infection (from the broiler farm environment) in chicks at an early age. This type of prevention is the primary function of some vaccinations, such as against Gumboro disease.

An essential part of the broilers’ life occurs already in the hatchery. Single-stage incubation is recommended, and all floor eggs and dirty nest eggs should be excluded to assure the best day-old chick quality.

Comfortable conditions bring chicks to eat

The brooding phase needs special attention; it is about welcoming the chicks and making them comfortable in the house environment. For this, enough litter needs to be provided, the environment must be managed, and feed and water must be supplied.

At least 24 hours before chick placement, the house and floor temperature are increased to a minimum of 34°C and 28°C, respectively. Proper ventilation and lighting are also essential. These conditions need to be monitored and adjusted after the placement so the chicks feel comfortable and start feed and water consumption. Checking chick behavior is crucial during the first hours after placement.

Upon the placement of the chicks, it is recommended to have pre-starter crumble feed available on top of brooder paper underneath the drinking line. To stimulate early feed and water consumption, gently place the chicks onto that paper. The target is to have 100 % of chicks with crop filled within 48 hours of chick placement.

Reduce the stocking density

In general, high stocking density may restrict bird movement, interfere with airflow, and increase litter moisture and microbial growth, including pathogens, which potentially impairs broiler health, welfare, and performance.

When reducing antibiotics, increase the space per bird by 0.05 ft²/46 cm² per bird compared to your current conventional program. A lower stocking density helps keep litter moisture at a minimum, which reduces the shedding of cocci oocyst and pathogenic bacteria over the population.

Feed and water access must be granted to all animals at every moment. The number of chickens per feeder or drinker depends on the type of equipment used.

Consistent observation of the flock

To recognize emerging health issues, producers should critically observe the behavior of birds every day. On which points should they focus?

• First, when entering the house, birds’ behavior and response to the poultry worker should be observed with attention. Note the spread of birds throughout the house.
• Note birds’ drinking and eating behavior. Feed and water intake should be recorded daily, always at the same hour.
• The quality of the fresh fecal droppings should be judged. Any changes in the fecal droppings (loss of consistency) can help notice emerging disease and take measures against it.

Especially during and after feed change, attention to changes in the usual feces consistency is necessary.

Vaccination and judicious antibiotic use are crucial

Carefully consider vaccination programs for broilers. Unnecessary vaccinations impact the immune system, possibly resulting in reduced performance and, in some circumstances, make the birds more susceptible to other diseases. Hence, the vaccination program must be diligently attuned (Neetzon et al., 2017).

• The disease background of the parent farm as well as the broiler farm where the chicks will be placed are essential factors for the vaccination program
• If possible, vaccine strains that are the least immunosuppressive should be chosen
• If coccidiostats are not permitted, an effective vaccination against coccidiosis is required and must be done as early as possible
• All vaccinations must be given using a standard operating procedure that minimizes bird discomfort and optimizes the vaccine, and always administer vaccines following the advice from the manufacturer

After the vaccination, it is essential to monitor the effects of vaccination stress and take preventive measures to avoid any issues with broiler performance in terms of weight gain and mortality.

Use antibiotics with discernment

As we aim to reduce antibiotics, they should be limited to pure therapeutic use, only if other disease-prevention measures have not been successful, and mortality or disease symptoms make the treatment necessary. Before the treatment, the disease must be diagnosed by a qualified veterinarian. The diagnosis should be preferably followed up by isolation of the disease-causing bacteria, classification, and susceptibility testing before the antibiotics are applied.

Small-spectrum antibiotics that are less likely to cause antimicrobial resistance (AMR) should be preferred. Broad-spectrum antibiotics or antibiotics that are likely to cause AMR can only be used after susceptibility testing has demonstrated resistance to a first-choice antibiotic. The treatment effect must be evaluated by daily monitoring of disease symptoms, mortality, water, feed intake, and body weight gain.

Thinning – things to consider

If thinning (partial depopulation) is practiced, it should be done with the highest bio-security measures. Producers must ensure that the equipment used in the catching process is thoroughly cleaned before entering the house, and bird-catching personnel takes the same measures as farm personnel when entering the farm and the house. These policies will help to minimize the introduction of infectious agents.

Keep the feed withdrawal period for this process as short as possible to avoid flightiness, which can induce skin lesions (some regions catch birds in low light intensities to avoid flightiness). A short feed withdrawal period also prevents over-consumption of feed in a short amount of time, possibly disrupting feed passage in the gut and leading to bacterial imbalance and dysbacteriosis in the remaining birds. After thinning, feed and temperature must be adapted to the lower number of animals.

Provide your birds with high-quality water for drinking

Water is the most important nutrient for broilers. It plays an essential role in digestion and metabolism, thermoregulation, and waste elimination.

Several factors affect water quality: temperature, pH, bacteria, hardness, minerals, and total dissolved solids. These parameters should be analyzed at least twice per year. If necessary, corrective actions should be taken, e.g., a filtration to remove minerals, the addition of chlorine for disinfection, or the addition of organic acids to drop the pH.

Before each cycle, the water must be tested for total aerobic + enterobacteria, compared to reference values: Total plate count (TPC) should be < 1000 CFU/ml, and E.coli, Enterobacteriaceae, yeast, and molds at undetectable levels. The section about cleaning and disinfection of the waterline provides insights and practical advice about water sanitation and microbiological analysis.

Nutrition & feeding – a pillar for antibiotic reduction

Nutrition and feeding in ABR broiler production are not only about providing nutrients for growth but also about the effects of the feed on gut health. Gut health is essential for animals’ overall health, welfare, and productivity, even more so in antibiotic reduction scenarios.

Feed should be of the highest quality – in all respects

High feed quality is necessary to provide the animal with the required nutrients and achieve their optimal utilization. Also important is the absence, limitation, or management of harmful substances and pathogens. High quality, therefore, includes:

• Form and composition of the final feed
• Nutritional value of the raw materials
• Management of harmful substances.

From reception and storage of the raw materials to the dispatch of the finished feed, the feed mill management emphasizes their quality assurance system, which is decisive in this connection.

First measure: quality assurance at the feed mill level

The feed mills producing for operations with no or reduced use of antibiotics must have a quality assurance (QA) and/or a good manufacturing program (GMP) in place that guarantees the production of consistently good quality feeds.

Proper raw material management and processing of feeds are necessary to achieve the lowest possible microbial-pathogen load, including:

• An effective rodent and wild birds control
• Disinfection of all the vehicles entering the feed mill
• Proper storage and utilization of raw materials (e.g., first in-first out use, silo management)
• Periodic thorough cleaning of milling equipment, premises and storage areas, and the monitoring of these activities
• Standard operating procedure and quality assurance systems that guarantee feed safety and quality

Check the quality of the raw materials and the final feed

Digestion, absorption, and gut health depend on the quality of the feed ingredients. To provide the best preconditions for healthy growth, producers should avoid raw materials of a reduced and/or inconsistent quality. For this purpose, each raw material batch should be analyzed for its specific quality parameters. Quality parameters to consider are:

• Physical ones, such as color, odor, particle size, and general appearance
• Chemical ones, such as nutritional composition and specific parameters. For example, grains should be analyzed for mycotoxins and antinutritional factors; fats and oils need to be analyzed for free fatty acids (FFA), unsaturated/saturated (US) ratio, iodine value (IV), but also the peroxide value (PV) as oxidized fats have a lower energy value, and their intake is related to enteric diseases
• Biological ones, including yeasts, molds, and enterobacteria

Also, the finished feed should be monitored by analyzing every batch concerning composition compared to values in the feed formulation, as well as physical, chemical, and microbiological quality parameters.

Clean storage on the farm prevents feed spoilage

As in the feed mill, keeping the farm facilities clean is of the highest importance. Warehouses, silos, bins, feeders, etc., should be emptied, cleaned, and disinfected after each flock; this avoids the formation of feed aggregates that can lead to mold growth and mycotoxin contamination; also, insects, bacteria, and parasites can remain in those residues.

Adapt feed formulation and feeding to the feeding phase

The value of phase feeding

Having the correct number of dietary phases to meet animal demands and avoid excess nutrients provides better intestinal health and thus aids production animals in ABR scenarios. The feeding phases should be designed to prevent abrupt changes in nutrition and raw material inclusions, possibly leading to dysbacteriosis.

Feeding for gut health

When feeding broilers in antibiotic reduction scenarios, extra care should be taken when formulating diets. The challenge is to achieve the same performance as conventional management at an optimum cost.

• Don’t waste nutrients: Improve feed digestibility, and at the same time, reduce the dangers of antinutritional factors coming from different ingredients by using suitable exogenous enzymes.
• Keep an eye on fiber: Moderate levels of insoluble fibers with adequate structure and composition can be included to promote gizzard development and function. This measure leads to a better modulation of gut motility and feeds passage into the intestine. Additionally, it promotes gut health, resulting in higher nutrient digestibility.
• Be careful with protein: Excess of undigested protein in the hindgut may lead to the proliferation of Clostridium perfringens; then, subclinical challenges of necrotic enteritis may occur. Moreover, the excess of nitrogen may increase feces moisture content, leading to wet litter. The optimization of the diets based on digestible amino-acid profiles and the use of synthetic amino acids decrease or eliminate the minimum requirements of crude protein, avoiding its excess.

Which feed form?

The feed form depends on the age or feeding phase: starter feeds can be offered as coarse mash, but preferably as crumble or mini-pellets (< 2 mm diameter) and grower and finisher diets as 3 – 4 mm pellets.

When using pelleted diets, quality is also the most crucial criterion. Poor pellet quality and thus the excess of fine particles increase feed passage rate, resulting in poor gizzard development and compromised gut health.

A high-quality pelleted feed can withstand – without much breakage – the handling that occurs after processing, such as transportation, storage, and farm management. Pellet quality can be measured by the Pellet Durability Index (PDI) obtained by simulating the impact and shear forces in a known quantity of feed for a determined amount of time. After this time, the sample is sieved, and the fines are separated, weighed, and compared with the initial sample

The PDI should be measured in the feed mill and compared to a standard. Later, it is also recommended to measure the PDI on the farm, and the producer should take corrective actions if the pellets cannot maintain their quality.

Additionally, it should be known that coarse ground grains stimulate gizzard development and function. So, about 30 % of the feed should consist of particles between 1-1.5mm (post pelleting) in all feeding phases.

Broilers’ selection criteria for feed are form, color, size, and consistency

Broilers’ selection criteria for feed are form, color, size, and consistency. They prefer feed that is easy to pick, such as crumbles or pellets. 

Feed additives can support antibiotic reduction

The feed additive industry provides broiler farms and integrations with various solutions to make production more manageable and efficient.

A healthy start is half the battle

Let’s start with the chicks. The early introduction of beneficial bacteria into the intestinal tract has proven helpful for gut health optimization. This colonization can be achieved with the administration of suitable probiotics preparation at the hatchery. Multi-strain probiotic preparations effectively initiate healthy microbiome development for optimum gut health. For these challenges, support is offered through EW Nutrition’s VENTAR D and ACTIVO LIQUID, phytomolecule-based products for the feed and the waterline, respectively.

Maintain gut health

Gut health is one of the essential preconditions for efficient growth. Only a healthy gut guarantees efficient digestion and absorption of nutrients. Several approaches are recommended to maintain gut health:

• Promotion of beneficial and reduction of pathogenic gut flora: here, solutions can come in the shape of products based on phy­tomolecules that can be applied with the feed (VENTAR D) or the water (ACTIVO LIQUID)
• Management of bacterial toxins and mycotoxins: for this topic, products mitigating the toxins’ negative impact on the birds (Product range of MASTERSORB and SOLIS) are offered

Protect your feed

When feed is stored, there is always the risk of bacteria, mold, or yeast overgrowth. Oxidation of feed ingredients, such as fats and oils, reduces their nutritional value. These issues can be prevented by applying:

• Acidifiers that have antimicrobial effects due to their pH-decreasing effect, which, later on, improves the feed digestibility and stabilizes the GIT flora (ACIDOMIX, FORMYCINE, and PRO-STABIL)
• Antioxidants preserving ingredients susceptible to oxidation, such as fats and oils (AGRADO, SANTOQUIN, and STABILON)

Improve pellet quality

Moisture retention during the conditioning process influences pellet quality: higher moisture retention entails a higher starch gelatinization resulting in higher digestibility, pellet binding, fewer fines, and a higher PDI. Surfactants (for example, SURF•ACE) are compounds that can reduce the surface tension between the water and the feed, improving moisture absorption during the conditioning process.

Besides that, moist steam in the pelleting process penetrates better and has a higher antimicrobial effect leading to lower production of bacterial and mycotoxins. The possible reduction of the pelleting temperature protects the nutrients.

ABR in broiler production is practicable – by observing some rules

As shown above, antibiotic-reduced broiler production needs many aspects to be considered and a lot of measures to be taken. All of these measures seek to keep animals healthy and avoid antibiotic use. Maintaining gut health is crucial, as only a healthy gut performs well, achieves the optimal utilization of nutrients, and increases growth performance.

Maintaining a successful production unit with no or reduced antibiotic use requires a holistic approach in which best practices must be assured at all levels of the production chain. The feed additive industry provides a broad range of solutions to support animal production through this challenging task. The objective could not be more critical: lowering antibiotic resistance to assure the future of animal and human health.

 

References:

Davies, Robert, and Andrew Wales. “Antimicrobial Resistance on Farms: A Review Including Biosecurity and the Potential Role of Disinfectants in Resistance Selection.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 18, no. 3 (2019): 753–74. doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12438

Dewulf, Jeroen, and Van Filip Immerseel. “General Principles of Biosecurity in Animal Production and Veterinary Medicine.” Essay. In Biosecurity in Animal Production and Veterinary Medicine: From Principles to Practice. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CABI, 2019. doi.org/10.1079/9781789245684.0063.

Luyckx, K.Y., S. Van Weyenberg, J. Dewulf, L. Herman, J. Zoons, E. Vervaet, M. Heyndrickx, and K. De Reu. “On-Farm Comparisons of Different Cleaning Protocols in Broiler Houses.” Poultry Science 94, no. 8 (2015): 1986–93. doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev143.

Kreis, Anna. “Broiler Feed Form, Particle Size Assists Performance.” Feed Strategy, September 20, 2019. https://www.feedstrategy.com/poultry-nutrition/broiler-feed-form-particle-size-assists-performance/.

Malone, B. “Litter Amendments: Their Role and Use.” University of Delaware – Agriculture & Natural Ressources – Fact Sheets and Publications. University of Delaware, November 2005. https://www.udel.edu/academics/colleges/canr/cooperative-extension/fact-sheets/litter-amendements/

Neetzon, A. M., Pearson, D., Dorko, N., Bailey, R., Shkarlat, P., Kretschmar-McCluskey, V., Van Lierde, E., Cerrate, S., Swalander, M., Vickery, R., Bruzual, J., Evans, B., Munsch, G., & Janssen, M. (2017, October). Aviagen Brief. Aviagen – Information Library. https://en.aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Broiler_Breeder_Tech_Articles/English/AviagenBrief-ABF-Broiler-EN-17.pdf.

UC Davis Veterinary Medicine. “‘All out All in’ Poultry Management Approach to Disease Control. A Guide for Poultry Owners.” Poultry-UC ANR, March 2019. https://ucanr.edu/sites/poultry/files/301023.pdf

 

By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor, EW Nutrition

Eggs are an unparalleled source of nutrition for humans. Apart from being tasty and easy to cook, they are an essential ingredient for pasta, cakes, ice cream, and more. More importantly, they provide high-value proteins with amino acids we cannot produce, various B-vitamins, fat-soluble vitamins, and trace elements.

Assessing the value of the egg

The quality characteristics of eggs are usually divided into external features, such as:

·        egg weight
·        egg shape
·        shell structure
·        shell crack resistance
·        dynamic shell resistance
·        shell color

and internal characteristics, including:

·        albumen weight
·        Haugh unit (a measure of egg protein quality)
·        yolk height,
·        yolk diameter,
·        albumen pH,
·        yolk pH
·        yolk color

For consumers, yolk color is probably the most important criterion for egg quality. Higher color intensity often is taken as indicating the good health of the laying hen.

Depending on the region or on the culture, people prefer more yellow or more orange yolks. In countries with traditional corn feeding, e.g., Mexico, they often like a deep yellow. In Northern Europe, consumers prefer a lighter yellow; in Southern Europe, more gold-orange yolks (see table 1).

Country	Yolk color fan value*
Belgium	12-13
Denmark	9-10
Finland	9-10
France	11-12
Germany	11-14
Greece	11
Italy	12-13
Netherlands	7-9
Austria	12-14
Portugal	12-14
Spain	11-14
Sweden	9-10
United Kingdom	10-11

Table 1. Egg pigmentation preferences – variation across European countries
* Values range from 1 (very pale yellow) to 16 (intense orange)

Egg yolk color is achieved via feed

The typical color of the yolk depends on pigments that are ingested with the feed. Corn and alfalfa meal provide the yellow pigments lutein and zeaxanthin, belonging to the xanthophylls, a sub-group of carotenoids. The golden-orange color is provided by red pigments from chili or paprika (Grashorn, 2008). Egg yolks start changing color about 48 h after the application of xanthophylls.

To reach an optimal yolk coloration in egg production, diets should be supplemented with yellow and red xanthophylls. Yellow xanthophylls achieve a correct yellow base coloration. The main yellow pigments used in poultry feeding are apoester, a synthetic carotenoid, and saponified marigold extracts, a natural alternative containing lutein and zeaxanthin. For the redness, paprika or chili offer natural sources; canthaxanthin is a nature-identical red xanthophyll.

For a long time, synthetic colorants were the substances of choice in the poultry industry because they provide consistently predictable results and high product stability. However, consumers’ preferences concerning food have shifted; demand favors natural over synthetic food ingredients. Moreover, current EU regulations restrict these synthetic molecules’ inclusion level due to their potentially harmful effects on human health if applied in excessive doses.

Carotenoid	Maximum inclusion level
Apoester (ethyl ester of β-apo-8’-carotenoic acid)	5 ppm
Canthaxanthin (β,β-Carotene-4,4′-dione)	8 ppm

Table 2. Maximum concentration allowed in feed for poultry production

Fortunately, there is already a natural, highly efficient option to replace apoester.

Lutein: a natural colorant, antioxidant, and provider of health benefits

One of these natural compounds is lutein, a lipophilic pigment. It is extracted from marigold petals, which contain up to 8.5 mg/g wet weight. Lutein is always accompanied by its isomer zeaxanthin.

Lutein – the yolk colorant

The use of xanthophylls such as lutein and zeaxanthin enables producers to safely control the color of the egg yolk and the broiler skin. In poultry, the carotenoids are deposited in high quantities in the epidermis, the fatty tissue, and the egg yolk. According to Grashorn (2016), between 4.4-23 % of dietary lutein and 23 % of dietary zeaxanthin are deposited in the egg yolk.

Lutein – the antioxidant protects the egg lipids

Another critical characteristic of lutein is its antioxidant effect. Egg yolks contain a high fat content. Therefore, they are very susceptible to lipid oxidation. Lutein, acting as an antioxidant, can prevent or at least limit lipid oxidation during egg processing. Kljak et al. (2021) compared different sources of pigments (basil, calendula, dandelion, marigold, and an industrial product containing canthaxanthin) concerning their antioxidant capacity. In this trial, marigold improved the yolks’ oxidative stability by 75 % compared to the control, with canthaxanthin showing no antioxidant effect. Kljak et al. attributed this effect to the carotenoids in the marigold extract.

Lutein – a value-added ingredient

Lutein and its isomer are nutritionally valuable and, therefore, welcome ingredients of the eggs. Once more, due to their antioxidant effects, they play an essential role in preventing and reducing cataracts and age-related eye dysfunctionalities in humans and animals (Landrum & Bone, 2001; Wang et al., 2016).

However, the amounts of antioxidant pigments in a standard egg are not very high (approx. 400 µg/egg). Compared to the total amount of antioxidants ingested, their importance for humans is only limited (Grashorn, 2008). The situation is different for functional eggs, which are widely sold in certain English-speaking countries. These eggs are enriched with n-3 fatty acids and with antioxidants such as ß-carotene (approx. 150 IE/egg).

Can natural pigments be as effective as synthetic apoester?

The precondition for the deposition of lutein in the egg or the skin is its absorption in the intestine. This absorption makes the difference between the synthetic apoester and the traditional yellow natural xanthophylls (lutein/zeaxanthin). In the case of traditional yellow xanthophylls, about three parts of the product are necessary to achieve the same effectiveness as one part of apoester.

With special technology owned by EW Nutrition, it is possible to improve the absorption of natural carotenoids and, therefore, the efficacy of lutein products. Only about 1.25 parts are then needed to replace one part of apoester.

Trial 1: A new generation of pigment products as effective as apoester

A trial was conducted in Spain to compare the effectiveness of apoester and a new generation natural pigment in combination with canthaxanthin.

For the trial, 288 layers (Hy-Line Brown, 39 weeks of age) were divided into 12 groups with 8 replications and 3 hens per replication. The trial consisted of a 7-week xanthophyll depletion and a 4-week experimental phase. The products included in the trial were a natural lutein product produced with a unique absorption-improving technology (Colortek Yellow, CTY), the synthetic xanthophyll apoester, and canthaxanthin. Three yolk color fan (YCF) targets were tested (10, 11, and 12).

For canthaxanthin, 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0 ppm were used. Within these groups of three different canthaxanthin concentrations, different concentrations of Colortek Yellow and apoester were applied to an otherwise xanthophyll-free diet:

Group	YCF target	Ratio CTY/APO	Yellow pigment source	Dose yellow TX* (ppm)	Dose red CTX** (ppm)
T1 T2 T3 T4	10	x 1.00 x 1.25 x 1.50	Apoester CTY CTY CTY	2.50 2.50 3.13 3.75	1.50
T5 T6 T7 T8	11	x 1.00 x 1.25 x 1.50	Apoester CTY CTY CTY	2.50 2.50 3.13 3.75	2.00
T9 T10 T11 T12	12	x 1.00 x 1.25 x 1.50	Apoester CTY CTY CTY	2.50 2.50 3.13 3.75	3.00

Table 3. Trial design | *   TX= total xanthophylls | ** CTX = Canthaxanthin

The colors of the egg yolks were measured with the help of the DSM egg yolk color fan.

Figure 1 shows that Colortek Yellow at a 1.25 fold concentration as apoester (3.13 ppm) provided the same result as apoester regarding YCF target 11 (= canthaxanthin concentration of 2.00 ppm). In the case of YCF target 12 (= canthaxanthin concentration of 3.00 ppm), the same yolk color as apoester could be achieved using Colortek Yellow at a 1.25 or 1.5-fold concentration as apoester. Furthermore, it could be seen that the recommendations for apoester were overestimated and yielded color results 1 point above the target.

Figure 1. Egg yolk color values achieved by the use of apoester (APO) and different concentrations of Colortek Yellow (CTY)
* a, b, c, d: different superscripts mean statistical difference (P<0.05)

Can lutein be as stable as synthetic pigments like apoester?

Another potential disadvantage of natural pigments is lower stability. By accelerating saponification in a continuous process, producing a product with low moisture and a high content of xanthophylls is possible. This process leads to higher stability of the product and prolongs the shelf life.

Trial 2: New generation pigment shows better stability than apoester

In this trial, the stability of products containing either a new generation natural colorant (Colortek Yellow) or apoester was tested. A vitamin-mineral premix containing 12.5 % choline chloride and one of the tested products were stored in closed bags at 30 °C and 75 % relative humidity. The recovery of the substances was tested after one, two, and three months.

The trial shows higher recovery rates for Colortek Yellow than for apoester at a longer storage time (Figure 2). This new technology, therefore, provides natural pigments with higher stability than products containing synthetic apoester.

Figure 2. Recovery rates of apoester and Colortek Yellow after different times of storage (%)

New-generation natural pigments beat traditional synthetic options

The trend towards natural food ingredients also affects egg yolk color: consumers want natural alternatives to get their preferred yolk color, and regulators are imposing ever stricter limits on synthetic additives. Natural pigments have historically had two limiting characteristics compared to synthetic ones, their lower absorption and their lower stability. Due to new technologies, natural pigmentation products such as Colortek Yellow can now offer absorption rates comparable to apoester and even higher stability – making them the optimal replacement for synthetic colorants.

 

References

Grashorn, M. “Eiqualität.” In Legehuhnzucht und Eiererzeugung. Empfehlungen für die Praxis (special issue 322) edited by W. Brade, G. Flachowsky, and L. Schrader, 18-33. Landbauforschung – vTI Agriculture and Forestry Research, 2008

Grashorn, M. “Feed additives for influencing chicken meat and egg yolk color.” In Handbook on Natural Pigments in Food and Beverages. Industrial Applications for Improving Food Color, edited by R. Carle and R.M. Schweiggert, 283-302. Woodhead Publishing, 2016.

https://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-03842-7

Kljak, K., K. Carović-Stanko, I. Kos, Z. Janječić , G. Kiš, M. Duvnjak, T. Safner, and D. Bedeković. “Plant carotenoids as pigment sources in laying hen diets: effect on yolk color, carotenoid content, oxidative stability and sensory properties of eggs.” Foods 10, no. 4 (2021):721

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040721

Landrum, J. T. and R.A. Bone. “Lutein, zeaxanthin, and the macular pigment.” Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 385 no. 1 (2001): 28–40.

https://doi.org/10.1006/abbi.2000.2171.

Wang, W., J., C. Moore, J. Jackson, and K. Narfström. “Antioxidant supplementation increases retinal responses and decreases refractive error changes in dogs.” J. Nutr. Sci. 5 e18 (2016): 7 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jns.2016.5

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 or more mycotoxins per sample

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

Aflatoxin: Main concern for South Asia

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

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

Impact Aflatoxins have a negative impact on animal performance, as they affect the function of liver and kidney, alter the immune function, and impair protein synthesis. This affects weight gain, feed efficiency and mortality. Carryover into milk, eggs and edible organs is possible with high or chronic intake of the toxin.

Fumonisins: Main concern for LATAM, also global

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

Impact The main issue with the typical contamination levels of fumonisins – often considered of low risk – is their capacity to disrupt gut health. As their absorption is low, fumonisins interact with other toxins and the gut barrier components, including those affecting immunity and the microbiome. They are known to decrease the available surface for nutrient digestion and absorption, and to increase the risk and incidence of gut-related diseases. As a result, lower productivity is expected in animals exposed to even low levels of this toxin.

Deoxynivalenol (DON): Present worldwide

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

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

Impact Deoxynivalenol shows a broad spectrum of toxic effects in animals. In poultry and swine, for instance, this mycotoxin is related to lesions in the gastrointestinal tract and alterations in the immune response. This, in turn, leads to lower productivity and poor feed efficiency. DON also interacts with the microbiome, and it is known that it favors the colonization of coliform bacteria in pigs.

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

T2: A danger for poultry producers word-wide

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

Impact T-2 s is a potent inhibitor of protein synthesis, which affects actively dividing cells, such as the lining of the gastrointestinal tract, skin, and immune cells. The consequences include weight loss or poor weight gain, diarrhea, skin and beak lesions, and decreased production. T-2 is de-epoxidated in the rumen to HT-2 and neosolaniol, which are significantly less toxic than the parent toxin. In acidotic animals, rumen detoxification of T-2 toxin is impaired and animals may show gastroenteritis and intestinal hemorrhages.

Zearalenone: 80% positive tests globally

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

Impact Especially in pig breeding, Zearalenone is an important issue, due to its high absorption and rapid biotransformation into more estrogenic components. Its structural similarity with 17β-estradiol leads this toxin to impair reproductive performance in cows and sows. Recent studies point to interactions of Zearalenone with immune cells and organs in animals, leading to alterations in cell viability, proliferation, and functionality. Consequences are alterations of the immune response, enhancing the effects of other challenges.

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

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

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

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

By Predrag Persak, Regional Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

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

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

 

Where does poultry pigmentation come from?

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

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

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

1. Product quality is essential

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

Content and quality of active substances determine efficacy

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

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

Adequate measures ensure the stability of the pigment in the product

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

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

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

2. Pigment intake, absorption, and deposition affect pigmentation

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

Feed intake is correlated to pigment intake

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

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

Feed intake is also influenced by other elements:

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

Saponification plays a role in pigment absorption

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

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

Some feed materials and nutrients influence pigment absorption

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

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

Mycotoxins affect feed intake and absorption

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

Impacted gut health is bad for pigmentation, too

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Control these 3 factors for best pigmentation results

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

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

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

Not all feed additives are born equal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding customer needs

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

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

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

Meeting unmet needs

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

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

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

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

Selecting the right form of application

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

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

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

The importance of in-vivo evaluations

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

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

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

Case study: Ventar D

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

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

  

Choose your phytogenic products wisely

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

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

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

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

The PCAS certified products are: 

Activo Premium
Activo Premium contains standardized amounts of selected phytomolecules. 

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

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

 

About EW Nutrition 

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

 

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

Contact: 

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

 

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

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

What affects your return on investment?

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

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

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

Practice prevention for a secure return on investment

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

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

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

Feed additives for intestinal stabilization

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

An effective solution: Encapsulated phytogenic feed additives

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

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

A complete solution: How Ventar D maximizes your ROI

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

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

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

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

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

The future of feeding is here

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

 

References

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

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

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