By Technical Team, EW Nutrition

In July, Public Health England (PHE), an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care in the United Kingdom, reported a rise of norovirus outbreaks in the country. Norovirus, a highly contagious virus similar to the coronavirus, is the main cause of viral food poisoning from shellfish. Symptoms include vomiting, diarrhea, cramps, as well as muscle aches and headaches.

The PHE press release shows an increase in outbreaks during the last two months, returning to pre-pandemic levels. According to the organization, the number of outbreaks has nearly tripled when compared to the same time period in the last 5 years, affecting people of all age groups and settings in England. Closed places where the virus can spread quickly, especially childcare facilities and nursing homes, are the most affected, as shown below.

Enteric virus outbreaks reported in England during the 2020/2021 season. Source:  National Norovirus and Rotavirus Bulletin, Public Health England, 2021 National Norovirus and Rotavirus Bulletin (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Norovirus: A global problem

The issue is not restricted to England. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), about one out of every five cases of acute gastroenteritis that leads to diarrhea and vomiting is caused by norovirus, responsible for over 200,000 deaths and a global economic burden of more than $60 billion. The large costs come from healthcare costs and productivity losses and can be seen in low, middle, and high-income countries as shown below.

Global economic burden of norovirus gastroenteritis. Source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151219.t003

Prevention is key

Noroviruses is easily transmitted through contact with infected individuals or contaminated surfaces. There are many ways to reduce the spread of the virus (e.g., washing the hand thoroughly with soap and water) but prevention is key.

The outbreaks often occur from contaminated oysters or other shellfish which are consumed raw, making foodborne transmission accountable for a considerable number of cases. The conventional cleaning and purifying methods currently used in the industry cannot reliably reduce the number of norovirus contained in its digestive organ, therefore it is of extreme necessity to look new solutions to improve safety in shellfish production. And this is exactly what EW Nutrition does.

Combatting the norovirus: the IgY solution

With our mission to mitigate the impact of antimicrobial resistance in mind, we developed a new technology to improve food safety in shellfish production. Our solution is based on a high value source of natural egg immunoglobulins (IgY), which will prevent the virus from infecting the oyster’s digestive organ.

This method consists in adding anti-norovirus IgY to the seawater during the depuration process, which is a postharvest treatment where the shellfish are placed in tanks of clean seawater to reduce contaminant levels and allow shellfish to cleanse or purge themselves by continuation of their normal filter-feeding and digestive processes.

Natural, effective, and safe

While depuration is a highly effective and very common commercial practice for removing different pathogens, several studies show that the depuration process alone is not enough to remove completely or lower the norovirus to a safe level. On the other hand, various trial results show that shellfish treated with EW Nutrition technology is completely free from or has very low amount of live norovirus, allowing a safe consumption of raw oysters and minimizing the risk of any other outbreaks.

For more information about our solution, you can reach out to Lucas Queiroz or to your local EW Nutrition contact.

References

Bartsch et al. 2016. Global Economic Burden of Norovirus Gastroenteritis. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151219

 Lee, R.; Lovatelli, A.; Ababouch, L. Bivalve depuration: fundamental and practical aspects. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 511. Rome, FAO. 2008. 139p.

National Norovirus and Rotavirus Bulletin, Public Health England, 2021 National Norovirus and Rotavirus Bulletin (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Norovirus outbreaks increasing in England – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Norovirus Worldwide | CDC

by Predrag Persak, Regional Technical Manager North Europe, EW Nutrition

The main sustainability challenge for broiler production lies in securing enough high-quality, nutritious, safe, and readily available food at a reasonable cost. At times, feed ingredients have to be included that are not nutritionally ideal and might compromise one’s broilers’ health and wellbeing. However, counteracting this threat with prophylactic antibiotics is not acceptable: We must minimize the use of antibiotics to mitigate antimicrobial resistance. The way forward is to go beyond static and linear nutritional value-to-price thinking. A dynamic nutritional strategy focusing on the interdependencies between ingredients, gut, microbiome, and digestion, enables sustainable ABF broiler production.

Sustainable ABF broiler production requires a dynamic, gut health-oriented nutritional strategy

Sustainability vs. ABF production – is there a trade-off?

The United Nations’ 1987 Brundtland report offers a clear definition of sustainability as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” “Ability” includes the availability of resources – and in broiler production, which is one of the most efficient livestock productions, resources have always been a top priority. As a constantly evolving industry, broiler production has been quick to adopt sustainability into its management strategies. The use of the resource that is antibiotics, however, poses particular challenges.

Humans and animals depend on antibiotics to fight microbial infections. It is essential to maintain their efficacy so that future generations can lead healthy lives. Antibiotic efficacy is under threat from the development of antimicrobial resistance, which emerges from overuse and misuse in both human and veterinary medicine. Across the globe, broilers are still raised with the assistance of antibiotics. Either for disease therapy, to prevent disease occurrence, and still, in some parts of the world, to enhance performance. Driven by regulatory and consumer demands, broiler production with minimal or no use of antibiotics is rapidly gaining importance.

The challenges of antibiotic-free broiler production

ABF systems encounter numerous challenges since production requirements change drastically. Stock density must be lower; it takes longer to reach the desired weight; and more feed is needed to produce the same amount, with a higher risk of morbidity and mortality (Cervantes, 2015). The latter can result in more birds needing treatment with medically important antimicrobial drugs. All those challenges need to be overcome by adopting suitable strategies related to nutrition, genetics, management, biosecurity, welfare, and food safety.

As animal nutritionists, our focus lies on nutrition, feed, feed materials, additives, feed processing, feeding, and their (positive or negative) influence on the sustainability of ABF broiler production. However, we cannot look at these dimensions of production as a separate process. They are linked in the whole food chain and are affected by changes that happen in other related parts. An obvious example is feed production, which has an enormous impact on the overall sustainability of ABF broiler production:

• Due to raw material shortages, diets are becoming ever more complex, containing more single feed ingredients. For some of them, we need a better understanding of their impact on ABF broiler production (e.g., sunflower, rapeseed, beans, lupins).
• The nutritional composition of raw materials changes due to limitations in fertilizer use, and variability within the same raw material group is expected to increase.
• New food waste-reducing feed materials can enhance feed security but also require nutritional profiling to integrate them into diets.
• Local feed material production in humid and warm environments can introduce various pathogens into the feed/food chain.
• Increases in known and the emergence of new antinutrients and feed components that impair animal health, performance, and feed efficiency.
• Sustainability-driven pesticide reduction raises concerns about mycotoxins contaminating feed ingredients.
• Nutrient reduction to support gut health and, primarily, lower the excretion of nitrogen and phosphorous, negatively affects growth, nutritional standards, and the ability to freely select feed materials to include in broiler diets.
• The value (of which price is also part) of raw materials will be compromised, due to availability and nutritional variability.

Mycotoxin contaminated-feed can damage production animals’ performance, health, and welfare

When striving for a sustainable ABF broiler production approach, the possibility for errors becomes higher, while the error margin becomes smaller. The solution lies in helping the animals to mitigate the impact of stressors by focusing on the interaction of ingredients, gut, microbiome, and digestion. It is a holistic approach centered on gut health. Keeping the intestines BEAUTIful will help you produce in challenging conditions without the use of antimicrobials.

Keep the broiler gut BEAUTIful and resilient to stress

The BEAUTIful formula captures the six areas producers need to target for supporting broiler gut health:

Barrier

If it’s working correctly, the effective gatekeeper knows what gets in and what stays out. When the barrier function is compromised due to stress, pathogens can cause infections, disrupt health, and negatively impact broiler immunity. Necrotic enteritis, femoral head necrosis, and bacterial chondronecrosis with osteomyelitis (BCO) are common diseases that affect today’s broiler production (Wideman, 2015). As the source of nutrients, feed serves as a modulator of various physiological functions in the intestinal tract, including intestinal barrier function.

Enzymatic digestion

The gut is where endogenous and exogenous enzymes perform their hydrolysis functions to break down complex nutrients into the parts that can be used either by the intestinal tissue itself or for the whole animal. One part of hybrid enzymatic digestion is the fermentation by commensal microbes, in which complex materials form end-products of high biological values (such as short-chain fatty acids, SCFA).

Absorption

Maintaining the gut’s resorptive capacity is essential to secure the total intake of digested nutrients. Otherwise, pathogenic bacteria might use the excess nutrients to grow, form toxins, and affect the birds’ health and productivity.

United microbiome

The intestine of a broiler chicken is colonized by more than 800 species of bacteria and other inhabitants, such as viruses and simple organisms that are still unknown. By competitive exclusion and secretion of bacteriocins (volatile fatty acids, organic acids, and natural antimicrobial compounds), commensal bacteria keep the host safe from an overgrowth of dangerous bacteria (e.g., Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Clostridium perfringens). The fine-tuned diversity in the intestinal flora and balance in all interactions between it, the host, and the ingesta are needed for birds to stay healthy and perform well.

Transport

Birds’ digestive tract volumes are smaller than those of mammals with similar body weight. This means that they achieve more efficient nutrient digestion in a shorter retention time, averaging between 5 and 6 hours. Passing the small intestine usually takes around 3 hours, of which 1 hour is spent in the duodenum and jejunum. Transport times are affected by the feeding system and the extent to which material enters the caeca. Reflux of material from the distal to the proximal small intestine is an important feature that helps digestion and maintenance of a healthy gut.

Immunity

The intestinal microbiota is critically important for the development and stimulation of the immune system. The intestine is the key immunological organ, comprised of myeloid and lymphoid cells, and a site for producing many immune cell types needed to initiate and mediate immunity. Together with the microbiome, dendritic cells induce antigen-specific responses and form immunoglobulin A, which works in the intestinal lumen.

Natural gut health solution for sustainable ABF broiler production

In practice, supporting broiler gut health requires a holistic approach that includes natural feed additive solutions. Phytomolecules are compounds that certain plants develop as defenses mechanisms. Phytomolecules-based solutions should feature prominently in sustainable ABF broiler production approaches due to their advantageous properties:

Enhance digestion, manage variability

Sustainability necessitates efficient resource utilization. Digestion support needs to be a priority to use the available feed in its entirety. This is particularly important if antibiotics use needs to be minimized: a maximum of nutrients should be utilized by the animal; otherwise, they feed potentially harmful bacteria, necessitating antibiotic treatments. Enhancing digestibility is the focus when we are dealing with variable feed materials or feed changes that represent stress to the animal. Selected phytomolecules have proven efficient at improving performance due to enhanced digestion (Zhai et al. 2018).

Work on microbiome and pathogens

The antimicrobial activity of certain phytomolecules can prevent the overgrowth of pathogens in the gastrointestinal tract, thereby reducing dysbacteriosis (Liu et al., 2018) and specific diseases such as necrotic enteritis. Studies on broilers show that they also reduce the adhesion of pathogens to the wall of the intestine. Certain phytomolecules even possess antimicrobial characteristics against antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

Keep gut integrity

Phytomolecules help maintain tight junction integrity, thus preventing leaky gut (Li et al., 2009). As a result, the potential flow of bacteria and their toxins from the gut lumen into the bloodstream is mitigated. Their properties thus make phytomolecules a promising alternative to the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics. 

Trial results: Phytomolecules enhance broiler gut health

To test the efficacy of phytomolecules, we conducted a large-scale field study in Brazil, under practical conditions. The focus was on growth performance, and no growth-promoting antibiotics were used. Lasting 5 months, the trial involved more than 2 million broilers. The birds were divided into a control and a trial group, with two repetitions per group. Both groups were fed the standard feed of the farm. The trial group additionally received 100g of Activo per MT in its finisher feed for 3 weeks. The study clearly shows that Activo supplementation improves performance parameters (daily weight gain, average total gain, and improved feed efficiency), which resulted in a higher production efficiency factor (PEF):

• Activo groups had a 3 % higher average daily weight gain and reached their slaughtering age earlier
• The final weight of Activo groups was about 2.5 % higher than in the control group
• With a 2 points better feed conversion, the animals of the Activo group achieved a 13.67 points higher PEF

Figure 1: Broiler performance results, Activo vs. non-supplemented control group 

Conclusion

Antibiotic-free broiler production is a challenging endeavor: producers need to maintain animal welfare and keep up efficiency while making farming profitable. Over time, these challenges will affect producers even more as sustainability requirements increase across all parts of the broiler production chain. On top of that, coccidiostats, which are essential for efficient broiler production, are increasingly being questioned, which will require concerted research into feed additive solutions.

To make sustainable ABF broiler production the norm, it is unavoidable to adopt suitable strategies related to nutrition, genetics, management, biosecurity, welfare, and food safety. Effective, scientifically and practically proven tools already exist: Thanks to their positive impact on intestinal health, phytomolecules reliably support sustainable broiler production without antibiotics.

References

Cervantes, Hector M. “Antibiotic-Free Poultry Production: Is It Sustainable?” Journal of Applied Poultry Research 24, no. 1 (2015): 91–97. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfv006.

Li, Y., H.Y. Cai, G.H. Liu, X.L. Dong, W.H. Chang, S. Zhang, A.J. Zheng, and G.L. Chen. “Effects of Stress Simulated by Dexamethasone on Jejunal Glucose Transport in Broilers.” Poultry Science 88, no. 2 (2009): 330–37. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00257.

Liu, ShuDong, MinHo Song, Won Yun, JiHwan Lee, ChangHee Lee, WooGi Kwak, NamSoo Han, HyeunBum Kim, and JinHo Cho. “Effects of Oral Administration of Different Dosages of Carvacrol Essential Oils on Intestinal Barrier Function in Broilers.” Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 102, no. 5 (2018): 1257–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12944.

Wideman, Robert F. “Bacterial Chondronecrosis with Osteomyelitis and Lameness in Broilers: a Review.” Poultry Science 95, no. 2 (2016): 325–44. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev320.

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 (2018): 179–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2018.01.005.

Over the past 60 years, antibiotics have played an essential role in the swine industry as a tool that swine producers rely on to control diseases and to reduce mortality. Besides, antibiotics are also known to improve performance, even when used in subtherapeutic doses. The perceived overuse of antibiotics in pig production, especially as growth promoters (AGP), have raised concerns from governments and public opinion, regarding the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria, adding a threat not only to animal but also human health. The challenges raised regarding AGPs and the need for their reduction in livestock led to the development of combined strategies such as the “One Health Approach”, where animal health, human health, and the environment are interlaced and must be considered in any animal production system.

In this scenario of intense changes, swine producers must evaluate strategies to adapt their production systems to accomplish the global pressure to reduce antibiotics and still have a profitable operation.

Many of these concerns focus on piglet nutrition, since the use of sub-therapeutic levels of antimicrobials as growth promotors is still a regular practice for preventing post-weaning diarrhea in many countries (Heo et al., 2013; Waititu et al., 2015). Taking that into consideration, this article serves as a practical guide to swine producers through AGP removal and its impacts on piglet performance and nutrition Three crucial points will be addressed:

1. Why is AGP removal a global trend?
2. What are the major consequences for piglet nutrition and performance?
3. What alternatives do we have to guarantee optimum piglet performance in this scenario?

AGP removal: a global issue

Discussions on the future of the swine industry include understanding how and why AGP removal became such important topic worldwide. Historically, European countries have led discussions on eliminating AGP from livestock production. In Sweden, AGPs were banned from their farms as early as 1986. This move culminated into a total ban of AGPs in the European Union in 2006. Other countries followed same steps. In Korea, AGPs were removed from livestock operations in 2011. The USA is also putting efforts into limiting AGPs and the use of antibiotics in pig farms, as published in guidance revised by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA, 2019). In 2016, Brazil and China banned Colistin, and the Brazilian government also announced the removal of Tylosin, Tiamulin, and Lincomycin in 2020. Moreover, countries like India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Buthan, and Indonesia have announced strategies for AGP restrictions (Cardinal et al., 2019; Davies and Walsh, 2018).

The major argument against AGPs and antibiotics in general is the already mentioned risk of the development of antimicrobial resistance, limiting the available tools to control and prevent diseases in human health. This point is substantiated by the fact that resistant pathogens are not static and exclusive to livestock, but can also spread to human beings (Barbosa and Bünzen, 2021). Moreover, concerns have been raised in regard to the fact that antibiotics in pig production are also used by humans – mainly third-generation antibiotics. The pressure on pig producers increased and it is today multifactorial: from official regulatory departments and stakeholders at different levels, who need to consider public concerns about antimicrobial resistance and its impact on livestock, human health, and the sustainability of farm operations (Stein, 2002).

It is evident that the process of reducing or banning antibiotics and AGPs in pig production is already a global issue and increasing as it takes on new dimensions. As Cardinal et al. (2019) suggest, that process is irreversible. Companies that want to access the global pork market and comply with increasingly stricter regulations on AGPs must re-invent their practices. This, however, is nothing new for the pig industry. For example, pig producers from the US and Brazil have adapted their operations in order to not use ractopamine to meet the requirements from the European and Asian markets. We can be sure, therefore, that the global pig industry will find a way to replace antibiotics.

With that in mind, the next step is to evaluate the consequences of AGP withdrawal from pig diets and how that affects the animals’ overall performance.

Consequences in piglet health and performance

Swine producers know very well that weaning pigs is challenging. Piglets are exposed to many biological stressors during that transitioning period, including introducing the piglets to new feed composition (going from milk to plant-based diets), abrupt separation from the sow, transportation and handling, exposure to new social interactions, and environmental adaptations, to name a few. Such stressors and physiological challenges can negatively impact health, growth performance, and feed intake due to immune systems dysfunctions (Campbell et al. 2013). Antibiotics have been a very powerful tool to mitigate this performance drop. The question then is, how difficult can this process become when AGPs are removed entirely?

Many farmers around the world still depend on AGPs to make the weaning period less stressful for piglets. One main benefit is that antibiotics will reduce the incidence of PWD, with subsequent improved growth performance (Long et al., 2018). The weaning process can create ideal conditions for the overgrowth of pathogens, as the piglets’ immune system is not completely developed and therefore not able to fight back. Those pathogens present in the gastrointestinal tract can lead to post-weaning diarrhea (PWD), among many other clinical diseases (Han et al., 2021). PWD is caused by Escherichia coli and is a global issue in the swine industry, as it compromises feed intake and growth performance throughout the pig’s life, also being a common cause for losses due to young pig death (Zimmerman, 2019).

Cardinal et al. (2021) also highlight that the hypothesis of a reduced intestinal inflammatory response is one explanation for the positive relationship between the use of AGPs and piglet weight gain.  Pluske et al. (2018) point out that overstimulation of the immune system can negatively affect pig growth rate and feed use efficiency. The process is physiologically expensive in terms of energy and also can cause excessive prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) production, leading to fever, anorexia, and reduction in pig performance. For instance, Mazutti et al. (2016) showed an increased weight gain of up to 1.74 kg per pig in animals that received colistin or tylosin in sub-therapeutic levels throughout the nursery. Helm et al. (2019) found that pigs medicated with chlortetracycline in sub-therapeutic levels increased average daily gain in 0.110 kg/day. Both attribute the higher weight to the decreased costs of immune activation determined by the action of AGPs on intestinal microflora.

On the other hand, although AGPs are an alternative for controlling bacterial diseases, they have also proved to be potentially deleterious to the beneficial microbiota and have long-lasting effects caused by microbial dysbiosis – abundance of potential pathogens, such as Escherichia and Clostridium; and a reduction of beneficial bacteria, such as Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, and Lactobacillus (Guevarra et al., 2019; Correa-Fiz, 2019). Furthermore, AGPs reduced microbiota diversity, which was accompanied by general health worsening in the piglets (Correa-Fiz, 2019).

It is also important to highlight that the abrupt stress caused by suckling to weaning transition has consequences in diverse aspects of the function and structure of the intestine, which includes crypt hyperplasia, villous atrophy, intestinal inflammation, and lower activities of epithelial brush border enzyme (Jiang et al., 2019). Also, the movement of bacteria from the gut to the body can occur when the intestinal barrier function is deteriorated, which results in severe diarrhea and growth retardation. Therefore, nutrition and management strategies during that period are critical, and key gut nutrients must be used to support gut function and growth performance.

With all of that, it is more than never necessary to better understand the intestinal composition of young pigs and finding strategies to promote gut health are critical measures for preventing the overgrowth and colonization of opportunistic pathogens, and therefore being able to replace AGPs (Castillo et al., 2007).

Viable alternatives for protecting the piglets

The good news is that the swine industry already has effective alternatives that can replace AGP products and guarantee good animal performance.

Immunoglobulins from egg yolk (IgY) have proven to be a successful alternative to weaned piglet nutrition. Investigations have shown that egg antibodies improve the piglets’ gut microbiota, making it more stable (Han et al., 2021). Moreover, IgY optimizes piglet immunity and performance while reducing occurrences of diarrhea caused by E. coli, rotavirus, and Salmonella sp. (Li et al., 2016).

Phytomolecules (PM) are also potential alternatives for AGP removal, as they are bioactive compounds with antibacterial, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory characteristics (Damjanović-Vratnica et al., 2011; Lee and Shibamoto, 2001). When used for piglet diet supplementation, phytomolecules optimize intestinal health and improve growth performance (Zhai et al., 2018).

Han et al. (2021) evaluated a combination of IgY (Globigen^® Jump Start, EW Nutrition) and phytomolecules (Activo^®, EW Nutrition) supplementation in weaned piglets’ diets. Results from that study (Table 1 and 2) showed that this strategy decreases the incidence of PWD and coliforms, increases feed intake, and improves the intestinal morphology of weaned pigs, making that combination a viable AGP replacement.

Table 1. Effect of dietary treatments on the growth performance of weaned pigs challenged with E. coli K88 (SOURCE: Han et al., 2021).

Table 2. Effect of dietary treatments on the post-weaning diarrhea incidence of weaned pigs challenged with E. coli K88 (%) (SOURCE: Han et al., 2021).

A trial conducted at the Institute of Animal Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China, supplemented weaning pigs challenged by E. coli K88 with a combination of PM (Activo^®, EW Nutrition) and IgY (Globigen^® Jump Start). The trial reported that this combination (AC/GJS) showed fewer diarrhea occurrences than in animals from the positive group (PC) during the first week after the challenge and similar diarrhea incidence to the AGP group during the 7th and 17th days after challenge (Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Incidence of diarrhea (%). NC: negative group, PC: positive group, AGP: supplementation with AGP, AC/GJS: combination of PM (Activo, EW Nutrition) and IgY (Globigen Jump Start).

The same trial also showed that the combination of these non-antibiotic additives was as efficient as the AGPs in improving pig performance under bacterial enteric challenges, showing positive effects on body weight, average daily gain (Figure 2), and feed conversion rate (Figure 3).

Figure 2 – Body weight (kg) and average daily gain (g). NC: negative group, PC: positive group, AGP: supplementation with AGP, AC/GJS: combination of PM (Activo, EW Nutrition) and IgY (Globigen Jump Start).

Figure 3 – Feed conversion rate. NC: negative group, PC: positive group, AGP: supplementation with AGP, AC/GJS: combination of PM (Activo, EW Nutrition) and IgY (Globigen Jump Start).

The multiple benefits of using IgY in piglet nutrition strategies are also highlighted by Rosa et al. (2015), Figure 4, and Prudius (2021).

Figure 4. Effect of treatments on the performance of newly weaned piglets. Means (±SEM) followed by letters a,b,c in the same group of columns differ (p < 0.05). NC (not challenged with ETEC, and diet with 40 ppm of colistin, 2300 ppm of zinc, and 150 ppm of copper). Treatments challenged with ETEC: GLOBIGEN® (0.2% of GLOBIGEN®); DPP (4% of dry porcine plasma); and PC (basal diet) (SOURCE: Rosa et al., 2015).

Conclusions

AGP removal and overall antibiotic reduction seems to be the only direction that the global swine industry must take for the future. From the front line, swine producers demand cost-effective AGP-free products that don’t compromise growth performance and animal health. Along with this demand, finding the best strategies for piglet nutrition in this scenario is critical in minimizing the adverse effects of weaning stress. With that in mind, alternatives such as egg immunoglobulins and phytomolecules are commercial options that are already showing great results and benefits, helping swine producers to go a step further into the future of swine nutrition.

References

Damjanović-Vratnica, Biljana, Tatjana Đakov, Danijela Šuković and Jovanka Damjanović, “Antimicrobial effect of essential oil isolated from Eucalyptus globulus Labill. from Montenegro,” Czech Journal of Food Sciences 29, no. 3 (2011): 277-284.

Pozzebon da Rosa, Daniele, Maite de Moraes Vieira, Alexandre Mello Kessler, Tiane Martin de Moura, Ana Paula Guedes Frazzon, Concepta Margaret McManus, Fábio Ritter Marx, Raquel Melchior and Andrea Machado Leal Ribeiro, “Efficacy of hyperimmunized hen egg yolks in the control of diarrhea in newly weaned piglets,” Food and Agricultural Immunology 26, no. 5 (2015): 622-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540105.2014.998639

Freitas Barbosa, Fellipe, Silvano Bünzen. Produção de suínos em épocas de restrição aos antimicrobianos–uma visão global. In: Suinocultura e Avicultura: do básico a zootecnia de precisão (2021): 14-33. https://dx.doi.org/10.37885/210203382

Correa-Fiz, Florencia, José Maurício Gonçalves dos Santos, Francesc Illas and Virginia Aragon, “Antimicrobial removal on piglets promotes health and higher bacterial diversity in the nasal microbiota,” Scientific reports 9, no. 1 (2019): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43022-y

Food and Drug Administration [FDA]. 2019. Animal drugs and animal food additives. Avaliable at: https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/development-approval-process/veterinary-feeddirective-vfd

Stein, Hans H , “Experience of feeding pigs without antibiotics: a European perspective,” Animal Biotechnology 13 no. 1(2002): 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1081/abio-120005772

Helm, Emma T, Shelby Curry, Julian M Trachsel, Martine Schroyen, Nicholas K Gabler, “Evaluating nursery pig responses to in-feed sub-therapeutic antibiotics”, PLoS One 14 no. 4 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216070.

Hengxiao Zhai, Hong Liu, Shikui Wang, Jinlong Wu and Anna-Maria Kluenter, “Potential of essential oils for poultry and pigs,” Animal Nutrition 4, no. 2 (2018): 179-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2018.01.005

Pluske, J. R., Kim, J. C., Black, J. L. “Manipulating the immune system for pigs to optimise performance,” Animal Production Science 58, no 4, (2018): 666-680. https://doi.org/10.1071/an17598

Zimmerman, Jeffrey, Locke Karriker, Alejandro Ramirez, Kent Schwartz, Gregory Stevenson, Jianqiang Zhang (Eds.), “Diseases of Swine,” 11 (2019), Wiley Blackwell.

Campbell, Joy M, Joe D Crenshaw & Javier Polo, “The biological stress of early weaned piglets”, Journal of animal science and biotechnology 4, no. 1 (2013):1-4. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-1891-4-19

Jung M. Heo, Opapeju, F. O., Pluske, J. R., Kim, J. C., Hampson, D. J., & Charles M. Nyachoti, “Gastrointestinal health and function in weaned pigs: a review of feeding strategies to control post‐weaning diarrhoea without using in‐feed antimicrobial compounds,” Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition 97, no. 2 (2013): 207-237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2012.01284.x

Junjie Jiang, Daiwen Chen, Bing Yu, Jun He, Jie Yu, Xiangbing Mao, Zhiqing Huang, Yuheng Luo, Junqiu Luo, Ping Zheng, “Improvement of growth performance and parameters of intestinal function in liquid fed early weanling pigs,” Journal of animal science 97, no. 7 (2019): 2725-2738. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz134

Cardinal, Kátia Maria, Ines Andretta, Marcos Kipper da Silva, Thais Bastos Stefanello, Bruna Schroeder and Andréa Machado Leal Ribeiro, “Estimation of productive losses caused by withdrawal of antibiotic growth promoter from pig diets – Meta-analysis,” Scientia Agricola 78, no.1 (2021): e20200266. http://doi.org/10.1590/1678-992X-2020-0266

Cardinal, Katia Maria, Marcos Kipper, Ines Andretta and Andréa Machado Leal Ribeiro, “Withdrawal of antibiotic growth promoters from broiler diets: Performance indexes and economic impact,” Poultry science 98, no. 12 (2019): 6659-6667. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez536

Mazutti, Kelly, Leandro Batista Costa, Lígia Valéria Nascimento, Tobias Fernandes Filho, Breno Castello Branco Beirão, Pedro Celso Machado Júnior, Alex Maiorka, “Effect of colistin and tylosin used as feed additives on the performance, diarrhea incidence, and immune response of nursery pigs”, Semina: Ciências Agrárias 37, no. 4 (2016): 1947. https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2016v37n4p1947

Lee, Kwang-Geun and Takayuki Shibamoto, “Antioxidant activities of volatile components isolated from Eucalyptus species,” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 81, no. 15 (2001): 1573-1579. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.980

Long, S. F., Xu, Y. T., Pan, L., Wang, Q. Q., Wang, C. L., Wu, J. Y., … and Piao, X. S. Mixed organic acids as antibiotic substitutes improve performance, serum immunity, intestinal morphology and microbiota for weaned piglets,” Animal Feed Science and Technology 235, (2018): 23-32.

Davies, Madlen and Timothy R. Walsh, “A colistin crisis in India,” The Lancet. Infectious diseases 18, no. 3 (2018): 256-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(18)30072-0

Castillo, Marisol, Susana M Martín-Orúe, Miquel Nofrarías, Edgar G Manzanilla and Josep Gasa, “Changes in caecal microbiota and mucosal morphology of weaned pigs”, Veterinary microbiology 124, no. 3-4 (2007): 239-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.04.026

Dyar, Oliver J, Jia Yin, Lilu Ding, Karin Wikander, Tianyang Zhang, Chengtao Sun, Yang Wang, Christina Greko, Qiang Sun and Cecilia Stålsby Lundborg, “Antibiotic use in people and pigs: a One Health survey of rural residents’ knowledge, attitudes and practices in Shandong province, China”, Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 73, no. 10 (2018): 2893-2899. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dky240

Prudius, T. Y., Gutsol, A. V., Gutsol, N. V., & Mysenko, O. O “Globigen Jump Start usage as a replacer for blood plasma in prestarter feed for piglets,” Scientific Messenger of LNU of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnologies, Series: Agricultural sciences 23, no. 94 (2021): 111-116. https://doi.org/10.32718/nvlvet-a9420

Guevarra, Robin B., Jun Hyung Lee, Sun Hee Lee, Min-Jae Seok, Doo Wan Kim, Bit Na Kang, Timothy J. Johnson, Richard E. Isaacson and Hyeun Bum, “Piglet gut microbial shifts early in life: causes and effects,” Journal of animal science and biotechnology 10, no. 1 (2019): 1-10. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2Fs40104-018-0308-3

Waititu, Samuel M., Jung M. Heo, Rob Patterson and Charles M. Nyachoti, “Dose-response effects of in-feed antibiotics on growth performance and nutrient utilization in weaned pigs fed diets supplemented with yeast-based nucleotides,” Animal Nutrition 1, no. 3 (2015): 166-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2015.08.007

Xiaoyu Li, Ying Yao, Xitao Wang, Yuhong Zhen, Philip A Thacker, Lili Wang, Ming Shi, Junjun Zhao, Ying Zong, Ni Wang, Yongping Xu. “Chicken egg yolk antibodies (IgY) modulate the intestinal mucosal immune response in a mouse model of Salmonella typhimurium infection,” International immunopharmacology 36, (2016) 305-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2016.04.036

Yunsheng Han, Tengfei Zhan, Chaohua Tang, Qingyu Zhao, Dieudonné M Dansou, Yanan Yu, Fellipe F Barbosa, Junmin Zhang. Effect of Replacing in-Feed Antibiotic Growth Promoters with a Combination of Egg Immunoglobulins and Phytomolecules on the Performance, Serum Immunity, and Intestinal Health of Weaned Pigs Challenged with Escherichia coli K88. Animals 11, no. 5 (2021): 1292. https://doi.o

by Ruturaj Patil, Product Manager Phytogenic Liquids, EW Nutrition

Commercial poultry operations have undergone enormous changes in production practices over the last 50 years. Genetic selection for high production rates, along with upgraded management techniques and dietary measures, have led to increased performance standards in all poultry operations (Kogut et al., 2017). However, it is sensible to now look into whether poultry performance may soon reach a ceiling due to genetic and/or physiological limits. So, aiming at further performance optimization, poultry researchers and producers are now focusing on gut health.

Gut health management is key to sustainably improve poultry performance

The caveat, of course, is that, due to concerns about antimicrobial resistance, antimicrobial growth promoters (AGPs) no longer offer the easy answer to gut health issues they once were. To preserve antibiotics’ efficacy for cases where they are indispensable, gut health-oriented performance enhancement needs to come from other sources. This article reviews the principles of gut health management in poultry and shows how Activo liquid, a phytomolecules-based in-water solution, strengthens poultry performance by targeting gut health.

Gut health: the cradle of poultry performance

Gastrointestinal health in poultry birds encompasses three dimensions: microflora balance, gut structural integrity, and immune system status. The gut plays a vital and diverse role as it hosts most microorganisms in the body, contains more than twenty different hormones, digests and absorbs the nutrients, and accounts for 20% of body energy expenditure (Choct, 2021). When gut health is compromised, digestion and nutrient absorption are affected, with likely detrimental effects on feed conversion, followed by economic loss and greater disease susceptibility.  Disease resistance and nutrient utilization largely depend on maintaining a beneficial gut antioxidant status, improving gut integrity, and modulating the gut microbiota (Oviedo-Rondón, 2019).

In birds, the gut is separated into five distinct regions (Figure 1): crop, proventriculus, gizzard, small intestine (duodenum, jejunum, and ileum), and large intestine (ceca, cloaca, and vent). Each of these regions has a specific role in the secretion of digestive juices and enzymes, the grinding of feed particles and then the digestion and absorption of nutrients (Bailey 2019).

Figure 1: Schematic overview of poultry gastrointestinal tract

Factors affecting gut health

Gut health is influenced by the balance between the physiological health status of host, the gut microbiota, and a range of specific factors, all of which producers need to consider. From a management perspective, key factors encompass deprived gut health, biosecurity, and production stress, which is elevated during certain critical stages (see table 1). Environmental factors include humidity, temperature, and ventilation. Dietary factors, such as feed and water quality, feed composition, and mycotoxin contamination, also impact the development and ongoing state of poultry birds’ intestinal microbiota.

Table 1: Critical stages for gut health issues in poultry birds

The future is here: antibiotic reduction through improved gut health

There is a strong trend towards antibiotic-free (ABF) poultry production, fueled by AGP bans in certain regions (such as the European Union) and increasing consumer interest in avoiding products containing traces of AGPs. ABF systems can be profitable as long as the prices for the final ABF products can cover the investment costs necessary to produce these products. Larger-scale, sustainable ABF production will depend on developing a more profound understanding of intestinal health alongside the development of practical applications that foster gut health throughout each step of the production system.

Feed additive solutions to support birds during challenging situations

Feed additive manufacturers are looking into accessible alternatives to mitigate the need for antibiotics in ABF systems, requiring enormous research and development efforts. At EW Nutrition, our approach is to offer a holistic antibiotic reduction program for gut health management in poultry. The program comprises feed- and water-based solutions to support gut health during high-challenge periods. Activo liquid, an in-water solution containing standardized amounts of selected phytomolecules, is a key component of our program. Based on its three-fold mode of action, Activo liquid provides gut health support that improves livability and feed efficiency:

• Antimicrobial activity hinders the growth of potential pathogens
• Better gut integrity and positive microbiota optimize feed efficiency and gut health
• Antioxidant activity at the gut level prevent free radical formation and oxidative stress

As a water-based solution, Activo liquid provides a quick and flexible option for gut health control on poultry farms. The benefits of Activo liquid supplementation have been demonstrated through several scientific and field studies globally.

Activo liquid reduces mortality and improves feed conversion in broilers

Numerous field studies for antibiotic-free broilers across different countries and breeds show: on average, the inclusion of Activo liquid reduces mortality by 0.6% and improves FCR by 5%, compared to non-supplemented control groups (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Changes in livability and feed conversion rate in Activo liquid-supplemented broilers

Activo Liquid supports broiler breeders from start of lay to pre-peak production

Broiler breeders are prone to gut-related issues from the start of lay to pre-peak production (age 24 to 32 weeks). This period is characterized by sudden changes in feed consumption and high production stress. Field studies from Thailand show that Activo liquid supplementation in this phase leads to improved livability and higher laying rates.

A of 34,000 female broiler breeders during the first 9 weeks of production found that for the group receiving Activo Liquid  (200 ml / 1000 L, 5 days per week, 6 hours per day):

• The average laying rate/HH increased by 7.2 % during the trial period,
• Nearly 3  more  hatching  eggs  per  hen  housed  and  about  5  more  hatching  eggs  than  the  genetic standard were produced, and
• Mortality decreased by 0.2 % points compared to the control.

Another study, again evaluating the first 9 weeks of production using 20,000 birds, also found that broiler breeders supplemented with  Activo  Liquid show reduced mortality, a higher laying rate, and more hatching eggs per hen housed (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Performance results from Cobb broiler breeders, Activo liquid supplementation vs. control

Activo program improves layer productivity

Commercial layers often becomes challenged due to stress originating from management issues, gut pathogens, and an improper assimilation of nutrients. The negative impact on gut health can result in poor uniformity, low livability, and impaired body weight gain. The Activo program (a combination of Activo powder and liquid) has been found to improve layer performance, likely because its phytogenic components foster better intestinal integrity and microbiome diversity.

A study of 8 replicates with 36 Hy-line brown laying hens was conducted in China, for instance, testing the inclusion of both Activo (100 g / MT of feed) and Activo Liquid (250 ml / 1000 L for 4 days, every 2 weeks, from week 15 to week 25). It found that the Activo program  can effectively support the animals in coping with NSP-rich diets (Figure 4). Supplemented layers showed 3.36% higher egg production, representing more than 3.5 eggs and more than 150 grams of additional egg mass per hen housed during the period.  Better  gut  health  in  the  Activo  Program  gut  was evidenced  by  a  better  hen  body  weight ,  as  well  as  higher  yolk  color, lower  FCR, and improved  intestinal morphology parameters.

Figure 4: Performance results from Hy-line layers, Activo program vs. control

Conclusion: future improvements in poultry performance will come from the gut

As the trend towards ABF poultry production gains momentum, a concerted focus on supporting birds’ gut health is key to achieving optimal performance. Multiple field studies of Activo liquid application demonstrate that, due to their antimicrobial and antioxidant properties, the phytomolecules present in Activo liquid effectively support birds’ intestinal health during challenging periods.

In combination with good dietary, hygiene and management practices, phytomolecules offer a potent tool for reducing the use of antibiotics. The inclusion of Activo liquid in their birds’ diets allows poultry producers to achieve better gut health and, thus, stronger performance results in a sustainable way.

References

Bailey, Richard A. “Gut Health in Poultry: the World within – Update.” The Poultry Site, July 6, 2021. https://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/gut-health-in-poultry-the-world-within-1.

Choct, Mingan. “The Importance of Managing Gut Health in Poultry.” Poultry Hub Australia, November 26, 2014. https://www.poultryhub.org/importance-managing-gut-health-poultry.

Kogut, Michael H., Xiaonan Yin, Jianmin Yuan, and Leon Bloom. “Gut Health in Poultry.” CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 12, no. 031 (October 1, 2017): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1079/pavsnnr201712031.

Oviedo-Rondón, Edgar O. “Holistic View of Intestinal Health in Poultry.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 250 (2019): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.01.009.

by Inge Heinzl, Editor, and Marisabel Caballero, Global Technical Manager Poultry, EW Nutrition

What is your most crucial key feed performance indicator? We posted this question on an online professional platform and got more than 330 answers from professionals in the industry:

• 55 % of the respondents considered feed efficiency or feed conversion rate (FCR) the key indicator, and
• 35 % listed feed cost / kg produced as their most important indicator.

As feed represents 60-70 % of the total production costs, feed efficiency has a high impact on farm profitability – especially in times of high feed prices. Furthermore, for the meat industry, an optimal FCR is essential for competitiveness against other protein sources. Finally, for food economists, feed efficiency is connected to the optimal use of natural resources (Patience et al., 2015).

In this article, we explain the factors that influence feed efficiency and show options to support animals in optimally utilizing the feed – directly improving the profitability of your operation.

How to measure the feed conversion rate

The FCR shows how efficiently animals utilize their diet for maintenance and net production. In the case of fattening animals, it is meat production; for dairy cows, it is milk, and for layers, it is egg mass (kg) or a specific egg quantity.

The feed conversion rate is the mathematical relation obtained by dividing the amount of feed the animal consumed by the production it provided. The FCR is an index for the degree of feed utilization and shows the amount of feed needed by the animal to produce one kg of meat or egg mass, or, e.g., 10 eggs.

When comparing the FCRs of different groups of animals (e.g., from different houses or farms), some considerations are important:

• Feed consumed is not feed disappeared: Due to differences in feeder design and feeder adjustment, these two values can differ by 10-30 %. If FCR is calculated for economic purposes, the wasted feed must be included, as it causes costs and must be paid by the farmer. However, if FCR is calculated for scientific purposes (e.g., a performance trial), only the feed consumed should be included.
• Even if they are same-aged animals, individuals or groups differ in weight. Hence, they have different requirements for maintenance and also diverging quantity left for production. To avoid mistakes, weight-corrected FCR can be used.
• Nutrient utilization also depends on genotype and sex; thus, comparisons should consider these factors as they also influence weight gain and body composition (Patience et al., 2015).

Many factors influence the FCR

There are internal and external factors that influence feed efficiency. Internal factors originate in the animal and include genetics, age, body composition, and health status. In contrast, external factors include feed composition, processing, and quality, as well as the environment, welfare enrichment, and social aspects.

1. Species

Different species have different body sizes and physiology and, therefore, vary in their growth and maintenance requirements, impacting their efficiency in converting the feed.

Table 1: FCRs of different species

Compared to terrestrial animals, for example, fish and other aquatic animals have a low FCR. Being poikilothermic (animals whose body temperature ranges widely), they don’t spend energy on maintaining their body temperature if the surrounding water is within their optimal range. As they are physically supported by water, they also need less energy to work against gravity. Furthermore, carnivorous fish are offered highly digestible, nutrient-dense feed, which lowers their requirements in quantity. Omnivorous fish, on the other hand, also consume feedstuffs not provided by the producer (e.g., algae and krill), which is not considered in the calculation. Broilers are the only farm animals achieving a similar FCR.

2. Sex, age, and growth phase

Sex determines gene expression related to the regulation of feed intake and nutrient utilization. Males have a better feed conversion and put on more lean meat than females and castrates, which grow slower and easier run to fat.

Young animals have a fast growth rate and are offered nutritionally dense feed; hence, their FCR is lower. When the animal grows and gains weight, its energy requirement for maintenance increases and its growth rate and the feed nutrient density diminish.

Table 2: FCR during different life phases of pigs (based on Adam and Bütfering, 2009)

3. Health and gut health

Health decisively impacts feed conversion. An animal that is challenged by pathogens reduces its feed intake and, thus, decreases growth. Additionally, the body needs energy for the immune defense, the replacement of damaged or lost tissue, and heat production, in case of fever. As many immune components are rich in protein, this is the first nutrient to become limited.

An imbalance in the gut microbiome also impacts feed conversion: pathogenic microorganisms damage tissues, impair nutrient digestion and absorption, and their metabolic products are harmful. Furthermore, pathogens consume nutrients intended for the host and continue to proliferate at its expense.

4. Environment

The environment influences the way the animals spend their maintenance energy. According to Patience (2012), when a 70 kg pig is offered feed ad libitum, 34 % of the daily energy is used for maintenance. For each °C below the thermoneutral zone, an additional 1.5% of feed is needed for maintenance. In heat stress, each °C above the optimum range decreases feed intake by 2%. Therefore, the feed needs to be denser to fulfill the requirement, or the animal will lose weight. Social stress also influences animal performance, especially chronic stress situations. Keeping the animals in their thermoneutral zone and mitigating the impact of stressors means more energy can go towards performance.

5. Feed quantity, composition, and quality

The feed is the source of nutrients animals convert into production. So, it’s natural that its quality and composition, and the availability of nutrients affect feed efficiency.

Better FCR by increasing nutrient density and digestibility

Higher energy content in the diet and better protein digestibility improve FCR. Saldaña et al. (2015) assert that increasing the energy content of a diet led to a linear decrease of the average daily feed intake but improved FCR quadratically. The energy intake by itself remained equal. However, these diet improvements also increase costs, and a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted.

Feed form and particle size play an important role

Feed processing can improve nutrient utilization. Particle size, moisture content, and whether the feed is offered as pellets or mash influence feed efficiency. Reducing the particle size leads to a higher contact surface for digestive enzymes and higher digestibility. Chewning et al. (2012) tested the effect of particle size and feed form on FCR in broilers. They found that pellet diets enable better FCRs than mash diets – one reason is the lower feed waste, another one the smaller feed particle size in the pelleted feed. Comparing the different tested mash diets, the birds receiving feed with a particle size of 300 µm performed better than the birds getting a diet with 600 µm particles.

Richert and DeRouchey (2015) show that pigs’ feed efficiency improved by 1.3 % for every 100 µm when the particle size was reduced from 1000 µm to 400 µm , as the contact surface for the digestible enzymes increased. In weaning piglets of 28-42 days, the increase of particle size from 394 µm to 695 µm worsened FCR from 1.213 to 1.245 (Almeida et al., 2020). There is a flipside to smaller particle size as well, however: high quantities of fines in the diet can lead to stomach ulceration in pigs (Vukmirović et al., 2021).

Non-starch polysaccharide (NSP)-rich cereals worsen FCR

The carbohydrates in feedstuffs such as wheat, rye, and barley are not only energy suppliers, and if not managed well, the inclusion of these raw materials can deteriorate feed conversion. Vegetable structural substances such as cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin (e.g., in bran), are difficult or even impossible to utilize as they lack the necessary enzymes.

Figure 1: Contents of arabinoxylan and ß-glucan in grain (according to Bach Knudsen, 1997)

Additionally, water-soluble NSPs (e.g., pectins, but also ß-glucans and pentosans) have a high water absorption capacity. These gel-forming properties increase the viscosity of the digesta. High viscosity reduces the passage rate and makes it more difficult for digestive enzymes and bile acids to come into contact with the feed components. Also, nutrients’ contact with the resorptive surface is reduced.

Another disadvantage of NSPs is their “cage effect.” The water-insoluble NSPs cellulose and hemicellulose trap nutrients such as proteins and digestible carbohydrates. Consequently, again, digestive enzymes cannot reach them, and they are not available to the organism.

Molds and mycotoxins impair feed quality, but also animal health

Molds reduce the nutrient and energy content of the feed and negatively impact feed efficiency. They are dependent on active water in the feed and feed ingredients. Compared to bacteria, which need about 0.9-0.97 Aw (active water), most molds require only 0.86 Aw.

Table 3: Comparison of 28-day-old chicks performance fed not-infested and molded corn

Besides spoiling raw materials and feed and reducing their nutritional value, molds also produce mycotoxins which negatively impact animal health, including gut health. They damage the intestinal villi and tight junctions, reducing the surface for nutrient absorption. In a trial with broiler chickens, Kolawole et al. (2020) showed a strong positive correlation between the FCR and the exposure to different mycotoxins. The increase in levels of toxin mixtures resulted in poor FCR. Williams and Blaney (1994) found similar results with growing pigs. The animals received diets containing 50 % and 75 % of corn with 11.5 mg nivalenol and 3 mg zearalenone per kg. The inclusion of contaminated corn led to a deterioration of feed efficiency from 2.45 (control) to 3.49 and 3.23.

Oxidation of fats also affects feed quality

DDGS (distiller’s dried grains with solubles), by-products of corn distillation processes, are often used as animal feed, especially for pigs. The starch content is depleted in the distillation process and thus removed. The fat, however, is concentrated, and DDGS reach a similar energy content as corn.

Pigs also receive fats from different sources (e.g., soybean or corn oil, restaurant grease, animal-vegetable blends), especially in summer. Due to heat, the animals eat less, so increasing energy density in the feed is a possibility to maintain the energy intake.  The high fat content, however, makes these feeds susceptible to oxidation at high temperatures.

The oxidation of feedstuffs manifests in the rancidity of fats, destruction of the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and E, carotenoids (pigments), and amino acids, leading to a lower nutritional value of the feed.

Use adequate supplements to enhance FCR

The feed industry offers many solutions to improve the FCR for different species. They usually target the animal’s digestive health or maintain/enhance feed quality, including increasing nutrient availability.

1. Boost your animals’ gut health

Producers can improve gut health by preventing the overgrowth of harmful microorganisms and by mitigating the effects of harmful substances. For this purpose, two kinds of feed additives are particularly suitable: phytomolecules and products mitigating the impact of toxins and mycotoxins.

Phytomolecules help stabilize the balance of the microbiome

By preventing the proliferation of pathogens, phytomolecules help the animal in three ways:

1. They prevent pathogens from damaging the gut wall
2. They deter and mitigate inflammation
3. By inhibiting the overgrowth of pathogens, they promote better nutrient utilization by the animal

Only a healthy gut can optimally digest feed and absorb nutrients.

In trials testing the phytogenic Activo product range, supplemented animals showed the following FCR improvements compared to non-supplemented control groups (Figure 2).  Note that phy­tomolecules also have a digestive effect that contributes to the FCR improvements:

Figure 2: FCR improvements for animals receiving Activo

Products mitigating the adverse effects of toxins

Both mycotoxins and bacterial toxins negatively impact gut health. Mycotoxins are ingested with the feed; bacterial toxins appear when certain bacteria proliferate in the gut, e.g., gram-negative bacteria releasing LPS or Clostridium perfringens producing NetB and Alpha-toxin.

Products that mitigate the harmful effects of toxins help to protect gut health and maintain an optimal feed efficiency, as shown with a trial conducted with Mastersorb Gold:

Table 4: Trial design, the impact of Mastersorb Gold on broilers challenged with zearalenone and DON-contaminated feed

Figure 3: Average FCR for broilers, with or without zearalenone and DON challenge, with or without Mastersorb Gold supplementation

2. Improve nutrient utilization

Maximum use of the nutrients contained in the feed can be obtained with the help of feed additives that promote digestion. Targeting the animal, selected phytomolecules are used for their digestive properties. Focusing on the feed, specific enzymes can unlock nutrients and thus improve feed efficiency.

Phytomolecules support the animal’s digestive system

Phytomolecules promote optimal digestion and absorption of nutrients by stimulating the secretion of digestive juices, such as saliva or bile, enhancing enzyme activity, and favoring good GIT motility (Platel and Srinivasan, 2004). FCR improvements thanks to the use of a phy­tomolecules-based product (Activo) are shown in figure 2.

Enzymes release more nutrients from feed

Enzymes can degrade arabinoxylans, for example. Arabinoxylans are the most common NSP fraction in all cereals – and are undigestible for monogastric animals. Enzymes can make these substances available for animals, allowing for complete nutrient utilization.  Additionally, nutrients trapped due to the cage effect are released, altogether increasing the energy content of the diet and improving FCR.

3. Be proactive about preserving feed quality

The quality of feed can deteriorate, for instance, when nutrients oxidize, or mold infestation occurs. Oxidation by-products promote oxidative stress in the intestine and may lead to tissue damage. Molds, in turn, take advantage of the nutrients contained in the feed and produce mycotoxins. Both cases illustrate the importance of preventing feed quality issues. Feed additives such as antioxidants and mold inhibitors mitigate these risks.

Antioxidants prevent feed oxidation

Antioxidants scavenge free radicals and protect the feed from spoilage. In animals, they mitigate the adverse effects of oxidative stress. Antioxidants in pig nutrition can stabilize DDGS and other fatty ingredients in the feed, maintaining nutrient integrity and availability. Figure 4 shows the FCR improvement that a producer in the US obtained when using the antioxidant product Santoquin in pork finisher diets containing 30% DDGS.

Figure 4: FCR improvement in pigs receiving Santoquin (trial with a Midwest pork producer)

In DDGS-free diets, which are more common in poultry production, antioxidants also help optimize FCR, as shown by the results of a comprehensive broiler field study in 2015 (figure 5).

Figure 5: FCR in broilers receiving Santoquin, compared to a non-supplemented control group

Inhibiting molds and keeping feed moisture

To round off the topic of feed quality preservation, one should consider mold inhibitors, which also play an essential role. Used at the feed mill, these products blend two types of ingredients with their different modes of action: surfactants and organic acids. Surfactants bind active water so that the moisture of the feed persists, but fungi cannot survive. Organic acids, on the other hand, have anti-fungal properties, directly acting against molds. Both actions together prevent the reduction of energy in the feed, keeping feed efficiency at optimal levels.

Conclusion

The improvement of feed efficiency ranks as one of the most, if not the most, critical measures to cope with rising feed costs. By achieving optimal nutrient utilization, producers can make the most out of the available raw materials.

The feed industry offers diverse solutions to support animal producers in optimizing feed efficiency. Improving gut health, mitigating the negative impact of harmful substances, and maintaining feed quality are crucial steps to achieving the best possible FCR and, hence, cost-effective animal production.

References

Adam, F., and L. Bütfering. “Wann Müssen Meine Schweine an Den Haken?” top agrar. top agrar online, October 1, 2009. https://www.topagrar.com/schwein/aus-dem-heft/wann-muessen-meineschweine-an-den-haken-9685161.html.

Almeida, Leopoldo Malcorra, Vitor Augusto Zavelinski, Katiucia Cristine Sonálio, Kariny Fonseca da Silva, Keysuke Muramatsu, and Alex Maiorka. “Effect of Feed Particle Size in Pelleted Diets on Growth Performance and Digestibility of Weaning Piglets.” Livestock Science 244 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104364.

Chewning, C.G., C.R. Stark, and J. Brake. “Effects of Particle Size and Feed Form on Broiler Performance.” Journal of Applied Poultry Research 21, no. 4 (2012): 830–37. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2012-00553.

Gaines, A. M., B. A. Peerson, and O. F. Mendoza. “Herd Management Factors That Influence Whole Feed Efficiency.” Essay. In Feed Efficiency in Swine, edited by J. Patience, 15–39. Wageningen Academic, 2012.

Kolawole, Oluwatobi, Abigail Graham, Caroline Donaldson, Bronagh Owens, Wilfred A. Abia, Julie Meneely, Michael J. Alcorn, Lisa Connolly, and Christopher T. Elliott. “Low Doses of Mycotoxin Mixtures below EU Regulatory Limits Can Negatively Affect the Performance of Broiler Chickens: A Longitudinal Study.” Toxins 12, no. 7 (2020): 433. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins12070433.

Patience, J. F. “The Influence of Dietary Energy on Feed Efficiency in Grow-Finish Swine.” Essay. In In Feed Efficiency in Swine, edited by J. Patience, 15–39. Wageningen Academic, 2012.

Patience, John F., Mariana C. Rossoni-Serão, and Néstor A. Gutiérrez. “A Review of Feed Efficiency in Swine: Biology and Application.” Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 6, no. 1 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-015-0031-2.

Platel, K., and K. Srinivasan. “Digestive Stimulant Action of Spices: A Myth or Reality?” Indian J Med Res, pp 167-179 119 (May 2004): 167–79. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15218978

Richert, B. T., and J. M. DeRouchey. “Swine Feed Processing and Manufacturing.” Pork Information Gateway, September 14, 2015. https://porkgateway.org/resource/swine-feed-processing-and-manufacturing/.

Saldaña, B., P. Guzmán, L. Cámara, J. García, and G.G. Mateos. “Feed Form and Energy Concentration of the Diet Affect Growth Performance and Digestive Tract Traits of Brown-Egg Laying Pullets from Hatching to 17 Weeks of Age.” Poultry Science 94, no. 8 (2015): 1879–93. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev145.

Vukmirović, Đuro, Radmilo Čolović, Slađana Rakita, Tea Brlek, Olivera Đuragić, and David Solà-Oriol. “Importance of Feed Structure (Particle Size) and Feed Form (Mash vs. Pellets) in Pig Nutrition – A Review.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 233 (2017): 133–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.06.016.

by Technical Team, EW Nutrition

The world demand for milk has seen a sharp rise. Today, we have just over 1 billion dairy cows in the world producing about 1.6 billion tons of milk per year. However, OECD and FAO estimate that numbers will rise up to 1.5 billion dairy cows in 2028, for a total milk production of 2 billion tons . This increase will come at a tremendous cost in terms of global warming: Each day, dairy cows can produce 250 to 500 litres of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (Johnson and Johnson, 1995).

Climate change is not the only reason for zootechnical production to adopt methane reduction strategies. Methane emissions represent an important energy loss for dairy cows, which negatively impacts production performance. In this article, we review why methanogenesis in dairy cows arises, and how the use of phytogenic product Activo Premium can help achieve efficient energy use and reduced climate impact.

Less methane: environmental, regulatory, and business pressures

Methane (CH₄) is considered one of the gases that, together with CO₂ (carbon dioxide) and N₂O (nitrous oxide), traps heat in the atmosphere and, thus, causes global warming. While methane is generated in multiple industries, including the energy and waste sectors, much of the methane present in the atmosphere derives from livestock activities and, in particular, from ruminant farms.

About 28% of total methane emissions derive from agriculture sector and enteric fermentations (digestive processes in which feed is broken down by microorganisms) are responsible for about 65% of the total methane coming from zootechnical sector (Knapp et al., 2014). For this reason, in recent years, strategies for mitigating methane emissions in dairy cows have aroused great interest among researchers and environmentally-conscious consumers.

Regulators have also caught on: In October 2020, the European Commission presented its strategy for reducing methane emissions in Europe. Reductions are essential to achieve the Commission’s climate objectives for 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050. For the livestock sector, the Commission seeks to develop an inventory of innovative mitigating practices by the end of 2021, with a special focus on methane from enteric fermentation.

Uptake of mitigation technologies will be promoted though Member States’ and the Common Agricultural Policy’s “carbon farming” measures. Carbon-balance calculations at farm level are to be encouraged through digital tools; and the Horizon Europe strategic plan 2021-2024 will likely include targeted research on effective reduction strategies, focusing on technology, dietary factors, and nature-based solutions such as phytogenic products.

Even aside from environmental concerns, consumers demands, and regulatory steps, there is a critical business case for dairy producers to lower methane emissions. Given the ever-increasing global demand for dairy products, farmers and other operators in the sector more than ever try to maintain and indeed improve production to maximize yields, both economically and in terms of finished products. Problematically, methane production in the rumen represents a great loss of energy for the animal.

On average, about 6% of the total energy ingested by a dairy cow is transformed into methane, every single day (Succi and Hoffmann, 1993). The less methane a cow produces, the more metabolizable energy (ME) she gets out of her gross energy (GE) intake. A better ME/GE ratio translates into higher net energy of lactation (NEl). Energy losses from methanogenesis thus directly decrease the energy nutritionist can consider as usable during rationing.

Before we review the current research on how an adequate manipulation of the diet and of the rumen environment can mitigate these energy losses, we need to ask ourselves, why is methane formed in the rumen at all?

Animal physiology: how methane is formed in the rumen

Ruminants’ digestion of vegetal ingredients is linked to their rumen’s symbiotic bacterial, protozoan, and fungal flora. This microbiota has all the enzymatic properties necessary for the digestion (or rather pre-digestion) of ingested forage, including some cellulose fractions that monogastric animals cannot use.

In the rumen, the main products deriving from bacterial fermentation are volatile fatty acids and methane. The main volatile fatty acids are acetic acid, propionic and butyric acid, which are mainly absorbed and used by the animal. Meanwhile, methane helps to maintain the oxidative conditions in the rumen’ anaerobic environment, but also represents an energy loss (Czerkawski, 1988).

Methanogenesis is carried out by methanogenic bacteria and archae in the rumen (Guglielmelli, 2009). They use molecular hydrogen and carbon dioxide as a substrate for the synthesis of methane, according to the following equation:

4 H₂ + CO₂ → CH₄ + 2 H₂O

A few other chemical reactions contribute to methanogenesis, but they all have one thing in common: they require hydrogen ions in the rumen fluid to form methane from CO₂. This gives us the first “point of attack” for reducing methane formation: the diet.

Increase the share of propionic acid

Propionic acid is in competition with methanogens in using hydrogen ions to reduce glucose molecules:

C₆H₁₂O₆ (glucose) + 4 H → 2 C₃H₆O₂ (propionic) + 2 H₂O

It is clear that if propionic fermentations are stimulated through the diet at the expense of the pathways leading to acetate and butyrate (where hydrogen ions are transferred to the rumen environment), the availability of hydrogen for the reduction of CO₂ by methanogenic bacteria decreases.

Diets with a high level of concentrates, and low levels of neutral detergent fibre, yield more propionic acid and less acetic and butyric acid. Set aside lower methane emissions, this increase in energy is desirable during peak lactation: the energy gap that follows from the decrease in ingestion by the animal requires diets with a high amount of substrate for gluconeogenesis. Furthermore, the greater production of propionate sequesters H₂ in the rumen environment and, consequently, less CO₂ is reduced to methane.

Optimize the protozoa count

Most methane-producing bacteria live in symbiosis with most of the protozoan species, they are located on the surface of the protozoan. It follows that optimizing the population of protozoa present in the rumen (through dietary measures) leads to a lower methanogenesis (Patra and Saxena, 2010). Naturally, a minimum amount of protozoa must be maintained to avoid excessively reducing ruminal motility (regular contractions that mix and move the rumen content), which is important for feed digestibility.

Diet is not enough: feed additives to reduce methane production

Dietary measures alone cannot considerably reduce daily methane production. In the past, antibiotic growth promoters belonging to the ionophores family were commonly administered in the EU. These antibiotics increase efficiency and daily weight gain by promoting gluconeogenesis through greater production of propionic acid in the rumen and a consequent reduction in emitted methane (Piva et al., 2014).

The emergence of bacterial forms resistant to growth-promoting antibiotics have forced the EU to ban these molecules to safeguard consumer health. Fortunately, certain feed additives can also help reduce methanogenesis and generate energy saving – without the danger of resistance.

Secondary plant extracts or phytomolecules feature relevant properties, including bactericidal, virucide, and fungicide effects. As we have seen, it is critical to encourage certain fermentations at the expense of others and possibly reduce the organisms directly and indirectly responsible (bacteria and protozoa) for methanogenic fermentations.

Activo Premium: reduce methane and preserve energy

Phytogenic product Activo Premium contains a targeted phytomolecules mix capable of influencing the rumen microbiome in this manner:

Figure 1: Anti-methanogenic properties of selected phytomolecules. Based on Lourenço et al. (2008) and Supapong et al. (2017)  

Activo Premium is a blend of phytomolecules that maximizes production results for both high- and low-energy diets. Studies show that Activo Premium’s effects on the on the rumen microbiome reduce the ratio of acetic to propionic and butyric acid and decrease the energy losses due to methane production.

Field trial: Activo Premium improves rumen fermentation processes

A trial at the University of São Paul, Brazil, sought to evaluate the impact of Activo Premium on rumen fermentation and methane emissions. Nine rumen-cannulated sheep (55 ± 3.7 kg of body weight) were divided into 3 groups, and randomly distributed in a triple 3×3 Latin square design. The animals were fed their experimental diets for 22 days (the sampling period) in the following 3 set-ups: one control group (basal diet without additives); one group receiving a basal diet with 200 mg of Activo Premium per kg of dry matter intake; and one group receiving a basal diet with 400 mg of Activo Premium per kg of dry matter intake.

Figure 2: Ratio of acetate to propionate (p = 0.03)

Figure 3: Protozoa count (p = 0.06; x 10⁵ / ml) and methane production (p < 0.01; l per kg of dry matter). Based on Soltan et al. (2018)

As shown in figures 2 and 3, Activo Premium favourably modifies the ratio of volatile fatty acids and reduces the protozoa count, which, as to be expected, results in reduced methane emissions.

Rumen simulation trial: the more Activo Premium added, the less methane produced

A trial was conducted at the University of Hohenheim (Germany) sought to evaluate the methane-reducing effects of different inclusion rates of Activo Premium, using a continuous long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). Four different inclusion levels of Activo Premium (0, 2.1, 4.2, and 8.4 mg/d) were added to a diet with a ratio of concentrates to roughages of 80% to 20%, respectively.

Five consecutive Rusitec runs with one replication of each of the four inclusion schedules were performed. The run lasted for 14 days; 7 days were used for adaptation and the later 7 days for sampling. The fermenters were heated to 39°C. During the sampling period, total gas production and methane concentration of the total gas produced were measured every 24 h.

Figure 4: Methane emission (ml / day) for increasing inclusion rates of Activo Premium

In this trial with a rumen simulation system, Activo Premium significantly reduced methane volume (Figure 4): from 231 ml/d for the diet without any Activo Premium to 172 ml/d for the highest inclusion rate of Activo Premium.

Activo Premium: reduce methane emissions, support your profits and our planet

Both in vivo and in vitro trials have shown with high statistical reliability that Activo Premium can positively modulate rumen fermentations. The strategic combination of phytomolecules appears highly effective as a natural dietary supplementation option to modulate ruminal fermentation and decrease methane emissions. Adding Activo Premium to dairy cows’ diet will likely contribute significantly to reducing their methane emissions and optimizing their energy balance – improving animal performance while curbing the climate change impact, a win-win for everyone.

References

Czerkawski, J. W. “Effect of Linseed Oil Fatty Acids and Linseed Oil on Rumen Fermentation in Sheep.” The Journal of Agricultural Science 81, no. 3 (1973): 517–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021859600086573

Guglielmelli, Antonietta (2009) Studio sulla produzione di metano nei ruminanti: valutazione in vitro di alimenti e diete. [Tesi di dottorato] (Unpublished) http://www.fedoa.unina.it/3960/

Johnson, D.E., and K.A. Johnson. “Methane Emissions from Cattle.” Journal of Animal Science 73, no. 8 (August 1995): 2483–92. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7382483x

Knapp, J.R., G.L. Laur, P.A. Vadas, W.P. Weiss, and J.M. Tricarico. “Invited Review: Enteric Methane in Dairy Cattle Production: Quantifying the Opportunities and Impact of Reducing Emissions.” Journal of Dairy Science 97, no. 6 (2014): 3231–61. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7234

Lourenço M., P. W. Cardozo, S. Calsamiglia, and V. Fievez. “Effects of Saponins, Quercetin, Eugenol, and Cinnamaldehyde on Fatty Acid Biohydrogenation of Forage Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in Dual-Flow Continuous Culture fermenters1.” Journal of Animal Science 86, no. 11 (November 1, 2008): 3045–53. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0708.

Patra, Amlan K., and Jyotisna Saxena. “A New Perspective on the Use of Plant Secondary Metabolites to Inhibit Methanogenesis in the Rumen.” Phytochemistry 71, no. 11-12 (August 2010): 1198–1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2010.05.010.

Piva, Jonatas Thiago, Jeferson Dieckow, Cimélio Bayer, Josiléia Acordi Zanatta, Anibal de Moraes, Michely Tomazi, Volnei Pauletti, Gabriel Barth, and Marisa de Piccolo. “Soil Gaseous N2O and CH4 Emissions and Carbon Pool Due to Integrated Crop-Livestock in a Subtropical Ferralsol.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 190 (2014): 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.09.008

Soltan, Y.A., A.S. Natel, R.C. Araujo, A.S. Morsy, and A.L. Abdalla. “Progressive Adaptation of Sheep to a Microencapsulated Blend of Essential Oils: Ruminal Fermentation, Methane Emission, Nutrient Digestibility, and Microbial Protein Synthesis.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 237 (March 2018): 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.01.004.

Supapong, C., A. Cherdthong, A. Seankamsorn, B. Khonkhaeng, M. Wanapat, S. Uriyapongson, N. Gunun, P. Gunun, P. Chanjula, and S. Polyorach. “In Vitro Fermentation, Digestibility and Methane Production as Influenced by Delonix Regia Seed Meal Containing Tannins and Saponins.” Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 26, no. 2 (2017): 123–30. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/73890/2017

Succi, Giuseppe, and Inge Hoffmann. La Vacca Da Latte. Milano: Cittá Studi, 1993.

by Dr. Ajay Bhoyar, Global Technical Manager – Poultry, EW Nutrition

Necessity, goes the saying, is the mother of invention. No wonder, then, that necessity is driving innovation in the poultry industry.  A few distinct such drivers of change stand out:

Genetic improvements: Significant genetic improvements have consistently increased the production performance of breeders, as well as commercial broilers and layers. The genetically improved breeds demand improved nutrition and management practices.

Feed ingredient prices/availability: Corn and soybean meal are the main feed ingredients in poultry feed. Consequently any fluctuations in their prices have a high impact on the cost of production of eggs and meat. During the short span of the last 5 years, US corn and soybean meal prices have increased by around 54% and 68%, respectively. The optimum utilization of available feed ingredients and improvements in nutrient availability continue to be the key areas of interest for the poultry industry.

Consumer preference and regulatory changes: In certain geographies, these changes have resulted into 3 major trends in the poultry industry: antibiotics reduction (ABR), cage-free rearing, and food safety. The trend in the production and consumption of antibiotic-free meat products is growing faster than ever across the globe.

Antibiotics reduction (ABR): a key global trend

Apart from veterinary use, antibiotics are used as feed additives —antibiotic growth promoters (AGP) in animal production. Alarming levels of resistance to antibiotics have been reported in countries of all income levels, with the result that common diseases are becoming untreatable, and life-saving medical procedures riskier to perform.  Misuse and overuse of antimicrobials are the main drivers in the development of drug-resistant pathogens. (WHO/ https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance )

Antibiotic-free chicken production has gained a lot of momentum in the recent past. Over the past years, consumer preferences in the US resulted in a significant increase in the production of antibiotics-free (ABF) broiler chicken meat. In effect, the number of birds produced in “no antibiotics ever” (NAE) programs in the U.S. today is now at more than 50 percent (Poultry Health Today, 2019).

The reduction of antibiotic use poses some challenges to poultry producers. Apart from increased capital investment for modifications in feed mills and farms, increase in feed additive cost, the main challenge due to the removal of AGPs from feed can be the reduced production performance of poultry, mainly due to increased gut health issues.

Good gut health is a must for profitable production

“The intestinal health of poultry has broad implications for the systemic health of birds, animal welfare, the production efficiency of flocks, food safety, and environmental impact,” state Oviedo-Rondón (2019). The main challenges for ABF chicken or turkey production fall under the same heading of gut health, in particular the prevention and control of coccidiosis and necrotic enteritis (Cervantes, 2015).

What are the most effective ways to mitigate gut health challenges?

Depending on specific production needs and challenges, various technologies are used by the poultry producers to address gut health issues. Some of the most commonly used innovative technologies include:

Dietary Fibers (DF)

Scientists have found that DF have an enormous impact on the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) development, digestive physiology, including nutrient digestion, fermentation, and absorption processes of poultry (Jha & Mishra, 2021).

The water-insoluble fibers are seen as functional nutrients, as they can escape digestion and modulate nutrient digestion: “A moderate level of insoluble fiber in poultry diets may increase chyme retention time in the upper part of the GIT, stimulating gizzard development and endogenous enzyme production, improving the digestibility of starch, lipids, and other dietary components” (Mateos et.al. 2012). The insoluble DF, when used in amounts between 3–5% in the diet, could have significant effects on intestinal development and nutrient digestibility.

Dietary fibers influence the development of the gizzard in poultry birds.  A well-developed gizzard is a must for good gut health. Jiménez-Moreno & Mateos (2012) noted that the coarse fiber particles are selectively retained in the gizzard, that ensures a complete grinding and a well-regulated feed flow and secretion of digestive juices, and regulates GIT motility & feed intake. The inclusion of insoluble fibers in adequate amounts improves the gizzard function and stimulates HCl production in the proventriculus. Thus it can help in the control of gut pathogens.

Probiotics and prebiotics

Probiotics and prebiotics have drawn considerable attention as alternatives to antibiotics in animal feeds. Supplementing diets with probiotics and prebiotics is a significant factor contributing to modified intestinal microflora, which, in turn, may effectively influence the birds’ growth performance and health (Yang et al. 2009).

Probiotics introduce desirable microorganisms into the intestinal tract through the diet (feed or water). They consist of live bacteria, fungi, or yeasts that positively contribute to the gastrointestinal flora. As such, they are important for a well-formed and well-maintained digestive system, and are indirectly essential to growth performance and to the overall health of animals in general. Probiotic supplementation could have the following effects, as stated by Jha et al:

• modification of the intestinal microbiota
• stimulation of the immune system
• reduction in inflammatory reactions
• prevention of pathogen colonization
• enhancement of growth performance
• alteration of the ileal digestibility and total tract apparent digestibility coefficient
• decrease in ammonia and urea excretion (Jha et.al., 2020)

Probiotics can be used not just in feed and drinking water, but also in spray solutions applied to day-old chicks either in the hatchery or immediately after placement in the brooding house. This way, the beneficial microorganisms can enter the intestine earlier than through other methods (known as early seeding).

Prebiotics are also a means of increasing the beneficial bacteria in the poultry gut microbiota. Prebiotics like mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS), inulin and its hydrolysate (fructooligosaccharides: FOS), as well as other prebiotics are important contributors to the modulation of the intestinal microflora and stimulating a potential immune response, as well as stimulating the development of beneficial microorganisms. Prebiotics can also help reduce pathogen colonization in the GIT.

Feed enzymes

The role of feed enzymes in promoting the efficiency of nutrient utilization is well recognized. Recent estimates (Adeola & Cowieson, 2011) indicate that feed enzymes saved the global feed market an estimated US $3–5 billion per year. Feed Enzymes can also have a positive impact on gut health.

Among the beneficial effects of feed enzymes are:

• Inactivating anti-nutrients in the feed ingredients
• Unlocking nutrients otherwise unavailable to birds (e.g. Phosphorus from phytic acid)
• Reducing harmful microbial proliferation, depriving detrimental microorganisms of nutrients
• Reducing the undigestible components of feed, the viscosity of digesta, or the irritation to the gut mucosa that causes inflammation.

Enzymes also generate metabolites that promote microbial diversity, which helps to maintain gut ecosystems that are more stable and more likely to inhibit pathogen proliferation (Bedford, 1995; Kiarie et al., 2013). Feed enzymes are heat-sensitive and tend to lose their activity potential during pelleted feed manufacturing. There has been a significant interest in the application of intrinsically heat stable enzymes for more efficient action. Apart from coated feed enzymes, the post pellet liquid application (PPLA) of feed enzymes has increased in the recent past.

Toxin binders & antioxidants

Intestinal health problems can often be preempted, especially in poultry companies with ABF production programs, by mitigating the danger of mycotoxins in feedstuffs and rancid fats (Murugesan et al., 2015; Grenier and Applegate, 2013). Mycotoxins can compromise several key functions of GIT. This often results in decreased nutrient absorption (by decreasing the available surface area), modulation of nutrient transporters, and loss of barrier function (Grenier and Applegate, 2013). Some mycotoxins “encourage” the persistence of intestinal pathogens and thus enhance the possibility of intestinal inflammation.

Rancid fats and oils have been linked to the pathogenesis of enteric diseases (Hoerr, 1998; Butcher and Miles, 2000; Collet, 2005). The oxidation of oils and fats negatively impacts the energy content of these ingredients. The addition of feed antioxidants during the rendering process/ blending of fats and oils, and proper storage and transport before final use in feed can control rancidity in oils and fats. Proper fat storage conditions in tanks and transportation lines should be constantly monitored to prevent the development of rancidity in the feed mill. Antioxidants and mycotoxin binders can reduce the effects of mycotoxins and peroxide, especially, but not only, in ABF programs (Yegani and Korver, 2008).

Organic acids

Organic acids are compounds with acidic properties that occur naturally and include carbon. As the digestive process includes microbial fermentation, beneficial bacteria which naturally reside in the crop, intestines, and ceca produce such organic acids (Huyghebaert et.al. 2010). The inclusion of organic acids in poultry diets can improve gut health, increase endogenous digestive enzyme secretion and activity, and improve nutrient digestibility. Thus they generally contribute to the overall gut health of the animal.

The inclusion of organic acids in feed can help not only decontaminate feed but also have the potential to reduce enteric pathogens in poultry. The acids can cross the bacterial cell wall and disrupt the normal actions of certain types of bacteria, including Salmonella spp, E. coli, Clostridia spp, Listeria spp. and some coliforms.

Organic acids are also used in drinking water to help lower the microbial count. This can be achieved by lowering the pH of water and by the prevention/removal of biofilms in the water lines.

However, organic acids should be included in the feed or water with caution. The limitations for use of organic acids in animal production can be:

• Bacterial resistance to organic acids over long-term use
• Adverse effect on feed palatability, leading to feed refusal
• Organic acids are corrosive in nature and can damage poultry equipment
• Buffering capacity of dietary ingredients can impact efficacy

Essential oils/Phytomolecules

Essential oils (EOs) are raw extracts from plants (herbs, flowers, leaves, roots, fruit etc.). The beneficial effects of EOs include appetite stimulation, improvement of enzyme secretion related to food digestion, and immune response activation (Krishan and Narang, 2014)

EOs are an unpurified mix of different phytomolecules. The raw extract from oregano is a mix of various phytomolecules (terpenoids) like carvacrol, thymol, and p-cymene. Carvacrol, for instance, is a monoterpinoid found in various plants such as oregano or thyme. A phytomolecule is one active compound.

These botanicals have received increased attention as possible growth performance enhancers for animals in the last decade because of their beneficial influence on lipid metabolism, as well as their antimicrobial and antioxidant properties (Botsoglou et al., 2002), their ability to stimulate digestion (Hernandez et al., 2004), their immune-enhancing activity, and anti-inflammatory potential (Acamovic and Brooker, 2005). Many studies have reported on the supplementation of poultry diets with essential oils that enhanced weight gain, improved carcass quality, and reduced mortality rates (Williams and Losa, 2001). The use of specific EO blends can be effective in reducing the colonization and proliferation of Clostridium perfringens and controlling coccidia infections. Consequently, it may also help reduce necrotic enteritis (Guo et al., 2004; Mitsch et al., 2004; Oviedo-Rondón et al., 2005, 2006a, 2010).

Mode of action of phytomolecules

The gut health optimizing mode of action of phytomolecule-based preparations like Activo® (EW Nutrition) can be described as follows:

Digestive

The digestive properties increase the secretion of digestive enzymes and enhance gut motility. A “significant increase in pancreatic trypsin, amylase, and maltase activities in broilers fed different blends of commercial essential oils” has been reported as well (Jang et al., 2007). The essential oils in carvacrol, for instance, have positive effects on growth performance and the intestinal barrier function of broilers. They were also able to support repairing the intestinal damage caused by lipopolysaccharides (Liu et al. 2020).

Antimicrobial

The antimicrobial properties of phytomolecules can impede the growth of potential pathogens. Thymol, eugenol, and carvacrol have been shown to have “synergistic or additive antimicrobial effects when combined at lower concentrations” (Bassolé and Juliani, 2012). In in vivo studies, essential oils used either individually or in combination “have shown clear growth inhibition of Clostridium perfringens and E. coli in the hindgut and ameliorated intestinal lesions and weight loss than the challenged control birds” (Jamroz et al., 2006, Jerzsele et al., 2012, Mitsch et al., 2004).

One well-known mechanism of antibacterial activity is linked to the phytomolecules’  hydrophobic nature. This characteristic helps disrupt the permeability of cell membranes and cell homeostasis. The consequence of this disruption is the loss of cellular components, influx of other substances, or even cell death (Brenes and Roura, 2010, Solórzano-Santos and Miranda-Novales, 2012, Windisch et al., 2008, O’Bryan et al., 2015).

Antioxidant

The antioxidant properties at the gut level prevent free radical formation and oxidative stress. Thymol and carvacrol have been shown to inhibit lipid peroxidation (Hashemipour et.al. 2013), a mechanism leading to the oxidative destruction of cellular membranes (Rhee et al., 1996). This destruction can ultimately lead to cell death and to the production of toxic and reactive aldehyde metabolites, known as free radicals. Among these free radicals, malondialdehyde (MDA) as a final product of lipid peroxidation has often been used for determining oxidative damage (Jensen et al., 1997).  Thymol and carvacrol both have strong antioxidant activity (Yanishlieva et al., 1999). Oregano “added in doses of 50 to 100 mg/kg to the diet of chickens exerted an antioxidant effect in the broiler tissues” (Botsoglou et al., 2002).

It has also been suggested that chicken body oxidative balance can benefit from essential oils. Karadas et al. (2014) fed a blend of carvacrol, cinnamaldehyde, and capsicum oleoresin to Ross 308 broilers, and found a significant increase in the hepatic concentration of carotenoids and coenzyme Q10 at d 21 of age.

Essential oils, or phytomolecules, are highly volatile substances and are susceptible to changes caused by external factors such as light, oxygen, and temperature, in addition to being prone to evaporating. They need to be protected/micro-encapsulated during the process of feed manufacturing. The advantages of matrix encapsulation include

• a slow and gradual release of active ingredients in the digestive tract
• protection of phytomolecules from oxidation and other harsh conditions during feed processing
• prevention of any negative effects on palatability of feed

Above: Micro-encapsulation protecting phytomolecules in feed processing

Apart from use in feed, the liquid phytomolecules preparations for drinking water use can prove to be beneficial in preventing and controling losses during challenging periods of the birds’ life (feed change, handling, environmental stress, etc.).  The liquid preparations have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality in poultry houses and thus the use therapeutic antibiotics. Barrios et al. (2021) suggested that Activo and Activo Liquid may ameliorate the impact of Necrotic Enteritis on broilers and further hypothesized that the effects of Activo Liquid were particularly important in improving overall mortality.

Conclusion

The prevailing driving forces of the market will continue to challenge the dynamic poultry industry. Still, gut health challenges in ABF poultry production can be alleviated with multifactorial approaches, including changes in nutrition and improved management practices. Innovative feed additive technologies have contributed to reducing production losses triggered by the removal of AGPs in poultry production.

Essential oils/phytomolecules are one such promising technology, with proven benefits in terms of the production performance of poultry. Phytomolecules are generally recognized as safe and are commonly used in the food industry. Some of the phytomolecules combinations have multiple modes of action, supporting an efficient and sustainable reduction in antibiotics use in poultry production.

To make ABF programs successful, however, more attention needs to be given to the whole production system, not only to feed, feed additives or control of a few enteric pathogens. Housing, management, water quality and biosecurity at both breeder and grow-out levels are critical in ABF production.

References

Acamovic, T., and J. D. Brooker. 2005. Biochemistry of plant secondary metabolites and their effects in animals. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 64:403–412.

Adeola, O & Cowieson, AJ (2011) Opportunities and challenges in using exogenous enzymes to improve non-ruminant animal production. J Anim Sci 89, 3189–3218. CrossRef  Google Scholar

Barrios Miguel, Palanisamy Kowsigaraj and Bhoyar Ajay. 2021 Effects of Activo and Activo Liquid on broiler chickens under a Necrotic Enteritis challenge. International poultry scientific forum. Jan 25-26, 2021.

Bassolé, I.H.N. and Juliani, H.R., 2012. Essential oils in combination and their antimicrobial properties. Molecules, 17(4), pp.3989-4006.

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

Botsoglou, N.A., Florou-Paneri, P., Christaki, E., Fletouris, D.J. and Spais, A.B., 2002. Effect of dietary oregano essential oil on performance of chickens and on iron-induced lipid oxidation of breast, thigh and abdominal fat tissues. British poultry science, 43(2), pp.223-230.

Brenes, A. and Roura, E., 2010. Essential oils in poultry nutrition: Main effects and modes of action. Animal feed science and technology, 158(1-2), pp.1-14.

Chowdhury S, Mandal G. P., Patra  A K, Different essential oils in diets of chickens: 1. Growth performance, nutrient utilisation, nitrogen excretion, carcass traits and chemical composition of meat, Animal Feed Science and Technology, Volume 236, 2018, Pages 86-97,

Grenier, B. and Applegate, T.J., 2013. Modulation of intestinal functions following mycotoxin ingestion: Meta-analysis of published experiments in animals. Toxins, 5(2), pp.396-430.

Guo, F.C., Kwakkel, R.P., Williams, B.A., Li, W.K., Li, H.S., Luo, J.Y., Li, X.P., Wei, Y.X., Yan, Z.T. and Verstegen, M.W.A., 2004. Effects of mushroom and herb polysaccharides, as alternatives for an antibiotic, on growth performance of broilers. British Poultry Science, 45(5), pp.684-694.

Hashemipour H, Kermanshahi H, Golian A, Veldkamp T. Effect of thymol and carvacrol feed supplementation on performance, antioxidant enzyme activities, fatty acid composition, digestive enzyme activities, and immune response in broiler chickens. Poultry Science. Volume 92. Issue 8. 2013, Pp 2059-2069,

Hector M. Cervantes, Antibiotic-free poultry production: Is it sustainable?, Journal of Applied Poultry Research, Volume 24, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 91-97

Hernandez, F., J. Madrid, V. Garcia, J. Orengo, and M. D. Megias. 2004. Influence of two plant extracts on broiler performance, digestibility, and digestive organ size. Poult. Sci. 83:169–174.

Huyghebaert G, Ducatelle R, Van Immerseel F. An update on alternative to antimicrobial growth promoter for broilers. Vet J. (2010) 187:182–8. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.03.003

Jamroz, D., Wertelecki, T., Houszka, M. and Kamel, C., 2006. Influence of diet type on the inclusion of plant origin active substances on morphological and histochemical characteristics of the stomach and jejunum walls in chicken. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 90(5‐6), pp.255-268.

Jang IS, Ko YH, Kang SY, Lee CY. Effect of a commercial essential oil on growth performance, digestive enzyme activity and intestinal microflora population in broiler chickens. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2007 Apr 2;134(3-4):304-15.

Jensen, C., Engberg, R., Jakobsen, K., Skibsted, L.H. and Bertelsen, G., 1997. Influence of the oxidative quality of dietary oil on broiler meat storage stability. Meat Science, 47(3-4), pp.211-222.

Jerzsele, A., Szeker, K., Csizinszky, R., Gere, E., Jakab, C., Mallo, J.J. and Galfi, P., 2012. Efficacy of protected sodium butyrate, a protected blend of essential oils, their combination, and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens spore suspension against artificially induced necrotic enteritis in broilers. Poultry Science, 91(4), pp.837-843.

Jha, Rajesh, Das Razib, Oak Sophia, and Mishra Pavin. Probiotics (Direct-Fed Microbials) in Poultry Nutrition and Their Effects on Nutrient Utilization, Growth and Laying Performance, and Gut Health: A Systematic Review. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI vol. 10,10 1863. 13 Oct. 2020, doi:10.3390/ani10101863

Jha, R., Mishra, P. Dietary fiber in poultry nutrition and their effects on nutrient utilization, performance, gut health, and on the environment: a review. J Animal Sci Biotechnol 12, 51 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-021-00576-0.

Jiménez-Moreno E, Mateos GG. Use of dietery fiber in broilers. San Juan del Rio, Queretaro: In Memorias De La Sexta Reunión Anual Aecacem 2013; 2013.

Karadas F., Pirgozliev V., Rose S., Dimitrov D., Oduguwa O., Bravo D. Dietary essential oils improve the hepatic antioxidative status of broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci. 2014;55:329–334. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Ref list]

Kiarie, E., Romero, L., & Nyachoti, C. (2013). The role of added feed enzymes in promoting gut health in swine and poultry. Nutrition Research Reviews, 26(1), 71-88. doi:10.1017/S0954422413000048

Krishan and Narang J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res., 1(4): 156-162, December 2014

Liu, S., Song, M., Yun, W., Lee, J., Lee, C., Kwak, W., Han, N., Kim, H. and Cho, J., 2018. Effects of oral administration of different dosages of carvacrol essential oils on intestinal barrier function in broilers. Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition, 102(5), pp.1257-1265.

Liu, S., Song, M., Yun, W., Lee, J., Kim, H. and Cho, J., 2020. Effect of carvacrol essential oils on growth performance and intestinal barrier function in broilers with lipopolysaccharide challenge. Animal Production Science, 60(4), pp.545-552.

Mateos GG, Jiménez-Moreno E, Serrano MP, Lázaro RP. Poultry response to high levels of dietary fiber sources varying in physical and chemical characteristics. J Appl Poult Res. 2012;21(1):156–74.

Mitsch, P., Zitterl-Eglseer, K., Köhler, B., Gabler, C., Losa, R. and Zimpernik, I., 2004. The effect of two different blends of essential oil components on the proliferation of Clostridium perfringens in the intestines of broiler chickens. Poultry science, 83(4), pp.669-675.

Murugesan, G.R., Ledoux, D.R., Naehrer, K., Berthiller, F., Applegate, T.J., Grenier, B., Phillips, T.D. and Schatzmayr, G., 2015. Prevalence and effects of mycotoxins on poultry health and performance, and recent development in mycotoxin counteracting strategies. Poultry science, 94(6), pp.1298-1315.

O’Bryan, C.A., Pendleton, S.J., Crandall, P.G. and Ricke, S.C., 2015. Potential of plant essential oils and their components in animal agriculture–in vitro studies on antibacterial mode of action. Frontiers in veterinary science, 2, p.35.

Oviedo-Rondón, Edgar O., et al. “Ileal and caecal microbial populations in broilers given specific essential oil blends and probiotics in two consecutive grow-outs.” Avian Biology Research 3.4 (2010): 157-169.

Oviedo-Rondón Edgar O., Holistic view of intestinal health in poultry, Animal Feed Science and Technology, Volume 250, 2019, Pages 1-8

Papatisiros VG, Katsoulos PD, Koutoulis KC, Karatzia M, Dedousi A, Christodoulopoulos G. Alternatives to antibiotics for farm animals. CAB Rev Ag Vet Sci Nutr Res. (2013) 8:1–15. doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20138032

Solórzano-Santos, F. and Miranda-Novales, M.G., 2012. Essential oils from aromatic herbs as antimicrobial agents. Current opinion in biotechnology, 23(2), pp.136-141.

Williams, P., and R. Losa. 2001. The use of essential oils and their compounds in poultry nutrition. World Poult. 17:14–15.

Windisch, W., Schedle, K., Plitzner, C. and Kroismayr, A., 2008. Use of phytogenic products as feed additives for swine and poultry. Journal of animal science, 86(suppl_14), pp.E140-E148.

Yang Y, Iji P, Choct M. 2009. Dietary modulation of gut microflora in broiler chickens: a review of the role of six kinds of alternatives to in-feed antibiotics. World Poultry Sci J. 65:97–114. doi: 10.1017/S0043933909000087 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

Yanishlieva, N.V., Marinova, E.M., Gordon, M.H. and Raneva, V.G., 1999. Antioxidant activity and mechanism of action of thymol and carvacrol in two lipid systems. Food Chemistry, 64(1), pp.59-66.

Yegani, M. and Korver, D.R., 2008. Factors affecting intestinal health in poultry. Poultry science, 87(10), pp.2052-2063.

Zhai, H., H. Liu, Shikui Wang, Jinlong Wu and Anna-Maria Kluenter. “Potential of essential oils for poultry and pigs.” Animal Nutrition 4 (2018): 179 – 186.

by Inge Heinzl, Editor,  Marisabel Caballero, Global Technical Manager Poultry, and Ajay Bhoyar, Global Technical Manager Poultry, EW Nutrition

In the last few months, the prices for feed grains and oilseeds such as soybeans have been climbing to multi-year heights. In part, this can be explained by high corn purchases by China and increasing export duties in Russia. The most significant cause, however, are weather events in producing countries: Just in the last year, droughts in the USA, Canada, and France raised the price of wheat by 40 %, the worst La Niña climate event in 91 years and the drought in China’s biggest corn-growing area made corn about 100 % more expensive, and soybeans carry a 40 % higher price tag because of dry conditions in Argentina.

These events are a stark reminder that for global agriculture climate change impacts are already a reality. High feed costs are an enormous challenge for the whole agricultural sector and sustainable strategies need to be adopted to enable a more efficient use of resources, both in the short and long term. This article explores possibilities to cope with the current situation. Through understanding the positions of farmers, integrators and feed millers and using targeted feed additive solutions, we can achieve a responsible use of resources that makes animal production more resilient to feed price increases.

Feed cost issues? Always start with this

The first question producers need to ask themselves is always if there is any step in the production process that could be done more effectively. Similar to biosecurity programs, the basic steps seem self-evident, but to consistently implement them in the complex on-farm reality requires regular checks.

Feeding as “exactly” as possible

In case of high prices, the feed raw materials should be used as responsibly as possible:

• Protein and energy content (but also other components, such as minerals and vitamins) must meet the requirements of the animals – age and production phase are decisive for the calculations.
• Given variations in raw material quality, it is important to exactly determine nutrient contents to avoid over- and under-supply. For this purpose, technologies like the near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR) can be used.

Using locally available sources

In the initial stages of price hikes, it is often possible to resort to locally available sources, e.g., using sunflower or flaxseed meal to replace soybeans. Unfortunately, with increasing demand, these feed materials will usually become more expensive as well, and might not be suitable alternatives anymore. In general, however, it is worth using a maximum of local ingredients: they are often cheaper and less susceptible to transport and trade difficulties.

Feed additive solutions: use what is available in the best possible way

Once these first measures are exhausted, it is time to draw on industry solutions to derive maximum value out of the available feed ingredients. Let us consider four approaches that improve feed conversion and feed quality, adjust feed composition, and optimize feed production processes.

1.   A critical goal: improving the feed conversion rate

The most direct way to better utilize feed is to improve the animals’ feed conversion rate, with the help of the right supplements. Different product groups contribute to this aim in different ways.

1.1 Phytomolecules fight on different fronts

Phytomolecules are well-known for their antimicrobial effects against pathogenic bacteria (Zhai et al., 2018). Phy­tomolecules shift the balance of the microbiome towards the beneficial side (eubiosis instead of dysbiosis) and promote gut health. A healthy gut is able to digest the feed and absorb the nutrients in an efficient way.

Another value of phy­tomolecules is their digestive effect. They stimulate the secretion of saliva, gastric juice and digestive enzymes, and favor an adequate gastrointestinal motility, which leads to improved nutrient utilization (Jones, 2001; Mendel et al., 2017).

In trials testing the phytogenic Activo product range, supplemented animals showed the following FCR improvements compared to non-supplemented control groups (Figure 1):

Figure 1: FCR improvements for animals receiving Activo

1. 2 Enzymes improve nutrient availability

Even a corn-soybean meal diet is not fully digestible for monogastric animals. However, when feed prices increases, producers likely need to include more alternative ingredients in the diet that are much less digestible. Typically, these ingredients are rich in antinutritional factors such as non-starch polysaccharides (NSPs), which can cause detrimental effects on gut health.

Another disadvantage of NSPs is their “cage effect”. The water-insoluble NSPs cellulose and hemicellulose trap nutrients such as proteins and digestible carbohydrates. Consequently, digestive enzymes cannot reach them and they are not available to the organism.

Here is the point of attack for enzymes that enable a complete nutrient utilization: Making these substances available for the animals increases the energy content of the diet and, in the end, improves FCR. An example for laying hens receiving wheat-based diets can be found in Figure 2: Axxess XY, a xylanase, significantly improved feed utilization by the hens.

Figure 2: FCR in layers receiving Axxess XY, compared to control group (kg feed / kg egg mass)

1.3 Antioxidants maintain energy content of the diet

Corn Distiller’s Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS), a by-product of corn distillation processes, are used as an alternative to corn. In DDGS, the starch content is removed, but fat is concentrated, reaching about three times the fat level of corn. This is the reason why the energy content in DDGS and corn is similar. This makes DDGS an attractive ingredient for monogastric diets; however, fat,  especially at hot temperatures in the summer, can be oxidized. The resulting rancidity and the accompanying destruction of vitamins, pigments, and amino acid leads to a decrease in the diet’s bioavailability and energy content and to poor feed conversion.

The use of antioxidants can stabilize DDGS and other fatty ingredients in the feed, maintaining nutrient integrity and availability. Figure 3 shows the performance benefits of using antioxidant product Santoquin in pork finisher diets in the USA containing 30% of DDGS.

Figure 3: Performance results for pigs receiving Santoquin (trial with Midwest pork producer)

In  poultry production, the use of DDGS is not as common as in swine. Antioxidants, however, can still help to protect the nutrients, maintain the energy content and improving FCR. The results from an extensive 2015 field study for broilers fed a diet without DDGS (shown in Figure 4) showed a net ROI of 6.7 to 1.

Figure 4: FCR in broilers receiving Santoquin, compared to non-supplemented control group

1.4 Organic acids improve intestinal processes

Organic acids, or acidifiers, can improve the gut microbiome, feed utilization, and gut health in production animals. The gut microbiome balance is aided by lowering the population of pathogenic bacteria susceptible to low pH, such as E. coli, Salmonella, and Clostridium.

Organic acids also directly attack pathogens by entering bacterial cells and changing the internal pH. Commensal bacteria such as Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria survive as they can tolerate lower pH conditions. As pathogens constitute nutrient competitors, eliminating them improves gut health, which, is the most important precondition for optimal nutrient utilization.

The acidifying effect of organic acids furthermore favors digestion and nutrient utilization: for example, for weaned piglets that not able to produce enough HCl in the stomach, a low stomach pH is important for the activation of the proteolytic enzyme pepsin. Besides a non-optimal use of nutrients, undigested protein arriving in the intestine leads to the proliferation of undesired pathogens, decreasing health and performance.

Organic acids, therefore, improve FCR directly, by promoting nutrient utilization through the stimulation of enzymes, and indirectly, by enhancing gut health.

2. Improving feed quality

Feed quality is not only a question of raw material quality. Feed additives play an important role in ensuring feed safety and enabling optimal utilization by the animal.

2.1 Mold inhibitors preserve the feed’s value

Molds reduce the nutrient and energy content of the feed (table 1) and have a negative impact on animals’ growth performance (table 2). Active water is the crucial point for mold growth. Compared to bacteria, which need about 0.90 – 0.97 Aw (active water), most molds require only 0.86 Aw.

Mold inhibitors contain different ingredients. Surfactants bind the free water, so that the moisture of the feed persists, but the active water important for molds is reduced. Organic acids, as already mentioned before, have antifungal properties. Together, they reduce molds and prevent the degradation of energy in the feed.

Table 1: Nutrient loss in corn infested with molds

Table 2: Comparison of 28-day-old chicks performance fed not-infested and molded corn

2.2 Mitigating the negative impact of mycotoxins

Mycotoxins contamination of grains can occur in the field, during raw material harvesting, transportation, storage, handling, and even during feed processing and storage. By mitigating the negative effects of mycotoxins – such as gut and liver inflammation, kidney degeneration or reproductive disorders – the animals’ health and performance can be maintained. In today’s contamination scenarios, it is absolutely necessary to use products that adsorb mycotoxins and contain their harmful impact on animals.

The effectivity of such products in animals is crucial. Table 3 shows an optimal experimental design and Figure 5 shows the results of its application: a total recovery of the performance pays off.

Table 3: Trial design, impact of Mastersorb Gold on broilers challenged with zearalenone and DON-contaminated feed

Figure 5: Average FCR for broilers, with or without zearalenone and DON challenge, with or without Mastersorb Gold supplementation

2.3  Surfactants for microbiological control and high pellet quality in the feed mill

Moisture is important. Too dry feed results in poor palatability and digestibility, and lower pellet quality. Also moisture loss has a direct impact on production and profitability.

The use of surfactants, makes it possible to bind the moisture to the feed, reaching a larger contact surface between water and feed particles, and improving starch gelatinization and pelleting efficiency. The improvement in starch gelatinization leads to a higher pellet quality, a lower proportion of fines and a higher content of metabolizable energy.

Moreover, moist steam has a better antimicrobial effect than dry steam, leading to lower fungal and bacterial growth and preventing the production of toxins. The pelleting temperature can also be lower, protecting the nutrients.

Figure 6 shows how the use of SURF•ACE, a synergistic blend of organic acids and surfactants, improves pellet durability, moisture content, and mold occurrence for beef and poultry pellet feed.

Figure 6: Improvements in pellet durability, moisture content and mold through using SURF•ACE

3.   Using feed alternatives in ruminants – partial replacement of protein feed by urea

Ruminal bacteria are able to synthesize amino acids and, subsequently, generate a high-quality protein out of acid amides, a group of non-proteins occurring during the synthesis and degradation of proteins. What they require to do this is enough energy, minerals, and trace elements available in the feed (Weiß et al., 2011). When the bacteria arrive in the abomasum and in the small intestine they, or rather their proteins, are degraded by enzymes together with the undegradable rumen protein into useful amino acids.

With the aid of ruminal microbes, ruminants therefore partly cover their protein requirement through non-protein nitrogen. The most well-known is urea. It is critical that the urea given to animals has a degradation rate similar to other energy sources the animal consumes. Otherwise, there will be an imbalance between the quantity of usable nitrogen and the energy required for microbial protein synthesis: The urea accumulates in the rumen, becoming toxic for the microbiota and creating metabolic disorders.

Special coating technology allows for nitrogen to be released at a rate close to that of protein degradation of the main vegetable protein sources (e.g., soybean meal). This leads to a more constant nitrogen supply for the microorganisms and results in maximal synthesis of microbial protein.

4.   Save costs in the production process

Besides high pellet quality, feed millers seek to maximize production efficiency. Factors contributing to this target are the amount of fines to be reprocessed, the utilization of steam, the pellet throughput and the energy demand. Once more, the moisture of the feed is of decisive importance. Substances can be added to the feed to achieve an optimal moisture content. These substances bind free water by generating an emulsion of dietary fat and the added water.

Besides the positive effects on pellet durability, moisture content and mold growth shown above, this leads to a better general lubrication of the machinery: The addition of feed mill processing aid SURF•ACE leads to a 10-15 % lower energy demand or a higher production output without increasing energy consumption (Figure 7), depending on the mill’s requirements. Good machinery lubrication additionally reduces wear and tear, another important dimension of production efficiency

Figure 7: Improvements in pellet output and energy efficiency through using SURF•ACE

Producers can rise to the challenge of rising feed prices

Rising feed costs pose a significant challenge to everyone in animal production. We are all compelled to look for alternatives to optimize the utilization of resources. This firstly involves a critical look at the efficiency of every step in our operations, but also includes utilizing targeted feed additives. Various measures are available for animal producers to optimize feed conversion, improve feed quality, and resort to alternative ingredients. In feed production, tools are on hand to optimize the manufacturing processes, improve feed quality, and make a positive impact on animal performance. Feed price fluctuations will continue to challenge our industry. Still, while tackling short- and medium-term difficulties, we can also strategically build resilience – and take the measures today that will contribute to our long-term ambitions for sustainable and profitable production.

References

Jones, G. “Leistungsstarke Tiere und Verbraucherschutz stehen nicht im Widerspruch – Wirkung eines phytogenen Zusatzstoffs / High-performing livestock and consumer protection are not contradictory – Impact of a phytogenic additive.” Kraftfutter/ Feed Magazine 12 (2001): 468-473.

Mendel, M., Chłopecka, M., Dziekan, N., & Karlik, W. (2017). Phytogenic feed additives as potential gut contractility modifiers—A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 230, 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.05.008.

Weiß, J.W., S. Granz, W. Pabst. Tierproduktion. Thieme Verlag (2005):155-159.

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

by EW Nutrition USA, Inc.

In the poultry industry, Necrotic Enteritis is of great interest due to the potential detrimental growth effects it may have in a flock, even at subclinical levels⁵⁰. Coccidiostats and antibiotics have been used for a long time to get the disease-causing bacterium Clostridium perfringens under control, but with increasing antimicrobial resistance, alternative approaches are required. This article aims to give an overview of the disease and the measures against it.

Clostridium perfringens – a ubiquitous, highly resilient bacterium

Clostridium perfringens is a Gram-positive, spore-forming, anaerobic, rod-shaped bacterium⁵⁰. This encapsulated, non-motile microorganism is fastidious in growth requirements⁵⁹. Most often, complex media like cooked meat or thioglycolate broth are used as enrichment³⁰.

It was Welch and Nuttall who first identified C. perfringens in 1892 as Bacillus aerogenes capsulatus¹⁸. In Great Britain, the bacterium was commonly known as C. welchii and sometimes called Frankel’s bacillus in Germany until designated C. perfringens by Bergey¹³.

Clostridium perfringens is the causal microorganism for Necrotic Enteritis (NE)¹⁴. In humans, it is one of the most common causes of foodborne illness²⁰. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2012) estimates that nearly one million people are affected every year, making C. perfringens the third most frequent source of domestically acquired foodborne illness after Norovirus and Salmonella.

Clostridium perfringens can be found everywhere

Clostridium perfringens is found in soil, water, and other organic materials. As far as poultry facilities, C. perfringens has been isolated from litter, dust, walls, floors, fans, transportation coops, feeders, and feed⁸⁹.

Additionally, C. perfringens is found in the GI tract of broiler chickens, humans, and other mammals⁴⁷. When intestinal samples of broiler chickens were analyzed for C. perfringens, 75-95 % tested positive²⁴. Drew and co-workers¹⁰ determined that C. perfringens is usually found at ~10⁴ colony-forming units (CFU)/g of broiler digesta. These results agree with Jia et al.²⁶, who stated that C. perfringens is present at low levels in healthy poultry. In humans, investigations in different parts of the world showed a prevalence of Clostridium perfringens between 57-94%³².

Different types of Clostridium perfringens with different toxins

There are five types (A-E) of C. perfringens, which can be identified through their toxin production (see table 1). All strains produce alpha-toxin. Furthermore, Clostridium perfringens has been described to produce eight other toxins, three (delta, theta, kappa) can be lethal, but these are seldom involved in disease origin³⁷.

Table 1. Different types of Clostridium perfringens

High resilience gives an advantage against competitors

Since Clostridium perfringens is a spore-forming bacterium, it is very resilient to high temperatures, slight pH variations, and toxic chemicals^{43, 7}.

Labbe et al.³⁰ established that C. perfringens can reproduce at temperatures between 15-50 °C. Hence, proper refrigeration temperatures (below 10 °C) can be an effective means of control. The optimum range is between 37-47 °C, and at these temperatures, the mean generation time – the time required for the bacterial count to double – is approximately 10-12 minutes⁴¹. These short generation times allow the bacteria to outcompete other microorganisms that may need similar resources in a certain environment.

The optimum pH range of Clostridium perfringens is between 5.5-7.0²². However, it can grow at a pH as low as 5 and as high as 9. In live broiler chickens, the pH in the small intestine has been determined to be between 6.00-7.78.

Necrotic enteritis in poultry

The disease necrotic enteritis was first described by Parish^{45, 46} in cockerels in England. Some of the symptoms include depression, reluctance to move, ruffled feathers, somnolence, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and anorexia²¹. Mortality ranges from 0-50% ⁶ have been reported in infected flocks. Since then, virtually every area that raises poultry has reported signs of necrotic enteritis.

Clostridium perfringens – How NE unravels

As already mentioned, 10⁴ colony-forming units (CFU)/g of broiler digesta¹⁰ are normal and can be found in healthy birds. C. perfringens becomes problematic when counts reach 10⁷-10⁸ CFU/g⁶.

Necrotic enteritis is caused by types A and C of Clostridium perfringens, but normally, predisposing factors “set the stage”^{24, 48}. This could be seen in an investigation where they wanted to create a model to reproduce NE in a laboratory setting. Researchers realized that inoculation of C. perfringens alone did not cause the disease found in the field⁴⁸. Therefore, it was assessed that certain cofactors must play a significant role in the pathogenicity of C. perfringens. Williams⁵⁷ reviewed concurrent infections of coccidiosis and necrotic enteritis in chickens (Figure 1). The copious interactions of these diseases with predisposing factors, control methods, sources of infection, and disease form is a testament to the complexity of this poultry industry matter.

Coccidiosis creates access

Shane et al.⁵³ noted that several authors had considered coccidiosis to be a predisposing factor for NE. They proceeded to describe the pathogenesis of Eimeria acervulina, one of the protozoa responsible for coccidiosis in poultry. When the oocysts are ingested, they quickly attach to the intestinal wall causing lesions where the protozoa reproduce numerous times. These are the lesions to which C. perfringens attaches.

What happens in the animal?

Long et al.³³ proposed the pathogenesis for NE: First, epithelial cells are vacuolated, and the epithelium lifts off the lamina propria, which is congested and edematous. These lesions can be caused by a combination of factors like toxin production and/or, as just mentioned, coccidiosis. Clostridium perfringens cells attach to the lamina propria, where they thrive. The tissue becomes necrotic as large numbers of heterophils, a type of phagocyte, flood the foci (sites of lesions).

A combination of disease-inducing factors such as bacteria proliferation, heterophil lysis, and villus’ necrosis seem to develop quickly. The inflammation zone then becomes riddled with mononuclear cells, cells containing lymphocytes, antigen-presenting cells, and eosinophilic-staining (proteinaceous) amorphous material. This necrotizing process moves from the tip of the villi to the crypt.

Chronic version

In chronic cases, villi may be found to have multiple cysts from recurrent necrosis. In birds that overcome the disease, injured epithelial cells are replaced by newly formed reticular structures. These new cells travel from the crypt to the tip of the villi and replace the old, damaged cells. The result is a short, flat villus with a reduced surface area for nutrient absorption^{44, 45, 34}. These morphologically altered villi are the necrotic lesions found in the field and some C. perfringens challenge trials (Figure 2).

Acute form

The acute form of NE results in enlarged lesions along the gut wall, and the epithelium becomes eroded and detached; consequently, a diphtheritic membrane is formed. This yellow, green, or brownish pseudo-membrane is called the “Turkish towel,” which describes the appearance of the friable, gas-filled, foul-smelling GI tract⁵⁷.

Subclinical form

Poultry producers are not only concerned with the acute form of NE. Recent studies have shown that the disease’s subclinical form can be as detrimental as the acute illness¹⁹. Lovland and co-workers³⁵ stated that this symptomless disease is often overlooked at the farm, and the effects are only noticed at the processing facility.

Subclinical NE (SNE) can cause cholangiohepatitis, a condition where the liver is enlarged with pale reticular patterns and sometimes small, pale foci. In the United Kingdom, it was estimated that 4% of broiler carcasses and 12% of livers are condemned at processing plants due to clostridial infection; thereby, reducing profit³⁶. Moreover, sparse lesions that may be found in a case of SNE may be enough to hinder growth performance; thus, resulting in an underproductive flock³⁹.

Feeding Against Necrotic Enteritis

It has been reported that diet formulation has the greatest impact on the prevalence of C. perfringens in chicken GI tracts⁶¹. The poultry industry formulates diets on a least-cost basis, which may become problematic if nutritionists do not take into consideration the pathological consequences that some ingredients may have in the GI tracts of chickens. Every feed ingredient has a specific purpose in the diet. For instance, cereal grains are fed for their energy concentration as well as fiber. Also, some grain and animal/plant meals are used for their protein content. Since these ingredients are obtained from different sources, they are highly variable in macro and micronutrients¹.

The diet provides the conditions for proliferation

There are multiple elements that affect the proliferation of C. perfringens in chicken intestines, one of the most critical factors being diet formulation^{5, 36}. Some feed ingredients have been found to exacerbate the numbers of C. perfringens in chickens’ gastrointestinal tract. Diets formulated with wheat increased NE intestinal lesion scores compared to broiler chickens fed a corn-based diet⁴. In another study, Drew et al.¹⁰ investigated the effects of different protein sources on the intestinal populations of C. perfringens in broiler chickens. Diets were formulated to contain 230, 315, and 400 g/kg of fishmeal or soy protein concentrate (SPC). The numbers of C. perfringens in the ileum and ceca increased when the amount of protein increased from 230 to 400 g/kg.

Type of grain influences the occurrence of Clostridium perfringens

Authors have studied the effects of grain inclusion on gut microbiota, and it is well established that small cereal grains such as barley, rye, and wheat tend to increase the prevalence of C. perfringens in the GI tract. Shakouri et al.⁵² investigated the influence of barley, sorghum, wheat, and corn on counts of C. perfringens in the different intestinal segments. Corn and wheat had the lowest C. perfringens counts, followed by sorghum, while barley yielded the highest counts. These findings agree with Riddell and Kong⁵¹.

Other researchers have concluded that the increase in gut viscosity and increased chyme transit time elicit the overgrowth of C. perfringens in the intestines²⁸. Grains like wheat and barley contain high amounts of non-starch polysaccharides (NSP), which increase viscosity²⁶. Furthermore, it has been alleged that, since these grains are high in NSP, the bird cannot absorb nutrients as efficiently, thereby leaving them for microbes like C. perfringens to consume³¹.

Enzymes improve nutrient availability in the presence of C. perfringens

Shakori et al.⁵² and Jia et al.²⁶ also studied the impact of several diets with the inclusion of a blend of carbohydrases such as glucanase and xylanase. Their findings suggested that enzyme addition did not affect counts of C. perfringens in the different intestinal sections. However, they did find an improvement in growth performance. They stated that enzymes improved chyme viscosity by degrading the encapsulation of nutrients in diets.

For this reason, researchers have investigated the use of enzymes in wheat and barley-based diets on the incidence of C. perfringens in chicken intestines. Jackson et al.²⁵ studied the effect of beta-mannanase addition on flocks infected with Eimeria spp. and C. perfringens. They found that feeding this enzyme significantly reduced the impact of C. perfringens on the performance of infected flocks as well as intestinal lesion scores. Moreover, the authors explained that this might be due to beta-mannanase crossing the intestinal wall to provoke an immune response. They determined that this enzyme tended to ameliorate the symptoms of necrotic enteritis, but not significantly.

MOS may have a positive impact on immunity

Hofacre et al. ²³ found similar results when birds were fed mannan-oligosaccharides. A marked effect was only found when mannan-oligosaccharides were included along with lactic acid-producing, competitive exclusion products (probiotics).

The feed form is decisive

Feed form has also been investigated on the incidence of C. perfringens. When birds were fed whole wheat compared to ground, researchers found reduced counts of C. perfringens in the gut². These results can be extrapolated to the findings of Engberg et al.¹¹. They found that when birds were fed coarse versus fine mash or pellets, C. perfringens counts were consistently higher in flocks fed mash diets. These authors concluded that feeding pellets or whole grains increases gizzard activity, which consequently triggers hydrochloric acid production and decreases pH in the GI tract. This drop in pH of approximately 0.5 units may be responsible for decreased C. perfringens counts.

Mind the protein source

Another well-established fact is that the C. perfringens population can be affected by the type of the protein source and the inclusion rates.

Potato is worse than fish

Palliyeguru et al. ⁴² studied the inclusion of protein concentrates (potato, fish, and soy) on subclinical NE. They determined that the potato-containing diet resulted in the highest incidence of C. perfringens in the gut, followed by fish and soy. Also, the potato-containing diet had the highest activity of trypsin inhibitors and lowest lipid content. Increased trypsin inhibition does not allow for the inactivation of alpha and beta toxins produced by C. perfringens, resulting in increased intestinal wall lesions.

Fish is worse than soy due to the amino acid composition

Drew et al.¹⁰ formulated diets containing fishmeal or a soy protein concentrate at different levels. Feeding dietary fishmeal resulted in a higher incidence of C. perfringens as compared to the soy protein diet. Furthermore, with increasing levels of soy and fishmeal diets, counts of C. perfringens increased as well. A notable difference in fishmeal protein concentrate compared to the soy protein concentrate was the amino acid ratio in this experiment; the methionine and glycine ratios were 1.3 times greater in fishmeal diets. Muhammed et al.⁴⁰ determined that methionine was required for C. perfringens sporulation. This may be of interest to nutritionists since some authors have estimated that 10-20 % of synthetic amino acids are not absorbed and reach the lower intestinal tract, i.e., ceca; thereby, aiding in the proliferation of C. perfringens.

Fat source – animal fat is critical

The effects of fat sources on C. perfringens population remain largely unknown. Knarreborg et al.²⁹ studied the bacterial microflora in chicken intestines after feeding different dietary fats (soy oil and a tallow and lard mix) in rations containing antibiotic growth promoters (AGP). When soy oil was fed, C. perfringens counts were significantly lower than diets containing animal fats. The authors stated that, since plant oils contain higher amounts of unsaturated fatty acids, the chyme in birds fed oil diets would have decreased viscosity, decreasing transit time. Furthermore, an additive effect was found when soy oil was provided along with AGP, which may be due to facilitated antibiotic dispersion caused by the oil’s lipophilic properties. Knarreborg et al. (2002) investigated the effects of fat sources on C. perfringens. They found that total anaerobic counts increased with animal fat addition. However, zinc bacitracin was included in their diets, specifically targeting Gram-positive microorganisms like C. perfringens; thus, potentially biasing their results.

Antibiotics and coccidiostats in the diet – helpful, but finite

Antibiotics and coccidiostats have been commonly included in poultry diets since the mid-1940s and 1950s^{61, 58}.

Prescott et al.⁴⁹ studied the inclusion of zinc bacitracin to prevent necrotic enteritis and concluded that it successfully controlled the C. perfringens challenge. Flocks in the antibiotic treatments were able to overcome disease and perform similarly to unchallenged birds. Multiple authors have replicated these results using different antibiotics such as virginiamycin and salinomycin^{17, 3, 11}.

Improvements in flock performance with the inclusion of antibiotics and coccidiostats are well understood and omnipresent in the literature. However, the potential loss of subtherapeutic antibiotic usage in livestock in the United States due to increasing concerns over antimicrobial resistance and consumer demands makes research of viable alternatives to these compounds paramount.

So, what are your alternatives?

A lot of different approaches are possible. In general, these measures should act against Clostridium perfringens while supporting gut health.

Tested substances without the desired effects

Lastly, multiple options have been studied to control C. perfringens in poultry. Some researchers have studied the inclusion of complex carbohydrates and fibers like pine shavings, guar gum, and pectin with limited success^{4, 31}. Another popular alternative is the use of competitive exclusion-based products such as prebiotics and probiotics^{27, 16}. Still, these products failed to yield consistent results.

Other options that have been investigated are the addition of lactose and organic acids^{54, 38}. Potassium diformate did not produce lowered counts of C. perfringens. Lactose reduced C. perfringens counts but resulted in undesirable ceca characteristics including, enlargement and increased fermentation⁵⁴.

Essential oils alone or in combination may be a solution

Mitsch and coworkers³⁹ investigated the efficacy of two blends of essential oils with positive effects on the reduction of C. perfringens from the gut and feces of broilers. Gaucher and coworkers¹⁵ compared growth performance and gut health of broilers fed a conventional (anticoccidials and AGPs) vs. ABF (Coccidiosis vaccine and essential oil blends) diet. They established that livability, age at slaughter, and percentage of condemnation did not change with diet type. However, average daily weight gain and FCR were negatively affected. Furthermore, NE was more prevalent in ABF flocks.  Still, many authors agree that a multifactorial approach is necessary if antibiotics should be completely replaced by these strategies³⁶.

A contemporary study by Wati et al.⁵⁶ aimed to compare AGPs to a commercial blend of essential oils fed to broilers. Authors found that chickens fed essential oils had body weights and FCRs that were statistically similar to the AGP treatment. Moreover, both AGP and essential oil treatments had statistically lower counts of Salmonella and E. coli after an oral challenge than the control group.

Conclusion

C. perfringens is a potential pathogen found in every place poultry is raised. Therefore, we must continue to identify strategies to control the development of Necrotic Enteritis. Since antibiotics alone may not always successfully control C. perfringens and have the potential for subtherapeutic use loss in the US, a multifactorial approach must be considered and investigated. Grain size, enzymes, feed form, animal protein source, fats, and feed supplements such as essential oils can affect the proliferation of C. perfringens. Nutritionists, veterinarians, and live production personnel must come together to develop the best approach for their specific complex circumstances.

Figure 1. Interaction between coccidiosis and NE with environmental factors

Solid-line arrows are beneficial in controlling disease. Dashed-line arrows impart high disease risk factors. Double-line arrows depict major disease-risk factors. AGP, antibiotic growth promoter; CIA, chick infectious anemia; CEP, competitive exclusion product; Cp, Clostridium perfringens; IBD, infectious bursal disease; MD, Marek’s disease; NE, necrotic enteritis. (Williams, R.B. 2005)

 Figure 2. Necrotic Enteritis lesions in chicken intestines

Yellowish necrotic lesions in three intestinal samples. Intestines A and C show a few marked lesions. Intestine B shows clusters of lesions typical of the “Turkish towel” syndrome. (Source: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/2/7/1913/htm. Accessed: January 14, 2021).

References

1. Bedford, M.R. 1996. Interaction Between Ingested Feed and the Digestive System in Poultry. Applied Poultry Science 5:86-95.
2. Bjerrum, L., K. Pedersen, and R. M. Engberg. 2005. The Influence of Whole Wheat Feeding on Salmonella Infection and Gut Flora Composition in Broilers. Avian Disease 49:9-15.
3. Bolder, N. M., J. A. Wagenaar, F. F. Putirulan, K. T. Veldman, and M. Sommer. 1999. The Effect of Flavophospholipol (Flavomycin^R) and Salinomycin Sodium (Sacox^R) on the Excretion of Clostridium perfringens, Salmonella enteritidis, and Campylobacter jejuni in Broilers After Experimental Infection. Poultry Science 78:1681-1689.
4. Branton, S. L., B. D. Lott, J. W. Deaton, W. R. Maslin, F. W. Austin, L. M. Pote, R. W. Keirs, M. A. Latour, and E. J. Day. 1997. The Effect of Added Complex Carbohydrates or Added Dietary Fiber on Necrotic Enteritis Lesions in Broiler Chickens. Poultry Science 76:24-28.
5. Choct, M. 2009. Managing Gut Health through Nutrition. British Poultry Science 50:9-15.
6. Cooper, K., and J. G. Songer. 2009. Necrotic Enteritis in Chickens: A Paradigm of Enteric Infection by Clostridium perfringens Type A. Veterinary anaerobes and diseases 15:55-60.
7. Craven, S. E., N. J. Stern, N. A. Cox, J. S. Bailey, and M. Berrang. 1999. Cecal Carriage of Clostridium perfringens in Broiler Chickens Given Mucosal Starter Culture^TM. Avian Diseases 43:484-490.
8. Craven, S. E., N. A. Cox, N. J. Stern, and J. M. Mauldin. 2001a. Prevalence of Clostridium perfringens in Commercial Broiler Hatcheries. Avian Diseases 45:1050-1053.
9. Craven, S. E., N. J. Stern, J. S. Bailey, and N. A. Cox. 2001b. Incidence of Clostridium perfringens in Broiler Chickens and Their Environment during Production and Processing. Avian Diseases 45:887-896.
10. Drew, M. D., N. A. Syed, B. G. Goldade, B. Laarveld, and A. G. Van Kessel. 2004. Effects of Dietary Protein Source and Level on Intestinal Populations of Clostridium perfringens in Broiler Chickens. Poultry Science 83:414-420.
11. Engberg, R. M., M. S. Hedemann, Leser, T.D., and Jensen, B.B. 2000. Effect of Bacitracin and Salinomycin on Intestinal Microflora and Performance of Broilers. Poultry Science 79: 1311-1319.
12. Engberg, R. M., M. S. Hedemann, and Jensen, B.B. 2002. The Influence of Grinding and Pelleting of Feed on the Microbial Composition and Activity in the Digestive Tract of Broiler Chickens. British Poultry Science 44:569-579.
13. Freeman, B.A. 1979. Burrows Textbook of Microbiology. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
14. Fukata, T., Y. Hadate, E. Baba, T. Uemura, and A. Arakawa. 1988. Influence of Clostridium perfringens and its Toxin in Germ-free Chickens. Research in Veterinary Science 44:68-70.
15. Gaucher, M.L., Quessy, S., Letellier, A., Arsenault, J., and M. Boulianne. 2015. Impact of a drug-free program on broiler chicken growth performances, gut health, Clostridium perfringens and Campylobacter jejuni occurrences at the farm level. Poultry Science 94: 1791-1801.
16. Geier, M. S., L. L. Mikkelsen, V. A. Torok, G. E. Allison, G. C. Olnood, M. Boulianne, R. J. Hughes, and M. Choct. 2010. Comparison of Alternatives to In-feed Antimicrobials for the Prevention of Clinical Necrotic Enteritis. Journal of Applied Microbiology 109:1329-1338.
17. George, B. A., C. L. Quarles, and D. J. Fagerberg. 1982. Virginiamycin Effects on Controlling Necrotic Enteritis Infection in Chickens. Poultry Science 61:447-450.
18. Hatheway, C. L. 1990. Toxigenic Clostridia. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 3:66-98.
19. Heier, B. T., A. Lovland, K. B. Soleim, M. Kaldhusdal, and J. Jarp. 2001. A Field Study of Naturally Occurring Specific Antibodies against Clostridium perfringens Alpha Toxin in Norwegian Broiler Flocks. Avian Diseases 45:724-732.
20. Heikinheimo, A., M. Lindstrom, and H. Korkeala. 2004. Enumeration and Isolation of cpe-Positive Clostridium perfringens Spores from Feces. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 42:3992-3997.
21. Helmboldt, C. F., and E. S. Bryant. 1971. The Pathology of Necrotic Enteritis in Domestic Fowl. Avian Diseases 15:775-780.
22. Hickey, C.S., and Johnson, M.G. 1981. Effects of pH Shifts, Bile Salts, and Glucose on Sporulation of Clostridium perfringens NTCT 8798. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 41:124-129.
23. Hofacre, C. L., T. Beacorn, S. Collett, and G. Mathis. 2003. Using Competitive Exclusion, Mannan-Oligosaccharide and Other Intestinal Products to Control Necrotic Enteritis. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 12:60-64.
24. Immerseel, F. V., J. De Buck, F. Pasmans, G. Huyghebaert, F. Haesebrouck, and R. Ducatelle. 2004. Clostridium perfringens in Poultry: an Emerging Threat for Animal and Public Health. Avian Pathology 33:537-549.
25. Jackson, M. E., D. M. Anderson, H. Y. Hsiao, G. Mathis, and D. W. Fodge. 2003. Beneficial Effect of B-Mannanase Feed Enzyme on Performance of Chicks Challenged with Eimeria and Clostridium perfringens. Avian Diseases 47:759-763.
26. Jia, W., B. A. Slominski, H. L. Bruce, G. Blank, G. Crow, and O. Jones. 2009. Effects of Diet Type and Enzyme Addition on Growth Performance and Gut Health of Broiler Chickens During Subclinical Clostridium perfringens Poultry Science 88:132-140.
27. Kaldhusdal, M., C. Schneitz, M. Hofshagen, and E. Skjerve. 2001. Reduced Incidence of Clostridium perfringens-Associated Lesions and Improved Performance in Broiler Chickens Treated with Normal Intestinal Bacteria from Adult Fowl. Avian Diseases 45:149-156.
28. Klasing, K. C. 1998. Nutritional Modulation of Resistance to Infectious Diseases. Poultry Science 77:1119-1125.
29. Knarreborg, A., M. A. Simon, R. M. Engberg, B. B. Jensen, and G. W. Tannock. 2002. Effects of Dietary Fat Source and Subtherapeutic Levels of Antibiotic on the Bacterial Community in the Ileum of Broiler Chickens at Various Ages. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68:5918-5924.
30. Labbe, R. G. 1991. Clostridium perfringens. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 74:711-714.
31. Langhout, D. J., J. B. Schutte, P. Van Leeuwen, J. Wiebenga, and S. Tamminga. 1999. Effect of Dietary High- and Low-methylated Citrus Pectin on the Activity of the Ileal Microflora and Morphology of the Small Intestinal Wall of Broiler Chicks. British Poultry Science 40:340-347.
32. Lindstrom, M., A. Heikinheimo, P. Lahti, and H. Korkeala. 2011. Novel Insights into the Epidemiology of Clostridium perfringens Type A Food Poisoning. Food Microbiology 28:192-198.
33. Long, J.R., Pettit, J.R., and Barnum, D.A. 1974. Necrotic Enteritis in Broiler Chickens II. Pathology and Proposed Pathogenesis. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine 38: 467-474.
34. Long, J. R., and R. B. Truscott. 1976. Necrotic Enteritis in Broiler Chickens III. Reproduction of the Disease. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine 40:53-59.
35. Lovland, A., and M. Kaldhusdal. 1999. Liver Lesions Seen at Slaughter as an Indicator of Necrotic Enteritis in Broiler Flocks. FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology 24:345-351.
36. McDevitt, R. M., J. D. Brooker, T. Acamovic, and N. H. C. Sparks. 2006. Necrotic Enteritis; A Continuing Challenge for the Poultry Industry. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62:221-247.
37. McDonel, J. L. 1986. Clostridium perfringens Toxins (type A, B, C, D, E). Pharmacology and Therapeutics 10:617-655.
38. Mikkelsen, L. L., J. K. Vidanarachchi, G. C. Olnood, Y. M. Bao, P. H. Selle, and M. Choct. 2009. Effect of Potassium Diformate on Growth Performance and Gut Microbiota in Broiler Chickens Challenged with Necrotic Enteritis. British Poultry Science 50:66-75.
39. Mitsch, P., K. Zitterl-Eglseer, B. Kohler, C. Gabler, R. Losa, and I. Zimpernik. 2004. The Effect of Two Different Blends of Essential Oil Components on the Proliferation of Clostridium perfringens in the Intestines of Broiler Chickens. Poultry Science 83:669-675.
40. Muhammed, S. I., S. M. Morrison, and W. L. Boyd. 1975. Nutritional Requirements for Growth and Sporulation of Clostridium perfringens. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 38:245-253.
41. Murray, P. R., K. S. Rosenthal, and M. A. Pfaller. 2009. Medical Microbiology. 6th ed. Elsevier Health Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
42. Palliyeguru, M. W. C. D., S. P. Rose, and A. M. Mackenzie. 2010. Effect of Dietary Protein Concentrates on the Incidence of Subclinical Necrotic Enteritis and Growth Performance of Broiler Chickens. Poultry Science 89:34-43.
43. Paredes-Sabja, D., Torres, J.A., Setlow, P., and Sarker, M.R. 2008. Clostridium perfringens Spore Germination: Characterization of Germinants and their Receptors. Journal of Bacteriology 190:1190-1201.
44. Parish, W. E. 1961. Necrotic Enteritis in the Fowl (Gallus Gallus Domesticus). I. Histopathology of the Disease and Isolation of a Strain of Clostridium welchii. Journal of Comparative Pathology 71:377-393.
45. Parish, W. E. 1961. Necrotic Enteritis in the Fowl. II. Examination of the Causal Clostridium welchii. Journal of Comparative Pathology 71:394-404.
46. Parish, W. E. 1961. Necrotic Enteritis in the Fowl. III. The Experimental Disease. Journal of Comparative Pathology 71:405-414.
47. Pedersen, K., L. Bjerrum, B. Nauerby, and M. Madsen. 2003. Experimental Infections with Rifampicin-resistant Clostridium perfringens Strains in Broiler Chickens Using Isolator Facilities. Avian Pathology 32:403-411.
48. Pedersen, K., L. Bjerrum, O. Heuer, D. Wong, and B. Nauerby. 2007. Reproducible Infection Model for Clostridium perfringens in Broiler Chickens. Avian Diseases 52:34-39.
49. Prescott, J. F., R. Sivendra, and D. A. Barnum. 1978. The Use of Bacitracin in the Prevention and Treatment of Experimentally-induced Necrotic Enteritis in the Chicken. Canadian Veterinary Journal 19:181-183.
50. Rehman, H., W. A. Awad, I. Lindner, M. Hess, and J. Zentek. 2006. Clostridium perfringens Alpha Toxin Affects Electrophysiological Properties of Isolated Jejunal Mucosa of Laying Hens. Poultry Science 85:1298-1302.
51. Riddell, C., and X. Kong. 1992. The Influence of Diet on Necrotic Enteritis. Avian Diseases 36:499-503.
52. Shakouri, M. D., P. A. Iji, L. L. Mikkelsen, and A. J. Cowieson. 2008. Intestinal Function and Gut Microflora of Broiler Chickens as Influenced by Cereal Grains and Microbial Enzyme Supplementation. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 93:647-658.
53. Shane, S. M., J. E. Gyimah, K. S. Harrington, and T. G. Snider. 1985. Etiology and Pathogenesis of Necrotic Enteritis. Veterinary Research Communications 9:269-287.
54. Takeda, T., T. Fukata, T. Miyamoto, K. Sasai, E. Baba, and A. Arakawa. 1995. The Effects of Dietary Lactose and Rye on Cecal Colonization of Clostridium perfringens in Chicks. Avian Diseases 39:375-381.
55. Tschirdewahn, B., S. Notermans, K. Wernars, and F. Untermann. 1991. The Presence of Enterotoxigenic Clostridium perfringens Strains in Faeces of Various Animals. International Journal of Food Microbiology 14:175-178.
56. Wati, T., Ghosh, T., Syed, B., and S. Haldar. 2015. Comparative efficacy of a phytogenic feed additive and an antibiotic growth promoter on production performance, caecal microbial population and humoral immune response of broiler chickens inoculated with enteric pathogens. Animal Nutrition 1(2015): 213-219.
57. Williams, R.B. 2005. Intercurrent Coccidiosis and Necrotic Enteritis of Chickens: Rational, Integrated Disease Management by Maintenance of Gut Integrity. Avian pathology 34(3):159-180.
58. Williams, R. B., R. N. Marshall, R. M. La Regione, and J. Catchpole. 2003. A New Method for the Experimental Production of Necrotic Enteritis and its Use for Studies on the Relationships Between Necrotic Enteritis, Coccidiosis and Anticoccidial Vaccination of Chickens. Parasitology Research 90:19-26.
59. Wise, M. G., and G. R. Siragusa. 2005. Quantitative Detection of Clostridium perfringens in the Broiler Fowl Gastrointestinal Tract by Real-Time PCR. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71:3911-3916.
60. Wiseman, R.W., Bushnell, O.A., and Rosengerg, M.M. 1956. Effects of Rations on the pH and Microflora in Selected Regions of the Intestinal Tract of Chickens. Poultry Science 35:126-132.
61. Yegani, M., and D. R. Korver. 2008. Factors Affecting Intestinal Health in Poultry. Poultry Science 87:2052-2063.

Vitamin E prices have spiked amid production issues and lack of availability. How can you mitigate the increased cost of vitamin E inclusion?

Vitamin E prices often see severe fluctuations caused by raw materials shortages, production or distribution issues, or regulations on some key production ingredients (such as m-cresol anti-dumping rules in China leading to a global price spike some months ago).

SANTOQUIN acts as a preservative for Vitamin E, allowing more of this vitamin to enter the tissue where it exerts its antioxidant effect. In addition, in the presence of selenium, another important cellular antioxidant mineral, SANTOQUIN can help protect or spare the Vitamin E needed for proper cell function.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO, clearly confirms this mode of action: “Dietary deficiencies of vitamins A and E seem to be ameliorated in certain circumstances and ethoxyquin promotes higher levels of vitamin A storage in the liver. Repletion/deletion experiments show that in both monogastric and ruminant animals, a diet containing an anti-oxidant protects fat soluble vitamins throughout ingestion and metabolism. The important benefit of antioxidants most probably lies in their conservation of essential nutrients and their improved utilization by the animal. Altogether too often, it is the practice to use levels of vitamin E far above the animals’ nutrient requirement and the result is economically unfavorable. It has been shown in diets designed for chicken and turkey breeders that ethoxyquin has a vitamin E sparing effect.”