By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor EW Nutrition

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

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

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

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

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

1. Mucus layers

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

2. Intestinal epithelium

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

2.1 Proliferating stem cells

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

2.2 Paneth cells

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

2.3 M cells

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

2.4 Dendritic cells

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

2.5 Goblet cells

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

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

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

2.6 Neuroendocrine cells

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

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

3. Last but not least – the microbiome

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

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

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

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

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

Factors impairing intestinal immune defense

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the video on The Poultry Site.

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

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

Price competitiveness of DDGS

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

Variability in the nutritional quality of DDGS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonstarch Polysaccharides (NSP) in DDGS

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

Use of xylanase in DDGS diets for poultry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mycotoxins – originators of antimicrobial resistance?

Actually, it would be logical…

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

A short excursus to antimicrobial resistance

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

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

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

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

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

Deoxynivalenol (DON) promotes resistance in gut microbiota

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

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

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

Which protection mechanisms do bacteria have against mycotoxins?

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

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

Public health implications and preventive measures

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

To address the issue, several strategies can be implemented:

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

Antimicrobial resistance: Be aware of the mycotoxins!

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phytomolecules – how can they help?

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

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

1. Phytomolecules modulate intestinal microbiota

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

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

Proof of Ventar D’s pathogen-inhibiting effect

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

Process

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

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

Results and discussion

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

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

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

2. Phytomolecules improve intestinal integrity

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

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

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

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

Proof of Ventar D’s gut barrier-stabilizing effect

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

Process

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

Results

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

3. Phytomolecules act as antioxidants

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

Proof of Ventar D’s antioxidant effect in vitro

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

Process

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

Result

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

4. Phytomolecules decrease inflammation

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

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

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

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

Process

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

Results

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

5. Phytomolecules improve production performance and efficiency

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

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

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

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

Process

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

Table 1: Feeding scheme and product application

Results

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

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

Phytomolecules can help to keep sows healthy and productive

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The financial details of the sale remain confidential.

***

About EW Nutrition

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

Contact: info@ew-nutrition.com

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

Sow mortality critically impacts herd performance and efficiency in modern pig production. Keeping the sows healthy is, therefore, the best strategy to keep them alive and productive and the farm’s profitability high.

Rising mortality rates are alarming

In recent years, sow mortality has increased across pig-raising regions in many countries. Eckberg’s (2022) findings from the MetaFarms Ag Platform (including farms across the United States, Canada, Australia, and the Philippines) determined an increase of 66.2% between 2012 and 2021.

What can be done to decrease mortality rates?

Several measures can be taken to reach a particular stock of healthy and high-performing sows. In the following, the main remedial actions will be explained.

1. Determination of the cause of death

If a sow is dead, it must first be clarified why it has died. If the sow is culled, the reason for this decision is usually apparent. If the sow suddenly dies, investigations, including a thorough postmortem, are extremely valuable to determine the cause of death. Kikuti et al. (2022) provided a collection of the most-occurring causes of death in the years 2009 to 2018. As often, no necropsy is conducted, and the causes of death remain unclear, as shown by the high numbers of “other”. Locomotory (e.g., lameness) and reproductive (e.g., prolapse, endotoxemic shock from retained fetuses) incidents account for approximately half of the recorded sow mortalities (Kikuti et al., 2022), especially during the first three parities. (Marco, 2024).

Evaluating detailed breeding history together with the cause of death will provide perspective and assist veterinary, nutritionist, and husbandry teams with interventions to prevent similar events and early sow mortality.

Selection of the gilts

After selecting the best genetics and rearing the gilts under the best conditions, further selection must focus on physical traits such as structure, weight, height, leg, and hoof integrity.

Additionally, as we have more and more group housing for sows, the selection for stress resilience can positively impact piglet performance (Luttmann and Ernst, 2024). The following table compares stress-resilient and stress-vulnerable sows concerning piglet performance and shows the piglets of the vulnerable sows with worse performance.

Table 1: Influence of stress resilience on performance (Luttmann and Ernst, 2024)

Least square means and standard error of stress resilient (SR) and stress vulnerable (SV) for each trait; significance threshold of p<0.05 with * indicating 0.01<p<0.05, ** indicating 0.001<p<0.01

How to manage the gilts best

The management of the gilts must consider the following:

1. Age at first estrus should be <195 days:
   Gilts having their first estrus earlier show higher daily gain and usually higher lifetime productivity. In a study conducted by Roongsitthichai et al. (2013), sows culled at parity 0 or 1 exhibited first estrus at 204.4±0.7 days of age, while those culled at parity ≥5 exhibited first estrus at 198.9±2.1 days of age (P=0.015).
2. Age at first breeding should lay between 200 and 225 days:
   If the sows are bred at a higher age, they have the risk of being overweight, leading to smaller second-parity litters, longer wean-to-service intervals, and shorter production life.
3. The body weight at first mating should be between 135 and 160 kg:
   To reach this target within 200-225 days, the gilts must have 600-800 g of average daily gain. Breeding underweight gilts reduces first-litter size and lactation performance. Overweight gilts (>160 kg) face higher maintenance costs and locomotion issues.
4. The number of estruses at first mating should be 2 or 3:
   Accurately track estrus and breed on the second estrus. Research shows that delaying breeding to the second estrus positively affects litter size. Only delay breeding to the third estrus to meet minimum weight targets.

Housing

Gestating sows are more and more held in groups. Understanding the process of group housing is essential for success. The following graphic shows factors impacting successful grouping.

If the groups are not well-established yet, the stress levels among sows are higher, leading to

• More leg injuries due to aggressive behavior or fighting for resources
• Higher rates of abortions and returns to service
• Reduced sow performance, including decreased productivity, lower milk yield, and poor piglet growth due to compromised immune function and overall health

To mitigate stress in group housing, it is crucial to implement proper group management practices, which include gradual introductions, maintaining stable social structures, and ensuring adequate space and resources. This helps promote a calmer environment, improving animal welfare and herd performance.

Responsible on-farm pig care

Caregivers must be well-trained and equipped to provide high-quality care. Insufficient or unskilled pig caregivers can significantly affect the growth and development of prospective replacement gilts, ultimately influencing their suitability for the breeding herd:

• Growth Rates: Suboptimal nutrition and health management result in slower growth rates and poor body condition.
• Health Issues: Unskilled handling may increase the risk of disease transmission, injuries, and stress, all of which can adversely affect growth and overall development.
• Behavioral Problems: Poorly managed environments can increase aggression and competition among animals, hindering growth and health.
• Selection Criteria: Ineffective growth and health monitoring can result in misjudging the potential of gilts, leading to the selection of less suitable candidates for the breeding herd.

Table 2: Influence of handling on growth performance and corticosteroid concentration of female grower pigs from 7-13 weeks of age (Hemsworth et al., 1987)

Responsible on-farm pig care is crucial to keep sows healthy and performing. Poor sow observations (e.g., failure to identify stressed, anorexic, or heat-stressed sows) or inappropriate farrowing interventions can directly influence sow health and potentially reduce subsequent performance or mortality. On the contrary, rapid and proactive identification of sows needing intervention can save many animals that would otherwise die or need to be culled.

Keeping sows healthy and performing is manageable

The maintenance of sows’ health is a challenge but manageable. Observing all the points mentioned, from selecting the right genetics over rearing the piglets under the best conditions to managing the young gilts, can help prevent disease and performance drops. For all these tasks, farmers and farm workers who do their jobs responsibly and passionately are needed. The following article will show nutritional interventions supporting the sow’s gut and overall health.

References:

Eckberg, Bradley. “2021 Sow Mortality Analysis.” National Hog Farmer, February 3, 2022. https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/hog-health/2021-sow-mortality-analysis.

Hemsworth, P.H., J.L. Barnett, and C. Hansen. “The Influence of Inconsistent Handling by Humans on the Behaviour, Growth and Corticosteroids of Young Pigs.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17, no. 3–4 (June 1987): 245–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(87)90149-3.

Kikuti, Mariana, Guilherme Milanez Preis, John Deen, Juan Carlos Pinilla, and Cesar A. Corzo. “Sow Mortality in a Pig Production System in the Midwestern USA: Reasons for Removal and Factors Associated with Increased Mortality.” Veterinary Record 192, no. 7 (December 22, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.2539.

Marco, E. “Sow Mortality: How and Who? (1/2).” Pig333.com Professional Pig Community, March 18, 2024. https://www.pig333.com/articles/sow-mortality-how-are-sows-dying-which-sows-are-dying_20105/.

Luttmann, A. M., and C. W. Ernst. “Classifying Maternal Resilience for Improved Sow Welfare, Offspring Performance.” National Hog Farmer, September 2024. https://informamarkets.turtl.co/story/national-hog-farmer-septemberoctober-2024/page/5.

Roongsitthichai, A., P. Cheuchuchart, S. Chatwijitkul, O. Chantarothai, and P. Tummaruk. “Influence of Age at First Estrus, Body Weight, and Average Daily Gain of Replacement Gilts on Their Subsequent Reproductive Performance as Sows.” Livestock Science 151, no. 2–3 (February 2013): 238–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.11.004.

Conference Report

Nowadays, climate change is an omnipresent topic. Extreme weather events, such as high temperatures and heavy rainfall, are becoming more frequent, and there has been a rapid increase in greenhouse gas concentrations since the 1850s. Climate change will also have consequences for the pig industry. Dr. Jan Fledderus, Schothorst Feed Research, discussed upcoming issues for the pig industry at EW Nutrition’s Swine Academy.

Shift in mycotoxin-producing fungi

Climate change is likely to expand the geographical range of mycotoxin-producing fungi, exposing new crops and areas previously considered low risk to higher contamination levels. For instance, regions in South and Eastern Europe have reported increased occurrences of aflatoxins due to hotter and drier conditions favoring Aspergillus flavus over Fusarium species.

European Green Deal

The European Commission has adopted the European Green Deal, a comprehensive policy initiative to address climate change and promote sustainability within the European Union (EU). It sets ambitious targets and outlines a roadmap for reducing greenhouse gases by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, and achieving climate neutrality by 2050. The EU’s primary goal is to ensure food security while reducing environmental and climate footprint.

The EU regulation on deforestation-free products includes soybeans and palm oil. The objective is to guarantee that the products EU citizens consume do not contribute to deforestation or forest degradation worldwide. Effective 1 January 2026, all imported soy must be free of deforestation. This means soybeans must be from areas not deforested since 1 January 2021.

The Green Deal will affect pig production

While it is still early to fully assess the impacts of the European Green Deal on pig farmers, it is clear that regulatory changes, economic pressures, and shifts in consumer behavior will shape the future of pig farming in the EU. Several potential consequences are still being assessed, including:

• Halving nutrient losses, particularly nitrogen, influences the eutrophication of natural areas and surface water, which will likely require pig farmers to adjust their feeding strategies and potentially reduce herd sizes.
• The use of food waste and by-products, such as wheat bran, in pig diets will be encouraged, promoting a circular economy approach that minimizes waste and enhances resource efficiency.
• Costs (notably related to feed) are likely to increase due to manure management and a reduction in crop production due to stricter environmental regulations.
• Farmers may need to invest in more sustainable practices and technologies to comply with new regulations, which could strain finances unless supported by subsidies or compensatory payments.
• Reduced supply and higher consumer prices for pigmeat products.
• Encouraging a shift towards plant-based diets in humans, which may reduce demand for pork (and other animal proteins).
• There may be opportunities for the pig industry to develop premium products that meet sustainability criteria or cater to specific consumer preferences.

Defining sustainability

It is necessary to apply a uniform method to calculate sustainability parameters and define objectives for “sustainable pig feed.” The Global Feed LCA Institute (GFLI) is the global standard for raw material parameters. It gives data by different methods to calculate carbon dioxide (feed/food), with detailed data per country of origin, including peat oxidation. It includes 16 environmental impact categories.

Climate-neutral pig production

How does this impact pig production? Firstly, feed contributes 50-70% of CO₂ equivalents/kg of pigmeat. Secondly, it is essential to have a uniform method to calculate the CO₂ equivalents/kg of pigmeat. Currently, there are no financial benefits for pig farmers to improve sustainability.

Based on scenario calculations, Dr. Fledderus concluded that it is challenging to realize ‘zero emissions’ and that improving on all environmental impact parameters is not realistic. Formulating pig diets to reduce CO2 equivalents to produce ‘green pork’ increases feed costs. The obvious question is, who will pay for this?

EW Nutrition’s Swine Academy took place in Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok in October 2024. Dr. Jan Fledderus, Product Manager and Consultant at the S&C team at Schothorst Feed Research, one of the founders of the Advanced Feed Package and with a strong focus on continuously improving the price/quality ratio of the diets for a competitive pig sector, was a reputable guest speaker in these events.

Conference Report

Unlike humans and most mammals, piglets do not receive any maternal immunoglobulins (antibodies) via the placenta. Therefore, it is vital for piglets to receive maternal antibodies via the colostrum within 24 hours of birth. Otherwise, they are more vulnerable to illnesses in their early stages of life. In situations where piglets do not receive enough colostrum, such as due to large litter sizes or weak sows following a prolonged farrowing — supplemental colostrum or IgY products can provide essential immune protection.

In the following, Dr. Shofiqur Rahman describes the innovative role of IgY – yolk immunoglobulins in enhancing swine health.

IgY – modes of action

IgY is an antibody found in egg yolk. It is an entirely natural product; each egg contains approximately 100 mg of IgY. These egg-derived antibodies primarily function in the gut through several mechanisms:

• Adherence inhibition – IgY antibodies bind to specific structures on the surface of pathogens (such as fimbriae, flagella, and lipopolysaccharides), preventing them from adhering to the intestinal mucosa and blocking the initial stages of infection. This is particularly significant for enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), which causes piglet diarrhea by attaching to intestinal cells.
• Neutralization – IgY can neutralize toxins produced by pathogens, preventing them from exerting harmful effects on host cells.
• Agglutination – IgY promotes the clumping of pathogens by binding them together, effectively immobilizing them, and facilitating their removal from the animal’s gut.
• Cell damage – IgY can damage the integrity of bacterial cell walls leading to cell lysis and reduced bacterial viability.

Furthermore, because these pathogens are bound in complexes with IgY and eliminated through feces in an inactivated form, IgY helps prevent environmental re-infection through manure.

IgY and IgG – functional differences

Both IgY and Immunoglobulin G (IgG) (IgG, the most abundant immunoglobulin in mammals) are antibodies. They, however, exhibit significant differences due to their distinct structural characteristics. “IgY, for instance, does not activate the complement system, a key function of IgG that enhances immune responses against infections. Additionally, IgY promotes more rapid phagocytosis and reduces inflammation compared to IgG. These effects contribute to energy conservation, thereby facilitating improved animal growth performance,” he explained.

IgY is more hydrophobic than IgG, which increases its stability and resistance to proteolytic degradation. This property is beneficial for maintaining its functionality in the gastrointestinal tract.

Production and quality control

IgY develops in hens in response to the pathogens they encounter, regardless of their relevance to the hens themselves. For instance, hens immunized with an infectious pathogen affecting pigs can produce IgY, effectively preventing the disease caused by that pathogen.

There are different methods of IgY production. One possibility is to hyperimmunize the hens simultaneously with multiple antigens. This method seems convenient, but it does not produce products with standardized levels of immunoglobulins for each antigen.

Another approach involves immunizing different groups of hens, each with a single antigen (e.g., transmissible gastroenteritis virus, rotavirus, E. coli) that commonly challenges piglets during the first weeks of life. The immunoglobulin content is then quantified, and the resulting egg powders are spray-dried, pasteurized, and mixed. This process yields an IgY product with standardized amounts of specific immunoglobulins that exhibit high affinity for the target pathogens.

One health application in swine

“The benefits of IgY have been demonstrated through extensive trials and commercial experiences, highlighting its potential for various applications not only in swine but also in other animals and humans,” said Dr. Rahman.

Due to concerns about antibiotic resistance, regulatory and consumer scrutiny increased over the use of in-feed antibiotics. IgY can serve as an effective and natural alternative for improving overall gut health, reducing the incidence and severity of diarrhea, reducing morbidity during the critical pre- and post-weaning periods, and, thereby, increasing performance.

Unlike antibiotics, which can indiscriminately kill both harmful and beneficial bacteria, IgY selectively targets specific pathogens. This selective action helps maintain a balanced gut microbiome, which is crucial for overall health and digestion in piglets. Disruption of the gut microbiota by antibiotics can lead to issues such as antibiotic-associated diarrhea and increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections due to the loss of beneficial microbes.

In contrast to antibiotics, IgY targets multiple antigenic sites on pathogens, requiring various genes for their protection, thereby avoiding resistance issues among pathogenic microorganisms. Additionally, IgY is effective not only against bacteria but also demonstrates significant efficacy against viruses and coccidia.

Conclusion

Dr. Rahman concluded that “the use of IgY as a passive immunization strategy, incorporated into a holistic approach to reducing piglet diarrhea, offers a safe and natural alternative to traditional antibiotics, particularly in the light of rising antibiotic resistance and the need for effective treatments also for viral diseases.”

EW Nutrition’s Swine Academy took place in Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok in October 2024. Dr. Shofiqur Rahman, Senior Researcher at the Immunology Research Institute Gifu (IRIG) in Japan was one of the highly experienced speakers of EW Nutrition. Originally a microbiologist, Dr. Rahman focuses on researching and developing IgY products for Human, Animal, Pet, Fish, Plant, and Environmental health.

By Ajay Bhoyar, Senior Global Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

Gut health is pivotal to profitable poultry production, as the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) enables nutrient digestion and absorption while acting as a defense against pathogens. A healthy gut improves feed conversion, boosts immune resilience, and reduces reliance on antimicrobials—critical in the fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR). With AMR posing significant threats to public health and animal agriculture, strategies like biosecurity, sustainable management, and effective dietary interventions are gaining traction. Feed enzymes have emerged as essential tools for managing feed costs, mitigating anti-nutritional factors, and improving nutrient utilization. Among these, feed enzymes like xylanase stand out. By breaking down xylan, a major component of non-starch polysaccharides (NSPs) in plant-based feed ingredients, xylanase reduces gut viscosity, enhances nutrient utilization, and supports optimal gut health and productivity. This article explores the innovative application of novel GH10 xylanases, such as Axxess XY, as a sustainable solution for improving feed efficiency and gut health in poultry production.

Xylanase in Poultry Nutrition

Xylanase plays a pivotal role in enhancing nutrient availability by addressing the limitations of endogenous enzyme synthesis in poultry. Xylanase enzymes belong to the carbohydrase class, catalyzing the breakdown of xylan, a major NSP in plant-based feed ingredients. They hydrolyze xylan into simple sugars like arabino-xylo-oligosaccharides (AXOs) and xylo-oligosaccharides (XOs), reducing the encapsulation of nutrients and digesta viscosity. These actions improve overall nutrient digestibility and bird performance.

Fig.1: Arabinoxylans – anti-nutrient mode of action in chicken

The primary benefit of feed xylanase lies in its ability to reduce digesta viscosity. By partially hydrolyzing NSPs in the upper digestive tract, xylanase ensures better nutrient absorption in the small intestine. Studies (Matthiesen et al., 2021; Choct & Annison, 1992) confirm that reduced viscosity enhances feed digestibility, leading to improved performance in poultry. Further, to realize the optimum benefits, it is crucial that xylanase efficiently degrades both soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans. The insoluble arabinoxylans are part of the cell wall structure of plant cells, resulting in a cage effect, entrapping nutrients like starch and protein. Effectively breaking down insoluble arabinoxylans ensures that the nutrients trapped in plant cell walls are released for growth and production.

Mechanisms Supporting Gut Health

Viscosity Reduction

High NSP content increases digesta viscosity and slows digestion and nutrient absorption. Soluble arabinoxylan is not digested in the small intestine of broilers. It produces a viscous chime, leading to the proliferation of pathogenic bacteria, intestinal inflammation, impairment of barrier function in the intestine, and severe intestinal lesions (Teirlynck et al., 2009). Xylanase mitigates this by breaking down xylans, a major component of NSPs in common feed ingredients. This results in a better flow of digesta and reduced energy losses.

Microbial Metabolites

Xylo-oligosaccharides (XOS) can also be produced in the intestine of monogastric animals to some extent when exogenous enzymes, such as xylanase, are added to the feed (Baker et al., 2021).

The XOS generated by xylanase action on arabinoxylans can act as prebiotics, fostering beneficial bacteria like Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, which can outcompete harmful species. XOS can positively impact the gut microbiota, enhance short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) production, stimulate immune activity in the gastrointestinal tract, and improve energy utilization.

Fig. 2. Axxess XY improved beneficial microbes and reduced the clostridial population in broilers.

Barrier Function

By lowering inflammation and irritation in the intestine, xylanase helps maintain gut integrity, reducing the risk of pathogen translocation from the intestinal lumen. In a broiler study, xylanase decreases epithelial apoptosis index, up-regulates tight junction gene expression, and inhibits mucin synthesis in the small intestine, likewise alleviating the intestinal mucosal barrier impairment from Clostridium perfringens challenge (Liu et al., 2012).

Practical Considerations for Xylanase Use

Enzyme Stability

Enzymes are proteins that tend to lose their catalytic activity at high temperatures. When exposed to excessive heat, an enzyme’s protein structure can irreversibly unfold, disrupting its active site and causing loss of function. Therefore, ensuring enzyme stability during feed processing is critical for maintaining its activity in the intestine. Intrinsically heat-stable enzymes have an inherent ability to withstand higher temperatures without the need for a protective coating and are immediately available for action upon ingestion.

Feed Composition

Xylanase efficacy is influenced by diet composition, particularly the NSP content and the presence of xylanase inhibitors in common feedstuffs. It is important to choose a xylanase that can resist the activity of xylanase inhibitors and is effective against both soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans.

The recommended energy matrix value for the xylanase enzyme should be used while formulating the feeds to create energy-deficient diets to reap the full benefits of xylanase use.

Optimal Dosage

Proper dosing is essential to maximizing the benefits of feed enzymes while avoiding unnecessary costs. It is important to follow manufacturers’ recommendations and avoid underdosing an enzyme.

GH10 Xylanases: The Superior Choice for Animal Nutrition

Most feed xylanases are classified into glycoside hydrolase families 10 (GH10) and 11 (GH11) based on their substrate specificity, catalytic action, and structural features.

Why GH10 Xylanases Are More Effective

1. Broader Substrate Specificity:

   Unlike GH11 xylanases, GH10 xylanases can effectively hydrolyze both soluble and insoluble xylan substrates. This broader activity ensures an efficient breakdown of xylans in a wide range of feed ingredients.

2. Higher Catalytic Efficiency:

   GH10 enzymes cleave xylan at substituted regions, yielding shorter xylo-oligosaccharides that can positively impact gut health and maximize nutrient availability.

3. Thermostability:

   Feed processing often involves high temperatures during pelleting. Axxess XY, a GH10 family xylanase, demonstrates remarkable thermostability, maintaining over 85% activity even at 95°C for extended conditioning times. This resilience ensures consistent enzyme performance during feed manufacturing and digestion.

Fig.3: Optimum recovery of Axxess XY at elevated conditioning time and temperatures

Novel Applications of Axxess XY: A GH10 Xylanase

Axxess XY exemplifies the advantages of GH10 xylanases in poultry nutrition. Its ability to efficiently act on both soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans makes it a versatile feed enzyme. The enzyme’s high thermostability ensures efficient enzyme activity in the gut and subsequent optimum nutrient utilization under challenging processing conditions, promoting gut health and maximizing performance.

Key Benefits of Axxess XY

1. Enhanced Nutrient Utilization:

   By unlocking nutrients trapped in NSPs, Axxess XY promotes better feed conversion ratios (FCRs).

2. Improved Gut Health:

   Reducing the digest’s viscosity reduces gut health challenges and predisposition to gut infections. Further, the short-chain oligosaccharides released by Axxess XY support beneficial gut microbiota, improving digestive health.

3. Economic Efficiency:

   Enabling the optimum use of high-fiber, cost-effective, locally available feed ingredients without compromising performance makes Axxess XY an asset for profitability.

In a recently conducted 42-day trial at a commercial farm, Axxess XY maintained the average body weight of broilers with a 100 kcal/kg reduction in metabolizable energy while significantly reducing feed cost/kg body weight. The diets were based on corn, DDGS, and soybean meal.

Figures 4 and 5: Body weight and cost of feed in broilers fed a diet reduced by 100 kcal/kg in metabolizable energy compared to a standard diet without Axxess XY

Conclusion

Xylanase exemplifies how feed enzymes can transcend their traditional role in feed cost reduction to support enhanced gut health. Xylanase supports reduced antimicrobial use in poultry production by improving nutrient utilization, reducing digesta viscosity, and fostering healthy microbiota. Its integration into comprehensive gut health management strategies offers a sustainable pathway to combat AMR and ensure the long-term viability of poultry farming. By targeting NSPs, these enzymes enhance nutrient digestibility, reduce feed costs, and support sustainable production practices.

GH10 xylanases, particularly Axxess XY, stand out for their superior substrate specificity, catalytic efficiency, and thermostability. By incorporating Axxess XY into feed formulations, poultry producers can unlock the full nutritional potential of feed ingredients, ensuring optimal performance and profitability. As the poultry industry continues to evolve, adopting advanced enzyme technologies like Axxess XY represents a strategic step toward sustainable and efficient animal nutrition.

References:

Baker, J.T.; Duarte, M.E.; Holanda, D.M.; Kim, S.W. Friend or Foe? Impacts of Dietary Xylans, Xylooligosaccharides, and Xylanases on Intestinal Health and Growth Performance of Monogastric Animals. Animals 2021, 11, 609.

Choct, M., and G. Annison. “Anti‐nutritive Effect of Wheat Pentosans in Broiler Chickens: Roles of Viscosity and Gut Microflora.” British Poultry Science 33, no. 4 (September 1992): 821–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669208417524.

Liu D, Guo S, Guo Y. Xylanase supplementation to a wheat-based diet alleviated the intestinal mucosal barrier impairment of broiler chickens challenged by Clostridium perfringens. Avian Pathol. 2012;41(3):291-8.

Matthiesen, Connie F., Dan Pettersson, Adam Smith, Ninfa R. Pedersen, and Adam. C. Storm. “Exogenous Xylanase Improves Broiler Production Efficiency by Increasing Proximal Small Intestine Digestion of Crude Protein and Starch in Wheat-Based Diets of Various Viscosities.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 272 (February 2021): 114739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114739.

Teirlynck, E.; Haesebrouck, F.; Pasmans, F.; Dewulf, J.; Ducatelle, R.; van Immerseel, F. The cereal type in feed influences Salmonella enteritidis colonization in broilers. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 2108–2112.