by Ilinca Anghelescu, Global Director Marketing & Communications, EW Nutrition

2025 was a year defined by four converging forces for the global feed and animal production industry: an unprecedented HPAI crisis that cost American consumers alone $14.5 billion extra in egg expenditures; historic record corn production driving feed ingredient prices lower; a highly disruptive US tariff regime that reshuffled global trade flows for soybeans, corn, chicken, and pork; and accelerating regulatory pressure on antimicrobial use across Europe and globally.

The strategic imperatives from 2025 are clear: biosecurity investment is no longer optional, ingredient price volatility demands agile procurement strategies, trade compliance is a weekly operational concern, and antibiotic-free production transitions require credible, phased plans now.

KEY METRIC: Global chicken meat production reached approximately 105 million MT in 2025 (+2%), even as egg production suffered severely. The global feed market is valued at $542 billion in 2025, growing at 3.3% CAGR. Corn hit record production of 17 billion bushels in the US alone – the highest since 1936 in terms of harvested area.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT HERE.

CHAPTER 1: HPAI & DISEASE LANDSCAPE 

 

1.1  The Ongoing H5N1 Crisis – Scale & Impact

The H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b strain of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) continued to dominate animal health headlines in 2025. Since its reemergence in February 2022, the US outbreak alone has resulted in the confirmed loss of over 175 million birds across 1,700+ flocks – the costliest poultry disease event in recorded history.

 

Metric	Data Point	Source
Total US birds affected (2022–2025)	175+ million	USDA APHIS, May 2025
US flocks confirmed positive	1,704+	USDA APHIS, May 2025
Proportion of affected birds: layers	75%	USDA / Congressional Research Service
US egg layer flock deficit vs. 2022	–8% fewer birds	CoBank / USDA
Consumer egg overspend (May 2024–Apr 2025)	$14.5 billion extra	Innovate Animal Ag analysis
Peak US retail egg price	$6.23/dozen (March 2025)	BLS / USDA
HPAI-related US taxpayer response costs	$1.8 billion+	Innovate Animal Ag
Global HPAI mammal outbreaks (2024)	1,022 (vs. 459 in 2023)	WOAH 2025
Countries self-declaring HPAI freedom (May 2025)	25	WOAH

 

1.2  2025-Specific Developments

United States: Early-Year Severity, Policy Response

The first six weeks of 2025 saw 28 million layers depopulated – the worst start to any calendar year on record. Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri bore the brunt. The USDA launched a five-pronged approach in February 2025 including:

• Gold-standard biosecurity assessments (948 completed Jan 20–June 26)
• Indemnity increase from $7 to $17 per lost layer hen
• Importation of 26+ million dozen shell eggs from Brazil, Honduras, Mexico, Turkey, and South Korea
• Removal of select regulatory burdens to accelerate flock repopulation
• $793 million in HPAI research proposals received in response to USDA Innovation Grand Challenge

 

⚠  Price Manipulation Investigation: In April 2025, the DOJ Antitrust Division launched an investigation into the largest US egg producer after it reported a 247% increase in quarterly net income. Egg producers and retailers face ongoing scrutiny over whether crisis pricing exceeded what supply constraints warranted.

 

Brazil: First Commercial HPAI Outbreak – May 2025

On May 15, 2025, Brazil – the world’s largest poultry exporter, responsible for nearly 30% of global exports – confirmed its first-ever commercial HPAI case at a breeder facility in Montenegro, Rio Grande do Sul (17,000 birds). This was a watershed event for global poultry trade.

 

Consequence	Detail
China (#1 buyer of Brazilian chicken) suspended imports	Trade suspended as of May 2025; Chinese delegation visited RS in Sept 2025 to assess resumption
Brazil’s monthly poultry exports declined	Exports fell 12.9% to $655 million; volume down 14.4% to 363,100 MT (May)
UAE replaced China as Brazil’s top buyer	First time China dropped from #1 buyer since 2019
WOAH new 10-year global HPAI strategy launched	Prevention and Control of HPAI (2024–2033), February 2025
Regionalized trade bans helped contain damage	Bans limited to affected regions, not all of Brazil

 

Europe: Persistent Pressure

HPAI continued to circulate widely in European poultry and wild bird populations. Key 2025 events include recurrence in Australia (February), ongoing outbreaks in Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, UK, and France, and the first confirmed domestic cat HPAI death in the Netherlands (H5N1, November 2025).

CRITICAL RISK: HPAI is now classified as enzootic (endemic) in wild birds across North America by the CDC. The virus circulates year-round in wildlife reservoirs, making seasonal recurrence in commercial flocks a structural, not episodic, risk. US egg producers are 8% below their 2022 flock baseline.

 

1.3  Other Priority Diseases in 2025

Disease	Region/Status	Operational Impact
Avian Metapneumovirus (AMPV)	USA – significant in turkey sector	Reduced breeder egg production; compounded HPAI losses; estimated 18.7M turkeys affected alongside HPAI in 2025
Salmonella (all serovars)	EU-wide – statistically significant increase trend 2020–2024 per EFSA/ECDC joint report, March 2025	AMR pressure in broilers and layers; genomic surveillance being mandated by EU
Newcastle Disease (NCD)	Brazil – outbreak July 2024, RS state	First commercial NCD in Brazil since 2006; adds biosecurity burden on top of HPAI protocols
H5N1 in Dairy Cattle (USA)	Ongoing – cross-species spread to 50+ US states	Cattle-to-poultry transmission confirmed; biosecurity interfaces between dairy and poultry operations must be reviewed
HPAI – Antarctica	First confirmed case March 2024 (South Polar Skua)	Indicates virus reached every continent; unprecedented in poultry disease history

 

 

CHAPTER 2: GLOBAL POULTRY PRODUCTION 

 

2.1  Global Output – 2025 Performance

Despite HPAI disruptions, global chicken meat production grew approximately 2% in 2025 to around 105 million MT (ready-to-cook), driven by demand resilience and lower feed costs for broiler production. Total global poultry meat (including turkey, duck, and others) is forecast to exceed 152 million MT for 2025, per FAO Food Outlook June 2025.

 

Country / Region	2025 Production Forecast (MT)	Year-on-Year Change	Key Driver
USA – Broilers	21.7 million MT	+1.4% vs. 2024	Strong hatchery data; lower feed costs; HPAI minimal in broilers
China	15.3 million MT	Positive growth	Rising domestic demand; pork sector recovery stabilizing
Brazil	15.1 million MT	Positive growth (despite HPAI)	Export demand; improved margins; population-driven domestic growth
European Union	Slight increase	Modest growth	Domestic demand; reduced Ukrainian imports
USA – Turkey	Decline –2.5%	vs. –6.35% prior year	HPAI + AMPV pressure; wholesale prices +40% YoY
Global Total (chicken)	~105 million MT	+2%	Affordability vs. beef; consumer demand in developing markets

 

OECD-FAO 10-Year Outlook (2025–2034)

The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025–2034, released in July 2025, projects global poultry meat production will grow by over 19% to 173.4 million MT by 2034 compared to the 2022–24 average. Poultry will account for the majority of additional meat consumption globally, driven by:

• Affordability relative to beef and pork, especially in price-sensitive emerging markets
• Population and income growth in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa
• Rapid urbanization and expansion of Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) chains
• Superior feed conversion ratio (FCR) and lower greenhouse gas emissions per kg of protein

STRATEGIC NOTE: In high-income countries, per capita poultry consumption growth is flattening as consumers focus increasingly on welfare, environment, and health attributes. Growth opportunity is almost entirely in middle-income markets. Product premiumization (antibiotic-free, cage-free, organic) is the North American and European story.

 

2.2  Egg Production – Crisis Sector

Egg production was the sector hardest hit by HPAI globally. In the US, 75% of all HPAI-affected birds were table-egg layers, despite layers comprising less than 4% of the total poultry population. This structural vulnerability reflects longer flock lifespans and, increasingly, cage-free housing adoption.

 

Indicator	2025 Data
US retail egg price peak	$6.23/dozen (March 2025)
US retail egg price decline from peak	–27% by June 2025 (wholesale –64%)
US retail egg price (January 2025)	$4.95/dozen – 96% higher than January 2024
USDA full-year 2025 egg price forecast	+41.1% vs. 2024 average
% of US laying flock in cage-free systems	~40% (120+ million birds)
Global hen egg production (2023 baseline)	91 million tonnes (~1.7 trillion eggs)
Global egg trade volume (2024)	Nearly doubled from prior years

 

⚠  Cage-Free Transition & Disease Vulnerability: Some analysts link cage-free housing to higher HPAI susceptibility. Regardless of epidemiological debate, the US cage-free market is now structurally undersupplied relative to corporate commitments made in 2014–2017. Producers face a squeeze: comply with welfare commitments while managing disease risk.

 

CHAPTER 3: FEED INGREDIENT MARKETS 

 

3.1  Grain & Oilseed Prices – 2025 Summary

From a feed cost perspective, 2025 was broadly favorable for livestock and poultry producers. Record US corn production and generally adequate global grain and oilseed supplies put downward pressure on the major feed commodities, offering partial relief from the margin pressure of recent years.

 

Commodity	2025 Price Direction	Key 2025 Data	Implication for Feed
Corn (US)	DOWN –3.9% (3rd consecutive annual decline)	Record US crop: 17.0 billion bu; yield 186.5 bu/acre – record; harvested area highest since 1936	Favorable for poultry/swine FCR cost; season avg ~$4.15/bu projected
Soybean Meal	DOWN –4.3% (3rd consecutive decline)	Prices at lowest since early 2016 at one point; large South American supply weighing on markets	Significant reduction in diet protein cost; amino acid supplementation cost-competitive
Soybeans	UP slightly +3.3%	After 22.9% collapse in 2024; still well below historical peaks; US acreage declining	Bean oil +20.8% (energy diet component); meal-to-bean ratio remains attractive for crushers
Wheat (Chicago)	DOWN –4.3% (4th consecutive year)	Abundant global supply; Russia/Argentina record crops; increased feed use	Wheat competing with corn in feed formulations globally – inclusion rising in EU/Asia diets
Soybean Oil	UP +20.8%	Driven by biofuel demand (US 45Z renewable fuel credits)	Energy ingredient cost pressure; may affect fat inclusion rates in formulations

 

PROCUREMENT SIGNAL: The US/China trade tensions created windows of soybean buying opportunity as prices swung on trade deal news. China agreed to purchase US soybeans in late 2025 as part of a limited trade deal, causing a price uptick. Procurement teams should monitor US-China negotiations as a lead indicator for soybean pricing in 2026.

 

3.2  Global Feed Market Overview

Metric	2025 Data
Global animal feed market value	$542.36 billion
CAGR (2026–2034)	3.3%
Largest feed segment by additive type	Amino acids (33.6% share)
Largest feed segment by species	Poultry (dominant share)
Asia Pacific regional status	Dominant region (largest market)
Top feed ingredient challenge	Fluctuating prices for corn, SBM – still key risk for margin management

 

3.3  Key Ingredient Trends to Watch

Fertilizer Cost Relief

Fertilizer prices have declined significantly from their 2022 peak. A basket of N, P, and K fertilizers averaged $437/tonne in May 2025, down from the $815/tonne peak in April 2022, per FAO Food Outlook. This benefits grain production economics and should support adequate grain supplies into 2026.

 

Soybean Oil Competition: Biodiesel vs. Feed

US soybean oil demand from renewable fuel programs (the 45Z credit) competed directly with feed-grade fat supplies, pushing soy oil prices up 20.8% in 2025. Feed mills formulating with added fats should evaluate alternative lipid sources. Poultry fat and palm olein remain cost-competitive in some markets.

 

Alternative Proteins: Insect Meal, DDGS, Algae

While adoption remains limited in volume, regulatory acceptance of insect meal in EU poultry diets continues to expand. Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS) remain a strategically important co-product, particularly in the US and EU. Feed formulators should have up-to-date matrix values and be prepared to use them when corn prices favor inclusions.

 

⚠  Tariff Risk for Feed Inputs: US feed manufacturers faced effective tariff rates averaging 12%+ on key agricultural inputs from China and other countries in 2025, including herbicides, pesticides, and some micro-ingredient precursors. Amino acid supplies (predominantly Chinese-origin lysine, methionine, threonine) faced added cost and supply uncertainty.

 

CHAPTER 4: TRADE POLICY DISRUPTIONS 

 

4.1  The 2025 US Tariff Regime – Agricultural Impact

The Trump administration’s tariff policies beginning January 20, 2025, represented the most significant disruption to global agricultural trade in decades. The three largest US agricultural export markets – Mexico ($30.3B in 2024), Canada ($28.3B), and China ($24.7B) – were all targeted, triggering retaliatory measures that hit feed, grain, poultry, and pork exports.

 

Country	US Tariff (2025)	Retaliation on US Agriculture	Key Products Impacted for Feed/Poultry Industry
China	Reached 145% (paused to 30% via May 2025 truce)	15% on chicken, corn, wheat; 10% on soybeans, sorghum, pork – applied from March 2025	Chinese poultry buyers shifted away from US; US corn/soy export disruption; amino acid supply chain uncertainty
Canada	25–35% (escalated to 35% in Aug)	25% on US dairy, poultry, meat products ($21B)	Canada imports ~45% of US poultry exports; feed grain flows affected
Mexico	25–30% (USMCA-compliant goods largely exempted)	Retaliatory tariffs threatened on agricultural goods	Mexico is #1 market for US turkey exports; ongoing uncertainty
EU	14% (paused under negotiations)	Planned retaliation announced April 2025	Potential impact on US soy meal exports; EU feed ingredient costs

 

CHINA TRADE DEAL (MAY 2025): A 90-day tariff truce agreed May 12, 2025 reduced US tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%, and China’s tariffs on US products from 125% to 10%. China agreed to purchase US soybeans. No permanent deal was signed. The limited agreement provided short-term stability but medium-term uncertainty remains.

 

4.2  Impact on US Agricultural Trade Flows

Product	Trade Flow Change (2025)	Implication
Corn exports	UP >20% YoY	Record US production driving export competitiveness despite tariff uncertainty
Soybean exports	DOWN – China shifted to South America	Brazil and Argentina taking larger share of Chinese soy imports
US chicken exports	Maintained overall (6.8B USD)	Despite China restrictions, other markets (Middle East, Mexico) absorbed volume
US turkey exports	At risk – 10% of production exported; Mexico = 65% of turkey exports	HPAI + AMPV supply squeeze threatened export volumes at peak holiday season
Brazil chicken exports	Down 12.9% month of May impact; year-end positive	HPAI disruption in May/June; recovery in H2 2025 after regionalization
US egg imports (temporary)	26M dozen shell eggs imported	Emergency imports from Brazil, Honduras, Turkey, South Korea, Mexico to fill supply gap

 

4.3  Strategic Trade Lessons

• Supply chain diversification is no longer a luxury: concentration of US soy exports to China created a single-point-of-failure vulnerability that became fully exposed in 2025.
• Regionalized disease zoning is a trade-preserving tool: Brazil’s rapid implementation of regionalized HPAI bans (rather than country-wide) preserved most of its export access; this is the model the industry should support with regulators globally.
• USMCA dependency is real: 70% of US corn, 60% of soybeans, 45% of poultry exports go to Mexico, Canada, China – the same three countries targeted by 2025 tariffs.
• US government announced $12B in emergency farm compensation in 2025, repeating the pattern from Trump’s first term – indicating persistent trade disruption risk.

 

CHAPTER 5: REGULATORY CHANGES 

 

5.1  EU: Feed & Food Safety Legislation Simplification

In 2025, the European Commission proposed a package to streamline EU food and feed safety legislation while maintaining high health standards. The initiative, announced mid-2025, is intended to boost competitiveness of EU producers by reducing regulatory complexity – a direct response to competitive concerns vs. non-EU producers.

 

5.2  EFSA 2025 Guidance on Microorganisms

On September 24, 2025, EFSA’s Scientific Committee adopted new harmonized guidance on the characterization of microorganisms in the food chain. This is a landmark shift with major implications for feed additive manufacturers, probiotics suppliers, and novel food applicants.

 

Key Element	Operational Implication
Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) now mandatory for strain-level ID of all bacteria, yeasts, fungi, viruses in applications	All existing microbial feed additive dossiers must be reviewed; WGS data cannot be more than 2 years old at time of submission
Genomics-first approach to AMR assessment	Any AMR gene hit in curated databases triggers mandatory case-by-case assessment; significantly raises the regulatory bar for probiotics and fermentation products
Replaces multiple previous guidance documents	Companies must align R&D, QC, and regulatory documentation to new unified standard immediately
GM microorganisms: clearer differentiation	Products ‘produced by GMO’ now distinguished from ‘GMO active agents’ – critical for enzyme and probiotic positioning
Non-compliance = application rejection risk	Early non-alignment causes ‘clock-stops’ or formal rejection at EFSA suitability check stage

 

5.3  Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) – Regulatory Pressure

AMR remains the defining long-term regulatory risk for the animal feed and production industry. Key 2025 actions:

 

• EFSA/ECDC Joint Report (March 2025): Highlighted persistently high resistance to critical antimicrobials in poultry, especially Campylobacter and Salmonella, with ‘statistically significant increasing trend 2020–2024.’ This directly fuels EU legislative pressure.
• EU Regulation 2019/6 (Veterinary Medicines) – Article 118: Banning import of animal products containing antimicrobials used for growth promotion. Application delayed to 2026, raising questions about enforcement timelines – and competitive fairness regarding imports from countries still allowing AGPs.
• EU AMR Implementation Decision 2023: New harmonized monitoring requirements for AMR in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from food-producing animals – effective January 1, 2025. All EU Member States now required to collect and report standardized AMR surveillance data.
• WOAH 10-Year HPAI Strategy (2024–2033): Promotes surveillance, vaccination programs, and timely reporting as cornerstones of international HPAI management.

 

BOTTOM LINE ON AMR: The regulatory trajectory is clear and irreversible – sub-therapeutic antibiotic use for growth promotion is being eliminated globally. The timeline varies by region (already banned in EU since 2006; US voluntary approach from 2017; global WHO action plan). Companies that have already invested in transition are ahead; those that have not face increasing compliance risk and market access restrictions.

 

5.4  US Regulatory Developments

Action	Status / Detail
USDA Five-Pronged HPAI Response Plan (Feb 2025)	Biosecurity assessments, indemnity increases, import flexibility, vaccine research funding, regulatory burden removal
HPAI Innovation Grand Challenge	$793M in proposals received (417 submissions); awards expected by fall 2025; covers prevention, vaccines, therapeutics
DOJ Antitrust Investigation – Egg Producers	Launched April 2025; examining price-fixing allegations amid 247% profit increase by largest producer
Meat & Poultry Special Investigator Act (S.1312)	Proposed creation of Office of Special Investigator for Competition Matters within USDA – pending
Food Security & Farm Protection Act (S.1326)	Would prohibit states from imposing certain standards on preharvest agricultural production sold in interstate commerce – relevant to cage-free mandates

 

 

CHAPTER 6: FEED ADDITIVE & NUTRITION STRATEGIES 

 

PRECISION NUTRITION SIGNAL: The industry’s shift to reduced crude protein (CP) diets, precisely supplemented with industrial amino acids (L-Lys, DL-Met, L-Thr, L-Trp, L-Val) remained the dominant reformulation strategy in 2025. Lower CP diets reduce feed cost, lower N excretion (environmental benefit), and reduce substrate for pathogenic bacteria. With amino acid prices remaining favorable, there are few economic arguments for maintaining high CP diets.

6.1  The Post-AGP Transition: Where the Industry Stands

The antibiotic-free (ABF) production movement accelerated further in 2025. With the EU ban on AGPs in place since 2006 and the US moving toward voluntary phase-out, the entire industry is in active transition. The key challenge: AGP removal creates enteric health gaps that must be addressed with alternative tools. Without effective management, removal of AGPs leads to increased necrotic enteritis, Campylobacter colonization, and poorer FCR.

 

6.2  Heat Stress – A Growing Production Challenge

Climate-related heat stress was a highlighted research and production topic in 2025. Modern high-performance broiler genetics have been selectively bred for rapid growth under thermoneutral conditions. Heat stress impairs feed intake, FCR, immunity, meat quality, and reproduction. Management strategies:

• Dietary electrolyte balance adjustment (increase K, Na, reduce Cl where appropriate)
• Vitamin C and E supplementation at heat stress periods
• Betaine inclusion as an osmolyte; reduces supplemental methionine requirement under heat stress
• Feed schedule adjustment (limit feeding during hottest hours; early morning/evening feeding)
• Housing design investment: tunnel ventilation, evaporative cooling, adequate air velocity

 

6.3  In Ovo Technology

In ovo vaccination and nutrition delivery continued to advance in 2025. Key developments include high-throughput systems (3,000 eggs/hour at 99% accuracy) for in ovo vaccination and nutritional interventions. Early-life gut programming through in ovo delivery of probiotics, nutrients, and vaccine antigens is becoming an increasingly important hatchery-level biosecurity and performance tool.

 

CHAPTER 7: MARKET TRENDS & CONSUMER SHIFTS 

 

7.1  Poultry Gaining Share vs. Other Proteins

Elevated beef prices throughout 2025 – driven by tight US cattle supply (herd at decades-long lows) and high demand – continued to push consumers toward poultry as a cost-effective protein. This dynamic is a structural tailwind for the broiler industry globally.

 

Market Dynamic	Detail
US broiler net cash farm income 2025	+27% YoY – livestock sector outperforms crop side
Global poultry market value (2025)	$316.77 billion; projected $433.98B by 2034 (CAGR 3.56%)
Global poultry export growth 2025	+1.8% to 16.9 million MT
Supermarkets poultry market share	42.1% of poultry distribution (2024)
Online poultry retail growth rate	CAGR 11.4% (fastest growing channel)
Italy – poultry share of total meat consumed	>44% in 2025
FAO Meat Price Index – poultry	Decreased in 2025 from mid-2024 high (broiler ample supply)

 

7.2  Cage-Free & Animal Welfare Commitments

The cage-free transition is structurally undersupplied in the US. Corporate commitments made in 2014–2017 implied a need for 220 million cage-free layers by 2025–26. Current production is well below that target. This creates both a market opportunity (premium pricing) and a risk (HPAI vulnerability concerns in cage-free systems). Producers must balance welfare compliance with biosecurity protocols.

 

7.3  Antibiotic-Free, Organic, and Specialty Products

Consumer and corporate buyer demand for ABF, No Antibiotics Ever (NAE), organic, and pasture-raised products continued to grow in premium markets in 2025. The pasture-raised egg segment reported 30% annual growth rates despite high price points. For integrated producers, this requires dedicated production lines with separate management protocols, supply chain segregation, and robust documentation systems.

 

7.4  Sustainability Pressure

Feed manufacturers and integrators are under growing pressure from retail and foodservice customers, NGOs, and regulators to demonstrate reduced environmental footprint. Key metrics under scrutiny:

• GHG emissions per kg of chicken meat produced (Scope 1, 2, and 3)
• Deforestation-free supply chains for soy (EU Deforestation Regulation – EUDR)
• Feed conversion ratio improvement as a sustainability lever
• Nitrogen and phosphorus excretion reduction (enzyme use, reduced CP diets, phytase)
• Water use per unit of animal protein produced

 

EUDR NOTE: The EU Deforestation Regulation requires companies to ensure that soy used in feed does not originate from recently deforested land. Implementation deadlines have been debated, but traceability requirements for soy origin – particularly from Brazil – are operationally significant for EU feed manufacturers and importers.

 

CHAPTER 8: STRATEGIC LESSONS & ACTION PRIORITIES 

 

8.1  Summary: Top 10 Lessons of 2025

 

#	Lesson	Key Data Point
1	HPAI is now a permanent structural risk, not a cyclical one. Biosecurity investment must be treated as core capital expenditure.	CDC: H5N1 now enzootic in North American wild birds; US flock 8% below 2022 baseline
2	Egg production is structurally more vulnerable than broiler production – different biosecurity and business continuity protocols are required.	75% of HPAI losses = layers; broilers grew 1.4% in 2025
3	Vaccination for HPAI is the central unresolved debate of the decade – expect DIVA strategies to become standard within 3–5 years as industry and regulators align.	417 vaccine/research proposals submitted to USDA Grand Challenge
4	Trade concentration is a strategic vulnerability. Diversify export markets actively; do not allow 70%+ of any product to go to one trading bloc.	China + Mexico + Canada = 70% of US corn exports; 60% of soy; 45% of poultry
5	Grain prices are favorable NOW – lock in contracts and assess forward pricing opportunities while corn and SBM are at multi-year lows.	Corn -3.9% in 2025; SBM -4.3%; both 3rd consecutive annual decline
6	AMR regulations are accelerating everywhere. Transitioning to ABF production is no longer a ‘maybe’ but a ‘when’ – plan now.	EU: AMR in poultry ‘persistently high’ per EFSA/ECDC March 2025 report
7	EFSA’s 2025 WGS guidance fundamentally changes the cost and timeline of getting microbial feed additives authorized in the EU.	WGS now mandatory for all microbial characterizations; legacy dossiers need revision
8	Amino acids and precision nutrition remain the most cost-effective tool for diet optimization: lower CP, better FCR, lower N excretion, reduced enteric pathogen substrate.	Amino acids = 33.6% of global feed additive market by value
9	Brazil’s HPAI outbreak demonstrated both the vulnerability of global trade and the effectiveness of regionalized response protocols.	Brazil exports fell 12.9% in May but year-end positive; China temporarily banned; UAE stepped up
10	Climate/heat stress is an underappreciated production risk that compounds disease susceptibility and reduces performance in high-performing genetics.	IPCC: global surface temperature +0.9°C since mid-20th century; impacts on poultry FCR, immunity, mortality increasing

 

8.2  Action Priority Matrix for Management Teams

 

Priority Area	Immediate Actions (0–6 months)	Medium-Term (6–18 months)
HPAI Biosecurity	Complete USDA-style biosecurity assessments; audit wild bird access; upgrade water and air biosecurity; train all staff	Evaluate in-house monitoring technology; develop scenario plans for flock loss; build supplier contingency agreements
Feed Ingredient Procurement	Lock in corn and SBM forward contracts at current low prices; audit mycotoxin levels in incoming grain batches	Diversify supplier base; develop cost-switching matrices for corn/wheat/sorghum substitution as prices change
AMR / ABF Transition	Audit current antibiotic use protocols; identify critical intervention points where antibiotics can be replaced	Pilot ABF production line with full additive support program (organic acids, probiotics, phytogenics, prebiotics)
Regulatory Compliance (EU)	Review all microbial feed additive dossiers against EFSA 2025 WGS guidance; identify gaps requiring new data	Update all submission dossiers; ensure AMR surveillance data matches new 2025 EU requirements
Trade Policy Monitoring	Assign responsibility for tracking tariff changes weekly; map top 5 export customers and their import restrictions	Develop export market diversification plan; qualify 2+ alternative markets for each key product
Cage-Free / Welfare	Review corporate cage-free commitments vs. current supply; align with customer timelines	Design biosecurity protocols specific to cage-free environments; review insurance and contingency planning

 

8.3  Key Indicators to Monitor in 2026

• HPAI detection frequency in fall-winter 2025–26 migration season – predictor of next egg price cycle
• USDA HPAI vaccine grand challenge awards – signals timeline for commercial vaccine availability
• EU feed safety simplification package progress – potential relief on additive authorization timelines
• EUDR deforestation enforcement timeline – soy traceability compliance clock
• Brazil HPAI market re-entry for China – recovery of the world’s #1 poultry export relationship
• US corn/soy 2026 planting intentions (March) – USDA Prospective Plantings report is the key 2026 procurement signal

 

2025 demonstrated that the feed and animal production industry operates in an environment of simultaneous, compounding risks – biological, geopolitical, regulatory, and climatic. The companies that performed best were those with robust biosecurity infrastructure, agile procurement teams, clear AMR transition roadmaps, and diversified market exposure. There is no single silver bullet. Systematic risk management, not reactive crisis response, is the competitive differentiator going forward.

 

 

 

  KEY SOURCES & REFERENCES 

 

This article draws on data and analysis from the following sources:

Organization	Document / Resource Referenced
USDA APHIS / FAS	HPAI flocks data (2025); Livestock & Poultry World Markets (Dec 2025); WASDE reports; Five-Pronged HPAI Strategy
FAO	Food Outlook June 2025; OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025–2034; FAO Meat Price Index
OECD	OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025–2034 (July 2025)
WOAH	HPAI Report #68 (Feb 2025); State of World Animal Health 2025; HPAI 10-Year Strategy 2024–2033
EFSA / ECDC	Joint AMR Report (March 2025); 2025 QPS updated list; EFSA 2025 Guidance on Microorganisms (Nov 2025)
PAHO / WHO	Epidemiological Update H5N1 in the Americas (Jan 2025)
US Congressional Research Service	HPAI Outbreak 2022–Present (April 2025); Egg Prices and HPAI (May 2025); 2025 Tariff Actions
American Farm Bureau Federation	Retaliatory Tariffs Report (March 2025); Turkey Market Intel (Oct 2025)
CoBank / NAMA	AgriFood Policy Update (Oct 2025); Farm Income Forecasts 2025
WATTPoultry.com	HPAI 2025 Layer Roundup; Broiler Production Outlook; Demand Drives Poultry to New Highs (2025)
The Poultry Site	Weekly Global Protein Digest; HPAI Global Spread (2025)
AviNews	Global Poultry Meat Output 151.4M Tons 2025 (Dec 2025)
Innovate Animal Ag	HPAI Supply Constraints Cost Americans $14.5B (2025)
DTN / PF	Grain Futures 2025 Annual Review (Jan 2026)
USDA ERS	Corn & Other Feed Grains Outlook (2025–26 WASDE updates)
Frontiers in Veterinary Science	Phytogenic feed additives – gut health modulation (Aug 2025); Antibiotic alternatives – One Health (Jul 2025)

 

 

Visbek and Curitiba, 3rd February 2026 – EW Nutrition and GRASP are pleased to announce a significant strengthening of their collaboration through a new agreement that will see EW Nutrition increase its ownership stake in GRASP from its current position to full ownership over the next four years.

This strategic move reflects both companies’ commitment to long-term growth and their shared vision for expanding EW Nutrition’s market-leading position in the industry. The phased transition will ensure business continuity while supporting GRASP’s ongoing operations and development initiatives in Brazil.

“This agreement represents a natural evolution of our successful partnership,” said Jan Vanbrabant, CEO of EW Nutrition. “We are excited to deepen our investment in GRASP and its exceptional team, products, and operations in Brazil.”

GRASP’s portfolio includes world-leading products for toxin mitigation (Mastersorb), gut health management (Activo) and other industry-recognized solutions. The company’s dedicated team will remain focused on delivering the quality and innovation that have established GRASP as a trusted name in the market.

“We look forward to this next chapter in our partnership with EW Nutrition,” said Alysson Hoffmann Pegoraro, GRASP Managing Director. “I am confident that this agreement will help to not only continue producing and delivering innovative solutions for our customers worldwide but further increase significantly the global footprint of GRASP.”

The gradual transition to full ownership will be completed by the end of 2029, ensuring a smooth integration process that preserves GRASP’s operational strengths and further solidifies EW Nutrition’s market position.

 

About EW Nutrition

EW Nutrition is an animal nutrition company that offers integrators, feed producers, and self-mixing farmers comprehensive animal nutrition solutions for gut health management, feed quality, digestibility, and more. With production facilities, offices, and development centers on 6 continents, EW Nutrition researches, manufactures, markets, and services its products and programs to support customers wherever they are.

 

About GRASP

GRASP was founded in 2001 to provide the animal nutrition and health market with cutting-edge technological, natural, and functional products. Investment in industrial processes, manufacturing expansion, obtaining international certification (GMP+) and development and production units in Curitiba and in São Paulo ensure seamless quality and service for customers in around the world. Since 2011, it has been majority owned by EW Nutrition.

 

Media Contact

marketing@ew-nutrition.com

Author: Ajay Bhoyar, Senior Global Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

The global use of feed enzymes has become a central feature of efficient monogastric animal production systems. Rising feed ingredient costs, tighter margins, and increasing regulatory pressure to reduce environmental impact have all accelerated enzyme innovation. At the same time, feed mills have shifted toward higher conditioning temperatures and time in pursuit of improved pellet durability, pathogen control, and throughput. However, this creates a hostile environment for most exogenous feed enzymes, which can lose significant activity under the harsh conditions of feed processing.

Historically, enzyme manufacturers have attempted to overcome heat degradation of by coating, encapsulating, or post-pelleting liquid application (PPLA) of enzymes. While these approaches provide partial solutions, they can also have limitations, including delayed enzyme activity, uneven distribution, reduced mixing uniformity, and reliance on specialized liquid enzyme applicators.

These limitations prompted a novel direction: enzymes designed or selected to be intrinsically heat-stable, capable of surviving pelleting without protective matrices.

This article highlights recent advancements in intrinsically heat-stable xylanase technology, explains its advantages over coated and post-pelleting enzyme solutions, and outlines its practical benefits for feed manufacturers, integrators, and nutritionists operating under modern high-temperature feed pelleting conditions.

Intrinsically Thermostable Enzymes

An enzyme is considered intrinsically heat-stable when its native protein structure resists unfolding and retains catalytic activity under high temperatures associated with feed processing—typically 80–95°C for 30–90 seconds. Unlike coated enzymes that rely on external protection, intrinsically thermostable enzymes depend on their internal protein architecture for heat tolerance. Enzymes from organisms living in compost, thermal springs, and geothermal soils naturally withstand temperatures of 80–100 °C or higher. Intrinsically thermostable enzymes are often sourced from thermophiles (organisms living in hot springs and deep-sea vents) or engineered for stability. They resist denaturation (loss of shape and function) at high-temperature processing.

Limitations of Current Thermostability Solutions

Coating / Encapsulation

A method of protecting enzymes from heat is to encapsulate or coat them with a protective coating. An ideal enzyme coating for animal feed needs to:

1. Protect the enzyme through steam conditioning (typically 85–90°C or higher) and through subsequent pelleting.

2. Release the enzyme from the coating quickly in the gastrointestinal tract of the target animal, to ensure optimum efficacy. (Gilbert and Cooney, 2007)

There is some evidence, however, suggesting that the coating of enzymes may reduce the efficacy of the product, compared to an uncoated version of the same product (Kwakkel et al., 2000).

Post-Pelleting Liquid Application (PPLA)

Post-pelleting liquid enzyme application requires sophisticated applicators to minimize the risk of uneven spraying or calibration errors, which is often not feasible in small or mid-size mills. Accurate application of the liquid enzyme, as with some other critical liquid micro-ingredients, requires specialized spraying equipment and, even then, consistency of accurate enzyme application can be an issue (Bedford and Cowieson, 2009). Research has shown that as much as 30% of the enzyme activity can be found in the pellet fines, and therefore, adding the enzyme before screening would result in a lower than expected dosage in the final feed and wastage of the enzyme product (Engelen, 1998). In some cases, adjusting the pelleting machines to the output of the PPLA’s spray nozzles to ensure a homogenous and even application of the enzyme on the pellets may reduce the overall pellet production rate, especially in big feed mills with very high throughput.

These limitations of the coated or PPLA technologies strengthen the value proposition of intrinsically heat-stable enzymes.

Nutritional and Commercial Benefits of Intrinsically Heat-Stable Xylanase

The use of intrinsically heat-stable xylanase delivers consistent nutritional benefits in poultry and swine feeds, including predictable non-starch polysaccharide (NSP) degradation, a significant increase in the metabolizable energy (ME) value of the feed, and enhanced gut health resilience supporting reduced antibiotic use.

From a commercial and operational perspective, this technology simplifies enzyme application, improves mixing uniformity, reduces formulation risk, and lowers feed cost per unit of meat or egg produced.

In-Vitro Thermal Stability Profile of Axxess XY

Axxess XY is a novel, intrinsically thermostable GH10 xylanase originating from Thermotoga maritima, a hyperthermophilic bacterium found in hydrothermal vents near volcanic grounds, and commercially it is produced by proprietary strain of Bacillus subtilis.

The superior heat stability of Axxess XY has been proven under various commercial pelleting conditions across different geographies. Axxess XY showed excellent post-pelleting recovery under commercial feed-milling conditions across varying temperatures and conditioning times (Fig. 2).

In one study, in addition to excellent post-pelleting recovery, Axxess XY also demonstrated high xylanase stability in pelleted feed over a 2-month feed storage period at>40°C, with humidity around 65%.

Conclusions

As feed mills continue to operate at higher conditioning temperatures and longer retention times, enzyme heat stability has become a critical success factor in modern feed production. Intrinsically heat-stable xylanase offers a practical and reliable solution to this challenge by maintaining enzyme activity through pelleting without the need for coatings or post-pelleting liquid application systems.

By relying on its native protein structure rather than external protection, intrinsically thermostable xylanase delivers consistent post-pelleting recovery, uniform distribution in feed, and predictable nutritional performance across different feed mills and processing conditions. This reliability translates into improved nutrient utilization, better gut health support, and reduced cost per kilogram of meat or eggs produced.

From an operational standpoint, intrinsically heat-stable xylanase simplifies enzyme application, reduces dependence on specialized equipment, and minimizes the need for over-formulation or safety margins. These advantages help feed manufacturers and integrators improve efficiency, lower risk, and achieve more consistent results, especially under demanding commercial pelleting conditions.

In summary, intrinsically heat-stable xylanase aligns well with the evolving needs of today’s feed industry, offering a robust, cost-effective, and future-ready enzyme solution for high-performance animal production systems.

References:

Bedford, M. R., and A. J. Cowieson. 2009. “Phytate and Phytase Interactions.” In Proceedings of the 17th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition, 7–13. Edinburgh, UK.

Eeckhout, M., M. De Schrijver, and E. Vanderbeke. 1995. “The Influence of Process Parameters on the Stability of Feed Enzymes during Steam Pelleting.” In Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Feed Enzymes, 163–169. Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.

Engelen, G. M. A. 1998. Technology of Liquid Additives in Post-Pelleting Applications. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Institute of Animal Science.

Gilbert, T. C., and G. Cooney. 2011. “Thermostability of Feed Enzymes and Their Practical Application in the Feed Mill.” In Enzymes in Farm Animal Nutrition, 2nd ed., edited by M. R. Bedford and G. G. Partridge, 249–259. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Kwakkel, R. P., P. L. van der Togt, and K. A. B. M. Holkenborg. 2000. “Bio-Efficacy of Two Phytase Formulations Supplemented to a Corn–Soybean Broiler Diet.” In Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on Feed Enzymes, 63–64. Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.

By Ilinca Anghelescu, Dr. Andreas Michels, Predrag Persak

Our understanding of how nutrition influences growth and resilience in poultry has greatly expanded in recent years. It is now clear that animal performance stems to a large extent from a balance between metabolism, immune function, and the gut microbiome. These systems interact continuously, and even small nutritional or environmental changes can shift the animals’ physiological response. This growing knowledge has encouraged the development of nutritional strategies and feed components that work through adaptive, non-antibiotic mechanisms. One recent proposed explanation for these responses has rapidly gained ground: hormetic modeling.

Hormetic modeling describes how small or moderate doses of nutritional components can activate beneficial adaptive responses (improved resilience or metabolic efficiency), while excessive doses become harmful. This idea parallels, largely speaking, Paracelsus’s famous principle: “The dose makes the poison.” In poultry nutrition, such hormetic patterns are well recognized in nutrients like trace elements (selenium, zinc) and specific amino acids (for example, arginine). At optimal levels, these nutrients support antioxidant defense, growth, and immune balance, whereas excessive intake may cause oxidative or metabolic stress

This review examines the hormetic principle and its application to modern poultry/swine feeding concepts, exploring how balanced nutrient design and controlled inclusion of bioactive compounds can strengthen cellular adaptation, improve stress tolerance, and enhance production efficiency.

How do AGPs actually work?

Despite AGP’s widespread historical use, the precise mechanisms by which subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics enhance animal productivity remained poorly understood. Recent advances in systems biology and mitochondrial research propose new answers, much needed to develop future advanced nutritional systems.

The traditional explanations for AGP efficacy have focused primarily on antimicrobial effects:

• reducing nutrient competition from microorganisms
• decreasing harmful bacterial metabolites
• improving gut wall morphology (thinner gut wall ➡ better nutrient absorption)
• preventing subclinical infections

However, these mechanisms alone could not fully explain why different classes of antibiotics with diverse mechanisms of action produce similar growth-promoting effects (Gutierrez-Chavez et al., 2025).

Niewold (2007) hypothesized that the primary mechanism of AGPs is non-antibiotic anti-inflammatory activity, reducing the energetic costs of chronic low-grade inflammation. Inflammation diverts nutrients from growth toward immune responses, with cytokine production (particularly IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α) suppressing anabolic pathways (Kogut et al., 2018). AGPs appear to selectively inhibit pro-inflammatory cytokine production without completely suppressing immune function.

A paper published in 2024 by Fernandez Miyakawa et al. proposes that antibiotics at subtherapeutic levels act primarily through mitochondrial hormesis and adaptive stress responses, and not simply through antimicrobial activity. In this model, mitochondria act as bioenergetic hubs and signaling centers. Low-dose antibiotics trigger mild mitochondrial stress, which triggers the activation of adaptive protective pathways.  This in turn induces mitokine release, leading to systemic adaptive responses improving growth, feed efficiency, and disease tolerance.

Mechanism of action in the hormetic model of AGP efficiency

Hormesis is a biphasic mechanism whereby high doses are toxic, but low doses stimulate adaptive responses and are beneficial. In the case of AGPs, Fernandez Miyakawa et al. propose that low doses stimulate growth, stress resistance, and cellular repair.

Key signaling pathways

As Bottje et al. (2006, 2009) shows, efficient animals often have mitochondrial inner membranes that are less permeable to protons and other ions, allowing for more effective coupling between electron transport and ATP synthesis, which reduces energy loss through proton leak and maximizes the production of ATP per oxygen molecule consumed. Lower membrane permeability is influenced by factors like decreased membrane surface area per protein mass, specific membrane protein content (such as adenine nucleotide translocase), and fatty acid composition in the membrane phospholipids, all contributing to a tighter barrier that prevents unregulated electron or proton flow and supports higher energetic efficiency. Such features make mitochondria in efficient species more capable of maintaining membrane integrity and ATP generation, especially when facing environmental stress, as seen in freeze-tolerant animals whose mitochondria do not undergo damaging permeability transitions under extreme conditions.

Nrf2

Many AGPs interfere with mitochondrial protein synthesis and electron transport chain. At subtherapeutic levels, they cause a mild ROS increase, which triggers the activation of redox-sensitive transcription factor Nrf2. Since Nrf2 regulates over 250 antioxidant, detoxification, and anti-inflammatory genes, the result is improved cell survival, redox balance, and tolerance to stress.

Mitokine production

Mitokines are “signaling molecules that enable communication of local mitochondrial stress to other mitochondria in distant cells and tissues” (Burtscher 2023). Through fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15), adrenomedullin2 (ADM2) etc, these stress signals are released systemically and coordinate tissue-wide responses, leading to improved growth and resilience.

Inflammation and disease defense

While the negative side of antibiotic growth promoters is well researched and understood (Rahman et al., 2022), science can advance by isolating the positive effects and attempting to offer different pathways to the same benefits. One such lesson can be derived from understanding inflammation pathways and responses.

Chronic low-grade intestinal inflammation is common in modern poultry production, due to diet, microbiota shifts, high metabolic demands etc. This inflammation diverts energy from growth to immune responses.

AGPs reduce the energy costs of this inflammation in three main ways:

• Reduces inflammation through adaptive stress response
• Raising the threshold to trigger inflammation
• Promoting overall resilience, rather than simply killing pathogens

Fernandez Miyakawa et al. suggest, in this emerging model, that disease defense can operate two different actions: resistance to health challenges through reduction of the pathogen load (which is driven by the immune system and is energy costly); and overall resilience by reducing host damage without reducing the pathogen load. AGPs, the authors claim, mainly promote resilience by enhancing mitochondrial stress responses and tissue repair, i.e. more precisely:

• Direct mitochondrial stimulation in intestinal epithelial cells
• Systemic mitokine signaling coordinating organism-wide adaptive responses
• Selective microbiota modulation enhancing beneficial host-microbe interactions
• Improving resilience without immune system costs
• Metabolic optimization supporting growth and feed efficiency

In this context, “metabolic optimization” refers to the enhancement of metabolic processes within livestock or poultry to support efficient growth, feed conversion, and physiological resilience, without relying on immune-mediated pathways that are energetically costly. Scientific evidence shows that metabolic optimization involves improving nutrient assimilation, promoting more efficient energy production in tissues (such as mitochondrial ATP synthesis), and minimizing wasteful metabolic byproducts, resulting in reduced feed intake per unit of growth and better utilization of dietary nutrients (Rauw 2025, El-Hack 2025).

Function of feed additives and feed components

Feed additives and feed components in many ways represent the complete other side of the spectrum from antibiotics, but are there some features where antibiotics and feed additives come close in their functions? There is a good case to be made for certain feed additives ultimately working in the animal to achieve similar benefits to the desirable, non-medicinal usage of AGP´s. Especially with the emergent model of AGP mechanism described above, it is worth discussing how certain feed additives can support the same end goal: promoting animal resilience.

Lillejhoj et al (2018), Gutierrez-Chavez et al. (2025) and others outline the end-results such products must achieve:

• Growth performance & feed conversion efficiency
• Promotion of animal productivity under real-world conditions
• Support gut homeostasis
• Non-adverse effect on the immune system
• Reduction of oxidative stress
• Support organism in mitigation of enteric inflammatory consequences

Within the hormetic model, possibly the most important systemic benefit is, in one phrase, promoting resilience. Phytomolecules have long been used, in human and animal medicine, for the same end goal. The mechanisms described below should naturally be seen with caution, as phytomolecule microbiome effects can be subtler and context-dependent. However, the substantiating literature has been increasingly accumulating on these specific topics.

1. Immunometabolic regulation

Phytomolecules demonstrate remarkably similar anti-inflammatory effects to what Niewold (2007) suggested was a primary mechanism of AGPs: non-antibiotic anti-inflammatory activity, reducing the energetic costs of chronic low-grade inflammation. Inflammation diverts nutrients from growth toward immune responses, with cytokine production (particularly IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α) suppressing anabolic pathways (Kogut et al., 2018). AGPs appear to selectively inhibit pro-inflammatory cytokine production without completely suppressing immune function. A similar effect can be observed with various types of phytomolecules, which significantly reduced pro-inflammatory and/or increased anti-inflammatory cytokine expression in animals challenged with several pathogens. The anti-inflammatory mechanism appears to involve inhibition of NF-κB activation and modulation of MAPK signaling pathways (Kim et al., 2010; Long et al., 2021).

2. Mitochondrial hormesis and energy metabolism

Fernández Miyakawa et al. (2024, see above) proposed that AGPs exert growth-promoting effects through mitochondrial hormesis – subtherapeutic antibiotic doses induce mild mitochondrial stress, triggering adaptive responses that enhance mitochondrial function, energy metabolism, and cellular resilience. This mechanism, while requiring further validation, explains why different antibiotics with diverse targets produce similar growth outcomes.

The mitochondrial stress response involves activation of the IL-6 receptor family signaling cascade, which regulates metabolism, growth, regeneration, and homeostasis in liver and other tissues (Perry et al., 2024). Subtherapeutic antibiotic exposure activates proteins involved in growth and proliferation through IL-6R gp130 subunit signaling, including JAK, STAT, mTOR, and MAPK pathways.

Phytomolecules demonstrate similar mitochondrial effects. Perry et al. (2024) showed that increased activity of AMPK, mTOR, PGC-1α, PTEN, HIF, and S6K can also be available via phytomolecule activity, suggesting enhanced anabolic metabolism.

Capsicum oleoresin supplementation in broilers increased jejunal lipase and trypsin activity, enhanced ileal amylase activity, improved jejunal morphology, and modulated immune organ development, indicating enhanced digestive efficiency and nutrient utilization (Li et al., 2022).

Compounds such as vanillin, thymol, eugenol have been shown to improve glucose and lipid metabolism through TRPV1 activation and mitochondrial function enhancement (Gupta et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2017).

3. Gut microbiota modulation

AGPs selectively reduce specific microbial populations, particularly Lactobacillus species that produce bile salt hydrolase (BSH). Since BSH reduces fat digestibility and thus weight gain, AGP-mediated reduction of BSH-producing bacteria enhances energy extraction and growth (Lin, 2014; Bourgin et al., 2021).

Recent research by Zhan et al. (2025) using single-molecule real-time 16S rRNA sequencing demonstrated that therapeutic antibiotic doses (lincomycin, gentamicin, florfenicol, benzylpenicillin, ceftiofur, enrofloxacin) significantly altered chicken gut microbiota composition, with Pseudomonadota and Bacillota becoming dominant phyla after exposure. Different antibiotics produced distinct temporal effects on microbial diversity and community structure.

Phytomolecules exert targeted antimicrobial effects while promoting beneficial bacteria. Dietary supplementation with 800 mg/kg Capsicum extract in Japanese quails reduced cecal counts of pathogenic bacteria (Salmonella spp., E. coli, coliforms) while modulating Lactobacilli populations (Reda et al., 2020).

In pigs, 80 mg/kg natural capsicum extract increased cecal propionic acid and total volatile fatty acid concentrations, with increased butyric acid in the colon – indicating enhanced fermentation by beneficial bacteria (Long et al., 2021).

Capsicum and Curcuma oleoresins altered intestinal microbiota composition in commercial broilers challenged with necrotic enteritis, reducing disease severity through microbiome modulation (Kim et al., 2015).

Capsaicin demonstrates selective antimicrobial activity, inhibiting pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria while favoring development of certain Gram-positive bacteria. The antibacterial mechanism involves induction of osmotic stress and membrane structure damage (Adaszek et al., 2019; Rosca et al., 2020).

4. Intestinal barrier function and gut health

AGPs have been associated with improved intestinal morphology, including increased villus height and reduced crypt depth, which enhance absorptive capacity (Gaskins et al., 2002).

Phytomolecules produce similar or superior effects. Capsicum extract (80 mg/kg) in pigs increased ileal villus height and upregulated MUC-2 gene expression, indicating enhanced gut barrier function and integrity. The improved barrier function correlated with reduced diarrhea incidence (Liu et al., 2013; Long et al., 2021).

Allium hookeri extract increased expression of tight junction proteins (claudins, occludins, ZO-1) in LPS-challenged broiler chickens, demonstrating direct enhancement of barrier integrity (Lee et al., 2017).

5. Oxidative stress mitigation

Oxidative stress impairs growth by damaging cellular components and triggering inflammatory responses. AGPs reduce oxidative stress indirectly through anti-inflammatory effects and microbiota modulation (Bortoluzzi et al., 2021).

Phytomolecules possess direct antioxidant properties. Capsicum extract (50 mg/kg) in heat-stressed quails reduced serum and ovarian malondialdehyde (MDA) while increasing superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) activities. Ovarian transcription factors showed decreased NF-κB and increased Nrf2 and HO-1 expression (Sahin et al., 2016).

A mixture of herbal extracts including pepper reduced thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and MDA in broiler liver and muscle, while increasing glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity and improving antioxidant enzyme expression (Saleh et al., 2018).

Capsicum extract (80 mg/kg) in pigs increased total antioxidant capacity, SOD, and CAT while reducing MDA levels, demonstrating robust antioxidant effects (Long et al., 2021).

Standardization and controlled release: Critical success factors

A major criticism of phytomolecules has been inconsistent efficacy across studies. However, this variability largely reflects differences in:

• Active compound concentrations
• Bioavailability and stability
• Dosing precision
• Product quality and standardization

Microencapsulation is one of the technologies that address the standardization and bioavailability challenges. It protects volatile compounds from degradation during feed processing and storage, with encapsulated essential oils showing significantly higher retention compared to unprotected forms (Stevanović et al., 2018). By creating a protective barrier around active ingredients, microencapsulation enables controlled release in specific regions of the gastrointestinal tract, improving absorption efficiency and reducing dose variability (Bringas-Lantigua et al., 2011). The technology also masks unpalatable flavors that can reduce feed intake while standardizing active ingredient concentrations through precise manufacturing processes (Gharsallaoui et al., 2007). Studies demonstrate that spray-dried microencapsulated essential oils achieve encapsulation efficiencies exceeding 93% with minimal loss during storage (Hu et al., 2020), and can be engineered for enzyme-mediated release to ensure bioactive delivery at optimal intestinal sites (Elolimy et al., 2025).

Mechanistic synthesis: An integrated model

The evidence indicates that both AGPs and phytomolecules operate through an integrated network of effects:

1. Primary Level: Selective antimicrobial effects modify gut microbiota composition
2. Secondary Level: Reduced microbial metabolites (ammonia, endotoxins) decrease inflammatory signaling
3. Tertiary Level: Reduced inflammation conserves energy for growth; enhanced barrier function improves nutrient absorption
4. Quaternary Level: Mitochondrial hormesis and metabolic optimization increase energy efficiency
5. Systemic Level: Improved immunometabolic homeostasis supports optimal growth

This integrative model explains why multiple antibiotics with different mechanisms produce similar growth outcomes: they converge on common pathways regulating immunometabolism and mitochondrial function (Fernández Miyakawa et al., 2024).

Phytomolecules operate through the same mechanistic framework but with potential advantages:

• Multiple bioactive compounds providing redundancy
• Antioxidant effects enhancing stress resilience
• Lower AMR selection pressure
• Potential prebiotic-like effects supporting beneficial microbiota

Safety and antimicrobial resistance considerations

Antibiotic exposure significantly disrupts gut microbiota diversity and stability, with effects persisting beyond withdrawal periods. The study by Zhan et al. (2025) demonstrated that different antibiotics produce varying degrees of microbiota disruption, with florfenicol and gentamicin showing the strongest and most persistent effects.

In contrast, phytomolecules generally do not generate resistance through the same mechanisms as antibiotics. Some phytochemicals may actually enhance antibiotic efficacy and resensitize resistant bacteria through structural modifications of bacterial membranes (Khameneh et al., 2021; Suganya et al., 2022).

However, one study reported increased correlation between antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) and mobile genetic elements in pig feces after mushroom powder supplementation, suggesting that certain phytogenic compounds may increase ARG mobility (Muurinen et al., 2021). This emphasizes the need for continued surveillance of phytomolecule effects on resistance gene dynamics.

Capsaicinoids and capsinoids have well-established safety profiles. Capsiate, a non-pungent analogue of capsaicin, exhibits substantially lower toxicity while maintaining similar metabolic and growth-promoting effects (Gupta et al., 2022). No adverse effects on animal health or product quality have been reported at recommended dosages in reviewed studies.

Future directions and research needs

Despite substantial progress, several areas require further investigation:

1. Mechanistic refinement: Detailed characterization of signaling pathways, particularly the IL-6R/gp130 cascade and mitochondrial stress responses
2. Precision formulation: Development of combinations optimized for specific production stages, environmental conditions, and disease pressures
3. Bioavailability optimization: Advanced delivery systems ensuring consistent active compound release and absorption
4. Microbiome-host interaction mapping: High-resolution characterization of microbial community shifts and their functional consequences
5. Economic validation: Large-scale production trials assessing cost-effectiveness compared to AGPs and disease management costs

Conclusions

The scientific evidence demonstrates that standardized phytomolecules operate through well-characterized biological mechanisms that substantially replicate those of AGPs:

1. Anti-inflammatory effects reducing energetic costs of immune activation
2. Mitochondrial hormesis enhancing energy metabolism and cellular resilience
3. Selective microbiota modulation supporting beneficial bacteria while controlling pathogens
4. Intestinal barrier enhancement improving nutrient absorption and reducing translocation
5. Antioxidant activity mitigating oxidative stress and supporting immune function

When properly standardized and formulated for controlled release, phytomolecules deliver growth promotion, feed efficiency improvements, and disease resistance comparable to AGPs, while potentially offering advantages in AMR risk profile, stress resilience, and consumer acceptance.

The mechanistic convergence between AGPs and phytomolecules, coupled with demonstrated efficacy in controlled trials, provides producers with confidence that science-based phytomolecular interventions represent legitimate alternatives to AGPs. Success depends on product standardization, appropriate dosing, and understanding that phytomolecules work through fundamental biological pathways rather than undefined or mystical mechanisms.

As the livestock industry continues to navigate the post-AGP era, standardized phytomolecules offer a scientifically sound, mechanistically validated approach to maintaining animal performance, health, and welfare while addressing antimicrobial resistance concerns.

References

Adaszek, Ł., et al. “Properties of Capsaicin and Its Utility in Veterinary and Human Medicine.” Research in Veterinary Science, vol. 123, 2019, pp. 14 – 19.

Bottje, W., et al. “Mitochondrial proton leak kinetics and relationship with feed efficiency within a single genetic line of male broilers”. Poultry Science, Volume 88, Issue 8, 1 August 2009, p. 1683-1693.

Bortoluzzi, C., et al. “A Protected Complex of Biofactors and Antioxidants Improved Growth Performance and Modulated the Immunometabolic Phenotype of Broiler Chickens Undergoing Early Life Stress.” Poultry Science, vol. 100, 2021, p. 101176.

Bourgin, M., et al. “Bile Salt Hydrolases: At the Crossroads of Microbiota and Human Health.” Microorganisms, vol. 9, no. 1122, 2021.

Bravo, D., et al. “A Mixture of Carvacrol, Cinnamaldehyde, and Capsicum Oleoresin Improves Energy Utilization and Growth Performance of Broiler Chickens Fed Maize-Based Diet.” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 92, 2014, pp. 1531 – 1536.

Bringas-Lantigua, M., et al. “Influence of Spray-Dryer Air Temperatures on Encapsulated Mandarin Oil.” Drying Technology, vol. 29, 2011, pp. 520–526.

Burtscher, J., et al. “Mitochondrial Stress and Mitokines in Aging.” Aging Cell, vol. 22, no. 2, 2023, e13770.

El-Hack, M. et al. “Integrating metabolomics for precision nutrition in poultry: optimizing growth, feed efficiency, and health”. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, Sec. Animal Nutrition and Metabolism, Volume 12 – 2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1594749

Elolimy, Ahmed A., et al. “Effects of Microencapsulated Essential Oils and Seaweed Meal on Growth Performance, Digestive Enzymes, Intestinal Morphology, Liver Functions, and Plasma Biomarkers in Broiler Chickens.” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 103, 2025, p. skaf092, https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf092.

Fernández Miyakawa, Mariano E., et al. “How Did Antibiotic Growth Promoters Increase Growth and Feed Efficiency in Poultry?” Poultry Science, vol. 103, no. 2, 2024, article 103136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.103136

Gaskins, H. Rex, C. T. Collier, and D. B. Anderson. “Antibiotics as Growth Promotants: Mode of Action.” Animal Biotechnology, vol. 13, no. 1, 2002, pp. 29 – 42.

Gharsallaoui, A., et al. “Applications of Spray-Drying in Microencapsulation of Food Ingredients: An Overview.” Food Research International, vol. 40, no. 9, 2007, pp. 1107-21.

Gutiérrez-Chávez, Vanesa, et al. “Capsaicinoids and Capsinoids of Chilli Pepper as Feed Additives in Livestock Production: Current and Future Trends.” Animal Nutrition, vol. 22, 2025, pp. 483 – 501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2025.03.014.

Gupta, A., et al. “Capsaicin and Capsinoids: Recent Updates on Their Health Benefits and Mechanisms of Action.” Phytotherapy Research, vol. 36, no. 5, 2022, pp. 1898 – 1912.

Hu, Q., Li, X., Chen, F., Wan, R., Yu, C.-W., Li, J., McClements, D. J., & Deng, Z. (2020). “Microencapsulation of an essential oil (cinnamon oil) by spray drying: Effects of wall materials and storage conditions on microcapsule properties“. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 44(11). https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14805

Khameneh, B., et al. “Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance Resensitization by Phytochemicals: Review.” Phytomedicine, vol. 85, 2021, p. 153529.

Kim, D. K., et al. “Effects of Capsicum and Curcuma on Necrotic Enteritis in Broilers.” Poultry Science, vol. 94, 2015, pp. 2314 – 2321.

Kim, J. S., et al. “Anti-inflammatory Effects of Plant-Derived Molecules via NF-κB and MAPK Pathways.” International Immunopharmacology, vol. 10, no. 3, 2010, pp. 306 – 314.

Lee, S. H., et al. “Allium Hookeri Extract Enhances Tight Junction Proteins in Broilers.” Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, vol. 101, no. 1, 2017, pp. e48 – e56.

Li, X., et al. “Capsicum Oleoresin Supplementation Improves Digestive Enzyme Activity and Gut Morphology in Broilers.” Poultry Science, vol. 101, no. 7, 2022, p. 101844.

Lin, J. “Effect of Antibiotics on the Intestinal Microbiota and Their Role in Animal Growth.” Animal Biotechnology, vol. 25, no. 3, 2014, pp. 149 – 157.

Lillehoj, H., et al. “Phytochemicals as Antibiotic Alternatives to Promote Growth and Enhance Host Health.” Veterinary Research, vol. 49, no. 76, 2018.

Liu, Y., et al. “Dietary Capsicum Extract Enhances Intestinal Barrier Function and Growth in Pigs.” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 91, 2013, pp. 518 – 525.

Long, L., et al. “Phytogenic Feed Additives Modulate Intestinal Immunity and Antioxidant Status in Pigs and Poultry.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science, vol. 8, 2021, p. 620998.

Muurinen, J., et al. “Mushroom Powder Supplementation Increases Antibiotic Resistance Gene Mobility in Pig Feces.” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 12, 2021, p. 676678.

Niewold, T. A. “The Non-antibiotic Anti-inflammatory Effect of Antimicrobial Growth Promoters, the Real Mode of Action? A Hypothesis.” Poultry Science, vol. 86, 2007, pp. 605 – 609.

Perry, F., C. N. Johnson, L. Lahaye, E. Santin, D. R. Korver, M. H. Kogut, and R. J. Arsenault. “Protected Biofactors and Antioxidants Reduce the Negative Consequences of Virus and Cold Challenge by Modulating Immunometabolism via Changes in the Interleukin-6 Receptor Signaling Cascade in the Liver.” Poultry Science, vol. 103, no. 9, 2024, article 104044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104044

Rahman, Md, et al. “Insights in the Development and Uses of Alternatives to Antibiotic Growth Promoters in Poultry and Swine Production.” Antibiotics, vol. 11, no. 6, 2022, p. 766, https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11060766.

Rauw, W.M. et al., “Review: Feed efficiency and metabolic flexibility in livestock”. Animal. Vol. 19 (2025) 101376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101376

Reda, F. M., et al. “Capsicum Extract Supplementation Modulates Gut Microbiota and Performance in Japanese Quails.” Animal Feed Science and Technology, vol. 265, 2020, p. 114507.

Rosca, I., et al. “Capsaicin Induces Osmotic Stress in Gram-negative Pathogens.” Veterinary Sciences, vol. 7, no. 4, 2020, p. 172.

Sahin, K., et al. “Dietary Capsicum Extract Reduces Oxidative Stress in Heat-stressed Japanese Quails.” Poultry Science, vol. 95, no. 2, 2016, pp. 231 – 240.

Saleh, A. A., et al. “Herbal Extract Mixtures Improve Antioxidant Status and Performance in Broilers.” Poultry Science, vol. 97, no. 11, 2018, pp. 3927 – 3936.

Stevanović, Z. D., et al. „Essential oils as feed additives—Future perspectives”. Molecules, 23(7), 2018, pp1717.

Suganya, R., et al. “Phytochemicals in Combination with Antibiotics: Antimicrobial Resistance Breakers.” Antibiotics, vol. 11, 2022, p. 123.

Zhang, Benyuan et al. “Mitochondrial Stress and Mitokines: Therapeutic Perspectives for the Treatment of Metabolic Diseases.” Diabetes & Metabolism Journal vol. 48,1, 2024, pp. 1-18.

Zhan, Ru, et al. “Effects of Antibiotics on Chicken Gut Microbiota: Community Alterations and Pathogen Identification.” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 16, 2025, article 1562510. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1562510

Zhang, Y., et al. “Effects of Vanillin, Thymol, and Eugenol on Glucose and Lipid Metabolism via TRPV1 Activation.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 65, no. 13, 2017, pp. 2719 – 2727.

Reporting Period: November 6-12, 2025

Extracted Data by Disease Category

1. ASF in Domestic Pigs

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Romania	15
Moldova	1
TOTAL	16

2. ASF in Wild Boar

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Bulgaria	32
Germany	25
Estonia	8
Croatia	14
Hungary	8
Italy	7
Latvia	21
Lithuania	4
Poland	4
Romania	12
North Macedonia	1
TOTAL	136

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

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Bulgaria	1
Czech Republic	2
Germany	4
France	3
Netherlands	1
TOTAL	11

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

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Norway	1
TOTAL	1

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

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Austria	8
Belgium	4
Germany	462
Denmark	15
Spain	16
Finland	3
France	25
Ireland	1
Italy	1
Lithuania	1
Luxembourg	8
Latvia	3
Netherlands	22
Poland	2
Slovakia	1
Slovenia	2
Sweden	5
Switzerland	1
Norway	1
Ukraine	1
TOTAL	581

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

Country	Number of Outbreaks
Bulgaria	1
Czech Republic	3
Germany	26
France	7
Hungary	1
Ireland	1
Italy	2
Netherlands	3
Poland	3
Sweden	2
United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)	2
TOTAL	51

---

Summary Statistics

Disease Category	Total Outbreaks
ASF in Domestic Pigs	16
ASF in Wild Boar	136
HPAI(NON-P) in Captive Birds / H5N1	11
HPAI(NON-P) in Wild Birds / H5 (N untyped)	1
HPAI(NON-P) in Wild Birds / H5N1	581
High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza Viruses (Poultry) / H5N1	51

 

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

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

Different faces of energy

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

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

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

Disease generates costs

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

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

Environmental challenges are energy-consuming

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

1. Cold stress

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

2. Heat stress

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

3. Poor housing and management

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

What are the detailed consequences?

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

Glucose, an important energy source

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

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

Influence on protein metabolism

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

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

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

Carcass and meat quality

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

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

How can feed additives support pigs in health challenges?

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

Phytomolecules have several health-supporting effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial with endotoxins

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

Solis Max 2.0 bound about 80% of endotoxin.

Trial with mycotoxins

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

Health support by toxin-binding solutions improves performance

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Targeting sustainability in pig production

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

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

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

Strategy for efficient pig production

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

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

The foundation of efficiency – the gut

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

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

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

Phytomolecules: supporting gut health and performance

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

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

1. Direct antimicrobial activity of phytomolecules

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

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

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

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

2. Indirect antimicrobial activity of phytomolecules

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

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

3. Combinations increase efficacy

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

4. Phytomolecules are more than antimicrobials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustainable efficiency in pig production supported by in-feed phytomolecules

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

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

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

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

References

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

By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor EW Nutrition

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

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

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

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

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

1. Mucus layers

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

2. Intestinal epithelium

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

2.1 Proliferating stem cells

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

2.2 Paneth cells

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

2.3 M cells

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

2.4 Dendritic cells

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

2.5 Goblet cells

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

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

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

2.6 Neuroendocrine cells

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

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

3. Last but not least – the microbiome

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

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

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

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

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

Factors impairing intestinal immune defense

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the video on The Poultry Site.