Singapore – March 12, 2024 – EW Nutrition, a leading innovator in the animal nutrition industry, officially launched its newest product, Axxess XY, in VICTAM 2024, at the BITEC Exhibition Center in Bangkok.

Axxess XY is an intrinsically thermostable xylanase that breaks down both the soluble and insoluble fiber fraction from feed ingredients such as corn, wheat, grain by-products and oilseed cakes. It releases nutrients trapped in cell wall fractions and improves the gut environment by reducing viscosity. The newly launched product thus gives feed producers peace of mind when working with various feed processing conditions, as well as significant feed cost savings with flexibility in feed formulation.

“The successful launch of Axxess XY in VICTAM 2024 demonstrates our commitment to provide cutting-edge solutions to address the evolving needs of animal production and to contribute to the growth of the industry in the region.” said Ramakanta Nayak, regional director for EW Nutrition South East Asia/Pacific.

Dr. Ajay Awati, Global Director of Enzymes, EW Nutrition, expressed enthusiasm about the product launch, stating, “We are excited to have had such an amazing response to Axxess XY during and after our launch at VICTAM 2024. Axxess XY is the result of EW Nutrition R&D team’s hard work and dedication to pushing the boundaries of enzymes technology in animal nutrition.”

Axxess XY is touted as the most advanced xylanase yet, making EW Nutrition an important player in the enzyme market.

About EW Nutrition 

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

For more information, please visit https://ew-nutrition.com. 

Contact: 

info@ew-nutrition.com

VISBEK, 5 March 2024 – EW Nutrition, a global provider of animal nutrition solutions, announced today that it has acquired the BIOMIN BIOSTABIL product line from dsm-firmenich. The deal gives EW Nutrition ownership over an established and successful line of silage inoculants.

“The agreement we have concluded gives us a solid foothold in a sector where we are currently developing a more substantial presence” says Jan Vanbrabant, CEO of EW Nutrition. “EW Nutrition continues to expand strategically, enriching its portfolio with market-leading solutions, developed in-house or through acquisitions. The Biomin Biostabil line joins an innovative portfolio that has been growing tremendously in the last three years with the launch of Ventar D and Pretect D, our Feed Quality and Pigment lines acquired in 2021, and yet another momentous global launch coming up shortly.” This solid, well-proven line of silage inoculants, says Vanbrabant, will be an important addition to customers of EW Nutrition’s On-Farm Solutions business around the world.

The transaction was closed on March 1, 2024. Under the services agreement concluded, all customers will be actively supported over the next months, while the asset, brand, and go-to-market will be transitioned to EW Nutrition in the coming period.

The financial details of the sale remain confidential.

By Marisabel Caballero, Global Technical Manager Poultry

As the planet’s climate experiences changes, new patterns affect the microbial communities colonizing crops. Recently, several areas of the planet have experienced extreme temperatures, drought, changes in the humid/dry cycles, and an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (1,2). As a response, the fungi affecting the crops have shifted their geographical distribution, and with this, the pattern of mycotoxin occurrence also changed. For instance, in Europe, we are looking at higher frequencies and levels of Aflatoxins (AF), Ochratoxins (OT), and Fumonisins (FUM) than ten or even five years ago (2-4).

This affects animal production, as mycotoxin challenges show increased frequency, quantity, and variety. Mainly long-living animals, such as laying hens and breeders, can have a higher risk. Moreover, mycotoxins can also be carried over to the eggs, potentially risking human health in the case of layers (table eggs) and in the case of breeder hens, hatchery performance and day-old chick (DOC) quality.

Laying hens and breeders: carryover of mycotoxins into eggs

Most mycotoxins are absorbed in the proximal part of the gastrointestinal tract (Table 1). This absorption can be high, as in the case of aflatoxins (~90%), but also very limited, as in the case of fumonisins (<1%), with a significant portion of unabsorbed toxins remaining within the lumen of the gastrointestinal tract (5).

Once mycotoxins are ingested, detoxification and excretion processes are started by the body, and at the same time, organ damage ensues. The detoxification of mycotoxins is mainly carried out by the liver (6), and their accumulation happens primarily in the liver and kidneys. However, accumulation in other tissues, such as the reproductive organs and muscles, has also been found (7-9). The detoxification process’ objective is the final excretion of the toxins, which occurs through urine, feces, and bile; often, the toxins can also reach the eggs (7-20).

Table 1: mycotoxin absorption rates for poultry and their carry-over rate into eggs

(Adapted from 5, 7-17, 19-21)

Table 1 shows carry-over rates of mycotoxins into eggs, resulting from diverse studies (7-10, 14, 16, 19). However, the same studies indicate that results can vary broadly due to different factors, as reviewed by Völkel and collaborators (26). This variability is related to the amount and source of contamination, way of application, period, and the possible co-occurrence of various mycotoxins or several metabolites. Other factors to consider are animal-related, such as species, breed, sex, age group, production level, and health status. Environmental and management factors can play a role in carry-over rates, and finally, detection limits and analytical procedures also influence these results. In summary, highly varying carry-over has been demonstrated, and the risk needs to be considered when animals are exposed.

Mycotoxins in breeder’s feed impact hatchery performance and day-old chick quality

When hens are exposed to mycotoxins, their effects on the intestine, liver, and kidney decrease egg production and quality (10, 14, 27), and, in the case of breeders, consequently, affect hatchery performance, DOC production, and DOC quality (28-30). The main effects of mycotoxins, when we speak about DOC production, are exerted in the gastrointestinal tract, the liver, and the kidneys, affecting embryos and young chicks:

• Intestine and kidneys: Mycotoxins harm the intestinal epithelium and have nephrotoxic effects, affecting calcium and vitamin D3 absorption and metabolism, necessary for eggshell quality (31). Thin and fragile shells can increase embryonic mortality, lower embryonic weight gain, and hinder hatchability (32).
• Liver: The liver plays a central role in egg production as it is responsible for vitamin D3 metabolism, the production of nutrient transporters, and the synthesis of the lipids that make up the yolk. Thus, when liver function is impaired, the internal and external quality of the egg declines, which affects DOC production (31-34).
• Embryo and young chicks: Studies (33-38) have found how mycotoxins affect the embryos. In general, there are two possibilities: the direct one, when the mycotoxin is transferred into the egg, and the indirect one, when the mycotoxin impacts egg quality and, therefore, leads to disease or death of the embryo. The result is a higher embryonic mortality or lower DOC quality. These, among others, result from the lower transfer of antioxidants and antibodies from the hen, low viability of the chick’s immune cells, and higher bacterial contamination. A lower relative weight of the bursa of Fabricio and the thymus is often found.

Qreshi’s team (29) studied the effects on the progeny of broiler breeders consuming feed highly contaminated with AFB1, finding suppression in antibody production and macrophage function in chicks after ten days. Similar results were found by other researchers (36, 37) evaluating the effects of AF and OTA as single and combined contamination. When both mycotoxins are present in the feed, the effect on hatchability and DOC quality are synergistic.

Due to mycotoxin contamination, the reproduction and immune response are impaired, resulting in decreased DOC production and increased early chick mortality, as they are more susceptible to bacterial and viral infections.

Mycotoxins impair table egg production and quality

Studies (22-24) have found mycotoxin contamination in commercial table eggs. A meta-analysis of mycotoxins’ concentration based on 11 published papers was completed recently (22): counting with data from 9509 samples, the meta-analysis reveals an overall presence of mycotoxins in 30% of the samples, being Beauvericin in the first place, followed by DON as well as AF and OTA in third and fourth place, respectively. The risk for humans depends on the intake of contaminated foods in terms of amount and frequency (25), and so far, it has not been estimated in most parts of the world.

Natural contamination in laying hens: a case report

Giancarlo Bozzo’s team (39) reported and published a veterinary case regarding natural mycotoxin contamination in commercial egg production: up to week 47 of age, production parameters were on top of the genetic standards. However, a drop in egg production started at around week 47, and at week 50, egg production was only 68% (figure 1).

Figure 1: production of laying hens fed naturally contaminated feed with AFB1 and OTA

The house with the reduced performance received feed with linseed. In other houses of the same complex, which did not include linseed in the feed, production was unaffected. Therefore, this raw material was considered a possible cause of the issue. Linseed was removed from the formula, and three weeks after (53 weeks of age), egg production was at 84%. Afterward, linseed got back into the formulation, and the laying rate dropped again to 70% (week 56), this time accompanied by a significant increase in mortality.

Samples were collected at week 56, and AFB1 and OTA were detected in feed and the kidneys and livers of the hens consuming it (table 2). While the levels in the feed were not considered high risk, evidence from necropsy and histopathology suggested either a higher or a prolonged exposure; a synergistic effect of both mycotoxins on hen’s health and productivity can be inferred.

Table 2: mycotoxin analysis results for feed and organs

The liver and kidneys were enlarged and showed signs of damage. Furthermore, urate crystals in the peritoneum and the abdominal air sac were observed, indicating renal failure. This limited the excretion of both toxins in the urine, increasing their half-life in the organism and enhancing the effects in target organs, contributing to the synergistic effect observed.

After using mycotoxin-free certified linseed, the problem receded. Though this is the best option to keep animals healthy and productive, it may not be practical in the long term due to the ubiquitous nature of the toxins and the cost and availability constraints of feed raw materials. Moreover, the mycotoxin levels present in the feed were relatively low and fell under recommended guidelines. For these reasons, in-feed toxin mitigation solutions must also be considered to reduce exposure for production animals.

In-feed intervention mitigates the effects of intermittent exposure to multiple mycotoxins

EW Nutrition conducted a study with Hy-Line W-36 layer-breeders intercalating three 10-day cycles of feed with 100ppb AFB1 + 100ppb OTA, with two 21-day cycles of non-challenged feed. An in-feed intervention (Solis Max 2.0, displayed as IFI) containing bentonite, yeast cell wall components, and a mixture of phytogenic components mitigated all effects.

Table 3: experimental groups and mycotoxin challenge

Trial design:

A total of 576 hens (18 replicates per diet, 8 hens each) and 58 roosters were randomly assigned to four diets at 28 weeks of age, as shown in Table 3. The 72-day experimental period included alternating 10-day challenge and 21-day non-challenge intervals (Figure 2). During the challenge intervals, the breeders in T-3 and T-4 were fed the mycotoxin-contaminated feed with and without the IFI.

Figure 2: trial timeline showing challenge and non-challenge intervals and days of data collection and sampling.

Mitigated effects on egg production and egg quality

The challenge decreased overall egg production (Figure 3), egg mass, and shell thickness (Table 4). The first challenge interval did not affect production, but days later, from the first non-challenge period, all parameters were lower for the challenged group.

Different letters indicate significant differences (p<0.05). Statistical tendencies (p<0.1) are indicated by (*).

Figure 3: Egg production of hens intermittently challenged with AFB1 and OTA, with and without in-feed Solis Max

The adverse effects on productivity and egg quality started after the first challenged feed was withdrawn and persisted through the following intervals until the end of the experiment. Similar effects in chronic mycotoxin challenges have been previously found (37, 39).

Table 4: Average egg quality parameters of hens intermittently challenged with AFB1+OTA, with and without an in-feed intervention (IFI)

Different letters indicate significant differences (p<0.05). Statistical tendencies (p<0.1) are indicated by (*).

Mitigated effects on the progeny in incubation trials

Three incubation trials were performed: after the first challenge and non-challenge interval and at the end of the trial period after the third challenge interval. A significant decrease in fertility and hatchability was observed for the challenged group in all incubation trials. As mycotoxins affect egg quality (22-24) and can be transferred to the eggs (10, 14, 27), the effects were also shown in the case of hatchability and offspring performance. Fertility was affected from the first challenge interval onwards, continuing to be low for the challenge group until the end of the trial. However, the hatchability of fertile eggs dropped after the withdrawal of the contaminated feed and showed the lowest value during the third challenge interval.

The in-feed supplementation of Solis Max 2.0 (IFI) resulted in the consistent recovery of egg production and egg quality throughout the whole experimental period, achieving the same levels of productivity as the non-challenged control.

Figure 4: Hatchery parameters of eggs from breeders intermittently challenged with AFB1 and OTA, with and without an in-feed intervention (IFI).

Results in hatch of fertile can be related to egg quality, as the thickness of the eggshell influences the egg’s moisture loss and exchange with the environment during the incubation period. Thinner eggshells lead to higher embryo mortality (31, 32). The group having the challenge with Solis Max showed the same performance as the non-challenged control regarding hatchery performance.

Day-old chick weight was not affected. However, weight gain and mortality after ten days were hindered for the chicks from breeders taking the mycotoxin-contaminated feed (Table 5).

Table 5: Average day- and 10-day-old chick parameters from hens intermittently challenged with AFB1+OTA, with and without an in-feed intervention (IFI)

Letters indicate significant differences (p<0.05). Statistical tendencies (p<0.1) indicated by (*)

At the end of the experiment, oxidative stress biomarkers were measured in the blood serum of 15 hens per treatment, showing significantly lower GPx, and SOD (figure 5) in the challenged group, which indicates a depletion of the mechanisms to fight oxidative stress (40), the hens taking the in-feed product did not show this depletion.

Figure 5: Antioxidants in blood serum, glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and superoxide dismutase (SOD) from breeders intermittently challenged with AFB1 and OTA, with and without an in-feed intervention (IFI).

Intermittent exposure to AFB1 and OTA negatively affected layer breeder productivity, egg quality, and hatchability and promoted oxidative stress in the birds. Intermittent mycotoxin challenges may affect animals even after the contamination is withdrawn. In-feed interventions showed effectiveness in mitigating these effects.

Climate changes bring new mycotoxin challenges – the right in-feed solutions can help

Today’s mycotoxin scenario shows increased frequency, quantity, and variety. Mainly long-living animals, such as laying hens and breeders, can be at more risk. Additionally, the contamination can be carried over to the eggs, potentially risking human health in the case of table eggs and hatchery performance and DOC quality in the case of breeders.

From case reports, we learn the consequences of real challenges and struggles in commercial production; from scientific trials based on possible commercial situations, we realize the advantages of interventions designed to tackle those challenges.

References

1. Kos, Jovana, Mislav Anić, Bojana Radić, Manuela Zadravec, Elizabet Janić Hajnal, and Jelka Pleadin. “Climate Change—a Global Threat Resulting in Increasing Mycotoxin Occurrence.” Foods 12, no. 14 (July 14, 2023): 2704. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12142704.
2. Zingales, Veronica, Mercedes Taroncher, Piera Anna Martino, María-José Ruiz, and Francesca Caloni. “Climate Change and Effects on Molds and Mycotoxins.” Toxins 14, no. 7 (June 30, 2022): 445. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins14070445.
3. Loi, Martina, Antonio F. Logrieco, Tünde Pusztahelyi, Éva Leiter, László Hornok, and István Pócsi. “Advanced Mycotoxin Control and Decontamination Techniques in View of an Increased Aflatoxin Risk in Europe Due to Climate Change.” Frontiers in Microbiology 13 (January 10, 2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1085891.
4. Medina, Ángel, Jesús M González-Jartín, and María J Sainz. “Impact of Global Warming on Mycotoxins.” Current Opinion in Food Science 18 (December 2017): 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2017.11.009.
5. Grenier, Bertrand, and Todd Applegate. “Modulation of Intestinal Functions Following Mycotoxin Ingestion: Meta-Analysis of Published Experiments in Animals.” Toxins 5, no. 2 (February 21, 2013): 396–430. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins5020396.
6. Filazi, Ayhan, Begum Yurdakok-Dikmen, Ozgur Kuzukiran, and Ufuk Tansel Sireli. “Mycotoxins in Poultry.” Poultry Science, February 15, 2017. https://doi.org/10.5772/66302.
7. Amirkhizi, Behzad, Seyed Rafie Arefhosseini, Masoud Ansarin, and Mahboob Nemati. “Aflatoxin B1in Eggs and Chicken Livers by Dispersive Liquid–Liquid Microextraction and HPLC.” Food Additives &amp; Contaminants: Part B, August 27, 2015, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/19393210.2015.1067649.
8. Emmanuel K, Tangni, Van Pamel Els, Huybrechts Bart, Delezie Evelyne, Van Hoeck Els, and Daeseleire Els. “Carry-over of Some Fusarium Mycotoxins in Tissues and Eggs of Chickens Fed Experimentally Mycotoxin-Contaminated Diets.” Food and Chemical Toxicology 145 (November 2020): 111715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2020.111715.
9. Ebrahem, Mohammad, Susanne Kersten, Hana Valenta, Gerhard Breves, and Sven Dänicke. “Residues of Deoxynivalenol (Don) and Its Metabolite de-Epoxy-Don in Eggs, Plasma and Bile of Laying Hens of Different Genetic Backgrounds.” Archives of Animal Nutrition 68, no. 5 (August 20, 2014): 412–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039x.2014.949029.
10. Salwa, A. Aly, and W. Anwer. “Effect of Naturally Contaminated Feed with Aflatoxins on Performance of Laying Hens and the Carryover of Aflatoxin B1 Residues in Table Eggs.” Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 8, no. 2 (January 15, 2009): 181–86. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2009.181.186.
11. Devreese, Mathias, Gunther Antonissen, Nathan Broekaert, Siegrid De Baere, Lynn Vanhaecke, Patrick De Backer, and Siska Croubels. “Comparative Toxicokinetics, Absolute Oral Bioavailability, and Biotransformation of Zearalenone in Different Poultry Species.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 63, no. 20 (May 19, 2015): 5092–98. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b01608.
12. Galtier, P. “Biotransformation and Fate of Mycotoxins.” Toxin Reviews 18, no. 3 (August 1, 1999): 295–312. https://doi.org/10.3109/15569549909162648.
13. Galtier, P., M. Alvinerie, and J.L. Charpenteau. “The Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Ochratoxin A in Pigs, Rabbits and Chickens.” Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 19 (January 1981): 735–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0015-6264(81)90528-9.
14. Hassan, Zahoor Ul, Muhammad Z Khan, Ahrar Khan, Ijaz Javed, and Zahid Hussain. “Effects of Individual and Combined Administration of Ochratoxin A and Aflatoxin B1 in Tissues and Eggs of White Leghorn Breeder Hens.” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 92, no. 7 (December 16, 2011): 1540–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4740.
15. Li, Shao-Ji, Guangzhi Zhang, Bin Xue, Qiaoling Ding, Lu Han, Jian-chu Huang, Fuhai Wu, Chonggao Li, and Chunmin Yang. “Toxicity and Detoxification of T-2 Toxin in Poultry.” Food and Chemical Toxicology 169 (November 2022): 113392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.113392.
16. Prelusky, D.B., R.M.G. Hamilton, and H.L. Trenholm. “Transmission of Residues to Eggs Following Long-Term Administration of 14 C-Labelled Deoxynivalenol to Laying Hens.” Poultry Science 68, no. 6 (June 1989): 744–48. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0680744.
17. Ringot, Diana, Abalo Chango, Yves-Jacques Schneider, and Yvan Larondelle. “Toxicokinetics and Toxicodynamics of Ochratoxin A, an Update.” Chemico-Biological Interactions 159, no. 1 (January 2006): 18–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2005.10.106.
18. Osselaere, Ann, Mathias Devreese, Joline Goossens, Virginie Vandenbroucke, Siegrid De Baere, Patrick De Backer, and Siska Croubels. “Toxicokinetic Study and Absolute Oral Bioavailability of Deoxynivalenol, T-2 Toxin and Zearalenone in Broiler Chickens.” Food and Chemical Toxicology 51 (January 2013): 350–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.10.006.
19. Sudhakar, BV. “A Study on Experimentally Induced Aflatoxicosis on the Carryover of Aflatoxin B1 into Eggs and Liver Tissue of White Leghorn Hens.” The Pharma Innovation Journal 11, no. 2S (2022): 213–17.
20. Yiannikouris, Alexandros, and Jean-Pierre Jouany. “Mycotoxins in Feeds and Their Fate in Animals: A Review.” Animal Research 51, no. 2 (March 2002): 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2002012.
21. Bouhet, Sandrine, and Isabelle P. Oswald. “The Intestine as a Possible Target for Fumonisin Toxicity.” Molecular Nutrition &amp; Food Research 51, no. 8 (August 2007): 925–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.200600266.
22. Fakhri, Yadolah, Mansour Sarafraz, Amene Nematollahi, Vahid Ranaei, Moussa Soleimani-Ahmadi, Van Nam Thai, and Amin Mousavi Khaneghah. “A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Concentration and Prevalence of Mycotoxins in Birds’ Egg.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28, no. 42 (September 9, 2021): 59542–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16136-y.
23. Osaili, Tareq M., Akram R. Al-Abboodi, Mofleh AL. Awawdeh, and Samah Aref Jbour. “Assessment of Mycotoxins (Deoxynivalenol, Zearalenone, Aflatoxin B1 and Fumonisin B1) in Hen’s Eggs in Jordan.” Heliyon 8, no. 10 (October 2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11017.
24. Wang, Lan, Qiaoyan Zhang, Zheng Yan, Yanglan Tan, Runyue Zhu, Dianzhen Yu, Hua Yang, and Aibo Wu. “Occurrence and Quantitative Risk Assessment of Twelve Mycotoxins in Eggs and Chicken Tissues in China.” Toxins 10, no. 11 (November 16, 2018): 477. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins10110477.
25. Tolosa, J., Y. Rodríguez-Carrasco, M.J. Ruiz, and P. Vila-Donat. “Multi-Mycotoxin Occurrence in Feed, Metabolism and Carry-over to Animal-Derived Food Products: A Review.” Food and Chemical Toxicology 158 (December 2021): 112661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2021.112661.
26. Völkel, Inger, Eva Schröer-Merker, and Claus-Peter Czerny. “The Carry-over of Mycotoxins in Products of Animal Origin with Special Regard to Its Implications for the European Food Safety Legislation.” Food and Nutrition Sciences 02, no. 08 (2011): 852–67. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2011.28117.
27. Yuan, Tao, Junyi Li, Yanan Wang, Meiling Li, Ao Yang, Chenxi Ren, Desheng Qi, and Niya Zhang. “Effects of Zearalenone on Production Performance, Egg Quality, Ovarian Function and Gut Microbiota of Laying Hens.” Toxins 14, no. 10 (September 21, 2022): 653. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins14100653.
28. Song, Bin, Teng Ma, Damien P. Prévéraud, Keying Zhang, Jianping Wang, Xuemei Ding, Qiufeng Zeng, et al. “Research Note: Effects of Feeding Corn Naturally Contaminated with Aflatoxin B1, Deoxynivalenol, and Zearalenone on Reproductive Performance of Broiler Breeders and Growth Performance of Their Progeny Chicks.” Poultry Science 102, no. 11 (November 2023): 103024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.103024.
29. Qureshi, MA, J Brake, PB Hamilton, WM Hagler, and S Nesheim. “Dietary Exposure of Broiler Breeders to Aflatoxin Results in Immune Dysfunction in Progeny Chicks.” Poultry Science 77, no. 6 (June 1998): 812–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/77.6.812.
30. Ul-Hassan, Zahoor, Muhammad Zargham Khan, Ahrar Khan, and Ijaz Javed. “Immunological Status of the Progeny of Breeder Hens Kept on Ochratoxin a (OTA)- and Aflatoxin B1(Afb1)-Contaminated Feeds.” Journal of Immunotoxicology 9, no. 4 (April 24, 2012): 381–91. https://doi.org/10.3109/1547691x.2012.675365.
31. Devegowda, G., and D. Ravikiran. “Mycotoxins and Eggshell Quality: Cracking the Problem.” World Mycotoxin Journal 1, no. 2 (May 1, 2008): 203–8. https://doi.org/10.3920/wmj2008.1037.
32. Onagbesan, O., V. Bruggeman, L. De Smit, M. Debonne, A. Witters, K. Tona, N. Everaert, and E. Decuypere. “Gas Exchange during Storage and Incubation of Avian Eggs: Effects on Embryogenesis, Hatchability, Chick Quality and Post-Hatch Growth.” World’s Poultry Science Journal 63, no. 4 (December 1, 2007): 557–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043933907001614.
33. Ebrahem, Mohammad, Susanne Kersten, Hana Valenta, Gerhard Breves, Andreas Beineke, Kathrin Hermeyer, and Sven Dänicke. “Effects of Feeding Deoxynivalenol (Don)-Contaminated Wheat to Laying Hens and Roosters of Different Genetic Background on the Reproductive Performance and Health of the Newly Hatched Chicks.” Mycotoxin Research 30, no. 3 (April 11, 2014): 131–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12550-014-0197-z.
34. Yegani, M., T.K. Smith, S. Leeson, and H.J. Boermans. “Effects of Feeding Grains Naturally Contaminated with Fusarium Mycotoxins on Performance and Metabolism of Broiler Breeders.” Poultry Science 85, no. 9 (September 2006): 1541–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/85.9.1541.
35. Calini, F, and F Sirri. “Breeder Nutrition and Offspring Performance.” Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 9, no. 2 (June 2007): 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1516-635×2007000200001.
36. Hassan, ZU, MZ Khan, A Khan, I Javed, U Sadique, and A Khatoon. “Ochratoxicosis in White Leghorn Breeder Hens: Production and Breeding Performance.” Vet. J. 32, no. 4 (2012): 557–61.
37. Verma, J., T. S. Johri, and B. K. Swain. “Effect of Varying Levels of Aflatoxin, Ochratoxin and Their Combinations on the Performance and Egg Quality Characteristics in Laying Hens.” Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 16, no. 7 (January 1, 2003): 1015–19. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2003.1015.
38. Johnson-Dahl, M.L., M.J. Zuidhof, and D.R. Korver. “The Effect of Maternal Canthaxanthin Supplementation and Hen Age on Breeder Performance, Early Chick Traits, and Indices of Innate Immune Function.” Poultry Science 96, no. 3 (March 2017): 634–46. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew293.
39. Bozzo, Giancarlo, Nicola Pugliese, Rossella Samarelli, Antonella Schiavone, Michela Maria Dimuccio, Elena Circella, Elisabetta Bonerba, Edmondo Ceci, and Antonio Camarda. “Ochratoxin A and Aflatoxin B1 Detection in Laying Hens for Omega 3-Enriched Eggs Production.” Agriculture 13, no. 1 (January 5, 2023): 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13010138.
40. Surai, Peter F., Ivan I. Kochish, Vladimir I. Fisinin, and Michael T. Kidd. “Antioxidant Defence Systems and Oxidative Stress in Poultry Biology: An Update.” Antioxidants 8, no. 7 (July 22, 2019): 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox8070235.

Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor EW Nutrition &
Juan Antonio Mesonero Escuredo, GTM Swine/GPM Organic Acids EW Nutrition

The use of high levels of Zinc Oxide (ZnO) in the EU before 2022 was one of the most common methods to prevent postweaning diarrhea (PWD) in pig production. Pharmacologically high levels of ZnO (2000-3000 ppm) increase growth and reduce the incidence of enteric bacterial diseases such as post-weaning diarrhea (PWD)( Carlson et al., 1999; Hill et al., 2000; Hill et al., 2001; Poulsen & Larsen, 1995; De Mille et al., 2019).

However, ZnO showed adverse effects, such as the accumulation of heavy metal in the environment, the risk for antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and problems of mineral toxicity and adverse growth effects when feeding it longer than 28 days (Jensen et al., 2018; Cavaco et al., 2011; Vahjen, 2015; Romeo et al., 2014; Burrough et al., 2019). To replace ZnO in pig production, let us first look at its positive effects to know what we must compensate for.

ZnO has a multifactorial mode of action

ZnO shows several beneficial characteristics that positively influence gut health, the immune system, digestion, and, therefore, also overall health and growth performance.

Figure 1. Beneficial effects and ZnO mode of action in postweaning piglets

1.   ZnO acts as an antimicrobial

Concerning the antimicrobial effects of ZnO, different possible modes of action are discussed:

• ZnO in high dosages generates reactive oxygen species (ROS) that can damage the bacterial cell walls (Pasquet et al., 2014)
• The death of the bacterial cell due to direct contact of the metallic Zn to the cell (Shearier et al., 2016)
• Intrinsic antimicrobial properties of the ZnO²⁺ ions after dissociation. The uptake of zinc into cells is regulated by homeostasis. A concentration of the ZnO²⁺ ions higher than the optimal level of 10^-7 to 10^-5 M (depending on the microbial strain) allows the invasion of Zn²⁺ ions into the cell, and the zinc starts to be cytotoxic (Sugarman, 1983; Borovanský et al., 1989).

ZnO shows activity against, e.g., Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, E. coli, Streptococcus pyogenes, and other enterobacteria (Ann et al., 2014; Vahjen et al., 2016). However, Roselli et al. (2003) did not see a viability-decreasing effect of ZnO on ETEC.

2.   ZnO modulates the immune system

Besides fighting pathogenic organisms as described in the previous chapter and supporting the immune system, ZnO is an essential trace element and has a vital role in the immune system. ZnO improves the innate immune response, increasing phagocytosis and oxidative bursts from macrophages and neutrophils. It also ameliorates the adaptative immune response by increasing the number of T lymphocytes (T cells) in general and regulatory T lymphocytes (T-regs) in particular. These cells control the immune response and inflammation (Kloubert et al., 2018). Macrophage capacity for phagocytosis (Ercan and Bor, 1991) and to kill parasites (Wirth et al., 1989), and also the killing activity of natural killer cells depends on Zn (Rolles et al., 2018). By reducing bacterial adhesion and blocking bacterial invasion, ZnO disburdens the immune system (Roselli et al., 2003).

ZnO reduces the expression of several proinflammatory cytokines induced by ETEC (Roselli et al., 2003). Several studies have also shown a modulation effect on intestinal inflammation, decreasing levels of IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-1ß and IL-6, all pro-inflammatory, in piglets supplemented with ZnO (Zhu et al., 2017; Grilli et al., 2015).

3.   ZnO improves digestion and promotes growth

Besides protecting young piglets against diarrhea, the goal is to make them grow optimally. For this target, an efficient digestion and a high absorption of nutrients is essential. Stimulating diverse pancreatic enzymes such as amylase, carboxypeptidase A, trypsin, chymotrypsin, and lipase increases digestibility (Hedemann et al., 2006; Pieper et al., 2015). However, Pieper et al. (2015) also showed that a long-term supply of very high dietary zinc triggers oxidative stress in the pancreas of piglets.

By stimulating the secretion of ghrelin at the stomach level and thereby promoting the release of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) and cholecystokinin (CCK), ZnO enhances muscle protein synthesis, cell proliferation, and feed intake (Yin et al., 2009; MacDonald et al., 2000)).

The result of improved digestion is increased body weight and average daily gain, which can be seen, e.g., in a study by Zhu et al. (2017).

4.   ZnO protects the intestinal morphology

ZnO prevents the decrease of the trans-endothelial electrical resistance (TEER), usually occurring in the case of inflammation, by downregulating TNF-α and IFN-γ. TNF-α, as well as IFN-γ, increase the permeability of the epithelial tight junctions and, therefore, the intestinal barrier (Al-Sadi et al., 2009).

The enterotrophic and anti-apoptotic effect of ZnO is reflected by a higher number of proliferating and PCNA-positive cells and an increased mucosa surface in the ileum (higher villi, higher villi/crypt ratio)(Grilli et al., 2015). Zhu et al. (2017) also saw an increase in villus height in the duodenum and ileum and a decrease in crypt depth in the duodenum due to the application of 3000 mg of ZnO/kg. Additionally, they could notice a significant (P<0.05) upregulation of the mRNA expression of the zonula occludens-1 and occluding in the mucosa of the jejunum of weaned piglets.

In a trial conducted by Roselli et al. (2003), the supplementation of 0.2 mmol/L ZnO prevented the disruption of the membrane integrity when human Caco-2 enterocytes were challenged with ETEC.

5.   ZnO acts antioxidant

The antioxidant effect of ZnO was shown in a study conducted by Zhu et al., 2017. They could demonstrate that the concentration of malondialdehyde (MDA), a marker for lipid peroxidation, decreased on day 14 or 28, and the total concentration of superoxide dismutase (SOD), comprising enzymes that transform harmful superoxide anions into hydrogen peroxide, increased on day 14 (P<0.05). Additionally, Zn is an essential ion for the catalytic action of these enzymes.

Which positive effects of ZnO can be covered by organic acids (OAs)?

1.   OAs act antimicrobial

OAs, on the one hand, lower the pH in the gastrointestinal tract. Some pathogenic bacteria are susceptible to low pH. At a pH<5, the proliferation of, e.g., Salmonella, E. coli, and Clostridium is minimized. The good thing is that some beneficial bacteria, such as lactobacilli or bifidobacteria, survive as they are acid-tolerant. The lactobacilli, on their side, can produce hydrogen peroxide, which inhibits, e.g., Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas spp. (Juven and Pierson, 1996).

Besides this more indirect mode of action, a more direct one is also possible: Owing to their lipophilic character, the undissociated form of OAs can pass the bacterial membrane (Partanen and Mroz, 1999). The lower the external pH, the more undissociated acid is available for invading the microbial cells. Inside the cell, the pH is higher than outside, and the OA dissociates. The release of hydrogen ions leads to a decrease in the internal pH of the cell and to a depressed cell metabolism. To get back to “normal conditions”, the cell expels protons. However, this is an energy-consuming process; longer exposure to OAs leads to cell death. The anion remaining in the cell, when removing the protons, disturbs the cell’s metabolic processes and participates in killing the bacterium.

These theoretical effects could be shown in a practical trial by Ahmed et al. (2014). He fed citric acid (0.5 %) and a blend of acidifiers composed of formic, propionic, lactic, and phosphoric acid + SiO₂ (0.4 %) and saw a reduction in fecal counts of Salmonella and E. coli for both groups.

2.   OAs modulate the immune system

The immune system is essential in the pig’s life, especially around weaning. Organic acids have been shown to support or stimulate the immune system. Citric acid (0.5%), as well as the blend of acidifiers mentioned before (Ahmed et al., 2014), significantly increased the level of serum IgG. IgG is part of the humoral immune system. They mark foreign substances to be eliminated by other defense systems.

Ren et al. (2019) could demonstrate a decrease in plasma tumor necrosis factor-α that regulates the activity of diverse immune cells. He also found lower interferon-γ and interleukin (Il)-1ß values in the OA group than in the control group after the challenge with ETEC. This trial shows that inflammatory response can be mitigated through the addition of organic acids.

3.   OAs improve digestion and promote growth

In piglets, the acidity in the stomach is responsible for the activation and stimulation of certain enzymes. Additionally, it keeps the feed in the stomach for a longer time. Both effects lead to better digestion of the feed.

In the stomach, the conversion of pepsinogen to pepsin, which is responsible for protein digestion, is catalyzed under acid conditions (Sanny et al., 1975)group. Pepsin works optimally at two pH levels: pH 2 and pH 3.5 (Taylor, 1959). With increasing pH, the activity decreases; at pH 6, it stops. Therefore, a high pH can lead to poor digestion and undigested protein arriving in the intestine.

These final products of pepsin protein digestion are needed in the lower parts of the GIT to stimulate the secretion of pancreatic proteolytic enzymes. If they do not arrive, the enzymes are not activated, and the inadequate protein digestion continues. Additionally, gastric acid is the primary stimulant for bicarbonate secretion in the pancreas, neutralizing gastric acid and providing an optimal pH environment for the digestive enzymes working in the duodenum.

As already mentioned, the pH in the stomach influences the transport of digesta. The amount of digesta being transferred from the stomach to the small intestine is related to the acidity of the chyme leaving the stomach and arriving in the small intestine. Emptying of the stomach can only take place when the duodenal chyme can be neutralized by pancreatic or other secretions (Pohl et al., 2008); so, acid-sensitive receptors provide feedback regulation and a higher pH in the stomach leads to a faster transport of the digesta and a worse feed digestion.

4.   OAs protect the intestinal morphology

Maintaining an intact gut mucosa with a high surface area is crucial for optimal nutrient absorption. Research suggests organic acids play a significant role in improving mucosal health:

Butyric acid promotes epithelial cell proliferation, as demonstrated in an in vitro pig hindgut mucosa study (Sakata et al., 1995). Fumaric acid, serving as an energy source, may locally enhance small intestinal mucosal growth, aiding in post-weaning epithelial cells’ recovery and increasing absorptive surface and digestive capacity (Blank et al., 1999). Sodium butyrate supplementation at low doses influences gastric morphology and function, thickening the stomach mucosa and enhancing mucosal maturation and differentiation (Mazzoni et al., 2008).

Studies show that organic acids affect gut morphology, with a mixture of short-chain and mid-chain fatty acids leading to longer villi (Ferrara et al., 2016) and Na-butyrate supplementation increasing crypt depth and villi length in the distal jejunum and ileum (Kotunia et al., 2004). However, the villi length and mucosa thickness in the duodenum were reduced. Dietary sodium butyrate has been linked to increased microvilli length and cecal crypt depth in pigs (Gálfi and Bokori, 1990).

5.   OAs show antioxidant activity

The last characteristic, the antioxidant effect, cannot be provided at the same level as with ZnO; however, Zhang et al. (2019) attest to OAs a certain antioxidant activity. Oxalic, citric, acetic, malic, and succinic acids, which were extracted from Camellia oleifera, also showed good antioxidant activity in a trial conducted by Zhang et al. (2020).

Organic acids are an excellent tool to compensate for the ban on ZnO

The article shows that organic acids have similar positive effects as zinc oxide. They act antimicrobial, modulate the immune system, maintain the gut morphology, fight pathogenic microbes, and also act – slightly – antioxidant. Additionally, they have a significant advantage: they are not harmful to the environment. Organic acids used in the proper pH range and combination are good tools for replacing zinc oxide.

References on request

Conference report

Many factors affect eggshell quality, such as nutrition, disease, genetics, environmental conditions, age of birds, stress, egg collection and handling, and packaging and transport. Eggshell quality, however, is primarily related to management and nutrition, not genetics or other factors. It is becoming a bigger issue as the length of the laying period has extended because, as hens get older, shell quality drops.

“The information in the genetics companies’ management guides is for direction and information only, as each egg producer’s production goals and conditions can vary”, says Vitor Arantes, Global Technical Services Manager and Global Nutritionist, Hy-Line International. He advises listening to your birds. For example, “diets should be aligned with the bird’s bodyweight development, rather than the age of birds and following feeding phases according to pre-planned timings for feed changes,” he noted.

Below are some of the nutritional factors impacting eggshell quality that producers should keep top of mind.

Early development and pre-starter diets

“Bodyweight at 6-12 weeks of age is key, but to achieve this goal, bodyweight up to 5 weeks of age is a MUST, stressed,” Dr. Arantes. “This critical period is an investment, so don’t be shy. Poor management in the first 5 weeks will delay production, increase mortality, and prevent the achievement of peak production targets. In turn, it will affect egg quality. Therefore, we must provide proper diets as soon as possible,” he said.

As shown below, chicks hatch with relatively underdeveloped internal organs and systems. During the first 5 weeks of age, the digestive tract and the immune system undergo much of their development. The development of the intestine is crucial for nutrient absorption and will determine a hen’s future production efficiency. Strong intestinal development will also strengthen the immune system and reduce the possibility of future enteric diseases and improve the response to vaccinations.

Multi-phasic body weight development during rearing and the start of lay

Pre-starter diets support the chicks’ transition from being fed by the yolk sac and are relatively high in energy, protein, and the vitamins and minerals required for growth and development. The chicks’ limited digestive capacity post-hatch demands easily digestible raw materials. A crumble containing high-quality, functional ingredients provides a good nutritional start in life. The use of feed additives, such as enzymes to improve digestibility, and synbiotics to aid in the early development of a microbial population and to prevent the intestinal colonization of pathogens, known as competitive exclusion, should be considered.

Teaching hens how to eat – preparing for the pre-peak phase

The objective is to develop sufficient feed intake capacity for the period start of lay, by feeding a developer diet from 10-16 weeks of age. This is a diluted diet with high levels of insoluble fiber to develop feed intake capacity (crop and gizzard).

“You can train pullets to eat by taking advantage of their natural feeding behavior,” commented Dr. Arantes “Because birds consume most of their feed before lights go off, the main feed distribution (60% of the daily ration) should be in the late afternoon, about 2-3 hours before ‘light off’. In the morning, birds will be hungry and finish the feed, including fine particles. Emptying feeders helps to prevent selective eating and will increase the uniformity of the flock. In the middle of the day, there should be no feed in feeders for 60-90 minutes,” he noted.

Don’t neglect the pre-lay phase

Start feeding a pre-lay diet when most pullets show reddening of the combs, which is a sign of sexual maturity. Feed for a maximum of 10–14 days before the point of lay. This is important to increase medullary bone calcium reserves. Large particle calcium should be introduced in this phase. Do not feed pre-lay later than the first egg as it contains insufficient calcium to support egg production.

There can be a negative impact on feed consumption from the sudden increase in dietary calcium levels from 1% to above 4% at the start of lay. Field experience indicates that the use of pre-lay diets helps as a smooth transition between the developer (low calcium and nutrient density) and the peaking diet. Correct feed formulation and matching diet density with consumption will minimize the impact of reduced calcification of bone over the laying cycle and extend the persistency of shell quality. It also helps to avoid the often-reduced appetite/daily feed intake during early production.

The following are suggested for pre-layer feed:

• 1.25 to 1.40% P
• 2.5% Ca (50% coarse limestone)
• 900-1,100g per hen total
• Never before 15 weeks of age
• Never after 2% hen day (HD) egg production

Understand your limestone

Calcium particle size is important for eggshell quality. Fine calcium carbonate particles pass through the gastrointestinal tract in 2-3 hours, whereas particles above 2mm are retained in the gizzard and will slowly solubilize, delaying the calcium assimilation. Eggshell formation takes 12 to 14 hours and occurs mainly during the night period. Providing a high amount of large calcium particle size before the night, when birds are sleeping, will help laying hens to produce a strong eggshell.

The ratio of coarse to fine calcium particles will increase with bird age as below. Changing the particle size ensures that more calcium will be available at night from the diet instead of from the bone.

Calcium particle size recommendations

The solubility of limestone may differ according to the source. Calcium with high solubility will not be stored for a long time in the gizzard, negating the particle size effect. Dietary calcium levels may need to be adjusted based on the solubility of your limestone. The in vitro solubility of your limestone source can easily be checked on the farm, with a simple technique using hydrochloric acid. The target is to recover 3-6% of the supplemented limestone.

Water

It’s impossible to have good eggshell quality if you don’t have good water intake and good quality water. For example, excessive salt levels in drinking water can cause persistent damage to shell quality.

Conclusion: invest in the rearing phase

Good nutrition and management practices are key to good shell quality. The rearing period is a key developmental time for future success during the laying period – it is an investment phase.

***

EW Nutrition’s Poultry Academy took place in Jakarta and Manila in early September 2023. Vitor Arantes, Global Technical Services Manager and Global Nutritionist, Hy-Line International, was a distinguished guest speaker in this event.

by Marisabel Caballero and Vinil Samraj Padmini, EW Nutrition GmbH

2023 was yet another challenging year for raw materials. Not only is volatility continuing to impact prices and supply security, but 92% of the 7000+ analyses conducted by EW Nutrition were found above detection limits for at least one of the mycotoxins tested.

See how various regions performed in our report.

29 January 2024, Visbek – German-based company EW Nutrition, a global provider of functional animal nutrition solutions, has appointed Gustavo Carlos Tesolin as its Regional Director for Latin America.

An agricultural engineer by training, Gustavo Tesolin has forged an international career in the Animal Health business during the last 25 years. With different leadership roles in several major international organizations such as Novartis, Elanco, and Erber Group, Mr. Tesolin brings along important experience in Commercial Operations, P&L drive, and Strategy execution, with special emphasis on team development and geographic expansion.

“I am really excited to join a company as innovation-driven and science-focused as EW Nutrition,” Tesolin said. “The recent launch of VENTAR D, a novel phytogenic specifically designed and developed to improve animal husbandry results, will continue to strengthen our position in the region, together with our winning brands PRETECT D and ACTIVO” and added, “I am eager to take on the challenge and better acquaint the market with an excellent portfolio centered on Gut Health Management, Digestibility, and Feed Quality.”

Jan Vanbrabant, CEO of EW Nutrition, noted that Gustavo Tesolin is “the perfect combination of the right experience and the right attitude. We are happy to have found in him a proven leader with not just excellent market knowledge, but with the same values we share in EW Nutrition: a passion for innovation in the service of our customers, and relentless curiosity and energy to find the right solution.”

This appointment comes on the heels of several top-tier global hires over the last 18 months and reflects the company’s commitment to the Latin American market.

Tesolin will move to Mexico to coordinate EW Nutrition’s expansion in Latin American countries.

About EW Nutrition

EW Nutrition is a German-based international animal nutrition company that offers comprehensive solutions for animal gut health, toxin risk management, growth performance, and more.

Press contact

marketing@ew-nutrition.com

Water is a main nutrient and carrier for vaccines, medicine – including antibiotics, but also for pathogens

Chemistry

pH and pKa

Acidity and dissociation index
Target: pH 3,5-3,8 Important for acids application (E.g. organic acids, etc), and ORP

Hardness

Content of Ca, sometimes plus Mg
Target: better TDS Important for acid binding capacity (ABC, buffer capacity)

Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP)

Target: 650 mV>700 mV » reduces water intake Important for biocides application (E.g. chlorination)

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Sum of dissolved salts, minerals, metals, carbonates, organics Target: 2000 ppm>3000 ppm » laxation Important for buffer capacity and ORP

Microbiology

Yeast

Target: < 5000 cfu/gr

Enterobacterias

Target: < 100 cfu/gr

Moulds

Target: < 100 cfu/gr

Total Production 2023: 144.3 million metric tons for farmed animals

Change from 2022: 2% decrease

Factors Influencing Decrease

Political and Market Pressures: Addressing crises and the shift towards sustainable feed.

Climate and Diseases: Effects of droughts, floods, Avian Influenza (AI), and African Swine Fever (ASF) on raw material supply and animal production.

National Policies: Initiatives for greenhouse gas and nitrate emission reduction.

Consumer Trends: Food price inflation impacting demand.

Production Variability: Different trends across EU Member States, with notable decreases in countries like Germany, Ireland, Denmark, and Hungary, and slight increases in Austria, Bulgaria, Italy, and Romania.

Sector-Specific Trends

Pig Feed: Major decline of nearly 2.5 million tons. Key challenges included:

• Loss of export markets, particularly in Asia
• Negative media impact in Germany
• Significant production drop in Denmark (-13.6%) and Spain (loss of 800,000 metric tons)
• Italy’s ongoing struggle with ASF

Poultry Feed: Increase by 0.9 million tons, yet still 700,000 metric tons below 2021 levels. Challenges included declines in Hungary and Czechia due to reduced broiler production.

Cattle Feed: Decrease of 0.8 million tons from 2022.

2024 key factors

• Animal disease
• Economic instability, persistent food price inflation
• Weather irregularities
• Continued imports of poultry meat from Ukraine
• “Green and animal welfare” policies affecting local production

Summary

The EU’s compound feed production in 2023 faced numerous challenges, leading to an overall decrease. The pig feed sector was most severely hit, while poultry feed showed some recovery. The influence of environmental, economic, and policy factors played a significant role in shaping these trends. Despite the price of feed cereals falling back to the levels seen before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, these challenges will continue to be felt in 2024.

Source: FEFAC

Conference report

In the Poultry Academy held by EW Nutrition in the fall of last year, Judy Robberts, Technical Service Manager, Aviagen, explained that the success of a breeder flock depends on producing good quality hatching eggs with high hatchability and delivering first quality chicks. With this in mind, we have to ask two essential questions: What impact does the breeder farm have on chick quality? And What are the most overlooked areas for breeders?

Nest box hygiene

Nest box hygiene is key to good quality hatching eggs. Shortly after egg deposition, the eggshell is moist, and the cuticle is not yet an effective protection. In addition, during this period the egg is cooling down from the hen’s body temperature (41°C) to house temperature. Due to this process of cooling down, the content of the egg contracts and a vacuum is created in the egg. In compensation, air enters and forms the air cell. Together with this air, bacteria can easily penetrate the egg. For this reason, it is very important that only hatching eggs are used which have been laid in a clean nest.

Maintaining a hygienic nest environment with routine cleaning of the nest mat or frequently replacing the bedding material will reduce the risk of bacterial contamination.

Clean nests and nesting equipment are essential to avoiding contamination.

Egg collection and pick-up schedule

Collect nest eggs a minimum of 4 times a day, more frequently in hot weather, as eggs cannot cool down sufficiently in the house to interrupt embryonic development. Adjust the exact timing so that no more than 30% (any more will increase the incidence of cracked eggs) of the eggs fall in any one collection. When determining collection times, it is important to remember:

• The majority of eggs will be laid in the morning, and collection intervals should be managed accordingly.
• Eggs left in the nest or on belts longer than recommended will have an increased incidence of being cracked or soiled.
• Transition points on belts need to be smooth so eggs don’t pile up and bump into each other.
• Never leave eggs overnight in the nests or belts.
• Eggs left in conventional nests are subject to toe pecks or soiling from other hens.
• Floor eggs (eggs that were laid outside of the breeder flock’s next boxes) should be collected more often than nest eggs.

It is not advisable to collect eggs in cardboard egg trays/flats, as the fiber material absorbs egg heat, and it takes longer for them to cool down. Because the fiber trays are porous, they can also harbor unwanted organisms/bacteria/fungi and attract vermin.

Ideally hatching eggs should weigh a minimum of 50 g from a flock at least 22 weeks of age. Smaller eggs from younger flocks may be used, however, chick size and early livability will not be optimum. Remember that a chick will yield approximately 68% of the egg size. Therefore, a small egg will produce a small chick.

Egg cleanliness

Always wash hands after collecting floor eggs and before each collection of nest eggs. Floor eggs should not be placed in the nest box – even if they appear clean. Washing floor and dirty eggs removes the eggs protective coating. Always remember, a washed egg is still a dirty egg, but a clean egg is one that was never dirty.

Eggs should be treated with chemical-based antimicrobials, as scraping, rubbing, or washing the eggshell will damage the cuticle and remove the physical and antimicrobial barrier. Since the eggshell permeability increases after 24 hours and makes the eggs more susceptible to bacterial invasion, eggs should be sanitized as soon as possible. The most popular method is fogging as it is safe, the fog reaches all the eggs and the eggs do not get wet.

Floor eggs are not hatching eggs

The hatchery cannot fix mistakes from the breeder farm. Therefore, it is NOT recommended to set floor eggs – eggs that were laid outside of the breeder flock’s next boxes. Floor eggs have a higher bacterial load than nest eggs and consequently lower hatchability. They are also potential ‘bangers, or exploders’ and can cross-contaminate other eggs, especially in the same incubator.

Selection of floor eggs must be done at the farm, so that a dirty egg never enters the hatchery. Where strictly necessary, set floor or dirty eggs only if the disadvantages of setting these eggs are fully understood and accepted by the hatchery. If floor eggs are used for hatching, they should be clearly marked and stored separately from the nest eggs so that the hatchery can manage the contamination risk appropriately.

Floor eggs have a significantly higher risk of microbial contamination that will reduce hatch and chick quality.

Egg hygiene – bacterial contamination

Monitor the number of floor eggs and adjust management practices to minimize them. Floor eggs are a problem that should be tackled at the breeder level, with good breeder management and suitable housing equipment. If levels of floor eggs exceed 2-3% across the life of the flock, there is a problem. Floor eggs will be much higher at the start of production, but by peak production should be down to 1-2%.

Cracked eggs

Eggs with cracks are more likely to become infected and have low hatchability and poor chick quality.

Influence of eggshell crack types on hatchability and chick quality

Khabisi et al., 2011  ^a-c Means within a column without a common superscript differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05)

Do not set cracked eggs. Record the number of eggs with cracks, and if the frequency is unsatisfactory, investigate and eliminate possible causes.

On-farm egg storage rooms

Don’t forget that storage starts from the time of laying, not the time of receival at the hatchery.

Eggs need to be cooled below 24^oC (threshold temperature or physiological zero) as soon as possible to stop cellular growth of the embryo, until the egg is set at the hatchery. This minimizes embryo mortality, maximizes hatchability and helps to ensure chick quality. Eggs should be stored within 4 hours after collection.

On breeder farms, eggs are usually stored until being transported to the hatchery. The storage duration depends on the egg room capacity, supply of hatching eggs, hatchery capacity, and demand for day-old chicks. Don’t forget that storage starts from the time of laying, not the time of receival at the hatchery.

If the farm has an environmentally controlled egg storage room, eggs can be collected by the hatchery at least twice a week. If the farm has no dedicated egg storage room, eggs must be transported to the hatchery daily. Uncontrolled fluctuations in egg storage temperatures will cause stop-start growth of the germinal disc, which will reduce hatchability.

The temperature of the farm egg storage room should higher than the egg transport truck and the egg transport truck temperature should be higher than the hatchery egg storage room. This consistent decrease in temperature is to prevent condensation (also referred to as sweating) on the eggs. Condensation on the eggshell impairs the natural mechanisms of defense and provide an ideal environment for bacteria grow, penetrate the shell, and contaminate the egg. Condensation on eggs is more common in hot and humid climates common throughout Asia.

Egg storage rooms are important, yet they are frequently overlooked. Areas to consider include:

• Consistent temperature 24/7 (insulation will minimize variation),
• Temperature alarm system – set for a maximum temperature of 21°C and a minimum of 16-18 °C,
• Temperature and humidity sensor placement – don’t place in a direct line of temperature or humidity sources as this will lead to false readings,
• Do not place sensors against walls,
• Sensor accuracy (loggers are recommended),
• Fans to evenly distribute air,
• Do not place eggs directly against the wall or on the floor in the storage room to maximize air circulation and to ensure uniform conditions, and
• Avoid direct air flow onto eggs from fans, room coolers and/or humidifiers, as this can increase moisture loss and cause temperature variation throughout the room.

The farm is the starting point to ensure chick quality. Attention to detail and hygiene throughout the whole process is critical. Through monitoring and auditing, areas with deficiencies can be identified and corrected to continue producing high quality hatching eggs.