By Madalina Diaconu, Product Manager Pretect D, EW Nutrition and
Twan van Gerwe, Ph.D., Technical Director, EW Nutrition

With costs of over 14 billion USD per year (Blake, 2020), coccidiosis is one of the most devastating enteric challenges in the poultry industry. With regard to costs, subclinical forms of coccidiosis account for the majority of production losses, as damage to intestinal cells results in lower body weight, higher feed conversion rates, lack of flock uniformity, and failures in skin pigmentation. This challenge can only be tackled, if we understand the basics of coccidiosis control in poultry and what options producers have to manage coccidiosis risks.

Current strategies show weak points

Good farm management, litter management, and coccidiosis control programs such as shuttle and rotation programs form the basis for preventing clinical coccidiosis. More successful strategies include disease monitoring, strategic use of coccidiostats, and increasingly coccidiosis vaccines. However, the intrinsic properties of coccidia make these parasites often frustrating to control. Acquired resistance to available coccidiostats is the most difficult and challenging factor to overcome.

Optimally, coccidiosis control programs are developed based on the farm history and the severity of infection. The coccidiostats traditionally used were chemicals and ionophores, with ionophores being polyether antibiotics. To prevent the development of resistance, the coccidiostats were used in shuttle or rotation programs, at which in the rotation program, the anticoccidial changes from flock to flock, and in the shuttle program within one production cycle (Chapman, 1997).

The control strategies, however, are not 100% effective. The reason for that is a lack of diversity in available drug molecules and the overuse of some molecules within programs. An additional lack of sufficient coccidiosis monitoring and rigorous financial optimization often leads to cost-saving but only marginally effective solutions. At first glance, they seem effective, but in reality, they promote resistance, the development of subclinical coccidiosis, expressed in a worsened feed conversion rate, and possibly also clinical coccidiosis.

Market requests and regulations drive coccidiosis control strategies

Changing coccidiosis control strategies has two main drivers: the global interest in mitigating antimicrobial resistance and the consumer’s demand for antibiotic-free meat production.

Authorities have left ionophores untouched

Already in the late 1990s, due to the fear of growing antimicrobial resistance, the EU withdrew the authorization for Avoparcin, Bacitracin zinc, Spiramycin, Virginiamycin, and Tylosin phosphate, typical growth promoters, to “help decrease resistance to antibiotics used in medical therapy”. However, ionophores, being also antibiotics, were left untouched: The regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 [13]of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 September 2003 clearly distinguished between coccidiostats and antibiotic growth promoters. Unlike the antibiotic growth promoters, whose primary action site is the gut microflora, coccidiostats only have a secondary and residual activity against the gut microflora. Furthermore, the Commission declared in 2022 that the use of coccidiostats would not presently be ruled out “even if of antibiotic origin” (MEMO/02/66, 2022) as “hygienic precautions and adaptive husbandry measures are not sufficient to keep poultry free of coccidiosis” and that “modern poultry husbandry is currently only practicable if coccidiosis can be prevented by inhibiting or killing parasites during their development”. In other words, the Commission acknowledged that ionophores were only still authorized because it believed there were no other means of controlling coccidiosis in profitable poultry production.

Consumer trends drove research on natural solutions

Due to consumers’ demand for antibiotic-reduced or, even better, antibiotic-free meat production, intensified industrial research to fight coccidiosis with natural solutions has shown success. Knowledge, research, and technological developments are now at the stage of offering solutions that can be an effective part of the coccidia control program and open up opportunities to make poultry production even more sustainable by reducing drug dependency.

Producers from other countries have already reacted. Different from the handling of ionophores regime in the EU, where they are allowed as feed additives, in the United States, coccidiostats belonging to the polyether-ionophore class are not permitted in NAE (No Antibiotics Ever) and RWE (Raised Without Antibiotics) programs. Instead of using ionophores, coccidiosis is controlled with a veterinary-led combination of live vaccines, synthetic compounds, phytomolecules, and farm management. This approach can be successful, as demonstrated by the fact that over 50% of broiler meat production in the US is NAE. Another example is Australia, where the two leading retail store chains also exclude chemical coccidiostats from broiler production. In certain European countries, e.g., Norway, the focus is increasingly on banning ionophores.

The transition to natural solutions needs knowledge and finesse

In the beginning, the transition from conventional to NAE production can be difficult. There is the possibility to leave out the ionophores and manage the control program only with chemicals of different modes of action. More effective, however, is a combination of vaccination and chemicals (bio-shuttle program) or the combination of phytomolecules with vaccination and/or chemicals (Gaydos, 2022).

Coccidiosis vaccination essentials

When it is decided that natural solutions shall be used to control coccidiosis, some things about vaccination must be known:

1. There are different strains of vaccines, natural ones selected from the field and attenuated strains. The formers show medium pathogenicity and enable a controlled infection of the flock. The latter, being early mature lower pathogenicity strains, usually cause only low or no post-vaccinal reactions.
2. A coccidiosis program that includes vaccination should cover the period from the hatchery till the end of the production cycle. Perfect application of the vaccines and effective recirculation of vaccine strains amongst the broilers are only two examples of preconditions that must be fulfilled for striking success and, therefore, early and homogenous immunity of the flock.
3. Perfect handling of the vaccines is of vital importance. For that purpose, the personnel conducting the vaccinations in the hatchery or on the farms must be trained. In some situations, consistent high-quality application at the farm has shown to be challenging. As a result, interest in vaccine application at the hatchery is growing.

Phytochemicals are a perfect tool to complement coccidiosis control programs

As the availability of vaccines is limited and the application costs are relatively high, the industry has been researching supportive measures or products and discovered phytochemicals as the best choice. Effective phytochemical substances have antimicrobial and antiparasitic properties and enhance protective immunity in poultry infected by coccidiosis. They can be used in rotation with vaccination, to curtail vaccination reactions of (non-attenuated) wild strain vaccines, or in combination with chemical coccidiostats in a shuttle program.

In a recent review paper (El-Shall et al., 2022), natural herbal products and their extracts have been described to effectively reduce oocyst output by inhibiting Eimeria species’ invasion, replication, and development in chicken gut tissues. Phenolic compounds in herbal extracts cause coccidia cell death and lower oocyst counts. Additionally, herbal additives offer benefits such as reducing intestinal lipid peroxidation, facilitating epithelial repair, and decreasing Eimeria-induced intestinal permeability.

Various phytochemical remedies are shown in this simplified adaptation of a table from El-Shall et al. (2022), indicating the effects exerted on poultry in connection to coccidia infection.

Table 1: Bioactive compounds and their anticoccidial effect exerted in poultry

Consumers vote for natural – phytochemicals are the solution

Due to still rising antimicrobial resistance, consumers push for meat production without antimicrobial usage. Phytomolecules, as a natural solution, create opportunities to make poultry production more sustainable by reducing dependency on harmful drugs. With their advent, there is hope that antibiotic resistance can be held in check without affecting the profitability of poultry farming.

By Si-Trung Tran, SEAP Regional Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

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

Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites of fungi, commonly found as contaminants in agricultural products. In some cases, these compounds are used in medicine or industry, such as penicillin and patulin. In most cases, however, they are considered xenobiotics that are toxic to animals and humans, causing the disease collectively known as mycotoxicosis. The adverse effects of mycotoxins on human and animal health have been documented in many publications. Aflatoxins (AFs) and deoxynivalenol (DON, vomitoxin) are amongst the most critical mycotoxins affecting milk production and -quality.

Aflatoxins do not only affect cows

Aflatoxins (AFs) are highly oxygenated, heterocyclic difuranocoumarin compounds produced by Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus. They colonize crops, including many staple foods and feed ingredients. Within a group of over 20 AFs and derivatives, aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), B2, G1, and G2 are the most important naturally occurring compounds.

Among the aflatoxins, AFB1 is the most widespread and most toxic to humans and animals. Concern about mycotoxin contamination in dairy products began in the 1960s with the first reported cases of contamination by aflatoxin M1 (AFM1), a metabolite of AFB1 formed in the liver of animals and excreted in the milk.

There is ample evidence that lactating cows exhibit a significant reduction in feed efficiency and milk yield within a few days of consuming aflatoxin-contaminated feed. At the cellular level, aflatoxins cause degranulation of endoplasmic membranes, loss of ribosomes from the endoplasmic reticulum, loss of nuclear chromatin material, and altered nuclear shapes. The liver, as the organ mainly dealing with the decontamination of the organism, gets damaged, and performance drops. Immune cells are also affected, reducing immune competence and vaccination success (Arnold and Gaskill, 2023).

DON reduces cows’ performance

Another mycotoxin that can also reduce milk quality and affect metabolic parameters, as well as the immune function of dairy cows, is DON. DON is produced by different fungi of the Fusarium genus that infect plants. DON synthesis is associated with rainy weather from crop flowering to harvest. Whitlow and co-workers (1994) reported the association between DON and poor performance in dairy herds and showed decreased milk production in dairy cows fed 2.5 mg DON/kg. However, in cows fed 6 to 12 mg DON/kg dry matter for 10 weeks, no DON or its metabolite DOM-1 residues were detected in milk.

Masked mycotoxins hide themselves during analysis

Plants suffering from fungal infestations and thus confronted with mycotoxins convert the harmful forms of mycotoxins into less harmful or harmless ones for themselves by conjugation to sulfates, organic acids, or sugars. Conjugated mycotoxins cannot always be detected by standard analytical methods. However, in animals, these forms can be released and transformed into parent compounds by enzymes and microorganisms in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the feed may show a concentration of mycotoxins that is still below the limit value, but in the animal, this concentration is suddenly much higher. In dairy cows, the release of free mycotoxins from conjugates during digestion may play an important role in understanding the silent effects of mycotoxins.

Fusarium toxins, in particular, frequently occur in this “masked form”. They represent a serious health risk for animals and humans.

Aflatoxins first show up in the milk

Masked aflatoxins may also play a role in total aflatoxin contamination of feed materials. Research has harvested little information on masked aflatoxins that may be present in TMR ingredients. So far, metabolites such as Aflatoxin M2 have been identified (Righetti, 2021), which may reappear later in milk as AFM1.

DON-related symptoms without DON?

Sometimes, animals show DON-related symptoms, with low levels detected in the feed or raw materials. Besides sampling errors, this enigma could be due to conjugated or masked DON, which is structurally altered DON bound to various compounds such as glucose, fatty acids, and amino acids. These compounds escape conventional feed analysis techniques because of their modified chemical properties but can be released as their toxic precursors after acid hydrolysis.

Masked DON was first described in 1984 by Young and co-workers, who found that the DON content of yeast-fermented foods was higher than that of the contaminated wheat flour used in their production. The most plausible reason for this apparent increase was that the toxin from the wheat had been converted to a compound other than DON, which could be converted back to DON under certain conditions. Since this report, there has been much interest in conjugated or masked DON.

Silage: masked DON is a challenge for dairy producers

Silage is an essential feed for dairy cows, supporting milk production. Most silage is made from corn and other grains. The whole green plant is used, which can be infected by fungi. Since infection of corn with Fusarium spp. and subsequent DON contamination is usually a major problem in the field worldwide, a relatively high occurrence of this toxin in silage must be expected. The ensiling process may reduce the amount of Fusarium fungi, but the DON formed before ensiling is very stable.

Silage samples show DON levels of concern

It is reasonable to assume that the DON biosynthesized by the fungi was metabolized by the plants to a new compound and thus masked DON. Under ensiling conditions, masked DON can be hydrolyzed, producing free DON again. Therefore, the level of free DON in the silage may not reflect the concentration measured in the plants before ensiling.

A study analyzed 50 silage samples from different farms in Ontario, Canada. Free DON was found in all samples, with levels ranging from 0.38 to 1.72 µg/g silage (unpublished data). Eighty-six percent of the samples contained DON at concentrations higher than 0.5 µg/g. Together with masked DON, it poses a potential threat to dairy cattle.

Specific hydrolysis conditions allow detection

However, in the natural ensiling process, the conditions for hydrolysis of masked DON are not optimal. The conditions that allow improved analysis of masked DON were recently described. This method detected masked DON in 32 of 50 silage samples (64%) along with free DON, increasing DON concentration by 23% in some cases (unpublished data).

Mycotoxins impact humans and animals

Aflatoxins, as well as DON, have adverse effects. In the case of DON, the impact on the animal is significant; in the case of aflatoxin, the possible long-term effects on humans are of higher relevance.

DON has more adverse effects on the animal and its performance

Unlike AFs, DON may be found in milk at low or trace concentrations. It is more associated with negative effects in the animal, altered rumen fermentation, and reduced flow of usable protein into the duodenum. For example, milk fat content was significantly reduced when cows were fed 6 µg DON/kg. However, the presence of DON also indicates that the feed probably contains other mycotoxins, such as zearalenone (ZEA) (estrogenic mycotoxin) and fusaric acid (pharmacologically active compound). All these mycotoxins may interact to cause symptoms that are different or more severe than expected, considering their individual effects. DON and related compounds also have immunosuppressive effects, resulting in increased somatic cell counts in milk. The U.S. FDA has established an action level for DON in wheat and wheat-derived products intended for cows, which is 5µg DON/g feed and the contaminated ingredient must not exceed 40% of the ration.

Aflatoxins decrease milk quality and pose a risk to humans

Aflatoxins are poorly degraded in the rumen, with aflatoxicol being the main metabolite that can be reconverted to AFB1. Most AFs are absorbed and extensively metabolized/hydrolyzed by enzymes found mainly in the liver. This results in the formation of AFM1, a part of which is conjugated to glucuronic acid and subsequently excreted in the bile. The other part enters the systemic circulation. It is either excreted in urine or milk. AFM1 appears within 12-48 hours after ingestion in cow’s milk. The excreted amount of AFM1 in milk from dairy cows usually ranges from 0.17% to 3% of the ingested AFB1. However, this carryover rate may vary from day to day and from one milking to the next in individual animals, as it is influenced by various factors, such as feeding regime, health status, individual biotransformation capacity, and, of course, by actual milk production. Carryover rates of up to 6.2% have been reported in high-yielding dairy cows producing up to 40 liters of milk per day.

In various experiments, AFM1 showed both carcinogenic and immunosuppressive effects. Accordingly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified AFM1 as being in Group 2B and, thus, possibly carcinogenic in humans. The action level of 0.50 ppb and 0.05 ppb for AFM1 in milk is strictly adhered to by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), respectively.

Trials show the high adsorption capacity of Solis Max

A trial was conducted at an independent laboratory located in Spain. The evaluation of the performance of Solis Max was executed with the following inclusion levels:

• 0.10% equivalent to 1.0 kg of Solis Max per ton of feed
• 0.20% equivalent to 2.0 kg of Solis Max per ton of feed

A phosphate buffer solution at pH 7 was prepared for the trial to simulate rumen conditions. Each mycotoxin was tested separately, preparing solutions with known contamination (final concentration described in the table below). The contaminated solutions were divided into 3 parts: A positive control, 0.10% Solis Max and 0.20% Solis Max. All samples were incubated at 41°C for 1 hour, centrifuged, and the supernatant was analyzed for the mycotoxin added to determine the binding efficacy. All analyses were carried out by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with standard detectors.

Results:
The higher concentration of Solis max showed a higher adsorption rate for most mycotoxins. The high dose of Solis Max adsorbed 99% of the AFB1 contamination. In the case of DON, more than 70% was bound. For fumonisin B1 and zearalenone, Solis max showed excellent binding rates of 87.7% and 78.9%, respectively (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Solis Max showed a high binding capacity for the most relevant mycotoxins

Another trial was conducted at an independent laboratory serving the food and feed industry and located in Valladolid, Spain.

All tests were carried out as duplicates and using a standard liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) quantification. Interpretation and data analysis were carried out with the corresponding software. The used pH was 3.0, toxin concentrations and anti-mycotoxin agent application rates were set as follows (Table 1):

Table 1: Trial set-up testing the binding capacity of Solis Plus 2.0 for several mycotoxins in different contamination levels

Results:

Under acidic conditions (pH3), Solis Plus 2.0 effectively adsorbs the three tested mycotoxins at low and high levels. 100% binding of aflatoxin was achieved at a level of 150ppb and 98% at 1500ppb.In the case of fumonisin, 87% adsorption could be reached at 500ppb and 86 for a challenge with 5000ppb. 43% ochratoxin was adsorbed at the contamination level of 150ppb and 52% at 1500ppb.

Figure 2: The adsorption capacity of Solis Plus 2.0 for three different mycotoxins at two challenge levels

Mycotoxins – Effective risk management is of paramount importance

Although the rumen microflora may be responsible for conferring some mycotoxin resistance to ruminants compared to monogastric animals, there are still effects of mycotoxins on rumen fermentation and milk quality. In addition, masked mycotoxins in feed present an additional challenge for dairy farms because they are not readily detectable by standard analyses.

Feeding dairy cows with feed contaminated with mycotoxins can lead to a reduction in milk production. Milk quality may also deteriorate due to an adverse change in milk composition and mycotoxin residues, threatening the innocuousness of dairy products. Dairy farmers should therefore have feed tested regularly, consider masked mycotoxins, and take action. EW Nutrition’s MasterRisk tool provides a risk evaluation and corresponding recommendations for the use of products that mitigate the effects of mycotoxin contamination and, in the end, guarantee the safety of all of us.

By Lea Poppe, Regional Technical Manager On-Farm Solutions Europe, and Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor

One of the ten global public health threats is antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Jim O’Neill predicted 10 million people dying from AMR annually by 2050 (O’Neill, 2016). The following article will show the causes of antimicrobial resistance and how antibodies from the egg could help mitigate the problem of AMR.

Global problem of AMR results from the incorrect use of antimicrobials

Antimicrobial substances are used to prevent and cure diseases in humans, animals, and plants and include antibiotics, antivirals, antiparasitics, and antifungals. The use of these medicines does not always happen consciously, partially due to ignorance and partially for economic reasons.

There are various possibilities for the wrong therapy

1. The use of antibiotics against diseases that household remedies could cure. A recently published German study (Merle et al., 2023) confirmed the linear relationship between treatment frequency and resistant scores in calves younger than eight months.
2. The use of antibiotics against viral diseases: antibiotics only act against bacteria and not against viruses. Flu, e.g., is caused by a virus, but doctors often prescribe an antibiotic.
3. Using broad-spectrum antibiotics instead of determining an antibiogram and applying a specific antibiotic.
4. A too-long treatment with antimicrobials so that the microorganisms have the time to adapt. For a long time, the only mistake you could make was to stop the antibiotic therapy too early. Today, the motto is “as short as possible”.

Let’s take the example of neonatal calf diarrhea, one of the most common diseases with a high economic impact. Calf diarrhea can be caused by a wide range of bacteria, viruses, or parasites. This infectious form can be a complication of non-infectious diarrhea caused by dietary, psychological, and environmental stress (Uetake, 2012). The pathogens causing diarrhea in calves can vary with the region. In Switzerland and the UK, e.g., rotaviruses and cryptosporidia are the most common pathogens, whereas, in Germany, E. coli is also one of the leading causes. To minimize the occurrence of AMR, it is always crucial to know which pathogen is behind the disease.

Prophylactic use of antibiotics is still a problem

1. The use of low doses of antibiotics to promote growth. This use has been banned in the EU now for 17 years now, but in other parts of the world, it is still common practice. Especially in countries with low hygienic standards, antibiotics show high efficacy.
2. The preventive use of antibiotics to help, e.g., piglets overcome the critical step of weaning or to support purchased animals for the first time in their new environment. Antibiotics reduce pathogenic pressure, decrease the incidence of diarrhea, and ensure the maintenance of growth.
3. Within the scope of prophylactic use of antimicrobials, also group treatment must be mentioned. In veal calves, group treatments are far more common than individual treatments (97.9% of all treatments), as reported in a study documenting medication in veal calf production in Belgium and the Netherlands. Treatment indications were respiratory diseases (53%), arrival prophylaxis (13%), and diarrhea (12%). On top, the study found that nearly half of the antimicrobial group treatment was underdosed (43.7%), and a large part (37.1%) was overdosed.

However, in several countries, consumers request reduced or even no usage of antibiotics (“No Antibiotics Ever” – NAE), and animal producers must react.

Today’s mobility enables the spreading of AMR worldwide

Bacteria, viruses, parasites, and fungi that no longer respond to antimicrobial therapy are classified as resistant. The drugs become ineffective and, therefore, the treatment of disease inefficient or even impossible. All the different usages mentioned before offer the possibility that resistant bacteria/microorganisms will occur and proliferate. Due to global trade and the mobility of people, drug-resistant pathogens are spreading rapidly throughout the world, and common diseases cannot be treated anymore with existing antimicrobial medicines like antibiotics. Standard surgeries can become a risk, and, in the worst case, humans die from diseases once considered treatable. If new antibiotics are developed, their long-term efficacy again depends on their correct and limited use.

Different approaches are taken to fight AMR

There have already been different approaches to fighting AMR. As examples, the annually published MARAN Report compiled in the Netherlands, the EU ban on antibiotic growth promoters in 2006, “No antibiotics ever (NAE) programs” in the US, or the annually published “Antimicrobial resistance surveillance in Europe” can be mentioned. One of the latest approaches is an advisory “One Health High-Level Expert Panel” (OHHLEP) founded by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the World Health Organization (WHO) in May 2021. As AMR has many causes and, consequently, many players are involved in its reduction, the OHHLEP wants to improve communication and collaboration between all sectors and stakeholders. The goal is to design and implement programs, policies, legislations, and research to improve human, animal, and environmental health, which are closely linked. Approaches like those mentioned help reduce the spread of resistant pathogens and, with this, remain able to treat diseases in humans, animals, and plants.

On top of the pure health benefits, reducing AMR improves food security and safety and contributes to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., zero hunger, good health and well-being, and clean water).

Prevention is better than treatment

Young animals like calves, lambs, and piglets do not receive immunological equipment in the womb and need a passive immune transfer by maternal colostrum. Accordingly, optimal colostrum management is the first way to protect newborn animals from infection, confirmed by the general discussion on the Failure of Passive Transfer: various studies suggest that calves with poor immunoglobulin supply suffer from diarrhea more frequently than calves with adequate supply.

Especially during the immunological gap when the maternal immunoglobulins are decreasing and the own immunocompetence is still not fully developed, it is crucial to have a look at housing, stress triggers, biosecurity, and the diet to reduce the risk of infectious diseases and the need for treatments.

Immunoglobulins from eggs additionally support young animals

Also, if newborn animals receive enough colostrum in time and if everything goes optimally, the animals suffer from two immunity gaps: the first one occurs just after birth before the first intake of colostrum, and the second one occurs when the maternal antibodies decrease, and the immune system of the young animal is still not developed completely. These immunity gaps raise the question of whether something else can be done to support newborns during their first days of life.

The answer was provided by Felix Klemperer (1893), a German internist researching immunity. He found that hens coming in contact with pathogens produce antibodies against these agents and transfer them to the egg. It is unimportant if the pathogens are relevant for chickens or other animals. In the egg, the immunoglobulins usually serve as an immune starter kit for the chick.

Technology enables us today to produce a high-value product based on egg powder containing natural egg immunoglobulins (IgY – immunoglobulins from the yolk). These egg antibodies mainly act in the gut. There, they recognize and tie up, for example, diarrhea-causing pathogens and, in this way, render them ineffective.

The efficacy of egg antibodies was demonstrated in different studies (Kellner et al., 1994; Erhard et al., 1996; Ikemori et al., 1997; Yokoyama et al., 1992; Marquart, 1999; Yokoyama et al., 1997) for piglets and calves.

Trial proves high efficacy of egg immunoglobulins in piglets

One trial conducted in Germany showed promising results concerning the reduction of mortality in the farrowing unit. For the trial, 96 sows and their litters were divided into three groups with 32 sows each. Two of the groups orally received a product containing egg immunoglobulins, the EP -1 + 3 group on days 1 and 3 and the EP – 1 + 2 + 3 group on the first three days. The third group served as a control. Regardless of the frequency of application, the egg powder product was very supportive and significantly reduced mortality compared to the control group. The measure resulted in 2 additionally weaned piglets than in the control group.

Egg immunoglobulins support young dairy calves

IgY-based products were also tested in calves to demonstrate their efficacy. In a field trial conducted on a Portuguese dairy farm with 12 calves per group, an IgY-containing oral application was compared to a control group without supplementation. The test product was applied on the day of birth and the two consecutive days. Key observation parameters during a two-week observation period were diarrhea incidence, onset, duration, and antibiotic treatments, the standard procedure on the trial farm in case of diarrhea. On-farm tests to check for the pathogenic cause of diarrhea were not part of the farm’s standards.

In this trial, 10 of 12 calves in the control group suffered from diarrhea, but in the trial group, only 5 calves. Total diarrhea and antibiotic treatment duration in the control group was 37 days (average 3.08 days/animal), and in the trial group, only 7 days (average 0.58 days/animal). Additionally, diarrhea in calves of the Globigen Calf Paste group started later, so the animals already had the chance to develop an at least minimally working immune system.

The supplement served as an effective tool to support calves during their first days of life and to reduce antibiotic treatments dramatically.

Conclusion

Antimicrobial reduction is one of the biggest tasks for global animal production. It must be done without impacting animal health and parameters like growth performance and general cost-efficacy. This overall demand can be supported with a holistic approach considering biosecurity, stress reduction, and nutritional support. Feed supplements such as egg immunoglobulins are commercial options showing great results and benefits in the field and making global animal production take the right direction in the future.

References upon request.

What oxidative stress and inflammation have to do with it, why it affects gut health, and how in-feed products support mitigation strategies

Stress in animals can be defined as any factor causing disruptions to their homeostasis, their stable internal balance. Stress engenders a biological response to regain equilibrium. High environmental temperatures are among the most important environmental stressors for poultry production, causing significant economic losses for the industry.

Climate change, thermoregulation, and stress

Climate change has increased the prevalence and intensity of heat stress conditions in most poultry production areas all over the world.

The optimum temperature for poultry animals’ well-being and performance –the so-called thermoneutral zone– is between 18 and 22°C. When birds are kept within this temperature range, they do not have to spend energy on maintaining constant body temperature.

Heat stress is the result of unsuccessful thermoregulation in the animals, as they produce a higher quantity of heat than they can lose. It means that there is a negative balance between the net amount of heat produced by the animal and its capacity to dissipate this body heat to the environment.

Heat stress – contributing factors

This energy imbalance is influenced by environmental factors such as sunlight, thermal irradiation, air temperature, humidity, and stocking density, but also by animal-related factors such as body weight, feather coverage and distribution, hydration status, metabolic rate, and thermoregulatory mechanisms. Moreover, stressors can be additive and different factors such as feed quality and disease can convene leading to severe losses in health and performance.

Increasing the respiratory rate -panting- is the main mechanism of chickens to loss heat, which is achieve by the evaporation of water from the respiratory tract however, relative humidity imposes a ceiling on water evaporation and subsequent dissipation of heat. Thus, the association of heat stress not only with high temperature, but also with high relative humidity.

Heat stress can be classified into two main categories, acute and chronic:

• Acute heat stress refers to a short and fast increase in environmental temperature (a few hours), in general, poultry animals show a degree of resilience to acute heat stress.
• Chronic heat stress is when the high temperatures persist for more extended periods (several days), and their compensatory mechanisms are not sufficient to maintain tissue integrity and thus health and performance are hindered.

The animal’s response to heat stress

When the environmental temperature is above the thermoneutral zone, the animals activate thermoregulation mechanisms to lose heat through behavioral, biochemical, and physiological changes and responses.

Behavioral changes

Panting and exposure of low/non-feathered body areas (raising wings) are the main behavioral mechanisms in which chickens regulate their body temperature when exposed to heat stress. These actions help the chickens to cool down, at a high toll: high energy demands, dehydration, respiratory alkalosis, lethargy, decrease in feed intake, loss of intestinal function and oxidative stress.

Physiological changes

The cardiovascular system also responds to high temperatures by deviating blood to the peripheral areas of the body to maximize the dissipation of heat. This implicates a reduced supply of nutrients and oxygen to the gastrointestinal tract, hindering its functions and provoking inflammation and oxidative stress.

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis gets activated, increasing the levels of circulating corticosterone, skeletal protein synthesis and the immune system is suppressed, therefore the animals stop growing and are more susceptible to disease.

Heat stress also changes the gene expression of cytokines, upregulates heat shock proteins (HSP), and reduces the concentration of thyroid hormones. When heat stress persists, these cascades of cellular reactions result in tissue damage and malfunction. The animals exposed to heat stress suffer adverse effects in terms of performance, which are widely known and include high mortality, lower growth, and production (Figure 1), and a decline in meat and egg quality.

Figure 1: Body weight gain of broilers exposed to chronic heat stress (35°C continuously from day 21). A marker for tight junction permeability was added to feed (FITC-d – fluorescein isothiocyanate dextran); its fluorescence (in serum) increased with heat stress exposure time, showing higher intestinal permeability.
(Adapted from Ruff et al., 2020)

Outcomes of heat stress

Oxidative stress

Oxidative stress, simply put, occurs when the amount of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and nitrogen reactive species (NRS), exceed the antioxidant capacity of the cells. Oxidative stress is regarded as one of the most critical stressors in poultry production as it is a response to diverse challenges affecting the animals.

The normal metabolism of the animal – its energy production – generates ROS and RNS, such as hydroxyl radicals, superoxide anions, hydrogen peroxide, and nitric oxide. These usually are further processed by antioxidant enzymes produced by the cell, including superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px). Nutrients such as selenium and vitamins E, C, and A also participate in antioxidant processes. When the generation of ROS exceeds the capacity of the antioxidant system, oxidative stress ensues.

Heat stress leads to higher cellular energy demand, promoting an overload of ROS in the mitochondria. Consequently, oxidative stress occurs in several tissues, leading to cell apoptosis or necrosis as oxidized molecules can take electrons from other molecules, resulting in a chain reaction. Among these tissues, the gastrointestinal tract can be highly affected.

Impaired gut function

In the gastrointestinal tract, oxidative stress and the consequent tissue damage, lower feed digestion and absorption, increase intestinal permeability and modify the microbiome.

Changes in intestinal morphology and digestive function

Heat stress affects intestinal weight, length, barrier function, and microbiota, resulting in animals that have lower total and relative weight of the small intestine, with shorter jejunum and duodenum, shorter villi (), and reduced absorption areas, in comparison to non-stressed animals.

Figure 2: Villous height and width of broilers exposed to heat stress in relation with the control group (100%). Villous height is always shorter than the control group, but width can increase as the organisms shows resilience to the stressful situations and aims to recover intestinal surface. (Adapted from Jahejo et al., 2016; Santos et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2018; Abdelqader et al., 2016 ; Santos et al., 2015 and Awad et al., 2018 – by order of appearance in the graph from left to right)

Changes in the intestinal microbiome

Due to reduced feed intake and impaired intestinal function, the presence and activity of the commensal microbiota can also be modified. Heat stress can lead to reduced populations of beneficial microbes, boost the growth of potential pathogens leading to dysbiosis and necrotic enteritis.

Changes in intestinal permeability

Several studies indicate that both acute and chronic heat stress increase gut permeability, not only by lowering feed intake, but also by increasing intestinal oxidative stress and disrupting the expression of tight junction proteins.

Heat and oxidative stress in the gut result in cell injury and apoptosis. When the tight junction barrier is compromised, luminal substances leak into the bloodstream, which constitutes the condition known as “leaky gut”. This includes the translocation of pathogenic bacteria, including zoonotic pathogens (e.g. Salmonella and Campylobacter); consequently, a higher risk of contamination of food products can be expected.

Endotoxins

Bacterial lipopolysaccharides (LPS), also known as endotoxins, constitute the main components of the outer membrane of all gram-negative bacteria and are essential for their survival. LPS have direct contact with the bacteria’s surroundings. They function as a protection mechanism against the host’s immunological response and chemical attacks from bile salts, lysozymes, or other antimicrobial agents.

Gram-negative bacteria are part of poultry animals’ microbiota; thus, there are always LPS in the intestine. Under optimal conditions, this does not affect animals because intestinal epithelial cells are not responsive to LPS when stimulated from the apical side. In stress situations, the intestinal barrier function is impaired, allowing the passage of endotoxins into the blood stream. When LPS are detected by the immune system either in the blood or in the basolateral side of the intestine, inflammation and changes in the gut epithelial structure and functionality occur.

An increased release and passage of endotoxins has been demonstrated in heat stress (Figure 3) as well as a higher expression of TLR-4 and other inflammation biomarkers, which contributes to the deleterious effects of heat stress in the animals. Moreover, blood LPS induces systemic inflammatory reactions that force the organism to divert energy to support the immune system which furthermore depresses performance.

Figure 3 – Systemic LPS increase (in comparison with a non-stressed control) after different heat stress challenges in broilers:16°C increased for 2, 5 and 10 hours (Huang et al., 2018); 9°C increased for 24 and 72 hours (Nanto-Hara et al., 2020); 10°C continuously for 3 and 10 days, and 15°C 4 hours daily for 3 and 10 days (Alhenaky et al., 2017).

Mitigation strategies

Most intervention strategies deal with heat stress through a wide range of measures, including environmental management, housing design, ventilation, sprinkling, and shading, amongst others. Understanding and controlling environmental conditions is a crucial part of heat stress management.

Feed management and nutrition interventions are also recommended to reduce the effects of heat stress. They include feeding pelletized diets with increased energy coming from fats and oils, reduction of total protein with additional supplemental amino acids, increasing levels of vitamins and minerals, and adjusting the dietary electrolyte balance.

Antioxidants

Under oxidative stress conditions in the gut, there is a demand for antioxidants to counteract the excess of ROS; hence, dietary antioxidants can help reduce ROS and improve animal performance.

Research shows that certain phytomolecules, including thymol, carvacrol, cinnamaldehyde, silybinin and quercetin have antioxidant properties and improve performance under conditions of oxidative stress. The antioxidant capacity of phytomolecules manifests itself in free radical scavenging, increased production of natural antioxidants, and the activation of transcription factors. Moreover, menthol and cineol, also aid animals under heat stress by simulating the sensory cold receptors of the oral mucosa, giving the animals a cooling sensation, and reducing heat stress behavior.

Controlling LPS and oxidative stress

An experiment conducted by EW Nutrition GmbH had the objective to evaluate the ability of a product (Solis Max 2.0) in mitigating heat-stress induced LPS as well as oxidative stress.

For the experiment, Cobb 500 breeder pullets were divided in two groups, each group was placed in 11 pens of 80 hens, in a single house. One of the groups received feed containing 2kg/ton of the product from the first day. From week 8 to week 12, the temperature of the house was raised 10°C for 8 hours every day.

Figure 4 and 5: Blood LPS and expression of toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) in lymphocites of pullets before (wk 6), and during heat stress (wk 9 and 10). (*) indicates significant differences (P<0,05), and (‡) a tendency to be different against the control group (P<0,1).

Throughout the heat stress period, blood LPS (Fig 4) was lower in the pullets receiving the product, which allowed lower inflammation evidenced by the lower expression of TLR4 (Fig. 5). Oxidative stress was also mitigated with the help of the combination of phytomolecules in the product (Fig. 6), obtaining 8.5% improvement on serum total antioxidant capacity (TAC), supported by an increase in in superoxide dismutase (SOD glutathione peroxidase (GSH) and a decrease in malondialdehyde (MDH).

Figure 6: Antioxidant capacity of pullets during heat stress (wk 9 and 10). (*) indicates significant differences (P<0,05), and (‡) a tendency to be different against the control group (P<0,1). Parameters measured are total antioxidant capacity (TAC), super oxide dismutase (SOD), gluthatione peroxidase (GSH), and malondialdehyde (MDA).

In the bottom line, the heat stress challenge also affected performance, affecting feed conversion (9 points lower) and body weight (3% lower). The optimal supporting product was able to efficiently reduce the LPS exposure for the pullets and thus inflammation and oxidative stress were reduced, as a consequence energy could be driven to performance evidenced by a better BW and FCR.

Summary

Heat stress is a common reality in poultry production, its effects are quite complex and harmful and depend on the intensity and duration of the exposure to high temperatures.

By lowering feed digestibility, increasing gut permeability, and compromising immunity, heat stress leaves animals more susceptible to gut-health related issues such as dysbacteriosis and necrotic enteritis – and thus may increase the need to use antibiotics. Additionally, the passage of LPS through the permeable gut induces inflammation and further damage to animal welfare, health and performance.

Mitigation strategies, including support to the gut oxidative balance and lowering LPS-induced inflammation are crucial to support poultry animals in these critical periods.

References:

1. Das, S. et al., 2011. Nutrition in relation to diseases and heat stress in poultry. Veterinary World, 4(9), pp. 429-432.
2. Surai, P. F., Kochish, I. I., Fisinin, V. I. & Kidd, M. T., 2019. Antioxidant defense systems and oxidative stress in poultry biology: An update. Antioxidants, 8(7).
3. St-Pierre, N., Cobanov, B. & Schnitkey, G., 2003. Economic Losses from Heat Stress by US Livestock Industries. Journal of Dairy Science, Volume 86
4. Tellez Jr., G., Tellez-Isaias, G. & Dridi, S., 2017. Heat stress and gut health in broilers: role of tight junction proteins. Advances in Food Technology and Nutritional Sciences, 3(1).
5. Lian, P. et al., 2020. Beyond heat stress: intestinal integrity disruption and mechanism-based intervention strategies. Nutrients, Volume 12.
6. Akbarian, A. et al., 2016. Association between heat stress and oxidative stress in poultry; mitochondrial dysfunction and dietary interventions with phytochemicals. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 7(37).
7. Lara, L. & Rostagno, M., 2013. Impact of heat stress on poultry production. Animals, Volume 3, pp. 356-369.
8. Saeed, M. et al., 2019. Heat stress management in poultry farms: a comprehensive overview. Journal of Thermal Biology, Volume 84, pp. 414-425.
9. Farag, M. & Alagawany, M., 2018. Physiological alterations of poultry to the high environmental temperature. Journal of Thermal Biology, Volume 76, pp. 101-106.
10. Quinteiro-Filho, W. et al., 2010. Heat stress impairs performance parameters, induces intestinal injury, and decreases macrophage activity in broiler chickens. Poultry Science, Volume 89, p. 1905–1914.
11. Santos, R. et al., 2015. Quantitative histomorphometric analysis of heat-stress-related damage in the small intestines of broiler chickens. Avian Pathology, 44(1), pp. 19-22.
12. Awad, E. et al., 2018. Growth performance, duodenal morphology, and the caecal microbial population in female broiler chickens fed glycine-fortified low protein diets under heat stress conditions. British Poultry Science, 59(3), pp. 340-348.
13. Mujahid, A., Yoshiki, Y., Akiba, Y. & Toyomizu, M., 2005. Superoxide radical production in chicken skeletal muscle induced by heat stress. Volume 84, pp. 307-314.
14. Hu, R. et al., 2019. Polyphenols as potential attenuators of heat stress in poultry production. Antioxidants, 8(67).
15. Salami, S. et al., 2015. Efficacy of dietary antioxidants on broiler oxidative stress, performance and meat quality: science and market. Avian Biology Research, 8(2), pp. 65-78.
16. Lauridsen, C., 2019. From oxidative stress to inflammation: redox balance and immune system. Poultry Science, Volume 98, pp. 4240-4246.
17. Surai, P. F. & Fisinin, V. I., 2016. Vitagenes in poultry production: Part 1. Technological and environmental stresses. World’s Poultry Science Journal, Volume 72.
18. Arab Ameri, S., Samadi, F., Dastar, B. & Zarehdaran, S., 2016. Efficiency of peppermint (Mentha piperita) powder on performance, body temperature, and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens in heat stress condition. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science, 6(4), pp. 943-950.
19. Saadat Shad, H., Mazhari, M., Esmaeilipour, O. & Khosravinia, H., 2016. Effects of thymol and carvacrol on productive performance, antioxidant enzyme activity, and certain blood metabolites in heat-stressed broilers. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science, 6(1), pp. 195-202.
20. Mishra, B. & Jha, R., 2019. Oxidative stress in the poultry gut: potential challenge and interventions. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6(60).
21. Ruff, J. et al., 2020. Research Note: Evaluation of a heat stress model to induce gastrointestinal leakage in broiler chickens. Poultry Science, Volume 99, pp. 1687-1692.
22. Rostagno, M., 2020. Effects of heat stress on the gut health of poultry. Journal of Animal Science, 98(4).
23. Abdelqader, A. & Al-Fataftah, A., 2016. Effect of dietary butyric acid on performance, intestinal morphology, microflora composition and intestinal recovery of heat-stressed broilers. Livestock Science, Volume 183.
24. Jahejo, A. et al., 2016. Effect of heat stress and ascorbic acid on gut morphology of broiler chicken. Sindh University Research Journal, 48(4), pp. 829-832.
25. Wu, Q. et al., 2018. Glutamine alleviates heat stress-induced impairment of intestinal morphology, intestinal inflammatory response, and barrier integrity in broilers. Poultry Science, Volume 97, pp. 2675-2683.
26. Santos, R. et al., 2019. Effects of a feed additive blend on broilers challenged with heat stress. Avian Pathology, 48(6), pp. 582-601.
27. Shi, D. et al., 2019. Impact of gut microbiota structure in heat-stressed broilers. Poultry Science, Volume 98, pp. 2405-2413.
28. Burkholder, K. et al., 2008. Influence of stressors on normal intestinal microbiota, intestinal morphology, and susceptibility to Salmonella Enteritidis colonization in broilers. Poultry Science, Volume 87, pp. 1734-1741.
29. Quinteiro-Filho, W. et al., 2012. Acute heat stress impairs performance parameters and induces mild intestinal enteritis in broiler chickens: the role of acute HPA axis activation. Journal of Animal Science.
30. Antonissen, G. et al., 2014. The Impact of Fusarium Mycotoxins on Human and Animal Host Susceptibility to Infectious Diseases. Toxins, 6(2).
31. Tsiouris, V. et al., 2018. Heat stress as a predisposing factor for necrotic enteritis in broiler chicks. Avian Pathology, 47(6), pp. 616-624.
32. Abd El-Hack, M. et al., 2019. Herbs as thermoregulatory agents in poultry: An overview. Science of the Total Environment.
33. Surai, P. F., 2020. Antioxidants in poultry nutrition and reproduction: An update. Antioxidants, 9(2).
34. Surai, P. F., 2015. Silymarin as a natural antioxidant: An overview of the current evidence and perspectives. Antioxidants, 4(1).
35. El-Maaty, A., Hayam, M., Rabie, M. & El-Khateeb, A., 2014. Response of heat-stressed broiler chicks to dietary supplementation with some commercial herbs. Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(12), pp. 743-755.
36. Prieto, M. & Campo, J., 2010. Effect of heat and several additives related to stress levels on fluctuating asymmetry, heterophil:lymphocyte ratio, and tonic immobility duration in White Leghorn chicks. Poultry Science, Volume 89, p. 2071–2077.
37. Beckford R. C., Ellestad L. E., Proszkowiec-Weglarz M., Farley L., Brady K., Angel R., et al. 2020. Effects of heat stress on performance, blood chemistry, and hypothalamic and pituitary mRNA expression in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 99, 6317–6325.
38. Brugaletta G., Teyssier J. R., Rochell S. J., Dridi S., Sirri F. 2022. A review of heat stress in chickens. Part I: Insight into gut health and physiology. Front. Physiol. Avian Physiology. Volume 13 – 2022

“Every single social and global issue of our day is a business opportunity in disguise.”
Peter Drucker

By Ajay Bhoyar, Global Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

Global livestock systems constitute an industrial asset worth over $1.4 trillion. Projections indicate that the global livestock population, now at 60+ billion, could exceed 100 billion by 2050 – more than ten times the expected human population at that time (Yitbarek 2019, Herrero 2009).

Our industry bears an enormous responsibility: to feed the growing population, sustainably and consistently, despite increasing challenges. And one of the biggest challenges is already looming large.

Animal agriculture, including poultry farming, is particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of climate change. Increased extreme weather events, farm fires facilitated by drought, thermal pressure on farmed animals, reduced availability or increased prices of water, raw materials, and electricity, and much more are already impacting the industry.

This is, in all likelihood, just the beginning. How exactly will poultry production be affected in the future – and what can you do to future-proof your operation against the coming challenges?

Major impact areas of climate change – and what to do about them

1. Feed quality

Excessive heat, droughts, or floods can reduce crop yields, decrease nutritional content, and increase the risk of pests, pathogens, and weed outbreaks.

Plants with a C₃ photosynthetic pathway such as wheat, rice, or soybean can benefit from increased temperature more than the so-called C₄ plants such as corn or sorghum (Cui 2021). NASA projections show corn crop yields are expected to decline 24% in the next 30 years (Gray 2021).

Moreover, increased temperature, shifts in rainfall patterns, and elevated surface greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations can also lead to lower grain protein concentration (Godde 2010, Myers 2014), as well as affect mineral and vitamin concentrations in plants.

Pollinator-dependent crops like soybean or rapeseed could also see decreased yield under climactic challenges (Godde 2020).

Warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns can create favorable conditions for the growth of mycotoxins, leading to reduced feed quality and health problems in poultry. Especially corn and sorghum are vulnerable to aflatoxin contamination in hot and humid conditions. On top of this, storage will become more challenging as pathogen growth will further erode feed quality.

ACTION

• Diversification of feed sources: Exploring alternative feed ingredients that are less reliant on climate-sensitive crops can help mitigate the impact of changing weather patterns on feed availability and costs.
• Mycotoxin mitigation: Not all toxin mitigation solutions are created equal. Choose standardized toxins mitigation solutions based on their efficacy instead of upfront cost. The products that are regularly tested against undesirable and harmful impurities like dioxins, dioxins-like PCBs and heavy metals.

2. Genetics

Rising temperatures may lead to reduced fertility and hatchability, affecting the overall health and reproductive performance of chickens. Extreme heat can also impact the expression of genes related to growth, feed efficiency, and resistance to diseases. As a result, poultry breeders and geneticists face the challenge of developing more heat-tolerant poultry breeds to ensure sustainable production under changing climatic conditions.

ACTION

• Genetic selection for thermotolerance: Breeding programs can focus on developing more heat-tolerant chicken breeds that exhibit improved performance and resilience in challenging climatic conditions. Producers need to pay attention to the specifics of the breed’s genetic makeup.

3. Farm Management

3.1 Solving for thermal comfort: Electricity costs

The thermal comfort of livestock is no longer a concern for tropical zones only. Temperate zones are also seeing sustained increases in ambient temperatures.
High temperatures and prolonged heat waves increase electricity consumption as farmers rely on ventilation, cooling systems, and artificial lighting to maintain optimal conditions for chickens. Consequently, energy costs will rise, impacting the profitability of poultry farms.

3.2 Solving for water availability: Resource management

Water scarcity, changing precipitation patterns, and droughts can limit the availability of water resources, affecting poultry farms’ water consumption and overall operational efficiency.
The quality of water is also an increasing concern. The UN states that “higher water temperatures and more frequent floods and droughts are projected to exacerbate many forms of water pollution – from sediments to pathogens and pesticides”. Reduced raw water quality “can decrease animal water intake, feed intake and health” (Valente-Campos 2019). Especially in Asia and Africa, which have seen massive increases in floods and droughts, respectively, water scarcity and quality will pose severe issues.

ACTION

• Improved farm management practices: Implementing energy-efficient systems, such as solar power and energy-saving technologies, can reduce electricity consumption and associated costs. Water management techniques, such as rainwater harvesting and efficient irrigation systems, can help mitigate the impact of water scarcity. As always, strict biosecurity will play a critical role.
• Enhanced ventilation and cooling systems: Upgrading ventilation systems and implementing efficient cooling mechanisms can alleviate heat stress on chickens, enhancing their overall health and productivity. Regular maintenance and sensor technologies also play an important preventive role.

3.3 Built-up and human capital risk

In high-risk areas, machinery, electricity networks, telecommunications, building infrastructure in general can be impacted by extreme weather events, rising sea levels etc. (Nardone 2010).

Labor availability and productivity might, on the other hand, be impacted in many areas. Disease outbreaks, including new strains, as well as decreased air quality, extreme events etc. might in the future contribute to labor shortages. The number of unsafe hot workdays is expected to double by 2050, which will impact especially rural India, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia (Carlin 2023).

ACTION

• Climate-resilient infrastructure: Investing in resilient infrastructure, such as elevated coops, flood-resistant buildings, or disease surveillance technology can minimize the risk of incidents from weather events and can support early action against disease pressure. Investments in smart farming can also relieve pressure on labor and improve speed of action.
• Insurability and loan math: Any future-looking business needs to work with the likelihood of increased insurance costs and higher insurability requirements. Also, a point will come at which non-resilient infrastructure will not be financed.

4. Animal performance

While colder areas will benefit from reduced house heating and ventilation needs, warm areas will be at increased risk. A hot environment “impairs production (growth, meat and milk yield and quality, egg yield, weight, and quality) and reproductive performance, metabolic and health status, and immune response” (Nardone 2010, Ali 2020).
The proliferation of pathogens in warm environments will pose further challenges. Antibiotic resistance from attempts to control these issues will only compound the problem.

Additionally, as mentioned before, changes in weather patterns can impact crop yields, including the availability and affordability of feed ingredients for chickens. Producers will have to reformulate often to match availability, cost, and nutritional value.

ACTION

• Stress and pathogenic impact mitigation solutions: Phytogenic feed additives can support poultry gut health and strengthen the immune response when confronted with stress factors, including heat stress, humid environments, pen density, and pathogen pressure. With the added benefit of reducing dependence on antibiotics and other medication, they can naturally stimulate or support a healthy response to challenges.

5. On- and off-farm logistics

Transportation is also affected all along the supply chain, from bringing feed or young stock to the farm to moving livestock to processing facilities and further distribution along the chain. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, floods, or heavy snowfall, can lead to power outages and/or disrupt transportation routes and infrastructure, hindering the timely delivery of chicks, feed, and other essential supplies to poultry farms.

In addition to the challenge of transportation, packaging will soon fall under regulatory scrutiny. Sustainability requirements may be national, but compliance will have to follow across borders for any producers eyeing international markets.

ACTION

• Data is your friend: Transportation and logistics data can helps improve efficiency and reduce your environmental impact. Start tracking fuel consumption, carbon emissions, transportation costs, and other relevant metrics to identify areas for optimization.
• Think globally: ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) guidance will become a standard in many important markets, including Europe and the US. Keep an eye on international regulations, especially for your target markets. Their ESG requirements are your ESG requirements.

The world needs more meat

The bad news is that climate change is coming at us fast. Animal agriculture will be among the most heavily impacted. Major adjustments will be needed to mitigate the effects and to embrace the long view.

The good news is that livestock systems remain critical to our growing population. The world population is projected to grow to 9.8 billion by 2050 (UNDESA, 2017). Livestock products (meat, milk and eggs) account for about 30% of the population’s protein supply, with large regional variations (FAOSTAT, 2022; Godde et al, 2021).

To answer this growing demand, world meat production is expected to increase by 14% by the end of the decade, compared to current figures (Carlin 2023). The increase in meat demand might be as high as 76% compared to 2005/2007 (Alexandratos 2012).

The cost of doing nothing

We must look at the challenges of climate change, in the words of Peter Drucker, as a business opportunity. As always, those who act early will reap important rewards – not just through market differentiation but through economic resilience.

What awaits those who do not take action?

The United Nations Environment Programme warns of some foreseeable consequences of inaction, most of which can be grouped under three categories:

• Rising costs: Cost of decreased performance, increased cost of doing business, carbon taxes
• Policy restrictions: Once a few major markets have implemented restrictive labeling, packaging, or production regulations, anyone who wants to operate in these markets is subject to the same restrictions.
• Reputational risk / Market and investor preferences: The risk of falling behind or not taking action, in other words the opportunity cost, is hard to quantify until it’s too late. Banks and investors may give up on unsustainable financing as soon as consumers and/or regulators show signs of concern. Acting ahead of the curve is also a market positioning win as well as economic win. The market rewards first movers.

The impact of climate change on genetics, farm management, animal performance, farm logistics, and transportation necessitate proactive adaptation and mitigation strategies, in coordination with local and global expertise. Responses will vary depending on geography, production type, and more – but doing nothing is no longer an option. By implementing sustainable practices across the board and investing in resilient infrastructure, poultry producers can maintain a robust, high-performing, sustainable production system.

References

Alexandratos, N. and Jelle Bruinsma. “World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision”. ESA Working Paper No. 12-03, June 2012. https://www.fao.org/3/ap106e/ap106e.pdf

Ali, Zulfekar et al. “Impact of global climate change on livestock health: Bangladesh perspective”. Open Veterinary Journal. 2020 Apr-Jun; 10(2): 178–188. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7419064/

Bernabucci, Umberto. “Climate change: impact on livestock and how can we adapt”.  Animal Frontiers, Volume 9, Issue 1, January 2019, Pages 3–5, https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy039

Cheng, M. et al. Climate Change and Livestock Production: A Literature Review. Atmosphere 2022, 13(1), 140; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13010140

Carlin, David et al. Climate Risks in the Agriculture Sector. UN Environment Programme, March 2023. https://www.unepfi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Agriculture-Sector-Risks-Briefing.pdf

Cui, Hongchang. “Challenges and Approaches to Crop Improvement Through C3-to-C4 Engineering.” Frontiers in Plant Science, 14 September 2021, Volume 12 – 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.715391

FAO Statistics. Statistical yearbook world food and agriculture. 2022. https://www.fao.org/3/cc2211en/cc2211en.pdf

Godde, C.M. et al. “Impacts of climate change on the livestock food supply chain; a review of the evidence”. Global Food Security, 2021 Mar; 28: 100488. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7938222/

Gray, Ellen. “Global Climate Change Impact on Crops Expected Within 10 Years, NASA Study Finds”. NASA Global Climate Change. November 2, 2021. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/global-climate-change-impact-on-crops-expected-within-10-years-nasa-study-finds/

Herrero, Mario et al. “Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-offs. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability Volume 1, Issue 2, December 2009, Pages 111-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.003

Nardone, A. et al. “Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems”. Livestock Science, Volume 130, Issues 1–3, May 2010, Pages 57-69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871141310000740

OECD FAO. Agricultural Outlook 2022-2031. https://www.oecd.org/development/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-19991142.htm

United Nations Climate Action. Water – at the center of the climate crisis. Retrieved 20 June 2023. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/water#:~:text=Water%20quality%20is%20also%20affected,pathogens%20and%20pesticides%20(IPCC).

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). “World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100”. 2017 Revision of World Population Prospects, 21 June 2017. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html#:~:text=News-,World%20population%20projected%20to%20reach%209.8%20billion%20in,and%2011.2%20billion%20in%202100&text=The%20current%20world%20population%20of,Nations%20report%20being%20launched%20today.

USDA. Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation. Technical Bulletin 1935, February 2013. Retrieved June 2023. https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/animal-agriculture-changing-climate#:~:text=Breadcrumb&text=Climate%20change%20may%20affect%20animal,and%20disease%20and%20pest%20distributions.

Valente-Campos S., et al. “Critical issues and alternatives for the establishment of chemical water quality criteria for livestock”. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2019;104:108–114. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.03.003

Yitbarek, Melkamu Bezabih. “Livestock and livestock product trends by 2050: Review”. International Journal of Animal Research, 2019; 4:30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344188926_Livestock_and_Livestock_products_by_2050

By Monish Raj, Assistant Manager-Technical Services, EW Nutrition
Inge Heinzl, Editor, EW Nutrition  

Mycotoxins, toxic secondary metabolites produced by fungi, are a constant and severe threat to animal production. They can contaminate grains used for animal feed and are highly stable, invisible, and resistant to high temperatures and normal feed manufacturing processes. Mycotoxin-producing fungi can be found during plant growth and in stored grains; the prevalence of fungi species depends on environmental conditions, though in grains, we find mainly three genera: Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Fusarium. The most critical mycotoxins for poultry production and the fungi that produce them are detailed in Fig 1.

Figure 1: Fungi species and their mycotoxins of worldwide importance for poultry production (adapted from Bryden, 2012).

The effects of mycotoxins on the animal are manifold

When, usually, more than one mycotoxin enters the animal, they “cooperate” with each other, which means that they combine their effects in different ways. Also, not all mycotoxins have the same targets.

The synergistic effect: When 1+1 ≥3

Even at low concentrations, mycotoxins can display synergistic effects, which means that the toxicological consequences of two or more mycotoxins present in the same sample will be higher than the sum of the toxicological effects of the individual mycotoxins. So, disregarded mycotoxins can suddenly get important due to their additive or synergistic effect.

Table 1: Synergistic effects of mycotoxins in poultry

Table 2: Additive effects of mycotoxins in poultry

Recognize the effects of mycotoxins in animals is not easy

The mode of action of mycotoxins in animals is complex and has many implications. Research so far could identify the main target organs and effects of high levels of individual mycotoxins. However, the impact of low contamination levels and interactions are not entirely understood, as they are subtle, and their identification requires diverse analytical methods and closer observation.

With regard to the gastrointestinal tract, mycotoxins can inhibit the absorption of nutrients vital for maintaining health, growth, productivity, and reproduction. The nutrients affected include amino acids, lipid-soluble vitamins (vitamins A, D, E, and K), and minerals, especially Ca and P (Devegowda and Murthy, 2005). As a result of improper absorption of nutrients, egg production, eggshell formation, fertility, and hatchability are also negatively influenced.

Most mycotoxins also have a negative impact on the immune system, causing a higher susceptibility to disease and compromising the success of vaccinations. Besides that, organs like kidneys, the liver, and lungs, but also reproduction, endocrine, and nervous systems get battered.

Mycotoxins have specific targets

Aflatoxins, fumonisins, and ochratoxin impair the liver and thus the physiological processes modulated and performed by it:

• lipid and carbohydrate metabolism and storage
• synthesis of functional proteins such as hormones, enzymes, and nutrient transporters
• metabolism of proteins, vitamins, and minerals.

For trichothecenes, the gastrointestinal tract is the main target. There, they hamper digestion, absorption, and intestinal integrity. T-2 can even produce necrosis in the oral cavity and esophagus.

Figure 2: Main target organs of important mycotoxins

How to reduce mycotoxicosis?

There are two main paths of action, depending on whether you are placed along the crop production, feed production, or animal production cycle. Essentially, you can either prevent the formation of mycotoxins on the plant on the field during harvest and storage or, if placed at a further point along the chain, mitigate their impact.

Preventing mycotoxin production means preventing mold growth

To minimize the production of mycotoxins, the development of molds must be inhibited already during the cultivation of the plants and later on throughout storage. For this purpose, different measures can be taken:

Selection of the suitable crop variety, good practices, and optimal harvesting conditions are half of the battle

Already before and during the production of the grains, actions can be taken to minimize mold growth as far as possible:

• Choose varieties of grain that are area-specific and resistant to insects and fungal attacks.
• Practice crop rotation
• Harvest proper and timely
• Avoid damage to kernels by maintaining the proper condition of harvesting equipment.

Optimal moisture of the grains and the best hygienic conditions are essential

The next step is storage. Here too, try to provide the best conditions.

• Dry properly: grains should be stored at <13% of moisture
• Control moisture: minimize chances of moisture to increase due to condensation, and rain-water leakage
• Biosecurity: clean the bins and silos routinely.
• Prevent mold growth: organic acids can help prevent mold growth and increase storage life.

Mold production does not mean that the war is lost

Even if molds and, therefore, mycotoxins occur, there is still the possibility to change tack with several actions. There are measures to improve feed and support the animal when it has already ingested the contaminated feed.

1.    Feed can sometimes be decontaminated

If a high level of mycotoxin contamination is detected, removing, replacing, or diluting contaminated raw materials is possible. However, this is not very practical, economically costly, and not always very effective, as many molds cannot be seen. Also, heat treatment does not have the desired effect, as mycotoxins are highly heat stable.

2.    Effects of mycotoxins can be mitigated

Even when mycotoxins are already present in raw materials or finished feed, you still can act. Adding products adsorbing the mycotoxins or mitigating the effects of mycotoxins in the organism has been considered a highly-effective measure to protect the animals (Galvano et al., 2001).

This type of mycotoxin mitigation happens at the animal production stage and consists of suppressing or reducing the absorption of mycotoxins in the animal. Suppose the mycotoxins get absorbed in the animal to a certain degree. In that case, mycotoxin mitigation agents help by promoting the excretion of mycotoxins, modifying their mode of action, or reducing their effects. As toxin-mitigating agents, the following are very common:

Aluminosilicates: inorganic compounds widely found in nature that are the most common agents used to mitigate the impact of mycotoxins in animals. Their layered (phyllosilicates) or porous (tectosilicates) structure helps “trap” mycotoxins and adsorbs them.

• Bentonite / Montmorillonite: classified as phyllosilicate, originated from volcanic ash. This absorbent clay is known to bind multiple toxins in vivo. Incidentally, its name derives from the Benton Shale in the USA, where large formations were discovered 150 years ago.
  Bentonite mainly consists of smectite minerals, especially montmorillonite (a layered silicate with a larger surface area and laminar structure).

• Zeolites: porous crystalline tectosilicates, consisting of aluminum, oxygen, and silicon. They have a framework structure with channels that fit cations and small molecules. The name “zeolite” means “boiling stone” in Greek, alluding to the steam this type of mineral can give off in the heat). The large pores of this material help to trap toxins.

Activated charcoal: the charcoal is “activated” when heated at very high temperatures together with gas. Afterward, it is submitted to chemical processes to remove impurities and expand the surface area. This porous, powdered, non-soluble organic compound is sometimes used as a binder, including in cases of treating acute poisoning with certain substances.

Yeast cell wall: derived from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast cell walls are widely used as adsorbing agents. Esterified glucomannan polymer extracted from the yeast cell wall was shown to bind to aflatoxin, ochratoxin, and T-2 toxin, individually and combined (Raju and Devegowda 2000).

Bacteria: In some studies, Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB), particularly Lactobacillus rhamnosus, were found to have the ability to reduce mycotoxin contamination.

Which characteristics are crucial for an effective toxin-mitigating solution

If you are looking for an effective solution to mitigate the adverse effects of mycotoxins, you should keep some essential requirements:

1. The product must be safe to use:
   1. safe for the feed-mill workers.
   2. does not have any adverse effect on the animal
   3. does not leave residues in the animal
   4. does not bind with nutrients in the feed.
2. It must show the following effects:
   1. effectively adsorbs the toxins relevant to your operation.
   2. helps the animals to cope with the consequences of non-bound toxins.
3. It must be practical to use:
   1. cost-effective
   2. easy to store and add to the feed.

Depending on

• the challenge (one mycotoxin or several, aflatoxin or another mycotoxin),
• the animals (short-cycle or long-living animals), and
• the economical resources that can be invested,

different solutions are available on the market. The more cost-effective solutions mainly contain clay to adsorb the toxins. Higher-in-price products often additionally contain substances such as phytogenics supporting the animal to cope with the consequences of non-bound mycotoxins.

Solis – the cost-effective solution

In the case of contamination with only aflatoxin, the cost-effective solution Solis is recommended. Solis consists of well-selected superior silicates with high surface area due to its layered structure. Solis shows high adsorption of aflatoxin B1, which was proven in a trial:

Figure 3: Binding capacity of Solis for Aflatoxin

Even at a low inclusion rate, Solis effectively binds the tested mycotoxin at a very high rate of nearly 100%. It is a high-efficient, cost-effective solution for aflatoxin contamination.

Solis Max 2.0: The effective mycotoxin solution for sustainable profitability

Solis Max 2.0 has a synergistic combination of ingredients that acts by chemi- and physisorption to prevent toxic fungal metabolites from damaging the animal’s gastrointestinal tract and entering the bloodstream.

Figure 4: Composition and effects of Solis Max 2.0

Solis Max 2.0 is suitable for more complex challenges and longer-living animals: in addition to the pure mycotoxin adsorption, Solis Max 2.0 also effectively supports the liver and, thus, the animal in its fight against mycotoxins.

In an in vitro trial, the adsorption capacity of Solis Max 2.0 for the most relevant mycotoxins was tested. For the test, the concentrations of Solis Max 2.0 in the test solutions equated to 1kg/t and 2kg/t of feed.

Figure 5: Efficacy of Solis Max 2.0 against different mycotoxins relevant in poultry production

The test showed a high adsorption capacity: between 80% and 90% for Aflatoxin B1, T-2 Toxin (2kg/t), and Fumonisin B1. For OTA, DON, and Zearalenone, adsorption rates between 40% and 80% could be achieved at both concentrations (Figure 5). This test demonstrated that Solis Max 2.0 could be considered a valuable tool to mitigate the effects of mycotoxins in poultry.

Broiler trial shows improved performance in broilers

Protected and, therefore, healthier animals can use their resources for growing/laying eggs. A trial showed improved liver health and performance in broilers challenged with two different mycotoxins but supported with Solis Max 2.0.

For the trial, 480 Ross-308 broilers were divided into three groups of 160 birds each. Each group was placed in 8 pens of 20 birds in a single house. Nutrition and management were the same for all groups. If the birds were challenged, they received feed contaminated with 30 ppb of Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and 500 ppb of Ochratoxin Alpha (OTA).

The body weight and FCR performance parameters were measured, as well as the blood parameters of alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, both related to liver damage when increased.

Concerning performance as well as liver health, the trial showed partly even better results for the challenged group fed with Solis Max 2.0 than for the negative, unchallenged control (Figures 6 and 7):

• 6% higher body weight than the negative control and 18.5% higher body weight than the challenged group
• 12 points and 49 points better FCR than the negative control and the challenged group, respectively
• Lower levels of AST and ALT compared to the challenged group, showing a better liver health

The values for body weight, FCR, and AST, even better than the negative control, may be owed to the content of different gut and liver health-supporting phytomolecules.

Figure 6: Better performance data due to the addition of Solis Max 2.0

Figure 7: Healthier liver shown by lower values of AST and ALT

Effective toxin risk management: staying power is required

Mycotoxin mitigation requires many different approaches. Mycotoxin mitigation starts with sewing the appropriate plants and continues up to the post-ingestion moment. From various studies and field experience, we find that besides the right decisions about grain crops, storage management, and hygiene, the use of effective products which mitigate the adverse effects of mycotoxins is the most practical and effective way to maintain animals healthy and well-performing. According to Eskola and co-workers (2020), the worldwide contamination of crops with mycotoxins can be up to 80% due to the impact of climate change and the availability of sensitive technologies for analysis and detection. Using a proper mycotoxin mitigation program as a precautionary measure is, therefore, always recommended in animal production.

Toxin Risk Management

EW Nutrition’s Toxin Risk Management Program supports farmers by offering a tool (MasterRisk) that helps identify and evaluate the risk and gives recommendations concerning using toxin solutions.

By Tingting Fan, Regional Technical Manager Poultry, EW Nutrition

Chicken coccidiosis is a common and important disease in poultry production, with an incidence of infection as high as 50-70%. The mortality rates are around 20-30% or higher in highly severe cases. In addition to losses due to mortality, producers lose money due to poor growth as well as decreased meat yield and quality. Additionally, the birds get more susceptible to secondary infections, e.g., necrotic enteritis (Moore, 2016).

The costs caused by coccidiosis in poultry are about 13 billion US $ (Blake, 2020). These costs globally divide into 1 billion costs for prophylaxis/treatment and 12 billion due to performance losses. Until now, only 5% of the prophylaxis costs have been created by natural solutions. That means that there is still a high potential to be tapped.

Natural solutions, unfortunately, are only used by a minority

For a long time, ionophores fitting the classical definition of antibiotics and chemicals were used in coccidia-fighting programs – and contributed to the development of antimicrobial resistance (Nesse et al., 2015). Nowadays, the combination with vaccination in rotation or shuttle programs has reduced this danger, but there is still potential. Meanwhile, some natural solutions are available that can be integrated into coccidiosis-fighting programs. However, producers using natural solutions are still a minority.

For thousands of years, plants have been used in human and veterinary medicine. Before the discovery of antibiotics in 1928, diseases were fought with plants. To regain the effectiveness of antibiotics, using natural solutions for prophylaxis should be once more standard, and the use of antibiotics is the treatment only for critical cases.

How does Eimeria damage broilers

The pathogenic mechanism of coccidia or Eimeria spp. is mainly the massive destruction of host intestinal cells when it reproduces, resulting in severe damage to the intestinal mucosa. On the one hand, the damaged gut wall loses its capability for effective digestion and absorption of nutrients, leading to worse feed conversion and lower weight gain.

On the other hand, this damage reduces the chicken’s immunity and paves the way for other infections, such as necrotic enteritis, and raises mortality.

Table 1:The seven most known Eimeria species in broilers and their main site of occurrence

Concerning their pathogenicity, for poultry, the Eimeria species must be ordered in the following way: E. necatrix> E. tenella > E. brunetti > E. maxima > E. acervulina > Eimeria mitis, and Eimeria praecox.

Prevention is better than treatment

Thanks to its bi-layered wall with a robust structure, the oocysts of coccidia are extremely resilient. They can survive 4 to 9 months in the litter or soil and are resistant to common disinfectants. Farm personnel and visitors are also important vectors, so good biosecurity practices can reduce the number of oocysts contaminating the premises and help prevent clinical out-brakes. Coccidiosis control in poultry should focus on “prevention” rather than “treatment”, combining biosecurity practices, feed additives, and/or vaccination.

Effective hygiene on the farm is crucial

To prevent coccidia infections, one of the most critical points is hygiene. Biosecurity practices are crucial and include cleaning and disinfection of the poultry houses and their surroundings, pest control and prevention, restriction, control, and management of the entry of personnel, visitors, vehicles, and equipment, among others.

Coccidia oocysts are ubiquitous and survive for a long time, and even effective cleaning and disinfection cannot completely remove them. After a severe outbreak, it is recommended to take drastic biosecurity measures such as flame or caustic soda disinfection to prevent further spread of the disease.

When there are birds in the house, it must be paid attention that the litter is not excessively humid. Litter moisture should be maintained around 25%; turning and replacing moist litter are the best practices to follow. For keeping the litter dry, adequate ventilation and appropriate stocking density are beneficial.

To avoid unnecessary stress and gut health issues, the birds must be fed according to their requirements with high-quality feed so that the animals build up good immunity and resilience.

Coccidiosis can be controlled with effective programs

Anticoccidial drugs were the first means of preventing and controlling coccidiosis in chickens and once achieved very good results. Since Sulfaquinoxaline was found to be effective in the 1850s, about fifty other drugs have been developed for the prevention and control of coccidiosis. Generally, the anticoccidials used for years to prevent the disease can be divided into ionophores and chemicals.

Ionophores, produced as by-products of bacterial fermentation, are technically antibiotics. The great benefits of ionophores are that they kill the parasite before it can infect the bird and thus prevent damage to the host cells. Eimeria species also take a long time to develop resistance to ionophores (Chapman, 2015). Well-established ionophores are products that contain monensin, lasalocid, salinomycin, narasin, or maduramycin; the trade names are Coban/Monensin, Avatec, Coxisstac, Monteban, and Cygro.

Chemicals, these molecules, are produced by chemical synthesis. They differ from each other and ionophores as each one has a unique mode of action against coccidia. In general, they act by interfering with one or more stages of the life cycle of Eimeria, e.g., supplying fake nutrients (Amprolium, Vit. B1) to the parasite, starving them out. The active components here are nicarbazin, amprolium, zoalene, decoquinate, clopidol, robenidine and diclazuril, and the respective trade names Nicarb, Amprol, Zoamix, Deccox, Coyden, Robenz and Clinacox. Eimeria species develop resistance to these chemical molecules; therefore, they must be used carefully and with strict planning. However, cross-resistance does not develop, making them highly valuable in rotation programs.

Vaccination against coccidiosis is accepted by many farmers as a good solution to control coccidiosis in chickens. Vaccination aims to replace resistant field strains with vaccine strains, which are sensitive to anticoccidials. Currently, commercial chicken vaccines are available in natural and attenuated strains; research to obtain safer and more efficient vaccines is also ongoing.

Non-attenuated vaccines are less expensive and make for good immunity, but as they may mildly damage the intestinal epithelium, the risk of necrotic enteritis can increase. On the contrary, attenuated strains – usually “precocious” strains with shorter reproduction cycles, cause less intestinal damage and thus have a lower risk of provoking bacterial or necrotic enteritis. The immunity is like after normal infections; however, you have a controlled epidemiology, fewer coccidiosis outbreaks, and an improved uniformity of the flock.

Phytomolecules-based natural anticoccidials saponins and tannins are natural components that can also help control coccidiosis (e.g., Pretect D, EW Nutrition GmbH). These ingredients act in different ways: the tannins improve the intestinal barrier function locally and systemically. The saponins directly impact the oocysts by preventing their growth, interacting with the cholesterol in the cell membrane (triterpenoid saponin), or hindering further sporulation and causing cell death by causing pores in the cell membrane of the parasite. Altogether, Pretect D promotes the beneficial microbial population and reduces the harmful one, improves the gut barrier function, reduces mucosal inflammation, inhibits growth and replication of Eimeria, preventing their lesions, and fosters birds’ immune response against Eimeria spp.

To prove Pretect D’s effectiveness in the reduction of coccidiosis, several trials were conducted. One of the trials was carried out in Poland with 360.000 broilers in commercial conditions. The animals were divided into ten houses, and two cycles were tested. Half of the birds served as control and received Narasin and Nicarbazin in the starter and grower I diet and salinomycin in the grower II diet. The other half also were fed Narasin and Nicarbazin in the starter and grower I diet, but Pretect D @1kg/t in grower II and 0.5kg/t in the finisher diet. The results are shown in figure 1: The application of Pretect D in the grower II and finisher diet decreased the number of oocysts in the droppings more than the application of salinomycin and, therefore, reduced the spreading of coccidiosis. In addition, the performance of the broilers receiving Pretect D was nothing short of the control’s performance showing Pretect as an optimal completion in shuttle or rotation programs (see more HERE).

Figure 1: Reduction of oocysts in the droppings by Pretect D

Managing coccidiosis without promoting antimicrobial resistance is not easy, but feasible

Coccidiosis is a challenge aggravated by our current high level of production. Tools such as ionophores, chemicals, but also vaccines, and natural products are available to fight coccidiosis. However, due to the high probability of resistance development, these tools must be used carefully and in structured programs. The phytomolecules-based product Pretect D gives the possibility to reduce antimicrobial resistance as part of programs against coccidiosis.

References upon request

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

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

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

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

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

How to measure the feed conversion rate

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

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

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

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

Many factors influence the FCR

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

1. Species

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

Table 1: FCRs of different species

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

2. Sex, age, and growth phase

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

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

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

3. Health and gut health

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

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

4. Environment

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

5. Feed quantity, composition, and quality

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

Better FCR by increasing nutrient density and digestibility

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

Feed form and particle size play an important role

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Molds and mycotoxins impair feed quality, but also animal health

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

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

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

Oxidation of fats also affects feed quality

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

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

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

Use adequate supplements to enhance FCR

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

1. Boost your animals’ gut health

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

Phytomolecules help stabilize the balance of the microbiome

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

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

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

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

Figure 2: FCR improvements for animals receiving Activo

Products mitigating the adverse effects of toxins

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

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

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

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

2. Improve nutrient utilization

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

Phytomolecules support the animal’s digestive system

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

Enzymes release more nutrients from feed

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

3. Be proactive about preserving feed quality

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

Antioxidants prevent feed oxidation

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

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

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

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

Inhibiting molds and keeping feed moisture

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

Conclusion

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Dr. Ajay Bhoyar, Global Technical Manager, EW Nutrition

Pathogenic Enterococcus cecorum (EC) is emerging as a significant challenge in poultry production worldwide, causing substantial losses to commercial flocks. EC has become a considerable concern for the poultry industry, not only because of its rapid spread and negative impact on broiler health but also because of its increasing antibiotic resistance. As a result, there is a growing need to explore alternative ways of controlling this bacterium. There is no silver bullet yet as a replacement for antibiotics to limit the load of E. cecorum. Maintaining optimum gut health to avoid E. cecorum leakage during the first week of the broiler’s life can control losses due to E. cecorum.

Phytogenic compounds, which are derived from plants, have gained attention in the last decades as a potential solution for controlling common gut pathogens. These natural compounds have been found to possess antimicrobial properties and can help improve gut health in broilers. In this article, we will discuss the current state of E. cecorum and explore potential strategies, including using phytogenic compounds as support in controlling economic losses due to this emerging pathogen in broiler production.

Enterococcus cecorum and its negative impact on broiler production

E. cecorum is a component of normal enterococcal microbiota in the gastrointestinal tract of poultry. These are facultatively anaerobic, gram-positive cocci. Over the past 15 years, pathogenic strains of E. cecorum have emerged as an important cause of skeletal disease in broiler and broiler breeder chickens (Broast et al., 2017; Jackson et al., 2004 and Jung et al., 2017). Along with the commensal strains of EC, the pathogenic strains also occur and can result in Enterococcal spondylitis (ES), also known as “kinky back”, a serious disease of commercial poultry production in which the bacteria translocate from the intestine to the free thoracic vertebrae and adjacent notarium or synsacrum, causing lameness, hind-limb paresis and, in 5 to 15% of cases, mortality (de Herdt et al., 2008; Martin et al., 2011; Jung and Rautenschlein, 2014). The compression of the spinal cord due to infection of the free thoracic vertebra results in the so-called “kinky back” in the skeletal phase of E. cecorum infection. Kinky back is also a common name for spondylolisthesis, a developmental spinal anomaly. EC is normally found in the gastrointestinal tract and may need the help of other factors, such as a leaky gut, to escape the gastrointestinal tract. The emergent pathogenic strains of E. cecorum have developed an array of virulence factors that allow these strains to 1) colonize the gut of birds in the early life period; 2) escape the gut niche; 3) spread systemically while evading the immune system; and 4) colonize the damaged cartilage of the free thoracic vertebra (Borst, 2023). The E. cecorum can invade internal organs and produce lesions in the pericardium, lung, liver, and spleen.

The negative impact of E. cecorum on broiler economics, health, and welfare

Enterococcus cecorum can harm broiler health, welfare, and economics. This can result in decreased profitability for broiler producers.

The broiler flocks infected with E. cecorum may have reduced feed intake/ nutrient absorption and reduced growth rates, leading to a higher feed conversion ratio, longer production cycles, and lower weight gain. The morbidity and mortality from E. cecorum infection can be as high as 35 % and 15%, respectively. The higher condemnations of up to 9.75% at the processing plant can further add to the losses (Jung et al., 2018).  This can result in significant economic losses for producers.

Further, E. cecorum infections can impair the immune function of broilers, making them more susceptible to other pathogens and reducing their overall health and welfare. Pathogenic E. cecorum is an opportunistic pathogen that can gain momentum during coinfection with E. coli and other gut pathogens, causing a leaky gut. Therefore, a holistic approach to gut health management may help reduce the losses.

Antibiotic resistance in E. cecorum

E. cecorum has been found to be resistant to multiple antibiotics. Multidrug resistant pathogenic E. cecorum could be recovered from lesions in whole birds for sale at local grocery stores (Suyemoto et al., 2017). Antibiotic resistance can make it difficult to treat and control infections in broilers. This can lead to increased use of multiple antibiotics, which can contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pose a risk to human health.

Transmission of E. cecorum in broiler flocks

Despite the rapid global emergence of this pathogen, and several works on the subject, the mechanism by which pathogenic E. cecorum spreads within and among vertically integrated broiler production systems remains unclear (Jung et. al.2018). The role of vertical transmission of pathogenic E. cecorum remains elusive. Experimentally infected broiler breeders apparently do not pass the bacterium into their eggs or embryos (Thoefner and Peter, 2016). However, it has been noted that a very low frequency of infected chicks can cause a flock-wide outbreak.

Horizontal transmission: E. cecorum can be transmitted between birds within a flock through direct contact or exposure to contaminated feces, feed, or water.

While the mode of transmission between flocks has not been definitively identified, pathogenic E. cecorum demonstrates rapid horizontal transmission within flocks. It can spread rapidly within flocks via fecal-oral transmission.

Personnel and equipment: E. cecorum can be introduced into a flock through personnel or equipment that has been in contact with infected birds or contaminated materials. For example, personnel working with infected flocks or equipment used in infected flocks can spread the pathogen to uninfected flocks.

Symptoms and diagnosis of E. cecorum in broilers

Enterococcus cecorum infections in broilers can present a range of symptoms, from mild to severe. The most common symptom noticed with E. cecorum is paralysis, which is due to an inflammatory mass that develops in the spinal column at the level of the free thoracic vertebra (FTV). Recognition of this spinal lesion has given rise to several disease names for pathogenic E. cecorum infection, which include vertebral osteomyelitis, vertebral enterococcal osteomyelitis and arthritis, enterococcal spondylitis (ES), spondylolisthesis and, colloquially, “kinky-back” (Jung et al. 2018).

E. cecorum infections can exhibit increased mortality due to septicemia in the early growing period. In this sepsis phase, the clinical signs of E. cecorum may include fibrinous pericarditis, perihepatitis, and air-sacculitis. These lesions might be confused with other systemic bacterial infections like colibacillosis. Therefore, a pure culture is needed for the correct diagnosis of E. cecorum.

The second phase of mortality due to dehydration and starvation of the paralyzed birds can be observed during the finisher phase peaking during 5-6 weeks of age. Paralysis from infection of the free thoracic vertebra is the most striking feature of this disease, with affected birds exhibiting a classic sitting position with both legs extended cranially (Brost et al., 2017).

Diagnosis of E. cecorum in broilers can be challenging, as the symptoms of infection can be similar to those of other bacterial or viral infections. However, a combination of clinical signs, post-mortem examination, and laboratory testing can help to confirm the presence of E. cecorum. Laboratory tests such as bacterial culture and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can be used to identify the pathogen and also to determine its antibiotic susceptibility. Veterinarians and poultry health professionals can work with producers to develop a diagnostic plan and implement appropriate control measures to manage E. cecorum infections in broiler flocks.

Prevention and Control of Enterococcus cecorum

The broiler producers/ managers should work with their veterinarians and poultry health professionals to develop an integrated approach to control the spread of E. cecorum and prevent its negative impact on broiler health and productivity.

Currently, there is no commercial vaccine available for preventing pathogenic E. cecorum infection. Therefore, controlling Enterococcus cecorum infection in broiler flocks requires a multifaceted approach that addresses the various modes of transmission and bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

Implementing strict biosecurity protocols, such as controlling access to the farm, disinfecting equipment and facilities, and implementing proper hygiene protocols throughout the integrated broiler operation, can help to minimize the risk of transmission.

Thorough washing of trays and chick boxes in the hatchery with hot water (60-62°C) mixed with an effective disinfectant can reduce the possible vertical transmission of E. cecorum. The vertical transmission may also be prevented by adopting the practice of separating the dirty floor eggs from clean hatching eggs and setting them in the lower racks of the incubator.

Generally, pathogenic isolates from poultry were found to be significantly more drug-resistant than commensal strains (Borst et al., 2012). The selection of an effective antibiotic for the treatment of E. cecorum should be made based on the results of the antibiotic sensitivity test. Antibiotic therapy may not help with paralyzed birds, which ultimately need to be culled. Reducing the use of antibiotics and implementing prudent use practices can help to reduce the development of antibiotic resistance in E. cecorum and other bacteria.

Probiotics can help to maintain the balance of the gut microbiota and may have a protective effect against E. cecorum infections. Fernandez et al. (2019) reported the inhibitory activities of proprietary poultry Bacillus strains against pathogenic isolates of E. cecorum in vitro, but effects are highly strain-dependent and vary significantly among different pathogenic isolates.

Phytogenic compounds and organic acids have been shown to have antimicrobial properties. Phytomolecule-based preparations may help to control E. cecorum infections in broiler flocks in the first week of life, reducing the chances of its translocation from the intestine.

Phytomolecules-based liquid formulations for on-farm drinking water application can also be a handy tool to manage gut health challenges, especially during risk periods in the life of broilers. Such liquid phytomolecule preparations can help to quickly achieve the desired concentration of the active ingredients for a faster antimicrobial effect.

However, these alternatives to antibiotics may be effective only when the E. cecorum is still localized within the gut during the first two weeks of the broiler chicken’s life.

Phytomolecules, also known as phytochemicals, are naturally occurring plant compounds that have been found to have antimicrobial properties. Especially for commercial poultry, nutraceuticals such as phytochemicals showed promising effects, improving the intestinal microbial balance, metabolism, and integrity of the gut due to their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, immune modulating, and bactericidal properties (Estevez, 2015). Phytogenic compounds have been studied for their potential use in controlling gut pathogens in poultry. Here are some of the roles that phytomolecules can play in controlling gut pathogens:

Antimicrobial activity: Several phytomolecules, such as essential oils, flavonoids, and tannins, have been found to have antimicrobial activity.  Hovorková et al (2018) studied the inhibitory effects of hydrolyzed plant oils (palm, red palm, palm kernel, coconut, babassu, murumuru, tucuma, and Cuphea oil) containing medium-chain fatty acids (MCFAs) against Gram-positive pathogenic and beneficial bacteria. They concluded that all the hydrolyzed oils were active against all tested bacteria (Clostridium perfringens, Enterococcus cecorum, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus), at 0.14–4.5 mg/ml, the same oils did not show any effect on commensal bacteria (Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp.). However, further research is needed to test the in-vivo efficacy of phytogenic compounds against pathogenic E. cecorum infections in poultry.

Anti-inflammatory activity: The other coinfecting gut pathogens of E. cecorum can cause inflammation in the intestinal tract of poultry. This can lead to reduced feed intake and growth. Some phytomolecules have been found to have anti-inflammatory activity and can reduce the severity of inflammation. Capsaicin, a naturally occurring bioactive compound in chili peppers, was found to have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity. The tendency of capsaicin to substantially diminish the release of COX-2 mRNA is thought to be the reason for its anti-inflammatory effects (Liu et al., 2021).  Thyme oil reduced the synthesis and gene expression of TNF-α, IL-1B, and IL-6 in activated macrophages in a dose-dependent manner, with upregulation of IL-10 secretion (Osana and Reglero, 2012). Cinnamaldehyde has been shown to decrease the expression of several cytokines, such as IL-1 β, IL-6, and TNF-α, as well as iNOS and COX-2, in in-vitro studies (Pannee et al., 2014).

Antioxidant activity: Oxidative stress may contribute to the development of E. cecorum infections in poultry. Phytomolecules, such as polyphenols and carotenoids, have been found to have antioxidant activity and can reduce oxidative stress in the gut of poultry, which can help to prevent E. cecorum infections. Polyphenols widely exist in a variety of plants and have been used for various purposes because of their strong antioxidant ability (Crozier et al., 2009). Quercetin, a flavonoid compound widely present in vegetables and fruits, is well-known for its potent antioxidant effects (Saeed et al., 2017).

Phytomolecules can also modulate the immune system of poultry, which can help to prevent E. cecorum infections. For example, some flavonoids and polysaccharides have been found to enhance the immune response of poultry. Fahnani et. al. (2019) found that supplementing broiler chickens with a combination of flavonoids and polysaccharides extracted from the mushroom Agaricus blazei enhanced their immune response.

Overall, phytomolecules have shown promise in supporting the optimum gut health of poultry. Many phytogenic preparations available in the market can be regarded as an important tool to reduce the use of antibiotics in animal production and mitigate the risk of antimicrobial resistance. However, more research is needed to develop an effective combination of active ingredients, as well as strategies for their use in controlling E. cecorum infections in poultry.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the emergence of pathogenic strains of E. cecorum is becoming a major concern for broiler producers globally. This bacterial pathogen can cause significant economic losses in the broiler industry by affecting the overall health and productivity of the birds. Pathogenic E. cecorum infection can lead to clinical signs including diarrhea, decreased feed intake, reduced growth rate, and increased mortality. Proactive measures must be taken to prevent the introduction and spread of pathogenic E. cecorum in broiler flocks. Implementing strict biosecurity protocols and proper disinfection procedures can help reduce the risk of E. cecorum infection. The use of effective antibiotics after receiving the results of the antibiotics sensitivity test is a crucial step in controlling the infection. Phytomolecule-based preparations can be a potential alternative to control the load of E. cecorum by maintaining optimum gut health to minimize economic losses. Moreover, ongoing surveillance and monitoring of pathogenic E. cecorum prevalence in the broiler industry can assist in the timely detection and control of outbreaks.

In summary, the emergence of pathogenic E. Cecorum as a profit killer in the broiler industry warrants careful attention and proactive management practices to minimize its impact.

References:

Borst, L. B., M. M. Suyemoto, A. H. Sarsour, M. C. Harris, M. P. Martin, J. D. Strickland, E. O. Oviedo, and H. J. Barnes. “Pathogenesis of Enterococcal Spondylitis Caused by Enterococcus cecorum in Broiler Chickens”. Vet. Pathol. 54:61-73. 2017.

Crozier A., Jaganath I.B., Clifford M.N. “Dietary phenolics: Chemistry, bioavailability and effects on health”. Nat. Prod. Rep. 2009;26:1001–1043.

De Herdt, P., P. Defoort, J. Van Steelant, H. Swam, L. Tanghe, S. Van Goethem, and M.

593 Vanrobaeys. “Enterococcus cecorum osteomyelitis and arthritis in broiler chickens”. Vlaams Diergeneeskundig Tijdschrift 78:44-48. 2009.

Estévez, M. “Oxidative damage to poultry: From farm to fork”. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 1368–1378.

Fanhani, Jamile & Murakami, Alice & Guerra, Ana & Nascimento, Guilherme & Pedroso, Raíssa & Alves, Marília. (2016). “Agaricus blazei in the diet of broiler chickens on immunity, serum parameters and antioxidant activity”. Semina: Ciencias Agrarias. 37. 2235-2246.

Hovorková P., Laloučková K., Skřivanová E. (2018): “Determination of in vitro antibacterial activity of plant oils containing medium-chain fatty acids against Gram-positive pathogenic and gut commensal bacteria”. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 63: 119-125.

Jung, A., and S. Rautenschlein. “Comprehensive report of an Enterococcus cecorum infection in a broiler flock in Northern Germany. BMC Vet. Res. 10:311. 2014.

Jung, A., M. Metzner, and M. Ryll. “Comparison of pathogenic and non-pathogenic Enterococcus cecorum strains from different animal species”. BMC Microbiol. 17:33. 2017.

Jung, Arne, Laura R. Chen, M. Mitsu Suyemoto, H. John Barnes, and Luke B. Borst. “A Review of Enterococcus Cecorum Infection in Poultry.” Avian Diseases 62, no. 3 (2018): 261–71.

Liu, S.J.; Wang, J.; He, T.F.; Liu, H.S.; Piao, X.S. “Effects of natural capsicum extract on growth performance, nutrient utilization, antioxidant status, immune function, and meat quality in broilers”. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 101301.

Martin, L. T., M. P. Martin, and H. J. Barnes. “Experimental reproduction of enterococcal spondylitis in male broiler breeder chickens”. Avian Dis. 55:273-278. 2011.

Ocaña, A.; Reglero, G. “Effects of thyme extract oils (from Thymus Vulgaris, Thymus Zygis and Thymus hyemalis) on cytokine production and gene expression of OxLDL-stimulated THP-1-macrophages”. J. Obes. 2012, 2012, 104706.

Pannee C, Chandhanee I, Wacharee L. “Antiinflammatory effects of essential oil from the leaves of Cinnamomum cassia and cinnamaldehyde on lipopolysaccharide-stimulated J774A.1 cells”. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2014 Oct;5(4):164-70. 

Saeed, M.; Naveed, M.; Arain, M.A.; Arif, M.; Abd El-Hack, M.E.; Alagawany, M.; Siyal, F.A.; Soomro, R.N.; Sun, C. “Quercetin: Nutritional and beneficial effects in poultry”. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2017, 73, 355–364.

Suyemoto, M. M., H. J. Barnes, and L. B. Borst. “Culture methods impact recovery of antibiotic-resistant Enterococci including Enterococcus cecorum from pre- and postharvest chicken”. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 64:210-216. 2017.

Thoefner, I. C., Jens Peter. Investigation of the pathogenesis of Enterococcus cecorum after 736 intravenous, intratracheal or oral experimental infections of broilers and broiler breeders. In: 737 VETPATH. Prato, Italy. 2016.

By Han Zhanqiang, Poultry Technical Manager, EWN China

Poultry meat accounts for more than one-third of global meat production. With increasing demand levels, the industry faces several challenges. Among them is the continuous supply of day-old chicks, which is affected by various issues. Mitigation strategies should be taken to ensure the supply of good quality day-old chicks to production farms.

Fast-growing broilers versus fit breeders

The poultry industry is challenged by the broiler-breeder paradox: on the one hand, fast-growing broilers are desirable for meat production. On the other hand, the parents of these broilers have the same genetic traits, but in order to be fit for reproduction, their body weight should be controlled. Thus, feed restriction programs, considering breeder nutritional requirements, are necessary to achieve breed standards for weight, uniformity, body structure, and reproductive system development, determining the success of day-old chick production.

Mycotoxins affect breeder productivity

During the rearing period, gut health problems such as coccidiosis, necrotic enteritis, and dysbiosis affect flocks. Also during the laying period, breeder flocks are also susceptible to disturbances in gut health, especially during stressful periods, leading to reduced egg production and an increase in off-spec eggs. One measure to restrain these challenges is the strict quality control of the feed. In this context, contamination with mycotoxins is an important topic. However, due to the nature of fungal contamination and limitations of sampling procedures, mycotoxins may not be detected or may be present at levels considered low and not risky.

Existing studies on mycotoxins in breeders indicate that mycotoxins can cause varying degrees of reduction in egg production and hatchability and are also associated with increased embryonic mortality. Recent studies have shown that low levels of mycotoxins interact with other stressors and may lead to reduced productivity. These losses are often mistaken for normal breeder lot variation. However, they cause economic losses far greater than normal flock-to-flock variability.

Mycotoxins impair the functionality of the gut

Low mycotoxin levels affect gut health. Individually and in combinations, mycotoxins such as DON, FUM, and T2 can impact gut functions such as digestion, absorption, permeability, immunity, and microbial balance. This is critical in feed-restricted flocks because it decreases body weight and uniformity, and in laying animals, egg production and egg quality can be reduced. Absorption of calcium and vitamin D3, which are critical for eggshell formation, depends on gut integrity and the efficiency of digestion and absorption. These factors can be adversely affected by even low mycotoxin levels: eggshells can become thin and brittle, thereby reducing hatching eggs and increasing early embryo mortality.

Prevention is the key to success in day-old chick production, therefore:

• avoid the use of raw materials with known mycotoxin contamination.
• use feed additives prophylactically, especially with anti-mycotoxin and antioxidant properties.

Prevention is an alternative approach to assure health and productivity in -many times unknown- mycotoxin challenges.

Figure 1: Effect of mycotoxins on eggshell quality and embryo death (Caballero, 2020)

University trial shows anti-mycotoxin product improving performance

A recent study by the University of Zagreb confirmed that long-term (13 weeks) exposure to feed contaminated with mycotoxins has an impact on egg production performance – a challenge that could be counteracted by using an anti-mycotoxin product.

The negative control (NC) was offered feed without mycotoxins. In contrast, the challenged control (CC), as well as a third group, received feed contaminated with 200ppb of T2, 100ppb of DON, and 2500ppb of FMB1. To the feed of the third group, an anti-mycotoxin feed additive (Mastersorb Gold, EW Nutrition) was given on top (CC+MG).

Figure 2: Influence of mycotoxins on feed intake and the effect of the anti-mycotoxin product Mastersorb Gold

Figure 3: The effect of mycotoxins on the cumulative number of eggs and the compensating effect of Mastersorb Gold

Figure 4: The impact of mycotoxins on the cumulative egg mass and the countereffect of Mastersorb Gold

As expected, the contaminated feed reduced feed intake, egg production, and egg weight (Fig. 2-4). Moreover, the liver and gut were affected which was evidenced in histopathological lesion scores of the organs: the control group had the lowest score, followed by the group fed Mastersorb Gold. The challenged group without any anti-mycotoxin product scored the highest.

Breeders are susceptible to mycotoxins and need our support

Broiler breeders and day-old chick production can be affected by long-term exposure to mycotoxins, which often exceeds the tolerance range of average flocks. To reduce or even prevent the potential impact of mycotoxins, a comprehensive management strategy is crucial. This includes responsible raw material procurement, storage, and feed processing leading to high feed quality, and the consideration of breeders’ nutrient demands. The inclusion of highly effective products to manage mycotoxin risk is an additional tool to maintain breeder performance.