By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor, and Dr. Ruturaj Patil, Global Product Manager – Phytogenics, EW Nutrition 

For millennia, plants have been used for medicinal purposes in human and veterinary medicine and as spices in the kitchen. Since the ban of antibiotic growth promoters in 2006 by the European Union, they also came into focus in animal nutrition. Due to their digestive, antimicrobial, and gut health-promoting characteristics, they seemed an ideal alternative to compensate for the reduced use of antibiotics in critical periods such as brooding, feed change or gut-related stress.

To optimize the benefits of phytomolecules, it is crucial that

• the phytomolecules levels are standardized for consistent results and synergy
• they show the highest stability during stringent feed processing; being often highly volatile substances, they should not get lost at high temperatures and pressure
• the phytomolecules are preferably completely released and available in the animal to achieve the best effectiveness.

First step: Standardized phytomolecules

Essential oils and other phytogenics are sourced from plants. The composition of the plants substantially depends on genetic dissimilarity within accessions, plant origin, the site conditions, such as weather, soil, community, and harvest time, but also sample drying, storage, and extraction processes (Sadeh et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2018; Ehrlinger, 2007). For example, the oil extracted from thyme can contain between 22 and 71 % of the relevant phenol thymol (Soković et al., 2009; Shabnum and Wagay, 2011; Kowalczyk et al., 2020).

Modern technology enables the production of standardized phytomolecules with the highest degree of purity and lowest possible batch-to-batch variation for high-quality products. It also offers increased environmental and economic sustainability due to reliable and cost-effective sourcing technology.

Using such highly standardized phytomolecules enables the production of phytogenic-based feed supplements of consistently high quality.

Second step: Selection of the most suitable phytomolecules

Phytomolecules have different primary characteristics. Some support digestion (Cho et al., 2006, Oetting, 2006; Hernandez, 2004); others act against pathogens (Sienkiewitz et al., 2013; Smith-Palmer et al., 1998; Özer et al., 2007) or are antioxidants (Wei and Shibamoto, 2007; Cuppett and Hall, 1998). To optimize gut health in animal production, one of the main promising mechanisms is reducing pathogens while promoting beneficial microbes. The decrease of pathogens in the gut not only decreases the risk of enteritis incidence but also eliminates the inconvenient competitors for feed.

In order to find out the best combination serving the intended purpose, a high number of different phytomolecules need to be evaluated concerning their structure, chemical properties, and biological activities first. Availability and costs of the substances are further factors to consider. With the selection of the most suitable phytomolecules, different mixtures are produced and tested for their effectiveness. Here, it is essential to concern synergistic or antagonistic effects.

For an effective and efficient blend of phytomolecules, many steps of selection and tests are necessary – and as a result, possibly only a few mixtures can meet the requirements.

Third step: Protecting the ingredients

Many phytomolecules are inherently highly volatile. So, only having a standardized content of phytogenics in the product can not ensure the full availability of phytomolecules when used through animal feed. Some parts of the ingredients might already get lost in the feed mill due to the stringent feed hygienization process followed by feed millers to reduce pathogenic load. The heating is a significant challenge for the highly-volatile components in a phytomolecule-based product. So, protecting these phytomolecules becomes imperative to guarantee that the phytomolecules put into the feed will reach the animal.

A delicate balancing act is required to ensure the availability and activity of phytomolecules at the right site in the gut. The phytomolecules must not get lost during feed processing but must also be released in the intestine. A carrier with capillary binding of the phytomolecules together with a protective coating can be one of the available effective solutions. It protects the ingredients during feed processing, and ensures the release in the animal.

Study shows excellent stability of Ventar D under challenging conditions

Ventar D is a latest generation phytomolecule-based solution for gut health optimization introduced by ​EW Nutrition, GmbH. A scientific study was conducted to compare the stability of Ventar D, in the pelleting process, with two leading phytogenics competitor feed supplements.

For this trial, feed with the different added phytogenic feed supplements had to undergo a conditioning and pelletization process. The active ingredients were analyzed before and after the pelletization process. All phytogenic feed supplements under testing were added to standard broiler feed at the producer’s recommended inclusion rate. The tests took place under conditioning times of 45, 90, and 180 seconds and pelleting temperatures of 70, 80, and 90°C (158, 176, and 194°F). After cooling, triplicate samples were collected and analyzed. The respective marker substance was analyzed through gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis to measure the recovery rate in the finished feed. The phytomolecule content of the mash feed (before pelletization) found by the laboratory was used as a baseline and set to 100% recovery. The recovery rates of the pelleted feed were evaluated relative to this baseline.

The results are presented in figure 1. Ventar D showed the highest stability of active ingredients with recovery rates of 90% at 70°C/45 sec. or 80°C/90 sec and 84% at 90°C/180 sec. The modern production technology used for Ventar D ensures that the active ingredients are well protected throughout the pelletization process.

Figure 1: Phytomolecule stability under processing conditions, relative to mash baseline (100%)

Another trial was conducted in a feed mill in the US. For this trial, ten samples were collected from different batches of mash feed where Ventar D was added at 110g/t. Conditioning of the mash feed was at 87.8°C (190°F) for 6 minutes and 45 seconds. After the pelleting process, ten samples from the pelleted feed were collected from the continuous flow with a 5 min gap between the samplings to determine Ventar D’s recovery.

The average recovery achieved for Ventar D was 92%.

Trials show improved growth performance

Initial trials showed Ventar D’s complete release in digestion models. To examine the benefit in in-vivo conditions, Ventar D was tested in broilers at an inclusion rate of 100 g/MT.

Several in vitro studies proved the antimicrobial activity of Ventar D. One test also confirms that Ventar D could exhibit differential antimicrobial activity by having stronger activity against common enteropathogenic bacteria while sparing the beneficial ones (Heinzl, 2022). Moreover, Ventar D’s antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity support better gut barrier functioning. Better gut health leads to higher growth performance and improved feed conversion, which could be demonstrated in several trials with broilers (figures 2 and 3). In the tests, a group fed Ventar D was compared to either a control group with no such feed supplement or groups supplied with competitor products at the recommended inclusion rates.

Compared to a negative control group, the Ventar D group consistently showed a higher average daily gain of 0.3-4.1 g (0.5-8.5 %)  and a 3-4 points better feed conversion. Compared to competitor products, Ventar D provided 1-1.7 g (2-3 %) higher average daily gain and a 3 points better /1 point higher FCR than competitors 2 and 1.

Figure 2: Average daily gain (g) – results of several trials conducted with broilers

Figure 3: FCR – results of several trials conducted with broilers

Standardization and new technologies for higher profitability

Several in vitro and in vivo studies proved that Ventar D takes “phytomolecules’ power” to the next level: Combining standardized phytomolecules and optimal active ingredient protection leads to superior product stability during feed processing. The higher amount of active ingredients arriving in the gut improves gut health and increases the production performance of the animals. Ventar D shows how we can use phytomolecules more effectively and benefit from higher farm profitability.

References:

Cho, J. H., Y. J. Chen, B. J. Min, H. J. Kim, O. S. Kwon, K. S. Shon, I. H. Kim, S. J. Kim, and A. Asamer. “Effects of Essential Oils Supplementation on Growth Performance, IGG Concentration and Fecal Noxious Gas Concentration of Weaned Pigs”. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 19, no. 1 (2005): 80–85. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2006.80.

Cuppett, Susan L., and Clifford A. Hall. “Antioxidant Activity of the Labiatae”. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998): 245–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1043-4526(08)60097-2.

Ehrlinger, M. “Phytogenic Additives in Animal Nutrition.” Dissertation, Veterinary Faculty of the Ludwig Maximilians University, 2007.

Heinzl, I. “Efficient Microbiome Modulation with Phytomolecules”. EW Nutrition, August 30, 2022. https://ew-nutrition.com/pushing-microbiome-in-right-direction-phytomolecules/.

Hernández, F., J. Madrid, V. García, J. Orengo, and M.D. Megías. “Influence of Two Plant Extracts on Broilers Performance, Digestibility, and Digestive Organ Size.” Poultry Science 83, no. 2 (2004): 169–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.2.169.

Kowalczyk, Adam, Martyna Przychodna, Sylwia Sopata, Agnieszka Bodalska, and Izabela Fecka. “Thymol and Thyme Essential Oil—New Insights into Selected Therapeutic Applications.” Molecules 25, no. 18 (2020): 4125. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25184125.

Lindner, , U. “Aromatic Plants – Cultivation and Use.” Düsseldorf: Teaching and Research Institute for Horticulture Auweiler-Friesdorf, 1987.

Oetting, Liliana Lotufo, Carlos Eduardo Utiyama, Pedro Agostinho Giani, Urbano dos Ruiz, and Valdomiro Shigueru Miyada. “Efeitos De Extratos Vegetais e Antimicrobianos Sobre a Digestibilidade Aparente, O Desempenho, a Morfometria Dos Órgãos e a Histologia Intestinal De Leitões Recém-Desmamados.” Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 35, no. 4 (2006): 1389–97. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1516-35982006000500019.

Sadeh, Dganit, Nadav Nitzan, David Chaimovitsh, Alona Shachter, Murad Ghanim, and Nativ Dudai. “Interactive Effects of Genotype, Seasonality and Extraction Method on Chemical Compositions and Yield of Essential Oil from Rosemary (Rosmarinus Officinalis L”.).” Industrial Crops and Products 138 (2019): 111419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.05.068.

Shabnum, Shazia, and Muzafar G. Wagay. “Essential Oil Composition of Thymus Vulgaris L. and Their Uses”. Journal of Research & Development 11 (2011): 83–94.

Sienkiewicz, Monika, Monika Łysakowska, Marta Pastuszka, Wojciech Bienias, and Edward Kowalczyk. “The Potential of Use Basil and Rosemary Essential Oils as Effective Antibacterial Agents.” Molecules 18, no. 8 (2013): 9334–51. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules18089334.

Smith-Palmer, A., J. Stewart, and L. Fyfe. “Antimicrobial Properties of Plant Essential Oils and Essences against Five Important Food-Borne Pathogens”. Letters in Applied Microbiology 26, no. 2 (1998): 118–22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-765x.1998.00303.x.

Soković, Marina, Jelena Vukojević, Petar Marin, Dejan Brkić, Vlatka Vajs, and Leo Van Griensven. “Chemical Composition of Essential Oils of Thymus and Mentha Species and Their Antifungal Activities”. Molecules 14, no. 1 (2009): 238–49. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules14010238.

Wei, Alfreda, and Takayuki Shibamoto. “Antioxidant Activities and Volatile Constituents of Various Essential Oils.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 55, no. 5 (2007): 1737–42. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf062959x.

Yang, Li, Kui-Shan Wen, Xiao Ruan, Ying-Xian Zhao, Feng Wei, and Qiang Wang. “Response of Plant Secondary Metabolites to Environmental Factors”. Molecules 23, no. 4 (2018): 762. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23040762.

Özer, Hakan, Münevver Sökmen, Medine Güllüce, Ahmet Adigüzel, Fikrettin Şahin, Atalay Sökmen, Hamdullah Kiliç, and Özlem Bariş. “Chemical Composition and Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activities of the Essential Oil and Methanol Extract of Hippomarathrum Microcarpum (Bieb.) from Turkey”. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 55, no. 3 (2007): 937–42. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0624244.

By Predrag Persak, Regional Technical Manager Europe, EW Nutrition

Imagine you’re at a pub quiz dedicated to feed production, and this question pops up: name a process that returns up to 25 times what was invested in it. Do you know the answer? I’m pretty sure you are probably using it every day: pelleting. For every unit of used energy, pelleting generates up to 25 times more in terms of the nutritional value for animals (mostly metabolizable energy).

The math is simple: while we gain 200 kcal/kg by pelleting broiler mash feed, only 10 Kilowatts are used to produce one ton of broiler feed. This is just one example of how sustainability is at the core of feed production – and has always been, long before it became a buzzword. So, to all those who operate feed mills, who take care of sourcing and quality, and to those behind numbers that represent nutritional values: You are pioneers of sustainability and should be proud of that.

How feed processing can drive sustainability efforts

Besides being proud, we must also be very responsible. Every nutritionist should focus on

1. how processing of feed materials and feed influences the release of nutrients, nutrient density, and exclusion of antinutrients, and
2. how processing can improve these dimensions, making feed more sustainable.

Do we take processing sufficiently into consideration? Do we create formulations in a dynamic or more static way? Not least in an era of precision feeding, the shift from static to dynamic is inevitable.

This is even clearer when we consider how processing can influence digestion, absorption, and the performance of animals. How so? Feed processing makes previously unusable materials suitable for nutrition or improves already usable materials. So, the feed processing itself is a key to sustainability.

Through processing, we alter the physical, chemical, and edible properties of used feed materials, making them usable for animals. Through proper processing, we improve the digestibility of feed materials by up to 20%, enabling a more effective – and thus more sustainable – use of feed resources. In practice, there is room for improvement to make feed processing even more of a sustainability champion.

Moisture optimization is key to energy-efficient pelleting

Let’s take a closer look at pelleting since it requires the most energy within feed processing. How much energy is used? This depends on many factors and can range from 5 KW/h up to 25. Pelleting is mostly used in broiler diets to reduce nutrient segregation and feed sorting and, by extension, feed wastage. Pelleting has also been found to increase the weight gain of individual birds and flock uniformity, and overall feed efficiency is higher.

Pelleting involves the agglomeration of mixed feed into whole pellets through a mechanical process using heat, moisture, and pressure (Falk, 1985). Heat (energy that is transported through steam) has the largest impact on pelleting efficacy. Steam injected during conditioning increases feed moisture and temperature, softens feed particles, extracts natural binders, and reduces friction which leads to greater production rates and pellet quality (Skoch et al., 1981).

The key to an efficient pelleting process is to set the parameters at the levels that will enable proper energy transfer from steam to feed particles. Besides steam quality, the moisture of the feed is a critical factor for efficient energy transfer. Generally, the thermal conductivity of the most used feed materials increases with increasing moisture. A level of 17% moisture in the conditioner is needed for efficient energy transfer. Below 17%, we need more steam (more energy) or more time (more capacity) to achieve the same result. That is why proper moisture optimization is needed to use the energy transferred through steam in the most efficient way.

Reduce shrinkage, improve sustainability

What about shrinkage? Shrinkage is not just a cost factor but a sustainability issue. We must not lose scarce and valuable materials and nutrients. Overall shrinkage tends to be around 1%. For global feed production as a whole, 1% annual shrinkage is equivalent to 15 years of Croatian compound feed production!

We help our industry to keep up sustainability efforts in terms of energy savings and shrinkage reduction by offering SurfAce. It’s a liquid preservative premixture with multiple economic and environmental benefits to the customer. It helps increase pellet output, improves conditioning, enhances the durability of the pelleted feed, reduces the formation of fines, and improves the overall quality of the final feed product. But most importantly, it optimizes feed production costs through energy savings and reduced labor input while also supporting the microbiological quality of the feed.

In the food sector, we have seen vast improvements in non-thermal food processing over the past decade. Examples include ultrasonication, cold plasma technology, supercritical technology, irradiation, pulsed electric field, high hydrostatic pressure, pulsed ultraviolet technology, and ozone treatment. I’m sure some of these technologies will be applied to feed processing one day. Until then, we must keep up our high sustainability standards and make it more efficient by applying all available tools in our feed processing toolbox.

References

Falk, D. “Pelleting Cost Center.” Essay. In Feed Manufacturing Technology III, edited by Robert R. McEllhiney, 167–90. Arlington, VA: American Feed Industry Association, 1981.

Skoch, E.R., K.C. Behnke, C.W. Deyoe, and S.F. Binder. “The Effect of Steam-Conditioning Rate on the Pelleting Process.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 6, no. 1 (1981): 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(81)90033-x.

By Marisabel Caballero, Global Technical Manager Poultry, EW Nutrition

COVID-19 and its aftermath, the Russia-Ukraine war, and climate change have all contributed to the current crisis. Energy price increases, supply chain difficulties, and raw material availability and rising prices are all consequences felt deeply across the animal production sector. It is now time that the industry puts in place mitigation plans and starts taking action.

Cost and availability of fats – a looming problem

The lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019/2020 caused a rapid drop in energy demand and therefore a cut in global oil production. In 2021, as normality was recovered, it was met an energy supply-demand imbalance leading to a global supply chain crisis that further stressed the delivery of energy sources. In 2022, one of Europe’s driest summers compounded by the Russian-Ukrainian war have greatly contributed to the increasing energy prices.

With two of the largest suppliers of grains and oil – Russia and Ukraine – at war, the global food supply and prices are also compromised. These two countries provide the world with more than 20% of all wheat and barley, 15% of corn and 60% of sunflower oil (FAO, 2022).

 

Moreover, corn and soybean yields in South America also fell sharply in 2019-20 and 2021-22 due to the impact of La Nina and are expected to continue being low in the next season.

Biofuels and animal production compete for crops

Biofuels have been seen as a solution to decrease fossil-fuel energy dependance. Before the war, global biofuel production was at a record high. However, in the current crisis, biofuels may be a contributor to the rise in food prices, as they use a significant percentage of feed-production crops. Only in the US, around 30% of the corn production goes into biofuels, while biodiesel accounts for 40% of soybean oil use (O’Malley & Searle, 2021).

For the animal production industry, maintaining performance and profitability during price hikes involves a combination of strategies. Feed production accounts for up to 70% of meat production costs. With the soaring energy and raw material crisis, feed production costs are on the spot.

The impact of fat in pelleting process output

Oils and fats generally are added to animal feeds as a rich source of energy and other essential nutrients. For the feed production unit, fats can be a pellet quality and energy output enhancer.

During the pelleting process, fat can increase production output, save energy, and prolong the production life of the die as it can act as a lubricant during the process. The feed ingredients contain fat, and a portion of fat/oil is usually added in the mixer. Too much in-mixer fat addition (higher than 2%) negatively affects pellet quality, and when fat is too low (no addition), the production rate decreases. Fats and oils are also added through a pellet coating system, which has been demonstrated to improve pellet quality.

In fats/oils high cost and shortage scenarios, feed production managers and nutritionists are faced with the challenge of production with higher constraints. In-mixer fat addition has consequences in throughput. However, in-mixer moisture addition facilitates conditioner steam penetration into the feed particles. With that, the efficiency of the process may be partially recovered.

Solving the efficiency & quality equation

Simply adding water into the mixer does not give optimal results: Surfactants, on the other hand, improve moisture penetration into the feed particles and increase lubrication at pellet die point. By reducing the surface tension of water, surfactants enable the feed particles to absorb and distribute the moisture uniformly.

Improved moisture retention facilitates the starch gelatinization during mash conditioning and passing through the pellet die. This is important to make the pellet more durable and the feed more digestible. It also reduces friction and hence the energy required for the pelleting process (improving milling efficiency). At the same time, surfactants aid with pellet water retention, minimizing feed shrinkage without increasing water activity, thus curbing feed microbial growth.

What difference can an effective surfactant make?

The effect of adding SURF•ACE to diets with different levels of fat was evaluated in more than 40 feed mills, with production capacities ranging from 5 to 20 tons per hour. SURF•ACE is added to water sprayed during mixing. This solution lubricates the mash feed, improves steam penetration and starch gelatinization, and thus reduces friction in the pellet die. The results show that, relative to pure water, the addition of SURF•ACE increases press throughout (t/h) by up to 25%.

 

Prioritize efficiency to compensate current challenges

Operating in a tight margin environment, feed mills always need to prioritize efficiency. The advantages of using SURF•ACE feed mill processing aid are clear: reduced energy consumption without compromising pellet quality; moisture optimization; and higher productivity.

During times of increasingly high ingredient and energy costs, it is even more important to utilize savings opportunities at every production stage.

By Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor, Madalina Diaconu, Produt Manager Pretect D, and Dr. Ajay Awati, Global Category Manager Gut Health & Nutrition, EW Nutrition

Often you have an extensive coccidiosis control program in place. You don’t observe any clinical signs of coccidiosis. However, at the end of the cycle, you record significantly lower body weight and a higher FCR. There is a high probability that your animals have subclinical coccidiosis. This article digs deeper into understanding why birds don’t perform as they should, why subclinical coccidiosis occurs on the farm, and why drug resistance is an important factor.

Subclinical coccidiosis – a silent enemy

Clinical coccidiosis is clearly characterized by severe diarrhea, high mortality rates, reduced feed/water intake, and weight loss. By contrast, subclinical Coccidiosis does not display any visual signs and often remains undetected.

According to De Gussem (2008), the damages caused by subclinical coccidiosis can reach up to 70% of the total cost of coccidiosis control treatments, ranging from US$ 2.3 billion to US$ 13.8 billion/year in 2020 worldwide (De Gussem, 2008; Ferreira da Cunha, 2020; Blake et al., 2020).

Monitoring coccidiosis occurrence on the farm

There are several tools available to evaluate the level of infection. The most common ones are:

Lesion scoring – is used to evaluate the damages caused by coccidiosis in the intestinal tract. Lesion scoring gives insight into the severity of the infection. Furthermore, based on the location of lesions in the GI tract, it is possible to determine the plausible Eimeria spp. responsible for the infection.

OPG (Oocyst per gram) – the number of oocysts per gram of feces indicates the level of shedding of oocysts in the manure, litter, and, eventually, in the farm environment. OPG levels may not give the exact severity of the infection in the bird but certainly provide a clear idea of its likely spread within the flock.

Ways to deal with coccidiosis on the farm

Different tools are widely used to prevent and treat coccidiosis:

Anticoccidials:                  Chemicals, ionophores

Vaccination:                       Natural strains, attenuated strains

Bio-shuttle:                        Vaccine + ionophore

Natural anticoccidials:   Phytomolecules

These coccidiosis control programs are used depending on the farm history and the severity of the infection. Traditionally, treatment was heavily dependent on chemicals and ionophores. However, rampant and unbridled use of ionophores leads to resistance in Eimeria spp. on the farm, the failure of the control program, and significant performance losses, with high mortality due to coccidiosis. Therefore, the tools mentioned above are inserted in rotation or shuttle programs to minimize the generation of resistances. In a rotation program, the anticoccidial changes from flock to flock. In a shuttle program, the anticoccidial changes within one cycle according to the feed (Chapman, 1997).

However, this strategy is often not 100% effective due to a lack of diversity and overuse of certain tools within programs. The rigorous financial optimization of the program leads to the use of cost-effective but marginally effective solutions. These factors over the period weaken the program, which seems to work well but leads to resistance to anticoccidial drugs and sets up subclinical coccidiosis.

Resistances have been reported in the US (Jeffers, 1974, McDougald, 1981), South America (McDougald, 1987; Kawazoe and Di Fabio, 1994), Europe (Peeters et al., 1994; Bedrník et al., 1989; Stephan et al., 1997), Asia (Lan et al., 2017; Arabkhazaeli et al., 2013), and Africa (Ojimelukwe et al., 2018). Chapman and co-workers (1997) even stated that resistances were documented for all anticoccidial drugs employed at this time, and new products have not been approved for decades.

Resistance and subclinical coccidiosis can be approached naturally

When an anticoccidial has lost its effectiveness due to excessive use, some resistant coccidia survive. They can cause a mild course of the disease, subclinical coccidiosis, driving the costs high. Reducing the occurrence of resistance and subclinical coccidiosis can significantly decrease the expenses of coccidiosis control programs and, eventually, the cost of production.

Increasing consumer pressure to reduce the overall usage of drugs in animal production has driven innovation efforts to find natural solutions that can be effectively used within coccidiosis control programs. However, this shift was not easy for the producers. Lack of reliable data, poor understanding of the mode of action, lack of quality optimization, and unsubstantiated claims led to the failure of many earlier-generation natural solutions.

However, the consumer-driven movement to find natural solutions to animal gut health issues has recently led to relentless innovation in this area. Knowledge, research, and technological developments are now ready to offer solutions that can be an effective part of the coccidia control program and open opportunities to make poultry production even more sustainable by reducing drug dependency.

For centuries, phytomolecules have been used for their medicinal properties and effects on the health and well-being of animals and humans. In the case of coccidiosis, tannins and saponins have been proven to support animals in coping with this disease. Tannic acids and tannic acid extracts strengthen the intestinal barrier by reducing oxidative stress and inflammation (Tonda et al., 2018). On the other hand, saponins lessen the shedding of oocysts, improve the lesion score, and, in the case of an acute infection, the occurrence of bloody diarrhea (Youssef et al., 2021).

These natural substances can be integrated into shuttle or rotation programs to reduce the use of anticoccidials and, therefore, minimize resistance development.

Pretect D: Coccidiosis programs can be strengthened naturally!

In an EU field trial conducted with more than 200 000 birds, Pretect D (a natural phytogenic-based product designed to increase the efficacy of coccidiosis control) was used in the shuttle program together with ionophores. The trial provided excellent results on zootechnical performance (figures 1-4).

Figures 1-4: Zootechnical performance of broilers with Pretect D included in the shuttle program

Trials show that Pretect D supports the efficiency of coccidiosis control programs by impairing the Eimeria development cycle when used in combination with vaccines, ionophores, and chemicals as part of the shuttle or rotation program:

• It protects the epithelium from inflammatory and oxidative damage
• It promotes the restoration of the mucosal barrier function

Table 1 exemplifies one way of including a natural solution (Pretect D) in actual coccidiosis control programs.

Table 1: Exemple of including Pretect D into coccidiosis control programs

Natural solutions suit both farmers and consumers

With phytomolecules partly replacing anticoccidials in rotation or shuttle programs, the use of anticoccidials in poultry production can be decreased. On the one hand, this answers consumers’ demand; on the other hand, it leads to a push-back of resistances in the long run. The returning effectiveness of the anticoccidials can reduce subclinical coccidiosis, leading to lower costs spent on this disease and a higher profit for the farmers.

References:

Arabkhazaeli, F., M. Modrisanei, S. Nabian, B. Mansoori, and A. Madani. “Evaluating the Resistance of Eimeria spp. Field Isolates to Anticoccidial Drugs Using Three Different Indices.” Iran J Parasitol. 8, no. 2 (2013): 234–41.

Bedrník, P., P. Jurkovič, J. Kučera, and A. Firmanová. “Cross Resistance to the IONOPHOROUS Polyether Anticoccidial Drugs IN Eimeria Tenella Isolates from Czechoslovakia.” Poultry Science 68, no. 1 (1989): 89–93. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0680089

Blake, Damer P., Jolene Knox, Ben Dehaeck, Ben Huntington, Thilak Rathinam, Venu Ravipati, Simeon Ayoade, et al. “Re-Calculating the Cost of Coccidiosis in Chickens.” Veterinary Research 51, no. 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-020-00837-2

Chapman, H. D. “Biochemical, Genetic and Applied Aspects of Drug Resistance in Eimeria Parasites of the Fowl.” Avian Pathology 26, no. 2 (1997): 221–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079459708419208.

De Gussem, M., and S. Huang. “The Control of Coccidiosis in Poultry.” International Poultry Production 16, no. 5 (2008): 7–9.

Ferreira da Cunha, Anderson, Elizabeth Santin, and Michael Kogut. “Editorial: Poultry Coccidiosis: Strategies to Understand and Control.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.599322

Jeffers, T. K. “Eimeria Acervulina and E. Maxima: Incidence and Anticoccidial Drug Resistance of Isolants in Major Broiler-Producing Areas.” Avian Diseases 18, no. 3 (1974): 331. https://doi.org/10.2307/1589101

Kawazoe, Urara, and J. Di Fabio. “Resistance to DICLAZURIL in Field Isolates OfEimeriaspecies Obtained from Commercial BROILER Flocks in Brazil.” Avian Pathology 23, no. 2 (1994): 305–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079459408418998

Lan, L.-H., B.-B. Sun, B.-X.-Z. Zuo, X.-Q. Chen, and A.-F. Du. “Prevalence and Drug Resistance of Avian Eimeria Species in Broiler Chicken Farms of Zhejiang PROVINCE, CHINA.” Poultry Science 96, no. 7 (2017): 2104–9. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew499

McDougald, L. R. “Anticoccidial Drug Resistance in the Southeastern United STATES: POLYETHER, IONOPHOROUS Drugs.” Avian Diseases 25, no. 3 (1981): 600. https://doi.org/10.2307/1589990

McDougald, Larry R., Jose Maria Silva, Juan Solis, and Mauricio Braga. “A Survey of Sensitivity to Anticoccidial Drugs in 60 Isolates of Coccidia from Broiler Chickens in Brazil and Argentina.” Avian Diseases 31, no. 2 (1987): 287. https://doi.org/10.2307/1590874

Ojimelukwe, Agatha E., Deborah E. Emedhem, Gabriel O. Agu, Florence O. Nduka, and Austin E. Abah. “Populations of Eimeria Tenella Express Resistance to Commonly Used Anticoccidial Drugs in Southern Nigeria.” International Journal of Veterinary Science and Medicine 6, no. 2 (2018): 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijvsm.2018.06.003

Peeters, Johan E., Jef Derijcke, Mark Verlinden, and Ria Wyffels. “Sensitivity of AVIAN EIMERIA Spp. to Seven Chemical and Five Ionophore Anticoccidials in Five Belgian INTEGRATED Broiler Operations.” Avian Diseases 38, no. 3 (1994): 483. https://doi.org/10.2307/1592069

Stephan, B., M. Rommel, A. Daugschies, and A. Haberkorn. “Studies of Resistance to Anticoccidials IN Eimeria Field Isolates and Pure Eimeria Strains.” Veterinary Parasitology 69, no. 1-2 (1997): 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4017(96)01096-5

Tonda, RM, J.K. Rubach, B.S. Lumpkins, G.F. Mathis, and M.J. Poss. “Effects of Tannic Acid Extract on Performance and Intestinal Health of Broiler Chickens Following Coccidiosis Vaccination and/or a Mixed-Species Eimeria Challenge.” Poultry Science 97, no. 9 (2018): 3031–42. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey158

Youssef, Ibrahim M., Klaus Männer, and Jürgen Zentek. “Effect of Essential Oils or Saponins Alone or in Combination on Productive Performance, Intestinal Morphology and Digestive Enzymes’ Activity of Broiler Chickens.” Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 105, no. 1 (2020): 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13431

By Inge Heinzl and Ajay Bhoyar, EW Nutrition

Genetic selection for faster growth of breast muscle in broilers may lead to increased incidences of different types of muscle degeneration. Downgrading the affected breast fillets results in high economic losses for the poultry meat industry.

The article discusses the three important myopathies impairing the breast muscles, their impact on the meat industry, influencing factors, and how to cope with these challenges.

Muscle degeneration heaps up with faster broiler growth

According to Sirri and co-workers (2016), breast fillets from broilers with 3.9 kg live weight carry a higher risk for myopathic lesions. Studies in different countries revealed that myopathies in broilers are not neglectable:

Country	Myopathy	Number of breasts examined	Conditions	Occurrence	Reference
Italy	WS	28,000 broilers	commercial	12 %	Petracci et al., 2013
Italy	WS	70 flocks; always 500 of 35,000 breasts randomly examined	commercial	43%, with 6.2% considered severe	Lorenzi et al., 2014
Italy	WS	57 flocks	commercial	70.2 % (medium)-82.5 % (heavy-weight)	Russo et al., 2015
Italy	WS	16,000 samples	commercial	9 % moderate22 % severe	Petracci in Baldi et al., 2020
Brazil	WS	25,520	commercial	10 %	Ferreira et al., 2014
USA	WS	960 (week 6)+ 960 (week 9)	experimental	Score 1: 78.4 % (wk 6) 29.9 % (wk 9) Score 2: 14.0 % (wk 6) 53.9 % (wk 9) Score 3:0 % (wk 6) 15.1 % (wk 9)	Kuttapan et al., 2017
Brazil	WB		commercial	10-20 %	Carvalho, in Petracci et al., 2019
Italy	WB	16,000 samples	commercial	42 % moderate 18 % severe	Petracci, in Baldi et al., 2020
China	WB	1,135 breast fillets	commercial	61.9%	Xing et al., 2020
USA	WB	960 (week 6)+ 960 (week 9)	experimental	Score 1: 32.5 % (wk 6) 33.2 % (wk 9) Score 2: 7.9 % (wk 6) 36 % (wk 9) Score 3: 1.96 % (wk 6) 15.6 % (wk 9)	Kuttapan et al., 2017
Italy	SM	16,000 samples	commercial	4 % moderate 17 % severe	Petracci in Baldi et al., 2020
Brazil	SM	5,580 samples	commercial	10 %	Montagna et al., 2019

 

Figure 1: Different myopathies in broilers (R. Baileys)

As the appearance of products is one of the most important arguments for the purchase decision, these myopathies are serious issues; the downgrading of the breast quality results in a lower reward for the producer. Kuttapan et al. (2016) estimated that 90 % of the broilers are affected by wooden breast and white striping (see below), causing about $200 million to $1 billion of economic losses to the U.S. poultry industry per year.

Wooden Breast (WB), a result of the proliferation of connective tissues

The muscle affected by the wooden breast is bulging and hard, is covered with clear, viscous fluid, and shows petechiae (see figure 2). The myopathy of the pectoralis major is “pale expansive areas of substantial hardness accompanied by white striation” (Kuttapan, 2016; Huang and Ahn, 2018; Sihvo et al., 2013). It is characterized by microscopically visible polyphasic myodegenerations with fibrosis in the chronic phase. At approximately two weeks of age, it appears as a focal lesion but then develops as a widespread fibrotic injury (Papah et al., 2017). WB can be detected by palpating the breast of the live bird.

Figure 2: Comparison of a severe wooden breast (on the left) and a healthy breast fillet (on the right)

Source: Kuttapan et al., 2016

According to Kuttapan et al. (2016), the anomaly is caused by circulatory insufficiency and increased oxidative stress resulting in damage and degeneration. Its occurrence rose with increasing growth and slaughter weights of the birds. Wooden breast is more common in male than female broilers as they show an increased expression of genes related to the proliferation of connective tissues (Baldi et al., 2021).

The hardness of the meat, a 1.2 – 1.3 % higher fat content (Soglia et al., 2016, Tasoniero et al., 2016), and the worse appearance lead to a degradation of the fillet quality (Kuttappan et al., 2012). The reduction in the water holding capacity of muscle results in toughness before and after cooking.

White Striping (WS), a result of fiber degeneration

The characteristics of WS are white striations parallel to the muscle fibers. A microscopic examination of these white stripes reveals an accumulation of lipids and a proliferation of connective tissue occurring in breast fillets and thighs (Kuttappan et al., 2013a; Huang and Ahn, 2018). Kuttapan et al. (2016) adapted a scoring system for the evaluation of the severity of WS, which he had established earlier (Kuttapan et al., 2012)(see picture 1). It was concluded that broilers fed a diet with high energy content led to higher and more efficient growth (improved feed conversion, higher live and fillet weights) but also to a higher percentage of fillets showing a severe degree of white striping.

Figure 3: Different degrees of white striping

• 0 = normal (no distinct white lines)
• 1 = moderate (small white lines, generally < 1 mm thick)
• 2 = severe (large white lines, 1-2 mm thick, very visible on the fillet surface)
• 3 = extreme (thick white bands, > 2 mm thickness, covering almost the entire surface of the fillet
• (scoring and image source: Kuttapan, 2016)

Moreover, the WB and WS can simultaneously occur in the same muscle (Cruz et al., 2016; Kuttappan, Hargis, & Owens, 2016; Livingston, Landon, Barnes, & Brake, 2018).

Spaghetti Meat (SM), a result of decreased collagen linking

The condition of Spaghetti Meat was first mentioned by Bilgili (2015) under “Stringy-spongy”. SM is characterized by an insufficient bonding of the muscles due to an immature intramuscular connective tissue in the pectoralis major. The fiber bundles composing the breast muscle detach, and the muscle gets soft and mushy and resembles spaghetti pasta (Baldi et al., 2021). Probably due to the reduced collagen-linking degree, the texture of SM fillets is smoother after cooking (Baldi et al., 2019). In contrast to wooden breast, SM cannot be noticed in the living animal. Meat severely impacted by SM is downgraded and can only be used in further processed products, whereas slightly affected meat can be sold in fresh retailing (Petracci et al., 2019).

Another possible explanation for this myopathy may be the enormous development of the breast muscle. The thickness of its upper section might reduce muscular oxygenation by compressing the pectoral artery (Soglia et al., 2021). The spaghetti structure generally appears mainly in the superficial layer and less in the deep ones.

Oxidative stress – one link in the chain of causes for myopathies

Oxidative stress is a result of impaired blood supply

Oxidative stress is one key factor of myopathies in breast muscle. Selection for faster growth, especially for more breast meat yield, during the last 10-20 years led to increased muscle fiber diameter. The higher pressure of the surrounding fascia on the muscle tissue compresses the blood vessels, leading to a decreased blood flow, resulting in insufficient oxygen supply (hypoxia) and limited removal of metabolic by-products (Lilburn et al., 2019) from the muscle tissue. Hypoxia as – well as hyperoxia – plus the deficient removal of metabolic waste, promote the generation of free radicals (Kähler et al., 2016; Strapazzon et al., 2016; Petrazzi et al., 2019). If the endogenous antioxidant system cannot efficiently eliminate these ROS by using endogenous and exogenous antioxidants, the ultimate effect is increased oxidative stress.

Soglia and co-workers (2016) reported higher TBARS (Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances) and protein carbonyl levels, signs of oxidative stress, in severe wooden breast muscle tissue. The oxidative stress hypothesis was also supported by gene transcription analysis conducted by Mutryn et al. (2015) and Zambonelli et al. (2017).

Oxidative stress causes damage

ROS (reactive oxygen species) or free radicals are highly reactive. They can cause damage to the DNA, RNA, proteins, and lipids in the muscle cells (Surai et al., 2015), leading to inflammation and metabolic disturbances, and, in the end, the degeneration of muscle fibers (Kuttapan et al., 2021). If the regenerative capacity of the muscle cells does not countervail against the damages caused by oxidative stress, fibrous tissue and fat accumulate and lead to myopathies such as wooden breast (Petracci et al., 2019)

Oxidative stress can be managed

To support the animals in coping with oxidative stress, combining two approaches, an external and an internal, makes sense. This entails protecting feed at the same time as protecting the animal.

Chemical antioxidants preserve feed quality and prevent oxidation

Chemical antioxidants such as ethoxyquin, BHA, and BHT efficiently prevent feed oxidation. These antioxidants prevent the oxidation of unsaturated fats/oils and maintain their energy value. They are scavengers for free radicals, protect trace minerals like Zn, Cu, Mg, Se, and Vit E from oxidation and spare them to be used in the body for different metabolic processes as well as for the endogenous antioxidant system.

Antioxidant capacity of Santoquin M 6 in feed confirmed in a trial

In a trial conducted by Kuttapan et al. (2021), Santoquin M 6, a product based on ethoxyquin, was tested concerning its ability to minimize the oxidative damage caused due to the feeding of oxidized fat. A control group receiving oxidized fat in feed was compared to a group receiving oxidized fat plus 188 ppm Santoquin M6 (≙125 ppm ethoxyquin). The main parameters for this study were TBARS in the breast muscle, the incidence of wooden breast, and the live weight on day 48.

Results indicated that the inclusion of Santoquin M 6 reduced the level of TBARS in the breast muscles, demonstrating a lower level of oxidative stress in the breast muscles. Additionally, it improved the 48-day live weight by 131 g.

The results also indicated that the inclusion of Santoquin M 6 reduced the incidence of severe woody breasts (Score 3) by almost half. It can be concluded that the inclusion of Santoquin in the broiler feed not only improves the production performance but also help mitigate the impact of breast muscle degradation due to increased oxidative stress.

Phy­tomolecules act as natural antioxidants and reduce lipid oxidation in breast muscles

Inside the body, phy­tomolecules help to mitigate oxidative stress by the direct scavenging of ROS and the activation of antioxidant enzymes. Phytogenic compounds like Carvacrol and thymol possess phenolic OH-groups that act as hydrogen donors (Yanishlieva et al., 1999). These hydrogens can “neutralize” the peroxy radicals produced during the first step of lipid oxidation and, therefore, retard the hydroxyl peroxide formation. The increase in serum antioxidant enzyme activities and a resulting lower level of malondialdehyde (MDA) can be caused by cinnamaldehyde (Lin et al., 2003). MDA is a highly reactive dialdehyde generated as a metabolite in the degradation process of polyunsaturated fatty acids.

Antioxidant capacity of phytomolecules demonstrated in broilers

A trial with 480 Cobb male chicks (3 treatments, 8 replicates) was conducted at the University of Viçosa (Brazil). The breast muscles of the birds fed a blend of phy­tomolecules showed lower MDA levels and thus reduced lipid oxidation compared to the negative control, but also to the birds fed an antibiotic.

The impact of breast muscle degradation in broilers can be mitigated

The downgrading of broiler meat due to increased incidence of breast muscle myopathies is a common issue, resulting in the significant economic losses to the broiler meat producers. Oxidative stress caused due to due faster growth rate and various other stressors, including the oxidation of feed and feed ingredients, can contribute to increased incidence of woody breast and white striping. Different nutritional and management strategies are employed to reduce WB and WS in broiler production. The inclusion of synthetic antioxidants to control the oxidation in feed as well as phytomolecules to support the endogenous antioxidant system can be a part of promising tools to mitigate the impact of breast myopathies and reduce economic losses in broiler production.

References:

Alnahhas, Nabeel, Cécile Berri, Marie Chabault, Pascal Chartrin, Maryse Boulay, Marie Christine Bourin, and Elisabeth Le Bihan-Duval. “Genetic Parameters of White Striping in Relation to Body Weight, Carcass Composition, and Meat Quality Traits in Two BROILER Lines Divergently Selected for the Ultimate PH of the Pectoralis Major Muscle.” BMC Genetics 17, no. 1 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-016-0369-2.

Baldi, Giulia, Francesca Soglia, and Massimiliano Petracci. “Current Status of Poultry Meat Abnormalities.” Meat and Muscle Biology 4, no. 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.9503.

Baldi, Giulia, Francesca Soglia, and Massimiliano Petracci. “Spaghetti Meat Abnormality in Broilers: Current Understanding and Future Research Directions.” Frontiers in Physiology 12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.684497.

Baldi, Giulia, Francesca Soglia, Luca Laghi, Silvia Tappi, Pietro Rocculi, Siria Tavaniello, Daniela Prioriello, Rossella Mucci, Giuseppe Maiorano, and Massimiliano Petracci. “Comparison of Quality Traits among Breast Meat Affected by Current Muscle Abnormalities.” Food Research International 115 (2019): 369–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.11.020.

Boerboom, Gavin, Theo van Kempen, Alberto Navarro-Villa, and Adriano Pérez-Bonilla. “Unraveling the Cause of White Striping in Broilers Using Metabolomics.” Poultry Science 97, no. 11 (May 28, 2018): 3977–86. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey266.

Carvalho, Leila M, Josué Delgado, Marta S Madruga, and Mario Estévez. “Pinpointing Oxidative Stress behind the White Striping Myopathy: Depletion of Antioxidant Defenses, Accretion of Oxidized Proteins and Impaired Proteostasis.” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 101, no. 4 (2020): 1364–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10747.

Editors, AccessScience. “U.S. Bans Antibiotics Use for Enhancing Growth in Livestock.” Access Science. McGraw-Hill Education, January 1, 1970. https://www.accessscience.com/content/u-s-bans-antibiotics-use-for-enhancing-growth-in-livestock/BR0125171.

Ferreira, T.Z., R.A. Casagrande, S.L. Vieira, D. Driemeier, and L. Kindlein. “An Investigation of a Reported Case of White Striping in Broilers.” Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23, no. 4 (2014): 748–53. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2013-00847.

Hashemipour, H., H. Kermanshahi, A. Golian, and T. Veldkamp. “Effect of Thymol and Carvacrol Feed Supplementation on Performance, Antioxidant Enzyme Activities, Fatty Acid Composition, Digestive Enzyme Activities, and Immune Response in Broiler Chickens.” Poultry Science 92, no. 8 (2013): 2059–69. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02685.

Huang, Xi, and Dong Uk Ahn. “The Incidence of Muscle Abnormalities in Broiler Breast Meat – a Review.” Korean journal for food science of animal resources 38, no. 5 (October 2018): 835–50. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2018.e2.

Kolakshyapati, Manisha. “Proteoglycan and Its Possible Role in ” Wooden Breast ” Condition in Broilers.” Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences 13 (September 1, 2015): 253–60.

Kuttappan, V.A., B.M. Hargis, and C.M. Owens. “White Striping and Woody Breast Myopathies in the Modern Poultry Industry: A Review.” Poultry Science 95, no. 11 (2016): 2724–33. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew216.

Kuttappan, V.A., C.M. Owens, C. Coon, B.M. Hargis, and M. Vazquez-Añon. “Incidence of Broiler Breast Myopathies at 2 Different Ages and Its Impact on Selected Raw Meat Quality Parameters.” Poultry Science 96, no. 8 (2017): 3005–9. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex072.

Kuttappan, V.A., H.L. Shivaprasad, D.P. Shaw, B.A. Valentine, B.M. Hargis, F.D. Clark, S.R. McKee, and C.M. Owens. “Pathological Changes Associated with White Striping in Broiler Breast Muscles.” Poultry Science 92, no. 2 (2013): 331–38. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02646.

Kuttappan, V.A., Y.S. Lee, G.F. Erf, J.-F.C. Meullenet, S.R. McKee, and C.M. Owens. “Consumer Acceptance of Visual Appearance of Broiler Breast Meat with Varying Degrees of White Striping.” Poultry Science 91, no. 5 (2012): 1240–47. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01947.

Kuttappan, Vivek A., Megharaja Manangi, Matthew Bekker, Juxing Chen, and Mercedes Vazquez-Anon. “Nutritional Intervention Strategies Using Dietary Antioxidants and Organic Trace Minerals to Reduce the Incidence of Wooden Breast and Other Carcass Quality Defects in Broiler Birds.” Frontiers in Physiology 12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.663409.

Kuttappan, Vivek A., Megharaja Manangi, Matthew Bekker, Juxing Chen, and Mercedes Vazquez-Anon. “Nutritional Intervention Strategies Using Dietary Antioxidants and Organic Trace Minerals to Reduce the Incidence of Wooden Breast and Other Carcass Quality Defects in Broiler Birds.” Frontiers in Physiology 12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.663409.

Kähler, Wataru, Frauke Tillmans, Sebastian Klapa, Inga Koch, Julia Last, and Andreas Koch. “Oxidativer Stress Durch Hyperbare Hyperoxie Und Dessen Wirkung Auf Periphere Mononukleäre Zellen (PBMC) – Eine Übersicht Über Den Aktuellen Forschungsstand Am Schifffahrtmedizinischen Institut Der Marine.” Wehrmedizinische Monatsschrift 60, no. 2 (2016): 50–55.

Lake, Juniper A., and Behnam Abasht. “Glucolipotoxicity: A Proposed Etiology for Wooden Breast and Related Myopathies in Commercial Broiler Chickens.” Frontiers in Physiology 11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.00169.

Lilburn, M.S., J.R. Griffin, and M Wick. “From Muscle to Food: Oxidative Challenges and Developmental Anomalies in Poultry Breast Muscle.” Poultry Science 98, no. 10 (2019): 4255–60. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey409.

Lin, Chun-Ching, Sue-Jing Wu, Cheng-Hsiung Chang, and Lean-Teik Ng. “Antioxidant Activity of Cinnamomum Cassia.” Phytother. Res. 17 (August 7, 2003): 726–30. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.1190.

Linden, Jackie. “Deep Pectoral Myopathy (Green MUSCLE Disease) in Broilers.” The Poultry Site, August 9, 2021. https://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/deep-pectoral-myopathy-green-muscle-disease-in-broilers.

Lorenzi, M., S. Mudalal, C. Cavani, and M. Petracci. “Incidence of White Striping under Commercial Conditions in Medium and Heavy Broiler Chickens in Italy.” Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23, no. 4 (2014): 754–58. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2014-00968.

Martindale, L., W.G. Siller, and P.A.L. Wight. “Effects of Subfascial Pressure in Experimental Deep Pectoral Myopathy of the Fowl: An Angiographic Study.” Avian Pathology 8, no. 4 (1979): 425–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457908418369.

Montagna, FS, G Garcia, IA Nääs, NDS Lima, and FR Caldara. “Practical Assessment of Spaghetti Breast in Diverse Genetic Strain Broilers Reared under Different Environments.” Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 21, no. 2 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2018-0759.

Mutryn, Marie F, Erin M Brannick, Weixuan Fu, William R Lee, and Behnam Abasht. “Characterization of a Novel Chicken Muscle Disorder through DIFFERENTIAL Gene Expression and Pathway Analysis Using Rna-Sequencing.” BMC Genomics 16, no. 1 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1623-0.

National Chicken Council. “Per Capita Consumption of Poultry and LIVESTOCK, 1965 to Forecast 2022, in Pounds.” National Chicken Council, June 28, 2021. https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/.

Papah, Michael B., Erin M. Brannick, Carl J. Schmidt, and Behnam Abasht. “Evidence and Role Of Phlebitis and LIPID Infiltration in the Onset and Pathogenesis of Wooden Breast Disease in MODERN Broiler Chickens.” Avian Pathology 46, no. 6 (2017): 623–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2017.1339346.

Petracci, M., F. Soglia, M. Madruga, L. Carvalho, Elza Ida, and M. Estévez. “Wooden-Breast, White Striping, and Spaghetti MEAT: Causes, Consequences and Consumer Perception of Emerging Broiler MEAT ABNORMALITIES.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 18, no. 2 (2019): 565–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12431.

Petracci, M., S. Mudalal, A. Bonfiglio, and C. Cavani. “Occurrence of White Striping under Commercial Conditions and Its Impact on Breast Meat Quality in Broiler Chickens.” Poultry Science 92, no. 6 (2013): 1670–75. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-03001.

Ruberto, Giuseppe, and Maria T Baratta. “Antioxidant Activity of SELECTED Essential Oil Components in Two Lipid Model Systems.” Food Chemistry 69, no. 2 (2000): 167–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0308-8146(99)00247-2.

Russo, Elisa, Michele Drigo, Corrado Longoni, Raffaele Pezzotti, Paolo Fasoli, and Camilla Recordati. “Evaluation of White Striping Prevalence and Predisposing Factors in Broilers at Slaughter.” Poultry Science 94, no. 8 (2015): 1843–48. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev172.

Schulze, Dieter. “Aktuelles Aus Der Broilermast .” Presentation – 7. Tagung des VET Arbeitskreises Geflügelforschung Tiergesundheit beim Nutzgeflügel, Rust, 2018.

Sihvo, H.-K., K. Immonen, and E. Puolanne. “Myodegeneration with Fibrosis and Regeneration in the Pectoralis Major Muscle of Broilers.” Veterinary Pathology 51, no. 3 (May 26, 2014): 619–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985813497488.

Sirri, F., G. Maiorano, S. Tavaniello, J. Chen, M. Petracci, and A. Meluzzi. “Effect of Different Levels of Dietary Zinc, Manganese, and Copper from Organic or Inorganic Sources on Performance, Bacterial Chondronecrosis, Intramuscular Collagen Characteristics, and Occurrence of Meat Quality Defects of Broiler Chickens.” Poultry Science 95, no. 8 (2016): 1813–24. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew064.

Soglia, Francesca, Luca Laghi, Luca Canonico, Claudio Cavani, and Massimiliano Petracci. “Functional Property Issues in Broiler Breast Meat Related to Emerging Muscle Abnormalities.” Food Research International 89 (2016): 1071–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.04.042.

Strapazzon, Giacomo, Sandro Malacrida, Alessandra Vezzoli, Tomas Dal Cappello, Marika Falla, Piergiorgio Lochner, Sarah Moretti, Emily Procter, Hermann Brugger, and Simona Mrakic-Sposta. “Oxidative Stress Response to Acute Hypobaric Hypoxia and Its Association with Indirect Measurement of Increased Intracranial Pressure: A Field Study.” Scientific Reports 6, no. 1 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32426.

Surai F, Peter. “Antioxidant Systems in Poultry Biology: Superoxide Dismutase.” Journal of Animal Research and Nutrition 01, no. 01 (2016). https://doi.org/10.21767/2572-5459.100008.

Tasoniero, G., M. Cullere, M. Cecchinato, E. Puolanne, and A. Dalle Zotte. “Technological Quality, Mineral Profile, and Sensory Attributes of Broiler Chicken Breasts Affected by White Striping and Wooden Breast Myopathies.” Poultry Science 95, no. 11 (2016): 2707–14. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew215.

United Nations. “How Your Company Can Advance Each of THE SDGS: UN Global Compact.” How Your Company Can Advance Each of the SDGs | UN Global Compact. Accessed August 31, 2021. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/sdgs/17-global-goals.

Xing, T., X. Zhao, L. Zhang, J.L. Li, G.H. Zhou, X.L. Xu, and F. Gao. “Characteristics and Incidence of Broiler Chicken Wooden Breast Meat under Commercial Conditions in China.” Poultry Science 99, no. 1 (2020): 620–28. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez560.

Zambonelli, Paolo, Martina Zappaterra, Francesca Soglia, Massimiliano Petracci, Federico Sirri, Claudio Cavani, and Roberta Davoli. “Detection of Differentially Expressed Genes in Broiler Pectoralis Major Muscle Affected by White Striping – Wooden Breast Myopathies.” Poultry Science 95, no. 12 (2016): 2771–85. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew268.

Download this comprehensive A3 infographic to understand how organic acids can benefit your operation. For further questions or feedback, we’ll be happy to hear from you.

By Marisabel Caballero, Global Technical Manager Poultry, EW Nutrition

More than five months after the start of the war in Ukraine, we are facing severe challenges in many aspects of our daily lives. The livestock industry is not excepted: the conflict affects the availability and prices of grains, fertilizers, oil, and biofuel, with the latter two having a direct impact on freight rate and shipping time.

Livestock producers face challenging times and must be rational and creative to continue managing profitable operations.

Increased prices for feed materials and energy 

Which strategies are available?

Maintaining performance and profitability during price hikes generally requests a combination of different nutritional strategies to, at least partially, compensate for the higher costs:

• using alternative feed ingredients such as by-products (while considering their limitations in terms of inclusion and quality)
• eliminating or reducing safety bands (especially to already used by-products)
• revising the use of feed additives according to current challenges in feed ingredients and at farms
• following on the previous one: strategic uses of enzymes, emulsifiers, and feed additives that may help the animals to improve their FCR.

The use of by-products – to what must be paid attention?

To guarantee safety and effectiveness, just as with any other feedstuff, it is necessary to check the nutrient composition of the alternative ingredients using feed composition tables and laboratory analysis. Besides the composition and nutrient concentration, the availability of these nutrients and palatability are critical parameters to consider. The feed/animal producer, when purchasing by-products, should:

• try to find his by-product sources close to the feed production site to reduce costs with logistics and transportation
• collect and test samples right after the by-products are delivered
• check if the feed mill is ready to handle and process those ingredients, especially when they are bulky or have flowability issues;
• compare the difference in animal performance and cost per unit produced when using traditional grain-soybean meal diets vs. by-product ingredients.

Processing for improving by-products’ quality

The safety and nutritional availability of by-products can be improved by chemical, physical, and biological treatments. Physical processes, such as drying, grinding, peeling, pelleting, extruding, and expanding, increase surface area and can deactivate certain anti-nutritional factors. Biological processes include the use of enzymes and microbial fermentation to tackle anti-nutritional factors and increase the nutritional value and digestibility of by-products.

Anti-nutritional factors negatively impact animal health

In addition, some agro-industrial by-products contain anti-nutritional factors (glycoalkaloids, tannins). These substances impair feed digestibility and affect animal performance (Jimenez-Moreno et al., 2019). Also, a high fiber content in the diet containing by-products limits the performance (Pereira et al., 2019).

Additives can help with cost reduction

Due to the increase in feed prices, it is also necessary to review the strategies for using feed additives in animal production. Enzymatic complexes or packages, mannanases, phytases, and xylanases, among others, might be a helpful option to maximize the yield of existing diets. For example, Edward et al. (2000) reviewed the benefits of using phytase for better phosphorus utilization in the diet (a raw material that also suffers from price increases since much of it is imported from China). However, the enzymes must be used properly. Nutritionists trying to create profitable formulations must check the availability of the substrate before including the enzyme in their formulation.

Other feed additives such as toxin binders reduce the exposure of animals to possible increased levels of mycotoxins. Gut health-improving additives such as pro/pre-biotics, phytomolecules, and MCFAs support gut health and performance, achieving similar levels as traditional diets.

These applications should be thoroughly evaluated as the return from their application may be interesting in increased by-products diets.

Using by-products in poultry means balancing several factors

In poultry feeds, using by-products to increase sustainability and cost-reduction is supported by ample research and practice, especially in feed for broilers and laying hens. Research focuses on finding the risks of the inclusion of various by-products and thus the levels at which their inclusion doesn’t hurt health and performance.

In summary, to use by-products in poultry diets, their cost, availability, nutritional composition, anti-nutritional factors, quality, as well as interaction and cost-effectiveness with feed additives (e.g., enzymes, toxin binders) must be considered to avoid or diminish the factors hindering animal health and performance.

Several factors must be considered when using by-products in poultry nutrition

DDGS are a valuable source of proteins – but limited inclusion

DDGS provide protein, energy, water-soluble vitamins, xanthophylls, and linoleic acid (Abd El-Hack et al., 2015). However, it also contains anti-nutritional factors such as non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) (Pedersen et al., 2014). A further disadvantage is their high danger of mycotoxin contamination (Schaafsma et al., 2009), even though Wang et al. (2007) and Damasceno (2020) indicate that up to 16% of DDGS can be included in broilers’ diets without negatively affecting health, performance, and meat characteristics.

Rice brans are one of the main available grain by-products

Rice brans constitute 10% of the paddy rice and thus represent a considerable global volume of the available grain by-products. As a feed ingredient, it is rich in protein, starch, fat, vitamins, and some trace minerals (Sanchez et al., 2019). Due to their susceptibility to oxidation (rancidity) and anti-nutritional factors such as phytase and trypsin inhibitors (Gallinger et al., 2004), the limit recommended for this by-product in poultry is around 10% (Hosseini et al., 2020; Sanchez et al., 2019).

Wheat by-products – optimally used with enzymes

Wheat by-products can also be a substitute for whole grains in poultry feeds; however, their NSP content can affect the viscosity of the digesta (Knudsen, 2014). When combined with enzymes (e.g., xylanase), wheat midds can be included in broiler and layer diets up to 30% without changes in performance (Abudabos, 2011; Salami et al., 2018). Dietary fiber has gained special attention due to its various beneficial effects on poultry. In this direction, moderate amounts of wheat bran – a source of insoluble fiber – have shown improved antioxidant status, gizzard development, intestinal digestive enzyme activities, and morphology in broilers (Shang et al., 2020).

By-products support pigs’ performance

When by-products are fed to pigs, swine nutritionists have reported that many of them can support pig growth and finishing performance and meat quality as well as immune response, milk yield, and milk quality in reproductive animals, among other productive parameters (Yang et al., 2021). For instance, Dong et al. (2019) concluded that, from a nutritional perspective, ingredients such as highland barley, buckwheat, glutinous broomcorn millet, non-glutinous broomcorn millet, and Chinese naked oat could potentially substitute corn in livestock feeding. Or as another example, Liu et al. (2019) suggest in their study that mulberry leaf can contribute to improvements in meat quality, with no adverse effects on the growth performance of finishing pigs. (Dong et al., 2019).

Pigs are susceptible to antinutritional factors

Especially pigs are susceptible to anti-nutritional factors

There are many different types of anti-nutritional factors that work in various ways. In swine feed, common anti-nutritional factors lower protein and amino acid digestibility and increase endogenous amino acid losses (Souffrant, 2001). This effect causes reductions in carcass yield for finishing pigs (Soto et al., 2019).

Options are available to compensate for the higher feed prices

Nutritionists have several options to optimize animal performance in the context of price increases. However, it is necessary to have a more holistic view of the business to know which of all the alternatives are the most suitable for each system. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each ingredient and feed additive and considering them in the light of literature and field data will yield the best understanding of how to use them effectively in successful animal production.

By Marisabel Caballero, Global Technical Manager Poultry, and Sabria Regragui Mazili, Editor

Find out why endotoxemia threatens animal production and how intelligent toxin mitigation solution SOLIS MAX can support endotoxin management.

Figure 1: Structure of Lipopolysaccharide

The quick guide to endotoxins (LPS) and what to do about them

Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) are a constant challenge for animal production. LPS, which are also known as endotoxins, are the major building blocks of the outer walls of Gram-negative bacteria (see figure 1). Throughout its life cycle, a bacterium releases these molecules upon cell death and lysis. When endotoxins are released into the intestinal lumen of chickens or swine, or in the rumen of polygastric animals, they can cause serious damage to the animal’s health and performance by over-stimulating their immune system.

LPS may induces inflammation and fever, lowering feed intake, and redirecting nutritional resources to the immune response, which results in hindered animal performance.

Endotoxins depress animal performance

One of the biggest issues caused by endotoxemia is that animals reduce their feed intake and show a poor feed conversion rate (FCR). Why does this happen? The productive performance of farm animals (producing milk, eggs, or meat) requires nutrients. An animal also requires a certain baseline amount of nutrients for maintenance, that is, for all activities related to its survival.

As a result of inflammation, endotoxemia leads to a feverish state. Maintenance needs to continue; hence, the energy required for producing heat will be diverted from the nutrients usually spent on production of milk, eggs, meat, etc., and performance suffers. This is amplified because the immune reaction also requires resources (e.g., energy, amino acids, etc. to produce more immune cells).

The inflammation response can result in mitochondrial injury to the intestinal cells, which alter the cellular energy metabolism. This is reflected in changes to the levels in adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the energy “currency” of living cells. A study by Li et al. (2015) observed a respective reduction of 15% and 55% in the ATP levels of the jejunum and ileum of LPS-challenged broilers, compared to the unchallenged control group.

A piglet study by Huntley, Nyachoti, and Patience (2017) found that LPS-challenged pigs retained 15% less of the available metabolizable energy and showed 25% less nutrient deposition (figure 2). These results illustrate how animal performance declines during endotoxemia.

• Control treatment (CON) = Pigs fed by a basal diet
• Immune system stimulation treatment (ISS) = Pigs given LPS (E. coli serotype 055:B5) injection

Figure 2: Retained Energy as % of ME intake and nutrient deposition of pigs in metabolic cages (adapted from Huntley, Nyachoti, and Patience, 2017)

A loss of energy retained due to a reduction in available metabolizable energy leads to losses in performance as the amount of energy available for muscle production and fat storage will be lower. Furthermore, the decrease in feed intake creates a further energy deficit concerning production needs.

Endotoxin tolerance

The repeated exposure to LPS leads to the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines, as a reaction of the body to prevent tissue damage due to the excessive inflammation. This immunosuppression during stress may lead to an increased risk of secondary infection and poor vaccination titers.

LPS tolerance, also known as CARS (compensatory anti-inflammatory response syndrome) essentially depresses the immune system to control its activity. This “regulation” can be extremely dangerous as an excessive depression of the immune system leaves the organism exposed to the actual pathogens.

The way forward: Natural endotoxin mitigation with SOLIS MAX

The quantity of Gram-negative bacteria in an animal intestine is considerable; therefore, the danger of immune system over-stimulation through endotoxins cannot be taken lightly. Stress factors – that are not uncommon in animal production – affect the microbiome (favoring gram-negative bacteria) and also decrease the intestinal barrier function, which leads to the passage of LPS into the bloodstream

Animals suffering from endotoxemia are subject to severe metabolic dysfunctions. If they do not perish from septic shock (and most of them do not), they are still likely to show performance losses. Moreover, they at great risk of immunosuppression caused by CARS, the immune system “overdrive” discussed above.

Fortunately, research shows that EW Nutrition’s SOLIS MAX effectively binds bacterial toxins, helping to prevent these scenarios.

In vitro trial shows SOLIS MAX’ effectiveness against bacterial endotoxins

Binding endotoxins in the gastrointestinal tract, especially during stress situations in animal production, can help to mitigate the negative impact of LPS on the animals. It reduces the endotoxins passing into the bloodstream and entering the organism.

SOLIS MAX is a synergistic combination of natural plant extracts, yeast cell walls, and natural clay minerals. An in vitro study conducted at a research facility in Germany evaluated its binding performance for LPS derived from E. coli.

To test the efficacy of SOLIS MAX in binding endotoxins, 0.1% (w/v) of SOLIS MAX was resuspended in endotoxin-free water, with and without a challenge of 25,2568 EU/ml. After one hour, the solutions were centrifuged and the supernatants tested for LPS using Endo-LISA test kits.

The results show that 1 mg of SOLIS MAX adsorbs 20 endotoxin units (EU) of E. coli endotoxin, which corresponds – for this challenge – to an 80% adsorption rate (figure 3).

Figure 3: SOLIS MAX effectively adsorbs E. coli endotoxins

Endotoxin solution SOLIS MAX: Stabilize gut health, support performance

The detrimental impact of LPS can be mitigated by using a high-performance solution such as SOLIS MAX. To prevent negative health and performance outcomes for the animal it is important to stabilize the challenged intestinal barrier and to support the balance of the gut microbiome. Binding endotoxins before they can exert their damaging impact is the primary objective, which SOLIS MAX achieves through the intelligent interaction of natural plant extracts. This can be expected to yield positive results in terms of production levels and the prevention of secondary infections, preserving animal health and farms’ economic viability.

References

Adib-Conquy, Minou, and Jean-Marc Cavaillon. “Compensatory Anti-Inflammatory Response Syndrome.” Thrombosis and Haemostasis 101, no. 01 (2009): 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1160/th08-07-0421.

Huntley, Nichole F., C. Martin Nyachoti, and John F. Patience. “Immune System Stimulation Increases Nursery Pig Maintenance Energy Requirements.” Iowa State University Animal Industry Report 14, no. 1 (2017). https://doi.org/10.31274/ans_air-180814-344.

Li, Jiaolong, Yongqing Hou, Dan Yi, Jun Zhang, Lei Wang, Hongyi Qiu, Binying Ding, and Joshua Gong. “Effects of Tributyrin on Intestinal Energy Status, Antioxidative Capacity and Immune Response to Lipopolysaccharide Challenge in Broilers.” Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 28, no. 12 (2015): 1784–93. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0286.

by Dr. Inge Heinzl, Editor

From day 1, young animals are confronted with the pathogens of their environment. Feed and feed ingredients also significantly increase exposure to microbes. This article will look closely at three critical bacteria in poultry production. The trials of phytomolecules-based products shared in this article prove the unique benefit of lowering harmful pathogens while simultaneously sparing health-promoting microbes. The targeted selection of the blend’s phytomolecules contributes to this distinctive mode of action.

E. coli can be valuable… and dangerous

E.coli are commensal bacteria that usually belong to the natural gut flora. However, there are several E. coli strains that, due to certain virulence factors, can cause disease. These bacteria are called avian pathogenic E. coli or APEC. The disease ‘Colibacillosis’ can occur in different forms:

• Omphalitis – a noncontagious infection of the navel and/or yolk sac in young poultry
• peritonitis – inflammatory response on “internal laying” (yolk material in the peritoneum)
• salpingitis – inflammation of the oviduct
• cellulitis – discoloration and thickening of the skin, inflammation of the subcutaneous tissues
• synovitis – lameness with swollen joints
• coligranuloma (Hjärre disease) – lesions similar to tuberculosis, not of economic importance
• meningitis, and
• septicemia or blood poisoning.

Since some of the E. coli strains can sometimes be transmitted vertically to offspring, it is crucial to keep the pathogenic pressure in the parent generation as low as possible (Mc Dougal, 2018).

Due to the, mostly in young chicks, common use of antibiotics, E. coli strains resistant to ß-lactam antibiotics (ESBL-producing E. coli) or fluoroquinolones (e.g., Enrofloxacin) have developed.

Clostridium perfringens: the cause of necrotic enteritis

Clostridium perfringens belong to the normal caecal flora. However, its overgrowth in the intestine is linked to necrotic enteritis, causing estimated losses of up to USD 6 billion yearly in global poultry production, which corresponds to USD 0.0625 per bird (Wade and Keyburn, 2015). Necrotic enteritis can occur in a clinical and a subclinical form.

In the case of clinical necrotic enteritis, the birds suffer from diarrhea resulting in wet litter and increased flock mortality of up to 1 % per day (Ducatelle and Van Immerseel, 2010). Mortality rates sometimes sum up to 50 % (Van der Sluis, 2013). If birds die without clinical signs, it may be peracute necrotic enteritis.

The subclinical version, however, is more critical. Due to the lack of symptoms, it often remains undetected and, therefore, not treated. Mainly through the impaired utilization of feed, representing 65-75 % of the total costs in broiler production, subclinical necrotic enteritis permanently impacts production efficiency (Heinzl et al., 2020).

Salmonella enterica: a zoonosis relevant for birds and humans

Most concerning in (non-typhoid) salmonellosis is that it can be transferred to humans. The transmission occurs via direct contact with an infected animal, consuming contaminated animal products such as meat or eggs, contact with infected vectors (insects or pets) or contaminated equipment, or cross-contamination in the kitchen. Frozen or raw chicken products, as well as the eggs, are frequent causes of animal-origin Salmonella infections in humans.

Salmonella is the more critical the younger the birds. If the hatching eggs already carry salmonellae, the hatchability dwindles. During their first weeks of life, infected chicks show higher mortality and systemic infections.

Adult animals usually do not die from salmonellosis; often, the infection remains unnoticed. During an acute salmonella outbreak, the animals might show weakness and diarrhea. They lose weight, resulting in decreased egg production in layers.

Trials with phytomolecules show promising results

To check if phytomolecules-based products can effectively influence gut flora, a product specially designed for gut health (Ventar D) was tested for its antimicrobial activity. Additionally, the extent to which the same blend impacted the beneficial bacteria, such as Lactobacilli, was evaluated.

Trial 1: phytomolecules act against E. coli and Salmonella enterica

The in vitro study using the agar dilution method was conducted at a German laboratory.

The bacteria (Salmonella typhimurium and ESBL-producing E. coli) stored at -80°C were reactivated by cultivating them on Agar Mueller Hinton overnight. After this incubation, some colonies were picked and suspended in 1 ml 0.9% NaCl solution. 100 µl of the suspension were pipetted and evenly spread (plate spread technique) on new Agar Mueller Hinton containing different concentrations of a phytomolecules-based product (Ventar D): 0 µg/mL – control; 500 µg/mL; 900 µg/mL; 1.250 µg/mL and 2.500 µg/mL. After 16-20 h incubation at 37°C, growth was evaluated. The results can be seen in pictures 1 and 2:

Figure 1: E. coli exposed to different concentrations of Ventar D (upper row from left to right: control 0 µg/ml, 500 µg/ml, 900 µg/ml; lower row from left to right: 1250 µg/ml and 2500 µg/ml)

E. coli colonies exposed to 900 µg/mL of Ventar D’s phytogenic formulation were smaller than the control colonies. At 1250 µg/mL, fewer colonies were detected, and at 2500 µg/mL, growth couldn’t be seen anymore.

The salmonella colonies showed a similar picture; however, the reduction could be seen from a concentration of 1.250 µg/ml of Ventar D onwards (picture 2).

Figure 2: Salmonella enterica exposed to different concentrations of Ventar D (upper row from left to right: control 0 µg/ml, 500 µg/ml, 900 µg/ml; lower row from left to right: 1250 µg/ml and 2500 µg/ml)

Trial 2: Phytomolecules inhibit Clostridium perfringens and spare Lactobacilli

In this trial, the bacteria (Clostridium perfringens, Lactobacillus agilis S73, and Lactobacillus plantarum) were cultured under favorable conditions (RCM, 37°C, anaerobe for Clostr. perfr., and MRS, 37°C, 5 % CO₂ for Lactobacilli) and exposed to different concentrations of Ventar D (0 µg/ml – control, 500 µg/ml, 750 µg/ml, and 1000 µg/ml).

The results are shown in figures 3a-d.

In the case of Clostridium perfringens, a significant reduction of colonies could already be observed at a concentration of 500 µg/ml of Ventar D. At 750 µg/ml, only a few colonies remained. At a Ventar D concentration of 1000 µg/ml, Clostridium perfringens could no longer grow.

In contrast to Clostridium, the Lactobacilli showed a different picture: only at the higher concentration (1250 µg/ml of Ventar D), Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus agilis S73 showed a slight growth reduction (figures 4 and 5).

Figure 4: Lactobacillus plantarum exposed to 0 (left) and 1250 µg/ml (right) of Ventar D

Figure 5: Lactobacillus agilis S73 exposed to 0 (left) and 1250 µg/ml (right) of Ventar D

Improve gut health by positively influencing the intestinal flora

The experiments show that even at lower concentrations, phytomolecules impair the growth of harmful bacteria while sparing the beneficial ones. Phytomolecule-based products can be regarded as a valuable tool for controlling relevant pathogens in poultry and influencing the microflora composition in a positive way.

The resulting better gut health is the best precondition to reducing antibiotics in animal production.