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.

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 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.

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

Gut health is a critical challenge in antibiotics-free (ABF) production as it plays a vital role in the overall health and well-being of animals. Antibiotics have long been used as a means of preventing and treating diseases in animals, but their overuse has led to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. As a result, many farmers and producers are shifting towards antibiotics-free production methods. This shift presents a significant challenge as maintaining gut health without antibiotics can be difficult. It is, however, not impossible.

One of the main challenges in antibiotics-free production is the prevention of bacterial infections in the gut. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in the immune system and overall health of animals. When the balance of microbes in the gut is disrupted (dysbiosis), it can lead to poor nutrient absorption which subsequently results in reduced live bird performance including feed efficiency and weight gain in broiler chicken. In the absence of antibiotics, farmers and producers must rely on other methods to maintain a healthy gut microbiome.

Antibiotic reduction – a major global trend

The trend in recent years has been for poultry producers to reduce their use of antibiotics to promote public health and improve the sustainability of their operations. This has been driven by concerns about the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the potential impact on human health, as well as by consumer demand for meat produced without antibiotics. Many countries now have regulations in place that limit the use of antibiotics in food and animal production.

Challenges to antibiotics-free poultry (ABF) production

1. Disease control. Antibiotic-free poultry production requires farmers to rely on alternative methods for controlling and preventing diseases, such as stepped-up biosecurity practices. This can be more labor-intensive and costly.
2. Higher mortality rates. Without antibiotics, poultry farmers may experience higher mortality rates due to disease outbreaks and other health issues. This can lead to financial losses for the farmer and a reduced supply of poultry products for consumers.
3. Feeding challenges. Antibiotic growth promotors (AGPs) are often used in feed to promote growth and prevent intestinal disease in poultry. Without AGPs, poultry producers can find alternative ways to ensure expected production performance.
4. Increased cost. Antibiotic-free poultry production can be more expensive than conventional production methods, as farmers must invest in additional housing, equipment, labor, etc.

Phasing out AGPs will likely lead to changes in the microbial profile of the intestinal tract. It is hoped that strategies such as infectious disease prevention programs and using non-antibiotic alternatives minimize possible negative consequences of antibiotic removal on poultry flocks (Yegani and Korver, 2008).

Gut health is key to overall health

A healthy gastrointestinal system is important for poultry to achieve its maximum production potential. Gut health in poultry refers to the overall well-being and functioning of the gastrointestinal tract in birds. This includes the balance of beneficial bacteria, the integrity of the gut lining, and the ability to digest and absorb nutrients. Gut health is important for maintaining the overall health and well-being of the birds. A healthy gut helps to improve feed efficiency, nutrient absorption, and the overall immunity of the birds.

The gut is host to more than 640 different species of bacteria and 20+ different hormones. It digests and absorbs the vast majority of nutrients and makes up for nearly a quarter of body energy expenditure. It is also the largest immune organ in the body (Kraehenbuhl and Neutra, 1992). Consequently, ‘gut health’ is highly complex and encompasses the macro and micro-structural integrity of the gut, the balance of the microflora, and the status of the immune system (Chot, 2009).

Poultry immunity is mediated by the gut

The gut is a critical component of the immune system, as it is the first line of defense against pathogens that enter the body through the digestive system. Chickens have a specialized immune system in the gut, known as gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), which helps to identify and respond to potential pathogens. The GALT includes Peyer’s Patches, which are clusters of immune cells located in the gut wall, as well as the gut-associated lymphocytes (GALs) that are found throughout the gut. These immune cells are responsible for recognizing and responding to pathogens that enter the gut.

The gut-mediated immune response in chickens involves several different mechanisms, including the activation of immune cells, the production of antibodies, and the release of inflammatory mediators. The GALT and GALs play a crucial role in this response by identifying and responding to pathogens, as well as activating other immune cells to help fight off the infection.

The gut microbiome also plays a critical role in gut-mediated immunity in chickens. The gut microbiome is made up of a highly varied community of microorganisms, and these microorganisms can have a significant impact on the immune response. For example, certain beneficial bacteria can help to stimulate the immune response and protect the gut from pathogens.

Overall, the gut microbiome, GALT, and GALs all work together to create an environment that is hostile to pathogens while supporting the growth and health of beneficial microorganisms.

Dysbiosis/Dysbacteriosis impacts performance

Dysbiosis is an imbalance in the gut microbiota because of an intestinal disruption. Dysbacteriosis can lead to wet litter and caking issues. Prolonged contact with the caked litter can lead to pododermatitis (feet ulceration) and hock-burn, resulting in welfare issues as well as degradation of the carcass (Bailey, 2010). Apart from these issues, the major economic impact comes from reduced growth rates, FCR, and increased veterinary treatment costs. Coccidiosis infection and other enteric diseases can be aggravated when dysbiosis is prevalent. Generally, animals with dysbiosis have high concentrations of Clostridium that generate more toxins, leading to necrotic enteritis.

Fig.1: Dysbiosis – a result of challenging animal’s microbiome. Source: Charisse Petersen and June L. Round. 2014

It is believed that both non-infectious and infectious factors can play a role in dysbacteriosis (DeGussem, 2007). Any changes in feed and feed raw materials, as well as the physical quality of feed, influence the balance of the gut microbiota. There are some risk periods during poultry production when the bird will be challenged, for example during feed change, vaccination, handling, transportation, etc. During these periods, the gut microbiota can fluctuate and, in some cases, if management is sub-optimal, dysbacteriosis can occur.

Infectious agents that potentially play a role in dysbacteriosis include mycotoxins, Eimeria spp., Clostridium perfringens, and other bacteria producing toxic metabolites.

Factors affecting gut health

The factors affecting broiler gut health can be summarized as follows:

1. Feed and water quality: The form, type, and quality of feed provided to broilers can significantly impact their gut health. Consistent availability of cool and hygienic drinking water is crucial for optimum production performance.
2. Stress: Stressful conditions, such as high environmental temperatures or poor ventilation, can lead to an imbalance in the gut microbiome and an increased risk of disease.
3. Microbial exposure: Exposure to pathogens or other harmful bacteria can disrupt the gut microbiome and lead to gut health issues.
4. Immune system: A robust immune system is important for maintaining gut health, as it helps to prevent the overgrowth of harmful bacteria and promote the growth of beneficial bacteria.
5. Sanitation: Keeping the broiler environment clean and free of pathogens is crucial for maintaining gut health, as bacteria and other pathogens can easily spread and disrupt the gut microbiome.
6. Management practices: Proper management practices, such as proper feeding and watering, and litter management can help to maintain gut health and prevent gut-related issues.

Fig. 2. Key factors affecting broilers’ gut health

Key approaches for managing gut health without antibiotics

Two key approaches for managing gut health in poultry without the use of antibiotics are outstandingly successful.

Proper nutrition and management practices

Ensuring the birds have access to clean water, high-quality feed, and a stress-free environment is crucial for ABF poultry production. A balanced diet in terms of protein, energy, and essential vitamins and minerals is essential for maintaining gut health.

The environment in which birds have kept plays a major role in maintaining gut health. Proper sanitation and ventilation, as well as the right temperature and humidity, are crucial to prevent the spread of disease and infection. There is no alternative to the strict implementation of stringent biosecurity measures to prevent the spread of disease.

Early detection and treatment of diseases can help to prevent them from becoming more serious problems affecting the profitability of ABF production. It is important to keep a close eye on birds for signs of disease, such as diarrhea, reduced water, and feed consumption.

Gut health-promoting feed additives

Another approach to maintaining gut health in antibiotics-free poultry production is using gut health-supporting feed additives. A variety of gut health-supporting feed additives including phytochemicals/essential oils, organic acids, probiotics, prebiotics, exogenous enzymes, etc. in combination or alone are used in animal production. Particularly, phytogenic feed additives (PFAs) have gained interest as cost-effective feed additives with already well-established effects on improving broiler chickens’ intestinal health.

Plant secondary metabolites and essential oils (generically called phytogenics, phytochemicals, or phytomolecules) are biologically active compounds that have recently garnered interest as feed additives in poultry production, due to their capacity to improve feed efficiency by enhancing the production of digestive secretions and nutrient absorption. This helps reduce the pathogenic load in the gut, exert antioxidant properties and decrease the microbial burden on the animal’s immune status (Abdelli et al. 2021).

Plant extracts – Essential oils (EOs) /Phytomolecules

Phytochemicals are naturally occurring compounds found in plants. Many phytomolecules have been found to have antimicrobial properties, meaning they can inhibit the growth or kill microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi. Examples of phytomolecules with antimicrobial properties include compounds found in garlic, thyme, and tea tree oil. Essential oils (EOs) are raw plant extracts (flowers, leaves, roots, fruit, etc.) whereas phytomolecules are active ingredients of essential oils or other plant materials. A phytomolecule is clearly defined as one active compound. Essential oils (EOs) are important aromatic components of herbs and spices and are used as natural alternatives for replacing antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) in poultry feed. The beneficial effects of EOs include appetite stimulation, improvement of enzyme secretion related to food digestion, and immune response activation (Krishan and Narang, 2014).

A wide variety of herbs and spices (thyme, oregano, cinnamon, rosemary, marjoram, yarrow, garlic, ginger, green tea, black cumin, and coriander, among others), as well as EOs (from thyme, oregano, cinnamon, garlic, anise, rosemary, citruses, clove, ginger), have been used in poultry, individually or mixed, for their potential application as AGP alternatives (Gadde et al., 2017).

Fig. 3: Phytomolecule-based feed additive outperforms AGPs with improved broiler performance (42 Days field study)

One of the primary modes of action of EOs is related to their antimicrobial effects which allow for controlling potential pathogens (Mohammadi and Kim, 2018).

Fig. 4: Effectivity of phytomolecule-based feed additive (Ventar D) against enteropathogenic bacteria (MIC value in PPM)

Phytomolecules have been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties. These compounds include flavonoids, polyphenols, carotenoids, and terpenes, among others. One of the ways in which phytomolecules exhibit anti-inflammatory effects is through their ability to inhibit the activity of pro-inflammatory enzymes and molecules. For example, polyphenols have been shown to inhibit the activity of nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kB), a transcription factor that plays a key role in regulating inflammation.

Phytomolecules also have antioxidant properties, which can help to protect cells from damage caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS) and other reactive molecules that can contribute to inflammation. Plant extracts are also proposed to be used as antioxidants in animal feed, protecting animals from oxidative damage caused by free radicals. The presence of phenolic OH groups in thymol, carvacrol, and other plant extracts act as hydrogen donors to the peroxy radicals produced during the first step in lipid oxidation, thus retarding the hydroxyl peroxide formation (Farag et al., 1989, Djeridane et al., 2006). Thymol and carvacrol are reported to inhibit lipid peroxidation (Hashemipour et.al. 2013) and have strong antioxidant activity (Yanishlieva et al., 1999).

Overall, the anti-inflammatory effects of phytomolecules are thought to be due to a combination of their ability to inhibit the activity of pro-inflammatory enzymes and molecules, their antioxidant properties, and their ability to modulate the immune system. Plant extracts (i.e. carvacrol, cinnamaldehyde, eugenol. etc.) inhibit the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines from endotoxin-stimulated immune cells and epithelial cells (Lang et al., 2004, Lee et al., 2005, Liu et al., 2020). It has been indicated that anti-inflammatory activities may be partially mediated by blocking the NF-κB activation pathway (Lee et al., 2005).

Fig. 5: Anti-inflammatory effect of phytomolecule-based feed additive (Ventar D) – the reduced activity of inflammatory cytokines

Proper protection of EOs/Phytomolecules is key to optimum results

Several phytogenic compounds have also been shown to be largely absorbed in the upper GIT, meaning that without proper protection, the majority would not reach the lower gut where they would exert their major functions (Abdelli et al. 2021). The benefits of supplementing the broiler diet with a mixture of encapsulated EOs were higher than the tested PFA in powdered, non-protected form (Hafeez et al. 2016). Novel delivery technologies have been developed to protect PFAs from the degradation and oxidation process during feed processing and storage, ease the handling, allow a slower release, and target the lower GIT (Starčević et al. 2014). The specific protection techniques used during the commercial production of an EO/phytomolecule blend are crucial in delivering on all the objectives with remarkable consistency.

Fig. 6: Pelleting stability of phytomolecule – based feed additive (Ventar D) at high temperature and longer conditioning time

Phytomolecule blend optimizes production performance

Removal of antibiotics in poultry production can be challenging for controlling mortality and maintaining the production performance of the birds. Phytogenic feed additives have been shown to improve production performance of chicken due to their antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and digestive properties. Possible mechanisms behind improved nutrient digestibility by phytogenic feed additives (PFAs) supplementation could be attributed to the ability of these feed additives to stimulate appetite, saliva secretion, intestinal mucus production, bile acid secretion, and activity of digestive enzymes such as trypsin and amylase as well as to positively affect the intestinal morphology (Oso et al. 2019). EOs are perceived as growth promoters in poultry diets, with strong antimicrobial and anticoccidial activities (Zahi et al., 2018). PFAs have positive effects on body weight gain and FCR in chickens (Khattak et al. 2014, Zhang et el. 2009).

Fig. 7: Phytomolecule-based feed additive improved broiler FCR and mortality in field trial

Conclusion

In conclusion, managing gut health is a significant challenge in ABF broiler production that must be addressed to achieve optimal performance and welfare of the birds. The use of antibiotics as a preventative measure in broiler production has been widely used, but with the increasing demand for antibiotic-free products, alternative methods to maintain gut health must be implemented. These include using gut health-supporting feed additives, and proper management practices such as implementing biosecurity measures, maintaining optimal environmental conditions, providing adequate space and ventilation, and reducing stress. However, it is essential to note that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for gut health management in ABF broiler production. It is important to continuously monitor and assess their flock’s gut health and make adjustments as necessary. Additionally, research and development in this field should be encouraged to identify new and innovative ways to maintain gut health in ABF broiler production.

Overall, managing gut health is a critical challenge that requires a multi-faceted approach and ongoing monitoring and management. By implementing the appropriate strategies and utilizing new technologies, poultry operators can ensure the health and well-being of their flocks while meeting the growing demand for antibiotic-free products sustainably.

References:

Abdelli N, Solà-Oriol D, Pérez JF. Phytogenic Feed Additives in Poultry: Achievements, Prospective and Challenges. Animals (Basel). 2021 Dec 6;11(12):3471.

Bailey R. A. 2010. Intestinal microbiota and the pathogenesis of dysbacteriosis in broiler chickens. PhD thesis submitted to the University of East Anglia. Institute of Food Research, United Kingdom

Choct M. Managing gut health through nutrition. British Poultry Science Volume 50, Number 1 (January 2009), pp. 9—15.

De Gussem M, “Coccidiosis in Poultry: Review on Diagnosis, Control, Prevention and Interaction with Overall Gut Health,” Proceedings of the 16th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition, Strasbourg, 26-30 August, 2007, pp. 253-261.H.J. Dorman, S.G. Deans. Antimicrobial agents from plants: antibacterial activity of plant volatile oils. J Appl Microbiol, 88 (2000), pp. 308-316

Djeridane A., M. Yousfi M, Nadjemi B, Boutassouna D., Stocker P., Vidal N. Antioxidant activity of some Algerian medicinal plants extracts containing phenolic compounds. Food Chem, 97 (2006), pp. 654-660

Farag R. S., Daw Z.Y., Hewedi F.M., El-Baroty G.S.A. Antimicrobial activity of some Egyptian spice essential oils. J Food Prot, 52 (1989), pp. 665-667

Gadde U., Kim W.H., Oh S.T., Lillehoj H.S. Alternatives to antibiotics for maximizing growth performance and feed efficiency in poultry: A review. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2017;18:26–45.

Guo, F.C., Kwakkel, R.P., Williams, B.A., Li, W.K., Li, H.S., Luo, J.Y., Li, X.P., Wei, Y.X., Yan, Z.T. and Verstegen, M.W.A., 2004. Effects of mushroom and herb polysaccharides, as alternatives for an antibiotic, on growth performance of broilers. British Poultry Science, 45(5), pp.684-694.

Hafeez A., Männer K., Schieder C., Zentek J. Effect of supplementation of phytogenic feed additives (powdered vs. encapsulated) on performance and nutrient digestibility in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2016;95:622–629.

Hammer K.A., Carson C.F., Riley T.V. Antimicrobial activity of essential oils and other plant extracts. J Appl Microbiol, 86 (1999), pp. 985-990

Hashemipour H, Kermanshahi H, Golian A, Veldkamp T. 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. Volume 92. Issue 8. 2013, Pp 2059-2069,

Khattak F., Ronchi A., Castelli P., Sparks N. Effects of natural blend of essential oil on growth performance, blood biochemistry, cecal morphology, and carcass quality of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2014;93:132–137

Kraehenbuhl, J.P. & Neutra, M.R. (1992) Molecular and cellular basis of immune protection of mucosal surfaces. Physiology Reviews, 72: 853–879.Krishan and Narang J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res., 1(4): 156-162, December 2014

Lang A., Lahav M., Sakhnini E, Barshack I., Fidder H. H., Avidan B. Allicin inhibits spontaneous and TNF-alpha induced secretion of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines from intestinal epithelial cells. Clin Nutr, 23 (2004), pp. 1199-1208

Lee S.H., Lee S.Y., Son D.J., Lee H., Yoo H.S., Song S. Inhibitory effect of 2′-hydroxycinnamaldehyde on nitric oxide production through inhibition of NF-kappa B activation in RAW 264.7 cells Biochem Pharmacol, 69 (2005), pp. 791-799

Liu, S., Song, M., Yun, W., Lee, J., Kim, H. and Cho, J., 2020. Effect of carvacrol essential oils on growth performance and intestinal barrier function in broilers with lipopolysaccharide challenge. Animal Production Science, 60(4), pp.545-552.

Mitsch, P., Zitterl-Eglseer, K., Köhler, B., Gabler, C., Losa, R. and Zimpernik, I., 2004. The effect of two different blends of essential oil components on the proliferation of Clostridium perfringens in the intestines of broiler chickens. Poultry science, 83(4), pp.669-675.

Mohammadi Gheisar M., Kim I.H. Phytobiotics in poultry and swine nutrition—A review. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2018;17:92–99.

Oso A.O., Suganthi R.U., Reddy G.B.M., Malik P.K., Thirumalaisamy G., Awachat V.B., Selvaraju S., Arangasamy A., Bhatta R. Effect of dietary supplementation with phytogenic blend on growth performance, apparent ileal digestibility of nutrients, intestinal morphology, and cecal microflora of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2019;98:4755–4766

Oviedo-Rondón, Edgar O., et al. “Ileal and caecal microbial populations in broilers given specific essential oil blends and probiotics in two consecutive grow-outs.” Avian Biology Research 3.4 (2010): 157-169.

Petersen C. and June L. Round. Defining dysbiosis and its influence on host immunity and disease. Cellular Microbiology (2014)16(7), 1024–1033

Starčević K., Krstulović L., Brozić D., Maurić M., Stojević Z., Mikulec Ž., Bajić M., Mašek T. Production performance, meat composition and oxidative susceptibility in broiler chicken fed with different phenolic compounds. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014;95:1172–1178.

Yanishlieva, N.V., Marinova, E.M., Gordon, M.H. and Raneva, V.G., 1999. Antioxidant activity and mechanism of action of thymol and carvacrol in two lipid systems. Food Chemistry, 64(1), pp.59-66.

Yegani, M. and Korver, D.R., 2008. Factors affecting intestinal health in poultry. Poultry science, 87(10), pp.2052-2063.

Zhai, H., H. Liu, Shikui Wang, Jinlong Wu and Anna-Maria Kluenter. “Potential of essential oils for poultry and pigs.” Animal Nutrition 4 (2018): 179 – 186.

Zhang G.F., Yang Z.B., Wang Y., Yang W.R., Jiang S.Z., Gai G.S. Effects of ginger root (Zingiber officinale) processed to different particle sizes on growth performance, antioxidant status, and serum metabolites of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2009;88:2159–2166.

By Dr. Ajay Awati, Global Category Manager for Gut Health and Nutrition, EW Nutrition, and Dr. Howard Simmins, InSci Associates

After 30 years of stagnating solutions, in-feed xylanase innovation has finally arrived – with a complete focus on the needs of the broiler feed industry.

It has been over 30 years since xylanase was first introduced in broiler diets in Europe. In the meantime, it has been widely used worldwide with few, if any, major improvements. While the animal feed industry evolved in terms of production landscape, feed processing technologies and use of various by-products, xylanase enzyme technology did not keep pace. In fact, it did not evolve to meet customers’ changing needs and provide that much-needed flexibility of diet formulation for a commercial nutritionist. The wait is over: new in-feed xylanase technology is about to revolutionize broiler nutrition.

Why we need innovative xylanase enzymes for broiler production

Initially, in the 1980s, xylanase was leveraged from industries unrelated to animal production into the feed business. Gut viscosity had been a continuing problem in broiler chickens fed wheat-based diets. It led to an increased risk of enteric disease, generally reducing performance. Xylanase was shown to reduce gut viscosity in wheat-based feed by breaking down soluble arabinoxylans.

As a result, the birds grew as well as if they were fed a low-viscosity corn/soya diet. An additional benefit was lower disease risks from the reduced level of anti-nutritional factors (ANFs) and the multiple negative effects of viscosity in the intestine.

In addition to reducing viscosity, xylanase augments the release in the small intestine of nutrients from previously undigested feedstuffs. The outcome has been the use of an energy matrix value for xylanase, which essentially helps diets through least-cost formulation.

These effects account for the growth of xylanase use in the monogastric feed market. Today, the penetration is above 50%.

Limitations of existing xylanase solutions

Leveraging xylanases from other industries for viscosity reduction in poultry comes with a couple of distinct limitations:

1. Most broiler diets around the globe are based on a corn-soybean formulation, which contains far higher levels of insoluble arabinoxylans than soluble arabinoxylans. In such cases, viscosity is a relatively minor issue compared to the anti-nutritional effect of insoluble arabinoxylans.
2. The reduction of gut viscosity is less relevant in other poultry sectors, such as laying hens and turkeys.

Commercial xylanases would be required to break down insoluble NSPs in which substrate activity may be limited and difficult to predict. Fiber constituents of different cereal grains used in feed are highly variable. By- and co-products derived from cereals contain even more complex fiber components, altered further by the manner of processing that the raw material has undergone.

Additionally, poultry response is highly variable:  For an individual bird, the effectiveness of xylanase depends on the enzyme’s interaction with feed in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of the animal, which varies depending on the species and the animal’s age. This may explain why xylanase penetration on the feed market is not as high as that of phytase.

GH10: the next-level xylanase for feed application

A xylanase for feed is required to provide multiple functionalities, of which four are essential:

1. Capacity to break down soluble and insoluble arabinoxylan across a range of typical feedstuffs
2. Rapid activity at optimal pH in the preferred section of the GIT
3. No inhibition in the presence of xylanase inhibitors
4. Comprehensive feed processing thermostability

The GH11 family of xylanases commonly used in feed does not offer these aggregated benefits. They successfully reduce soluble NSPs in wheat-based diets, hence lowering the viscosity level in the broiler GIT. However, they are less effective in the presence of insoluble NSPs in which the arabinoxylan backbone is more complex.

Why GH10 instead of GH11?

The explanation for this can be found in the 3-dimensional structure of the GH11 xylanase. The activity of GH11 xylanases requires 3 or 4 consecutive unsubstituted xylan monomers on the backbone to find an active site. That is why they are hindered by the presence of branches, or side chains, on arabinose backbones. Consequently, they are highly specific, favoring the particularly low-branching wheat backbone.

Xylanases from the GH10 family are entirely different. Although well known, they have not been used in feed yet. The GH10 xylanases require two or fewer consecutive unsubstituted xylan monomers on the backbone to find an active site. Therefore, they can act on xylose residues near branches. This results in both more and shorter xylo-oligomers than found with GH11 xylanases. In simple terms, the GH10 xylanases have a less deep cleft than the GH11 xylanases, providing greater catalytic versatility (Pollet 2010).

Significantly, this potentially allows a broader range of feedstuffs to be incorporated into the complete diet, including co- and by-products, while maintaining performance. Therefore, with GH10, higher levels of cheaper ingredients may be included, with a significant value proposition of further reducing feed costs.

GH10 xylanases generate a range of important prebiotics

As early as 1995, it was proposed that xylanase may affect microbial activity in the gastrointestinal tract through the provision of fermentable oligosaccharides and low molecular weight polysaccharides. These are produced from the hydrolysis of soluble and insoluble arabinoxylans in cereals.

A development of particular interest is that the GH10 xylanases break down the backbone of different fibre components into small xylooligosaccharides (XOS) and arabino-xylanoligosaccharides (AXOS). This action, research shows, has value in supporting the selective growth of fibre-degrading bacteria in the large intestine, conferring positive effects on the host’s health.

The most well-known probiotic strains belong to bifidobacteria and lactobacilli, which have quite different XOS and AXOS utilization systems. Bifidobacterium adolescentis has been shown to consume AXOS and XOS, whereas Lactobacillus brevis utilises only XOS. The outcome is that AXOS releases butyrate, the short-chain fatty acid, which can improve the host’s gut barrier function, as well as reduce Salmonella colonization in broilers. Alongside these health benefits, their presence may improve performance also by reducing FCR. (Courtin et al. 2008; Ribeiro et al. 2018)

As mentioned earlier, the GH10 xylanase requires only two consecutive unsubstituted xylan monomers to cleave the xylan main chain, whereas a GH11 xylanase requires 3 or 4 consecutive unsubstituted xylan monomers. Therefore, the number of potential AXOS and XOS oligomers is higher from the action of the GH10 xylanase. This results in a wider size range of oligomers. The range is valuable as the effect is spread across the large intestine, each oligomer having a different fermentation rate. Consequently, the large intestine’s microbial activity becomes saccharolytic, which potentially reduces the undesirable products of proteolytic degradation, such as phenols and cresols.

Prebiotic combinations will vary depending on the substrate available. However, there is more flexibility in breaking down insoluble NSPs across different feedstuffs using GH10 xylanase compared to GH-11 xylanase.

The future of xylanase: Reducing feed costs through flexible formulation

EW Nutrition’s GH10-based AXXESS XY xylanase, specifically developed for animal feed, has a wide-ranging activity across typical substrates, both in corn-soy and wheat-soy diets. It also allows for a greater proportion of cheaper ingredients, enabling increased flexibility in feedstuff choices and resulting in more stable feed pricing. The activity of the GH10 xylanase in producing oligomers from the breakdown of the arabinoxylan backbone also indicates that it can produce a greater number and diversity of valuable prebiotics that sustain the growth of fiber-degrading microbiota. Consequently, the metabolism of the large intestine is shifted from proteolytic to saccharolytic, which supports the animal’s general health.

The combination of these benefits from using this xylanase results in a bird with a balanced digestive system that is more robust in the face of environmental and health challenges, supporting better performance. Furthermore, this novel enzyme solution gives nutritionists a reliable tool to reduce feed costs by being flexible in diet formulation and opportunistic in using raw materials while maintaining consistency in animal performance. Especially in these times of supply problems and raw material price hikes, such advantages are invaluable.

The naturally thermostable AXXESS XY 1000G is the most advanced xylanase yet. It is a GH10 xylanase that delivers what the industry has been asking for: a fiber-degrading enzyme suited for all poultry feed.

References

Courtin, Christophe M, Katrien Swennen, Willem F Broekaert, Quirine Swennen, Johan Buyse, Eddy Decuypere, Christiaan W Michiels, Bart De Ketelaere, and Jan A Delcour. “Effects of Dietary Inclusion of Xylooligo- Saccharides, Arabinoxylooligosaccha- Rides and Soluble Arabinoxylan on the Microbial Composition of Caecal Contents of Chickens.” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 88, no. 14 (2008): 2517–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3373.

Ribeiro, T., V. Cardoso, L.M.A. Ferreira, M.M.S. Lordelo, E. Coelho, A.S.P. Moreira, M.R.M. Domingues, M.A. Coimbra, M.R. Bedford, and C M Fontes. “Xylo-Oligosaccharides Display a Prebiotic Activity When Used to Supplement Wheat or Corn-Based Diets for Broilers.” Poultry Science 97, no. 12 (2018): 4330–41. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey336.

Pollet, Annick. “Functional and Structural Analysis of Glycoside Hydrolase Family 8, 10 and 11 Xylanases with Focus on Bacillus Subtilis Xylanase A,” 2010. https://www.biw.kuleuven.be/m2s/clmt/lmcb/publications/docs/apollet

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.