USA



Home Blog Page 487

Well done Evergreen Colony!

By
Jim
-

Evergreen Colony, located in South Dakota, who recently accomplished some great flock results, a stand out in a summer of great flocks for this group.

Evergreen raises Hybrid Converter birds under a “no antibiotics ever” system. The flock was marketed at 143 days and reached 45 lbs of average weight. Livability was also very strong at 88%, the result of getting a great start in brooding and paying close attention to the details of ventilation, water sanitation, and diet formulation. Evergreen Colony receives their birds from our US poult distribution network, now nine months into operation.

Cropped 2 David at Evergreen.jpg

Congratulations to David Kleinsser (pictured), who manages turkey operations for the colony. Well done on your efforts!

Age 20 weeks
Average weight 45.32 lbs
Livability 88%
Lbs. per sq. ft. 13.16

New Flexible Feed Formulation concept aims to improve broiler performance on lower-cost diets

By
Jim
-

New research from Chr. Hansen confirms that GALLIPRO® — a direct-fed microbial (DFM) for poultry containing a unique strain of Bacillus subtilis — allows producers to reduce energy, protein and amino-acid content in feed, without reducing broiler performance. GALLIPRO® is marketed as GALLIPRO® Max in the US.

These findings — combined with Chr. Hansen’s 100+ years of experience in microbial product development — are the basis of the company’s new “Flexible Feed Formulation” concept, which was presented in a forum at the 2016 International Production and Processing Expo in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. The forum included research presentations by Dorthe Sandvang, senior research scientist with Chr. Hansen; Michael Sims, president, Virginia Diversified Research Center; and Prof. Horácio Rostagno of Brazil’s University of Viçosa.

“Our Flexible Feed Formulation concept reflects our commitment to supporting successful and sustainable poultry production with solutions that help our customers produce more with less,” says global product manager Mickaël Rouault.

“Feed can account for up to 70 percent of the cost of broiler production, with energy, protein and amino acids representing some of the costliest components. By boosting enzyme production while enhancing intestinal function, GALLIPRO® is proven to increase both the availability and uptake of energy and nutrients. As a result, broilers can maintain performance on diets that are lower in energy, protein and amino acids — and consequently, lower in cost.”

Improved digestibility and performance

In several trials conducted under commercial conditions in the US and Brazil, GALLIPRO® was shown to contribute 35 to 100 kcal/kg feed, depending on feed composition and flock-health conditions. That means dietary energy can be reduced by 1 to 3 percent, without compromising weight gain or feed conversion in commercial broilers (Table 1, Figure 1).

Table 1. ME contribution of GALLIPRO®
Location No. of ME levels ME contribution of

GALLIPRO®
Brazil 2 100 kcal/kg feed (3.2%)
Brazil 4 36 kcal/kg feed (1.3%)
Virginia, US 4 41 kcal/kg feed (1.4%)
Georgia, US 4 61.4 kcal/kg feed (2%)
New Flexible Feed Formulation concept aims to improve broiler performance on lower-cost diets, Figure 1 GALLIPRO increased ME & lowered FCR at all energy levels

GalliPro® is proven to increase both the availability and uptake of energy and nutrients. As a result, broilers can maintain performance on diets that are lower in energy, protein and amino acids — and consequently, lower in cost.Mickaël Rouault

Global product manager

Further studies from Brazil and the UK showed that the DFM increases protein and amino acid digestibility, compensating for a 1 to 5 percent reduction in these potentially costly feed components (Figure 2).

New Flexible Feed Formulation concept aims to improve broiler performance on lower-cost diets, Figure 2 Ileal protein digestibility

According to Alfred Blanch, PhD, DVM, a poultry consultant for Chr. Hansen, results were consistent across the controlled studies, each of which evaluated the effect of the probiotic supplement on several different concentrations of dietary energy or protein.

“Many factors can influence digestibility and performance, so we intentionally introduced several variables in these studies, including location, diet, and protein and energy levels for each diet. Yet across the board, results are remarkably consistent,” Blanch explains. “Although actual energy and protein compensation can vary based on nutrition, environment and subclinical infections, GALLIPRO® clearly and consistently improves broiler performance by helping them get more energy and nutrients from their feed.”

Proven mode of action

The consistency of the study data reflects the proven mode of action of the B. subtilis strain in GALLIPRO®, which works by increasing enzyme activity, while improving intestinal function.

Using a proprietary tool known as reducing-sugar release (RSR) analysis, Chr. Hansen scientists demonstrated that by breaking down fiber and making more reducing sugars available to birds, the probiotic contributes 40 to 60 kcal/kg feed, confirming the trial results.

“B. subtilis enhances carbohydrate, protein and lipid metabolism by producing digestive enzymes that birds don’t produce on their own,” Rouault says.

“As our RSR analysis proves, this particular strain gives birds access to more metabolizable energy from their feed, which partly explains the increased digestibility and performance we observed in the in vivo studies.”

In addition to making more nutrients available to the bird, GALLIPRO® aids the uptake of nutrients by promoting healthy microbial diversity in the intestine. This not only allows birds’ natural digestive enzymes to work more effectively, but it also makes it more difficult for harmful bacteria to colonize the gut. Furthermore, the probiotic has been shown to increase villus length, thereby increasing the gut’s capacity for nutrient absorption.

More with less

According to Blanch, the ability to maintain broiler performance on energy- and protein-reduced feed has clear economic benefits for producers and nutritionists, but there are other benefits, too.

“Lower-protein diets mean not only lower feed costs, but also less ammonia — a natural byproduct of protein digestion — resulting in better litter quality, fewer footpad lesions, better air quality in the poultry house and reduced ammonia emissions,” he explains.

In addition, he says, the B. subtilis strain in GALLIPRO® has been shown to improve broiler weight gain and feed conversion both with and without antibiotics, making it a valuable tool as the poultry industry comes under pressure to reduce antibiotic use.

“At its core, the Flexible Feed Formulation concept is about producing more with less — not just less energy, protein and money, but also less waste, less ammonia and potentially fewer antibiotics,” Rouault emphasized. “By using less, we believe the industry stands to gain much more in return: more profit, more sustainability and more successful poultry production overall.”

References:
Jin, Frank et al. “Effect of Bacillus subtilis (GalliPro® Max) on energy conversion of broiler chickens fed with corn-soybean meal diets at varying energy levels.” 2016 International Poultry Scientific Forum abstract book, p. 49.

Harrington, D et al. “The use of GalliPro® to improve broiler performance on protein-reduced diets.” 2014 Poultry Science Association, abstract #233.

Abudabos, A.M. et al. “Effects of prebiotics and probiotics on the performance and bacterial colonization of broiler chickens.” South African Journal of Animal Science, 2015, 45, no. 4, pp. 419-428.

Opalinski, M et al. “On the use of a probiotic (Bacillus subtilis – strain DSM 17299) as growth promoter in broiler diets.” Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, Apr-Jun 2007, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 99-103.

John Cooper: Improving gut health to boost poultry performance

By
Jim
-

By improving gut health, birds can withstand challenges from everyday farm processes.

Can gut health improve efficiency on poultry farms? John Cooper, Alltech poultry technical manager for the U.K., explains the science behind gut health and the benefits that come with being proactive in addressing on-farm concerns.

The following is an edited transcript of Kara Keeton’s interview with John Cooper. Click below to hear the full audio.

 

Kara:              I’m here today with John Cooper, the Alltech poultry technical manager for the United Kingdom. Thank you for joining me today.

 

John:              Thank you for having me.

 

Kara:              John, have you always been interested in poultry production?

 

John:              Yeah. I actually started off when I was 15, just working on breeder farms through spread and feed, and went my way up to managing the different types of the integration — so broilers, layers, rearing birds and even hatchers, as well — so I’ve kind of grown up with the industry, I suppose.

 

Kara:              You’ve been with Alltech five years now, correct?

 

John:              Correct, yeah.

 

Kara:              What has your experience been like in working with Alltech and the research and challenges you’ve faced in the industry?

 

John:              The research side, I’ve actually found really interesting, because we’ve done quite a lot of that in the U.K. as well, so the information that we get is relevant. From the point of view of how I’ve found it, the whole industry really shifted, I suppose, with the onset of reducing antibiotic use and things like that, so it kind of came towards what Alltech was about, whereas I think, beforehand, it was not really something people had to do. Now, with the industry changing, we’re very much in the right space, and we have the information, the data and the products to support what we’re trying to do.

 

Kara:              And what you’re trying to do with your research and, especially, with Alltech products is to look at ways to reduce antibiotic use within the industry, so tell me a little bit about how you have been working on research projects in that avenue.

 

John:              Okay, so, really, what we’ve been doing is looking at how our products interact with the microbiome — for instance, how it improves the structure of the villi, all these things that really contribute to the processes of poultry production, how we’re basically going to get the biggest bang for our customers’ buck, really. Also, when you’re thinking of gut health, it’s, first, limiting, so it’s really about how you can improve gut health to achieve the performance that the birds are actually supposed to do.

 

Kara:              Gut health is always an interesting topic to me. What exactly is gut health, and how can you improve it with some of the research developments?

 

John:              Gut health is looking at how the microbiota, the feed — how the bird can basically use what you’re providing it as tools so as not to have to use medication. By improving gut health, the birds, then, can withstand the challenges that they get from everyday processes. So, really, gut health is like the engine; you put good oil in it, you service it often and it all works properly. That’s where we come in, by showing and using research to, really, I suppose, put a focus on — you can actually see the developments and what changes.

 

We’ve done a lot of work on the microbiota, seeing how the microflora play a big part in what happens with the chicken or any other animal that we work with. We can see the shift in the diversity and how that’s important to achieving gut health. I try and explain it to my customers as simply as possible, because it’s quite a tough subject to talk about. I would say it’s like, in the U.K., we have the House of Commons. So, you have all these seats that are empty, and then you put the right people in those seats, you fill those seats, and then things that want to invade — like campylobacter, E. coli, all these things — those things then can’t invade because you’ve already got a set presence there, so it kind of really does reduce the challenge when they get these coming on.

 

Kara:              I’ve heard the terms “postbiotics” and “probiotics”. Can you explain this to me and tell me how they impact gut health?

 

John:              Postbiotics are a byproduct of the fermentation of when we use prebiotics and they feed the probiotics. Probiotics are something that you’re trying to give the animal a dose of, that either could be from the mom, I suppose, in a way, or even a beneficial bacteria. Like I mentioned about filling the seats in the House of Commons, you’re trying to fill those seats as fast as possible, and then, the prebiotics are really there to improve the level of the bacteria that are not the good guys, that you’re not wanting, so that’ll remove them but also to promote the good guys, by doing that. I suppose, in a way, postbiotics is looking at what the byproducts are — so things like organic acids, enzymes, all these things that are beneficial to the bird. It helps with reducing E. coli coming from the alkaline living area, where it wants to be, and not actually getting into the more acidic area, which you’re trying to keep them out of, so we find that organic acids work really well.

 

Kara:              Now, I read about the “seed, feed, weed” strategy. Explain that to me. I think it’s a very interesting approach.

 

John:              Okay. Really, it’s a concept that was developed by Dr. Steve Collett at the University of Georgia.

 

What you do is you’re seeding the gut dam with the right commensal bacteria; then you’re feeding that with organic acids, basically, so you can actually promote the good guys and also stop the bad guys from invading, as I mentioned, by keeping the area at a lower-acid pH level. Then, also, the weed part is weeding out the bad guys, the unwanted, and promoting the good guys. That’s the concept, pretty much. It’s a nice, simplified way of doing things, but what I find from working with customers is, whether we put one part together and then we add the other part so you could do the whole program, it’s not something that happens overnight. It really is a whole different way of managing a farm. It’s a different way of thinking in terms of — there are so many little bits. You’ve got to be more proactive than reactive.

 

Also, the biggest benefits come three to five flocks afterwards, because you’re not just changing the microbiota of the chicken. You’re not just working on that area; you’re also seeing this happen on the farm. So, you go from an antibiotic background, where your bacteria could be high levels, even though, in the U.K., we clean out and disinfect. The profile doesn’t change; we lower the dose, but the profile doesn’t change, so it’s how, then, we can make sure that what the bird first comes into contact with when it gets placed on the farm is actually more beneficial than what it’s going to get from a more beneficial bacteria — so, something that we get that’s more useful to them. So, you’re shifting from an antibiotic to a more probiotic background, and that’s where you start seeing that three-to-five flocks being really important to understand, where, once you hit that, there is a bigger benefit that comes after. Of course, good breeds good, so the more little pooping machines you have running down, spreading the better bacteria and promoting that, then everything works really well.

 

Kara:              So, when you are taking a more proactive approach to addressing concerns on the farm, this also has to have an impact on the bottom line for the farmers. What are the farmers seeing when they transition to this more proactive approach, instead of leaning and depending on antibiotics?

 

John:              As I mentioned, it’s the evolution of the whole farm. Well, not just the farm, but the sheds as well. Really, being proactive, I suppose it’s bringing the management style back to the manager that manages the farm, looks at the signs. There’s a lot of technology out there, but you still can’t get away from — you can’t beat what the bird tells you. They tell you when it’s too hot, too cold, or something is not right, so it’s really stockmanship. You can’t really put a price on that, and I think that’s where “seed, feed, weed” really does bring it back to the stockman, to work with the animals and, I suppose, use the tools that are available and use them as best as possible to get the best results.

 

Kara:              How do you see the development of a proactive approach, a sustainable approach, impacting poultry production down the road five to ten years? Do you see this as being a progressive approach that more and more farmers are adapting?

 

John:              I think everybody is doing something similar to a “seed, feed, weed” approach. Sometimes, they’re not doing it how we would do it, but that’s the whole point of it; it’s a concept that gives you an idea of how to do something better and different. So, really, I think, as we understand what happens and what changes, I think it really does open your eyes, and then, you’re able to actually see right, like, “I understand this is what’s happening,” and it kind of makes sense in your head. It’s just a different way of reacting to things, rather than picking up the phone and calling the vet. That’s a cost as well, so it’s kind of how you take things into your own hands and manage what’s happening on your farm. I think, going forward, I think it’s only going to become more and more important with the more information and research different companies are putting out there, whether it be Alltech or someone else. I think it’s all very relevant, and the more we know, then the more we can actually say, “Well, this is what’s actually interacting with our animals in a certain way,” and we’ll know how we can correct that.

 

Kara:              Okay. Thank you so much for joining me today, John. This is John Cooper, Alltech poultry technical manager for the United Kingdom.

HACCP in the Egg Industry: Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point System

By
Jim
-

Voluntary participation in HACCP-type programs reduces the risk of marketing eggs contaminated with Salmonella enteritidis and maintains consumer confidence in egg products.

Foreword

This manual provides educational support for the Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program certification training and enhancing food safety in the table egg industry. Those who want to improve the safety of the eggs they produce are encouraged to adopt the practices outlined in this manual. The U.S. Department of Agriculture endorses the farm-to-table Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system as the best science-based approach aimed at pathogen reduction. Voluntary participation in HACCP-type programs reduces the risk of marketing eggs contaminated with Salmonella enteritidis and maintains consumer confidence in eggs and egg products.

Introduction

Salmonella contamination is the leading cause of foodborne illness in the United States. Responsibility for the wholesomeness and quality of animal foods once rested with the USDA inspection system, but today, we realize this is only one part of quality assurance. In order to control salmonella, new programs must be adopted at all stages of production, processing, and preparation of foods. The poultry industry and egg handlers must work together to ensure that the chain of bacteria reduction and quality assurance is not broken.

Salmonella are part of a family of bacteria known as Enterobacteriaceae, which are found in the intestinal tract of humans and other animals. More than 2,300 types of Salmonella are known to exist. Salmonella enteritidis, or SE, is just one of these types, but one that is predominantly found in poultry products including fresh shell eggs and unpasteurized liquid eggs. SE from feces can contaminate eggshells, while hens with whole body infections can contaminate egg contents. People can contract salmonellosis from consuming contaminated eggs, egg products, poultry, or meat products that have not been properly cooked. Unfortunately, a contaminated utensil or food handler can recontaminate a properly prepared food that was free of SE. Clinical signs of salmonellosis appear 12 to 72 hours after eating the contaminated food and include acute gastroenteritis, fever, headache, abdominal cramps, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Severity of the disease is usually proportional to the number of organisms that enter the body. Therefore, any procedure that reduces the number of SE organisms in food will reduce the risks of salmonellosis.

Past efforts to control SE have been largely reactive and have not succeeded in preventing contamination of eggs. Currently, hens or eggs that test positive for SE are diverted to processing plants, where the bacteria are destroyed by thermal processes. Unfortunately, egg production environments cannot be made sterile, and only a small fraction of poultry houses, hens, and eggs can actually be tested. For these reasons, it is virtually impossible to produce eggs with complete assurance that they are free of SE bacteria. Therefore, efforts to control SE need to be pro-active, focusing on risk reduction and prevention. Food safety experts from universities, government, and the food industry agree that the best food safety system available for preventing foodborne illness is the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system.

HACCP is a science-based system that identifies and monitors critical control points (CCP) throughout the food chain in order to reduce or eliminate hazards. This manual will address the seven steps of the HACCP system for risk reduction:

  1. Assess the hazards.
  2. Identify CCPs.
  3. Establish critical limits for each CCP.
  4. Monitor CCPs.
  5. Take corrective actions.
  6. Set up a record-keeping system.
  7. Verify that the HACCP system is working.

This manual covers the three hazards identified by the 1995 Pennsylvania SE Pilot Study as significant risk factors for contaminating eggs with SE. The hazards are SE-contaminated poultry houses, rodents, and pullet chicks. Today in Pennsylvania most eggs are produced under the Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program (PEQAP), which emphasizes three CCPs including cleaning and disinfecting pullet and hen houses between flocks, rodent control, and placing SE-clean chicks in the pullet house. The PEQAP is a HACCP-type program monitored and supported by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Seal of the Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program, monitored and supported by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

All people involved in production, procurement, and processing need to realize that eggs must be treated as a food, not just a commodity. Commitment to the egg industry HACCP system means everyone is responsible for egg safety, from the person servicing breeder flocks to the parent preparing egg dishes for the family (Figure 2). Although HACCP-type programs can not guarantee shell eggs to be free of SE contamination, it will assure the public that egg producers are taking every precaution to maintain the safety of their eggs.

Figure 2. Critical links in the egg safety chain.

Biosecurity Risk Factors

Biosecurity involves using all measures possible to control the spread of disease-causing organisms such as Salmonella enteritidis (SE). These measures include controlling human traffic, isolating poultry from contaminated equipment and animals, controlling insects and rodents, vaccination, disinfection, and good housekeeping. The goal of biosecurity is to keep disease-causing organisms from your birds. These tiny microbes travel from place to place in manure, dust, and feathers, carried by air and on people, equipment, vehicles, animals, and other birds. Therefore, the greatest risk factors for introducing disease-causing organisms are contaminated people, equipment, and animals. The best management practices (BMPs) of a good biosecurity system are listed below.

BMPs for People

  1. Make sure employees and family members wear freshly laundered clothing daily.
  2. Have all visitors report to a central location and sign a log book before entering any building.
  3. Do not allow anyone, including maintenance personnel and pest control people, to enter your poultry house or egg room unless they are wearing clean and sanitized coveralls, boots, and hat (Figure 3).
  4. Clean and disinfect boots before entering and leaving each poultry house. Manure is a major factor responsible for the spread of disease from one poultry house to another. If you have more than one poultry house on your farm, you may want to consider having a separate pair of boots for each house. By storing the boots in a rubber garbage can, you can keep them in wearable condition. This practice would be especially helpful if you have poultry of different ages on the farm.
  5. Change water in foot baths and add disinfectant at least daily, or more often if baths collect a lot of dirt and manure.
  6. Always shower and change into clean clothes before leaving your farm and after returning home. This practice will help prevent the spread of any disease from one farm to another. You can pick up disease organisms by visiting other farms, auctions, meetings, or restaurants where other farmers, service people, or backyard flock owners visit. By showering and changing into clean clothes when you return home, you are taking a big step toward reducing the spread of disease organisms.
  7. If possible, try to limit each person’s work schedule to one poultry house.
  8. Do not visit younger birds after visiting older birds except when younger birds are positive for SE or other diseases. If you must visit older birds first, be sure to shower and/or change clothes before visiting younger birds.
  9. Keep all buildings locked at all times to ensure that your biosecurity plan is followed by all visitors and nonfarm employees (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Wear only clean and sanitized coveralls, boots, and hat.

Figure 4. Keep all buildings locked to ensure that your biosecurity plan is followed.

BMPs for Equipment

  1. Borrow equipment from another farm only if it is thoroughly cleaned and disinfected (Figure 5).
  2. Restrict movement of all vehicles entering and leaving your farm. Have vehicles park outside the premises whenever possible.
  3. Bring onto the farm only clean and disinfected crates, egg cartons, etc. Reject anything that is not clean and notify the supplier of the problem.
  4. Do business only with companies that have high biosecurity standards.

Figure 5. Clean and disinfect borrowed equipment.

BMPs for Animals

  1. Avoid contact with wild birds and waterfowl.
  2. Always place new birds in a clean and disinfected house. (See Clean and Disinfect Between Flocks: #1 CCP for procedures.)
  3. Control rodents and insects inside and around poultry houses. (See Control Rodents: #2 CCP for procedures.)
  4. Properly dispose of dead birds in a timely fashion.
  5. Make sure poultry houses are properly ventilated. Large amounts of fresh air dilute microbe populations and reduce disease buildup.
  6. Keep manure as dry as possible.

Assign a person to monitor your biosecurity program. Have all visitors sign a log book. The book should request the date, time, person’s name, reason for visit, and names of other poultry farms visited before arriving at your farm. Keep all log book entries for at least 3 years as part of your biosecurity records. Have a second sign-in sheet for each poultry house. The sheet should request the date, time, person’s name, and reason for entering the building. File house sign-in sheets monthly and keep entries for at least 2 years.

The success of your biosecurity program depends on you. Do not allow any exceptions! The goal of biosecurity is to keep germs away from your birds and your birds away from germs.

References

  • Brunet, P. Y. 1988. Biosecurity for Poultry: Lock Diseases Out. Extension Circular 350. Mid-Atlantic Cooperative Extension Poultry Health and Management Unit. University Park, Pa. (This publication is no longer in print.)
  • Nelson, T. M. and E. T. Mallinson. 1987. Biosecurity for Poultry: Stomp the Invisible Enemy. Mid-Atlantic Cooperative Extension Poultry Health and Management Unit. College Park, Md.

Clean and Disinfect Between Flocks

#1 Critical Control Point

Organic material can harbor bacteria such as Salmonella enteritidis (SE). The goal of cleaning and disinfection is to reduce the organic material and bacteria in the environment, thereby reducing the risk of SE contamination.

“Down time” between the removal of one flock and the placement of the next allows for thorough cleaning, disinfecting, drying, and inspecting the house. Allow at least 2 weeks between flocks. When turn-over is too quick, birds may be placed in a house that is still damp and may not be clean.

Dry Clean

  1. Remove all birds, eggs (broken or not), and other live creatures including cats, wild birds, and rodents. (See Control Rodents: #2 CCP for procedures.)
  2. Thoroughly dry clean the house (Figure 6).
  3. Use compressed air to clean air inlets both inside and out.
  4. Blow dust and loose debris into the pit.
  5. Clean manure off cage cross members and floor joists.
  6. Run the manure scraper as low as possible or knock manure off cage curtains.
  7. Clean fan housings, brush blades, and louvers. Remove all manure and debris from the pit.
  8. Remove all mobile equipment from the house, the egg room, and the workroom area.
  9. If particular areas have not been cleaned properly, reclean them prior to washing down.

Figure 6. Thoroughly dry clean the pullet or hen house.

Wash

  1. Wash down the house (Figure 7).
      • Wet down all dirty areas and allow time to soak.
      • Wash all surfaces and equipment using high pressure (1,500 psi and above).
      • Heat the house during winter wash-downs (the warmer the better).
      • Give special attention to air inlets, both inside and outside.
      • Wash the upper portion of the house first and then the pit.
      • Push water out of the pit each day after washing.
      • Run feeders each day after washing and before washing the floors.

      2. 2. If particular areas have not been washed properly, rewash those areas prior to disinfection.

    Figure 7. Wash all surfaces with a high-pressure spray.

    Disinfect

    1. Apply disinfectant to all surfaces as a spray or foam, treating the upper portion of the house first, then the pit (Figure 8).
    2. Phenols and quaternary ammonium (quats) products are suggested disinfectants. Phenolic compounds are used most often because they are more active in the presence of organic material than other disinfectants such as quats.
    3. Chlorine compounds can be effective, but they are readily inactivated when they come in con-tact with organic material.
    4. Surfaces always should be free of organic material for the disinfectant to be effective.
    5. Any products used in conjunction with each other must be checked for compatibility.
    6. Follow all directions on product labels.
    7. If particular areas have not been disinfected properly, disinfect again prior to culturing.
    8. Clean the following by hand or using low pressure (600 to 800 psi):
      • electrical equipment
      • egg room and workroom
      • farm packer
      • egg grader
      • egg cooler
      • office
      • bathroom
      • stairs and walkway to pit
    9. Designate a specific person to monitor the cleaning and disinfection ( Evaluation Form, Appendix A ), and to keep records and review the records, critical limits, and microbial sampling and analysis to verify the HACCP plan is working. If any areas evaluated in Appendix A have greater than “none or slight” organic matter, reclean and disinfect those areas prior to culturing.
    10. Culture the environment after cleaning and disinfection (Figure 9).(See Appendix B for procedures.)
    11. Reclean and disinfect specific areas if culturing results suggest more effort is needed.
    12. Once a new flock is placed, keep the house as clean as possible. Clean the packer, egg room, and bathroom daily. Remove egg material and soil from cross conveyor rods twice weekly and dispose of broken eggs properly. Keep eggs and feed off the floor and out of the manure pit. Do some dry cleaning as needed to maintain fan efficiency and inlet capacity.

    Figure 8. Disinfect, treating the upper portion of the house first, then the pit.

    Figure 9. Culture the environment after cleaning and disinfection.

    Control Rodents

    #2 Critical Control Point

    Rodents are a significant source of Salmonella enteritidis (SE) exposure for chickens. A single mouse produces 100 droppings a day and each can contain up to 230,000 SE bacteria (Figure 10). By defecating in feed troughs, on egg belts, and in other areas, rodents can spread infection throughout the chicken house and contaminate eggs.

    It appears mice become infected with SE when exposed to contaminated manure. They can travel to nearby poultry houses and infect SE-negative flocks. Placement of contaminated manure or manure containing infected mice near poultry facilities provides an additional source for SE exposure.

    Rodents reproduce rapidly in chicken houses where food, water, and shelter are readily available (Table 1). A few mice entering a new house can proliferate to high numbers (up to 10,000 or more) during the life of a single flock. Rodents consume food, destroy insulating materials, and undermine building structures through tunneling and nesting. A single house mouse consumes ²∕10 ounce of chicken feed daily, while 2,000 mice consume 25 pounds of chicken feed each day.

    Figure 10. Mouse droppings can contain up to 230,000 SE bacteria.

    Table 1. Reproductive and feeding characteristics of the house mouse (Mus musculus) and the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus).

    Characteristics House Mouse Norway Rat
    Home range 9–30 feet usually (up to 150 feet in some houses) 20–300 feet
    Longevity 12–15 months 12–15 months
    Sexual maturity 45 days 90 days
    Litters per year 5-11 4-12
    Young per litter 3-11 8-10
    Daily feeding sites many usually 2

    Seal Rodents Out

    1. Keep the exterior of poultry houses free of high vegetation, debris, and feed.
      • Keep all debris (old equipment, wood, cement blocks) 10 feet from the house, and mow the area regularly.
      • Establish a 3-foot section of 1- to 1½-inch-diameter crushed rock at a depth of 6 inches immediately around the building perimeter to further discourage rodent entry.
      • Clean spilled feed and dispose of cull eggs and birds appropriately to avoid attracting rodents.
    2. Seal rodents out of poultry houses and destroy harborage areas within houses.
      • Make sure metal siding on the lower portion of the poultry house is securely attached to the concrete or block foundation to prevent rodent entry. Rodents can climb directly up porous concrete foundation walls, pipes, and wires. Siding on concrete buildings should begin 3 feet or higher above ground level to reduce rodent entry.
      • Building exteriors should be tightly sealed, with no gaps greater than ¼ inch. Drainage for the building may be constructed with large polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes fitted with removable screw lids or grates with openings no larger than ¼ inch.
      • To ensure entrance doors and pit unloading doors close tightly, use one or more of the following: mechanical door fasteners; improved door tracking; maintenance of concrete pit slabs; thick rubber weather stripping with a metal base (if possible) attached to the bottom of doors (Figure 11); and a 2-x-8-inch wood board mounted inside pit load-out doors.
      • Holes that previously may have housed rodents infected with SE can serve as a source of infection for future rodent populations, so any previously established areas of rodent harborage inside the facility should be sealed. Materials may include concrete, mortar patch, heavy gauge sheet metal, and ¼ inch woven hardware cloth (Figure 12). Thick plastic patching and wood are less desirable but often are adequate.
      • Eliminate other potential harborage sites within the house as well. Knock manure off cage support beams every 6 to 8 weeks. Remove manure from the pit whenever possible. In houses with moderate and high rodent populations, rodents may live in manure piles, and reducing their numbers is not possible without complete manure removal.

    Figure 11. Ensure that doors seal tightly.

    Figure 12. Seal holes to prevent rodent entry and harborage.

    Maintain Covered Bait Stations

    1. Rodenticides (poison baits and tracking powders) often are included in rodent control programs. Rodenticides adversely affect body functions including blood clotting, the nervous system, and calcium regulation. Pellets, meals, liquids, paraffin blocks and bars, and tracking powders are available. Rodenticides are grouped into single- and multiple-dose types (Table 2). Single-dose baits require only one complete feeding, while multiple-dose baits require repeated feedings over several days to be lethal.

    Table 2. Rodenticides for use in poultry buildings.

    Active Ingredients Single/Multiple Feeding Secondary Poisoninga
    Brodifacoum Single Yes
    Bromadialone Single Yes
    Bromethalin Single No
    Chlorophacinone Single/multiple Yes
    Cholecalciferol Single/multiple No
    Difethialone Single Yes
    Diphacinone Single/multiple Yes
    Warfarin Multiple Yes (low risk)
    Zinc phosphide Single No

    Note: EPA labels state that bait must be in tamper-resistant stations or put in inaccessible areas. Workers should wear rubber or latex gloves or use long-handled bait spoons when placing bait to protect themselves and to minimize human scent at the station.

    aSecondary poisoning can occur when pets or other animals consume poisoned rodents.

    2. Covered bait stations are used in the most successful programs designed to control rodents. Covered stations keep bait clean and provide a secure place for rodents to feed undisturbed. In addition, they prevent exposure of bait to nontarget animals and children and help prevent contamination of feed and surfaces by the rodenticides. An inexpensive station designed for mouse control can be constructed from a section of 1½ x 12- to 18-inch PVC pipe. Commercial stations are also available. Stations with a 3-inch opening can be used where rats are the chief pest.

    • Place stations along all cage row walkways at 10- to 20-foot intervals. Secure them to the wall or floor (Figure 13). For additional control, place stations around the entire pit ledge at 10- to 40-foot intervals, including fan areas in high-rise houses and at all entry or access sites to cage areas (pipes, ladders, posts, etc.). Locate stations in the walkways between houses, in utility and egg-packing rooms, and in pit entrance areas at 10- to 20-foot intervals.
    • Rodents may be active year-round in the attic or may travel there during cleaning and disinfection of a facility. A trial baiting of the attic also is recommended. Place small amounts of bait at several locations above the feed equipment area for the first 20 feet of the house. Recheck the bait in 2 to 4 days. If it has been consumed, use bait more extensively.
    • Where rats are the major pest, bait stations can be placed at less frequent intervals and at specific harborage or feeding sites based on their feeding patterns (Table 1). Use the Rodent Evaluation Form (Appendix C) to locate these sites.
    • Wearing disposable gloves or using a long-handled spoon and following label directions, place 1 to 2 teaspoons of fresh bait in the stations every 3 to 4 weeks, or more frequently if the bait is consumed.
    • Tracking powders also can be effective rodenticides. The powder gets on rodents’ feet and fur when they travel through it. During grooming, rodents ingest the powder, which contains the rodenticide. These powders can be effective when applied as a dust to holes, nesting areas, and rodenticide stations. Because a variety of safety concerns are associated with these products, they are seldom recommended in food production areas. The toxicant in tracking powders is 10 to 40 times stronger than baits and may cause contamination of the food product and handling equipment as the rodent travels through the home range.
    • Over time, rodents may associate spoilage and undesirable taste or physiologic effect with a particular bait, then reject it. This is especially true for zinc phosphide. Bait shyness is not a problem with anticoagulent rodenticides. To reduce this problem, zinc phosphide baits should not be used more than twice yearly (preferably only once a year), and all baits should be kept fresh.
    • Zinc phosphide bait should be used primarily as a “clean out” bait and is useful after flock depopulation. Bait stations should always be prebaited with some chicken feed prior to using zinc phosphide, to get rodents using the bait stations often. Prebaiting stations prior to placing the rodenticide will improve many rodent control programs. In general, baiting during clean out can be very effective due to lack of feed and harborage in manure. If solid baits are not accepted, try sweetened water baits or tracking powder prior to dis-infection and wash-down. Thoroughly clean off contaminated surfaces before placing new birds.
    • Store rodenticides in tightly sealed containers in a secure area away from petroleum prod-ucts and other materials with odors that can be absorbed by the rodenticide (Figure 14).
    • Keep an inventory of several baits containing different food base ingredients (e.g., pellets, meal, liquid, whole seed, or grain). Change bait at least every 3 to 4 weeks to keep it fresh, or more frequently as it is consumed. Change to a bait containing another active ingredient only if rodents develop bait shyness (but not more often than 1 to 2 times a year). Bait shyness or rejection is often caused by bait spoilage, especially non-parafinized baits in warm, moist climates. In some situations rodents will find some bait preparations more palatable, and it may be useful to determine “bait preference” before baiting all stations. These bait preferences can occur with baits having the same active ingredient but different formulations or preparations. Insects such as darkling beetles and fly larval stages will feed on rodenticides, making the bait unattractive to rodents (Figure 15). If this happens, change the bait and establish an appropriate insect control program.
    • Relying on rodent control measures primarily at the time of farm clean-out is discouraged. It is necessary to follow a complete and comprehensive rodent control program throughout the life of the flock. Failure to do this often results in high rodent numbers while the flock is housed. If rodents are infected with SE, they will contaminate the environment (including other houses in a multiple-house complex) and may expose the flock to this bacterium.

    Figure 14. Store rodenticides in sealed containers in a secure area.

    Figure 15. Insect damage can make rodenticides unattractive to rodents.

    Monitor Rodents with Rodent Indexing

    Monitoring the number of rodents in a poultry house is an important part of a complete rodent control program. Rodent Indexing (RI) is an invaluable tool for monitoring rodents. RI uses both visual evaluation and 12 Tin Cat live catch mouse traps (Figure 16) to assess the relative numbers of rodents in the house and the quality of the current control program (Table 3 and Appendix D). In addition, RI is used to assess the relative risk that mice, if infected with SE, may pose to the poultry flock. High numbers of mice have been associated with SE contamination of poultry house environments in Pennsylvania.

    Figure 16. Live traps are used to monitor mice numbers.

    Table 3. Rodent Indexing.

    Number of mice caught Rodent Index
    0-10 Low (1)
    11-25 Moderate (2)
    26 or more High (3)

    Note: Count the total mice captured in one week to determine the house’s RI based on this scale. To adjust for mice numbers caught when traps were set for periods less than or greater than 7 days (i.e., standardizes catches to a week), multiply by 7 and divide by the number of days the traps were set. Poultry farms with an RI of 3 (high) are four times more likely to have contaminated egg belts and manure than farms with an RI of 1.

    1. To begin Rodent Indexing, complete the visual Rodent Evaluation Form (Appendix C) during daylight hours with the assistance of a flashlight. Using the form as a guide, place traps in areas where mice are most likely to be caught, such as along the walls of the cage walk-ways, pit ledges, and near fan housings. Use 12 traps in all. In a high-rise house, set a minimum of two traps in the pit. Traps placed on pit ledges can be supported by a nail driven into the ledge beneath the trap. The floor of the pit in the front of the house below the feed hoppers is frequently a good placement site. Bait the traps with an ounce of chicken feed and leave them in the house for 1 week. Check the traps twice during the week. Any trap which has not caught a mouse at the first check (2 to 5 days after traps are set) should be moved to another location where rodent harborage is evident. Traps should be moved a minimum of 15 feet. Captured mice should be humanely euthanitized.
    2. The goal, or critical limit, is to maintain low mouse numbers (RI = 1). If the RI is greater than 1, reevaluate your rodent control program. Rodent Indexing should be done at least once a month for each flock. Always file the Rodent Evaluation Form for future reference, and record RI scores in the Rodent Evaluation Form (Appendix C) .
    3. Visual inspection at night, shortly after dark or lights out, or in early morning using a flashlight can be effective for detecting rodents. Using a red cellophane or plastic cover over the flashlight lens is less disturbing to rodents but is not necessary. Rodents may have particular times when they are active at night, so it may be necessary to check more than once.
    4. Designate a responsible person to monitor the rodent control program, keep records, and verify that the HACCP plan is working. The only effective way to monitor your rodent control program is to maintain a record of the number of rodents trapped and their activities. Appendix E contains a sample Rodent Control Log (Appendix E) . Recording specific comments (e.g., bait consumption and rodent droppings in right rear pit area of house) allows for more detailed assessment and information necessary to adjust the control program. The log can be placed on a clipboard for the currently housed flock, and past flock records can be placed in files.

    Verify the Program

    It usually takes 2 to 8 weeks to achieve an RI in the low category in houses that have previously had moderate and high rodent populations. If you cannot answer “yes” to all of the questions below, your rodent control program may not succeed.

    1. Is the exterior of the house properly maintained?
    2. Are openings in doors and buildings sealed?
    3. During cleaning and disinfection of the poultry house, has an honest effort been made to seal holes inside the building and intensify baiting?
    4. Are bait stations placed at 10- to 20-foot intervals completely around the walls of the cage walkways?
    5. Are bait stations placed at 10- to 40-foot intervals on the pit ledge and in other areas of the house?
    6. If bait is being consumed by rodents, is it replaced with fresh bait at appropriate intervals in covered bait stations?
    7. Is manure knocked off cage support beams every 6 to 8 weeks to dis-lodge potential rodent living areas?
    8. Has manure been removed from the pit?
    9. Has the attic been baited?
    10. Has bait been checked for insect damage, which makes it unattractive to rodents?

    References

    • Baker, R. 1996. Animal Pest Management Services, Inc., Chino, Calif. Personal communication.
    • Foster, S., H. M. Opitz, and D. Dineen. 1994. Training and Reference Manual for Sampling of Commercial Pullet and Layer Houses for Salmonella enteritidis. University of Maine and the Maine Department of Agriculture.
    • Henzler, D. J. 1993. Determining the number of mice on farms is a diffi-cult task. Poultry Times XL(6).
    • Henzler, D. J. and H. M. Opitz. 1992. The role of mice in the epizootiol-ogy of infection on chicken layer farms. Avian Diseases 36:625-631.
    • Schlosser, W., D. J. Henzler, and J. Mason, Eds. 1995. Salmonella enteritidis Pilot Project Progress Report.

    Place Salmonella enteritidis Clean Pullet Chicks

    #3 Critical Control Point

    Salmonella enteritidis (SE) contaminated pullet chicks are a significant hazard for the introduction of SE into laying flocks and potentially their eggs. Therefore, this critical control point, like cleaning and disinfection and controlling rodents, is essential for reducing the risk of SE exposure. Always purchase clean pullet chicks from U.S. Sanitation Monitored SE negative breeder flocks. Request documentation of breeder SE status from the hatchery supplying pullet chicks. Decline the chicks if documentation cannot be provided.

    1. Monitor pullet chicks as a source of SE by sampling chick box drop-ping papers from every tenth box at the time chicks are delivered. Submit samples to a laboratory for SE culturing (Figure 17). See Appendix F for the sampling procedures and Appendix G for a Rodent Control Log .
      Figure 17. Monitor pullet chicks by sampling dropping papers for Salmonella enteritidis.
    2. If the culture results are positive for SE, verify the dropping paper results, notify the hatchery, and culture the pullet house environment (Appendix H).
    3. If the environment (manure) cultures are positive, take one of the following corrective actions:
      • Destroy the flock in a humane fashion.
      • Rear chicks under a vigorous SE reduction program that includes aggressive rodent control, weekly manure removal, vaccination with an approved SE bacterin and treatment with antibiotics in rotation with a probiotic
    4. In addition, clean and disinfect the pullet house before introducing the next flock. (See Clean and Disinfect Between Flocks: #1 CCP.)
    5. Pullet organ cultures and further environmental cultures are necessary to substantiate the SE status of the flock after the corrective actions listed above had been completed. Designate a responsible per-son to monitor the pullet chick program, take corrective actions if SE is isolated, and file records of samples and actions taken. Verification that the HACCP plan is working is established only after a thorough review of the procedures and records of SE sampling.
    6. Additional pullet management steps can include vaccination with an approved SE bacterin to enhance pullet resistance, periodic sanitizing of the water system, and supplying clean fresh feed from a mill practicing American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) sanitation principles and using animal proteins from Animal Protein Producers Industry (APPI) program sources.
    7. Because communication is critical for a complete industry-wide SE reduction program, the pullet producer and buyer must be informed immediately if chicks or the environment test positive for SE.

    Monitor the Environment

    Monitoring the environment (manure) is necessary for all pullet and hen houses regardless of previous culture results following cleaning and disinfection (Figure 18). Bacterial evaluation of the environment is a check on the effectiveness of the actions taken at the three critical control point areas. The goal is to keep SE-negative houses negative. Results from manure culturing determine the need for more aggressive actions with pullet flocks or egg monitoring with hens; therefore, the sampling process is critical to the accuracy and reliability of laboratory results. Only random composite samples can reflect the actual bacteriologic status of the environment throughout the house.

    Figure 18. Drag swab the pit to monitor environmental contamination.

    Pullets

    Monitor the pullets’ environment as a source of SE by taking the following steps:

    1. Designate someone (perhaps the person who oversees pullet chick box paper sampling) to oversee the proper sampling of the house, submit samples to the laboratory (Figure 19), and keep records of the samples and submissions.
    2. Collect manure samples (two per cage row) when the pullets are 10 to 15 weeks old and culture the samples for SE (Appendix H).
    3. If the culture results are positive, notify the pullet buyer and reculture the pullet house to confirm the results. Proceed with one of the corrective actions listed under #3 CCP (e.g., destroy the flock in a humane fashion, or rear pullets under a vigorous SE reduction program).

    Figure 19. Environmental samples are ready for submission.

    Hens

    Monitor the environment in the laying house by taking the following steps:

    1. Designate a person or persons responsible for proper sampling of the house, submitting samples to the laboratory, and keeping records of the samplings and submissions.
    2. Implement the sampling program (Appendix H).
    3. If SE-positive pullets (as indicated by positive chick papers or pullet environment samples) were placed in the laying house, take environmental samples at 7 to 14 days following placement.
    4. Take environmental samples of all laying flocks at 29 to 31 weeks and again at 44 to 46 weeks of age.
    5. If a flock is force molted, take additional environmental samples at 5 to 7 weeks following the return to full feed.
    6. Record dates, times, and details of samples and submissions.

    If any manure samples test positive for SE, take the following steps:

    1. Review the biosecurity program and all CCPs for potential weaknesses and correct.
    2. Initiate egg monitoring and discontinue environmental testing once egg testing is in progress.
    3. Clean and disinfect the laying house before introducing the next flock.(See Clean and Disinfect Between Flocks: #1 CCP.)
    4. Keep records on these actions.

    Monitor Eggs

    Egg monitoring is required for hen flocks in environments that test positive for SE. Initiation of egg testing eliminates the need for any further environmental testing. The results of egg testing determine whether eggs must be diverted for pasteurization or hard cooking rather than offered to the consumer as table eggs. Thus, egg testing is designed to reduce the risk of SE contaminated eggs reaching the table egg market. Reducing SE contamination in eggs is the goal of the quality assurance program, and bacteriologic testing of eggs for SE is a check on the effectiveness of the HACCP program. The accuracy of the laboratory results depends on the egg sampling process. Only a proper random sample of eggs reflects the actual bacteriologic status of eggs from hens through-out the house.
    Monitoring eggs from the laying house involves taking the following steps:

    1. Designate a person or persons to be responsible for proper collection of eggs, submission to the laboratory, and record keeping on the samples and submissions.
    2. Implement the egg sampling program (Appendix I).
    3. Collect and submit eggs four times at two-week intervals (Figure 20). Each egg submission consists of 510 nest run eggs (blood eggs or a combination of blood and nest run eggs is also suitable).
    4. If the four initial egg submissions are negative, continue to submit 510 eggs once a month for the life of the flock.
    5. Keep records on the dates, times, and details of all egg collections and submissions (Figure 21).

    Figure 20. Monitor eggs with nest run samples.

    Figure 21. Keep records on all sample collections and submissions.

    If any eggs test positive for SE, take the following corrective actions:

    1. Immediately divert all flock eggs from the table egg market to pasteurization or hard cooking.
    2. Review the “Biosecurity Risk Factors” chapter and CCPs for potential weaknesses and correct them.
    3. Keep records on these actions.

    To attempt to return the flock’s eggs to the table egg market, take the following additional monitoring steps:

    1. Collect and submit 1,080 eggs four times at two-week intervals, or make a one time 4,320-egg submission.
    2. If all test results are negative, the flock’s eggs may be returned to the table egg market; however, monthly submissions of 510 eggs are required for the remaining life of the flock.
    3. If one or more test results are positive, continue diversion, and retest if desired. However, with 3 SE positive egg collection cultures over the life of the flock, no further testing is permitted and the eggs must by permanently diverted for pasteurization or hard cooking. All egg retest results must be negative in order to return to the table egg market. If retest results are negative and the flock’s eggs are returned to the table egg market, monthly submissions of 510 eggs are still required for the life of the flock.
    4. Keep records on the dates, times, and details of all collections and submissions.

    Appendices Statement

    The following appendices are example forms and procedures utilized by the Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program (PEQAP) for the maintenance of egg quality in Pennsylvania. They are intended as examples and therefore are not official documents of the program. Egg producers in other states are welcome to adopt some or all of the PEQAP procedures. However, only Pennsylvania producers can enroll at this time. Those wishing to obtain official forms or enroll in the PEQAP may write or call the following office:

    Animal Health and Diagnostic Services
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
    Department of Agriculture
    2301 North Cameron Street
    Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408
    Phone: 717-783-5309

    Appendices

    sample submission form

    B. Swabbing Cleaned and Disinfected Houses

    The object of culturing a house during cleaning or disinfection is to determine whether any Salmonella remain. This helps to determine whether the procedures involved in the cleaning and/or disinfection have eliminated the bacteria. Specific locations are sampled to assess whether the sanitation has been successful in these areas and across different materials (wood, metal, concrete). Commonly, the sampling and culturing is done at the end of all cleaning and disinfection procedures and after the house is completely dried. Swabbing areas that are wet and contain disinfectant will kill the bacteria on the swab and cause false negative results. There are times when culturing is done in between stages of the cleaning and disinfection process to determine which procedure, disinfectant, or application method is best. Hence, tests may be repeated for the same areas and early samples compared with later samples.

    Surfaces must be free of organic material for any disinfectant to work. (For example, the goal on the cleaning and disinfection evaluation form is be in the none or slight category.)

    Samples are taken by either a hand swab or a drag swab, using a latex-gloved hand and a sterile 4-by-4-inch, 8- or 12-ply gauze sponge which is saturated with canned skim milk.

    Hand swabbing: Swab a minimum of 10 separate locations with each swab, rubbing vigorously. Two swabs are combined in a single Whirl-pak bag to make a sample. Change gloves between each sample.

    Drag swabbing: Attach a sterile gauze sponge to the end of a string (4 to 6 feet) that can be pulled by hand or connected to a pole and dragged across the areas to be sampled. Drag each area for a minimum of five minutes. Two swabs are combined for a single sample.

    If only a limited number of samples are taken, select areas that appear to have not been cleaned as well. Ideally, all of the areas listed below should be sampled.

    Sample area Sampling method Number of samples Whirl-pak ID
    Walkways Drag 1 Walk
    Egg belts and de-escalators Hand 1 per bank 1EG, 2EG, etc.
    Cages Hand 1 Cage
    Upstairs walls Hand 2 Wall-L Wall-R
    Feed troughs Hand 2 Trough-L Trough-R
    Pit floor Drag 2 Pit F-L Pit F-R
    Pit ledge Hand 2 Pit L-L Pit L-R
    Pit poles Hand 2 Pit P-L Pit P-R
    Utility room Drag 1 Utility room
    Egg room Drag 1 Egg room

    A. Download Cleaning and Disinfection Evaluation Form

    D. Rodent Indexing

    Purpose

    This protocol is used for establishing a Rodent Index (RI) in layer or pullet houses.

    General

    The monitoring design employs a two-step process. First, a visual inspection of the poultry facility is completed using a check-off form. Then 12 mouse traps are placed in the poultry house and the number of mice trapped are recorded, establishing the Rodent Index. The index is not designed to quantify the actual numbers of mice in a poultry house but is an attempt to assess the relative risk to the poultry flock.

    Equipment required

    • Flashlight
    • Rodent Evaluation Form (Appendix C)
    • Twelve multiple-catch mouse traps (available from Woodstream Co., Lititz, Pa.)

    Procedures

    • Visual inspection: This is done on a walk-through of the house (floor walkways, pit, attic) using the Rodent Evaluation Form as a guide. It details the most common areas where mice reside. The inspection, which generally takes from 30 to 90 minutes, is done by walking through the poultry house during daylight hours with a flashlight.
    • Trapping: The next step in determining whether or not these areas are currently occupied by mice requires placing 12 traps in the areas most likely to catch mice. Traps are generally placed in two areas, either along the cage walk walls (sides, front, or rear) or on the pit ledges. Traps on the ledges can be supported by a nail driven into the ledge beneath the trap. Other areas where traps have been set include breeze-ways at the entrance of poultry houses, fan housing, and pit floor.
      1. Bait traps with a small handful of chicken feed (about 1 ounce).
      2. Place traps in areas suggestive of mouse activity, with a minimum of two traps in the pit.
      3. Check the traps after 2 to 5 days and remove and count the mice.
      4. Move the traps that have not caught any mice to a different location.
      5. Check the traps again 1 week after they were first placed.
      6. Record the total number of mice caught for the week on the Rodent Evaluation Form.
    • Rodent Index (RI): This is based on the number of mice caught and is used to estimate the rodent population. Use the following table to calculate the RI.
      Number of mice caught Rodent Index Description of Index
      0-10 1 Low
      11-25 2 Moderate
      26 or more 3 High
    • Estimation of the rodent population: Using the results of the RI and the Rodent Evaluation Form, estimate the current rodent population as none, low, moderate, or high. Indicate whether this estimate is based on visual inspection, trapping, or both.

    C. Download Rodent Evaluation Form

    F. Sampling Pullet Chick Box Papers

    Obtaining a representative sample and culture of chick papers is a sensitive method for detecting the presence of Salmonella in chicks. Chick droppings, or meconium, give a good indication of prior bacterial contamination. Papers should be collected and/or swabbed so that no potential exists for contamination by the environment or personnel.

    Swabbing procedure

    1. Lay chick papers on a clean surface and separate them by source breeder flock(s).
    2. With latex-gloved hands, take a sterile 4-by-4-inch, 8- or 12-ply gauze sponge saturated with canned skim milk and rub it vigorously across the surface of the chick paper, covering at least 75 percent of the area. Use enough pressure to rub any dry meconium off the papers.
    3. Pouring a small amount of milk (1 to 2 tablespoons) on the paper will improve collection.
    4. Swab five chick papers per sponge.
    5. Place two sponges (a maximum of 10 combined swabbed papers) into an 18-ounce Whirl-pak bag, and add 1 to 2 tablespoons of skim milk.
    6. Change gloves between each Whirl-pak sample (each 10 papers) and whenever a glove is torn.
    7. Make sure hands are clean prior to swabbing, and do not apply disinfectant to gloves.

    Handling samples

    Transport samples on ice packs to a laboratory within 48 hours of collection. Samples can be frozen for longer storage; however, immediate delivery to the laboratory is ideal. Attach the following information to each sample: pullet flock identification and the designated layer flock(s), owner, collection date, name of person taking the sample, source breeder flock(s), hatchery, and strain of birds. An example form is provided in Appendix G.

    Alternative procedure

    An alternative to swabbing chick papers yourself is to send the chick papers directly to a laboratory. Select every tenth chick box paper for culture. Separate chick papers by source breeder flock(s). Place chick papers immediately into large plastic bags and close bags. Place bags in clean boxes and transport them in a timely manner to a laboratory that has agreed to test such samples. The papers do not need refrigeration.

    E. Download Rodent Control Log

    H. Swabbing Pullet and Layer House Environments

    Purpose

    This protocol is used for collecting representative manure samples in pullet and layer houses to establish if there is environmental contamination with Salmonella enteritidis.

    General

    Two manure samples per bank of cages are required for the program. These samples must be representative of all the birds in the house. Accordingly, swabs must be dragged along each row of manure for the entire length of the house. To help ensure valid results, maintain as much consistency as possible when collecting samples.

    Equipment required

    1. standard biosecurity equipment
    2. small cooler with three frozen ice packs
    3. small garbage bag (presently provided by the Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program) containing the following:
      • 2 Whirl-Paks per bank (Prenumber these with the house collection number; number the banks of the house from left to right as you face the banks.)
      • pair of laboratory gloves per bank
      • large garbage bag to serve as a tablecloth
      • 2 sterile 4-by-4-inch, 12-ply gauze sponges per bank,
      • pre-prepared as drag swabs (They should be pre-prepared in autoclave packs with the required number of sponges plus two extra sponges.)
      • can of evaporated skim milk and an alcohol swab (to disinfect can before opening)
    4. scissors
    5. can opener
    6. felt-tipped marker
    7. 1-gallon plastic bag
    8. set of manure drag poles (These can be constructed from a ³∕8-by-42-inch solid aluminum rod with a ¼-inch hole drilled ½ inch from one end, or from a ½-by-36-inch conduit with a ¼-inch hole drilled ½ inch from one end. The solid aluminum rods are easier to clean and disinfect.)

    Procedures

    1. Suit up and disinfect before entering the house in accordance with standard biosecurity practices.
    2. Bring all materials to the bottom floor of the house. Use the bottom utility area if the house has one. Bring a bucket filled with a disinfecting solution, such as Environ 1 Stroke, and a brush for disinfecting equipment. Spread out the large garbage bag and arrange the material on it. Number the Whirl-Pak bags with the bank numbers if they have not been prenumbered.
    3. Open the alcohol swab and wipe the top of the can of evaporated skim milk.
    4. Disinfect the can opener and scissors with the sanitizing solution in your disinfection bucket. Use the can opener to open the can. Use the scissors to cut open the autoclave pack of swabs near the top of the pack.
    5. Moisten the swabs in the pack by pouring some milk into the pack and massaging the outside of the pack. Lay the pack on the garbage bag.
    6. Tear off the top of the two Whirl-Paks for bank 1.
    7. Put on a pair of laboratory gloves.
    8. Sample the banks from left to right. The bank on the far left will be bank 1.
    9. Tie the swabs to the pole. Tie one swab slightly ahead of the other to give maximum surface area.
    10. Walk the length of the house dragging the swabs along one side of the top ridge of manure. Sample one or two banks at a time. Drag the other side of the ridge on the way back.
    11. Place the two swabs in a Whirl-Pak without touching the swabs. Cut attaching strings. Add approximately 5 ml of milk, close the Whirl-Pak, and place it in the 1-gallon plastic bag.
    12. Use the bucket and brush to disinfect poles and scissors.
    13. Remove gloves, tear off the top of the next Whirl-Pak, put on a clean pair of gloves, and remove two additional swabs from the autoclave pack.
    14. Drag the remaining banks as noted above.
    15. Seal the plastic bag and place it in the cooler.
    16. Put all discarded material in the garbage bag.
    17. Place the coolers outside the house; clean and disinfect them; then load them into your vehicle.
    18. Follow standard biosecurity procedures when leaving.
    19. Transport samples to a processing facility within 24 hours.

    Collection adaptations

    Variations in poultry house design and/or unsuitable manure pit conditions will require appropriate adaptations for collecting representative manure environmental samples. Unsuitable manure pit conditions could include situations where manure is piled very high, or is liquid or semiliquid.

    1. Shallow pit: Attach two drag swabs onto the manure scraper assembly and run the scraper to the opposite end of house. Remove the swabs and place them in appropriate Whirl-Paks.
      Shallow pit operations all have some type of manure scraper. Some have scrapers under each tier; some have a floor scraper only; and some have a combination of both. Each scraper blade must be swabbed. Sample only solid manure on the scrapers. The ammonia in the pit liquid may inhibit Salmonella growth. Two sponges are used to hand swab the solid manure on all scraper blades on each bank and are placed in two separate Whirl-Paks.
    2. Full width manure belt system: Attach two drag swabs to cross conveyor equipment so as to get manure exposure on swabs from only one bank at a time. Run manure belts the full length; then remove swabs and place them them in appropriate Whirl-Paks. Proceed with each bank until the entire house is sampled. Should equipment design make this procedure unworkable, an acceptable alternative would be to hand swab (using two swabs per bank) all the manure scraper blades at the end of each bank. Put one swab in each of two Whirl-Pak bags for each bank.
    3. Manure pits unsuitable for dragging: Hand swab egg belts (approximately 10 to 12 feet on each cage level) and the de-escalators on each bank of cages. Sampling time should be from three and one-half to five minutes for each bank of cages. One swab on each side of the bank will make a sample with two swabs in one Whirl-Pak for each bank in the house. Place two drag swabs on one drag pole and drag walkways. One set of swabs for each two walkways comprises a Whirl-Pak sample.

    I. Nest Run Egg Sample Collection

    Purpose

    This protocol is used for collecting representative samples of nest run eggs from layer houses. It is designed to make collection as easy as possible while providing a valid sampling technique. This protocol explains the following methods of collecting eggs:

    • house collection
    • nest run packing collection
    • dozen carton processing collection

    General

    1. The Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program (PEQAP) calls for a sample size of 480 eggs in environmentally positive houses.
      (To allow for breakage and discarding of excessively dirty eggs, 510 eggs, or 17 flats, are actually collected.) A sample size of 1,000 eggs is called for in those houses that have had positive eggs and wish to resume table egg production. (The amount actually collected is 1,080 eggs, or 36 flats.)
    2. Regardless of how many eggs are collected, it is important to get a representative sample by collecting eggs from all areas of the house.
    3. You may obtain a representative sample by walking through the house and collecting eggs or by systematically collecting eggs during packing or processing.
    4. Cases of eggs that have already been packed are not a representative sample because all of the eggs are more likely to come from the same area of a house.

    Equipment required

    1. For the 1,080 egg sample, you will need:
      • 3 new egg cases with short dividers
      • 42 new egg flats (36 for the eggs and 6 to cover the top layer of eggs in the cases)
    2. For the 510 egg sample, you will need:
      • 2 new egg cases with short dividers or three 15-dozen cases
      • 20 new egg flats (17 for the eggs and 3 to cover the top layer of eggs in the cases)

    Procedures

    Choose one of the following methods to collect eggs.

    1. House collection

    1. Plan to collect eggs when the belts are not moving.
    2. Figure out the number of eggs required per section of the house.

      Example 1. You need 510 eggs for a 6-bank house with 62 sections.

      • 510 eggs/6 banks is about 90 eggs per bank
      • 90 eggs/2 sides = 45 eggs per side
      • 45 eggs/62 sections = 0.73 eggs per section, or about 3 eggs for every 4 sections

      Example 2. You need 1,080 eggs for a 5-bank house with 51 sections.

      • 1,080 eggs/5 banks = 216 eggs per bank
      • 216 eggs/2 sides = 108 eggs per side
      • 108 eggs/51 sections = 2.11 eggs per section
    3. Collect the first egg from the first tier, the second egg from the second tier, and so on to the bottom tier.
    4. When you come to the last section of the last row, you should just be filling your last case. If you are more than 12 eggs short, go back to the first bank and collect enough eggs from each bank to make up the difference. Note on your collection sheet how many eggs you were short initially.
    5. Collect all eggs before reaching the last 6 sections of the last bank. Note on your collection sheet how many sections you skipped at the end.

    2. Collection during nest run packing

    1. Ensure that only one house is included in a run. Collection during nest run packing is not appropriate if eggs are being blended from more than one house.
    2. Calculate the number of flats needed per pallet or rack.
      Example 1. Yesterday’s production was five 30-case pallets.

      • Each pallet had 5 layers, or a total of 25 layers.
      • You need 510 eggs, or 17 flats.
      • 17 flats/25 layers = 0.68 flats per layer

      This is less than one flat per layer but more than one flat per every two layers. Remove 1 flat per pallet layer until you have 17 flats.

      Example 2. Yesterday’s production was four 30-case pallets.

      • Each pallet had 5 layers for a total of 20 layers.
      • You need 1,080 eggs, or 36 flats.
      • 36 flats/20 layers = 1.8 flats per layer

      This is between one and two flats per layer. Remove 2 flats per pallet layer until you have 36 flats.

      Example 3. Yesterday’s production was eight 12-case racks.

      • Each rack had 5 layers for a total of 40 layers.
      • You need 510 eggs, or 17 flats.
      • 17 flats/40 layers = .425 flats per layer

      This is less than one flat per every two layers. Remove 1 flat per every two layers until you have 17 flats.

    3. Collection during dozen carton processing
    • Ensure that only one house is included in a run. Collection during processing is not appropriate if eggs are being blended from more
      than one house.
    • Calculate how many dozens are needed per pallet.

    Example 1. Yesterday’s production was five 30-case pallets.

    • Each pallet had 5 layers for a total of 25 layers.
    • You need 510 eggs, or 42.5 dozen.
    • 42.5 dozen/25 layers = 1.7 dozen per layer

    Remove 2 dozen per pallet layer until you have 42.5 dozen.

    Example 2. Yesterday’s production was four 30-case pallets.

    • Each pallet had 5 layers for a total of 20 layers.
    • You need 1,080 eggs, or 90 dozen.
    • 90 dozen/20 layers = 4.5 dozens per layer.

    This is between 4 and 5 dozen per layer. Remove 5 dozen per pallet layer until you have 90 dozen.

    Alternative procedures

    Producers may develop their own protocol for collecting representative samples of eggs from their houses. These protocols shall be submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Animal Health and Diagnostic Services for approval. Approved protocols will be kept on file.

    Prepared by:

    • S. A. Davison, University of Pennsylvania, Laboratory of Avian Medicine and Pathology, Kennett Square, Pa.
    • P. A. Dunn, Penn State Department of Veterinary Science, University Park, Pa.
    • D. J. Henzler, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Animal Health and Diagnostic Services, Harrisburg, Pa.
    • S. J. Knabel, Penn State Department of Food Science, University Park, Pa.
    • P. H. Patterson, technical editor, Penn State Department of Poultry Science, University Park, Pa.
    • J. H. Schwartz, Penn State Extension, Lancaster, Pa.

Reductions in medically important antimicrobials reflect industry stewardship

By
Jim
-

Source: PoultryHealthToday.com

Reductions in the use of medically important antimicrobials demonstrate the poultry industry’s commitment to stewardship of these valuable medications, Randall Singer, DVM, MPVM, PhD, told Poultry Health Today.

Singer’s comments were based on data reflecting antimicrobial use in poultry from 2013 through 2017. The project is supported by FDA and the US Poultry and Egg Association and has been conducted by Mindwalk Consulting Group, LLC, founded by Singer.

Just one example he cited of antimicrobial stewardship is the reduction in the percentage of broilers placed that received an antimicrobial at the hatchery, which dropped from 93% in 2013 to just 17% in 2017, according to an executive summary of the data.

“The companies are finding a way to prevent [disease] without that hatchery antimicrobial,” he said, and emphasized that disease prevention should be the goal versus a focus on simply reducing antimicrobial use. Sometimes, Singer pointed out, an antimicrobial administered at the hatchery is needed if there are certain diseases, like Escherchia coli, affecting birds, especially around brooding.

‘Steady decline’

Poultry companies have been reducing antibiotic use since well before January 2017, when FDA’s guidance documents took effect, tightening the reins on the use of medically important antibiotics. “For the most part it was a pretty steady decline between 2013 and 2017,” he continued, ranging from a 40% to 70% reduction in the use of medically important antimicrobials, depending on the class of drug and route of administration.

Some antimicrobials have no remaining approved uses — tylosin for broilers is one example —  and their use went to zero. In other cases, the use of some antimicrobials peaked in 2015, perhaps because there were disease challenges, Singer said.

Veterinarians doing their job

Antimicrobials should be used when needed, but focusing simply on reductions in antimicrobial use can lead to conflicts with animal health and welfare, he indicated.

“There are going to be years where disease incidence is going to spike. Certain diseases in certain companies might increase,” he said. “Well, you’re going to have to use an antimicrobial for therapy in those situations…that doesn’t mean that we’re now failing in stewardship. It means, I hope, that the veterinarians are doing their job to take care of the birds they oversee. And so, again, if we focus too much on reductions, on targeted reductions, I think we miss the point, which is around stewardship and good disease prevention.”

Singer expressed similar sentiments about no antibiotic production. “…my hope is that the veterinarians that oversee those birds are going to give those birds therapy when needed — that we’re not letting marketing decide,” Singer said, and added that he hopes the decision around using an antimicrobial remains in the hands of veterinarians as it should be.

Although the data demonstrates substantial drops in the use of medically important antibiotics in broilers, there was a shift toward more use of antibiotics that are not medically important, such as bacitracin. For turkeys, the shift from medically important to nonmedically important antibiotics has been more difficult because there aren’t as many nonmedically important antimicrobial options, Singer said.

Quantifying results

Since the movement toward reduced use of antimicrobials in food animals is largely driven by an effort to reduce antibiotic resistance in people, Poultry Health Today asked the professor how the results can be quantified. “It’s very difficult to quantify. Absolutely,” he replied.

“I think the thing to remember is that antimicrobial use in any setting — animals, crops, human health — is going to have some effect on the bugs — the bacteria that carry resistance mechanisms in some capacity. We may never find a very clear cause-and-effect relationship, but we do know that in total, our antimicrobial use does affect resistance,” he said.

Inappropriate measures

Singer expressed frustration with reports that sum the amount of antimicrobials used in food animals across all antimicrobial classes. “To me, that’s a very inappropriate measure to be using…because different antimicrobials have different potencies, meaning they have different molecular weights.

“It’s about how many birds you are treating and are you picking the right drug, for the right bug, at the right time?”

On poultry farms, most antimicrobials used will be administered orally in water or feed, and an orally administered drug is always going to have more milligrams per bird as a dose compared to using an injectable drug. “…if you’re comparing amount of drug used and you don’t take into account the route of administration, you don’t even have a fair comparison.”

Post-2017 data

The data from 2013 to 2017 represent at least 90% of annual broiler production and 80% of annual turkey production, which Singer described as an “incredible” response, especially considering that participation in the data-gathering project has been voluntary. He and colleagues are continuing to collect data for broilers and turkeys but will now also gather data on antimicrobial use in layers.

Post-2017 data should have better detail since that’s when more veterinary oversight kicked in. It should reflect which flock received which antimicrobial, for what disease, at what age as well as details about how the drug was administered and for how long, he said.

Singer said FDA, which uses a science-based approach when it comes to labeling antimicrobials, is re-evaluating its list of medically and nonmedically important antimicrobials. He expects those revisions in the next couple years. “And you know, we’ll adjust our practices accordingly.”

The full report about antimicrobial use in poultry is available here.

Veterinary Feed Directive – Year One in Review, By Elizabeth Ferry, Michigan State University

By
Jim
-

To gain a better understanding of the direct impacts to farmer raising animals for food productions MSU Extension led a nationwide survey to help determine what effect these new rules had across food animal species and across farms on a national level.

What happened on farms as a result of the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) rules? How did farmers, whether they raise cattle, sheep, goats, swine or poultry, respond? What happened to the health of animals? What happened with antibiotic use? What problems and opportunities came about? These were some of the questions to which a team from Michigan State University wanted to learn the answers. In order to discover those results, we asked farmers to respond on a survey in 2018.

In 2016 and 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implemented new restrictions on how antibiotics can be used in food animal production. The updated Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD), which was explained in Guidance Document 209 and 213, took effect January 1, 2017 and it changed how farmers could use antimicrobials that were deemed medically important to human medicine (but used in both human and animal medicine). The changes made focused on a one-health approach, a key aspect of which is that antimicrobial drug use contributes to the emergence of drug resistant organisms and that these important drugs must be used judiciously in both animal and human medicine to slow the development of resistance. The biggest change for farmers was that, when utilizing certain feed-grade medications, farmers would need to follow a process that required them to first seek a directive (VFD) written by a veterinarian with whom the farmer had a valid Veterinary-Client-Patient Relationship (VCPR), in order to source antibiotics that would be delivered to the animals through the feed. This process provides a framework for all veterinarians who are involved in issuing these antimicrobials for use, and provides documentation requirements for the farmers using the antimicrobial, veterinarian issuing the VFD and feed mill processing the order.

The VFD regulations had impacts at the farm level, on production practices and management of health. To gain a better understanding of the direct impacts to farmer raising animals for food productions Michigan State University Extension led a nationwide survey to help determine what effect these new rules had across food animal species and across farms on a national level. Farmer input was solicited and responses requested for survey questions that covered five areas: antibiotic use, animal morbidity and mortality, management, relationship with their veterinarian, and economics.

Survey responses were collected from farmers in 48 states and represented beef, dairy, sheep, goats, swine, poultry and other minor species. While data analysis is still ongoing, several consistent themes have emerged after the initial review of the data and responses. One theme is that some unintended economic impacts have occurred on farms because of the new VFD regulations, that is supported by producer comments such as, “The biggest change has been how much I have to pay the vet for treatment of my herd. It has increased the cost for production and for people who actually limited antibiotic usage before the regulation, the treatment has not changed, just the cost.”

Other untended consequences of VFD compliance reported in the survey relate to animal health. When looking at animal morbidity and mortality some producers indicate that they see more animal sickness, have limitations on the availability of product to treat animals and are frustrated with the timeframe in which it takes them to source these products with VFD regulations, “While the VFD doesn’t majorly affect my practices on a regular basis, it does limit the variety of options available to treat ailments and especially help supporting newborns, which can be frustrating.” Farmers also indicted that sourcing VFD friendly businesses to support their operations can be challenging, stating “My veterinarian refuses to write a VFD. I have no other veterinarians in my area” and “It has been difficult finding feed suppliers in my area who are willing to carry VFD products. I have had to go without or pay much higher prices because of added shipping costs and additional veterinary costs.”

While there are some challenges to the ways that farmers have had to implement the VFD regulations, there are also positive impacts that these changes have created. For example, it appears that the critical goal of reducing farm use of medically important antibiotics is being achieved, thanks to the commitment of farmers to comply with VFD guidelines. Findings reported by the FDA indicate that sales and distribution of medically important antibiotics intended for use by livestock (all species combined) declined by 33% between the years 2016 and 2017, and by 43% since 2015. These results, reported by manufactures/distributors of the products, are consistent with data from the Michigan State University Extension survey results. Also, overall, the survey results indicate that communication with farm veterinarians and the use of vaccines have increased. This is supported by comments from farmers recorded in Farm Journal which included references saying, “VFD actually has helped us to find more preventive opportunities.” This finding is highly encouraging, because strengthening the link between farmers and the veterinarians they work with should further improve America’s farmers achieve their objective of protecting antibiotics for future use in humans and animals.

Further work, including data analysis and a determination of areas which may benefit from follow-up will be completed. Using the information gathered, Michigan State University Extension will be able to further support the One Health antimicrobial stewardship approach, by sharing the positive practices put in place in agriculture to protect both human and animal health.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension. For more information, visit https://extension.msu.edu. To have a digest of information delivered straight to your email inbox, visit https://extension.msu.edu/newsletters. To contact an expert in your area, visit https://extension.msu.edu/experts, or call 888-MSUE4MI (888-678-3464).

 

Why measure pin bone spacing?

By
Jim
-

Broiler Breeder Management How-to’s provided by Aviagen

Tip #2

Routine measurement of the spacing between the pin (pelvic) bones allows correct determination of female sexual maturity and when lay is about to begin.

Minimizing Microbial Contamination in Feed Mills Producing Poultry Feed

By
Jim
-

Gary D. Butcher and Richard D. Miles2

Salmonella contamination in live bird preharvest production facilities can usually be traced to three production factors: (1) feed contamination, (2) environmental contamination, and/or (3) egg transmission. Each factor has an influence on and interrelationship with the others. If an established Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) program is to be successful in reducing the total number of salmonella and other pathogenic microorganisms to as near zero tolerance as possible, then all three of the above listed factors must be considered as potential sources of contamination. Technologically, the weakest link in salmonella control in live preharvest facilities is often the ability to produce salmonella-free feed consistently. If salmonella infection of birds is to be prevented, salmonella contamination of the bird’s environment and feed must also be controlled.

The quality of ingredients used for feed production by a poultry feed milling facility is important because what birds eat can affect flock quality and the wholesomeness of a flock’s meat and eggs. Most raw feed ingredients used as an energy and/or a protein source in diets of poultry are grown, harvested, processed, and transported by someone outside of the poultry industry. Therefore, the ingredient quality control component of a poultry operation’s feed mill is an important first step in preventing the contamination of birds on the farm. Serotyping becomes very important when tracing the origin of a salmonella infection in animals, especially humans. For example, it is well known that salmonella can be transmitted from feed ingredients to the completed mixed feed and on to live poultry. This transmission sometimes results in the production of salmonella-positive products (i.e., meat and eggs). Many times the salmonella serotypes found in feed ingredients are not the same as those commonly found in processed poultry. Therefore, it is foolish to believe that a salmonella control program intended solely to eliminate salmonella in the feed would control other salmonella types found in meat and eggs. An integrated HACCP program is essential.

Feed mills should follow the guidelines “Recommended Salmonella Control for Processing of Livestock and Poultry Feeds,” published by the American Feed Industry Association (1501 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22209). No single generic, microbiologically oriented HACCP program is best for all feed mills because each feed mill presents a unique management situation. Some commonalities, however, exist in all feed mills, and these are discussed in general to help minimize contamination of finished feed by pathogenic microorganisms such as salmonella.

  • First and foremost, the feed mill premises are important. Prevention of microbial contamination should be a major consideration in the engineering and construction of the facility.
  • Every feed mill should identify each critical control point, monitor that point for pathogens on a regular basis, and have a plan for corrective action if contamination is discovered. Ingredient inventories should be matched with the diets mixed and the flocks to which they are delivered. A bank of feed samples should be established so that they are available for analysis in the event a trace-back situation should arise. Feed samples should be sealed and stored in a clean, dry location.
  • Each feed ingredient used in the milling of finished feed has its own unique risk of being contaminated. High risk ingredients should be screened carefully. Generally, animal proteins have higher levels of salmonella contamination than do plant proteins. Poultry offal meal and feather meal should be considered high risk ingredients. These products often contain the same serotypes that are concurrently identified as causing contamination in local poultry populations. Adequate records should be kept on each feed ingredient supplier, including baseline quality control data.
  • It may be advisable at times to minimize the use of high risk feed ingredients in diets of certain animals such as very young, stressed, or breeder birds. Young birds are very susceptible to salmonellosis when they are 1 to 14 days of age. Consideration should be given to using pelletized /crumbled feed during this time of high susceptibility to salmonellosis since the temperature achieved during the pelletizing process is effective in killing salmonella.
  • The feed mill should have a functional biosecurity program to minimize contamination. Buffer zones will prevent nonemployees from entering the feed milling plant. Visitors should be considered to be contaminated and provided with coveralls, disposable shoe covers, sanitized rubber boots, or other appropriate biosecurity measures.
  • Rodents and wild birds must not be allowed in or near a milling facility. Nesting materials should be removed and potential nesting sites eliminated.
  • Dust control in the feed milling facility is essential for controlling salmonella. Dust is the major source of salmonella contamination in feed mills.
  • Traffic patterns of employees should be designed to minimize the possibility of cross contamination. Employees working in the ingredient receiving areas should not be allowed to enter the finished-feed area and vice versa. Different-colored uniforms could be used to ensure compliance.
  • The feed ingredient receiving and unloading area should be clean, neat, organized, and well drained. Ingredients should be rejected prior to unloading if they are contaminated with rodent and/or bird droppings or any insect infestation. Unloading pits should be free of any visual signs of previous ingredients. Pits can be flushed with small amounts (100 lbs) of low risk ingredients at the end of each day. Ground corn (100 lbs) containing from 0.5% to 1.0% organic acids (propionic, acetic, or formic) can also be used periodically for sanitation to minimize the risk of contamination. Mixtures of these acids can also be added as supplements to finished feed to reduce the number of viable salmonella.
  • Store all raw feed ingredients in clean, waterproof silos.
  • Transportation vehicles should be inspected and sanitized on a regular schedule. Litter, offal, and carcasses should never be hauled by the same vehicles that haul feed ingredients or finished feed. Designated trucks should be used only to deliver feed to breeder flocks.
  • The feed milling facility’s air handling system should be segregated by location. Air inlet areas (stacks) for pellet cooling can be a major source of microbial contamination and should be designed and located so as to minimize contamination of finished pellets by providing clean incoming air. Air handling systems should be cleaned thoroughly on a scheduled basis. Air filters should be able to remove all dust (>= 5 micrometers).
  • Bin cleanliness in the feed storage area is essential and should be monitored on a regular basis. Unsanitary conditions should be rectified. Feed spills should be cleaned up immediately.
  • Milling equipment, including conveyor equipment, should be identified (i.e., by color ring or number) throughout the facility, so if contamination occurs in a specific area the associated equipment can be identified and sanitized.
  • Methods must be employed to reduce temperatures in ground grains rapidly to prevent moisture migration and condensation inside the ground grain storage tanks, thus promoting bacterial as well as fungal growth.
  • Flushing of horizontal (screw-type) and boot-type conveyors with 100 pounds of corn containing organic acids on a regular basis will minimize the risk of horizontal contamination.
  • Surfaces of batch scales and mixers should be periodically inspected and cleaned of adhering feed material.
  • Finished pellets must not be allowed to come into contact with objects prior to falling into the cooler. Pellets falling on the floor must be considered a possible source of contamination and should not be added back to the finished feed.
  • Liquid fat application devices designed to apply fat to pellets must be kept sealed, be operated in dust-free locations, and be cleaned daily. Ground corn containing organic acids should be used daily to clean conveyors between fat application devices and feed storage.
  • Separate storage bins and trucks must be assigned for mash and pelleted feeds. These bins and trucks must be inspected and cleaned regularly.
  • Feed delivered to farms in bulk or in bags must be placed in clean storage bins or areas. Each poultry house should have two feed bins to allow growers to clean and sanitize the bins properly as needed and without interruption of the feeding schedule. The bins should be completely emptied, one at a time.
  • Any animal protein used as a feed ingredient in poultry feed should be purchased from rendering plants participating in the Animal Protein Producers Industry (APPI) Salmonella Reduction/Education program or the Fishmeal Inspection program sponsored by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The APPI or NMFS can provide a list of participants in their respective programs.
  • Educational programs for all feed mill employees should be considered essential. The HACCP program should be discussed in detail with employees. Suggestions to improve the HACCP program should be solicited from employees at regular intervals.

Footnotes

1.

This document is VM93, one of a series of the Veterinary Medicine-Large Animal Clinical Sciences Department, UF/IFAS Extension. Original publication date May 1995. Revised May 2003. Reviewed December 2017. Visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.

2.

Gary D. Butcher, Poultry Veterinarian; and Richard D. Miles, professor, Animal Sciences Department; UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL 32611.

The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other UF/IFAS Extension publications, contact your county’s UF/IFAS Extension office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, UF/IFAS Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A & M University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Nick T. Place, dean for UF/IFAS Extension.

Backyard Biosecurity Is the Best Defense Against Avian Influenza

By
Jim
-

Download the complete article

The threat of a serious disease outbreak such as avian influenza (AI) or infectious laryngotracheitis (ILT) should raise every backyard poultry owner’s awareness of the importance of having and maintaining a strong biosecurity program. Biosecurity means doing all you can to prevent an infectious disease from being carried onto your farm by people, pets, wild animals, equipment, or vehicles. It also means taking steps to reduce the likelihood that disease (should it occur) will leave your property. Backyard biosecurity provides a measure of protection for you, other backyard poultry keepers, and the multi-billion dollar commercial poultry and egg industry in Mississippi. While you cannot control anyone else’s biosecurity practices, you can take steps to ensure that you are not putting your chickens, other backyard flocks, or the commercial industry at risk.

Download the complete article

Reductions in medically important antimicrobials reflect industry stewardship, By Randall Singer, DVM, PhD

By
Jim
-

Reductions in the use of medically important antimicrobials demonstrate the poultry industry’s commitment to stewardship of these valuable medications, Randall Singer, DVM, MPVM, PhD, told Poultry Health Today.

Singer’s comments were based on data reflecting antimicrobial use in poultry from 2013 through 2017. The project is supported by FDA and the US Poultry and Egg Association and has been conducted by Mindwalk Consulting Group, LLC, founded by Singer.

Just one example he cited of antimicrobial stewardship is the reduction in the percentage of broilers placed that received an antimicrobial at the hatchery, which dropped from 93% in 2013 to just 17% in 2017, according to an executive summary of the data.

“The companies are finding a way to prevent [disease] without that hatchery antimicrobial,” he said, and emphasized that disease prevention should be the goal versus a focus on simply reducing antimicrobial use. Sometimes, Singer pointed out, an antimicrobial administered at the hatchery is needed if there are certain diseases, like Escherchia coli, affecting birds, especially around brooding.

‘Steady decline’

Poultry companies have been reducing antibiotic use since well before January 2017, when FDA’s guidance documents took effect, tightening the reins on the use of medically important antibiotics. “For the most part it was a pretty steady decline between 2013 and 2017,” he continued, ranging from a 40% to 70% reduction in the use of medically important antimicrobials, depending on the class of drug and route of administration.

Some antimicrobials have no remaining approved uses — tylosin for broilers is one example —  and their use went to zero. In other cases, the use of some antimicrobials peaked in 2015, perhaps because there were disease challenges, Singer said.

Veterinarians doing their job

Antimicrobials should be used when needed, but focusing simply on reductions in antimicrobial use can lead to conflicts with animal health and welfare, he indicated.

“There are going to be years where disease incidence is going to spike. Certain diseases in certain companies might increase,” he said. “Well, you’re going to have to use an antimicrobial for therapy in those situations…that doesn’t mean that we’re now failing in stewardship. It means, I hope, that the veterinarians are doing their job to take care of the birds they oversee. And so, again, if we focus too much on reductions, on targeted reductions, I think we miss the point, which is around stewardship and good disease prevention.”

Singer expressed similar sentiments about no antibiotic production. “…my hope is that the veterinarians that oversee those birds are going to give those birds therapy when needed — that we’re not letting marketing decide,” Singer said, and added that he hopes the decision around using an antimicrobial remains in the hands of veterinarians as it should be.

Although the data demonstrates substantial drops in the use of medically important antibiotics in broilers, there was a shift toward more use of antibiotics that are not medically important, such as bacitracin. For turkeys, the shift from medically important to nonmedically important antibiotics has been more difficult because there aren’t as many nonmedically important antimicrobial options, Singer said.

Quantifying results

Since the movement toward reduced use of antimicrobials in food animals is largely driven by an effort to reduce antibiotic resistance in people, Poultry Health Today asked the professor how the results can be quantified. “It’s very difficult to quantify. Absolutely,” he replied.

“I think the thing to remember is that antimicrobial use in any setting — animals, crops, human health — is going to have some effect on the bugs — the bacteria that carry resistance mechanisms in some capacity. We may never find a very clear cause-and-effect relationship, but we do know that in total, our antimicrobial use does affect resistance,” he said.

Inappropriate measures

Singer expressed frustration with reports that sum the amount of antimicrobials used in food animals across all antimicrobial classes. “To me, that’s a very inappropriate measure to be using…because different antimicrobials have different potencies, meaning they have different molecular weights.

“It’s about how many birds you are treating and are you picking the right drug, for the right bug, at the right time?”

On poultry farms, most antimicrobials used will be administered orally in water or feed, and an orally administered drug is always going to have more milligrams per bird as a dose compared to using an injectable drug. “…if you’re comparing amount of drug used and you don’t take into account the route of administration, you don’t even have a fair comparison.”

Post-2017 data

The data from 2013 to 2017 represent at least 90% of annual broiler production and 80% of annual turkey production, which Singer described as an “incredible” response, especially considering that participation in the data-gathering project has been voluntary. He and colleagues are continuing to collect data for broilers and turkeys but will now also gather data on antimicrobial use in layers.

Post-2017 data should have better detail since that’s when more veterinary oversight kicked in. It should reflect which flock received which antimicrobial, for what disease, at what age as well as details about how the drug was administered and for how long, he said.

Singer said FDA, which uses a science-based approach when it comes to labeling antimicrobials, is re-evaluating its list of medically and nonmedically important antimicrobials. He expects those revisions in the next couple years. “And you know, we’ll adjust our practices accordingly.”

The full report about antimicrobial use in poultry is available here.

1...486487488...501Page 487 of 501

Poultry News

Poultry News

Poultry winning streak in Mississippi ag hits 30 years

2024 marks the 30th consecutive year for poultry to outperform every other agricultural commodity in Mississippi, and for the second time in three years,...

SDSU researchers battle back against turkey virus

Health & Disease

All in One Basket – 12.20.24

Podcasts

France Declares End to Bird Flu Outbreak Amid Continued Vigilance

Poultry News

NH Foods Expands U.S. Presence with Acquisition of LJD Holdings Group

Poultry News

Copyright © 2024 poultryproducer.com . All rights reserved.

Translate Web in Your Language »