USA



Home Blog Page 489

Enhancing the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Organic acid Blends to kill Salmonella enterica and Campylobacter jejuni on Broiler Skin

Institution: Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University

Principal Investigator: Armitra Jackson-Davis, Ph.D.
Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University
Department of Food and Animal Sciences
4900 Meridian Drive
Normal, AL 35762

Pathogens, such as Salmonella enterica and Campylobacter jejuni, on raw meat and poultry products are a major food safety concern to regulatory agencies, meat processors and consumers. Antimicrobial use during processing can provide significant reductions of pathogen numbers, but poultry skin is hydrophobic (due to its fat content) and can resist thorough wetting by commonly used water-based antimicrobials. This likely limits the effectiveness of the microbial treatment.

Development of a food grade acid/saponin sanitizer with GRAS chemicals for broiler carcasses would be attractive to the poultry industry because of the following attributes: chemical stability, convenience of use, free of detectable organoleptic properties at use levels, environmental safety and biodegradable. Saponins are produced by certain plants and have detergent surfactant characteristics that can facilitate efficient wetting of fatty surfaces such as poultry skin. Some saponins, such as those in extracts from Yucca schidigera, have FDA GRAS status and are approved for use as ingredients in foods and beverages. Although studies have been published on the effect of organic acid/surfactants on the inactivation of E. coli, the “multiple-hurdle” effect of organic acid/saponin on Salmonella and Campylobacter has not been evaluated on broiler skin. The long-term goal of this research project was to enhance poultry meat safety by developing approaches for cleaning deep skin pathogen contamination in poultry carcasses or parts.

The objective of the project was to evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of organic acid solutions alone or combined with selected saponins against Salmonella and Campylobacter in a laboratory broth medium and to then determine the antibacterial effectiveness of selected organic acid /saponin immersion treatments against pathogens and indigenous microflora on chicken skin. The antibacterial effectiveness of lactic/citric acid mixtures (1.5% and 2.5%) or acetic acid (1.0% and 2.0%), alone or combined with Yucca extract (YEX), was evaluated against a 5-strain mixture of Campylobacter jejuni and Salmonella enterica in laboratory medium and on raw chicken skin. Lactic/citric (2.5%), or 2.0 % acetic acid with added 0.5% YEX, exhibited the largest reduction in populations of Campylobacter jejuni and Salmonella enterica in vitro as well as on chicken skin (p < 0.05). The addition of YEX (0.5%) to Lactic/citric acid (2.5%) or to acetic acid (2.0%) can enhance the antibacterial activity of those organic acids against Campylobacter jejuni and Salmonella enterica on raw chicken skin. These results indicate that saponins may have a practical use in combination with organic acids for the reduction of pathogen contamination during processing.

Hy-Line Enhances Genetic Progress with New Research Farm

Hy-Line International, the world leader in layer poultry genetics, celebrated the completion of its newest research farm today surrounded by federal, state and local dignitaries at a ribbon cutting ceremony. Named for the visionary and company founder, Dr. Henry A. Wallace, this state-of-the-art investment located in central Iowa, USA completes another significant step in the drive for accelerated genetic progress in Hy-Line layers sent to more than 120 countries around the world.

“We have a substantial responsibility in the effort to feed a growing global population with an inexpensive and nutritious source of protein – the egg,” said Jonathan Cade, President of Hy-Line International. “The addition of the Dr. Henry A. Wallace Farm allows us continued innovation and genetic progress in Hy-Line layer genetics to accomplish this.”

“We are making significant strategic changes in the Hy-Line breeding program to accelerate the rate of genetic progress,” said Dr. Danny Lubritz, Director of Research and Development for Hy-Line International. “Egg production and eggshell quality show higher genetic variation at older ages. The pedigree birds housed on the Dr. Henry A. Wallace Farm will be evaluated for these traits, among others, to help ensure continued genetic progress in persistency and shell strength.”

Hy-Line’s team of geneticists is making the genetic engine more powerful and more efficient. The addition of the Dr. Henry A. Wallace Farm increases the population of research birds from which to identify the top performing individuals to populate the next generation. As a result of improved selection intensity, Hy-Line varieties are gaining increased egg numbers, persistency, shell strength, egg weight and feed efficiency.

Determining the dose, time and route of challenge and the eventual sites of colonization of two Salmonella serovars

Auburn University

Kenneth S. Macklin
201 Poultry Science Building
260 Lem Morrison Drive
Auburn, AL 36849-5416

Industry Summary

Insuring the safety of poultry products is a high priority to producers, consumers and regulatory officials. Broiler carcass contamination at the processing plant is difficult to avoid if chickens arrive at the processing plant contaminated with Salmonella. During rearing and processing of broilers, there are a variety of potential sources for Salmonella contamination. Several preventative strategies have been implemented with varying degrees of success; however, an understanding of the different potential entryways and resulting colonization sites needs further analysis so that effective control strategies can be developed.

The first objective of this project was to determine if Salmonella enteritidis (SE) and Salmonella heidelberg (SH) can cause a systemic infection when administered to broilers by various routes. In the first trial, broilers were provided with feed contaminated by Salmonella at a dose of 102 colony-forming units (CFU)/gram continuously starting at day 0 and lasting throughout the grow out (day 35). In a second study, broilers were fed feed contaminated at a higher level (104 CFU/gram) from 14-18 days of age. In addition, five different inoculation routes (cloacal, ocular, oral gavage, intratracheal and subcutaneous injection) at 104 CFU/dose, at days 0 and 14, were utilized to determine Salmonella colonization. The second objective was to determine the tissues that were colonized by these inoculation routes. The samples that were tested were the cloaca, trachea, lung, ceca, kidney, intra-abdominal cavity, skin, breast meat, thigh meat, crop, spinal cord, bone marrow, plus two pooled samples (liver/spleen and thymus/bursa). These routes were selected to mimic potential real-world points of entry into the bird at the hatchery, during chick transport and at the farm. Tissues sampled reflect the array of potential poultry products, including mechanically deboned meat.

The continuous exposure of birds to a low level of either SE or SH in the feed from day 0 until trial termination (day 35) resulted in every bird having at least one positive sample. The second feed trial, in which birds were fed contaminated feed at a higher dose of SE or SH from day 14-18, produced lower overall levels of Salmonella contamination. However, SE was isolated from more than 50% of the exposed birds, while SH was isolated from only 2% of the exposed broilers. This was determined to likely be due to the inability of SH to survive for a long period of time on feed. In birds inoculated by various routes at day 0, the intratracheal, ocular and oral routes gave the highest recovery of Salmonella among the collected samples, while the subcutaneous route resulted in the lowest recovery.

It is important to note that all inoculations at 104 CFU resulted in some recovery from multiple organ and tissue samples when administered at day 0. In the birds that were inoculated at day 14, the groups inoculated by the ocular, intratracheal and cloacal routes had the greatest incidence of Salmonella recovery at day 35. These results show that introduction of SE or SH can occur at any point during the life of the flock.

As an enteric pathogen, the fecal/oral route has been the most commonly investigated route of inoculation. This research supports that route as being an important one; however, it also shows that aerosolization (intratracheal) is an important route for Salmonella colonization and potential spread throughout a poultry house. It was also concluded that the cecum is the best organ for Salmonella isolation; however, Salmonella has the potential to be found in any organ. These experiments also showed that Salmonella isolates vary in their ability to survive outside the host. The SE isolate used in these studies was recoverable four days after being inoculated onto feed, while the SH isolate was recoverable for only two days. This could be an important factor in determining the ability of a Salmonella isolate to spread through a poultry complex by means of contaminated feed.

Poultry: Is Feed Efficiency Still a Useful Measure of Broiler Performance?

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Diet Energy Level
  3. Male vs. Female Birds
  4. Bird Age
  5. Environmental Temperature
  6. Bird Health
  7. Other Measures of Feed Accuracy
  8. Summary

Introduction

Together with growth rate, days to market and mortality, feed efficiency has been considered as one of the important parameters in assessing the potential of bird strain or feeding program etc. In N. America the value is calculated by dividing feed intake by weight gain, and so values of around 1.9 are common for 42 d old birds. In some European countries, the efficiency is calculated as weight gain divided by feed intake, and a corresponding value would be 0.53. Whatever system is used, measures of feed efficiency are useful in describing feed intake in relation to growth rate. Feed efficiency is, therefore, a useful measure of performance as long as all other factors affecting both growth and feed intake are either minor or do not vary from flock to flock.

Today, we have many factors affecting both growth rate and feed intake, because we have now moved from standardized growing programs to one tailored to meet specific local goals and economic conditions. The single largest factor affecting feed efficiency is energy level of the feed. Five to ten years ago, this was not a major concern because most broilers were fed on diets containing around 3000 kcal/kg in the starter, up to 3200-3300 kcal/kg in the finisher. Now because of high energy prices, and other management problems, we often see much lower energy values used in one or all diets of a feeding program, and so it is now more difficult to pin-point a standard energy level in the feed. We are also growing broiler chickens over a much more variable time frame, and this also affects feed efficiency. For example feed efficiency in a 60d roaster male is expected to be higher than for a 35 d female destined for the cut-up trade. Similarly we now have broilers grown in most countries of the world, and so environmental temperature will affect maintenance energy need, and hence classical feed efficiency. These factors now mean that feed efficiency can be quite a variable number, and as such is perhaps losing its significance in being able to compare broiler performance under a range of field conditions. Following is a more detailed review of these factors affecting feed efficiency.

Diet Energy Level

It seems as though the broiler chicken is still eating to its energy requirement. It has been suggested that the bird eats to its maximum physical capacity, and that the birds’ energy intake can easily be controlled by varying the energy density of the diet. This fact may be true to some extent with the young broiler, because we can temper early growth rate (ascites control programs, for example) by feeding lower energy diets. However as the broiler gets older it does seem to adjust its intake in relation to diet energy level. Table 1 shows the results of diluting the feed to very low levels.

Table 1. Effect of diet dilution from 35-49d of age on broiler performance.

Diet ME
(kcal/kg)
Diet CP
(%)
49d body wt
(g)
Feed intake
35-49d (g)
Feed:gain
35-49d
Energy efficiency
(Mcal/kg gain)
3200
18
2950
2580
2.34
7.43
2900
16
2920
2760
2.49
7.19
2600
14
2880
2900
2.72
6.97
2300
13
2910
3270
2.99
6.70
1900
11
2910
3670
3.31
6.37
1600
9
2890
4300
4.01
6.41

Adapted from Leeson et al. (1996)

As the nutrient level of the diet was reduced, so birds ate more feed. This means that the bird is not eating to physical capacity, because the bird was able to almost double its normal intake on the very low nutrient dense diet. This amazing ability to adjust feed intake resulted in no real difference in 49d body weight. As the birds eat more feed at constant growth rate, then feed efficiency starts to deteriorate. A feed efficiency of 4.01 from 35-49d would hardly seem to be economical. However, if we calculate energy efficiency, then the birds on the lowest energy feed were actually the most efficient in converting feed energy to weight gain. This is a good example of classical measures of feed efficiency being totally misleading. It is unlikely that the low energy levels used in Table 1 would be economical, because it is difficult to find low energy ingredients that are inexpensive per unit of energy. However these data do show that we can consider a range of energy levels for the broiler, without affecting growth rate too much, and so diet choice is simply a matter of allowing our formulation programs to select the most optimum solution.

Male vs Female Birds

The feed efficiency of female broilers will usually be higher (less efficient) than male birds of corresponding weight, after about 30 days of age. The reason for this is that female birds tend to deposit proportionally more fat in the carcass. Body fat takes 9 times as much feed energy to produce as does muscle. The reasons for this is that fat contains more energy than does protein per unit of weight, and more importantly, muscle is only about 20% protein by weight, the remainder being water. For this reason it is usually uneconomical to grow female broilers much beyond 45d unless special emphasis is placed on reducing fat deposition . Likewise with heavy male birds, feed efficiency is going to be greatly influenced by the growth of fat vs muscle.

Bird Age

As birds get older, their feed efficiency will deteriorate. This situation is simply due to the fact that heavy birds use increasing quantities of feed to maintain their body mass, and less is used for growth. In the 7d old bird, about 80% of feed is directed to growth and only 20% is needed to maintain the small body size – consequently feed is used very efficiently. In an 8-week old bird these numbers are reversed such that only 20% of feed is used for growth, and 80% is needed to maintain the ever-increasing body mass – feed efficiency, therefore, deteriorates.

Environmental Temperature

The broilers’ maintenance needs are greatly influenced by the temperature of its environments. After initial brooding, the bird must use some of its feed to maintain its body temperature. Under ideal conditions of around 20-25 degrees Celsius, the bird uses a minimum of feed to maintain body temperature. In cooler conditions, more diet energy must be used to maintain body heat, (and so less feed is used for growth) and consequently feed efficiency will deteriorate. Feed intake will increase by about 1% for each 1 degrees Celsius below 20 degrees Celsius. Between 20-25 degrees Celsius, the bird will eat about 1% less per 1 degrees Celsius increase in temperature, and so here feed efficiency will improve. Above 25 degrees Celsius (depending upon acclimatization), heat stress conditions can occur, and here feed efficiency will again deteriorate because now the bird is using energy to stay cool (panting, etc.). Under these conditions, efficiency of feed further deteriorates because the bird is reluctant to eat feed, and so proportionally more feed is directed towards maintenance, and less can be used for growth.

Bird Health

Obviously an unhealthy bird is likely to have poor feed efficiency. The main reason for this is that feed intake is reduced, and so again proportionally more feed is directed towards maintenance. With enteric diseases there can be more subtle changes in feed utilization because various parasites and microbes can reduce the efficiency of digestion and absorption of nutrients. A bird with sub-clinical coccidiosis is not likely to absorb nutrients with optimum efficiency, because the oocytes will destroy some of the cells lining the gut. More recently the phenomena of so-called “feed passage” has been observed in broilers. Undigested feed particles are seen in the excreta, and so consequently feed efficiency will be affected. The exact cause of this problem is unknown, but is most likely the consequences of microbial challenge.

Other Measures of Feed Efficiency

The previous discussion suggests that feed efficiency is a moving target, and today striving for a low numerical value for feed efficiency may not always be the most economical situation. A much more useful measure will be feed cost/kg weight gain, or some further variation of this such as cost/kg deboned meat, etc. A very useful starting point in re-evaluating efficiency of feed use is to consider conversion of feed energy to liveweight gain. Following are typical energy conversion figures for broilers up to 9 weeks of age (Table 2).

Table 2. Energy conversion to live weight for broilers (Mcal metabolizable energy/kg live weight gain).

Weeks
of age
Male birds
Female birds
Mixed sex
4
5.15
5
5.35
5.60
5.48
6
5.75
6.05
5.90
7
6.20
6.60
6.40
8
6.65
9
7.10

Summary

Feed efficiency of broilers is affected by bird age, sex, health and environmental temperature, although the major factor is usually diet energy concentration. With a very wide range of diet energy concentrations used worldwide today, classical measures of feed intake:weight gain (or weight gain:feed intake) become less meaningful. The “lowest” feed efficiency may not always be the most economical, because economics may dictate the optimum use of low rather than high diet energy levels. A more useful measure of feed usage is energy intake per unit of weight gain. For male birds the goals are for 6.2 Mcals metabolizable energy per kg weight gain for 6 week-old birds.

For more information:
Toll Free: 1-877-424-1300
E-mail: ag.info.omafra@ontario.ca

Author: Steve Leeson – Department of Animal and Poultry Science/University of Guelph

Non-quota or non-commercial poultry disease investigations

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (AF) has a small-flock disease investigation program to help non-quota/non-commercial (NQ/NC) poultry owners and their veterinarians.

What is “Non-Quota/Non-Commercial” Poultry?

Non-quota/non-commercial (NQ/NC) flocks are those composed of less than quota-controlled numbers (as set in regulations under Alberta’s Marketing of Agricultural Products Act). It doesn’t matter whether eggs or meat from the flock will be sold for consumption, nor the route of sale or donation (i.e. via farmers markets, farm gate sales, or directly to friends or neighbours).

NQ/NC poultry also includes species or types not subject to quota controls (e.g. pheasant, quail, etc.), except where the scale of production indicates a primary commercial business. Supply flocks for federally registered hatcheries are not included, whether or not they are subject to supply management.

The term NQ/NC includes “backyard” or “small” poultry flocks.

About the Disease Investigation Program

The main goal of this program is the early detection of highly contagious provincially and federally reportable poultry diseases such as avian influenza (AI) (PDF, xx KB), Newcastle disease (NCDV), infectious laryngotracheitis (ILT) (PDF, xx KB), and Salmonella, to protect the commercial poultry industry in Alberta. The program also helps NQ/NC producers manage these diseases.

This program can help producers directly or private veterinarians who refer cases from NQ/NC poultry clients. Not all birds from NQ/NC flocks will be accepted for testing. The flock’s symptoms must meet the following criteria:

  • sudden increase in illness and death
  • dramatic decrease in egg production
  • respiratory signs
  • neurologic symptoms and
  • significant diarrhea

Submission process
Birds can be submitted for testing either by the producer or by a veterinarian. First, they must consult with AF staff (see contact information below) and complete the required submission form.

Birds can be submitted to one of the AF labs in Airdrie, Edmonton, Lethbridge or Fairview. Carcasses submitted directly by producers will be tested for AI, NCDV, ILT and Salmonella. Cases referred through a veterinarian will be tested for these diseases and, if the pathologist decides more information is necessary to determine cause of death or illness in the flock, additional examination and testing may be performed.

The submission form must include the premises identification number of the operation. There is no fee for submitting birds for testing; however, producers are responsible for the cost of getting the birds to the laboratory.

If the producer submits the bird, test results will be provided directly to the producer. If the specimen is submitted by a veterinarian, the veterinarian will receive the test results.

Contact information
For more information about this program or to obtain a submission form or guidelines, please contact Alberta Agriculture and Forestry’s pathology unit in Airdrie at 403-948-8575 or Edmonton at 780-422-1923. Dial 310-0000 first for toll-free access in Alberta.

Factors Causing Poor Pigmentation of Brown-Shelled Eggs 1

Factors Causing Poor Pigmentation of Brown-Shelled Eggs 1

Gary D. Butcher and Richard D. Miles2

Introduction

The first documented report of shell pigment loss in brown-shelled eggs was in 1944 when Steggerda and Hollander, while removing dirt from eggshells produced from a small flock of Rhode Island Red hens, made the surprising discovery that some of the brown pigment also rubbed off. This effect was even more evident when the eggs were rubbed vigorously. Most of the eggs gave up their pigment fairly easily except those possessing a glossy surface.

It is well established that no single factor is responsible for the loss of shell pigment in brown-shelled eggs. Variation in pigmentation among brown-shelled eggs is more pronounced in broiler breeders than in commercial brown egg-type layers. In flocks of broiler breeders, it is common to have a variation in eggshell pigmentation, resulting in hues ranging from dark brown to almost bleached white. This contrast occurs because genetic selection for uniform brown-colored eggs in broiler breeder flocks is of little importance compared to eggshells of commercial brown egg-type birds. Most commercial producers and university personnel serving the poultry industry understand that the loss of shell pigment from brown-shelled eggs can be caused by numerous factors. Many individuals, however, still prematurely jump to conclusions and blame shell pigment loss and variability on only a single factor. The most common scapegoat is infectious bronchitis. Statements such as “I know my hens had bronchitis because their shells are pale” or “All you have to do to determine if your hens had bronchitis is to look at their eggshell color—if the shells are pale they had a bronchitis challenge” are still often heard in the field. Such statements are made even without knowledge of the flock’s bronchitis antibody titer, bronchitis vaccination schedule, or supporting necropsy findings.

More often than not, the cause of shell pigment loss is not bronchitis but some stressor to which the flock has been exposed. Fear, for example, is a common cause of eggshell pigment loss. It is not until all the contributing factors to pigment loss are considered that the exact reason can be identified and the problem resolved. Many times the exact cause of periodic, flock-wide pigment loss is never identified.

The purpose of this article is to identify and discuss the various factors that are known to contribute to the loss of eggshell pigment. A general review, however, of the pigments and the process involved in their deposition aids the reader in better understanding shell pigmentation problems.

Eggshell Formation and Pigment Disposition

Once the egg reaches the site of the reproductive tract known as the uterus (shell gland), it resides there for approximately 20 hours. During this time, the shell is deposited, mostly as calcium carbonate, onto the shell membranes that envelop the albumen and yolk. As shell formation progresses in the brown egg layer, the epithelial cells lining the surface of the shell gland begin to synthesize and accumulate the pigments. The three main pigments are biliverdin-IX, its zinc chelate, and protoporphyrin-IX. The most abundant pigment in today’s commercial brown-shelled eggs is protoporphyrin-IX. It is not until the final 3 to 4 hours of shell formation that the bulk of the accumulated pigment is transferred to the protein-rich, viscus fluid secretion known as the cuticle. The degree of brownness of the hen’s eggshell is dependent on the quantity of pigment directly associated with the cuticle. The pigment-rich cuticle is deposited onto the eggshell at about the same time shell deposition reaches a plateau, about 90 minutes prior to oviposition. Therefore, pigment distribution is not uniform throughout the thickness of the eggshell. Even though the eggshell contains traces of pigment, its contribution to the intensity of brown color is negligible compared to that of the cuticle.

Factors Responsible for Decreasing the Intensity of Brown Shell Color

Stress

Since the majority of the pigment is localized in the cuticle, anything that interferes with the ability of the epithelial cells in the shell gland to synthesize the cuticle will affect the intensity of eggshell pigmentation. This is especially true during the final 3 to 4 hours of shell deposition since it is during this time in the egg-laying cycle that cuticle synthesis and accumulation occur most rapidly.

Stressors in poultry flocks, such as high cage density, handling, loud noises, etc., will result in the release of stress hormones, especially epinephrine. This hormone, when released into the blood, is responsible for causing a delay in oviposition and the cessation of shell gland cuticle formation. The above stressors, which result in hen nervousness and fear, can cause pale eggshells to be produced. The paleness is often the result of amorphous calcium carbonate deposited on top of a preexisting fully formed cuticle or of an incomplete cuticle caused by premature arrest of cuticle formation.

Brown-shelled birds, especially broiler breeders, housed in experimental floor pens for research purposes often become fearful each time the pen is entered for such things as egg collection, vaccination, uniformity, and frame and fleshing measurements. When this occurs, production of pale-shelled eggs should be expected, especially if the fearfulness occurs during the last 3 to 4 hours of the egg-laying cycle when the cuticle formation is interrupted. In fact, the relationship between stress and the production of pale eggs by laying hens is so great that researchers have suggested that loss of shell pigment may provide a basis for a noninvasive method of assessing stress in hens.

Age of the Bird

As the brown egg-type bird ages, there is a corresponding decrease in eggshell pigment intensity. The exact reason for this is unknown. It is possibly due to the same quantity of pigment being dispersed over a larger surface area of shell as egg size increases with bird age or less pigment synthesis. As the hen ages it is normal for the tapered end of the egg to contain less pigment than the rounded end. Stress-related egg retention in the shell gland and subsequent amorphous calcium carbonate deposition on the shell surface have been identified as a major cause of pale eggs in older hens.

Chemotherapeutic Agents

A rapid decline in shell pigmentation is common following the ingestion of certain drugs by the hen, such as the sulfonamides. The coccidiostat Nicarbazin, administered to hens at a dose of 5 mg per day, can result in the production of pale eggs within 24 hours. Higher doses can lead to complete depigmentation of the eggshell cuticle.

Disease

Viral diseases, such as Newcastle and infectious bronchitis, affect egg production in poultry. These viruses have a specific affinity for the mucus membranes of the respiratory and reproductive tracts. Because the virus directly infects and damages the reproductive tract, the signs of disease are manifested indirectly in the product of the tract, the egg. Thus, total egg numbers decline and eggshells become thinner and abnormally pale and have irregular contour. Internal quality is also adversely affected (watery whites). These egg production and quality problems can persist for extended periods.

Summary

Most eggshell pigments are located in the cuticle and outer portion of the calcified eggshell. Premature arrest of cuticle formation or release of stress-related hormones (epinephrine) will result in the production of pale brown-shelled eggs. Age of the bird, use of certain chemotherapeutic agents, and disease also can affect the intensity of pigmentation. No one factor, especially infectious bronchitis, should be diagnosed as the cause of the reduced pigmentation of eggshells until all possible differentials that may affect pigmentation have been considered.

References

Baird, T., S. E. Solomon, and D. R. Tedstone. 1975. “Localisation and characterization of egg shell porphyrin in several avian species.” Brit. Poultry Sci. 16:201–208.

Burley, R. W., and D. V. Vadehra, eds. 1989. The Avian Egg-Chemistry and Biology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Cook, J. K. A. 1986. “Pale shelled eggs can be caused by IB virus.” Misset International Poultry 2:38–39.

Hughes, B.O., and A. B. Gilbert. 1984. “Induction of egg shell abnormalities in domestic fowl by administration of adrenaline.” IRCS Med. Sci. 12:969–970.

Hughes, B.O., A. B. Gilbert, and M. F. Brown. 1986. “Categorization and causes of abnormal egg shells: Relationship with stress.” Brit. Poultry Sci. 27:325–337.

Hunton, P. 1992. “The brown egg revolution-brown versus white: A fascinating comparison.” Shaver Focus 21(2):1–2.

Kennedy, G. Y., and H. G. Vevers. 1975. “A survey of avian eggshell pigments.” Comp. Biochem. & Physiol. 55B:117–123.

Lang, M. R., and J. W. Wells. 1987. “A review of eggshell pigmentation.” World’s Poultry Sci. J. 43(3):238–246.

McCartney, E. 1989. “Infectious bronchitis update.” Poultry Health Rept. Egg Industry (August): 12–16.

Mills, A. D., J. M. Faure, M. Picard, and M. Marche. 1987. “Reflectometry of wet and dry eggs as a measure of stress in poultry.” Med. Sci. Res. 15:705–706.

Mills, A. D., M. Marche, and J. M. Faure. 1987. “Extraneous eggshell calcification as a measure of stress in poultry.” Brit. Poultry Sci. 28:177–181.

Mills, A. D., Y. Nys, J. Gautron, and J. Zawadzki. 1991. “Whitening of brown shelled eggs: Individual variation and relationships with age, fearfulness, oviposition interval and stress.” Brit. Poultry Sci. 32:117–129.

Nys, Y., J. Zawadzki, J. Gautron, and A. D. Mills. 1991. “Whitening of brown-shelled eggs: Mineral composition of uterine fluid and rate of protoporphyrin deposition.” Poultry Sci. 70:1236–1245.

Polkinghorne, R. W. 1983. “Factors affecting eggshell colour in crosses between Australorp and Rhode Island Red chickens.” Aust. J. Agric. Res. 34:593–597.

Solomon, S. E. 1992. “A question of color.” Shaver Focus 21(2):2–3.

Solomon, S.E., B.O. Hughes, and A. B. Gilbert. 1987. “Effect of a single injection of adrenaline on shell ultrastructure in a series of eggs from domestic hens.” Brit. Poultry Sci. 28:585–588.

Steggerda, M., and W. F. Hollander. 1944. “Observations on certain shell variations of hen’s eggs.” Poultry Sci. 23:459–461.

Sykes, A. H. 1959. “The effect of adrenaline on oviduct motility and egg production in the fowl.” Poultry Sci. 34:622–628.

Footnotes

1.

This document is VM94, one of a series of the Veterinary Medicine-Large Animal Clinical Sciences Department, UF/IFAS Extension. Original publication date May 1995. Revised December 2017. Visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.

2.

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

Jamaica Broilers Group acquires US processing plant

Source: Jamaica Observer

Gentry’s Poultry located in South Carolina now being operated by local company

The Jamaica Broilers Group Limited (JBG) as part of its expansion programme especially in the United States has finalised an asset purchase agreement with Gentry’s Poultry Company Inc.

The agreement, which was done through Wincorp Properties, Inc, a subsidiary of the JBG, is for the purchase of a poultry processing plant located in South Carolina, USA.

As at Wednesday, September 18, Jamaica Broilers took over the day-to-day operations of the plant and will rebrand it as The Best Dressed Chicken.

Gentry’s Poultry carries a similar history as the Best Dressed Chicken division, having started in the 1950s as a family-owned poultry processing plant.

Gentry’s employs over 150 workers and serves retailers within a 200-mile radius of the plant in South Carolina.

Gentry’s is also well-known within its community for its corporate social responsibility, which the JBG says “further aligns with its own mission of serving and building goodwill”.

President of US Operations at the Jamaica Broilers Group, Stephen Levy, commenting on the new acquisition by his company said: “The acquisition of Gentry’s Poultry allows for the completion of the vertically integrated model in the United States.”

In a further comment the JBG president of US Operations stated: “For over 60 years, the Jamaica Broilers Group has consistently made efforts to expand its business around its core product which is poultry. The company declared in its 2019 annual report that acquisitions within the United States would continue to form a part of its growth strategy and now, the JBG has declared a new acquisition set to pilot the Best Dressed Chicken further in the US market.”

JBG’s US operations currently include breeder farms, producing fertile hatching eggs in Arkansas and Georgia; hatcheries in Iowa and Pennsylvania and a feed mill in Georgia.

Designing poultry diets for digestion

To improve the overall health of birds, attention needs to be placed on the whole production system. Healthy animals are much more likely to perform at their potential and produce more efficiently.

The gastrointestinal tract of layers is an ecosystem in which water, pH and bacteria need to be in balance. Setting the stage for this balance soon after hatch and maintaining it throughout the life of the animal is the key to maximizing performance and farm profitability.

Digestion in an increasingly plant-based diet

The diet for the bird must be made so that it is quickly digested and, in the case of layers, eventually turned into the building blocks of eggs. Yet, today, consumer demands for all-veggie diets complicate efforts to design an easily digestible diet. The grains used to make up the energy and protein in the diet will only release a portion of nutrients after digestion. The rest of the nutrients are bound in the plant cells and can only be released if these plant cells are broken down.

Enzymes added to the diet can help to break down these plant cells and allow the grains to release more nutrients to the bird. Generally, enzymes work in a “lock and key” model, in which a specific enzyme can only help to break down a specific compound. Because a poultry diet is complex, more than one enzyme may be needed to help with this breakdown.

Preventing bacterial overgrowth

How efficiently the feed is digested and absorbed by the bird can affect the bacterial balance in the gastrointestinal tract. Efficient breakdown and absorption of the feed by the bird can reduce the amount of undigested nutrients that reach the lower gut, where a diverse microbial population is concentrated.

This is important because, by reducing the undigested nutrients entering the lower gut, we reduce the potential of an environment to be created that supports opportunistic (potentially bad) bacterial overgrowth. Consequently, reducing the undigested nutrients reaching the lower gut helps to improve overall poultry health and performance.

Ancient process meets advanced technology

Nutritional technologies are available that can support this breakdown of nutrients. Through an ancient process called solid state fermentation (SSF), a selected strain of non-GMO Aspergillus niger works in synergy with the animal’s digestive system to break down layers of the feed that were previously inaccessible through digestion. This exposes more nutrient-rich layers for the animal to digest, such as amino acids, energy, protein and vitamins.

Advances in genetics have made today’s poultry more productive than ever. Any bird under environmental stress due to heat, cold, very dry or very humid air could have their feed intake patterns and intestinal tract affected, causing reduced digestibility. However, by paying close attention to the entire management system and to nutrition, poultry growers can respond quickly to challenges and achieve optimal potential.

To learn more about how Allzyme® SSF can help maintain performance in your flock and reduce feed costs while adding flexibility to the diet, click here or contact us at AllzymeSSF@alltech.com.

Water quality and quantity influence flock performance

Download the complete article

Water is the most critical, but also the most overlooked, nutrient when it comes to flock performance in the poultry industry. A bird can survive for weeks without feed but only for a few days if water is not available. Water is essential for many functions within the body, such as moving feed through the digestive tract and carrying nutrients (vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and so forth) throughout the body. Water is also needed for the many enzymatic and chemical reactions in the body, body temperature regulation, lubrication of joints and organs, and excretion of waste products from the body.

Download the complete article

NAE producers need to focus on Eimeria oocysts for more effective control of coccidiosis, necrotic enteritis, ByDon Waldrip, DVM Senior Technical Service Veterinarian Zoetis

Poultry producers raising broilers for the “no antibiotics ever” (NAE) market continue to find themselves battling necrotic enteritis (NE). Too often, this raises the ethical dilemma of deciding whether to render antibiotic treatment to birds with NE if the company doesn’t have a fallback option for medicated birds.

This difficult situation underscores the need to focus on controlling Eimeria oocysts to prevent coccidiosis, which goes hand in hand with NE.

Program options

Coccidiosis vaccination has grown tremendously in recent years. If this is your coccidiosis-control method of choice, do whatever you can to ensure good results. For instance, increased light intensity at the hatchery after coccidiosis vaccination and prior to farm delivery should encourage preening and ingestion of vaccinal oocysts.

Some producers are finding it helpful to follow the initial vaccine with a field boost sprayed on litter or feed.

Another approach is to use coccidiosis vaccination during warmer weather, when there’s generally less coccidial pressure, and then switch to non-ionophore anticoccidials during colder months.

A third option for NAE-production schemes is the so-called bio-shuttle program, where either in ovo or vaccination at day of age is followed by a non-ionophore anticoccidial administered. Controlled studies show this hybrid approach can reduce the incidence of coccidiosis in NAE birds, which in turn leads to fewer NE lesions, less mortality and better feed conversion.1 Timing of the medication is vitally important so it’s a good idea to enlist input from your flock veterinarian, who can help devise the best plan of action. If the anticoccidial is administered too soon, it will kill the vaccine’s coccidial oocysts before they cycle and birds won’t develop the necessary immunity. On the other hand, if the medication is administered too late, Clostridium infection may develop, leading to NE.

NAE producers who don’t use coccidiosis vaccines must rely solely on non-ionophore anticoccidials. With so few options in the toolbox, it becomes even more important to closely monitor the situation with regular posting sessions.

Another useful tool is anticoccidial-sensitivity testing, or AST. Monitoring enables strategic production selection and rotation, which will help preserve the efficacy of anticoccidials. Access to AST has become a bit difficult and may be considered costly for smaller producers, but when possible, I highly recommend it be practiced strategically.

Bird size matters

NAE producers growing smaller birds may find they need to rotate non-ionophore anticoccidials more often for the simple reason that farms processing birds after 5 to 6 weeks have more frequent cycles of exposure to disease agents than operations growing birds to 8 to 10 weeks.

Nevertheless, NAE farms producing large birds have challenges of their own. On those operations, birds may outlive immunity acquired from the vaccines they get at an early age against Newcastle disease, infectious bursal disease, infectious bronchitis and reovirus. The result can be an increased susceptibility to the pathogens. The solution in most cases is a booster of vaccines for these diseases.

Seasonal impact

In warmer months, increased ventilation leads to lower coccidial pressure and better litter quality, so this is a good time for NAE producers to consider either vaccination or a bioshuttle program.  Not every medication is suitable for year-round use, however.  For example, nicarbazin is associated with heat stress, especially when administered at high dosages.2 It’s therefore important to limit its use to the cooler months.

At the other extreme is winter, when farms need to reduce air flow to save on energy costs, and flocks have higher exposure to disease agents. Wetter litter can also accelerate the sporulation of coccidial oocysts in the house and make flocks more susceptible to both coccidiosis and NE.  For these reasons, it’s critical to ramp up control efforts and develop a long-term rotation strategy involving all available NAE tools.

Track and monitor

Although long-term planning for coccidiosis control is always a good idea, your program’s real-time effectiveness should be assessed routinely to make sure adjustments aren’t needed. Posting sessions as well as bird performance will be helpful in this regard. Coupling this information with historical data on necropsy results and flock performance for the past 1 or 2 years helps determine product efficacy and can be used to make better product choices.

One important reason real-time effectiveness should be monitored by routine necropsies is due to coccidial leakage, which occurs when some Eimeria oocysts survive flock treatment with non-ionophore anticoccidials. In conventional broiler flocks treated with ionophores, leakage leads to the development of immunity against coccidiosis in chickens. Leakage also occurs in NAE flocks treated with non-ionophore anticoccidials, but it’s turning out to be more difficult to manage. One exception may be zoalene, which is a non-ionophore anticoccidial that works similarly to an ionophore and can be a good choice for bio-shuttle programs.

The amount of leakage that occurs varies with products and their length of use. It’s taking the industry some time — as well as trial and error — to learn how to manage coccidial leakage in NAE flocks, but necropsies to monitor the intestinal status of birds can signal the need for intervention and remedial action.

Wrapping up

Much research is underway to explore the potential efficacy of alternative products for coccidiosis control, such as prebiotics, probiotics, oils and botanicals. Although some antibiotic alternatives have been shown to reduce coccidial-oocyst production, results in the field are inconsistent, and none has proved to be the “silver bullet” that NAE producers have sought. Research and field experience with the alternatives may lead to an effective way to control coccidia without medications, but such a development is unlikely in the immediate future.

For now, producers need to pick the right products based on cost and product performance to guard against losses, preserve what we have available for long-term use and avoid the need to make difficult ethical decisions regarding animal welfare.

Do not use zoalene in laying birds.

1 Da Costa M, et al. Effects of various anticoccidials as bio-shuttle alternatives for broilers under a necrotic enteritis challenge. 2017 Abstracts, International Poultry Scientific Forum. Atlanta, Georgia. M43, page 13.
2 Da Costa MJ, et al. Performance and anticoccidial effects of nicarbazin-fed broilers reared at standard or reduced environmental temperatures. Poult Sci. 2017 Jun 1;96(6):1615-1622.

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,...
Translate Web in Your Language »