Poultry Grist
A PERIODIC NEWSLETTER PRODUCED BY GRAND VALLEY FORTIFIERS VOLUME 2, ISSUE 1 | SPRING 2021
It is wonderful this time of year to witness the lengthening of days, the running of sap and experience some positive double-digit temperatures, heightening our expectations for the arrival of Spring. By this time of year, we all long for warmer weather and, no doubt, look forward to continued relaxation of COVID measures so we can gather more frequently and in larger groups in the months ahead. We have learned this week that Canada’s Outdoor Farm Show, will unfortunately not occur in its normal fashion in Woodstock, Ontario this September and as you likely already know, The National Poultry Show in London, Ontario will run as a virtual two-day event on April 7 & 8th. At this time a decision has not been made if the NEW Canadian Poultry Xpo will launch in November 2021 or have to wait until the following year. We all long for the opportunity to gather again with our customers and industry friends and we trust that this will again be possible, in smaller groups, this summer. In this, our second edition of the Poultry Grist, we share some great, timely topics addressed by the three doctors – Dr. Jessalyn Walkey (DVM), Dr. Ryan Snider (Phd.) and Dr. Martin Clunies (Phd.). We are confident that you will appreciate the information and the perspectives shared in their articles. If you have further questions please don’t hesitate to reach out to Ryan or Martin. From all of us at Grand Valley Fortifiers we wish you and your family a very blessed Easter and successful planting season in the days ahead. Sincerely, Ian Ross, President & CEO, GVF Group of Companies
2021 POULTRY HEALTH UPDATE by: DR. JESSALYN WALKEY, DVM Veterinarian, Joyce Veterinary Services
L
ooking back at 2020, our poultry industry faced many challenges in battling through COVID-19, and Ontario’s broiler flocks faced their fair share of disease challenges as well. Among the top diseases in 2020, bacterial and viral challenges were the most common obstacles for broiler flocks. Colisepticemia (conditions associated with E. coli infections) was once again the most prevalent challenge, remaining the top disease challenge for broiler chickens in Ontario. Year after year, E. coli is the most common cause of both early and late bacterial infections, and bacterial lameness. E. coli infections result in conditions such as yolk sacculitis, omphalitis, air sacculitis, pericarditis, perihepatitis, osteomyelitis, arthritis, salpingitis, and cellulitis. These conditions can act as either the primary or secondary cause of disease in a bird. Collectively, E. coli infections in their various forms are responsible for significant economic losses in the industry. In 2020’s top broiler disease charts, Colisepticemia was followed by Reovirus challenges. Reovirus is a virus that is best understood and documented for viral arthritis. Most often it presents as lameness, with birds having splayed legs and swollen hocks. In addition, over the course of 2020 we observed significant impact on growth and performance in flocks challenged with Reovirus. Unfortunately, it is considered a hardy virus that is difficult to remove from the barn environment. Finally, Coccidiosis deserves an honourable mention for continuing to climb in rank year to year in the top 10 broiler disease charts. Coccidia are tricky parasites that can build up in a flock or barn over time GRAND VALLEY FORTIFIERS PO Box 726 Cambridge ON N1R 5W6 1-800-567-4400 grandvalley.com
without drawing much attention, eventually putting enough pressure on the flock to affect performance, or even lead to devastating mortality figures. Coccidiosis drives our industry to rotate and shuttle feed medication programs and monitor the minute details of cocci vaccine cycling in order to stay one step ahead for our birds. In 2021 we continue to see these diseases trending in the top charts. In the winter months our chicken broilers have encountered more IBV (Infectious Bronchitis Virus) challenges as well. IBV is an acute, highly contagious viral disease, caused by an avian gammacoronavirus that has no known human health significance. It thrives in the cold weather months, and infections are commonly found across flocks at this time. Fortunately, this virus is considered labile and is easily destroyed. Now more than ever, we have a new-found appreciation of the tools available in poultry medicine for diagnosing and preventing viral diseases such as IBV. Each year our practice documents increasing disease pressure in Ontario poultry, with new variations and even new diseases entering the top charts. In our opinion, there are many variables that contribute
Ian Ross, President & CEO | David Ross, VP & CMO Martin Clunies, Ph.D., Monogastric Nutritionist Ryan Snyder, Ph.D., Poultry Production Improvement Specialist Michael Peckover, Publisher
to these trends, such as increasing drug resistance, limitations of the preventative medicine toolbox, production programs shifting towards RWA (raised without antibiotics), climatic variations, emerging immunosuppressive diseases, and increasing demands on bird performance, to name a few. Prioritizing the gut health and overall immune status of birds will be critical in the years to come. We see producers putting an impressive amount of effort into creating overall health programs and focusing on disease prevention, early detection and rapid intervention. As a veterinarian, it is a privilege to be part of a team approach to supporting the health, welfare, and performance of Ontario flocks. ■
PRODUCER PROFILE: FOTHERINGHAM AGRA LTD.
T
he original Fotheringham farm was purchased in 1870 by their great great great grandparents. The original homestead was subsequently sold by Robert’s brother. Robert established his own farm in 1944 on the site of the present poultry operation. He and Frances were married Travis Fotheringham (L) and his GVF Poultry rep, in 1946. Their farm was first operated as a dairy farm, and while growing up Fred, Doug, and Duane Firminger. John worked on the farm. Fred and Doug both worked in construction for a short time before returning to the farm full time. John continued to farm after graduating from high school. Robert passed away in 1984. The dairy farm run by Fred, Doug, John and their mother, Fran, continued until 1998 when the herd was dispersed. In 1998, the original dairy barn was was torn down and the tie stall barn converted to a single storey broiler barn, and at that time a new two storey broiler barn was constructed. In 2002, the second generation of Fotheringhams at the current location, brothers Doug, Fred and John constructed a new feed mill for the purpose of making their own chicken feed with the grain grown on the farm. In 2003, a second two storey chicken barn was added. In 2007, Chad and Travis, sons of Fred, purchased a broiler farm while Travis was in his final year at Ridgetown Agricultural College. In the Fall of 2011, that operation was converted to a broiler breeder operation. This farm continued as a breeder operation for 3 years and was then converted back to a broiler operation. In 2015, Fotheringham Bros. amalgamated with Fotheringham Agra Ltd., and in 2018, a new broiler barn was constructed across the road from the original farm and feed mill. In 2017, John made the decision to establish his own operation and assumed ownership of the former Fotheringham Bros. broiler barns as Palmcrest Farms. His son Jeff owns 2 broiler barns at a separate location under his own J-Foth Farms. Like most farms the operation played to the strengths of each individual. Fred’s is field crops, John is marketing and feed manufacturing, and Doug’s is equipment purchase and maintenance and his wife, Chris looks after office administration. This has allowed the operation to grow and prosper. To this day, with oversight from their Dad and uncle, the farm plays to the strength of the third generation, Chad and Travis. Chad has taken over marketing and handles everything that goes along with marketing broilers. While Travis is responsible for all the feed that is produced in the mill. All of the feed for their birds is made using the grains they grow themselves and extruding the soybeans. The pioneering Fotheringhams were one of the first farms in Ontario to make mash feeds for their broilers. Early flock results were encouraging and the farm
set about investing the money from feed saving/extra profits back into the farm and assisted Chad, Travis and Jeff in establishing their own broiler farms. At the core of the feed mill is Sudenga Feed Milling equipment which includes a 1 tonne mixer with a grinder for the grain corn and wheat, 8 micro bins for the addition of the broiler starter and grower micro-premix, amino acids and in-feed medications all controlled by software from a personal computer. In addition to large bins for corn and wheat storage, there are a number of smaller commodity bins for protein meals along with 4 small bins for limestone, mono-di-calcium phosphate and salt. In 2019, an Insta-Pro extruder powered by a generator was installed to process full fat soybeans. While the original intention was to process their own beans for their own feed, the result has been a growing business selling extruded soybeans to neighbours and other farming operations making their own livestock feeds. With the success of their broiler feeding operation, the feed mill makes feed for a number of close by chicken and pig farms, all of whom have been very pleased with the performance of their animals on this mash feed. Some of those farmers, such as the Zieleman & Steen Family of Soulstone Poultry and the Pronk Family of Triaro Farms, have gone on to build and operate their own farm feed mills. In addition to being good farmers, the Fotheringhams have been open to sharing their experiences with those interested in visiting their farming operations. Today, the Fotheringham family farms 2268 acres of corn, soybeans, wheat and raises 684,000 2.2 kg broilers annually. Fotheringham Agra Ltd. grows Cobb 500 broilers which are marketed at 2.2 kg to Maple Lodge Farms, with whom they have partnered with since 2012. With 4 barns housing a total of 116,000 broilers at each fill, combined with making feed for a number of close by neighbours, along with the growing extruded soybean business the capacity of that first mill footprint is now stretched. With newly acquired access to three phase hydro a new feed mill construction will begin this March and the addition of another two extruders Fotheringham Agra Ltd is a hive of activity. Grand Valley Fortifiers is privileged to serve the Fotheringham family in their farming operation, and we wish them the very best of luck in their future endeavors. ■
Poultry Grist ANTIBIOTIC FREE PRODUCTION & PRODUCT RESULTS
by:RYAN SNYDER, PH.D. Poultry Production Improvement Specialist, Grand Valley Fortifiers
I
n 2019, the Chicken Farmers of Canada updated and announced an Antimicrobial Use Strategy that desired to eliminate Category I, II, and III antibiotics used for disease prevention in broiler chicken production. Category I antibiotics were eliminated from chicken production at the end of 2013. Category II antibiotics, which included virginiamycin, were subsequently removed from chicken production by the end of 2018. Finally, category III antibiotics, which essentially only includes bacitracin, were scheduled to be removed from production at the end of 2020. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the decision was delayed because of the inability for stakeholders to come together to discuss the readiness of the industry. Such a monumental change will certainly challenge the broiler industry and require some new innovation. Antibiotics have long been referred to as a “silver bullet”. They have worked very reliably for every producer for many years. As we look to the future and the removal of these effective products, we continue to search for alternative products and technologies to ensure production and profitability are maintained if not advanced. In the post-antibiotic world of broiler production, the majority of these alternative products continue to be used in the feed, although some water additives have been marketed. There are a variety of different product types, each offering a unique mode of action in how they benefit the chicken’s health. Finding the right combination of products to include in the feed is likely to provide the most reliable success. The two main diseases that antibiotic free (ABF) chickens are at risk of contracting include necrotic enteritis and coccidiosis. While combating these two pathogens is the key focus in ABF production, establishing and maintaining good gut health is the place to start. The team at Grand Valley Fortifiers has continuously been researching new products that promote gut health. We have been developing the program for several years now and have found a line up of products that have shown significant promise. These products include essential oils and plant extracts that have the properties which promote a strong, healthy gut in the chicken, which is key to fighting off coccidiosis and necrotic enteritis. Manufacturers of these products typically perform their own research to aid in marketing their products. However, the GVF Poultry team has been keen to collect some of our own data on these products. Since 2018, a series of trials were run with Dr. Lloyd Weber to test how these products compare to a conventional feeding program. The objective was to demonstrate that these products can achieve similar performance to the medicated program that most broiler producers are used to today. Three of the Table 1. The performance of broilers offered medicated and non-medicated (ABF) feeds.
MEDICATED ABF # of flocks 4 4 # of birds placed 32,420 32,420 Weight at Plant, kg 2.375 2.333 Age at Market 35.7 35.7 Livability, % 97.8% 96.1% % NE mortality 0 1.08% Condemns, % 0.64% 0.67% Feed/Gain Ratio 1.498 1.515
trials were conducted between May and August of 2020, each with some specific set-up that is outside the scope of this review. The performance data from the four flocks is summarized in Table 1. A minimal reduction in performance was detected. Some necrotic enteritis associated mortality was found in the ABF group, but was comparable, if not less than what would be experienced in a typical ABF program. During these trials, Drs. Lloyd Weber, Martin Clunies, and Ryan Snyder performed regular health checks by observing various part of the chickens’ intestinal tract for clues as to how effective the products were. Through these observations, very little difference was found between the chickens that were provided medications compared to the ABF fed birds, indicating that the ABF program provided the necessary components for the birds to fight any infection before the bacteria or cocci could have an impact. Grand Valley Fortifiers is dedicated to leading the industry in the research and development of these and new products to ensure the success of our customers as the industry continues to evolve. Now, with the encouraging results of these preliminary data, we are excited to continue conducting further research to trial and hone these products to ensure they will be successful for all operations. ■
IMPACT OF PARTICLE SIZE ON FEED INTAKE AND POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE OF BROILERS AND LAYERS
by: DR. MARTIN CLUNIES, PH.D., BRUCE SCHUMANN, M.SC., and ADAM TOTAFURNO, M.SC. Monogastric Nutrition, Grand Valley Fortifiers
N
ext to the nutrient content, the particle size of mash feeds has the greatest impact on the performance of the flock. In previous articles we have discussed the impact of feed particle size on feed intake in response to the broiler’s preference for feed particles of different sizes. Previous reported company research showed that; young broilers less than 14 days of age, given access to mash feed, consumed a greater proportion of particles greater than 780 microns, as noted by the absence of these particles in the feed pan of birds to14 days of age. This preference is assumed to change with age, body weight and the dimensions of the bird’s beak. It is assumed that reducing feed particle size increases feed and nutrient digestibility, however recent research suggests this may not be the case. While the bird may have preference for certain particle sizes, getting the feed to be representative of that preference is quite challenging. There are two ways to grind feed ingredients to the desired particle size; by using a hammer mill in combination with screens or using a roller mill. The hammer mill is the most common piece of equipment used, due to its low investment/purchase cost, its capacity to grind a large amount of feed and the ease of setup. Roller mills, on the other hand, are more expensive to purchase, less expensive to operate, a bit more difficult to set up, but they provide a feed of more uniform particle size. Getting the correct particle size is part science and part art. For example, if we look at corn ground to a target average of 492, 700 and 912 microns particle size one can anticipate particle distribution as shown in Figure 1. This distribution is affected by quality of the grain, screen size opening and the speed at which the grain is ground. Mash feeds are made up of a combination of ingredients of different particle sizes, presented to birds they selectively consume those particles which are preferential based on age and beak dimensions.
grandvalley.com
Based on the fact that broilers appear to like feed with a range of particles from 1.5 to 3 mm (Ross 708 Management Guide 2018), one would anticipate that young broilers would consume those feeds with greater Figure 1. Particle size distribution of 492, 700 and 912 micron corn grain Particle Size.
particle size. While particle size is most important in increasing the surface area for enzymes to digest and absorb nutrients absorbed, feed particle size also affects gut health. Smaller particle size results in a more rapid flow of feed through the digestive tract. This finer fraction of feed will end up being fermented by pathogenic bacteria because the endogenous enzymes wont have sufficient time to degrade the feedstuff and absorb the resulting nutrients. What is most important is the proportion of feed which is less than 215 microns particle size. Recent experimental results with broilers and laying hens suggest that increasing particle size improves overall digestion of energy, starch and protein (Table 1). This improvement in digestibility was more apparent with laying hens compared to broiler chickens to 40 days of age. In other studies, increasing particle size from 420 to 1200 microns decreased energy and pro-
Table 2. Effect of feed particle size on body weights of 21, 32 and 40 day old broilers.
Particle Size 543 939 1030
Body Weight for Age 21 Days 32 Days 40 Days 764 1641.1 2298 816.9 1716.7 2396 810.6 1707.1 2415
size on hindgut fermentation decreases the number of beneficial lactobacilli present, while the number of pathogenic bacteria such as Clostridia, E. coli and Campylobacter species in the lower gut is increased. What was most surprising was the impact grain particle size had on the digestibility on calcium in laying hens, when the particle size of the calcium source was constant across all treatments. How could the particle size of the grain affect digestibility of this uniform calcium source? There are two possible explanations; 1) feed with larger particle size was retained in the upper tract and gizzard of the bird and hence more calcium was solubilized, ground or both prior to entry into the lower digestive tract where the calcium is absorbed or 2) the improved gut health resulted in better digestion and absorption like the other nutrients of the diet. Particle size is a very complex aspect of feeding mash to chickens. Optimizing feed particle size provides a balance between 1) improving digestibility and nutrient utilization through increased enzyme action on smaller particles, 2) matching particle size to age related beak dimensions with the bird`s preference for certain particle sizes and 3) the impact of particle size on overall gut health of the bird. ■
Table 1. Effect of feed particle size on percent digestibility of dry matter, starch, protein AME and calcium of broilers and hens.
Particle Bird Size % Digestibility (mm) Dry Matter Starch Protein AME1 Calcium Broilers 492 72.8 96.9 82.4 3449 41.7 700 74.8 97.6 82.1 3456 50.6 912 73.1 97.5 83.7 3471 49.9 Hens 477 49.7 76.9 55.9 3421 80.5 642 57.8 90.4 54.7 3470 81.9 818 65.1 93.2 62.2 3461 90.3 AME1 = Apparent Metabolizable Energy Kcal/kg.
tein digestibility in broilers to 21 days of age. How do we reconcile these results? This can be partially explained by the fact that young broilers do not attain full development of the digestive tract until birds are greater than 14 days age (Mingbin Lv et al, 2015). Table 2 shows that up to 32 days of age an average medium size particle of 939 microns provided the best body weight to 32 days of age and larger particle feeds (1030 microns) provided the best body weight to 40 days of age. For all age groups the smallest particle size feed of 543 micron produced the lowest body weight of the feeds measured. Any parameter which increases enzyme efficacy has a major impact on nutrient utilization and growth of young birds, less than 14 days of age. As the bird grows and feed intake accelerates, the impact of reduced particle
COMMODITY OUTLOOK
by: STEVE MCGUFFIN
I
f you have any commodity questions, needs, or would like to be added to our commodity price indication email distribution, don’t hesitate to call at 1-877-743-4412. We are happy to serve you. You can follow us on Twitter @DirectSourceC. n
Thought for the Day “Solomon was a hard worker and observed the folly of laziness. He discovered that the wisdom of hard work is the secret of success in every area of life, from family to government.” – exerpt from God’s Wisdom for Daily Living “23 Be sure you know the condition of your flocks, give careful attention to your herds; 24 for riches do not endure forever, and a crown is not secure for all generations. 25 When the hay is removed and new growth appears and the grass from the hills is gathered in, 26 the lambs will provide you with clothing, and the goats with the price of a field.” Proverbs 27:23-26