Zootecnica International - English edition - 07-08 July-August - 2021

Zootecnica International – July/August 2021 – POSTE ITALIANE Spa – Spedizione in Abbonamento Postale 70%, Firenze

Comparative sustainability of differing dietary amino acids and energy regimes for individual laying hens at peak production The dynamics of the U. S. egg industry between 2010 and 2020 Perches: environmental enrichment or mechanical challenge?

7/8 2021

The new feeders of the «Gió» range, specifically developed for great poultry farms, thanks to the easiness in the regulation of the feed and to the absence of grill (that avoid chicks perching) have many advantages: they are easy to use and their cleaning is extremely easy and fast too, leading to an overall reduction in labour costs.

CODAF Poultry Equipment Manufacturers • Via Cavour, 74/76 • 25010 Isorella (Brescia), ITALY Tel. +39 030 9958156 • Fax: +39 030 9952810 • info@codaf.net • www.codaf.net

EDITORIAL The next Fieravicola Fair, which will be held in Rimini from the 7th to the 9th of September, offers food for thought on the role and the importance of trade fairs, a rather controversial topic, especially in recent years.

Several times the need has arisen to give fairs a fresh face, and to make them more responsive to today’s needs. In past years, taking account of the growing decline in visitor numbers and general interest, it was deemed necessary to opt for two-year intervals, for both national and international fairs. But this has not been enough, so new formulas are now needed to motivate not only the producers, but also the buyers of the large-scale retail trade along with the various associations responsible for consumer safety such as doctors, dieticians, institutions, schools, etc. so that the correct information on poultry products can be given to people of every age and at every level. Such action needs to be directed also to those groups who try to “work against” meat and industrial food products. Groups that are driven more by emotional factors, than by coherent scientific arguments. For a long time, producer communications have been insufficient, often incorrect, and certainly unable to correctly inform the consumer.

The Fieravicola program promises to be interesting with meetings being proposed between large-scale Italian and foreign distributors. In May, two webinars were organized by Fieravicola with Russia and the Ukraine, with the view of encouraging dialogue between poultry operators from these countries and Italian poultry companies and associations.

There is a lot of anticipation regarding the re-launch of Fieravicola, as the Romagna Region is re-starting with determination, considering its long-lasting vocation for poultry that makes it a model of great specialization and professionalism.

YOUR TURNKEY SOLUTION. HIGH QUALITY SINCE 1963

Our reliability and efficiency have enabled us to be internationally recognized over the years.

Our poultry sheds are manufactured with the best materials by offering better living environment for the animals.

Our equipment provide a high level of productivity and durability.

Our 50 years of history.

Our quality stands in the detail - Since 1963.

Thanks to all our worldwide customers.

SPEROTTO S.p.A. - POULTRY SHEDS AND EQUIPMENT Via Luigi Galvani, 6 - 36066 Sandrigo (VI) Italy Tel +39 0444 461700 - Fax +39 0444 461710 info@sperotto-spa.com - www.sperotto-spa.com

SUMMARY WORLDWIDE NEWS............................................................................. 4 INTERVIEW Andrea Pedrini, CEO of Cascina Palazzo, outlining the benefits of Modula by Aza International....................................................... 8

18

DOSSIER Five tools of the trade to strengthen global poultry supply................................ 10 Butyrate formulations that increase cecal butyrate concentrations are superior in protecting against Salmonella Enteritidis colonization in broilers................................................................................... 14

FOCUS Comparative sustainability of differing dietary amino acids and energy regimes for individual laying hens at peak production........................... 18

MARKETING The dynamics of the U.S. egg industry between 2010 and 2020...................... 22

22

TECHNICAL COLUMN Water quality guidelines for turkeys................................................................ 26 Energy efficiency in the sustainable hatchery.................................................. 30 Reasons for preventing the build-up of biofilm................................................. 34

MANAGEMENT Managing floor eggs in layers......................................................................... 36 Back to basics............................................................................................... 38

NUTRITION

50

Response of broilers fed phytase enzymes of different optimal pH ranges alone or in combination..................................................... 44 Layer nutrition associated with different production systems............................ 46

VETERINARY Perches: environmental enrichment or mechanical challenge?........................ 50

MARKET GUIDE................................................................................... 52

UPCOMING EVENTS.......................................................................55 INTERNET GUIDE.............................................................................56

WORLDWIDE NEWS

Fieravicola to be relaunched as an in-person event: a Covid-free edition in Rimini, 7-9 September

©Fiera di Rimini

The best of the poultry industry will be in the spotlight at the 2021 edition of Fieravicola, to be held from 7th to 9th September at the Rimini Expo Centre.

The 2021 edition will be packed with innovations, starting with a new location.

In fact, for the first time, Fieravicola will be held in Rimini in parallel with Macfrut, the international trade fair for the fruit and vegetable sector. This event has a specific goal: to set up a large agribusiness hub that will attract exhibitors and visitors from all over the world, allowing the two trade fairs to network.

“We are optimistic and confident that this historic event can be relaunched in Rimini – says Renzo Piraccini, President of Fieravicola – offering the opportunity to establish relations in a more relaxed environment and resume faceto-face business in a Covid-free setting.”

Innovation, sustainability and internationalisation will be the key themes of this edition, with the aim to demonstrate how much this industry, which is already undergoing a modernisation process, has grown.

“The Italian poultry farming industry has been working hard over the last few years, in cooperation with the national and international scientific community, to tackle sustainability and animal welfare challenges. Today, it is able to offer consumers various products thanks to diversified systems and breeding lines, – says Stefano Gagliardi, Coordinator of Fieravicola’s Technical-Scientific Committee. There is a strong desire to get together again at an in-person event where these issues affecting the entire supply chain can be discussed in

4

- worldwide news -

detail.” With regard to internationalisation, 20 top buyers from Egypt and other North African countries have already confirmed their participation thanks to the precious collaboration of the ICE - Italian Trade Agency and several buyers from Russia and Eurasian countries. Thanks to an agreement with the Eurasian Poultry Association, the Rimini Expo Centre will be hosting the International Poultry Forum (on 9 September), a benchmark event for the Eurasian poultry industry, which has been successfully held for 27 years. The extensive conference program includes technical and scientific conferences – the SIPA conference, the WPSA assembly and the Asic conference – and focus sessions on key topics such as animal welfare, sustainability and biosecurity.

On 8 September, during a meeting with buyers and retailers based on data, ISMEA (Institute of Services for the Agricultural Food Market) will attempt to “investigate” consumer behaviour and retailer strategies to respond to consumer sentiment. On 7 September a conference – organised by Assoavi and UnaItalia, with the participation of representatives of MiPAAF (Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies) and the Department of Agriculture of the Emilia-Romagna region – will be dedicated to poultry farming in the future with a focus on sustainability and animal welfare.

For more information: www.fieravicola.com

WORLDWIDE NEWS

- july/august 2021 -

5

WORLDWIDE NEWS

14th International Feed Regulators Meeting The 14th annual International Feed Regulators Meeting (IFRM) organized by the International Feed Industry Federation (IFIF) in cooperation with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) brought together feed industry representatives and government officials from around the world in a virtual exchange to discuss critical issues facing the feed sector with IFIF and the FAO. as well as a session on the new FAO and IFIF Manual “Good Practices for the Feed Sector: Implementing the Codex Alimentarius Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding.”

©Robovent

Dr. Bercovici added: “This dialogue is an important example of the private sector collaborating with the FAO and regulators from around the world and we believe that only by working together can we continue to ensure feed and food safety, while meeting the global demands for food sustainably.”

The virtual meeting was officially opened by Badi Besbes, Head Animal Production and Genetic Branch at FAO and Daniel Bercovici, IFIF Chairman, who welcomed IFIF delegates representing over 80% of global compound feed production, reiterated their commitment to this longstanding partnership and agreed to continue to strengthen their work together to tackle the challenges facing the feed and food chain. Mr. Besbes reaffirmed the importance of “collaboration between the public and private sector to support the key role of the livestock sector in reducing hunger and supporting livelihoods worldwide in a context of sustainable agriculture and food systems.”

Dr. Bercovici said: “I am delighted we had a record number of participants from across the world and from key regulatory bodies join us at the 14th IFRM, which due to the Pandemic took place very successfully in a virtual setting.

This meeting, yet again, proved to be an important opportunity for the global feed industry and feed regulators to discuss key issues for the feed and food chain, including important work on Nutritional Innovation to improve animal health and welfare, an update Codex Alimentarius work with relevance to feed,

6

- worldwide news -

“The success of this meeting is a proof that FAO efforts to facilitate dialogue between the public and private sector are worthwhile and given the current Covid-19 pandemic, collaboration at international level is more important than ever to ensure feed and food safety, food security and high-quality nutrition,” said Daniela Battaglia, Animal Production Officer, Animal Production and Health Division of the FAO. Other topics discussed at the 14th IFRM included updates on the successful work of the International Cooperation for Convergence of Technical Requirements for the Assessment of Feed Ingredients (ICCF), which aims towards convergence of technical requirements specific to feed additive/ingredient authorization across regions, as well as a presentation on the potential of insects as alternative feed sources.

WORLDWIDE NEWS

Feed industry contribution to EU FtF targets on animal health and welfare On 19 May, FEFAC and FEFANA have held their first joint EURACTIV virtual conference titled “Animal Health and Welfare: what role for Animal Nutrition?”

The event was opened by a video statement from European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides, who stressed the key role of the European feed sector for the achievement of the ambitious goals of the Farm to Fork Strategy, not only in the field of sustainability, but also in supporting animal health and welfare through modern and innovative feeding regimes.

The panel discussed the ample scientific evidence of the beneficial effects of animal nutrition in supporting animals’ resilience to stressors, thereby reducing the need for antibiotics; as well as the need for an EU framework that actively supports the deployment of such needed modern animal nutrition solutions at farm level.

Comfort 2.0® aviary system Design stimulates the natural behaviour of the birds

In the light of this, Benoit Anquetil, Cargill Animal Nutrition, representing FEFAC and FEFANA at the event, has welcomed the revision of EU feed legislation, action point of the Farm to Fork Strategy.

Hygienic housing environment and easy cleaning

A more efficient authorisation process would allow innovative ingredients to reach the market in a timelier manner, while uniform rules on claims would allow to communicate these science-based benefits to the final users.

Good overview and easy management Optimal use of the available space

FEFAC and FEFANA continue to be fully committed in communicating the fundamental role of animal nutrition in achieving the goals of the Farm to Fork Strategy, as well as proactively responding to current societal needs and participating to the EU’s Better Regulation agenda.

The full recording of the event is available here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UyGC5pQqJg

Check www.jpe.org for more information

Follow us on:

- july/august 2021 -

www.jpe.org

7

INTERVIEW

Andrea Pedrini, CEO of Cascina Palazzo, outlining the benefits of Modula by AZA International The Agrarian society Cascina Palazzo have been managing their several turkey farms for more than 50 years in Bergamo province, Italy. Mr Andrea Pedrini, CEO of Cascina Palazzo, has recently met Mr Mirko Orlandini, managing director for the Italian market of AZA International, an Italian leader in pig and poultry feeding systems. problem with their feeding lines. Moreover, they’ve always been quick in supplying me maintenance and assistance, especially with spares which is the most important thing for me. I chose Modula because it looked at first sturdy rather than its competitive price in comparison with the other existing pans on the market.

Briefly, what are the main advantages that you noticed in the Modula rather than in the other pans on the market?

Modula

The meeting focussed on the Modula, the feed pan for heavy turkeys designed by AZA International and working at Cascina Palazzo’s farms at Cologno al Serio (BG), Italy.

Mr Pedrini, why did you choose AZA International and why did you decide to purchase the Modula feed pan?

Well, I chose AZA International because it’s been synonymous with quality and reliability. I’ve been working with this company for more than fifty years and I can certainly assert that I’ve never had any particular

8

- interview -

Modula feed pan is very reliable during the chick, weaning and fattening phases.

The adjustment of the feed level is perfect and there’s no waste of feed in any growing phase especially with adult birds. It’s made from sturdy, but flexible material and is extremely shock resistant even to heavy turkey males. It’s very easy to adjust, assemble and disassemble and as a consequence, washing operations are really easy.

The change from the chick to the adult phase is fast and simple, like the assembly and disassembly of the big ring for the adult phase that is really practical and well secured to the bottom pan despite the strong stress made by adult turkeys. Another important thing concerns the fact that chicks can’t enter the feed pan during the first days thanks to the anti-chick ring which prevents them from soiling the bottom of the pan. If we had to renovate or build new farms, we’d definitely keep this pan into consideration.

Sponsored text by Aza International

Since 1960

Image: Fotolia - © Minerva Studio

Old Aza factory

INTERVIEW

Leader in pig & poultry equipment

I WANT

AZA!

We design and manufacture in Italy to guarantee maximum quality at competitive prices

THE MOST INNOVATIVE RANGE IN THE POULTRY INDUSTRY

BROILERS - TURKEYS - LAYERS - ROOSTERS - BREEDERS

Breedaza system

- july/august 2021 -

Display our complete range of products on our homepage

9

Via Roma 29, 24030 Medolago (BG) Italy - Phone +39 035 901240 - info@azainternational.it www.azainternational.it

DOSSIER

Five tools of the trade to strengthen global poultry supply Securing the global food supply is of prime importance to the health and wellbeing of people in communities around the world. However, international poultry trade is often threatened by challenges such as avian diseases, trade restrictions, natural disasters, political unrest and even a global pandemic, which we are still experiencing. And often, many of these challenges can come at the same time. ment Goals (SDGs) that the International Poultry Council (IPC) highlighted as areas where the global poultry industry can have the most impact. The goal is a better and more sustainable future for all, which we target with our Breeding Sustainability theme. (Learn more by engaging with this Committed to Breeding Sustainability interactive presentation https:// aviagen.com/assets/Sustainability/2021/index.html).

#1 Biosecurity Disease prevention is fundamental to our business and begins with biosecurity, which is essential to poultry breeding and trade.

In order to keep harmful pathogens away from our flocks and protect our birds, every part of our operation must follow the highest

by Patrick Claeys, President European Operations

10

At Aviagen®, we are prepared to face these hurdles head on with well-defined value chain strategies. We have identified Health, Food Safety and Food Security as #1 of our Top 5 Commitments, which are key to our mission of helping our customers – the world’s chicken meat producers – put food on every table of families in Europe and around the world.

These Commitments are in harmony with the top five United Nations Sustainable Develop-

- dossier -

DOSSIER

standards of hygiene. Our biosecurity programme meets and exceeds official regulations for domestic and international trade, and we believe it is a key element to promote food security.

KEEP UP ON

TRENDS AND CHALLENGES of poultry industry with

#2 Dedicated veterinarians strengthen bird health and biosecurity Having a team of dedicated veterinarians to look after bird health is of utmost importance. At Aviagen, our large group of over 30 veterinarians supports both customers and internal operations around the world. These specialists are passionate about our birds, providing advice on how to care for our birds’ needs and keep our flocks disease-free. Our veterinarians check bird welfare and biosecurity through regular audits and health monitoring, and share their knowledge through Schools, workshops, webinars, literature, and more. They also play a vital role by providing background information, policy advice and health certificates needed to facilitate the export of chicks to customer farms in Europe and beyond.

It’s been 50 years since Zootecnica International started serving the poultry industry and professionals. Today the magazine is edited in three languages (English, Italian and Russian) and delivered monthly in 120 countries, reaching around 30.000 readers all over the world.

The target of Zootecnica International includes: farmers, egg producers, breeding companies, hatcheries, feed mills, poultry and egg meat processing companies.

Both magazine and website offer a broad overview on the poultry industry, providing in-depth news on international markets, business management, trends and practices in poultry, genetics, incubation, nutrition, veterinary and management.

#3 Compartmentalisation Another strategy with proven success is compartmentalisation. A compartment is a group of approved farms that are under a common intense biosecurity management system with a distinct health status with respect to a specific disease or specific diseases for which required surveillance, control and biosecurity measurements have been applied for the purpose of international trade. The

- july/august 2021 -

zootecnicainternational.com

11

DOSSIER

concept ensures that local economies have a dependable source of healthy protein. In 2010 Aviagen in the UK was the world’s first poultry breeding company to receive official compartment status, and since then multiple Aviagen operations around the world have become certified.

#4 Multiple local and regional supply bases This fourth strategy is twofold. First, we have a large global network, with production bases on five continents. Thus, our customers consistently receive their birds, even when trade is restricted in specific supply bases. Next, we locate our facilities close to customers in key markets around the world. Our growing production operations include more than 260 facilities and 27 commercial hatcheries providing customers in over 100 countries with quality breeding stock.

Using Europe as an example, we have production facilities and offices spread throughout the continent. Aviagen in the UK is the home of our Research and Development programme, and having parallel pedigree programmes in the UK and US protects the supply of our high-generation birds.

so, our dedicated team cultivates relationships and keeps in close communication with airlines, freight agents and agricultural ministries. They also actively participate in organisations such as the International Animal Transportation Association (IATA) to make sure the interests of live birds are well represented. And, they work to ensure that air handlers and anyone who will look after the chicks are well-trained in the proper care of our birds. When the chicks are in transit to our customers, our export team monitors their environment to make sure conditions remain ideal for their needs.

When any challenge, such as avian disease, a global pandemic, natural disasters, flight cancellations, political unrest or any other export obstacle occurs, these dedicated professionals act quickly, finding alternative trade routes and doing whatever is necessary to make sure the world’s producers receive safe, healthy chicks on time. Since there are many stakeholders involved in the export process, communication is absolutely paramount, and during the pandemic, Zoom meetings have proven very useful.

COMMITMENT 1

EUROPE The end goal – helping to feed the world

#5 Skillful export team An experienced and proactive team to guide the shipment and delivery of birds is indispensable. In Europe, our logistics staff in the UK, supported by a network of colleagues in the continent and globally, coordinate orders from our production bases to domestic and export customers throughout Europe and worldwide. In doing

12

As a primary poultry breeder, Aviagen takes our role in the poultry supply chain seriously. We are firmly committed to helping our customers provide their local communities with an affordable and sustainable protein. Solid strategies help us fulfil this mission, as we strive to do our part to create a brighter and more sustainable future for people today and future generations.

- dossier -

DOSSIER

INFINITY TZC 3

• Essential design • No chicks in the pan!

• Regulation of minimun and maximum feed level • Available in caged broilers version

4002 H

4006 H

• 360 degrees opening • Highly strong and durable material • “SOFT” action

• 360 degrees opening • Highly strong and durable material • “EXTRASOFT” action

4260 R

• Suitable for the weaning of turkeys • Facilitates the watering of turkeys from the first hours of life • No waste of water

4626

Suitable for fattening turkeys • Perfectly dry bedding • Simultaneous watering of 2 and more animals •

Nastri PP • Carries Eggs • Egg collection • Manure drying system • Manure belt collection • PP woven egg belts • PP hole egg belts Corti Zootecnici Srl | Via Volta 4, Monvalle (VA) - Italy | Tel. +39 0332 799985 - july/august 2021 info@cortizootecnici.com | www.cortizootecnici.it

13

DOSSIER

Butyrate formulations that increase cecal butyrate concentrations are superior in protecting against Salmonella Enteritidis colonization in broilers The effect of different formulations of butyrate on hindgut butyrate concentration and caecal Salmonella load in broilers was investigated. Using commercial products and experimental prototypes, it was demonstrated that supplementing feed with butyrate embedded in a highly protective matrix, such as a wax-based carrier, can increase caecal butyrate concentration and reduce caecal Salmonella counts.

Introduction

T. Goossens1, L. Onrust2, S. Saxena3 and F. Van Immerseel2 1Adisseo

Belgium, Dendermonde, Belgium;

2Ghent

University, Fac. Veterinary Sciences, Merelbeke, Belgium; 3Adisseo

14

Singapore.

Butyrate is a molecule that is extensively studied as a feed additive to improve gut health and animal performance. It also has been described to reduce the expression of colonizing genes in Salmonella. When applied in an in vivo Salmonella challenge model, Van Immerseel and co-workers (2005) demonstrated that a fat matrix-protected butyrate, but not an unprotected butyrate, was able to reduce caecal Salmonella load and shedding.

Hypothesising that the difference in these effects was due to the distinct butyrate release profiles of both products in the gastro-intestinal tract (GIT) tract of animals, investigations were conducted into the relationships between butyrate formulations, the butyrate delivery characteristics in vitro models of different GIT segments, the effect on caecal butyrate concentration in vivo, and the capacity of the different formulations to confer resistance to caecal Salmonella colonization in vivo.

- dossier -

DOSSIER

Method Different formulations of butyrate products, each with a distinct expected release profile, were investigated: uncoated sodium butyrate (‘SB’, absorption in proximal GIT), tributyrin (‘TB’, small intestine), 30% fat-protected butyrate and two prototypes with supposed superior hindgut release, with butyrate embedded in a micro-crystalline wax matrix: one contained 30% butyrate and 70% wax (‘Wax’), while the other was composed of 30% butyrate, 60% wax and 10% soluble potato starch (‘Wax+’).

Addition of starch to the wax has a disintegrative effect, making the matrix less resistant, thereby influencing the release rate of butyrate.

After differences in butyrate release characteristics were confirmed in the in vitro models (data not shown), two in vivo trials were conducted. The first trial was set up to screen all the butyrate formulations. One pen of 20 animals was allocated to each of the 6 dietary treatments.

The second trial was used to confirm the performance effects of the products that yielded the best results in the first trial. Two pens of 20 animals were allocated to 3 treatments: negative control, FPB, and Wax. These feed additives were included in the diets at 3 g of butyrate per kg of feed.

In each experiment, 17-day-old broilers where orally infected with 105 CFU of S. Enteritidis phage type 4 strain 147. Four days post-infection, birds were euthanised

DRINKERS

TRANSPORT CAGES

and caecal content was analysed for short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) concentrations and for Salmonella load. For SCFA quantification, acetate, propionate and butyrate were extracted with diethyl-ether and analyzed on a gas chromatograph coupled with a flame-ionization detector.

Bacterial analysis was performed by homogenising the caecal samples and plating a ten-fold dilution series on streptomycin-supplemented XLD plates.

After incubation overnight at 37 °C, the number of colonies was determined and numbers of CFU/g calculated.

Samples that were negative after direct plating were enriched in BGT broth at 37 °C overnight and plated. When found to be positive after this step, these samples were presumed to have 83 CFU/g (detection limit of direct plating).

Caecal microbial analysis was performed via 16S rRNA sequencing using MiSeq v2 technology from Illumina.

Caecal content was collected from the 21-day-old chickens in the first trial 4 days after Salmonella infection. DNA was extracted from the caecal content, and relative abundances were determined.

Data from the first trial were analyzed with a Kruskal-Wallis test. All pairwise differences between the treatments were assessed using Behrens Fisher tests. The data from the second trial and the SCFA measurements were assessed by one-way ANOVA. To determine statistical differences in relative abundances of the bacterial families, non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used.

FEEDERS

Made in Italy, the word of

EGGS BOX

Raffa di Puegnago - 25080 - Via Nazionale, 69 - Tel. +39 0365 654152 - Fax +39 0365 554798 Centenaro di Lonato - 25017 - Via Lavagnone, 8/A - info@arionfasoli.com - www.arionfasoli.com

- july/august 2021 -

15

DOSSIER

Table 1 – Colonization of caecum by Salmonella Enteriditis strain 147 in the first trial.

“Butyrate is a molecule that is extensively studied as a feed additive to improve gut health and animal performance. It also has been described to reduce the expression of colonizing genes in Salmonella. When applied in an in vivo Salmonella challenge model, Van Immerseel and co-workers (2005) demonstrated that a fat matrixprotected butyrate, but not an unprotected butyrate, was able to reduce caecal Salmonella load and shedding”

% of animals with specific infection level

Control

SB

TB

FPB

Wax+

Wax

Neg. after enrichment

0

0

0

16

20

47

Pos. after enrichment

15

20

40

26

40

21

102 – 104 log CFU/g

40

50

40

47

0

16

> 104 log CFU/g

45

30

40

11

40

16

3.63a

3.45a

Mean log CFU/g

Percentage of animals (n=19 for FPB and Wax, n = 20 for other groups) with a specific infection level. Log numbers of CFU per gram caecum content. Mean log CFU/g cecum values are shown at 4 dpi. Significant differences among groups are indicated with different letters.

Table 2 – Colonization of caecum by Salmonella Enteriditis strain 147 in the second trial.

% of animals with specific infection level

Control

FPB

Wax

Neg. after enrichment

0

0

0

Pos. after enrichment

15

35

68

102

46

55

30

38

10

3

3.64a

2.89ab

2.40 b

> Mean log CFU/g

Results In the first trial, the lowest mean caecal Salmonella counts were observed in birds fed the Wax treatment (P<0.05 compared to the control, Table 1). Birds fed Wax, Wax+ and FPB were also found to be negative for Salmonella infection strain, unlike those fed the other dietary treatments (Table 1).

Similar observations were detected in the second experiment: compared to the control group, Wax-fed birds had a lower mean Salmonella count (P<0.05, Table 2).

In the first experiment, total SCFA and butyrate concentration was numerically higher in birds fed the FPB, Wax+

2.81ab 2.56ab 2.87ab

–

104

104

log CFU/g

log CFU/g

Percentage of animals (n=19 for FPB and Wax, n = 20 for other groups) with a specific infection level. Log numbers of CFU per gram caecum content. Mean log CFU/g cecum values are shown at 4 dpi. Significant differences among groups are indicated with different letters.

and Wax treatments compared to those fed the control treatment. The relative abundance of butyrate, as percentage of the total SCFA concentration, was significantly higher in the Wax-fed group (P<0.05), compared to the control (Table 3).

SCFA analysis in the second trial yielded similar findings: both the absolute and relative butyrate concentration were higher in the FPB and Wax-fed groups compared to the control fed group (Table 4).

Interestingly, supplementation of wax- and fat-coated butyrate was linked to changes in caecal microbial composition; for example, an increased prevalence of butyrate-producing Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae,

16

- dossier -

1.56b

DOSSIER

Table 3 – Concentrations of caecal SCFAs in the first trial.

Control Total SCFA (mM) Butyrate (mM) % Butyrate/total SCFA

SB

TB

63.18ab 63.34ab 54.15b 9.38

9.22

9.23

14.95c

14.81c

FPB

Wax+

Wax

71.09a 67.96ab 52.84ab 13.00

12.37

12.93

16.41bc 17.93bc 18.26b

25.15a

Table 5 – Relative abundance of the most prevalent bacterial families.

Control

FPB

Wax

Lachnospiraceae

52.75a

50.68a

62.48b

Ruminococcaceae

18.38ab

24.15b

13.85a

Lachn. + Ruminococc.

71.13

74.83

76.33

Lactobacillaceae

10.22a

7.54ab

3.82b

Significant differences among groups are indicated with different letters.

Streptococcaceae

7.91

7.96

8.34

Vadin BB60

1.14b

2.44ab

3.62a

Table 4 – Concentrations of caecal SCFAs in the second trial.

Enterobacteriaceae

1.80a

0.29b

0.54b

Other

7.80a

6.94b

7.35b

Control

FPB

Wax

57.29ab

67.27a

49.67b

Butyrate (mM)

8.48a

12.45b

13.45b

% Butyrate/total SCFA

15.02a

18.39b

27.16 c

Total SCFA (mM)

Significant differences among groups are indicated with different letters.

and a reduced abundance of Enterobacteriaceae and Lactobacillaceae, was detected in birds fed these treatments (Table 5).

Discussion These results demonstrate that there is a correlation between delay in butyrate release, increased hindgut butyrate concentrations and reduction in caecal Salmonella numbers. More specifically, the data suggest that dietary supplemented butyrate needs to be protected in order to increase caecal butyrate concentrations and protect broilers against Salmonella Enteritidis.

Significant differences among groups are indicated with different letters.

Of note, microbial analysis suggests that at least part of the elevated caecal butyrate concentration in the protected butyrate-fed broilers is the result of shifts in caecal microbial composition. Other studies have been published indicating that butyrate supplementation can influence caecal microbiota composition of challenged birds in a way that seems beneficial for health and growth. However, the exact mechanisms underlying these effects remain to be elucidated.

In addition, this study suggests that novel butyrate formulations can be developed with improved efficacy against zoonotic pathogens residing in the hindgut of broilers.

References are available on request From the Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium - 2021

First choice in agricultural ventilation components tpi-polytechniek.com

|

The Netherlands

- july/august 2021 -

17

FOCUS

Comparative sustainability of differing dietary amino acids and energy regimes for individual laying hens at peak production Poultry production has been identified as an efficient source of terrestrial, farmed animal protein. However, in tandem with all food production, sustainability into the future will be a fundamental requirement. Animal nutrition of farmed animals is central to all aspects of sustainability modelling exercise allowed for the determination of the environmental impact of layer diets.

Introduction

F.J. Kleyn1, P.V. Chrystal2,3 and M. Ciacciariello4 1 Spesfeed Consulting, Broederstroom, Gauteng, South Africa 2

Poultry Research Foundation, Camden, NSW, Australia 3

4

Baiada Poultry, Pendle Hill, NSW, Australia

University of KwaZulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg, KZN, South Africa

18

The more efficient animals are, the more financially viable production operations become, with a reduced environmental impact and in many cases improved bird welfare.

However, little work on the impact of nutrition on sustainability of egg production has been published.

This paper reports an evaluation of diets and and egg output using field performance data from individually housed Hy-Line Brown hens, calculated by applying six environmental parameters assessed for individual feed ingredients by Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture (INRA). A

- focus -

True sustainability was defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission, 1987) as “the ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Sustainability is a concept with multiple facets including, environmental (which includes both the demand for resources and environmental pollution), ethical (welfare and social conscience), economic and enforcement (often described as four E’s of sustainability, FAO 2012). There are interdependencies between the different elements of sustainability, and often progress in one area has negative consequences on another. Measuring sustainability is complex as the entire value chain ought to be considered. Environmental and economic components are included in a complete lifecycle assessment (LCA). In a complete LCA of poultry in the United Kingdom Leinonen and Kyriazakis (2016) applied the BSI (2011) PAS 2050:2011 carbon footprint standards and identified feed components as the largest contributor towards global warming potential. De Vries and de Boer (2010) calculated production of a kg of egg protein was similar to a kg of broiler protein, requiring between 41 and 48

FOCUS

m2 of land resources. Poultry is the most environmentally friendly of farmed terrestrial and aquatic animal production per unit of edible product. However, opportunities exist to improve efficiencies through genetic selection, improvements in housing, energy usage, manure management and a change in feeding strategies.

Research explicitly addressing the environmental impact of differing feeding strategies on egg production is rare.

However, nitrogen emissions from monogastric animals have received considerable attention. The optimum levels of dietary energy and balanced protein requirements of laying hens are ultimately a financial decision. However, an economic evaluation on its own provides no indication of whether a feeding system is sustainable or not, and it is this aspect that is investigated in this paper.

Methodology The response of individually housed Hy-Line Brown hens, aged 27 to 30 post-hatch, was used as the basis of this study. Maize-based diets were formulated to contain 11.00, 11.75 or 12.50 MJ/kg dietary apparent metabolisable energy levels, adjusted for endogenous nitrogen loss (AMEn) and 6, 7, 8 or 9 g/kg standardised ileal digestible lysine (SID Lys), as a proxy for balanced protein.

All diets were formulated to contain 3.5 g/kg non-phytate phosphorus and 35 g/kg calcium. Full details of the experimental 4 × 3 randomised factorial design and the diets used were reported by Kleyn et al. (2020).

World leader in fan efficiency

Across the entire pressure range, at any speed, any airflow and any supply voltage, MagFan™ comes out top of the charts in Bess Lab testing, by a wide margin!

Data from INRA (2020) was used for each of the six environmental parameters considered: phosphorus consumption; cumulative energy demand; climate change (carbon footprint); acidification; eutrophication and land competition. Values were ascribed to each feed ingredient used and by calculation, the environmental impact for each of the diets and per gram of egg output was determined. This feeding study was approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of the University of KwaZulu Natal and birds were handled within the 2018 South African Poultry Association’s code of conduct.

Results Increasing dietary AMEn from 11.0 to 12.50 MJ/kg linearly decreased feed intake by 10.3% (117.6 versus 105.5 g/ day; P<0.001), improved feed conversion ratio (FCR) by

+45 75771922 | mail@dacs.dk | www.dacs.dk

- july/august 2021 -

19

FOCUS

Table 1 – Calculated environmental contamination coefficients utilising six environmental parameters from Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture (INRA) for layer feed and estimated levels to produce one gram of egg output.

Diet, production and egg parameters AMEn (MJ/kg)

AMEn Comparison

SID Lysine Comparison 11.75

11.75

11.75

11.75

11.00

11.75

12.50

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

294

311

327

346

311

327

362

Acidification (mol H+ eq/ton)2

9.54

9.62

9.71

9.82

8.51

9.71

10.11

Carbon footprint (CO2 eq g/kg)

624.5

698.7

772.9

805.2

710.1

772.9

846.8

Cumulative energy demand (MJ/kg)

4.50

4.96

5.40

6.07

4.94

5.40

6.15

Eutrophication potential (gPO4 eq/kg)

40.08

40.04

40.00

40.26

34.92

40.00

41.35

Land competition (1000 m2 yr/ton)

0.27

0.30

0.33

0.43

0.29

0.33

0.43

Phosphorus consumption (g P/kg)

10.92

11.47

12.01

12.02

10.93

12.01

12.80

Hen day production (%)

97.04

97.62

96.97

97.25

96.09

97.55

98.04

56.88

58.05

58.59

58.82

57.55

59.10

56.50

Egg output (g/d)

55.20

56.67

56.81

57.20

55.30

57.65

55.39

Feed intake (g/day)

113.0

113.1

112.9

109.9

117.6

113.3

105.5

Feed conversion ratio (g feed/g egg/day)

2.047

1.996

1.987

1.921

2.127

1.965

1.905

Acidification (mol H+eq/g egg)

0.0195

0.0192

0.0193

0.0189

0.0181

0.0191

0.0193

Carbon footprint (CO2 eq/g egg)

1.278

1.395

1.536

1.547

1.510

1.519

1.613

Cumulative energy demand (kJ/g egg)

9.22

9.89

10.74

11.66

10.50

10.62

11.71

Eutrophication potential (gPO4 eq/g egg)

0.0820

0.0799

0.0795

0.0773

0.0743

0.0786

0.0788

Land competition (1000 m2 yr/g egg)

0.0005

0.0006

0.0007

0.0008

0.0006

0.0006

0.0008

Phosphorus consumption 0.0224 (g P/g egg)

0.0229

0.0239

0.0231

0.0232

0.0236

0.0244

SID lysine (g/kg) Feed cost

Egg size

($/ton)1

(g)3

1 = Diets formulated to meet the specifications used in Kleyn et al. (2020). The ingredient costs are for illustrative purposes only.

2 = All environmental data derived from INRA www.feedtables.com and expressed per kg of feed with the exception of land competition provided in metric tons.

3 = Hen performance data derived from Kleyn et al. (2020) and environmental data calculated by applying INRA calculated feed values to egg output.

20

- focus -

12.2% (2.137 versus 1.876 g feed/g egg day-1; P<0.001) and changed balanced protein intake as dietary SID Lys levels increased from 6 to 9 g/kg. Increasing dietary SID Lys intake increased egg weight by 3.4% (56.88 versus 58.82 g/egg; P<0.05) but had no significant impact on either feed intake or hen day production. Layer performance for this trial was reported in detail in Kleyn et al.

(2020). A summary of the estimated environmental impact of each diet, together with the estimated environmental cost per gram of egg produced is shown in Table 1. High-protein diets increased egg output but led to inefficient protein utilisation and an increase of 18% in carbon footprint per gram of egg produced (1.278 versus 1.578 g CO2eq/g egg).

Increasing dietary AMEn increased the carbon footprint by 6.8% (1.510 versus 1.613 g CO2eq/g egg). Additionally, average cumulative energy demand increased by 29.5% with an increase in dietary AMEn or SID Lys (6.1 versus 4.7 MJ/kg). An apparent anomaly is that reduced protein diets (6.0 g/kg digestible lysine) had a higher acidification potential per gramme of egg, which can be explained by the relatively high acidification impact of maize, higher maize content of these diets and a lower egg weight output per day.

Discussion The ingredients used in the manufacture of poultry diets are a vital aspect of sustainability. Feed has the largest impact on the overall LCA of egg production and whilst specific emissions from the hen associated with different feeds are acknowledged, they are beyond the scope of

FOCUS

this paper and therefore were not assessed. The production of grain and soybeans in particular, are associated with environmental degradation often including lengthy transport chains that both harm sustainability. Importantly, not all ingredients should be viewed in the same light when considering their environmental impact. Production methods, such as precision farming and no-till conservation tillage, play a role in reducing inputs. The genotype and yields of the cultivars used impact on efficiency. Furthermore, the land-use changes (LUC) all need to be considered. LUC is used to describe practices such as deforestation, which has a tremendous impact; alternatively, the re-deployment of this “set aside” land for agronomy has a minimal effect on the carbon footprint. Products associated with deforestation such as soybean meal have a higher environmental impact than crops not associated with deforestation (INRA) illustrating how difficult it is to determine the environmental impact of a specific ingredient accurately. In this evaluation, it was assumed that soybean meal was indeed sourced from previously forested areas because this will be the reality as demand for the crop increases.

Formulating diets for poultry has moved on from the production of least-cost diets and nutritionists and producers currently focus on maximising returns of the feeding operation. In future, they will also need to consider all aspects of the sustainability issue. Adding values for environmental impact to a formulation system is a useful starting point, such as the INRA (2020) data used here, will allow nutritionists to begin to assess the environmental impact of diet formulation. It will be possible to optimise poultry production systems, but also consider environmental aspects.

Whilst this paper singles out a segment of environmental impact, it is acknowledged that a complete LCA requires all aspects to be considered. However, the many different LCA data reported in the published literature attest to the complexity of defining the total impact on sustainable poultry production. In broad terms, the use of high protein, high energy diets increases the carbon footprint of egg production. However, the use of low protein diets also leads to reduced egg size, implying that sustainably aware consumers should consider buying only small eggs.

Cage Cage Free Free

60 years of experience in cage free and free range 60 years of experience in projects all over the world! cage free and free range projects all over the world!

References are available on request From the Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium 2021

- july/august 2021 -

Contact us

Contact us Marsango di Campo San Martino Padova - Italy +39 049 9698111 Marsango di Campo San Martino www.facco.net - info@facco.net Padova - Italy +39 049 9698111 www.facco.net - info@facco.net

21

MARKETING

The dynamics of the U.S. egg industry between 2010 and 2020

©Hans-Wilhelm Windhorst

In 2019, the USA contributed 7.6% to the global egg production volume and ranked in second place behind China, which shared 37.5%, and before India with a contribution of 6.5%. In global egg exports, the USA ranked in fourth place behind the Netherlands, Turkey and Poland with a share of 8.1%.

Photo 1 – Aviary system in Cal-Main Foods egg farm in Bogata (Texas).

Hans-Wilhelm Windhorst The author is scientific director of the WING at the Hannover Veterinary University and Prof. emeritus of the University of Vechta, Germany

22

Over the past ten years, the U.S. egg industry showed a remarkable dynamics. In 2015, it was affected by massive outbreaks of the Avian Influenza virus in several states of the upper Midwest, which resulted in regional shifts of production. In the past decade, the transformation of housing systems for laying hens from conventional cages to cage-free systems gained in importance. In this analysis, the dynamics and changing patterns of laying hen husbandry and egg production will be analysed.

- marketing -

Considerable dynamics in layer flock and egg production development Between 2010 and 2019, the total number of laying hens increased from 343.1 mill. to 403.4 mill. or by 17.6%, but decreased to 391.8 mill. in 2020. Table 1 documents the impacts of the Avian Influenza outbreaks in 2015 and the recovery in the following year.

Table egg layers share about 80% of the total layer flock, 20% are breeding herds or

MARKETING

Table 1 – The development of the layer flocks in the USA between 2010 and 2020, data in 1,000 birds (source: USDA NASS, Chicken and eggs, various editions; Egg Industry Center, March 8th, 2021).

Year

Layers total

Index (2010 = 100)

Table egg layers

Index (2010 = 100)

2010 2012

343,083

100.0

280,482

100.0

345,961

100.8

287,505

102.4

2914

369,521

107.7

303,492

108.1

2015

353,821

103.1

286,080

101.9

2016

376,570

109.8

309,388

110.2

2018

392,577

114.4

321,479

114.5

2019

403,445

117.6

324,797

115.7

2020

391,780

114.2

325,100

110.6

layer flocks for the production of hatching eggs. The data in Table 1 also reveal the sharp reduction of the table egg layers in 2015.

Egg production reflects the dynamics in the layer flocks (Table 2). The data shows that the production volume fluctuated considerably. Nevertheless, already in 2016 the production volume of 2014 was surpassed. Between 2014 and 2015 table egg production fell from 86,971 mill. to 83,882 mill. eggs or by 3.5%. Despite the loss of more than 40 mill. layers, table egg production recovered very fast and reached 88,405 million eggs in 2016. A more detailed analysis at state level will show that this was only possible because of remarkable regional shifts in the table egg layer flocks.

Table 2 – The development of egg production in the USA between 2010 and 2020, data in mill. eggs (source: USDA NASS, Chicken and eggs, various editions; Egg Industry Center March 8th, 2021).

Eggs total

Index (2010 = 100)

2010

91,398

100.0

78,530

100.0

2012

92,894

101.6

80,532

102.5

2914

99,768

109.2

86,971

110.7

2015

97,217

106.4

83,882

106.8

Year

Table eggs

Index (2010 = 100)

2016

102,111

111.7

88,405

112.6

2018

109,142

119.4

96,511

122.9

2019

113,353

124.0

99,089

126.2

2020

111,573

122.1

96,691

123.1

The transformation of housing systems In 2008, California decided in a ballot to prohibit conventional cages in laying hen husbandry from January 1st, 2015 on. Based on this decision, the United Egg Produc-

ers organisation in 2011 started an initiative to transform the housing system in co-operation with the Humane Society of the United States in order to meet the expected demand of cage-free eggs. It was estimated that in 2025 37.1 billion eggs would be requested from food retail, restaurants etc. and that 138 mill. table egg layers or almost 48% of the table egg laying hen flock would be needed to produce them.

In 2011, however, only about 5% of the table egg layers were housed in alternative systems. When it became obvious that also other states would follow California in prohibiting conventional cages, leading egg companies began to either convert their housing systems to aviary or barn systems or to build new farms which met the legal regulations of the states, especially California, which was a major market not only for egg companies at the west coast.

In 2015, 24.4 mill. hens were housed in cage-free systems which equalled 8.7% of the total table egg layer flock. From then on, large complexes with aviary systems were built in Texas (Photo 1 and 2), Arizona, California and several other states. From 2016 to 2020, the table egg laying flock increased from 37.6 mill. to 77.1 mill. hens and reached a share of 25.3%.

Between January 2019 and February 2021, 16 mill. new layer places were installed. If this growth rate would be continued, 137 mill. cage-free hens or about 40% of the table egg layer flock would be reached in 2025. It is predicted that in 2030 35% of the table egg layers will still be housed in conventional cages, 58% in cage-free systems and 7% in free range farms (O’Keefe 2020).

The leading egg companies built new housing for 10.85 mill. hens in 2020, of these 4.35 mill. were still conventional cage systems, 2.63 mill. cage-free systems and 3.87 mill. cage-free with outdoor access. They also reported, according to the WATTPoultry survey, that they planned to build houses for another 9.22 mill. hens in 2021, of which 7.84 would be cage-free.

Human consumption and utilisation of eggs The USA is one of the countries with the highest per capita egg consumption. Between 2010 and 2020 it increased from 249 to 288 eggs (Figure 1). Only in Columbia, Russia, Japan and Mexico the average consumption was higher, with Mexico in a top position, consuming 367 eggs per person and year.

- july/august 2021 -

23

MARKETING

Table 3 – The development of the table egg layer flocks in selected states of the USA between 2014 and 2016, data in 1,000 hens (source: USDA, NASS Chicken and Eggs, various editions).

290

[eggs per capita]

277,5

States with decreasing table egg layer flocks

265

252,5

State

2014

2015

2016

Iowa

58,738

39,238

55,168

Minnesota

11,108

8,961

10,674

Nebraska

9,464

7,431

8,849

States with increasing table egg layer flocks 240

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Figure 1 – The development of the per capita consumption of shell eggs in the USA between 2010 and 2020 (design: A.S. Kauer based on UEP data).

Of the eggs which were produced in the USA in 2019, 60.1% was retail shell eggs, 30.1% was further processed, 7.0% was used by food service and 2.8% was exported (Figure 2).

2,8% 7,0%

30,1% 60,1%

Exports Food service shell eggs Further processing Retail shell eggs

State

2014

2015

2016

Indiana

26,743

29,528

31,443

Ohio

31,456

33,423

30,793

Pennsylvania

24,207

24,620

25,811

though the egg farmers and integrated egg companies began to repopulate their farms as soon as this was permitted by the administration, the layer flocks in the three states were still considerably lower in 2016 and even in 2020.

The states, which mainly profited from the egg shortage and the fast increasing retail price were Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania. Between 2014 and 2015, the table egg layer flocks in Indiana grew by 2.8 mill. hens, in Ohio by 2 mill. hens and in Pennsylvania by 0.4 mill. hens. The three states could fasten their position in the following years (Table 4).

Table 4 – The ten states of the USA with the highest table egg layer flocks* in 2010 and 2020 (source: USDA, NASS Chicken and eggs; Annual Summary 2010 and 2020).

Figure 2 – The utilisation of eggs in the USA in 2019 (design: A.S. Kauer based on UEP data).

The changing regional pattern Between 2010 and 2020, the number of table egg layers in flocks with 30,000 hens and above increased from 280.5 to 310.5 mill. birds or by 10.6%. This was not a continuous increase, as the Avian Influenza outbreaks in 2015 caused a tremendous loss of laying hens in the most-affected states Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska. The shortage of shell eggs for retail and for further processing caused a steep increase of the laying hen flocks in several other states, in particular in Ohio and Indiana (Table 3).

The data shows that the number of table egg layers in Iowa decreased by 19.5 mill., in Minnesota by 2.1 mill. and in Nebraska 2.0 mill. birds (Windhorst 2015). Even

24

2010 State

Layers (1,000)

2020 Share (%)

State

Layers (1,000)

Share (%)

Iowa

52,526

18.7

Iowa

46,770

15.1

Ohio

28,050

10.0

Indiana

33,953

10.9 10.8

Pennsylvania

24,023

8.6

Ohio

33,472

Indiana

22,598

8.2

Pennsylvania

28,423

9.2

California

19,034

6.8

Texas

***16,400

5.2

Texas

14,244

5.1

Michigan

14,349

4.6

Michigan

10,119

3.6

California

13,540

4.4

Minnesota

9,990

3.6

Georgia

9,820

3.2

Florida

9,407

3.3

Missouri

7,776

2.5

Nebraska

9,321

3.3

N. Carolina

7,758

2.5

10 states

199,042

**71.2

10 states

212,261

68.4

USA

280,842

100.0

USA

310,531

100.0

* flocks with 30,000 hens and above ** sum does not add because of rounding *** estimated by author

- marketing -

MARKETING

veals that the USDA obviously underestimated the table egg layer flock by about 20 mill. hens.

Summary and perspectives

©Hans-Wilhelm Windhorst

Over the past ten years, the egg industry of the USA showed a very dynamical development. The total layer flock increased by 70 mill. hens, the table egg layer flock by 45 mill. hens or 15.9%. It was no continuous growth as the Avian Influenza outbreaks in 2015 led to a drastic decline of the number of hens and of egg production. In the meantime, flock size and egg production have recovered from the blow, even though in 2020 the Covid-19 pandemic caused a considerable disruption in the egg industry.

Photo 2 – Farm of Cal-Maine Foods in Bogata (Texas), 1.8 mill. cage-free table egg layers.

A comparison of the composition and ranking of the ten leading states in 2010 and 2020 reveals some interesting changes. In 2020, Minnesota, Florida and Nebraska no longer belonged to the ten leading states, they were replaced by Georgia, Missouri and North Carolina. Iowa lost 3.6% of its share in 2010, California 2.4%. On the other hand, Indiana gained 2.7%, Ohio 0.8% and Pennsylvania 0.6%. The regional concentration fell from 71.2% in 2010 to 68.4% in 2020. The decrease was mainly a result of the declining layer flocks in Iowa and California.

It is worth noting that the U.S. table egg layer flock decreased from 324.8 mill. in 2019 to 310.5 mill. hens in 2020 or by 4.4%. The Covid-19 pandemic caused considerable disruptions in the egg industry. A fast growing demand because of higher purchases by the consumers resulted in rising egg prices and a temporary shortage of shell eggs. A survey of WATTPoultry (O’Keefe 2021) re-

The transformation of housing systems from conventional cages to alternative systems is in progress, but the majority of the table egg layers was still housed in cages in 2020. It is estimated that not before 2027 alternative systems will surpass conventional cages. Even in 2030 about 35% will still be housed in the old system. The eggs produced in conventional cages will be mainly utilised for further processing.

It will be of interest to follow the development of the per capita consumption. With 288 eggs per year in 2020, the USA ranked among the countries with the highest consumption. If the dynamical development will continue in the coming years, is difficult to predict.

Data sources and references Ibarburo, M. (US Egg Industry Center): U.S. Flock Trends and Projections (various reports).

O’Keefe, T.: Additional cage-free hens increase total US hen flock. https://www.wattagnet.com/articles/39470-additional-cage-free-hens-increase-total-us-hen-flock?

O’Keefe, T.: Ranking the largest US egg-producing companies in 2021. https://www.wattagnet.com/articles/41905-ranking-the-largest-us-egg-producing-companies-in-2021.

USDA, NASS: Chicken and Eggs Annual (various editions).

Windhorst, H.-W.: Avian Influenza outbreaks in Iowa layer farms and their economic impacts. In: Zootecnica international 37 (2015), no. 12, p. 28-35.

- july/august 2021 -

25

TECHNICAL COLUMN

Water quality guidelines for turkeys Turkeys typically consume twice as much water as feed, so it is important to provide a clean, healthy water supply. Water not only serves as a vital nutrient but it also impacts virtually every physiological function in the body. Therefore factors which might alter water quality such as changes in bacterial content, pH, nitrogen levels, hardness, alkalinity or mineral levels might directly impact water consumption or the bird’s ability to utilise consumed water. and therefore at risk to the presence of less desirable bacteria.

If the total plate count or TPC level is 1,000 CFU/ml or less then the water supply is considered acceptable. On farms with excellent water sanitation it is common to see water tests which show 0 CFU/ml even from the end of the drinker line. The closer the water sample results are to 0 CFU/ml the better the water supply is for the modern turkey. Should the test results be greater than 10,000 CFU/ ml, it is strongly recommended that the water system be thoroughly cleaned between flocks with an approved cleaner at appropriate concentrations and length of time and then a daily water sanitation program implemented when birds are present.

pH The established guidelines for microbial and mineral water quality for poultry are outlined in Table 1: Water Quality Standards for Turkeys. This table and the factors outlined below should be used to develop a daily waterline sanitation program applicable for the local conditions of the farm.

Bacteria

Aviagen Turkeys Ltd ®

26

The microbial or bacterial test results received from labs are Total Plate Count of Aerobic (oxygen loving) Bacteria (TPC) as measured by CFU/ml (Colony Forming Units/ml). These results do not indicate whether the bacteria present is harmful or harmless but it can tell if the system is dirty

- technical column -

pH is the measure of how many hydrogen ions are in solution and is measured on a scale of 1 to 14 with 7 being neutral. A pH reading below 7 indicates an acid with the acidity becoming greater as the numbers become closer to 1. Numbers above 7 are in the basic range of the pH scale. Making a pH change of 1 unit makes a 10 fold change in acidity or alkalinity. So a pH of 6 is 10 times more acidic than a pH of 7.

While pH is not a chemical or specific contaminant, it can impact water quality. It impacts the effectiveness of disinfectants such as chlorine. If water has a high pH then it may be necessary to acidify the water in order to create a favourable pH for effective

TECHNICAL COLUMN

Table 1 – Water Quality Standards for Turkeys.

Contaminant, mineral or ion

Maximum Acceptable Level

Bacteria

1,000 CFU/ml

Total Bacteria (TPC) CFU/ml

50 CFU/ml

Total Coliforms Faecal Coliforms

0 CFU/ml

pH

5-8

ORP

650-700 millivolts

Comments Total Bacteria is used as an indicator of system cleanliness. High numbers do not necessarily mean the bacteria present are harmful but it does mean that the system is capable of harbouring pathogenic organisms. High bacteria levels can impact taste of water resulting in reduced consumption by birds.

Shock well then implement sanitation program such as gas chlorine, hydrogen peroxide or other sanitisers. Maintain a residual chlorine level of 3-5 ppm. Adjust pH if necessary.

Presence of any faecal coliform means water is unfit for consumption by poultry or humans. pH below 5 can be harmful to drinker equipment by causing corrosion to metal components with long term exposure. pH above 8 impacts effectiveness of most water sanitisers. If pH is lower than 5 soda ash or caustic soda injection will raise pH. If pH is high, acid injection will be required.

Oxidative Reduction Potential – ORP measures the effectiveness of the sanitation program.

Hardness can also be determined by adding the measured Calcium and Magnesium content. Hardness causes scale which can reduce pipe volume and cause drinkers to be hard to trigger or leak.

Total Hardness

110 mg/l

Softeners can remove hardness up to a practical limit of 1700 ppm (or 1700 mg/l). If the hardness is above 1700 ppm or the sodium to hardness ratio is greater than 33% then the sodium level will be high after softening and reverse osmosis may be required. Phosphate injection can be used to form a stable water soluble complex with these minerals effectively reducing the hardness.

Minerals Problems: No upper limit for Ca, birds are very tolerant of Ca. Treatment: Values above 110 ppm may require water softener, polyphosphates or acidifier to prevent scaling – see Total Hardness.

Calcium (Ca)

Problems: Higher levels of Mg may cause flushing due to laxative effect particularly if high sulphate present.

Magnesium (Mg)

125 mg/l

Iron (Fe)

0.3 mg/l

Treatment: Values above 125 ppm may require water softener, polyphosphates or acidifier to prevent scaling – see Total Hardness.

Problems: Birds are tolerant of Fe metallic taste but Fe causes leaking drinkers and promotes the growth of E coli and pseudomonas and is linked to a thick slime producing bacteria such as crenoforms.

Treatment: Oxidation with chlorine, chlorine dioxide or ozone and the filtration.

Manganese (Mn)

0.05 mg/l

Chloride (Cl)

150 mg/l

Sodium (Na)

150 mg/l

Problems: There has been a trend through the years to see problems on farms with Mn in the water. Mn can result in black grainy residue on filters and in drinkers.

Treatment: Oxidation with chlorine, chlorine dioxide or ozone then filtration, green sand filtration and softeners to remove Mn Pay close attention to pH when deciding what method to use.

Problem: When combined with high sodium levels, creates salty water that can act as a laxative causing flushing, also, salty water can promote the growth of Enterococci organisms that can lead to enteric issues.

Treatment: Reverse Osmosis, anion exchange resin, lower dietary salt level, and blend with non-saline water. Keep water clean and use daily sanitisers such as hydrogen peroxide or iodine to prevent microbial growth.

Problem: When combined with high chloride levels, creates salty water that can act as a laxative causing flushing, also, salty water can promote the growth of enterococci organisms that can lead to enteric issues.

Treatment: Reverse Osmosis; lower dietary salt level; blend source with non-saline water. Keep water clean and use daily sanitisers such as hydrogen peroxide or iodine to prevent microbial growth.

Problem: Sulphates can cause flushing in birds.

Sulphates (SO4)

200 mg/l

Nitrates

25 mg/l

Treatment: If rotten egg odour present, then bacteria producing hydrogen sulphide are present and system will require shock chlorination plus establishment of good daily water sanitation program, sulphates can be removed by reverse osmosis or anion resin. If H2S is present (the rotten egg smell) then aerate water into a holding tank and treat with sanitisers then filtration.

Problem: High nitrate levels can result in poor growth and feed conversions. Presence of nitrates may also indicate faecal contamination so test for bacteria.

Treatment: Can be removed with Reverse Osmosis or anion exchange resin.

Problem: Long term exposure can cause weak bones and fertility problems in breeders and turkeys.

Lead (Pb)

0.014 mg/l

Copper (Cu)

0.6 mg/l

Pipes that contain Cu are very pH sensitive. If the pH is below 5, the piping can begin to be attacked. Above 1 ppm of Cu the water will have an astringent taste.

Zinc (Zn)

1.0 mg/l

Pipes that contain Zn are pH sensitive. If the pH is below 5, the piping can begin to be attacked.

Treatment: Reverse osmosis, softener or activated carbon will greatly reduce the lead.

Note that CFU/ml means colony-forming units of bacteria/ml of water, and mg/l is also the same as parts per million or ppm. The microbial or bacterial test results you receive from labs are Total Plate Count of Aerobic (oxygen loving) Bacteria (TPC) as measured by CFU/ml.

- july/august 2021 -

27

TECHNICAL COLUMN

The minerals calcium and magnesium are the sources of scale, a hard white deposit found in water pipes.

If the water supply contains more than 60 ppm of either or both these minerals and the water pH is above 7 then chances are high that there is scale in the water system that will have to be removed with an acid cleaner designed for nipple drinker systems.

Figure 1

sanitation with chlorine. Chlorine is most effective in the range pH 4 to 7, but loses effectiveness above pH 8.

Hardness Hardness is a measure of the calcium and magnesium in the water. The biggest problem with these minerals is the scale that they form. Scale can reduce the volume of pipes and impact nipple drinkers. It also reduces the effectiveness of cleaners and disinfectants. A water softener can be used to reduce hardness. However sodium based water softeners should not be used if the water already has a high level of sodium.

Minerals There is no such thing as pure drinking water as all sources have some amount of minerals dissolved in it. The majority of the time, these dissolved minerals are well within acceptable ranges as the turkey has been shown to be very tolerant of some minerals such as calcium and sodium but very intolerant of minerals such as iron and manganese. Iron and manganese tend to give water a bitter metallic taste and iron also supports microbial growth such as pseudomonas or E. coli. There are many cases of mineral contaminants that are not within desired levels which results in the following issues: • Poor performance.

• Equipment failure or damage.

• Presence of harmful bacteria or fungal slime (some minerals can act as a food supply for these).

28

Other common mineral contaminants are iron, manganese and sulphur. Iron results in a rusty brown to red coloured residue, while manganese and sulphur can form black coloured residues. Natural sulphur in the water should have a smell similar to a match head. If the water smells like rotten eggs, then the culprit is hydrogen sulphide. Hydrogen sulphide is a by-product of sulphur loving bacteria and the lines will need to be cleaned with a strong sanitiser. It might even be necessary to shock chlorinate the well. If the filters at the beginning of the water lines are rusty or black coloured, then a strong acid cleaner should be used after the sanitiser flush. If iron is a concern, the best method of control is chlorination and filtration.

Nitrates are colourless and odourless and the only way to detect its presence is by testing. As little as 10 ppm nitrate can impact performance causing reduced growth rates and poor feed conversions.

Cleaning water lines between flocks Providing a clean, safe and sanitised water supply is crucial in assuring flocks perform their best. Before implementing a daily water sanitation program, it is important to thoroughly clean as much of the water distribution system as possible to remove biofilm, scale and other deposits.

Daily water line sanitation Cleaning the water lines between flocks is only half the battle. Even with a thorough cleaning, if a significant number of bacteria, fungi or yeasts are still present, then the biofilm has the potential to return completely in 2-3 days. Therefore the last step is to establish a daily water sanitation program. This will benefit both the birds and the water system. Also many of the popular water additive products such as acids and performance enhancers can create conditions favourable for the growth of yeasts

- technical column -

TECHNICAL COLUMN

and moulds, if they are present. Yeasts and moulds can actually thrive in low pH water resulting in a gooey slime that will clog drinkers and generally create disaster in water systems.

Start birds on fresh sanitized water with 3–5 PPM free chlorine residual at the end of the line or in the drinker farthest from chlorine injection. Add a second injector or medicator and inject an approved acid if the pH is too high. This will enhance the effectiveness of the chlorine.

Measuring water line sanitation An important piece of information to know how effective the sanitisation program has been is the ORP value of the water. ORP stands for oxidation-reduction potential and it simply refers to the property of sanitisers such as chlorine to be a strong oxidiser. A strong oxidiser literally burns up viruses, bacteria and other organic material present leaving water microbiologically safe.

An ORP value in the range of 650 millivolts or greater indicates good quality water that can be effectively sanitised by as little as 2 to 4 ppm free chlorine (See Figure 1). A lower ORP value such as 250 millivolts indicates a heavy organic load that will most likely overwhelm chlorine’s ability to properly disinfect the water.

The ORP meter can be a useful tool for identifying water supplies that don’t have adequate free chlorine and for adjusting this without overusing chlorine. It is important to measure the free chlorine level in water. Water with a heavy organic load would result in a greater percentage of bound chlorine resulting in a poor sanitisation.

The bottom line is utilise information on pH, ORP and chlorine level to determine if the sanitation program is effective and to also prevent equipment damage by the overuse of chemicals.

Do not add chlorine when administering vaccines, medications, or vitamins. Do not mix chlorine and other products in the same stock solution.

- july/august 2021 -

29

TECHNICAL COLUMN

Energy efficiency in the sustainable hatchery Energy is an important cost factor in the hatchery. Using energy-efficient incubators and HVAC systems can greatly reduce your operational costs. Then again, the benefits are more than just financial: a smaller ecological footprint also creates a more sustainable image for your hatchery. In this article, we consider different ways for hatcheries to achieve the goal of energy conservation and become a more sustainable business.

Incubation with focus on energy conservation

By Pieterjan Bulteel, Product Specialist HVAC and Automation, Petersime

30

The pulsator fan motor’s electricity consumption takes up a large part of an incubator’s total energy use. When purchasing incubators, it is therefore important to look for equipment that features an energy-efficient pulsator motor. While a high pulsator speed is needed in the beginning and final phase of the incubation process for optimal heating and cooling, the same high speed is not required during the less critical stag-

- technical column -

es of incubation. This is where Petersime’s Eco-Drive™ technology makes the difference, by automatically and safely reducing the pulsator speed during that part of the process.

Thanks to the third power proportion between pulsator speed and pulsator power, reducing the pulsator speed by 20% saves up to 50% of the pulsator’s electricity consumption (see figure on page 31). The benefit of Eco-Drive™ is evident: a positive impact on the incubator’s energy use, and thus on the hatchery’s total energy costs.

TECHNICAL COLUMN

100

tion cycle. It is crucial that the supplied air has the correct temperature and humidity to guarantee maximum incubation results. Because outside climate conditions are unstable, a well-designed Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system is required to correctly condition the outside air before bringing it into the incubator rooms and single-stage incubators. As every cubic metre (m³) of conditioned air costs money, selecting the right energy-efficient HVAC system is key.

Pulsator power (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pulsator speed (%) Figure 1 – Power consumption of the pulsator motor in function of the pulsator speed: reducing the pulsator speed by 20% saves up to 50% of the pulsator’s electricity consumption.

Pressure-controlled airflow for maximum energy efficiency Single-stage incubators have specific air volume demands that vary depending on the stage of the incuba-

Certain HVAC systems constantly supply a fixed maximum air volume to the setter and hatcher room. This may seem like a good way to ensure proper climate control when, in fact, a lot of energy is wasted. As the air consumption of single-stage incubators – and incubator rooms – is variable, it is more energy- and cost-efficient to install a pressure-controlled HVAC system that brings in and conditions only the exact amount of air needed at a particular moment in time. Whenever there is an increase or decrease in air consumption, the pressure will respectively drop or rise. A pressure sensor records these fluctuations and adjusts the ventilator

HUBBARD CONVENTIONAL the efficient choice!

EFFICIENCY PLUS

N EW

THE NEW STANDARD FOR EFFICIENCY www.hubbardbreeders.com

- july/august 2021 -

31

TECHNICAL COLUMN

• The chiller’s energy consumption is substantially lower.

As the natural embryonic heat is not only transferred to the incubator cooling water, but also to the surrounding air, the air from the setter plenum can also be used to heat the fresh incoming air. Since the air taken from the setter plenum is considered ‘dirty’, a heat exchanger will be needed to safely transfer heat from one airflow to the other and avoid contamination risks.

Figure 2 – The right air supply at every stage ensures that no conditioned air is wasted, keeping energy costs to a minimum.

speed and airflow. The benefits are significant: • The ventilator’s electricity consumption is minimised.

• The optimal air volume is being heated, cooled, humidified or dehumidified. In other words, no conditioned air is wasted.

This significantly reduces the boiler’s and chiller’s energy consumption.

Pressure control can be applied for all rooms in the hatchery and deliver substantial energy savings, provided that doors are kept closed as much as possible to minimise the loss of conditioned air.

Sustainability through heat recovery in the hatchery Developing embryos generate high levels of natural heat during incubation. Incubated eggs are constantly exchanging this heat with the surrounding micro-environment inside the incubators. In a standard

32

hatchery, the natural embryonic heat is transferred to the incubator’s cooling water before the chiller disposes the heat to the outside air. This process requires a high electricity consumption, mainly by the chiller.

But there is another way: recovering this natural embryonic heat presents a major opportunity to save energy.

In a sustainable hatchery, heat recovery systems recycle the high levels of natural heat generated by the developing embryos inside the incubators. The two main systems are: heat recovery on incubator cooling water and on setter plenum air.

In the first system, the heat from the incubator cooling water is either used to preheat the fresh incoming air in colder climates or to postheat the air after dehumidification in hot and humid climates. This brings a double benefit, enabling a quick return on investment: • The hatchery’s heating costs go down.

- technical column -

Finally, for hatcheries in hot and humid climates, heat recovery on the chiller is another option. The heat from the condensing side of a water-cooled chiller is used to postheat the air after dehumidification. Yet, there are some things to consider to make this successful. Firstly, the overall heating requirements of the hatchery should be lower than the total cooling capacity of the incubators to have a continuously operating system. Secondly, a dry cooler for the water-cooled chiller and a second air-cooled chiller for the HVAC system will be needed.

Conclusion: grab the energy savings potential As energy prices continue to rise and sustainability grows in importance, it is crucial that every system in your hatchery operates as efficiently as possible.

Although pressure control and heat recovery systems require an initial higher investment, they can offer you a quick return on your investment with energy savings that are economically interesting, plus they help build a sustainable image for your business.

TECHNICAL COLUMN

GIORDANO POULTRY PLAST

WORLD LEADER IN PLASTIC MOULDING OF POULTRY EQUIPMENTS

G 86

Cod. 0208006

JUMBO 98

Cod. 0211003

PENDOLO

SUPER DROP Drinking line

Drinking line

DRINKERS The dedicated Giordano Poultry Plast range comprises plastic drinking troughs for manual and automatic use. Designed in a rational and efficient manner, this equipment optimises access by the animals to regular and safe drinking, contributing significantly to the rearing performances.

- july/august 2021 -

33

TECHNICAL COLUMN

Reasons for preventing the build-up of biofilm The consequences of biofilm in the drinking line are generally underestimated, while optimal production results mainly depend on good drinking water quality.

We notice that the importance of clean and fresh drinking water is often underestimated. There are several factors that influence the health of the birds, but drinking water really is the most important. Excellent drinking water quality is essential for your poultry to perform optimally.

A study conducted by the Animal Health Service (GD) clearly shows where things go wrong and what the consequences may be: • 34% of all drinking water from the nipples is of moderate / poor quality.

• On average, poultry farmers spent 100 times more on food than on water.

• An average contamination with fungi and yeasts costs a farm with approx. 30,000 laying hens approximately 12,000 € per year.

• An average bacterial contamination costs a farm with approx. 29,000 broilers around 2,100 € per round.

A closed drinking system Hygiene is an important part of achieving optimal production results. Many poultry farmers have strict protocols to prevent their poultry from getting certain diseases. These protocols mainly apply to the feed supply and visitors in the form of protective clothing. However, drinking water can also pose a risk if it is not properly maintained. Something that is unfortunately often overlooked by poultry farmers.

Impex Barneveld B.V.

34

Water is one of the most common and purest compounds worldwide. But water sources are dynamic and constantly changing.

Floods, drought or agriculture and industry all affect these sources and therefore the composition of water.

- technical column -

Many poultry farmers have switched to closed drinking systems to reduce the risk of contamination from dust, feed, feathers and litter. The problem is that they are no longer aware of the quality of the water.

Previously, the open water systems were regularly cleaned, so you were constantly reminded how dirty the drinking water could become. But with a closed drinking system this is no longer visible. However, that does not mean that the water is not contaminated with bacteria, fungi and minerals, which flourish in a slowly flowing and nutrient-rich water supply.

Whether the water quality is good or bad depends on the harmful substances in the

TECHNICAL COLUMN

water. These substances determine the taste, hardness and PH value of the water and thus also whether the water quality is good enough for the animals.

The formation of biofilm Another major problem that can form in a closed drinking system is biofilm. Lime, iron and manganese, among other things, cause a hard structure on the inside of the drinking line. This hard structure ensures that (especially) drug residues can easily adhere. The sugars in these drug residues are in turn a perfect breeding ground for bacteria and fungi. This creates a slimy layer on the inside of the drinking line called biofilm. The biofilm then protects the harmful micro-organisms against antibacterial agents.

The water flows slowly in closed drinking systems, which means that biofilm can develop very quickly. Too warm water can also be an ideal food source for biofilm. Therefore, it is also very important to monitor the formation of biofilm and take immediate action as soon as this happens.

What are the consequences of biofilm?

The presence of biofilm in the drinking lines can have serious consequences. Among other things, the effectiveness of medicines and vaccines that are administered via the drinking line can decrease considerably. In turn, this can have a negative effect on the final production results.

Once biofilm has formed, it can be quite difficult to get the drinking lines clean again and to keep them clean. Even if you manage to remove the biofilm, it can return in about three days. That is why it is so important to prevent the formation of biofilm in the drinking lines.

Biofilm

Automatic flushing An automatic flushing system is an effective solution to flush the drinking lines regularly and easily, thereby preventing the formation of biofilm. The computer controls the entire flushing process following a personalized program. You decide the frequency with which the computer should flush the system, which lines should be flushed and how long the flushing should last.

In addition, the system uses the information it receives from sensors in the drinking lines. These sensors measure the water temperature and the build-up of biofilm.

As soon as an anomaly is detected, the flushing computer receives the signal to automatically flush the drinking lines.

A maximum number of flushings can be set to prevent excessive flushing. When this maximum is reached, the computer gives a signal to indicate that further action must be taken.

Achieve optimal results But how do you prevent biofilm?

One of the easiest ways to prevent the formation of biofilm as much as possible is by routine flushing. In addition, it is important to flush and clean the drinking lines thoroughly after using additives or medicines. This washes away the main food sources for bacteria.

It is also important to thoroughly flush and clean the drinking system between rounds. This is especially important if the lines are not used for a longer period of time.

Poultry farmers are generally very conscious about the quality of the feed, but the influence of poor drinking water quality is often underestimated. However, in order to achieve optimal production results, the quality of the drinking water is also very important. This means that you have to be very conscious about maintaining the drinking system. An automatic flushing system is the ideal solution, because the program can regulate the flushing fully automatically and thus also prevents the formation of biofilm in the drinking lines.

- july/august 2021 -

35

MANAGEMENT

Back to basics

©www.sdstate.edu

As we move to using less antibiotics in the production of poultry, many alternative products have been developed. While some are affective in specific circumstances, they are not as affective at treating or preventing diseases and production problems as antibiotics.

As we move forward, it is important to remember that there are no “silver bullets” that will fix issues that can arise on farms and that we need to concentrate on basic management skills. When looking at management, growers need to concentrate on things they can actually impact.

Examples include: • pre-placement • temperature management Jon Moyle, University of Maryland

36

• light management • feed management

- management -

• air quality/ventilation • water management • biosecurity.

Pre-placement Pre-placement includes all the steps prior to receiving birds. It starts when the last flock leaves and includes managing the litter, cleaning the barns and equipment, and performing required maintenance. Make sure to ventilate between flocks, especially if you are windrowing, as this will help dry the litter

MANAGEMENT

and remove unwanted gasses. Before the arrival of the chicks, is a great time to make sure that all sensors and alarms are working properly. When preheating the barns it is important to start early enough to get the floors at the proper temperatures to avoid chilling the chicks when placing them. Conducting regular maintenance is much easier to do while the birds are not in the house, so use this time to check/work on fans, tunnel doors and curtains as well as lights.

Temperature management Temperature management, means having the correct temperature that keeps the birds happy and stress free.

Use thermometers to set temp prior to placement, but once placed, use the birds’ behavior to adjust the temp to make them comfortable. Make sure to check floor temp as well as the air temperature by using an infrared thermometer. Simply cleaning the reflectors on radiant heaters can increase their efficiency, thus reducing propane usage, and increasing the floor area heated.

Light management Light management is often downplayed as to its importance in growing birds. During brooding, uniform lighting is important in helping the chicks find food and water.

Lighting is also important in regulating bird behavior, dim lights less activity, while bright lights will increase bird movement and can lead to poorer feed conversion. Lighting is also believed to be an important consideration for bird well-being. Cleaning lights properly between flocks can help improve production.

Feed management Feed management is all about presenting the feed to the birds in a way that promotes growth. It starts with checking the feed when delivered to make sure it is the proper size for the birds. By checking early, you will have time to fix any miss delivered feed. Make sure all feed pans are full and that the control pan is working properly. Walk the whole house and check each pan, don’t assume everything is ok just because you have feed at the control pan. Use supplemental feeders for the first few days to increase the amount of feed available to the chicks. Re-

fresh feed multiple times a day to encourage birds to eat.

Adjust feeder height as the birds age to help prevent feed wastage.

Water management Water management involves all aspects of the water system as well as water consumed by the birds. Cleaning water lines is an important part water management and involves two different programs, cleaning between flocks and daily water treatment. When cleaning lines, always follow the directions from the manufacture of the product you are using. Water lines need to be adjusted regularly and always walk birds a couple hours after placement to see if litter has settled and birds can still access the water.

Air quality/ventilation Air quality/ventilation are important for bird health. Remember that the fans work as water pumps, removal of CO2 and ammonia, as well as provide for fresh air in the barns. Make sure to increase fan time as birds age to remove the increase in water used by the birds. Simple hygrometers can help you determine the humidity in the barns. If you have attic vents, use them, but keep it simple!

Biosecurity Biosecurity can be made simple and easy. Use common sense to protect your birds from diseases. An often overlooked part of disease prevention is mortality management. Make sure that birds are disposed of properly and promptly. Dispose of birds in an approved method and make sure scavengers cannot get access to them and spread them around your or other farms.

While focusing on the very basic parts of management may seem simplified, you will find that it will help reduce stress on birds and improve performance. Finally, by focusing on these basic principles, you will be spending more time with your birds which will allow you to identify problems earlier and address them quicker.

- july/august 2021 -

From the Proceedings of the Midwest Poultry Federation - 2020

37

MANAGEMENT

Managing floor eggs in layers In cage-free facilities, nesting behavior of hens is an important economic trait.

Eggs laid outside of nests are more likely to be contaminated, easily cracked, broken, and eaten by other hens. The value of these eggs is lower due to downgrading and diversion of eggs. Manual collection of eggs from the floor or the aviary is costly.

Photo 1 – Pre-lay behavior in hens includes making many visits to examine potential nesting sites before making a final nest selection

Photo 2 – It is important to train newly housed birds to roost in the aviary system and not on the litter

Young flocks will lay a higher percentage of floor eggs as they come into lay because nesting is a learned behavior. The number of floor eggs will drop within 2-3 weeks.

Floor eggs range from 1-4% for the life of a standard laying flock. The incidence of floor eggs depends on factors related to the bird, environment, nest training, and management.

Nesting behavior in chickens

By the Hy-Line Global Technical Services Team

38

Understanding normal nesting behavior of layers is vital when developing management programs to minimize floor eggs. The laying hen’s environment should provide nesting areas that allow expression of the

- management -

hen’s natural instincts to seek a nest for egg laying. Elimination of inappropriate nesting sites within the bird’s environment is key.

Pre-laying behavior One to two hours before laying, hens become restless and examine potential sites as a part of the pre-lay ritual. A hen makes frequent nest visits before final selection, averaging 21.3 nest visits per egg laid. Between examinations, the hen might eat, drink, and preen, as well as other behaviors (Photo 1). After site selection, the hen may turn around several times, exhibiting nest building behavior. Prior to laying an egg, the hen extends the neck and body feathers.

Some hens will stand to lay. The time to lay

MANAGEMENT

an egg is variable, between 10 and 90 minutes. After the laying, the hen may vocalize and sit on the egg or simply leave the nest.

The start of pre-laying behavior is triggered by the hen’s last ovulation and not by the presence of an egg ready to be laid. Ovulation releases the hormones which are responsible for the hen’s pre-laying behavior. Stressful events that elicit a fear response can cause the hen to suspend nest selection and delay lay. The hen may lose interest in seeking a nest, resulting in floor eggs.

matched. Pullets reared in aviary systems adapt faster to aviary laying facilities and with fewer floor eggs than floor-reared pullets.

Water tables In addition to perches, birds reared primarily on the floor should have water tables. In non-aviary houses, water tables (elevated platform) should be under all lines so birds must jump to drink.

Perches

Pecking order During rear, social hierarchy of dominant/submissive relationships between individuals is established. High-ranking birds have first access to food, water, and nesting sites. Dominant hens will occupy preferred nesting sites, excluding lower-ranked hens. If preferred nesting sites are limited, submissive hens are forced to seek alternative nesting sites, resulting in out-of-nest eggs.

Nest preference Hens prefer nests that are dark, secluded, warm, and comfortable. Nests containing loose material, such as wood shavings, rice hulls, or straw are preferred. Hens show a preference of solid nest floors over wire nest floors and prefer nests in corners or at the end of the line. Nests in elevated locations are preferred compared to ground level nests. Young, inexperienced hens may use nests that are occupied by other hens (gregarious nesting); this behavior lessens with bird age. In aviary systems, hens will choose isolated nests located along walls over nests within the aviary rack.

Hens tend to return to the same nesting sites so floor layers can be identified in a flock. The goal is to make the designated nests attractive to hens and eliminate alternative nesting sites where hens might lay out-of-nest eggs.

Management during rearing Training Training hens for nesting behavior begins during the rearing period. If hens need to jump to reach the nests and perches during the laying period, then jumping behavior should be habituated during rearing. Feeders, water systems, and perches used during rear and lay should be

Perches and elevated water platforms should be present in the rearing flock by 10 days of age to establish jumping behavior. This develops strength in leg and breast muscles. Perches provide a safe resting space for birds and lowers floor density. The ability of pullets to use perches will be important later for accessing elevated nests.

Perches used in rearing should be the same design and material as those to be used during the laying period.

Perches should be placed on the slats when using a litter (scratch area)/slat flooring. The perches should support the bottom of the bird’s foot and be easy to grip. Do not use electric deterrent wire over water or feeder lines, as this will discourage jumping behavior in pullets.

Management during transfer Transfer pullet flocks to the laying facility by 16 weeks of age, or a minimum of 14 days before first eggs. This provides sufficient time to adapt to the new laying environment and to re-establish pecking order. In laying facilities utilizing litter and elevated slat areas, the pullets should be transferred onto the slats. It is important that hens use the aviary system for roosting during the night.

Any hens on the litter at dusk should be manually placed in the aviary system (Photo 2). The nests should be open and available for examination by hens at housing. Lifting every third or fourth nest flap will encourage nest exploration. Run the egg belts during the day to accustom hens to the noise and vibration of this equipment.

Management during lay Training period The nest training period begins from transfer until the

- july/august 2021 -

39

MANAGEMENT

flock reaches the peak of egg production (around 27-32 weeks). During this time, the young layer should learn to consistently use the provided nests. In the training period, the flock manager should walk in the flock a minimum of six times each day, starting from the side opposite the nest area. The birds should be stimulated to get up and move away from the walls, out of corners, and toward the nests. Any floor eggs should be picked up immediately and any hens observed nesting outside of provided nests should be gently placed inside a nest. The presence of eggs in the nests will attract hens to the nest. Observe where floor eggs are being laid and make these locations less attractive for nesting. During nest training, leave the floor free of obstacles that might block the movement of hens to the nests, such as pecking blocks or hay bales.

These enrichments can be suspended above the floor or introduced after the training period. Keep hens active with house temperature around 20-21 °C (68-70 °F) or lower and with good air movement. This discourages floor eggs.

uled just prior to nest closing to prevent hens from nesting overnight.

Eliminating alternative nesting sites Corners of any kind are common locations for floor eggs.

Round corners to make them less desirable as nest sites.

Walls are another common location for floor eggs. Shaded areas under feeder troughs, feed hoppers, feeder motors, pan feeders, bell drinkers, and environmental enrichments may attract hens to lay on the floor (Photos 3 and 4). Supplemental lights can be added in areas where shadows exist. String lights work well for this.

Electric deterrent wires Electric deterrent wires, where they are permitted, can be an important tool to prevent floor eggs. Deterrent wires should be positioned to keep birds away from the walls and pen partitions, and out of the corners. Activate deterrent wires as soon as the flock is transferred to the laying facility. Deterrent wires are especially effective during the nest training period and may be turned off after the hens are consistently using the nests.

Nest usage Calculations for nest space assumes that all nests will be used by the flock. If flocks are only using a percentage of the nests, partition the flock into smaller groups to force uniform distribution. Hens prefer corner and end-of-theline nests. False walls between the nests might alleviate the crowding in these areas.

Egg collection

Photo 3 – The space between the feed trough and perch used as an alternative nesting site

Nest opening and closing Automatic nests should be opened two hours before lights on and closed two hours before lights off. When using dawn/dusk sequential lighting, the nests can be opened two hours before the beginning of the dawn light sequence. Start nest closing one hour before the dusk lighting sequence. The last feeder run should be sched-

40

The majority of eggs are laid 1-5 hours after the house lights are turned on. This corresponds to the time of peak nest occupancy. Egg collection should begin after most hens have gone to the nests. To avoid disturbing nesting hens, egg belts should not be run during peak egg laying.

If necessary, run the egg belts at a low speed to reduce noise and vibration of the equipment.

Litter Litter is an attractive nesting material for hens and encourages nest building behavior. When using litter, the depth should be less than 5 cm (2 in) to discourage in-

- management -

MANAGEMENT

appropriate nesting. Periodically rake the litter to prevent deep areas where hens might be attracted to nest.

Ventilation Poor ventilation can contribute to hens rejecting a nest site. Nests located near fans or facing air inlets may be drafty and cold. Tunnel ventilated houses during the summer season may not move enough air inside nests, causing them to be too hot.

Nests

fortable, causing hens to seek alternative nesting sites outside of the system. Slopes of 12% to 18% are widely accepted by laying hens, but hens may have a preference for lower slopes.

Nest floor mats Clean and sanitize nest floor mats between flocks. Replace worn floor mats maintain bird comfort. Good mats ensure that eggs roll gently onto the egg belt. Worn mats cause egg retention in nests and allow hens to sit on eggs, resulting in more cracks and more aggression toward new entrants.

Nest space In automatic egg collection colony nest systems, provide 1 m2 (10.8 ft2) of nest floor space per 100-120 hens (83.3100 cm2/32.8-39.4 in2 per hen) or 40 hens per linear meter of open space at the front of the nest. For manual egg collection, nest boxes should provide one nest per six hens. Check local regulations regarding nest space.

Egg belts Egg belts should be cleaned regularly and, if damaged, replaced between flocks. In automatic nests, the brushes that hide the egg belt from view of nesting hens may become worn, revealing the moving egg belt. Hens can be disturbed by the movement and leave the nest. Avoid running egg belts during the peak egg laying.

Nest design The nests should be designed to provide a safe and comfortable environment with easy access. The perches and landing platforms in front of nests should be easy to access and traverse. If hens must jump to access the nests, vertical height is ideally 65 cm (25.6 in), but not exceeding 90 cm (35.4 in). Use ramps and broad landing platforms to provide easy access. Wider platforms 60 cm (23.6 in) compared to 30 cm (11.8 in) platforms create less aggressive behavior between hens. Hens prefer a grid floor platform to wooden slats.

Commercial automatic group nests are common. Hens show a preference for smaller group nests (0.72 m/2.36 ft width x 0.6 m/1.97 ft depth) compared to larger nests (1.44 m/4.72 ft width x 0.6 m/1.97 ft depth), based on more eggs laid in the smaller nest with fewer nest visits per egg (9). Hens prefer group nests with non-transparent flaps covering the nest entrance compared to open nests. Nest flaps cut into strips are preferred to a whole flap.

Nest slope

How safe is your water?

Intra Hydrocare has a dual effect: It removes the biofilm and disinfects the drinking water. Safe and very effective!

In automatic colony nests, the nest floor is sloped to allow the rapid roll-out of eggs from the nest onto the egg belt.

Nest floors that are excessively sloped may not be com-

- july/august 2021 -

Tel: + 31 (0)413-354 105 WWW.INTRACARE.NL

41

MANAGEMENT

Lighting programs Distribution of light Place lights to eliminate shadows in the activity, feeding, and drinking areas of the bird’s environment. One or two rows of lights positioned in an alternating pattern creates the most uniform distribution. Use a light source that produces diffused light and does not create shadows. Some LED light sources produce directional light, creating areas of shadow under feeders, waterers, and in corners.

The brightest area in the house should be the activity area where birds eat, drink, and rest. Entrances to nests should be well-lit, but not brighter than the activity area.

Inside of the nests should be dark, preferably less than 0.5 lux.

turned on an hour before and off an hour after the house lights turn on. Nest lighting is especially effective during nest training. Nest lights can be discontinued when hens are consistently using nests.

Timing lights-on It is important to determine what time of day floor eggs are being laid. In houses that are not light proof, outside light, particularly in summer months, may cause birds to lay before house lights come on. To correct this, house lights should be programmed earlier.

Feeding considerations Feeding schedule Schedule the automatic feeder runs not to interfere with the pre-laying behavior and egg laying of the flock. The first feeder run occurs when first house lights come on, or alternatively, just before lights on. The second feeding is after peak lay. Poorly timed feeder runs can interrupt pre-laying behavior and motivate hens to leave the nests, resulting in floor eggs. Provide sufficient feeder space and use fast feeder run times (18 m/min feeder) to ensure that all hens can eat simultaneously.

Considerations for breeding flocks In breeder flocks, eggs laid outside the nests are not suitable for hatching and cause significant economic loss.

These eggs are soiled with feces and dirt, leading to bacterial contamination of the egg and hatchery. Hatchability and chick quality are decreased when floor eggs are used. Proper ratio of roosters to hens should be set by 16 weeks of age.

Photo 4 – Unwanted egg laying under the feeders

Simulation of dawn and dusk In aviary systems, house lights are typically sequenced to draw the birds up in the system at night. Any birds that remain on the floor should be manually placed in the system. Hens allowed to sleep on the floor can lead to floor eggs.

Nest lights

See Hy-Line Management Guides (www.hyline.com) for recommended ratios of each variety. Too many roosters results in fighting, leading to male aggression toward females and disrupting normal nesting behavior. Roosters may attempt to “corral” hens, blocking movement to the nests. Low-ranking males hide inside nests to avoid persecution. The presence of males inside nests may result in females refusing to use these nests. Low-ranking males should be continuously culled from the flock.

String LED lights placed inside automatic colony nests can be used to attract hens to the nests. Nest lights are

42

- management -

References are available on request

MANAGEMENT

Leader in pig & poultry equipment

I WANT

AZA! QUALITY MADE IN ITALY

BREEDAZA THE INNOVATIVE RATIONING SYSTEM

Linear trough feeder for LAYERS and BREEDERS suitable for 300 metre-long systems with one single motor and loading point throughout the circuit.

Equal, controlled and immediate distribution throughout the line.

Easy cleaning and no residual feed inside the trough.

Adjustable anti-cock grid.

SELF DOSY

FULLY AUTOMATIC

SPECIFIC FEED PAN FOR COCKS

Feed pan with automatic volumetric dispenser.

Sturdy, secured to the tube and easy to manage.

Complete and simple washing.

Large bottom pan.

No weighing scale required.

CENTRALISED ADJUSTMENT of the feed volume throughout the line

- july/august 2021 -

Via Roma 29, 24030 Medolago (BG) Italy - Phone +39 035 901240 - info@azainternational.it www.azainternational.it

43

©pluimvee.nu

NUTRITION

Response of broilers fed phytase enzymes of different optimal pH ranges alone or in combination Dr. Kelley Wamsley and colleagues at the Mississippi State University Poultry Science Department recently completed a research project that investigated how broilers respond when fed phytase enzymes of different optimal pH ranges alone or in combination.

Kelley Wamsley, PhD Poultry Science Mississippi State University, Department of Poultry Science

44

Overall data did not signify that feeding multiple phytase enzymes will contribute to significant improvements for the commercial broiler industry. However, findings did suggest that more attention towards calcium and available phosphorus ratios can further the efficacy of phytases.

- nutrition -

NUTRITION

Phytase is an exogenous enzyme that is commonly incorporated into commercial poultry diets to increase the digestibility of phytate phosphorus. This is significant because a large majority of the ingredients used for poultry feed are plant-derived and contain phytate. Phytate hinders the nutritional potential of diets and bird growth performance, leading to unreached maximal economic gain. Phytase inclusion in diets provide broiler production advantages, such as improved growth performance and better nutrient digestibility. Due to the expense associated with feed, it is common for poultry nutritionists to formulate diets on a least-cost basis to maximize profit.

However, lower priced ingredients typically contain higher amounts of antinutrients, like phytate.

The objective of this research project was to determine the effects of feeding combinations of phytases with varying optimal pH ranges. The researchers theorized that if combinations of different phytases are more effective than singular use, the nutritive quality of feedstuffs would be enhanced; thereby, improving broiler production, lowering feed costs and reducing environmental excretion of phosphorus. Two experiments were conducted. In experiment 1, broilers were reared in raised wire cages from 0-14 days to investigate the potential synergy of three different phytase enzymes of varying biochemical properties when fed alone or in combination with low phytase activities (120 or 240 FTU/kg). Data obtained demonstrated a potential synergy with the supplementation of two phytases combined at a higher phytase activity level (240 FTU/kg), as identified from ileal IP6 lower ester concentration, increased digestibility (calcium, phosphorus, and select amino acids) and tibia ash (indicating greater phytate degradation). In experiment 2, the two higher performing phytases from experiment 1 were used to address limitations recognized in experiment 1, including: • utilizing a broader and more practical range of phytase activity (250 or 1500 FTU/kg); • implementing three diets varying in calcium and available phosphorus; and • employing an entire grow-out of broilers within experimental floor-pen facilities.

These data demonstrated that feeding diets lowest in calcium and available phosphorus along with 1500 FTU/kg of a single phytase resulted in improved broiler performance, tibia ash (mg/chick and concentration of select minerals) and nutrient digestibility (calcium, phosphorus

“Phytase is an exogenous enzyme that is commonly incorporated into commercial poultry diets to increase the digestibility of phytate phosphorus. This is significant because a large majority of the ingredients used for poultry feed are plant-derived and contain phytate. Phytate hinders the nutritional potential of diets and bird growth performance, leading to unreached maximal economic gain”

and select amino acids). This strategy also demonstrated improved thigh weight at processing and indicated greater phytate degradation. Additionally, there was some indication of synergy for the use of combined phytase at 250 FTU/kg within diets of medium calcium and available phosphorus levels (relative to reduced nutrient diets alone); however, performance was not maximized.

Overall, data do not indicate that feeding multiple phytase enzymes will contribute to significant improvements for the commercial broiler industry; however, these data do suggest that more attention towards calcium and available phosphorus ratios can further the efficacy of phytases. Further research on multiple enzyme use in broiler diets is warranted and could provide valuable economic and environmental insight on the strategic use of exogenous enzymes for the commercial poultry industry.

The research was made possible in part by an endowing Foundation gift from Peco Foods and is part of the Association’s comprehensive research program encompassing all phases of poultry and egg production and processing.

A complete report, along with information on other Association research, may be obtained through USPOULTRY’s website: www.uspoultry.org

- july/august 2021 -

45

©Hy-Line

NUTRITION

Layer nutrition associated with different production systems The egg industry continues to grow; in the past this was in cage production, but today’s growth is focused on alternative production systems such as cage-free or range egg production. Contributing to this growth has been intensive egg production that created concerns about the impact of the cage environment on laying hen well-being.

K. E. Anderson Poultry Extension Specialist, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695

46

Both the commercial egg production sector and small producers using heritage strains of chickens, in flocks ranging in size from 100 to 3,000 hens, are responding by producing eggs in cage-free and range settings. However, one of the current issues is that our knowledge base of how these alternative production methods influence hen nutrition and egg production performance is limited to research studies that were conducted in the late 1940s and early 1950s. This information was collected with specific breeds of hens which no longer exist, and not with modern lines of poultry that have been selected for lower body weights and very high rates of egg production.

- nutrition -

NUTRITION

Therefore, an examination of alterative laying hen nutrition in the context of the current knowledge base would provide beneficial information to identify how feeding practices translate to modern strains of laying hens under cage-free or range production. Research on range or cage-free production done in controlled settings is limited, and additional studies relevant to egg producers wishing to expand cage-free and range egg production are needed.

Introduction The transition in the layer industry from conventional cages to cage-free and even further into free-range production is rewriting the nutritional requirements of the laying hen. In the last 25 years, the number of eggs a hen can produce has increased by about 2 eggs each year while the amount of feed required to produce these eggs has been reduced by 18.6% in cages. The result has been a high value protein source at the low cost the consumers pay for eggs today. During this time, the breeding companies began selecting laying hens that were better adapted to cages. This included smaller body weights, improved feed conversion, increased egg size and quality among a few of the traits selected for. The industry in the US is being pushed to transition from conventional cages to cage-free production systems at a rate which is 3 times faster than was taken to transition to cages originally. The breeding companies are trying to transition the hen into a more productive bird when destined to be in a cage-free setting. Currently in the US, brown egg layers are being used more in the cage free systems and almost exclusively in the free-range systems.

The industry is moving these birds to the cage-free egg production systems while relying on the nutrient requirements that were developed while the birds were housed in cages. Nutritionists are working on developing feed formulation models which will compensate for the increased locomotory movement within these systems while maintaining the same hen day production levels.

However, what we are finding is that the variation in energy requirements between individual hens is increasing dramatically due to their activity levels. In addition, there are greater concerns related to egg safety.

The production systems I will be discussing were derived from industry needs in 2012 and were components of the North Carolina Layer Performance and Management

“Pullets should be grown in systems similar to those in which they will be placed for their productive life. This allows them to learn how to use the system and physically develop to better move within them. In order to accomplish this we have to provide them the proper nutrition. In addition, it affords them the opportunity to develop behavior patterns which will minimize floor eggs”

Test (NCLP&MT). The research station transitioned with remodelled facilities from multi-level conventional cage systems that hold relatively small populations of hens in a simple environment with no enrichments. There was a brief period where the industry transitioned to either Enrichable or Enriched Colony Housing Systems. The systems in this comparison were large cages with hen populations ranging in size from 21 to 36 birds.

The Enrichable Colony Housing Systems was a cage with increased height so the birds would not hit their heads when standing normally with no other enrichments.

The Enriched Colony Housing Systems included a nest area 270 in2 (1,742 cm2) and 96 in (244 cm) of roost space and a scratch area.

The Cage-Free Housing System was in a force-ventilated house with a slat litter flooring system. The pens were 12.1 ft x 6.6 ft (4 m x 2 m) density 177 in2 (1142 cm2), 1 nest/5 hens and 6 in (15.2 cm) of roost/hen and a dust bathing area.

The Free-Range Housing Systems was a standard height curtain ventilated laying house with a slat flooring system with pens 12.1 ft x 6.6 ft (4 m x 2 m) density

- july/august 2021 -

47

NUTRITION

vironments. The data were segregated between 11 White egg strains and 7 Brown egg strains.

Pullet rearing

©Brenda Timmermans

As we shift production systems from cages to extensive systems such as enriched colony, cage-free (aviary) or range we have to start considering how we are rearing the pullets destined for these systems. Pullets should be grown in systems similar to those in which they will be placed for their productive life. This allows them to learn how to use the system and physically develop to better move within them. In order to accomplish this we have to provide them the proper nutrition. In addition, it affords them the opportunity to develop behavior patterns which will minimize floor eggs.

177 in2 (1142 cm2), 1 nest/5 hens, and 6 in (15.2 cm) of roost/hen. The veranda 10 ft x15 ft (3.04 m x 4.6 m) of shaded, bare dirt with access to a paddock 30 ft2/hen (2.78 m2/hen) and rotated every 4 wks. This configuration and rotation system allows for a 50% forage cover to be maintained.

For this presentation I went back through the 39th and 40th NCLP&MT Rearing and Single Cycle Reports and used the feed consumption records which included the diets and the amounts fed. These records were maintained for each of the replicates in all of the production systems which consisted of a total of 410 replicates (13,860 hens).

All of the birds were hatched on site and reared in the appropriate environments. They were transferred from rearing to the laying phase which commenced at 17 weeks of age. All of the birds were under the same management and dietary protocols with the only caveats being the environments and that each replicate’s feed was allocated independently based on feed intake and production. From the calculated nutrient profile of each diet and the feed consumption data, I calculated the nutrients discussed herein, on a hen basis for the 5 production en-

48

In the 39th NCLP&MT, range reared pullets consumed 470 g of protein more than their cage reared hatch mates for both White and Brown egg pullets. Either by genetic selection for extensive production systems, recycling of nutrients, or improved range management by the 40th NCLP&MT, protein consumption via supplemental feed was significantly reduced and was lower than that required by the cage reared pullets. Total energy consumption followed the same patterns as protein consumption.

We have no way of accounting for what the pullets consumed in the extensive systems. We have indications that range pullets consume about 11% of their total consumption from the range system on an as fed basis. When the moisture content of that component is accounted for, the birds get only about 3% on a DM basis of their consumption from the range paddock.

Layer performance Nutrient requirements for the laying hen are highly dependent upon the production characteristics of the hens and how this production varies among the different housing systems. In the 40th NCLP&MT overall, the Brown egg layers consumed more feed than the White egg layers in all of the production systems. Also, both the White and Brown egg layers had increased feed intake in the Colony system and in the range production systems. However, only in the White egg layers was feed conversion depressed in the Colony and Range systems. When comparing the Colony with the Enriched system, hen-day production percentage

- nutrition -

NUTRITION

was significantly higher in the Enriched Colony.

For each of the production systems the White egg layers produced more eggs than did the Brown egg layer.

Mortality was due primarily to trauma. In systems with the greatest ability to move, the result was more broken appendages as well as keel bone damage.

In the 40th NCLP&MT, both White and Brown egg layers had similar egg quality; however, the percentage of checked and loss eggs was greatest in the Colony and Enriched Colony systems with losses ranging from 8.3 to 11.2%. Cost and income components were relatively consistent across all systems for both egg type layers with the one exception being the White egg layers in the Range system generating the least net income/hen.

Layer nutrient consumption We have a relatively good estimate of nutrient intake (or feed disappearance) of the laying hen during the production cycle. The White egg layers in a single cycle flock consumed 96 to 108 g of feed/day in both cage and cage free systems. Brown egg layers consumption was 3.3% and 5% higher in cage and cage-free systems, respectively. On range the White egg and Brown egg layers feed consumption increased to 106.8 and 110.9 g/day, respectively. From that, they consume 21 g of protein, of which 57% is dedicated to egg production, 16,6% for body maintenance and growth and the remaining 21.4% for dealing with the environment. Energy consumption is about 300 kcal with 66% used for egg production, 11.3% for growth and body maintenance and the remaining 13.3% for dealing with the environment. If we look at calcium 75.6% is used for egg production with the rest for skeletal maintenance and that lost to the environment.

However, as we move into more extensive production systems, we really have not examined the shift in nutrient partitioning due to the additional needs of the production system. We have to formulate to compensate for the increase in activity levels of the hens, to increase bone density, and to provide the energy required to maintain homeostasis. We also have to deal with the nutrients robbed from the hen by the internal parasite loads such as Heterakis, roundworms, and tapeworms.

In all of the extensive production systems, the Brown egg layers consumed significantly more protein on a daily basis than the White egg layers, except in the conventional

cages where the protein consumption was not different.

Interestingly, the protein consumed in the enrichable colony system was significantly higher by 7.2% than in the enriched colony system. The protein consumption of the range hens was intermediate to either of the colony housing systems. The energy, calcium, available phosphorus, lysine and total sulphur amino acids, as you would conclude, followed similar trends as seen in the protein consumption. However, due to the feeding of individual replicates, we were able to show the influence of environment on White and Brown egg layers.

We do not yet understand the recycling of the nutrients in the cage-free system or the true level of nutrition captured from the range paddocks. We know that additional nutrients are consumed from the range and in the cagefree system through the nutritional makeup of the eggs and yolk color through research at Pennsylvania State University and at North Carolina State University. However, we need to keep in mind that the hen’s consumption rates are higher than in cage–free or the conventional cage systems.

Conclusion We have much to learn related to the nutritional needs of the laying hen in extensive production systems. We worked on the nutrition of the hen in cage systems for 75 years so the transition to extensive systems and how we can manage these systems to enhance the nutritional status of the hens is going to be vital. Some research areas are: • Understanding what level of nutrition is gained from foraging; • What is the variation in hen activity levels in the range systems; • Training hens to minimize floor eggs; • Impact of internal parasites on performance and health (how to mitigate parasites).

We have a growing world population and, regardless of your viewpoint, there are production issues we have to face if we are going to feed this population. It is a work in progress and will continue long after me.

References are available on request From the Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium 2021

- july/august 2021 -

49

VETERINARY SCIENCE

Perches: environmental enrichment or mechanical challenge?

©Vencomatic

The study compared the impact of wire ramps and perches on meat chicken mobility and the incidence of detached femoral caps (DFC), which can be indicative of Bacterial chondronecrosis with osteomyelitis (BCO).

D.V. Phibbs, P.J. Groves and W.I. Muir Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Poultry Research Foundation

50

Bacterial chondronecrosis with osteomyelitis (BCO) is an infective leg condition that results in lameness, affecting meat chickens internationally. BCO can be induced using mechanical challenges such as wire ramps (Wideman, 2016). Based on a study wherein perches had a negative impact on bird latency to lie (LTL) at 42 days (d) old (Phibbs et al., 2020) perches may be a mechanical challenge to birds also, reducing their leg health in a similar way to Wideman’s ramps. This study compared the impact of wire ramps and perches on meat chicken mobility and the incidence of detached femoral caps (DFC), which can be indicative of BCO. Day old Cobb-500 chicks were randomly allocated to one of three treatments: con-

- veterinary science -

trol, perch or wire ramp. Each treatment had six replicate pens, with 42 birds/pen (28kg/ m2 stocking density at 42 d). One perch or ramp ran down the length of the pen between the feeders and drinkers, requiring the birds to pass over them to access food/ water. Each wooden perch was 4.2 cm wide and 10 cm off the ground. Wire ramps were 10 cm high and 30 cm across, creating a 30° angle from the ground on both sides.

Perches and ramps were added to pens at 7 d and remained throughout the 42 d study.

Overall feed consumption and weight gain were measured.

Behavioural observations were made at five consistent time points every second day wherein all birds in the pen were categorised as either drinking, feeding, active or resting.

VETERINARY SCIENCE

Birds interacting with the ramps/perches were counted as either actively interacting (AI) when climbing/standing on them or passively interacting (PI) when perching. At 35 d, eight visually male birds were selected from each pen to undergo LTL, and then scored for hock burn (HB) and footpad dermatitis (FPD). At 42 d, seven different male birds were selected to undergo the same assessments, after which they were euthanased and assessed for DFC and FHN. Analysis to determine impact of treatment was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 24.

Perch and ramp use peaked at week 3, declining thereafter. Birds with access to the ramps were significantly more active than control birds (P=0.023) and the ramps induced significantly more AI and PI than the perches (P<0.001).

Other activity categories were not affected. There was no effect of treatment on bird weight, FCR or LTL. When analysed against treatment, leg health observations were all insignificant except for HB at 35 d (P=0.002) and FPD at 42 d (P=0.002), which were both significantly more prevalent in birds with access to ramps. Perches were associ-

ated with a higher prevalence of DFC at 42 d (P=0.055).

There was some evidence that ramps had a negative impact on leg health, but not for observations typical of BCO, such as prevalence of DFC or reduced mobility.

Higher prevalence of DFC in birds with access to perches gives some weight to the theory that perches may present a mechanical challenge to birds; however this is not clearcut. In this study, perches and ramps differed in their effect on leg health and the impact of perches overall remains inconsistent across the literature (Groves & Muir, 2013; Phibbs et al., 2019, 2020).

Acknowledgement: D.V. Phibbs is the recipient of the 2017 RSPCA Australia Scholarship for Humane Animal Production Research.

References are available on request From the Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium 2020

inal !

The Orig

COOLING, HUMIDIFYING, DUST BINDING: LUBING TOP CLIMATE SYSTEM FOR POULTRY The LUBING Top climate system was developed for effective humidifying, cooling and dust binding of the house air.

•Fast cooling in the house without any wetness.

•Effective dust binding influences positively the breath organs of the animals.

•Better feed conversion.

•Use of the system for soaking and disinfection.

•Constant laying results also in summer.

LUBING SYSTEMS SRL

- july/august 2021 -

Drinking systems Climate systems Conveyor systems

Via Marco Polo,  -  Campodarsego (PD) ITALIA Telephone: + lubingsystem.com info@lubing.it

51

Hatcheries

INCUBATORS SPECIALIST SINCE 1924

Incubators for all types of eggs.

Specialists for partridges, pheasants and ostriches.

World leader in incubators & complete hatchery solutions

Via Bancora e Rimoldi 3 – 22070 Guanzate (COMO), Italy Теl.: 39-031.352.91.22 – 031.352.91.29 - Fax: 39-031.352.95.91 E-mail: victoria@victoria-srl.com

www.petersime.com

Via G.Galilei 3 – 22070 Guanzate (COMO), Italy Tel.: +39-031.976.672 - Fax: +39-031.899.163 Website: fiem.it - E-mail: fiem@fiem.it

Automatic and digital incubators from 18 to 10.000 eggs of capacity

Breeders Great Achievements,

Great Numbers

Reliable Breeder, Resilient Broiler

aviagen.com

aviagen.com

2020 - Arbor Acres Zootecnica Magazine Market Guide 2/10/20 Ad - ENGLISH.indd 1:38 PM 1

ROSS 308 DELIVERS

aviagen.com

Ross Zootecnica Magazine Market Guide Ad - ENGLISH.indd 2/10/201 1:34 PM

Cobb Europe

aviagen.com

The Oaks – Apex 12, Old Ipswich Road Colchester, Essex CO7 7QR, UK Tel: +44 (0)1206 835835 Fax: +44 (0)1206 756864 Email: info@cobb-europe.com www.cobb-vantress.com

zootecnicainternational.com

Equipment

Egg Sanitation Worldwide The key to superior egg sanitation

Leader in pig & poultry equipment THE MOST INNOVATIVE RANGE FOR POULTRY FEEDING www.agritech.it – e-mail: commerce@agritech.it

Via Roma 29, 24030 Medolago (BG) Italy - Phone +39 035 901240 Fax +39 035 902757 info@azainternational.it www.azainternational.it

www.MSTegg.com info@MSTegg.com +44 (0)1536 516778 (UK) +1 423-881-3882 (USA)

• Watering & Feeding Systems

CARFED INTERNATIONAL LTD

• Poultry Accessories

Italian headquarters: Piazza Oberdan, 3, 20129 Milano (Italy) Italian warehouse: Via Basilicata, 10, 20098 San Giuliano Milanese (Italy) Tel.: +39 02 9881140 - Fax: +39 02 98280274 Email: carfed@carfed.it - Website: www.carfed.it UK headquarters: Ground Floor, One George Yard, London EC3V 9DF, England, UK Тel.: + 44. 20. 7660.0987- Email: carfed@carfed.co.uk

• Industry Breeding

CODAF Poultry Equipment Manufacturers

• Manure & Egg Belts

Via Cavour, 74/76 • 25010 Isorella (Brescia), ITALY Tel. +39 030 9958156 • Fax: +39 030 9952810 info@codaf.net • www.codaf.net

Corti Zootecnici Srl | Via Volta 4, Monvalle (VA) - Italy| Tel. +39 0332 799985 | info@cortizootecnici.com

BELTS AND ROPES

www.bigdutchman.de

FOR AVICULTURAL USE Manure removal belts and

Manure belt with holes for drying systems

POULTRY EQUIPMENT

The No. 1 worldwide

Via Garibaldi, 54 – 26040 Scandolara Ravara (CR) Italy Tel. (+39) 0375/95135 • Fax. (+39) 0375/95169 info@barbieri-belts.com • www.barbieri-belts.com

TURNKEY PROJECTS POULTRY INTEGRATED PROJECTS POULTRY EQUIPMENT FOR BROILERS AND LAYERS AVIARY SYSTEMS Officine Facco & C. S.p.A. Via Venezia, 30 - Marsango (PD) Italy

Tel. +39 049 9698111 - Fax +39 049 9630605 | www.facco.net - facco@facco.net

spazio55x45-facco.indd 2

BD Ad Zootecnica 55x95 10-13.indd 1

22.10.13 14:24

03/10/14 15:06

Equipment

POULTRY EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS

GmbH & Co. KG

Dassendaler Weg 13 • D-47665 Sonsbeck (Germany) T: +49 (0) 2838 912-0 • F: +49 (0) 2838 2791 info@specht-tenelsen.de • www.specht-tenelsen.de

VALLI spa • via Cimatti, 2 • 47010 Galeata (FC) • Italy T: +39 0543 975 311 • F: +39 0543 981 400 E: info@valli-italy.com • I: www.valli-italy.com

Drinking systems for chicks, broilers, breeders, layers, ducks, turkeys, rabbits and pigs Conveyor systems for egg collection Climate systems: Pad Climate (evaporative cooling for paper or plastic pads) and Top Climate (with high pressure nozzles)

Housing equipment for breeders, layers and broilers.

LUBING SISTEM SRL via Marco Polo,  (Z.I.)  Campodarsego, Padova Italy tel. +   fax +   info@lubing.it lubingsystem.com www.lubingsystem.com

www.vencomaticgroup.com

Automatic rollaway nests Plastic slats Aviary systems Rearing systems Broiler systems Manure belts Manure drying systems Emission

Harselaarseweg 32, 3771 MB Barneveld, Holland Tel.: +31(0)342 42 70 00 Fax: +31 (0)342 42 70 01 Website: www.jpe.org E-mail: info@jpe.org

THE BEST FOR YOUR EGGS!

via San Lorenzo, 9b 35010 Campo San Martino (PD), Italy Ph: +39.049.9620774 Web: www.flexy.it - Email: info@flexy.it

Let’s talk about water impex nl

UPCOMING EVENTS 2021 September, 14 to 16 SPACE 2021 Parc-Expo Rennes Rennes Cedex, France For information contact: Tel.: +33 (0) 2 23 48 28 80 Email: info@space.fr Website: www.space.fr

November, 23 to 25

VIV MEA International trade show from feed to food for the Middle East and Africa ADNEC- Abu Dhabi National Exhibition Centre Khaleej Al Arabi Street, Abu Dhabi, UAE For information contact: VIV worldwide VNU Exhibitions Europe Tel.: +31 (0) 30 295 2999 Email: viv.mea@vnuexhibitions.com Website: www.vivmea.nl§Abu Dhabi National Exhibitions Company Khaleej Al Arabi Street – P.O. Box 5546 Abu Dhabi,United Arab Emirates Tel.: 800 23632 and international

+971 (0) 2 444 6900 Website: www.adnec.ae

November, 24 to 26 ILDEX Indonesia 2021 5th International livestock, dairy, meat processing and aquaculture exposition ICE Jakarta, Indonesia For information contact: Website: www.ildex-indonesia.com

2022

Tel.: +31 (0) 30 295 2700 Fax: +31 (0) 30 295 2809 South East Asia VNU Exhibitions Asia Pacific Co., Ltd. 88 The PARQ, 4th Fl., West Wing Ratchadaphisek Rd., Khlong Toei, Khlong Toei, Bangkok 10110 Thailand Tel.: +662 111 6611 Email: viv@vnuasiapacific.com Website: vivasia.nl

January, 18 to 20 VICTAM and VIV Health & Nutrition Asia 2022 Trade show & forum focusing on feed, pharma & genetics in the animal protein production Bitec, Bangkok, Thailand For information contact: Panadda KongmaHead of competence center livestock Tel.: +662 670 0900 Ext. 204 Email: panadda@vnuexhibitionsap.com Zhenja Antochin, Event Manager Tel.: +31 (0) 6 8379 9693 Email: zhenja.antochin@vnuexhibitions.com Tel.: +66 (0) 2 726 1999

+66 (0) 2 366 9797 Website: www.bitec.net

January, 25 to 27 IPPE International Production & Processing Expo Georgia World Congress Center 285 Andrew Young International Blvd NW Atlanta, Georgia USA For information contact: U.S. Poultry & Egg Association 1530 Cooledge Road Tucker, GA USA Tel.: +1 770 4939401 Fax: +1 770 4939257 Email: pstates@ippexpo.org Website: www.ippexpo.org

January, 12 to 14

March, 16 to 18

VIV ASIA International trade show from feed to food for Asia

ILDEX Vietnam

New venue: Muang Thong Thani, Bangkok, Thailand For information contact: Worldwide VNU Exhibitions Europe

Saigon Exhibition and Convention Center (SECC) Ho Chi Min City, Vietnam For information contact: Saengtip Techapatiphandee Tel.: +662 111 6611 ext. 330 Email: saengtip@vnuasiapacific.com

March 30 to April 1 7th International Conference on Poultry Intestinal Health Cartagena de Indias Convention Center Cartagena, Colombia For information contact: IHSIG vzw Intestinal Health Scientific Interest Group Knokstraat 38 - 9880 Aalter, Belgium Email: info@ihsig.com Website: www.ihsig.com

May 31 to June 2 VIV Europe 2022 World Expo from Feed to Food Jaarbeurs Exhibition Center, Utrecht The Netherlands Utrecht, The Netherlands For information contact: VIV worldwide VNU Exhibitions Europe P.O.Box 8800 3503 RV Utrecht – the Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)30 295 2700 Jaarbeurs - Jaarbeursplein 6, P.O. Box 8500 - NL 3521 AL Utrecht, NL 3503 RM Utrecht, the Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0) 30 295 5911 Fax: +31 (0) 30 295 2808 Email: info@jaarbeurs.nl Website: www.jaarbeurs.nl

2023 June, 8 to 10 VIV TURKEY International trade fair for poultry technologies Istanbul Expo Center Istanbul, Turkey For information contact: Mrs Hande Çakıcı Tel.: +90 212 216 4010 Fax: +90 212 216 3360 Email: hande@hkf-fairs.com Website: www.vivturkey.com

INTERNET GUIDE Agritech

commerce@agritech.it www.agritech.it

Arion Fasoli

info@arionfasoli.com

Aviagen

info@aviagen.com www.aviagen.com

Aviagen Turkeys Ltd

turkeysltd@aviagen.com

www.aviagenturkeys.com

Aza International

info@azainternational.it

www.azainternational.it

Barbieri Belts

info@barbieri-belts.com

www.barbieribelts.com

Big Dutchman

big@bigdutchman.com

www.bigdutchman.de

Biochem

info@biochem.net www.biochem.net

Carfed International Ltd

carfed@carfed.co.uk

Carfed Italian Branch

carfed@carfed.it

www.carfed.it

Cobb Europe

info@cobb-europe.com

www.cobb-vantress.com

Codaf

info@codaf.net www.codaf.net

Corti Zootecnici S.r.l.

info@cortizootecnici.com

www.arionfasoli.com

www.cortizootecnici.it

EuroTier eurotier@dlg.org www.eurotier.com Facco Poultry Equipment

facco@facco.net

www.facco.net

FIEM fiem@fiem.it www.fiem.it FierAgricola Verona

fieragricola@veronafiere.it

www.fieragricola.it

FierAvicola

info@fieravicola.com www.fieravicola.com

Gasolec

sales@gasolec.com www.gasolec.com

Giordano Poultry Plast

info@poultryplast.com

www.poultryplast.com

GI-OVO B.V.

sales@gi-ovo.com

www.gi-ovo.com

Hendrix Genetics

info@hendrix-genetics.com

www.hendrix-genetics.com

Hubbard

contact.emea@hubbardbreeders.com www.hubbardbreeders.com

Hy-Line International

info@hyline.com

www.hyline.com

Impex Barneveld BV

info@impex.nl

www.impex.nl

Intracare info@intracare.nl www.intracare.nl Jamesway

sales@jamesway.com

www.jamesway.com

Jansen Poultry Equipment

info@jpe.org

www.jpe.org

Lubing System

info@lubing.it

www.lubingsystem.com

Marel Poultry

info.poultry@marel.com

www.marel.com/en/poultry

Mbe Breeding Equipment

info@mbefabriano.it

www.mbefabriano.it

Menci

commerciale@menci.it www.menci.it

Meyn

sales@meyn.com www.meyn.com

MOBA

sales@moba.net www.moba.net

MS Technologies

info@mstegg.com

www.mstegg.com

Newpharm info@newpharm.it www.newpharm.it Officine Meccaniche Vettorello

luciano@officinevettorello.it

www.officinevettorello.com

Omaz srl

omaz@omaz.com

www.omaz.com

Petersime N.V.

info@petersime.com

www.petersime.com

Prinzen B.V.

info@prinzen.com

www.prinzen.com

Reventa

info.reventa@munters.de www.reventa.de

Royal Pas Reform

info@pasreform.com

Roxell

info@roxell.com www.roxell.com

www.pasreform.com

Editorial Director Lucio Vernillo Editorial Staff Daria Domenici, Tania Montelatici (zootecnica@zootecnica.it) Account Executive Marianna Caterino (amministrazione@zootecnica.it) Editorial Office Zootecnica International Vicolo Libri, 4 50063 Figline Incisa Valdarno (FI) Italy Tel.: +39 055 2571891 Website: zootecnicainternational.com Licence Registrazione Tribunale di Firenze n.3162 Spedizione in A.P. Art.2 comma 20/B legge 662/96 - Filiale di Firenze ISSN 0392-0593 Subscription Rates (1 year / 11 issues): Europe Euro 44 Rest of the World Euro 57 Subscribe online by Credit Card or Paypal: zootecnicainternational.com/subscription Subscribe by money transfer: 1. effect a money transfer to: Zootecnica International, Vicolo Libri, 4 50063 Figline Incisa Valdarno (FI) Italy; bank: UNICREDIT, BIC: UNICRITM1OU9 Iban: IT 81 H 02008 38083 000020067507 2. send us your complete shipping address by email: amministrazione@zootecnica.it.

Art Direction & Layout Laura Cardilicchia – elleciwebstudio.com Printed Nova Arti Grafiche, Florence

Ska ska@ska.it www.skapoultryequipment.com Socorex

socorex@socorex.com www.socorex.com

Space info@space.fr www.space.fr Specht Ten Elsen GmbH & Co. KG info@specht-tenelsen.de

www.specht-tenelsen.de

TPI-Polytechniek

info@tpi-polytechniek.com www.tpi-polytechniek.com

Val-co

intl.sales@val-co.com www.val-co.com

Valli

info@valli-italy.com www.valli-italy.com

VDL Agrotech

info@vdlagrotech.nl

www.vdlagrotech.com

Vencomatic Group B.V.

info@vencomaticgroup.com

www.vencomaticgroup.com

Victoria

victoria@victoria-srl.com www.incubatricivictoria.com

VIV Europe

viv.europe@vnuexhibitions.com

www.viveurope.nl

English Edition Year XLIII July/August 2021

MAXIMUM EGG PROTECTION High Quality – UV Protection – Reducing crack to a minimum Most Hygienic – Easy to clean

Compatible with all modern egg handling equipment Up to 15% more eggs

Provided with RFID chip

EggsCargoSystem® by

www.gi-ovo.com

SPECHT is everywhere where hens are!

• Rearing in aviary system

• Layers in Varia-System

• Rearing in cages

• Group cage system (enriched cage)

L

ORIGINA

estock eco and liv friendly

ORIGINAL

• Feeding system

®

• Layer battery

• Egg belt

• Cage floor

POULTRY EQUIPMENT

GmbH & Co. KG

• Manure drying system

Dassendaler Weg 13 • D-47665 Sonsbeck (Germany) Telefon +49 (0) 28 38 912-0 • Telefax +49 (0) 28 38 27 91 info@specht-tenelsen.de • www.specht-tenelsen.de

• Egg collecting system