Poultry Service Industry Workshop 2007 Planning Committee Albert by gjjur4356


									         Poultry Service Industry Workshop 2007 Planning Committee



Valerie Carney (Chair)                       Keith Vaandrager
Alberta Agriculture and Food (AF)            Penner Farm Services

Randy Carriere (Vice Chair)                  Steve Foote
Intervet Canada Ltd.                         Unifeed

Al Richards                                  Michael Schlam
Unifeed                                      Pinnacle Nutrition

Alex McCready                                Nancy Fischer
Maple Leaf Poultry                           Unifeed

Dr. Tom Inglis                               Doug Klem
Poultry Health Services Ltd.                 Lilydale

Paul McCartan                                Kate Cheney & Kyla Arneson
Lilydale                                     ConventionALL Management Inc.

British Columbia               Saskatchewan

Jim Baskott                    Tennille Knezacek
Excel Feeds Inc.               University of Saskatchewan


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                    1

2                     Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
                                             Table of Contents

Western Disease Update ............................................................................................ 5
Dr. Colleen Annett, Alberta Agriculture and Food (AF)
Disease Patterns Chart (on CD)

Organic Acids and Essential Oils, Let’s Not be Chicken
with Antibiotic Growth Promoter Free Poultry!.................................................. 11
Dr. Robert Gauthier, Jefo Nutrition Inc.

On Farm Feedmill Inspections: What’s Expected................................................ 29
Michael MacDonald, CFIA

Managing Interpersonal Relationships for Effective
Communications....................................................................................................... 37
Steve Danczak, Elanco Animal Health.

University of Alberta Update: What’s New in Poultry Research?

What Hens are Really Doing When We Aren’t Looking: .................................. 39
Presented by Michelle J. Jendral

Broiler Breeder Genetic Strain and Flock Age: Effects on Hatching Eggs,
Hatchability, Saleable Chicks and Boiler Performance.....................................47
Presented by Ana Franco

Poultry Production in the European Union: The Next 10 Years!....................53
Dr. Roy Mutimer, Cobb Vantress

McMillan Memorial Case Studies .......................................................................... 61
Dr. Tom Inglis, Poultry Health Services Ltd.

What’s New in Water World .................................................................................. 63
Dr. Susan Watkins, University of Arkansas

Math for the Farm Made Easy ............................................................................... 69
Dr. Dave Van Walleghem, Vetoquinol


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                                                        3
What Happens When the Lights Go Out??........................................................... 79
Karen Schwean-Lardner, University of Saskatchewan

Poultry Boards: Panel Discussion........................................................................... 83

Salmonella Enteritidis Control: A European Perspective ................................... 85
Dr. Roy Mutimer, Cobb Vantress

Recombinant Vaccines: Challenges and Successes............................................... 93
Vaccines: Challenges and Successes
Intervet Canada Ltd.

The Effect of the Ethanol Industry on the Poultry Industry............................... 95
Larry Martin, George Morris Centre


 4                                Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
The 2007 Western Poultry Disease Report
          Dr. Colleen Annett, Alberta Agriculture and Food (AF)

The Western Poultry Disease report is an annual compilation of information
gathered, albeit rather unscientifically, from veterinarians and diagnostic labs that
service the poultry industry in their respective provinces (British Columbia,
Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba). A questionnaire developed by Dr. Bob
Goodhope, of Saskatoon, was distributed again this year for completion and
comments by the respondents. Of the questionnaires that were distributed, 5 were
completed and returned. A summary of these reports is provided in this document.
A discussion of the trends observed will be provided at the oral presentation in
Banff. At the time of writing this report, condemnation data from the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) was available only to February 2007. Because of
the delay in reporting to their data base an update on condemnations will be
provided during the oral presentation and a hard copy of the update will be
distributed at that time. I would like to thank all those who contributed directly to
the data provided herein, and to those who offered helpful suggestions but were
unable to contribute directly.


Inclusion Body Hepatitis (IBH) and E. coli (colibacillosis) infection were listed as
a problem in broiler chickens in all 4 of the western provinces (Table 1).
Coccidiosis and/or enteritis was named as a problem in Alberta, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba. Infectious Laryngotracheitis (ILT) was described as an issue in B.C.
This province has seen an unusual increase in ILT cases in broiler chickens, with
some barns showing repeat infections in different flocks. Other issues that were
listed as broiler disease problems included rickets (Alberta and Manitoba); Yolk
sac infection (Saskatchewan and Manitoba) and others such as runting/stunting,
production related issues, infectious lameness and undifferentiated 1st week

Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD) was asked specifically of its relavence in broiler
chickens. Prevalence has not changed, however, in B.C. and Saskatchewan,
variants have been identified, and in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, IBD has been
attributed to production losses (Table 2).


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                         5
Production related losses (starveouts and dehydration) and lameness in 1 – 7 day
old chicks have not changed or have decreased. Aspergillosis has decreased in all
provinces and has not been reported in Saskatchewan for 2 years. Of the questions
asked, only omphalitis/yolk sac infection had increased in B.C. and Manitoba
(government lab); whereas it had remained unchanged in Alberta and Manitoba
(private vet) and decreased in Saskatchewan (Table 3).

For broiler chickens that were 7 – 28 days of age, rickets was reported to increase
in Alberta and Manitoba (gov), with no change in B.C. Manitoba (private) and no
evidence in Saskatchewan (Table 4). Although IBH was listed as one of the top 5
disease issues in all 4 provinces, it was reported to have decreased in Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba (private); no change in B.C. and an increase in the
number of cases only in the Manitoba government lab. Spiking mortality
syndrome and sudden death syndrome have either not changed or decreased (see
Table 4). Necrotic enteritis has decreased in B.C. and Alberta and has not changed
in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

In birds that were 4 weeks of age or older, B.C. alone reported the only increase in
colibacillosis in broilers. In all other western provinces, of the disease conditions
that were asked about (ascites, colibacillosis, tibial dyschondroplasia,
arthritis/tenosynovitis) remained the same or had decreased (Table 5). The role
that IBD had in association with colibacillosis remains uncertain.

Broiler Breeders

Staphylococcus aureus arthritis was listed as the number one problem in broiler
breeders (BB) by 3 of the 5 respondents (B.C., Alberta, Manitoba (gov)) (Table 6).
In Alberta and Manitoba (gov), coccidosis and necrotic enteritis (NE) were listed
as disease issues in BB. B.C. listed aggressive breeding habits and peritonitis as
issues, and Alberta reported that E. coli was a problem in this group as well.

Alberta was the only province to report increases in specified diseases in chicks
and pullets/cockerels. In particular, yolk sac infection and beak trimming were
reasons for losses in BB chicks (Table 7), while coccidiosis and NE increased in
pullets and/or cockerels (Table 8). Coccidiosis was also noted to have increased in
prevalence in mature BB in Alberta (Table 9). Arthritis and tenosynovitis were
reported to have increased in adult birds in both B.C. and Alberta; which
correlates with the number one problem of broiler breeders. Interestingly, this
condition was seen less often in Saskatchewan, with no change observed in


 6                         Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
Manitoba. Fowl cholera was listed as a condition that had decreased in prevalence
in all provinces, with Saskatchewan reporting no cases for the last year.


The top diseases that affected turkeys in Western Canada are sited in Table 10. Of
these, colibacillosis/E.coli septicemia was the only condition that was reported in
all 4 provinces. Hemorrhagic enteritis was reported in Alberta and Manitoba –
both of which saw increases in prevalence (Table 11), while other conditions that
were seen were reported singly in each respective province (Table 10).

For the most part, conditions that typically affect 1 – 7 day old poults were
reported to have not changed or to have decreased (Table 12). The same trend was
seen in 7 – 35 day old poults with the exception of Alberta where there was an
increase in colibacillosis (Table 13). This increase in the prevalence of
colibacillosis was carried over to older birds in Alberta and Saskatchewan (Table
14). Pasteurellosis was also reported to have increased in 5 week to market age
turkeys in Alberta.

Table Egg Layers

Cage Layer Fatigue (CLF) continues to be the consistent disease problem reported
in Layers in Western Canada. Peritonitis and Fatty Liver Hemorrhagic Syndrome
(FLHS) also continue to be listed in the top five issues (Table 15).

Vaccine efficacy was reported as more problematic in Alberta. Through
serological evaluation, it was determined that there had been a field strain of
Infectious Bronchitis Virus and Newcastle Disease Virus in some flocks (Table

Alberta reported an increase in beak trimming issues and in yolk sac infection in
laying hen chicks (Table 17). There was no change in the incidence of these
conditions in other provinces. Marek’s disease had increased in Alberta and
Saskatchewan in laying pullets (Table 18). In mature hens, peritonitis and ORT
were listed as issues in B.C. (Table 19). Saskatchewan saw a relatively steady
state in disease issues in laying hens with the exception of serological evidence of
ORT in 2 flocks. FLHS and CLF were reported to have increased in this group in
Alberta. Overall, Manitoba reported very little change in disease trends, with no
reports of the specified conditions increasing.


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                         7


8                     Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007          9


10                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
            Organic Acids and Essential Oils, Let’s Not Be Chicken
               With Antibiotic Growth Promoter Free Poultry!

                       Robert Gauthier d.v.m., dipl. ACPV
                          Jefo Nutrition Inc., Canada


Since 1967, the year of the Swann report in England, the use of antibiotics in farm
animals as a growth promoter has been questioned. More recently, in the late 80’s
and early 90’s, strong regulatory actions have removed most of the antibiotic
growth promoters from the European Union market, the last ones have been
removed in January 2006.

The adjustments following the withdrawal of these products in animal production
have been difficult at times and many replacement solutions have been proposed,
more or less successfully, by the feed additive industry. It is not easy to replace
products that have proven to be generally efficacious for the last 50 years.

A consensus seems to develop among the scientific community concerned by this
subject [1] and one approach is definitely standing out, for its efficacy,
technological and economical feasibility. We are talking about organic acids.
Another option is, under the generic name of “botanicals”, essential oils (plant
extracts or related compounds).

Organic acids (OA)

Organic acids have been used successfully in pig production for more than 25
years and continue to be the alternative of choice. Even if much less work has
been done in poultry [2], we can now confirm that the OA are very efficacious
provided their use is adapted to the physiology and anatomy of poultry.

Table 1 : Basal gastric secretion rates of the chicken compared to some mammals

                                     Chicke      Rat        Monke     Man

Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                       11
                                        n        (0.35       y           (60 kg)
                                      (1.75       kg)      (2.50
                                       kg)                  kg)
Volume (HCl)        ml/h              15.4       1.3         5             60
                                       8.8       3.7         2            0.86
Acid                ml/kg BW/h         93        66         60             36
Acid output         mEq/L             1.36       0.09       0.3           2.16
                    mEq/kg BW         0.78       0.25      0.12           0.03
Pepsin              Pepsin             247       600        365           1035
concentration       units/ml
Pepsin output       Pepsin            4256       780       1825          62 100
                    PU/kg             2430      2230        730           862
Moran E. [3]

Table 2 : pH and mean duration of transit time of mash feed in different
compartments of the broiler gut after ad libitum feeding during 6 weeks.

                              Duration of transit
   GIT compartment                                                 pH
                                 time (min.)
Crop                                 50                            5.5
Proventriculus          &
                                       90                     2.5 – 3.5
Duodenum                               5-8                        5-6
 Jejunum                          20-30                        6.5 - 7
 Ileum                            50-70                        7 – 7.5
 Rectum                            25                             8
Simon & Versteeg 1989 in Vanbelle M. [4]

Organic acids (C1-C-7) are widely distributed in nature as normal constituents of
plants or animal tissues. They are also formed through microbial fermentation of
carbohydrates mainly in the large intestine [5]. They are also found in their
sodium, potassium or calcium form.


 12                         Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
                                          The mode of action of organic acids

Table 3 [6]
F o rm u las, p h ysical an d ch em ic al ch aracte ristics o f o rgan ic acid s u sed as d ietary acid ifiers fo r p ig s
(F o eg ed in g an d B u sta, 1 9 9 1 )
A cid                                     F o rm u la                  MM          D en sity    F o rm       pK a     I   pK a      II        pK a   III

                                                                      g /m o l      g/m L
F o rm ic          HCOOH                                              4 6 .0 3      1 .2 2 0   liq u id      3 .7 5
A cetic            C H 3C O O H                                       6 0 .0 5      1 .0 4 9   liq u id      4 .7 6
P ro p io n ic     C H 3C H 2C O O H                                  7 4 .0 8      0 .9 9 3   liq u id      4 .8 8
B u tyric          C H 3C H 2C H 2C O O H                             8 8 .1 2      0 .9 5 8   liq u id      4 .8 2
L a ctic           C H 3 C H (O H )C O O H                            9 0 .0 8      1 .2 0 6   liq u id      3 .8 3
F u m aric         C O O H C H :C H C O O H                           1 1 6 .0 7    1 .6 3 5    so lid       3 .0 2          4 .3 8
M alic             C O O H C H 2 C H (O H )C O O H                    1 3 4 .0 9    1 .6 0 1   liq u id       3 .4           5 .1
T artaric          C O O H C H (O H )C H (O H )C O O H                1 5 0 .0 9    1 .7 6 0   liq u id      2 .9 3          4 .2 3
C itric            C O O H C H 2 C (O H )(C O O H )C H 2 C O O H      1 9 2 .1 4    1 .6 6 5    so lid       3 .1 3          4 .7 6            6 .4 0
M M , m o lecu lar m ass ex p ressed in g ram s

Over the years, it was thought that a pH reduction of the GIT content was the mode
of action. Research has proven differently and it is what we will review more
precisely. Research in the food preservation field has brought clear explanations on
the mode of action of organic acids on bacteria and numerous trials have shown
that the concept works both in pigs and poultry.

The mode of action of organic acids on bacteria is related to: [7]
    •       Undissociated organic acids entering the bacteria cell
    •       Bacteria membrane disruption (leakage, transport mechanisms)
    •       Inhibition of essential metabolic reactions (ex. ↓ of glycolysis)
    •       Stress on intracellular pH homeostasis (normal bacteria pH is ± neutral)
    •       Accumulation of toxic anions
    •       Energy stress response to restore homeostasis
    •       Chelation as permeabilizing agent of outer membrane and zinc binding

The key basic principle on the mode of action of organic acids on bacteria is that
non-dissociated (non-ionized) organic acids can penetrate the bacteria cell wall and
disrupt the normal physiology of certain types of bacteria that we call “pH
sensitive” meaning that they cannot tolerate a wide internal and external pH


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                                                                                13
gradient. Among those bacteria we have E. coli, Salmonella spp., C. perfringens,
Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter spp.

Upon passive diffusion of organic acids into the bacteria, where the pH is near of
above neutrality, the acids will dissociate and lower the bacteria internal pH,
leading to situations that will impair or stop the growth of bacteria.
On the other hand, the anionic part of the organic acids that cannot escape the
bacteria in its dissociated form, will accumulate within the bacteria and disrupt
many metabolic functions and lead to osmotic pressure increase, incompatible with
the survival of the bacteria.

Figure 1: Mode of action of organic acids on pH sensitive bacteria.

It has been well demonstrated that the state of the organic acids (undissociated or
dissociated) is extremely important to define their capacity to inhibit the growth of
bacteria. As a general rule, we need more than ten to twenty times the level of
dissociated acids to reach the same inhibition of bacteria, compared to
undissociated acids [8].


 14                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
      E xp e r im en ta ll y de ter mi ne d v a lue s for MI Cs o f u nd is s o ci at e d a nd d is s oc ia ted o rgan ic a ci ds ( v ar io us
      au tho rs )
                                                                                                      a                                 b
                   Or g an is m                         A c id t y pe                       M IC u                             M IC d
      E . c o l i M 23                                    La ct i c                           8 .32                                -
      Y . en ter o co liti ca                              la c t ic                          5 -10                                -
      E . c o li                                        P rop io ni c                          70                                80 0
      S ta p hy lo c o c cu s a ure u s                 P rop io ni c                          19                                83 0
      B ac ill u s c er e us                            P rop io ni c                          17                                38 0
      E . c o li                                          S orb ic                              1                                10 0
      E . c o li                                          S orb ic                              1                                35 0
      S ta p hy lo c o c cu s a ure u s                   S orb ic                             0 .6                              40 0
      B ac ill u s c er e us                              S orb ic                             1 .2                              11 0
      L is te ri a in noc u a                     La ct ic (Na la c ta te )                    4 .9                            1 250
        M IC u , MI C of t he und is so ci a ted fo rm o f ac id ( mic ro m o la r) .
       M I C d , MI C of t he d is s oc ia te d for o f a c id ( mi c ro m o lar ).
      A dap ted f ro m ( P re s se r)

Table 4: [8]

Too often, “in vitro” assays showing the antibacterial capacity of organic acids are
done at a low pH, making sure that the acids are not dissociated. At a pH below
3.0-3.5, almost all organic acids are very efficacious in controlling bacteria growth.
This does not reflect at all what is happening in the GIT of poultry and pigs.

Figure 2: [2] Effect of pH on the antimicrobial activity of HCl, lactic acid, formic
acid and 2-hydroxy-4-(methylthio)butanoic acid. An E. coli inoculum (106 CFU)
was grown in trypticase soy broth (TSB) containing either hydrochloric, lactic,
formic or hydroxy(methylthio)butanoic acids at either pH 4 or pH 7.3. Samples
were taken at 5 and 24 hour for enumeration. There was little bacteriostatic activity
by any of the acids at pH 7.3. Samples of E. coli inoculated into TSB containing
formic acid or HMB at pH 4 showed total bacteriolysis.


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                                                                                        15
Many authors have studied the effects of organic acids on animals, trying to find an
explanation on their mode of action as a growth promoter.
Their findings are more related to experiments in pigs but could be partially
extrapolated to poultry. Among the explanations, some are still believing that the
gastrointestinal tract (GIT) content pH change is important even if recent and not
so recent publications [9, 10] are showing differently, even with very high acid
levels in the feed or water. Many are underestimating the capacity of the animal to
maintain its GIT environment homeostasis in order to warrant the normal
functioning of all digestive functions. Also the strong buffering capacity of the
feed prevents any significant GIT pH modification.

Logically, organic acids added to feeds should be protected to avoid their
dissociation in the crop and in the intestine (high pH segments) and reach far into
the GIT, where the bulk of the bacteria population is located.

Figure 3: Pattern of protected organic acid release into the GIT (Jefo Nutrition Inc.
internal data).


 16                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
Other modes of action have been investigated mainly in pigs and cannot apply to
poultry; increased digestibility of protein and energy, slower emptying of the
stomach (crop – gizzard ), modification of the fermentation pattern in the intestine
(mostly the large intestine), stimulation of enzyme secretion, modification of the
enterocyte development. All these observations were made in trials using
extremely high levels of organic acids incompatible with poultry nutrition [5].
Even the modification of the fermentation pattern in the intestine, which is
important in pigs, may not apply to poultry because the relative importance of
fermentation bacteria in domesticated poultry is much less than in pigs or other
mammals. High intake of organic acids could be harmful to animals. It has been
shown that organic acids may lead to a reduction in bone mineral deposition in
piglets [11] and many veterinary clinicians are reporting cases of bone
decalcification, both in pigs and poultry.

More likely, the organic acids in poultry might play a direct role on the GIT
bacteria population, reducing the level of some pathogenic bacteria (ex. C.
perfringens) and mainly controlling the population of certain types of bacteria that
compete with the birds for nutrients. [12]. After 50 years of usage of antibiotic
growth promoters in poultry, there is still a lot of speculation on their mode of

From the use of organic acids in poultry we expect an improvement in performance
similar or better than the antibiotic growth promoters, without the public health
concern, a preventive effect on intestinal problems like necrotic enteritis and a
reduction of the carrier state for Salmonella spp. & Campylobacter spp.


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                        17
Essential oils (EO)

Contrary to organic acids, a wealth of research has been done on the use of
essential oils, herbs, botanicals in poultry production, both as a growth promoter or
a disease prevention product.

The scientific and popular press use a lot of different names (plant extracts,
phytogenic additives etc.) and to better understand what we are working with, let’s
have some definitions.
   • Essential oils: Are any of a class of volatile oils obtained from plants,
      possessing the odour and other characteristic properties of the plant, used
      chiefly in the manufacture of perfumes, flavours and pharmaceuticals
      (extracts after hydro-distillation) [13].
   • Herbs: Are a flowering plant whose stem above the ground does not become
      woody and persistent. A plant when valued for its medical properties,
      flavour, scent or the like [13].
   • Botanicals: Are drugs made of a plant, as from roots, leaves, barks etc. [13].

Essential oils or plant extracts can be used as appetite stimulant, aroma, stimulant
of saliva production, gastric and pancreatic juices production enhancer and
antioxidant. However there is no clear demonstration of the importance of these
factors on the chicken performance.

However the antibacterial property of essential oils is the most widely studied area,
both in human nutrition, food preservation and animal production. Because the
control (modulation) of the GIT microflora is the most important aspect in
replacing antibiotic growth promoters, we will concentrate on this aspect.

Plants contain hundreds of substances having different properties but essential oils
composed mainly of nine groups (and many sub-groups) of molecules are of
interest to us. There are many chemical constituents but no two oils are alike in
their structure and effect.
One must make a difference between non purified plant extracts containing
numerous different molecules interacting and pure active compounds, either
extracted from plants or synthesized (nature identical). According to the plant
chosen, one or more active compounds are dominant and the quantity found will
differ according to factors like; plant variety, soil, moisture, climate, time of
harvest etc..


 18                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
It is counter productive to test every plants that can have interesting properties,
concentrating on the active compounds and selecting the right plants or the right
synthetic molecules is easier and will be more acceptable on a regulatory point of

Table 5: Families of molecules in essential oils and examples.
                  Almost all essential oils (EO) are based on isoprene (5 C) frame
Categories          Name & comments                   Examples
                                                                         in animals
                   Monoterpenes (C 10)
                                               Citrus oil, chamomile,
                   Sesquiterpenes (C 15)                                    Some
                                                  limonene, pinene
                     Diterpenes (C 20)
                      Triperpenes etc.
Oxygenated                                       Thymol, carvacrol,
                          Phenols                                           Very
compounds                                              eugenol
                 Monoterpene alcohol,           Linalool, α-santanol         No
                 sesquiterpene alcohol
                   Aldehydes (powerful            Cinnamaldehyde
                          aromas)                    (cinnamon)
                   Ketones (few in E.O.)              Camphor                No
                 Esters (alcohols + acids)
                                              Linalyl acetate /lavender      No
                       very fragrant
                  Lactones & coumarins
                                                Bergamot, arnica oil         No
                       (low in E.O.)
                                              Anethol (aniseed) basil,
                  Ethers (phenolic ethers)                                   No
                    Oxides (1,8-cineol)              Eucalyptol              Yes
Adapted from different authors.

Nutritionally, metabolically and toxicologically, we have a clear interest in using
as low as possible levels of essential oils in animal nutrition. Essential oils are
extremely potent substances, they can lead to feed intake reduction, GIT microflora
disturbance, accumulation in animal tissues and products.
Most essential oils are GRAS (generally recognized as safe) but they must be used
cautiously because they can be toxic (allergens) and potent sensitizers and their
odour/taste may contribute to feed refusal [14, 15]. They are also very volatile and


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                       19
will evaporate rapidly, leading to large variation in concentration in the finished
products. Encapsulation of essential oils could solve the problem [14].

The “in vitro” level of most of the essential oils needed to reach a MIC on various
bacteria is high and not applicable in animal nutrition. The number of EO really
interesting and efficacious as alternative to antibiotic growth promoters is very

Table 6: [16] BA50* values for 10 essential oils and oil compounds most active
against all strains of bacteria tested.

                                                         L.monocyt L.monocyt
    Oil/oil      E. coli      S. enterica    C. jejuni
                                                           ogenes  ogenesRM
  compound                    RM 1309        RM1221
                  RM 1484                                RM 2388 2388
                     0.06         0.04       0.003         0.02          0.01
 Thymol              0.06         0.03        0.02         0.08         0.08
                     0.05         0.05        0.01         0.07          0.08
 Carvacrol           0.06         0.05        0.01         0.08         0.09
                     0.05         0.05        0.02         0.08          0.10
 Eugenol             0.11         0.09        0.02         0.06         0.08
                     0.13         0.08        0.03         0.09          0.09
 Thyme               0.05         0.05        0.02         0.09         0.22
 Bay leaf            0.13         0.13        0.03         0.07         0.07
 Clove bud           0.13         0.13        0.02         0.07         0.09
BA50 value = concentration (%) of essential oils or oil compounds that kill 50% of
the bacteria during a 60 minute incubation.
Table adapted from Mendel Friedman et al.


 20                       Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
The mode of action of essential oils

It is extremely difficult to generalize on the mode of action of essential oils on
bacteria and yeasts because each EO has different properties and each type of
microorganism has a different sensitivity. Generally, Gram+ bacteria are
considered more sensitive to EO than Gram- bacteria [14] because of their less
complex membrane structure.
The consensus on the mode of action of EO on bacteria is now that these
compounds influence the biological membranes of bacteria. The cytoplasmic
membrane of bacteria has two principal functions [17]:
A: barrier function and energy transduction, which allow the membrane to form
ion gradients that can be used to drive various processes.
B: formation of a matrix for membrane-embedded proteins influencing the ATP-
synthase complex.

In a study on the mode of action of carvacrol on Bacillus cereus, Ultee et al. [17]
have shown many aspects of the mode of action of EO.
   • Carvacrol inhibits the growth of the bacteria effectively, it is a function of
       concentration, temperature and time.
   • A sharp reduction of the intracellular ATP pool through a reduction of ATP
       synthesis and increased hydrolysis, not obviously related to an increase in
       membrane permeability.
   • Reduction of the membrane potential (transmembrane electrical potential)
       which the driving force for ATP synthesis. The membrane becoming more
       permeable to protons.
   • Reduction of the bacteria internal pH with high level of carvacrol (1mM, pH
       ⇓ from 7.1 to 5.8) related to ion gradient across cell membrane.
   • Potassium efflux; 1 mM of carvacrol reduced internal bacteria K level from
       12 µmol/mg of cell protein to 0.99 µmol in 5 minutes. K plays a role in the
       activation of cytoplasmic enzymes, in maintaining osmotic pressure and the
       regulation of cytoplasmic pH. K efflux is the first indication of membrane

Lambert et al.[15] report that the mode of action of EO is related to an impairment
of a variety of enzyme systems, mainly involved in energy production and
structural components synthesis. They also explain the mode of action through
leakage of ions, ATP, nucleic acids, amino acids. They have shown that potassium
and phosphate ion concentrations are affected at levels below the MIC

Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                      21
It is interesting to note that most of the levels used “in vitro” to determine MICs
are higher than the levels considered acceptable in animal nutrition.

A realistic alternative to antibiotic growth promoters (AGP)

Both OA and EO (mostly non purified plant extracts) have been tested as AGP
alternative, alone or in combination. Results are lacking consistency due to the
varied composition of products, varied growing conditions during the trials
(environment, feeds, health etc.).

In our own experiments with OA, we have experienced very consistent results,
both under research station and field conditions, our rate of positive response
exceeded 90% for weight gain and feed conversion, using a blend of protected
organic acids.

Table 7: Efficacy of a blend of protected organic acids in broiler chickens.

                                       Non medicated          Protected OA –
                                           control               600g/ton
          Chicken type                 Male Ross 308          Male Ross 308
          Feed type                       Pelleted               Pelleted
          Age (days)                         40                     40
          # of chickens                    8 X 46                 8 X 46
          Body weight (kg)                  2.364                  2.384
          Adj. Feed conversion             1.614a                 1.572b
          Jefo Nutrition Inc. internal data. P < 0.05.

Not only protected organic acids can act as growth promoter but also play a role in
the prevention of necrotic enteritis and in the reduction of intestinal Salmonella
spp. It appears that the amplitude of the response is often related to the level of
contamination or intestinal disease challenge in the flock.


 22                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
   Table 8: Effect of a protected blend of organic acids on F/C of chickens, non
                  inoculated and inoculated with C. perfringens.

                       F/C 12-25 days (oral inoculation on days 15-16-17)
          Level of
                             Non inoculated                Inoculated
         Negative                 1.672                      1.724
             1                    1,677                      1.688
             2                    1,656                      1.689
             3                    1.641                      1.679
      Jefo Nutrition Inc., internal data. No difference in body weight.

Plants, plant extracts (with their essential oil components) or pure EO have been
tested quite extensively in many countries with very high result variability. This
could be explained by the lack of consistency of the products themselves or simply
by the lack of efficacy of certain molecules. As previously outlined, the level of
EO needed to achieve results is often not compatible with the level allowing the
best feed intake. This leads to using levels that are not efficacious.

Single EO or blend of EO, at low level, are difficult to justify economically and

More and more, the concept of combining EO and OA is proving to be efficacious
[18, internal data] because there appears to be a synergy between the two concepts
[19, 20, internal data].

Our own experiments in field trials or when using a chicken necrotic enteritis
challenge model have shown a strong synergy between EO and OA.

Some authors suggest [20] that the EO are damaging the bacteria cell membrane
facilitating the penetration of organic acids into the bacteria cytoplasm. This
hypothesis has not been demonstrated clearly yet. Usually the bacteria cell
membrane damage leads to an efflux of material from the bacteria, not an influx
into the bacteria. However it has been shown that a damaged bacteria cell
membrane allowed the uptake of a nuclear fluorescent stain, binding to cellular
DNA and RNA [15]. The question raised is; are the organic acids behaving like
ethidium bromide fluorescent nuclear stain?


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                      23
Overcoming the technical problems of using organic acids and essential oils

The use of organic acids and essential oils in the feed industry are often a source of
problems; corrosion, worker’s safety, handling, vitamin stability in premixes,
environmental concern, stability of products.

It has been demonstrated that when both OA and EO are protected in a special
matrix, the quantity required to achieve maximum performance in poultry can be
reduced drastically. The active ingredients can be delivered into the intestine,
directly where the bulk of gastrointestinal bacteria are located [21].

Without protection, organic acids are readily dissociated in the first part of the
chicken GIT and are rendered useless [2]. Essential oils are very rapidly absorbed
in the duodenum and cannot interact with the microflora.


There is a general consensus on the efficacy of organic acids as the best alternative
to antibiotic growth promoters.
Essential oils have a limited effect as a replacement of antibiotic growth promoters
but they can act in synergy with organic acids both for their growth promoting
effect and prevention of specific intestinal diseases.

Now we have an encapsulation technology that enhances the efficacy of organic
acids and essential oils, at low level of inclusion.


1.    Rosen G., 2005. Setting and meeting standards for the efficient replacement
of pronutrients antibiotics in poultry and pig nutrition, p.66. Antimicrobial Growth
Promoters: Worldwide Ban on the Horizon. Noordwijk aan Zee, The Netherlands,
Jan 31-Feb 1.
2.    Dibner J.J., P. Butin. 2002. Use of organic acids as a model to study the
impact of gut microflora on nutrition and metabolism. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 11:453-


 24                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
3.     Moran E.T. Jr. Comparative nutrition of fowl & swine. The gastrointestinal
systems. University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 1982.
4.     Vanbelle M. 1999. The use of feed additives in the E.U. Regulations,
problems and future. Eastern Nutrition Conference, Animal Nutrition Association
of Canada, Niagara Falls, Ontario.
5.     Partanen K.H., Z. Mroz. 1999. Organic acids for performance enhancement
in pig diets. Nutrition Research Reviews 12:117-145.
6.     Foegeding P.M., F.F. Busta. 1991. Chemical food preservation.
Disinfection, sterilization & preservation. (S.S. Block editor) Lea Febiger,
Philadelphia PA.
7.     Brul S., P. Coote. 1999. Preservative agents in foods, mode of action and
microbial resistance mechanisms. Intl. J. Food Microbiology 50:1-17.
8.     Presser K.A., D.A. Ratkowsky, T. Ross. Modeling the growth rate of
Escherichia coli as a function of pH and lactic acid concentration. Applied &
Environmental Microbiology, June 1997, Vol. 63, No. 6, 2335-2360.
9.     Cheveerach P., D.A. Keuzenkamp, L.J.A. Lipman, F. Van Knapen. 2004.
Effect of organic acids in drinking water for young broilers on Campylobacter
infection, volatile fatty acid production, gut microflora and histological changes.
Poultry Science 83:330-334.
10. Waldroup A., S. Kaniawati, A. Mauromoustakos. 1995. Performance
characteristics and microbiological aspects of broilers fed diets supplemented with
organic acids. Journal of Food Protection 58:482-489.
11. Biagi G., A. Piva, T.D. Hill, D.K. Schneider, T. Cranshaw. 2003. Bone
mineral content gain is reduced in weaned pigs fed diets with low-buffer capacity
and organic acids. J. Anim. Sci. vol 81, suppl 1/J. Dairy Sci. vol. 86, suppl 1.
Poster M98.
12. Lee M.D. 2005. Molecular basis for AGP effects in animals, p. 37-38.
Antimicrobial Growth Promoters: Worldwide Ban on the Horizon. Noordwijk aan
Zee, The Netherlands, Jan 31-Feb 1.
13. Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,
14. Lis-Balchin M. 2003. Feed additives as alternatives to antibiotic growth
promoters: botanicals. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on
Digestive Physiology in Pigs, Banff AB, Canada. University of Alberta, publisher.
Vol. 1, p. 333-352.
15. Lambert R.J.W., P.N. Skandamis, P.J. Coote, G.-J.E. Nychas. 2001. A study
of the minimum inhibitory concentration and mode of action of oregano essential
oil, thymol and carvacrol. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 91:453-462.


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                      25
16. Friedman M., P.R. Henika, R.E. Mandrell. 2002. Bactericidal activities of
plant essential oils and some of their isolated constituents against Campylobacter
jejuni, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella enterica. Journal
of Food Protection, 65:1545-1560.
17. Ultee A., E.P.W. Kets, E.J. Smid. 1999. Mechanisms of action of carvacrol
in the food-borne pathogen Bacillus cereus. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 65;4606-4610.
18. Van Wesel A.A.M., H.B. Perdok, D.J. Langhout. 2004. Phasing out
antimicrobial growth promoters. II Congresso Latino Americano De Suinicultura,
Foz do Iguaçu, Brasil, 20-22 Outubro, p. 141-144.
19. van Dam J.T.P., M.A.M. Vente-Spreeuwenberg, H.P.T. Kleuskens. 2005.
Combination of medium chain fatty acid and organic acids provides a cost-
effective alternative to AGP in pig nutrition, P5. Antimicrobial Growth Promoters:
Worldwide Ban on the Horizon. Noordwijk aan Zee, The Netherlands, Jan 31-Feb
20. van Kol E.M.R. 2005. Organic acids and essential oils in AGP free diets, P7.
Antimicrobial Growth Promoters: Worldwide Ban on the Horizon. Noordwijk aan
Zee, The Netherlands, Jan 31-Feb 1.
21. PIVA, A., TEDESCHI, M. (2004). Composition for use in animal nutrition
comprising a controlled release lipid matrix, method for preparing the composition
and the method for the treatment of monogastric animals. United States Patent
Application Publication. Pub. No.: US 2004/0009206 A1; EU patent


 26                       Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007         27


28                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
               On Farm Feedmill Inspections: What's Expected
           Mike MacDonald, CFIA, Feed Program Operations Officer

To verify that livestock feeds manufactured and sold in Canada or imported into
Canada are safe, effective and are labelled appropriately.

Effective feeds contribute to the production and maintenance of healthy, efficient

Feed Program activities in Alberta South
•Monitoring of feeds via random sampling and analysis for the presence of residues
of chemicals, pesticides, contamination by heavy metals, mycotoxins and
salmonella and verifying drug guarantees/residues in feeds.

•Undertaking  investigations in response to detections of contamination of meat,
milk or eggs and producer complaints related to feed, conducted at both
commercial feed mills and on farm.

•Reviewing  labels of all regulated feeds for accuracy including verification that the
proper level of medication is provided and that all applicable cautions and
warnings are provided to enable safe use of the feed as directed.

•Conduct  comprehensive commercial feed mill and on-farm inspections involved
in the production of regulated livestock feeds. Feed Retail outlets are also

On Farm inspection
Feed inspection activities are conducted under the authority of:

•Feed Act and Regulations
•Health of Animal Regulations, pertaining to the prohibition of specified

mammalian protein in ruminant feed.

On Farm inspections are conducted at locations mixing feed.

•On farm mixing and the ruminant to ruminant feeding ban


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                          29
•Compendium of Medicating Ingredient Brochures
•Flushing and sequencing of equipment cross utilized for feeds containing ruminant

meat and bone meal (Prohibited Material) and medications
•Scales and feed mixing

The Current Definition of Prohibited Material:

"prohibited material" means anything that is, or that contains any, protein that
originated from a mammal, other than
(a) a porcine or equine;
(b) milk or products of milk;
(c) gelatin derived exclusively from hides or skins or products of gelatin derived
exclusively from hides or skins;
(d) blood or products of blood; or
(e) rendered fats, derived from ruminants, that contain no more than 0.15%
insoluble impurities or their products

On farm mixing and the ruminant to ruminant feeding ban
It is the responsibility of all producers mixing feed on farm for livestock to keep
records that contain:

•Formulas for the animal food produced including the weight of each ingredient
used for each lot of feed.
•Mixing sheets that shows that each lot of the animal food has been produced with

the correct master formula.
•Information as to whether or not the feed contains ruminant meat and bone meal

(prohibited material).
•The date of the preparation of the animal food.

•Any information used to identify each lot of animal food.

It is the responsibility of producer mixing feeds for ruminants and mixing feed
containing prohibited material to:

•Keep copies of all invoices for animal food that contains PM.
•Have procedures in place to prevent the mixing or contamination of the ruminant

feed with PM.

This includes responsibility to:


    30                     Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
•Ensure that these procedures are followed from the time the animal food is
received until it leaves their possession, care or control.
•Keep record to establish that the procedures were followed.

•If procedures are not followed – all specified feed is considered PM feed.

Enhanced Feed Ban
New amendments to the Feed Regulations prohibit Specified Risk Material (SRM)
from use in animal feed, pet food and fertilizers

It is thought that at a minimum 99% of BSE risk can be reduced by control and
destruction of these tissue.

Amendments have taken effect as of July 12, 2007

SRM tissues include:
•From cattle of all ages - distal ileum (portion of small intestine)

•From  cattle 30 Months and Older (OTM) - skull, brain, trigeminal ganglia, eyes,
tonsils, spinal cord and dorsal root ganglia

Prohibition applies to SRM removed from healthy slaughter cattle + cattle dead
stock + condemned carcasses (whole carcass if SRM not removed)

On farm mixing and the enhanced feeding ban

 Further protect the health of and accelerate the time to eradication of BSE in the
national cattle herd

 Strengthen current ban by addressing risks associated with the adulteration or
cross-contamination of ruminant feeds with prohibited animal proteins during
manufacture and distribution and use of feed on farm, by:

    Removing SRM from feed, pet food and fertilizer supply chains;

    Controlling SRM to prevent exposure to BSE from other pathways


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                         31
For on farm feed manufacturers who handle feed for ruminants and feeds for other
livestock which contains PM this means:

•Extend mandatory record-keeping period from 2 to 10 years
•Enhanced warning statement will be required on labels of products containing
prohibited material

       “Feeding this product to cattle, sheep, deer or other ruminants is illegal and
is subject to fines or other punishments under the Health of Animals Act”

Other Considerations related to the Feed Ban:
•Cattle dead stock & raw SRM remaining on the farm are not subject to any
specific CFIA requirements, but fall under municipal/provincial regulations.
•A permit issued by the CFIA is required to move SRM in any form, including
cattle dead stock
•A CFIA permit is required to transport edible carcasses containing SRM for
cutting or processing

On Farm mixing and medication
Mixed feed cannot contain medicating ingredients of a brand or level outside of the
CMIB unless the feed is a veterinary prescription feed.

This includes:

•Misuse   of medicating ingredients
•Medication residues resulting from improper feed mixing

Compendium of Medicating Ingredients Brochures
CMIB lists those medicating ingredients permitted by Canadian regulation to be
added to livestock feed.

This document specifies for each approved medication:


    32                     Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
      •species of livestock
      • level of medication

      •directions, cautions and warnings for feeding

      •purpose for which each medicating ingredient may legally be used

      •brand of each medicating ingredient that is approved for use in Canada.

All medicated feed manufactured, used, or sold in Canada must be prepared to the
specifications of the CMIB, in order to comply with the Feeds Regulations. An
exception is feeds prepared according to a veterinarian's prescription

The CMIB is available electronically on the CFIA web site at:

Can be ordered via mail for $37.80 from:
     St. Joseph Communication
     1165 Kenaston Street
     P.O. Box 9808 Station T
     Ottawa, Ontario
     K1G 6S1

Flushing and sequencing cross utilized equipment
•Caution is required when handling medication and PM in feed production.
•There can be serious ramifications when small quantities of medication and PM
are unintentionally carried over from one batch of feed to another.
•Effective procedures to prevent the unsafe contamination of feed are required for
all equipment (receiving, storing, processing, mixing, conveying, packaging and
•Feed manufacturers can reduce the likelihood of medication or PM residue
carryover by sequencing their feed production or flushing feed equipment after

•Sequencing   is the preferred method of managing residues because it is the least
disruptive to the manufacturing process and does not generate flush material.
•Acceptable sequencing procedures are specified of the CFIA sequencing guide


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                        33
•The   amount of flush required to adequately clean our equipment can vary for
different manufacturing systems.
•It is recommended that ground grain be used as the flush material, at a quantity of
about 5-10% of the mixer capacity (minimum of 100 kg’s).
•However, it is recommended that flushing procedures be validated by testing feeds
for medication residues.


•Written procedures describing production sequences and flushing protocols which
include information of the type and amount of flush.
•Production records indicating the order which feeds were mixed and any clean out

procedures that took place
•Evidence that flushing procedures have been validated including, sampling dates,

sampling methods and laboratory results. (non regulatory)

Scales & Metering Device Considerations
•Scales and metering devices should be suitable for their intended purpose in terms
of capacity, graduation and sensitivity
•It also becomes important to verify that a scale or metering device is accurate in
order that the right level of medication and feed ingredients are obtained
•It is recommended that devices are checked at time of installation and at least once
per year afterward

Mixer performance testing
•Mixing process is another important step in the manufacture of medicated feeds.
•Proper mixing is critical to obtaining the correct drug level in the feed
•The purpose of mixer performance testing is to determine whether the mixing
equipment is capable of producing feeds of uniform consistency

      To verify that livestock feeds manufactured and sold in Canada or imported
into Canada are safe, effective and are labelled appropriately.

Effective feeds contribute to the production and maintenance of healthy, efficient

Through the checking of compliance with:
   • Compendium of Medicating Ingredient Brochures


    34                     Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
   • Flushing and sequencing of equipment cross utilized for feeds containing
     ruminant meat and bone meal (Prohibited Material) and medications
   • Scales and feed mixing


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                       35


36                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
    Managing Interpersonal Relationships for Effective Communications
                  Steve Danczak, Elanco Animal Health



Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007               37


38                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
What hens are really doing when we aren’t looking: An assessment of welfare
   and productivity in conventional, modified and colony cage systems
          Michelle J. Jendral1, John S. Church2, John J. R. Feddes1
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of
Alberta, 2Alberta Agriculture and Food, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Conventional battery cages provide economic benefits for egg producers
(Cooper and Albentosa, 2003), and offer hens a hygienic and small group housing
environment (Duncan, 2001). However, it is also widely acknowledged that there
are serious welfare concerns for laying hens housed in these systems (Nichol,
1987). The barren environment of the cage prevents the performance of
behavioural needs (Mench, 1992), and space limitations impose severe restrictions
upon movement and escape from aggression (Appleby et al., 1992). As a
consequence, many European countries have adopted legislative policies that
regulate or prohibit the use of cage systems (SAWO, 1981; SFS, 1998; CEC, 1999;
BMEVL, 2007). In North America, layer hen husbandry practices are not regulated
by legislation, and conventional battery cages remain the predominant housing
system. However, changes to global legislation, increased public concern for
animal welfare and pressure from animal rights groups have increased demand for
products that are more conducive to farm animal well-being, motivating many
corporations to implement welfare-associated changes that add value to their
    To encourage North American producers to remain consistent with changes that
are occurring worldwide, and to improve the welfare of caged laying hens while
maintaining the benefits of cage systems, we developed a modification to the
conventional battery cage. The modified system, developed from conventional
battery cages altered to incorporate a nest box and perch, would enable producers
to promote hen welfare using existing cage capital. Using behavioural,
physiological, condition and production measures, we compared the welfare and
productivity of Shaver-White leghorns housed in conventional battery cages, the
modified systems, and commercially-available colony units furnished with a nest
site and perch. In half of the colony cages, hens also had access to a raised
dustbath. What follows is a brief summary of some of our findings.

Behavioural Observation – Oviposition, prelay and dustbathing behaviour
   On average, over the course of a laying cycle, 94% of eggs from modified and
colony hens were laid in the nest box, providing compelling evidence that hens

Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                    39
preferred to lay their eggs in a nest, rather than on the cage wire floor. To further
assess the contribution of the nest box to hen welfare, we compared the prelaying
behaviour of conventionally-caged hens (CONV) and hens living in modified
systems (MOD). We found that hens in conventional cages exhibited increased
back-and-forth pacing along the sides of their cages, and more escape and bobbing
behaviours. CONV hens also walked and stood more often, and sat for shorter
durations than birds in modified cages. All of these behaviours indicate that in the
absence of a nest site, conventionally-caged hens experienced greater frustration
and restlessness than MOD hens. Frustration was further evident from the higher
incidence of aggressive pecking and forceful movement of cage mates
(displacement behaviour) demonstrated by hens in conventional units. In contrast,
hens in modified cages were observed to spend time sleeping, dozing and roosting
prior to oviposition, and also exhibited a higher incidence of comfort feather
ruffling and tail preening, further indicating that MOD hens were more at ease than
CONV hens during the prelay period. Prior to egg laying, hens inside the nests of
MOD cages were seen to increase their frequency of object and feather pecking,
behaviours likely related to nest building activity.
   We also observed dustbathing behaviour in the colony cages, and found that
hens with access to a dustbath (CWDB) performed the behaviour for longer
durations than hens without access (CWODB), who attempted to vacuum bathe on
the cage wire floor. CWODB hens also exhibited increased aggressive and feather
pecking and displacement activity, suggesting that these birds were frustrated as a
result of their inability to fully express dustbathing behaviour.

Physiological Assessment – Bone density and breaking strength
    In our assessment of bone quality, we determined that conventionally-housed
birds not only had the thinnest cross-sectional area of structural bone and the
thickest cross-sectional area of marrow space in their femur and tibia bones, but
also had the weakest leg bones, as determined through breaking strength analysis.
In addition, in the humerus (wing bone), structural bone was thicker and denser,
and breaking strength was higher for colony hens than for hens living in
conventional and modified units. Notably, hens in the colony cages performed the
most wing flapping and stretching, and were the only hens who exhibited jumping.
These findings demonstrate that hens in modified and colony cages, furnished
systems that promote movement, are better able to preserve their structural tissue
than conventionally-caged hens, and consequently have stronger bones. In
addition, inclusion of raised amenities that encourage wing load-bearing movement
is necessary to minimize humeral structural bone loss in cage systems.


 40                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
Hen Condition – Feather cover, foot and claw condition, and wound scores
    Hens in modified and conventional cages had the best overall feather condition,
likely resulting from reduced aggressive and feather pecking in small group
environments. However, allowing hens access to a dustbath in the colony units did
improve plumage condition. Hens in modified cages, who spent the most time
roosting and standing on the perch, demonstrated improved foot and claw
condition. Wounds to the head and tail regions were least severe in modified cages,
and most severe in colony units, further indicating that aggression in cages is
reduced by inclusion of nesting and perching facilities, but remains problematic in
larger group cages.

Productivity – Egg measures, mortality, body weight and feed conversion
   In this high producing strain of bird, egg production did not differ between
housing treatments, and although early measures of egg quality indicated
improvements in eggs from cages with nest sites, overall, egg quality did not differ
between groups. The incidence of mortality was similar between cage types,
however body weight was lowest in colony cages. Not surprisingly, colony hens,
who had the poorest feather cover, also exhibited the highest feed consumption.

Summary and Conclusions
   Although group size impacts hen welfare in large colony units, modified and
colony cages provide amenities that encourage movement, the performance of
natural behaviours, and improved hen condition. Modified cages provide welfare
benefits for hens, permit small group size and enable producers to maintain the
benefits of cage systems while making use of existing cage capital.

Appleby, M. C., B. O. Hughes, and A. Elson. 1992. Poultry Production Systems:
Behaviour, Management and Welfare. CAB International: Oxford, UK.
BMELV (Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und
Verbraucherschutz). 2007. Animal Welfare in Germany. German Federal
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection.
Cooper, J. J. and M. Albentosa. 2003. Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian
and Poultry Biology Reviews. 14(3): 127-149.
CEC (Council of the European Communities). 1999. Council directive for laying
down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in various systems
of rearing. CEC Directive, 1999/74/EG.


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                       41
Duncan, I. J. H. 2001. The pros and cons of cages. World’s Poultry Science
Journal. 57: 381-390.

Nicol, C. J. 1987. Effect of cage height and area on the behaviour of hens housed
in battery cages. British Poultry Science. 28: 327-335.

Mench, J.A., 1992. The welfare of poultry in modern production systems. Poultry
Science Reviews. 4:107-128.

SAWO (Swiss Animal Welfare Ordinance). 1981. Swiss Animal Protection
Ordinance 1981. Animal Legal and Historical Centre.
SFS (Svenska författningssamling). 1998. Animal Welfare Act. SFS 1998:5,
Swedish Board of Agriculture, 551 82 Jönköping.


 42                       Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007         43

44                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007         45


46                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
    Broiler breeder genetic strain and flock age: Effects on hatching eggs,
            hatchability, saleable chicks and broiler performance

Authors: Ana Franco*, Gaylene Fasenko*, Doug Korver*, Erin O’Dea*, Gita
             * University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
              † Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

• Genetic selection to increase white meat yield has affected the reproduction
  efficiency of breeders, and some characteristics of the chicken embryo.
  However, the conditions under which eggs are incubated has not changed
  drastically in the past 20+ years. Considering how genetic selection has
  changed the growth potential of modern broilers, the incubation conditions
  under which these eggs are incubated may have to be modified to get optimal
• The yolk of a hatching egg has a high fat content, and provides about 90% of
  the energy required for growth and development of the embryo. During
  incubation the embryo absorbs nutrients from the yolk via the yolk sac.
• It is known that hatching egg characteristics change as breeder flocks age: egg
  size increases, and shell quality decreases. What remains unknown is how
  these changes affect the embryo.
• The hatchability of eggs laid at different flock ages is different. Eggs from peak
  production flocks have the highest hatchability.
• Although bigger eggs hatch larger chicks, producers may not be aware that
  when the hatchability of eggs that are larger than the average size (from the
  same flock at the same flock age) are compared, the large eggs have lower
  hatchability. This is because the cull rate in chicks from the larger than average
  size eggs is higher.
• Chick weight at hatching is different between strains; flocks with higher breast
  muscle yield produce heavier chicks. Also as hens age, they lay heavier eggs (&
  bigger chicks). But again, these older hens produce more chicks with lower
  quality scores.
• Although broiler producers prefer bigger chicks because they seem to be
  stronger and grow better, research has shown that chick weight at hatching is
  not a reliable indicator of final broiler body weights.
• It is known that chicks from young breeder flocks have higher first week


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                       47
We conducted this research to study the effects of genetic strain and flock age
   1) egg characteristics
   2) hatchability
   3) chick quality
   4) broiler performance

Experiment 1: What effect does strain and flock age have on egg
characteristics and chick quality?
How we did the experiment: We used eggs from Cobb 500 (C) and Ross 308 (R)
breeder flocks at 29, 45 and 59 weeks of age. The eggs were selected according to
weight in three groups (Small, Average, Large). At each age, egg characteristics
(specific gravity and weight of egg components) were measured. Eggs were
incubated under commercial conditions and saleable chick numbers determined.
Saleable chicks were grown to 41 days, and mortality, body weight and feed
consumption recorded.

Results: The results that produced statistically significant differences were
dependent on an interaction between both strain and age.
• Yolk (%) increased and albumen (%) decreased with flock age. What this data
   suggests is that energy reserves (the yolk) for embryo development are greater
   in older breeder than in younger flocks.
• Regardless of strain and age, all eggs had a specific gravity lower than 1.080.
   This is the industry minimum standard that divides eggs will good and poor
   shells. This indicates that eggs from modern strains have poorer shell quality
   than eggs from strains used 10+ years ago.
• Fertility was higher at 29 wk in R (96.8%) than in C (76.7%). However, fertility
   in C increased at 45 wk and remained high at 59 wk (94.4%), while it declined
   with age in R (79.3%). What this data means is that the C flock needed more
   time to reach good fertility rates. The R flock at a young age had good
   fertility but could not maintain high fertility as the flock aged.
• Chick weight was affected by flock age. As expected, chicks from younger hens
   had the lowest weight (38.4 g) followed by chicks from 45 wk flocks (43.6 g),
   the heaviest chicks hatched from 59 wk old flocks (48.1 g). It was interesting to
   observe that at 21 d and 41 d, the chicks from the 45 wk old flock had caught up
   to be the same weight as the chicks from the 59 wk flock. Chicks hatching
   from the youngest flocks had the lowest weights all the way through production
   until the end of the grow out period. This data suggest that when grown out


 48                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
  under the same conditions, chicks from young flocks do not have the same
  ability to reach market BW as chicks from older parent flocks.
• BW gain from 0 to 21 d was similar for the three flock ages in the R broilers
  (~725 g). Even though the broilers from the young C flock had the lowest BW
  gain (680 g), it increased significantly and was higher than the BW gain of
  broilers from the R flocks that were 45 and 59 wk old (~771 g). The old R
  broilers had the poorest feed conversion. These results show that broilers
  produced by young R flocks are more efficient. Also the results showed that
  although the broilers from the young C parents have lower performance,
  their growth performance improves with flock age and remains at a higher
  level for a longer time than the R broilers.
• Chicks from the youngest parent flocks had higher first wk mortality (1.0%)
  than chicks from 45 wk (0.5%) and 59 wk (0.1%) parent flocks. These results
  suggest that chicks from younger flocks may need different conditions at the
  barn to allow appropriate growth and prevent chick mortality.

Experiment 2: Determining if the fat content of the egg influences how well
the embryo can use the yolk.
How we did the experiment: Hatching eggs were collected from the same flocks
as in experiment 1. Egg components were weighed in 10 eggs for every flock age /
strain/ egg size group. The yolk was analyzed for the different fatty acids it
contained (a component that makes up part of fat). Chicks were hatched from each
of the flock age / strain / egg size groups. The chicks were weighed, humanely
killed, and the residual yolk sac (RYS – the yolk that is pulled into the body of the
chick through the navel) was removed from the chick, weighed then analyzed for
different fatty acids.

Results: Age was the factor that most influenced the fatty acids (FA) in the yolk
and RYS.
• The RYS (% of BW) was smaller in chicks from the youngest parent flock
   (10.2%) than in the 45 and 59 wk (16.1% & 16.4% respectively). This means
   that chicks from younger flocks have a smaller nutrient reserve at hatch than
   chicks from older ages, and this fact may affect the survival of the chicks.
• Different FA increased or decreased with age, not only in the eggs, but also in
   the RYS from the C and from the R strains. This fact demonstrates that genetic
   selection has had an effect on the composition of hatching eggs, and on the
   metabolism and absorption of yolk fat in the embryos.
• The most interesting result is that regardless of strain, the chicks from the
   young flocks had a higher proportion of certain FA in the RYS that were low at

Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                        49
   the older flock ages. This fact indicates that the metabolism of fat in embryos
   from young parents is not as efficient as in older ages, and that the FA are
   not completely absorbed from the yolk by the time these chicks hatch. This
   means that different incubation conditions could be required and that
   management practices, especially during the first wk of the rearing period
   should be carefully monitored to prevent high mortality of the chicks.

Future research projects
Yolk sac infection and chick quality: yolk sac infection (omphalitis) is the main
cause of chick mortality during the first wk of the rearing period. Future research
will evaluate the effect of factors such as barn cleaning procedures, and navel
condition in the onset of omphalitis. Bacteria involved in omphalitis will be
analyzed, and the role of antibodies (proteins from the immune system that protect
against disease) present in the yolk sac will be studied. To determine whether or
not there is a direct maternal (hen) effect on yolk sac infections the bacteria and the
antibodies will be determined at different parent flock ages. By understanding the
causes and characteristics of yolk sac infections, preventive measures could be
implemented to minimize early chick mortality. Three different experiments have
been proposed in this research, the first of them is scheduled to start in the Fall


 50                         Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007         51


52                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
       Poultry Production in the European Union: The Next 10 years!
    Roy Mutimer, World QA and Animal Welfare Director, Cobb-Vantress Inc.

The European Poultry Industry continues to rapidly evolve to meet the numerous
challenges presented by issues such as urbanization, spiralling costs, pressures
from low cost imports, retailer power, animal welfare concerns, restrictions on
antibiotic use, environmental concerns and food safety fears. While it is extremely
difficult to predict where these pressures will take the EU Poultry Industry, this
presentation will attempt to identify the most likely outcomes and encourage the
audience to consider what implications these scenarios may have for the Canadian
Poultry Industry.

As the European Union continues to expand, despite efforts to promote
standardization, it is clear that there remains a high level of diversity in the
attitudes, challenges and opportunities of the various Member States. There is no
‘Europe’. As we consider the key drivers for change it is important to remember
that the relative importance of each of these factors varies widely across the EU.

Particularly in Northern and Western Europe there has been a fundamental
demographic shift in recent generations to the point where there is now a very
significant disconnect between the general population and agriculture. Further to
this, the contribution of agriculture to the national economies has also significantly
reduced with a corresponding reduction in the political power of the agriculture
lobby. While the majority of consumers are happy to accept the benefits of
relatively cheap food that the intensive livestock industry have been able to deliver,
there is an increasingly vocal minority that believe that intensive agriculture (even
if well managed) is unethical and in need of significant reform.
Various well funded Environmental and Animal Welfare Interest Groups in
collaboration with a sympathetic media are running increasingly effective
campaigns to generate political pressure for change. The Northern and Western
European education system also tends to promote environmental awareness and
support for ‘natural & healthy’ (i.e. extensive) food production systems. Unless the
Poultry Industry can generate a more coordinated and effective programme to
restore some balance to the information the population receives, this pressure for


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                         53
reform will continue to build with the inevitable introduction of supporting
The Poultry Industry understands the need to adapt (and in certain circumstances
take advantage of) changing public attitudes but reaching agreement on balanced,
mutually acceptable reforms remains a challenge.
In many Western and Northern European countries there has also been a
significant increase in the number of commuters that choose to live in rural areas
and work in towns. This has led to a degree of conflict between residents and
existing poultry operations with the inevitable complaints about noise, odours,
traffic etc.

The relative cost of utilities, land, labour and consumables varies across the EU but
in Global Terms, North Western European countries have some of the highest
production costs in the World. The pressure on labour costs has driven the poultry
industry to increased automation in their poultry housing and in more recent years
the high labour costs coupled with a reluctance of the local population to take up
agricultural based careers has fueled a migration of labour from Southern and
Eastern European countries to the North West of Europe.
Land prices are high and obtaining planning permission for poultry housing is
becoming increasingly difficult and costly. It is reported that the cost of
constructing a broiler farm in Brazil is equivalent to the costs of obtaining
permission to build an equivalent broiler farm in the UK.
All these factors make the EU Poultry Industry vulnerable to imports from S.
America and the Far East but competition closer to home continues to increase as
poultry production expands (and in some cases, moves) into Eastern Europe and
the former Soviet block countries.
Another consequence of the high-cost environment and associated economic
pressures is the absolute need to maximize output from the farming infra-structure.
This has resulted in producers being pushed to more intensive management styles
e.g. higher stocking densities and faster growth rates than most other parts of the

For many years, the Dutch poultry sector has been under pressure on waste
management and the costs and constraints associated with disposal of litter / faecal
material in Holland are significant. With increasing concerns about environmental
issues across the EU, including global warming, the poultry industry is faced with
increasingly strict legislation on pollution control and the prospect of increased


 54                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
taxation on fossil fuel energy sources. It is unfortunate that the majority of efforts
to protect the environment have an associated increase in cost to the poultry
industry. Concerns also exist about how feed prices will be affected by diversion
of traditional feed materials into the Bio-fuel production sector.

Retailer Pressure
There have been a number of studies which have shown that poultry meat and egg
prices have not increased in line with general European inflation rates which
means that in real terms the producer is getting relatively less for their end product
than they were previously. While some of this pressure has been offset by
improvements in genetics, nutrition and management, it has still generated
financial pressure on the producer.
There are additional studies which clearly demonstrate that, particularly in recent
years, the producer’s share of the income from the finished product has decreased
with a greater proportion going to the distribution / retail sector which has again
put significant pressure on the poultry industry.

Food Safety
European authorities have promoted a "Farm-to-Fork" philosophy in an attempt to
reduce human cases of food poisoning. Sweden has been at the forefront of efforts
on salmonella control with very aggressive policies in place for decades and
virtually ‘zero tolerance’ for salmonella in finished products. Recent surveys
commissioned by the EU have show a relatively wide range of prevalence of
salmonella in poultry meat in various Member States and the recently implemented
EU Zoonosis Directive has clearly laid out targets for the whole EU on reduction
of prevalence of salmonella serotypes most frequently associated with outbreaks of
human illness.
In addition to efforts on salmonella control, European Food Safety Authorities
have expressed concern about the prevalence of Campylobacter associated gastro-
intestinal illness. Research continues to determine the most effective intervention
strategies to reduce the prevalence of Campylobacter with a clear commitment at
EU level to implement the programmes shown to be most effective in reducing
campylobacter load. Even ahead of EU wide legislation various National
Governments and Retailers have implemented their own guidelines and systems
e.g. boot change on entry to the poultry house and practices such as ‘thinning’ are
coming under increased scrutiny.
As a result of the continuing rise of bacteria showing resistance to multiple
antibiotics, (particularly where the bacteria are potential human pathogens) the


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                           55
livestock industry has gradually seen a significant number of prophylactic (but not
necessarily therapeutic) antibiotic and ‘growth promoter’ compounds withdrawn.
In general, through modification and improvement of management practices, the
industry has coped well with these changes but the loss of some of these products
does leave the industry at a competitive disadvantage relative to other regions in
the world where such restrictions do not exist.

Animal Welfare
From the 1960s onwards, there has been an increasing awareness of Animal
Welfare and a corresponding concern about intensive agricultural practices.
Again, the significant initiatives have been initiated in Scandinavia (particularly
Sweden) and the UK and of all issues, Animal Welfare is arguably the best
illustration that “There is no Europe”. In certain EU Member States a significant
proportion of the population has a genuine concern about the ethics of animal
production systems with a general acceptance that ‘extensive’ / ‘semi-commercial’
systems are preferable to intensive “Factory Farming’ systems. While there are
continuing disputes about the facts of this debate and the relative merits of the
different production systems, in general terms the future direction for animal
husbandry is already determined with increasing requirements for better animal
welfare outcomes.
While Scandinavian and UK authorities have developed some Animal Welfare
legislation and Codes of Best Practice, it is only relatively recently that significant
EU Animal Welfare legislation has been drafted and approved. The recently
approved ‘EU Directive laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens
kept for meat production’ marks an increased emphasis and will drive a degree of
standardization across EU Member States.
That said, in general terms it is Retailers rather than Government that have driven
Welfare ‘Best Practice’ as they endeavour to ensure the welfare standards of their
supply chain match their consumers expectations. In some EU Countries the
adverse publicity arising from exposure of poor welfare practices can inflict
serious economic and ‘Brand’ damage. Producers are therefore required to comply
with multiple Retailer / Restaurant ‘Welfare Codes of Practices’.
In addition to this, issues such as Controlled Atmosphere Stunning, Stocking
Densities, Confinement Systems, Feed Restriction, Beak Conditioning etc.
continue to be debated and at some point have or will be added to some form of
management Codes of Best Practice.


 56                         Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
The Future
For many years there have been bleak predictions that the European Poultry
Industry, particularly in Northern and Western Europe, will become increasingly
uncompetitive and die. Indeed the ‘impressive’ list of challenges that the EU
Poultry Industry faces could easily justify such a conclusion. In fact reality is
somewhat different.
There has undoubtedly been an increase in the amount of meat imports into the EU
and a migration of production into Eastern Europe and former Soviet Block
countries and there is little doubt that such trends will continue. That said, certain
sectors of the Industry have adapted to the pressures and developed strategies to
remain competitive. The remainder of this presentation reviews examples of how
the industry has evolved to take advantage of some of these pressures.

Welfare Opportunities
While Europe is undoubtedly an expensive place to live there is also a significant
sector of the population that remains relatively affluent. Many individuals within
this sector also perceive Intensive Livestock systems to be inherently unethical and
are therefore able and willing to pay a premium for products that are produced
under more welfare friendly systems. The UK Free-Range egg sector is a classic
example of the impact this can have. A few years ago there was no commercial
Free-Range table egg sector in the UK but there has been a significant expansion to
the point where revenue generated from this sector exceeds that generated from
cage-egg systems. There has also been a significant increase in Barn egg
production systems in preparation for the impending total ban on conventional
cage systems in the EU. Much of this expansion has been fueled by the retailers.
The free-range broiler sector is also growing in the UK but at this stage it is
difficult to predict how much this market will develop. That said, there has already
been development of a broiler sector with management systems somewhere
between Intensive and Free-Range. This ‘Point-of-Difference’ chicken is
characterized by reduced growth rate, compliance with certain welfare standards,
enriched environments e.g. windows, straw bales etc. and sophisticated marketing.
The consumer is prepared to pay more for such products and the producer and
retailer both share increased profit margins.
The concept of labelling food to highlight the relative emphasis of animal welfare
in the production system is also being actively promoted which may increase the
appeal of EU produced products and present a hurdle to cheaper imports.


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                         57
Food Safety / Healthy Eating Opportunities
The combination of consumer affluence and food safety concerns about intensive
production systems has fuelled the development of organic poultry production
systems. A certain portion of consumers are prepared to pay for antibiotic free,
GMO free food which has again offered producers the opportunity to diversify into
this niche market.
In more general terms, there has been a proliferation of Quality Assurance
Schemes which are designed to reassure the consumer that the food they are
offered is safe and wholesome.

Environmental Opportunities
The drive for renewable energy sources and associated subsidies have, in certain
countries, made it economically viable to generate electricity from burning of
poultry litter. This allows the Producer to avoid some of the costs of litter disposal
and get a return for the waste generated which can be significant given that broiler
houses are cleaned out between every crop.
Environmental Groups are increasingly promoting the concept of ‘Food Miles’
where consumers are asked to consider the fossil fuel usage they are encouraging
when they buy food produced in distant regions of the world. This may eventually
fuel a consumer driven return to locally produced products.

The European Poultry Industry has adapted and will continue to do so to meet the
challenges it must face. In the short-term the vast majority of poultry meat and egg
products consumed in the EU will be sourced from Intensive Production systems
which makes the EU vulnerable to less expensive Imports. While this pressure will
not disappear, there is some evidence that at least a portion of consumers are
prepared to pay more for food produced through systems that more closely match
their ethical standards and this offers the European Poultry Industry an opportunity
to evolve and ensure it’s future survival.


 58                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007         59


60                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
                    McMillan Memorial Case Studies
                   Dr. Tom Inglis, Poultry Health Services Ltd.


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007         61


62                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
                         What’s New in Water World
                              Dr. Susan Watkins
                    Center of Excellence for Poultry Science
                            University of Arkansas

The most important step in a successful drinking water sanitation program is
cleaning the system between flocks. Not only should the drinkers and drinker lines
be thoroughly sanitized but also the distribution system from source to the poultry
barns. Without a clean system, a daily water sanitation program can be an uphill
battle. The most effective products which do not damage the equipment are the
stabilized, concentrated hydrogen peroxides. Mix products to the strongest
strength recommended by manufacturers in a 55 gallon barrel or 100 gallon stock
tank and then pump into the system with a 1/12 hp submersible pump. Allow the
solutions to soak in system a minimum of 24 hours with 48 hours being even
better. Even the strong products have a limited effectiveness if left for short
periods of time. Make sure that the system is adequately vented to allow for
gassing off during the cleaning process.

Water Line Sanitation
Providing a clean water source every day is essential to ensuring your flock’s
health and best “bottom-line” performance. The water lines that carry the water to
your birds are not transparent; we cannot see what is happening inside them. It is
easy to forget about this part of the building when we are doing cleaning and
disinfection between flocks. It is important to make a note to clean the water
system after every flock.

Successful water sanitation begins with a thorough water line cleaning program.
The variability and dynamics of water systems can create cleaning challenges, but
these can be overcome with water quality information, a little effort and the right
tools. Follow these guidelines, and your birds will have a “first-class” water

Step One: Have Water Analyzed
Have water analyzed for scale-causing minerals: calcium, magnesium and
manganese. If the water contains more than 60 ppm, 0.3 ppm or 0.05 ppm,
respectively, you will need to include a “descaler” or an acid in your cleaning
program. These products will dissolve the mineral deposits in water lines and


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                         63
Step Two: Choose a Sanitizing Cleaner
Choose a sanitizing cleaner that can effectively dissolve any bio-film or slime in
the system. Some of the best products for this job are concentrated hydrogen

Prior to using any strong cleaners, make sure standpipes are working properly so
buildup in the lines will be released. Consult equipment suppliers before using
products to prevent unnecessary damage.

Step Three: Prepare the Sanitizing Solution

For best results, use sanitizing products at the strongest concentration
recommended on the label. Most proportioners will only allow concentrations
between 0.8 and 1.6% of the original material. If you need to use higher
concentrations it is better to mix the stock solution in a large tank, and then
distribute without use of a proportioner. For example, if a 3% solution is required,
mix three volumes of the cleaner with 97 volumes of water for the final solution.
An excellent sanitizing solution can be made up by using 35% hydrogen peroxide
solution. Mix this as described for a 3% solution.

Step Four: Clean the Lines

      It takes 8-10 gallons of water to fill and clean 100 feet of ¾ inch water line. If
      your building is 500 feet long and has two water lines you should make up a
      minimum of 100 gallons of sanitizing solution. Water lines should be
      designed so that they can be opened to drain completely when the cleaning is

Follow these steps to clean the water lines:

           1. Open water lines so they drain completely.

           2. Begin pumping the cleaner/sanitizer through the water lines.

           3. Watch the water as it leaves the drain line for signs of the product
              such as foaming or suds.


 64                          Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
         4. Once water lines are filled with the cleaner, close the tap and leave
            product in the lines for as long as the manufacturer recommends (over
            24 hours if possible).

         5. Flush cleaner from the water lines after the holding period. Water
            used to flush the lines should contain the level of sanitizer normally
            used in the drinking water for the birds.

            In the absence of a standard water sanitation program add 4 ounces of
            5% bleach per gallon of stock solution and proportion at a rate of 1
            ounce per gallon of water. This will provide 3–5 ppm of chlorine in
            the rinse water.

         6. After cleaning, sanitizing and flushing the system, the water supply
            should be fresh and chlorinated (3-5 ppm in the drinker furthest from
            the source). If using an Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) meter,
            the reading should be a minimum of 650.

         7. Water lines from the water well to the turkey buildings should also be
            cleaned and sanitized between flocks. It is best not to flush these
            outside water lines through the water lines inside the buildings.
            Connect a water hose to the medicator faucet to drain the outside

Step Five: Remove Mineral Build-up
    After lines are cleaned descaler or acid products can be used to remove the
    mineral build-up. Use product according to the manufacturer’s
    recommendation. One product you can use is citric acid.

       1. Make a stock solution by mixing 4 – 6 packs of citric acid in one gallon
          of water. Proportion at one ounce per gallon (0.8% or 1:128). Fill
          water lines and let stand for 24 hours.

       2. Empty the water lines. Then refill the lines with clean water containing
          8-12 ounces of 5% bleach per gallon of stock solution proportioned at
          one ounce per gallon (0.8% or 1:128). Leave in the water lines for four
          hours. This concentration of chlorine will kill any residual bacteria, and
          further remove bio-film residue.


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                         65
        3. Perform a final flush of the water lines using water with a normal
           drinking water level of sanitizer (4 ounces of 5% bleach per gallon of
           stock solution proportioned at one ounce per gallon). Continue flushing
           until chlorine smell is gone. Test the water in the lines to make sure it
           contains no more than 5 ppm of chlorine.

Step Six: Keep the System Clean

   Once the system has been sanitized, it is important to keep it clean. Develop a
   good daily water sanitation program for your birds. The ideal water line
   sanitation program should include injecting both a sanitizer and an acid. It
   is important to note that the procedure requires two injectors since acids and
   bleach should never be mixed in the same stock solution.

   If only one proportioner or injector is available, then inject bleach
   (concentration of 5%) at a rate of 4 to 6 ounces/gallon stock solution;
   proportion at 1 ounce of stock solution per gallon of drinking water.

   The objective is to provide a clean source of drinking water with a continuous
   level of chlorine at 3-5ppm at the end of the building furthest from the

Final Notes:

   1. Do not use acid as the sole method of water treatment since acids alone can
      cause bacterial or fungal growth in water systems.

   2. When administering other products to your birds it is a good idea to stop the
      inclusion of chlorine (and other sanitizers) in the drinking water. Chlorine
      will inactivate vaccines, and reduce the effectiveness of some
      medications. Resume use of chlorine and/or other sanitizers after treatment
      is finished.

   Quick Guide to Cleaning Water Lines

1. After birds are removed from house and before litter and before litter cleanout,
flush all the water lines.
2. Prepare a 3% cleaning solution


 66                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
                 o For barns with water holding tanks, mix 3gallons of the
                    following hydrogen peroxide product.(Proxy Clean, Pro Clean
                    or 35% hydrogen peroxide into 97 gallons of water
                 o Alternative cleaning solution is 2% CID 2000 (but leave only 4
                    hours in line)
    • Pump into lines (May need to increase amount prepared if barns are longer
       than 500ft.
    • If no holding tanks, prepare stock solution in a 100 gallon stock tank or
       barrel. Use submersible ¼ hp pump with hose long enough to reach
       medicator connector
    • Once line is filled with cleaning solution, activate nipple drinkers with a
    • Let stand in lines for 24 hours or longer if time permits (4 hours for CID
    • Flush from line with clean water.
3. For hard water farms.
    • Fill lines with a solution of citric acid and let stand in lines for 24 hours
    • Acid preparation : Mix 4-6 packs of citric acid /gallon of water to make a
       stock solution (Add more acid to stock solution if scale is a serious problem)
4. Final Flush for removing the Citric Acid.
    • Prepare a bleach of stock solution of 8-12 ounces bleach in a gallon of water
    • Make sure medicator is pumping in bleach stock solution as the acid is
       flushed from the lines... Leave in lines for 4 hours
5. Start birds on water with 3-5 PPM free chlorine residual at end of line drinker.
(Start with a stock solution of 4oz/gallon bleach then add more to achieve the 3-5


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                        67


68                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
                     Food Producer Calculations Made Easy
                      Dr. Dave Van Walleghem, Vetoquinol

       In the world we are in today we are becoming “Food Producers” not just
Farmers. Tied with this we ever endure economic pressures for efficiencies.
Helping us with this are ever-evolving tests and new products on the market. It is
venues like The Poultry Service Industry Workshop, which update and teach new
techniques of production. On the other hand there are also studies done on the “old
standards” that prove the worth of them and the necessity of performing them
properly. This talk will deal with one of the “Old Standards” with a twist on
tightening up the economics. Washing/Disinfecting is one of the most important
parts of production; it has been proven time and time again to increase production
and decrease the use of medications with a cleaned surface to start with. However
with so many different types of products out there, and the pressure to reduce costs
with the same results, calculations are becoming a crucial part of the entire process.
This talk will deal with the calculations for an everyday type production unit,
starting with the cleaning then disinfecting and finally, if Medication needed, the
water medicator.
       Trying to read a label today can be very confusing, it looks like it is a
different language. To top this all off, we deal in two main types of measuring
systems – The Imperial and the Metric systems – which one does the label use?? .
Let’s start with some basic math.
     1 US gal = 128 oz,        1 L = 1000 ml
     1 US gal = 3.79 L          (or ≈ 4 L)
     1 % = 0.01 = 1 / 100 = 1 part in 100***
     1 part ⇒ 1 g, 1 kg, 1 ml, 1 L, 1 oz, 1 gal,…
     1 ml H2O = 1 g H2O         (= 1 cm3 H2O)
     1 % = 1 g / 100 ml         (= 10 g / L)
     1 oz / US gal ≡ 1 / 128 (≈ 8 ml / L)
     1/2 oz / gal ≡ 1 / 256     (≈ 4 ml / L)

Now we have this for reference later on.
       Next, there are 2 main types of distributing systems, the Medicator
(Dosatron) and the Venturi pump. Both of these systems work on a ratio. A ratio
means the amount of product drawn from the stock solution by the apparatus
compared to the amount of water drawn from the main source. E.G. 1:128 means 1
oz is drawn from the stock compared to 127 oz from the main water system to
make up 128 oz of drinking water. The Medicator (Dosatron) works with no
electrical parts, just water pressure. The water enters a chamber, and with the

Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                         69
increase in water, the chamber lifts. At the same time the chamber is attached to a
pump, which draws some of the stock solution into it. Once the chamber is filled, a
valve is triggered and the chamber falls and the entire product is released into the
line. This normally has a high ratio and is great for water medications, which will
have time to dissipate in the lines, but not as good for extremely fast movement
demands such as washing. This leads to the second type: “Venturi” pumps. In this
system, extremely high-pressure water is forced in to a funnel type apparatus then
immediately in an inverted funnel. This action causes a suction effect, and if there
is a hole at the exchange place, product will be sucked up and mixed in the
turbulent area. This “hole” can be regulated using orifices of varying sizes, the
smaller the orifice, the less product uptake. This procedure normally has a low
ratio and is great for the washing / cleaning process.
        Let’s start with cleaning with detergent. Why even bother??? We hear
people saying, “I have high pressure and extremely hot water! And I disinfect
anyways” To tell you the truth that method does not work very well and actually
costs more money. When using detergents properly the time to wash is cut 30 -
50%, a huge bacterial load is washed away and the surface is more prepared for the
disinfectant (which is the most expensive part) to perform at ultimate efficiency.
How you ask?? Bacteria and viruses are able to make themselves a protective coat
called Biofilm. This Biofilm is very sticky and holds very well to surfaces (even in
high pressure washes). This film is also very hard to penetrate by the disinfectant.
Detergents however have the ability to “unstick” the Biofilm, allowing the washing
procedure to wash them away. In fact you can reduce the Bacteria/Virus load 85-
90% with this alone. There are 2 main types of Biofilms, one that is slimy and
greasy, which you need an Alkaline detergent (Biosolve, Chlor-a-foam) to remove
and the second is a mineral (scale), hard staining like Biofilm that you need an
acidic detergent (Biofoam, Acid-a-foam). Warm water definitely helps the
workability of the detergents. However too hot (above 140 degrees Fahrenheit)
actually bakes the protein onto the surface and makes it extremely hard to take off.
It is like putting an egg in the dishwasher and it has bits stuck to the plate after.
Now that we understand the process is important, let’s do it right. First things first,
prepare the surface by physically removing excessive organic material. Next, apply
the detergent on the surface to an amount of just before dripping. Think of it as if
you were painting it on. So, how much paint (detergent) do you need? Let’s start
by measuring all the surfaces you want to wash. Length x Width = Surface Area;
remember you have 4 walls, a ceiling and a floor, and finally equipment. Below is
a calculation for a simple room of 100 x 50 x 10 feet tall.

   Floor     – 100 x 50 = 5,000


 70                         Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
   Ceiling – 100 x 50 = 5,000
   Walls side- 100 x 10 = 1,000 x 2 =2,000
   Walls end- 50 x 10 = 500 x 2 = 1,000
   Total                      13,000 sq ft
   Equipment -10% more surfaces??
   13,000 x 10% (or 0.1) = 1,300 sqft extra
   13,000 + 1,300 = 14,300 sq ft total

Next is to figure how much product you need. A rule of thumb is 250 - 300
ml/meter square to soak a room (Paint the walls).

   10 Sqft = 1 Sqm
   14300 /10 =1430 sqm
   250 ml/1sqm to soak a room
   250 x 1430 =357,500 ml or 357.5 liters (paint to do the whole room)

Now figure how much pure product is needed according to the label.

   Product label says 1:100 or 1 part in 100 or 1%
   We need 358 liters total and 1% has to be product so.. 1% x 358 liters = 3.58
   liters of product and the rest is water.

If you put the entire 358 liter mixture (with the 3.58 liters of detergent product)
into a large tank you can just draw from that and you can “paint” (apply the
detergent) the entire room. However most do not have a 400 liter tank, or need a
lot more than that and thus use a distributing system. One of the most efficient
ways is through the Venturi pump type systems. They come in many forms from
foam guns, to backpacks to inline injectors and all will work fine. The only thing
you need to know is what the ratio is for your specific apparatus, in other words,
how much is drawn from the stock in comparison to the final out come. The easiest
way to measure is to take 1 liter in the stock and see how much water is produced
out of the gun when the liter of stock is used up. Once we know the ratio, we can
figure out the stock concentration as below.

   E.G. This Venturi pump works at 15:1 ratio or for every 15 liters of final
   solution, 1 liter comes from stock and 14 from the water supply
   If the final is 358 liters


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                       71
   358 /15= 24 liters of stock needed, and in that stock we need 3.58 liters of pure
   Remember the final stock volume needs to be 24 liters therefore
               – Liquid 3.58 liters of pure product and 20.4 liters of water.
               – A solid will dissolve therefore 3.58 kg and 24 liters of water.

So let’s review
   1. Measure surface areas and add together
   2. Figure out the amount of water needed to wet all the surfaces
   3. Find the working dilution rate of the degreaser.
   4. Find the amount of product needed.
   5. If using a distribution system, divide by the ratio.

Let the detergent sit for a minimum of 10 minutes to do its work. Detergents work
best when they are rinsed off (power washed) before they dry on, however if they
do dry on before rinsing off, simply rehydrate them with a mist of water to
rejuvenate them. If you do mist them, you are diluting the detergent and they will
become less effective. One last point on detergents, cheaper is not always cheaper.
Cheaper detergents require more product (concentration) in more challenging areas
(such as a farm production facility) with a more expensive one there is a set
working concentration no matter the challenge. In fact more expensive detergents
are cheaper to use per square meter than cheaper products…. Do the Math you’ll
       Now once the surface dries, it is prepared for the disinfectant. The choice
and amount are both equally important. Bacteria / Viruses come in different forms,
enveloped and non-enveloped. The difference is the outer layer; the envelope is a
kind of a fat layer. This makes it soft and easier to penetrate. The less “fat” and
more protein, the harder it is to penetrate, and thus harder to kill. There are 6 major
disinfectant families used in commercial food production units and each has
particular ways to kill. It is important to know what you want to accomplish before
you pick the one to suit you production unit.
       1. Quaternary ammoniums – (Proquat, DCR256, A495 N, Ascend…) they
          are biodegradable. The way these kill is to grab on to the “fat” of the cells
          and suffocate the cell (stop food penetration). They are great on
          enveloped cells, but not so effective on non-enveloped. Given higher
          concentration (more costly) they possibly could do a bit better. With the
          evolution of the QUATs, to 5th generations like Biosentry 904 - they are
          better at holding and kill well in to the non-enveloped realm.


 72                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
      2. Phenols – (One-Stroke, Prosovet, TekTrol…..) they kill in the same
         manner as the QUATs, however they are non-biodegradable, and hang
         around in the environment. They also do not have much evolution and
         increasing concentration is the only way to get them to kill more.
      3. Formaldehydes – (Formaline, Profilm, Fumalyse….) these are also non-
         biodegradable. They kill by a denaturing system or “cooking” action.
         They make the cell walls hard thus hard for the “food” to penetrate.
         However like anything that needs to be cooked, the amount of flame is
         important (Concentration) and the environment (Temperature). Thus
         temperature and concentration are important points to making them work
      4. Gluteraldehydes – (Synergize, Gluquat, Virocid…) these are mixture
         blends. They normally are a gluteraldehyde and a QUAT mix. Together
         they help each other a bit, but still only kill the individual ways.
      5. Chlorine / Iodine – (Bleach, Premise iodine …) these are biodegradable
         and kill by an Oxidative reaction, similar to the way Mother Nature kills.
         They basically tear holes in cell walls causing the leakage of the inside.
         Once they are exposed they die. They are effective, but dissipate in the
         air quickly and need to be reapplied frequently. Also very much
         concentration dependant and sensitive to organic matter
      6. Peroxides or peroxigens– (Hyperox, Peroxy-guard, Hydrogen
         Peroxide…) Again, biodegradable. These use the same reaction as above,
         but use Oxygen molecule, like Mother Nature uses. This is a lot more
         effective and efficient than above, oxygen being the ultimate oxidant!
      7. Powdered Peroxides – (Virkon,) this is not really another family, but
         similar to the Peroxides, however it comes in a powder form. When
         mixed with water it produces a reaction that produces extra oxygen. This
         buffered synergized acid peroxygen system combined to a high
         percentage of surfactant makes it works more effectively and efficiently
         than the usual peroxides. This is why we see Virkon in all emergency kits
         in the world. It is the most effective product you can get.

Again as the detergents – some of the products are a lot more expensive than
others, however they kill more effectively and therefore you get what you pay for.
The extra cost for the higher end disinfectants is minimal compared to the increase
in production, or the decrease in medications, not to mention the decrease in labor
to detect, figure out and administer the medications. To keep costs down lets be
accurate with “painting on” the disinfectant as we did with the soap. Let’s use a
different room with multiple floors for this calculation.


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                       73
    Floor – 200 x 100 = 20,000
   Ceiling – 200 x 100 = 20,000
   Walls side- 200 x 10 = 2,000 x 2 =4000
   Walls end- 100 x 10 = 1,000 x 2 = 2,000
   Total                       46,000 sq ft
   Equipment -15% more surfaces??
   46,000 x 15% (or 0.15) = 6,900 sqft extra
   6,900 + 46,000 =52,900 total
   How many houses? 3
   52,900 x 3 =158,700 sq ft
   10 Sqft = 1 Sqm
   158,700 /10 =15,700 sqm
   250 ml/1sqm to soak a room
   250 x 15,700 =3,967,500 ml or 3967.5 liters
   Product label says 1:250 or 1 part in 250 or 0.4%
   We need 3,968 liters total and 0.4 % has to be product so.. 0.4 % x 3,968 liters
   = 15.87 liters of product.

Now let’s use a different Venturi ratio

  Venturi pump works at 12:1 ratio or for every 12 liters final solution, 1 liter
comes from stock and 11 from the water supply.
  If the final is 3,968 liters
  3,968 / 12 = 330.6 liters of stock needed, and in that stock we need 15.87 liters
  of pure product.
  Remember the final stock volume needs to be 330.6 liters therefore
                 – Liquid 15.87 liters of pure product and 314.72 liters of water.
                 – A solid will dissolve therefore 15.87 Kg and 330.6 liters of

To sum it up when you wash or disinfect, remember the rules


      Do not apply on very wet surfaces (possible further dilution of product)
      Apply evenly and softly (think like painting)
      Wet all surfaces to just before dripping (Normally 250ml/10sqft)


 74                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
      Let all products sit for a Minimum 10 minutes after application before
      proceeding to the next step. (Let it do its work!)
      Do not use water temperatures over 140

   There may be a time when even through your best efforts in cleaning, you still
   need to medicate. To my information most over the shelf products and
   Veterinarian recommended medications, the stock solution concentration will
   be worked out for the producers for the stage of production the birds are in, but
   I thought it would be good to go through an example of how they do it.

   An example is 2 grams of active medication in a liter of water for 5 days….
   Think of a big tank theory – use a chart and figure out how much total volume
   of water your animals will drink in the 5 days.

   Say we have 1000 broilers in week 2 they will drink 67 ml / bird / day
   Therefore 67 x 1000 = 67000ml or 67 liters / day and we need enough for 5
   days so… 67 x 5 = 335 liters
   We need 2 grams / liter of drinking water (final water) 335 x 2 grams = 670
   grams or 0.67 kg in total.

   Now apply the ratio of your medicator – say 1:128 or 1 liter of stock to 127
   liters of extra water to make up 128 liters of drinking water.

   Total water consumed is 335 liters
   335/128 = 2.6 liters of total stock needed
   Remember the final stock volume needs to be 2.6 liters therefore
                – A solid will dissolve therefore 670 grams and 2.6 liters of

       It is a bit of work, and this is where we can help out. We can make sure our
medicators are working right. They should be checked a couple times a year. If
they are 1:100 instead of 1:128, we are overdosing the animals, and could kill them
or result in a longer withdraw, or if it is 1:200 we are under dosing them and the
medication may not have the same effect. All we need to do is put a known stock
volume (1 liter is a good measurement) and fill a tank from the outgoing water
until the liter is gone. Measure the final volume and you have your ratio. Some
medicators can be adjusted to what is wanted, others you should inform your
veterinarian of the difference so they can adjust the stock accordingly. It would be
a good practice to perform this test before a new batch in case there is a need to use


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                         75
it in that batch. Also if you ever need to figure out how much they are drinking you
have the ratio and can see the disappearance of the stock over a period of time and
you can do the math to figure out how much is consumed.

        Food producers we are and now Mathematicians! Efficiencies in production
are an important part of profit. We need to understand and apply products to their
most effective and safest state to get the most out of our dollar. The world is
looking at us to feed them with the safest, most economical product. Keep
learning, there is more to understand, but don’t forget the base, without it the tower
we stand on will crumble.


 76                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007         77


78                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007

                            Karen Schwean-Lardner
                    Department of Animal and Poultry Science
                          University of Saskatchewan
                       Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada
                       Email: Karen.schwean@usask.ca
                             Phone: 306-966-2492

Lighting programs are a very simple tool used to manage broilers. Considerable
research has been conducted in the 1970’s and 1980’s, but today’s broiler is a
different bird than the broiler used in that era. So, do lighting programs have the
same effect as they once did?

Research conducted over the last three years at the University of Saskatchewan
Poultry Centre has carefully examined the effect of using graded levels of darkness
on a number of production and welfare parameters using modern commercial
broilers. Repeated experiments using four lighting programs (23L:1D, 20L:4D,
17L:7D and 14L:10D, with darkness given in one period each day) has allowed
data to be collected on a large number of broilers. The experiments were
conducted with Ross x Ross 308, and in some cases, Ross x Ross 708, broilers.
The results have been consistent across experiments, and have shown that exposure
to darkness has clear and powerful impacts.

GROWTH RATE: Darkness has a quadratic effect on growth rate. In other
words, whether birds are marketed at 31, 38 or 48-49 days of age, using a near-
constant lighting program (23L:1D) never achieves the maximum growth rate.
Where the growth curve actually peaks depends on the age that birds are marketed.
When marketed at a younger age (31d or 38d), using 20L:4D results in maximum
body weight, with the near-constant program results being similar to 17L:7D.
However, the growth curve shifts when birds are grown to 48-49d, with maximum
growth being similar between 17L:7D and 20L:4D. In this case, near-constant
photoperiod results are not different than raising birds on a long dark period

FEED EFFICIENCY: The relationship between feed efficiency and darkness
exposure is generally linear. The more darkness that is added to a photoperiod
program, the better feed is converted to growth. On the upper end of light


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                        79
exposure, even though birds on 20L:4D grow faster than those on 23L:1D, there
are no differences in feed efficiency between them. Hence, at 20L, birds are
heavier and have the same efficiency of feed utilization.

MORTALITY: Mortality is another production parameter that is improved
(reduced) with increasing exposure to darkness. At the upper end of the lighting
regime, there is often a sharp increase in mortality levels with the use of 23L:1D
compared to each of the other lighting programs tested. For example, birds
marketed at 38d (approximately 2.2 kg) had mortality levels of 3.33% for birds
raised under 14L, 3.74% for those under 17L, 4.97% for those under 20L, and a
increase to 6.11% when a near-constant photoperiod was used. As birds are kept
to larger body weights, the importance of darkness exposure is even greater. The
majority of these differences appear to arise from disease such as Sudden Death
Syndrome, and culling for leg deformities.

LEG WEAKNESS: Primary breeding companies have focused on selecting for a
reduction in leg weakness in their breeding stock, and data from these studies
confirms that these levels are considerably lower than previously reported in the
literature. However, leg weakness is still considered to be one of the major animal
welfare concerns in modern broiler production. Darkness has an impact on these
levels. The more darkness that is added to a photoperiod, the less birds in a flock
will have symptoms of leg weakness. This is important for both welfare and
economic reasons. We know that birds experience pain when they have a
moderate to severe leg weakness and they often have difficulty moving to feeders
and waterers. As a result, these birds are smaller than the majority of the flock
which can lead to culling or mortality in the barn, as well as downgrading at

Leg weakness in a flock can be estimated with the use of gait score analysis, which
involves walking individual birds and scoring their walking ability. This technique
allows a large number of live birds to be examined. A higher score means that leg
weakness is more severe. Average gait score decreased consistently with each
addition of darkness in our work. Once again, the highest level of concern arose
with birds raised on 23L:1D. This is consistent with cull levels due to leg

MEAT YIELD: Carcass yield is also affected by darkness exposure, but in this
case, a longer day is advantageous. Carcass weight, as a percentage of live weight,
decreases as birds are exposed to more darkness. Breast muscle proportion also


 80                       Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
declines with as much as 1% decline between 23L:1D and 14L:10D. This
represents a large economic impact.

CONCLUSION: So, by combining all of this data, we can see that lighting
programs still have the potential to play a significant role in broiler management.
Is there a perfect lighting program that will maximize growth, meat yield and
animal welfare? The answer to that is clearly “no”. Near-constant lighting
programs, which were once believed to allow feed to be eaten throughout the entire
day, result in lower market weights, poorer feed efficiency, higher mortality and
more culls due to leg weakness issues as compared to lighting programs with some
inclusion of darkness. Therefore they are not recommended. An interest in the
welfare of the birds alone should require us not to use a constant or near-constant
program. However, adding darkness reduces the proportion of the valuable breast
muscle. The answer to the question “What lighting program should producers
use?” will likely be a compromise of all of these factors.


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                      81


82                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
                       Poultry Boards: Panel Discussion



Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007         83


84                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
           Salmonella Enteritidis Control - A European Perspectiva

For many years, European authorities have promoted a ‘Farm-to-Fork’ philosophy
in an attempt to reduce human cases of salmonella food poisoning. This
presentation will review the strategies that the EU poultry sector has used in their
feed mills, farms, hatcheries and processing plants in an effort to reduce all
salmonella species and specifically eliminate S. enteritidis from the products they
supply. Where these strategies have been vigorously pursued they have proven
remarkably effective but the fight against salmonella continues and the economic
cost to the Poultry Industry has been significant.

For decades Swedish authorities have pursued an aggressive policy aimed at
eliminating salmonella from their food supply chain. While the remaining
Member States of the European Union have ranged in their commitment to
salmonella control programmes there has been a universal application of a ‘Farm
to Fork’ philosophy and an increasing level of consumer education and concern
about the prevalence and risks presented by salmonella contaminated products.
While human life expectancy in Europe continues to increase and human health
and nutritional standards continue to rise, a significant proportion of the European
population remains genuinely concerned about the safety of their food. In some
situations these concerns may be fanned into genuine fears by a media that can be
over-zealous in it’s line of reporting with a tendency to exaggerate the true risks.
The adverse publicity arising from a food safety associated product recall can do
massive damage to the reputation of a producer or retailer.
Against this background, Governments and Retailers place greater and greater
pressure on the Food Manufacturing Industry to supply salmonella-free products
which at the end of the day is a laudable goal.
While the epidemiology of salmonella infection of humans is complex, the
remainder of this presentation will review some of the strategies that the Poultry
Industry has used to reduce the prevalence of salmonella species and specifically
Salmonella enteritidis in the food supply chain. In general terms the chicken (meat
and egg) has come under more pressure than the turkey or duck sectors.

Animal Feed
Raw Material Controls - Feed Milling practices have evolved significantly over
time, often in an effort to reduce the risks of introduction of a contaminant
(chemical or microbiological) into the human food chain via food animals. One of


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                        85
the first areas of control to be focused on was the feed raw material supply chain
and most European countries would now have well documented and rigorously
enforced Good Manufacturing Practices and Codes of Practice to ensure that raw
materials are stored and transported safely. Examples of controls would include
rodent / bird proofing of raw material stores, restrictions on the range of materials
that trucks are allowed to haul and genuine supplier audit chains to ensure
traceability and appropriate quality of the raw materials themselves. While these
controls were often not specifically aimed at salmonella control they have
contributed to improved hygiene standards of raw materials. Another extremely
significant factor in reducing the salmonella load of raw materials has been
microbiological screening of raw materials by feed mills. Pressure from the
livestock sector has forced feed mills to have a genuine desire for salmonella-free
raw materials and any supplier that consistently delivers salmonella contaminated
raw materials eventually finds it difficult to find a customer for their products.
While these strategies have been effective at reducing the salmonella load in raw
materials and in many countries virtually eliminating S. enteritidis contamination,
occasionally (often as a breach of GMP conditions) salmonella will enter the feed
mill. Under these circumstances feed manufacturing controls come into play.
Some people believed that a switch to all vegetable rations would eliminate this
risk but this has clearly been shown not to be the case. It should be noted that
concerns arising from the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Mad Cow disease)
also triggered a significant reduction in the use of animal proteins in feed mills.

Feed Manufacturing Controls – feed for European Breeding flocks, particularly
upper pipeline breeders such as Grandparent / Great Grandparent flocks, is
virtually always subjected to relatively aggressive heat-treatment. A typical
regime would involve conditioning feed to 82ºC and ensuring it is held at that
temperature for at least 2 minutes. Some companies would adopt significantly
more aggressive heat treatment regimes than this. Even for broiler flocks some
Member States would legislate that all feed must be heated to at least 81ºC whereas
other Member States will legislate a hygiene outcome e.g. <1 colony forming unit
per gram of Escherichia coli in Finished Feed. It is essential to recognize that heat-
treatment is only effective if systems are in place to ensure that all of the feed is
effectively heated and can be cooled back to ambient temperatures without re-
contamination. Some early heat treatment systems merely resulted in development
of endemic salmonella contamination at the mill. Organic acid feed additives,
sometimes combined with formaldehyde are used to reduce the risks presented by
recontamination but the efficacy of these organics continues to be debated. While


 86                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
products combining formaldehyde have greater efficacy, some Member States are
reluctant to sanction their use because of Health & Safety concerns.

The Table Egg industry has been less enthusiastic about heat treatment and many
flocks continue to be fed a non-heat treated mash but organic acids or organic acid
/ formaldehyde feed additives have been effectively used to reduce the risk of
salmonella contamination.

‘Environmental’ controls – modern European feed mills are designed to ensure that
dust is minimized and ‘treated’ feed cannot come into contact with ‘non-treated’
feed during transport to and storage in the finished feed bins. These controls are
carried through to the farm because feed delivery vehicles will not transport raw
Considerable effort will go into ensuring that the feed mill has an effective pest
management programme to control insects, rodents and wild birds.

Although the term biosecurity has only become popular relatively recently, for
many years there has been a consistent effort to minimize poultry disease and
improve food safety across Europe. This has generated a steady improvement in
farm design and management practices so that modern poultry houses are relatively
easy to clean and disinfect and farm personnel understand the need to control
disease vectors such as mice, wild birds and insects. This has allowed many
companies to place their birds in a salmonella-free environment and to maintain
this freedom through the life of the flock.

Breeding Companies
Breeding companies have invested heavily to ensure that they can meet their
customer’s requirements for salmonella-free product. As you can imagine, I would
be happy top go into more detail on this if required!

While some companies have managed to implement control strategies that have
enabled them to produce S. enteritidis free (and to a very large extent salmonella
free) products salmonella vaccines have been widely used in broiler breeder and
table egg flocks in Europe. Whether the motive is to add an extra level of
protection to a system that is already under control or to minimize the impact of
contamination on an operation that has been unable to maintain an S. enteritidis
free status, these vaccines have proved very effective in reducing the levels of S.


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                         87
enteritidis entering the food chain. This is demonstrated very clearly by the
significant reduction in human cases of S. enteritidis gastro-intestinal following the
adoption of widespread use of commercial inactivated S. enteritidis vaccines.
There is again wide variation in the programmes followed in different Member
States. Some Member States will not license live salmonella vaccines e.g. France
while others e.g. Holland still use SG9R vaccine and rely on cross protection to
control S. enteritidis. However, in the vast majority of Member States the egg and
broiler breeder sector would use a combination of commercial inactivated and live

Antibiotic treatment
Many EU countries give their poultry farmers the option of treating any breeder
flocks which have become contaminated with S. enteritidis or S. typhimurium with
antibiotics rather than automatically slaughtering them. If subsequent
environmental monitoring shows that the flock has been cleared of salmonella the
flock does not have to be killed. Antibiotics are not however routinely used to
tackle salmonella contamination.

Pro-biotics, organic acids & ‘Gut Health’ Feed Additives
While not a particularly precise grouping a multitude of products have been
launched which claim to make the chicken / turkey more resistant to salmonella
infection and / or reduce the level of contamination should salmonella colonise the
flock. While there is research data which tends to support some of these claims, in
general, few of these products have been used commercially to any extent and as
far as I am aware, even when they have been used the main motive has not been
salmonella control / reduction.


 88                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
Early in the fight to reduce salmonella contamination it was realised that
salmonella cross-contamination in the hatchery was a significant problem which
could dramatically increase the number of positive flocks dispatched to farms.
Through greater attention to cleaning and disinfection and efforts to hatch product
from salmonella positive breeder flocks last, it proved possible to limit cross-
contamination. However, the potential of the hatchery to spread salmonella
through an operation remains an ever present risk. The best option is clearly to
have salmonella-free breeder flocks.

Competitive Exclusion (CE)
A range of CE products have been launched with some success and there is a
significant body of research to suggest that CE products can help to protect the
very young chick / poult to resist an early salmonella challenge and subsequently
reduce the rate of salmonella shedding from infected birds. As a philosophy, CE
has been most actively adopted in Scandinavian countries where neo-natal
protection is the desired outcome.
While CE is also used to promote gut health, particularly after antibiotic therapy,
very few people believe that CE products alone are capable of cleaning a flock
which is contaminated with S. enteritidis.

Interventions at the Processing Plant
It is common practice in many broiler companies to collect environmental samples
from the broiler house prior to depopulation and in the event of finding a
salmonella positive flock to schedule that flock as the last flock of the day to be
processed. This both reduces the level of cross-contamination of salmonella
negative birds/products and provides the opportunity for thorough cleaning and
disinfection of the processing plant after the salmonella positive birds have been
processed. In certain countries the retailer will set limits on what proportion of
flocks entering the processing plant can be contaminated with salmonella (of any
species) and if these levels are exceeded the producer may be banned from the
supply chain.

The Future
A recent EU pilot survey to determine the effectiveness of salmonella controls in
the various EU Member States highlighted a wide range in levels of salmonella
contamination in different Member States. This survey was followed by the
recently implemented EU Zoonosis Directive which will significantly increase the


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                        89
pressure for salmonella control across the EU. This Directive standardises the
sampling and isolation methodologies that must be used, requires each Member
State to draft and implement a National Control Programme and sets out clear
targets for the level of salmonella contamination in layer, breeder and broiler
flocks. This Directive has also expanded the range of species whose prevalence
must be reduced from S. enteritidis and S. typhimurium to include S. virchow, S.
hadar and S. infantis as these are the 5 salmonella species most commonly
associated with human illness.
One of the most interesting scenarios to play out over the next few years will be
the potential food safety issues arising from the growth of the extensive poultry
production sector. In a Free-range environment, it is extremely difficult to
maintain effective biosecurity which raises the prospects of increased food safety
risks against the perceived advantages of a more ‘natural’ production system. If
one factors in the increased risks of H5N1 Avian Influenza disease breaks that
Free-range represent to this debate and the associated consumer fears about this
virus then it will be interesting to see what confidence the consumer eventually
develops in Free-range agriculture.

Despite the many years of concerted action to eliminate salmonella from the food
chain, no country (including Sweden) has managed to develop and maintain a food
chain that is completely salmonella free. However, some countries have managed
to achieve Production systems which are completely S. enteritidis free and several
others are very close to this goal. As consumer awareness and concern continues
to rise it seem likely that pressure will continue to grow for reduction of salmonella
in the food chain and there seems very little appetite in Europe to adopt a strategy
which includes intervention at the processing plant to control salmonella levels in
the finished product, regardless of the salmonella status of the product leaving the
While the ‘Farm-to-Fork’ philosophy is certainly not the most economical way to
deliver salmonella (or campylobacter free) food it remains the only approach that
is acceptable to all European consumers.


 90                        Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007         91


92                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
               Recombinant Vaccines-Challenges and Successes
                    Presented by Intervet Canada Ltd.

This presentation will discuss the major challenges, failures and recent successes
using DNA recombinant technology in the development of poultry recombinant or
genetically modified organisms (GMO). The discussion will focus mainly on the
viral recombinant/vector type of vaccines. However, this does not rule out the
importance of reverse genetic vaccines (e.g. Avian Influenza), gene deleted
bacterial vaccines (e.g. Salmonella and E.Coli) and possible future DNA, chimera
and subunit based poultry vaccines.

Viral recombinant /vector vaccines are constructed by inserting the gene(s) that
encode for the protective protein(s) taken from a donor organism into the viral
genome of the vector virus. In poultry DNA viruses like the Fowlpox (FP) or
Turkey Herpesvirus (HVT) have been commonly used as a vector virus. In the
future, Adeno viruses and RNA viruses e.g. NDV may be used as vectors. About
25 years ago it was predicted that poultry recombinant (vector) type vaccines
would be introduced at a rapid pace and would replace several of the classical
vaccines. Looking back, over the last 5 years we have only been able to introduce
the first recombinant vector vaccines based on FP and recently those based on
HVT as vector.

The ideal poultry vaccine should be safe, efficacious, have an extended duration of
protection, be convenient to administer, and easy to produce. Moreover, it should
provide the poultry industry with a vaccine that will enhance the economic
performance of the vaccinated flocks compared to conventional vaccines. The
challenges biological companies face in the development of recombinant vaccines
are the extensive, time consuming, costly Research and Development (RD) and
licensing proceedings and patent issues. These factors result in increased vaccine
costs and consequently poultry vaccination. Therefore a recombinant vaccine
should clearly show advantages compared with the classical type of vaccines.


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007                      93


94                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007
          The Effect of the Ethanol Industry on the Poultry Industry
                      Larry Martin, George Morris Centre



Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007              95


96                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007


Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007         97


98                    Poultry Service Industry Workshop October 2nd - 4th, 2007

To top