INNOVATIONS AND PRACTICAL ADVICE FOR SUCCESSFUL …poultryhealthtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/PHT-Issue-2.pdfINNOVATIONS AND PRACTICAL ADVICE FOR SUCCESSFUL FLOCK CARE POULTRY

I N N O V A T I O N S A N D P R A C T I C A L A D V I C E F O R S U C C E S S F U L F L O C K C A R E POULTRY H E A L T HT O D A Y

7What on earth does it really mean?

and how does it apply to poultry health?

S U S Ta i n a b i l i T y

2NO.

Sanderson’sPhil Stayer:

Sustainability‘nothing new’

Technically, all poultry in

the US is ‘antibiotic free’

Prevention claimsessential for

ensuring flockhealth, welfare

20

26

27

U S e d i t i o nZP130544

P O U L T R Y H E A L T H T O D A Y . C O M

POULTRY H E A L T HT O D A Y

I N N O V A T I O N S A N D P R A C T I C A L A D V I C E F O R S U C C E S S F U L F L O C K C A R E

c o v e r S T o r y

7

You can’t pick up a farm or business journal these days without being

assaulted by what could easily be the buzzword of the decade: Sustainability.

Poultry Health Today editors cut through the rhetoric, sought opinions from

scientists and examined the numbers to learn how the concepts of sustainability

apply to day-to-day, flock-health programs.

s U s ta i n a B i L i t Y

w h a t ’ s i n s i d e

5

Temperature of drinking water may affect bodyweightduring brooding

Link between fishmeal, Eimeria and necrotic enteritis in broilers explored

S. enteritidis frequency in eggssimilar in conventional and enriched cage systems

Cracked corn has positive effect in broilers

•

•

•

•

S O U N D S C I E N C E

W O R D S & N U M B E R S

5430010

4

Sponsored by


Memorable quotes and figures

from the world of poultry health

What on earth does it really mean? And how does it apply to poultry health?

2

‘ S U S Ta i n a b i l i T y i S r e a l ly n o T h i n g n e Wf o r P o U lT r y ’

‘ r o tat e S m a r t e r ’Greg Mathis, PhD, urges

producers to think twice whenjuggling anticoccidials.

P r o g r a m U r g e S lo n g - t e r m P l a n n i n g

f o r c o c c i d i o S i SZoetis recently launched a new

science-based initiative aimed at developing more sustainable

coccidiosis-management programs.

26

Poultry Health Today checked into

whether poultry raised without

antibiotics was more wholesome

than meat from medicated birds.

27

Judiciously using some antimicrobials

to prevent — not just to treat and

control — poultry disease is still

advocated by FDA and veterinarians

for protecting flocks against some

ubiquitous gut diseases.

R U L E S & R E G S

R E A L I T Y C H E C K

31

Never say never:

Timothy Cummings, DVM, applauds

the antibiotic-free trend while

sharing a few words of caution.

T H E L A S T W O R D

30

Zoetis scientists recently presented

more findings from their ongoing

research programs to improve poultry

health and welfare. Sanderson Farms veterinarian Phil Stayer supports the industry’spush for more sustainability, buthe doesn’t think it’s a new trendwhen it comes to managing poultry health. “You want a lowcarbon footprint?” he asks. “Maximize your feed efficiency;avoid waste; find ways to be more efficient.”

D I S C O V E R I E S

REALITY 20

T H E R E A LW O R L D

4

W O R D S & N U M B E R S

54 30010

6.2

500,000+

“”

34

The carbon footprint index for chicken, compared to 16.2 for beef, 12.0 for lamb and 9.0 for pork.SoUrce: 2020: The chicken can feed The World

If we don’t respect the feelings of consumers and other stakeholders,they’re not going to respect us. What we’re finding is we can’t speak tothem as if we’re arguing policy issues. Even if their feelings aren’t rational, they’re still valid as feelings.Joe forSThoffer, direc Tor of corPoraTe commUnicaTionS, PerdUe farmS

“”

“No legislation or regulation can keep bacteria from existing…The only way to ensure our food is safe 100% of the time is by following science-based procedures when raising/growing, processing, handling and cooking it.”Tom SUPer, naTional chicken coUncil

Percent of Americans who feel the agriculture industry is transparenton production practices — up from 22% in 2012.SoUrce: foodThink, emerging faiTh in food ProdUc Tion, march 2014

83.6 Pounds per capita of chicken consumedby Americans, more than anyone else inthe world. SoUrce: broiler chicken indUSTry ke y fac TS, The naTional chicken coUncil

Number of progeny produced by one coccidial oocyst in 4 to 7 days.SoUrce: overvie W of coccidioSiS in PoUlTry, MERCK VETERINARY MANUAL



5

2


temperature of drinking water may affect bodyweightduring brooding

link between fishmeal, Eimeria and necrotic enteritisin broilers explored

insights into how fishmeal in poultry rations and Eimeria infection may predispose broilers to necrotic enteritis come from a study by Australian investigators.

Although it is widely established that ahigh-protein, fishmeal-supplementedstarter diet along with Eimeria infection can predispose birds to clinical necrotic enteritis after Clostridium perfringensinfection, exactly how is not clearly known, scientists say. Consequently, they analyzed the cecal microbiota of four groups of broilers with the use of deep pyrosequencing — a method of DNA analysis.

One group was infected with Eimeria andreceived a control diet, another received

The temperature of drinking water during brooding may affect the bodyweight of broiler chicks, according to a University of Arkansas study.1

In their study, investigators provided 225 day-old male broilers with free accessto water that was either 40° F (4.44° C), 70° F (21.11° C) or 100° F (37.78° C). They monitored water temperature hourlyand adjusted it as needed during the 72-hour treatment period. The scientistsalso vaccinated birds for coccidiosis and provided feed based on Cobb nutritional standards.

Broilers that received the hottest waterwere significantly lighter (P ≤ 0.03) thanbroilers in the other groups on day 14,weighing in at 463 g (1.02 lb) compared to501 g (1.10 lb) for the other two groups.

Although there were no significant differences regarding feed conversion oraverage weight among the three groups on days 7, 31 and 42, birds that received

a fishmeal-supplemented diet and a thirdgroup was infected with Eimeria and in addition received fishmeal. A fourth groupwithout Eimeria did not receive fishmealand served as a control.

Fishmeal had a strong effect on intestinalmicrobiota, similar to the reported effectsof C. perfringens infection. Investigatorsalso noted major changes in the prevalence of various lactobacilli, whiletotal, culturable Lactobacillus counts remained stable. Other microbiota such as Ruminococcaceae were affected, as determined by an increased number of operational taxonomic units — a methodof defining a species based on DNA sequence results.

Eimeria induced different changes in microbiota. For example, Ruminococcaceaewere reduced in number, and three unknown clostridium species increased in abundance. Eimeria did not significantlyinfluence changes in measures such as pH or formic acid, while fishmeal induceddramatic changes.

“Both fishmeal feeding and Eimeriainfection induced significant changes in the gut microbiota; these changes mayplay an important role in predisposing

continued

“Both fishmeal feeding and Eimeria infection induced significant changes in the gut microbiota; these changes may play an important role in predisposing birds to

necrotic enteritis”


the hottest water had numerically lowerbodyweight compared to the other groups,Christopher Eagleson, an undergraduate at the university, reported at the 2014 International Poultry Scientific Forum.


6


S. enteritidis frequency in eggssimilar in conventional and enriched cage systems

The frequency of egg contamination withSalmonella enteritidis did not significantlydiffer between hens housed in conven-tional and enriched cages, investigators sayin the March 2014 issue of Poultry Science.3

They conducted their study because mosthuman illness caused by S. enteritidisis attributed to consumption of contami-nated eggs and because animal-welfareconcerns have increasingly influencedhousing for commercial poultry, leading to the increased use of enriched cages.

In two trials, investigators orally adminis-tered S. enteritidis to groups of laying hens

birds to necrotic enteritis,” say S.B. Wu, ofthe University of New England, Australia,and colleagues in Veterinary Microbiologyonline, March 14, 2014.2

housed either in conventional cages or incolony cages enriched with perching andnesting. They then cultured all eggs laidbetween 5 and 25 days after inoculation.

In both trials combined, S. enteritidis wasrecovered from 3.97% of eggs from hens in conventional cages and from 3.58% ofeggs laid by hens in enriched cages — a difference that was not statistically significant, report Richard K. Gast, of theUSDA’s Agricultural Research Service,Athens, Ga., and colleagues.

The more coarse corn was added to the birds’ diets, the more body and gizzard weight increased.


1 eagleson C, et al. impact of drinking water temperature duringbrooding stage on bodyweights of broiler chicks. Proceedings, international Poultry scientific Forum, atlanta, 2014.

2 wu sB, et al. two necrotic enteritis predisposing factors, dietaryfishmeal and Eimeria infection, induce large changes in the caecalmicrobiota of broiler chickens. Vet Microbiol. 2014 Mar 14;169(3-4):188-97.

3 Gast RK, et al. Contamination of eggs by Salmonella enteritidisin experimentally infected laying hens housed in conventional orenriched cages. Poult sci. 2014 Mar;93(3):728-733.

4 singh Y, et al. influence of feeding coarse corn on performance,nutrient utilization, digestive tract measurements, carcass characteristics, and cecal microflora counts of broilers. Poult sci.2014 Mar;93(3):607-616.

link between fishmeal, Eimeria andnecrotic enteritis in broilers exploredcontinued

cracked corn has positive effect in broilers

cracked corn fed to broilers increasedweight gain and gizzard size and had apositive effect on gut microflora, say NewZealand investigators.4

In their study, they fed broilers either 600 g/kg of finely ground corn or replacedthe ground corn with 150, 300, 450 or 600g/kg of coarse corn. Each diet was fed inmash form and offered free-choice from 11 to 35 days after hatch.

The more coarse corn was added to thebirds’ diets, the more body and gizzard

weight increased. Although breast-meatyield decreased and abdominal fat increased with increasing levels of coarsecorn, there was no effect on carcass yield,the investigators report in the March 2014issue of Poultry Science.

Lactobacillus spp. and Bifidobacteria spp.counts increased, while counts of Clostridium spp., Campylobacterium spp.and Bacteroides spp. decreased as levels of coarse corn increased.

The results show that coarse corn can totally replace ground corn in mash dietsfed to broilers, conclude Y. Singh, of MasseyUniversity, Palmerston, and colleagues.

Sustainability, sustainability, sustainability.

You can’t pick up a farm or business journal

these days without being assaulted by what

could easily be the buzzword of the decade.

make no mistake, sustainability is an

important target for any business, in any

industry. it’s also paramount to consumers.

according to a 2012 nielsen survey,

two out of three consumers say they

prefer to buy products from companies

that they believe to be socially and

environmentally responsible.

in the poultry industry, these trends are

reshaping every link in the production chain.

But what exactly does it mean for poultry to

be “sustainable”? does poultry health play

a role in meeting this objective? and does

the industry’s idea of sustainability align

with its customers’?

Poultry Health Today editors cut through

the rhetoric, sought opinions from scientists

and examined the numbers to learn how

the concepts of sustainability apply to

day-to-day, flock-health programs.

What on earth does

it really mean?

and how does it

apply to poultry

health?

s U s t a i n a B i L i t Y

C O V E RS T O R Y

P O U L T R Y H E A L T H T O D A Y . C O M 7


8

back in the 1970s, the word

“sustainability” was used mainly by

environmental groups to promote the

conservation of natural resources while

curbing pollution and waste.

That definition has held up well over

the years and has proved to be, well,

pretty sustainable. But as the term

comes into wider use, it begins to

mean much more to more people and

more industries. It depends on their

values, interests and beliefs.

For the sake of establishing a baseline

for this article, let’s turn to the popular

UN definition, which describes it as

“meeting the needs of the present,

without compromising the ability

of future generations to meet their

own needs.”1

In agriculture, this generally translates to

producing more with less — a goal that

morphs into a dire need when looking at

global population trends. According to a

recent UN report, food production will

need to increase by 70% to feed the

world’s 9.6 billion people by 2050 —

a little more than 35 years from now —

while limiting greenhouse gases and the

need for additional land and water.2

That’s a super-sized order.

Furthermore, sustainability experts say,

agriculture needs to meet this goal by

balancing economic viability with social

and environmental stewardship. The big

question is how.

Advantages for poultry

Fortunately for the industry, poultry

production already has considerable

advantages over other livestock systems

in terms of energy efficiency, carbon

emissions, feed conversion, land and

water use, and waste.3

Factor in poultry’s high nutritional

value, relatively low cost and universal

palatability and

it’s no wonder that

poultry is expected to continue to top

the charts for meat consumption and

production for decades to come, both

in the US and abroad.4

To manage this growth responsibly,

some commercial US poultry farms

are working to increase production

on existing land, while minimizing

pressure on the environment —

an approach that is known as

“sustainable intensification.”

Maintaining good poultry health

is critical to this strategy, as it directly

affects human and animal welfare,

economic viability and environmental

impact — the very cornerstones

of sustainable production. How the

industry keeps its flocks healthy is also

the subject of heated debate, however.

As producers work to optimize bird

health and performance in intensified

settings, they also must answer to an

inquisitive public that is increasingly

concerned with how birds are

raised and what goes into their feed

and water.

sSS

SS

Tossing around the ‘S word’

0

400

300

200

100

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500.0

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

Mea

t con

sum

ptio

n (m

illio

n M

T)

Available arable land (ha/person)

Broilers Pork Beef Arable land/person

9

Some see this as a challenge — not

least because consumer perceptions of

sustainability don’t always reflect the

realities of efficient, high-volume

commercial production. Ask typical

American consumers what “sustainable

poultry” means and they’ll probably

describe poultry and eggs produced under

a wide range of alternative systems —

organic, free-range or antibiotic-free,

to name a few. In response, a growing

number of retailers and foodservice

companies are adopting these

consumer-driven standards as well.

Sound alternatives?

These trends have prompted the rapid

growth of new production systems, which

in many ways have been good for the

industry. Consumers have more choices,

and producers benefit from higher

margins and robust demand for niche

products. But is the rise of organic,

free-range and antibiotic-free poultry

actually making the industry

more sustainable?

Not necessarily, says Stephen Shepard,

a poultry specialist at Farm Animal

Care Training and Auditing

(FACTA), which audits, assures and

implements animal-welfare programs

for producers internationally.

Shepard supports alternative production

practices; in fact, he routinely consults

with poultry operations that want to

produce birds “raised without antibiotics”

— a more accurate description than the

popular “antibiotic-free” — to establish

successful and sustainable programs.

However, he does not believe that

approach is necessarily more sustainable

than conventional practices. In fact, he

says, the risks to animal welfare, food

safety and efficiency tend to be much

higher in these alternative systems.

“The practice of never using antibiotic

feed additives results in higher feed

conversions, higher production costs

and, if not managed properly, more

sick birds,” Shepard explains. “This is

not only a serious welfare issue, but it

also results in a higher bacterial freight

for poultry coming into the processing

plant, which increases the risk of

contaminated meat.”

continued on page 11

sSS sFigure 1 World beef, pork and poultry consumption, 1980-2050

Sources: global insight demand analysis to 2050; bauman and capper (2011) Southwest nutrition and managment conference, Tempe, aZ

s U s t a i n a B i L i t YCOVER S

TORY



Demand for increased transparency has led to the proliferation

of poultry labeling terms — many of which surface in discussions

about sustainability and production practices. What these terms

actually mean, however, is sometimes less clear. Following are

four common labeling terms and their official USDA definitions:

Making sense of poultry labels

L A B E L I N G T E R M U S D A D E F I N I T I O N W O R T H N O T I N G

Producers must demonstrate to the agencythat the poultry has been allowed access tothe outside.

There are no official requirements for access, or for the type, quantity or quality of outdoor space.

The terms “antibiotic-free” or “no antibioticsadded” may be used on labels for meat orpoultry if sufficient documentation is provided by the producer to the agencydemonstrating that the animals were raisedwithout antibiotics.

When antibiotics are used in livestock and poultry production, strict withdrawalperiods must be followed before the animals are processed. USDA monitors meat and poultry to ensure that in the unlikely event that antibiotic residues arepresent, they do not exceed the tolerancelevels deemed unsafe by FDA and USDA. The industry has a strong record of compliance in this area.

A product containing no artificial ingredientor added color and is only minimallyprocessed. Minimal processing means thatthe product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as “no artificial ingredients;minimally processed”).

Products labeled “natural” often make use of consumer-pleasing images of idyllicfarms and green pastures. However, thisterm has nothing to do with how the poultry was raised or slaughtered.

2

3

1No antibiotics added

Free range, free roaming

Natural

Managed organically from the second day of life

Raised free-range, weather permitting, andwithout any antibiotics, animal byproducts orother prohibited feed ingredients

Raised on certified organic land meeting all organic crop production standards

Raised per animal-health and welfare standards

Fed 100% certified organic feed, except fortrace minerals and vitamins used to meet nutritional requirements

•

•

•

•

•

Many consumers consider “certified organic” the most reliable labeling term for alternative poultry, as it designates compliance with clearly defined and enforced criteria. However, it should onceagain be noted that there are no clear standards for “free-range” (see above). Contrary to what consumers widely believe, many organic birds spend most or all of their lives indoors.

4 Organic

10

To address these concerns, the US Food

and Drug Administration introduced new

guidelines in December to limit the use

of “medically important” antimicrobials

— that is, antibiotics and synthetic

therapeutics that are critical to human

medicine — to the treatment, control

and prevention of specific diseases in

food animals.

Over the next 3 years, feed and water

medications containing medically

important antibiotics will lose their

performance claims and will be available

only with a veterinarian’s prescription

and oversight. (Antibiotics with approved

claims for improved weight gain and feed

efficiency that the FDA does not deem

medically important can still be used for

this purpose under the new guidelines.)

According to Douglas Call, PhD, a

professor of molecular epidemiology at

Washington State University’s Paul G.

Allan School of Animal Health, the

FDA’s new guidelines could be beneficial

in the face of rising antimicrobial

resistance, although he observes that there

is scant evidence linking animal antibiotic

use to resistant human infection.

In an opinion piece he published in

The Seattle Times last January, Call reports

that farm animals are reliably linked to

only three of 17 microbes that cause

most resistant infections, according to the

Centers for Disease Control, and 7.5%

of related deaths.5 Furthermore, about

28% of feed antibiotics are ionophores,

which are never used in human medicine.

Another 42% are tetracyclines, which are

used in humans only rarely.

It remains to be seen whether the new

FDA guidelines will benefit public health.

But according to Call, one thing is

certain: Due to increased veterinary costs

and loss of production gains attributed

to antibiotics, food prices will rise.

continued

11


TORY

For these reasons, Shepard believes that

judicious antibiotic use is critical to both

poultry and human health — not only to

control and prevent disease, but also to

ensure the ethical treatment of animals.

But it shouldn’t always be necessary to

wait for birds to get sick to start using

antibiotics, he says. In many cases, he

thinks it is actually more judicious —

and more sustainable — to use antibiotics

under veterinary supervision before

they get sick.

“Antibiotic feed additives help maintain

a healthy gut by controlling bacteria that

are malignant to overall gut health, and a

healthy gut leads to better absorption of

nutrients,” he reasons. “As a result, we get

better feed conversions. And when we

get better feed conversions, we promote

sustainable agriculture through more

efficient land and water usage.”

Resisting resistance

Critics of using antibiotics to improve

flock performance argue that these

products may make birds grow bigger

and faster, but that they also might be

contributing to antimicrobial resistance

in both animals and humans. Whatever

their efficiency benefits, the costs to

public health could be greater, they

claim, so using antibiotics solely for this

purpose is unsustainable.

Tossing around the ‘S word’

“Therapeutic use of antibiotics in both human and veterinarymedicine is the biggest driver of medically important antibiotic resistance, as is the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in countries thatlack any regulatory oversight.” D O U G L A S C A L L , P H D

sSS

S s


continued from page 9


12

Aminoglycosides Cephalosporins Ionophores Lincosamides

Macrolides Penicillins Sulfas Tetracyclines NIR

42.2

28.9

1.24.2

6.6

3.8

11.5

1.50.2

2010 Summary report on antimicrobials Sold or distributed for Use in food-Producing animals, fda/www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/newsevents/cvmUpdates (posted oct 28, 2011)

Percentage (%) kg sold/year (FDA)

All animals

Includes antibiotics, antimicrobials, ionophores

Prevention, control, growth promotion,therapeutic claims

••••

Tossing around the ‘S word’ sSS

S s

“Rural producers with limited access to

veterinarians would need assistance to

cope, while small producers may be

squeezed out of the market,” he writes.

“If prices increase enough, consumers

could favor cheaper imported foods

for which we have limited regulatory

oversight. This would also result in

job losses for the US.”

Preventing disease

Still, Call believes that even for medically

important antibiotics, the public’s

preoccupation with “growth promotion”

is overshadowing an opportunity to curb

a greater and more established threat to

both animal and human health.

“Using antibiotics to promote growth

is probably not a major threat to public

health,” he writes. “Therapeutic use

of antibiotics in both human and

veterinary medicine is the biggest driver

of medically important antibiotic

resistance, as is the indiscriminate use

of antibiotics in countries that lack any

regulatory oversight.”

According to Call, antibiotics with

performance claims may work by

preventing disease, thereby limiting the

need for higher therapeutic doses. In an

interview with Poultry Health Today, he

pointed to evidence of this possibility in

Denmark, which banned non-therapeutic

antibiotic use in food animals in 2000.

Figure 2 Antimicrobials for food-producing animals

13

“We’re usually too busy putting out fires to worry about sustainability.”

That was how a well-known veterinary pathologist at a leading university answered

Poultry Health Today’s query about sustainability. The specialist then centered himself and

politely added, “I too think the word is overused and will look forward to [your] article.”

The poultry veterinarian’s dry but brutally honest answer brought some laughter to the

newsroom, but it also spoke volumes about the challenges of becoming more sustainable

in the face of day-to-day production demands.

more than a buzzwordSure, sustainability is a sound and noble concept — something everyone needs to think

about and practice — but try telling that to a veterinarian or producer in the middle of an

infectious bronchitis outbreak. Timing, as they say, is everything.

Nevertheless, it’s clear that sustainability isn’t just a trendy buzzword, passing fad or

marketing niche. It’s a reality that’s reshaping the industry — and everyone needs to start

paying attention.

The good news for conventional poultry producers is that many of their practices already

promote sustainability, whether they know it or not. (See accompanying article.)

And although there’s undoubtedly room for improvement — in all segments of

the poultry industry — the “challenge” of sustainability is actually full of opportunity for

conventional producers.

the three es“Trying to define sustainability as one thing is a losing game. It’s better understood as

our generation’s bucket list, except it is a list of things we need to do to ensure the survival

of future generations,” says Øistein Thorsen, principal consultant at Benchmark Sustainability

Science, a group that helps agricultural businesses design and implement customized

sustainability programs.

“For each industry and business, the opportunities that sustainability provides will be

completely different. They vary according to how their business affects, and in turn is affected

by, what we call the ‘three Es’ — ethics, environment and economics.

“For poultry producers, for example, the health and welfare of their birds is the backbone

of a financially healthy business. Making key improvements in poultry health and welfare

management can, therefore, go a long way toward making an operation more sustainable in

terms of improved animal and human welfare, improved economic efficiency and reduced

environmental impact.”

Between 1999 and 2012, however,

therapeutic antibiotic consumption by

food animals rose by 86%, according to

a Danish government report.6

“This increase in demand for therapeutic

antibiotics substantially exceeds the

growth of food-animal production over

the same time period,” Call observes.

“Thus, we must ask: Did the dispropor-

tionate demand for therapeutic uses result

from the loss of disease prevention af-

forded by low-dose growth promotion?”

In conclusion, Call suggests greater

investment into alternative

disease-control strategies that could

limit the need for antibiotics in both

human and animal medicine. For the

time being, though, he believes that

properly using antibiotics to enhance

performance likely reduces demand for

therapeutic doses. For this reason, he says,

they generally do more good than harm

— by protecting human and animal

health, and also by assuring a safe,

efficient and affordable food supply.

Conventional vs. alternative

To recap, proponents of conventional

systems argue that antibiotics are

important to sustainable poultry

production primarily because they

prevent and control disease. This

results in better health and growth,

and consequently, better animal and

human welfare, greater economic and

continued on page 14

Too busy for sustainability?

Think again


COVER S

TORY



14


S s

environmental efficiency, and a safe,

abundant and affordable food supply.

In response to these claims, critics

argue that “crowded” and “unsanitary”

confinement systems are what invite

disease and make routine antibiotic use

necessary in the first place. With lower

flock densities, greater outdoor access

and better husbandry, they claim, the

need for antibiotics could be significantly

reduced or eliminated altogether.

Billy M. Hargis, DVM, PhD, a poultry

science professor at University of

Arkansas, does not doubt the possibility

of raising healthy poultry without

antibiotics; he even believes such systems

will become more common over time.

The great outdoors

As the university’s Tyson Endowed

Chair for Sustainable Poultry Health,

Hargis focuses on developing new

health-management strategies, including

sustainable alternatives to feed antibiotics.

Some of these alternatives are proving

highly effective — notably vaccines and

some probiotics, he says. But of all the

promising alternative solutions that have

caught his attention, simply subtracting

antibiotics and giving birds more access

to the great outdoors currently isn’t

one of them.

“emergy” — a complex method of

measuring all the direct and indirect

energy required to make a product or

sustain a system.

“Emergy is one way of looking at

sustainability, albeit a rather abstract one,

based on principles of thermodynamics,”

Hargis says. “I could argue with the

calculations. But when I look at these

data from a poultry health standpoint,

I see a different picture — and you don’t

need to be a physicist to understand it.

To make his point, Hargis refers to a

2006 study comparing conventional and

organic poultry production, which by

legal definition are free-range birds raised

without antibiotics. (See sidebar on page

10 for more definitions.) Although the

study was conducted in Italy, it is

relevant to larger markets and widely

cited throughout the US (Table 1).7

Worth noting is that the study concludes

that organic systems are more sustainable

based on calculations of what’s called

Table 1 Main characteristics of two farming systems

cOnventiOnal Organic

Buildings and space allowance

Birds per unit (n)

Surface area covered (m2)

Density (birds/m2 covered surface)

Pasture (m2/birds)

15,600

988

15.1

—

1,000

96

10.4

9.9

2,730

49

54.5

5.8

1.9

4.5

2,210

81

26.3

4.2

3.4

9.9

Productive perfomancea

Final weight (g)

Age at slaughtering (days)

Daily weight gain (g/days)

Units produced/year (n)

Feed index

Mortality rate (%)

a mean performance considering a female/male ratio = 1

SS

S 15

2


“First of all,” he continues, “notice that

the organic systems had more than twice

the mortalities of the conventional

systems (9.9% vs. 4.5%). From this, we

can infer that sickness and morbidities

were also double,” he says.

The study’s authors directly attributed

the higher mortalities to the fact that no

antibiotics were used. But according to

Hargis, the birds’ free-range environment

also could have been a factor, as it is

more difficult to control pathogens —

particularly parasitic diseases — in

outdoor settings.

This conundrum presents a major issue

for both animal and human welfare, he

says. Even if organic production were to

improve mortality rates, its relative

inefficiency would still pose significant

hurdles to sustainability and meeting the

world’s increasing demand for poultry.

“In the organic, free-range system, it takes

nearly twice as long, twice as much grain

and significantly more land to raise birds

to an even lower bodyweight,” Hargis

says. “This means that we would need

to have twice as many poultry farms to

make the same amount of chicken in the

US — and that would mean less land

for row crops.

“Factor in the extra labor, energy and

water needed and waste generated over

the longer growing cycle, and we’re

talking about a very large environmental

footprint — one that, on a large scale,

would be incompatible with the needs

of a growing and hungry population.”

Wake-up call

From ethical, economic and environmen-

tal standpoints, then, it appears that

alternative production systems aren’t

necessarily as sustainable as many

consumers believe they are. At a time

when the industry is being called on to

produce more with less, these alternative

systems typically produce less with more

— with few clear health or welfare

benefits for either animals or humans.

The flip side of this is that conventional

poultry production is actually more

sustainable than many consumers think.

For this reason, FACTA’s Shepard says the

industry should see the public’s growing

interest in sustainable food production

not just as a challenge but also as an

opportunity — to showcase what it is

already doing to promote sustainability,

as well as to explore ways of doing this

even better in the future.

“The poultry industry is generally

doing a fantastic job with welfare and

sustainability and should be proud of

the high standards it has achieved,” he

says. “Conventional producers need to

help the public understand how their

health and husbandry practices promote

these standards, while assuring the safety,

security and efficiency of their food.”

Room for improvement

Proud as conventional producers should

be, Shepard says, this does not mean

that they should rest in their laurels,

nor should they consider their health

programs “sustainable,” in absolute terms,

just because of their advantages over

alternative systems.

“There are many different definitions

of sustainability, and consumers should

be able to buy poultry according to

their individual values and beliefs —

all systems can be sustainable,” Shepard

says. “However, both conventional and

alternative systems have much progress

to make, and the health of their flocks

will be key to making it.

“Is this a challenge? Absolutely,” he

continues. “But within it lies another

opportunity to make a big difference —

for poultry, producers, people and

the planet.”


TORY

notice that the organic systems had more than twice the mortalities of the conventional systems (9.9% vs. 4.5%). B I L LY M . HARG I S , DVM, PHD“ ”

B I L L Y M . H A R G I S , D V M , P H D


1 Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm

2 World Resources Report: Creating a Sustainable Food Future.http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp/story.asp?NewsID=46647&Cr=Food+Security&Cr1#.UybDh_ZkLX-

3 Poultry production has lower carbon footprint than other livestock systems. Farmers Weekly. http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/22/11/2007/108514/poultry-production-has-lower-carbon-footprint-than-other-livestock.htm

4 World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030.http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e05b.htm

5 Limiting Antibiotic Use for LivestockCould Raise Prices.http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2022634923_dougcallopedantibioticsmeatxxxml.html

6 Danish experience offers lessons for US antibiotic use. http://www.beefissuesquarterly.com/danishexperienceofferslessonsforu.s.antibioticuse.aspx

7 Castellini C, et al. Sustainability of poultryproduction using the emergy approach:Comparison of conventional and organicrearing systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2006;114. http://orgprints.org/9317/1/emergy_pollo.pdf


S s Putting sustainability into action today

So how can commercial poultry producers

make their poultry-health programs more sustainable —

ethically, environmentally and economically?

Poultry Health Today asked specialists

to comment on five key aspects

of production:

16

17


COVER S

TORY

1. GENETICS

Genetics affect sustainability because they influence not only the

efficiency of a bird’s growth but also its overall health and welfare.

Today, most conventional poultry is bred to grow bigger and faster than

ever, but some claim that such rapid and robust growth compromises

mobility and immunity. However, John Halley, PhD, global head of

nutrition services at Aviagen, says today’s producers don’t have to choose

between growth and health — in fact, he says, modern breeding

programs improve health, environmental impact, welfare and production

characteristics. Producers just have to know how to care for these

high-performance birds.

2. NUTRITION

Like genetics, nutrition is a precise science

that significantly impacts poultry health

and growth. Given the relatively short life

cycle of broilers, it is critical that

birds get exactly the nutrition they

need at exactly the right time —

an increasingly elusive goal, given the

increasing fluctuations in grain quality.

For example, producers now have to regularly tweak rations to

accommodate inconsistencies of a major feed ingredient — one that

could easily serve as agriculture’s dubious poster child for sustainability:

dried distillers’ grains with solubles (DDGS) from ethanol production.

While DDGS are often plentiful and typically make up 10% or more of

a bird’s diet, their levels of protein, amino acids, available energy,

phosphorus and sodium can vary widely from load to load. For this and

other reasons, producers need to make sure that the ingredients in the

feed actually match the ones on the label.

continued

“Modern breeders and broilers have more capacities than they used to, so

they need management and nutrition adapted to reach their potential.

The older lines were more forgiving if you didn’t get everything exactly

right, whereas modern lines are much higher performing but also higher

maintenance,” Halley says.

To enable modern, high-performance birds to reach their genetic

potential, Halley advises producers not only to carefully follow the

breeder’s instructions but also to regularly assure quality and compliance

at every step along the way. “Ultimately, poultry health is an integrated

system, and all parts need to be working for the bird to be healthy.”


John Halley, PhD

18


Putting sustainability into action today

2. NUTRITION continued

“Because of the huge volumes of feed we go through, it’s easy to lose

sight of what we’re doing,” Aviagen’s Halley says. “Producers need to pay

close attention to incoming ingredients to make sure they’re making the

feed they think they’re making. They should also ensure that feed is stored

and administered properly.”

In addition, he says, the industry should continue exploring alternative

feed sources to help offset grain’s high prices and controversial carbon

footprint. For the time being when other sources can only replace a small

percentage of feed, though, producers should focus on improving feed

conversion and limiting waste.

3. HUSBANDRY

“As we always say, good husbandry is good for the animal,” says

Steven Clark, DVM, senior technical services veterinarian at Zoetis Inc.

“And what’s good for the animal is good for people, the environment

and the producer’s bottom line.”

According to Clark, who each year visits dozens of broiler and turkey

operations throughout the country, the industry has made great strides

with husbandry over the last few decades by embracing technological

advances, such as nipple drinkers, power ventilation and in ovo injection

systems for vaccines.

“The switch from bell-style drinkers to nipple drinker lines has improved

litter conditions, which in turn has improved air quality, and consequently

bird performance and health,” he says. “Power ventilation ensures birds

get plenty of fresh air, while pushing ammonia and other contaminants

out. And automated injection systems allow every egg to be vaccinated

against Marek’s disease or even coccidiosis.”

Clark commends producers for investing in these new technologies and

encourages them to continue doing so. However, he says, no technology

can replace good management on the road to sustainability.

“With all this technology, it’s easy to fall into a routine, but it’s important

to be watchful over the birds and be prepared to make adjustments as

necessary,” he says.

To do this effectively, Clark urges producers to ensure proper

documentation and training for all staff, through both internal programs

and external audits.

“Just as producers have embraced changes in birds and equipment,

they also need to be open to changes in management,” he says. “They

should, therefore, take full advantage of the skills and expertise of their

suppliers — we love to teach, educate and help our customers identify

new opportunities.”


“ F R O M T H E C E O T O M I D D L E M A N A G E M E N T T O T H E

P L A N T A N D B A R N W O R k E R S , E V E R Y P E R S O N M U S T B E

F A M I L I A R W I T H , A N D C O N V E R S A N T I N , A N I M A L

W E L F A R E . . . A N I M A L W E L F A R E , L I k E S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y,

D O E S N ’ T H A P P E N B Y A C C I D E N T — I T T A k E S

C O N S T A N T A N D C O N C E R T E D E F F O R T B Y E V E R Y

M E M B E R O F T H E O R G A N I Z A T I O N .”

Stephen Shepard, FACTA

4. DISEASE MANAGEMENT

Disease management is perhaps the one area of poultry production

where producers have had lots of practice being sustainable,

particularly in the management of antimicrobials (antibiotics and

synthetic therapeutics).

Like those used in human medicine, many therapeutics for poultry may

lose effectiveness if they are used too long or not at the correct dose

rate. Between that and a drought of new compounds, producers quickly

learned to preserve and make judicious use of the tools they had.

(See related articles, pages 23 and 25.)

For example, Clark says, the long-standing practice of rotating

anticoccidials helped the industry maintain reasonably good control

of coccidiosis for many decades while keeping its aging arsenal of

products effective.

“Now, sustainability-minded producers are taking that a step further

and planning their coccidiosis-management programs up to 2 years

in advance,” he says. “They are also using coccidiosis vaccines to rest

medications. To me, that’s more than being sustainable. It’s also

being smart.”

5. ANIMAL WELFARE

Strong animal-welfare programs not only protect animals and appeal

to consumers but they are also associated with better-quality products

and increased productivity, says Stephen Shepard, a poultry specialist

at FACTA.

To reap all the benefits of high animal-welfare standards, Shepard

recommends implementing strong programs that emphasize education.

“The problem is that some retailers don’t understand the daily challenges

faced by producers, or what it takes to produce your products,” Shepard

says. “Education is extremely important and producers are the experts.”

Furthermore, Shepard says, it’s especially important to regularly train

and educate employees who handle flocks every day.

In addition to education, Shepard says effective animal-welfare

programs should include clearly defined goals and metrics;

comprehensive documentation and standard operating procedures;

independent, third-party audits; and regular science-based assessments

of production practices.

But above all, Shepard says, successful animal-welfare programs

take commitment.

“From the CEO to middle management to the plant and barn workers,

every person must be familiar with, and conversant in, animal welfare,”

he stresses. “Animal welfare, like sustainability, doesn’t happen by

accident — it takes constant and concerted effort by every member of

the organization.”


COVER S

TORY

19

20


Phil Stayer, DVMSanderson Farms

‘sUstainaBiLitY is ReaLLY nothinG new FoR PoULtRY’

Phil Stayer, DVM, is a no-nonsense guy with a low

threshold for trendy buzzwords and catch phrases.

So when the head veterinarian at Sanderson Farms

hears people bat around terms like sustainability,

carbon footprint, cradle to grave, renewable resources

or even animal welfare, he looks at them as if they

just discovered fire.

It’s not that he considers these concepts unimportant.

Stayer just thinks they’ve been part of the US poultry

industry all along, even if profitability was the

primary driver.


“What makes a poultry company the most money also

happens to be doing what’s best for the bird, for the land

and, yes, for sustainability.”

2

21

“To me, sustainability is really nothing

new. What makes a poultry company

the most money also happens to be

doing what’s best for the bird, for the

land and, yes, for sustainability,” he says.

“And certainly, there’s always room for

improvement.

“Sustainability involves getting the best

that we can for our bird health — doing

whatever it takes to keep the birds

healthy with whatever tools we have

available. And then, hopefully, finding

ways to do the most with the least to

maximize our profitability.”

r e d U c i n g c a r b o n f o o T P r i n T

Maintaining good intestinal health

is particularly important for

sustainability, he says, because the

condition of the gut ultimately

determines a flock’s growth rate

and feed conversion.

“You want a low carbon footprint?”

Stayer asks, rhetorically. “Maximize

your feed efficiency; avoid waste;

find ways to be more efficient.

“Most of a poultry operation’s cost is

feed,” he adds. “If we can reduce that

volume and expense with better feed

conversion — and that’s an area where

we can always improve — that’s less

input, fewer trucks you’ve got to put

on the road to bring corn in, fewer

trains, less land in production. So

having good feed conversion is going

to reduce a lot of energy consumed. To

me, that’s huge — feed is the giant that

casts the longest shadow.”

7 - d a y m o r T a l i T y

He should know. Sanderson Farms

places more than 9 million birds a

week at its farms in Mississippi, where

the company is headquartered, and in

Texas, Georgia and North Carolina. Half

of the birds are grown to 9.0 lb in 60 to

63 days; the rest are raised to 6.75 lb in

about 50 days.

Stayer and his two production vets —

Drs. David French and Erin Riley —

spend most of their time in the field,

reviewing the health status of all farms.

They also get some help from the

company’s C-suite.

“Our upper management — all the

way up to our CEO — looks at our

7-day mortality,” he says. “They expect

our first-week mortality to be less than

0.75% by the house — not by average,

but by the house. And if any house

is over that target, there has to be

an explanation.

“I think that’s been a big secret to our

success — getting the birds off to a

good early start and positioning them

for a strong finish,” Stayer continues.

“That begins in the hatchery — how

you incubate them, how you pull the

hatch, how you make the eggs set, the

chemical sanitation. We spend a lot of

energy and effort to keep it as clean

as we can so that we can put out a

big chick without a whole lot of

bacterial growth.”

b i g b i r d S , b i g c h a l l e n g e S

But keeping the broilers healthy and

efficient for up to 63 days presents

challenges as well, particularly in

the summer.

continued

Phil Stayer, DVMSanderson Farms


And coccidiosis is not getting any

easier to control, he says. Despite

the availability of more than a dozen

in-feed antimicrobials in the US and

a half dozen vaccines, managing

E. maxima and other coccidial

organisms — E. acervulina, E. tenella,

to name a few — has become yet

another exercise in sustainability.

Like similar medications used in

human and companion-animal

medicine, antimicrobials for poultry

and livestock can lose effectiveness

when used improperly or for

extended periods. Furthermore,

some medications perform better

at different times of year or at

different growth stages.

f e W e r W e a P o n S

So on paper, it may look like the

poultry industry has a deep war chest

of anticoccidials. But when producers

factor in other variables — the birds’

heat intolerance when receiving

some synthetic compounds, optimum

usage times or the need to rest an

anticoccidial every first or second cycle

— the number of effective weapons


22

“I think vaccination still has great potential,

especially if the industry can find a way to

improve vaccine uptake.”


As with most farms in the Deep South,

Sanderson’s biggest hurdle is hot

weather, compounded by the buildup

of body heat in the houses, especially

on farms with large birds. Stayer says

the company generally takes fewer big

birds to market during the summer —

typically 0.5% less than its 49-day-old

birds — but Sanderson makes up for

it during the winter months, which

Stayer calls the “best season.”

Still, maintaining good gut health

and feed conversion is a year-round

concern and paramount to the

operation’s success and sustainability.

“Intestinal health is where I focus most

of my time, whether we’re designing

programs to control the ubiquitous

coccidiosis — that’s our biggest

nemesis — and the bacterial

overgrowth that occurs with that,”

he says.

Of the major Eimeria organisms that

can cause coccidiosis, Stayer describes

Eimeria maxima as his “biggest feed

thief” — one that also predisposes

birds to Clostridium perfringens

infection and necrotic enteritis.

quickly dwindles. Stayer says the loss

of roxarsone — a popular anticoccidial

used for many years with other

antimicrobials — has also made

coccidiosis management and flock

efficiency more challenging.

At one point, Stayer saw vaccinating

for coccidiosis as a good way to rest

in-feed antimicrobials and prolong

their effectiveness. “We started our

vaccine journey a few years ago but

really were not successful until we

put roxarsone with it,” he explains.

“After we stopped using that product,

we lost so much performance in

vaccinated birds. The feed conversion

just wasn’t there.”

He also tried supplementing vaccination

with feeding an ionophore after the

vaccinal oocysts were done cycling —

a practice that has been shown in

research to benefit some flocks —

but he’s sticking with medicated feed

additives for now. “I think vaccination

still has great potential, especially if

the industry can find a way to improve

vaccine uptake, but we just weren’t

seeing consistent performance on

our farms,” Stayer adds.

continued

2

23P O U L T R Y H E A L T H T O D A Y . C O M

Poultry producers need to “rotate smarter” and learn the differences

between anticoccidials if they want to maintain effective and sustainable

coccidiosis-management programs, says well-known coccidiosis specialist

Greg Mathis, PhD, Southern Poultry Research, Athens, Ga.

“When was the last time the world’s poultry industry got a new anticoccidial —

15 or 20 years ago?” he asks. “We still have good tools available, but we need

to do whatever we can to preserve their effectiveness and optimize their

performance. Planning ahead and thinking about your program 12, 18 and

even 24 months from now is a huge step in the right direction.”

He says rotating ionophores within the same family is one of the most common

mistakes he sees with coccidiosis-management programs.

“I see producers rotating from, say, monensin or salinomycin to narasin, but

all they're doing is rotating from one monovalent ionophore to another,”

he says. “They’d be better off rotating to a divalent ionophore, a chemical or

even a vaccine.”

Planning ahead and thinking about your program 12, 18 and even 24 months from now is a huge step in the right direction.Greg Mathis, PhD / Southern Poultry Research

“”

‘rotate Smarter,’

SaYS coccidioSiS

SPecialiSt



“We’re trying to rotate through all the anticoccidial products

in a thoughtful way, with a close eye on bird response, and

then making changes where needed.”


m o r e J U d i c i o U S U S e

The focus on medicated feed additives

makes it even more critical to use them

judiciously and sustainably. Going into

fall, when coccidiosis pressure tends

to increase with reduced ventilation

and increased moisture, Stayer puts

nicarbazin in the starter feed and then

changes to an ionophore — lasalocid,

monensin, narasin or salinomycyn —

in the later feeds.

When the colder weather hits in

December, he’ll feed nicarbazin up

to 28 days of age or “as far out as we

can take it without hurting the bird,”

he explains, before switching to an

ionophore in the finisher feed.

In February and March, he switches

to an all-chemical program — most

recently, decoquinate — and feeds it

for one cycle.

Why all chemicals in the winter

months? It has been Stayer’s

experience that birds on synthetic

anticoccidials are less likely to break

with gangrenous dermatitis than

birds medicated with ionophores.

“I don’t believe ionophores or leakage

from ionophores cause dermatitis, as

some people do, but I do think — and

this is just my theory — ionophores

might set up the gut flora to allow

gangrenous dermatitis,” he says.

“Whatever the reason, we don’t have

a problem with dermatitis when

we’re using chemicals,” he says. “The

weakness in chemicals is that you

can get about one cycle out of them,

maybe two with some products, and

then they start breaking. You really

need to watch it.”

S e P a r a T i n g T h e ‘ k i S S i n g c o U S i n S ’

When the warmer weather arrives in

April, Stayer primarily depends on

ionophores, but he still needs to be

on guard for resistance buildup and

performance losses. He thinks it’s

also important to try to separate

what he calls the “kissing cousins”

of coccidiosis management.

Monensin, narasin and salinomycyn,

he explains, are all monovalent

ionophores with a similar chemical

structure, so rotating from one to

the other doesn’t always achieve

the anticipated boost seen with

other rotations.

Using lasalocid, a divalent ionophore

with a different molecular makeup,

or a chemical in between monovalents,

is a good, sustainable strategy for pre-

serving the efficacy of all compounds.

“Our nutritionist had a lot of experience

using lasalocid in turkeys and it worked

well, as long as he limited the sodium

and potassium,” he says. “By limiting

the electrolytes, you don’t have as

much water uptake, which in turn

means less water excreted.

“We’re trying to rotate through all the

anticoccidial products in a thoughtful

way, with a close eye on bird response,

and then making changes where

needed. We plan our program at least

12 months in advance, trying to stick to

three or four products with the

eye on using different ones in the

second year.”

Because in the end, Stayer adds, his

goal is to keep doing what he’s worked

at all along — being more sustainable.

24


Targeting the global poultry industry’s more than $3 billion1 in

annual losses to coccidiosis, Zoetis Inc. recently introduced Rotecc™

Coccidiosis Management, a new, science-based

initiative to help poultry producers develop more

strategic, cost-effective and sustainable programs

for battling the costly parasitic disease.

“Overall, the poultry industry has done a

commendable job managing coccidiosis. But

clearly, when you look at billions of dollars in

losses associated with the disease, there is still lots

of room for improvement,” says Mark LaVorgna,

PhD, a nutritionist and global technical services

director for the company.

IPAD APP

Rotecc begins with a consultation by a Zoetis

representative, who reviews a poultry operation’s

past and current programs, necropsy data and

results from anticoccidial sensitivity testing, as

well as seasonal preferences for product usage,

production goals and management practices. Other variables

such as feed costs and meat prices also are considered.

To facilitate the review, Zoetis has developed several digital tools to

help producers and veterinarians tailor a long-term program to suit

their individual needs. These include the Rotecc™ Program Advisor,

an iPad app that initially will be available in the US, and

a Rotecc™ Calculator, which will run on the iPad and Windows

operating systems.

Don Waldrip, DVM, senior technical

services veterinarian for the company,

thinks poultry producers will benefit from

thinking longer term — perhaps even

24 months ahead — when developing their

coccidiosis-management programs.

GIVE IT A REST

“The more you plan ahead, the more

rotation options you’ll have available for

effective coccidiosis management,” says

Waldrip. “That’s important because it takes

time to initiate effective rotation programs

that will provide ample rest periods for

each class of in-feed product.”

While rotating anticoccidials is standard

practice at commercial poultry farms, Waldrip says, “traditional

thinking, old habits, cost considerations and the pressures to

achieve optimal short-term performance can sometimes stand in

the way of developing a longer term, sustainable strategy. Rotecc

aims to put producers on the right track and, more importantly,

keep them there.”

1 Lille HS. Functional genomics approaches to study host pathogen interactions to mucosal pathogens. Proceedings, Korean Society of Poultry Science Meeting,Suwon, Korea, 2006.

Zoetis launches new coccidiosis initiative

2


26


Pe rc e p t i o n

R e a l i t y

Meat from poultry raised without antibiotics is more wholesome and nutritious than other poultry.

Most commercial poultry producers use antibiotics to treat, control the spread of and prevent common diseases. Some consumers prefermeat from poultry raised without antibiotics for personal or ethical reasons, so many poultry operations now produce meat specifically for this market.

Other than price — brands of meat from birds “raised without antibiotics”tend to cost more — there are no discernable differences in the meatfrom medicated or non-medicated birds.

“There is absolutely no nutritional difference in meat from poultry raisedwithout antibiotics compared to poultry that receive antibiotics,” saysMike Lacy, PhD, professor and head of poultry science at the University of Georgia.

Michele Simon, a public health lawyer who writes the blog eatdrinkpolitics.com, agrees. Reacting to Chick-fil-A’s announcement in February that within 5 years it would no longer sell meat from poultryraised with antibiotics, Simon told The New York Times, “All of this makesfor great PR, but it doesn’t mean the products are necessarily any more nutritious.”

Today all poultry meat that enters the US food supply is, by definition, antibiotic-free or, more specifically, free of antibiotic residues by the time it reaches consumers — regardless of how the birds were raised.

Several safeguards in the food chain make this possible:

First, the USDA Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) routinely inspects all meat for residues of antibiotics, pesticides or environmentalcontaminants. Any meat found to contain violative residues of any substance is automatically rejected.

The poultry industry has also shown that it knows how to use antibioticsresponsibly and judiciously. According to statistics compiled by the National Residue Program administered by FSIS since 2009, no violative antibiotic residues have been found in poultry meat.1 (For a copy of this report, visit fsis.usda.gov and select Topics > Data Collection and Reports.)

When antibiotics are needed in poultry production, the medications are used under veterinary supervision in compliance with regulations established by the US Food and Drug Administration, which determinesacceptable uses, dose rates and administration periods.

FDA has also established strict drug-withdrawal periods, which ensurethat the animal’s system has been sufficiently cleared of antibiotics wellbefore the meat enters the food supply. Furthermore, the agency regularlyaudits feed-mill records to make sure antibiotics are used in compliancewith FDA guidelines.

According to the American Meat Institute, no meat — including meat from birds raised without antibiotics — is ever guaranteed to be free from antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which occur naturally in humans, animals, insects and even plants. However, any foodborne bacteria found on rawpoultry and other meats are destroyed when the meat is cooked at therecommended temperature.2

1 hurd s. it’s all antibiotic-free, baby. 2013 aug. 14. http://hurdhealth.com/2013/08/14/its-all-antibiotic-free-baby/ and Usda data Collection and Reports. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/data-collection-and-reports/chemistry/residue-chemistry2 aMi Fact sheet, antibiotic Use in Livestock Production: ensuring Meat safety.www.meatami.com/ht/a/Getdocumentaction/i/56994

Confidently presenting facts — not defensive rhetoric — can go

a long way toward shaping consumer opinions about commercial

poultry production and the importance of maintaining flock health,

welfare and efficiency. For this special feature, Poultry Health Today

checked into whether poultry raised without antibiotics was more

wholesome than meat from medicated birds.

t e C h n i C a L LY, a l l P o U lT r y i n T h e U S

i s ‘a n t i B i ot i C - F R e e ’

R E A L I T Y C H E C K

REALITY

27

2

New FDA guidelines that discourage

using medically important antibiotics

for promoting growth in food animals

appear to have been well-received by both

producers and most consumer activists.

Both groups agree that antibiotics should

still be used judiciously to treat and

control the spread of disease. However,

some antibiotic hardliners object to the

provision in FDA Guidance Document

213 allowing the continued use of any

antibiotics for disease prevention — an

option they see as a loophole to continue

using them for growth promotion.

As one group, Food and Water Watch,

posted in a recent blog, “Whether for

growth promotion or disease prevention,

the result is the same: This practice

is creating more bacteria resistant to

antibiotics that we need to protect

human health.”1

The authors of the new FDA guidelines,

which allow certain non-medically

important antibiotics to retain

performance claims, apparently don’t

share that view. Nevertheless, such

statements underscore the continued need

for veterinarians to explain and

defend the judicious use of antibiotics

for preventing certain diseases in

food animals.

chickens ‘at risk’

William Flynn, DVM, MS, deputy

director for science policy, Center for

Veterinary Medicine, FDA, insists the

FDA does not condone the willy-nilly

use of antibiotics for preventing disease.

“Disease prevention is not the use of

drugs to prevent whatever disease might

come along. That’s not at all what we’re

talking about here. We wouldn’t consider

that judicious use,” Flynn explains.

“Prevention is when a veterinarian

believes that a flock of chickens, for

example, is at risk of being exposed and

having an outbreak of a disease. Based

on that risk, [the veterinarian makes] the

decision that preventive administration

‘’

P r e v e n t i o n i S w h e n a v e t e r i n a r i a n B e l i e v e S t h a t a f l o c k o f c h i c k e n S ,

f o r e x a m P l e , i S a t r i S k o f B e i n g e x P o S e d a n d h a v i n g a n o U t B r e a k

o f a d i S e a S e . WILL I AM F LYNN , DVM, MS , C ENTER FOR V E T ER INARY MED I C INE , FDA

R U L E S & R E G S

Prevention claims

essential for

ensuring flock

health, welfare



It is widely known that coccidia —

the parasites that cause coccidiosis —

are persistent and that eradicating them

from the poultry-house environment

is difficult, if not impossible. When

coccidia go through their life cycle,

Ritter explains, they cause a bacterial

imbalance in the gut that results in excess

mucus production. The mucus provides

food for C. perfringens, which is a widely

prevalent bacterium found in soil, dust,

feces, feed and litter.

If there is no intervention and

clostridium is allowed to proliferate,

tissues in the gut start to die, resulting

in the condition known as necrotic

enteritis. Chickens suffer and an intense

regimen of therapeutic antibiotics is

required. Mortality can be as high

as 50%.2

To prevent this chain of events, poultry

veterinarians generally recommend

using one of three FDA-approved

antibiotics — bacitracin, bambermycins

or virginiamycin — to prevent necrotic

enteritis from infecting the flock,

Ritter explains.

“We’re going to use the least amount of

antibiotics at targeted times to prevent

and control — and hopefully not treat —

disease. We’re trying to prevent illness

and death from clostridial enteritis before

they occur. This is where prevention

and control of disease is of paramount

importance to a successful poultry-health

and welfare program. Waiting for birds to

get sick is not what veterinarians want to

do,” he says.

Ritter notes that he’s worked extensively

with alternatives to antibiotics and that

the results have been less than stellar for

managing necrotic enteritis.

“The alternatives look good in studies but

just don’t act the same way in the field.

There are no standards for them and

many lack quality control. When we use

something that is not FDA regulated, it’s

the wild, wild West,” he says.

Healthy meat

There’s another important reason for

using antibiotics to prevent disease

outbreaks in poultry: Healthy chickens

provide healthy meat, Ritter says.

In his experience, flocks raised without

antibiotics have a higher rate of clostridial

enteritis infections and necrotic enteritis,

higher mortality and a higher rate of

condemnation at processing than

flocks that received antibiotics.

of an antibiotic is warranted to prevent

the outbreak. There’s knowledge and

experience that goes into that decision,”

Flynn says.

Furthermore, he points out that the

new FDA guidelines will further increase

the involvement of veterinarians when

antibiotics are used in food animals.

animal suffering and death

G. Donald Ritter, DVM, director

of health services for Mountaire Farms,

a major poultry producer based in

Millsboro, Del., points out that using

some antibiotics, including ionophores,

to prevent disease is crucial to protect

animals from needless suffering

and death.

In poultry, Ritter says, the most salient

example of how preventive antibiotics

are used involves clostridial enteritis

and coccidiosis, two common diseases

of the intestines that often appear

together. Enteritis is caused by the

bacterium Clostridium perfringens and

usually occurs while chickens are

battling coccidiosis.

R U L E S & R E G S

Prevention claims

essential for

ensuring flock

health, welfare

28

The late Scott Hurd, DVM, PhD, the

well-known veterinarian from Iowa State

University who became an industry

proponent of judicious antibiotic use

and food safety, maintained that

antibiotic-free-animals could potentially

pose a greater risk to human health.

“Pathogens are a common, unavoidable

part of any environment. Disease

prevention is important for keeping

animals healthy in such an environment.

In the absence of effective prevention,

animals face greater health challenges that

may lead to marginally healthy animals

or subclinical illness,” Hurd posted in his

hurdhealth.com blog last year.

“My research has shown that subclinical

illness is not outwardly obvious to the

producer or inspector but puts animals

at risk for carrying increased levels of

bacteria responsible for foodborne illness,

such as Campylobacter and Salmonella,”

Hurd wrote.

consumer education

Ritter emphasizes the need to educate

consumers about when antibiotics for

food animals are needed and how healthy

meat is produced.

“Issues involving the use of antibiotics

in food animals is in the newspapers,

on the Internet and it’s a major concern

for some of our customers. Many

poultry companies, especially those

that are branded, are already involving

veterinarians by having them talk to

customers. It’s critical that the antibiotic

discussion is complete and transparent,”

he says.

Customers need to understand that the

antibiotics used for gut health are not in

the meat they buy and that flocks need to

be kept healthy to produce healthy meat,

he adds. (See Reality Check, page 26.)

“If you explain this to customers, they

really understand. [They] would rather

buy meat from healthy chickens instead

of from flocks that didn’t receive

antibiotics and are not as healthy. That’s

generally the outcome if the discussion

is thorough,” Ritter says.

1 Borron S. How the FDA’s Voluntary GuidanceFails to Curb Antibiotic Misuse in Livestock.2014 Mar 11.

2 Overview of Necrotic Enteritis in Poultry.Merck Veterinary Manual. Accessed April 15,2014.

3 Hurd S. Is antibiotic free really healthier? Hurd Health: Animal Health and Food Safety.2013 Aug 8.

2

‘ ’w a i t i n g f o r B i r d S t o g e t S i c k i S n o t w h a t v e t e r i n a r i a n S w a n t t o d o .G . DONALD R I T T ER , DVM, MOUNTA IRE FARMS

G . D O N A L D R I T T E R , D V M W I L L I A M F L Y N N , D V M , M S



D I S C O V E R I E S

30

give antimicrobial field trials a second look

Broiler producers should avoid making decisions about antimicrobial use based on studies or field trials involving just one flock, cautions Mark LaVorgna, PhD, director of global technical services, poultry, Zoetis Inc.

In a floor-pen study of three consecutivegrow-out cycles conducted by LaVorgnaand colleagues, broilers were fed either the broad-spectrum antibiotic virginiamycin, bacitracin methylene disalicylate, which has a narrower spectrum, or combinations of both.1

During the first grow-out cycle, the virginiamycin-fed broilers had better feedconversion and processing weight, but bythe third grow-out, their mortality was 4%higher compared to bacitracin-fed broilers,LaVorgna and colleagues found in theirstudy, which was published last year in theJournal of Applied Poultry Research.

“The higher mortality was due primarilyfrom bacterial infection, and while it mayhave been incidental, it could be due to the

broad-spectrum suppression of beneficialmicroflora in the gut by virginiamycin,” he says.

Microbial suppression may help channelenergy to bird growth rather than to microbial proliferation; however, over consecutive grow-out cycles, it may alsocreate gut dysbiosis that makes birds vulnerable to opportunistic infection, LaVorgna says.

He notes that more research is needed to determine if broad-spectrum suppression of lactic acid-producing gutflora is responsible both for increasedweight gain and increased vulnerability to bacterial infection and mortality.

“the higher mortality was due primarily from bacterial infection, and while it may

have been incidental, it could be due to the broad-spectrum suppression of beneficial

microflora in the gut by virginiamycin.” MARK L AVORGNA , PHD

timing may affect accuracy ofin ovo vaccination

The coccidiosis vaccine Inovocox® EM1was more precisely deposited to embryoswhen the vaccine was administered at 18.5versus 19 days of incubation, indicates aZoetis-sponsored study from MississippiState University.2

Investigators injected the vaccine, whichcontains live oocysts of Eimeria acervulina,E. maxima and E. tenella, into broiler eggswith an automated multiple-egg injector at 18.5 or 19 days of incubation. The resultswere compared to those of control eggs injected with a diluent on the same days of incubation, Adebayo Sokale, a graduate

student at Mississippi State University, saidat the 2014 International Poultry Scientific Forum.

Sokale and colleagues evaluated severalvalues after vaccination and found that thevaccine was deposited in the amnion in88% of embryos injected on 18.5 dayscompared to 73% of embryos injected at19 days of incubation, Sokale said.

The scientists noted significantly higherbirthweight (P = 0.002) and yolk-sacweight (P = 0.001) in hatchlings that received the vaccine at 18.5 days of incubation. Relative intestinal weight washighest in chicks injected with the diluentat 19 days of incubation. The mean embryonic-stage score was 2.44 in thegroup vaccinated at 18.5 days and 3.24 in the group vaccinated at 19 days of incubation, the researcher said.

Besides more precise deposition of the vaccine at 18.5 days of incubation, the results indicate that developmental differences occur, depending on the day of administration, that may affect the subsequent response of hatchlings to the coccidiosis vaccine, Sokale said.

1 LaVorgna M, et al. Performance of broilers fed a broader spectrum antibiotic (virginiamycin) or a narrower spectrum antibiotic (bacitracin methylene disalicylate) over 3 consecutivegrowout cycles. J appl Poult Res 2013;22(3): 574-582.

2 sokale a, et. al. Physiological responses of broiler hatchlings tocommercial in ovo coccidiosis vaccine administered on days 18.5and 19.0 of incubation. abstracts, international Poultry scientificForum, atlanta, 2014.

All veterinarians take an oath to use their

“scientific knowledge and skills…for the

protection of animal health and welfare…”

I know most veterinarians involved with ABF programs in the US;

they are all highly skilled and deeply committed to the health and

welfare of the birds under their care. On the other hand, we know

ABF production often increases disease pressure and mortality,

which puts our science-driven profession at an ethical crossroads.

The new FDA antimicrobial guidelines are here — and we all

need to fully understand them. Most of the industry understands

that we can still use feed antibiotics for treating, controlling and

preventing disease. However, some may not appreciate that there

are still non-medically important antibiotics that have retained

their performance claims. FDA has deemed these products safe

and effective. In my opinion, we’d do well to make judicious use

of all of the valuable, time-tested tools available to us.

I don’t have all the answers, but this

much I know: There are more

conversations the poultry industry

needs to have with our consumers.

TIMOTHY CUMMINGS, DVM, PhD

Senior Technical Services [email protected]

31

2



Never say never

As a veterinarian, I’ve been following the

antibiotic-free trend in the US poultry industry

for many years. Not that long ago, the thought

of raising broilers on a large scale without ionophores or other

intestinal health antibiotics would have seemed foolhardy.

But that has changed in recent years, as we’ve learned how best

to grow and manage antibiotic-free (ABF) flocks. This has come

at a cost of lost efficiency for most operations, but these practices

have allowed poultry companies to reduce or eliminate antibiotic

use in a portion or all of their production with varying degrees

of success.

The integrators who implemented ABF production chose to enter

this market — and there are valuable lessons we can learn from

them. But as the industry expands ABF production — a trend born

mostly out of consumer perceptions, not documented public-health

threats — we need to make sure we understand the consequences

of this paradigm shift:

“No” and “never” are strong words to use when talking about

antibiotics in food-animal production. If you don’t want to use

them, fine. But we, as an industry, should not allow using

FDA-approved feed additive medications to somehow be perceived

as producing a product that is less wholesome. That, in essence, is

what happens when ABF is used as a marketing tool.

T H E L A S T W O R D

Poultry Health Today is published by Pr Works and sponsored by the US Poultry business of Zoetis inc. articles, comments and any other materials available through Poultry Health Today and its site do not reflect the opinions or analysis of the sponsor. information available in this publication or on the site does not and should not be relied upon to replace the advice of your own animal-health advisors orthe indications or safety precautions stated on product labels. Send subscription requests, addressupdates and editorial comments to [email protected].

editor: JoSePh feekS

managing editor: diana delmar

news editor: meghan feekS, naTalie knUdSen

digital editor: SUSan SPiegel

art director: SUSanna ronner

Proofreader: rUTh miSie WicZ

© copyright, 2014. articles may be reprinted with written permission of the editor.

Printed on recycled paper

Sponsored by

Editor’s note: For more insights, see the results of Dr. Cummings’ ABF survey in the June 2014 edition of PoultryUSA or at wattagnet.com.

Documents

INNOVATIONS AND PRACTICAL ADVICE FOR SUCCESSFUL …poultryhealthtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/PHT-Issue-2.pdfINNOVATIONS AND PRACTICAL ADVICE FOR SUCCESSFUL FLOCK CARE POULTRY