Image by AJC1 via Flickr![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vidtHcy-Jbat8HMONZrytiZM1zYeQIaN20yLbofDfVaR-KtP4Sfz36SM4EFagMA09nGUw4X5vRXpaa1OIQxwoAfBiuXZoenEmsIgEVRG45262v04DqDv7yoolGNGXppW_pZJV7k0f4NkDApw2EVnE=s0-d)
Monday, December 1, 2008
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uSixTntJA3KYJO1x1G1gn2VRjxUsGkBWhKSLbda_wjGa_KvHAoeqqao7WcHe90mW_FTqkcYzfwWAyYgoJGCckO7IwiD-JN9txGwgyBi1Ix5634peBaQhwgOCyWnfOza6Dx6AxubRX1422VDXnSV7GQ=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vaKFRX8z8MIwxM-dkTj_7SuHlNaHeyzHzPqk_CTClZY503ma0QCAF_iOquqym877ChYxVQpM3-rxj9dBoKF6v3yORN9UPxprvXnHJjaVWGYCSH5lz5CstbxDN1T8lg8gPpxo-oIlxcFGsIUFzG7MqM=s0-d)
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Pet odour - ears
Anytime your pet emits an odd odour, it's worth investigating. Ears are a common source of ugly smells, which often means infection. Infected ears are painful and so quick action is sensible and appreciated by your pet.
Ears get infected for various reasons: their droopy shape creates a greenhouse like environment that bugs like to live in, hairs can clog the canal and limit ventilation or allergies can affect the skin lining the ear canal, making the ear more susceptible to infection.
In addition to bad smells, other signs of a sore ear include:
1. Scratching at the ears
2. The ear canal, normally smooth and pink, is covered in dark muck
3. Head tilted to one side
4. Grumpy when patted around the head
If we find an infected ear, pathology tests can tell us which bug is the problem. Once this is identified, the correct treatment can be prescribed and most conditions can be solved with ear drops.
Chronic Renal Failure
We recommend regular urine and blood testing for senior pets as an important part of keeping them healthy. These tests can pick up problems early, which can then be treated and this often means a better result for the pet.
One of the most common of these conditions we detect is Chronic Renal Failure [CRF], especially in older cats. It involves the gradual deterioration of the kidney leading to a poor ability to concentrate urine, toxin build up in the blood and resulting ill health. Cats with CRF show the following signs:
1. Drinking lots of water
2. Weight loss
3. Poor coat condition
4. Vomiting
The earlier the condition can be detected and treated, the better the outcome for the cat. That's why we may recommend the blood and urine tests for older pets - even if they are not showing the above signs.
Treatment of CRF involves the use of medication and a special food. The medication reduces blood pressure to slow the progression of the disease, helps with water retention and protein losses. The food limits the load on the kidney with low sodium levels and high quality protein.
Hill's* Science Diet* and Prescription Diet* offer a range of foods designed by veterinarians to prevent and manage diseases of the urinary tract. For more information click here
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Chicks: Importance on the First Seven Days to Promote Weight Gain
Steve Leeson, Ph.D., from the University of Guelph, recently revealed new findings on the importance of chick nutritional strategies.
Leeson was sponsored by Alltech, a global leader in animal health, to present his findings at the International Poultry Expo, held in Atlanta, Georgia. His findings exhibited the importance and impact of a comprehensive nutritional strategy for chicks during the first seven days out of the egg, which would in turn yield heavier birds at 42 days.
Leeson reported that a prestarter diet pack encompassing several patented Alltech technologies fed for just the first seven days outside of their shell yielded results such as:
* 34 percent heavier birds at 4 days
* 21 percent heavier birds at 7 days
* 17 percent heavier birds at 21 days
* 12 percent heavier birds at 33 days
* 9 percent heavier birds at 42 days
"Alltech has always been committed to providing natural solutions to the feed and food industries, and this new research supports our product, ‘The 7-Day Charge,´" said Dr. Pearse Lyons, president and founder of Alltech. "Just as all babies – human and animal alike – need strong nutritional foundations for future development, Dr. Leeson has proven that this is true for chicks as well."
Attendees were amazed to hear about the possibility of a bird weighing 200 grams more after 42 days because of a mere seven-day nutritional strategy at the beginning of a bird´s life.
Since 1980, Alltech has provided natural nutritional solutions to the feed and food industries. Alltech´s presence has grown with offices and distributors in 113 countries and more than 1,800 employees around the world.
Published 02/01/2008
Source: Alltech Inc.
Leeson was sponsored by Alltech, a global leader in animal health, to present his findings at the International Poultry Expo, held in Atlanta, Georgia. His findings exhibited the importance and impact of a comprehensive nutritional strategy for chicks during the first seven days out of the egg, which would in turn yield heavier birds at 42 days.
Leeson reported that a prestarter diet pack encompassing several patented Alltech technologies fed for just the first seven days outside of their shell yielded results such as:
* 34 percent heavier birds at 4 days
* 21 percent heavier birds at 7 days
* 17 percent heavier birds at 21 days
* 12 percent heavier birds at 33 days
* 9 percent heavier birds at 42 days
"Alltech has always been committed to providing natural solutions to the feed and food industries, and this new research supports our product, ‘The 7-Day Charge,´" said Dr. Pearse Lyons, president and founder of Alltech. "Just as all babies – human and animal alike – need strong nutritional foundations for future development, Dr. Leeson has proven that this is true for chicks as well."
Attendees were amazed to hear about the possibility of a bird weighing 200 grams more after 42 days because of a mere seven-day nutritional strategy at the beginning of a bird´s life.
Since 1980, Alltech has provided natural nutritional solutions to the feed and food industries. Alltech´s presence has grown with offices and distributors in 113 countries and more than 1,800 employees around the world.
Published 02/01/2008
Source: Alltech Inc.
New Test on Feather Helps Determine Bird Sex
Scientists in Germany are reporting development of test that can answer one of the most frustrating questions in the animal kingdom: "Is that bird a boy or a girl".
Their study, a potential boon to poultry farmers and bird breeders, is scheduled for the Feb. 15 issue of ACS´ Analytical Chemistry, a semi-monthly journal.
Juergen Popp and colleagues point out that the boy-girl question can be difficult to answer in birds that lack distinctive, gender-related plumage.
Since birds lack external genital organs, sexing a bird typically involves endoscopic examination of the animal´s gonads under general anesthesia or specific molecular biological methods. Since these methods are expensive, time-consuming, and stressful for the bird, scientists long have sought a quick, minimal-invasive sexing alternative.
In the new study, researchers describe such a test, which involves analysis of tissue pulp from birds´ feathers using a highly sensitive lab instrument. The method, called ultraviolet-resonance Raman (UVRR) spectroscopy, took less than a minute, and identified the birds´ sex with 95 percent accuracy, the scientists say.
The different DNA content in male and female chicken allows for gender differentiation via its characteristic Raman fingerprint.
Published 02/05/2008
Source: EurekAlert
Their study, a potential boon to poultry farmers and bird breeders, is scheduled for the Feb. 15 issue of ACS´ Analytical Chemistry, a semi-monthly journal.
Juergen Popp and colleagues point out that the boy-girl question can be difficult to answer in birds that lack distinctive, gender-related plumage.
Since birds lack external genital organs, sexing a bird typically involves endoscopic examination of the animal´s gonads under general anesthesia or specific molecular biological methods. Since these methods are expensive, time-consuming, and stressful for the bird, scientists long have sought a quick, minimal-invasive sexing alternative.
In the new study, researchers describe such a test, which involves analysis of tissue pulp from birds´ feathers using a highly sensitive lab instrument. The method, called ultraviolet-resonance Raman (UVRR) spectroscopy, took less than a minute, and identified the birds´ sex with 95 percent accuracy, the scientists say.
The different DNA content in male and female chicken allows for gender differentiation via its characteristic Raman fingerprint.
Published 02/05/2008
Source: EurekAlert
Cannibalism in Birds: Prevention and Treatment
Cannibalism in fowl is a costly and vicious habit that poultry producers can not afford to ignore. It may occur at any age among all breeds, strains and sexes of fowl.
Cannibalism usually occurs when the birds are stressed by a poor management practice. Once becoming stressed, one bird begins picking the feathers, comb, toes or vent of another bird. Once an open wound or blood is visible on the bird, the vicious habit of cannibalism can spread rapidly through the entire flock. If you notice the problem soon after it begins, cannibalism can be held in check. However, if the problem is allowed to get out of hand it can be very costly. Cannibalism will lower the birds value due to torn and damaged flesh, poor feathering and can result in high death losses. Once this habit gets out of hand it is difficult to eliminate.
Since there are numerous reasons for outbreaks of cannibalism, it is important that cannibalism control be a part of your management program.
I. Cannibalism is usually caused by one or more of these conditions:
1. Overcrowding: chicks should be allowed:
1/4 sq. ft./bird for first 2 weeks
1/2 sq. ft./bird for 3-8 weeks
1 sq. ft./bird from 8 to 16 weeks of age
1.5 sq. ft./bird from 16 weeks on
With gamebirds, double the above recommendations. With pheasants, allow 25 to 30 sq.ft./bird after 12 weeks of age or use pick prevention devices.
2. Excessive heat: When the birds become uncomfortably hot they can become extremely cannibalistic. Be sure to adjust the brooding temperature as the young fowl get older.
Brood young fowl at 95°F. for the first week and then decrease the temperature 5°F. per week, until you reach 70°F. or the outside temperature. The temperature should be measured at the height of the birds back directly under the heat source. Do not heat the entire brooding facility to the recommended temperature.
3. Excessive light: Extremely bright light or excessively long periods of light will cause birds to become hostile toward one another. Never use white light bulbs larger than 40 watts to brood fowl. If larger bulbs are required for heat, use red or infra-red bulbs.
In birds 12 weeks of age or older, use 15 or 25 watt bulbs above feeding and watering areas. Don't light fowl more than 16 hours per day. Constant light can be stressful to the birds.
4. Absence of feed or water or a shortage of feeder and waterer space: If the birds have to fight for food and water, or if the birds are always hungry they will increase pecking. Be sure that birds have free access to water and feed at all times.
5. Unbalanced diets: Extremely high energy and low fiber diets cause the birds to be extra active and aggressive. Feed lacking protein and other nutrients, particularly Methionine, will also cause birds to pick feathers. Make sure you feed a diet balanced appropriately for the age and types of fowl you are raising.
6. Mixing of different types and colors of fowl: Mixing different ages of fowl or fowl with different traits promotes pecking by disrupting the flocks normal pecking order. Never brood different species of birds together. Don't brood feathered leg fowl, crested fowl or bearded fowl with fowl without these traits. Curiosity can also start pecking.
7. Abrupt changes in environment or management practices: If you plan to move young birds to a new location, it is best to move some of their feeders and waterers with them in order to help them adapt. When you change over to larger feeders and waterers it is helpful to leave the smaller equipment in the pen for a few days to help during the change.
8. Brightly lit nests or shortage of nesting boxes: Don't place bright lights near the nesting areas. Also, allow 1 nest for every 5 hens. Vent pecking by layers is also a common problem.
9. Allowing cripples, injured or dead birds to remain in a flock: Fowl will pick on cripples or dead birds in their pens because of the social order and curiosity. Once pecking starts it can quickly develop into a vicious habit.
10. Slow feathering birds are most prone to cannibalism: Take extra precautions with slow feathering birds. Most cannibalism occurs during father growth in young fowl. Birds with slow feathering have immature tender feathers exposed for longer periods of time leaving them open to damage from pecking. Don't raise slow feathering birds with other fowl.
II. Additional preventive measures include:
1. Allow the birds to use up their energy in an enclosed outside run. This will keep the birds busy and allow them to peck greens, ground and insects instead of other birds.
2. Give the birds a large handful of fresh greens like clover grass or weeds, each day. This increases the fiber in the birds diet. High fiber diets keep the birds crop full and makes the birds more content.
3. Use of mechanical devices in aggressive birds like gamebirds is advisable.
4. Finally, beak trimming is used in most commercial laying flocks. Trim the beak by remove _ of the tope beak and about 1/3 of the lower beak providing a square tip. This makes it difficult for the birds to harm each other. However, beak trimming should b done by someone experienced in proper trimming.
III. Treatment for a cannibalism outbreak:
Since cannibalism can be caused by several conditions, you may not be able to determine the exact cause of the problem. However, stress no matter how slight, is usually the main factor.
1. Try to correct any practices which may have lead to cannibalism.
2. Darkening the facilities by using red bulbs.
3. Remove any badly injured birds.
4. Applying an "anti-peck" ointment or pine tar on any damaged birds usually stops pecking.
5. Lower the pen temperature a bit if possible.
Don't take chances! Make the cannibalism control part of your management program and you will save a great deal of time and money.
By Phillip J. Clauer, Poultry Extension Specialist, Animal & Poultry Sciences Department
Published 02/06/2008
Source: Virginia Tech Cooperative Extension
Cannibalism usually occurs when the birds are stressed by a poor management practice. Once becoming stressed, one bird begins picking the feathers, comb, toes or vent of another bird. Once an open wound or blood is visible on the bird, the vicious habit of cannibalism can spread rapidly through the entire flock. If you notice the problem soon after it begins, cannibalism can be held in check. However, if the problem is allowed to get out of hand it can be very costly. Cannibalism will lower the birds value due to torn and damaged flesh, poor feathering and can result in high death losses. Once this habit gets out of hand it is difficult to eliminate.
Since there are numerous reasons for outbreaks of cannibalism, it is important that cannibalism control be a part of your management program.
I. Cannibalism is usually caused by one or more of these conditions:
1. Overcrowding: chicks should be allowed:
1/4 sq. ft./bird for first 2 weeks
1/2 sq. ft./bird for 3-8 weeks
1 sq. ft./bird from 8 to 16 weeks of age
1.5 sq. ft./bird from 16 weeks on
With gamebirds, double the above recommendations. With pheasants, allow 25 to 30 sq.ft./bird after 12 weeks of age or use pick prevention devices.
2. Excessive heat: When the birds become uncomfortably hot they can become extremely cannibalistic. Be sure to adjust the brooding temperature as the young fowl get older.
Brood young fowl at 95°F. for the first week and then decrease the temperature 5°F. per week, until you reach 70°F. or the outside temperature. The temperature should be measured at the height of the birds back directly under the heat source. Do not heat the entire brooding facility to the recommended temperature.
3. Excessive light: Extremely bright light or excessively long periods of light will cause birds to become hostile toward one another. Never use white light bulbs larger than 40 watts to brood fowl. If larger bulbs are required for heat, use red or infra-red bulbs.
In birds 12 weeks of age or older, use 15 or 25 watt bulbs above feeding and watering areas. Don't light fowl more than 16 hours per day. Constant light can be stressful to the birds.
4. Absence of feed or water or a shortage of feeder and waterer space: If the birds have to fight for food and water, or if the birds are always hungry they will increase pecking. Be sure that birds have free access to water and feed at all times.
5. Unbalanced diets: Extremely high energy and low fiber diets cause the birds to be extra active and aggressive. Feed lacking protein and other nutrients, particularly Methionine, will also cause birds to pick feathers. Make sure you feed a diet balanced appropriately for the age and types of fowl you are raising.
6. Mixing of different types and colors of fowl: Mixing different ages of fowl or fowl with different traits promotes pecking by disrupting the flocks normal pecking order. Never brood different species of birds together. Don't brood feathered leg fowl, crested fowl or bearded fowl with fowl without these traits. Curiosity can also start pecking.
7. Abrupt changes in environment or management practices: If you plan to move young birds to a new location, it is best to move some of their feeders and waterers with them in order to help them adapt. When you change over to larger feeders and waterers it is helpful to leave the smaller equipment in the pen for a few days to help during the change.
8. Brightly lit nests or shortage of nesting boxes: Don't place bright lights near the nesting areas. Also, allow 1 nest for every 5 hens. Vent pecking by layers is also a common problem.
9. Allowing cripples, injured or dead birds to remain in a flock: Fowl will pick on cripples or dead birds in their pens because of the social order and curiosity. Once pecking starts it can quickly develop into a vicious habit.
10. Slow feathering birds are most prone to cannibalism: Take extra precautions with slow feathering birds. Most cannibalism occurs during father growth in young fowl. Birds with slow feathering have immature tender feathers exposed for longer periods of time leaving them open to damage from pecking. Don't raise slow feathering birds with other fowl.
II. Additional preventive measures include:
1. Allow the birds to use up their energy in an enclosed outside run. This will keep the birds busy and allow them to peck greens, ground and insects instead of other birds.
2. Give the birds a large handful of fresh greens like clover grass or weeds, each day. This increases the fiber in the birds diet. High fiber diets keep the birds crop full and makes the birds more content.
3. Use of mechanical devices in aggressive birds like gamebirds is advisable.
4. Finally, beak trimming is used in most commercial laying flocks. Trim the beak by remove _ of the tope beak and about 1/3 of the lower beak providing a square tip. This makes it difficult for the birds to harm each other. However, beak trimming should b done by someone experienced in proper trimming.
III. Treatment for a cannibalism outbreak:
Since cannibalism can be caused by several conditions, you may not be able to determine the exact cause of the problem. However, stress no matter how slight, is usually the main factor.
1. Try to correct any practices which may have lead to cannibalism.
2. Darkening the facilities by using red bulbs.
3. Remove any badly injured birds.
4. Applying an "anti-peck" ointment or pine tar on any damaged birds usually stops pecking.
5. Lower the pen temperature a bit if possible.
Don't take chances! Make the cannibalism control part of your management program and you will save a great deal of time and money.
By Phillip J. Clauer, Poultry Extension Specialist, Animal & Poultry Sciences Department
Published 02/06/2008
Source: Virginia Tech Cooperative Extension
Salmonella levels in battery eggs, higher
Government study shows Salmonella levels over five times higher in intensive egg production than organic.
The Soil Association can reveal that a recent government survey [1] shows that organic laying hen farms have a significantly lower level of Salmonella. Salmonella is a bacterium that causes one of the commonest forms of food poisoning worldwide. [2]
The study showed that 23.4 per cent of farms with caged hens tested positive for salmonella compared to 4.4 per cent in organic flocks and 6.5 per cent in free-range flocks.
The research also showed that the highest prevalence of salmonella occurred in the largest holding size category (30,000 birds or more). This was over four times the average level of salmonella found in flocks closer to the maximum size allowed under Soil Association organic standards. [3]
These results support Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and his ‘Chicken Out' campaign to improve the welfare standards of chicken production. [4] It also adds weight to the argument that although ‘free-range´ production would certainly be a positive step forward, it is still some way behind the Soil Association's organic poultry systems [5], which ensure truly free range birds and offer the highest standards of animal welfare as acknowledged by respected animal welfare groups such as Compassion in World Farming.
Emma Hockridge, Soil Association policy department said: “Anyone watching Hugh and Jamie reveal the appalling conditions millions of chickens endure in the cramped, windowless sheds of factory farms will be in no doubt that organic and free-range chickens have a better life.
"This research confirms the Soil Association´s view that there are serious potential human health implications from such intensive systems. Whilst Salmonella food poisoning can be avoided through proper cooking of eggs and meat, anything that reduces the incidence of this bug should be encouraged – like genuine free-range, organic farming.”
Notes:
[1] Survey of the prevalence of Salmonella species on commercial laying farms in the United Kingdom Published in The Veterinary Record (2007) 161; 471-476
[2] Around 15,000 cases of Salmonella are reported to the UK´s Health Protection Agency (HPA) each year. http://194.74.226.162/hpa/news/articles/press_releases/2004/041005_salmonella.htm
http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40024928
[3] Intensively farmed chickens reared for meat can be housed in flocks 30 – 40,000 strong. Even the RSPCA´s Freedom Food standards allow 16,000 egg-laying birds per house, and there is no limit on flock size for free-range meat birds.
In contrast, Soil Association organic standards recommend flock sizes of 500 - with absolute maximum flock sizes of 1,000 for meat birds and 2,000 for egg birds allowed only with special permission and additional management measures in place.
[4] Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's Chicken Out campaign: http://www.chickenout.tv
[5] Some battery egg operations have as many as half a million birds. Most battery cages house four or five birds, each with about as much room as an A4 sheet of paper. All animals on Soil Association organic farms must have access to outdoor ranges and pasture, with an emphasis on enabling the animals to express their natural behaviour. Unlike intensively reared birds, organic chickens can't be given routine doses of antibiotics which weaken the animal´s natural immune system so increasing reliance on drugs, as well as being linked to creating antibiotic resistant ‘superbugs´ with serious human health implications.
There are now approximately 29 million egg-layers in the UK over 70 per cent of which are housed in battery cages. Today three-quarters of the UK´s eggs come from fewer than 300 units, each with 20,000 or more layers.
Batteries not included - executive summary
Published 02/07/2008
Source: The Soil Association
The Soil Association can reveal that a recent government survey [1] shows that organic laying hen farms have a significantly lower level of Salmonella. Salmonella is a bacterium that causes one of the commonest forms of food poisoning worldwide. [2]
The study showed that 23.4 per cent of farms with caged hens tested positive for salmonella compared to 4.4 per cent in organic flocks and 6.5 per cent in free-range flocks.
The research also showed that the highest prevalence of salmonella occurred in the largest holding size category (30,000 birds or more). This was over four times the average level of salmonella found in flocks closer to the maximum size allowed under Soil Association organic standards. [3]
These results support Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and his ‘Chicken Out' campaign to improve the welfare standards of chicken production. [4] It also adds weight to the argument that although ‘free-range´ production would certainly be a positive step forward, it is still some way behind the Soil Association's organic poultry systems [5], which ensure truly free range birds and offer the highest standards of animal welfare as acknowledged by respected animal welfare groups such as Compassion in World Farming.
Emma Hockridge, Soil Association policy department said: “Anyone watching Hugh and Jamie reveal the appalling conditions millions of chickens endure in the cramped, windowless sheds of factory farms will be in no doubt that organic and free-range chickens have a better life.
"This research confirms the Soil Association´s view that there are serious potential human health implications from such intensive systems. Whilst Salmonella food poisoning can be avoided through proper cooking of eggs and meat, anything that reduces the incidence of this bug should be encouraged – like genuine free-range, organic farming.”
Notes:
[1] Survey of the prevalence of Salmonella species on commercial laying farms in the United Kingdom Published in The Veterinary Record (2007) 161; 471-476
[2] Around 15,000 cases of Salmonella are reported to the UK´s Health Protection Agency (HPA) each year. http://194.74.226.162/hpa/news/articles/press_releases/2004/041005_salmonella.htm
http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40024928
[3] Intensively farmed chickens reared for meat can be housed in flocks 30 – 40,000 strong. Even the RSPCA´s Freedom Food standards allow 16,000 egg-laying birds per house, and there is no limit on flock size for free-range meat birds.
In contrast, Soil Association organic standards recommend flock sizes of 500 - with absolute maximum flock sizes of 1,000 for meat birds and 2,000 for egg birds allowed only with special permission and additional management measures in place.
[4] Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's Chicken Out campaign: http://www.chickenout.tv
[5] Some battery egg operations have as many as half a million birds. Most battery cages house four or five birds, each with about as much room as an A4 sheet of paper. All animals on Soil Association organic farms must have access to outdoor ranges and pasture, with an emphasis on enabling the animals to express their natural behaviour. Unlike intensively reared birds, organic chickens can't be given routine doses of antibiotics which weaken the animal´s natural immune system so increasing reliance on drugs, as well as being linked to creating antibiotic resistant ‘superbugs´ with serious human health implications.
There are now approximately 29 million egg-layers in the UK over 70 per cent of which are housed in battery cages. Today three-quarters of the UK´s eggs come from fewer than 300 units, each with 20,000 or more layers.
Batteries not included - executive summary
Published 02/07/2008
Source: The Soil Association
Nanoparticle chicken feed developed for healthier final product
Poultry is big business in South Carolina and Clemson University scientists are using nanotechnology to keep the birds and consumers healthy.
The researchers are developing drug-free ways to keep chickens and humans from contracting illnesses.
More than 200 million broilers and layers are raised in the Palmetto State. The industry has moved toward bigger broiler farms with flocks of between 150,000 and 300,000 birds becoming common.
Chickens are susceptible to disease. An illness in a handful of birds can spread throughout a facility housing thousands. Vaccines and medications can be effective but pose risks to growers and consumers. Each flock has particular health and immunity profiles, so chicks from different breeders do not respond to vaccines and diseases the same way. What´s more, bacteria can build up “antibiotic resistance” making the drugs less effective.
For consumers, poultry can harbor bacteria, viruses and fungi that do not affect them but do cause human illnesses, especially when poultry is undercooked or mishandled during food preparation.
Researchers are looking for drug-free alternatives. Clemson scientists have made a promising discovery using nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is tiny science — working with materials 1/100,000th the size of a human hair. Scientists are seeking to shrink materials down to the scale of atoms, creating particles that show promise for making better medicines, faster computers and safer foods.
Jeremy Tzeng and Clemson colleagues Fred Stutzenberger, Robert Latour Jr. and Ya-Ping Sun have built nanoparticles that mimic the host cell surface in poultry and locks to the targeted pathogens. The particles then bind together and are purged through the bowel. Tzeng calls it “intelligent chicken feed.”
"If we use this physical purging, physical removal, we are not using antibiotics so the chance of the microorganism becoming resistant to it is really small,” Tzeng said.
To protect the discovery, Clemson technology transfer officials are patenting it. Tzeng says that it will take more research and testing before the nanoparticle is ready to be used, but in the not-so-distant future, chickens and humans may live better lives due to intelligent chicken feed.
Published 03/06/2008
Source: Clemson University press release
The researchers are developing drug-free ways to keep chickens and humans from contracting illnesses.
More than 200 million broilers and layers are raised in the Palmetto State. The industry has moved toward bigger broiler farms with flocks of between 150,000 and 300,000 birds becoming common.
Chickens are susceptible to disease. An illness in a handful of birds can spread throughout a facility housing thousands. Vaccines and medications can be effective but pose risks to growers and consumers. Each flock has particular health and immunity profiles, so chicks from different breeders do not respond to vaccines and diseases the same way. What´s more, bacteria can build up “antibiotic resistance” making the drugs less effective.
For consumers, poultry can harbor bacteria, viruses and fungi that do not affect them but do cause human illnesses, especially when poultry is undercooked or mishandled during food preparation.
Researchers are looking for drug-free alternatives. Clemson scientists have made a promising discovery using nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is tiny science — working with materials 1/100,000th the size of a human hair. Scientists are seeking to shrink materials down to the scale of atoms, creating particles that show promise for making better medicines, faster computers and safer foods.
Jeremy Tzeng and Clemson colleagues Fred Stutzenberger, Robert Latour Jr. and Ya-Ping Sun have built nanoparticles that mimic the host cell surface in poultry and locks to the targeted pathogens. The particles then bind together and are purged through the bowel. Tzeng calls it “intelligent chicken feed.”
"If we use this physical purging, physical removal, we are not using antibiotics so the chance of the microorganism becoming resistant to it is really small,” Tzeng said.
To protect the discovery, Clemson technology transfer officials are patenting it. Tzeng says that it will take more research and testing before the nanoparticle is ready to be used, but in the not-so-distant future, chickens and humans may live better lives due to intelligent chicken feed.
Published 03/06/2008
Source: Clemson University press release
Free-range, factory chickens 'taste the same'
Expensive free-range, corn-fed and even organic chickens do not taste any better than the average factory-raised chook, according to a CHOICE taste test.
The consumer advocate said the narrow range of fast-maturing breeding stock now used in almost all chicken production makes any differentiation between the meat produced by different methods effectively meaningless.
A panel of four food experts taste-tested eight different roast chickens: two organic, two free-range, one corn-fed and three regular factory-farmed birds.
While there were no significant differences in their scores, all agreed chickens don't have as much taste as they used to.
The chooks, which ranged in price from $3.99 per kg for a regular factory-farmed chicken to $12.50 per kg for organic, were all prepared and cooked without seasoning or stuffing.
CHOICE said the results tie in with international trials, which also indicate consumers can't tell the difference between organic and ordinary chicken breast meat.
CHOICE media spokesperson Christopher Zinn said buying organic or free-range might have other important benefits, such as the birds having a better life, but it doesn't necessarily mean a tastier roast dinner.
"The cook makes much more difference than the way the chicken is raised," he said today.
"Free-range and organic birds are reared with more space and open air, and corn-fed have a high-corn diet, but the differences aren't significant enough to give them more flavour."
Since the 1960s, the time it takes to produce a 2kg chicken has almost halved, from 70 days to about 40.
The exception to this is the organic standard, which specifies organic meat chicken must be grown to maturity over a period of 63 to 70 days.
CHOICE advises the way to finding a chicken with real flavour is to find a smaller producer who uses traditional breeds and lets the chickens live longer.
"Otherwise, buy the largest chicken you can find," said Mr Zinn.
"The bigger it is, the longer its lived and the flavour is likely to be better."
Published 03/07/2008
Source: The Herald Sun Australia
The consumer advocate said the narrow range of fast-maturing breeding stock now used in almost all chicken production makes any differentiation between the meat produced by different methods effectively meaningless.
A panel of four food experts taste-tested eight different roast chickens: two organic, two free-range, one corn-fed and three regular factory-farmed birds.
While there were no significant differences in their scores, all agreed chickens don't have as much taste as they used to.
The chooks, which ranged in price from $3.99 per kg for a regular factory-farmed chicken to $12.50 per kg for organic, were all prepared and cooked without seasoning or stuffing.
CHOICE said the results tie in with international trials, which also indicate consumers can't tell the difference between organic and ordinary chicken breast meat.
CHOICE media spokesperson Christopher Zinn said buying organic or free-range might have other important benefits, such as the birds having a better life, but it doesn't necessarily mean a tastier roast dinner.
"The cook makes much more difference than the way the chicken is raised," he said today.
"Free-range and organic birds are reared with more space and open air, and corn-fed have a high-corn diet, but the differences aren't significant enough to give them more flavour."
Since the 1960s, the time it takes to produce a 2kg chicken has almost halved, from 70 days to about 40.
The exception to this is the organic standard, which specifies organic meat chicken must be grown to maturity over a period of 63 to 70 days.
CHOICE advises the way to finding a chicken with real flavour is to find a smaller producer who uses traditional breeds and lets the chickens live longer.
"Otherwise, buy the largest chicken you can find," said Mr Zinn.
"The bigger it is, the longer its lived and the flavour is likely to be better."
Published 03/07/2008
Source: The Herald Sun Australia
Intestinal Parasites in Backyard Chicken Flocks
Intestinal parasites (worms) are very common in chickens in the backyard type poultry flocks. The presence of a few parasites do not usually cause a problem. However, large numbers can have a devastating effect on growth, egg production, and over-all health. The concentration of parasite eggs in the chickens environment is one factor which plays a major role in determining the severity of the infection. The chickens pick up the parasite eggs directly by ingesting contaminated feed, water, or litter or by eating snails, earthworms, or other insects (intermediate hosts) which can carry the eggs.
Clinical signs of parasitism are unthriftyness, poor growth and feed conversion, decreased egg production, and even death in severe infections. Furthermore, parasites can make the flock less resistant to diseases and exacerbate existing disease conditions.
Of all the intestinal worms, large roundworms (Ascaridia galli) probably inflict the most damage. Young birds are affected more severely. A mild infection is often not noticed. Large numbers of worms, however, interfere with feed absorption causing poor growth and production. In severe infections there can be actual intestinal blockage by the worms, causing death. Affected birds are unthrifty and more susceptible to other diseases. Roundworms are passed from bird to bird by directly ingesting the parasite egg in fecal contaminated feed, water, or litter, or by eating grasshoppers or earthworms carrying the parasite.
Another worm commonly found in chickens is the cecal worm (Heterakis gallinarum). While it rarely causes problems in chickens, its chief economic importance lies in its role as a carrier of the organism Histomonas melegridis, which causes a deadly disease in turkeys known as blackhead. Earthworms ingest the cecal worm egg containing the histomonad organism from the chicken litter. When the earthworms are ingested by the turkeys, they become infected. The cecal worm egg containing the histomonad organism may also be directly ingested by turkeys. Thus, one should never house chickens and turkeys together or allow turkeys on range which chickens have previously occupied.
Other intestinal parasites that cause problems are the small roundworms (Capillaria sp.). These parasites infect the intestines causing hemorrhage and thickening of the intestinal walls, leading to poor feed absorption and poor growth. Small roundworms are passed directly from bird to bird by ingestion of the parasite eggs or by ingestion of earthworms, insects, and other vectors carrying the parasite. Tapeworms are also very common, but unlike other worms must be passed through an intermediate host, such as a snail, slug, earthworm, beetle or fly.
Prevention and control of worm infestations in backyard poultry flocks involves proper management of diet, sanitation, and treatment. Chickens need a proper diet, especially an adequate supply of vitamins A and the B complex. A deficiency in these has been shown to increase the susceptibility to parasitism.
1. Thorough removal of litter between flocks of chickens.
2. Keep litter as dry as possible.
3. Avoid overcrowding.
4. Keep wild birds, pigeons and other birds away from chickens. They may be infected and shedding the worm eggs.
5. Provide adequate drainage of ranges and move shelters frequently to decrease accumulation of droppings.
6. Keep birds off freshly plowed ground where ingestion of earthworms and other insects is more likely.
7. Use insecticides to control insect populations.
The treatment of chickens to control intestinal parasites can benefit the grower by decreasing parasite levels in heavily infected birds. This will result in a decrease in the build-up of parasite eggs in the environment. Specific worm infections require specific medications. A determination of which worms are affecting your chickens should be made by your veterinarian prior to treatment. Proper use of medication in combination with sound management and sanitation practices should limit production losses from intestinal worms.
By Gary D. Butcher, D.V.M., Ph.D. and Richard D. Miles, Ph.D.
Footnotes
1. This document is VM76, one of a series of the Veterinary Medicine-Large Animal Clinical Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Original publication date January, 1992. Reviewed May, 2003. Visit the EDIS Web Site.
2. Gary D. Butcher, D.V.M., Ph.D., Poultry Veterinarian, and Richard D. Miles, Ph.D. Poultry Nutritionist, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611.
Published 03/14/2008
Source: University of Florida IFAS
Clinical signs of parasitism are unthriftyness, poor growth and feed conversion, decreased egg production, and even death in severe infections. Furthermore, parasites can make the flock less resistant to diseases and exacerbate existing disease conditions.
Of all the intestinal worms, large roundworms (Ascaridia galli) probably inflict the most damage. Young birds are affected more severely. A mild infection is often not noticed. Large numbers of worms, however, interfere with feed absorption causing poor growth and production. In severe infections there can be actual intestinal blockage by the worms, causing death. Affected birds are unthrifty and more susceptible to other diseases. Roundworms are passed from bird to bird by directly ingesting the parasite egg in fecal contaminated feed, water, or litter, or by eating grasshoppers or earthworms carrying the parasite.
Another worm commonly found in chickens is the cecal worm (Heterakis gallinarum). While it rarely causes problems in chickens, its chief economic importance lies in its role as a carrier of the organism Histomonas melegridis, which causes a deadly disease in turkeys known as blackhead. Earthworms ingest the cecal worm egg containing the histomonad organism from the chicken litter. When the earthworms are ingested by the turkeys, they become infected. The cecal worm egg containing the histomonad organism may also be directly ingested by turkeys. Thus, one should never house chickens and turkeys together or allow turkeys on range which chickens have previously occupied.
Other intestinal parasites that cause problems are the small roundworms (Capillaria sp.). These parasites infect the intestines causing hemorrhage and thickening of the intestinal walls, leading to poor feed absorption and poor growth. Small roundworms are passed directly from bird to bird by ingestion of the parasite eggs or by ingestion of earthworms, insects, and other vectors carrying the parasite. Tapeworms are also very common, but unlike other worms must be passed through an intermediate host, such as a snail, slug, earthworm, beetle or fly.
Prevention and control of worm infestations in backyard poultry flocks involves proper management of diet, sanitation, and treatment. Chickens need a proper diet, especially an adequate supply of vitamins A and the B complex. A deficiency in these has been shown to increase the susceptibility to parasitism.
1. Thorough removal of litter between flocks of chickens.
2. Keep litter as dry as possible.
3. Avoid overcrowding.
4. Keep wild birds, pigeons and other birds away from chickens. They may be infected and shedding the worm eggs.
5. Provide adequate drainage of ranges and move shelters frequently to decrease accumulation of droppings.
6. Keep birds off freshly plowed ground where ingestion of earthworms and other insects is more likely.
7. Use insecticides to control insect populations.
The treatment of chickens to control intestinal parasites can benefit the grower by decreasing parasite levels in heavily infected birds. This will result in a decrease in the build-up of parasite eggs in the environment. Specific worm infections require specific medications. A determination of which worms are affecting your chickens should be made by your veterinarian prior to treatment. Proper use of medication in combination with sound management and sanitation practices should limit production losses from intestinal worms.
By Gary D. Butcher, D.V.M., Ph.D. and Richard D. Miles, Ph.D.
Footnotes
1. This document is VM76, one of a series of the Veterinary Medicine-Large Animal Clinical Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Original publication date January, 1992. Reviewed May, 2003. Visit the EDIS Web Site.
2. Gary D. Butcher, D.V.M., Ph.D., Poultry Veterinarian, and Richard D. Miles, Ph.D. Poultry Nutritionist, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611.
Published 03/14/2008
Source: University of Florida IFAS
Cooling Chicken with Air, Rather than Water, Improves Flavor
Air-chilled is red hot.
In the world of poultry, natural, free-range and organic have become all-too familiar labels. Now, look for another one at high-end grocery stores near you: air-chilled.
The air-chilling process, common in Western Europe for more than 45 years, is still fairly new in the United States. It refers to a specific method used to cool chickens after slaughtering. Most chickens in this country are processed by being immersed in ice water. By contrast, air-chilling cools chickens by blasting them with cold air.
Air vs. water? Is there really such a huge difference? Many retailers think so. Since January, Whole Foods has been steadily converting all of its full-service meat counters in Northern California to sell only air-chilled chicken. Last week, all Bay Area Andronico's started carrying a full line of locally raised, air-chilled chicken.
San Jose meat wholesaler Bassian Farms hopes to begin selling its own brand of air-chilled chicken to Bay Area restaurants this summer. And Niman Ranch, known for its sustainable and humanely raised meats, is expected to start selling an air-chilled French heritage chicken called Poulet Rouge Fermiere in April. It will be the company's first chicken product.
"I do prefer this type of chicken. Whenever I can find them, I buy them," says San Francisco food scientist Harold McGee, author of the fundamental "On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen" (Scribner, 896 pp., $40), who became a fan of air-chilled chicken when he lived in France.
"The basic fact that you're not adding anything extraneous to the chicken is the most important to me. If you're buying chicken, you want chicken - not chicken with ice water."
Fans of air-chilled chicken, which carries a retail price close to that of organic chicken, tout its top selling points: safety and flavor, along with texture.
Chilled separately
Because air-chilled chickens are handled separately, rather than placed together into a large vat of ice water, proponents believe these chickens are apt to harbor less bacteria from cross-contamination. Studies, however, have not always concurred.
Supporters also believe air-chilled poultry tastes more "chickeny." Because air-chilled chicken isn't ever submerged in water, it absorbs less liquid, which fans say leaves the real taste of the chicken undiluted.
In comparison, studies have shown that water-chilled chicken sucks up anywhere from 2 to 12 percent of its weight on average in added moisture. And most of that ends up in the skin, McGee says, making it much more difficult to achieve a crisp bird when cooking.
I found that to be the case when I roasted a Fulton Valley Farms organic chicken ($2.69 per pound at Lunardi's) side by side with a Field to Family air-chilled chicken ($2.49 per pound at Whole Foods). Both chickens were raised on similar diets by the same group of Central Valley family ranchers.
Uncooked, the Fulton Valley chicken looked glossier and plumper, while the air-chilled had a more matte appearance with tighter skin. After roasting, both birds emerged juicy. But the air-chilled had much crisper skin and firmer flesh.
As for taste, it was a close call. The air-chilled might have had an iota more flavor, but I knew ahead of time which bird was which. My husband, who tasted them blind, thought both chickens were equally flavorful.
When it comes to chicken in this country, our appetite has been relentless. Per capita consumption has been growing steadily since 1970. In 2006, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average person consumed 88.2 pounds of chicken.
Of about 200 chicken processing plants in the United States, only a handful use the air-chill method, according to Richard Lobb, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based National Chicken Council, a trade group for the nation's largest chicken companies.
MBA Smart Chicken of Nebraska became the first in the country to do so in 1998. Pitman Farms of Fresno became the first on the West Coast two years ago, when it debuted its "Mary's Air-Chilled" chicken, which is now sold at Andronico's in the Bay Area, Bristol Farms in San Francisco (under the Bristol Farms label) and Southern California Whole Foods stores.
Mark Dommen, chef-partner of One Market restaurant in San Francisco, is a fan of the Mary's air-chilled chicken. The restaurant had featured it in the evenings, spit-roasted in the wood-burning oven, until Dommen reluctantly took it off the menu because the restaurant wasn't selling much chicken in general at night.
"I thought it was really good, very rich tasting," Dommen says. "It was definitely worth the extra price."
Today, about 50 percent of all chickens raised and processed by Pitman Farms are air-chilled, according to co-owner Mary Pitman, whose family spent seven figures to build its air-chilling facility.
"It's the new wave," she says. "There's just been a huge demand by retailers. They all want to sell something that's different."
After a chicken is slaughtered, the USDA requires that the carcass temperature be lowered within four hours to at least 40 degrees to retard the growth of bacteria. For the majority of chicken in this country, that means water chilling. The birds are put into a large communal vat of chlorinated ice water to bring down their body temperature - about an hourlong process.
In contrast, air-chilling takes about three hours. After the chickens are slaughtered, and sprayed with chlorinated water inside and out, they are whisked one by one along a mile or more of track through chambers in which they are misted with cold air.
Air-chilling saves water, but it does result in higher electricity costs. Whether air-chilled chicken is safer is not really clear.
Comparing methods
A USDA-sponsored study by the University of Nebraska in 2000 found that 350 air-chilled chickens had about 20 percent less bacteria (such as salmonella and campylobacter) than the same number of water-cooled poultry. That study, though, examined only one air-chilling plant and one water-immersion plant.
In January 2008, Consumer Reports found that of 28 store-bought, air-chilled chickens processed by Pennsylvania's Bell & Evans, five had salmonella and 19 had campylobacter. (Both bacteria can cause illness, and both are killed by cooking. Chicken should be cooked to an internal temperature of at least 165 degrees.)
And last year in an article in the Journal of Food Protection, researchers concluded that both water-immersion and air-chilling significantly reduced bacterial concentrations; in other words, one process was not necessarily more effective than the other.
Regardless, some consumers seem willing to give the new chicken a try. Although sales were initially slow as consumers had to be educated about the product, Whole Foods in Los Altos now has seen a 15 percent increase in the sales of chicken since the air-chilled products were introduced in February, says Dan Neuerburg, regional meat coordinator for Whole Foods.
Whether it remains merely a niche product is hard to tell. Overall, the specialty market segment (organic and air-chilled) is only a fraction of 1 percent of the entire chicken industry, the Chicken Council's Lobb says. He doesn't believe it will grow significantly, either, because the vast majority of Americans are content to eat bargain-priced poultry.
Food scientist McGee agrees. "I don't think air-chilled chickens will ever be the standard. But I'm sure consumers who are aware of the difference will gravitate toward them. They are just so much better."
Published 03/18/2008
Source: San Jose Mercury News
In the world of poultry, natural, free-range and organic have become all-too familiar labels. Now, look for another one at high-end grocery stores near you: air-chilled.
The air-chilling process, common in Western Europe for more than 45 years, is still fairly new in the United States. It refers to a specific method used to cool chickens after slaughtering. Most chickens in this country are processed by being immersed in ice water. By contrast, air-chilling cools chickens by blasting them with cold air.
Air vs. water? Is there really such a huge difference? Many retailers think so. Since January, Whole Foods has been steadily converting all of its full-service meat counters in Northern California to sell only air-chilled chicken. Last week, all Bay Area Andronico's started carrying a full line of locally raised, air-chilled chicken.
San Jose meat wholesaler Bassian Farms hopes to begin selling its own brand of air-chilled chicken to Bay Area restaurants this summer. And Niman Ranch, known for its sustainable and humanely raised meats, is expected to start selling an air-chilled French heritage chicken called Poulet Rouge Fermiere in April. It will be the company's first chicken product.
"I do prefer this type of chicken. Whenever I can find them, I buy them," says San Francisco food scientist Harold McGee, author of the fundamental "On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen" (Scribner, 896 pp., $40), who became a fan of air-chilled chicken when he lived in France.
"The basic fact that you're not adding anything extraneous to the chicken is the most important to me. If you're buying chicken, you want chicken - not chicken with ice water."
Fans of air-chilled chicken, which carries a retail price close to that of organic chicken, tout its top selling points: safety and flavor, along with texture.
Chilled separately
Because air-chilled chickens are handled separately, rather than placed together into a large vat of ice water, proponents believe these chickens are apt to harbor less bacteria from cross-contamination. Studies, however, have not always concurred.
Supporters also believe air-chilled poultry tastes more "chickeny." Because air-chilled chicken isn't ever submerged in water, it absorbs less liquid, which fans say leaves the real taste of the chicken undiluted.
In comparison, studies have shown that water-chilled chicken sucks up anywhere from 2 to 12 percent of its weight on average in added moisture. And most of that ends up in the skin, McGee says, making it much more difficult to achieve a crisp bird when cooking.
I found that to be the case when I roasted a Fulton Valley Farms organic chicken ($2.69 per pound at Lunardi's) side by side with a Field to Family air-chilled chicken ($2.49 per pound at Whole Foods). Both chickens were raised on similar diets by the same group of Central Valley family ranchers.
Uncooked, the Fulton Valley chicken looked glossier and plumper, while the air-chilled had a more matte appearance with tighter skin. After roasting, both birds emerged juicy. But the air-chilled had much crisper skin and firmer flesh.
As for taste, it was a close call. The air-chilled might have had an iota more flavor, but I knew ahead of time which bird was which. My husband, who tasted them blind, thought both chickens were equally flavorful.
When it comes to chicken in this country, our appetite has been relentless. Per capita consumption has been growing steadily since 1970. In 2006, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average person consumed 88.2 pounds of chicken.
Of about 200 chicken processing plants in the United States, only a handful use the air-chill method, according to Richard Lobb, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based National Chicken Council, a trade group for the nation's largest chicken companies.
MBA Smart Chicken of Nebraska became the first in the country to do so in 1998. Pitman Farms of Fresno became the first on the West Coast two years ago, when it debuted its "Mary's Air-Chilled" chicken, which is now sold at Andronico's in the Bay Area, Bristol Farms in San Francisco (under the Bristol Farms label) and Southern California Whole Foods stores.
Mark Dommen, chef-partner of One Market restaurant in San Francisco, is a fan of the Mary's air-chilled chicken. The restaurant had featured it in the evenings, spit-roasted in the wood-burning oven, until Dommen reluctantly took it off the menu because the restaurant wasn't selling much chicken in general at night.
"I thought it was really good, very rich tasting," Dommen says. "It was definitely worth the extra price."
Today, about 50 percent of all chickens raised and processed by Pitman Farms are air-chilled, according to co-owner Mary Pitman, whose family spent seven figures to build its air-chilling facility.
"It's the new wave," she says. "There's just been a huge demand by retailers. They all want to sell something that's different."
After a chicken is slaughtered, the USDA requires that the carcass temperature be lowered within four hours to at least 40 degrees to retard the growth of bacteria. For the majority of chicken in this country, that means water chilling. The birds are put into a large communal vat of chlorinated ice water to bring down their body temperature - about an hourlong process.
In contrast, air-chilling takes about three hours. After the chickens are slaughtered, and sprayed with chlorinated water inside and out, they are whisked one by one along a mile or more of track through chambers in which they are misted with cold air.
Air-chilling saves water, but it does result in higher electricity costs. Whether air-chilled chicken is safer is not really clear.
Comparing methods
A USDA-sponsored study by the University of Nebraska in 2000 found that 350 air-chilled chickens had about 20 percent less bacteria (such as salmonella and campylobacter) than the same number of water-cooled poultry. That study, though, examined only one air-chilling plant and one water-immersion plant.
In January 2008, Consumer Reports found that of 28 store-bought, air-chilled chickens processed by Pennsylvania's Bell & Evans, five had salmonella and 19 had campylobacter. (Both bacteria can cause illness, and both are killed by cooking. Chicken should be cooked to an internal temperature of at least 165 degrees.)
And last year in an article in the Journal of Food Protection, researchers concluded that both water-immersion and air-chilling significantly reduced bacterial concentrations; in other words, one process was not necessarily more effective than the other.
Regardless, some consumers seem willing to give the new chicken a try. Although sales were initially slow as consumers had to be educated about the product, Whole Foods in Los Altos now has seen a 15 percent increase in the sales of chicken since the air-chilled products were introduced in February, says Dan Neuerburg, regional meat coordinator for Whole Foods.
Whether it remains merely a niche product is hard to tell. Overall, the specialty market segment (organic and air-chilled) is only a fraction of 1 percent of the entire chicken industry, the Chicken Council's Lobb says. He doesn't believe it will grow significantly, either, because the vast majority of Americans are content to eat bargain-priced poultry.
Food scientist McGee agrees. "I don't think air-chilled chickens will ever be the standard. But I'm sure consumers who are aware of the difference will gravitate toward them. They are just so much better."
Published 03/18/2008
Source: San Jose Mercury News
Flies and Salmonella: A Bad Combo in Poultry Houses
Flies may be more than a mere nuisance. They may also spread food poisoning bacteria like Salmonella enteritidis to chickens and their eggs.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) microbiologist Peter S. Holt and entomologist Christopher J. Geden found that the common housefly, Musca domestica, readily picks up bacteria from its surroundings. When the chickens eat the flies, the bacteria get inside the birds. Holt works in the Egg Safety and Quality Research Unit at the ARS Richard B. Russell Research Center in Athens, Ga., while Geden is at the ARS Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology in Gainesville, Fla.
“We decided to investigate whether infected hens could pass the infection on to flies,” says Holt, “and whether those flies could then infect healthy birds. If so, we wanted to see how that happens and where the Salmonella bacteria appear on—and in—the flies.”
In three experiments, Holt placed chickens in individual, adjacent laying cages. Geden delivered fly pupae just 48 hours short of hatching as flies; this timing ensures the flies aren't exposed to any microbe prior to emergence. The fly pupae were placed in an open box in the bird room. Three days later, hens were orally infected with Salmonella.
The researchers detected the bacteria in and on 45 to 50 percent of the flies within the first 48 hours of the flies' hatching.
Next, uninfected hens were exposed to the newly infected flies. Just being around the flies didn't cause healthy birds to become infected, but eating infected flies did. This showed that simple physical contact may not be the primary method of transfer of Salmonella bacteria to different surfaces in a poultry house. But, according to the researchers, a hen's eating of contaminated flies does seem to be the primary mechanism of transmission of Salmonella from flies to birds.
According to Holt, this shows that flies in poultry houses are not only a nuisance, but also a threat to the safety of poultry products.
Published 03/20/2008
Source: USDA Agricultural Research Service
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) microbiologist Peter S. Holt and entomologist Christopher J. Geden found that the common housefly, Musca domestica, readily picks up bacteria from its surroundings. When the chickens eat the flies, the bacteria get inside the birds. Holt works in the Egg Safety and Quality Research Unit at the ARS Richard B. Russell Research Center in Athens, Ga., while Geden is at the ARS Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology in Gainesville, Fla.
“We decided to investigate whether infected hens could pass the infection on to flies,” says Holt, “and whether those flies could then infect healthy birds. If so, we wanted to see how that happens and where the Salmonella bacteria appear on—and in—the flies.”
In three experiments, Holt placed chickens in individual, adjacent laying cages. Geden delivered fly pupae just 48 hours short of hatching as flies; this timing ensures the flies aren't exposed to any microbe prior to emergence. The fly pupae were placed in an open box in the bird room. Three days later, hens were orally infected with Salmonella.
The researchers detected the bacteria in and on 45 to 50 percent of the flies within the first 48 hours of the flies' hatching.
Next, uninfected hens were exposed to the newly infected flies. Just being around the flies didn't cause healthy birds to become infected, but eating infected flies did. This showed that simple physical contact may not be the primary method of transfer of Salmonella bacteria to different surfaces in a poultry house. But, according to the researchers, a hen's eating of contaminated flies does seem to be the primary mechanism of transmission of Salmonella from flies to birds.
According to Holt, this shows that flies in poultry houses are not only a nuisance, but also a threat to the safety of poultry products.
Published 03/20/2008
Source: USDA Agricultural Research Service
Hatchery Management Seminar by Jamesway Incubator Co.
Jamesway is pleased to invite you to our Hatchery Management Seminar being held in Raleigh, NC, April 8th - 10th, 2008.
This seminar is designed for everyone associated with hatching and all aspects of hatchery operations and management.
Included in the seminar will be presentations and interactive discussions by industry specialists, university professors and other industry related guest speakers.
Our program will cover the following topics:
• Economic Outlook / Industry Trends
• Egg Handling
• Incubation Effect on Health
• Platinum Hatchery Experiences
• Hatchery Efficiency
• In Ovo Technology
• Multi-stage Operations
• Single Stage Operations
• Monitoring Ventilation
• Hatchcom III
• Hatchery Tour
There will be a Hatchery Tour on Thursday, April 10th to Prestage Farms Turkey Hatchery in Clinton, NC.
For both golfers and non-golfers, there will be a fun-filled Best Ball golf tournament. Here's your chance to mingle with your colleagues in the industry as well as with your hosts from Jamesway. The golf tournament will take place on Tuesday, April 8th starting at 12:00 PM at the Wildwood Green Golf Club.
Jamesway Hatchery Management Seminar Program
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
11:30 am – Assemble Embassy Suites for Transport to Wildwood Green Golf Club
12:00 Noon – Tee Off or Shot Gun Start – Box Lunch Provided.
7:00 pm – 8:30 pm - Welcome Cocktail Reception (Hors D´oeuvres) and Sign-In
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
7:00 am – 8:00 am - Buffet Breakfast and Sign In
8:00 am – 8:15 am - Welcome -Dr. Ian MacKinnon, President, Jamesway Incubator
8:15 am – 9:15 am - Keynote Speaker – Economic Trends and Outlooks: Dr. Paul W. Aho, Poultry Perspective
9:15 am – 10:00 am - Hatching Egg Handling and Care: - Dr. Keith Bramwell, University of Arkansas
10:00 am – 10:30 am - Break
10:30 am – 11:15 am - Incubation Temperature Influence on Leg Health: Dr. Edgar Oviedo, North Carolina State University
11:15 am – 12:00 pm - Platinum Installations in California: Sam Collup, Foster Farms
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm - Buffet Lunch
1:00 pm – 1:45 pm - In Ovo Techonology: Chris Williams, Pfizer Animal Health
1:45 pm – 2:30 pm - Hatchcom III -Linet Price, Jamesway Incubator Company Inc.
2:30 pm – 3:00 pm - Break
General Session
3:00 pm – 3:45 pm - Multi Stage Operations & Troubleshooting: Jim Arthur, Hatchery Specialist, Aviagen
Turkey Session
3:00 pm – 3:45 pm - Incubation Effects on Poult Quality: Dr. Vern Christensen, North Carolina State University
General Session
3:45 pm – 4:30 pm - Genetic Traits and Incubation: Danny Eiland, Jamesway Incubator Company
Turkey Session
3:45 pm – 4:30 pm - Platinum Hatchery Experiences - Turkey: Summer Russell, Prestage Farms
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - Continued
5:30 pm – 6:45 pm - Managers Reception @ Embassy Suites
7:00 pm – 8:30 pm - Dinner at 1705 Prime Chop House
Thursday, April 10, 2008
6:30 am – 8:00 am - Buffet Breakfast
8:00 am – 8:45 am - Multi-Stage Operations: Jerry Garrison, Jamesway Incubator Company
8:45 am – 9:30 am - Multi-Stage Operations: Jerry Garrison, Jamesway Incubator Company
9:30 am – 10:15 am - Controlling Ventilation: Jerry Leyte, Jamesway Incubator Company
10:15 am – 10:30 am - Break
10:30 am – 11:15 am - Hatchery Efficiency: Scott Martin, Cobb-Vantress
11:15 am – 12:00 pm - Hatchery Biosecurity / Sanitation: Jay Husman, Jamesway Incubator Company
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm - Buffet Lunch
1:00 pm – 5:00 pm - Tour of Prestage Farms Turkey Hatchery: Clinton, NC (Transportation from Embassy Suites and back provided by Jamesway)
5:00 pm - Departure
Published 03/27/2008
Source: Jamesway Incubator Co. Inc.
This seminar is designed for everyone associated with hatching and all aspects of hatchery operations and management.
Included in the seminar will be presentations and interactive discussions by industry specialists, university professors and other industry related guest speakers.
Our program will cover the following topics:
• Economic Outlook / Industry Trends
• Egg Handling
• Incubation Effect on Health
• Platinum Hatchery Experiences
• Hatchery Efficiency
• In Ovo Technology
• Multi-stage Operations
• Single Stage Operations
• Monitoring Ventilation
• Hatchcom III
• Hatchery Tour
There will be a Hatchery Tour on Thursday, April 10th to Prestage Farms Turkey Hatchery in Clinton, NC.
For both golfers and non-golfers, there will be a fun-filled Best Ball golf tournament. Here's your chance to mingle with your colleagues in the industry as well as with your hosts from Jamesway. The golf tournament will take place on Tuesday, April 8th starting at 12:00 PM at the Wildwood Green Golf Club.
Jamesway Hatchery Management Seminar Program
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
11:30 am – Assemble Embassy Suites for Transport to Wildwood Green Golf Club
12:00 Noon – Tee Off or Shot Gun Start – Box Lunch Provided.
7:00 pm – 8:30 pm - Welcome Cocktail Reception (Hors D´oeuvres) and Sign-In
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
7:00 am – 8:00 am - Buffet Breakfast and Sign In
8:00 am – 8:15 am - Welcome -Dr. Ian MacKinnon, President, Jamesway Incubator
8:15 am – 9:15 am - Keynote Speaker – Economic Trends and Outlooks: Dr. Paul W. Aho, Poultry Perspective
9:15 am – 10:00 am - Hatching Egg Handling and Care: - Dr. Keith Bramwell, University of Arkansas
10:00 am – 10:30 am - Break
10:30 am – 11:15 am - Incubation Temperature Influence on Leg Health: Dr. Edgar Oviedo, North Carolina State University
11:15 am – 12:00 pm - Platinum Installations in California: Sam Collup, Foster Farms
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm - Buffet Lunch
1:00 pm – 1:45 pm - In Ovo Techonology: Chris Williams, Pfizer Animal Health
1:45 pm – 2:30 pm - Hatchcom III -Linet Price, Jamesway Incubator Company Inc.
2:30 pm – 3:00 pm - Break
General Session
3:00 pm – 3:45 pm - Multi Stage Operations & Troubleshooting: Jim Arthur, Hatchery Specialist, Aviagen
Turkey Session
3:00 pm – 3:45 pm - Incubation Effects on Poult Quality: Dr. Vern Christensen, North Carolina State University
General Session
3:45 pm – 4:30 pm - Genetic Traits and Incubation: Danny Eiland, Jamesway Incubator Company
Turkey Session
3:45 pm – 4:30 pm - Platinum Hatchery Experiences - Turkey: Summer Russell, Prestage Farms
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 - Continued
5:30 pm – 6:45 pm - Managers Reception @ Embassy Suites
7:00 pm – 8:30 pm - Dinner at 1705 Prime Chop House
Thursday, April 10, 2008
6:30 am – 8:00 am - Buffet Breakfast
8:00 am – 8:45 am - Multi-Stage Operations: Jerry Garrison, Jamesway Incubator Company
8:45 am – 9:30 am - Multi-Stage Operations: Jerry Garrison, Jamesway Incubator Company
9:30 am – 10:15 am - Controlling Ventilation: Jerry Leyte, Jamesway Incubator Company
10:15 am – 10:30 am - Break
10:30 am – 11:15 am - Hatchery Efficiency: Scott Martin, Cobb-Vantress
11:15 am – 12:00 pm - Hatchery Biosecurity / Sanitation: Jay Husman, Jamesway Incubator Company
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm - Buffet Lunch
1:00 pm – 5:00 pm - Tour of Prestage Farms Turkey Hatchery: Clinton, NC (Transportation from Embassy Suites and back provided by Jamesway)
5:00 pm - Departure
Published 03/27/2008
Source: Jamesway Incubator Co. Inc.
Wood-based litter protects against Marek´s Disease virus
A Poultry CRC-funded epidemiological survey of Australian broiler flocks has indicated that one of the protective factors against Marek's Disease virus may be the use of wood-based litter1.
A survey of farms across the Australian broiler industry was conducted to establish the prevalence of serotype 1 Marek´s Disease virus (MDV1) in dust collected from the sheds at the end of the batch and to identify risk factors associated with this prevalence.
The survey included up to 4 sheds on each of 72 farms (288 sheds in total) involving 8 broiler companies. Industry cooperation was exceptional with a 90% response rate and all states were included.
Data were collected using a comprehensive management and performance questionnaire covering factors including proximity to other farms, biosecurity practices, hygiene, HVT vaccination, shed design and ventilation, brooding, bird density, chicken strain and bird performance (mortality, growth rate, FCR).
Factors identified as significant risk factors for the presence of MDV1 in dust were birds hatched in summer-autumn, farms with more than 4 sheds and farms with another chicken farm within 2 km.
The provision of clothing for visitors on farm and using wood-based litter (compared to straw or rice hulls) were found to be protective against the presence of MDV1 in dust.
MDV1 was not ubiquitous on broiler farms, contrary to conventional wisdom.
Poultry CRC CEO, Mingan Choct, said industry is already successfully using results from Project 3-27, which investigated dustbath materials for health and welfare in layers.
“The litter material is usually the first point of contact for the birds in the shed and therefore it becomes the first ‘food´ item for them,” said Mingan.
“As we have shown, birds eat a significant amount of litter, and hard litter materials, such as wood shavings, are good for gut development.”
“A more robust gut usually means a more resilient animal.”
1. AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF MDV IN AUSTRALIAN BROILER FLOCKS, Groves PJ, Walkden-Brown SW, Fakhrul Islam AFM, Reynolds PS, King ML, Sharpe SM, 2008.
Published 03/27/2008
Source: Australia Poultry CRC
A survey of farms across the Australian broiler industry was conducted to establish the prevalence of serotype 1 Marek´s Disease virus (MDV1) in dust collected from the sheds at the end of the batch and to identify risk factors associated with this prevalence.
The survey included up to 4 sheds on each of 72 farms (288 sheds in total) involving 8 broiler companies. Industry cooperation was exceptional with a 90% response rate and all states were included.
Data were collected using a comprehensive management and performance questionnaire covering factors including proximity to other farms, biosecurity practices, hygiene, HVT vaccination, shed design and ventilation, brooding, bird density, chicken strain and bird performance (mortality, growth rate, FCR).
Factors identified as significant risk factors for the presence of MDV1 in dust were birds hatched in summer-autumn, farms with more than 4 sheds and farms with another chicken farm within 2 km.
The provision of clothing for visitors on farm and using wood-based litter (compared to straw or rice hulls) were found to be protective against the presence of MDV1 in dust.
MDV1 was not ubiquitous on broiler farms, contrary to conventional wisdom.
Poultry CRC CEO, Mingan Choct, said industry is already successfully using results from Project 3-27, which investigated dustbath materials for health and welfare in layers.
“The litter material is usually the first point of contact for the birds in the shed and therefore it becomes the first ‘food´ item for them,” said Mingan.
“As we have shown, birds eat a significant amount of litter, and hard litter materials, such as wood shavings, are good for gut development.”
“A more robust gut usually means a more resilient animal.”
1. AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF MDV IN AUSTRALIAN BROILER FLOCKS, Groves PJ, Walkden-Brown SW, Fakhrul Islam AFM, Reynolds PS, King ML, Sharpe SM, 2008.
Published 03/27/2008
Source: Australia Poultry CRC
Egg Nutrients can help Boost Immunity
Did you know that eggs can help boost your immune system? With 13 vitamins and minerals and the highest quality protein of any food, eggs can help keep you healthy and fight colds and flu! In total, Americans suffer from an estimated 1 billion colds each year, and children miss 22 million school days because of it1. While there is no cure for the common cold, getting a wider variety of immune-boosting nutrients may be one simple way to reduce the risk. Add these nutrients – including several found in eggs – to your diet to enhance immunity and promote good health during cold and flu season:
• Selenium: Selenium works with vitamin E to function as an antioxidant. Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are currently looking into the role that selenium plays in decreasing vulnerability to the influenza virus2. Eggs are a rich source of selenium: two eggs provide more than half (56 percent) of the recommended daily intake.
• Vitamin A: Vitamin A is necessary for maintaining the body´s immune functions and decreasing susceptibility to infections. It is also found in egg yolks: one egg has 244 International Units (IU) of vitamin A, or 5 percent of the recommended daily intake.
• High-Quality Protein: Protein plays a key role in building the antibodies needed to fight infection, as well as building and repairing body tissues. Impressively, eggs contain the highest quality protein of any food! One egg has six grams of protein, or 13 percent of the recommended daily intake.
• Vitamin B12: Vitamin B12 works with folate to build red blood cells, helping the body stay healthy. Eggs provide 11 percent of the recommended daily intake of vitamin B12.
• Zinc: Decades of research have shown that zinc plays an important role in reducing both the duration and severity of common cold symptoms. Eggs have 0.6 mg of zinc, which is 4 percent of the daily recommended intake.
Bridget Swinney, a registered dietitian and author of three books including Healthy Food for Healthy Kids: The Practical and Tasty Guide to Child Nutrition, agrees that eating nutrient-rich foods is important during the winter months. “I encourage parents to feed their family foods with nutrients that offer extra protection during the cold and flu season. Those foods will help children stay healthy and fight off germs,” says Swinney.
Swinney provides these additional tips for fighting off the cold and flu. When eating eggs, don´t skip the yolk! The yolk contains nearly half of the high-quality protein, as well as the majority of the other immune-boosting vitamins and minerals. For dinner, or any meal of the day, try a comforting nutrient-rich egg dish like quiche. Serve with orange juice or a kiwi, which are excellent sources of vitamin C, for an extra boost.
1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “Common Cold.” 7 December 2007, http: // www3. niaid. nih. gov /healthscience /healthtopics /colds/ overview. htm
2. Zeizel SH. “Choline: needed for normal development of memory.” J Am Coll Nutr. 2000; Oct; 19(5 Suppl): 528S-531S.
Published 03/27/2008
Source: Iowa Egg Council press release
• Selenium: Selenium works with vitamin E to function as an antioxidant. Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are currently looking into the role that selenium plays in decreasing vulnerability to the influenza virus2. Eggs are a rich source of selenium: two eggs provide more than half (56 percent) of the recommended daily intake.
• Vitamin A: Vitamin A is necessary for maintaining the body´s immune functions and decreasing susceptibility to infections. It is also found in egg yolks: one egg has 244 International Units (IU) of vitamin A, or 5 percent of the recommended daily intake.
• High-Quality Protein: Protein plays a key role in building the antibodies needed to fight infection, as well as building and repairing body tissues. Impressively, eggs contain the highest quality protein of any food! One egg has six grams of protein, or 13 percent of the recommended daily intake.
• Vitamin B12: Vitamin B12 works with folate to build red blood cells, helping the body stay healthy. Eggs provide 11 percent of the recommended daily intake of vitamin B12.
• Zinc: Decades of research have shown that zinc plays an important role in reducing both the duration and severity of common cold symptoms. Eggs have 0.6 mg of zinc, which is 4 percent of the daily recommended intake.
Bridget Swinney, a registered dietitian and author of three books including Healthy Food for Healthy Kids: The Practical and Tasty Guide to Child Nutrition, agrees that eating nutrient-rich foods is important during the winter months. “I encourage parents to feed their family foods with nutrients that offer extra protection during the cold and flu season. Those foods will help children stay healthy and fight off germs,” says Swinney.
Swinney provides these additional tips for fighting off the cold and flu. When eating eggs, don´t skip the yolk! The yolk contains nearly half of the high-quality protein, as well as the majority of the other immune-boosting vitamins and minerals. For dinner, or any meal of the day, try a comforting nutrient-rich egg dish like quiche. Serve with orange juice or a kiwi, which are excellent sources of vitamin C, for an extra boost.
1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “Common Cold.” 7 December 2007, http: // www3. niaid. nih. gov /healthscience /healthtopics /colds/ overview. htm
2. Zeizel SH. “Choline: needed for normal development of memory.” J Am Coll Nutr. 2000; Oct; 19(5 Suppl): 528S-531S.
Published 03/27/2008
Source: Iowa Egg Council press release
Red mite may spread salmonella in poultry flocks
Red mites could be a potential source of salmonella transmission between birds and flocks, according to one biosecurity expert.
"While it is well known that mites can transmit diseases such as fowl cholera, fowl typhoid and the chicken pox virus the fact they feed by sucking blood means they can also theoretically transmit salmonella through contaminated blood," explained Kiotechagil's Mike Rogers.
Mites, both the red mite and the northern fowl mite have long been regarded as being one of the most common and critical problems for poultry farmers.
Drop in egg productions
They move quickly over a bird's skin and feathers and their blood sucking activity can crucially cause a drop in egg production as well as anaemia and in the case of severe infestation - death.
While red mites feed on the birds in darkness often for about 1-2 hours each night before retreating to the extremities of the poultry house, the northern fowl mite breeds continually on the bird and it is therefore a particular problem for caged birds.
Salmonella is increasingly under the spotlight as layer flocks face new rules under the requirements of the UK National Control Plan for salmonella, required under the EU Zoonoses directive.
This includes on-farm testing for salmonella and from next year, heat treatment of eggs destined for human consumption from flocks testing positive.
Published 04/04/2008
Source: Farmers Weekly Interactive
"While it is well known that mites can transmit diseases such as fowl cholera, fowl typhoid and the chicken pox virus the fact they feed by sucking blood means they can also theoretically transmit salmonella through contaminated blood," explained Kiotechagil's Mike Rogers.
Mites, both the red mite and the northern fowl mite have long been regarded as being one of the most common and critical problems for poultry farmers.
Drop in egg productions
They move quickly over a bird's skin and feathers and their blood sucking activity can crucially cause a drop in egg production as well as anaemia and in the case of severe infestation - death.
While red mites feed on the birds in darkness often for about 1-2 hours each night before retreating to the extremities of the poultry house, the northern fowl mite breeds continually on the bird and it is therefore a particular problem for caged birds.
Salmonella is increasingly under the spotlight as layer flocks face new rules under the requirements of the UK National Control Plan for salmonella, required under the EU Zoonoses directive.
This includes on-farm testing for salmonella and from next year, heat treatment of eggs destined for human consumption from flocks testing positive.
Published 04/04/2008
Source: Farmers Weekly Interactive
EFSA opinion on four substances used to decontaminate poultry carcasses
EFSA has carried out an assessment on whether there is any increased bacterial tolerance and resistance to antibiotics from the use of four antimicrobial substances used to decontaminate poultry carcasses1. The EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) concluded that, despite a long history of use, no published data exist to indicate that the four substances, within the proposed conditions of use, will lead to increased bacterial tolerance to these substances or to increased resistance to therapeutic antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. The Panel also encouraged further research on the likelihood of an increase in bacterial tolerance to these types of substances, and the possibility of their resistance to therapeutic antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents.
The BIOHAZ Panel noted that there was some evidence indicating bacterial tolerance to other antimicrobial substances or biocides2 which were not subject of this Opinion. However, these data were either based on laboratory experiments which do not always mirror “real-life” situations or resulted from the improper use of biocides.
EFSA delivered several opinions in 2005 and 2006 in relation to these four antimicrobial substances which looked at both the safety of using them on food and their effectiveness in killing or reducing bacteria. In evaluating the four substances, EFSA´s Panel on additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food(AFC) concluded that, based on the data available, there was no safety concern, within the proposed conditions of use. For its part, the BIOHAZ Panel looked at the effectiveness of one of the four substances, peroxyacids, and said that, owing to lack of sufficient data available to the Panel, including those submitted by the applicant, it was unable to say if these substances effectively killed or reduced bacteria on poultry.
1 Chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlorite, trisodium phosphate and peroxyacids. Such substances are presently in use in the USA to kill or reduce the number of bacteria, such as salmonella or campylobacter on poultry. At present, no such substances are authorised for use in the EU but permission may be given under EU legislation (EC Regulation No 853/2004) when preceded by a thorough scientific evaluation.
2 Chemicals used for eliminating pests, weeds, fungus etc., especially a pesticide, herbicide, or fungicide.
Summary of the Scientific Opinion of the BIOHAZ Panel: Assessment of the possible effect of the four antimicrobial treatment substances on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance
Following a request from European Commission (DG SANCO), the Panel on Biological Hazards was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the possible effect of four antimicrobial treatment substances on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance.
The scope of this opinion was to assess the possible development of antimicrobial resistance when chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlorite, trisodium phosphate and peroxyacids are applied for poultry carcasses decontamination. For the purpose of this opinion, the terms “acquired reduced susceptibility” to the substances used for the removal of meat surface contamination and “resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials” were used. Therefore, acquired reduced susceptibility to the four substances used for the removal of meat surface contamination as well as to other substances including therapeutic antimicrobials has been considered. Abattoir was the end-point of the present scientific opinion.
The BIOHAZ Panel concluded that despite a long history of use, there are currently no published data to conclude that the application of chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlorite, trisodium phosphate or peroxyacids to remove microbial contamination of poultry carcasses at the proposed conditions of use will lead to the occurrence of acquired reduced susceptibility to these substances. Similarly, there are currently no published data to conclude that the application of chlorine dioxide, acidified sodium chlorite, trisodium phosphate or peroxyacids to remove microbial contamination of poultry carcasses at the proposed conditions of use will lead to resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials.
Uncertainties originate from the facts that acquired reduced susceptibility to some biocides other than those in question was found followed improper use of biocides. In addition, most of the evidence on acquired reduced susceptibility to some biocides other than those in question was derived from laboratory-based experiments.
The Joint AFC/BIOHAZ guidance document on the submission of data for the evaluation of the efficacy of substances for the removal of microbial surface contamination of foods of animal origin should be amended. The BIOHAZ Panel recommended that any data on the potential of occurrence for acquired reduced susceptibility to biocides and/or resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials should be included. Research on the likelihood of emergence of acquired reduced susceptibility to substances used for the removal of the microbial surface contamination of foods of animal origins and other foods and resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials should be encouraged.
Published 04/07/2008
Source: EFSA (European Food Safety Authority)
Anti-virulence Factor in Salmonella Discovered
Researchers at the University of British Columbia have discovered an anti-virulence factor in Salmonella, knowledge that could be used to design improved Salmonella vaccines.
Virulence factors allow a pathogen to thrive in the host and cause disease. An anti-virulence factor controls the degree of infectiveness.
Salmonella are bacteria that infect a variety of vertebrae hosts. Salmonellosis, infection from Salmonella, can lead to gastroenteritis or typhoid fever -- a severe life-threatening systemic disease.
The finding, published in Public Library of Science, suggests that there is a distinct pathway in Salmonella that acts as an anti-virulence factor during salmonellosis. This pathway is also involved in fine-tuning the host-pathogen balance during salmonellosis.
The research demonstrates that the pathway is activated prior to ingestion and entry into the intestine and then shut off once Salmonella penetrates the intestine.
“When the anti-virulence factor is knocked out Salmonella becomes up to 10 times more virulent,” says Brett Finlay, Peter Wall Prof. of Microbiology and Biochemistry at UBC and senior investigator at the Michael Smith Laboratories. “The research also demonstrates that Salmonella has the ability to control its virulence even before it enters the host.”
“The pathway is designed to initially control the level of virulence and not kill the host immediately,” says Finlay. “Tapering the level of infectiveness allows Salmonella to establish itself in the host and then become more virulent.”
“This research will allow us to design improved salmonella vaccines,” says Finlay. “We will be able to better tailor the vaccine strain with the appropriate level of virulence.”
Published 04/09/2008
Source: University of British Columbia news
Virulence factors allow a pathogen to thrive in the host and cause disease. An anti-virulence factor controls the degree of infectiveness.
Salmonella are bacteria that infect a variety of vertebrae hosts. Salmonellosis, infection from Salmonella, can lead to gastroenteritis or typhoid fever -- a severe life-threatening systemic disease.
The finding, published in Public Library of Science, suggests that there is a distinct pathway in Salmonella that acts as an anti-virulence factor during salmonellosis. This pathway is also involved in fine-tuning the host-pathogen balance during salmonellosis.
The research demonstrates that the pathway is activated prior to ingestion and entry into the intestine and then shut off once Salmonella penetrates the intestine.
“When the anti-virulence factor is knocked out Salmonella becomes up to 10 times more virulent,” says Brett Finlay, Peter Wall Prof. of Microbiology and Biochemistry at UBC and senior investigator at the Michael Smith Laboratories. “The research also demonstrates that Salmonella has the ability to control its virulence even before it enters the host.”
“The pathway is designed to initially control the level of virulence and not kill the host immediately,” says Finlay. “Tapering the level of infectiveness allows Salmonella to establish itself in the host and then become more virulent.”
“This research will allow us to design improved salmonella vaccines,” says Finlay. “We will be able to better tailor the vaccine strain with the appropriate level of virulence.”
Published 04/09/2008
Source: University of British Columbia news
Chick Anaemia Virus - The Hidden Menace
It is widely accepted in many parts of the world that chick anaemia virus (CAV) can have a serious economic impact on the poultry industry through direct clinical and potentially even more damaging, sub-clinical disease.
CAV was first identified in 1979 and since then has been found in all parts of the world where poultry are kept commercially. The causal virus is a very small circovirus, resistant to acid pH, ether, chloroform and heat.
Vertical Transmission
The disease it produces is important clinically through increased mortality, costs of treatment from secondary infection and poor growth. Classical infection is from breeders infected in lay, which transmit the virus vertically to give disease in broiler progeny at 10 to 14 days of age. Mortality may reach 60 per cent. Affected broilers are stunted, pale, show morbidity, severe skin infections, fungal infections and general immunosuppression. Affected chicks are produced for three to six weeks after the infection first enters the susceptible breeder flock. It is estimated that the disease may cost the US industry alone some $50 million each year!
The full blown clinical disease is thankfully now quite rare in many countries where breeder flocks tend to get infected in rear, or are vaccinated and have developed at least partial immunity before lay. This prevents, or lessens, the chain of vertical transmission. Most companies have monitoring or vaccination programmes in place to try and ensure broad protection through the breeders.
A better understanding of the disease and the use of vaccines has dramatically reduced the occurrence of clinical disease. However, work, by researchers at the Stormont laboratory, Ireland suggests that insidious loss of broiler performance through sub-clinical infection may be of equal, if not greater, economic significance.
Horizontal Transmission
All ages of broiler are susceptible to infection, but this is thought to greatly decrease with age after the first two to three weeks of age. It was thought that if the early danger period could be covered by maternal antibody from vaccination or previously exposed parents, then the progeny ought to be protected. However, a lack of uniform antibody being passed on by the parents, and the effects of other immunosuppressive agents, may compromise this protection. It is known that co-infection with CAV and viruses such as Marek´s disease virus, Gumboro disease virus and reoviruses delay the protective age resistance effect. Chicks are then more susceptible to horizontal infection with CAV for a longer period.
Natural infection of breeder flocks or poor vaccination, especially when vaccines are administered via the drinking water leads to very variable and often low antibody levels in breeder hens and hence their broiler progeny. As a result a significant number of broiler chicks are hatched with little or no protective antibody from breeders thought to be protected. These chicks are at great risk from horizontal infection from hatching onwards.
These effects have been suspected for some time with the identification of antibody to CAV in broilers at slaughter. This means they must have met infection with the virus during their life as a broiler. Such horizontal infection can be passed on to the susceptible chicks by chicks that were infected in the egg (either from the same flock code, or other code mixed in the hatchery or early on farm), or from infection picked up from the environment by the susceptible chicks with little or no antibody. This resistant virus can persist on broiler farms despite standard cleaning and disinfection procedures, as many disinfectants have little, if any, effect.
Stormont Investigations
Some excellent work at the Stormont laboratory has helped to highlight and quantify the effects of this horizontal infection in what might otherwise be considered "clinically normal" broilers. Workers used a powerful broiler database established in 1984 to investigate the problem. This database enables single house comparisons of broiler flocks, looking at over 40 different production and performance parameters. Investigations during 1989 examined 50 broiler flocks involving some one million birds, comparing 25 flocks which showed antibody to CAV at slaughter against 25 flocks without any antibody. All were the progeny of infected parent flocks, and hence the more classical vertical transmission leading to clinical blue wing/gangrenous dermatitis syndrome was not involved. These were clinically normal flocks with unexceptional mortality.
However, comparing production parameters for the two groups revealed some significant and important differences. The flocks which had not met CAV infection during their broiler life and were antibody negative showed the following:
~ 2.0 per cent better FCR
~ 2.5 per cent better average weight
~ 13.0 per cent greater net income
The research workers concluded that:
"...sub-clinical CAV infection has a substantial statistically significant effect on commercial broiler performance and profitability."
Hence sub-clinical infection with CAV leads to highly significant economic losses. So, whilst effective vaccination of breeders is highly desirable in preventing the more obviously devastating disease, other approaches must be considered for broilers on the ground. This approach must be aimed at preventing susceptible chicks from coming into contact with CAV infection on the hatcher tray or broiler farm. Secondly, challenge with potentially immunosuppressive viruses such as those of Mareks disease and Gumboro disease must be reduced or prevented, to avoid any compromising of broilers' ability to resist subclinical CAV infection.
This can only really be achieved through an effective and appropriate cleaning and disinfection procedure, using products with a proven track record against these resistant immunosuppressive viruses.
A positive and practical approach must be to remove the residual site contamination through the implementation of a comprehensive infection control regime, both for continuous protection and terminal disinfection.
Continuous protection
Tests conducted at CVL Weybridge, UK, have produced specific data to show that the broad spectrum virucidal disinfectant Virkon® S (DuPont™) is effective against CAV at a dilution of 1:250 . To combat the disease, DuPont™ recommends that close attention is paid to the cleaning and disinfection of water supplies, drinking systems and equipment.
Effective sanitisation of the water system will obviously help to reduce challenge, especially in older, more conventional, bell drinkers, or nipple cup systems. DuPont™ advises that, at the correct dilution, Virkon® S is safe to use as a regular addition to water lines. Continuous proportioning of this product into the drinking water will prevent the spread of primary viral agents, should the water become contaminated by infected birds.
Continuous protection of stocked housing is vital to minimise challenge from external sources. Foot and wheel dips should be in place at the entrance to all housing, visitors should be issued with protective clothing and required to wash their hands with a suitable antiseptic soap.
Terminal disinfection
Following the removal of the flock, the housing is emptied of equipment, dry cleaned thoroughly, then cleaned with a barn cleaner. After cleaning, the housing should be disinfected using a broad spectrum product such as Virkon® S. All the removed equipment must be cleaned and disinfected before being replaced.
By Stephen A Lister, BSc BVetMed MRCVS, Crowshall Veterinary Services
DuPont is a science company. Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture, nutrition, electronics, communications, safety and protection, home and construction, transportation and apparel.
Published 04/09/2008
Source: Dupont Animal Health Solutions news
CAV was first identified in 1979 and since then has been found in all parts of the world where poultry are kept commercially. The causal virus is a very small circovirus, resistant to acid pH, ether, chloroform and heat.
Vertical Transmission
The disease it produces is important clinically through increased mortality, costs of treatment from secondary infection and poor growth. Classical infection is from breeders infected in lay, which transmit the virus vertically to give disease in broiler progeny at 10 to 14 days of age. Mortality may reach 60 per cent. Affected broilers are stunted, pale, show morbidity, severe skin infections, fungal infections and general immunosuppression. Affected chicks are produced for three to six weeks after the infection first enters the susceptible breeder flock. It is estimated that the disease may cost the US industry alone some $50 million each year!
The full blown clinical disease is thankfully now quite rare in many countries where breeder flocks tend to get infected in rear, or are vaccinated and have developed at least partial immunity before lay. This prevents, or lessens, the chain of vertical transmission. Most companies have monitoring or vaccination programmes in place to try and ensure broad protection through the breeders.
A better understanding of the disease and the use of vaccines has dramatically reduced the occurrence of clinical disease. However, work, by researchers at the Stormont laboratory, Ireland suggests that insidious loss of broiler performance through sub-clinical infection may be of equal, if not greater, economic significance.
Horizontal Transmission
All ages of broiler are susceptible to infection, but this is thought to greatly decrease with age after the first two to three weeks of age. It was thought that if the early danger period could be covered by maternal antibody from vaccination or previously exposed parents, then the progeny ought to be protected. However, a lack of uniform antibody being passed on by the parents, and the effects of other immunosuppressive agents, may compromise this protection. It is known that co-infection with CAV and viruses such as Marek´s disease virus, Gumboro disease virus and reoviruses delay the protective age resistance effect. Chicks are then more susceptible to horizontal infection with CAV for a longer period.
Natural infection of breeder flocks or poor vaccination, especially when vaccines are administered via the drinking water leads to very variable and often low antibody levels in breeder hens and hence their broiler progeny. As a result a significant number of broiler chicks are hatched with little or no protective antibody from breeders thought to be protected. These chicks are at great risk from horizontal infection from hatching onwards.
These effects have been suspected for some time with the identification of antibody to CAV in broilers at slaughter. This means they must have met infection with the virus during their life as a broiler. Such horizontal infection can be passed on to the susceptible chicks by chicks that were infected in the egg (either from the same flock code, or other code mixed in the hatchery or early on farm), or from infection picked up from the environment by the susceptible chicks with little or no antibody. This resistant virus can persist on broiler farms despite standard cleaning and disinfection procedures, as many disinfectants have little, if any, effect.
Stormont Investigations
Some excellent work at the Stormont laboratory has helped to highlight and quantify the effects of this horizontal infection in what might otherwise be considered "clinically normal" broilers. Workers used a powerful broiler database established in 1984 to investigate the problem. This database enables single house comparisons of broiler flocks, looking at over 40 different production and performance parameters. Investigations during 1989 examined 50 broiler flocks involving some one million birds, comparing 25 flocks which showed antibody to CAV at slaughter against 25 flocks without any antibody. All were the progeny of infected parent flocks, and hence the more classical vertical transmission leading to clinical blue wing/gangrenous dermatitis syndrome was not involved. These were clinically normal flocks with unexceptional mortality.
However, comparing production parameters for the two groups revealed some significant and important differences. The flocks which had not met CAV infection during their broiler life and were antibody negative showed the following:
~ 2.0 per cent better FCR
~ 2.5 per cent better average weight
~ 13.0 per cent greater net income
The research workers concluded that:
"...sub-clinical CAV infection has a substantial statistically significant effect on commercial broiler performance and profitability."
Hence sub-clinical infection with CAV leads to highly significant economic losses. So, whilst effective vaccination of breeders is highly desirable in preventing the more obviously devastating disease, other approaches must be considered for broilers on the ground. This approach must be aimed at preventing susceptible chicks from coming into contact with CAV infection on the hatcher tray or broiler farm. Secondly, challenge with potentially immunosuppressive viruses such as those of Mareks disease and Gumboro disease must be reduced or prevented, to avoid any compromising of broilers' ability to resist subclinical CAV infection.
This can only really be achieved through an effective and appropriate cleaning and disinfection procedure, using products with a proven track record against these resistant immunosuppressive viruses.
A positive and practical approach must be to remove the residual site contamination through the implementation of a comprehensive infection control regime, both for continuous protection and terminal disinfection.
Continuous protection
Tests conducted at CVL Weybridge, UK, have produced specific data to show that the broad spectrum virucidal disinfectant Virkon® S (DuPont™) is effective against CAV at a dilution of 1:250 . To combat the disease, DuPont™ recommends that close attention is paid to the cleaning and disinfection of water supplies, drinking systems and equipment.
Effective sanitisation of the water system will obviously help to reduce challenge, especially in older, more conventional, bell drinkers, or nipple cup systems. DuPont™ advises that, at the correct dilution, Virkon® S is safe to use as a regular addition to water lines. Continuous proportioning of this product into the drinking water will prevent the spread of primary viral agents, should the water become contaminated by infected birds.
Continuous protection of stocked housing is vital to minimise challenge from external sources. Foot and wheel dips should be in place at the entrance to all housing, visitors should be issued with protective clothing and required to wash their hands with a suitable antiseptic soap.
Terminal disinfection
Following the removal of the flock, the housing is emptied of equipment, dry cleaned thoroughly, then cleaned with a barn cleaner. After cleaning, the housing should be disinfected using a broad spectrum product such as Virkon® S. All the removed equipment must be cleaned and disinfected before being replaced.
By Stephen A Lister, BSc BVetMed MRCVS, Crowshall Veterinary Services
DuPont is a science company. Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. Operating in more than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative products and services for markets including agriculture, nutrition, electronics, communications, safety and protection, home and construction, transportation and apparel.
Published 04/09/2008
Source: Dupont Animal Health Solutions news
Best Method to Chill Chickens Depends on Water
Chilling is an important step in processing poultry carcasses before marketing of the birds, and there are different ways to do it. Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists at the Richard B. Russell Research Center in Athens, Ga., recently compared two chilling methods to determine which better suits processors' needs.
Food technologist Julie Northcutt, formerly with the ARS Poultry Processing and Swine Physiology Research Unit at Athens, and food technologist Doug Smith, in the ARS Quality and Safety Assessment Research Unit at Athens, evaluated the two primary industry methods in terms of meat quality, food safety and water management.
Carcass temperatures must be quickly lowered after poultry slaughter to prevent growth of bacterial pathogens that may cause food-borne illness when consumed. Immersion chilling--in which chicken carcasses are submerged in tanks of cold water or an ice-and-water mix--is the predominant method now used in the United States. Dry-air chilling blasts carcasses with cold air, while evaporative-air chilling combines cold air blasts with water misting. Some poultry processors are beginning to convert to dry-air chilling.
Both immersion chilling and air chilling met criteria for limiting bacterial pathogen growth on carcasses. But tender chicken is also very important to consumers. During commercial processing, whole carcasses are aged under refrigerated conditions to allow muscle fibers to relax and become tender. Research showed that air chilling led to better quality of breast fillets and provided higher cooked-meat yields than immersion chilling.
“In addition to improving meat quality, air chilling provided higher cooked-meat yields than immersion chilling. Color and texture of skinless breast fillets were similar for both chilling methods,” says Northcutt. The team believes that the lower cooked yield of the immersion-chilled fillets was the result of high moisture absorption during chilling, which was later cooked out of the product.
The issue of aging only relates to poultry that is further processed. “Processors selling whole carcasses may not have a reason to make a switch to air chilling based on meat quality,” says Northcutt. “Air chilling may, however, be a suitable alternative for deboning and other processing operations.”
In the end, water may be the most important factor in deciding which chilling method may be most feasible in the future. It takes an average of seven gallons of water to process each chicken, and switching to air chilling can save a minimum of one-half gallon per bird. Processors could save about 4.5 billion gallons of water per year if all 9 billion birds processed annually in the United States were air-chilled.
"Chillin´ Chickens: Which Method Works Best?" was published in the April 2008 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.
Published 04/15/2008
Source: USDA Agricultural Research Service
Food technologist Julie Northcutt, formerly with the ARS Poultry Processing and Swine Physiology Research Unit at Athens, and food technologist Doug Smith, in the ARS Quality and Safety Assessment Research Unit at Athens, evaluated the two primary industry methods in terms of meat quality, food safety and water management.
Carcass temperatures must be quickly lowered after poultry slaughter to prevent growth of bacterial pathogens that may cause food-borne illness when consumed. Immersion chilling--in which chicken carcasses are submerged in tanks of cold water or an ice-and-water mix--is the predominant method now used in the United States. Dry-air chilling blasts carcasses with cold air, while evaporative-air chilling combines cold air blasts with water misting. Some poultry processors are beginning to convert to dry-air chilling.
Both immersion chilling and air chilling met criteria for limiting bacterial pathogen growth on carcasses. But tender chicken is also very important to consumers. During commercial processing, whole carcasses are aged under refrigerated conditions to allow muscle fibers to relax and become tender. Research showed that air chilling led to better quality of breast fillets and provided higher cooked-meat yields than immersion chilling.
“In addition to improving meat quality, air chilling provided higher cooked-meat yields than immersion chilling. Color and texture of skinless breast fillets were similar for both chilling methods,” says Northcutt. The team believes that the lower cooked yield of the immersion-chilled fillets was the result of high moisture absorption during chilling, which was later cooked out of the product.
The issue of aging only relates to poultry that is further processed. “Processors selling whole carcasses may not have a reason to make a switch to air chilling based on meat quality,” says Northcutt. “Air chilling may, however, be a suitable alternative for deboning and other processing operations.”
In the end, water may be the most important factor in deciding which chilling method may be most feasible in the future. It takes an average of seven gallons of water to process each chicken, and switching to air chilling can save a minimum of one-half gallon per bird. Processors could save about 4.5 billion gallons of water per year if all 9 billion birds processed annually in the United States were air-chilled.
"Chillin´ Chickens: Which Method Works Best?" was published in the April 2008 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.
Published 04/15/2008
Source: USDA Agricultural Research Service
Free range ‘no increased infection risk´ for chickens
Scientists at Oxford University have found that the free-range environment is not a major source for the infection of chickens with a bug responsible for 340,000 cases of food poisoning in the UK every year.
Chicken meat contaminated with the bacterium Campylobacter jejuni is a major cause of food poisoning in humans. This has led to increased biosecurity measures that attempt to limit infection of chickens in intensive, housed conditions. It had been thought that free-range chickens are more at risk because they cannot be protected from outdoor infection sources such as wild birds.
"It was widely thought that free-range chickens were likely to pick up Campylobacter from the free-range environment, particularly wild birds, but none of the evidence we have gathered supports this as a major infection source," said Professor Martin Maiden of Oxford University´s Department of Zoology who led the research.
"If this was the case then you would expect to see free-range chickens sharing genetically similar bacteria with local wild bird populations but our study suggests that this is not the case. It´s good news as it means that not being able to extend comprehensive biosecurity measures to free-range poultry is probably not the threat to human health that had been feared."
A total of 975 chickens from 64 flocks were sampled over a period of 10 months as part of the research. Wild bird populations in the areas concerned were also studied.
The research was conducted by Professor Martin Maiden, Professor Marian Stamp Dawkins, Dr Frances Colles, Dr Noel McCarthy and Dr Samuel Sheppard of the Department of Zoology and Dr Kate Dingle and Dr Alison Cody of the Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences at the University of Oxford.
A report of this research, which was funded by the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Food Standards Agency, is due to appear in the journal Environmental Microbiology.
Published 04/16/2008
Source: Oxford University press release
Chicken meat contaminated with the bacterium Campylobacter jejuni is a major cause of food poisoning in humans. This has led to increased biosecurity measures that attempt to limit infection of chickens in intensive, housed conditions. It had been thought that free-range chickens are more at risk because they cannot be protected from outdoor infection sources such as wild birds.
"It was widely thought that free-range chickens were likely to pick up Campylobacter from the free-range environment, particularly wild birds, but none of the evidence we have gathered supports this as a major infection source," said Professor Martin Maiden of Oxford University´s Department of Zoology who led the research.
"If this was the case then you would expect to see free-range chickens sharing genetically similar bacteria with local wild bird populations but our study suggests that this is not the case. It´s good news as it means that not being able to extend comprehensive biosecurity measures to free-range poultry is probably not the threat to human health that had been feared."
A total of 975 chickens from 64 flocks were sampled over a period of 10 months as part of the research. Wild bird populations in the areas concerned were also studied.
The research was conducted by Professor Martin Maiden, Professor Marian Stamp Dawkins, Dr Frances Colles, Dr Noel McCarthy and Dr Samuel Sheppard of the Department of Zoology and Dr Kate Dingle and Dr Alison Cody of the Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences at the University of Oxford.
A report of this research, which was funded by the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Food Standards Agency, is due to appear in the journal Environmental Microbiology.
Published 04/16/2008
Source: Oxford University press release
Energy in Poultry Diets
There are 4 main components that go together to make up a poultry diet. While protein, vitamins and minerals are referred to as nutrients, energy the 4th and most costly part of the diet is not a nutrient but the property of energy yielding nutrients. Dietary nutrients that yield energy are protein, fat and carbohydrates.
Protein is not commonly thought of as a source of dietary energy but it does result in a significant contribution to the energy requirement of the bird, and can, if fat and carbohydrate are in short supply, be used by the animal as it's main source of energy.
Dietary protein is a source of amino acids which are the building blocks for body tissue, hence growth, and the production of a product - eggs. Thus it's use as a source of energy must be kept to a minimum.
Protein, carbohydrate and fats all contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and thus can be burned as a source of energy in the body. While proteins and carbohydrates yield around 4 calories of energy per gram, fats yield 2 � times as much or 9 calories per gram. Thus, when formulating for high energy diets it is usually necessary to add a source of fat to poultry diets.
Diets with high levels of energy are referred to as having a higher nutrient density. This means that the same amount of nutrients are available in a smaller volume of with less weight. It follows that if the diet is more dense the bird will have to eat less of it to obtain it's nutrient requirements and thus feed:gain or feed:egg mass ratios are reduced. Hence, improved feed efficiency or improved feed utilization results.
Dietary energy level is the main factor influencing feed intake, as birds will, under normal circumstances, eat to satisfy their energy needs. Therefore the dietary nutrients, protein vitamins and minerals should vary in relation to the dietary energy content of the diet, if they are not to become deficient, with low feed intakes, or overconsumed, with low energy diets.
While there are a number of factors, such as level of protein, balance of essential amino acids and perhaps level of some of the other dietary nutrients, that can influence the cost of a diet, the level of dietary energy is usually the main factor influencing diet cost. Hence, by and large, the higher the level of energy the higher the diet cost and usually the lower is the feed consumption in relation to gain.
The energy content of a diet is usually given as so many calories per kilogram of diet. Thus diets are said to contain, for example, 2800 or 3200 kcal (a thousand small calories) per kilogram.
Energy content of a feedstuff is measured by burning it in an oxygen saturated environment and measuring the amount of heat or total, (gross energy) produced. However, all the energy, or heat produced from, for example, burning a gram of corn is not available to the bird. When the bird consumes corn, some of it is not digested and this undigested material is lost via the feces. Since birds excrete feces and urine together it is not possible to get a simple measure of fecal material. Thus for poultry the energy content of the feces and urine are measured together. Since this energy is unavailable to the bird it is subtracted from the gross or total energy value of the corn to yield what is referred to as a metabolizable energy value. This is the energy that is available to the bird for productive purposes, eg for growth, the production of eggs, for maintenance, activity, etc.
While the above is a simple explanation of energy and how it is utilized by the bird, there are many factors which can interact to influence dietary energy utilization. One of the main factors increasing energy requirements of the bird is pen temperature. Birds use dietary energy as a fuel to maintain body temperature. Hence, in cold pen situations a significant amount of dietary energy can be used to maintain body temperature rather than be used for more productive purposes like weight gain or egg production.
Feed manufactures are continually looking for ways to improve the energy utilization of ingredients. Such things as:
* The addition of fat to diets - which slows down the rate of food passage in the gut and thus allows enhanced digestion by digestive enzymes.
* Steam pelleting and conditioning - which through chemical and physical action improves the utilization of certain nutrients.
* The use of dietary enzymes to help break down some of the poorly digested dietary components.
* Mixing saturated and unsaturated fats together, in proper proportions, to enhance fatty acid absorption.
* The use of synthetic essential amino acids to give a better balanced lower protein diet and thus reduce nitrogen excretion - a high energy cost function.
* Precision grinding of cereal grains to increase surface area. This allows more efficient enzyme action resulting in enhanced nutrient availability.
The above all help to improve feed utilization of the bird by making nutrients more available.
Energy is the fuel that keeps the many different body functions operating, every minute of the day. It is a vital feed component, a costly feed component and the most wasted of the feed components. Hence, everything should be done to enhance the utilization of dietary energy for productive body functions, as improvements readily show up in increased monetary returns which are readily apparent by improved feed:gain or egg mass ratios.
By John Summers - Government of Ontario, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Published 04/17/2008
Source: OMAFRA releases
Protein is not commonly thought of as a source of dietary energy but it does result in a significant contribution to the energy requirement of the bird, and can, if fat and carbohydrate are in short supply, be used by the animal as it's main source of energy.
Dietary protein is a source of amino acids which are the building blocks for body tissue, hence growth, and the production of a product - eggs. Thus it's use as a source of energy must be kept to a minimum.
Protein, carbohydrate and fats all contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and thus can be burned as a source of energy in the body. While proteins and carbohydrates yield around 4 calories of energy per gram, fats yield 2 � times as much or 9 calories per gram. Thus, when formulating for high energy diets it is usually necessary to add a source of fat to poultry diets.
Diets with high levels of energy are referred to as having a higher nutrient density. This means that the same amount of nutrients are available in a smaller volume of with less weight. It follows that if the diet is more dense the bird will have to eat less of it to obtain it's nutrient requirements and thus feed:gain or feed:egg mass ratios are reduced. Hence, improved feed efficiency or improved feed utilization results.
Dietary energy level is the main factor influencing feed intake, as birds will, under normal circumstances, eat to satisfy their energy needs. Therefore the dietary nutrients, protein vitamins and minerals should vary in relation to the dietary energy content of the diet, if they are not to become deficient, with low feed intakes, or overconsumed, with low energy diets.
While there are a number of factors, such as level of protein, balance of essential amino acids and perhaps level of some of the other dietary nutrients, that can influence the cost of a diet, the level of dietary energy is usually the main factor influencing diet cost. Hence, by and large, the higher the level of energy the higher the diet cost and usually the lower is the feed consumption in relation to gain.
The energy content of a diet is usually given as so many calories per kilogram of diet. Thus diets are said to contain, for example, 2800 or 3200 kcal (a thousand small calories) per kilogram.
Energy content of a feedstuff is measured by burning it in an oxygen saturated environment and measuring the amount of heat or total, (gross energy) produced. However, all the energy, or heat produced from, for example, burning a gram of corn is not available to the bird. When the bird consumes corn, some of it is not digested and this undigested material is lost via the feces. Since birds excrete feces and urine together it is not possible to get a simple measure of fecal material. Thus for poultry the energy content of the feces and urine are measured together. Since this energy is unavailable to the bird it is subtracted from the gross or total energy value of the corn to yield what is referred to as a metabolizable energy value. This is the energy that is available to the bird for productive purposes, eg for growth, the production of eggs, for maintenance, activity, etc.
While the above is a simple explanation of energy and how it is utilized by the bird, there are many factors which can interact to influence dietary energy utilization. One of the main factors increasing energy requirements of the bird is pen temperature. Birds use dietary energy as a fuel to maintain body temperature. Hence, in cold pen situations a significant amount of dietary energy can be used to maintain body temperature rather than be used for more productive purposes like weight gain or egg production.
Feed manufactures are continually looking for ways to improve the energy utilization of ingredients. Such things as:
* The addition of fat to diets - which slows down the rate of food passage in the gut and thus allows enhanced digestion by digestive enzymes.
* Steam pelleting and conditioning - which through chemical and physical action improves the utilization of certain nutrients.
* The use of dietary enzymes to help break down some of the poorly digested dietary components.
* Mixing saturated and unsaturated fats together, in proper proportions, to enhance fatty acid absorption.
* The use of synthetic essential amino acids to give a better balanced lower protein diet and thus reduce nitrogen excretion - a high energy cost function.
* Precision grinding of cereal grains to increase surface area. This allows more efficient enzyme action resulting in enhanced nutrient availability.
The above all help to improve feed utilization of the bird by making nutrients more available.
Energy is the fuel that keeps the many different body functions operating, every minute of the day. It is a vital feed component, a costly feed component and the most wasted of the feed components. Hence, everything should be done to enhance the utilization of dietary energy for productive body functions, as improvements readily show up in increased monetary returns which are readily apparent by improved feed:gain or egg mass ratios.
By John Summers - Government of Ontario, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Published 04/17/2008
Source: OMAFRA releases
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)