General News

Courses

We recently ran a most successful training session on behalf of the American Soybean Association for a group of poultry producers and feed millers from Ghana.  I trust that it was informative for all.  What I do know is that we have all made new friends.

I have had a lot of people phoning me and asking that I run a Poultry Nutrition course as soon as possible.  We simply won’t be able to fit it into 2004, but I plan to run the normal course from Feb 14^th to 16^th at our usual venue at the Country Club.  In addition, we will run a one day pig nutrition course on the 17^th if the numbers justify it. Please let Bianca know if you are interested in attending. 

Journals

As many of you will know, I am a dedicated web surfer.  I have recently come across two journals that may be of interest to you.  The first is the “International Journal of Poultry Science”  http://pjbs.org/ijps/.  This is relatively new journal covering all aspects of poultry production.  Complete articles are downloadable.

Secondly, a Brazilian publication called “Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola” http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php/script_sci_serial/pid_1516-635X/lng_en/nrm_iso has appeared.  All papers are available in English and the journal gives some valuable insight into the work being carried out by one of the world’s poultry giants.

I would remind you all that both “Poultry Science” and the “Journal of Applied Poultry Research” are available at www.poultryscience.org

GIPA/FAO Conference Tunisia

In September Charles Deiner and I attended a conference in Hammamet , Tunisia entitled “Les bonnes pratiques l’industrie avicole” or Good management practices in the poultry industry. The event was jointly organised by the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and Tunisia ’s Groupment Interprofessionnel des Produits Avicoles (GIPA)

Dr Andrew Speedy, who is the Senior Officer (Feed and Animal Nutrition) of the FAO set the scene for the meeting with a simple but hard hitting paper in which he told the delegates that if the North African poultry industry was ever to sell poultry product into Europe , they would have to meet European norms and conditions.  This would apply to both Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) on farm and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) in the processing plants and feed mills.  This had to be done in such a way that it satisfied three essential constituencies, namely the people (food safety), the animal (animal welfare) and the environment.  The reason for this is simple: the consumers in Europe demand it.  If we intend to sell poultry products to the Europeans, we will have to abide by the sentiments of that market.

I feel certain that there is a message for South African producers of agricultural products, and particularly for the animal production industry.  Most of our fruit farmers for example, already meet the European standards for fruit imports.  There is no reason why we should not do the same in the poultry industry.

Much of the meeting was taken up with discussions about poultry politics, and what role government should or should not play in future. In broad terms it was clear that governments in North Africa play a far more direct role in poultry production than they do in Southern Africa .  Production in most countries is controlled to a certain extent, and in Tunisa and Egypt there are even state owned production facilities.  The advantage of state intervention in Tunisia for example, is that prices of poultry products remain at a level where it is hard for producers to lose money.  The disadvantage of state intervention is that in the long run the absence of a free market system probably means that consumers are over paying for poultry and that real growth in the industry may well be inhibited.

I presented a paper on feed formulation – beyond the use of linear programming.  I will include some parts of this paper in the next edition of SPESFEED News.  In addition, there were a number of other presentations that were of interest to me.  Prof. Maria Urdaci, from Bordeaux in France gave an excellent presentation on the work she has been doing on Probiotics.  Dr Chehid Chakroun demonstrated the GIS database that he has built up of Tunisian poultry farms.  This is a useful industry management tool, but more importantly it is an excellent way of monitoring and controlling the disease status of the national poultry flock.

Rick  Kleyn

Poultry Litter Banned as Cattle Feed

In a January 26, 2004 press release, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced several new public health measures to be implemented to strengthen the existing ‘’firewalls’’ that protect consumers from the agent believed to cause "Mad Cow Disease" or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and to help prevent the spread of BSE in U.S. cattle herds. The FDA stated that the new safeguards are science-based and intended to further bolster existing prevention efforts and to strengthen FDA's 1997 animal feed rule.

These ingredients are, however, prohibited in ruminant feed. The FDA is concerned that spilled poultry feed as a component of poultry litter will be collected and fed to ruminants, posing a potential risk of BSE infection. Prior to this announcement, no federal laws or regulations have controlled the sale or use of poultry litter as a ruminant feed ingredient.

Broiler litter has been a good feed source for cattle during the winter or times of drought, particularly for brood cows and stocker cattle. Benefits of its use as  cattle feed have included:  1) environmental protection via responsible use of an animal by-product, 2) increased sale value of the by-product for poultry producers, and 3) economic benefit for production of beef cattle as a low-cost feed source. Despite these benefits, however, the feeding of poultry litter is not a widespread practice. It is estimated that less then 1% of the total amount of poultry litter generated in the United States is fed to cattle.

Whilst the chances of ruminants becoming BSE-positive from the consumption of poultry litter is highly unlikely, many in the industry have anticipated this ban for quite some time. Public misconceptions concerning the feeding of poultry litter coupled with heightened anxiety over BSE has now compelled FDA to enact this rule, despite over 40 years of use without any evidence of diminished safety of beef products or harmful effects in humans.

Since high quality poultry litter is usually much more valuable as a feed than fertilizer, the loss of this practice will affect the nutrient management planning efforts and cattle feeding programs of many farmers nationwide.

Casey Ritz

University of Georgia

Pantothenic Acid and Carcass Composition in Pigs

However, much of the research upon which these vitamin requirements are based was conducted in the 1950’s and 60’s. Since that time, pigs have become more efficient meat producing animals with an ability to grow more rapidly and to produce more proteinaceous tissue per kg of body weight gain.  Stahly et al. (1995) have shown that higher concentrations of one or more of group of five B vitamins niacin, pantothenic acid, riboflavin, B12, and folic acid) are needed to optimize rate and efficiency of growth in a high vs. moderate lean strain of pig. These results indicate that the dietary need for some vitamins may vary among pigs differing in their capacity for proteinaceous tissue growth.

Some vitamins may also elicit metabolic effects that potentially alter the composition in addition to the rate of body growth. The dietary concentration of pantothenic acid may therefore affect protein and fat accretion rates in the pig. Previous research lends credence to this hypothesis because additions of pantothenic acid or its metabolites have been shown to have lipid-mediating effects (Stahly and Lutz, 2000; Cupo and Donaldson, 1986; Naruta and Buko, 2001).

With the knowledge that certain B vitamins are needed at higher concentrations by today's modern genetic strains of pigs and the evidence in the literature that pantothenic acid may be an important vitamin involved in modifying body composition, two experiments were conducted with the objective of determining the efficacy of pantothenic acid as a modifier of body composition in pigs.

Pantothenic acid additions did not alter daily body weight gain, feed intake or the efficiency of feed utilization in pigs growing from 10 to 115 kg BW. However, dietary PA additions did alter body composition. Specifically, dietary PA addition resulted in carcasses with less backfat (off midline backfat at the tenth rib) and larger longissimus muscle area at the tenth rib (Table 1). Consequently, the percentage of estimated fat-free lean in the carcasses also increased quadratically as dietary PA additions increased (Table 1).

The current NRC (1998) estimates of the dietary pantothenic acid requirement of pigs is 10 ppm for 5 to 10kg pigs and then declines linearly to 7 ppm for pigs weighing 120 kg. Our data would indicate that these dietary pantothenic acid concentrations are adequate to support maximal rates of body weight gain and energy accretion in high health, high lean pigs, although pigs in the current studies had superior rates of body weight gains and efficiency of feed utilization compared with that of pigs in the studies used to establish the NRC pantothenic acid requirements.

Dietary PA addition up to 45 ppm resulted in linear reductions in carcass backfat as well as an increase in carcass lean content. Panthothenic acid additions reduce body fat accretion and support more of the economically valuable proteinaceous tissue to be accrued. Pantothenic acid additions also have the ability to alter nutritive value of pork muscle by increasing pantothenic acid content of the edible muscle.

Based on these data, pantothenic acid at dietary concentrations above that needed to maximize BW gain is an efficacious modifier of body lean content of pigs. The modifications in carcass lean induced by PA have also been found to be detectable using the measurement systems used in commercial pork processing systems. These findings demonstrate that pantothenic acid represents an effective and economical modifier of body composition in pigs.

T.R. Lutz,  B.A Autrey, and T.S. Stahly

A.S. Leaflet R1955, Iowa State University

Alternative Poultry Production Systems

I was recently asked to do a talk on drug-free broiler production in South Africa . There is nothing that focuses the mind like having to stand up in public and debate a topic to help clarify your thoughts. This article encompasses the talk that I gave in May 2004, together with some of the ideas and concepts that I learnt about during the most interesting session organised by Dr Corné Loots of Schering Plough.  A talk given by Jannie Martiz of Afgri Feeds at a recent SAPAAS day also served as inspiration.

Before starting on any discussion about the production of drug-free broilers, it would bea good idea to remember the market in which we operate.  The vast majority of South African

A few smaller producers have managed to fill the ‘niche’ market for ‘green’ poultry products, but it must be remembered that if you are not competitive in a ‘niche’ market, it does not remain a ‘niche’ for very long. Smaller producers often struggle to compete, both financially and in terms of production (multi-age farms). Their lives are further complicated by the fact that the larger retail chains have an active policy of dealing with a few larger key players in each market sector. Some larger producers have investigated the production of ‘green’ poultry products and some are indeed producing them. In reality, they are probably cross subsidising alternative production systems to keep their larger clients happy, and even then they have not always found this an attractive market to enter.

Two issues immediately spring to mind. Firstly, far more ‘green’ birds are sold than are produced. No clear standards exist, and it often happens that the smaller grocers and or poultry producers do not adhere to the standards demanded by the larger retailers. In order for the system to gain credibility in the market place, we would need standards, a regulatory authority and a means of tracking (traceability) the entire process.  This may not be as much of an issue as it seems, but if people cut corners, it makes it very hard for the honest producers to compete.

Secondly, are South African consumers prepared to pay more for ‘green’ products? Experience in the egg market suggests not.  

South African broiler producers do not stand in isolation, and it is imperative that we examine what is happening in other parts of the world. By the year 2006, all AGP’s will have been removed from all animal feeds in Europe . There has been voluntary removal in the US , and legislation is probably on the way. The South African government wants to be seen as ‘responsible’ and will probably follow suit very quickly.  Coccidiostats have not been banned as yet, but there is certainly talk about it.  

The degree of traceability and accountability expected by both the retail chains and the state is staggering, and the South African industry is way behind in this regard.

There is no magic recipe that can be written and followed to guarantee positive results in raising drug-free chickens. Although similarities and common challenges will exist, there are just too many variables and interactions to allow for a single, standard approach. Producers will need to manage by trial and error, and it is likely that they will try a huge range of alternative approaches and products before they find the correct combination for their own farms.

In conclusion, I do not believe that South Africa is yet ready for drug-free broiler production, mostly for socio-economic reasons. As a country we are still obliged to produce affordable protein for the majority of our people. A small ‘niche’ market does exist, but some form of regulation and monitoring will need to be put in place if it is to be creditable. I believe that in the not too distant future, politics -  and to a lesser extent consumer pressure - will dictate the manner in which we farm. I suggest that we all start preparing for this change in terms of our knowledge base, systems and experience right now. As long as the same rules apply to all producers, there will be space for everyone. I see no reason why the ever-resourceful South African broiler producer will not be successful under a new production system.

Rick Kleyn

Gastrointestinal Development at Hatch

The first few days after hatch are a critical for the development and survival of commercial chickens and turkeys. During this period, chicks make the metabolic and physiological transition from egg nutriture (i.e. yolk) to exogenous feed. Yolk lipids, such as oleic acid, are highly absorbed close to hatch, whereas dietary carbohydrates and amino acids are not well utilized because of limitation in digestive and absorptive capacity.  

Hatchlings suffer the stress of a negative nutritional status as they mobilize critical body resources (muscle) to survive. Consequently, hatchlings become more susceptible to disease pathogens, they lose weight, and the development of critical tissues is restricted in an effort to conserve nutrient resources for enteric development and external diet adaptation. Approximately 2% to 5% of hatchlings do not survive this critical post-hatch period because of limited body reserves, and many survivors exhibit stunted growth, inefficient feed utilization, reduced disease resistance, or poor meat yield.

The newly hatched bird must undergo a physiological and metabolic change as its primary source of nutrients from the yolk is replaced with an exogenous diet. During this adjustment period, the hatchling draws on its limited body reserves to fuel the rapid physical and functional development of the gastrointestinal tract in order to attain the capacity to digest feed and assimilate nutrients necessary for growth and development. The sooner the young bird achieves this functional capacity, the sooner it can utilize dietary nutrients, grow efficiently to its genetic potential and resist disease.

Chicks and poults are precocial and will forage for feed almost immediately after hatch if given the opportunity. The degree of enteric development in the hatchling is dependent upon when they begin to consume external feed components. Consumption of solid feed physically stimulates the motility of hatchling’s gastro-intestinal tract and yolk sac, thereby delivering the critical nutrients from both yolk and feed necessary to accelerate enteric development.

If early access to feed is so critical for enteric development, then feeding the embryo external feed components (i.e. carbohydrates, protein, etc.) before hatch by in ovo administration (in ovo feeding) may accelerate enteric development. Preliminary results demonstrated that in ovo feeding of embryos prior to pipping (Uni and Ferket, Patent pending) resulted in birds hatching with a gut in a similar stage of development to a 2-day old chick that consumed feed only after hatch. Experiments, using in ovo feeding technology demonstrated that in ovo administration of nutrients influenced the gut physiology of broiler and turkey embryos prior to and after hatch. Proper in ovo feeding not only improved hatchability, but also superior  nutritional status of the hatchling, greater vigour, and post-hatch growth. Experimental results showed that in ovo feeding improves the nutritional status of the hatchling by accelerating enteric development for greater digestive and nutrient absorptive capacity, and elevated body weight.   This can be seen from the table below.

Table: Effect of in ovo feeding of carbohydrates at day 18 of incubation on body weight (g) of broiler chicks.

Peter R. Ferket  & Uni Zehava

Maryland Nutrition Conference 2003

Data Mining in Animal Agriculture

Data mining is a popular concept in business in general and marketing in particular.  Data mining software allows users to analyze large databases to solve business decision problems. Data mining is, in some ways, an extension of statistics, with a few artificial intelligence and machine learning twists thrown in.

Like statistics, data mining is not a business solution, it is just a technology. In broad terms, data mining tools can answer business questions that traditionally were too time consuming to resolve. They scour databases for hidden patterns, finding predictive information that experts may miss because it lies outside their expectations.

In animal agriculture, companies are beginning to develop large databases, which contain much valuable information.  This data represents a real opportunity for the analysis of trends and practices such as the feeding program used, vaccination and medication programs used and even genotype data.  In order to get the most out of the system it is important that these items be recorded in the database.

Data mining in business systems makes used of a number of advanced mathematical techniques.  These could include artificial neural networks, genetic algorithms and rule induction.

Although we may think that our databases are large, in computing terms they are small when compared to the number of credit card transactions a bank processes in a day for example.  We can therefore use relatively simple techniques such as the statistical functionality of Excel or a statistical package such as Minitab.

As an example of just how much information is to be found in such a database,  I have used simple regression analysis on a large broiler database to show how good or poor PEF and FCR are as a means of predicting profitability.

Firstly, I have used PEF to predict the margin (sale of the bird) over feed cost, relative to PEF.  As can be seen the R² value is 0.7654 which is reasonable.

We know that Margin over Feed cost does not examine all aspects of profitability.  To do this one need to use the Unit Profit (UP) system, which calculates to return per meter squared, per day of a broiler house.  Here the prediction is poorer.  With an R2 value of 0.5 it can be seen that PEF is a poorer predictor of UP than margin.

Many people still place great importance on the Feed Conversion.  When I regressed UP against FCR, the fit was particularly poor with an R2 of only 0.3182.

All of the above examples were calculated at an average feed price of R 2000/ton and a selling price of live broilers of R 8.00/kg.  When I improved the feed price ratio through the simple expedient of increasing the selling price to R 12.00/kg, the R2 value in each example dropped.  For example the UP vs PEF value dropped to 0.34.  This means that PEF is only 34% reliable os a predictor of profitability in a broiler operation, something that I have long suspected but have never been able to prove.

Rick Kleyn