26 ASPERGILLOSIS IN POULTRY PRODUCTION: UNDERSTANDING THE PATHOGEN FOR BETTER PREVENTION REST AND MOVEMENT TO IMPROVE BIRDS’ WELFARE AND PERFORMANCE
TRENDS, STANDARDS AND RESEARCH DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LAYING HEN WELFARE Poste Italiane SpA - Spedizione in Abbonamento PostaleAut. n° CN-NE/00754/04.2025 - Tassa Pagata/Taxe Perçue/Economy/Compatto - ISSN 3035-4986
Publisher Administration and Editorial Office Zootecnica di Marianna Caterino Via del Forestello n. 8 50063 Figline Incisa Valdarno (FI) Italy VAT Number IT 07439250486
EDITORIAL
Tel. +39 055 010 7041 Web: www.zootecnicainternational.com
Editorial Director Marianna Caterino Mob +39 339 11 52 161 marianna@zootecnica.it Editorial staff Giulia Messina zootecnica@zootecnica.it Account Executive amministrazione@zootecnica.it Licence Periodico mensile registrato presso il Tribunale di Firenze al n. 6215 in data 10/03/2025 Iscrizione al ROC n. 42813 Spedizione in Abbonamento Postale Aut. n° CN-NE/00754/04.2025 Art Direction and layout Pilar Roca – pilarroca.com Printer Faenza Printing Via Vittime Civili di Guerra, 35 48018 Faenza (RA), Italy All rights of reproduction and translation of the published articles are reserved. Any reproduction, even partial, is strictly prohibited without the publisher’s prior written authorization. All content is protected under copyright law. The editorial board assumes no responsibility for the opinions expressed by the authors of editorial and advertising texts. Zootecnica ensures the confidentiality of personal data collected for subscriptions and purposes related to specialized publishing, in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR – EU Regulation 2016/679). Subscribers have the right to access, modify, or delete their personal data by submitting a written request to the publisher. Personal data will not be shared with third parties without explicit consent.
Scan to visit our website
➤ Marianna Caterino For years, growth has been the industry's first measure of success. More production has usually meant stronger demand, better business prospects and the confidence to invest further. That relationship is becoming less straightforward. The poultry sector is still in a favourable position. Chicken remains competitively priced compared with other animal proteins, and consumption continues to hold up in many markets. Producers have responded by expanding output, encouraged by several years of positive market conditions. The question is whether every market can absorb that growth. Recent figures suggest that, in some regions, production is moving faster than demand. Prices are softening, margins are under pressure and the discussion is gradually shifting from how to increase volumes to how to avoid creating too much supply. This is happening at a time when the industry's operating environment is becoming more unpredictable. Avian influenza continues to affect production and trade. Newcastle disease is reappearing in parts of Europe. Feed markets remain sensitive to geopolitical developments, while the possibility of an El Niño event later this year adds further uncertainty for grain production and feed costs. At the same time, more governments are placing food security at the centre of their agricultural policies, encouraging domestic production and gradually reshaping international trade. None of these issues can be considered in isolation. Together, they make planning more difficult than it was only a few years ago. The industry does not lack opportunities. Global demand for poultry meat remains solid and chicken is likely to retain its competitive advantage as consumers continue to pay close attention to food prices. But favourable demand should not be mistaken for unlimited demand. One expression appears repeatedly in recent market analyses: supply discipline. It may not sound particularly exciting, yet it probably captures one of the biggest challenges facing the sector. Expanding production is relatively easy when conditions are favourable. Matching production to what the market can sustainably absorb is far more demanding. Growth is still an opportunity. Keeping it in balance may prove to be the harder task.
JULY/AUGUST 2026
4 8 10
NEWS
34
MARKETING
38
MANAGEMENT
42 44 47 48
VETERINARY
REPORT Where do we stand on Newcastle disease?
DOSSIER Trends, standards and research directions for the future of laying hen welfare
16
FOCUS
18
FOCUS
24
30
MARKETING
Cleaning and disinfection of poultry house: a key step in poultry farm biosecurity
Aspergillosis in poultry production: understanding the pathogen for better prevention
MARKETING The role of the G20 group in global meat production and trade – Part 4: trade between member countries
India leverages cost advantages, but geopolitical tensions affect its egg exports
French eggs: victims of their own success
Rest and movement to improve birds’ welfare and performance
Key threats to poultry gut health
MARKET GUIDE UPCOMING EVENTS INTERNET GUIDE
◗
SUMMARY
◗ NEWS
VIV EUROPE 2026 CLOSES IN UTRECHT AND ADOPTS A BIENNIAL FORMAT VIV Europe 2026 closed on 4 June after three days of meetings, conferences and business activities at Jaarbeurs Utrecht. The event attracted 14,691 professional visitors from 135 countries and brought together 461 exhibitors from 37 nations.
The exhibition occupied 20,500 square metres of net exhibition space across six halls. Around 200 industry leaders attended the show, which was also covered by 30 members of the international press.
Association, the Dutch Poultry Centre, the Netherlands African Business Council, World Veterinary Education in Production Animal Health, Global Dairy Farmers and Common Source.
Held under the theme “Showroom of the World”, VIV Europe covered the entire feed-to-food chain. Exhibitors represented sectors ranging from feed and grain technology to feed ingredients and additives, animal health, breeding and hatching, farm production, processing and packaging, cold chain logistics, laboratory services, and IT and automation.
Several seminar tracks addressed specific industry topics. AgriBITs focused on artificial intelligence, precision nutrition and smart feed processing, while Build My Feedmill explored feed technology. Dairy 2030 examined data-driven farm management, and Cities Leading Food Production looked at the role of urban food systems in supply chain resilience.
One of the main announcements concerned the future format of the exhibition. From 2026 onwards, VIV Europe will be organised every two years, with the next edition scheduled for 13–15 June 2028.
The official opening ceremony featured remarks from HRH Prince Carlos of Bourbon de Parme, who emphasised the importance of sustainable food production and international trade.
The conference programme featured 76 sessions and 107 speakers. Discussions focused on topics such as the use of artificial intelligence and digital tools in feed and farm management, antimicrobial reduction strategies, developments in global protein and feed trade, and measures aimed at strengthening supply chain resilience.
On the exhibition floor, product launches and technology demonstrations took place throughout the event. Buyers and procurement teams from major integrators, cooperatives and national producers moved between stands, meeting suppliers and evaluating new solutions. Among the technologies highlighted by exhibitors were precision feeding systems, next-generation biosecurity protocols and AI-driven farm management platforms.
A number of international organisations and institutions contributed to the programme, including Wageningen University & Research, Rabobank, the World’s Poultry Science Association, the World Veterinary Poultry
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
The next edition of VIV Europe will be held at Jaarbeurs Utrecht in the Netherlands from 13–15 June 2028.
p. 4
◗ NEWS
VIV: INTERVIEW WITH A VISITOR At VIV Europe 2026 in Utrecht, Zootecnica spoke with Richard Thibaud, DVM, MBA, General Manager of Linkipharm, to hear his views on the exhibition from a visitor’s perspective. What motivated you to attend VIV Europe 2026, and what were you hoping to achieve during the exhibition? I’m a consultant and a veterinarian and I have been working in the feed additive industry for ten years and presently I represent two companies, a Canadian one and a Belgian one, and most of my customers are here at VIV and are coming to exhibitions, so it’s very interesting for me to see them all at once and very profitable. After the first days of the event, what developments or innovations have attracted your attention the most? For one of the companies I’m representing, I’ve got a niche product which is olive pulp which is of phyto origin and there is a lot of interest in terms of antioxidant activity and it is a big trend in the feed additive industry in the poultry industry and the pig industry to use these kinds of products. So, I visited many feed additive suppliers. Some of them are developing formulations into which my feed additive could be incorporated and then sell it to premixers or feed millers. So, I exhaustively visited all the booths to see if there would be some interest in my product. Which topics are currently generating the most discussion among poultry industry professionals at VIV Europe? I would say there’s maybe a ban coming on coccidiostats in the poultry industry, and in that case, you’ve got to replace them with alternatives, among which you will find phytogenics. So that’s one big topic. The second topic is that genetically the poultry broilers have grown so big and so fast that they are very fragile. So, they need considerable nutritional and management support to avoid them collapsing before they get slaughtered. So, it’s important, this is, I would say, a big issue which is coming.
challenges and opportunities for the poultry sector in the coming years? I would say the poultry industry in Europe, I’m speaking of feed additives, feed industry and all which is around, is major industry and the market is not progressing a lot. So, it’s a difficult time, I would say these days, we’ve got some growth opportunities but they’re mainly in Asia and Africa and so the growth prospects here are limited, it’s a bit difficult. Looking back on your visit, what has been the most valuable aspect of attending VIV Europe 2026? Like the other years, it’s important to see the main actors because as I’m French I know well the French market and then I can propose foreign companies to enter the French market using my network and you’ve got as well some French companies here that are interested in using my network that I’m having abroad in order to penetrate foreign markets. So, it’s a vice versa strategy which can fit in both ways my expertise. So, it’s very interesting to come and to visit other congresses as well. Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and reflect his personal perspective and professional experience.
Interesting! Based on the conversations you have had during the exhibition, what do you see as the main
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 5
◗ NEWS
AUSTRALIA’S FIRST IN-OVO SEXED CHICKS DELIVERED IN COMMERCIAL LAYER INDUSTRY FIRST Specialised Breeders Australia (SBA), Australia’s leading supplier of commercial layer genetics, has successfully delivered the country’s first commercial in-ovo sexed day-old chicks to McLean Farms. With the first commercial placement now complete, Australia joins a growing number of countries, including Germany, France, Brazil and the United States, where the technology is being used commercially. In the EU, in-ovo sexing technology has reached 28% market penetration1. According to Innovate Animal Ag’s Australian consumer survey, conducted by Ipsos in August 2025 with 1,000 Australian consumers, there is strong market demand in Australia for eggs produced using in-ovo sexing. 84% of respondents expressed interest in purchasing in-ovo sexed eggs, and 66% were willing to pay a premium2. Eugene Viljoen, chief executive officer of Specialised Breeders Australia, said: “The delivery of Australia’s first commercial in-ovo sexed chicks is a proud moment for SBA and a genuine milestone for our industry. As Australia’s market-leading supplier of commercial layer genetics, we are investing in innovations that support the long-term needs of egg producers: our belief is that Australian producers deserve access to the best technology the world has to offer and should be able to produce new products in response to changing consumer expectations”. Andrew Crocker (L), Franswa Venter (C) with Jorg Hurlin, AAT (R) The inaugural placement was made in June 2026, making McLean Farms the first commercial egg producer in Australia to receive chicks produced using in-ovo sex determination technology. In May, SBA announced that it had become the first company in the Asia-Pacific region to introduce in-ovo sexing for commercial egg producers through the use of Agri Advanced Technology (AAT)’s Cheggy technology. Cheggy uses a non‑invasive, hyperspectral light‑based optical analysis to determine the sex of a chick prior to hatching at a commercially viable scale, enhancing animal welfare in egg production. 1 2
SBA will produce in-ovo sexed chicks as an additional product offering available from June 2026, registered with the “Certified Humane” trademark. Melinda Hashimoto, chief executive officer of Egg Farmers of Australia, said: “Australian egg farmers work tirelessly to produce high-quality eggs while meeting the evolving expectations of consumers and the community. “The commercial delivery of in-ovo sexed chicks is a positive development for our industry that will provide greater, highwelfare product options for layers and the end consumer. We congratulate SBA and McLean Farms on this milestone.” For more information, please visit: www.cheggy.com & www.agri-at.com
https://innovateanimalag.org/market-penetration-forecast https://innovateanimalag.org/blog/australia-in-ovo-sexing-consumer-survey
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 6
◗ REPORT
WHERE DO WE STAND ON NEWCASTLE DISEASE? Current status and future perspectives This year marks the centenary of the identification of Newcastle disease in a laboratory in Weybridge. On May 26, an FVE/FLI-organized webinar on Newcastle disease attracted nearly 400 participants. During the meeting, experts took stock of the epidemiological and political aspects of the disease and discussed possible solutions. The webinar was opened by Jane Clark, vice-president of FVE (Federation of Veterinarians of Europe), who welcomed participants and provided an overview of Newcastle disease (ND) and its spread. The disease is currently circulating actively in Europe, with significant clusters in Spain, Poland, Germany, and Lithuania, affecting both commercial and backyard flocks. The virus is spread through human movements, contaminated equipment, and populations of wild or captive birds.
response to an outbreak and subject to official plans and risk assessments). Carola Sauter-Louis (FLI, Frederick-Loeffler-Institut) and Christian Grund (FLI) then presented the epidemiological situation of ND in Europe, with a focus on Germany, currently circulating strains, and vaccination programmes. In Germany, the situation has changed dramatically since
This was followed by a presentation from Sanna Mesman (DG SANTE), who outlined EU rules on the surveillance and control of ND under the Animal Health Law. Her presentation can be summarized in four key points: • Categorization: ND is a Category A disease, meaning it is subject to immediate eradication measures as soon as it is confirmed in captive birds, similarly to highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). • Control measures: in the event of an outbreak, immediate culling (stamping out), the establishment of restriction zones, and movement bans are mandatory. • Compartmentalization: a recent development is the possibility for Member States to apply for diseasefree compartment status, based on high levels of biosecurity and surveillance, allowing exemptions from movement restrictions within restricted zones. • Vaccination: a distinction exists between routine/preventive vaccination (permitted for commercial or precautionary purposes outside restrictive measures) and emergency protective vaccination (implemented in
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 8
February 2026, after 30 years without reported cases. There is an Eastern European cluster involving Poland, the Czech Republic, and Germany. Mortality in commercial farms is often below 2%, whereas in small rural flocks it can reach 100%. The circulating strain in Eastern Europe belongs to genotype 7.1.1, a highly infectious virus with a polybasic cleavage site. Current vaccines protect against mortality but not necessarily against infection or virus shedding, leading to silent virus circulation within vaccinated flocks. A robust immune response is essential to reduce this spread. Jakub Wojciechowski (VET-LAB Brudzew) then discussed the situation in neighbouring Poland, where the outbreak situation has worsened since 2023, with more than 8.5 million birds affected in 2025. The Polish government has made hatchery vaccination mandatory (day 0 or day 18). Birds are therefore not allowed to leave the hatchery unvaccinated. In addition, the law prohibits relying on a single vaccination: every farmer is required to carry out at least one additional vaccination. However, the most scientifically rigorous aspect of this regulation is the 80% seropositivity threshold (meaning the animal has developed antibodies in response to vaccination), which must be reached at the end of the production cycle in broilers, or 100% in laying hens. If this specific test is not passed — in other words, if the 80% threshold is not reached — a corrective programme is triggered. Once initiated, the programme lasts for five production cycles, during which the 80% threshold must be achieved three times in a row. The discussion, moderated by Piotr Kwieciński (FVE treasurer), featured contributions from Ronald Günther (AVEC) and Stanisław Winiarczyk (Polish National Veterinary Institute), who highlighted further critical issues. These included the need to standardize immune monitoring and diagnostics across national laboratories, as well as the lack of data on viral circulation in backyard poultry (raised in small-scale or family-run farms) and waterfowl (ducks and geese), which may act as silent reservoirs. Biosecurity remains a fundamental pillar. Human factors are often the main cause of virus introduction into commercial farms. It is equally essential to train personnel on the correct spray vaccination techniques to ensure uniform vaccine coverage within the flock. FVE is also conducting a survey on gaps in veterinary medicinal products for ducks and geese in order to address future challenges. In conclusion, the fight against ND must rest on three inseparable pillars: immunoprophylaxis (vaccination), rigorous biosecurity, and constant monitoring.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 9
◗ DOSSIER
TRENDS, STANDARDS AND RESEARCH DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF LAYING HEN WELFARE The Western egg industry is transitioning to cage-free housing, creating new welfare challenges for hens genetically adapted to battery cages. Research highlights that earlylife experiences with structural complexity and load-bearing exercise are crucial for adaptation to aviary systems and long-term skeletal health. Feather pecking remains a significant issue, with new studies exploring the gut-brain axis and effective enrichment strategies. Future progress relies on optimizing genetics, refining pullet management, and developing automated, real-time monitoring tools to enhance welfare standards.
➤ Tina M. Widowski Dept. of Animal Biosciences, Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2Z2, Canada twidowski@uoguelph.ca
Summary Whether through changes in animal welfare regulations or corporate commitments for cage-free eggs, most of the egg industry in the Western world is transitioning to cage-free
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
housing for laying hens. The current genetics of commercial hybrids, as well as feeding and management practices were developed for life in conventional cages, and it is not surprising that new welfare problems have emerged. Multitiered aviary systems are commonly used for cage-free production to increase stocking capacity in barns. However, behavioural adaptation to these complex housing systems and skeletal health problems, such as keel fractures, are both significant challenges in aviaries. Recent research indicates that pullets’ early-life experiences with environmental complexity, specific structural elements (e.g., perches, ramps), and load-bearing exercise are crucial for their
p. 10
success in adapting to aviaries and for their long-term health and welfare. Feather pecking behaviour, a problem that can result in plumage damage, injury and cannibalism, occurs in all types of housing systems. However, the consequences can be worse in cage-free systems. New areas of research include investigations into the role of the gut-brain axis, the effects of early-life experiences, and effective edible enrichments to prevent feather pecking. Overall, new research is focusing on optimizing hen genetics and pullet management to match the birds to cage-free housing and reduce skeletal and behavioural problems. Finally, research into the development of automated methods for real-time assessment of hen welfare will help prevent problems in the barn and improve animal welfare audits for consumerdriven animal welfare assurances.
Introduction The last 80 years have witnessed tremendous changes in the way eggs are produced and in the laying hens that produce them. In the decades following World War II, egg production underwent industrialization, transitioning from small, cage-free flocks to larger, cage-based operations as the use of battery cages began in the USA and later spread globally. At the same time, techniques in quantitative genetics were applied in earnest, and selection for production traits produced commercial hybrids with substantially earlier sexual maturity and higher egg production rates. The field of poultry science also flourished, with advances in nutrition and health management. These changes in genetics, housing, and feeding resulted in the production of one of the most nutritious animal proteins with one of the lowest environmental footprints. However, the use of conventional cages also came at a cost. Public perception of battery cages is largely negative and supported by scientific evidence that housing hens in barren cages compromises some important aspects of hen welfare. Today, whether driven by legislation or corporate commitments, the entire Western world is experiencing another 360 ° shift in housing systems for laying hens. Societal concerns about hen welfare demand the elimination of conventional cages and a return to cage-free, or at least enriched, systems. However, this time, cage-free housing is being implemented on an industrial scale, with flocks of thousands or tens of thousands of hens housed in complex aviary systems. Additionally, we are using a knowledge base developed for the feeding and management of laying hens that were genetically selected for life in cages. Across countries, this shift is occurring through different means, at varying rates, and often with differing standards. The welfare trade-offs between conventional cages versus cage-free housing for laying hens are well established in the scientific literature (Hemsworth, 2021). Therefore, it is no surprise that the shift to cage-free housing presents challenges for producers, new welfare issues for laying hens, and a need for new areas of research to address them. In this paper, I aim to provide an overview of the changing status of egg production in Europe, USA and Canada,
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
current requirements for laying hen standards and assurances, and some of the animal welfare challenges associated with the change to cage-free housing. I will also discuss new and future areas of research needed to improve the welfare of laying hens.
Status of the egg industries in Europe and North America Current legislation and corporate commitments In Europe, the 1999/74/EC Directive on the keeping of laying hens came into effect in January of 2012, allowing cage-free systems and enriched cages with specific requirements for space, nests, perches, foraging, and dustbathing substrate. Some EU member countries have independently banned all types of caging systems. In 2018, a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) “End the Cage Age,” calling for an EU-wide ban on the confinement of poultry, pigs, rabbits, and calves, as well as regulations for imported products derived from these systems, was registered with the EU Commission (European Commission, Animal Welfare). The “End the Cage Age” ECI registered 1.4 million signatures by 2019, with many signatures coming from the Netherlands and Germany (where cages are already prohibited). The EC responded by commissioning an updated Scientific Opinion on the welfare of laying hens (EFSA, 2023) and by initiating public consultation, an impact assessment, and a policy initiative to phase out cages in the EU completely. To date, no changes have been made, although the 2025 “Vision for Agriculture,” strategic planning document indicates consideration for updating the EU animal welfare regulations. In 2021, around 47% of eggs in the EU were produced in furnished cages, 36% in cagefree barns, 11% in free-range, and close to 6% in organic, with significant regional differences across EU countries in the housing systems used (Majewski et al., 2024). Following the adoption of Brexit in 2020, the United Kingdom maintained the minimum standards set by the EU Directive, which had been formalized into UK legislation in 2006 and 2007 (The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations, 2007). Although a large segment of the British egg industry had already moved to enriched cages by 2012, several major supermarket chains made commitments in 2016 to sell only cage-free eggs with a 2025 deadline. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA, 2025), 71% of egg production is free-range, and 17% is enriched cage, with the balance in barn and organic systems. As of 2024, 10 U.S. states have enacted laws on the production or sale of cage-produced eggs. The impact of these laws was projected to surpass 16% of the hen inventory in the USA by 2026 (USDA Economic Research Service). However, a much greater impact on the US egg industry has been the 2015/2016 corporate commitments by retailers and food service to only sell eggs produced in cage-free systems by 2025. Although not all commitments have been met, the inventory of cage-free laying hens in
p. 11
the US as of October 2025 was estimated at >136M laying hens, or around 46% of the national hen inventory (USDA Egg Markets Overview). Of the cage-free hens in the US, the vast majority are in barns, with a small percentage (~16%) in organic systems and even fewer in free-range or pasture-based systems. The other 54% of US hens are in conventional cages. The Canadian egg industry is also transitioning away from conventional cages, but on a very different pathway. In 2016, the Egg Farmers of Canada (EFC) announced that they would voluntarily stop using conventional cages by 2036. The Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pullets and Laying Hens was published the following year, requiring that all hens be provided with amenities for nesting, perching, and foraging by 2036, and all enriched cage systems installed after 2032 to include amenities to provide opportunities for dustbathing (NFACC, 2017). As a supply-managed industry, the EFC embarked on a steady, organized transition to prevent market disruptions. Although the global wave of corporate commitments also hit Canada in 2016, the Retail Council of Canada, representing the major grocery store chains, retracted their cage-free pledge in 2021, instead indicating support for the National Farm Animal Care Council, the multistakeholder body that develops the Codes of Practice for Canada (Edmiston, 2025). When the 2017 Code was published, close to 90% of hens in Canada were housed in conventional cages. As of 2024, just over 43% of the flock was in conventional cages, with close to 37% in enriched and 13.5%, 4.9%, and 1.4% in cage-free barn, organic and free-range systems, respectively (EFC Annual Report, 2024). To date, most Canadian egg producers have opted to transition to enriched cage systems. Welfare standards, labeling and assurance schemes In the EU, the table egg industry is the only food animal industry with a harmonized compulsory animal welfare labelling scheme (European Commission, Animal Welfare Labelling). Eggs are stamped with the production method based on EU legislation for laying hens, which defines minimum standards of care for housing in enriched cages and cage-free systems. Across EU countries and the UK, there are also a variety of voluntary and private animal welfare assurance schemes developed to demonstrate higher welfare standards to consumers, such as the Dutch SPCA 3-star Beter Leven system in the Netherlands and RSPCA Assured in the UK. In the USA, state legislation and corporate commitments for cage-free production generally do not specify any housing or husbandry standards. The United Egg Producers (UEP) developed their own national, industry-led Animal Welfare Guidelines for Cage-free Housing in 2017. Since 1999, the UEP has been working with an independent scientific advisory committee to establish and regularly update animal care guidelines for hens in cages. The scientific committee comprises poultry welfare scientists, veterinarians and an ethicist. The UEP Certified Program involves annual third-party audits of farms to ensure compliance with its
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
guidelines and represents 90% of the eggs produced in the USA (UEP Certified, 2024). In Canada, the Code of Practice has specific requirements for floor, feeder, nest, perch, and litter or scratch mat space allowances, as well as husbandry and euthanasia practices for pullets and hens across all types of housing systems. The Codes for all farm animals are developed by multistakeholder committees (including farmers, processors, government, veterinarians and representation from animal advocacy and retailers) and informed by a Scientific Committee Report on priority welfare issues. Egg farmer compliance with all requirements in the Codes is assured through the national EFC Animal Care Program. Annual on-farm audits are conducted on 2/3 of farms by EFC or provincial field inspectors, with the remaining farms receiving third-party audits. The Animal Care program is bundled with the Start Clean-Stay Clean® food safety program for Egg Quality AssuranceTM certification (available at: https://eggquality.ca).
Animal welfare challenges and research needs a. The importance of early-life experience Most cage-free housing today comprises multi-tier aviary systems that allow for increased bird density within the barn. In aviaries, resources such as feeders, drinkers, perches, and nests are located on stacked tiers elevated well above the litter (ground floor). While an aviary may seem like a natural fit for a bird, laying hens are Galliformes, a heavy-bodied, terrestrial species better suited to life on the ground. Although laying hens do still prefer to roost in high places at night, the numerous aerial transitions required to navigate between different tiers and structures in an aviary often prove challenging for them. When aviaries were first developed in Europe, it soon became apparent that pullets destined for these complex housing systems had to be reared in similarly complex systems (Janczak and Riber, 2015). When not wellprepared for aviary housing, hens are less able to navigate the system and find (or reach) food, water, and nests, resulting in higher mortality and substantially more eggs laid outside the nest and on the floor. Providing perches early in life was found to be particularly important (Gunnarsson et al., 1999), as was providing resources, such as food and water, at multiple levels (Colson et al., 2008), so that pullets can learn to access vertical space. Up until very recently, there was a lack of any husbandry standards or welfare guidelines for pullets, and little research on pullet behavioural and physical development (Giersberg and Rodenburg, 2023). Now that the success and welfare of laying hens in cage-free housing depends on a bird that is calm, experienced, and physically fit, research in this area has been rapidly growing.
p. 12
Source: Kipster In terms of behaviour, rearing experience affects cognitive development, spatial navigation, use of structures, and fearfulness (Campbell et al., 2019). Pullets reared in aviaries versus conventional cages have been shown to perform better on tests of cognition. For example, young hens reared in commercial aviaries were faster to find rewards and had better working memory in a spatial task (Tahamtani et al., 2015) and better success in a T-maze learning task (Rentsch et al., 2023a) than birds reared in conventional cages. Experience with structures such as perches, ramps, and elevated platforms also results in birds performing better on tests of navigation, such as ascending a series of offset platforms to receive a food reward (Gunnarsson et al., 2020; Rentsch et al., 2023b). Early experience with specific structural elements is also important. For example, exposure to ramps in the first weeks of life increases hens’ ramp use in the layer house and reduces hesitancy when moving between levels (Norman et al., 2021). Finally, rearing in more complex environments, such as aviaries, has been shown to reduce fear of novelty (Braenstater et al., 2016; Rentsch et al., 2024a) and improve overall use of 3-dimensional space (Braenstater et al., 2016).
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
As one might expect, musculoskeletal development is also affected by the rearing environment, as the amount of loadbearing exercise performed increases with the complexity of the rearing system (Pufall et al., 2021; Anderson et al., 2024; Rentsch et al., 2023c). Pullets reared in aviaries versus conventional cages have increased muscle mass (CaseyTrott et al., 2017a), larger keels (Casey-Trott et al., 2017a; Rentsch et al., 2024) and greater cortical cross-sectional area and breaking strength of the long bones (Regmi et al., 2015; Casey-Trott et al., 2017a). The addition of multitiered perching structures alone improved load-bearing activity, muscle mass, bone strength and biomarkers of bone formation in growing pullets housed in floor pens (Anderson et al., 2024). Specific designs of rearing systems can also affect pullet development, as there are considerable differences in the amount of vertical space, the number of structures requiring jumping, and the amount of horizontal space available for running, especially in the brooding sections where chicks are kept for the first few weeks (Pufall et al., 2021).
p. 13
Interestingly, some of the effects on behavioural and musculoskeletal development mentioned above depend on the genetic strain of the bird. White-feathered strains tend to use more and higher structures in the environment and perform more aerial transitions between tiers (Pufall et al., 2021; Rentsch et al., 2023a); they also reap more of the benefits of growing up in a complex aviary than brownfeathered strains (Rentsch et al., 2023b,c). b. Skeletal health While the load-bearing exercise inherent to cage-free systems does improve bone strength, fragile bones and, in particular, keel bone fractures, are still a significant problem in laying hens. The prevalence of keel fractures is high; estimates from commercial farms range from 20 to 96%, and the condition can impair mobility and is likely painful for hens, at least in the early stages (see Toscano et al., 2020). Egg production rate and its associated calcium demand is assumed to be a contributing factor for fragile bones, including the keel, but the etiology of keel fractures is complex. Fractures on the medial section of the keel apparently result from collisions with environmental structures. In contrast, fractures located in the caudal area of the keel are non-traumatic in nature, possibly related to the early onset of lay and the repeated strain from laying eggs prior to complete ossification of the keel (Thøfner et al., 2020). Now that egg production rates are close to their biological limit with hens laying nearly an egg per day, breeding goals for laying hens are focusing on laying persistency and maintaining egg quality to support extended production to over 100 weeks of age. One of the significant challenges of extended laying cycles will be maintaining the skeletal health of laying hens in non-cage systems, and research in this area is ongoing (Gautron et al., 2021). Bone traits are moderately heritable, and one study of genetic correlations between production and bone traits indicated that early onset of puberty, rather than egg production persistency, was associated with a loss of
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
bone quality in laying hens (Dunn et al., 2021). Research is also targeting the identification of behavioural phenotypes associated with stronger bones and fewer keel fractures (Toscano et al., 2020). More research is needed to optimize rearing for lifelong musculoskeletal health and behaviour. Enhanced bone characteristics, such as increased cortical (structural) bone area resulting from prepubertal load-bearing exercise, are maintained throughout adulthood (Casey-Trott et al., 2017b). Lower prevalence and severity of keel fractures have been observed at the end of lay when pullets were reared in high complexity aviaries versus conventional cages (Casey-Trott et al., 2017c) or less complex aviaries (Rentsch et al., 2024b). Fewer fractures could be due to better navigation skills, differences in keel bone properties or both. Hens reared in aviaries versus cages experienced fewer and less forceful collisions when subsequently housed in enriched systems (Pullin et al., 2020) and laying hens reared with ramps not only used ramps more but also had fewer keel fractures (Norman et al., 2021). c. Feather pecking Despite decades of research into its causes and prevention, feather pecking remains one of the major welfare issues in laying hen production. Severe feather pecking, which is the forceful pecking and pulling out of group-mates’ feathers (sometimes followed by feather eating), causes damage to plumage and integument and can lead to cannibalism (van Staaveren and Harlander, 2020). Feather pecking has economic as well as welfare implications, as plumage damage results in increased heat loss and thus, increased energy requirement. Although feather pecking occurs in every type of housing system, it can be worse in non-cage systems as it can spread quickly throughout a large flock through behavioural contagion. In countries that prohibit both beak trimming and cages (e.g., the Netherlands, Germany, Austria), feather pecking outbreaks can be devastating for flock welfare.
p. 14
One hypothesis for feather pecking is that it is a form of redirected foraging behaviour. However, the problem is much more complex with underlying differences in brain chemistry in birds that perform feather pecking (van Staaveren and Harlander, 2020). Factors influencing feather pecking are numerous and multi-factorial, including lack of foraging substrates, genetics, nutritional factors such as feed composition and form, changes in diet, environmental stressors such as stocking density, air quality, social disruption, and the list goes on. One emerging area of research is the microbiota-gut-brain axis, which is known to influence behaviour (van Staaveren and Harlander, 2021). Populations of laying hens selected for feather pecking have been found to have distinct microbiota profiles, although the relationship between gut microbes and feather pecking is still unclear. Another area of more applied research on feather pecking is the identification of effective environmental enrichments. Pecking blocks, which are edible enrichments, have been demonstrated to improve plumage condition in laying hens. Commercially available pecking blocks differ in nutrient composition, with some primarily mineral-based and others containing more grains, molasses or fibre (Ehigbor et al., 2025). Interestingly, preferences for different pecking blocks vary across genetic strain, and their use varies across individual birds and time of day, with high calcium mineral-based blocks consumed more at the end of the day, corresponding with calcium appetite. Pecking blocks offer opportunities to reduce feather pecking and give individual birds some choice over the nutrients in their diet. The rearing experience of pullets can contribute to the development of feather pecking, even when the behaviour does not emerge until later in the bird’s life (Giersberg and Rodenburg, 2023). Research is needed to determine how experience with different foraging materials, interruptions in foraging availability, and dietary changes during rearing predict feather pecking in the layer barn. Additionally, research is needed into how nutritional interventions during rearing, especially during critical periods, might influence feather pecking by altering the microbiota, gut function, or feeding/foraging motivation (Mens et al., 2020). d. Animal welfare assessment Animal welfare audits are a reality for many producers worldwide, and there is a sub-discipline within animal welfare science that focuses on practical animal welfare assessments. Since both farmer livelihoods and assurance of animal welfare depend on sound assessment instruments, measures of animal welfare need to be valid (accurate measures of animal welfare), reliable (good inter- and intra-observer repeatability), and feasible (practical and cost-efficient in the field). Although it has long been acknowledged that animal-based measures (ABMs) (e.g., real-time measures of health, mortality and behaviour) are the best animal welfare indicators, most practical assessments still rely on resource- or management-based measures (e.g., checking compliance with housing or
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
Despite decades of research into its causes and prevention, feather pecking remains one of the major welfare issues in laying hen production. Severe feather pecking, which is the forceful pecking and pulling out of group-mates’ feathers (sometimes followed by feather eating), causes damage to plumage and integument and can lead to cannibalism husbandry standards), particularly in poultry. One area of research with considerable effort in Europe is the development of animal welfare surveillance systems through tracking of ABMs, for example, at slaughter plants (EFSA, 2021). In some slaughter plants, these measures are already in place for internal food safety monitoring. For laying hens, potential ante- and post-mortem animal welfare measures include feather condition, DOA (dead on arrival), lesions, broken bones, broken keels, and condemnations, which can be tracked at the farm level. There is also considerable research effort to deploy intelligent technologies based on environmental sensors and computer vision in barns to provide real-time monitoring of laying hen health and welfare (Ma et al., 2025). Potential measures include auditory analysis of hen vocalizations and the identification of changes in flock behaviour to enable early detection of illness or outbreaks of feather pecking. A multidisciplinary effort will be critical for validating automated behaviour and welfare measures. References are available on request. From the proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium 2026, by courtesy of Professor Tina M. Widowski
p. 15
◗ FOCUS
CLEANING AND DISINFECTION OF POULTRY HOUSE: A KEY STEP IN POULTRY FARM BIOSECURITY Biosecurity is a major issue in poultry farming today. Failures in biosecurity can lead to significant economic losses: lower animal production, mortality, poor egg quality, etc. In this article, we will explain all the steps for an efficient cleaning and disinfection of poultry houses. Some bacteria and viruses can survive for a long time in farm conditions, some are able to survive in the absence of oxygen, in cold climates but also in heat. Therefore, a good cleaning and disinfection protocol is vital. This includes strict application of the different steps and product contact times (refer to the instructions for each product). To achieve this, the protocol can be divided into four main steps.
1. Cleaning of poultry houses This is the stage where all equipment is taken out of the building and all organic matter visible to the naked eye is removed by washing. The house should be visually clean. • First, the batch is reformed, any dead birds are removed. Feed residues in feed lines and silos are removed. Finally, all removable equipment is taken from the building to be washed and disinfected. • Second, pre-soaking of the slats outside the building is recommended. Sweep or wash all surfaces to remove dust from ceilings, water pipes, fan housings and inlets (with air pressure if available). The entire floor should be scraped and swept. • The drinking system should also be thoroughly cleaned: - Fill the system with water, adding an adequate amount of disinfectant (hydrogen peroxide, chlorine or acetic acid). When diluting, be careful to respect the required concentration. - The disinfectant should be allowed to flow through the system to the watering point for the animals. Leave for about 1 hour, it is possible to leave the product in the system for up to 2 hours. If necessary, repeat the operation several times, up to a maximum of 3 times a day. - Fill the drinking lines with clean water and with the filter upside down. - Repeat the entire procedure if scale and biofilm persist. • Once the above steps have been completed, pressure wash all surfaces with a detergent solution. All areas must be cleaned: inside but also concrete access areas, air inlets, etc.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
2. Effective disinfection This step consists of disinfecting clean surfaces. After cleaning, the level of pathogens is still quite high. It is essential to use a broad-spectrum disinfectant that is effective against viruses, bacteria, fungi and moulds. • As a first step, all removable objects should be returned to the building to be disinfected as well. • Using a low-pressure water pump (300 psi), apply the disinfectant solution evenly to all washed internal surfaces to ensure the surfaces are completely soaked. • Pay particular attention to corners, cracks and seams, ensuring that all sides of the elements are covered. • Spray, beginning with the ceilings, and working down the walls to the floors. • At the end of the disinfection process, close all doors and place disinfectant foot baths at all entrances. • To control organisms introduced into the building during the set-up procedure and disinfect the air and other inaccessible areas of the building, fumigation can be carried out using a fine mist sprayer with a disinfectant solution.
3. Empty period This step does not begin until the first two steps have been fully completed. This is the time when the building is empty.
p. 16
• It is advisable to carry out a sanitary period of at least 10 days, this step must be adapted according to the local regulations in force.
4. Preparing for the arrival of the new flock: • 3 days before the arrival of the new flock, spray all areas with a residual insecticide. • Provide fresh litter (never use mouldy materials). Spray the litter surface with a larvicide insecticide. • Prepare the equipment in the start-up area and ensure that all equipment is working properly. • Twenty-four hours before the arrival of the new flock, carry out a final disinfection by thermal fogging.
In conclusion Cleaning and disinfecting poultry buildings are key moments in biosecurity, in addition to the daily routine: washing hands, changing clothes, respecting the different areas of the farm, etc. This is an opportunity to achieve optimum cleaning and disinfection of the building. If
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
properly carried out, it ensures that the farm maintains a good health status and a high level of biosecurity. The birds can therefore grow under optimal conditions and fully express their genetic potential. The Novogen technical team remains at your disposal for any further information you may require. For more information visit www.novogen-layers.com
p. 17
◗ FOCUS
ASPERGILLOSIS IN POULTRY PRODUCTION: UNDERSTANDING THE PATHOGEN FOR BETTER PREVENTION Aspergillosis is an important respiratory mycosis affecting poultry worldwide. The ubiquitous presence of Aspergillus fungi in the environment, combined with management and housing or hatchery conditions, increases the risk of infection in commercial flocks. This article reviews the main epidemiological aspects, risk factors, and economic implications of aspergillosis in poultry systems, and provides suggestions to keep the hatchery free of Aspergillus. ➤ Cauê Tertuliano1, Hilde Van Meirhaeghe2,3, Giuditta Tilli2, Maarten De Gussem2,3 1 Vetworks do Brasil (caue.tertuliano@vetworks.eu) 2 Vetworks bvba, Knokstraat 38, Poeke B-9880, Belgium (hilde.vanmeirhaeghe@vetworks.eu, giuditta.tilli@vetworks.eu, maarten.degussem@vetworks.eu) 3 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Ghent, Salisburylaan 133, 9820, Merelbeke, Belgium
Etiology, epidemiology, and environmental sources of contamination Aspergillosis is a relevant respiratory disease of poultry caused by fungi of the genus Aspergillus. Aspergillus fumigatus is the most common etiological agent; however, A. flavus, A. niger, A. glaucus, and A. terreus may also be found in commercial poultry production. These ubiquitous microorganisms are widely distributed in nature and commonly present in soil, stored grains, and decomposing organic matter. They proliferate rapidly under warm and humid conditions, while the dispersion of airborne conidia may be favored by dry environments, thereby increasing the likelihood of respiratory exposure in birds. Such ecological characteristics make certain environments particularly susceptible to the development and spread of fungal diseases. In poultry production systems, hatcheries represent a key example, as temperature and humidity conditions may favor fungal growth. In commercial poultry systems, infection typically occurs through the inhalation of airborne fungal spores. This process is strongly influenced by housing and environmental conditions. Inadequate ventilation, high
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
dust levels, and the accumulation of organic material contribute to increased concentrations of fungal particles within poultry houses. Feed ingredients also play a role in the epidemiology of aspergillosis. Cereal grains, such as corn, wheat, and rice, provide suitable substrates for fungal growth when stored under inadequate temperature and humidity conditions. Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus niger may proliferate under such conditions, turning contaminated grains into reservoirs of fungal spores that contribute to environmental contamination in poultry farms. Fungal proliferation can also be influenced by litter material. Organic substrates including wood shavings, sawdust, straw, and rice hulls frequently accumulate moisture and organic debris during the production cycle. This scenario
p. 18
increases the possibility of environmental fungal growth. In this way, the concentration of inhalable spores inside poultry houses increases. Although aspergillosis has been reported in many wild and domestic avian species such as waterfowl and birds of prey, poultry (including broilers and commercial layers) and turkeys exhibit a higher susceptibility to the disease. Birds have relatively poor vascularization of the air sacs and limited mucociliary clearance, which reduces their capacity to eliminate inhaled particles and microorganisms. Additionally, most avian species rely on heterophils which are generally less efficient in controlling fungal hyphae than neutrophils, as seen in mammals. This makes the respiratory tract more prone to colonization by opportunistic fungi. Due to these anatomical and physiological features of the respiratory system, birds are particularly susceptible to aspergillosis. Among the predisposing factors in birds there are also immunosuppression, respiratory tract irritation, antibiotic therapy, the presence of other infectious agents, and a high infectious load.
Clinical signs and diagnosis ▲ Figure 1 – Whitish to yellowish nodules in the air sacs of a 35-day-old pullet flock affected by Aspergillus flavus Source: Poulpharm Belgium (www.poulpharm.com).
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
Nonspecific clinical signs are commonly associated with aspergillosis, therefore, it should be differentiated from other respiratory diseases. Affected birds often present lethargy, anorexia, ruffled feathers, respiratory distress,
p. 19
and reduced growth. In some cases, sudden death occurs without obvious previous symptoms. Inhalation of large quantities of fungal spores induces acute disease. It occurs most frequently in young birds, often resulting in high morbidity and mortality. In adult birds, chronic infections are more routinely observed and are frequently linked to immunosuppressive conditions. In these situations, birds tend to show progressive weight loss, decreased activity, and reduced tolerance to exercise. In more advanced stages, neurological manifestations (including ataxia or opisthotonos) might appear, occasionally accompanied by ascites or cardiac alterations. During necropsy, characteristic lesions can be observed. The respiratory tract, especially lungs and air sacs, represents the main site of infection. However, other organs may also show lesions. Whitish to yellow granulomatous nodules or plaques are commonly present and vary considerably in size (Figure 1), as well as blackish to greyish discoloration of the lungs (Figure 2). These lesions often appear as granulomatous deposits attached to the air sac membranes or pulmonary tissue; they may also appear on the surface of other organs. In severe infections, fungal dissemination to the brain or eyes can also be observed. Confirmation of aspergillosis and identification of the causative fungal species rely on the integration of multiple diagnostic approaches, including necropsy findings, cytological examination, histopathology, fungal culture, and complementary molecular assays such as PCR. Direct microscopic examination of impression smears or tissue scrapings from affected organs, often after treatment with 10% potassium hydroxide (KOH), may allow the visualization of fungal hyphae. Histopathological examination is widely regarded as the diagnostic gold standard, as it enables direct visualization of fungal hyphae within characteristic granulomatous lesions. In cases of aspergillosis, the hyphae are typically septate and exhibit acute-angle (dichotomous) branching, features consistent with Aspergillus spp. Fungal culture on selective media (Sabouraud dextrose agar) remains a valuable tool for isolation and preliminary identification; however, it is relatively slow, generally requiring several days to achieve sufficient growth for morphological characterization. In contrast, PCR-based assays provide a rapid and highly sensitive alternative, allowing earlier detection and more precise species-level identification of the pathogen. Nevertheless, the higher costs and the requirement for specialized laboratory infrastructure and technical expertise should be considered when selecting the most appropriate diagnostic strategy. Additional diagnostic methods, including detection of galactomannan antigen and anti-Aspergillus antibodies, have been evaluated for aspergillosis.
Economic impact Besides the health problems observed during the production cycle, respiratory diseases also generate economic losses during poultry processing. Official inspection data from Brazil indicate that carcass
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
▲ Figure 2 – Pneumonia caused by Aspergillus flavus in a 35-day-old pullet flock, with visible greyish discoloration of the lungs Source: Poulpharm Belgium (www.poulpharm.com). condemnations represent a measurable source of economic loss for the poultry sector. Analyses of slaughterhouse inspection records suggest that total condemnations account for approximately 0.3–0.4% of broiler carcasses processed in federally inspected plants. Comparable trends have been seen in other poultryproducing regions. Studies evaluating slaughterhouse inspection data in North America and Europe report condemnation rates ranging from roughly 0.3% to nearly 3%, depending on the production system. In addition to processing losses, aspergillosis outbreaks frequently cause direct production losses, including increased mortality, impaired growth performance, and reduced feed efficiency. Reported mortality rates during outbreaks vary widely, ranging from approximately 5% to as high as 90%, depending on the level of exposure and flock susceptibility. In addition to these direct losses, respiratory disorders in poultry flocks frequently result in increased veterinary interventions, additional labor, and higher medication costs. These factors, together with decreased production efficiency, further contribute to the overall economic burden associated with fungal respiratory diseases in commercial poultry systems.
p. 20
Aspergillosis risk for the hatchery
▲ Figure 3 – Fungal development in the egg (hatchery) Source: Jason Cormic.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
The infection often originates in the hatchery. Hatchery contamination is primarily associated with infected eggs that are opened during incubation or hatching, resulting in the release and dissemination of fungal spores. Spores present on the eggshell may penetrate through hairline cracks or inovo procedures or shell defects into the albumen and yolk, which provide a highly suitable substrate for fungal growth. This leads to fungal development within the air cell (air cell mycosis, Figure 3). Infected eggs containing dead embryos may appear green when candled. Once established, fungal proliferation facilitates further dissemination within the hatchery environment. Eggs originating from nests are particularly at risk, as bedding material, manure, and feed can serve as reservoirs of Aspergillus spp., leading to shell contamination through contact. Floor eggs are also highly susceptible to heavy contamination, especially when spores gain access through microcracks or other shell damage. In addition, when the hatchery environment is heavily contaminated, airborne spores may be drawn into air handling and ventilation systems. The warm and humid microclimate within ventilation ducts can further support fungal growth, particularly in the presence of accumulated organic debris. Additional sources of contamination include
p. 21
inadequately cleaned air handling units, ventilation ducts, and other hatchery equipment, all of which may contribute to increased environmental spore load and infection pressure, ultimately leading to brooder pneumonia in newly hatched chicks.
What measures can be taken to keep the hatchery free of Aspergillus? In general, environmental antifungal treatments can be used as an additional control strategy. It is important to use products that can act on spore germination such as calcium propionate. Another option is fumigation with antifungal candles containing enilconazole, which disperses the antifungal compound throughout the facility and helps reduce Aspergillus spore loads on surfaces and airborne particles. In the poultry house, since spores are quite difficult to eliminate, preventing aspergillosis largely depends on reducing its environmental load. Adequate ventilation, effective litter moisture control, reduced dust levels, and proper storage of grains and feed ingredients represent key preventive measures. In the hatcheries, strict hygiene of trays, equipment, and incubation rooms is essential to prevent exposure of newly hatched chicks to high concentrations of fungal spores.
application of antifungal agents such as enilconazole may help control infection, provided that regulatory guidelines are respected. Long-term control depends on structured sampling, environmental monitoring, and continuous evaluation of risk factors. Programs should be maintained for at least 4–6 weeks, followed by ongoing surveillance to prevent recontamination. Aspergillosis remains an important respiratory mycosis in poultry production, requiring continuous attention to monitoring, early intervention, and consistent followup strategies.
Practical management, follow-up and prevention of aspergillosis In cases of aspergillosis, management should focus on rapid identification of contamination sources, combined with effective environmental control and continuous monitoring. Treatment at flock level is limited, as antifungal drugs have reduced efficacy due to poor penetration into lesions (aspergillomas), and selection of severely affected birds is often necessary. Early
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 22
◗ MARKETS
THE ROLE OF THE G20 GROUP IN GLOBAL MEAT PRODUCTION AND TRADE Part 4: trade between member countries In three previous articles (Windhorst, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c) the role of the G20 countries in global meat production and trade on a continental and country basis was analysed. It became obvious that, between 2010 and 2024, meat trade grew much faster than production. This reflected the growing demand for meat. It was also noteworthy that the volume of imports by the G191 countries was smaller than the volume of exports, indicating that some member countries had a production surplus over the domestic demand, while others had to import meat to ensure the supply of meat to their populations. This concluding article examines the meat trade between G19 member countries. It also explores what share of the total trade volume was accounted for by trade between member countries, and the significance of non-member countries as export destinations or import sources. ➤ Hans-Wilhelm Windhorst Professor Emeritus at the University of Vechta, Germany
One tenth of production was traded Comparing meat production in the G19 group with trade volumes shows that approximately one tenth of production reached the global market. This indicates that production focused on supplying the domestic population. However, this does not mean that exports and imports were of minor economic significance. A comparison of the data in Table 1 for 2024 reveals considerable differences between meat types. Poultry meat occupied an exceptional position in terms of both production and export volume. Regarding imports, the quantities traded for the three meat types were closer together and the G19 countries imported almost identical quantities of pork and poultry meat. Notably, beef accounted for a significantly higher proportion of imports than of production and exports.
Considerable differences in meat exports by types and country A first step of the analysis examines the share of exports by selected G19 countries, broken down by meat type. This will be followed by an examination of the export distribution among G19 and non-member countries. As can be seen from Table 2, Brazil exported a total of 8.6 million tonnes of meat, the USA 6.4 million tonnes. Together, these two countries accounted for 56.6% of the G19 group’s total exports. Including Germany’s pork exports and Australia’s beef exports, these four countries accounted for over two-thirds of the total export volume. Brazil and the USA dominated the G19 group’s chicken meat exports2 with 8 million tonnes, corresponding to 62.1% of total exports. The two countries accounted for 40.2% of pork exports and 69.7% of beef exports.
The following analysis considers only the 19 member countries. The population and economic output of the EU (27) and the African Union are not included. 2 The analysis of the poultry meat trade focuses on chicken meat because the FAO does not provide summary export and import data for poultry meat. 1
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 24
■ Table 1 – Meat production and trade of the G19 countries in 2024; data in mill. t Source: FAO data. Meat type
Production
Share (%)
Export
Share (%)
Import
Share (%)
Poultry meat Pork Beef
115.48 97.69 48.51
44.1 37.3 18.6
12.87 8.59 5.02
48.6 32.4 19.0
8.78 8.93 7.52
34.9 35.1 30.0
Total
261.89
100.0
26.48
100.0
25.13
100.0
■ Table 2 – Meat exports of selected G19 countries to other member countries (2024); data in mill. t Source: FAO data. Brazil Meat type
Total exports
To G19 countries
Share (%)
Chicken meat Beef Pork
4.88 2.55 1.18
2.19 1.79 0.40
44.9 70.5 37.7
Chicken meat Pork Beef
3.15 2.27 0.96
1.04 1.83 0.77
32.9 80.3 80.3
Beef
1.43
1.07
76.9
0.49
35.2
USA
Australia Germany Pork
1.27
Including Australia, the share of beef exports rose to 98.6%. Of the total G19 meat exports, these four countries exported 9.6 million tonnes, or 36.2%, to G19 member countries, meaning that around two-thirds were directed to non-member countries. Figure 1 shows that there were significant differences in the share of exports to other G19 countries between the exporting countries and the three types of meat. The highest export volumes to G19 member countries were recorded in Brazil for beef, the USA for pork and beef, and Australia for beef. In contrast, Brazil exported chicken and pork predominantly to non-member countries, as did the USA. Germany exported two-thirds of its pork to nonmember countries, primarily within the EU.
Brazil and the USA were leading export countries Figure 2 shows the four most important destination countries for each type of meat. Clearly, China, Japan, the USA and Mexico were the most important markets for Brazil. While sales volumes of chicken meat were more evenly distributed, 73.7% of beef exports went to China and 67.2% of pork exports to China and Japan. The situation for the United States differed significantly from that of Brazil. A closer analysis of the data shows that
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
Mexico’s and Canada’s participation in the USMCA free trade agreement significantly impacted market relations; 83.2% of chicken meat, 60.2% of pork and 14.2% of beef were exported to the two partner countries. Japan, China and the Republic of Korea were also important destination countries. These countries accounted for 74.6% of beef exports, 27.1% of pork exports and 13.6% of chicken meat exports. They were also the most important markets for Australian beef exports, accounting for a combined share of 61.5%. Just over a third of exports went to the USA. Germany exported pork to the three other European G19 member countries and to the Republic of Korea. However, nonmember countries were far more important, accounting for almost two-thirds of exports. In summary, it can be stated that meat exports from the G19 countries accounted for around one tenth of the group’s total meat production. The leading exporters were Brazil and the USA, which together contributed over 56% to the total export volume. The distribution of exports among member countries of the group and non-member countries varied greatly, depending on the exporting country and type of meat. The most important destinations were East Asian countries on the one hand and member countries of the USMCA free trade zone on the other.
p. 25
▲ Figure 1 – Meat exports from selected G19 countries to member and non-member countries (2024) Design: A. S. Kauer, based on author’s calculations and FAO data.
▲ Figure 2 – Share of the four most important destination countries for meat exports from Brazil and the USA (2024) Design: A. S. Kauer, based on FAO data.
Large differences in imports by meat type and country In the next step of the analysis, selected countries will be used to examine the proportion of imports from other G19 countries, broken down by meat type. This will be followed by an examination of the distribution among G19 countries and nonmember countries. As can be seen from Table 1, the G19 countries imported a total of 25.1 million tonnes of meat. Of this, pork and poultry meat accounted for almost equal amounts, with a combined total of 17.6 million tonnes corresponding to 70.0%, while beef accounted for 7.5 million tonnes or 30.0%.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 26
▲ Figure 3 – Meat imports of selected G19 countries from member and non-member countries (2024) Design: A. S. Kauer, based on author’s calculations and FAO data.
Table 3 shows that China imported a total of 4.8 million that the USA was represented among both the exporting tonnes of meat, Mexico 2.4 million tonnes, Japan 2.1 and importing countries. Of the 3.9 million tonnes of meat imported by China in million tonnes and the USA 1.9 million tonnes. Together, 2024, 2.1 million tonnes, or 53.8%, came from Brazil, these four countries imported 11.4 million tonnes of meat, making it the most important supplier for all three meat corresponding to 45.2% of the total imports of the country types. Argentina, Canada and the USA were also significant group. Although China imported the most meat by far, its countries of origin. 19.3% share did not make it as dominant as Brazil and the Japan imported 2.1 million tonnes of meat, of which 1.6 USA in exports. Clearly, the G19 group’s meat imports million tonnes, corresponding to 75.9%, came from G19 were spread across a larger number of countries than the countries. Around a quarter of this was chicken meat, exports, which were significantly more concentrated. imported almost exclusively from Brazil. Pork was mainly A total of 9.4 million tonnes of meat was imported by the G19 sourced from North America, while beef came from Australia countries from other member countries. Of this, 4.0 million and the USA. It is striking that the regional concentration tonnes was beef, accounting for the highest share at 42.8%. of pork imports was much lower than that of beef and This was followed by pork with 3.1 million tonnes (32.9%) and chicken meat with 2.3 ■ Table 3 – Meat imports of selected G19 countries from other member million tonnes (24.3%). It is noteworthy that all countries (2024); data in mill. t four countries (China, Japan, Mexico and USA) Source: FAO data. sourced the vast majority of their imports from other member countries. Mexico imported pork China and chicken exclusively from the two partner Meat type Total imports From G19 countries Share (%) countries in the USMCA free trade agreement; obviously, tariff advantages were decisive in this Beef 2.87 2.38 82.9 case (Figure 3). Pork 1.05 0.67 64.1
China, Mexico and Japan were leading in meat imports It will now be examined which countries were the most important sources of imports for the four importing countries considered here. Figure 4 shows the four most important countries of origin for each meat type. Clearly, Brazil, the USA, Canada and Australia were the leading countries of origin. It is noteworthy
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
Chicken meat
0.93
Pork Chicken meat Beef
0.98 0.64 0.53
0.82
88.7
0.68 0.46 0.48
69.9 72.0 91.8
1.38 1.01
100.0 100.0
1.16 0.35
76.4 84.4
Japan
Mexico Pork Chicken meat
1.38 1.01
Beef Pork
1.52 0.42
USA
p. 27
chicken meat. Here, European member countries achieved higher shares. The majority of Mexico’s meat imports came from the other two partners in the USMCA free trade agreement. Nonmember countries had no market share. The United States accounted for 1.95 million tonnes, accounting for 81.8% of the total 2.39 million tonnes of meat imported, while Brazil accounted for 10.6% and Canada for 7.7%. Brazil supplied 253,000 tonnes of chicken and pork, while Canada supplied 183,000 tonnes of pork. At first sight, it may be surprising that the USA imported 1.5 million tonnes of beef despite its own high domestic production of 12.3 million tonnes; 1.2 million tonnes of which came from four G19 member countries. Australia and Canada accounted for almost two-thirds of ▲ Figure 4 – Share of the four most important countries of origin for meat this, while Mexico imports of China and Japan (2024) and Brazil together Design: A. S.Kauer, based on FAO data. accounted for one-third. A more detailed analysis of the imported products would show that these were mainly valuable cuts. It should be noted that the majority of meat was imported The above analysis showed that around one tenth of the from a relatively small number of member countries. This is meat produced in the G19 countries entered the global where imports differed from exports. This difference can be market in 2024. As only a few countries had a significant attributed to the fact that only a few countries had a large surplus in supply, they largely determined export surplus in supply. Apart from Brazil and the USA, these activities. Brazil and the USA were the dominant players, countries were Canada, Australia and Argentina. This also accounting for 56% of the group’s meat exports. However, explains why the share of non-member countries in meat only 36% of these exports were destined for other G19 imports was lower than in exports. member countries.
Summary and outlook
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 28
▲ Figure 5 – Share of the most important countries of origin for Mexico’s meat imports (2024) Design: A. S. Kauer, based on FAO data.
The G19 countries imported significantly more meat from other member countries. Non-member countries only achieved comparatively small market shares in the four importing countries considered here. The most receptive markets were China, Mexico and Japan. Depending on the meat type, they imported between 64% and 92% from other G19 countries. It is reasonable to assume that demand for meat will continue to rise over the next decade, especially in emerging economies. In addition to Brazil and the USA, it is likely that Russia, China and India will expand their production and export more meat despite their rising domestic demand. Recent joint activities by Russia and China in hybrid broiler chicken breeding suggest that they intend to compete for a share of the attractive global market.
Data source and supplementary literature FAO. (n.d.). FAOSTAT. https://www.fao.org/faostat Windhorst, H.-W. (2026a, April). The role of the G20 group in global meat production and trade. Part 1: production. Zootecnica Poultry Magazine, 2(4). Windhorst, H.-W. (2026b, May). The role of the G20 group in global meat production and trade. Part 2: exports. Zootecnica Poultry Magazine, 2(5). Windhorst, H.-W. (2026c, June). The role of the G20 group in global meat production and trade. Part 3: imports. Zootecnica Poultry Magazine, 2(6).
◗ MARKETS
INDIA LEVERAGES COST ADVANTAGES, BUT GEOPOLITICAL TENSIONS AFFECT ITS EGG EXPORTS India has rapidly expanded egg production, leveraging low-cost, large-scale systems to remain the world’s second-largest producer. Despite strong export potential, growth is constrained by regulatory and infrastructure challenges. Recent geopolitical tensions have disrupted exports, causing domestic oversupply and price declines.
➤ Mainbayar Bardach Market analyst India has experienced a surge in egg production over the past decade, driven by government initiatives and private investments in large-scale layer units, fueled by growing demand from school nutrition programs.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
According to the Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics 2025, released by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, India produced 149.1 billion eggs in 2024–25, marking a 4.44% year-on-year increase and maintaining its position as the second-largest egg producer in the world. India’s per capita egg availability has risen to 106 eggs in 2024–25, a significant increase from 62 eggs in 2014–15.
p. 30
This milestone reflects enhanced production and improved nutritional access across the country. However, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) recommends a consumption level of 180 eggs per capita per year. The country’s egg production is heavily concentrated in South India. The top five egg-producing states — Andhra Pradesh (18.37%), Tamil Nadu (15.63%), Telangana (12.98%), West Bengal (10.72%), and Karnataka (6.67%) — together contribute approximately 64.37% of the
nation’s total egg output, underscoring their dominant role. Many of the largest producers, such as Venky’s (VH Group), Suguna Foods, Srinivasa Farms, and Naga Foods, have poultry facilities in these states. Commercial poultry accounts for 84.5% of the total egg production. According to the Poultry India Association, India is among the countries with the lowest egg prices globally, with retail prices around INR 80 per dozen, depending on market conditions and data sources.
▲ Figure 1 – State-wise egg production for the year 2024-2025 Source: Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, India.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 31
Why India produces the world’s most affordable eggs? Modern Indian layer operations manage large industrial flocks with optimized genetics and feed conversion, driving down the cost per egg. These farms utilize automated systems and advanced farming techniques to maximize production efficiency and minimize expenses. Major egg-producing hubs, such as Namakkal and Hospet, improve logistics efficiency by centralizing production, feed supply, hatcheries, veterinary services, packaging, and shipping infrastructure within a single region. This clustering reduces per-egg transportation and operating costs, accelerates distribution, and creates economies of scale across the supply chain. The presence of numerous poultry farms fosters competition, helping to keep egg prices low. Additionally, many layer farms are situated in lower-cost rural districts where housing and living expenses are more affordable, and there is an abundant labor supply relative to formal job opportunities. The National Egg Coordination Committee (NECC) plays a crucial role by setting benchmark prices daily based on input costs — such as feed, electricity, and transportation — as well as demand. This approach helps maintain price consistency and prevents chaotic market fluctuations. Moreover, India supports the poultry sector through various central and state-level initiatives. Fresh shell eggs are exempt from GST as an essential food item, and poultry feed is generally exempt from GST, which indirectly reduces feed costs for producers. Additionally, some Indian states periodically provide assistance or subsidies to the poultry sector during periods of distress.
Export potential and challenges of global expansion Approximately 0.5% to 1% of India’s total egg production is exported each year. Over 95% of these exports come
from Namakkal, a city in Tamil Nadu widely known as the “Egg City” of India. The shell egg export segment is estimated at around $25–30 million annually. However, broader trade data (OEC), which include processed egg products, indicate total export revenues of approximately $108 million in 2024. The main destinations for India’s egg exports were Oman ($48.8 million), Maldives ($18.5 million), the United Arab Emirates ($13.7 million), Qatar ($12.2 million), and Sri Lanka ($5.31 million). Andhra Pradesh is rapidly emerging as a significant player in the global market for eggs and egg powder. The state has immense potential for exports to countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Bangladesh. Its proximity to major ports like Visakhapatnam and Kakinada enables efficient export logistics, facilitating the state’s expanding trade relationships with countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia. India is actively expanding its egg export markets, targeting countries such as Gambia, Nigeria, and the USA, where it is achieving higher returns. The country is well-positioned to increase its egg exports to Gambia by leveraging its competitive pricing and reliable supply capabilities. With Indian eggs priced at $600 per ton compared to Turkey’s $670 per ton, Indian exporters can capitalize on this price advantage to expand their market share in Gambia. Domestic production capacity and ability to rapidly scale up volumes present an opportunity to establish long-term trade relationships and strengthen India's presence in the West African market. Several African countries are experiencing growing demand for eggs and poultry products. For example, between 2020 and 2024, imports increased at a compound annual growth rate of 14% in Ivory Coast, 13% in Senegal, and 57% in Uganda. The country exported eggs to the USA for the first time in March 2025, shipping approximately 3 million eggs. India is well-positioned to competitively supply the USA market. According to industry estimates, export potential could increase, potentially reaching 50–100 containers per month, provided that current infrastructure constraints are addressed and stable trade agreements are established. India-based CRISIL, a company of S&P Global, concluded that India can capitalize on Uzbekistan’s surging poultry
▲ Figure 2 – Egg production India Source: Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, India.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 32
imports and recent market opening by securing veterinary approvals through APEDA, ensuring Halal certification, conducting Salmonella-free testing, and providing WOAHcompliant avian flu notifications for table eggs from Namakkal hubs. Indian eggs are more cost-effective compared to those from other major producers such as the USA and Europe, making them attractive to price-sensitive markets. However, many potential exporters lack knowledge of global trade requirements and face infrastructural and scalability challenges. C. Sasikumar, a local poultry owner in Namakkal, said that countries like the UAE require eggs from biosecuritycertified farms with a compartment license, and building such infrastructure requires significant investment. Furthermore, obtaining state and central governmentapproved certification is a lengthy process, which discourages new exporters and local players. “Additionally, stricter standards in markets like Qatar — which now require only ‘AA’ or ‘A’ grade eggs weighing at least 60 grams — pose challenges, as Namakkal eggs typically weigh around 55 grams,” he added. Vangili Subramaniam, President of the Tamil Nadu Egg Poultry Farmers Marketing Society, noted: “Only onetenth of Namakkal’s 1,300 farms export eggs. The egg export business will grow steadily only if our government secures permanent trade agreements with countries that are not self-sufficient in production”.
Export disruptions linked to tensions in the Middle East Namakkal hub produces more than 60 to 70 million eggs daily, of which around 5 million are exported each day. It remains the country’s leading hub for egg exports, totaling 150 million eggs every month. Recent geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have disrupted established export routes, particularly affecting shipments from the Namakkal hub. According to industry sources, this has led to a slowdown in export volumes, resulting in oversupply in the domestic market and downward pressure on prices. Valsan Parameswaran, Secretary of the All-India Poultry Product Exporters Association, stated that exports have declined sharply, with barely three containers moving per day now, compared to approximately 20 containers per day previously. This clearly illustrates the extent of the slowdown in the poultry export sector. With exports halted, eggs intended for overseas buyers are flooding the domestic market. Warehouses and farms are struggling to manage the sudden surplus. The NECC has repeatedly reduced egg procurement prices. The NECC’s suggested monthly average price for Namakkal was INR 5.21 per egg in February, then fell to INR 4.29 in March before rising to INR 4.71 in April. Some farmers report even steeper declines, with eggs selling well below the NECC’s benchmark in certain markets.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 33
◗ MARKETS
FRENCH EGGS: VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN SUCCESS According to the CNPO (National Committee for the Promotion of Eggs), which held a press conference on 12 February 2026 in Paris to review the sector’s activities and present the latest market figures, France is expected to build 575 new poultry houses by 2035 to meet rising demand.
➤ Philippe Caldier Independent journalist, ph@caldier.fr Record consumption and markets under pressure. This could summarize the presentation made by Yves-Marie Beaudet, President of the CNPO, regarding the activity of the egg sector and the latest market figures. With 237 eggs per capita, data presented by the CNPO show a 5% increase in national demand for overall egg consumption in France – whether in the form of shell eggs or egg products – between 2024 and 2025. Between 2023 and 2025, the Circana Institute estimates that French consumers have increased their in-store egg purchases by 14%, with around 230 eggs sold every second. Nearly nine out of ten French people (89%) cite the “Œufs de France” label, indicating French origin, as being an important selection criterion (see Sidebar 1). Eggs from barn-laid farms saw a 14.8% increase, Label Rouge eggs a 16.3% increase, free-range eggs (excluding Label Rouge) a 9.8% increase, and organic eggs a 2.1% increase. Since 2023, an additional 300 million eggs have been sold annually in stores, with the total expected to reach 7.3 billion purchased by households in 2025.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
Sidebar 1 – “Œufs de France” (eggs from France): guaranteed French origin – a key factor for consumers
Launched in 2018 on egg cartons, the “œufs de France” logo identifies eggs laid in France by hens born and raised in the country. For 95% of French people, French eggs are a way to support Frenchmade products and preserve French livestock farming. Nearly nine out of ten French people (89%) consider the French origin logo as an important factor in their purchasing decisions.
Indeed, in an uncertain context marked by reduced purchasing power and a desire to control spending, including on food, French households continue to buy more and more eggs. Eggs remain one of the most affordable sources of animal protein and reduce one’s carbon footprint, while offering a wide variety of culinary possibilities, both sweet and savory. According to Emilie Mayer, Director of Research at the Circana Institute, “the egg has now established itself as
p. 34
▲ Figure 1 – Eggs are the number one item purchase in stores. Between 2023 and 2025, the French increased their in-store egg purchases by +14% © CNPO / ADOCOM-RP. one of the most iconic and popular products in French cuisine”. 96% of French people consider it an essential part of their diet. Over the past 10 years, egg sales in supermarkets have increased by 25%, rising by 1.5 billion eggs to reach 7.3 billion. If the market continues to grow at a rate of 3.5% to 4% per year, 8 billion eggs will be sold in supermarkets by 2028. To meet this demand, the industry must raise its targets.
Domestic production under pressure In 2025, French egg production is projected to increase by 0.8%, reaching 15.9 billion eggs according to ITAVI estimates. To meet rising consumption, industry professionals have mobilized to increase the number of hens on farms: a 3.3% increase in 2025 compared to 2024. To boost egg
Sidebar 2 – Ukraine, the EU's leading supplier of eggs
Ukrainian eggs are flooding into the EU, with a 59.4% increase in shell egg imports over the 10-month period in 2025, following an already record-breaking 60% year-onyear rise in 2024. The EU imported 79,000 tonnes of shell egg equivalent (TEOC) over the first 10 months of 2025, compared with 48,000 over the same period in 2024. With seven times fewer imported volumes than Ukraine, Turkey is the second-largest supplier of eggs to the European Union. Its exports to the EU increased by 75% over the 10-month period of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024 (see Graph).
▲ Figure 2 – In 2025, French imports of shell eggs reached record levels, up 21% on the same period in 2024. Ukraine remains the EU's leading supplier of eggs © CNPO / ADOCOM-RP.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 35
production, they have also extended the rearing periods for hens, reducing the number of downtime periods required between batches. Meanwhile, France, a pioneer in animal welfare within the European Union, is pursuing its goal of having 90% of laying hens housed in cage-free systems by 2030. By the end of 2025, 77% of French laying hens were kept in cage-free systems. Across the EU, the average share of laying hens in alternative systems stands at 60%, while only 23% have access to outdoor areas. The sector is still far from its target of 101% self-sufficiency. According to ITAVI estimates, after reaching a historic low of 97.2% in 2022, France’s rate is set to fall again in 2025 to 95.8%. In 2025, shell egg imports are expected to reach record levels, with a 21% increase compared to the same period in 2024. Over two years, they have increased by 42%. At the same time, exports are down by 9%. Ukraine remains the EU’s leading supplier of eggs (see Sidebar 2).
Joining forces to increase production According to the latest projections, total consumption will average 269 eggs per capita in 2035. In order to keep pace with this spectacular growth and provide a fully French supply response to market demand, the sector has revised its targets upwards. The CNPO estimates that production must increase, requiring the construction of 10 million new laying hen places over 10 years – equivalent to around 575 new poultry houses by 2035, compared with the 300 initially planned by 2030. The sector has already registered more than 220 construction projects. 18 of these were launched in 2025, representing an additional 200 million eggs produced annually, and 40 more are planned for 2026, adding 375 million more eggs per year. Therefore, the slight supply issues observed on some supermarket shelves at the beginning of the year should gradually ease by the end of the second half of the year.
To accelerate the process, the CNPO is calling for support from the public authorities, banks, retailers, manufacturers, restaurateurs and citizens. Only collective action will make it possible to satisfy French demand with eggs from France that meet the country’s expectations in terms of both quality and best practices. The CNPO specifically calls on public authorities to simplify and expedite administrative procedures, and also to combat unfair competition by considering the implementation of new standards and regulations at the European level and
▲ Figure 3 – 89% of French people consider French origin important. Since 2018, the “œufs de France” logo has been used to identify eggs laid in France by hens born and raised in the country © CNPO / ADOCOM-RP.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 36
Sidebar 3 – French egg production key figures
• 237 eggs consumed per person per year • 16 billion eggs laid in the country • 1/3 processed into egg products • 3,000 farmers • More than 51 million laying hens • 77% of laying hens in alternative farming systems
Source Agence Adocom-RP press release, La consommation d’œufs bat des records : la filière appelle au soutien collectif pour accélérer la construction des poulaillers, February 2026. https://oeuf-info.fr/la-consommation-doeufs-batdes-records-la-filiere-appelle-au-soutien-collectif-pouraccelerer-la-construction-des-poulaillers/
by applying mirror clauses to international imports. The CNPO also emphasizes the importance of bank support, which is essential for farmers, since building a poultry house represents an investment of around €1 million. Eggs have a bright future ahead of them, as evidenced for the first time in their history by their presence at the Paris International Agricultural Show, which took place from 21 February to 1 March 2026. They shared the stand with the French broiler poultry sector (ANVOL), which enabled visitors to learn more about the specific features of the French model. Due to avian influenza protocols, the poultry exhibit, initially planned for the first time this year, has been postponed until next year.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 37
◗ MANAGEMENT
REST AND MOVEMENT TO IMPROVE BIRDS’ WELFARE AND PERFORMANCE How to manage light and environmental enrichments in commercial broiler chickens When thinking about environmental enrichments in commercial broiler production houses, one might rightfully think of any provisions given to the birds so they can feed, drink, and play comfortably. However, research has shown that also the possibility to have a good rest and sleep, as well as a good light management act as influential environmental factors impacting behavior, welfare, and productivity of commercial broiler chickens. Good sleeping and resting, both at night and during the day, help prevent oxidative stress and abnormal physiological responses since, when sleeping, the organism replenishes antioxidants and the brain cleans waste and toxins accumulated during wakefulness off the body. Light management, instead, has a great influence on birds’ behavior, movement, and health, especially when there are high contrast and variability. ➤ Editorial staff
How to exploit light and darkness to promote broilers’ health and welfare Chickens are naturally active animals that exhibit their behavior through activities such as dust bathing, scratching, and pecking. Lack of physical activity within a broiler flock is usually associated with limited space or confinement in the house. Therefore, especially when other interventions are hard to make, light management can be an effective way to promote movement. Although the specific mechanisms mediating the effects of light on the brain and, as a consequence, on behaviors remain unclear, we know that the environmental lighting inputs allow animals to integrate information coming from the outside with the internal brain states and, therefore, to induce appropriate behaviors. In nature, for example, a favorable illuminance helps the animals to perform basic survival actions, such as avoiding predators, finding food and conspecifics, and perform courtship. In terms of light intensity, so far, commercial broilers have been kept in relatively low-light intensity houses where living conditions do not
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 38
stimulate physical activity and increase resting time, with a negative impact on leg health and other lesions such as breast blisters (Figure 1A). Studies have shown, instead, that broiler chickens generally prefer brighter light, which promotes more pronounced daily rhythms, improves comfort, and encourages more active and energetic behaviours. Preference studies have also shown that, when they could choose among different light intensity areas, birds exhibited specific preferences: they tended to choose higher intensity light during active behaviors and dimmer areas when resting (Figure 1B), suggesting that receiving different contextual visual information (i.e., different light intensities) may have motivated better movement patterns. Furthermore, an alternating light schedule seems to stimulate change in locomotor activity compared to constant light. At the same time, however, exposure to darkness and the possibility of sleeping during the daytime have proved to be highly beneficial. An increase in melatonin levels is supposed to be the main reason behind such benefits. As a natural scavenger of free radicals, melatonin seems to not only prevent molecular destruction due to oxidative stress but also to rescue neurons from cell death. When chickens were provided with variable-lighting areas (Figure 1C), they showed active resting and napping behaviors during the daytime in darkness, which was associated with a positive physiological response, that is a lower feed conversion ratio and a greater daily body weight gain compared to those reared in a house with conventional continuous 20 lux of light intensity (Figure 1A). In the same houses where variable lighting was implemented, board, hut, and ramp environmental enrichments were tested and huts appeared to be the most advantageous enrichment for commercial broiler chickens, probably because they were an additional way to provide lowlight-intensity areas for birds to rest (Figure 1D).
leg health issues, and elevated risk of developing metabolic syndromes. On the contrary, evidence has indicated that active behaviors improve broiler chickens’ leg and overall health and welfare. From a physical and physiological perspective, the positive influence of locomotor activity has been increasingly recognized. Leg issues are one of the most frequent causes of culling and mortality in commercial broiler farming. Studies where variable lighting was implemented in commercial broiler houses reported an improvement not only in terms of leg health and culling rates but also in animal performance, that is daily weight gain and feed conversion ratio. Different lighting intensity areas stimulated voluntary walking behavior for consuming feed and water and taking rest, and animals tended to consume more feed in the brighter areas compared to the darker ones. Furthermore, physical activity is known to stimulate the release of myokines by the skeletal muscles of the legs. Myokines are molecules that support muscle recovery and contribute to maintaining the integrity and functional
Why avoiding sedentary behavior and promoting physical movement is important Physical inactivity during the daytime is associated with weight gain, muscle weakness,
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 39
stability of bones as endocrine organs. Another positive consequence of movement is the enhancement of the antioxidant enzyme activity of the body with consequent greater antioxidant protection. Finally, also liver metabolic functions appear to be enhanced by physical exercise. The liver is a very important metabolic organ as it is responsible for maintaining blood glucose levels and controlling metabolic homeostasis, acting as the primary site for lipid metabolism. Sedentary living conditions cause both lipid accumulation in the liver and de novo lipogenesis, facilitating hyperlipidemia. In fact, there has been a study demonstrating that variable lighting and environmental enrichment with huts improved hepatic lipid metabolic functions in broilers, which were more efficiently supported nutritionally and, therefore, had better growth performance. Besides the physical and physiological benefits coming from active behaviors, it is important to note that enrichments such as variable lighting and huts allow birds to satisfy their innate biological needs by voluntary choices rather than by compelling external incentives.
Final considerations Finding ways to improve animal welfare for commercial broiler chickens also through environmental enrichments ▲ Figure 1 – Investigation on the effects of different lighting management and hut environmental enrichment on commercial broilers’ welfare, health, and performances.
so animals can satisfy their biological and behavioral necessities is becoming crucial. Ensuring animals can have good sleep and rest, not only during the night but also during the day, as well as thoughtful management of light has been proved to be excellent strategies. Variable lighting and environmental enrichments providing birds with proper areas to rest (e.g., huts) were reported to increase voluntary active behaviors that, in turn, improved leg and overall health, animal welfare and performance, with reduced mortality rates and better daily weight gain and feed conversion ratio. Not only did these environmental enrichments improve the birds’ physiological status and responses but they also stimulated a voluntary behavior expression leading to increased movement and enhanced welfare that will result in better overall farm economic performance.
Source Kang, S.W. Effectual Environmental Enrichments for Commercial Broiler Chickens. Animals 2025, 15, 2829. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15192829 Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Text summarized and editorially adapted by the Zootecnica – Poultry Magazine editorial team. Adapted from Kang, S.W. Effectual Environmental Enrichments for Commercial Broiler Chickens. Animals 2025, 15, 2829. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15192829
(A) House with conventional continuous 20 lux (lx, measured on the birds’ heads) of light intensity. (B) Preference testing pen (121.9 × 121.9 cm) with walls covered in black plastic film to exclude light; the pen was divided into two identical compartments yet preventing light penetration from the hanging light above (2/20 lx). (C) House with lighting variability: average light intensity around feed lines was over 80 lx, while in the middle and sidewalls of the house it was about 2–5 lx. (D) House with lighting variability and enriched with huts (35.6 cm wide × 76.2 cm long × 35.6 cm high; 3 huts/92.9 m2).
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
p. 40
◗ VETERINARY
KEY THREATS TO POULTRY GUT HEALTH Assuring optimal gut health across production phases is a cornerstone to safeguard poultry performance and wellbeing. Despite being a health and welfare problem, gut health issues also result in long-term consequences if birds struggle to recover and raise biosecurity concerns for other birds and staff.
➤ Aitor Arrazola, Research biologist, Ph.D. in Animal Behaviour & Welfare The gastrointestinal tract is responsible for breaking down feed particles into digestible nutrients that are absorbed into the bloodstream to satisfy metabolic requirements and fuel production outcomes effectively. Certainly, the gastrointestinal tract succeeds at doing so by operating together with the microbiota within, which helps digest fibrous components, stimulates intestinal walls, enhances
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
the immune response of the host, and produces beneficial by-products for the host. Birds with a healthy gut are active and have a strong appetite, digest and absorb nutrients efficiently, and have a competent immune response. All these traits favour production outcomes and reduce recovery time in case of digestive upsets. Producers should therefore not underestimate the benefits of maintaining a healthy, functional gut microbiota-host interaction. But what are the main factors to look at when it comes to concerns about poultry gut health?
p. 42
Poor barn biosecurity Sound biosecurity practices lower the risk of pathogen entry and its impact on flock performance in the case of outbreak. Meanwhile, pitfalls in biosecurity protocols are gateways for potential pathogens to colonize birds’ gastrointestinal tract and develop enteric disorders that take a toll on flock performance. Therefore, revising barn protocols to prevent pathogen entry and control their spread if they make it in is the best strategy to protect poultry gut health beforehand. Potentially harmful microorganisms can be found in poultry houses mainly as the flock ages. This may not be a problem for the current flock because they are already habituated to this environment, but raises biosecurity concerns for the following flock. Implementing all-in/all-out practices between batches, followed by thorough cleaning and disinfection is paramount to avoid gut health issues in naïve chicks or pullets. Failure to do so can result in digestive upsets, pasty vents, and diarrhea during the first week after placement that can lead to growth check and threaten birds’ survivability. In production systems with bedding and feeding enrichments, every effort should be made to prevent cross-contamination between batches. Harmful microorganisms proliferate on humid patches of organic matter from leftover feed and manure, and any dirty surface becomes a source for infection. Temperatures over 50 ºC can destroy unhealthy bacteria such as Salmonella and Campylobacter, and heat treatment is sometimes recommended to reduce pathogen load in litter but cannot solve the problem even if done correctly. In between batches it’s also good timing to clean and disinfect in-depth water lines to remove biofilms built up during the last production phase since health problems can also arise from here. Mycotoxin-producing fungi can also grow under warm, humid conditions in feed bins, becoming a source of health problems if feed is stored inadequately for a long time. Pelleting lowers the load of potentially harmful microorganisms in ingredients used for feed formulation. Nonetheless, feed quality declines over time after preparation, particularly when feed remains in storage for extended periods. From a biosecurity standpoint, bins should be emptied before adding the new batch of feed into them and producers should check regularly that feed bins are not a hotspot for pathogens.
Weak(ened) microbiota Developing a flourishing ecosystem of diverse, beneficial bacteria in the intestinal tract acts as a powerful barrier against potential pathogens present in the feed, water, and litter. Any of them can disrupt the fine balance between the intestinal microbiota and the host, jeopardising the proper functioning of the gastrointestinal tract and putting at risk the recovery of both if gut microbiota is not resilient enough to halt the new intruders. Weak microbiota health is a gateway for pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella serotypes that take advantage of stressful events to colonise intestinal walls.
ZOOTECNICA ◆ July/August 2026
Birds with a healthy gut are active and have a strong appetite, digest and absorb nutrients efficiently, and have a competent immune response. All these traits favour production outcomes and reduce recovery time in case of digestive upsets Feeding poultry diets supplemented with probiotics that survive pelleting, resistant to stomach acids, and capable of growing quickly in the small intestine is key to support a healthy gut microbiota and achieve consistent performance outcomes across ages. This is particularly important for newly hatched chicks and after stressful events that alter the microbiota balance due to a decline in beneficial bacteria. Transportation, thermal stress, and other welfare problems can lead to microbiota imbalance, and reinforcement with probiotics can help restore a healthy balance. Lastly, supplementation is also recommended after treating the flock with antibiotics, which wipe out the intestinal microbiota, and before temporarily metabolically demanding phases, such as the onset of lay. Implementing poultry diets rich in prebiotics can also prompt the development of already-present beneficial bacteria. They feed on these components that are nondigestible by the host, stimulating their growth and activity. These fibrous compounds also strengthen the gastrointestinal tract becoming more robust and less prone to lesions due to intestinal wall breakage which ultimately benefits the overall functioning of the gastrointestinal tract. Optimal gut health is no longer a bonus producers should aspire to under the right conditions and should be seen instead as a key management strategy for broilers and layers to achieve performance objectives and good flock welfare. Strong, resilient gut health boosts performance efficiency from within and supports the economic sustainability of poultry barns. To attain this goal and achieve optimal performance records consistently: biosecurity protocols must be solid, staff should fully comply with them, and producers should implement feeding strategies that strengthen the gastrointestinal tract and support beneficial gut microbiota across production phases.
p. 43
Hatcheries
Breeders
Equipment
www.azainternational.it
Equipment
◗ Upcoming Events
2026 AUGUST, 4 to 6 SIAVS 2026 Anhembi District - Exhibition Pavilion (Expo 1 and 2) Olavo Fontoura Avenue, 1209 Santana, São Paulo - SP Brazil Tel. +55 (11) 3095-3120 siavs@abpa-br.org siavs.com.br/en/ AUGUST, 20 to 22 10th INTERNATIONAL AGRO & POULTRY AFRICA 2026 Sarit Expo Centre, Nairobi, Kenya Tel. +9714 454 9868 info@mxmexhibitions.com www.mxmexhibitions.com/ agroPoultryKenya/index.html AUGUST, 26 to 28 Livestock Cambodia 2026 World Poultry Congress DIECC (Koh Pich), Phnom Penh, Cambodia Tel: +84 28 3848 8561 | 62 | 63 info@veas.com.vn livestock-asia.com SEPTEMBER, 7 to 10 WEO Global Leadership Conference 2026 Singapore www.worldeggorganisation. com/es/events/future-events
SEPTEMBER, 8 to 10 Growtech.Middle East Dubai World Trade Centre, UAE www.growtech.com.tr/en/ fuarlar/growtech-middle-east. html SEPTEMBER, 8 to 10 4th International Avian Mycoplasma Conference Sao Paulo, Brazil www.poultrymycoplasma.com SEPTEMBER, 15 to 17 SPACE 2026 Rue Maurice le Lannou, CS 54239 35042 Rennes Cedex - France Tel. +33 (0)2 23 48 28 80 info@space.fr www.space.fr SEPTEMBER 27 to 30 8th Mediterranean Poultry Faculty of Economics, Business and Tourism (FEBT), University of Split split2026@mpn-wpsa.org www.mpn-wpsa.org/split2026 OCTOBER 7 to 8 VIV Africa Kigali Convention Centre (KCC) KG 2 Roundabout Kigali, Rwanda Tel. +31 (0)30 295 5911 vivafrica@vnuexhibitions.com www.vivafrica.nl
OCTOBER 16 to 18 Agrena Middle East 87 El Alameen, Sahafien, Mohandeseen Cairo, Egypt Tel. +2 02 33 03 89 94 info@agrena.net www.agrena.net NOVEMBER 10 to 13 Eurotier Exhibition grounds, 30521 Hanover Tel. +49 (0) 69/24 788 433 eurotier@dlg.org https://www.eurotier.com OCTOBER 13 to 15 4th International Avian Mycoplasma Conference Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil www.poultrymycoplasma.com
Internet guide Agritech commerce@agritech.it www.agritech.it
FierAvicola info@fieravicola.com www.fieravicola.com
Prinzen B.V. info@prinzen.com www.prinzen.com
Arion Fasoli info@arionfasoli.com www.arionfasoli.com
Gasolec sales@gasolec.com www.gasolec.com
Prosol S.p.A. prosol@prosol-spa.it www.prosol-spa.it
Aviagen info@aviagen.com www.aviagen.com
Giordano Global info@giordanoglobal.com www.giordanoglobal.com
Reventa info.reventa@munters.de www.reventa.de
Aviagen Turkeys Ltd turkeysltd@aviagen.com www.aviagenturkeys.com
Hendrix Genetics info@hendrix-genetics.com www.hendrix-genetics.com
Royal Pas Reform info@pasreform.com www.pasreform.com
Aza International info@azainternational.it www.azainternational.it
Hubbard contact.emea@hubbardbreeders.com www.hubbardbreeders.com
Roxell info@roxell.com www.roxell.com
BAADER Poultry Holding bph@baader.com www.baader.com/poultry
Hy-Line International info@hyline.com www.hyline.com
Barbieri Belts info@barbieri-belts.com www.barbieribelts.com
Impex Barneveld BV info@impex.nl www.impex.nl
Big Dutchman big@bigdutchman.com www.bigdutchman.de
Intracare info@intracare.nl www.intracare.nl
Biochem info@biochem.net www.biochem.net
Jamesway sales@jamesway.com www.jamesway.com
Carfed International Ltd carfed@carfed.co.uk
Lubing System info@lubing.it www.lubingsystem.com
Carfed Italian Branch carfed@carfed.it www.carfed.it Cobb Europe info@cobb-europe.com www.cobb-vantress.com Codaf info@codaf.net www.codaf.net Corti Zootecnici S.r.l. info@cortizootecnici.com www.cortizootecnici.it DACS mail@dacs.dk www.dacs.dk EuroTier eurotier@dlg.org www.eurotier.com Facco Poultry Equipment facco@facco.net www.facco.net
Marel Poultry info.poultry@marel.com www.marel.com/en/poultry Mbe Breeding Equipment info@mbefabriano.it www.mbefabriano.it Menci commerciale@menci.it www.menci.it Meyn sales@meyn.com www.meyn.com MOBA sales@moba.net www.moba.net MS Technologies info@mstegg.com www.mstegg.com Newpharm info@newpharm.it www.newpharm.it
FIEM fiem@fiem.it www.fiem.it
Officine Meccaniche Vettorello luciano@officinevettorello.it www.officinevettorello.com
FierAgricola Verona fieragricola@veronafiere.it www.fieragricola.it
Petersime N.V. info@petersime.com www.petersime.com
Ska ska@ska.it www.skapoultryequipment.com Space info@space.fr www.space.fr Sperotto S.p.A. info@sperotto-spa.com www.sperotto-spa.com Te So Ten Elsen GmbH&Co. KG info@specht-germany.com www.specht-germany.com TPI-Polytechniek info@tpi-polytechniek.com www.tpi-polytechniek.com Val-co intl.sales@val-co.com www.val-co.com
Publisher Administration and Editorial Office Zootecnica di Marianna Caterino Via del Forestello n. 8 50063 Figline Incisa Valdarno (FI) Italy VAT number IT 07439250486 Subscription Each copy 10,00 € (1 year / 11 issues): Print Subscription € 99,00 Digital Subscription € 49,00 Print + Digital € 109,00 To subscribe online by credit card, visit: zootecnicainternational.com/ subscription If you prefer choosing other methods of payment please send an e-mail to: subscription@zootecnica.it Stay connected with us and follow us on social media: Linkedin
Valli info@valli-italy.com www.valli-italy.com VDL Agrotech info@vdlagrotech.nl www.vdlagrotech.com
VDL Jansen info@vdljansen.com www.vdljansen.com Vencomatic Group B.V. info@vencomaticgroup.com www.vencomaticgroup.com Victoria victoria@victoria-srl.com www.incubatricivictoria.com
Telegram
VIV Europe viv.europe@vnuexhibitions.com www.viveurope.nl VIV worldwide www.www.viv.net
English edition Year II • July/August 2026
Edizione italiana Anno XXXIV • Dicembre 2023