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
EDITORIAL
➤ Marianna Caterino
On 3 September 2025, the European Commission gave the green light to a trade agreement with the Mercosur countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), paving the way for one of the largest free-trade agreements ever concluded by the European Union. The deal aims to strengthen economic ties between two strategic blocs, yet it also raises serious questions about the future of the EU livestock industry, particularly for our poultry sector.
In its official communication, the Commission highlights new opportunities for industry, agri-food cooperation and the protection of geographical indications. Behind the headline figures, however, lie potential imbalances: the agreement grants Mercosur a duty-free tariff-rate quota (TRQ) of 180,000 tonnes of poultry meat, to be phased in over five years - about 1.3% of EU production. Today, exports of poultry meat from Mercosur to the EU already total roughly 293,000 tonnes per year, much of which is subject to tariffs. Introducing the new duty-free quota will lower costs for part of these shipments, widening the competitive gap with European producers. Animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection are the pillars that underpin the added value of the European poultry supply chain. They are also costs and responsibilities which, if not mirrored by trading partners, turn into competitive disadvantages. As leading Italian and European farmers’ organisations point out, the lack of reciprocity in production standards risks triggering unfair competition that could jeopardise decades of investment.
Safeguard clauses, compensatory funds and twice-yearly monitoring are envisaged, but their effectiveness will depend on how automatic, timely and genuinely binding they prove to be. At stake is the resilience of entire production segments, such as poultry, already under heavy pressure from costs, animal-welfare requirements and market volatility.
Customer Support
A well-travelled suitcase is the hallmark of our globally mobile Aviagen® Turkeys experts who are always available worldwide to support customers and help optimise birds’ genetic potential. You can always rely on us for exceptional knowledge and experience designed to help maximise your performance and profitability. For more information about our entire range, visit www.aviagenturkeys.com
Our knowledge gives you power to perform
OCTOBER 2025
REPORTAGE
Should the US rethink its avian influenza policy?
FIELD CASE
Tanzania unveils a new standard for poultry feed concentrates
DOSSIER
New predictive models for an integrated approach to combating avian influenza
MARKETING
Denmark’s egg industry
TECH COLUMN
Water quality editorial - Practicality and management
MANAGEMENT
Mass water vaccination in poultry sheds: accurate dose for every bird, every line
NUTRITION
The use of Moringa oleifera leaf mash (MOLM) and his extract of laying hens low protein diets
PROCESSING
Safeguarding processing yield across the primary process
MARKET GUIDE
UPCOMING EVENTS INTERNET GUIDE
IN-OVO SEXING TECHNOLOGY “CHEGGY” USED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN BRAZIL
Agri Advanced Technologies GmbH (AAT) has introduced its Cheggy inovo sexing system in Brazil, marking the first application of this technology in the Southern Hemisphere. Adopted by Raiar Orgânicos, the hyperspectral imaging method enables non-invasive, early sex determination of chicks in eggs, eliminating male chick culling. This milestone expands AAT’s global reach and supports sustainable, welfare-oriented egg production in large markets like South America.
A major step forward for animal welfare in the egg industry: for the first time in Brazil, the Cheggy machine has been installed and is operating successfully, identifying the sex of chicks while still in the egg. This breakthrough provides a new way to manage male chicks that are not used in egg production. With its first application in Latin America, the innovative in-ovo sexing technology from German company Agri Advanced Technologies GmbH (AAT) –a subsidiary of the EW GROUP – has reached another international milestone.
"With our launch in Brazil, we’re expanding the range of available solutions for sustainable and humane egg production," says Jörg Hurlin, Managing Director of AAT. "In-ovo sexing allows for early selection in the hatchery and offers a scalable, efficient approach – making it particularly suitable for large markets like South America."
Raiar Orgânicos, a company founded in 2020, is the pioneer and first customer to implement the Cheggy system in Brazil. The organic egg producer actively integrates innovative technologies across the entire value chain. With the goal of making organic food accessible to a broad population, Raiar pursues a holistic approach that combines animal welfare, support for regional agriculture, and technological innovation.
“Raiar is a restless company committed to the highest standards of transparency, management, and animal welfare. That’s why we actively seek out the best market practices and solutions to continuously improve animal welfare in egg production,” says Marcus Menoita, CEO and co-founder of Raiar. “The in-ovo sexing technology provided by Cheggy is the most effective, non-invasive, and viable solution available.”
Cheggy is a state-of-the-art method that sets a new standard in modern egg production through its high precision and impressive speed. The technology identifies whether a male or female chick is developing in the egg during incubation – completely contact-free, fast, and without opening the egg. Using hyperspectral imaging, the system captures light spectra that allow an algorithm to detect differences in feather coloration between male and female embryos of brown layer breeds.
A January 2025 consumer survey by Innovate Animal Ag revealed that public awareness in Brazil is growing and customers appreciate the development of alternatives.
“Raiar Orgânicos is setting an inspiring example of what forward-thinking leadership looks like in animal agriculture. As in-ovo sexing becomes a global trend, we’re excited to see companies like Raiar not only embrace the change but help drive it. With technologies like Cheggy now available
in Brazil, this milestone should serve as a powerful catalyst for more producers across the country.” said Robert Yaman, Managing Director of Innovate Animal Ag.
On Monday, July 28, 2025, numerous national and international media representatives attended an event in São Paulo, hosted by Raiar and AAT, to officially announce the first commercial use of in-ovo sexing in Brazil. AAT presented the Cheggy technology, and Raiar announced that it would convert its entire flock to 100% in-ovo selected chicks.
This marks another milestone in AAT’s global expansion. Following successful market entries in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States, Brazil is now the first country in the Southern Hemisphere to adopt the Cheggy technology.
Further information is available at www.cheggy.com.
BRAZIL: EGG EXPORTS GROW 304.7% IN JULY
Revenue for the month reaches US$11.8 million, an increase of 340.9%
Brazilian egg exports (including fresh and processed products) totaled 5,259 tons in July 2025, according to the Brazilian Animal Protein Association (ABPA). This represents a 304.7% increase compared to the volume recorded in the same period last year, when 1,300 tons were shipped.
Revenue generated by shipments in July reached US$ 11.808 million, a balance 340.9% higher than that obtained in the same month of 2024, with US$ 2.678 million. With the month’s performance, the accumulated total between January and July reached 30,174 tons exported, a volume 207.3% higher than that recorded in the same period last year (9,818 tons). Accumulated revenue reached US$ 69.567 million, an increase of 232.2% compared to the US$ 20.940 million obtained between January and July 2024.
The United States remains the main destination for Brazilian egg exports, with 18,976 tons shipped in the first seven months of the year (+1,419%) and revenue of US$40.7 million (+1,769%). Next comes Chile, with 2,562 tons (-27.9%) and US$7,533 million, Japan, with 2,019 tons (+175.2%) and US$4,689 million (+163.3%), and Mexico, with 1,843 tons and US$8,135 million. Other highlights in the period include Angola (889 tons), the United Arab Emirates (1,677 tons), Uruguay (428 tons), and Sierra Leone (473 tons).
"It is not yet possible to predict the impact of trade issues with the United States on shipments of the product, but there is a prospect of eventual maintenance of the flow, as North American demand for the product remains high in the face of the shortage of the product faced in that market," assesses ABPA president Ricardo Santin.
Source: Associação Brasileira de Proteína Animal (ABPA) https://abpa-br.org/noticias/exportacoes-de-ovos-crescem3047-em-julho/
17TH POULTRY INDIA EXPO 2025 – POWERING GLOBAL POULTRY INNOVATION FROM SOUTH ASIA
As South Asia’s biggest poultry event, the Poultry India Expo, organized annually by the Indian Poultry Equipment Manufacturers’ Association (IPEMA), has become synonymous with innovation, collaboration, and industry growth. With its 17th edition scheduled for 25–28 November 2025 at HITEX Exhibition Centre, Hyderabad, India, the expo promises to be bigger and more impactful than ever before.
India’s poultry industry – A global powerhouse
India today stands as the 2nd largest producer of eggs (142.77 billion in 2023–24) and among the top 4 producers of broiler meat globally, growing annually at 8–10% in chicken meat and 6–8% in eggs. Poultry is not only a thriving ₹1.35 lakh crore industry but also a pillar of food and nutritional security, offering affordable protein to millions and combating malnutrition. Beyond food, the sector drives rural employment and inclusive growth, empowering small farmers, women, and rural youth through contract farming and backyard poultry. With rising incomes, urbanization, and strong private and government support, the industry continues to be a cornerstone of India’s economic and social development.
To sustain this rapid growth and ensure the industry’s global competitiveness, it is vital to bring the entire poultry community together on one platform. This is where IPEMA has been playing a pivotal role—through its flagship event, the Poultry India Expo, with the theme ’One Nation One Expo’. The ’Poultry India Expo’ over the years, has
transformed into South Asia’s biggest poultry exhibition and a truly global forum. It addresses every need of the sector, from innovation and policy dialogue to networking and knowledge-sharing. By creating opportunities for farmers, breeders, integrators, researchers, and entrepreneurs to connect and collaborate, the expo has been instrumental in positioning India as a global poultry powerhouse. It is not just an exhibition but a platform that drives growth, solves sectoral challenges, and amplifies India’s global impact.
The resounding success of the 16th edition of Poultry India Expo – 2024
The 16 th Poultry India Expo 2024 (27–29 November) reinforced India’s standing as a global poultry leader. Over 40,000 visitors and 400+ exhibitors from 50+ countries participated. The event was graced by eminent dignitaries including Dr. O.P. Chaudhary (Joint Secretary, DAHD), Shri Sabyasachi Ghosh, IAS (Special Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana), and Shri Indra Sena Reddy Nallu (Governor of Tripura), alongside leading industry stalwarts. Knowledge Day (26th November) drew 1,500+ delegates with 7+ global experts addressing crucial themes on industry growth, disease management, and sectoral challenges.
Innovations in feed, animal health, automation, and sustainable practices were unveiled, while policymakers and scientists discussed feed cost volatility, disease control, and supply chain resilience. This success laid the groundwork for an even larger and more influential 17th edition.
A year of engagements & achievements by IPEMA – 2025 highlights
In 2025, IPEMA has been actively shaping the poultry discourse across India and globally through strategic engagements, advocacy, and innovation. The year began with a strong showcase at the 11th Kolkata International Poultry Fair (February 11–14, 2025), inaugurated by Shri Swapan Debnath and Dr. Jeetendra Verma, where the YEP! team presented future-focused poultry solutions. Later, at the Conference on Livestock & Poultry Development in NE India (February 27–28, 2025), IPEMA President Uday Singh Bayas engaged policymakers and industry leaders to drive growth in the North-East region.
Subsequent months saw IPEMA’s robust national and international presence: at the IB Group Conclave in Raipur with 6,000+ participants; forging partnerships with CII Telangana; supporting World Veterinary Day with 145 thesis awards; and representing India at global platforms such as the IEIA Open Seminar, VIV Asia 2025 (Bangkok), and Poultry Summit 2025 (Chandigarh). Poultry India also won the Top Industry Catalyst Award at the Exhibition Excellence Awards 2025.
Further, it strengthened policy and education advocacy through a Vice-Chancellors’ Conclave on Veterinary Education in Pune, backed the National AMR Stewardship Drive in Bengaluru, and inaugurated the Cull Bird Single Window Facility in Hyderabad. In August, the association contributed ₹2.5 crores to CIPA for poultry promotion, supported major conclaves in Kolkata and Hyderabad, and launched the EduVisionary 2025 initiative. These engagements reflect IPEMA’s role as a catalyst for policy dialogue, global networking, innovation, and farmer empowerment. More importantly, beyond organizing the flagship Poultry India Expo, IPEMA continues to play a pivotal role in uniting every aspect of the poultry value chain under one platform—from farmers and scientists to entrepreneurs and policymakers—ensuring holistic growth and a stronger global presence for India’s poultry industry.
What to expect at poultry India Expo 2025
The 17th edition is set to surpass all previous benchmarks:
- 500+ exhibitors from 50+ countries
- 60,000+ visitors expected
- 35,000 sq. meters of exhibition space across 7 modern halls.
Exhibition highlights
Breakthroughs in breeding, hatchery automation, feed milling, housing, veterinary products, and egg-farming solutions. Solutions for challenges like raw material volatility, sustainability, and disease management, with participation from global brands, innovators, and startups.
Knowledge day – 25th November 2025
A full-day technical seminar at Novotel, Hyderabad, focusing on emerging diseases, sustainable feed, manure management, automation, and poultry career development.
Networking & trade
Unmatched B2B opportunities, product launches, collaborations, and investment platforms. Visa and travel assistance for international delegates.
Venue – HITEX Exhibition Centre, Hyderabad
A world-class venue across 70 acres with 7 halls, stateof-the-art infrastructure, and seamless domestic and international connectivity.
A message from IPEMA
“India’s poultry industry is on a remarkable growth trajectory. Building on the overwhelming success of the 16th edition, we are setting even higher benchmarks this year. I warmly invite poultry farmers, breeders, veterinarians, researchers, and global stakeholders to join us at the 17th Poultry India Expo 2025 in Hyderabad. Together, we will shape the future of India’s poultry sector and establish our country as a global poultry powerhouse.” – Mr. Uday Singh Bayas, President, IPEMA / Poultry India.
Be part of the future
www.poultryindia.co.in
info@poultryindia.co.in
Whether you are a poultry farmer, breeder, feed manufacturer, integrator, veterinarian, entrepreneur, student, or policymaker, the Poultry India Expo 2025 is your platform to network, learn, and lead in the global poultry ecosystem. International delegates can also reach out to the organizing team for visa and travel assistance, ensuring smooth participation and hassle-free arrangements.
VIV SELECT CHINA MOVES TO SHANGHAI FOR THE 2026 EDITION
Following the success of VIV SELECT CHINA 2025 in Nanjing, the premier livestock industry exhibition is making a strategic move to Shanghai for its 2026 edition, signaling a new chapter of expanded global reach and enhanced industry connectivity.
VIV SELECT CHINA 2025 (Nanjing) took place on September 10–12 at the Nanjing International Expo Center (Jianye District). This edition featured 485 leading exhibitors from the Netherlands, Germany, Brazil, the United States, Canada, Spain, Turkey, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Malaysia, and other key markets, showcasing over 30,000 m² of exhibition space. Nearly 30 leading enterprises—among them Nxin Digital Intelligence, Yukou, Xingyi, China Animal Husbandry, Sunhy, Tecon, Zhejiang Medicine, Eppen, Hengyin, Sunson, Jinxiang, Unisplendour, Wanhua Chemical, and Lukang—returned with their latest innovations.
Visitor registrations covered 108 countries and regions and totaled 16,863, of which 2,357 were international attendees. The event welcomed more than 2,000 conference attendees and 400+ industry leaders, as well as 10 domestic and international industry organizations that attended as delegations, bringing together global livestock elites in Nanjing for this landmark industry event. Building on this success, show organizers VNU Europe and Globus Events have officially announced that VIV SELECT CHINA 2026 (Shanghai) will be held in Hall 1 of the Shanghai World Expo Exhibition & Convention Center, running August 19–21, 2026. It will carry the theme "Connecting the globe, building a one-stop livestock trade platform" and will fully leverage its global resources and strong influence to drive the comprehensive strategy in the country.
Relocating to Shanghai: strategic upgrade with a global vision
Moving to Shanghai in 2026 not only signifies an extensive upgrade in scale and influence, but also establishes a core hub bridging China's livestock industry with world markets. There exhibitors and professional visitors will benefit from more efficient, high-quality matchmaking experiences, enabling Chinese livestock enterprises to seize global opportunities and deepen industry-chain collaboration. Building on Shanghai's metropolitan strengths and the Yangtze River Delta livestock cluster's momentum, the event will witness a comprehensive upgrade in size and content, becoming a central hub for global livestock exchange, trade, and innovation. The relocation also marks a major leap forward in VIV SELECT CHINA's international reach, branding, and professionalism.
Additionally, the organizers’ partnership creates a cross-border collaboration that integrates domestic and international markets. Through an International Livestock Summit, business-matching sessions, and market visits, the show will accelerate adoption of smart-farming technologies, green-feed applications, and manure-to-resource conversion, positioning enterprises to lead in intelligent, intensive development.
The key highlights of the exhibition will be:
• V-AI+ Smart Livestock – Technology empowering industry transformation
• Full industry chain coverage – Creating an "international onestop" procurement hub
• Green and low-carbon technologies – Supporting "dual carbon" goals
• Expanded international pavilions – Building cross-border cooperation bridges
Co-located with Pet Fair Asia – Dual exhibitions, mutual empowerment
From August 19–21, 2026, VIV SELECT CHINA (Shanghai) will run alongside Pet Fair Asia (August 19–23). Organized by the same host, the two venues lie just 15 minutes apart, with complimentary shuttle buses to ensure seamless access to the full livestock and pet industry chains. The events will also feature world-class conferences on animal disease prevention and treatment, covering common and cutting-edge topics for large and small animals, and host interactive exchange programs for students and professionals from agricultural and veterinary institutions. With three core strengths—full industry-chain coverage, international resource integration, and a tailored service ecosystem—the dual exhibitions will build an efficient bridge between the livestock and pet sectors.
VIV SELECT CHINA 2026 is open for booth reservations. Companies registering before October 12, 2025 will enjoy earlybird discounts and priority booth selection; on-site bookings at the September 10–12, 2025 Nanjing show receive additional exclusive benefits.
Professor and Extension Poultry Specialist, Department of Animal Science, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture
➤ Tanner Thornton Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Animal Science, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture
As the current highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreak enters its third year with no end in sight, a question gaining greater attention is “Should the US rethink its avian influenza policy?” The US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) has been unable, thus far, to control the outbreak with its “stamping out” policy of depopulating H5N1-affected commercial egg production, broiler/ broiler breeder, turkey and duck operations as well as small backyard poultry flocks. As of January 15, 2025, since the start of the HPAI outbreak in the US on February 8, 2022, 134.72 million birds have been affected. HPAI has been detected in a total of 1,410 flocks in all 50 states. Of those, 637 flocks have been commercial and 773 have been backyard. A new wrinkle was added in early 2024 when HPAI was first detected in dairy cattle in Texas. As of January 15, 2025, since the first detection in dairy cattle on March 25, 2024, there have been 927 confirmed cases
in dairy herds in 16 states. California, alone, has 710 of these confirmed cases with 67 confirmed cases in the last 30 days. While HPAI H5N1 is not a new virus, this current version is one of the most concerning in recent history, in part because of its rapid global spread, persistence across all seasons (especially across warmer summer months when flu viruses typically show a decline), and the spillover into mammalian populations (particularly, the recent troubling spillover into dairy cattle).
Should (limited) vaccination of poultry flocks be considered?
Aside from the massive expense incurred by USDAAPHIS for indemnity payments, depopulation, disposal, personnel, equipment, biosecurity gear, resources (carbon material, foam, CO2, etc.) and logistics, producers have suffered serious physical, mental and financial stress, while consumers across the country are paying much more for their eggs. California residents were paying $8.97/doz. for state-mandated cage-free eggs in early January while the national price hovered around $4.85 a dozen. Compare that to the $1.67/doz. national average in 2021 before the current avian influenza outbreak started. Many table egg operations have multiple barns and are multi-million bird complexes. If one bird tests positive, the government
policy is to “stamp out” the disease and depopulate the entire complex. Is this sustainable, and is there a viable alternative? Some operations that broke with HPAI in 2023 and had to be depopulated broke again in 2024 and had to be depopulated a second time. Could limited vaccination prevent this type of scenario in the future?
If H5N1 (the current HPAI strain causing all the problems) was a rare exotic infection that only affected one premises or a very few premises in a small, localized area only one time, a stamping out policy would seem advisable and an effective practice. However, after three years, H5N1 now appears endemic in much of the US and is reintroduced each year in the fall and spring during waterfowl migration seasons. The loss of 134.72 million birds, with this number increasing almost daily, would seem to indicate that the stamping out policy has been unable, at least until now, to contain the outbreak as intended. Evidence points to the HPAI virus being capable of moving by air on dust particles which makes it more difficult to contain to a localized site. In addition, we know the virus can easily move or be tracked by indirect transmission through a host of methods including humans (perhaps the #1 threat); contaminated feed, water or environment; shared equipment not properly cleaned and disinfected; rodents; pets and lapses in biosecurity, to name a few. Knowing that H5N1 now appears endemic in much of the US and knowing that even the best biosecurity cannot provide complete and total protection against HPAI, is it time to perhaps consider possible alternatives such as vaccination, at least in limited, localized high-risk situations or with certain types of birds (table egg layers and turkeys, maybe)?
Granted, influenza viruses, including H5N1, have this annoying habit of mutating quickly. This makes it quite challenging to develop a single vaccine that remains effective against multiple variants over time. Vaccine companies are well aware that any vaccine created for today’s viral strain might be useless against a new mutation tomorrow. In addition, vaccinating poultry on a large scale is expensive and
challenging, especially in countries like the US with a large poultry industry, thus the emphasis here on only table egg layers and turkeys. And vaccination itself is not a perfect solution. No doubt, there would be concern for the export market if vaccination comes into play, especially for the broiler industry, less, perhaps, for the table egg and turkey industries because we export much more broiler meat than we do table eggs or turkey meat.
HPAI risk to the public
HPAI continues to remain a serious threat to the poultry, and more recently, dairy cattle industries. However, currently, it is primarily an animal health issue with limited,
but certainly concerning, implications for human health. To date, there have been 66 confirmed human cases of H5N1 in the US One person, with other underlying health issues, has died. Most human cases appear as a mild illness, such as conjunctivitis with mild respiratory symptoms, and the victims fully recover in a few days. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has carefully studied the available information about the person who died and continues to assess that the risk to the general population remains low. Most H5 avian influenza infections are related to animalto-human exposures. Additionally, there are no concerning virologic changes actively spreading in wild birds, poultry or dairy cows that would raise the threat risk to human health. However, that doesn’t mean the threat can or should be taken for granted. Viruses can change and mutate over time. The longer the virus circulates in the environment and the more widespread it becomes in poultry and dairy cattle, the more opportunity it has to possibly change to something that is more easily transmittable to humans.
Be aware that domestic house/barn cats appear to be quite susceptible to avian influenza. California has reported a few cat deaths in animals that were exposed to raw milk on dairy farms with HPAI affected herds. Raw milk is a concern not only for cats but also for people. The CDC recommends that people avoid drinking raw milk. Anyone, even healthy children and adults, can get sick from drinking raw milk. Raw milk and products made from raw milk, including soft cheese, ice cream and yogurt can be contaminated with germs that can cause serious illness, hospitalization or death. Always choose pasteurized milk and dairy products to protect your health and the health of your family. Pasteurization is the process of heating milk to a high enough temperature for a long enough time to kill disease-causing pathogens, including HPAI H5N1 viruses. High-temperature-shorttime pasteurization (HTST) is the most common method of pasteurization in the US and requires a temperature of at least 161 °F for no less than 15 seconds.
Although human infections with the HPAI virus are rare, having unprotected exposure to any infected animal or to an environment in which infected birds or other infected animals are or have been present increases the risk of infection. Avian influenza A viruses (of which H5N1 is a part) infect the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts of birds, causing birds to shed the virus in their saliva, mucus and manure. Influenza A viruses can also infect the respiratory tract of mammals and cause systemic infection in other organs. Human infections with avian influenza viruses can happen when enough virus gets into a person’s eyes, nose or mouth or is inhaled.
The CDC recommends avoiding exposure to sick or dead animals. If unable to avoid exposure, the CDC recommends that personal protective equipment (PPE) should be worn when in direct or close contact (within 6 feet) with sick or
dead animals including poultry, wild birds, backyard flocks, or other animals, animal manure, litter or materials potentially contaminated with H5N1 viruses. PPE includes disposable head/hair covers, properly fitted unvented or indirectly vented safety goggles, a NIOSH-approved particulate respirator (N95® facemask), disposable fluid-resistant coveralls, disposable gloves and boots or boot covers.
Even though the CDC considers the current risk to the public from H5N1 to be low, persons with exposure to infected animals or contaminated materials, including raw cow’s milk, are at higher risk for H5N1 virus infection and should take recommended precautions, including using recommended PPE.
What this means for Tennessee poultry producers
It makes no difference whether you are a commercial or backyard flock producer, while USDA works to determine how best to address the avian influenza situation going forward, it means biosecurity has never been more important than it is today. It is heartbreaking to witness firsthand what producers in California are going through as the state works to gain control of the avian influenza situation there. Preventing a similar situation in Tennessee should be every flock producer’s highest priority. Yes, biosecurity is more work and, yes, biosecurity takes additional time to implement correctly. However, that extra time and effort will pay for itself many times over if it keeps avian influenza away from your flock. The time, effort and physical, mental, and financial stress of dealing with an avian influenza break is devastating. It can’t be stated any plainer than that. There is no cure for avian influenza. It is a virus, and antibiotics are useless against viruses. However, multiple companies are currently working on a vaccine. Vaccination would potentially result in fewer outbreaks and lessen the financial impact on the government and both the public and private sectors. The export question would need to be addressed; particularly where broilers are concerned; however, given the current avian influenza situation, it may be time to have that discussion. Most commercial poultry producers understand biosecurity practices well because they have been exposed to them for years. Backyard flock keepers may not be as well versed. The avian influenza virus will not just appear in your flock. It must be put there somehow. Good biosecurity is designed to keep the virus from being put there. Often, it gets put there because of a breakdown in biosecurity, and someone or something tracks or moves the virus from one place to another. The virus is in the nasal secretions and the manure of infected birds, especially waterfowl but also starlings, blackbirds and a host of other wild birds in the environment that are currently carrying the virus. The three components of a good biosecurity program are all
BREEDAZA THE RATIONING SYSTEM FOR BROILER BREEDERS AND LAYERS
ADJUSTABLE ANTI-COCK GRID
NO OBSTACLE INSIDE
EASY ACCESS TO FEED
System designed for equal, controlled and immediate distribution throughout the line.
The obstacle-free linear trough feeder allows an easy access for the animals which can easily spot the feed.
Easy cleaning and no residual feed inside the trough.
critical to protecting your flock—isolation, traffic control and sanitation. You must have all three to protect your flock. Providing only one or two is not good biosecurity and puts your flock at greater risk.
Isolate your flock as much as possible. Keep birds indoors to prevent poultry flocks from coming in contact with wild or migratory birds. This is easier for commercial growers than for backyard flock or free-range, organic flock producers. Restrict access to any water source that may have been contaminated by wild birds. If you are a backyard producer, separate birds by age and species. Backyard flock keepers often mix ages and species without incident, but doing so increases the disease risk, and the goal of biosecurity is to decrease the disease risk, not increase it. Biosecurity cannot totally eliminate the disease threat, but it can reduce the risk. If you must go to town for parts or go to the feed store or café or anywhere other poultry growers may visit, do not go home and check your birds without taking a shower and changing clothes and boots/shoes. You don’t want to track something you picked up in town back to your flock. Traffic control—know who comes and goes and why. Keep a visitor’s log. Outside of you and your family, very few people have any business being around your birds. Your service technician, live operations personnel and feed truck drivers must come and go on your farm, but after that, the list gets pretty short of people who have any business being around your commercial poultry flock. Increased traffic flow means increased disease risk. Severely limit the number of people who have access to your birds. Sanitation is your friend. Clean and disinfect everything—people, materials equipment. Use a footbath at the entrance to your poultry houses or backyard coops/pens and change it often to keep it effective. Dry chlorine bleach works well as a disinfectant for footbaths and can be purchased at many poultry supply stores or on the internet. Keep hand sanitizer at the coop or in the control room and use that stuff. Dedicate footwear or use disposable booties that are only worn in the chicken house or the coop area to lessen the risk of tracking something inside. Biosecurity is pretty much just simple common sense, especially if you’ve raised birds for a while. However, if you are new to poultry production, the quicker you learn these things, the better.
Summary
The current avian influenza outbreak, now entering its third year in the US, continues to threaten poultry flocks and dairy cattle herds. The virus now appears endemic in many parts of the country, and reintroduction occurs each spring and fall during waterfowl migration seasons. The USDA-APHIS policy of “stamping out” the virus by depopulating affected premises, followed by cleaning, disinfecting and starting over, has been unable, up to this point, to rein in the outbreak. A question being asked more often today is whether the US should rethink its avian influenza policy and consider vaccination for avian influenza, at least in limited and localized situations that might include commercial turkey and table egg operations. This would require careful consideration of how this might affect the export market. In addition, vaccination has its own set of pros and cons. However, it could perhaps offer better control of the outbreak and lessen the physical, mental and financial toll on USDA-APHIS, the poultry industry and its producers. Meanwhile, biosecurity remains our best weapon for our own protection and protection of our flocks. Biosecurity requires extra time and effort but will pay for itself many times over if it keeps avian influenza away from our flocks.
TANZANIA UNVEILS A NEW STANDARD FOR POULTRY FEED CONCENTRATES
Tanzania has recently released a draft of its approved standard for the manufacture and use of poultry feed concentrates, as demand for animal feed continues to grow in this East African country of 71 million people.
➤ Shem Oirere
Contributing correspondent for Africa
The standard, TBS/AFDC 9 (2942) DTZS, was released in May 2025 with the approval of the Tanzania Bureau of Standards’ (TBS) Board of Directors. It outlines specific requirements, sampling methods, and test procedures for poultry feed concentrates used in the production of compounded poultry feeds.
TBS stated that the new standard applies to concentrates for various chicken and turkey feed types, including “chicks and poults, growers, broilers—starters and finishers, layers, and breeders.”
“The expansion of the poultry industry in Tanzania has resulted in a corresponding increase in poultry feed demand and production,” TBS said in a statement. The Bureau noted that the use of concentrates in compounded poultry feeds “has become popular among feed millers to mitigate the shortage of poultry feeds. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare this standard, laying down specifications for poultry feed concentrates to guarantee the safety and quality of compounded poultry feeds produced and/or traded in Tanzania”.
The new standard includes provisions to ensure highquality poultry feeds by requiring that concentrates comply with specific criteria related to additives, hygiene, contaminants, sampling, testing,
packaging, marking, and labeling. Among these specifications is a recommendation that feed makers ensure additives do not include antioxidants other than those approved by TBS. “All ingredients and raw materials shall not be decomposed or deteriorated and shall comply with the relevant Tanzania standards,” TBS added.
Some of the approved feedstocks include common ingredients such as maize, maize bran, maize/cob meal, rice bran, cassava meal, molasses, millet, sorghum, fish meal, blood meal, cottonseed cake, soybean meal, limestone, oyster shells, wheat pollard, wheat bran, sunflower cake, groundnut cake, rice polishings, bone meal, and dicalcium phosphate, among others. “Where soybean meal is used, it shall have been subjected to adequate heat treatment to reduce the activity of trypsin inhibitor,” the standard states. Other provisions include sterilization of ingredients of animal origin and the requirement that vitamin preparations added to feed be in stabilized form.
“Urea or any other nitrogenous substances shall not be added to or included in any poultry feed concentrate, except for true protein and amino acids as required in this standard,” adds the standard. It also emphasizes that poultry feed concentrates shall be assessed based on the ingredients used and the processing procedure applied, and recommends that “the formulation matrix be maintained to accurately reflect the appropriate nutritional values of all ingredients used.” The concentrates must also be free from harmful substances such as metallic objects and adulterants, as well as from fungi, pathogenic microorganisms, and insect infestation.
The release of the specifications for poultry feed concentrates coincides with a surge in Tanzania’s poultry numbers and increasing demand for poultry feed, a trend driven by the growth of the industry. Tanzania, where over one-third of the population is involved in agriculture—78% of whom are engaged in poultry farming—has now overtaken Kenya and Uganda to become East Africa’s fastest-growing poultry market, expanding at an estimated 5% annually and currently valued at approximately US$403 million, according to statistics from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
decline in maize production, which may affect the availability and pricing of poultry feed and concentrates.
Government reports estimate that Tanzania is home to 38.5 million indigenous chickens and 40.6 million layers and broilers, which are driving demand for commercial poultry feed beyond 1.5 million tons per year. This demand is projected to rise to 18.1 million tons by 2050, with chicken expected to remain the country’s primary source of animal protein.
The growing demand for poultry feed concentrates— currently produced by at least 105 feed mills in the country— is expected to increase the consumption of key cereals such as maize, rice, wheat, cottonseed, sorghum, soybean, sunflower, and cassava.
For instance, Tanzania’s Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries reports that the country needs more than 400,000 tons of soybeans annually to support its livestock and poultry industries—a figure far exceeding national production, which ranges between 10,000 and 20,000 tons. As a result, both the government and private sector rely on expensive imports to meet demand.
Furthermore, Tanzania depends heavily on maize for poultry feed production, creating a business opportunity for local farmers. However, recent official projections indicate a
According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Tanzania’s maize production for the 2025/2026 marketing year is expected to drop by 200,000 metric tons, or about 3%, reducing total output to 6.8 million metric tons. “The decline is largely attributed to factors such as belowaverage rainfall during the short rains season (October–December 2024), untimely distribution of governmentsubsidized certified seeds and fertilizer, pest infestations (e.g., Fall Armyworm), and a reduction in harvested area,” the USDA report states. The USDA also forecasts that maize consumption in Tanzania “is projected to decrease by approximately 5%, reaching around 5.8 million metric tons, down from 6.1 million metric tons the previous year, due to reduced local production.”
Although the new standard on poultry feed concentrates is expected to enhance feed quality and boost overall industry performance, Tanzania will still face challenges related to low domestic feed production and continued reliance on imported raw materials like soybeans and maize. However, according to a report by the Netherlands’ East Africa Office, local farmers could take advantage of “the latest agricultural technologies to increase maize and soya production and drive commercialization of these crops,” thereby boosting domestic poultry feed manufacturing.
NEW PREDICTIVE MODELS FOR AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO COMBATING AVIAN INFLUENZA
Avian influenza is now recognized as both widespread and costly, with serious implications for animal and human health. Tackling it effectively requires targeted strategies for surveillance and intervention. An international research team led by Professor Joacim Rocklöv (Heidelberg University) has developed an AI-based predictive model that shows great promise as a valuable tool in this effort.
Background
Avian influenza was first identified in the early 20th century as a highly lethal disease in poultry. Most strains cause mild or asymptomatic infections in birds, with symptoms depending on the viral properties. Viruses that cause severe disease and high mortality in poultry are classified as highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), while those with mild effects are considered low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI). Beyond their impact on poultry, these viruses raise concerns about spillover—the jump from animals to humans—and the potential emergence of new pandemics.
The study
“Predictiveness and drivers of highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks in Europe” is the title of the study published in July 2025 in the journal Scientific Reports by the international group of researchers led by Joacim Rocklöv (Heidelberg University).
M.R. Opata, A. Lavarello-Schettini, J.C. Semenza and J. Rocklöv describe an effective predictive model, developed thanks to artificial intelligence, that makes it possible to estimate future avian influenza peaks with good accuracy. Let us take a closer look.
In the past, predictive models have already been used to trigger early-warning systems. The use of such models makes it possible to activate responses in a timely manner, thus limiting impacts on public health and the economy that are by no means negligible.
But if predictive models have already been designed and used in the past, what is new in the study conducted by Professor Rocklöv’s team? This is the first study to carry out
a comprehensive predictive analysis at high geospatial resolution in Europe. Using data from a variety of sources describing the development of avian influenza in Europe between 2006 and 2021, predictive and interpretable models were created through machine learning (ML). In particular, the study asked whether eco-climatic and socio-economic variables can predict avian influenza outbreaks, how the importance of time-dependent variables changes with the season and their interactions, which wild bird species are the most predictive of poultry outbreaks, and what combination
Source: Opata, M.R., Lavarello-Schettini, A., Semenza, J.C. et al
Predictiveness and drivers of highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks in Europe. Sci Rep 15, 20286 (2025).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-04624-x CC BY 4.0
▲ Figure 1 – Wild birds ranked by SHAP score
of variables provides the most accurate forecasts on data not used in model training. When the model was tested on past years, the accuracy of the prediction was 88%.
Key drivers of outbreaks (and therefore essential data for predictive models) turned out to be climate, environmental and vegetation variables, followed by bioclimatic variables, poultry density and finally more general socio-economic conditions (trade and population density).
It emerged that cold temperatures in autumn are the most relevant predictor, while average spring temperatures play a critical role. These climatic variables can influence bird behavior and the environmental survival of the virus, since colder temperatures favor viral persistence. For example, low temperatures affect habitat availability and quality, concentrating wild birds and increasing the likelihood of contact between susceptible and infected individuals. During winter, low availability of water and vegetation indicates a low risk of outbreaks.
Poultry density also represents one of the most influential predictive variables: high values, representing regions with dense poultry populations, push the model towards positive predictions, while low values push it towards negative predictions. In addition, temperature, water index, vegetation index, poultry density and Bio3 (the ratio between the mean daily temperature range and the annual temperature range) play a critical role in avian influenza outbreaks according to the study model. The relationship varies across the seasons, but is dominant in the first and third quarters for the most important variables.
In general, the study shows that climate is the main factor influencing avian influenza outbreaks, followed by environmental and bioclimatic variables.
In addition, a strong correlation between outbreaks and the presence of certain bird species was observed. As shown in Figure 1, among these the mute swan (Cygnus olor) has the greatest impact, contributing the most to the positive prediction of outbreaks in part of the data. In second and third place are, respectively, Accipitriformes, unidentified birds of the family Anatidae (order Anseriformes) and gulls (family Laridae, order Charadriiformes), according to SHAP values (SHapley Additive exPlanations, quantitative indicators that measure the contribution of each variable to a machine learning model’s prediction, showing whether and to what extent that variable increases or decreases the probability of the predicted event). The inclusion of wild bird species significantly improved the predictive performance of the model, highlighting their crucial role in the spread of avian influenza viruses.
Why this study matters
The detection of avian influenza outbreaks can trigger a series of containment measures, including the strengthening of biosecurity in poultry farms, movement bans, vaccination, and the culling of the entire flock as well as other farms
located near the affected one, in order to prevent further spread of the virus. The implementation of such measures often depends on the timing of the alert, which in turn depends on the sensitivity of the surveillance system.
The study by Professor Rocklöv and his team can help guide sentinel surveillance in order to improve the number of identified cases and to develop early-warning systems for avian influenza outbreaks.
Such maps could therefore inform targeted planning of biosecurity and emergency measures, such as ring vaccination or preventive vaccination for poultry in highrisk areas. In addition, climate-informed interventions, such as movement restrictions or awareness campaigns during the third quarter, can be implemented. For example, agricultural infrastructure can be adapted in line with seasonal climate trends to reduce susceptibility to the virus and bird stress, factors known to play an important role in the spread of avian influenza.
The results of the study highlight the importance of including wild bird species in predictive models. This underlines the need for more robust and systematic surveillance of wild bird
populations to improve the ability to predict and mitigate avian influenza outbreaks.
Looking ahead
Future prospects include refining the model by incorporating higher-resolution data, expanding the geographical scope, and including additional variables that could influence the dynamics of avian influenza viruses, such as bird migration routes and land-use changes. Collaboration across disciplines and regions will be essential to improve the predictiveness and applicability of the model.
References
Opata, M.R., Lavarello-Schettini, A., Semenza, J.C. et al. Predictiveness and drivers of highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks in Europe. Sci Rep 15, 20286 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-04624-x
High strength and quality materials
Excellent seal, zero water wastage, dry litter
Easy and fix regulation of min and max feed levels
Fast pan filling without any waste of feed
Avoiding the step in by the animals in the pan
Anti-UV and chemical resistance
Use a QR code scanner on your device to access our website.
corti_ zootecnici
Corti Zootecnici
Corti Zootecnici’s Feeder
DENMARK’S EGG INDUSTRY - ANALYSIS OF AN UNUSUAL STRUCTURE
With only 4.7 million laying hens, which corresponds to around 1.2% of the EU flock, Denmark is one of the smaller egg-producing countries. It is therefore not surprising that there are only a few scientific publications on the development and structure of laying hen husbandry and egg production in this Northern European country. It is surprising, however, that the special structure of egg production and egg marketing has not received more attention, as it is unusual compared to the EU member countries with much larger egg production. This structure will be analysed and documented in more detail in the following article1 .
➤ Hans-Wilhelm Windhorst Professor Emeritus at the University of Vechta, Germany
A remarkable dynamic
When looking at the long-term development of the Danish egg industry, there are two years in particular in which farreaching decisions were made. The first was in 1895, when the Dansk Angels Ægexport co-operative was founded, from which Danæg was to develop over the years. The second was in 1980, when Hedegaard A/S bought the
Farm-Æg company. In the years that followed, acquisitions in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Estonia transformed the company into DAVA Foods. These two companies are not only the largest egg producers and marketers in Denmark, but also largely determine the egg market in Scandinavia.
Between 2014 and 2024, the number of farms keeping laying hens fell from 2,722 to 1,471, or by 46.0%. In 2024, only 132 commercial egg farms were registered, however. In the same decade, the number of hen places increased from 4.27 million to 5.61 million, or by 31.2%. Figure 1 shows that the situation regarding hen places has been very stable since 2018, while the number of farms has increased slightly
1 The article is based on a study trip to Denmark and Sweden in June 2025. I want to thank Jörgen Nyberg Larsen (Danske Æg) for his valuable information on the development of the Danish and North European egg industry.
between 2020 and 2022. This is mainly due to the expansion of flocks with 1,000 or more places, while the number of small holdings (up to 50 places) has fallen significantly2. A comparison of the shares of farms and hen places by size class shows the high degree of sectoral concentration (Table 1). Market supply beyond the local area is almost exclusively provided by farms with more than 10,000 hen places.
Danish laying hen farmers, like their Swedish counterparts, changed from conventional cage systems much earlier than other EU member countries to barn and free-range systems. Denmark was one of the few countries which had fully converted conventional cages to enriched cages in 2012. Figure 2 documents the change that has occurred over the past decade. While 34% of eggs were still produced in enriched cages in 2014, this share fell to 12% in 2020 and only 8% in 2024. In the same decade, barn systems increased from 13% to 35% and then to 40%. The share of organic egg production increased until 2022, but then fell slightly because barn eggs were cheaper for consumers than organic eggs. Free-range eggs have contributed 6% since 2018. A larger increase is not expected in the coming years for organic and free-range eggs due to the threat of avian influenza outbreaks. The large number of wild birds (geese, ducks) that stay in southern Sweden and Denmark during the winter months until spring discourages egg farmers from investing in this housing system. Production in the barn systems will, however, grow constantly. Between January 2024 and January 2025
production increased by 7.7%. This was an answer to the decreasing production in the Netherlands and Belgium and the high demand in Germany. The two large companies, Danæg and DAVA, are pursuing corresponding strategies, as will be shown in the following paragraph.
Danæg - a successful cross-border co-operative
To understand the long success story of Danæg, it is necessary to take a brief look back at its beginnings3. Towards the end of the 19th century, England was an important destination for Danish agricultural exports. The main export products were butter and eggs, although eggs were much less important. From 1880 onwards, complaints from English importers about the poor quality of the eggs increased and they even threatened to stop buying them altogether if the quality of the eggs did not improve significantly. The poor quality of the eggs was a consequence of the exporting farmers’ strategy. They often held back the eggs for very long because they were waiting for price peaks. Because the laying rate of the hens decreased in the winter months, the farmers stored eggs in pits containing lime water. When prices were high, they were then taken out and marketed. These eggs were often spoilt or of very poor quality.
In order not to lose the English market, the most important export farmers founded the Dansk Andels Ægexport cooperative in 1895. The member farmers promised to export
■ Table 1 – Layer farms and hen places by size class in Denmark in 2024; data in % (source: Statistics Denmark)
2 In Denmark, all farms and households with laying hens are registered and given a number (CHR). In addition, the individual barns are assessed as an epidemiological unit in connection with the maximum permitted number of hen spaces.
▲ Figure 1 – The development of layer farms and hen places in Denmark between 2014 and 2024 (source: A.
only high-quality eggs, to keep the barns clean and to collect the eggs laid every day. In addition, all eggs were stamped so that they could be traced back to a specific producer. As a result of these measures, exports to England increased and domestic sales also rose.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, Danæg has expanded its activities in Sweden and Finland. In 2004, Danæg merged with the Swedish joint-stock egg company Kronägg, in 2009 it took over Källbergs Industri AB and in 2023 Torggummans Ägg was added.
The merger with the Swedish companies raised the group to an international level, and after thorough rationalizations, automations and efficiency improvements at all levels, the Danæg Holding is the leading market player in Northern Europe.
▲ Figure 2 - The changing contribution of the housing systems for laying hens in Denmark between 2014 and 2024 (design: A. S. Kauer based on Danske Æg data)
In 2021, the Danæg Group acquired the remaining 76% of the Finnish Munax OY in Laitila – a company of which it had owned 24% since 2015. Munax Oy was established in 2003 and has subsequently developed at an impressive speed and today is the market leader in Finland within both the retail and foodservice sectors. With the acquisition of Munax Oy, the Danæg Group is in a strong position in developing innovative products and strengthening exports out of the group’s domestic market. Danæg is producing considerable amounts of eggs in Finland (personal information from Jørgen Nyberg Larsen).
In 2013, Danæg decided to sell part of the company to the Danish co-operative DLG (Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskap). Today, Danæg Holding A/S is owned equally by DANÆG AMBA (Danish and Swedish egg producers) and DLG4. The holding is based in Christiansfeld in Jutland (Photo 1 and 2).
In Denmark, just 39 farms and 29 farmers produce eggs for Danæg. They are mainly located on Jutland, but a few also on Sealand, Funen and Lolland. Together they have a total of 1.9 million hen places. The laying hens are kept in four different housing systems, the barn systems are dominating
3 https://www.danaeg.dk
4 Danish Agro is a Danish trading company that sells agricultural and nutritional products, based in Karise. The company, which is owned by 8,100 farmers, achieved an annual turnover of 6.9 billion euros in 2023 and employed around 5,500 people. https://danishagro.dk/om-danish-agro/danish-agro-koncernen
with a share of 58.5%, followed by organic farming with 20.0%. Both housing systems are used by 12 farmers each. Only two farms still have enriched cages, which account for 13.8% of the hen places. With three farms and a share of 7.6%, free-range systems are only of minor importance for the reasons mentioned above.
In addition to the production and distribution of shell eggs, the company processes eggs into various egg products. In total, Danæg packs, processes and markets shell eggs and egg products at the following locations:
DAVA Foods is the younger of the two leading companies. It has the legal form of a public limited company and has become the largest marketing company for shell eggs in Northern Europe, primarily through mergers and acquisitions. It began in 1980 with the purchase of FarmÆg by Hedegaard A/S. In the years that followed, other smaller companies were acquired and packing plants and egg processing plants were built, e.g. a packing plant and an in-line egg processing plant in Hadsund in 1995. In 2008, Danish Agro purchased Hedegaard A/S, and in 2013 Svenska Landägg was fully acquired after a 70% share had already been bought in 2011. A 50% share in Finland’s largest egg marketer (Munakunta) was added in 2014 as well as a packing plant in Estonia. The company was renamed DAVA Foods A/S in 2015. The holding company, which has been wholly owned by Danish Agro since 2023, is based in Hadsund, Jutland. The packing and egg processing plants outside Denmark are run as independent companies (DAVA Foods Sverige AB, DAVA Foods Finland OY, DAVA Foods Property Norway AS and DAVA Foods Estonia AS). The
PLASTIC PADS FOR THE
PAD COOLING
The LUBING Pad Climate system is made entirely of plastic. It is used in systems where highly efficient cooling is required.
• For evaporative cooling of poultry and pig houses.
• Excellent cooling capacity - patented design.
• Easy to clean.
• Long service life.
• Lowest pressure loss.
• High UV resistance.
• Impermeable to light.
• Chemical resistance.
company’s commitment to the production and sale of plantbased products (seeds, legumes, oils) and plant-based meat substitutes (No Series) is remarkable5
In 2025, DAVA Foods operated a total of six packing plants, three egg processing plants and one egg cooking plant. Around 2 billion eggs are produced, processed and marketed each year.
Barn and organic farming - focal points in egg production
In Denmark, 43 contract farms owned by 33 farmers produce eggs for the company. Together they have about 2.3 million hen places. With a share of 63.2%, the barn systems are dominating in total egg production, followed by 23.0% in organic farming. Free-range farming and keeping hens in enriched cages are less important. Even though the proportions of housing types are very similar to those of Danæg, the average DAVA flocks are larger. It is not unusual that big organic farmers keep several flocks in the same barn. They are separated by fences in the barn and in the outdoor areas. DAVA Foods itself keeps about 125,000 hens in enriched cages and has applied for the construction of five barns with 70,000 hen places, each near their packing station in Skara.
Summary and perspectives
In Denmark, the two largest companies in the production, processing and marketing of eggs and egg products have a market share of 90%. They differ in their legal form and age. While Danæg was founded as a co-operative at the end of the 19th century, the public limited company DAVA Foods was only established in 1980. Both companies are active in several Northern European countries and dominate the market for shell eggs and egg products. While Danæg specialises exclusively in the production and sale of eggs and egg products, DAVA Foods has also added the production and sale of plant-based products and meat substitutes to its portfolio. Currently, their share of the overall turnover is still very low and may not reach 3%. But the company is expecting considerable future growth.
The production of eggs and chicken meat in Denmark is currently characterised by a remarkable dynamic. Numerous new laying hen barns and broiler houses are being built. The expansion of production is as well focused on the growing domestic market as on exports to other EU member countries. While in the past, eggs for both companies were almost completely produced by contracted farmers, a new trend is the production in company-owned barns, such as by Danæg in Finland and by DAVA Foods in Sweden.
Data sources
Danske Æg, https://www.danskeæg.dk Statistics Denmark, https://www.dst.dk
WATER QUALITY
Practicality and management
Water is an essential nutrient for birds. Providing a clean water supply throughout production promotes bird health, welfare and performance, which is important irrespective of the production system used. Water disinfection during production is an integral part of a good flock management system. Controlling bacterial contamination and biofilm formation in the drinking system is key to reducing bird exposure to harmful organisms and lessening the risk to spread disease.
Cleaning water lines between flocks
Before applying a daily water sanitation program, it is important to thoroughly clean as much of the water supply system as possible to remove biofilm, scale and other deposits. After the birds are removed, flush the lines with water. This will remove any loose sediment. Now fill the drinker lines with cleaning solution at the manufacturer’s recommended dilution rate, this can be done through a medicator or Dosatron. Once the water lines are filled with the cleaning solution, let it stand as long as possible with 72 hours being best, however, check with the product manufacturer to assure this will not damage the equipment. After the lines are cleaned, flush and refill with your regular in flock sanitizer until restocking so bacteria does not build back up.
has the potential to return completely in 2–3 days. Therefore, the last step is to establish a daily water sanitation program. This will benefit both the birds and the water system. The three most common sanitation systems are chlorine dioxide, chlorine with acidification and hydrogen peroxide.
Daily water line sanitation
Cleaning the water lines between flocks is only half the battle. Even with a thorough cleaning, if a significant number of bacteria, fungi or yeasts are still present, then the biofilm
• Chlorine dioxide is a strong sanitizer made up of sodium chlorite and inorganic acid. It is an unstable form of chlorine that rapidly breaks down into harmless water and salt. The conversion is achieved by mixing the chlorite solution with citric acid, transforming the chlorite to chlorine dioxide
➤ Aviagen Turkeys Ltd
• Chlorine with acidification is a system that kills organisms in the water using Hypochlorous acid (HOCI) and Hypochlorite ion (OCI-). You must use two different medicators with using both chlorine and acidification: one to pump in the acid and then one to pump in the chlorine. You should never mix the products together in the same tank.
• Hydrogen peroxide products can also be very effective to sanitize your water system. Stabilized hydrogen peroxide works well on biofilms because it is a very good oxidizer and can break down the biofilm. In addition, it is non-corrosive to the drinker system and quite effective on bacteria, fungi and viruses. It can break down algae thoroughly enough to allow it to pass through nipple drinkers without causing the nipple to clog or stick.
As well as a continuous sanitizing of the water lines all belltype drinkers must be washed with a disinfection solution at least three times per week. Wash thoroughly the bell and bowl with a brush or scrub pad. Wastewater should be poured into a bucket and removed from the house. Nipple drinkers should have a daily flush, which will keep water fresh and bacterial levels at a low level throughout the flock.
Measuring water line sanitation
An important piece of information to know how effective the sanitization program has been is the ORP value of the water; this can be done with a specific ORP reader, which is widely available. ORP stands for oxidation-reduction potential and it is a great way to find out if the water sanitation program is working. A strong oxidiser literally destroys viruses, bacteria and other organic material present leaving water microbiologically safe. An ORP value in the range of 650 and 700 millivolts indicates good quality water. A lower ORP value such as 250 millivolts indicates a heavy organic load that will most likely overwhelm a sanitizer’s ability to properly disinfect the water. The bottom line is utilize information on pH, ORP and chlorine level to determine if the sanitation program is effective and to also prevent equipment damage by the overuse of chemicals.
▲ Medicating system
A couple of important points to note are that no sanitizers or any chemicals should be present in the water system when administering vaccines, medications or vitamins and do not mix different products in the same stock solution.
Step one – Choosing a sanitizer
Choose a sanitizing cleaner that can effectively dissolve any biofilm or slime in the system. Some of the best products for this job are concentrated hydrogen peroxide solutions. Prior to using any strong cleaners, make sure standpipes are working properly so air pressure build up in the lines will be released. Consult equipment suppliers before using products to prevent unnecessary damage.
Step two – Prepare the sanitizing solution
For the best results, use the products at the strongest concentration recommended on the label. Most medicators/ Dosatrons will only allow concentrations between 0.8 and 1.6% of the original material. If you need to use higher concentrations, it is better to mix the stock solution in the large tank and then distribute it without using a medicator or Dosatron. For example, if a 3% solution is required, mix three volumes of the cleaner with 97 volumes of water for the final solution.
An excellent sanitizing solution can be made up by using a 35% hydrogen peroxide solution. Mix this as described for a 3% solution.
tep three – Clean the lines
kes 30–38 litres of water to fill and clean 100 feet of ¾-inch water line. If the building is 500 feet long and has two water lines, you should make up a minimum of 380 litres of sanitizing solution. Water lines should be designed so that they can be opened to drain completely when the cleaning
Follow these steps:
1) Open water lines and drain completely.
2) Begin pumping the cleaner through the water lines.
3) Watch the water as it leaves the drain line for signs of the product, such as foaming.
4) Once the water lines are filled with the cleaner, close the tap and leave the product in the lines for as long as the manufacturer recommends (over 24 hours if possible).
5) Flush cleaner for the water lines after the holding period. Water used to flush the lines should contain the level of sanitizer normally used in the drinking water for the birds. In the absence of a standard water sanitation program, add 113 g of 5% bleach per 1 litre of stock solution and proportion this stock solution at the rate of 7.5 g per litre of water. This will provide 3–5 ppm of chlorine in the rinse water.
6) After cleaning, sanitizing and flushing the system, the water supply should be fresh and chlorinated (3-5 ppm is the drinker furthest from the source). If using an ORP meter, the reading should be a minimum of 650.
7) Lines that take water from a water well to the poultry houses should also be cleaned and sanitized between flocks. It is best not to flush these outside water lines through the water lines inside the buildings. Connect a water hose to the medicator tap to drain the outside lines.
Step four – Keep the system clean
1) Once the system has been sanitized, it is important to keep it clean. Develop a good daily water sanitation program for your birds. The ideal water line sanitation program should include injecting both sanitizer and an acid. It is important to note that this procedure requires two medicators or injectors since acids and bleach should never be mixed in the same stock solution.
2) If only one medicator or injector is available, then inject bleach (concentration of 5%) at a rate of 40 g per litre of stock solution. Proportion at 7.5 g per litre of drinking water.
3) The objective is to provide a clean source of drinking water with a continuous level of chlorine at 3–5 ppm at the end of the building furthest from the medicator.
▲ PH meter
▲ Poult drinking
MASS WATER VACCINATION IN POULTRY SHEDS: ACCURATE
DOSE FOR EVERY BIRD, EVERY LINE
Even if many people use the same methods or knowledge for water vaccination in cage or aviary systems as they do for broiler or breeder flocks raised on the floor or in free-range systems, this approach is completely wrong. To ensure that the vaccination is done properly for such a large number of birds, two things must be done right: proper preparation for vaccination and a clear understanding of the unused (unavailable) water remaining in the drinking lines.
➤ Vasilii Ulitin Veterinarian, livestock advisor
Preparation for vaccination
When preparing to vaccinate a large number of birds, proper preparation is absolutely critical. Any mistakes at this stage can be very costly—not only due to wasted vaccine but also because of potential health problems in the flock later. Poor vaccination leads to uneven immunity, increased disease risk, and eventually a significant loss in productivity and profit.
1. General requirements before vaccination
Unit managers must ensure that birds have the standard live body weight appropriate for their age, with uniformity across the flock and are evenly distributed in cages and across tiers. Accurate and complete data must be available for vaccine volume calculation; this includes stocking density, total bird count, and average water consumption. Furthermore, no stress factors (for example feed or water disruptions, loud repair work, or environmental stressors) should affect the birds for 2–3 days before vaccination.
It should not be overlooked that weak birds must be culled, and small birds should be separated into dedicated cages. The poultry house must be in proper sanitary condition: manure and visible dirt should be removed thoroughly, but without using disinfectants just before vaccination.
Finally, all lighting systems (especially standby lighting at the start of the hall) must be working properly and clean protective clothing and footwear must be available in sufficient quantities for everyone working in the poultry house.
2. Unit managers must ensure the following during water vaccination
On the day before vaccination, strict compliance with all of the above items is necessary, along with full functionality of the water supply system (including water valves, pressure gauges, water meters, water filters, and the absence of leaks or sagging in the drinking lines). The availability of equipment for draining residual water from the ends of the drinker lines in the poultry house is also required, together with thorough cleaning of the water filter located inside the poultry house.
One must flush the drinking system (without using disinfectants) and ensure that birds are well hydrated according to actual water consumption data. Finally, the water supply should be turned off 30–60 minutes before the lights are switched off (based on the lighting schedule), and the end caps of the drinker lines must be opened to drain the remaining water. During vaccination, the presence of operational staff in the poultry house is required to ensure safe and uninterrupted operation of the technical equipment.
After vaccination, operators must ensure that uninterrupted water flow resumes in the drinking system immediately once vaccination is completed, and that birds are not exposed to stress factors for at least 24 hours post-vaccination. These include feed or water supply disruptions, noisy repairs or construction work, and any other stress-inducing activities. Finally, before the lights are turned off (according to the lighting
schedule), the water supply must be shut off 30–60 minutes earlier, and the end caps on the drinker lines must be opened to allow complete drainage.
3. Do a fake vaccination the day before
To ensure that everything goes smoothly during the actual vaccination, a test run should be carried out one day in advance—this is often called a “fake vaccination”.
During this procedure, you do everything exactly the same as you would on the real vaccination day—but without the vaccine. Use only water + stabilizer + dye.
This test allows you to see how much mother solution (stock solution) is required to fully fill the drinking system; to measure the time needed to deliver the vaccine to the birds during daylight hours and to identify any technical issues with water flow, line priming, or flushing.
The stock solution should be divided into several smaller portions, each designed to be consumed by the birds within one hour.
This helps ensure that the vaccine reaches the birds before their drinking activity begins to drop off later in the day.
4. How to calculate the stock solution (mother solution)?
There are many ways to estimate the volume of stock solution needed, including official water consumption guidelines by bird age.
However, only a fake vaccination (test run) can reveal the actual water intake of your birds at their specific age and under real farm conditions.
Environmental factors, like season and temperature, time of sunrise and uncontrolled light exposure in the poultry house during system filling (for example, due to non-sealed ventilation can cause some birds to start drinking early consuming part of the vaccine before the lights officially come on) also affect how much stock is solution required.
5. How to calculate the stock solution per cage battery or strip of birds?
It’s simple math: after the fake vaccination, you’ll know the total volume of stock solution required. Just divide that total by the number of batteries or sections of birds to determine the required volume per battery or per group.
6. How to know if the stock solution was used correctly?
During vaccination, regularly check that the doser (Dosatron) or medicator is working correctly.
Track how much stock solution was used and compare this with the water meter reading.
For example: if you used 25 liters of stock solution and the dosing ratio is 1:100, then 2,500 liters of working solution should pass through the lines.
This helps confirm that the vaccine concentration remains consistent throughout the entire vaccination.
At the end, calculate the final usage percentage to ensure the accuracy.
7. How to calculate the vaccine dose?
It depends on the type of vaccine you are using. If the vaccine is high quality and reliable, simply take the number of doses needed for the population, adjusting slightly to account for residual water in the lines. Instead, if the vaccine’s effectiveness is questionable, it’s better to increase the number of doses slightly, and later verify the immunity level through blood tests and lab diagnostics.
Lights off: the golden rule of water vaccination when filling empty drinking lines if you’re working with commercial layers, breeders, or broilers in cage or aviary systems, there’s one golden rule that must never be ignored: always fill empty drinking lines with the lights off. Why? Because turning on the lights too early during vaccination causes birds near the Dosatron or light sources to drink too soon, leads to uneven vaccine intake with overdosing at the front and underdosing at the back, immediately reduces water pressure across the system, prevents the last batteries and top-tier cages from receiving the vaccine entirely, and ultimately results in poor flock immunity along with serious long-term health and economic losses. This is why the system must always be filled battery by battery, in the dark, just like during the fake vaccination.
Only when all lines are full and pressurized—then the lights go on, and the vaccination officially begins.
8. How to fill the drinking system with vaccine solution
1. Always fill the lines in darkness, especially near light leaks from fans or vents. This prevents birds from starting to drink too early. Then, fill the system battery by battery (cage row by cage row):
• start with one battery;
• as soon as you see blue-colored water (vaccine + dye) at the end of the line, shut off water flow to that battery;
• then move to the next battery;
• if your water pressure is strong, you may fill two batteries at a time, but never more.
2. Be careful with light leaks.
Some cages, especially the top tiers, may receive light from ventilation or gaps. Shut off water to those batteries first after filling to avoid early drinking.
If everything is well organized, filling all drinker lines should take no more than 45 minutes.
9. When does vaccination start?
Vaccination time starts only after all drinker lines are fully filled with vaccine solution and lights are turned on.
Water supply is turned on to all batteries simultaneously, this ensures all birds have equal access to properly dosed water. Use 1% dosing on the Dosatron during vaccination; depending on flock size, divide your stock solution into 2–3 batches. If you’re running out of time (birds start drinking less), you can increase the Dosatron setting to ensure all vaccine is consumed. But if you’ve prepared correctly, this should not be necessary.
10. Key insight from the fake vaccination
After conducting a proper fake vaccination, you’ll know how much total water is needed to fill your system, how much stock solution is required to fill all batteries and how many stock solutions you’ll need to continue vaccination once the lights are turned on.
So, during the real vaccination, use one stock solution to fill the entire drinking system in the dark, then prepare fresh stock solutions for the actual drinking phase, when birds are active and drinking under light.
11. A clear understanding of unused (unavailable) water remaining in the drinking lines: what it is and where it comes from
This is often where a big surprise occurs, even for people who think they know the system well.
If you’ve ever done a water vaccination, you’ll know exactly what this means. As soon as the vaccination starts, you’re standing at the end of the drinking line, watching the line,
waiting for the first blue water to appear. But instead, clean, colorless water flowing from the open drinker cups. No blue. No vaccine. This is unavailable water, that is clean water that was already sitting inside the lines before the vaccine solution entered the system. It doesn’t contain any vaccine or dye. It comes from water sitting below the nipple level inside the pipe. Since the nipple usually enters about 10 mm into the pipe, any water below that point is unreachable (birds simply cannot access it). If you’ve ever seen a cut-open pipe, you’ll notice that this lower layer of water just stays inside the line, untouched. When vaccination begins, the vaccine solution pushes out the clean water that was left in the pipes. This clean water is the first to flow into the drinker cups, not the vaccine. Even worse, it dilutes the vaccine, delays its delivery, and lowers the concentration birds receive. Birds that are far from the beginning of the drinking line may receive more of the leftover, unavailable water. As a result, they might not get the correct or full dose of the vaccine. In broiler or breeder sheds with just 2–5 drinking lines, the impact might seem small. But in commercial cage systems with dozens or hundreds of lines, this effect multiplies, causing uneven vaccine distribution, reduced efficacy, and serious gaps in flock immunity.
Why is it critical to calculate the total volume of unused (unavailable) water in the shed?
Understanding how much unused (unavailable) water is sitting in the drinking lines is essential for accurate and effective vaccination. When we begin vaccination, the solution with vaccine and dye flows into the system. But before it reaches the birds, it first pushes out the unused (unavailable) water (the clean water sitting under each nipple that birds cannot drink).
Required doses to ensure full dose for 125,000 birds:
• At 5% unused: (125,000 × 2,500) ÷ 2,348.91 ≈
133,040 doses
• At 10% unused: (125,000 × 2,500) ÷ 2,197.82 ≈
142,186 dose
This means part of the vaccine solution will simply fill those gaps, staying below nipple level and never reaching the birds. As a result, birds will not receive the full planned volume of vaccine because some of the solution is trapped in parts of the system they cannot access. This leads to under-dosing, reducing the effectiveness of the vaccination and leaving parts of the flock unprotected.
That’s why we must measure or estimate the total volume of unused water in the entire shed and add this amount to the calculated number of doses. Only then can we ensure that every bird receives the correct dose of vaccine, and that no part of the flock is left vulnerable.
12. How to calculate unused water in drinking lines and adjust vaccine doses accordingly
So, how much water is stuck under each nipple? We often don’t know exactly, but we must find out. Why?
Because this undrunk (unavailable) water fills part of the system before the vaccine reaches the birds. It is replaced with vaccine solution, but the birds can’t access it; meaning that portion of vaccine is lost. In cage systems, this can result in serious underdosing across the flock.
To properly vaccinate 125,000 birds in this cage system using 2,500 liters of solution:
• if 5% of water is unused, prepare 133,040 doses;
• if 10% is unused, prepare 142,186 doses.
This ensures the vaccine lost in the pipe is compensated, and every bird receives a full, protective dose.
New chapter: manual control and measuring unused water
In some cases, it’s possible and highly recommended to manually control and measure the amount of clean, unused water that is pushed out from the drinking lines during vaccination.
This approach is simple, practical, and especially useful for farm managers and technicians who want to understand how much water is sitting below nipple level, know how much of the vaccine solution will be wasted, and adjust the total number of doses more accurately.
How to do it:
1. prepare the vaccination system as usual, but do not let birds drink yet;
2. keep the lights off to reduce bird activity;
3. go to the end of each drinking line and collect the water that flows out before the first appearance of colored (dyed) vaccine solution;
4. measure this collected volume using a bucket, measuring jug, or flow meter;
5. repeat this process on multiple lines to get an average (or do it on all lines if possible);
6. multiply the average by the total number of lines to calculate the total unused water volume in the shed.
This value allows you to precisely adjust the total number of vaccine doses needed and to reduce underdosing risks, and ensure that vaccine coverage is consistent across the flock. Manual measurement is especially helpful when working with:
• new or unfamiliar water systems;
• different pipe sizes or slopes;
• older sheds with uneven pressure distribution;
• or when using multiple vaccine batches in sequence.
THE USE OF MORINGA OLEIFERA LEAF MEAL (MOLM) AND ITS EXTRACT IN LOW PROTEIN DIETS FOR LAYING HENS
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of incorporating different levels of MOLM and its extract - as natural antioxidants - in lowprotein diets for laying hens on productive performance, blood biochemistry, egg storage, and economic efficiency in addition to the manure characteristics of laying hens.
➤ Dr. Mahmoud Eladawy PhD in Environmental Science, hatcheries project consultant mahmoudeladawi4@gmail.com
The study consisted of two experiments and was carried out simultaneously at the laying hen farms of El Ekhwa Company in Sadat City. Chemical analysis and measurements were carried out at the Environmental Studies and Research Institute (ESRI), the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sadat City, and the Animal Health Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center, Giza.
The first experiment. 150 Lohman Brown laying hens, at 60 weeks of age with 70% egg laying rate on average, were randomly divided into five treatment groups each of thirty birds. Each group had three replicates. Each replicate had 10 laying hens which were allocated in individual cages (40 x 40 x 40 cm). The first treatment (positive control) received a commercial diet (17% CP without Moringa), while the second treatment (negative control) received a basal diet (14% CP without Moringa), treatments 3, 4 and 5 received diets (14% CP) containing 5%, 7.5% and 10% of MOLM and with access to normal drinking water.
The second experiment. The first and second groups were also used in this experiment as control. In addition to control, ninety Lohman Brown hens, at 60 weeks of age with 70% egg laying rate on average, were randomly divided into three groups each of thirty birds each group had 3 replicates, each replicate had 10 birds which were allocated in individual cages (40 x 40 x 40 cm). Treatments 6, 7 and 8 received diets with 14% protein and offered 1.5ml/l, 2.25ml/l and 3ml/l Moringa leaf extract (MOLX) in the drinking water.
Preparation of Moringa leaf powder (MOLM)
Moringa leaves were separated from the branches, spread out and dried under shade at room temperature for one week, until they became crispy for easy milling. The leaves were then ground into a meal using a hammer mill of mesh size 3mm to make the MOLM, which was incorporated into the experimental diets, as described by Morton (1991); Shelton and Baker (1994).
Preparations of Moringa extract (MOLX)
About 10 kg of Moringa oleifera leaf powder were placed in plastic container with 25 liters of aqueous ethanol (ethanol: water, 80:20 v/v) and soaked for 24 hours. After soaking, the mixture was filtered using filter paper. Then, the Moringa mixture was separated with distillation. Distillation is a separation process that involves heating a liquid to its boiling point, transferring the vapor to a different portion of the apparatus, then condensing the vapor and collecting the condensate in another container. The Moringa solution volume was 3000 mL, yielding an extract with a concentration of 3.3:1 v/v. The Moringa extract was stored in a refrigerator for 1 week until use in the drinking water.
Data collection procedure included:
1. performance measurements;
2. egg production measurements;
3. egg quality measurements;
4. blood parameters;
5. manure parameters, ammonia emissions and manure pH determination;
6. egg storage parameters;
7. economic efficiency (EEF);
8. chemical analysis.
WHY CHOOSE INTR A MULTI
Completely eliminates Avian Infl uenza
Effective against bacteria, viruses and yeasts
Extensive worldwide registrations
Already effective at 0 2% a dosage for bacteria and 0 75% for viruses
Strong residual action and wet tabilit y proper ties
LEARN MORE
Results
Productive performance
• Daily laying percentage (%) was significantly (P<0.05) improved by increasing MOLM level. Meanwhile, egg weight (g), daily egg mass production (g/bird), and feed conversion ratio (FCR) kg feed/kg eggs significantly (P<0.05) recorded the best values (67.2;45.3 and 2.65, respectively) with MOLM-5% group and decreased by increasing dietary MOLM level, where the worst values (62.1;41 and 2.92, respectively) were achieved by MOLM-10% group.
• Group fed dietary 5% MOLM or group fed dietary 1.5 ml/l MOLX recorded significantly (P<0.05) the best daily laying percentage, egg weight, weight and feed conversion ratio of the laying hens comparing with control and other experimental trials.
• Laying hens groups fed 5% dietary Moringa Leaf MOLM and group fed 1.5 ml/l dietary MOLX significantly (P<0.05) achieved the best values of shell weight (%); shell thickness (mm); egg shape index (%) and eggshell hardness (kg) compared with the control and experimental groups.
• The effect of various levels of MOLM on the internal egg quality after the fourth week of experiment showed that laying hens group fed dietary 5% MOLM significantly (P<0.05) recorded the highest percentage and values of albumen weight (%); albumen index (%); yolk index (%) and haugh unit while, the low protein diet without MOLM group was the worst one.
• Group fed 10% dietary MOLM significantly (P<0.05) showed the highest yolk color score value (10) after the fourth week compared with control and other experimental groups but after eight weeks, group fed 7.5% dietary MOLM significantly (P<0.05) showed the highest yolk color score value (9).
• The albumen proportion increased linearly while the yolk proportion decreased linearly accompanying the increase in MOLM levels in the diet.
• Laying hens group fed dietary 1.5ml/l MOLX significantly (P<0.05) recorded the highest percentage and values of albumen weight (%); albumen index (%); yolk index (%); yolk color score and haugh unit compared with control and other experimental groups.
• Laying hens groups fed dietary 7.5% MOLM significantly (P<0.05) and group fed 1.5ml/l dietary MOLX recorded the highest values of shell thickness (mm) and egg shape index (%).
• However, variability of eggshell hardness (kg) appeared to be the best value (46.2) significantly (P<0.05) recorded with the group fed 1.5ml/l dietary MOLX but there were non-significant differences control or other two dietary MOLM groups.
• Results of the effect of various levels of MOLM and MOLX on the internal egg quality after 8 weeks of experiment showed that laying hens groups fed dietary either 5% MOLM or 7.5% MOLM and 1.5ml/l MOLX significantly (P<0.05) recorded the best percentage and values of albumen weight (%); albumen index (%); yolk index (%); yolk color score and haugh unit, while the low protein diet without MOLM group was the worst one.
• In egg yolk groups fed 10% dietary MOLM and group fed 3ml/l MOLX significantly (P<0.05) achieved the best values of triglycerides (TG); total lipids (TL) and cholesterol (CH) compared to control and other experimental groups.
Blood biochemistry
Laying hens groups fed 10% dietary MOLM and 3ml/l MOLX significantly (P<0.05) achieved the best values of total lipids (TL), total protein (TP), triglycerides (TG), albumin (ALB), cholesterol (LDL), ALT/GPT, AST/GOT, total antioxidant capacity (TAC), cholesterol (CL) compared to control and other experimental groups.
Manure characteristics
After 4 weeks of experiment:
• Laying hens group fed 10% dietary MOLM significantly (P<0.05) achieved the best values of ash, nitrogen, and phosphorus being (23.41, 2.6 and 57.35, respectively) compared to control and other experimental groups.
• Groups fed 3 ml/l MOLX significantly (P<0.05) achieved better values of ash, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
After 8 weeks of experiment:
• Laying hens group fed 10% dietary MOLM significantly (P<0.05) achieved the best values of ash, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
• Group fed dietary 3ml/l MOLX significantly (P<0.05) achieved better values of ash, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
Ammonia emissions
Laying hens group fed 10% dietary MOLM and groups fed 3 ml/l MOLX significantly (P<0.05) achieved the best values of Ammonia (ppm) compared to control and other experimental groups.
Egg storage fed dietary MOLM and MOLX
No significant differences between laying hens groups fed 5% or 7.5% or 10% dietary MOLM and 1.5ml/l or 2.25ml/l or 3ml/l dietary MOLX among the values of egg weight loss (%), albumen height, yolk height and Haugh unit after 10 or 20 and 30 days storage. Therefore, economically group fed 5% dietary
MOLM and group fed 1.5ml/l dietary MOLX significantly (P<0.05) achieved the best egg quality values after 10, 20 and 30 days of storage compared to control groups.
Economic efficiency
• Results showed an improvement in the average values of net revenue, economic efficiency and relative economic efficiency due to feeding laying hens the diets containing 5% dietary Moringa oleifera MOLM (0.124; 310) or offering with 1.5ml/l Moringa oleifera MOLX in drinking water (0.111; 430), respectively, compared to control group and other experimental diets.
• The lowest value of economic efficiency was obtained by laying hens group fed 7.5% and 10% dietary Moringa oleifera MOLM (65; 55) or offered with 2.25ml/l Moringa oleifera MOLX in drinking water (90), respectively. These results indicate that dietary 5% Moringa oleifera powder MOLM or dietary 1.5ml/l dietary Moringa oleifera MOLX are the best treatment.
• From an economic point of view, it is possible to use low protein diets (3% lower than recommended) for feeding Lohman Brown laying hens, particularly with using 5% MOLM in feed or 1.5ml/l of MOLX in drinking water.
BELTS and ROP ES for AV ICULTURAL USE BE LT S
info@barbieri-belts.com www.barbieribelts.com
Barbieri srl
Via Garibaldi, 54 • 26040 Scandolara Ra vara (CR) Italy
SAFEGUARDING PROCESSING YIELD ACROSS THE PRIMARY PROCESS
The processing plant is the epicenter of a poultry processing company for being its only utility-generating area, as all the others are cost-generating centers, only. Its utility-generation capability is inextricably dependent on the performance of the processing yield, the most important economic drive of the operation. Consequently, safeguarding it must top the list of priorities of the whole company’s staff.
➤ Eng. Fabio G. Nunes Poultry processing consultant, Brazil
Broiler chickens intended for human consumption are dressed before reaching the market. Dressing is performed along the primary process area, where blood, feathers, intestines, and other non-edible parts are removed from the carcasses. The offal removal implies an inherent, unavoidable weight loss that, idyllically, should be the only one experienced by the carcasses along the primary process. However, the reality is different,, as a few other variables, like flocks’ uniformity, machinery maintenance, and poor operational performance, may inflict
additional losses and cause damages to the carcasses, which lead altogether to a drop in the processing yield. Therefore, guaranteeing the optimal performance of the primary process is key to shielding the processing yield, and the company’s bottom-line, as well!
Flock uniformity is a key prerequisite for the optimal performance of the primary process. Uniformity eases the adjustment of the machinery to the carcass and makes their interaction more precise and smoother, therefore contributing to lowering the risk of weight loss for damages and trimmings. Therefore, keeping track of the uniformity of the raw material, and continuously
pursuing its improvement largely benefits the processing yield.
At the live hanging station, suspend the broilers by the legs upon shackling. Shackles must be gauged for the birds’ average live weight to minimize hand pressure on the legs and the risk of bruises when sliding the feet down the shackles. Avoid weight loss from hock miscutting by removing returning feet from the line prior to shackling. Secure the breast comforter sprawls from hanging through the stunner and is properly dimensioned and installed to eliminate wing flapping that would otherwise lead to bruises. Have the overhead conveyor installed the straightest way possible between hanging and stunning, to avoid intense wing flapping in response to uneasiness caused to birds by curves and slopes.
Have the stunner installed in order to secure the broilers sink the heads, and never the wings, into water, and adjust its height continuously to allow the birds to sink only half of their neck into the tub. These cares will avoid bruises from having the wings and breast touching the water. Set the stunner to comply with local animal welfare regulation, but without inflicting damages to the carcasses.
the evisceration line, thus reducing the weight loss from contaminated carcasses salvaging. Yet important, it does not suffice and requires to be complemented with the proper management of the machinery to maximize the processing yield.
When bleeding the birds, sever the vessels the closest possible to the jaw to save most of the neck skin to the carcasses and keep trachea and spinal cord untouched to guarantee optimal bleeding, and effective, smooth scalding and plucking. Have the bleeding time set to avoid cadavers, but secure it is not too long that might demand carcass-damaging hard scalding and picking conditions, though.
The scalding time x temperature setting must harmonize with the killing line speed, carcass weight, skin color, and the scalder technology, for optimal results. Improper setting may result in either sub-scalded carcasses, which require tougher picking with increased risk of wing and skin damages, or over-scalded ones, which lead to damaged skin, scald-burnt breast, and melted subcutaneous fat layer, which might drag 0.5% to 1.5% of the carcass weight down the drain.
Running short of picking capability is synonymous with damaged limbs and tor skin, which translates into increased carcass trimming and lower yield. One 16-plate picker per 3,000 bph is a widely accepted picking ratio. Adjust pickers unceasingly to the carcasses to enhance defeathering while minimizing the risk of damages. Fix missing, torn, or damaged rubber fingers daily to optimize and smoothen the defeathering and minimize skin lacerations and fractured limbs. Use lukewarm water across all pickers. Counting on a grid underneath the entire picking line prevents unshackling birds from being dragged with the feathers to the rendering plant.
A properly managed feed withdrawal program is of utmost importance to reduce the risk of contamination along
Vent cutter blade must match the size of the carcasses, and be kept sharp to guarantee a clean, thorough cut without biting out the skin. Adjust the machine continuously to avoid carcass contamination from cut intestines and the leak of fecal material from the vent, which would lead to weight loss from the salvaging of the contaminated area.
Keep track of the opener outcome to prevent cut intestines coming out of the machine, and to secure the opening allows for further thorough evisceration with no damages to the giblets or bile spilling onto the carcass.
During the evisceration, keeping the abdominal fat leaf attached to the carcasses, as it represents between 2% and 4% of the carcass weight, and maximizing the collection of edible giblets, as they make up some 7% of the bird’s live weight, boost the processing yield.
Maneuver the cropper to pull out tracheas and crops with minimal impact on the highly hygroscopic inner layer of the neck skin, as it rules the water uptake capability along the water chilling line.
As seen, preserving the intactness of the carcasses, thus contributing to boosting the processing yield and the company’s bottom-line, is neither an easy task nor a one-area’s responsibility. The mission demands a team-work approach with an unceasing contribution from the several players scattered along the processing chain, from the farm to the plant, to be successful!
Hatcheries
Breeders
◗ Upcoming Events
2025
OCTOBER, 6 to 10
23rd WVPA Congress World Veterinary Poultry Association Borneo Convention Centre Kuching (BCCK)
Kuching, Malaysia
For information contact: www.wvpac2025.com/contact-us Web: www.wvpac2025.com
OCTOBER, 8 to 10
13th Symposium on Poultry Genetics
Gdansk, Poland
For information contact: Email: espg2025@symposium.pl rafal.kassan@symposium.pl kamilia.dudek@symposium.pl Web: www.espg2025.org/
OCTOBER, 8 to 10
VIETSTOCK 2025 Expo & Forum
Saigon Exhibition & Convention Center - SECC
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
For information contact: Email: Exhibiting: Ms. Sophie Nguyen Sophie.nguyen@informa.com
Group Delegation Support: Ms. Phuong Phuong.c@informa.com
Vencomatic Group B.V. info@vencomaticgroup.com www.vencomaticgroup.com
Victoria victoria@victoria-srl.com www.incubatricivictoria.com
VIV Europe viv.europe@vnuexhibitions.com www.viveurope.nl
VIV worldwide www.www.viv.net
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:
