Issuu

SEPT

ALTERNATIVE TO GROWTH PROMOTERS FOR MAINTAINING INTESTINAL HEALTH

THE IMPACT OF GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN ON THE NUTRITIONAL PROFILE AND PROTEIN QUALITY OF SOYBEAN MEAL ENHANCING POULTRY HEALTHCARE THROUGH DIETARY IMMUNOSTIMULANTS

Poste Italiane SpA - Spedizione in Abbonamento PostaleAut. n° CNNE/00754/04.2025 - Tassa Pagata/ Taxe Perçue/Economy/Compatto ISSN 3035-4986

Publisher Administration and Editorial Office Zootecnica di Marianna Caterino Via del Forestello n. 8 50063 Figline Incisa Valdarno (FI) Italy VAT Number IT 07439250486

EDITORIAL

Tel. +39 055 010 7041 Web: www.zootecnicainternational.com

Editorial Director Marianna Caterino Mob +39 339 11 52 161 marianna@zootecnica.it Editorial staff Giulia Messina zootecnica@zootecnica.it Account Executive amministrazione@zootecnica.it Licence Periodico mensile registrato presso il Tribunale di Firenze al n. 6215 in data 10/03/2025 Iscrizione al ROC n. 42813 Spedizione in Abbonamento Postale Aut. n° CN-NE/00754/04.2025 Art Direction and layout Pilar Roca – pilarroca.com Printer Faenza Printing Via Vittime Civili di Guerra, 35 48018 Faenza (RA), Italy All rights of reproduction and translation of the published articles are reserved. Any reproduction, even partial, is strictly prohibited without the publisher’s prior written authorization. All content is protected under copyright law. The editorial board assumes no responsibility for the opinions expressed by the authors of editorial and advertising texts. Zootecnica ensures the confidentiality of personal data collected for subscriptions and purposes related to specialized publishing, in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR – EU Regulation 2016/679). Subscribers have the right to access, modify, or delete their personal data by submitting a written request to the publisher. Personal data will not be shared with third parties without explicit consent.

Scan to visit our website

➤ Marianna Caterino Reading through the abstracts from the World’s Poultry Congress in Toronto, I was struck by how often antibiotic reduction appeared outside the contributions specifically devoted to antimicrobials. One plenary linked advances in genomics and bioinformatics to the selection of birds with greater disease resilience. Other research looked at vaccination, intestinal health and earlier detection of health problems. This moves the discussion away from the search for a single replacement for antibiotics. Responsible use does not mean withholding an antibiotic when a bacterial disease requires one. The scope for reducing use lies mainly in preventing infections, recognising them promptly and understanding their cause before treatment begins. Several articles in this issue consider what this involves in practice. Intestinal health affects the way birds cope with a challenge; vaccination can reduce the impact of specific diseases; once clinical signs appear, the investigation must establish what is actually happening in the flock. A systematic necropsy helps identify the relevant lesions and determine which organs should be sampled, while collection, preservation and transport can influence the reliability of the laboratory results. The timing of these decisions is very different. Some belong to breeding programmes developed over many generations, others to vaccination and feeding plans often prepared before placement. Sampling decisions may have to be made within hours, when the first affected birds are examined. Each one shapes what the veterinarian will know if treatment becomes necessary. Antibiotics remain part of veterinary medicine. The aim is to need them less often and, when they are prescribed, to base that choice on sound diagnostic evidence. After reading the abstracts from Toronto, I find this a more convincing measure of progress than the number of products presented as alternatives.

4 6

NEWS

REPORT

DOSSIER

FOCUS

MARKETS

TECHNICAL COLUMN

NUTRITION

VETERINARY

44 48

MARKET GUIDE

COMPANY FOCUS Traceability in hatcheries: from compliance to strategic advantage

China's poultry industry is redefining its role in the global value chain

Safeguarding the egg market: how disease control protects food security

Medium-chain fatty acids and Salmonella Infantis control in broilers: effects on gut health and performance

Alternative to growth promoters for maintaining intestinal health

German poultry producers demand fairer prices as production standards tighten

The dynamics of the global egg industry – Part 1: the dynamics of global egg production between 2015 and 2024

Combined Mycoplasma gallisepticum live and killed vaccination programs may contribute to improved flock protection, production stability, and reduced antibiotic usage in breeders and commercial layers

The impact of geographic origin on the nutritional profile and protein quality of soybean meal

Double trouble: a case study on concurrent tetratrichomoniasis and coccidiosis in a commercial turkey operation

Getting the diagnosis: a practical guide to poultry disease investigations, necropsy, and diagnostic sampling

Enhancing poultry healthcare through dietary immunostimulants

INTERNET GUIDE

◗

SUMMARY

SEPTEMBER 2026

◗ NEWS

BRAZILIAN CHICKEN MEAT EXPORTS SET A FIRST-HALF RECORD IN 2026 The Associação Brasileira de Proteína Animal (ABPA) discusses Brazilian exports in the first half of 2026 in its report.

Brazilian chicken meat exports reached a new historic high in the first half of 2026, confirming the sector’s strong position in global trade and its ability to generate value even in a challenging international environment. According to the Brazilian Animal Protein Association (ABPA), shipments totalled 2.936 million tonnes between January and June, representing an increase of 12.9% compared with the same period in 2025. Export revenue also rose sharply, climbing 17% year on year to US$5.7 billion. The June figures were particularly impressive and helped drive the semester’s record performance. In that month alone, Brazil exported 482,800 tonnes of chicken meat and earned US$985.5 million. Both indicators showed substantial growth compared with June 2025, reinforcing the trend of rising demand for Brazilian poultry products. The result also confirms that the sector was able to maintain momentum through the first half of the year and close the period with record output and revenue.

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

The first-half result further underlines Brazil’s role as one of the world’s leading chicken meat suppliers. The country has long stood out for its scale, competitiveness and capacity to serve a wide range of international markets with both fresh and processed products. In this case, the ABPA data show not only growth in tonnage, but also a meaningful rise in value, which is particularly important in a market where price, freight costs and trade flows can shift quickly. For the industry, the record performance is significant for another reason as well: it demonstrates resilience. Chicken meat exports have had to navigate a context shaped by geopolitical uncertainty, changing shipping conditions and shifting demand patterns in destination markets. Even so, Brazil managed to expand both volume and revenue, which is a strong signal for producers, processors and traders operating across the poultry supply chain. Source: abpa-br.org/noticias/exportacoes-de-carne-defrango-fecham-primeiro-semestre-com-recorde-historico-emvolume-e-receita/

p. 4

◗ COMPANY FOCUS

TRACEABILITY IN HATCHERIES: FROM COMPLIANCE TO STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE In today’s poultry industry, traceability is becoming a cornerstone of compliance, performance and reputation. As hatcheries scale up and face growing pressure from retailers and consumers, the ability to track every step of the process is turning into a competitive differentiator. This article highlights why traceability matters more than ever, what it enables in practice, and how hatcheries can implement it as a strategic tool that safeguards compliance while driving continuous performance optimization.

Why traceability is growing in importance Pressure on hatcheries is increasing. Rising demands around food safety and supply chain transparency are reshaping poultry production, while hatchery operations themselves grow larger and more complex. Traditionally, hatcheries relied on manual records and operator experience to manage egg and chick batches. While once sufficient, these methods

now fall short in environments where thousands of eggs move through multiple incubators and rooms every day. The next step for traceability is therefore digital integration. Traceability is evolving into the ability to digitally follow the journey of eggs and chicks through every stage of the hatchery production process. By linking physical actions to digital data, it creates a flow of information that both ensures transparency and strengthens decision-making at every level.

With the Eagle Trax™ Traceability module, every trolley movement is linked to data-driven intelligence. QR codes connect egg batches, hatchery rooms and incubators into one transparent digital trajectory

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 6

What traceability enables A well-designed traceability system does more than record data: it transforms how hatcheries operate. Here’s what it makes possible: • Full process visibility: from egg intake to chick delivery, every step is logged and traceable. • Performance optimization: end-to-end traceability delivers performance gains from data-driven insights that would otherwise remain hidden. • Error prevention: clear digital checkpoints guide hatchery operators and reduce the risk of mistakes. • Food safety and biosecurity assurance: in the event of contamination, traceability allows for quick, targeted actions and full transparency. • Regulatory compliance and audit-readiness: traceability provides the documented proof needed to meet evolving standards. • Stronger customer trust: transparent processes and verifiable records reinforce credibility with retailers and end-users, strengthening overall reputation.

Petersime’s approach to digital traceability To support this approach, Petersime has developed the traceability module as part of its Eagle Trax™ cloudbased software that seamlessly links every physical trolley movement in the hatchery to data-driven intelligence in a clear and straightforward way. In this setup, every trolley carries a unique ID plate with QR code. When an egg batch is ready to be loaded onto the trolleys – whether at the farm, in transport, upon delivery or just before setting – the trolley QR codes are scanned

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

and the egg batch data is logged. From that point on, every trolley movement is tracked with precision. Every hatchery room and incubator also has its own QR code, and farm storage facilities or transport trucks can be included as well. As trolleys move through the process, operators scan the QR codes at each step, updating the location and status in real time. This creates a full digital trajectory that is automatically recorded in Eagle Trax™, without requiring extra manual input. It also acts as a safeguard for the staff: if an operator scans a trolley at the wrong incubator, skips a step or tries to move a batch outside its planned flow, the system flags it immediately. In practice, this delivers: • automated, in-depth analysis of the entire trajectory, from breeder farm up to grow-out farm; • exact locations, timings and conditions recorded automatically; • next-level performance optimization and stronger error prevention.

In summary As customer expectations for transparency grow, the question for hatchery owners is no longer whether to embrace traceability, but how to make it work efficiently. Hatcheries that invest in transparent, data-driven processes gain more than just compliance – they unlock sharper insights, stronger error prevention, greater efficiency and deeper customer trust. For more information about the Eagle Trax™ software, please visit www.petersime.com/solutions/hatchery-software Sponsored article

p. 7

◗ REPORT

CHINA’S POULTRY INDUSTRY IS REDEFINING ITS ROLE IN THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN For years, China’s poultry sector has been viewed primarily through the lens of its enormous domestic demand. As rising incomes, urbanisation and changing dietary habits fuelled consumption, the country became one of the world’s largest import markets for poultry products. Today, however, a structural shift appears to be underway. According to the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), China’s poultry industry is becoming increasingly self-sufficient while strengthening its position as an exporter, supported by industrial consolidation, investment in genetics and vertically integrated production systems.

Production growth is only part of the story The report forecasts China’s chicken meat production to reach 19 million metric tonnes in 2027, up from an estimated 18 million tonnes in 2026. While the increase itself is significant, the underlying drivers are arguably more important than the numbers alone. Growth is expected to come mainly from the white broiler segment, which benefits from highly integrated production systems and rising demand from foodservice operators and processors. By contrast, production of traditional yellowfeathered broilers is projected to remain relatively stable as consumer preferences continue to evolve. This reflects a broader transformation of China’s poultry market, where efficiency, product standardisation and largescale production are becoming increasingly important.

Industrial consolidation is reshaping the sector One of the most notable trends identified in the report is the rapid consolidation of China’s poultry industry. Large integrated companies continue to expand investments across the entire production chain (from breeding and

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

hatcheries to feed manufacturing, commercial farms, slaughterhouses and processing facilities) while smaller producers face increasing pressure from higher production costs and stricter environmental requirements. According to the report, new pollution control regulations for livestock and poultry farms (China’s Ecological and Environmental Code) scheduled to take effect in August 2026 are expected to further accelerate this consolidation process, favouring companies with greater financial resources and more advanced production systems. This trend mirrors developments previously observed in other major poultry-producing countries, where economies of scale and vertical integration have become essential competitive advantages.

Building resilience through self-sufficiency Another strategic objective emerging from the report is China’s effort to reduce dependence on imported breeding stock. The report notes that domestic breeding programmes continue to expand, reflecting the country’s long-term strategy of strengthening national genetic resources and reducing reliance on foreign suppliers. This approach extends beyond genetics. Investments

p. 8

▲ China: imports of chicken products Source: USDA Official Data and Post Forecast . In this report, unless otherwise specified, chicken imports and exports refer to the following HS codes: 020711, 020712, 020713, 020714, and 160232.

▲ China: exports of chicken products Source: USDA official data and post forecast.

throughout the poultry supply chain (including hatchery infrastructure, feed production and processing capacity) suggest that China is pursuing greater resilience against geopolitical tensions, disease outbreaks and disruptions to international trade. Rather than simply increasing production, China appears to be strengthening every stage of its poultry value chain.

From a major importer to a more competitive exporter

destinations, particularly in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Conversely, China’s growing export capacity introduces another competitive player into regional markets. The country’s combination of large-scale production, integrated supply chains and continuous investment may strengthen its international competitiveness over the coming years. The report also notes that the recent reopening of the Chinese market to poultry products from several U.S. states is unlikely to have a major short-term impact because domestic production remains strong and import demand continues to soften.

Perhaps the most significant implication of the FAS China outlook concerns international trade. As domestic production expands faster than consumption, poultry imports are expected to continue declining, with imports forecast at around 170,000 tonnes in 2027. At the same time, exports are gaining momentum. Between January and May 2026, China’s poultry exports increased by 51% year-on-year, reaching 546,000 tonnes, while exports for 2027 are forecast to rise to 1.8 million tonnes. Although China remains far behind Brazil and the United States in overall export volumes, these figures indicate a gradual repositioning of the country within global poultry trade. China is increasingly becoming not only one of the world’s largest consumers, but also a more significant supplier.

A long-term transformation

Global implications

References

The consequences extend beyond China’s domestic market. For traditional poultry exporters, a reduction in Chinese import demand could intensify competition in alternative

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). 2026. Poultry and Products Annual – China, Report CH2026-0087, prepared by FAS China, July 13, 2026.

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

China will continue to consume most of the poultry it produces, and imports will remain necessary for selected products and market segments. Nevertheless, the FAS China outlook suggests that the country’s poultry industry is undergoing a structural transformation rather than experiencing a temporary production cycle. Growing production, industrial consolidation, investment in domestic genetics and expanding exports all point in the same direction: China is gradually evolving from one of the world’s largest poultry importers into an increasingly influential player across the entire global poultry value chain.

p. 9

◗ DOSSIER

SAFEGUARDING THE EGG MARKET: HOW DISEASE CONTROL PROTECTS FOOD SECURITY As one of the most affordable and nutritious protein sources available, eggs play a vital role in feeding the world’s growing population. Yet this essential food commodity faces persistent threats from poultry diseases that can impact production systems, disrupt supply chain continuity, and compromise food safety and consumer trust. Understanding how the industry addresses these obstacles is crucial to maintaining the reliable egg supply that millions depend upon.

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 10

➤ Raffaele Piva Business unit manager poultry Italy at Ceva Salute Animale

Navigating disease challenges to maintain production stability Poultry producers must navigate a range of disease concerns, each with varying impacts on food security. Newcastle disease virus and Salmonella are foremost among the pathogens impacting poultry health and egg market stability. Newcastle disease is a significant concern in poultry production globally, affecting flock health. This contagious disease can impact both commercial and small-scale farms, influencing supply chains and international trade. In regions where Newcastle disease is enzootic, mortality rates can be high, particularly among birds aged between 21 and 28 days. Understanding and managing these challenges is key to maintaining healthy flocks and stable production. Meanwhile, salmonellosis poses a direct threat to egg safety and, by extension, consumer confidence. With more than 79,000 Salmonella infections reported in humans in Europe alone according to the EFSA's 2024 Zoonoses Report1, salmonellosis remains one of the most prevalent zoonotic diseases. The most important strains found in human cases are Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium, which are both frequently associated with poultry products such as eggs and poultry meat. The repercussions extend beyond food safety into healthcare costs and lost productivity, emphasizing the need for rigorous control measures.

Economic impact and food security imperatives The economic effects of these diseases reach beyond the farm itself. As discussed above, human salmonellosis cases, for example, contribute significantly to healthcare costs and productivity losses, with the European Food Safety Authority estimating the annual impact at up to three billion euros2. Likewise, Newcastle disease influences the poultry industry not only through direct farm losses but also through challenges such as reduced supply to slaughterhouses, disrupted customer relationships, and reputational impacts on businesses. Understanding these factors is essential for supporting a resilient poultry sector. These economic considerations are closely linked to broader concerns around food security. Interruptions in poultry production can affect the availability and affordability of eggs and poultry meat, which are important sources of nutrition for many communities. By managing these diseases effectively, producers can help ensure a stable supply of 1 2

safe, high-quality products for consumers. Additionally, proactive disease control supports the sustainability of poultry farming, helping to safeguard livelihoods and maintain confidence across the supply chain. Collaborative efforts between farmers, industry stakeholders, and public health authorities remain key to addressing these challenges and promoting a robust poultry sector.

Building long-term resilience Today’s poultry industry has developed sophisticated strategies to maintain both egg availability and safety. Effective disease control relies on multiple interconnected approaches, with vaccination serving as a cornerstone of modern prevention programmes. For Newcastle disease, recent advances in vaccine technology, particularly recombinant vector vaccines, have transformed disease prevention. Unlike traditional live vaccines, which can be affected by maternal antibodies and uneven administration, vector vaccines deliver consistent, early active immunity, even in day-old chicks. This early onset of protection is vital in high-pressure environments, reducing the vulnerable window where virus circulation and transmission are highest. For Salmonella control, two main vaccine types are used: inactivated vaccines, which require injection and mainly induce systemic immunity, and vaccines administered through drinking water multiple times early in life to stimulate both systemic and local immunity. Proper administration within the first week is critical for effective and lasting protection. Despite past successes, Salmonella prevalence in laying hens has risen recently in some European countries, highlighting the need for strict monitoring and adherence to vaccination protocols. Vaccination is only one part of a broader Salmonella control strategy that includes rigorous biosecurity measures and thorough cleaning and disinfection. This holistic approach aligns with the One Health concept, recognising that controlling zoonotic pathogens in poultry directly reduces human disease risks. Collaboration across the entire production chain is essential to maintain low Salmonella levels and ensure the safe and reliable supply of eggs to consumers. In an era of increasing global interconnectedness and evolving poultry production systems, the fight against poultry diseases requires an integrated, forward-thinking approach. The resilience of the egg market, and by extension global food security, depends on sustained commitment to innovation, rigorous management practices, and industrywide cooperation. By embracing this multifaceted strategy, the poultry sector can not only mitigate current disease challenges but also build adaptive capacity against future threats, ultimately safeguarding a vital source of nutrition for populations worldwide.

https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/plain-language-summary/european-union-one-health-2024-zoonoses-report https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/salmonella

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 11

◗ FOCUS

MEDIUM-CHAIN FATTY ACIDS AND SALMONELLA INFANTIS CONTROL IN BROILERS: EFFECTS ON GUT HEALTH AND PERFORMANCE Salmonella Infantis has become one of the most relevant food safety challenges facing the poultry sector. In recent years, this serovar has gained increasing attention because of its widespread presence in broiler production and its association with multidrug-resistant strains. The poultry industry is therefore under growing pressure to implement effective control strategies that reduce pathogen circulation while supporting efforts to limit antibiotic use.

➤ Dr Muhammad Zeshan Trouw Nutrition Middle East & Africa

Introduction Among the available alternatives, nutritional interventions aimed at improving gut health have attracted considerable interest. Organic acids and medium-chain fatty acids

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

(MCFAs) are widely used in poultry nutrition because of their ability to influence the intestinal environment and support microbial balance. Previous research has suggested that these compounds may help reduce the colonization of enteric pathogens, including Salmonella spp., while contributing to overall intestinal health and bird performance. To investigate their potential role against Salmonella Infantis, a controlled challenge trial was conducted in broiler

p. 12

chickens. The study evaluated the effects of a dietary blend of organic acids and MCFAs on intestinal colonization, gut health parameters and production performance throughout the rearing period.

Trial design and methodology The trial involved 396 Ross 308 broiler chickens housed under standard commercial conditions. Birds were randomly allocated to two experimental groups, with nine pens per treatment and 22 birds per pen. The study was divided into three feeding phases: 0–11 days, 11–28 days and 28–39 days. All birds had free access to feed and water, while environmental conditions and management practices followed the recommendations of the Ross 308 management guide. A seeder-bird challenge model was used to establish Salmonella Infantis infection within the flock. Seeder birds were orally inoculated with a rifampicin-resistant strain of Salmonella Infantis on days 5 and 6 and then allowed to transmit the pathogen naturally to pen mates. This approach was selected to mimic field exposure conditions more closely than direct inoculation of all birds. Two dietary treatments were evaluated. The control group received a standard commercial diet, while the supplemented group received the same diet supplemented with Selacid Green Growth-MP during the first two feeding phases. The effects of the treatments were assessed through several parameters. Cecal samples were collected on days 13, 19 and 40 to determine Salmonella Infantis counts. Growth performance was monitored throughout the study by measuring body weight, average daily gain, feed intake and feed conversion ratio. In addition, gut health was evaluated using a macroscopic lesion scoring system that assessed intestinal alterations such as inflammation, ballooning, abnormal intestinal content and the presence of undigested feed particles. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA, with differences considered significant at P <0.05.

Effects on Salmonella colonisation

supplemented group. A similar pattern was recorded at day 19, with counts of 3.58 and 2.78 log CFU/ml, respectively. By day 40, bacterial counts had declined substantially in both groups, and the difference between treatments was no longer evident. Although the reductions observed at days 13 and 19 did not reach the conventional threshold for statistical significance, the results indicated a consistent tendency towards lower intestinal colonisation in the supplemented birds. From a practical standpoint, even moderate reductions in pathogen load may contribute to lowering bacterial shedding and environmental contamination within the flock. The number of birds testing positive for Salmonella Infantis also tended to be lower in the supplemented group throughout the trial, supporting the overall pattern observed in the cecal counts.

Gut health assessment In addition to bacterial enumeration, the study evaluated gut health using a macroscopic lesion scoring system designed to assess visible intestinal alterations associated with enteric challenges. At day 13, birds receiving the supplemented diet achieved a lower average lesion score than those in the control group (3.6 versus 5.2). The difference reflected a tendency towards improved intestinal condition, with fewer signs of inflammation and reduced evidence of intestinal disturbance. By day 19, however, lesion scores were similar between treatments, suggesting that the early benefits observed in the supplemented birds were less evident later in the production cycle. These findings indicate that nutritional support in the absence of AGPs in feed may help birds maintain intestinal integrity during the initial stages of a Salmonella challenge, a period that is often critical for the subsequent development and performance of broiler flocks.

Growth performance Growth performance was monitored throughout the study to determine whether the dietary intervention influenced bird productivity. The supplemented group achieved significantly higher body weights at both day 11 and day 39. At day 11, birds receiving the supplemented diet averaged 382.5 g compared with 372.8 g in the control group. The difference remained

The challenge model successfully established Salmonella Infantis colonisation in both treatment groups, allowing the researchers to evaluate the impact of dietary supplementation under controlled conditions. Across the study, birds receiving the supplemented diet consistently showed lower cecal Salmonella counts than those in the control group. The most ■ Table 1 – Cecal Salmonella Infantis counts (log CFU/ml) pronounced differences were observed during the early stages of Sampling day Control group Supplemented group the challenge. Day 13 4.71 3.56 At day 13, the average cecal count was 4.71 log CFU/ml in the control Day 19 3.58 2.78 group and 3.56 log CFU/ml in the Day 40 1.75 1.53

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

P-value 0.053 0.083 0.606

p. 13

■ Table 2 – Gut health scoring Treatment Description

Day

Zone

Challenge control

Proximal

Cont*

Undig pr*

Distal

Selacid GG

Proximal

Distal

13 2

Bal* Inf* Trans* Flac*

Sum

26 -

P value

5.2 (±0.55) 3.6 (±0.55) 0.0727

Challenge control

Proximal

Distal

Selacid GG

Proximal

Distal

19 2

Average

27 -

P value

5.3 (±0.76) 5.3 (±0.76) 1.000

1*Bal= Ballooning *Inf= Inflammation *Trans= Translucent *Flac=Flaccid *Cont=Abnormal content *Undig pr=Undigestible particles in distal intestinal tract. evident at the end of the trial, with final body weights of 3,295 g and 3,188 g, respectively. Average daily gain during the first growth phase was also significantly higher in the supplemented birds, indicating a positive response during the early stages of development. No significant differences were observed for feed intake or feed conversion ratio. This suggests that the higher body weights were achieved without measurable changes in feed efficiency. An unexpected E. coli outbreak occurred during the final phase of the study and resulted in higher mortality in the supplemented group than in the control group. According to the authors, this event represented an external challenge unrelated to the dietary treatment and should therefore be considered when interpreting the overall performance results. Despite this limitation, the trial demonstrated that birds receiving the supplemented diet maintained favourable growth performance while showing a tendency towards reduced Salmonella Infantis colonisation and improved gut health during the early stages of the challenge.

Discussion The increasing prevalence of Salmonella Infantis in broiler production has encouraged the poultry industry to explore alternative

strategies that complement conventional biosecurity and management practices. Among these approaches, nutritional interventions designed to support intestinal health are receiving growing attention. The results of this trial suggest that the dietary blend evaluated may have contributed to a less favourable environment for Salmonella Infantis colonisation during the early stages of infection. Lower cecal counts were consistently observed in the supplemented birds on days 13 and 19, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. Nevertheless, the direction of the response was consistent across sampling points and may indicate a biological effect worthy of further investigation. The improvement observed in gut health scores during the first phase of the challenge supports this interpretation. A healthier intestinal environment can play an important role in limiting pathogen establishment and maintaining digestive function. Previous studies have suggested that organic acids and medium-chain fatty acids may influence microbial populations within the gastrointestinal tract and help stabilise the intestinal ecosystem, particularly during periods of stress or pathogen exposure. The positive response observed in body weight and average

■ Table 3 – Main production performance results Parameter

Control group

Supplemented group

P-value

Body weight day 11 (g)

372.8

382.5

0.045

Body weight day 39 (g)

3,188

3,295

0.037

ADG day 5–11 (g/day)

38.9

40.2

0.027

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 14

daily gain may also be linked to improved intestinal function. Broilers that maintain better gut integrity during the first weeks of life are generally better positioned to express their growth potential throughout the production cycle. In the present study, birds receiving the supplemented diet achieved higher body weights at both 11 and 39 days of age, despite no significant differences being observed in feed intake or feed conversion ratio.

Study limitations As with any challenge study, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the reductions observed in cecal Salmonella Infantis counts represented statistical trends rather than significant differences. While these findings are encouraging, additional studies involving larger numbers of birds and different production conditions would help determine the consistency of the response. Second, the trial was conducted under controlled experimental conditions. Commercial farms are exposed to a wider range of management, environmental and healthrelated factors that may influence the effectiveness of nutritional interventions. Finally, an unexpected E. coli outbreak occurred during the final phase of the trial and resulted in higher mortality in the supplemented group. Although this event was not considered related to the dietary treatment, it represents a confounding factor that should be acknowledged when evaluating the overall production results.

while supporting broiler production systems seeking to reduce reliance on antibiotic growth promoters.

Practical implications for poultry producers The results of this study reinforce the importance of an integrated approach to Salmonella control. Nutritional interventions alone cannot eliminate the pathogen, but they may help reduce colonisation pressure and support intestinal resilience. For poultry producers, the practical message is clear: • Maintain strict biosecurity and hygiene procedures throughout the production cycle. • Monitor gut health as part of routine flock management through validated techniques and qualified gut health scoring personnel or histopathology laboratories. • Consider nutritional strategies that support intestinal integrity during periods of challenge. • Evaluate feed additives within a broader health-management programme rather than as stand-alone solutions. • Continue regular monitoring and surveillance programmes to identify and address potential Salmonella risks at an early stage. A combination of sound management practices, effective biosecurity and nutritional support remains the most reliable approach for reducing the impact of Salmonella Infantis in modern broiler production. This technical article was provided by Trouw Nutrition: www.trouwnutrition.com

Conclusions Controlling Salmonella Infantis remains a major objective for poultry producers seeking to improve food safety and reduce the risk of bacterial contamination throughout the production chain. Under the conditions of this study, broilers receiving a diet supplemented with a blend of organic acids and mediumchain fatty acids showed lower cecal Salmonella Infantis counts during the early stages of the challenge, together with improved gut health scores and higher body weight at specific stages of production. Although the reductions in bacterial counts did not reach statistical significance, the consistent trends observed throughout the study suggest that nutritional strategies targeting intestinal health may contribute to integrated Salmonella control programmes. The findings also indicate that supporting gut health during the early stages of production may help birds maintain growth performance under challenging conditions. However, further research under commercial conditions would be valuable to confirm these observations and better define the practical impact of such interventions. Overall, the results suggest that supplementation with a blend of organic acids and medium-chain fatty acids may contribute to broader flock health programmes when combined with appropriate biosecurity, hygiene and management practices,

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 15

◗ FOCUS

ALTERNATIVES TO GROWTH PROMOTERS FOR MAINTAINING INTESTINAL HEALTH Gut health is now recognized as one of the cornerstones of broiler welfare and performance. A balanced gut microbiota and an intact intestinal barrier enable birds to make the most efficient use of their diet. Probiotics, prebiotics, organic acids, phytogenics, and next-generation enzymes such as muramidase can help control pathogens, reduce intestinal inflammation, and improve digestion and feed efficiency. However, these solutions deliver their full benefits only when integrated into a comprehensive management strategy that includes good husbandry practices and robust biosecurity measures. ➤ Francesca Leone Degree in Animal Science PhD student in Environmental Sciences

Introduction For decades, the use of animal growth promoters (AGP) represented a key strategy to improve the productive efficiency of livestock species. In particular, the administration of low-dose antibiotics allowed producers to increase the daily body weight gain, improve feed

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

conversion ratio, and reduce the impact of subclinical enteropathies. These effects were mainly attributed to the ability of AGPs to modulate the gut microbiota, reducing pathogen pressure and chronic inflammation of the intestinal mucosa. However, continuous low-level exposure to these compounds enabled bacteria to develop resistance genes. As antimicrobial resistance (AMR) became increasingly widespread, the European Union banned AGPs in 2006, due to the risks they posed to human health. In this context, the poultry industry has sought effective alternatives to maintain and promote intestinal health, now recognized as one of the main determinants of productive performance

p. 16

and animal welfare. Although no universal definition exists, gut health can be described as the physiological condition in which the microbiota, intestinal epithelium, immune system, and digestive functions operate in dynamic equilibrium. The intestine is not merely a digestive organ, but a highly specialized ecosystem in which multiple components interact continuously, influencing health, metabolic efficiency, and ultimately animal performance. Therefore, alternatives to AGPs aim to preserve intestinal barrier integrity, to optimize the microbiota, and to reduce enteric inflammation without exerting the selective pressure typical of antibiotics. Nonetheless, the alternatives developed in recent decades are effective only when combined with proper farm management; they should be considered supportive tools within a multifactorial system rather than direct substitutes for the historical effects of AGPs.

Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics Probiotics represent one of the most extensively studied and consolidated strategies among functional additives for intestinal health. They consist of live beneficial microorganisms, mainly belonging to the genera Bacillus, Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Enterococcus, selected for their ability to stably colonize the intestine and

modulate the microbial ecosystem. Their activity involves several complementary mechanisms: competitive exclusion of pathogens, production of antimicrobial metabolites, enhancement of intestinal barrier integrity, and regulation of both innate and adaptive immune responses. Collectively, these actions contribute to a more resilient and functional enteric environment, less prone to dysbiosis. Prebiotics, including mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS), fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS), galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS), xylo-oligosaccharides (XOS), and β‑glucans, are non-digestible substrates that serve as selective energy sources for beneficial microorganisms. Their fermentation leads to the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are essential for enterocyte trophism, intestinal pH reduction, and modulation of microbial populations. Through these processes, prebiotics strengthen intestinal homeostasis, improve digestive functionality, and mitigate the impact of stress conditions. The synergistic integration of probiotics and prebiotics has led to the development of synbiotics, formulations designed to maximize the efficacy of the live microorganisms by simultaneously providing the substrate required for its colonization, persistence, and metabolic activity. This combination results in more robust and long-lasting effects on microbiota structure and functionality, with positive implications for intestinal health, feed efficiency, and overall animal performance.

YOUR CHOICE HIGH ANIMAL WELFARE CONCEPTS

HUBBARD PREMIUM the natural choice!

OUR COMMITMENT SHARING MORE THAN 55 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN PREMIUM BREEDS

THE REFERENCE FOR PREMIUM MARKETS! www.hubbardbreeders.com ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 17

Organic acids Organic acids are among the most established nutritional strategies and are currently used across multiple livestock species to improve intestinal health, control enteric pathogen proliferation, and optimize nutrient utilization. Commonly used compounds include formic, propionic, lactic, and butyric acids, often administered in protected or microencapsulated forms to ensure their release in the distal gastrointestinal tract. For many years, the efficacy of organic acids was attributed solely to their ability to reduce gastrointestinal pH. However, recent evidence shows that their biological effects are considerably more complex, involving multiple processes related to intestinal physiology and host–microbiota interactions. From a microbiological perspective, organic acids exert significant control over undesirable bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., and Clostridium perfringens. The undissociated form of the acid can cross the bacterial cell membrane; once inside the cytoplasm, which has a higher pH, the molecule dissociates, releasing protons and anions. This reduces intracellular pH and disrupts metabolic homeostasis, forcing the bacterium to expend energy to restore proton balance. When this mechanism exceeds the cell’s adaptive capacity, bacterial growth is inhibited or halted. Beyond antimicrobial activity, organic acids positively influence digestive processes. Lower gastric pH enhances pepsin activation and improves protein digestion. More efficient digestion in the proximal intestine reduces the amount of undigested nutrients reaching the cecum and colon, limiting fermentable substrates available to opportunistic microorganisms and contributing to microbiota stability. Butyrate, in particular, is the primary energy source for enterocytes and plays a crucial role in maintaining intestinal barrier integrity. Numerous studies have shown that it promotes villus development, stimulates cellular turnover, and enhances the expression of tight junction proteins, thereby reducing intestinal permeability and the risk of bacterial translocation. Additionally, organic acids possess important immunomodulatory and antiinflammatory properties, reducing mucosal immune activation and the production of pro-inflammatory mediators, ultimately decreasing the energetic cost associated with immune responses. Overall, organic acids help create a more stable and resilient intestinal environment, less conducive to pathogen development. Their efficacy is maximized when combined with appropriate biosecurity measures, proper feed and water management, and control of environmental stressors.

Essential oils and phytogenics In recent years, essential oils and, more broadly, phytogenic compounds have attracted growing interest. This category includes plant extracts, spices, aromatic herbs, and bioactive compounds derived from plants, used to support intestinal health and productive performance. Among the most

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

studied molecules are thymol and carvacrol (from thyme and oregano), cinnamaldehyde (from cinnamon), and eugenol (from clove). These compounds exhibit antimicrobial, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties. In addition to controlling certain enteropathogenic microorganisms, phytogenics can positively influence gut microbiota composition, support endogenous digestive enzyme activity, and improve nutrient digestion. Several studies have also reported their ability to modulate mucosal inflammatory responses and reduce oxidative stress, which is associated with deterioration of intestinal barrier integrity. Despite promising results, biological responses to phytogenics remain variable. Factors such as botanical origin, phytochemical composition, extraction technologies, stability of active compounds during feed manufacturing, and farm conditions can significantly influence their efficacy.

Enzymes Exogenous enzymes have traditionally been used to increase the digestibility of feed ingredients and reduce the effects of antinutritional factors present in plant-based raw materials. Phytases, carbohydrases, and proteases improve the utilization of phytic phosphorus, the degradation of nonstarch polysaccharides, and protein digestion, respectively, thereby increasing nutrient availability and reducing the amount of undigested substrate reaching the distal intestine. Research has progressively shifted toward a new generation of enzymes capable of acting not only on nutrient digestion, but also on intestinal health. One example is muramidase, an enzyme that degrades peptidoglycan, the main structural component of bacterial cell walls. The continuous turnover of the microbiota releases large quantities of cell wall fragments that tend to accumulate in the intestinal lumen. Although these residues largely originate from nonpathogenic bacteria, they are recognized by innate immune receptors and can contribute to chronic immune activation, reducing productive efficiency. Muramidase does not act as an antimicrobial nor significantly alter intestinal bacterial populations; instead, it facilitates the removal of biological residues derived from microbial turnover, reducing the antigenic load in the intestinal lumen. Numerous studies in broilers have shown that dietary muramidase can improve mucosal integrity, enhance villus morphology, and increase nutrient absorption efficiency. Improvements in feed conversion ratio and, in some cases, growth performance have also been observed, particularly under stress conditions.

Conclusions Today, maintaining intestinal health represents one of the main objectives of poultry nutrition. Probiotics, prebiotics, organic acids, phytogenics, and enzymes are valuable tools to support gut health when combined with good management practices.

p. 18

◗ MARKETS

GERMAN POULTRY PRODUCERS DEMAND FAIRER PRICES AS PRODUCTION STANDARDS TIGHTEN The German poultry sector looks towards the future with optimism thanks to the ever-growing demand for poultry among local customers, which maintains generally high sales. ➤ Eugene Gerden Freelance writer According to preliminary calculations by the Federal Information Centre for Agriculture (BZL), the overall meat consumption in Germany has been rising for three years running, with the biggest increase being observed in the case of poultry. At present, poultry remains one of the main drivers of the German meat market and the fastest growing segment. According to calculations by the Federal Information Centre for Agriculture (BZL), with per capita consumption of about 14.7 kilograms, it reached an all-time high in 2025, accounting for almost 27% of total meat consumption in the country. That led to the growth of domestic production. According to the German Farmers’ Association (DBV), gross domestic production of poultry meat in Germany last year amounted to 1.745 million tons of carcass weight, which was by 1% higher than in 2024. The growth is also ongoing this year. Analysts of the Central Association of the German Poultry Industry (ZDG) expect the demand for poultry in the German market to continue to grow in years to come. In recent years the German poultry sector has faced a sharp rise in costs, caused by tightening production, environmental and other industry standards. As Hans-Peter Goldnick, President of the Central Association of the German Poultry Industry (ZDG), said in an interview with the German top agrar magazine, the German poultry industry operates on the basis of high legal and voluntary standards these days, delivering highquality products to domestic customers. According to him, maintaining such standards is, however, associated with huge production costs for producers, which put significant pressure on them at present. “Our farmers work responsibly and with great personal commitment every day. The protection and well-being of poultry are at the heart of every business decision”, Goldnick said. In his opinion, already now poultry farming in Germany is among the most strictly regulated in the world. According to Goldnick, a further development of poultry farming in Germany on the basis of high standards should require a bigger support from the state. In addition, representatives of producers also believe that prices for

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

German poultry in the domestic market should also be higher. That means that the current market value of German poultry, according to representatives of producers, remains largely underestimated. That leads to lost income of local farmers. “More animal welfare means more effort, higher costs, and lower efficiency. This additional effort must be reflected in the market price,” says Goldnick. According to him, it is important that consumers pay the higher price for products, which are produced with the use of superior farming methods through the corresponding price premium. In the meantime, the German federal government is aware of the current problems of the industry. Amid the ever-growing energy and other costs, the German federal government in recent years has approved a package of measures aimed at supporting the industry. Still, despite this, most local farmers have become largely unhappy with the amount of provided compensations and the list of other measures, considering them too small. Hans-Peter Goldnick commented: “Poultry and livestock farmers want to earn their income in the market and not depend on the uncertain vigilance of changing government programs”. Overall, representatives of producers are also unhappy with the stalled reforms in the German poultry and agriculture sectors, which have been carried out in recent years as well as traditional German bureaucracy, which traditionally leads to serious delays in implementation of some crucial solutions for the industry. At the same time, according to analysts, the current climate goals of Germany (such as minimization of CO2 emissions) are in conflict with current approaches in the field of poultry farming, which are used in the industry. In other words, according to producers, higher poultry standards in Germany require more space, land and resources. This is also associated with bigger negative effects on the local environment. According to experts of ZDG, the use of some modern practices in the field of poultry farming inevitably results in the growth of CO2 emissions per kilogram of poultry produced. In the meantime, most producers, such as Hellmann Poultry GmbH & Co. KG, HelloFresh Group in Berlin, Rothkötter Unternehmensgruppe and some others also prepare for the

p. 20

further tightening of standards of poultry farming in the coming years and the requirements for poultry from some local customers and German retailers. In accordance with the requirements of some German leading retailers, by 2030, fresh poultry should largely come from higher animal welfare standards. In practice, this means lower stocking densities and longer fattening periods. As for producers, they put big hopes on their further development in years to come. On the consumer side, their biggest expectations are related to younger population of German consumers, where the demand for poultry remains especially high at present. This has been recently confirmed by Dr. Ingo Stryk, Managing Director of Marketing at Wiesenhof Geflügelkontor, one of German leading producers of poultry products, during the 34th German Meat Congress. Dr. Ingo Stryk commented: “The younger the generations, the higher the proportion of poultry consumed. The older generation, which focused heavily on pork, is passing away, while the younger generation continues to favor poultry”. As producers also believe, the recent increase of poultry prices (which are currently almost equivalent to pork prices) in Germany will not lead to a serious drop of demand for it from local customers, as expected by some analysts. They hope that the demand for poultry will remain stable, which is also due to a better image than those of beef and pork. Regarding further prospects of the industry, most local analysts do not expect a significant increase of poultry output in Germany, as well as the growth of the local stock. According to statistics from the Central Association of the German Poultry Industry, the German poultry stocks and production have shown resilience compared to other

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

livestock sectors since the 2020s, with a high of roughly 170 million birds recorded in 2020. In terms of the industry’s structure, according to German Federal Office for Agriculture and Food, more than 156 million chickens are kept on German poultry farms. Of these, the German Federal Office for Agriculture and Food says that laying hens and broiler chickens accounted for 93% of the poultry population. Turkeys came in second with around 9 million birds. Ducks took third place with approximately 1.6 million birds. At the same time, poultry populations vary considerably across Germany with Lower Saxony being considered a major center for chicken farming in Germany. According to statistics of Central Association of the German Poultry Industry, Lower Saxony holds over 50% of Germany’s total poultry stock. Of these, around 50% of chickens (every second bird) fattened in Germany come from Lower Saxony. As for turkeys: Lower Saxony holds a 40% share in German turkey farming. With regard to laying hens, in August 2025, the state maintained the highest number of laying hens, with 17.3 million animals. Earlier, representatives of Lower Saxony poultry sector expressed serious concerns that improved animal welfare may lead to the decline of poultry output in the entire Lower Saxony region. As Friedrich-Otto Ripke, Chairman of the Lower Saxony Poultry Industry Association, recently said in an interview with the German NDR TV channel, the decline of poultry output in major German producing regions could trigger a wave of cheap meat imports from countries like Poland. The association is therefore calling for a ban on imports of food products that do not meet EU or German standards.

p. 21

◗ MARKETS

THE DYNAMICS OF THE GLOBAL EGG INDUSTRY Part 1: the dynamics of global egg production between 2015 and 2024 The global egg industry and the global egg trade showed remarkable growth between 2015 and 2024. As can be seen from Table 1, production rose by 21.2 million mt1, or 29.3%, during the period under review. Only the production volume of poultry meat grew even faster, at 23.5 million mt, although its relative growth rate of 22.4% was significantly lower. Beef and pork showed far less growth. The success of poultry products can be explained, on the one hand, by the fact that there are no religious restrictions on their consumption and, on the other hand, by the more favourable feed conversion ratio, which results in lower production costs. Three articles will examine which continents or countries contributed most to the rise in production and what role they played in the trade with shell eggs. This introductory article examines the development of egg production. In four other articles, the author presented an analysis of the dynamics in global meat production and global meat trade (Windhorst, 2025, 2026). The findings in those articles can be used for comparison. ➤ Hans-Wilhelm Windhorst Professor Emeritus at the University of Vechta, Germany

Rising production – but no continuous growth Figure 1 shows that global egg production rose steadily between 2015 and 2024, but a closer look reveals that the annual growth rates varied. A high growth rate between 2016 and 2017 was followed by a year of economic turbulence with only a slight increase. This pattern was repeated in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 onwards, although this gave way to a renewed phase of rapid growth from 2023. However, it is likely that

the massive outbreaks of avian influenza during the winter of 2024/2025 in North America, Europe and East Asia have once again dampened growth. When analysing the data at the continental level, the differing contributions of each continent to the dynamics of global production become obvious (Figure 2, Table 2). Asia’s production volume rose by 16.41 million mt, or 38.0%, over the decade under review. This accounted for 77.0% of the global increase. Central and South America

■ Table 1 – The development of global beef, pork and poultry meat production in comparison with egg production Source: FAO data. Product

Production in mill. t

Change

2015

2024

in mill. t

in %

Poultry meat

104.8

128.3

23.5

22.4

Pork

118.8

125.4

6.6

Beef

61.4

69.7

8.3

13.6

Hen eggs

72.5

93.7

21.2

29.3

mt = 1,000 kg.

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 22

contributed 12.0% to global growth in egg production, with an increase of 2.56 million mt (30.3%). North America contributed 5.1%, adding 1.09 million mt. Africa recorded an increase of 758,000 mt (22.7%), accounting for 3.6% of global growth. Europe lagged behind, with an increase of only 478,000 mt (4.4%) and a contribution of just 2.2%. The widely varying trends in egg production across the continents resulted in a change of their share in global production over the ten-year period under consideration. Figure 3 shows that Asia’s share increased by 4.0%, whilst Central and South America’s by 0.1%. By contrast, the four other continents lost market shares. The decline was greatest in Europe at 2.9%, followed by North America at 0.9%. Africa and Oceania lost 0.2% and 0.1% respectively. A detailed analysis in the following section will show which countries in particular caused this change. As an interim finding, it can be noted that egg production during the decade under review was characterised by remarkable growth. Only poultry meat showed a greater increase in production volume; however, the relative growth in egg production was higher. With regard to changes in the regional structure, it is noteworthy that Asia and Central and South America recorded the highest absolute growth rates. Asia occupied a unique position, accounting for 77.0% of global growth. Europe ranked by far last, with a contribution of just 2.2%, ahead only of Oceania. The distribution of the continents’ contributions to global production reflects, on one hand, their share in the world’s population and, on the other, changes in egg consumption. Whilst per capita consumption in Europe and North America rose only slightly or even stagnated, most emerging economies recorded a further increase. In view of emerging population trends, the ongoing industrialisation of production and an increasing urbanisation – with the resulting shift in consumer behaviour – a growing demand for eggs and egg products is to be expected in the future.

▲ Figure 1 – The development of global egg production between 2015 and 2024 Design: A. S. Kauer, based on FAO data.

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 23

▲ Figure 2 – The development of global egg production between 2015 and 2024 at continent level Design: A. S. Kauer, based on FAO data.

Asian countries dominate the dynamics in global egg production

■ Table 2 – The absolute and relative growth of egg production between 2015 and 2024 in the continents and their contribution to the global increase Source: own calculations, based on FAO data.

Continent

Asia Given the exceptional CS America role which Asia played in the North America increase of global egg Africa production between 2015 and 2024, it was Europe to be expected that Asian countries in Oceania particular would play a decisive role. Figure 4 shows the shares of the most important egg-producing countries in global production. It is clear that there was a very high level of regional concentration overall, as the ten leading countries accounted for between 68.3% (2015) and 70.9% (2024) of global production; the three leading countries alone accounted for 49.6% (2015) and 48.5% (2024). A detailed analysis of the development of egg production in the leading countries provides some interesting insights (Table 3).

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

Share (%) in global growth

Production growth mill. t

16.41

38.0

77.0

2.56

30.3

12.1

1.09

16.2

5.1

0.76

22.7

3.6

0.48

4.4

2.2

<0.1

7.1

<0.1

Of the ten countries, six were in Asia, two in Central and South America, and one each in North America and Europe. The six Asian countries accounted for 14.7 million mt, or 69.1%, of the increase in production; the two countries in Central and South America accounted for 1.7 million mt, or 8.2%; the USA for 3.3%; and Russia for 1.1%. Also of interest is the change in the ranking of the ten leading countries, as well as the change in their shares in global production over the ten years analysed here. China

p. 24

held the undisputed top position throughout the entire period. India and Indonesia displaced the Growth USA from second place. 1,000 mt % Brazil was able to hold fifth place, while Mexico fell from fourth to sixth place, 379.2 5,206 displacing Japan. France 19.2 4,967 was no longer among the leading group in 2020 87.7 3,785 and 2024, while Pakistan moved into the group of the 43.6 1,123 leading countries. 12.4 712 The differences in production trends led 23.3 617 not only to changes in 64.4 464 rankings, but also to losses or gains in market shares in 26.5 277 global production. As can 10.1 239 be seen from Table 4, only Indonesia, India, Brazil and (-1.6) (-40) Pakistan could increase their market shares; all other countries suffered losses. The rapid rise in production volumes in Indonesia, India and Brazil meant that, despite a remarkable increase in egg production, China lost 2.8% of its previous share.

■ Table 3 – The change of egg production in the ten leading countries between 2015 and 2024 Source: own calculations, based on FAO data. Country

Continent

Indonesia

Asia

China

Asia

India

Asia

Brazil

CS America

USA

North America

Mexico

CS America

Pakistan

Asia

Turkey

Asia

Russia

Europe

Japan

Asia

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 25

▲ Figure 3 – The changing share of the continents in global egg production between 2015 and 2024 Design: A. S. Kauer, based on FAO data.

Summary and perspectives The preceding analysis has shown that the strong growth in global egg production between 2015 and 2024 was driven by a relatively small number of countries. Rapid growth was observed particularly in some countries in East and South Asia, as well as in Central and South America, whilst growth in Europe and North America was significantly slower. At the country level, the rapid expansion of production volumes in Indonesia, India and Brazil is particularly noteworthy. Although China continued to occupy a unique position, it lost market share in global production due to the growth in other countries. It is expected that global egg production will continue to rise rapidly over the next ten years. In a comprehensive study, Nan-Dirk Mulder (2025) forecasts an increase in global egg production between 2025 and 2035 from 96 million mt to 117 million mt, or by 22%. Of this, 81% is expected to come from emerging and developing countries, and only 19% from industrialised countries. The highest absolute growth is forecast for India, China, Indonesia and Brazil. These four countries are expected to account for around two-thirds of the anticipated global increase of 21 million mt. Population growth will remain a key driver of rising egg consumption in Africa, some Asian countries, and in Central and South America, as around 90% of this growth will occur in emerging and developing countries. The most important steering factors for the global egg industry’s dynamics over the next decade will be increasing urbanisation, rising egg consumption as a result of rising per capita income in emerging and developing countries, the growing importance of processed eggs, and the emergence of vertically integrated agro-industrial enterprises. ▲ Figure 4 – The share of the ten leading egg producing countries in global egg production in 2015, 2010 and 2024 Design: A. S. Kauer, based on FAO data.

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 26

Data sources and supplementary literature

■ Table 4 – The change of the shares of the leading egg-producing countries in global egg production between 2015 and 2024; data in % Source: own calculations based on FAO data. Country

2015

2024

Gain/loss

China

35.7

32.9

-2.8

6.0

8.6

+2.6

1.9

7.0

+5.1

7.9

6.9

-1.0

3.6

3.9

+0.3

3.7

3.5

-0.2

3.3

2.8

-0.5

3.5

2.6

-0.9

1.4

+/-0.0

1.0

1.3

+0.3

FAO. (n.d.). FAOSTAT. h t t p s : / / w w w . f a o . o rg / India faostat Mulder, N.-D. (2025). Indonesia Global egg industry outlook USA 2035: Long-term egg market and investment perspectives. Brazil Rabobank. https://www. rabobank.com/knowledge/ Mexico q011497178-globale g g - i n d u s t r y- o u t l o ok Russia 2035-long-term-eggJapan market-and-investmentperspectives Turkey Windhorst, H.-W. (2026). The dynamics of global Pakistan meat production: An analysis of the period from 2000 to 2023—Part 1: Production. Zootecnica Poultry magazine, 47(2), 20–26. Windhorst, H.-W. (2026). The dynamics of global meat production: An analysis of the period from 2000 to 2023— Part 2: Exports. Zootecnica Poultry magazine, (3), 20–26.

Windhorst, H.-W. (2026). The dynamics of global meat production: An analysis of the period from 2000 to 2023— Part 3: Imports. Zootecnica Poultry magazine, (4), 16–20.

◗ TECHNICAL COLUMN

COMBINED MYCOPLASMA GALLISEPTICUM LIVE AND KILLED VACCINATION PROGRAMS MAY CONTRIBUTE TO IMPROVED FLOCK PROTECTION, PRODUCTION STABILITY, AND REDUCED ANTIBIOTIC USAGE IN BREEDERS AND COMMERCIAL LAYERS ➤ Dr. Ludio Gomes Technical Service Manager poultry, Asia-Pacific (APAC) Vaxxinova International BV Dr. Md. Zahid Hossain Country Representative – Bangladesh Vaxxinova International BV Avian Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) is a widespread challenge in the poultry industry, particularly in commercial layers and breeders. In commercial layers, MG infection may lead to significant economic losses due to reduced egg production and egg quality, as well as increased costs associated with chronic respiratory disease (CRD), prophylaxis, and treatments. In breeder flocks, MG infection may negatively affect fertility, hatchability, egg production, and egg quality, while increasing embryonic mortality, culling of day-old chicks, vertical transmission to broilers, and costs related to chronic respiratory disease (CRD), prophylaxis, and treatments. The control of MG should primarily be based on biosecurity measures and the maintenance of MG-free breeding stock. However, in many Asian countries, where MG prevalence remains high in multi-age production systems, vaccination programs are widely used, particularly in long-lived birds. Live vaccines may help reduce production losses by allowing controlled exposure of flocks to low-virulence MG strains, thereby supporting the development of immunity against

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 28

subsequent field challenges. Live vaccines may also represent a useful component of long-term MG control programs by helping to reduce the circulation of virulent field strains. Killed MG vaccines may help limit bacterial dissemination to internal organs while reinforcing the humoral immune response through increased systemic antibody production. Serological field observations indicate that MG live vaccination, administered early in life (from 1 to 4 weeks of age via eye-drop), may support respiratory tract protection, while MG killed vaccines administered at 8–10 weeks of age (0.5 ml subcutaneously or intramuscularly) and boosted at 16–18 weeks of age (0.5 ml subcutaneously or intramuscularly) may contribute to increased antibody titers. As a result, the combination of MG live and killed vaccines may contribute to more persistent antibody titers. Combined MG live and killed vaccination programs may help protect birds against virulent field MG infections and airsacculitis, while helping to reduce drops in egg production and maintain production levels throughout the laying cycle. Field observations also suggest potential benefits in improving flock health, controlling excessive post-vaccination reactions, reducing sensitivity to air quality, decreasing egg transmission to broiler progeny, improving chick quality, and reducing the need for antibiotic treatments. Field experience suggests that successfully vaccinated birds receiving MG live and killed vaccines may develop long-lasting immunity in broiler breeder, layer breeder, and commercial layer flocks.

References Ferguson-Noel, N. M., Laibinis, V. A., & Kleven, S. H. (2012). Evaluation of Mycoplasma gallisepticum K-strain as a live vaccine in chickens. Avian Diseases, 56, 44–50. Ferguson-Noel, N. M., & Williams, S. M. (2015). The efficacy of Mycoplasma gallisepticum K-strain live vaccine in broiler and layer chickens. Avian Pathology, 44, 75–80. Yoder, H. W., Jr., Hopkins, S. R., & Mitchell, B. W. (1984). Evaluation of inactivated Mycoplasma gallisepticum bacterin for protection against air sacculitis in broilers. Avian Diseases, 28, 224–234. Technical contribution based on field observations and practical experience

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 29

◗ NUTRITION

THE IMPACT OF GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN ON THE NUTRITIONAL PROFILE AND PROTEIN QUALITY OF SOYBEAN MEAL Global projections indicate that the world population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050, and that demand for animal protein will increase by 14% and egg consumption by 39% as a result. This massive increase in demand is further deepening dependence on key feed raw materials such as corn and soybeans. Therefore, the quality of soybean meal in animal feed is a critical issue (Ravindran et al., 2014).

➤ Güner Gövenç Bursa Uludağ University, Institute of Science, Department of Feeds and Animal Nutrition, Nilüfer, Bursa, Turkey, guner.govenc@hotmail.com

Soybean production statistics Figure 1 illustrates a continuous upward trajectory in global soybean production. Based on FAOSTAT data, an all-time production high was achieved in 2024. This momentum continued into 2025, with U.S. Department of Agriculture figures indicating that global output surged to a new record of 428.15 million metric tons. Driven by steadily climbing market demand, this pattern of annual growth is projected to persist.

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

The importance of soybeans in animal feed The most important characteristic of soy is that it provides more protein per unit area and at a lower cost compared to other plant and animal feed sources. Soy protein is the protein closest to animal protein and has a very high biological value. For this reason, by-products derived from soybeans (primarily soybean meal) are used as a protein source in rations for poultry and small ruminants, as well as dairy and beef cattle (Anonymous, 2019; Tüfekçi, 2019). The protein content of soybean meal is influenced by several factors, including soybean variety, tillage, soil properties, climate, harvest, and processing conditions (Grieshop et al., 2003; Thakur and Hurburgh, 2007; de Coca-Sinova

p. 30

▲ Figure 1 – World total annual soybean production (in million metric tons, Faostat, 2025)

et al., 2008; Frikha et al., 2012; Ravindran et al., 2014; García-Rebollar et al., 2016; Lagos and Stein, 2017). The protein content of raw materials is one of the parameters routinely determined by the feed industry and is crucial for ensuring the proper composition of the matrix in feed formulations. From this perspective, even small 1% changes in the use of protein sources during ration formulation can ultimately result in significant financial implications. The factors determining economic value are not merely the amount of crude protein, but rather the precise biochemical analyses of the digestible amino acids and metabolic energy included in the ration matrix.

Laboratory analyses The objective of this project is to determine the differences in the nutrient composition, amino acid profile, and protein quality of soybean meal imported from various countries

and used in feed production for animal nutrition. Soybean meal imported from five different countries — the United States, Brazil, Nigeria, Ukraine, and Uruguay — was used as the study material. The levels of dry matter, crude ash, crude fat, crude protein, starch, sugar, crude fiber, and digestible crude protein were determined in these meals, and the metabolic energy value for poultry was calculated using the obtained data. To determine protein quality, analyses were conducted regarding the amino acid profile, urease activity, protein distribution index, protein solubility in potassium hydroxide, and trypsin inhibitor activity. As shown in Figure 2, meal from various origins —

▲ Figure 2 – Soybean meal from different origins (in order: the United States, Brazil, Nigeria, Ukraine, and Uruguay)

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 31

▲ Figure 3 – (%) Protein solubility in potassium hydroxide

including the United States, Brazil, Nigeria, Ukraine, and Uruguay — was obtained from a private supplier. The average KOH (potassium hydroxide) protein solubility values of soybean meal sourced from different countries are shown in Table 1. Based on this parameter, it was determined that the KOH value of the Ukrainian meal was the highest (79.02%), while that of the Brazilian meal was the lowest (70.27%) (P <0.001). Based on the findings, the relatively low KOH protein solubility values observed in samples originating from Brazil (70.27%) and Uruguay (72.56%) are assessed to be related to structural characteristics directly attributable to their origin, rather than the intensity of industrial heat

treatments (roasting/cooking). This variation is rooted in agro-ecological, genetic, and geographical factors. First, the protein subunit compositions and hydrophobicity levels of genotypes cultivated in South American locations exhibit structural differences. This genetic variation is

■ Table 1 – Amino acid profile of soybean meal from different sources

Amino acids (%)

USA

Brazil

Nigeria

Ukraine

Uruguay

SEM (±)

Significance level

Alanine

2.10ab

2.20ab

2.28a

2.07ab

1.93b

0.16

0.033

Arginine

2.93

3.02

3.29

2.74

2.56

0.27

0.006

Aspartic acid

5.51

5.70

5.58

5.10

4.50

0.56

0.018

Cysteine

0.46

0.53

0.45

0.44

0.48

0.05

0.108

Glutamic acid

10.65

11.23

11.64

9.67

9.57

0.79

0.001

Glycine

2.25

2.11

2.28

2.11

1.98

0.16

0.052

Histidine

1.13

1.12

1.22

1.10

1.04

0.10

0.078

Isoleucine

1.02

1.00

1.06

0.89

0.83

0.14

0.066

Leucine

3.14

3.18

3.23

2.88

2.74

0.31

0.082

Lysine

2.94

2.68

3.04

2.70

2.60

0.26

0.056

Methionine

0.23b

0.31a

0.25b

0.20b

0.19b

0.02

<0.001

Ornithine

0.30b

0.31a

0.30b

0.002

0.001

Phenylalanine

2.22

2.29

2.36

2.05

1.88

0.21

0.014

Proline

2.73ab

2.86ab

2.94a

2.63ab

2.50b

0.20

0.017

Serine

2.46

2.58

2.62

2.47

2.28

0.22

0.180

Threonine

1.72

1.73

1.78

1.59

1.63

0.13

0.157

Tyrosine

1.08

1.15

1.18

1.00

1.02

0.08

0.015

Valine

1.32

1.30

1.37

1.18

1.10

0.18

0.189

SEM: Mean standard error

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 32

the primary factor determining the natural solubility capacity in alkaline solvents, independent of process conditions. Second, agro-ecological conditions— such as temperature, precipitation patterns, and soil composition—to which the plant is exposed during its growth stages directly affect the thermal stability and natural conformation of proteins, thereby limiting their baseline solubility limits. Additionally, regionspecific harvesting and storage dynamics can also lead to permanent modifications in the stability of the protein matrix. Data on the amino acid profiles of soybean meal are presented in Table 1. It was found that the alanine and arginine content in the Nigerian soybean meal was higher than in the other meals, at 2.28% and 3.29%, respectively (P <0.05). It was also determined that the Brazilian and Nigerian meal samples contained higher amounts of aspartic acid and glutamic acid compared to the other meal samples (P <0.05). In the analysis of methionine content, it was found that the Brazilian meal had a higher content (0.31%) while the Uruguayan meal had a lower value (0.19%) (P <0.001). It was found that the Nigerian meal had a richer content of ornithine, phenylalanine, proline, and tyrosine (P <0.05). The amino acid profile of soybean meal observed in this study is similar to the results reported by Goldflus et al. (2006), Thakur and Hurburgh (2007), Medic et al. (2014), and Lagos and Stein (2017), and the geographical characteristics of the growing region and cultivation conditions are among the factors determining the amino acid content of the meal. In addition, there are research findings suggesting that the protein level of the meal also affects the amino acid profile (Medic et al., 2014; Mourtzinis et al., 2017; Pfarr et al., 2018).

Conclusion In conclusion, it has been demonstrated that the country

of origin of soybean meal affects its protein quality through its nutrient content and amino acid profile. Among the soybean meals examined, the Brazilian meal was found to have the highest crude protein and metabolizable energy content. Furthermore, in terms of methionine, the soybean meal from Brazil was found to have a higher content. The soybean meal from Nigeria was observed to have the highest digestibility, while urease activity was found to be at the lowest level in the soybean meals from the United States and Ukraine. In light of all these findings, it was determined that the soybean meal of Brazilian origin is more advantageous in terms of protein and methionine content, while the soybean meal of Ukrainian origin is more advantageous in terms of protein quality (urease activity, protein distribution index, protein solubility in potassium hydroxide, and trypsin inhibitor activity). Therefore, it was concluded that when using soybean meal of different origins in commercial feed production, different nutrient matrices should be employed based on these criteria.

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 33

◗ VETERINARY

DOUBLE TROUBLE: A CASE STUDY ON CONCURRENT TETRATRICHOMONIASIS AND COCCIDIOSIS IN A COMMERCIAL TURKEY OPERATION Gut health is a critical determinant of successful turkey production, directly influencing growth performance, feed conversion efficiency, and overall flock health. Disruptions to intestinal integrity frequently manifest as enteric disease complexes, leading to significant morbidity and economic attrition. Although various pathogens are known to affect the gastrointestinal tract of turkeys, maintaining optimal gut health under field conditions remains challenging due to the multifactorial nature of enteric disorders. This report describes an enteric disease outbreak in a commercial turkey flock where diagnostic investigation identified a co-infection of Tetratrichomonas gallinarum and a diverse profile of Eimeria species.

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

p. 34

➤ Vijay Durairaj1,3, Emily Barber1 and Steven Clark2 1 Huvepharma, Inc., Lincoln, NE 68528, USA. 2 Huvepharma, Inc., Peachtree City, GA 30269, USA. 3 Corresponding author - Vijay.Durairaj@huvepharma.us

Introduction Enteric diseases in turkeys are frequently multifactorial and may be associated with viral, bacterial, parasitic, or unidentified etiologies (1,2,3). Key viral contributors include Turkey Coronavirus (TCoV), the causative agent of Bluecomb disease; Hemorrhagic Enteritis Virus (HEV); and the multi-agent Turkey Poultry Enteritis Mortality Syndrome (PEMS), frequently associated with astroviruses. These viruses compromise the mucosal barrier, providing a portal for secondary bacterial pathogens. Bacterial enteric diseases are also important contributors to intestinal pathology in turkeys. Necrotic enteritis, primarily caused by Clostridium perfringens, is a significant bacterial condition that can lead to severe intestinal damage, mucosal necrosis, and elevated mortality in affected flocks. Parasitic burdens further complicate the enteric landscape. Heavy infestations with roundworms such as Ascaridia dissimilis can cause intestinal irritation, impaired nutrient absorption, and decreased growth performance. However, protozoal infections remain the most prevalent parasitic challenge in commercial production. Protozoal pathogens include Eimeria species causing coccidiosis, Histomonas meleagridis, the causative agent for histomoniasis, and Cochlosoma anatis, the causative agent of cochlosomiasis. These pathogens can occur individually or in combination, often resulting in complex enteric disease syndromes. Given the complexity of enteric diseases in turkeys, accurate diagnosis through microscopic and molecular methods is essential for identifying the causative agents and implementing appropriate control strategies.

Case report Case history

An outbreak of enteritis was reported in a commercial turkey operation. The farm consisted of four houses, each containing approximately 7,600 poults, all of which were heavy tom turkeys. The birds were raised on new litter consisting of wood shavings. At the time of sampling, the birds were 42 days of age. Clinical signs of enteric disease — including diarrhea, depressed feed intake, and poor uniformity — were observed throughout the flock, and the entire house appeared to be affected.

Intestinal scraping

A few birds exhibiting severe clinical signs were euthanized and necropsied. Fresh mucosal scrapings were harvested from the intestines, subjected to immediate wet-mount microscopic examination and evaluated for protozoal morphology and motility.

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

DNA extraction and PCR

Fecal flotation was performed on pooled cecal and intestinal contents. DNA was subsequently extracted from 200 µL of post-fecal-flotation material using the QIAamp Fast DNA Stool Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), following the manufacturer’s instructions. To improve the disruption of protozoal oocysts, glass beads were incorporated into the extraction process, and 30 µL of Proteinase K (Qiagen) was added during the initial lysis/digestion step. PCR amplification was performed using previously described primers targeting the partial 18S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene for trichomonads (4) and the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene for Eimeria species differentiation (5). All PCR assays were executed using GoTaq® G2 Hot Start Green Master Mix (Promega, Madison, WI) with forward and reverse primers at a final concentration of 5 µM.

Gel electrophoresis and sequencing

PCR amplicons (2 µL) were separated by electrophoresis using E-Gel™ EX Agarose Gels (2%) (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and visualized under UV illumination. A reference E-Gel™ 1 Kb Plus DNA Ladder (Invitrogen) was used to determine the size of the amplified products. Positive PCR products were purified using the QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and subsequently submitted for sequencing at Eurofins Genomics (Kentucky, USA).

Results and discussion Microscopic examination of the wet-mount intestinal scrapings revealed numerous Eimeria oocysts together with highly motile, flagellated protozoa exhibiting the characteristic jerky movement indicative of Tetratrichomonas gallinarum. Molecular characterization followed by sequence analysis confirmed the flagellate as T. gallinarum. Fecal flotation similarly demonstrated an abundant shedding of Eimeria oocysts. Subsequent molecular identification and sequencing detected four Eimeria species: Eimeria adenoeides, E. meleagrimitis, E. dispersa, and E. meleagridis. Of the seven Eimeria species that infect turkeys, three are recognized as the most pathogenic: E. adenoeides, E. meleagrimitis, and E. gallopavonis (6,7,8,9). In this case, both E. adenoeides and E. meleagrimitis were identified. The concurrent detection of T. gallinarum and multiple Eimeria species indicates a complex, mixed protozoal enteric infection. Coinfections involving coccidia and trichomonads may intensify intestinal pathology through synergistic interactions. Coccidial infection causes epithelial destruction, villus atrophy, and intestinal inflammation. This severe disruption of the mucosal barrier and subsequent impairment of nutrient absorption may alter the local microenvironment, facilitating the colonization and rapid proliferation of opportunistic enteric organisms, including trichomonads. This overgrowth can amplify the host inflammatory response and exacerbate clinical disease severity.

p. 35

The pathogenic significance of T. gallinarum in turkeys remains incompletely understood and somewhat controversial. Experimental infections have generally failed to reproduce overt clinical disease or characteristic gross lesions in turkeys (10,11). Similarly, Amin et al. (12) reported that turkeys experimentally inoculated with T. gallinarum developed latent infections without significant clinical signs or pathological changes. These findings have contributed to the prevailing view that T. gallinarum possesses relatively low pathogenicity in turkeys under controlled experimental conditions. Nevertheless, increasing evidence suggests that T. gallinarum may contribute to disease development under field conditions, particularly in the presence of concurrent infections or other predisposing factors. Crespo et al. (13) reported increased mortality and production losses in Pekin ducks coinfected with Escherichia coli and Tetratrichomonas spp., highlighting the potential for synergistic interactions between pathogens. Furthermore, T. gallinarum-associated granulomatous disease has been documented in freerange laying hens (14), while typhlitis and typhlohepatitis associated with T. gallinarum have been described in ducks (15). Extraintestinal manifestations have also been reported, including encephalitis in mockingbirds (16) and mortality events in black swans (17). Collectively, these reports indicate that although T. gallinarum may exhibit limited pathogenicity in experimentally infected turkeys. It has the potential to act as an opportunistic or contributing pathogen capable of causing significant disease in a variety of avian hosts when the intestinal ecosystem is compromised. Among the Eimeria species identified in this clinical case, E. adenoeides and E. meleagrimitis are recognized as the most pathogenic species affecting turkeys. E. adenoeides primarily infects the ceca and is associated with severe typhlitis, hemorrhage, and characteristic cecal core formation. In severe infections, lesions may extend into the lower small intestine and cloaca (6,7,8,9). E. meleagrimitis predominantly parasitizes the duodenum and proximal jejunum, causing extensive mucosal damage, impaired nutrient absorption, and reduced growth performance (6,7,9). In contrast, E. dispersa is generally considered mildly pathogenic and produces lesions primarily in the mid-intestine, occasionally extending to the cecal necks (6,7). E. meleagridis is typically regarded as nonpathogenic,

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

Microscopic examination of the wet-mount intestinal scrapings revealed numerous Eimeria oocysts together with highly motile, flagellated protozoa exhibiting the characteristic jerky movement indicative of Tetratrichomonas gallinarum. Molecular characterization followed by sequence analysis confirmed the flagellate as T. gallinarum p. 36

although infection of the ceca has been associated with occasional caseous cecal core formation (6,7). Experimental evidence supports a biologically plausible interaction between coccidia and trichomonads. Norton (18) demonstrated that turkeys coinfected with E. adenoeides and T. gallinarum exhibited significantly greater cecal colonization by T. gallinarum than birds infected with the flagellate alone. These findings suggest that coccidialinduced mucosal damage may facilitate establishment, persistence, and proliferation of trichomonads within the intestinal tract. Such interactions are likely amplified under commercial production conditions where multiple infectious, nutritional, and environmental stressors are simultaneously present. The simultaneous detection of four Eimeria species and T. gallinarum in the present case suggests that the observed enteritis was likely multifactorial and resulted from the combined effects of several protozoal pathogens rather than a single etiologic agent. The presence of multiple Eimeria species likely played a major role in initiating intestinal damage, while concurrent T. gallinarum infection may have contributed to disease progression and severity. Mixed protozoal infections have the potential to amplify intestinal injury, compromise gut integrity, reduce nutrient utilization, and increase susceptibility to secondary bacterial infections, ultimately leading to adverse effects on flock health and performance. These findings underscore the importance of comprehensive diagnostic investigations during enteric disease outbreaks in turkeys. Relying on single-pathogen diagnostic approaches (such as visual lesion scoring alone) may underestimate the contribution of concurrent infections to disease expression and severity. Combining classical parasitological examination (wet-mounts and flotation) with molecular diagnostics (PCR and sequencing) improves the sensitivity of mixed-infection detection and facilitates an accurate etiological diagnosis. Effective control of complex enteric disease syndromes in commercial turkey production requires integrated parasite management strategies incorporating stringent biosecurity measures, routine surveillance, strategic vaccination programs where applicable, and appropriate anticoccidial interventions.

Reference 1. Durairaj, V., Clark, E. B., & Vander Veen, R. (2023). Concurrent infection of Histomonas meleagridis and Pentatrichomonas hominis in a blackhead disease outbreak in turkeys. Avian Diseases, 67(1), 124–129. 2. Durairaj, V., Nezworski, J., Drozd, M., Clark, S., & Vander Veen, R. (2024). Concurrent Histomonas meleagridis and hemorrhagic enteritis virus infection in a turkey flock with recurrent history of blackhead disease. Avian Diseases, 68(1), 56–64. 3. Clark, S. R., & Chiaia, L. (2024). Current health issues facing the US turkey industry [PDF report]. Huvepharma, Inc. https://usaha.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2024USAHA-Proceedings-FINAL_PRINT.pdf 4. Grabensteiner, E., & Hess, M. (2006). PCR for the identification and differentiation of Histomonas meleagridis,

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

Tetratrichomonas gallinarum and Blastocystis spp. Veterinary Parasitology, 142(3–4), 223–230. 5. Hafeez, M. A., Shivaramaiah, S., Dorsey, K. M., Ogedengbe, M. E., El-Sherry, S., Whale, J., Cobean, J., & Barta, J. R. (2015). Simultaneous identification and DNA barcoding of six Eimeria species infecting turkeys using PCR primers targeting the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (mtCOI) locus. Parasitology Research, 114, 1761–1768. 6. Lund, E. E., & Farr, M. M. (1965). Coccidiosis of the turkey. In H. E. Biester & L. H. Schwarte (Eds.), Diseases of poultry (5th ed., pp. 1088–1093). Iowa State University Press. 7. Cervantes, H. M., McDougald, L. R., & Jenkins, M. C. (2020). Coccidiosis. In D. Swayne, M. Boulianne, C. Logue, L. McDougald, V. Nair, D. Suarez, S. deWit, T. Grimes, D. Johnson, M. Kromm, et al. (Eds.), Diseases of poultry (14th ed., pp. 1193–1216). Wiley-Blackwell. 8. Durairaj, V., & Vander Veen, R. (2025, March). Cecal coccidiosis in turkeys. Zootecnica, 40–42. 9. Durairaj, V., & Vander Veen, R. (2025, April). Pathological manifestations of highly pathogenic and predominant Eimeria species in turkeys. Zootecnica, 38–42. 10. Delappe, I. P. (1957). Effect of inoculating the chicken and the turkey with a strain of Trichomonas gallinarum. Experimental Parasitology, 6(4), 412–417. 11. Pecka, Z. (1991). Pathogenicity of Tetratrichomonas gallinarum. Veterinární Medicína (Praha), 36(3), 183–188. 12. Amin, A., Liebhart, D., Weissenböck, H., & Hess, M. (2011). Experimental infection of turkeys and chickens with a clonal strain of Tetratrichomonas gallinarum induces a latent infection in the absence of clinical signs and lesions. Journal of Comparative Pathology, 144(1), 55–62. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpa.2010.06.002 13. Crespo, R., Walker, R. L., Nordhausen, R., Sawyer, S. J., & Manalac, R. B. (2001). Salpingitis in Pekin ducks associated with concurrent infection with Tetratrichomonas sp. and Escherichia coli. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, 13(3), 240–245. 14. Landman, W. J. M., Gantois, N., van Eck, J. H. H., van der Heijden, H. M. J. F., & Viscogliosi, E. (2019). Tetratrichomonas gallinarum granuloma disease in a flock of free-range layers. Veterinary Quarterly, 39(1), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2019.1682714 15. Richter, B., Schulze, C., Kämmerling, J., Mostegl, M., & Weissenböck, H. (2010). First report of typhlitis/ typhlohepatitis caused by Tetratrichomonas gallinarum in three duck species. Avian Pathology, 39(6), 499–503. 16. Patton, C. S., & Patton, S. (1996). Tetratrichomonas gallinarum encephalitis in a mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, 8(1), 133–137. 17. Feng, S., Chang, H., Wang, Y., Luo, F., Wu, Q., Han, S., & He, H. (2021). Lethal infection caused by Tetratrichomonas gallinarum in black swans (Cygnus atratus). BMC Veterinary Research, 17(1), 191. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12917-021-02894-x 18. Norton, R. A. (1997). Pathogenicity of a strain of Trichomonas gallinarum in turkeys and its possible interaction with cecal coccidia. Avian Diseases, 41(3), 670–675.

p. 37

◗ VETERINARY

GETTING THE DIAGNOSIS: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO DISEASE INVESTIGATIONS, NECROPSY, AND DIAGNOSTIC SAMPLING It is the harsh reality of poultry farming that illness and mortality are constant looming threats to the livelihood of poultry farmers. When illness occurs, it is critical that a diagnosis is made so that a veterinarian can treat, control, and work to prevent recurrence of disease on the farm. However, a veterinarian may not always be readily available to evaluate a flock when the problem presents. This article aims to provide readers with the basic skills to triage poultry illness and mortality in order to obtain a diagnosis in an efficient and timely manner. ➤ Jason Sousa Poultry veterinarian

Disease investigation When a flock is struck by illness, the first step is to obtain more information. In-person farm visits are vital to investigators, as visual cues often elicit questions that may not otherwise have been asked. Taking a thorough history involves asking detailed questions about signalment (age, breed, sex of birds), when the illness was first noticed, the progression/course of illness, location of mortality, response to any supplements or treatments that have been administered, etc. Additionally, information about farm management (ventilation, temperature history, feed/ water consumption, etc.) should always be sought out, as disease and management are undeniably intertwined. The mnemonic device FLAWS (feed, light/litter, air, water, space/sanitation) can be helpful in guiding questions and evaluation of management on poultry farms. Especially important is to collect information regarding patterns of mortality. Sudden, rapid increases in mortality prompt a different set of concerns than slow, gradual increases or mortality plateaus. Be sure to inquire or make note of how many birds have been culled versus true mortality. Take pictures of mortality records on arrival to the farm to share with the veterinarian. It is important to provide mortality information to your veterinarian or upon submission of birds/samples to the laboratory so that the appropriate diagnostic tests can be selected. Most importantly, be sure to thoroughly document any information. While formal records or farm visit reports are useful, documentation may also come in the form of photos

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

and videos obtained during farm visits, voice memos of important details from the visit, or brief handwritten or typed notes.

Necropsy A thorough necropsy is the cornerstone of poultry disease investigations. This article will discuss tips and tricks for an efficient and informational necropsy; it will not, however, explicitly describe the procedure or relevant anatomy. Preparedness is essential for an efficient necropsy. This starts by having the proper tools at your disposal. A sharp knife, a pair of scissors, and poultry shears are the basic tools needed to perform your necropsy. Dull instruments may be difficult to cut with and can be avoided by periodic replacement or regular sharpening of instruments. A simple cheap handheld sharpener is often sufficient to achieve this goal. It is also important to have several pairs of appropriately sized gloves at the ready. It is often necessary to don and doff several pairs of gloves when working alone to avoid contamination of clean materials as you collect and label samples. Other tools, such as thumb forceps, bursameters, capillary screens, etc. are a matter of personal preference, or may be desired if necessitated by the problem that is being investigated. Also consider having a separate container on hand to separate dirty instruments from clean instruments. If working with larger species of poultry (e.g. turkeys/ turkey breeders), it may be vital to come prepared with an appropriate device for euthanasia (Koechner euthanasia device, CO2 gas cylinder, captive bolt gun, etc.) in order to allow for examination of sick or cull birds. In sick birds of appropriately small size, cervical dislocation is the typical means of euthanasia during field investigations. Basic knowledge of avian anatomy is necessary for

p. 38

▲ Figure 1 – Example of a necropsy and sampling kit The kit contains ( from left to right) several sizes of Whirl-Pak bags, an empty container with a scrub brush for cleaning dirty instruments, several sizes of jars pre-filled with 10% formalin, a handheld knife/scissor sharpener, several pairs of gloves, digital ammonia meter, two permanent markers, digital thermometer, knives, bursameter, poultry shears, Mayo scissors, thumb forceps, clear bullet tubes for blood collection, a tackle box with needles and syringes in the lid and internal storage for all kit components, culturette swabs, microscope slides and cover slips, sterile polyester tipped swabs, headlamp, and bottle with 70% isopropyl alcohol. Every necropsy and sampling kit will look different depending on personal preference and resources available.

a successful necropsy. Personnel should familiarize themselves with the normal anatomy of poultry at various ages. It is not necessary to have a comprehensive knowledge of avian diseases and pathology, but rather personnel should aim to identify changes seen on necropsy as either normal or abnormal. Necropsy relies heavily on pattern recognition; therefore, the necropsy should be performed in the same order every time to ensure that a complete examination is performed and abnormalities are not missed. There is an old maxim: “you miss more by not looking than by not knowing”. This is certainly true of the poultry necropsy where careful examination of every body system is the first step in identifying abnormalities, even those of unknown origin. Technology is extraordinarily useful during necropsy. Taking pictures of abnormalities or suspected abnormalities can provide veterinarians with the information needed to further guide diagnostic sampling. Be sure that photos have the area of interest at the center of the frame and in focus. Take multiple photos of all suspected abnormalities. Most importantly, include information on signalment (farm name, house/barn number, bird age, sex, breed, etc.) and clinical signs (e.g. snicking, sneezing, diarrhea, etc.), along

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

Preparedness is essential for an efficient necropsy. This starts by having the proper tools at your disposal. A sharp knife, a pair of scissors, and poultry shears are the basic tools needed to perform your necropsy p. 39

with the mortality pattern. This will help the veterinarian provide the best recommendations.

preferred sample for submission. As a general rule of thumb, if a tissue/organ looks abnormal, it is worth sampling.

Diagnostic sampling

Furthermore, samples should be collected in groups (i.e. organ pools, multiple cultures, etc.), almost never as single samples. This will be more reflective of the population of birds on any given farm and help the veterinarian interpret singular anomalies versus group trends.

Collecting diagnostic samples is vital to timely and accurate diagnosis of disease in poultry. While laboratory conditions are optimal for sample collection, these are often unavailable or impractical for many situations. The most important component of sampling is to be prepared with the proper tools. The basic sampling kit should include swabs (both for culture and molecular testing), needles/syringes, blood collection tubes, at least 2 permanent markers for labeling, sterile sample collection bags of various sizes (such as Whirl-Pak bags), pre-filled jars of formalin, a spray bottle of alcohol, and a cooler with ice packs (Figure 1). For common diagnostic tests, check with your local veterinary diagnostic laboratory for the

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

Samples should be collected as aseptically or as cleanly as possible. Cultures should be obtained prior to digital manipulation of tissues. When sampling in the field, instruments should be wiped clean of organic debris and cleaned using 70% ethanol solution prior to making cuts to allow for swabbing. In dead birds, swabbing protected sites (bone marrow, brain, joints) should be prioritized to minimize contamination. In situations where aseptic technique may be difficult whole organs (liver, spleen, heads, etc.) can be collected to send to the laboratory,

p. 40

which can use sterilized instruments and sear contaminated surfaces prior to collecting cultures. The author prefers not to utilize the same culture swab more than once, opting instead for a new swab for each bird and/or sample site. Histopathology is a useful test that can guide further sampling in difficult cases. It can also be used to provide evidence and support for a tentative diagnosis or even have diagnostic features. Histopathology relies on evaluating cells within the architecture of the tissues, so any handling that results in crushing of tissues should be avoided. Formalin fixation must be able to penetrate tissues fully, so tissues/lesions should be trimmed to a reasonably small size (~5–10 mm thickness) before being placed in the jar in order to avoid artifact due to incomplete fixation. If a larger specimen must be collected, score the tissue with a scalpel or knife to allow for more even tissue fixation. A ratio of 1 part tissue to 10 parts formalin should be maintained in the collection jars. Use multiple jars or larger jars for collection if necessary to maintain this ratio. When uncertain if histopathology is necessary, tissues can be collected in formalin and stored at room temperature until the decision is made to send to the lab or discard. Consideration must also be given to samples which might be difficult or impossible to collect at any other time. For example, nutritional deficiencies or toxicities can be difficult to diagnose, but the offending feed has often already been consumed by the time of veterinary visits. Therefore, early collection of feed samples (ideally from both feed pans and feed bins) may be the key to making the diagnosis. Sample storage prior to shipping is critical. Cultures should be stored in the refrigerator and never frozen so as to prevent killing bacteria. Samples collected for molecular testing (i.e. PCR/qPCR) can be stored in the freezer. Blood samples should be allowed to sit at room temperature for several hours or overnight before separating serum from the blood clot. Serum samples can be refrigerated if testing immediately or frozen for later testing. Formalin fixed tissues for histopathology should be kept at room temperature as

freezing can produce artifact that will hinder interpretation by the pathologist. Most important when collecting samples is to label all samples clearly with all necessary information. This includes: farm name, house/barn number, bird age, collection date, tissue sampled. All the hard work of sampling is wasted without a legible label on all samples. It is advised to pre-label collection bags prior to sampling to limit contamination of outer surfaces of sampling bags. Lastly, be sure that diagnostic submission forms are filled out properly with all farm information, a summarized history of problems observed on the farm, and diagnostic tests requested.

Conclusion You now have the building blocks for conducting a thorough diagnostic workup of poultry diseases. Be sure to communicate your findings with the attending veterinarian and diagnostic laboratory before promptly delivering samples to the lab.

◗ VETERINARY

ENHANCING POULTRY HEALTHCARE THROUGH DIETARY IMMUNOSTIMULANTS Growing pressure toward reducing the use of antibiotics for livestock production requires developing sustainable solutions to boost poultry immunity and enhance disease resistance. Within this context, improving poultry immunocompetence through feed additives provides novel means to build-up resilience against potential pathogens under commercial conditions by supporting the immune response from within. ➤ Aitor Arrazola Research biologist, Ph.D. in Animal Behaviour & Welfare

How do immunostimulants support poultry immunity? Commercial conditions can be challenging from a sanitary standpoint due to high stocking densities, a large number of birds housed in the same place, and potential biosecurity risks. All of these, in addition to stressful conditions, weaken poultry immunity and hinder the immune response leading to increased disease susceptibility and flock performance decline. Meanwhile, to maintain the flock healthy and productive, immunostimulants can strengthen the immune system by boosting the immune response and improving birds’ immunocompetence from the inside. Beside vaccines, immunostimulants include plant-derived compounds, spices and herbs, probiotics, enzymes, and other phytogenics that reduce inflammation, prevent oxidative damage, and activate immune cells involved in defence pathways. These benefits uplift the functionality and competitiveness of the poultry immune response by acting on the mechanisms behind poor immunity and immune dysfunctions. Developing a competent, strong immune response relies on improving the production of lymphocytes that release antibodies (B cells), mobilize immune cells (T cells), and remove malignant cells (natural killer cells) as well as immune cells that trap potential pathogens (heterophils and macrophages). Recent studies claim that immune-booster compounds (e.g., curcumin, gallic acid, zingiberin) as poultry feed additives can activate populations of immune cells that often decline under stressful conditions such as lymphocytes. Stress also triggers the inflammatory response mediated by elevated count of basophils and eosinophils in the blood stream. This defense mechanism is an adaptive response to pathogen infection in the short term but can lead to pain and complications due to swelling and poor lymphatic drainage if overstimulated for a long time. Anti-

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

inflammatory substances from plants (e.g., ginger, turmeric, and Boswellia) and herbs (e.g., oregano and garlic) can aid in preventing and reverting these side effects and help affected tissue heal. Supplementation with proteolyticactivity enzymes also helps downregulate the inflammatory response and break-down harmful proteins in swollen organs for detox. Beside immunosuppression and overstimulation of the inflammation response, stressful conditions also result in metabolic by-products that cause oxidative damage to immune cells. In this situation, plant-based bioactive compounds with antioxidant properties (polyphenols and flavonoids) are essential allies against oxidative stress to neutralize their harmful impact. Thus, poultry feed additives with phytogenic immune enhancers can stimulate the immune cell response while modulating the inflammatory response and combating the unhealthy impact of oxidative stress.

Why are immunostimulants important? An effective immune response leans on an optimal population of immune cells activated before infection and an adequate antibody production in plasma to fight potential pathogens in a timely manner. Achieving this in commercial conditions translates into enhanced readiness for action, reduced recovery time, and overall improved functionality of the immune response in case of pathogen exposure. Recently science-based results indeed acknowledged that immunostimulants, as feed additives, can help build up disease resilience and immunity in commercial flocks of broilers, layers, and breeders through these means. Therefore, the benefits of implementing dietary immune enhancers on-farm are straightforward for healthy poultry flocks. Vaccine effectiveness is also a hot topic in poultry health management and relies on a strong immune status, before and after vaccination, for an optimal response. To accomplish this end goal, feeding immune boosters before vaccination helps birds acquire immunocompetence efficiently against a given pathogen and stay protected

p. 42

throughout the production phase. To sustain vaccine effectiveness over time, dietary supplementation with immunostimulants is also recommended post-vaccination to uplift birds’ immunity and maintain a strong immune response particularly during potentially stressful events (brooding, mixing, transport, laying onset, heat waves, etc). In terms of welfare, immunostimulants also support poultry well-being by neutralizing the damaging effects of stress on immunosuppression, oxidative stress, and extended inflammatory response. Depending on their bioactive compound, phytogenics can particularly counteract these side effects due to their anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and immune-boosting properties ultimately improving flock performance records. For producers, effective immunostimulant use on-site implies fewer infections, faster recovery from diseases and stress, and reduced culls and mortality. In terms of flock performance, these improvements on immunity ensure optimal growth and body condition, support poultry longevity, and improve production efficiency. This strategy also helps the poultry industry raise flocks using less chemicals and pharmaceuticals to prevent antibiotic resistance concerns and produce food sustainably. Natural feed additives don’t require withdrawal time before processing and don’t leave residues in poultry products or manure. Lastly, compared to synthetic additives, natural immune enhancers also become a more consumer-friendly option to raise healthy, productive flocks in antibiotic-free production systems and in countries with restricted use of antibiotics.

Practical key points about immunostimulants To get the most out of it, immunostimulant administration must follow recommended concentrations for flock type,

ZOOTECNICA ◆ September 2026

birds’ age, production phase, and nutritional program to achieve desirable outcomes. Overuse of phytogenics at high inclusion rate is discouraged because of potential suboptimal results, and immunostimulants should be added gradually into poultry feeding programmes depending on their source and preparation method. These products are safe to use but each flock may respond differently, so observation is advised to monitor how the flock becomes accustomed to these feed additives. Nonetheless, ongoing research is focused on developing products that deliver consistent, effective results across barns integrating multiple bioactive compounds (combination of phytogenics, enzymes, and probiotics) in their formulation. Poultry immunostimulants provide a safe, effective way to boost the immune response, build up immunity naturally, and respond to stress effectively, but are not a solution to treat health problems and stress concerns. In the case of disease outbreaks and severe poultry pathologies, medical intervention through veterinary care is required. Immunostimulants provide insufficient protection and limited efficacy for overcoming severe infections since they work gradually on immune pathways to develop a strong immunity before challenge. Thus, dietary immune enhancers act as prophylactic measures for preventive poultry healthcare rather than natural remedies against infections. To wrap it up, boosting birds’ immunity with immunostimulants can prevent immunosuppression and counterbalance the negative effects of oxidative stress and prolonged inflammatory response. To support poultry immunity, the use of dietary immunostimulants is a practical preventive-care strategy alongside a thoughtful vaccination protocol against local pathogens and solid biosecurity protocols. Altogether, they improve poultry health, enhance immunocompetence, and support disease resilience in a sustainable and welfare-friendly way while improving flock performance outcomes and reducing the reliance on antibiotics.

p. 43

Hatcheries

Breeders

Equipment

www.azainternational.it

Equipment

Internet guide Agritech commerce@agritech.it www.agritech.it

FierAvicola info@fieravicola.com www.fieravicola.com

Prinzen B.V. info@prinzen.com www.prinzen.com

Arion Fasoli info@arionfasoli.com www.arionfasoli.com

Gasolec sales@gasolec.com www.gasolec.com

Prosol S.p.A. prosol@prosol-spa.it www.prosol-spa.it

Aviagen info@aviagen.com www.aviagen.com

Giordano Global info@giordanoglobal.com www.giordanoglobal.com

Reventa info.reventa@munters.de www.reventa.de

Aviagen Turkeys Ltd turkeysltd@aviagen.com www.aviagenturkeys.com

Hendrix Genetics info@hendrix-genetics.com www.hendrix-genetics.com

Royal Pas Reform info@pasreform.com www.pasreform.com

Aza International info@azainternational.it www.azainternational.it

Hubbard contact.emea@hubbardbreeders.com www.hubbardbreeders.com

Roxell info@roxell.com www.roxell.com

BAADER Poultry Holding bph@baader.com www.baader.com/poultry

Hy-Line International info@hyline.com www.hyline.com

Barbieri Belts info@barbieri-belts.com www.barbieribelts.com

Impex Barneveld BV info@impex.nl www.impex.nl

Big Dutchman big@bigdutchman.com www.bigdutchman.de

Intracare info@intracare.nl www.intracare.nl

Biochem info@biochem.net www.biochem.net

Jamesway sales@jamesway.com www.jamesway.com

Carfed International Ltd carfed@carfed.co.uk

Lubing System info@lubing.it www.lubingsystem.com

Carfed Italian Branch carfed@carfed.it www.carfed.it Cobb Europe info@cobb-europe.com www.cobb-vantress.com Codaf info@codaf.net www.codaf.net Corti Zootecnici S.r.l. info@cortizootecnici.com www.cortizootecnici.it DACS mail@dacs.dk www.dacs.dk EuroTier eurotier@dlg.org www.eurotier.com Facco Poultry Equipment facco@facco.net www.facco.net

Marel Poultry info.poultry@marel.com www.marel.com/en/poultry Mbe Breeding Equipment info@mbefabriano.it www.mbefabriano.it Menci commerciale@menci.it www.menci.it Meyn sales@meyn.com www.meyn.com MOBA sales@moba.net www.moba.net MS Technologies info@mstegg.com www.mstegg.com Newpharm info@newpharm.it www.newpharm.it

FIEM fiem@fiem.it www.fiem.it

Officine Meccaniche Vettorello luciano@officinevettorello.it www.officinevettorello.com

FierAgricola Verona fieragricola@veronafiere.it www.fieragricola.it

Petersime N.V. info@petersime.com www.petersime.com

Ska ska@ska.it www.skapoultryequipment.com Space info@space.fr www.space.fr Sperotto S.p.A. info@sperotto-spa.com www.sperotto-spa.com Te So Ten Elsen GmbH&Co. KG info@specht-germany.com www.specht-germany.com TPI-Polytechniek info@tpi-polytechniek.com www.tpi-polytechniek.com Val-co intl.sales@val-co.com www.val-co.com

Publisher Administration and Editorial Office Zootecnica di Marianna Caterino Via del Forestello n. 8 50063 Figline Incisa Valdarno (FI) Italy VAT number IT 07439250486 Subscription Each copy 10,00 € (1 year / 11 issues): Print Subscription € 99,00 Digital Subscription € 49,00 Print + Digital € 109,00 To subscribe online by credit card, visit: zootecnicainternational.com/ subscription If you prefer choosing other methods of payment please send an e-mail to: subscription@zootecnica.it Stay connected with us and follow us on social media: Linkedin

Valli info@valli-italy.com www.valli-italy.com VDL Agrotech info@vdlagrotech.nl www.vdlagrotech.com

Facebook

VDL Jansen info@vdljansen.com www.vdljansen.com Vencomatic Group B.V. info@vencomaticgroup.com www.vencomaticgroup.com Victoria victoria@victoria-srl.com www.incubatricivictoria.com

VIV Europe viv.europe@vnuexhibitions.com www.viveurope.nl VIV worldwide www.www.viv.net

English edition Year II • September 2026

Edizione italiana Anno XXXIV • Dicembre 2023