According to the report, the market is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 5.8% over the 2026–2035 period. Within this market, the poultry hatchery segment accounts for around 22% of global demand, making it one of the largest application segments in the market alongside biopharmaceutical and laboratory uses.

Hatchery modernization in emerging regions

The report highlights that the poultry sector is benefiting from the modernization of hatchery operations in developing regions, particularly in Asia-Pacific, Africa and Latin America. Producers are increasingly replacing traditional systems with large-scale automated incubators designed to improve hatch rates and operational management.

Technologies shaping the poultry hatchery market

Among the main technologies driving demand in the poultry hatchery segment are:

• IoT-enabled monitoring systems for real-time control of temperature, humidity, CO₂ levels and egg turning;
• energy-efficient incubator designs aimed at reducing operating costs;
• integration of automated in-ovo vaccination systems;
• advanced biosecurity solutions, including HEPA filtration, controlled airflow management and automated disinfection systems.

The report also points to a growing adoption of remote monitoring systems and predictive maintenance services across the industrial incubators market.

Biosecurity and antibiotic-free production

According to the analysis, increasing attention toward antibiotic-free production is contributing to stronger demand for incubation systems offering more precise environmental control and reduced risks of cross-contamination.

Although the report is mainly focused on biotech and laboratory equipment markets, the poultry hatchery segment is identified as one of the most dynamic application areas in regions where poultry production capacity is expanding.

Outlook to 2035

IndexBox expects the industrial incubators market to continue expanding over the coming years, driven by automation, digitalization and tighter process control requirements.

In the poultry sector, these technologies could help improve hatch rates, chick quality and process traceability, while also supporting higher standards of energy efficiency and biosecurity in modern hatcheries.

Source: IndexBox – Industrial Incubators Market Forecast Points Higher Toward 2035, Driven by Biopharma Expansion and R&D Intensification

Ionophores, feed additives that are classed as antibiotics and produced via fermentation, have been commercially available since the early 1970s. They remain the industry’s most common option for controlling coccidiosis.

Two facets of cocci control, two options for farmers

Ionophores work by modifying the cell walls of the Eimeria protozoans that cause the disease. This means that while water can get into cells, it can’t get out, ultimately killing the parasites. Not all of them are killed, however, and it is this “leakage” that allows birds to develop immunity naturally.

“It’s kind of a two-part control program. It’s long-term immunity, and [in the] short term, we’re controlling the oocysts. And the test is during that critical time during early grow out,” Steven Clark, DVM, Huvepharma’s veterinary technical services manager, explained during an appearance on the Iowa Turkey Federation’s Turkey Talkshow podcast.

There are only two ionophores available for commercial use in turkey flocks: monensin and lasalocid. Ionophores are fed through the whole life cycle of turkeys, but more commonly their use lasts from day 1 until the birds are between 8 and 12 weeks old.

Dose is always critical, but the drugs can have differing impacts under varying environmental conditions, influencing when they are used.

Different weather, different ionophore?

Monensin was singled out by Terry Olson, DVM, an Iowa turkey veterinarian who joined Clark on the podcast to share his experiences using ionophores with clients. He noted that although the drug can have great efficacy, in hot weather, using sulphonamides as well as monensin can be a “terrible triad” that can cause paralysis in turkeys. This becomes evident when fully alert birds are trying to pull themselves along by their wings.

“We need to be very careful about using some of these products during hot weather, because they can be toxic,” he added.

Clark pointed to producers using monensin when they have challenges keeping dry litter in the wintertime and shifting to lasalocid in the summer. He also noted the importance of paying attention to multiple factors in the field and adapting management accordingly.

“[In hot weather], we need to make sure that we have the right dose, [usually a low level], or we’re not using a sulpha drug,” he explained.

“When we’re moving birds, we need to be considerate of how long the birds are off feed and water, whether they’re going to gorge or if they’re going to have good access to water when they get moved, because all those things can combine into a situation where we might get knockdown [syndrome].”

Producers can also do their best to control the turkey house environment by ensuring water is available at the right height for birds and ensuring ventilation systems are working optimally.

A matter of rotation

Beyond making choices to avoid adverse reactions under certain conditions, rotating the two ionophores available is key to preserving their efficacy, the experts agreed.

Usually, signs of resistance will come in the form of reduced levels of control, and producers will make their own judgments about how their current program is performing, Olson noted. Although the option is there to conduct wider sensitivity trials with coccidia isolates, this is “not commonly done,” he said.

With sufficient attention to detail and timely rotations, substandard outcomes can be avoided, Clark added. However, he emphasized that in conventional turkey production, where they are used, ionophores should not be considered alone, but as part of a broader coccidiosis control program. This includes chemical anticoccidials and vaccines.

“We’re going to pick the best time when we’re going to focus on using ionophores in the correct dose and duration, then we’re going to include a chemical for rotation, and then some of us are going to include vaccination in our program. After that, we can come right back around again,” he said.

Farmer-veterinarian connection key

To ensure that programs continue working successfully, Olson highlighted the importance of communication between farmers and veterinarians.

“The feedback is critical. Anytime that turkey producers are doing their daily chores, they should note anything that’s unusual and specific to cocci control and report back to the veterinarian,” he said.

“That could be some depression, pulling off water or some loose droppings. Sometimes we see reddish-orange droppings, but anything unusual should be reported [so it] can be investigated.”

Managing birds’ vulnerabilities

Typically, coccidiosis is observed causing effects in the brooder house when birds are between 3 and 4 weeks of age, Clark said, which is a vulnerable time for birds, particularly with immunosuppressive pathogens like avian metapneumovirus appearing with greater frequency in the US.

“Now it is even more critical than ever that we must have the right program at the right time,” he added. “We’re all trying to define and fine-tune these comprehensive programs now so that we have the best immune response, the minimal reaction and the least disease in the flock during this time.”

To listen to the full episode, visit the Turkey Talkshow podcast website or scan the QR code:

The post Getting the most out of ionophores, the turkey industry’s enduring tool against coccidiosis appeared first on Modern Poultry.

This issue includes a report on the outlook for the Chinese poultry sector, an analysis of slow-growing broiler production in Europe, and the first part of a feature on the role of the G20 in global meat production and trade.

Other topics include litter moisture management, hot weather management for commercial flocks, feeding techniques, laying hen welfare and production efficiency, and a veterinary update on Newcastle disease virus evolution and control strategies.

The issue also includes industry news, market updates, upcoming events, and online resources for poultry professionals.

📖 Read the digital edition below.

📥 The complete magazine is also available for PDF download.

The global feed-to-food industry converges on Utrecht for three days of innovation, conversation, and discovery.

VIV Europe 2026, the World Expo from Feed to Food, opens its doors on 2–4 June at Royal Dutch Jaarbeurs in Utrecht, The Netherlands. For 25 editions, it has been the place where the industry’s most consequential decisions begin: where suppliers meet producers, science meets practice, and the future of global food production takes shape. This year’s theme, “Showroom of the World”, says it plainly: every technology, solution, and conversation that matters to the industry right now will be represented across every link in the global feed-to-food chain.

Spanning poultry, pig meat, dairy, aquaculture, eggs, feed systems, and digital farm management, VIV Europe 2026 addresses the most critical forces reshaping global food production. Four strategic pillars anchor this year’s program: the protein transition and sustainable protein sources; digitalization, AI and robotics in farm operations; animal health and welfare; and climate-smart agriculture. From 2026, the event moves to a biennial cycle, providing the sector with a consistent rhythm to engage with the world’s most advanced suppliers and thought leaders.

“Twenty-five editions only happen because of the people who show up. VIV Europe is where the industry comes to see what’s next: new technologies, new solutions, new connections. The energy and ambition this year have never been greater,” says Natalie Taylor, Project Manager, VIV Europe.

HRH Prince Carlos of Bourbon de Parme to address opening ceremony

VIV Europe 2026 will be marked by a royal milestone as HRH Prince Carlos of Bourbon de Parme attends and speaks at the Opening Ceremony on 2 June. His Royal Highness will address the future of sustainable food production, innovation, and resilience, with a particular focus on the growing role of cities in shaping tomorrow’s food systems.

The appearance marks a significant moment for the event’s 25th edition, underscoring the global relevance of the conversations taking place on the VIV Europe floor and the urgency of the challenges the industry is being asked to meet.

Over 70 conference sessions tackle the industry’s defining challenges

Alongside one of the most extensive exhibition floors in the event’s history, VIV Europe 2026 presents a richly layered conference program of more than 70 sessions across three days. Topics range from AI-driven farm management and smart feedmill automation to antimicrobial resistance, and international trade dynamics. Knowledge partners include Wageningen University & Research, Rabobank, the World Poultry Science Association (WPSA), the World Veterinary Poultry Association (WVPA), and the Netherlands African Business Council (NABC), among others.

The program also features the official launch of the Poultry Forward Kazakhstan initiative by the Dutch Poultry Centre, a significant new Dutch-Kazakh industry collaboration, and a dedicated multi-day strand, Cities Leading Food Production, positioning urban communities as active drivers of food system change.

Registration is still ongoing

Visitors are encouraged to register in advance at europe.viv.net/registration to secure their pass ahead of the show. Registered visitors can proceed directly to the Scan and Print counters on arrival at Jaarbeurs, bypassing on-site registration queues for a faster, more seamless entry experience.

Registered visitors also gain access to VISIT Discover, the event’s dedicated platform where attendees can browse the full conference program, bookmark sessions of interest, and sign up for talks ahead of the show, ensuring they make the most of every day on the floor. Access VISIT Discover at viv-europe-2026.discover.visitcloud.com/visitor. Download the Show Preview here.

Source: Viv press release

The states listed by APHIS are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.

According to APHIS, only poultry products produced on or after 15 May 2026 are eligible for export to China from these states.

China had previously restricted raw poultry imports from U.S. states affected by HPAI outbreaks. Under the 2020 Regionalization Agreement between the two countries, restrictions are meant to be lifted at state level 90 days after cleaning and disinfection procedures are completed.

Industry reports stated that China had not been abiding by that provision in recent years. It has now been reported that APHIS confirmed China agreed to resume implementation of the terms of the 2020 Regionalization Agreement.

Under that framework, APHIS may submit state closeout reports 90 days after cleaning and disinfection are completed. China then has five days to review the reports and lift restrictions where applicable.

Despite the latest update, APHIS indicated that 27 U.S. states remain under poultry export restrictions related to HPAI.

Several major broiler-producing states, including Georgia, Mississippi and Missouri, have recently reached the 90-day post-cleaning and disinfection milestone. According to industry reports, APHIS closeout reports for those states could be expected soon.

The National Chicken Council described the reinstatement of the regionalization framework as a significant development for U.S. poultry exports. NCC President Harrison Kircher stated that China remains an important market for U.S. chicken products, particularly chicken paws, and said restoration of access would have a meaningful impact on export volumes of U.S. chicken.

Source: www.nationalchickencouncil.org

Over many decades, the US poultry industry has been at the forefront of productivity and disease prevention and control. Many poultry pathogens that circulate routinely in other global regions have been kept out of the continental US until recently.

Over the last 20 years, though, the US has lost some ground in productivity and in disease prevention and control. Productivity in broiler breeders has decreased substantially to the point that the cost per hatching egg and chick is now much higher than it was only 10 to 15 years ago. Additionally, hatchability in the US is extremely low compared to many other countries in the same continent.

Broiler production efficiency has also suffered since the implementation of ‘no antibiotic ever’ production, but the efforts to add value to processed broiler meat at further processing plants have helped keep the industry viable. Productivity and livability in commercial egg layers are at an all-time high, but the frequent incursions of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) have created very significant market disruptions in the egg industry, not to mention the heavy losses in the national hen inventory.

The turkey industry has certainly also been affected by HPAI. In addition, some diseases that were absent in the past are now causing economic losses to breeder, broiler, layer and turkey operations.

Emerging poultry health challenges

HPAI has been, and remains, without a doubt, the most important health problem for the poultry industry in dozens of countries, including the US, over the last 20 to 25 years. Stamping-out strategies against HPAI are less effective than they once were. Countries that have implemented vaccination along with enhanced biosecurity and surveillance have been able to secure their food production in a more predictable manner. The US, however, remains a country that insists on stamping out without vaccination.

Additional health issues that were never a problem in the US, or that had not been a problem for decades and have reemerged, include those listed below:

• Occasional incursions of virulent Newcastle disease (vNDV)
• Avian metapneumovirus (aMPV) subtypes A and B (aMPV-A, aMPV-B)
• Infectious coryza
• Variant avian reovirus
• Inclusion body hepatitis
• Variant infectious bronchitis viruses
• New genotypes of infectious laryngotracheitis virus
• Egg drop syndrome 76
• Spotty liver disease in brown layers (Campylobacter hepaticus)
• Erysipelas (Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae) in free-range chickens
• Focal duodenal necrosis in layers
• Various myopathies in broiler chickens and other diseases

Double-edged sword

The more powerful the detection tools, the easier it becomes to find pathogens that we were not aware of. Some of the most recent molecular diagnostic tools available to research and diagnostic laboratories are extremely effective at identifying pathogens, commensal microorganisms and viruses.

The advent of these tools, though, exposes a significant disadvantage: The expertise we once had to use classical microbiological methodologies to manage pathogens such as infectious coryza or fowl cholera is almost lost. The tools are excellent, fast and effective, but we are forgetting how to isolate and characterize microorganisms that often cannot be characterized easily using molecular tools.

Future of poultry diagnostics, research

The role of research and diagnostic laboratories at academic institutions, state diagnostic and surveillance laboratories and private industry laboratories is rapidly being reshaped. For example, the vaccine industry is now pushing hard to provide diagnostic services as part of their service package, often at the expense of the clinical sample volumes that used to be directed to academic and independent laboratories.

Additionally, it is quite possible that the independent epidemiological surveillance expertise will gradually be reduced and concentrated in private businesses. Also, various integrators aim to have their own laboratories for routine serology, bacteriology and quality programs.

Perhaps only the laboratories conducting official surveillance of disease agents such as vNDV, HPAI, non-motile Salmonella, Salmonella Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, Mycoplasma gallisepticum and M. synoviae will remain relatively intact for this specific function. It is my hope that basic and applied research of poultry pathogens and diseases will continue at academic institutions and agricultural stations.

Why the emergence?

Nobody can claim to have a real explanation for the emergence or reemergence of new pathogens and diseases. However, there are some risk factors that cannot and should not be ignored.

For example, egg-layer production complexes are typically designed for efficiency but rarely for disease prevention and control. Also, large-capacity farms are a significant risk that needs consideration before constructing future poultry facilities. Multi-age farms that can house millions of chickens can pose a real challenge and, in a way, are not conducive to effective disease prevention and control.

Production pressure in any type of poultry production should be regarded as a risk factor. Long ago, the broiler industry understood that a very short downtime and high bird density are not compatible with disease control.

Farm density is another issue in some areas where infectious diseases tend to recur. If possible, new farms should be isolated as much as possible.

Continuing education on biosecurity at all levels of any company is critical for disease control. There is certainly an opportunity at all poultry companies to optimize biosecurity awareness.

Preventing, controlling new health problems

Biosecurity, disease surveillance, rapid diagnosis and response, and coordinated collaboration among diagnostic laboratories, allied industry and the poultry industry are essential.

As vaccine and poultry industry laboratories take on a substantial share of surveillance and diagnostic work from the independent laboratories, there will be a gap in epidemiological knowledge and reporting and a partial loss of awareness. It is important that the usual lines of communication are not lost.

It is concerning that the expertise in some fields is being lost or has simply been lost. In particular, if the US breeding industry suffers renewed problems caused by tumor viruses, there will be virtually no one to assist because the expertise and the support are disappearing. There is virtually no one left to work on avian leukosis viruses, and very few scientists work on Marek’s disease or reticuloendotheliosis viruses.

When the experts in classical bacteriological and virological methods retire, all that will be left are powerful molecular tools but little knowledge or criteria on how to apply the results. A classic example is next-generation sequencing (or deep sequencing), a very promising approach in metagenomics. When this exquisite technique is applied to clinical samples, the results are difficult to interpret, explain and use, even for the laboratory that generated them.

The US needs to retain agility to respond to unexpected poultry health challenges. A good example is aMPV: Neither the expertise nor the vaccines were there when aMPV surfaced in the US. Certainly, the response was eventually productive and very positive, but it took longer than it should have. Meanwhile, many other countries had already been vaccinating effectively against aMPV-A and aMPV-B for decades, and aMPV is generally a non-issue elsewhere.

The debate about vaccination against HPAI in the US is still very much alive, while other countries have gained vast experience with vaccines and vaccination and have not had the production disruptions that the US and the EU have experienced.

What I have mentioned in this article only touches the surface of what to consider regarding the very complex subject of attempting to prevent and control future health problems in the poultry industry.

Final thoughts

The vast resources, knowledge and experience the US poultry industry has accumulated over decades have equipped us with the necessary tools to confront any challenge, no matter how large. Younger generations must make every possible attempt to understand and identify potential health problems and apply an effective holistic approach to optimize the early detection, prevention and control of poultry pathogens that can threaten the US poultry industry and the US food supply.

Moving forward, as the research, surveillance and diagnostic laboratory work are being reshaped, it will be critical to maintain active and effective lines of communication between academia, government, industry, and private and independent laboratories if we want to stay on top of epidemiological issues as an industry.

The post Zavala: Scratching the surface of emerging poultry health challenges appeared first on Modern Poultry.

The Kazakhstan poultry industry is growing rapidly and becoming one of the strongest livestock sectors in Central Asia. Over the last few years, Kazakhstan poultry production has increased significantly through government investment, expansion of commercial poultry farms and modernization of the poultry sector.

Today the poultry market in Kazakhstan is attracting global attention because of its rising broiler meat production, strong egg industry and growing export opportunities. Kazakhstan is now moving steadily toward poultry self-sufficiency while also preparing to become a competitive poultry exporter in the international market.

According to recent industry reports, Kazakhstan now fulfills around 80% of its domestic broiler meat demand through local poultry production. At the same time, the country has already achieved full self-sufficiency in table egg production. This rapid growth shows the strong potential of the Kazakhstan poultry industry in the coming years.

Kazakhstan broiler meat production growing rapidly

Kazakhstan broiler meat production has increased strongly during the last five years. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, local poultry farms now supply nearly 80% of domestic chicken meat demand. In 2022 the figure was only around 67%, which shows how fast the poultry industry in Kazakhstan is expanding. The government aims to achieve full self-sufficiency in poultry meat production by 2027.

During the first ten months of 2025, Kazakhstan poultry meat production exceeded 360,000 tons. Large industrial poultry farms produced almost 350,000 tons of this volume.

Kazakhstan’s poultry population has also increased steadily. Recent reports show that the country now has nearly 49 million poultry birds.

Per capita poultry meat consumption in Kazakhstan continues to rise because consumers prefer chicken meat as an affordable and healthy animal protein source. Industry experts believe per capita broiler meat consumption will continue increasing as poultry products become more available in local markets.

Kazakhstan egg production fully meets domestic demand

Kazakhstan egg production has achieved full domestic self-sufficiency. The country currently produces around 4.5 billion eggs annually, which completely fulfills local table egg demand.

The egg industry in Kazakhstan is highly commercialized and technologically advanced. More than 80% of poultry production comes from large industrial poultry farms with better biosecurity, modern housing systems and improved management practices.

At present, Kazakhstan has around 43 commercial poultry and egg farms, 36 broiler meat enterprises and several breeder farms supporting poultry production growth.

Government support accelerating Kazakhstan poultry industry growth

Government support is one of the biggest reasons behind the rapid growth of the Kazakhstan poultry industry. The Kazakhstan government considers poultry farming a strategic sector for food security, agricultural development and import reduction.

Since 2022, Kazakhstan has brought 14 new poultry farms into commercial operation with a combined annual production capacity of about 144,000 tons of poultry meat.

The government is also encouraging modernization and expansion of existing poultry farms. According to the Union of Poultry Farmers of Kazakhstan, many poultry enterprises still have unused production capacity and can increase output by nearly 30% through modernization and better operational efficiency.

The Kazakhstan government is also investing KZT 2.3 trillion (approximately USD 4.3 billion) into 780 agricultural projects by 2027. The investment program focuses heavily on agricultural infrastructure, food processing facilities and modernization of production systems. This large-scale investment is expected to strengthen the poultry industry through improved feed production, better logistics, modern processing plants and advanced farming technologies.

To support poultry farm investment, the government is offering subsidized agricultural soft loans with only 5% interest rate. This financial support is helping poultry companies invest in new broiler farms, hatcheries, feed mills and processing facilities.

Kazakhstan has also approved a long-term livestock development strategy for 2026–2030 focusing on poultry production growth, export development and higher agricultural productivity.

Leading poultry companies in Kazakhstan

Several major poultry companies are leading the modernization and expansion of the Kazakhstan poultry sector.

Leading poultry companies include:

• Aitas KZ
• ALEL Agro
• Ust-Kamenogorsk Poultry Farm
• Alsad Kazakhstan

These poultry companies have invested heavily in modern poultry houses, hatcheries, feed production systems, slaughtering facilities and poultry processing plants. They are playing an important role in increasing domestic poultry meat production and reducing dependence on imported chicken meat.

Kazakhstan poultry export potential expanding

Kazakhstan poultry exports are also increasing as the country strengthens its production capacity and improves international trade access.

One of the biggest achievements came in 2025 when Kazakhstan officially signed a poultry meat export protocol with China. This agreement opened the Chinese market for Kazakhstan poultry meat exports.

The government is also working to expand poultry exports to other international markets including neighboring Asian countries and the European Union.

Industry analysts believe Kazakhstan has strong export potential because of its strategic geographic location between Europe and Asia and its rapidly increasing poultry production capacity.

Challenges facing the Kazakhstan poultry industry

Despite rapid progress, several challenges still affect the poultry industry in Kazakhstan.

High feed costs

Feed remains one of the largest production expenses in poultry farming. Rising grain and feed ingredient prices directly increase broiler and egg production costs.

Expensive logistics and transportation

Kazakhstan is geographically very large which increases transportation and logistics expenses for poultry feed, equipment and finished poultry products.

Limited access to modern poultry equipment

Some poultry farms still face difficulties accessing advanced poultry equipment, automation systems and modern poultry technologies. Continued modernization will be important for improving efficiency and international competitiveness.

Competition from imported poultry meat

Imported chicken meat continues to compete strongly in the domestic market. Local poultry producers must continue improving productivity and cost efficiency to remain competitive.

Future potential of the Kazakhstan poultry market

The future of the Kazakhstan poultry market looks highly promising. Government investment, industrial poultry farm expansion, increasing poultry consumption and export opportunities are creating strong momentum for long-term growth.

Kazakhstan aims to become fully self-sufficient in poultry meat production by 2027 while significantly expanding poultry exports by 2030.

The Union of Poultry Farmers of Kazakhstan believes that continued modernization and expansion will help the country become more competitive in the global poultry market.

Industry experts believe Kazakhstan has the potential to become one of the leading poultry producers in Central Asia because of its large agricultural resources, government support and growing industrial poultry sector.

Conclusion

The Kazakhstan poultry industry is entering a new phase of rapid growth and modernization. Strong government policies, investment in commercial poultry farms, soft agricultural loans and expansion of poultry production capacity are helping the country move closer to full poultry self-sufficiency.

Kazakhstan has already achieved complete domestic supply of table eggs and now fulfills nearly 80% of domestic broiler meat demand through local poultry production. The country’s long-term development plans for 2027 and 2030 clearly show its ambition to become a major poultry producer and exporter in the regional and global market.

The opening of poultry meat exports to China, establishment of new poultry farms and modernization of leading poultry companies such as Aitas KZ and ALEL Agro are creating strong positive momentum for the industry.

Although challenges such as high feed costs, logistics expenses and limited access to advanced technology still exist, the future of the Kazakhstan poultry sector remains highly promising.

For the global poultry industry, Kazakhstan’s rapid poultry production growth is positive news. Increased broiler meat and egg production can help strengthen global food security and improve the supply of affordable animal protein for consumers worldwide.

Kazakhstan is no longer only an emerging poultry producer. The country is steadily becoming a competitive and important player in the global poultry market.

References and sources

1. World Energy Article
2. Inform.kz Poultry Production Report
3. Tridge Kazakhstan Poultry Industry Overview
4. EconomyKZ Poultry Sector Analysis
5. Eurasian Star Poultry Export News
6. KT.kz Livestock Development Plan 2030

The measure comes at a time when avian influenza has become a recurring challenge in both Italy and across Europe. In recent years, outbreaks have had significant economic consequences for the poultry industry, not only because of compulsory culling measures but also due to trade restrictions applied to poultry and poultry products.

According to the Ministry’s plan, vaccination is considered one of the preventive tools to be integrated with biosecurity and flock management measures. The objective of the project is to collect data useful for evaluating the operational feasibility of a wider vaccination strategy.

Farms involved in the project

The pilot programme will involve:

• three broiler turkey farms in the province of Verona;
• two laying hen farms in the province of Mantua.

These areas were selected because they are considered among the Italian territories at higher risk for avian influenza.

Vaccinated birds will be managed within a closed and controlled production chain. The movement of vaccinated birds to farms not included in the project will not be permitted, except under specific derogations authorised by the competent veterinary authorities. Products originating from the participating farms may only be marketed on the domestic market.

Vaccination protocol

The protocol involves two vaccine doses.

For turkeys:

• a first vaccination at the hatchery on day one using a recombinant HVT-H5 vaccine;
• a booster vaccination with an inactivated vaccine between 30 and 36 days of age.

For pullets:

• a first vaccination at the hatchery on day one;
• a booster between 10 and 12 weeks of age.

The system adopted is compatible with the DIVA strategy (Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals), which allows differentiation between vaccinated and potentially infected birds through specific serological and virological testing. This aspect is considered essential both for disease management and for future international trade relations.

Traceability and enhanced surveillance

The programme includes a particularly strict traceability system.

All vaccination procedures must be recorded within the national veterinary information systems, including:

• REV (Electronic Veterinary Prescription system),
• BDN,
• SINVSA.

Each vaccinated batch will be identified and monitored throughout the entire production chain, from the hatchery to the farm and, in the case of turkeys, through to slaughter.

Enhanced health surveillance is also planned. Participating farms will undergo:

• regular clinical inspections,
• monitoring of production parameters,
• virological sampling,
• serological testing to assess both possible viral circulation and vaccination coverage.

Monitoring activities will be carried out at least monthly under the supervision of the official veterinary services and the National Reference Centre for Avian Influenza at the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie.

Staff training and biosecurity

The plan also includes detailed operational guidelines for vaccine management. Companies involved will be required to appoint dedicated vaccination teams and ensure specific training for personnel involved in the programme.

Particular attention is given to the correct storage of vaccines, hatchery procedures, and biosecurity measures during vaccine administration.

The Ministry also stresses that vaccination does not replace existing preventive measures. Biosecurity, surveillance, and movement controls remain essential elements in the containment of avian influenza.

A commercial test as well

In addition to its animal health objectives, the project will also serve to assess the possible commercial implications of vaccination and the requirements of importing countries.

The Ministry’s plan refers to the need to understand in advance the conditions that export markets may require should vaccination be implemented more broadly within the poultry sector.

The project is also expected to provide indications on the organisational and commercial impact that a wider vaccination programme could have on the Italian poultry industry.

The European broiler production sector stands at a crossroads. On one hand, growing demand for animal protein drives the need for efficiency; on the other, regulatory and consumer pressure for a shift toward more sustainable practices and higher animal welfare standards. Against this backdrop, slow-growing broiler breeds represent a promising alternative, provided they are applied within large-scale, sustainable models that balance economic implications with strategies to reduce environmental impact. The sector’s success will depend on integrating science, market, and communication.

Innovation and new challenges for the European poultry chain

Today the European broiler production sector stands at a crossroads. On one hand, growing demand for animal protein continues to drive the need for efficiency; on the other, regulatory and consumer pressure for a shift toward more sustainable practices and animal-friendly approaches. In Italy, as in many other European countries, conventional intensive farming systems are often associated with high resource use and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as concerns about animal welfare and meat quality. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that broiler production systems are among the least impactful within livestock production in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (de Vries & de Boer, 2010; Poore & Nemecek, 2018), although they contribute significantly to nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, which may lead to acidification and eutrophication. Within the European Union, poultry and pig production systems are estimated to account for approximately 85% of total ammonia emissions.

Against this backdrop, it is essential to identify strategies that can reduce environmental impact, improve animal welfare, and meet consumer demands. Slow-growing chicken breeds represent a promising alternative. Although they require longer production cycles, they offer significant benefits in terms of animal welfare and meat quality, while also presenting new challenges in resource management.

The European thematic network BroilerNet

The BroilerNet thematic network for innovation in broiler production (https://broilernet.eu) brings together farmers, researchers, veterinarians, and advisors from 13 European countries. Funded by the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, the initiative aims to enhance the resilience and sustainability of the European broiler sector by creating a platform where science and practice can interact, fostering the co-creation of ready-to-use innovative best practices for broiler farms across Europe. Italian partners in the project include CRPA in Reggio Emilia (leader of the work package on environmental sustainability) and Unaitalia.

BroilerNet has identified and assessed the feasibility of innovative best practices and ready-to-apply research solutions addressing the most urgent innovation needs in three key areas: environmental sustainability, animal welfare, and health management. The use of slow-growing broiler breeds emerged as one of the poultry sector’s main challenges, a finding also confirmed through consultations with breeder associations in the BroilerNet partner countries. The use of such breeds is required under European organic production rules and recommended in free-range farming.

Ingrid de Jong and Jamie Kater of Wageningen Livestock Research organised a BroilerNet workshop on the topic of slow-growing breeds on November 15, 2024, in Hannover (Germany), during the international EuroTier fair. The event served as an important forum for discussion among researchers, farmers, and industry stakeholders, with the aim of identifying key innovation needs and sharing best practices to support the sustainability of production systems based on slower-growing chicken strains.

Several priority needs emerged from the workshop. These included the need to define a clear maximum growth rate, establish shared metrics to assess animal welfare benefits associated with different genetic lines, and develop common tools and indicators for comparing the sustainability of various production systems. Participants also underscored the importance of reliable auditing procedures to certify slow-growing poultry systems.

Another central issue concerned the design of environmental enrichments and outdoor spaces, such as verandas or “winter gardens”, for organic and free-range farms, as well as the optimization of ventilation and heating in low-density housing. Participants also emphasised the need for vaccination programmes tailored to slow-growing breeds, together with strengthened biosecurity measures, which must be maintained for longer periods in outdoor systems where there is a higher risk of contact with wild birds or predators.

From a nutritional standpoint, it was reiterated that slow-growing breeds require specific feeding programmes that ensure gradual yet consistent growth while safeguarding bone, muscle, and immune health. From a management and economic perspective, participants identified financial uncertainty, investment risks, and competition from imported meat as key barriers to the large-scale adoption of these production systems.

Communication with consumers also emerged as a crucial factor. Participants expressed the need to educate the public on the sustainability attributes and ethical values associated with poultry meat from slow-growing breeds, using supply chain data to enhance product value and differentiate it from conventional production.

To address the most pressing challenges, the workshop proposed several best practices, including increased investment in staff training and capacity building in animal welfare, biosecurity, and management of birds in alternative systems. Economically, the group suggested developing fairer value chain agreements to distribute margins more evenly, alongside adopting cost-reduction strategies such as using alternative feed ingredients or producing raw materials on-farm, solutions that could also improve the overall environmental footprint of poultry farms.

European Chicken Commitment: higher welfare standards

In parallel with the research and experimental activities promoted by BroilerNet, market players and civil society organisations are also driving change in the sector. The European Chicken Commitment (ECC), an initiative launched by more than 30 animal protection organisations and endorsed by over 300 retailers and food companies (source: Chicken Watch), plays a key role.

The ECC has introduced farming standards that go beyond the minimum requirements laid down in European legislation, including the use of slow-growing breeds, increased space allowances, access to natural light, environmental enrichment and more welfare-oriented slaughter methods. Slow-growing breeds reduce common health issues seen in conventional genetic lines, such as skeletal deformities and lameness, and support the expression of natural behaviours like foraging and dust bathing.

By contrast, fast-growing lines show higher post-mortem rejection rates due to “technopathies” such as ascites, discolouration, cellulitis, perihepatitis, and pectoral muscle myopathies (Barbut, 2020; Baxter et al., 2021; Rayner et al., 2020). Improving welfare can therefore also have positive effects on environmental impact by reducing mortality and carcass rejection at slaughter (Kyriazakis et al., 2024).

Pros and cons of slow-growing chickens

Slow-growing breeds offer clear advantages: enhanced animal welfare, fewer health issues, expression of natural behaviours, and superior organoleptic meat qualities. However, they require longer production cycles and greater resources to reach slaughter weight, resulting in increased feed and water consumption, as well as effluent production and nitrogen/phosphorus emissions.

From an economic perspective, higher costs translate into elevated retail prices, limiting adoption without market support or incentives. As reported by Sell-Kubiak et al. (2017), genetic selection for better feed efficiency in broilers has yielded benefits in faster growth, lower feed conversion ratio, and environmental sustainability through reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Progress requires more than general efficiency gains; understanding genes influencing nutrient utilisation is key. For example, selecting chickens with an improved capacity to digest wheat can cut solid droppings by up to 61%, liquid by 56%, nitrates by 13%, and phosphates by 30% (De Verdal et al., 2011).

The gut microbiota plays a pivotal role by recycling nitrogen through uric acid breakdown and converting ammonia into bacterial proteins, promoting sustainable nutrient use in poultry farming. Better insights into microbiota-host interactions could enhance feed digestion, further cutting waste and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental and economic impacts: ECC and WUR study results

Environmental assessments highlight the complexity of the issue. Several studies have produced variable results on the carbon footprint impact of slow-growing farming, depending on the methodological approach adopted.

A recent study commissioned by AVEC and conducted by the UK agriculture consultancy ADAS estimated that adopting ECC standards in European broiler systems would increase greenhouse gas emissions by 24.4%, rising from 6.68 to 8.31 kg CO₂e per kilogram of produced meat. This increase is largely due to the longer growth cycle of slow-growing chickens, higher feed consumption, and lower meat yield compared to conventional broilers. In other words, more time and resources are needed to produce the same amount of final product, raising emissions per kilogram of saleable product.

A more moderate estimate comes from Wageningen University & Research’s (WUR) Greenwell Project, which calculates an average emissions increase of about 6.3% compared to conventional broilers. In the Dutch model, higher-welfare systems show slightly lower feed efficiency, but the emissions rise is less pronounced than in the ECC study.

The difference between the two results largely depends on methodological differences. The ECC analysis measures impact per kilogram of saleable meat, including post-farming stages like slaughter and processing, and accounting for lower yields from slow-growing breeds. In contrast, WUR uses liveweight kilogram at slaughter as the reference, without post-slaughter losses.

From an economic standpoint, adopting ECC standards would significantly raise production costs, estimated by ADAS on behalf of AVEC (the EU umbrella association for national poultry sector representatives) at ~+37.5% per kilogram of meat versus conventional systems. Beyond this operational hike, maintaining current EU chicken production levels under ECC standards would require building about 10,000 new barns, with an estimated investment of €8.243 billion based on ~€420 per m² of production space.

Studies by Wageningen University & Research (WUR) under the Greenwell project confirm cost increases but at a lower level (+19% at farm level). However, the higher market value of products from higher-welfare systems can partially offset these costs, allowing farmers to maintain profitability levels comparable to those of conventional systems.

Conclusion

The future of broiler production in Europe will increasingly be shaped by consumer choices. A portion of these consumers is sensitive to sustainability issues but also to market prices, which remain one of the main purchase factors alongside taste and food safety (Ferrari, 2024).

Slow-growing broiler farming can offer a practical solution that balances animal welfare and meat quality. Achieving sustainability at scale requires an integrated approach that also addresses economic implications and strategies to mitigate environmental impact. Only by combining science, market dynamics, and effective communication can slow-growing poultry become a benchmark model for more ethical and sustainable food production in Europe.

ILT is a highly contagious respiratory disease in chickens. The ILT virus — a gallid herpesvirus — establishes latency within the host and can periodically reactivate in response to stress or immunosuppression.

ILT has two forms: a mild form, which typically shows morbidity rates of around 5% and mortality rates of 0.1% to 2.0%; and a severe form, which can exhibit morbidity rates as high as 100% and mortality rates ranging from 5% to 80%.

Although ILT is a global health concern in poultry production, Brazil’s Santa Catarina state had its first case in 2020 at a commercial layer farm in São Ludgero county. A team of Brazilian researchers conducted a two-part epidemiological study to determine the serological, molecular and pathological status of ILT in São Ludgero (Part 1, conducted in 2020) and all of Santa Catarina (Part 2, conducted in 2021). They described their findings in a recent edition of Poultry Science.

Serology results

The researchers noted that the seropositivity (94.74%) found in São Ludgero county in Part 1 was “alarmingly high” for a newly diagnosed disease. All poultry farmers reported that they exclusively acquired chickens of known origin, and the vaccination program in the region predominantly included fowl pox, Mycoplasma spp., infectious bronchitis, pneumovirus, infectious coryza and Salmonella spp.

The seropositivity rate dropped to 65.3% in the subsequent year for Part 2.

These results suggest the circulation of, and exposure to, the ILT virus within the region’s poultry flocks was consistent with what would be expected during the seroconversion period, but the exact timing of primary exposure could not be determined, the researchers noted.

Because of ILT’s status as an exotic disease in Santa Catarina, recombinant vaccines against ILT were not permitted until the first cases emerged, suggesting that the detection of anti-ILT antibodies in the São Ludgero region was associated with the circulation of virulent field strains or vaccine-derived strains from live-attenuated vaccines that underwent virulence reversion.

The researchers noted that while their study examined ILT exposure across layer flocks, it did not include a separate analysis of commercial and rearing flocks. ILT infection during the rearing phase leads to lifelong seropositivity, which compromises the ability to determine when and where the infection occurred. They pointed out that the dynamics of rearing flocks may play a crucial role in ILT’s spread.

Once infected, the chicken remains a lifelong carrier, with periodic reactivations leading to viral replication in respiratory tissues, especially after stress or immunosuppression. When clinical signs of ILT do appear, they are often nonspecific and can resemble those of other infectious respiratory diseases such as avian influenza, Newcastle disease, infectious bronchitis, infectious coryza and mycoplasmosis. The researchers pointed out that this highlights the importance of combining multiple laboratory diagnostic methods to confirm an ILT diagnosis.

Multivariate analysis confirmed that flock replacement with older chickens was a significant risk factor for ILT spread from the São Ludgero region to the rest of Santa Catarina state.

The researchers concluded that their study underscores the critical importance of implementing robust biosecurity measures in commercial layer farms. Because the introduction of 90-day-old chickens significantly increased the likelihood of ILT seropositivity, there should be particular attention paid to the type of replacement chickens introduced into flocks.

What does this mean for producers?

• Epidemiological surveys play a critical role in effectively controlling ILT and other respiratory diseases.
• Flock replacement with older chickens was a significant risk factor for ILT spread.
• Biosecurity measures are critical in preventing ILT outbreaks in commercial layer farms.

The full paper, “Two-year surveillance of infectious laryngotracheitis in layer farms from Southern Brazil: A seroepidemiological, molecular, and pathological approach,” can be found in Poultry Science and online here.

The post Epidemiology plays critical role in controlling ILT appeared first on Modern Poultry.

The approval by the United Arab Emirates opens a new stage for Paraguay’s poultry sector, which aims to position itself in high-value markets and diversify its exports beyond the region.

Paraguayan poultry meat has just taken one of its most significant steps in terms of market access. The National Service for Animal Quality and Health (Senacsa) confirmed the approval of the United Arab Emirates market for domestic poultry products, a development the sector views as a strategic gateway to the Middle East and a sign of growing international recognition of Paraguay’s production.

The announcement comes just weeks after another important milestone: the opening of Taiwan’s market to Paraguayan poultry meat, consolidating a commercial push toward Asia and the Middle East. For the industry, both destinations represent far more than new buyers—they offer the opportunity to reduce regional dependence, increase added value, and position Paraguay as a reliable supplier of animal protein in highly demanding markets.

Senacsa noted that the UAE approval is the result of sustained technical and diplomatic efforts to strengthen the international presence of Paraguayan animal products. This is no minor achievement: the UAE ranks among the leading importers of poultry meat in the Middle East, with purchases reaching approximately USD 1.3 billion in 2025.

The progress also reflects a quiet transformation within Paraguay’s poultry sector. For years, beef dominated the country’s export strategy, while poultry remained largely confined to the domestic market. However, increased industrial capacity, improved sanitary standards, and the opening of new destinations have begun to shift this dynamic. Today, Paraguay’s poultry industry aims to become the “third pillar” of meat exports, alongside beef and pork.

The figures point to gradual expansion, albeit with significant challenges still ahead. By the end of the first four months of 2026, Paraguay exported 4,148 tonnes of poultry meat, offal, and by-products worth around USD 4 million, marking a 21% increase in volume compared to the same period the previous year. Iraq currently leads as the main destination, followed by the Philippines, Angola, Singapore, and Curaçao.

According to the Paraguayan Poultry Farmers Association (Avipar), expectations are that new market openings will allow exports to exceed 15,000 tonnes in the coming years. The association’s vice president, Blanca Ceuppens, had already indicated months earlier that the sector is aggressively targeting Asia and the Middle East, particularly markets such as Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines, where demand for poultry protein is strong and sanitary standards are high.

However, behind the optimism lie structural challenges. The sector will need to compete with global giants such as Brazil and the United States, the world’s leading poultry exporters, while maintaining strict sanitary controls in an international context marked by recurring avian influenza alerts. Additional hurdles include tariff barriers, logistical costs, and the need to expand industrial capacity to meet the demands of larger-scale markets.

Even so, the opening of the United Arab Emirates market sends a strong signal for Paraguay’s agribusiness. The country is no longer focused solely on exporting traditional commodities but is working to diversify its meat portfolio and gain ground in premium markets. In a global scenario where food safety and traceability are increasingly critical, Paraguayan poultry meat is beginning to build an opportunity that, until a few years ago, seemed distant.

Source: https://elnacional.com.py/economia/carne-aviar-paraguaya-conquista-medio-oriente-acelera-expansion-internacional-n106096

According to the companies, Compass Group India has purchased around 4,000 cage-free credits through GFP’s Impact Incentives programme. According to GFP, each credit corresponds to 1,000 eggs, for a total of approximately four million eggs. The companies stated that the funds will support three Indian egg farms in expanding cage-free production capacity and related logistics infrastructure.

The companies said the initiative aims to address current limitations in local cage-free egg supply while supporting producers transitioning away from conventional cage systems.

In parallel, Compass Group India, through the Compass Group Foundation and with GFP as technical partner, has launched a cage-free and free-range training centre near Bangalore. The centre is intended to provide practical support to local farmers moving towards cage-free and free-range systems, including training on egg production management and farm sustainability.

Global Food Partners said the programme is designed to help food companies support cage-free production even when local supply chains are not yet fully developed. The organisation currently focuses on egg production projects in Asia and also operates in Europe, North America, Latin America and the Middle East.

Compass Group India is part of Compass Group PLC, an international provider of food and support services operating in sectors including workplace catering, education and healthcare.

According to GFP, other companies using the Impact Incentives model as part of their cage-free sourcing strategies include Kellanova, Best Western Hotels, Lagardère Travel Retail and PizzaExpress.

Research on turkeys is lacking

Turkeys and broiler chickens are two distinct animals with their own unique characteristics. Yet, research on broilers is often applied to commercial turkeys, which may lead to unexpected effects of management practices related to turkeys.

In addressing this topic at the 2025 Poultry Science Association annual meeting, Karen Schwean-Lardner, PhD, University of Saskatchewan, noted that research on turkeys has been sorely lacking. In a recent literature search she did regarding studies on turkeys and lighting, she found 20 to 30 papers that were published in the ‘90s, approximately 10 in the early 2000s, then very few since.

She posited four reasons for the dearth of research on turkeys: expense, difficulty, equipment needs and declining consumption in some areas of the world. Regarding expense, three broiler trials can be run in the time it takes to run one turkey trial; meanwhile, turkey poults are expensive, so if a bird dies, it’s not a cheap loss.

Running trials with turkeys is also more difficult than with broilers because turkeys are so big, strong and heavy. Since it is often difficult to find funding for loaders in small research trials, people may have to hand carry the 3,000 to 4,000 birds onto a truck, which their size and strength make challenging.

The third barrier is that turkeys require different equipment depending on their age, so the equipment must be changed from small to large during one research trial, or the turkeys have to move to different houses — for example, from a brooding/early rearing barn to a rearing barn for the latter part of production.

Finally, fewer studies are done on turkeys because turkey tends to be seen as a holiday food rather than a staple readily available, like chickens, at fast-food restaurants like McDonald’s.

Commercial turkeys are similar to wild ones

Schwean-Lardner explained that there are similarities between commercial turkeys and wild turkeys which helped guide her research. She noted that “while the percentage of time of specific behaviors may change between wild and commercial turkeys, the behaviors themselves remain the same.”

Wild turkeys live in small groups with one male and a few females. They spend time foraging for food, dust bathing and preening. They are omnivorous to the point they have eaten mercury thermometers and string.

They are ground dwelling except they climb in stages to roost in trees for safety and to hatch their young. This knowledge of how they roost in stages can be applied to enrichment in commercial houses by offering them staged perches versus one high one, Schwean-Lardner said.

Young turkeys can fly at 5 weeks and are usually chased out of the nest by 12 weeks. Males form banded groups and display their feathers in courtship dances.

Effect of lighting periods studied

Schwean-Lardner and her team at the University of Saskatchewan conducted a study of the effects of photoperiod lengths on the behaviors of turkeys and broilers. The overall purpose was to provide information that could be used in the proper management of commercial turkeys rather than focusing on comparing turkeys to broilers.

For the study, both turkeys and broilers were housed in the same facility and subjected to the same lighting treatments, staff and management style. Hank Classen, PhD, originally designed this facility for a lighting research project decades previously.

The experiments exposed the birds to four different light periods — 14, 17, 20 and 23 hours of light per day — and were replicated to ensure validity. The exposures were done four times on approximately 28,000 broilers but only twice on turkeys — 480 toms and 720 hens —  due to the higher costs of working with turkeys.

The broilers were housed to 49 days of age while the turkeys were 126 days old at time of shipment. Birds were managed as per Aviagen recommendations, and data were collected throughout on growth, feed intake, mortality and morbidity, and welfare assessments.

The study researchers took video of the birds 24 hours a day at two ages and noted the behavior of every bird every 10 minutes throughout those periods.

More light equals less activity

The length of the photoperiod clearly affected  the activity levels of both broilers and turkeys. For both species, longer daylight hours caused them to be inactive, so that at 23 hours, they displayed a “significant increase in doing nothing but laying in the litter.”

For the broilers, this meant spending more than 85% of their time resting with 23 hours of light, which reduced to less than 70% of time resting under 17 and 14 hours of light. This lack of activity can affect numerous areas like feed intake, footpad lesions and leg health.

Correspondingly, the broilers showed their highest amount of walking at 17 light hours — 4% of the time compared to less than 1% at 23 hours.

The turkeys, who were studied at 14 and 17 weeks, also showed the least activity at 23 hours of light, when they rested up to 73% of the time (at 17 weeks), while in 14 hours of light they rested for 67% of the time. Their walking achieved a high of 5% of their time (at 17 weeks) in 14 light hours with a low of 3% at 23 hours.

Because both birds exhibited the most activity around 17 hours of light, Schwean-Lardner stated that this photoperiod “should be probably the bottom end of our lighting program for both bird strains,” and 23 hours of light should not be used in commercial houses for either strain.

The study also examined time spent at feeders. It has been assumed that giving birds longer light access would lead to them spending more time at feeders and increasing their feed intake. The study found the opposite so that longer light resulted in a decrease in the percentage of time spent at feeders by both birds.

For example, under 23 hours of light, the percent of time broilers spent at feeders decreased from 7% to 4%, resulting in lower bodyweight.  Turkeys experienced a similar result as their market bodyweights were highest at 14 hours of light and lowest at 23 hours.

Other behaviors affected by light

The study also examined comfort and exploratory behaviors, such as preening, which often indicate positive welfare for the birds. The effect of photoperiod on broilers was dramatic. When reared under 23 hours of light, broilers spent only 1% of their time preening, but that percentage increased as the amount of light decreased. This “decline is much faster and much more severe with broilers” than turkeys, Schwean-Lardner noted, and so the broilers really have trouble with those long day lengths.

The turkeys also displayed behavioral changes related to light, though not as severe as those in broilers. For example, exploratory pecking — a positive indicator of welfare — was lowest when turkeys were reared under 23 hours of light and highest under 14 hours. Schwean-Lardner noted that turkeys are also prone to aggressive pecking so that “species-specific research into managing abnormal behavior” is needed.

Overall, Schwean-Lardner concluded that the study findings showed that “we should not be using broiler data to make our decisions for turkeys.” She also reemphasized the need for more research to be done specifically on turkeys.

The post Photoperiod lengths affect both turkey and broiler behavior appeared first on Modern Poultry.

The announcement was included in a White House fact sheet outlining a broader agricultural trade framework under which China would purchase agricultural products from the United States at an annualised rate of $17 billion per year for 2026, with the same level indicated for 2027 and 2028. The commitments are in addition to previous soybean purchase agreements reached in 2025.

According to the White House, China would resume imports of poultry products from U.S. states officially recognised as free from avian influenza by USDA authorities. China’s Ministry of Commerce separately stated that the Chinese side would “actively advance solutions” regarding poultry exports from certain U.S. states to China.

The discussions also addressed the recognition of avian influenza-free zones. China said the United States would actively work on Chinese concerns related to the recognition of Shandong province as a bird-flu-free area.

Trade data show that U.S. poultry meat and poultry product exports to China reached $286 million in 2025, compared with more than $1 billion in 2022. During the same period, tariffs and avian influenza-related restrictions reduced trade volumes for several agricultural products.

Alongside poultry, the two countries also discussed beef trade. China renewed expired registrations and approved new listings for hundreds of U.S. beef establishments. The U.S. Meat Export Federation stated that China’s General Administration of Customs granted five-year registration extensions to 425 U.S. beef establishments and approved 77 new registrations, while 38 establishments remain suspended.

China’s Ministry of Commerce said the two sides agreed to work on resolving non-tariff barriers and market access issues involving agricultural products. Both governments also referred to possible reciprocal tariff reductions covering selected products, although no detailed product list was released.

At the time of reporting, Beijing had not published a full confirmation of all terms announced by the White House.

From hatchery automation and AI-based monitoring systems to feed technologies, processing equipment and animal health solutions, VIV Europe 2026 will bring together companies and professionals from across the international livestock and poultry sector at Jaarbeurs, Utrecht, the Netherlands, from 2 to 4 June.

The 25th edition of the exhibition is expected to host around 600 exhibitors from Europe, Asia and the Middle East, covering the entire feed-to-food chain, including poultry, swine, dairy and aquaculture production. The event will also run alongside VICTAM International 2026, adding a strong focus on feed production and feed processing technologies.

Alongside the exhibition, the conference programme will address topics currently influencing the industry, such as automation, digital farming, sustainability, animal welfare and production efficiency.

For visitors, the event offers the chance to see new technologies firsthand, meet suppliers and technical partners, and follow current developments across different areas of animal protein production.

Conference programme:
VIV Europe 2026 Conference Programme

Registration:
Register for VIV Europe 2026

Below is a selection of exhibitors attending VIV Europe 2026:

Agritech – Booth 08.C012

Agritech has been since 1987 a leading company in the design and manufacturing of bulk storage systems both for dry and liquid materials in the animal farming sector. Our range of highly resistant fiberglass silos & tanks covers the needs of farmers from 2 to 100 m³ and we also manufacture different bulk material loading and unloading devices, such as stationary and portable screw conveyors, feed transport tanks, flex augers. Moreover, our experience in the processing of fiberglass led us to develop a wide program of shelters and modular stables for animals (dairy, swine, poultry) which are also available with proper insulation for severe environmental conditions. At VIV Europe 2026 we plan to present new portable silos Mod. CUBO X, easily transportable and displaceable by forklift in empty or full–loaded situations and special ozone generators for the sanitization of farms and agricultural ambiences in general.

📧 Email: commerce@agritech.it   🌐 Web site: www.agritech.it

Aviagen – Booth 08.C058

At Aviagen, we are committed to Breeding Success Together with our customers and industry partners. By combining innovation, expertise and a strong focus on sustainability, we continually improve bird health, welfare and productivity. Our approach supports operational excellence and a sustainable future for the poultry industry. We advance welfare through balanced breeding, drive sustainability through innovation and support customer success with expertise and efficient performance. With a diverse breed portfolio, ongoing research, talent development and a commitment to security of supply, we deliver long-term progress and value. Join us at our digital stand (Hall 8, Booth 08.C058) as we celebrate 70 years of Ross and showcase how we are Breeding Success Together.

📧 Email: mediaenquiries@aviagen.com 🌐 Web site: https://aviagen.com/

Aza International – Booth 07.C016

Breedaza and Self-Dosy for precise and safe feed management.
Aza International will be present at VIV Europe 2026 with two flagship lines dedicated to breeders.
The Breedaza line offers advanced solutions for optimised ration management, ensuring uniformity of treatment and reducing variability in production results.
The range dedicated to breeders includes the Self-Dosy system, which enables automatic and calibrated feed distribution to roosters, reducing manual intervention and minimising contamination risks.
The entire Aza International range is designed with a rigorous approach to biosecurity: our conveyors are manufactured with materials and geometries that facilitate cleaning and disinfection, minimising pathogen transmission vectors between cycles.
They also allow storage units to be positioned outside the farm, limiting the entry of transport vehicles.

Visit our stand to explore the technical features of our solutions.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

🎥 Watch the company video

📧 Email: info@azainternational.it 🌐 Web site: www.azainternational.it

Biochem – Booth 12.C056

Biochem will be exhibiting at VIV Europe 2026. We do not want to miss this opportunity to promote our new range of Beta Trace organic minerals – registered and patented for all animal species – to the market.
Biochem is a family-run business based in Germany that develops and manufactures additives for the animal feed sector. Under the motto ‘Feed Safety for Food Safety®’, Biochem produces high-quality additives and solutions in the form of water-soluble powders, pastes and liquids for pigs, poultry, ruminants, fish, pets and horses, in compliance with GMP+, QS, DIN EN ISO 9001, DIN ISO 50001 and HACCP.
Our mission is to channel all our company’s strength and expertise into supporting you in your daily work. Biochem additives are characterized by efficiency, quality and sustainability. From gut health, toxin management and feed efficiency to immune stimulation – we offer solutions for every animal species, every type of production and every climate zone.
We are your trusted partner when it comes to animal nutrition and health. With over 400 employees who are experts in various fields such as biotechnology, chemistry and veterinary science, hailing from more than 40 countries worldwide, we are in close contact with you – wherever you are.
Drawing on our production and veterinary expertise, we have developed a comprehensive portfolio to support you in tackling the key challenges in your professional career.

📧 Email: info@biochem.net   🌐 Web site: biochem.net

Carfed International LTD – Booth 11.E014

Excellence in poultry transport

With over 60 years of Italian manufacturing excellence and a strong British network, Carfed International Ltd. specializes in high-quality plastic crates and baskets for live bird transportation.
Proudly Made in Italy, our customizable designs focus on animal welfare. Produced from first-grade virgin HDPE with full UV resistance, our solutions deliver ultimate durability and efficient ventilation, directly reducing Dead on Arrival (DOA) rates.
Today, Carfed reliably serves partners in over 65 countries worldwide, backed by dedicated after-sale support. Visit us at our exhibition stand to discover reliable, long-lasting, and efficient solutions tailored to your poultry operations.

LinkedIn 1 [here] and LinkedIn 2 [here]

🎥 Company video: CARFED 2025 Record Turnover – English version

📧 Email: carfed@carfed.co.uk 🌐 Web site: carfed.co.uk

Cid Lines, An Ecolab Company – Booth 12.A069

Cid Lines, An Ecolab Company, is a global provider of animal health and biosecurity solutions, delivering advanced hygiene programs for the livestock and food industries. Combining science, innovation, and field expertise, it develops cleaning and disinfection products that improve farm productivity, animal health, and food safety. With a wide portfolio of over 1,000 products and presence in more than 100 countries, we support sustainable farming and help producers control pathogens and optimize performance across the food chain.
Visit our stand 12A069 at VIV Europe to learn more about our programs and talk with our experts.

🌐 Web site: Animal Health | Ecolab

Codaf – Booth 08.B035

Codaf is an Italian company specialized in the design and production of automatic feeding systems for the poultry industry. With more than 50 years of experience in poultry equipment, the company has developed an extensive range of feeders and automated feeding solutions for broilers, breeders, pullets, turkeys, ducks and other poultry species. Continuous innovation and attention to quality and animal welfare have led to the development of the patented “Giò” feeder, designed to ensure easy access to feed from the first days of life while helping reduce feed waste. Easy to use and clean, Codaf feeding systems are designed to support efficient flock management and consistent performance in modern poultry production

🎥 Company video: here

📧 Email: info@codaf.net 🌐 Web site: https://www.codaf.net

Dacs – Booth 07.C108

MagFans and Solectrifiers enhance operational efficiency
The combination of MagFan and Solectrifier delivers a highly efficient and reliable solution, reducing electricity costs by up to 90% compared to traditional 50″ on/off fans. The Solectrifier converts energy directly from photovoltaic panels and supplies it seamlessly to the MagFans. As the system operates on the secondary side of the grid, the fans continue running independently and seamlessly, even during power outages.

Ensuring safety and uninterrupted airflow
With 90% of grid outages occurring during daylight hours, this setup ensures continuous and dependable operation. Installed on the secondary side, the Solectrifier maintains consistent airflow, strengthening operational reliability and supporting safety when it matters most.

Below is a link to a video from Colombia where the combination of MagFans and Solectrifiers has been in operation for more than four years now.

🎥 Company video: Solectrifiers in operation at Technigran, Colombia.mp4 – MediaCMS

📧 Email: Niels Dybdahl nd@dacs.dk 🌐 Web site: www.dacs.dk

Giordano – Booth 09.B030 – 12.D020

Giordano returns to VIV Europe 2026 to showcase its advanced technologies dedicated to the poultry and veterinary sector. Recognized worldwide for the quality and reliability of its products, the company has built its reputation on more than six decades of expertise, continuous innovation and close attention to the evolution of modern farming.
Giordano’s product range includes solutions for transport, farm equipment, eggs handling and vaccination devices, developed to support the industry with high technical standards and sustainable production values. Visitors are invited to discover the latest developments and meet the Giordano Global team at Booth 09.B030, while Booth 12.D020 will be entirely dedicated to vaccination solutions and animal health technologies.

🎥 Company video: here

📧 Email: info@giordanoglobal.com  🌐 Web site: https://giordanoglobal.com

Hendrix Genetics – Booth 08.C030

Hendrix Genetics is a global leader in layer breeding, supporting egg producers worldwide with well-balanced, reliable laying hen genetics. Through our portfolio of laying hen brands, including ISA, Babcock, Bovans, Dekalb, Hisex, Warren and Shaver, we work closely with our customers to match the right bird to each production system. Our focus is on robustness, feed efficiency, egg quality, and persistency, helping deliver consistent results in daily practice. What drives us is long-term partnership, with teams close to the field translating genetic progress into practical on-farm value. At VIV Europe, we look forward to meeting you and exchanging ideas on the future of layer production.

📧 Email: layinghens@hendrix-genetics.com  🌐 Web site: www.layinghens.hendrix-genetics.com/

Hubbard – Booth 08.E060

Hubbard conventional and premium

Your choice, our commitment!

Hubbard is the worldwide reference with the Hubbard Premium product range offering a large portfolio of breeds with colour differentiation, slow(er) growth and excellent robustness. This includes the Hubbard REDBRO which offers the best balance for the BCC/ECC market in terms of animal welfare, environment, and economics of any commercially available slower-growing breed.
The Hubbard Efficiency Plus female and the M77 and M99 males perfectly match the needs of the conventional broiler markets looking for the efficient production of hatching eggs and chicks, strong broiler growth, low feed conversion, good conformation and uniformity.

📧 Email: communication@hubbardbreeders.com 🌐 Web site: www.hubbardbreeders.com

Lubing System srl – Booth 07.D090

Once again this year, Lubing System srl will be present at VIV Europe on the stand of the German mother company Lubing Maschinenfabrik.
For over 70 years, the name Lubing has been known among breeders around the world as a synonym for high quality watering systems, conveyor systems for eggs and climate systems. We are a company committed to excellence, with global knowledge of the poultry market and years of experience in the development of state-of-the-art products.
Our staff will be on hand to welcome customers, visitors and colleagues to share with them all the latest news.

Visit us at VIV Europe to discover the world of Lubing, you will find us in Hall 7 at Stand D090.

🎥 Company video: Lubing – TopNipple – CombiMaster – EasyLine 2.0

📧 Email: info@lubing.it  🌐 Web site: www.lubingsystem.com

JBT Marel – Booth 11.E020

JBT Marel will launch a number of premieres at VIV Europe, all transforming the future of food processing.
The VC-i, the world’s most intelligent vent cutter, brings artificial intelligence to vent cutting, the first and most critical step in evisceration. An AI-based visual sensor checks correct cloaca removal and positioning. Mechanical upgrades, recipe-driven settings, and real-time monitoring ensure consistent quality. Together with the Nuova-i system, the VC-i delivers optimal performance, high yield, and top hygiene.
JBT Marel integrates all in-line steps from deboning to inspection, entirely mastering breast meat processing. After ATHENA has deboned the breasts, OQULA inspects and grades both sides using AI-based vision sensors and separates the A- and B-grade product streams. B-grade products are sent to trimming, while A-grade products go directly to SensorX for final bone inspection.

🎥 Company video: VC-i – ATHENA

Email: info.poultry@marel.com  🌐 Web site: jbtmarel.com/poultry

Novogen – Booth 08.C024

As a key player in the layer genetics market, Novogen stands out as a challenger with a distinctive vision—rooted in field expertise, a hands-on approach, and a strong commitment to collaboration.
Since its inception, Novogen has pursued an ambitious selection strategy focused on production systems, efficiency, robustness, and behavioral traits adapted to all types of production environments.
Our team of international experts works closely with our partners to optimize the genetic potential of our lines. We aim to serve the egg market through a strategy that combines performance, innovation, and strong customer relationships, All in One!
In Europe, this approach has enabled us to build an extensive distribution network. Together with our partners, Novogen continues to achieve tangible growth and expand its market share year after year.

VIV Europe 2026 will be a valuable opportunity to reconnect with our partners, showcase our latest innovations, and discuss our shared ambitions for growth and development across diverse markets.

📧 Email: marketing.novogen@novogen-layers.com 🌐 Web site: www.novogen-layers.com

Petersime – Booth 09.C080

Hatching the future with Petersime

Discover UniStreamer™, Petersime’s new generation of single‑stage incubators designed to deliver predictable results, full traceability and outstanding chick uniformity.
The future of hatchery performance is defined by precision – and full control over every step. With the new UniStreamer™ range, hatcheries gain exactly that level of control. By monitoring every stage – from breeder farm to grow‑out farm – UniStreamer™ gives hatcheries the clarity and control needed to deliver predictable, traceable output of uniform, high-quality chicks. Cycle after cycle.

Curious how UniStreamer™ can strengthen your operation?

📧 Email: info@petersime.com 🌐 Web site: www.petersime.com

River Systems – Booth 07.D140

River Systems is excited to announce its participation in VIV Europe in Utrecht! It is the perfect opportunity to visit our stand and get hands-on with our full range of products designed for hobbyists and small farms.
Come and discover our flagship innovations, including our Wi-Fi enabled incubators, which can be fully controlled remotely through our dedicated CovApp. Explore our professional-grade range of nests, durable bell drinkers, the Caleo heating plate, and much more.
Don’t miss the chance to touch the quality of our equipment and see how our technology can simplify your daily work. Our team is waiting for you in Utrecht to show you the best of “Made in Italy” poultry equipment.

🎥 Company video: Discover our world

📧 Email: info@riversystems.it 🌐 Web site: www.riversystems.it

Sperotto – Booth 07.E016

STAR is the innovative Sperotto feeder designed to effectively feed your chicks from the first day of life.
STAR combines the best features from chicks up to broiler feeder, thanks to its low-profile tray with a hinged lid, the ability to adjust the feed level via a ring nut and telescopic lift, the feed exclusion flap, and the anti-intrusion grid. It includes the emergency end sensor to avoid any feed overflow.

The sturdy, top-quality PE-PP polyethylene makes STAR a reliable and durable product.

🎥 Company video: here

🌐 Web site: www.sperotto-spa.com 🌐 Facebook https://it-it.facebook.com/sperottospaitaly/

Tecnozoo – Booth 12.D080

Research-driven nutritional solutions for poultry production

Tecnozoo is an Italian company specialized in the manufacturing of complementary feeds for modern livestock production (cattle, swine, poultry), with a dedicated portfolio of solutions for the poultry sector.
Through research-driven formulations based on essential oils, organic acids and specialty ingredients, the company develops several products designed to support animal wellbeing and production performance.
Tecnozoo offers a wide portfolio of solutions, including products for intestinal support, feed efficiency, hydration, liver support and stress management.
Combining Made in Italy quality, technical expertise and advanced manufacturing standards, the company also provides flexible private label solutions tailored to international partners and distributors.

Come and visit us at VIV Europe.

📧 Email: tecnozoo@tecnozoo.it 🌐 Web site: tecnozoo.it

VDL Agrotech and VDL Jansen – Booth 08.E030

VDL Agrotech and VDL Jansen are part of family‑owned VDL Group from the Netherlands. Together, they develop innovative solutions for modern poultry farming. VDL Agrotech focuses on reliable feeding systems, while VDL Jansen delivers animal‑friendly, high‑efficiency housing and egg handling technologies. By combining practical experience with smart engineering, both companies create solutions that improve animal welfare, optimize performance, and support sustainable, future‑ready poultry production worldwide.

🎥 Company video: Organic Poultry Houses for Layers | FlexBelt High Flow – Egg Handling | Broiler House

Broiler Breeder Houses | Broiler Breeder Project

📧 Email: info@vdlagrotech.nl 🌐 Web site: www.vdlagrotech.com

📧 Email: info@vdljansen.com 🌐 Web site: www.vdljansen.com

Vencomatic Group – Booth 08.D050

Vencomatic Group will showcase the future of smart poultry farming during VIV Europe 2026 in Utrecht. Visitors will discover how data-driven solutions and intelligent insights help producers improve bird welfare, optimize operational performance and support sustainable egg production.
A key focus at VIV Europe 2026 will be on Meggsius and Genus Focus, showcasing how smart technology and data-driven insights are shaping the future of poultry farming. The Meggsius solutions demonstrate how real-time monitoring and advanced farm data create actionable insights for better decision-making and improved operational performance.
Genus Focus highlights the next step in sustainable hatchery innovation with its in-ovo sexing technology, enabling reliable, fast and completely contactless gender determination of embryos during incubation. Using advanced MRI imaging combined with AI-driven analysis, eggs can automatically be classified on day 12 of incubation – or earlier – as female, male or infertile.
In addition, visitors can explore innovative solutions including the Van Gent Nest and Bolegg Gallery. Meet our team and experience how technology and data are shaping the future of poultry farming.

Visit Vencomatic Group at Hall 8, Booth 08.D050.

📧 Email: marketing@vencomaticgroup.com 🌐 Web site: www.vencomaticgroup.com

The full exhibitor list is available here:
VIV Europe 2026 Exhibitor List

Historically, animal welfare programs have relied heavily on resource-based indicators. These include system inputs such as stocking density, feeder and drinker space, lighting programs, and breed choice. Although these inputs are important, they do not always reliably predict how animals experience their environment.

In contrast, outcome-based indicators focus on the animal itself. These measures assess the actual response to, or results of, management practices, capturing the bird’s biological response to its environment. Examples include mortality rates, cull rates, lameness incidence, footpad dermatitis, injuries, and dead-on-arrival (DOA) percentages. Outcome-based indicators provide a more direct and meaningful assessment of welfare because they quantify the animal’s lived experience. They allow for benchmarking, trend analysis, and continuous improvement across diverse production systems.

Identifying the need for a common framework

One of the most significant barriers to advancing the broad adoption and use of outcome-based KWIs has been the lack of a common system and language. Different organizations have historically used varying definitions, methodologies, and reporting formats, creating fragmentation and reducing credibility with external stakeholders. Establishing a unified framework addresses this challenge by supporting consistent data collection and transparent communication and facilitating benchmarking. This language and systems gap has reinforced the need for a standardized, science-based approach that can be applied across production systems and regions.

The International Poultry Welfare Alliance (IPWA), a global, multi-stakeholder organization that serves as an independent resource on poultry welfare and brings together expertise from across the value chain, has helped address this need by bringing together stakeholders to align on how welfare outcomes are measured and communicated.

Through this effort, IPWA developed KWI Reference Guides for broilers, turkeys and layers, providing a practical framework to support consistent assessment, enable objective evaluation and drive continuous improvement in poultry welfare. The KWI reference guides were designed to complement existing standards and provide clear guidance on how to measure and monitor welfare indicators consistently across all phases of production (hatchery, farm, transport, and processing plant). The guides are available in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Thai and Arabic and are housed on the Alliance’s website.

The goal of publishing the guides was not to replace existing welfare monitoring programs but to enhance them by introducing a standardized, outcome-based framework. The guides include definitions of key indicators, options for measurement and observation, implementation instructions, the scientific rationale for each metric and citations linking each indicator to published research or technical guidance. They also identify a core set of KWIs applicable across broiler, layer, and turkey production systems.

This approach recognizes that although production systems may differ, the fundamental principles of animal welfare remain consistent. By aligning on a shared set of indicators, the value chain can create a more cohesive and credible narrative around welfare performance, enabling more consistent communication to stakeholders about progress in poultry welfare.

It is also important to note that the guides do not impose defined standards. Instead, the approach emphasizes continuous improvement. The IPWA recognizes that welfare is not a fixed endpoint, but a process that evolves with advances in science, technology, and management. By focusing on improvement over time, innovation can be encouraged and accountability maintained.

Although the guides outline how to measure indicators, effective welfare assessment depends on consistent training. Individuals need to understand both how to measure and why it matters. To support this, the IPWA and partners developed online training modules that turn the guide into practical, easy-to-use learning programs. These modules combine visuals, welfare science, and hands-on examples to improve consistency and help teams better identify emerging welfare issues.

Driving continuous improvement

The true value of KWIs lies in their ability to drive continuous improvement. By systematically measuring outcomes, producers can identify trends, detect emerging issues, and evaluate the effectiveness of management interventions. This creates a feedback loop that supports ongoing refinement and optimization. For example, tracking mortality and cull rates over time can reveal improvements in flock health or highlight areas where intervention is needed. Monitoring lameness or footpad dermatitis can inform adjustments in litter, drinker, or environmental management. Evaluating DOA rates can lead to improvements in transportation or handling practices.

These insights not only improve animal welfare but also enhance operational performance. Better welfare outcomes are often associated with improved productivity, reduced losses, and lower risk. This reinforces the concept that animal welfare is both an ethical obligation and a business imperative.

Building trust through transparency

In today’s environment, data alone is not sufficient. How the value chain communicates that data is equally important. Stakeholders expect transparency, consistency, and clarity. They want to understand not only what the metrics are but also what they mean and how they are used to drive improvement.

Standardized KWIs provide a foundation for this communication. They enable the value chain to present an aligned, evidence-based narrative that demonstrates both progress and accountability. This transparency is critical for building trust. Trust is not earned through claims but through consistent demonstration of performance over time. By openly sharing data, acknowledging challenges and highlighting progress, the poultry sector can strengthen its credibility with stakeholders.

Leading the future of welfare

The poultry value chain is well-positioned to lead the future of animal welfare by embracing a more transparent, outcome-driven approach. By aligning around KWIs, we can clearly demonstrate progress, strengthen trust and continue advancing both animal care and operational performance. This is an opportunity to move forward with confidence by building on the strong foundation already in place.

The next step is to actively adopt, implement and consistently communicate KWIs across the value chain, ensuring that continuous improvement in welfare is not only achieved, but also clearly understood by all stakeholders.

Those interested in advancing poultry welfare are encouraged to engage with the IPWA. Whether your focus is research, production, policy or the broader value chain, IPWA provides a platform to collaborate, share expertise and help shape practical, science-based solutions. Connecting with IPWA is an opportunity to contribute to meaningful progress and stay engaged with the evolving landscape of poultry welfare.

Editor’s note: Content on Modern Poultry’s Industry Insights pages is provided and/or commissioned by our sponsors, who assume full responsibility for its accuracy and compliance.

The post International Poultry Welfare Alliance’s Key Welfare Indicator guides: tools to drive continuous improvement in animal outcomes appeared first on Modern Poultry.

Starting in May 2026, the Italian Ministry of Health will begin a pilot vaccination program against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI – H5 subtype). The initiative is being implemented in cooperation with the Veneto and Lombardy regions and with the full participation of the poultry industry supply chain.

The program will involve a small number of selected farms in the provinces of Verona and Mantua and will target the most vulnerable poultry categories, specifically meat turkeys and egg-laying hens. The project involves birds from the earliest stages of life, using vaccines approved at European level. It will be supported by a strengthened monitoring system and advanced traceability tools to assess on the field all operational aspects related to animal vaccination.

Vaccination for HPAI will be an additional protective measure that works alongside – and does not replace – the existing biosecurity, surveillance and control measures already in place. It will position Italy among the most advanced European countries in adopting innovative tools for the prevention and control of animal diseases with significant health and economic consequences. The aim is to strengthen the system’s ability to contain the spread of the virus, reducing the risk of outbreaks and safeguarding the continuity of production in the national poultry sector, thereby limiting the economic impact of the disease.

The vaccination for HPAI in poultry also fully aligns with the One Health approach, recognising the connection between animal health, human health, and the environment. Reducing viral circulation in farms in fact helps lower the risk of viral adaptation and potential “spillover” events to humans, thereby reinforcing prevention efforts in the field of public health as well.

Source: https://www.izsvenezie.com/italy-launches-pilot-vaccination-hpai/

Aviagen^® Anadolu successful hosted its ninth technical seminar in Belek, Antalya, Türkiye, from 28–29 April, bringing together poultry professionals, industry experts and customers from across Türkiye for 1.5 days of knowledge sharing, innovation and collaboration.

The seminar featured a comprehensive program focused on broiler and breeder management, flock performance, hatchery technologies, disease prevention, nutrition and emerging industry trends. Participants benefited from presentations delivered by Aviagen specialists and international guest speakers, who shared practical insights and the latest developments shaping the poultry sector.

Discussions throughout the event emphasized improving production efficiency, bird health, meat quality and sustainability across poultry operations. The Aviagen Anadolu team also highlighted the importance of continued education and collaboration in supporting customers and advancing poultry production standards throughout the region.

The seminar also provided an opportunity for attendees to strengthen professional relationships and exchange experiences during networking sessions, panel discussions and the gala dinner.

The closing session included an interactive panel discussion, giving customers the opportunity to engage directly with presenters and ask questions related to the topics covered throughout the seminar. The event concluded with a group photo and a special Club awards presentation recognizing outstanding customer performance with Ross flocks.

During the awards ceremony, the Aviagen Anadolu team honored the top three Club award winners with certificates and awards in recognition of their exceptional production results. The Clubs celebrate customers who demonstrate outstanding dedication, management excellence and performance achievements with their Ross flocks.

“The seminar was highly valuable in terms of covering technical topics and demonstrating the development and future direction of the Ross breed. It provided an excellent opportunity for our teams to further develop their knowledge. The event was also very enjoyable socially, especially with the recognition and celebration of successful performers during the closing session.”, said İsmail Ertonga, Vice General Manager, Beypiliç.

Sharing his perspective on the seminar, Güven Atlı, General Manager, Keskinoğlu, commented: “The topics covered during the seminar and the expertise shared by the speakers were extremely valuable for our team. We sincerely appreciated the care, attention and support shown by the Aviagen Anadolu team throughout the event. Their hospitality and professionalism made the experience especially meaningful for all attendees.”

Reflecting on the success of the seminar, Yüksel Öztürk, Production Manager, Orallar, added: “The organization of the seminar was excellent from start to finish. The presentations addressed current industry challenges with practical and resultoriented information delivered by highly experienced experts. We were extremely pleased with both the content and the overall event experience.”

Rıza Elmas, Senior Technical Manager, Aviagen Anadolu, added: “We dedicated significant preparation over the past year to ensure the success of this seminar. The program was carefully designed to address key areas across the entire production chain, including hatchery operations, management practices, health, nutrition, data analysis, ventilation and processing. We also explored the future genetic potential of the Ross 308 and the opportunities it presents for our customers.

We were especially pleased to welcome more than 150 customers, including many key decision-makers from across the region. The seminar served as an important platform for industry professionals to connect, exchange ideas and discuss future opportunities for improving performance and achieving genetic potential.

I would like to sincerely thank our Technical Managers, especially Orhun Tikit, along with Ahmet Emrah Örtlek and Kifah Abutumeh, whose dedication and hard work played a major role in making this event a success. Together with the Aviagen Anadolu team and our global experts, we were proud to deliver a truly valuable and memorable seminar experience.”

Source: Aviagen press release

The Cackle Podcast

A podcast sharing the stories behind U.S. poultry and egg exports—straight from the people who make it all happen.

with Maureen Stickel from The World Poultry Foundation

The post USAPEEC’s “The Cackle” – A Conversation with Maureen Stickel appeared first on World Poultry Foundation.

Feed efficiency is one of the most important factors influencing profitability in broiler production. Production managers and nutritionists balance nutrition, genetics and housing conditions to help birds convert feed into growth as efficiently as possible. There’s one other variable often overlooked: the bird’s immune system.

Although it may not always be visible during day-to-day broiler management, immune function can impact how efficiently broilers utilize feed. Birds are protected from disease and can focus energy on efficient growth when immune function is properly balanced.

Understanding immune function in broilers

The immune system comprises signaling molecules called cytokines that help coordinate responses to pathogens. These molecules are essential for protecting birds from disease, but they can also trigger inflammation. Birds may experience unnecessary inflammation that requires more energy if too many pro-inflammatory cytokines are produced.

Instead of trying to suppress immune responses entirely, the goal is to help the immune system respond when needed without becoming overactive. Birds require ample immune activity to protect against pathogens, but not so much that valuable energy is wasted.

How immune function affects performance

When birds face immune challenges, their bodies must divert nutrients and energy toward fighting disease. This shift can affect growth, feed conversion and overall flock performance.

Energy that could be used to support muscle development is instead used to activate immune responses, such as producing immune cells, creating disease-fighting agents and managing inflammation. Birds experiencing immune stress may grow more slowly and require more feed to reach market weight and condition as a result.

Conversely, a strong immune response can affect mortality and carcass quality during periods of high disease pressure. A functional immune system helps birds survive disease challenges, potentially leading to fewer deaths. In addition to reduced mortality, an active immune system can help birds clear infections quickly, reducing morbidity and medication costs.

Hidden cost of immune challenges

Immune-related performance losses are often overlooked. When walking through a broiler house, it can be easy to identify a bird that appears sick. However, many immune challenges occur at the subclinical level.

Even mild immune responses can increase the bird’s energy needs. When the immune system is activated, the bird must use more dietary energy just to maintain basic functions rather than using that energy for growth in systems where every day counts.

Because these changes are subtle, flocks may appear healthy while still experiencing reduced feed efficiency – a response often described as a “silent killer” of feed conversion. Supporting the immune system in a way that minimizes unnecessary inflammation can help birds remain productive, even amid environmental challenges.

Environmental pathogens and disease pressure remain constant challenges in poultry production. Although management and biosecurity practices play a key role in protecting flocks, nutritional tools that support immune balance can provide additional value.

Supporting immune balance

Fortiva has developed a phytogenic feed additive, Remify that supports immune balance and improves feed efficiency in broilers. The product uses whole plant parts instead of isolated extracts or essential oils to provide a broad range of naturally occurring bioactive compounds.

These compounds incorporate polyphenols and other plant metabolites that help regulate inflammation and support gut health. By helping to reduce the impact of pro-inflammatory cytokines, this phytogenic solution can help manage excessive inflammation that would divert energy away from growth.

This product also helps support the integrity of tight junctions in the gut. Strong, tight junctions help maintain the gut barrier, preventing leakage and allowing birds to absorb nutrients more efficiently, thereby supporting better feed utilization and growth.

Research trials show these benefits can translate into measurable performance improvements. In 3 controlled broiler cage trials, feed conversion improved by 4 points at day 28 (p<0.01)¹ and 3 points at day 42 (p=0.026)² with birds fed Remify.^1,2,3 By day 42, birds fed this product experienced a 5.9% greater gain when challenged with coccidiosis.³

Production managers can reduce the hidden energy costs of broiler inflammation and immune stress by helping birds maintain an efficient immune response. This allows birds to focus more energy on growth, which can improve feed efficiency and support more consistent broiler performance.

For more information on how Fortiva can support your nutrition program, click here.

References

1 Broiler Feed Pen Trial 22-F1
2 Schwartz, M., P. Mishra, and S. Crowder. 2024. Effect of a next generation phytogenic blend on broiler growth performance under challenged conditions. Proc. Int. Poult. Sci. For. (Abstr. T174)
3 Metz, M., Davis, E., Mishra, P., & Crowder, S. 2025. Effect of feeding a novel phytogenic feed additive on growth performance and clinical outcomes of broilers administered a mixed Eimeria spp. challenge [Poster presentation]. Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting. (abstr. 504P)

Editor’s note: Fortiva assumes full responsibility for this article’s accuracy and compliance.

The post Feed efficiency in broilers: why immune function matters appeared first on Modern Poultry.

A new bio-coating technology enriched with natural antimicrobial agents has shown the potential to substantially extend the shelf life of chilled poultry, offering major benefits for food safety, sustainability, and the poultry industry. Studies demonstrate that edible coatings based on pectin, citrus bioflavonoids, and chitosan can significantly slow microbial growth and preserve sensory quality. MDPI

Introduction

Poultry is one of the most consumed proteins worldwide, but its short shelf life under refrigeration poses challenges for producers, retailers, and consumers. Traditional methods like modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) help, but recent research highlights the promise of bio-coatings—natural, edible films enriched with antimicrobial compounds—as a potential solution.

What is a bio-xoating?

• Definition: A thin, edible layer applied to poultry cuts, often made from biopolymers like pectin or chitosan.
• Function: Acts as a barrier to oxygen and moisture, while delivering antimicrobial agents directly to the surface.
• Examples of agents used: Citrus bioflavonoids, glucono-δ-lactone, and chitosan. MDPI

Research findings

Shelf-life extension

• Control samples (no coating): 6–7 days at 5 °C.
• Glucono-δ-lactone coating: Extended shelf life by ~2 days.
• Citrus bioflavonoid coating: Extended shelf life to 13 days, compared to 6–7 days in untreated samples.
• Chitosan coating: Preserved microbiological quality and sensory attributes, delaying spoilage significantly. MDPI

Mechanism of action

• Antimicrobial activity: Inhibits spoilage bacteria such as Pseudomonas spp. and Brochothrix thermosphacta.
• pH regulation: Some coatings lower surface pH, creating unfavorable conditions for microbial growth.
• Barrier properties: Reduce oxygen exposure, slowing oxidative changes and discoloration.

Benefits for the poultry industry

• Food safety: Reduced microbial load lowers risk of foodborne illness.
• Economic impact: Longer shelf life reduces waste and improves profitability.
• Sustainability: Less spoilage means fewer discarded products, aligning with global food security goals.
• Consumer confidence: Fresher appearance and better sensory quality increase market acceptance.

Risks and challenges

• Regulatory approval: Bio-coatings must comply with food safety regulations before widespread adoption.
• Cost considerations: Scaling production of natural antimicrobial agents may increase costs initially.
• Consumer perception: Acceptance of edible coatings depends on clear communication about safety and benefits. Springer

Conclusion

The development of bio-coatings for chilled poultry represents a promising development for meat preservation. By combining natural antimicrobial agents with edible films, researchers have demonstrated significant shelf life extensions compared to untreated poultry. This advancement not only enhances food safety but also supports sustainability by reducing waste in the poultry supply chain.

Sources can be provided upon request

First installation in Asia-Pacific goes live at SBA’s Victoria hatchery – orders for sexed chicks now open; official launch event to take place at PIX Food with Purpose Show in the Gold Coast during May 2026.

Victoria Australia – May 2026 – Agri Advanced Technologies (AAT) and Specialised Breeders Australia (SBA) today announced the official launch of the Cheggy in-ovo sex determination system in the Australian market. With the first Cheggy machine now fully installed and operational at SBA’s hatchery in Victoria, Australian Egg Producers can, for the first time, order chicks whose sex has been identified before hatching. The companies will jointly present the technology to the wider industry at the PIX Food with Purpose Show in the Gold Coast, QLD, during May 2026.

Cheggy is the world’s leading non-invasive in-ovo sexing solution for brown layer breeds. Using advanced hyperspectral analysis, the system determines the sex of a developing chick at an early stage during development without opening the egg or compromising embryo health. This breakthrough enables hatcheries to plan production more efficiently while supporting emerging welfare, sustainability, and transparency standards across the poultry supply chain.

“We are excited to bring Cheggy to Australia and to support a growing industry focus on animal welfare and resource efficiency,” said Jörg Hurlin, Managing Director of Agri Advanced Technologies. “Cheggy combines high accuracy, speed, and operational reliability, making it an ideal solution for the Australian market as producers look for scalable and economically sustainable approaches to early-stage chick management.”

With the system now running in Victoria, SBA becomes the first hatchery in Australia to offer commercially available in-ovo sexed chicks. In addition, the new in-ovo sexing technology in the SBA hatchery was certified by a well-known independent nonprofit organization Humane Farm Animal Care to ensure animal welfare in a traceable and documented manner.

A technology designed for modern egg production

Cheggy delivers high-speed, high-volume processing while integrating easily into existing hatchery workflows. As a fully non-invasive procedure, the technology mitigates contamination risks and ensures the safety of the embryo throughout the measurement and sorting process.

Additional advantages include:

• High throughput of 20,000 eggs per hour – capable of processing large volumes suitable for commercial hatcheries.
• Cost-efficient operation – no consumables, no single-use waste, and minimal maintenance requirements.
• Compact footprint – a small spatial requirement for easy integration into hatcheries of varying sizes.
• Improved sustainability – enabling early selection helps the industry address long-standing challenges related to male chicks in layer production.

The adoption of in-ovo sexing technologies is expanding globally as markets transition toward higher welfare standards and greater transparency. With installations already operating across Europe, North America, and South America, the Australian launch marks another step in AAT’s international growth strategy.

AAT and SBA will be present at the PIX Food with Purpose Show in the Gold Coast, QLD, in May 2026 to share information about CHEGGY, provide technical insights and respond to questions the attendees might have.

Source: Agri Advanced Technologies (AAT) press release

As a doctoral student at Virginia Tech, Ulans studied fear and anxiety in fast- and slow-growing broilers, as well as the impact of environmental complexities. She presented the results during a 2025 Poultry Extension Collaborative webinar.

“Regarding welfare, fast-growing broilers show substantially worse welfare than slow-growing broilers,” she said. “We know that fast-growing broilers have more contact dermatitis and higher lameness, inactivity and mortality levels.”

But there is less insight into the birds’ affective state. “Fear has shown inconsistent results, and anxiety has not been assessed between the two broiler types,” Ulans noted.

The potential impact is vast, with the US producing 95 billion broilers in 2024, 95% of which are fast-growing, meat-production types. “Those birds are typically raised in barren environments with litter, feeders, drinkers and not much else,” she said. “This is associated with higher anxiety and stress.”

The alternative is to provide a more complex environment, but such studies have shown inconsistent results, likely due to the wide variation of enrichments used. For her study, Ulans used ramps, which have been shown to reduce contact dermatitis and leg disease and improve locomotion. She also looked at huts, “which can reduce stress but have been greatly understudied,” she noted.

Experiment #1

For the first study, Ulans used 1,200 male broilers, 600 of each strain — fast-growing (Ross 708, 68 g per day) and slow-growing (Redbro M, 53 g per day) — placed into 24 pens at 50 birds per pen. She conducted six replicates per treatment.

For environmental complexity, she created a simple environment with feeders, drinkers and litter. The complex environment included those same elements, plus dust pads, perches and other enrichments.

She collected data at 1 kg, 2 kg and 3 kg of bodyweight and at 4, 5 and 6 weeks of age to measure how welfare changed over time. The fast-growing broilers were culled at 45 days and the slow-growing at 67 days.

“To assess anxiety, we used the attention bias test,” Ulans said. “It measures the birds’ tendency to pay attention to negative stimulus while ignoring others around them.”

The bird is exposed to a negative stimulus, such as an alarm, and a positive stimulus, such as feed and meal worms. “We measure the time birds focus on the negative stimulus and then turn to the positive stimulus. Did the bird start eating during the test?” she noted. “The longer it is anxious, the longer it will focus on the negative stimulus.”

She also measured vigilance behavior, which is associated with watching for danger or threats. “How vigilant a bird was during the test provides insight into its anxiety,” Ulans added. She tested birds in groups of three to avoid the stress of social isolation.

The results: Experiment #1

The study showed some differences between strains in the simple environment, with fast-growing broilers less likely to begin feeding during the test. For both strains, birds in the complex environment weighing 1 kg were more likely to begin feeding than birds weighing 2 kg or 3 kg.

“Slow-growing birds showed less anxiety overall, but anxiety increased for both strains as birds gained weight,” Ulans noted.

Vigilance behavior was determined by the bird spending more than 80% of its time being vigilant during the test. “Vigilance increased as the broilers gained weight, which means anxiety increased,” she said. “Fast-growing broilers showed more anxiety overall but especially in the simple environment.”

To measure fear, Ulans used the tonic immobility test, which reflects a “play dead” state to evade predators. The research team placed the bird on its back in a cradle, covered its eyes and applied gentle pressure to its sternum for 15 seconds to induce tonic immobility.

“The duration that the bird remains in this state indicates its fearfulness,” she noted.

Fast-growing broilers generally recorded 100 seconds, while slow-growing broilers recorded 78 seconds. At all ages, fast-growing birds were more fearful than slow-growing birds.

For both strains, heavier birds showed more fear than lighter-weight birds, and the results were linear. The greatest difference was between 3 kg birds and 1 kg birds.

Environmental complexity had no impact on the birds’ fearfulness, Ulans added.

Discussion points: Experiment #1

The fast-growing broilers’ increased anxiety may be due to their body composition and heavier breast muscle, making it more difficult to walk or escape, Ulans noted. They also have more low-level lameness, with less ability to flee.

Slow-growing broilers showed less fear at the same ages than fast-growing, but fear increased with weight gain. “This may indicate that losing the ability to flee by gaining weight, and increased lameness, which happens to both strains at heavier weights, causes more fearfulness than does genetics,” she added.

As for the environment, broilers from complex environments were less anxious at the lighter weights. “The environment likely slowed the onset of anxiety, but welfare still declined, especially in fast-growing broilers,” Ulans said.

Overall, the study demonstrated that environmental complexity had no impact on the birds’ fear levels. “However, a lack of a negative effect does not mean a lack of a positive effect,” she said.

Experiment #2

Ulans and her research team wanted to dig deeper into how anxiety differed between genetic strains and impacted growth rate. For this experiment, she used 1,582 mixed sex broilers, 264 birds per strain. The fast-growing strains were Cobb 500 (85 g per day), Ross 308 (80 g per day) and Ross 708 (78 g per day). The slow-growing strains included Ja57 NH (38 g per day), Redbro M (48 g per day) and Redbro Yield (51 g per day). There were 72 pens, with 22 birds per pen and six replicates per treatment.

Each pen included either a ramp or a hut. They again used the attention bias test to measure anxiety.

“We found differences in strains, with Ja57 NH the most likely to feed and Redbro M close behind. The Ross 708 or Cobb 500 were the least likely to feed,” Ulans said.

Ross 308 and Redbro Yield responded similarly to each other. There was no difference in the feeding response of birds raised with ramps or huts.

Overall, fast-growing strains showed higher anxiety levels than their counterparts.

Regarding the percentage of time the birds spent vigilant, Ross 308 recorded the most time at 57%. Redbro M had the least at 34%. The Cobb 500, Ross 708 and Redbro Yield birds were similar at 40%, and Ja57 NH was at 38%.

“The strains tended to differ in time spent being vigilant. Slow-growing broilers were less vigilant than fast-growing birds,” she added. “There was no difference between enrichments.”

Discussion points: Experiment #2

Slow-growing broilers generally showed less anxiety than fast-growing birds, but there are exceptions (Redbro M and Ja57 NH). “This may be influenced by slow-growing birds’ better body composition and lower lameness and pain levels,” Ulans said.

Genetic selection for growth may have resulted in differences in anxiety levels, causing an unintended consequence.

Enrichment types had no impact on anxiety and provided similar benefits, such as a safe place for birds to perch or sit. “It’s hard to know the impact on anxiety because the bird is removed from the home pen for the test, yet it may benefit from enrichment while in the home pen,” she added.

The take-home messages

Wrapping up the conclusions for both experiments, Ulans shared these thoughts:

• Weight gain decreases broiler welfare;
• Slow-growing broilers show better welfare than fast-growing birds;
• Complex environments can improve a bird’s early life welfare;
• Huts and ramps showed similar effects on anxiety.

To improve broiler welfare, she said producers could process broilers at lighter weights than currently; use slow-growing genetics; and create complex environments, including providing huts or ramps in pens.

Ulans also said more research is needed to determine the status of broiler anxiety and fear, and to find solutions.

The post Impacts of fear, anxiety and environment on fast- and slow-growing broilers appeared first on Modern Poultry.

Over 70 sessions across three days address the industry’s most pressing challenges — from artificial intelligence and sustainability to food security and global market resilience.

VIV Europe 2026, the world expo from feed to food for the animal protein chain, today announced its full conference program for this year’s edition, taking place 2–4 June 2026 at Jaarbeurs Utrecht, The Netherlands. Spanning over 70 confirmed sessions, the program brings together leading scientists, entrepreneurs, and industry innovators to tackle the defining challenges facing the global food and protein sectors, from regenerative agriculture and antimicrobial resistance to AI-driven farm management and international trade.

The depth of this year’s conference program reflects the central role VIV Europe plays in the global agrifood calendar. The event has served as the essential meeting point where science, business, and policy converge, bringing together professionals from all over the world to exchange knowledge, forge partnerships, and drive the industry forward. In a sector facing simultaneous pressure from climate change, food security demands, regulatory shifts, and rapid technological change, the quality of dialogue that VIV Europe enables has never been more consequential.

A program built around what matters most

Innovation and technology run as a defining thread throughout the agenda. Sessions such as the AgriBITs Seminar and Wageningen University & Research’s Future Poultry Farming: From Science To Practical Solutions series explore how AI, digital twinning, smart feedmill automation, and precision nutrition are moving from concept to competitive advantage on farms worldwide.

Sustainability is addressed with equal depth and ambition. Sustainability & Profit: Can You Have Both? by Misset and From Footprint To Foodprint jointly Hosted By World’s Poultry Science Association (WPSA), World Veterinary Poultry Association (WVPA), and Agrivaknet make the business case for greener production, while Friends of the Ecosystem Restoration Communities brings a global perspective on restoring soils, water cycles, and ecosystems through farming practice.

Animal health and welfare form another critical pillar. Many Ways To Reduce The Need For Antimicrobials by World Veterinary Education In Production Animal Health (WVEPAH) brings together veterinarians and researchers from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Utrecht University, and industry to address antimicrobial resistance, biosecurity, and disease prevention, among the most urgent challenges livestock producers are facing today.

On global markets and trade, sessions including Hungry For What’s Next? The Future Of Poultry & Eggs In A Changing World by Rabobank and Bridging Continents: Partnerships For Sustainable Poultry Value Chains In Africa, by Netherlands African Business Council (NABC) equip decision-makers to navigate geopolitical risk and seize emerging opportunities. The event will also host the official launch of Developments In The Poultry Market In Kazakhstan & Launch Of The Partners International Business (PIB) Programme: ‘Poultry Forward Kazakhstan’, hosted By Dutch Poultry Centre (DPC), marking a significant new Dutch-Kazakh industry collaboration.

A dedicated multi-day strand, Cities Leading Food Production, positions urban communities as active drivers of food system change. Through workshops, roundtables, and matchmaking sessions, participants explore short supply chains, circular food models, agroforestry, and community resilience across the full breadth of the protein value chain.

Sectors and knowledge partners

The program spans poultry and eggs, dairy, feed production, and urban food systems. Dairy 2030: Smarter Farming In A Changing World, by Global Dairy Farmers (GDF) brings international farm-level perspectives on data-driven decision-making, while the Build My Feedmill Seminar covers the full spectrum of feed processing technology from grinding and pelleting to automation and control systems.

Knowledge leadership comes from world-class institutions including Wageningen University & Research, Rabobank, DPC, WPSA, WVPA, WVEPAH, and the NABC, with additional contributions from The Weather Makers, the Bionutrient Institute, and the BSV Association on ecosystem restoration, nutrient density, and supply chain transparency.

Investing in the next generation: the VIV Passport Program

Alongside its conference program, VIV Europe 2026 is also launching the VIV Passport, a structured student engagement initiative designed to connect the next generation of talent with the international agrifood industry. Participating students get to attend selected keynote sessions and industry talks during the first two days of the exhibition, engaging directly with professionals and companies across the full animal protein supply chain. Each student receives a branded Student Kit and a Show Passport to guide their experience onsite, collecting stamps by attending at least three key sessions. Upon completion, participants earn a digital certificate of participation that can be added to their LinkedIn profile or CV as a career-relevant credential. The program offers students meaningful industry exposure while providing a tangible outcome in support of their professional development.

Registration remains open

VIV Europe 2026 takes place 2–4 June 2026 at Jaarbeurs Utrecht, The Netherlands. Attendees gain direct access to cutting-edge research, global market intelligence, and a network of buyers, suppliers, and investors from all over the world. Skip the long queues onsite and secure your place today at europe.viv.net.

Source: VIV Worldwide press release

USPOULTRY and the USPOULTRY Foundation announce the completion of a research project that developed both live and inactivated vaccine candidates for avian metapneumovirus (aMPV) subtype B. The research is part of the Association’s comprehensive research program, which encompasses all phases of poultry and egg production and processing, and is made possible in part through proceeds from the International Poultry Expo, part of the International Production & Processing Expo.

Project # 745: development of live attenuated and killed vaccines for emerging avian metapneumovirus subgroup B

(Dr. Sunil Kumar Mor, Animal Disease Research and Diagnostic Laboratory, South Dakota State University, Brookings, S.D.)

aMPV, a virus which causes an acute respiratory tract infection in turkeys and chickens, re-emerged in the U.S. poultry industry, rapidly spreading across key poultry-producing states and posing a significant threat to production. The Center for Veterinary Biologics granted conditional approval for imported vaccines based on European strains as an emergency measure in early 2025; however, no licensed live attenuated vaccines derived from U.S. strains are currently available.

A team of researchers, led by Dr. Sunil Mor, at South Dakota University, successfully developed both live and inactivated vaccine candidates for aMPV subtype B. One of the live vaccine candidates showed strong safety and provided complete protection in chickens, while the inactivated vaccine generated strong protective antibody responses. Both vaccine approaches performed well in commercial turkey poults, with the live vaccine offering the highest level of protection.

These results demonstrate strong potential for practical, field-ready tools to help control aMPV in poultry. Overall, the work supports the development of U.S.-based vaccines to reduce future disease impacts and economic losses in the poultry industry.

The research summary can be found on the USPOULTRY website. Information on other Association research may also be obtained by visiting the USPOULTRY website.

Source: U.S. Poultry & Egg Association press release

Anticoccidial chemicals have various and unique modes of action, but they work by basically stopping the reproductive cycle of the Eimeria parasites that cause disease.

Studies have shown resistance to anticoccidials typically used in the poultry industry, with products such as amprolium, clopidol and zoalene, varying in sensitivity.¹

But in an appearance on the Iowa Turkey Federation’s Turkey Talkshow podcast, Steven Clark, DVM, Huvepharma’s veterinary technical services manager, said new evidence suggests there is “minimal risk” with common products, providing farmers rotate when necessary.

“We don’t need to be scared of them. We just need to use them strategically,” he said.

How chemical options help

Although ionophores and vaccines are also available as part of coccidiosis control strategies, ionophores are considered antibiotics and therefore cannot be used in No Antibiotics Ever (NAE) programs. NAE programs are less common in US turkey production than in broilers, but are a continued trend.

Clark pointed to several strengths offered by chemical anticoccidials as part of producers’ toolbox.

They are flexible in terms of when producers can use them, and chemical anticoccidials are very safe, he said.

“We can use them when we don’t want to use something else,” he explained. “Typically, they’re very potent, because they inhibit enough of the coccidia that sometimes we say that they just ‘clean up’ cocci… when we’re having a heavy challenge, we use [them to] clean everything up. Then we can start our rotations again for the next year.”

Commonly, anticoccidials are used from 0 to 8 weeks of age, but products can be used from 0 days all the way up to slaughter in some cases, following the labeled withdrawal time. They can also be used as part of shuttle programs, in which producers move from one product to another — including ionophores in conventional production.

Staying smarter than the parasites

Despite the versatility, producers need to be aware of Eimeria parasites getting “smarter” and no longer being susceptible to chemicals being used, explained Eliza Ripplinger, DVM, of Best Veterinary Solutions Inc., who appeared alongside Clark on the podcast.

“To stay smarter than the cocci, we have a rotation program, so that we’re changing that mechanism of action… and we just keep staying ahead of the cocci,” Ripplinger said.

“What the rotation program exactly looks like is a little different for each farm… as resistance can build differently on different farms. [It’s important to] work with your veterinarian to help identify when it’s a good time to switch and what the program should be.”

A connected approach

Given the dynamic nature of coccidiosis challenges across different life stages of turkeys in production, Clark also underscored the importance of veterinary pharmaceutical companies working closely with feed mills and veterinarians.

Three of the four approved chemical turkey anticoccidials are approved at both a low and high dose, allowing a program to be customized to the flock challenge. “The feed mill has the opportunity to use the approved dose, and then the veterinarian can decide what the challenge is,” he continued.

“If we have a heavy challenge in the brooder house, we might use the higher [labeled] dose [there], then at the grow out, birds are eating more feed, and the cocci challenge might be less. [In that case] we might drop the dose, if it’s approved, to the lower level.”

Towards more flexible control measures

With anticoccidial chemicals as just one option at producers’ disposal, environmental conditions in turkey barns can influence intervention choices.

Vaccines are more typically used in the spring and fall, Clark explained, with chemicals used in the summer months. Ionophores can be more suitable to use in the wintertime, when there may be problems ventilating and reducing moisture in barns.

However, there is a degree of variation in these practices, with Clark noting that “smarter barns and a lot smarter people” can extend vaccine use and assign a different role to anticoccidials.

“We’re starting to use vaccines longer for a lot of different reasons,” he added. “Now, we can use vaccines maybe through the winter, [then] we might limit our ionophore usage and then fill in the gap with chemicals.

“Using all these tools smartly makes things a lot more flexible and helps us to design a program to fit whatever your needs are.”

Listen to the full podcast episode by visiting the Turkey Talkshow podcast website or scanning the QR code:

1 Rathinam T, Chapman HD. 2009. Sensitivity of isolates of Eimeria from turkey flocks to the anticoccidial drugs amprolium, clopidol, diclazuril, and monensin. Avian Diseases. 53(3):405–408.

The post Smart use of chemical anticoccidials means there’s no need to fear resistance appeared first on Modern Poultry.

Immune activation is the first stage of the immune response necessary to protect the body. It is accompanied by significant metabolic costs and inflammation. When immune cells are activated, their metabolism is reprogrammed — a large-scale shift in energy and nutrient use to meet increased demands for protein, lipid, and nucleic acid synthesis. This metabolic shift reduces growth performance and feed conversion efficiency.

Field observations

Comparison of production data shows major differences in broiler performance even under the same genetics, feed, and housing conditions. These differences are directly related to the level of immune load.

When vaccination programs are intensified or infection pressure is high, growth rate and feed conversion ratio (FCR) decline. In contrast, in New Zealand, where broilers are raised under minimal infectious pressure, results are outstanding: at 34 days of age, body weight reaches 2,600 g, FCR is 1.29, and livability is 98%.

The difference is not due to genetics or feed formulation, but to the level of immune load. When the immune system is at rest, all nutrients can be directed toward growth rather than defense.

The dual nature of immunity

The immune response consists of two interconnected arms: innate and adaptive immunity.

Innate immunity is the first line of defense, based on phagocytosis, cytokine release, complement activation, and inflammation. It develops within hours but is very energy-demanding: energy consumption rises by 5–10%, protein catabolism increases, and body temperature rises.

Adaptive immunity develops more slowly: a full T- and B-cell response may take up to two weeks. It is more specific and less energy-intensive. Once immune memory is established, secondary responses require minimal energy.

Live vaccines trigger the same immune-metabolic cascades as field viruses, but the response is milder and causes less loss of productivity. This allows adaptive immunity to form with minimal reduction in growth and energy efficiency.

Phases of the immune response in broilers

Recognition and innate response (0–24 h)

Macrophages and heterophils recognize pathogens through TLR receptors and release pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α). Feed intake decreases, body temperature rises, and the liver increases synthesis of acute-phase proteins. NF-κB and JAK-STAT signaling pathways are activated, increasing energy use for inflammation.

Adaptive response (2–7 days)

Lymphocyte proliferation, antibody production, and memory cell formation begin. The demand for arginine, glutamine, threonine, and nucleotides rises — they serve both as building blocks and energy sources for immune cells. The liver remains active in producing acute-phase proteins, reducing the nutrients available for growth.

Resolution and recovery (7–14 days)

Anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-10 and TGF-β are activated, reactive oxygen species decrease, antioxidant balance is restored, and anabolic pathways (mTOR, IGF-1) are reactivated.
Under repeated vaccinations or concurrent field infections, this phase may be prolonged, leading to chronic catabolic states and oxidative stress.

Each phase has specific metabolic priorities:

• Innate: glucose and antioxidants
• Adaptive: amino acids and nucleotides
• Recovery: lipids and sulfur-containing amino acids

Managing chronic inflammation and supporting the immune system

The avian immune system consists of physical barriers and cellular mechanisms that protect against pathogens.
Inflammation is a vital part of innate immunity, but chronic activation is costly and reduces productivity. Effective immune regulation helps limit inflammation and preserve nutrients for growth.

Role of epithelial health

The health of epithelial tissues is key to balanced immune function. The gastrointestinal and respiratory epithelia act as the first barrier against infections. Stress factors such as heat, mycotoxins, or electrolyte imbalance can disrupt tight junctions, causing chronic inflammation and increased intestinal permeability.

The cost of immune activation

Activation of innate immunity requires large amounts of amino acids, energy, and trace minerals. During chronic inflammation, nutrients are diverted from growth toward immune processes, worsening FCR and body weight gain.
Cytokines IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α activate NF-κB and STAT3 pathways, shifting metabolism from growth to defense.

Experimental immune stimulation (LPS challenge or vaccination) increases maintenance energy needs by 5–10% and reduces protein synthesis. Liver metabolism shifts toward catabolism of branched-chain amino acids, mTOR activity decreases, corticosterone levels rise, and tissue insulin sensitivity declines.
Body weight can drop by 10–30%, and FCR worsens as nutrients are redirected to cytokine, antibody, and acute-phase protein synthesis. Even after inflammation resolves, the effects can persist for several days, explaining temporary “growth dips” after vaccinations.

The demand for arginine and threonine increases by 10–15%, and for methionine and cystine by about 5%. Maintaining optimal ratios of these amino acids to lysine is critical for sustaining performance under immune load.

Antioxidants and immune homeostasis

Immune activation increases oxidative stress, especially in the intestinal mucosa. Adequate antioxidant supply shortens the inflammatory phase and speeds up recovery.

• Vitamin E and selenium increase glutathione peroxidase activity and antibody levels.
• Vitamin C lowers corticosterone concentration and supports phagocytosis.
• Postbiotics and paraprobiotics reduce pro-inflammatory cytokines and raise IL-10, improving nutrient absorption.
• Early microbiota modulation enhances intestinal immune development and NK-cell activity.

Nutritional strategies duringimmune activation

When the immune system is activated, requirements for nutrients, energy, and antioxidants increase, requiring diet adjustments:

• Add antioxidants to neutralize free radicals and reduce oxidative stress.
• Increase levels of key amino acids (arginine, threonine, methionine, and cystine) to support immune protein synthesis and tissue repair.
• Raise metabolizable energy (ME) levels.

Field observations conducted by the author in commercial broiler operations demonstrated the effectiveness of compensating immune costs through nutrition.
In one experiment, chicks from the same breeder flock were placed in identical houses. The site was known to have circulating IBD, IBV, NDV, Reovirus, and low-pathogenic avian influenza.
The control group received a standard diet according to breed recommendations. The test group received higher ME levels and increased threonine and methionine.

At the end of the trial, the experimental group showed:

• +4.3 g/day higher average daily gain;
• 6.2% higher livability;
• 0.08 kg lower FCR per kg of body weight compared to the control.

Conclusion

Immune activation is an unavoidable response of the immune system to pathogens or vaccines. However, its intensity determines how deeply it affects energy and amino acid metabolism.

Under mild or moderate immune activation, productivity losses can be compensated through proper feeding strategies, by increasing dietary energy, enhancing antioxidant protection, and optimizing amino acid profiles (arginine, threonine, methionine, cystine).
However, under heavy immune load (frequent vaccinations, field virus exposure, or poor biosecurity) the effectiveness of nutritional compensation drops sharply. Even with higher dietary energy and amino acid levels, growth rate and FCR cannot return to normal, as much of the nutrients are diverted to chronic inflammation and immune protein synthesis suppression.

Therefore, maintaining strict biosecurity is essential for economic efficiency. Key measures include:

• controlling farm access and maintaining sanitary barrier
• thorough cleaning and disinfection
• optimizing vaccination programs based on maternal immunity, local disease pressure, and vaccine compatibility

In the future, accounting for the nutritional requirements of the immune system should become a standard component of precision poultry nutrition.

Bibliography

1. Aguzey, H. A., Gao, Z., Haohao, W., Guilan, C., Zhengmin, W., Junhong, C., & Zhi Li, N. (2020). The role of arginine in disease prevention, gut microbiota modulation, growth performance and the immune system of broiler chicken – a review. Annals of Animal Science, 20(2), 325–341.
2. Ahiwe, E. U., Omede, A. A., Abdallh, M. B., & Iji, P. A. (2016). Managing dietary energy intake by broiler chickens to reduce production costs and improve product quality. In InTechOpen Book Chapter.
3. Dadfar, M.-J., Vaez Torshizi, R., Maghsoudi, A., Ehsani, A., & Masoudi, A. A. (2023). Trade-off between feed efficiency and immunity in specialized high-performing chickens. Poultry Science.
4. Hollemans, M. S., de Vries Reilingh, G., de Vries, S., Parmentier, H. K., & Lammers, A. (2020). Effects of early nutrition and sanitary conditions on oral tolerance and antibody responses in broiler chickens. Veterinary Sciences, 7(4), 1–12.
5. Hu, W., Du, L., Shao, J., Qu, Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, D., Cao, L., Chen, H., & Bi, S. (2024). Molecular and metabolic responses to immune stress in the jejunum of broiler chickens: transcriptomic and metabolomic analysis. Poultry Science.
6. Li, R. F., Liu, S. P., Yuan, Z. H., Yi, J. E., Tian, Y. N., Wu, J., & Wen, L. X. (2023). Effects of induced stress from the live LaSota Newcastle disease vaccination on the growth performance and immune function in broiler chickens. Poultry Science.
7. Liu, K., Zhen, W., Bai, D., Tan, H., He, X., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., Ito, K., Zhang, B., & Ma, Y. (2023). Lipopolysaccharide-induced immune stress negatively regulates broiler chicken growth via the COX-2–PGE2–EP4 signaling pathway. Frontiers in Immunology.
8. Liu, L., Qin, D., Wang, X., Feng, Y., Yang, X., & Yao, J. (2015). Effect of immune stress on growth performance and energy metabolism in broiler chickens. Food and Agricultural Immunology, 26(2), 194–203.
9. Maroufyan, E., Kasim, A., Hashemi, S. R., Loh, T. C., Bejo, M. H., & Davoodi, H. (2010). The effect of methionine and threonine supplementations on immune responses of broiler chickens challenged with infectious bursal disease. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 7(1), 44–50.
10. Sheikh, I. S., Bajwa, M. A., Rashid, N., Mustafa, M. Z., Tariq, M. M., Rafeeq, M., Samad, A., Asmat, T. M., & Ullah, A. (2020). Effects of immune modulators on the immune status of broiler chickens. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 52(3), 1095–1100.
11. Yang, J., Liu, L., Sheikhahmadi, A., Wang, Y., Li, C., Jiao, H., Lin, H., & Song, Z. (2015). Effects of corticosterone and dietary energy on immune function of broiler chickens. PLOS ONE, 10(3), e0122004.
12. Ye, J., Yang, H., Hu, W., Tang, K., Liu, A., & Bi, S. (2023). Changed cecal microbiota involved in growth depression of broiler chickens induced by immune stress. Poultry Science.
13. Zheng, A., Zhang, A., Zheng, Z., et al. (2021). Molecular mechanisms of growth depression in broiler chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) mediated by immune stress: A hepatic proteome study. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 12(90).

Boxmeer, the Netherlands – May 6, 2026 – Hendrix Genetics today announced the publication of its new Sustainability Report, outlining how sustainability is embedded across its breeding programs, operations and partnerships, and how the company is strengthening its long-term approach to responsible animal genetics.

Active across species and regions, Hendrix Genetics contributes to food production systems worldwide through its animal genetics expertise. Its breeding programs affect animal performance, welfare, efficiency and farming outcomes. The Sustainability Report highlights how these responsibilities are addressed within a strengthened, long-term sustainability strategy.

“We operate at a point in the value chain where our choices have long-term consequences,” said Richard Maatman, Chief Executive Officer of Hendrix Genetics. “This report shows how sustainability is embedded in our breeding programs, our operations and our partnerships.”

Building on years of responsible practice, Hendrix Genetics has refined its sustainability approach to better reflect changing expectations from society, customers and regulators, while staying closely connected to day-to-day decision-making. The report describes the integration of sustainability considerations across three strategic pillars: Care for Animals, Climate Resilience and Social Entrepreneurship.

With a focus on long-term progress, the company emphasizes Innovation, Collaboration and measurable improvement. Genetics plays a central role in this approach, contributing to healthier animals, more efficient use of resources and improved resilience across different production systems and geographies.

“Sustainability delivers impact when it is tangible and actionable,” said Naomi Duijvesteijn, Global Sustainability Director at Hendrix Genetics. “Our strategy brings focus and accountability to the topics where we can make the greatest difference – for animals, for people and for the planet.”

The new Sustainability Report also increases transparency on how Hendrix Genetics understands and manages its environmental and social impacts, including insights into greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, circularity, workforce topics and responsible sourcing. It highlights how global policies are combined with local implementation, allowing the company to operate consistently while responding to different regional realities.

As Hendrix Genetics continues to develop its sustainability approach in the coming years, its ambition remains unchanged: to set a benchmark for responsible animal breeding and help build food systems that are resilient, inclusive and sustainable for future generations.

The Sustainability Report is available as of today and provides further detail on the company’s strategy, governance and initiatives.

The full report can be accessed online via this link.
Source: Hendrix Genetics press release

Smart monitoring systems

• One of the most significant breakthroughs is the use of sensor-based monitoring.
• Modern farms now deploy smart traps equipped with motion detectors and wireless connectivity.
• These devices not only capture rodents but also send real-time alerts to farm managers, allowing immediate response.
• Data collected from these systems helps identify infestation hotspots and track rodent activity patterns, enabling farms to design targeted interventions rather than blanket treatments.

Artificial intelligence and predictive analytics

AI-driven platforms are increasingly used to analyze rodent behavior. By processing data from sensors, cameras, and farm records, predictive models can forecast potential outbreaks. For example, algorithms may detect correlations between feed storage practices and rodent presence, suggesting preventive measures before infestations escalate. This proactive approach reduces costs and minimizes the need for toxic rodenticides.

ICAERUS – RODENT Project

In European poultry farming, the RODENT (Rodent Obstruction through Drone-Enabled Non-invasive Technology) project offers a sustainable solution to one of the sector’s persistent biosecurity challenges: rodent infestations in feed storage and production facilities.

• By deploying drones equipped with thermal cameras and ultrasound deterrents, farmers can monitor and repel rodents without relying on chemical rodenticides, which often contaminate feed and compromise flock health.
• This approach not only reduces disease transmission risks in poultry houses but also aligns with EU sustainability goals by safeguarding animal welfare and food safety through eco-friendly pest control.

Eco-friendly control methods

Sustainability is a growing priority in European agriculture. Farms are adopting biological and ecological solutions such as ultrasonic repellents, natural predators, and non-toxic bait formulations. Ultrasonic devices emit frequencies that disrupt rodent communication and nesting behavior, while eco-friendly baits reduce environmental contamination. Integrating these methods aligns with European Union regulations that encourage reduced chemical use in food production systems.

Integration with biosecurity protocols

Rodent control technologies are most effective when integrated into broader biosecurity frameworks.

• Automated monitoring systems can be linked to farm management software, ensuring that rodent alerts are part of daily operational checklists.
• This integration supports compliance with EU standards and strengthens overall disease prevention strategies, protecting both poultry health and consumer safety.

Conclusion

The future of rodent control in European poultry farms lies in technology-driven, sustainable solutions. Smart monitoring, AI analytics, robotics, and eco-friendly deterrents are transforming how farms address this age-old problem. By combining innovation with biosecurity, European producers are not only safeguarding their flocks but also contributing to safer and more sustainable food systems.

Sources can be provided upon request

“Campylobacter is an important foodborne pathogen and public health threat, causing 1.5 million illnesses annually in the US, as estimated by the CDC,” Bailey explained during his presentation at the 2025 Poultry Science Association Annual Conference. These illnesses are frequently linked to poultry products, prompting him to design studies to identify potential reservoirs and transmission routes associated with common poultry industry practices.

Although Campylobacter is known not to survive well in litter in aerobic conditions, Bailey noted that prior research showed “potential for cross-contamination via litter under certain circumstances.”

Bailey’s earlier work examined the impact of two litter management practices, using sodium bisulfate, which is a litter acidifier for controlling ammonia, and windrow composting, used to reduce microbial load between flocks, on the survivability of C. jejuni.

His current study investigated the reuse of broiler litter and its possible link to the spread of C. jejuni.

Earlier work

In his previous experiment, Bailey worked with two flocks. The first flock was inoculated with C. jejuni to simulate natural contamination of the litter. After growing out, the litter was treated with sodium bisulfate and composted for 19 days before being reused for the second flock.

“For the first flock, we observed high prevalence of C. jejuni in ceca samples at the end of growout. After inoculation on day 7, we had greater than 80% prevalence in ceca samples,” Bailey said. When the second flock was placed on the reused litter, no C. jejuni contamination was detected.

Despite these results, Bailey pointed out that two questions still remained:

1. No samples were taken while the litter was composted, making it unclear how long C. jejuni survived.
2. Environmental conditions, such as temperature and moisture, were not recorded during composting, raising questions about how environmental conditions impacted the bacteria.

Current experiment

To address these gaps in the previous experiment, Bailey designed a study to examine temperature and moisture variables:

• Temperature: 4° C (39° F), 22° C (72° F), 42° C (108° F) and 60° C (140° F)
• Moisture: 15%, 25% and 35%
• Litter treatment: sodium bisulfate versus control

He tested 24 treatments. Litter collected from research farm compost sheds was air-dried for 2 weeks, mixed and then portioned into boxes. All the litter was inoculated with a ciprofloxacin-resistant C. jejuni marker strain at 6.91 log concentration. Moisture levels were adjusted with sterile water. The boxes were maintained in temperature-controlled environments, including a refrigerator, incubators and at room temperature.

“Every 24 hours, we took a composite 10-gram sample and placed those onto Campy Cefex, an agar that is used to isolate Campylobacter and supplemented the agar with ciprofloxacin for our marker strain. We also enriched the sample in Neogen Campylobacter enrichment broth and then streaked this mixture onto Campy Cefex,” Bailey explained.

The research team repeated the experiment three times, then calculated the averages for initial moisture levels and C. jejuni populations.

Results

For the current experiment, Bailey noted that “Only one treatment showed recoverable C. jejuni after 24 hours, with the starting moisture of 9.28% after drying.” He added that “the treatment was the lowest temperature (4° C), paired with the 35% high moisture level and no sodium bisulfate.” He recovered a 3.7 log concentration of C. jejuni on average after 24 hours, a similar result across all three trials.

After 48 hours, the same treatment resulted in an average 2.54 log concentration of C. jejuni, and after 72 hours, the bacterium was recoverable only by enrichment. And after 95 hours, no Campylobacter was recovered from any of the treatments.

These results demonstrate that “low temperature and high moisture levels can be beneficial to C. jejuni survival,” he said. “This indicates that if you have proper litter treatment, you should be able to mitigate Campylobacter in reused litter.”

Bailey emphasized the importance of downtime revealed in his experiment. “We demonstrated that C. jejuni survived for up to 3 days. With windrow composting, the downtime will be longer,” he explained. Additionally, he noted that sodium bisulfate demonstrated strong mitigation potential, as no C. jejuni was recovered in any trial with sodium bisulfate treatment.

Survival of C. jejuni was limited to approximately 3 days and only under cool, moist and untreated conditions.

Future study

Bailey explained that his study had limitations, one of which was that they examined only culturable cells. “It is possible that we could get survival longer than 3 days if we looked at the nonculturable bio cells,” he said. He also suggested using propidium monoazide, a dye used with PCR to differentiate viable from non-viable organisms.

Additionally, resazurin, a blue dye that can track C. jejuni movement in cultural medium, could be used to further study the bacterium. However, “its use might be limited by the microaerophilic nature of Campylobacter,” he said. Bailey also suggested conducting more controlled live-animal studies and commercial field trials.

Finally, Bailey expressed interest in studying caked litter because of its higher moisture content. “People tend to take the easy samples and skip over the caked litter, which could be an overlooked reservoir.”

The post Temperature, moisture affect Campylobacter jejuni survival in used broiler litter appeared first on Modern Poultry.

Royal Agrifirm Group today announces the successful completion of its acquisition of Hamlet Protein, a global leader in specialty soy-based protein ingredients for young animal nutrition.

With the transaction now closed, Hamlet Protein becomes part of Royal Agrifirm Group’s Specialties business. The acquisition further strengthens Agrifirm’s portfolio of high-value nutritional solutions and its strategic focus on early-life nutrition.

Bas van Driel, Group Director Specialties at Royal Agrifirm Group, commented: “With the transaction now completed, we are pleased to welcome Hamlet Protein to our company. This step strengthens our Specialties business and our ability to support our valued customers with differentiated, science-based nutritional solutions.”
Hamlet Protein is internationally recognized for its highly digestible soy-based ingredients that support gut health and consistent early-life performance. Its patented processing technology and strong quality standards complement Royal Agrifirm Group’s nutritional expertise, scientific capabilities, and global market presence.

Source: Royal Agrifirm Group press release

Boredom is a negative emotional state that may be caused by barren environments. Therefore, it may be a welfare concern for poultry that are raised in barren conditions.

However, researchers have conducted few investigations into this emotional state. Approaches to detect boredom in other species may provide practical methods for quantifying boredom in poultry.

What is boredom?

Figure 1. A group of chicks in an experimental pen. Besides food, water, litter, and pen mates, other resources are lacking. Photo credit: Leo Phelps, Virginia Tech.

Boredom is an unpleasant emotional state resulting from an unfulfilled motivation for sufficiently stimulating experiences.¹ This means that three criteria must be met for the experience of boredom: 1) a desire or “want” for an experience or activity, 2) an environment which fails to meet that desire, and 3) discomfort experienced from the unmet desire.²  To date, it is unclear whether poultry experience boredom. While boredom is sometimes argued to be a result of modern human lifestyles, it is likely that this state is shared with domesticated and farmed species living in our care.

Boredom in livestock, including poultry, receives less attention than some other negative psychological states such as fear, anxiety, and depression, possibly because it has been perceived as less severe.² However, it may be no less harmful. Bored people have an increased risk of anxiety and depression, poor health, and mortality.^3,4 In rodents and cattle, boredom was linked to sensation seeking, excess inactivity, and stereotypic behaviors.^5–8 Boredom can also increase an animal’s behavioral response to all types of stimuli, including negative ones. Boredom can be a long-lasting negative state and can therefore have significant health and welfare consequences when it is inescapable.

Do poultry have the capacity for boredom?

For poultry to experience boredom, they must have the capacity for each of the characteristics in the definition of boredom. Poultry have wants, needs, and preferences, indicating they can desire certain experiences or activities. It is likely that these desires can go unfulfilled in an under stimulating environment, like in barren housing conditions on farms.^9,10 This could lead to a negative emotional state¹¹. Thus, poultry may meet the three criteria for boredom.

Poultry desire experiences and activities

The motivation of birds to perform specific natural behaviors is well-demonstrated. For example, some motivated behaviors in poultry include foraging and dust-bathing. Strong motivations for these behaviors have been demonstrated through the birds’ willingness to pay a cost to access opportunities for these behaviors^12,13 and their continued performance of the behavior regardless of environmental conditions.^14–17 Birds also demonstrate increased performance of the behavior if they are temporarily prevented from it, which shows that their motivation continues to increase with a lack of performance.¹⁸ If birds cannot perform these specific behaviors, they may experience negative affective states such as frustration.^19,20

A parallel can be drawn between the motivation for these specific behaviors and the motivation for activity or stimulation more generally. Broilers appear to have a preference for novel items that stimulate exploration and provide sensory stimulation and will actively engage with such stimuli.²¹ They entered spaces with novel items faster than empty spaces,²² which may indicate greater motivation for environments with more stimulation and options for engagement. Finally, they preferred complex, moving screensavers over those that were simpler,²³ which similarly demonstrates a desire for sensory stimulation. If a lack of varied stimulation can cause a negative state, similar to how a lack of foraging can cause frustration, this would mean that they are experiencing boredom.

Poultry wants and needs may go unfulfilled in understimulating environments

Poultry are commonly raised in understimulating or monotonous environments as most commercial environments provide access to feed, water and flock mates, but not much else. These environments provide few sensory stimuli and few behavioral opportunities compared to the natural environments in which the ancestors of poultry species evolved. These barren environments lead to increased negative states such as anxiety, fear, and chronic stress while adding complexity (and therefore behavioral opportunities and stimulation) can decrease the birds’ experiences of these states.^24–26 It may be the case that, similar to in humans, boredom may be a contributing factor to the increased anxiety and depression experienced in barren environments. More complex environments meet the birds’ behavioral motivations, including the motivation for behavioral variety and stimulation, leading to less boredom, reduced overall negative states, and therefore better welfare. Several PEC Poultry Press articles have discussed the importance of environmental complexity for poultry welfare such as Issues 13, 52, and 57.

How can boredom be assessed?

Scientific investigation into this topic has only just begun, and more research will be needed to help further understand this topic. To demonstrate that boredom in poultry exists, researchers may use behavioral indicators as cues to infer their internal emotional state.

Research in other species can help identify behavioral indicators that may be useful to identify boredom in poultry. Mink housed in barren cages were abnormally inactive and they were more motivated to contact novel objects, even those that would typically be aversive, compared to an enriched group.^7,28 Cattle in unenriched environments were similarly more inactive and spent more time seeking stimulation than those housed with enrichments.⁶ Motivation to contact any type of stimuli, including normally aversive ones, is a promising measure for boredom because motivation for any stimulation not just specific or positive stimulation differentiates boredom from other negative emotions such as frustration and apathy. While all three can be elicited by behavioral deprivation, frustration refers to a negative response to a specific expectation being violated while apathy involves a lack of any motivation.^29–31

Research into this topic has only just begun in poultry. However, some ongoing research funded by the organization Kinder Ground^32,33 is investigating using motivation to contact aversive objects as a measure for boredom in broiler chickens. This study aims to replicate the findings in mink to demonstrate the possibility of boredom in broilers (Figure 2). Boredom tests may have potential for integration into welfare assessment protocols to determine impacts of new enrichment types, ensuring that this negative state is prevented.

Figure 2. The novel stimuli test may be key to detect boredom in broilers raised in barren environments, compared to those in complex environments. Here, the positive object is a hay bale, the neutral object is a cone, and the negative object is a puff of air. We hypothesize that bored broilers will interact with all objects equally, because ‘any stimulation’ is better than nothing. They would show a short latency to approach all objects. In contrast, the contented broilers will mostly engage with the positive object.

Summary: Boredom in poultry

• Boredom is an emotional state defined by an unpleasant unfulfilled desire for an experience or activity, likely induced by a barren environment.
• Boredom may be a welfare concern in poultry because they appear to be motivated to interact with novelty, show preferences, and are commonly housed in barren environments.
• Providing animals with positive, neutral, and negative novel items could be developed into a test to detect boredom.
• Understanding boredom in poultry can help determine the impacts of housing conditions, especially related to environmental complexity.

Works cited

1. Bench, S. W. & Lench, H. C. On the Function of Boredom. Behav. Sci. 3, 459–472 (2013).
2. Burn, C. C. Bestial boredom: a biological perspective on animal boredom and suggestions for its scientific investigation. Anim. Behav. 130, 141–151 (2017).
3. Britton, A. & Shipley, M. J. Bored to death? Int. J. Epidemiol. 39, 370–371 (2010).
4. Li, J., Kaltiainen, J. & Hakanen, J. J. Job boredom as an antecedent of four states of mental health: life satisfaction, positive functioning, anxiety, and depression symptoms among young employees – a latent change score approach. BMC Public Health 24, 907 (2024).
5. Hintze, S., Maulbetsch, F., Asher, L. & Winckler, C. Doing nothing and what it looks like: inactivity in fattening cattle. PeerJ 8, e9395 (2020).
6. Russell, A. L., Randall, L. V., Eyre, N., Kaler, J. & Green, M. J. Novel enrichment reduces boredom-associated behaviours in housed dairy cows. JDS Commun. https://doi.org/10.3168/jdsc.2023-0475 (2024) doi:10.3168/jdsc.2023-0475.
7. Meagher, R. K. & Mason, G. J. Environmental Enrichment Reduces Signs of Boredom in Caged Mink. PLoS ONE 7, e49180 (2012).
8. (PDF) The concept of animal boredom and its relationship to stereotyped behaviour. ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286694799_The_concept_of_animal_boredom_and_its_relationship_to_stereotyped_behaviour (2025).
9. Marino, L. Thinking chickens: a review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken. Anim. Cogn. 20, 127–147 (2017).
10. Riber, A. B., van de Weerd, H. A., de Jong, I. C. & Steenfeldt, S. Review of environmental enrichment for broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 97, 378–396 (2018).
11. Fraser, D. & Duncan, I. J. H. ‘Pleasures’,’Pains’ and Animal Welfare: Toward a Natural History of Affect. Anim. Welf. 7, 383–396 (1998).
12. Olsson, I. a. S. & Keeling, L. J. The Push-Door for Measuring Motivation in Hens: Laying Hens are Motivated to Perch at Night. Anim. Welf. 11, 11–19 (2002).
13. Bubier, N. E. The behavioural priorities of laying hens: the effect of cost/no cost multi-choice tests on time budgets. Behav. Processes 37, 225–238 (1996).
14. Rodenburg, T. B. et al. The prevention and control of feather pecking in laying hens: identifying the underlying principles. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 69, 361–374 (2013).
15. Nørgaard-Nielsen, G. & Vestergaard, K. Dustbathing Behaviour of Uropygial Gland Extirpated Domestic Hens. Acta Vet. Scand. 22, 118–128 (1981).
16. Olsson, I. a. S. & Keeling, L. J. Sham dustbathing and use of dustbaths in furnished cages for laying hens. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Sci. 2002, 224–224 (2002).
17. Vestergaard, K. S., Damm, B. I., Abbott, U. K. & BildsøE, M. Regulation of dustbathing in feathered and featherless domestic chicks: the Lorenzian model revisited. Anim. Behav. 58, 1017–1025 (1999).
18. Weeks, C. A. & Nicol, C. J. Behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 62, 296–307 (2006).
19. Zimmerman, P. H., Koene, P. & van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. Thwarting of behaviour in different contexts and the gakel-call in the laying hen. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 69, 255–264 (2000).
20. The vocal expression of feeding motivation and frustration in the domestic laying hen, Gallus gallus domesticus – ScienceDirect. https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/science/article/pii/S0168159100001362?casa_token=4PXaaPzahtgAAAAA:Gmdt2OJjHBMRctGlz-KuDV9KzxauDYrdk35cZqGc6kBe1PcECAi_Owx7TgZkuOu_uB5giftODn4.
21. Forkman, B., Boissy, A., Meunier-Salaün, M.-C., Canali, E. & Jones, R. B. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiol. Behav. 92, 340–374 (2007).
22. Newberry, R. C. Exploratory behaviour of young domestic fowl. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 63, 311–321 (1999).
23. Clarke, C. H. & Jones, B. R. Domestic Chicks’ Attraction to Video Images: Effects of Stimulus Movement, Brightness, Colour and Complexity. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 13, (2000).
24. Silva, M. I. L. da et al. Behaviour and animal welfare indicators of broiler chickens housed in an enriched environment. PLOS ONE 16, e0256963 (2021).
25. Effect of Environmental Complexity and Stocking Density on Fear and Anxiety in Broiler Chickens. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/8/2383 (2025).
26. Anderson, M. G. et al. Effect of Environmental Complexity and Stocking Density on Fear and Anxiety in Broiler Chickens. Animals 11, 2383 (2021).
27. Campbell, A. M., Anderson, M. G. & Jacobs, L. Measuring Chronic Stress in Broiler Chickens: Effects of Environmental Complexity and Stocking Density on Immunoglobulin-A Levels. Animals 13, 2058 (2023).
28. Meagher, R. K., Campbell, D. L. M. & Mason, G. J. Boredom-like states in mink and their behavioural correlates: A replicate study. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 197, 112–119 (2017).
29. Mason, G. J. & Burn, C. C. Frustration and boredom in impoverished environments. Anim. Welf. 114–138 (2018) doi:10.1079/9781786390202.0114.
30. Meagher, R. K. Is boredom an animal welfare concern? Anim. Welf. 28, 21–32 (2019).
31. Duncan, I. J. Behavior and behavioral needs. Poult. Sci. 77, 1766–1772 (1998).
32. Bored Broilers. Kinder Ground https://kinderground.org/our-efforts/bored-broilers/.
33. Elizabeth, J. & Reimert, I. ISAE 2025 Conference Proceedings. 4-8 August 2025 Utrecht, The Netherlands.

To view all issues of Poultry Press, click here.

Editor’s note: Content on Modern Poultry’s Industry Insights pages is provided and/or commissioned by our sponsors, who assume full responsibility for its accuracy and compliance.

The post Bored birds? Researchers are exploring boredom as a potential welfare concern in poultry appeared first on Modern Poultry.

A preceding article documented the development of global meat¹ exports (Windhorst, 2026). This follow-up article analyses the dynamics in meat imports.

Between 1970 and 2023, global meat exports rose from 4.0 million mt² to 43.2 million mt, an increase of almost 980%. Looking at the development of the import volumes separately by meat type (Figure 1), it can be seen that they grew almost in parallel. However, it is noteworthy that imports of cattle meat exceeded those of pig meat and poultry meat until the end of the 1990s. In the following two decades, poultry meat and pig meat alternated several times in the top position. The sharp rise in pig meat imports towards the end of the last decade was a result of the outbreaks of African swine fever in Asia. This article will analyse both the longer-term development and the dynamics since 2000 in detail.

Long-term development – Parallel dynamics

An analysis of meat import development between 1970 and 2023 shows a remarkable parallelism in the three meat types considered here (Figure 1). However, the absolute and relative growth rates differed considerably. In 1970, the import volume of cattle meat was about twice as high as that of pig meat and almost four times higher than that of poultry meat. Cattle meat accounted for 58.2% of total imports of the three meat types, pig meat for 29.8% and poultry meat for 12.0% (Table 1). Until 2023, poultry meat imports grew by 14.6 million mt, or a thirtyfold increase, pig meat imports by 13.7 million mt, more than tenfold. Although cattle meat showed the lowest absolute growth at 10.7 million mt, it still increased almost fivefold compared with 1970. The different dynamics resulted in considerable changes in the shares of meat types in total meat imports. While the share of poultry meat roughly tripled, that of cattle meat almost halved. It is striking that pig meat recorded a significant increase in market share between 1970 and 2020. This distribution pattern was still largely present in 2023. However, as can be seen from Table 1, it differed in 2020 from that in 2000 and 2023. The reasons for this will be discussed in more detail in a later section of the paper.

Medium-term development – Momentum continues

In the next step, it will be analysed how meat imports developed between 2000 and 2023. Table 2 shows that the momentum continued during this period. The import volume increased by a total of 22.5 million mt. Imports of pig meat and poultry meat more than doubled, while cattle meat imports rose by 96.4%. The largest absolute increase, at 8.2 million mt, was in poultry meat, while the highest relative increase, at 122.9%, was in pig meat.

Looking at the continents, there are notable differences (Figure 2). Asia took the unchallenged lead with an increase in meat imports of 11.1 million mt, followed by Europe with 5.9 million mt and Central and South America with 3.9 million mt. Surprisingly, the two North American countries recorded a significantly lower growth of only 727,000 mt. High domestic production and self-sufficiency were the decisive reasons for the low imports.

In terms of cattle meat, Asia ranked first with an increase in imports of 5.3 million mt, well ahead of Europe and Central and South America. Imports from the other continents were insignificant in comparison. Regarding pig meat, Europe and Asia had equal imports of 3.0 million mt each, followed by Central and South America with 1.7 million mt. Here, too, the import volumes of the other continents were comparatively small. Asia and Europe also took the leading positions in poultry meat. It is worth noting that Central and South America and Africa imported almost equal quantities of poultry meat, at 1.6 million mt each. The high imports of Central and South America are surprising, as the continent was in the leading position in exports with an increase of 4 million mt in the same time period. A detailed analysis at country level would show that Brazil had a high export surplus, while Mexico and some other countries in Central and South America had to import poultry meat to supply their populations.

The dynamics observed during the period under review can best be documented by the relative growth rates. Figure 3 compares developments at continent level and by meat type. The highest relative increase in cattle meat imports showed Asia at 274.7%, followed by Oceania at 59.2% and Central and South America at 54.8%. Significantly lower growth rates were achieved in the other continents.

The highest growth rate for pig meat showed Central and South America at 463.0%. This was followed by Africa at 379.3%, Oceania at 336.9% and Asia at 205.5%. Growth rates were much lower in Europe and North America. Both continents had a high degree of self-sufficiency. A detailed analysis at country level would show that in Africa it was mainly the non-Islamic countries that increased their imports. In Oceania, the rapidly rising per capita consumption led to increased imports, particularly by New Zealand, Australia and Papua New Guinea.

At first glance, it is surprising that Africa achieved the highest growth rate of 480.4% for poultry meat. This was mainly due to the increased demand from Islamic countries in North Africa. In Oceania, imports have risen particularly since 2019 as a result of the COVID-19 epidemic. At 255.7%, Central and South America saw the highest relative increase among the continents with a large production volume. At first glance, the high growth rate in North America is surprising. This can be explained by the massive outbreaks of avian influenza in 2022 and 2023, which made imports necessary to supply the population. Imports by the USA rose by around 160,000 mt or 839% between 2020 and 2023 alone.

Figure 4 documents the role of each continent in the development of global meat imports between 2000 and 2023. Asia’s dominant position in meat imports is reflected in its 48.8% share. Europe and Asia had almost equal shares in pig meat imports. Both continents occupied the top two positions for all three meat types, with Asia’s exceptional position in cattle meat imports being particularly noteworthy. It is remarkable that Central and South America ranked third overall and for individual meat types, while North America played only a minor role in meat imports. This can be explained by the large domestic production and the resulting high degree of self-sufficiency.

Short-term developments – Animal diseases and the COVID-19 pandemic

The analysis of the development of imports of the three meat types considered here shows that the dynamics of pig meat imports was interrupted between 2020 and 2023. Imports fell by 1.4 million mt, or 8.8%. In contrast, imports of cattle meat and poultry meat continued to rise, with cattle meat imports increasing by 1.1 million mt and poultry meat imports by 1.4 million mt (Table 3). Cattle meat imports grew particularly in Asia, poultry meat imports in Europe.

The development of pig meat imports was largely determined by the dynamics in Asia. Here, imports decreased by 2.5 million mt or 35.7%. This sharp decline is attributable to China’s successful efforts to combat African swine fever. While China’s imports fell by 2.6 million mt, they continued to rise in some countries in Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Philippines) due to ongoing new outbreaks of the disease. South America recorded a sharp increase in imports of 731,000 mt, or 54.0%. Of this, 533,000 mt were accounted for by Mexico alone.

Europe shared more than two-thirds in the 1.4 million mt increase in poultry meat imports. Although imports by other continents were significantly lower, they reached 208,000 mt in Central and South America and 110,000 mt in Asia. The highest relative growth rate showed Oceania, at 24.5%. Europe’s high imports reflect the change in consumer behaviour during the COVID-19 epidemic. Because most restaurants and canteens in schools and universities were closed, more meals were prepared in private households.

Conclusion and outlook

The preceding analysis showed that global meat trade was remarkably dynamic in both the long and medium term. Imports of the three meat types considered here rose almost in parallel between 1970 and 2023, reflecting the growing global demand for meat. Since 2020, however, an interruption occurred in the dynamic development of pig meat imports, while cattle meat and poultry meat imports grew at a considerable level. In addition to the COVID-19 pandemic, which significantly changed consumer consumption and purchasing behaviour, outbreaks of avian influenza in North America and the successful control of African swine fever in China resulted in considerable changes in trade flows.

As demand for meat will continue to rise significantly in the current decade, an increase in meat trade can be expected. Central and South America in particular will be able to expand its share in world trade. Whether Europe will be able to import less meat in the future will depend on the ability of the farmers to prevent major outbreaks of avian influenza and African swine fever. Asia, whose meat production is also threatened by highly infectious diseases, is likely to continue importing large quantities of cattle meat and pig meat. North America’s role in meat trade will depend primarily on whether the spread of avian influenza in poultry meat herds can be prevented. A new epidemic that has been emerging since September 2025 is expected to cause supply problems not only for eggs but also for poultry meat. Africa will in future play an increasingly important role in meat imports because its rapidly growing population, combined with a middle class with a greater purchasing power, will demand more meat on the world market.

Data sources and additional literature

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). FAOSTAT. https://www.fao.org/faostat

Windhorst, H.-W. (2024). China’s role in meat production and trade. Fleischwirtschaft International, (3), 8–13.

Windhorst, H.-W. (2024). ASEAN – The dynamics of the meat industry in a hardly recognized economic area. Zootecnica International, 46(11), 28–35.

Windhorst, H.-W. (2025). Dynamics and structure of meat production and meat trade in the USA between 2019 and 2023: Part 2. Meat trade. Meatingpoint, (60), 6–10.

Windhorst, H.-W. (2025). Oceania – Disadvantage of peripheral location. Fleischwirtschaft International, (1), 14–21.

Windhorst, H.-W. (2026). The dynamics of global meat production. An analysis of the period from 2000 to 2023 – Part 1. Zootecnica Poultry magazine, 1, 20–26.

Windhorst, H.-W. (in preparation). The dynamics of the global meat trade. An analysis of the period from 2000 to 2023 – Part 3: exports. Zootecnica Poultry magazine, 4.

¹ Only the three most important meat types, beef, pork and poultry, are considered; the data for beef includes buffalo meat.

² 1 mt = 1,000 kg.

Rodney Johnson, hatchery specialist with Boehringer Ingelheim, says managers who prioritize strong communication, well-defined processes and consistent monitoring of key indicators often see improvements not just in hatchability and early livability, but also in team morale and operational efficiency.

At a time when many hatcheries are working with older equipment, limited labor pools and increasing management demands, Johnson says focusing on the fundamentals of hatchery management — from incubation to sanitation, vaccination and management style — is vital.

“The hatchery is where it all begins. It’s where flock performance starts,” he says. “If birds have issues during incubation that affect chick quality or embryonic development, if they’re dehydrated or they don’t go to feed and water immediately when they get to the house, they’re not going to live and perform well.”

Bird performance in the first week after placement is especially important in terms of growth rates, as performance lost during this early stage can be difficult to recover later in the production cycle, Johnson explains. A well-run hatchery, therefore, reduces pressure on the rest of the production chain.

“If the hatchery does its job and does a really good job, it makes it easier on everyone in live production — from the farmer out in the field to the live production management team trying to manage that flock.”

Defining chick quality

In practical terms, Johnson says chick quality is the major indicator of hatchery performance.

“To me, a high-quality chick will be one that isn’t dehydrated, doesn’t have red hocks and doesn’t have any navel issues or bacterial infection,” he says. “It’s basically a very healthy chick without major issues caused by sanitation problems or poor incubation in the hatchery.”

Egg management during incubation plays a major role in achieving that outcome, with careful control of the incubation environment and consistent adherence to quality assurance (QA) programs being key to protecting embryo development.

“The incubation process is vital,” he says. “You need good QA programs, sanitation programs and maintenance in the hatchery.”

Embryos can be particularly sensitive to environmental stress, and Johnson says that problems during incubation may not become visible until well after chicks have been placed on the farm.

“You can stress an embryo at 14 days and then see the effects once it gets on the farm a week and a half later,” he explains.

Several factors can trigger those stressors, including high heat in the incubator, improper turning, lack of humidity or incorrect humidity levels. However, Johnson says it’s important not to assume that one standard set of conditions will work for every hatchery, or to assume that the same conditions will suit a hatchery year-round.

“There’s no golden rule temperature that works everywhere,” Johnson says. “It depends on the type of incubator and the environment you’re operating in.

“Look at the manufacturer’s recommendations first. Then look at the chicks when they hatch. Let the chicks tell you what temperature and humidity you need, because they’ll tell you pretty quick.”

Eggshell temperatures can also provide valuable feedback, he adds.

“On Chick Master multi-stage machines, I like to see eggshell temperatures around 100.5 to 102°F (38.1 to 38.9°C). On Jamesway machines, crossbar temperatures should be around 100.3 to 100.5°F (37.9 to 38.1°C).”

Sanitation and vaccination

Beyond incubation management, Johnson says sanitation and vaccination programs are two of the most important tools hatcheries have to protect chick health.

“Biosecurity and cleanliness are huge,” he says. “You almost have to think of the hatchery like a hospital environment.”

Routine microbial monitoring can help managers identify sanitation problems early, and Johnson suggests conducting plating tests every week until a baseline is established, after which testing can be carried out each month to ensure standards are maintained.

Particular attention should be paid to hatch trays, which come into contact with multiple areas of the hatchery environment. Because newly hatched chicks often have slightly open navels, contaminated surfaces can introduce bacteria directly into the chick’s system.

Vaccination programs are equally critical, particularly given the substantial investments integrators make in disease prevention.

“Making sure the vaccine actually gets into the birds is key,” Johnson says.

“If a bird faces a disease challenge without that protection, it will struggle. Effective hatchery vaccination gives chicks time to develop immunity before facing those challenges in the field.”

Monitoring performance

When it comes to evaluating hatchery performance, Johnson says hatchability and 7-day mortality provide the clearest feedback.

“Right now, our industry average is about 79% hatchability. If I go to a hatchery and they’re at 82% or 83%, they’re doing well,” he says.

Seven-day mortality provides an equally important measure of chick quality and early flock health. Although figures have increased slightly over the past 2 decades, Johnson says hatcheries achieving mortality rates between 1% and 1.3% are performing strongly by today’s standards.

Tracking these metrics over time can also help hatchery teams identify improvements and maintain motivation.

“A lot of places now put their goals in the break room,” Johnson says. “Then, as they hatch every day, their hatch percentage goes on the whiteboard so the staff can see where they stand.”

The workforce challenge

Despite the importance of technical factors, Johnson says the most significant challenge facing hatcheries today is labor.

“It’s incredibly hard to find people who want to work in a hatchery, and it’s incredibly hard to retain them once you do,” he says. “It runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Someone has to work every holiday. And the environment can be tough — hot and dusty one minute, damp and wet the next because you’re constantly cleaning.”

Because of these challenges, Johnson says effective leadership and team engagement are essential.

“You have to make them feel like a team,” he says. “When things are going well, share the wins with them. Let them know they were part of the success.

“Sometimes management has a catered lunch or small prizes when they reach a goal. Those kinds of things don’t cost much, but they can really improve morale.”

Providing training opportunities and clear career pathways can also help employees remain engaged with the industry.

“When you train people, there should be a path for them to move up,” Johnson adds. “If someone feels like they’ll be doing the same entry-level job forever, morale can drop very quickly.”

Leadership and communication

Across the many hatcheries he visits, Johnson says strong communication and leadership are key traits among the most successful operations.

“The best hatchery managers incorporate themselves into the team rather than acting like the boss. They spend time on the production floor each day to really understand what’s happening.

“When you arrive in the morning, don’t go straight to your office,” he adds. “Go to the back of the hatchery first. Talk to your employees, ask what they’re seeing and check with maintenance about what’s happening with the incubators, hatchers, HVAC and chick processing equipment.”

As well as strengthening trust with staff, this approach is particularly important in hatcheries operating with older equipment, where effective maintenance planning and communication can help extend equipment life and maintain performance.

Building a resilient hatchery

Looking ahead, Johnson believes successful hatcheries will continue to depend on three core principles: consistent communication with staff, well-maintained equipment and rigorous sanitation and quality assurance programs.

These fundamentals may not be new, but Johnson says they offer the most reliable approach to improving hatchery performance and supporting the wider production system.

“The overall goal is simple,” he says. “More chicks and healthy chicks.

“And for hatcheries aiming to improve performance, the foundation is always the same — the hatcheries that have a stable workforce and good teamwork almost always perform better.”

The post The people factor: Why better hatchery management still drives flock performance appeared first on Modern Poultry.

USPOULTRY and the USPOULTRY Foundation announce the completion of a research project evaluating the effects of dacitic tuff breccia (DTB) and phytase on eggshell quality in older hens. The research is part of the Association’s comprehensive research program, which encompasses all phases of poultry and egg production and processing, and is made possible in part through proceeds from the International Poultry Expo, part of the International Production & Processing Expo.

Project F-118: effects of phytase and dacitic tuff breccia (Azomite®) supplementation programs to support extended lay in laying hens

(Dr. Ishab Poudel, Prestage Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.)

As the poultry industry looks to extend the productive lifespan of hens beyond 100 weeks, maintaining eggshell quality becomes increasingly important for animal welfare, sustainability and profitability. Researchers at North Carolina State University evaluated the impact of early dietary supplementation with DTB and phytase on eggshell strength and quality in older hens.

Hens fed moderate levels of DTB (0.25%) beginning at 50 weeks of age maintained stronger eggshells, while phytase supplementation improved bone strength and overall skeletal health. Although the combined use of DTB and phytase did not consistently yield additional benefits, each independently supported hen productivity during extended lay.

These findings provide practical insights for maintaining egg quality and supporting hen health in older flocks.

The research summary can be found on the USPOULTRY website. Information on other Association research may also be obtained by visiting the USPOULTRY website.

Source: U.S. Poultry & Egg Association press release

“This vaccine was specifically designed to address issues faced by broiler-breeders and commercial layer producers, closing a gap in coccidiosis coverage for our customers,” said David Smith, DVM, Huvepharma’s Director of Poultry Technical Services.

Coccidiosis is a prolific and costly intestinal disease that can be found in all production animal species. In the broiler-breeder industry, coccidiosis negatively impacts multiple facets, including production efficiency, therapeutic costs and bird mortality. Advent P represents an additional coccidiosis solution for the poultry industry.

“Completing the Advent portfolio with Advent P is an exciting advancement for our poultry team and the entirety of Huvepharma,” said Daniel Lackey, Director of Product Management and Marketing with Huvepharma.

Advent P will be available for purchase within the coming months. The vaccine has a shelf life of 9 months and will be packaged in 10 x 10,000-dose clamshells. It can be applied by spray cabinet at day of age or on feed.

For more information, please visit www.huvepharma.us.

The post Huvepharma vaccine expands coccidiosis toolkit for broiler-breeders and commercial layer producers appeared first on Modern Poultry.

The post Zoetis: Coming Soon appeared first on Modern Poultry.

Africa – Hubbard is pleased to announce the appointment of Zangtinda Marcel Ouedraogo as Dual Purpose Project Manager. This new role reflects Hubbard’s commitment to strengthening initiatives that promote sustainable and inclusive agriculture across Africa. Zangtinda Marcel will report directly to Florian Allègre, Western and Northern Africa Sales Manager.

Native from Burkina Faso, Zangtinda Marcel holds a Master’s degree in Agronomy, obtained in 2014 from Université Nazi Boni (Burkina Faso), with a specialisation in conservation agriculture, agroecology, soil fertility, agroforestry, and livestock production.
He holds a strong scientific and technical background in sustainable agricultural production systems. His professional experience has enabled him to develop recognised expertise in agroecology and agricultural program management.
Over the past decade, Zangtinda Marcel has held key positions within international and research organisations, where he has led agricultural programs, supervised multidisciplinary teams, and contributed to improving production systems, specifically in the poultry sector.
With this extensive experience in agricultural development and his strategic expertise in the design, implementation, and monitoring of sustainable poultry projects, Zangtinda Marcel will contribute to the development of Dual Purpose poultry markets. He will focus on promoting farmers, local hatcheries, and smallholder poultry producers, while advancing sustainable and resilient farming practices.
Dual Purpose breeds deliver a practical twofold benefit, as males are raised for meat production and females for egg production. Hardy and well adapted to African conditions, they provide smallholder farmers, especially women and young people, with opportunities to actively take part in regional economic development. These breeds help strengthen financial and social autonomy while improving access to high-quality animal protein through both meat and eggs.
With the appointment of a dedicated Dual Purpose Project Manager, Hubbard reaffirms its commitment to supporting rural communities in developing efficient, sustainable, cost-effective poultry systems tailored to climate challenges.
Florian Allègre added: “We are delighted to welcome Zangtinda Marcel to the Hubbard team. With his strong field experience in West and Central Africa, he will actively contribute to the upgrade of high-performing and robust Hubbard Dual Purpose breeds. He will also bring forward innovative solutions to support farmers and organisations involved in strengthening poultry value chains.”

More information about our Dual Purpose breed can be found here: https://hubbardbreeders.com/media/leaflet_dual_purpose_en_20220218_ld.pdf

France – Le Pouliguen – On March 31st and April 1st, 2026 Hubbard brought together a large group of technicians in charge of managing breeder flocks across French operations. Held every two years, this 2026 edition took place in a seaside setting and featured a program of cutting-edge presentations combined with highly valued opportunities for discussion and exchange.

The first day opened with an overview of the European Premium chicken market, followed by a closer look at the market situation in France. A presentation on the performance of the main Hubbard Premium breeds provided an analysis of customer feedback and highlighted the importance of sharing field data. The next session, focussing on the genetic selection of the Premium breeds (from pedigree to field performance), emphasized once again the critical role of data in the performance analysis and genetic selection. Combined with manual measurements, the accuracy and volume made possible by the latest technologies make data collection and data analysis a cornerstone of Research & Development. Finally, a dedicated session on Premium male management outlined key recommendations by the Hubbard Customer Support Team to ensure optimal growth and performance in both rearing and production.
The second day was dedicated to more technical topics, addressing needs identified by the Hubbard Customer Support team. It started with a focus on the importance of maximising egg weight at the onset of lay; both age and careful growth control, along with appropriate nutritional strategies, are critical factors. Jean-Luc Martin (Tell-Elevage) then presented a series of key points for the design and management of poultry housing to achieve optimal environmental conditions. This was followed by a session on the importance of early growth: from day one, the rearing environment has a direct impact on the development of the chicks. The final presentation addressed fertile eggs, emphasizing best practices for egg collection, handling, and storage — particularly on-farm — as well as the importance of the cuticle, serving as a natural protective barrier in challenging environments.
This second edition brought together not less than 48 participants from across the country. A gathering of professionals who value the opportunity to meet with the Hubbard team. It also provides a valuable platform to introduce new generations of technicians and share with them the richness and challenges of our demanding and rewarding professions.
We are very thankful to all participants for their strong attendance and for making these “Rencontres Hubbard Premium” a success.
Remaining at your service, the Hubbard Customer Support Team is there to assist you in managing your operations in the best possible way.

For further information, please contact your Hubbard representative or the Hubbard team through: communication@hubbardbreeders.com

Breeding for increased appetites and fast growth has resulted in meatier birds. But these heavier birds experience health complications and decreased reproduction.

“Hens for broiler production must carry the genes for increased appetite, growth and high meat yield, yet also have a lighter bodyweight that supports a longer lifespan and fertilized egg production,” said University of Arkansas graduate student Allison Weaver during a recent virtual symposium on poultry welfare sponsored by the Poultry Extension Collaborative.

Feed restrictions are used to maintain the lower bodyweight required for broiler breeders. Weaver’s research explored how feed restrictions affect bird welfare.

Qualitative versus quantitative feed restriction

Weaver explained that feed restrictions are either quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative restrictions, which reduce the amount of feed offered each day, can involve frequent small feedings every day or skipping a day of feeding.

In skip-a-day (SAD) feeding, birds are fed every other day or follow an equivalent schedule in which they are fed some days and not others. Qualitative restrictions involve providing feed that contains fewer calories. Fiber, such as soy hulls, is often added. Appetite suppressants can also be added, but Weaver pointed out that this isn’t a common practice in the poultry industry.

“Qualitative feed restrictions alone are not enough to control bodyweight. Better results are achieved when combined with quantity restrictions,” Weaver stated.

Behavior changes in feed-restricted birds

How do these birds, which have been selected for increased appetites, respond when they have less food than they prefer? Weaver looked for abnormal, repetitive and redirected oral behaviors indicating discomfort, frustration or agitation. These behaviors include increased foraging, feather pecking and pecking at the drinking line.

Her research involved feed restriction in 950 Cobb hens from 0 to 33 weeks of age, housed in pens with 16 birds each. The hens were either fed every other day or given small amounts of feed frequently throughout the day. They had either unlimited access to water or had water restricted, with the water turned off for 3 hours daily.

Weaver observed behaviors for 20 minutes at 16 and 22 weeks of age during three periods each day: 1.5 hours after feeding, at the start of water restriction at 12 p.m. and at the end of water restriction. She also measured the water consumption of normally fed birds at 4, 10, 16 and 22 weeks of age.

The SAD birds drank less 1.5 hours after feeding but drank more at both afternoon time points. Weaver suggested this could be because SAD birds need more time to eat their larger portion of feed. The SAD birds drank the most at 22 weeks old. Overall, SAD hens drank 150% more than birds fed daily. However, Weaver noted that it was difficult to tell whether water was actually consumed or just used.

SAD birds showed more water-line pecking without water use, along with increased preening and dust bathing. These birds also rested and pecked their feathers more than those fed daily.

Birds fed a restricted amount daily were more active before feeding and displayed more anticipatory behaviors. Hens on higher-fiber diets drank less but pecked more at the drinking lines.

Weaver noted that the increased water-line pecking was evident in wet litter, and this spillage could lead to health problems such as foot pad lesions.

All groups of feed-restricted birds exhibited chronic hunger behaviors. “Their abnormal behaviors indicate a negative welfare status,” she said.

Overcoming negative welfare status

Weaver proposed three options to overcome the negative welfare status:

• Precision feeding
• Scatter feeding
• Increasing feeding frequency

However, she said that precision feeding, which requires each bird to be fed to its ideal weight, isn’t a scalable option for the industry. “Scatter feeding, while it does enable the expression of foraging behavior, still leaves birds hungry. And increasing the frequency of feeding with small portion sizes will also leave birds hungry.”

Weaver noted that there are some positive health benefits of feed restrictions, but overall, feed restrictions negatively affect the birds’ welfare. However, she noted that restricting feed is necessary to maintain production.

“This study didn’t provide a clear answer on how to improve the welfare of birds that are feed-restricted,” Weaver said, adding that “Varying feed quality and quantity might offer some improvements, but birds still show signs of chronic hunger.” She pointed out that different flocks may respond differently, and a solution or combination of solutions could work well for some birds but not others.

Weaver concluded that, “Maintaining poultry welfare and mitigating stressors while restricting calories will require more research.”

The post Examining feeding restrictions through a welfare lens appeared first on Modern Poultry.

Around the world, demand for wing products is strong and growing. In China, the mid-wing is the most popular chicken piece, with five times the price per kilogram of breast fillet. In the USA, chicken wings are a popular snack for decades, eaten both at home and in fast-food restaurants. After breast meat, wings are the second most favorite portion for US consumers. Chicken wings are also a feature of major sporting events. Over 1.4 billion wings were eaten during this year’s Super Bowl, enough to go round the world three times.

Automation saves labor

Wings are the smallest chicken portion. When done manually, wing cutting is very labor-intensive. Today, lack of staffing in their plants is, however, the biggest threat for poultry processors. Around the globe, many of them have difficulties finding staff. Processors are therefore looking for automated solutions: equipment that will cut wings efficiently and consistently and accurately. Automatic cutting in JBT Marel’s ACM-NT wing cutting modules is the perfect labor-saving answer.

Maximized yield

Poultry processors are also looking for equipment, thatmaximizes yield. Some companies supplying QSR fast food chains need to cut wing portions with a medallion of breast meat attached. Others want to leave all breast meat on the breast with the added option of being able to harvest some back meat with the wing portion. Whatever type of cut is needed, retail, bulk or fast food, JBT Marel can offer all options.

Special QSR needs

Some QSR chains insist that any cutting line for their products be exclusive to them. The line can handle no cuts for other customers.

JBT Marel offers an approved ACM-NT line to do a special nine-piece cut for a major international QSR chain. What is important for the chain is that all pieces take the same amount of time to fry, resulting in unique wing, breast, thigh and drumstick cuts. To ensure this is achieved, carcasses for cutting into the nine pieces are taken from a very narrow weight band.

Stretching, guiding and anatomical cutting

Accurate wing processing demands that wings are presented precisely to automatic cutting equipment. This means stretching them. An automatic wing stretcher always precedes a JBT Marel wing cutting operation.

Accurate cutting is essential for a successful automatic wing operation. This requires the correct guiding for correct presentation to the cutting blades and the correct cutting technique. These will be different for different situations. At JBT Marel, separation of the inner wing joint from the carcass is anatomical, except where this joint must be cut with a medallion of breast meat. Separation of inner and middle joints is also anatomical.

Growing demand

Given growing demand worldwide, automatic equipment must be capable of cutting ever more wings, ever more accurately into an expanding range of wing products. There is also scope for improving product flows and for saving labor for inspection and packaging.

Three examples of innovative ACM-NT wing processing solutions are the Wingstick module, the HY second-joint wing cutter and Q-Wing.

Wingstick

The ACM-NT Wingstick module cuts a wing snack product that is very popular in markets such as France, Poland and Turkey. Volume processors in all these markets are now using the module. A Wingstick is an inner wing joint where the bone is bared to form a handle, making it easier to pick up and eat. Wingstick does all these operations automatically.

WingMaster

The WingMaster module perfectly cuts the second joint, producing a mid-wing, aka wingette. WingMaster offers adjustable skin coverage for ideal presentation of both mid-wing and drumette. This is ideal for the Chinese market, which demands a carefully cut mid-wing presented with a flap of skin from the inner joint. Independent left and right wing cutting ensures optimal yield and the best destination for each piece, especially when integrated into JBT Marel’s Q-Wing setup.

Q-Wing

Q-Wing is an innovative combination of its IRIS vision system and ACM-NT wing processing modules. It is the perfect solution to deal with damaged and undamaged wings. An IRIS vision system scans the wings or their individual joints of the incoming products. Each wing cutting module is doubled, so that A-grade wings are cut by one module, while damaged wings are cut by the other. This results in two separate product streams, which is a logistical advantage as A-grade wing components will usually be packed differently to downgrades. With this completely automated wing grading and cutting system, manual inspection becomes redundant. Q-Wing will handle wings with or without tips at capacities of up to 14,400 wings per hour.

www.jbtmarel.com/en/poultry

Visit the link for additional information on the Q-Wing system:
https://prd-jbt.marel-envr.com/en/products/q-wing/

Understanding insecticide resistance

Insecticide resistance occurs when insect populations are repeatedly exposed to the same active ingredient, leading to genetic adaptations that reduce the effectiveness of treatments. In poultry production, pests such as darkling beetles can quickly develop resistance, undermining biosecurity and flock health. Resistance is not tied to brand names but to the chemical group and mode of action of the insecticide.

Key strategies for combating resistance

1. Rotate modes of action

Insecticides are classified by group numbers based on their mode of action. Producers should rotate between these groups rather than simply switching brands.

For example, alternating between pyrethroids and organophosphates reduces the likelihood of pests adapting to one chemical family.

2. Monitor resistance levels

Regular monitoring of pest populations helps detect early signs of resistance.

Field tests and laboratory assays can identify reduced sensitivity, allowing producers to adjust control strategies before resistance becomes widespread.

Integrate non-chemical controls

Sanitation and litter management reduce pest breeding grounds.

Physical barriers, improved ventilation, and moisture control limit insect survival.

Biological controls, such as introducing natural predators, can complement chemical treatments.

4. Apply correct dosages and timing

Under-dosing or irregular application accelerates resistance development.

Following label instructions and applying insecticides at recommended intervals ensures maximum effectiveness.

Benefits of proactive resistance management

• Sustained effectiveness of insecticides over time.

Reduced production costs by avoiding repeated ineffective treatments.

Improved flock health and biosecurity, as pests are vectors for disease.

Compliance with regulatory standards and consumer expectations for sustainable production.

Risks of ignoring resistance

• Rapid pest population growth due to ineffective treatments.
• Increased disease transmission within poultry houses.
• Higher operational costs from repeated chemical applications.
• Potential regulatory scrutiny if misuse of insecticides is detected.

Conclusion

Combating insecticide resistance in poultry production requires a proactive, integrated approach. By rotating insecticides based on mode of action, monitoring resistance, and combining chemical with non-chemical strategies, producers can safeguard flock health and maintain effective pest control. Resistance management is not just a technical necessity—it is a cornerstone of sustainable poultry production. 

Sources can be provided upon request

Vaccination via drinking water is one of the cornerstones of modern poultry production and accounts for the majority of immunization procedures carried out during the rearing and production cycles of commercial flocks. Although this method may appear straightforward, it actually involves a complex set of variables that can become potential causes of failure within a vaccination program. Water quality, which is often underestimated, and its comprehensive, end-to-end management are decisive factors in determining the effectiveness of live vaccines, directly influencing their viability and their uniform distribution across the farm.

Physicochemical parameters

The water used for vaccination must meet specific parameters that often differ from those required for daily drinking water. Among all parameters, pH is the most critical factor: it must be maintained within the range of 6.5–7.8. Values outside this range can compromise the viability of live vaccines. Acidic pH values (<5) may, in some cases, make the administered water less palatable, discouraging intake, while alkaline pH values (>8.0) lead to the inactivation of these immunizing agents. Chlorine is one of the primary antagonists of live vaccines. Even minimal concentrations (0.1–0.2 ppm) of free chlorine exert bactericidal activity, while virucidal activity becomes evident at higher levels (0.3–0.5 ppm). Moreover, the organoleptic perception of chlorine (taste and odor) appears at levels above 0.5 ppm, serving as a reliable empirical indicator of lethality for most live vaccines. Heavy metals such as copper, iron, and manganese can form complexes with vaccine components, resulting in their inactivation. Water hardness, defined by the concentration of calcium and magnesium salts, must likewise be monitored to avoid interference with vaccine stability: it may contribute to scale formation within the lines, creating favorable conditions for microorganisms.

Among qualitative characteristics, turbidity is one of the most important parameters. When a sample is collected from the bottom of the drinking lines, it is visually assessed. Clear/transparent is the preferred condition, whereas flocculent material indicates poor quality. High degree of turbidity in drinking water negatively affects the animals’ immune response through inflammatory reactions and cell-mediated processes (Mohammed, 2008; Chen et al., 2018). Water temperature is also a relevant factor because bacterial replication increases above 25 °C (optimum 18–20 °C), negatively affecting the efficacy of applied treatments, including vaccinations.

Microbiological parameters and biofilm

Biofilm in drinking water lines represents a major obstacle, frequently underestimated and undervalued to vaccine efficacy and effective immunization. These heterogeneous bacterial aggregates, composed of different microbial species, usually opportunistic like E. coli, Pseudomonas spp., Staphylococcus spp., Campylobacter spp., together with other organic contaminants (fungi, algae), settle on the inner surfaces of the pipelines, protected by a matrix of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) as well as inorganic components (calcareous sources), factors that promote their stabilization.

Biofilm has multiple negative effects: it acts as a sink for vaccines on its surface, altering local pH and creating microenvironments unsuitable for the survival of immunizing antigens; it also reduces flow within the water system, increasing internal water pressure. Recent studies have shown that sessile bacteria embedded in biofilms develop resistance mechanisms to protect them from disinfectants and antimicrobials, rendering traditional sanitation protocols ineffective (Hahne et al., 2022).

Drinking systems: pre-vaccination checks and procedures

The design of drinking water distribution systems should include, upstream of the dosing pump, filters of approximately 80 microns (which can also serve multiple purposes such as absorption, sequestration, or mechanical filtration). These filters are installed to remove any suspended particles that might interfere with the correct distribution of vaccines through the system. During vaccination, however, all filters downstream of the dosing pump must be bypassed to prevent the accumulation of disinfectants and minerals on their surfaces.

The presence of dead spaces in the piping represents a critical risk factor. These areas can retain previously used disinfectant solutions, which — when mixed with the vaccine solution — compromise efficacy. It is also essential to design systems, where possible, with drain or purge valves at the ends of the lines to ensure they can be completely emptied prior vaccination.

Furthermore, the layout of the drinking lines and the water inlets within the system should be carefully assessed. Significant differences exist that may complicate uniform intake of the vaccine solution by the entire flock (for example, systems with central drops in the house versus those with only one inlet at the head, or multi-tier cage/aviary systems with specific animal arrangements). In such setups, depending on their design, the greatest risk is that animals closer to the water inlet may consume a larger volume of vaccine solution, while in some sections, particularly at the end of the line, the solution may not reach at all due to excessive water consumption in the initial stretch, possibly caused by over-settlement conditions.

Any biocides used (such as hydrogen peroxide, acidifiers, etc.) must be discontinued at least 24–48 hours before vaccination to allow complete removal of possible residues from the lines. High-pressure flushing of the lines can accelerate cleaning and/or emptying; performing this technique regularly (preferably once a week) also improves biofilm control by slowing its development. The effectiveness of these operations can be verified analytically using test strips to measure residual hydrogen peroxide and/or chlorine levels.

Finally, regular mechanical cleaning of nipples and cups (or bells, where used) with hot water and/or detergents (which must be thoroughly rinsed) helps remove organic residues from feces or litter, preventing local pH alterations and physical absorption of the vaccine used.

Quality control: systematic monitoring of drinking water

Analytical testing of drinking water should be performed at least once a year, with increased frequency during critical seasonal periods (summer and winter). Key parameters to assess include pH, chlorine, total hardness, heavy metals, total microbial load, and coliforms.

pH can be monitored using litmus paper and/or digital pH meters. Digital instruments are generally more sensitive and reliable if properly calibrated with the appropriate buffer solutions. In addition, commercially available digital probes allow continuous monitoring, providing real-time control of this parameter.

The uniform distribution of the vaccine solution throughout the drinking system lines can be verified using commercially available dyes or tracers (for example, methylene blue). Performing this test before vaccination helps identify areas where the solution might stagnate or fail to be evenly distributed, factors that could compromise the effectiveness of the vaccination procedure.

Moreover, drinking system pressure (approximately 1.5–2 bar) as well as flow rate (within the range of 50–80 ml/min) must ensure a constant supply throughout the entire system. Significant variations can result in over- or under-dosage, leading to uneven immunization within the flock and, in severe cases, possible reversion to virulence with adverse post-vaccination reactions (e.g., laryngotracheitis).

Optimization of vaccination procedures

Calculating the volume of water to be used requires specific knowledge of the farm’s drinking system as well as the flock’s water consumption. Based on these data, it is possible to determine water intake during the two hours following the morning feeding, which is the best time of day for vaccination (as a general empirical rule, this usually corresponds to 15–20% of the daily water intake). The volumes used must be adjusted according to several factors, primarily age, genetics, and ambient temperature.

The system’s dead space (any piping without usable bypasses/valves, recirculation tanks, length of pipeline from the dosing pump to the actual entry point into the drinking system, etc.) must be included in the total calculation to avoid unforeseen dilutions. Generally estimated at 10–15% (depending on the system), this volume can retain non-vaccine water and thus act as a dilution factor. Compensation for this residual volume can be achieved by proportionally increasing vaccine concentration or reducing the total dilution volume, ensuring a consistent dose-per-bird ratio.

The use of stabilizers is an essential component of vaccination via drinking water. These products contain active substances such as sodium thiosulfate, neutralize any residual chlorine, chelate heavy metals, and act as pH buffers, maintaining it within the optimal range. Skimmed milk powder (at a recommended rate of 2–3 grams per liter of water) is the traditional alternative to commercial stabilizers; milk proteins effectively bind chlorine and metal cations, protecting vaccines from inactivation. The stabilizing solution should be prepared at least 15–20 minutes before adding the vaccine to allow complete neutralization. Stabilizers may also be added during the pre-dilution step (demineralized water without stabilizer can be used as an alternative), in a smaller container together with the vaccine, as well as directly into the dosing pump tank.

Vaccine reconstitution must take place in a controlled environment using disposable gloves and containers designated exclusively for this purpose (not previously used for disinfectant solutions or other products) in a suitable material (plastic). During preparation, exposure to UV light must be avoided, as UV radiation inactivates vaccines. Vials must be opened below the water level in the container used (containing at least 5–6 liters) to prevent airborne contamination and avoid potential loss of vaccine that could adhere to the container walls. Multiple rinsing of the vial (at least 2–3 times) with stabilized water ensures complete recovery of the vaccine content, which is particularly important for high-viscosity or adjuvanted vaccines.

The optimal time of administration is early morning, starting at lights-on. In poultry, this corresponds to a peak in feeding activity and water consumption and takes advantage of natural behaviour to ensure rapid and uniform vaccine intake. Pre-vaccination water restriction of one to two hours stimulates thirst and concentrates intake of the vaccine solution into a short time frame. This restriction may be unnecessary if administration begins at lights-on, as the flock will already have undergone a minimum of eight hours of feed and water restriction. This restriction must be carefully evaluated in summer, under heat-stress conditions, to prevent potential adverse effects, particularly in laying birds (e.g. hyperthermia).

The recommended administration time window is generally an hour and a half to two hours, especially for more sensitive live viral vaccines. Shorter durations may result in incomplete vaccine coverage within the flock, whereas longer periods expose the vaccine to progressive inactivation. From a practical standpoint, it is advisable to divide the total vaccine dose into two equal phases of administration, each lasting an hour and a half to two hours; in the first phase, approximately 60% of the total dose is used, followed by a second phase delivering the remaining 40%. This helps less competitive birds also receive an adequate dose for immunization, a situation commonly observed in very long and/or multi-tier systems (e.g. aviary systems for laying hens).

Regular physical stimulation of the flock by the operator (at least every 30 minutes) plays an important role, as it encourages birds to move towards the drinking lines and supports uniform intake. Furthermore, if a dye is used, examining the oral cavity of birds sampled from different areas of the house becomes extremely useful. If at least 90% of birds show visible coloration of the tongue, the flock can be considered uniformly vaccinated.

Conclusion

Vaccination via drinking water in the poultry sector is a complex process that requires a multidisciplinary approach to ensure the effectiveness of immunizing agents. It is not merely a technical procedure, but the result of well-managed procedures in which every detail matters, from the chemical-physical and microbiological quality of the water to line cleaning and the proper preparation and administration of vaccines.

Only careful management based on rigorous protocols allows full exploitation of the advantages of drinking water prophylaxis. Systematic control of the parameters and procedures described not only guarantees vaccination effectiveness but also contributes to the farm’s economic sustainability.

Modern poultry farming therefore demands a rigorous scientific approach that integrates veterinary, engineering, and technical-management expertise to optimize this essential tool of preventive medicine.

Moving Beyond Baselines: A Real-Time Approach to Measurement

What Happens in the Field: CommCare and the Data Collection Pipeline

Tokozile Ngwenya reviewing Power BI dashboards with a PMI partner.

Turning Data Into Decisions: The MEL Perspective

Thierry Binde leads a data training for FSRs.

The Infrastructure Behind the Insights: Data Analytics at WPF

WPF Forecast Dashboard example.

Data as a Partnership Tool

WPF Power BI dashboard example.

A System Built to Learn

The post From Field to Decision: How WPF Uses Data to Build Better Poultry Programs appeared first on World Poultry Foundation.

For the poultry sector, the report confirms the presence of high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI H5N1) in poultry, captive birds and wild birds.

In poultry, outbreaks were reported in Germany (1 outbreak) and Poland (10 outbreaks) during the reporting period .

In captive birds, 3 outbreaks of HPAI H5N1 were reported in Poland .

In wild birds, HPAI H5N1 outbreaks were reported in multiple countries, including Austria (9 outbreaks), Germany (39 outbreaks), Denmark (9 outbreaks), Poland (7 outbreaks), Sweden (7 outbreaks), Finland (2 outbreaks), France (3 outbreaks) and Norway (2 outbreaks) .

The affected wild bird species reported include mute swan, geese, gulls, buzzards and other bird species, depending on the notification and location .

The report also includes notifications of Newcastle disease virus in poultry, with 2 outbreaks in Germany and 2 outbreaks in Poland . Additional cases in non-poultry bird populations were reported in the Czech Republic (2 outbreaks), Germany (3 outbreaks), Latvia (1 outbreak) and Poland (2 outbreaks) .

Each notification includes the country, disease type, outbreak reference, affected species and the smallest administrative division where the case was detected .

The data reflect the situation as recorded in the ADIS system at the time of report generation and are based on official notifications submitted by Member States .

For turkey producers, blackhead remains a high-impact threat, particularly in young birds, where infection can spread quickly and cause major losses. With limited approved treatment options compared with past decades, interest has grown in alternatives that may help reduce spread and limit disease severity before an outbreak accelerates.

“With fewer tools available, the focus shifts to prevention and limiting how far the disease spreads,” said Diego Cortes, DVM, a seasoned field veterinarian who conducted this research as part of his graduate studies in poultry science at the University of Arkansas. “That’s where these combinations looked promising — we saw improvements in transmission, lesions and mortality.”

Cortes presented the research at the International Poultry Scientific Forum (IPSF) during the 2026 International Production & Processing Expo (IPPE) in Atlanta.

Why blackhead continues to challenge turkey production

Histomoniasis is caused by the protozoan parasite Histomonas meleagridis, and in turkeys, it can be especially severe. Cortes said outbreaks can move quickly through flocks and, in the worst cases, mortality can climb into the 80% to 100% range.

Control of the cecal worm Heterakis gallinarum — an important carrier of blackhead — remains one of the most critical factors in managing histomoniasis risk. At the same time, producers are navigating growing concern about dewormer performance and emerging resistance trends, making parasite management more complicated than it has historically been.

Growing focus on preventive tools

With limited approved treatment options available for blackhead, the focus has increasingly shifted toward preventive tools that help birds maintain gut integrity and immune resilience before challenge pressure rises. Among these, postbiotics and phytogenic compounds have gained attention for their potential to support intestinal function, influence microbial balance and reduce inflammatory pressure — benefits that may help birds better tolerate enteric challenges.

Postbiotics can also offer practical advantages in feed manufacturing because they are not live organisms, improving stability and consistency in handling compared with some probiotic approaches. Although there is a substantial body of research on phytogenics and gut support strategies in broilers, Cortes said there remains a relative lack of turkey-specific data evaluating postbiotic and phytogenic combinations together — one of the gaps this work aimed to address.

Study design focused on horizontal transmission

A key focus of the study was horizontal transmission — the spread of infection from bird to bird through feces and shared environmental contact — which is one of the main ways blackhead moves through turkey flocks once it gains a foothold.

Researchers used a seeder/contact model with 400 poults assigned to a challenged control group or one of three postbiotic and phytogenic combinations based on Cargill’s Biostrong H-Protect (Bio HP) concept. Birds received their assigned diets from placement through day 34.

At day 14, a small number of birds in each pen were challenged and served as “seeders.” The remaining birds were “contacts,” commingled with seeders to evaluate how readily infection moved through the group. The three combinations were designed to compare different postbiotic sources and phytogenic profiles, with the goal of identifying the best overall option.

• Bio HP 1: Postbiotic A plus a single phytogenic compound
• Bio HP 2: Postbiotic A plus a phytogenic multi-compound
• Bio HP 3: Postbiotic B plus a phytogenic nucleus combination

Lower transmission in treated birds

In contact birds, horizontal transmission was highest in the challenged control group at 80% (48 of 60 birds). In the groups receiving postbiotic and phytogenic combinations, contact-bird transmission ranged from 56.67% to 63.33%.

Cortes said transmission outcomes are often difficult to influence once histomoniasis is circulating within a group, which made the observed differences notable.

“Normally, when we test different products, we don’t see a reduction in transmission,” Cortes said. “So, seeing transmission go down is a good starting point to determine what combination works best.”

Zero contact mortality in the treated groups

Contact-bird mortality reached 10% (6 of 60 birds) in the challenged control group. In all three groups receiving postbiotic and phytogenic combinations, contact mortality was 0% (Figure 1).

“When the birds are challenged without any combination, they keep dying,” Cortes said. “But with the combinations, they stop dying, and some birds can compensate and recover.”

Figure 1. Mortality rate (post-challenge)

Click to enlarge.

Lower lesion severity in treated birds

Researchers scored lesions in both the ceca and liver on a 0 to 3 scale. In contact birds, Bio HP 1 had the lowest average liver lesion score at 0.02 compared with 0.37 in the challenged control group. In the ceca, all three combination groups had lower average lesion scores in contacts, ranging from 0.63 to 0.70 compared with 1.07 in controls.

“Normally in the challenge control, lesion scores tend to be between 2 and 3,” Cortes said. “But after using the combinations, we saw much lower lesion scores — especially in the liver for Bio HP 1 — and reductions in the ceca in the other prototypes.”

Among seeders, Bio HP 3 showed the lowest average cecal lesion score at 2.05 compared with 2.30 in challenged controls, and it was also numerically lower for liver lesions in seeders.

Growth performance differences narrowed after challenge

Pre-challenge, birds receiving Bio HP 1 showed higher body weight and body weight gain at day 14 compared with controls. By day 34, post-challenge performance in contact birds was broadly similar across treatments, with no statistically significant differences reported, though Bio HP 1 remained numerically higher for body weight.

“If we use this approach from the beginning, the birds can be more prepared for any kind of infection,” Cortes said. “That early body weight could help them handle challenge better.”

Health-supporting role

Cortes said the results support a health-supporting role for these strategies, rather than positioning them as a fix after clinical signs are already widespread.

“This approach should be focused on using these tools from the beginning, before disease becomes a problem,” he said. “They could work under challenge, but are more effective from day one to support gut health and integrity.”

Noting that every prototype has a different benefit, Cortes said, “Some help more in seeders, others in contacts and others in transmission. The idea is to determine the best option or combine the benefits and find the most cost-effective combination. For turkeys, this is a promising start and it gives us valuable insight into what works and what to improve next.”

The post Study links postbiotic and phytogenic combinations to improved blackhead outcomes appeared first on Modern Poultry.

This Aviagen Brief has been written specifically for producers in Asia and the Middle East where typical ambient temperatures can range from below freezing to above 50 °C (122 °F). This advice may be useful in other regions, but this must be discussed with your local Technical Service Manager.

Introduction

Water is an essential biological ingredient of life. Not only is it a vital nutrient, but it is also involved in many essential physiological functions such as:

• digestion and absorption, where it supports enzymatic function and nutrient transportation;
• thermoregulation;
• lubrication of joints and organs and the passage of feed through the gastrointestinal tract;
• elimination of waste;
• essential component of blood and body tissues.

Chickens consume about twice as much water as feed, although this ratio can be much higher during hot conditions. About 70% of a chick’s weight is water (this can be as high as 85% at hatch), therefore, any reduction in water intake or increase in water loss will have a significant effect on the lifetime performance of the chick.

Due to the essential role that water plays in the health and performance of biological systems, it is vital to ensure that an adequate, clean supply of water is provided if optimal bird performance is to be achieved.

This Aviagen Brief provides information on the factors that influence water consumption and water quality, highlighting methods to maintain and/or increase water intake, and discussing what constitutes good water quality and how to maintain it.

Water losses

The water intake of the body should remain in balance with water loss if dehydration is to be avoided. The main sources of water loss are respiration, transpiration, and excretion of feces and urine. Fecal water loss is about 20–30% of the total water consumed, but the most important loss of water is via the urine. The characteristics of water loss will change, depending on the environment and the humidity, for example, while evaporative heat loss may represent only 12% of the water loss in birds at 10 °C (50 °F), it can increase to 50% when the environmental temperature reaches 30 °C (86 °F). This is a critical factor with regard to the chick where water represents a larger proportion of its weight.

What influences water consumption in chicks?

Age

Water intake is closely linked to feed intake and bird age (growth response). As the bird gets older, the demand for water will increase (Figure 1). Water quality and availability, therefore, have the potential to impact heavily on the growth performance of the modern broiler, and any husbandry technique that limits water (such as part house brooding or failing to increase drinker space in the first 10 days) will have a parallel negative effect on growth.

Sex

The sex of the bird will also affect water intake. The water intake of males will be greater than that of females from the first week of life. Water:feed ratio is also higher in males than in females. Adipose tissue differences between the sexes explain these differences in water intake (females being fatter than males; fat has a lower water content than protein).

Key point

• Immediate water availability when chicks are placed in the house is important if permanent damage to the biological performance of the flock is to be avoided.

Environmental temperature

Environmental temperature can impact heavily on water intake (Figure 2). The water intake of chickens is approximately double that of feed intake (1.8:1, at a temperature of 21 °C (70 °F) in bell drinkers). However, in heat-stressed birds this level will be increased. A chicken’s water intake will increase by 6–7% for each degree above 21°C (70°F, NRC, 1994).

It is strongly recommended that each house has a water meter installed and that accurate daily records of water intake are maintained.

Key point

• Increases in water intake will occur with age and environmental temperature.
• Water availability must reflect these changes if performance is not to be restricted.
• Each house should be fitted with a water meter.

Water temperature

With the exception of water used for vaccination, little thought is given to the temperature of the water presented routinely to birds. Stored water tends to be at a similar temperature to that of its environment. This is not significant in cold climates, but in hot climates water consumption will be reduced as the water temperature increases. Work by Beker and Teeter (1994) found the preferred water temperature of birds to be around 10 °C (50 °F), with water temperatures of 26.7 °C (80 °F) and above leading to significant reductions in water consumption and daily weight gain. It is therefore important to regularly monitor water temperature. If it regularly exceeds 24 °C (75 °F), then thought should be given to developing methods of cooling water temperature in hot weather. This may involve running the drinker supply pipes through a cool pad reservoir or even across the face of the cool pad airflow.

Positioning the water tank and supply pipes underground will also help to protect the water from the ambient air temperature, keeping it cool. Pipes and tanks that are exposed to the sun should be insulated and shaded to prevent heat gain. It is also good practice to flush the drinker lines at regular intervals in hot weather to keep the water as cool as possible.

For vaccination the target water temperature should be <20 °C (68 °F). In hot weather this can be achieved through the addition of ice to the storage tank before vaccination commences. It is important to ensure that all the ice is melted before addition of the vaccine to prevent non-uniform mixing.

Key point

• In most broiler units, nipple drinkers are the system of choice. Good management of these systems is critical with water line maintenance, drinker line location, water pressure, and nipple flow rate all affecting water intake.
• Regardless of the water system in place, drinker height and provision of adequate drinking space is critical.

Drinking systems

In most modern broiler units, nipple drinkers are the system of choice; these have the advantage of reducing disease spread, providing cleaner water, and reducing the labor requirements for clean out. However, good management is necessary for the proper operation of nipple drinker systems. Management factors that influence water intake in such systems are water line height (birds should lift their heads to reach the nipple drinker which should be higher than the birds’ back to prevent bumping and leakage, see Figure 3), water line maintenance (regular flushing and cleaning), drinker line location, and water pressure.

Nipple flow rate will also influence water consumption and should be checked regularly against the manufacturer’s recommendation. The flow rate should be correct in all drinker lines throughout their entire length. For young chicks, water pressure (and flow rate) should be low.

Pressure should be gradually increased with age and weight so that water flow is increased as birds get older in accordance with demand. As a general rule, water pressure should be adjusted so that there is a flow rate of at least 60 ml/min available from each nipple. To achieve good performance the nipple lines should be controlled to meet the birds’ requirement rather than to simply protect the litter. In general, the systems with higher flow rates produce better growth rates by increasing both feed and water consumption, but water leakage and litter deterioration is more likely.

The negative growth impact of low nipple flow rates is most commonly seen in birds growing to higher weights (>2 kg [4.4 lb]), where the increased water demand cannot be met and feed intake is reduced. The effect of low nipple flow rates is even clearer if the stocking density is increased and the bird:nipple or bird:drinker ratio is high. As a useful guide, use the Lott equation to calculate static weekly flow: (weeks of age)* 7 + 20 ml/min may be a helpful reference.

Where bell drinkers are the system of choice, drinkers should be cleaned daily to prevent the build up of organic matter. Height should be adjusted so that the base of the drinker is level with the broiler’s back from 18 days onward (Figure 3).

No matter what drinker system is installed, the provision of adequate drinker space is essential if water intake is not to be reduced. As a guide, 83 nipples or 8 bell drinkers per 1000 birds should be provided post-brooding. Where ambient temperatures and/or heavier liveweights (>2 kg [4.4 lb]) are used, drinker space should be increased by up to 50% of these guidelines.

Feed effect on water intake

Any nutrient that promotes mineral excretion through the kidneys also promotes increased water consumption. Therefore, excess minerals in feed or water above nutritional requirements will lead to an increase in water intake. This is also true for high protein diets where any protein not used for protein synthesis is deaminated and excreted in the urine. This energy-demanding process is associated with an increase in water loss.

In particular, the presence of inorganic elements such as sodium (Na), potassium (K), and chloride (Cl) will be associated with increased water consumption and wetter droppings. A moderate increase in dietary sodium is not normally a problem where birds have access to low sodium drinking water; they will increase the water intake if the diet is high in salt and excrete the excess. However, in areas where water sodium levels are elevated, it is important to factor this added supply into practical diet formulation, otherwise unevenness and poor growth rate will occur.

Recent Ross Nutritional Specifications specify 0.18–0.23% sodium in broiler diets. These reflect total sodium intake and, therefore, any contribution from the water should be included.

The dietary requirement for potassium is low, with 0.6–0.9% being adequate, levels of intake above this may, however, have a thirst-inducing effect, increasing fecal moisture. This is normally seen where soya is used as the single protein source to provide high protein starter diets. The general standard should be to control dietary potassium to a total intake of <0.9%.

Chloride levels should equal sodium levels (0.18–0.23%). The total chloride level is generally constrained by delivering a proportion of the sodium requirement as sodium bicarbonate rather than as salt (sodium chloride). Deficiency states are uncommon.

Water quality

A supply of clean, uncontaminated water should be freely available to the birds at all times. However, depending on the source, the water supplied to the birds may contain excessive amounts of various minerals or be contaminated with bacteria. Acceptable levels of minerals and organic matter in the water supply are given in Table 1.

Regular assessments of water quality throughout the production period itself should also be made. Ideally, these should be taken from a tap between the tank and the first drinker. Where the facility of a tap does not exist, the water sample should be taken from the first drinker. The main water connection at the top of the drinker should be removed and drained so that any build-up of bacteria and debris can be flushed through allowing an accurate water sample to be taken. Water should be left running for at least 2 to 3 minutes before the sample is taken. As with all testing, the results should properly reflect the water status and, therefore, care to avoid contamination either during sampling or during transport to the laboratory is necessary.

If proper maintenance of the water line does not occur, microbial contamination can build up, affecting bird performance, reducing the effectiveness of medication and vaccination, and reducing nipple flow rate. Implementing a regular water sanitation and line cleaning program will prevent the build-up of microbial contamination. Controlling bacterial load is much more difficult with open drinker systems as they are exposed to contamination by fecal dust and the oral and nasal secretions of birds as they drink (Table 2).

Closed nipple systems have the advantage of reducing disease spread, but even with these, dosing with a sanitizer that is effective in the presence of organic load and biofilms is regularly required. Chlorination to give between 3 and 5 ppm at drinker level (using, for example, chlorine dioxide), or UV radiation are effective means of controlling bacterial contamination. Treatment should occur at the point of water entry into the house.

High levels of calcium salts or iron in the water may lead to the valves and pipes of the drinker system becoming blocked. Where this is a problem, it is advisable to filter the supply using a filter which has a mesh of 40–50 microns.

Key point

• Excess levels of some inorganic elements such as Na, K, and Cl will increase water intake and the occurrence of wetter droppings.
• Dietary levels of these elements should be in line with Aviagen nutritional recommendations.

Conclusion

Water is an essential ingredient for life, a clean supply of which should be readily available from placement throughout the production period. Any restriction in water intake or contamination of water will ultimately affect the growth rate and overall performance of the bird. There are many factors that can affect water intake including age, sex, environmental temperature, water temperature and the drinker system type. The bacterial and physical quality of water should be monitored regularly, and where required, corrective action should be taken to ensure that bird performance is not compromised.

Key point

• A supply of clean, uncontaminated water should be freely available at all times.
• Regular assessments of water quality should be made to ensure microbial load and mineral content are within acceptable levels.

In summary

• Unrestricted access to a source of good quality water at an appropriate delivery temperature (10–12 °C/50–54 °F) should be available.
• Provide adequate drinker space and ensure that drinkers are easily accessed by the whole flock.
• Monitor the feed to water ratio daily to check that birds are drinking sufficient water.

Make allowances for increased water intake at higher temperatures (6.5% increase per degree over 21 °C (70 °F)).

• In hot weather, take steps to ensure that water is as cool as possible, e.g. flush drinker lines, use a cool pad, position tankers and drinkers underground or insulate.
• Regular testing of the water supply for temperature, bacterial load, and mineral content should occur and, where necessary, appropriate corrective action should be taken.

References

Bailey, M. (1999). The water requirements of poultry. In J. Wiseman & P. C. Garnsworthy (Eds.), Recent developments in poultry nutrition (Vol. 2, pp. 321–337). Nottingham University Press.

Beker, A., & Teeter, R. G. (1994). Drinking water and potassium chloride supplementation effects on broiler body temperature and performance during heat stress. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 3(1), 87–92.

Macari, M., & Amaral, L. A. (1997). Importância da qualidade da água na criação de frangos de corte: Tipos, vantagens e desvantagens. In Anais da Apinco (pp. 121–143). Campinas, Brazil.

National Research Council. (1994). Nutrient requirements of poultry (9th rev. ed.). National Academies Press.

Singleton, R. (2004). Hot weather broiler and breeder management. Asian Poultry Magazine, September, 26–29.

The dashboard also presents weekly average EU prices for Class A eggs by production technology, covering cage, barn, free-range and organic systems .

For 2024, the total number of laying hens in the EU is reported at 392,275,372 head. Of this total, 38.2% are in enriched cages, 38.9% in barn systems, 16.2% in free-range systems, and 6.7% in organic systems .

The main egg-producing Member States in 2024 are listed as France (1,008 thousand tonnes), Germany (970 thousand tonnes), Spain (962 thousand tonnes), Italy (804 thousand tonnes), Poland (670 thousand tonnes) and the Netherlands (573 thousand tonnes). Total EU production is reported at 6,664 thousand tonnes. The dashboard notes that production includes eggs for consumption and eggs for hatching .

On trade, EU imports of eggs in 2025 are reported at 188,743 tonnes egg equivalent, compared with 122,304 tonnes in 2024, representing a +54.3% change. The main partners listed for EU imports are Ukraine (120,631 tonnes; +60.6%), the United Kingdom (15,802 tonnes; -6.6%), North Macedonia (9,993 tonnes; +143.9%), China (4,643 tonnes; +172.3%), Argentina (4,539 tonnes; -3.8%), and Others (33,134 tonnes; +67.5%) .

EU exports of eggs in 2025 are reported at 349,902 tonnes egg equivalent, compared with 360,980 tonnes in 2024, representing a -3.1% change . The main destinations listed for EU exports are the United Kingdom (139,026 tonnes; -5.2%), Japan (58,001 tonnes; -3.8%), Switzerland (47,572 tonnes; +1.4%), Thailand (11,289 tonnes; -3.4%), Israel (10,761 tonnes; +33.9%), and Others (83,252 tonnes; -4.8%) .

The dashboard is dated 25 March 2026 and identifies its sources as the European Commission, Member State notifications, Eurostat, and Trade Data Monitor.

Download the dashboard here.

Widening outbreak across districts

• Confirmed cases: Avian influenza has been detected in 23 poultry farms across four districts: Morang, Sunsari, Jhapa, and Chitwan.
• Scale of culling: Over 100,000 domestic fowls—including broilers, layers, indigenous chickens, and ducks—have been destroyed to contain the virus.
• Hardest-hit area: Sunsari district has reported the highest number of affected farms, with 12 facilities impacted.

Causes and contributing factors

• Biosecurity lapses: Poor farm-level biosecurity practices have been identified as a major driver of the outbreak.
• Wild bird contact: Authorities believe that interaction between domestic poultry and migratory wild birds has facilitated the spread of the virus.
• Delayed response: Initial unusual bird deaths coincided with parliamentary elections, slowing veterinary intervention as officials were deployed elsewhere.

Government response

• Containment measures: Authorities have culled birds, destroyed eggs, and disposed of tons of feed to prevent further transmission.
• Expanded surveillance: Veterinary teams are conducting farm inspections and monitoring surrounding areas to detect new cases.
• Public advisories: Farmers have been urged to strengthen hygiene, restrict farm access, and report unusual poultry deaths immediately.

Economic and social impact

• Financial losses: Poultry farmers face devastating losses from mass culling, feed disposal, and halted egg production.
• Food security concerns: Nepal’s poultry industry is a vital source of protein; disruptions could affect local food supply and prices.
• Farmer anxiety: Many small-scale farmers fear bankruptcy, while larger commercial farms worry about long-term reputational damage.

Outlook and challenges ahead

• Risk of spread: With outbreaks confirmed in multiple districts, there is concern that the virus could expand to other regions if containment falters.
• Need for stronger biosecurity: Experts emphasize that stricter farm-level controls, vaccination strategies, and better coordination with wildlife authorities are essential.
• International implications: Nepal’s poultry trade could face restrictions if outbreaks persist, affecting regional markets.

In summary, Nepal’s poultry sector is under severe strain due to avian flu outbreaks, with tens of thousands of birds culled and farms devastated. The crisis underscores the urgent need for stronger biosecurity, rapid veterinary response, and farmer support to prevent further economic and food security shocks.

Sources can be provided upon request

“When we talk about microbiota, we usually think about the gut or the skin,” Ben Porat said. “To our surprise, we found viable bacteria right where the egg forms.

“We recovered 145 unique bacterial strains in combined samples from the infundibulum, magnum and shell gland regions of the reproductive tract,” he continued. “This raises the possibility that some of these bacteria might be transferred into the egg and reach the developing embryo.”

The research and results were presented by Ben Porat at the 2025 Poultry Science Association annual meeting.

Research details

“The aim of our study was to determine whether live symbiotic bacteria, rather than just bacterial DNA, were present in the reproductive tract of the chicken,” Ben Porat explained.

Using 10 Cobb broiler breeders at 37 weeks of age, the research team took samples from three regions of the reproductive tract: the infundibulum, magnum and shell gland.

The samples were placed on an aerobic agar and incubated for 3 days.

A substantial number of the colonies grew from all three regions. Researchers collected the colonies and performed 16s rRNA sequencing, which helps identify bacteria and analyze bacterial diversity in microbiomes.

The results produced 145 unique bacterial strains. The most abundant strains were Lactobacillus, Bacteroides, Lachnospiraceae and Oscillospiraceae, all commonly associated with the gut microbiota, Ben Porat reported.

Tract region differences

Next, researchers analyzed the bacteria by region of the reproductive tract.

“It was interesting to see that the magnum had statistically lower antimicrobial resistance compared to both the shell gland and the infundibulum,” Ben Porat said.

A variogram showed that 37 bacterial strains were shared across the three regions. In addition, 34 bacterial strains were shared between the shell gland and infundibulum but were completely absent from the magnum.

“These figures support the idea that the bacterial community of the magnum is different from that in the other two regions,” he explained. “This is likely because the magnum has fewer specific bacteria, because its resistance is lower.

“Next, we wanted to understand whether different regions of the reproductive tract affect the specific order of bacteria present in those regions,” he continued. “Lactobacillales was the dominant order across all regions. But we observed a clear reduction in the number of bacterial strains that travel from the magnum compared to the other regions.

“This suggests that the magnum, where egg whites are formed, may act as a selective environment, which allows some bacteria to survive and grow while excluding other bacteria.”

Magnum bacteria gatekeeper?

Overall, the researchers observed viable bacteria in different regions of the hens’ reproductive tracts where eggs form.

“This finding opens up not only a question of whether bacteria reach the chicks but also if it influences functions like fertilization,” Ben Porat said.

“We also found that the magnum acts in selective environments, which raises the question of whether the selection process goes through all maternal physiology. This means that hen physiology might help filter or select bacteria that can’t enter the egg.

“In that sense, the magnum might influence which bacteria become the first for the developing chick,” he suggested.

The post Study identifies abundant bacterial strains in chicken reproductive tract appeared first on Modern Poultry.

In modern poultry farming, the efficiency of prophylactic operations is no longer assessed solely in terms of speed, but also in terms of dosing accuracy, animal welfare, and biosecurity. These operations, traditionally reliant on manual skill and the experience of vaccination teams, are increasingly becoming a production bottleneck, as the availability of specialized personnel continues to decline.

Against this backdrop, the patented device distributed by Giordano and developed by Prof. Dante Lorini, now an integral part of the group’s Vaccination Devices category, represents a significant step forward compared to traditional methods. It is an “all-in-one” pneumatic vaccination station that integrates ocular-conjunctival spray, intramuscular (IM) injection, and wing membrane scarification. The system is designed to standardize the vaccination process, increase its precision, and ensure high operational quality, allowing up to seven vaccinations to be performed during a single handling of the animal.

Design philosophy: ergonomics and adaptability

The core of the innovation lies in the machine’s ability to adapt to the bird’s morphology, rather than requiring the bird to adapt to the equipment. The system is entirely pneumatic, eliminating electrical components and ensuring operability even in challenging environments with high levels of dust and humidity. The stainless-steel construction is easy to sanitize and disinfect at the end of vaccination procedures (any type of disinfectant can be used).

The modular structure allows adjustment along three axes, making it suitable for birds of any age and size, with particular suitability for pullets aged 80-90 days. Moreover, adaptability to the specific operating context is further enhanced, as farmers or operators can modify the rods and/or trolleys supporting the equipment to meet their needs. Thanks to standardized measuring scales, once a single machine is calibrated, the same settings can be accurately replicated on all other devices in use simultaneously.

Finally, its global distribution ensures easy access to manufacturer support and the availability of spare parts for maintenance.

Anatomical and functional analysis of vaccination methods

The device addresses the limitations of manual vaccination through engineering solutions that respect the anatomy of these animals. The operational procedure involves controlled handling of the animal by gripping the back with the right hand and the left wing with the left hand. The subsequent vaccination steps include:

1. wing puncture

The wing is inserted horizontally, with the dorsal side facing upward, into the central slot of the device for localized intradermal/subcutaneous inoculation or transfixion. Applying light pressure activates a micro-pneumatic mechanism that moves a special needle vertically and perpendicularly downward; this needle is coated with the vaccine solution contained in the underlying tray, distributing the viral suspension into the wing membrane tissues (epidermal/dermal/interstitial connective tissue layers) as it rises back up.

The entire vaccination cycle is completed in about 250 milliseconds, and the system prevents repetition until the command is released.

The device replaces the traditional double needle (often causing excessive lesions or breaks) with a single special needle (160 micron diameter) featuring:

• needle geometry: shaped with a piercing tip and long taper, including an internal roughened zone to retain the exact vaccine dose for tissue adhesion during needle withdrawal. These features ensure minimal damage to the wing membrane.
• guaranteed dosing: tests confirm perfect accuracy, delivering 1,000 doses to 1,000 birds. This eliminates manual method waste, ensures compliance with pharmaceutical solvent/solute ratios, and the tray’s specific geometry maximizes solution use.

2. intramuscular (IM) injection

At the same time as wing positioning, the bird’s chest is placed against the contoured mask on the right. A moving sled brings the needles into contact with the birds’ pectoral muscles, ensuring inoculation at the correct site (in pullets, ideally 2.5–4 cm from the sternal bone, in the upper third of the chest, with the needle angled downward at 45°).

Manual injections are subject to human error related to fatigue, incorrect angle/depth, often leading to deposits in wrong anatomical sites (too superficial or too deep, risking penetration into the coelomic cavity and damage to underlying organs like liver or heart, causing animal death) and/or granulomas.

The pneumatic system eliminates these variables, ensuring:

• constant intrinsic pressure: the vaccine is delivered under controlled force through muscle fibers, ensuring uniform diffusion into deep layers, reducing localized pockets and associated granuloma incidence.
• multiple injections: a sled driven by a pneumatic cylinder enables up to four injections at different points in a single operation, using adjustable parallel/converging needles.
• needle stability/integrity: the smooth sled movement reduces wear (using standard Luer Lock needles of varying diameters/lengths), drastically lowering risks of trauma/infection.
• syringes: individually adjustable for diverse vaccine dosages. Separate injection circuits (each dispenser has its own volume) prevent vaccine mixing, preserving pharmacological integrity.
• support rods: useful for connecting bags/vials of vaccine solutions to fill syringes.

3. ocular-conjunctival spray

Following injection, the operator moves the bird to the left and positions the head on the appropriate contoured support, so that the eyes align with the vaccine spray dispensers; light pressure with the left hand on a mobile lever activates a second micro-pneumatic mechanism that commands timed spray application. The spray deposits the inoculum directly into the conjunctival sac, between the bulbar surface and the inner eyelid. From this site, the vaccine reaches Harder’s gland (a lymphoid organ essential for mucosal immune stimulation) and is subsequently distributed throughout the respiratory epithelium (superficial and/or deep) through passage via nasal cavities/choana and oral cavity, via the nasolacrimal duct.

Traditionally, ocular vaccination required tilting the bird’s head and drop-by-drop dosing, operations that often induced instinctive eyelid closure or required manual force. Furthermore, a hurried or fatigued operator may release the bird before the drop is fully absorbed, without waiting for the bird to blink before releasing it.

The new system leverages the “Venturi effect,” providing the following advantages:

• natural position: the animal maintains the head in a physiological position without recline, on a specialized contour following its morphology. This also reduces the eyelid closure reflex.
• fluid dynamics: spray pressure is calibrated to slightly lift the eyelid, ensuring vaccine reaches the entire ocular orbit before the bird can close its eye.
• flexibility: option for dual reservoirs, individually connected to their respective dispensers, to administer two vaccines simultaneously. The dispensers are adjustable in position and angle to ensure precise orientation toward animal pupils. Vaccine volume is modifiable via screws on individual sprayers.
• efficiency: immediate confirmation of correct administration is visible by observing any dye used by directly inspecting the animal’s oral cavity. Additionally, positioning the spray on the right (or as otherwise configured) allows this operation as the first phase. While the operator proceeds with the subsequent steps, the vaccine has time to be properly absorbed.

Animal welfare and biosecurity

The most significant competitive advantage is the reduction of animal handling. While traditional methods required up to four separate handling steps to complete the full vaccination cycle, the new method involves a single collection of the bird, administrating all treatments in rapid sequence (spray → intramuscular injection(s) + wing puncture).

This approach drastically reduces the risk of trauma and stress for animals. As a result, it lowers potential respiratory and/or enteric conditions associated with stress, reduces the need for medication/additives, and limits the formation of culled birds with improved uniformity and reduced mortality.

The use of fewer operators and reducing the number of handling steps represents a significant advantage in terms of biosecurity. Fewer personnel movements in and out of the facility, as well as between different sites on the same day or different days, limits the possibility of introducing or spreading potential pathogens, ensuring greater control over the application of hygiene and preventive measures.

Strategic analysis: the machine as a response to personnel shortage

This is where the system’s true long-term value becomes evident. Labor shortages are not a transient phenomenon, but a structural and increasingly urgent issue. The modern farmer must address:

• high turnover: difficulty finding and training personnel who often leave after just a few months.
• training costs: time lost teaching the “sensitivity” of manual vaccination.
• fatigue: human errors due to repetitive movements (RSI) on thousands of birds.

The device acts as a skills equalizer:

• De-skilling of the operation: the operator no longer needs to decide how to vaccinate, but only where to position the animal. The “expert hand” is replaced by machine calibration. Once a “recipe” (pressures, distances, volumes) is set on one machine, it can be replicated at all stations, ensuring that a newly hired operator achieves the same health outcomes as a more experienced one.
• Operator safety and welfare: the risk of self-injection (more common with manual syringes and struggling animals) and reduction of physical strain enable more peaceful and productive work shifts.
• Optimization: with a single operator performing up to four operations simultaneously, the number of personnel needed to complete a vaccination cycle is reduced. In a context where reliable labor is difficult to find, achieving the same results with fewer people becomes a decisive advantage.

Cost-benefit analysis and performance

Despite its advanced technology, the system is designed for robustness and operational economy.

Conclusion

The adoption of this equipment should not be read merely as a “technology purchase,” but as an insurance policy on the production process.

By guaranteeing the certainty of the inoculated dose (1,000 doses = 1,000 birds), correct anatomical placement, and optimal management, independent of individual operator skill, it offers farmers a tool to elevate health standards while reducing labor costs and operational risks. Furthermore, given recent prospects for possible introduction of multiple mandatory parenteral vaccinations, the device is already equipped for simultaneous multiple injections (up to four in a single handling).

In a future where skilled labor continues to become scarcer, this system can transform vaccination from a “manual art” to a standardized, scientifically validated, and economically sustainable “industrial process”.

Discover more about Vaccinator Mark II: https://giordanoglobal.com/it/product/vaccination-devices/vaccinator-mark-ii/

My introduction to sustainability, and the lens that has shaped how I approach my work, has always been grounded in the oath I took at graduation from veterinary school: to protect animal health and welfare, prevent suffering, conserve animal resources, promote public health and advance medical knowledge.

Sustainability is embedded in that oath, even if I did not fully recognize it early in my career. Its significance became clear as my responsibilities expanded, my experience deepened and I confronted the real-world complexity of our industry.

Entry into sustainability

My more formal professional sustainability journey began in 2007, when the company I was working for, Keystone Foods, launched its first sustainability program and asked me to lead that effort in the US. The responsibility seemed to dovetail well with my other areas of responsibility, including leading live operations and commodity risk management.

At the time, sustainability was not well understood within Keystone or the broader poultry industry. For many, it was confined to a narrow environmental narrative, often reduced to “being green,” and largely disconnected from the broader operational context, trade-offs and consequences that we recognize today.

From the outset, I spent a great deal of time reframing the conversation. I emphasized that sustainability was not something new or abstract but something we were already working on every day, through animal care, food safety, workforce practices, resource stewardship and business continuity. What was changing was not the work itself but how we communicated about it and how intentionally we connected it to outcomes.

My responsibilities expanded globally, and one of my early objectives was enhancing our sustainability culture. Regardless of role or function, my desire was for every employee to understand and be able to articulate how their work contributed to making Keystone more sustainable. Building that shared understanding required investing in enhancing sustainability literacy across the global organization, establishing a common language, clarifying understanding of complex trade-offs and fostering a clear line of sight between individual decisions and broader business outcomes.

Whether someone worked in HR, food safety and quality assurance, operations, accounting or elsewhere in the organization, sustainability had to be tangible, shared and owned, not siloed or assigned to a single department. That literacy was foundational to creating a robust and resilient sustainability culture that could endure beyond programs, reporting cycles or leadership changes.

Demonstrating sustainability

I am immensely proud of the role our poultry industry plays in society, particularly in terms of sustainability.

We feed a growing global population with safe, affordable and high-quality protein through one of the most cost-efficient and sustainable animal agriculture systems in the world. Sustainability in agriculture did not begin when corporations started focusing on it in the early 2000s; it has always been embedded in how we operate. We work continuously to do more with less, reduce waste and build a resilient value chain capable of meeting today’s needs while standing up to tomorrow’s challenges.

The poultry industry has delivered long-standing improvements in many areas of sustainability, yet I have long been frustrated by our inability to articulate our sustainability narrative in a compelling and convincing way.

When people ask, “Are we producing poultry sustainably?” my answer is grounded in data, not defensiveness. Life-cycle assessments and industry benchmarking of US broiler production tell a compelling story, one that is rarely communicated effectively outside our industry.

Over the last 5 decades, the US broiler industry has dramatically reduced its environmental footprint. From 1965 to 2010, water depletion declined by more than 50%, global warming potential by more than 30%, land use by over 70% and fossil-energy use by nearly 40% per kilogram of live weight produced. From 2010 to 2020, we continued to improve, with further reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, water consumption, and land and fossil resource use.^1,2

These gains did not happen by accident. They were driven by advances in poultry genetics, nutrition, health management, housing and husbandry, paired with a vertically integrated value chain that allows us to identify inefficiencies and correct them at scale.

Poultry did not just become more sustainable; it became more affordable. Even as input costs rose, chicken remained one of the most accessible proteins for consumers. Food affordability and accessibility are critical, yet often overlooked, dimensions of sustainability.

Focusing sustainability efforts

Sustained progress, however, does not mean the job is done. The next phase of sustainability improvement in poultry is harder and requires honesty about where our biggest opportunities lie.

Life-cycle analyses consistently show that roughly 70% of poultry’s climate impact sits in Scope 3 emissions, which include transportation-related greenhouse gases. Within that, roughly 70% is tied to feed in the form of grain production, feed processing and transport, and feed conversion. That reality narrows the field of viable interventions.

Future progress will not come from a single breakthrough but from a disciplined set of science-based levers applied across the system. It will depend on climate-smart row crops, improved nutrient management, reduced tillage and effective edge-of-field practices. It will also depend on precision nutrition and the thoughtful use of alternative ingredients, such as enzymes, probiotics and phytogenics, and the ability to balance formulating for cost and environmental impact.

Additionally, progress will depend on continued gains in feed conversion and improved health and welfare, as well as rigorous environmental control inside poultry houses, i.e., air quality, temperature, lighting and management.

None of these is a silver bullet. Each may carry trade-offs. Sustainability is not about achieving perfection. Rather, it is about making informed, data-driven decisions that balance outcomes and drive continuous improvement.

Telling the full sustainability story

Admittedly, I fell into the trap of discussing sustainability only in the context of environmental impact. This was not intentional, but it is certainly where I feel most comfortable and get most excited.

To really tell our compelling story, we must speak broadly about our progress. The US Roundtable for Sustainable Poultry and Eggs developed a sustainability framework that measures performance across 101 metrics and 15 core indicators, including animal welfare, environmental impact, labor and food safety. The assessment enables participants to benchmark progress, pinpoint and prioritize areas requiring greater focus, recognize strengths and drive continuous improvement across their organization.

The first-ever sustainability framework report developed for the full US supply chains for chicken, turkey and eggs from producer to final customer was published in 2025.³ This represents an important step toward generating the data and insights needed to communicate our story more effectively and enhance credibility and trust with our stakeholders.

Call to action

So where does that leave us?

If the poultry industry wants sustainability to be understood based on real performance rather than outside interpretation, we must take ownership of our narrative and define how sustainability is executed and communicated. Progress must be grounded in a holistic framework that integrates aspects of sustainability and manages trade-offs transparently, rather than allowing one priority to be sacrificed to satisfy another.

My call to action is this:

If you are a poultry leader, do not chase sustainability commitments that ignore systems-level consequences. Demand holistic assessments before locking in targets. Grow a sustainability culture within your organization where, regardless of function, everyone understands how they contribute to sustainable outcomes for your company.

If you are a veterinarian or welfare professional, advocate for outcome-based measures that let the bird tell us the answer.

If you are a customer or brand, recognize that sustainability is not achieved through prescriptive mandates but by partnering with supply chain partners and driving continuous improvement that is grounded in science.

And if you work in poultry production, take pride in what this industry has accomplished while staying committed to doing better.

Poultry feeds the world efficiently, affordably and responsibly. The challenge ahead is not whether we can be sustainable but whether we are willing to share our story transparently and make decisions that genuinely balance environment, economy and ethics.

That responsibility belongs to all of us.

References

1. Putman B, Thoma G, Burek J, Matlock M. A retrospective analysis of the United States poultry industry: 1965 compared with 2010. Agric. Syst. 2017;157:107-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.07.008A
2. Putman B, Thoma G. Broiler Production System Life Cycle Assessment: 2020 Update. 2020. Broiler-Production-System-LCA_2020-Update.pdf
3. 2025-US-RSPE-Framework-Sustainability-Report.pdf

The post Sustainability, proven: A practitioner’s perspective from inside poultry production appeared first on Modern Poultry.

Silicium is a naturally occurring trace element that supports bone formation, collagen synthesis, and structural integrity in tissues and eggshell membranes. In poultry, dietary bioavailable silicium can improve skeletal strength, egg and eggshell quality, laying performance, and hatchability, making it a valuable additive across production systems.

The role of silicium in bone health, connective tissue integrity and egg quality

Silicium (or silicon) is a naturally occurring trace element widely present in the environment (particularly in soil and plants). Silicium rarely exists in its bioavailable form, as it rapidly binds with oxygen to polymerize and form silica and silicates. Orthosilicic acid (OSA), silicium’s bioavailable form, is nevertheless recognized as an essential nutrient with demonstrated biological value¹.

Biological distribution and functions

Silicium is found in all organs and tissues, with the highest concentrations in connective tissues, typically rich in collagen, and mineralized structures such as bone². Research in both humans and animals shows that dietary bioavailable silicium plays a significant role in collagen formation and supporting overall skeletal health. Its involvement includes:

• stimulating collagen synthesis, essential for the architecture, strength, and elasticity of connective tissues and bones;
• enhancing bone development and mineralization;
• promoting osteoblasts and fibroblasts formation;
• interacting with calcium to support optimal bone metabolism.

These combined effects highlight silicium’s importance in maintaining strong, healthy collagen and skeletal structures^1-3.

Silicium and egg and eggshell quality

Beyond its role in bone physiology, silicium contributes to the structural integrity of eggshell membranes. By supporting collagen synthesis, silicium helps reinforce the mechanical properties of these membranes, which are crucial for:

• shell mineralization;
• elasticity and resistance to mechanical stress;
• barrier function against pathogens.

Silicium is also essential for the vitelline membrane, which plays a key role in:

• maintaining yolk centralization;
• regulating nutrient exchange;
• protecting the developing embryo from the alkaline environment of the albumen.

Scientific evidence confirms the presence and functional importance of collagen in both the eggshell and vitelline membranes, underscoring silicium’s relevance in reproductive performance and egg quality^4,5.

Bioavailable silicium supplementation as a tool to support collagen, skeletal health and performance in modern poultry production

Selective breeding in commercial poultry has substantially increased skeletal demands across production systems. In broilers, rapid muscle accretion places considerable strain on the developing skeleton, while in layers, continuous egg production requires sustained mineral mobilization and structural resilience. These pressures heighten the importance of nutritional strategies that support bone integrity and connective tissue strength.

Bioavailable silicium has demonstrated beneficial effects on collagen synthesis, bone mineralization, and overall skeletal robustness. Its inclusion as a dietary additive may therefore offer advantages throughout the poultry production chain. Findings from previous studies in broilers further highlight silicium’s potential to enhance skeletal strength and reduce the incidence of structural disorders⁶. Although silicium is not classified as an essential nutrient, the use of bioavailable silicium‑based products in poultry husbandry may contribute positively to animal welfare, skeletal health, and productive performance.

Considering the background, a series of trials was conducted to assess its efficacy throughout the entire poultry production chain, examining its impact from breeders to commercial flocks.

Performance of broiler breeder flocks supplemented with bioavailable silicium

Across multiple broiler breeder operations, internal trials conducted in Belgium, China, and the Philippines consistently demonstrated the positive impact of supplementing a bioavailable silicium product. Flocks receiving bioavailable silicium showed improved laying performance, with increases of 1% to 2% in key production phases (Belgium, Figure 1) and, in some cases, up to a 3.8% rise in total egg output (China). Enhancements in eggshell quality were also evident, including greater shell stiffness, increased thickness, and a lower incidence of cracked eggs (Belgium). These improvements translated into better hatchery outcomes, with higher hatchability rates and a notable increase in the number of day‑old chicks produced (Belgium, Figure 2), exceedingly more than 4 additional chicks per breeder hen (Belgium).

Performance of layer flocks supplemented with bioavailable silicium

Across multiple commercial layer operations, trials conducted in Portugal, the Philippines, and France consistently demonstrated the positive impact of supplementing bioavailable silicium. Supplemented flocks showed improved laying performance, with higher laying percentages and increased average egg weight across production phases. Enhancements in egg quality were also evident, including a marked reduction in cracked and broken eggs, contributing to more first grade sellable eggs.

Internal egg quality improved, as eggs from supplemented hens displayed a stronger vitelline membrane (Figures 3 and 4), supporting reduced yolk rupture and improved suitability for handling, storage, and processing. Additional benefits were observed in feed efficiency improved as well, with treated hens exhibiting a lower feed conversion ratio, indicating more efficient nutrient utilization.

Silicium as a key driver for flock efficiency

Across both breeder and layer operations worldwide, the use of bioavailable silicium consistently delivered measurable benefits throughout the poultry production chain. In broiler breeders, supplementation beginning at week 21 resulted in additional eggs and a higher number of chicks hatched, corresponding to an estimated return on investment (ROI) of 9.6 based on a DOC market price of €0.41. Continuous administration from week 22 to week 61 improved eggshell quality, laying performance, and hatchability, demonstrating clear advantages at both farm and hatchery level.

Similar positive outcomes were observed in commercial layers, where silicium supplementation enhanced productivity, egg quality, and feed efficiency across diverse production environments.

Taken together, these findings highlight bioavailable silicium as a valuable nutritional strategy to support reproductive efficiency, eggshell integrity, and overall flock performance in modern poultry systems.

Bibliography

¹Jugdaohsingh R. Silicon and bone health. J Nutr Health Aging. 2007 Mar-Apr;11(2):99-110. PMID: 17435952; PMCID: PMC2658806 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2658806/

²Götz W, Tobiasch E, Witzleben S, Schulze M. Effects of Silicon Compounds on Biomineralization, Osteogenesis, and Hard Tissue Formation. Pharmaceutics. 2019 Mar 12;11(3):117. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11030117. PMID: 30871062; PMCID: PMC6471146.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6471146/

³Pritchard A, Nielsen BD, Robison C, Manfredi JM. Low dietary silicon supplementation may not affect bone and cartilage in mature, sedentary horses. J Anim Sci. 2020 Dec 1;98(12):skaa377. doi: 10.1093/jas/skaa377. PMID: 33216909; PMCID: PMC7749713. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7749713/

⁴Pillai, M.M., Saha, R. & Tayalia, P. Avian eggshell membrane as a material for tissue engineering: A review. J Mater Sci 58, 6865–6886 (2023).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-023-08434-2

⁵YH Zhao, YJ Chi. Characterization of collagen from eggshell membrane. Biotechnology (Faisalabad), 2009.
https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=biotech.2009.254.258

⁶Prentice, Sophie Elizabeth. The effects of silicon on skeletal integrity. Nottingham Trent University (United Kingdom) ProQuest Dissertations & Theses,  2019. 27767110. https://www.proquest.com/openview/63985a0bb7b30c9befc9b27da3215992/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=51922&diss=y

This edition includes a review of bioavailable silicon as a feed additive, an analysis of poultry prophylaxis, and an overview of global meat production dynamics with a focus on imports.

Technical contributions address water quality and its role in flock performance, the combined management of drinking water and vaccination procedures, and immunity in modern broiler crosses. Processing aspects aimed at reducing carcass damage are also covered.

Read the digital edition on Issuu 

Download the full PDF: HERE.

Global expertise meets local partnerships; the three-day show introduces a complete feed to food platform for India’s fastest-growing agribusiness sector

VIV Select India 2026 takes place from 22–24 April 2026 at Yashobhoomi Convention and Expo Centre, New Delhi, introducing the globally established VIV Worldwide platform to the Indian market for the first time. The three day business to business exhibition brings together international and domestic suppliers, industry leaders, and decision makers at a pivotal moment for India’s rapidly expanding animal protein sector.

Organised by VNU Exhibitions Europe, the international division of Royal Dutch Jaarbeurs, in strategic partnership with the Poultry Federation of India (PFI), VIV Select India has been developed as a long term platform to support technology transfer, business growth, and international collaboration within India’s livestock and animal protein industries.

Exhibitors and Technologies on Display
VIV Select India 2026 features over 130 exhibitors, representing a strong mix of Indian and international companies. Participation spans Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, underscoring India’s growing importance as a destination for innovation, investment, and long term collaboration in animal protein production.

The event is supported by a broad coalition of national and regional industry associations, reinforcing its role as a unifying platform for poultry, dairy, and allied livestock sectors.

The exhibition floor presents a comprehensive cross section of technologies and services designed to enhance productivity, efficiency, sustainability, and product quality across animal protein production. Visitors can expect solutions ranging from automation and precision systems to animal health, biosecurity, processing, and digital tools.

International and Indian companies such as Big Dutchman, JBT Marel India, Viscon Hatchery Automation, De Heus Animal Nutrition India, FAMSUN, Venky’s India, and Himalaya Wellness Company are among those confirmed—alongside many other technology providers serving integrators, producers, processors, and service companies.

VIV Square: Knowledge Exchange at the Core
VIV Square opens with a formal inaugural ceremony marked by the presence of senior industry leaders and government representatives, including Mr. Jeroen van Hooff, President & CEO of Royal Dutch Jaarbeurs and VNU Group, Mr. Ranpal Dhanda, President of the Poultry Federation of India, and Prof. S.P. Singh Baghel, Honorable Minister of State for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying. The opening is further distinguished by participation from key public and diplomatic stakeholders such as Ms. Varsha Joshi, Additional Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, H.E. Ms. Marisa Gerards, Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and Shri Mahipal Dhanda, Education Minister of Haryana.

Across the three days, the programme includes expert-led sessions addressing critical developments in poultry production, dairy advancement, and animal health. Industry leaders from companies including Viscon Hatchery Automation, De Heus Animal Nutrition, JBT Marel, Venkateshwara Hatcheries (Ventri Biologicals), MSD Animal Health, HIPRA, CEVA, Holm & Laue, Binsar Farms, and Verka Dairy are all to share insights on topics such as automation and AI in production systems, nutrition strategies, processing performance, international dairy collaboration, and advances in vaccines and biologicals.

Patrick van Rooij, Project Manager – VIV Select India shares, “The poultry and livestock sectors are entering a phase where scale must be matched by efficiency, resilience, and smarter use of technology. VIV Select India has been developed to support that shift—by connecting the value chain, facilitating knowledge exchange, and giving professionals direct access to solutions that work in real production environments. This platform is as much about dialogue and learning as it is about business. Our goal is to create conversations that lead to stronger partnerships, better decisions, and long term value for the industry as a whole.”

Registration and Visitor Information
VIV Select India 2026 is open exclusively to trade professionals active across the animal protein and livestock value chain, including producers, integrators, processors, veterinarians, feed manufacturers, technology providers, consultants, policymakers, and industry media.

Visitor admission is free of charge and includes access to the full exhibition floor as well as all sessions at VIV Square, the show’s integrated knowledge programme. Advance online registration is recommended to ensure smooth entry and timely access to event updates and programme scheduling. The show is open during the event dates from 10:00 to 18:00.
Visitors can register online at india.viv.net/registration.

The post VIV Select India 2026 Show Preview appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

Asia – Hubbard is pleased to announce that Daniel Gomes has been appointed as Asia Business Manager. Daniel is based in Bangkok and reports directly to Bruno Briand, Hubbard’s Global Sales Director.

Originally from Brazil, Dr Daniel Gomes obtained his degree in Veterinary Medicine from the Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) in Brazil in 2006.

He began his career as a field veterinarian for parent stock and broilers at Seara-JBS, one of the largest poultry companies in the world. In 2012, he graduated with a Master’s in Business Administration (MBA) at FGV University (Brazil), after which he joined Farmabase Saude Animal, a Brazilian animal health company for nine years. During this time he held various commercial and customer support roles in Brazil, Latin America and Asia. He relocated to Bangkok in 2019.

In 2021, Daniel joined Aviagen Asia Pacific as Indian River Brand Manager, where he was responsible for all customer-related activities and spent a lot of time with the customer base across the Asian region.

In February 2026, Daniel joined Hubbard as Asia Business Manager, where he will lead the commercial team in South & Southeast Asia, focusing on business development and customer satisfaction for both conventional and premium Hubbard breeds.

Bruno Briand ads: “We are all very pleased to welcome Daniel as our new colleague. His sound knowledge of the markets and the poultry industry, combined with his excellent social skills, have already demonstrated that Daniel will be a valuable asset for strengthening Hubbard’s customer base and developing new opportunities for Hubbard in Asia.”

Source: Hubbard press release

So what does it mean when Newcastle disease virus (NDV) appears in diagnostic testing during respiratory disease investigations?

According to Mark Jackwood, PhD, and Jose Linares, DVM, of Ceva Animal Health, the answer often has less to do with Newcastle itself and more to do with the complex mix of pathogens affecting commercial flocks.

A global disease — but a different US reality

NDV infects nearly all avian species and is widely distributed around the world. The strains responsible for severe disease and high mortality — known as virulent ND viruses — are considered exotic to the US.

“The highly virulent strains that cause severe disease are treated as a foreign animal disease in the US,” Jackwood said. “If they are detected, they are eliminated through a stamping-out program.”

Because of aggressive control policies and widespread vaccination, virulent ND has remained largely absent from US commercial poultry production.

What diagnosticians are far more likely to encounter are low-virulence ND viruses.

“These viruses are genetically similar to strains used in many live ND vaccines,” Jackwood said. “By themselves, they typically do not cause significant disease.”

Why NDV sometimes appears in respiratory investigations

Even so, NDV occasionally appears in diagnostic testing when flocks are experiencing respiratory problems.

That can raise concerns initially because Newcastle is a reportable disease when virulent strains are involved, Linares noted — but sequencing usually provides important context.

“When those viruses are sequenced, they are usually identified as low-virulence viruses; in many cases, the sequences match or are very closely related to strains used in live ND vaccines,” he said.

“However, detecting NDV in these situations does not necessarily mean it is the primary cause of the respiratory signs.”

Part of a larger respiratory disease complex

While low-virulence ND viruses typically cause little or no disease on their own, Jackwood noted that they may contribute to the overall respiratory disease complex when other pathogens are present.

Respiratory pathogens such as avian metapneumovirus, infectious bronchitis virus, avian mycoplasmas and bacterial infections can interact within a respiratory disease complex and influence the overall clinical outcome, he explained.

Immunosuppressive agents may also play a role.

“If birds are dealing with something like infectious bursal disease virus, their immune response may be compromised,” Jackwood said. “That can make them more susceptible to other pathogens.”

In these situations, NDV may be detected alongside other pathogens even if it is not the primary driver of disease.

“Live ND vaccines can contribute to the disease complex, especially stronger vaccines like LaSota, when they are applied on top of an existing infection with other pathogens such as avian metapneumovirus,” Jackwood said. “This reinforces the importance of proper timing and flock health when implementing vaccination programs.”

Not an emerging problem

Newcastle disease itself does not appear to be an emerging problem in US poultry production, Linares said, noting that recent respiratory investigations in which NDV was detected were primarily driven by other pathogens — particularly avian metapneumovirus and bacterial co-infections — as well as seasonal respiratory disease pressures.

Still, the virus remains an important global disease, and the risk of introduction has not disappeared.

“Virulent ND viruses circulate in many parts of the world,” Linares noted. “They have been introduced into the US in the past, often through non-poultry bird species.”

For that reason, surveillance, vaccination and biosecurity remain important safeguards.

Vaccination remains essential

Vaccination continues to be the foundation of ND prevention in US poultry flocks.

“One important point is that NDV has only one serotype,” Jackwood said. “That means properly applied vaccines protect against disease even when different genetic variants of the virus are circulating.”

Live vaccines derived from low-virulence viruses are commonly used in broilers. Inactivated vaccines are typically used in layers and breeders to stimulate strong systemic immunity and transfer maternal antibodies to chicks. Recombinant vaccines using herpesvirus of turkeys as a vector are also widely used.

For vaccination programs to be effective, most birds in the flock must receive an adequate immunizing dose. Vaccine dose and timing are critical factors, since birds need sufficient exposure to the vaccine virus to develop protective immunity before they encounter field challenge. In practice, this means ensuring that vaccines are administered correctly and that coverage across the flock is high enough to establish strong population-level immunity.

“Research indicates that at least about 85% of birds need to receive an immunizing dose of vaccine to achieve good flock protection,” Jackwood said.

Building effective ND vaccination programs

In broilers, mild live vaccines are commonly administered early in life, often in the presence of maternal antibodies, whereas longer-lived birds such as layers and breeders typically receive inactivated vaccines to stimulate strong systemic immunity and transfer maternal antibodies to their offspring. Recombinant vector vaccines can also be used early in life and are designed to minimize respiratory reactions while providing protection.

According to Linares, maintaining optimal vaccination programs that lead to effective immunization helps ensure that, if virulent ND viruses were introduced into the US poultry industry, flocks would have some level of protection.

“The industry has done a good job keeping virulent ND out of commercial production,” he said. “Continued vigilance will be important to keep it that way.”

The post When Newcastle disease virus shows up in diagnostics, what does it mean? appeared first on Modern Poultry.

The report reflects the poultry industry’s continued efforts to improve antibiotic stewardship and its commitment to disease prevention within poultry production. As part of its commitment to a transparent and sustainable food supply, the industry aims to balance the responsible use of antibiotics considered “medically important” to human health with the need to keep flocks healthy.

Key findings for each sector:

Broilers

The report noted several key changes in antibiotic usage in broiler chickens from 2013 to 2024:

• Broiler chickens receiving antibiotics in the hatchery decreased from 90% in 2013 to less than 1% in 2024.
• Medically important in-feed antibiotic use in broiler chickens decreased substantially. There has been no in-feed tetracycline use since 2019, and virginiamycin use has decreased more than 99% over the 12-year period.
• Medically important water-soluble antibiotic use in broiler chickens decreased substantially from 2013 to 2017 and has increased slightly from 2017 to 2024. Increases were typically due to increased disease incidence, as seen in other countries as well, from 2019 to 2024.

  For example, avian metapneumovirus has caused severe morbidity and mortality in some broiler flocks. Infection with this virus can increase the incidence of secondary bacterial infections. Tetracycline antimicrobials have been used to treat and control these secondary infections but with limited efficacy.

• • Penicillin use decreased by 64% from 2013-2019 but has increased 27% from 2019 to 2024 due to increases in gangrenous dermatitis incidence. Overall, penicillin use decreased 53% from 2013 to 2024.
  • Lincomycin use decreased by 66% from 2013 to 2020 but has increased 15% from 2020-2024 due to increases in gangrenous dermatitis incidence. Overall, lincomycin use decreased 71% from 2013 to 2024.
  • Tetracycline use decreased by 66% since 2013.
  • Sulfonamide use decreased by 81% since 2013.

Turkeys

The report also noted several key changes in antibiotic usage in turkeys from 2013 to 2024:

• Turkeys receiving antibiotics in the hatchery decreased from 97% in 2013 to approximately 45% in 2024.
  • With recent challenges linked to Escherichia coli and other Gram-negative bacteria in the young turkey poults, gentamicin use in the hatchery increased to help prevent these infections.
• Hatchery gentamicin use decreased approximately 40% from 2013 to 2024.
• Medically important in-feed antibiotic use in turkeys decreased substantially. In-feed tetracycline use decreased by more than 77% from 2013 to 2022 but has increased more than threefold since 2022, predominantly due to the control and treatment of secondary bacterial infections following infection with avian metapneumovirus.
• Medically important water-soluble antibiotic use in turkeys decreased substantially from 2013 to 2019 and then stabilized or increased from 2019 to 2024. Increases were typically due to increased disease incidence, as seen in other countries as well, from 2019 to 2024.

  Avian metapneumovirus has caused severe morbidity and mortality in turkey flocks. Infection with this virus can increase the incidence of secondary bacterial infections. Water-soluble tetracycline antimicrobials have been used to treat and control these secondary infections but with limited efficacy:

• • Penicillin use decreased by almost 50% since 2013.
  • Lincomycin use decreased by 58% from 2013 to 2019 but increased substantially from 2020 to 2024 due to increases in gangrenous dermatitis incidence and a penicillin shortage.
  • Neomycin use decreased by 67% since 2013.
  • Tetracycline use decreased 21% from 2013 to 2022 but increased from 2022 to 2024, largely due to increases in colibacillosis and secondary infections following avian metapneumovirus exposure.

Layers

Layers typically begin laying eggs around 20 weeks of age and end around 80 to 100 weeks of age.

Table-egg production is similar to milk production — the product for human consumption is produced daily. Most antibiotics that could be administered to layer hens have withdrawal periods that would prevent all eggs produced during this period from entering the food supply. This is one reason why there is little antibiotic usage in table-egg production in the US.

Below are the key findings for antibiotic usage in layers from 2016 to 2024:

• All chicks in the dataset received gentamicin in the hatchery (day 1 of age).
  • In the US, most chicks purchased by egg companies are sourced from hatcheries that are owned and operated by genetics companies.
• The primary medically important antibiotic used in layer hens for treatment and control of disease in this dataset was chlortetracycline (CTC), used partly because it has a zero-day withdrawal when used in-feed, meaning there is no loss of eggs during the treatment period.
  • CTC was only administered via the feed in pullets (day 2 through 16 to 18 weeks of age) and layers.
  • More than 95% of CTC was used in the layers to treat disease. No pullets in the dataset were given CTC in the feed during 2022 or 2023, and a minimal amount was used in pullets in 2024.
  • Less than 0.1% of total hen-days were exposed to CTC.

Report history

This report represents a 12-year set of data collected from 2013 to 2024 for US broiler chickens and turkeys and a 9-year set of data collected from 2016 to 2024 for layers.

Randall Singer, DVM, PhD, MPVM, founder of Mindwalk Consulting Group, LLC and professor of epidemiology at the University of Minnesota, directed the research for the report with funding from USPOULTRY and the US Food and Drug Administration – Center for Veterinary Medicine.

In December 2024, USPOULTRY released a report, whose research was also directed by Singer, covering antibiotic use in poultry from 2013 to 2023. In 2023, Singer published three peer-reviewed manuscripts that covered data collected for that report from broiler chickens, turkeys and layers.

“This research highlights the industry’s sustained commitment to science-based stewardship and the responsible use of antibiotics in poultry production,” said Nath Morris, USPOULTRY president.

According to USPOULTRY, collecting data on antibiotic use in poultry will assist the poultry industry as it aims to improve antibiotic stewardship and document the burden of flock illness and reasons for on-farm, medically important antibiotic usage.

Given several key differences among broiler chickens, turkeys and layers — namely, differences in weight, life span, susceptibility to lifetime illness and the number of effective medical treatments available — USPOULTRY advised that these data should neither be combined nor compared between poultry types.

Additionally, “It is important to remember that these data are only part of the story regarding stewardship,” Singer said.

Study details can be found at https://mindwalkconsultinggroup.com/. The updated infographic report can be viewed here.

The post USPOULTRY: Updated report shows poultry industry’s commitment to judicious antibiotic use appeared first on Modern Poultry.

USPOULTRY and the USPOULTRY Foundation announce the completion of a research project evaluating the spread of Egg Drop Syndrome 1976 (EDS 76) and flock responses to vaccination. The research is part of the Association’s comprehensive research program, which encompasses all phases of poultry and egg production and processing, and is made possible in part through proceeds from the International Poultry Expo, part of the International Production & Processing Expo.

F-111: virus isolation, serological surveillance and mechanical transmission of Egg Drop Syndrome

Once considered exotic to the United States, EDS 76 — caused by duck Atadenovirus A — reemerged in 2018, affecting commercial layer and broiler breeder flocks and resulting in reduced egg production and soft- or shell-less eggs.

Researchers at the University of Georgia recently completed a study examining how the virus spreads, how flocks respond to vaccination, and the effectiveness of cleaning and disinfection practices. The study had three primary objectives: to determine which cell lines can support virus isolation from field and environmental samples, including evaluating cleaning and disinfection efficacy; to assess antibody responses and viral shedding in vaccinated and unvaccinated flocks on farms with and without EDS 76; and to investigate potential transmission routes, including insects and other environmental sources.

Results showed that while virus detection in field samples remains challenging, viral DNA was identified on eggs, egg cartons, insects and live market ducks, highlighting potential pathways for transmission. These findings underscore the importance of robust biosecurity, environmental monitoring and vaccination strategies in managing this reemerging poultry disease.

The research summary can be found on the USPOULTRY website. Information on other Association research may also be obtained by visiting the USPOULTRY website.

Source: U.S. Poultry & Egg Association press release

However, wings’ fate underwent a meaningful overturn late in 1964, when Teressa Bellissimo, the co-owner of Anchor Bar, Buffalo, in upstate New York, served deep-fried leftover wings tossed in hot cayenne pepper sauce as a late-night meal for her son and his friends, thus reportedly creating the famous Buffalo wings. Teressa couldn’t ever imagine that her improvised meal would change, dramatically and forever, the commercial image enjoyed by the wings, which moved in the following years from the backstage to under the spotlight of the modern broiler industry scenario. Added to the menus of other countless food joints across the US, including fast-food giants’ stores, over the following decades, the spicy fried wings gained ground and became a very popular staple among consumers in the country and around the world, as well. The steady increase in the consumption of wings has finally opened the broiler industry’s eyes, that recognizing their commercial potential, raised the cut from low-profile category all the way up to the premium category!

Today’s broiler reaches market weight much younger than its ancestors a few decades ago did, but, in contraposition, is physically fragile due to lacking maturity. Therefore, they require careful handling alongside the processing chain to prevent the intrinsic threats entrenched in each step they go through, from day one through processing,ending up injuring their sensitive anatomy. Carcass damages are very unwelcome for increasing the percentage of salvaging and downgrades and lowering the saleable weight and processing yield, as well, what weakens the plant’s economic performance and the business’ profitability.

Although the entire carcass is susceptible to bruises, experience shows the wings are more vulnerable to injuries than breast and legs. Wings bruises, fractures and pop-ups, defects that plague the global poultry industry, originate from several operations (farm, catching, transportation, and processing plant) and causes. Therefore, to shield the wings from injuries it is essential to deploy a holistic approach of the processing chain.

At farm, securing the flocks’ calmness, especially at older age, to avoid birds’ unrest, fluttering, and pileups lead to injured carcasses and wings, is a crucial management practice. However, in frontal opposition to it, flock thinning is still widely adopted by the poultry industry, although being a proven cause of wing bruises among other drawbacks (Table 1).

It is critical to secure the drinkers and feeders to birds’ ratio allows for ad libitum, hassle-free access to water and feed, thus guaranteeing the daily intake of nutrients while preventing birds from fighting for slots to eat and drink, a proven cause of bruises, particularly in unsexed flocks. Concomitantly, securing a high flock’s health status boosts the absorption and utilization of those nutrients towards growth and skeletal strength of the birds.

The house stocking density must be managed aiming at an optimal balance between profitability and carcass physical wholesomeness. Privileging profitability is detrimental to the flock’s performance and carcass quality, alike, as the incidence of damages to wing, besides other downsides, keeps an almost linear cause-effect relationship with the stocking density (Graph 1). Whatever the stocking density set for the farm, it is greatly recommendable using partitions to prevent the free migration of birds across the house disrupts it.

The live loads from the farms to plant must be scheduled having not just the killing line speed in mind, but the catching work timing, as well, to guarantee a gentle, hassle-free handling of the birds.

The catching crew must be accurately staffed and properly trained to guarantee the protective and well-timed handling of the birds. Close crew supervision prevents the gentle birds’ handling derails while work progresses, and crew tiredness escalates. Catching the birds individually, yet slower and more costly compared to other methods, is most protective of the carcasses, as the hands placed on both wings, while moving the broilers from the floor to the container, prevent the birds from fluttering. Never catch the birds by wings or feet!

Keeping the transport units in good condition reduces the risk of injuries during crating and transportation. The stocking density of the transportation units must be set having its correlation with the occurrence of carcass and wing damages in mind (Table 2). Training the drivers and monitoring the trips contributes to the gentle and timely delivery of the live loads to the plant, thus minimizing carcass and wing damages.

At plant, manage the live loads lairage time to reduce the likelihood of wing damages (Graph 2). If birds are transported in crates or drawer containers, hoist them by their legs, only, for shackling. If transported in shelves containers, the bruises, notably on the wings, resulting from the unavoidable dumping of the birds, are regrettably unmanageable.

At the hanging station the interaction among workers and equipment must be fully ergonomic to allow for smooth handling and comfortable shackling of the birds. It is strongly advisable that the overhead conveyor from hanging to stunner be the straightest possible to prevent birds’ unrest and flapping, secures obstacle-free flowing of birds, and pairs with a breast comforter to calm birds down, preventing them from fluttering while heading to stunner.

To optimize the electrical stunning and minimize the likelihood of wings injuries, birds must approach the tub and sink only the heads vertically into water, which requires the continuous adjustment of the apparatus to the flock’s size. The tub must be built to match birds’ live weight and prevent their pre-stunning, a recognized cause of wings bruises, and the voltage delivered across the water must be stable and consistent. If CAS (Controlled Atmosphere Stunning) is in place, adhere to manufacturer’s operational instructions for optimal results. Whatever the stunning method used, secure the birds are properly stunned and do not regain consciousness before killing, to prevent the violent flapping, and severe damages to wings, in response to the killing pain.

The bleeding time varies across countries and plants. Set whatever time is best for the plant, having in mind the shortest, the best, to retard the onset of rigor mortis, therefore minimizing its impact on smoothness of scalding and defeathering, and secure it enhances the exsanguination and renders all birds dead.

The scalder and pluckers must operate in symbiotic partnership, with the scalder transferring to the follicles, in a timely manner, the suitable amount of heat required to soften the feathers, and the pluckers securing the thorough defeathering with minimal to no damages to the carcasses and wings.

For an optimal scalding, set the immersion time x temperature binomial in response to the role the killing line speed, bleeding time, birds’ weight, and the scalder technology and physical characteristics play in the plant. For an optimal defeathering, minimize scalder-to-pluckers distance, fine-tune pluckers-birds interaction constantly, use rubber fingers of appropriate hardness and maintain them always in great physical condition, and use lukewarm water in the pluckers.

As seen above, wings became a sought-after chicken cut, whose demand and market value play an important economic role in the business. Therefore, the wing bruises, because they reduce product availability and profitability, are unwelcome and must be tackled to the source. As bruises are of multi-factorial origins, their mitigation requires a holistic and integrated approach to broiler handling, from the farm to the plant, by a multidisciplinary work team focused on finding and working on their root causes.

Literature available from the author upon request.

The post APA Richard Stevens Scholarship – 2026 Applications Opening Soon appeared first on The American Poultry Association (APA).

The evaluation of animal welfare in poultry farms requires a multidimensional approach that encompasses resource-, management-, and animal-based indicators. This combined approach allows for the accurate identification of key issues such as locomotor problems, skin lesions and abnormal behaviours. The joint use of these parameters provides an objective, scientifically robust measure of animals’ welfare status and represents an essential tool for guiding targeted interventions and improving management practices.

Introduction

In the recent years, animal welfare has become a key focus in poultry farming. Consumers have shown growing interest in sustainable and animal-friendly products, demonstrating a willingness to pay more for food perceived as healthier, safer, tastier and more authentic (Alonso et al., 2020; Mazzocchi et al., 2022). However, animal welfare is relevant not only for ethical reasons, but also because of its direct impact on human health and environment, in line with the One Health concept (Verkuijl et al., 2024). Moreover, animals raised under optimal conditions show better productive performance and greater feed efficiency (Velarde and Dalmau, 2012). Consequently, being able to evaluate welfare objectively and scientifically is essential.

Several indicators have been studied to enable a comprehensive and objective assessment of the farm animals’ welfare. This evaluation is complex and multidimensional, including physical, behavioural, environmental, and managerial aspects that must be analysed in a holistic and coordinated manner. In particular, three different types of welfare indicators have been identified:

• Resource-based indicators: evaluate the structural and environmental characteristics of the farm.
• Management-based indicators: evaluate the management practices adopted by the farmer.
• Animal-based indicators: provide direct information on animals’ condition (EFSA, 2012; EFSA, 2023a).

Indicators

Resource-based indicators concern the structural and environmental aspects that influence the living conditions and welfare of hens and chickens. Key indicators include stocking density, bedding quality and quantity, the number and configuration of nests and perches, the space or number of feeders and drinkers, microclimate control (ventilation, temperature, relative humidity), and lighting (Sherwin et al., 2010; Nicol et al., 2013).

Management-based indicators evaluate the quality of practices adopted by the farmer, such as cleaning and maintenance of facilities, litter management, sanitary protocols, biosafety plans, management of sick or injured animals, and staff training (Blokhuis et al., 2010; Campbell et al., 2018). In broilers, genetic selection also plays a fundamental role, as the intense selective pressure applied over recent decades has contributed to the emergence of major welfare issues observed today on farms (EFSA, 2023b). The first two types of indicators make it possible to identify risk factors and/or causes of poor welfare, providing a basis for implementing improvement strategies (Welfare Quality®, 2009).

Animal-based indicators directly describe the condition of the animals, their health and their behaviour. For laying hens, key indicators include mortality rate, comb abnormalities that may reflect discomfort, footpad dermatitis caused by unsuitable litter, fractures of the toes and/or keel bone which indicate bone fragility, nutritional imbalances, and inadequate facilities. Other aspects considered are the presence of red mites, which are widespread in hen populations, and the observation of species-specific behaviours, such as dustbathing and foraging. Additionally, the human-animal relationship is evaluated, and behaviours like panting and huddling are used to detect thermal discomfort (Welfare Quality®, 2009; Nasr et al., 2012; Haas et al., 2014).

Among the most important animal-based indicators are feather condition and the presence of skin lesions, both closely related to feather pecking, one of the most widespread problems in hen farms. Feather pecking is an abnormal behavioural disorder, in which an individual pecks at the feathers of a conspecific until they are pulled out, causing pain, injuries, until cannibalism. This multifactorial behaviour is caused mainly by high stocking density, excessive lighting, nutritional deficiencies (particularly in soluble fibre and/or essential amino acids), lack of environmental enrichment, genetic predispositions, and limited ability to perform natural behaviours like exploration and foraging. As a result, these behaviours may be redirected towards conspecifics (Dixon, 2008; Rodenburg et al., 2008).

Feather pecking negatively impacts productivity by increasing stress and mortality, thereby compromising both animal welfare and egg production (Schreiter et al., 2019). Prevention strategies focus on optimal microclimate and lighting management, a balanced diet and providing manipulable and explorative materials (such as straw or ropes), which promote natural behaviours and reduce the risk of pecking directed on other hens. Additionally, genetic selection is increasingly oriented towards less reactive and predisposed hybrids to develop feather pecking (Rodenburg et al., 2013). This multifactorial behaviour exemplifies how the three types of indicators interact in the identification and correction of welfare issues.

For broiler chickens, animal-based indicators mainly focus on locomotor problems, which represent a critical issue linked to intensive genetic selection for the rapid growth and the feed conversion efficiency (Zuidhof et al., 2014). The accelerated muscle tissue growth, in particular of the pectoral muscle (Pectoralis major), has not been accompanied by a proportional development of the skeletal and cardiovascular systems. This imbalance causes biomechanical alterations that affect posture, walking and cardiovascular function (Julian, 2005; Knowles et al., 2008). Environmental factors also play a key role; high stocking density, moist or poorly absorbent litter and an unbalanced diet can worsen locomotor issues (Bradshaw et al., 2002; Shim et al., 2012; van der Sluis et al., 2021).

Physiological consequences include chronic pain, reduced mobility, limited access to resources like food and water, and, in some cases, increased mortality (Weeks et al., 2002). Consequently, the most widely used animal-based indicators include gait score, which assesses walking ability, pododermatitis (inflammatory skin lesions on the footpads) and hock burns, which reflect broader environmental conditions. Other commonly used indicators include mortality, feather condition, skin lesions, and species-specific behaviours such as exploration, thermal comfort and human-animal interaction. These indicators indirectly provide information about fear levels and adaptation to human presence and contact (Welfare Quality®, 2009; EFSA, 2023; de Jong et al., 2012).

In addition, for broiler chickens there are various parameters assessed at slaughterhouse, which reflect breeding conditions: ascites such as a fluid buildup in the abdomen due to cardiac and respiratory failure related to excessive muscle growth; breast lesions (breast blister) caused by contact with hard surfaces or wet litter; septicaemia and abscesses, which are indicative of infections and hygiene issues; hepatitis and pericarditis (metabolic and health problems), and dehydration that is a sign of inadequate water access. All these indicators provide further insight into rearing conditions and farm management with a direct impact on animal health and welfare (Manning et al., 2007; Welfare Quality®, 2009; Petracci et al., 2019).

Preventive strategies include not only a less extreme genetic selection, but also management interventions such as the use of dry and absorbent litter, optimisation of stocking densities and dietary formulations to support skeletal and cardiovascular development, the addition of environmental enrichment to stimulate movement and natural behaviours, contributing to stronger bone development. Also the continuous monitoring of temperature, ventilation and humidity can reduce thermal stress and improve tissue oxygenation, helping to decrease cardiopulmonary and metabolic complications (Julian, 2005; Olkowski et al., 2008; Petracci et al., 2019).

Conclusion

In conclusion, only the combined use of three types of indicators allows for a comprehensive and reliable assessment of poultry welfare (Louton et al., 2018). While resource- and management-based indicators are valid, they offer only a partial view of animals welfare status, as they evaluate environmental conditions but not animals’ responses to them (Blokhuis et al., 2010). Conversely, animal-based indicators directly reflect physical condition, health, behaviour and animals’ ability to cope with the environment in which they live (Burgstaller et al., 2022). When integrated, these parameters offer a scientifically valid and reliable representation of animals’ welfare and rearing conditions, in order to guide improvements and corrective actions.

Bibliography

Alonso ME, González-Montaña JR, Lomillos JM. 2020. Consumers’ Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare. Animals, 10(3):385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385

Blokhuis HJ, Veissier I, Miele M, Jones B. 2010. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science, 60(3):129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2010.523480

Bradshaw RH, Kirkden RD, Broom DM. 2002. A Review of the Aetiology and Pathology of Leg Weakness in Broilers in Relation to Welfare. Avian and Poul Biolog Rev, 13(2):45–103. https://doi.org/10.3184/147020602783698421

Burgstaller J, Wittek T, Sudhaus-Jörn N, Conrady B. 2022. Associations between Animal Welfare Indicators and Animal-Related Factors of Slaughter Cattle in Austria. Animals, 12(5):659. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12050659

Campbell YL, Walker LL, Bartz BM, Eckberg JO, Pullin AN. 2025. Outdoor access versus conventional broiler chicken production: Updated review of animal welfare, food safety, and meat quality. Poultry Science, 104(4):104906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2025.104906

De Haas EN, Bolhuis JE, Kemp B, Groothuis TGG, Rodenburg TB. 2014. Parents and Early Life Environment Affect Behavioral Development of Laying Hen Chickens. Barendse W, editor. PLoS ONE, 9(3):e90577. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090577

Dixon LM. 2008. Feather Pecking Behaviour and associated Welfare issues in Laying Hens. Avian Biology Research, 1(2):73–87. https://doi.org/10.3184/175815508X363251

EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Schmidt CG, et al. 2023. Welfare of broilers on farm. EFS2, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7788

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). 2012. Scientific Opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare of broilers. EFSA Journal, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2774

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (AHAW), Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar Schmidt C, et al. 2023. Welfare of laying hens on farm. EFSA Journal, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7789

de Jong I, Berg C, Butterworth A, Estevéz I. 2012. Scientific report updating the EFSA opinions on the welfare of broilers and broiler breeders. EFSA Supporting Publications, 9(6). https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2012.EN-295

Julian RJ. 2005. Production and growth related disorders and other metabolic diseases of poultry – A review. The Veterinary Journal, 169(3):350–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.04.015

Knowles TG, Kestin SC, Haslam SM, Brown SN, Green LE, Butterworth A, Pope SJ, Pfeiffer D, Nicol CJ. 2008. Leg Disorders in Broiler Chickens: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Prevention. Callaerts P, editor. PLoS ONE, 3(2):e1545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001545

Louton H, Bergmann S, Reese S, Erhard M, Bachmeier J, Rösler B, Rauch E. 2018. Animal- and management-based welfare indicators for a conventional broiler strain in 2 barn types (Louisiana barn and closed barn). Poultry Science, 97(8):2754–2767. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey111

Manning L, Chadd SA, Baines RN. 2007. Key health and welfare indicators for broiler production. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 63(1):46–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933907001262

Mazzocchi C, Orsi L, Zilia F, Costantini M, Bacenetti J. 2022. Consumer awareness of sustainable supply chains: A choice experiment on Parma ham PDO. Science of The Total Environment, 836:155602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155602

Nasr MAF, Nicol CJ, Murrell JC. 2012. Do Laying Hens with Keel Bone Fractures Experience Pain? Taylor B, editor. PLoS ONE, 7(8):e42420. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042420

Nicol CJ, Bestman M, Gilani A-M, De Haas EN, De Jong IC, Lambton S, Wagenaar JP, Weeks CA, Rodenburg TB. 2013. The prevention and control of feather pecking: application to commercial systems. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 69(4):775–788. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933913000809

Olkowski AA, Wojnarowicz C, Nain S, Ling B, Alcorn JM, Laarveld B. 2008. A study on pathogenesis of sudden death syndrome in broiler chickens. Research in Veterinary Science, 85(1):131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2007.08.006

Petracci M, Mudalal S, Soglia F, Cavani C. 2015. Meat quality in fast-growing broiler chickens. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 71(2):363–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933915000367

Rodenburg TB, Komen H, Ellen ED, Uitdehaag KA, Van Arendonk JAM. 2008. Selection method and early-life history affect behavioural development, feather pecking and cannibalism in laying hens: A review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 110(3–4):217–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.09.009

Rodenburg TB, Van Krimpen MM, De Jong IC, De Haas EN, Kops MS, Riedstra BJ, Nordquist RE, Wagenaar JP, Bestman M, Nicol CJ. 2013. The prevention and control of feather pecking in laying hens: identifying the underlying principles. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 69(2):361–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933913000354

Schreiter R, Damme K, Von Borell E, Vogt I, Klunker M, Freick M. 2019. Effects of litter and additional enrichment elements on the occurrence of feather pecking in pullets and laying hens – A focused review. Veterinary Medicine & Sci, 5(4):500–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.184

Sherwin CM, Richards GJ, Nicol CJ. 2010. Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science, 51(4):488–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.502518

Shim MY, Karnuah AB, Mitchell AD, Anthony NB, Pesti GM, Aggrey SE. 2012. The effects of growth rate on leg morphology and tibia breaking strength, mineral density, mineral content, and bone ash in broilers. Poultry Science, 91(8):1790–1795. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01968

Van Der Sluis M, Ellen ED, De Klerk B, Rodenburg TB, De Haas Y. 2021. The relationship between gait and automated recordings of individual broiler activity levels. Poultry Science, 100(9):101300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101300

Velarde A, Dalmau A. 2012. Animal welfare assessment at slaughter in Europe: Moving from inputs to outputs. Meat Science, 92(3):244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.009

Verkuijl C, Smit J, Green JMH, Nordquist RE, Sebo J, Hayek MN, Hötzel MJ. 2024. Climate change, public health, and animal welfare: towards a One Health approach to reducing animal agriculture’s climate footprint. Front Anim Sci, 5:1281450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fanim.2024.1281450

Weeks CA, Knowles TG, Gordon RG, Kerr AE, Peyton ST, Tilbrook NT. 2002. New method for objectively assessing lameness in broiler chickens. Vet Rec., 151(25):762-4. PMID: 12521248.

Welfare Quality^®. 2009. Welfare Quality^® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality^® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands.

Zuidhof MJ, Schneider BL, Carney VL, Korver DR, Robinson FE. 2014. Growth, efficiency, and yield of commercial broilers from 1957, 1978, and 2005. Poultry Science, 93(12):2970–2982. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2014-04291

Earlier this year Modern Poultry introduced a new editorial section called Abstracts & Posters specifically for showcasing industry research.

“When your research is published in Modern Poultry, it’s more accessible to industry influencers and decision-makers,” says Carly Feeks, publisher of Modern Poultry.

To help drive traffic to company abstracts, Modern Poultry features Abstracts & Posters content in its newsletter and on its robust LinkedIn platform, which has nearly 12,000 followers and the highest engagement rate of all poultry media.

For more information about this sponsored content opportunity, email Modern Poultry.

The post Presenting research at PEAK? Boost its visibility with Modern Poultry appeared first on Modern Poultry.

On 30 April, the European Parliament Sustainable Livestock Intergroup holds an event “How can circular feed and feed additives be deployed to reduce emissions in monogastric livestock farming?”. The event (11h-12h30) takes place in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, and can also be followed online. The registration link is available on the website of the Sustainable Livestock Intergroup.

Programme

I. Welcome Speeches

• MEP Benoît Cassart
• MEP Maria Grapini
• MEP Alexander Bernhuber

II. Opening: What are the expectations of the EU Livestock strategy on the decarbonisation of livestock farming?

• Brigitte Misonne (DG AGRI)

III. What are key drivers and examples of reducing carbon emissions through animal feed formulation?

• Christine Parry – (Global Feed LCA Institute) The importance of high-quality datasets on the environmental impacts of animal feed ingredients
• Prof. Jan Værum Nørgaard  – (Aarhus University) Using feed additives to enable lower nitrogen and phosphorus excretion
• Sigrid Pauwelyn – (TROTEC) Former foodstuff processing as an example of ‘circular feed’ to reduce GHG emissions related to feed production

IV.  Exchange of views with MEPs

The upcoming EU Livestock Strategy highlights the need for livestock farming to contribute its fair share to the decarbonisation of the EU economy. Previously, the Sustainable Livestock Intergroup addressed the ambitions of reducing direct on-farm emissions, such as methane from enteric fermentation in cattle. For monogastrics like pigs and poultry, the production and sourcing of animal feed are the key determinants of the overall carbon footprint of livestock systems, and therefore the key focus to drive decarbonisation.

Improvements in data development on feed ingredients are a key essential first step to reliably assess where the pressure points lie, to subsequently enable innovation in animal feed formulation for carbon footprint reduction purposes. An increased use of circular feed ingredients is a key strategy in this regard, as it makes use of resources which are not cultivated with a dedicated purpose of being used as animal feed.

This Intergroup session will provide insights into these issues and showcase the main drivers and practical examples for reducing carbon emissions in livestock farming through more sustainable animal feed formulation.

The Sustainable Livestock Intergroup was established at the start of the current European Parliament’s mandate and officially launched in early 2025. Its first co-chairs, who are also the key supporters of the initiative, are MEPs Alexander Bernhuber (AT, EPP), Maria Grapini (RO, S&D), and Benoît Cassart (BE, Renew). The Intergroup aims to provide a platform for Members of the European Parliament to discuss both the diversity of existing farming practices and emerging methods and technologies that support and improve animal farming systems. It also seeks to develop informative tools to raise awareness about food production. By taking a holistic approach, the Intergroup will enable MEPs to better assess and balance both the benefits and challenges of the sector. This will help depolarise current debates and pave the way for realistic, science-based/sustainable solutions in animal farming—including enhanced animal welfare.

Source: FEFAC press release

Does improving poultry welfare result in a cost to farmers, or is it the key to healthier and more profitable farming?

Better welfare can lead to production advantages such as reduced mortality, less disease and lower medication use. There are also hidden advantages that are more difficult to quantify, such as greater staff satisfaction and the ability to reassure customers about the welfare standards being achieved.

The cost of welfare

But improving poultry welfare is not without expense. For example, welfare improvements like bales and perches cost money. Additionally, they can be difficult to clean, take up floor space and get in the way of inspection and clearance. Reducing stocking density or using slower-growing breeds are even clearer examples of welfare improvements that can prove seriously uneconomic. Welfare may be a desirable goal, but someone has to pay for it.

With the new agri-tech equipment now available, financial questions have become even more pressing. There is potential for a range of benefits, from reduced labor costs and improved production efficiency to higher animal welfare standards. Cameras, sound, motion and detectors that record all aspects of an animal’s health and behavior are presented as “must-haves” for today’s farmers.

But are they really a must-have? A 2024 McKinsey report based on farmers’ views of agri-tech identified several reasons why farmers remain cautious about adopting smart-farming equipment. Difficulty of installation and challenges with use were mentioned as obstacles. But by far the most important reason was that many farmers are not yet convinced they will obtain a financial return on the considerable investment often involved.

Fulfilled potential?

A weakness of agri-tech is that it promises much but has not yet demonstrated sufficient returns on investment, at least not enough to convince many farmers. This weakness is made worse when agri-tech’s main or only selling point is that it improves animal welfare. It follows that if agri-tech aimed at improving chicken welfare is to be widely adopted by the poultry industry, there needs to be much better evidence that it not only improves chicken welfare but also offers real financial advantages.

The bottom line for all agri-tech is that it improves efficiency. The bottom line for welfare-related agri-tech is that it improves poultry welfare and efficiency.

The real test of the economic and welfare value of new smart-farming technology will come when it is widely used, and everyone can see its advantages and disadvantages in the real world. But in the meantime — when understandable caution stands in the way of its widespread use — there is much more that academic researchers, equipment sellers and producers themselves can do together to demonstrate the links between improved chicken welfare and increased profitability.

Testing the technology

Small-scale pen trials are, of course, an essential first stage in the development of any new technology. They establish its potential and identify what needs to be developed next.

But what works for a few tens or hundreds of chickens in a carefully controlled environment does not necessarily translate into what happens when many thousands of birds are reared on commercial farms. Not only environmental but also financial conditions are completely different, meaning that both welfare and efficiency outcomes may also be quite different.

It follows that for farmers to be convinced of the value of new technology, there must be more farm-scale trials that demonstrate its value, not just to the animals and their welfare but also to the farm balance sheet.

For example, a major problem with adopting welfare-related technology is that many farmers are suspicious of any suggested changes that involve the birds becoming active and performing more of their natural behavior — the very features that are often used to define “good welfare.” More active birds eat more, and because feed is the largest single factor in broiler production, farmers are justifiably wary of anything that increases how much birds eat. Only data collected from commercial broiler farms can show whether their suspicions are justified.

Collecting data

As one of the participants in the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research SMART Broiler program, we recently took a step toward doing this. We used smart cameras to measure the activity levels of 34 flocks of broilers on a commercial farm throughout their lives. We correlated this with one of the most important measures of production efficiency: feed-conversion ratio (FCR). We found that on several measures of “activity,” the most active flocks also delivered the lowest FCR.

Our suggested explanation is that the most active flocks had lower mortality levels, and that their improved FCR was due to their greater liveability. The less active flocks may have eaten less, but they also seemed to have a higher mortality risk, so everything they ate would be wasted.

There were many limitations to this study. First, it was correlational, and it is well known that correlation is not causation. Also, the study was conducted on one breed (Cobb) on a farm with a range of lighting regimes (gradient, natural, overhead, etc.), which is likely to have altered the birds’ activity.

So, it does not follow that whenever broiler activity increases, FCR will decrease. And it certainly does not entitle us to conclude that all welfare improvements — however caused and with whatever management procedures are in place — will be associated with an increase in production efficiency.

But what it does show is that increased activity and better FCR are not necessarily the incompatible goals they might seem. There can be “sweet spots” where both can be achieved at once. Agri-tech can help us identify combinations of enrichments and management that enable us to find these sweet spots but only if it is sufficiently deployed on commercial farms where the full economic costs and benefits can be evaluated.

The study results mentioned in this article have been published in Poultry Science. Access the paper here.

Editor’s note: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.

The post The challenge for agri-tech: Finding the ‘sweet spot’ to achieve poultry welfare and efficiency appeared first on Modern Poultry.

According to the EU Agricultural Outlook 2025-2035, poultry and eggs are the only meat sectors in the European Union projected to expand in both production and consumption over the coming decade, despite persistent uncertainty linked to animal disease outbreaks and geopolitical factors.

Poultry meat production

In 2025, EU poultry meat production is estimated to continue increasing slightly compared with 2024, supported by solid consumer demand and favourable feed cost and output price conditions. Over the period to 2035, EU poultry production is projected to rise by 965,000 tonnes, corresponding to an average annual growth rate of +0.7%.

The report notes that future production growth may be uneven across regions, as stricter environmental legislation and the transition towards more sustainable production systems could limit expansion in certain Member States. In addition, unlike previous years, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is expected to remain present throughout the year rather than as a seasonal phenomenon, posing an ongoing challenge for the poultry sector.

Poultry consumption

EU poultry consumption is expected to continue increasing between 2025 and 2035. Per capita poultry consumption is projected to rise from 15.1 kg per year (2023–2025 average) to 16.5 kg per year by 2035. The outlook attributes this increase to consumer preferences for poultry as a convenient, affordable and widely perceived healthy protein source, as well as higher demand from food service and food processing sectors.

At the same time, overall EU meat consumption is projected to decline marginally over the outlook period, with a continued shift away from beef and pigmeat towards poultry.

Imports

To meet rising demand, EU poultry meat imports are projected to increase by +1.1% per year, reaching approximately 955,000 tonnes by 2035. Imports are supported by relatively higher poultry prices in the EU compared with world markets. In 2025, increased imports from Brazil, the United Kingdom and Thailand were already observed.

Exports

Global import demand for poultry meat is expected to increase by 2.5 million tonnes by 2035, driven mainly by growth in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Following a period of decline, EU poultry exports are projected to regain momentum, growing at an average rate of +0.8% per year to reach more than 2.1 million tonnes by 2035.

Exports to the United Kingdom are expected to remain strong, while shipments to Africa, Asia and the Middle East are projected to increase. However, the EU’s share of global poultry exports is expected to remain broadly stable at around 12.5%, as competition from lower-cost producers such as Brazil, the United States, Thailand and Ukraine intensifies.

Prices

EU poultry prices reached historically high levels in 2025. The average EU price for chicken broiler carcasses exceeded EUR 3,000 per tonne for the first time, reflecting tight supply and strong demand. Over the longer term, EU poultry prices are projected to increase gradually to around EUR 2,850 per tonne by 2035, in line with sustained EU demand and developments on world markets.

Egg Sector Outlook

Egg production

Between 2015 and 2025, EU egg production grew by an average of +0.8% per year. Over the 2025–2035 outlook period, egg production is projected to continue increasing, but at a slower average annual rate of +0.5%.

This moderation reflects forecasts of declining population growth and potential supply challenges linked to HPAI. Productivity gains in the egg sector may come from automation, digitalisation and genetic progress, including improvements in laying persistence and hen longevity. However, these gains could be partly offset in the short term by the implementation of animal welfare policies and the gradual phase-out of the killing of day-old male chicks, with in-ovo sexing increasingly adopted as a welfare-friendly alternative rather than as a practice being discontinued.

Egg consumption

EU per capita egg consumption is projected to grow by +0.5% per year, reaching 14 kg per capita by 2035. Consumption trends are driven by the ease of preparation of eggs, their role as a relatively affordable source of protein, increased health awareness among consumers, and an ageing population, as older consumers tend to consume more eggs.

Demand from the egg processing industry is also expected to remain strong, particularly for eggs used as ingredients in bakery products, desserts, sauces and ice cream. With rising incomes, demand for organic and free-range eggs is projected to increase.

Egg imports

Due to the perishability of eggs, the EU sources most imports from neighbouring countries, mainly Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Over the past three years, imports from Ukraine increased significantly, accounting for around 60% of total EU egg imports in 2023 and 2024. EU egg imports are projected to grow by +2.7% per year over the coming decade, assuming imports from Ukraine remain at levels similar to those observed in 2025.

Egg exports

Global egg consumption is expected to grow by 13% between 2025 and 2035, particularly in India and emerging markets in South-East Asia such as Vietnam and Indonesia. While global egg trade remains limited—representing around 1.5% of total global production due to transport costs, perishability and HPAI restrictions—the expansion of egg processing in emerging markets could support future trade opportunities.

In 2025, EU egg exports are expected to increase by +5% in volume compared with 2024. Over the longer term, EU egg exports are projected to grow by around +1.7% per year, supported by demand in neighbouring countries and exports of albumin, particularly to Japan.

Source

EC (2025), EU agricultural outlook, 2025-2035. European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels

Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) and Mycoplasma synoviae (MS) remain persistent pathogens in poultry, causing respiratory disorders, synovitis, uneven growth, and reduced egg production. Determining the true source and timing of infection is critical for targeted interventions. Continuous monitoring using serology (ELISA) and molecular diagnostics (PCR and sequencing) enables differentiation between vertical transmission, hatchery contamination, and farm-level infection. Combining antibody kinetics and PCR results allows estimation of infection timing, improving decision-making for control measures. This article presents practical surveillance strategies, source analysis, and integrated control measures to sustain poultry production.

Introduction

MG and MS infections remain major challenges in commercial poultry. The production pyramid from GGP to broilers creates multiple points of potential contamination. A positive test alone does not indicate the source or timing of infection. Understanding whether infection originates from:

• upstream flocks (GGP/GP) > vertical transmission
• hatchery contamination > during incubation or handling
• farm-level infection > within the parent stock farm is essential for effective interventions, reducing unnecessary culling, and preserving production efficiency.

Economic impact in both breeders and broilers

MG and MS reduce growth rate, feed efficiency, egg production, and hatchability, leading to significant performance losses across the poultry industry. In broiler breeders, infection compromises reproductive efficiency, reduces egg quality, and lowers hatchability, while also producing weaker day-old chicks with reduced viability. These consequences not only decrease productivity but also may lead to trade restrictions, since certification programs often require Mycoplasma-free status. In broilers, infection is associated with airsacculitis, uneven growth, poor feed conversion, and higher carcass condemnations at processing plants. Although mortality may remain relatively low, the cumulative impact on flock uniformity and market weight is considerable. Importantly, co-infections with pathogens such as E. coli, Newcastle disease virus, or infectious bronchitis virus often exacerbate the clinical and economic effects of mycoplasmosis. Vertical transmission perpetuates infection down the production pyramid, while hatchery or farm-level contamination can trigger sporadic outbreaks. Therefore, accurate source tracking and infection timing estimation are crucial to minimize economic losses and to implement effective corrective measures.

Monitoring plan and source analysis across the production pyramid

Monitoring should cover all pyramid levels, with key periods at pre-vaccination, pre-transfer, and peak production. Serology (ELISA) identifies immune response, PCR detects the pathogen, and sequencing confirms strain identity to determine the true source.

A structured monitoring program must align with the expected antibody response after vaccination. In practice, blood samples collected at different ages help confirm maternal antibody transfer. Sampling at around three weeks of age provides baseline data to document the natural decline in maternal antibodies. Baseline testing at 10 weeks ensures that the flock remains negative, while an additional test at 15 weeks, before transfer to the production site, confirms the negative status prior to movement.

With vaccination commonly performed at six weeks, marking the start of active immunity, post-vaccination monitoring at 21 weeks, prior to peak lay, is critical. Using ELISA, typical titers following MG F-strain vaccination range between 2,000–8,000, while ts-11 usually produces 1,000–3,000 (30–70% positives). For MS-H vaccine, mean titers are expected in the range of 500–3,000 without wild challenge. Any values significantly above these levels (e.g. >5,000–23,000 with 90–100% seropositive samples) strongly suggest field infection rather than vaccine response. Additional monitoring at 32 weeks (to detect breakthrough infections), 44 weeks (to evaluate vaccine duration), and 55 weeks (for end-of-lay cycle status) provides mid- and late-production surveillance, ensuring that no breakthrough infections occur. This approach allows managers to clearly separate normal vaccine serology from true Mycoplasma challenge and to implement corrective actions in time.

Monitoring for antibodies must be carried out prior to vaccination with live vaccines.

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays can be used to differentiate vaccinated flocks from those undergoing a challenge.

Timing of infection using antibody kinetics

Key points

• Maternal antibodies decline over time; a positive titer at day 1 reflects maternal transfer;
• a rising titer after the decline indicates natural infection; the slope helps estimate infection timing;
• comparison with vaccination differentiates vaccine response from natural infection;
• serial sampling is required for precise estimation;
• PCR confirmation supports timing estimate and identifies the strain.

Diagnostic approaches

• ELISA: large-scale flock screening;
• PCR: rapid detection and strain differentiation;
• culture and immunofluorescence: gold standard, but it is costly and slow (up to 4 weeks), typically reserved for certification and research.

At least two independent positive results are recommended for confirmation; titers > 1:80 (or kit cut-off) indicate infection.

Control and prevention

• Elimination: cull positive breeders to prevent vertical spread;
• vaccination: live (F, 6/85, TS-11, and MS-H) or inactivated vaccines; PCR differentiates vaccine from field strains;
• antibiotics: mycoplasmas are generally susceptible to macrolides, tetracyclines, fluoroquinolones and the combination of lincomycin and spectinomycin to reduce clinical signs;
• biosecurity and sourcing: hygiene, audits, certified Mycoplasma-free source;
• continuous monitoring: ensures early detection and source identification.

Conclusion

Identifying the true source and approximate timing of infection is critical. Combining ELISA kinetics, PCR, sequencing, clinical observation, and necropsy allows differentiation between vertical, hatchery, and farm-level infection. Accurate source and timing identification prevent unnecessary culling, focuses interventions, and improves flock sustainability.

MG and MS threaten flock health and productivity. Continuous monitoring, molecular and serological diagnostics, biosecurity, and vaccination are essential. Source identification and timing estimation enable targeted control, reducing economic losses and sustaining poultry production.

References

Achari, R., & Morrow, C. (2018). Diminishing Control of Avian Mycoplasmas. Association of Avian Health Professionals, India.

BioChek. (s.d.). Live Mycoplasma Vaccines and the Use of Monitoring: Interpretation of BioChek MG ELISA titers 6–12 weeks post vaccination with Live MG vaccines. BioChek Application PDF.

Ferguson-Noel, N. (2014). Control of Avian Mycoplasmosis. The Poultry Informed Professional, University of Georgia.

Kleven, S.H. (2000). Mycoplasma Update. The Poultry Informed Professional, University of Georgia.

Morrow, C.J. (2017). Practical Mycoplasma Control for Poultry Production in Asia. International Production Poultry, 25(1), 35–37.

Rosales, A.G. (2019). Mycoplasmosis Prevention and Control in Broiler Breeders and Broilers. Aviagen.

“At the end of the day, we try to provide an optimal environment for birds so that energy from their food and water goes toward growth and development,” said Brian Fairchild, PhD, professor and Extension poultry specialist at the University of Georgia. And lighting in the houses plays an important role.

He explained that energy is used in three ways: growth and development, maintenance, and to overcome stressors. Bird activity increases with light intensity and birds eat and drink when the lights are on. But Fairchild noted, “Raising poultry isn’t all about growth, even in the first 7 to 10 days.”

Giving birds time to mature and develop strong skeletal, digestive, thermoregulation and immune systems is just as important and, possibly, more important than prioritizing growth during the first week, he explained.

However, lighting not only influences birds’ behavior but also affects their physiology. Additionally, lighting is even more complex because the hours of light, as well as intensity and spectrum, impact poultry.

“It’s not all about what the eyes can see,” Fairchild pointed out. For example, red and orange light between 2,700 and 3,000 Kelvin has longer wavelengths that penetrate birds’ feathers, skin and skull, stimulating the extra-retinal receptors, which research has shown to promote sexual development.

Day length influences poultry’s daily rhythms, hormonal concentrations, reproduction and immune system. “In near continuous or continuous light, stress hormones and plasma corticosteroids increase, and melatonin decreases.”

Dark period’s importance

Fairchild’s research has highlighted the importance of a continuous dark period of 4 to 6 hours, which interestingly coincides with peak melatonin production. Melatonin, although not often discussed, plays a key role in behavior, thermoregulation and the health of the cardiovascular, excretory, immune and reproductive systems.

Typically, chicks are introduced into poultry houses that are illuminated continuously for the first 7 to 10 days. Although this method encourages bird activity and may contribute to chicks finding food and water sources, it doesn’t necessarily lead to heavier birds at harvest.

Fairchild found that birds exposed to a dark period from day 1 were slightly behind control birds in weight at 7 days of age but they quickly caught up by 10 days of age.  In pen trials, birds actually weighed more at 10 days through 5 weeks of age. “Older birds, around 48 days old, didn’t exhibit a weight difference when housed with between 17 and 20 hours of light, but they didn’t perform as well in environments with continuous light,” he stated.

“Based on research conducted in Canada, the feed-conversation sweet spot is about 20 hours of light and 4 hours of darkness,” he said.  However, for birds raised to 7-9 weeks of age, 6 hours of darkness has been shown to be similar in performance to 4 hours of darkness.

Fairchild prefers uniform lighting in houses during brooding and wants to see birds distributed evenly. He also likes to see birds up and moving when the lights are on, but said light intensity doesn’t impact performance once the birds locate food and water resources, depending on the design of the light system. Specifically, he noted that lowering light intensity to 5 lux doesn’t have a negative impact on bird performance.

Water consumption to monitor lighting

It is well documented that consumption rises when lights turn on, then occurs at a steady rate throughout the day and increases again before the lights turn off.

Because feed consumption is directly linked to water consumption but can be difficult to measure, the UGA Poultry Housing lab uses water consumption to monitor house lighting. He suggested using at least two water meters, one at the front of the house and one at the back, to alert producers to lighting inconsistencies.

For example, in one study, the birds on one farm were drinking more water at the back of the house. This inconsistency was due to the birds responding to light coming in through the fans lining the back wall. Adjusting the lighting to make it more consistent throughout the house remedied the situation and resulted in a more uniform flock.

Continuous lighting impacts

“Continuous lighting may have a negative impact on poultry health,” Fairchild said.

In another study, birds from day 1 housed in continuous light were compared to birds housed with 6 hours of continuous darkness. All the houses in this study experienced deaths related to inclusion body hepatitis. However, in houses with the dark period, there were fewer lame birds, less mortality and no significant difference in weight gain or feed conversion.

“Although several factors may have come together to result in healthier birds, it is interesting that birds with higher melatonin levels experienced less lameness and mortality,” Fairchild commented.

He prefers lighting changes to be instantaneous rather than adjusted gradually over multiple days. “Any lighting changes will require a 2- to 3-day period for the birds to adjust to a new schedule.

A dark period from placement may lead to better health

“Research has shown no downside to incorporating a dark period from day 1, but increased stress levels with continuous light have been documented,” Fairchild commented. Although it may not be observed in every flock, a dark period could lead to improvements in overall bird health. He believes that producers willing to experiment with an alternative to continuous lighting of houses for the first several days might see advantages.

“Producers should think about the potential benefits of offering birds a dark period starting on the day of placement,” Fairchild noted.

The post Fairchild: Consider the complexity of lighting and its impact on poultry health appeared first on Modern Poultry.

Incubators are ideally loaded with eggs from one single flock that have all been stored for the same period of time. In modern, large-scale hatcheries, however, egg batch mixing is often inevitable. This article explains how to load incubators with eggs from different flocks and, at the same time, minimize losses in hatchability and chick uniformity.

Temperature and embryo development

Temperature differences in the incubator contribute to a wider hatch window and, consequently, negatively affect hatch results. When the eggshell temperature is maintained at approximately 100 °F (37.8 °C), the embryos will develop at the ideal rate, resulting in the chicks hatching at around 21 days. If the temperature deviates from that ideal situation, it will impact the rate of embryonic development and hatching time. Therefore, by keeping the difference between the highest and lowest temperatures inside the incubator as small as possible, the highest percentage of healthy, uniform day-old chicks can be reached.

Each incubator is different

Each incubator manufacturer has its own way of monitoring and regulating the micro-environment around the eggs in setters and hatchers. Everything depends on the machine layout and design in relation to heating and cooling patterns and airflow dynamics. In Petersime incubators, an optimal spiral airflow distribution is guaranteed (Figure 1). The setter’s and hatcher’s central mixing fan ensures that the airflow is the same on the left and right side of the fan. This means the cooling, heating and ventilation conditions are perfectly mirrored in each incubator.

Loading eggs from different flocks

Hatchery staff should ideally load the setters with eggs from one single flock that have all been stored for the same period of time. Those eggs will have about the same size and produce about the same amount of heat at about the same moment in time. However, if not enough eggs from the same source are available to fill a setter, egg batch mixing will be unavoidable.

To prevent that egg batch mixing leads to uneven temperatures inside the machine and, consequently, results in a wide hatch window and poor chick uniformity, using the technique of balanced loading to achieve optimal thermal uniformity is important.

Thermally balanced loading

Balanced loading is all about setting a mix of eggs with different backgrounds while taking into account their level of heat production and the point in time at which that heat is produced, along with the airflow distribution and location of the cooling elements inside the setter. There are three factors to consider: flock fertility, flock age and storage time. Based on those factors, three general rules of thumb are:

1. An egg mass from a “prime” flock with high fertility (between 30 and 44 weeks of age) will produce more heat than an egg mass from a low fertility flock.
2. Large eggs (from older flocks) contain yolk that has a higher energy value, causing the embryos to grow more, which produces more heat.
3. Eggs that have been stored for a longer period of time will produce heat at a later point than eggs that have been stored only a short time.

When taking these rules of thumb into account, the following general setter loading scheme can be drawn:

• Positions A: highest fertility, oldest (large egg) flock, shortest storage time
• Positions B: lowest fertility, youngest (small egg) flock, longest storage time
• Positions C: middle fertility, middle-aged flock, middle storage time

Important note: setter trolleys equipped with Petersime’s OvoScan™ technology are always loaded with eggs with medium heat production and are positioned near the left wall of the setter (see Figure 2: 3 OvoScan™ sensors, position C on the left).

Some further points of attention are:

• Generally, it is advised not to exceed more than 10 weeks of difference in flock age, 7 days of difference in storage time and 10% difference in fertility.
• Never start an incubation cycle when the machine is not fully loaded. If you do, any measures taken regarding balanced loading will be ineffective.

Following the above guidelines will result in an optimal heat balance distribution of the eggs in the setter.

Transfer from setter to hatcher

Correctly loading the hatcher starts where it ends for the setter: at transfer. During the hatching process, the embryos undergo the most critical biological transitions (internal pipping, external pipping and shell emergence), which demands very specific environmental conditions. By loading the hatchers with eggs that are as uniform as possible, each hatcher can use a specific incubation profile according to the heat production of the eggs inside and the embryos’ needs.

As one single hatcher should ideally be loaded with uniform eggs, they should all come from the same specific positions in the balanced loaded setter. The example below (Figure 3) shows how to put that theory into practice, taking the example of transferring one setter of 12 trolleys to three hatchers of 4 trolleys each:

• Hatcher 1: all eggs with medium heat production (positioned near the wall – 1a 1b 1c 1d)
• Hatcher 2: all eggs with low heat production (positioned in the centre – 2a 2b 2c 2d)
• Hatcher 3: all eggs with high heat production (positioned near the central mixing fan – 3a 3b 3c 3d)

The same principle applies for configurations of setters and hatchers with other capacities.

Optimal heat balance for optimal hatch results

Successful incubation depends on an optimal heat balance and, as such, the trolleys’ position inside the incubator. By keeping the difference between the highest and lowest temperatures inside the machine as small as possible, the highest percentage of healthy day-old chicks with high uniformity can be obtained.

Birds have both innate and adaptive immunity, helping them fight a wide range of pathogens that can circulate in production systems, even with strong biosecurity efforts. These can include respiratory viruses, bacteria and molds.

Innate vs. adaptive immunity

Innate immune responses are immediate and work in a similar way in any situation, using physical barriers, cellular components and chemical signaling processes. They are not specific to any antigen and pave the way for adaptive immunity.

“The innate immune response is very important because it allows birds to later develop effective adaptive immune responses,” Isabel Gimeno, PhD, DVM, from North Carolina State University, explained. “The adaptive response takes a bit longer, responds to specific antigens and has memory, so on repeated exposure to an antigen, the immune response becomes a lot stronger.”

Most of a chick’s immune system develops during incubation. Innate immune response components develop shortly after embryonation (around embryonation day [ED] 7-10). T cells, which coordinate the overall immune response, are present around ED 11. T cells are formed in the thymus, and as they mature, they migrate to the bird’s secondary lymphoid organs. Antibody-producing B cells, produced in the bursa, are present at around ED 12 and become functional by ED 18.

“At this point, the immune system is not functionally mature; it’s still quite rudimentary. There are a lot of things that need to develop later, but it does mean that we can vaccinate in ovo, because the key players are there to mount an immune response,” Gimeno said.

Early threats, long-term effects

Given that B cells take around 2 weeks to produce antibodies and 4 or 5 weeks to produce a full immune response, and T cell immunity takes 1 week after hatch and is optimal at around 6 weeks, there is a window where pathogens can inflict considerable damage on bird health and productivity.

Birds are exposed to pathogenic viruses from the first day of their lives, and when combined with management-related stressors, this can cause problems that persist over the life of flocks. Research has shown that early infection with viral conditions such as infectious bursal disease (IBD) or chicken anemia can wipe out immature B and T cells, leading to immunosuppression throughout the birds’ lives.¹

Tools for early protection

Added to the picture of innate and adaptive immunity is the role of maternal antibodies – chicks’ temporary, ‘borrowed’ immunity from the hens. Ensuring immunocompetence in the early stages of birds’ lives involves vaccination of both hens and embryonic chicks, Gimeno explained.

“For IBD, you vaccinate the hens and you also vaccinate the chick embryos. This way, you get a balanced transition between the time when maternal antibodies go down and the time you see an active immune response because of the vaccine you put in the progeny,” she said.

Vaccination stimulates both innate and adaptive immunity at hatch.² The vaccine options for producers looking to tackle IBD in the face of maternal antibodies are recombinant HVT products, which use a harmless vector to deliver IBD virus genes, or immune complex vaccines, which carry live virus mixed with neutralizing antibodies. For Marek’s disease, developing active immunity as early as possible is even more crucial because the virus associated with the condition infects birds very early.

In ovo vaccination brings early advantage

Considerable research has demonstrated the positive impact of in ovo vaccination on birds’ responses to pathogens. This, along with the practical advantage of making it possible to vaccinate many birds at once, has paved the way for its adoption by most of the US broiler industry. In the case of Marek’s disease, in ovo interventions mean birds develop an immune response 3 days before they hatch, offering a “head start” on the virus.³ But the advantages don’t stop there.

Work from Gimeno’s research group has shown that vaccinating with HVT vaccines in ovo also speeds up the maturation of birds’ immune systems,⁴ to the point that at the time of hatch, a chick can mount an immune response like a bird that is 2 weeks old.  Genetic differences between birds in production mean that in layers, humoral, innate and cellular immunity are activated, whereas in broilers, immune activation is mainly innate and cellular.

This accelerated maturation is linked to the “adjuvant” effect of HVT – its ability to not only protect against Marek’s disease but also to stimulate broader immune activation. For decades now, Gimeno’s lab has tried to optimize this effect of the vaccines, leading to the conclusion that HVT, when administered at the proper doses (not too high and not too low), results in a very strong activation of the innate and adaptive immune responses.

Even well-known vaccine adjuvants did not surpass the effect of HVT. While the addition of other Marek’s disease vaccine strains, including CVI988 and SB-1, did not have a negative effect, they did not increase the adjuvant effect of HVT. Gimeno reported that a novel chimeric vaccine (CVI-LTR) is the only vaccine that, when administered with HVT, results in an even stronger adjuvant effect than HVT alone.

How robust immunity boosts production

Early immunocompetence has lifelong benefits for birds in production, especially in an era of heavily reduced or even eradicated antibiotic use. Biosecurity and vaccination are the cornerstones for controlling disease throughout birds’ lives and ensuring they grow optimally, but for vaccination to succeed, robust innate immunity is essential.

Without this immunity, Gimeno said, responses to vaccines are likely to be poor, and attenuated live vaccines may even cause disease. The practical impact of this is that broilers will use a lot of energy fighting disease, which reduces growth, while for longer-living birds such as layers and breeders, a poor response to live vaccines early in life is likely to affect their response to inactivated vaccines later in their lives. This can have consequential effects for the progeny, which may end up with reduced maternal antibodies.

Thymus focus can advance understanding

Gimeno hopes that further research on this vaccine-induced immunocompetence, with a particular focus on what happens in the thymus of birds a few days after vaccination, will help support the development of more targeted and optimized products.

“Understanding the pathogenesis in the thymus and the early development of T cells is a critical point for both the maturation of the immune responses and for later protection,” she said.

“Most of the studies that you see use the spleen and not the thymus, simply because it’s easier. The thymus is a lot more complicated to work with, but we have to switch gears and focus on the thymus really early. It has the answer to a lot of the unknowns around vaccines and viruses, not just for Marek’s but for many other diseases.”

References

1 Sharma, J.M., Kim, I.J., Rautenschlein, S. and Yeh, H.Y., 2000. Infectious bursal disease virus of chickens: pathogenesis and immunosuppression. Developmental & Comparative Immunology, 24(2-3), pp.223-235.
2 Negash, T., Al‐Garib, S.O. and Gruys, E., 2004. Comparison of in ovo and post‐hatch vaccination with particular reference to infectious bursal disease. A review. Veterinary quarterly, 26(2), pp.76-87.
3 Boone, A.C., Gaghan, C., Fares, A., Browning, M., Cortes, A.L., Mohammed, J., Villalobos, T., Esandi, J., Kulkarni, R.R. and Gimeno, I.M., 2026. Ability to accelerate innate and cell-mediated immune responses in meat-type chickens by in ovo vaccination with monovalent and bivalent Marek’s disease vaccines. Vaccine, 69, p.128001.
4 Boone, A.C., Käser, T., Cortes, A.L., Kulkarni, R.R., de Juan Abad, B.A.L., Villalobos, T., Esandi, J., Perozo, F., Lemiere, S. and Gimeno, I.M., 2020. In ovo vaccination with herpesvirus of turkey enhances innate and cellular responses in meat-type chickens: Effect of vaccine dose and strain. Vaccine, 38(31), pp.4837-4845.

The post The role of in ovo vaccination in developing robust immune responses in poultry appeared first on Modern Poultry.

On-farm hatching is an innovative hatching technique that provides early feeding post hatch to newborn chicks. Several experimental studies and field trials show that flocks hatched on-farm have better intestinal health and health in general, resulting in fewer antibiotic treatments and better welfare.

It is a challenge for the poultry industry today to meet consumer demands for more welfare and less antimicrobial use in a sustainable way with good return on investment (ROI) for the producers.

The main indications for antimicrobial use (AMU) in broilers occur during the first week of life, against bacterial translocation and septicemia (e.g., E. coli, Enterococci) and after three to four weeks for intestinal problems such as coccidiosis and dysbacteriosis (Joosten et al., 2019).

Why early feeding?

Hatching chicks in a hatchery was a great invention that made the expansion of the poultry industry possible. To do this successfully all chicks must hatch within a narrow hatch window, to avoid early-hatched chicks becoming dehydrated. After hatch, chicks need to be transported to the farm before they have access to feed and water. Nature has provided the chick with a reserve of nutrients inside the yolk sac for three days. Therefore, chicks will not starve if not fed, but they use all the energy, fat and protein from the yolk to survive. By providing early feeding, additional nutrients can be used to start early development, maturation and growth: chicks get a better start. Early feeding will enhance the development of intestines and the immune system. The intestinal villi have greater capacity to absorb nutrients. Early establishment of the intestinal microbiome and faster closure of tight junctions make a more functional gut barrier to avoid bacterial translocation. It seems controversial but with early feeding the yolk sac is reabsorbed faster, so maternal antibodies are more effective. Early feeding makes the metabolic level higher so chicks can keep up their body temperature.

To get most of the genetic potential in performance, intestinal health is very important. The effect of early feeding on performance is most significant in the first weeks (de Jong et al., 2020). Early feeding makes the intestinal tract better equipped to resist intestinal diseases like coccidiosis and dysbacteriosis, resulting in fewer wet litter problems and consequently fewer painful conditions like footpad dermatitis, hock burn and breast blisters.

Early feeding can be done pre- and post- hatch. Several experimental studies have shown benefits of in-ovo early feeding at transfer (Uni et al., 2005), but none of these studies resulted in practical applications until now. After hatching, early feeding can be done in the hatcher or by hatching the eggs on the farm. In this article we focus on the latter.

On-farm hatching

On-farm hatching is not only a system to deliver early feeding, but also to hatch chicks in a more comfortable environment with less stress. Eggs are incubated in the hatchery until transfer at D18. After candling, infertile eggs are removed, and instead of being placed in the hatcher are transported to the farm and placed in the house in trays or on the litter to hatch. Just as in the hatcher the environment in the house needs to be controlled and eggshell temperature is measured with ovoscans. The house is heated to 34 °C with floor and litter temperature 28 °C. About 50 g of feed per chick is put on paper close by where eggs are placed.

The chicks start hatching as from D19 until D21 like in the hatchery, but feed and water are immediately available, so no risk of dehydration of the early hatched chicks. Another advantage is that there is less stress for the chicks, no handling of the chicks and no transport. The infection pressure of pathogens and dust is lower in the house compared to the hatcher machine and less risk of cross-contamination. Challenges for the farmer are that it is more labor intensive: three days extra care, non-hatched eggs need to be removed, and non-viable chicks need to be selected in the first week. Empty eggshells can remain in the litter. Hatchability is comparable or even better than conventional hatching, taking into account selection of second grade chicks. The number of chicks is calculated at D7 based on number of eggs placed, removed non-hatched eggs and first week selection. Compared to conventional hatching, there is a higher cost for three days extra heating and if the farmer wants to do the same number of cycles per year, sanitary void is shorter.

Reduced antimicrobial use

A recent study (Jerab et al., 2023) compared antimicrobial use in flocks hatched conventionally and flocks hatched on farm. There was a reduction in the use of antimicrobials in on-farm hatched flocks, mainly because there was less AMU in first week and for locomotory problems (Enterococcus spp.) and fewer intestinal diseases. In the study 15% of all flocks were raised without antibiotics, 48% of these were on-farm hatched versus only 12% conventionally hatched.

What are the practical issues?

It is important that the climate in the house is well controlled, especially from ED18-ED21, just like in the hatchery eggshell temperature has to be monitored, so the farmer can adjust at all times.

Special attention is needed to clean the waterlines, because of high temperatures for three days the waterlines need to be flushed regularly.

Non hatched eggs can contain live embryos, so for welfare reasons they need to be removed and euthanized in a humane way. Depending on the system, this can be easier and faster if they remain in a tray, than if each egg has to be picked up manually.

Biosecurity risks need to be avoided: all equipment -trays, support system, robots used on different farms and going back to the hatchery have to be properly cleaned and disinfected.

Vaccination of the day-old chicks on farm can be challenging. Many vaccines (e.g. Newcastle disease, Gumboro, coccidiosis) can be administered in-ovo at transfer in the hatchery. Some vaccines (infectious bronchitis) need to be sprayed at the farm, with special spray machines that can reach more than 4 meters so the chicks can be reached from the side without walking through them.

Conclusions

On-farm hatching is an innovative technique to hatch chicks with less stress and reduced risk of infection. Chicks have immediate access to feed and water, this improves early development of a healthy gut and a strong immune system to resist diseases in general, so fewer antimicrobial treatments are needed.

On-farm hatching is a promising innovative strategy to improve welfare and performance and reduce antimicrobial use (Table 1).

Today on-farm hatching is mainly used in broilers, but maybe in the future, combined with early sexing techniques, it could also be used in layers and breeders.

Bibliography

Joosten, P., Timmerman, A., & Van den Broek, J. (2019). Quantitative and qualitative analysis of antimicrobial usage at farm and flock level on 181 broiler farms in nine European countries. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dky498

de Jong, I. C., van Riel, J. W., & van Krimpen, M. M. (2020). Effects of early feeding on broiler performance and gut health. Poultry Science, 99(7), 3456–3468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.06.052

Uni, Z., Ganot, S., & Sklan, D. (2005). In-ovo feeding improves early growth and gastrointestinal development in chicks. Poultry Science, 84(5), 764–770. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/84.5.764

Jerab, J. C., Smith, L., & Kovac, M. (2023). Impact of on-farm hatching on antimicrobial use and broiler welfare. Animals, 13(32), 3270. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13203270

Special Report | Dr Anjan Goswami | March 20, 2026

On the morning of March 4, 2026, the Strait of Hormuz, a 33-kilometer chokepoint between Iran and Oman, ceased to function as the world’s most vital energy corridor. Tehran, retaliating against coordinated US-Israeli strikes on its nuclear and military infrastructure, mined the waterway and threatened all commercial shipping. In a single stroke, 20% of global crude supply and over 85% of India’s LPG imports were placed in jeopardy.

The shockwaves struck India’s ₹3.5 lakh crore poultry economy almost immediately, hitting the egg-laying (layer) and broiler (chicken meat) sectors through different but equally devastating channels.

This is the story of how a war 3,000 kilometers away lit a fire at India’s farm gate.

I. Fire in the Gulf: The Energy Architecture Behind the Crisis
The Strait of Hormuz carries ~20% of the world’s petroleum liquids and an equivalent share of LNG annually. India imports 85% of its crude oil, with half transiting Hormuz, and the Gulf supplies 90%+ of its LPG imports. For India’s poultry sector, the devastating blow came not from crude, whose retail price pass-through is gradual, but from LPG and LNG: the gases that power restaurant kitchens, hatchery incubators, feed-processing mills, cold storage, and fertiliser plants simultaneously. Maritime insurance for Gulf-bound vessels surged over 1,000% within days. The government invoked the Essential Commodities Act, directed refineries to maximise LPG output, and prioritised household and CNG supply, leaving the commercial food service sector, India’s largest channel for both egg and chicken consumption, to face an acute supply vacuum.

India holds no strategic reserves of LPG or LNG. Unlike crude oil, these cannot be stockpiled. The disruption at Hormuz has exposed a structural vulnerability hiding in plain sight.”

II. Restaurants Close, Orders Evaporate: The Shared Demand Catastrophe
Commercial LPG – the 19-kg cylinder that powers every hotel, dhaba, cloud kitchen, caterer, and QSR outlet in India became critically scarce within days of the blockade. The government’s allocation framework deprioritised food service. The consequences struck both the egg and broiler supply chains simultaneously and with equal severity.

AHAR estimates food service accounts for 25–30% of total egg consumption in major metros; the food service channel’s share of urban broiler meat offtake is estimated at 35–40%. The simultaneous collapse of this channel is producing a paradox in both sectors: input costs are rising at farm level while buyer-side demand has imploded at the same moment. Egg prices at some wholesale markets have softened despite rising production costs; broiler demand in organised channels is contracting even as retail prices at surviving outlets spike amid supply disruptions.

“When restaurants shut, the first items off the menu are egg dishes and chicken preparations. Cancellations are coming from hotels, caterers, and QSR outlets simultaneously.” — Regional distributor, Hyderabad.

LAYER SECTOR — EGG PRODUCTION & EXPORT MARKETS

III. The Layer Sector: Export Routes Severed, Farm Economics Inverted
India is the world’s third-largest egg producer with annual output exceeding 14,200 crore eggs. The country exported ~₹1,500 crore worth of table eggs in 2024-25, with Namakkal in Tamil Nadu accounting for 80–90% of all shipments. That hard-won franchise is now under existential threat.

With the Strait closed, vessels bound for UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar are rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope, adding 10–15 days of transit time. Shipping liners have imposed emergency surcharges, resulting in a three- to five-fold per-container cost increase. Around 40,000–45,000 Indian containers are stranded in transit, with cargo worth $1–1.5 billion in limbo. For perishable egg exporters, where shelf-life and temperature continuity are non-negotiable, these conditions render the majority of consignments commercially unviable. Namakkal exporters have confirmed wholesale cancellations. GTRI estimates India’s total agri-food exports worth USD 11.8 billion to West Asia are at risk. The rupee at a record low of ₹92.28/dollar offers no real offset, dollar-denominated freight surcharges negate the currency benefit entirely.

“India’s egg exporters had finally broken into premium Gulf markets. Now, with freight costs tripling and buyers uncertain about timelines, we cannot confirm a single order.” — Egg exporter, Namakkal cluster

At the domestic farm gate, the layer sector faces a textbook cost-price inversion. The NECC egg rate stood at ₹3.80/egg in early March 2026, well below the estimated production cost of ₹4.65–4.75/egg. With feed costs under fresh upward pressure and energy costs rising, breakeven is likely to climb to ₹5.00–5.25 or higher. The food service demand collapse is simultaneously suppressing prices, the classic layer farmer’s nightmare. Smaller farms that only recently returned after the FY23-24 loss cycle face the prospect of a second successive crisis before full financial recovery.

BROILER SECTOR — CHICKEN MEAT & SUPPLY CHAIN

IV. The Broiler Sector: The Food-Service Pipeline Breaks
The broiler sector’s crisis is rooted in the catastrophic destruction of its primary urban demand channel. Chicken, from biryani and butter chicken to fried chicken at QSR chains, is the dominant animal protein on the Indian restaurant menu. With commercial LPG near-halted across major cities, the food service channel, absorbing 35–40% of all urban broiler offtake has effectively shut down. Broiler production is even more feed-intensive than egg production, with feed constituting 70–72% of live weight production costs. Pre-war, producing 1 kg of live broiler cost ₹95–100 in major Andhra Pradesh and Telangana clusters; with maize under pressure from fuel-driven logistics costs and soybean meal tight globally, that cost is rising toward ₹110–115/kg. Farm gate prices, which peaked at ₹151/kg in November 2025, are being pulled in contradictory directions: downward by the food service demand collapse, upward by the supply-side cost shock.

Cold chain and processing face compound stress: refrigerated transport operators are passing fuel surcharges to processors; cold storage facilities are managing higher electricity tariffs; and the interstate live bird transport network connecting Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Maharashtra to metros is becoming unreliable and expensive. Localised gluts are appearing at the farm level even as retail chicken prices in metros begin to spike. Most critically, the supply pipeline is contracting: early signs of reduced day-old chick (DOC) placements are emerging as farmers anticipate sustained losses. A 20–25% reduction in placements now will translate to an equivalent production contraction in 6–8 weeks, the standard grow-out cycle, very likely triggering a sharp price spike on the other side of the current demand-led depression.

“The broiler market is caught between two fires. The restaurants that buy our birds cannot get gas. Our own costs rise every week with fuel and feed. There is no breathing room.” — Integrated broiler producer, Andhra Pradesh

The structural divide between large integrated players — Suguna, Venky’s, IB Group, Shalimar, Premium, Baramati — and independent contract farmers is widening sharply. Integrated players can absorb cost shocks through vertical integration; independent contract farmers are fully exposed to the feed cost spike while losing their primary buyers. The crisis threatens to accelerate consolidation at the direct expense of India’s vast network of small and medium poultry entrepreneurs across India, especially from Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra.

V. Feed Costs, Price Reality and the Crisis in Numbers
Feed costs, comprising of 67% of layer and 71% of broiler production costs, are the shared vulnerability binding both sectors to Gulf geopolitics. The Indian crude basket jumped 40% between January and March 2026, with diesel cost pressure feeding directly into inter-state maize and soya transport. The medium-term threat is more alarming: India imports ~40% of its total fertiliser from the Gulf. With LNG to fertiliser plants running at ~70% of actual need, major urea producers, including IFFCO, have suspended operations. A fertiliser shortage heading into the Kharif season, accounting for 55% of India’s crop output, could structurally reduce maize and soybean production in 2026-27, locking in elevated feed costs well after any military resolution of the conflict.

VI. Government Response and the Policy Gaps That Must Be Closed
The government’s crisis response contains significant blind spots for the agri-food sector. The ECA allocation framework explicitly deprioritises commercial food service and food processing; there is no strategic reserve for LPG or LNG. The broader macroeconomic environment provides no cushion: ICICI Bank has cut its FY27 GDP forecast 50 basis points to 7.0%; Standard Chartered estimates the current account deficit could reach 2.5% of GDP; the Sensex is down ~10% year-to-date; and banks are tightening credit precisely when poultry farmers need working capital most. Commerce Secretary Rajesh Agarwal has signalled a relief package for exporters — but for perishable, time-sensitive sectors like poultry, medium-term promises deliver no immediate relief.

VII. Urgent Action Required: Layer, Broiler and Structural Reform

Layer sector — immediate priorities
• Emergency credit lines for layer farmers at ₹3.80/egg NECC rates; prevent forced flock liquidation
• Dedicated commercial LPG allocation for egg-processing and value-addition units
• APEDA-led emergency market diversification: fast-track protocols with buyers in East Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central Asia
• Temporary import duty relief on soybean meal, canola meal, and DDGS alternatives

Broiler sector — immediate priorities
• Emergency LPG allocation to food service operators — Dhabas, QSR chains, hotel kitchens to prevent permanent demand channel destruction
• Cold chain support: targeted diesel relief for refrigerated transport operators
• DOC protection: forward purchase commitments to sustain hatchery placement rates and prevent the 6–8 week supply crunch
• State federation coordination to sustain contract farmer relationships; prevent mass exit of small operators

Structural reforms — both sectors
• Build strategic LPG/LNG buffer stock capacity: the absence of any reserve has been catastrophically costly
• Scale up on-farm solar energy: MNRE’s poultry solar scheme should be expanded with enhanced capital subsidies; the economic case is now unarguable
• Feed resilience: integrate DDGS from the Ethanol Blending Programme at scale; invest in alternative protein feed research
• Explore the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) as an alternative agri-export route less exposed to Hormuz disruption

VIII. Conclusion: Both Sectors at a Crossroads
The West Asia war of 2026 has struck India’s poultry sector through channels no conventional risk model had fully mapped. For the layer sector, the crisis has simultaneously severed the export lifeline and collapsed domestic food service demand, while inverting the farm gate economics small layer farmers depend upon. For the broiler sector, the destruction of the food service channel strikes at the heart of its urban demand model, while cost pressures trigger the DOC placement contraction that will create its own supply shock in Q2 2026. The Strait of Hormuz,3,000 kilometres from Namakkal’s egg farms or Hyderabad’s biryani clusters, has proven itself a decisive variable in Indian poultry economics.

India’s poultry sector has survived feed cost crises, avian influenza, demonetisation, COVID-19, and successive boom-bust cycles. Its entrepreneurial resilience, the institutional depth of NECC, and the sheer scale of domestic protein demand remain powerful structural advantages. But the speed and complexity of this crisis demand a policy response that matches its severity, and an honest reckoning with the structural vulnerabilities the war has so brutally exposed.

“The poultry industry has never faced this combination of pressures simultaneously. But it has survived every crisis before. The key this time is speed — of government response, of market adaptation, and of strategic thinking.”

Supply chain resilience, energy sovereignty, and export market diversification are no longer planning aspirations. For India’s layer and broiler farmers alike, they are existential imperatives. The fires of West Asia are burning at the farm gate.

Sources: Business Standard, BusinessToday, The Wire, Outlook Business, GTRI, Crisil Ratings, CareEdge Ratings, PPAC, NECC, APEDA, DAHD, Ministry of Commerce 
© 2026 Poultry TRENDS Magazine. All rights reserved. Reproduction with attribution permitted

The post Geopolitics & Indian Poultry Industry appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

Lighting practices in broiler production

Photo credit: Dr. John Linhoss

Lighting is a very important environmental management tool within modern broiler production. Artificial lighting has long served as the industry standard method of providing light to broiler chickens. This is because artificial light is highly controllable and can provide a consistent, uniform light source. In U.S. commercial settings, broilers are traditionally raised under dim artificial lighting conditions (5-10 lx; Linhoss et al., 2023). Some studies have reported that rearing birds under these conditions improves body weight and feed conversion ratio (Prescott et al., 2003; Aldridge et al., 2022). However, other research suggests that the same environment may negatively affect ocular and leg health (Newberry et al., 1988; Blatchford et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2022).

In recent years, provision of natural light through windows has gained increased attention, as it offers a broader light spectrum that includes UV light and a natural diurnal pattern that cannot be fully replicated by artificial light sources (Prescott et al., 2003). Some animal welfare certification programs require or encourage the installation of windows to allow natural daylight into the barn (e.g., Global Animal Partnership). Access to daylight can create a more dynamic lighting environment compared with fully enclosed houses that rely solely on artificial lighting. Natural light varies throughout the day in both intensity and spectral composition. In contrast, artificial lighting systems typically provide a more constant intensity and spectrum. Producers who participate in these certification programs often incorporate windows as part of their housing design to meet welfare standards, thereby providing birds with natural light.

The avian visual system and commercial poultry lighting

Poultry possess a more advanced visual system than humans (more information on this in our previous newsletter, Vol. 10). Lighting systems used in poultry houses are primarily designed to facilitate human vision and production efficiency, potentially overlooking requirements for functional development of visual abilities in poultry (Prescott et al., 2003). Therefore, there is a movement towards alternative rearing programs that include high light intensities and the provision of natural light in poultry houses. Nevertheless, information on the isolated effects of natural light, in the absence of additional environmental enrichment, on broiler welfare and behavior remains limited.

¿Did you know?

Chickens can detect light flicker that humans cannot because they perceive rapid light changes more easily than we do, with a critical flicker-fusion frequency (CFF) of approximately 90-100 Hz (consciously) compared to about 50-60 Hz in humans. As a result, some artificial lights that appear steady to us may actually flicker from a chicken’s perspective, which may influence their behavior and welfare.

Natural vs. artificial lighting: does it make a difference for broiler welfare and behavior?

Broiler welfare is assessed using a combination of behavioral, physical, and emotional indicators.

Behavioral patterns

Natural light has been shown to impact behavior, with birds reared under natural light displaying more active behaviors, such as walking and standing (Bailie et al., 2013; Sans et al., 2021; Youssef, 2025), whereas those reared under artificial lighting exhibited more resting behavior (Bailie et al., 2013; Youssef, 2025). The provision of natural light also led to more birds interacting with and gathering around the environmental enrichments, as well as exhibiting increased exploratory behaviors such as ground pecking, compared to birds raised under artificial light (Bailie et al., 2013). Additionally, birds raised under natural light have been reported to show increased eating and drinking frequency (Bailie et al., 2013; Fouda et al., 2018; Sans et al., 2021).

Preference tests, in which birds are given a choice between environments (e.g., natural vs. artificial lighting), are used to assess birds’ preferences for environments. In environmentally controlled studies, birds were allowed to move freely between compartments with different lighting conditions, and their location and time spent in each area were recorded. Results indicated that birds tend to spend more time under natural lighting conditions provided through windows, suggesting a preference for this environment (Sans et al., 2021).

Welfare indicators

Common physical parameters used to evaluate welfare status in broilers include footpad dermatitis (FPD), hock burn, gait score, and latency to lie (more information on this in our previous newsletter, Vol. 19). FPD refers to lesions and inflammation of the footpads, whereas hock burn appears as a brown to black discoloration on the hock joint. Both conditions are primarily caused by prolonged contact with wet litter (Mench, 2002; Shepherd and Fairchild, 2010). Gait score is used to assess walking ability and leg health, with higher scores indicating poorer mobility. The latency to lie test measures how long a bird remains standing in shallow water and is commonly used as an indicator of leg strength and comfort. There is a strong negative correlation between latency to lie and gait score, meaning that birds with poorer walking ability (high gait score) lie or sit down quicker in the water during a latency to lie test.

Activity level is closely associated with health and welfare. Increased activity is associated with birds spending less time sitting on wet litter, which may decrease the incidence and severity of contact dermatitis, including FPD, hock burn, and breast burn. A recent study by Youssef et al. (2026) found that broilers reared under natural light had significantly lower FPD scores than those raised under artificial light. However, this difference was not biologically meaningful, as the mean FPD scores in both groups remained below 1 (minimal evidence of footpad dermatitis; Welfare Quality, 2009). In the same study, natural light did not appear to improve hock burn, gait score, or latency to lie. However, when birds were raised either under natural light, or under natural light combined with environmental enrichment, some improvement was seen in latency to lie, but no differences were observed in FPD, hock burn or gait scores (Bailie et al., 2013).

Fear response

Fear tests evaluate birds’ emotional state and how they respond when exposed to a stimulus that may provoke either an approach or avoidance response (Jones, 1996). Several fear tests are currently employed in poultry research, including the novel object test and the novel environment test (more information on this in our previous newsletter, Vol. 33). Research suggests that lighting conditions can influence fear responses in poultry. Birds exposed to natural light or environments with access to windows have shown reduced fearfulness compared with birds reared under solely artificial lighting. For example, broilers raised under artificial light were more reluctant to approach within a 1-m radius of the novel object than broilers exposed to natural light (Youssef et al., 2026). These birds also showed a longer mean latency to approach the novel object (181.4 seconds) compared with birds raised under natural light conditions (69.9 seconds; Youssef et al., 2026). However, natural light did not affect responses in the response to human observer test or novel environment test (Youssef et al., 2026). When natural light was combined with environmental enrichments, there was a tendency for birds raised under natural light to approach the object more in the novel object test (de Jong and Gunnick, 2019). This may indicate that natural light increases bird interest in exploring new things within the environment and reduces neophobia.

¿UV light in poultry houses: what to know?

UV rays can be classified according to their wavelength into three different types: UVA (315-400nm), UVB (280-315nm), and UVC (100-280nm). Research suggests that supplemental UVA lighting may reduce fear responses in broilers, whereas UVB has also been associated with improved skeletal health (Rana and Campbell, 2021). It is unknown if the benefits seen with UV when artificially supplemented or in open sided barns are present when natural light is provided by windows. As the glass used in windows blocks almost all UVB wavelengths (crucial for vitamin D synthesis) and over 90% of UVA wavelengths, limited UV wavelengths reach the birds.

Summary

Although artificial light remains the industry standard for lighting, limited research indicates that natural light may offer some potential welfare-related benefits, such as increased activity, some indication of reduced fearfulness, and birds’ preference for naturally lit areas. However, the results on physical welfare indicators are mixed; therefore, more research is needed to understand natural light’s beneficial effects on broiler health and welfare.

References

Aldridge, D. J., Owens, C. M., Maynard, C., Kidd, M. T., and Scanes, C. G., 2022. Impact of light intensity or choice of intensity on broiler performance and behavior. J. Appl. Poult. Res., 31(1):100216.

Bailie, C. L., Ball, M. E. E., and O’Connell, N. E., 2013. Influence of the provision of natural light and straw bales on activity levels and leg health in commercial broiler chickens. Animal 7:618–626.

Blatchford, R. A., Archer, G. S., and Mench, J. A., 2012. Contrast in light intensity, rather than day length, influences the behavior and health of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 91:1768-1774.

de Jong, I. C., and Gunnink, H., 2019. Effects of a commercial broiler enrichment programme with or without natural light on behaviour and other welfare indicators. Animal 13:384-391.

Fouda, M. M., Darwish, R. A., Abou-Ismail, U. A., and Mohammed, A. S., 2018. Comparative effects of natural and artificial light on behaviour, performance, and welfare of broiler chickens. Mansoura Vet. Med. J., 19(1):321-332.

Jones, R. B., 1996. Fear and adaptability in poultry: insights, implications, and imperatives. World’s Poult. Sci. J., 52:131-174.

Kim, H. J., Son, J., Kim, H. S., Hong, E. C., and Kim, J. H., 2022. Effects of light intensity on growth performance, blood components, carcass characteristics, and welfare of broilers. J. Anim. Sci. Tech., 64:985–996.

Linhoss, J. E., Davis, J. D., Campbell, J. C., Purswell, J. L., Griggs, K. G., and Edge, C. M., 2023. Light intensity and uniformity in commercial broiler houses using lighting programs derived from Global Animal Partnership (GAP) lighting standards. J. Appl. Poult. Res., 32:100309.

Mench, J. A., 2002. Broiler breeder: feed restriction and welfare. World’s Poult. Sci. J., 58:23-29.

Newberry, J. C., Hunt, J. R., and Gardiner, E. E., 1988. Influence of light intensity on behavior and performance of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 67:1020-1025.

Prescott, N. B., Wathes, C. M., and Jarvis, J. R., 2003. Light, vision and the welfare of poultry. Anim. Welf., 12:269-288.

Rana, M. S. and Campbell, D. L. M., 2021. Application of Ultraviolet light for poultry production: A review of impacts on behavior, physiology, and production. Front. Anim. Sci., 2:699262.

Sans, E. C. d. O., Tuyttens, F. A. M., Taconeli, C. A., Pedrazzani, A. S., Vale, M. M., and Molento, C. F. M., 2021. From the point of view of the chickens: what difference does a window make? Animals 11(12):3397.

Shepherd, E. M., and Fairchild, B. D., 2010. Footpad dermatitis in poultry. Poult. Sci., 89(10):2043-2051.

Welfare Quality, 2009. Welfare quality assessment protocol for poultry (Broilers, Laying hens).

Youssef, T., 2025. Impact of natural and artificial light treatments on welfare and behavior in commercial broilers. M.S. Thesis. Auburn University.

Youssef, T.,  Jackson, A., Bourassa, D., Linhoss, J., and Baker-Cook, B., 2026. Evaluating the impact of natural and artificial light treatments on fear response and welfare parameters in commercial broilers. Poult. Sci., 105(3):106343.

To view all issues of Poultry Press, click here.

Editor’s note: Content on Modern Poultry’s Industry Insights pages is provided and/or commissioned by our sponsors, who assume full responsibility for its accuracy and compliance.

The post Do windows matter in poultry housing? What welfare and behavior tell us appeared first on Modern Poultry.

Climate control and ventilation are two of the most important factors affecting hatchery performance, which have an impact on both embryonic development and post-hatch chick quality. A hatchery is an artificial replication of the natural brooding environment where the embryo’s normal physiological development is ensured by careful regulation of temperature, humidity, airflow, CO₂ and oxygen. In order to produce healthy, uniform chicks with high vitality and lower first week mortality as well as to achieve optimal hatchability, it is vital to maintain a stable microclimate throughout the incubation and hatching process.

What is climate control and ventilation in a hatchery?

The systematic control of temperature, relative humidity, air pressure and gas balance (O₂ and CO₂) in the incubation (setter and hatcher) and fresh air chambers or rooms is known as climate control in a hatchery.

On the other hand, ventilation involves continuous movement and exchange of air to maintain uniform temperature distribution, provide enough oxygen, remove metabolic heat and CO₂ generated by developing embryos. When combined, these systems provide a clean, balanced air environment that prevents embryos from suffocation, dehydration and heat stress.

Relationship with embryonic development and chick quality

The embryo produces CO₂ and metabolic heat during incubation. Without proper ventilation, CO₂ level rises, oxygen availability decreases and as a result embryonic metabolism slows. Prolonged exposure to these conditions leads to delayed development and higher late embryonic mortality.

Humidity and temperature are equally important. Variations of even ±0.3 °C can change metabolic rates, which can lead to poor chick vitality, unabsorbed yolk sacs and early or delayed hatching.

Excessive humidity inhibits the growth of air cells and excessive dryness speeds up eggs moisture loss, which lowers hatchability and chick uniformity.

Proper climate controls therefore support not only embryonic respiration but also organ formation, muscle development and thermoregulatory capacity of the newly hatched chick.

The biology behind airflow

During incubation, embryonic metabolism depends on aerobic respiration. Eggshell contains as many as 7,000-17,000 small holes called “pores” through which oxygen passes from the air to the developing embryo and CO₂ diffuses outward.

The efficiency of this exchange is driven by partial pressure differentials between the egg’s internal environment and the surrounding air.

If the air surrounding the eggs becomes saturated with CO₂ or lacks oxygen due to poor ventilation, then gas exchanges slow leading to hypoxia and acidosis.

These physiological imbalances affect cardiac development, organ function and muscular growth, ultimately compromising chick vitality.

Furthermore, inadequate air circulation results in temperature layering, where the top trays may overheat while the lower ones remain cool, leading to asynchronous embryo development and reducing hatch uniformity.

How does poor ventilation affect hatch results?

Inadequate or unbalanced ventilation is one of the leading hidden causes of hatch variability. Its impact is both physiological and mechanical:

• High CO₂ concentration reduces oxygen availability, causing delayed hatching and increased embryo mortality.
• Uneven air temperature produces hot and cold zones within incubators, resulting in early or late hatches and uneven chick sizes.
• Low air exchange fails to remove metabolic heat and moisture, increasing condensation, bacterial load and chick dehydration.
• Excessive air exchange leads to low humidity, excessive weight loss and poor hatch uniformity.

Inconsistent air management often manifests as sticky chicks, unhealed navels, malpositions, and weakened post-hatch performance, all of which translate into financial losses for the hatchery.

The ideal ventilation strategy

An ideal ventilation strategy in a hatchery is built on three interdependent principles: air quality, air distribution, and air pressure control, each working together to maintain a stable, uniform environment for developing embryos.

First, air quality control ensures a constant supply of clean, oxygen-rich air and the removal of excess CO₂ and heat. Fresh air entering the hatchery should contain at least 20.6% oxygen, while CO₂ levels inside setters must stay below 0.5%. Air-handling units (AHUs) condition and filter the incoming air to 24–26 °C and 60–70% relative humidity before delivery, maintaining a steady air exchange rate of about 2.5–3.0 m³/h per 1,000 eggs to support healthy embryonic respiration.

Second, achieving uniform air distribution is essential for temperature balance. Air velocity inside setters should remain around 0.3–0.5 m/s, enough to mix air evenly but not to dry eggs, while in hatchers it can be slightly lower. Proper duct design and diffuser placement prevent dead zones or short circuits, ensuring every egg experiences the same conditions.

Finally, directional airflow and pressure control protect both embryo health and biosecurity. Positive pressure of +5 to +15 Pa in clean areas keeps air moving from incubation zones toward service or the chick rooms, avoiding contamination. Regular maintenance cleaning filters, calibrating sensors and checking ducts keep the system balanced and reliable.

When these elements are correctly synchronized, ventilation becomes more than mechanical movement; it becomes a biological safeguard that translates precision engineering into strong, uniform and healthy chicks.

A sound ventilation strategy must therefore:

1. Supply fresh, oxygen-rich air evenly across all machines.
2. Remove heat and metabolic gases produced by embryos.
3. Maintain uniform air distribution within and between incubators.
4. Preserve optimal humidity by controlling air exchange rates.

Equipment and maintenance essentials

Efficient climate and ventilation management rely on:

1. Air handling units (AHU) with integrated heating, cooling and filtration modules.
2. Sensors for CO₂, humidity and temperature-calibrated regularly.
3. Chillers and heaters to stabilize incoming air temperature.
4. Humidifiers/dehumidifiers to manage relative humidity precisely.
5. Fans and diffusers with adjustable dampers to direct airflow evenly.
6. PLC-based automation systems for control, alarms, and data recording.

Routine preventive maintenance such as clean filters, checking fan bearings and belts, calibrating probes and verifying duct seals is essential to prevent system drift and maintain climate uniformity.

Conclusion

Ventilation is the biological regulator of the hatchery environment and is much more than just air movement. Proper climate control and ventilation strategy translate engineering precision into biological success. When the hatchery atmosphere remains stable, clean, cool and balanced, then every embryo has the same opportunity to develop into a strong, uniform chick. Consistency in climate means consistency in performance.

For every hatchery aiming to convert potential into profitability, climate control is not optional, it is fundamental.

As more companies evaluate vaccination as part of their broader respiratory disease strategy, questions around timing, administration, diagnostics and overall program design are becoming central to long-term control.

In this Q&A, Daniel Maekawa, DVM, PhD, technical services veterinarian with Merck Animal Health, discusses how producers can approach aMPV with a practical, integrated mindset — bringing together biosecurity, vaccination and management to reduce complex-level impact.

Q: From what you’re seeing in the field, what makes aMPV such a difficult respiratory virus to manage?

A: This virus spreads quickly and transmits easily in high-density areas, so it can be hard to contain once it’s established. In addition, chickens infected with aMPV are very sensitive to suboptimal management conditions, such as ventilation issues, temperature fluctuations and poor litter quality, worsening the disease outcome.

Q: Once aMPV is confirmed, what practical steps help limit spread across a complex?

A: First of all, limiting the spread of aMPV is difficult due to the fast horizontal transmission. However, practicing good biosecurity certainly helps. Many companies already have good biosecurity programs, but aMPV can expose gaps in consistency and execution.

When a farm is diagnosed, it should be treated as a quarantine situation. That means limiting nonessential visits, avoiding the movement of equipment from infected to healthy farms, and reducing the circulation of personnel between infected and noninfected flocks. These routine steps are simple on paper, but they can make a meaningful difference in reducing transmission risk.

Q: Where do the biggest losses come from when aMPV hits a flock?

A: The virus itself causes respiratory signs such as sneezing, nasal secretions and ocular discharge, but the greater losses often come from secondary bacterial infections, which can lead to septicemia and mortality. aMPV damages ciliated epithelial cells in the upper respiratory tract, impairing mucociliary clearance and favoring the colonization of secondary contaminants, such as Escherichia coli. There is no effective treatment for aMPV infection, but some producers use antibiotics to reduce losses from secondary infections.

Q: What management adjustments matter most during an aMPV event?

A: Ventilation, stocking density and dust control are key. It’s also important to watch for factors that contribute to immunosuppression, such as mycotoxins and viral diseases such as Marek’s, infectious bursal disease (IBD), and chicken infectious anemia, because these increase the risk of complications. Drinking water disinfection might help to reduce bacterial load and secondary contamination. When flocks are affected, tightening these basics can reduce the outbreak severity and help limit economic losses.

Q: Diagnostics for aMPV can be challenging. What’s the best approach for confirming it?

A: The presence of a swollen head in chickens is very indicative of an aMPV challenge. However, confirmation using molecular tests isn’t always easy because the virus is present in the chicken for only a short period, leading to false-negative results.

For PCR, timing matters. Samples should be collected as early as possible, before flocks progress to more severe signs like swollen heads and depression. Collecting from birds that are still apparently healthy in the house often gives the best chance of detecting the virus. Tracheal and choanal swabs are effective for detecting the virus by PCR.

Serology can also be useful. If the flock is not vaccinated, antibody seroconversion is a true sign that those chickens were challenged with aMPV. If the flock is vaccinated, it’s important to establish baseline titers. If titers rise sharply above that baseline, it can indicate a field challenge.

Q: What seasonality patterns have you seen for aMPV in the U.S.?

A: Since the disease started appearing in the US more than two years ago, we’ve seen a clear seasonal pattern, with cases increasing in the winter. The disease worsens in January and February and can persist into April, then decreases significantly as spring and summer arrive. That helps define when producers may need to strengthen the vaccination programs.

Q: What are you seeing with vaccination adoption in broilers as winter pressure increases?

A: I’ve seen more companies implement vaccination programs in broilers going into winter. 2025/2026 was the first winter we went through with vaccinated broilers for aMPV, so it will provide insight into the effectiveness of vaccination under strong field conditions. So far, aMPV broiler vaccination appears to be helping reduce outbreaks of the disease and mitigate economic losses, but it has not been shown to be an ultimate solution to the problem.

Q: What does a strong baseline vaccination strategy look like for pullets and breeders?

A: In pullets, vaccinating for aMPV is mandatory. Two live vaccines and one inactivated vaccine seem to be a good starting program for breeders, based on scientific data and experience in countries that have long dealt with this disease. However, adjustments need to be made based on each reality, and adding more vaccines to the immunization program might sometimes be justified.

Timing of the first live vaccination is also important and is determined by how early pullets are infected in the field. I have seen pullets show aMPV seroconversion as early as 6 weeks of age, so vaccination should start around 2 to 3 weeks earlier, before aMPV field infection hits the flocks.

Regarding the route of vaccine administration, I suggest implementing at least one live vaccine administration via eye drop to support uniform coverage. The other vaccination can be given by spray or drinking water. One dose of an inactivated vaccine is important for protecting the reproductive tract (oviduct) and helping minimize the risk of egg drop production and/or eggshell abnormalities.

Q: What are the main considerations when selecting an aMPV vaccination strategy for broilers?

A: Adding another respiratory vaccine to the broiler hatchery vaccination program comes with some challenges. Early research indicates that vaccinating for aMPV with infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) and Newcastle disease virus (NDV) may interfere with protection. However, more recent data indicate that simultaneous aMPV/IBV/NDV vaccination affects mainly serological response rather than protection. From a practical standpoint, applying all three vaccines at day of age by spray makes sense.

Another option is to reduce respiratory vaccine pressure at day of age by vaccinating against NDV in ovo at 18 days of embryonation using recombinant products, then pairing only aMPV and IBV at day of age. The latter option might be a better alternative to reduce respiratory reactions. Field vaccination for aMPV between 1 and 2 weeks of age can also be considered to boost and extend the duration of immunity. Naturally, a cost-benefit analysis needs to be incorporated.

Q: Are there any considerations with live aMPV vaccination programs that producers should keep in mind?

A: Unlike the early stages of the disease in the US, when the lack of vaccine options posed a major challenge, we now have multiple live and inactivated vaccine options available. Vaccine features, such as duration of immunity, titers, safety and stability, need to be considered when implementing aMPV vaccination.

Good cross-protection has been demonstrated between aMPV subtype A and B. The aMPV vaccine strains originate from chickens or turkeys, and for broiler vaccination, chicken-origin vaccines are recommended. Also, as with other viral respiratory live vaccines, it’s important to be thoughtful about how live aMPV vaccines are used, including awareness of the potential for reversion to virulence if programs are poorly managed.

Finally, it’s imperative to ensure vaccines are administered correctly to achieve good coverage and uniformity. In the US, as more companies gain experience with aMPV vaccination, maintaining strong execution and consistent monitoring will be important to ensure vaccines are in the best possible scenario to succeed.

Q: What does success look like for a long-term aMPV control strategy?

A: Controlling aMPV takes a holistic approach. Biosecurity is important. Vaccination is important. Management practices are equally important. We cannot rely on one single tool.

Editor’s note: Content on Modern Poultry’s Industry Insights pages is provided and/or commissioned by our sponsors, who assume full responsibility for its accuracy and compliance.

The post aMPV is here to stay: How to build smarter vaccination strategies appeared first on Modern Poultry.

Global meat production increased by almost 270 million mt¹, or 268% between 1970 and 2023. Examining the development by meat type reveals that the dynamics was primarily driven by the rapid increase in poultry meat production. However, it is worth noting that this meat type has not dominated between 2020 and 2023. This article analyses the longer-term trends and the dynamics since 2000 in detail.

Long-term trends. The success story of poultry meat

Analysing the long-term development for the three most important meat types and time periods reveals some striking changes. Obviously, poultry meat production has grown significantly faster than red meat production. The author has characterised this dynamic as a ’red-white shift’ (Windhorst, 2021). Table 1 shows that between 1970 and 2023 the absolute growth in poultry meat production was nearly as high as that of the two most important types of red meat combined. The same applies to the period from 2000 to 2023. However, the picture changes when only the short-term development between 2020 and 2023 is considered. Here, pig meat production grew significantly faster than that of poultry meat. This can be explained by the rapid increase of production in China and Brazil. Following the containment of African swine fever, Chinese production rose by 16.8 million mt over four years, and Brazilian production increased by almost 1 million mt due to a greater focus on exports. A more detailed analysis will follow in a later section.

When examining the long-term change of the share of beef, pork and poultry in global meat production, a shift towards white meat becomes apparent (Table 2, Figure 1). Between 1970 and 2023, beef lost 19.3% of its original share. In contrast, pig meat has remained relatively stable. Poultry gained 23.9%, making it the big winner, although it lost 0.8% between 2000 and 2023.

Medium-term development. The growing dominance of Asia

This part of the analysis analyses how meat production developed by meat type and continent between 2000 and 2023. Figure 2 shows that the contribution by the individual continents to this development varied considerably. For beef, the absolute increase in Asia and Central and South America was almost the same. The contribution of the other continents was comparatively insignificant, with Europe even recording a decline of 1.8 million mt. Asia was an exception with pork production increasing by 21.5 million mt. It was followed by North and South America and Europe. Although Africa continued to account for only a small proportion of global production, its share doubled between 2000 and 2023. Pig meat remained of minor importance in Oceania. At 35.2 million mt, Asia showed the largest growth in poultry meat production, followed by Central and South America at 16.9 million mt, and Europe at 10.9 million mt. At first glance, the significantly lower increase in North America seems surprising. However, it has to be noted that the two North American countries accounted for already 17.9% of the global production volume in 2000. Africa showed a remarkable dynamic, increasing its production by around 5 million mt. Oceania lagged far behind the other continents in terms of this meat type, reflecting its small population.

A different picture emerges when the relative change in meat production is analysed (Figure 3). Asia and Africa achieved relative growth rates of over 60% for beef, followed by Central and South America with 47.8%. North America recorded the lowest growth rate of only 2.7%, apart from Europe’s downward trend. North America’s low growth rate reflects the declining per capita beef consumption in the USA. While it had been as high as 30 kg in 2000, it had fallen to 27 kg by 2023. The high retail price compared to pig meat and, in particular, broiler meat was the decisive steering factor.

Africa showed the highest relative increase in pork production at 130.9%, followed by Central and South America at 105.2%. Growth was much lower in Asia and North America, here, the already high baseline figures for 2000 must be taken into account. Europe ranked last with an increase of only 11.4%, reflecting the slight increase in per capita consumption. In some countries, consumption has been stagnating or even declining for years, because consumers preferred poultry meat for its lower retail price, while that of beef had risen sharply.

Poultry meat achieved the highest relative growth rate in Africa at 165.2%, followed by Asia at 153.8%, and Central and South America at 142.1%. Oceania’s high figure must be viewed in the context of its low baseline of just 0.77 million mt produced in 2000.

In summary, Africa and Central and South America showed a remarkable dynamic. Asia was only in the top position for beef production. The comparatively low momentum in North America is surprising at first glance. Here, meat consumption has obviously reached a saturation point in the USA, and growth can only be achieved through population growth or higher exports. Africa’s dynamic development is due to the rising per capita income of a growing middle class in some North African countries and South Africa. Central and South America demonstrated a remarkable growth across all three meat types, with Brazil’s increased exports playing a pivotal role.

What about short-term trends, a resurgence of pork?

Looking at the short-term trend in global meat production between 2020 and 2023 reveals some remarkable developments. The fact that consumption options were restricted in many countries during the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in changing preferences of the consumers for meat types.

Between 2020 and 2023, global production of the three main meat types increased by 27.5 million mt. Approximately 16 million mt or 58.1% of this was pork, 8.8 million mt respectively 32.1% was poultry, and 2.7 million mt or 9.8% was beef. Does this development spell the end of poultry meat’s success story? Examining the data for individual continents (Table 3) reveals that the increase in pork production was primarily driven by developments in Asia and, to a much lesser extent, in Central and South America. In contrast, the production volume in Europe and North America fell by around 2.6 million mt in total, with Europe accounting for 2.1 million mt of this decline. The containment of African swine fever boosted pork production in Asia, offsetting the 16 million mt slump between 2015 and 2020. A comparison of the production volumes in 2015 and 2023 reveals that production increased by only 1.5%. In contrast, beef production grew by 18.3%, and poultry meat even by 36.9%. While beef production in Asia and Central and South America increased by a combined 2.7 million mt, it declined by 0.6 million mt in Europe and North America. Of all meat types, only poultry showed positive growth across all continents. Figure 4 clearly documents that in Asia the dynamic of this meat type remained unaffected. The sharp increase in pork production since 2020 was merely a short-term response to the significant losses caused by the African swine fever outbreaks in China and several other Asian countries between 2018 and 2020.

Conclusion. Asia and Central and South America dominated

Besides comparing the absolute and relative growth of global meat production, it is of interest to examine how much each continent contributed to the total production as well as to the production of the three most important meat types. Figure 5 provides a summary of this.

Between 2000 and 2023, Asia contributed 55.6% to the 138.1 million mt growth in global meat production, with Central and South America contributing a further 17.9%. These two continents thus accounted for almost three-quarters of the increase. In contrast, the significantly lower growth in Europe and North America is reflected in their combined share of only 17.1%.

A similar pattern emerges when looking at individual meat types. Once again, Asia and Central and South America were in the leading positions. During this period, the two continents contributed 69.2% to the increase in poultry meat production, 75.6% to pork production, and 92.5% to the increase in beef production. It is worth noting that Oceania had an even higher share in beef production than Europe or North America.

The dynamics of global meat production reflect both population size and the continents’ respective shares in the world population. In 2023, Asia accounted for 59% of the world’s population, while Central and South America accounted for 8% and Europe and North America for 14%. Africa achieved the highest relative population growth between 2000 and 2023, at 83%, while Europe had the lowest, at only 2.8%. Given the emerging population dynamics and economic development, it is reasonable to assume that Asia and Central and South America will increase their shares in global meat production, while Europe and North America will lose shares.

Data sources and supplementary literature

FAO. FAOSTAT. https://www.fao.org/faostat

World Population Review. Continents. https://worldpopulationreview.com/continents

Windhorst, H.-W. (2021). The red-white shift in global meat production. Zootecnica International, 43(5), 32–37.

Windhorst, H.-W. (2024). Was it the decade of Asia? The dynamics of global meat and egg production between 2012 and 2022. Meatingpoint, (54), 60–64.

Windhorst, H.-W. (2024). South America – the continent of cattle and chickens. Meatingpoint, (55), 12–15.

Windhorst, H.-W. (2025). Oceania – disadvantage of peripheral location. Fleischwirtschaft International, (1), 14–21.

Windhorst, H.-W. (2025). ASEAN – The dynamics of the meat industry. Fleischwirtschaft International, (2), 46–51.

Note

¹ mt: metric tonne (= 1,000 kg)

Rising regulatory pressures and need for integrated solutions

Emission reduction in pig production

Housing technology and management

Air scrubbers and additional technologies

Emission reduction in poultry production

DLG spotlight and expert stages at EuroTier 2026

Enhancing efficiency, sustainability and consumer engagement are three cornerstones to increase profitability by adding value into the poultry food chain. All together are necessary across the whole production stages to assemble a solid value chain for poultry products.

Seeking efficiency

Most businesses aim to deliver high-quality products at the lowest cost and the same applies to the poultry industry. Yet, attaining this milestone requires a multifactorial approach to stay profitable throughout all stages and achieve economic sustainability in the long run. Husbandry conditions and management must align with breed requirements to accomplish high-yield performance objectives. Indeed, producers should look for poultry breeds that achieve high survival rates and good health and welfare under local conditions for high investment return and profitable flock performance. This includes low feed intake per production outcome, resilience to potential threats (pathogens, climate conditions, etc.) and soundness to husbandry conditions and management practices. Indeed, when all these metrics aren’t considered, high-performing layers and fast-growing broilers may underperform under suboptimal conditions due to high culling rates, mortality, and/or stress sensitivity (leading to growth checks, laying cessation, and immunosuppression) compared to more resilient and robust breeds. Precision feeding also becomes an ally to boost feed efficiency by implementing strategies that meet nutritional requirements throughout rearing and production phases tailored to breed-specific background, intended to reduce feed waste and improve health status. In addition to previous remarks, adopting strong biosecurity practices can help producers prevent disease outbreaks and associated losses in case of pathogen entry. Weak biosecurity protocols not only pose a risk for birds’ performance and survival but also raise food safety concerns, particularly in the case of food-borne diseases such as salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis. In this context, barn digitalization can advance record-keeping of environmental conditions, monitor flock health status and track performance which, in turn, can improve birds’ health, welfare and productivity. All these advancements in efficiency not only aid in managing resources efficiently but also spot gaps for improvements as well as pioneering procedures already implemented on-site that are useful for strategic, brand positioning and differentiation within the sector.

Embracing sustainable practices

Recent concerns about environmental sustainability are pressuring the poultry industry to mitigate its footprint by improving efficiency, optimizing resource use, and reducing waste. Beyond feed efficiency, there is a growing need for cutting down the amount of energy and water required for the production and processing of poultry products. Advocating for innovative solutions that use clean energy and water-saving technologies along the production line can demonstrate commitment in this regard. Road distribution of poultry products is associated with high CO₂ emissions into the atmosphere, and optimizing logistics and transportation procedures can further help mitigate carbon emissions. Also, sourcing feed ingredients from local producers and certified suppliers can support that sustainable practices are implemented early in the supply chain. Another important aspect to improve is reducing waste from barns, processing facilities and retailers, turning poultry byproducts into valuable opportunities and adopting sustainable packaging made from biodegradable and/or recyclable materials. In the context of circular economy, composting poultry manure to produce high quality crop fertilizer can bring additional revenue to producers and reduce production costs. Data market analytics can additionally help match expected short- and mid-term consumer demand with actual barn performance to avoid overproduction and optimise logistics. Furthermore, investing in strategies to capture human-produced pollutants (such as greenhouse gases) demonstrates environmental stewardship to shape a future in which the poultry industry plays a crucial role satisfying the rising demand for meat and eggs sustainably and integrated within the environment. All these approaches ultimately aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the carbon footprint, and promoting these actions illustrates the poultry industry’s commitment to integrating green practices across the supply chain, which brings value along the way.

Engaging with consumers

All these efforts to attain better process efficiency and become more environmentally friendly must be communicated to consumers, stakeholders, policymakers, and non-governmental organizations. Transparency, traceability and knowledge transfer are essential for educational purposes and farm-to-fork visibility. Indeed, sharing this information with the end consumer is key to illustrating how day-to-day practices safeguard food safety, support animal health and meet animal welfare standards while the sector also becomes more environmentally conscious and integrated into a circular economy that promotes local economic growth. In this context, directional education and proper marketing should deliver clear, straightforward messages to consumers so they can understand: 1) the commitment of the poultry industry to take good care for animals and food products, and 2) how it contributes to the wellbeing and livelihood of neighbouring communities. Promoting the nutritional value of poultry products as well as the quality control along the supply chain can further reinforce the trust of consumers in the poultry industry. All together can bridge consumer expectations with current value-adding activities by the industry while acknowledging the routine efforts to secure the health of birds, people and environment.

Industry observations indicate that the price of day-old chicks has risen by around 67% within the first months of 2026. In practical terms, this has meant an increase from about ₦1,800 to ₦3,000 per chick in some cases, while other market reports show prices moving from roughly ₦400–₦600 a year ago to as much as ₦1,800–₦2,000 more recently. Across regions, the rise has made restocking more difficult, particularly for smaller producers.

Producers report that access to pullets is currently limited. Hatcheries are operating with waiting times of up to three months, reflecting increased demand linked to the return of some farmers to production after a period marked by high feed costs and farm closures in 2023 and 2024.

Stakeholders also point to earlier reductions in parent and grandparent stock, linked to weaker demand during that downturn, as a contributing factor to current chick availability. At the same time, the depreciation of the national currency has increased the cost of importing hatching eggs, adding further constraints to supply.

At farm level, the impact is visible in flock management. Producers indicate that high chick prices and limited availability are delaying restocking cycles and, in some cases, leading to reductions in laying flock size. This is occurring alongside continued pressure from feed costs, which account for about 70% of production expenses.

Environmental conditions are also contributing to the situation. Elevated temperatures reported across several regions are affecting bird performance, with heat stress reducing feed efficiency and egg output while increasing mortality risk. Erratic power supply is also cited as a factor affecting farm operations.

Market signals reflect these combined pressures. Traders in major urban centres, including Lagos, Kano and Abuja, report tighter egg availability and rising prices. Crate prices have moved from levels around ₦5,300–₦5,500 in late 2025 to ranges between ₦6,000 and ₦7,500 or higher depending on location and size, with individual eggs commonly selling between ₦250 and ₦300 in some markets.

While some industry representatives note that supply constraints are not uniform across the country, they acknowledge that availability has become less consistent, with occasional delays and localised gaps. Seasonal demand, including the Easter period and the upcoming back-to-school phase, is expected to add further pressure in the short term.

Sector representatives indicate that the current imbalance between chick supply and farm demand may persist until a new production cycle allows supply to stabilise. In the meantime, the combination of input costs, biological constraints and environmental factors continues to shape production decisions across the value chain.

Given the role of eggs as an accessible source of animal protein, developments in the poultry sector are being closely monitored. Current estimates place average daily protein intake in Nigeria at about 45.4 g per capita, below the FAO reference level of 53.8 g.

In a cage-free operation with 11 million birds, mortalities in APEC-challenged flocks fell more than 60% when the product was integrated into pullet diets and fed through peak production, consistent with earlier experimental results.

“APEC poses a major threat to layer operations, resulting in decreased egg production, increased bird mortality and significant economic losses. For cage-free producers, where birds face heightened exposure risks, the challenge is even greater,” said Mark Farmer, PhD, a nutritionist at Cargill.

“With antibiotics restricted in layers and vaccine efficacy waning over time, the industry urgently needs effective alternatives. These field observations confirm that Biostrong C-Protect holds up under real-world conditions, offering a reliable, sustainable solution that helps mitigate the toll of APEC on layer health, productivity and well-being.”

Reduced mortality

For the trial, the product was adopted in phases, initially looking at breed-level effects in flocks of Lohmann Browns and Lohmann Selected Leghorns with elevated APEC mortality.

The postbiotic/phytogenic blend was added to pullet diets 2 weeks before transition to lay houses and then fed through 40 weeks of age; these are critical windows for immune development. After demonstrating efficacy in high-risk flocks, the regimen was expanded to all flocks enterprise-wide.

The product was introduced gradually as pullets reached the appropriate implementation age. Before adoption, average mortality rates at 35 weeks were 15.3%. During progressive adoption, mortality decreased to 7.9%, and once the product was fully implemented across operations, the rate dropped further to 5.2% at the same age. Overall, this represents a more than 60% improvement in livability (Figure 1).

Click to enlarge.

Validated approach

Biostrong C-Protect combines the postbiotic XPC, a fermented yeast derivative shown to support immunity¹, with a proprietary phytogenic blend derived from Quillaja saponaria that supports gut health and nutrient digestibility.²

According to Farmer, Cargill’s research team validated the product’s ability to target APEC in the laboratory prior to field testing.

“Feed additives are often trialed blindly, but we took a benchtop approach to understanding how the mechanisms of various products could complement each other and affect APEC and host resilience,” he said.

“This approach has helped us achieve the robust results we’re seeing in commercial settings.”

‘Robust, science-based outcomes’

According to Manuel Da Costa, DVM, PhD, director of strategy, marketing and technology for poultry at Cargill, the mortality reductions observed in this account are consistent with findings from controlled studies, which have also demonstrated improvements in egg production and gut health in APEC-challenged hens.^2-4

“The ability to replicate outcomes from controlled studies in real-world operations is crucial to making informed decisions about flock health strategies,” Da Costa said. “We have trialed Biostrong C-Protect with APEC-challenge exposures at different bird ages, from 8-week-old pullets to 80-week-old layers, and the consistency of results is remarkable. The fact that field experiences mirror our research data should give layer producers confidence that they’re implementing a solution with robust, science-based outcomes.”

1 Lin et al, 2023. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae hydrolysate on growth performance, immunity function, and intestinal health in broilers. Poultry Science, 102(1), 102237.
2 Chaney et al, 2024. Impact of Biostrong^TM C-Protect_, with or without vaccination, on broilers challenged with APEC serotype O78. Journal of Applied Poultry Research.
3 Hofacre et al., 2025. Effect of Biostrong^TM C-Protect on Amelioration of APEC O78 in a 10 Week Layer Pullet Intratracheal Challenge Model. IPSF 2025.
4 Ko et al., 2025. Effects of Biostrong^TM C-Protect on laying hens challenged with Avian Pathogenic E. coli. IPSF 2025.

The post Field experience with postbiotic/phytogenic blend supports improved livability in APEC-challenged layers appeared first on Modern Poultry.

“During this developmental phase, we observe turkey poults start to form social bonds, assess their environment, identify feed and overall practice, and refine their behaviors,” Jackson explained.

“Understanding bird behavior is critical because we use it as an indicator of bird mental and physical health,” she continued. “This knowledge will help guide management practices that contribute to fulfilling bird behavioral needs, thus enhancing their well-being.”

Jackson discussed her research at the 2025 Poultry Science Association annual meeting.

Study set-up

Jackson and her research team designed the observational study to measure turkey poult behavior by age, time of day and sequence of behaviors. They placed Nicholas Select male turkey poults in three pens with 25 birds per pen on day of hatch and provided them with feed and water ad libitum. The birds were housed in an environment that matched commercial conditions.

For data collection, the researchers continuously recorded poult activity from day 1 to 7 using a Lorex infrared camera and network video recorder system.

Behavior was coded into five categories:

1. Active (walking, running, standing)
2. Resting (sitting, sleeping)
3. Comfort (stretching, adjusting, wing flapping)
4. Nutritive (eating, drinking, foraging)
5. Play (frolicking, strutting, warm running)

For the analysis, the research team assessed the duration of each behavior by age and time of day, as well as by diversity and sequence of behaviors.

Behaviors increase with age

Overall, the researchers observed an early expansion of behaviors in the young poults. This occurred while sleeping, sitting, stretching and adjusting behaviors decreased during the week. As a result, birds had more time available to engage in other behaviors.

“We saw locomotive and standing behaviors increase as the poults aged,” Jackson said. Explorative and social-type play behaviors also increased with age.

The time-of-day analysis showed that poults slept during dark periods and became active and engaged in nutritive behaviors in the morning and midday. Comfort behaviors were exhibited more in the pre-dark and evening hours than in the dark or morning periods.

During midday and afternoon, explorative and play behaviors appeared most frequently. As the poults exhibited more social play behaviors, these were frequently performed in the afternoon and evening.

Most common behaviors

“Overall, poults allotted most of their time toward resting behaviors,” Jackson said. “This shows the importance of rest for these birds. However, resting time decreased with age, increasing the time birds spent on other behaviors.

“We also observed that active behaviors were higher on day 1 than on day 2, along with nutritive and explorative behaviors,” she continued. “We believe this demonstrates initial assessment and acclimation to the new surroundings.”

Active behaviors were frequent because these were either a component of another behavior or allowed a poult to move from one location to another to perform a different behavior, Jackson explained.

“We saw an interesting pattern in the time of day for play,” Jackson said. “These were performed later in the day. Birds first needed to perform nutritive behaviors in the morning.” Then they were available for social play in the afternoon.

Active behaviors important

“In conclusion, we saw the early life expansion of the behavioral repertoire of turkey poults,” Jackson stated. “There were significant interactions between age, time of day and sequence in behavior performance.

“We also demonstrated the importance of active behaviors,” she added. Active behaviors helped poults facilitate other behaviors needed for their behavioral development.

The post Turkey poults exhibit early and diverse behavior development appeared first on Modern Poultry.

In a cage-free operation with 11 million birds, mortalities in APEC-challenged flocks fell more than 60% when the product was integrated into pullet diets and fed through peak production, consistent with earlier experimental results.

“APEC poses a major threat to layer operations, resulting in decreased egg production, increased bird mortality and significant economic losses. For cage-free producers, where birds face heightened exposure risks, the challenge is even greater,” said Mark Farmer, PhD, a nutritionist at Cargill.

“With antibiotics restricted in layers and vaccine efficacy waning over time, the industry urgently needs effective alternatives. These field observations confirm that Biostrong C-Protect holds up under real-world conditions, offering a reliable, sustainable solution that helps mitigate the toll of APEC on layer health, productivity and well-being.”

Reduced mortality

For the trial, the product was adopted in phases, initially looking at breed-level effects in flocks of Lohmann Browns and Lohmann Selected Leghorns with elevated APEC mortality.

The postbiotic/phytogenic blend was added to pullet diets 2 weeks before transition to lay houses and then fed through 40 weeks of age; these are critical windows for immune development. After demonstrating efficacy in high-risk flocks, the regimen was expanded to all flocks enterprise-wide.

The product was introduced gradually as pullets reached the appropriate implementation age. Before adoption, average mortality rates at 35 weeks were 15.3%. During progressive adoption, mortality decreased to 7.9%, and once the product was fully implemented across operations, the rate dropped further to 5.2% at the same age. Overall, this represents a more than 60% improvement in livability (Figure 1).

Click to enlarge.

Validated approach

Biostrong C-Protect combines the postbiotic XPC, a fermented yeast derivative shown to support immunity¹, with a proprietary phytogenic blend derived from Quillaja saponaria that supports gut health and nutrient digestibility.²

According to Farmer, Cargill’s research team validated the product’s ability to target APEC in the laboratory prior to field testing.

“Feed additives are often trialed blindly, but we took a benchtop approach to understanding how the mechanisms of various products could complement each other and affect APEC and host resilience,” he said.

“This approach has helped us achieve the robust results we’re seeing in commercial settings.”

‘Robust, science-based outcomes’

According to Manuel Da Costa, DVM, PhD, director of strategy, marketing and technology for poultry at Cargill, the mortality reductions observed in this account are consistent with findings from controlled studies, which have also demonstrated improvements in egg production and gut health in APEC-challenged hens.^2-4

“The ability to replicate outcomes from controlled studies in real-world operations is crucial to making informed decisions about flock health strategies,” Da Costa said. “We have trialed Biostrong C-Protect with APEC-challenge exposures at different bird ages, from 8-week-old pullets to 80-week-old layers, and the consistency of results is remarkable. The fact that field experiences mirror our research data should give layer producers confidence that they’re implementing a solution with robust, science-based outcomes.”

1 Lin et al, 2023. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae hydrolysate on growth performance, immunity function, and intestinal health in broilers. Poultry Science, 102(1), 102237.
2 Chaney et al, 2024. Impact of Biostrong^TM C-Protect_, with or without vaccination, on broilers challenged with APEC serotype O78. Journal of Applied Poultry Research.
3 Hofacre et al., 2025. Effect of Biostrong^TM C-Protect on Amelioration of APEC O78 in a 10 Week Layer Pullet Intratracheal Challenge Model. IPSF 2025.
4 Ko et al., 2025. Effects of Biostrong^TM C-Protect on laying hens challenged with Avian Pathogenic E. coli. IPSF 2025.

The post Field experience with a postbiotic/phytogenic blend supports improved livability in APEC-challenged layers appeared first on Modern Poultry.

In November 2025, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) presented the annual report on avian influenza covering 2024. Data were collected from all EU Member States, by European Free Trade Association countries (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland), EU candidate countries (Georgia, North Macedonia) and other countries in Europe or at the Europe–Asia interface, including the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), Ukraine, Moldova and Turkey, required to implement surveillance programs for the avian influenza virus (AIV) in both poultry and wild birds, collectively known as the Union Surveillance Programme (USP), in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/429 (“Animal Health Law”).

Avian influenza (AI) is a contagious viral disease caused by a virus from the Orthomyxoviridae family, primarily affecting poultry and wild waterbirds. Avian influenza viruses are classified as highly pathogenic (HPAIV) or low pathogenic (LPAIV) based on their molecular characteristics and ability to cause disease and mortality in chickens. In poultry, LPAIV infections often cause mild respiratory signs or remain asymptomatic, while HPAIV infections, particularly in chickens and turkeys, typically result in severe disease and high mortality. Poultry with LPAI may show mild or no symptoms, while HPAI causes severe illness and death. Both spread rapidly through farms, making strict biosecurity measures crucial. LPAI viruses can mutate into highly pathogenic strains, making surveillance of LPAIV strains essential.

In poultry production systems, this mutation potential is a major concern, as it can lead to sudden HPAI outbreaks, though so far only H5 and H7 subtypes have mutated to become HPAIV.

What is concerning is that highly pathogenic viruses are increasingly affecting wild birds and now appear to be adapting to mammals as well. Animal-to-human spillover, however, has occurred only occasionally.

The EFSA report provides an overview of HPAI spread from 2016-2023, highlighting how the virus showed a rather dynamic pattern with changing subtypes, host ranges, and epidemiological characteristics, reviewing each year’s epidemic and its peculiarities. Data show that the 2021-2022 epidemic was the most severe ever recorded in Europe, dominated by H5N1, with additional detections of H5N8 and H5N5. Meanwhile, the 2022-2023 epidemic massively affected wild birds and, as mentioned, was also observed in mammals, including wild carnivores, fur farming animals, marine mammals, and pets, though not frequently.

The report continues by presenting sampling data divided into four sections: poultry sector, captive birds, wild birds, and mammals. Regarding the poultry sector, 27,739 establishments were sampled, with a total of 40,555 sampling events and 218,667 samples collected.

ADIS (Animal Disease Information System), the EU information system for animal diseases, recorded 394 outbreaks in EU countries and 66 in non-EU countries in 2024 (Table 1 and Figure 1). In detail, fifteen EU countries (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, France, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia) and six non-EU countries were affected (Albania, Iceland, Moldova, North Macedonia, Norway, Turkey).

Source

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Abrahantes, J. C., Aznar, I., Boom, M., Catalin, I., Dórea, F., Grant, M., Mulligan, K. F., & Zancanaro, G. (2025). Avian Influenza annual report 2024. EFSA Journal, 23(12), e9761.

https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9761

Bengaluru, 09.03.2026 – NUQO Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. has announced the appointment of two experienced professionals, Yogesh Srivastav and Prashant Kurele as Regional Sales Managers in North India, where they will be responsible for driving market expansion and customer partnerships across their respective regions. Further strengthening its commercial team as the company continues to expand its presence in the Indian animal nutrition market.

Yogesh Srivastav joins NUQO with over ten years of experience in animal nutrition and poultry business development. Prior to joining NUQO, he held key roles at Cargill Animal Nutrition and Huvepharma, where he managed strategic accounts and contributed to business growth across Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

Prashant Gupta has more than a decade of experience in animal health and poultry sales. He has worked with leading organizations such as MSD Animal Health, Zoetis India Ltd., Virbac Animal Health India Pvt. Ltd. and Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd., building strong expertise in market development and customer engagement.

Both professionals will report to Dr. Krishnamurthy, Commercial Director – South Asia at NUQO Animal Nutrition India.

Commenting on the appointments, Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Managing Director – South Asia at NUQO Animal Nutrition India, said “India continues to be a key growth market for NUQO, and strengthening our commercial team is essential as we expand our footprint. Yogesh and Prashant bring valuable industry experience and market understanding, and I am confident they will contribute significantly to delivering value to our customers and partners.”

Dr. Krishnamurthy, Commercial Director – South Asia, added: “North India is a key market for NUQO, and strengthening our commercial capabilities in this region is a priority for us. Yogesh and Prashant bring strong field experience and proven track records in customer engagement and business development. Their addition to the team will help us further expand our reach and deliver innovative nutritional solutions that support the productivity and sustainability goals of our customers.”

Reena Rani, Head of Marketing – South Asia, also commented: “At NUQO, we believe strong teams drive strong brands. With Yogesh and Prashant joining our commercial team, we are further enhancing our ability to support customers with innovative solutions and closer market engagement. Their addition reflects NUQO’s commitment to building a dynamic and customer-focused organization in India.”
NUQO continues to strengthen its presence in India in delivering innovative, sustainable solutions for the animal nutrition industry.

About NUQO^©

NUQO^© is a pioneer in combining phytogenics & phycogenics with a unique and cutting-edge micro- encapsulation technology that preserves efficacy and ensures optimal release of active ingredients.

Based on this expertise, NUQO^© promotes various solutions that help professionals to better address challenges related to the performance, health or welfare of animals.

The post NUQO Animal Nutrition India Announces Two Key Appointments in North India appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

This article provides a detailed guide on how to manage winter stress effectively to maintain a healthy and productive flock.

Understanding Winter Stress in Poultry

Winter stress in poultry arises from environmental and physiological factors. These include:

1. Cold Temperatures: Poultry are warm-blooded animals and must maintain a stable body temperature. When temperatures drop, they expend extra energy to stay warm, which impacts their growth and production. In chickens, the brain’s hypothalamus regulates this; if the temperature continues to drop, birds will produce more heat inside and send more blood to their extremities to keep warm.
2. Shortened Daylight Hours: Light is a critical factor for laying hens and reduced daylight can significantly lower egg production.
3. Poor Ventilation: Closed housing during winter may lead to dampness, poor air quality, ammonia buildup and increasing susceptibility to respiratory diseases.
4. Nutritional Deficiencies: Birds may struggle to meet their increased energy and nutrient demands during winter if diets are not adjusted appropriately.

Economic Benefits of Managing Winter Stress

• Investing in winter stress management may require additional resource but the benefits outweigh the costs.
• Increased Productivity: Maintaining egg production and growth rates ensures profitability.
• Reduced Mortality: Healthy, stress-free birds have higher survival rates.
• Lower Veterinary Costs: Preventative measures reduce the need for costly treatments.

Effects of Winter Stress on Poultry

The consequences of unmanaged winter stress can be severe:

• Reduced Egg Production: Layers often experience a decline in productivity due to both cold temperatures and decreased light exposure.
• Slower Growth Rates: Broilers may struggle to gain weight as more energy is diverted toward maintaining body heat.
• Increased Susceptibility to Disease: Stress weakens the immune system, making birds prone to infections, especially respiratory conditions, which is the primary cause in chickens exposure to cold stress.
• Behavioural Issues: Overcrowding near heat sources can lead to aggressive behaviours like feather pecking.

Strategies to Mitigate Winter Stress

Effective management of winter stress involves optimizing nutrition, housing, and husbandry practices. Below are detailed strategies:

1. Nutrition Management

Proper nutrition is the cornerstone of managing winter stress. Birds require additional energy and specific nutrients to deal with the colder environment.

• Increase Caloric Intake: During winter, birds use more energy to regulate their body temperature. Incorporating energy-dense feeds such as corn or wheat can help to meet these requirements.
• Enhance Protein and Fat Content: Protein supports muscle maintenance and egg production, while fats are an excellent energy source. Adding soybean meal, fish oil or tallow to the diet can be beneficial.
• Vitamin and Mineral Supplementation: Certain vitamins and minerals play a vital role in boosting immunity and productivity:
  • Vitamin A: Supports mucosal health and reducing susceptibility to respiratory infections.
  • Vitamin D: Essential for calcium absorption and crucial for eggshell quality.
  • Vitamin E and Selenium: Powerful antioxidants that improve immune function.
• Electrolytes and Probiotics: These help to maintain gut health, enhance nutrients absorption and reduces the impact of stress.
• Warm Water Supply: Provide access to clean, lukewarm water to encourage feed intake and preventing from dehydration.

2. Housing Management

Poultry housing plays a significant role in minimizing winter stress. Properly designed and maintained facilities can make a substantial difference.

Insulation and Heating:

• Insulate walls, roofs, and doors to retain heat.
• Use heat lamps or brooders to provide supplemental warmth, especially for chicks and young birds.
• Position heat sources to prevent overcrowding.

Ventilation: While retaining heat is essential, proper ventilation must be maintained to prevent dampness and ammonia buildup. It is advisable to use adjustable vents or fans to ensure fresh air circulation without creating drafts.

Dry and Clean Bedding: Damp litter can lead to increased humidity and ammonia levels and also causing respiratory issues. Regularly replace bedding materials like straw or wood shavings to keep them dry and clean.

Space Allocation: Provide sufficient space to prevent overcrowding and reduce competition around feeders and heat sources.

3. Lighting Management

• Daylight influences the laying cycle of hens. In the winter season, when daylight hours are reduced, supplemental lighting can help to maintain productivity.
• Provide 14–16 Hours of Light: Use artificial lighting to extend the day length. LED or fluorescent lights are energy-efficient options.
• Gradual Adjustments: Sudden changes in light duration can stress birds. Adjust lighting schedules gradually to mimic natural conditions.

4. Disease Prevention

• Winter stress weakens the immune system, making birds more vulnerable to diseases. Preventative health measures are crucial.
• Vaccination Programs: Ensure birds are vaccinated against common winter diseases such as infectious bronchitis and Newcastle disease.
• Biosecurity Measures: Limit access to wild birds, rodents, and other potential disease carriers. Maintain cleanliness in housing and equipment. Isolate sick birds to prevent the spread of infections among the other birds.
• Regular Monitoring: Observe birds for signs of illness such as lethargy, reduced feed intake, sneezing or nasal discharge. Early intervention can prevent outbreaks.

5. Behavioural Management

Behavioural issues such as feather pecking and aggression can be shown during winter due to stress and overcrowding.

Provide Enrichment:

• Keep birds engaged by scattering grains or providing hanging vegetables such like cabbages. This reduces boredom and aggressive tendencies.
• Adequate Feeder and Waterer Space.
• Ensure there are enough feeders and waterers to minimize competition and aggression.

Group Management:

Separate aggressive birds or overcrowded groups to maintain harmony.

6. Emergency Preparedness

• Winter weather can be unpredictable and power outages or extreme cold snaps can exacerbate stress. Farmers should be prepared for such events.
• Backup Power Sources.
• Invest in generators to ensure uninterrupted heat and light supply.
• Stockpile Feed and Water Supplies.
• Maintain a reserve of feed and water to avoid shortages during snowstorms or transport disruptions.
• Inspect Housing Regularly for monitoring and maintaining the healthy environment.
• Check for leaks, drafts or other structural issues that could worsen during extreme weather.

Conclusion

Managing winter stress in poultry requires a holistic approach that combines proper nutrition, housing, disease prevention and proper care. By addressing these factors, farmers can ensure their flocks remain healthy, productive and resilient throughout the cold months. Proactive planning, attention to detail and consistent monitoring will not only reduce stress but also contribute to a successful and sustainable poultry operation.

The post Managing Winter Stress in Poultry appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

In the hierarchy of poultry nutrition, water is often forgotten giant. While producers meticulously formulate feed rations down to micro-nutrients, water, which constitutes more than 70% of a chicken’s live weight, is frequently taken for granted. The reality, however, is stark: birds drink more water than the weight of the feed they consume. Consequently, water quality is not just a hygiene issue, it is a fundamental driver of feed conversion, gut health, and economic viability.

Any attempt to trade off water quality for other reasons compromises the health and productivity of the birds. This article explores the critical role of water, the hidden dangers of poor quality, and actionable strategies for management.

The Physiology of Hydration: Why Water Wins

Water is irreplaceable. No alternative can replicate its multifaceted role in hydration, nutrient distribution, and thermoregulation. Its influence on production is direct and immediate.

Feed Intake Correlation: There is a linear relationship between water and feed. Birds typically drink 1.6 to 2 times the equivalent weight of feed. If water intake is limited, feed intake declines. Poor water quality alone can reduce feed intake by 10-20%.

Digestion and Metabolism: Water is the medium for metabolic reactions. It acts as a transport system for nutrients and helps soften and dissolve feed in the crop for smooth digestion.

Thermoregulation: Water helps regulate body temperature. Consumption spikes significantly during heat stress, increasing by 6% for every 1°C rise in temperature between 20-32°C.

The Enemies Within: Assessing Water Quality Risks

Water quality involves a complex interplay of physical, chemical, and microbial factors.

Hardness (Calcium & Magnesium): While these minerals can be beneficial to the animal, they are detrimental to drinking lines. Hardness leads to scale formation in pipelines, reducing water flow and interfering with the efficacy of vaccines and medications.

Iron: Excess iron promotes biofilm formation, causes bad odor, and favors bacterial growth. In birds, it interferes with nutrient absorption and promotes oxidative stress.

Nitrates/Nitrites: Nitrates indicate organic decomposition and are converted into nitrites in the gut. These bind to hemoglobin, reducing the blood’s oxygen-carrying capacity.

pH Balance: Fluctuations in pH can lead to decreased water consumption, sanitization efficacy and compromised immunity.

The Biofilm Threat: Biofilm poses a significant threat to water quality, causing variations in key parameters that impact health. Biofilm acts as a reservoir for pathogens and can lead to clogged pipes, reduced water flow, and the continuous shedding of disease-causing organisms into the water supply.

Biological Contaminants: Water is a potent vector for disease. Contaminated supplies can transmit bacterial diseases like Salmonellosis and Colibacillosis (E. coli), as well as viral infections like Avian Influenza and Newcastle disease.

How does the water quality look across India?

Fluctuations in Water pH and Hardness levels are noted in poultry drinking water across diverse regions in India. Results in an average pH of 7.5, which exceeds the desired level of 6.5.

Microbes such as E. coli, Salmonella, Staphylococcus thrive in an alkaline environment.

Decreasing the environmental pH by one unit to desired pH level of 6.5, can also lower the metabolic activity of microbial communities by up to 50%.

The Leaky Bucket: Where Traditional Management Fails

Many farms rely on a “leaky bucket” approach, using isolated methods that fail to address the total water quality picture.

Chlorination Limitations: Chlorine efficacy is highly pH dependent. At an alkaline pH (above 7), chlorine exists primarily as the hypochlorite ion (OCL), which is a weaker sanitizer. It requires a pH of 6.0–6.5 to exist as Hypochlorous acid (HOCl), which is 80 to 300 times more effective at killing bacteria.

A Modern Roadmap: The 3-Step Management Program

To move from basic hydration to performance enhancement, Holistic roadmap adoption is essential

Step 1: Acidification – The Foundation

Controlling pH is the key to success, with a target range of 5.5 to 6.5. Maintaining water pH within this range creates a gut environment that is unfavorable for pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli, while enhancing nutrient absorption. Acidification can improve protein digestibility by up to 5% and reduce the incidence of dirty eggs.

Maintaining the desired pH consistently with AcidLAC azure ensures better nutrient absorption, improved medication efficacy, and pathogen control. Acidification helps reduce harmful microbes, supports gut health, and boosts bird performance. Good water quality prevents disease, avoids mineral imbalances, and ensures uniform flock growth.

Step 2: Sanitation and Biofilm Control

Sanitation must be continuous and supported by the right tools. Sustained pH control is critical for superior sanitization efficacy, especially when using chlorine. Regular pipeline cleaning is essential, flushing lines between flocks helps remove biofilm buildup. Specialized products like AcidLAC W restrict biofilm formation and support overall water quality management.

Step 3: Role of Filters on acidification

Filters are vital as they remove sediments, impurities, and contaminants, preventing blockages, and ensure effective use of acidifiers.

Economic Implications

Investing in water quality delivers a high return on investment. Proper water management can increase feed efficiency by improving protein digestibility by up to 5%. Additionally, maintaining optimal water quality reduces losses by lowering mortality rates, minimizing eggshell defects, and cutting medication costs associated with poor flock health.

Conclusion

Water is the “invisible” nutrient because it is transparent, yet its impact on the bottom line is substantial. By shifting focus from simple supply to active water quality management specifically targeting pH control, biofilm elimination, and consistent sanitation with expertise solution approach can unlock significant latent potential in poultry birds.

References on request

The post Mastering Water Quality for Optimal Poultry Performance appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

The initiative drew an overwhelming response, with 134 students from across the country participating. Students came forward with research and innovative ideas in four vital sectors — Poultry, Dairy, Swine, and Aqua. Topics ranged from the use of unconventional feed ingredients and gut health management in poultry to dairy management innovations under climatic stress, biosecurity in swine farming, and new technologies for aqua feed production. Each category encouraged students to blend scientific knowledge with practical approaches, showcasing their ability to shape the future of sustainable livestock practices.

To honor their creativity and hard work, the program awarded Gold, Silver, and Bronze winners in every sector. The Gold winner received ₹1 lakh, Silver ₹50,000, and Bronze ₹25,000, along with a ticket to Kochi and a complimentary stay, making the recognition both prestigious and rewarding.

The felicitation took place at the 58th AGM & 66th National Symposium 2025 in Hyderabad (India), where industry leaders and academicians applauded the students’ contributions. This initiative not only celebrated young talent but also marked a milestone in CLFMA’s efforts to build stronger bridges between academia and the livestock sector, ensuring that the sector is well-prepared for the future.

The post CLFMA Of India Empowers Young Minds with First Ever Student Program Initiative appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

Introduction:
The poultry industry is under constant pressure to enhance feed efficiency, support rapid growth, and maximize profitability while maintaining animal health and sustainability. In this context, feed additives that improve nutrient utilization have become increasingly valuable. Among these, bile salts have emerged as a potent tool to improve fat digestion, energy utilization, and overall bird performance. Though bile salts are naturally produced in the liver, their supplementation in poultry diets—particularly in broiler chicks and birds consuming high-fat or energy-dense diets—has demonstrated notable benefits.

This article provides an in-depth review of the science, mechanisms, applications, and experimental outcomes associated with the use of bile salts in poultry feed.

What Are Bile Salts:
Bile salts are amphipathic molecules synthesized from cholesterol in the liver and secreted into the duodenum through the bile duct. These compounds serve as natural emulsifiers, enabling the breakdown of dietary fats into smaller particles for better enzymatic digestion. The most common bile salts include cholic acid and chenodeoxycholic acid, which are conjugated with amino acids like glycine or taurine. In poultry, especially in the early post-hatch period, the bile system is not fully developed.

Limited bile production may lead to suboptimal lipid digestion and poor utilization of energy, especially when birds are fed high-fat diets. Supplementing diets with exogenous bile salts compensates for this limitation, promoting efficient digestion and nutrient uptake.

Manufacturing/sourcing of Bile Salts:
Bile salts used in animal nutrition are typically manufactured through a multi-step process involving extraction, purification, and sometimes synthesis. Here’s a breakdown of how bile salts are manufactured, particularly for use in poultry feed.

Mechanism of Action in Poultry Digestion:
The primary function of bile salts is to emulsify lipids in the digestive tract. Dietary fats are hydrophobic and tend to aggregate in the aqueous environment of the intestine. Bile salts convert these large fat globules into micelles, thereby increasing the surface area for the action of pancreatic lipase, the enzyme responsible for breaking down triglycerides into monoglycerides and free fatty acids.

Additional Benefits:

• Facilitate absorption of fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K)
• Improve cholesterol metabolism
• Stabilize gut microflora and improve gut health

Applications and Benefits in Poultry Nutrition:

1. Enhanced Lipid Digestibility
The most immediate impact of bile salt supplementation is the improvement in fat digestibility, particularly in diets using:

• Saturated fats (e.g., tallow, palm oil)
• Economic but less digestible fat sources

Improved digestibility leads to higher energy availability for growth and metabolic functions.

2. Support for Young Chicks

Newly hatched chicks have immature livers and underdeveloped bile secretion. Bile salts in the starter diet:

• Compensation for poor endogenous production
• Improve early feed efficiency
• Support gut development and health

3. Improved Growth Performance
Several studies have shown that exogenous bile salts lead to:

• Increased body weight gain
• Reduced feed conversion ratio (FCR)
• Enhanced apparent metabolizable energy (AME)

4. Cost Efficiency
By improving the digestibility of cheaper fats, bile salts enable producers to reduce reliance on high-cost vegetable oils. This results in:

• Lower feed costs
• Optimized feed formulation
• Improved profit margins

Performance Trials and Scientific Evidence:

Trial 1: Zhang et al. (2011)
Objective: Compare effects of bile salt supplementation on broilers fed tallow vs. soybean oil diets.

• Design: 360 broilers; six treatment groups; bile salts at 0.1%
• Results:
  • Tallow + bile salts → +9.2% body weight gain, +8.5% FCR improvement
  • Higher fat digestibility with bile salts

Reference: Zhang, B., Haitao, L., & Chi, Y. (2011). Poultry Science, 90(12), 2701–2709.

Trial 2: Xie et al. (2020)
Objective: Evaluate bile salt effects on broiler starter performance

• Design: 400 chicks, bile salts at 0.05% and 0.1% (first 21 days)
• Results:
  • +6.7% growth, lower FCR
  • +5.2% increase in AME
  • Lower serum triglycerides

Reference: Xie, M., Hou, S. S., Huang, W., & Fan, H. P. (2020). Animal Feed Science and Technology, 267, 114542.

Trial 3: Khan et al. (2017)
Objective: Use of bile salts with palm oil-based diets in broilers

• Design: 240 broilers, bile salts at 0.1%
• Results:
  • Fat digestibility: from 72.3% to 81.6%
  • Improved vitamin E absorption
  • Increased daily gain

Reference: Khan, R. U., et al. (2017). Livestock Science, 197, 92–97.

Summary of Trial Results:

Practical Guidelines for Use:
Inclusion Rates

• Typical dose: 0.05–0.1% of the diet
• High doses may not yield proportional benefits and could influence gut microbiota

Compatibility

• Most effective when used with low-digestibility fat sources
• Can be combined with lipase enzymes for synergistic effects

Sources

• Commercially available bile salts are typically derived from bovine or porcine origins
• Plant-based or synthetic alternatives are under research for use in vegetarian or religiously restricted feed systems

Limitations and Considerations:

• Cost vs. Benefit: The cost of bile salts must be justified by performance gains
• Quality of Product: Purity and origin matter—contaminants or low-grade sources may reduce efficacy
• Bird Age and Diet Type: Younger birds and fat-rich diets show the most pronounced benefits

Conclusion:
Bile salts have proven to be a valuable feed additive in poultry nutrition, particularly when aiming to enhance lipid digestion, optimize energy utilization, and support early-stage chick development. Supported by substantial trial data, their use enables more economical feeding strategies and contributes to improved growth performance and feed efficiency. As the industry moves toward precision nutrition, incorporating additives like bile salts—especially in targeted phases of production, can play a pivotal role in achieving both economic and sustainability goals.

Authors:
Dr Pattath Damodar, Freelance consultant, Bangalore India
Dr Sushant Labh, Kemin Industries South Asia

Previous article by Dr Sushant Labh:

Recent Advances in Calcium and Phosphorus Nutrition for Broilers (An Indian Perspective)

The post Use of Bile Salts in Poultry Nutrition appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

Achieving the desired egg production in the old hens after 50 weeks is the real challenge in both the open and the Environmentally Controlled (EC) sheds, as the age advances, the breeding efficiency gradually slows down.

The ‘egg Production time’ in the Hen

The duration of the egg production in the commercial chicken is the deciding factor of each egg produced.

In young flock, it is lesser than 25 hours and in the old flocks, it is more than 25 hours. This duration decides the layer farm’s egg production.

How Chicken’s Oviduct makes eggs

Chicken’s Oviduct makes egg in the following steps:

• Infundibulum the mouth of the hen’s oviduct lengths about 9 cm receives a yolk within 10 to 30 minutes; the egg is fertilised if the sperm is present, otherwise the egg remains unfertilized.
• Magnum the center portion of the hen’s oviduct lengths about 33 cm secretes albumen (egg white) and it’s layered around the yolk in and around 3 hours.
• Isthmus the mid lower portion of a hen’s oviduct, length about 10 cm ; adds inner and outer cell membranes around the egg white in and around 1 hour.
• Shell Gland is the real uterus of a hen’s oviduct positioned in the lower portion, length about 10 to 12 cm , adds sheel material to the egg. Pigments are added here to make the brown shell. The process takes about 20 hours.
• In the Vent at the end of the oviduct, the egg passes through, before it was laid down.

Factors involved in the Egg production

• Age – High production in Young Flock and it gradually declines when the age advances.
• Genetics – ‘Controlled Traits of a breed
• Micro-Pathogen load– Viral, Bacterial & Fungi etc.
• Disease Outbreak
• Stress
• Nutrition

Among the above factors we have a complete control on Nutrition especially through feed to improve the production in the old flocks that are above 48 weeks.

Nutrition for the old Chicken

We can tune the commercial Layer Feed Formulation above 48 weeks (Phase 2 – 48 to 65 weeks & Phase 3 – 65 weeks & above) with the following guidelines to achieve the maximum egg production and to improve the farm average egg production %.

Optimum CP – Crude Protein

In the layer feed for the old flcok (Phase 2 & 3) we need to give high energy diet to meet the bird’s BMR. However, we need to emphasize the optimum Crude Protein level 4% higher than the routine CP level irrespective of the breeds.

Optimum Amino Acids

We can maintain the Optimum Amino Acids level in the Phase 2&3. Optimum Methionine level can be not lesser than 0.4 & Lysiene level can be not lesser than 0.75. The above values are for 1 MT of feed.

Feed Additives

Vitamins & Minerals

We can top up the Vitamin & Trace Mineral premixes 10% higher than the regular dosage.

Emulsifier & Choline Chloride

Fat deposition in the old flocks will hamper the breeding efficiency and the egg production which is a natural and Adding Emulsifiers along with choline chloride can reduce the overall body fat and lean birds tend to yield more eggs. Dosage can be adjusted as per the local vet’s advice and brand claims.

Chromium Picolinate

There are studies and references available that chromium Picolinate improves the breeding efficiency in the laying hens. Chromium Picolinate a non-toxic chromium can be added in the layer feed for Phase 2 &3 as per the manufacturers’ label claims.

Anterior Pituitary – The Key Organ of a Laying Hen.

There are two Gonadotropin hormones ‘secreted in the Anterior Pituitary gland of the chicken which decide and determine the egg production of the chicken as the hormones link ovary & oviduct.

• FSH – Follicle Stimulating Hormone.
  FSH maintains the matured follicles in the ovary which ensures the ovulation (egg production) at the chicken’s old age of 80+ weeks
• LH – Luteinizing Hormone
  LH ruptures the matured follicles in the ovary and releases the ova.

Phytochemicals

• • There are many references that a few specific phytochemicals that are discussed here which can induce the endocrine system (Anterior Pituitary) of the Chicken and releases the Gonadotropin Hormones to improve the egg production. We can include the dry powder of these phytochemicals in the Phase 2- & 3-layer feed.
  • Asparagus racemosus – roots

• • Pueraria tuberosa

• • Glycyrrhiza glabra

Summary

Egg is an economical and affordable protein commodity, rich in nutrition. Moreover, egg can be consumed by all the age groups which is easily available for all the economical classes and it is without adulteration.

We need to ensure a high farm average of the egg production of every layer farm by implementing the nutritional guidelines discussed here by improving the production performance of the old age chicken.

The money invested for the value-added nutritional benefits discussed here will certainly ensure a high return through additional egg production and low egg breakage and the farmer can relish hassle-free farming.

We can use similar guidelines to the breeding farms to make the non-laying hens yield eggs which can improve the farm average of the egg production & better hatchability.

Author: Dr. Ram Moorthy D, CEO, Geenat

Previous article by same author: Pin Bone Syndrome in Commercial Chicken

The post Improving Egg Production in the Old Chicken appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

Engineered for efficiency, longevity, and lowest lifetime cost—designed and manufactured in India

Nashik, India: Dhumal Industries, one of India’s most respected names in poultry and livestock equipment engineering, has announced the launch of its new 50-inch blade diameter Direct Drive Ventilation Fan, a high-performance, energy-efficient solution developed to meet the evolving needs of modern poultry housing.

Designed with a strong focus on engineering excellence, durability, and total cost of ownership, this new fan represents a significant step forward for poultry producers and integrators looking to upgrade ventilation systems, reduce maintenance challenges, and achieve meaningful long-term energy savings.

Engineered for Performance & Reliability

At the heart of this innovation is a high-grade composite plastic Polypropylene (PP) body, engineered for long service life in harsh poultry house environments where humidity, dust, and corrosive gases often shorten equipment lifespan. Unlike traditional metal housings that are prone to corrosion and fatigue, the polypropylene based composite plastic construction ensures structural integrity, chemical resistance, and consistent airflow performance over many years.

The fan is powered by a 1.5 HP heat-dissipating induction motor, specifically selected to deliver high efficiency with excellent thermal management. The finned motor body improves heat dissipation, resulting in lower operating temperatures, improved motor life, and reduced electrical losses—a critical advantage in continuous-duty ventilation applications.

High Air Delivery with Lower Energy Consumption

The 50-inch Direct Drive Fan delivers an impressive 24,000 CFM (approximately 40,000 cubic meters per hour) under ideal operating conditions, ensuring rapid air exchange and stable house environments essential for bird health, performance, and uniformity.

Thanks to its direct-drive design and optimized aerodynamics, the fan is estimated to deliver up to 20% energy savings compared to conventional belt-driven ventilation systems. The elimination of belts not only reduces power losses but also removes one of the most common causes of maintenance downtime in poultry houses.

The fan is supplied with a robust butterfly shutter system, ensuring efficient airflow control, minimal backdraft when the fan is switched off, and improved static pressure performance.

Designed for a 15-Year Service Life

With an expected operational life of up to 15 years, the new Direct Drive Fan has been designed as a true long-term asset rather than a short-term replacement product. Its rugged construction, fewer moving parts, and optimized motor design significantly reduce wear and tear, resulting in:

• Lower routine maintenance costs
• Reduced breakdown risk
• Higher uptime across production cycles

For poultry farmers and integrators, this translates into predictable performance and peace of mind over the entire lifecycle of the equipment.

Fast Payback, Strong Value Proposition

Energy efficiency combined with reduced maintenance makes this fan a compelling investment. Based on typical usage patterns in commercial poultry houses, the fan is expected to pay back its cost in less than three years, purely through energy savings and lower maintenance expenses.

This makes the product especially attractive for:

• New turnkey poultry projects
• Retrofit or replacement of ageing ventilation systems
• Integrators focused on long-term operating cost reduction
• Producers aiming to improve environmental control without increasing power bills

Make in India, Built for Indian Conditions

Aligned with the Make in India vision promoted by the Government of India and Hon’ble Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi, this fan has been indigenously designed, developed, and manufactured in India by Dhumal Industries.

By manufacturing locally, the company ensures:

• Faster availability of equipment
• Ready access to spare parts
• Products engineered specifically for Indian climatic and operating conditions

All spare parts for the fan are readily available through Dhumal Industries’ branch network, authorized dealers, and online spares platform, ensuring long-term serviceability and customer confidence.

The fan is backed by Dhumal Industries’ strong after-sales support system and comes with a 1-year warranty program, reinforcing the company’s commitment to reliability and customer satisfaction.

Leadership Driven by Engineering Excellence

Dhumal Industries is led by Mr. Anil Dhumal and Mr. Akshay Dhumal, both engineers and technocrats who bring deep technical expertise and hands-on involvement to the company’s product development initiatives.

Unlike conventional manufacturing organizations, the leadership at Dhumal Industries takes direct personal interest in engineering design, material selection, testing protocols, and field feedback. This approach ensures that every product introduced by the company is not only technically sound but also practical, field-proven, and aligned with the real-world challenges faced by poultry farmers and integrators.

Setting a New Benchmark in Poultry Ventilation

With the launch of the 50-inch Direct Drive Fan, Dhumal Industries reinforces its position as a technology-driven Indian manufacturer capable of delivering global-standard solutions for the poultry industry.

By combining energy efficiency, long service life, low maintenance, strong service support, and rapid ROI, the new fan sets a new benchmark for ventilation solutions in Indian poultry housing.

As poultry producers continue to focus on efficiency, sustainability, and profitability, Dhumal Industries’ latest innovation offers a future-ready solution designed to perform—year after year.

The post Dhumal Industries Unveils Next-Gen 50″ Direct Drive Ventilation Fan appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

Positioned as a focused, application-driven platform, APNF 2026 is designed for professionals responsible for translating genetic progress into measurable commercial performance in both broiler and layer operations.

Bridging Genetic Progress with Nutritional Execution
Modern poultry genetics continue to advance at an unprecedented pace. Yet achieving the full biological and economic potential of today’s birds requires more than incremental formulation adjustments. It demands alignment between genetic capability, nutrient supply, and operational precision.

APNF 2026 is structured around this integrated theme—connecting genetic potential with practical nutritional execution for both broilers and layers.

Technical leaders from Aviagen and H&N International will lead dedicated breakout sessions addressing:

• Genetic potential and realistic performance expectations
• Current field performance: facts, data, and industry observations
• Economic implications of performance gaps
• Evaluating operation-level results to identify improvement opportunities

These sessions are designed to help participants critically assess their own flock performance while understanding the biological and financial realities shaping modern production systems.

From Potential to Performance: Precision Nutrition in Practice
Building on the genetic foundation, the Forum advances into applied nutritional strategy — translating performance targets into feed programs that deliver consistent, repeatable results.

For both broilers and layers, technical sessions will explore:

• Situational nutrition strategies
• Net energy systems and modern energy evaluation
• Functional amino acid application
• Precision feeding approaches aligned with genetic objectives

Rather than treating genetics and nutrition as isolated disciplines, APNF 2026 presents them as interdependent drivers of efficiency, uniformity, and return on feed investment.

Advanced Perspectives in Formulation, Additives and Gut Health
Complementing the genetics and core nutrition discussions, respected industry specialists will contribute applied insights into formulation science and feed optimization.

Contributing experts include:

• Prof. Julian Wiseman (Ecolex) – Feed additive evaluation and energy value assessment
• Ian Mealey (Datacor) – Data-driven formulation and nutrient modeling approaches
• Arno van de Aa (Orffa)—Practical strategies for optimizing gut microflora and nutrient utilization

Together, these sessions extend the discussion beyond theory, equipping participants with tools to manage ingredient variability, improve nutrient precision, and strengthen feed efficiency under commercial conditions.

A Strategic Pre-VICTAM Technical Platform
Held one day before VICTAM Asia 2026, APNF 2026 offers a concentrated technical environment ahead of broader industry engagement.

Participants will have the opportunity to:

• Gain forward-looking insight from global genetics and nutrition leaders
• Engage in focused, peer-level technical exchange
• Refine formulation and performance strategies prior to exhibition activities

Unlike exhibition-style presentations, the Forum format prioritizes in-depth discussion, practical application, and meaningful professional interaction.

Registration Information

Attendance is intentionally limited to maintain a high-level technical environment. With strong industry interest and seats filling steadily, early registration is strongly encouraged.

Registration fees will increase in March 2026.

For full program details and registration information, click here.

The post Advanced Poultry Nutrition Forum 2026 – a Day Before VICTAM Asia in Bangkok appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

From June 2 to 4, 2026, leading experts will address key veterinary issues in the agro-industrial complex, assist veterinary professionals in agricultural production to achieve better performance, and help resolve production-related challenges. The event is supported by the National Union of Pig Breeders, the National Union of Poultry Producers, the National Union of Beef Producers, and the National Union of Dairy Producers “Soyuzmoloko.”

“Veterinary Medicine in the Agro-Industrial Complex” has been held annually since 2011. The conference focuses on modern tools and methods for ensuring animal health at industrial enterprises, diagnostic challenges, current infectious diseases, and effective anti-epizootic measures.

“This is truly a place where common issues across all sectors can be discussed and feedback can be received. We are not afraid of discussions — it is precisely through dialogue that new paths for the development of the industry emerge,” noted Andrey Mukovnin, Deputy Director of the Veterinary Department of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation. “The event is expanding both in terms of the number of participants and the categories represented.”

Program:

• Post-mortem examination sessions in the areas of “Veterinary Medicine in Pig Farming”, “Veterinary Medicine in Poultry Farming”
• Plenary session;
• Joint session of the Expert and Advisory Council on Veterinary Medicine and meetings on the topics:
  • “Veterinary Medicine in Pig Farming”, “Veterinary Medicine in Poultry Farming”, “Veterinary Medicine in Cattle Farming”
• Round-table discussions in the areas of
  • “Veterinary Medicine in Pig Farming”, “Veterinary Medicine in Poultry Farming”, “Veterinary Medicine in Cattle Farming”
• Round table on laboratory diagnostics: quality of domestic diagnostic kits, comparative testing;
• Satellite events.

Traditionally, round tables will be held in a live format, where production requests, scientific opportunities, and the position of the state veterinary service are discussed. Current issues with the most relevant infections will also be addressed: PRRS, ASF, and streptococcal infections in pig farming; avian influenza in poultry farming; clostridiosis in cattle farming.

Key discussion topics include: Infectious diseases, vaccination and immunity, antibiotics, laboratory diagnostics, biological protection of the enterprise, and more.

The conference is accompanied by a full-scale exhibition featuring:

• Veterinary drugs, vaccines, disinfectants, and more;
• Laboratory equipment and laboratory services;
• Innovations, automation, and digitalization in the agro-industrial complex;
• Feed and feed additives;
• Construction technologies and engineering solutions for livestock and poultry farming, and by-product disposal;
• Scientific organizations and projects for the agro-industrial complex;
• Media.

The exhibition provides an opportunity not only to discuss issues and challenges but also to explore the latest technologies, products, and equipment firsthand.

The event is based on a practice-oriented approach; the program is designed according to the daily requests and challenges faced by the industry. A full program is planned, with participation from veterinarians, zootechnicians, engineers, and other specialists from agricultural enterprises.

Registration:
Participants can register for the conference on the official website: https://conference.veterina.ru/. Seats are limited.

Venue: Novosibirsk Expocentre, 104 Stantsionnaya Street, Novosibirsk, Russia.

The post Veterinary Medicine in the Agro-Industrial Complex 2026 appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

The American Poultry Association is proud to announce that Elizabeth Wilson and Conner Calloway have been selected as the 2024 recipients of the APA Richard Stevens Scholarship.

Elizabeth, is pursuing a degree in Biomanufacturing. A dedicated 4-H and open poultry show participant, she has achieved great success in the showroom with her Tufted Roman geese and Leghorn and Sumatra chickens.

Conner, is a well-known competitor in the Midwest poultry circuit, will be persuing a degree in Kinesiology. He has distinguished himself in both showmanship and quality of stock, making him a strong ambassador for youth involvement in the poultry fancy.

These scholarships are made possible by the extraordinary generosity of the late Richard Stevens of Virginia. Through his estate, Mr. Stevens ensured that APA members would be supported in their educational journeys for decades to come. His legacy continues to make an impact, with scholarship funds carefully invested to sustain the program for at least thirty years. Over time, the APA hopes to increase either the amount of each award, the number of scholarships given—or both.

Members who wish to honor this legacy and support future scholars are welcome to contribute. Donations can be made by sending a check payable to the American Poultry Association to:

APA Office
P.O. Box 205
Landisville, Pennsylvania 17538

---

Applications for the 2025 Richard Stevens Scholarship Are Now Open!

Are you—or someone you know—an APA member pursuing further education? Two $1,000 scholarships will be awarded again in 2025.

To learn more about eligibility requirements and how to apply, visit:
APA Richard Stevens Scholarship Information
Access the 2025 Application (login required)
Download Reference Forms

Deadline to apply: May 31, 2025

---

We congratulate Elizabeth and Conner on this well-deserved recognition and look forward to supporting the next generation of APA scholars!

The post Celebrating the 2024 APA Scholarship Recipients appeared first on The American Poultry Association (APA).

"Hello, my name is Jacob Fagnani. I’m a medical student at Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, NY. I am fortunate to have raised and shown chickens from a young age at local events, and later as an APA member at regional shows. This article combines my interest in health with my passion for the poultry hobby and outlines how fanciers can preserve their health and secure many years of poultry enjoyment.​"

By Jacob Fagnani

Medical Student, Upstate Medical University

The post Keeping Healthy While Keeping Poultry appeared first on The American Poultry Association (APA).

The post Now Live: APA Job Listings Board appeared first on The American Poultry Association (APA).

The post Hosting a Poultry Show? Get It on the Calendar! appeared first on The American Poultry Association (APA).

The post Winter Preparation for Poultry & Selecting Breeders appeared first on The American Poultry Association (APA).

The post Basic Understanding of Poultry Shows appeared first on The American Poultry Association (APA).

The post Introducing the APA Video Library appeared first on The American Poultry Association (APA).

The post Youth Program Ambassador Opportunity appeared first on The American Poultry Association (APA).

Lindani remains close with his fellow course alumni. “KZNPI gave us a foundation,” he says. “Some of us became managers; others started our own commercial farms or became extension officers.”

The post KZNPI Board Member Lindani Nkwanyana Reflects on His Career appeared first on World Poultry Foundation.

“When these areas are addressed together, the impact is significantly greater and will unlock opportunities that remain invisible when they are treated as separate components.” — Evelyn (Eve) Tatenda Kamba, Training Coordinator, WPF

“My primary goal was to help FSRs see women not just as beneficiaries, but as key economic actors and clients in dual-purpose poultry systems.” — Cara Raboanarielina, WPF Consultant

FSRs as Change Agents

•   Stronger sales and market development for PMI partners
•   More resilient livelihoods for women farmers and their families
•   Better nutrition outcomes for children and communities

The post When Women Win, We All Win: WPF’s Commitment to Women’s Empowerment in Poultry appeared first on World Poultry Foundation.

In this special interaction, we speak with P. Radhika, a leading professional in the Indian poultry exhibition sector, about her journey, the challenges she has faced, and her vision for encouraging more women to participate in the industry.

Poultry TRENDS: Please briefly tell us about your background and professional journey.

Radhika: I have over 12 years of experience in the events and exhibitions industry, with more than a decade dedicated to the poultry sector. I joined IPEMA / Poultry India in 2014, and since then my journey has focused on managing large-scale industry events, international collaborations, and stakeholder engagement.

As the Senior Operations Head, I oversee the operational planning and execution of key initiatives such as the Poultry India Expo, Knowledge Day seminars, and industry programs. It has been very rewarding to contribute to the growth of Poultry India into one of the world’s largest poultry exhibitions, bringing together global industry leaders, associations, and innovators on a single platform.

Poultry TRENDS: What challenges have you faced as a woman in this field, and how did you overcome them?

Radhika: The poultry and exhibition industry has traditionally been male-dominated, so establishing yourself and gaining recognition can sometimes be challenging. However, I focused on dedication, professionalism, and consistently delivering results.

The encouragement and support from the IPEMA leadership, committee members, and industry stakeholders helped me grow with confidence. Their trust and guidance allowed me to take on greater responsibilities and develop strong operational and leadership skills. Over time, these challenges became opportunities for learning and growth.

Poultry TRENDS: How do you balance your professional responsibilities with your personal life?

Radhika: Balancing professional and personal life requires effective planning, time management, and the support of family and colleagues. My role involves coordinating large-scale events and working closely with industry stakeholders, which can be demanding, especially during major exhibitions.

I am fortunate to have the encouragement of my family as well as the support of my team at IPEMA. We are a dedicated team of around 25 members working with strong commitment towards the success of Poultry India, and their cooperation and teamwork make it possible to execute such large international events successfully.

Poultry TRENDS: What does International Women’s Day mean to you personally and professionally?

Radhika: International Women’s Day is a celebration of the achievements, strength, and contributions of women across all sectors. Personally, it reminds me of the importance of support systems—family, mentors, and colleagues—who help women grow and succeed.

Professionally, it is an opportunity to recognize and encourage more women to take leadership roles in industries like agriculture and poultry. It is also a time to highlight the progress women have made and inspire the next generation to pursue their ambitions with confidence.

Poultry TRENDS: How has the guidance and encouragement from the IPEMA committee helped you in managing large-scale events like the Poultry India Expo?

Radhika: The guidance and encouragement from the IPEMA committee and its member companies have played a very important role in successfully organizing large-scale events like the Poultry India Expo. As IPEMA currently represents 55 member companies, it is my responsibility to understand and support their needs while ensuring that our initiatives add value to their businesses. At the same time, I consider it a continuous learning experience—interacting with our members, understanding their perspectives, and receiving their suggestions and guidance motivates me to keep improving and contribute more effectively to the growth of the association.

I feel deeply grateful to have worked under the guidance of respected leaders such as Shri Chakradhar Rao Potluri, Shri Anil Dhumal, Shri Harish Garware, Shri Shirish Dhopeshwar (our past Secretary), Shri Srikanth Manchala (our present Treasurer), and our present President Shri Uday Singh Bayas. Each of them has given me the opportunity to prove myself and entrusted me with important responsibilities.

Their suggestions, advice, and continuous guidance have taught me invaluable lessons about leadership, planning, and how to organize a world-class international event. These experiences have been instrumental in shaping my professional growth and strengthening my ability to manage complex operations within the organization.

At IPEMA, we also have a dedicated team of around 25 members who work with strong commitment towards the success and growth of Poultry India. As the Senior Operations Head, I am truly thankful to our entire team for their continuous support, coordination, and hard work in executing one of the world’s largest poultry exhibitions, the Poultry India Expo. Their teamwork, dedication, and professionalism play a vital role in ensuring the successful planning and seamless execution of every edition of the event.

Poultry TRENDS: How has your family supported you throughout your professional journey in the poultry industry?

Radhika: Family support has played a very important role in my professional journey. I am truly grateful to my parents, Shri Narsing Rao and Smt. Hema Latha, whose encouragement and values have always motivated me to work hard and stay committed to my responsibilities. Their constant support has given me the confidence to pursue my career and handle challenges with determination.

I also receive immense motivation from my daughter Keerthana and my siblings Ramu and Deepika, along with my sister-in-law Harika, who have always encouraged me and stood by me throughout my journey. Their understanding and support help me maintain a healthy balance between my professional responsibilities and personal life.

Their belief in me has been a strong source of strength and inspiration, enabling me to continue contributing with dedication to IPEMA and Poultry India.

Poultry TRENDS: On the occasion of International Women’s Day, what message would you like to share with young women?

Radhika: My message to young women is to believe in yourself and never hesitate to pursue opportunities in any field you are passionate about. With dedication, continuous learning, and confidence, women can achieve great success.

It is also important to seek guidance from mentors and stay connected with supportive professional networks. With the right mind-set and determination, women can play a significant role in shaping industries and creating a positive impact on society.

The post International Women’s Day: Interview with Radhika appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

In this special interaction with Poultry TRENDS, Mr. O.P Singh and Mr. Karan Singh – the founder members of HELLO PROTEIN share the vision, purpose, and long-term objectives behind this nationwide public awareness initiative.

Conceptualized as a structured movement to strengthen protein literacy across India, Hello Protein aims to address the growing nutritional gap through credible information, industry collaboration, and responsible advocacy. The founders discuss the strategic roadmap of the initiative, the role of the Indian poultry sector in combating protein deficiency, and the importance of unified industry participation.

What is the long-term vision and purpose of launching the Hello Protein movement?

OP Singh & Karan Singh: Every human being in the next generation needs protein security ensuring not only improvement in their health parameters but also efficiency in their lives. Every Indian citizen deserves qualitative protein inputs in their daily diet. Protein deficiency doesn’t just harm individuals – it quietly drains corporate India. In a knowledge – driven economy where productivity depends on mental agility, nutrition is no trivial issue.

To bring this vision alive, we are spearheading a countrywide initiative called “HELLO PROTEIN”. The movement aims to spark conversations, debunk myths, and encourage Indians to consciously incorporate more protein into their daily diets. The initiative is designed to reach diverse segments from urban professionals and students to homemakers and fitness enthusiasts – by simplifying scientific information and converting it into practical, culturally relevant advice, supported by expert insights, public-awareness campaigns, and collaborations with nutritionists. Hello Protein strives to make protein education both accessible and engaging.

India is often described as facing a silent protein crisis. Why is this crisis not visible yet so serious?

OP Singh: Protein crisis in India is an untold story as yet. The protein deficit problem should be educated about properly in the ration because in a plate full of foods, a minimum of 1/4 ^th of the plate should contain a protein-rich food. We ourselves as an industry have decided to conduct an education program called “HELLO PROTEIN”.

India faces a silent protein crisis because 7 out of 10 citizens are protein-deficient, yet this malnutrition is hidden behind calorie-sufficient but nutrient-poor, carb-heavy diets. It is serious because it leads to long-term health issues, weak immunity, muscle loss, and chronic diseases, rather than immediate, visible starvation, often caused by low awareness and cultural eating habits.

Why the Crisis is Not Visible:

• The “Fullness” Illusion: Most Indian diets are high in carbohydrates (rice, wheat) but low in quality protein, meaning people feel full but are malnourished.
• Cultural & Genetic Factors: With roughly 39% of the population vegetarian and 81% avoiding certain meats or eggs, many rely on incomplete protein sources.
• Lack of Awareness: 93% of urban Indians do not know their daily protein needs, and many wrongly believe their cereal-heavy diet is sufficient.
• Affordability & Accessibility: While often a myth, protein-rich food can be expensive, leading low-income households to rely on cheaper calories.

Why the Crisis is Serious:

• Long-Term Health Consequences: Deficiency causes chronic issues like low immunity, poor muscle health, fatigue, and lower cognitive development in children.
• High Prevalence: Studies show 80% of Indian diets are protein-deficient.
• Impact on Productivity: Protein is essential for tissue repair and energy, affecting overall physical strength and economic productivity.
• Not Just for the Poor: The deficiency spans income levels, with many wealthier households also failing to meet recommended protein levels.

Are vegetarian diets in India sufficient in protein if planned correctly, or do they need diversification? What role can affordable protein sources like eggs & poultry play in national nutrition security?

OP Singh: Vegetarian diets in India can be sufficient in protein if planned correctly, but for many, they currently require greater diversification to meet daily requirements. While traditional combinations like dal-rice (pulses and cereals) provide complete protein profiles, widespread protein deficiency persists due to over-reliance on carbohydrates and a lack of variety in daily meals.

Affordable animal-based sources like eggs and poultry are increasingly recognized as essential to closing this protein gap and ensuring national nutrition security. Despite the potential for adequacy, studies show that up to 84% of Indian vegetarian diets are protein-deficient. Eggs are among the most cost-effective sources of high-quality protein available in India. Animal protein in eggs and chicken contains all nine essential amino acids in the right proportions, making them superior to plant-based proteins for muscle building and repair. For millions, adding affordable and accessible sources like eggs and poultry is a necessary strategy for national nutrition security.

Let’s Junk Those Junk Food Ads – Recently Britain has implemented a statutory ban on advertising unhealthy food & the U.S. has also released a dietary guideline for Americans 2025-2030. What are your comments on this?

Karan Singh: Britain’s statutory ban on pre-9 pm and online ads for high-fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS) foods, combined with the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for 2025-2030 emphasizing reduced processed foods, represents a major, necessary shift toward proactive public health policy. These actions aim to curb obesity, particularly in children, by reducing marketing exposure and shifting food preferences.

It is a very good initiative & effort done by both countries; even in India, the Indian Council of Medical Research & Indian Institute of Nutrition should give some guidelines to the public so that the consumers will understand the addition of protein in their diet, because it will not only enrich the lifestyle & healthy situations but also encourage the newer generation to be more different than the current deficit protein nation.

Beyond policy, how important is nutrition education and awareness in correcting protein imbalance?

Karan Singh: Nutrition is a fundamental component of nursing education and is essential to providing high-quality care across the spectrum of healthcare. Positioning protein within a broader nutrition agenda is essential for improved health outcomes. While policy can improve accessibility to protein-rich foods (e.g., through fortification or school meals), education empowers individuals to choose, prepare, and consume these foods effectively.

In summary, while policies focus on increasing the supply of protein through Mid-Day Meals or Public Distribution Systems, nutrition education is essential to ensure that this protein is utilized by the intended population, correcting the “knowledge gap” that often drives protein deficiency.

If you had to give one message to Indian households about protein, what would it be?

OP Singh & Karan Singh: Treat protein as a daily essential, not occasional supplement. Indians are estimated to consume less protein than recommended. WHO recommends 1 gm of protein per Kg of your body weight should be consumed. Every unit of qualitative protein ensures a healthy life; therefore, every plate of food in the household deserves either egg or chicken based on its safety norms & nutrient quality. In a fast-paced urban world, protein is strength—and a well-nourished India is a stronger, sharper, and more productive India.

Strong families are built at the dining table, and a stronger India begins with adequate protein.

Let’s Join hands & make our nation protein deficit free with HELLO PROTEIN.

If this mission resonates with you, do drop your ideas/ comments/ suggestions at: helloproteins25@gmail.com

The post Hello Protein: A Unified Vision for a Protein-Secure India appeared first on Poultry TRENDS.

The poultry industry has had much more experience depopulating turkeys and layers compared to broilers due to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). In 2015 and 2022, HPAI outbreaks caused massive losses to the poultry industry. Yet broilers made up only about 6% of the 96 million birds that died from the disease or were sacrificed.

In 2020, the COVID-19 outbreak resulted in the widespread shutdown of sit-down and fast-food restaurants. Because of reduced restaurant demand and labor shortages during the human COVID-19 pandemic, broiler producers had to depopulate large numbers of birds, approximately 2 million broilers. These depopulations mostly occurred in regions not usually impacted by HPAI.

Thus, the pandemic experience begs the question: When it comes to broilers specifically, how do approved methods of rapid depopulation compare?

The research team investigated three approved depopulation methods or modes of action — ventilation shutdown with heat, ventilation shutdown with heat and humidity and increased carbon dioxide atmosphere — to assess their effects on broiler stress parameters and behavior.

Current depopulation methods

They noted that current poultry depopulation methods approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association include water-based foam application, carbon dioxide atmosphere (by CO₂ carts) and various forms of “ventilation shutdown plus” (VSD+). Foam application tends to be labor-intensive, and a large disease outbreak can cause shortages of depopulation supplies, including CO₂.

“While ventilation shutdown plus heat (VSDH) and ventilation shutdown plus CO₂ (VSDCO₂) are approved,” the researchers stated, “there is still a need for quicker, less-stressful methods.”

A previous study with layers found that adding steam (heat plus high relative humidity) as a VSD+ method resulted in significantly faster first-hen mortality and complete mortality compared to VSDH alone. In any case, any use of VSD+ must be approved by the veterinary medical officers overseeing the depopulation.

Study design

In this study, the research team evaluated the addition of higher relative humidity (Rh) to VSDH, resulting in VSDHRh. They compared VSDHRh to VSDH and VSDCO₂ for effectiveness in rapid, controlled-stress depopulation of broilers. Experimental data included time-of-death, stress parameters (electroencephalograms, blood chemistry, corticosterone, gene expression) and bird behavior.

“Adding relative humidity may result in a reduction in time to death,” they hypothesized.

The researchers conducted a two-phase experiment using randomly selected, mixed sex broilers from the Poultry Teaching Unit of the Prestage Department of Poultry Science. The birds had been raised to 42 days under identical conventional broiler grow-out conditions.

To control experimental conditions, the researchers used 4.75 cubic-foot, partially insulated Plexiglass® chambers to add heat, humidity or CO₂ for both phases of the experiment.

The VSDH treatment started at 85.24° F (29.58° C) and rose to 101.86° F (38.81° C) with 85.55% Rh. The VSDHRh treatment started at 86.00° F (30.00° C) and rose to 107.20° F (41.78° C) with 82.70% Rh. The VSDCO₂ treatment started at 0.28% CO₂ (not significantly different from other treatments) and rose to 16.85% CO₂.

The first phase analyzed the effects of the depopulation method on stress parameters and the concentration of Hsp70 (heat shock protein 70, a “molecular chaperone” expressed in response to stress) at the time of death. The second phase examined the progression of the stress parameters over time for each method.

An interesting feature of this experiment was the use of individual electroencephalogram (EEG) monitors to measure each bird’s brain electrical output in millivolts. This technique allowed correlation of EEG with bird behavior per mode of action during the depopulation process, along with accurate determination of time of death.

Results

The researchers found the most rapid depopulation via VSDCO₂ (20 minutes to 100% depopulation), followed by VSDHRh (60 minutes) and VSDH (64 minutes).

The results “appear to indicate similarity among these methods as effective broiler flock depopulation methods with respect to their effects on each parameter measured over time,” they noted.

At the lower or upper EEG ranges, the methods caused no significant differences between conscious and unconscious behaviors. “However, around the midway point of each treatment, there was a noticeable shift toward unconscious behaviors,” the researchers observed.

They concluded that VSDHRh “may be a viable alternative method” for broiler depopulation, given its similarity to VSDH. They also suggested that VSDHRh may cause less stress in broilers due to lower Hsp70 levels.

Nonetheless, they cautioned that “more research needs to be conducted to fully understand how this treatment works in a non-environmentally controlled setting.”

What does this study mean for producers?

• To depopulate a broiler house, VSDHRh — for example, using steam — may work better than VSDH alone.
• Heat with added humidity may help reduce stress on broilers during depopulation.
• Any VSD+ method must be approved by the veterinary medical officers overseeing the depopulation.

The full paper, titled “The comparative effects of ventilation shutdown with heat (VSDH), relative humidity (VSDHRh), or CO2 (VSDCO2) on broiler electroencephalogram (EEG), blood chemistry and gene expression,” can be found in Applied Poultry Research and online here.

The post Ventilation shutdown with heat and humidity demonstrates effectiveness as broiler depopulation method appeared first on Modern Poultry.

“Heat stress is not only a problem in the tropics but also in temperate climates,” stated Deborah Adewole, PhD, associate professor, University of Saskatchewan.

“Broiler chickens are particularly sensitive to hot temperatures due to their rapid growth rates and limitations in dissipating heat,” she said. Feathers, a lack of sweat glands and relatively high stocking densities limit body temperature regulation.

The impact of heat stress on broilers is well researched. Among the many symptoms are reduced feed intake and weight gain, a suppressed immune system and increased skeletal muscle damage.

“Strategies to reduce the effects of heat stress must be holistic and multi-factorial because so many factors contribute to it,” Adewole added. “Housing, ventilation, environmental control, litter management, genetic selection and nutrition are some of those factors.”

In her recent work, Adewole focused on nutritional strategies to reduce heat stress. She discussed her research in a webinar hosted by Canadian Poultry.

High energy density, vitamins improve performance

“Because heat stress decreases feed intake, one nutritional strategy is to increase energy density and nutrition in diets so that chickens have adequate energy supplies,” Adewole said. “In our lab, high energy density consistently reduced the feed-conversion ratio throughout the rearing period.”

They also found higher jejunum villus height, indicating better absorption of the high-energy diet and nutrients.

Other studies have reported that increasing energy up to 200 kcal/kg in diets improved the performance, nutrient digestibility and carcass traits of heat-stressed broilers, Adewole said. Dietary vegetable oils added to diets at 4.5% to 7.5% also improved production performance during heat stress.

Adding vitamins such as A and C also demonstrates value during heat stress in research trials. The vitamins act as destressors, antioxidants and immunomodulators in chickens. Another trial of vitamin A and zinc added to broiler diets revealed that the combination of both significantly increased carcass parameters, such as feed conversion and live-weight gain.

Search for antibiotic substitutes

Adewole conducted several studies with phytogenic feed additives in search of an alternative to antibiotics. She used brown seaweed meal and extract, grape pomace and red osier dogwood extracts in her research.

She first tested seaweed meal at 1 mL/L and 2 mL/L in broiler diets with 2% seaweed extract in the water. Then she compared them to a control group with no additives. Heat stress occurred at temperatures ranging from 90° F to 93° F (32° C to 34° C) for 8 hours a day, from 21 to 27 days of age. The thermoneutral groups were kept at 75° F (24° C). Growth performance was measured on days 7, 14, 21 and 28, and gut tissue was taken on day 28.

“On day 28, adding seaweed and seaweed meal in the diet significantly increased feed intake and average bodyweight compared to control,” Adewole said. “This is irrespective of the heat-stress challenge.

“The seaweed also modulated the gut microbiome,” she added. “The 2% seaweed meal and extract significantly increased some bacteria that are very important to the health of the chickens, like Lactobacillus.

“Heat stress also compromises the function of the small intestine to absorb nutrients by reducing the height and weight of the villi. We found that seaweed meal and extract significantly increased the villus height in heat-stressed chickens.”

Grape pomace, red dogwood tests

Adewole also studied the use of grape pomace (the discarded skins, seeds, stems and pulp from winemaking) and an extract from red dogwood, which is known for its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. She compared the grape pomace at 2.5% and the red dogwood at 0.3% to the antibiotic bacitracin methylene disalicylate (BMD) at 0.05% and a control group.

Overall, BMD produced the best results for growth performance before and after heat stress. When examining blood parameters, creatine levels that were reduced during heat stress increased with both BMD and red dogwood. BMD also increased antioxidant capacity in chickens under normal conditions.

“The ileal microbiome was modulated by our treatments. Among the treatments, BMD performed the best with increasing the abundance of some microorganisms,” Adewole said. “In the ceca microbiome at the genus level, BMD and grape pomace significantly increased the abundance of some bacteria irrespective of heat stress. Overall, BMD performed best, followed by red dogwood.”

When examining the villus-height-to-crypt-depth ratio in the intestine, feed additives all performed well, especially under heat stress. “BMD, red dogwood and grape pomace repaired the negative effects of heat stress,” she related. “They increased intestinal absorptive capacity.”

Antioxidant additives against cold stress

“It’s well known that young chickens are less able to handle cold stress than others,” Adewole reported. “Cold stress can impact meat quality, immunity, disease susceptibility and growth. Although grown in controlled environments, there are conditions when cold stress will be an issue, such as power outages, extreme weather and heating issues.”

In a research project, Adewole studied how an antioxidant feed additive protected young broilers against cold stress. The microencapsulated additive known as P(BF+AOx) has performed well as a dietary supplement by improving immune response. But it had not been tested against cold stress.

The study involved two groups of 96 broilers — a cold-stress group and a thermoneutral group. Each group was split, with half receiving the feed additive and the other half serving as a control. The cold-stress group was housed at 68° F (20° C) for 48 hours and 8 to 10 days of age. The thermoneutral group was kept at 84° F (29° C). Growth performance parameters were taken from 0 to 21 days.

“The supplement did improve bodyweights of chicks in all groups and improved feed conversion,” Adewole said. “Chickens under cold stress lack antioxidants, which affects immunity. The supplement significantly increased antioxidants during cold stress.

“Feeding P(BF+AOx) at 0.015% could provide a novel approach for improving gut health and early life growth performance in broiler chickens,” she concluded.

The post Creative feed additives help broilers weather heat stress appeared first on Modern Poultry.

(Sponsored by Pen Pals Feed)

The American Poultry Association is pleased to introduce our newly selected Youth Program Ambassador for the APA Annual Meet – Jake Wilson from Indiana.

Jake brings an impressive combination of enthusiasm, creativity, and dedication to youth engagement—qualities that align closely with the mission of the APA. His passion for poultry breeding and exhibition, paired with a strong commitment to supporting young exhibitors, makes him an outstanding choice to lead our APA Youth Activities Program.

In this role, Jake will oversee the development and coordination of hands-on activities, educational sessions, and interactive experiences designed to inspire and empower the next generation of poultry enthusiasts. His leadership will help cultivate a welcoming and energetic environment where young participants can learn, grow, and discover their place within the world of poultry exhibitions.

We invite all members to join us to congratulate Jake as he steps into this important position. We look forward to the fresh ideas and excitement he will bring to the APA’s Annual Meets each year. We also extend our sincere appreciation to the many qualified candidates who expressed interest in serving—your dedication to youth involvement and strengthens our community.

For more information visit: Youth Ambassador Program

The post Please Welcome our New Youth Program Ambassador! appeared first on The American Poultry Association (APA).

Example: Judge Advertisement

Example: Club Page

The post Advertise in the American Poultry Association Yearbook appeared first on The American Poultry Association (APA).

Construction and design issues

Usually, each farm has its own specific structural or design issues. However, many such issues can be corrected through gradual modifications over time. The key is not to become accustomed to them. I always suggest farm managers should have some long-term plans for such issues. To give an example, I used to visit a farm that was in the middle of a forest, with no effective barrier to keep wild animals away from the breeder houses. It had always been a big challenge to maintain the demanding biosecurity protocols. The company could not afford the costs of constructing a suitable wall or even a fence around the biosecurity zone. For ten years they had been working that way, and that was considered a normal way of working. A very common mistake in every job is getting used to deficiencies! One day I asked: “Can you afford to buy a single concrete block every day?”. The big boss was confused. I continued: “What if you had bought only one concrete block every day and put them together over these ten years? That would have been around 150 meters of wall”. The main idea is that getting used to mistakes or deficiencies and allowing them to grow into a chronic pain is a big mistake. Getting used to mistakes or deficiencies will lead to considering the issues “unimportant”, while every little issue matters in our job! You may ignore it and not see a big impact in the short term, but someday, at the worst time and situation, that might ruin what you have built over the years.

Farm outdoor area order and discipline

The arrangement and cleanness of the outdoor areas of each farm can affect the farm’s overall performance. Storing excess or defective supplies and equipment around the houses is a common mistake in breeder farms, which, in addition to having an unpleasant visual impact and instilling a sense of indiscipline in the staff, increases the population of undesirable animals such as mice and other rodents, which can jeopardize the biosecurity of the farm.

Trimming and maintaining vegetation is no exception to this rule and should be scheduled regularly to prevent it from becoming a habitat for rodents and other unwanted animals.

Discipline

In many farms, most routine tasks are explained to the staff verbally and in general terms. For example, “Drinkers should be cleaned in the morning”, or “Ventilation fans should be cleaned once a week” and so on. Not specifying the time and details of the task on the one hand and the lack of written instructions and work procedures on the other causes confusion, disorganization and, of course, a haphazard implementation of tasks.

To prevent this, one of the most effective ways is to have a written or printed daily and weekly work schedule and routine, which, in addition to making it easier for the farm manager to monitor its proper implementation, will create order and discipline on the farm. When the time and details of each task are included in this plan, it creates ease and order in doing things and allows workers to focus their energy solely on doing the predetermined tasks instead of spending energy on planning things (see Zootecnica International, Sep. 2023, p. 12 for a sample of a daily schedule chart).

Feeders

I have regularly seen in farms that the workers adjust the height of feeder higher than usual to prevent the litter from entering the feeders. Although this may not significantly reduce the flock’s feed consumption in statistics, I believe it will have an impact on weaker birds, especially those nearing the broody stage, and will increase the broody rate.

To have clean feeders, you may schedule one hour with no feed during the day, which I call “zero feed hour”. I ask the farmers to manage feed distribution in such a way that there is no feed left in the feeders at a specific time, say 2-3 pm. This is when the least amount of feed is consumed and the hens are busy playing in the litter and resting. Also, most contamination of feeders with litter occurs during these hours. Zero feed hour allows you to accurately determine the feed consumption for the 24-hour period, while being able to clean the feeders accurately and thoroughly.

The level of feed in feeders is very important, especially when using mesh feed. When feeders are overstocked, the stronger birds consume the coarser feed, leaving the finer feed for the smaller and weaker ones. In addition to causing a non-uniform flock, this can cause the stronger birds (which have consumed the coarser feed) to be at a disadvantage in terms of receiving essential micronutrients, which are usually in the form of powder, and to suffer nutritional deficiencies. On the other hand, the weaker birds that have eaten more fine feed will also suffer from energy and protein deficiencies, and consequently from impaired growth during rearing and a drop or cessation of laying during production. To prevent this, the feed level in feeders should be checked at least twice a day.

I personally prefer to activate the feeder lines every hour so that fresh feed is distributed properly and fairly to the flock. That would have an extra bonus for us during the broody peak time. The sound of the feeder lines conditions the turkeys, and by starting the feeder lines every hour during the broody peak period, we can somehow encourage the flock to consume as much feed as needed. The more feed is consumed by the fatigued turkeys, the fewer broody birds we will have.

During recent years cage-free egg production systems have increased in numbers throughout Australia, and currently dominate Australian egg sales. However, with increasing consumer demand for protein, cage-free egg farming faces the challenge of meeting the increasing demand for food. Mislaid or floor eggs (FE), which are laid outside of the designated nest boxes, may limit the potential to increase productivity and are a challenge for cage-free egg farmers. This scoping survey study, which included 39 flocks, was designed to explore factors that influence FE prevalence in cage-free egg systems within Australia. The percentage of FE ranged from 0.01% to 17%. There was a notable increase in labour costs for flocks with higher levels of FE (p = 0.04). Additionally, flocks in sheds which utilised tunnel ventilation had significantly lower FE prevalence compared to sheds that used other forms of ventilation (p = 0.0127). There was a negative correlation between flock size and number of FE and, the farmer’s acceptable level of FE (r = -0.4993, p = 0.001; r = -0.4870, p = 0.001 respectively). This suggests that flock size plays an influential role in FE prevalence. Additionally, flocks experiencing higher FE values can expect it will affect labour related costs. This study emphasizes the variability of FE laying, which is affected by various factors related to the design and management of cage-free systems.

Introduction

The production of fresh table eggs plays a crucial role in meeting the global demand for food. The Australian egg industry is shifting towards cage-free systems, including free range and barn-laid systems, which accounted for 71.7% of egg sale volume in 2023 (Australian Eggs, 2023). Traditionally, caged systems can achieve a more efficient use of resources per unit of production (Sumner, 2011). Therefore, egg production in cage-free systems raises challenges for productivity and food safety compared to traditional caged systems (Sumner, 2011). Floor eggs are also a major challenge for cage-free systems. They can represent a significant loss of up to 10% of total daily egg production. They also require intensive labour for staff to encourage the movement of hens towards the nesting boxes as well as any floor egg collection (Bist et al., 2023; Brannan & Anderson, 2021; Vroegindeweij et al., 2018).

Environmental factors within sheds, such as ventilation and temperature control, can influence laying behavior and egg production. Under stressful environmental conditions (for example hot or poorly ventilated sheds), hens avoided upper levels of the shed; concurrently with a higher incidence of eggs laid on the floor areas (Biswal et al., 2022). Furthermore, small egg producers face financial constraints that limit their ability to invest in advanced monitoring and management practices, potentially exacerbating FE issues when compared to larger operations (Dhillon & Moncur, 2023; Rada & Fuglie, 2019).

Recent findings on FE in Australian flocks (Ciarelli et al., 2024) were opportunistic evaluations and not drawn from studies specifically designed to evaluate FE. Therefore, purpose-designed studies to explore possible relationships between FE and features of the cage-free systems, including breed-specific behaviours, environmental stressors, and management practices are required. By improving our understanding of factors that contribute to the incidence of FE, targeted solutions for the minimization of FE can be implemented to optimise egg production efficiency while meeting evolving consumer and regulatory expectations. Hence, a survey was designed to capture a snapshot of the current demographics of cage-free egg production in Australia. The incidence of FE together with flock size, housing system, ventilation system and the impact of FE on on-farm labour costs was ascertained.

Method

Initially mediated through Australian Eggs, a not-for-profit company providing marketing and research & development (R&D) services for Australian egg farmers each participant received an information statement about the study, an outline of the survey questions and a consent form. Once consent was received the farmer was contacted and completed a short 16 question phone-based survey that established features of the farm system and shed design, flock demographics (i.e. breed, age, size), floor-egg prevalence at peak lay and flock health status.

Survey responses were entered into REDCap, a secure web application for building and managing online surveys and databases. Each farm and flock had a unique identifier. Data were separated by flock, i.e. where a farm had multiple flocks, a separate survey was completed for each flock. Farms were not identifiable in the output and the original data is encrypted and stored securely in REDCap. The survey responses were tabulated automatically using REDCap ’Data Export’ function. T-tests, correlation and regression equations were generated using SPSS. The data are presented as mean values ± standard error of means. Statistical significance is set at p < 0.05.

Results

This study encapsulated data from 39 flocks within Australia. Their locations included New South Wales (n = 29), Queensland (n = 5), Tasmania (n = 2) and Western Australia (n = 3). Among these 39 flocks, the majority identified as a free-range system (n = 31) followed by cage-free (n = 2) and pasture (n = 2). The production system was not identified for 4 flocks. There were 3 hen breeds being Hy-Line Brown (n = 15), Lohmann Brown (n = 5) and ISA Brown (n =19). There was no significant difference between FE prevalence (%) for the three breeds (p = 0.49) (Table 1). Flock size varied, ranging from 200 to 33300 hens.

The percentage of floor eggs at peak lay ranged between 0.01–17%, with a mean of 3.53% and median 2.49%. The level of floor eggs at peak lay that the farmer identified as being acceptable ranged from 0.20-10%, with a mean of 4.48% and median 2.00%.

Across the 39 flocks, 9 (23%) experienced an increase in labour costs due to the level of floor eggs, with no effect on labour costs in the remaining 30 flocks (p = 0.04). The average incidence of FE in the former was 5.95%, and 2.81% in the latter.

When flock size was broken into quartiles (Q) from smallest to largest, the occurrence of FE at peak lay was; Q1 = 7.20%, Q2 = 3.77, Q3 = 1.70 and Q4 = 1.26%, illustrating a negative correlation of FE with flock size (y = 6.1268-0.0002*x; 0.95 confidence interval, r = -.50, p = 0.001) (Table 1). That is, as FE at peak lay increased, flock size decreased. Similarly, the level of FE at peak lay considered to be acceptable by the farmer had a negative correlation with flock size (y = 18850.8718-2261.5721*x; 0.95 confidence interval, r = -0.49, p = 0.001). That is, the acceptable level of FE at peak lay increased as flock size decreased.

The type of shed ventilation impacted the level of FE. Specifically, flocks in sheds which were ventilated tunnel (mechanical) had significantly lower FE prevalence compared to sheds that were ventilated by other mechanisms (P = 0.0127) (Table 1).

Discussion

Consistent with other research this study found the proportion of FE from cage-free egg-production systems to vary significantly between 0.01-17%. Earlier scientific evidence from Dorminey et al. (1970) reported large variation in FE of the same flock, ranging from 3.5 up to 22.9%. Hence, to maintain consistency between flocks the level of FE at peak lay was used in this survey. The variability in the levels of FE is likely due to multifaceted factors including the design and management of a cage-free system.

As flock size increased, FE prevalence and the level of FE that was acceptable to the farmer also decreased. For the flocks involved in this survey, the larger flocks had lower incidence of FE (p = 0.005). Smaller enterprises, in contrast, may face challenges in managing FE due to more limited finances for investment in data collection, technology and research (Oliveira et al., 2022). This can also result in less stringent monitoring and fewer interventions for the minimization of FE (Blasch et al., 2022; Mizik, 2022). Overall, adaptability, research, and technology play crucial roles in egg production efficiency, with larger farms benefiting from better resources and more rigorous data collection practices.

It is not surprising that the farming operations that reported an increase in labour costs to address FE also reported higher levels of FE than those that did not experience an increase in costs due to FE. Other research supports this notion as FE must be collected manually, which is labour intensive and time consuming, creating a financial burden for the business (Chai et al., 2023). Additionally, collecting eggs can account for up to 37% of the work of a farm hand (Matthews & Sumner, 2015). Oliveira et al. (2019) indicated that 5% FE is not uncommon in a cage-free system, while others report 10% (Chai et al., 2023), or as high as 28% (Ciarelli et al., 2024). Therefore, FE are a cost to the farming operation, in both direct costs and lost product.

Flocks housed in sheds with mechanical tunnel ventilation produced less FE. Tunnel ventilation maintains a lower temperature during hotter ambient climates compared to naturally ventilated sheds (Silva et al., 2013), and the airflow facilitates convective heat loss from the surface of the bird’s body (Tong et al., 2019). Without appropriate ventilation, the presence of heat stress has detrimental consequences on a bird’s productive efficiency, health and welfare (Biswal et al., 2022). Under conditions of heat stress birds will prioritise biological functioning, and thermoregulation to reduce their core body temperature (Farag & Alagawany, 2018), spending less time walking and using enrichments (i.e. perches and ramps) and more time drinking and resting (Biswal et al., 2022). This can increase the likelihood of FE as birds utilise the floor areas and avoid more elevated areas including the nesting boxes.

This survey is the first phase of a larger study designed to identify solutions for the mitigation of FE in cage-free egg production systems. A subsequent, more in-depth survey of these flocks is currently being undertaken, with results to follow.

Acknowledgement: we thank Australian Eggs for funding this project and the egg farmers that participated in the survey

From the proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium 2025, by courtesy of the Professor Ruby Putt.

References

Australian Eggs (2023) Australian Eggs. Retrieved 20/09/2024 from https://www.australianeggs.org.au/egg-industry

Bist RB, Yang X, Subedi S & Chai L (2023) Poultry Science 102: 1027-1029.

Biswal J, Vijayalakshmy K, Bhattacharya TK & Rahman H (2022) World Poultry Science Journal 78: 179-196.

Blasch J, van der Kroon B, van Beukering P, Munster R, Fabiani S, Nino P & Vanino S (2022) European Review of Agricultural Economics 49: 33-81.

Brannan KE & Anderson KE (2021) Journal of Applied Poultry Research 30: 1001-1018.

Chai L, Dunkley C & Ritzs C (2023) University of Georgia Extension. 1: 1-6.

Ciarelli C, Groves PJ & Muir WI (2024) Journal of Applied Poultry Research 33: 1004-1064.

Dhillon R & Moncur Q (2023) Sustainability 15: 154-178.

Dorminey RW, Parker JE & McCluskey WH (1970) Poultry Science 49: 1657-1661.

Farag MR & Alagawany M (2018) Journal of Thermal Biology 76: 101-106.

Oliveria LSN, Garcia RG, Burbarelli MFC, Dutra FM, Binott E, Nooriller RM, Basaia DCK, Machad MV, Komiyama CM & Caldara FR (2022) Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 24: 1-8.

Matthews WA & Sumner DA (2015) Poultry Science 94: 552-557.

Mizik T (2022) Precision Agriculture 24: 384-406.

Oliveira JL, Xin HW, Chai LL & Millman ST (2019) Poultry Science 98: 1664-1677.

Rada NE & Fuglie KO (2019) Food Policy 84: 147-152.

Silva GF, Pereira DF, Bueno LGF, Santos TS & Tavares, BO (2013) Italian Journal of Animal Science 12: 286-294.

Sumner DA, Gow H, Hayes D, Matthews W, Norwood B, Rosen-Molina & Thurman W (2011) Poultry Science 90: 241-250.

Tong XJ, Hong SW & Zhao LY (2019) Biosystems Engineering 178: 275-293.

Vroegindeweij BA, Blaauw SK, Ijsselmuiden JMM & Van Henten EJ (2018) Biosystems Engineering 174: 295-315.