Research

The February 2011 issue of the CPRC update introduced a new avian influenza (AI) research program, initiated as part of the Poultry Science Cluster.* Since that time, scientists from across the country have been working collaboratively to answer the following questions about AI:

How does AI virus adapt?

Certain subtypes of AI virus have moved beyond their natural reservoir of wild birds and have developed the ability to infect domestic poultry, sometimes with devastating results. To better understand the biological basis for this adaptation, Dr. Yohannes Berhane and his team at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) are using modern molecular biology techniques to, in essence, tear apart and reassemble the viral genomes in different configurations in order to mimic mutations observed in the field. Many so-called “re-assortment” AI viruses have been developed and characterized. These studies are revealing how the virus induces immune responses and causes disease in chickens.

How is it transmitted?

Avian influenza viruses are mainly transmitted by direct bird-to-bird contact and by contact with virus-contaminated materials; however, indirect contact or airborne transmission has been implicated in a number of AI outbreaks. By studying aerosolized viruses in carefully controlled experiments in the lab, as well as under commercial conditions, Dr. Jiewen Guan’s lab, also at CFIA, has confirmed that infectious viruses can be transmitted to chickens from the air and from other chickens through indirect contact. The amount of virus required to cause infection through indirect contact is surprisingly small. The results of this research have important implications for how AI is spread.

How does the chicken react?

Dr. Shayan Sharif at the University of Guelph is the lead on research that continues to produce new information on chicken immune responses to AI virus infection and to a commercial vaccine (not approved for use in Canada). Dr. Sharif’s team has identified components of the virus that elicit the greatest immune responses and may, therefore, be suitable components to include in vaccines. A number of molecules that act as adjuvants (immune system boosters) have also been identified that could improve the efficacy of these vaccines.

Is vaccination a viable  strategy?

One of the main goals of the overall research program is to develop a rational strategy to control AI infection in commercial poultry. Such a strategy may include vaccination. Dr. Éva Nagy and her team at the University of Guelph have developed a vaccine system, based on fowl adenovirus (FAdV), that can deliver AI virus antigens to the bird, and that can be administered via injection in the egg pre-hatch, or given orally in feed or water. Dr. Sharif’s group developed a different type of vaccine, based on what is known as a virosome, which can elicit protective immune responses against AI virus.

Dr. Dele Ogunremi and his team of researchers at CFIA have been working with Drs. Nagy and Sharif to assess various administration routes for candidate vaccine systems. The plan is to build upon the foundation laid by this research and to develop a strategy that combines virosome and FAdV-based vaccines. These two vaccines should complement and synergize each other, leading to enhanced protection against infection.

Furthermore, several adjuvants will be screened for their ability to further enhance vaccine efficacy. Candidate vaccine formulations will be tested against a range of low pathogenicity or highly pathogenic AI viruses using various routes of administration to determine which is most protective and practically feasible for the purpose of mass vaccination. It is expected that this research will lead to the creation of vaccine formulations that can mitigate the negative health effects of AI and control spread of the virus from vaccinated and infected birds.

*This research is part of the 2010-13 Poultry Science Cluster, which is supported by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada as part of Growing Forward, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative. CPRC and a number of industry and government organizations also provided funding for this work.

For more details on these or any other CPRC activities, please contact The Canadian Poultry Research Council, 350 Sparks Street, Suite 1007, Ottawa, Ont., K1R 7S8. Phone: 613-566-5916, Fax: 613-241-5999, e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , or visit us at www.cp-rc.ca.

Published in Biosecurity
Mar. 28, 2013 - A strain of probiotic bacteria that can fight harmful bacterial infections in poultry has the ability to change its coat, according to new findings from the Institute of Food Research.

The probiotic is currently being taken forward through farm-scale trials to evaluate how well it combats Clostridium perfringens – a cause of necrotic enteritis in poultry and the second most common cause of food poisoning in the UK

The researchers at IFR, which is strategically funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, had previously found that the probiotic Lactobacillus johnsonsii, when given to young chicks, prevents the colonisation of C. perfringens. Now, in research published in the journal PLOS ONE, they have found that the probiotic bacteria have the ability to alter their coat. They speculate that this could be one way in which the probiotic outcompete C. perfringens.

The researchers noticed when examining the bacteria that a small number of them appear smooth. They identified genes responsible for making a special coat, or slime capsule, which the bacteria surround themselves in. This protects the bacteria from stomach acids and bile salts, and helps them come together to form biofilms. It may also protect against drying out when outside the host. The natural appearance of smooth mutants could be a ploy used by the bacteria to introduce variation into its populations, making them able to take advantage of different environments.

By turning off one or more of the coat genes, they could see what effect this had on its ability to stick to gut tissues. "The next step is to understand the regulation of the genes involved in making the coat" said Dr Arjan Narbad, who led the studies. "We want to find out whether changing the coat affects the probiotic's fitness to colonise and inhabit the gut."

This in turn could prevent C. perfringens from colonising the gut. This competitive exclusion could be one reason why the probiotic strain prevents the growth of other harmful bacteria.

Understanding the role of the slime capsule coat will inform the commercial development of this strain as a preventative treatment for C. perfringens infection in poultry, especially in regard to how the probiotic is stored and produced. Through the technology transfer company Plant Bioscience Ltd, the strain has been patented and is now in large-scale farm trials to assess its efficacy. As these bacteria have previously been used in the food chain and are considered safe for human consumption, this probiotic strain could become new way of controlling C. perfringens.

As there is a growing pressure to reduce the use of antibiotics in farming, new products are needed to maintain animal welfare standards, reduce the huge costs of necrosis in poultry and help keep our food safe.
Published in Genetics

Mar. 26, 2013, Washington, DC - Until now most experimental vaccines against the highly lethal H5N1 avian influenza virus have lacked effectiveness. But a new vaccine has proven highly effective against the virus when tested in both mice and ferrets. It is also effective against the H9 subtype of avian influenza.

The research is published online ahead of print in the Journal of Virology. The strength of the new vaccine is that it uses attenuated, rather than "killed" virus. (Killed viruses are broken apart with chemicals or heat, and they are used because they are safer than attenuated viruses.) Killed virus vaccines against avian influenza are injected into the bloodstream, whereas this vaccine is given via nasal spray, thus mimicking the natural infection process, stimulating a stronger immune response.

The danger of current attenuated virus vaccines is that they might exchange dangerous genetic material with garden variety influenza viruses of the sort that strike annually, potentially rendering a lethal but very hard to transmit influenza virus, such as H5, easily transmissible among humans. To mitigate those dangers, the study authors, led by Daniel Perez of the University of Maryland, came up with an ingenious design. Influenza viruses carry their genetic material in eight "segments," explains coauthor and University of Maryland colleague Troy Sutton. When viruses reassort, they exchange segments. But each segment is unique, all eight are needed, and the viruses are unfit if they contain more than eight segments.

The vaccine is based on an attenuated version of the H9 virus, with an H5 gene added into one of the H9 virus' segments, to confer immunity to the H5 virus. Segment 8, which is composed of the so-called NS1 and NS2 genes, was split apart, and the NS2 gene was moved into segment 2, adjacent to the polymerase gene, which copies the virus' genetic material during replication. Placing NS2 next to the polymerase gene slowed its function, interfering with the virus' replication. That makes the vaccine safer.

The next step was to engineer the H5 gene into the vaccine. It was inserted into segment 8, where the NS2 gene had been.

Another aspect of the new vaccine's design makes it safer still, by rendering successful reassortment less likely. Both NS1 and NS2 are needed for viral replication. Since the two genes are now separated into different segments, any reassortment will have to include both segments, instead of just segment 8, in order for a reassortant virus to be viable. This greatly reduced the probability of successful reassortment.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes avian influenza subtypes H5, H7, and H9 as potential pandemic viruses, because they all have in rare instances infected humans, and because they circulate in wild birds. Single reassortants could be sufficient to breach the species barrier, and since they do not circulate among us, we lack any immunity. Moreover, H5 is unusually lethal, having killed roughly half of those few it is confirmed to have infected.

A copy of manuscript can be found online at http://bit.ly/asmtip0313d. The paper is scheduled for formal publication in the second May 2013 issue of the Journal of Virology.

Published in Turkeys

Forecasting how many broiler breeders we need to supply customer orders is a critical part of an efficient, profitable business.  So is being able to take full advantage of the genetic potential of today’s breeds.

One critical part of the process, converting hatching eggs to chicks, is vitally important and some practical steps to help accomplish this can be quite helpful.  There are three things to focus on: egg quality, effective hatchery management and chick quality.

Egg quality

The first stage is monitoring the quality of the egg pack coming into the hatchery and maintaining this quality before incubation. But what is allowed into the hatchery?  

Be sure to evaluate the egg pack for size, dirt, cracks, deformities, double yolks, inverted placement and uniformity.

Standards within hatcheries should be made to ensure consistent quality and all departments must follow it.  All these criteria, if not measured against standards, can negatively impact results.  

In addition, egg quality can also be influenced by:  

  • Size – a chick’s weight is usually 67- 68 per cent of its original egg weight (multistage incubation), so a small egg results in a small chick.  Chicks below the minimum size will dehydrate very rapidly after hatch.  
  • Dirty eggs – can result in severe bacterial contamination, which could result in eggs exploding at transfer or omphalitis in baby chicks.
  • Cracked eggs – do not hatch, but eggs with micro-cracks will hatch around 50 per cent of the expected rate and all chicks that hatch will be culls.  
  • Deformed eggs – can cause the chicks to mal-position, which in turn reduces hatch and chick quality.  
  • Double yolks – should be culled.  
  • Inverted eggs – will hatch approximately 40 per cent of the expected rate and the chicks produced will be culls.
  • Uniformity of air flow – if present throughout the incubators, the hatch window decreases and will allow for a much more efficient pull time.  

Next, a good egg holding program should be implemented from the farm to the incubator.  The temperature of an egg at lay is approximately 40oC  (104oF).   From there, egg temperatures should decrease and increase following a perfect ‘V’ pattern, with the lowest temperatures occurring at the hatchery. 

Starting on the farm at 40oC (104oF), the egg temperatures may fall to typically 20oC (68oF) in the hatchery, and then rise again to incubation at 37.6oC (99.7oF).  It is extremely important that egg temperatures do not fluctuate away from the V-shaped pattern.  

Temperature fluctuations will cause embryonic mortality and loss of hatch.  The temperature is all the egg holding areas must be monitored – the breeder house, breeder house egg room, transportation to the hatchery, hatchery egg storage and pre-warming.

Effective hatchery management

There are four important programs to use in a hatchery: quality assurance, set-transfer-to-pull, sanitation and preventive maintenance.

A quality assurance program consists of egg assessment as already described, embryo diagnosis and chick quality assessment.  Monitoring these three components correctly is a hatchery manager’s most valuable tool.

Egg assessment can tell what is going into our incubators, embryo diagnosis will troubleshoot hatch problems and chick quality assessment will determine how well incubation and hatchery programs are working via examinations of percentages of hatch, fertility and hatch of fertile.  This will enable us to diagnose problems and effect solutions.  

Additionally, when performing an embryo diagnosis, it is important to be accurate and consistent so the results can be used as an information tool.  This can identify certain problem incubators or rooms, and certain days when issues occur.

Set-transfer-to-pull

Our target is 504 hours of incubation — exactly 21 days. As an example, if the eggs are set at 5:00 am, then they should be ready to pull 21 days later at 5:00 am.  If we are under or over this target, then we have problems during incubation.  

The hatch window should be targeted at 33 hours or less (multistage) from first to last chick.  The shorter the hatch window, the better the chick quality will be.

Transfer should take place between set and pull, where eggs are taken out of the setter and the egg flat and put into the hatcher and hatcher trays, and be smooth and efficient. Eggs should not be left out for a prolonged length of time. 

Additionally, extreme care should be taken to prevent cracked eggs, which are especially important when moving eggs into the hatcher.

Changing set time, transfer time or pull time will affect the baby chick.  Be careful before altering this plan — know the cause and effect before making a change, since eggs cannot be set on a random schedule.  Rather, strict programs must be implemented and followed to maintain quality and control.

Sanitation

Hatcheries should be cleaned and disinfected continuously.  The most important task is removing all organic material before disinfecting, which can hide in corners, under racks, on wheels and in any crack or crevice in a setter or hatcher. 

All material has to be removed; otherwise the presence of organic material will reduce the efficacy of disinfectant products to sanitize the surface area.

Be sure to use disinfection products effective against the challenge specific to the hatchery.  A sensitivity test can be performed at your own or a local laboratory to identify the products, which are most effective against your specific bacteria or mold challenge.

Good air quality is also one of the best disinfectants available.  It is important to ventilate and pressurize the hatchery correctly, which not only satisfies the oxygen requirements of embryos and chicks, but also prevents cross contamination.

Remember, too, that transport vehicles, which handle eggs or chicks, need to be part of the hatchery sanitation program.

Preventive maintenance

There are three kinds of maintenance: predictive, preventive and reactive. Reactive maintenance costs more than preventive maintenance, which costs more than predictive.  

Since incubators run continuously, an incubator simply cannot be allowed to fail.  If it does, it can be repaired, but all embryos in the incubator will have been affected. Therefore, programs should be in place to ensure incubator failures do not happen.

Predictive maintenance can be, and often is, overlooked, but it can be very useful, as it can tell from the lifespan of a piece of equipment or component when it should be replaced. Preventive maintenance  — a great tool for budgeting — depends on checklists for the incubator and hatchery equipment and, if followed correctly, costly breakdowns can be minimized.  

In all hatchery areas, temperature, humidity and pressure should also be monitored and calibrated for consistency at all times so incubators and ventilators can cycle properly.

Chick quality

While seven-day mortality is generally a good measure of chick quality, it is a lagging indicator.  Often, when we hear of high seven-day mortality, the first action is to go back into the hatchery and retrace programs and procedures, but that is too late. A chick quality assessment in the hatchery needs to be in place beforehand to ensure good chick quality going to the farm.  

It is also important to score chicks before they leave the hatchery.  Evaluate red hocks, navels (open unhealed navels), heat buttons (navel has closed before the yolk was fully absorbed) and dehydration.  There are different scoring systems that can provide a great tool for assessing different incubators if done correctly, and will show when a trend line starts to go negative.  Besides, it also provides another indicator for how well your preventive maintenance program is working.  

Chick temperatures

Rectal temperatures of baby chicks need to be taken at several time points: before pull, during chick processing, chick holding and at delivery.  Temperatures need to be monitored to make sure they stay around the ideal range of 40oC (104oF).  

Variance from the target temperature will affect broiler performance – chicks will not start properly.

Using a step-down temperature program and increasing airflow through the hatcher will help keep chicks from overheating, provided all your best management practices are in place and temperatures are monitored in the hatcher, separator room, chick room and transportation.

Pre-pull assessment

The pre-pull assessment can be done at different times to make sure programs are in place and working properly.  Twelve hours before pull, 70-80 per cent of chicks should be completely hatched (out of the shell, but can still be wet).  

Another time for pre-pull assessment is 24 hours before pull, where there should be less than 30 per cent hatched. And while performing a 12-hour pre-pull, it is a good time to monitor rectal temperatures.  The target percentage of chicks hatched is according to the expected hatch percentage, not eggs in the tray.  For example, if the tray contains 162 eggs and the flock expected hatch is 87 per cent, then there will be 141 chicks out when the hatch is complete.  At 12 hours pre pull, 99 chicks (70 per cent of 141) will be in the tray.

Critical to meeting goals is having the correct standards in place and achieving them – from the incoming egg pack to the chick delivered to the broiler house.   Remember to confirm that what you think you have is actually what you have. 

Good management practices, and proper implementation of programs and standards, will help ensure maximum hatch efficiency and deliver consistently good chick quality.

Published in Breeders

Hen management is one of the most difficult areas that has been discussed or looked at in the 30-plus years that I have been involved in the poultry industry. And it does not appear to be getting any easier.

The most difficult part to achieve is to be sure that the reduction in feed to the female takes place at the correct time, so as not to affect the egg mass and therefore production. It is important that farmers maintain control of egg size in the later stages of life, since studies have shown that it can affect production, shell quality and fertility – which can ultimately reduce the number of chicks per hen housed.

Therefore, the goal of the producer should be to keep eggs from becoming too large, but keep track and control the flock’s production.

In this article, we will touch on areas that can possibly help control hen egg size by doing quick daily checks, as well as tabulating weekly egg size averages for your flock.

Nutritional effects

Nutritional specification can partially control egg size, but it should be balanced with making sure that the birds receive the correct nutrition needed to maximize peak egg production during its peak egg mass.

“The most important nutrients for control of egg size are linoleic acid, protein and specific amino acids,” according to Emma Fleming, the Technical Transfer Manager for Aviagen Inc. “Reducing the level of one, or a combination of these nutrients, in the diet will or can reduce egg size. However, this type of reduction is not recommended much before 40 weeks of age as this can reduce egg production (egg mass). Therefore an introduction of a second stage breeder diet at approximately 45 weeks of lay has been beneficial in some flocks in helping to control late egg size but in some cases it may be already too late.”

Reducing the linoleic acid content of the hen’s diet could be beneficial, but it is worth noting that this is more difficult to achieve in maize-based diets than in wheat-based diets. Lowering the total protein in the diet may also help, but a reduction in dietary protein can also reduce egg numbers as well as egg size (see Figure 1).

But, the most significant amino acid affecting egg weight is methionine, and reducing it can help in controlling late egg size. However, it must be repeated again that there is a fine balance between supporting persistent egg production and controlling late egg size when altering nutrient concentrations in the feed.

Therefore, while it is possible to control late egg size by manipulating nutrition, such an approach should be exercised with caution to minimize adversely affecting egg production.

An effective tool to help stay on a consistently balanced diet but control egg size is to calculate the energy available from your feed, as well as your weekly production rate of decline after peak production, which is based on the grams of feed being fed to the bird weekly.

When the flock has reached its peak and starts to show a decline in egg mass, the hen is very close to the optimal time for feed reduction. With constant monitoring, you can help control egg size and keep production more stable during her weekly declines in production (see Figure 2).

 Figure2
Figure 2 – A bird showing the various stages of egg production.


One of the largest issues in egg production for the female is stress – namely water, nutrition, light and disease. The effects can be dramatic or very slight, but it will be noticeable if you are recording weights.

To troubleshoot flocks that are showing issues with their production and egg sizes, the FLAW (Feed, Lights, Air and Water) system can be incredibly useful.

Feed = Change every four days as a nutritional response.
Light = Alter every 10 days as a response to egg size, but it may result in short-term weight loss as well as long-term egg size gain. This has not been seen in all flocks, but has been noted in the past.
Air = Change every 24 – 48 hrs. For every two degrees below 65 degrees, you can lose approximately 8 k/cal of energy solely in the feed.
Water = Be sure to change every 24 hrs.

Start of production

But how do we maximize the accuracy of weighing eggs?

  • Always weigh eggs same time every day.
  • Only weigh gathered eggs, excluding double yolk eggs.
  • Always weigh the eggs in the same place, and never on another table or belt.

Be sure to weigh eggs a full tray at a time if possible, and be sure to use a light tray – I always used the fiber tray, as they are light and most scales can handle that weight and still be accurate.

If you weigh the eggs in a different place every time, there will be no consistency to your egg weights, you will lose accuracy and confuse the egg weight data on how your flock is doing.

It is also important to weigh at least 90 eggs per day (or approximately three trays) to give an accurate egg weight measurement. Remember to also average out the weight to an individual egg average at the end of the week. If sending eggs to a hatchery, only weigh those eggs in order to receive an accurate starting measurement.

Once your eggs have been weighed and averaged, how do you make adjustments to your feed based on egg size? 

As long as you have been collecting the data on a weekly basis, when the birds arrive at 23 weeks of age, a simple calculation can be done: Egg weight X Production % = Egg mass.

Calculation examples

For example, at age 30 weeks, a flock has an observed average egg weight of 59 grams with a production percentage of 88 per cent. Therefore, using the formula above, the egg mass peak equals 51.92 grams.

Once the flock has hit its peak egg mass and you observe a drop in production and an egg weight increase the following week, it may be time to reduce the feed on the flock.

Continuing with the above example, if the production drops to 87 per cent and the egg weight goes to 59.5 grams during the second week, the peak egg mass will drop to 51.76. 

Looking at the reduction, a decision must be made based on the energy of your breeder feed and the amount the
production dropped that week. To do this, you first must know the energy of your feed, and for this example, we will use 2850 k/cal. 

To calculate the energy per bird you must take your feed rate per bird and multiply it to the energy of your feed per bird.
Example: 159 grams per bird X 2.850 energy of feed per bird = 453 k/cal of energy per bird being fed at week 31.

Feed Reduction examples

If your production drops one per cent at the end of week: Take the drop in production from that week (1 per cent) and multiply by 1.8 k/cal, which gives 1.8 k/cal to be reduced for that week.

453 k/cal – 1.8 k/cal = 451.2 k/cal per bird. 

When 451.2 is divided by 2.850 energy of feed (based on the energy in the feed being supplied to the flock), you get 158.32 grams per bird. Therefore, you were feeding 159 grams initially, so the next week you should only be feeding only 158.32 grams (a drop in feed rate of .68 grams of feed per bird for that week based on the drop in production and energy required).

What if your production drops two percent at the end of a week? 

Take the production drop percentage and multiple by 1.8 k/cal to get 3.6 k/cal of energy to be reduced per bird.

Therefore: 453 k/cal – 3.6 k/cal = 449.4 k/cal per bird.

Finally, if you divide 2.850 energy of feed from 449.4 kcal/bird, you end up with a total of 157.68 grams per bird, a total drop in feed rate of 1.31 grams per bird.

Conclusion

It needs to be pointed out that while 1.8 k/cal is a constant base energy value number, all the other values can change based on egg weight, production of the flock and the energy in your feed ration.

This calculation should be done on a weekly basis to tell when it is time to start reducing or increasing feed and by how much. In essence, you are letting the production of the flock and the energy of your feed dictate how much should be reduced on any given week. 

It should be noted that it is possible to notice egg weight improvements by simply weighing the eggs, watching the trends and keeping an eye out for flaws in production. 

There are no silver bullets in this industry that are a given, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Published in Eggs - Breeders

Poultry producers understand that the success of their industry depends on the health and wellbeing of their flocks – and they have always been committed to giving their poultry what they need to thrive. Historically, those needs have been defined under parameters such as production performance and freedom from disease. Significant strides continue to be made in both of those areas, but there is also growing interest in understanding how the welfare of poultry is impacted by the production systems in which they are placed and what birds need to further enhance their welfare. A thorough understanding of this impact becomes increasingly important as concern for the welfare of food animals continues to rise in Canada and around the world.

Welfare in the poultry industry is consistently identified as a major research area and has been included in the “National Research Strategy for Canada’s Poultry Sector” (for a copy of this document, search for “strategy” in the CPRC website). In response to a need for a more coordinated poultry welfare research program, the Poultry Welfare Centre was established in 2009 as part of a four-way agreement between the CPRC, Poultry Industry Council, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and the University of Guelph. A lot has been going on at the Centre ever since, both in terms of capacity building and research activities.

Dr. Stephanie Torrey, an AAFC Research Scientist co-located at the Centre is leading a team of researchers from Guelph, Saskatchewan and the Scottish Agricultural College in investigating the welfare and production implications of alternative broiler breeder feeding strategies. Successful implementation of this research could allow the industry to preserve the reproductive potential of its breeder stock, while mitigating the welfare impacts of restricted feeding.

Dr. Tina Widowski, a professor in the Department of Animal & Poultry Science at Guelph, was named the Egg Farmers of Canada Research Chair in Poultry Welfare in 2011. She is involved in a number of research programs, one of which is looking at the effects of the rearing experience and housing system of parent laying hens. The program examines the behaviour and stress susceptibility of their offspring to determine if these epigenetic effects differ among commercial strains.

A recent addition to the Centre is Dr. Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek, who moved in January to Guelph from the University of Bern, Switzerland, and is interested in continuing her past work on feather pecking in laying hens. She is embarking on a study to determine if common commercial strains of layers differ in locomotory skill development and their ability to adapt to complex production environments, such as aviaries. Results from this research, coupled with those from Dr. Widowski’s work, will help the layer industry select birds that are appropriate for the production system in which they are placed and adjust management practices to help prepare young birds for those environments. Drs. Harlander-Matauschek, Torrey and Widowski are also collaborating on a study looking at the impact of ammonia on the welfare of layers, broilers and turkeys.

These are just a few examples of the research led by members of the Poultry Welfare Centre, who also help teach and train the welfare scientists of the future. The Welfare Centre is part of a larger group at Guelph known as the Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare (CCSAW; Dr. Widowski is the Director) including 40 associated faculty members with expertise ranging from biological sciences to humanities and economics. The CCSAW is the largest group of its type in North America and is an extremely valuable resource that fosters collaboration and information exchange among researchers from all across Canada and beyond.

Behaviour and welfare science is an essential part of Canada’s poultry research strategy and researchers at the Poultry Welfare Centre are working with scientists across the country in all aspects of animal research to help us understand what our poultry need and how best to provide it.

For more details on these or any other CPRC activities, please contact The Canadian Poultry Research Council, 350 Sparks Street, Suite 1007, Ottawa, Ont., K1R 7S8, phone: 613- 566-5916, fax: 613-241-5999, e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , or visit us at www.cp-rc.ca.


The membership of the CPRC consists of Chicken Farmers of Canada, Canadian Hatching Egg Producers, Turkey Farmers of Canada, Egg Farmers of Canada and the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors’ Council. CPRC’s mission is to address its members’ needs through dynamic leadership in the creation and implementation of programs for poultry research in Canada, which may also include societal concerns.

Published in Turkeys

Hens are going to become more feminine. Science applied to feeding of poultry is going to make them that way. Main reason why every chicken farmer will love these hens with the extra feminine touch is that they will produce 20 percent more eggs without added feed cost. But this isn't all – pullets will attain peak egg production three weeks ahead of what is now considered normal.

The period of maximum laying is lengthened from 30 to 90 days, according to indications at the end of a full year's experiments. And by stimulation of feminine characteristics in the old hen that has almost ceased to lay at all, she can be restored to within 10 percent of egg production during her pullet year.

The poultryman with this magic control of what goes on in his henhouse will be enabled to hold early-hatched birds over periods of better egg prices as profitable laying members of this flock. He can increase the paying productive period of each of his birds from six to eight months – how much longer is not definitely known. The period of moult in his chickens can be shortened to an average of 31 days per bird, instead of 60 to 90-day moult normally experienced, maintaining 60 percent production from the birds even during moulting.

Key to the almost unbelievably advantageous state of affairs is a hormone. Scientists have known, of course, that hormones account for manifestations of dominant sex traits. They had proved this, even in chickens, by various laboratory methods, including injections, and to varying degrees of success – or its lack. It was conceded generally to be so costly that use of hormone materials in commercial poultry production would be impossible.

Topping more than 35 years' research by other scientists with 12 years' intensive work of his own, an Italian biologist developed feed materials rich in hormones derived from natural sources through special compounding and methods of processing. The discoveries of Professor Antonia Morosoni, formerly assistant to the chief at the Legal Medicinal Institute, University of Palermo, Sicily, were acclaimed widely by various European universities, ministries of agriculture, and numerous scientific organizations.

Satisfying preliminary requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture with European tests of his research, Professor Morosini arranged for limited production of his hormone feeds by a feed company at Lakeland, Fla.

Since a revolutionary type of feed is basis for such astounding claims for improvements in poultry production, it might be said appropriately that "proof of the pudding is in the eating." That's exactly what commercial flocks at Benton's Poultry Farm, on Route 8, near Tampa, have been doing since June 20, 1949.

In tests, under actual commercial poultry farming conditions, that are rounding out a full year this month, practical poultry husbandry has been under the management of Howard C. Benton, Scientific collaborator in tests of the hormone poultry feeds is Dr. C. D. Gordon, former USDA poultry co-ordinator, Washington, D.C., conductor of research in poultry genetics at Auburn University, and recently director for four years at Chinsegut Hill federal experiment station near Brooksville.

First test at Benton's farm involved a pen of 100 pullets three weeks old. To establish a control, the pen was replicated by another with an equal number of birds selected on a family basis. Management involving vaccination, housing, sanitation, etc., was identical for each pen. Feed for both pens was of comparable quality, and feeding was in strict accordance with manufacturers' directions. Only difference is that feed for birds in the test pen contained hormones.

At five months of age, each individual bird in both pens was checked for weight. Birds on hormone feed test averaged more than eight ounces heavier than birds of the check or control pen. The test birds showed more apparent female characteristics in their development and laid their first egg three weeks ahead of the controls. Eggs produced by hormone-fed birds were consistently heavier than those produced by the other birds even six months after laying started – which was one year after the experiment began.

A pen of 100 pedigreed New Hampshires between five and six months old was replicated to establish control for the second test. Six months after the test began; chickens on hormone feed were continuing to lay 20 percent more eggs than the control birds on standard feed. Eggs produced by hormone-fed chickens were larger by 1 to 1 ½ oz. per dozen than eggs laid by the control birds on standard feed. This test is being continued indefinitely to determine how long hormones feed will prove effective and what its ultimate effect will be both on the birds and their productivity.

Chickens in a third test were from a group of 26 pedigreed New Hampshires that had been entered in the Florida National Egg Laying Contest at Chipley, Fla. During 50 weeks of the contest, these hens laid 5,721 eggs. But during the last month of the contest they laid only 179 eggs; and by the time they were returned to the farm, egg production was negligible. The hens were put n hormone feed for 30 days. In the next month, November, these hens laid 292 eggs. This is a sharp contrast to normal conditions under which contest hens, commercially worn out and in forced moult due to shock from change and travel, were practically out of production. During January, after being on the hormone feed 90 days, this group of hens laid 357 eggs.

Summarising the records involving hens in this test, 26 birds laid an average of 219.2 eggs per bird during 350 days. Following this performance, 21 of the same birds averaged 97.5 eggs each in 180 days. What this means is that hens normally useless and out of production have been able to maintain a 53.9 percent production on hormone feed, although they were seven months older than at the end of the egg-laying contest at Chipley and a year older than at their peak of production reached during the contest.

As of May 1, these hens had been laying 18 months. This apparently proves that hormone feeding enables the poultryman to keep old hens – even when they are 27 months old – as profitable producers in the laying flock. Lifetime production of the birds reported in this test is 339.7 eggs per bird average. This is 52.5 percent production – and the poultryman whose flock does that well makes money. This test also is being continued indefinitely.

Although Florida investigators wish to make no specific claims at this time, it seems as though knowing how to develop feminine hens places them nearer to solution of the age-old mystery of sex predetermination. European research indicates that chickens fed hormone feeds and selected for families showing high feminine reaction to hormone stimuli can be bred to produce fertile eggs that will hatch up to 80 percent pullets – instead of the normal 48 percent.

The theory applied to limited experiments in Florida so far has shown maximum of 60 percent pullets in one hatch, with an average of better than 52 percent. Practical interpretation of this is that some day poultrymen may have a new strain of baby chicks that are feminine to the last feather, because mamma and grandma ate hormone feed; and they'll grow into super egg producers. – "Poultry Digest."

Published in Research

Mar. 7, 2013, Guelph, ON - Corn could offer a solution to vision problems that many people face as they age, according to a new study from the University of Guelph.

Researchers at Guelph bred a new strain of corn to contain the antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthin, which protect eyes. The corn was fed to chickens that laid eggs rich in these helpful carotenoids, and the researchers speculated that the carotenoids in the egg yolk would be more concentrated and absorbed better than those ingested directly from corn.

In age-related macular degeneration, a progressive eye disease that is the leading cause of blindness in older adults, the eyes are low in lutein and zeaxanthin. Doctors routinely recommend eating leafy greens, the only other vegetables rich in these antioxidants.

In the paper published in the journal Crop Science, plant agriculture professor Elizabeth Lee reported that the high-carotenoid diet produced eggs containing the antioxidants. Eggs from hens fed this corn contained less lutein than those of hens fed marigold petal extract, the current way of producing high-lutein eggs. But the researchers believe that it is possible to make a new breed of corn that contains more lutein and zeaxanthin, leading to eggs with more of these beneficial compounds, and providing benefits to both egg consumers and corn producers.

Prof. Barry Shelp, Plant Agriculture, also worked on the study. “Elizabeth had theorized that it was possible to breed corn with increased lutein and zeaxanthin, and we wondered whether it was possible to get these antioxidants to people?” he said. “Since most hens are fed corn, the best solution seems to be egg yolks where the carotenoids would be accompanied by oils, which may facilitate absorption by the human body. We found that lutein and zeaxanthin contents of the eggs were increased in hens ingesting this novel corn, so this gives us something to work with.”

The researchers crossed Argentine Orange Flint maize with standard North American corn. The new breed contains more lutein and zeaxanthin than any other corn known.

“This was something that we felt had potential for not just egg producers but also Ontario corn farmers,” said post-doctoral researcher Andrew Burt. “The goal for our team was to take our concept and create products that would be beneficial to farmers and which consumers will want. We still have some work to do, but we proved the concept is a valid one.”

Lee and her team are encouraged by the findings, which show that researchers can breed plants to produce functional foods.

“This is a way in which crop scientists can produce items that have improved nutritional benefits for human health,” she said. “It seems likely that we can achieve greater results in the future, and provide lasting benefits for farmers and consumers.”

Published in Nutrition and Feed

My association with Canadian poultry breeding began early in 1967, when I moved from an academic position at Wye College – then the agricultural school of England’s London University – to working at Shaver Poultry Breeding Farms Ltd., as research coordinator. At that time, the breeding industry was evolving rapidly from relatively humble beginnings into an international business. The forces underlying the evolution of the industry were several: firstly, there was the capacity of breeders to harness the science of genetics for the improvement of commercial poultry. Additionally, the rapid expansion of both the egg and poultry meat fields transformed from relatively unimportant, disorganized, segments of agriculture into financially viable and successful consumer-oriented industries.

During the period from 1912 until the late 1960s, breeding had undergone significant changes and developments. With the emergence of Mendel’s pioneering studies of plant genetics (first reported in the 1850s and rediscovered in 1905), scientists began to investigate whether the same principles applied to animals, especially chickens, since they were plentiful and easy to work with.

Commercial breeding can be said to have begun when some farmers decided to make choices among the birds available for reproducing. These choices were, in the early days, almost exclusively based on appearance; physical characteristics could be emphasized and to some extent, modified so that a degree of uniformity could be established, thus differentiating individual farmers’ stocks.  With the invention of the trap nest, it became possible to obtain individual performance records, although these were not widely used until the 1930s and ’40s. Geneticists had found that variation in physical traits such as comb type, plumage and skin colour, could be explained using Mendel’s work, but they had difficulty explaining traits such as body weight, egg production and mortality, which were not divided into discrete classes, but varied on a continuous basis. However, the serious breeders developed progeny testing to a fine art, and
were able to make significant improvements in egg production and other commercial traits.

By the outbreak of the Second World War, many breeders, including Donald Shaver (aged 19 at the time), had established themselves locally as sources of baby chicks, and most sold hatching eggs, breeding pairs or trios, to other breeders. Across Canada, every small town or village would have had one or two hatcheries, some just using internal sources of hatching eggs, and others purchasing improved stock from outside sources. The process was labour-intensive and most of the hatcheries were small, inefficient and only operated on a seasonal basis. Customers were small, too, with few owning more than 100 birds.

In the late 1940s, the breeding industry began to develop more rapidly. When Donald Shaver returned from war service, although his original stocks were lost in a fire, he quickly re-established himself in the breeding business in Galt (now part of Cambridge), Ont. There were many similar breeders across Canada, and in most of the developed countries of the world, but developments were delayed in Europe due to the war, but serious breeding companies emerged in the United States. Prof. Goodale developed the Mount Hope strain of White Leghorn, which was widely sold and probably still contributes to some of today’s hybrids. Kimber Farms in California employed its first professional geneticist, Dr. W.F. Lamoreux, in 1943.  

By the 1950s, geneticists were beginning to understand how genetics worked with commercial traits, but the resources necessary for the useful application of this knowledge to a professional breeding operation were not cheap. They were quite beyond the capability of the average small-town breeder, and those who developed the complex breeding infrastructure knew that they needed more than local markets to support such an investment. Thus, the system of franchise, or distributor, hatcheries was born, in which the local hatchery obtained male and female parent breeders from a primary breeder, grew and mated them, and used the resulting hatching eggs for the production of commercial chicks.

 In 1967, Shaver Poultry Breeding Farms Ltd. had at least seven hatchery distributors in Ontario alone, plus others in most Canadian provinces and large ranges of franchised distributors were also spread across the United States. Many had originally had their own breeding programs, but chose to become distributors instead – one of these, Demler Farms in Orange County, Calif., was one of Shaver’s larger franchise hatcheries. It eventually merged with an egg production company and changed its name to Dairy Fresh, which in turn became part of Cal-Maine Foods, currently one of the United States’ largest egg companies.

Of course, competing breeders had similar distribution systems to support their ever-growing research and development programs. By the early 1970s, commercial poultry meat and egg production breeding in North America was dominated by approximately 20 primary breeders that initially specialized in one or two products. Shaver gained commercial prominence with its Starcross 288 breed, a White Leghorn cross. The company quickly expanded to both brown-egg layers and broilers, since the same sales force could, it was believed, support these different products. Many primary breeders specialized only in broiler stocks, and some bred exclusively either male or female strains.

Although meat stocks were selected primarily based on growth, conformation and feed conversion, egg layer stocks had to be subject to highly complex selection programs involving full pedigree breeding, individual identification, trap nesting and so on. The exact selection criteria and breeding methods became closely guarded secrets. No longer were breeders willing to sell each other stocks, and in fact went to great lengths to prevent competitors from acquiring their pure lines. When commercial stocks consist of two-way crosses, risk of strain piracy is high. Thus, the use of three-way or four-way crosses became common.

The 1960s were also the time when long distance air travel became economical, so that not only passengers, but also day-old chicks, could be transported halfway around the world in 24 to 36 hours, thus opening international markets to those breeders willing to go after them. Shaver was the only Canadian breeder to thoroughly exploit international markets: at their height in the late 1970s they were selling in more than 90 countries, and had company-owned (or joint-venture) breeding farms in the United States, England, France, Germany, Pakistan and Barbados. Both domestic and international sales were still supported by technical and veterinary expertise from their headquarters in Cambridge. These were the days when most breeding companies produced detailed, printed management guides for all of their products.

Until the 1960s most breeding companies were privately owned, but as capital demands expanded, there was a greater need for external funding sources. Shaver sold a part-interest in his company to Cargill Inc. in the early 60s and the balance when he retired in 1985. Other breeders, particularly in the United States, tended to sell out to larger companies to help facilitate their expansion. In the 1970s, a number were sold to pharmaceutical companies (Pfizer, Merck, Upjohn and others), but whatever synergies were expected failed to materialize and most of these relationships were later abandoned.

In this process, the number of primary breeders continued to shrink, through erosion or mergers. And the slow shift back to poultry-oriented companies having control of the breeding process began. The franchise system also gradually broke down, as breeder-owned or joint-venture hatcheries replaced them, although this did not happen in Canada, largely due to the system of supply management, which keeps commercial flock sizes lower than, for example, the United States.

In terms of Canadian activity, the Institute de Selectionne Animale (ISA) has a strong presence in the former Shaver facilities in Cambridge, Ont., where research and development continues on white-egg stocks, and from where grandparents and parents are shipped to the United States and other overseas markets. Lohmann has a grandparent farm and hatchery in Brantford, Ont., also the source of parent stock for Canada, the United States and other markets. Hybrid Turkeys continues to operate primary breeding and distribution facilities in and around Kitchener, Ont.  

Multiplication and distribution of commercial stocks continue to evolve. Since the 1970s most integrated broiler businesses have established their own breeding farms and hatcheries. This is less so in the egg industry although several of the largest companies in the United States have their own hatcheries. More common is the establishment of breeder-owned or joint venture hatcheries, which have largely replaced the franchise hatcheries as the primary distribution method for egg-type chicks.  

Distribution systems for egg stocks in Canada have remained mostly as franchised hatcheries, as stated previously, due to relatively small commercial flock sizes resulting from supply management. Broiler hatcheries in Canada vary: some are independent; some, such as integrated production companies, own others.

Thus, in the past 100 years, poultry breeding in Canada has evolved from hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of small, independent farms that did very little in the way of selective breeding, to the point at which most breeding work is done by a handful of multinational companies whose products are distributed and multiplied on an international basis. Canada has both contributed to, and benefited from, this exciting evolution.

By the first decade of the 21st century, ownership of primary breeding poultry organizations had diminished to the point at which breeding work is controlled by very few companies, listed in the following table.

Genetics

Published in Key Developments

Feb. 25, 2013, Urbana, IL - Developing strategies to increase the amount of saleable product while reducing dietary inputs is a priority for animal scientists. University of Illinois researchers have been looking at how dietary components affect gut health and disease resistance in chickens.

"An important nutritional outcome is how well an animal is able to digest and metabolize its diet," said Ryan Dilger.

Poultry and swine nutritionists are concerned about dietary fiber in alternative dietary ingredients, particularly the by-products of biofuel production. Fiber concentrations are very high in these ingredients because the starch content is removed during processing.

Dilger and his master's student Emma Wils-Plotz looked at how purified fiber fed to young chicks affects their dietary threonine (Thr) requirements, intestinal morphology, and ability to resist a disease challenge. Threonine is an essential amino acid accounting for as much as 11 percent of mucin, an important component of the mucus layer covering the intestine's absorptive surface, which promotes gut health by protecting the body against bacteria and digestive enzymes.

Previous research has suggested that mucin dynamics may be sensitive to Thr availability. Dilger and Wils-Plotz hypothesized that dietary Thr requirements would increase in the presence of two purified fiber sources, cellulose and pectin, which are natural components of many feed ingredients.

They fed diets containing purified cellulose, pectin, or silica sand (control) to chicks and found that body weight gain and feed efficiency (the conversion of feed into body-weight gain) were reduced when 7 percent supplemental pectin was added to the diet. Pectin creates a viscous environment in the gut that interfered with the birds' ability to access dietary nutrients, thus reducing growth performance. Feeding 7 percent purified cellulose did not provide any nutritional benefit.

In a second experiment, Wils-Plotz and Dilger quantified the dietary threonine requirement in the presence and absence of purified fiber sources. Chicks were fed one of the three fiber-containing diets. Within each diet, they were subdivided into seven groups, each fed a different level of Thr supplementation ranging from 0 to 9.6 grams per kilogram (g/kg). Contrary to the researchers' expectations, birds fed the diet with pectin had the lowest Thr requirements at 5.6 g/kg; birds fed the control diet had the highest, estimated to be 6.8 g/kg. Cellulose-fed birds required 5.8 g/kg.

Ileal tissue, which is at the end of the small intestine, was collected from chicks and examined for physical changes in the villi (small folds in the intestine), crypts (pockets next to the villi), and goblet cells, which produce and secrete mucin. Chicks fed cellulose or pectin had deeper crypts than chicks fed the control diet; crypts were deepest for birds fed cellulose and adequate Thr levels, and their outer intestinal muscle layer (serosa) was thicker. Chicks fed diets containing fiber had higher goblet cell counts than the birds fed the control diet, with highest levels in birds fed the pectin diet with adequate or high Thr levels.

The findings suggest that dietary Thr concentration and fiber source affect growth performance, intestinal morphology, and mucin secretion in young chicks. It also established optimal dietary Thr levels.

Having determined these levels, the researchers wanted to see if fiber and Thr in the diet could affect how chicks responded to a coccidiosis challenge. Coccidiosis is a parasitical disease of the intestinal tract caused by protozoa of the genus Eimeria maxima, which is responsible for major economic losses in the poultry industry.

"Right now, there are few advancements in coccidiosis vaccine development, so we tried to develop dietary approaches to assist the bird through a coccidiosis challenge," Dilger said. "Our hypothesis was that by providing adequate threonine, the bird would have better immune defenses through improved gut function and immunity."

Chicks received either a diet supplemented with pectin or a Thr-deficient control diet and either 75 percent or 125 percent of the previously determined optimal Thr supplement of 6.8 g/kg. Within each dietary treatment, one group of chicks was inoculated with E. maxima; the other was not.

"The goal was to determine the interaction between dietary fiber and dietary threonine, knowing that pectin was going to negatively affect digestion and threonine was going to positively affect intestinal health," Dilger explained.

Growth and feed efficiency were monitored for 16 days; then ileal tissue, mucosal scrapings, and the ceca (the part of the digestive tract used for water absorption and fermentation) were collected. Researchers looked at growth performance, morphological changes in the intestine, changes in the cecal environment, and gene expression in the ceca and mucosa.

"The most important part of the story was the cytokine response to the acute coccidiosis infection," Dilger said.

Cytokines regulate how the immune system communicates with the rest of the body and adjust the immune response. Interleukin-12 (IL-12) expression in the ceca was increased in birds fed the control diet with high threonine. Interleukin-1 beta expression increased with infection but only in birds fed the low-Thr diet.

Expression of interferon gamma (IFNG), a protein made and released in response to the presence of pathogens, increased in the ileal mucosa of birds fed high Thr, and was highest in the uninfected chicks. It increased with infection but only in control-fed birds

The researchers concluded that while pectin had some protective effects against coccidiosis infection, Thr supplementation had an even greater influence on the intestinal immune response and helped to maintain growth of chicks infected with coccidiosis. This study and others being conducted in Dilger's lab highlight the potential for using nutritional strategies to manage poultry and swine diseases.

Published in Nutrition and Feed

Jan. 23, 2013, Calgary, AB - Pork and poultry producers have an innovative new option to enhance livestock feeding and capture the benefits of a natural way to profitability from Canadian Bio-Systems Inc. (CBS Inc.).

Maxi-Gen Plus from CBS Inc. is now available in both the U.S. and Canada and is a unique formulation that delivers a range of productivity and performance benefits, while offering a viable alternative to traditional growth promoting products. The product, which features a rich source of conditionally essential nutrients for young animals, is showcased this week at the Iowa Pork Congress in Des Moines and around the upcoming International Poultry Exhibition in Atlanta.

“Maxi-Gen Plus is a powerful tool to support livestock performance and improve the profitability of producers,” says Owen Jones, CBS Inc. president. “It represents a new option in the marketplace that is designed to fit well with the changing demands on today’s pork and poultry industries.”

Research conducted with Maxi-Gen Plus shows multiple benefits for the animals: it stimulates intestinal development and improves immune system response and improves average daily gain and feed intake, while enhancing nutrient absorption and gut health.

“One of the key benefits of Maxi-Gen Plus is that it helps to stimulate tissue growth and recovery during periods of stress,” says Rob Patterson, technical services manager for CBS Inc. “It mimics health-enhancing components that both pigs and poultry produce on their own. However, our research shows that during times of stress such as weaning and transport, the supply produced by the animal is often not enough to meet the demand for optimal health and performance. Maxi-Gen Plus fills that need to maximize these benefits for the producer.”

The results with Maxi-Gen Plus are dramatic and reflect its unique position in the marketplace, says Patterson. “The product is highly concentrated in its beneficial components, which allows for lower inclusion levels, which improves cost efficiency for producers.”

Research conducted by CBS Inc. in partnership with the University of Manitoba showcase the potential. One recent trial conducted with young pigs compared a diet with Maxi-Gen Plus to a traditional medicated diet. The classic designed study with 210 pigs over 28 days showed pigs on the Maxi-Gen Plus diet performed at virtually the same rate as those on the medicated diet. “This reinforces the potential to use Maxi-Gen Plus as an alternative to medicated feed or to reduce the level of medicated feed used.”

A separate young pigs trial comparing these two diets showed the Maxi-Gen Plus diet helped the animals fight off disease — cutting mortality rate in half and dramatically reducing post-challenge incidence of scouring. “The mode of action is that the nucleotides are absorbed in the gut, which is resulting in better gut health and development, so the animal has a better chance of fighting off the infection.”

Feed conversion under the Maxi-Gen Plus diet was also improved post-challenge in this second trial. “This indicates multiple actions,” says Patterson. “We saw less scouring, less mortality and pigs catch up quicker and better in terms of feed intake and feed conversion.”

Poultry results are equally promising, says Patterson. In one key example, a 35 day feeding trial with broiler chickens over showed birds supplemented with Maxi-Gen Plus were significantly heavier than control birds, with body weight and average daily gain results statistically equivalent to birds fed a medicated diet. Maxi-Gen Plus components have also been shown to alleviate stress and improve immune status in poultry.

For information on Canadian Bio-Sysems and its products, please visit www.canadianbio.com.

Published in Nutrition and Feed

Last fall, the Canadian Poultry Research Council (CPRC) hosted a series of six workshops across Canada in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Workshop objectives were to:

  1. Present and discuss the National Research Strategy for Canada’s Poultry Sector issued in August 2012 and available on CPRC’s website
  2. Review progress to date of the current Poultry Science Cluster co-funded by industry, provincial governments and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s (AAFC) Growing Forward program
  3. Explore potential elements and partners for a new Cluster under AAFC’s AgriInnovation program scheduled to begin April 1, 2013

The workshop series was part of CPRC’s industry outreach activities to foster ongoing discussion among those involved in Canadian poultry research as well as those who benefit from research discoveries including producers, input suppliers, processors and consumers.

Input on Cluster Development

The main thrust of the agenda was to draw on the broad pool of expertise and representation among workshop participants to receive input on ways that industry can leverage the research completed in the present Poultry Science Cluster and other industry research activities to maintain Canada’s poultry research initiatives. These initiatives will include both the AgriInnovation Science Cluster and ongoing project research supported through a variety of funding sources.

Participants were asked what they liked about CPRC’s approach to development of a potential Cluster application; several themes emerged from responses:

  • A broadly based, balanced approach: Many participants liked that the potential Cluster includes a range of scientific disciplines and that CPRC intends to balance forthcoming funds between Cluster research and individual projects.
  • Based on industry needs: Participants recognized that the potential Cluster construct aligns with industry-identified research priority areas and target outcomes as described in the National Research Strategy.
  • Collaboration: The participants appreciated efforts to solicit input from research groups across the country and encourage them to work together to address research issues.
  • Long-term vision: The relatively long (five-year) time frame of the Cluster program was appreciated by most. Even more so was CPRC’s vision beyond the Cluster to promote sustained funding for poultry research in general.
  • Theme categorization: The participants generally agreed with dividing the cluster application into three broad themes, under each of which specific research activities could be listed.

Participant suggestions to improve the potential Cluster application also fell into themes:

  • Consider using international collaboration.
  • Promote multidisciplinary research and collaboration.
  • Take strategic approaches.
  • Improve communication.
  • Maintain flexibility.
  • Consider the needs of all industry commodities.
  • Secure stable sources of funding.

Next steps

While preparing the Cluster application, CPRC considered all of the valuable feedback received during, and subsequent to, the workshops. A CPRC subcommittee, representing each of the national poultry organizations, identified proposals of particular interest to industry. Proposals were reviewed by CPRC’s Scientific Advisory Committee to ensure scientific merit and several of these research ideas are being incorporated into a Cluster application, to be submitted to AAFC by the end of March.

For more details on these or any other CPRC activities, please contact the Canadian Poultry Research Council, 350 Sparks Street, Suite 1007, Ottawa, Ontario, K1R 7S8, phone: 613-566-5916, fax: 613-241-5999, e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , or visit us online at www.cp-rc.ca.


The membership of the CPRC consists of the Chicken Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers, the Turkey Farmers of Canada, the Egg Farmers of Canada and the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors’ Council. CPRC’s mission is to address its members’ needs through dynamic leadership in the creation and implementation of programs for poultry research in Canada, which may also include societal concerns.

Published in New Technology

A recent Canadian on-farm feeding trial demonstrated significant feed cost savings while maintaining live animal performance through the inclusion of Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS) in properly balanced turkey rations. The trial, conducted by Gowans Feed Consulting in conjunction with Great Lakes Poultry Farms Ltd., Fischer Feeds, and the U.S. Grains Council, tested DDGS inclusion rates of nine per cent and 15 per cent.

Turkey producers can therefore proceed with confidence with DDGS inclusion rates of up to 15 per cent, provided that rations are correctly balanced. The exact feed cost savings achieved by producers will depend on the price of DDGS versus the price of other grains and proteins, but may be significant.

Feed Cost Savings

DDGS from corn are a co-product of the U.S. and Canadian ethanol and distillery industries and are widely available across Canada. During most times of the year, they represent a significant opportunity to reduce feed costs.

DDGS are a moderate energy and amino acid ingredient, a good source of available phosphorus and highly palatable. Feeding trials in the United States have demonstrated inclusion rates of up to 20 per cent in tom turkeys without any detrimental impact.

In Canada, turkey producers and nutritionists have been cautious in increasing inclusion rates past 10 per cent for fear of reducing growth performance and increasing wet litter challenges. However, our recent trial demonstrates that DDGS inclusion rates can be safely increased.

Over the last several years, customers of Gowans Feed Consulting have been successfully feeding DDGS at inclusion rates of 10 per cent in the grower and finisher stages of tom turkey rations but were aware of the notion of realizing significant feed cost savings opportunities by increasing the inclusion rates. Table 1 and Figure 1 present the theoretical monthly feed cost savings of feeding DDGS in tom turkey grower finisher rations at 10 per cent and 15 per cent in southwestern Ontario over diets made without DDGS and the cost of DDGS relative to corn and soybean meal. Over the past year, savings at 10 per cent inclusion have ranged from $4.72 to $12.64 per tonne of feed while savings at 15 per cent have ranged from $7.43 to $25.12 per tonne of feed. Feed cost savings are at their highest when DDGS are at a discount to corn and soybean meal prices are over $550 per tonne.

DDGSchart

The Feeding Trial

In order to gain confidence and demonstrate these potential savings, a commercial scale feeding evaluation was required. Great Lakes Poultry Farms Ltd., a large modern turkey production complex near Wingham, Ont., had four commercial grow-out barns available and is in close proximity to the Fischer Feeds feed mill, a large-scale fully automated modern facility in Listowel, Ont., with the process control necessary for the trial. The U.S. Grains Council provided funding support for the demonstration. The trial was conducted at Great Lakes Poultry Farms’ Wingham West facility from January through May 2012.

On Jan. 3, 2012, a first allocation of 16,356 commercial tom turkeys (200 Nicholas, 16,156 Hybrid Converter) was placed randomly in one barn.  On Feb. 9 and 10, 2012, a second allocation of 16,175 toms (475 Nicholas and 15,700 Hybrid Converter) was placed randomly in another barn.  All birds on each placement date were grown together and the same feeding program was used.

At six weeks of age, the Jan. 3, 2012, placement was weighed and split evenly between Barns 6 and 7 at the Wingham West grower-finisher commercial turkey barns. At six weeks of age, the Feb. 9 and 10 toms were weighed and split evenly between barns 8 and 9 at Wingham West. Barns 6 and 8 were fed diets containing nine per cent corn DDGS. Barns 7 and 9 were fed diets containing 15 per cent corn DDGS. All diets were formulated to the same nutrient specifications and fed ad libitum. Fifty birds from each barn were weighed weekly to monitor the average daily gain. Feed rations (pelleted) were manufactured at Fischer Feeds. Turkeys were marketed as per the standard protocol to Cold Springs Farm Processing Plant in Thamesford, Ont.

All four barns performed well on their respective treatments, with market weights, growth rate, feed conversion, mortality and feed cost per kilogram of gain achieving their respective targets.

Both treatments performed similarly with the 15 per cent DDGS treatment coming out slightly better in weight gain and with a lower feed cost at 115.5 days. Overall, the feeding trial demonstrated that there were no negative effects of increasing the DDGS inclusion rate. This should give turkey producers and nutritionists the confidence to increase inclusion rates to 15 per cent.


Neil Campbell is a partner with Gowans Feed Consulting, a leading independent poultry and swine nutrition consulting company working for producers across Canada and in select international markets. Neil is responsible for business development and consulting on feed cost reduction and ingredient price risk management for clients. More information on this feeding demonstration can be requested through Neil by e-mail at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or by telephone at 519-866-5927.

Published in Nutrition and Feed

Jan. 9, 2013, Saint Paul, MN - The 42nd annual Midwest Poultry Federation (MPF) Convention has released information regarding its 2013 conference, which will run March 12-14 at the Saint Paul RiverCentre.

  • The Pre-Show Nutrition Symposium and Welcome Reception will be held March 12.
  • Exhibit Hall and education sessions with over 40 speakers are scheduled for March 13-14.
  • The 64th Annual North Central Avian Disease Conference will precede the MPF Convention on March 11-12. (Separate registration fee applies.)
  • The Organic Egg Farmers of America will hold its 3rd annual symposium at the Saint Paul RiverCentre on March 12. (Separate registration fee may apply.)
  • Over the last five years MPF has increased the number of booths in the Exhibit Hall by more than 20%, opening the door for more companies to participate. In 2013, exhibit space continues to expand into a second hall, conveniently adjacent to the main Exhibit Hall.
  • Details on all events are available at http://midwestpoultry.com.

  • Registration for the MPF Convention is available for the following cateogries:
    o Farmer/Processor Attendees - $25 (prior to February 15) and $35 onsite. Farmer/Processor attendees include owners, managers or employees of a turkey, egg, broiler or gamebird company or farm.
    o Allied Individuals (non-exhibitors) – $150/person (prior to February 15) and $160 onsite. Allied Individuals are those companies who will do business at the show but do not lease booth.
    o Government personnel, university personnel and poultry nonprofit/association personnel - $25 (prior to February 15) and $35 onsite.
    o Complimentary for university students, spouses and children under 18 attending with a paid registrant. (All complimentary registrants must show proper I.D.)

  • All registration fees include the Pre-Show Nutrition Symposium, Welcome Reception, and two days of exhibits and workshops. Fees are separate to attend the North Central Avian Disease Conference and the Organic Egg Farmers of America Symposium.
  • Online preregistration is available at www.midwestpoultry.com until February 15, 2013.
  • For the latest hotel availability, visit http://midwestpoultry.com/hotels.

For more information or to receive registration and hotel reservation information, please visit http://midwestpoultry.com.

Published in Company News

Dec. 19, 2012 - After a worldwide debate about the risks and rewards of pursuing research on H5N1 and a moratorium lasting almost a year on such research, it appears that some researchers may resume their experiments.

According to Nature News, experts from all over the world in research and public health met at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss the future of the work. The discussions will continue on the pros and cons of such research, but attendees are saying that the moratorium may be lifted at the discretion of the funders and the countries in which they are located.

In addition to that, the review will "put in place, for select experiments, an extra layer of review — in addition to peer review, and other standard safety and ethical reviews — by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)."

For more information on the potential revival of H5N1 research, please see the complete article on Nature News.

Published in Health

Poultry farmers and abattoirs could have a humane alternative for euthanizing spent or market-ready birds.

Animal science researchers at the Dalhousie University Faculty of Agriculture (formerly the Nova Scotia Agricultural College) have assessed a tool called the Zephyr – a non-penetrating pneumatic stun gun – for use on broilers and layers.

They say that the Zephyr gun could be a humane method for poultry euthanasia.

“This tool is a win-win,” says Jane Morrigan, co-researcher and animal welfare training and auditing specialist for Integrity Livestock Services. “It’s humane for the animal, quiet and easy to use for the farm worker or research technician.”

The University of Guelph and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs developed the tool, based on a model imported from the United Kingdom, to stun rabbits in processing plants. The Zephyr is a non-penetrating captive bolt stunner driven by compressed air that has been shown to work for all weights and sizes of rabbits.  

After learning about the Zephyr, Morrigan first supervised Nichelle Peck for her fourth-year student research project to study its effectiveness for fish euthanasia at the college’s Aquaculture Research Centre, with very positive results. She then turned her attention to its use in poultry, teaming with fourth-year animal science student Samantha Canning and Dr. Bruce Rathgeber of the Atlantic Poultry Research Institute to assess its effectiveness.

Their primary goal was to determine whether the Zephyr could deliver enough force to the skull to render the animal instantly insensible and free of pain – a necessity in ensuring humane euthanasia. Morrigan says they also compared the operator’s experience level, and tried to determine if the positioning of the Zephyr on the bird’s head had an effect.

To complete the research, Morrigan says they used 67 birds, a mix of broilers and laying hens. The Animal Care Committee at the university would not allow the initial research to be conducted on live birds, so the team worked with post-mortem birds just after they were stunned in a conventional electric stun bath.

Morrigan says that while it is unfortunate not to have studied the effects on live birds, their post-mortem work did enable them to assess the severity of trauma to the skull. She reasoned that a fractured skull is a good predictor of instantaneous loss of consciousness – and therefore absence of pain. Immediately after the birds were stunned in the electric stun bath, they were weighed and the Zephyr was applied to the top of the head, twice in quick succession, using air compressed at 120 pounds per square inch.  

Six different factors were compared: the strain of bird, their weight, comb size, operator experience, position on head, amount of skull fracture and damage to the brain (after dissection).

Their results show that the Zephyr could provide enough trauma to the skull to render the bird instantly unconscious, says Morrigan, and the optimal spot for positioning the Zephyr was determined to be behind the comb. Laying hens averaged the largest fracture, though their skulls tend to be smaller, she adds. Also, the experience level of the person operating the Zephyr had no significant effect on skull fracture and brain damage.

“The tool really proved to be effective, quick and easy to use,” says Morrigan, adding that the predetermined force takes the guesswork out for the farm worker, which in turn helps to reduce any anxiety that is experienced when faced with having to perform euthanasia.

Morrigan says they’ve learned that the Zephyr works smoothly when two people are working together, one to hold the bird upright with wings held close to the bird’s body and the other to move the head on a solid table or bench and position the Zephyr. It’s important to ensure that the head is positioned against something firm and solid to prevent head movement, she says. “We lay the head gently so the chin is resting on a solid table or bench.”

Morrigan says they found that applying one percussive force correctly behind the comb was enough, but applying two in quick succession can provide extra assurance. It is also important to also keep the Zephyr clean after the day’s use to prevent it from gumming up, she adds.

Following the Zephyr’s trial, Morrigan says their research technicians were so satisfied with its performance that they purchased the stun gun to continue using it in their facility. The tool has also been distributed through a number of programs to rabbit processing plants throughout Canada.

“It’s an impressive tool,” she says. “I would love to someday see this tool in every laying house and broiler barn. In addition to the gun itself, all that is needed is a small compressor and five minutes of training.”

Researchers at the Prairie Swine Centre have also recently tested the Zephyr and found it to be an effective tool for euthanizing piglets ranging in size from three to nine kilograms. They have also retained the tool for any ongoing euthanasia needs, post-research project.

The University of Guelph developers are currently seeking a company that can oversee commercial-scale development of the Zephyr gun, so that fish farms, poultry and swine operations can purchase their own at an affordable cost. Current models have been provided for research projects with support from the Canadian Farm Animal Care Trust.

Published in Housing

Nov. 20, 2012, Champaign, IL - Femur fractures in turkeys bred for faster growth to market weight and significantly enhanced breast muscle yield are an ongoing concern for turkey growers, because affected birds must be culled, negatively impacting profit margins.  While the average percentage of turkeys lost each year due to the problem is unknown, estimates can range from 2% to as high as 10% – rates which, even on the lower end, are significant.
 
The precise underlying cause of the fractures remains unknown.  However, a new study on various critical properties of turkey femurs – involving what is likely the most comprehensive collection of skeletal data ever collected for a poultry species – has shed new light on the problem.
 
In an article[1] in the November issue of Poultry Science, a journal published by the Poultry Science Association (PSA), scientists and biomedical engineers at Case Western Reserve University, Michigan State University, The Ohio State University, and Purdue University, present the results of their investigation of the morphological, material-level mechanical, and bone ash properties of turkey femurs.  Their objective was to analyze the relationships between body weight (BW) and the various properties of femurs in growing turkeys with widely divergent growth rates.
 
Findings
 
Co-author Dr. Darrin Karcher, an extension specialist in the Department of Animal Science at Michigan State University, noted:
 
“When we began our study, there were two schools of thought on what was most important to maintaining the integrity of the femur.  One hypothesis was that bone-geometric or morphological properties, such as the femur’s cross-sectional area, bearing axial loads, and moments of inertia, bearing bending/torsional loads, were the key. A second hypothesis was that mineralization of the bone matrix was the key to femur strength because mineralization is essential to the mechanical competence of the bone as measured by properties such as the bone’s tensile strength and elastic modulus. What we discovered was that the answer is in fact both: bone geometry and mineralization are equally important.”
 
Specifically, the group observed that across the various lines of turkeys examined, the femur’s morphological properties are largely governed by body weight rather than age, while, conversely, the femur’s mechanical properties, as well as related ash content, are determined, at least in part, by time.
 
“Unfortunately, at the present time, there is no means of addressing the femur fracture problem other than slowing the growth rate and reducing the final weight of the bird, neither of which is practical. But we are hopeful that further research will lead to concrete steps that growers can take that address this issue while still recognizing the realities of the marketplace,” said Dr. Karcher.
 
Experimental Materials and Methods
 
The data were collected in 2010 from three divergent turkey genetic lines reared at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC).  The research was conducted with the approval of OARDC’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
 
The three genetic lines studied were: current commercial turkeys; a random-bred control line that is representative of commercial turkeys in the late 1960s (RBC2), and a sub-line of RBC2 that has been continuously selected since 1969 for a single trait, BW at 16 weeks (F-line).  All of the turkeys were fed OARDC standard turkey diets.
 
When the time came to take samples (at 4-week intervals, beginning at 8-weeks of age), both femurs were collected from each sampled turkey and the surrounding muscle and connective tissue were removed.  Mechanical and geometric analyses were conducted on the left femur, while bone ash content analysis was carried out on the right femur.
 
The article, which contains complete details on the experimental setup and a thorough analysis and discussion of the findings across the different lines, is available for download at http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02322.
 
For more information, please visit: www.poultryscience.org.

Published in Turkeys

Nov. 15, 2012, Champaign, IL - A new finding by government and academic researchers at Mississippi State University should help put turkey producers’ minds at ease about the possibility of the airborne transmission of a common bacterial agent for infectious sinusitis to their flocks from nearby poultry operations.  The researchers found that, even within a single tunnel-ventilated poultry house, the agent, Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG), was unable to be transmitted even a short distance down-airstream to spread infection.
 
The new research findings of Dr. Joseph Purswell et al., appear in the December issue of Poultry Science, a journal published by the Poultry Science Association.  (The complete article is available for download at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02619.)
 
“Because turkeys are more susceptible to MG infection than chickens, this has led to some concern among turkey growers that their birds could become infected by strains of the disease that might be carried from broiler and layer farms in their vicinity,” said Dr. Purswell, the article’s lead author and a researcher at the USDA-Agricultural Research Service at Mississippi State.  “Our work strongly suggests that this is a highly unlikely possibility.”
 
In the 1960s, the poultry industry suffered 30 per cent mortality rates in broilers due to Mycoplasmosis, and even today, concerns about the possibility of transmission of live MG from layer chickens to broilers, turkeys, and breeders continue to serve as an impediment to the permitted use of live MG vaccines in some multi-poultry-sector-dense states.
 
Experimental Design and Findings
 
The researchers’ objective was to compare transmission of uncharacterized layer complex-derived MG (LCD-MG) strains with commercially available, live F-strain MG (FMG) vaccine among poultry species in tunnel-ventilated housing.
 
In each of the two trials conducted, four commercial turkeys were housed in each of two adjoining pens that were immediately adjacent to air inlets.  The turkeys were inoculated with a dose of FMG in one trial, and with LCD-MG in the other.  In each trial, one pen was maintained with only four inoculated turkeys while a second pen contained the other four inoculated turkeys along with 16 MG-free broilers and 4 MG-free layers.  In addition, either four MG-free layers or four MG-free turkeys were placed down-airstream from the inoculated pens at a variety of distances, the nearest being only one empty pen between the inoculated and MG-free birds.
 
At the end of the 106-day trial period, the researchers found that neither the commercial FMG vaccine strain nor the LCD-MG strains were transmitted beyond the pens containing the inoculated turkeys.
 
According to Dr. Purswell, the results of the study “support the notion that the F strain of MG is no more transmissible than other endemic field strains of MG.”

Published in Housing

Salvador, in Bahia State, Brazil, was the venue for the XXIV World’s Poultry Congress in August 2012. Congresses have been held regularly since the first one in 1921, held in The Hague, the Netherlands. Canada has hosted the event twice, in 1927 and 2000. This year’s was the second Congress held in Brazil, the first being in 1978 in Rio de Janeiro.

The World’s Poultry Congresses are sponsored by the World’s Poultry Science Association (WPSA), but are organized locally. The president of this Congress was Edir Nepomucino da Silva, who has become president of the WPSA.

The Congress was held in the Bahia Convention Center in downtown Salvador, with the associated exhibition held in the same complex. There were approximately 2,000 delegates in attendance at the Congress and over 120 companies at the exhibition. About 25 of those delegates were Canadians and the annual meeting of the Canada Branch of the World’s Poultry Science Association was held during the Congress.

The Association has developed outreach programs to assist developing countries and has, in addition, become closely involved with initiatives to work with village or family poultry in such countries.

Poultry Welare and Environment

As might be expected in today’s environment, welfare occupied an important position among the scientific presentations, which was highlighted by Harry Blokhuis from the Humboldt University in Berlin. Blokhuis has been a major contributor to welfare research over the past several decades, and in his paper at the Congress, he reviewed much of the previous work on the topic. Notably, he introduced the concept of “welfare quality,” one outcome of a major co-operative research project in Europe and Latin America that  began in 2004 and ended in 2010. He raised questions regarding the “prescriptive regulations,” which have been the main way in which countries have addressed the challenges of poultry (and indeed other animals’) welfare. An example (not quoted in the paper, but nevertheless valid) would be the EU furnished cage, which has become mandatory for EU producers since January 2012. Regulations look good to consumers clamouring for them, but are far from perfect for the primary producer. Variations from farm to farm, and country to country, make prescriptive regulations difficult, if not impossible, to implement and to monitor. In addition, regulations hamper farmers in their efforts towards innovation.

Blokhuis, in reviewing the main conclusions of the Welfare Quality report, suggests that the use of “animal based output indicators” may be more effective in the long run, in achieving improved welfare quality. Here auditors making farm assessments consider the following categories and score the farm on a scale of acceptability.

More than 20 other papers, from 10 countries, mostly in Europe, also dealt with various aspects of poultry welfare.
Clearly, training auditors to monitor these criteria, few of which lend themselves to objective measurement, is a major challenge. To help train auditors using these criteria, the EC has published several books, which are available on the Welfare Quality website at www.welfarequalitynetwork.net.

Poultry Health and Biosecurity

A wide variety of papers were presented dealing with disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention. One of considerable interest was by Dr. David Swayne of the US Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory in Athens, Ga., dealing with the current worldwide status of avian influenza and the methods used in various countries to deal with outbreaks over the past several decades. Of interest to Canadians, who last encountered highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in 2004, are the methods of control and eradication practised. Canada’s policy is to depopulate affected and surrounding flocks and thereby eradicate the disease while providing government compensation to affected producers. This has been successful in Canada in the few cases of infection that have occurred. 

However, where infections become more widespread, and where the process of depopulation is either difficult or impossible, other strategies are required, including vaccination. Examples were quoted from Hong Kong, Egypt, Indonesia and Vietnam. In all of these countries (with the possible exception of Hong Kong), there are large numbers of birds kept as family or village poultry that cannot be easily vaccinated. In addition, if no compensation is available, it is difficult to persuade poultry keepers to depopulate apparently healthy birds.  

Although vaccination alone cannot eradicate HPAI, it can be extremely helpful in lowering the level of infection to the point where other methods can be used to accomplish eradication. For vaccination to be effective, a minimum of 60 per cent, and preferably 80 per cent, of at-risk birds must be vaccinated.

Other Sections

Many presentations took place in the other sections of the Congress: Nutrition and Feed Technologies, Economics and Marketing, Chicken Breeder and Broiler Production, Slaughter and Processing, Genetics and Breeding, Food Safety, Commercial Egg Production and Processing, Family Poultry Production and Other Species.

Canadian scientists gave 15 of the approximately 200 oral presentations, plus contributed a variety of posters.

International poultry Hall of Fame

Members of the International Poultry Hall of Fame are individuals who contributed to the world’s poultry industry above and beyond the call of duty. They are named and inducted at World’s Poultry Congresses. The Hall of Fame was started at the 1988 Congress when 25 members were named, but at subsequent Congresses, only five new members have been inducted.  

For 2012, they were Prof. Peter Horn from Hungary, Dr. Nuhad Daghir from Lebanon, Dr. Ganda Lal Jain from India, Prof. Egladison João Campos from Brazil and Dr. Kyoshi Shimada from Japan. Dr. Daghir has a strong connection with Canada, having been technical director at Shaver Poultry Breeding Farms for a period in the 1990s.

Canadians previously named to the Hall of Fame include Don R. Clandinin, Robb Gowe, Donald McQueen Shaver, Ian R. Sibbald, Stan J. Slinger, John D. Summers, Roy D. Crawford and Peter Hunton.

WPSA History and Awards

The XXIV Congress coincided with the 100th anniversary of the founding of the WPSA and one of the plenary sessions consisted of a review of the first 100 years presented by this author. Few international organizations have functioned for 100 years, but the WPSA has grown from an initial 19 founding members to over 7,000 today, in more than 80 national branches. The WPSA not only sponsors Congresses, but also publishes the World’s Poultry Science Journal, a quarterly publication consisting of scientific review papers.

Following the financially successful 1992 Congress in the Netherlands, the Dutch Branch of WPSA established awards to individuals or institutions judged to excel in one of the three pillars of the organization: Education, Organization and Research. The awards consist of 11,000 euros (approximately $13,400) to be spent on a project connected with the recipient’s field of expertise. Recipients must attend the subsequent Congress to report on the project.  

The 2012 winner for Research was Dr. Jae Yong Han, a geneticist from the Seoul National University in South Korea. The Poultry Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) in Australia was awarded in the Education category, its second win.

Representative Dr. Mingan Choct reported on the development of the PoultryHub website pages dealing with family poultry (www.poultryhub.org).

Conclusions

The XXIV World’s Poultry Congress provided a valuable scientific review of current knowledge in many fields, and pointed to a viable future for poultry science and the poultry industry, in spite of a variety of challenges. The Congress represents a unique meeting place where old and new contacts are made, and information exchanged in a comfortable environment.  
The next Congress will take place in Beijing, China, in 2016.

Published in Biosecurity

"I will never forgive her. Forgiving her would be letting her win.” This is how Julie justifies harbouring rage and bitterness for her sister‑in‑law for several years.

We are all after the same thing: happiness. Yet several studies have shown that harbouring hatred toward someone conflicts with happiness. Happy people do not entertain hatred or vengeance and are people who have learned to forgive.

There may be many reasons to hate, yet equally as many reasons to forgive. Some experts affirm that people who hold on to resentments and hatred could decrease their life expectancy by 14 years. In addition, persistent hatred is a contributing factor to depression and chronic stress. It is also associated with the risk of coronary artery disease. Resenting your sister‑in‑law day in and day out could increase your chance of a heart attack. Do you hate her that much?

“I go out to a restaurant for dinner with my husband and she’s all we talk about,” Julie told me. “I even wake up at night thinking about it. I am so tense that I have to see a massage therapist. Now, here I am seeing a psychologist.” Isn’t it paradoxical? We often invest more energy in people we hate or dislike than in those we like. And the result is a loss of so much time, energy and money. Think, for example, of people who pursue court action against someone for years in order to be proven right, or on principle. But how much do these principles and pride cost?

You can ask yourself the following:

  • Is it useful to continue to entertain this hatred?
  • Is it good for my physical and psychological health?
  • Is it good for the people who are important and close to me to be subjected to my hatred?
  • Is it useful for my life projects?
  • Will this help me attain my life goals?

If you can honestly answer yes to these questions, then continue. If not, why not stop poisoning your existence and that of others around you?

Only you can decide to forgive. You don’t need the other person to agree in order to do this. The responsibility and the power to choose are entirely yours.

In addition to all the benefits for your health and happiness, you could gain a great deal of time. As Julie said to me, “When you wake up at night hating someone because there is not enough time during the day to hate him or her, then it’s time to do something.”

Finally, remember that, unless you are calling the person in the middle of the night to tell them you hate them, you will be the only sleepless one.


Pierrette Desrosiers is a work psychologist, speaker and psychological coach who specializes in helping those working in agriculture. She can be contacted by e-mail at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , o,r if you would life more information, visit her website, www.pierrettedesrosiers.com.

Published in Farmer Health/Safety
Page 10 of 16

Subscription Centre

 
New Subscription
 
Already a Subscriber
 
Customer Service
 
View Digital Magazine Renew

Most Popular

Latest Events

Crop Life Canada Social Media Training
Tue May 23, 2017 @ 1:00PM - 04:00PM
PIC Human Resources Day
Thu May 25, 2017 @ 8:00AM - 05:00PM
Turkey Academy 2017
Thu Jun 01, 2017 @ 8:30AM - 02:30PM
PIC Poultry Health Day
Thu Jun 15, 2017 @ 8:00AM - 04:00PM