Research

August 4, 2016 - Dr. John David Summers, Professor Emeritus at the University of Guelph, passed away August 2, 2016.

He completed both his BSc. and MSc. from the Ontario Agricultural College (OAC) and completed his PhD. at Rutgers. Most of his academic career was spent at the University of Guelph, initially in the Department of Poultry Science and later in the Department of Animal and Poultry Science. His ongoing contacts with industry ensured direct application of his research into various aspects of poultry nutrition that was always timely and insightful. For example, his pioneering work of nutrition and fat deposition in broilers, which is still important today, was started in 1974. His research spanned all the major poultry species, and John could always be counted on to ask penetrating questions at poultry and nutrition meetings around the globe. John was truly one of the pioneers of the golden age of poultry nutrition.

Together with his esteemed colleagues, he helped to develop what has become the foundation of our modern strategies of poultry nutrition. John had a close working relationship with Shaver Poultry in Cambridge, Ontario, and in this capacity visited over 50 different countries. John gave numerous invited lectures around the world where his insightful knowledge was always greeted with great enthusiasm, from both students and other professionals in the poultry industry. John authored over 400 research papers and co-authored 5 books on various aspects of poultry production. John became Professor Emeritus in 1990 and received the Order of OAC in 2013.

A celebration of life for Dr. Summers is taking place Monday August 15 at the Village Centre at the Village by the Aboretum in Guelph, Ont. from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Please RSVP to Bill Summers, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or (226) 820-5000. If you have photos of John that you could share for a photo display, please send them to Bill or bring them with you the day of the event.

Published in Nutrition and Feed

August 2, 2016- Canadian biotechnology company AbCelex has received an investment of $3.4 million from the federal government to develop a new line of anti-microbial feed additives to help control disease outbreaks in poultry flocks.

Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (AAFC), Lawrence MacAulay, made the announcement July 29.

The company is developing a line of innovative non-antibiotic, non-hormonal additives that are specifically targeted at Campylobacter and Salmonella, two of the most common food-borne bacteria that infect poultry. The new anti-microbials – called “nanobodies” – will result in healthier poultry and improve food safety.

AbCelex is a Canadian biotechnology company focused on developing livestock food additives that help improve animal health and food safety.

AAFC supports the development and adoption of industry-led initiatives regarding biosecurity and animal care to support the prudent use of antimicrobials.

This project will be conducted in collaboration with the International Vaccine Centre at the University of Saskatchewan, the University of Toronto and the Colorado Quality Research Inc. Funding for this project comes from the AgriInnovation Program (Research and Development Stream) as part of the Growing Forward 2 agricultural policy framework.

Published in Nutrition and Feed

July 14, 2016 - The global poultry industry is increasingly utilizing dietary β-mannanase enzyme supplementation for poultry diets as a valuable option to enhance production. But are the purported benefits supported by the latest science?

New research results, unveiled at the 2016 Poultry Science Association (PSA) annual meeting, July 11-13 in New Orleans, call into question the value of single activity β-mannanase source formulations, particularly when used with soybean meal based diets representing the vast majority of global production.

The fresh knowledge presented at PSA centres around a newly completed study led by Dr. Anna Rogiewicz of the University of Manitoba – an institution recognized among the global leaders in novel feed ingredient and feed enzyme research. Program collaborators include the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland, and Canadian Bio-Systems Inc.

“We’re learning that the story around mannans and mannanase is more complex,” says Rogiewicz. “There are questions that need more validation in the context of a soybean meal based diet, including the theory that β-mannans in the feed trigger an energy-draining feed induced immune response that would be minimized by β-mannanase supplementation.”

The multi-component study included analysis of β-mannan content in soybean meal based diets, along with in vitro experiments to evaluate the affinity of several leading β-mannanase source formulations, specifically with soybean meal based β-mannans.

The study also involved an in vivo broiler chicken trial to further evaluate impacts with the β-mannanase source formulations added to soybean meal based diets. This component was designed to evaluate the immune trigger theory.

The results confirmed that the β-mannan content within soybean meal based diets is very low and that – as opposed to the high amounts of β-mannans present in guar, copra or palm kernel meals – this small amount in soybean meal is not likely to contribute to any increased intestinal viscosity in poultry fed corn/soybean meal based diets.

The in vitro experiments showed substantial breakdown of β-mannans due to β-mannanase activity. However, results with the in vivo study showed “no effect” in terms of growth performance. There was also no evidence shown to indicate that the level of soybean meal based β-mannans triggered a feed induced immune response. This was evaluated by analysis of the weight of immune organs and the level of immunoglobulins in serum and the intestine.

“The theory has been that because β-mannans have a molecular pattern similar to some pathogens, this triggers a feed induced immunity response, thereby consuming energy that would be preferably directed to growth and performance,” says Rogiewicz. “However, the results of this study would indicate no feed induced immunity response triggered by β-mannans in soybean meal based diets. This may be due to the very low level of β-mannans in soybean meal based diets, as opposed to the much higher levels in, for example, copra or palm kernel meal based diets.”

Broader research and analysis by the University of Manitoba program suggests the best pathway to address β-mannans, along with a full range of target substrates in poultry feed, is through a multi-carbohydrase enzyme approach that utilizes synergies between enzyme sources and activities to maximize feed nutrition capture.  More information is available at www.canadianbio.com.

 

Published in Nutrition and Feed

July 18, 2016 - The genes of some chickens make them almost completely resistant to a serious strain of bird flu, new research has revealed. The findings, which are published in the journal Scientific Reports, show that genetics play a key part in whether the birds are susceptible or resistant to the potentially deadly virus. READ MORE 

Published in Genetics

 

The hardy properties of Camelina sativa give it lots of potential for growing in Canada. It’s tolerant to frost and drought, doesn’t mind cool germination temperatures, thrives in marginal soils, and matures in a short 85 to 100 days, ideal even for northern Saskatchewan or Alberta.

Also known as “false flax” or “wild flax,” camelina is most wanted for its oil but now, 100 years after being introduced to North America, the mustard plant is being re-discovered and re-evaluated as livestock feed, fuelled by close to $3.7 million in funding initiatives to develop market ready varieties.

Rob Patterson is the technical director for Canadian Bio-Systems Inc., a company that researches, develops and manufactures a wide range of products used in food, feed, industrial and environmental applications. Speaking to the Poultry Industry Council (PIC) Innovations Symposium, Patterson explained how camelina had historically been replaced in modern poultry diets by rapeseed and canola but is now experiencing a resurgence due to its multiple uses as a source of omega-3 oil as well as its potential in biofuels, high-end bio-lubricants and plastics and even jet fuel.

Several recent studies have been conducted to re-establish baseline feeding levels and nutritional recommendations for camelina meal in poultry diets. Cold pressed, non-solvent extracted oil cake was approved by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in 2015 for use in feed up to 12 per cent for broilers only; camelina is not yet approved for use in layers or pigs.

How does camelina meal compare to canola meal? Using numbers from the canola feeding guide, Patterson pointed to camelina having a higher Neutral Detergent Fibre (NDF) and Acid Detergent Fibre (ADF) value than canola, but a comparable amino acid spectrum. At 12 per cent fat, camelina meal was a good energy source, compared to canola meal at 3 per cent fat due to oil extraction. The percentage of favorable linoleic and linolenic acid (omega-3) is quite high (39 per cent), but there are also some glucosinolate compounds present, similar to those in rapeseed, that are common to the brassica family and may cause feed refusals. Patterson suggested that more research and breeding work is needed to ensure this issue doesn’t put constraints on the diet.

One study at the Atlantic Poultry Research Centre in Truro, N.S., found that gain in broilers dropped off as camelina inclusion reached 15 per cent of the diet, suggesting the defining line was somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent. Feed refusal resulted in less feed being consumed and therefore less growth, but feed conversion rates stayed the same. Patterson suggests that the 12 per cent cap on camelina inclusion may be unrealistic, recommending somewhere between five and 10 per cent.

As an omega-3 enrichment factor, camelina meal has potential but it’s not there yet, especially with the 12 per cent inclusion rate cap. To label a product as omega-3 enriched requires a level of 300 milligrams per 100 grams of meat. Even with enzyme supplementation, one study in 2015 by Nairn et al. at the University of Alberta could not reach that level with 12 per cent inclusion of camelina, although they did reach the enrichment level in thigh meat by day 42 with 16 per cent inclusion. In the U.S., camelina can be included up to 10 per cent on broiler and layer diets in omega-3 enriched programs but the U.S. omega-3 level of claim is lower.

Camelina oil has higher vitamin E levels than flax oil, meaning a longer shelf life, and it could be more effective than flax for meat enhancement, but Patterson doesn’t see camelina as a viable alternative to flax at this time. The caps to the usage of camelina in poultry diets as he sees them are with the limit to the level of inclusion and regulatory constraints at this time.

While he hopes to explore new opportunities with layers within the next year, indicating there is potential there, he regards it as a niche with limited opportunity that is not set to grow much unless producers are spurred by market demand to use camelina as a replacement for flax or genetically modified canola.

 

 

 

Published in Nutrition and Feed

June 24, 2016 - The United Egg Producers announced last week that they are commited to ending the practice of male chick culling in the next four years.  Canadian technology developed by Michael Ngadi, a professor of bioresource engineering at McGill University, to develop a machine that selects female eggs before they're hatched may help. READ MORE 

Published in Eggs - Layers

June 24, 2016 - Millennials are driving the greatest change the food industry has seen in 70 years, demanding fresher ingredients, greater sustainability, farm-to-market accountability and more. Chief among the demands is for vegetarian-fed meats, chicken in particular. With poultry producers left to find solutions immediately, the introduction of the world's first pure vegan protein supplement for poultry, Vegain, looks to change the way both broilers and layers are fed.

Dr. Clark Springfield, General Manager, H.J. Baker Animal Health & Nutrition, said in a release “the moment we realized the need for a vegetarian-fed chicken was becoming mainstream rather than a niche market, we knew the poultry industry would need to respond. We developed Vegain and got it into testing quickly. The results exceeded even our expectations. Now producers can have a pure vegetable protein that out-produced traditional animal protein in head-to-head university trials."

To learn more about Vegain, visit hjbaker.com  

Published in Nutrition and Feed

 

Board of Directors Changes
CPRC held its Annual General Meeting in March followed by a meeting of the board of directors. Two new directors joined the board replacing long-time directors who had decided to step down. Roelof Meijer, an eight-year board member representing Turkey Farmers of Canada (TFC) and chair for the past three years, was replaced by Brian Ricker from Ontario.  Cheryl Firby, the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers (CHEP) board member has been replaced by Murray Klassen from Manitoba.

Tim Keet (Chicken Farmers of Canada) was elected chair with Helen Anne Hudson (Egg Farmers of Canada) elected vice-chair. Erica Charlton (Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council) was elected as a member of the executive committee along with the chair and vice-chair.

Poultry Science Cluster
The Poultry Science Cluster, co-funded between industry, provincial governments and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) has completed year three of its five-year research plan.  The cluster, the second that CPRC has administered, is a $5.6 million program with $4 million from AAFC and the balance from industry and provincial governments.  Seventeen research projects in four categories make up the cluster, details of which can be found at www.cp-rc.ca/poultry-science-cluster-2/.

The Poultry Science Cluster runs from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2018 and some research projects are being completed. Two projects were scheduled to be completed by March 31, 2016, and are winding up with final analysis and reporting underway. Ten projects are scheduled to be complete by the end of March 2017 with the final five projects being completed by the end of the cluster in March 2018.

Poultry Research Strategy Update
CPRC has begun a process to update the 2012 document National Research Strategy for Canada’s Poultry Sector, which formed the basis for much of the research structure of the Poultry Science Cluster. While much of the strategy remains relevant many of the research priorities identified have evolved and new issues have become important to the poultry industry. Two new priority areas, climate change impacts and precision agriculture, were added to this year’s CPRC call for Letters of Intent.

The strategy update is designed to validate and/or amend priorities from the 2012 document and to identify new priority areas since 2012. Issues that may be on the horizon but have not yet become poultry research initiatives will also be identified. The update will seek input from producers through the national and provincial representative organizations, scientific community including university and government, and other industry stakeholder organizations representing a broad range of value-chain members. Consultations will include surveys and webinars to gather information as well as to seek feedback on the updated strategy as it is developed. Target completion of the research strategy is early in 2017 so it can be used as the basis for a new application if a third science cluster program is included in the next federal-provincial agreement upon the expiry of the current Growing Forward 2 initiative.

New CPRC Website
The April CPRC Update announced that CPRC has a new website. Changing a website is a lot more than having someone do a new design. All of the material on the website has to be reviewed and decisions made on what should stay, what should go and new material that should be added. An important part of the CPRC website is the research summaries that are posted on all CPRC co-funded projects. A review of those summaries indicated that there were several formats being used, particularly during the last several years, and some project summaries had been missed. A format was adopted, very similar to one of those that had been used, and CPRC has reviewed all summaries, and edited them as necessary, to ensure consistency in presentation.

CPRC, its board of directors and member organizations are committed to supporting and enhancing Canada’s poultry sector through research and related activities. 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, email: 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

May 26, 2016 - Two whiteboard videos explaining the Code development process are now available from the National Farm Animal Care Council’s (NFACC) You Tube channel. The first video, Raising the Bar: The Code Development Process explains the seven steps of a Code’s development: 

(www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2cvixnA_MQ ).

The second video, Key Features of the Code Development Process highlights important Code process features that contribute to sustainable animal welfare improvements and public trust while supporting the viability of Canadian farmers:

(www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFbyJlFqwnM).

The updated Codes of Practice for Hatching Eggs, Breeders, Chickens and Turkeys should be released in June 2016.

An update on the Code development process and the status of the Code for egg-laying hens (layer Code) is available here: http://www.nfacc.ca/news?articleid=263

 

Published in Researchers

May 25, 2016 - Recognized welfare outcome assessments within farm assurance schemes have shown a reduction in feather loss and improvement in the welfare of UK cage-free laying hens, according to the findings of a study from the AssureWel project by the University of Bristol, RSPCA and the Soil Association. READ MORE

Published in Consumer Issues

 

While chefs and dieticians encourage the consumption of turkey and turkey products with nutritional information and delicious recipes, geneticists work away at the other end of the production chain, trying to create a better bird for a global market.

The consumer may never have to worry about how to stuff a 60-pound turkey in their oven for Thanksgiving, but at our current rate of progress, it’s not out of line to suggest that the farmer can expect to turn out a 20-week tom of that size for further processing markets, while still needing to produce a smaller table bird with different and possibly unique characteristics.

It’s a challenging task. Paige Rohlf is the research and development manager for Aviagen Turkeys Inc., where she manages the breeding program, selects pedigree lines, and implements new technology and selection techniques. As she explained to the audience at the 2015 PIC Innovations Conference, it takes up to four years for anything at the pedigree level to filter back into the farm level commercial bird and have an effect on the industry.

“It still takes time,” Rohlf said. “It’s very important that we have feedback.” At the pedigree level, everyone is your customer. What’s working? What’s not working? Where is the industry going? What are the domestic and global trends?

What does our Canadian bird look like now? AAFC monitors domestic turkey meat production by bird size: over 40 per cent of domestic Canadian turkey meat production is comprised of heavy birds – those weighing more than 11 kilograms – and mature turkeys. Turkey breasts coming from these large birds are used for deli products or turkey breast roasts, while the dark meat or meat from mature birds will end up as turkey kielbasa or pepperoni, turkey bacon, or turkey burgers and franks. The remaining birds that hit the market are less than 11 kilograms, with 75 per cent sold at retail as whole birds and the rest sold as parts. Our seasonal market parallels that of the U.S. with nearly 80 per cent of whole birds ending up on our Christmas or Thanksgiving tables.

Globally, Aviagen is keeping its eye on current increased production in North Africa and Russia, and potential for increasing markets with importing countries such as Mexico, the EU, China, South Africa and Russia. In terms of consumption, Asia presents a real opportunity: South Central and Eastern Asia will be dependent on importing meat because the population is growing faster than production can support. In Taiwan, turkey is a working man’s meal, as it is more affordable for restaurants to purchase whole turkeys and boil them down to serve over rice than it is to purchase broilers.

But it’s not just volume that must be contemplated when trying to define a “better bird.” The industry is also faced with factors such as increasing competition for land, water and resources, as well as an evolving consumer, making genetic decisions more challenging. In the EU, the industry has started labeling the carbon footprint on food. Rohlf predicts this trend will come our way. It’s hard to calculate but it makes people feel good to buy a product with claims of a lower carbon footprint. Add to this consumer concerns about fertilizer and pesticide use, housing and management systems, raising birds organically or with restricted antibiotics, and layered on top of changes from a whole bird market for making bigger birds and more eggs to a resource management perspective, all while keeping turkey competitive with broilers and pork.

On the production side, think about where we raise the birds. It’s different all around the world, but over the past 70 years, there has been a global trend to raise them indoors, which Rohlf points to as a big step in the right direction in terms of survival. The bird we see is the result of genetics expressed in that environment. There are a lot more inputs we can now measure every day: their weight, feed conversion and health. We can control their environment, their feed, their water and their lighting, but how much can we control their genetics?

What we can control by genetic selection is determined by the heritability of the trait – a highly heritable trait allows faster progress. For example, growth rate is highly heritable: a heavy tom mated with a heavy hen will have heavy offspring; the environment doesn’t matter as much. But it’s not all just as simple as weighing a bird. Feed efficiency is less heritable; reproduction traits, fitness or survival, and livability are much more influenced by the environment, therefore it is harder to make improvements in these traits and we have to rely on technology to collect information to make selection decisions.

When it comes to nutrition, Rohlf then raises the question, how do we feed the birds to realize their full genetic potential? “This is where the challenges are.” While large companies have their own in-house nutritionists and feed companies generally know how to feed turkeys, there are no recent published standards (the last was in 1994). Since then, U.S. heavy toms have gotten 10 pounds heavier. Are we breeding for growth rate or breast meat yield? As the saying goes, the last bit of feed is the most efficient: the birds need to gain weight for maintenance, then they put on additional weight, then the feed goes to the breast. How do the birds use different feeds for maintenance? For growth? For breast meat production?

Some in-house research is indicating protein levels can be reduced as long as amino acids are balanced, while alternative feedstuffs and fillers offer different amino acid spectrums over the traditional corn and soybean diet. More research is needed to determine how the birds utilize amino acids, or use new feeds such as dried distiller’s grains, or how probiotics will affect genetic potential.  

Rohlf is excited about a new genetic opportunity with satellite cells. These myoblasts – baby muscle cells – are determined before a bird hatches but defined after the bird is hatched. Can we make more breast meat by promoting feed intake in the first few days after hatch to stimulate these satellite cells?

Genetic programs have so far focused on efficiency, growth and fitness. For this year, Rohlf expects an improvement of 0.34 per cent in breast meat yield as per cent of live weight in toms at 20 weeks of age, continuing a steady pace of improvement. She also predicts four points of improvement in feed conversion for toms at 45 pounds (20.4 kg), from 2.45 to 2.41 pounds of feed per pound of gain. In weight, toms at 20 weeks of age will be 0.70 pounds (320 g) heavier this year. Aviagen Turkeys’ breeding goal also includes several measures of fitness, including walking ability and livability. These traits receive similar emphasis in selection as the growth and efficiency traits.

 

 

 

Published in Meat - Turkeys

May 12, 2016 - New data from a survey of wheat samples from across Canada is helping to drive optimized feeding strategies for pigs and poultry.

The survey was led by Canadian Bio-Systems Inc. (CBS Inc.) and the University of Manitoba in cooperation with farming operations and feed mills across four provinces. 



"Feeding strategies are becoming more sophisticated and represent one of the greatest opportunities for livestock operations to improve efficiency and profitability," says Rob Patterson, Technical Director of CBS Inc. "The key to maximizing value from feed is to first understand the nutritional profile of the ingredients at the deepest level possible, then apply this knowledge to strategies designed to get the most bang per bite. The wheat survey is a new effort to help provide this knowledge for feed wheat." 



For the 2015-2016 wheat survey, wheat samples were collected from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario from August to October 2015. Location, variety, date of collection and other pertinent information was recorded at the time of collection. All samples were analyzed over the following months at the University of Manitoba’s Department of Animal Science, producing a wealth of data on a variety of parameters including crude protein, starch, non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) – both water soluble and water insoluble – and neutral-detergent fibre, as well as total phytate and non-phytate phosphorus. 



"The picture presented by the analysis gives us a fresh look, at an in-depth level, at the nutritional value available in the feed wheat, as well as the potential to unlock more of the feed value – for example, through the use of feed additives that help break down the hard-to-digest components," says Patterson. "The new data collected from this survey will be made available to industry, to help in the formulation of precision diets, particularly for swine and poultry." 



The results show some regional variation, he says. They also confirm characteristics that can be addressed through feeding strategies. 

"Overall we see a high-quality feed ingredient," says Patterson. "We also get a clearer picture of how to get the most value and best performance using this feed source. For example, the survey results help us pin down the levels of water soluble and water insoluble NSP present in the wheat. Water soluble NSP are significant because they can slow feed passage. Water insoluble NSP are significant because they are hard-to-digest and thereby lock away nutrients. With knowledge from the survey, we see ways to optimize the performance of the animals. We also see ways to improve the overall nutritional value obtained from the wheat, by five percent or more." 



The 2015-2016 wheat survey follows up on an initial survey conducted in 2014. Plans are to continue this approach for multiple years, in order to build an increasingly valuable resource of information, says Patterson. 

"As we strive to get more customized and precise in feeding approaches, feed wheat is near the top of our list of priorities in Canada.

For pigs and poultry, year-to-year, wheat is the most common feed ingredient in Western Canada and it is also important in Eastern Canada. Building this knowledge base is a great opportunity to help Canada reach a new, higher level of livestock production success." 

More information on the 2015-2016 wheat survey, including a map and key charts, is available on request by contacting CBS Inc.

Published in Nutrition and Feed

April 27, 2016 - Hybrid Turkeys is giving back to the agricultural science community by donating $125,000 to the University of Guelph, Canada.

This gift will support turkey welfare research at the University’s Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare (CCSAW). The centre, under the direction of Prof. Tina Widowski, promotes the welfare of animals through research, outreach and education and seeks to better understand how animals perceive and respond to their environments and the ways that we handle them. 

Prof. Widowski’s research group has tackled some difficult issues including transportation of pigs and methods for euthanasia in poultry. Her goal is to determine how we can match agricultural systems to the animals’ behavioural biology in order to develop best practices for their care. 

Dave Libertini, Managing Director of Hybrid Turkeys says, “Our support of the Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare and Prof. Widowski’s research team, demonstrates the commitment Hybrid Turkeys has to the overall health and wellbeing of animals, not only under our care, but within the entire industry.”

Poultry welfare research priorities will be determined in consultation with a poultry welfare advisory committee, which will include representatives from both the University of Guelph and from Hybrid Turkeys. This collaborative approach will ensure industry issues are considered for research and that research results are shared.

Dr. Helen Wojcinski DVM, a University of Guelph alumna and Manager of Science and Sustainability for Hybrid Turkeys says, “Ensuring animal health and wellbeing is at the centre of our business, and so we highly value this relationship with the University of Guelph. We look forward to the positive outcomes of this research in animal welfare.” 

 “I am pleased that Hybrid Turkeys has joined a number of other industry partners to support the research of the poultry welfare group of CCSAW,” says Widowski. “The Campbell Centre is currently the largest of its kind in North America with over 40 associated faculty members who all specialise in various areas of animal welfare and behaviour.”

Published in Researchers

 

The poultry industry has a long and complicated supply chain, incorporating a wide spectrum of costs and benefits. When you think about sustainability in that chain, it doesn’t make sense to improve one part of the system if that change may unintentionally burden another part of the process and outweigh the advantages achieved.

Nathan Pelletier is the president of Global Ecologic, an independent sustainability consulting firm that measures and manages strategy in food and other industrial systems. Speaking at the 2015 Canadian Poultry Sustainability Conference in London, Ont., he explained how life cycle thinking could be used to help analyze the past, present and future of the poultry industry in the quest for sustainability.

Life cycle thinking – changing from a management perspective to a systems perspective – is an analytical process that helps to examine the relevant interactions associated with the production of goods and services, allowing us to pinpoint which aspects of the supply chain have the biggest impact.

The results of life cycle thinking can often be counterintuitive, flying in the face of our current thoughts. For example, is local food more sustainable? With life cycle analysis, this argument is no longer credible if you factor in the efficiencies of transport over long distances by rail, truck or boat. “There will always be trade-offs,” said Pelletier. “We need to be conscious of these to make decisions regarding our own priorities.”

For the poultry industry, he sees no alternative but to embrace this management philosophy throughout the supply chain, but Pelletier says it won’t be a straightforward journey.

Complexity will surround everything from agreeing on definitions of sustainability to operationalizing the information, but he predicts that life cycle thinking will become a requirement in the new marketplace, coming to the forefront of regulatory guidelines within 10 years.

Looking back over 50 years, in an in-depth historical life cycle analysis published in the Poultry Journal in 2014, Pelletier compared the environmental footprint of the poultry industry in the U.S. in 1960 versus 2010, putting some hard numbers around poultry production.

The modern poultry industry is not the same as it was 50 years ago, and that’s an interesting story itself. His results show astonishing changes.

While egg production in the U.S. has risen 30 per cent in 50 years, the environmental footprint per kilogram of eggs produced in 2010 is 65 per cent lower in acidifying emissions, 71 per cent lower in eutrophying emissions, 71 per cent lower in greenhouse gas emissions and 31 per cent lower in cumulative energy demand during that same time.

According to Pelletier, the reduction could be attributed to factors such as feed and manure management. Up to 30 per cent of the improvement is based in improved efficiencies of background systems, for example supply chain efficiencies in transportation and energy use. Thirty to 44 per cent was from changes in feed composition, reflecting efficiencies realized in crop production with less inputs for increased yields. Another 28 to 43 per cent was due to improvements in genetics, feed conversion and bird health.

Productivity has increased 50 per cent, from 195 eggs to 297 eggs annually. In 1960, 3.1 kg of feed equaled one kg of eggs; now only two kg of feed is needed per kg of eggs. Not only that but the birds are healthier, with 63 per cent lower mortality.

This is a good news story, but how does poultry stack up against other protein sources? It’s hard to compare unless studies have been done with the same protocols, said Pelletier, but in general, monogastrics are more efficient. The most efficient protein source is pork, followed by eggs, both better than beef. This matters because sustainability is becoming such a differentiating factor in the marketplace, for social license, regulatory compliance and market access. In this respect, poultry is well positioned for the future.

Looking forward, Pelletier suggested that proactive engagement in sustainability is essential, making four suggestions.

First, develop a Canadian life cycle inventory of consistent data to support production. Defending any kind of comparison requires such data.

The poultry industry also needs to develop and implement a transparent, multi-criteria sustainability benchmarking program for producers, to support sustainability initiatives and provide benchmarking and goal setting targets.

He sees a third opportunity in acting as a leader in pushing new frontiers. “Don’t be too attached to the status quo,” said Pelletier. “Just think about the changes in your industry over the past 50 years, and imagine where you could be 50 years from now?” Support and participate in the research that will be necessary to define the sustainable poultry production systems of the future.

Finally, formalize a commitment industry wide by engaging all stakeholders in a round-table discussion on sustainability, defining a common vision and a strategy to achieve it. As Pelletier says, “use it as an opportunity to see sustainability not as a challenge or as a hoop to jump through, but as a source of competitive advantage, as an exciting and necessary collaborative journey toward that shared vision of the future.”

 

 

 

Published in Environment

April 9, 2016 - Connections and collaboration were a key theme during the Poultry Health Research Network (PHRN) Research Day at the University of Guelph March 29.

The research day brought together representatives from government, industry and academia to provide updates on current research and prompt discussion for future collaborations.

“The whole intent was to ensure that our industry partners and our researchers, either from academia or the government agencies that work with us, have a chance to mingle and talk about their research needs and what we can do to address those research needs,” said Dr. Shayan Sharif, an immunologist in the Ontario Veterinary College’s Department of Pathobiology and leader of the PHRN.

The University of Guelph has had a long-standing commitment to innovation in animal health and production, with one of the largest groups of poultry scientists and poultry experts in North America. The Poultry Health Research Network has been steadily expanding since its inception in 2012 and now includes more than 60 members from across the UofG campus, as well as industry and government researchers. 

Lloyd Longfield, Member of Parliament for Guelph, addressed the group during lunch, pointing out how important it is to work together to “share resources and specific expertise to solve global problems.”

Bringing everyone together in the room is where it needs to start, he added. “We’ve got researchers from the government here, we’ve got researchers from university, we’ve got industry and that’s really the chemistry we need to drive forward.”

“Here at the University of Guelph we have an unprecedented and unique gathering of expertise in support of the poultry industry,” said OVC Dean Jeff Wichtel, in addressing the group. “It involves upwards of five of our seven colleges and spans the breadth from poultry welfare right through to vaccine development and molecular basis for immunity to disease.”

During the day, UofG researchers, including MSc, PhD students and post-doctoral researchers, outlined current research in a variety of areas, including poultry welfare, biosecurity, vaccine development, nutrition, and antimicrobial resistance. Afternoon presentations with industry representatives, including pharmaceutical, feed, genetics and equipment companies, and researchers provided a forum to explore areas of mutual interest for future collaborations.

Sharif recognized funding from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for part of the research day and also acknowledged the Poultry Industry Council, Canadian Poultry Research Council, Livestock Research Innovation Corporation and the Ontario Veterinary College for their ongoing support for PHRN’s work. 

Published in Housing

 

FUNDING THE PROGRAM CHANGES
CPRC adjusted its funding program for the 2016 call for Letters of Intent (LOI) to fit better into the annual funding timeframe.  Government funding organizations generally look for industry financial support to show that the proposed research is an industry priority.  Some funders, such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), require industry funding approval prior to application. Others will accept an application prior to industry funding commitments but will not provide final approval until industry support is confirmed.  CPRC moved its call for 2016 LOIs to mid-December with a submission date in early February so that it can complete its review process and issue funding decisions by the end of June.

CPRC uses a two-step review and approval process. The first step is an internal review by the CPRC Board of Directors and its support staff to determine the level of support for a research proposal by the member organizations. The review assesses the proposal’s importance to industry and how well it aligns with priorities identified in the 2012 National Research Strategy for Canada’s Poultry Sector as well as new priorities identified by CPRC and its member organizations (e.g.: climate change, precision agriculture).  A short list of projects is developed to move on to the next part of the process.

The second step is to complete peer reviews conducted by research scientists of the short-listed projects, which looks more at technical aspects of the project and the validity of the research (e.g.: duplication of prior research, methodology).  The peer reviews provide valuable input to CPRC’s final decisions on the projects that will be funded.  The final funding decision will be made at CPRC’s June Board of Directors meeting.  CPRC received 28 LOIs in the 2016 call.

2015 CPRC SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENT
The 2015 CPRC Scholarship was awarded to Sasha van der Klein, a PhD student under the supervision of Dr. Martin Zuidhof, University of Alberta. Sasha completed her M. Sc. at the University of Wageningen in 2015 in the areas of immunology, genetics and nutrition. She published one and co-authored another paper following from her thesis in genetics, about the relationship between production traits and immunology in laying hens.

Sasha’s research at the University of Alberta will look at broiler breeder management strategies. Her objective will be to better understand the long term effects of broiler breeder rearing strategies on production and the effects on offspring performance. The focus will be on lighting and body weight management. She will also conduct research on understanding the mechanisms of transgenerational effects of nutrition. In her studies she will use the Precision Broiler Breeder Feeding System, developed by Dr. Zuidhof, which can control individual bird feed intake using real-time body weight measurements to make feed allocation decisions.

CPRC has redesigned its website (www.cp-rc.ca) to take advantage of developments in website design and management.  The redesigned website was activated in March and includes the same content as the previous website but packaged in a more concise format. It is also designed for use on a cell phone.  Please check out the new website and let us know what you think ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ).

REDESIGNED CPRC WEBSITE
CPRC, its Board of Directors and member organizations are committed to supporting and enhancing Canada’s poultry sector through research and related activities.  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, email: 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

 

Recently, there has been a significant increase in calls for the reduction or exclusion of in-feed antibiotics in North American poultry production. Notable restaurant chains and retailers, including McDonald’s and Costco, have publicly announced their intentions to eliminate the use of “medically important” antibiotics in their supply chains, prompting further announcements by major U.S. integrators, including Tyson, Pilgrim’s and Foster Farms to  eliminate use of these antibiotics in their production systems in the coming years.

To be clear, while removing medically important disease prevention antibiotics such as bacitracin and virginiamycin,  many of these companies are promoting the continued use of in-feed coccidiostats, parasiticides that control the intestinal parasites of Eimeria species.  

The reason for these announcements, as noted in earlier articles in Canadian Poultry Magazine (October and December 2015 issues), is to address concerns over the development and transmission of antibiotic resistance to pathogenic bacteria in humans; so-called “superbugs”. While some continue to debate the contribution of animal agriculture’s use of antibiotics to the development of resistant bacteria in humans, as an industry, we have a responsibility to mitigate this risk where possible. This will support maintaining the effectiveness of the limited toolbox of antibiotics for treating human, as well as food production animal infections.

In order to maintain current levels of performance and health in our flocks we must find alternative feed additives or production strategies to replace these valuable tools. This story is not new. In fact, a ban on antibiotic growth-promotants (AGPs) was initiated in the EU in 2006. What is new is a rapidly growing North American demand for effective additives to replace antibiotics.

One of the concerns in antibiotic-free programs is the increased risk of necrotic enteritis (NE). Key antibiotics have claims for control of Clostridium perfringens (Cp), the causative agent in NE. New additives or feeding programs should offer some protection against Cp to help prevent NE outbreaks.

Feed companies are bombarded with products positioned as alternatives to traditional medicated feed programs, with numerous modes of action (how they work). A dominant category of these additives are essential oil or plant-derived extracts, registered largely as flavours, with anecdotal reports of improved growth in chickens. Essential oils are also widely considered antibacterial and have been shown to directly inhibit growth of Cp in the lab. Other technologies include yeast byproducts, prebiotics, probiotics, short and medium chain fatty acids, various acidifiers and antioxidants, most of which are single bioactive products. The reality is there is no single additive that is as effective as a drug, nor as inexpensive – no “silver bullet”. Despite the plethora of antibiotic-alternative feed additives that are promoted, little, if any, data are available to support the performance of these products under production conditions similar to a medicated feed program.

Nutreco Canada (Shur-Gain and Landmark Feeds) believes that a combination product, which improves the immune system and integrity of the digestive tract while inhibiting pathogen growth and colonization in the digestive system, will provide the strongest protection. No single bioactive compound can address all of these modes of action.

This formed the basis of a succession of studies over many years in screening various individual bioactive compounds and commercial products both in the lab, and under disease challenge conditions at our research facilities in Canada to identify  products that would best meet the combined mode of action approach at a reasonable cost. We also used the experiences of our European Nutreco colleagues  subsequent to the antibiotic ban in Europe, to develop alternative feeding programs to test.

The culmination of this effort was a three-site multi-location controlled study (a total of 180 experimental pens) comparing the performance of five dietary feeding programs, all with the same coccidiostat program:

  1. Negative control (no antibiotic);
  2. Positive control (includes 55 ppm bacitracin methylene disalicylate, or BMD);
  3. Alternative program 1 (combination of products with ingredients that have indirect pathogen inhibition and improvements to intestinal integrity/health/microflora);
  4. Alternative program 2, which later became the Nobelo program (combination of products with ingredients that have indirect pathogen inhibition and improvements to intestinal integrity, health and microflora and immune systems competency); and
  5. Alternative program 3 (combination of products to support digestive and immune systems competency).

Under non-challenge research conditions we saw no differences in mortality, but we did see, as expected, a significant improvement in overall feed conversion when feeding BMD (two points lower). We also noted that Alternative programs 1 and 2 (Nobelo) had similar improvement in FCR as the medicated treatment (Fig. 1), while alternative program 3 had little benefit.

Overall average mortality was lower when using BMD (as expected), but we were excited to see that both alternative programs 1 and 2 also had significantly lower mortality compared to the non-medicated control (Fig. 2).

Pen-based studies alone are not sufficient to help producers make informed choices as to whether  products will work under commercial conditions. Our next step was to validate the performance of the alternative program 2 (branded as Nobelo and selected over alternative program 1 due to its lower cost) under field conditions. We repeated the field validation in two separate regions  using different in-feed antibiotics with 38 commercial flocks in Quebec (19 flocks randomly assigned to antibiotic and 19 to Nobelo) and 20 commercial flocks in Ontario (10 flocks randomly assigned to antibiotic and 10 to Nobelo) in the fall of 2011. Under real-life commercial production conditions we saw no significant differences in average market weights, feed conversion or mortality in either region (Fig. 3), nor did we see any differences in production costs for antibiotic versus Nobelo.

Shur-Gain and Landmark feeds introduced the Nobelo feeding program in 2014, resulting in a 33 per cent reduction in our in-feed antibiotic use in broilers, with no difference in production performance when compared to flocks placed before or after Nobelo (Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b.).

What does all of this mean?  It shows that producing poultry without feeding the birds medically important antibiotics is possible in a safe and economically sustainable way while maintaining performance. Perhaps most importantly, using this Nobelo strategy will help safeguard the use of our limited supply of antibiotics for when they are truly needed for disease treatment.

CP april16 feedingfigures

 

Published in Nutrition and Feed

March 10, 2016 - A&W Food Services of Canada Inc. has announced a major commitment to become the first national quick service restaurant in Canada to serve eggs from hens raised in better cage-free housing. According to a company press release, the company expects to achieve this goal within two years. "A&W has already established its leadership role by being the first and only quick service restaurant chain to serve eggs from hens in enriched housing and raised without the use of antibiotics," the company said. "Currently, there are no open barn housing options available that meet A&W's supply needs and allow for an antibiotic-free environment."

A&W is committing to improving and redesigning housing for egg laying hens, and will source eggs from hens raised without the use of antibiotics while simultaneously advancing the best practices for egg laying hens.  

In the press release, the company said that "as a part of its commitment to improving egg laying hen housing, a $100,000 A&W grant is being made to Farm & Food Care Canada, a leading Canadian non-profit organization dedicated to building public trust in food and farming. With this investment, the organization will bring together industry experts from many fields to help build on existing work and set better direction for hen housing in Canada."
 
Farm & Food Care Canada released the following statement to clarify  A&W Food Services of Canada Inc.'s assertion that the charitable organization will be receiving funds to further hen housing research:
 
Contrary to media reports, Farm & Food Care Canada will not be funding research into finding better cage-free housing alternatives for hens. On March 10, A&W announced plans to contribute $100,000 to Farm & Food Care Canada. In its press release, A&W stated the following: “As a part of its commitment to improving egg laying hen housing, a $100,000 A&W grant is being made to Farm & Food Care Canada, a leading Canadian non-profit organization dedicated to building public trust in food and farming. With this investment, the organization will bring together industry experts from many fields to help build on existing work and set better direction for hen housing in Canada.
Farm & Food Care Canada was approached for this work earlier this week as a third party coordinator to host a session to bring egg industry partners, retail and food service from across Canada together with the US Center for Food Integrity’s Coalition for a Sustainable Egg Supply. The principle of the discussion would be to broaden it beyond hen welfare to include all issues impacting sustainable eggs including food safety, environment, hen health, worker health and safety and food affordability and determine areas that the Canadian egg sector felt this funding would be best spent.
No agreements have been or will be signed for the funding or its terms until after the Farm & Food Care Canada board of directors and egg industry partners have discussed best options. Farm & Food Care and the new Canadian Centre for Food Integrity does not advocate for positions on issues or for specific companies. 
 
Susan Senecal, President and Chief Operating Officer, A&W Food Services of Canada Inc. said the company is "committed to finding better hen housing options within two years that can benefit Canadians, egg farmers and the entire food industry. "We are investing in innovation to accelerate the pace of change because right now there are no viable cage-free egg options that meet our supply standards regarding the use of antibiotics. We are committed to change because we think it is the right thing for the animals, the industry, our business and Canada."
As the only national QSR serving eggs from enriched housing, A&W says it is already at the forefront of egg laying hen health and welfare. 
"We have a long history of innovating.  We worked with highly committed Canadian egg farmers to move from conventional cages," Senecal said in the company release. "While it costs more, we made the switch because it was the right thing to do. Now we are advancing to the next stage. We have led our industry in the past and we will continue to lead in the future."
 

 

 
Published in Researchers

 

Furnished cages support behaviours such as scratching, perching and nesting, but their design continues to evolve. Thirty years ago, the earliest models held fewer than 15 hens and allowed them access to dust baths or litter. These prototypes presented problems with hygiene and egg collection, with scratch mats now being the norm. The size of the furnished cages has changed too – some of the newest models now house groups as large as 100 hens.

How does the performance and welfare of the hens respond to higher stocking densities?

A study done by Tina Widowski in the department of animal and poultry science at the University of Guelph, measured these parameters at two different densities in two different sized cages, with comparison to reference groups housed in conventional cages. The production parameters under consideration included feed intake, egg production, egg weight, mortality, body weight and body weight uniformity, feather condition, and bone strength.

“This research is some of the first ever to assess the welfare of hens housed in large furnished cages of different sizes and space allowances using measures of production, health and body condition,” said Widowski. “At any given space allowance hens in these larger groups have more total space available to them and more ‘free space’ since they tend to cluster together at different times of day leaving some parts of the cage largely unoccupied.”

Widowski used 1218 conventionally reared LSL-lite laying hens housed at the Arkell Research Station near Guelph, Ont. Eighteen-week old hens were individually weighed and wing banded before being placed in either larger standard commercial furnished cages or custom built smaller furnished cages.

The cages were populated with 80 (high density) or 55 (low density) birds in the larger cages and 40 or 28 birds in the smaller cages. This allowed for a stocking space allowance of either 520 cm2 ( approximately 80 in2, high density) or 748 cm2 (approximately 116 in2, low density) per hen.  The European Union standard is 750 cm2/hen; a reference population in conventional cages was used for comparison at 465 cm2 (72 in2)/hen.

Furnishings included curtained nest boxes, claw shorteners, two linear feeders, nipple drinkers and a smooth plastic scratch mat where a small amount of feed (20g) was distributed several times per day. Perch allowances and nesting areas were proportionally sized for the cages and the hens were given feed and water ad libitum.

Egg quality was monitored continuously over the 50 weeks of the trial and egg quality was assessed every four weeks to provide an indication of shell strength. Hens were randomly selected for individual body weight measurements at 30, 50, 60 and 70 weeks of age, at which time they were also scored for overall cleanliness, feather condition, as well as keel, toe and foot damage health.  At the end of the trial 10 per cent of the birds were assessed post-mortem for bone strength.

Overall the results indicate that most measures of productivity were not affected by the parameters of the trial. Hen day egg production, egg weight and eggshell deformation were not affected by cage size while there was slightly greater egg deformity (weaker shells) at 57 weeks of age in low space allowance.

Mortality was lower in conventional cages than any of the furnished cages (4.6 per cent vs. 2.0 per cent), unaffected by cage size. The majority of mortality occurred early in the study, due to injury or entrapment, while both birds and researchers adjusted to the new systems.

Feather condition deteriorated under all treatments over time, but hens in the high density furnished cages were poorer than the others, with the increased potential for abrasion by the furnishings or the possibility of increased feather pecking. This is supported by other research that found feather condition deteriorates with decreased space allowance.

Hens in large cages were the cleanest, possibly explained by cage design – the large cages were fitted with a wire partition over the scratch mat area that kept them from roosting and defecating there – or simply that higher density resulted in closer contact.  

All bones were stronger in furnished cages than conventional cages, but leg bones tended to be weaker in the small cages with lower space allowance. Overall, space allowance and cage size had no effect on the rate of keel damage. Toe damage was higher in the furnished cages over conventional, possibly because the furnishings allowed greater opportunity for mechanical injury. Footpad damage increased significantly as space allowance decreased.

The only unexpected result was that hens in small furnished cages consumed significantly higher amounts of feed compared to large furnished cages, a result that Widowski explained may be due to the difficulty in gathering feed intake data and possibly greater feed wastage with this experimental design.

Widowski concluded that while productivity and mortality were not influenced by space allowance, the differences in feather condition and foot health might be a reflection of compromised welfare of hens housed at the lower space allowance. Given current research results of this study and a comparable research project at Michigan State University, she suggests a cage space allowance of at least 581 cm2 (90 in2) per hen would be considered appropriate for maintaining the physical measures of welfare quality specifically for the white laying hens used in this study.

This research was supported by OMAFRA and Egg Farmers of Canada with in-kind contribution of Farmer Automatic Cages from Clark AG Systems.

 

 

 

Published in Eggs - Layers

 

When it comes to developing a vaccine in response to emerging diseases that threaten the lives of animals, a pharmaceutical company needs to move quickly.

What it comes down to is being “first to know” and “fast to market”, said Dr. Raja Krishnan, formerly senior director of Swine and Poultry Research and Development for Zoetis and now of companion animal and equine biological research. Speaking to the Poultry Industry Council Health Day in Stratford, Ont., Krishnan put a global perspective on some of the corporate thought processes that precede his company’s decision to develop a vaccine.

Use of surveillance
“The world is becoming a smaller village,” said Krishnan. Zoetis, a leading pharmaceutical company with 10,000 employees in 120 countries, has access to global surveillance networks that use targeted regional surveillance to help guide rapid, high quality product development.

As an example, Krishnan called Avian Influenza (AI) a “disease that is travelling around the world, creating headaches.” With that kind of migration, how do we become proactive? How do we get ahead of the next round of disease? “It’s a decision that can’t wait,” said Krishnan. “Seasons change whether we’re ready or not,” leaving the company to do the right thing for their customers and the entire industry, sometimes making those decisions in a matter of minutes.

Questions, questions
The AI outbreak affected over 48 million birds between December 2014 and June 2015. A lot of questions swirled around the decision to develop a vaccine; the disease was moving quickly. Did the industry want a vaccine? Would they use it? Would the government endorse it? Would the USDA recommend culling or vaccinating? Even if a product were developed, would it be relevant? Does it make sense?

Adding to this uncertainty is the fact that AI doesn’t play by the rules. The virus can mutate rapidly, meaning that the vaccine needs to be changed frequently. That’s one of the challenges. “AI constantly surprises us,” said Krishnan. “Nothing beats preparedness but we may have to course-correct collectively.”

When asked about the drivers behind the U.S. poultry industry deciding to use or not use the AI vaccine, Krishnan listed several of the questions such as, when will the product be available? Is there a risk of AI going into broilers as we go into the winter? Will this pressure us to act?

Political aspects
“Let’s not underestimate the economic and trade implications,” said Krishnan, what he called “the political aspects.” Will use of a vaccine result in trade restrictions? How does the issue get played out in the news? How does the consumer view the issue? What will the government do? How will pressure from retailers like Walmart affect vaccine use? He described the vaccination issue as “a jigsaw puzzle with so many uncertain parameters.”

Under a similar disease challenge in April 2013, Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea (PED) was identified in the United States; by September 2014, conditional vaccine licenses were being issued in the U.S. Everything happened rapidly, said Krishnan, fuelled by a commitment to U.S. pork producers and the veterinarians who support them to help contain an outbreak in 30 states that was responsible for the deaths of more than seven million piglets in the U.S..

What if their company goes down the wrong path? Krishnan admitted that sometimes a vaccine works in a test tube but falls apart in the real world; sometimes a disease doesn’t cause a problem, in which case the resources will be pulled back and re-invested.

With AI, are we headed in the right direction? Is it easier to cull the birds, clean up and move on? “That’s the million dollar question,” answered Krishnan. Thirty years from now we’ll have stories to tell.

 

Published in Health

Subscription Centre

 
New Subscription
 
Already a Subscriber
 
Customer Service
 
View Digital Magazine Renew

Most Popular

Latest Events

Agricultural Data Use and Transparency
Fri Jun 23, 2017 @ 8:00AM - 05:00PM
Breakfast on the Farm
Sat Jun 24, 2017 @ 9:00AM - 01:00PM
Children’s Progressive Safety Day
Thu Jul 06, 2017 @ 8:00AM - 05:00PM
Chicken Marketing Summit
Sun Jul 16, 2017 @ 8:00AM - 05:00PM
Poultry Science Association AGM
Mon Jul 17, 2017 @ 8:00AM - 05:00PM