Poultry producers have become interested in being involved in on-farm trials to test research discoveries in a commercial production setting. Although conducting research trials in specialized facilities that mimic commercial circumstances is common, they may not provide the variety of conditions that would be found on commercial farms.
Research is designed to further the poultry industry and ensure its long-term viability, and trials on commercial operations are important to meet those objectives. However, on-farm research trials require compromises on the part of the poultry producer. Risks that may have a negative impact on production or product quality are part of all research. Producers have to be aware of potential production and other risks that might result from a research trial on their farm and discuss how those risks will be managed with the researcher.
Poultry producers commit to an on-farm trial for the length of the research project. Generally, research is conducted by changing one or several normal production activities (such as feed formulation, reduction in antibiotics, etc.) and then measuring how the changes impact the research flock. The research flock is then compared to other flocks that are produced under the farm’s normal method of production (control flocks). Changes in flock management or other production activities (feed formulation, lighting, etc.) cannot be made to either the research or control flocks during the research period without consultation with the researcher. Small production or management changes need to be accounted for in the measurement of research impacts, and significant changes can completely derail the project, leading to wasted money and effort.
Poultry producers who want to take part in on-farm trials can take the following steps to ensure that their experience is positive:
- Talk to other farmers that have been involved in on-farm research trials. What was their experience? How did they prepare? How was the communication with the researcher? What should they have done differently?
- Remember that researchers are not commercial poultry farmers. While they may be very knowledgeable about poultry, few will have a good understanding of how a commercial poultry farm operates.
- Ensure that the research is at an appropriate stage for on-farm trials. Talk to the researcher and industry specialists (provincial poultry specialists, producer organization staff) to make sure that an on-farm trial is the next step in the research process. This strategy will reduce the risk of failure or unexpected production problems.
- Ensure that communication is “two-way” so that the researcher understands how the project requirements may impact the poultry farm operations and management. Compromises may have to be made by both the farmer and researcher to meet both production and research requirements. Research is a specialized and very structured activity and a producer must have a clear understanding of researcher expectations so potential issues are identified.
- Make sure that research requirements are clearly understood by management and that staff are aware of their responsibilities to the project.
- Develop a clear risk-management plan to ensure that problems are identified early, the research team is quickly made aware of a developing problem and the farm business is not unduly damaged if problems occur. The risk-management plan should include details of compensation if the research trials cause negative financial impacts on the farm business.
On-farm research trials are important to proving the value of research discoveries before they are adopted by industry as a whole. Properly designed and managed trials will help industry adopt discoveries quickly and efficiently.
CPRC has begun a consultation process designed to develop recommended guidelines for planning and performing on-farm trials. This effort will involve input from a wide range of stakeholders, including producers, producer organizations, researchers, regulators, statisticians and others. This approach will ensure that potential issues are identified and addressed in the guidelines.
The membership of the CPRC consists of the 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.
The difficulty of measuring feeding behaviour in a large group is overcome with the use of electronic feeding stations.
One of the challenges with poultry research is that the birds may not respond the same in trial conditions as they do in a commercial setting. So how do we find the turkey that is most efficient under group housing conditions?
Owen Willems, a PhD candidate at the University of Guelph, working under the supervision of Dr. Ben Wood and Dr. Andy Robinson in the Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock is trying to do just that.
His area of research is focused primarily on the genetics of feed efficiency and feed behaviour in group-housed turkeys, looking at the correlations between feed efficiency and time spent feeding, number of meals, feeding rate, and daily feed intake. As a geneticist, Willems is ultimately in search of the most efficient turkey, housed in the same large group conditions as it will be raised commercially.
CONVENTIAL RESEARCH FLAWS
Seventy per cent of the total production costs is feed, said Willems, with most primary breeders selecting for feed conversion values. Under conventional feed trial research, data would have to be gathered on individual birds — weigh the bird, weigh the feed in and weigh the feed out — but that data would not always reflect the behavioural aspects involved with group housing in a commercial environment. In a commercial setting the bird would face competition from other birds for feed and water, while in an individual research pen, a meek bird that would do poorly in a group could still be considered as a good performer.
But how do you keep track of feeding behaviour in a large group? As far as Willems was concerned, other livestock industries, beef, swine and dairy, were using auto feed measurement systems, so why not turkeys?
Picture 320 turkeys in one big pen with 32 electronically monitored feed intake stations, ten birds per station. The birds are all “Large White” toms, from 15 to 19 weeks of age. Attached to the wing web of each bird is a generic RFID tag, similar to those used in the dairy industry. The tags weigh 5.6 grams and cost around two dollars each but the information they provide is priceless.
ENHANCED DATA COLLECTION
The birds would enter feeders that are mounted on scales, providing data about their feed intake, duration of feeding and the number of times they fed every day. Willems describes the data collected as “vast.” Some birds preferred the central feeders; some preferred the ones on the sides of the pen. “The system records data from each scale every second and the turkeys are active around 14 hours a day,” said Willems, “giving us the capacity to record about 1.6 million data points a day.”
His data is already being used for both research and commercial purposes. In future, it will provide a large dataset for mining and analysis by subsequent graduate students. For example, Willems suggested that someone could now use the data to look at behavioural and animal welfare considerations, while the commercial application is really about improving the breeding candidates that will then become future generations at the commercial level.
The Poultry Industry Council of Ontario, the University of Guelph and industry partner Hybrid Turkeys provided funding for the project.
Insects as a sustainable human food source have received a good deal of attention and investment over the last several years. Less visible are efforts here and abroad to use insects as a sustainable animal feed source. One such initiative is taking place in a commercial sized facility in Vancouver.
Vancouver-based Enterra Feed Corporation is not only unique to Canada; it is attempting to resolve two problems with a single solution by using food waste to create feed protein derived from insects. They describe it as up-cycling.
By using a food source that is naturally eaten by poultry, Enterra is tackling two major, global problems – wasted food and a growing demand for affordable protein sources.
According to recent reports, more than 30 per cent of the world’s food supply never makes it to the consumer and ends up as disposed waste or compost. In Canada, over 50 per cent of food waste occurs at the consumer level but 29 per cent occurs at the processing and retail levels amounting to about $7.8 billion a year.
The sharp increase in pre-consumer food waste over the last 50 years is due in large part to increasing consumption of perishable fruits and vegetables and stricter food quality requirements. This is happening at the same time as fish stocks and crop lands are shrinking and as demand for soy and other plant proteins is growing, creating volatile feed supplies and prices for poultry farmers.
The farm and food sector is continuously seeking ways to make their practices more environmentally and economically sustainable. This is where insect-feed fits in.
According to the company website, Enterra’s patent-pending hatchery process uses a local beneficial insect to recover nutrients from traceable feedstock. “We operate an organic, zero-waste system to provide a sustainable supply of high quality nutrients for food production at a stable price, and that also reduces food waste disposal costs for businesses and municipalities.”
This is the way it works.
Enterra takes fruit and vegetable waste from grocers and food processors — including Overwaitea Food Group and Sun Processing — combines it with a small amount of fish trim and waste bread and feeds it to the larvae of the black soldier fly. This common and benign fly is used because it is not a vector for disease and because the female flies are prolific- producing up to 900 larvae eggs during their seven day lifespan.
Known for their voracious appetite, the larvae consume each feeding in just a few hours, so the waste food never has time to decompose and breed pathogens.
The largely automated, enclosed hatching facility can take in 100 tonnes of pre-consumer food waste per day or 36,500 tonnes per year.
This produces approximately 5,400 tonnes of larvae, 2,700 tonnes of fertilizer and can recover nearly 20,000 tonnes per year of clean water from the fruit and vegetable feedstock.
After two weeks when they are at their prime, the larvae are cleaned, cooked, dried and ground into meal. The meal is about 60 per cent protein, comparable to soy feed, and, according to the company, suitable for both fish or poultry feed. The larvae castings and spent brood flies are being used as fertilizer by local farmers.
The company calls it “Renewable Food for Animals and Plants™”.
Breeding trials conducted by the EU initiative PROteINSECT have found that one hectare of land could produce at least 150 tons of insect protein per year. By comparison, soy planted over the same area yielded just under a ton of protein and is more resource intensive to grow. And a 2013 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN suggests that feeding trials with fish and poultry showed that the animals fed insect-feed outperformed those raised on traditional diets.
In September, Enterra announced that it had received additional investor funding to help complete its 56,000-square-foot commercial pilot facility in Langley B.C., expand production and begin selling feed on a commercial scale. This makes Enterra the only large scale commercial producer in Canada although there are many in the research, pilot and start-up stages here in Canada and globally.
Company CEO Brad Marchant says “we have been testing our products with poultry for about two years now — both in Canada and the U.S. The most recent field testing is being conducted at the University of Saskatchewan as well as an organic poultry farm in Oregon, with very encouraging results and positive response from the farm operators.”
As the company prepares to ramp up commercial production, it has filed for Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) approval to sell its feed products in Canada and is awaiting organic certification for its fertilizer product in Canada. Marchant reports that Enterra has “been working with CFIA for about two and half years now, to register the product as a novel feed ingredient for poultry and aquaculture.” Adding, “We understand that this is a normal timeline for approval of a novel feed ingredient.”
Currently, the products are being sold in Washington, Oregon and Idaho where the firm has received product approvals. The company is awaiting approval in several other U.S. states. At the same time, Enterra is working on FDA registration so they can sell to all of the U.S. market rather than just certain states.
When it comes to price, Marchant says it is price competitive with common protein sources such as soy and fish meals. “Based on the nutritional content and digestibility we are priced between premium fish meal and poultry meal. In some cases, where the advantages of local, consistent supply of a natural protein product are desired, there is a premium paid.”
The company is receiving inquiries from poultry producers and Marchant says, “there seems to be pent up demand for the product as insect larvae are a natural feed source for poultry, and our larvae are grown from traceable feedstock sources. It is really more a case of regulations catching up with product demand.”
If all goes according to plan the company may open hatcheries in Toronto, Seattle or San Francisco.
Although 1/3 of the world’s population eats insects as a regular food source it will be a challenge to get North Americans to adopt an insect diet. The next best thing is to use those insects to feed animals we will readily eat. And that poultry will too.
The public wants to know that birds are being well kept and the poultry industry wants the same, but what does the bird want?
That’s what Dr. Alexandra Harlander wants to know. She is leading a series of poultry behavioural studies at the University of Guelph’s Arkell Poultry Research Center where the birds are having their say.
Poultry producers are under public pressure to provide the best possible environment for chickens, and single- or multi-tier aviary systems may provide commercial options. In these systems, birds can walk and flap and fly – performing species-specific behaviour – but they also seem to have increased risk of bone fractures, particularly keel bone fractures, with 80 percent of birds sustaining injuries while navigating the cages.
Until now, there has been no science behind the locomotor skills of the birds on the ground or in the air, nor has there been any study of the laying hens’ preference for flying or walking. Are pullets and hens of different strains better able to adapt to different heights, angles and arrangements of perches and tiers? Are some genetic lines better able to adapt to alternative housing systems?
Harlander and her research students are investigating the set up of aviary systems, including perches, nest boxes, feeders, drinkers and litter, and the behaviour of birds in them with the intention of providing recommendations for these aviary systems in commercial settings.
One of three current projects involves testing the optimum ramp incline that hens can master across ages and strains. A steeper ramp means less room used but are the hens more likely to fly up and risk injury? Chantal LeBlanc, a Master’s student at the University of Guelph, is testing ramp inclines of 20, 50 and 70 degrees leading to two different platform heights similar to those found in commercial aviaries. “Nobody has tested that before,” said LeBlanc. She is also comparing two different surface materials on the ramp – sandpaper versus more commonly used wire mesh.
Starting at just one week old the birds have been tested weekly through 8 weeks of age, bi-weekly from 8 weeks to 20 weeks old, then will be tested further at 25 and 30 weeks of age. LeBlanc places birds from the same home pen — the hen’s friends — in a ‘social attraction’ cage at the top of the ramp, as well as offering food rewards (the birds love raisins) to entice them up the ramp. The hen is first placed on the platform so she sees the reward, then she is released at the bottom of the ramp and allowed to climb. LeBlanc is measuring their behaviour – how do they go up the ramps? Will she fly? Will she walk? At what point do they change from walking up to flying up?
At the bottom of the ramp is a force plate that measures how much they anticipate the climb by the ground-reaction force exerted on the plate – the hypothesis is that the greater the ramp incline, the greater the ground reaction force: it’s more effort.
In another research study, Master’s student Stephanie LeBlanc is looking at how typical production diseases affect the balancing ability of laying hens. Does physical impairment have any impact on the incidence of falls and subsequent keel bone fractures in aviary systems?
LeBlanc tested birds on a motorized moving perch system that sways back and forth. The birds were 69 weeks old and had some typical damage such as footpad dermatitis, poor wing feather coverage or keel bone fractures. This study is looking at how that damage affected their balancing ability on the moving perch. The research is very realistic, using birds that industry actually deals with every day.
The birds were also subjected to different treatments – rubber chickens, for example, were placed on each side of a bird to allow 15 cm of perch: how does this affect her ability to balance? There can be other birds next to a bird on the perch when she’s trying to take off or land – how does this impact the bird’s balance? “She isn’t able to flap,” said LeBlanc, which could increase the probability of injury. She also put a cotton mask on some birds to mimic low lighting conditions to see how that impacted the birds, adding to much-needed baseline research data for aviary systems.
In another section of the poultry research centre in Arkell, Master’s candidate Madison Kozak is using time loggers to compare the day-to-day behaviour of four different common industry breeds – two Lohman, brown & white, Dekalb white and Hyline white hens in aviaries. “No one has ever made a time budget for a chicken,” said Kozak. How much time do they spend on the ground? How much time do they spend on a platform or perch?
Her research is also going back to the basics to look at the locomotor patterns of the chickens, trying to see how they navigate the aviary systems, trying to distinguish between what we think they want and what they choose. “It’s very basic but necessary,” said Kozak.
Aviaries are becoming increasingly popular, said Kozak, as an option that allows birds to fly, move, run and jump. Aviary systems are supposed to improve hen welfare but a lot of birds are having a hard time navigating them. She has designed an experimental aviary system with a ramp and a ladder, two platforms and a higher perch with two different thicknesses with a spring on it so when they step on it, it’s more like a branch. The wooden features in the pens mimic those made of steel in commercial aviaries. In the industry there will be a higher stocking density.
“We’re getting a time budget,” explained Kozak, who will be measuring the time spent on each behaviour for two hours per day using non-intrusive data loggers attached to the hen’s back. Some birds are fitted with a real data logger; some just have dummy data loggers of the same weight to see if having the apparatus attached to their backs affects their behaviour. The data loggers measure the height of where the bird is in the aviary and an accelerometer is used to measure the speed of the bird and the distance they’ve gone in any direction. Kozak will calibrate this data with videos to evaluate the accuracy of the data logger information for use in further research. “There’s a ton of data that will be easier to analyze with the data logger than with videos,” said Kozak.
How much time to they spend in the ground or in the air? Do they actually use all of the areas of the cage? Maybe they only need one platform? Do they prefer the ramp or the ladder or do they care? Do they prefer to walk or fly, up and down?
She is already seeing that the ladders used by the white birds have a lot of feces on them, which indicates a lot of use compared to the brown birds. Maybe certain breeds are better suited for aviaries?
Kozak also placed brooder boxes in the aviaries for the first eight weeks to simulate the darkness the young birds would experience when hiding in the feathers of a hen. Is it possible these birds will be better adjusted hens later, expressing less feather pecking than those reared without the darkness? Brooder boxes are easy and cheap to construct.
All three studies will combine to help define the right aviary design, one that prevents injuries, and provide suggestions for how birds could be raised for the aviary systems. “We can’t think like a bird,” said Kozak, but we will soon know more about what a bird thinks. Results are expected starting this fall.
Leading this research is Dr. Alexandra Harlander, an assistant professor in Animal Science at the University of Guelph, who has recently been gifted $500,000 by Burnbrae Farms, Canada’s largest egg producer, to establish a professorship in the Department of Animal and Poultry Science. Harlander received her veterinary degree in Vienna, continuing her poultry research at the University of Hohanheim in Germany and the University of Bern in Switzerland before choosing to come to Canada, lured by the positive research atmosphere here. She currently advises five research projects involving the welfare and behaviour of poultry. “I’m very grateful to all my students,” said Harlander. “It’s hard to convince students that chickens are exciting…they are great and they are funny. You can train chickens – they’re very clever. I’d like to raise the excitement level just a bit.”
November 23, 2014 - A project launched in 2008 to map the entire turkey genome is nearing completion, with more than 95 per cent of the genome sequence now in place. The results of the current work, which has relied primarily on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, should prove valuable for studying and subsequently enhancing economically important traits in poultry, according to a recent article in Poultry Science that provides details about the project.
November 11, 2014 - The University of Saskatchewan and its partners officially opened the Canadian Feed Research Centre (CFRC) in North Battleford October 24, highlighting the many research and training opportunities this unique facility will provide for Canada’s crop and livestock sector.
The $13.9-million feed research centre is a major Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)-led project and a partnership with the Saskatchewan government, Cargill’s animal nutrition business, and Western Economic Diversification. The centre will research, develop and commercialize new and better high-value animal feeds derived from low-value crops and co-products of bioprocessing and biofuels industries.
Estimates are that increased feed processing from CFRC activities will contribute more than $2M to Canada’s gross domestic product through direct benefits to the crop and livestock industry and indirect benefits through employment.
“Thanks to our partners in government and industry, this national feed research centre is one of the most advanced and diverse in the world—the only one with both pilot-scale and high-volume commercial processing production lines,” said Karen Chad, U of S vice-president research. “This means that promising lab discoveries can move quickly from pilot-plant testing to industrial-scale research—a major advantage in attracting commercialization activities and engaging industry.”
Building upon the university’s signature area of research titled agriculture: food and bio-products for a sustainable future, CFRC researchers will add value to low-quality crops, improve nutrient availability to animals, reduce antibiotic use, and develop enzymes and other bioactives or nutraceuticals to maintain animal health and improve feed efficiency.
Both graduate and undergraduate students will participate in the research, gaining advanced training for careers in the feed and livestock sectors.
The centre is the first of its kind in North America to install new seed-sorting technology that promises to maximize value, quality and safety.
“Feed accounts for 60 to70 per cent of the production costs of animal protein such as meat, milk and eggs,” said Tom Scott, U of S Research Chair in Feed Processing Technology. “The centre will research the use of processing to improve conversion of low-quality and highly variable ingredients, such as feed grain or co-products of bioprocessing, resulting in safe, high-quality animal feed and providing value to both producers and consumers.”
Funding includes $5 million from the Government of Saskatchewan, $4.88 million from the CFI, $2.46 million from Cargill, $911,544 from Western Economic Diversification (including the seed sorter), and $600,000 from U of S and its suppliers.
More information on the project and Tom Scott can be found here.
November 12, 2014 - A University of Adelaide-led project has developed a new test that can distinguish between birds that have been vaccinated against the H5N1 strain of avian influenza virus or “bird flu” with those that have been naturally infected.
Heritage chickens are important for breeders and industry to protect valuable genes and traits over the long term. Heritage poultry breeds are breeds that existed prior to the 1950s and represent an important bank of genes for traits like disease resistance, unique egg and meat flavour profiles and increased stress tolerance and vigor. However, many heritage breeds are rare and increasingly threatened with extinction.
The University of Alberta’s Poultry Research Centre (PRC) has held heritage chicken strains since 1986. The rare breeds and random bred strains were partly obtained from the Agriculture Canada Research Station in Ontario and partly from Dr. Crawford’s experimental flocks at the University of Saskatchewan. Dr. Roy Crawford maintained these breeds as an unselected population since 1965, however, when he retired, these breeds found a new home at the PRC in Edmonton.
Like other institutions and organizations, recent budget constraints and physical space have put pressure on the PRC heritage chicken program. “There were more strains earlier on, but some difficult decisions have had to be made along the way due to space and budget concerns,” explains Dr. Valerie Carney, Adjunct Professor, Poultry Research and Extension Specialist, Alberta Agriculture & Rural Development. “Some of the original lines have been transferred to other institutions or eliminated over the past several years. The remaining heritage flocks are valuable and are like an insurance policy for industry,” says Carney. “Our current commercial lines only represent about 50 per cent of the genetic variation, so without these heritage flocks, a lot of variation would be lost. As consumer demands change or new market opportunities open, having access to the range of traits is valuable. One of the most reliable ways of preserving these heritage lines is by keeping live populations. There is research underway with cryopreservation techniques, however the methods are not yet fully reliable and should form only a portion of conservation techniques.”
Because these heritage flocks are costly to maintain and with budget cuts to provincial universities, the PRC flock came under the spotlight. PRC needed to find a creative way to cover the costs of maintaining this flock of 1,500 birds, which were costing about $75,000 per year. PRC received funding from the Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency (ALMA) to assist with a market research and development project to identify opportunities.
“We worked closely with our commercial industry partners to ensure that any strategies developed were in harmony with the commercial markets,” emphasizes Carney. “The egg industry for example has recognized that consumers would like to have a choice in the type of eggs they want to buy and have developed markets to address that choice. We were looking for creative ways to help fund the cost of keeping the birds at the same time as providing value to supporters. Our innovative “Adopt a Heritage Chicken Program” was created to do that.”
Program a Success
In 2013, the Adopt a Heritage Chicken Program was launched to promote the conservation of unique genetic lines of poultry at the University of Alberta. The program’s goal was to develop a community of supporters for the heritage chickens program. Through the five-month pilot, “Adopt a Hen’” program supporters paid $75 to adopt a hen and received local, free-run, nest-laid eggs every other week from the Plymouth Rock, Light Sussex, New Hampshire, White Leghorn and Brown Leghorn flocks. The pilot project, which started with 200 supporters and another 600 on the waiting list, was very successful and has been expanded in 2014.
“We conducted a survey of our supporters to find out the main reasons they were interested in adopting a hen,” explains Carney. “Over 80 per cent said they wanted to support the heritage stocks. Other top reasons were knowing where their eggs came from and supporting locally grown food sources.” The program has expanded in 2014 to 400 supporters, with another 400 on a waiting list. About 80 per cent of the original 200 supporters returned in 2014. The duration of the program has been extended to 10 months. Supporters pay $150 to adopt a hen and they receive a dozen eggs every other week.
“The biggest win for the program is it has allowed us to engage with an audience that we would never likely be able to connect with otherwise,” says Carney. “We have built a relationship with our supporters and have their trust. It has enabled us to engage them in learning about commercial egg and poultry production and to understand what it means to raise chickens. What started as a money recovery project has really turned into a community outreach program.”
For their 2014 PRC annual meeting, PRC expanded the invitation to include the Heritage Chicken program supporters to participate in “the science behind the henhouse doors” day. Carney notes that supporters come to the university regularly to pick up their eggs. However, because of biosecurity requirements, they are not allowed to come into the unit. This raises a lot of questions, so the day was a way to engage with supporters and help them understand how much science goes into the poultry industry. PRC researchers gave presentations and graduate students presented posters. In 2014, a new component was added where supporters were able to buy chicks hatched from the program. In collaboration with Peavey Mart at three locations near Edmonton, 300 chicks were sold to supporters. “The program was a huge success and we expect to continue,” says Carney. “With the whole movement to urban poultry production, this has given us an opportunity to educate people about backyard poultry biosecurity, practical production care and best practices. The chicks had to be pre-ordered and supporters had to agree to the terms and conditions of the program. When they picked up their chicks at the store, researchers and students were there to provide more information and answer questions.”
The PRC Student Club members have also been very involved in the project and are interested in becoming more engaged with the PRC. “One of the things we are considering is to develop ‘student-led agriculture’ where university students can become more actively engaged in managing these breeding programs,” explains Carney. “This would allow students to gain hands-on training with the birds. We hope to move forward on this concept and are working on some funding strategies.”
At the recent Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting in the U.S., Carney gave a presentation on the Adopt a Heritage Chicken program and received a lot of interest from other Canadian and U.S. universities and institutions. “We are working on funding to develop a package that would assist other institutions start a similar program,” explains Carney. “We have put a lot of effort into developing this program with the blessing of our commercial industry and learned a lot of things along the way that would be valuable to others. We believe it can be a sustainable and collaborative strategy to maintain our heritage flocks at the same time as engaging with community and increasing the understanding of our commercial poultry industry.”
For more information on the program, visit: www.heritagechickens.ca
A joint project by Cobb Europe and the Roslin Institute has received a major funding boost from the UK’ s innovation agency, Innovate UK, for genome biobanking to optimize valuable broiler genetic stocks. Photo courtesy USDA Agriculture Research Service (ARS).
September 20, 2014 - A joint project by Cobb Europe and the Roslin Institute in Scotland has been awarded a grant of almost £650,000 (US$ 1.07 million) from the UK’ s innovation agency, Innovate UK, for genome biobanking to optimize valuable broiler genetic stocks.
The award, under its Agri-Tech Catalyst programme, will fund cryopreservation and cutting-edge sequencing technologies to address food security and production efficiency. New stem cell preservation technology will be used to enable biobanking of pure lines to ensure these current genetic resources are available in the future.
The project is projected to cost £815,904 (US$ 1.35 million) of £648,680 is being provided by the Innovate UK grant. The work will also further mine the genome of Cobb poultry resources to understand the genetic drivers of key economic traits and exploit existing genetic variation to drive significant improvements in commercial performance for emerging markets.
The award is made in the context of a need to double global poultry production in the next 25 years to meet growing demand for animal protein in the developing world. Traditional commercial genetic resources will need to have the genetic potential to meet local environmental conditions, which include severe climate and disease challenge pressures.
“Our investment and collaboration with the Roslin Institute represents a major initiative to address the genetic basis for improved breeder and broiler performance in an era of changing management programmes and an ever growing demand for animal protein,” said Dr Mitch Abrahamsen, Cobb-Vantress vice president of research and development.
“The awarding of funding from the UK government to support our collaboration is a significant recognition of the quality of the researchers involved and validation of our research strategies to assure food security and improving production efficiency.”
Earlier this year it was announced that Cobb-Vantress is putting more than £600,000 (US$ 1 million) in a three-year joint research programme with the Roslin Institute facilitating collaboration on avian disease resistance, genome analysis and genome preservation.
September 26, 2014 - Farmer-led research to find new feed wheat varieties will receive $400,000 as part of a commitment to innovation under Growing Forward 2, Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Minister Ron Kostyshyn announced yesterday.
The focus of this four-year project is to develop new feed wheat varieties that have characteristics such as high yield, flood tolerance, fusarium resistance and tolerance for Manitoba soils with high salinity. It will use traditional plant breeding techniques, so any resulting varieties will not be considered genetically modified and could be used in all livestock operations.
"It's important for Manitoba farmers and the biofuels sector to have access to feed wheat varieties tailored to our growing conditions," said Minister Kostyshyn. "This research is based on the priorities of Manitoba's farmers. Growing more of our own animal feed within the province will lead to economic benefits for grain farmers, livestock producers and rural communities."
The research will be led by the Western Feed Grain Development (WFGD) Co-op, which was established in 2005 to find new wheat varieties suitable for livestock feed and the ethanol industry. WFGD and its farmer-members are also contributing $1.8 million toward this research.
"The WFGD Co-op is unique because farmers can invest and participate in the development of varieties they can use on their own farm and we're pleased to receive funding from Growing Forward 2," said David Rourke, WFGD Co-op director. "We are looking forward to applying these funds to our breeding program and addressing major areas of concern for Prairie producers, including post-seeding excess moisture, salinity, and aster yellows. WFGD Co-op is developing wheat varieties that will help to minimize the economic losses that result from these crop production challenges."
Research into new feed wheat varieties supports the goals of the Grain Innovation Hub, a framework announced by ministers in May 2014 to establish Manitoba as a leader in the grain industry through strategic investments in grain production, research and processing.
This project is one of 32 funded this year through Growing Innovation - Agri-Food Research and Development Initiative (GI-ARDI) under Growing Forward 2. In total, more than $3.2 million will be invested in industry-led research for the crops, livestock, agri-environment and food sectors. The next intake date for GI-ARDI projects is October 2, 2014.
The federal and provincial governments are investing $176 million in Manitoba under Growing Forward 2, a five-year, federal-provincial-territorial policy framework to advance the agriculture industry, helping producers and processors become more innovative and competitive in world markets.
The WFGD Co-op registered its first Canada Western General Purpose wheat, WFT603, in 2014. For more information about the organization, visit www.wfgd.ca. To apply for GI-ARDI funding, visit www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture under Growing Forward 2.
September 5, 2014, Vancouver - Naturally Splendid Enterprises has announced the results of a recent study conducted at the University of Manitoba that showed an increase of over 637% in the natural omega content of eggs from chickens that consumed the exclusive HempOmegaTM plant based omega product when compared to chickens that consumed a current commercial feed product. Additionally, the study concluded that chickens that consumed HempOmega not only had substantially higher omega content in their eggs but also showed an increase of over 372% in the omega content of the chicken thigh meat itself as well as lower levels of saturated fats.
This study was conducted by Dr. James House at the University of Manitoba on behalf of Boreal Technologies Inc. The purpose of the study was to examine the efficacy of HempOmega when incorporated into poultry feed rations and to identify to what degree HempOmega(TM) could increase the natural omega levels found in eggs laid by chickens that consumed varying levels of the exclusive plant based omega product. Currently, omega-3 enriched egg production makes up approximately 15% of the Canadian shell egg market.
Poultry Study Results Table (8% HEMPomega Vs. Control Feed)
Fatty Acid Control Feed 8% HEMPomega Feed % Increase
(mg/g of yolk) (mg/g of yolk) (mg/g of yolk)
Total omega-6 63.98 73.26 114.50
Total omega-3 2.17 13.83 637.33
Fatty Acid Control Feed 8% HEMPomega Feed % Increase
(mg/g of tissue) (mg/g of tissue) (mg/g of tissue)
Total omega-6 6.16 6.36 103.25
Total omega-3 0.40 1.49 372.50
"There is a strong existing market for omega enhanced eggs and poultry products," says Naturally Splendid CEO Craig Goodwin. "Independent research and data conclude that the market for omega enriched products continues to grow in both product offerings and annual sales. This poultry study concludes that HempOmega economically increases the omega content of chicken eggs and poultry meat thus opening the opportunity to market HempOmega to poultry feed manufacturing companies."
Each year, thousands of babies are born in the U.S. with craniofacial defects, from cleft lips and palates to more severe abnormalities of the face or head. Now new discoveries in chicken genetics and biology are shedding light on the basis of these abnormalities in both birds and humans.
The work, by a team including University of California, Davis, animal science professor Mary Delany, was made possible by information from the chicken genome sequence and a stock of rare chicken lines kept at UC Davis. The findings appear in the August issue of the journal Development.
The researchers focused on a mutation of the gene named talpid2, known to be associated with a number of congenital abnormalities, including limb malformations and cleft lip or palate.
They found that talpid2 -- like other limb and craniofacial mutations found in both humans and chickens -- is related to the malfunction of "cilia," tiny, hairlike structures on the surface of cells of the body.
Cilia play a vital role in passing along signals during development. When a gene mutation interferes with the normal structure and function of the cilia, it sets off a chain reaction of molecular miscues that result in physical abnormalities, in chickens or in people.
"Now that this new information is available, the talpid2 mutation can be expanded as a model for studying similar congenital abnormalities in humans including oral-facial defects, which affect many people around the world," said Delany, who also serves as executive associate dean of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.
Delany said that the findings also are significant for production of poultry and livestock, which are likewise vulnerable to genetic mutations that cause similar physical abnormalities.
The specialized genetic line of chickens used for this study is a member of a group of unique avian genetic resources maintained for decades by UC Davis.
"These lines are maintained for their value in carrying out studies by UC Davis researchers and the community of researchers in the U.S. and internationally who study developmental biology in higher organisms," Delany said. "The chicken offers researchers unique advantages because the embryo develops in the egg, and all stages of development are available for analysis."
She noted that, for the research team, the findings are particularly meaningful as they are being published during the 10th anniversary of the initial sequencing of the chicken genome.
"The National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture embarked on a partnership to fund sequencing of the chicken genome precisely because of the value of the chicken as a model organism for studying human health and its significance around the world as a source of food protein in the form of eggs and meat," Delany said.
"This is a terrific example of the aspirational intention of the USDA and NIH sequencing partnership," she said.
Leading the study was Samantha A. Brugmann of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, with Elizabeth A. O'Hare, previously at UC Davis and now at the University of Maryland, Baltimore; Ching-Fang Chang and Elizabeth N. Schock, both of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; Jerry Dodgson of Michigan State University; Hans H. Chang of the USDA-ARS in Michigan; William M. Muir of Purdue University; and Richard E. Edelmann at Miami University, Ohio.
Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health, the Cincinnati Children's Research Foundation, the John and Joan Fiddyment Endowment, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture through the National Animal Genome Research Support Program.
August 20, 2014 - Burnbrae Farms has gifted $500,000 to the University of Guelph to establish the Burnbrae Farms Professorship in Poultry Welfare, a tenure track position in the Department of Animal and Poultry Science. Dr. Alexandra Harlander will assume this position and will serve the poultry industry with her insights on animal welfare and behavior in all poultry species.
The professorship will support egg farmers and increase the capacity for the ongoing research of laying hen behaviour and housing. The main objective of the research is to solve problems associated with alternative non-cage systems and to better understand the behaviour and biology of the laying hen. This research will support the adoption of new practices, the design of systems that are best suited for the hens’ welfare and the implementation of new technology to improve the quality of life of laying hens on the farm.
Margaret Hudson, President of Burnbrae Farms, said in a release "the University of Guelph has played a significant role in the support of animal welfare and behavior, and the research they conduct is unmatched. This professorship will help increase its capacity and will be unique in its outreach efforts to farmers, the general public and retailers.”
The professorship, also partially funded by the Poultry Industry Council and the Canadian Poultry Research Council, will focus on research, teaching, industry service and educating farmers, retailers and consumers. Consumers’ preferences continue to drive the demands of retailers and the specialty egg market in Canada. Professor Harlander is an associated faculty member of the Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, an internationally recognized centre of excellence, and will work to balance on-farm productivity and poultry welfare, with the needs of the general public.
“Burnbrae Farms’ commitment to the industry, animal welfare and consumers is evident in its support of this innovative position,” said Rob Gordon, Dean of the Ontario Agricultural College of the University of Guelph in a news release. “We need champions to communicate with farmers, retailers and consumers. This position will focus on working with the entire value chain to enhance production systems and approaches, and educate on the issue of poultry welfare and behaviour.”
“This professorship is exceptionally timely. With pressing demands from the public and food industry professionals, Canada, like many countries, needs research to help establish new, high-care standards based on sound data”, said Alexandra Harlander, Assistant Professor in the Department of Animal and Poultry Science, who is accepting the professorship. “Canadians consume about 204 eggs per person, annually and vast quantities are produced in modern production systems. For the improvement of poultry welfare it is important that we continue to explore the core aspects of their health and strive to determine what they want from their environments.”
Burnbrae Farms said the release that researching and developing systems that focus on the overall welfare of the hens is part of the company’s mandate. The company has worked closely with researchers at the Poultry Welfare Research Centre at the University of Guelph to examine poultry housing systems and related hen behaviours for many years. Burnbrae Farms said its goal is to implement the best possible technologies for good poultry care, and that it continues to evolve and change its housing systems based on new research findings. The company’s support of the professorship only further solidifies its ongoing commitment to poultry welfare in Canada.
“Burnbrae Farms is dedicated to animal welfare and the promotion of sustainable agriculture systems that provide consumers with safe, affordable food and a good quality of life for the laying hens,” said Hudson. “We’re committed to putting in place systems that have been proven through research to provide the best welfare for our birds.”
May 28, 2014 - Canada's first graduate program in meat science will be housed out of the University of Alberta.
A $1.6 million grant will be used to fund the Canadian Meat Education and Training Network (MEaTnet), a virtual organization made up of the U of A, Université Laval, the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Guelph. The organization will be based at the U of A but will develop a shared graduate studies curriculum between all four universities. The network estimates it will produce 50 grads over the next six years and aims to have formal meat science graduate programs at all four partner universities by 2020.
Read more about the new program here.
Broiler birds are known for their fast growth rates and voracious appetites but that growth potential creates an issue for breeding hens. How do we feed these birds without creating health problems with fat hens?
Masters candidate Krysta Morrissey of the Department of Animal Science, University of Guelph, described in her recently published paper how the selection for fast growth is correlated with obesity-related health problems, including increased susceptibility to lameness, cardiovascular disease, and premature death.
In North America, the practice of skip-a-day feeding is commonly used to avoid these health problems in parent stock. Broiler breeding hen rations are restricted by up to 75 per cent of the ad lib intake ingested by their broiler counterparts. Two times the daily ration allocation is typically fed every other day, and the feed allocations are often entirely consumed in less than ten minutes.
But this practice has raised welfare concerns, particularly in the United Kingdom (UK) where skip-a-day feeding is negatively perceived. Does skip-a-day feeding cause an increase in behavioural symptoms indicative of hunger?
As Morrissey describes in her paper, “Because broiler breeders have such large appetites, these severe dietary restrictions result in symptoms of chronic hunger. In behaviour thought to be indicative of frustration (such as pecking at nonfood objects), increased general activity and aggression, excessive drinking, and increased feather pecking.”
Morrissey’s research compared feeding regimes, skip-a-day versus daily feeding, and investigated “alternative” diets. Fibre and appetite suppressants were added to broiler breeder rations to possibly reduce stereotypic behaviour associated with hunger.
In her study, six groups of hens were observed by video monitoring from 11 to 28 weeks of age. Two control groups compared a typical ration (C) fed every day and on skip-a-day (SAD) frequency, while the remaining four groups were fed “alternative” diets with added fibre, (40 per cent soybean hulls), and either feed grade (F) or purified (P) Calcium propionate, on daily and skip-a-day routines.
Morrissey hypothesized that the alternative diets, F and P, would result in reduced hunger symptoms, expressed by reduced aggressive behaviours, such as excessive drinking, object pecking and feather pecking. She also hypothesized that SAD feeding frequency would increase behavioural indices of hunger and result in worse feather condition.
The birds were observed during and immediately following feeding, assuming that aggressive behaviour would increase at feeding time and would reveal more significant differences.
She found that both diet and frequency of feeding affected behaviour. The control birds on both daily and skip-a-day feeding routines were more active, displayed more feather pecking and object pecking. This increase in aggressive behaviours following feeding was less obvious with the SAD feeding frequency, presumably due to an increased satiety over the daily-fed birds in the control group.
The fibre and appetite suppressant diets, regardless of feeding frequency, resulted in fewer symptoms of hunger, presumably due to the larger volume of feed being ingested and the resulting increase in satiety.
“As hypothesized, we found that high-fiber diets including an appetite suppressant reduced behavioral indices of hunger, as indicated by the increased time spent resting, and decreased time spent feather pecking and object pecking and aggression. However, even with the alternative diets, some level of hunger was still present, as not all oral stereotypic behavior was completely abolished during rearing.”
She also suggested that, “Chronic hunger may be unavoidable as Hocking  found that ad lib fed broiler breeders still spent a significant amount of time feeding throughout the night, suggesting a level of hunger sufficient to cause feeding behavior during the dark period when there normally would not be.”
Morrissey later investigated the birds’ preference for the diets, finding no dietary preference between the control ration (C) and the bulkier fibre and appetite suppressant ration (F). It is possible that the differences between the two diets were too subtle for the birds to detect. While the results did not support her hypothesis that the birds would prefer the bulkier ration, they did at least show that the alternative feed wasn’t aversive to the birds.
Her research provided no strong evidence to support the hypothesis that daily feeding would suppress hunger more effectively than SAD or vice versa. While Morrissey’s research did not generate behavioural data that would allow recommendations regarding skip-a-day feeding, she does suggest that producers adapt a dietary feeding regime that includes a fibre source and possibly an appetite suppressant that may improve broiler breeder welfare.
Morrissey’s work appears in Poultry Science 93:285-295. The Growing Forward I Poultry Cluster, Canadian Poultry Research Council and the Poultry Industry Council provided funding with special thanks to Margaret Quinton (University of Guelph) and Hank Classen (University of Saskatchewan) as well as the assistance of the Behaviour Laboratory at the University of Guelph. The birds were donated by Aviagen, via Horizon Poultry.
CPRC made a significant change to its funding process in 2012 by moving to a two-stage system. This new method includes an initial call for Letters of Intent (LOI) followed by a full proposal from a short list of projects drawn from the LOIs. The change allows CPRC to better tailor the research it supports to industry-identified priorities as laid out in the National Research Strategy for Canada’s Poultry Sector (the Strategy), available from the research page of CPRC’s website, www.cp-rc.ca. CPRC is now able to provide feedback to researchers (prior to the full proposal stage) on LOIs that are of interest but that may not fully address priority issues. This allows the researchers and CPRC to discuss changes in the objectives and/or work plan to more closely align the project with industry priorities.
CPRC’s call for LOIs was cancelled in 2013 so that funds allocated for research for that year could be directed to the new Poultry Science Cluster. The 2014 call for LOIs was issued in April with submissions due June 1st. This year’s call also included some additional changes to better align the LOI calls with industry priorities.
CPRC has used the following five research categories for funding calls for many years:
- Avian Gut Microbiology
- Food Safety and Poultry Health
- Poultry Welfare and Behaviour
- Novel Feedstuffs
CPRC also funds projects that are of significance to the Canadian poultry industry, but may not fit into the broad research programs listed above. Researchers may apply for funding for this category of research at any time throughout the year according to the CPRC policy on ad hoc proposals.
While the categories have suited CPRC’s purpose, they do not encompass all those identified in the Strategy that CPRC and industry have put so much effort into developing. The nine Strategy research categories are:
- Economic viability
- Food safety
- Animal Health Products
- Poultry health
- Poultry welfare
- Functional and innovative
- Poultry feedstuffs
The CPRC Board of Directors decided, at its March meeting, to align its categories with those in the Strategy. CPRC will now issue calls for LOIs based on individual categories or groupings of the Strategy categories. Groupings will be of similar types of research and some will closely reflect the categories that CPRC used through 2012. This year’s call for LOIs was for two category groups:
- Food Safety and Animal Health Products
- Genetics, Poultry Health and Poultry Welfare
LOIs do not have to address all aspects of each group but can target one or all of the priorities within the group. CPRC’s Board will review this approach at its July meeting as well as set the research categories that will be used for the next several years. This information will be posted on the CPRC website. The ad hoc category will be retained.
Many researchers and industry stakeholders have dealt with CPRC through Gord Speksnijder. Gord attended his first CPRC Board meeting in October 2003 and took over as Executive Director from Dave Nodwell a year later. Gord moved into the Research Coordinator role with CPRC in mid-2011 when operations were relocated to Ottawa. Gord has decided to step back from CPRC into an advisory role because of increased demands on his time from the family farm and a growing family. The CPRC Board, member staff associated with CPRC and CPRC staff are sorry to lose the regular input and exceptional advice that Gord has brought to the organization. His unique ability to view research from the point of view of a trained researcher and active farmer has been an asset that will be sorely missed. We wish Gord and his family all the best in their future endeavours.
The CPRC Board of Directors is appointed each year by its Member Organizations and consists of one representative from each of the five members. The 2014 CPRC Board was reappointed without change at the Annual General Meeting in March. Information on Board members and CPRC activities is available in its 2013 Annual Report posted on the website.
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.
April 15, 2014 - A century ago, over half of Canada's population was farmers. Today, it's down to two per cent - with most people more than three generations removed from their farming ancestors. This shift has meant that most Canadians have lost touch - people often don't understand how their food is grown or how agriculture has changed.
Farm & Food Care Ontario (FFC), as the first coalition of its type in Canada, brings together tens of thousands of livestock, crop and horticulture farmers and related businesses with a mandate to provide credible information on food and farming in Ontario.
In order for FFC to stay in touch with both farmers and consumers, it is important to know what consumers (and farmers) are thinking. As such, the organization works with Ipsos marketing to create benchmarks and ensure that work is being done in the right areas.
"We integrated two studies that bring attitudes together from the consumers point of view and the producers point of view," says Bruce Kelly of FFC. "What we did differently [this time] when we went to the consumers, was instead of just asking them how they feel about animal welfare or about the environment, we put those in context of some of the greater social issues.
"For example, we asked 'How do you feel about the environment compared with paying the mortage? How do you feel about animal welfare in relation to food affordability?' And this has given us a much better context and insight. Food has to be economical for the people who buy it and generate a good return for the people that produce it."
For this study, Ipsos chose to use qualitative study groups rather than internet polling, as it allows them to meet the consumers/producers involved and engage with them at a more basic level. It also allowed Ipsos staff to sit back and watch a discussion unfold without much prompting thus allowing for the collection of key words that seemed to be used often in connotation with agriculture.
The research found that animal welfare and the environment are "higher order" concerns that emerge once food safety, affordability and health needs are met. Subjectively, it appears that farmers are more open to discussions relating to environmental practices, and view their role as stewards as part of the long-term sustainability of the operation.
Additionally, the study found that although consumers say animal welfare is less important than other factors, it represents significant risk due to the strong, negative emotional impact that neglect/abuse can have on consumers – perhaps more so than any other principle.
Other Key Findings:
- Adoption of animal care best practices is high (83 per cent). However, a sginficiant number of Ontario livestock farmers (39 percent) are lower adopters of animal care best practices.
- Adoption of environmental best practices is relatively high (71 per cent). However, a significant number of Ontario farmers (45 per cent) are lower adopters of environmental best practices.
- There is room for improvement in a number of areas, however the biggest area for improvement are Codes of Practice/staff training, biosecurity and resource planning as it relates to environmental best practices.
- Understanding the drivers and barriers to implementing animal care best practices will help to shift lower adopters to become higher adopters. Key drivers and barriers to adoption of animal care best practices revolve around: farmer attitudes; feasibility; awareness and knowledge of best practices; and public image.
More information on the findings can be obtained by contacting Farm & Food Care Ontario at 519-837-1326.
Back in February the Agricultural Institute of Canada (AIC), commenting on the federal science and technology policy, applauded “the Harper government’s significant investments in science, technology and innovation.”
But, in a very gentle way, AIC Director of Communications, Daniel Kosick, pointed to a shortcoming. “It is important to remember that public support for basic research focusing on long-term advances is also needed,” he said in a release.
Basic research tends to be a tough sell, especially to self-identified “practical people”, which includes many, if not most, businessmen and politicians. They look for concrete developments or advances. The theoretical stuff leaves them cold.
It doesn’t help that those doing basic research can’t point to something concrete that might come from their work. But that isn’t their purpose. They are working to expand knowledge and it’s up to the rest of us to build on that.
An example of this is James Clerk Maxwell’s equations. These are the foundation of modern electrical and communications technologies. The computer this is being written on, the internet that provided some of the research material, the fancy new light bulb above my head, and even the poultry industry’s new high tech barns rest on the basic research carried out by Maxwell 150 years ago.
If you are getting lost less often than you used to it’s thanks to Albert Einstein. His theory of relativity allows GPS to work. Einstein also provided one of the most profound arguments for basic science. Without basic science, he said, there would be little or no applied science. Without applied science there would be little or no economic or social progress. My take on all of this is that if we don’t provide for the extremely smart people who think for a living the best we can hope for is stagnation. The worst is a repeat of the Dark Ages when centuries of progress was flushed away by superstition and individual aggrandizement in the form of castle building.
But Einstein can speak for himself. In a speech delivered in 1918 to the Physical Society in Berlin, he said many take to science “for purely utilitarian purposes” while others do it to show off their intellect. He continued that if these two groups were all there, there would be no science. It would be like trying to grow a forest with nothing but creepers.
Speaking of his own field of physics and the attempts to discern the general laws that govern everything, “There is no logical path to these laws.” It takes intuition, intense study and reflection, analysis of what is known (or thought to be known) and time.
Einstein knew the value of time. In his 1914 inaugural speech to the Prussian Academy of Sciences he thanked them “for conferring the greatest benefit on me that anybody can confer on a man like myself. By electing me to your academy you have freed me from the distractions and cares of a professional life and so made it possible for me to devote myself entirely to scientific studies. I beg that you will continue to believe in my gratitude and my industry even when my efforts seem to you to yield but a poor result.”
Many today say they believe in science and recognize the need to support it. But the reality differs from the words, especially in this country. The question is “How is Canada doing?” The most recent OECD figures (which date from 2010) are not encouraging.
The size of the research system as a percentage of GDP ranks behind Australia, Austria, Belgium, China, Denmark, France, Germany, the U.S. and numerous others. Canada is one of three OECD countries where the annual growth rate of GERD (Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development) was declining. Canada was in the middle of the pack in the amount of GERD that is publically financed as a percentage of GDP. And it lags most other countries in terms of the growth rate of publically financed GERD.
These figures from the OECD’s stat extracts are, to put it mildly, embarrassing. They reflect a “penny wise pound foolish” mindset, or perhaps a nation that knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.
It is past time that we started focussing on the value of science rather than just looking at the cost and sacrificing the future for a few pennies of tax breaks today.
We need people who ask the fundamental questions and seek the answers. We need people who think for a living.
If you don’t believe it, argue with Albert Einstein.
Head and feather pecking behaviour in turkeys can escalate to severe pecking and cannibalism under commercial conditions, creating a significant welfare concern and economic loss. What causes this type of pecking, and what can be done to reduce its incidence?
In a review published in the World’s Poultry Science Journal* in December 2013, authors Hillary A. Dalton, Benjamin J. Wood and Stephanie Torrey examined the different types of injurious pecking in turkeys and the factors that may contribute to the behaviour, including environment, genetics and nutrition.
Injurious pecking can be differentiated as three distinct behaviours in turkeys. Head, neck or snood pecking is described as a form of aggression is often used to retain dominance and typically follows a social disturbance. Feather pecking occurs on many different levels, from gentle to more forceful repeated pecking or plucking of feathers on the back, wings and tail of another bird. In its gentlest form, feather pecking is considered as a form of social preening or investigatory behaviour; escalating to more severe feather pecking that involves loss and consumption of plumage and escape behaviour by the victim. If bleeding occurs as a result of feather pecking, the most severe behaviour of cannibalism
All three levels of injurious pecking behaviour result in animal welfare and production efficiency issues. While there is no consensus on the cause, injurious pecking behaviour may possibly be traced to a mismatch of the needs of young turkeys to the conditions supplied in a commercial environment. For example, it is possible that the fluorescent or incandescent lighting typically used in commercial settings may distort the appearance of emerging feathers and initiate investigatory pecking.
Toms are more likely than hens to exhibit head pecking behaviour, becoming more aggressive following sexual maturity. In the wild, young birds will head peck as a precursor to developing the skills required by mature birds to establish the “pecking order” in the flock. If this behaviour is learned, is it possible that isolating those individuals with a pecking propensity could help prevent the spread of this behaviour through the flock?
The need to peck is shaped by genetics, environment and nutrition. Current research in turkeys considers head pecking as an act of aggression but it can also represent re-directed foraging behaviour. A lack of environmental stimuli may be a motivator although some research has shown that birds still peck other birds even if foraging material is made available.
Farm management practices that may heighten stress on the birds, such as poor ventilation, inappropriate humidity,
temperature extremes, flies or parasites, high stocking densities, inappropriate lighting, management changes or foot problems may contribute to injurious pecking.
Interestingly, unlike other forms of injurious pecking, the rate of aggressive head pecking in turkeys is affected by familiarity of the birds. Male turkeys will peck unfamiliar individuals in a group as small as four birds.
The presence of numerous confounding variables has prevented meaningful insight into the relationship between genetics and injurious pecking. Has selection for larger, faster-growing birds unintentionally selected for higher rates of aggression? When exposed to similar environments, traditional lines displayed fewer injuries than modern lines, but it is difficult to specifically pinpoint the traits involved.
Pecking behaviour may also arise as a result of a nutritionally unsuitable diet or inappropriate feed form. Studies have shown that turkeys fed a crumble or mash diet versus pelleted, with higher fibre, and provided free choice instead of restricted, spend more time foraging and less time feather pecking.
Beak trimming with infrared lasers immediately following hatching is the current practice used to reduce injurious pecking. While preferable to hot-blade beak trimming, there are still concerns about the procedure being performed without analgesia. It is also possible that beak trimming increases the incidence of feather pecking by increasing frustration in the bird’s physical inability to grasp the feathers.
Lower light intensity is often employed to reduce injurious pecking but it may also lead to eye abnormalities and musculoskeletal disorders; reduced lighting also hinders the detection of injured or lame birds. Removing the snood from toms, another common procedure, can also lead to chronic pain if not done correctly.
As stated in the World’s Poultry Science journal article, “Concern over trading one welfare concern for another has fostered interest in developing less drastic alternatives, such as genetic selection for gentler birds, environmental enrichment, and changes to diet, to reduce injurious pecking in turkeys…With this information it should be possible to design strategies to reduce injurious pecking, to lead to improvements in both welfare and production.”
The researchers are supported through the Canadian Poultry Research Council, Poultry Industry Council, Hybrid Turkeys and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
*Dalton, H.A., B.J. Wood and S. Torrey. 2013. Injurious pecking in domestic turkeys: development, causes, and potential solutions. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 69:865-876
NAFTA: U.S. hasn't done analysis on what happens if free trade treaty endsOctober 20, 2017, Washington, D.C. – American policy-makers admit they have…
Alberta back in national chicken quota systemNovember 2, 2017, Ottawa, Ont. – The final step in…
McDonald’s announces new chicken welfare requirementsOctober 27, 2017 – McDonald's has announced new policies aimed…
Vandals burn poultry farmer's beloved bear sculpture: 'Everybody is so upset'October 24, 2017, Debert, N.S. – Vandals have destroyed a beloved,…
Eastern Ontario Poultry ConferenceWed Nov 29, 2017
PIC Science in the PubMon Jan 22, 2018
Pacific Agriculture ShowThu Jan 25, 2018
International Poultry Scientific ForumMon Jan 29, 2018
International Production and Processing ExpoTue Jan 30, 2018