Abubakar

Abubakar Tahir Ramay
M.Sc.( Hons ) Animal Nutrition

University of Agriculture
Faisalabad.
by Jennifer Hughes, Brookee Dean, Tyler Clark and Susan Watkins
University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture
. . . helping ensure the effcient production of top quality poultry products in Arkansas and beyond.
PAGE 4 A 100-Flock Comparison of Broiler Feed Ticket Weights and On-Farm Fee
Weights at the ABRF
by G.T. Tabler
PAGE 8 Poultry Litter Production and Associated Challenges
by by G.T. Tabler, Y. Liang, and K. W. VanDevender
PAGE 12 Broiler Water Consumption
by Susan Watkins and G.T. Tabler
The Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service offers its programs to all eligible persons regardless of race, color, national origin,
sex, age or disability, and is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
Cooperative Extension Service
Chlorination contd on page 2
Chlorination/Acidifcation Affects
Salmonella Contamination
Introduction
Salmonella contamination continues to be problematic for the poultry industry.
Contamination can occur at any production or processing step and in live production Salmonella
control is diffcult because treatments can infuence production characteristics, and, in turn,
fnancial returns. Fortunately, many good management practices are also effective Salmonella
control methods.
Water has long been known to be a vehicle for the transmission of bacterial, viral and
protozoal diseases of poultry, including Salmonella. Indeed, researchers have verifed that
when birds consumed water containing fecal coliform levels of 10
6
, 10
5
, 10
4
, 10
3
, 10
2
and 10,
Salmonella was isolated from 100%, 99%, 66%, 33%, 21% and 11% of the birds, respectively
(Amaral, 2004). Even though the widespread adoption of closed, nipple drinker systems has
reduced a good deal of contamination once passed from bird to bird, water chlorination alone
may have little effect on cecal Salmonella levels for artifcially inoculated birds consuming
the water (Poppe et al., 1986). In addition, Salmonella may be isolated from 7 to 8% of water
samples collected from nipple drinker systems and (Heyndrickx et al., 2002).
Many investigations of the potential effects of water chlorination on Salmonella have
ignored the infuence of oxidation-reduction potential (ORP). Yet, enhancing the ORP level by
reducing the pH can signifcantly affect water disinfectants effectiveness (particularly chlorine)
(Suslow, 2004). Consequently, a trial was undertaken to determine if free chlorine of 1 ppm
free chlorine and acidifed calcium sulfate (ACS) also injected at a rate necessary to maintain
650 mV oxidation reduction potential (ORP) affected Salmonella contamination in artifcially
inoculated broilers.
The sense of taste in chickens has been studied for decades and birds perceive taste entirely
differently than humans. Flavors objectionable to most humans may or may not be accepted
Since the last
issue of Avian
Advice, several
changes have
occurred
within the
Center of
Excellence
for Poultry Science. Dr.
Frank Jones retired from the
University on May 1. He was
a faithful and steady infuence
on the Extension section of
Poultry Science for many years
and also was the editor of
AvianAdvice. When someone
of Dr. Jones caliber retires,
many gaps are left to fll. Dr.
Dustan Clark has assumed the
position of Extension section
leader on an interim basis. In
the next issue, he will explain
details of the re-assignment
of Franks responsibilities and
those of Jerry Wooley, who
retired from his position as
Extension Poultry Specialist
on June 1. So, two large holes
have been left which we are
attempting to fll in the short-
run by reassigning duties to
other specialists, primarily Drs.
Keith Bramwell, John Marcy
and Susan Watkins. I have
taken on the role of Editor for
AvianAdvice. You may notice
a few changes along the way in
format or style, but I will strive
to keep it the same high-quality,
informative and practical
publication it has been since its
frst issue in 1999.
EDITORS COLUMN
Volume 11 No. 2
2
AVIAN Advice Vol. 11, No. 2
Chlorination continued from page 1
by chickens (Kare et al., 1957). The domestic chicken has
defnite likes and dislikes with respect to water taste. In fact,
early studies suggest that birds are much more sensitive to
favors in water than those in feed (Kare and Pick, 1960).
Virtually every production professional realizes that feed and
water consumption are closely correlatedormore directly
if they arent drinking, they arent eating. Early studies
show that birds reject certain favors: such differences may
be easily detected because of the dramatic decrease in water
consumption. However, birds tend to adapt to other favors and
can eventually accept them as normal.
The data in Figure 1 were collected by Kare et al., (1957)
and illustrate one adaptation method employed by birds. These
researchers placed two chick watering jars in each pen. One
jar contained untreated water and the other contained favored
water. A comparison of the amount of water consumed from
the two jars measured acceptance or rejection of favors by the
birds. The data in Figure 1 are similar to those observed in
feld situation when acidifed calcium sulfate (ACS) is included
in drinking water for poultry.
Materials and Methods
To measure the effectiveness of chlorination on
Salmonella in broilers, two water regimes were designed,
one, the treatment, with chlorination and the other, a control,
without chlorination. For the chlorination treatment, an in-
line gas chlorinator was installed and set to maintain 1 part
per million (ppm) free chlorine along with a second injector
that injected a food grade acid, acidifed calcium sulfate,
(ACS) to assure that an ORP reading of 650 mV or higher
was maintained. The ORP, total and free chlorine levels were
measured and recorded during four times daily.
Thirty (30) birds were placed in each of 16 pens and
were raised under standard commercial conditions using
nipple drinkers and tube feeders. Birds were housed in a
solid-sidewall house with a minimum ventilation system and
environmental controls and water regimes were given from 0 to
42 days of age. All birds were fed a dietary program based on
the Cobb-Vantress nutritional recommendations. All birds were
fed a pelleted diet; the starter diet was also crumbled. On day
7 of the trial, 3 pens of birds in each of the two water regimes
were randomly selected and within each pen, 10 birds were
marked with wing bands and challenged with Nalidixic acid
resistant Salmonella typhimurium (NAL-SAL). On day 35, a
second set of 3 pens for each water regime were selected and
10 birds were again marked with wing bands and challenged
with NAL-SAL. The remaining 2 pens per water regime were
not challenged and served as the controls.
On day 42, 10 of the NAL-SAL challenged birds per
pen along with 5 of their non-challenged pen mates were
sacrifced by asphyxiation with carbon dioxide gas and the ceca
aseptically removed. In addition, 10 birds per pen from the
non-challenged pens for each regime were also sacrifced to
determine NAL-SAL incidence.

Results
No statistical differences were found when the weights,
feed conversions and mortality percentages of bird given
chlorinated water were compared with those receiving water
with no chlorine (data not shown). The data in Figure 2
summarize the fndings of this study. No signifcant differences
among treatments for non-challenged birds. In birds
challenged with Salmonella at 7 days, more birds that drank
chlorinated water were found contaminated as compared to
birds given water with no chlorine. However, when challenged
with Salmonella at 35 days, less contamination was found in
birds drinking chlorinated water than in birds drinking water
with no chlorine.
Discussion
Results of this study indicate that chlorinated water does
not provide protection against early exposure (challenged at 7
days) to Salmonellaspp. while chlorinated water maintained
at an ORP of 65 mV or higher does reduce the incidence of
Salmonellaspp. when birds are challenged close to market age
(challenged at 35 days). Lack of protection and actual increase
in Salmonella incidence in chlorinated birds challenged at the
early age is perplexing but might be related to acidifer used in
these trials.
To illustrate the possible connection, consider the
following observations on bird performance at the University
of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Applied Broiler Research
Farm (ABRF). ABRF has utilized gas chlorine and acidifers
for its last 13 focks. Average bird weights for these focks
have remained near the top of the settlement with the exception
of three focks which received the acidifed calcium sulfate
instead of the usual acidifer, sodium bisulfate. The average
weight for these two focks was below average. For the next
2 focks, the acidifed calcium sulfate was replaced with the
sodium bisulfate and weights again were near the top of
the settlement. These focks were grown near the time this
project was conducted so the potential that the acidifer could
impact water consumption was not discovered in time to
choose another acid product for the project. The acidifed
calcium sulfate may have depressed water consumption early
on which is refected in the lighter weights of the chlorinated
birds though not signifcant at day 21 in either trial. The
depressed weights for the birds on the chlorination regime
in this experiment could be a refection of depressed water
consumption in the young birds and this would also mean
a depressed feed consumption which may have allowed the
Salmonella challenge at 7 days of age to be more infective.
It has been proven that birds off feed do have an increase in
gut pH and this would result in more favorable conditions for
Salmonella colonization for chicks exposed to the microbe
(Hinton et al,).
The fact that the chlorination/acidifcation treatments
did signifcantly reduce the incidence of Salmonella in birds
challenged at 35 days of age does make chlorination and water
acidifcation which maintains a 650 ORP level along with
>1 ppm free chlorine worth exploring further as an on-farm
control option for Salmonella. It is interesting to note that
birds in the other project which were drinking the ACS water
were drinking 2-4 gallons more per thousand birds around
3
day 35 versus the birds consuming the SBS water. Since
this is data from three focks, it is safe to assume that water
consumption at day 35 during this trial was not below normal
consumption for the birds drinking the ACS/chlorinated
water and therefore even though these birds were exposed
to Salmonella, the more potent chlorine sanitizing residual
helped reduce Salmonella colonization. One of the primary
lessons learned in this project was how critical it is to monitor
chlorine and ORP values when chlorine is used for water
sanitation, as it affects water and feed consumption, effcacy of
Salmonella treatments in water and in the fnal analysis, total
bird performance and grower revenues. A second thought is
the need to choose products including acids which will not
impair water consumption any time during the birds life cycle.
This may require producers and company personnel to evaluate
more than one product such as acids in order to fnd the best ft.

References
Amaral, L. A., 2004. Drinking water as a risk factor to
poultry health. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 6(4):191-
199.
Barton, L. 1996. Relevance of water quality to broiler
and turkey performance. Poultry Sci. 75:854-856.
Carter. Thomas A. and Ronald Sneed, no date. Drinking
water quality for poultry. Poultry Science and Technology.
Published by The North Carolina Agricultural Extension
Service.
Damron, B.L., M.D. Ouart, R.B. Christmas and W.D.
Graham, Florida broiler farm water quality survey.
Gauger, H. C. and R. E. Greaves, 1946. Isolation of
Salmonella Typhimurium from drinking water in an infected
Environment. Poultry Science25: 476-478.
Heyndricks, M., D. Vanderkerchove, L Herman, I. Rollier,
K. Grijspeerdt and L. Dezutter. 2002. Routes for Salmonella
contamination of poultry meat: epidemiological study from
hatchery to slaughterhouse. Epidemiol. Infect. 129:253-265.
Hinton, A., R.J. Buhr, K.D. Ingram. 2000. Physical,
chemical and microbiological changes in the grop of broiler
chickens subjected to incremental feed withdrawal. J. Poult.
Sci. 79: 212-218
Poppe, C., D. A. Barnum and W. R. Mitchell. 1986. Effect
of chlorination of drinking water on experimental Salmonella
infection in poultry. Avian Diseases 30(2):362-369.
SAS Institute. 2005. SAS Users Guide. Version 8.1.
SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC
Sawyer, C.N., P.L. McCarty, L. Parkin, and G.F. Parkin.
1994. Chemistry for Environmental Engineering, fourth
edition. McGraw Hill, Inc. New York, N.Y.
Suslow, T.V., G. Peisor, X. Nie, J. Wu, M. Zunegas
and M. Cantwell, 1999. Validation of oxidation-reduction
potential in postharvest water disinfection monitor, control
and documentation systems for fresh and minimally processed
fruits and vegetables. Institute of Food Technology Annual
meeting..
Suslow, T. V. 2004. Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)
for water disinfection monitoring, control and documentation.
University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural
Resources Publication no. 8149
White, Geo. Clifford, 1999. Handbook of chlorination and
alternative disinfectants. Wiley-Interscience Publication.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
12.41
2.63
0
29.09**
37.25**
1.79
Non-Challenged Challenged Day 7 Challenged Day 35
Control
Chlorine
**Signifcantly different P<0.001
Figure 2. Difference in Daily Water Consumption
for Birds Receiving Acidifed Calcium Sulfate
versus Sodium Bisulfate
(ACS
gallons
minus BS
gallons
)
G
a
l
/
1
0
0
0

B
i
r
d
s
Difference in Daily
Water Intake
Figure 1. Effect of Chlorinated Water on Broilers
Inoculated with Salmonella
Control
Chlorine
S
a
l
m
o
n
e
l
l
a

P
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

B
i
r
d
s

(
%
)
4
A 100-Flock Comparison of
Broiler Feed Ticket Weights and
On-Farm Feed Weights at the
ABRF
Introduction
Contract broiler producers do not manufacture or deliver
feed to their farms nor do they purchase it outright. Because
they do not directly pay for their feed, questions may arise
concerning how much feed was delivered and if that feed was
accurately weighed, this despite contracts have provisions
for growers to be present when feed and birds are weighed.
Accurate feed weights are critical because under most broiler
growing contracts, a major portion of producer pay is based on
how much feed birds consume and how well birds convert that
feed to meat. The Applied Broiler Research Farm (ABRF) re-
cently harvested the 100th fock of broilers grown at the farm.
The ABRF is capable of weighing the feed birds consume on
a daily basis and thus was able to compare feed-ticket weights
with on-farm feed weights for 100 focks of birds.
Comparisons
The on-farm feed weighing system and procedures for
daily feed weighing were described in detail previously by
Tabler (2001). The system allows the ABRF the capability to
weigh feed consumed at each of 4 broiler houses on a daily
basis. After harvest, feed intake for the 4 houses are com-
bined and compared with feed ticket weights received during
the fock and feed weight charged to the farm on the settle-
ment sheet. A 100-fock comparison of on-farm feed weights
and feed-ticket weights for broilers grown at the ABRF from
November, 1990 through October, 2008 is presented in Table
1 (focks 1-50) and Table 2 (focks 51-100). Data indicate that
on-farm weights and feed-ticket delivery weights never exactly
matched but were for the most part, similar. For 81 of 100
focks, weight differences favored the producer.
For the frst 50 focks, the difference between on-farm
feed weights and feed-ticket weights favored the producer
in 47 focks by an average 1.02%. . The remaining 3 focks
favored the integrator by an average of 0.59%. The overall
combined difference between the 2 systems on the frst 50
focks was 0.99% in favor of the producer.
In the second 50 focks, (51 through 100) the difference
between on-farm feed weights and feed-ticket weights favored
the producer in 34 focks by an average of 0.81%. The remain-
ing 16 focks favored the integrator by an average of 0.48%.
The overall combined difference between the 2 systems on the
second 50 focks was 0.70% in favor of the producer, slightly
lower than the frst 50 focks. Ten of the 16 focks that favored
the integrator have occurred since 2006, after the ABRF was
renovated. Several older load cells at bins that weigh feed
on-farm had to be replaced during that time. Many of these
were original load cells installed in 1990. This change in load
cells may partially explain the increased number of focks that
recently favor the integrator. Overall, differences between on-
farm feed weights and feed-delivery ticket weights averaged
0.85% for 100 focks of broilers that consumed over 75 million
pounds of feed.

Everyones Best Interest
Every producer will eventually face the issue of feed
being delivered a day too early and the bins not holding it
all. By law, any feed that is returned by or picked up from a
poultry producer must be weighed if feed weight is a factor in
determining payment; the integrator must document and ac-
count for any returned or picked-up feed.
But sometimes mistakes occur. Growers are urged to
keep track of feed tickets and know when something is out
of the ordinary (for example, feed is delivered too frequently
or not frequently enough). It is in the best interest of both
producer and integrator to resolve any issues as they arise.
Waiting until the fock sells to try to resolve a questionable
feed ticket from weeks ago may result in confict. Service techs
should be contacted at the frst sign of a potential problem. If
feed was received but no ticket can be found, ask the service
techs to provide a copy.
Feed costs are nearly two-thirds of all broiler production
costs. These costs are important to growers because feed con-
version largely determines how well each grower settles at the
APPLIED BROILER RE-
SEARCH UNIT (SAVOY) -
These four full-sized broiler
houses are equipped with
computerized environmen-
tal control and data collec-
tions systems capable of
commercial-type production
research.
G.T. Tabler
,
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture
5
end of the fock. Integrators have millions of dollars invested
in feed mills and feed processing equipment, feed trucks, labor
costs, and feed ingredients. This is, in part, why service techs
are always asking growers to manage feeder height correctly
and to avoid feed waste when chicks are small and begin
scratching feed out of the feed trays.

Safeguards
The USDA Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act) of
1921 is designed to promote fair competition and ensure fair
trade practices in the livestock and poultry industries. This Act
also protects contract poultry producers. P&S Act requires all
scales used by integrators to weigh feed for purposes of pay-
ment and settlement be installed, maintained, and operated to
insure accurate weights. The Packers and Stockyards Program
(P&SP) enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act).
P&SP promotes accurate weighing in the live poultry industry
in the following ways (USDA, 2008):
1. All scales used for weighing feed for purchase, sale,
acquisition, payment, or settlement must be installed and
maintained in accordance to National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 44 as incorpo-
rated by reference into the regulations.
2. All scales used to weigh feed for purchase, sale, acquisi-
tion, payment, or settlement under the Packers and Stock-
yards Act (P&S Act) must be tested for accuracy by a
competent agency at least each 6 months, and the reports
of these tests forwarded to P&SP.
3. Any scale found to be inaccurate according to accepted
tolerances, must not be used until it is repaired, retested
and found accurate again.
4. Whenever the weight of feed is a factor in determining
payment or settlement to a poultry grower when live
poultry is produced under a growing arrangement, live
poultry dealers must base payment or settlement on the
actual weight of feed shown on the scale ticket. If the
actual weight used is not obtained on the date and at the
place of transfer of possession this information must be
disclosed with the date and location of the weighing on
the accountings, bills, or statements issued. If there are
any adjustments to the actual weight, this information
and the reason must be disclosed on the accountings,
bills, or statements issued
5. Integrators must employ qualifed scale operators. In-
tegrators must require scale operators to comply with fed-
eral regulations for weighing feed for payment purposes.
6. Every live poultry dealer must keep all accounts, records,
and memorandum necessary to fully and correctly dis-
close all transactions involved in the business transaction,
including the true ownership. The scale ticket is a legal
document. Every record that is issued where weight is a
factor of settlement depends.
Scales used to weigh feed must be attached to a printer which
should print weight values on a feed ticket. Producers should
never receive scale tickets written by hand. In addition to
safeguards at the feed mill, the P&S Act also requires that each
scale ticket for feed, where weight of feed is a factor in deter-
mining settlement to a producer, must show (USDA, 2008):
1. Name of the company performing the weighing service;
2. Name and address of the producer receiving the feed;
3. Name, initials, or number of the feed weigher, or if
required by State law, signature of the feed weigher;
4. Location of the scale;
5. Gross, tare, and net weight of each lot assigned to an
individual producer;
6. Date and time gross and tare weights were determined, if
applicable;
7. Whether the driver was on or off the truck at the time of
weighing and
8. License number of the truck or other identifcation
numbers on the truck and trailer, if weighed together, or
trailer if only the trailer is weighed.
Even though integrators are required by law to maintain
accurate records, it is important for growers to retain feed
tickets and maintain accurate records. Alert the integrator
at the frst indication there may be a potential concern. The
longer growers wait to report a problem, the harder it will be to
resolve that problem. In most cases, problems can be quickly
resolved when both producer and integrator have accurate
records and act in a timely manner. In the unlikely event that
a producer cannot satisfactorily resolve a feed issue, the P&S
Act authorizes the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration (GIPSA) to investigate complaints of possible
violations. Producers may report possible violations of the
P&S Act to GIPSA toll free at 1-800-998-3447.
References
Anonymous. 2001. How much did your feed really
weigh? Farmers Legal Action Group, Inc. Available at: www.
faginc.org/topic/pubs/poultry/poultry4b_feedweigh.pdf. Ac-
cessed: April 2, 2009.
Tabler, G. T. 2001. A 10-year comparison of on-farm feed
weights and feed truck weights. Avian Advice 3(3):1-3.
USDA. 2008. Responsibility for accurate scales and live
poultry weights. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Ad-
ministration, USDA. January 2008. Available at:www.gipsa.
usda.gov. Accessed: April 6, 2009.
Comparison continued on pg. 6
6
COMPARISON continued from p. 5
TABLE 1. On-Farm Bin Scale Weights Versus Feed Ticket Weights (Flocks 1-50)
1
Flock No. Flock dates On-farm Feed
Wts (lbs)
Scale Ticket
Wts (lbs)
Difference
(lbs)
Difference
(%)
1 11/19/90-1/14/91 853330 846900 6430 0.754
2 2/1/91-3/29/91 819520 814480 5040 0.615
3 4/15/91-6/9/91 814290 806240 8050 0.989
4 6/20/91-8/18/91 840360 886960 lightening damage
5 8/29/91-10/23/91 865658 859360 6298 0.728
6 11/12/91-1/7/92 911938 903720 8218 0.9
7 1/23/92-3/16/92 802864 793960 8904 1.109
8 4/2/92-5/21/92 688720 683580 5140 0.746
9 6/8/92-7/30/92 757580 751230 6350 0.838
10 8/7/92-10/1/92 885928 881620 4308 0.486
11 10/15/92-12/10/92 967180 962810 4370 0.452
12 12/21/92-2/17/93 970436 962900 7536 0.777
13 3/2/93-4/29/93 973240 965190 8050 0.827
14 5/11/93-7/6/93 875352 868970 6382 0.729
15 7/9/93-9/2/93 857972 853220 4752 0.554
16 9/17/93-11/11/93 984974 978570 6404 0.65
17 11/29/93-1/25/94 1072612 1062440 10172 0.948
18 2/10/94-4/6/94 948546 935060 13486 1.422
19 4/19/94-5/31/94 660784 655240 5544 0.839
20 6/9/94-8/3/94 748054 748560 506 0.068
21 8/5/94-9/14/94 588722 586160 2562 0.345
22 9/20/94-11/3/94 666354 664020 2334 0.35
23 11/15/94-12/28/94 671776 665860 5916 0.88
24 1/10/95-2/23/95 692770 686280 6490 0.937
25 3/7/95-4/19/95 578528 582980 4452 0.764
26 5/5/95-6/15/95 649266 644900 4366 0.672
27 6/29/95-8/9/95 618756 610200 8556 1.383
28 8/18/95-9/28/95 647574 641960 5614 0.867
29 10/13/95-11/22/95 613104 605720 7384 1.204
30 12/7/95-1/22/96 665134 671360 6226 0.927
31 1/26/96-3/7/96 557626 552940 4686 0.841
32 3/15/96-4/26/96 601490 595900 5590 0.829
33 5/9/96-6/20/96 598276 593240 5036 0.842
34 7/4/96-8/16/96 618418 606780 11638 1.882
35 10/31/96-12/10/96 685446 689340 3896 0.565
36 12/30/96-2/6/97 591834 581120 10714 1.81
37 2/24/97-4/7/97 663096 654200 8896 1.342
38 4/24/97-6/6/97 661088 652410 8678 1.313
39 6/26/97-8/18/97 858594 850380 8214 0.957
40 9/1/97-10/22-97 776572 770300 6272 0.808
41 11/7/97-12/30/97 839070 830120 8950 1.067
42 1/27/98-3/20/98 848298 843280 5018 0.592
43 4/6/98-5/27/98 777952 767860 10092 1.297
44 6/12/98-8/6/98 816662 813440 3222 0.395
45 8/18/98-10/12/98 866424 863020 3404 0.393
46 10/30/98-12/15/98 746540 695350 51190 6.86
47 1/8/99-3/1/99 818744 810900 7844 0.96
48 3/22/99-5/14/99 831298 820820 10478 1.26
49 5/31/99-7/27/99 933730 928680 5050 0.54
50 8/5/99-9/29/99 911550 901080 10470 1.15
TOTALS
AVERAGE
38694030
773881
38401610
768032
---
7534
---
0.99
1
Bold numbers indicate focks when scale ticket weights were greater than on-farm feed weights.
7
TABLE 2. On-Farm Bin Scale Weights Versus Feed Ticket Weights (Flocks 51-100)
1
Flock
No.
Flock dates On-farm Feed
Wts (lbs)
Scale Ticket
Wts (lbs)
Difference
(lbs)
Difference
(%)
51 10/12/99-12/3/99 851880 856600 4720 0.55
52 12/20/99-2/8/00 784042 778900 5142 0.66
53 3/13/00-5/4/00 854550 845030 9522 1.11
54 5/15/00-7/11/00 930726 930940 214 0.02
55 7/21/00-9/12/00 853534 842980 10554 1.24
56 9/22/00-11/13/00 844766 841120 3646 0.43
57 11/28/00-1/19/01 784058 781980 2078 0.27
58 1/30/01-3/23/01 927512 916700 10812 1.18
59 3/29/01-5/10/01 660764 653700 7064 1.08
60 5/18/01-6/30/01 671108 659980 11128 1.69
61 7/5/01-8/17/01 727610 728360 750 0.10
62 8/30/01-10/10/01 681540 651560 29980 4.60
63 10/30/01-12/7/01 611030 608200 2830 0.47
64 12/21/01-2/6/02 903546 898850 4696 0.52
65 2/15/02-4/1/02 868838 866780 2058 0.24
66 4/11/02-5/28/02 930624 935990 5366 0.57
67 6/4/02-7/19/02 843580 831660 11920 1.43
68 8/5/02-9/18/02 770174 767240 2934 0.38
69 11/4/02-12/17/02 697376 697780 404 0.06
70 1/3/03-2/14/03 650214 649670 544 0.08
71 2/27/03-4/10/03 610242 608270 1972 0.32
72 4/29/03-6/10/03 612478 606510 5968 0.98
73 6/19/03-7/31/03 603640 603070 570 0.09
74 8/18/03-9/29/03 591556 589250 2306 0.39
75 10/7/03-11/18/03 685668 677240 8428 1.24
76 12/30/03-2/10/04 749558 752090 2532 0.34
77 2/23/04-4/2/04 610150 606040 4110 0.68
78 4/15/04-5/26/04 563054 561720 1334 0.24
79 6/3/04-7/17/04 645268 637870 7398 1.16
80 8/22/04-10/11/04 740508 733550 6958 0.95
81 10/17/04-11/29/04 713678 699580 14098 2.02
82 1/3/05-2/14/05 809018 809790 772 0.10
83 2/28/05-4/11/05 772700 766430 6270 0.82
84 4/25/05-6/3/05 647250 642160 5090 0.79
85 6/13/05-7/22/05 617892 614490 3402 0.55
86 8/8/05-9/16/05 588314 587940 374 0.06
87 4/11/06-5/19/06 619420 619640 220 0.04
88 6/5/06-7/13/06 703208 704860 1652 0.23
89 8/1/06-9/21/06 1001448 1005120 3672 0.37
90 10/6/06-11/24/06 1002777 992780 9997 1.01
91 12/21/06-2/7/07 902726 912880 10154 1.11
92 2/26/07-4/20/07 947448 947020 428 0.05
93 5/15/07-7/10/07 1035918 1037400 1482 0.14
94 7/27/07-9/24/07 1085270 1088770 3500 0.32
95 10/8/07-12/3/07 1114396 1123690 9294 0.83
96 12/14/07-2/6/08 1003356 998160 5196 0.52
97 2/21/08-4/11/08 947624 945970 1654 0.17
98 4/25/08-6/13/08 906596 915510 8914 0.97
99 6/26/08-8/14/08 929254 942698 13444 1.43
100 8/22/08-10/10/08 950312 955475 5163 0.54
TOTALS
AVERAGE
39558199
791164
39429993
788600
---
5454
---
0.70
8
Poultry Litter Production and
Associated Challenges
Introduction
Agricultural production and processing is big business
in Arkansas. A recently released study by the University of
Arkansas Division of Agriculture indicates that in 2007, agri-
culture accounted for one in six jobs in the state and $9.16 B
in labor income, more than 15% of the state total. Poultry and
egg production and processing is the leading industry, with
direct impacts of 1 in every 4 agricultural jobs and $1 in every
$4 in agricultural wages and income. Production of poultry is
more heavily concentrated now than in years past in terms of
intensity of production, that is, more birds being grown and
processed in the same geographic areas as in the past. The
result of this increased production activity is larger quantities
of poultry litter production. Because of benefts it provides
(crop nutrients, increased organic matter), the majority of this
poultry litter is, in some form, land applied. Although innova-
tive utilization methods continue to appear, land application
remains the current standard.
In 2003, the Arkansas General Assembly passed three
companion acts addressing nutrient planner and applicant cer-
tifcation (Act 1059), registration of poultry operations (Act
1060) and application of nutrient and utilization of poultry
litter in nutrient surplus areas (Act 1061). Detailed explana-
tions of these acts are contained in the University of Arkan-
sas Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet FSA29 New
Arkansas Laws Regulate the Use and Management of Poultry
Litter and Other Nutrients published in September, 2003.
A signifcant portion of Act 1061 addresses development
and implementation of nutrient management and poultry litter
management plans for poultry feeding operations (grow-out
farms). Poultry litter management planners shall have ob-
tained certifcation from Arkansas Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Commission (now Arkansas Natural Resources Commis-
sion, ANRC) in planning. The poultry litter management plan
shall contain: a periodic poultry litter nutrient content analysis
component; poultry litter utilization component providing for
the proper utilization of the litter produced, including provi-
sions ensuring that land application within a nutrient surplus
area is in accordance with a nutrient management plan or at a
rate not to exceed the protective rate; land application outside
a nutrient surplus area is in a method and at a rate acceptable
to ANRC; and litter not land applied is converted to a non-
nutrient use or other use acceptable to ANRC; and a records
component that requires the poultry feeding operation owner
to maintain suffcient records at the feeding operation to de-
termine poultry litter utilization and compliance with the other
portions of the poultry litter management plan.
So, it is necessary that producer operations abide by
rules and follow best management practices. Extension per-
sonnel can assist agricultural producers in adopting practices
and behaviors to help meet their needs, one of which is to de-
termine the amount of poultry litter their operation will likely
generate in any given year.

ABRF Litter Production
The Applied Broiler Research Farm (ABRF) at Savoy
has been utilized as a source of developing and evaluating
management practices and innovative approaches that may
improve industry results. The ABRF had grown 98 focks of
birds through June, 2008. To assist producers by sharing ex-
periences with litter produced on the ABRF, detailed records
that have been kept on litter removal during total cleanouts
and caked litter (de-cake) removal between focks since the
farm began operating were assessed. Table 1 lists yearly
caked litter removal at the ABRF. Removal ranged from a
low of 31 loads in 1992 to a high of 173 loads in 2002. Dur-
ing the period, a total of 1,459 loads of de-cake were removed
by a standard poultry house de-caker pulled behind a tractor
with each load containing approximately 2 tons of de-cake.
The 1,459 loads at 2 tons per load amounted to 2,918 tons of
de-cake or 30% of the total litter removed.
Litter removal during total cleanouts is listed in Table
2. There were 3 periods when the farm was not on an annual
cleanout schedule. During the frst period, House 1 was not
cleaned out from September, 1996 through February, 2000
and houses 2, 3, and 4 were not cleaned from October, 1997
through February, 2000 due to ongoing research. During the
second period, the houses were not cleaned from October,
2001 through April, 2003 to cycle back to a spring cleanout
schedule. Finally, the houses were not cleaned out in 2007
due to a bedding material shortage. There were 2 cleanouts
in 2005; one in April and another in September when the farm
underwent renovations. Cleanout totals ranged from a low
of 264 tons in September, 2005 to a high of 875 tons in June,
2008. During the period, a total of 6,864 tons of litter were
removed at cleanout or 70% of the total. A combined total
G.T. Tabler
1,
Y. Liang
2
, and K.W. VanDevender
3
1
Department of Poultry Science,
2
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, and
3
Coop-
erative Extension Service, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas
9
of 9,782 tons of litter and de-cake had been removed from
the ABRF through June, 2008. This resulted in the following
yearly and per-fock litter production information:
9,782 tons/18 yrs = 543 tons per yr/4 houses = 135.87 tons/
house/yr
or
9,782 tons/98 focks = 99.82 tons/fock for the farm = 24.96
tons/house/fock
The 4 houses at the ABRF are 40 x 400 (16,000 sq. ft. foor
space). Pounds of litter generated per square foot of foor
space can be calculated as follows:
135.87 tons of litter per house per year x 2000 lbs per ton =
271,740 lbs litter per house per yr/16,000 sq ft = 16.98 lbs lit-
ter per sq ft of foor space per yr
Pounds of litter produced on a per bird basis can also be
estimated. If the total lbs of litter produced (Tables 1 and 2)
are divided by either head placed or head sold (Table 3), the
pounds of litter per bird can be calculated. The 9,782 total
tons of litter removed from the farm converts to 19,564,000
lbs. During the 18 yr period, there were a total of 8,165,941
birds placed on the farm and 7,759,295 birds harvested.
Based on these fgures:
19,564,000 lbs /8,165,941 birds placed = 2.396 lbs litter per
bird placed
or
19,564,000 lbs /7,759,295 birds harvested = 2.521 lbs litter
per bird harvested
Litter production fgures can vary greatly from farm to farm
based on house size, bird harvest weight, management prac-
tices, number of focks per year, etc.
Reference
Goodwin, Jr., H.L., Frank T. Jones, Susan E. Watkins and
Janie S. Hipp. New Arkansas Laws Regulate the Use and
Management of Poultry Litter and Other Nutrients. Univer-
sity of Arkansas, Cooperative Extension Service. Publication
Number FSA29. September, 2003.
Year Decaker
loads
Litter
(tons)
1
Litter
(lbs)
1992 31 62 124,000
1993 69 138 276,000
1994 120 240 480,000
1995 108 216 432,000
1996 127 254 508,000
1997 68 136 272,000
1998 85 170 340,000
1999 58 116 232,000
2000 85 170 340,000
2001 101 202 404,000
2002 173 346 692,000
2003 104 208 416,000
2004 123 246 492,000
2005 79 158 316,000
2006 50 100 200,000
2007 43 86 172,000
2008 35 70 140,000
TOT
TOTALS 1,459 2,918 5,836,000
TABLE 1. Yearly caked litter removal between focks at the ABRF
1
Tonnage based on 2 tons per decaker load as determined by portable scales.
Litter Production continued on pg. 10
10
TABLE 2. Litter removal at the ABRF during total cleanouts
LITTER PRODUCTION continued from p. 9
Year
1
Cleanout Month Spreader loads Litter (tons)
2
Litter (lbs)
1992 March 157 864 1,727,000
1993 May 115 633 1,265,000
1994 April 80 440 880,000
1995 April 74 407 814,000
1996 Sept 74 407 814,000
1997 Oct 52 286 572,000
2000 Feb 130 715 1,430,000
2001 Oct 106 583 1,166,000
2003 April 100 550 1,100,000
2004 April 75 413 825,000
2005 April 78 429 858,000
2005 Sept 48 264 528,000
2008 June 159 875 1,749,000
TOTALS 1,248 6,864 13,728,000
1
Total cleanouts were not always performed on an annual basis.
2
Tonnage based on 5.5 tons per spreader truck load as determined by portable scales.
TABLE 3. Yearly number of broilers placed and harvested at the ABRF
Year Broilers placed
1
Broilers harvested
1991 376,000 351,532
1992 451,200 419,194
1993 378,400 357,076
1994 602,900 567,416
1995 549,500 535,795
1996 537,875 519,811
1997 514,912 496,376
1998 375,234 366,159
1999 375,214 358,688
2000 378,838 355,158
2001 618,266 593,581
2002 575,919 529,514
2003 495,305 470,235
2004 525,752 495,590
2005 468,980 444,238
2006 343,080 328,058
2007 361,162 345,116
2008
2
237,404 225,758
TOTALS 8,165,941 7,759,295
1
Placements varied
based on harvest age
and number of focks per
year.
2
Placements include
birds placed and
harvested between Jan
and June 2008.
11
Broiler Water Consumption
Measuring water consumption of broilers can be an
important tool for monitoring
fock performance. Birds
consume approximately 1.6
to 2 times as much water as
feed (on a pound per pound
basis); both feed and water
consumption steadily increase
as a fock ages. Growers often
ask Exactly how much should
my birds be drinking each day
and should I be concerned if
water consumption does not
increase every day? The daily
water usage/consumption for
the last twelve focks at the
Applied Broiler Research
Farm (ABRF) (4 commercial
broiler houses) was analyzed. Daily
mortality was removed from the
next days bird count so that water
consumption refected the actual
bird number and not the placement
number. Although the ABRF focks
arent always at the top of their
settlement, average weights and
feed conversions /fock are typically
good so the following water usage is
realistic estimates.
As shown in Table 1, and
Figure 1, overall daily water
consumption steadily increases
between one to almost four gallons
per 1000 birds, but there were days
when usage dropped or remained
similar to the previous days usage.
Consumption was also analyzed by
season; it was observed that water
consumption was similar for all
seasons until about day 18, when
the hotter weather seasons began
to show much higher water usage
patterns. By day 21, consumption in
the warmer seasons outpaced cooler
season usage by as much as 6 to
10 gallons/1000 birds on a daily basis. Water usage dropped
around the time the birds began eating the withdrawal feed for
most focks.
This observation has led us to evaluate some water
treatment options which might help the birds adjust to the last
feed. Since the ABRF settlements are good, the data presented
here should encourage growers to not hit the panic button if
focks experience slight declines or a fat line in water usage for
a day. However, there should be an increasing consumption
trend. If water usage remains unchanged for more than a day or
two, growers should try to identify the cause. A good check list
to follow is:
1. Drinker line height, too high or too low
2. Air locks in the water system
3. Water line pressure not correct for age of bird
4. Clogged water flters or drinkers
Susan Watkins and G.T. Tabler,
Broiler Water continued on pg. 12
Chart. Daily Water Usage-Minimum,
Maximum and Average Gallons per 1000 Birds
Max.
Avg.
Min.
12
Table. Daily Water Usage for 12 Flocks at the Applied Broiler Research Farm
Age
(Days)
Minimum
Usage
Maximum
Usage
Average
Usage
Age
(Days)
Minimum
Usage
Maximum
Usage
Average
Usage
Age
(Days)
Minimum
Usage
Maximum
Usage
Average
Usage
1 0 0 0 19 34.75 51.78 43.07 37 55.57 87.49 74.35
2 3.8 7.89 5.35 20 37.22 54.59 44.08 38 56.54 92.33 77.16
3 5.59 11.27 7.7 21 38.7 56.07 46.19 39 61.99 91.8 78.59
4 9.39 14.17 10.98 22 35.57 54.71 47.23 40 67.15 95.99 78.92
5 10.7 16.55 12.84 23 39.07 59.43 49.63 41 65.14 99.26 80.83
6 11.9 16.95 10.04 24 37.96 62.89 53.28 42 66.24 96.43 82.32
7 13.34 19.35 15.96 25 43.26 65.58 54.58 43 58.97 92.61 81.01
8 14.46 21.65 17.69 26 42.29 64.76 54.34 44 65.63 90.7 80.19
9 12.55 23.17 19.51 27 46.33 69.41 57.56 45 69.37 91.83 81.18
10 19.39 29.15 22.54 28 49.05 71.73 59.96 46 66.19 97.36 83.39
11 19.38 30.08 25.71 29 53.33 75.82 63.08 47 69.05 91.2 81.75
12 23.01 31.4 27.83 30 52.94 76.83 63.08 48 71.72 97 82.26
13 26.04 36.33 30.19 31 47.83 79.26 65.66 49 67.22 97.7 85.9
14 28.39 37.94 32.78 32 56.15 78.76 68.29 50 72.72 93.16 85.41
15 29.92 40.64 34.78 33 59.55 84.47 70.1 51 77.05 99.95 85.29
16 29.71 40.64 35.71 34 55.33 88.12 70.22 52 74.86 98.08 86.69
17 30.66 46.14 38.94 35 59.12 85.49 72.59 53 76.68 98.19 87.82
18 32.51 49.07 41.36 36 56.15 87.38 73.21 54 76.45 98.83 87.5
Gallons/1000 Birds
Broiler Water continued from pg. 11
UA Poultry Science Extension Faculty
Dr. R. Keith Bramwell, Extension Reproductive Physiologist, Telephone: 479-841-6498, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: bramwell@uark.edu
Dr. Dustan Clark, Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian, Telephone: 479-575-4375, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: fdclark@uark.edu
Dr. John Marcy, Extension Food Scientist, Telephone: 479-575-2211, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: jmarcy@uark.edu
Dr. Susan Watkins, Extension Poultry Specialist, Telephone: 479-575-7902, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: swatkin@uark.edu
Dr. H.L. Goodwin, Professor and Poultry Economist, Telephone: 501-575-7118, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: haroldg@uark.edu
Write Extension Speciaists, at: Center of Excellence for Poultry Science
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
5. Dramatic change in light intensity
6. Frequent changes in day length
7. Feed changes or feed outages
8. Water treatments /additives
9. Birds are sick
10. Too many birds per drinker (due to migration or bird
placement numbers in the house)
Water consumption continues to be one of the simplest
and most effective tools a poultry grower can use to monitor
fock progress. Growers who lack good fock water
consumption guidelines can utilize the information from the
ABRF as a guideline but are encouraged to develop their own
usage patterns. Identifying inconsistencies in water usage
patterns can be a useful tool in establishing root causes of
performance issues.
by Tyler Clark, Brookee Dean and Susan Watkins
INSIDE
ras 4
How Much Moisture
Do Brooders Add
To Poultry Houses?
by Y. Liang and
G.T. Tabler
ras
How Does Taste
Infuence Water
Consumption in
Broilers?
by F.T. Jones and
S.E. Watkins
The Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service offers its programs to all eligible persons regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability, and is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
i/cs
EVALUATION contd on page 2
Spring 2009 Volume 11 no. 1
Evaluation of Different Hydrogen
Peroxide Products for Maintaining
Adequate Sanitizing Residual in
Water
Introduction
Aclean,safewatersupplyisessentialinpoultryproduction.Yetevenproducerswho
takeeveryprecautiontoensurethattheirwatersupplyissafemayexperienceproblemswith
high bacteria counts and bioflms in their water lines. Thus, it is important to understand the
capabilitiesofwatersanitationproducts,particularlythoseproductscapableofreducingor
destroying bioflms (Hancock et al., 2007).
Hydrogen peroxide has been used as an antimicrobial agent since the early 1800s. It was
used as a disinfectant in milk as early as 1904 and is presently approved by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for packaging and surface sterilization in the food industry (Schurman,
2001). Hydrogen peroxide has shown to be effective against bioflms (Carpentier and Cefr,
1993).
Hydrogen peroxide (H
2
O
2
) is a weak acid that works as an oxidizer similar to chlorine.
The key by-products formed when hydrogen peroxide is used are water and oxygen which
makesitagoodchoicefortreatingwaterwithhighlevelsoforganicmattersuchaspondsor
rivers. The hydrogen peroxide found in drugstores or pharmacies is only a 3% concentration,
while the products commonly used for water disinfection range from 16 to 34% with 50% H
2
O
2
products available for use in removing bioflms from water systems between focks. Hydrogen
peroxide can also be used to oxidize iron, manganese and sulfur which can then be removed with
fltration.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines recommend 25-50 ppm of residual
H
2
O
2
in drinking water. However, water disinfection products use different stabilizing systems,
whichbringsustothequestionsweareattemptingtoaddresshere:
How much of the different H
2
O
2
concentrates is required to make a 25-50 ppm residual in
water?and;
How long do different sources of H
2
O
2
remaineffectiveoncetheyareblendedintoastock
solutionandaddedtowater?
The following four products were tested: hydrogen peroxide (35%), HydroLine Cleaner
(34% stabilized), Proxy-Clean
(50% stabilized), and Oxy Blast Plus
(34% stabilized). It
is important to note that the HydroLine Cleaner
, Proxy-Clean
and Oxy Blast
allcontain
1.
2.
AVIAN
2
AVIAN Advice Spring 2009 Vol. 11, No. 1
EVALUATION continued from page 1
additional proprietary ingredients used for stabilization and enhancing effectiveness. Oxy Blast
also has NSF International

approvalasadrinkingwateradditive.
Each product was mixed with tap water to make four separate stock solutions of: 1 ounce/gallon (oz/gal), 2 oz/gal, 4
oz/gal, and 6 oz/gal for each product. The tap water was tested for residual chlorine before mixing and measured 0 ppm. Next
1 milliliter (ml) of each stock solution was added to 128ml of tap water to create a 1:128 solution. This simulated the ounce of
each stock solution that would be added to a gallon of water (128 ounces) by a medicator injecting at a 1:128 rate. After creating
each of the fnal solutions, the parts per million (ppm) of hydrogen peroxide was tested using Oxy Blast
Peroxide Test Strips

which measures H
2
O
2
residual from 0 to 100 ppm. Each solution was covered and then tested again on days 1, 2, 3 ,4 and 5 post
preparation.
Results
The data in Table 1 indicate that under the conditions of this trial none of the products tested provided 25-50ppm at the 1 oz/
gal stock solution level. At 2 oz/gal stock solution, hydrogen peroxide and Proxy-Clean
produced 25ppm H
2
O
2
solution,while
a 4 oz/gal stock solution of HydroLine
was required to produce the same concentration. A 2 oz/gal stock solution of Oxy Blast
produced 50ppm concentration of H

2
O
2
.
Assumingtheproductstestedcontainedthelistedpercentagesofhydrogenperoxideandnoactivitywaslostinthedilution
process, initial H
2
O
2
activity for the 2 oz/gal stock solution concentration should have been 42.7, 41.5, 61.0 and 41.5 ppm for
hydrogen peroxide, Hydroline
, Proxy-Clean
and Oxy Blast
, respectively . However, the data in Table 1 suggest that in

41.5, 75.9 and 59% of the H
2
O
2
activity was lost in the initial dilution of hydrogen peroxide, HydroLine
and Proxy-Clean
,
respectively. These data suggest that, while effective, the activity of hydrogen peroxide can be quickly lost. Therefore, it is
imperativethatlabeldirectionsbefollowedwhenusingsuchproducts
By day one or 24 hours post mix of solutions, the hydrogen peroxide at 2 oz/gal had decreased a residual H
2
O
2
activityof
10ppm and held this concentration till day 5 when it was decreased to 5 ppm. The hydrogen peroxide at 4 oz/gal dropped to 50
ppm by day 2 and then to 25 ppm by day 3 and dropping further by day 5 to 10 ppm. HydroLine
at 4 oz/gal gave a 25 ppm

residual reading till Day 3 when it dropped to 10 ppm and then fnished day 5 with a 5 ppm reading. The Proxy-Clean 2 oz/gal
gave a 25 ppm reading till day 2 and then on day 3 it had dropped to 10 ppm for the rest of the measurement time period. The
Oxy Blast 2 oz/gal mixture dropped to 25 ppm by day 1 and this held till day 3 when the residual dropped to 10 ppm. These
Table 1. Residual H
2
O
2
Activity from Different Products over a 5 Day Period

Figure 1. Residual H
2
0
2
Activity of Stabilized And Unstabilized Hydrogen Peroxide Products
1
results suggest that hydrogen peroxide, Proxy-Clean
and Oxy Blast
at a 2 oz/gal stock solution concentration should be

adequate for providing a 25-50 ppm residual for at least 24 hours.
The data shown in Figure 1 compare the average residual H
2
O
2
activity for stabilized and unstabilized hydrogen peroxide
productsoverallconcentrationstestedinthistrial.Whilebothproducttypesbeganandwereaboutthesameconcentrationon
days 3, 4 and 5 of the test, stabilized products maintained higher concentrations than unstabilized products on days 1 and 2.
These data suggest that stabilized hydrogen peroxide products offer some additional residual H
2
O
2
activitywhencomparedto
unstabilized products but, the additional residual activity is transient, lasting no more than one or perhaps two days.
Summary
Mixing hydrogen peroxide products to obtain a solution with a 25-50 ppm residual H
2
O
2
inthedrinkingwaterrequireda
stock solution of at least 2 oz/gal with most products. However, since hydrogen peroxide products can rapidly lose potency, it
is recommended that fresh stock solutions be made every 2-3 days. Although stabilized hydrogen peroxide products offer some
additional residual H
2
O
2
activity over unstabilized products, this activity lasts no more than two days. Finally, it is important to
notethatnotalltheproductsarelabeledasdrinkingwateradditivessopleasetakethisintoconsiderationwhenchoosingwater
sanitizer products and follow label direction.
References
Carpentier, B. and O. Cefr, 1993. Bioflms and their consequences, with particular reference to hygiene in the food industry.
J. Applied Bacteriol. 75:499-511.
Hancock, A., J. Hughes and S. Watkins, 2007. In search of the ideal water line cleaner. Avian Advice 9(1):1-4.
Schurman, J. J. 2001. Antibacterial activity of hydrogen peroxide against Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella spp
in fruit juices, both alone and in combination with organic acids. Thesis submitted to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University in partial fulfllment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.
1
The data represent the average concentrations obtained when 1, 2, 4 and 6 oz/gal solutions were diluted 1 to 128.
4
Y. Liang
1
and G.T. Tabler
2
1
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering and
2
Department of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture
How Much Moisture Do
Brooders Add to Poultry
Houses?
Introduction
The vast majority of poultry growers use unvented heating units, i.e. brooders or space
furnaces,toheattheirpoultryhouses,usingpropaneornaturalgasasfuelsources.Recordhigh
propane/natural gas prices over the last two years have led a number of producers to explore the
possibilityofusingbiomassfurnacestoprovideheatintheirpoultryhouses.Anumberofalter-
native heating systems exist with a price range of less than $10,000 to over $60,000 (Czarick,
et al., 2008). Generally alternative heating systems are considered proftable if they are able to
replace approximately 85% of the propane use, but conventional brooder/space heating systems
must still supply heat during peak demand (Wimberly, 2008).
While the main beneft of biomass furnaces lies in its potential fuel saving, an overall
improvementinairqualityinthehouseasaresultofintroducingdryheatisanadditional
beneft reported by furnace vendors and some growers. This claim is based on the fact that
unventedheatingunitssuchasbroodersorspaceheatersreleasewatervaporastheygenerate
heat,whileventedsystemsleavethecombustionbyproductsoutsideandintroduceheatintothe
houses by heat exchangers. Unvented propane heaters are estimated to add 0.000078 pounds of
water vapor for each BTU heat generated (ASHRAE, 1985). Natural gas releases slightly more
water vapor than propane per unit of heat generated. If dry heat releases less water vapor
into the poultry house, this is likely to lower in-house ammonia and ventilation requirements
because of drier litter conditions. However, water vapor from unvented conventional heaters
isonlyaportionofthemoistureloadaddedtothehouse,andthisportionvariesbothwithina
fock and among focks in a year. It may represent a high proportion of the moisture load during
thebroodingstageincoldweatherwhenfeedandwaterconsumptionarelow,butmuchlessof
theloadasbirdsgetolder.Wedecidedtostudytherelativecontributionofmoisturetohousing
environment and potential signifcance of the dry heat beneft based on available scientifc
datasothatgrowersareequippedtomakewiseinvestmentdecisionswithrespecttotherelative
importanceofdryheat.
This analysis was conducted based on weekly propane usage, feed consumption and water
intake data collected from 18 winter focks (focks placed in November, December and January)
raised at the Applied Broiler Research Farm (ABRF). When we did this study we assumed that,
whenrelativelylowlevelsofheatingwererequiredduringmildweather,becauseofconve-
nience and system effciency, propane heating systems would be favored over biomass furnaces.
Moistureloadsinpoultryhousesconsistofmoisturegeneratedbybirdsandwatervapor
generatedbypropaneheaters.Moisturegenerationbybirdsincludedwaterintakefromdrinkers,
water in the feed (assume feed moisture content of 13%) and metabolic water generated through
thedigestionoffeed.Yetsomeofthewaterinpoultryhousesisretainedinthebodiesofthe
birds. Therefore, the amount of water retained by the birds (water retention) was calculated.
:
Several assumptions were made to conduct the analysis:
Each 40 by 400 house was assumed to have 20,000 birds
atplacement,eventhoughtheactualbirdnumberofeach
fock varied by target market weight and season;
Water was assumed to make up 80% of live weight of
birds. This assumption was used to calculate the proportion
water in the house that was retained by the birds (water
retention);
One BTU of propane generates 0.000078 (7.80 x 10
-5
) lbs
ofwatervapor;
One gallon of propane generates 92,000 BTU.
Further analysis was made on daily propane use during the frst
two weeks of the most recent fve winter focks raised in 2006,
2007 and 2008, and compared to daily moisture loads added by
birds.
Results and Discussion
On average, birds drank between 1.5 to 2.1 pounds of
waterforeverypoundoffeedconsumed.Waterconsumption
from drinkers was found to represent a majority of water added
to the house. An average of 19% of the water in the house
was retained by the birds. This means that 81% (range of 75 to
85%) of the water that entered houses was released back into
the house environment, by respiration and excretion (Figure 1).
If unvented propane heaters account for a large portion
ofthemoistureaddedtopoultryhouses,itseemslogicalto
assumethatmoistureadditionproblemswouldbeworstinthe
wintermonths.Yet,analysisofpropaneconsumptiondata
from winter focks revealed that unvented burning of propane
generated an average of 23% of total moisture loads in the frst
week of brooding, 11% of the moisture in the second week, and
5% or less in the remaining weeks (Table 1, Figure 2). Still, a
major portion of the fuel combusted over the life of the fock is
expended maintaining house temperatures of 85 to 90F during
these early weeks. In addition, the overall growth rate and
settlementstatusmaywellbedeterminedduringtheseearly
weeks (Tabler, 2000; Tabler, 2003). Therefore, daily propane
usage data from the fve most recent winter focks was analyzed
to get a better picture of moisture loads within the frst two
1.
2.
3.
4.
weeksofchickplacement.
Figure 3 shows that moisture generated by propane burn-
ing represented 84 and 41% of the total load on days 1 and 2,
respectively. The percentage of moisture from burning propane
decreased as birds grew, and stabilized at around 11% during
the second week of age. The dry heat from vented furnaces
is clearly benefcial during the early days after bird placement
when propane consumption is very high. Calculations show
that on average the moisture load could be reduced by 20%
during the frst week. While this reduction in moisture load
wouldtranslatetodrierlitterconditions,andmayallowthe
growertoreduceventilationrates,itisimportanttoremember
thattotalmoistureloadsincreasedramaticallyasbirdsgrow,
andmoisturegeneratedbybirdsremainsthemainreasonfor
ventilation. While the benefts of dry heat from biomass fur-
nacesbecomesmallerasbirdsgrow,itisalsoimportanttorec-
ognize that energy effciency is also related to litter preparation
between focks. Growers that skip or short cut may save time,
but those who take the extra time to do the job right will likely
fnd dividends in the settlement check (Tabler et al., 2008).
Summary
Several potential environmental and economic benefts
havebeenreportedforbiomassfurnacesystems.Whilethese
benefts are often valid, it is important to see the whole picture.
Vented furnaces produce dry heat that is reported to reduce
in-house ammonia levels, decrease ventilation rates, improve
litterqualityandproduceahealthierenvironmentwithinthe
house (Wimberly, 2008). Moisture load calculations based on
propane usage data collected at the Applied Broiler Research
Farm indicate that when using vented biomass furnace, about
23% less moisture can be added to the indoor environment
during the frst week of brooding, when birds are very sensi-
tivetohouseconditionsandmaintainingelevatedtemperatures
requires the combustion of large amounts of propane. How-
ever,asbirdsgrowbigger,moremoistureisaddedbyfeeding
and drinking, which represent more than 90% of in-house water
inputsfromsecondweekon.
MOISTURE continued on pg. 6
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Water generation
from unvented
burning (gal/wk) 322 405 299 172 103 82 79
Water from birds
(gal/wk) 1078 3206 5772 8443 10926 12964 14319
Proportion from
propane (%) 23 11 5 2 1 1 1
Table 1. Weekly Moisture Loads Generated by Birds and Unvented Propane Heaters
c
MOISTURE continued from p. 5
References
ASHRAE. 1985. ASHRAE Handbook, 1985 Fundamentals. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Condition-
ing Engineers. Atlanta, GA.
Czarick, M. B. Fairchild, and D. Dartnell 2008. Alternative heating system an overview. University of Georgia Corpora-
tive Extension Service, Poultry Housing Tips. December 2008.
Tabler, T. 2000. Brooding chicks in colder weather. Avian Advice 2(1):3-4.
Tabler, T. 2003. Early feed intake and bird performance. Avian Advice 5(1):13-15.
Tabler, T., S. E. Watkins and F. T. Jones. 2008. Litter preparation between focks: management is the key. Avian Advice
10(4):4-7.
Wimberly, J. 2008. A review of biomass furnaces for heating poultry houses in the Northwest Arkansas region. Winrock
International, Little Rock, AR.
Figure 1. Weekly Water Released and Retained (refected as weight gain) per 1000 Birds as a Result of Feed
and Water Intake.
Z
Figure 2. Weekly Moisture Addition from Water Released by Birds and Generated by Propane Heaters
(analyzed for 18 winter focks, per house basis)
Figure 3. Daily Moisture Addition from Water Released by Birds and Generated by Propane Heaters during
the First Two Weeks after Chick Placement (analyzed on 5 winter focks per house basis)

How Does Taste Infuence Water
Consumption in Broilers?
Background
Early studies suggest that birds are much more sensitive to favors in water than in feed
(Kare and Pick, 1960). This sensitivity to favors in water may be due to the fact that birds
consume almost twice as much water as feed. However, the issue of taste is much more
complexthanitmayseembecausehumansperceivetastedifferentlythanmanyotheranimal
species.
To illustrate this point one researcher compared the responses of different animals to a
sucrose (sugar) solution, and its equivalent in saccharine. Most humans said that both solutions
are sweet and pleasant tasting and laboratory rats had a similar reaction. Calves drank much
more of the sucrose than humans did, but drank little of the saccharine. Chickens and dogs
drank the sugar but found the saccharine very offensive. Cats did not respond to either of the
solutions. The point of this illustration is we, as humans, cannot use our own sense of taste to
predict how animals will respond (Kare, 1970).
Chickens, in fact, prefer water that is cold and slightly acid in taste rather than sweet
(Kare, 1970). Although chicks have only a fraction of the number of taste buds found in other
animals (Figure 1), birds have a well defned sense of taste and will reject certain favors (Kare
et al., 1957). In addition, the taste buds in chickens are in different locations as compared to
other animals. In humans, and many other animal species, most taste buds are on the tongue;
butinthechicken,tastebudsaredistributedprimarilyonthebackpartoftheroofofthemouth,
with only 2 to 4% being located on the tongue (Ganchrow and Ganchrow, 1985). In fact, the
tastebudsinchickensaresofarbackinthemouththatbythetimethebirdcantastesomething,
it is almost too late to change its mind about swallowing it (Kare, 1970). Yet, the sense of taste
is more than just how feed or water feels in the mouth of the bird. The sense of taste is all the
sensationabirdexperiencesafterconsumption.
In general, the sense of taste guides an animal as to what it should eat. For example,
chickens given a thiamin defcient diet and offered two solutions, one with and one without
thiamin,willchoosetodrinkasolutioncontainingthiamin.Whilehumansperceivexyloseas
about 70% as sweet as sucrose (sugar), chickens will drink little xylose, which has been found
to cause cataracts in some bird species (Kare, 1970). These and similar choices suggest that
taste is often the basis on which the bird seeks to meet its nutritional needs (Roura et al., 2008).
However, the problem is still more complicated.
Water to humans is wet and tasteless, but to birds, water has a distinct taste. Therefore,
water in itself is a strong stimulus for the bird and favors tested in water solutions are actually
perceived by the bird as mixtures of favors (Beidler, 1961; Kare, 1970; Gentle, 1985).
Although favor perceptions in many animals also involve the perception of odors, in birds
odorsintheirimmediateenvironmenthavelittleapparentaffect.Yet,temperatureofwater
canbecriticalforbirds.Whenpresentedwithtwochoicesofwater,oneatroomtemperature
F.T. Jones and S.E. Watkins
>
andtheotheradegreeortwoabovetheirbodytemperature,
birdswillsufferfromacutethirstratherthandrinkthewarmer
water.Ontheotherhand,birdswillreadilyconsumewater
at temperatures close to freezing. This may be due to the fact
thatbirdsarewellinsulatedwithfeathers,whichprotectthem
fromthecold,butallowlittleornomeanstodissipateexcess
bodyheat.
Practical applications
The data in Figure 2 were collected by Kare et al.,
(1957), who tested acceptance of water containing various
favors by placing two chick watering jars in each pen. One
jar contained untreated water and the other contained favored
water. The researchers compared the amount of water
consumed from the two jars to measure the acceptance or
rejection of favors by the birds. Some favors (strawberry,
alfalfa, nutmeg, honey, molasses, mushroom, and wild cherry)
were rejected outright, while birds would drink certain favors
(butter pecan, butterscotch, raisin, coconut, grenadine, oil of
patchouli, and colocynth pulp) sparingly at frst, but gradually
accept the favor as illustrated by Figure 2. Other than the
novelty of knowing how favored water infuences the taste of
chickens,isthereapracticalapplicationforthisinformation?
Absolutely. The taste of water due to either natural or added
materials can dramatically infuence consumption, particularly
inyoungbirds.
We witnessed frsthand the effects of differences in water
consumption in young birds at the U of A Applied Broiler
Research Farm when we tried a different water acidifer
(Figure 3). The three focks grown on product B were lighter
at settlement than previous focks grown on product A. Yet,
overall water consumption data for these focks showed
no difference. However, data for the frst week showed
lower water consumption for focks grown on product B as
compared to product A and it took almost 21 days before the
birdsreturnedtoconsumptionseenonproductA.Wewere
fortunatethatwewereraisingaheavierbirdandtheadditional
time given to the birds to become acclimated to product B
allowedustomakeupsomeperformancebythetimethey
went to market. However, growers raising smaller weight
birdswouldnothavetheluxuryofmakingupforpoorearly
waterandfeedconsumption.
How can growers identify water consumption challenges?
If birds dont eat they dont gain weight. Since feed and
water consumption are closely correlated (1 pound of feed
consumed for approximately 1.67 pounds of water consumed)
itiscriticaltopayattentiontowaterconsumptionandhead
off problems before they start. As illustrated in Figures 2
and 3, when birds gradually accept water with certain favors
Figure 1. Number of Taste Buds in Various Animal Species
1
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

T
a
s
t
e

B
u
d
s
1
Adapted from Roura et al, 2008
TASTE continued on page 10
/O
TASTE continued from page 9
particularly early in the life of the fock, detection may be
much more diffcult, but the losses can be just as real (Tabler,
2003). In view of this situation, the following suggestions are
offered:
Closely monitor water consumption, particularly early
in the fock. Install meters in both the front and back of
thehouse.Readingsfromthesemetersprovidecrucial
informationtodetermineifbirdsareproperlyspread
throughthehouseaswellasdetermineifwaterlinesare
correctly adjusted. At about the same time each day,
recordwatermeterreadingsstartingfromdayoneofthe
fock. Identifying and solving water issues can more than
payforthecostofmeters.
Develop water usage patterns. Since water consumption
willlikelyvaryfromfarmtofarm,developaveragewater
consumption charts for your farm. Compare each focks
consumptionnumberstotheaverageyouhavedeveloped
and pay particular attention early in the life of the fock.
Be aware that not all water supplies and water additives
are compatible to the birds taste. Pay close attention
towaterusagewhentryingnewproductstoassurethat
thereisnodecreaseinwaterusage.Makeanoteof
productswhichthebirdsappeartolikeduetoincreased
1.
2.
3.
consumption which is not accompanied by fushing in the
birds.
Conclusion
The factors infuencing the sense of taste in birds are
complex and not completely understood. However, it is
clear that the taste of water can infuence both feed and water
consumption. By monitoring water usage and understanding
whatnormalwaterusagepatternsareforeachdayofage,
producerscanidentifychallengesandcorrectthembefore
profts are lost.
References
Beidler, L. M. 1961. The chemical senses. Ann. Rev.
Psychol. 12:363-388.
Ganchrow, D. and J. R. Ganchrow. 1985. Number and
distributionoftastebudsintheoralcavityofhatchlingchicks.
Physiol. Behav. 34(6):889-894.
Gentle, M. J. 1985. Sensory involvement in the control of
food intake in poultry. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 44:313-321.
Figure 2. Daily Water Consumption in Chickens Provided Flavored Water
1,2
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

T
o
t
a
l

W
a
t
e
r

I
n
t
a
k
e
Days on Experiment
1
Adapted from Kare et al. 1957 The Sense of Taste in the Fowl. Poultry Science 36:129-138
2
Birds were given a choice of unfavored water or water containing 4 parts per thousand butter pecan favor,
these data represent the percentage of favored water consumed.
//
Kare, M. R. 1970. The chemical senses of birds. Bird Control Seminars Proceedings http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1183&context=icwdmbirdcontrol Accessed 3/24/09
Kare, M. R., R. Black and E. G. Allison. 1957. The sense of taste in the fowl. Poultry Sci. 36:129-138.
Kare, M. R. and H. L. Pick. 1960. The infuence of the sense of taste on feed and fuid consumption. Poultry Sci. 39:697-
706.
Roura, E., B. Humphrey, G. Tedo and I. Ipharraguerre. 2008. Unfolding the codes of short-term feed appetence in farm and
companion animals: A comparative oronasal nutrient sensing biology review. Can. J. Animal Sci. 88:535-558.
Tabler, G. T. 2003 Early feed intake and bird performance. Avian Advice 5:13-15
Figure 3. Water Usage With Different Water Acidifer Products.
W
a
t
e
r

D
i
s
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e

(
g
a
l
/
1
0
0
0

b
i
r
d
s
)
Days of Age
Product B
Product A
/2
UA Poultry Science
Extension Faculty
Dr. R. Keith Bramwell, Extension Reproductive Physiologist, attended Brigham Young University where he received
his B.S. in Animal Science in 1989. He then attended the University of Georgia from 1989 to 1995 where he received
both his M.S. and Ph.D. in Poultry Science. As part of his graduate program, he developed the sperm penetration assay,
which is still in use today, as both a research tool and as a practical troubleshooting instrument for the poultry industry.
He then spent one year studying in the Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology Lab at Colorado State University. In
1996, Bramwell returned to the University of Georgia as an Assistant Professor and Extension Poultry Scientist. Dr.
Bramwell joined the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science at the University of Arkansas as an Extension Poultry
Specialist in the fall of 2000. His main areas of research and study are regarding the many factors (both management
and physiological) that infuence fertility and embryonic mortality in broiler breeders. Telephone: 479-575-7036, FAX:
479-575-8775, E-mail: bramwell@uark.edu
Dr. Dustan Clark, Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian, earned his D.V.M. from Texas A&M University. He then
practiced in Texas before entering a residency program in avian medicine at the University of California Veterinary
School at Davis. After his residency, he returned to Texas A&M University and received his M.S. and Ph.D. Dr. Clark
was director of the Utah State University Provo Branch Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory prior to joining the Poultry
Science faculty at the University of Arkansas in 1994. Dr. Clarks research interests include reoviruses, rotaviruses
and avian diagnostics. He is also responsible for working with the poultry industry on biosecurity, disease diagnosis,
treatment and prevention.
Telephone: 479-575-4375, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: fdclark@uark.edu
Dr. Frank Jones, Extension Section Leader, received his B.S. from the University of Florida and earned his M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees from the University of Kentucky. Following completion of his degrees Dr. Jones developed a feed quality assurance
extension program which assisted poultry companies with the economical production of high quality feeds at North Carolina
State University. His research interests include pre-harvest food safety, poultry feed production, prevention of mycotoxin
contamination in poultry feeds and the effcient processing and cooling of commercial eggs. Dr. Jones joined the Center
of Excellence in Poultry Science as Extension Section Leader in 1997. Telephone: 479-575-5443, FAX: 479-575-8775,
E-mail: ftjones@uark.edu
Dr. John Marcy, Extension Food Scientist, received his B.S. from the University of Tennessee and his M.S. and Ph.D.
from Iowa State University. After graduation, he worked in the poultry industry in production management and quality
assurance for Swift & Co. and Jerome Foods and later became Director of Quality Control of Portion-Trol Foods. He
was an Assistant Professor/Extension Food Scientist at Virginia Tech prior to joining the Center of Excellence for Poultry
Science at the University of Arkansas in 1993. His research interests are poultry processing, meat microbiology and food
safety. Dr. Marcy does educational programming with Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), sanitation and
microbiology for processing personnel. Telephone: 479-575-2211, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: jmarcy@uark.edu
Dr. Susan Watkins, Extension Poultry Specialist, received her B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Arkansas.
She served as a quality control supervisor and feld service person for Mahard Egg Farm in Prosper, Texas, and became
an Extension Poultry Specialist in 1996. Dr. Watkins has focused on bird nutrition and management issues. She has
worked to identify economical alternative sources of bedding material for the poultry industry and has evaluated litter
treatments for improving the environment of the bird. Research areas also include evaluation of feed additives and feed
ingredients on the performance of birds. She also is the departmental coordinator of the internship program.
Telephone: 479-575-7902, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: swatkin@uark.edu
Mr. Jerry Wooley, Extension Poultry Specialist, served as a county 4-H agent for Conway County and County Extension
Agent Agriculture Community Development Leader in Crawford County before assuming his present position. He has
major responsibility in the Arkansas Youth Poultry Program and helps young people, parents, 4-H leaders and teachers to
become aware of the opportunities in poultry science at the U of A and the integrated poultry industry. He helps compile
annual fgures of the states poultry production by counties and serves as the superintendent of poultry at the Arkansas State
Fair. Mr. Wooley is chairman of the 4-H Broiler show and the BBQ activity at the annual Arkansas Poultry Festival.
Address: Cooperative Extension Service, 2301 S. University Ave., P.O. Box 391, Little Rock, AR 72203
Telephone: 501-671-2189, FAX: 501-671-2185, E-mail: jwooley@uaex.edu
Write Extension Specialists,
except Jerry Wooley, at:
Center of Excellence
for Poultry Science
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
by D.E. Yoho, J.R. Moyle, A.D. Swaffar, and R.K. Bramwell, University of Arkansas
Division of Agriculture, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science
INSIDE
page 4
Litter Preparation
Between Flocks:
Management is the Key
by G.T. Tabler,
S.E. Watkins and
F.T. Jones
page 7
Measuring Hatching
Egg Shell Quality
by Jon Moyle, Doug Yoho
and Keith Bramwell

page 10
Cooling Broiler
Chickens by
Direct Sprinkling
by G.T. Tabler, I.L. Berry,
Y. Liang, T. A. Costello
and H. Xin
Advice

HATCHING EGGS contd on page 2
Winter 2008 Volume 10 no. 4
Effect of Incubating Poor Quality
Broiler Breeder Hatching Eggs on
Overall Hatchability and
Hatch of Fertile
Introduction
Previousresearchhasshownthat
qualityhatchingeggsimprovethelikelihood
ofoptimumhatchabilityaswellasresult
ingoodchickquality(Yohoetal.,2008,
Moyleetal.,2008).Pathogenscanpenetrate,
contaminatingtheeggshell,itsmembranes
andtheembryo(Berrangetal.,1999).
Improperlyhandledeggscanalsoexplode
contaminatingthesurroundingeggsinthe
setter.Whilepropersanitationofeggs
canbebenefcialtooverallhatchability,
failuretofollowrecommendedsanitation
proceduresoftenhasnegativeconsequence
onhatchabilityandchickquality(Funketal.,
1949,ScottandSwetnan.,1993).
Withinthepoultryindustryitis
understoodthatonlycleanandgoodquality
broilerbreederhatchingeggsshouldbe
senttothehatcheryforincubation.Breeder
managersroutinelydiscussthistopicwith
contractproducerswithvariedsuccess.
However,increasedproductioncostsdictate
thateverypossiblehatchingeggbesentto
thehatcheryanditwouldseemadvantageous
tohavesomepracticalmethodfordirt
removal.Producerscommonlyusepaper
towels,ragsorsandingblockstoremove
dirtfromeggs.Ifthedirtisgonethenthe
problemshouldbesolved,right?But,do
thesecleaningmethodsaffecthatchabilityor
chickquality?Withthesequestionsinmind,
AVIAN
thisstudywasundertakentoevaluatethe
effectpoorhatchingeggselection,improper
egghandlingtechniquesandcleaning
proceduresonhatchability,hatchoffertile
andeggcontaminationrates.
Eighthundredforty(840)hatching
eggswereobtainedfromtheUniversityof
Arkansasbroilerbreederresearchfarmand
randomlyassignedtooneofseventreatment
groupswith120eggspertreatmentgroup.
Thecontrolgroupwascorrectlysetclean
hatchingeggs,whiletheremaininggroups
included:un-toucheddirtyeggs,dirtyeggs
wipedwithawetcloth,dirtyeggssanded
withanabrasivepad,checkedeggs(broken
shellsbutnobrokenmembranes),cull
eggs(misshapeneggsordoubleyokes)
andeggssetupsidedown.Eggswere
incubatedundercommoncommercial
incubationconditions,hatchedchickswere
talliedandaresiduebreak-outanalysiswas
performedonallunhatchedeggs.Eggs
wereclassifedascontaminatediftheywere
obviouslymalodorousorhadnoticeable
bacterialcontamination.Theexperimentwas
replicatedthreetimes.Datawereanalyzed
usingJMPstatisticalsoftwarecomparing
themeansfromtheobservations(SAS
Institute,2006).Differencesweredeemedto
2
AVIAN Advice Winter 2008 Vol. 10, No. 4
HATCHING EGGS continued from page 1
besignifcantatP<0.05.
ThedatainFigures1and2,showasignifcantdrop
comparedtocontrolinhatchandhatchoffertileinall
treatmentgroupsexceptcheckedeggs.However,the
hatchabilityofdirtyeggsthatwerewipedorsandeddidnot
improveascomparedtoun-toucheddirtyeggs.Settingeggs
upsidedownnegativelyaffectedhatchabilityaswasexpected
(12%),butthemostsignifcantdecreasewasseeninculleggs
(~45%loss).
AsillustratedinFigure3,therewereasignifcantly
highernumberofcontaminatedeggsinthedirty,sanded
orwipedcategoriesascomparedtothecontrol(8%).Once
again,attemptingtocleantheeggsdidlittletoimprove
theirviability.Anoverallincreaseinexplodingeggsfrom
contaminationwasalsoobservedascomparedtocommercial
hatcheryresults.Explodingeggsfurthercomplicates
hatchabilityandchickqualityissuesbyinvolvingthe
surroundingeggpack.
Thisexperimentwasanattempttomimictheon-farm
effortstosalvagedirtyhatchingeggsinasituationwhere
propersanitizingequipmentmaynotbeavailable.Instead,a
wetragorabrasivepadwouldperhapsbeused.
Resultsindicatethatthereisnohatchbeneftfromwiping
orcleaningdirtyeggs.Thereforemoreemphasisshouldbe
placedonlittermanagementandnestboxmaintenanceto
reducetheincidenceofdirtyeggs.
Conclusions
1.Wipingorsandingdirtyeggsdoesnotimprovehatchability.
2.Settingculleggsorsettingeggsupsidedownwill
negativelyaffectoverallhatch.
3.Settingcheckedeggswillnegativelyaffectoverallhatch,
butnottotheextentfrstbelieved.
References
Berrang,M.E.,N.A.Cox,J.FFrank,R.J.Buhr.1999.
Bacterialpenetrationoftheeggshellandshellmembranes
ofthechickenhatchingegg.JournalofAppliedPoultry
Research8:499-504.
Funk,E.M.,andJ.F.Forward.1949.Effectofwashing
eggsonhatchability.PoultryScience28:155-157.
Moyle,J.R.,D.E.Yoho,R.S.Harper,A.D.Swaffar,R.
K.BramwellandD.J.Elfck.2008.Eggshellcolor,specifc
gravityandhatchability,ineggsfrombroilerbreeders.Poultry
Science87(Suppl.1):146.
SASInstitute,2006.SASInstituteInc,Cary,NC.
Scott,T.A.,andC.Swetnan.1993.Screeningsanitizing
agentsandmethodsofapplicationforhatchingeggsI.
Environmentalanduserfriendliness.JournalofApplied
PoultryResearch2:1-6.
YohoD.E.,J.R.Moyle,A.D.Swaffar,andR.K.
Bramwell.2008.Effectofincubatingpoorqualitybroiler
breederhatchingeggsonoverallhatchabilityandhatchof
fertile.PoultryScience87(Suppl.1):148.
Figure 1. Loss of hatchability in poorly selected and handled hatching eggs.
3
Figure 2. Loss of hatch of fertile in poorly selected and handled hatching eggs.
Figure 3. Contamination in poorly selected and handled hatching eggs.
4
G.T. Tabler, S.E. Watkins and F.T. Jones,
Litter Preparation Between
Flocks: Management is the Key
1
Ideal Litter Conditions
Properlitterconditioningisanessentialtoolofgoodmanagementforkeepingfocks
healthyandproftable.Conditioninglitterbetweenfocksaddresseswherethebirdslive,which
isthemostcrucialaspectofthepoultryhouseenvironment.Ideallitterislooseandfreefowing
(friable),nottoodryortoowet(20-30%moistureisideal),lowinammonia(lessthan20parts
permillion),uniformparticlesize(nolargeclumps)andcontainsaminimumloadofinsects.
Moistureisthekeyfactorwhichinfuenceslitterquality.Allowinglittercaketoremainina
facilitycantrapmoistureinthelitter,whichwillpromotebacterialgrowth,pathogendevelop-
mentandammoniareleaseoncethehouseisclosedandre-warmedforthenextfock(Watkins,
2001).Infact,recentinformationsuggeststhatpoorlitterconditionscostthegroweranaverage
of$960per20,000birdhouse(Ritzetal.,2005).
Litter Preparation History
PriortoWorldWarII,thepoultryindustryprimarilyinvolvedsmall,privatelyowned
focks.Neithernutritionnordiseasecontrolprincipleswerewellunderstoodsofrequentlitter
cleanoutwasseenasnecessaryandlaborwasplentiful.However,thestartofthewarmeantthat
laborandmaterialsbecamescarce,whilethewareffortincreaseddemandforpoultryproducts.
Thissituationforcedproducerstousebuilt-uplitterratherthancleanoutoneormoretimesper
fock.Interestingly,duringthistimeperiodpoultryresearchersdiscoveredthatbirdsgrownon
builtuplitterandfednutritionallydefcientfeedswerehealthierandgrewfasterthanbirdsfed
thesamefeedsonnewlitter(Kennard,1950).Thus,nutritionandmanagementexpertsbegan
advising,Theuseofbuilt-uplittermakesitunnecessarytocleanthehousemorethanoncea
year(Morrison,1948).Yetfocksizesweresmallerandgrowthratesforbroilerswereconsid-
erablyslowerthantodaysstandardssomanyissueswithlittereitherdidnotexistorcouldbe
dealtwithbyhand.However,sincecurrentbroilerstrainsgrowrapidly,focksizescontinueto
increaseandlaborcostshaveescalated,mechanicalmethodsarerequiredtodealwithlitteris-
sues.
Intheearlydaysproducerspulleddisks,harrows,weightedwirecattlepanels,oroldtires
tiedtogetherbehindtractorstobreakupcakedlitter.Gardentillerswerealsousedtoreduce
littercakeinpreparationforthenextfock.Yetthesemethodstendedtoleavelargerchunksof
hard,caked,highmoisturelitterwithroughedges.Itwasdiffcultforbabychickstomaneuver
overthesechunksandolderbirdsdevelopedfootproblems.Inaddition,theexcessmoisture
increasedammoniaconcentrationsinhousesand,inturn,increasedtheneedforventilation,
resultinginincreasedfuelusage.
Today,manyproducersownorhaveaccesstotractoroperateddecakingmachinesto
collectcakedlitterforspreadingonfeldsorpastures.Theseunitscandoanexcellentjoband
continuetoservetheindustrywell.However,theseunitsmustbeoperatedcorrectlytoachieve
thedesiredresultsandbiosecurityisalwaysaconcernwhenseveralproducersshareanytypeof
equipment.Inaddition,increasingenvironmentalconcernsandnutrientmanagementplansof
manyfarmsnowrestrictorprohibitlandapplicationoflitter;especiallyinsensitivewatersheds.
Analternativelitterpreparationmethodthatcouldsatisfactorilyprepareusedlitterwithoutcake
removalwouldhavepotentialbeneftstotheindustryinmanyareasacrossthecountry.
1
Mention of trade names does not
constitute endorsement by the
University of Arkansas Division
of Agriculture and does not imply
their approval to the exclusion of
other products or vendors that may
be suitable.
5
Evaluation of an Alternative Litter Treatment Method
Equipment Description
Whilestandarddecakingmachinesremovecakedlitter
forspreadingonpasturesorfelds,thePriefertLitterSaver
(PriefertRanchEquipment;Mt.Pleasant,TX)[PLS]usesa
seriesofcurvedhammersorteethtobreakapartcakedlitter.
WhenproperlydonethePLSthoroughlymixesandaeratesall
thelitteronthefoor,allowingtheoncecakedlittertoremain
thehouseandresultinginsmooth,friablelitterwithlittlecrust
orhardpanatthepadsurface.
Equipment Operation Principles
ItisimportanttomatchPLSunitsize(4,5,or7)to
tractorPTOhorsepowerratingtoachieveproperperformance.
Aslitterdepthincreasesovertime,thehorsepowerdemand
requiredtoproperlyoperatethePLSalsoincreases.Inaddi-
tion,onepassofthePLSthroughthehouseisnotenoughto
breakupallthechunksofcakedlitter.Weobservedthat3to
4passeswerenecessarytoobtainlitteroftheconsistencyand
particlesizedesired.Initially,thelittertreatedwiththePLS
willbefufferthanlitterinadecakedhouse,butafterafew
daysofbabychickswalkingonthelitter,thisdifferenceisno
longerdetectable.
Test Procedures
Flocks92,93and94wereplacedonFebruary26th,
May15thandJuly27th,2007respectivelyandwereusedto
comparetheeffectsthatprocessinglitterusingthePLSora
decakingmachinehadonfockperformance.Inspectionprior
totheprocessingoflitterrevealedthatapproximatelythe
sameamountofcakedlitterwaspresentineachhouse.Prior
tofocks92and93litterinhouses1and3weredecaked,
whilecakeinhouses2and4wereconditionedwiththePLS.
Priortoathirdfock(fock94),onlythelitterinhouse3was
processedusingthedecakingmachineandlitterintheremain-
inghouseswasprocessedwiththePLS.ThePLSwasusedto
processallthelitterineachtreatedhousethreeorfourtimes
overa3-dayperiod.Fourloadsofcakedlitter(about7tons
perhouse)wereremovedfromhouses1and3,priortothe
placementoffocks92and93,foratotalofapproximately
14tonsofcakedlitterperfock.Fiveloads(about8.75tons)
wereremovedfromhouse3priortofock94.
Test Results
Flockperformancedataobtainedfromthecomparison
ofdecakingwiththePLSareshowninTable1.Whilethe
datapresentedslightlyfavorthePLSsystemoverdecaking,
thefewobservationsmeanthatsuchconclusionscanonlybe
tentative.However,inoursituationweobservedasavings
inlitterpreparationtimeandfuelexpensewiththePLS.Yet
themajorityofthissavingswasduetohaulingandspreading
loadsofcakedlitteronappropriatefelds.IftheABRFhada
litterstackingshed,timeandfuelcostswouldlikelyhavebeen
similar.Inaddition,iftheABRFweresellinglitterasanin-
comesupplement,morelittermightbepresentinPLStreated
LITTER continued on pg. 6
houses.However,whetherornotthePLSisawiseeconomic
decisionwilldependuponthefacilitiesandsituationonthe
farminvolved.
Observations and Precautions
Itappearsthatthepracticeofreusinglitterwillremain
theindustrystandardfortheforeseeablefuture.Therefore,it
willbenecessarythateachproductionunithavesomestrategy
forprocessinglitterpriortoeachfock.Sinceeveryfarm
andeveryfarmmanagerisdifferent,itisdiffculttomake
overallrecommendations.However,regardlessofwhichlitter
processingsystemtheunituses,day-oldchicksmustnotbe
placedondamplitter.Chicksplacedondamplitterwillbe
stressedandhavereducedfeedconsumption,resultinginpoor
fockperformance(Tabler,2003).
Unitsarefacedwithapaymenoworpaymelater
choicewithrespecttolitterprocessing.Skimpingorshort
cuttinglitterprocessingwillsavehousepreparationtime,but
willprovidealessthanoptimumenvironmentforbirdgrowth
andthepaymelaterscenariomaybeseenintheformof
alessthanpleasingsettlementcheck.Thepaymenow
approachtolitterprocessingwillrequireextratimeandeffort
priortofockplacement,butwilllikelypaydividendsinthe
settlementcheck.
Theapproachtolitterprocessingisentirelydifferentwhenthe
PLSiscomparedtodecaking.Decakingcapturescakedmate-
rialfromaboutthetopsixinchesoflitterandremovesitfrom
thehouse.ThePLSpulverizes,mixesandaeratesaboutthe
top12inchesoflitterintoasoft,smooth,evensurface.How-
ever,thePLSrequiresthatlitterbeprocessedmultipletimes
toachieveacceptableresults.Inourcase,thePLSrequired
thatallthelitterbeprocessedthreeorfourtimestoachieve
satisfactoryresults.Bothlitterprocessingsystems(decaking
andthePLS)areonlyfarmmanagementtools.BoththePLS
anddecakingmachinescanproducepoultryhouseconditions
thataregoodorbad,theoperatordecideswhichenviron-
menttheday-oldchickswillfaceatplacement.
Summary
Shortdowntimesbetweenfocksandincreasedconcern
fortheenvironmenthavecreatedaneedforalternativesto
removingandlandapplyingcakedlitteraftereveryfockof
birds.Onesuchalternativewasevaluatedandnonegative
effectsonfockperformancewereobserved.However,man-
agementisthekeytosuccessfullitterpreparationbetween
focks;regardlessofthemethodused.Skippingsteps,cutting
corners,andlessthansatisfactoryconditionscouldprove
costlytothenextfock.Investingtheextratimeandeffortto
dothingsrightwilllikelypaydividends.
6
LITTER continued from p. 5
References
Ritz,C.W.,B.D.FairchildandM.P.Lacy.2005.LitterQualityandBroilerPerformance.GeorgiaCooperativeExtension
ServiceBulletin1267.
Kennard,D.C.1950.Floorlittermanagementasafactorinpoultrynutrition.WorldsPoult.Sci.J.6(3):177-182.
Morrison,F.B.1948.FeedsandFeedingAHandbookfortheStudentandStockman.TheMorrisonPublishingCompany,
Ithaca,NY
Tabler,G.T.2003.Earlyfeedintakeandbirdperformance.AvianAdvice5(1):13-15.
Watkins,S.E.2001.Litterconditioningforahealthyfock.AvianAdvice3(2):10-12.
Table 1. Bird Performance following litter preparation by decaking or PLS.

FLOCK 92 (February 26, 2007 - April 20, 2007
Litter Prep.
Method
House
Number
Livability
(%)
Age
(Days)
Avg. Wt.
(Lbs.)
Net Sold
(Lbs.)
Feed
Conv.
Pay/lb.
(cents)
Pay/house
($)
Gas Use
(gals.)
Decaked 1 96.90 53 6.90 118474 2.06 5.28 6248 1263
PLS
1
2 96.92 53 7.02 120430 1.99 5.63 6778 1134
Decaked 3 95.93 53 6.77 115006 1.98 5.57 6400 1114
PLS 4 96.78 53 5.74 115534 2.03 5.35 6178 1100

FLOCK 93 (May 15, 2007 - July 10, 2007)
Decaked 1 96.56 56 7.60 127242 2.12 5.25 6676 376
PLS 2 96.23 56 7.52 125469 2.05 5.57 6934 375
Decaked 3 96.27 56 7.30 121880 2.02 5.63 6858 389
PLS 4 96.58 56 7.63 125413 2.05 5.54 6953 363

FLOCK 94 (July 27, 2007 - September 24, 2007)
PLS 1 96.15 59 8.26 128770 2.11 5.27 6784 50
PLS 2 96.67 59 8.14 127497 2.07 5.43 6920 59
Decaked 3 96.20 59 8.23 128829 2.09 5.36 6910 72
PLS 4 96.47 59 8.17 129426 2.14 5.08 6571 68

Average Data
PLS --- 96.61 56.00 7.37 123961.50 2.06 5.43 6731.14 449.71
Decaked --- 96.54 55.40 7.15 122391.80 2.06 5.37 6574.00 640.00

1
PLS = Priefert Litter Saver (Preifert Ranch Equipment; Mt. Pleasant, TX)
7
EGG SHELL continued on page 8
Measuring Hatching Egg
Shell Quality
Introduction
Clearlyhatchabilityisimportanttobothsmallfockandcommercialpoultrybreeder
fockowners.Maintaininghatchingeggshellqualityisimportantbecauseofitsconnection
withhatchability.Themajorfactorsthatinfuenceeggshellqualityaregenetics,diet,climate,
housingandageofthehens.Whiletheaveragepoultryoperationhaslimitedcontrolovermost
ofthesefactors,thecrucialsignifcanceofhatchabilitymakesitisimportanttorecognizeand
controleggshellqualitywherepossible.
Obviously,eggswiththinshellsaremorelikelytobreak,producingleakers.While
leakersarenotusuallysetintheincubator,thinshelledeggscrackeasilyinthehenhouse,
duringcollectionandtransportation,resultinginpoorhatchesduetocontamination.Inaddition
totheincreasedlikelihoodofshellbreakage,thinshelledeggsthatdonotsufferbreakageallow
forhigherwatervaporlossduringtheentireincubationprocessresultingindehydrationand
higherembryonicmortality.Thosechicksthatdohatchfromthinshelledeggshavedecreased
livabilityduringthefrstfewdaysoflifeandpooroverallperformancebecausetheygetofftoa
slowstart.
Eggshellcolorhasalsobeenquestionedinregardstoitsaffectsonhatchability.Whilethe
scientifcliteraturecontainsconfictingdataregardingtherelationshipbetweeneggcolorand
Jon Moyle, Doug Yoho and Keith Bramwell
LITTER continued from p. 6
BEFORE AND AFTER - The pictures above were taking in a University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture house. The one on the left
was taken before using the Priefert Litter Saver, and the photo on the right was taken after four passes with the machine.
8
EGG SHELL QUALITY continued from page 7
hatchability,poultryproducershavelongheldthebeliefthat
intypicalbrownegglayingbreeds,lightcoloredeggswillnot
hatchaswellasthosethataredarkerincolor.Indeed,itis
interestingtonotethatincertainsongbirdspecies(fycatchers)
experimentalevidencesuggeststhathealthiermorewell-
fedfemaleslaymoreintenselycoloredeggs(Morenoet
al.,2006).Thus,thereissomeevidencetosubstantiatethe
assumptionthatdarkereggshatchbetterthanlightercolored
eggs.Eggshellcolormayalsobeassociatedwitheggshell
quality.Therefore,producershavebeentrainedtoeliminate
lightcoloredeggsfromconsiderationashatchingeggsdueto
theirpoorerhatchingexpectations.
Measuringshellquality:Determiningshellquality
involvesestimatingshellthickness.Althoughtherearemany
methodsforestimatingshellthickness,eggspecifcgravityis
theeasiestandmostwidelyutilized.Therearetwomethods
toobtaineggspecifcgravitymeasurements:theArchimedes
methodandthesaltsolutionmethod.
TheArchimedesmethodinvolvesweighingeggs
individuallyandthenweighingtheegginwater.Thenthe
formula[dryeggweight/(dryeggweight-weteggweight)]
isusedtoobtainthespecifcgravity.However,becauseeggs
mustbeindividuallyweighed,thismethodisseldomused.
Thesaltbathmethodutilizestubsofwatereachofwhich
containsagreaterconcentrationofsaltthantheprevioustub
(typicalconcentrationsare1.070,1.075,1.080,1.085and
1.090).Thespecifcgravityofthesolutioninwhichtheegg
foats,isthespecifcgravityoftheegg.Eggsareplaced
initiallyinthetubwiththelowestsaltsolutionconcentration.
Thespecifcgravityestimateisrecordedforthoseeggsthat
foat.Thoseeggsthatdonotfoatareremovedandplaced
intothenexthighersolutionandsoforthuntilalltheeggs
foat.Thismethodispopularbecauseitallowsforrapid
measurementoflargenumbersofeggs,withminimalaffect
ontheeggsortheirhatchability.Thebesttimetomeasure
specifcgravityisinthehatcheryaftertheeggshavehad
achanceaconstanttemperatureandtoreachthesame
temperatureasthesaltsolutions.
Measuringshellcolor:Theshellsofbroilerbreedereggs
canvaryfromwhitetoalmostchocolateincolor.Thecause
ofthisvariationineggcolorisnotknown,buteggshellcolor
measurementshavebeenmadeusingtechniquesrangingfrom
visualestimationtosophisticatedelectronicmeasurements.
However,digitalcolorimetersaregenerallybestbecausethey
tendtoremovethesubjectivityfromthesemeasurements.
Experimental Procedures
EggSelectionandHandling:Atotalof1,944eggswere
collectedfromfvedifferentbroilerbreederfocksthatwere
between33and45weeksofage.Eggswerelabeledsothat
eacheggindividuallycouldbefollowedthroughthetesting,
incubationandhatchingprocess.Forthisstudy,cracked
eggs,toecheckedeggsandanymisshapen,toosmallorlarge
eggs,ordirtyeggswereeliminated.Onlyeggsthatwouldbe
acceptablehatchingeggsbythecommercialintegratorwere
used.Eggswerehatchedatthecommercialhatcheryusing
industrystandardsandafterhatch,ahatchresiduebreakout
wasperformedtodeterminefertilityandtimeofembryonic
mortality.
Specifcgravity:Saltsolutionsweremaintainedinthe
eggstorageroomatalocalcommercialhatcheryandmeasured
aftertheyhadtimetoadjusttothetemperatureoftheroom.
Thesaltsolutionswerecheckregularlyforaccuracywitha
hydrometerandconcentrationsrangedfromalowof1.065to
ahighof1.090inincrementsof0.005.
Shellcolor:Eggshellcolorwasdeterminedforeach
eggusingacolorimeterthatgaveanumericmeasurementof
shellcolor.Thisprocedureremovedhumanerrorfromshell
colordeterminations.Purewhiteeggswouldhavereturneda
readingof100,whiledarkereggshadlowernumbers.The
eggsthatweremeasuredhadacolorrangefromupper60s
(dark)tothelower90s(lightcolored).
Experimental Results
SpecifcGravityandHatch:Hatchabilityresultsare
showninFigure1.Theseresultsindicatethateggswitha
specifcgravityof1.070hatchaswellasthosewithhigher
specifcgravitiesandthathatchisnotnegativelyaffected
untilspecifcgravityis1.065orlower.Theseresultsare
differentthanthosepublishedbyMcDanieletal.,1981and
Bennett,1992,whoreportthateggswithspecifcgravitiesless
than1.080hadpoorhatchandincreasedembryomortality.
Thisdifferenceinresultsmaybetheresultofgenetic
progressmadeduringthelast15years,orinexperimental
methodology.
ShellColorandHatch:Figure2showstherelationshipof
howshellcolorrelatestohatchability.Theseresultsshow
thatthehatchofextremelylightcoloredeggsislowerthanthe
darkereggs.Sinceshellpigmentsareappliedtotheshelljust
priortotheeggbeinglayedlighteggcolormaybeasignof
prematurelylayedeggscausedbysometypeofenvironmental
stress.
Summary
1.Ameasurementofspecifcgravitycanbeeffectively
usedtorapidlyevaluatetheshellqualityinbroilerbreeders.
2.Eggswithspecifcgravityvalueshigherthan1.070
willhatchwellwhilethoselowerwillresultinpoorhatches
andindicatepoorshellquality.
3.Lightercoloredeggs(colorscoresabove87)hatched
atalowerratethandiddarkereggs.However,thelight
coloredeggswouldbeconsideredthosewhichareextremely
lightandnotjustalightershade.
References
Bennett,C.D.1992.Theinfuenceofshellthicknesson
hatchabilityincommercialbroiler
breederfocks.JournalofAppliedPoultryResearch1:61-65.
McDaniel,G.R.,J.BrakeandM.K.Eckman.1981.
Factorsaffectingbroilerbreederperformance.5.The
interrelationshipofsomereproductivetraits.PoultryScience
60:1792-1797.
9
EGG SHELL QUALITY continued from page 8
Moreno,J.,E.Lobato,J.Morales,S.Merino,G.Tomas,J.Martinez-delaPuente,J.J.Sanz,R.MateoandJ.J.Soler.2006.
Experimentalevidencethateggcolorindicatesfemaleconditionatlayinginasongbird.BehavioralEcology17:651-655.
Figure 1. Hatchability of commercial eggs by egg shell color code.
Figure 2. Hatchability of commercial eggs by specifc gravity using the salt solution method.
10
Cooling Broiler Chickens
by Direct Sprinkling
1
Introduction
Modernbroilersgrowatanextremelyrapidrateandconvertfeedtomeatwithexcep-
tionaleffciency.However,thisrapidgrowthrateandconversioneffciencyhavebeenas-
sociatedwithanincreasedsusceptibilitytoheatstress.Whileavarietyofgenetic,nutritional,
feedingandenvironmentalstrategieshavebeenexamined,muchoftheburdenfordealingwith
theeffectsofheatfallstotheproducerand,inturn,thehousingenvironment(Linnetal.,2006).
Evaporativepads,foggerpadsandfoggernozzlesarecommonlyusedtocontrolheatandits
effectsinbroilerhouses(Weaver,2002).Exceptinextremeconditionspoultryproductionper-
sonnelhavetendedtoavoidsystemsthatdepositmoisturedirectlyonthebirds.Yet,cattleand
hogsareoftencooledinhotweatherbysprinklingwithwaterandmanypoultryproducershave
occasionallycooledchickensbysprinklingwithwaterhosesduringextremelyhotperiodsto
avoidcatastrophicmortality.Inpractice,theeffectivenessofconventional,low-pressuremisting
systemsinbroilerhousespartiallydependsonthedepositionofmuchofthereleasedwateronto
thechickensandtheirimmediatesurroundings.Padsystemsrequirelargevolumesofwaterto
coolbirdsandmanyproducersareconcernedabouttheavailabilityandcostofwatertooperate
coolcellsystems.Analternativesprinklingsystemforcoolingbroilerchickenswasinvesti-
gatedattheAppliedBroilerResearchFarm(ABRF).
History
Sprinklingwithcontrolledamountsofwateronaregularbasisdirectlyonthebirds
wastestedin1989inalaboratorystudywithpromisingresults(Berryetal.,1990).Inthat
study,sprinklingwaterwasappliedattheratedeterminedby:
(TA80)
HL= 5.0 ------------- (1)
(TS80)
where
HL=rateofwaterapplication,inlatentheatunitsofBtu/hr/lbbird,
TA=roomairtemperature,F,
and
TS=chickenwetted-surfacetemperature,assumedto92Fduringstudy.
ThecontrolalgorithmwasbasedondatafromReeceandLott(1982),whofoundthat
thesensibleheatproductionofbroilerchickensat80Fwasnearlyconstantat5.0Btu/hr/lb
birdafterfourweeksofage.Theequationassumesthattheheattransferfromthechickenbody
coreremainsataconstant5.0Btu/hr/lbbirdaslongasthewettedsurfaceiscooledto92F
bytheadditionofwaterwithincreasingairtemperature.Theuseof92FforTSwasbasedon
radiometermeasurementsofchickensurfacetemperatures,recognizingthatthesesurfaceswere
notnecessarilythesameasthewettedsurfaces.
Field Tests Procedures
Fieldtestswereconductedfrom1995through2005incommercial40by400-ftcurtain
sidedbroilerhousesattheABRF.Avarietyofmoreconventionalmistingsystemswerenor-
mallyusedwithcross-ventilationinHouses1and3duringthisperiod.
Houses2and4werearrangedastunnelventilatedhousesandcontainedidenticalfan
G.T. Tabler
2
, I.L. Berry
3
, Y.Liang
3
, T.A. Costello
3
, and H. Xin
4
2
Department of Poultry Science,
3
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture;
and
4
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University.
1
be suitable.
11
COOLING continued from page 10
confgurationpatterns.ChickensinHouse4werecooledbythemodifedtunnelventilationsys-
temwith200ftof4-inpads4-ftinheight.Thepadcoolingsystemseemedtoworkadequately,
butairvelocityinabouthalfthehousewasnotdesirablyhighfortunnelventilation.Additional
heatstressmayhaveresultedfromsomeblockageofnaturalventilationbythewallsections
withcoolingpadsduringeveninghours.WaterwasappliedinHouse2directlytothebirdsina
coarsemistsprinkledfrom63plasticspinnernozzles(Meter-ManUCS23)placedat19-ftinter-
valsalongthreelongitudinal3/4-inPVCpipesinHouse2.Thenozzlesonthecenterpipewere
staggeredfromthoseontheoutsidepipes,whichwereplaced10ftfromthesidewalls.Nozzles
wereplacedabout2in.abovethepipesonrisersthatcontainedcheckvalves.Thepipeswere
suspendedfromtheroofframingbyawinchedsystemsothatnozzleheightcouldbeadjusted.
Waterwassuppliedtothenozzlesthroughapressureregulatorsetto20psi,sothateachnozzle
emittedabout0.25gallons/minoveracircleofabout22-ftdiameter.Theamountofwaterwas
meteredbycontrollingtheon-timeofthenozzlesinevery10-mincycle.Separatesolenoid
valvesalternatedwaterpressuretothethreepipestopreventoverloadingofthehousewater
supplysystem.Duringthisperiod,themaximumairvelocitywasmaintainedthroughtheentire
400-ftlength.Litterremovalfromallhouseswasviaafarmtractorandpullbehindsingleaxle
decakingmachine(LewisBrothersMfg.Co.,Model#2;Baxley,GA)capableofhauling3,500
to4,000lbsperload.
Field Test Results
Table1showstheaveragedailymortality(deadchickensperdayperhouse)fromage
35daysuntilthedaybeforeharvesting.AveragedailymortalitywaslowestinHouse2(direct
sprinklingsystem)whileHouse4(padcooledhouse)hadthenexttohighestmortalityrate.The
relativefailureofHouse4waspartiallyblamedonthelowairvelocityinpartofthathouse.
DuringFlocks39and44,highermortalityinHouse1wasprobablyavertedbyhandspraying
withagardenhose.
Table2comparesHouses2and4withrespecttowaterusedforcoolingbirdsand
loadsofcakedlitterremovedattheendofthegrow-outperiod.Whiletheaveragenumberof
cakedlitterloadsremovedwasapproximatelyequal,House2usedjustover85%lesswaterto
coolbirdsascomparedtoHouse4.Whilefanelectricityusewassimilarinbothhouses,feed
conversion,averageweight,andintegratorpayrateshowedageneraltrendinfavorofthedirect
sprinklingsysteminHouse2ascomparedtoHouse4(Table3).Thesedatasuggestthat,direct
sprinklingofchickenswasaseffectiveatcoolingbirdsastunnelventilation.
Observations
Tunnelventilationisthoughtbymanytobethebestavailablemanagementtoolto
preventheatrelatedstressandmortalityinbroilerfocks.Suchhouseshavebeenreportedto
reducetheeffectiveambienttemperatureinthevicinityofthebirdsbymorethan35Fona
typicalsummerday.However,waterusageintunnelhousesisnearlydoublethatofconven-
tionalhousesonwarmdays(LacyandCzarick,1992).Waterusageinthedirectsprinklerhouse
wasabout85%lowerthanthatusedinthetunnelhouse,whileloadsofcakedlitterremovedat
theendofthefockwereapproximatelyequal(Table2).
Randomtemperatureobservationswiththedirectsprinklerhousesuggestthatthisap-
proachtypicallyreducedthetemperatureoftheventilationairbylessthan2F.Thisisprimar-
ilybecausemuchofthewaterwasapplieddirectlytothebirds.Thelackofassociationbetween
insideairtemperatureandthecoolingbeneftsofthedirectsprinklersystemmeantthatthesys-
tembeneftswerenotobvioustothecasualobserverunlesshewasactuallysprinkled.Inaddi-
tion,insideairtemperaturecouldnotbeusedtoprovidefeedbackforcontrollingwaterapplica-
tionrates.Instead,waterapplicationrateswerebasedonoutsideairtemperatureandpredicted
bodytemperaturesofbirdsusingthepreviouslypresentedalgorithm.Earliertestingwiththe
directsprinklershassuggestedthatthesystemeffectivelyremovesheatdirectlyfromthebirds
(Xinetal.,2001).However,theincreasinggrowthratesofbroilers,solidsidewallhousingand
improvementsinproductionmethodssuggestthatanupdatedalgorithmwillbenecessaryunder
currentproductionconditions.Thisworkiscurrentlyunderway.
COOLING continued on page 12
12
Summary
Coolcellpadsystemsuselargevolumesofwatertocooltheairtemperatureinsidepoultry
housesduringhotweather.Producersareincreasinglyconcernedabouttheavailabilityoftheirwa-
tersupplyandthecostofwater,especiallyonlargefarmsthatmayhave5to10housesormore.An
experimentalmethodofcoolingbroilersinhotweatherutilizingalowcostsprinklingsystemthat
consumesonlyafractionofthewaterofapadsystemwasfeldtestedattheABRFwithpromising
results.Suchasystemdevelopedcommerciallycouldpossiblyofferaneffective,viable,inexpen-
sivealternativetocurrentstrategiesusedforsummercoolingofbroilerchickens.
References
Berry,I.L.,T.A.CostelloandR.C.Benz.1990.Coolingbroilerchickensbysurfacewet-
ting.ASAEpaper,St.Joseph,Mich:ASAE
Lacy,M.P.andM.Czarick.1992.Tunnel-ventilatedbroilerhouses:Broilerperformance
andoperatingcosts.J.App.PoultryRes.1:104-109.
Linn,H.,H.O.Jiao,J.BuyseandE.Decuypere.2006.Strategiesforpreventingheatstress
inpoultry.WorldsPoult.Sci.J.62:71-85.
Reece,F.N.,andB.D.Lott.1982.Theeffectofenvironmentaltemperatureonsensibleand
latentheatproductionofbroilerchickens.Poult.Sci.61(8):1590-1593.
Weaver,W.D.2002.Fundamentalsofventilation.In:Bell,D.D.andW.D.Weavereds.Commer-
cialChickenMeatandEggProduction.Fifthed..KluwerAcademicPublishers,Norwell,MA
Xin,H.,I.L.Berry,G.T.Tabler,andT.A.Costello.2001.Heatandmoistureproductionofbroiler
chickensincommercialhousing.Pp309-318in:LivestockEnvironmentVI:Proceedingsofthe6th
InternationalSymposium.RichardR.Stowell,RayBucklin,andRobertW.Bottcher(Eds.).21-23
May2001,Louisville,KY.
13
COOLING continued on page 14
Flock
No.
Length
(Days) Dates
Average Daily Mortality
2
House 1 House 2 House 3 House 4
27 41 June 29 - Aug. 9, 1995 8.00 8.00 9.17 20.67
33 42 May 9 - June 20, 1996 12.43 8.86 9.43 10.71
34 43 July 4 - Aug. 16, 1996 9.00 5.50 6.00 7.50
39 53 June 26 - Aug. 18, 1997 16.19 12.00 11.44 22.56
43 50 April 16 - May 26, 1998 30.25 26.92 23.25 23.67
44 55 June 12 - Aug. 6, 1998 65.28 21.33 16.72 27.89
49 57 May 31 - July 27, 1999 18.05 9.20 22.45 46.30
50 55 Aug. 5 - Sept. 29, 1999 10.11 14.94 16.28 16.56
54 56 May 16 - July 11, 2000 34.74 27.05 21.42 75.95
55 53 July 21 - Sept. 12, 2000 20.00 12.82 15.82 29.35
60 42.5 May 18 - June 30, 2001 40.89 18.38 19.86 11.00
61 43 July 5 - Aug. 17, 2001 16.13 18.37 16.63 18.38
67 45 June 4, - July 19, 2002 41.60 11.40 37.20 20.10
73 42 June 19 - July 31, 2003 36.29 16.71 26.71 38.85
79 44 June 3 - July 17, 2004 35.67 24.56 42.44 31.67
80 41.36 Aug. 22 - Oct. 11, 2004 20.33 24.33 33.00 28.17
85 39 June 13 - July 22, 2005 69.25 55.25 65.75 43.25
-- -- Average 28.48 18.57 23.15 27.80
1
Mortality is calculated for age 35 days until the day before the harvest.
2
Houses 1 and 3 were conventionally ventilated with mist systems, while
House 4 was a pad-cooled, tunnel-ventilated house and the cooling system
in House 2 sprinkled water directly on the birds.
Table 1. Average Daily Mortality of Chickens during

Summer Flocks.
1
14
Table 2. A Comparison of Summer Cooling Water Usage
and Caked Litter Removal from House 2
(Direct Sprinkler System) and House 4 (Pad Cooled).
Year Flock #
Cooling H20
(gal)
Cake removed
(loads)
1
House 2 House 4 House 2 House 4
1995 27 18289 42950 7 8
1996 33 1599 6193 0 0
34 2905 12834 0 0
1997 39 4828 62945 2 1
1998 43 1200 33425 2 3
44 13224 133349 0 2
1999 49 9653 114337 2 1
50 128 2320 5 3
2000 54 5271 35510 8 6
55 13578 33604 4 5
2001 60 142 4567 2 3
61 4996 40010 2 2
2002 67 2677 12800 5 4
2003 73 1731 18337 4 4
2004 79 1064 12222 2 3
80 0 5895 4 3
2005 85 2456 6706 0 3
Ave. -- 4926 34000 2.88 3
1
Total annual cleanout performed on Flock 33 and total cleanout of
experimental bedding on Flock 34 in 1996.
15
Table 3. Production Figures, Flock Water Consumption and
Fan Electricity Use for Summer Flocks.
Flock
No.
Feed
Conversion
Avg. Wt.
(lbs)
Pay/lb.
(cents)
Water
Consumption/fk
(gals)
Fan
Electricity/fk
(kwh)
House No. House No. House No. House No. House No.
2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4
27 1.81 1.90 3.80 3.70 4.92 4.21 32,955 35,378 3,671 3,252
33 1.84 1.91 3.80 3.81 4.93 4.42 34,589 37,453 1,288 1.736
34 1.91 1.95 3.83 3.80 4.45 4.15 35,321 37,488 1,939 1,838
39 2.05 2.06 4.99 5.04 4.12 4.05 41,931 45,735 3,961 4,585
43 2.03 2.09 4.89 5.10 4.07 3.99 36,655 40,046 1,939 1,694
44 2.08 2.02 5.15 5.46 4.62 4.60 40,737 41,069 4,824 4,370
49 2.22 2.32 6.29 6.02 5.23 4.37 55,193 51,705 5,049 4,842
50 2.13 2.11 6.26 6.08 3.57 3.60 55,924 52,711 4,038 3,128
54 2.08 2.18 6.24 5.77 4.71 3.81 54,349 53,569 4,350 4,217
55 2.07 2.04 5.75 5.59 3.88 3.88 55,207 53,348 6,412 5,777
60 1.80 1.92 4.37 3.94 4.42 3.36 42,699 40,926 3,247 3,218
61 1.86 1.86 4.31 4.43 4.19 4.33 46,833 49,252 5,458 5,987
67 1.93 2.04 4.64 4.39 4.94 4.15 48,190 51,994 5,592 5,347
73 1.86 1.79 4.17 4.60 3.88 4.56 34,688 36,458 3,204 3,624
79 1.95 1.94 4.63 4.44 4.04 3.65 38,621 35,717 2,765 3,457
80 1.72 1.66 4.79 4.93 4.93 5.32 42,913 42,574 3,151 3,379
85 1.80 1.78 4.09 3.92 4.26 4.12 36,028 35,767 3,311 3,729
Avg. 1.95 1.97 4.82 4.77 4.42 4.15 43,108 43,599 3,776 3,775
16
UA Poultry Science
Extension Faculty
for Poultry Science
by G.T. Tabler
2
, S.E. Watkins
2
, and P.A. Watkins
3

2
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture and
3
AEP Southwestern Electric Power
Company
INSIDE
ras 4
Evaluation of Water
Acidifcation Products
by Brookee Dean,
Jennifer Hughes,
Tyler Clark and
Susan Watkins
ras Z
The Stress of Poultry
Farming: Know
How to Manage It
by G. Tom Tabler and
James P. Marshall

ras /O
Water: Identifying
and Correcting
Challenges
by Susan Watkins
i/cs

ENERGY EFFICIENCY contd on page 2
Fall 2008 Volume 10 no. 3
Energy Effciency Associated
with Poultry House Lighting
1
Introduction
Solidsidewallpoultryhousinghas
createdasituationwherelightingisnowa
majorcostcenter.Lossofnaturaldaylight
meansanylightbirdsreceiveisnowprovided
artifcially with bulbs, which have an energy
cost associated with them. Currently,
incandescent, fuorescent, high pressure
sodium, cold cathode and others lighting
optionsareavailabletopoultryproducers
but choosing the correct one can be diffcult.
Since April 2006, the Applied Broiler
Research Farm (ABRF) has evaluated the
energyusageassociatedwithdifferentlight
sources.
Energy Use and Cost for Lighting

The ABRF sub-meters electricity used
forlightingthroughaseparateelectricmeter
thatallowsaccuratemeasurementoflighting
kilowatthourelectricityusage.Afterfarm
renovations were completed in April 2006, all
4 houses had 2 rows of 60-watt incandescent
lightsabovethefeedlinesandacenterrowof
brood lights that was 75-watt incandescent.
Houses1and2haveatotalof75bulbs(42
dimmable lights plus 33 brood lights) while
houses3and4haveatotalof90bulbs(50
dimmable lights plus 40 brood lights). Prior
to the start of the December 2006 fock, the
60-watt incandescent dimmable lights in
house 3 were replaced with 8-watt dimmable
coldcathodebulbswitha2700Kelvin
rating.Incandescentbroodlightswerenot
changed.Kilowatthourusageforlighting
during the December 2006 fock was 1,790
hrs, 1,740 hrs, 705 hrs, and 2,054 hrs for
AVIAN
houses 1 through 4, respectively. Energy
cost associated with this usage was $107,
$104, $42, and $123 for houses 1, 2, 3, and
4, respectively. There was no difference in
average weights, feed conversion or mortality
foreachofthehouses.
A second fock was placed and bird
weights (as measured by in-house bird
scales) in the 2700 Kelvin light house began
todeclineoncethebroodlightswereturned
off.Thebroodlightswereturnedbackon
untilbirdswere5weeksoldtohelpstimulate
growthandthisresultedinlesselectricity
savingsdifference.Itwasdeterminedthat
thecurrentstrainofbirdsweremoresensitive
tolightintensityandthe2700Kelvincold
cathode only provided 0.35 to 0.50 ft-candles
at the feed line compared to 0.5 ft-candles
in the incandescent houses. In addition,
the2700Kelvincoldcathodebulbgaveoff
an orange tint similar to a 60- or 75-watt
incandescentbulb.
To help address these concerns, we
beganworkingwithanArkansaslighting
vendor (Precision Lighting Systems, Inc.; Hot
Springs, AR). Prior to the May 2007 fock,
theincandescentdimmablelightsinhouse
4 were replaced with 8-watt cold cathode
bulbswitha4000Kelvinrating.These
bulbshaveaslightbluishtintcomparedto
the orange tint of the 2700 Kelvin bulb; and,
are able to deliver 0.50 ft.-candles of light
at the feed line. Therefore, the May 2007
fock consisted of all incandescent bulbs in
houses 1 and 2, incandescent brood lights and
1
be suitable.
2
AVIAN Advice Fall 2008 Vol. 10, No. 3
ENERGY EFFICIENCY continued from page 1
2700 Kelvin 8-watt cold cathode dimmable lights in house 3,
and incandescent brood lights and 4000 Kelvin 8-watt cold
cathodedimmablelightsinhouse4.Thekilowatthourusage
for lights during the fock was 2,527 hrs, 2,521 hrs, 1,852 hrs
and 1,154 hrs for houses 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Cost
associated with this usage was $152, $151, $111, and $69 for
houses 1 through 4, respectively.
For the February and May 2007 focks it was necessary
toleavetheincandescentbroodlightsoninhouse3until5
weeksofageinanattempttostimulatethebirdstoeatmore
feed with an increased light intensity. However, house 4
with the 4000 Kelvin cold cathode and a 0.5 ft-candle light
intensityatthefeedlinedidnothaveproblemswithdecreased
weightgains.Theconclusionfromthisevaluationwasthat
the4000Kelvincoldcathodewouldprovideadequatelight
intensityforproperbirdgrowthandfeedconsumptionwhile
providing producers with an energy effcient lighting source.
Lighting sources for the July 2007 fock was as follows:
House32700Kelvincoldcathodelightswerechangedto
4000 Kelvin cold cathodes; Houses 3 and 4 all incandescent
brood lights were replaced with 15-watt fuorescent above
the feed lines and 30-watt fuorescent down the center row.
For this fock, kilowatt hour usage for lighting was 2,744
hrs, 2,726 hrs, 634 hrs, and 645 hrs for houses 1 through 4,
respectively. Cost associated with this usage was $190, $191,
$44, and $45 for houses 1 through 4, respectively. Prior to the
October 2007 fock, all incandescent lights in house 2 were
replaced with 23-watt dimmable fuorescent bulbs. Kilowatt
hour usage for lighting was 1,722 hrs, 478 hrs, 502 hrs, and
535 hrs, for houses 1 through 4, respectively. Energy cost was
$122, $33, $35, and $37 for houses 1 through 4, respectively.
Prior to the February 2008 fock, all incandescent lights in
house 1 were replaced with 23-watt dimmable fuorescent
bulbs. Kilowatt hour usage for lighting on this fock was 561
hrs, 590, hrs, 474 hrs, and 453 hrs for houses 1 through 4,
respectively. Energy cost for lighting was $39, $41, $33, and
$32 for houses 1 through 4, respectively.
Switching to energy effcient bulbs
hasdramaticallycutenergyusageand
costs associated with lighting at the ABRF.
Immediatelyafterfarmrenovation(April
through November 2006) when all 4 houses
were using 60- and 75-watt incandescent bulbs,
kilowatthourusageforlightsonthefarm
averaged 9,432 hrs at a cost of $660 per fock
over a 4-fock period. From February through
August 2008, with houses 1 and 2 using 23-
watt dimmable fuorescent bulbs and houses 3
and 4 using a combination of 15- and 30-watt
fuorescent brood lights and 8-watt cold cathode
grow lights, kilowatt hour usage on the farm for
lights averaged 1,996 hours at a cost of $140 for
a 3-fock period. Thus, savings after switching
to energy effcient lighting have averaged
7,436 kilowatt hrs and $520 per fock at the
ABRF. Bulb failures have been somewhat less
on the cold cathode vs. the 23-watt dimmable fuorescent;
averaging approximately 1 to 2 bulbs every other fock
for the cold cathode and 2 to 3 per fock on the dimmable
fuorescent. Kilowatt hour usage of each individual house
for incandescent and energy effcient lighting is presented in
fgures 1 and 2, respectively. Cost of incandescent and energy
effcient lighting for each house is presented in fgures 3 and 4,
respectively.
There are a number of energy effcient alternatives to
incandescentlightingnowavailablealthoughallaremore
expensiveinitiallythanincandescentbulbs.Thecoldcathode
bulbswearecurrentlyusingsellforabout$9perbulbbut
cheaperoptionsareavailablewhenbulkpurchasingthebulbs.
The 23-watt dimmable fuorescent bulbs sell for about $7
per bulb. However, life expectancy of the cold cathodes is
approximately 25,000 hrs as compared to an incandescent bulb
which has an estimated life span of approximately 2,000-5,000
hrsdependingonthequalityofthebulbsofthesebulbsis
muchgreaterthanthatofanincandescentbulbanditismuch
less expensive to burn an 8- or 23-watt bulb than it is a 60- ,
75-, or 100-watt bulb. So think long-term savings, not simply
initial up-front bulb cost.
Summary
Solidsidewallhousinghasmanyadvantagesfor
producers. However, one disadvantage is the increased
electricity for lighting. At present, lighting is an area offering
producersmuchpotentialintermsofenergyconservation.
However, it is critical to provide birds with the correct light
intensityifexpectedperformancelevelsaretobemet.This
cannowbedonewithavarietyofdifferentlightingmethods
(incandescent, fuorescent, cold cathode, sodium vapor,
etc.). Producers should give serious consideration to lighting
alternatives that conserve energy and offer long-term savings.
Figure 1. Average Kilowatt Hour Usage for Lights
During Flocks 87-90 at the ABRF.
60-watt incandescent lights in all houses

Figure 2. Average Kilowatt Hour Usage for Lights During Flocks 97-99 at the ABRF.
Figure 3. Cost of Electricity Used for Lighting During Flocks 87-90 at the ABRF.
Figure 4. Cost of Electricity Used for Lighting During Flocks 97-99 at the ABRF.
K
i
l
o
w
a
t
t
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
60-watt incandescent lights in all houses
C
o
s
t

o
f

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
4
Brookee Dean, Jennifer Hughes, Tyler Clark and Susan Watkins,
Evaluation of Water
Acidifcation Products
Introduction
Acidifcation products are often used as water line cleaners in poultry houses. However,
recent feld observations indicate that utilizing acids in water systems which are heavily con-
taminatedwithmicrobescouldbemoreharmfulthanhelpfulinwatersanitationprograms.The
following lab test was conducted to evaluate the effects of different types of acidifcation prod-
ucts on general microbial levels in dirty water. In addition, the goal was to determine if acid
productsmightvaryintheirabilitytoreducemicrobialcontentinwateratdifferentpHlevels.
In this test, four water acidifcation products (acidifed copper sulfate, citric acid (food
grade), citric acid (Russell), and sodium bisulfate) were evaluated for their ability to reduce
aerobic bacterial, yeast and mold counts in dirty water. Stock solutions of acidifed copper sul-
fateorsodiumbisulfatewerepreparedbymixing453.6gwith2galofwater.Citricacidstock
solutionsweremadebycombining453.6goffoodgradeorRussellcitricacidwith1/2galof
water. Each acidifcation product was tested at pH values of 4 and 6, resulting in a total of 9
treatments (counting controls).
Waterusedinthistestwasobtainedfromanopencattlestockwatertroughduringwarm
weatherandcontainedvisiblealgaegrowth.Thewaterwasblendedtoensureconsistencyand
then50mlsamplesofthewaterweretransferredtoeighteensmallbeakers(twobeakersper
treatment). Prior to adding the test products to each beaker, initial aerobic bacterial, yeast and
mold counts were determined using Petriflm. Products were added the appropriate beakers
to achieve pH values of 4 and 6. Beakers were then held at room temperature uncovered and
retestedat2and24hoursposttreatment.Countswereconvertedtolog
10
valuesandstatistically
analyzed.
Theinitialaerobicbacterialcountsbeforetreatmentswereveryhighandalmostidentical
for all treatments (Table 1). Consistently high counts were found in control samples at both 2
and 24 hours post treatment. Counts from citric acid (Russell), citric acid (food grade) and so-
dium bisulfate pH 6 were not signifcantly different from control at either sampling time. While
a small (<1 log), but signifcant (P<0.05) decrease was observed in counts from sodium bisulfate
pH 4 at 2 hours post treatment, no differences from control were found in this treatment at 24
hours. Only the acidifed copper sulfate treatments (both pH 4 and 6) gave a signifcant (P<0.05)
reduction of 2 logs or 99% at 2 hours and 24 hours post treatment. However, it is important to
point out that log counts of greater than 4.0 mean that there are over 100,000 cfu/ml were still
presentinthewateraftertreatmentandthatwatersystemcleaningisstronglyrecommended
when aerobic bacterial counts are 10,000 cfu/ml or higher.
Both yeast and mold counts from control samples increased slightly over the course of the
trial (Table 2 and 3). This increase in counts may refect that long-known fact that growth of the
majority of yeast and mold species is favored by acid pH values (Frazier, 1967). No signifcant
difference from control was found in yeast or mold counts from any treatment at 2 hours post-
treatment. Only the acidifed copper sulfate pH 4 treatment showed a small (<1 log) but signif-
:
cant (P<0.05) decrease in both yeast and mold counts at 24 hours post-treatment. While mold counts
from acidifed copper sulfate pH 6 and citric acid (food grade) pH 6 were signifcantly (P<0.05)
reduced as compared to control, these differences were less than 0.25 log.
Conclusion
Drinkingwaterqualitycontinuestobeanareaofconcernforpoultrygrowers.Recentlya
company swabbed different areas of a drinker system including stand pipes, inside nipple drinkers
and water hoses. They were shocked to fnd E. coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus, and
Klebsiella penumoniae. This confrms the fact that water systems can become breeding grounds for
various disease organisms. Protecting the water system by cleaning with appropriate disinfectants
andthenestablishingadailywatersanitationprogramisanexcellentinsuranceprogramagainst
water borne diseases. The results of this test further confrm that using acidifers even at a pH of 4
arenotenoughtothoroughlykillallmicrobeswhenawatersystemisheavilyloadedwithmicrobial
growth. Utilizing the wrong products to clean systems particularly on farms with a disease history
canbeawasteoftimeandmoney.
References
Frazier, W. C. 1967. Food Microbiology, 2nd Ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Table 1. Effect of Common Acidifers on Aerobic Bacterial Counts from Dirty Water.
Product pH
Aerobic Bacterial Counts (Log
10
)
Pre-Treatment
Counts
Post-Treatment
2 Hours
Post-Treatment
24 Hours
Control (Dirty Water) 7.94 6.68 6.62c 6.47b
Acidifed Copper Sulfate 4 6.71 4.22a 4.15a
Acidifed Copper Sulfate 6 6.62 4.49a 4.42a
Citric Acid (Food Grade) 4 6.88 6.75c 6.35b
Citric Acid (Food Grade) 6 6.60 6.52c 6.38b
Citric Acid (Russell) 4 6.71 6.48c 6.27b
Citric Acid (Russell) 6 6.71 6.71c 6.57b
Sodium Bisulfate 4 6.74 5.87b 6.17b
Sodium Bisulfate 6 6.69 6.52c 6.44b
SEM .14 .18 .15
P Value .9470 .0001 .0001
a,b,c Means in a column with different letters were different (P<0.05).
WATER continued on pg. 6
c
WATER continued from p. 5
Table 2. Effect of Common Acidifers on Yeast Counts from Dirty Water.
Product pH
Yeast Counts (Log
10
)
Pre-Treatment
Counts
Post-Treatment
2 Hours
Post-Treatment
24 Hours
Control (Dirty Water) 7.94 4.37 4.66 4.66b
Acidifed Copper Sulfate 4 4.34 4.17 4.03a
Acidifed Copper Sulfate 6 4.34 4.31 4.57b
Citric Acid (Food Grade) 4 4.58 4.35 4.66b
Citric Acid (Russell) 4 4.39 4.09 4.67b
Citric Acid (Russell) 6 4.29 4.52 4.60b
Sodium Bisulfate 4 4.37 4.25 4.48b
Sodium Bisulfate 6 4.30 4.50 4.57b
SEM .33 .22 .06
P Value .9995 .0929 .0013
a,b Means in a column with different letters were different (P<0.05).
Table 3. Effect of Common Acidifers on Mold Counts from Dirty Water.
Product pH
Mold Counts (Log
10
)
Pre-Treatment
Counts
Post-Treatment
2 Hours
Post-Treatment
24 Hours
Control (Dirty Water) 7.95 3.16 3.69 3.53cd
Acidifed Copper Sulfate 4 3.12 3.13 2.73a
Acidifed Copper Sulfate 6 3.19 3.35 3.30b
Citric Acid (Food Grade) 4 3.34 3.42 3.48c
Citric Acid (Russell) 4 3.15 3.08 3.65d
Citric Acid (Russell) 6 3.25 3.45 3.59cd
Sodium Bisulfate 4 3.37 2.85 3.48c
Sodium Bisulfate 6 3.30 3.47 3.65d
SEM .37 .22 .049
P Value .9998 .3371 .0001
a,b,c,d Means in a column with different letters were different (P<0.05).
Z
STRESS continued on page 8
The Stress of Poultry Farming:
Know How to Manage It
Introduction
Its a hot August afternoon; chickens sell in 2 days but one of the sump pumps on the cool
cell system just burned out. You get to the chicken house at 5:30 am and the feed lines and
hoppersarerunningemptybecausesomethinginthefeedhaslockedupthecrossauger.Does
this sound familiar and stressful? Poultry farming can be a diffcult, demanding, and stressful
occupation. In fact, agriculture is one of the most stressful of all occupations. Thats partly
because farmers and their families must cope with many forces (e.g., weather, livestock disease,
equipment breakdowns, etc.) that are beyond their control (Daniels, 2006). Thankfully, there
areseveralthingswecandotocombatstressandlivehealthyandproductivelives.
What is Stress?
Stress is a term that originated in the feld of engineering, where it means a substances
capacity to withstand strain (Weigel, 1983). However, stress is more complex when applied to
human beings. One of the simplest defnitions of stress in humans is a state of physical and
emotional arousal that is brought on by a stressor, such as an equipment breakdown or a feed
trucknotdeliveringontime.
Stressisanormalpartofeveryoneslife.Itaffectsallhumansystemssimultaneously.
Stresscanacceleratetheagingprocess.Dr.HansSelyereferstostressasthesumtotalofwear
and tear on the body. In fact, it is estimated that as many as 60 to 80 percent of doctor visits
maybestressrelated.
However, not all stress is bad. Good stress is called eustress, and it can increase our
motivation to do our best and be successful. Bad stress is called distress, and it can negatively
affect our health (Reynolds, 2008). When bad stress builds up over a period of time it is called
cumulative stress, and it can result in deteriorating performance, relationships, and health.
Know the Signs
Stressaffectspeopleinavarietyofdifferentwaysandwhatisworrisometooneperson
may not seem like a big deal to another. But there are some common signs and symptoms of
stress that everyone should be aware of. These symptoms fall into one of four categories, and
itisnotuncommontoexperiencemultiplesymptomsfrommultiplecategoriessimultaneously
(Walker & Walker, 1987):
1. Physical Headaches, Ulcers, Backaches, Eating irregularities, Sleep disturbances,
Frequent sickness, and Exhaustion
2. Emotional Sadness, Depression, Bitterness, Anger, Anxiety, Loss of spirit, Loss of
humor
3. Cognitive Memory loss, Lack of concentration, Inability to make decisions
4. Behavioral Irritability, Backbiting, Acting out, Withdrawal, Passive-aggressiveness,
Substance abuse, Violence.
If you are experiencing one or more of these symptoms, it may be due to the stress in your
life and the way you are handling it. If you are stressed, it may be wise to consult your
physicianand/ortrythepowerfulstressrelievingideasmentionedlaterinthisarticle.Ifyou
ignore these signs and symptoms of stress and let your stress levels go unchecked, a variety of
G.Tom Tabler, James P. Marshall
1
1
Family Life Specialist,
UniversityofArkansas
DivisionofAgriculture
Cooperative Extension
Service.

STRESS continued from page 7
potential problems may develop. Prolonged stress can lower
the effciency of your immune system, making you more
susceptible to a wide range of illnesses (Walker and Walker,
1987). Also, be aware that many people under stress often
forget about everyone else; becoming so wrapped up in their
ownproblemsthattheystarttosnapatfamilyandfriends
(Huhnke, 2007). Stress affects not only an individual, but
everyoneclosetothatindividual.
Stress and Poultry Farming
Studiescomparingpeoplesstresslevelsandcoping
behavior found that stress levels of farmers were signifcantly
higher than non-farmers (Pitzer, 1987). Problem areas for
farmers under stress include depression, over-eating, excessive
caffeine intake, lack of physical exercise, and a reluctance to
seek professional help (Pitzer, 1987).
Farming is dangerous work, second only to the mining
industry (National Safety Council, 2003). In 2003, 730
people died and 150,000 were permanently disabled by
injuriessustainedonfarmsandranchesintheUnitedStates
(National Safety Council, 2003). The National Institute for
OccupationalSafetyandHealthfoundfarmownersdisplayed
a high incidence of stress-related diseases when compared to
other occupations (Smith et al., 1977).
Many poultry producers work alone for extended periods
andtheworkmustgetdoneevenifthatproducerissickor
exhausted.Thiscanincreasestresslevelsandmayaffect
concentration and safety practices. Producers should be aware
of occupational hazards and avoid dangerous situations. Feed
augers that can grab fngers and clothing, spinning fan blades,
electrical motors, and feed bin ladders are only a few of the
dangerspoultryproducersfaceonadailybasis.
Equipment breakdowns can increase stress levels as
well. When this happens, it is best to just relax, take a couple
of deep breaths and assess the situation. This can be diffcult
to do, especially when you are in a hurry to fx the problem.
However, if you think through your strategy beforehand you
canimproveyourthoughtprocessandgetmoredoneinless
time.
Stress and Gender
Stress affects both men and women, but it may be even
greaterforfarmwomen.Thatsbecausetheymayexperience
additionalstressorscomparedtotheirmalecounterparts.
Many farm women have full responsibility for household
tasks (which often go unnoticed) in addition to being a
full partner in the farm business or holding down an off-
farm job (Reynolds, 2008). Fortunately, there are several
organizations that offer support and assistance for women
inagriculture.ArkansasWomeninAgricultureisaprivate
nonproft organization that: 1. provides educational programs
for women involved in agriculture in Arkansas, 2. provides a
networkwithotherArkansaswomeninvolvedinagricultural
community issues, and 3. identifes new ways to balance the
demands of family, community and professional life.
Other national organizations such as Women in Blue Jeans
and Women in Denim have similar purposes. Programs such
as Annies Project seek to address the challenges that women
faceasfarmownersandbusinesspartnersinagricultural
operations, and arm them with the tools to succeed in their
operations.
General stresses that women experience in society may
be particularly acute for women in male-dominated felds such
as agriculture. These stresses include agricultural stereotypes,
womens lack of perceived authority for farm management,
gender roles and stereotypes at home and in public, and lack
of access to agricultural programs and loans (Reynolds, 2008).
Managing Stress and Living Well
Threeofthebestthingsanyonecandotomanage
the stress in their life and live healthier include: 1. Eating
sensible amounts of healthy food (and eating regular meals),
2. Participating in some type of physical activity at least 30
minutes a day 5-6 times a week, and 3. Going to bed and
waking up at about the same time every day, allowing for
7-8 hrs. of sleep. A well managed diet, regular exercise, and
adequate sleep are proven strategies for fghting stress and
depression.
In addition to the ideas mentioned above, there are
severalmoreprovenwaystolowerstressandlivebetter.The
science of happiness and well-being has progressed enough
that we have identifed seven things all of us can do that will
improvethequalityofourlives.Thehealthierandhappier
we are, the better we will be able to function. The University
of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service has summarized
these seven keys of well-being in a publication called The
Personal Journey (Goddard & Marshall, 2006).
1.Enjoy today - In the hike of life, we can focus on the
obstaclesalongthetrailorthebeautythatsurroundsus.Those
who fnd the beauty in daily life travel well. The old adage is
true--happiness comes from wanting what you get more than
gettingwhatyouwant.Wearemorelikelytobehappywhen
wethinkaboutallthegoodthingsinourlivesratherthan
worryingaboutallthethingswewishwehad.
2.Find the gems in your past - Anyone who wants
to fnd a gem must be willing to search for it. Likewise, we
fnd treasures in our life stories when we are willing to dig
through challenges and disappointments to fnd them. Those
who fnd and cherish the gems in their past are those who live
the best lives. Some gems jump right out at us, but others take
some time to fnd and to polish. Quite often, todays gems
were yesterdays trials and diffculties. It is only through the
lensofourpersonalgrowthandperspectivethatwecannow
seediamondsinwhatweoncethoughtwereuglylumpsof
coal. Most of us have had disappointment and pain in our life
historiesandtheysometimesburdenus.Theymayevenaffect
howweseeourselvesandourlives.Oneofthesurprising
discoveriesofmodernpsychologyisthatbadeventsinour
past (childhood) dont have to lead to or cause a bad adult life.
Weneednotbeheldhostagetoourpast.Wecanrewriteour
>
STRESS continued from page 8
history with forgiveness - that is, we can go back through
thebadexperiencesofourlivesandoffercompassionand
understanding to those who hurt us. We can also choose to fnd
the good in our past and emphasize that. We can celebrate our
ownabilitiestosurviveandthriveinanimperfectworld.
3.Look forward to tomorrow - People who are excited
andhopefulaboutthefuturearelikelytohavebetterjourneys.
Those who look for and expect to fnd good things usually do.
Whoknowswhatgreatthingswillhappentomorrow!Some
ofuslooktothefuturewithanxietyandapprehension.We
worryaboutwhatmayormaynothappen.Constantworrying
isnt good for the human soul. People who have a steady
optimismaremorelikelytothrivethanthosewhoworryand
fret.
4.Use your strengths - Each person has strengths and
weaknesses.Thegreatestjoyandprogresscomefromusing
ourstrengthswhilemanagingourweaknesses.Wediscover
our strengths by noticing what we love to do-those things
thatchallengeusandgetussoengagedthatwelosetrack
of time. Many of us fret endlessly about our weaknesses.
We regularly come up with self-improvement programs to
overcome this weakness, but these efforts may not be very
productive. Psychologist Martin Seligman (2002) has said
thatweshouldntdevotetoomuchenergytocorrectingour
weaknesses. Rather, he believes that the highest success in
livingandthedeepestemotionalsatisfactioncomesfrom
buildingonandusingoursignaturestrengths.
5.Choose to serve - Psychologists have found that
peoplewhousetheirstrengthsandabilitiestomaketheworld
abetterplacearehappierthanthosewhodont.Whenwe
focusprimarilyonourselvesourviewoftheworldisnarrow
andlimited.Asweturnmoreenergyandattentiontohelping
others, the meaning and satisfaction of our own lives expand.
Therearecountlessplacesandwayswecanserveothers.
6.Choose to grow - Growth is the surest sign of progress
in life. Seeking new ideas, experiences, and projects helps us
growandenjoyourjourney.Whenwechallengeourselvesto
keep reading, listening, and learning, our lives are more full
andrich.Happinessisawayoftravelingmorethanaplaceto
go. When we travel the trails of life eager to learn and grow,
wewilltravelwell.
7.Dont Forget Your Compass! - Each of us is
equipped with a personal compass-or conscience-to guide us
alonglifesjourney.Conscienceisthepeacefulvoiceinside
of us that invites us to be compassionate, kind, and honorable.
When we ignore the compass, we get lost. When we use our
compass well, our journey will be richer and more meaningful.
Trytheprinciplesdescribedaboveandseeiftheydont
decreasethestressyoufeelandincreasethelightandenergy
inyourlife!
Summary and Conclusions
Poultry farming is a stressful occupation (e.g., heat
in summer, high fuel bills in winter, disease outbreaks,
equipment breakdowns, etc.) and many farmers push
themselves too hard. But just because stress is an unavoidable
partoffarmingdoesnotmeanitisunmanageable.
Proven techniques can help reduce stress and make our
lives happier as well as more productive. Many of you may
alreadybeexcellentinmostoftheareasmentioned.Celebrate
thepartsofyourlifethataresatisfying!Ifthereisanarea
where you would like to do better, make a plan. We wish you
happinessinyourpersonaljourney!
References
Daniels, A. M. 2006. Farming, Ranching and Stress:
Its a Family Issue. #1: Stress and the Farm or Ranch Family.
Extension Extra #14058. South Dakota State University
Cooperative Extension Service.
Goddard, H. W., & Marshall, J. P. 2006. The personal
journey. University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture,
Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.arfamilies.com/
family_life/personal/default.htm Visited 9/18/08.
Huhnke, R. L. 2007. Stress on the farm. Agricultural
Safety and Health Series. Pub. # BAE-1720. Oklahoma State
University Cooperative Extension Service.
National Safety Council. 2003. Accident facts: 2003

edition. Itasca, IL.
Pitzer, R. 1987. Stress and coping on the farm. University
of Minnesota Extension Service. Online publication: www.
extension.umn.edu.Accessed7/29/08
Reynolds, K. 2008. Stress management for women
farmers and ranchers. UC Small Farm Program Publication.
AgricultureandNaturalResources.UniversityofCalifornia.
Seligman, M. E. P. 2002. Authentic Happiness. Free Press:
New York.
Smith, M. J., M. J. Colligan, and J. J. Hurrell. 1977.
A review of NIOSH psychological stress research-1977.
Proceedings of the Conference on Occupational Stress, pp 26-
36. Los Angeles, CA. Nov 3.
Walker, J. L., and L. J. Walker. 1987. The human harvest:
Changing farm stress to family success. Brandon University.
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada.
Weigel, R .1983. Stress on the Farm. North Central

Regional Extension Pub. 192a. Iowa State Univ.
/O
Water: Identifying and
Correcting Challenges
INTRODUCTION
The value of a clean, safe water supply is often overlooked in poultry production.
Watertestsperformedbyareputablelabcanbeavaluabletoolforidentifyingthesourceof
performance problems. On-farm tests can also be helpful for monitoring and improving water
quality.Thefollowinginformationwaspreparedasaguidelineforinterpretingpoultrydrinking
waterqualitytestresultsalongwithguidelinesforcommonlyusedcorrectionoptions.
BACTERIA TEST
TheestablishedguidelinesforpoultrydrinkingwaterqualityareoutlinedinTable1.
Note that CFU/ml means colony-forming units of bacteria/milliliter of water, and mg/liter is
thesameaspartspermillionorppm.ThetestresultsreceivedfromsomelabsarelabeledTotal
Plate Count (TPC) of aerobic (oxygen loving) bacteria as measured by CFU/ml. These results
do not indicate whether the bacteria present is harmful (pathogenic) or harmless, but it can
indicateifthesystemisdirtyandthereforeatriskforthepresenceofharmfulbacteria.Ifthe
TPC level is 1000 CFU/ml or less then the water supply is considered acceptable. However, the
goalshouldbe0CFU/mlevenwhenthesampleispulledfromtheendofthedrinkerline.The
closer water microbial results are to 0 CFU/ml, the better the water supply is for the commercial
poultry production. Should the test results be greater than 10,000 CFU/ml, it is strongly recom-
mended that the water system be thoroughly cleaned between focks with an approved cleaner.
After line cleaning, implement a consistent daily water sanitation program while birds are pres-
ent.
Chlorine is the cheapest water sanitizer available and it works well, but other prod-
uctssuchaschlorinedioxideandhydrogenperoxidearealsoavailableandusedsuccessfully.
Drinking water target levels of free chlorine are 2-4 ppm, for chlorine dioxide the desired level
is 0.8 ppm and for hydrogen peroxide, it is 25-50 ppm. (Table 2). Factors such as turbidity
(suspended solids in the water; water actually looks dirty) minerals and organic material which
is often present in surface water supplies will greatly infuence how effective sanitizers work.
In addition, the dirtier the water, the more likely there will be taste issues associated with the
useofchlorine.Itispossibletoseebirdsbackingoffwaterduetopresenceofhighlevelsof
chlorine, mainly when it is in the bleach form since bleach or sodium hypochlorite will have a
bittertasteassociatedwithit.Whenitbecomesnecessarytousemoreandmorechlorinetoget
a 2-4 ppm free chlorine reading, then it is strongly recommended that the water be tested and a
professionalwatertreatmentsysteminstalled.Chlorinedioxideandhydrogenperoxideareless
likelytocausetasteissuesandarethereforegoodalternativeswhentreatingsomewatersup-
pliessuchaspondorriverwatersupplies.
If the water test is performed by the Department of Health, the results are total coli-
forms.Thereareactuallytwotypesofcoliformcountsthatmaybereported.Total colform
counts detect bacteria that can be found in many locations including feces, but fecalcoliform
countsdetectbacteriathatarefoundonlyinhumanoranimalfeces.Coliformsareagood
indicatororganismforpotentialcontaminationbylivestock(runofffromconcentratedanimal
production areas) or human waste (failed septic system). If total coliform counts are more than
50 cfu/ml and/or any fecal coliforms are detected, it is recommended that the well be shock
chlorinated. However, shock chlorination can only be done to the water supply between focks
sincethehighlevelofchlorineisnotsuitableforconsumptionbyhumansoranimals.Inaddi-
tion, look for possible sources of contamination and correct the problem to prevent recontami-
Susan Watkins, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture
Chlorine is the
cheapest water
sanitizer
available and it
works well, but
other products
such as chlorine
dioxide and
hydrogen peroxide
are also available
and used
successfully.
//
WATER CHALLENGES continued from page 10
nation.
Neverassumethatwaterqualityremainsgood
through poultry house water systems. When in doubt, test the
wateratthesourceandattheendoftheline.Resultsfrom
previous water tests (Table 3) show just how dramatically wa-
terqualitycanchangeevenoverthecourseofafewhundred
feet.
Water supplies should be tested if there is:
A noticeable change in color, odor or taste,
Any fooding near the well,
Apersonoranimalthatbecomessickfromwaterborne
disease,
Maintenance on water supply system,
Persistent poor fock performance or
A loss of pressure in water system (Langston, 1994).
MINERAL TESTS
Pure water does not exist as drinking water. All wa-
tersupplieshavesomeamountofdissolvedmineralsorcon-
taminants as they are referred to by EPA. In many cases the
contaminants are within acceptable ranges, cause no problems
andmayevenbedesirable.Howevercontaminantspresentat
unacceptablelevelscanpotentiallybelinkedtothefollowing
issues:
1) Poor performance,
2) Equipment failure or damage or
3) Presence of harmful bacteria or fungal slime
(some minerals serve as a food supply).
InformationinTable1islistedaspartspermillion
ormilligramsperliterwhichisthesame.Althoughppmisa
small amount, it is important to remember, the birds already
receiveabalanceddietandiftheyarealsoreceivinghigh
levels of such nutrients as salt in the water, in the form of
sodium and chloride ions, then the birds may exhibit poor
performancebecausetheyjusthavemorethantheirsystems
can handle. In addition, several water contaminants such as
ironandcalciumcanalsoimpacthowthedrinkersystem
functions. Even a fne buildup of mineral residue on seals or
rims could be all that is necessary to limit water fow and thus
resultinlessthanadequateconsumptionforoptimumbird
growthandfeedconversion.
ON FARM WATER TESTS
Whilelaboratorywatertestsprovidevaluable
information, time is required for samples to be analyzed and
criticaldecisionsmightbedelayed.Agooddealofvalu-
ableinformationcanbecollectedonsightusingtestkitsor
meters.Thisinformationcanprovideproducerswithaquick
scorecardofhowtheyaredoingwithrespecttowaterqual-
ity. However, it is important to remember not to base major
decisionsonasingletest.Twotothreetestsyieldingsimilar
resultsonsimilarsampleswillprovideamoresolidbasisfor
decisions.
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) Meters

Whendevelopingwatersanitationprogramsonetool
whichhasprovenusefulinassuringthatwaterhasoptimum
sanitizing value and quality for the birds is Oxidation Reduc-
tion Potential or ORP. ORP simply refers to the property of
oxidizing sanitizers such as chlorine to be their most effective.
A strong oxidizer literally burns up viruses, bacteria and other
organicmaterialpresentleavingwatermicrobiologicallysafe.
An ORP value in the range of 650 millivolts (mV) or greater
indicates good quality water that can be effectively sanitized
by as little as 2-4 ppm free chlorine. The lower the value such
as 250 mV indicates a heavy organic load or the presence
of reducing agents such as ferrous iron, (Fe
2+
), manganese
(Mn
2+
), bisulfde (HS
-
) and sulfte. Naturally occurring oxi-
dizing elements in the water such as oxygen and sulfur along
with chlorine and chromate can give increased ORP readings
but it is usually only a good sanitizing residual at a favorable
pH (5-7) that gives the most desirable ORP readings of 700-
750 mV. The ORP meter can be a useful tool for identifying
watersuppliesthatdonthaveadequatechlorineresidualand
foradjustingtheresidualwithoutoverusingchlorine.Areli-
able ORP meter costs around $100 and can be purchased from
Hanna Instruments, Hach or Grainger.
Chlorine Testing Kits
Chlorinetestkitscomeinavarietyofformats.The
format is not as important as what is detected. Most inexpen-
sive chlorine test kits (such as pool test kits) detect both free
andtotalchlorine.Totalchlorinedoesnotdistinguishbetween
thechlorinethatisboundandfreeoravailablechlorine.Only
freechlorineiscapableofwaterdisinfection.Aheavyorganic
loadinitwouldresultinagreaterpercentageofboundchlo-
rine resulting in a poor sanitizer and possibly bad taste issues
(decreased water consumption) even though the pool test kit
might indicate total chlorine levels of 4 to 6 ppm. Therefore,
becertainthatthetestkitdetectsfreechlorineandthatlevels
are2to4ppm.
pH Testing Kits
KitsfortestingwaterpHaregenerallyinexpensive
and somewhat reliable. Birds are very tolerant of pH 2-3 for
short periods, ( 2-3 days) and they are very tolerant of pH 4 to
8 on a continuous basis. Water sanitizers (chlorine, chlorine
dioxide or hydrogen peroxide) generally work better when pH
valuesarebetween5.5and7.Thereisconcernthatsome
forms of strong acids (muriatic or phosphoric) or low pH (2-
3) can actually damage drinker equipment so before beginning
any water acidifcation program, check the manufacturers
recommendations.
Using Test Information
The bottom line: utilize information on pH, ORP
andchlorineleveltodetermineifthesanitationprogramis
effectiveandtopreventequipmentdamagebytheoveruseof
WATER CHALLENGES continued on page 12
/2
chemicals.Itmayalsobevaluabletorecordandretaintheinformationcollectedsothattrendscan
beseen.
WATER SANITATION
Successful water sanitation programs start with a clean system. Once clean, there are
several options for maintaining a clean system and providing birds with water that has sanitizing
residual. These include chlorine, chlorine dioxide and hydrogen peroxide. Ozone systems are also
used on poultry farms, but can be expensive to install for water sanitation alone. Iodine has also
been used successfully as a daily water sanitizer. The guidelines in Table 2 can help growers assure
they have adequate sanitizer present.
WATER TREATMENTS
Table1providesinformationontreatmentoptionswhencontaminantsarefoundatunac-
ceptable levels. While there are many available treatment options, this section covers some of the
basic treatments concepts. Before investing in any technology for water treatment, talk with a repu-
table water equipment dealer to assure the investment will fx your water quality issues.
Filtration
Waterhasmanycategoriesofimpurities.Filtrationspurposeistoreduceorremovethe
solid particulates and microorganisms from the water. Dissolved impurities can pass through flters.
Think of it as fltering tea. The tea will taste the same before and after the flter but the tea leaves
will be trapped by the flter. The benefts of reduced particulates and microorganisms in water on
apoultryfarmareseveral.Filteredwatermeansthatthedrinkernipplesdonotclogordripso
the birds get water but the litter under the drinkers remains dry. This means, of course, that focks
growrapidlyduetoincreasedhydrationandfewerpathogensinthelitter.Filteredwatermeansless
frequentclogsandbetteroperationofevaporativecoolingsystemsandthereforeahealthierenviron-
ment for the fock.
When used in conjunction with oxidation (described below) fltration can remove can
remove dissolved minerals. Oxidation causes dissolved minerals to precipitate (settle) out, leading
to higher particulate loads and problems with water lines, drinkers and cooling systems. However,
when water is fltered after oxidation, particles and minerals are removed.
The retention of particles and microorganisms on flters is measured in microns. A micron
is one millionth of a meter. A good reference point is 40 microns, which is the smallest particle the
averagehumaneyecanseeunderoptimallightconditions.Thestandardretentionlevelforpoultry
house water systems is 20 microns. By far, the most common flter employed on poultry farms is
the 10 long wound flter. While the flters are rated for 20 micron retention, they generally only
retain 50% of the 20 micron particles, and that is only when a fow rate of 2 gallons per minute or
less is passed through them. Higher fows cause channeling, where the water separates the windings
and particles are pushed through. Also, these flters do not seal well to the flter housings which can
results in by-pass fow around the ends of the flters. To eliminate these problems, flters with o-ring
seals and flter medias that retain 95% of the stated micron rating should be used (Hammond, 2008).
Oxidation
Oxidation is the process of reacting soluble minerals such as iron, manganese and sulfur
with an oxidizer such as chlorine, ozone or chlorine dioxide or even air to create an insoluble par-
ticle that can be fltered from the water. One requirement for proper oxidation is to allow adequate
time for the oxidizers to react with the minerals. To oxidize iron requires above 7 pH and a
minimumor20minutesreactiontimewhilemanganeseneedsabove8pHandmuchlongerreaction
time.
Water Softener
Watersoftenersareusefulforremovingcalciumandmagnesiumaswellassolubleiron
and manganese. Water passes through a synthetic material or resin called zeolite where sodium
is traded for these minerals. Sodium ions must be periodically replaced by fushing the softener
tank with a solution of sodium chloride (salt). Most water softeners do not tolerate oxidized iron
/
or manganese or iron bacteria. These must be removed frst. If the water is cloudy, then some of
the contaminants are not dissolved and must be removed frst before the water softener.
Aeration
Aerating water can be effective for removing hydrogen sulfde, reducing dissolved carbon
dioxide as well as oxidizing iron and manganese. This can be accomplished by pumping water
intoholdingtankandallowingthewatertofallintothetanklikeawaterfallinsteadofpumping
waterintoaholdingtankfromthebottom.
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis (RO) is the most common option for reducing sodium, chloride and ni-
trates in water. In reverse osmosis, the water is forced by high pressure through a series of mem-
branes. Water must be pre-treated to remove calcium, magnesium iron and manganese prior to the
RO system. RO treated water can be aggressive or damaging to metal pipes and fttings.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, water is one of the most essential nutrient birds receive, yet the quality of
bird drinking water is often taken for granted. Providing focks with a clean, wholesome supply can
make a difference in performance. Should water be a suspect for fock problems, make arrangements
tohavewatertestedfortotalbacterianumbersaswellasformineralcontent.Whiletotalaerobic
plate count wont tell exactly what is in the water, it is an indicator of excessive levels of bacteria
that should be addressed. By promoting a regular water sanitation program on farm, producers can
preventenvironmentsinwatersystemsthatcouldleadtopoorbirdperformance.Alsounderstand-
ingwhattypesofchemicalcontaminantsarepresentandaddressingthosethatareknowntocause
poorperformancecanhelpgrowersimprovetheirbottomline.
WATER CHALLENGES continued on page 14
/4
Water
Quality
Indicator
Levels considered
average
Maximum
Acceptable
Level
Maximum
Acceptable
Levels Indicate
Treatment
Options/
Comments
Total Bacteria
(TPC)
Total
Coliforms
Fecal
Coliforms
0 CFU/ml
0 CFU/ml
0 CFU/ml
1000 CFU/ml
50 CFU/ml
0 CFU/ml
Dirty system, may taste bad and
COULD have pathogens in the
water system
Water with >50 total coliforms or
any fecal coliform has been in con-
tact with human or animal feces
Clean the system between focks with
approved sanitizing cleaners and establish
a daily water sanitation system when birds
are present
Shock chlorinate as well
pH 6.5 - 7.8 5-8 below 5 - metal corrosion
above 8 - Water sanitizers work
poorly, bitter taste
Raise pH with soda ash (Na
2
CO
3
), lime
Ca (OH)
2
or sodium hydorxide (NaOH)
Lover pH-phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid
and hydrochloric acid for strong alkalinity,
citric acid and vinegar for weak alkilinity
Alkalinity 100 mg/l 300 mg/l Associated with bicarbonate,
sulfates and calcium carbonate
Can give water a bitter taste which
makes it undesireable to the birds
High levels can make it diffcult to
lower the pH
Can be corrosive to cool cell pads
Acidifcation
ANION Exchange dealkalizer
Can be reduced by removing free CO
2

(carbon dioxide) through aeration
Total Hardness Soft 0 - 75mg/l as CaCO
2
Somewhat hard 76 to 150
Hard 151 to 300
Very Hard >300
Hardness causes scale which
reduces pipe vlume and drinkers
hard are to trigger or leak (main
factors are calcium and magnesium,
but iron and manganese contribute
small amount)
Do not use water softener if water already
high in sodium unless using potassium
chloride instead of sodium chloride (salt)
Polyphosphates will sequester or tie-up
hardness and keep in solution
Acidifcation to below pH of 6.5
Calcium (Ca) 60 mg/l No upper limit for calcium, but
if values are above 110 mg/l may
cause scaling
Treatment same for hardness
Magnesium (Mg) 14 mg/l 125 mg/l May cause fushing due to laxative
effect particularly if high sulfate
present
Treatment same for hardness
Iron (Fe) .2 mg/l 0.3 mg/l Birds tolerant of metallic taste
Iron deposits in drinkers may
cause leaking
Can promote growth of bacteria
such as E. Coli and Pseudomonas
Treatment includes addition of one of
the following:chlorine, chlorine dioxide or
ozone then fltration removal with proper
sized mechanical fltration
Manganese 0.01 mg/l 0.05 mg/l Can result in black grainy residue
on flters and in drinkers
Similar to iron but can be more diffcult to
remove due to slow reaction time
Chlorination followed by fltration
most effective in pH range of 8.5, needs
extended contact time with chlorine prior to
fltration unless using Iron X media
Ion exchange resin if pH is 6.8 or above
Greensand flters with pH above 8.0
Chloride (Cl) 50 mg/l 150 mg/l Combined with high Na levels,
can cause fushing and enteric
issues
Can promote Enteroccoci bacterial
growth
Reverse Osmosis, blend with non-saline
water, keep water clean and use daily sani-
tizers such as hydrogen peroxide or iodine
to prevent microbial growth
Sodium (Na) 50 mg/l 150 mg/l With high Cl levels can cause
fushing
Can promote Enteroccoci bacterial
growth
Reverse Osmosis
Blend with non-saline water,
Keep water clean and use daily sanitizers
such as hydrogen peroxide or iodine to
prevent microbial growth
Table 1. Water Quality Standards and Treatment Options.
TABLE 1 continued on page 15
/:
Water
Quality
Indicator
Levels considered
average
Maximum
Acceptable
Level
Maximum
Acceptable
Levels Indicate
Treatment
Options/
Comments
Sulfates 15 - 40 mg/l 200 mg/l Sulfates can cause fushing in
birds
Rotten egg smell is hydrogen
sulfde, by-product of sulfur loving
bacteria growth - this can cause air
locks in water system as well as
fushing in birds
Since sulfdes can gas off, test
results may underestimate actual
level present
Aerate water into a holding tank to gas
off sulfur
Anion exchange (chloride based)
Treatment with oxidizing sanitizers then
fltration
If a rotten egg odor is present, shock
chlorination of well is recommended plus a
good daily water sanitation program while
birds are present
Nitrates 1 - 5 mg/l 25 mg/l Poor growth and feed conversions
May indicate fecal contamination,
test for coliform bacteria
Reverse Osmosis
Anion exchange
Lead 0 mg/l 0.05 mg/l Can cause weak bones and fertil-
ity problems in broiler or turkey
breeders
Lead is not naturally occurring. Look for
pipes, fttings or solder that contain lead
Water softeners and activated carbon can
reduce lead
Copper 0.002 mg/l 0.6 mg/l High levels can cause oral lesions
or gizzard erosion
Source is most likely from the corrosion
of pipes or fttings
Zinc 1.5 mg/l Higher levels may reduce growth
rates
Look for locations where water may have
come in contact with galvanized containers
Water softener and activated carbon will
reduce adsorption
Table 1. continued.
Table 2. Suggested Sanitizer Levels in Poultry
Drinking Water with Birds in the House.
Table 3. Examples of Aerobic Bacteria Levels Found
in Poultry Drinking Water Sources.
Sanitizer
Suggested
residual level
in the drinking
water
(ppm) Comments
Chlorine 2-4 ppm free chlo-
rine
Chlorine is most
effective in 5-7 pH
range

Total chlorine test
does not separate the
bound chlorine from
the free or available
chlorine
Chlorine
dioxide
0.8 ppm Effective over a wide
pH range 4-9 but does
work best in pH range
of 4-7
Hydrogen
peroxide
25 - 50 ppm Hydrogen peroxide
works well when
injected after ozone
treatment
Farm
Sample
Location CFU/ml
A At the well 2,700
A
End of drinker line in
poultry barn
26,600
B
At source (community
water line)
203,000
B
poultry barn
2,340,000
C At the well 600
C
poultry barn
282,000
D At the well 0
D
poultry barn
4,775,000
/c
UA Poultry Science
Extension Faculty
for Poultry Science
by G. Tom Tabler, Department of Poultry Science and Yi Liang, Department of Biological
and Agricultural Engineering, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture
INSIDE
page 4
Skip-a-day and Every-
day Feed Programs for
Broiler Breeders in the
Hen House
by R. Keith Bramwell
page 6
Understanding and
Controlling Waterfowl
by Frank T. Jones and F.
Dustan Clark

page 8
Effects of Temperature
Variation in On-farm
Hatching Egg Holding
Units in Commercial
Broiler Breeder Flocks
by R. Keith Bramwell,
Advice

POULTRY LITTER continued on page 2
Summer 2008 Volume 10 no. 2
Poultry Litter: Issues and
Opportunities
Introduction
Manyfarmfamiliesthroughoutthe
southeasternandDelmarvaregionsofthe
UnitedStatesrelyonpoultryproduction
astheirprimarysourceofincome.This
hasworkedwellforyearsbutthatis
changing;dueinparttourbanencroachment,
environmentalconcerns,increasing
regulations, and legal ramifcations impacting
howproducersmanagepoultrylitter.What
aresomeissuesassociatedwithlitterand
whatopportunitiesexisttobestdealwiththis
byproduct?
Major Issues
Untilrecently,mostproducers
spread litter on felds and pastureland.
Manyproducersalsohavebeefcattleas
asupplementalincomesource;taking
advantageoflittersfertilizervalue.This
practice has proven benefcial for decades, but
after years of spreading litter on felds, soil
nutrient is no longer balanced on many felds.
Cropsneednitrogen(N)presentinlitter,but
manysoilsnolongerrequirephosphorus(also
presentinlitter).Fertilizerapplicationsonce
basedonNneedsofcropsarenowbased
onsoilphosphorus(P)levels;preventingor
limitingamountoflittersomeproducersmay
apply.
Producersabletoapplylitterbasedon
nutrientmanagementplansandsoiltests
arealsoatrisk.ConcernsoverNlossfrom
ammoniavolatilization,Pinsurfacerunoff,
odors,dust,andcomplaintsfromneighbors
taketheirtollonproducersandtheir
families.Poultryandlivestockoperations
AVIAN
inbothEuropeandtheUnitedStatesare
thelargestsourcesofammoniaemissions;
accountingforanestimated70to90%
oftotalemissions(Mukhtaretal.,2006).
AmmoniavolatilizationdecreaseslitterN
content and represents a signifcant loss of
fertilizervalue(Tabler,2006a).Inthepast,
ammoniawasconsideredanuisanceodor
emittedfrompoultryhouses.However,due
toitslargeoutputfrompoultryfarmsandits
rapidreactionwithstrongatmosphericacids
(nitricandsulfuric)toproduceammonium
salts(PM2.5),ammoniaemissionsarenow
beingheavilyinvestigated(Baeketal.,
2004).InmanypartsoftheUnitedStates,the
fractionofPM2.5associatedwithammonia
emissions is as much as 50% of total fne
particlemass(StraderandDavidson,2006).
Itislikelyregulationsaddressingammonia
emissionsareinagriculturesnearfuture.
Bestmanagementpractices(BMPs)should
beinplaceandutilizedinseveraldifferent
areastohelpreduceammoniaemissions.
Majorsourcesofammoniaemissionsfrom
poultryproductionincludethepoultryhouse
itself, litter storage facilities, and felds where
litterisapplied;eachsourcerequiringitsown
specifc BMPs.
Dustandodorassociatedwithlitter
isanothercriticalissueforproducers.
Eventhoughdustandodorshavealways
beenassociatedwithlivestockproduction,
asoperationsbecomelargerandmore
concentrated,managementofdustandodors
becomesmoreimportant(Ulleryetal.,2003).
AVIAN Advice Summer 2008 Vol. 10, No. 2

POULTRY LITTER continued from page 1
Dustandodorsfromlivestockoperationshaverecently
become a highly emotional issue due to the infux of city
dwellerstorural,agriculturalareas.Producersandnewfound
neighborshavevastlydifferentideasaboutwhatlifein
thecountrymeans.Thishasledtoanescalatingnumber
ofcomplaintstoauthoritiesandanincreaseinthenumber
oflocalgovernmentsconsideringsetbackrequirementsor
othersitingregulationsforneworexpandingagricultural
operations.
It is diffcult and expensive to study the exact make up
ofodorsbecausemostodorsaremadeupofmanydifferent
gasesatextremelylowconcentrations(Jacobsonetal.,2006).
Spilledfeed,beddingmaterialandthepoultryorlivestock
themselvesaccountforaportionoflivestockodorsbutmost
poultryandlivestockodorsresultfromdecompositionof
manure(Tabler,2006b).Odorconcentrationcanbequite
variabledependingonlevelofmicrobialactivityinthelitter
ormanure.Microbialactivityandgrowtharedependenton
moisturecontent,pH,temperature,oxygenconcentrationand
otherenvironmentalfactorssuchaswindspeed,windpattern
andseason(Tabler,2006b).
Dustaggravatestheodorsituationbyactingasa
transportmechanismcapableofcarryingodorslongdistances
dependingonaircurrents.Excessivedustinpoultryhouses
isalsoadetrimenttohouseenvironmentandmayadversely
affecthealthofbirdsandworkers.Severalsourcesinthe
poultryhousecancontributetodustgenerationincluding
bedding,manure,feed,dander,feathers,andbacteria.Proper
managementcanmaintainin-housedustatmanageablelevels.
Unfortunately, spreading litter usually generates signifcant
amountsofdustand,insomecases,complaints,aswell.
Therefore,usecommonsenseandgoodneighborpractices
wheneveritistimetospreadlitter.
Opportunities
Addressingpropermanagementanddisposalofpoultry
litteroffersopportunitiesfornewandinnovativethinking.
Forexample,mostpoultrylitterisspreadongrassland
surfacewhichhasraisedseriousrunoffandwaterquality
concernsinmanyareas.However,incorporationoflitter
intothesoilhasproventobeaneffectivetechniquefor
decreasingvolatilizationandrunofflossesinsomecropping
systems. Pote et al. (2003) developed a knifng technique that
minimizeddisturbanceofthesoilstructure,foragecrop,and
thatchwhileincorporatingpoultrylitterbelowthesurface
ofestablishedperennialgrassland.Nutrientconcentrations
andmasslossesinrunofffromincorporatedlitterwere
signifcantly lower (generally 80-95% less) than in runoff from
surface-appliedlitter.Bythesecondyear,litter-incorporated
soils had greater rain infltration rates, water-holding
capacity,sedimentretention,andshowedastrongtendency
forincreasedforageyield(Poteetal.,2003).Infollow-up
work,Poteetal.(2006)developedamechanicalincorporator
thatappliedpoultrylitterunderthepasturesurfacewhich
decreasednutrientlossesinrunoffabout90%andtendedto
increaseforageyield.Currentresearchisfocusedontestinga
multi-shankincorporatorthatcanrapidlyapplyseveraltonsof
litter beneath a grassland setting before reloading (Pote, 2008);
similartosurfaceapplicationmethods.Suchinnovative
thinkingandproductdevelopmentcouldpotentiallyoffer
multiple benefts to producers and integrators. Not only would
incorporationgreatlyreducesurfacerunoffandthethreat
towaterqualitybutammoniavolatilization,dust,odor,and
complaintswouldalsolikelybereducedcomparedtosurface
application.
Vegetativeenvironmentalbuffersorwindbreaksarean
oldtechnologythatholdsnewpromisefortunnel-ventilated,
totallyenclosedpoultryhouses.Windbreaksareableto
bufferdust,odors,andnoiseemissionsfrompoultryhouses
whileaddingtopropertyvaluesandaesthetics,aswellas
foster improved neighbor relations (Tyndall, 2008). As the
windbreakmatures,italsoaddsavisualscreeningeffect
toagriculturaloperations.TheAppliedBroilerResearch
Farmrecentlyplanteda4-rowwindbreakinfrontof4tunnel
fansatonebroilerhouse.Thewindbreakcontains2rows
ofadeciduousspecies(closesttothefans)and2rowsof
evergreens. Deciduous trees planted as the frst rows opposite
fanstendtowithstandthehigh-particulateloadsbest,because
particulatematteraccumulatingonleavesduringsummer
whentunnelfansareinusewilldropoffwiththeleavesinthe
fallandnewleaveswillreturnthefollowingspring.Mixingof
speciesisrecommendedfortworeasons:1)increasedspecies
diversityreducestherisksofwholescalepest/pathogenloss;
and2)somespecies(e.g.poplars)featuringveryrapidgrowth
may have relatively short healthy life span (Tyndall, 2008).
Toinsurelivability,theminimumdistanceofthevegetative
bufferfromfansistobe10timesthefandiameter(Maloneet
al.,2006).Toencourageinitialestablishmentandgrowth,an
effectiveirrigationandweedcontrolprogramisessential.
Bioflters are another odor control device recently
adaptedforlivestockandpoultryoperationsthatareboth
economicalandeffective.Thetechnologyispopularin
northernEuropeandisattractingincreasedattentioninthe
United States. Biofltration can reduce odor and hydrogen
sulfde emissions by as much as 95% and ammonia by 65%
(NicolaiandSchmidt,2005;Nicolaietal.,2006;Sunetal.,
2000). Typically, a bioflter is a layer of compost and wood
chipsthatsupportamicrobialpopulation,orsimplyabedof
organic material 10 to 18 inches deep (Schmidt et al., 2004).
Microbesassociatedwiththeorganicmaterialconvertodorous
gasestocarbondioxideandwaterasairpassesthroughthe
bioflter. Schmidt et al. (2004) illustrated elements of an open-
bed bioflter (Fig. 1) which include:
Amechanicallyventilatedspacewithbiodegradablegaseous
emissions
Anairhandlingsystemtomovetheodorousexhaustairfrom
the building or manure storage through the bioflter
Anairplenumtodistributetheexhaustevenlybeneaththe
bioflter media.
Astructuretosupportthemediaabovetheairplenum.
Porous bioflter media that serves as a surface for
microorganismstoliveon,asourceofsomenutrients,and
astructurewheremoisturecanbeapplied,retained,and
availabletothemicroorganisms.

Bioflters do require maintenance in four areas assessing
pressuredropacrossthemedia,weedcontrol,rodentcontrol,
andmoisturecontrol(NicolaiandSchmidt,2005).Moisture
control is critical for the bioflter to properly reduce odor.
Mediaselectionisalsoimportantwithcriticalproperties
including1)porosity,2)moistureholdingcapacity,3)
nutrientcontent,and4)slowdecomposition(Schmidtet
al.,2004).Exhaustfanswillalsoneedtobechecked(and
possiblyreplaced)tobesurethereisenoughfanpowertoboth
ventilatethebuildingandpushtheexhaustedairthroughthe
bioflter.
Summary
Manyfarmfamiliesrelyonpoultryproductionas
theirprimaryincomesource.Thelitterbyproductfromthis
productionisamajorconcernforproducersandtheindustry
today.Itwillrequirenewandprogressivethinkingand
developmentofnewtoolstosolvetheproblem.Currently,
thistypeofworkisongoingacrossthecountry.From
innovative equipment design to vegetative buffers to bioflters
andmore,researchcontinuestofocusoneffortsthathelp
farmersfarmwhilekeepingneighborshappyandprotecting
theenvironment.However,producersshouldbeproactiveand
involvedwhenairemissioncontrolsarediscussedtoprevent
misguidedregulationsthatdemandunrealisticexpectations
fromtheagriculturalindustry.
References
Baek,B.H.,B.P.Aneja,andQ.Tong.2004.Chemical
coupling between ammonia, acid gases, and fne particles.
Environ. Pollution. 129:89-98.
Jacobson,L.D.,J.A.Kosiel,S.J.Hoft,A.J.Heber,and
D.B.Parker.2006.Odoremissionsandchemicalanalysisof
odorouscompoundsfromanimalbuildings.Pp4-14.Proc.
WorkshoponAgriculturalAirQuality:StateoftheScience.
Potomac, MD. June 5-8.
Malone,G.W.,G.VanWicklen,S.Collier,andD.
Hansen. 2006. Effcacy of vegetative environmental buffers to
captureemissionsfromtunnelventilatedpoultryhouses.Pp
Figure 1. Open-bed bioflter attached to livestock
barn (from Schmidt et al., 2004).
875-878. Proc. Workshop on Agricultural Air Quality: State of
the Science. Potomac, MD. June 5-8.
Mukhtar,S.,A.Mutlu,S.Capareda,R.Lacey,B.Shaw,
andC.Parnell.2006.Seasonalandspatialvariationsof
ammoniaemissionsfromanopen-lotdairyoperation.Pp943-
946.Proc.WorkshoponAgriculturalAirQuality:Stateofthe
Science. Potomac, MD. June 5-8.
Nicolai,R.E.,C.J.Clanton,K.A.Janni,andG.L.Malzer.
2006. Ammonia removal during biofltration as affected by
inletairtemperatureandmediamoisturecontent.Trans.
ASABE. 49(4):1125-1138.
Nicolai, R., and D. Schmidt. 2005. Bioflters. South
DakotaStateUniversityFactSheet.FS925-C.SouthDakota
StateUniversity.Brookings,SD.
Pote,D.H.,W.L.Kingery,G.E.Akin,F.X.Han,P.A.
Moore,Jr.,andK.Buddington.2003.Water-qualityeffectsof
incorporatingpoultrylitterintoperennialgrasslandsoils.J.
Environ. Qual. 32:2392-2398.
Pote,D.H.,T.R.Way,W.L.Kingery,G.E.Akin,K.R.
Sistani,F.X.Han,andP.A.Moore,Jr.2006.Incorporating
poultrylitterintoperennialgrasslandtoimprovewaterquality.
Proc.ArkansasWaterResearchCenterConf.Publ.date:April
18, 2006. Abstr.
Pote, D. H. 2008. Personal communication.
Schmidt, D., K. Janni, and R. Nicolai. 2004. Bioflter design
information.BiosystemsandAgriculturalEngineeringUpdate.
UniversityofMinnesotaExtensionService.Publ.No.BAEU-
18.
Strader,R.,andC.Davidson.2006.Ammoniaemissions
fromagricultureandothersources.Proc.Workshopon
AgriculturalAirQuality:StateoftheScience.Potomac,MD.
June 5-8.
Sun,Y.C.J.Clanton,K.A.Janni,andG.Malzer.2000.
Sulfur and nitrogen balances in bioflters for odorous gas
emission control. Trans. ASABE. 43(6): 1861-1875.
Tabler,G.T.2006a.Ammoniaemissionsattracting
signifcant attention. Avian Advice 8(2):9-11.
Tabler, G. T. 2006b. Odor An emerging concern for
producers. Avian Advice 8(1):1-3.
Tyndall, J. 2008. The use of vegetative environmental
buffersforlivestockandpoultryodormanagement.Proc.
MitigatingAirEmissionsfromAnimalFeedingOperations
Conference.DesMoines,IA.May19-21.IowaState
University.
Ullery,C.,S.Pohl,A.Garcia,H.Stein,K.Tjardes,and
C.Schmit.2003.Odormanagementinformationforlivestock
operations.SouthDakotaStateUniversityExtensionPubl.No.
ESS803-A. South Dakota State University. Brookings, SD.
4
R. Keith Bramwell, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture
Skip-a-day and Everyday Feed
Programs for Broiler Breeders in
the Hen House
Introduction
Controllingbodyweightinreplacementbroilerbreedersandbreedersinthehenhouseisa
portionofthepoultryindustrythatwillcontinuetoevolve.Becauseofthegeneticpotentialfor
growth in modern breeders, methods to control body weight and uniformity within a fock continue
toreceiveattentioninanefforttoimprove,oratleastmaintainreproductiveperformance.
IntheUnitedStates,feedrestrictingpulletsandyoungcockerelsprimarilyinvolvesoneof
severalformsofaskip-a-dayfeedingprogram.Theuseofskip-a-dayfeedinginthepullethouse
oftenoccursinanefforttouniformlydistributesmallamountsoffeedthroughoutthehousetoallow
allbirdsequalandimmediateaccesstofeedallotments.Iffeeddistributiondoesnotoccurina
uniformandevenfashion,thiscanresultinpooruniformityofbodyweightandbodyconformation
amongthepulletsandcockerels.Whilethetechnologyandequipmentexiststouniformlydistribute
smallfeedallotments,itisnotfoundinthemajorityofpullethousesintheUnitedStates.When
pulletsandcockerelsexhibitpooruniformityinthepullethouse,thisoftentranslatestopoorperfor-
manceinthehenhouseasthematurationprocessisunevenandthereforeallbirdswillnotrespond
toreproductivestimulithesame.Therefore,variousversionsofskip-a-dayfeedingisstillcommon
placeinthepoultryindustry.
Asreplacementbreedersaremovedtothehenhouse,themostcommonpracticeintheU.S.is
tobeginprovidingfeedallotmentsonaneverydaybasis.However,inothercountries,andoccasion-
allyintheU.S.,theuseofskip-a-dayfeedingmaycontinueinthehenhouseinanefforttomaintain
birduniformityandfurthercontrolfeeddistributionpriortotheonsetofeggproduction.These
programs usually involve feeding one of various versions of skip-a-day feeding until frst egg or 5%
productionisattained.Whenutilized,themostcommonskip-a-dayprograminthehenhouseisa5-
2feedingschedule,asthisseemstobeasortofcombinationbetweenthetraditionaltrueskip-a-day
andeverydayfeeding.
Research Trial Design
AttheUniversityofArkansasBroilerBreederResearchFarmatrialwasdesignedtodrawa
directcomparisonbetweeneverydayfedand5-2skip-a-dayfedbirdsfollowinghousinginthehen
house. This trial involved a total of 4080 Cobb 500 pullets which were raised together and accord-
ingtoindustryrecommendations.At21weeksofage,pulletsweremovedtoasingleproduction
style hen house and randomly divided into 48 pens with 24 replicate pens of 85 hens per pen for
eachofthetwofeedtreatmentgroups.Bothgroupswerefedthesamequalityandquantityoffeed
perbirdperweek(feedallotmentsandfeedformulationsaccordingtoindustrystandards)withthe
skip-a-day fed birds receiving their weekly feed allotments in fve days rather than seven. The 5-2
fedbirdshadtwoofffeeddayseachweekeachofwhichfollowedeithertwoorthreeconsecutive
feeddays.Once5%eggproductionwasattainedforeachindividualtreatmentgroup,eachgroup
wasfedintoproductionthesameandaccordingtoindustryrecommendations.Allconditionsand
feedprogramswerethesameforbothfeedtreatmentgroupsthrough60weeksofage.
Production results
Aswasexpected,theonsetofeggproductionwasdelayedintheskip-a-dayfedgroup.The
onset of egg production in the skip-a-day group occurred fve days later than the everyday fed group

andthereforepeakineggproductionwasdelayedaswell(Figure1).However,theskip-a-dayfed
groupwasabletomaintaineggproductionfollowingpeakandfollowedasimilareggproduction
trend.TheperiodiceggproductionresultsinTable1showthatwhiletheskip-a-daygroupcameinto
production fve days later and attained peak production several days later, by 30 weeks of age cu-
mulativeeggsproducedperhenhousedwassimilar.Additionally,attheconclusionofthe60week
production cycle, there was no signifcant difference in total eggs produced per hen housed.
Hen mortality for the trial was relatively low with 8.1% and 9.6% life of fock mortality for the
skip-a-day and everyday fed birds with no signifcant difference found in hen body weight at any
age. Egg weights were recorded by pen weekly through the trial and showed no signifcant differ-
ence in any week between the feed treatment groups with a 60-week life of fock average of 66.08
and66.21gpereggfortheskip-a-dayandeverydayfedgroups.
Conclusions
Byindustryrecommendations,skip-a-dayfeedingbroilerbreederpulletsinthehenhouseprior
totheonsetofproductionisnotcommonplaceintheUnitedStates.Theresultsfoundinthisproject
areconsistentwiththosefoundbyproducersthathaveutilizedthisfeedingprograminthehenhouse
bothintheUSandinternationally.However,inthistrialwewereabletocomparethetwofeeding
programssidebysideinaresearchsettingdesignedtosimulateproductionconditions.Althoughthe
skip-a-day fed birds were slower coming into production, by 60 weeks of age there was no signif-
cantdifferenceinthetotalnumberofeggsproducedperhenhoused.Additionally,eggweight,bird
weight,andlivabilityarenotnegativelyaffectedinskip-a-dayfedbirds.Therefore,feedingbroiler
breederpulletsinthehenonaskip-a-dayfeedprogramisnotdetrimentaltoreproductiveparameters
andcanbeusedasanalternativefeedingprograminanefforttofurthercontrolbodyweightunifor-
mity.
Summary
1.Feedingbroilerbreederpulletsona5-2skip-a-dayfeedingprogramisnotdetrimentalto
breederperformance.
2.Althoughpulletsonthisskip-a-dayfeedprogramcomeintoproductionseveraldayslater
thaneverydayfedbirds,theymakeupforthisinoveralleggsproducedperhenhousedat60weeks
ofage.
Table 1. Cumulative egg production per hen in skip-a-day versus everyday
fed breeder hens through 60 weeks of age.
Figure 1. Egg production in
skip-a-day versus everyday fed
breeder hens
Age in weeks
6
Understanding and
Controlling Waterfowl
Introduction
Waterfowlareavaluableresourcethatistreasuredbymany.Arkansasisknownbymany
as a prime spot for duck hunting. The V formation of arriving focks is, for many, a familiar
andwelcomesignofthechangeofseasons.Yetwaterfowlcaneasilybecomeanuisanceas
well as spread disease to both backyard and commercial focks. In addition, waterfowl can be
year-round residents and populations can rapidly get out of hand. In fve to seven years one pair
ofgeesecanbecome50to100birdsthatfoulpondsanddamagelandsorcropsnearthewater
(Williams-Whitmeretal.,1996).Thisarticleisintendedtoincreaseunderstandingofwaterfowl
characteristicssothateffectivecontrolmethodscanbedesigned.
Waterfowl Biology
Waterfowlincludesducks,geeseandmigratoryswans.Habitatssuitableforwaterfowl
containtwoprimarycomponents:apermanentbodyofwaterandsuitableopenfeedingareas
withabundantvegetation.Waterisrequiredforwaterfowltoland,escapeandrest.Landand
vegetationarerequiredforfeed,matingandnesting.Inshort,waterfowlaregenerallyquite
adaptablewithregardtositeselection.Anysitethatprovidesthemsafety,foodandnesting
locationswillbeutilized(Anonymous,2007;Williams-Whitmeretal.,1996).Sincemany
poultryproducersalsohavecattleoperationswiththerequiredpasturelandandstockponds,
thesefarmsmaybeattractivesitestowaterfowl.
Waterfowl are also very adaptable with regard to food. Ducks are flter feeders and will
eatalmostanything,whileswanseataquaticplantsandgeesegenerallyeatterrestrialgrasses.
However,mostwaterfowlwillusuallycometolandtwiceaday(morningandevening)looking
for food. Normally waterfowl will roost on or near the open water at night (Cleary, 2008).
Waterfowlarenormallymonogamousandsolitarynesters.Geeseandswansmateforlife,
whileduckstendtoseekanewmateeachbreedingseason.Waterfowlwillusuallylayanegga
day or an egg every other day until the clutch is complete. The 28 to 34 day incubation period
(dependingonthespecies)usuallybeginswhenthelastornext-to-lasteggislaid.Newly
hatchedwaterfowlarequicklearnersandbeginforagingsoonafterhatch.However,studies
have shown that frst year mortality rates of 60 to 70% are not uncommon (Cleary, 2008).
Legal Cautions
NativewaterfowlintheUnitedStatesareprotectedbybothstatelawsandtheFederal
MigratoryBirdTreatyAct.Theselawsprohibithunting,killing,selling,purchasingor
possessingmigratorybirdswithoutstateandfederalpermits.Permitsarenotrequiredtoscare
awaywaterfowlaslongasthebirdsarenotharmed.However,nestingbirdsareprotectedand
maynotbeharassedwithoutafederalpermit(Williams-Whitmeretal.,1996).
Control Methods
Noonecontrolmethodislikelytobeeffective.Combinationsofmethodsgenerally
provide the best control. Control methods are classifed into the following fve categories:
habitat modifcation, exclusion, harassment, chemical sprays and lethal control (Anonymous,
nodate).Whiletimeandspacedonotallowacompletedescriptionofcontrolmethods,several
ideaswillbeoutlinedundereachcategory.
Frank T. Jones and F. Dustan Clark,
Native waterfowl
in the United
States are
protected by both
state laws and the
Federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act.

These laws
prohibit hunting,
killing, selling,
purchasing or
possessing
migratory birds
without state and
federal permits.

WATERFOWL continued on page 8
WATERFOWL continued from p. 7
Habitat Modifcation
Eliminatemanmadefoodsources.Ifanyoneis
intentionallyfeedingwaterfowl,itshouldstopimmediately.
Waterfowlshouldnotbeallowedaccesstofoodscrapsor
otherrefusethatwouldattractornourishwaterfowl(Williams-
Whitmeretal.,1996).
Removedomesticwaterfowl.Domesticwaterfowltend
toattractmigratorywaterfowl(Anonymous,NoDate).
Steepenbanksofpondsandcreeks.Waterfowlprefer
gentle,grassyslopessothatitiseasytocomeinandoutofthe
waterforrestandfood.Steepbanksmakesiteslessattractive
towaterfowl.
Managegrassandplants.Replaceplantsthatwaterfowl
liketoeatwithonestheydonotprefer(Anonymous,NoDate)
Waterfowlprefer:
Kentuckybluegrass
Bromegrass
Canarygrass
Colonialbentgrass
Perennialryegrass
Quackgrass
Redfescue
Waterfowldonotprefer:
Maturetallfescue
Periwinkle
Myrtle
Pachysandra
Englishivy
Hostaorplantainlily
Groundjuniper
Switchgrass
Exclusion
OverheadGridSystem.Gridsystemsarethincables
thatarevisibletobothhumansandwaterfowlthatarestrung
on10ftcentersbetween5ftsteelfenceposts.Waterfowl
(particularlygeese)aregenerallydiscouragedbygridsystems
becausetheyareseenasabarrierbetweenthemandthewater.
Gridsystemsgenerallyworkwellforbodiesofwaterthatare
lessthan150ftacross,butcan(withsomeeffort)bemadeto
workonbodiesupto300ftacross.
Fencing.Installingathreefootpoultrywirefencemay
discouragegeesefromcomingashore,butdiscouragingducks
mayrequirehigherfencing.Triplestrandelectricfencehas
beenusedeffectively.Wiresshouldbestrungat5,10and15
inchesabovetheground.However,fencingmustbeclearly
markedtopreventaccidentallyshockinghumans.
Vegetationandrock.Waterfowlprefertoexitabody
ofwaterwheretheyhaveaclearviewofpredators.Trees,
largeshrubsorrocksalongtheshorelinemaypresentabarrier
thatwaterfowlarereluctanttocross(Anonymous,NoDate;
Williams-Whitmeretal.,1996).
Harassment
Dogs.Useoftraineddogstocontrolwaterfowlis
effective,butownersmustbeincontrolofthesituationsince
theownerisresponsiblefordamagetobirdsdonebydogs.
Bordercolliesorotherherdingdogsoftenworkwellinthese
situations(ZiengenhagenandTuck,2005).
Pyrotechnics.Bottlerocketsthatscreamandexplodeor
frecrackers can be effective harassment methods. However,
individualsusingpyrotechnicsshouldbetrainedintheiruse
andweareyeandearprotection
Chasing.Chasingwaterfowlonfootorinasmall
vehicleislaborintensive,butwhenusedinconjunctionwith
othercontrolmethods,canbeeffective.
Otherharassmenttechniques.Highpressurewater
sprayers,airhornsandbeatingpotsorpanstogethercanalso
beusefulharassmenttechniques
Chemical repellants
Whilethereareinnumerablehomeremedies,feware
legal and effective. Chemical repellants must meet specifc
legalrequirements,whichmakethemexpensiveandnot
suitableinallsituations.Inaddition,cautionshouldbe
exercisedwhenusinganychemicalnearpoultryhousesas
theymayinterferewithbirdperformanceorcauseresidues.
Producersshouldcheckwiththeirservicetechorintegrator
toverifyanychemicalsacceptancebeforeitisusednearthe
poultryhouse.
Lethal control
Hunting.Duringhuntingseason,waterfowlcanbe
effectively controlled with frearms, but regulations must be
observedandhuntingpermitsarerequired.
Biosecurity
Waterfowlareknowntocarryanumberofdiseases.
Therefore,itisimperativethatpeoplewhohavebeenin
contactwithwaterfowlbathe,changeclothesandusedifferent
footwearwhenenteringcommercialpoultryhouses.Abetter
ideawouldbetohavenocontactwithwaterfowlatallpriorto
workinginoraroundpoultryhouses.
Summary
WaterfowlareatreasuredresourceintheUnitedStates.
However,waterfowlcanbecomeanuisanceandhazard
aroundcommercialpoultryhouses.Therefore,itisimportant
to control waterfowl through habitat modifcation, exclusion,
harassmentorlethalmethods.Itisalsoimperativethat
individualswhohavehadcontactwithwaterfowlnotenter
poultryhouses.
References
Anonymous. No Date. Nuisance wildlife Wild geese.
MissouriDepartmentofConservationhttp://mdc.mo.gov/
landown/wild/nuisance/w_geese/types.htm 6/11/08
8
WATERFOWL continued from page 7
Effects of Temperature Variation
in On-farm Hatching Egg
Holding Units in Commercial
Broiler Breeder Flocks
Introduction
Broilerbreederhatchingeggsarecommonlyheldinstoragefacilitiesatthebreederfarm
anywherefromonetofourdaysandagainatthehatcheryuntilplacedinthesetters.Inthepoultry
industry,somepre-incubationofhatchingeggsfollowingovipositionandduringstorageisinevi-
table,yeteffortsshouldbemadetoreducethisoccurrence.Withthecontinueddevelopmentofthis
industrytherehavebeentremendousadvanceswhichhaveimprovedtheavailableequipmentto
maintainhenhousetemperatures,andthequalityofeggtransportationvehiclesandeggstoragefa-
cilitiesinthehatchery.However,withthisimprovedtechnology,on-farmeggstoragefacilitieshave
been largely neglected which has made it extremely diffcult for producers to maintain constant egg
storageroomtemperaturesatthefarmlevel.
Whileonepurposeofeggstorageistoaccumulateeggstomeetthedemandforchicksand
tobestutilizehatcheryfacilities,ultimatelythegoalistoarrestfurtherembryonicdevelopmentwhile
maintaining embryo viability. While an egg storage temperature of 68F (20C) is the most com-
monlypracticedindustryrecommendation,theactualon-farmeggstoragetemperaturecanrange
from a low of 60F (15.6C) up to 75F (23.9C). The range in egg storage temperature from one
farm to the next is often due to different management programs, while day to day fuctuations within
thesamecompanyisaresultofpooreggstoragefacilitiesthatareunabletomaintainaconstant
storagetemperature.Hatcheryeggstorageconditionshavebeenevaluatedinthepast,withrecom-
mendationspresentedtoreducelossesinhatchability.However,researchregardingeggstorageat
thebreederfarmislimitedandincomplete.Therefore,theobjectiveofthisstudywastodetermine
theeffectsofoscillatingandvariableon-farmeggstoragetemperaturesonhatchabilityandembryo
viability in commercial broiler breeder focks.
Egg Storage and Hatching Procedures
Fourthousandthreehundredtwenty(4320)hatchingeggswereobtainedfromtheUniver-
sityofArkansassBroilerBreederResearchfacilityandwereplacedintotwoseparateeggstorage
chambers, with all eggs stored at a control temperature of 70 F (21.1 C) for 0-24 hours. After the
Anonymous. 2007 Canada good management FAQ Frequently asked questions. http://www.canadagoodwmanagement.
com/faq.html 6/11/08
Cleary, E. C. 2008. Waterfowl. http://www.extension.org/pages/Waterfowl 6/11/08
Williams-Whitmer,L.M.,M.C.Brittingham-BrantandM.J.Casalena.1996.Geese,ducksandswans.PennsylvaniaState
University, Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension, Pub. No. CAT UH087
Ziegenhagen,S.andB.Tuck.2005.Livingwithnuisancewildlife.OregonStateUniversityExtensionServicePublication
EC1579.
R. Keith Bramwell, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture

HATCHABILITY continued on page 10
HATCHABILITY continued from page 8
initial 24 hour storage period, eggs were divided into 864 egg lots and assigned to treatment groups.
One group of eggs remained at 70 F for the entire 72 hour storage period (Control). Four other
groups were moved to separate storage chamber with temperatures set at either 66 F (18.9 C), 68
F (20.0 C), 72 F (22.2 C), or 74 F (23.3 C) to represent Treatments 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
Eggs were stored at these temperatures for an additional 24 hours for a total of 48 hours of storage
time. Then eggs stored at 66 F were stored at 74 F, eggs at 74 F were stored at 66 F, eggs at 68
F were stored at 72 F, and eggs at 72 F were stored at 68 F for an another 24 hours for a total stor-
age time of 72 hours. After 72 hours of storage all eggs were returned to 70 F. Treatment details
areoutlinedinTable1.Thisdesignensuredthatalleggsinthisexperimentwereheldatanaver-
age of 70 F for the entire three day on-farm egg storage time period. To summarize this design,
allhatchingeggsfromthedifferenttemperaturetreatmentgroupsweresubjectedtoeithera2or4
degree F temperature fuctuation above and below the 70 F base temperature, but were held at an
average of 70 F.
Afterthestorageperiod,eggsweretransportedtotheiroriginalcommercialbreederfarm
wheretheywereplaceddirectlyonacommercialhatchingeggtransportationtruckandsenttoa
commercialhatcheryforincubation.Notreatmentorspecialcaretookplaceaftertheon-farmstor-
ageperiod.
The hatchability of eggs subjected to a 2 F temperature change from 70 F was reduced
bynearly2%ascomparedtothecontrolgroup(74.69vs.76.47%hatch,respectively).Eggsthat
underwenta4Ftemperaturechangehadnearlya1%lossinhatchascomparedtothecontrolgroup
(75.61vs.76.47%,respectively).Itisinterestingtonotethatthegreatertemperaturevariationdid
notnecessarilyresultinagreaterlossinhatchability.
However,regardlessofwhetherthetemperaturevariationwas2or4F,allhatchingeggs
used in the study moved from the hen house at about 80 F to the 70 F storage chamber for 24
hours.Eggsthatthenincreasedintemperaturefor24hoursanddecreasedforanother24hoursbe-
fore increasing again to 70 F ( i. e. 70 F-s-t-s) experienced a signifcant drop in hatchability as
comparedtothecontrol(3.55%and2.16%lossinhatch,respectively,Figure1).Eggsinthisgroup
experiencedmultiplechangesintemperaturefromthehenhousetothehatchery.Fromthetimeof
lay,theseeggsdecreasedintemperatureto70Fthenthetemperaturewasraisedfor24hours,then
loweredfor24hours,thenraisedfor24hours,thenloweredastheyweremovedtothehatchery(67
F)thenraisedwhenmovedtothesetters(threeperiodsofdecreasingtemperaturesandthreewith
increasingtemperatures).
Eggs that were stored at 70 F then decreased in temperature for 24 hours, then increased
after 48 hours then were returned back to 70 F (70-t-s-t)experiencednodifferenceinhatchabil-
ityandlessthan1%lossinhatchoffertile.Eggsinthistreatmentgroupbasicallyunderwentone
changeindirectionofthetemperaturetheyweresubjectedtofromthetimetheywerelaiduntilthe
eggsreachedthecommercialhatchery.Theseeggsdecreasedintemperatureafterlayto70F,then
thetemperaturewasdecreasedagainfor24hours,thenincreasedfor24hours,thendecreasedfor24
hours,thendecreasedagainastheyweremovedtothehatchery(67F)thenraisedwhenmovedto
thesetters(twoperiodswheretemperaturesweredecreasingandtwowithincreasingtemperatures).
Eachtimetheinternaltemperatureoftheeggiselevatedtonear75F,metabolicactivityisagain
initiatedandembryodevelopmentensuesonlytobeslowedagainduringadditionaleggcooling.
Whilecoolinghatchingeggsisnecessary,startingandstoppingembryodevelopmentweakensthe
embryoandreducesitsviability.AsillustratedinFigure2,theidealsituationisforhatchingeggsto
undergoonlytwotemperaturedirectionchanges;onefromthehentothelowesttemperaturepointat
thecommercialhatcheryeggstoragefacilityandthesecondtemperaturedirectionaseggsaremoved
intotheeggsetters.
Conclusions
Itiswellknownthatmosthatchabilityproblemsarearesultofpoorfertility.However,
when egg production is attained and the fock maintains high levels of fertility, how we care for
hatchingeggscanhaveatremendouseffectonoverallhatchability.Whilecurrentindustryrecom-
mendations vary from 63 F to 70 F for on-farm egg storage, data from this research indicate that
10
variationsinon-farmeggstoragetemperaturesofaslittleas2degreesFcanreducehatchability
byasmuchas3.5%.Experiencefromevaluatingcurrenton-farmeggroomtemperaturevalues
indicatesthatvariationintheactualtemperatureandthesettemperaturesaregreatandoftenexceed
thoseparametersestablishedinthisstudy.Therefore,regardlessoftheequipmentinthebreeder
houseandthehatcheryfacilities,hatchabilityisroutinelylostincommercialhatcheriesduetone-
glectoftheon-farmeggstoragefacilities.
Summary
1.Maintainingaconstantenvironmentforhatchingeggspriortoincubationiscriticalto
achieveoptimumhatchability.
2.Excessivetemperaturevariationinon-farmhatchingeggstoragecancausehatchability
lossesofupto3.5%.
3.Monitoreggstorageandtransportationconditionsusingtemperaturedataloggers.
4.Makeadjustmentstoequipmenttoprovidehatchingeggswithaconstantenvironment.
Thiscanincludestirringfansineggrooms,improvedheatingandcoolingequipment,andimproved
insulationpropertiesintheeggroom.
Figure 1. Hatchability Loss due to Egg Storage Temperature Variation
11
Figure 2. Ideal temperature changes for hatching eggs.
Table 1. Egg storage temperature treatments
1
t = decrease in temperature; s = increase in temperature
1
UA Poultry Science
Extension Faculty
for Poultry Science
by G. Tom Tabler, Frank T. Jones and Walter G. Bottje, University of Arkansas Division
of Agriculture
INSIDE
page 4
Gut Health - Is Anything
More Important in
Turkey Productioin?
by Jim Plyler and
Susan Watkins
page 7
Runting-Stunting
Syndrome in Broilers
by F. Dustan Clark and
Frank T. Jones

page 9
Weighing Broiler
Breeder Females Post
Feeding
by R. Keith Bramwell,
Jon R. Moyle,
Doug E. Yoho and
Bob S. Harper
Advice

ENERGY USE continued on page 2
Energy Use and Costs at the
Applied Broiler Research Farm
Introduction
Highenergycostscontinuetocause
concernforpoultryproducersacross
thecountry.Currently,bothintegrators
andproducersarefacedwithincreasing
productioncosts,makingnormaloperations
more diffcult. A number of farms, including
the Applied Broiler Research Farm (ABRF),
haverecentlybeenrenovatedinaneffortto
become more energy effcient and remain
competitive.However,thehighenergycosts
havepromptedmanyproducerstowonderif
renovationsarepayingoff.
Energy Use
The ABRF placed its frst fock of
birdsinNovemberof1990andsentbirds
toprocessinginJanuaryof1991.Thefarm
hasalwaysheatedwithpropane.Thedatain
Figure 1 show that propane prices averaged
about$0.56/galpriorto2000.Propaneprices
roseanaverageofabout$0.13/galbetween
2001and2007andarecurrentlyat$2.04/gal.
AVIAN
Figure 2 illustrates annual farm propane
usagefrom1991through2007.Datais
notreportedfor2006becausethefarmwas
undergoing renovation from Jan-Apr 2006,
therebymissingmostofthecoldweather
thatyear.Whilethemostpropaneconsumed
in any one year (33,800 gal) was in 1996,
anaverageofabout17,000galwasused
between1991and1997.Propaneusage
between2000and2005hasaveragedslightly
over23,350gal.Thisincreaseinusage
waslikelyduetoairleaksinthehouses
and curtains (which were getting older) and
broodingchicksatwarmertemperatures
comparedtoearlieryears.Gasusagefor
2007 (the only full year since the renovation)
was 22,100 gals. So, has the ABRF used less
gassincetherenovation?With16yearsof
before-renovationdatabutonlyonefullyear
of data since the renovation, it is diffcult to
predictthelong-termeffectofrenovationon
propaneusage.However,thetotalusagein
2007appearstobeslightlylowerthanthe
averageusagefortheprevioussixyearssince
2000.
Figure 1. Average ABRF Propane Prices
Figure 2. Propane use at the ABRF
between 1991 and 2007
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

P
r
i
c
e

(
$
/
g
a
l
)
P
r
o
p
a
n
e

u
s
a
g
e

(
g
a
l
s
)

ENERGY USE continued from page 1
Annual ABRF electricity use data are shown in Figure
3. After the initial three years of operation (1991-1993),
electricalusageaveragedabout75,000KWHannuallyuntil
2006.Whenthefarmwasrenovated,itwentfromfour
curtain-sidedhouseswhichwereabletotakeadvantage
ofbothnaturalventilationandnaturaldaylight,tofour
solidsidewall,tunnelventilatedhousesthatrequiredpower
ventilation (fans) and artifcial light both day and night.
Electricityusagewasexpectedtoincreaseaftertherenovation
and it did. After renovations, 2006 (a partial year running
from April through Dec) used 90,941 kilowatt hours, while
the full year of 2007 used 120,681 kilowatt hours. There is
nowbettercontrolofin-houseconditions,providingamore
uniformenvironmentforthebirds,butitcomeswithan
increaseinelectricityusageandcost.Soisthefarmsaving
onelectricityusesincetherenovation?No,actuallymore
kilowatthourshavebeenusedsincetherenovationthan
before. BUT our performance data suggest that the extra
electricitytranslatedintoabetterenvironmentforgrowing
birds,betterbirdperformanceandabiggersettlementcheck
on a consistent basis (Tabler, 2007).
Energy Costs
Annual costs for both propane and electricity have
increased since renovation (Figures 4 and 5) and 2007 costs
forelectricityandpropanewerethehighesteverinthehistory
of ABRF. Yet, the reason for high propane costs was due to
increased propane prices (Figure 1), while the reason for high
electricitycostswasincreasedusageratesnotelevatedprices
(Figure 3).
Eventhougheveryintegratorandeverycomplexdoes
things somewhat differently, most integrators have modifed
theirbroilercontractstoofferpayincreasesasanincentive
toproducerswhorenovatetheirfarms.Somemayalsooffer
assistancewithammoniacontrolproducts,bedding,orfuel
allowanceasanaddedincentive.However,aftertheenergy
billswerepaiddidwehavemoreofthesettlementcheckafter
renovationsthanbefore?
Energy Costs and the Settlement Check
Theaverageannualpropanecostasapercentageofthe
settlement check at the ABRF is shown in Figure 6. During the
period1991through2000,propanecostswerealmostalways
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

u
s
a
g
e

(
K
W
H
)
Figure 3. Electricity use at the ABRF between
1991 and 2007
P
r
o
p
a
n
e

c
o
s
t
s

(
$
)
Figure 4. Propane costs at the ABRF between
1991 and 2007
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

c
o
s
t
s

(
$
)
Figure 5. Electricity costs at the ABRF between
1991 and 2007
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 6. Historical annual gas costs as a
percentage of the settlement check at ABRF

lessthan10%ofthecheckbut,between2001and2005,these
costsamountedtomorethan20%ofthecheck,reachinga
peak of 30.92% in 2004. In 2007 (after renovations) propane
costsasapercentageofthesettlementcheckwerethelowest
(23%) since 2001.
Electricitycostsasapercentageofthesettlementcheck
haveremainedfairlyconstantthroughoutthehistoryofthe
farm (usually about 51%) (Figure 7). Electricity cost as a
percentageofthesettlementcheckwas5.32%in2007,similar
tocostsincurredduringmostyearsbeforerenovation.
Average propane cost data in Table 1 show the same
dramatic increase in energy costs seen in Figure 6. However,
since the ABRF uses each settlement check to pay production
costs,averagedatasometimesarenotadequate.Thetable
also contains the range of propane costs by fock and average
January low temperature data obtained from NOAA. Since on
averageJanuaryisthecoldestmonthoftheyear,temperature
data were included to gage the infuence of atmospheric
temperatureonpropanecosts.Onaveragemaximumpropane
costs before 2000 were 20.18% of the settlement checks,
whileafter2000peakpropanecostsaveraged47.43%.
Correlationsbetweenmaximumpropanecostsandlow
temperatures prior to 2000 show a coeffcient of -0.60, while
similar correlations after 2000 show a coeffcient of -0.16.
Theseanalysessuggestthatlowtemperatureslikelyhada
largeeffectonhighenergycostspriorto2000,whileprice
appeared to be the primary infuencer after 2000. These
data also suggest that had the ABRF not anticipated elevated
energy costs, major cash fow diffculties could have arisen.
What This Means
Whilethesedatagivesomeindicationofenergyuse
andcostbeforeandafterbroilerfarmrenovation,they
only refect conditions at ABRF, which is on one site in
Northwest Arkansas. It would be diffcult to transfer these
fgures anywhere else with any degree of certainty. A farm
acrosstheroad,acrossthestate,oracrossthecountrywould
likelyreportdifferentinformationthanthatpresentedhere.
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Figure 7. Historical annual electricity costs as a
percentage of settlement check at ABRF
Granted, the ABRF is designed to be a typical four-house
commercialbroilerfarmsimilartothousandsofothersacross
Arkansas and the U.S. However, it is also unique, as is every
otherfarm,intermsofitslocation,topography,elevation,
geographical setting, wind currents, airfow patterns, other
climatefactors,andlocalenergycosts.Energyuseisalso
affectedbythemanagementprogramofthefarmsintegrator
andhoweachgrowerappliestheprogram.Therefore,itis
importanttounderstandthelimitationsofthesedata.Thedata
representonebroilerfarmandshouldbetakenassuch.
Table 1. Average and Range of Propane Costs per
Flock as a Percentage of the Settlement Check (SC)
No. Av. Cost Cost Range Av. Jan. Low
Year Flocks (% of SC) (% of SC) (degrees F)*
1991 5 9.11 1.17-27.67 24.9
1992 6 7.97 1.43-15.94 30.0
1993 5 6.50 0.48 - 13.23 26.3
1994 7 8.01 2.03 - 16.60 25.3
1995 6 8.42 0.78 - 19.02 26.9
1996 6 21.29 3.38 - 34.11 22.2
1997 6 10.60 2.73-20.61 22.7
1998 5 8.13 1.13 - 17.97 32.1
1999 5 8.34 2.59 - 16.54 30.8
2000 5 9.98 2.33 - 19.86 27.1
2001 7 20.99 4.88 - 35.99 25.1
2002 6 27.46 4.46-64.67 27.9
2003 6 23.36 2.17-57.31 23.7
2004 6 29.11 6.84 - 46.08 27.9
2005 5 29.35 7.28 - 45.62 29.8
2006 4 10.83** 0.73 - 20.66** 35.1
2007 5 28.72 1.22 - 62.50 25.1
* Average Low Temperature in Fayetteville during January
according to NOAA data. NOAA data indicate that January
is,onaverage,thecoldestmonthoftheyear.
**2006 was a partial year running from April through Dec.
Summary
Highpropanepriceshavepoultryproducersstrugglingto
keeptheirfarmsinoperation.Somearequestioningwhether
recentexpensiverenovationsaresavingorcostingmoney.
Every operation is unique, making that a diffcult question
toanswer.Itdependsoneachindividualproducersunique
situation (farm location, energy costs, integrator incentives
and management style). During 2007, the ABRF paid the
highestpriceinthefarmshistoryforbothgasandelectricity.
However,integratorincentivestorenovateoffsetsomeof
thosehighercosts.Electricitycostincreasedfrom5.04%to
5.26%whilegascostdecreasedfrom26.34%to21.77%ofthe
settlementcheckafterrenovationcomparedtotheprevious
5-yr period. Limited data exists for the post-renovation period
and these fgures will likely change with time. Caution should
betakennottoreadmoreintothedatathanisactuallythereat
thisearlystage.
ENERGY USE continued on page 4
4
Jim Plyler, Consultant, Turkey Health & Specialties, LLC., and
Susan Watkins, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture
Gut Health - Is Anything More
Important in Turkey Production?
Introduction
Gut health challenges are a signifcant and costly issue for turkey live production. Thanks
tothepowerofgeneticselection,thecommercialturkeyhasundergonedramaticimprovements
in growth and feed effciency. Unfortunately the new and improved turkey remains vulnerable to
entericdiseasessuchasenterovirus,astrovirus,coronavirus,reovirus,rotavirusandotherunnamed
viruses, not to mention the bacterial challenges (E. coli, SalmonellaandClostridium) and protozoal
issues (coccidia, Hexamita, Trichomonas, Cochlosoma and cryptosporidia). And with feed costs
increasing,evenonepointlostinfeedconversionisaneconomicchallenge.Guthealthissuescan
resultinlossoffeedconversion,uniformity,weight,rateofgain,andhighercondemnationrates.
Therefore, prevention of gut enteric challenges can result in signifcant savings. By reviewing the
stages of development and identifying areas in the production process that are crucial to optimizing
guthealth,themodernturkeyproducercanmakesoundmanagementdecisionsthatsupportthebot-
tom line, a proftable business.
Management of Breeders and Eggs
Optimizing gut health begins before the producer ever receives the poults. The 28 day incu-
bation process at the hatchery is actually the frst weeks of life for the poult with the poult being 4
weeks old when he arrives at the brooder barn. Poult quality and health status is greatly infuenced
by the nutrients and antibodies the poult receives from the egg yolk. The beneft the poult receives
from the egg will be dependent on the hens nutritional and immune status. Therefore, the frst cru-
cial step in minimizing enteric challenges is proper management of the breeder bird. If not treated
properly,bacterialinfectionsinbreederbirdscanbethestartofentericissuesinpoults.Poultsneed
tobefreeofSalmonella, PseudomonasandClostridium at hatch. A sound breeder program will
focus on breeder nutrition, breeder management, breeder vaccination programs (including serologi-
cal monitoring to check titers) and preventing disease challenges
. Toassuretheeggisnotcompromised,thereshouldbeaconsistentprogramforegghandling,
sanitation and holding. It is benefcial to set eggs according to length of storage time and egg size
as well as fock age and vaccination program for breeders. This approach allows a more uniform
hatch of poults similar in size and immune backgrounds. Close monitoring of incubation tempera-
ture,humidityandpulltimealongwithathoroughunderstandingofequipmentcapabilitiesinclud-
ing the delivery truck will help minimize poor uniformity in poults delivered to the farm. Remem-
ber,moststressinpoultsoccursasaresultofdehydrationduetooverheating.Inaddition,fewer
lethargic poults will arrive at the farm if hot or cold spots in the delivery truck are minimized.
References
Tabler, G. Tom. 2007. Applied broiler research farm report: Production results and economic returns before and after
renovation. Avian Advice 9(4):4-5.
ENERGY USE continued from page 3
...prevention
of gut enteric
challenges
can result in
significant
savings

Barn Clean-Out Programs
Theproducerneedstohaveplentyoftruedowntime
between focks and must utilize this time wisely. A good
clean-out program will include sweeping the foor after litter
isremoved;athoroughwashdownbeforedisinfection;useof
soapanddisinfectantsthatarecompatible;andafterdisinfec-
tion of the barn, application of a litter amendment to the foor
to kill bacteria that can not be sanitized in dirt. Also important
are good programs for darkling beetle, fy, rodent, varmint
andwildbirdcontrol.Goodclean-outprogramsarenon-nego-
tiableindefeatingentericchallenges.Inaddition,theground
outsideofthebarn,particularlyaroundtheexhaustfansand
nearthedoorswhereequipmentandpersonnelenterandexit,
mustbetreated.Onceareasinandaroundbarnsareclean,
maintainingastrictbiosecurityprogramistheonlyoptionfor
maintainingsanitation.Thisincludeskeepingthebarndoors
closedevenwhenthehousesareempty.
Being Ready for Poult Arrival
Oncethepoultsarriveonthefarm,theproducer,service
technician,nutritionist,andveterinarianallbecomerespon-
sible for the success or failure of gut health. A good poult
assessmentuponarrivalisparamount.Thisassessmentcan
helptheproducertoknowimmediatelyifpoultsarestressed
and need extra attention. Less than desirable poults can be
managed into a successful fock but, only with strong manage-
mentintensity
Poults never recover from a poor start. Before the poults
arrive, the barn should be ready (feed and water in place and
accessible; ventilation system and heaters working). The
producershouldalsohaveadequatehelpforquickpoult
placement.Makesurethelitteriswarm,butnothot.Itis
mucheasiertowarmthebirdsalittlemoreifnecessary,than
itistocoolthemdown.Ifapoultisoverheatedordehy-
drated,whetherinthehatchery,truckorfarm,thedamages
are often irreversible. Birds that have been slightly chilled
can be warmed and in most cases things are fne. BUT this
doesnotmeanuseNOheat!!!Thebirdwillletyouknowifit
is comfortable or too hot or cold. Loud screaming, running,
pacing,orhuddlingpoultswilltellthestory.Ifpoultsarent
happy,thereshouldbeasenseofurgencyaboutcorrectingthe
problem. Staying focused on the focks needs for the frst 4
weeksoftheirlifecanalmostguaranteesuccess.
The quicker poults fnd feed and water, the faster their
digestivetractwillbegintofunctionnormally.Proper,con-
sistentlightingprogramandintensitywillhelpwithfeedand
water consumption. Proper feed presentation (including cor-
rect feeder height and feed depth adjustments) is important for
assuring that poults eat feed. Use of hydrated feed attractants
such as Oasis or Early Bird will also encourage poults to eat
andstimulatetheirappetite.Ifpoultsaredehydrated,make
surethefeedattractantiswellhydrated,butonlyusealittleon
thefeed.Thegoalistohavebirdscleanupattractantsquickly.
Puttingoutmorethantheywilleatinafewhoursmaycause
theunderlyingfeedtomoldleadingtocropmycosis.Ifgut
healthissueshavebeenaconsistentfarmproblem,consider
using disposable feed trays for a couple of focks to help break
the cycle. NEVER RUN OUT OF WATER OR FEED!!! De-
hydratedbirdsdonteatandbirdswithoutfeedeatlitter.Eat-
ing litter can cause birds to consume signifcant bacterial, viral
or protozoal challenges, which could lead to enteric issues.
Water Sanitation and Management
Utilize a thorough water line fush and line cleaning with
a proven water system disinfectant between focks. Since
slow water fow during brooding promotes warm water and
potentiallymicrobialgrowthinthesystem,thesecanleadtoa
bioflm in the water system which makes the lines 10 to 1000
times harder to clean. Without complete removal of bioflm
or slime, problems may never be completely solved. By
thoroughlycleaningthewaterlinesbeforethebirdsarrive,it
ispossibletohaveamoreconsistentandeffectivedailywater
sanitationprogramwhenthebirdsarepresent.Investina
doubleinjectionsystemsoalongwithchlorine,awateracidi-
fer can be injected to lower the pH thus allowing the chlorine
in the bleach to work more quickly. Use target values at the
endofthewaterlineof2-5ppmfreechlorine,a6.0to7.0pH
and an ORP (oxidation reduction potential) of 750-850 mV.
Ifsupplementalwaterdrinkersareusedtostartpoults,make
sure they are clean and flled with sanitized water on a daily
basisormoreoftenisevenbetter.
Havetheverybestwatersanitationprograminplace
every day of the focks life. Often producers get in a cycle
of removing the water sanitizer in order to add products such
as medications, vitamins and electrolytes. Remember proper
useofantibiotictreatmentsiskeyinestablishingoptimumgut
microfora. It is also important to remember that over use of
water additives can promote bacterial growth and bioflm in
thedrinkingwatersystemwhichcancontributetoguthealth
problems.Whiletherearetimeswhentheseproductsmight
beuseful,aproducershouldthinklongandhardaboutusing
productsthatcouldcompromisethequalityofthewatersince
turkeyswilldrinkatleast2poundsofwaterforeverypound
offeedconsumed.Onewaytoobjectivelytestthetheory
aboutwhetherawateradditiveishelpfulistopaycloseatten-
tiontothequalityofthebirddroppingsoncethebirdshave
beenonaproductforafewhours.Ifthedroppingsbecome
TURKEY GUT HEALTH continued on page 6

looseandwatery,theproductshouldberemovedandbirds
placed back on sanitized water. The use of copper based prod-
uctsisanexceptiontotherule.Periodicuseofcoppersulfate
or copper proteinate products in the water can be benefcial for
preventingcropmycosis,butdroppingsmaybeloose.
Ifpoultsareseverelybeaktrimmed,itiscriticalthat
nipple drinker line pressure be minimized to enhance the
poults ability to drink. Use water meters to monitor water
consumptiontoassurebirdsarealwaysincreasingtheirdaily
water intake. If water consumption drops or fat lines, birds
arenotwellandaproducercanrespondbeforetheissues
becomeadisaster.Ifdrinkersaredifferentbetweenthebrood
and fnish barn, make sure some of the fnish barn drinker
typesareplacedinthebroodbarnbeforemovesothebirds
willhaveadequatetimetoadjusttotheirnewwatersupply.
Service Technician Role
Theservicetechnicianplaysanimportantroleinthesuc-
cess of all aspects of a fock, but especially in the prevention
ofguthealthissues.Ifpre-placementpoultryhousechecks
are utilized, many problems can be corrected or prevented
beforetheybecomefullblowndisasters.Servicetechnicians
shouldperformapoultqualityassessmentatplacementtohelp
getthestartoffontherightfootandmakenecessarymanage-
mentadjustments.Ifthefarmhistoryisnotgoodregarding
diseasechallenges,thencloselymonitoredfollow-upsby
servicetechnicianswillpaybigdividends.
Inaddition,athoroughfarminventoryonproblemfarmscould
revealproblemssuchascloggedornon-workingdrinkersand
feeders.
Inentericdiseasesituations,servicetechniciansareoften
asked, Is something missing from the feed? Yet, most often
feedsareexactlyasformulatedbythenutritionistandthe
realquestionsisWhatcausedthesebirdstoeatlitterandnot
feed?Inadequatedailybirdcareorpoormanagementarefre-
quentlyinvolvedinsuchsituationandshouldberuledoutbe-
forelookingforlessobviouscauses.Poormanagementissues
could include improper ventilation (too much or too little),
inadequatetemperaturecontrol,excessivelittermoisture,high
levels of ammonia, distasteful water (due to too much sanitizer
or microbial growth), poor feed presentation or any number of
otherissues.
Nutritionist Role
Whilethenutritionistplaysanimportantroleines-
tablishingproperguthealth,therearetwokindsofpoultry
nutritionists,thosethatformulateforgivingdietsandthose
whoformulatebareessentialdietsthatareunforgiving.It
is important to realize that feeding low quality or marginal
rationstothenewandimprovedpoultcanpotentiallydoir-
reversibledamage.Sinceturkeyshavethehighestrateofgain
earlyinlife,theyneednutrientdensedietsthatsupportthe
rapid growth rate. Feeding for least cost in the frst two diets
or approximately the frst eight weeks can result in lost perfor-
mance that is never regained. The frst diets need good quality
ingredientsplusqualityfattomakethefeedpalatable.There
is some dispute that high fat diets (6-8%) are not well utilized
TURKEY GUT HEALTH continued from page 5
by the very young poult, but the real beneft of fat may be that
qualityfatstimulatesthepoultsappetite.Thepoultneeds
adequate levels of highly utilizable essential amino acids.
Laboratory assays of diets and ingredients will assist in
assuringthecorrectqualityandquantityofnutrientsarepres-
ent. Running regular mixer profles to will confrm that mix
timeisadequateandthatmicro-ingredientssuchascoccidio-
statsareuniformlydistributedinthefeed.Itisalsoimportant
toknowthequalityofanimalby-productsindietsanddeter-
mineifmanufacturerstreattheiringredientforClostridium.It
mightevenpaytotesttheseingredientsonaroutinebasisfor
Clostridium.
Notonlyisapropernutritionalprogramcritical,buta
strongqualitycontrolprogramisamusttoassurethatquality
ingredientsarereceivedandhighqualityfeedproduced.This
isasimportantformacroingredientssuchascorn,soybean,
fatandanimalproteinssourcesasitisformicroingredients
suchasvitamins,aminoacids,andtraceminerals.Itisalso
crucialtoensurethatthefeedmilldeliversdurablepelletsand
crumbles with a minimum amount of fnes to encourage feed
consumption.Properlyformulatedfeedsareworthlessifbirds
donoteatthefeedasacompletemeal.
Finally, the use of antibiotics for bacterial challenges is
becominglimitedsoitisimportanttoexplorealternativeop-
tions such as competitive exclusion or enzymes which aid the
digestionoffeedcomponents.Wemustuseanyadvantageto
offsetdiseasechallenges.
Veterinarian Role
Keeptheveterinarianinvolvedtohelpdetermineifgut
health issues are of bacterial, protozoal, or viral origin. It is
important to know the poult source (history), the farm his-
tory and to use performance reports as your report card. You
can also check fnished feed samples, water samples and fecal
droppingstohelpdiscoverrootcausesofproblems.Iftruth
betold,higherintensitymanagementmaybetheanswerwhen
previousperformancehasbeenpoor.Inaddition,youcando
your own postings of birds to determine if the fock is headed
foradisasterorifthingsareokay.However,agoodmonitor-
ing program (serology, histopathology, PCR, and periodic
postings) along with a good laboratory and pathologist will
often provide more defnitive answers.
Ifguthealthisanissue,pullahistologicalsampleon
every fock and submit to a laboratory with a good patholo-
gist.Thiswilltellthestory.Iftherearestillquestions/issues,
submit a fresh intestinal sample (placed on dry ice immedi-
ately) to your pathologist for virus isolation. When pulling
gutsforhistologicalsamples,itisimportanttorandomlyselect
thebirdssothatthesamplingincludeshealthyaswellassick
birds. It is also important to observe crop and gizzard contents
whenpullinggutsamples.Noteonlabsubmissionformif
litterwaspresentbecauseeatinglitterwilloftenresultincoc-
cidiosischallengesandexcessivemucusproductioninthegut,
alteringhistologicalresults.Ifthebirdsarefulloflitterthis
shouldbeacriticalwarningsignthatmeasuresshouldbetaken
todrawbirdsbacktofeedeitherbytopdressingfeedwithan
attractantorhandrunningthefeedline.
7
SYNDROME continued on page 8
Runting-Stunting Syndrome
in Broilers
Introduction
Themicrobialagentscausinganumberofintestinaldiseasesinyoungbroilershavenot
yet been identifed and such conditions are often called viral enteritis (Anonymous, 2008).
However,agentscausingsimilarsignsinyoungbirdshavebeenreportedaroundtheworld
and have been called runting stunting syndrome (RSS), malabsorption syndrome, brittle bone
disease, infectious proventriculitis, helicopter disease and pale bird syndrome (Rebel et al.,
2006)
Runting-stunting syndrome (RSS) was frst reported in the 1940s, became well known
to the commercial industry in the 1970s and has since been reported around the world (Rebel
et al. 2006). RSS continues to cause economic hardship in the broiler industry through
decreasedbodyweights,elevatedfeedconversions,reduceduniformity,reducedlivability,plant
downgrades and secondary diseases (Anonymous, 2008; Zavala and Barbosa, 2006).
Recognizing Runting Stunting
While symptoms of RSS can vary dramatically, birds are generally affected by RSS early
in life with symptoms and mortality peaking at about 11 days. After placement RSS affected
birds may huddle around feeders and waterers, or may persistently peck at the walls. Feed
consumption is often depressed. A sizable proportion of the fock may be involved and while
affected birds that are not culled may not die, they never recover. Often fock mortality is
unaffected, but fock uniformity which normally runs about 70% decreases to about 35%. As
F. Dustan Clark and Frank T. Jones,
Conclusion
One question that is frequently asked is: What is missing from the feed? Well if enteric issues are present, normally the
missing component is their beak/mouth. A better question is: What caused the bird to back off feed and eat litter? The frst step
istocloselyexaminethedailycareofthebirdstoidentifypoormanagementissuessuchasoverorunderventilation,temperature
swings, wet litter, ammonia, bad tasting water due to too much sanitizer or microbial growth, or poor feed presentation.
Dealing with enteric issues/gut health is a total team effort. All members of the team must fulfll their roles whether it is the
breeder/hatcherymangers,thenutritionist,theveterinarian,theservicetechnicianortheproducer.Strong,consistentprograms
mustbeimplementedandfollowedtohavegoodguthealth!Preventingguthealthdisastersrequiresoffenseanddefenseparticu-
larlysincemanyofthechallengesareseasonal.Keepinggoodqualityfeedandwaterinfrontofthebirdatalltimesiscrucial
asisdailymonitoringfeedandwaterconsumptionandgrowthrate.Itisalsoimportanttohaveastrongsenseofurgencyabout
implementingcorrectiveactionandensuringimmediatefollowthroughwhenissuesariseisessentialforsuccess.
As the turkey continues to improve in growth rate and feed effciency, it will be critical for everyone involved in bird man-
agement to stay in tune with how to rear this evolving bird. Even subtle changes in bird health, especially gut health, infuence
theirlivelihood.Costtoproduceisstillparamountwiththecompanyandproducer,butwhenimprovingcostsleadsusastrayof
soundproductionpractices,theresultsmaybemorecostly.Whenentericissuesgetthelead,theyalwayswintheraceandyou,
thecompanyandproducer,arethelosers.
TURKEY GUT HEALTH continued from p. 7

SYNDROME continued from page 7
feathersappearonaffectedbirds,theyaresmallerthannormal
and may be curled especially at the wing tips (helicopter
disease) (Zavala, 2006). The legs and beak of affected birds
may appear pale in color (pale bird syndrome) and some birds
may have rickets or broken legs (brittle bone disease) (Rebel
et al., 2006).
Whendiseasedbirdsarenecropsied,theliversare
generallysmall,butgallbladdersareenlarged.Intestinesare
thin and translucent with large amounts of fuids along with
poorly digested feed present in the lumen (Zavala, 2006).
Intestinesofaffectedbirdsmayappearenlargedwhereas
the stomachs (proventriculi) may appear infamed (Shapiro
et al., 1998, Guy, 1998). The normal intestinal growth of
the jejunum (the portion of the intestine where much of the
digestion and nutrient absorption takes place) is interrupted
by RSS (Esmail, 1988; Rebel et al, 2006). Pancreases from
diseased birds degenerate and digestive enzymes are reduced.
Droppingsfromaffectedbirdsareunusuallyloose,ventsare
soiledandlittermaybecomedamp,enhancingthepossibility
of secondary infections (Zavala, 2006; Zavala and Sellers,
2005).
What causes Runting Stunting Syndrome?
Researchers have not reproduced all the feld symptoms
of RSS experimentally and believe that several viruses,
bacteria and other pathogens may be involved. Reovirus was
originally thought to be the cause of RSS, but adenovirus,
enterovirus,rotavirus,parvovirusandothersmayalsobe
involved. Bacteria often isolated from RSS birds (E. coli,
Proteus micabilis, Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus
cohnii, Clostridium perfringes, Bacteroides fragilis and
Bacillus licheniformis) are commonly found in the intestinal
tractandmaycausesecondaryinfections,aggravating
the initial lesions (Rebel et al., 2006). Brooding at cool
temperatures tends to worsen RSS symptoms, as does short
down-time between focks. Certain strains of birds appear
to be more susceptible to the effects of RSS than others and
male birds are more severely affected than females (Zavala
and Barbosa, 2006). However, it is interesting to note that
researchershavefoundthatresistantbroilerstrainshave
strongerimmunologicalresponsesthansusceptiblestrains.
Thisdifferenceisparticularlypronouncedwhengutimmunity
is compared (Rebel et al., 2006). Some researchers have
suggested that the poor growth and retarded feathering (which
are consistently observed in RSS cases) are due to a common
underlyinginfection,whilevirtuallyallothersymptomsresult
fromotherinfectionsormanagementfactors.
Controlling Runting Stunting Syndrome
RSS often appears suddenly and disappears equally
suddenly, making it diffcult to determine effective control
measures. However, it is important to remember that RSS is a
diseaseofyoungbirdswithsymptomsandmortalitypeaking
atabout11dayssocontroleffortsshouldbefocusedearly
in the life of the fock. Control efforts should focus in three
primary areas: Biosecurity, good poultry house management
andvaccination.
When RSS is reported in an area, it is important for
the industry in the area to tighten Biosecurity procedures to
reducethepossibilityofexposureandtoslowthespreadofthe
disease. It is particularly important to emphasize procedures
thatcontrolfarmvisitors,properlymanagedisposalof
mortality and limit vermin infestations (rodents, wild birds and
insects).
Theobjectiveofproperpoultryhousemanagementis
toprovideanenvironmentforthebirdsthatisvirtuallystress
free. In RSS situations, poultry house management is doubly
important. Good management starts before the birds arrive. A
minimumof12daysofdowntimeshouldbeallowedbetween
focks. Since litter has been shown to transmit the disease,
it should be removed if birds have broken with RSS. If it is
not possible to remove the litter, heat the litter to 100F for
100hoursorcompostthelitterinthepoultryhousetolessen
the possibility of passing the disease to the next fock via
litter.Thebroodchambershouldbecleanedanddisinfected
asthoroughlyaspossiblepriortochickplacement.Sincelow
broodingtemperatureshavebeenshowntoworsentheeffects
of RSS, DO NOT reduce brooding temperatures to save fuel.
Checkonbirdsoftenandmaintainahouseenvironmentthat
is as stress free as possible. Remove dead birds quickly and
cull severely if RSS breaks. The application of vinegar or
other acidifers via water may reduce spread of the disease.
Supplementalvitaminsandmineralsinbothbreederand
broilerfeedshasalsobeenshowntoimproveimmunityin
chicks and their ability to deal with RSS.
Certain strains of reovirus (e.g. 1733 and 2408) were
originally implicated as the cause of RSS and vaccines have
beendevelopedforsuchstrains.Whilevaccinationofbroilers
for RSS may be effective about 50% of the time, a consistent
vaccinationprogramforbreedersoftenprovideslongterm
benefts (Shane, 2008, van der Heide, 2000). RSS vaccination
programsforbreedersgenerallyprovideprotectionforadult
birds,reducingthepossibilityofspreadtoyoungbirds.In
addition,immunityinbreederhesispassedtochicks,helping
toprotectthemfromthedisease.
Summary:
Runting stunting syndrome (RSS) has caused economic
lossesinthepoultryindustryforoverthreedecades.Whilethe
reovirus was originally thought to cause RSS, further research
hasshownthatothervirusesandbacteriaarelikelyinvolved.
Control of RSS involves Biosecurity, good poultry house
managementandvaccination.
References:
Anonymous. 2008. Malabsorption syndrome (pale
chickorbirdsyndrome,infectiousproventriculitis,runting
& stunting syndrome, helicopter disease). http://www.
worldpoultry.net/poultry_malabsortion_syndrome/accessed
3/31/08
Esmail, S. H. M. 1988. Scanning electron microscope
ofintestinalvillousstructuresandtheirputativerelationto
digestion and absorption in chickens. Reprod. Nutr. Develop.
28(6A):1479-1487.
9
Weighing Broiler Breeder
Females Post Feeding
Introduction
Obtainingaccuratebodyweightsisacriticalpartoftheprocessofrearingreplacement
broiler breeder pullets and managing breeder hens and males. From the frst few weeks of age in the
pullethouse,allfeedallocationsaredeterminedbythebirdsweeklyweightgains.Obtainingac-
curatebodyweightsisveryimportanttomaintaininguniformity,bodyconformationandtheoverall
development of pullets and young cockerels. Research has shown that accurately and uniformly
controllingbodyweightofbothreplacementbreedersandbreedersinthehenhousewillresultin
improvedperformanceparameters.
In the United States, the majority of poultry integrators rear pullets on some version of a
skip-a-day feed program in order to control body weight among all the birds in a house. Under our
currenthousingconditions,skip-a-dayfeedprogramsarethebestwaytouniformlydistributefeedto
allbirdssimultaneouslyinanefforttomaintainbodyweightuniformity.However,thepresenceof
feed in the crop or digestive tract will infate the actual body weight of the birds and skew feed allot-
ments. Therefore, replacement breeders are typically weighed on off feed days to normalize the data
andnotconfoundbodyweightswitheitherthepresenceorabsenceoffeedinthecropordigestive
tract.Thisallowsforbodyweightmeasurementstobeconsistentfromweektoweekwithoutregard
forfeedcleanuptimeandthepresenceorabsenceoffeedinthecrop.Therefore,eachweekpullets
andcockerelsareweighedwithanemptycropanddigestivetract.Thisprocesscontinuesuntilbirds
aremovedtothehenhouseandfeedingbeginsonaneverydaybasis.Theseweightsareconsidered
tobeemptyweights.
WEIGHING continued on page 10
SYNDROME continued from page 8
Guy, J. S. 1998. Virus infections of the gastrointestinal tract of poultry. Poultry Sci. 77:1166-1175.
Rebel, J. M. J., F. R. M. Balk, J. Post, S. Van Hemert, B. Zekarias and N. Stockhofe. 2006. Malabsorption syndrome in
broilers. Worlds Poultry Sci. J. 62:17-29.
Rebel, J. M. J., J. T. P. van Dam, B. Zekarias, F. R. M. Balk, J. Post, A. Flores Minambres and A. A. H. M. ter Huurne.
2004. Vitamin and trace mineral content of feed of breeders and their progeny: Effects of growth, feed conversion and severity of
Malabsorption syndrome of broilers. British Poultry Sci. 45(2):201-209.
Shane, S. 2008. Latest advances in poultry health. Poultry Intl, April 2008. http://www.wattpoultry.com/PoultryInternational/
Article.aspx?id=22434 Accessed 4/2/08.
Shapiro, F., I. Nir and D. Heller. 1998. Stunting syndrome in broilers: Effect of stunting syndrome inoculum obtained from
stunting syndrome affected broilers, on broilers, leghorns and turkey poults. Poultry Sci. 77:230-236.
Van der Heide, L. 2000. The history of avian reovirus. Avian Dis. 44:638-641.
Zavala, G. 2006. Runting stunting syndrome (RSS) in broilers: In vivo studies. http://www.poultry-health.com/fora/inthelth/
zavala_wpdc_06.pdf Accessed 3/31/08.
Zavala, G. and T. Barbosa. 2006. Runting and stunting in broiler chickens. Apinco-Facta, May 2006. http://www.poultry-
health.com/fora/inthelth/zavala_apinco_06.pdf Accessed 3/31/08.
Zalvala, G. and H. Sellers. 2005. Runting-stunting syndrome. The Informed Poultry Professional Issue 85:1-4. http://www.
vet.uga.edu/avian/documents/pip/2005/PIPJuly-Aug%202005.pdf Accessed 3/31/08.
R. Keith Bramwell, Jon R. Moyle, Doug E. Yoho and Bob S. Harper,
10
WEIGHING continued from page 9
Inthehenhouse,mostcommercialproducersmovefroma
skip-a-daytoaneverydayfeedprogramashensarebrought
into production. Feed is often provided daily in the early
morninghoursshortlyafterthelightsareturnedon.While
feedinghenseverydayinthehenhousehasproventobean
effectivemanagementtool,birdscannotbeweighedonoff
feeddays.Thishasledtotheconcernoverwhetherhen
weights are truly refective of the actually body weight and
mass.Consequently,currentindustryrecommendationsare
designedtoaddressthisissueandsuggestproducersweigh
breederslateintheafternoonhourstoobtaintheempty
weights.Thisallowsanyfeedconsumedtohavetimetopass
throughthebirdsdigestivesystemandthereforecreatean
emptyweightsituationforweighingpurposes.Inbreeders
thiscanbefurthercomplicatedbythefactthatthemajority
ofeggproductionoccursinthemorninghoursfollowingfeed
cleanupwhichwouldresultinadditionallybodyweightloss.
Toaddressthisissue,aresearchprojectwasdesigned
toweighbreedersatvariousintervalsduringthedaytodeter-
mine the best time to weigh birds to most accurately refect
actualbodyweightgains.
When to weigh breeders
Birds used in this study were housed at the University
of Arkansas Broiler Breeder Research Farm. A single pen of
breederscontaining71henswasusedforthisstudyandduring
eachweighperiodallhenswerecorralledinacatchpenwith
eachhenweighedindividuallysothatnosamplingerrorcould
affect the results. All hens were weighed prior to daily feeding
and again at feed cleanup time. Additional bird weights were
obtained at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 hours following feed cleanup.
This process took place on the same birds at 24, 28, 34 and 41
weeksofage.Theseageperiodsrepresentedpre-laying,pre-
peak,peakandpostpeakinproductionstagesoflife.
Weightdatafromthe41weekoldbirdsaredisplayed
in Figure 1 and show no signifcant differences in body weight
atanytimeperiodafterfeedcleanupthrough10hoursafter
feed is consumed. Data from each of the other ages (24, 28
and 34 weeks of age) refect the same patterns and trends with
no signifcant differences detected between time intervals
followingfeedcleanuptime.Itwaspreviouslybelievedthat
henswouldlosebodyweightthroughoutthedaytoapproach
theemptyweightsfoundpriortofeeding.However,these
datamakeitapparentthatthepassingoffeedandthecon-
sumptionofwaterappeartooffseteachotherandallowthe
hentomaintainanearconstantbodyweightthrough10hours
following feed cleanup. Body weights obtained prior to
feedingwouldbetheonlyweightsthatcouldbeconsidered
emptyweightsastheywereobtainedimmediatelyafter
lights came on in the morning and are a refection of body
weightlossduetofeedandwaterpassageoccurringduring
thedarkhours.
Theseresultswouldallowbreederservicetechsto
weighbreedersinthehenhouseatanytimefollowingfeed
cleanupandthatthedatawouldbeconsistentwithbody
weightsobtainedatanytimethroughouttheday.Thesedata
willallowtechnicianstobemoreproductiveinagivendayin
regardstoschedulingweighingofbreedersinthehenhouse.
Figure 1. Average hen body weights (g) at 41 weeks of age.
11
How to weigh birds
Whenweighingbirds,itisoftenrecommendedtoweighallbirdscaughtinacatchpenand
not weigh a specifc number of birds to meet a given criteria. This has been the recommendation
for broilers in research trials but has not been evaluated in replacement pullets and breeders. As part
ofthisproject,bodyweightswererecordedforeachhenintheordertheywerecaughtinthecatch
pen. For each age group and for each time interval previously mentioned, this resulted in 40 inci-
dences of weighing all birds in a catch pen. Data presented in Figure 2 is a summary of all the data
obtained from this project and shows that the last birds caught in a catch pen are signifcantly lighter
weight than the frst birds caught. This data supports that found with broilers in research trials and
demonstratestheimportanceofweighingallbirdsinacatchpen.
For instance, if 60 birds are caught in a catch pen and only the frst 50 are weighed because
that meets the minimum number needed then the body weight recorded would not be refective of
the actually weight of the birds caught or the birds in the fock. If this occurs with pullets and feed
allotmentsaredeterminedbaseduponthesebodyweightstheninaccuratefeedallotmentscouldbe
provided and less control over fock body weight would be the result.
Summary
1.Whenweighingbroilerbreedersinthehenhouse,accurateandconsistentbodyweights
canbeachievedbyweighingbirdsatanytimeafterfeedcleanup.Thereisnoadvantagetowaiting
forfeedpassageinanattempttoobtainemptyweightsinbreedersduringtheafternoonhours.
2.Whenweighingbirdscaughtincatchpensitisimportanttoweighallbirdscaughtinthe
penandnotstopatapredeterminednumberofbirds.Thelastbirdscaughtwillbethesmallestbirds
and need to be included in the fnal group weight to most accurately determine the average body
weight of the birds in a fock.
WEIGHING continued from page 10
Figure 2. Average body weights (g) by order birds were caught.
1
UA Poultry Science
Extension Faculty
for Poultry Science
by Jim Plyler, Turkey & Health Specialties, LLC., and Susan Watkins, Center of
Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas
INSIDE
page 4
Applied Broiler
Research Farm Report:
Production Results and
Economic Returns
Before and After
Renovations
by G. Tom Tabler
page 6
Broiler Chicken Growth
in Perspective
by Frank T. Jones

page 7
Evaluation of Water
Sanitaizers
by Jennifer Hughes,
Amanda Hancock,
Brookee Dean and
Susan Watkins
page 9
Understanding and
Controlling Feral
Pigeons (Columba livia)
by Frank T. Jones
Advice

RELATIONS continued on page 2
Keys to Successful Company-
Grower Relations
Good Relations are Important
Poultryproductioncostsareatan
all time high which means fnancially
challengingtimesfortheindustry.Noone
needstoberemindedthatwhenmoneyis
tight,frustrationlevelsforbothgrowersand
companypersonnelcansoar.Thatswhyit
isimportanttorememberthebasicsofbeing
a good fock supervisor because actions that
fuel grower unhappiness will beneft no one.
By focusing on and practicing the key
elements for a positive working relationship,
companypersonnelcanhelpmaintaingrower
confdence and help improve proftability
evenduringtoughtimes.Growersalsocan
beneft from practicing relationship building
skills because it helps demonstrate their desire
tohavethecompanyssupport.Eventhe
mostinexperiencedservicetechnicianwill
bemoreofanassetwhengrowerstreatthe
individualwithrespectandappreciationand
vice/versa.Thefollowingparagraphsoutline
relationship building skills that are tried and
trueasnotedbyalongtimesuccessfulpoultry
man.Sometimesjustalittlereminderofthe
basics is all we need to keep our business on
the right track.
THE SIX SENSES FOR SUCCESS
Sense of Awareness
Servicetechnicianstodaycarrya
greaterburdenofresponsibilitythantheir
predecessors and that makes it critical
thateyesandearsremainwideopenatall
times. Any savvy old timer will quickly
agree that it is usually overlooking/missing
thelittledetailsthatcreatesomeofthe
AVIAN
biggestchallengesinpoultryproduction.
Unfortunately,inourcurrentworldof
informationoverload,weoftenputon
blindersbecausewefeelitistheonlyway
wecannotbementallyoverwhelmed.So
the next time you fnd yourself distracted
fromthebasicsorconsumedbyissuesthat
reallyarenotessentialtothecorebusiness
ofsuccessfulpoultryfarming,sitdown
withyourbestpoultrygrowerandletthem
remindyouwhatisimportantforproducing
a good fock. Use that information to make a
checklist of what to notice when you pull on
afarmorenterabarn.Writingitdownand
keeping it handy can help service technicians
maintainahighlevelofawarenessforthe
issuesthatcountmost.Beawareandfocus
onissueswhichyoucancorrectorcontrol!
Management Intensity
Closelyassociatedtosenseofawareness
ismaintainingfocusonwhatiscriticalto
the mission of rearing proftable focks.
Thats where the checklist comes in handy.
Again,theinformationagehasresultedin
distractionsthatcaneatupalotoftimeand
attentionwithlittlevaluetothegrower,the
servicetechnicianorcompany.Knowing
whatisimportanttothesuccessofthe
businessandstayingfocusedcanhavea
tremendousimpactonyourcredibilityasa
companyrepresentative.Maybeitstimefor
afarminventorytoseethateverythingthats
supposedtobeinplaceisbeingproperly
utilized.Ifyouhavehighfeedprices,which

RELATIONS continued from page 1
wepresentlydo,thenyourintensityshouldbeonimproving
feed effciency. Every point of feed conversion improves the
company and producers pay check.
Sense of Urgency
Whenservicepersonneldonotaddressissuesor
problems in a timely manner, they risk destroying their
credibilitywiththegrowerandvaluetothecompany.When
a grower concerned about a sudden spike in mortality calls,
it is time to take immediate action because it is not only
thegrowerslivelihoodthatisthreatened,butalsoyoursas
thecompanyrepresentative.Timeisoftheessencewhen
diagnosingandcorrectingissuesthatinvolvedelicateliving
creatures like commercial broilers and turkeys. If you do not
care enough about your growers business to respond quickly
whenyourgrowersendsoutanSOSforhelp,thenyouare
inthewrongbusiness!Providingtimelysupporttoagrower
canhaveatremendousimpactongrowerloyaltyandattitude
becausetheactioncommunicatesthatyougenuinelycare.
Bottomline,correcttheopportunitiesASAP/PDQ!
Total Communication
Sinceservicetechnicianstypicallyspendmoretimewith
growersthananyothercompanyrepresentative(savethefeed
truck driver) their ability to represent company policies and
goodbirdmanagementinformationtothegrowersisessential.
Thecommunicationshouldbeclearandconciseyetpositive
whether it is written or spoken. Growers deserve the truth,
buttheyalsodeservetohavethemessagedeliveredina
mannerthatisunderstandableandclearlyaddressestheissue
at hand. Growers also deserve a service technician that works
asapartnernotasapoliceman.Windshieldtimesometimes
impairs logic/positive thinking. Stick with and communicate
thepropergameplan.
Listening
The least taught and most neglected skill in our society is
theartoftrulylisteningtoothers.Onceagain,theinformation
overloadageoftencausesustoselectivelychoosethepieces
ofinformationwewishtohearandthatisusuallythebits
of info that will make our lives less stressful. Unfortunately
manytimes,therealissuesofproblemsliejustunderthe
surfaceandmayneedalittlecoaxingtogettotherootcause.
Andtheonlywaytogetthereisoftenbygenuinelylistening
to the whole message and by asking questions. If a service
technician fnds themselves distracted and missing a message
fromagrowerthatcouldbecrucialinformation,itistimeto
practice good listening skills. Sometimes this can be as simple
as making a commitment to paraphrase the message that has
just been heard. When a person knows they must recall the gist
ofareceivedmessage,aneffectivepracticeistosayLetme
make sure I have this straight, you have just told me that .
Thispracticeencouragesservicetechnicianstostayfocused
ontheinformationdeliveredaswellashowthemessageis
delivered. When the grower knows the service technician
isfocusedontheirissues,thenthecommunicationchannels
areopenedforproblemsolving.Successfullisteningand
communicationisatwowayexchange.
Teamwork
Every marketed fock bears many signatures, from the
hatcheryandbreedermanager,tothefeeddeliverypersonnel
and others. But the most visible signatures on the fock report
cardarethoseofthegrowerandtheservicetechnicianbecause
they have the most infuence on the bird environment, which
includesairquality,temperatureandavailabilityoffeedand
good water. Nothing should make a service technician or
grower prouder than when their signature on a fock are
signsofsuccess;lowcosts,goodlivability,weights,goodgain
per day, and feed conversions, resulting in a good pay check.
Key to producing a signature fock is cooperatively focused
team work, with the service technician and the grower being
theteamleaders.
WHO ARE POULTRY PRODUCERS?
Tobuildasuccessfulandrewardingrelationshipwith
contractproducersandfarmmanagers,aservicetechnician
mustunderstandthegrowerculture.Producersaremanagers
whoareintelligentandofteneducatedifnotformallythen
certainly through hard work and experience. Producers
usually have chosen poultry farming because they like
independenceortheopportunitytobetheirownbossandset
their own work schedules. They have a desire for success
andtheytendtobegoaloriented.Poultrygrowersarehuman
and like to be treated with respect. Finally, many growers
aresecondandthirdgeneration.Moreandmoregrowersare
older and most likely from a generation very different from
thegenerationoftheservicetechnician.Poultrygrowers
dealwiththesameissuesasthecompany;environmental
compliance,foodsafety(properuseofchemicalsand
reduction of food pathogens), bird well being and increasing
productioncosts.Aservicetechnicianmustbeableto
explain how fock costs are determined on a performance
contract,andtheproducershouldunderstandthecontractand
how performance contracts work. The bottom line, service
techniciansandgrowersreallyhavemuchmoreincommon
thantheyaredifferent.Byfocusingonthecommonbonds,
servicetechnicianscanforgeastrongrelationshipwiththeir
growers.Byunderstandingandrespectingwhoagroweris,
servicetechnicianscanbuildtrustandloyalty.Producersare
thelifebloodtoanypoultrycompany!
SUCCESSFUL SERVICE TECHNICIAN/ FLOCK

SUPERVISOR QUALITIES
Be consistent
Consistentapplicationofcompanypoliciesand
procedureswithoutexceptionsisimportant,butitisalso
importanttorecognizethateachgrowerhasadifferent
temperamentandpersonality.Somegrowersrequireonlya
gentlenudgetogetaresponse,whileothersmayrequirea

frmer approach. Conscientious service personnel may spend
more time seeking to understand growers than dealing with
productionissues,butitisworththeeffort.Goingtheextra
mileforeverygrowerandvisitingeachfarmconsistently
sends a powerful message to growers you care and seek to be
asfairaspossible.Itisalsoimportanttobediligent.Dont
wait too long to implement corrective action. Follow-up when
yourequestagrowertoimplementasolutiontoaproblem.If
you are not diligent, the word will get out that you do not stick
toyourgoalsorbecomeinconsistentinyourexpectations.
Be professional
Alwaystreatproducerswithrespectevenifthe
relationshipbecomesstrained.Remembereveryonecan
haveabaddayduetopersonalproblemssowhenmindsets
arebad,waittoaddressissues.Alwaysbetotallytruthful.
Neverbeafraidtoadmitwhenyouarewrongandbewilling
toapologizewhenyouareatfault.Documentationisavery
importantaspectofprofessionalism.Keepaccurateand
detailedrecordstohelppreventmiscommunication.
Be fair
Let farm managers/producers know you care and that you
want them to be successful. Make sure requests to growers are
realistic and doable. Recognize and praise good work.
Be focused and spend time wisely
Donotletthejobbecomeboringandroutine.Avoid
redundancywhichleadstoboredomandcomplacency.
Oftenwecanbeoverwhelmedbyhowmuchneedstobe
accomplishedanditbecomessooverwhelmingthatitis
almosttemptingtojustdonothing.Onceagainitcanbeeasy
to get in a rut so when you fnd self losing focus or motivation
to do a good job, then fnd at least one thing on each farm to
focus on. It could be air, litter or water quality, but take that
concept and make sure you have helped that producer get the
bestthathecanwiththatconcept.Thenmovetoanotherarea.
By breaking the production cycle into specifc categories, then
focusing on specifc topics, the job can become manageable.
Other ways to break the rut cycle are conducting a farm
inventory. It is amazing how many times we can fnd things
that need to be addressed when we specifcally look at all the
details.Oneexampleofafarminventorystepwouldbeto
count all the brood stoves and categorize them into working
or non-working stoves. Do the same with feed pans, nipple
drinkers etc. You very well may help a producer identify root
causestoproblems.
Ask for feedback
Just like the trucks which have the Hows my driving?
signs, we need feedback to assure we are effectively
performingthejob.Itisamazinghowmanypeopleincluding
growers will never say a word about a topic until asked. If a
servicetechniciangenuinelywantstohelpagrowerimprove
their bottom line then try asking the following questions.
What can I do to help?
What do you need to succeed?
What do you think?
If nothing else, this helps establish that the grower-service
technicianrelationshipisapartnership.
Explain the importance of issues
Set the right example by knowing the business yourself.
This makes it much simpler to educate others and when we
educate,westandamuchbetterchanceofconvincingothers
thatourideasaresolid.
Credibility
Credibilityisbasedonhavingagenuineunderstanding
ofthebusinessincludinggrowercostsandpay.Aservice
technician should be able to explain fock costs on a
settlementsheetbecauseitprovescredibilityasacompany
representative.Italsobuildstrustifaservicetechnician
genuinelyunderstandsandcaresaboutthebusiness.No
onehasalltheanswersallthetime.Thereforeifthegrower
raisesaquestionwhichtheservicetechniciancannotreadily
answer;credibilitycanbemadebyassuringthegrowerthat
youwillgetananswerandthenfollowthroughinatimely
manner.
Conclusion
Which rung on a ladder is the most important? Every
rungisequallyimportantandthistheoryisthesamefor
poultry production. Every signature on a fock is equally
important in the success or failure of the fock, but there are
certainly two fock signatures, namely the grower and the
servicetechnicianwhicharethemostvisible.Duringtough
times, the necessity of a strong service technician-poultry
growerrelationshipiscritical.Byfocusingonthesixsenses
of success, knowing the business and taking time to practice
thequalitiesofsuccess,servicetechnicianscanbuildbonds
withgrowersthatwillweatherhardtimes.
4
G. Tom Tabler, Center of Excellence for
Poultry Science University of Arkansas
Report: Production Results and
Economic Returns Before and After
Renovations
Introduction
Renovations at the University of Arkansas Poultry Science Departments Applied Broiler
Research Farm (ABRF) were completed in April 2006. Six focks of broilers have been harvested
on the 4-house commercial-scale farm since renovations were complete. This report compares the
average production performance results of those 6 focks to the 5-yr average performance prior to
renovationonanindividualhousebasisaswellasforthefarmasawhole.
Performance Results
Table 1 lists average broiler performance at the ABRF before and after renovation. Since no
differenceswereseenbetweencondemnationrates,thesedatawereleftoutofTable1.Eventhough
about 2% fewer birds were placed per house after renovation than before (22,374 before renovation
versus 20,579 after renovation), these data were also not included. Prior to renovation the ABRF
averaged a 4.33 lb bird at 42 days of age with a 1.88 feed conversion, a livability of 94.90%, a 0.103
lb average daily gain and 91,257 pounds produced per house annually. After renovation the ABRF
averaged a 5.92 lb broiler at 46 days of age with a 1.87 feed conversion, a livability of 95.57%, a
0.129 average daily gain and 114,449 pounds produced per house annually. Although birds grown
after renovation were 4 days older and 1.6 pounds heavier, they showed a one point better feed con-
versionthandidbirdsgrownbeforerenovation.Inaddition,whencomparedtobirdsgrownbefore
renovation, birds grown after renovation had a 0.75% higher livability and gained 0.026 pounds
moreweightperday.Thesedataindicatedthattheenvironmentforgrowingbirdswasimproved
after renovations and birds responded to the enhanced care with greater production effciency.
Table 1. Average broiler performance at ABRF before and after renovation.
1

House
2
Age Feed Average Wt. Livability ADG
No. (Da) Conversion (Lbs) (%) (Lbs/Da)
B
3
A B A B A B A B A
1 42 46 1.91 1.89 4.19 5.97 94.49 96.33 0.100 0.130
2 42 46 1.87 1.85 4.39 5.97 95.34 96.42 0.105 0.130
3 42 46 1.87 1.85 4.36 5.90 94.94 95.21 0.103 0.128
4 42 46 1.88 1.88 4.38 5.85 94.46 94.32 0.104 0.127
Farm 42 46 1.88 1.87 4.33 5.92 94.81 95.57 0.103 0.129
1
Before data represent average performance on 27 focks placed between 2001 and 2005.
2
Hse. No.= House Number; Age=Age in days at processing; Feed Conv.=Feed Conversion;
Avg. Wt=Average Live Weight at slaughter; Livab=Livability; ADG=Average Daily Gain in
poundsperday.
3
B=Before Renovation; A=After Renovation
Although birds
grown after
renovation were 4
days older and 1.6
pounds heavier,
they showed a one
point better feed
conversion than did
birds grown before
renovation.

Prior to renovation major structural and equipment differences existed between at the ABRF. Before renovation houses 1
and 3 were curtain sided conventionally ventilated, while houses 1 and 2 were curtain sided tunnel ventilated houses. Houses 1
and 2 had R-10 insulation in the roof while houses 3 and 4 had R-19. These differences and others were likely responsible for
performance differences between the houses before renovations were undertaken. However, there were also performance differ-
ences among the 4 individual houses after renovation. Some of this difference between houses, especially in houses 4 and 3 was
likely the result of some very wet experimental bedding material used during the frst fock after renovation.
Economic Returns
The data in Table 2 show the average economic returns obtained by the ABRF before and after renovations. Average base
pay on the broiler contract before renovation was $0.042 per pound of salable meat and $0.051 cents per pound after renovation.
Before renovation pay per pound of salable meat averaged 3.95 cents for the ABRF and the average settlement check per fock
was $15,049. After renovation average pay was 5.43 cents per pound of salable meat and the average settlement check has aver-
aged $25,533 per fock. The differences in average pay/lb was (5.43 3.95) 1.48 cents, while the difference in average total pay
was ($25,533 $15,049) $10,484. While the increase in pay/lb was welcomed, what part of the increase in total pay was due to
improved performance and what part was due to the increase in pay?
Table 2. Average economic returns at ABRF before and after renovation
1
.
House
2
Pay/lb. Fuel Allow Total Pay Sold
No. (cents/lb) ($) ($) (Lbs)
B
3
A B A B A B A
1 3.66 5.38 $133 $189 $3,363 $6,398 87,859 116,126
2 4.11 5.58 $133 $1.89 $3,981 $6,638 93,031 116,239
3 4.02 5.49 $133 $185 $3,854 $6,425 92,071 113,631
4 4.00 5.26 $133 $185 $3,843 $6,072 92,068 111,801
Farm 3.95
4
5.43 $532 $748 $15,049 $25,533 91,257 114,449
1
Before data represent average performance on 27 focks placed between 2001 and 2005.
2
Hse.No.= House Number; Pay/lb=Grower payment in cents per pound; Fuel Allow=Fuel;
Allowance; Total Pay=Total Payment
3
B=Before Renovation; A=After Renovation
4
Pay/lbforthefarmisaweightedaveragebaseduponthepoundssoldperhouse
The average total pounds produced on the ABRF before renovation was (91,257 x 4) 365,029, and (114,449 x 4) 457,797
pounds after renovation (Table 2). If the ABRF could have improved bird performance, but had not received the 1.48 cent pay/lb
increase, average total pay would have been (457,797 x $0.0395) $18,083. Thus, ($25,533 $18,083) $7450 of the increased total
pay was a result of improved bird performance. This means that ($7459 / $10,484) about 71% of the increase average total pay
increase at ABRF was due to improved bird performance, while about 29% was due to an increase in pay/lb.
Summary
The ABRF produced an average of (457,797 - 365,029)
92,768 more pounds after renovation than before and average
pay/lb was 1.48 cents more after renovation. Average total pay
per fock at the ABRF was almost $10,500 more per fock af-
ter renovations than before. An estimated 71% of the increase
inaveragetotalpaywasduetoimprovedbirdperformance,
while 29% was due to the increase in pay/lb. While renova-
tionhadapositiveeffectonbirdperformanceandeconomic
returns at the ABRF, each grower faces a slightly different
situationwithregardtoeconomicreturns.
6
Frank T. Jones, Center of Excellence for
Broiler Chicken Growth
in Perspective
It has been stated that: If you grew as fast as a chicken, youd weigh 349 pounds at
age 2. While this statement may have been originally intended to be a humorous way of
emphasizing the rapid growth of commercial broiler chicken strains, it is highly misleading and
hasbeenmisused.Anexplanationappearsinorder.
At present in the U. S. less than 2% of the total population is involved in production
agriculture. This means, of course, that a majority of 98% of the population (consumers) has no
idea how their food arrives or the challenges involved in production agriculture. Yet, consumers
demandinexpensive,tastyandnutritiousfoods.Tomeetthesedemandsproductionagriculture
continues to adopt increasingly more effcient production methods. The broiler industry has
become more effcient primarily by breeding birds that grow rapidly.
Thegrowthcurveshownbelowistypicalofbroilergrowth.Growthcurvesforvirtually
all animal species resemble this curve. However, it is important to realize that the period of
rapid growth is short lived and growth slows almost as quickly as it began. The comparison of
chicken growth rates with human growth rates used the most rapid growth rates on the curve.
Suchcomparisonsareunrealisticbecausetheyfocusonashorttimespanwhenextremelyrapid
growthoccursandsuchgrowthcannotbesustainedforalongtimeperiod.
It is also important to understand that birds (including chickens) normally gain weight
rapidly.Thisrapidgrowthallowsbirdstogainbodymass,matureandreproducerapidlyduring
warmermonthssothatchancesofsurvivalduringthecoldermonthsareenhanced.Broiler
production takes advantage of this rapid growth to economically produce meat for consumers.
However, one must realize that chickens (even those bred for rapid growth) grow two to three
timesSLOWERthatothercommonbirdspecies.Infact,itmightbesaid,Ifyougrewasfast
as a house sparrow you would weight 698 pounds at age 2.
Figure 43-15. Typical Growth Rate of Straight-run Broilers at Different Age

From: Lacy, M.P. 2002. Broiler Management. In: Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production.,
D.D. Bell and W.D. Weaver, Jr. eds., p852
Growth curves
for virtually all
animal species
resemble this
curve.
7
SANITIZERS continued on page 8
Evaluation of Water
Sanitizers
1
Introduction
The poultry industry continues to emphasize the importance of clean drinking water
systemsfortheirbirds.Whilethereareproductsavailablewhichdoanexcellentjobof
eliminating bioflms and completely cleaning water systems of potentially harmful bacteria, not
allproductsareeasytohandlenoraretheyreadilyavailabletoallpoultrygrowers.Inaddition,
as the use of water acidifers becomes more popular, the incidence of fungal blooms in water
systems has also increased. Most fungi need pH values of 2-6 to survive. When acidifers are
used without a good sanitizer present, then a clear, thick fungal slime can potentially occur,
which, once established, can be very diffcult to remove. Fungal slimes can also occur after
theuseofwatersolubleantibiotics.Antibioticscanimpairthegrowthofbacteria,leavingthe
systemvulnerabletofungalbloomsparticularlyifthegrowerdoesnothaveagooddailywater
sanitation program. However there are a limited number of sanitizers available for use as water
linecleanerswhichmeetthefollowingcriteria:
1. Approved by the Environmental Protection Agency as safe to use in drinking water systems,
2. Safe to use and handle,
3. Not corrosive or damaging to the equipment,
4. Effective in removing slime or bioflm from pipes and drinkers,
5. Affordable and available
Becauseoftheseandotherconcerns,theneedtoidentifyavarietyofgoodlinecleaning
productsremainsimportanttotheindustry.Therefore,itisthemissionofourlabtocontinue
toevaluatenewproductsutilizingatestmethodwhichsimulatestheslimyconditionsthatcan
occurinpoultryhousewaterlines.
In this test, fve water sanitizers were evaluated for their effectiveness in killing total
aerobic (oxygen or air loving) bacteria and molds. The products were:
1. AquaVite - acidifed copper based water treatment,
2. PronTech - ammonia based cleaner,
3. Proxy-Clean - 50% stabilized hydrogen peroxide,
4. Oxine - stabilized chlorine dioxide and
5. Sterilex - buffered acid product
Methods
Each product was added to 3 replicate beakers of 50 ml of water containing algae. Water
containingalgaewasusedtocreateaheavymicrobialchallengeforthecleaners.Three
untreated 50 ml aliquots served as the control and received no treatment. Prior to addition of
the product to the water, an initial aerobic bacteria and mold count were determined for each 50
mlaliquot.EachtreatmentwastestedattheconcentrationslistedinTable1.Thealiquotswere
held uncovered at room temperature and retested at 4 and 24 hours post treatment application.
Jennifer Hughes, Amanda Hancock, Brookee Dean and Susan Watkins
Center of Excellence for Poultry Science University of Arkansas
1
Mention of company or trade names does not constitute endorsement by the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service or Center of Excellence for
Poultry Science and does not imply their approval to the exclusion of other companies or products that may be suitable.

SANITIZERS continued from page 7
Table 1. Treatment Concentrations.
Treatment Preparation Methods
AquaVite,
pH 1.5
A 1.50 pH stock solution was prepared
then 0.39 ml was added to 50 ml of test
water.
AquaVite,
pH 3.0
A 3.00 pH stock solution was prepared
then 0.39 ml was added to 50 ml of test
water.
Oxline
10 g of activator was added to 3.25 oz of
Oxlineliquidandmixed.Afterstandingfor
10 minutes, 1.27 ml of stock solution was
added to 50 ml of test water.
PronTech,
0.50 %
A 0.5 % solution was prepared.
PronTech,
1.00 %
A 1.0 % solution was prepared
Proxy-Clean,
0.78 %
A 0.78 % solution was prepared
Proxy-Clean,
3.00 %
A 3.00% solution was prepared
Sterilex,
1.25 %
1.17 ml of solution 1 and 1.17 ml of
solution 2 was added to 50 ml of test water
Sterilex,
2.50 %
2.34 ml of solution 1 and 2.34 ml of
solution 2 was added to 50 ml of test water.
ResultswereanalyzedusingtheGLMprocedureofSAS.
Prior to analysis, the microbial data was converted to log10
to normalize the data set. Signifcantly different means were
separated using the least square means repeated t-test.
Results
The initial aerobic plate counts (APC) did signifcantly
differ among the treatments, but all were 5 logs or higher
which translates to over 100,000 colony forming units of
aerobic bacteria per ml (Table 2). At 4 hours APC from
controlwaterremainedunchangedandhighasdidthetwo
AquaVite treatments. The 0.78% Proxy-Clean APC also
remainedhigh,butwereaboutaloglowerthancontrolcounts.
APC from Proxy-Clean 3%, PronTech 0.5%, PronTech
1 % and Sterilex 1.25% were about two logs lower than
control. The Sterilex 2.5% and the Oxine treatments
reduced APC at 4 hours by 5 and 6 logs respectively. At 24
hours APC was reduced to undetectable levels by the Proxy-
Clean 3.0%, Oxine and Sterilex treatments. Aerobic
bacteriaweredetectedinallothertreatments.
Theinitialmoldlevelsforeachtreatmentrangedfrom
1.7 to 3 logs. (Table 3) All treatments except AquaVite
completelyeliminatedofmoldfromthetestwaters.
Inconclusion,severalproductswereevaluatedfortheir
ability to kill aerobic bacteria and molds in the presence of a
heavy organic load. Several of the test products signifcantly
reducedthemicrobialloadinthewater,whileotherstested
werenotaseffective.
Table 2. Impact of Different Products on the
Aerobic Plate Count in Water
Product
Tested
0 Hour Pre
Treatement
4 Hours Post
Treatment
24 Hours Post
Treatment
(Treatment) Log
10
APC
Control 6.10a 6.12a 6.08a
AquaVite,
pH 1.5
5.76abc 5.49a 5.75a
AquaVite,
pH 3.0
5.72abc 5.76a 5.72a
Oxine 5.49c >1e >1d
PronTech,
0.50 %
5.82abc 2.82c 2.79c
PronTech,
1.00 %
6.07ab 2.58c 2.50c
ProxyClean,
0.78 %
5.86abc 4.23b 3.24b
ProxyClean,
3.00 %
5.87abc 3.00c >1d
Sterilex,
1.25 %
5.79abc 2.58c >1d
Sterilex,
2.50 %
5.60b 1.29d >1d
SEM .16 .16 .3 .12
PValue .0001 .0001 .0001
a,b,c,d,e Values in a column with different letters were signifcantly
different
Table 3. Impact of Different Products on the
Mold Count in Water.
Product
Tested
0 Hour Pre
Treatement
4 Hours Post
Treatment
24 Hours Post
Treatment
Product Log
10
Mold Count
Control 3.05a 2.57a 2.87a
AquaVite,
pH 1.5
2.07bc 2.42a 2.34a
AquaVite,
pH 3.0
1.71c 2.49a 2.33a
Oxine 2.06bc >1b >1b
PronTech,
0.50 %
2.72ab >1b >1b
PronTech,
1.00 %
2.93a >1b >1b
ProxyClean,
0.78 %
2.79ab >1b >1b
ProxyClean,
3.00 %
2.74ab >1b >1b
Sterilex,
1.25 %
2.42abc >1b >1b
Sterilex,
2.50 %
2.00bc >1b >1b
SEM .16 .2 .2 .1
PValue .0278 .0001 .0001
a,b,c Values in a column with different letters were signifcantly
different
9
Understanding and
Controlling Feral Pigeons
(Columba livia)
Pigeons in History:
Fossil records show that pigeons lived in Jordan and on the Palestinian coast 300,000 years ago, well
before humans are reported to have inhabited earth (Haag-Wackernagel, 2002). Pigeons originally lived in
caves, on rocky cliffs and ledges in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East and, as a result, became known as
Rock Doves (Disdelle, 2005). While it is unclear exactly when pigeons were domesticated; fgurines, mosaics
and coins portraying domestic pigeons began to appear in ancient Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) about 4500 BC
(Anonymous, 2007b). The domestication of pigeons may have predated domestication of the chicken (Johnson,
1998).
It is likely that the advance of the Roman Empire is responsible for the spread of pigeons throughout
Europe (Haag-Wackernagel, 2002). European settlers brought caged pigeons for human consumption to Nova
Scotia in 1606. Those birds that escaped are apparently the ancestors of present day feral pigeons (Johnson,
1998).
Pigeons have been associated with art and religion for centuries. The ancient Greeks gave pigeons
totheirchildrenaspets,atethemasfoodandusedtheirmanureasfertilizer.TheRomansdevelopedasophis-
ticated production and marketing system for pigeon meat (Haag-Wackernagel, 2002). For centuries in England
pigeonfeceswasdeclaredpropertyoftheCrownbecauseitwasusedtomanufacturesaltpeter,oneofthethree
components of gunpowder (Blechman, 2006; Hicks, 1997).
Julius Caesar may have been the frst to use pigeons to send messages back home from battle. Pigeons
havebeenusedaswarmessengerssince.Infact,pigeonshavebeenusedtocarrymessagesbyeverymajorhis-
torical superpower from ancient Egypt to the United States of America (Blechman, 2006). Although electronic
communications have largely replaced pigeons, prior to the invention of the telegraph in 1836 and the telephone
in 1875, the fastest way to send any kind of news was by pigeon (Lyne, 2002). During World War II the mes-
sagescarriedbypigeonssavedthelivesofmanythousandsofsoldiersandtheBritishgovernmentawardedthe
Dickin Medal (the animal equivalent of the Victoria Cross) to 32 different pigeons (Anonymous, 2007a).
However, the relationship between humans and pigeons appears to have been a love-hate relationship
fromthebeginning.Severalmillionpeopleadorethedomesticatedpigeonstheybreedforfood,forracingorfor
their beauty. In addition, many enjoy feeding and observing the feral pigeon population. Yet the feral pigeon
population has created problems in cities for centuries. Writings from 4000 years ago mention birds [probably
pigeons] spreading feces in the street (Haag-Wackernagel, 2002).
Biology of Feral Pigeons
Pigeons measure 11 to 14 inches from bill to tail, weigh 9 to 13 ounces and have a wing span on 20 to
26 inches. Males are bigger than females. While most pigeons are gray in color, up to 28 different color patterns
canbefoundinferalpigeons.
Pigeonseatmostlyseedsandgrains,butcanalsoeatinsects,fruit,vegetationandfoodpeople(in-
tentionally or unintentionally) provide (Link, 2005). Pigeons are not fussy eaters because they have a poorly
developed sense of smell and few taste buds. Pigeons have only 37, while chickens have 316 and humans have
about 7,000 taste buds (Calvin et al., 1957; Roura et al., 2007; Disdelle, 2005).
Most birds take sips of water and then throw their heads back to let the water trickle down their
throats. Pigeons and their relatives suck up water by using their beaks like straws. This characteristic allows
pigeons to consume water rapidly and to access virtually any source of water (Link, 2005).
Feral pigeons are highly social creatures that choose to live in colonies, though not required by nature
to do so. Pigeons can fy 40 to 50 miles per hour and travel up to 600 miles in a day, but most feral pigeons do
not migrate. While most city pigeons stay close to home, fying less than 12 miles in a day, they can fy much
further if necessary (Disdelle, 2005).
Feral pigeons are one of the few larger animals that have been able to adapt to the hazards, noise, and
PIGEONS continued on page 10
... pigeons have
been used to
carry messages
by every major
historical
superpower from
ancient Egypt
to the United
States of
America
10
PIGEONS continued from page 9
hectic pace of big city life (Haag-Wackernagel, 2002). Indeed, pi-
geonsinhabitvirtuallyeverycityinNorthandSouthAmerica,often
enjoyingyearlongbreedingseasons.Pigeonsaremonogamousand
mate for life (Link, 2005). Depending on the locale, pigeons gener-
ally lay eggs and rear young six to ten months each year, taking time
offinornearwinter.Whilestarlingsreproduceinsynchronysothat
inagivenareaeggsarelaidandhatchedwithinafewdaysofeach
other,thereproductionofpigeonsisnotsynchronized.Therefore,
somepigeonsaregenerallynestingeverymonthoftheyearevenin
colder climates, but peak breeding season is usually in spring and fall
(Johnson, 1998; Williams and Corrigan, 1994).
Pigeons make well-hidden nests on high ledges, under
bridges,orinemptybuildings.Malesgenerallybringnestingmateri-
alstothefemalesonepieceatatimefornestconstruction.Pigeons
usually lay two white eggs. First eggs produce males about 70% of
thetime,whilesecondeggstendtoproducefemales.Consequently,
pigeonpopulationsusuallyconsistofequalnumbersofmalesand
females. The parents take turns keeping the eggs warm. Males usu-
allystayonthenestduringthedayandthefemalesstayonthenestat
night. Eggs take about 18 days to hatch (Johnson, 1998; Lyne, 2002).
An average of about 70% of eggs hatch and 55% of eggs result in a
fedged chick (called a squab) (Johnson, 1998).
Afewdayspriortohatchthecropsofbothmalesandfe-
males begin producing a cheesy substance called crop milk. During
the frst few days of life squabs are fed exclusively crop milk, which
bothparentsregurgitate.Earlyresearcherssuggestedthatthenutrient
content of crop milk closely resembled the nutrition the bird received
from the egg prior to hatching (Davies, 1939). Crop milk is a semi-
solid material containing about 71% moisture, 17% protein, 10% fat,
1% minerals, 1% starch and antibodies that protect the young bird
from disease causing organisms (Sales and Janssens, 2003; Davies,
1939; Haag-Wackernagel, 2002). About three days after hatching,
parents begin to mix grains with crop milk and gradually replace crop
milk with grains. Young leave the nest (fedge) at 4 to 6 weeks, but
the second clutch of eggs is laid one to two weeks before squab from
the frst clutch fedging. Eggs from the second clutch require incuba-
tionandmalesassumethegreaterroleinsquabcareduringclutch
overlap (Johnson, 1998; Williams and Corrigan, 1994). Pigeons
breeduptosixtimesperyeardependingontheclimateandavailable
food supply (Anonymous, 2007c). Pigeons can live up to fve years
in the wild, but can live for more than 15 years when raised by people
(Williams and Corrigan, 1994).
Problems with Feral Pigeons
Whilepigeonshavesomeadmirablecharacteristics,ithas
beenestimatedthatlargermoderncitiescontainoneferalpigeonfor
every 20 people (Haag-Wackernagel, 2002). One feral pigeon has
been estimated to produce between 22 and 26 pounds of feces annu-
ally.Whenlargecoloniesarepresent,droppingstendtoaccumulate
in roosting and breeding sites. Walkways can become dangerously
slippery, resulting in accidents and broken bones. Feral pigeons can
alsodestroyvegetationwhensearchingforfood.Thedamageincities
caused by feral pigeons has been estimated at $34 to $48 per bird
peryear.Pigeondroppingscanalsoencouragethegrowthoffungi
thatdamagelimestone,leadingtoerosionofhistoricbuildingsand
monuments (Haag-Wackernagel, 2005). Pigeon droppings can also
causestructuraldamagetobarnsorsilos,andnestbuildinginelectri-
cal panels, junction boxes, or lights may cause short circuits and fres
(Lyne, 2002).
Pigeons have been known to harbor several species of
roundwormsandtapewormsaswellasdiseasessuchasornithosis,
encephalitis (of several forms), Newcastle disease, histoplasmosis,
cryptococcosis,toxoplasmosis,Salmonella,pseudotuberculosis,and
coccidiosis.Inaddition,pigeonscommonlyharborectoparasites
such as feas, lice, mites, ticks, several mite species (including the
northern fowl mite) (Williams and Corrigan, 1994). Feral pigeons
have been reported to carry at least 70 species of microbial pathogens
and 17 different ectoparasites that affect humans (Haag-Wackernagel,
2005).
Controlling Feral Pigeons
Reducingoreliminatinglargenumbersofestablished
feral pigeons can be a diffcult and time-consuming task, particu-
larly around poultry facilities. However, persistent efforts can yield
results.
Habitat Modifcation
The frst step in addressing feral pigeon control is the
eliminationoffeeding,watering,roosting,andnestingsites.Discour-
agepeoplefromfeedingpigeonsandcleanupspilledgrainorfeed
aroundfacilities.Eliminatepoolsofstandingwaterthatpigeonsuse
for watering. Holes in buildings should be boarded up or covered
with quarter-inch galvanized wire mesh to prevent access. Locate and
destroy nests and eggs at 2-week intervals to reduce pigeon numbers.
However, habitat modifcation efforts should be used in conjunction
with other control methods (Williams and Corrigan, 1994).
Birth Control
In recent years major cities have experienced signifcant
problemswithferalpigeons.Thecountlesssitesavailablefornesting
have made the problem diffcult to address. However, at least one
producthasbeendevelopedthatisreportedtoreducethepigeon
populationthroughbirthcontrol.Theproductreducesthehatch-
abilityofpigeoneggsasameansofpopulationcontrol(Anonymous,
2007c). The product is reported to act by interfering with the mem-
brane separating the egg yolk from the egg white (called the vitelline
membrane). The active ingredient in this new product is nicarbazin
(USEPA, 2005). Nicarbazin is approved by the U. S. Food and Drug
Administration for the prevention of coccidiosis in broilers (USFDA,
2002).
Poisons
Whileseveralpoisonoussubstancesarelegalandavailable
forthecontrolofferalpigeon,theymayrequirespecialpermitsfor
use.Inaddition,itisimportanttorememberthatpoultryproduction
housesareraisingbirdsdestinedforhumanconsumption.Whileit
may be remote, focks can be exposed to the poisons used and resi-
duesmaybefoundinthefoodsproduced.Thus,theuseofpoisons
forcontrolofferalpigeonsaroundpoultryfacilitiesisnotrecom-
mended.
Chemical Repellents
Variousnontoxicchemicalrepellentsareavailable.
Althoughchemicalrepellentsmaybeeffectiveinmanysituations,
theeffectivenessofrepellentsisusuallylostovertime,especially
in dusty areas (such as poultry facilities). Thus, the use of repellents
maybeeconomicallyshortsightedbecausetheyareexpensiveto
reapply. In addition, if people fail to use and monitor sticky products
properly,theseproductscancausepigeonsandsmallerbirdstosuffer
unnecessarily when they get stuck in them (Williams and Corrigan,
1994).
Harassment Techniques
Harassment techniques generally have little permanent ef-
fect on pigeons, particularly at well-established roosting and nesting
sites. However, harassment methods can be effective when used be-
11
forepigeonsbecomeaccustomedtousinganareaoronsmallgroups
ofpigeons.
The use of colored fags, balloons, ultrasonic sound, mag-
netic pulses, and various kinds of scarecrows (e.g. snakes or owls)
havebeenshowntobeineffective.Ontheotherhand,systemsthat
directly contact pigeons such as installing sprinklers in roost trees
or lighting up a roosting site with bright fuorescent lights generally
produce more reliable results (Haag-Wackernagel, 2002).
Install Barriers
Thecostofinstallingbarriersonlargebuildingswithex-
tensive roosting sites may be impractical. However, barriers are valid
options for smaller areas. Yet, established pigeons will fght any type
ofbarrierputinplace,especiallyifitisapopularnestingorroosting
site.Insuchcases,theremovalofpigeonspriortoinstallingbarriers
ismosteffective.
Installing sheet metal, wood, or other material at a 60-
degree angle over ledges, placing metal or plastic spikes (porcupine
wire) or electrifed systems that are designed to shock birds without
killing them, can be effective when installed in roosting, loafng or
watering sites. Installing bird netting to block off indoor roosting
and nesting areas can also be effective. Two inch mesh netting works
well for pigeons, and it isnt as likely to trap small songbirds as the
light,smallmeshmaterial.Ifthecostofnewnettingisprohibitive,
used gill netting may be purchased from fshermen or fsh hatcheries
(Link, 2005).
Trapping
Pigeonscanbeeffectivelycontrolledbycapturingthemin
traps placed near their roosting, loafng, or feeding sites. The key to
successful trapping is pre-baiting areas for several days before begin-
ning the actual trapping. To pre-bait, attractive baits, such as corn or
milo, are placed around the outside of the traps for 3 or 4 days before
placingtheminsidethetraps,onceset,visittrapsdaily.Ifbirdsbe-
come trap-shy, traps can be left open for 2 to 3 days and then reset
again for 4 to 5 days. Select another site if traps fail to catch a suf-
fcient number of birds. Trapped birds should be quick and humanely
euthanized. Releasing pigeons back to the wild is impractical since
pigeons are likely to return even when released 50 or more miles
from the problem site. If you cannot humanely kill them yourself,
fnd a falconer or wildlife rehabilitation center that will accept live
pigeons to feed to hawks (Williams and Corrigan, 1994).
Shooting
Shootinghasbeeneffectiveineliminatingsmallisolated
groups of pigeons. Where permissible, persistent shooting with .22
caliber rifes (preferably using ammunition loaded with short-range
pellets), .410 gauge shotguns, or high-powered air rifes can eliminate
a small fock of pigeons. Shooting can effectively remove the few
pigeons that may persist around the farm. However, check local laws
before employing a shooting program (Williams and Corrigan, 1994).
Summary
Thedomesticationofpigeonsmayhavepredatedthedo-
mestication of chickens. Pigeons have benefted humans in various
ways for centuries. However, most larger cities contain large num-
bersofferalpigeons,whichdepositfecesinpublicplaces,causing
damagetopublicpropertyandcreatinghazardsforhumans.Pigeons
are known to harbor numerous animal and human pathogens as well
asinternalandexternalparasites.Clearlyferalpigeonpopulations
mustbecontrolled.
References:
Anonymous. 2007a. Dickin Medal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickin_
Medal#Modern_era Visited 1/26/07.
Anonymous. 2007b. Domestic pigeon. Encyclopedia Britannica Online: http://
www.britannica.com/eb/article-9030860 Visited 10/25/07.
Anonymous. 2007c. Rock pigeon. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Rock_Pigeon Visited 10/9/07.
Blechman, A. D. 2006. Cool facts about pigeons. http://www.andrewblech-
man.com/cool_facts.html Visited 10/26/07
Calvin, A. D., C. M. Williams and N. Westmoreland. 1957. Olfactory sensitiv-
ity of the domestic pigeon. Am. J. Physiol. 188(2):255-256
Davies, W. L. 1939. The composition of the crop milk of pigeons. Biochem. J.
33(6):898-901.
Disdelle, R. 2005. Pigeons. http://ehrweb.aaas.org/ehr/parents/pigeons!.html
Visited 10/22/07.
Haag-Wackernagel, D. 2002. The feral pigeon. http://pages.unibas.ch/dbmw/
medbiol/haag_6.html Visited 10/26/07
Haag-Wackernagel, D. 2005. Parasites from feral pigeons as a health hazard
for humans. Ann. Appl Biol. 147:203-210.
Hicks, C. 1997. Technical history of gunpowder manufacture. http://cjhicks.
orpheusweb.co.uk/gpdet.html Visited 10/26/07
Johnson, R. F. 1998. Feral Pigeons. The Kansas School Naturalist 45(2):1-
6. http://www.emporia.edu/ksn/v45n2-december1998/index.html Visited
1/31/07
Link , R. 2005. Living with wildlife Domestic pigeons (rock doves). Wash-
ington Dept of Fish and Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/pigeons.pdf
Visited 10/26/07
Lyne, T. B. 2002. Pigeons. http://www.globalbirdcontrol.com/pests/pigeons.
htm Visited 10/18/07
Roura, E. B. Humphrey, G. Tedo and I. Ipharraguerre. 2007. Unfolding the
codes of short-term feed appetence in farm animals. Proc. Western Nutrition
Conf. pp 127-154. September 25-27, 2007, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Sales, J. and G. P. J. Janssens. 2003. Nutrition of the domestic pigeon (Co-
lumba livia domestica). Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 59:221-232.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Pesticide fact sheet:
Nicarbazin. http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/nicarbazin.pdf Visited
11/9/07.
United States Food and Drug Administration. 2002. New animal drugs for use
inanimalfeeds;nicarbazin,narasin,andbacitracinmethylenedisalicylate.
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/nada-141-124-nfr0001.pdf
Visited 11/9/07.
Williams, D. E. and R. M. Corrigan. 1994. Pigeons (Rock Doves). In: Scott
E. Hygnstrom, Robert M. Timm, Gary E. Larson eds., Prevention and control
of wildlife damage. Coop. Exten., IANR, U. Nebraska Lincoln, USDA-
APHIS Animal Damage Control http://icwdm.org/handbook/birds/Pigeons.
asp Visited 1/31/07
1
UA Poultry Science
Extension Faculty
for Poultry Science
by Jon Moyle, F. Dustan Clark and Frank Jones, Center of Excellence for Poultry
Science, University of Arkansas
. . . helping ensure the efcient production of top quality poultry products in Arkansas and beyond.
INSIDE
page 4
Applied Broiler
Propane and Electricity
Usage One Year After
Renovations
by G. Tom Tabler
page 7
E. Coli an Opportunist
that Causes Enteritis
by Vijay Durairaj and F.
Dustan Clark
page 9
Understanding and
Control of European
Starlings
(Sturnus vulgaris)
by Frank T. Jones
Advice

IMMUNITY continued on page 2
Fall 2007 Volume 9 no. 3
Understanding Immunity
and Vaccines
Introduction
We all realize that diseases cost both
companies and growers and they both
strive to avoid the consequences of disease.
Diseases can be caused by microbes (viruses,
bacteria, fungi or protozoa), internal or
external parasites, genetic disorders or
by nutrient deciencies. Modern poultry
production methods have virtually eliminated
nutrient deciencies and are addressing
genetic disorders. However, both companies
and growers continue to battle against
microbes and parasites. Since fewer and
fewer antibiotics are being used in poultry
feeds, growers and companies are depending
more heavily on the immunity provided by
vaccines. While important, this article will not
address parasite issues, but will provide some
understanding of microbial disease, immunity
and vaccines.
Understanding Immunity
Immunity can be described as the
ability of the body to recognize the presence
of material normally within the body
(self), and to eliminate foreign (non-
self) materials. When a disease organism
invades, the birds body usually produces
antibodies and specic cells whose purpose
is to engulf (or eat) and destroy foreign
substances. Substances that are identied
by the birds body as foreign are known
as antigens. In other words, antigens are
substances that cause the immune system
to develop a defense against an invading
organism (an immune response). However,
it is important to realize that antigens are
chemical substances that modern science has
AVIAN
often been able to identify and separate from
or weaken in the disease causing microbes
so that the birds body becomes immune
without getting the disease. Some proteins
are good antigens that are easily recognized
by the immune system and will produce an
effective immune response. Other materials,
such as carbohydrates are less effective
antigens, and the immune response may not
provide good protection (Varela, 2007). Once
a birds immune system has responded to an
antigen (either from the microbe or a vaccine)
antibodies circulate in body uids. If the bird
is exposed again to that microbe, it responds
very quickly because it remembers the
microbe (Cutler, 2002). The quick response
of the immune system prevents the disease
from happening or shortens its duration and
severity.
Disease Processes
When a bird is exposed to a disease
microbe, there is one of three outcomes,
either:
The bird gets the disease,
The bird is protected by immunity from
hens or
The bird is protected by immunity from
vaccines.
Getting a disease
For most poultry diseases the
progression is the same. This progression has
three steps or phases: infection, development
of immunity and recovery (Cutler, 2002).
2
IMMUNITY continued from page 1
When birds are not immune to a given disease, infection may
easily occur, allowing the microbe to attack various parts of
the body producing sickness in the bird. Depending on the
disease, some or all of the birds may die from the infection.
However, the performance of even those birds that do not die
is reduced by the infection.
Those birds that do not die from the infection usually
become immune to the disease. However, the development
of immunity in this fashion is risky because the disease may
irreparably damage tissues (such as the intestine) in the birds
body. Such immune responses are also expensive because
they require nutrients that cannot be used for growth or
production (Klasing, 1998).
Those birds that survive the disease have an active
immunity that allows their body to rapidly respond to future
invasions of the same or similar microbes. While performance
may return during recovery from the disease, the performance
lost during exposure is often never regained, particularly if the
challenge occurred early in the life of the bird.
Immunity from Hens
As the embryo develops within the egg it has no
immunity of its own, but antibodies from the breeder hen are
absorbed; protecting the chick from diseases. This immunity
(called maternal or passive immunity) protects the young bird
from diseases, but prevents the birds body from mounting
an immune response and is short lived. At 3 days of age
about half of the passive immunity is lost. Very little passive
immunity is present at 2 weeks and at 3 weeks it is completely
gone (Cutler, 2002).
Vaccine-induced immunity
Vaccines trigger the birds body to think that its being
invaded by a specic organism, and the immune system goes
to work to destroy the invader and prevent it from infecting
the bird again. If the bird is exposed to a disease for which it
had been vaccinated, the invading germs are met by antibodies
that will destroy them. The immunity the bird develops
following vaccination is similar to the immunity acquired from
natural infection.
Understanding Vaccines
Today, modern large scale animal agriculture has
vaccines against most major pathogens and are continually
creating new ones. However, vaccines come in a bewildering
array of forms including: live or killed vaccines, recombinant-
vector vaccines and DNA vaccines.
Live or Killed Vaccines
Several vaccines (i.e. Gumboro Disease, Newcastle
Disease, Infectious Bronchitis and others) come in live or
killed (inactivated) forms. While both live and killed products
produce results, it is important to realize the advantages and
disadvantages of both types.
It should be obvious that if birds are given the disease
causing microbe (the pathogen), they will develop the disease
we are trying to prevent. However, if birds are given a
weakened (or attenuated) and diluted form of the pathogen
they will develop immunity, but not develop the disease. This
is the concept behind live attenuated (weakened) vaccines
(Okonek and Peters, 1997). Attenuated or modied live
vaccines are created by weakening the disease microbe,
usually by culturing the pathogen in the laboratory until
it loses or reduces its ability to produce disease and then
providing a small dose of the organism during vaccination
(Varela, 2007). However, to be effective the live attenuated
organism must stimulate an immune response by growing
within the bird; usually causing brief, mild symptoms (a
vaccine reaction).
Live vaccines are the most effective type of vaccine for
a rapid, strong, long lasting immune response. Live vaccines
also tend to be less expensive and are less likely to cause
allergic reactions than other types of vaccines. (Whiting, 2005)
They can be administered by injection, spray/ fog, in the
water or by eye drops (intraorbitally). However, live vaccines
come with their own problems. Because they contain living
organisms, they must be handled with care. Excessive heat,
sunlight, freezing, chlorinated water and other conditions can
kill off live organisms, rendering them useless. Live vaccines
can also cause severe reactions in animals that have weakened
immune systems or are infected with other disease organisms.
In addition, if live vaccines are not handled with proper
biosecurity, the organism may spread to numerous other
avian species, causing (sometimes severe) reactions. Finally,
while rare, the organism could revert back to the wild form,
causing the disease.
Killed (or inactivated) vaccines are an alternative to
live vaccines. Killed vaccines contain no living organisms,
eliminating the potential of reversion to a wild, disease-
causing form. Killed vaccines are also safer than live vaccines
for weak or immune compromised animals. In addition,
killed vaccines are more stable in storage than live vaccines.
However, killed vaccines produce a much weaker, more
unstable immunity than live vaccines and multiple doses may
be required to maintain protection. Killed vaccines are also
more likely than live vaccines to cause allergic reactions in
birds. Finally, giving killed vaccines is much more labor
intensive since they must be administered by injection.
Recombinant-vector vaccines
Recombinant-vector vaccines are made by removing the
genes from the pathogen that direct cells to produce antigens
and then put these genes (recombine them) into the DNA
of a non-pathogenic microbe (called a vector). The newly
engineered vector is then used to infect the host, where the
vector will replicate and express the antigens of the virulent
pathogen resulting in an immune response (Prescott et al.,
2005). The biggest advantage to this vaccine type is that
the newly created vector is live, so that it can be used in a
similar manner to other live vaccines, but usually producing
milder symptoms following vaccination. The fowl pox virus
is one microbe that is used as a vector. One commercial
recombinant-vector vaccine combines fowl pox and Mareks
Disease. The vaccine protects birds from fowl pox as a live
3
virus, but also contains genes (DNA) from Mareks Disease Virus so that birds are protected from
both diseases.
DNA vaccines
DNA vaccines produce what is sometimes called genetic or DNA immunization. DNA
vaccines are made by isolating the genes (the DNA) that direct the pathogen cell to make antigens.
This DNA is then injected directly into muscle tissue. The DNA is then incorporated into the cells
within the animals body, allowing the animal cells themselves to produce antigens and in turn
immunity against the disease (Babiuk, 2007). At present there are no commercial available DNA
vaccines for poultry. However, testing suggests the following advantages DNA vaccines: 1. They
provide long- lived immunity with a single injection; 2. DNA from several pathogens could be
combined so that animals could be protected from multiple diseases with a single injection and
3. DNA vaccines are extremely stable, eliminating the need for refrigeration or special handling
(Henahan, 1997). However, many unknowns remain about the practicality of these vaccines in eld
situations, so it remains to be seen if DNA vaccines against poultry diseases will appear.
Summary
In summary, immunity is the ability of the birds body to recognize its own tissues (self) and
to eliminate foreign (non-self) materials in an immune response. Substances that cause immune
responses are called antigens. Since disease outbreaks are expensive, it is important to prevent them
and vaccination provides such protection. Live vaccines use altered or diluted microbes to produce
long-lasting immunity with a single exposure, but produce symptoms in the bird (vaccine reactions).
Killed vaccines do not produce vaccine reactions, but offer much less protection and may require
multiple injections. Recombinant-vector vaccines are made by isolating the DNA that encode for
antigen production in the pathogen and then placing that DNA in a non-pathogenic, which allows
that organism to produce the antigen as it grows in the animals body. At present, the use of DNA
vaccines seems to hold the potential to help ght most diseases, but questions remain about how
these vaccines will perform under eld conditions.
References
Babiuk, L. A. 2007. Modern vaccines. Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization, Saskatoon,
SK, Canada http://www.agriculture.de/acms1/conf6/ws5bvacc.htm visited 8/9/07.
Cutler, G. J. 2002. Immunity. In: Bell, D. D. and W. D. Weaver, Jr., eds. Commercial Chicken
Meat and Egg Production Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA, Pp 443-449.
Henahan, S. 1997. DNA vaccine outlook. http://www.accessexcellence.org visited 8/10/07
Klasing, K. C. 1998. Nutritional modulation of resistance to infectious diseases. Poultry
Science 77:1119-1125.
Okonek, B. A. M. and P. M. Peters.
1997 VaccinesHow and Why. http://www.
accessexcellence.org visited 8/7/07.
Prescott, L. M., J. P. Harley and D. A. Klein,
eds. 2005. Microbiology. pp. 740-744.
Varela, R. 2007. Vaccines: Understanding
immunity and the principles behind vaccination.
http://www.rn.com/main.php?uniq=297760&c
ommand=manage_courselist&data%5Bcourse
list%5D%5Bid%5D=1335&data%5Bsubmit_
value%5D=Display%20Entry Visited 8/8/07.
Whiting, T. 2005. Understanding immunity
and vaccination. Manitoba Agriculture, Food
and Rural Initiatives http://www.gov.mb.ca/
agriculture/livestock/dairy/cda20s01.html visited
8/7/07 visited 8/7/07.
4
G. Tom Tabler, Center of Excellence for
Report: Propane and Electricity
Usage One Year After Renovations
Introduction
A year has passed since the Applied Broiler Research Farm (ABRF) underwent major renova-
tions necessary to remain up to date with current poultry industry standards for broiler production
facilities. This report details some of what we have seen in terms of electricity and propane usage
and cost at 1 year after the renovations. Propane and electricity usage and costs are reported on both
a farm basis and also for each of the 4 individual 40 x 400 ft broiler houses. With regards to electric-
ity usage, we are able to sub-meter total electricity usage. Therefore, for each individual house, we
are able to measure not only the total amount of electricity used, but also the portion of total electric-
ity used for lights and the portion used for fans.
Farm Totals
Table 1 lists usage and cost gures for propane at the ABRF for the period April 2006 - April
2007. Six ocks were grown during this period with placement months of April, June, August,
October, and December 2006 and February 2007. Propane usage for the year was 25,476 gals at
total cost of $34,228. The December ock used 12,622 gals (almost half the total for the year). This
was due, in part, to very cold weather conditions during the December-placed ock and the fact that
for much of the ock we allowed the controllers to automatically ramp the minimum ventilation run
time as they would during warm weather. This did provide excellent air quality in the houses and
excellent litter conditions (perhaps the best I can remember for a winter-time ock). However, it
also resulted in a gas bill that was roughly two-thirds of the chicken check. Therefore, before har-
vest, we began to decrease the minimum ventilation run time to a more manageable winter-time pro-
gram while keeping the ammonia level at less than 25 ppm. Through our integrator, we purchased a
hand-held ammonia sensor that clips to your belt; and it has proven to be an extremely useful tool in
managing house ammonia levels. I carry it when I am working in the houses. It is pre-set to sound
an alarm if the ammonia level is over 25 ppm. It has become an important part of my management
program, especially when the birds are small and any time we are using minimum ventilation.
Table 1. Propane usage and cost at the Applied Broiler Research Farm (ABRF)
one year after renovations (2006-07).
Month Placed Propane (gals) Propane Cost
April 2,576 $3,918
June 635 $860
August 176 $243
October 4,856 $6,361
December 12,622 $16,663
February 4,611 $6,183
YEARLY TOTALS 25,476 $34,228
Through our
integrator, we
purchased a hand-
held ammonia
sensor that clips
to your belt; and it
has proven to be an
extremely useful
tool in managing
house ammonia
levels.
5
Electricity usage and cost for the farm is reported in Table 2. A total of 125,040 kilowatt hours were used on the farm at a
cost of $7,502. Fan and light electricity do not sum to total because feed line, cross auger, and ll auger motors along with service
and convenience outlets, etc., are also included in total. However, fan and light electricity usage always accounted for 90% of
the total per ock electricity usage. Notice that the cost to operate the lights was within $550 of the cost to operate the fans for the
year ($3,252 for lights vs. $3,802 for fans). Solid sidewall housing has greatly increased electricity required for lighting because
natural light is no longer available. As a result, lighting is now an area that may offer potential monetary savings for tunnel ven-
tilated houses through use of more energy efcient bulbs. We are currently investigating 2 types of cold cathode bulbs (that are
easily dimmable and work with light dimmers) as an alternative to incandescent lighting.
Table 2. Electricity usage and cost at the ABRF one year after renovations (2006-07).
Month
Placed
Electricity usage (kwh) and cost ($)
Fan Cost Light Cost Total Cost
April 5,971 $358 9,209 $553 16,067 $964
June 13,303 $798 9,480 $569 23,607 $1,417
August 17,764 $1,066 10,000 $600 28,964 $1,738
October 11,471 $688 9,037 $542 22,300 $1,338
December 5,386 $323 6,414 $385 13,133 $787
February 9,475 $569 10,052 $603 20,969 $1,258
Yearly
Totals
63,370 $3,802 54,192 $3,252 125,040 $7,502
Propane Usage and Cost
Table 3 lists propane usage and costs for each house during the 6 ocks. As all producers know, most propane used to raise
chickens is consumed from October through April, with only a small portion consumed from April through October. In that
respect, the ABRF is no different than any other broiler farm. The December-placed ock used the most propane, followed by
the October- and February-placed ocks. There were differences in propane use among the 4 houses with House 1 using the most
at 7,026 gals ($9,425), followed by House 3 at 6,320 gals ($8,487), House 2 at 6,167 gals ($8,286), and House 4 at 5,693 gals
($8,030). Part of this difference was due to litter conditions within the houses that forced us to change the minimum ventilation
rates necessary to maintain ammonia levels at 25 ppm or less. House orientation may also play a part, although this is less of a
factor now with solid sidewalls than before renovations when the houses were curtain-sided. Nevertheless, shifts in the ceiling
insulation caused by strong winds from the south just prior to the completion of renovation may have also contributed to elevated
propane usage in house 1. At the ABRF, House 1 is the southernmost house while House 4 is the northernmost house.
Table 3. Propane usage and cost at the ABRF one year after renovations (2006-07).
Month
Placed
Propane usage (gals) and cost ($)
House 1 Cost House 2 Cost House 3 Cost House 4 Cost
April 638 $970 611 $929 634 $964 693 $1,053
June 154 $211 164 $225 136 $186 181 $248
August 72 $99 68 $93 18 $25 18 $25
October 1,327 $1,738 1,107 $1,450 1,222 $1,601 1,200 $1,572
December 3,572 $4,715 3,083 $4,070 3,196 $4,219 2,771 $3,658
February 1,263 $1,692 1,134 $1,520 1,114 $1,493 1,100 $1,474
Yearly
Totals
7,026 $9,425 6,167 $8,286 6,320 $8,487 5,963 $8,030
USAGE continued on page 6
6
Light Electricity
Kilowatt hours of electricity used for lighting the 4 individual houses, along with the cost for those kilowatt hours, are pre-
sented in Table 4. At the end of 1 year, Houses 1 and 2 had used practically the same amount of light electricity (12,817 kilowatt
hours in House 1 vs. 12,797 kilowatt hours in House 2) and there was only $1 difference in total cost between these houses.
House 3 used 12,918 kilowatt hours at a cost of $775 while House 4 used 15,660 kilowatt hours at a cost of $940. There are dif-
ferences in the number of light bulbs between the 2 sets of houses. Houses 3 and 4 have a total of 90 light bulbs (40 brood lights
and 50 dimmable lights) per house while 75 light bulbs (33 brood lights and 42 dimmable lights) per house were in Houses 1
and 2. Differences in the number of bulbs per house may account for most of the differences in light electricity usage between
the houses.
Before the start of the December 2006 ock, the incandescent lights in House 3 were replaced with a set of dimmable cold
cathode bulbs, which accounts for the dramatic decrease in electricity usage for the ock (710 kilowatt hours). The February
2007 ock electricity usage in House 3 increased to 1,794 kilowatt hours due, largely to the fact that we managed the light pro-
gram differently because we were growing a different genetic strain of bird that did not seem to perform as well when the cold
cathode lights were dimmed and brood lights were used to provide supplemental light.
Table 4. Electricity used for lights at ABRF during rst year after renovations (2006-07).
Month
Placed
Light electricity use (kwh) and cost ($)
April 2,062 $124 2,032 $122 2,447 $147 2,668 $160
June 2,137 $128 2,171 $130 2,633 $158 2,539 $152
August 2,258 $135 2,260 $136 2,760 $166 2,722 $163
October 1,999 $120 2,059 $124 2,574 $154 2,405 $144
December 1,824 $109 1,783 $107 710 $43 2,097 $126
February 2,537 $152 2,492 $150 1,794 $108 3,229 $194
Yearly
Totals
12,817 $769 12,797 $768 12,918 $775 15,660 $940
Fan Electricity
Kilowatt hours of electricity and associated costs for running the fans in the 4 houses are presented in Table 5. Houses 1
and 2 are fairly similar with house 1 using 17,055 hours at a cost of $1,023 and house 2 using 16,653 at a cost of $999. Houses
3 and 4 are also quite similar but usage and costs are less than for houses 1 and 2. House 3 used 14,835 hours at a cost of $890
while house 4 used 14,826 hours also at a cost of $890. All 4 houses have 4 direct-drive 36-inch sidewall fans in the north wall
for minimum ventilation and 8 belt-drive tunnel fans with buttery shutters and cones for summer cooling. However, the tunnel
fans in houses 1 and 2 are 50-inch fans from one manufacturer
while the tunnel fans in houses 3 and 4 are 48-inch fans from a
different manufacturer. There are differences in the efciency
ratings between the 2 manufacturers fans and this is evident in
the kilowatt hour usage gures.
In house 4, it is interesting that the fan electricity cost
($890; Table 5) is actually less than the light electricity cost
($940; Table 4). In other words, it cost more to operate the
lights for 1 year than it did to operate the fans in house 4. This
fact points out the importance of lighting as a major cost center
when solid sidewall housing is used. With natural light no lon-
ger an option at the ABRF, the only light the birds receive has an
energy cost associated with it that can quickly add up over time.
USAGE continued from page 5
7
Table 5. Electricity used for fans at ABRF during rst year after renovations (2006-07).
Month
Placed
Fan electricity use (kwh) and cost ($)
April 1,430 $86 1,433 $86 1,536 $92 1,572 $94
June 3,010 $181 3,151 $189 3,568 $214 3,573 $214
August 4,566 $274 4,299 $258 4,412 $265 4,487 $269
October 4,095 $246 3,666 $220 1,934 $116 1,776 $107
December 1,497 $90 1,435 $86 1,251 $75 1,203 $72
February 2,457 $147 2,669 $160 2,134 $128 2,215 $133
Yearly
Totals
17,055 $1023 16,653 $999 14,835 $890 14,826 $890
Summary
Propane and electricity usage and cost gures at the ABRF are presented for the one-year period since the farm was reno-
vated. It is apparent that lighting is a major expense associated with solid sidewall housing, in some cases, more expensive than
even the cost of ventilation. We will continue to monitor costs associated with both ventilation and lighting in an effort to help
producers determine the best methods to reduce production costs without adversely affecting bird performance.
Vijay Durairaj and F. Dustan Clark, Center of Excellence for
E. Coli an Opportunist that
Causes Enteritis
Introduction
Enteritis caused by Escherichia coli (colibacilliosis) is an important disease in the poultry
industry because of increased mortality and decreased performance. E. coli is a bacterium that
can not be seen without a microscope and is often considered an opportunistic pathogen because
it infects whenever it has the opportunity. E. coli is a normal inhabitant of the intestinal tracts of
animals and is harmless as long as it is kept in check by other intestinal bacteria (Barnes et al.,
2003). When an imbalance occurs in bacterial ora of the intestinal tract, E. coli may grow and
cause an outbreak of colibacilliosis. Chickens of all ages are susceptible to colibacilliosis, but
usually young birds are considered more susceptible.
Signs of E. coli enteritis
Since E. coli is an opportunistic pathogen and will (given the chance) attack a number of
organs, infections can cause a wide variety of signs or symptoms. Symptoms may range from
sudden death of the bird to a vague sense that the bird is not doing well. Symptoms will also
E.COLI continued on page 8
8
depend on the age and general health of the bird. Generally,
birds will appear unthrifty and have rufed feathers. They may
also be depressed and have a decreased appetite. During the
acute phase of disease you may also notice yellowish colored
droppings and birds may be soiled in the vent region.
The cause of E. coli infections
E. coli enteritis does not t the classic denition
description of an infectious disease. This classic disease
denition states that one microbe causes a given disease
and that the illness can be reproduced in the laboratory
by infecting susceptible animals with that one microbe
(McMullin, 1998).
E. coli is normally present in the birds and the
disease can be triggered by numerous events (see Figure
1). Immunosuppressive diseases such as Infectious Bursal
Disease, Mareks disease, and Chicken Anemia may increase
susceptibility to E. coli infection. However, other countless
events or diseases can also increase susceptibility. For
instance, an E. coli infection may appear if birds do not have
regular access to feed or if their litter is too wet or if they are
exposed to another disease. Generally, anything that causes
stress in the bird may provide E. coli with the opening it
needs.
Once on E. coli outbreak happens, conditions may be
right for the disease to feed on itself, and affect the entire
ock. For example, if a signicant number of birds develop
diarrhea, litter moisture can increase, infecting more birds
and, in turn, causing more wet litter. Consequently, the best
approach to E. coli infections is prevention rather than control.
Prevention of E. coli Infections
Controlling all of the factors shown in Figure 1 is
imperative if growers are to control E. coli infections. As the
gure implies, these factors are interrelated.
A stressful house environment can easily encourage
E. coli infections. As mentioned, wet litter can encourage
infection, but most growers realize that wet litter is often
related to inadequate ventilation rates. Regular and frequent
checking of houses is also important, particularly as it involves
collecting the dead. Since commercial strains are bred to eat,
preventing stress means providing easy access to water and
feed is also important.
Growers tend to think that the company nutritionist and
the feed mill are the only ones responsible for the nutrition of
the birds. Although the nutritionist and feed mill personnel
bear much of the responsibility for bird nutrition, growers are
the last link in the chain. If growers do not store feed in clean,
dry tanks and ensure that feed is properly delivered to the
feeder pans, then birds do not receive the nutrition they need.
Since infection with another microbe can increase the
probability that birds will break with an E. coli infection, it
is also important to reduce or prevent the exposure of your
birds to pathogens. How do these pathogens arrive on the
farm? Human visitors are likely the largest source of pathogen
exposure. Thus, it is important to limit the number of visitors
and insist that visitors wear protective equipment (e. g.
disposable boots, coveralls and hair nets) during their visit.
Rats, mice and wild birds are another important source of
pathogen exposure so a vermin control program is essential.
Summary
In summary, E. coli is an opportunistic pathogen that can
produce a variety of symptoms in commercial poultry. E. coli
is present in the birds and the poultry house environment and
infects birds. However, if growers provide birds with proper
house environment, ensure that they have easy access to feed
and water as well as limit exposure to pathogens, E. coli
infections can be limited or eliminated.

References
Barnes, H. J., J-P. Vaillancourt and W. B. Gross. 2003.
Colibacillosis. In: Diseases of Poultry, 11th ed., Iowa State
University Press, Ames, IA, USA.
McMullin, P. 1998. Wet litter in turkeys: Diseases and
Interactions. Presentation at ADAS.NFU Turkey Conference
http://www.poultry-health.com/library/turkeys/adastu98.htm
Visited 8/10/07
E.COLI continued from page 7
*
*
9
Understanding and Control of
European Starlings
(Sturnus vulgaris)
Starling History
Starlings have apparently been associated with people since the beginning of agriculture.
Starlings have been kept as pets for centuries. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384322 BC)
described starlings. The Romans taught starlings to mimic human speech (Ehrlich et al. 1988). The
Roman author and philosopher Pliny the elder (23-79 AD) reported that starlings could mimic Greek
or Latin and that these birds practiced diligently and spoke new phrases every day, in still longer
sentences. The great composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart owned a pet starling and is reported to
have patterned a part of one of his piano concertos after a tune whistled by the bird (West and King,
2007).
The rst two attempts to introduce starlings into North America failed, but in 1890, Eugene
Schieffelin, a wealthy New York pharmacologist and Shakespeare enthusiast, successfully introduced
60 birds into Central Park, New York. Another 40 birds were introduced at the same location the
following year. Though disputed, it is reported that Mr. Schieffelins purpose was to introduce all
the birds mentioned in William Shakespeares plays into North America (Collins, 2007). A little over
a century later, this introduction of 100 birds in New York has produced over 200,000,000 starlings
that are distributed virtually coast to coast (Ehrlich et al., 1988). Starlings have been intentionally
introduced all over the world, most often for aesthetic purposes. Yet, ironically, due to the large
ocks, noisy habits and large amounts of waste, starlings are now widely regarded as pests (Adeney,
2001).
Starling Biology and Behavior
Starlings are about the same size as robins (about 8.5 inches tall and weigh slightly over 3
oz.). They have dark feathers with a greenish sheen and with light speckles. The bill of adult star-
lings will be yellow between January and June (mating season) and dark brown the rest of the year
(Lynch and Messmer, 2000).
Soon after learning to y starlings form feeding and roosting ocks, which range in size
from less than 100 to many thousands. These ocks help protect birds by increasing the number of
eyes watching for approaching predators (Chow, 2000). Flock size tends to be larger in cold winter
months and larger ocks can exceed a million birds (Lynch and Messmer, 2000).
Starlings are not particular about their diet; they are omnivores (that is they will consume
whatever is available). Half or more of their diet often consists of insects (adult and larvae stages
of crickets, grasshoppers, moths, butteries and beetles), spiders and earth worms, but they also
consume both natural and cultivated berries, seeds, and fruits (Chow, 2000). Starlings also consume
large quantities of livestock feed and can have a signicant negative impact on production costs
(Kern, 2001).
Starlings are unusual anatomically in that their jaw muscles work backwards in com-
parison to most other birds. Most birds are structured so that the most powerful muscles are used
to clamp the bill shut, but starlings are structured with the strongest muscles to spring the bill open.
Starlings use this feature to pry fruit or seeds apart as well as to hunt small prey (e.g. insects). A
starling will insert its bill between blades of grass in thick turf or other cover and then spring its bill
open to expose prey. As the bill opens the starlings eyes move forward toward each other, permit-
STARLINGS continued on page 10
Starlings are
unusual
anatomically in
that their jaw
muscles work
backwards in
comparison to
most other birds.
10
STARLINGS continued from page 9
ting binocular vision and (presumably) easier capture of prey. This technique allows starlings to detect and consume both active
and stationary prey. This foraging system is particularly effective during colder weather (Ehrlich et al., 1988; Keys and Dugatkin,
1990). Most starlings remain in the same general area year round, but some choose to migrate several hundred miles (Johnson
and Glahn, 1998).
Resident male starlings begin checking out nesting sites in late winter, while migratory males begin the process in early
spring. Starlings are secondary cavity nesters, meaning they do not excavate their own cavities. While typical nesting sites vary
in size, oor areas for ideal sites are about 23 square inches (Zimmerman, 2005). In contrast to other cavity nesters, who lay their
eggs on nothing more than a bed of wood chips or feathers, starlings build nests of sticks, dried grass, paper, feathers and debris in
their cavities. Starlings also select fresh green vegetation (herbs) that contain volatile chemicals for incorporation into their nests
(Ehrlich et al., 1988). Recent research has shown that the incorporation of fresh herbs in nests has a positive effect on edgling
body size. While the use of fresh herbs in nests does not affect the number of mites in the nest, they do reduce bacterial counts
in nesting materials. Researchers believe that the herbs may have their benecial effects by causing mites to feed less on young
birds or by improving the sanitary condition of the nest (Gwinner and Berger, 2005).
Starlings are usually monogamous and begin to pair off in late February or early March. Nesting sites are so ercely
defended that death can result from the struggle. Male starlings choose the nesting site and begin gathering nesting materials,
but the couple work together on the nest, usually completing the task in 1 to 3 days. One egg is laid per day with a total of 4 to 7
eggs per nest and most are laid between 8 and 11 am. Eggs are incubated for about 12 days mostly by the female, but males do
participate. Nestlings are completely helpless and their eyes are closed for the rst 6 to 7 days. Young birds leave the nest (edge)
in 21 to 23 days, but parents continue to feed their young for a few days following their departure (Zimmerman, 2005). Nesting
starlings usually forage 200 to 500 yards from the nest, since parents visit the nest an average of 260 times per day when feeding
nestlings (Ehrlich et al., 1988). While the length of the breeding season varies from season to season, it generally runs from late
March through early July in the Northern Hemisphere and September through December in the Southern Hemisphere. Depending
on the length of the season, as many as three clutches are eggs are laid during a single breeding season. The rst clutch is usually
synchronized with other starlings in the area, so that all eggs are laid within a few days of each other. However, the second and
third clutches of eggs are less synchronized. The second clutch of eggs is laid almost immediately after nestlings edge, while the
third clutch is generally laid forty to fty days after the rst (Chow, 2000).
It has been reported that starlings have reduced the population of native species (Ingold, 1998). However, a recent
scientic survey found no relationship between the reduction in native species numbers and the increase in starling numbers.
Researchers speculated that reduced native species numbers are because of the loss of native habitats (Koenig, 2003).
Most observers agree that the characteristics of starlings (prolic breeding, aggressive nesting, an omnivorous diet [they
eat anything], and a close association with humans) mean that they are here to stay. Indeed starlings have, in some cases, been
benecial. Starlings themselves are a food source for raptors (hawks, falcons or eagles) and other native predators. In fact, the
starling population may have helped increase certain raptor populations (Collins, 2007). Also, in the Netherlands, Spain and
France, starlings have been, and continue to be, harvested for human food (Adeney, 2001). Starlings voraciously consume harm-
ful insects that affect crops, but on the other hand they consume fruit and vegetable crops. Thus, when starlings are not consuming
pests, they become pests (Chow, 2000).
Threats from Starlings
In spite of their musical abilities, their ingenuity, and their unique abilities, most folks in the United States view starlings
as loud, obnoxious birds, who ruin crops, steal grain and generally make an unsightly mess. Indeed, when a ock of starlings
descends on a fruit or grain crop, it is not difcult to envision a total crop failure (Adeney, 2001). Lee (2005) estimated that star-
lings consume about 1.8 pounds of livestock feed per bird per month. In addition to the feed consumed, starlings will contaminate
many more pounds of feed with feces containing numerous bacterial, protozoan and viral pathogens. Since starlings travel from
farm to farm, they represent a biosecurity threat (Byler, 2002). Starlings are important reservoirs and vectors for the introduction
of external parasites such as mites, eas, and bed bugs into poultry houses. Starlings are also associated with: food borne patho-
gens (like Salmonella), human fungal diseases (such as blastomycosis and histoplasmosis), human protozoan diseases (toxo-
plamosis), human rickettsial diseases (Q fever), horse diseases (eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), and St. Louis encephalitis),
poultry diseases (coccidiosis, chlamydiosis, Newcastle Disease, and fowl pox) and swine diseases (transmissible gastroenteritis
(TGE)) as well as tapeworms, round worms (Tetrameres), intestinal worms (Capillaria) and gapeworms, which affect multiple
species (Kern, 2001). It has been estimated that starlings cost American agriculture (conservatively) $100 million per year (Byler,
2002)

Control of Starlings
Successfully managing starling and other pests means stopping the problem before it becomes a major issue. Start con-
trol efforts before the birds have a strong attraction to the site; keep at it until the problem is solved and use a variety of techniques
including: bird-proong (exclusion), trapping, frightening, shooting and toxicants (Lee, 2005).
11
Bird Proong (Exclusion)
Structures can be bird-proofed by closing all open-
ings larger than one inch, placing heavy PVC or rubber strips
over entrances or doorways and covering boards, ledges or
rafters with netting or porcupine wire to prevent roosting
(Johnson and Glahn, 1998). While exclusion (bird-proong) is
the best long-term solution to starling problems, few producers
are willing to take such steps (Lee, 2005).
Starlings are attracted to feed, water and shelter.
Limit or eliminate these factors and starlings will not remain
long. Clean up spilled grain or feed. Prevent standing water
and keep water in large troughs low enough so birds can not
perch on the edge to drink. Since starlings can not swallow
large particles, where possible present animals with feed in
blocks or cubes that are 0.5 or greater in diameter (Johnson
and Glahn, 1998).
Trapping
When dealing with small static populations of
starlings trapping and removal may be an effective method
of dealing with the situation. Traps should be placed where
starlings congregate and be maintained regularly. While a
number of effective trap designs are available, it is important
to purchase a trap that provides enough capacity to address
the problem. It is also important to release non-target species
(Lee, 2005).
Frightening
Frightening techniques work well in roosting situ-
ations, PROVIDED the problem is addressed as it begins to
develop. The difculty of dealing with roosting problems
increases with ock size. To be effective, efforts to frighten
birds must be persistent and the location, intensity and type
of scare devices must be varied. Examples of frightening
devices include distress calls, alarms, noise makers, explod-
ers, propane cannons, bright objects, laser beams, eye spot
balloons, pyrotechnics and hawk kites. Depending on the lo-
cation, it may also be wise to notify law enforcement ofcials
and neighbors of your efforts. Effective frightening apply
techniques as birds are beginning to roost late in the day and
maintain daily efforts until the ock moves (Lee, 2005).
Shooting
Since rie slugs can penetrate tin, drywall, plywood
or other such materials and travel over a mile, it may be wise
to use air guns, a 410 gauge shotgun with a no. 10 to 12 size
shot or a .22 rie with rat shot. Such weapons may be an ef-
fective method of controlling a few birds in a relatively small
area, but are ineffective at controlling large numbers of birds.
However, it may be an effective means of reinforcing scaring
and harassment efforts (Lee, 2005).
Toxicants
Toxicants used to control starling populations are
usually restricted use pesticides, which means that they are
regulated by both federal and state laws. Considerable skill
is required to ensure that these poisons do not affect humans.
The use of toxicants can have very serious and unintended
consequences and will also require considerable study of
starling roosting and feeding sites. Remember that most bird
species are legally protected by state laws, federal laws and
international treaties. The person using toxicants as a control
method is legally responsible for the consequences (intended
or not). In addition, toxicants that affect starlings may have
similar effect on poultry species and/or could produce residues
in poultry products.
References
Adeney, J. M. 2001. Introduced species summary
project European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) http://www.co-
lumbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoff-burg/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/
Sturnus_vulgaris.html visited 8/13/07.
Byler, L. I. 2002. Nuisance Birds: New and Estab-
lished Control methods for PA. Herd Health Memo HHM-02-
12 Penn State University Cooperative Extension Service.
Chow, J. 2000. Sturnus vulgaris. Animal Diversity
Web at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edy/site/accounts/
information/Sturnus_vulgaris.html visited 7/30/07.
Collins, J. 2007. European Starlings. Starling Talk.
http://www.starlingtalk.com/european_starling.htm visited
7/31/07.
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988.
European Starlings. http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanford-
birds/text/essays/European_Starlings.html 7/30/07.
Gwinner, H. and S. Berger. 2005. European starlings:
nestling condition, parasites and green nest material during
breeding season. J. Ornithol. 146:365-371.
Ingold, D. J. 1998. The inuence of starlings on
icker reproduction when both naturally excavated cavities
and articial nest boxes are available. Wilson Bull. 110:218-
225.
Johnson, R. J. and J. F. Glahn. 1998. Starling Man-
agement in Agriculture. Nebraska Cooperative Extension pub
no. NCR 451.
Kern, W. J., Jr. 2001. European Starling. Univ. of
Florida IFAS Extension Fact Sheet SS-WEC-118
Keys, G. C. and L. A. Dugatkin. 1990. Flock size and
position effects on vigilance, aggression and prey capture in
the European Starling. The Condor 92:151-159.
Koenig, W. D. 2003. European starlings and their
effect on native cavity-nesting birds. Conservation Biology
17:1134-1140.
Lee, C. D. 2005. Got Starlings? Bird control options
for dairies. Proc 7th Western Dairy Management Conf., Reno,
NV http://www.wdmc.org/2005/9Lee.pdf visited 8/14/07.
Lynch, J. A. and T. A. Messmer, 2000. European
starlings. Utah State University Extension Publication no
NR/WE/011.
West, M. J. and A. P. King, 2007. Mozarts starling.
http://www.starlingtalk.com/mozart1.htm visited 7/31/07.
Zimmerman, E. A. 2005. All about starlings. http://
www.sialis.org/starlingbio.htm 1/30/07.
12
UA Poultry Science
Extension Faculty
and physiological) that inuence fertility and embryonic mortality in broiler breeders. Telephone: 479-575-7036, FAX:
contamination in poultry feeds and the efcient processing and cooling of commercial eggs. Dr. Jones joined the Center
She served as a quality control supervisor and eld service person for Mahard Egg Farm in Prosper, Texas, and became
annual gures of the states poultry production by counties and serves as the superintendent of poultry at the Arkansas State
for Poultry Science
by Vijay Durairaj and Dustan Clark, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science,
INSIDE
page 3
Applied Broiler
Electricity Usage Before
and After Remodel
by G. Tom Tabler
page 5
Understanding and
Control of House
Sparrows
(Passer domesticus)
by Frank T. Jones
Advice

NECROTIC continued on page 2
Necrotic Enteritis
Introduction
The disease necrotic enteritis was rst
described in chickens in England in 1961
and since that time has been reported in
the majority of countries around the world.
Necrotic enteritis has been identied in
broilers, laying hens, turkeys and quail.
Necrotic enteritis has been estimated to affect
up to 40% of the commercial broiler ocks
and is believed to cost the industry about 5
per broiler in the United States (McDevitt et
al, 2006).
Cause
Necrotic enteritis is caused by toxins
produced by Clostridium perfringens as
it grows in the intestinal tract of birds.
Clostridium perfringens is a bacterium that
grows under anaerobic conditions (in the
absence of oxygen) and produces spores
that are highly resistant to drying, heat, acid
and other harsh conditions. The spores
produced by this organism are commonly
found in water, soil, feed, manure and other
environmental sources.
Although, small numbers of Clostridium
perfringens are also commonly found in the
intestinal tract of healthy broilers, they do not
cause disease. Under normal conditions the
good bacteria in the intestinal tract keep the
Clostridium perfringens population small in
number.
However, when conditions change in
the intestinal tract, Clostridium perfringens
numbers increase, toxins are produced and the
disease appears.
While anything that causes intestinal
irritation can lead to necrotic enteritis, stress;
intestinal disease (particularly coccidiosis);
AVIAN
intestinal parasites (especially round
worms); and immune suppression by mold
toxins (mycotoxins), chicken anemia virus,
Gumboro disease or Mareks disease have all
been specically linked to the disease.
Symptoms
Necrotic enteritis is commonly seen in
2-to 5-week old broiler chickens raised on
litter and in 7-to 12-week-old turkeys. At
times, the only symptom the clinical (severe)
disease is the rapid and unexplained death of
the bird.
When symptoms such as severe
depression, decreased appetite, dark colored
diarrhea, closed eyes or rufed feathers
appear they are often short-lived because
birds die rapidly. Dead birds appear
dehydrated and seem to rot very quickly from
the inside out.
When dead birds are opened it may
appear that the bird has coccidiosis, but the
intestines are ballooned with gas, fragile and
contain a foul-smelling brown uid. Early
in the disease intestines may contain ulcers
or light yellow spots on the surface. Later in
the disease the interior surface of intestines
may contain what seems to be a tan to yellow
colored membrane that is often said to
resemble a Turkish towel.
The disease will linger in the ock for
5 to 10 days, causing 2 to 50% mortality
(Merck Veterinary Manual, 1998).
While symptoms of the clinical (severe)
form of necrotic enteritis are fairly easy to
recognize, the sub-clinical (mild) form of the
2
NECROTIC continued from page 1
disease is not so easily recognized. Birds with mild necrotic
enteritis may simply look like they dont feel good and/or may
gain or perform poorly (Kaldhusdal and Lovland, 2002). Yet,
scientists believe that the mild form of necrotic enteritis has
a much greater impact on ock performance and protability
than the severe form.
Prevention, Control and Treatment
Antibiotics such as bacitracin, penicillin or lincomycin
can be used to treat the necrotic enteritis, but it is often
impossible to effectively use antibiotics since the disease
progresses so rapidly and the toxins involved produce
irreversible intestinal damage. Thus, it is most often easier to
prevent necrotic enteritis rather than treat it. Unfortunately, it
is not always possible to address every situation that may lead
to the onset of the disease. Still, in view of the performance
and economic issues involved, it is important to address all the
issues possible, including: keeping bird stress to a minimum,
maintaining feed storage and delivery systems, vermin control
and coccidiosis control.
Any factor that causes stress in the bird can alter the
intestinal environment, allowing Clostridium perfringens
to grow and produce toxin. While stress can come from
innumerable sources, the proper set-up and management of
poultry house environment is the most obvious method of
controlling stress.
Since it provides the power and raw materials required
for the bird to grow, it is also important to properly handle
feed. Feed that has been allowed to become old, damp or wet
will encourage mold growth and possibly toxin (mycotoxin)
production and should not be used. Almost all mycotoxins
reduce disease immunity in the bird and certain mycotoxins
are known to irritate the intestinal tract. Even if mycotoxins
are not present, moldy feed is unpalatable and contains fewer
nutrients that fresh feed. Hence, it is important to ensure that
feed handling and storage equipment is properly maintained.
Rodents and wild birds (vermin) are often found to
transmit disease organisms and parasites. Since, such
microbes and pests can either cause disease or stress in the
ock, it is imperative that these vermin be controlled.
Intestinal damage from the disease coccidiosis can easily
allow an opening for necrotic enteritis to develop. Thus,
it is extremely important to ensure that coccidiosis does not
develop in the ock. While all poultry companies maintain
coccidiosis control programs, inadequate management
practices can threaten these programs.
Perhaps, the most important management practice
involved in the control of necrotic enteritis is the regular
collection and disposal of the dead. If the dead are not
frequently collected, the cannibalism will occur, exposing
other birds to large number of Clostridium perfringens,
spreading the disease.
References
Kaldhusdal, M. and A. Lovland. 2002. Clostridial
necrotic enteritis and cholangiohepatitis. Proc. The Elanco
Global Enteritis Symposium, July 9-11, 2002 at http://www.
poultry-health.com/fora/inthelth/pdfs/kaldhusdal02.pdf visited
5/18/07.
McDevitt, R. M., J. D. Brooker, T. Acamovic and N. H.
C. Sparks. 2006. Necrotic enteritis; a continuing challenge for
the poultry industry. Worlds Poultry Sci. J. 62:221-247.
Merck Veterinary Manual. 1998. Necrotic enteritis. http://
www.merckveterinarymanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cle=htm/
bc/201200.htm visited 5/18/07.
CHECKING THINGS OVER
- Dr. Dustan Clark, poultry
veterinarian at the Center of
Excellence for Poultry Science,
does a routine check of a bird.
3
G. Tom Tabler, Manager, Applied Broiler Research Unit - Savoy
Report: Electricity Usage Before
and After Renovation
ELECTRICITY continued on page 4
Introduction
The Applied Broiler Research Farm (ABRF) is a 4-house commercial scale broiler farm owned
by the University of Arkansas with research capabilities that include the close monitoring of total
electricity usage and the individual electricity usage of each house. The farm was constructed in
1990 and completely renovated in early 2006, with resumption of growing broilers in April 2006.
This is the second of a planned series of before and after reports on ABRF performance in various
areas.
Electricity Usage
The ABRF has electric meters on each broiler house that allows electricity usage to be closely
monitored on the farm. Electric meters are read weekly and usage has been calculated for each of the
92 ocks of broilers raised on the farm since 1990. As expected, electricity usage is always much
greater in the summer when tunnel fans and cool cells are running much of the time as opposed to
the winter season when minimum ventilation is used. Total electricity usage by ock for the period
2001-2006 is listed in Table 1. During the period 2001-2004, the farm raised 6 ocks of broilers per
year. In general, ocks were placed in the months of January, March, May, July, September, and
November. There were no ocks placed in November 2005, January 2006, or March 2006 because
the farm was shut down for renovations.
Table 1. Electricity usage (kilowatt hours) at the Applied Broiler Research Farm (2001-6).
Flock
Placement
Month 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
5-Year
Avg. 2006
1 January 10920 9757 8672 6853 12640 9768 --
2 March 7258 9423 7570 6625 10729 8321 --
3 May 15341 9835 9900 13561 14283 12584 16070
4 July 23806 20709 14810 17042 19681 19210 23607
5 September 4326 18092 4683 17139 18464 12541 28964
6 November 6740 8633 7674 13607 -- 9164 22300
Electricity usage increased for each ock in 2006 compared to the average of the previous 5 years. This was expected
because there is no longer natural ventilation available since curtains were replaced by solid sidewalls on all 4 houses. Mechani-
cal ventilation (either sidewall or tunnel fans) is now the only method of air exchange. In addition, there is also no natural light
available after renovations. All lighting is now with articial light (light bulbs), which requires additional electricity, compared to
4
ELECTRICITY continued from page 3
the period before renovations when natural lighting available
during the day. We are currently investigating the use of cold
cathode lighting in one house which may have the potential
for substantial energy savings over more typical incandescent
lighting and, unlike uorescent lighting; cold cathode bulbs
are easily dimmable. These efforts will be reported at a later
date.
Even though electricity usage has increased versus before
renovations, that may not be as bad as it sounds. While the
solid sidewalls have increased electricity usage, if those same
solid sidewalls can save enough fuel (propane), the farm is
better off in the long run. When the farm was built, electric-
ity costs were roughly $0.05 per kilowatt hour and propane
cost $0.52 cents per gallon. Electricity costs are now roughly
$0.06 per kilowatt hour while propane costs are roughly
$1.35 to 1.50 per gallon. As you can see, electricity costs are
roughly the same now as when the farm was originally built in
1990, but, propane costs have roughly tripled. Therefore, the
farm can afford to use several extra kilowatt hours of electric-
ity and still be ahead if it can save on propane use.
Kilowatt hours: Total and by individual house
Figure 1 illustrates the total kilowatt hours used on the
farm from 2001 through 2006. During the 6 ocks per year in
2001 through 2004 and 5 ocks in 2005 before renovations,
the farm had never used more than 76,500 kilowatt hours in
a single year. However, in 2006, during which time only 4
ocks were grown after renovations were complete; the farm
used almost 91,000 kilowatt hours. This gure will be consid-
erable higher in the future when a full years worth of produc-
tion is calculated vs. the 8 months worth of production shown
here. Again however, it may be possible to compensate for
this greater kilowatt hour usage with increased fuel savings.
This is something we will continue to investigate.
Figure 2 indicates the kilowatt hour usage by individual
house for the period 2001 to 2006. During most years, house
1 used the most kilowatt hours. This was due (among other
things) to the stir fans and jet tubes were used to distribute hot
air off the ceiling back down toward the oor during winter
periods. Also, an experimental litter burning furnace was
installed at that house which used additional electricity that
could not be separated from house electricity. After reno-
vations, and during 2006, electricity usage was similar for
houses 2, 3, and 4. Usage was somewhat higher in house 1
due, in part, to the experimental litter burning furnace.
Aside from the experimental furnace at house 1, renova-
tions have made all 4 houses quite similar in design and (as
illustrated by Figure 2) houses were similar electricity usage
during 2006, especially in houses 2, 3, and 4. Again, only a
partial year (8 months) is included in the 2006 data. In the
future, more data collection will provide a better understand-
ing of actual yearly usage.
Summary
Electricity usage was higher after the renovations than
before. This was expected and is due, in part, to solid sidewall
construction, loss of natural daylight as a light source, and an
increase in mechanical ventilation throughout the year. How-
ever, if the solid sidewall construction and an overall tighter
house save enough on the fuel bill, the increase in electricity
usage will be more than offset by increased fuel savings be-
cause propane is much more expensive than electricity at the
present time. Data collection will continue on both propane
and electricity usage and will be disseminated to provide
producers a better before and after assessment of the value
of renovations at the ABRF.
Figure 1. Total kilowatt hours of electricty used (by year)
at the Applied Broiler Research Farm (2001-6).
Figure 2. Electricity usage by house at the ABRF (2001-6).
5
Understanding and Control
of House Sparrows
(Passer domesticus)
House Sparrow History and Invasion Tactics
In the 1800s attempts were made to introduce a number
of European avian species to the United States. Few of these
species survived, but the house sparrow (which will be re-
ferred to as a sparrow in the rest of the article) is an exception
(Van Vleck, 1994). In the 1850s the sparrow was introduced
into New York Citys Central Park to eliminate the destruc-
tion of trees by inch worms (Eno, 1996). Other introductions
were made by homesick European immigrants who wanted a
reminder of their homelands (Kern, 2001). Following intro-
duction, sparrow numbers increased rapidly, making them now
one of the most common birds in North America (Zimmerman,
2005). Sparrows are found in nearly every locale except dense
forests, alpine habitats and desert environments. Sparrow
numbers have been estimated at 150 million (Zimmerman,
2007). However, sparrow numbers have fallen from their peak
in the 1920s, when food and waste from horses furnished an
unlimited supply of food (Fitzwater, 1994a).
Nevertheless, sparrows have adapted to life in close
association with humans using following characteristics to
successfully invade the United States and other countries:
rapid reproduction; effective dispersal mechanisms; rapid,
easy establishment; rapid growth and aggressive competition
with other species (Zimmerman, 2007). One pair of spar-
rows can produce up to 20 chicks per breeding season. While
unlikely, this means that one pair could potentially increase to
1,250 birds in 5 years. Sparrows are not exposed to the rigors
and mortality associated with migration. Sparrows simply y
a few miles from the nest to take advantage of the nesting sites
and food sources available. This steady progressing has effec-
tively dispersed sparrow populations throughout the country.
House sparrows are not nicky eaters or picky about nesting
sites. They will consume virtually any food that is available
and readily build nests near other bird species. House spar-
rows also quickly build nests 8 to 30 feet from the ground and
reuse them each year. In addition, sparrows tend to feed in
small ocks to avoid predation. It takes only 25 to 30 days
from the time house sparrow eggs are laid to produce an inde-
pendent juvenile and sexual maturity comes in 6 to 9 months.
Additionally, house sparrows aggressively defend both nesting
and feeding sites, destroying eggs and injuring or killing other
competitive species. House sparrows are persistent, resource-
ful and intelligent. In fact, Fitzwater (1994b) reports that the
brain usually accounts for about 4.3% of the body weight of
sparrows, which is considerable more than those of other birds.
House Sparrow Biology
Sparrows (pictured above) are generally about 5.75
inches in total length and have brown plumage. Sexually ma-
ture males have a black striped back, gray on the crown of the
head and a characteristic black bib or stripe on their throat.
Females and young are brown with striped backs and a pale
tan eye brow or stripe over their eyes (Kern, 2001).
Sparrows tend to be home bodies, spending their entire
life 2 to 3 miles from their roosts and feeding sites (Casto,
2001). Plant materials (grain, fruit, seeds and garden plants)
make up 96% of the adult diet but young are fed insects until
they are almost grown (Fitzwater, 1994a; Kern, 2001). How-
ever, sparrows are known to eat more than 830 foods and com-
monly use the same nesting site year after year (Casto, 2001).
Nests of sparrows are usually an untidy mass of dried
grass, leaves, pine straw, string, paper and feathers, usually po-
sitioned 8-30 feet off the ground for protection from predators
(Kern, 2001; Zimmerman, 2005). Nesting sites are usually
claimed by the males in mid to late winter, prior to courtship
in late winter or early spring (Eno, 1996). Both males and
females participate in nest building, but females supply the
majority of construction activity. Nest building may begin
just a few days before the rst egg (Zimmerman, 2005). About
90% of adults stay within a radius of 1.25 mi during nesting
(Fitzwater, 1994a).
Sparrows are monogamous, but appear more closely
bonded to a nest site than a mate. Males spend 60% of their
perching time at nesting sites during breeding season. Males
with wide bib sizes mate more often than those with narrower
bibs, and aggressively defend nest sites mostly from other
male sparrows (Zimmerman, 2005).
Egg laying starts in March or April usually with 3 to 4
clutches of an average of 5 speckled white eggs. Studies have
shown that in a suburban setting 67% of house sparrow eggs
were infected with E. coli pathogenic to avian species (Pi-
nowski et al., 1994).
Eggs are incubated by both males and females for 10-16
days and the young remain in the nest about 15 days (Casto,
2001; Kern, 2001). Females take the primary responsibility
SPARROWS continued on page 6
6
for raising nestlings, visiting the young 15-19 times per hour,
but both parents feed young by regurgitation. Fledglings are
able to feed themselves 7-10 days after leaving the nest. After
edging, birds may wander 0.6 1.2 mi to nd new feeding
areas (Zimmerman, 2005).
Predators, disease and stress cause heavy sparrow mortal-
ity during the rst year of life and few birds survive past the
fth season, but the typical lifespan of 3 years is relatively
long in comparison to other species. However, individual
birds have been found to live up to 11 years in the wild (Casto,
2001; Fitzwater, 1994a, Zimmerman, 2007).
Concerns about House Sparrows
House sparrows are often hated by bird lovers and some
call them ying rats or weeds of the air. Bluebird and
purple martin lovers are particularly venomous toward house
sparrows because they effectively (sometimes brutally) com-
pete for nesting and feeding sites (Van Vleck, 1994).
Sparrows have also been reported to carry:
1. Bacterial diseases that can affect both humans and ani-
mals like salmonellosis (Whitney, 2004) and perhaps anthrax;
2. Mycoplasma diseases including such as Mycoplasma
gallisepticum (MG), which is pathogenic to many avian spe-
cies (including poultry);
3. Protozoan diseases such as sarcosporidiosis, and coc-
cidiosis, which affect primarily animals as well as toxoplas-
mosis, and chlamydiosis (psittacosis) which are maladies in
both humans and animals
4. Viral diseases such as West Nile Virus, Eastern Equine
Encephalitis (EEE), Western Equine Enchephalitis (WEE), St.
Louis Encephalitis, and Venezuelan Encephalitis which infect
humans and animals via mosquitos; Poultry diseases such as
Newcastle disease or fowl pox and TGE in swine;
5. Internal parasites such as round worms, tape worms,
gape worms; and
6. External parasites such as eas, ticks, mites (including
the northern fowl mite), bed bugs and lice.
External parasite populations are readily propagated
by sparrow populations since nests are unkempt and reused
(Kern, 2001; Fitzwater, 1994a; Zimmerman, 2005). In addi-
tion, nesting materials may cause re hazards when construct-
ed near lights or other heat sources (Kern, 2001).
Sparrow Control Methods
Although sparrows are a nuisance as well as spreading
disease organisms and parasites, their close association with
humans limits safe alternatives for control. However, control
methods can be divided into the following seven categories:
exclusion, repellants, poisons, trapping, shooting, nest destruc-
tion and predators (Fitzwater, 1994a).
Exclusion
Since sparrows are intelligent, hardy and adaptable,
total exclusion is virtually impossible. In addition, exclusion
efforts must be sustained over long periods to be effective.
Nevertheless, closing all openings of 0.75 inches or larger,
covering large openings (such as under eaves) with hardware
cloth, and attaching signs at against buildings can assist in
control of sparrows. It is also important to cover any source of
grain or food to prevent access by sparrows.
Repellants
There are two general types of sparrow repellant systems:
tactile and sound repellants. Tactile repellants are those that
are placed on roosting or nesting surfaces to discourage spar-
row activity. Unfortunately tactile repellants (such as electri-
ed wire, porcupine wire or sticky substances) are generally
more effective against pigeons than sparrows. Sound repel-
lants (such as loud noises from reworks or rearms; ultrason-
ic devices or recorded distress calls) may discourage sparrows
for a time, but usually they learn to ignore the sounds (Fitzwa-
ter, 1994a; Kern, 2001).
Poisons
Poisons used to control sparrow populations are restricted
use pesticides that are regulated by both federal and state laws.
Considerable skill is required to ensure that these poisons
do not affect humans. The use of poisons will also require
considerable study of sparrow nesting, roosting and feeding
sites and can have very serious unintended consequences.
Remember that most bird species are legally protected by state
laws, federal laws and international treaties. The person using
poisons as a control method is legally responsible for the con-
sequences (intended or not). In addition, poisons that affect
sparrows may have similar affect on poultry species and/or
could produce residues in poultry products.
Trapping
While trapping of sparrows is often more labor intensive
and expensive than other control methods, trapping can ef-
fectively reduce sparrow populations. In addition, since most
traps are live traps, if birds other than sparrows are caught,
they can be quickly released. Yet, no matter what trap is used,
the secret to trapping is to put out bait (pre-bait) about a week
before setting traps (Kern, 2001). It is also important to use
the right bait. Fitzwater (1994b) developed the data in Table
1, which show that sparrows preferentially consume white
millet, corn cracked to 1/16 to 4/16 inch in size or whole milo.
Table. 1. Preference shown by sparrows for eight candidate
bait materieals
1
Bait
Material
Materials taken in 24hrs
Grams taken Percent of total
White millet 618 26.9
Cracked corn
(1/16 to 2/16)
471 20.5
Whole Milo 435 18.9
Cracked corn
(2/16 to 4/16)
396 17.2
Cracked corn
(under 1/16)
177 7.7
Wheat 145 6.3
7
Bait
Material
Materials taken in 24hrs
Grams taken Percent of total
Cracked corn
(over 1/4)
32 1.4
Lab chow 26 1.1

1
Adapted from Fitzwater (1994b)
There are more types of traps available for sparrows than
for any other bird, making it impractical to attempt to describe
every model (Fitzwater, 1994a). Still there are a few general
types of traps, each of which have pluses and minuses.
Funnel or drop-in traps are the most common type of
sparrow trap and can accommodate a sizable number of birds.
Funnel traps employ a funnel or trough shaped entrance that
allows sparrows to easily pass through the large end into the
trap, but the small end inside the trap discourages exits. Fun-
nel traps can capture relatively large numbers of sparrows, but
they can also escape with relative ease. Therefore, it is impor-
tant to frequently check funnel type traps (Fitzwater, 1994a;
Kern, 2001)
Although there are numerous design variations; auto-
matic, counter balanced, or elevator traps that allow a spar-
row to enter an enclosed compartment attached to the end of
a holding cage. The sparrow enters to get the bait, which is
on a small box inside the compartment. The box is enclosed
on two sides with the entrance to the cage below. The shelf
or box is attached to the end of rod or narrow thin board that
pivots around a fulcrum in the center, similar to a see-saw. A
counter weight balances the box, and as the sparrow con-
sumes the bait, its weight causes the rod (or see-saw) to tip
downward closing off the original entrance and, when the rod
reaches the bottom, exposing the entrance to the holding cage.
The sparrow enters the holding cage and the counter weight
returns the box to its original position. Elevator traps tend
to catch fewer birds than funnel traps, but the birds that are
caught generally do not escape (Fitzwater, 1994a).
Triggered traps are snares that generally catch one spar-
row at a time and usually involve a spring operated door or
closure. Sparrows enter the trap, trigger the closing of the
door and are trapped. Obviously this type of trap catches only
one or maybe two sparrows at a time. Thus, such traps are not
suited for controlling large populations, but may be effective
against a few persistent individual birds.
Shooting with rearms
Since rie slugs can travel over a mile and penetrate tin,
drywall, plywood or other such materials, it may be wise to
use air guns, a 410 gauge shotgun with a no. 10 to 12 size shot
or a 22 rie with rat shot. Such weapons may be an effective
method of controlling a few sparrows in a relatively small
area, but are ineffective at controlling large numbers of birds.
Furthermore, such weapons can become increasingly ineffec-
tive when sparrows become wary.
Nest Destruction
Sparrow populations will continue to increase if nests are
allowed to remain. Removal of nests, eggs and young tends to
discourage birds from building. However, sparrows are persis-
tent and nest removal must be repeated every two weeks during
breeding season. Long insulated poles may be used to remove
nests from high places and destroyed to prevent reuse. In addi-
tion, nesting materials may be infested with external parasites
(especially mites) and infected with disease organisms.
Predators
Both cats and sparrows often live in symbiotic relation-
ships with humans. One farmer used scrap lumber to build cat
walks between exposed rafters where sparrows usually roosted
or nested. These makeshift walks, allowed farm cats access to
locations where sparrows usually roosted or nested and resulted
in a reduction of the resident house sparrow population by 80%
over the course of a year.
Summary
House sparrows are not native to the United States and in
most cases are not protected by federal or state laws. House
sparrows are intelligent, persistent and resourceful. However,
house sparrows can destroy insulation, cause re hazards with
nesting materials as well as spread disease and parasites. Con-
trol of house sparrows may be accomplished through exclu-
sion, repellants, poisons, trapping, shooting, nest destruction
and predators (e.g. cats). However, control efforts must be
consistent, diverse and organized. In addition, it is important to
keep in mind that control efforts should not compromise ock
performance or produce residues in poultry meat or eggs.
References
Casto, S. D. 2001. House Sparrow. The Online Handbook
of Texas. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/
HH/tbh2_print.html visited 1/30/07
Eno, S. 1996. House Sparrows. http://audubon-omaha.
org/bbbox/ban/hsbyse.htm visited 2/1/07
Fitzwater, W. D. 1994a. House Sparrows. In: Prevention
and Control of Wildlife Damage, Eds, S. E. Hygnsrom, R. M.
Timm and F. E. Larson, U of Nebraska-Lincoln 2 vol http://
www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/wild/pdf/wildlife/HOUSE_SPAR-
ROWS.PDF visited 1/30/07
Fitzwater, W. D. 1994b. Outwitting the house sparrow
(Passer domesticus). http://wildlifedamage,unl.edu/handbook/
chapters/pdf/5gptzwater.pdf visited 1/18/07
Kern, W. H. Jr. 2001. House or English Sparrow. Univer-
sity of Florida IFAS pub no SSWEC119
Pinowski, J., M. Barkowska, A. H. Kruszewicz and A.
G. Kruszewicz. 1994. The causes of the mortality of eggs and
nestlings of Passer spp. J. Biosci. 19(4):441-451
Van Vleck, R and D. Van Vleck .1994. The house spar-
row in America. Home Ground. http://wwww.americanartifacts.
com/smma/per/spar1.htm visited 2/1/07
Whitney, H. 2004. Salmonella in Songbirds. Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador Dept of Natural Resources Pub.
AP033, July 27, 2004.
Zimmerman, E. A. 2005. House Sparrow Biology. http://
www.sialis.org/hospbio.htm visited 1/18/07
Zimmerman, E. A. 2007. House Sparrow History. http://
www.sialis.org/hosphistory.htm Visited 2/6/07
8
UA Poultry Science
Extension Faculty
for Poultry Science
by Amanda Hancock, Jennifer Hughes and Susan Watkins, Center of Excellence for
Poultry Science, University of Arkansas
INSIDE
page 5
Applied Broiler Re-
search Farm Report:
Propane Usage Before
and After Remodel
by G. Tom Tabler
page 7
Feasability of
On-Farm Broiler Litter
Combustion
by Thomas A. Costello
page 13
Wild Bird Control:
Why and How
by Frank T. Jones
Advice

WATER CLEANER continued on page 2
In Search of the Ideal
Water Line Cleaner
Cleaning poultry drinking water systems
can be difcult if systems are dirty or a
biolm slime has become established in the
pipes, regulators, and water lines running
from the well to the poultry houses. There
have been many incidences in which the best
daily water sanitation program was less than
successful in protecting birds from disease
challenges just because the water system was
not completely clean before bird placement.
The goal of every poultry producer should be
to provide birds with the best water supply
possible. Unfortunately if growers often use
vitamins and other water additives, it is very
possible that a biolm has become established
in the pipes and regulators in as little as two to
three days.
Biolms are composed of many types of
bacteria and other organisms that live together
in a sticky lm inside pipes, regulators, and
even the nipple drinkers. The biolm then
shields itself by secreting a thick mucous that
is not easily penetrated by cleaners such as
chlorine or acidiers such as citric acid. The
mucous can even neutralize the cleaner before
it has a chance to kill harmful organisms.
Then as the biolm grows and becomes
crowded, it releases bacteria into the water
and to the birds.
One of the most eye opening cases
that drives home the importance of good
water sanitation was a turkey barn that had
Bordetella positive poults. Bordetella is a
bacterial respiratory infection that can set
back a ock of turkeys and usually requires
antibiotic treatment for successful recovery.
AVIAN
The nipple drinker line was cut and a visual
inspection of the line indicated no slime.
The pipes looked clean. However, when the
water regulator was opened, a thick algae
growth was present on the pressure seal
and the Bordetella was found thriving there
(see picture p. 4). That is why if a producer
even suspects his water supply or drinkers
might be causing health issues in ocks, it is
important to pick the right line cleaner and
use it at an appropriate rate between ocks
when the poultry houses are empty and no
birds are present.
The biggest question is: What products
give producers the most thorough cleaning
for their water systems without damaging the
equipment? While many growers have been
trained to use products such as citric acid,
research results are now showing that when a
drinker system is dirty with bacteria, organic
acids such as citric acid could be providing
the bacteria a food supply and creating a
bacterial challenge for new chicks and poults.
If the biolm contains yeast or mold, then
lowering the pH of the water with citric acid
could actually be creating a more favorable
environment for the slime to thrive resulting
in clogged drinkers. Most molds prefer a pH
of 2 to 5.
Given the fact that many challenges
can potentially be present in poultry house
water systems, what is the best choice for
optimizing line cleaning and eliminating
2
WATER CLEANER continued from page 1
all growth? This was the question that led to the evaluation
of several line cleaning products. The objective of this
project was to create a microbial rich environment that could
potentially shield bacteria and other organisms from cleaners
(just like biolms do) and then determine what products were
most effective in reducing or eliminating bacteria, yeast and
mold.
Products were evaluated for their ability to kill oxygen
loving (or aerobic) bacteria, yeast and mold in the presence of
a heavy organic load. These microbes were chosen because
they are typically present in contaminated water systems. In
an attempt to simulate the slime seen in the Bordetella positive
regulator, water containing algae was used for the test. The
heavy organic load in this water simulated the challenge for
cleaning tough biolms.
The products tested included a citric acid product; CID
2000, (20 % stabilized hydrogen peroxide with acetic acid);
35% hydrogen peroxide; Poultry PronTech (quaternary
ammonium compound); Pro Clean, (50% stabilized
hydrogen peroxide); Proxy Clean, (50% stabilized hydrogen
peroxide); and 6% sodium hypochlorite or house bleach. Table
1 shows the test concentrations for each product.
Table 1. Test products
Product
Description of
Products Concentration Tested
CID 2000
20% Stabilized hy-
drogen peroxide with
acetic acid
2% Solution
Citric Acid
Feed grade citric
acid
Two 1-lb. packs to a gal.
of water makes the stock
solution, then
1-oz. to a gal. of water
Hydrogen
Peroxide
35% concentration 3% solution
Poultry Pron
Tech
0.0123 grams/50ml 100 ppm solution
Poultry Pron
Tech
0.05 grams/50 ml 400 ppm solution
Pro Clean
35% Stabilized
Hydrogen
Peroxide
3% solution
Pro Clean
35% Stabilized
Hydrogen Peroxide
0.78% solution
Proxy Clean
35% Stabilized
Hydrogen Peroxide
3% solution
Sodium
hypochlorite
or household
bleach
6% Concentrate
0.78% solution tested
created by adding 1-oz.
bleach to 128-ozs. or
1-gallon of water
Sodium
hypochlorite
or household
bleach
6% Concentrate
0.073% solution tested
this was made by adding
12-ozs. bleach added to
128-ozs. or 1-gal. of water
to create a stock solution
then 1-oz. of stock was
added to 1-gallon of
drinking water
The amount of cleaner required to give the nal
concentrations listed in Table 1 was added to each of two
small jars (duplicates) containing 50 ml of water with an
abundance of algae growth. Prior to adding the cleaners,
the water in each jar was tested for the different microbes.
Following cleaner addition the jars were held at room
temperature until they were sampled at 4 and 24 hours. The
pH of the samples was checked with a pH meter, while the
aerobic plate counts (APC), yeast and mold counts were done
using Petrilm
TM
.
The initial aerobic bacteria counts (APC) ranged from 2
million to 35 million colony forming units per milliliter (CFU/
ml) (Table 2).
Table 2. Bacteria count results of testing
different cleaning products on algae water
Product
Pre-
Treatment
Aerobic
Bacteria
(CFU/ml)
Aerobic
Bacteria 4
hours after
adding
products
(CFU/ml)
Aerobic
Bacteria 24
hours after
adding
products
(CFU/ml)
Control 10,400,000 12,750,000 24,650,000
CID 2000
2% solution
8,000,000 105 <10
Citric Acid 36,500,000 36,200,000 21,800,000
Hydrogen
Peroxide -
3% solution
5,500,000 294,000 115
Poultry
PronTech
100 ppm
13,100,000 465,000 5,382,500
Poultry
PronTech
400 ppm
6,500,000 575,000 261,500
Pro Clean
0.78% solution
24,300,000 490,000 53,800
Pro Clean
3% solution
7,700,000 82,000 <10
Proxy Clean
3% solution
2,100,000 166,500 <10
Bleach
0.073%
solution
7,600,000 166,500 1,271,000
Bleach
0.78% solution
9,700,000 109,000 138,000

Counts from untreated (control) water increased slightly at
both 4 and 24 hours, which showed that conditions favor
survival of aerobic bacteria. When the products were
compared at four hours post treatment, counts from the CID
2000 hydrogen peroxide treated water had the greatest
reduction in bacteria counts with only 105 CFU/ml remaining.
At 4 hours post treatment counts from the citric acid treated
water showed no reduction. Although all the other products
tested reduced bacteria counts, several thousand CFU/ml
survived and this level is not acceptable for drinking water
3
WATER CLEANER continued on page 4
Table 3. Yeast count results of testing different cleaning
products on algae water
Product
Pre-
Treatment
Yeast Levels
(CFU/ml)
Yeast Levels
4 hours after
adding
products
(CFU/ml)
Yeast Levels
24 hours after
adding
products
(CFU/ml)
Control 2,800 200 145
CID 2000
2% solution
400 <10 <10
Citric Acid 15,000 480 390
Hydrogen
Peroxide -
3% solution
700 <10 <10
Poultry
PronTech
100 ppm
1100 160 160
Poultry
PronTech
400 ppm
135 135 95
Pro Clean
0.78% solution
3500 500 30
Pro Clean
3% solution
600 <10 <10
Proxy Clean
3% solution
2,500 <10 <10
Bleach
0.073%
solution
400 65 100
Bleach
0.78% solution
400 70 120
Table 4. Mold count results of testing different cleaning
products on algae water
Product
Pre-
Treatment
Mold Levels
(CFU/ml)
Mold Levels
4 hours after
adding
products
(CFU/ml)
Mold Levels
24 hours after
adding
products
(CFU/ml)
Control 1,000 120 105
CID 2000
2% solution
200 <10 <10
Citric Acid 1,400 905 155
Hydrogen
Peroxide -
3% solution
400 <10 <10
Poultry
PronTech
100 ppm
400 30 25
Poultry
PronTech
400 ppm
900 30 25
Pro Clean
0.78% solution
100 <10 <10
Pro Clean
3% solution
600 <10 <10
Proxy Clean
3% solution
400 <10 <10
Bleach
0.073%
solution
200 <10 10
Bleach
0.78% solution
300 20 15
systems because it serves as a reservoir of bacteria to re-establish biolms. At 24 hours, no bacteria were detected in water treated
with the CID 2000, ProClean 3%, or ProxyClean 3%. The hydrogen peroxide 3% solution also had dramatic reduction
in bacteria counts at 24 hours. The bleach solutions tested showed minimal effectiveness in reducing bacterial counts, as did the
PronTech.
Yeast and mold counts from control samples decreased by about tenfold at 4 hours, but did not further decrease at 24 hours
(Tables 3 and 4). Since yeasts and mold prefer to grow in low pHs (acid conditions), these counts may reect the fact that pH
values for the water used were higher than 7 (alkaline) (Table 5).
4
WATER CLEANER continued from page 3
Table 5. pH results of testing different cleaning products
on algae water
Product
Pre-
Treatment
pH Levels
pH Levels 4
hours after
adding
products
pH Levels 24
hours after
adding
products
Control 7.91 8.04 8.01
CID 2000
2% solution
7.88 5.86 6.11
Citric Acid 7.81 7.49 8.08
Hydrogen
Peroxide -
3% solution
7.79 7.94 8.16
Poultry
PronTech
100 ppm
7.86 8.62 8.25
Poultry
PronTech
400 ppm
7.70 8.74 8.82
Pro Clean
0.78% solution
7.98 8.08 8.27
Pro Clean
3% solution
7.83 7.85 8.07
Proxy Clean
3% solution
7.74 7.86 7.99
Bleach
0.073%
solution
7.92 8.23 8.36
Bleach
0.78% solution
7.85 8.19 8.39

Initial yeast ranged from 135 to 15,000 CFU/ml (Table 3).
While all yeast counts except the PronTech 400 decreased at
4 hours, levels were undetectable for the 2% CID 2000, the
ProClean 3%, ProxyClean 3% and hydrogen peroxide at
both 4 and 24 hours. Interestingly, yeast counts from bleach
treated samples decreased at 4 hours, but increased slightly at
24 hours.
Mold counts from pre-treatment samples ranged from
200 to 1,400 CFU/ml (Table 4). More products showed
effectiveness in reducing mold counts than yeast counts (Table
3). Mold counts from CID 2000, both levels of ProClean,
ProxyClean, 0.073% bleach solution and 3% hydrogen
peroxide decreased to undetectable levels by 4 hours, while
counts from citric acid, PronTech and 0.78% bleach treated
samples decreased less.
The initial pH for the different dirty water solutions was
above pH neutral (7) which is not uncommon for many water
supplies (Table 5). There were no obvious trends in pH
among the treatments. The control showed a slight increase in
pH at 4 and 24 hours. The CID 2000 had a drastic reduction
in pH at 4 hours, but at 24 hours it increased. The citric acid
had an initial lowering of pH, but at 24 hours it increased.
Hydrogen peroxide increased the pH at 4 and 24 hours. Both
PronTech rates had an increase in pH at 4 and 24 hours and
this would be expected for ammonia-based products. The Pro
Clean at both rates also increased the pH at 4 and 24 hours, as
did the Proxy Clean and both bleach rates.
Conclusion
The products which showed the most effectiveness
in virtually eliminating bacteria, yeast and mold were 2%
CID 2000, 3% ProClean, 3% ProxyClean and 3%
hydrogen peroxide (35% concentrate). Citric acid had little
impact on the bacteria. The yeast and mold levels tended
to become lower no matter what the treatment but were
reduced to undetectable levels by the same products that
reduced the bacteria. It was also interesting to note that
it took up to 24 hours to have the most impact on bacteria
levels with the most effective products with the exception
of CID 2000. Knowing that mold typically prefers acidic
pH and the samples were slightly alkaline, the environment
was not very favorable for mold. The high pH PronTech
solutions were not very effective but the test was somewhat
an unfair test since low concentrations PronTech solutions
(100 and 400 ppm) were compared to 3% hydrogen peroxide
solutions. Future work will focus on stronger concentrations
of PronTech since it is a high pH product that may have
great value in high pH water. Higher concentrations of bleach
were not used since strong bleach solutions are known to be
damaging to water line equipment.
The take home message from this project is water
systems which contain a great deal of bacterial growth and
slime may very well need products at stronger concentrations
to eliminate the challenge. Otherwise, bacteria may remain in
concentrations that can return to high levels once the cleaner
is removed from the system. Weak citric acid solutions are
not good line cleaner choices for dirty systems. To achieve
3% solution concentrations, producers can mix 1.5 gallons of
product in 50 gallons of water then use a 1/4th hp submersible
pump to add the cleaner at the medicator connection. To
determine if water systems might need extra strength cleaning,
take apart a regulator. If a coating of slime is present and
performance issues have existed in previous ocks that were
not management related, then thorough water line cleaning
is recommended. A nal note, always check with your
equipment supplier prior to using any product in your drinker
system.
5
Department of Poultry Science University of Arkansas
Report: Propane Usage Before
and After Renovation
1
FARM REPORT continued on page 6
Introduction
The Applied Broiler Research Farm (ABRF) is a 4-house commercial-scale broiler farm
constructed by the University of Arkansas in 1990 with the unique capability to closely monitor
gas usage. In January 2006, a complete and total renovation of the farm began. This article on gas
(propane) usage is the rst of a planned series of before and after reports on ABRF performance in
various areas.
Farm Background
Before renovations, the farm consisted of four 16-year-old 40 x 400 broiler houses that had
received only minimal improvements over the years. The houses were completely stripped down to
where only the trusses, roofs, and end walls remained. The drop ceilings also remained intact in the
two wood truss houses. Drop ceilings were installed in the two steel truss houses and enough loose
ll insulation blown into the attic to match the R-19 in the two houses that already had drop ceilings.
Curtain sides were replaced with solid sidewall construction on all houses. New feeders, new drink-
ers, new cool cell systems, crossover foggers and tunnel ventilation fans for summer cooling were
installed as well as new north sidewall fans and vent door air inlet systems for minimum ventilation.
The farm was completed re-wired and new automatic controllers, backup thermostats, and light dim-
mers were installed in each house. A gas chlorination system was installed along with an additional
pump system that injects Poultry Water Treatment (PWT; Jones-Hamilton Co.) to treat the farms
well water supply.
The farm resumed growing broilers in April 2006. Two ocks of small birds (38 days old) and
two ocks of larger birds (49 and 50 days old) were grown. One ock each was placed in April,
June, August, and October of 2006. Propane usage data and temperature data from the National
Weather Service are reported below.
Gas Bill as a Percentage of the Chicken Check
Throughout 2001, 2002 and until August of 2003 gas prices remained constant at 0.88 cents per
gal (Table 1).
Table 1. Propane costs at the Applied Broiler Research Farm (2001-2006)
April June August October
Year
Propane Cost
($/gal)
Propane Cost
($/gal)
Propane Cost
($/gal)
Propane Cost
($/gal)
2001 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
2002 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
2003 0.88 0.88 0.93 0.93
2004 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.42
2005 1.19 1.19 1.19 --
2006 1.52 1.37 1.37 1.31
1
Mention of company
or trade names does not
constitute endorsement by
the University of Arkansas
Service or Center of Excel-
lence for Poultry Science
and does not imply their
approval to the exclusion of
other companies or products
that may be suitable.
6
FARM REPORT continued from page 5
August and October ock prices climbed to 0.93 cents per gal. Prices continued to climb during 2004 with the price of gas for the
April, June, and August ocks at $1.03 per gal and increasing to $1.42 for the October ock. By April 2005, prices had dropped
back to $1.19 per gal and remained steady through the August 2005 ock. There was no October ock 2005 because the farm was
shut down in preparation for renovations. By April 2006, when renovations were complete and the farm came back on line, gas
prices were $1.52. Prices dropped to $1.37 for the June and August ocks and dropped yet again for the October ock to $1.31.
The price of propane and the number of days when supplemental heat was required both had an effect on the percentage of
the settlement check devoted to paying the gas bill (Table 2).
Table 2. Propane Costs and heating days at the Applied Broiler Research Farm (2001-2006)
April June August October
Year %
1
HD
2
% HD % HD % HD
2001 26 16 5 1 7 0 24 27
2002 17 20 7 0 5 0 24 24
2003 12 22 7 4 2 0 28 24
2004 41 22 7 1 8 3 30 18
2005 35 26 14 0 7 0 -- 21
2006 26 16 4 0 1 0 21 26

1
Percentage of the settlement check spent for propane

2
Days with lows below 65 degrees F (from National Weather Service)
The National Weather Service data shown suggest that outside temperatures in April and June of 2006 were warmer than most
of the previous ve years. October temperatures appeared to be slightly colder than previous years and little supplemental heat
was require in August. The June and August ocks of 2006 (after renovations) accounted for the least percentage spent on fuel of
any year during the 6-yr period. This is due, in part, to tighter houses, solid side walls, better insulation, and better control of the
ventilation system. The 0.09 /lb increase in pay per pound of salable meat is also partly responsible because the 2006 chicken
checks were larger than any of the previous years checks.
Gallons of Gas Required
Propane usage data before and after renovation by placement month are shown in Figure 1. The number of days when heat
was required (Figure 2) and the number of days when outside temperatures were at or below freezing (32F) (Figure 3) are also
shown. In all three gures the data listed as before represent an average of the previous 5 years (i.e. 2001-2005), while data
listed as after are 2006 data.
7
A big unknown after the renovation was how would gas consumption change compared to before the renovation. Since at
the creation of this article we have not been through the cold, winter season, peak demand usage is still unknown but that informa-
tion will eventually be available for dissemination.
Fewer gallons of propane were used in April, June and August placed ocks in 2006 than in the average previous 5 years
(Figure 1). There were fewer days in April, 2006 requiring heat (Figure 2) and fewer days with freezing temperatures (Figure
3) than in the 01-05 average, which could account for lower propane usage gures. However, temperatures were in June and
August were virtually identical when 2006 was compared with the average of the previous 5 years. Yet, as compared with the
average of the previous ve years, less propane was used in June and August of 2006. This apparent increase in energy efciency
is likely due to renovation. In October there were more days requiring heat (Figure 2) and more days with freezing temperatures
(Figure 3) in 2006 than in the average of the previous ve years. Yet the newly renovated houses only 8.5% (381 gal.) more
propane than the average of the previous ve years. These data again suggest that renovations made the houses more energy ef-
cient.
Summary
Presented is gas usage data before and after renovations at the Uni-
versity of Arkansas ABRF. Many poultry producers have recently
gone through major renovations on their farms similar to those at the
ABRF. This information, along with data currently being collected
should be of interest to producers and provide a clear before and
after assessment of gas usage and help determine the true value of
farm renovation.
References
National Weather Service Forecast Ofce. 2007. Archived Obser-
vations. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/getobs.html Assessed 2/8/07
Thomas A. Costello, P.E., Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department University of Arkansas
Feasibility of On-Farm Broiler
Litter Combustion
Introduction
Poultry litter is a resource that many growers have consistently used to fertilize pastures.
However, poultry growers in sensitive watersheds are searching for alternatives to conventional land
application. Litter can be burned in a furnace and the heat can be used for space-heating the broiler
houses and might offer an alternative to land application. Propane or natural gas saved by utilizing
the heat from combustion of litter might provide an economic incentive to justify the investment in
the furnace system. However, it is important to examine the facts before investing in an on-farm lit-
ter burning furnace.
Therefore, we decided to test a litter burning furnace. The purpose of this test was to determine
if on-farm litter burning is feasible. An additional objective was to aid growers in making decisions
about furnaces by providing details on thermal performance (i.e., the rate of heat output and the ef-
ciency of the furnace), bulk material ow (i.e., daily and annual amounts of litter needed and ash
FEASIBILITY continued on page 8
8
FEASIBILITY continued from page 7
produced), economic implications, management requirements
and environmental repercussions. This article provides a
summary of the results from the demonstration.
Furnace System Description
A broiler litter-red furnace prototype, fabricated by
Lynndale Systems, Inc., Harrison, Arkansas, was used in
the test. The furnace was installed at House 1, UA Applied
Broiler Research Farm (ABRF), near Savoy, Arkansas. The
furnace used a direct combustion process with fan-forced
delivery of combustion air. House air was drawn through air
lters into the furnace and through an air-to-air heat exchang-
er. This arrangement was designed to extract energy from the
hot exhaust gases and to transfer the energy to the air stream
which was directed back into the house. Six, 18-inch high
velocity stirring fans were used to promote distribution of the
heated air longitudinally within the house.
Automatic control of the furnace components was ac-
complished using an electronic data logger (Campbell Scien-
tic, model 21X, Logan, Utah). Whenever the house thermo-
stat called for heat, a linear actuator moved a apper valve to
direct the heated air into the house (and exhausted the heated
air when the thermostat was satised).
The broiler litter used as fuel in the test was taken from
the Savoy farm during an annual cleanout in spring, 2005.
It was stored for over a year in a bunker (covered pile on a
concrete pad) adjacent to House 1. During the furnace test, lit-
ter was removed from the pile using the front-end loader on a
tractor as needed and placed in a large hopper that could hold
about 1.5 front-end loader buckets. A chain conveyor moved
the litter from the outside hopper to a small surge tank above
the furnace. As the furnace consumed fuel, it was metered
into the combustion chamber.
Ash accumulated in an ash bin which was cleaned out
manually every 1-3 days of operation. After removal, the ash
was stored in covered plastic bins.
Testing:
The furnace system was operated during 2 grow-outs
of birds from August 1, 2006 to November 24, 2006. The
furnace supplied heat, as needed, to House 1 (a solid-side wall,
tunnel ventilated house) at the ABRF. Measurements of fuel
use, ash accumulation and heat extracted were obtained using
digital scales, thermocouple probes and electronic data col-
lection. The data were analyzed to document furnace perfor-
mance and to provide a basis for assessing the feasibility of
the system.
The data in Table 1 were from the second growout of
the demonstration when the furnace prototype was operated
automatically. In the table, the column labeled Heat Ex-
tracted represents the total amount of heat generated from
the litter burned on that day, while the column labeled Heat
Delivered represents the amount of heat actually delivered
into the chicken house. Due to mild weather, the broiler house
thermostat did not call for heat in the latter part of the growout
when the birds were large. On these days, the furnace was of-
ten operated with the heat exhausted outside the house. Peak
Output is the maximum amount of heat generated per hour
on that day. The data under Cumulative Litter Consumed
and Cumulative Ash Produced represent running totals of the
mass of litter burned and ash produced during the test.
9
Table 1. Performance of furnace during the second ock of the test
Date
Time of
Operation
(h)
Heat Extracted
(btu)
Heat Delivered
(btu)
Peak Output
(btu/hr)
Cumulative
Litter Consumed
(lb)
Cumalitve Ash
Produced
(lb)
10/07/2006 6.0 30,797 6060 18,780 0 0
10/09/2006 9.2 276,753 211,156 61,980 607 0
10/10/2006 0.9 12,674 12,409 22,140 607 133
10/11/2006 4.0 99,093 95,790 57,000 977 133
10/13/2006 10.0 359,814 244,809 87,060 1,584 133
10/14/2006 10.7 362,926 309,754 78,360 1,840 133
10/16/2006 5.6 247,771 194,230 93,000 2,736 133
10/17/2006 6.9 229,482 8,360 60,300 2,809 463
10/19/2006 5.7 99,093 95,790 77,340 3,416 463
10/23/2006 6.9 218,327 218,317 62,040 4,023 463
10/24/2006 10.5 270,928 270,655 61,860 4,630 725
10/25/2006 10.5 157,227 157,191 77,400 5,237 725
10/26/2006 13.4 198,783 198,717 45,120 5,237 725
10/31/2006 17.7 919,988 0 70,860 6,451 840
11/01/2006 16.3 651,106 0 62,580 7,058 980
11/02/2006 6.5 90,585 0 34,980 7,665 980
11/03 - 04/2006 33.7 1,201,344 964,070 84,000 10,093 1,480
11/09/2006 14.9 835,880 0 92,400 11,307 1,480
11/10/2006 12.8 836,822 0 87,840 12,521 1,797
11/13/2006 14.8 863,452 0 81,600 13,735 1,797
11/14/2006 10.7 48,298 0 84,300 14,949 2,034
11/15/2006 6.9 309,073 0 69,780 15,556 2,034
11/16/2006 12.4 818,563 0 90,360 16,770 2,203
11/17/2006 7.4 335,977 0 80,820 17,377 2,203
11/18/2006 4.1 115,449 0 64,080 17,377 2,424
11/20/2006 11.8 713,613 0 78,000 18,591 2,424
11/21/2006 18.8 1,073,949 0 82,500 20,412 2,758
11/22/2006 10.4 428,683 0 84,120 21,019 2,880
TOTAL 299 12,243,450 2,987,308

Over the 7 week period, the furnace was operated about 300
hours and produced over 12 million btu of heat (equivalent to
about 133 gallons of propane). Approximately 10 tons of litter
was combusted, producing an accumulated ash mass of about
1.4 tons (3 cubic yards). The average litter feed-rate was 70
lb/hour and the peak heat output was 93,000 btu/h. The fur-
nace system efciency (assuming litter has an energy content
of about 4500 btu/lb) was 13%.
Properties of Litter and Ash:
Samples of litter and ash were collected and analyzed.
The properties are summarized in Table 2 (right).
Table 2. Lab analysis results for litter and ash samples
Constituent
Litter Ash
Concentration (%, as-is basis, by weight)
Moisture 15.2 2.7
Ash 21.0 89.2
Carbon 31.9 4.2
Hydrogen 5.7 0.6
Nitrogen 4.0 0.6
Sulfur 0.6 1.7
Oxygen 40.5 18.0
Phosphorus 3.1 9.7
Potassium 3.7 10.9
Energy (btu/lb) 5500 360
10
The energy content listed is for completely dried litter.
Net energy values would be reduced to account for moisture
normally present in litter. These test results for litter energy
are consistent with other data which suggests a general net
energy for broiler litter of about 4500 btu/lb. Litter quality
will affect net energy. Wetter litter will have lower net energy
content. Although we have not measured it, we can presume
that litter that has not been stored for a long storage period
would have higher energy content.
The fact that the ash includes 4% carbon indicates that
either the litter was not completely combusted or that some
unburned fuel sifted into the ash pan. Design improvements
could be targeted to capture this energy to improve furnace
system efciency.
Since the process of burning removes organic matter
(carbon), the ash tends to accumulate and concentrate the min-
eral, non-volatile litter constituents. Thus, we would expect
ash would contain higher concentrations of minerals compared
to the original litter. The elevated phosphorus (P) content
has both pros and cons. Litter derived P that remains in the
ash is one reason that farmers in sensitive watersheds should
probably not apply ash as a soil amendment unless soil tests
indicate that the receiving crop does indeed need supplemental
P. Therefore, most growers will be looking for an off-farm,
out-of-watershed market for the ash. The elevated P content
would make the material more attractive as a fertilizer to po-
tential buyers outside the region.
Emissions and Air Quality Impacts:
Emissions out of the stack have important implications.
Emissions of certain gases provide an indication of the extent
of combustion. Other gases may contribute to air pollution.
Thus, the quality of the stack gases needs to be checked so
that we can insure that we are simply trading water pollution
problems for air pollution problems. In addition, emissions
problems might lead to regulation of such furnaces in the
future.
The contents of the exhaust stack were spot checked pe-
riodically during the test. A portable combustion analyzer was
used to probe the gas and measure its constituents. The results
are listed in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Emissions test results
Consitutent concentrations in Stack Gases
Emissions
Test Date
Oxygen
(%)
Carbon Monoxide
(ppm)
Nitrous Oxide
(ppm)
8/15/2006 14.4 4967 101
8/29/2006 17.4 1523 51
9/26/2006 16.5 5833 79
10/23/2006 15.9 7106 70
10/31/2006 16.8 4397 86
11/10/2006 14.8 7095 99
11/20/2006 14.1 7742 88
The measured levels of carbon monoxide (CO) were exces-
sive. This gas is an intermediate combustion product that
contains a lot of energy. Its presence at these concentrations
represents lost heat and incomplete combustion. The potential
exists to improve combustion in subsequent furnace designs so
that CO levels are reduced and more energy (improved system
efciency) is extracted.
Levels of nitrous oxide (NO) were not excessive.
Emissions of NOx from other sources (such as automobiles)
contribute to air pollution in many urban areas. Changes to
furnace design, particularly those that may lead to more com-
plete combustion, could inadvertently increase NO emissions.
So, this gas should continue to be monitored in tests following
any combustion design changes.
The laboratory analysis of the litter indicates that it is
composed of approximately 21% ash (inert minerals that
cannot be combusted). In our testing, we were only able to
recover about 12% of the litter weight as ash. The difference
may be caused by very small particles of ash being exhausted
up the stack (particulate emissions). Particulate emissions
were not measured in this project. Further study is needed to
see if particulate emissions represent a signicant transport
process that might carry litter constituents (such as minerals or
trace metals) from the furnace to surrounding land.
Management Requirements:
During the second ock, when automatic controls were
used, the furnace operation required one full-time operator.
The operator was needed since the test had special monitoring/
measurement requirements. While some mechanical failures
did occur which interrupted the operation of the furnace, these
problems should be xed before a commercial system is on
the market.
In routine operation, growers would not need the sophis-
ticated monitoring equipment used in the test. Growers would
probably need to add litter to the hopper approximately 2-4
loads per day, depending upon the heat demand (how cold it
is outside and how big are the birds). While at the furnace to
load litter, the farmer would likely check furnace operation
and verify that all was well. This should take about 15-30
minutes of labor per day. Manual unloading of ash should
take about 30 minutes every 1-3 days. However, a commer-
cial furnace may include automatic ash handling.
Economic Feasibility
The demonstration was successful in showing the techni-
cal feasibility of burning 100% litter in a direct-combustion
furnace on the farm. Yet, the total heat delivery rate and sys-
tem efciency were lower than we had hoped. Modications
to the design of the furnace we tested might result in improved
performance, increasing peak heat output and efciency.
We can make some estimates as to the needed furnace
performance that will result in a system that will pay for itself.
Lets say that a grower decides to purchase a litter furnace and
expects the furnace to eliminate about 80% of the annual fuel
(e.g., propane) use for space heating. What furnace heat rate
11
would meet this 80% requirement? The data in Table 4 below are based upon gas usage from the ABRF over 15 ocks and show
that a furnace heat rate of 175,000 btu/h would meet about 40% of the annual load operating on its own and about 80% of the an-
nual load when supplemented with existing propane heaters. So, if the target is 80% fuel savings, then the furnace needs to meet
a 175,000 btu/h specication.

Table 4. Cumulative heat load and annual propane use offset by furnaces of various heat ratings

Heat Rate Capacity
(btu/h)
Cumulative Heat
Load
(%)
Annual Propane
Offset
(%)
60,000 4.6 38
75,000 7.9 45
100,000 15.2 57
125,000 23.9 66
150,000 33.2 74
175,000 42.5 80
200,000 51.4 85
250,000 66.6 91
300,000 78.1 95
350,000 86.1 97
400,000 91.4 99
500,000 97.0 100
600,000 99.0 100
The prototype furnace we tested only had a peak heat output of 93,000 btu/h. An increase is needed to be able supply
enough heat to meet the targeted fuel savings. A furnace can generate more heat either by (a) burning fuel at a faster rate, or (b)
extracting more heat from each pound of fuel (that is, a better efciency). Table 5 below shows how projected furnace output
increases with increases in fuel feed-rates and furnace efciencies. To get to 175,000 btu/h, a furnace could be designed to burn
100 lb/h with an improved 40% efciency. Actually, both of these goals should be attainable in a commercial furnace.
Table 5. Furnace heat delivery rate as a function of litter input (or feed-rate) and system efciency.
Assumes litter energy of 4500 btu/lb
System
Efciency
Peak Litter Input Rate (lb/h)
50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Heat Rate Delivered (btu/h)
10% 22,500 33,750 45,000 56,250 67,500 78,750 90,000
20% 45,000 67,500 90,000 112,500 135,000 157,500 180,000
30% 67,500 101,250 135,000 168,750 202,500 236,250 270,000
40% 90,000 135,000 180,000 225,000 270,000 315,000 360,000
50% 112,500 168,750 225,000 281,250 337,500 393,750 450,000
60% 135,000 202,500 270,000 337,500 405,000 472,500 540,000
70% 157,500 236,250 315,000 393,750 472,500 551,250 630,000
80% 180,000 270,000 360,000 450,000 540,000 630,000 720,000
90% 202,500 303,750 405,000 506,250 607,500 708,750 810,000
95% 213,750 320,625 427,500 534,375 641,250 748,125 855,000
Assuming then, that a commercial furnace is available that puts out 175,000 btu/h and can reduce conventional fuel costs by 80%,
what are the economic ramications? A typical broiler house in northwest Arkansas requires about 5000 gallons of propane per
12
year for space heating. An 80% reduction in propane consumption would represent a substantial dollar amount. Depending upon
the price you are paying for propane, these savings could provide a net cash ow that could be invested in the litter red furnace.
The data in Table 6 below shows the total present value of projected fuel savings over a 7 year period. For example, if pro-
pane costs $1.20 per gallon and the furnace is capable of offsetting 80% of propane use, then the total present value of those fuel
savings is $24,000, based on an interest rate of 8.5% and a 7 year planning horizon. Under this scenario, the grower could afford
to invest (or borrow) as much as $24,000 for the furnace and expect the fuel savings to pay the note.
Table 6. Total present value (8.5% interest) of fuel savings occurring over a period of 7 years, as a function of propane costs and
percentage of annual heat load offset by the furnace
Propane Costs
Offset
(%)
Propane Cost ($/gallon)
$0.90 $1.00 $1.10 $1.20 $1.30 $1.40 $1.50
Present Value of Projected Fuel Savings over the Period
10 2,303 2,559 2,815 3,071 3,327 3,583 3,839
20 4,607 5,119 5,630 6,142 6,654 7,166 7,678
30 6,910 7,678 8,446 9,213 9,981 10,749 11,517
40 9,213 10,237 11,261 12,284 13,308 14,332 15,356
50 11,517 12,796 14,076 15,356 16,635 17,915 19,194
60 13,820 15,356 16,891 18,427 19,962 21,498 23,033
70 16,123 17,915 19,706 21,498 23,289 25,081 26,872
80 18,427 20,474 22,521 24,569 26,616 28,664 30,711
90 20,730 23,033 25,337 27,640 29,943 32,247 34,550
95 21,882 24,313 26,744 29,176 31,607 34,038 36,469
Clearly there are potential scenarios that provide economic feasibility for litter red furnaces. The grower will, however, need to
make sure that the purchase/installation costs do not exceed the fuel savings potential of the furnace during a reasonable payback
period. Growers will need to inspect the manufacturers specications for the furnace heat rate capacity, fuel feed-rate and ef-
ciency to see if propane savings will meet expectations.
Fuel and Ash Handling Projections:
For a grower interested in a litter-red furnace, an ad-
ditional question may be How much litter and ash will I need
to handle? If we assume a litter-red furnace has a 40%
efciency rate and our target is a reduction of propane usage
by 80%, then about 100 tons of litter would need to be stored
for fuel. This amount of litter is about the amount of litter
produced by a 40 x 400 ft house annually. However, less stor-
age capacity would be needed if litter cleanouts occur more
frequently than once per year.
To store 100 tons of litter, a grower could build a low-
cost temporary storage adjacent to the poultry house and
furnace. A pile that is 20 ft wide at the bottom, would need to
be approximately 80 ft long to store 100 tons. A heavy duty
plastic tarp would be required to keep rain off the litter during
storage (see Avian Advice 2(1):12-15). Remember that litter
should not be stored at depths more than 5 ft to avoid sponta-
neous combustion in the pile.
We estimate that burning 100 tons of litter per year would
produce about 12 tons of ash. Ash has a density of approxi-
mately 45 lb/ft3, which means that about 20 cubic yards of
ash would need to be marketed or disposed of each year. The
grower would need enough ash storage capacity to handle ash
generated. The costs to transport ash should be much less
than for transporting litter itself. The mass reduction is 8:1
and the volume reduction is 10:1 for the ash produced from
burning litter. However, the consideration of what to do with
ash should be determined prior to beginning furnace operation.
Potential markets for litter ash include its use as an additive in
concrete, and for use in fertilizer manufacture.
Conclusions:
An existing litter-red furnace prototype is capable of
burning broiler litter at a rate of nearly 1 ton per day (peak).
This technology is a potential alternate use for poultry manure.
In sensitive watersheds, its use could shunt many tons of litter
from land application to on-farm combustion. As a BMP, it
has the potential to decrease the movement of phosphorus and
other nutrients from upland areas to surface waters.
System performance of the tested prototype would need
to be improved in order to make the system economically
feasible. Simple design improvements, if implemented by the
manufacturer, could increase system efciency to 40% and
increase fuel feed-rate to 100 lb per hour. Such improvements
would mean that the furnace would likely reduce costs for
propane (or natural gas) for space-heating by approximately
80% annually. Fuel savings of this magnitude are signicant.
13
Depending upon the growers other costs and required return on investment, these savings may provide sufcient net cash
ow to pay-off the investment in the furnace system.
Ash markets need to be further explored. Signicant quantities of ash will be produced by the litter-red furnace. Ash
should not be land applied in sensitive watersheds. Air quality impacts should continue to be assessed. Particulate and NO emis-
sions are of concern. Any subsequent testing on private farms should include emission monitoring.
Acknowledgment
This project was funded by the US EPA through the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission with matching funds provided
by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.
The author would like to thank Tom Tabler, Mareus Lopez, Willie Dillahunty, Larry Roe, Jim Smith, Rusty Tate, Nathan
Helms, Phillip Costello and many other UA students and employees who helped conduct the project. Appreciation also to Lynn-
dale Systems, particularly, Bob Dodson and Jim Raley for their hard work and dedication.

Reference
Costello, T. A. 2000. Low-cost, temporary poultry litter storage. Avian Advice 2(1):12-15. University of Arkansas Coop-
erative Extension Service, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science.
Frank Jones, Associate Director - Extension
Wild Bird Control:Why and How
Introduction
Wild birds can be a nagging problem on any poultry farm. Wild birds can create a mess with
their droppings, consume feed, contaminate feed and damage insulation (Berry, 2003). Wild birds
have also been shown to carry Newcastle disease, coccidiosis, Salmonella, fowl pox, West Nile
Virus, fowl cholera, Mycoplasma galisepticum (MG), round worms, tape worms, Northern Fowl
Mites and several other maladies affecting poultry (McLean, 1994). Clearly, wild birds are
undesirable in or around poultry houses. However, before beginning any effort to control wild birds,
it is important to understand effective approaches and the legal limits.
Controlling wild birds legally
It may be tempting to take what appears to be the quickest, easiest way to eliminate wild birds
(i.e. shoot them, trap them, or poison them). Yet, this approach carries some heavy legal penalties
(USFWS, 1992).
All wild birds (except pigeons, house sparrows and starlings) are protected by federal and state
laws. You may NOT trap, kill or possess protected species without federal and state permits (US-
FWS, 2002). Furthermore, regulatory ofcials are SERIOUS about enforcing these laws.
One Georgia cattle company took the direct approach and spread poison corn around a pond
on their property to kill nuisance birds. The tainted corn resulted in the death of over 3,000 birds of
various species. The cattle company paid nes totaling over $265,000. In addition, individuals in-
volved in the incident paid $15,000 each, served 60 days in home connement, performed 160 hours
of community service and served one year of supervised release (USEPA, 2005). In short, direct
approaches may be hazardous in many ways!
WILD BIRDS continued on page 14
All wild birds
(except pigeons,
house sparrows
and starlings)
are protected by
federal and
state laws.

You may NOT
trap, kill or
possess protected
species without
federal and state
permits
14
WILD BIRDS continued from page 13
The good news is that many wild bird problems in or around poultry houses are caused by
pigeons, house sparrows or starlings, NONE of which are covered by these regulations. Yet
it is important to remember that poultry producers are involved in FOOD production and any
approach used on poultry farms has the potential to harm ock performance as well as produce
residues in meat or eggs.
General Wild Bird Control Methods
Remember that effective control of wild birds is an art, not a science. One shot, or one
size ts all approaches are generally not effective. What eliminates a bird problem on one farm
may not work at all on another. In addition, since wild birds survive by adapting to each situa-
tion, dont be surprised if your control efforts are only successful for a short time. The secret to
solving bird problems is to consistently address the problem and to vary control tactics (US-
FWS, 1992). Wild bird control methods may be divided into general categories: active control
methods and passive control methods. While active methods are designed to reduce or disperse
large populations quickly and passive methods provide long-term management potential, a com-
bination of methods is usually most effective.
Active control methods
Active control methods are those methods that result in reduction or dispersal of the wild
bird populations. Effective, active control methods may be divided into ve broad classica-
tions: frightening, poisoning, trapping, shooting, and nest destruction (Booth, 1994.
While it is illegal to harm or capture protected bird species, it is not illegal to frighten
them. Frightening devices such as bird distress calls, pyrotechnics, ashing lights, whirling
shiny items, balloons, hawk or owl gures and a variety of other methods can effectively reduce
bird concentrations in a given area. However, it is important not to get in a routine, success-
ful operations depend on timing, persistence, organization and diversity in device used (Berry,
2003; Booth, 1994).
Although effective poisons for nuisance bird species exist, most of these toxicants are
restricted use materials and can be toxic to humans. In addition, it is important to remember
that use of these poisons means you are liable for the death of any birds consuming the poisons.
Therefore, is very important to use poisons prudently and according to label directions.
There are numerous traps and trap designs available from a variety of sources. Most de-
signs are live traps, which allow the user to free everything other than house sparrows, pigeons
and starlings. When using traps, it is important to feed birds with the bait for a few days (pre-
bait) prior to starting and to check traps often (Booth, 1994).
Shooting is not an effective means of destroying a large number of birds. Yet shooting
can be an effective method of eliminating a few individual house sparrows, pigeons or starlings
within a relatively small area. However, choosing the right weapon and location for shooting is
obviously important (Booth, 1994, Byler, 2002).
Nest destruction can be an extremely effective method of reducing wild bird numbers.
However, nests are often constructed in locations that are high above the ground to avoid preda-
tors, so nest destruction efforts can become very involved. In addition, nest destruction should
be approached with caution since nest materials often contain many thousands of insects (espe-
cially mites) and possibly disease causing bacteria or viruses. It is important to avoid spreading
these vermin and microbes to you or your ock (Booth, 1994). It is also important to quickly
destroy nesting materials following removal to prevent reuse of the materials by other birds.
Passive Control Methods
To survive, all wild animals (including birds) need the following four essential factors:
space, food, shelter and water. Effective long-term control of wild birds involves limiting ac-
cess to as many of these essential factors as possible (Bryan and Pease, 1991).
Space allows wild birds to rest, roost and relax while on the farm. Most birds prefer space
that is high and protected from predators such as cats. Use of roosting spots should be discour-
aged by use of netting, sticky repellants, or Porcupine wires (Booth, 1994)
Since pigeons, house sparrows and starlings can feed on a wide variety of materials, it is
nearly impossible to completely eliminate food sources on poultry farms. However, eliminate
Wild bird control
methods may be divided
into general categories:
active control methods
and passive control
methods. While active
methods are designed to
reduce or disperse large
populations quickly and
passive methods provide
long-term management
potential, a combination of
methods is usually most
effective.
15
access to as many food sources as possible. Clean up spilled grain or feed. Reduce conditions that
lead to multiplication of insects. Avoid planting trees that produce fruits that birds may eat near
poultry houses (Bryan and Pease, 1991).
Trees also provide shelter for wild birds. In addition, wild birds will nest in the eaves or other
cavities in poultry houses if given the chance. It is important to remove existing nesting materials
and to cover or plug holes that allow wild birds access into poultry houses.
Water is essential for the survival of all animals. Although it is virtually impossible to limit the
access of wild birds to every water source, it is important to ensure that areas around poultry houses
are well drained. Standing water can encourage not only wild birds, but insect populations that
could provide food or spread diseases (like mosquitoes).
Summary
Since wild birds have been shown to carry numerous diseases, internal parasites and external
parasites, control is necessary. However, all avian species except house sparrows, pigeons and
starlings are protected by state and federal migratory bird regulations. House sparrows, pigeons and
starlings may be controlled by active or passive control methods. Active methods are designed to
reduce large populations quickly, while passive methods provide long-term management potential.
References
Berry, J. G. 2003. Wild bird control in the poultry house. Oklahoma State University Coopera-
tive Extension Fact Sheet F-8209.
Booth, T. W. 1994. Bird dispersal techniques. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/wild/pdf/wildlife/
BIRD_DISPERSAL.PDF Visited 2/9/07
Bryan, G and J. Pease. 1991. Managing Iowa wildlife. Iowa State University Extension pub.
no. Pm-1302d
Byler, L. I. 2002. Nuisance birds: New and established control methods for PA. Herd Health
Memo December, 2002. Cooperative Extension, College of Agricultural Sciences, Penn. State Uni-
versity, University Park, PA
McLean, R. G. 1994. Wildlife diseases and humans. In: Prevention and Control of Wildlife
Damage, Eds, S. E. Hygnsrom, R. M. Timm and F. E. Larson, U of Nebraska-Lincoln 2 vol http://
www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/wild/pdf/wildlife/DAM_MAN.PDF visited 2/9/07
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Backyard Bird Problems. http://library.fws.gov/Bird_
Publications/prob.html visited 2/9/07
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. A guide to the laws and treaties of the United States
protecting migratory birds. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/intrnltr/treatlaw.html visited 2/9/07
U. S. EPA. 2005. Georgia cattle company, owner and farm manager sentenced
for causing birds kill. EPA Newsroom http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/
8b32b843b17f37d88525701800558fac/fa7a5d75038404ef8525702e006a21d1!OpenDocument
visited 2/9/07
UA Poultry Science
Extension Faculty
for Poultry Science
by G. Tom Tabler, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas
INSIDE
page 3
Clean Water Lines for
Flock Health
by Susan Watkins
page 5
Poultry Producers at
Environmental
Crossroads
by G. Tom Tabler
page 8
Ammonia Emissions
Attracting Signicant
Attention
by G. Tom Tabler
Advice

TREES continued on page 2
Decorative trees and
shrubs could supplement
farm income
and protect the environment
Introduction
Producers sometimes consider land taken
out of production for windbreak establishment
nonproductive because it doesnt provide
direct income. Growing income-generating
plants in the windbreak might change that
view. Decorative branches from woody
perennial shrubs are becoming extremely
popular for use by the orist industry in
oral arrangements. Trends in oral design
have increased the demand for branches
from a number of shrubs with decorative
owers and fruits, as well as branch form and
color. Perhaps producers could screen their
operation from public view, reduce movement
of odors, dust and noise off-site, and provide
extra income all at the same time.
Windbreaks and Production Facilities
Without wind management, air
movement causes odors emitted from
livestock facilities and manure storage areas
tend to travel along the ground as a plume.
A properly designed windbreak will slow
odor movement from livestock facilities.
Windbreaks also create an obstacle for fresh,
outside air masses forcing them up and over
the tree row to create a moderate, evenly
distributed, gentle airow through the trees.
The slow air movement past production
facilities tends to dilute and reduce the
AVIAN
movement of odor, dust and noise offsite.
Ideally about 60 percent of the wind should
be deected up and over the windbreak
while 40 percent should pass through the
canopy of the trees (Missouri NRCS, 2004).
While windbreaks are less effective at odor
reduction when wind is minimal, the visual
screening remains a benet.
Although the idea of placing vegetative
windbreaks around agricultural buildings
and farm elds is not new, additional
benets from farm windbreaks continue
to be discovered. Windbreaks alone will
not prevent odor problems associated
with intensive livestock production,
but may provide farmers with a tool to
improve their image with surrounding
communities. Missouri NRCS (2004)
reports that windbreaks can reduce the
effects of livestock odor and improve visual
perception of production buildings in the
following ways:
1. Dilution and dispersion of gases
and odors by a mixing effect created by
windbreaks.
2. Deposition of odorous dusts and
aerosols on leaves, needles and branches of
plants on the inside of windbreaks.
2
TREES continued from page 1
3. Collection and storage within tree wood of the
chemical constituents of odor pollution.
4. Containment of odor at the source.
5. Aesthetic appearance:
- Trees create a visual barrier to livestock facilities
- Trees can make cropped elds and pastures more
visually pleasing
- Trees represent an environmental statement to
neighbors that the producer is taking the initiative to address
nuisance problems.
- Using Trees and Floral Shrubs in Arkansas Windbreaks
The U.S. public is increasingly concerned about the
interaction of agricultural activities with the environment,
rural communities, consumer health, worker safety, and ethics
(NRC, 1996). Many problems the general public associates
with poultry production (air quality, water quality or litter
management) are cause for concern among Arkansas poultry
producers. Given these circumstances, screening farming
operations from public view should certainly be given
consideration by producers.
At least one row of an evergreen variety should be
considered in the windbreak for year round poultry house
screening. However, additional rows of decorative woody
orals might also be planted. Decorative woody orals
are specialty forest products that might also be considered
as income producers and to help recoup some of the
establishment costs. Essentially, decorative woody orals
are any plant species that has a colorful or unusually shaped
stem that could become a decorative product. Josiah (2002)
indicated that orists pay wholesalers $0.60-$0.80 per 4-
5 stem of corkscrew willow (Salix matsudana) or pussy
willow (Salix caprea), with larger stems bringing more.
Holly (Ilex spp.) and owering branches of apple (Malus
spp.), cherry (Prunus spp.), pear (Pyrus spp.) as wells as
other spring owering trees or shrubs might command even
higher prices. A survey of wholesale and retail orists in
Nebraska (a relatively less populated state) indicated a
market of approximately 225,000 woody stems sold annually
(Lambe and Josiah, 2001). There is also the possibility that
the neighbors who bought the small tract of land next door
to build a new house might follow the leader and plant their
own oral windbreak, further screening nearby agricultural
operations.
Poultry producers are accustomed to the long hours
and hard work it takes to be successful; however, marketing
decorative woody orals (DWF) presents a new challenge.
Timing of harvest, perishability of product, labor availability,
wildlife pressure, insects and disease, year-to-year production
variability, and lack of formalized subsidy or crop insurance
programs all require planning and management. Most DWF
markets are niche in nature, successfully addressing these
markets will require producers to spend time to understanding
these markets and promoting their product. Josiah (2001a)
recommends lining up markets before production investments
are made since smaller niche markets may be easily
overwhelmed by excessive supply and prices can be volatile
depending on product supply and quality. Essential questions
to ask to understand potential customers include (Josiah,
2001b):
To whom are we marketing?
To whom are we not marketing?
What are they like?
What do they like?
What are their current wants and needs?
What are their perceptions?
Do/Can our products meet their expectations?
Armed with this information, chances are you can better
identify areas in which you can successfully compete (e.g.,
timing, quality, freshness, new products, lower transport costs,
etc).
Unfortunately, there is limited information available
about this type enterprise and little money to support broader
research, development, and transfer of knowledge. This would
seem to provide an opportunity for researchers, Cooperative
Extension and others to begin to document information on
prices and production and provide it to the public, particularly
agricultural producers and acreage owners, in a useful format
(Josiah, 2002).
The University of Nebraska-Lincoln is studying 45
species or cultivars of trees and shrubs adapted to the
Midwest and Great Plains that produce commercially valuable
non-timber forest products (Rixstine, 2003). Products
from the plantings are harvested as they mature, permitting
opportunities to evaluate plant response to harvesting and a
better understanding of market characteristics such as quality
criteria, demand, pricing, seasonality, market location and
capacity. Harvests of a number of the decorative orals began
just two years after planting, whereas timber-type species
may take 50-80 years to mature. Three years after planting
in the Nebraska trial, the most productive species and one of
the species with the greatest demand (scarlet curls willow)
produced gross income of nearly $5.00/linear foot of planting
along the row with plants spaced at 5 feet apart within the
row (Josiah et al., 2004). Nebraska researchers estimate
that, once established, they could supplement a familys
annual income by $5,000 to $15,000, if they are willing to
do a months work of hand-harvesting in late fall and early
winter, and then market the fresh product to wholesale or
retail orists (Rixstine, 2003). For such an undertaking to
work in Arkansas, species or cultivars adapted to the Arkansas
climate would have to be used and researchers and Extension
personnel with proper expertise would need to assist
producers.
Summary
Windbreaks are an option that many poultry producers
should consider, especially those with operations along and
near roadways in clear public view. Windbreaks can screen
poultry houses and improve visual perception of farming
operations. Dust, noise and odors leaving an operation may
also be reduced. A new twist on windbreak plantings is to
3
WATER LINES continued on page 4
Susan Watkins
Providing a clean, safe and sanitized water supply is crucial in assuring ocks perform
their best. However, before implementing a daily water sanitation program, it is important to
thoroughly clean as much of the water distribution system as possible. Line cleaning is necessary
before providing birds with sanitized drinking water because even low levels of sanitizer placed
in dirty water lines can result in the biolm sloughing off, which clogs drinkers so that water is
restricted to the birds. Another impact of adding sanitizers to water intended for bird consumption
is that the sanitizer can actually react with the biolm and result in off tastes that back birds off
water. Effectively cleaning the water system (including the drinker lines) helps remove biolm and
scale build-up that can act as a food source and hiding place for harmful pathogens such as E. coli,
Pseudomonas or even Salmonella. Many disease causing organisms like Salmonella can live for
weeks in water line biolm resulting in a continuous source of contamination. In addition, proper
line cleaning can help prevent calcium deposits or scale build-up which can reduce pipe volume
by as much as 70-80%. Yet the use of cleaning products present some dangers since, many of the
popular water additive products such as acids and performance enhancers can create conditions
favorable for the growth of yeasts and molds, if they are present. Yeasts and molds can actually
thrive in low pH water resulting in a gooey slime that will clog drinkers and generally create disaster
in water systems. The bottom line is water systems must be properly cleaned between ocks.
Clean water lines for ock health
incorporate decorative woody orals or other non-timber
forest products that may generate supplemental income in a
relatively short period after establishment. This could prove
benecial to poultry producers from both an environmental
and economic standpoint.
References
Josiah, S. J. 2001a. Productive conservation: Growing
specialty forest products in agroforestry plantings. School
of Natural Resource Sciences and Cooperative Extension,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 4 pages.
Josiah, S.J. 2001b. Marketing specialty forest products.
School of Natural Resource Sciences and Cooperative
Extension, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 4 pages.
Josiah, S. J. 2002. Non-timber forest products in
the Midwest and Great Plains. University of Nebraska/
Cooperative Extension Service/ Kimmel Education and
Research Center.
Josiah, S. J., R. St-Pierre, H. Brott, and J. Brandle. 2004.
Productive conservation: Diversifying farm enterprises by
producing specialty woody products in agroforestry systems.
J. Sustainable Agri. 23(3):93-108.
Lambe, D., and S. J. Josiah. 2001. Woody decorative
oral markets in Nebraska. Final Report. School of Natural
Resource Sciences, University of Nebraska- Lincoln.
NAC. 2003. Working trees for agriculture. USDA National
Agroforestry Center (NAC), East Campus-University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.
NAC. ND. Working trees for carbon: Windbreaks in
the U.S. USDA National Agroforestry Center (NAC), East
Campus-UNL, Lincoln, NE.
NRC.1996. Colleges of agriculture at the land grant
universities: Public service and public policy. Committee
on the future of the colleges of agriculture in the land grant
university system. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
NRCS, Missouri. Using windbreaks to reduce odors associated
with livestock production facilities. Windbreak/shelterbelt-
odor control. Conservation practice information sheet
(IS-MO380).
Rixstine, B. 2003.Woody shrubs valued for outdoor
conservation, indoor decoration. Connect 3(1):1, February.
University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension.
Providing a
clean, safe and
sanitized water
supply is crucial
in assuring
flocks perform
at their best.
4
WATER LINES continued from page 3
Where to Start
To assure lines are effectively cleaned, the rst step is
answer the following series of questions.
1. What is the water source?
Untreated well water (i.e. water that is not treated with
any type of daily sanitizer product) is the most vulnerable to
the formation of slime or biolm in the drinker lines. While
most municipal or rural water supplies contain a minimum of
0.2 ppm free chlorine which greatly reduces bacteria growth,
poultry drinking water is handled differently (slow ow and
warmed during brooding) from the water supply that goes to
a home. Thus, it is unwise to assume that cleaning of drinker
lines is not needed.
2. What is the mineral content of the water supply?
The minerals calcium and magnesium are the sources
of scale, a hard white build-up. If the water supply contains
more than 60 ppm of either or both these minerals and the
water pH is above 7 then chances are good that there is
scale in the water system that will have to be removed with
an acid cleaner designed for nipple drinker systems. Other
common mineral contaminants are iron, manganese and
sulfur. Iron results in a rusty brown to red colored residue,
while manganese and sulfur can form black colored residues.
Natural sulfur in the water should have a smell similar to a
match head. If the water smells like rotten eggs, then the
culprit is hydrogen sulde. Hydrogen sulde is a by-product
of sulfur loving bacteria and the lines will need to be cleaned
with a strong sanitizer. It might even be necessary to shock
chlorinate the well. If the lters at the beginning of the water
lines are rusty or black colored, then a strong acid cleaner
should be used after the sanitizer ush.
3. What products have been used in the water system?
If additives such as vitamins, electrolytes, sugar based
products, mineral based performance enhancers or weak
concentrations of water acidiers have been used frequently,
then chances are a biolm is present. Once a biolm is
established in a water system, it makes the system 10-1000
times harder to clean. It is important to play it safe and use
strong sanitizer cleaners.
4. Have there been health issues ock after ock such as E.
coli, necrotic enteritis or respiratory challenges that do not
respond to good management, clean-out or down-time?
The culprit for these problems may be hiding and
thriving in the water supply, particularly the water regulators
and drinker lines. Cleaning with a strong sanitizer is denitely
an option that might help.
Choosing a Product
After identifying the type of cleaning that will be most
benecial, the next step is to choose a product that will not
damage the equipment. Currently there are several acid
products that can be used for scale removal. Check with
your local animal health product supplier for options. Just
remember that in order for the product to be effective in
removing scale, it needs to drop the water pH below 6. While
a strong bleach solution might be effective in removing
biolm, the potential damage it can do to the regulators and
nipple drinkers makes this a poor option and the same is true
for many cleaners that might otherwise be good poultry barn
disinfectants. Iodine is not very effective against biolms so
it makes a poor choice. Currently there are several sanitizer
products available for cleaning drinker systems, but some of
the most effective products which are not damaging to the
drinker systems are the concentrated, stabilized hydrogen
peroxides. The active ingredients in these products are
different from over-the-counter hydrogen peroxide because
the stabilizer keeps the sanitizer from converting to water
and oxygen before it nishes the cleaning job. There are also
several chlorine dioxide products available, but they are most
effective if an acidier is present which may require dual
injectors or a way to safely mix the products prior to injection.
A third product used by the industry is household ammonia. A
quick test on algae showed that running one ounce of ammonia
in every gallon of water was not nearly as effective as a 3%
ammonia solution. However it is strongly recommended that
the equipment manufacturer be consulted before using this.
The most important fact to remember is biolms or established
growth of bacteria, molds and fungus in water systems can
only be removed with cleaners that contain sanitizers. It also
should be a product and concentration that will not damage
the equipment. Pay close attention to any product safety
recommendations and follow them accordingly.
Cleaning the system
After the birds are removed from the house, it is time
to clean the system. First ush the lines with water. Use a
high pressure ush if available. This will remove any loose
sediment from the lines. Also make sure the standpipes are
working properly to assure any air build-up that may occur
during the cleaning process will be released from the lines.
Next, determine how the cleaner will be injected. If
a medicator is used, it may not provide the concentration of
cleaner necessary, therefore use the strongest product available
to overcome the dilute injection rate of the medicator. A very
effective alternative is mixing the cleaner in a 55 gallon barrel
or 100 gallon stock tank and then using a sump pump to charge
the product either into individual lines or through the water tap
where the medicator attaches to the water line.
A 400 foot house will require approximately 60 gallons
of water to clean the lines and a 500 foot house needs
approximately 75-80 gallons of water. A third option is
pumping the cleaner from the well room through an injector
or medicator. This is a good idea because it cleans the water
lines going to the poultry house, which can be a source of
contamination. This can be a bad idea if the distribution lines
are very dirty since it will send the lth into the poultry house
water lines. Use this option only if there is a faucet in the
poultry barn that can be used to ush the water lines before
water reaches the nipple drinker lines. In a 400 foot poultry
house it takes approximately 7 gallons of water per line. So
eight 180 foot lines will require approximately 56 gallons of
5
prepared cleaning solution. Use a broom to sweep the nipple drinkers in order to get the cleaning product down into the drinkers.
Once the drinker lines are lled with the cleaning solution, let it stand as long as possible with 72 hours being ideal. However
check with the product manufacturer to assure this will not damage the equipment. After the lines are cleaned, if mineral build-up
is an issue, then re-clean the lines with the acid cleaner.
Keeping the System Clean
Cleaning the water lines between ocks is only half the battle. Even with a thorough cleaning, if a signicant number of
bacteria, fungi or yeasts are still present, then the biolm has the potential to return completely in 2-3 days. Therefore the last step
is to establish a daily water sanitation program. This will benet both the birds and the water system.
Poultry producers at
environmental crossroads
Introduction
While poultry producers have always realized that they are part of a larger production system,
animal agriculture today is much different than in the past. Fifty years ago few worried much about
food safety, economies of scale, consumer buying habits, international markets, environmental
regulations, or the overall structure of various segments of the livestock industry. Today, producers
must be concerned with all these factors as well as the day-to-day management of their operations.
Producers are under heavy pressure from numerous fronts to minimize the impacts of their
operations on the environment.
CROSSROADS continued on page 6
6
CROSSROADS continued from page 5
The 2002 agricultural census indicated the percentage
of farms with livestock has dropped signicantly in the past
50 years (NASS, 2002). Farms keeping poultry have dropped
from 78 to 4.6%. Fewer and larger livestock farms, coupled
with an increasing number of rural residents without livestock,
presents signicant challenges to the quality of life for both
farm and rural non-farm neighbors (Hogberg et al., 2005).
Neighbors often have little tolerance for what once was just
part of doing business in raising poultry, cattle, hogs or other
livestock species. Dramatic changes in livestock production
have forced many producers to consider getting out of the
business.
Changing Structure of Animal Agriculture
Cowling and Galloway (2001) reported that during the
last several decades, three enormous changes in the structure
and organization of animal agriculture have occurred:

1) Intensication development of increasingly large
conned animal feeding operations in which hundreds or
thousands of like animals are reared in feed lots or enclosed
housing units.
2) Decoupling physical separation of the land area
where the feed grains or other forage products are produced
from the site where the food animals are fed and reared.
3) Transport huge increases in the distance of transport
of both feed materials and marketable meat, eggs, milk, dairy,
and sh products.
These trends, like almost everything else in the business
world today, are driven by economic efciency. However,
such economic efciency is often made possible by increased
use of energy (particularly fossil fuels) and frequently leads to
nutrient-use inefciencies with largely unforeseen detrimental
environmental consequences (Cowling and Galloway, 2001).
This point is driven home almost daily as producers and
integrators are portrayed as the bad guys, rather than the
ones who supply food for the grocery store shelves.
Today, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)
account for more than 40 percent of world meat production,
up from 30 percent in 1990. For the poultry sector alone,
global poultry population has grown from 4.2 billion birds in
1961 to 17.8 billion birds in 2005 (Hegg, 2006). In the U.S.,
many specialized, large poultry operations (4 to 10-house
farms or larger) may lack adequate land base for appropriate
litter or manure application. In the near future, this may
mean a change in the structure of livestock production and/or
forced adoption alternative technologies to ensure that litter is
managed to meet water and air quality standards.
The demand for agricultural operations to comply with
air pollution regulations is often perceived by producers as
inappropriate or unfair; threatening the economic viability of
rural residents, small communities and regional economies,
and perhaps the overall production of food by the U.S. (Aneja
et al., 2006). Poultry producers struggle daily with trying to
manage litter and manure generated on their operations in
such a way as to meet both air and water quality standards
that may not agree with or compliment one another. How
productive and/or efcient is it to address a water quality issue
that has, as a consequence, a negative effect on air quality?
Programs that do not jointly address air and water quality
issues may be too costly to implement for both producers and
society. Unfortunately, the current scientic knowledge about
nitrogen, volatile organic compounds, sulfur, and particulate
matter emissions from intensively managed agriculture is
insufcient and the ultimate fate of these compounds from an
air quality standpoint is directly comparable to the situation
in the 1980s with regard to agricultural non-point sources
of nutrient contamination of water. There is just enough
information for researchers and policy makers to recognize
a serious problem, but not enough information for them to
understand the extent of the problem or to make scientically
credible recommendations about potential solutions (Aneja et
al., 2006). The situation was made even tougher recently by
a nal rule from the EPA released Sept. 21, 2006 that places
agricultural dust in the same category as coarse particulate
matter found in urban areas and holds it to the same standard.
The limit of 150 micrograms per cubic meter during a 24-hour
period will be extremely difcult to meet in rural areas that
often are naturally dusty (Anonymous, 2006).
Challenges and Opportunities
The major challenge affecting animal production in
the future will likely be environmental. How do producers
manage waste materials in response to ever increasing
regulatory and public pressure? Unfortunately, in spite of
major changes in animal agriculture, few incentives for
recycling nutrients in animal waste have surfaced. As a result,
often times valuable nutrients in animal waste have been
spread to excess on land near where the waste was generated.
Society should today view animal waste, as it once did, as
a valuable resource to be conserved, not as a waste disposal
problem to be eliminated by the cheapest method available.
This will require some innovative thinking, but we are
certainly capable of that. Additional challenges include better
informing the general public about the complexity of modern-
day animal agriculture as well as creating better dialogue
between producers and their non-farm neighbors. This is
where extension personnel at the local and state level may be
of valuable assistance to producers, community leaders, and
politicians.
Fortunately, economically viable technologies are being
developed for conservation and protable reuse of nitrogen,
phosphorus, carbon and other valuable nutrients in animal
wastes (Cowling and Galloway, 2001). Animal wastes are of
three general types:
1) Animal manures,
2) Waste streams from processing plants that include,
blood, bones, feathers, offal and other un- or under-
used portions of harvested animals, and
3) Animal carcasses.
7
Opportunities exist because the nutrients from all of these
waste streams can be recovered and reused. Value-added end
products could be produced by converting nutrients in animal
wastes into saleable energy, electricity, fertilizer, or feed
materials for livestock (Shefeld, 2000; Cowling et al., 2001).
The most serious obstacles to overcoming the consequences
of intensication, decoupling and transport in the food animal
industry are (Cowling and Galloway, 2001):
1) Distances over which feed grains are transported
before delivery to animal rearing facilities sometimes in
another state or country,
2) Reluctance or doubt among farmers, integrators
and others about the technical and/or economic feasibility
of alternative systems for nutrient management, animal
production, or waste utilization,
3) Lack of convenient processes for combining manure-
based fertilizer products with synthetic chemical fertilizer in
intensively managed cropping systems.
Forces of Change
The Farm Foundation (2006) has identied nine forces
of change affecting environmental issues related to animal
agriculture in North America. Each will have important
implications for the industry during the next decade.
1) Farm concentration and specialization
2) Uncertainty about human health connections
3) Advances in animal operations technologies
4) Environmental activism and information technologies
5) Litigation
6) Changing perception of agriculture
7) Changing measurement technologies
8) Resource constraints
9) Uncertainty about evolution of Kyoto Treaty
Implementation
Poultry producers and integrators are at a crossroads. All
livestock producers should closely monitor any talk and events
related to environmental and waste management issues. Some
producers have closed their operations or sold out and more
may follow to avoid entanglements with neighbors or possible
litigation. Unfortunately for those who choose to remain in
business, additional regulations will likely increase costs of
production, reduce economic opportunities and increase the
difculty of remaining a viable farming operation. This is
particularly true in traditional poultry producing regions like
Arkansas which, in some localized areas, already have large
nutrient surpluses and transporting poultry litter out of the
region is expensive. Stricter regulations and the likelihood
of litigation may be seen by integrators as an unfriendly or
unstable business climate, perhaps forcing the relocation of
facilities to more friendly business climates. Such a relocation
would be detrimental for producers, consumers and ultimately,
entire communities as well.
Summary
Intensication, decoupling and transport have greatly
reshaped the face of animal agriculture over the last several
decades. With these changes have come economic efciencies
along with recently recognized nutrient-use inefciencies as
well as some detrimental environmental consequences. The
most serious challenge facing poultry producers in the future
may be environmental how to best manage litter, manure,
dust and odors in response to increasing regulations and
continued public pressure. Poultry producers should monitor
the situation closely and may likely see costs of production
increase as new regulations are handed down. Many
producers will likely face difcult decisions as to whether or
not to continue poultry farming.
References
Aneja, V. P, W. H. Schlesinger, D. Niyogi, G. Jennings,
W. Gilliam, R. E. Knighton, C. S. Duke, J. Blunden, and
S. Krishnan. 2006. Emerging national research needs for
agricultural air quality. EOS. Vol. 87, No. 3, Jan 17.
Anonymous. 2006. EPA says dont stir the dust. Beef
Business Bulletin. 30(1):1. Oct 12.
Cowling, E. B., D. Botts, K. A. Cochran, S. J. Levitas,
J. Rudek, and W. W. Heck. 2001. Concept Paper: A strategy to
facilitate the transition of the North Carolina swine industry
to an economically and environmentally sustainable system of
waste management. North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC.
Cowling, E. B., and J. N. Galloway. 2001. Challenges
and opportunities facing animal agriculture: Optimizing
nutrient management in the atmosphere and biosphere of
the Earth. Symp. Animal Production and the Environment:
Challenges and Solutions. ASAS Annual Meeting,
Indianapolis, IN. July 24-28.
Farm Foundation. 2006. Future of Animal Agriculture in
North America, Environmental Chapter. 1211 W. 22nd Street,
Suite 216, Oak Brook, IL.
Hegg, R. 2006. The future of animal agriculture and
the environment. The John M. Airy Beef Cattle Symposium:
Visions for Animal Agriculture and the Environment. January
2006. Kansas City, MO.
Hogberg, S. L. Fales, F. L. Kirschenmann, M.
S. Honeyman, J. A. Miranowski, and P. Lasley. 2005.
Interrelationships of animal agriculture, the environment, and
rural communities. J. Anim. Sci. 83(E. Suppl):E13-E17.
NASS. 2002. Census of Agriculture. Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv.,
USDA, Washington, DC.
Shefeld, J. 2000. Evaluation of comprehensive
approaches needed to improve the handling of farm animal
manure and benet the environment and the farming industry.
Joint Institute for Energy and Environment. University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
8
G. Tom Tabler
Ammonia emissions attracting
signicant attention
Introduction
Farmers in all segments of animal agriculture of United States are under pressure to
minimize the impact of their farming operations on the environment. Even though most
environmental concerns during the past two decades have focused on water quality issues,
air quality has recently attracted signicant attention, especially ammonia emissions from
poultry housing. While agricultural emissions have historically been ignored by United States
regulations, recent regulations may signal a change.
Understanding Particulate Matter
We all know about particulate matter in the air, except that we call it dust, smoke, smog or
haze. Since dust particles tend to settle out on calm days, while smoke, smog or haze particles
remain suspended, it should also be apparent that air contains particles of different sizes.
Particles (also called particulate matter or PM) are classied by the approximate diameter of the
particles present. There are over 25,000 micrometers in an inch and the diameter of a human
hair is usually 50 to 75 micrometers. The size of the particles in air is abbreviated using the
particle size (in micrometers) as a subscript. For instance, PM2.5 shows that particles of 2.5
micrometers or smaller are involved.
Particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers (called coarse particles) are generated from
the soil, factories, roads, row-crop farming operations or rock crushing operations. Smaller
particles (PM2.5 or smaller) arise from automobile exhaust, power plants, wood burning,
industrial processes, diesel powered vehicles, organic compounds, ammonia emissions, brush
res or volcanic eruptions. Coarse particles may stay suspended in air for a few minutes or
hours and travel up to 30 miles, while ne particles can stay in the air for days or weeks and
may travel several hundred miles. When animals or humans breathe air containing particulate
matter, ne particles penetrate deeper into the lungs than coarser particles and can cause
coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath and lung damage (EPA, 2006).
New Air Quality Standards
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were issued by the EPA in 1997. The
NAAQS were developed for six pollutants that the EPA considered common throughout the
United States:
1) Carbon monoxide (CO)
2) Lead (Pb)
3) Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
4) Ozone (O3)
5) Particulate matter (PM)
6) Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
These pollutants were chosen based on two criteria: the protection of public health; and the
protection of public welfare, such as damage to animals, crops, vegetation and buildings or
decreased visibility (Mukhtar and Auvermann, 2006).
Since only small amounts of these pollutants are generally emitted directly, these
standards would initially appear to have little to do with poultry houses. However, research has
Farmers in all
segments of animal
agriculture of United
States are under
pressure to minimize
the impact of their
farming operations on
the environment.
9
shown that ammonia can combine in the air with nitrogen or sulfur oxides to form very small
particles (PM2.5s) of ammonium nitrate or ammonium sulfate.
The reaction of ammonia in the atmosphere to form PM2.5s means that the NAAQS
regulations aimed at reducing PM2.5 emissions will likely require reductions in ammonia
emissions from animal agriculture operations (Gay and Knowlton, 2005).
Ammonia Emissions
Ammonia can travel as far as air can go in 5 or 6 days (Knowlton, 2000). Particle
(PM2.5) formation can prolong existence of emissions in the atmosphere and therefore
inuences the geographic distribution of acidic depositions (Sommer and Hutchings, 2001).
This means that ammonia lost from Arkansas poultry farms may be affecting air and water
quality in the Midwest or East. Midwestern agricultural practices have, for years, been
blamed for eutrophication in the Gulf of Mexico. Problems in the Chesapeake Bay are likely
associated, in part, with ammonia deposition from upwind agricultural areas such as Ohio and
North Carolina (Gay and Knowlton, 2005).
Dramatic increases in air concentration of ammonia in areas of intensive agriculture have
been reported, and estimates indicate that animal agriculture accounts for 50 to 85% of total
ammonia volatilization. The loss of gaseous ammonia has direct implications on the nitrogen
content and the fertilizer value of animal manure. In addition, a recent study by the National
Research Council (NRC, 2003) identied ammonia emissions as a major air quality concern
at regional, national, and global levels. It is, therefore, important and in producers own best
interest that animal agriculture takes the ammonia emissions issue seriously. Figure 1 lists
estimates of ammonia emissions from man-made sources in the U.S. during 1994. Note that
poultry was responsible for almost 27% of total ammonia emissions estimates.
Producers are aware from their own experience and estimates conrm that ammonia
emissions will change with the seasons, the geographic region, production techniques, manure
management practices, the number of animals present and type of animals produced (EPA,
AMMONIA continued on page 10
Figure 1. Estimates of ammonia emissions from man-made sources in the
U.S. in 1994 (Battye et al., 1994).
10
2004). In general, however, the greatest ammonia losses are associated with land application of
manure (35%-45%) and housing (30%-35%; Gay and Knowlton, 2005).
Ammonia Source
Poultry producers deal with ammonia on a daily basis and some may wonder about the
source of ammonia. The ammonia is not directly produced or excreted by the birds, but is a
common by-product of poultry wastes. Birds excrete waste containing unused feed nitrogen
in the form of uric acid. Ammonia is formed through the microbial breakdown of uric acid.
Conditions that favor microbial growth will result in increased ammonia production. These
conditions include warm temperatures, moisture, pH in the neutral range or slightly higher (7.0
8.5) and the presence of organic matter factors normally present in abundance in poultry
waste handling systems (Carey, ND).
What to Do
The frequent and total removal of litter and manure from poultry houses would reduce
the ammonia emissions concern. Yet, in most cases, due to the cost of cleanout and replacement
bedding, this is not a viable option for most producers that may only clean out once a year or
less.
The most appropriate strategy to control ammonia is to reduce ammonia volatilization. A
number of compounds are available for use by poultry producers to reduce the pH of poultry
litter to promote formation of NH4+ ions that will bind to other compounds and thus reduce
the amount of volatile ammonia (Carey, ND). However, since manure, which neutralizes these
acidifying agents, is constantly produced, these compounds provide pH control for only a short
time.
Perhaps the simplest thing most poultry producers can do to minimize ammonia emissions
is to control litter moisture. The more moisture there is in the litter, the more potential
for ammonia emissions from that litter. Ferguson et al. (1998) conrmed the relationship
between higher litter moisture and increased litter ammonia. Increases in litter moisture from
approximately 56% to 60% resulted in an increase in litter ammonia release. Keeping the litter
dry depends, in part, on how well drinker management is maintained. Closely monitor the
drinker height and regulator pressure. Promptly address leaking nipples or lines. Remove wet
litter from the house if a major leak or spill occurs.
Also, know what is in the water the birds are drinking. If you dont know, have the
water tested to determine its quality. While often overlooked, water quality has a major impact
on ock health and performance as well as litter conditions. Ventilation is also critical to
maintaining proper litter moisture. Humidity levels must be maintained below 70% to prevent
caking. If you do not currently do so, consider using litter amendments to lower the pH early
in the life of the ock. This will decrease ammonia emissions and allow you to ventilate for
moisture removal instead of ammonia removal which should allow a decrease in fan run time,
thereby saving fuel. It will take an integrated approach to reduce ammonia emissions from
animal agriculture. Keep in mind there is no one product or management practice that will solve
all the problems.
Summary
Meeting new air quality standards and complying with future regulations has the potential
to affect practically every farm in America and perhaps put some out of business. Controlling
ammonia emissions from poultry and livestock facilities will be a daunting task in the future for
livestock producers. Producers will have to use an integrated approach that attacks the problem
from several different angles. There are products available to help control litter pH early in a
ock. Excellent house management will be required to keep litter moisture at optimum levels.
Producers, not politicians, will ultimately have to solve the air quality concerns associated
with livestock production. Increased producer involvement is needed at all levels local,
county, state and national if we are to have workable programs that keep farms viable while
AMMONIA continued from page 9
11
beneting the environment, instead of unrealistic expectations that cannot be met.
References
Battye, R., W. Battye, C. Overcash, and S. Fudge. 1994. Development and selection of
ammonia emission factors. EPA/600/R-94/190. Final report prepared for U.S. EPA, Ofce of
Research and Development. USEPA Contract No. 68-D3-0034, Work Assignment 0-3.
Carey, J. B. No Date. Mitigation strategies for ammonia management. Available at:
http://gallus.tamu.edu/Faculty/MitigationStrategiesforAmmoniaManagementProceedingsPaper.
Accessed October 12, 2006.
EPA. 2004. National emission inventory Ammonia emissions from animal husbandry.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/related/nh3inventorydraft_jan2004.pdf
October 12, 2006.
EPA. 2006. Laboratory and eld operations PM2.5. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/
region4/sesd/pm25/p2.htm#2 11/16/06
Ferguson, N. S., R. S. Gates, J. L. Taraba, A. H. Cantor, A. J. Pescatore, M. L. Straw, M.
J. Ford, and D. J. Burnham. 1998. The effect of dietary protein and phosphorus on ammonia
concentration and litter composition in broilers, Poult. Sci. 77:1085-1093.
Gay, S. W., and K. F. Knowlton. 2005. Ammonia emissions and animal agriculture.
Virginia Cooperative Extension, Biological Systems Engineering, Publ. No. 442-110. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Knowlton, K. 2000. Ammonia emissions: the next regulatory hurdle. The Jersey Journal,
October 2000, 47:56-57.
Mukhtar, S., and B. W. Auvermann. 2006. Air quality standards and nuisance issues
for animal agriculture. Texas Cooperative Extension Service, Publ. No. E-401. Texas A&M
University System, College Station, TX.
NRC. 2003. Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations. The National Academies
Press. Washington, DC.
Sommer, S. G., and N. J. Hutchings. 2001. Ammonia emission from eld applied manure
and its reduction invited paper. European Journal of Agronomy 15:1-15.

UA Poultry Science
Extension Faculty
for Poultry Science
by G. Tom Tabler, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas
INSIDE
page 3
On-Farm Egg-Holding
Temperatures for
Commercial Broiler
Breeders
by Savannah Henderson,
Doug E. Yoho and R.
Keith Bramwell
page 6
Factors Affecting Turkey
Flock Performance
by G. Tom Tabler
page 8
Farm Animal Welfare
Issues Affect Poultry
Producers
by G. Tom Tabler
Advice

ODOR continued on page 2
Odor - An Emerging
Concern for Producers
Introduction
Agricultural odors are an unavoidable
part of livestock production and are emitted
from every poultry operation. These odors
along with the growth of the poultry industry
have sparked debate, concern and action
in many U.S. communities. Air and water
quality have become major issues, along
with social and economic concerns. These
concerns stem from the fact that the difference
between the city and the country is
becoming increasingly difcult to distinguish.
Today, a rural family is not necessarily an
agricultural family. The gap is wide between
an agricultural family that understands that
odors are a part of production agriculture
and a rural family that recently moved
from the city with little or no tolerance for
agricultural odors. Therefore, it is important
that poultry producers have a basic knowledge
of odor control strategies and do their best to
accommodate non-farming neighbors.
Odor Causes
Some odors are generated by the poultry
or livestock themselves, and some by the feed,
but the most objectionable odors arise from
manure and manure decomposition. More
than 200 odor-generating compounds have
been identied from microbial decomposition
of manure (Pfost et al., 1999). This means
that the intensity of the odor depends
upon microbial growth and that growth
rate will vary with moisture content, pH,
temperature, oxygen concentration, and other
environmental factors. This is illustrated by
the fact that, as temperatures decrease with
onset of cooler, autumn conditions, microbial
activity slows, which is why odors are
generally less noticeable in the cooler months.
Yet odors vary greatly, and the offensiveness
of each odor is dependent upon the person(s)
smelling the odor.
Poultry and livestock odors originate
from three primary sites or activities: 1)
livestock facilities and the housed livestock
within, 2) manure storage facilities, and
3) land application of manure. While land
applying (spreading) poultry litter is a
common practice in many areas, be aware that
most odor complaints are associated with land
application of manure, not storage facilities
or housing. As rural areas continue to ll
with an increasing exodus from the cities,
litter application will become an even greater
concern. Expect additional legal involvement
and plan ahead for increased regulation of
land application of poultry litter generated by
your operation.
A serious detrimental component of odor
is dust, which can be carried long distances on
air currents. Dust particles act as a transport
mechanism for odor. Land applying poultry
litter often creates signicant quantities of
dust, which may travel as far as several miles
or as little as several feet. Wind direction
and speed are constantly changing, which can
greatly affect dust and odor patterns making it
difcult to predict the impact odors and dust
will have on residents in areas surrounding a
livestock enterprise.
AVIAN
It is important that
poultry producers
have a basic
knowledge of odor
control strategies
and do their best to
accommodate non-
farming neighbors.
2
ODOR continued from page 1
Understanding Odor
Several different criteria may be used to evaluate odors.
Familiarity with these parameters will help producers better
understand odor source and interpret odor data. Odors
are most commonly evaluated in terms of concentration
(threshold), intensity, persistence (Table 1). These three
variables are often used to provide regulatory and scientic
personnel with some measurement of odor potency and how
long the odor is likely to remain. Hedonic tone and character
are more subjective measurements that are not typically used
for regulatory purposes (Shefeld and Bottcher, 2000).
The amount of odor emitted from a particular farming
operation is a function of animal species, housing types,
manure storage and handling methods, size of the odor
sources, and the implementation of odor control strategies
(Nicolai and Pohl, 2005). A variety of strategies and
innovative technologies are available for odor control. Some
work better for liquid-type wastes (lagoons) while others are
equally effective for both liquid and dry manure situations.
Technologies that capture and treat odors include manure
storage covers, organic mats, and biolters. Technologies
capable of dispersing or masking odors include vegetative
windbreaks, windbreak walls, proper site selection, adequate
setback distances and deodorant and masking agents.
However, before adopting any method, producers should
consider applicability, effectiveness, costs, and labor or
management requirements of all available technologies.

Be Proactive
Most people today are generations removed from
the farm and have little or no association to agriculture.
Therefore, to most of the general public, this lack of
association means that in their thinking agriculture continues
to decline in importance. Their only relationship to the
poultry industry may be to complain about dust, odors,
noise, or someone spreading litter, which leaves a negative
impression of poultry farming. Producers should be aware of
that perception is reality for many people, particularly folks
with no understanding of modern agriculture. In addition,
producers should understand that those peoples perception
has a large inuence on their opinions and actions. This
is especially true with regard to the appearance of poultry
production facilities. Visual perception has a huge inuence
on how much or how little people will accept before a
complaint occurs. Well-maintained production units usually
are not perceived to smell as bad as units that look uncared-for
and run-down. Production sites that appear to be overgrown
with weeds and that has junk scattered everywhere are more
likely to generate a complaint than sites that are nicely
landscaped with regularly mown lawns and an attractive
appearance.
Livestock farmers in the U.S. are under increasing
pressure to reduce odor emissions from their property
and must become more proactive in addressing the issue.
However, the current nancial environment dictates that
farmers identify control strategies that can be implemented
with minimal cost. For example, the planting of trees around
farmland or buildings has been identied as a potentially
effective, low-cost measure to enhance ammonia recapture at
the farm level and reduce long-range atmospheric transport
(Theobald et al., 2001).
Properly planted and well-maintained windbreaks can
serve a number of functions. Windbreaks that shield poultry
houses from the view of passers-by may decrease the chance
of odor complaints since people who cannot see the source of
an odor, they are less likely to: 1) notice the odor in the rst
place and 2) complain about it. Windbreaks cause the air to
be lifted up and over the windbreak, which causes mixing of
fresh air with odorous air, thus diluting the odor effect. Well
laid-out and landscaped windbreaks also increase property
values. In addition, planting trees and shrubs is perceived in a
positive manner and demonstrates a producers commitment to
protecting our environment.
Many nuisance complaints occur shortly after litter has
been land applied. Producers should carefully select the time
when litter will be spread. Let neighbors know when you plan
to spread litter. Keep an open line of communication with
anyone who may be affected by the spreading of litter from
your operation. Avoid weekends and holidays, pay attention
to wind direction, and once started, nish as soon as possible
so that you limit the generation of dust and odor. Spread litter
during the morning as much as possible because as air warms
it will rise, which lifts odors upward for mixing and dilution
with fresh air as well as drying litter. While your cooperative
public attitude will have little effect on the actual odor, it may
be very important in avoiding complaints against your farming
operation. Neighbors are less likely to complain if they
know you are aware and attempting to address their concerns.
Always be courteous when dealing with neighbors, even if you
may be unable to comply with all their wishes. In short, be a
good neighbor.
Summary
Given the continuing urbanization of rural areas and
the level of livestock intensication in the U.S., it appears
likely that complaints associated with agricultural odors will
increase. Increased regulations have drastically changed
livestock production practices in many parts of Europe and
could do so in this country as well. Poultry producers need to
understand the causes of odors and apply basic odor control
principles in their daily management routines. Odor control
need not be difcult or expensive and, in fact, can start with
something as simple as running an attractive operation,
keeping the grass and weeds cut, projecting a positive image,
and being a good neighbor. Address the potential concerns
of your neighbors before they escalate into complaints, or
restrictive regulations that may determine whether or not you
are allowed to remain in business. The continued viability of
poultry production in some areas is increasingly dependent
upon a communitys willingness to accept the industry as a
responsible corporate citizen.
3
References
Nicolai, R., and S. Pohl. 2005. Understanding livestock odors. Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet FS 925-A. South
Dakota State University, Brookings, SD.
Pfost, D. L., C. D. Fulhage, and J. A. Hoehne. 1999. Odors from livestock operations: Causes and possible cures. Outreach
and Extension Pub. # G 1884. University of Missouri-Columbia.
Shefeld, R., and R. Bottcher. 2000. Understanding livestock odors. Cooperative Extension Service Pub. # AG-589. North
Carolina State University.
Theobald, M. R., C. Milford, K. J. Hargreaves, L. J. Sheppard, E. Nemitz, Y. S. Tang, V. R. Phillips, R. Sneath, L.
McCartney, F. J. Harvey, I. D. Leith, J. N. Cape, D. Fowler, and M. A. Sutton. 2001. Potential for ammonia recapture by farm
woodlands: design and application of a new experimental facility. In: Optimizing Nitrogen Management in Food and Energy
Production and Environmental Protection: Proceedings of the 2nd International Nitrogen Conference on Science and Policy. The
Scientic World 1(S2):791-801.

Table 1. Description of odor parameters.

Odor parameter Description
Threshold Minimum detectable concentration
Intensity Strength of odor
Persistence Rate of change
Hedonic Tone Degree of acceptability or offensiveness
Character What the odor smells like
Source: (Shefeld and Bottcher, 2000)
TEMPERATURES continued on page 4
Savannah Henderson, Doug E. Yoho and R. Keith Bramwell
Introduction
Although there have been great improvements in the breeder house, egg transportation and the
hatchery, on-farm hatching egg storage has been largely ignored. The lack of improvement might be
traced to a lack of information about the optimum environment to maintain viability of hatching eggs
stored at the farm level.
Meeting chick placement needs and ensuring the full utilization of incubation equipment have
made hatching egg storage inevitable in the commercial broiler industry. While hatching eggs are
stored both on-farm and at the hatchery and egg storage data is available at the hatchery level, little
if any research aimed at evaluating on-farm hatching egg storage is available..
Hatching-eggs are commonly held at the farm level for three or four days because hatcheries
generally make two egg pickups at each farm per week. Eggs are stored at the hatchery for periods
ranging from less than a day to a week or longer so that an adequate numbers of eggs can be set
to meet chick demand. Length of egg-storage, hen age, egg-storage temperature, and humidity are
all pre-incubation storage conditions that affect both hatchability and economic returns nearly as
On-Farm Egg-Holding Temperatures for
Commercial Broiler Breeders
4
TEMPERATURES continued from page 3
much as incubation conditions. However, as a general rule,
hatchery conditions for egg storage are given much more
attention than are on-farm egg storage conditions. The less
than ideal maintenance of on-farm egg storage rooms often
reects this lack of attention.
Current Situation
The embryo in each fertile egg laid has grown 20,000
to 40,000 cells while in the oviduct and represents an already
started embryo. Following collection at the broiler breeder
farm, hatching-eggs are placed in on-farm coolers to reduce
the internal egg temperature, arresting further embryonic
development, while maintaining embryo viability. The
temperature at which embryonic development is virtually
stopped is known as the physiological zero, but there is
disagreement as to actual temperature at which this occurs.
Repeated research done in our lab has found that temperatures
of 75F or below halts embryo development for up to 96 hours
of storage.
While some poultry companies are recommending
on-farm egg storage temperatures as low as 63F, the most
commonly implemented an on-farm egg
storage temperature is 68F, regardless of
ock age. However, this popular industry
recommendation is based on data that were
originally generated in 1902 and the genetics
of both broiler breeders and their offspring
have progressed dramatically since that point
in time. Although management practices
and equipment continue to evolve around
the increasingly improved broiler of today,
on-farm egg storage has remained largely
unchanged.
As broiler breeder age increases, the
hatchability typically decreases. While
alterations in egg storage conditions might
improve hatchability, altering storage
conditions at the hatchery for each specic
ock is not practical. However, altering
egg storage conditions at the farm level may
help to achieve improved embryo viability
and hatchability. Furthermore, the changes
in physical integrity (e.g. shell thickness,
albumen quality and size) of the egg as ock age advances,
makes it seem logical to investigate ock age as it relates
to egg storage temperature. Therefore, the objective of this
study was to determine if on-farm egg-storage temperatures
would improve hatchability obtained from commercial broiler
breeder ocks in four age groups.
Hatching-eggs were obtained from four commercial
parent-stock broiler breeder ocks representing four ages (25
to 30, 35 to 40, 45 to 50, or 55 to 60 wk of age). Fourteen
hundred forty (1440) eggs were collected from each ock
on four occasions. Hatching eggs were collected from each
breeder farm on day of lay. Eggs were not placed in the
existing on-farm egg cooler. Eggs were transported to an
experimental egg storage facility and 288 eggs were randomly
assigned to storage chambers set to one of ve temperatures
(60F, 65F, 70F, 75F, and 80F). To ensure conditions
were maintained correctly during storage, each chamber was
equipped with a data logger, which recorded temperature every
minute during the holding period. Two trays of 144 eggs were
stored at each temperature for 3 days before being placed
directly onto the commercial egg transport truck.
At the hatchery eggs were held at 68F prior to normal
incubation and hatching procedures. Hatchability was
determined for each treatment group. Unhatched eggs from
each treatment group were subjected to a complete hatch-
residue breakout analysis.
Results
The data in Table 1 indicate that eggs from 25 to 30-
week-old ocks stored at 60F had 2.93% higher hatch of
fertiles than did those stored at 70F. However, no signicant
differences were observed in hatchability. Clearly additional
investigation is warranted here.
The optimum on-farm egg storage temperature for eggs
from 35 to 40-week-old ocks was 70F (Table 2). These
ndings support much earlier research that indicated for
maximum hatch of fertiles, eggs should be stored at or below
70F. The hatch of fertile for eggs stored at 70F was 2.56%,
1.80%, 0.21%, and 3.19 % greater than those for eggs stored
at 60F, 65F, 75F and 80F, respectively. For 35 to 40 week-
old ocks, an on-farm egg storage of 70F was found superior
to other temperatures with respect to both hatchability and
hatch of fertiles.
Similar results were found in eggs from 45 to 50-week-
old broiler breeder ocks (Table 3). For 45 to 50 week old
breeder ocks, hatch of fertiles obtained from the 70F storage
temperature was 6.68%, 4.85%, 8.38%, and 7.00% higher
Table 3. Hatchability and hatch of fertiles from 25 to 30 week old ocks
Storage Temperature Hatch of Fertile Hatchability
(%) (%)

60F 85.31
a
83.77

65F 84.47
ab
83.59

70F 82.38
b
81.16

75F 84.51
ab
83.25

80F 84.53
ab
82.64

a,b
Values within columns with different superscripts are signicantly different (P<0.05).
5
TEMPERATURE continued on page 6
than eggs stored at temperatures of 60F,
65F, 75F, and 80F, respectively. Percent
hatchability was also highest when eggs
were stored at 70F.
Hatchability and hatch of fertiles
was the highest when eggs from 55 to
60-week-old ocks were stored at 75F
(Table 4). Hatch of fertiles for the eggs
held at 75F was 3.19%, 5.17%, 5.00%,
and 4.48% higher than those stored at
60F, 65F, 70F and 80F, respectively.
The requirement of a higher on-farm egg
storage temperature for older hens was not
an expected result. The initial hypothesis
was that hatching eggs from older hens
might require cooler storage temperatures
in order to maintain the structure and
composition of the egg albumen and yolk
contents. However, these data suggest that
eggs from older hens reach physiological
zero at a higher temperature than eggs from younger ocks. In addition, higher storage temperatures for eggs from older ocks
mi
changes.
As previously mentioned, a complete egg breakout analysis was performed on all unhatched eggs. However, no signicant
differences were found between any of the on-farm egg storage groups. Thus, the improvements in hatch reported previously
were the result of across the board
improvements in embryo livability.
However, conditions during the research
project exposed all eggs to increased
handling and transportation conditions.
These unusual conditions likely had an
affect on overall hatchability and hatch of
fertile for all treatment groups, producing
hatch or hatch of fertile values which were
lower than would typically be seen under
industry conditions.
Although hatchability problems can
certainly be traced to poor fertility, when
fertility remains high, care for hatching
eggs can have a tremendous positive effect
on the overall hatchability. Current industry
on-farm egg storage recommendations
vary from 63F to 68F. The data
presented here suggest that hatchability
of eggs from prime age ocks (36 to 49
weeks) is improved by an on-farm eggs
storage temperature of 70F. In addition, the data suggest that eggs from older ocks (>55 wks) will hatch better when stored
in the on-farm storage coolers at 75F. Apparently, hatching eggs from older hens are less viable and more susceptible to stress
and therefore more liable to have increased incidences of early embryo mortality. Additionally, these warmer on-farm storage
temperatures did not adversely affect the hatch prole. While there was a slight increase in early hatched chicks from eggs held
at warmer temperatures it was not signicant. Further research is under way to investigate in greater detail the affects of elevated
on-farm egg storage on chick quality.
(%) (%)

60F 87.36
ab
85.94
ab

65F 88.12
ab
85.68
ab

70F 89.92
a
88.19
a

75F 88.71
ab
86.63
ab

80F 85.73
c
84.03
b

a,b
(%) (%)

60F 78.13
b
76.91
ab

65F 79.96
b
78.21
b

70F 84.81
a
83.42
a

75F 76.43
c
74.57
c

80F 77.81
bc
76.04
bc

a,b,c
6
G. Tom Tabler
Factors Affecting Turkey
Flock Performance
Introduction
In recent years, genetics and nutritional programs have contributed greatly to the commercial
turkeys performance potential. However, turkeys raised on contract farms are subjected to
many more challenges than birds selected back on the pedigree farm as parent stock. In addition,
there is increasing concern from the general public over modern-day genetic programs (articial
insemination vs. natural mating), nutritional programs (feed ingredients, antibiotic use, and BSE
fears), and grow-out environments (connement buildings vs. free range). These concerns are
making their way to fast-food and supermarket chains, food retailers and others who are demanding
changes in the way turkeys are produced in the U.S. Animal welfare issues will require additional
attention in the future. Lets look at some of the factors that can have a major impact on the
performance of turkey ocks.
TEMPERATURE continued from page 5
Conclusion and Summary
Meeting chick placement needs and ensuring the full utilization of incubation equipment have made hatching egg storage
inevitable in the commercial broiler industry. Although hatchability problems can certainly be traced to poor fertility, when
fertility remains high, care for hatching eggs can have a tremendous positive effect on the overall hatchability. While alterations
in egg storage conditions might improve hatchability, altering storage conditions at the hatchery for each specic ock is not
practical. However, altering egg storage
conditions at the farm level may help to
achieve improved embryo viability and
hatchability. Although poultry companies
recommending on-farm egg storage
temperatures between 63F and 68F,
regardless of ock age, previous research
has been shown that a temperature of 75F
halted embryo development for up to 96
hours. The data presented here suggest
that hatching eggs from young ocks (25
to 30 weeks) should be stored on-farm
at 68F. Eggs from ocks in prime age
ocks (35 to 50 weeks) should be stored at
70F on-farm and eggs from older ocks
(>55 weeks) should be stored at 75F.
Research presented here would suggest
that higher egg storage temperatures could
produce an increase in hatch of between
2 and 5% over cooler on farm egg storage
room temperatures.
(%) (%)

60F 73.33
ab
71.63
ab

65F 71.35
b
68.40
b

70F 71.52
b
68.40
b

75F 76.52
a
73.52
a

80F 72.04
b
69.79
ab

a,b
7
Locomotion
A turkeys ability to walk freely and painlessly is
critical to performance. Without adequate bone development
and locomotion capabilities, turkeys will be unable to reach
their full genetic potential. Some bones in turkeys have been
reported to grow an average of 1.9 millimeters a day during
the rst 10 weeks of the birds life (Monk, 1998). Factors
which impede this growth or make walking painful (leg
deformities, swollen hocks, infected or ulcerated footpads)
will result in turkeys making fewer trips to feeders and
drinkers, thereby reducing feed and water intake and adversely
affecting growth. Reduced feed and water intake will also
likely lead to higher mortality rates, increased number of cull
birds, and a higher condemnation percentage at the plant.
Management plays a key role in bone development. If
poults are stressed from excessively hot or cold temperatures
during brooding, cell growth in the bones can be greatly
affected, leading to bone deformation and later leg weakness
(Monk, 1998). Poults must be allowed to move unimpeded
within the brooder ring from the outside edge to the heat
source in order to nd the ideal comfort zone. This will
require proper placement of feeders and drinkers within the
ring. Do not block access to heat source or outside edge of
ring and do not place feeders or drinkers too close to the heat
source, as poults will not consume feed or water that is too hot
(Tabler, 2004).
Poor environmental conditions are a concern throughout
the life of a ock, not just at brooding. If overall house
conditions are not acceptable to the bird, feed and water
consumption will decrease. Be aware that whenever a whole
house of turkeys is just sitting (not eating or drinking) during
the day, something is wrong. Some birds should be on the
move at all times throughout the day. Ideal bird activity
is when groups of birds can be seen standing and slowly
maneuvering their way across the house to feeders and
drinkers (Wojcinski, ND). Wet litter must be avoided, as this
may lead to foot pad lesions, which provide opportunities for
bacterial infection (Monk, 1998).
Litter Management
Most producers realize that wet litter leads to ammonia
production and subsequent respiratory or leg quality problems.
However, producers may not realize that typical poultry litter
contains 1 billion viable microorganisms per gram (Rehbeger,
ND). These microorganisms come from several sources with
the primary source being the gastrointestinal tract of the birds
themselves (Rehbeger, ND). Litter management involves
reducing the multiplication of microorganisms to protect foot
pads, control diseases and enhance the house environment.
Knowing how to prevent wet litter may help reduce or
eliminate these problems. Some of the common causes of wet
litter are:
Inadequate litter depth make sure depth is adequate at
start of the ock (follow integrator guidelines)
Unsuitable ventilation rate an inadequate air exchange
rate allows humidity levels to rise, increasing the
likelihood of wet litter
Inappropriate temperature cool temperatures mean
elevated humidity levels, which leads to wet litter.
Recognize that supplemental heat will be needed at times
(particularly when birds are young) to keep the litter
dry. Increasing air temperature by 20F will double the
moisture holding capacity of the air
Improper drinker management height, line pressure,
spillage, and wastage all impact litter condition

Keep in mind the age of the ock when implementing
a litter management strategy. Recall that young turkeys (less
than 10 weeks) produce less body heat than older birds (13
weeks or older). This means (obviously) that during cooler
temperatures additional heat must be added to maintain an
ideal growth environment. Although fuel is expensive, the
addition of extra heat not only warms the birds, it increases
the capacity of the air to remove moisture. If no supplemental
heat is added to turkeys 10 weeks old or less, the capacity of
the air will be inadequate to remove the moisture exhaled and
excreted by the birds. In contrast, in turkeys of 13 weeks or
older, the heat produced by the bird is adequate to remove the
excess moisture. Thus, properly maintaining temperatures and
adequately ventilating are critical to good air quality in the
turkey house. Good air quality is important 24 hours per day
throughout the ock, not just when someone is working in the
house or on days the service tech visits the farm.
Water
Like other livestock, water intake in turkeys is directly
related to feed intake and therefore growth and performance.
Water consumption of turkeys at the start of the growing
period is around 2.5 times greater than feed consumption and
around 2 times higher in the mid growing phase (Wojcinski,
ND). It is essential to have water meters and keep daily
records of water consumption. This is the only way producers
will know if consumption is normal for ock age and season
of year. Excessive or irregular changes in water consumption
can alert producers to potential problems with either ock
health status or malfunction of the feed and/or water system.
As with bone development, if ock health is compromised,
turkeys will never reach their genetic potential and
performance will be disappointing. Even one compromised
bird may contribute towards a deteriorating environment
starting a long series of events that ultimately result in
disappointing ock performance (Fernandez, 1998).
Not only is an adequate supply of water necessary,
it must be high quality water if turkeys are to achieve high
quality performance. Treating water lines during cleanout,
sanitizing watering equipment during house preparation, and
maintaining the correct amount of sanitizer present in the
drinker throughout the ock are vital to providing quality
drinking water. For example, Bordetella (which causes turkey
coryza) has been isolated from the inside of nipple drinkers
and from the rubber seal in the water line regulator in houses
with Bordetella positive turkey ocks (Watkins, 2002).
Chlorine levels in the last drinker should be checked weekly
PERFORMANCE continued on page 8
8
G. Tom Tabler
to ensure proper amount is being delivered. Also, water should be sampled regularly for mineral and bacterial levels. Producers
must know how much water turkeys are consuming and whats in the water, otherwise it is impossible to know if the water supply
is adversely affecting ock performance.
Summary
Locomotion is essential to the birds ability to obtain feed and water. Litter management also plays a key role in how
Availability of a plentiful and high quality water supply is a necessity for ock performance. Water meters are valuable tools
for tracking consumption and alerting producers to possible ock health or other serious problems. While modern, commercial
turkeys can obtain remarkable performance, it is the concern and management skills of individual turkey producers at the farm
level that ultimately determines whether potential becomes reality at ock harvest.
References
Fernandez, D. 1998. Reducing pathogen load optimizes turkeys production performance. The Feather File. Cuddy Farms.
Monk, J. 1998. Nutritional, management factors can interfere with development. The Feather File. Cuddy Farms.
Rehbeger, T. No Date. Controlling litter microorganisms. Watt Publishing e-digest 2(6). 7 pages. Visited June, 2002.
Tabler, G. T. 2004. Strategies for successful turkey production. Avian Advice 6(2):9-11.
Watkins, S. E. 2002. The campaign for quality drinking water continues. Avian Advice 4(3):7-9.
Wojcinski, H. No Date. Grow-out management. Watt Publishing e-digest 2(6). 4 pages. Visited June, 2002.
PERFORMANCE continued from page 7
Farm Animal Welfare Issues
Affect Poultry Producers
Introduction
Livestock production practices have evolved at a rapid pace over the past 30 years. So
much so that few people today are aware of current on-farm management practices. This fact
is emphasized by evidence that many students enrolled in college animal science courses today
are largely unaware of common practices associated with modern animal agriculture (Heleski,
2004). It can no longer be assumed that animal and poultry science students enter college with
practical, on-farm experience. If these students are largely unaware of production practices, its
a safe bet the general public knows practically nothing about animal agriculture and modern-
day production practices. Perhaps this should not be surprising given the fact that 98% of the
U.S. population does not farm. Parents can no longer teach their kids livestock management
practices because most parents are too far removed from the farm themselves. However, even
though they may know little about livestock production, most of that 98% expects farm animals
to be humanely treated. The following paragraphs offer information on welfare issues affecting
the poultry industry and its producers.
Livestock production
practices have evolved
at a rapid pace over
the past 30 years...
few people (outside
the industry) today
are aware of current
on-farm management
practices.
9
5
Five Freedoms
The Farm Animal Welfare Councils so-called ve freedoms (FARC, 1992) provide a
framework for assessing farm animal welfare. These freedoms include:
1. Freedom from hunger and thirst by providing ready access to fresh water and a diet to
maintain full health and vigor.
2. Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment including shelter
and a comfortable resting place.
3. Freedom from pain, injury or disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
4. Freedom to express normal behavior by providing sufcient space, proper facilities and
company of the animals own kind.
5. Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid
mental suffering.
Unfortunately, common husbandry practices which improve some aspects of animal
welfare may diminish others (Anonymous, ND). For example, caging laying hens certainly
restricts their freedom of movement but, every bird receives clean, fresh water and a
nutritionally well balanced diet. In addition, raised cages also allow wastes to fall through,
maintaining cleanliness for both birds and eggs. However, welfare questions still remain: e.g.,
just how important is it to a hen to build a nest or scratch for bugs in the barnyard (Anonymous,
ND).
The poultry industry must constantly assess the situation and enhance animal welfare
in a manner the public will accept. If production practices cannot pass the test of public
acceptance, modern-day consumers have no problem changing their buying habits, leaving
animal agriculture searching for answers. A good rst step is a heightened awareness within
the industry and among producers about animal welfare concerns and problems. Production
advantages associated with improved welfare need to be emphasized by researchers to the
industry (Mench and Duncan, 1998). Good management will minimize most welfare problems.
Therefore, researchers must communicate current knowledge to industry personnel and contract
producers in areas such as improved production methods, changing rules and regulations, and
animal welfare audits and facility inspections. Poultry producers are referred to an excellent
article by Watkins (2003) concerning what to expect and how to prepare for an animal welfare
audit at your farm.
Additional Efforts Needed
Practical methods for improving poultry welfare are already available, particularly in
the areas of catching, handling and slaughter (Mench and Duncan, 1998). Today, however,
economics drive everything and research is needed to provide information from the public
on what they will accept (and pay for) before the poultry industry can justify making costly
sweeping changes to current production practices.
Despite potential for immediate improvement in some areas, Mench and Duncan (1998)
listed a number of areas requiring additional efforts by the poultry industry. These include:
Equipment design for new facilities
Gas stunning methods that are effective and considered safe
Less stressful methods to induce molting that ensure a complete molt
Identication and breeding of stocks that do not require beak trimming
Workable alternative production systems for laying hens
Changing physiology and needs of broilers as a result of selection
Mechanization of handling and loading of broilers
Development of a use for spent hens; improved methods of on-farm disposal to ensure a
humane death
Identication of human factors responsible for welfare problems
PERFORMANCE continued on page 10
FREEDOMS
10
Broken bones in hens; causes, economic effects, methods to decrease breakage, including
dietary modications at end-of-lay
Effect of journey times and crate densities on broiler welfare during transport
Improved house design to facilitate handling and catching
Welfare effects of practices like toe-trimming and the use of NozBonz to prevent broiler
breeder males from using the female feeders
Perch design for layers and broilers
Quality of house environment in relation to seasonal environmental extremes
Establishing a common set of standards for animal welfare in the poultry industry is made more
difcult because facilities, management, and personal opinions differ between various poultry
producing regions of the country and even within regions. For all its similarities, the U.S.
poultry industry is not as uniform as it may rst appear.
Animal Care
Each state in the U.S. has laws prohibiting cruelty to animals although few relate to
livestock production. On U.S. farms, there are presently no laws or regulations that require farm
animal care assurances, and voluntary programs of farm animal
care are not widely used (McGlone, 2002). However, an
increasing number of very large and inuential companies are
developing and implementing animal welfare programs which
will greatly affect how animals are produced on the farm in
the future. Consumers of livestock products expect producers
to treat animals humanely and with respect. Retailers of farm
livestock products know their markets depend on customers
condence that farm animals are treated humanely. As a
result, more and more retailers are demanding that suppliers be
able to document humane animal treatment. Suppliers in the
beef, pork, and poultry industries must develop animal welfare
programs that satisfy their retail clients if they expect to keep
those clients. For contract poultry producers, this likely means
some form of veriable, on-farm inspection that documents
proper welfare procedures.
McGlone (2002) has suggested training and certication
programs for farm animal care are needed to satisfy 1) the
public, 2) consumers, 3) food retailers and 4) the government. With regards to farm animals in a
commercial farm setting, it was proposed such programs should contain the following features:
Tailored to the individual farm
Information about humane care including husbandry, handling, and use of information
services to remain up-to-date
In-service education and training
Formal or on-the-job training opportunities
Information about a broad range of areas including husbandry, behavior, nutrition,
environmental physiology, veterinary clinical, diagnostic medicine, agricultural
engineering, and instrumentation.
Such a program would present an opportunity for the poultry industry to work hand-in-hand
with researchers and extension personnel to develop animal welfare criteria that would satisfy
the non-farm population yet, are realistic and workable enough to implement and still allow
producers and their farming operations to remain viable.
At its heart, animal welfare depends on the producers values and attitudes. It is an issue
that has, for the most part, fallen under industry self regulation rather than government control.
That could change, however, if the industry fails to address the issue head on and in a timely
ANIMAL WELFARE continued from page 9
11
manner. Social pressure is driving the poultry industry to scrutinize its production practices.
Customers, consumer groups, animal rights activists, and others are calling for action right now.
The industry has little choice but to develop animal welfare criteria that customers accept and
that producers will have to incorporate, including on-farm inspections. Even though some may
not favor such inspections, they are quickly becoming part of the cost of doing business today.
Not all producers will agree that such a plan is necessary, but it is better to police ourselves now
than to be policed later by the courts and the government for failing to act soon enough. Animal
welfare should not be looked upon by producers as being anti-livestock or anti-production
agriculture. Rather, animal welfare should have the overall goal of maintaining the long-term
sustainability of livestock production for current and future generations of producers.
Summary
Farm animal welfare is a major issue for the poultry industry and poultry producers.
Even though few people outside agriculture understand current production practices, increasing
numbers are demanding animal welfare assurances for the products they purchase. Major
retailers, under pressure from customers, consumer groups, animal rights activists and others,
are confronting the industry on issues involving cage space, withholding feed, forced molting,
stocking densities, slaughter practices and catching, handling and transport of birds. The
industry must address these concerns or risk alienating clients and customers. One likely
outcome that will affect poultry producers is the animal welfare audit system (including on-
farm inspections). Producers should prepare for such inspections and take steps to document
their management program. This includes simple things like keeping mortality charts up to date
on a daily basis and having a phone list of who to call if something goes wrong (feed system,
well pump, generator, electrical power, fuel supplier, natural disaster, etc.). This may seem
redundant and unnecessary now, but in the near future, this type information will likely have to
be documented to comply with animal welfare guidelines.
References
Anonymous. No Date. Agriculture and animal care. Kansas State University. Available at:
http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/NEAreaOfce/animalcare.htm. Accessed December 8, 2005.
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FARC). 1992. FARC updates the ve freedoms. Vet. Rec.
131:357.
Heleski, C. R. 2004. Attitudes toward farm animal welfare. Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan
State University. East Lansing, MI.
McGlone, J. J. 2002. Symposia paper: Training and certication of farm animal care in
teaching and research institutions. Prof. Anim. Sci. 18:7-12. March.
Mench, J. A., and I. J. H. Duncan. 1998. Poultry welfare in North America: Opportunities
and challenges. Poult. Sci.77:1763-1765.
Watkins, S. 2003. Animal welfare audits: What to expect and how to be prepared. Avian
Advice 5(4):6-8.

POULTRY SCIENCE YOUTH CONFERENCE
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS CAMPUS JULY 11-14, 2006
Do you have a son or daughter interested in the poultry industry? Would you
like for them to nd out more about the outstanding career opportunities for students
majoring in poultry science? Are they a junior or senior in high school?
E-mail Gary Davis (gddavis@uark.edu), undergraduate recruiter in the
Department of Poultry Science at the University of Arkansas to nd out more! You may
also call him at 479-575-7526. This is a great hands-on workshop exposing students to
what life is like on the UofA campus. (Space is limited, cost is $50).
UA Poultry Science
Extension Faculty
for Poultry Science
by F.D. Clark, DVM, Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian
. . . helping ensure the efficient production of top quality poultry products in Arkansas and beyond.
INSIDE
page 4
Windbreaks for
Arkansas Poultry Farms
by G. Tom Tabler
page 8
Is Mold Growth Hurting
Your Performance
by Frank T. Jones
page 11
Coming Events
Advice
AVIAN
ANATOMY continued on page 2
Winter 2005 Volume 7, Number 1
Normal Birds - A Review
of Avian Anatomy
A necropsy is the examination of a bird
externally and internally to determine the
cause of death. The method for doing a
necropsy varies and depends somewhat on the
bird involved, the preference of the individual
performing the necropsy, the disease(s)
suspected, and where the necropsy is being
done. Regardless of the method; the most
important point to remember is to systemati-
cally evaluate each organ and organ system
for changes associated with disease. Since
only a few diseases cause very specific
lesions in the organs; it is very important to be
familiar with the normal external and
internal anatomy. Usually a necropsy starts
with a detailed examination of the external
anatomy of the bird.
External Anatomy
Feathers and Skin
Feathers cover the majority of the skin
and are arranged in feather tracts rather than
randomly distributed. The feathers should be
clean at the point of attachment to the skin
and the edges of the feathers should be
smooth with no clear areas present in the
barbs.
The skin of a chicken and/or turkey is
thin and semi-transparent over most of the
body. The muscles, veins, and fat deposits can
be observed through the skin in most birds.
The muscles appear as dark areas; whereas,
fat is yellow. The skin on the face and bottom
of the foot is thickened and is normally white
or yellow in color. The comb, wattles, and
car lobes are usually bright red in color in
commercial layers and broiler breeders. It is
normal for market and breeder turkeys to
develop red or bluish skin on the head and
neck. Normal commercial layers and breeder
hens may have a reddish yellow skin on the
comb, ear lobe, or other facial structures (this
is especially true if they are beginning to
come into production or are out of
production).
The lower legs are covered with scales
which are yellow to white in coloration. The
thickened skin on the bottom of the foot
(footpad) is usually a pale yellow-tan or
yellow-white color (the scales of the leg arc
similarly colored). Chicks and poults have
yellow colored leg scales. Adult broilers and
commercial layers can have yellow or white
leg scales. Turkey leg scales are white to light
tan colored. The leg coloration will change in
hens from yellow to white and vice versa as
they go into or out of egg production.
The skin, leg, and feather coloration of
many of the varieties of chickens, ducks, and
turkeys kept as backyard, hobby, pet, or
exhibition flocks may vary from those listed.
The best source for individual breed
differences is the book The American
Standard of Perfection, which is published
by the American Poultry Association or the
American Bantam Standard.
Ears, Eyes, Nostrils and Beak
The ear in a bird is covered with fine
feathers and is a small opening located on the
side of the head. The eye should be a bright
2 AVIAN Advice Winter 2005 Vol. 7, No. 1
ANATOMY continued from page 1
yellow-orange in color and free of discharges. The eyes should
be clear with dark black pupils surrounded by a colored iris.
The color of the iris varies with the breed and age of the bird,
but in general is steel-grey in chicks and poults. In adult
broilers, layers, and broiler breeders the iris is yellow-orange;
but brown in adult turkeys. The nostrils are slit like openings
on top of the beak and at the base of the beak. They are
surrounded by tan-yellow fleshy skin called the cere. The beak
is a yellow-horn to white-horn color in the normal bird and has
a smooth surface with the end of the beak pointed or blunted
in a beak-trimmed bird. Again, colors other than those listed
may be normal for many of the varieties of chickens, ducks,
and turkeys kept as backyard, hobby, pet, or exhibition flocks.
As before, the best source for these breed differences is the
The American Standard of Perfection or the American
Bantam Standard book.
Internal Anatomy
Once the external anatomy has been evaluated the
internal anatomy of the bird is examined. The skin should be
removed and the bird opened to expose internal organs. The
procedure of initially opening the bird to evaluate the internal
organs may vary depending on the personal preference of the
individual performing the necropsy. However, regardless of
the procedure, it is important to evaluate all organs present
systematically and thoroughly.
The first organs that come into view when the skin of a
chicken or turkey is removed for necropsy are the muscles,
sternal bursa, and bone (keel). The breast muscles are a grey-
white in color normal poultry. The point of the keel is white
and the edge of the bone is straight. The sternal bursa is a
white sac-like structure that is located on the sternum and
contains a small amount of clear fluid. If the leg muscles are
observed they are a darker grey-white color and the sciatic
nerve (located between the leg muscles) is a glistening white
with cross striations.
Thoracic (Chest) and Abdominal Anatomy
After the sternum and breast muscles are removed the
internal organs are evaluated, The heart is a triangular shaped
organ (the base of which is toward the head of the bird) that is
surrounded by a clear sac (pericardial sac). The heart is grey-
white in color and has a band of yellow fat near the base.
Internally, the heart is the same color with clear membranous
valves between heart chambers. The left ventricle (lower left
chamber) of the heart is thicker than the right ventricle. The
heart is almost completely surrounded by the lobes of the
liver.
The liver is the largest internal organ, is firm, and has
prominent sharply defined edges. The color of the liver varies
with diet. Baby chicks and poults tend to have a liver that is
yellow in color due to yolk absorption. Adult birds can have a
yellow-tan liver if on a high fat diet and the organ may be soft.
The adult bird usually has a dark red to red brown colored
liver.
The avian gallbladder is attached to the liver lobe and can be
easily examined by moving the liver to one side. This sack-
like structure is greenish-black in color due to the bile present
in it.
The trachea and syrinx (voice box) are visible at the base
of the heart. These structures are white with the trachea a
round tube like structure that divides into smaller left and right
bronchi. The syrinx is a flattened area of the trachea that is at
the end of the trachea before it dividing into bronchi. The
bronchi are identical to the trachea in color and shape but are
of a smaller diameter. However, a better examination of the
trachea is done in the neck of the bird. The aorta is also visible
at the base of the heart and is the artery that connects to the
hearts left ventricle. This tubular structure is thick walled and
pink white to red-white in color. The aorta and smaller
connecting arteries are better examined after the organs in the
thorax and abdomen are removed. The fat pad that covers the
organs must be cut or torn to reveal the gizzard (ventriculus)
and the stomach (proventriculus) to the birds right side. The
spleen is readily visible at the junction of the stomach and
gizzard after they are exposed. This lymphoid organ is oval or
elliptical in shape and dark red to purple in coloration. The
spleen in an adult bird is approximately one inch long.
The air sacs on the left are also readily visible after the
stomach and gizzard are set aside. These clear membranes are
attached to the lungs and increase the respiratory capacity of
the bird. Female birds that are in production may have yellow
fat deposits on the air sacs. The air sacs on the birds right side
should also be examined; it is usually necessary to move the
liver, stomach, and gizzard to the birds left side to examine
them adequately.
Avian lungs are closely adhered to the ribs and are an
orange-red or pink-red color. The lungs can be removed for a
close examination of the ribs. The ribs, as with all avian
bones, are smooth thin walled and white. Immediately below
the lungs are the kidneys, adrenal glands, and gonadal tissues
(testes or orvaries). The kidneys are firmly embedded in
gizzard
(ventriculus)
stomach
(proventriculus)
duodenal loop
cecae
cloaca
3
depressions in the bone (synsacrum) and have three distinct
lobes (cranial, middle, and caudal). The bird has two kidneys,
a left and right, and these organs are dark red to dark brown
with a fine reticulated patient visible. A small, white tube (the
ureter) connects each kidney to the cloaca. The adrenal glands
are small tan triangular shaped glands located at the section of
the kidney near the lung. Gonadal tissue is also located near
the kidney. The male has two testes, one on either side of the
midline. These organs are bean shaped or elliptical shaped and
tan. Two small white coiled tubules connect the testes to the
cloaca. In the female only the left ovary and oviduct are
generally present near the left kidney. In an immature female
the ovary is roughly triangular in shape or shaped like an
inverted L. It is white to light yellow in color and may have a
granular or gritty appearing surface. The developed oviduct is
a large grey-white tubular organ that has distinct longitudinal
structures. The oviduct connects the ovary to the cloaca and
adds egg components such as albumen, shell membranes and
shells as it transports the follicle (yolk) to the surface.
Located near these organs and near the midline is the
descending aorta. This thick walled artery is a continuation of
the aorta as it leaves the heart. It is from this major artery that
numerous smaller arteries arise to supply blood to the internal
organs. The aorta is pink-white to red-white in color.
The digestive tract should be examined next. The
stomach (proventriculus) is a spindle shaped organ that has the
gizzard (ventriculus) attached to it. The stomach is grey in
color and internally the lining in glistening grey-white with
small papillae (gland openings) present. The gizzard is a round
dark brown to dark red organ attached to the gizzard.
Internally, the gizzard (ventriculus) has a koilin lining which
is yellow to yellow-green in color.
The duodenum is the first section of the small intestines.
It is loop shaped and surrounds the pancreas. The pancreas is a
white-tan fleshy organ. The duodenum, like all of the small
intestines is a tan-grey to white-grey tube which has a fine
textured lining similar to the surface of a towel. The jejunum
and ilium are the next two sections of the small intestines.
Two sack-like structures are attached to the small intestines at
the junction of the large intestines and ileum. These structures
are the cecae which are thin walled with small thick areas in
the wall (cecal tonsils) at the points of attachment to the small
intestines. Cecal contents are dark green or dark brown. The
large intestine (which is very short) lies between the ileum to
the opening to the surface called the cloaca. The cloaca is
similar in color to the small intestines but is of larger diameter.
Feces in the large intestine and cloaca is generally drier and
green to brown feces in color. The ileum contains a more
liquid feces of similar color. White pasty urates are often
present in the cloaca. The bursa of Fabricius is a round tan-
white lymphoid organ which is organ located behind (dorsal)
the cloaca.
Most blood vessels are examined along with the organs
such as checking the large vessels coming to or leaving the
heart when the base of the heart and syrinx are examined.
Blood vessels vary in size depending on the organ supplied.
Arteries are thicker walled than veins, and are a pink white to
red white in color. Veins are thin walled, tend to flatten out
when touched and are a dark blue in color due to the blood in
them.
Neck Region
The mouth and neck of the bird should also be examined.
A cut is made at the corner of the mouth and extended down
the neck, thus exposing the structures for closer examination.
In the mouth of the bird the tongue can be examined. This
triangular shaped organ is dull grey-white and has a few
bumps (papillae) on the surface. Directly behind the back of
the tongue (and connected to it) is the glottis. The glottis is the
opening of the trachea. It is white in color and has two folds
(left and right) which come together to close the opening when
the bird swallows. The oropharynx is the region at the back of
the mouth and is a glistening grey-white color. Located on the
roof of the mouth is the cleft opening called the choana. This
structure should be clean with a small amount of clear mucous
usually present in the cleft. The choana is also grey-white in
color and numerous conical papillae are around the cleft.
The esophagus should be opening and examined. It too is
grey-white in color and has a smooth surface. There is an
organ at the base of the esophagus called the crop. The crop is
a pouch of the esophagus and as such is the color and texture
of the esophagus. The trachea is also present in the neck. This
white tubular structure has rings of cartilage visible from the
outside. Inside the trachea is a small amount of clear mucous
and the lining is a glistening clear white.
The remaining most obvious organ in the neck is the
thymus. This organ is multi-lobed and tan in color. Often
yellow fat is intermixed with the lobes. This organ 15 located
near the base of the neck and crop.
The beak should be removed to expose the nasal cavity.
There are scroll like structures in the nasal cavity which are a
tan-white in color. There is also a small amount of clear
mucous on these scrolls.
R. Keith Bramwell Extension Reproductive Physiologist
G. Tom Tabler, Applied Broiler Research Farm Manager
Windbreaks for Arkansas
Poultry Farms
Windbreaks are
barriers that have
been used for
centuries to reduce
and redirect wind.
Another area to examine is the breast musculature. The superficial breast muscle should be cut into to check the deep breast
muscle (supracoracoideus muscle). This deep muscle is the same color as the superficial breast muscle.
The joints of the leg are also cut into and examined. All joints in the leg should contain a clear fluid. The cartilage in the leg
joints can also be examined at this time. Cartilage is a bright white to grey- white in color and has a smooth surface. The ends of
the leg bones are usually cut to examine the bone marrow, and check for cartilage plugs. If a cartilage plug is present in the end of
the tibiotarsal bone it appears as a triangular shaped plug that is white to grey-white in color. Bone marrow is red in color and soft
in texture.
The structures and organs discussed are those examined on a routine field necropsy. Naturally, any area that looks
abnormal is more closely examined.
Introduction
Windbreaks are barriers that have been used for centuries to reduce and redirect wind. They
were first used in the mid-1400s when the Scottish Parliament urged the planting of tree belts to
protect agricultural production (Droze, 1977). Windbreaks are common in regions like the Western,
North Central, and Great Plains of the United States where there is minimal forest cover, strong
winds, large amounts of snow, and extreme temperature fluctuations. However, since windbreaks
have also been used for privacy screens, dust control, odor control and noise reduction, the Arkansas
poultry industry should give them serious consideration. The ever-increasing non-farm population
influx into rural, poultry producing areas of the state is adding to the number of complaints and
lawsuits between non-farm and farm segments of the population. Windbreaks have the potential to
address some of these problems and could improve property values. In addition, planting trees and
shrubs is seen as environmentally friendly; therefore, windbreaks around poultry houses could
further demonstrate a producers commitment to a safe, healthy environment now and in the future.
5
Windbreak Benefits
Well-designed windbreaks can cut energy costs of a typical farm or ranch home as much as 20
to 40 percent (Wight et al., 1991). Individual savings depend on the local site, climate conditions,
and building construction quality, as well as the design and construction of the windbreak. Since
windbreaks reduce the force of the wind blowing against the buildings and, in turn, the amount of
cold air entering the building, unprotected poultry houses, with poorly fitting doors, numerous
cracks or gaps and poor-quality curtains could probably benefit greatly from a well-designed
windbreak. A moderately dense windbreak will reduce a 20 mph wind to approximately 5 mph out
to a distance of five times the effective height of the windbreak. Table 1 lists wind reductions at
various distances upwind and downwind of windbreaks.
Table 1. Wind speed reductions at various distances windward and leeward of windbreaks
with different densities in Midwestern United States
1,2
Percent of open wind speed at various distances
Type of windbreak Optical density Windward Leeward
(Upwind) (Downwind)
-25H -3H -1H 5H 10H 15H 20H 25H 30H
Single row deciduous 25-30 100 97 85 50 65 80 85 95 100
Single row conifer 40-60 100 96 84 30 50 60 75 85 95
Multi-row conifer 60-80 100 91 75 25 35 65 85 90 95
Solid wall 100 100 95 70 25 70 90 95 100 100
1
Reductions are expressed as percent of open wind speed where open wind speed is assumed to be less than 10 meters
per second and distance from windbreak is exressed in terms of windbreak height. (H).
2
Adapted from Brandle et al. (2004).
Many poultry producers also raise beef cattle. When windbreaks are used to protect cattle fed
in open pastures or lots mortality is reduced, feed efficiency is improved and weight losses are
reduced by as much as 50 percent. Studies in Iowa over a five year period showed that sheltered
cattle gained an average of 80 pounds more per year and on average consumed 129 pounds less feed
per hundredweight of gain than those not sheltered (Slusher and Wallace, 1997).
Farmstead windbreaks can also screen undesirable sights, sounds, smells and dust and thus
improve living conditions for neighbors, particularly on the downwind side. The plants within the
windbreak will absorb some odors while others may be masked by the more desirable smells of
aromatic leaves or flowering shrubs that may make up the windbreak. Windbreaks can also reduce
noise by deflecting sound off branches and tree trunks or by absorbing sound with leaves, needles,
twigs, and smaller branches. For poultry producers this could mean a reduction in noise from tunnel
ventilation fans that may, during summer, run 24 hours a day for weeks. In addition, to some
degree, undesirable noises may be masked by the more desirable sounds of singing birds attracted by
the windbreak and the rustling of leaves. For maximum effectiveness, tree and shrub belts should be
tall, dense and located closer to the noise source than to the area protected (Slusher and Wallace,
1997). Poultry farms are a common sight along many roadways in western Arkansas. Screening
these with windbreaks would remove them from the publics eye while also beautifying your
farming operation and displaying your concern for the environment.
In temperate regions windbreaks can be a major component of successful agricultural systems.
However, to be successful, windbreak integration requires a thorough understanding of the
agricultural system involved, a basic understanding of how windbreaks work and a working
knowledge local conditions.
WINDBREAKS continued on page 6
WINDBREAKS continued from page 5
Height, Length and Structure of Windbreaks
Windbreak height is the most important factor determining the distance downwind protected by a windbreak. For
maximum efficiency, the uninterrupted length of the windbreak should be at least 10 times its height (Brandle et al., 2002).
Windbreaks usually require at least two kinds of trees with different growth characteristics to provide foliage density at various
heights over a period of years (Slusher and Wallace, 1997). Table 2 lists trees and shrubs that have been used in Missouri
windbreaks; many of these same species would work well in Arkansas windbreaks as well. Conifer species, such as cedar and
pine, and shrubs with multiple stems tend to provide better year-round density, while taller hardwood species, such as ash, oak, or
hackberry, generally are used to provide greater height.
Table 2. Trees and shrubs used in Missouri windbreaks
1
Est. Height Est. Height
Soil (feet) Soil (feet)
Species Tolerences after 20 years Species Tolerances after 20 years
American holly 1,2 <26 Hackberry all 16-25
American plum all 15 Highbush cranberry 1,3 <10
American sycamore all 26-35 Kentucky coffee tree all 16-25
Amur maple 1,2 <16 Loblolly pine 1,3 26-35
Amur privet all 10 Ninebark 1,3 <8
Arborvitae (hardy strain) 1,3 15-20 Nothern red oak 1 26-35
Autumn olive 1,2 <16 Norway spruce all 26-35
Bald cypress 1,3 16-25 Osage orange all 16-26
Basswood 1 26 Pecan 1,3 26-35
Black Cherry 1 16-25 Persimmon all <26
Blackhaw 1,2 <16 Pin oak 1,3 26-35
Black locust 1,2 26-35 Redbud 1,2 <16
Black walnut 1 26-35 Red maple all >35
Black willow 1,3 25 Red mulberry all <26
Bur oak all 16-25 River birch 1,3 26-35
Catalpa 1 26-35 Sassafras 1 >26
Chinese elm 1,2 26-35 Shagbark hickory 1,2 >16
Chinkapin oak 1,2 16-25 Shingle oak all 26-35
Common lilac all <16 Shortleaf pine 1,2 26-35
Cutleaf staghorn sumac 1,2 <8 Silky dogwood all <8
Deciduous holly 3 <16 Silver maple 1,3 >35
Eastern cottonwood all >35 Smooth sumac all <8
Eastern redcedar all 16-25 Spirea all >8
Eastern white pine 1 26-35 Sweetgum 1,3 26-35
European alder 1,3 26 Thornless honeylocust all 26-35
Flowering dogwood 1,2 <26 White oak 1,2 16-25
Forsythia all <16 Wild plum all 15-18
Green ash all 26-35 Yellow poplar 1 >35
Key: Soil tolerances
1= deep or moderately deep, well-drained or moderately well-drained soils
2= shallow, dry soils
3= poorly to very poorly drained wet sites
All= all of the above sites
Symbol for heights < = less than; > = more than
1
Adapted from Slusher and Wallace (1997).
7
The amount of wind speed reduction that occurs is determined by the structure of the trees involved. As wind flows
through a windbreak, the trunk, branches and leaves absorb some of the momentum of the wind and the roughness of the tree
surfaces further slows wind speed. However, density should be adjusted to meet particular objectives. In general, windbreaks
with higher densities (multiple rows) are used to protect wildlife, farmsteads, or homesites, while windbreaks with lower densities
are used to protect crop fields. Windbreak density is the ratio of the solid portion of the windbreak to the total area of the
windbreak. A windbreak density of 40 to 60 percent provides maximum downwind protection in addition to providing
tremendous soil erosion control (Brandle et al., 2002).
The prevailing winds in winter are from the north and northwest in Arkansas, so protective windbreaks should be located
along the north and west sides of your farmstead. However, windbreaks used for visual screening and dust, odor and noise
control near tunnel fans can be placed where needed with proper planning. Windbreaks with both deciduous and evergreen
species must have adequate space. If evergreen and deciduous trees are planted as close as 6 to 8 feet apart, the deciduous trees
will soon overshadow the evergreens. When this happens, the growth of the evergreens will be stunted, their form will be ruined
and their effectiveness greatly reduced. There must be at least 15 to 20 feet of space between rows of evergreen and deciduous
species (Slusher and Wallace, 1997).
Considerations and Tree Spacing
Slusher and Wallace (1997) suggest keeping the following considerations in mind as you plan your windbreak;
Locate the windbreak where it will be most effective.
Design the windbreak to fit the available space and to meet the purpose of the planting. Design must allow for proper
spacing (see below) for tree growth and for use of maintenance equipment.
Select tree and shrub species that are well adapted to your soil and climate conditions. Order trees early.
Properly prepare the planting sight and fence areas accessible to livestock.
Arrange for necessary planting labor and equipment.
Provide care and protection for young seedlings.
Provide proper management practices after windbreak establishment.
When planning the spacing of trees the probable size of the crowns after the trees reach 20 to 30 years of age should be
considered. Although a wider spacing means that it will take longer for trees to form an effective wind barrier, the delay in
windbreak effectiveness will be more than offset by the increased tree growth rate. In addition, trees that have adequate growing
space will live longer, retain their lower limbs better and produce more foliage. Furthermore, the reduced windbreak
effectiveness produced by wider spacing can be overcome by staggering the trees in adjacent rows. Rows should be spaced
from 15 to 30 feet from each other, depending on the types of trees or shrubs in the adjacent row. Slusher and Wallace (1997)
recommend the following spacing for various trees and shrubs:
Space 10 to 12 feet between shrub rows.
Space 15 to 20 feet between shrub and tree rows.
Space 15 to 20 feet between medium and tall tree rows.
Space 20 feet between tall evergreen rows.
Space a minimum of 20 feet between tall evergreen and tall deciduous tree rows.
Remember that spacing must allow for proper use of suitable maintenance equipment. Between trees in a row:
Allow 4 to 6 feet for deciduous shrubs.
Allow 10 to 16 feet between medium-sized evergreens.
Allow 12 to 20 feet between deciduous trees.
Allow 10 to 16 feet between tall evergreen trees.
Summary
Winds of change are sweeping across the American agricultural landscape. The general public is no longer as tolerant of
agricultural practices as they once were. In addition, agricultural producers are a small minority of the population and must
therefore utilize strategies that allow production to increase, while at the same time, living in harmony with their neighbors and,
in turn, minimizing complaints or lawsuits from the non-farm population. One such strategy for Arkansas poultry producers is
the use of windbreaks. Windbreaks are an old technology used to reduce wind speed but they also have the potential to visually
screen poultry houses from public view, disperse odors, dust and noise before these pollutants have a chance to affect the
Your Performance?
neighbors. Also, in todays environmentally conscious society, planting trees is good thing to do and may reflect positively on
agricultural producers who otherwise might be viewed unfavorably by much of the non-farm population. Be aware that
constructing a successful windbreak is no small undertaking so do your homework before grabbing your shovel. Contact your
local Extension office, Arkansas Forestry Commission, NRCS office, or local landscape nursery for assistance with planning and
constructing a windbreak that will meet the needs of your particular farming operation.
References
Brandle, J. R., X. Zhou, and L. Hodges. 2002. How windbreaks work. University of Nebraska Extension EC 02-1763-X.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Brandle, J. R., L. Hodges, and X. H. Zhou. 2004. Windbreaks in North American agricultural systems. Agroforestry Systems
61:65-78.
Droze, W. H. 1977. Trees, Prairies, and People: A History of Tree Planting in the Plains States. USDA Forest Service and Texas
Womens University Press, Denton, TX. 313 pp.
Slusher, J. P., and D. Wallace. 1997. Planning tree windbreaks in Missouri. MU Guide G5900. University Extension. University
of Missouri-Columbia.
Wight, B., T. K. Boes, and J. R. Brandle. 1991. Windbreaks for rural living. University of Nebraska Extension EC 91-1767-X.
Frank T. Jones, Cooperative Extension Section Leader
When molds
grow in feeds,
they use up
nutrients and
vitamins that
the birds
should be
getting.
Introduction
Unexplainable poor performance can occur from time to time. While production problems can
originate from innumerable sources, some common situations should not be overlooked. When
management factors are good and birds still perform poorly, it may be time to take a closer look
at the feed bins and pans to determine if mold growth is the source of the problem.
What Can Happen
Over 20 years ago a survey was conducted with five North Carolina broiler companies. Six
broiler farms were selected from each company for a total of thirty farms. Farms that
participated in the study were chosen based on the productivity indicated by the previous years
records. Two farms from each company were classified as above average in productivity, two
were average in productivity and two classified as poor. Schedules were arranged so that chicks
arrived at each farm within a few days of each other and were caught at the end of the flock
within a few days of each other. One flock was surveyed and feed samples were collected
weekly from the feeder pans on each farm. Table 1 contains data collected from this study.
9
Table 1. Molds, Aflatoxin and Broiler Production
Productivity No. of Age Wt. Feed Mold Aflatoxin
Classification farms (Days) (lbs.) Conv (Count/g) (ppb)
Above Average 10 52.6 3.88 2.13 8,000 6.13
Average 10 51.9 3.83 2.15 35,000 6.49
Below Average 10 52.8 3.79 2.16 43,000 13.99
From Jones et al. 1982.
It should be obvious from the weights and feed conversions in Table 1 that these data are over 20 years old! However,
please note that as farm productivity gets progressively poorer, weights are lighter and feed conversion worsens. While we all
realize that there are many factors that affect performance, these data suggest that molds and aflatoxin are related to performance.
Since farms in the study were on the same placement and catch schedule, they likely got feed at about the same time.
Consequently, it seems logical to assume that when feeds arrived on each farm, they contained about the same number of molds.
Yet, mold counts from farms with below average productivity are seven times higher than those from farms that were above
average in productivity.
What Happens When Molds Grow in Feeds
Molds can grow on almost anything. As they grow, nutrients are destroyed and toxin are released. When molds grow in
feeds they use up nutrients and vitamins that the birds should be getting. The data in Figure 1 illustrate how mold growth can
destroy protein, fats and thiamin in grain. Molds can produce toxic substances call mycotoxins (such as aflatoxin). There are
over 250 known mycotoxins produced by many different mold strains. When birds are exposed to high levels of mycotoxins they
can cause gut irritation or digestive system problems, skeletal or leg problems, nervous system symptoms and impaired immunity.
However, in most field cases birds are exposed to low levels of mycotoxins, which produce non-descript symptoms. Birds may
just not seem right, but show no major signs.
MOLD continued on page 10
MOLD continued from page 9
How can mold growth happen in feeds?
Molds can be found virtually anywhere in the natural environment. It is common for pelleted feeds to contain hundreds of
mold spores per gram. Molds will grow whenever conditions are right for their growth. The lack of moisture is most often what
prevents molds from growing in feeds. While the overall conditions in the feed handling system and poultry house may not
promote mold growth, molds will tend to grow in very small areas where conditions are right for growth.
A general depiction of mold metabolism can be seen in Figure 2. It is not necessary to thoroughly understand mold
metabolism. However, it is important to realize that as molds grow they produce their own moisture. This metabolic moisture
means that the process of mold growth can feed on itself and get faster as it gets going. This moisture also means that the higher
the mold count the greater the potential for mold growth.
Figure 2. Mold Metabolism
C
6
H
12
O
6
+ 6O
2
6CO
2
+ 6H
2
O
How to Control Mold Growth
There are three primary factors that control mold growth. These factors are related to each other and each must be
addressed. Control of mold growth in feeds can be accomplished by keeping moisture low, maintaining feed fresh, and keeping
equipment clean.
>
11
Coming Events:
Moisture Control
Moisture is the single most important factor in determining if and how rapidly molds will grow in feeds. Moisture in feeds
comes from the environment in which the feed is stored or handled. To control mold growth, begin by controlling the obvious
sources of moisture in the feed handling and storage equipment. These sources may include leaks in feed storage tanks, augers,
and roofs. However, it is important to realize that feed moisture changes in relation to the environment. Since birds add moisture
to their environment by respiration and defecation, the air in houses can be very humid. Feed that was initially very low in
moisture content will gain moisture when placed in a humid environment. This means that it is crucial to provide adequate
ventilation for control of humidity in the house.
Keeping Feed Fresh
Time is required for both mold growth and mycotoxin production to occur. It is therefore important to have feeds delivered
often so that it will be fresh as possible when consumed. Feeds should generally be consumed within 10 days of delivery. It is
equally important to manage the feed delivery system to ensure that feeds are uniform in freshness. Field surveys have shown that
poultry farms producing birds with the poorest performance were those with the most feed in their feeder pans. On these farms,
the feeds contained the greatest amount of moisture and had the highest number of molds. If the feeder system is allowed to keep
the feed pans full at all times, the feed in the pans will be significantly older than that in the storage tank. Birds will tend to eat
primarily the feed in the top layer. The feed at the bottom of the pans will age, providing greater opportunities for molds to grow
and may hurt performance. To prevent this problem, the feeder system should be turned off weekly. The birds will then be forced
to clean up all of the feed in the feeders before it becomes excessively old. A similar principle applies to feed storage tanks. The
feed next to the wall is last to exit the tank and therefore stays in the tank the longest. The feed in contact with the wall is also the
only portion of the feed that changes appreciably in temperature. These factors make feed in contact with the wall susceptible to
moisture migration and mold growth. It is best to completely empty and clean one tank when the new delivery is in the other tank.
Equipment Cleanliness
If feed is delivered to farms where old feed is lodged or caked in the feed storage or delivery systems, this old feed is often
very moldy and may seed the fresher feed it contacts, increasing the chances of mold growth and mycotoxin formation. To
address this problem, caked, moldy feed should be scraped or brushed off and leaky spots should be sealed. When bins are
extremely caked with feed, it may be necessary to sand blast the bin. Feeder pans should be disassembled and areas that contain
caked moldy feed should be brushed to bare metal or plastic. It is important to remember to avoid the use of water in cleaning
since moisture encourages mold growth.
Summary
Molds are present everywhere in nature and grow readily in feeds if conditions are right. When molds grow on feeds they
destroy nutrients that are meant for our birds and they may produce mycotoxins that also hurt performance. To control mold
growth in feeds, protect feeds from moisture, ensure that feeds are fresh and keep equipment clean.
References
Jones, F. T., W. M. Hagler and P. B. Hamilton. 1982. Association of low levels of aflatoxin in feed with productivity losses in
commercial broiler operations. Poultry Science 61:861-868.
Tindall, W. 1983. Molds and feeding livestock. Animal Nutrition and Health, July-August, p 5.
International Poultry Exposition, January 26-28, 2005, Georgia World Congress
Center, Atlanta, GA, U. S. Poultry and Egg Association (770) 493-9401
International Poultry Short Course, February 21-25, 2005. University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville, AR, Dr. Frank Jones (479) 575-5443
Poultry Symposium, April 25-27, 2005, Springdale, AR, The Poultry Federation
(501) 375-8131
UA Poultry Science
Extension Specialists
Dr. R. Keith Bramwell, Extension Reproductive Physiologist, attended Brigham Young University where he received his
B.S. in Animal Science in 1989. He then attended the University of Georgia from 1989 to 1995 where he received both his
M.S. and Ph.D. in Poultry Science. As part of his graduate program, he developed the sperm penetration assay, which is still
in use today, as both a research tool and as a practical troubleshooting instrument for the poultry industry. He then spent one
year studying in the Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology Lab at Colorado State University. In 1996, Bramwell returned
to the University of Georgia as an Assistant Professor and Extension Poultry Scientist. Dr. Bramwell joined the Center of
Excellence for Poultry Science at the University of Arkansas as an Extension Poultry Specialist in the fall of 2000. His main
areas of research and study are regarding the many factors (both management and physiological) that influence fertility and
embryonic mortality in broiler breeders. Telephone: 479-575-7036, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: bramwell@uark.edu
Dr. Dustan Clark, Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian, earned his D.V.M. from Texas A&M University. He then practiced
in Texas before entering a residency program in avian medicine at the University of California Veterinary School at Davis.
After his residency, he returned to Texas A&M University and received his M.S. and Ph.D. Dr. Clark was director of the Utah
State University Provo Branch Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory prior to joining the Poultry Science faculty at the University
of Arkansas in 1994. Dr. Clarks research interests include reoviruses, rotaviruses and avian diagnostics. He is also responsible
for working with the poultry industry on biosecurity, disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention.
contamination in poultry feeds and the efficient processing and cooling of commercial eggs. Dr. Jones joined the Center of
Excellence in Poultry Science as Extension Section Leader in 1997. Telephone: 479-575-5443, FAX: 479-575-8775,
Dr. John Marcy, Extension Food Scientist, received his B.S. from the University of Tennessee and his M.S. and Ph.D. from
Iowa State University. After graduation, he worked in the poultry industry in production management and quality assurance
for Swift & Co. and Jerome Foods and later became Director of Quality Control of Portion-Trol Foods. He was an Assistant
Professor/Extension Food Scientist at Virginia Tech prior to joining the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science at the
University of Arkansas in 1993. His research interests are poultry processing, meat microbiology and food safety. Dr. Marcy
does educational programming with Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), sanitation and microbiology for
processing personnel. Telephone: 479-575-2211, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: jmarcy@uark.edu
Dr. Susan Watkins, Extension Poultry Specialist, received her B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Arkansas. She
served as a quality control supervisor and field service person for Mahard Egg Farm in Prosper, Texas, and became an
Extension Poultry Specialist in 1996. Dr. Watkins has focused on bird nutrition and management issues. She has worked to
identify economical alternative sources of bedding material for the poultry industry and has evaluated litter treatments for
improving the environment of the bird. Research areas also include evaluation of feed additives and feed ingredients on the
performance of birds. She also is the departmental coordinator of the internship program.
Agent Agriculture Community Development Leader in Crawford County before assuming his present position. He has major
responsibility in the Arkansas Youth Poultry Program and helps young people, parents, 4-H leaders and teachers to become
aware of the opportunities in poultry science at the U of A and the integrated poultry industry. He helps compile annual
figures of the states poultry production by counties and serves as the superintendent of poultry at the Arkansas State Fair.
Mr. Wooley is chairman of the 4-H Broiler show and the BBQ activity at the annual Arkansas Poultry Festival.
for Poultry Science
by Jana Cornelison, Melony Wilson and Susan Watkins, Cooperative Extension Service
INSIDE
page 4
Two New Programs:
Premises Identication
and the National Animal
Identication System
by F. Dustan Clark
page 6
What are
Bacteriophages?
by Frank T. Jones, Lisa
Bielke and Jack Higgins
page 8
Bacteriophage: A
Replacement for
Antibiotics?
by William E. Huff
page 10
Evaluation of LItter
Treatments on
Salmonella Recovery
in Poultry Litter
by J.B. Payne and
Susan E. Watkins

Advice

EFFECTS continued on page 2
Effects of Water Acidication
on Turkey Performance
Introduction
Acidication of the drinking water has
become very popular in the broiler industry
as a tool for improving bird performance.
However, little is known about the exact
effects of water acidication on weight gains,
feed conversion efciency and livability
for turkey production. In addition, little
documentation exists which compares
different drinking water pH adjustment
products for turkeys. Therefore a trial was
conducted to determine how turkeys respond
to different products used to adjust the
drinking water pH.
Nine hundred and sixty turkey hen
poults (day-old) were randomly placed in
48 oor pens to give 20 birds/pen and six
replications per treatment. Each pen was
equipped with one hanging tube feeder
and a water plasson. Each pen had its own
water supply via a 5 gallon sealed bucket.
Plassons were cleaned every day and water
usage was measured for the rst 28 days.
This measurement involved accounting for
the water added to each pen as well as the
water removed each time the plassons were
cleaned. Seven treatments were compared
to a control (Fayetteville city water). The
treatments (outlined in Table 1) included PWT
(Jones-Hamilton Co., Walbridge, OH) added
to the control water to an adjusted pH of 4
and 6, I.D. Russell Citric Acid (Alpharma,
Fort Lee, NJ) added to the water to adjust the
pH to 4 and 6, Dri Vinegar (BVS, (Willmar,
MN)) added to the water to adjust the pH to
6, Acid Sol (BVS, Willmar, MN)) added to
the water to adjust the pH to 6 and Ema-Sol
(Alpharma, Fort Lee, NJ) added to the water
to adjust the pH to 4. Each solution was
prepared in a 50 gallon container and then
dispersed to the corresponding replicate pens.
Each container was lled with Fayetteville
city water and allowed to sit over night to
allow residual chlorine to dissipate. Prior to
the preparation of each solution a hand-held
pH meter was rst standardized using pH
4, 7 and 10 buffer solutions. The pH was
continuously checked as each solution was
slowly mixed to the desired pH. To enhance
the dissolving of the dry products, PWT and
citric acid, concentrated stock solutions of
each was prepared in room temperature water.
This concentrated solution was slowly stirred
into the appropriate treatment container until
the desired pH was achieved. Fresh solutions
were made at lease twice weekly and more
frequently during the last four weeks of the
trial. The pH was veried and recorded, as
each batch was prepared. All water and
feed added to the pens was weighed. Birds
received a commercial diet regime supplied
by Cargill. Diets were changed every two
weeks.
The birds were group weighed by pen at
day 1 and then individually weighed on days
14, 28, 42, 56, 70 and 84. Feed consumption
was measured for each period. Pens were
checked twice daily for mortality. The
weight of all dead and cull birds was recorded
for use in determining an adjusted feed
AVIAN
2
EFFECTS continued from page 1
conversion rate. At week six and twelve, one bird per pen was
weighed and sacriced by suffocation with carbon dioxide.
The pH of the crop and gizzard was measured by emptying
approximately 20 grams if the contents and blending with an
equal amount of distilled, de-ionized water.
Results were analyzed using the GLM procedure of
SAS. Pens served as the experimental unit. The mortality
percentage data was transformed using square root
transformation to normalize the distribution. All means which
were statistically signicant at the P<. 05 level were separated
using the repeated t-test. The feed-conversion rates were
calculated as cumulative values. The mortality was calculated
for each weigh period.
Table 1. Water Treatments
Treatment Treatment Water
Number pH
1 Control 8
2 PWT 6
3 PWT 4
4 Citric Acid 6
5 Citric Acid 4
6 Dri Vinegar 6
7 Acid Sol 6
8 Ema-Sol 4 then 6
Treatments 1 through 7 were started at day of age. Each bucket of solution
was monitored for solubility on a daily basis. Treatment 8 was pH 4 for days
0-14, then adjusted to pH 6 through the remainder of the trial.
Results
The average body weights of the hens are shown in
Table 2. At day 14 the hens receiving the Acid Sol were
signicantly heavier and the hens receiving the Ema-Sol
adjusted to a pH of 4 were signicantly lighter than all of the
birds receiving the other treatments and the control water. At
this time the decision was made to raise the Ema-Sol treatment
pH to 6. By day 28 there were no signicant differences in
body weight and this trend remained throughout the remainder
of the trial. Though not signicant, the hens receiving the
Ema-Sol water lagged behind slightly in weight through day
56 but by day 70 the Ema-Sol birds had similar body weights
to the other treatments. Again while not signicant, it is
interesting to note that the birds receiving the PWT 4, Citric
acid 4 or Dri Vinegar 6 treatments had the highest numerical
body weights at day 84. No statistical differences were seen
for feed conversions for any of the periods measured (Table
3). Birds receiving the Ema-Sol treatment had a signicantly
higher mortality rate for the rst fourteen days. However,
overall mortality remained very low and after fourteen days
there were no additional losses of Ema-Sol birds until day 56
(Table 4).
Water usage was measured through day 28. However,
since the drinkers were plasson and were cleaned daily, this
measurement can only be considered an estimation of water
usage (Table 5). For the rst fourteen days water usage for the
Ema-Sol birds signicantly lagged behind all other treatments.
This trend continued through day 28 and even after raising the
Ema-Sol treatment pH to 6 the birds receiving this treatment
still lagged slightly behind in consumption. At the time that
the pH of the gizzard and crop contents were to be measured,
only a small amount of dry material was found in these organs,
so an equal weight of distilled de-ionized water (pH 6.68) was
added to each sample (Table 6.). While this addition probably
inuence nal pH, the same amount of water added to each
Table 2. Impact of Drinking Water Acidication on Average Hen Weight.
Treatment Name 14 Days (lbs) 28 Days 42 Days 56 Days 70 Days 84 Days
Control 0.819b 2.009 4.883 8.581 12.394 16.361
PWT 6 0.828b 2.009 4.872 8.553 12.445 16.355
PWT 4 0.825b 2.004 4.859 8.577 12.469 16.456
Citric Acid 6 0.826b 2.018 4.894 8.572 12.366 16.333
Citric Acid 4 0.819b 2.018 4.861 8.513 12.440 16.507
Dri Vinegar 6 0.810b 1.991 4.830 8.443 12.187 16.498
Acid Sol 6 0.859a 2.062 4.954 8.714 12.520 16.449
Ema-Sol 0.775c 1.984 4.799 8.566 12.504 16.434
SEM 0.006 0.019 0.041 0.072 0.092 0.132
P Value .0001 .2549 .3096 .3622 .2573 .2534

Table 3. Impact of Drinking Water Acidication on Average Hen Feed Conversion
Treatment Name 14 Days 28 Days 42 Days 56 Days 70 Days 84 Days
Control 1.086 1.414 1.492 1.588 1.793 1.985
PWT 6 1.098 1.467 1.528 1.607 1.778 1.969
PWT 4 1.075 1.389 1.497 1.576 1.769 1.971
Citric Acid 6 1.090 1.428 1.489 1.595 1.795 2.013
Citric Acid 4 1.080 1.389 1.485 1.585 1.792 1.966
Dri Vinegar 6 1.101 1.465 1.517 1.613 1.803 1.987
Acid Sol 6 1.101 1.454 1.532 1.610 1.780 1.995
Ema-Sol 1.107 1.415 1.546 1.642 1.795 1.988
SEM 0.016 0.024 0.022 0.016 0.020 0.020
P Value .8486 .1493 .3396 .1833 .9455 .9061
Feed conversion totals are cumulative
3
sample so that the effect would be the same across all treatments. As seen in the broiler trial, the pH of the gizzard was in the 3 to
low 4 range while the crop pH was higher but did not necessarily reect the pH of the water treatments.
Conclusion
The results of this trial indicate that lowering the pH of the drinking water with PWT, citric acid, Dri vinegar, Acid Sol and
Ema-Sol resulted in turkey hen performance similar to the birds receiving the control water. Starting the poults on Ema-Sol
adjusted to a pH of 4 resulted in a signicantly higher mortality and reduced weights through day 14. The pH of the Ema-
Sol treatment was then raised to 6 for the remainder of the trial and the birds had nal weights statistically similar to the birds
receiving the other treatments.
Table 4. Impact of Drinking Water Acidication on Average Hen Mortality
Treatment 0-14 Days 14-28 Days 28-42 Days 42-56 Days 56-70 Days 70-84 Days
Name (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Control 0.88b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00
PWT 6 0.00b 0.88 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.30
PWT 4 0.00b 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00
Citric Acid 6 0.92b 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00
Citric Acid 4 0.88b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.83
Dri Vinegar 6 1.85b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Acid Sol 6 0.00b 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.01 0.83
Ema-Sol 9.83a 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.83 0.98
SEM 1.58 0.589 0.41 . 0.29 0.54
P Value .0012 .7746 .5489 . .4456 .6581
Mortality totals are cumulative
Table 5. Impact of Drinking Water Acidication on Average Water Usage
Treatment Days 0 - 14 Day 14-28 Day 0 - 28
Usage (kg) Usage (kg) Usage (kg)

Control 1.85a 1.82 3.67a
PWT 6 1.92a 1.95 3.87a
PWT 4 1.99a 2.04 4.04a
Citric Acid 6 1.85a 1.61 3.46a
Citric Acid 4 1.83a 1.60 3.43a
Dri Vinegar 6 1.53a 1.86 3.39a
Acid Sol 6 1.95a 1.84 3.79a
Ema-Sol 0.96b 1.44 2.41b
SEM .184 .13 .180
P Value .0055 .0572 .0001
Table 6. Impact of Drinking Water Acidication on Crop and Gizzard pH
Treatment Day 42 Day 42 Day 84 Day 84
Name Crop pH Gizzard pH Crop pH Gizzard pH
Control 5.79 3.87 5.35 3.41
PWT 6 5.56 3.84 5.58 3.18
PWT 4 5.86 3.71 6.18 3.56
Citric Acid 6 5.89 3.82 5.83 3.24
Citric Acid 4 5.87 3.85 6.10 3.25
Dri Vinegar 6 5.95 3.65 5.65 3.20
Avid Sol 6 6.05 4.13 6.24 3.33
Ema-Sol 5.78 3.78 6.12 3.61
SEM .19 .16 .25 .17
P Value .7411 .6234 .1366 .5177
4
F. Dustan Clark, Extension Poultry Veterinarian
Two New Programs: Premises
Identication and the National
Animal Identication System
...knowing where
animals are
located is a
key component
of accurately
tracking animal
movement in the
case of a disease
investigation
Introduction
The last 10 years has seen an increase in the number of disease outbreaks around the world. In
the United States there have been several foreign animal disease outbreaks in the last 4 years (Low
Pathogenic Avian Inuenza - Virginia. 2000, Exotic Newcastle-California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas
2003-04, High Pathogenic Avian Inuenza-Texas 2003 and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy-
USA and Canada 2003). These outbreaks have caused tremendous interest in developing a method
to quickly identify animals for the purposes of protecting animal
health and easily tracking animals. Many countries (Australia,
Canada, and the European Union to name a few) have some
system of animal identication already in place. The United
States Department of Agriculture has made the development
of a National Animal Identication System (NAIS) a top
priority to respond to the national and international concerns
regarding protecting animal health and quickly identifying and
tracking animals. The rst step toward this system is a premises
identication/registration program.
Premises Identication
The National Premises Identication System (NPIS) is
the rst step towards a National Animal Identication System
(NAIS) and will be established before animals can be tracked.
The registration of premises and thus knowing where animals
are located is a key component of accurately tracking animal movement in the case of a disease
investigation. The premises involved in the commerce of livestock and poultry will be identied
with a unique identication number assigned by the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) who will closely working with
state and/or tribal agencies/authorities involved with animal health. A premise is dened as any
geographically unique location that is associated with the commerce, movement or commingling
of poultry and/or livestock. This denition will thus include farms, ranches, livestock auctions,
feedlots, county or state fairs, and livestock and/or poultry exhibits. There are three components
of the NPIS. The premises number allocator will be how a unique number is assigned by USDA
to a premise. Each premise must have a valid address and/or a veriable description of the
location where animals are commingled or have some association with the animal industry (such
as a veterinary clinic or diagnostic laboratory). Only one number will be allocated to a premise
regardless of the number of species associated with the premise. The premise number allocator will
be maintained at the national level only. The premise registration system is the second component
and is a database program for storing the information necessary for the premise. Since the
information stored is unique to a premise this allows animal health ofcials to rapidly contact the
appropriate owner or supervisor of the premise in the event of a disease investigation. The plan is
to maintain the data for 20 years and it will include the date the premise was initiated or deactivated
so the appropriate people can be contacted for a specic time frame if needed. The state and/or
tribal animal health agencies/authorities are responsible for handling and maintaining the premise
5
registration under their jurisdiction. A standardized registration
system is to be provided to them by APHIS for use if desired
or they can use a system developed by them or some other
party. The third component of the system is the national
premise information repository. This is a very important
component of the system and contains data forwarded from
the premise registration system. This repository will be a
centralized system maintained by USDA/APHIS and will
contain data that is necessary to support the NAIS such as
the unique numbers to be assigned to animals at a specic
premise.
The numbers assigned for premise identication will be
of two types, both of which will consist of sever alphanumeric
characters (7 letter/number combinations). One number is a
unique national number that will be assigned to any location
or premise that is involved in livestock and/or poultry
agriculture. This number will be permanently assigned by the
state or tribal registration system to the premise. The number
does not change if the property is sold. The second type of
number is a unique number that is assigned to entities that
do not manage or hold livestock or poultry (such as animal
identication services, veterinarians, or breed registries), but
are still involved in the NAIS. Once premises are identied,
animal identication will be the second step of the NAIS.
Animal Identication
The goal of the NAIS is to be able to identify any animal
or premise that has had contact with a disease of concern
(foreign or domestic) within 48 hours after discovery of the
disease. This can be done with identication of the premise
and animal or animal group. The rst phase of the NAIS is to
uniquely identify a premise; when this is complete the second
phase is to uniquely identify an animal or animal/poultry
group or lot associated with the premise. This will be done via
a unique number for each animal. A 15 character number will
be used for individual animals. A 13 character number may be
an option for those species such as poultry and pigs that move
as one group in the chain of production. The exact technology
for uniquely identifying an animal does not exist as a one size
ts all. The technology that works best for one specie may
not work well for others. Because of this the USDA focus is
on the design of the data system as to what information should
be collected and when it should be reported with the belief that
once the system is designed the most appropriate technology
for the system needs will be market determined.
When development is complete the NAIS will be a
standardized system of animal identication that will allow
rapid tracing in the event of a disease concern (foreign or
domestic). The system will allow identication of cattle,
bison, deer, elk, llamas, alpacas, goats, horse, sheep, pigs, and
poultry. Participation in the program will be voluntary while it
is under development. But USDA will continue to assess the
program while it is developed and tested to see if parts or all
of it should be mandatory. Currently, there is no timeframe for
the system to be in place. However, USDA is now moving the
program forward using a phase approach with the rst priority
being the premise identication. Once premises are identied,
animal identication systems will be tested. Naturally, there
has been concern about condentiality issues. The information
contained in the system (premise and animal identication)
will be accessible by federal, state, and tribal authorities when
needed for administration of animal health programs. The need
to access data is an important part of conducting an animal
health and disease control program designed to prevent disease
spread and to protect the public health. USDA/APHIS is very
concerned about condentiality issues and as such is exploring
effective means of collecting data and options for protecting
the data from public access. The national repository will only
contain information as it relates to the purpose of tracking
animals and diseases.
What Can Producers Do Now
Livestock and poultry producers should check with their
state or tribal animal health authorities about the availability of
the program in their area. In Arkansas the Arkansas Livestock
and Poultry Commission (ALPC) is the agency responsible
for animal health concerns. If the premise registration system
is operational in their area, a producer can obtain a unique
identication number for their premise. The information
needed for a number will include: name, address, and phone
number of person in charge of the location, contact name, and
type of premise. Once the premise is registered a producer
may participate in the animal identication program if it is
available in the state or tribal reservation. Currently, there has
been no dened budget for the program by USDA. The intent
of USDA is to minimize cost as possible; however, some
expenses may be associated with the program. The decision
for costs for registering a premise are in the jurisdiction of the
state or tribe.
Summary
Disease outbreaks can be costly. Time is valuable when
it comes to controlling disease outbreaks. Preventing death
losses, market loss, and reducing treatment costs depends on
prompt disease diagnosis and rapid identication of exposed
animals. Changing markets, trade issues, disease outbreaks,
and ease of worldwide travel necessitate the need for a method
to identify and track animals as quickly as possible. These two
programs will allow the animal industries of the USA to be
able to do just that. Additional information about the programs
can be obtained from the University of Arkansas, Division
of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, your county
agent, the listed references, or the NAIS website (http://www.
aphis.gov/lpa/issues/nais/nais.html)
References
Premises Identication. The First Step Towards a
National Animal Identication Program. Program Aid No.
1800. United States Department of Agriculture. Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service.
The National Animal identication System (NAIS).
Why Animal Identication? Why Now? What First. Program
Aid No. 1797. United States Department of Agriculture.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
6
Frank T. Jones, Lisa Bielke and Jack Higgins
What are Bacteriophages?
Introduction
Dont let the big word (bacteriophage) scare you. Bacteriophages (sometimes called phages)
are viruses that infect bacteria. The word phage means to eat, so the literal meaning of the word
bacteriophage is bacteria eater (Anonmyous3, ND). It may seem strange that creatures as small as
bacteria could be infected with a virus, but bacteriophages are about 40 times smaller than bacteria
(Anonmyous1, ND) and have apparently been around about as long as bacteria have. This article will
provide an outline of how bacteriophages function and their possible benets.
Bacteriophage Structure and Function
Bacteriophages have been compared to space ships that are able to carry genetic material
between susceptible cells and then reproduce in those
cells (Kutter, 1997). Bacteriophages are, in fact,
very simple organisms that consist of genetic material
(DNA or RNA) surrounded by a protein coat, a hollow
protein tail and tail bers. The general structure of a
bacteriophage is shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 2 outlines the bacteriophage life cycle.
Bacteriophages cannot reproduce without a bacterial
cell. The bacteriophage particle attaches to a bacteria
and binds to the cell. The particle then injects genetic
material into the cell. The genetic material seizes
control of the cell causing it to make additional
bacteriophage genetic material. In addition, the bacteriophage genetic material forces the cell
to make protein coats, hollow protein tails and tail bers, which are then assembled into new
bacteriophage particles. Finally, when no more bacteriophage particles can be made, the cell breaks
open, releasing the new bacteriophage particles into the environment to repeat the process with other
bacterial cells. This process of infection, replication and release of new bacteriophage particles
continues until there are no more cells to infect. However, the description of the bacteriophage life
cycle may prompt questions. If this process happens with bacterial cells, whats to keep it from
happening with plant, animal or human cells?
The surface of each cell contains a unique blend of proteins, carbohydrates, fats and other
organic compounds. The organic compounds on the surface of bacterial cells allow bacteriophages
to recognize and attach only certain bacterial cells. If bacteriophages do not recognize the
characteristic blend of proteins, carbohydrates and fats, they will not attach to the cell. This means
that bacteriophages will not attach to cells unless they are bacteria. The organic compounds on
the surface of plant, animal and human cells are not recognized by bacteriophages and they do not
attach. In addition, the genetic material injected into cells by a bacteriophage is only capable of
acting on bacterial internal contents. Since the internal contents (that is, the structure and chemistry)
of plant, animal and human cells is different from that of bacterial cells, bacteriophage genetic
material cannot seize control of the cell. This means that even if a bacteriophage attached and
injected genetic material into a plant, animal or human cell, the material could not take over the
internal machinery of those cells (Kutter, 1997). Because of the specicity of bacteriophages, they
are considered safe and, indeed, bacteriophages have not been reported to infect plant, animal or
human cells.
In fact, bacteriophages tend to be very specic in the bacteria they infect. For instance, a
bacteriophage that infected an E. coli, would not infect a Salmonella. This specicity can be an
advantage and a disadvantage. Specicity could mean that specic pathogenic organisms are
7
knocked out, while benecial organisms are left unharmed. However, when several organisms are responsible for a problem or
infection within an animal, bacteriophages would have to be directed at each organism. Bacteriophages may be benecial in
treating human, animal and even plant diseases. In fact, it may surprise you to learn that bacteriophages (or phages) have been
used to treat bacterial diseases for over 80 years in Eastern Europe (Anonymous1, ND). Indeed, in the 1970s and 80s the Soviet
Union produced thousands of gallons of phage each month and every Soviet soldier carried a powder containing bacteriophage in
his emergency medical pack (Anonymous1, ND). A brief examination of the history of bacteriophages may be helpful here.
A Very Brief History of Bacteriophage
In 1896 a researcher reported that when the waters of the Ganges and Jumna Rivers in India were ltered to remove the
bacteria something in the waters was antibacterial. About 20 years later other researchers demonstrated that a virus was involved
and named the virus bacteriophage (Anonmymous3, ND). In view of the fact that at the time sulfa drugs and antibiotics were
not yet discovered, bacteriophages were explored as disease treatments. The rst reported use of bacteriophage to treat a bacterial
disease came from France in 1921 (Anonymous2, ND). Bacteriophages were used to treat a variety of diseases. They were taken
orally, put on wounds, applied as aerosols, given as injections and used in eye drops. Success rates for bacteriophage therapy
were reported to be 75 to 100%, depending on the pathogen involved (Anonmyous3, ND, Kutter, 1997). Indeed, bacteriophage
products were produced by United States pharmaceutical companies and licensed for sale in the 1930s (Anonymous3, ND).
However, in the 1940s, new miracle drugs (antibiotics) became widely available and bacteriophage (or phage therapy) was
largely abandoned by the western world (Kutter, 1997). However, current difculties with antibiotic resistant bacteria have
prompted researchers to re-examine bacteriophage.
Summary
Bacteriophages are viruses that infect only bacterial cells. Because of the specicity of bacteriophages, they are considered
safe and have not been reported to infect plant, animal or human cells. Bacteriophages (or phages) have been used to treat
bacterial diseases for over 80 years in Eastern Europe. Current difculties with antibiotic resistant bacteria have prompted
researchers to re-examine bacteriophage.
Literature Cited
Anonmyous1. no date. Bacteriophage or phage: A practical alternative to antibiotics. http://isculpture.com/bacteriophage_
or_phage.html1 visited April, 2005
Anonymous2. no date. General information about bacteriophages. http://www.phages.org/PhageInfo.html visited April,
2005
Anonymous3. no date. Phage history. http://www.intralytix.com/history.html visited April, 2005
Kutter, E. 1997. Phage therapy. http://www.evergreen.edu/phagetherapy/phagetherapy.html visited April, 2005.
8
Introduction
Antibiotics, miracle drugs of the 20th century, have saved millions of human and animal
lives, and contributed to efcient animal production to feed a hungry world. Antibiotics are used in
poultry production in high doses to treat poultry diseases and at low doses in feed to prevent poultry
diseases, as well as reduce the levels of food borne pathogens on poultry products. However, over
the last decade the emergence of bacteria resistance has made it increasingly difcult to treat human
and animal diseases with antibiotics. Whether the use of antibiotics in animal production poses a
threat to human health has been debated for decades and remains undecided. Yet concern over the
failure of antibiotics to effectively treat human diseases has led the European Union to ban the use of
low doses of antibiotics in animal feeds and encouraged government ofcials to seriously consider
drastically restricting the use of antibiotics in animal production in the United States. Concerns
over antibiotic resistance prompted many researchers around the world to look for alternatives
to antibiotics. However, to date none of these alternatives consistently provide improved animal
production comparable to the growth promoting effects of antibiotics.
Research into Antibiotic Alternatives
Over the past several years we have been looking at the potential of
bacteriophage as an alternative to antibiotics to prevent and treat poultry diseases, and
reduce food borne pathogens on poultry products.
Bacteriophages are viruses that infect and kill bacteria. Bacteriophages are
natures own way of controlling bacteria, and they are safe, because they have no
known effects on animal or plant cells. Therefore, it would appear possible to use
bacteriophage to prevent and treat bacterial diseases of animals and humans.
Colibacillosis (airsacculitis) is a serious infection of poultry caused by the
bacteria Escherichia coli. This disease starts as a respiratory infection in poultry,
then enters the blood stream and, when severe, kills chickens through infection of
the liver and heart. We were able to isolate a bacteriophage to an E. coli that causes
colibacillosis in chickens. Over the last several years we have tested the bacteriophage
we isolated to see it was possible to prevent or treat colibacillosis in poultry.
In trial 1 we determined whether or not the bacteriophage could inactivate E. coli and
protect birds from death by E. coli infection. We had three treatment groups and all were infected
with 10,000 E. coli cells, but the cultures used to infect the groups were treated in different ways.
The culture used to infect birds in treatment group 1 contained only E. coli, no bacteriophage.
The culture for group 2 had 10,000 bacteriophage particles added to the E. coli and group 3 had
100,000,000 bactriophage particles added to the E. coli culture. The results of the trial are shown in
Fig. 1. As expected, most birds in group 1 died. However, birds in groups 2 and 3 were partially or
completely protected by the bacteriophage (Huff et al, 2002a).
To further test how bacteriophage could prevent colibacillosis we sprayed the birds with
bacteriophage prior to infecting them with E. coli. There were four treatment groups in this trial.
Birds in treatment group 1 were infected with E. coli but had no bacteriophage spayed on them.
Birds in group 2 were sprayed with bacteriophage and infected with E. coli on the same day. Birds
in group 3 were sprayed with bacteriophage and infected the following day and birds in group 4 were
sprayed with bacteriophage and challenged three days later. The results of this trial are presented
in Fig. 2 (Huff et al., 2002b). As expected, most birds in group 1 died, but birds sprayed with
bacteriophage were protected from colibacillosis even when the birds were challenged 3 days after
Bacteriophage: A
Replacement for Antibiotics?
William E. Huff, USDA/ARS Poultry Production and Product Safety Research Unit
9
the being sprayed with bacteriophage.
We also took a look at whether bacteriophage could be used to treat a severe outbreak of colibacillosis. In this trial birds
were infected with E. coli and then injected with bacteriophage. There were four treatment groups in the trial, with birds in group
1 being infected, but receiving no injection of bacteriophage. Group 2 birds were injected with bacteriophage on the day they
were infected. Birds in group 3 were injected with bacteriophage one day after infection and group 4 birds were injected two days
after infection. The results of this work can be seen in Fig. 3 (Huff et al., 2003). While most birds in group 1 died, signicantly
fewer birds injected with bacteriophage died, even when the injections were delayed for 48 hours.

What Does This Research Mean?
This research is preliminary research that is designed to identify possible alternatives to antibiotics. Years of further
research may be required before bacteriophage are used commercially against poultry diseases. However, our research suggests
that bacteriophage could be developed as an effective alternative to antibiotics to prevent and treat bacterial diseases in poultry.
Bacteriophage might be used to spray birds at the hatchery to prevent the early onset of colibacillosis (airsacculitis) at placement.
Bacteriophage might also be sprayed in a house with a severe outbreak of colibacillosis to prevent the bird to bird transmission.
However, bacteriophage treatment may not be practical since it would require injection of each bird.
A number of laboratories throughout the world are taking a look at bacteriophage as an alternative to antibiotics.
Bacteriophage are also being examined to reduce human food borne pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, Listeria, and E. coli)
in the intestinal tract of animals. Bacteriophage kill bacteria and have enormous potential to be used in a variety of applications
as an alternative to antibiotics and disinfectants. However, it remains to be seen if bacteriophage products can be developed to
provide effective, practical and cost effective uses in our agricultural production systems.
References
Huff, W. E., G. R. Huff, N. C. Rath, J. M. Balog, H.
Xie, P. A. Moore, Jr., and A. M. Donoghue, 2002a. Prevention
of Escherichia coli respiratory infection in broiler chickens
with bacteriophage (SPR02). Poultry Sci. 81:437-441.
Huff, W. E., G. R. Huff, N. C. Rath, J. M. Balog, and
A. M. Donoghue, 2002b. Prevention of Escherichia coli
infection in broiler chickens with a bacteriophage aerosol
spray. Poultry Sci. 81:1486-1491.
Huff, W. E., G. R. Huff, N. C. Rath, J. M. Balog,
and A. M. Donoghue, 2003. Evaluation of aerosol spray
and intramuscular injection of bacteriophage to treat an
Escherichia coli respiratory infection. Poultry Sci. 82:1108-
1112.
10
Evaluation of Litter Treatments on
Salmonella Recovery in Poultry Litter
J.B. Payne and Susan E. Watkins
Introduction
Pathogenic bacterial populations can have a negative
effect on the production and health of birds if concentrations
are too high. Bacteria cause numerous disease conditions
including necrotic enteritis, botulism, gangrenous dermatitis,
airsacculitis, and cellulitis. In addition, pathogenic bacterial
populations are also linked to current food safety concerns
at the processing plant. Because of these concerns, USDA
Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) has mandated that
poultry processing plants follow HAACP programs to control
pathogenic bacteria. FSIS is now evaluating the feasibility
of implementing food safety regulations at the farm level.
Should pathogen control begin at the farm level, integrators
and growers will be challenged to reduce pathogen production
during grow-out. Corrier et al. (1999) reported that the
incidence of Salmonella increased in the crop of broilers at
the end of the feed withdrawal period as compared to the
level of Salmonella in the crops at the beginning of the feed
withdrawal period (10% versus 1.9%). The researchers
speculated that the increased incidence of Salmonella was
associated with an increased tendency for the broilers to
consume contaminated litter in the broiler house during
the withdrawal period. Trampel et al. (2000) reported that
Salmonella recovered from carcasses in poultry processing
plants could be due to fecal shedding onto the litter which may
lead to heavy contamination of the birds feathers and feet.
Many integrators and growers are currently faced with
disposal problems of used litter. This leads to the re-use of
litter over an extended time frame which could compromise
the poultry producers ability to follow proper sanitation
procedures and best management procedures (BMPs).
Growers then may rely on the use of litter amendments and
disinfectants as their sole source of solving any problems
associated with diseases caused by high bacterial levels.
Unfortunately, in order to cut costs, growers may apply litter
amendments below manufacturers recommendations with the
hope of accomplishing somewhat of an improvement from
current conditions of the poultry house.
Litter amendments are commonly used in poultry
houses for the reduction of harmful ammonia levels by
lowering litter pH. It has been shown that by lowering pH
levels, reduction occurs in bacterial concentrations. A study
was conducted to determine if the application of Poultry
Guard at different levels would effectively reduce the
incidence of Salmonella in used litter (Trial 1). A separate
study (Trial 2) was conducted to determine if the application
of Poultry Guard and PLT (Poultry Litter Treatment) would
effectively reduce the incidence of Salmonella as well as
determine at what application rate reduction would occur.
Should a litter treatment be an effective method of
reducing food pathogens in the litter, then the potential for
crop and possibly carcass contamination could be signicantly
reduced through the application of a litter treatment prior
to implementing feed withdrawal programs. With reduced
pathogens in the birds environment, contamination of the
exterior body should be lowered, thus reducing pathogen
recovery at the processing plant.
Bedding material was obtained from one of the
University of Arkansas commercial broiler houses that serves
as a contract production facility for a local poultry integrator.
Prior to the experiment, the litter had been exposed to one
ock for Trial 1 and three ocks for Trial 2. The original
bedding material was kiln dried pine shavings. Litter was
placed at a depth of 2 inches in one square foot baking pans.
All pans were then covered with aluminum foil and autoclaved
for 45 minutes at 121
O
C to sterilize the litter. Pans were then
removed from the autoclave and allowed to cool to room
temperature.
TRIAL 1
Inoculation: All pans were inoculated with 100 ml of
104 CFU/ml nalidixic acid-resistant Salmonella typhimurium
(NAL-SAL). The application rate of 100 ml was chosen due
to its ability to create a good coverage on the litter surface.
Treatments: There were 4 replicate pans of litter per
treatment. The two treatments were top-dressed onto the
litter as recommended by the manufacturer. The four control
pans remained untreated. The treatments consisted of Poultry
Guard at 100 and 150 lb/1000 ft
2
application rates. A total of
twelve pans of litter were used.
Sampling techniques: Surface and core samples were
collected from each pan 24 hours after application. Surface
samples were collected using a sterile cellulose sponge
hydrated with sterile skim milk. Core samples measuring
one inch in depth and weighing 25 grams were collected. All
samples were then placed into Butterelds Phosphate Diluent
and enumerated onto XLT 4 agar containing nalidixic acid,
which was incubated at 35
O
C. Litter pH and moisture content
was determined in all groups 24 hours post application.
11
TRIAL 2
Inoculation: All pans were inoculated with 50 ml of 105
CFU/ml NAL-SAL.
Treatments: Each treatment was assigned to 16 pans
with 4 application rates of 25, 50, 75, and 100 lbs/1000
ft
2
. Replicates of 4 were used for each rate along with
4 untreated pans serving as the control. The treatments
consisted of Poultry Guard and PLT. Both treatments were top
dressed onto the litter as recommended by the manufacturer.
Recommended rates were 75-100 lbs/1000 ft
2
for Poultry
Guard and 50-100 lbs/1000 ft
2
for PLT.
Sampling techniques: Core samples measuring half an
inch in depth and weighing 25 grams were collected 24 hours
post treatment. All samples were then placed into Butterelds
phosphate diluent and enumerated onto XLT4 agar containing
nalidixic acid, which was incubated at 35
O
C for 24 hours.
Litter pH and moisture content was determined in all groups
24 hours post application.
Analysis Results: were analyzed using the GLM
procedure of SAS. All counts were converted to log10 values
prior to analyses. Signicantly different means were separated
using the repeated t-test.
Results
In Trial 1, the application of Poultry Guard at 100 and
150 lb/1000 ft
2
resulted in lowering NAL-SAL to undetectable
levels when compared to the control pans. This reduction
was observed in both core and surface samples. Signicant
reductions were observed on litter pH, compared to the
control, when both rates were applied (P=0.0001) (Table 1).
In Trial 2, as compared to the untreated control pans,
both litter amendments resulted in signicantly lower levels
of NAL-SAL versus the control when used at the rate of 100
lbs/1000 ft
2
(P=0.0075) (Table 2). Also compared to the
control pans, signicant differences of NAL-SAL levels were
not observed for either litter amendment when used at rates
of 25, 50, and 75 lbs/1000 ft
2
. When both treatments were
applied at the 25 lbs/1000 ft
2
level, Salmonella recovery was
higher than the control pans. All application rates used for
both treatments signicantly lowered pH levels, versus the
control, with the highest application rate having the most
signicant effect. Moisture content remained consistent for all
treatments including the control.
Table 1. Effect of Poultry Guard on pH and NAL-SAL
Counts Obtained from Inoculated Litter
Litter Level NAL-SAL NAL-SAL pH
Treatment (lbs/ Log
10
/sponge Log
10
/sponge
1000ft
2
) Surface Core
Control - 3.64a 4.4a 6.47a
Poultry Guard 100 0b 0b 1.95b
150 0b 0b 1.53b
P-value 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Table 2. Effect of Different Levels of Poultry Guard
and PLT on pH and NAL-SAL Counts Obtained from
Inoculated Litter
Litter Level NAL-SAL pH Moisture
Treatment (Lbs./ Log
10
/ (%)
1000ft2) Sponge
Control - 2.77abc 8.300a 23.60
Poultry Guard 25 3.435a 5.825bc 25.40
50 2.843abc 4.425d 24.30
75 2.281bcd 3.550e 23.75
100 1.727d 2.675f 23.80
PLT 25 3.011ab 6.233b 23.27
50 2.091cd 5.475c 23.32
75 2.164cd 4.425d 25.60
100 1.471d 3.475e 24.97
SEM .36 .272 .813
P-value .0075 .0001 .7610
Discussion
Litter amendments are often times applied below the
manufacturers recommended levels to save costs. When
this practice is used on older litter with high pH levels, lesser
amounts of treatment may only be lowering the litter pH to
ideal levels for bacterial growth. Another consideration is
the possibility of creating litter pathogens somewhat tolerant
to litter treatments by exposing the pathogens to sub lethal
amounts of treatment. According to Trial 2, rates of 100
lbs/1000 ft
2
for the two litter treatments tested are required to
signicantly lower levels of NAL-SAL in litter. In Trial 1,
Poultry Guard at application rates of 100 and 150 lbs/1000 ft2
reduce NAL-SAL to undetectable levels, although this was not
observed for the 100 lb. application rate in Trial 2. A possible
explanation for this occurrence could be the difference in
inoculation rates for both trials. Trial 1 received a higher
inoculation rate of 100 ml while Trial 2 received a 50 ml
inoculation rate. The higher inoculation rate would increase
the litter moisture content, possibly causing an increased
activation of the litter amendment. This may explain why we
observed a complete reduction of NAL-SAL in Trial 1. Litter
amendments are not the sole solution for disease problems.
BMPs and a good sanitation program must be in place in
order to maintain a successful operation. With this in mind,
Salmonella found on carcasses in processing plants could
potentially be reduced with proper sanitation procedures and
the correct use of litter treatments.
References
Corrier, D.E., J.A. Byrd, B.M. Hargis, M.E. Hume,
R.H. Bailey, and L.H. Stanker. 1999. Presence of Salmonella
in the crop and ceca of broiler chickens before and after
preslaughter feed withdrawal. Poultry Sci. 78:45-49.
Trampel, D.W., R.J. Hasiak, L.J. Hoffman, M.C. Debey.
2000. Recovery of Salmonella from water, equipment, and
carcasses in turkey processing plants. J. Appl. Poultry Res.
9:29-34.

UA Poultry Science
for Poultry Science
by F.D. Clark, DVM, Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian
INSIDE
page 4
Windbreaks for
Arkansas Poultry Farms
by G. Tom Tabler
page 8
Your Performance
by Frank T. Jones
page 11
Coming Events
Advice
AVIAN
Normal Birds - A Review
of Avian Anatomy
A necropsy is the examination of a bird
externally and internally to determine the
cause of death. The method for doing a
necropsy varies and depends somewhat on the
bird involved, the preference of the individual
performing the necropsy, the disease(s)
suspected, and where the necropsy is being
done. Regardless of the method; the most
important point to remember is to systemati-
cally evaluate each organ and organ system
for changes associated with disease. Since
only a few diseases cause very specific
lesions in the organs; it is very important to be
familiar with the normal external and
internal anatomy. Usually a necropsy starts
with a detailed examination of the external
anatomy of the bird.
External Anatomy
Feathers and Skin
Feathers cover the majority of the skin
and are arranged in feather tracts rather than
randomly distributed. The feathers should be
clean at the point of attachment to the skin
and the edges of the feathers should be
smooth with no clear areas present in the
barbs.
The skin of a chicken and/or turkey is
thin and semi-transparent over most of the
body. The muscles, veins, and fat deposits can
be observed through the skin in most birds.
The muscles appear as dark areas; whereas,
fat is yellow. The skin on the face and bottom
of the foot is thickened and is normally white
or yellow in color. The comb, wattles, and
car lobes are usually bright red in color in
commercial layers and broiler breeders. It is
normal for market and breeder turkeys to
develop red or bluish skin on the head and
neck. Normal commercial layers and breeder
hens may have a reddish yellow skin on the
comb, ear lobe, or other facial structures (this
is especially true if they are beginning to
come into production or are out of
production).
The lower legs are covered with scales
which are yellow to white in coloration. The
thickened skin on the bottom of the foot
(footpad) is usually a pale yellow-tan or
yellow-white color (the scales of the leg arc
similarly colored). Chicks and poults have
yellow colored leg scales. Adult broilers and
commercial layers can have yellow or white
leg scales. Turkey leg scales are white to light
tan colored. The leg coloration will change in
hens from yellow to white and vice versa as
they go into or out of egg production.
The skin, leg, and feather coloration of
many of the varieties of chickens, ducks, and
turkeys kept as backyard, hobby, pet, or
exhibition flocks may vary from those listed.
The best source for individual breed
differences is the book The American
Standard of Perfection, which is published
by the American Poultry Association or the
American Bantam Standard.
Ears, Eyes, Nostrils and Beak
The ear in a bird is covered with fine
feathers and is a small opening located on the
side of the head. The eye should be a bright
yellow-orange in color and free of discharges. The eyes should
be clear with dark black pupils surrounded by a colored iris.
The color of the iris varies with the breed and age of the bird,
but in general is steel-grey in chicks and poults. In adult
broilers, layers, and broiler breeders the iris is yellow-orange;
but brown in adult turkeys. The nostrils are slit like openings
on top of the beak and at the base of the beak. They are
surrounded by tan-yellow fleshy skin called the cere. The beak
is a yellow-horn to white-horn color in the normal bird and has
a smooth surface with the end of the beak pointed or blunted
in a beak-trimmed bird. Again, colors other than those listed
may be normal for many of the varieties of chickens, ducks,
and turkeys kept as backyard, hobby, pet, or exhibition flocks.
As before, the best source for these breed differences is the
The American Standard of Perfection or the American
Bantam Standard book.
Internal Anatomy
Once the external anatomy has been evaluated the
internal anatomy of the bird is examined. The skin should be
removed and the bird opened to expose internal organs. The
procedure of initially opening the bird to evaluate the internal
organs may vary depending on the personal preference of the
individual performing the necropsy. However, regardless of
the procedure, it is important to evaluate all organs present
systematically and thoroughly.
The first organs that come into view when the skin of a
chicken or turkey is removed for necropsy are the muscles,
sternal bursa, and bone (keel). The breast muscles are a grey-
white in color normal poultry. The point of the keel is white
and the edge of the bone is straight. The sternal bursa is a
white sac-like structure that is located on the sternum and
contains a small amount of clear fluid. If the leg muscles are
observed they are a darker grey-white color and the sciatic
nerve (located between the leg muscles) is a glistening white
with cross striations.
Thoracic (Chest) and Abdominal Anatomy
After the sternum and breast muscles are removed the
internal organs are evaluated, The heart is a triangular shaped
organ (the base of which is toward the head of the bird) that is
surrounded by a clear sac (pericardial sac). The heart is grey-
white in color and has a band of yellow fat near the base.
Internally, the heart is the same color with clear membranous
valves between heart chambers. The left ventricle (lower left
chamber) of the heart is thicker than the right ventricle. The
heart is almost completely surrounded by the lobes of the
liver.
The liver is the largest internal organ, is firm, and has
prominent sharply defined edges. The color of the liver varies
with diet. Baby chicks and poults tend to have a liver that is
yellow in color due to yolk absorption. Adult birds can have a
yellow-tan liver if on a high fat diet and the organ may be soft.
The adult bird usually has a dark red to red brown colored
liver.
The avian gallbladder is attached to the liver lobe and can be
easily examined by moving the liver to one side. This sack-
like structure is greenish-black in color due to the bile present
in it.
The trachea and syrinx (voice box) are visible at the base
of the heart. These structures are white with the trachea a
round tube like structure that divides into smaller left and right
bronchi. The syrinx is a flattened area of the trachea that is at
the end of the trachea before it dividing into bronchi. The
bronchi are identical to the trachea in color and shape but are
of a smaller diameter. However, a better examination of the
trachea is done in the neck of the bird. The aorta is also visible
at the base of the heart and is the artery that connects to the
hearts left ventricle. This tubular structure is thick walled and
pink white to red-white in color. The aorta and smaller
connecting arteries are better examined after the organs in the
thorax and abdomen are removed. The fat pad that covers the
organs must be cut or torn to reveal the gizzard (ventriculus)
and the stomach (proventriculus) to the birds right side. The
spleen is readily visible at the junction of the stomach and
gizzard after they are exposed. This lymphoid organ is oval or
elliptical in shape and dark red to purple in coloration. The
spleen in an adult bird is approximately one inch long.
The air sacs on the left are also readily visible after the
stomach and gizzard are set aside. These clear membranes are
attached to the lungs and increase the respiratory capacity of
the bird. Female birds that are in production may have yellow
fat deposits on the air sacs. The air sacs on the birds right side
should also be examined; it is usually necessary to move the
liver, stomach, and gizzard to the birds left side to examine
them adequately.
Avian lungs are closely adhered to the ribs and are an
orange-red or pink-red color. The lungs can be removed for a
close examination of the ribs. The ribs, as with all avian
bones, are smooth thin walled and white. Immediately below
the lungs are the kidneys, adrenal glands, and gonadal tissues
(testes or orvaries). The kidneys are firmly embedded in
gizzard
(ventriculus)
stomach
(proventriculus)
duodenal loop
cecae
cloaca
3
depressions in the bone (synsacrum) and have three distinct
lobes (cranial, middle, and caudal). The bird has two kidneys,
a left and right, and these organs are dark red to dark brown
with a fine reticulated patient visible. A small, white tube (the
ureter) connects each kidney to the cloaca. The adrenal glands
are small tan triangular shaped glands located at the section of
the kidney near the lung. Gonadal tissue is also located near
the kidney. The male has two testes, one on either side of the
midline. These organs are bean shaped or elliptical shaped and
tan. Two small white coiled tubules connect the testes to the
cloaca. In the female only the left ovary and oviduct are
generally present near the left kidney. In an immature female
the ovary is roughly triangular in shape or shaped like an
inverted L. It is white to light yellow in color and may have a
granular or gritty appearing surface. The developed oviduct is
a large grey-white tubular organ that has distinct longitudinal
structures. The oviduct connects the ovary to the cloaca and
adds egg components such as albumen, shell membranes and
shells as it transports the follicle (yolk) to the surface.
Located near these organs and near the midline is the
descending aorta. This thick walled artery is a continuation of
the aorta as it leaves the heart. It is from this major artery that
numerous smaller arteries arise to supply blood to the internal
organs. The aorta is pink-white to red-white in color.
The digestive tract should be examined next. The
stomach (proventriculus) is a spindle shaped organ that has the
gizzard (ventriculus) attached to it. The stomach is grey in
color and internally the lining in glistening grey-white with
small papillae (gland openings) present. The gizzard is a round
dark brown to dark red organ attached to the gizzard.
Internally, the gizzard (ventriculus) has a koilin lining which
is yellow to yellow-green in color.
The duodenum is the first section of the small intestines.
It is loop shaped and surrounds the pancreas. The pancreas is a
white-tan fleshy organ. The duodenum, like all of the small
intestines is a tan-grey to white-grey tube which has a fine
textured lining similar to the surface of a towel. The jejunum
and ilium are the next two sections of the small intestines.
Two sack-like structures are attached to the small intestines at
the junction of the large intestines and ileum. These structures
are the cecae which are thin walled with small thick areas in
the wall (cecal tonsils) at the points of attachment to the small
intestines. Cecal contents are dark green or dark brown. The
large intestine (which is very short) lies between the ileum to
the opening to the surface called the cloaca. The cloaca is
similar in color to the small intestines but is of larger diameter.
Feces in the large intestine and cloaca is generally drier and
green to brown feces in color. The ileum contains a more
liquid feces of similar color. White pasty urates are often
present in the cloaca. The bursa of Fabricius is a round tan-
white lymphoid organ which is organ located behind (dorsal)
the cloaca.
Most blood vessels are examined along with the organs
such as checking the large vessels coming to or leaving the
heart when the base of the heart and syrinx are examined.
Blood vessels vary in size depending on the organ supplied.
Arteries are thicker walled than veins, and are a pink white to
red white in color. Veins are thin walled, tend to flatten out
when touched and are a dark blue in color due to the blood in
them.
Neck Region
The mouth and neck of the bird should also be examined.
A cut is made at the corner of the mouth and extended down
the neck, thus exposing the structures for closer examination.
In the mouth of the bird the tongue can be examined. This
triangular shaped organ is dull grey-white and has a few
bumps (papillae) on the surface. Directly behind the back of
the tongue (and connected to it) is the glottis. The glottis is the
opening of the trachea. It is white in color and has two folds
(left and right) which come together to close the opening when
the bird swallows. The oropharynx is the region at the back of
the mouth and is a glistening grey-white color. Located on the
roof of the mouth is the cleft opening called the choana. This
structure should be clean with a small amount of clear mucous
usually present in the cleft. The choana is also grey-white in
color and numerous conical papillae are around the cleft.
The esophagus should be opening and examined. It too is
grey-white in color and has a smooth surface. There is an
organ at the base of the esophagus called the crop. The crop is
a pouch of the esophagus and as such is the color and texture
of the esophagus. The trachea is also present in the neck. This
white tubular structure has rings of cartilage visible from the
outside. Inside the trachea is a small amount of clear mucous
and the lining is a glistening clear white.
The remaining most obvious organ in the neck is the
thymus. This organ is multi-lobed and tan in color. Often
yellow fat is intermixed with the lobes. This organ 15 located
near the base of the neck and crop.
The beak should be removed to expose the nasal cavity.
There are scroll like structures in the nasal cavity which are a
tan-white in color. There is also a small amount of clear
mucous on these scrolls.
G. Tom Tabler, Applied Broiler Research Farm Manager
Windbreaks for Arkansas
Poultry Farms
Windbreaks are
barriers that have
been used for
centuries to reduce
and redirect wind.
Another area to examine is the breast musculature. The superficial breast muscle should be cut into to check the deep breast
muscle (supracoracoideus muscle). This deep muscle is the same color as the superficial breast muscle.
The joints of the leg are also cut into and examined. All joints in the leg should contain a clear fluid. The cartilage in the leg
joints can also be examined at this time. Cartilage is a bright white to grey- white in color and has a smooth surface. The ends of
the leg bones are usually cut to examine the bone marrow, and check for cartilage plugs. If a cartilage plug is present in the end of
the tibiotarsal bone it appears as a triangular shaped plug that is white to grey-white in color. Bone marrow is red in color and soft
in texture.
The structures and organs discussed are those examined on a routine field necropsy. Naturally, any area that looks
abnormal is more closely examined.
Introduction
Windbreaks are barriers that have been used for centuries to reduce and redirect wind. They
were first used in the mid-1400s when the Scottish Parliament urged the planting of tree belts to
protect agricultural production (Droze, 1977). Windbreaks are common in regions like the Western,
North Central, and Great Plains of the United States where there is minimal forest cover, strong
winds, large amounts of snow, and extreme temperature fluctuations. However, since windbreaks
have also been used for privacy screens, dust control, odor control and noise reduction, the Arkansas
poultry industry should give them serious consideration. The ever-increasing non-farm population
influx into rural, poultry producing areas of the state is adding to the number of complaints and
lawsuits between non-farm and farm segments of the population. Windbreaks have the potential to
address some of these problems and could improve property values. In addition, planting trees and
shrubs is seen as environmentally friendly; therefore, windbreaks around poultry houses could
further demonstrate a producers commitment to a safe, healthy environment now and in the future.
5
Windbreak Benefits
Well-designed windbreaks can cut energy costs of a typical farm or ranch home as much as 20
to 40 percent (Wight et al., 1991). Individual savings depend on the local site, climate conditions,
and building construction quality, as well as the design and construction of the windbreak. Since
windbreaks reduce the force of the wind blowing against the buildings and, in turn, the amount of
cold air entering the building, unprotected poultry houses, with poorly fitting doors, numerous
cracks or gaps and poor-quality curtains could probably benefit greatly from a well-designed
windbreak. A moderately dense windbreak will reduce a 20 mph wind to approximately 5 mph out
to a distance of five times the effective height of the windbreak. Table 1 lists wind reductions at
various distances upwind and downwind of windbreaks.
Table 1. Wind speed reductions at various distances windward and leeward of windbreaks
with different densities in Midwestern United States
1,2
Percent of open wind speed at various distances
Type of windbreak Optical density Windward Leeward
(Upwind) (Downwind)
-25H -3H -1H 5H 10H 15H 20H 25H 30H
Single row deciduous 25-30 100 97 85 50 65 80 85 95 100
Single row conifer 40-60 100 96 84 30 50 60 75 85 95
Multi-row conifer 60-80 100 91 75 25 35 65 85 90 95
Solid wall 100 100 95 70 25 70 90 95 100 100
1
Reductions are expressed as percent of open wind speed where open wind speed is assumed to be less than 10 meters
per second and distance from windbreak is exressed in terms of windbreak height. (H).
2
Adapted from Brandle et al. (2004).
Many poultry producers also raise beef cattle. When windbreaks are used to protect cattle fed
in open pastures or lots mortality is reduced, feed efficiency is improved and weight losses are
reduced by as much as 50 percent. Studies in Iowa over a five year period showed that sheltered
cattle gained an average of 80 pounds more per year and on average consumed 129 pounds less feed
per hundredweight of gain than those not sheltered (Slusher and Wallace, 1997).
Farmstead windbreaks can also screen undesirable sights, sounds, smells and dust and thus
improve living conditions for neighbors, particularly on the downwind side. The plants within the
windbreak will absorb some odors while others may be masked by the more desirable smells of
aromatic leaves or flowering shrubs that may make up the windbreak. Windbreaks can also reduce
noise by deflecting sound off branches and tree trunks or by absorbing sound with leaves, needles,
twigs, and smaller branches. For poultry producers this could mean a reduction in noise from tunnel
ventilation fans that may, during summer, run 24 hours a day for weeks. In addition, to some
degree, undesirable noises may be masked by the more desirable sounds of singing birds attracted by
the windbreak and the rustling of leaves. For maximum effectiveness, tree and shrub belts should be
tall, dense and located closer to the noise source than to the area protected (Slusher and Wallace,
1997). Poultry farms are a common sight along many roadways in western Arkansas. Screening
these with windbreaks would remove them from the publics eye while also beautifying your
farming operation and displaying your concern for the environment.
In temperate regions windbreaks can be a major component of successful agricultural systems.
However, to be successful, windbreak integration requires a thorough understanding of the
agricultural system involved, a basic understanding of how windbreaks work and a working
knowledge local conditions.
Height, Length and Structure of Windbreaks
Windbreak height is the most important factor determining the distance downwind protected by a windbreak. For
maximum efficiency, the uninterrupted length of the windbreak should be at least 10 times its height (Brandle et al., 2002).
Windbreaks usually require at least two kinds of trees with different growth characteristics to provide foliage density at various
heights over a period of years (Slusher and Wallace, 1997). Table 2 lists trees and shrubs that have been used in Missouri
windbreaks; many of these same species would work well in Arkansas windbreaks as well. Conifer species, such as cedar and
pine, and shrubs with multiple stems tend to provide better year-round density, while taller hardwood species, such as ash, oak, or
hackberry, generally are used to provide greater height.
Table 2. Trees and shrubs used in Missouri windbreaks
1
Est. Height Est. Height
Soil (feet) Soil (feet)
Species Tolerences after 20 years Species Tolerances after 20 years
American holly 1,2 <26 Hackberry all 16-25
American plum all 15 Highbush cranberry 1,3 <10
American sycamore all 26-35 Kentucky coffee tree all 16-25
Amur maple 1,2 <16 Loblolly pine 1,3 26-35
Amur privet all 10 Ninebark 1,3 <8
Arborvitae (hardy strain) 1,3 15-20 Nothern red oak 1 26-35
Autumn olive 1,2 <16 Norway spruce all 26-35
Bald cypress 1,3 16-25 Osage orange all 16-26
Basswood 1 26 Pecan 1,3 26-35
Black Cherry 1 16-25 Persimmon all <26
Blackhaw 1,2 <16 Pin oak 1,3 26-35
Black locust 1,2 26-35 Redbud 1,2 <16
Black walnut 1 26-35 Red maple all >35
Black willow 1,3 25 Red mulberry all <26
Bur oak all 16-25 River birch 1,3 26-35
Catalpa 1 26-35 Sassafras 1 >26
Chinese elm 1,2 26-35 Shagbark hickory 1,2 >16
Chinkapin oak 1,2 16-25 Shingle oak all 26-35
Common lilac all <16 Shortleaf pine 1,2 26-35
Cutleaf staghorn sumac 1,2 <8 Silky dogwood all <8
Deciduous holly 3 <16 Silver maple 1,3 >35
Eastern cottonwood all >35 Smooth sumac all <8
Eastern redcedar all 16-25 Spirea all >8
Eastern white pine 1 26-35 Sweetgum 1,3 26-35
European alder 1,3 26 Thornless honeylocust all 26-35
Flowering dogwood 1,2 <26 White oak 1,2 16-25
Forsythia all <16 Wild plum all 15-18
Green ash all 26-35 Yellow poplar 1 >35
Key: Soil tolerances
1= deep or moderately deep, well-drained or moderately well-drained soils
2= shallow, dry soils
3= poorly to very poorly drained wet sites
All= all of the above sites
Symbol for heights < = less than; > = more than
1
Adapted from Slusher and Wallace (1997).
7
The amount of wind speed reduction that occurs is determined by the structure of the trees involved. As wind flows
through a windbreak, the trunk, branches and leaves absorb some of the momentum of the wind and the roughness of the tree
surfaces further slows wind speed. However, density should be adjusted to meet particular objectives. In general, windbreaks
with higher densities (multiple rows) are used to protect wildlife, farmsteads, or homesites, while windbreaks with lower densities
are used to protect crop fields. Windbreak density is the ratio of the solid portion of the windbreak to the total area of the
windbreak. A windbreak density of 40 to 60 percent provides maximum downwind protection in addition to providing
tremendous soil erosion control (Brandle et al., 2002).
The prevailing winds in winter are from the north and northwest in Arkansas, so protective windbreaks should be located
along the north and west sides of your farmstead. However, windbreaks used for visual screening and dust, odor and noise
control near tunnel fans can be placed where needed with proper planning. Windbreaks with both deciduous and evergreen
species must have adequate space. If evergreen and deciduous trees are planted as close as 6 to 8 feet apart, the deciduous trees
will soon overshadow the evergreens. When this happens, the growth of the evergreens will be stunted, their form will be ruined
and their effectiveness greatly reduced. There must be at least 15 to 20 feet of space between rows of evergreen and deciduous
species (Slusher and Wallace, 1997).
Considerations and Tree Spacing
Slusher and Wallace (1997) suggest keeping the following considerations in mind as you plan your windbreak;
Locate the windbreak where it will be most effective.
Design the windbreak to fit the available space and to meet the purpose of the planting. Design must allow for proper
spacing (see below) for tree growth and for use of maintenance equipment.
Select tree and shrub species that are well adapted to your soil and climate conditions. Order trees early.
Properly prepare the planting sight and fence areas accessible to livestock.
Arrange for necessary planting labor and equipment.
Provide care and protection for young seedlings.
Provide proper management practices after windbreak establishment.
When planning the spacing of trees the probable size of the crowns after the trees reach 20 to 30 years of age should be
considered. Although a wider spacing means that it will take longer for trees to form an effective wind barrier, the delay in
windbreak effectiveness will be more than offset by the increased tree growth rate. In addition, trees that have adequate growing
space will live longer, retain their lower limbs better and produce more foliage. Furthermore, the reduced windbreak
effectiveness produced by wider spacing can be overcome by staggering the trees in adjacent rows. Rows should be spaced
from 15 to 30 feet from each other, depending on the types of trees or shrubs in the adjacent row. Slusher and Wallace (1997)
recommend the following spacing for various trees and shrubs:
Space 10 to 12 feet between shrub rows.
Space 15 to 20 feet between shrub and tree rows.
Space 15 to 20 feet between medium and tall tree rows.
Space 20 feet between tall evergreen rows.
Space a minimum of 20 feet between tall evergreen and tall deciduous tree rows.
Remember that spacing must allow for proper use of suitable maintenance equipment. Between trees in a row:
Allow 4 to 6 feet for deciduous shrubs.
Allow 10 to 16 feet between medium-sized evergreens.
Allow 12 to 20 feet between deciduous trees.
Allow 10 to 16 feet between tall evergreen trees.
Summary
Winds of change are sweeping across the American agricultural landscape. The general public is no longer as tolerant of
agricultural practices as they once were. In addition, agricultural producers are a small minority of the population and must
therefore utilize strategies that allow production to increase, while at the same time, living in harmony with their neighbors and,
in turn, minimizing complaints or lawsuits from the non-farm population. One such strategy for Arkansas poultry producers is
the use of windbreaks. Windbreaks are an old technology used to reduce wind speed but they also have the potential to visually
screen poultry houses from public view, disperse odors, dust and noise before these pollutants have a chance to affect the
Your Performance?
neighbors. Also, in todays environmentally conscious society, planting trees is good thing to do and may reflect positively on
agricultural producers who otherwise might be viewed unfavorably by much of the non-farm population. Be aware that
constructing a successful windbreak is no small undertaking so do your homework before grabbing your shovel. Contact your
local Extension office, Arkansas Forestry Commission, NRCS office, or local landscape nursery for assistance with planning and
constructing a windbreak that will meet the needs of your particular farming operation.
References
Brandle, J. R., X. Zhou, and L. Hodges. 2002. How windbreaks work. University of Nebraska Extension EC 02-1763-X.
Brandle, J. R., L. Hodges, and X. H. Zhou. 2004. Windbreaks in North American agricultural systems. Agroforestry Systems
61:65-78.
Droze, W. H. 1977. Trees, Prairies, and People: A History of Tree Planting in the Plains States. USDA Forest Service and Texas
Womens University Press, Denton, TX. 313 pp.
Slusher, J. P., and D. Wallace. 1997. Planning tree windbreaks in Missouri. MU Guide G5900. University Extension. University
of Missouri-Columbia.
Wight, B., T. K. Boes, and J. R. Brandle. 1991. Windbreaks for rural living. University of Nebraska Extension EC 91-1767-X.
Frank T. Jones, Cooperative Extension Section Leader
When molds
grow in feeds,
they use up
nutrients and
vitamins that
the birds
should be
getting.
Introduction
Unexplainable poor performance can occur from time to time. While production problems can
originate from innumerable sources, some common situations should not be overlooked. When
management factors are good and birds still perform poorly, it may be time to take a closer look
at the feed bins and pans to determine if mold growth is the source of the problem.
What Can Happen
Over 20 years ago a survey was conducted with five North Carolina broiler companies. Six
broiler farms were selected from each company for a total of thirty farms. Farms that
participated in the study were chosen based on the productivity indicated by the previous years
records. Two farms from each company were classified as above average in productivity, two
were average in productivity and two classified as poor. Schedules were arranged so that chicks
arrived at each farm within a few days of each other and were caught at the end of the flock
within a few days of each other. One flock was surveyed and feed samples were collected
weekly from the feeder pans on each farm. Table 1 contains data collected from this study.
9
Table 1. Molds, Aflatoxin and Broiler Production
Productivity No. of Age Wt. Feed Mold Aflatoxin
Classification farms (Days) (lbs.) Conv (Count/g) (ppb)
Above Average 10 52.6 3.88 2.13 8,000 6.13
Average 10 51.9 3.83 2.15 35,000 6.49
Below Average 10 52.8 3.79 2.16 43,000 13.99
From Jones et al. 1982.
It should be obvious from the weights and feed conversions in Table 1 that these data are over 20 years old! However,
please note that as farm productivity gets progressively poorer, weights are lighter and feed conversion worsens. While we all
realize that there are many factors that affect performance, these data suggest that molds and aflatoxin are related to performance.
Since farms in the study were on the same placement and catch schedule, they likely got feed at about the same time.
Consequently, it seems logical to assume that when feeds arrived on each farm, they contained about the same number of molds.
Yet, mold counts from farms with below average productivity are seven times higher than those from farms that were above
average in productivity.
What Happens When Molds Grow in Feeds
Molds can grow on almost anything. As they grow, nutrients are destroyed and toxin are released. When molds grow in
feeds they use up nutrients and vitamins that the birds should be getting. The data in Figure 1 illustrate how mold growth can
destroy protein, fats and thiamin in grain. Molds can produce toxic substances call mycotoxins (such as aflatoxin). There are
over 250 known mycotoxins produced by many different mold strains. When birds are exposed to high levels of mycotoxins they
can cause gut irritation or digestive system problems, skeletal or leg problems, nervous system symptoms and impaired immunity.
However, in most field cases birds are exposed to low levels of mycotoxins, which produce non-descript symptoms. Birds may
just not seem right, but show no major signs.
MOLD continued on page 10
MOLD continued from page 9
How can mold growth happen in feeds?
Molds can be found virtually anywhere in the natural environment. It is common for pelleted feeds to contain hundreds of
mold spores per gram. Molds will grow whenever conditions are right for their growth. The lack of moisture is most often what
prevents molds from growing in feeds. While the overall conditions in the feed handling system and poultry house may not
promote mold growth, molds will tend to grow in very small areas where conditions are right for growth.
A general depiction of mold metabolism can be seen in Figure 2. It is not necessary to thoroughly understand mold
metabolism. However, it is important to realize that as molds grow they produce their own moisture. This metabolic moisture
means that the process of mold growth can feed on itself and get faster as it gets going. This moisture also means that the higher
the mold count the greater the potential for mold growth.
Figure 2. Mold Metabolism
C
6
H
12
O
6
+ 6O
2
6CO
2
+ 6H
2
O
How to Control Mold Growth
There are three primary factors that control mold growth. These factors are related to each other and each must be
addressed. Control of mold growth in feeds can be accomplished by keeping moisture low, maintaining feed fresh, and keeping
equipment clean.
>
11
Coming Events:
Moisture Control
Moisture is the single most important factor in determining if and how rapidly molds will grow in feeds. Moisture in feeds
comes from the environment in which the feed is stored or handled. To control mold growth, begin by controlling the obvious
sources of moisture in the feed handling and storage equipment. These sources may include leaks in feed storage tanks, augers,
and roofs. However, it is important to realize that feed moisture changes in relation to the environment. Since birds add moisture
to their environment by respiration and defecation, the air in houses can be very humid. Feed that was initially very low in
moisture content will gain moisture when placed in a humid environment. This means that it is crucial to provide adequate
ventilation for control of humidity in the house.
Keeping Feed Fresh
Time is required for both mold growth and mycotoxin production to occur. It is therefore important to have feeds delivered
often so that it will be fresh as possible when consumed. Feeds should generally be consumed within 10 days of delivery. It is
equally important to manage the feed delivery system to ensure that feeds are uniform in freshness. Field surveys have shown that
poultry farms producing birds with the poorest performance were those with the most feed in their feeder pans. On these farms,
the feeds contained the greatest amount of moisture and had the highest number of molds. If the feeder system is allowed to keep
the feed pans full at all times, the feed in the pans will be significantly older than that in the storage tank. Birds will tend to eat
primarily the feed in the top layer. The feed at the bottom of the pans will age, providing greater opportunities for molds to grow
and may hurt performance. To prevent this problem, the feeder system should be turned off weekly. The birds will then be forced
to clean up all of the feed in the feeders before it becomes excessively old. A similar principle applies to feed storage tanks. The
feed next to the wall is last to exit the tank and therefore stays in the tank the longest. The feed in contact with the wall is also the
only portion of the feed that changes appreciably in temperature. These factors make feed in contact with the wall susceptible to
moisture migration and mold growth. It is best to completely empty and clean one tank when the new delivery is in the other tank.
Equipment Cleanliness
If feed is delivered to farms where old feed is lodged or caked in the feed storage or delivery systems, this old feed is often
very moldy and may seed the fresher feed it contacts, increasing the chances of mold growth and mycotoxin formation. To
address this problem, caked, moldy feed should be scraped or brushed off and leaky spots should be sealed. When bins are
extremely caked with feed, it may be necessary to sand blast the bin. Feeder pans should be disassembled and areas that contain
caked moldy feed should be brushed to bare metal or plastic. It is important to remember to avoid the use of water in cleaning
since moisture encourages mold growth.
Summary
Molds are present everywhere in nature and grow readily in feeds if conditions are right. When molds grow on feeds they
destroy nutrients that are meant for our birds and they may produce mycotoxins that also hurt performance. To control mold
growth in feeds, protect feeds from moisture, ensure that feeds are fresh and keep equipment clean.
References
Jones, F. T., W. M. Hagler and P. B. Hamilton. 1982. Association of low levels of aflatoxin in feed with productivity losses in
commercial broiler operations. Poultry Science 61:861-868.
Tindall, W. 1983. Molds and feeding livestock. Animal Nutrition and Health, July-August, p 5.
International Poultry Exposition, January 26-28, 2005, Georgia World Congress
Center, Atlanta, GA, U. S. Poultry and Egg Association (770) 493-9401
International Poultry Short Course, February 21-25, 2005. University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville, AR, Dr. Frank Jones (479) 575-5443
Poultry Symposium, April 25-27, 2005, Springdale, AR, The Poultry Federation
(501) 375-8131
UA Poultry Science
for Poultry Science
by G.T. Tabler, Poultry Science Department
INSIDE
page 3
Effects of Water
Acidification on Broiler
Performance
by Susan Watkins, Jana
Cornelison, Cheyanne
Tillery, Melony Wilson and
Robert Hubbard
page 7
The Arkansas
Surveillance Program
for Exotic and
Newcastle Disease and
Avian Influenza
by F. Dustan Clark
page 9
Strategies for
Successful Turkey
Production
by G. Tom Tabler
page 11
Coming Events
Advice
AVIAN
SHELTERBELTS continued on page 2
Fall 2004 Volume 6, Number 2
Shelterbelts: Has Their Time
Come for Arkansas Poultry
Producers?
Introduction
The increasing urban expansion into rural
areas creates numerous challenges for
livestock producers to various types of
farming operations. A strong livestock
industry is essential to the nations economic
stability, the viability of many small rural
communities, and the sustainability of a
healthful, plentiful and high quality food
supply for the American public. Farmers and
ranchers view odors and dust associated with
livestock as part of production agriculture and
have come to accept them as part of their way
of life. However, as urban dwellers are less
likely to accept dust or odors, differences in
lifestyles between farmers and city folks are
becoming increasingly apparent. Although
there will probably always be some odor and
dust issues associated with animal production
units, there are some simple, economical
methods of reducing the frequency of
complaints.
For poultry producers, shelterbelts offer
an opportunity for poultry growers to be
proactive in demonstrating good neighbor
relations and environmental stewardship.
Shelterbelts are typically vegetation (most
often trees and shrubs) planted in purposeful
rows to alter wind flow in order to achieve
certain objectives. Planting trees and shrubs
as screens around poultry houses will help
remove them from public view (perhaps also
the publics mind) and buffer odor, dust and
noise.
Livestock Production
In the United States about 130 times more
animal waste is produced annually than
human waste. Livestock in the U.S. produce
more than 1.4 billion tons of manure annually
(U.S. Senate Committee, 1997). Livestock
production in the U.S. is characterized by
fewer yet much larger production facilities.
USDA data indicate that nationwide about
85% of estimated 450,000 agricultural
operations with confined animals have fewer
than 250 animal units (GAO, 1995).
Therefore, only about 15% of farms
house the vast majority of the animal units
nationwide. USDA estimates that only about
6,600 animal feeding operations nationwide
have more than 1,000 animal units (GAO,
1995). From 1978-1992, the average number
of animal units per facility increased by 56,
93, 134, 176, 148 and 129% for cattle, hogs,
layers, broiler and turkeys, respectively, while
during the same period the number of
facilities dropped by over 40% in the cattle
industry, and over 50% in the dairy, hogs and
poultry industries (USDA and EPA, 1999).
Figure 1 demonstrates the increase in broiler
production and decrease in broiler farm
numbers from 1975 to 1995. Increased size
of production facilities and greater numbers
of livestock at each facility has meant larger
amounts of animal waste, concentrated into
relatively smaller geographic areas. This
concentration of animals has increased the
2 AVIAN Advice Fall 2004 Vol. 6, No. 2
SHELTERBELTS continued from page 1
intensity, duration, and timing of odor events. The control of livestock odors has become of paramount concern for the public and
livestock producers.
Understanding Odor Events
A recent survey of Iowa farmers found that 46% of rural
residents were within a half mile or less of a livestock facility.
In the same survey 71% of residents were within one mile of a
livestock facility (Lasley and Larson, 1998). This finding is
consistent with the average separation distances nationwide
(Tyndall and Colletti, 2000). Odor compounds may be
transmitted as gases, aerosols (a suspension of relatively small
solid or liquid particles in gas) or dust (relatively large
particles in gas or air). Efforts to control odors from animal
production units fall into three basic strategies (Tyndall and
Colletti, 2000):
1. Prevent odors from forming
2. Capture or destroy odorous compounds and
3. Collection, dispersion or dilution of odor compound.
In most cases the third strategy is the easiest and most
economical procedure to implement in animal production
units. In operations without protection wind or breezes often
transmit odors gases, aerosols and dust to neighbors.
Shelterbelts hinder this transmission, by trapping odors,
redirecting air or creating turbulence so that odor compounds
are diluted.
Odor Control using Shelterbelts
The source of animal odors is near the ground and tends to
travel along the ground (Takle, 1983), shelterbelts can
intercept and disrupt the transmission of these odors (Heisler
and DeWalle, 1988; Thernelius, 1997). Shelterbelts also
reduce the release of dust and aerosols by reducing wind speed
near production facilities. Wind tunnel modeling of a three-
row shelterbelt quantified reductions of 35% to 56% in the
downwind transport of dust. However, shelterbelt density
determines the degree to which dust and aerosols are reduced.
Density is a simple ratio of the porous area (the areas wind can
pass through) to the total area of the shelterbelt. A density of
approximately 40-60% is the most beneficial (Brandle and
Finch, 1991). The trees or shrubs chosen for the shelterbelt
and the spacing of those plants will determine the overall
density. Remember that deciduous species tend to be more
open closer to the ground and conifers have branch cover
close to the ground (Griffith, 2001).
Shelterbelts physically also intercept dust and other
aerosols. A forest cleans the air of micro-particles twenty-fold
better than barren land. Leaves with complex shapes and large
circumference to area ratios collect particles most efficiently.
Shelterbelts attract and bind the chemical constituents of odor.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) have an affinity to the
cuticle of plant leaves. Microorganisms on plant surfaces can
metabolize and breakdown VOCs.
Finally, shelterbelts provide a visual and aesthetic screen.
A well-landscaped livestock operation is much more
acceptable to the public than one that is not. Shelterbelts
should be designed for the specific location, according to the
expected and experienced odors, so that the tree and shrub
species chosen can provide year round interception of odors
and aerosols (Griffith, 2001).
Why Shelterbelts Now
Although shelterbelts have been used for many years in
the Midwest to modify wind flow; control wind erosion,
increase crop yields, protect farm buildings, and protect
livestock, few in poultry producing areas considered their use.
However, urban encroachment is forcing changes in how
poultry growers manage their operations and tunnel ventilated
houses have made the use of shelterbelts feasible. Few
3
recommended planting trees around poultry facilities for fear
of blocking air flow through conventionally-ventilated houses,
but today, with the poultry industry shifting to tunnel-
ventilated, solid sidewall poultry houses, restricting natural air
flow is much less of a problem.
Trees have a pleasing image across a large cross section of
the American population. Planting trees around poultry
houses may help foster a positive image of your farming
operation. In addition, as the trees mature, less of your
agricultural operation will attract attention, your farm takes on
a more attractively landscaped appearance, and property
values increase for both you and your neighbors (Malone and
Abbott-Donnelly, 2001).
Plants used in Shelterbelts
Dense evergreen trees are perhaps the best choice for the
tunnel fan end for maximum filtering during summer and
screening year round. For greatest emissions scrubbing,
shelterbelts should be as close to the tunnel exhaust as
possible. As a general rule, to not interfere with fan
efficiency, no trees should be planted closer than a distance of
five times the diameter of the fans (Malone and Abbott-
Donnelly, 2001). Check with your integrator before
constructing a shelterbelt. Take into account the width of the
shelterbelt at maturity and how this may affect roads, loadout
areas, or chick delivery areas.
There are a variety of trees and shrubs suitable for
Arkansas conditions that would work well to screen poultry
houses. White pine, properly spaced, creates a dense
shelterbelt, grows rapidly and is reasonably priced. Virginia
pine and loblolly pine also do well. Various cedars also form
a dense mat; however, some consider certain varieties a
nuisance and the berries may attract wild birds. A variety of
hollies and other ornamental shrubs such as Red Tip Photinia
form highly effective screens and have a beautifying effect on
the surrounding landscape. The plants you choose will depend
on the site, soil conditions, available space, number of plants
required, growth rate of plants, personal preference for
landscaping effects and cost of the plants. For more
information on trees and plants that do well in your area,
contact your local county Extension office, local Conservation
District, Arkansas Forestry Commission or a professional
landscape nursery/garden center.
Air quality issues surrounding poultry production facilities
are no longer a matter of if, but when. Arkansas poultry
producers should take proactive steps to plan for management
changes these issues will bring. The planting of trees in
strategic locations around poultry houses is one method to
help address these issues before and as they arise. In addition,
research has shown that shelterbelts can reduce heating costs
10-40% and reduce cooling costs as much as 20%.
Strategically placed trees can also reduce wind speeds by
50%, adding protection from spring and fall storms. The
leaves of trees physically trap dust particles that may be laden
with nitrogen, and root systems will absorb up to 80% of the
nutrients that might escape the proximity of the poultry
operation (Stephens, 2003). Cost-share assistance for planting
a shelterbelt is available in some states; unfortunately,
Arkansas is not one of these states at the present time.
Barriers to Shelterbelt Adoption
Although shelterbelts around the perimeter of poultry
houses offer many advantages, there are some barriers to
adoption and some negative aspects to consider. For example,
Malone and Abbott-Donnelly (2001) indicate:
A limited amount of land will be taken out of production
to support the shelterbelt
There will be cost associated with purchasing the trees,
labor for planting and maintenance
You will encounter a restricted view of your houses
access will be limited to designated roadways
trees will create a potential habitat for wild birds.
Summary
Air quality issues will become an increasing concern to
production agriculture with continued urban encroachment
into previously rural, agricultural areas. Shelterbelts offer one
method by which poultry producers can take proactive steps to
address the issue; demonstrating good public relations efforts
and environmental stewardship by buffering odor, dust and
noise emissions from their facilities while improving farm
aesthetics and property values. Dense shelterbelts may detract
attention from farming operations and help reduce air
emission concerns surrounding poultry facilities by capturing
dust particles and ameliorating odors. Consult your integrator
concerning placement before constructing a shelterbelt. Select
trees or shrubs suitable for your area. Your local Extension
office, NRCS office, Arkansas Forestry Commission or local
landscape nursery can be of valuable assistance on species
information. If planted during warmer weather, be sure to
provide plenty of water to assure successful establishment. A
well-landscaped livestock operation is more pleasing to the
public than one that is not. A shelterbelt used as a pollution
control device is visible proof that producers are making an
effort to control what leaves their operation. This could prove
valuable in the court of public opinion and perhaps reduce
tension levels between farming and non-farming segments of
the population.
References
Brandle, J. R., and S. Finch. 1991. How windbreaks work.
University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Publication
EC91-1763-B.
General Accounting Office (GAO). 1995. Animal
Agriculture: Information on Waste Management and Water
Quality Issues.
Griffith, C. 2001. Improvement of air and water quality
around livestock confinement areas through the use of
shelterbelts. South Dakota Association of Conservation
Districts.
Hammond, E. G., C. Fedler, and R. J. Smith. 1981.
Analysis of particle bourne swine house odors. Agriculture
and Environment. 6:395-401.
SHELTERBELTS continued on page 4
References continued:
Heisler, G. M., and D. R. Dewalle. 1988. Effects of windbreak structure on wind flow. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,
Amsterdam. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 22/23:41-69.
Laskley, P. and K. Larson. 1998. Iowa farm and rural life poll 1998 Summary Report. Iowa State University Extension, Pm-
1764, July, 1998
Malone, G. W., and Abbott-Donnelly, D. 2001. The benefits of planting trees around poultry houses. University of Delaware
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Bulletin #159. 4 pages.
Stephens, M. F. 2003. Benefits of trees on poultry farms. The Litter Letter. Fall 2003. LSU Ag Center Research and Extension,
Cooperative Extension Service. Calhoun, La.
Takle, E. S. 1983. Climatology of superadiabatic conditions for a rural area. J. Climate and Applied Meteorology. 22:1129-
1132.
Thernelius, S. M. 1997. Wind tunnel testing of odor transportation from swine production facilities. M. S. Thesis. Iowa State
University, Ames.
Tyndall, J., and J. Colletti. No Date . Odor Mitigation. Available at: http://www.forestry.iastate.edu/res/odor_mitigation.html.
6 pages.
Tyndall, J., and J. Colletti. 2000. Air quality and shelterbelts: Odor mitigation and livestock production a literature review.
Available at: http://www.forestry.iastate.edu/res/Shelterbelts_and_Odor_Final_Report.pdf 74 pages
United States Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency (USDA and EPA). 1999. Unified National
Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations.
United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry. 1997. Animal Waste Pollution in America: An
Emerging National Problem. Environmental Risks of Livestock and Poultry Production.
Susan Watkins, Jana Cornelison, Cheyanne Tillery,
Melony Wilson and Robert Hubbard
Effects of Water Acidification
on Broiler Performance
Introduction
Acidifiers such as sodium bisulfate, citric acid or vinegar are often used by poultry producers to
lower the pH of the drinking water they give their birds. Many claim that adding these products
results in an increase in water consumption, less feed passage or firmer droppings from the birds.
While the manufacturers of these products provide mixing instructions, there is no guarantee of the
final water pH mainly because of the broad diversity of water pH found in nature. A report from
North Carolina State University several years ago claimed that a water pH of less than 5.9 was
harmful to bird performance (Carter, 1987). However this report was based on field observations
where unknown factors other than naturally low water pH could have contributed to the poor
performance. Low pH water is aggressive and can actually dissolve metal pipes releasing lead,
copper and other minerals into the water. While the use of PVC pipes minimizes the concern of
mineral leaching, the question still remains. Which water pH level is optimum for broiler perfor-
mance? Therefore, two trials were conducted to study the impact of different water pHs on broiler
weight gains, feed conversion, water consumption and livability. In addition, this experiment
addressed adjusting the water pH on a continuous or intermittent basis to determine if this could also
have an impact on performance.
Which water
pH level is
optimum for
broiler
performance?
5
Trial One
Trial one was conducted during the summer months when
the outside daily temperatures exceeded 90 F, particularly
late in the grow-out cycle. The effects of heat stress were
reduced through the utilization of tunnel ventilation and spray
on fogger pads.
Twelve hundred male broiler chicks were randomly placed
into 24 floor pens to give 50 birds per pen at a density of .85
square feed per bird. There were three pens per treatment.
Each pen was equipped with two hanging tube feeders and one
Val nipple drinker line complete with regulator and six nipple
drinkers. Flow was adjusted weekly to provide the milliliters/
week of age recommended by Lott et al. (2003). The formula
for determining rates added 7 ml/week of age plus 20 ml, so
that, for example, a 21 day old broiler received 3 x 7=21 ml
plus 20 for a total of 41 ml. Each pen had its own water supply
via a 5- gallon poly-bucket reservoir. Table 1 denotes the
treatments. PWT, which is sodium bisulfate, was used to
adjust the pH. Fayetteville, Arkansas municipal drinking
water was used as the control and the average initial pH was
8.3. All water and feed added to the pens was weighed. Birds
received diets formulated to meet their nutrient requirements.
In Trial one, Coban was used for coccidiosis control. Also
the growth promoter BMD was used in all the feeds.
Trial Two
Trial two was conducted during January and February
when outside daily temperatures ranged from 10 to 45 F. In
this trial, two thousand male broiler chicks were randomly
placed in 40 floor pens to give five pens per treatment. Four
replicate pens per treatment were equipped with nipple drinker
lines and the water added to these pens was measured for the
determination of water usage. A fifth replicate pen per
treatment was equipped with a Plasson drinker. Water
consumption was not measured in the pens with the Plasson
drinkers. As in trial one each pen had its own water supply
via a 5-gallon poly bucket reservoir and two hanging tube
feeders. Treatments were identical to trial one with PWT
used to adjust the pH. All feed added to the pens was weighed
for determining feed conversion. Birds received the same
diets as in trial one. In this trial, the coccidiostat Sacox was
used. No growth promoting antibiotic products were used.
Table 1. Water Treatments
Treatment Label Water pH pH Frequency
Control (8.3) Continuous
6C 6 Continuous
5C 5 Continuous
4C 4 Continuous
3C 3 Continuous
5I 5 Intermittent
1
4I 4 Intermittent
3I 3 Intermittent
1
Intermittent pH program- First 7 days, 48 hours before
and after feed changes, 72 hours prior to end of trial
At day forty-two, 10 birds per treatment were killed
with carbon dioxide gas and the pH of the crop and gizzard
contents was determined.
Both Trials
In both trials the birds were group weighed by pen at
day 1 and on days 7, 21, 35 and 42. On day 42 birds were
individually weighed. Feed and water consumption were
determined for each of these time periods. Water usage was
measured at each feed change.
Results
The results for the two trials were combined because
there were no differences in the way birds responded to the
treatments for the two trials. The average weights of the
broilers for the different ages evaluated are shown in Table 2.
The statistical analysis indicates that while there may be slight
numerical differences in the average weights of the broilers
receiving the different treatments, there was no advantage or
disadvantage for the broilers receiving different pH drinking
water as compared to birds receiving the control water. The
closer the P value is to one, the more statistically similar the
results. Table 3 shows the average feed conversions (adjusted
to account for the weight of the dead birds). Cumulative feed
conversions for days 7, 21 and 35 were not statistically
different. The feed conversions at day 42 show birds on the
continuous 4 and 5 pH water and the intermittent 3 and 4 pH
water had the numerically best feed conversions. However,
the conversions were statistically similar to the conversions
for broilers receiving the control water. Water usage as shown
by milliliters of water used per gram of gain showed that the
birds used similar amounts of water regardless of drinking
water pH (Table 4). When the crops and gizzards of birds
receiving the different pH water were tested for pH, it was
found that the birds receiving the pH 3, 4 and 5 water had a
significantly lower crop pH than birds receiving the 6 and
control pH water (Table 5). No difference was found in the
gizzard pH and this would be expected since the bird adds
hydrochloric acid to the digestion process.
Table 2. Impact of Drinking Water pH on Male Broiler
Average Weights
(lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)
Control .359 1.958 4.79 5.85
6 Continuous .355 1.954 4.79 5.77
5C .355 1.956 4.77 5.92
4C .361 1.986 4.75 5.90
3C .350 1.986 4.80 5.95
5 Intermittent .346 1.938 4.83 5.90
4I .350 1.965 4.83 5.89
3I .355 1.990 4.87 5.97
SEM .008 .04 .08 .09
P Value .9678 .9455 .8951 .6428
Comments and Conclusions
This research project found no significant improvement
in average weights, feed conversion or water consumption
when the drinking water pH was lowered to 3, 4 or 5. The
results indicate that birds are very tolerant of a wide range of
pH water. The findings that the crop pH was significantly
lowered by reducing the water pH might explain why produc-
ers have reported that bird droppings become more firm when
acidifiers are added to the water. The crop serves as a storage
compartment for consumed particles. Nature designed the
crop to store whole bugs and seeds, not the finely ground,
easily digested feed utilized by broilers for efficient feed
conversions. If the crop is full of feed and poor quality water
is added, then there is an increased risk for the development of
harmful bacterial and mold that could impact the rest of the
digestive tract. However, research done in Alabama by
Hardin and Roney (no date) found that a pH range of 4 was
not favorable for bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella and
Clostridium to grow and thrive. The current research indi-
cates that it is possible to decrease the drinking water pH to a
range that would lower the crop pH to almost 4, thus creating
an environment that is hostile for undesirable microbes.
However, given the diversity of drinking water sources it is a
very good idea to measure the pH of the drinking water when
using acidifiers at manufacturers recommendations because
the natural buffering capacity of water may result in reduced
impact of the acidifier on pH. It may even be necessary to add
more acidifier to the stock solution to achieve a lower
drinking water pH.
References
Carter, Thomas. 1987. Drinking Water Quality for
Poultry, Poultry Science and Technology Guide No. 42,
Extension Poultry Science, North Carolina University.
Hardin, Boyd and C.S. Roney. No Date. Effects of pH
on Selected Poultry Bacterial Pathogens, Alabama Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Industries State Diagnostic Lab.
Lott, B. D., W. A. Dozier, J. D. Simmons and W. B.
Roush. 2003. Water flow rates in commercial broiler houses.
Poultry Sci. 82 (Suppl. 1):102.
Table 3. Impact of Drinking Water pH
on Male Broiler Adjusted
1
Feed Conversions-
(lb:lb) (lb:lb) (lb:lb) (lb:lb)
Control .884 1.257 1.473 1.667abc
6 Continuous .903 1.245 1.482 1.682ab
5C .930 1.235 1.481 1.643bc
4C .889 1.242 1.468 1.651abc
3C .895 1.228 1.498 1.684a
5 Intermittent .953 1.237 1.470 1.649bc
4I .916 1.233 1.466 1.633c
3I .895 1.225 1.469 1.642c
SEM .029 .001 .013 .013
P Value .6874 .4794 .7044 .0504
1
Weight of all dead birds is used to determine the feed
conversion
Table 4. Impact of Drinking Water pH on Male Broiler
Average Water Usage-per Gram of Gain
(ml:g) (ml:g) (ml:g) (ml:g)
Control 1.054 2.187 4.111 5.261
6 Continuous 1.099 2.217 4.022 5.234
5C 0.977 2.249 4.073 5.327
4C 1.103 2.252 4.102 5.307
3C 1.163 2.313 4.114 5.315
5 Intermittent 1.328 2.317 4.151 5.307
4I 1.078 2.211 3.942 5.029
3I 1.118 2.265 4.087 5.185
SEM .150 .06 .08 .09
P Value .8117 .6563 .6490 .2760
1
The weight of all dead birds was used to calculate milliliters
of average water usage per gram of gain
Table 5. Impact of Drinking Water pH on
Crop and Gizzard pH
Drinking water pH Crop pH Gizzard pH
3 4.33c 3.62
4 4.34c 3.72
5 4.62bc 3.70
6 4.96b 3.95
8 5.57a 4.16
SEM .13 .152
P value .0001 .1159
7
SURVEILLANCE continued on page 8
The Arkansas Surveillance
Program for Exotic
Newcastle Disease and
Avian Influenza
F. Dustan Clark, Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian
Background
In the last few years there have been several outbreaks of
foreign poultry diseases in the United States. An outbreak of low
pathogenic Avian Influenza in Virginia in 2002 resulted in the
destruction of over 4 million birds. The outbreak cost the Virginia
poultry industry approximately $130 million in lost revenue.
Eradication and indemnity costs associated with this outbreak were
in excess of $60 million. On October 1, 2002, Exotic Newcastle
disease (END) was confirmed in backyard poultry and gamefowl
in southern California. The disease spread to commercial chicken
flocks as well as numerous other backyard, hobby, gamefowl, and
exhibition flocks, resulting in over 18,000 premises being
quarantined in California. In addition, infected flocks were
detected in Nevada, Texas and Arizona resulting in quarantines in
those states. The cost of eradicating the disease was over $300
million and the associated industry export losses are still being
calculated. 2004 Avian Influenza (AI) outbreaks in Texas,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey were not as
costly as the 2002 Virginia outbreak, but resulted in quarantines,
bird eradication, and monetary losses.
Project Funding
In late 2003 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) made available money
to poultry producing states to assist with foreign poultry disease prevention and detection. This
money was, in part, a result of the outbreaks of END and AI. States could obtain the money by
submitting proposals outlining efforts in the state to promote Biosecurity and detect END and
AI. The Arkansas State Veterinarian and Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service Poultry
Health Veterinarian developed a proposal that was funded by USDA. The program is a
cooperative effort between the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission (ALPC) and the
Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service aimed at educating backyard, hobby and exhibition
flock owners about disease prevention as well as a surveillance effort for END and AI..
Project Goals
The purpose of the program is to educate individuals on the threat of diseases and how to
implement various Biosecurity measures to prevent diseases in their poultry flock. In addition,
the program will test the non-commercial flocks of those who request testing to demonstrate that
diseases are not silently lurking in the state of Arkansas.
SUREVEILLANCE continued from page 7
Educational Efforts
Any person in the state of Arkansas who has a hobby,
exhibition, backyard, or gamefowl chicken flock can
participate in the project free of charge. The educational
portion of the project consists of seminars for flock owners
covering the importance of Biosecurity, disease recognition,
and Biosecurity measures to prevent disease. The seminar
covers various diseases (including END and AI) and also
describes the surveillance portion of program. Fact sheets and
pamphlets are distributed at the seminar and county agents are
encouraged to visit flock owners to document the number and
type(s) of birds owned. Data obtained from these visits
provide a better understanding of the types of birds in a county
so that effective educational materials can be developed. The
survey data also provides county agents with the tools needed
to alert flock owners about disease threats in the area and
ensure that preventative measures are in place.
In addition to the seminar presentations, the program
provides educational materials to ALPC inspectors for
distribution to poultry owners who sell birds at the various
trade days, auctions, flea markets, and swap meets. Inspectors
are also available to make farm visits.
Disease Surveillance
The program also includes actual testing of birds for
Exotic Newcastle (END) and Avian Influenza (AI). Flock
owners who participate in the program and have their birds
tested are provided with New Castle vaccine free of charge.
If a flock owner decides to have birds tested, the county
agent or a livestock inspector takes samples for testing. The
samples taken are vent (also called a cloacal or rectal) swabs.
A metal band is placed on the leg of the chicken and the
number of the band is written on the sample. The band is for
bird identification only and can be removed after the test
results are reported. The collected swabs are refrigerated and
immediately transported to the Arkansas Livestock and
Poultry Commission in Little Rock for testing. The swabs are
tested for only two diseases (END and AI) and the PCR test
(Polymerase Chain Reaction) used is extremely specific for
those diseases. Once the testing is completed, a letter is sent to
the owner documenting the results. The letter can be taken to
the office of the county agent and Newcastle vaccine can be
obtained. This vaccine is for the type of Newcastle regularly
encountered in the United States, not for Exotic Newcastle.
However, it was shown in the California END outbreak that
birds vaccinated with similar vaccines had less mortality than
non-vaccinated birds.
Expected Results and Assistance
Since there have been no reports of high mortality in
flocks in Arkansas or surrounding areas, samples are not
expected to be positive for either END or AI and to date all
samples have been negative. Nevertheless, the Arkansas
Livestock and Poultry Commission diagnostic laboratories at
Little Rock and Springdale currently offer routine diagnostic
services free of charge for any hobby, exhibition, or backyard
flock that has lost birds.
Program Future
Currently, the grant funding this program will expire the
end of December 2004. Anyone wishing to participate in the
survey, testing program, or wanting information should
contact their county agent, area livestock inspector or the
extension poultry veterinarian. Any person or group that
wishes to have an educational seminar on disease recognition
(including Exotic Newcastle and Avian Influenza),
Biosecurity measures to prevent disease, and what it takes to
participate in the surveillance program should contact their
county agent or the extension poultry veterinarian.
Protecting Flocks from Disease with Basic Biosecurity
Practices
The best way to reduce the risk of introducing the
disease into your birds is by following Biosecurity practices
(Additional information on Biosecurity is available at http://
www.uark.edu/depts/posc/avianindex.html). Some examples
of such practices are:
1. Do not purchase birds that appear sick or that may have
been illegally brought into the country.
2. Avoid sick birds if at all possible.
3. Practice good hygiene principles.
4. Clean and disinfect thoroughly.
5. Do not visit aviaries that have sick birds.
6. Prevent rodents and wild birds from entering the
facilities where birds are kept.
7. If you visit a facility with birds that may be suspected of
being infected it is important to change clothes, shower,
wash your hands and thoroughly disinfect all items
taken on the premise before contact with your birds.
8. Report signs of disease immediately and get a veterinary
diagnosis immediately.
For additional information or to report disease contact any of
the following:
County Agent,
Local veterinarian,
State Veterinarian,
State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory or
Extension Veterinarian.
9
Strategies for Successful
Turkey Production
G.T. Tabler Applied Broiler Research Unit Manager, Savoy
TURKEYS continued on page 10
Introduction
Over the years, through careful genetic selection, the turkey industry has created a turkey
that today is a high-performance protein producing bird, but within a narrow window of condi-
tions. Lets take a look at some key areas critical to successful turkey production including: 1)
setting up for a flock, 2) brooding, 2) disease control, and 3) ventilation.
Setting up for a flock
A poults performance is dependent on its interaction with the environment. Birds that
are started well have a much greater chance of finishing well. Since young birds are generally
more susceptible to diseases than older birds and diseases can carry over from one flock to the
next, the success of the flock may depend on how completely the house has been cleaned and
disinfected prior to the arrival of the new flock. Most integrators have guidelines concerning
cleaning and disinfecting which should be strictly followed. If such guidelines do not exit, Lacy
and French (1989) outlined the following clean out steps (in order):
1. Decide how and when to treat the
house with an approved pesticide to
eliminate litter beetles.
2. Remove all the equipment you can
from the house.
3. Clean and disinfect the equipment you
removed and store it in a sunny
location.
4 Remove all litter from the house.
5. Wash down the house the house
thoroughly from top to bottom.
6. Disinfect the house and allow it to dry
completely
7. Return equipment to the house
Only clean, dry litter material
which is absorbent and does not easily
cake should be used for turkey houses.
Litter should be free of excessive fines,
large chunks, sharp edges, and be of a
non-toxic material. Litter should be smoothed and spread evenly throughout the house in
preparation for brooder ring set up. Tamping down the litter inside the brooder ring may provide
better footing and make it easier for poults to maneuver and find feed, water and heat and will
greatly improve their chances of survival during those first important days of life (Nicholas
Turkey Breeding Farms, 2000).
TURKEYS continued from page 9
Brooding
It is of vital importance to light brooders 24-48 hours
before poult arrival to warm the litter (not just the air
temperature) and prevent poult chilling. If the poult becomes
chilled because the floor is cold, its movement level decreases
and it will not actively seek out feed or water. Obviously,
ample feed and water must be available at all times and
integrator guidelines regarding number of feeders and drinkers
per brooder or brooder ring should be followed. Feeders and
drinkers must be arranged in such a manner within the ring as
to allow poults to move unimpeded from the heat source to the
edge of the ring. This will help reduce or limit the chance of
piling inside the ring. Do not place feeders or drinkers
directly under or too near the brooder; poults will not eat or
drink feed and water that is too hot. Brooder stove height will
vary depending on type being used and integrator guidelines.
Lighting must be adequate and should be uniform to reduce
incidence of shadows that can frighten poults and possibly
cause piling.
Disease Control
Modern turkeys are geared for growth, not biological
warfare. While the bird is capable of reallocating body
resources to combat disease challenge, this reallocation
usually results in a reduction in growth, activity level, and
defenses (Gross and Siegel, 1997). Producers should make
every attempt to provide management conditions
recommended by integrator technical service representatives
that will minimize the disease threat and allow birds to
perform to their genetic potential. These efforts should
include a strict Biosecurity program that excludes unnecessary
visitors from the farm (Tabler, 2004)
There is little disagreement in the turkey industry
regarding the harmful effects of ammonia on turkey health.
Research has shown what turkey growers already know, that
high levels of ammonia can increase airsacculitis and feed
conversions, and reduce performance and profitability
(Sandstrom, 1990). Whenever the ammonia level in the air
exceeds 10 ppm, the turkey=s ability to fight respiratory
disease is impaired. A minimum litter moisture of
approximately 30% is required to support growth of ammonia-
producing bacteria and this growth accelerates as moisture
levels increase from 30 to 40%. It is very difficult to keep
moisture levels below 30% throughout the life of the flock
without incurring high ventilation and heating costs or using
very low bird densities (Bennett, 2001). However, proper
drinker management, which decreases total water spillage, will
reduce the total amount of moisture in the turkey house and
lower ammonia production in the litter.
Ventilation
Turkeys are living creatures and must have adequate
amounts of high quality air to breathe just like their caretakers.
Due to the anatomic structure of their respiratory system, birds
are very sensitive to air quality, especially ammonia and dust.
Frame and Anderson (2002) noted the main reasons for
ventilating are to:
Maintain an adequate supply of oxygen
Remove harmful gases, such as CO, CO
2
, and ammonia
Control moisture accumulation in the building
(i.e., humidity)
Control temperature
Remove dust and dander particles
When it comes to ventilating the turkey house, producers
have two options: natural or power ventilation. Natural
ventilation consists of using the curtains and end doors along
with natural wind conditions to move air through the turkey
house. If there is any breeze at all this allows a large quantity
of air to be moved through the building in a short period of
time and requires no electrical power usage because fans are
not running. However, in reality, natural ventilation allows
producers very little control over the ventilation of their
houses. It is difficult to regulate temperature and optimize
airflow inside the house. Changing wind speed and direction
and outside air temperature only complicates this problem.
Turkeys under natural ventilation may be over heated from
lack of ventilation or chilled as a result of over ventilation.
Power ventilation allows producers to efficiently move a
consistent quantity of air in a given time period and fan run
time can be adjusted to control humidity and temperature
inside the turkey house. Stirring or re-circulation fans can also
be used to move hot air off the ceiling and mix with the rest of
the air in the house. Keep in mind that air exchange and air
movement are not the same thing. Air movement is the
process of relocating air to a different place in the house using
circulation fans, while air exchange is the transfer of inside air
to the outside and outside air to the inside of the turkey house.
Air exchange rate is expressed in changes of air per minute, or
in cfm/turkey (Frame and Anderson, 2002).
Proper static pressure is also important when power
ventilating turkey houses. Static pressure is the negative
pressure created in a turkey house when the exhaust fans are
running. The higher the static pressure, the greater the
velocity of the air entering the house. A simple rule of thumb
is that each 0.05" of static pressure will shoot air about 12 feet.
Static pressure in turkey buildings should be maintained
between 0.03" and 0.10" (Frame and Anderson, 2002). If the
static pressure is too low, cold air will not mix with warm air,
but will fall to the floor causing a cold spot that birds will
avoid. Many times birds avoid the sidewalls because cold air
has fallen to the floor immediately after entering due to
inadequate static pressure. If static pressure is too high, fan
motors have to work excessively hard, decreasing their life
expectancy, without any additional benefit to the turkeys. If
ventilation and temperature regulation are inadequate,
especially at night, humidity builds up in the turkey house
causing house condensation (sweating), damp litter and
increased ammonia levels. Frame and Anderson (2002) offer
the following ventilation tips:
11
Air must be controlled as it enters the building. This is
best achieved by mounting rectangular vent boxes along the
upper part of sidewalls that automatically adjust to variations
in negative pressure. Proper installation of vent boxes will
direct incoming air slightly upwards where it will mix with
warmer air and gently fall to bird level.
Consider using a five minute time cycle rather than ten.
Temperature and moisture levels will tend to fluctuate less
severely.
Keep inlets, fans, and shutters clean. Brushing off dust
accumulated on fan blades, guards, and shutters can increase
fan efficiency 12% to 15%.
Adjust building inlet area to number of cfm being moved
by fans. Static pressure should optimally be maintained
between 0.05" and 0.08". In loose houses this may require
sealing cracks and crevices to reduce amount of unneeded air
entering the building. As a rule of thumb, one 2.41 to 2.44 ft
2
vent box opening will accommodate 1500 cfm of fan capacity.
Minimum air exchange rate in a brooder house with
newly placed poults should be 0.2 cfm/poult.
If brooder house temperature is stable and comfortable,
especially from 1 to 7 days of age, wire brooder guards offer
better ventilation than cardboard shields. Carbon dioxide
levels rapidly build up within cardboard shields. Young
turkeys are very sensitive to high levels of carbon dioxide gas.
Poults may become lethargic or sleepy when exposed to high
carbon dioxide levels resulting in inadequate feed and water
intake.
One complete air exchange should occur in turkey
growouts at least every 3 to 5 minutes. This air exchange rate
will need to be even greater (i.e., every 1 to 2 minutes) during
summer months. Plan fan capacity to meet this need.
Use power ventilation in growout houses to first control
moisture, then ammonia, and last, temperature. Many growers
have a tendency to reverse the order of these priorities. It is
important to keep in mind that using additional heat can
stabilize temperature during power ventilation. However,
moisture and ammonia can only be controlled by sufficient air
exchange (i.e., ventilation). Leg problems and airsacculitis
caused by wet litter and ammonia are much more
economically devastating than a slightly higher gas bill.
Summary
Proper set up for a flock, correct brooding, rigorous
disease control and appropriate ventilation are four areas vital
to producing profitable turkey flocks. Birds that are started
well have a much greater chance of finishing well. Since
young birds are generally more susceptible to diseases than
older birds and diseases can carry over from one flock to the
next, the success of the flock may depend on how completely
the house has been cleaned and disinfected prior to the arrival
of the new flock. It is of vital importance to light brooders
24-48 hours before poult arrival to warm the litter (not just the
air temperature) and prevent poult chilling. If the poult
becomes chilled because the floor is cold, its movement level
decreases and it will not actively seek out feed or water.
Modern turkeys are geared for growth, not biological warfare.
While the bird is capable of reallocating body resources to
combat disease challenge, this reallocation usually results in a
reduction in growth, activity level, and defenses. Ventilate
properly by:
Controlling the air as it enters the building,
Using a five minute time cycle rather than ten,
Keep inlets, fans, and shutters clean,
Adjust building inlet area to number of cfm being moved
by fans,
Maintaining a minimum air exchange rate of 0.2 cfm/
poultry in the brooder house,
Using wire brooder guards offer better ventilation than
cardboard shields,
Maintaining a complete air exchange in the turkey growout
house every 3 to 5 minutes, and
Power ventilating in growout houses to first control
moisture, then ammonia, and last, temperature.
References
Bennett, C. 2001. Managing ammonia production in your
turkey litter. Manitoba Agriculture and Food. May 2001. 2
pages
Frame, D. D., and G. L. Anderson. 2002. Ventilation
basics for Utah turkey facilities. Utah State University
Cooperative Extension Service Publication Ag/Poultry/01.
March 2002. Utah State University, Logan, UT.
Gross, W. B., and P. B. Siegel. 1997. Why some get sick.
J. Appl. Poultry Res. 6:453-460.
Lacy, M. P. and J. D. French. 1989. Effective broiler
house clean out and disinfection techniques. University of
Geogia Cooperative Extension Service Circular 815. 6 pages
Nicholas Turkey Breeding Farms. 2000. Brooding. Nicholas
Turkey News. 42(6):1-4.
Sandstrom, J. 1990. Ammonia myths...A real gas.
Perspectives (The information newsletter of Hybrid Turkeys).
Winter 1990/91.
Tabler, G. T. 2004. Arkansas turkey growers face variety
of challenges. Avian Advice 6(1):9-11.
Coming Events:
Annual Nutrition Conference, September 15-17, 2004,
Embassy Suites, Rogers, AR, The Poultry Federation (501) 375-
8131
Turkey Committee Meeting, September 17-18, 2004, Best
Western Inn of the Ozarks, Eureka Springs, AR, The Poultry
Federations (501) 375-8131
State Fair, October 8-17, 2004, State Fair Grounds, Little Rock,
AR, (501) 372-8341
UA Poultry Science
for Poultry Science
by G.T. Tabler,
1
I.L. Berry,
2
and A.M. Mendenhall
1
INSIDE
page 3
Water Sanitation:
Evaluation of Products
by Susan Watkins, Lisa
Newberry, Melony Wilson
and Robert Hubbard
page 6
Odor and Air Emissions
from Poultry Facilities
by G. Tom Tabler
page 9
Arkansas Turkey
Growers Face Variety
of Challenges
by G. Tom Tabler
Advice
AVIAN
MORTALITY continued on page 2
Spring 2004 Volume 6, Number 1
Mortality Patterns Associated with
Commercial Broiler Production
1
Poultry Science Department and
2
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Introduction
Flock mortality has a major influence on size of the settlement check after harvest and so is
one of the greatest worries of any broiler grower. While differences in breeder flock status,
genetic strain, hatchery conditions and management practices mean that two consecutive flocks
on a particular farm will seldom have similar mortality patterns, the examination of data from
numerous flocks can help to identify specific mortality patterns. These patterns allow the
comparison of mortality trends in the current flock with historical averages. Recently compiled
data from our facility may assist you in identifying mortality patterns commonly associated with
commercial broiler production.
Facilities and Management Practices
Mortality data were gathered from 38 consecutive flocks of straight run broilers from October
1996 through June 2003 at the Applied Broiler Research Unit. Half of the 38 flocks were grown
to 49 days or less while the other half were grown longer than 49 days. The youngest flock was
39 days at harvest with the oldest harvested at 57 days. All flocks were grown for the same
integrator under a standard broiler industry contract. Management practices were the same in all
houses. Flocks consisted of various genetic strains and breeder flock ages throughout the study,
a common industry practice. The four houses on the farm were each 40 x 400 ft.; two with
tunnel ventilation and two cross-ventilated. Berry et al. (1991), Xin et al. (1993) and Tabler and
Berry (2001) provide a complete description of the houses involved.
Mortality Patterns
The average mortality patterns observed are shown in Figure 1. (See page 2.) Since no
significant differences were observed between houses, only average date are shown. These data
show that broiler mortality usually peaks at approximately 3 to 4 days after placement, declines
until approximately day 9 or 10 then stabilizes until approximately day 30. After day 30 a
gradually increase is seen until approximately day 40 to 45. After day 45, mortality rates
increased until harvest. The pattern is similar to results reported by Xin et al. (1994); however,
their data indicated a slightly higher 2-week mortality, somewhat lower 8-week mortality, with
similar 6-week mortality on 10 consecutive flocks of 8-week male broilers.
2 AVIAN Advice Spring 2004 Vol. 6, No. 1
MORTALITY continued from page 1
Early Mortality and the Importance of Culling
The peak in mortality at day 3 to 4 may coincide with the disappearance of the yolk sac in the intestine of chicks. Chicks that
for whatever reason do not begin to eat and drink may survive the first few days with the yolk sac alone, but once this food source
is depleted the chick will soon perish. At 3 to 4 days of age experienced growers can usually distinguish chicks that are destined
to succumb from those that are off to a good start by their size and vocalization patterns. While chicks that are off to a good start
are active, avidly eating feed and move away quickly when approached, cull birds will often stand by themselves, chirp and
refuse to move away as the grower comes near. When cull birds are found they should be immediately removed and humanely
destroyed by an approved method (Watkins, 2003). The longer these birds remain in the flock the more detrimental they become
to the feed conversion ratio. In addition, removing cull birds at this early stage will improve flock uniformity, making manage-
ment of feeder and drinker height much easier as the flock ages. It is extremely difficult to properly manage feeder and drinker
height with numerous bird sizes in a house. However, culling programs vary among integrators so consult your service techni-
cian before implementing dramatic changes to your current culling practices.
The data in Figure 2 illustrate the relationship between early mortality and late mortality. Flocks that lost the most birds early,
tended to lose the most birds late. In addition, when first week mortality was high, uniformity was often a problem, and feed
conversions were frequently less than desirable. These flocks required additional time, effort and a management skill to achieve
an acceptable level of performance. However, it should also be noted that only a small percentage of flocks had a first week
mortality of >2% and those flocks were generally not back-to-back.
Figure 1. Average mortality for straight run broiler flocks.
Days of Age
M
o
r
t
a
l
i
t
y

%
Figure 2. Early mortality and flock health
Weeks of Age
%

M
o
r
t
a
l
i
t
y
3
WATER SANITATION continued on page 4
Late Mortality
Mortality after about day 45 was most likely due to heart attacks, ascites and leg problems since these diseases generally
increase dramatically late in the life of the flock. Clearly death losses late in the flock can have serious negative consequences on
both feed conversion and pounds of sellable meat. To some degree, these problems can be reduced with proper feeding and
lighting programs. Integrators may change these programs periodically so stay in close contact with your field service technician
as to the proper program to follow.
Summary
Mortality in broiler flocks represents lost income to growers and integrators alike. Even though mortality is an everyday part
of broiler production, growers should tailor management programs to reduce its overall effect on flock performance. An aggres-
sive culling program early in each flock that humanely removes substandard birds as they appear can improve overall flock
uniformity and performance with a minimal negative effect on feed conversion ratio. Allowing cull birds to remain in a flock
increases the difficulty in feeder and drinker management throughout the flock. Also, if these birds succumb or are culled late in
the flock, they have a much greater negative impact on feed conversion because they have eaten more feed (which is now lost)
than they would have if removed at 1 or 2 weeks of age. Management programs later in the flock are often designed slow growth
slightly to reduce late mortality due to ascites, heart attacks, and leg problems.
References
Berry, I. L., R. C. Benz, and H. Xin. 1991. A controller for combining natural and mechanical ventilation of broilers. ASAE
Paper No. 914038. Amer. Society of Ag. Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Tabler, G. T., and I. L. Berry. 2001. Applied Broiler Research Unit Report: Ten-year summary of broiler production results.
Ark. Farm Bureau Young Farmers and Ranchers Conference, Hot Springs, AR. Aug 3-4.
Watkins, S. E. 2003. Animal welfare audits: What to expect and how to be prepared. Avian Advice 5(4):6-8.
Xin, H., I. L. Berry, T. L. Barton, and G. T. Tabler. 1993. Sidewall effects on energy use in broiler houses. J. Appl. Poult. Res.
2:176-183.
Xin, H., I. L. Berry, T. L. Barton, and G. T. Tabler. 1994. Feed and water consumption, growth, and mortality of male broilers.
J. Poult. Sci. 73:610-616.
Water Sanitation:
Evaluation of Products
Introduction
Cleaning water lines between flocks is an important step in providing optimum drinking
water for poultry production. Even producers with excellent daily water sanitation programs
can still benefit from aggressively cleaning water systems between flocks. Introduction of water
additives such as electrolytes, vitamins, or vaccine stabilizers can provide food for unwanted
organisms such as E. coli. In addition, the reduction of water flow in drinking systems in order
to provide the right pressure for young chicks and the warm temperatures in poultry houses also
creates a favorable climate for microorganisms to build a biofilm or sticky matrix. Once
established, a biofilm can be very difficult to remove and if left uncontrolled, this slime can
steadily build up to the point that the daily sanitation program becomes limited in its effective-
Susan Watkins, Lisa Newberry, Melony Wilson and Robert Hubbard
WATER SANITATION continued from page 3
ness. Even producers who use rural or city water supplies can
still develop microbial problems with poultry house water
systems particularly if they inject products into their water
system via medicators that pull from an open bucket.
It is possible for producers to keep lines clean and
reduce bacterial growth by thoroughly sanitizing the system
between flocks with either sanitizers that are different from
those used in the daily sanitation program or by using the daily
sanitizer at an even higher concentration. However, it is
important to remember that not all cleaners or sanitizers are
designed for use in water lines and equipment is sensitive to
certain types or levels of chemicals. For example, using a
concentrated bleach solution can actually destroy regulators
and nipple drinkers. [Therefore choosing the right cleaner for
water line sanitation is an important step because not only is
the system not very well designed for a thorough cleaning, but
also because of the need to minimize equipment damage.]
Once birds are placed in the facility, a producer becomes
limited on the type and concentration of daily sanitizer that the
birds can and will consume. Therefore, by starting birds on
very clean lines, a producer can optimize the effectiveness of
the daily sanitation program and possibly minimize the cost of
the program at the same time.
Cleaner / Sanitizer Study
Different water line cleaners and sanitizers were
evaluated at the University of Arkansas Poultry Research
Farm. A very high level of the bacteria, Pseudomonas, was
seeded into miniature water line systems (four feet long) that
were equipped with six nipple drinkers, a regulator and stem
pipes. By using the miniature lines, it was possible to simulate
conditions that might be encountered on a typical poultry
farm, but at the same time use the different cleaners in three
different water lines. Pseudomonas was chosen because it is
commonly found in poultry houses and because of its ability
to thrive in water systems. The Pseudomonas mixture was
allowed to settle into the lines for approximately four days so
that the organism would become well established in the water
system, creating a worse case scenario of contamination in a
relatively clean water line system. After four days, a sample of
water was taken from each line to determine the number of
Pseudomonas organisms present. The products tested were
mixed with distilled deionized water, flushed into the line
systems where they remained 24 hours. After 24 hours,
another sample of water from the line was taken and cultured
to determine the number of Pseudomonas organisms that
survived. The treatments evaluated are outlined in Table 1
1
.
Test Results
All products tested effectively removed Pseudomonas
from the water lines (Table 2). Flushing the lines with water
(the control) did not remove the bacteria. However, this was
not a high-pressure flush, which can be very helpful in
removing any buildup in the lines. These results show the
durability of bacteria such as Pseudomonas and why water
lines should be cleaned.
However, using the 12.5% bleach solution at a 1% rate
is risky since strong bleach solutions can have a detrimental
effect on equipment. In fact, it is always best to check with
equipment suppliers for their recommendation of products to
use for line cleaning. The Proxyclean product was used at a
rate of 3%. If products must be added via medicators, this
strength of solution can be achieved only by having an injector
pump with a variable setting or by pumping the solution
straight from the container with two in-line medicators. Most
Proxyclean use has been at a rate of 1% or pumping the
product straight from the container. This adds one ounce of
concentrated product to every gallon of water. The Agri Zone
product can also be used at a more concentrated rate. It can be
pumped straight from the medicator container and added at a
rate of one ounce per gallon of water.
Summary
The bottom line is that water systems can be success-
fully cleaned between flocks and this thorough cleaning can
slow or eliminate the development of bio-films. There is one
important point to remember about this project. These lines
were fairly new and therefore had little opportunity for bio-
films and sediment to become built-up in the systems. This
allowed the cleaners to have maximum exposure to the
bacteria and led to excellent results. Systems that have not
been cleaned in several months or have no daily sanitation
program may not be as easy to clean and may require more
than one clean and flush procedure to eliminate bacteria, algae
and bio-films. If lines are very dirty or a water tests indicate
high levels of bacteria (greater than 100,000 colony forming
units/ml) at the end of the line, then a producer should use a
very aggressive cleaning strategy between flocks. Cleaning
should then be combined with a very thorough flush of the
system to remove the killed bacteria and algae. Dead algae
can release toxins that could be harmful to the birds so it is
very important to flush the system thoroughly after cleaning.
Combining the thorough flush with a good daily sanitation
program can help reduce the threat that bacteria, algae, viruses
and mold exert on poultry performance.
1
Use of trade names does not imply endorsement by the
authors or the University of Arkansas to the exclusion of
others not mentioned
5
Table 2. Results of Cleaning Water Lines With Different Products
Product Rate Pseudomonas Pseudomonas pH 24 hrs
count before count 24 hrs after
treatment after treatment treatment
(CFU/ml)
1
(CFU/ml)
Control (no treatment) ---------- 1,700,000 3,030,000 6.22
Agri Zone Flush 0.27 oz/gal 5,820,000 0 7.40
Agri Quat S 0.0061 oz/gal 4,350,000 0 5.87
Aqua Max 1 oz/gal 4,800,000 0 2.91
Citric Acid 0.39 oz/gal 2,280,000 0 3.32
ProxyClean 3.84 oz/gal 2,900,000 0 3.04
PWT 0.039 oz/gal 2,200,000 0 2.61
12.5% Sodium Hypochlorite 1.28 oz/gal 1,600,000 0 8.55
2.5% Sodium Hypochlorite 0.024 oz/gal 2,810,000 0 6.44
1
Colony Forming Units/milliliter
Table 1. Description of Treatments Evaluated
Treatment Name Treatment Description Preparation Procedures Final Concentration
Control -------------------------Lines flushed with two gallons of de-ionized water------------------------------
Agri Quat S Quaternary ammonia product 1.75 oz/5 gal 0.0061 oz/gal
Agri Zone A mineralized oxygen product 1 oz /gal of stock then 0.024 oz/gal
1 oz stock/gal of water
Aqua Max Organic acid mix 1 oz/gal of water 1 oz/gal
Citric Acid Organic acid 64 oz/gal of stock then 0.39 oz/gal
1 oz stock/gal of water
ProxyClean 50% hydrogen peroxide 3.84 oz/gal of water 3.84 oz/gal
stabilized with sodium nitrate
PWT or Poultry Water Sodium bisulfate water acidifier 16 oz/2.5 gal of stock then 0.039 oz/gal
Treatment 1 oz stock/gal of water
12.5% Sodium Hypochlorite Strong bleach, household bleach 1.28 oz/gal 1.28 oz/gal
is 5.25%
12.5% Sodium Hypochlorite Strong bleach, household bleach 4 oz/gal of stock then 1 oz 0.024 oz/gal
is 5.25% stock/gal of water
Odor and Air Emissions
From Poultry Facilities
Introduction
In Arkansas, production agriculture is a $4 billion annual industry, three-fourths of which
comes from livestock, mainly poultry (EPA, 1998). Modern production agriculture is increas-
ingly regarded as a major source of air pollutants. The trend toward larger and more
concentrated animal production coupled with the general publics increasing intolerance of
odors mandates the control of odors, gases, and dust.
Types of Emissions
Animal feeding operations (AFOs) have become increasingly consolidated, specialized,
and regionally concentrated in the last decade (Sweeten et al., 2004). Air quality concerns are
becoming a major environmental issue. Primary sources of odors, gases, and dust from produc-
tion agriculture units include:
Livestock operations (poultry and swine buildings; open cattle feedlots)
Manure storage facilities
Land application of manure
Management practices are an important factor in determining emissions from animal feeding
operations; perhaps of equal or greater importance than the specie itself (Powers and Bastyr,
2004). Many of the foul-smelling compounds emitted from animal production operations are as
a result of decomposition of livestock and poultry wastes in the absence of air (anaerobic
decomposition). Aerobic decomposition (decomposition in the presence of air) generally
produces fewer odorous by-products than anaerobic decay, but aerobic decay can enhance
volatilization of gaseous compounds that produce some odors and degrade environmental
quality (Powers, 2003). While little information is available on the environmental impact of
odor and airborne contaminates, as many as 100 compounds have been identified in air samples
collected from animal production facilities (Miner, 1995). However, it is estimated that one
7
ODOR AND AIR continued on page 8
A large portion of
odor associated
with exhaust air
from mechanically
ventilated poultry
houses is dust
particles that have
absorbed odors
from within the
houses.
third of the methane produced each year comes from industrial sources, one third from natural
sources and one third from agriculture, primarily animals and manure storage units (Powers,
2003).
Odor from animal feeding operations is not caused by a single compound, but is rather
the result of a large number of contributing compounds including NH
3
, volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs), and H
2
S (National Academy of Sciences, 2003). A further complication is that
odor involves a subjective human response. What is objectionable to some is not to everyone.
The most common odor complaint by the public associated with poultry production is related to
land application of manure. When manure is land applied, it is typically applied to an area up to
700 times the surface area of the original storage, creating a large but short-term downwind odor
plume (Heber and Jones, No Date). For odor to be detected, odor-producing compounds must
have been produced, released and transported downwind. A complex mixture of gases produce
the odor associated with a poultry operation. Some of the principal classes of odorous com-
pounds are: amines, sulfides, volatile fatty acids, indoles, skatoles, phenols, mercaptans,
alcohols, and carbonyls (Powers, 2003). Ammonia creates strong odors near manure storage
areas and poultry buildings themselves, but is not a significant component of odor downwind
from a poultry farm. Ammonia is highly volatile and moves upward in the atmosphere quickly
when released.
Dust, while a problem in its own right, can also carry gases and odors. Dust is generated
from feed, manure, and the birds themselves. A large portion of odor associated with exhaust air
from mechanically ventilated poultry houses is dust particles that have absorbed odors from
within the houses. Factors determining the amount of dust include cleanliness of the houses,
bird activity, temperature, relative humidity, ventilation rate, and stocking density.
Concerns Over Air Emissions
The issue that most often brings air emissions to the attention of public officials is the
frequency of complaints about strong and objectionable odors voiced by neighbors of large
animal feeding operations. Equally important are the various substances in air emissions that
contribute to environmental degradation (National Academy of Sciences, 2003). Concern is
understandable since between 1982 and 1997, the number of animal feeding operations in the
United States decreased by 51%, while livestock production increased 10% (Gollehon et al.,
2001). This indicates that there are fewer farms with more animals on those farms than in the
past; and hence, more animal waste in a smaller area.
Currently, there is no comprehensive, sound, science-based set of data on emissions from
AFOs. An understanding of AFO air emissions and their effects will require the expertise of
numerous scientific disciplines, including animal nutrition and physiology, farm practices,
atmospheric chemistry, meteorology, air monitoring, statistics, epidemiology and toxicology,
agricultural engineering, economics, and other related disciplines. Emission rates can vary with
changes in the management of the animals, their feed or weather conditions and may vary
tenfold or more during periods as short as an hour or long as a year. This variability in AFO air
emission rates is perhaps the most serious impediment to generating a sound, reliable database
(National Academy of Sciences, 2003).
The EPA has a variety of needs for more accurate estimates of air emissions from AFOs,
including the following:
General monitoring of the nations air quality
Determining what pollutants are in the nations ambient air, their concentrations and
their sources
Identifying the emissions that may have the greatest adverse effects on human health or
the environment
Improving regulatory approaches
Assessing effectiveness of various abatement technologies and strategies
USDA has a similar need for accurate information, but focuses more directly on the kinds
of management actions that farmers can take to mitigate emissions at the farm level (National
Academy of Sciences, 2003).
ODOR AND AIR continued from page 7
Management Strategies
As mentioned earlier, land application of manure
generates the most consistent and noisy odor complaints.
Land application offers acres and acres of volatile compound
generation versus the relatively contained sources of air
emissions from manure storage and livestock housing. Thus,
keeping poultry manure in the house or in dry storage is the
first line of defense against odor and gas emission complaints
(Wheeler, 2002). Also consider topography and air drainage
patterns when considering constructing new or purchasing
existing facilities in hilly areas. In such areas, during the
evening hours there are often periods of little or no wind. In
these still periods air near the ground will begin to cool and,
because cool air is heavier than warm air, it drifts down slope.
Poultry houses scattered across hills are in the path of this air
moving down slope and any odors generated by these facilities
may be picked up and carried down wind to towns or commu-
nities located in the valleys below.
A wide variety of manure management technologies and
strategies have been considered over the last 30 years (ASAE,
1971). The systems currently in place are those that proved
the most cost-effective and reliable at achieving their objec-
tives. For the most part, those objectives have not included
minimization of emissions, but have centered on water quality
protection, nuisance avoidance, animal environment protec-
tion, and worker health protection. (National Academy of
Sciences, 2003).
Be a Good Neighbor
Even though there is no comprehensive, science-based
set of data on emissions from AFOs, almost all producers
realize that the lack of data has not stopped complaints or legal
actions against production units. Thus, producers must
continue to deal with the situation.
Shelterbelts of trees or shrubs have been used exten-
sively in some parts of the country for snow and wind
protection. Shelterbelts around poultry operations can offer
improved aesthetics of production facilities and may help
reduce any environmental impact (actual or perceived) of the
operation since many people tend to smell with their eyes.
Shelterbelts may also offer odor reduction by creating turbu-
lence that encourages the mixing of odorous air with fresh air,
promoting the settling of dust where wind speeds are lower,
physical interception of dust and particulates or adsorption and
absorption of odor compounds on the foliage of trees or shrubs
(Wheeler, 2002).
One of the best ways to lessen complaints about any
animal production facility is to run a clean, neat, tidy opera-
tion. Make it a point to know who your neighbors are and
develop a good relationship with them. Personally tell your
neighbors what your plans are so that they do not hear
information secondhand that may or may not be accurate.
Stay or become involved with community activities and attend
public meetings related to area farming practices. Make the
general population aware that you are concerned about the
environment and are open to new ideas. Always check with
neighbors before spreading manure to make sure you do not
disrupt someones family reunion or weekend events.
Farming is a business and all businesses need customers.
Most likely your neighbors go to the store and purchase the
same product you produce. Therefore, it is important to keep
your neighbors/customers happy.
An effective strategy to reduce gas, odor and dust
emissions from livestock and poultry operations will likely be
site specific since no one practice will work at every opera-
tion. Plan on using a variety of strategies with the goal being
to reduce the overall generation of emissions from your
operation. To some producers it may not seem like that big of
a problem just yet; however, as rural and urban populations
increasingly share more and more land with one another, odor
and air emissions from livestock facilities has the potential to
make the issue of land application of animal wastes pale in
comparison. Recall all that has happened with land applica-
tion rules and guidelines over the past 5-10 years. Ten years
ago land application of wastes did not seem like a big
problem. Now consider what could happen with air emission
standards. The time for modern production agriculture to
address the issue has come.
References
ASAE (American Society of Agricultural Engineers)
1971. Livestock waste management and pollution abatement.
In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on
Livestock Wastes, St. Joseph, MI. 360 pp
EPA. 1998. Climate Change and Arkansas. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 236-F-98-007d.
September 1998.
Gollehon, N., M. Caswell, M. Ribaudo, R. Kellogg, C.
Lander, and D. Letson. 2001. Confined Animal Production
and Manure Nutrients. USDA Agriculture Information
Bulletin No. 771. Washington, D.C.
Heber, A. and D. Jones. No Date. Controlling dust and
odors around confined animal feeding operations. Available
at: http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/immag/info/
mwps_18_S3nr.pdf.
Miner. J. R. 1995. A review of literature on the nature
and control of odors from pork production facilities. Prepared
for Odor Subcommittee of the Environmental Committee of
the National Pork Producers Council.
National Academy of Sciences. 2003. Air Emissions
from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future
Needs. National Academies Press. Washington, D.C. 263 pp.
Powers, W. 2003. Gaseous emissions from animal agriculture.
Leaflet No. PM 1935. Iowa State University Extension.
Powers, W., and S. Bastyr. 2004. Downwind air quality
measurements from poultry and livestock facilities. A.S.
Leaflet R1927. Iowa State University Animal Industry Report
2004.
Sweeten, J., R. Miner, and C. Tengman. 2004. A brief history
and background of the EPA CAFO rule. Manure Matters. Vol
10, Number 1. Livestock Environmental Issues Committee.
Wheeler, E. F. 2002. Strategies to reduce emissions.
Poultry Digest Online. Vol 3, Number 4.
9
Arkansas Turkey Growers
Face Variety of Challenges
Introduction
Arkansas turkey growers produced 29.5 million turkeys in 2002 ( USDA, 2003), making the
state third in turkey production behind North Carolina and Minnesota. As any grower can
verify, raising commercial turkeys is no easy task. In comparison to broiler chickens, turkeys
are extremely difficult to start, the brooding period is a much more stressful time for both poult
and grower, and turkeys remain on the farm for a much longer period increasing the likelihood
that something may go wrong before the flock sells. Lets look at some of the challenges faced
by Arkansas turkey growers and how to meet these challenges.
Summertime Temperatures
Turkeys are generally most comfortable when temperatures range from 70-79 F (Anony-
mous, 2003). Feed intake and growth may be affected as temperatures rise above 80 F and
temperatures exceeding 90 F, can result in heat exhaustion or heat prostration. High tempera-
tures are particularly stressful when coupled with high humidity levels.
Heat stress is always a concern of Arkansas turkey producers during summer months and
can produce significant losses if growers are not properly prepared. Several factors affect heat
production and the turkeys ability to deal with heat. The digestion of food, the growth process
and bird activity all create heat, which the turkey must dissipate (Nixey, ND). As the tempera-
ture increases, feed consumption decreases and turkeys begin to pant which negatively affects
the performance and profitability of the flock.
A turkeys first objective is simply to stay alive. Turkeys are warm-blooded and must
maintain a relatively uniform body temperature of 105-107F over a wide range of environmen-
tal conditions. If heat produced by the bird is greater than heat that is lost, the birds body
temperature rises; if it rises 9-11F and reaches 116 F the turkey dies from heat prostration.
Several methods exist for the turkey to lose heat (Cereno, 1998):
1) Radiation - body surface temperature is cooler than air surrounding it
2) Conduction - bird comes in contact with and loses heat to a cooler surface (litter)
3) Convection - cool air contacting body surface is warmed and rises, carrying
away heat
4) Water vaporization - a birds nasal cavity is a heat exchanger and helps rid the
body of excess heat through evaporative cooling
5) Fecal excretion
6) Egg production
How efficiently turkeys can lose heat will depend on air temperature, humidity, air
movement over the bird, and stocking density. Turkeys pant to increase the rate of heat loss by
evaporative cooling. However, older, heavier birds produce more internal heat and are less able
to cool themselves through convection and evaporation. The extra weight might be why higher
temperatures are more stressful on toms than hens (Anonymous, 2003). Also, be aware that
birds suffering respiratory problems will have a reduced ability to cool themselves through
panting. In addition, the more birds in the house, the more heat they generate and they will tend
to absorb each others radiant heat load.
TURKEYS continued on page 10
TURKEYS continued from page 9
Air movement (ventilation) is critical if turkeys are to
survive summer conditions. Maximize natural ventilation by
keeping grass and weeds cut around buildings. Do not park
tractors or equipment alongside houses as this restricts air
movement through the buildings. You are better off with grass
around your houses to absorb heat (if you keep it cut) instead
of bare ground because bare ground will reflect heat back into
the houses. Make sure your fans are properly maintained.
Keep blades, shutters and safety grills free of dirt and debris.
Change fan belts at least once per year. Worn or loose belts
can reduce fan efficiency by 20-30 %. Turn fan thermostats
down low enough that the fans will run late enough after
sundown to give the birds a chance to cool off. Flush water
lines regularly to provide cool water to the turkeys; cool water
allows the turkey to transfer body heat to the water they drink.
If you have a generator, make sure it is maintained and ready
in event of a power failure. If you dont have a generator,
seriously consider purchasing one. They are a somewhat
expensive investment if the power stays on, but a generator
can pay for itself in one afternoon if the power goes off for an
extended period.
Some growers supplement the drinking water with
vitamins and electrolytes to reduce heat stress. Vitamins in the
water are a good way to insure turkeys are getting what they
need during hot weather when feed intake may be reduced.
Electrolytes help maintain adequate blood pH which becomes
elevated when turkeys pant for extended periods. Always talk
to your service technician before starting any supplementation
program since they know what works and what doesnt.
Turkeys normally decrease their activity level and stay away
from feeder pans to avoid creating additional internal body
heat when the weather is hot. Thus, keeping birds as quiet as
possible during the heat of the day and considering an inter-
mittent lighting program to encourage nighttime feeding may
help. However, turkeys must be offered a period of complete
darkness because it is during this time that the tibia (leg bone)
grows at its optimal rate (Monk, 1998). Sprinkling turkeys
with water can help fight heat stress when temperatures exceed
80-85F. However, the amount of water used will vary greatly
with condition of the house and the birds and producers should
avoid using too much water since it can increase humidity to
dangerous levels. Again, consult your service technician
before changing your lighting program or starting a sprinkling
program.
Pathogen Load
Management programs that will allow turkeys to
perform to their genetic potential should be the goal of all
producers. Obviously, pathogens can reduce turkey perfor-
mance and should be controlled. Unfortunately, with the
technologies currently available to the industry, complete
eradication of the pathogen load in live production is not
possible. We can, however, make every attempt to reduce the
microbial population through Best Management Practices that
include a strict biosecurity program.
Be aware of comings and goings on your farm and make
it a rule that no one gets on your farm who doesnt belong.
Feed truck drivers and technical service personnel must have
access, but after these folks are accounted for, the list becomes
extremely short. Friends, neighbors or other visitors have no
vital purpose around your operation and should be excluded.
It is up to you to enforce this. You may politely make visitors
aware that it is not that you are antisocial, but you have
thousand dollars and many hours of sweat equity invested in
your operation and you cannot afford to have a disease
challenge on your farm. Each farm has its own unique
microbial population that the turkeys become accustomed to,
but visitors tend to introduce organisms that are not common
to your operation and lead to production or disease troubles.
You must minimize traffic flow on your farm, the risk is
simply too great to do otherwise. Therefore, take necessary
steps to ensure that the only visitors to your farm have a good
reason to be there.
The live production process in the turkey industry is a
combination of management practices, bird health, the
nutrition program and the unique farm environment (Figure 1).
Nutrition, like management, must be focused on insuring that
the turkey can perform to its genetic potential. Proper bone
development is vital in insuring that turkeys achieve their full
genetic potential. Any factor that negatively influences bone
development will result in stress when the turkey attempts to
walk, leading to decreased activity, reduced feed intake, and
diminished growth rates (Monk, 1998).
The farm environment directly impacts bird perfor-
mance. A favorable environment optimizes growth and
strengthens the birds ability to resist disease. The environ-
ment also influences the microbial population unique to each
farm. Published research has demonstrated that birds in
clean environments grew 15% better than those in dirty
environments (Fernandez, 1998a). If bird health is compro-
mised, the turkey will likely never reach its genetic potential
regardless of your management program. Fernandez (1998b)
indicated a vector control program and a clean water supply
are also critical to reducing pathogen loads.
Effective rodent control programs involve a rational,
systematic baiting procedure, preventive facilities management
and constant monitoring. Rodents are often vectors that
transmit disease organisms from one flock to the next. Even if
facilities are cleaned and disinfected, the presence of rodents
can jeopardize sanitation efforts. Darkling beetles are another
vector which has been implicated in many poultry diseases.
Beetles have been found to be a source of transmission for
Salmonella, Mareks Disease, E. coli, Infectious Bursal
Disease, Newcastle Disease, Clostridium and numerous other
diseases (Watkins, 2001). Approved insecticides are available
for use after house cleanout for beetle control.
The role of water is certainly underestimated in both
turkey and broiler production. High quality drinking water is
critical for a healthy environment in both turkey and broiler
facilities. Fernandez (1998b) indicated that 45 of 95 (47%) of
11
untreated water samples from various turkey farms were
contaminated with bacteria. The most common bacteria found
were Pseudomonas, followed by E. coli. Bordetella (which
causes turkey coryza). Bordetella has also been isolated from
the inside of nipple drinkers and from the rubber seal in the
water line regulator in houses with Bordetella-positive turkey
flocks (Watkins, 2002). Thus, it is important to reduce the
microbial load in the water system by treat water lines during
house cleanout, and sanitizing watering equipment during
house preparation (Fernandez, 1998b).
Other Challenges
Pathogen load and heat stress are only two of numerous
challenges faced by Arkansas turkey growers. Producers must
also be alert for coccidiosis which causes economic loss
through poor performance and secondary infections. Coccidi-
osis in turkeys is difficult to diagnose compared to chickens
since , in turkeys, visible lesions are rarely seen and an
accurate diagnosis requires the use of a microscope. Clinical
signs include, weight loss, decreased rate of gain, listlessness,
and loose droppings (possibly with blood or mucus), but these
are the same symptoms that a variety of other diseases or
ailments may exhibit.
The proper house environment during winter is also a
major challenge. Houses are usually closed tightly and
ventilation is at a minimum during cold weather to conserve
fuel. Be aware, however, that adequate ventilation is neces-
sary to guarantee sufficient air exchange, provide needed
oxygen, and prevent carbon dioxide (CO
2
) buildup in the
house. Carbon dioxide levels are always a concern in turkey
production facilities. In research trials, seven times the
normal level of CO
2
did not significantly affect livability at 14
days, but average body weights were up to
15% poorer in non-ventilated houses
(Fernandez, 1998b). Equally important was
the deterioration of bird uniformity that
accompanied the depression in weight.
Proper winter ventilation is critical if the
flock is to perform up to its genetic poten-
tial.
Summary
Turkey growers must be constantly
vigilant of conditions within the turkey
house. High summertime temperatures are
always a threat, especially when accompa-
nied with dangerous humidity levels.
Significant costs in lost performance and/or
mortality can be expected if measures are
not taken to reduce heat stress. Proper winter
ventilation is also important to provide an
environment that will allow the turkey to
perform at its best. Steps must also be taken
to control the pathogen load in turkey
production facilities. Practice stringent
biosecurity and do not allow anyone on your farm unless they
have a reason to be there. Monitor bird health and contact
your service technician at the first sign of a possible disease
outbreak. Turkey production requires that numerous chal-
lenges be met along the way to producing a healthy, profitable
flock. To be successful, Arkansas turkey producers must meet
and overcome these challenges on a daily basis.
References
Anonymous. 2003. Heat stress can be managed. Avail-
able at: http://www.cvm.umn.edu/avian/Gob
Managingheatstress.html. Accessed March, 2003.
Cereno, T. 1998. Growers have to help turkeys cope
with high temperatures. The Feather File. Cuddy Farms.
Summer 1998.
Fernandez, D. 1998a. Production performance optimized
by reducing pathogen load. The Feather File. Cuddy Farms.
Summer 1998.
Fernandez, D. 1998b. Reducing pathogen load optimizes
turkeys production performance. The Feather File. Fall 1998.
Monk, J. Nutritional, management factors can interfere
with development. The Feather File. Cuddy Farms. Fall 1998.
Nixey, C. No Date. Optimising performance in the
summer. Available at: http://www.ansci.umn.edu/poultry/
resources/buta-pubs.htm. Accessed March, 2003.
USDA. 2003. Poultry production and value, 2002
Summary. USDA National Agricultural Statistics, Pou 3-1
(03).
Watkins, S. E. 2001. Improving darkling beetle control
in poultry facilities. Avian Advice 3(1):14-15.
Watkins, S. E. 2002. The campaign for quality drinking
water continues. Avian Advice 4(3):7-9.
Figure 1. Relationships between bird environment and bird health
Adapted from Fernandez, 1998b.
UA Poultry Science
for Poultry Science
by G.T. Tabler,
1
I.L. Berry,
2
and A.M. Mendenhall
1
INSIDE
page 4
Corona Virus Infections
in Turkeys
by F. Dustan Clark
page 6
Animal Welfare Audits:
What to Expect and How
to be Prepared
by Susan Watkins
page 8
Broiler Nutrition, Feed
Intake and Grower
Economics
by G. Tom Tabler and
A.M. Mendenhall
page 11
Coming Events
Advice
AVIAN
ENERGY COSTS continued on page 2
Energy Costs Associated with
Commercial Broiler Production
1
2
Department
of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
Introduction
Commercial broiler growers face a number
of challenges associated with producing
profitable broiler flocks. While unable to
control all factors associated with broiler
production, growers can control the key areas
of temperature and ventilation, but maintaining
adequate temperature and ventilation requires
significant monetary expense. Data recently
compiled at the Applied Broiler Research Unit
may be of value in assessing your farms energy
demand and (based on your costs for fuel and
electricity) monetary expense to meet this
demand.
Housing and Management Practices
The information presented represents data
from 38 consecutive flocks of straight run
broiler chickens grown at the Applied Broiler
Research Unit during the period October 1996
through June 2003. All flocks were grown for
the same integrator under a standard broiler
production contract. The houses were all 40 x
400 ft. Two houses (1 and 3) featured
conventional cross-ventilation with low-pres-
sure foggers, while the other two houses were
curtain-sided and tunnel ventilated. One tunnel
ventilated house (4) had evaporative cooling
pads and the other (2) had an experimental
sprinkler system. Detailed descriptions of the
houses, environmental control systems, sprin-
kler system, and housing modifications was
given by Berry et al. (1991), Xin et al. (1993)
and Tabler and Berry (2001). Management
practices were the same in all houses and the
farm manger was the same individual
throughout the study period. Half of the 38
flocks were grown for 49 days or less while the
other half were grown for more than 49 days.
The youngest flock was 39 days at harvest
while the oldest was harvested at 57 days.
Propane Usage
Figure 1 presents propane usage by house
during the seven-year period. As evident by the
graphs and as many growers will remember, the
winter of 2000 was the most costly in terms of
fuel usage followed by the winter of 2001. The
lower fuel consumption in House 3 during the
winters of 1998 and 1999 was due to use of an
experimental wood-burning pellet furnace.
House 4 was the most challenging house to
control from a management standpoint since it
had more ammonia than any other house. This
increased ammonia required increased ventila-
tion to maintain the proper environment
resulting in increased gas consumption during
cooler periods of the year. Although House 4
consumed the most fuel during the seven-year
period, it should be noted that when the 1998
and 1999 data were ignored, tunnel ventilated
houses consumed only 2% more fuel than did
conventional houses. Also, if the ammonia
problem in house 4 could be solved, tunnel
ventilated houses would likely consume less
fuel than conventional houses.
ENERGY COSTS continued from page 1
Table 1 lists the maximum, minimum and average fuel
consumption per flock for each of the four houses. House 4 used
the most fuel even during the summer flock when fuel usage was
minimal. This was mainly associated with additional nighttime
ventilation needed for ammonia control. Based on the figures in
Table 1, propane consumption for the farm over the seven-year
period averaged 3,657 gallons per flock. If we assume 5.5 flocks
per year then the four-house farm would have used 20,114
gallons of propane per year or 5,029 gallons per house per year.
If propane costs $1.00 per gallon, it would cost over $20,000 for
a years worth of propane. In view of these costs, growers may
be tempted to reduce temperatures slightly. However, flock
performance, and therefore, grower payment can be seriously
affected if growers attempt to raise birds at temperatures cooler
in the winter. The data in Table 2 illustrate how decreased
temperatures can increase flock mortality.
Electricity Usage
Figure 2 presents electricity usage by house. As every
grower knows, electricity usage was greatest in the summer
months and lowest in the winter months. The summer of 2000
was the most costly in terms of electricity usage followed by the
summer of 2001. However, unlike propane usage, each house
accounted for an equal amount of electricity usage (25%) during
the 7-year period. The increased electrical demand in House 3
during the winters of 1998 and 1999 are again associated with
use of the wood-burning pellet furnace in that house.
Table 3 lists maximum, minimum and average kilowatt
hour (kWh) consumption per flock for each of the four houses.
Even though House 1 showed the highest kWh usage as
compared to the other houses, there was less than 185 kWh
difference between houses and the houses were the same when
Figure 1. Propane usage on the Applied Broiler Research Unit by house
Start House Numbers Farm House
Item Date 1 2 3 4 Total Avg
Propane Usage (Gals) Gals/Flock
Min. 8/98 52 68 47 163 330 83
Max. 11/00 2906 2780 2694 3121 11501 2875
Avg. 910 830 782 1135 3657 914
Table 1. Propane Usage Extremes and Averages
Table 2. The Effect of Brooding Temperature
on Mortality and Ascites
1
Brooding Temperatures (F) Mortality Ascites Mort.
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 (%) (%)
95 90 85 2.29 0.83
90 85 80 3.12 0.83
85 80 75 1.67 0.62
80 75 70 4.79 2.50
1
From Deaton et al., 1996.
3
compared on a percentage-of-use basis. Electricity usage for the farm over the 7-yr period averaged 12,617 kWh per flock (Table 2).
Based on 5.5 flocks per year the farm would have used 69,394 kWh per year or 17,348 kWh per house per year. If electricity costs
$0.06 cents per kWh, electricity costs would come to $4,164 for the farm or $1041 per house.
Total Energy Costs
Energy costs (fuel and electricity) consume approximately 25% of the annual gross farm income at the Applied Broiler Energy
Unit. Propane and electricity usage for the farm are presented together in Figure 3 and, as expected, indicates that the two consumption
curves are essentially inverse functions of one another, representing the high demand for heating in the winter and cooling in the
summer. However, because fuel costs are much greater than electricity, growers have a much more serious problem dealing with high
fuel bills in the winter than they do the electric bill in the summer.
Figure 2. Electricity usage on the Applied Broiler Research Unit by house
Figure 3. Average propane and electricity usage on the Applied Broiler Research Unit by house
ENERGY COSTS continued on page 4
Corona virus is
the causative
agent of infectious
bronchitis in
broilers.
Corona Virus Infections
in Turkeys
F. Dustan Clark Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian
Introduction
Corona viruses are small viruses that are named corona because it has projections on its surface
that resemble a crown. The viruses are widespread in nature and are responsible for respiratory and
enteric diseases in cattle, dogs, pigs, rabbits, humans, turkeys, chickens as well as other animals. In
cattle and pigs corona virus causes intestinal infections that result in weight loss, diarrhea, and in some
instances death. In broilers, a corona virus is the causative agent of infectious bronchitis. In contrast to
chickens, turkeys infected with corona virus develop an enteric disease similar to mammalian species.
Summary
Contract growers face numerous challenges associated with raising broilers. One significant
challenge is the monetary expense related to fuel and electricity costs. Energy data from 38 consecutive
flocks of straight run broilers over a seven-year period at the Applied Broiler Energy Unit indicate that
approximately 25% of the gross farm income is required to pay the annual propane and electricity bills
and that propane costs may be roughly four to five times the cost of electricity. While energy costs will
vary somewhat from farm-to-farm, the wise use of energy should be a priority for all growers.
References
Berry, I. L., R. C. Benz, and H. Xin. 1991. A controller for combining natural and mechanical
ventilation of broilers. Paper No. 914038. Amer. Society of Ag. Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Deaton, J. W., S. L. Branton, J. D. Simmons and B. D. Lott. 1996. The effect of brooding
temperature on broiler performance. Poultry Science 75:1217-1220.
Tabler, G. T., and I. L. Berry. 2001. Applied broiler research unit report: Ten-year summary of
broiler production results. Report prepared for Ark. Farm Bureau Young Farmers and Ranchers
Conference. Hot Springs, AR. August 3-4.
Xin, H., I. L. Berry, T. L. Barton, and G. T. Tabler. 1993. Sidewall effects on energy use in broiler
houses. J. Appl. Poult. Res.2:176-183.
Xin, H., I. L. Berry, T. L. Barton, and G. T. Tabler. 1994. Feed and water consumption, growth, and
mortality of male broilers. J. Poult Sci.73:610-616.
Start House Numbers Farm House
Item Date 1 2 3 4 Total Avg
Electricity Usage(kWh) kWh/Flock
Min. 8/01 1016 820 754 1736 4326 1082
Max. 7/00 6757 6806 7924 6114 27601 6900
Avg. 3276 3108 3093 3140 12617 3154
Table 3. Electrical Usage Extremes and Averages
ENERGY COSTS continued from page 3
5
History:
The disease in turkeys was first seen in the state of Washington in the late 1940s and in the
early 1950s in Minnesota where it caused heavy losses. The disease was referred to as Mud fever
and Bluecomb but the causative agent was not identified as a corona virus until many years later.
The disease has been seen in most if not all of the turkey producing areas of the United States, but
is not a common isolate from normal turkeys. However, turkey flocks in Arkansas and Missouri
continue to have problems with the disease.
Clinical Signs:
The virus can infect almost any age turkey but, the disease is more of a problem in poults
during the first few weeks of life. The incubation period of the disease is within five days of
exposure with most cases developing in two to three days. One of the most common signs is a
sudden onset of depression, a drop in consumption of water, decreased appetite, and watery
diarrhea in a large numbers of birds. The affected birds also chirp frequently, lose weight, and
huddle together. Usually the entire flock is exposed to the disease, but mortality associated with the
disease is commonly between 5-50%, but a few outbreaks it has exceed 50%. The number of
affected birds may reach 100%. Flocks that have the disease have growth depression, stunting,
weight loss, poor feed conversion, and are extremely uneven in size.
Lesions:
The lesions found with the disease consist of droopy wings, fecal
staining of feathers, mucus or urates in the feces, pale flaccid small
intestines, watery cecal contents, weight loss, dehydration, and
atrophy of the Bursa of Fabricius. Since the Bursa of Fabricius
produces immunity, the loss of this organ makes birds more
susceptible to other disease organisms. When the disease affects
breeder turkeys the eggshell quality usually deteriorates with eggs
lacking pigment and having chalky shells. The only clinical sign that
may appear in breeder turkeys may be a sudden drop in egg
production.
Virus transmission:
The corona virus is shed in the feces of affected turkeys and is
ingested by other turkeys. Insects are also mechanical vectors for the
transmission of the disease. The disease spreads rapidly within in a
flock and can be carried to other flocks via mechanical vectors such as people, vehicles, equipment,
and animals. The virus is usually shed for several weeks after birds have recovered and can infect
susceptible birds. Since older birds have been identified as a reservoir of infections for younger
birds, it is crucial to avoid having different age birds on the farm.
Prevention and Treatment:
Recovered birds are resistant to infection; however, the extent and nature of the immunity is
not fully understood. Since there is no cure for the disease, supportive care is recommended.
Supportive care might include providing extra heat, use of milk replacers or calcium chloride in the
water to aid in control of dehydration and control of secondary bacterial disease with appropriate
antibiotics. However, supportive care has been used with mixed success in field outbreaks.
Corona viruses are readily inactivated by most common disinfectants, but can persist for
extended periods in dirty or contaminated locations. Farms that have experienced the disease
should be cleaned and disinfected after all fowl have been removed from the premises. Equipment,
vehicles, and anything that will contact birds should be also be cleaned and disinfected. Recent
research has shown that flies may be an important vector for carrying the viruses from house to
house or farm to farm so insect control should be implemented. Additionally, a period of three to
four weeks should elapse before new birds are introduced into the facilities.
The best method to control the disease is to prevent it from entering a flock. A good biosecurity
program should be used to assist in the prevention of accidental introduction of the disease via
vehicles, people, and/or equipment.
Susan Watkins Extension Poultry Specialist
Animal Welfare Audits:
What to Expect and How to
be Prepared
Introduction
In recent years customer demand has pressured restaurant chains and retail food stores to
assure that the meat, egg and dairy products that they sell are produced in a humane manner. The
only practical way these stores and restaurants can provide this assurance is to inspect the
production and slaughter facilities of their suppliers such as poultry companies. For several poultry
operations, animal welfare audits are old news since restaurant chains like McDonalds and
Wendys have been requiring supplier audits for several years. However, as more stores and
restaurants feel public pressure to developed supplier animal welfare criteria, poultry companies
that supply meat to several different customers could face a mass of confusing guidelines and audit
schedules.
The National Council for Chain Restaurants and
the Food Marketing Institute recently addressed the issue
of dozens of types of animal welfare audits.
Representatives from these trade organizations, repre-
sentatives of the different meat and dairy industries as
well as leading animal welfare experts sat down together
to develop one comprehensive audit process. The result
was the Animal Welfare Audit Program. Although the
audit program is strictly voluntary, it will be difficult for
a poultry company to refuse to participate when the
request to participate comes from their best customer.
One very good point about the audit is that customers
will have the option to decide what level of conformance
they are willing to accept. The audit is not a pass or fail
program, but rather a process that looks at how well an
operation is in conformance with industry derived
animal welfare standards.
One major focus of this audit process is an on-
farm inspection. For poultry producers, allowing a
perfect stranger to scrutinize their operation and ask
specific questions about how they rear their birds can be
intimidating. However, by learning the issues that are addressed in an audit, and then preparing
well before any audit occurs, a poultry producer can have a positive experience. Such an approach,
will allow producers to consider the audit process as an opportunity to view their operation through
a fresh and unbiased set of eyes, rather than a necessary evil. In addition, being in conformance with
many of the audit questions is actually a reflection of good poultry husbandry techniques. The
following paragraphs outline areas of the Animal Welfare Audit Process that will be a part of on
farm audits.
Emergency Action Plan
Producers need an emergency action plan that includes contact information for local
emergency services. This list should include not only the fire department and emergency medical
7
AUDITS continued on page 8
services, but also utility company contacts should a power or rural water outage occur. Producers
who use a well as a water source should also include contacts for pump and pressure tank repair on
their emergency contact list. In addition, producers should post a list of poultry company
emergency contacts. Most producers know how to contact their service technicians or feed delivery
personnel, but what if the service person isnt available, who should then be called?
Every facility should also prepare a written emergency action plan that addresses what to do
if the facilities are damaged by a storm, or if the ventilation or heating system fails or the feed auger
breaks. This plan should include procedures to follow to maintain minimum ventilation and
temperature until equipment repairs are completed. After it is written everyone who may potentially
be required to follow that plan should become familiar with the plan and how to follow it.
Since most producers have primary responsibility for their operation, they may feel a bit
annoyed by having to prepare a written plan, but remember, it is very difficult to think clearly during
an emergency particularly one as devastating as a tornado. A plan and list of contacts that are easily
accessible will prevent the confusion often associated with taking action during an emergency
situation. There are two additional reasons why a plan can be beneficial. First, if the producer and
close family members must unexpectedly have to leave the operation, will the person who must fill
in be ready for emergencies? Secondly, putting a plan in writing allows the producer to actually
think through the process and identify any weaknesses with the procedure. A well-prepared plan
could save thousands of birds in an emergency situation.
A producer will also need to demonstrate that some type of alarm system will function
properly should a power failure occur. Producers need to be prepared to show they can be warned
of an emergency situation no matter where they are or what time of the day it is. An alarm that
consists of a flashing light is helpful for personnel who are in sight of the light and so is inadequate.
Producers need to also be ready to prove that the alarm systems are tested at least monthly and the
person responsible for daily bird care must be prepared to show an auditor how the alarm system
works.
Adequate Facilities
Producers must provide adequate lighting during the inspection process. Lights too dim to
allow the auditor to clearly see the birds eyes will not be acceptable. Producers must also be
prepared to address the adequacy of feeding and watering systems. There should be a minimum
ratio of 1 nipple drinker per 20 birds and one feed pan per 65 birds. If the equipment manufacturer
gives different specifications meaning more birds per drinker or feed pan than this, then the
producer should be ready to provide this information in writing. Auditors will also check litter
quality. The litter should never be over 35 % moisture. This can be measured by pressing a handful
together. Upon release the litter should easily crumble apart. If the litter sticks together, then the
moisture would be greater than 35%. A rodent control program will also need to be in place. One
final point that producers will need to work on with their integrators is monitoring the ammonia
level in the bird breathing zone. This must be measured once a week during the last two weeks of
grow-out and when measured, should not exceed 25 parts per million.
Flock and Facility Inspection
An additional focus of the audit process is proof that certain tasks are completed. While any
good producer checks his birds at least twice a day, how can an auditor verify this? There should
also be a mechanism in place, which on a daily basis allows producers to confirm that flock health
as well as the feeding, watering and ventilation systems were checked. And if any of the systems
are not working properly, actions taken to return the equipment to normal working order must be
documented. The flock should be checked at least twice a day and signs of abnormal behavior or
illness should be noted. One way to assure a third party that different tasks are completed is to hang
a check sheet by the door that a producer or hired hand can initial after morning and evening flock
visits. Although the audit process offers producers some freedom in how to prove they are in
conformance with the daily flock inspections criteria, a daily log or check sheet takes all of the
guesswork out of compliance for both the producer and the auditor. In addition, check sheets may
be just the tool needed to discipline employees into conducting a doing thorough checks each time
since good producers will want to confirm everything is O.K. before they sign off on tasks.
A plan and list
of contacts
that are easily
accessible will
prevent the
confusion often
associated
with taking
action during an
emergency
situation.
AUDITS continued from page 7
During the audit, a minimum of 100 birds or 25 birds per house, whichever is more, will be
checked for foot pad scores. Birds with any type of burn, ulceration or damage to the pad will
considered to have injured feet. If more than 30% of the birds checked are considered injured, then
the facility is out of conformance.
Bird Culling
Birds that are unable to stand or move of their own accord should be removed from the flock
on a daily basis and humanely destroyed. Approved methods for culling birds include rapid cervical
dislocation (breaking the neck), rapid decapitation (cutting off the head) or asphyxiation using
carbon dioxide gas. Under no circumstance will it be acceptable for producers to cull birds by
bludgeoning them with a bat or club. Anyone responsible for removing cull birds must show that
they have been properly trained in the appropriate culling techniques. Producers must also prove
that mortality is removed daily from the production area.
Conclusion
The animal welfare audit program offers a new set of challenges to the production of poultry.
Unfortunately, this challenge will not go away as long as less than 2% of the population is producing
food and the other 98% of the population expects some type of assurance that the animal products
they consume were humanly produced. Because of the broad scope of the National Council of
Chain Restaurants and the Food Marketing Institute, most poultry companies will probably be
required to address these standards through on-farm audits. Therefore contract producers that
expect to remain economically viable must be ready to make the transition to animal welfare
auditing. By developing an animal care program that is consistent yet easy for a third person
unfamiliar with the day-to-day operations of their specific farm to understand, producers will be
well on their way to proving their operation is in conformance with the animal welfare standards.
G. Tom Tabler Applied Broiler Research Unit, Manager
and A.M. Mendenhall, Dept. of Poultry Science
Broiler Nutrition, Feed Intake
and Grower Economics
Introduction
Broiler growers spend a good deal of time checking, fixing and adjusting feed lines to make
sure birds have a continuous supply of feed that is easily accessible at all times. However, it
requires ideal management practices coupled with a continuous supply of feed and water to allow
birds the opportunity to perform at their best. Modern genetics and todays broiler diets allow the
bird to go from 1.3 ounces at hatch to 4.5 lbs or more by only six weeks of age. Most of us still have
the same houses and equipment we had several years ago yet our birds grow heavier in less time and
on less feed each year. Nutrition programs and grower management allow the poultry industry to
grow broilers remarkably fast. It is clear that we can no longer manage birds as we always have.
Broiler Nutrition and Grower Economics
Two decades ago the goal of every grower was to ensure that the flock grew as rapidly as
possible. However, the industry has developed a broiler that, if grown as rapidly as possible, will
achieve a body mass that cannot be supported by the birds heart, respiratory system or skeleton.
9
The situation has forced growers to make a choice. Is it
more profitable to grow the biggest bird possible and have
increased mortality due to heart attacks, ascites and leg problems
or should birds be grown slower so that birds are smaller, but
have fewer heart, lung and skeletal problems? As most growers
know, the actual paycheck received for a flock will depend on
many factors, including feed conversion and the pool of growers
that settle when you do. A large portion of growers pay is based
on the pound of salable meat produced, so simple calculations
suggest that it is better to get the weight and ignore the mortality.
Yet, we must remember that feed conversion also has a large
bearing of grower pay. Therefore, every grower must evaluate
his/her own situation to determine the best approach. It is clear,
however, that every management approach should address feed
management.
Feed is by far the single largest cost involved in producing
broilers. Therefore it is important that growers manage feeding
programs to improve efficiency and reduce waste. The problem
with feeding broilers today is not the knowledge of optimum
nutrients to use for maximum gains and feed efficiency, but how
to align the growth of broilers to minimize mortality and skeletal
disorders to produce more saleable meat after processing (Coon,
2002a). Unfortunately, as broiler growers know, not all birds
within a flock grow at the same rate. Even a fairly uniform flock
may have several different sizes and flocks with serious
uniformity problems may have dozens of sizes making proper
culling extremely difficult (Lacy, 2002). It is to every growers
advantage to minimize this flock variation with proper
management and an appropriate culling program. A good
management program will not eliminate size variation, but can
go a long way in reducing it and minimizing its effects.
As birds mature, dietary needs change and these changes
are reflected in the formulation of starter, grower, finisher and
withdrawal diets. While several different diets are fed over the
life of a broiler flock, integrators tend to use a minimum number
of different diets due to additional costly bin space at the feed
mill and greater opportunity for mistakes associated with
additional formulas. Most integrators feed a specific quantity of
starter feed to broilers and then feed the remaining diets based on
a set number of days. In the US, a typical distribution of feed
usage might be starter12%, grower33%, finisher 25%,
and withdrawal30% (Coon, 2002a).
We are able to control feeding and lighting program more
efficiently these days because of solid sidewalls houses. Curtain
sided houses have served the industry well, but do not allow
growers to control of light as well as solid sidewall houses. In
fact, the greatest benefit of solid sidewall houses may be the
growers ability to control light, which controls both feed
consumption and bird activity level. The light control offered by
solid side wall houses allows growers to improve bird
productivity (i.e. weight gain and feed efficiency).
Feed Intake Management
Figure 1 illustrates cumulative feed intake data from the
Applied Broiler Research Unit for 38 continuous flocks of
broilers during the period 1996 through 2003. Cumulative intake
is low while the birds are young and small but increases
dramatically as the birds increase in age and size. By 56 days a
house of 25,000 broilers will consume approximately 300,000
pounds of feed. If the farm has 4 houses that will be
approximately 1,200,000 pounds of feed consumed in only eight
weeks. As a grower, how well you manage that million pounds
of feed delivered to your farm has a huge impact on where you
will rank on the settlement sheet. However, feed management is
more than making sure the feed system is working properly.
Growers should manage the house environment to alleviate as
many stress factors as possible. Birds facing stressful situations
will not convert feed to meat at optimum levels. The greater the
stress level the poorer the conversion rate; and the poorer the
feed conversion rate the farther down the settlement sheet you
fall. Remember that settlement sheet rankings are based pounds
of salable meet and pounds of feed consumed (i. e. feed
conversion ratio).
Management of the feed system can also play a major role
on feed intake and efficiency. Feed lines that are too high restrict
intake by making it difficult for birds to access feed. If the lines
are too low birds tend to keep feed pans too full and waste feed.
Growers should constantly monitor their feed system and make
height adjustments as the birds grow. Feed pans or chick mate
tubes that develop leaks require immediate attention or
replacement. A house environment that is too cold, hot, humid,
or dusty can negatively impact feed consumption. In addition,
too much ammonia will have negative consequences on feed
intake and flock profitability.
Winter can be an especially difficult time for birds (and
growers) because many times growers may be tempted to grow
birds a little cooler than recommended to save a few dollars on
the fuel bill. Although this may sound like a good idea, in
practice it usually produces terrible results. If birds are not
comfortable (too cool), they will consume excess feed in order to
stay warm. The birds use this excess feed used to stay warm not
to add weight and, simply put, this is wasted feed. Wasted feed,
regardless of the reason, results in a poorer feed conversion ratio
and puts a grower farther down the settlement sheet. Thats why,
even though gas may be expensive, it is still cheaper to heat birds
with gas than it is to heat them with feed.
Summary
Formulating and manufacturing these broiler feeds are
only a part of modern broiler production. Each grower must
provide the managerial skills necessary to combine correctly
formulated diets and genetically superior birds so that they
express their full potential. A well-managed feed system and
feeding program is critical success, as is a proper house
environment. Stress levels must be kept at a minimum for birds
to make optimum use of feed. Genetics has produced a bird
capable of remarkable feats. However, genetics must be coupled
with sound nutrition and farm management programs for todays
broiler to perform at its most profitable level.
References
Coon, C. N. 2002a. Broiler Nutr. Pages 243-266 In: (D. B.
Bell and W.D. Weaver, Eds.) Commercial Chicken Meat and
Egg Production, 5
th
Ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands.
Lacy, M. P. 2002. Broiler Management. Pages 829-868 In: (D. B. Bell and W.D. Weaver, Eds.)
Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production, 5
th
Ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
BROILER NUTRITION continued from page 9
Figure 1. Cumulative Feed Intake on 38 Flocks of Straight-Run Broilers at
Applied Broiler Research Unit from 1996 to 2003.
Table 1. Recommended Practical Broiler Nutrient Levels for Straight-Run Broilers
1
Market Wt. % Feed Fed
Kg Lb Starter Grower Withdrawal*
1.75 3.85 25 42 33
2.00 4.40 24 42 34
2.25 4.95 21 45 34
2.50 5.50 17 48 35
2.75 6.05 15 48 37
Starter Grower Withdrawal*
Protein, % 21.50 20.25 18.00
Calories/lb (kcal, ME) 1,400 1,450 1,475
Calories/kg (kcal, ME) 3,080 3,190 3,245
* The withdrawal feed schedule will depend upon the desired market weight. The program presented is based on an average broiler
body weight of 4.15 to 4.25 lbs.
1
Adapted from: (Coon, 2002a).
11
Southern Poultry Science Society, January 26-27, 2004,
Georgia World Congress Center, Atlanta, GA,
U. S. Poultry & Egg Association, (770) 493-9401
International Poultry Exposition, January 28-30, 2004,
Georgia World Congress Center, Atlanta, GA,
U. S. Poultry & Egg Association, (770) 493-9401
Short Course on Modern Poultry Production, February 23-27, 2004,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR,
Frank T. Jones, (479) 575-5443
Coming Events
UA Poultry Science
for Poultry Science
by G.T. Tabler
1
and I.L. Berry
2
INSIDE
page 4
Sexing Chicks in the
Backyard Flock
page 6
Avian Reovirus Infections
by F. Dustan Clark
page 7
Water Intake: A Good
Measure of Broiler
Performance
by G. Tom Tabler
page 10
Exotic Poultry Diseases
by F. Dustan Clark
Advice
AVIAN
LITTER continued on page 2
Nutrient Analysis of Poultry Litter
and Possible Disposal Alternatives
1
2
Department
of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
Introduction
Recent work has shown that a 40 x 400
broiler house will produce about 105 tons of
litter per year (Tabler, 2000). Since there are an
estimated 13,000 broiler houses in Arkansas,
this means that about 1.4 million tons of litter
are generated in the state annually. Manage-
ment of poultry litter has become an important
issue for Arkansas farmers, the poultry industry
and the general public as attention on the
environment increases. New and innovative
methods of utilizing litter continue being
researched, but land application of litter
remains the most common use. Litter contains
essential nutrients for plant growth. It also
contains organic matter that improves soil
characteristics. For both of the above named
reasons, there is rising interest in eastern
Arkansas in using poultry litter as a soil
fertilizer. Also, chicken litter is well known as
a valuable fertilizer for pasture and forage
production which is vital to most Arkansas
cattle operations.
While the fertilizer value of litter is well
recognized, the nutrient concentration of litter
can be extremely variable depending on a
variety of factors. Yet without correctly
sampling and analyzing litter before it is spread,
there is no way to know its fertilizer value. In
addition, soil testing is necessary if land
application of litter is to be done accurately.
Regular analysis of both litter and soil should be
important parts of the Best Management
Practices program on your farm.
Litter Nutrient Analysis
Litter has been shown to vary widely in its
range of nutrient content (Table 1) and a
number of factors can influence the nutritive
value of litter. However, we have probably all
wondered how nutrient concentration of litter
changes with successive flocks. Figure 1
demonstrates the litter nutrient analyses of 9
flocks of 6-week birds grown on the same litter.
Litter nutrients increased rapidly for three
flocks, then slowed in later flocks, but
continued to increase. While all nutrients
increased with successive flocks, nitrogen and
phosphorous assays tended to have more
dramatic increases than potassium and calcium.
The data graphed in Figure 1 are shown in
Table 2 along with other data. Litter pH ranged
from a low of 6.9 after flock 5 to a high of 7.8
after flocks 7 and 9. Litter pH is important
because greater amounts of ammonia are
produced if pH is basic (greater than 7). Litter
treatments that lower ammonia production do
so by lowering the litter pH and making the
litter more acidic (pH less than 7). Moisture
content ranged from a high of 36% after flock 5
(February) to a low of 22.3% after flock 9
(August). Litter moisture was higher from
October through March (colder season of the
year when curtains are closed and minimum
ventilation is used) than from March through
August (warmer season when curtains are
down or tunnel ventilation is in use). This
emphasizes the importance of adequate
ventilation in keeping dry floors. Ash is a
measure of the inorganic (or mineral) portion of
litter. The ash content ranged from 19.6% after
LITTER continued from page 1
flock 1 to 26 % after flocks 3 and 8. These were typical ash
values as chicken litter has a high ash content of roughly 25%.
Data in Table 3 show litter assay values for four years of
broiler production (2 years of 8-week birds and 2 years of 6-week
birds) at the Applied Broiler Research Unit. During this time, a
12-month cleanout schedule was followed each year except for
1996 when cleanout was at 16 months. The nutrient values in
Table 3 are generally higher than those in Table 2, but are well
within the range of values shown in Table 1. The last two
columns show litter production in pounds of litter (as-is and
dry weight) produced per pound chicken liveweight per year.
These units allow the estimation of litter production regardless
of house size, bird numbers or bird size. The averages of 0.55 lb
wet litter, or 0.42 lb dry weight, per lb bird weight, represent the
litter produced by annual cleanouts. Chicken litter is relatively
lightweight, in this case weighing between 30.5 and 41.5 lbs per
cubic foot (Table 3). This fact should assist in determining
transportation and handling costs.
Economics of Litter Disposal
A well-managed, 25,000-bird poultry house can annually
produce 5.5 flocks of birds weighing 4.5 pounds with 94.5%
usable birds that dress 75%. This is equivalent to 414,176 lbs of
marketable whole-bird poultry per year (Doye et al., 1992). This
house will generate about 125 tons of litter annually, or about 0.6
pounds of litter per pound of marketable meat produced.
According to Goodwin (2003), the current hauling cost for a 25
ton tractor trailer load of litter is roughly $3.00/mile. This would
be $0.12/mile/ton or $0.00006/mile/lb. If each bird contributes
0.6 pounds of litter per pound of bird, then the cost of
transporting litter, on a per pound of poultry produced basis is 0.6
x $0.00006/mile/lb, or $0.000036/mile. In plainer English, it
would raise the production cost of poultry $0.000036/pound to
transport litter associated with producing the poultry, 100 miles.
These increased costs will likely have to be passed on to
consumers. It has been estimated that about fifty percent of the
litter in concentrated poultry production areas of the United
States is surplus (i.e. cannot be land applied in that region)
(Wimberly, 2002). Thus, on average, alternatives are needed for
managing approximately 50-70 tons of litter generated each year
at a typical broiler production facility located in such an area
(Wimberly, 2002).
Other Options
Recent environmental concerns have focused increased
attention on developing wider litter use alternatives. One
alternative being examined is using litter as a fuel source for
heating poultry farms. If perfected, such a use would address
some of the environmental concerns associated with traditional
litter management practices and reduce operating expenses
(Wimberly, 2002). However, the challenges associated with
making on-farm litter-to-energy systems a reality are
substantial. Wimberly (2002) reported that there are numerous
advantages associated with large-scale, centralized litter-to-
energy options. Although centralized systems are commercially
proven, to operate efficiently such systems would require the use
of most, if not all the litter in a given area. Thus, centralized litter
to energy systems would require the support of many if not all the
area growers.
Summary
The Arkansas poultry industry generates an estimated 1.4
million tons of broiler litter annually. While litter is still a
valuable fertilizer resource that is needed in many areas, litter
generated in poultry-producing regions cannot be properly
utilized in those regions alone. By some estimates, alternative
uses for perhaps as much as half the litter generated in
concentrated production areas must be found. This may mean
transporting litter to areas in need of its fertilizer and organic
matter, and how best to do this is currently being addressed. One
alternative being examined is using litter as a fuel source. While
on-farm use of litter as a fuel would address many environmental
concerns associated with traditional litter management practices
and reduce operating expenses, the challenges associated with
making on-farm litter-to-energy systems a reality are
substantial. Although there are numerous advantages associated
with large-scale, centralized litter-to-energy options, to operate
efficiently such systems would require the use of most, if not all
the litter in a given area.
References
Berry, I. L. 1997. Litter production at the Broiler Energy
Project. Pages 9-10 In: Progress Report: Broiler Energy Project
1995-97. Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, Coop. Ext.
Ser., Agri. Exp. Sta., University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Table 1. Typical Range of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Values for Broiler Litter
1
% H
2
O N P
2
O
5
K
2
O Ca
<---------------------------lbs/ton------------------------------------->
Minimum 2 22 18 23 18
Maximum 47 98 96 80 108
Mean
2
23 60 58 52 45
1
Adapted from VanDevender et al., 2000.
2
Values are for 2,054 broiler litter samples analyzed by University of Arkansas Agricultural Diagnostics Lab from 1993 to 2000.
3
Doye, D. G., J. G. Berry, P. R. Green, and P. E. Norris. 1992. Broiler production: Considerations for potential growers. Okla. Coop.
Ext. Ser. Fact Sheet 202. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.
Goodwin, H. L. 2003. Personal communication.
Tabler, T. 2000. How much litter do broilers produce? Avian Advice 2(1):6-8.
VanDevender, K., J. Langston, and M. Daniels. 2000. Utilizing dry poultry litter An overview. Arkansas Coop Ext. Ser.
FSA8000-2.5M-12-00RV. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Wimberly, J. 2002. The status of on-farm litter-to-energy systems in the United States. Proc. National Poultry Waste Management
Symposium pp. 53-57.
Table 2. Litter nutrient analysis at Applied Broiler Research Unit during 9-flock growout
1
Flk Length Flocks on pH Moisture Ash N P
2
O
5
K
2
O Ca
Date (Days) same litter
2,3
(%) (%) <--------- lbs/ton on as-is basis---------->
Jun-95 41 1 7.4 33.1 19.6 33.8 42.5 36.6 36.2
Aug-95 41 2 7.6 31.5 22.5 43.6 47.9 44.1 43.0
Oct-95 41 3 7.6 28.7 26.2 51.8 57.7 45.6 46.1
Dec-95 40 4 7.2 33.8 24.6 51.0 51.0 44.2 42.6
Feb-96 45 5 6.9 36.0 24.4 55.3 52.9 48.4 43.2
Mar-96 41 6 7.5 34.7 24.9 53.0 52.8 45.6 41.2
May-96 42 7 7.8 27.3 24.0 62.9 58.2 52.9 47.4
Jun-96 42 8 7.3 28.7 26.0 49.5 59.3 54.2 47.3
Aug-96 43 9 7.8 22.3 22.6 60.3 69.3 58.3 53.5
1
Initial bedding material was 50/50 mix of rice hulls and pine shavings/sawdust.
2
Caked litter was removed after each flock, but samples were taken before cake removal.
3
Figures are averages of four 40 x 400' houses on the farm.
Table 3. Litter production variables from four years of broiler production at the Applied Broiler Research Unit
1
Bird No. of pH H
2
O Ash N P
2
O
5
K
2
O Ca Depth Density Lb Litter
2
/ Lb Dry/
Date Flocks Lb Lb
(Wks) (%) (%) <---Lbs/ton on as is basis--> (in.) (lb/ft
3
) Chicken Chicken
Apr-93 8 6 7.25 23.78 57.7 57.0 64.1 41.7 6.44 30.50 0.484 0.369
Apr-94 8 5 6.87 28.13 27.20 58.1 68.0 49.1 51.0 5.13 37.09 0.649 0.466
Apr-95 6 7 7.61 25.04 26.61 55.9 66.1 52.5 53.2 3.96 35.14 0.544 0.407
Aug-96 6 9 7.80 23.09 23.87 57.5 68.4 58.0 54.2 4.64 41.58 0.540 0.416
AVG: 7.38 25.01 25.89 57.3 64.9 55.9 50.0 5.04 36.08 0.554 0.415
1
Adapted from Berry (1997)
2
As is
Sexing Chicks in the
Backyard Flock
R. Keith Bramwell Extension Poultry Specialist
Cooperative Extension Service Center of Excellence for Poultry Science
Introduction
Many backyard flock owners wonder: When my baby chicks grow up, will they be boys or
girls, roosters or hens, lay eggs to eat or crow endlessly in the early morning hours? Regulations
against owning roosters within city limits may exist in some of the larger cities. Not wanting to
watch roosters fight and possibly injure each other in the hustle to establish dominance in their little
world, or simply wanting to have a flock of only hens to gather the eggs each day for the family to
eat. These are some points that cause concern and are important for the backyard chicken grower
who tries to sex their chickens before they hatch, or grow up in this case.
Old Wives Tales about Sexing
Sexing baby chicks is not an easy process. There are a few
who would try to simplify the matter with old wives tales of
how to sex baby chicks. One method often repeated is tying a
needle or a weight to the end of a piece of string (if the subject to
be tested is an expectant mothers stomach, use a wedding ring on
a string) and hold it over the young animal. One interpretation of
this method says that if the object rotates in a clock-wise circle, it
is a male; if it rotates counter-clock-wise, it is a female. Similarly,
with the same object on a string held over the baby chick, the
motion of the hanging object in any circular pattern indicates a
female while movement of the object back and forth indicates a
male. Success of this method has been reported to be as high as
it will work every time to it works most of the time. In
actuality, one should expect to be accurate about 50% of the time
when determining the sex of baby chicks in this manner (accuracy
may be slightly higher for inherently lucky individuals).
A second method is to observe the shape of an egg to
determine the sex of the potential young chick to be hatched. One
individual explained that the different sexes require different
shaped eggs for optimum growth within the shell and that the
hens body knows which sex the chick would be. Football-shaped
eggs house boy chicks, and more oval or round-shaped eggs will
house girl chicks. He went on to say he was nearly 100%
accurate when sexing chicks by this method. In actuality, the
shell of the egg is formed simply by the presence of any object within the oviduct. Years ago
someone surgically placed an engagement ring in the upper portions of the oviduct and allowed the
hen to form an egg (albumen and shell, no yolk) around the ring. The egg was then given to the girl
in the form of a marriage proposal. The ring had no sex, but the shell was formed regardless.
Similarly, a rock placed in the oviduct or more naturally sometimes detached body tissues in the
oviduct can stimulate the formation of an egg by the hen. The accuracy of this method is about 50%,
again, slightly higher for lucky individuals.
In a recent meeting it was mentioned that birds might be similar to reptiles in that the
temperature in which the eggs are incubated largely determines the sex of the developing chick.
Imagine if this were true, how valuable this would be to the poultry industry! Commercial egg
producers could hatch only young pullets; chicken and turkey meat producers could hatch male
5
All in all, the best way
to sex chickens in the
backyard flock is to
watch them grow.
Coming Events
Annual Nutrition Conference, September 9-11, 2003, Clarion Inn,
Fayetteville, AR, The Poultry Federation (501) 375-8131
Turkey Management Meeting, September 19-20, 2003, Inn of the Ozarks,
Eureka Springs, AR, The Poultry Federation (501) 375-8131
Ozark Producers Symposium, October 7, 2003, Whittaker Arena,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, Dr. Susan Watkins (479) 575-7902
The State Fair, October 10-19, 2003, State Fair Grounds, Little Rock, AR,
State Fair Office (501) 372-8341
Processors Workshop, October 15-17, 2003, Clarion Inn, Fayetteville, AR,
The Poultry Federation (501) 375-8131.
chicks for one market and female chicks for a different market. Unfortunately, it is not quite that
simple in domestic poultry. Too much deviation from the optimum incubation temperatures will
most certainly result in fewer chicks hatched. Likely some of each sex will be lost.
Accurate Methods of Sexing
Fortunately, there are some methods for sexing baby chicks that are actually accurate. Using
our knowledge of genetics with the proper breeding scheme, day old baby chicks can be sexed based
upon their color. This is possible when using what is called sex-linked color traits. Mating barred
hens (black and white striped feathers) with non-barred males results in barred males and non-
barred female chicks. This can also be accomplished using birds carrying specific genes for silver
and gold color patterns in the roosters and hens (silver males bred with gold females results in silver
pullets and gold cockerels). From a genetic standpoint (excluding mutations), this method is always
accurate.
Vent sexing baby chicks is a method popularized in the 1930s by a Japanese professor, Kiyoshi
Masui. Individuals well trained at chick sexing schools can consistently and easily attain greater
than 95% accuracy. This method involves holding the day old chick upside down in one hand and
while visually examining the vent area for the presence or absence of a rudimentary male sex organ.
This method sounds much easier than it really is. After being taught the basics of this technique
from non-professionals, most people would be doing well to obtain 60-70% accuracy at best.
However, if interested, additional written information on this technique can be obtained from the
Center of Excellence for Poultry Science at the University of Arkansas. Most commercial
hatcheries that offer chicks for sale as either pullets or cockerels utilize this method.
All in all, the best way to sex chickens in the backyard flock is to watch them grow. Feed them,
water them, observe them and enjoy them while they mature. As they develop, changes will
become obvious as the males will begin to act manly and their voices will change from the chirping
common to young chicks to attempted crows. In nearly all breeds of chickens (Sebrights being the
exception) the young males feathers will also change from the round oval-shaped feathers
common to hens and young birds to the shiny, more narrow and pointed feathers found on their
necks and at the base of their tails. Additionally, the combs of the young roosters will begin to
develop at an earlier age than they will in females. While this may vary from breed to breed and,
in some breeds, might even be difficult to detect a difference; in most breeds of chickens with large
combs, this is a very obvious distinction between young roosters and hens as they are maturing. In
short, enjoy the birds and watch them grow. This is definitely the most enjoyable method when
establishing a backyard flock.
Summary
While a number of old wives tales exist about sexing chicks, these methods are no better than
flipping a coin. While feather sexing and vent sexing are accurate methods of determining the sex
of chicks, perhaps the best and most enjoyable method is just watching the birds grow.
Avian Reovirus Infections
Reoviruses were
first isolated from
chickens in 1954.
Reoviruses are widespread in nature and have been isolated from a variety of animals. These
viruses have also been isolated from humans and in fact the name reovirus is a mnemonic for
respiratory (r) enteric (e) orphan (o) since the virus was isolated from the human respiratory and
enteric tract, but was not associated with disease. In some species of mammals (primarily mice)
these viruses have caused liver, pancreatic, lung, and heart disease and central nervous system
symptoms.
Avian reoviruses, in the past, have been associated with viral arthritis/tenosynovitis,
malabsorption syndrome, stunting/runting syndromes, enteric disease, immunosuppression, and
respiratory disease. Recently, there have been reports from the field and isolations of reoviruses
from chickens exhibiting neurological signs.
AVIAN REOVIRUS DISEASES
Viral Arthritis - Reoviruses were first isolated from chickens in 1954. This isolate (Fahey-
Crawley) produces viral arthritis/tenosynovitis when inoculated into chickens. In field situation
viral arthritis is seen primarily in meat type strains of chickens, but has been reported in egg type
chickens and in turkeys. While birds are usually affected with the disease at 4-8 weeks of age, older
birds can also be affected naturally and younger birds experimentally. As would be expected, birds
with the disease, varying degrees of lameness is a typical sign of the disease. Some birds may also
be stunted in size. The lesions observed are swelling and inflammation of the hock joint and tendon
sheath with a yellow colored fluid present in the hock. The fluid may be tinged with blood or
occasionally it contains purulent (pus) exudate. As the inflammation progresses over time; scar
tissue forms and may fuse tendons and sheaths together. Bones of the joint may also become eroded
or pitted And rupture of the gastrocnemius tendon may be present.
Mal-Absorption / Pale Bird Syndrome - Reoviruses have also been isolated from birds with
mal-absorption/mal-digestion/pale bird syndrome. Affected birds are stunted, unthrifty, have poor
feed conversions and generally look sick. Orange tinged diarrhea may be present as can be various
degrees of diarrhea and mal-digestion. Some birds may lose color
in the legs and beak while others may have various feather
problems. Mortality is usually low although numerous birds can
be affected. This condition is usually seen between 3-6 weeks of
age and is usually observed in meat type chickens.
Neurological Signs - The newest reported problem in
chickens associated with a reovirus is neurological signs, which
may include: incoordination, tremors, twisted necks, or twitches.
The affected flocks have also had signs of arthritis/tenosynovitis
and malabsorption. The condition has been reported in broiler
breeder replacement pullets in the United States. In Europe a new
reovirus was isolated which caused neurological signs when
injected into Specific Pathogen Free Leghorn chickens.
DIAGNOSIS AND PREVENTION
Viral arthritis can be diagnosed presumptively by signs and
lesions. Microscopic examination of the tendons and tendon
sheaths, serological testing, or virus isolation can also be used.
Mal-absorption is usually diagnosed based on clinical signs or
virus isolation. These diseases can be prevented by vaccination.
Since the virus can be carried mechanically it is important to
7
Avian reoviruses are
widespread in nature
and are known to
cause viral arthritis
and mal-absorption /
pale bird syndrome.
G. Tom Tabler Applied Broiler Research Unit Manager
Water Intake: A Good Measure
of Broiler Performance
utilize good biosecurity and cleaning/disinfection protocols to assist in prevention exposure of
flocks. Fortunately, vaccination programs in breeder birds have helped to reduce the incidence of
this disease in progeny. As new isolates are found, research efforts to provide better more
efficacious vaccines are continuing.
SUMMARY
Avian reoviruses are widespread in nature and are known to cause viral arthritis and mal-
absortion / pale bird syndrome. However, recent field reports have associated the virus with
neurological signs. Vaccination of breeder birds as well as strict biosecurity procedures can
effectively reduce the effects of reoviruses on commercial poultry flocks.
Introduction
Raising broilers has its share of aggravations, not the least of which is never knowing how the
flock is performing until after the flock is sold and the check shows up. Of course, by this time a
new flock may already be in the houses and it is much too late to do anything about the old flock.
Growers can use daily mortality patterns throughout the flock and visual appraisals to get a general
idea of whats going on, but this is a very subjective measure of performance. Dependable bird and
bin scales are commercially available that allow growers to monitor daily feed intake and weight
gains. Unfortunately, because of the expense these scales are out of the question for most producers.
However, there is a reliable way to accurately measure flock performance that you may already
have or can gain access at relatively little expense. Monitoring water consumption on a daily basis
has been shown to be a reliable measure of broiler performance.
Are You Delivering Enough Water?
Water is the most important nutrient consumed by an animal. A bird can survive several
weeks without food, but only a few short days without water. Broilers drink a great deal of water.
During its lifetime, a 5-pound (2.3-kg) broiler will consume about 18 pounds (8.2-kg) of water,
compared to approximately 10 pounds of feed (Lacy, 2002). Pesti and coworkers (1985) estimated
the daily water consumption of broilers by multiplying the age of the bird in days by 0.2 ounces. For
example, a 10-day old bird will drink about 2 ounces of water during a 24-hr period while a 60-day
old bird will drink 12 ounces (or about 355 ml). While it is good to know how much water birds
require, it is also important to be sure that water is delivered to your birds. Nearly every grower has
houses with nipple watering systems and every grower should have one nipple per 10 to 12 birds
at 5 weeks of age. However, Lott and coworkers (2003) have recently found that nipples with low
flow rates can decrease flock performance. These workers found that adequate flow rates (in ml/
minute) could be estimated by multiplying 7 ml times bird age in weeks and adding 20. So,
adequate nipple flow rates for 4-week old birds would be 7 x 4= 28 + 20 = 48 ml/min. Delivering
WATER INTAKE continued on page 8
Water is the most
important nutrient
consumed by an
animal. A bird can
survive several
weeks without food,
but only a few short
days without water.
WATER INTAKE continued from page 7
MORE water than the birds need is not a problem, but delivering
less can reduce performance.
Water Consumption is Correlated with Feed Consumption
A critical fact that producers may not be aware of is that
feed and water consumption are very closely related. Lott and
coworkers (2003) estimate the correlation between feed and
water consumption at 0.98. In short, this means that when water
consumption changes 98% of the time feed consumption
changes. Because of this fact, if we accurately monitor daily
water consumption, we can get a very good idea of daily feed
consumption. Figure 1 shows
daily feed and water consump-
tion patterns for a 56-day flock
of male broilers at the Applied
Broiler Research Unit. We
recorded water in gallons per
1000 birds using our water
meters and feed in pounds per
1000 birds as measured by our
feed bin scales. As would be
expected, both feed and water
intake increase over the 56-day
period, but intake becomes
somewhat more erratic after
day 35. However, notice that
when there is an increase or
decrease in feed or water
consumption, there is a corre-
sponding increase or decrease in the other. We can use this close
correlation to our advantage when assessing flock performance.
If water intake is down on any given day, most likely feed intake
is also down on that day. If water intake is up, feed intake is most
likely up. Notice also that on the days water intake is down, that
day is usually followed by an up day. It is rare for water intake
to be down two or more days in a row unless some type of
problem is present. Perhaps the flock is getting sick or you ran
iodine or bleach that changed the taste of the water. Regardless,
if you monitor water intake and it is down two or more days in a
row, start looking for a problem because something most likely
is wrong. You may wonder if this same feed and water
consumption pattern holds true across time or over numerous
flocks and the answer is yes, but keep in mind that during
summer months when hot weather is a constant challenge to
attempts to keep birds cool, the ratio of water to feed will
increase somewhat as birds drink additional water in to cool
themselves.
Tips on Monitoring Water Consumption
One important fact to remember when you monitor water
consumption using water meters is to make sure you read the
meter at the same time each day. This procedure will assure that
you have accurate 24-hour consumption records. Pick a time to
read the meter that is convenient for you and stick to it. Some of
the more advanced controllers on new or remodeled houses have
the capability to read the water meter for you if programmed to
do so. Even if your controller cannot do this, it only takes a few
seconds to record the meter reading with pencil and paper during
one of your regular house checks. Once you have this type data
collected over several flocks, you can begin to compare flocks
against each other. Save your records and/or build a database on
your home computer that will allow you to quickly access past
flocks to compare with your current flock. Most likely, flocks
where you settled near the top of the list will have greater
consumption of both feed and water than those flocks where you
were average or below. Label your records so that you know
how you performed on each flock and this can help you quickly
assess the status of your current flock at any time during the
grow-out period.
Peak Water Consump-
tion Times and Amounts
Some additional infor-
mation that you may find
useful is when, during the
day, water consumption is
at its peak. This informa-
tion is important when
sizing well pumps and
supply lines from the
water source to the
chicken house. Installa-
tion of too small diameter
pipe in conjunction with a
long run from the water
source to the chicken
house will result in a loss of water pressure by the time water
reaches the chicken house. If the pressure drop is great enough,
it will be difficult to maintain an adequate supply of water to the
birds and cooling systems, especially during times of peak
demand. Data in Table 1 were collected at the Applied Broiler
Research Unit on a late summer-early fall flock (August-
October) of 56-day old male broilers. Although the data were
collected several times per hour, the data were condensed to total
weekly consumption to save space. It is important to understand
that water intake for the times listed include that water consumed
during the previous one hour (i.e., 7:00am includes water
consumed from 6:00 am-7:00am; 5:00pm includes water
consumed from 4:00pm-5:00pm, etc.). Our research indicates
that peak demand is in the morning, not the afternoon, even
though you might think birds would drink the most during the
hottest part of the day. Peak demand usually occurs shortly after
sunrise or shortly after the lights come on if the lighting program
has kept the birds in the dark several hours prior to sunrise.
During the period from day 13-27, peak demand was at the
8:00am hour and during this time the lighting program kept the
birds in the dark from shortly after midnight until sunrise. Only
a small amount of water was consumed at the 7:00am reading
because it was too dark for birds to see to drink until after
7:00am. However, from day 35 until harvest, birds received very
little darkness at night and the peak demand time moved to the
9:00am and 10:00am readings. During the 13-27 day period, the
birds were thirsty at sunrise and drank before eating. Later on,
during the day 35 until harvest period, birds were free to eat and
9
drink most of the night and at sunrise, as light intensity increased,
bird activity also increased but they tended to eat first and drink
later. Highest peak demand was recorded on day 55 during the
8:00am-9:00am hour at 5.55 gals per 1000 birds. Water
consumption in the afternoon hours, especially later in the flock,
never approached morning usage amounts. Keep in mind,
however, that even though water intake by the birds is less in the
afternoon, during hot weather fogging and cool cell systems are
putting added demands on well pumps and supply lines. Failure
to provide adequate size well pumps or supply lines of the proper
diameter can seriously reduce water flow to the poultry house to
the point that water intake by the birds will be restricted, and
therefore, feed intake and growth rate will also be restricted.
When remodeling or retrofitting, be aware that you may need to
install a bigger pump or larger supply lines to provide an
adequate water supply. Make sure supply lines from the water
source to the chicken house are large enough to prevent a huge
pressure drop before water reaches the chicken house.
Summary
Monitoring daily water consumption is a reliable measure
of broiler performance and is much less expensive than bird or
feed bin scales. Feed and water consumption are very closely
correlated so that if you know water intake you can closely
estimate feed intake. Water meters are fairly inexpensive and
when used properly can be an excellent management tool. The
key is to read the meter at the same time every day. Keep a record
of water intake throughout the flock and, after several flocks,
you will have a database of information you can use to compare
the performance of your current flock against past flocks. In this
manner, performance could be monitored on a daily basis or
break flocks into weeks and compare performance on a weekly
basis. A weekly basis may be somewhat more advantageous
because it will average out some of the variability that can occur
on a day-to-day basis. Be aware of the peak water demand at
Table 1. Peak Water Demand Times and Amounts for Male Broilers
1
Flock Age Morning Hours Afternoon Hours
(Weeks) 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am 10:00 am 2:00 pm 3:00 pm 4:00 pm 5:00 pm
1 1.61 2.79 3.83 4.12 2.75 2.75 2.78 2.98
2 5.35 13.77 10.80 10.57 7.47 7.87 8.50 8.48
3 6.26 25.43 16.16 14.36 12.57 12.41 12.65 12.96
4 16.33 22.75 18.23 18.48 17.08 14.41 17.28 17.11
5 15.39 28.52 28.00 26.93 21.05 18.22 21.25 21.36
6 20.87 30.35 31.46 29.94 23.44 19.50 23.09 23.66
7 21.71 27.05 30.82 31.27 24.37 20.53 22.90 23.90
8 19.34 23.53 26.50 23.88 20.56 18.25 18.98 18.80
1
Adapted from 1992 Annual Report
your farm and make sure you have adequate pump capacity and
piping diameter to more than meet this demand. Remember that
restricting water intake will also restrict feed intake and bird
performance.
References
1992 Annual Report. Broiler Research Verification for
Energy Efficiency and Optimum Production. Cooperative
Extension Service and Agricultural Experiment Station,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Lacy, M. P. 2002. Broiler management. Pages 829-868 in:
Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production (D. B. Bell and
W. D. Weaver, Eds.) 5
th
Ed.
Lott, B. D., W. A. Dozier, J. D. Simmons and W. B. Roush.
2003. Water flow rates in commercial broiler houses. Poultry
Science 82(Suppl. 1):102 [S56].
Pesti, G. M., S. V. Amato, and L. R. Minear. 1985. Water
consumption of broiler chickens under commercial conditions.
Poultry Sci. 64:803-808.
Correlation of Broiler Feed and Water Intake*
D
a
i
l
y

F
e
e
d

I
n
t
a
k
e
(
L
b
s
/
1
0
0
0

b
i
r
d
s
)
D
a
i
l
y

W
a
t
e
r

I
n
t
a
k
e
(
G
a
l
s
/
1
0
0
0

b
i
r
d
s
)
* Adapted from 1992 Annual Report.
Exotic Poultry Diseases --
An Update
Introduction
Eradication costs associated with exotic poultry disease outbreaks in the United States
typically run about $1 million per day of the outbreak and these diseases have the potential to
cripple or destroy the industry. Two diseases, Exotic Newcastle (END) and Avian Influenza (AI),
are listed on the Office of International Epizootics A list of reportable diseases. Outbreaks of both
of these diseases have occurred recently in the United States. In addition, an Avian Influenza
outbreak has recently occurred in Europe. Therefore, it would appear that an update is in order.
Exotic Newcastle
Exotic Newcastle disease was confirmed in
the United States in California on October 1,
2002. The disease was present in a gamefowl
flock in the Los Angeles area. The disease
spread in Southern California and to two
other states, Nevada and Arizona. In
California, the disease involved backyard
birds, hobby flocks, gamefowl and
commercial table egg chickens. A total of
920 premises were positive for END in
California. A total of 18,427 premises were
quarantined. The number of commercial
premises quarantined in the END outbreak
was 22.
An outbreak of END was also reported in
Nevada on January 16, 2003 and in Arizona
on February 4, 2003. The virus in these
outbreaks was the same strain as the END
virus in California. In Nevada a total of 155
premises were quarantined with 10 premises
positive for END. In Arizona 67 premises
were quarantined and only 1 premise was
positive. No commercial birds were affected
in the outbreaks in Nevada and Arizona.
An outbreak of END was also found in El
Paso, Texas on April 9, 2003, but this virus
was a different strain than the California
virus. A total of 497 premises were
quarantined in Texas with only 1 premise
positive for END. A federal quarantine was
also placed on 2 counties in New Mexico. No
commercial birds were affected in the Texas
END outbreak.
The disease has been eradicated in Nevada,
Arizona, and Texas. No new positives have
11
Exotic poultry
diseases have the
potential to cripple or
destroy the
industry. Since
exotic poultry
diseases are
continually present
worldwide, vigilance
and biosecurity are
necessary to prevent
a devastating
outbreak in the
poultry industry.
been seen in California since May 31, 2003. The cost of eradication is still to be determined, but
trade costs impacts have been estimated to be over $77 million in direct trade costs and over $74
million in indirect trade costs. A total of 3, 923,678 birds were depopulated in California to date.
The numbers of birds depopulated in the other states are as follows: 2,746 in Nevada, 269 in
Arizona, and 1,871 in Texas. Most of the federal quarantines in all states except California have
been lifted and authorities are working in California to lift the quarantines as soon as possible.
Avian Influenza
High Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) was confirmed in the Netherlands on March 31,
2003. This was the first case of HPAI ever reported in that country. Massive eradication and clean-
up procedures were undertaken and the last positive case was reported on May 23, 2003. A total of
255 farms were found to be infected with HPAI and approximately 27 million birds were
depopulated during the outbreak. All poultry exports were banned from the Netherlands during the
outbreak.
The HPAI outbreak in the Netherlands spread to Belgium with HPAI confirmed in Belgium
on April 18, 2003. This outbreak was also Belgiums first ever recorded HPAI. Like the
Netherlands, Belgium undertook extensive containment and control measures. The last positive
case in Belgium was reported on April 28, 2003 and restrictive measures except for surveillance
were lifted on June 12, 2003.
HPAI was also confirmed in Germany on May 13, 2003. Only one premise was affected.
Control measures for the disease in Germany were lifted on June 25, 2003. The outbreaks in Europe
are considered over with only surveillance efforts still in place in the affected countries. It is
estimated that 30 million birds were depopulated during the outbreaks with 90% of these in the
Netherlands.
Low Path Avian Influenza (LPAI) was diagnosed on March 5, 2003, on a table egg farm in
Connecticut. The virus was identified as H7N2 similar to the type in the Virginia outbreak in 2002.
Two Connecticut poultry facilities are currently under quarantine. Both of the facilities are multi-
house, multi-age egg layer operations and are located near Lebanon and Bozrah, Connecticut. The
number of birds under quarantine is approximately 4.7 million. Surveillance efforts are being
conducted in the New England states to check for possible spread of the disease. Swab samples
taken in April in Rhode Island were positive for H7N2 virus similar to LPAI found in the live bird
markets of the Northeast. The premise sampled in Rhode Island is under state quarantine and
surveillance is continuing. Most LPAI strains cause few (if any) clinical signs in infected birds;
however, some strains are capable of mutating into HPAI.
Summary
Exotic poultry diseases have the potential to cripple or destroy the industry. Since exotic
poultry diseases are continually present worldwide, vigilance and biosecurity are necessary to
prevent a devastating outbreak in the poultry industry.
UA Poultry Science
for Poultry Science
by G.T. Tabler and R.K. Bramwell
INSIDE
page 3
Litter Amendments as a
Tool for Optimizing
Poultry House Clean Out
by Susan Watkins,
Melony Wilson and Jana
Cornelson
page 6
Are Hummingbirds a
Biosecurity Threat?
by Frank Jones
page 7
Coming Events
page 8
Feed Intake Critical to
Growth Rate of Turkeys
by G. Tom Tabler
page 10
Effect of Summer Heat
Stress on Poultry
Breeding Stock
page 12
Unit Performance Report
by G. Tom Tabler
Advice
AVIAN
MANAGING continued on page 2
Summer 2003 Volume 5, Number 2
Introduction
Managing the modern broiler breeder fe-
male so that she will produce a large number of
high quality hatching eggs is a delicate combi-
nation of both art and science. Over the past
few decades, broiler breeders have undergone
intensive selection for faster growth rate, in-
creased yield and improved feed conversion.
Although these traits are measured at the broiler
level, they impact the breeder hen in ways we
often do not consider. The objective with broiler
breeders is to have them consume an ideal
amount of nutrients within a given time period
to produce a bird whose weight, body condi-
tion and frame allow the reproductive organs to
mature and function at their best. How do we
combine art and science to manage the sexual
maturation of todays broiler breeder female?
Photostimulation
One of the most critical time periods in
broiler breeder hen management is the time from
photostimulation (lighting) to peak production
(Robinson, 1995). This period is characterized
by relatively fast weight gains, in addition to
changes brought about by the development of a
functioning, hormone-producing ovary. Light-
ing the breeder pullet flock is generally
considered the cue to initiate puberty, although
the response to lighting can be modified by the
feeding program.
At photostimulation, light energy passes
through the skull of the breeder pullet into the
brain and illuminates the hypothalamus. The
hypothalamus in the brain is much like the main
circuit breaker in a house; it controls a variety
of body processes including reproduction. The
Managing Todays
Broiler Breeder Female
brain acts in concert with the liver, skeletal sys-
tem, ovary and oviduct to make up the
reproductive system in the breeder hen. After
the hypothalamus receives a photostimulatory
signal (long day length above a certain thresh-
old of intensity), the hypothalamus secretes
specific hormones that travel to the anterior pi-
tuitary portion of the brain (Robinson, 1999).
The anterior pituitary produces hormones
known as Luteinizing hormone and Follicle
Stimulating hormone that travel to specific tis-
sues in the ovary to stimulate ovarian function.
One of the first responses seen when look-
ing at the ovary of the pullet after lighting, is
that the tiny ovarian follicles begin to increase
in size. These small follicles produce large quan-
tities of estrogens. Estrogen causes most of the
reproductive transformation associated with pu-
berty. Firstly, estrogen increases the production
of yolk precursors in the liver of the bird. Vis-
ibly, the liver can be seen to enlarge and become
paler as it increases in fat content for produc-
tion of egg yolk lipids. Secondly, the oviduct
increases in size, as it must be ready to receive
ovulated follicles by the time the ovary has
mature follicles ready to ovulate. Thirdly, es-
trogen results in changes to bone composition,
so that calcium can be mobilized daily to facili-
tate egg shell formation. Finally, estrogen,
together with male sex hormones, results in
changes to plumage, comb size and sexual re-
ceptivity to males (Robinson, 1995).
Traditionally, flocks receive photo stimu-
lation when they are 20-22 weeks of age
resulting in onset of egg production at approxi-
mately 24-25 weeks of age. This program tends
2 AVIAN Advice Summer 2003 Vol. 5, No. 2
MANAGING continued from page 1
to maximize egg numbers, but may result in eggs that are smaller
than standard early in the laying cycle. It also often results in
egg production before hens are capable of producing a quality
germ cell. Lighting birds later than 20-22 weeks allows females
to become larger and more mature at the onset of production.
Unfortunately, lighting birds later will likely also delay egg pro-
duction until 25-26 weeks. However, this may or may not affect
the total number of hatching eggs produced.
Ovulatory Cycle
Yolk is deposited into follicles as they proceed through the
hierarchy to become mature. Two requirements must be met for
the follicle to ovulate. First, the follicle must send a hormonal
signal to the hypothalamus through the release of progesterone
that signals that it is mature. Second, the hypothalamus must
receive the signal from the mature follicle during a 6 to 8 hour
period of the day in which the hypothalamus is responsive to the
progesterone signal (Robinson, 1999). Follicular maturation typi-
cally takes longer than 24 hours, which means, consequently,
that the ovulatory cycle is set back slightly each day as eggs are
laid progressively later in each day similar to the sequence shown
in Table 1. Hens that have slow rates of follicular maturation
(26-28 hours or more) lay short (2-3 day) sequences. On the
other hand, hens that lay very long sequences typically have
maturation rates of 24 hours, or perhaps less. Sequence length
changes throughout the egg production year with the longest
sequences seen at the time of peak production at about 30-35
weeks of age. All hens lay one characteristically long sequence
of eggs known as the prime sequence which in broiler breed-
ers is usually about 20 eggs in length (Robinson, 1999).
Feed Requirements
While feeding programs differ across the country due to
differences in integrators, complexes, weather conditions, sea-
sons and genetic strains of birds, it is important to be continually
adjusting the feeding program to provide the nutrients needed
for optimum performance. Breeders require these nutrients for
body maintenance, growth and egg production.
Body maintenance requirements, which include maintain-
ing body temperature and systems within the bird that allow for
digestion, respiration, excretion and immune response, range
from 50 to 75% of a hens daily needs. As with most animals,
body maintenance needs have priority, since the breeder hen must
maintain her own body to survive. While the growth needs of
hens during the post-peak production period do not contribute
greatly to the hens daily nutrient requirements, pre-peak growth
can be substantial. Nutrient needs for reproduction are a func-
tion of the number and size of eggs produced. In general, egg
production exerts more influence on nutrient requirements than
does egg size. This is part of the reason a service technician
always has his/her calculator in hand and adjusts the feed allo-
cation on each visit to the farm. This is an attempt to maximize
egg numbers and keep hen body weight on target, since
overwieght hens produce fewer eggs than trimmer hens.
Flock Uniformity
Flock uniformity is critical to proper feed allotments. If there
is a great deal of variability in body weight, and all birds have
equal opportunity to eat, the small birds will over-consume and
larger birds will under-consume in relation to their nutrient re-
quirements (Robinson, 1999). Uniformity issues are most critical
at the time of photo stimulation and will usually result in poor
peak performance as well as significant problems in post peak
periods. In non-uniform flocks, birds receive the same feed al-
Table 1. Times of oviposition for individual hens laying 2- to 7-egg sequences
1
.
Sequence Time of Oviposition
Length
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7
2 eggs 09:28 AM 01:30 PM
3 eggs 08:08 AM 11:26 AM 02:40 PM
4 eggs 08:20 AM 09:45 AM 01:45 PM 03:37 PM
5 eggs 07:56 AM 09:03 AM 10:45 AM 01:11 PM 03:05 PM
6 eggs 07:20 AM 07:59 AM 09:04 AM 10:11 AM 12:56 PM 03:40 PM
7 eggs 07:47 AM 08:15 AM 09:20 AM 09:40 AM 11:36 AM 01:09 PM 03:24 PM
1
Adapted from Robinson, 1999.
3
lotment, but feeds are formulated for birds in lay. Since birds in
lay have higher nutrient requirements than non-laying birds, non-
laying birds will over consume relative to their requirements and
get fat, which will hinder future performance. Clearly, unifor-
mity is necessary to obtain peak performance in breeder females.
Summary
Properly managing the sexual maturation of the modern
broiler breeder female is critical to obtaining a high peak and
large overall number of quality hatching eggs. The most critical
management period for broiler breeders is from photo stimula-
tion (lighting) to peak production. Management deficiencies
during this period are always costly and often cannot be com-
pensated for at a later date. Broiler breeders require nutrients for
maintenance, growth and egg production. Maintenance needs
are met first and until that happens, growth and egg production
are reduced. Adjusting the feed allotment throughout the lay cycle
controls bird nutrient intake. Intake must be strictly controlled
to prevent hens from becoming overweight resulting in decreased
egg production. Flocks must be uniform in weight and body con-
dition in order to properly allocate feed allotments. Uniformity
is especially critical at the time of lighting. Flocks that vary ex-
cessively in uniformity are nearly impossible to properly manage
from a feed allotment standpoint. This will have a negative im-
pact on performance and may lead to a low, flat peak and de-
creased overall production. Remember that the key to managing
the modern broiler breeder female is a combination of 1) correct
body weight and uniformity, 2) light stimulation, and 3) feed
stimulation. A sound, consistent management program must be
in place that will address each of these areas in order to be suc-
cessful.
References
Robinson, F.E. 1995. Broiler breeder research update: Lim-
iting ovarian development to maximize chick production in
broiler breeders. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada. Available at: {Accessed 11/26/02}.
Robinson, F.E. 1999. Management for control of ovarian
development in broiler breeders. Ross Technical Bulletin. April
1999. Ross Breeders, Inc.
Susan Watkins, Melony Wilson and Jana Cornelson
Litter Amendments as a Tool for
Optimizing Poultry House Clean Out
1
Introduction
Cleaning and disinfecting poultry houses can be a crucial
step in providing a healthy environment for a profitable poultry
business particularly when disease issues are present or unex-
plainable poor performance consistently occurs in flocks.
However, research has shown that many times when we clean
out the litter in a poultry barn and then wash and disinfect the
barn, the number of bacteria or microbes living on the floor of
that barn might still be very high, particularly if the floor is still
damp or wet when new bedding is added. The reasons for this
include the high level of organic matter or litter that is still present,
the soil or dirt floor and the fact that poultry houses just arent
LITTER AMENDMENTS continued on page 4
designed for thorough cleaning and disinfecting. Most of the
disinfectants with the exception of formaldehyde have little ef-
fectiveness in the presence of dirt, manure and debris. While not
all microbes that are classified as bacteria, yeast, molds or vi-
ruses cause disease, it can be difficult and expensive to isolate
the ones that are a threat. Therefore, the goal of any good sanita-
tion program should be to reduce the numbers as drastically as
possible of all microbes present in the poultry house, particu-
larly in the two key areas that can have a huge impact on bird
health the floor and the drinking water. By paying close at-
1
The use of trade names in this publications does not imply endorsement by
the Cooperative Extension Service, the Center of Excellence for Poultry
Science or the University of Arkansas of the products mentioned, nor criti-
cism of similar products not mentioned.
2
PLT, Manufactured by Jones-Hamilton Company
3
Poultry Guard, Manufactured by Oil Dri
4
AL+Clear A7, Manufactured by General Chemical
tention to how these areas are cleaned and sanitized, producers
have the greatest chance of breaking disease cycles.
Pad Treatment Evaluation
One method that is becoming popular for minimizing dis-
ease-causing organisms is treating the floor or pad with an
acidifying litter amendment. Litter amendments such as
AlClear, Poultry Guard or PLT contain sulfuric acid or a
substance that will convert to sulfuric acid if moisture is present.
By dropping the pH of the floor to below 4, it creates a hostile
environment where very few microor-
ganisms can survive. Work done by
Hardin and Roney at the Alabama Di-
agnostic Laboratory showed that by
dropping the pH to 4 or below, such
troublesome bacteria as E. coli,
Clostridium and Salmonella can be re-
duced to undetectable levels. Therefore
acidifying the pad is like a shock treat-
ment that can be almost equivalent to
returning the pad or floor to the bacte-
rial status of a new poultry barn.
Many producers have asked which
of the acidifying litter treatments are most effective as pad treat-
ments. To answer this question an experiment was conducted in
a turkey brood house that had been washed and disinfected after
the litter was removed. Each treatment was assigned to four 30-
square-foot plots. The treatments were PLT
2
, Poultry Litter Treat-
ment, at rate of 100 pounds/1000 square feet; Poultry Guard
3
at
a rate of 100 pounds/1000 square feet; and the high acid liquid
aluminum sulfate, AL
+
Clear A7
4
, at a rate of 25 gallons/1000
square feet. Four plots were left untreated. The untreated plots
served as a baseline for what happens on a clean disinfected
floor when no treatments are applied. Prior to application of prod-
ucts, soil samples were taken to determine the initial pH and
moisture level of the soil, and the plots were then swabbed to
determine the amount of aerobic (oxygen loving) bacteria as well
as yeast and mold counts. Yeast and mold were measured be-
cause they are acid tolerant and this usually makes them
especially hardy. After application of the products, the plots were
re-swabbed at two, 24 and 48 hours. At the 48-hour sampling
time, shallow soil samples were again taken so that a final soil
pH and moisture level could be correlated to the effectiveness of
the treatments.
Table 1 shows that before any treatment was used, the aero-
bic bacteria counts that were picked up on the sterile sponges
ranged from six to 10 million colony forming units of bacteria.
While the exact type of bacteria found in this test is not known,
millions of bacteria still living on the floor of the barn 24 hours
after the house has been washed and disinfected is an indicator
that the sanitation program could be better. After the litter amend-
ments were applied to their plots, the counts dramatically dropped
to less than 200 colony forming units of bacteria for each of the
treatment groups and remained below this level 48 hours after
treatment. The untreated plots had aerobic bacteria levels start-
ing at six million and the counts continued to increase to 28
million colony-forming units at the 48-hour sampling time.
LITTER AMENDMENTS continued from page 3
The results for yeast and mold were very similar with all
treatments effectively reducing the levels as compared to the un-
treated plots (Table 2 and 3). Before treatments, yeast and mold
levels were around 15,000 to 21,000 colony forming units per
sponge, and post treatment, all litter amendments dropped the
counts to below 100, while the counts for the untreated plots
continued to remain in the thousands. Looking at the pH and
moisture levels pre and post treatments gives us good clues as to
why the litter treatments might be an effective tool in dropping
the microbial counts (Table 4). The pH level of the untreated
floor was in the range of 7 or slightly above.
Results from the Hardin and Roney test show
that this pH level is very favorable for many
things to grow and thrive. When the litter
amendments were top dressed on the surface,
the soil pH dropped to 3 or below. Again this
harsh pH range favors little microbial growth.
The information about the soil moisture may
be the key clue as to why the untreated plots
continued to have high levels of microbial
growth. Most microbes need moisture in or-
der to thrive and grow. With the thorough
wash-down, there were at least 500 or more
gallons of water added to the poultry house. The floor even three
days after the wash-down still had 21 to 26% moisture. Had we
continued to test the moisture level of the soil for several more
days it may have dried out with the result of less microbial activ-
ity present. Certainly the drier the environment, the less likely
that things like E. coli or Salmonella will be able to survive.
Summary and Conclusions
These results indicate that litter treatments that acidify the
pad or floor to a pH level of 3 or less can be used to reduce
microbial levels. While the microbial levels of aerobic bacteria,
mold and yeast that were measured in this trial do not tell us
whether the microbes are harmful or not, it is still the goal of
sanitation programs to clean the house as thoroughly as pos-
sible. Good sanitation procedures are the key to breaking disease
cycles. Unfortunately poultry houses arent very cleanout
friendly, and sometimes when disease issues become a dominat-
ing factor in a poultry operation, it may be time to take drastic
measures to assure that all disease-causing organisms are reduced
as much as possible and to do so in a manner that will help en-
hance bird health and growth.
Reference
Hardin, Boyd E., and C.S. Roney, Effects of pH on selected
poultry bacterial pathogens, Alabama Dept. of Agriculture and
Industries, State Diagnostic Lab, Boaz, AL.
5
Table 4. The pH and moisture content of the floor of a turkey brood
house before and after treatment with litter amendments
Pre Treatment 48 Hours Post
1
Pre Treatment 48 Hours Post
Treatment Treatment
pH of soil sample Moisture % in soil sample
Control 7.49 7.27a 23.85 20.28
AL Clear A7 7.28 3.05b 21.23 26.20
PLT 7.17 2.61b 20.13 21.58
Poultry Guard 7.10 2.46b 19.80 25.23
SEM .46 .20 4.61 4.97
P Value .9388 .0001 .9218 .8064
1. Numbers in each column with different letters were statistically different at the P value given.
Table 3. Yeast counts on the floor of a turkey brood house
before and after treatment with three litter amendments
Pre Treatment
1
2 Hours Post 24 Hours Post 48 Hours Post
Treatment Treatment Treatment
Yeast Colony Forming Units/sample
Control 11750a 20850a 8250a 3750a
AL Clear A7 6700a 27b 1b 10b
PLT 6950a 4b 4b 3b
Poultry Guard 3150a 8b 4b 3b
1. Numbers with different letters were statistically different at the P=.0001 level.
Table 2. Mold counts on the floor of a turkey brood house
Pre Treatment
1
Mold Colony Forming Units/sample
Control 21,000a 21,750a 13,750a 30,425a
AL Clear A7 26,500a 131b 9.5b 54b
PLT 21,750a 6.75b 11.25b 9.00b
Poultry Guard 15,350a 7.25b 8.25b 4.75b
Table 1. Bacterial counts on the floor of a turkey brood house
Pre Treatment
1
APC Colony Forming Units/sample
Control 8,525,000a 6,825,000a 22,300,000a 28,250,000a
AL Clear A7 7,917,500a 164b 192b 108b
PLT 6,732,500a 66b 91b 22b
Poultry Guard 10,202,500a 6b 14b 4b
Good sanitation
procedures are
the key to breaking
disease cycles.
Are Hummingbirds a
Biosecurity Threat?
Introduction
Hummingbirds are truly amazing creatures. The ruby-throated hummingbird, which is most
common in Arkansas, weighs about 1/10th of an ounce (3 grams), has a wing beat of 40 to 80 times
per second and a heart rate of an amazing 1,200 beats per minute (20 per second) when feeding.
Their normal flight speed is about 30 mph, but during escape attempts they can fly at speeds of 50
mph. Hummingbirds are thought to have 8x binocular vision, so that they can see a feeder from
about 3/4 of a mile (Anonymous, 2003a). The diet of hummingbirds is primarily nectar, but they
will consume small insects and spiders. Hummers will eat about twice their body weight each day
and require about 7,000 calories each day, which is over three times the amount required by hu-
mans (Harris and Nauman, 2000).
The ruby-throated hummingbird is a migratory bird that spends spring and summer in the
United States and Canada, while spending fall and winter in Central America and Mexico. Hum-
mingbirds migrate across the Gulf of Mexico twice a
year (spring and fall), with each trip taking 18 to 24
hours. They arrive on the U. S. Gulf coast in late Feb-
ruary or early March and are believed to advance
northward at a rate of about 18 miles per day (Anony-
mous, 2003a). Hummingbirds mate and raise young in
the U.S., but tend not to gather in large groups except
during migration and are not especially social. Hum-
mingbirds mass along the Gulf coast to store up to half
their body weight in fat for the 18-to-24-hour non-stop
flight back to Mexico and Central America. (Harris and
Nauman, 2000). The bulk of the hummingbird popula-
tion returns southward in early to mid November, but
the grueling migration process takes a heavy toll on the
hummingbird population, particularly on very young
and very old birds. There are always fewer birds in the
spring migration than there are in the fall migration
(Anonymous, 2003a).
While hummingbirds are certainly fascinating to
watch and discussions of their habits and characteris-
tics are interesting, what do hummingbirds have to do
with biosecurity? Can hummingbirds transmit disease?
Is it a biosecurity risk to feed hummingbirds? While
these are all valid questions, there are few clear-cut answers. Whether or not hummingbirds are a
biosecurity risk is a judgment call. Thus, the remainder of this article will be aimed at presenting
both sides of the issue so that the reader can decide for him/herself on this issue.
Reasons Hummingbirds MAY be a Biosecurity Threat
Hummingbirds ARE birds and as such are likely to be susceptible to or carry any number of
diseases, including Avian Influenza (AI) and Exotic Newcastle Disease (END). Hummingbirds
spend the winter months in Central America and Mexico, where foreign diseases (including END)
are often found. Because of their speed, quickness and small size, humans rarely touch humming-
birds, but their excreta is deposited on the ground and would tend to be concentrated around feeders
Frank Jones Extension Section Leader
7
since their tremendous metabolic rate requires constant feeding. Although the diet of humming-
birds consists mainly of nectar, they do consume insects, and insects are known to carry a wide
variety of diseases. While few hummingbirds have been tested for disease transmission, and objec-
tive laboratory results are difficult to find, West Nile Virus has been isolated from ruby-throated
hummingbirds (Anonymous, 2003b).
Reasons Hummingbirds MAY NOT be a Biosecurity Threat
Neither the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, nor the California Veteri-
nary Diagnostic Laboratory (CVDL) in San Bernardino, Calif., have isolated Avian Influenza (AI)
or Exotic Newcastle Disease (END) from hummingbirds. In addition, officials in neither labora-
tory recall reading literature reports of AI or END isolations from hummingbirds. In view of the
fact that CVDL is presently dealing with an END outbreak, it would appear that if hummingbirds
were a serious threat it would have been reported. Hummingbirds arrive in the spring and early
summer when heat and sunlight tend to reduce virus numbers in the environment, so the chances of
infection are reduced. Furthermore, since the diet of hummingbirds is primarily nectar, they tend
to frequent flowers and would have little contact with other birds. While hummingbirds battle
around feeders, they tend not to congregate in large flocks so the chances of bird-to-bird disease
transmission are reduced. Also, the extremely rapid metabolic rate of hummingbirds and their
intense need for frequent food sources might reduce tolerance for illness. Sick hummingbirds
would be likely to be quickly incapacitated and die, so that poultry and other birds are less likely to
be exposed of sick carrier hummingbirds. In fact, there is, at this moment, no direct evidence
linking hummingbirds to exposure of poultry to END or AI.
References
Anonymous. 2003a. Ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris). The Hummer/bird
Study Group, Inc. http://www.hummingbirdsplus.org/ruby.html. Visited 5/6/03.
Anonymous, 2003b. Species found positive for WNV in surveillance efforts. USGS National
Wildlife Health Center. http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/research/west_nilt/wnvaffected.html. Visited
5/7/03.
Harris, M.S. and R. Nauman. 2000 Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated hummingbird.
University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology, Animal Diversity Web. http://animaldiversity.ummz.
umich.edu/accounts/archilochus/a._colubris$narrative.html. Visited 5/6/03.
Coming Events
Breeder Roundtable, June 23, 2003, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,
Ark., Dr. Keith Bramwell (479) 575-7036
Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting, Madison, Wis., July 6-9,
2003, Poultry Science Association (217) 356-3182
Annual Poultry Science Youth Conference, July 15-18, 2003, Fayetteville,
Ark., Gary Davis (479) 575-7526
Hatchery Breeder Clinic, July 15-16, 2003, Marriott Marquis Hotel,
Atlanta, Ga., U.S. Poultry and Egg Association (770) 493-9401
Whether or not
hummingbirds are
a biosecurity risk
is a judgment call.
G. Tom Tabler Applied Broiler Research Unit (Savoy) Manager
Feed Intake Critical to
Growth Rate of Turkeys
Introduction
Arkansas is ranked third in turkey production nationally, outpaced only by Minnesota and
North Carolina. Each year the primary turkey breeders supply the industry with birds that are
genetically capable of faster growth rates and improved feed efficiencies. It is up to the integrators
and growers to do the rest.
Starting Early
Given proper conditions, the turkey grows at a remarkably fast pace. It will have multiplied its
hatching weight by more than 20 times by 28 days of age. By 20 weeks of age, males will have
multiplied their original poult weight by almost 300 times (Nixey, 1989). To achieve this feat in a
normal manner requires considerable demands on nutrient intake.
Nutritional demand is high when poults arrive at the farm, so it is critical to maximize feed
intake from day one. In fact, recent reports indicate poults that experience poor early growth never
fully regain the weight they have lost by market age (Mitchell, 2002).
Management and Environment
Turkeys require your managerial skills to provide them with an environment that will allow
them to utilize feed to their full potential. Possibly the most critical time for your management
skills to be at their sharpest is during the first six weeks of the young poults life. If poults receive
a poor start during this period, it doesnt matter how good your management program is later on;
you simply will not be able to re-capture what has been lost in terms of growth and performance.
Feed intake and utilization is more critical during the first six weeks of life than at any other period
in the growout.
Excellent management and high-quality feed must work in combination to reach expected
performance levels. In most cases, you have high-quality birds in your houses and high-quality
feed in your bins. When that is the case, your management skills will be the determining factor to
how well the flock performs. The importance of the brooding period, especially the first two weeks,
cannot be overemphasized. Temperature (both air and floor), litter conditions, ventilation, humid-
ity, dust, ammonia, CO
2
and other air quality parameters should be at recommended levels at all
times. Proper assistance with feeders and drinkers must be provided to newly arrived poults. Proper
assistance means being there when needed but also leaving them alone when they need to rest.
Follow integrator guidelines but be aware that you cannot manage your farm simply by the book.
It doesnt matter how good the book actually is, sooner or later you will be faced with situations
that arent in the book. For those situations, on-the-job training will have to get you through. No
one knows your farm better than you, so take advantage of that fact. You know how your houses
react to changing weather conditions and how your birds respond to different conditions. Chang-
ing conditions should prompt you to take action in a timely manner and in response to what your
turkeys are telling you. By doing so you will more likely keep a steady, consistent environment
which is more beneficial to the turkeys than wide swings in temperature and air quality variables
which put stress on the respiratory and immune systems.
Nutritional demand
is high when
poults arrive
at the farm,
so it is critical
to maximize
feed intake
from day one.
9
Summary
Primary turkey breeders supply the commercial turkey industry with birds that, each year, are
genetically capable of improved feed efficiencies and faster growth than the year before. Excellent
on-farm management is required throughout the life of the flock, if optimum feed intake is to be
achieved allowing birds to perform to their genetic potential.
Managerial skills of individual turkey growers play a key role in keeping feed intake high
from day one. The importance of the first two weeks of the brooding period must not be taken
lightly. This period sets the stage for performance throughout the entire flock. Poults must receive
a good start if we expect them to meet expectations at harvest time. Pay close attention to air and
floor temperature, litter conditions, ventilation rates and air quality parameters at all times. Make
adjustments as needed and in a timely manner to prevent little problems from becoming worse. By
staying on top of things, it will be easier to maintain a quality, consistent environment at all times.
A quality environment will reduce bird stress and help maintain high feed intake necessary for
optimum performance.
References
Mitchell, R. 2002. Opportunities for improving poult performance with feed. Multi-State Poultry
Meeting. May 14-16. Indianapolis, IN.
Nixey, C. 1989. Nutritional responses of growing turkeys. In: Recent Advances in Turkey
Science (C. Nixey and T. C. Grey, eds.), pp 183-199. Butterworth and Co., London.
Managerial skills
of individual
turkey growers
play a key role in
keeping feed intake
high from day one.
Effect of Summer Heat Stress
on Poultry Breeding Stock
Introduction
As the hot summer months approach producers attention is turned to management methods
designed to maintain productivity during elevated ambient temperatures. For broiler and turkey
meat producers, getting the birds to continue eating and efficiently converting their feed source to
weight gain is the overall objective. The effects of heat stress have been well documented in rela-
tion to feed consumption, weight gain and house efficiency in broilers. In extreme heat situations,
keeping birds alive becomes the most critical element, especially in older meat-type birds.
For producers of broiler breeders, the volume of feed the birds consume is restricted, so even
during elevated temperatures the birds will often still consume the feed provided to them. This is
especially true for broiler breeder males that will gener-
ally eat all the feed provided them in less than an hour
during both summer and winter months. During this time
of the year, however, the birds energy needs are reduced,
and therefore, they do not require as much feed for main-
tenance as they do during the winter months. The
problem with breeders is maintaining egg production,
fertility, hatchability and ultimately the number of qual-
ity chicks produced. We, as an industry, have come a
long way in the utilization of quality equipment in the
breeder houses and therefore in reducing in house tem-
perature spikes. Twenty years ago it was estimated that
there was an average 15% drop in fertility in broiler
breeders during the summer months. Due to improve-
ments in housing, the reductions in fertility due to heat
stress may not be so dramatic today. Nevertheless, the
industry generally sees the lowest fertility and hatch-
ability during the hot summer months.
Why does this occur?
There is undoubtedly a connection with elevated
temperatures and reduced mating frequency, which natu-
rally reduces fertility. However, there is also evidence
that elevated temperatures reduce sperm production and
overall semen quality. To determine the role that the male
and female broiler breeder plays in the reduction in
hatchability during heat stress conditions, a study was
conducted to measure various reproductive parameters.
Broiler breeders males and females were separately ex-
posed to one of three temperatures (70 F, 85 F, or 90
F) during an eight-week test period and artificially in-
seminated weekly. Although various semen charac-
teristics were not affected by heat stress in this study,
the ability of the sperm cells from heat-stressed males
R. Keith Bramwell Extension Poultry Specialist
11
to gain access to the site of fertilization was reduced in heat-stressed groups. Additionally, the
duration of the ability of sperm cells to fertilize eggs was also reduced in both the 85 F and 90 F
heat stressed groups of males. However, the effect of heat stress on fertility was less significant
when only the hens were exposed to the elevated temperatures. When comparing hatchability of
fertile eggs from both heat-stressed males and females, there was reduced actual hatchability,
although this was not significantly different.
In summarizing this work, it is apparent that elevated temperatures affect the males ability to
produce fertilized eggs using artificial insemination as a means to produce fertile eggs. This means
that the physiology of the male reproductive system is hindered and the production of viable se-
men is reduced. Interestingly, when these males were subjected to 85 F or 90 F for as little as 12
hours, fertility was reduced for the next four to five weeks. Breeder house temperatures in the 85 to
90 degree range for periods of time during the summer are common in many breeder houses,
especially those that have not been updated with modern evaporative cooling systems. Therefore,
it is easy to see why hatchability is often at its lowest during the summer months.
Preventing heat stress in breeders
Here are a few of many items that should be considered that may help reduce the incidence of
heat stressing breeders.
Air velocity is most important in keeping birds cool in the summer. Any adjustments made to
thermostat settings should be made with the idea of maintaining temperature while not sacri-
ficing wind speed.
Turn fan thermostats down low enough during the daytime hours to ensure that they will run
long enough into the evening to give birds a chance to cool off. During extreme heat, run all
fans throughout the night to allow birds to cool off completely.
Run a lower static pressure during hot weather to get the maximum volume of air movement
from exhaust fans.
Remove shutters from any fan that runs continuously. This will increase airflow through the
fan by as much as 30 percent.
Make sure fan belts are tight and new. A loose belt can reduce fan efficiency by 30 percent or
more. Even tight belts that are worn and old pulleys can reduce fan efficiency by 20 percent.
Make sure roof or sidewall ventilation openings are clean and unobstructed.
Inspect emergency generators, automatic curtain (or sidewall) drops and alarm systems to en-
sure they are functioning properly. Failure of this equipment to function properly will most
likely result in catastrophic losses.
Water is critical during hot weather. Inspect the watering system frequently to ensure water
flow is consistent and unrestricted.
Water in a closed watering system will quickly approach the temperature of the air around the
pipe. Water consumption will decrease when the temperature of the water rises above 85 de-
grees. Flush the closed watering system two to three times each day during the hottest part of
the day to remove warm water from the system. However, the birds will generally demand
enough water to keep fresh water in the pipes.
References
McDaniel, C.D., R.K. Bramwell, J.L. Wilson, and B. Howarth Jr., 1995. Fertility of Male and
Female Broiler Breeders Following Exposure to Elevated Ambient Temperatures, Poultry Sci.
74:1029-1038.
The problem
with breeders
is maintaining
egg production,
fertility, hatchability
and ultimately
the number of
quality chicks
produced.
G. Tom Tabler Applied Broiler Research Unit (Savoy) Manager
Applied Broiler Research Unit
Performance Report
Information Key
Variable Units Explanation
HSE No. House number
FEED CONV LB/LB Feed conversion or pounds of feed per pound of gain
HEAD PLACED No. Number of chicks placed in the house at the beginning of grow-out
HEAD SOLD No. Number of birds sent to the processing plant
LIV % Livability or Head sold/Head placed * 100
AGE D Age of birds at processing in days
AVE BIRD WT LBS Average live bird weight at processing
COND % Percentage of birds condemned by the government inspector
at the plant. Condemned birds are not fit for human consumption.
FEED COST $ Feed costs in dollars
CHICK COST $ Chick costs in dollars
MED COST $ Medication costs in dollars
TOTAL COST $ Total costs in dollars
COST/LB Cent Total costs per pound of live bird weight in cents per pound
PAY/LB Cent Payment received from the poultry company in cents per pound
F.A. $ Fuel allowance a payment provided by the poultry company to
help defray heating fuel costs
GAS USAGE GAL Propane usage in gallons
ELECT KWH Electrical usage in kilowatt hours
Unit Description
The first flock at the Savoy Broiler Unit was placed on November 19, 1990. The unit contains
four 40 x 400 foot broiler houses. Each house contains Cumberland pan feeders, Ziggity nipple
waterers and about 1.5 million BTU propane heating capacity for brooding. Each house is equipped
with a computer controller which controls fans, brooders and curtains for temperature control.
Houses are also equipped with temperature monitoring equipment (about 80 sensors per house),
an electronic water flow monitoring system, weigh bins for feed delivery to the house, sensors for
the monitoring of fan run time and devices to determine gas flow from storage tanks.
Houses 1 and 2 were built with steel trusses with R10 insulation in the ceiling while houses 3
and 4 were constructed with wood trusses, R19 ceiling insulation and drop ceilings. Houses 1 and
3 are conventionally ventilated with misters for summer cooling, but 2 and 4 are tunnel ventilated.
House 2 contains a sprinkler cooling system for summer cooling. The system was developed at
the University of Arkansas and utilizes a landscape sprinkler system to deliver a coarse, cooling
mist to the backs of the birds. House 4 utilizes evaporative cooling pads to cool the inlet air.
13
Comments on Flock 67
Bird placement was 24,000 head per house for a stocking density of 0.67 sq.ft.per bird. Condemnation percentage was 0.65%.
Mortality at harvest was: House 1 1,181; House 2 638; House 3 1,055; and House 4 765. Ranking was 5th out of 23 growers.
This was a summer flock (selling July 19) and again House 2 with Dr. Ivan Berrys unique sprinkler cooling system outperformed all
other houses by a wide margin. Feed conversion rankings were; House 2 1.93; House 3 2.02; House 1 2.03; and House 4 2.04.
Bird weight by house were: House 2 - 4.64 lbs.; House 3 - 4.51 lbs.; House 4 4.39 lbs.; and House 1 4.21 lbs. As is often the case
since adding the unorthodox cooling system in House 2, it managed to produce the heaviest bird and, at the same time, had the lowest
(best) feed conversion. Down time was 17 days. Caked litter removal was: House 1 2 loads; House 2 5 loads; House 3 6 loads;
and House 4 4 loads. A lightening storm damaged the circuit board on House 4s controller and a load cell on House 2s weigh bin
that had to be replaced. Also, most likely damaged at the same time, but unknown to us at the time, was the phone dialer and alarm
system for the entire farm. This fact will come back to haunt us on the next flock with disastrous consequences.
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 67 (June 4 July 19, 2002)
AVE
HSE FEED HEAD HEAD LIV AGE BIRD COND
2
FEED CHICK MED TOTAL COST/LB PAY/LB F.A.
1
GAS ELECT
CONV PLACED SOLD WT COST COST COST COST USAGE USAGE
(No) (LB/LB) (No) (No) (%) (D) (LB) (%). ($) ($) ($) ($) (Cent) (Cent) ($) (GAL) (KWH)
#1 2.03 24264 23083 95.13 45 4.21 0.65 9888 4124.88 41.82 14055 14.549 3.9376 0.00 178 4736
#2 1.93 24238 23600 97.37 45 4.64 0.65 10566 4120.46 41.82 14729 13.547 4.9391 0.00 213 5846
#3 2.02 23868 22834 95.67 45 4.51 0.65 10383 4057.56 41.82 14483 14.170 4.3162 0.00 261 4492
#4 2.04 24748 23983 96.91 45 4.39 0.65 10745 4207.16 41.82 14994 14.341 4.1457 0.00 627 563
FARM 2.01 97118 93500 96.27 45.00 4.44 0.65 41583 16510.06 167.28 58260 14..138 4.3485 0.00 1378 20709
1
F.A. Fuel Allowance
2
Condemnation percentage was not kept separate by the plant.
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: Flock 68 (August 5 September 18, 2002)
AVE
2
FEED CHICK MED. TOTAL COST/LB PAY/LB F.A.
1
GAS ELECT
(No) (LB/LB) (No) (No) (%) (D) (LBS) (%). ($) ($) ($) ($) (Cent) (Cent) ($) (GAL) (KWH)
#1 1.85 22696 21748 95.82 44 4.64 0.66 9349 3858.32 22.50 13230 13.195 4.8459 0.00 184 4162
#2
3
2.09 22708 21672 95.44 44 4.24 0.66 9575 3860.36 22.50 13458 14.753 3.2880 0.00 81 4766
#3 1.92 23448 22582 96.31 44 4.46 0.66 9652 3986.16 22.50 13661 13.668 4.3728 0.00 88 4385
#4
4
4.37 23303 9203 39.49 44 4.87 0.66 9786 3916.51 22.50 13770 30.920 -12.8798 0.00 146 4779
FARM 2.27 92155 75205 81.61 44.00 4.50 0.66 38362 15666.35 90.00 54118 16.108 2.800 0.00 499 18092
1
F.A. Fuel Allowance
2
Condemnation percentage could not be divided by house.
3
~14,000 chickens in House 4 and 500 in House 2 were lost to a power failure at 1:00 a.m. on September 17.
4
Columns do not sum to farm total. Because of lost birds in houses 2 and 4, the farm was paid guaranteed minimum of 2.8 cents per lb in each house.
Placement was 23,000 birds per house for a stocking density of 0.70 sq. ft. per bird. Condemnation percentage was 0.66%.
Mortality at harvest was: House 1 948; House 2 1,036; House 3 866; and House 4 14,763. Needless to say, we were on the
bottom of the list ranking 12th out of 12 growers. This was actually a better flock of birds than the previous flock up until 1:00 a.m.
of the day they were coming to catch them. The catch was scheduled for 4:00 p.m., however, at 1:00 a.m. someone took out a power
PERFORMANCE REPORT continued on page 14
pole about 1/2 mile from the farm. The power went off but the phone dialer and alarms did not. I woke up at 1:20 a.m. (I never sleep
good when the birds are big and the weather hot) and realized the power was off, but by the time I got to House 4, it was too late for
most of the birds. You can take it from me that 15-20 minutes is all the time it takes to smother chickens. House 2 and 4 (the two
tunnel houses) were in tunnel (and had been for two weeks) when the power went off. The curtain drops did release in both houses
and the curtains in House 2 dropped correctly; we lost only about 500 birds in that house. However, in House 4 the curtains only
dropped about 2-3 inches on each side of the house, smothering approximately 14,000 birds before I could get the curtains down.
According to the time clocks, the power went off at approximately 1:00 a.m. and I had the curtains down before 1:30 a.m., but that is
how fast bad things can happen with big chickens and no power. We had never had a generator before and had lived dangerously for
a number of years; however, after this disaster, we have a generator now.
Placement was 21,000 birds per house for a stocking density of 0.76 sq. ft. per bird. Condemnation percentage was 0.57%.
Mortality at harvest was: House 1 514; House 2 558; House 3 664; and House 4 606. Ranking was 4th out of 27 growers.
Houses 3 and 4 were much better chickens than Houses 1 and 2 this time causing a split catch, with 3 and 4 being caught one day
earlier than 1 and 2. Caked litter removal was as follows: House 3 loads; House 6 loads; House 3 5 loads; and House 4 3
loads. A new 130kw generator and automatic transfer switch was purchased and installed during this flock. The final connections
were made after the flock was sold since electrical power had to be killed at the pole for several hours to finish installation. Thanks
to the men and women of Ozarks Electric Cooperative for all their assistance in turning power off and on at the farm for us when
needed.
PERFORMANCE REPORT continued from page 13
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: Flock 69 (November 4 December 16 (Hs 3 & 4) and December 17 (Hs 1 & 2)
AVE
2
1
GAS ELECT
#1 1.88 20610 20096 97.51 43 4.65 0.57 8756 3503.70 37.50 12337 13.276 4.6292 416 1280 2817
#2 1.99 20585 19921 96.77 43 4.24 0.57 8419 3499.45 37.50 11956 14.227 3.6783 416 1313 2137
#3 1.83 21054 20448 97.12 42 4.69 0.57 8764 3579.18 37.50 12381 12.987 4.9180 416 1258 1811
#4 1.87 20949 20435 97.55 42 4.65 0.57 8911 3561.33 37.50 12510 13.227 4.6781 416 1036 1868
FARM 1.89 83198 80900 97.24 42.50 4.56 0.57 34889 14143.66 150.00 49183 13.406 4.4990 1664 4887 8633
1
F.A. - Fuel Allowance
2
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: Flock 70 (January 3- February 14, 2003)
AVE
2
1
GAS ELECT
#1 1.89 21879 20954 95.77 42 4.25 0.79 8417 3719.43 37.21 12173 13.790 3.5672 416 2040 2938
#2 1.97 21878 20657 94.42 42 3.81 0.79 7770 3719.26 37.21 11527 14.744 2.6129 416 2042 1905
#3 1.89 21797 20822 95.53 42 4.01 0.79 7877 3705.49 37.21 11620 14.034 3.3233 416 2246 1824
#4 1.87 21784 20779 95.39 42 4.32 0.79 8420 3703.28 37.21 12160 13.646 3.7107 416 2082 2005
FARM 1.90 87338 83212 95.28 42.00 4.10 0.79 32484 14847.46 148.84 47480 14.032 3.3248 1664 8410 8672
1
F.A. Fuel Allowance
2
15
Placement was approximately 22,000 birds per house for a stocking density of 0.73 sq. ft. per bird. Condemnation percentage
was 0.79%. Mortality at harvest was: House 1 925; House 2 1,221; House 3 975; and House 4 1,005. After several flocks of
good birds, the quality slipped somewhat on this flock. Both early and overall mortality were higher than on previous flocks. Size and
uniformity were also problems throughout the flock. Ranking was a disappointing 15th out of 17 growers. Even though we had more
birds this flock than last, this flock ate 48,110 lbs. less feed than the previous flock. That is a full trailer less feed, and it shows in the
average weight and feed conversion columns. Weight is light and feed conversion high indicating what feed they did eat was not
utilized. Caked litter removal after flock 70: House 1 5 loads; House 2 8 loads; House 3 6 loads; and House 4 5 loads.
Placement was approximately 21,000 birds per house for a stocking density of 0.76 sq. ft. per bird. Condemnation percentage
was 0.48%. Mortality at harvest was: House 1 2,895; House 2 911; House 3 850; and House 4 1,547. Quality and uniformity
were again serious problems throughout the flock. Birds were again very light weight at harvest and feed conversion was high. The
flock as a whole ate 41,400 lbs. less than the previous flock. However, there were approximately 3,000 fewer chicks placed this flock
vs. last flock. Ranking was again disappointing at 14th out of 19 growers. This flock was made worse by the fact that House 1 broke
with gangrenous dermatitis at 4 1/2 weeks. We lost roughly 2,000 birds in that house in the last 10 days of the flock. All four houses
were cleaned out after the flock sold, and the farm, as a whole, generated 100 spreader truckloads of litter. It had been roughly 18
months since our last cleanout. The breakdown by house for litter was as follows: House 1 29 loads; House 2 25 loads; House 3
22 loads; and House 4 24 loads. The floors in all 4 houses were treated (sprayed) with a combination of aluminum sulfate and
sulfuric acid in hopes of preventing further outbreaks of dermatitis. We will keep you advised of our situation.
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: Flock 71 (February 27-April 10, 2003)
AVE
2
1
GAS ELECT
#1 2.03 20703 17808 86.02 42 3.63 0.48 6560 3519.51 37.50 10117 15.747 1.8487 0.00 1220 2757
#2 1.85 20698 19787 95.60 42 4.27 0.48 7807 3518.66 37.50 11363 13.509 4.0871 0.00 1041 1600
#3 1.78 21586 20736 96.06 42 4.49 0.48 8291 3669.62 37.50 11998 12.939 4.6565 0.00 1219 1627
#4 1.87 21379 19832 92.76 42 4.19 0.48 7755 3634.43 37.50 11427 13.813 3.7833 0.00 1188 1586
FARM 1.87 84366 78163 92.65 42.00 4.16 0.48 30414 14342.22 150.00 44906 13.868 3.7284 0.00 4668 7570
1
F.A. Fuel Allowance
2
Avian Advice
Published approximately four times per year, Avian Advice is sponsored by
the Cooperative Extension Service, the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture
and the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science.
Editor: Frank Jones, Extension Section Leader
Graphic Designer: Judy Howard
Address: 1260 W. Maple, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Phone: (479) 575-4952 Fax: (479) 575-3026
Permission to reprint articles may be solicited from the Editor.
You may e-mail the editor at ftjones@uark.edu.
UA Poultry Science
for Poultry Science
Introduction
Farm management during the early brood-
ing stage in the life of the chick or poult will
determine whether they will reach their full
potential. Every hour that a chicks or poults
environment is less than optimum reduces
growth rate and increases feed conversion ratio
and that loss recovered by the end of the growout
(Dozier and Donald, 2001). Costs to both the
grower and the integrator will be high if a proper
brooding environment does not ensure that birds
get off to a good, healthy start. The focus of this
article will be on how to best meet the needs of
the broiler chick and turkey poult brooding.
Brooding the Broiler Chick
The objective in brooding chicks is to pro-
vide growing birds a comfortable and healthy
environment, efficiently and economically
(Vest, 1997). Temperature (particularly of the
floor), ventilation rates, humidity, litter condi-
tions, dust and gas levels are all environmental
critical control points that growers must moni-
tor and manage. Failure to properly manage
these environmental critical control points dur-
ing the brooding period will likely result in lower
economic returns.
The body temperature of a day-old chick
is about 3 F below that of an adult, but by five
days of age body temperature has reached 106
F, the same as the adult (Vest, 1997). Newly
hatched chicks have little or no ability to regu-
late their own body temperature and depend on
the grower to provide an ideal growing envi-
ronment (Dozier and Donald, 2001). Yet the
ability of chicks to regulate their body tempera-
ture has a direct impact on the birds ability to
grow efficiently. This means that exposing
Brooding Chicks and Poults:
Environmental Critical Control Points
chicks to temperatures too high or too low will
result in energy and nutrients being expended
to cool the bird by panting or to warm the bird
by heat production (Lacy, 2002). However, ever
increasing fuel costs usually mean that over
heating of chicks is a rare occurrence.
When a newly hatched chick is placed in a
cool environment, its internal body temperature
begins to drift downward toward the environ-
mental temperature and may reduce the growth
efficiency of the bird. Keep in mind, that in
broiler houses, floor temperature is often 5 to
15 F below air temperature (Lacy, 1997). The
temperature of the broiler house floor during
brooding is more important than air tempera-
ture, since chicks are in direct contact with the
floor. Even fairly brief exposure to cool floors
can adversely affect chicks.
In one research experiment, 175 newly
hatched chicks were placed in either a constant
temperature of 95 F or were exposed to a tem-
perature of 65 F for two hours and then at a
constant 95 F. After four days the internal
temperature of chicks subjected to that brief cold
exposure was only 100.5 F, versus 102 F for
the control group reared at a constant 95 F
(Dozier and Donald, 2001).
Normal development of the digestive, cir-
culatory, nervous and immune systems of the
chick depends on the bird using the nutrients
and antibodies provided by the yolk sac to ready
these systems to begin getting nutrients from
the feed (Dozier and Donald, 2001). If chicks
are chilled, nutrients that might have been used
for body development are used to maintain body
heat. Chilled chicks also tend to huddle together,
by G. Tom Tabler
INSIDE
page 5
Coming Events
page 6
Breeder Flock Uniformity:
How Important Is It?
By R. Keith Bramwell
page 8
2003 Ozark Poultry
Producer Symposium
page 9
Nipple Drinker
Management Critical to
Broiler Performance
By G. Tom Tabler
page 13
Early Feed Intake and
Bird Performance
By G. Tom Tabler
Advice
AVIAN
BROODING continued on page 2
and most do not seek out feed or water, so a number of birds
may die. The performance of the chicks that survive chilling is
likely to be limited due suppressed digestive or immune system
functions. Periods of extended cold stress force the chick to be-
gin breaking down the carbohydrates and fats in its own body
tissues to maintain body heat, since it is unable to acquire enough
from the feed alone.
Deaton et al. (1996) brooded chicks at starting temperatures
of 95, 90, 85, or 80 F, then decreased brooding temperatures
by 5 F each week for three weeks. After three weeks tempera-
tures were held constant at 70 F. At three weeks of age body
weight and feed conversion were better for the chicks brooded
at the warmer temperatures (Table 1). Since low environmental
temperatures cause increased feed intake and higher oxygen de-
mand, chilled birds are in an ideal situation to develop ascites
(Table 2) (Lacy, 1997). University studies have shown increases
in ascites as high as 11% in broilers raised in too-cool brooding
environments (Dozier and Donald, 2001).
The proper temperature for brooding broiler chicks will
depend on the system being used. However, it is important to
realize that supplemental heat will be required even in the sum-
mer and especially at night (Dozier and Donald, 2001). Brooding
systems have been classified various ways. Dozier and Donald
(2001) suggest that forced air furnaces and brooders are the two
Furnace heat (or warm room brooding) is more difficult to
manage than pancake or radiant brooders for two primary rea-
sons. First, furnaces produce warmth by producing heated air.
This means that the floor must be warmed from hot air, which
can require a long period since hot air rises, and temperature
stratification can develop with hot air at the ceiling and cold air
at the floor. Mixing fans near the ceiling work well to break up
stratification and should be utilized to increase floor tempera-
ture and decrease gas usage (Dozier and Donald, 2001). Second,
furnace heat does not allow chicks to select a comfort zone. The
entire room is heated and chicks must grow at the selected tem-
perature. This means that there is little room for error with furnace
heat; the temperature maintained must be exactly what chicks
need, since they can not find a warmer or cooler area (Lacy,
2002).
Both pancake and radiant brooders allow chicks to move
toward or away from the heat source to seek a comfortable tem-
perature (Lacy, 2002). Most of the heat from these brooders is in
the form of infrared light, which heats objects instead of heating
the air (Dozier and Donald, 2001). Floor temperatures under the
brooder will be higher than the surrounding air temperature, so
that heat is delivered where it is most needed ... at chick level
(Dozier and Donald, 2001). In recent years radiant brooders have
become popular, since they have been shown to reduce fuel costs
by 15 to 30% as compared to pancake brooders and forced air
furnaces (Lacy, 2002).
Although warmth is a critical need for newly hatched chicks,
these young birds also require a minimum amount of ventilation
during the brooding period. Ventilation is necessary to add oxy-
gen, remove harmful gases (carbon dioxide and ammonia) and
to remove moisture added by the birds. As the ventilation sys-
tem operates, cool fresh oxygenated air is brought uniformly
through the inlets and jetted along the ceiling toward the center
Table 1. The effect of brooding temperature
on body weight and feed conversion
of broiler males at 3 weeks of age
1
.
Temperature F Body Weight Feed
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 (lbs) Conversion
95 90 85 1.76 1.35
90 85 80 1.75 1.37
85 80 75 1.74 1.39
80 75 70 1.66 1.42
1
Adapted from Lacy (1997)
Table 2. The effect of brooding temperature
on mortality of broiler males at 6 weeks of age
1
.
Temperature F Total Ascites
Mortality Mortality
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 (%) (%)
95 90 85 2.29 0.83
90 85 80 3.12 0.83
85 80 75 1.67 0.62
80 75 70 4.79 2.50
1
basic methods of providing heat for chicks, while Lacy (2002)
mentions three methods of warming chicks ( warm room brood-
ing, hover (or pancake) brooding and radiant brooding). Lacy
(2002) lists recommended temperatures for each brooding
method (Table 3).
BROODING continued from page 1
Table 3. Recommended Temperatures for Broilers
Brooder Type
Weeks Warm Room Hover Radiant
of Age
F F F
1 88 90 85-88
2 83 85 82-85
3 78 80 77-80
4 73-76 75-78 73-76
5 70-73 70-73 70-73
6 65-70 65-70 65-70
3
of the house, mixing with hot air already in place and sending it
back toward the floor. At the same time, humidity, ammonia,
dust and carbon dioxide are removed from the house while the
exhaust fans are in operation. Without adequate ventilation,
ammonia, humidity and the lack of oxygen can reduce perfor-
mance and increase mortality.
Many growers underestimate the effects of ammonia on flock
performance. Ammonia levels of 25 ppm (barely detectable by
the human nose) have been shown to depress growth by 4 to 8%
and increase feed conversion by 3 to 6%. Just 5 ppm ammonia
has been shown to irritate and injure the protective lining of the
chicks respiratory system, causing the bird to be more suscep-
tible to respiratory disease. If growers wait until ammonia levels
are high enough to be detected by odor or a sense of smell, some
damage has already occurred. To minimize ammonia problems
it is important to provide adequate ventilation and control mois-
ture in the poultry house (Lacy, 2002).
Birds add moisture to the poultry house environment by res-
piration and by feces excretion. Since birds, like all animals,
exhale warm moisture laden air, respiration increases the hu-
midity of the inside environment, which can, if not removed,
cause increases in litter moisture. Broilers consume about one
and a half to two times as much water as feed, but they only
retain about 20% of the water, thus the other 80% is excreted
(Dozier and Donald, 2001). A broiler chick excretes about 0.06
ounces of water per hour in the first week, and about 0.11 ounces
per hour in the second week (Dozier and Donald, 2001). Assum-
ing birds are provided 23 hours of light per day, this would mean
that during the first week a flock of 20,000 birds would add
slightly over 1,509 gallons of water to the poultry house envi-
ronment. During the second week the same flock would add about
2,767 gallons of water to the poultry house. The amount of wa-
ter excreted increases with bird age and weight. This, in part, is
why we must increase ventilation rates as the birds age to
compensate for the additional water being added to the litter. If
litter moisture and humidity are not removed, litter moisture in-
creases, leading to damp, caked or wet litter conditions. However,
the level of humidity also appears to be critical for poultry (Vest,
1997). Results show that increased relative humidity leads to
depressed feed consumption, independent of temperature (Table
4) (Vest, 1997).
Be sure temperature sensors are located in the proper posi-
tion and minimum ventilation rates correctly match the age of
the birds. If temperature sensors are too close to the brooders, it
can be difficult to obtain the proper, uniform floor temperature.
If sensors are placed too high off the floor, they will not allow
the heating system to operate properly, since the floor and air
directly above the floor will cool much quicker than air three to
four feet above the floor. At placement, temperature sensors
should be three to four inches above the floor and then adjusted
upwards as the birds age. Adjust the override thermostats so that
they are high enough above the set point temperature that they
will not chill the chicks by overriding the minimum ventilation
timer and running the ventilation fans when they are not needed.
A properly working ventilation and heating system will not only
maintain the desired air and floor temperature, but also provide
sufficient air exchange, control moisture, dust and ammonia levels
as well as maintain the desired litter conditions. However, it can
only do what you tell it to, and you must continually tell it some-
thing different as weather conditions change, the birds age and
environmental conditions inside the house change. Thus, there
is no substitute for the grower spending time in his houses.
Brooding the Turkey Poult
Brooding turkey poults is as much of an art as a science.
Each flock is different based on a variety of factors, and excel-
lent husbandry skills are essential to be able to evaluate poult
behavior and determine their needs. Compared to broiler chicks,
all poults would be considered very difficult to start. Like broiler
chickens, turkey genetics have improved the bird over the past
10 to 15 years but has required a higher level of management
skill from growers to obtain optimum results. Wojcinski (N.D.)
listed five critical control points she believes, if implemented
correctly, will result in a healthy, vigorous, uniform flock with
feed conversions and average daily gains which meet or exceed
industry standards. These include:
Barn preparation for poult arrival
Poult quality assessment
Brooding temperatures
Barn ventilation
Feed and water availability and quality
Many different kinds of stressors are present within the com-
mercial turkey production environment. The one most often
overlooked is that of the growth itself (Wojcinski, N.D.). When
growers were asked when the stress of growth was the greatest,
most replied that it is around 15 weeks of age. However, the tom
poult is actually growing the most rapidly at three weeks of age
(Wojcinski, N.D.). It is at this time that the percent increase in
metabolic body weight is the greatest. Early in the brooding pe-
riod when the poults are growing so rapidly, they are very
susceptible to the adverse effects of poor ventilation manage-
ment, poor feed quality and disease challenges. Even minor
inadequacies during this period will be reflected in decreased
growth and performance. This is why the first three weeks of a
poults life are crucial to its future performance (Wojcinski, N.D.).
BROODING continued on page 4
Table 4. Feed consumption in grams as influenced
by relative humidity in 4 week old broilers.
1
Relative Humidity (%)
Temperature 37 49 56 67 73 82
(F) Feed Consumed (grams)
90 44 14
81 56 50
72 61 47
1
Adapted from Vest (1997)
Optimizing the poults environment at this time is one of the
best investments a producer can make.
One of the most critical factors in managing the poults en-
vironment is the proper temperature in the house and under the
brooders. While having the air and floor temperature too cool is
always a concern, a temperature that is too warm is also detri-
mental. Having the temperature too high can quickly dehydrate
poults, with small poults being the most sus-
ceptible to the effects of overheating
(dehydration and flip-overs) (Wojcinski,
N.D.). Litter temperature is more critical
than air temperatures at poult arrival. Poults
can lose a great deal of heat through their
feet when they sit on litter that is cold and/
or damp. It is not uncommon to find floor
temperatures several degrees lower than
temperatures three feet above the floor.
Therefore, make sure temperature sensors
are near the floor at placement, not three to
four feet above the floor.
Newberry (1993) reported that cool brooding of turkeys was
associated with a faster litter moisture increase than warm brood-
ing. Inadequate ventilation and high density rearing can also lead
to a rapid increase in litter moisture in turkey houses. Litter
moisture was shown to rise from a low level of 2% at time of
placement to a high of 40% by four weeks of age (Anderson et
al., 1964). Make sure that adequate ventilation rates are pro-
vided at placement and that these rates are increased as the flock
ages to account for increased moisture removal requirements.
The effects of cool temperatures, poor ventilation and wet
litter conditions are generally more harmful to young poults than
to young broiler chicks. Brooding management which is less
than optimal can decrease performance, increase feed conver-
sion ratios and lead to conditions such as poult enteritis and
mortality syndrome (PEMS). Poult enteritis and mortality syn-
drome has emerged as the most costly of the diseases affecting
the production of turkeys (Edens et al., 1998). Afflicted poults
suffer from severe diarrhea and dehydration, anorexia, weight
loss and high rates of mortality when younger than six weeks of
age (Barnes et al., 1996; Edens et al.,
1997a,b; Qureshi et al., 1997). With the on-
set of PEMS, poults begin to huddle as if
they are cold and crowd together to reduce
body cooling. Litter moisture increases, pre-
sumably in association with severe diarrhea,
and appears to be associated with increased
severity of the disease (Edens et al., 1998).
Adequate ventilation rates are vital to
replenish oxygen; remove ammonia, carbon
dioxide and moisture; and reduce levels of
air-borne disease organisms. When good air
quality is provided, poults will be more ac-
tive and quickly seek out feed and water. High levels of carbon
dioxide in houses have been shown to impair the poults ability
to convert glycogen into glucose for energy (Wojcinski, N.D.).
Therefore, in the presence of high carbon dioxide concentra-
tions, poults may appear inactive, listless and disoriented and
may lie on their sides paddling the air. Inadequate ventilation
may also lead to spontaneous turkey cardiomyopathy (STC) or
roundheart disease, a prevalent circulatory disturbance afflict-
ing turkeys raised at moderate to high altitudes. Circulatory
disturbances in turkeys are likely to become increasingly preva-
lent because of the economic need to continue to produce
fast-growing strains of turkey (Frame et al., 1999).
BROODING continued from page 3
1.
Ignite stoves at least 12 hours before poults arrive to be sure they are burning cleanly with a mainly blue flame
and no smoke.
2.
Make sure air is circulating within the brooder building. Mixing or circulation fans should be started at a very low
speed soon after placement of the brood.
3. Air exchange is just as critical as air movement. Poults should receive a minimum of 0.2 cubic feet per minute
(cfm) of incoming air at placement.
4.
Poults should not be unnecessarily disturbed during the second and third weeks of life. In a flock with 2%
mortality caused by STC, it is likely that 80 to 90% of the poults have some degree of heart damage so how the
flock is handled, even after STC mortality starts, may have a dramatic impact on how many birds remain alive.
5.
Minimize the risk of turkeys becoming ill with poult enteritis. A risk study conducted in Utah turkeys indicated
the risk of suffering significant STC loss was 21 times greater for a flock of hens brooded in winter with poult
enteritis compared to a tom flock brooded in July with no poult enteritis.
6. Keep poults from becoming chilled or overheated since both increase in metabolic rate and the demand for
oxygen.
7.
Light reduction programs through three weeks of age have shown beneficial results.
* From Frame et al. (1999)
Steps to Reduce Spontaneous Turkey Cardiomyopathy (STC)*
5
While altitude is a definite predisposing factor, the time of
year turkeys are raised also plays a significant role in STC de-
velopment (Frame et al., 1999). Broods placed in winter have a
higher incidence of STC than those placed in late spring or sum-
mer, possibly because of suboptimal air exchange during colder
periods, since producers tend to skimp on ventilation time to
save fuel. In underventilated houses, carbon dioxide builds up
and oxygen availability lessens. A characteristic of STC mortal-
ity is that more turkeys die during the night than during the day.
A possible explanation for this characteristic is that poults form
microenvironments as they bed down and crowd together. Some
of these microenvironments restrict air movement. If the venti-
lation is inadequate in the building, there is insufficient fresh air
available, and birds succumb to the effects (Frame et al., 1999).
Frame et al. (1999) indicated that various methods to reduce
losses from STC have been identified, but some require very
careful management by the grower.
Summary
More flock performance is lost due to improper brooding
than from any other single cause. Management during the first
two to three weeks after hatch has a dramatic impact on bird
performance throughout the remainder of the flock. Performance
lost during the brooding period can never be regained. To brood
properly pay particular attention to building setup. Heat should
be on several hours prior to bird arrival to allow the floor to
warm and prevent birds from becoming chilled. Set brooders at
the proper temperature for each flock. Ventilation and air ex-
change is critical to an optimum environment. Proper ventilation
provides oxygen and removes carbon dioxide, ammonia, dust,
disease organisms and humidity. Litter moisture can also be
controlled through adequate ventilation. Maintaining optimum
environmental conditions throughout the flock (and especially
during the early brooding stage) coupled with a sound feed and
water management program will help ensure production of a
healthy, efficient and profitable flock.
References
Anderson, D.P., F.L. Cherms and R.P. Hanson. 1964. Stud-
ies on measuring the environment of turkeys raised in
confinement. Poultry Sci. 43:305-318.
Barnes, H.J., J.S. Guy, T.P. Brown and F.W. Edens. 1996.
Poult enteritis and mortality syndrome (spiking mortality of
turkeys) and related disorders An update and overview. Pages
1-11. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina
State University, October 29, 1996, Raleigh, N.C.
Deaton, J.W., S.L. Branton, J.D. Simmons and B.D. Lott.
1996. The effect of brooding temperature on broiler performance.
Poultry Sci. 75:1217-1220.
Dozier, W.A., and J. Donald. 2001. Keys to successful brood-
ing. The Alabama Poultry Engineering and Economics
Newsletter. No. 14, November. Alabama Cooperative Extension
System, Auburn University, Auburn, Ala.
Edens, F.W., C.R. Parkhurst, M.A. Qureshi, G.B. Havenstein
and I.A. Casas. 1997a. Escherichia coli strains and their asso-
ciation with poult enteritis and mortality syndrome. Poultry Sci.
76:952-960.
Edens, F.W., R.A. Qureshi, C.R. Parkhurst, M.A. Qureshi,
G.B. Havenstein and I.A. Casas. 1997b. Characterization of
Escherichia coli isolates associated with poult enteritis and mor-
tality syndrome. Poultry Sci. 76:1665-1673.
Edens, F.W., K.A. Joyce, C.R. Parkhurst, G.B. Havenstein
and M.A. Qureshi. 1998. Effect of litter moisture and brooding
temperature on body weights of turkey poults experiencing poult
enteritis and mortality syndrome. Poultry Sci. 77:411-415.
Frame, D.D., R.E. Buckner and G.L. Anderson. 1999. Causes
and control of spontaneous cardiomyopathy or roundheart dis-
ease in Utah turkeys. Cooperative Extension Service, Utah State
University, Logan, Utah.
Lacy, M.P. 1997. The effect of cool temperatures on broiler
performance. Poultry Tips. January 1997. The University of
Georgia College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Cooperative
Extension Service, University of Georgia, Athens.
Lacy, M.P. 2002. Broiler management. In: Bell, D.B. and
W. D. Weaver, eds. Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Produc-
tion, 5th ed, pp 829-868.
Newberry, R.C. 1993. The role of temperature and litter type
in the development of breast buttons in turkeys. Poultry Sci.
72:467-474.
Qureshi, M.A., F.W. Edens and G.B. Havenstein. 1997.
Immune system dysfunction during exposure to poult enteritis
and mortality syndrome. Poultry Sci. 76:564-569.
Vest, L.R. 1997. Environmental factors to consider when
brooding chicks. Bulletin 855. The University of Georgia Col-
lege of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Cooperative Extension
Service, University of Georgia, Athens.
Wojcinski, H. No Date. Critical control points during
brooding. Hybrid Turkeys, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
Coming Events
The Poultry Symposium, April 8-9, 2003,
Springdale Holiday Inn, The Poultry Federation
(501) 375-8131
2003 Ozark Poultry Producers Symposium,
May 13, 2003, Whittaker Arena, University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville, Donna Tinsley
(479) 575-3250
The Poultry Festival, June 6-7, 2003, Hot
Springs, Ark., The Poultry Federation
(501) 375-8131
Breeder Roundtable, June 23, 2003, University
of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Ark., Dr. Keith
Bramwell (479) 575-7036
Hatchery Breeder Clinic, July 15-16, 2003,
Marriott Marquis Hotel, Atlanta, Ga., U.S.
Poultry and Egg Association (770) 493-9401
Breeder Flock Uniformity:
How Important Is It?
Introduction
Managing the breeder flock from day old chicks to the end of their production cycle entails
innumerable tools, tricks and practices, many of which require some sort of measurements to be
taken. It is not the aim of this article to list all of the necessary practices involved in the growth and
maintenance of a breeder flock, nor is it possible to pick one aspect of flock management and say,
this is what you need to do to produce a great flock. However, many management practices need
to be revisited on occasion to reemphasize their importance.
Uniformity as a Management Tool
One management tool that is widely discussed is flock uniformity, particularly in the pullet
house. Producing flocks of pullets or cockerels that are right on the body weight target is futile if
flock uniformity is not present. Many consider uniformity of flock body weight the best indicator
of future flock performance. This is likely due to the relationship between body weight and sexual
maturity, or egg production in pullets. For instance, a 20-week-old flock of pullets with an average
body weight which meets the company goal may have anywhere from five to 25% of the birds
either severely over or under weight with no change in average body weight. As a matter of fact, in
theory, a flock of breeders could have exactly 50% of the birds two pounds heavy and the other
50% of the birds two pounds light and still have an acceptable average body weight for the flock.
While this scenario is not likely to occur, hopefully it demonstrates the importance of flock unifor-
mity of body weight.
Measuring Uniformity
Before proceeding, we need to briefly discuss how to measure uniformity. Uniformity is some-
times measured very subjectively by simply eyeballing the flock. However, in reality, eyeballing
a flock to assess uniformity is of little use because the method of measurement is crude. Accurately
measuring uniformity is essential, but how does a person measure uniformity?
Pullet growers should be familiar with percentage uniformity, but for those who are not it is
the percentage of birds that fall within the target weight range. While this calculation certainly
provides a valid measure of uniformity, there are other equally as valid measures of uniformity.
Without getting too deeply statistical, standard deviation is one often-used measure of variation (or
uniformity). However, standard deviation tends to increase with the population average so that
when the average pullet weight increases the standard deviation will also increase. This means that
if a person wanted to use standard deviation to compare the variation within two pullet flocks, the
flocks would need to have the exactly the same average weight for the comparison to be valid.
Clearly, standard deviation is of limited value when comparing pullet uniformity, but the standard
deviation can be used to determine another measurement that is useful. When the standard devia-
tion is divided by the average (or mean) and then multiplied by one hundred, we get a number
called the coefficient of variation (or CV). The CV is a very valid method of comparing variation
(or uniformity) in different population.
Some Causes of Poor Uniformity
Poor uniformity is a result of some birds either not receiving feed like they should, not being
able to utilize the nutrients that are present in the feed, or they are not housed in conditions that will
Producing flocks
of pullets
or cockerels
that are right on
the body weight
target is futile if
flock uniformity
is not present.
7
allow them to respond to the nutrients they receive. So, what are some possible causes of a flock
exhibiting poor uniformity?
Diseases such as coccidiosis or other diseases that cause intestinal damage and therefore
reduce nutrient utilization
Poor bird response to vaccinations due to improper handling of vaccines or improperly
administering vaccinations
Improper or inconsistent beak trimming which affects feed consumption
Less than ideal conditions in the brooding house, such as cold or hot spots
Improper water restriction program
Poor feed quality
Not enough floor, drinker or feeder space
Improper feed restriction programs (for example, the transition to feed restriction, or
improper feed allotment adjustments)
Poor feed distribution throughout the house during feed restriction
Obviously, each of the items listed above could be further discussed in detail, and each condi-
tion should be evaluated for flocks that have exhibited poor body weight uniformity. As previously
mentioned, flock uniformity is a good measure of future flock performance as the more uniform
flocks generally out produce those flocks with poor uniformity.
Poor Uniformity and Flock Performance
What can be expected from flocks with poor body weight uniformity? Initial egg production
and hatchability will undoubtedly be reduced. Body weight is a key factor in pullets achieving
sexual maturity and therefore responding to light stimulation. Pullets that are greatly underweight
will not respond as quickly to light stimulation as heavier birds the same age. Using the extreme
example of a flock with 50% of the hens two pounds heavy and 50% two pounds light, when trying
to bring these birds into production roughly half the birds will not respond to light stimulation at
the desired time. This flock would drag into egg production, and hatchability would also suffer for
several weeks due to increased early embryo mortality.
A recently conducted study at the U of A illustrated this point. Hens of the same age were
divided into two groups: sexually immature and sexually mature. Hatching eggs were collected
from both groups, incubated and hatchability results compared. Hatching eggs from immature
hens were shown to be more susceptible to embryo loss than eggs from more mature hens. What
does this mean for underweight flocks? As flocks with a large percent of underweight hens are
pushed into production, egg size can be achieved before the hen is mature enough to produce a
completely viable germ cell capable of fully supporting embryo growth. This means that when
eggs from immature hens are set, embryo mortality is elevated, and the flock, as a whole, takes
longer to achieve optimum hatchability levels. Most hen feeding programs are adjusted weekly
based upon flock performance, so the extreme flock we used as an example (50% two pounds
heavy, 50% two pounds light) will never peak correctly because the lack of uniformity means that
very few hens are being correctly fed at any given point in their production cycle.
Another lingering effect of poor body weight uniformity is a
lack of uniformity in egg weight. Light hens can be expected to lay
small eggs, and heavy hens can be expected to lay large eggs. There-
fore, a flock with poor body weight uniformity will likely produce
eggs with poor uniformity in size and weight. Previously it was
believed that most flocks maintained a coefficient of variation, or
CV value, of 6% or less for egg weight and that this should be con-
sidered ideal. With this in mind, we collected egg weight data from
three different hatcheries for flocks from 27 to 63 weeks of age.
The mean CV value for the egg weights from the 17 flocks evalu-
ated was 7.33% with only two flocks less than 6% as can be seen in
Figure 1. We then went further to determine how much difference
was seen between the hatchability of eggs from different egg sizes
within a flock of broiler breeder hens. Four different flocks between
the ages of 32 and 41 weeks of age were randomly chosen from
UNIFORMITY continued on page 8
Pullets that are
greatly underweight
will not respond
as quickly to
light stimulation
as heavier birds
the same age.
Therefore, flock uniformity affects egg production and hatchability as the flocks are coming
into production. However, flock uniformity has even more far-reaching effects.
There is ample evidence shown that egg weight affects hatched chick weight. Heavier eggs
tend to produce heavier chicks. Lighter eggs tend to produce lighter chicks. This means that flocks
with poor uniformity produce chicks with poor uniformity and probably, in turn, broiler carcasses
with poor uniformity. Clearly, uniformity is crucial to the success of the entire organization.
In Summary
Measuring flock uniformity is undoubtedly an important tool when evaluating the success of
a pullet program. When a flock leaves the pullet house with a great deal of variation in body weight
a series of conditions can often be expected to occur. The flock will often come into egg produc-
tion slowly, since a disproportionate number of hens are not ready to produce eggs at the time of
lighting. Early hatchability will also be less than expected because there will be an increase in
early embryo mortality from those eggs laid by the lighter weight hens that mature slower. The
flock, as a whole, will likely not attain the egg production peak expected because many of the hens
are being either over or under fed at this crucial time in the production cycle. And finally, egg size
will often continue to show considerable variation throughout the life of the flock which will not
only reduce hatchability but may also affect the quality of the chick produced. Just how important
is flock uniformity? Or should we be asking, what is more important than flock uniformity?
three different hatcheries. A random sample of eggs was selected, weighed and separated into
heavy, average or lightweight categories for each flock. The results from this study are shown in
Table 1. Average sized eggs hatched slightly better than either the heavier or lighter weight eggs.
Table 1. Hatchability of Heavy, Average and Light Eggs
Heavy eggs Average eggs Light eggs Total flock hatchability
Hatchability 89.45% 91.38% 89.94% 89.27%
UNIFORMITY continued from page 7
Measuring flock
uniformity is
undoubtedly
an important tool
when evaluating
the success of a
pullet program.
2003
Ozark Poultry Producer
Symposium
The second annual Ozark Poultry Producer Symposium will
feature presentations of current information by recognized pro-
fessionals on environmental stewardship, biosecurity, litter
treatment options, drinking water management, and brooding. In
addition, the symposium will include booths and displays of equip-
ment and services frequently used by growers. The symposium is
designed to help producers produce birds more efficiently and gain
a fuller understanding of poultry production. Join us! Registration
details are listed under Current Events (page 5).
9
Introduction
Water is the most important nutrient in poultry nutrition. An animal deprived of feed can lose
up to 40% of its body weight and survive, but an animal that loses 10% of its water will have
serious disorders, and death will result from the loss of 20% of body water. Water is the medium in
which the chemical reactions necessary for life take place. Water aids in digestion, lubricates joints,
aids in the formation of body tissue and keeps the body cool through evaporation.
Water consumption is highly correlated with bird age, body weight, environmental tempera-
ture and feed consumption. Clearly, as birds get older they get heavier and need more water. They
also drink more water as the temperature gets hotter. However, the correlation between water
consumption and feed consumption should not be overlooked. Feed consumption is obviously
important because birds do not grow if they do not eat. If water consumption increases, feed con-
sumption and growth rate increase, but if water consumption decreases, feed consumption and
growth rate decrease.
In the past, cup-, bell-, and trough-type drinkers were the primary systems used in broiler
production. Today nipple drinkers are the standard for most new broiler houses and many older
houses have been retrofitted with nipple drinkers. However, more knowledge is required to prop-
erly operate nipple drinker systems than open systems. Growers must understand the importance
of various flow ratings, water consumption patterns and water line height on broiler performance.
Understanding and Monitoring Water Consumption of Broilers
Pesti and co workers (1985) estimated average water consumption using the following for-
mula: Water/1,000 birds/day = Bird Age (Days) * 1.396 gallons. Pesti and colleagues suggested
that in cooler months 1.349 gallons should be used to estimate water consumption, while in warmer
months 1.507 gallons should be used. This means that 20,000 birds at 49 days of age in the cooler
months would consume (20 * 49 * 1.349=) 1,322 gallons/day while in the warmer months the
same birds would consume (20 * 49 * 1.507=) 1,477 gallons/day. Data collected from our four
broiler houses on the Applied Broiler Research Unit over a 10-year period has indicated that water
consumption averaged 41,010 gals per 40' x 400' house per flock (Tabler and Berry, 2001). This
means a farm with four 40' x 400' broiler houses averaging six flocks per year would consume
slightly over 984,000 gals of water per year. Thus, nearly one million gallons of water must pass
through the water delivery system each year. With a water flow that great, you cannot afford to
make a mistake in how you manage your watering system. However, there are other important
reasons for properly managing your watering system.
Water is often used to deliver vaccines, medications, vitamins and other substances to the
flock, but without knowing the amount of water birds consume on a given day, it is impossible to
ensure that birds will receive the proper dosage of a given substance. Can we expect these expen-
sive vaccines, medications, and vitamins to have a beneficial effect if they are not delivered at the
proper dose? Monitoring daily water consumption of a broiler flock can also alert a grower to
potential disease or management problems, so that treatment or corrective action can start before
the problem becomes more severe (Goan, 1994). Water consumption is such an important indica-
tor of poultry performance that many new houses now have water meters as standard equipment
and many growers with older houses have installed water meters to monitor consumption.
Nipple Drinker Management
Critical to Broiler Performance
NIPPLE DRINKER continued on page 10
Water is the
most important
nutrient in
poultry nutrition.
An animal deprived
of feed can lose
up to 40% of
its body weight
and survive,
but an animal
that loses 10%
of its water
will have serious
disorders, and
death will result
from the loss
of 20% of
body water.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Nipple Drinkers
Research studies and field trials have indicated that feed conversion may be improved in flocks
on nipple drinkers. However, studies have also suggested that the weight-to-age ratio may be mar-
ginally decreased. Almost every study comparing drinker types has documented that broilers are
healthier when drinking from nipple drinkers. Mortality, condemnations and medication costs are
almost always lower with nipple systems since bacterial contamination of the birds drinking water
is greatly decreased and litter conditions are usually improved (Goan, 1994). Nipple drinkers tend
to save labor, waste less water and reduce processing plant condemnation (Lott et al., 2001). The
primary advantage to growers is likely the labor savings, since nipple systems do not need to be
cleaned and disinfected on a daily basis as open systems did.
While nipple drinkers have their good points, there are disadvantages associated with them as
well. Nipple mechanisms (rubber seal, metering pin, etc.) dont last forever and new nipples can be
expensive. Also, when nipple drinkers are not at a proper height there is almost always decreased
water and feed consumption and thereby, reduced growth rate. There is concern that certain types
of nipples restrict water flow as compared to open systems. There is also concern that during
periods of extremely hot weather broilers on nipples do not perform or survive as well as birds on
open systems.
Managing Nipple Drinkers
Even a quick examination of nipples will show that they are pre-
cisely made devices that cannot be repaired with substances commonly
found on the farm. Yet these devices control whether or not birds get
water as well as whether or not water spills soak the litter. In view of
this situation, growers should always have spare nipples on hand so
that leaking ones can be promptly replaced before creating a serious
water leak or spill. It is also wise to have replacement parts for other
parts of the system on hand. While spare nipples and parts are expen-
sive, buying parts is preferable to having poor flock performance or
flooding the floor of the house.
Carpenter et al. (1992) noted increased body weights with high
flow rates (2.3 mL/s) of nipple drinkers for broilers compared with
low flow rates (0.4 mL/s). May et al. (1997), investigating water con-
sumption of broilers at high cyclic temperatures (75 to 95 to 75 F),
noted similar water usage with a bell-type drinker and nipple drinkers
during the lower temperatures but reduced water usage for the nipple
system during the high part of the cycle. In view of this, growers should
ask questions to make sure the style nipple being used has an ad-
equate flow rating for the type bird being grown. Otherwise you may
create a serious negative effect on your birds performance by restricting water intake which will, in
turn, have a serious negative effect on feed intake and growth rate. If you are unsure of your
drinkers flow rating, ask the manufacturer representative in your area or your drinking system
installer to help you determine the flow rate. In some cases, the color of the metering pin corre-
sponds to a particular flow rate. In other cases, you may have to physically determine the flow rate
by measuring the flow from part of the nipples in your house during a given period of time. If
adequate water isnt available, it wont matter how good your drinker managerial skills are or how
well the rest of your management program operates; flock performance will suffer greatly.
Once nipples are installed in the system, water flow rates are regulated by water pressure.
Nipple water systems use pressure regulators to control the amount of water released when the
nipple mechanisms are triggered. Regulators must be adjusted on a regular basis (at least weekly
and perhaps more often) to maintain water pressure at manufacturer recommended levels. Water
pressure should remain low when chicks are very young so that it takes very little pressure to
trigger the nipple and so the water flow rate will be less when chicks are small. This will decrease
the possibility of excess water wastage leading to caked litter formation. As birds increase in age
and weight, the pressure is gradually increased to allow more water to flow through the drinker
when the nipple is triggered. The force required to trigger the nipple is greater at a higher pressure;
however, as the birds get bigger and stronger they are able to apply more force allowing them
NIPPLE DRINKER continued from page 9
Average Temperature Inside Broiler House
1
Age 75F 85F 95F
(Wks)
---------- Gallons per 1,000 Birds ---------
1 6 7 8
2 17 22 35
3 28 40 70
4 39 58 97
5 49 72 117
6 56 85 132
7 66 94 144
8 70 98 150
1
Adapted from Goan (1994).
While spare
nipples and parts
are expensive,
buying parts is
preferable to
having poor flock
performance or
flooding the floor
of the house.
11
access to a greater amount of water over less time. Adjusting the regulator throughout the flock is
important since improper pressure may result in an inadequate supply of water to the birds or may
promote wet litter under the water lines. A small amount of caked litter under the water lines may
be acceptable to let you know there is adequate water moving through the nipples. If you see only
dry, dusty litter under the water lines with no sign of cake there may be reason to suspect that your
drinkers are not putting out an adequate flow rate of water. This could be due to improper water
pressure or the manufacturers flow rating for the particular style nipple you have.
Filtering the water supply is more important with nipple drinkers than with open drinkers.
Foreign particles must be kept out of the water lines and nipple mechanisms to prevent constant
dripping. Check filters regularly and replace when necessary. Replacement intervals will be deter-
mined somewhat by water quality (iron and mineral concentrations or bacterial contamination in
the water source).
Air in water lines can cause air locks where air pockets prevent or severely reduce water
flow in nipples near the pocket. Air locks can be an especially bad problem early in the flock when
chicks are small and water pressure low. Air locks occur in high spots along the drinker line so it is
important to keep the line level. This may require adjustments during the flock and especially after
decaking, when the litter has been disturbed or a total cleanout when new bedding has been added
and litter or bedding may no longer be level. Occasionally it is also a good idea to lift the regulator
end of the water line a foot or two for two or three seconds so that air in the system can be let out.
However, when raising the water line, use the metal support pipe or bar to lift the line. Avoid
grabbing the regulator itself since that could break the water line.
Nipple Height Critical to Performance
May et al. (1997) noted water consumption
was decreased by increased nipple height. Opti-
mum nipple height should be as high as birds
are able to stretch their necks and drink from the
end of their beaks (Dozier et al., 2001). How-
ever, if nipple height is increased so the bird must
elevate its breast and then stretch its neck to reach
the nipple, then inadequate consumption can
occur (Dozier et al., 2001). Figure 1 shows the
approximate heights that nipples should be above
the floor through a typical growout. The breed
of broiler that your integrator uses or integrator
recommended management practices may re-
quire some adjustment to these general
guidelines. Nipple drinker height, in most in-
stances, requires daily adjustment to ensure
adequate water consumption.
Proper nipple height becomes even more
important during periods of high environmental
temperatures. Lott et al. (1998) reported weight
gains are reduced with nipple drinkers as com-
pared with open-type drinkers at high ambient
temperatures (86 F) with the reduction attributed to panting. Chickens normally drink by taking
water from a pool and raising their heads to let the water run down the esophagus (May et al.,
1997). The raising of the head must be coordinated with breathing, which is a reflex action. Ob-
taining water from a higher point is not as typical a behavior when the birds are panting (May et al.,
1997). The chicken has trouble coordinating breathing and passage of water down the esophagus.
It appears the chicken cannot coordinate the intake of water with breathing if it is not associated
with the reflex action of raising the head (May et al., 1997). If panting reduces water intake on
nipple drinkers then reducing panting should increase water intake and, in turn, feed intake and
weight gain. In fact, Lott et al. (1998) demonstrated that a reduction of latent heat (less panting) by
means of increased air velocity increased body weight gains with nipple drinkers. Simmons et al.
NIPPLE DRINKER continued on page 12
0
5
10
15
20
4
5
7
9
11
13
14.5
16
17.5
19
1 3 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56
Days of Age
I
n
c
h
e
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

F
l
o
o
r
Figure 1. Nipple Drinker Height at Various Ages
Adapted from Goan (1994).
(1997) noted a shift from latent to sensible heat dissipation with increasing air ve-
locities. Therefore, increasing air velocity in an attempt to cool the bird and reduce
panting may increase water intake from nipple drinkers and improve feed intake and
weight gains during periods of high environmental temperatures. Lacy and Czarick
(1992) noted improved weight gains of broilers in tunnel- versus cross-ventilated
houses. The air velocity in a tunnel-ventilated house is greater than that in a conven-
tionally ventilated one with similar air exchange rates.
Summary
In recent years, nipple drinkers have become the standard drinker used in broiler
production. While providing major advantages in labor savings, less water wastage
and reduced condemnations at the processing plant, nipple drinkers come with a
price. They require a much higher level of management pertaining to proper water
pressure and water line height than open-type systems. Adjustments must be made to
water line height on an almost daily basis and to pressure regulators at least weekly.
Nipple drinker height is absolutely critical, especially during periods of hot weather
when birds are panting. Nipple drinkers are an excellent tool available to growers,
and the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages; however, proper management on a daily basis
is required if they are to perform as intended.
References
Carpenter, G.H., R.A. Peterson, W.T. Jones, K.R. Daly and W.A. Hypes. 1992. Effects of two
nipple types with different flow rates on the productive performance of broiler chickens during
summer-like growing conditions. Poultry Sci. 71:1450-1456.
Dozier III, W.A., M.P. Lacy and L.R. Vest. 2001. Broiler production and management. Bulle-
tin 1197. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences,
University of Georgia, Athens.
Goan, C.H. 1994. Management of nipple watering systems for broilers. PB 1533. Agricultural
Extension Service, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Lacy, M.P., and M. Czarick. 1992. Tunnel-ventilated broiler houses: broiler performance and
operating cost. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 1:104-109.
Lott, B.D., J.D. Simmons, and J.D. May. 1998. Air velocity and high temperature effects on
broiler performance. Poultry Sci. 77:391-393.
Lott, B.D., J.D. May, J.D. Simmons and S.L. Branton. 2001. The effect of nipple height on
broiler performance. Poultry Sci. 80:408-410.
May, J.D., B.D. Lott and J.D. Simmons. 1997. Water consumption by broilers in high cyclic
temperatures: bell versus nipple waterers. Poultry Sci. 76:944-947.
Pesti, G.M., S.V. Amato and L.R. Minear. 1985. Water consumption of broiler chickens under
commercial conditions. Poultry Sci. 64:803-808.
Simmons, J.D., B.D. Lott and J.D. May. 1997. Heat loss from broiler chickens subjected to
various wind speeds and ambient temperatures. Appl. Eng. Agric. 13(5):665-669.
Tabler, G. T., and I. L. Berry. 2001. Applied Broiler Research Unit Report: Ten-year summary
of broiler production results. Arkansas Farm Bureau Young Farmers and Ranchers Conference,
Hot Springs, AR. Aug 3-4.
NIPPLE DRINKER continued from page 11
continued from page 3
Nipple drinkers are
an excellent tool
available to growers,
and the advantages
far outweigh the
disadvantages;
however, proper
management on a
daily basis is
required if they
are to perform
as intended.
13
Early Feed Intake and
Bird Performance
Importance of Early Feed Intake
Feed intake is the single most important factor in determining growth rate of commercial
broilers and turkeys. The data in Table 1 were obtained from industry sources and show that birds
consuming feed the fastest weighed the most at processing and converted feed best. These data
show what experienced growers have known for some time flocks that do the best tend to be
active and consume starter feeds quickly.
It is also important to realize that feed intake is most important in the youngest birds. Figure 1
illustrates this fact. Most of the energy and nutrients consumed by birds younger than four weeks
goes toward growth. After four weeks the majority of energy and nutrients goes toward maintain-
ing the birds body. This means that if energy and nutrients are restricted early in the birds life, it
will likely never catch up to birds that were provided a good start.
In addition, flocks in which the majority of birds start well tend to be relatively uniform in
size, making management and optimum results easier. Flocks with the highest feed intake will
almost always have the highest average daily gain and weigh most at processing.
Table 1. Early Feed Intake and Broiler Flock Performance
Time to Consume No. of Av. Daily Gain Wt. at 49 days Adj. Feed
1.5 lbs of Starter Farms (lbs/day) (lbs) Conversion
(Days)
<17 19 0.103 5.05 2.04
17-19 33 0.101 4.95 2.10
>19 42 0.100 4.90 2.18
Understanding Feed Intake
Achieving maximum feed intake is much more complicated than just making sure your feed
pans have feed. The amount of feed a bird consumes can be limited by four factors: physical
limitations, bird physiology, feed availability and water availability.
EARLY FEED continued on page 14
Figure 1. Energy and Nutrient Utilization as Broilers Grow
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7
Energy used for growth Energy used for body maintenance
Adapted from: Donald, Eckman & Simpson, 2002
Feed intake is
the single most
important factor
in determining
growth rate of
commercial broilers
and turkeys.
The amount of feed
a bird consumes
can be limited
by four factors:
physical limitations,
bird physiology,
feed availability and
water availability.
Birds start eating because of a lack of fullness in certain sections of their gut. While some farm
animals start eating for the same reason, certain farm animals (like cows) will eat until they are full
(if adequate feed resources are available) and then rest while the feed digests. However, chickens
and turkeys tend to be nibblers. They will fill their crops, wait until some feed leaves and then fill
the crop again. Yet there are physical limitations to the amount of daily
intake a bird can handle. In addition, the amount of feed birds eat is based
on the passage of non-digested feed from the digestive tract. The slower the
rate of passage, the greater the amount of intake restriction.
The physiological limit to feed intake is controlled by the birds en-
ergy requirements for growth and body maintenance. If feed is available
and gut fill or other physical factors do not limit intake, then intake is deter-
mined by the birds demand for energy. If birds are being fed a low energy
diet, they will tend to eat more of that diet than if they were fed a higher
energy diet. This situation is similar to that in humans and other species.
How many of us as children ate candy and did not want to eat our supper?
The reason we did not want to eat supper is the candy met our energy
needs. What does this mean for us as poultry growers? It means that any-
time we provide birds with an additional source of energy, we could reduce
feed consumption and, in turn, growth.
If feed is unavailable then feed availability obviously limits intake. The lack of feed could be
due to a mechanical problem, a feeder line set wrong or a missed feed delivery. Regardless, it is
important to ensure that birds always have access to feed.
Water is, without question, the most essential nutrient. Without adequate water birds can sur-
vive a few days, but do not do well. This is because of the birds need for water and because the
availability of water affects feed consumption. When kept at 70F birds consume about twice as
much water as feed on a pound-for-pound or weight-for-weight basis. Every effort must be made
to insure the availability of an adequate amount of water by providing adequate drinker space as
well as maintaining proper drinker height, pressure and flow rate throughout the entire water sys-
tem.
Management Considerations
On-farm management practices can cause feed intake to vary significantly across flocks and
different housing set-ups (tunnel, conventional, dark-out, etc.). Even though growers may be feed-
ing the same feed and following the same general management guidelines for their specific
complex, feed intake will be affected by individual management styles, bird genetics, health status
of the flock and the environment the birds are subjected to over the life of the flock. As growers,
we must do our best to 1) provide birds with adequate access to feed and water, 2) reduce environ-
mental stress due to temperature extremes, ammonia levels or wet litter and 3) minimize disease
challenge. The only sure-fire way for growers to be confident all these management criteria are
being met is to spend time in the chicken house. Automatic controllers are great, but they do not
take the place of someone being in the chicken house. Numerous trips per day to the chicken
house are required if you are going to catch a water spill, find a cross auger hung up, re-wire a feed
motor or adjust the ventilation rate before major problems occur. Technology has removed much
of the manual labor from growing chickens, but it has not removed the need for a person watching
over growing chickens. It has been my observation from my early days as a broiler service techni-
cian right up through today that, as a general rule, how well a grower does on a flock of birds is
directly proportional to how much time he spends in the poultry house. While there are exceptions,
generally, growers who do the best spend the most time in the chicken house. Growers that spend
time in their houses catch potential negative situations, maintain a more uniform environment by
making almost constant little adjustments and fix little problems before they become big ones.
Although taking care of these small things may seem like busy work, the cumulative effect over a
six-to-eight-week growout may be the difference between being on top of the list and being aver-
age or below. Every grower is different, and some have off-farm jobs that prevent them from
living in the chicken house. However, be aware that raising chickens or turkeys is like most other
endeavors in life. The more time and effort you are willing and able to put into a project, the better
you are at that project.
EARLY FEED continued from page 13
Growers that
spend time
in their houses
catch potential
negative situations,
maintain a more
uniform environment
by making
almost constant
little adjustments
and fix little problems
before they become
big ones.
15
Regardless of how many visits are made on a daily basis, certain things should be checked
with each visit to the poultry house. Always check feeders and drinkers to make sure that feed pans
have feed and drinkers have water. Also, feeder and drinker height must be adjusted throughout the
flock to provide easy access to feed and water at all times. Feed intake will not be optimum if a bolt
in the auger blows a circuit breaker or overheats a feed line motor and no one discovers the prob-
lem for four hours or longer. Even more dangerous is an in-line water pressure reducing valve
failing on the hottest day of August and the problem not discovered until birds start dying. Almost
constant vigilance is required to prevent little problems from becoming major disasters.
Temperature, humidity and ammonia levels should also be checked on each visit and neces-
sary adjustments made. Birds under stressful conditions are not as efficient at converting feed to
meat. When responding to environmental stress, birds will have increased levels of stress hor-
mones in the body. Also, gut motility and nutrient absorption are decreased while body energy
reserves are used to combat the stress and thereby, unavailable for growth and weight gain. The
type of stress can have a major impact on feed intake levels. Acute stress, which lasts only a short
period and is then corrected, may decrease feed intake for only a short period and have minimal
performance effects. An example is running out of fuel and chilling the house until more fuel is
delivered and the brooders are re-lit. Chronic stress, however, such as excessive ammonia levels
throughout the life of a flock can have serious detrimental effects on both feed intake and perfor-
mance. Stress may also lead to a weakened immune system and increased disease susceptibility
which can decrease feed intake. In addition, when the bird is under stress or disease challenge, the
bird uses energy and nutrients to mount an immune response rather than grow.
Summary
Feed intake is the single most important factor regulating performance of agricultural ani-
mals. Feed intake controls the rate of output of all animal products and is the common denominator
of efficiency, regardless if the output is meat, eggs, or reproduction. While numerous factors influ-
ence feed intake, as growers we control our own destiny when it comes to on-farm management
practices. We must provide access to feed and water at all times. Feeder and drinker height must be
adjusted and maintained at the proper level during the entire flock. Temperature, humidity, venti-
lation, and ammonia must be kept within acceptable ranges; otherwise, feed intake and flock
performance will suffer. Spending time in the chicken house is the only way to guarantee that all
these needs are being met. Automatic controllers are marvelous inventions and allow us more
flexibility than ever before. However, dont let them take the place of you spending time in the
chicken house. Today there is a substitute for almost everything except you being in the chicken
house.
Reference
Donald, J., M. Eckman and G. Simpson. 2002. The impact of management on infectious
diseases in broilers. The Alabama Poultry Engineering and Economics Newsletter No. 16,
March, 2002.
Avian Advice
Published approximately four times per year, Avian Advice is sponsored by
the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, the Cooperative Extension Service
and the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science.
Editor: Frank T. Jones, Extension Section Leader
Graphic Designer: Judy Howard
Phone: (479) 575-4952 Fax: (479) 575-3026
You may e-mail the editor at ftjones@uark.edu.
Feed intake controls
the rate of output
of all animal products
and is the
common denominator
of efficiency,
regardless if
the output is meat,
eggs, or reproduction.
UA Poultry Science
for Poultry Science
INSIDE
page 10
Foreign Animal Diseases
and the Poultry Industry
By F.D. Clark
page 12
A Short History of the
Cleanup Costs Associated
with Major Disease
Outbreaks in the U.S.
By F.D. Clark
page 14
Biosecurity Practices for
Arkansas Livestock
Farms
By F.D. Clark
page 15
The Office of International
Epizootics
By F.D. Clark
page 18
Integrity and Rules of
Practice for Veterinarians
By F.D. Clark
Advice
AVIAN
The Biosecurity Issue
by F.T. Jones, Extension Section Leader
CONSEQUENCES - continued on page 2
Biosecurity is a subject that many growers
may feel has been discussed too much.
However, the lack of Biosecurity can dramati-
cally influence virtually everyone in Arkansas.
How can this be? Read on.
This issue is devoted entirely to
Biosecurity and is intended to clarify the
following questions:
Why such concern over diseases?
What diseases concern the industry most?
What would happen if we had a major
disease outbreak?
Why do veterinarians deal with diseases as
they do?
What are the economic consequences of a
major disease outbreak?
We believe that Biosecurity is good
citizenship. At first glance this statement may
seem ridiculous. However, the economy of
the state depends heavily on the poultry
industry and any reduction in income from
that industry could affect us all. Thus, I leave
it to you, the reader, to decide. Is Biosecurity
good citizenship?
Economic Consequences of a
Major Poultry Disease Break
by F.T. Jones, Extension Section Leader
Exports and Industry Success
The poultry industry has experienced
phenomenal growth over the past 40 years
(Figure 1). Consumers have responded
favorably to this growth and the industry has
benefitted (Figure 2). The industry has
increased exports of poultry meat dramatically
over the past 20 years (Figure 3). While these
exports have increased industry income, they
have also made the industry vulnerable to
losses associated with trade disputes and
international politics.
The United States has been a member an
of the Office of International Epizootics (OIE)
for decades. The OIE organization includes
virtually every major U. S. trading partner.
The purpose of the OIE is to prevent the spread
of major animal diseases (called List A
diseases) through sharing of information. For
poultry, there are only two List A diseases,
which are Exotic Newcastle and highly
pathogenic Avian Influenza. Although the
prevention of the spread of major animal
diseases is a noble goal, there is a downside
relating to open trade.
The procedures of the OIE dictate that
when an A category disease is confirmed
within a given country, member nations are
not to trade with that country. This trade ban
remains in effect for six months after the last
positive has been detected. In other words,
once the disease is totally cleaned up, the
trade ban will remain for an additional six
2 AVIAN Advice WInter 2002 Vol. 4, No. 4
CONSEQUENCES - continued from page
1
The poultry industry has
experienced phenomenal growth
over the past 40 years (Figure
1). Consumers have responded
favorably to this growth and the
industry has benefitted (Figure
2). The industry has increased
exports of poultry meat dramati-
cally over the past 20 years
(Figure 3). While these exports
have increased industry income,
they have also made the
industry vulnerable to losses
associated with trade disputes
and international politics.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
P
o
u
n
d
s

P
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 0
Years
Figure 1. United States Broiler Production
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
l
b
s

/
p
e
r
s
o
n
/
y
e
a
r
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 0
Years
Figure 2. Per Capital Consumption of
Poultry Meat in the United States
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
I
n
c
o
m
e

(
%
)
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 0
Years
Figure 3. United States Broiler Exports
3
CONSEQUENCES - continued on next page 4
months. In addition, the United States standard protocol when an A category disease is found is
to close the borders of (or quarantine) the state where the disease has been found so no live birds
or products can be moved in or out until the disease has been cleaned up. This means (obvi-
ously) that the state where the outbreak occurred would likely be stuck with those birds for an
extended period of time. Holding birds for extended periods would particularly difficult in
major poultry production states. In Arkansas, for example, there are slightly over 92 broilers
per human at any given time, holding birds for extended periods could be difficult. Further-
more, because the majority of farm income in Arkansas is tied to poultry production, a quaran-
tine could have major economic consequences for the state.
How much would such a disease break cost the state? It is difficult, if not impossible to
provide a definite answer to that question. However, estimates of the cost of a foot and mouth
disease outbreak in California amount to about $3.7 billion. California researchers also found
that the longer the time between the outbreak and intervention to control the disease, the greater
the cost (Figure 4).
Recent estimates show that in Arkansas, livestock enterprises accounted for 118,641 jobs in
1999 and workers received $3 billion in wages. Livestock producers added $4.1 billion in value
to the states economy. Poultry accounts for 86% of the value added livestock products pro-
duced in Arkansas. These data clearly indicate that what affects poultry production and
processing will have a major effect on the economy of Arkansas. However, it is necessary to
provide some background information to understand the true impact.
Industry Structure and Economic Impact
I am sure we all realize that vertically integrated companies produce broilers. The general
structure of a vertically integrated broiler production complex is shown in Figure 5. It has been
estimated that the initial investment to start an average one million bird complex is about $80
million. Most of this $80 million endeavor is invested in the area immediately surrounding the
complex in the buildings, equipment and supplies. This capital flows through the local
economy, producing a ripple effect so that those not connected with poultry production or
processing see positive economic effects. These positive effects include the creation of new
jobs. In fact, it has been recently estimated that when a new complex moves into an area there
are 3.4 jobs created for each job within the complex.
After the complex is established the company continues to pump cash through the local
economy. On average, each year the company spends more to operate than was required to set
up the complex. An estimated annual budget for an average broiler complex is shown in
Table 1. In addition, companies have a good deal invested in the production of pullets, hatching
eggs and broilers.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
M
i
l
l
i
o
n

D
o
l
l
a
r
s
7 10 16 18
Days Between Outbreak and Interventio
Figure 4. Foot and Mouth Disease Cost
and Intervention Time*
Figure 4. Foot and Mouth Disease Cost
and Intervention Time*
Days Between Outbreak and Intervention
* Adapted from Edboir, J.M. 1999
Figure 5. Vertical Integration in the Broiler Industry
Business Office
Flock Service
Grow Out Farms
Company & Contract
Processing Plant
Hatchery
Feed Mill
Consumer
Hatchery Supply Farms
Rendering Plant
Further Processing
Plant
Ready-to-Cook
Whole Birds & Parts
Further Processed
Products
Market Division
CONSEQUENCES- continued from page 5
CONSEQUENCES- continued on next page
5
The information in Figures 6 8 was developed from data collected by Agri Stats. By the time pullets are moved to the
laying house, the average broiler company has $5.59 invested per pullet (Figure 6). Over the life of a breeder flock, the company
invests on the average $0.958 per dozen eggs produced (Figure 7). When broilers are ready for catching and transport the
company has invested an average of $0.917 per bird. The costs shown in Figures 6 8 do NOT include payments to growers. If
grower payments are included in these estimates, companies on the average pay $7.22 per pullet, $1.34 per dozen hatching eggs
and $1.15 per broiler. If this investment stopped or was seriously reduced, many local economies would find themselves in very
difficult circumstances. Yet the company (obviously) must be able to ship and sell products for capital to continue to flow
through local economies. Clearly, a major disease outbreak would threaten the companys ability to conduct business and, in
turn, negatively impact local economies.
Table 1. Estimated Annual Budget for a Million bird per
week complex
Expense Amount
Feed Ingredients $33,120,000
Labor/Benefits 16,640,000
Grower Payments 15,602,500
Depreciation 8,000,000
Interest 6,400,000
Breeder Chicks 1,200,000
Electricity 1,200,000
Water/Sewer 1,000,000
Misc. 1,000,000
Vehicle Operating Costs 645,600
TOTAL $84,808,100
CONSEQUENCES- continued on page 6
Figure 6. Average Company
Costs in Pullet Growing
Misc
Service
Moving
Medication
Feed
Chick
Figure 7. Average Company Cost in
Producing Hatching Eggs
Feed
Misc
Service
Pullets
$5.59/Pullet
$0.958/Dozen
7
CONSEQUENCES - continued on page 8
Unknowns in a Major Disease Outbreak
There would (without a doubt) be many unknowns if a
major disease outbreak occurred. Some of these unknowns
could have a lasting effect on both local and national econo-
mies.
How would a major disease outbreak affect prices for
poultry products? This question is not easily answered.
However, since there is often an oversupply of poultry
products, a major disease outbreak could reduce the supply of
products, causing prices to rise. HOWEVER, the price of
birds within the area affected by the outbreak would be 0,
since birds from that area would be destroyed. Thus, while
poultry companies in other areas could benefit from the
misfortune of others, companies dealing with the outbreak
would take a major economic hit.
How would a major disease outbreak affect consumer
confidence in poultry products? If consumers believe that the
disease outbreak would endanger their health, they would lose
confidence in poultry products and buy products other than
poultry. While consumers have not reacted in this manner in
past outbreaks, there is no guarantee about their future
behavior.
Perhaps the most troubling unknown about the conse-
quences of a major disease outbreak involves retaining export
markets. If such an outbreak occurred and export markets
were lost even temporarily, we would have to win those
markets back once the export ban was lifted. Given the fact
that some other countries now have lower production costs
than the United States, winning markets back could be an
uphill battle. Furthermore, the loss of major export markets
would limit industry profitability.
A Worst Case Scenario
Just how bad could conditions get? Although there are
some unknowns, the illustration in Figure 9 provides some
possible consequences. If the complex is not able to sell
product, it would not need to make any further bird place-
ments. This lack of bird placements means that workers in the
processing plant, the hatchery, the feed mill and several other
company units would not be needed so this could result in
massive layoffs. Obviously, these layoffs would mean loss of
income for workers, growers and all those who provide goods
and services for all involved. If these layoffs occur, would
workers who form the labor force to staff plants, hatcheries
and feed mills stay around? Probably not, if they have no
source of income. This situation would force many people to
default on farm, home and business loans or mortgages,
which, would mean, consequently, that banks and lending
institutions would face the same economic pressures every
other institution has faced and financing for nearly everything
could become scarce. This lack of financing combined with
Figure 8. Average Company Costs
in Producing Broilers
Medication Service
Milling
Feed
Chick
$0.917/Bird
the economic situation, would mean that many businesses would fail and that those surviving
businesses would have to drastically reduce the number of workers employed. Layoffs, exodus
of people, business failures and bank pressures would clearly mean that fewer taxes would be
collected. The collection of fewer taxes would mean that law enforcement; fire fighters, health
departments, municipal services (e.g. sewage treatment, water distribution, garbage pick-up, and
the like) and schools would face a funding crisis forcing them to reduce both staff and services.
Plainly, the entire situation would mean that the quality of life would be drastically reduced for
those who remain.
Whats the point?
Why bring up all this information? Why think about all these dooms day scenarios?
Before beginning that discussion, please allow me to pose another question. If we had such an
outbreak, where would it begin? It would likely begin on one or more farms. How would it get
on those farms? It could begin because someone was not paying attention to biosecurity on
their farm as they should. It would spread because others were not paying attention to
biosecurity on their farm.
Now that you know the consequences of such an outbreak, wouldnt it be nice to prevent
one? If we cannot prevent it, wouldnt it be nice to limit the spread of disease so that the impact
on the industry and the economy was minimized? This is the point: the local economy and the
health of the industry could depend on the biosecurity practices on your farm. Are the
biosecurity practices on your farm what they should be? Completing the checklist below should
provide help you assess where you are with respect to basic Biosecurity practices
CONSEQUENCES- continued on next page
Figure 9. Possible Economic Domino
Effect with a Major Disease Outbreak
N
o

S
a
l
e
s
M
a
s
s
i
v
e

L
a
y
o
f
f
s
I
n
c
o
m
e

L
o
s
s
L
o
s
s

o
f

L
a
b
o
r

F
o
r
c
e
N
o

P
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
s
s

T
a
x
e
s
F
e
w
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
B
a
n
k

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s
F
e
w
e
r

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
L
o
w
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

o
f

L
i
f
e
9
YES NO QUESTION
Do you limit the access of visitors to your poultry houses?
When authorized visitors enter your poultry houses are they
required to wear disposable boots?
Do you visit the poultry houses of other growers while they
have birds?
Do you share or borrow equipment from other growers?
Are vehicles that have visited other farms allowed to park
near your poultry houses?
Do you bring litter or dead birds from other poultry farms
to your farm?
Have you limited the access of wild animals (particularly
wild birds) to your houses?
Do you spread your litter near other poultry houses?
Are pets allowed access to your poultry houses?
Are wild animals allowed access to dead birds from your
farm?
Is untreated ground water used to water your birds?
An honest answer of no to each of these questions indicates that you have taken some
steps to prevent a Biosecurity incident on your farm. However, even if you can honestly answer
no to each of these questions, please do not think you are safe. You have only begun to
establish an effective Biosecurity program on your farm. Since each farm represents a unique
set of circumstances, you will undoubtedly face circumstances that no other farm faces. It is
crucial for the survival of your farm as well as the local economy and, indeed, the health of the
industry, that you be as effective as possible with your Biosecurity program. How can disease
organisms gain access to the birds in my poultry houses? This is the tough question that each
poultry grower must address.
Summary
Exports are vital to the health of the poultry industry. Yet we could lose those exports with
one major disease outbreak. Losing exports would hurt both growers and companies since both
have much invested in poultry production. However, loss of exports would also hurt the local
and (depending on the severity) the national economy. By practicing sound on-farm Biosecurity
principles, growers protect not only their own economic interests, but those of the local
economy and the national industry.
BIOSECURITY
CHECKLIST
DISEASE- continued on next page
Foreign Animal Diseases
and the Poultry Industry
Introduction
There has been tremendous news coverage of the outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease
(FMD) in the United Kingdom recently. In addition to the outbreaks in the United Kingdom,
there have been FMD outbreaks in Argentina, Uruguay, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the Nether-
lands. .
While FMD does not affect poultry, an outbreak in the United States would affect the
poultry industry because it would restriction movement of animals, supplies, and people in and
out of quarantined areas. These movement restrictions are designed to prevent spread of the
disease so it can be more easily contained and eliminated. FMD is one of the diseases that is
considered a Foreign Animal Disease (FAD). Foreign Animal Diseases FADs are those
diseases which have either never occurred in the United States or have been eradicated from the
United States. Examples of some FADs are: Hog Cholera, African Swine Fever, Dourine,
Glanders, African Horse Sickness, Heartwater Disease, Screwworms, Rinderpest, Avian
Influenza, and Exotic Newcastle Disease (END). There is continued surveillance and vigilance
by the United Stated Department of Agriculture / Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(USDA / APHIS), private veterinary practitioners, and Foreign Animal Disease Diagnosticians
(FADDs) to prevent these diseases from entering or re-entering the United States.
Exotic Newcastle Disease
Exotic Newcastle Disease (END) is an FAD that can cause devastating losses in the poultry
industry. Exotic Newcastle Disease (END) can affect many species of domesticated, wild, and
exotic birds and was first seen in 1926 in Great Britain, Java, and Korea. The name Newcastle
comes from the location where the disease occurred in Great Britain (Newcastle-upon-Tyne).
The disease is present endemically in many countries.
The disease was first reported in the United States in 1944 with other outbreaks reported in
1946 and 1951. However, END was quickly eradicated from the United States. The most serious
recent outbreak in the United States occurred in southern California in 1971 and cost almost 56
million dollars to eradicate.
The causative agent of END is a Rubulavirus in the family Paramyxoviridae. The virus
can persist in feces for long periods of time and some bird species (parrots and some wild birds)
may be carriers of the virus. Outbreaks of the disease can cause severe losses in a short period of
time. The incubation period for the disease varies from 2-15 days with the incubation period in
chickens being 2-6 days. Clinical symptoms include gasping for air, green watery diarrhea,
coughing, depression, loss of appetite, thin shell misshapen eggs, droopy wings, twisting of the
head and neck, and spasms. Mortality varies with the viral strain and species infected; but may
be high at the initial onset. Lesions observed with the disease include: swelling in the neck
tissues around the trachea, hemorrhages on the tracheal mucosal surface, small pinpoint hemor-
rhages on the inside lining of the proventriculus, hemorrhage and necrosis of the lymphoid
tissue in the intestines, and hemorrhages in the vent.
A presumptive diagnosis of suspicious for END can be made based upon the symptoms
and lesions. However, since there are no symptoms or lesions exclusive for END. The disease
must be differentiated from similar diseases such as Avian Influenza and fowl cholera by virus
isolation and identification.
11
Avian Influenza
Avian Influenza is a highly infectious contagious viral disease of poultry, wild birds
and migratory waterfowl. The disease can range in severity from a mild respiratory trouble with
little or no mortality to an acute generalized disease with extremely high mortality. The disease
was first described in Italy in the late 1800s and was referred to as Fowl Plague.
The Avian Influenza virus belongs to the Orthomyxoviridae family. These viruses have
two surface antigens known as Hemagglutinin (HA) and Neuraminidase (NA). These two
antigens are used to describe the virus serologically with the virus designated with the letter H
and N with appropriate numbers. For instance, the H7N2 virus was the virus present in the
recent outbreak in Virginia. There are currently 15 H subtypes and 9 N subtypes of the virus.
Avian Influenza is classified as low pathogenic (LPAI) or high pathogenic (HPAI). The deter-
mination of LPAI or HPAI is based on several criteria such as lethality of the virus in 4-6 week
old susceptible chickens and amino acid sequences at the HA cleavage site. The virus can easily
and quickly mutate from a low pathogenic strain into a high pathogenic strain.
Avian Influenza has a variable incubation period of hours to days depending on the viral
virulence, exposure route, species, dosage and other factors. Usually, the incubation period is 1-
3 days. The natural routes of exposure to the virus are respiratory and oral. Clinical signs of the
disease can include: depression, ruffled feathers, loss of appetite, a decrease in egg production,
an increase in water consumption, diarrhea, and respiratory signs such as sneezing, coughing,
and discharges. Lesions associated with the disease will also vary ranging from few if any to
swelling of the head, neck and wattles, hemorrhages in organ systems, necrotic areas in various
organs, hemorrhages on the shanks of the legs, sinusitis, tracheitis and variable amounts of
mortality.
The virus is spread primarily via direct contact with infected birds or exposure to virus
contaminated materials. Most Avian Influenza strains are low pathogenic and cause few
problems. Historically, most outbreaks of highly pathogenic Avian Influenza started as low
pathogenic outbreaks.
Controlling Foreign Animal Diseases
The best method of disease control is prevention. This is accomplished via Biosecurity
protocols and vigilance for FADDs to prevent entry into the United States.
Currently, there is an Emergency Poultry Diseases Technical Poultry Committee
(EPDTPC) that is developing plans and procedures for handling an outbreak of END or AI if
outbreaks were to occur in Arkansas. This committee is part of the Arkansas Animal Disease
Emergency Response team which was organized by the Arkansas state veterinarian and the
Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission.
The EPDTPC organized and conducted Tabletop Exercises in December 2000 and October
2001; other exercises are planned for 2003. The purpose of these exercises is to help in the
development of plans and procedures for handling outbreaks if disease were found in Arkansas
or the United States. These plans are very necessary considering that in 1999 outbreaks of END
occurred in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Canada, and New South Wales, Australia. In the year
2000 there were END outbreaks in Russia and Italy with 231 outbreaks in Italy alone. Costly
Avian Influenza outbreaks have occurred in the USA in 1983-84 and 2002. Vigilance, common
sense, and Biosecurity protocols all can help in the prevention of this disease, other Foreign
Animal Diseases and more common less devastating diseases.
Summary
Although in recent years the United States has experienced no foreign animal disease
outbreaks, foreign animal diseases have not left the planet so outbreaks are still possible. An
outbreak of any foreign animal disease would cause hardship on all animal production industries
since the movement of animals, supplies and people would be restricted in quarantine areas.
Exotic Newcastle Disease (END) and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) are two
foreign animal diseases that can be devastating to poultry. Prevention is the best method of
disease control. Foreign animal diseases can be prevented by strict Biosecurity procedures on
each farm and vigilance by animal health professionals charged with preventing the entry of
disease into the United States.
OUTBREAK- continued on next page
A Short History of the
Cleanup Costs Associated
with Major Disease Out-
breaks in the United States
John Hahn, Veterinary Services
USDA /APHIS
Introduction
Before starting our discussion of cleanup costs, it is important to understand some termi-
nology. While diseases occur all over the world, certain diseases are very deadly to animals and
can spread rapidly. There is no cure for most of these diseases consequently the most effective
means of control is to destroy infected or exposed animals. While not popular, this approach
has proved effective in controlling these diseases. However, the approach is effective only
because each country knows what diseases are commonly found within its borders. Diseases
that are not commonly found within the borders are called foreign animal diseases (FADs).
Major Poultry Disease Outbreaks
Since 1971 there have been two major outbreaks of foreign animal diseases in the United
States and both of these outbreaks have been in poultry. The first outbreak involved Exotic
Newcastle Disease (or VVND), and the second outbreak involved highly pathogenic Avian
Influenza (AI). An additional outbreak, which had a major cost was also in poultry. It, however,
was not technically a foreign animal disease since it was classified as low pathogenic Avian
Influenza
In 1971, a major outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease occurred in commercial poultry
flocks in southern California. The United States Department of Agriculture / Animal and Plant
Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS) was asked by the State of California to assist in the eradica-
tion of the disease. The disease threatened not only the California poultry industry but the entire
U.S. poultry and egg supply. In all, 1,341 infected flocks were identified, and almost 12 million
birds were destroyed. Eradication efforts cost taxpayers $56 million, severely disrupted the
operations of many producers, and increased the prices of poultry and poultry products to
consumers. This cost of eradication and clean-up also included a total of $27.5 million for bird
indemnity. The outbreak was so severe that nearly four years were required to contain the
disease. However, Exotic Newcastle has not infected commercial chicken flocks in the United
States since that outbreak was eradicated in 1974.
Exotic Newcastle Disease was also diagnosed in backyard poultry flocks in Southern
California on October 1, 2002. The California Department of Food and Agriculture and the
USDA/APHIS are presently working to eradicate this disease. A total of 1,507 backyard flock
premises have been quarantined and infected birds have been found on 351 premises and
destroyed. Although Exotic Newcastle Disease eradication efforts are underway in backyard
flocks, the disease has not been found in commercial flocks.
Since 1971 there
have been two
major outbreaks
of foreign animal
diseases in the
United States
and both of these
outbreaks have
been in poultry.
13
Avian Influenza
The outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza was in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Maryland in 1983 and 1984. USDA/APHIS was also asked to assist in these eradication efforts.
A total of 17 million birds were destroyed and expenses associated with this outbreak totaled
$63 million. Poultry producers suffered estimated direct losses of $55 million in the form of
lost birds and eggs, but these direct losses were offset by the $40 million in indemnity pay-
ments. Additionally, there were costs associated with cleanup, disinfection, transportation, lost
income, and financial hardships which were not included in the estimate. It has been calculated
that consumers paid about $349 million more for their protein foods during the period Novem-
ber 1983 to April 1984 because of the outbreak of Avian Influenza.
An additional incident illustrates the unpredictable nature of Avian Influenza. A number of
table-egg farms in Lancaster and Lebanon Counties, PA tested positive for Avian Influenza in
1996 and 1997. The virus was isolated and said to be nonpathogenic to chickens, but the
outbreak had devastating effects on the local poultry industry. The virus causes such severe
losses that nine layer flocks were depopulated. The Pennsylvania Agricultural Department also
imposed a quarantine on a 75-square-mile area restricting movement of poultry or poultry
products into or off of operations in the area of the quarantine until the outbreak was cleaned up.
Why did a supposedly non-pathogenic virus cause losses in chickens? The Avian Influenza
virus can easily mutate from a non-pathogenic or low pathogenic strain to a highly pathogenic
strain without warning.
An additional major disease outbreak has recently occurred. This outbreak involved low
pathogenic Avian Influenza and occurred in the Shenandoah Valley area of Virginia. The
outbreak spread very quickly and there was great concern that it would mutate to high patho-
genic Avian Influenza as had happened in outbreaks in Mexico, Italy, and Pennsylvania.
Because of this concern, the State of Virginia asked USDA/APHIS to help eradicate the disease.
Positive cases were diagnosed from March12 thru July 3, 2002. The last of the quarantined
farms were released on October 9, 2002. The total costs for this outbreak have not been enumer-
ated as yet. However, the estimates are $13 million for eradication efforts and $50 million for
indemnity payments. The Poultry Federation of Virginia has estimated that the outbreak cost the
poultry industry of Virginia $129 million.
Major Poultry Diseases in Other Countries
It is obvious that disease outbreaks can be costly to eradicate and cleanup. There are also
costs from loss of trade since restrictions are dictated under treaty obligations associated with
the Office of International Epizootics (OIE). Currently, OIE lists an outbreak of Newcastle
Disease in laying hens in Algeria and an outbreak of Newcastle Disease on 132 premises in
Denmark. Visitors to these countries could transmit the disease to animals in this country if
precautions are not taken.
Summary
Although the United States has not experience the trade
restrictions associated with a foreign disease outbreak, the
possibility always exists. Costs associated with the eradica-
tion of foreign animal diseases are high, but the costs to the
industry and consumers are even higher. Constant vigilance is
necessary to protect our animals and our industry.
BIOSECURITY - continued on next page
Biosecurity Practices for
Arkansas Livestock Farms
Biosecurity and Best Farm Management
An outbreak of a disease on a farm can cause loss of animals for sale, production losses,
and extra expenses from veterinary services, quarantine, and/or costs of sanitation and disinfec-
tion. All of these extra costs can seriously impede or eliminate farm cash flow and animal
equity.
Biosecurity is the term used for the overall practices and protocols designed to keep disease
off the farm. These measures should be a part of the daily management routine and in essence
are part of the best management practices designed to enhance farm profitability.
Assessing Biosecurity Risks
The first step in developing a Biosecurity program is to assess the on farmrisks of
disease. This assessment should be made in consultation with your veterinarian, county agent,
or extension livestock specialist. The assessment allows custom tailoring of a Biosecurity plan
to the individual farm since each farm has differences. However, there are certain practices that
can be utilized on any farm. It is these practices that will be discussed in this paper.
There are many ways in which diseases can gain entry to a livestock farm. The introduction
of new animals to the farm is the greatest risk faced. Animals returning to the farm from a
location where they have been exposed to other animals offer a risk equally as great. The second
greatest threat is from traffic to and from the farm (people, vehicles, and equipment) which may
inadvertently carry a disease organism onto the farm. Other sources of disease include vermin,
wildlife, and contaminated feed, water, and supplies.
Animals and Animal Movement
The greatest threat of disease introduction comes from new animals being moved to the
farm or animals returning to the farm after being in contact with other animals. The movement
of animals may be a routine occurrence on many farms as animals are moved to and from
exhibitions, sales, auctions, etc, or new animals are obtained to infuse new genetics or blood-
lines. It is best to always attempt to purchase new animals from sources where the health and
disease status are known. In addition, appropriate screening tests (as determined by your
veterinarian or extension specialist) can help limit the addition of animals with some infectious
diseases. However, remember that tests do have their limits. It is also important to remember
that an animal may be carrying a disease and not exhibiting any symptoms. Therefore, all new
animals should be quarantined for a period of time after they are purchased . The quarantine
should be at the very least 3-4 weeks (most acute type diseases will become visible within this
time frame) . During this quarantine period the animals should be carefully examined for any
clinical symptoms that are not normal. In addition, other tests can be performed that were not
part of the initial screening and any animal that does become ill can be treated appropriately or
removed. Any returning animal should also go through the quarantine since they may have been
exposed to other animals or diseases. The quarantine area should be isolated away from the
other farm animals and the animals in the quarantine should be checked daily after all other on
farm animals to minimize inadvertent transmission. It is important to wear different clothing,
such as coveralls and rubber or disposable boots, when caring for the quarantined animals. In
addition, all wastes from the quarantined animals should be isolated from the non-quarantined
The greatest
threat of disease
introduction
comes from new
animals being
moved to the farm
or animals
returning to the
farm after
contact with
other animals.
15
animals and any feed or water sources. All equipment used
with the quarantined animals should be thoroughly cleaned
and disinfected before using it with other animals. This
includes any equipment utilized in bringing the animals to the
farm and any used with the animals while in quarantine.
Another important aspect to consider is the disease
resistance status of the animals; both the new additions and
those already on the farm. It is important to have a vaccination
program in place for diseases that are most likely to affect
your animals. This vaccination program works best if it is
customized to your farm. Parasite control and/or preventative
measures are also an important aspect of the animals disease
resistance since parasites compete for nutrients and can
weaken the immune system. Additionally, a sound nutritional
program will promote overall health and allow an animal to
better respond to antibiotic therapy and vaccinations. Finally,
the influence of stress cannot be overlooked; any environment
that reduces stress will promote health.
Traffic and Traffic Movement
Traffic to and from the farm (people, vehicles, and
equipment) may inadvertently carry a disease organism onto
the farm. It is therefore very important to minimize traffic or
the potential for traffic to introduce a disease. Visitors to farms
are a necessary part of operating a farm; these visitors can be
veterinarians, livestock specialists, family members, other
livestock owners, utility personnel, or other individuals.
All visitors can be grouped into the three categories of
minimal or low risk, moderate risk, and high risk. Low risk
visitors are those that rarely visit a farm and have had no
contact with livestock (such as those from city and/or urban
areas). As such they present a minimal risk of introducing
disease. Moderate risk visitors are those that routinely visit
farms, but have no or only occasional contact with livestock.
This category of visitors includes individuals such as feed
delivery personnel, utility personnel, and farm salespersons.
High risk visitors are those that routinely visit farms and have
direct close contact with livestock. Minimal Biosecurity
measures for all three categories include: 1. no contact with
farm livestock unless absolutely necessary, 2. parking of
vehicles away from the production area of the farm on a
paved, gravel, or concrete area and 3. washing of their hands
before and after entering the premises.
Low risk visitors should practice the minimal security
measures and not bring off farm foods to the farm or enter
areas where contact with livestock could occur. You may wish
to ask them to wear coveralls to prevent contamination of their
clothing . Moderate risk visitors should wear coveralls and
boots if there will be any contact with animals, animal wastes,
feeds, pens, and or equipment in addition to the same things as
low risk visitors. Additionally, they should and clean and
disinfect their boots and equipment before leaving. High risk
visitors are the greatest risk and should practice all the
minimal measures of Biosecurity and all those things done by
low and high risk visitors. however, they need to take addi-
tional precautions . These additional precautions include
putting on clean boots and coveralls before entering the farm,
using disposable supplies as possible or cleaning and disin-
fecting all equipment before bringing it on the farm, and
cleaning and thoroughly cleaning and disinfecting when
leaving the farm. The use of a footbath should also be consid-
ered as part of the farm Biosecurity plan. The footbath should
be in a suitable container that is water tight and large enough
to allow at least one foot to be placed entirely in it. The
footbath is far more effective if there is some means to remove
debris from the footwear before use of the footbath since
many disinfectants are rendered ineffective if contaminated
with organic matter such as manure. It is important to be sure
and locate the footbath where it is easily accessible and
practical for use. It is best to have a footbath at the entrance to
each pen or building. Unfortunately these locations are seldom
practical or utilizable. therefore locate the footbath where
traffic will be from the outside and in areas where the most
susceptible animals are located. . It is also very important to
properly maintain the disinfectant solutions by cleaning and
recharging at least weekly or more often if used frequently.
Remember a footbath that is improperly used may hinder or
harm a Biosecurity program by giving a false sense of security
or actually spreading disease. All chemicals and disinfectants
used for cleaning, disinfecting, and in footbaths should be
EPA approved and mixed and used according to label direc-
tions.
Ideally, there should be only one farm entrance that can
be gated or closed off to discourage and prevent visitors and
traffic. Vehicles should not be allowed on the farm unless
absolutely necessary. All vehicles should be parked on an area
of concrete, asphalt, etc. so the wheels and undercarriage can
be properly cleaned and disinfected and there is minimal
contact with dirt, mud, farm drainage, and/or animal wastes.
If this is not possible at least park on an area of grass. Ideally
all vehicles should be cleaned and disinfected before arrival at
and upon leaving a farm. Additionally, some type of insecti-
cidal spray should be used in the vehicle before leaving. Farm
equipment should not be loaned to other farms if at all
possible. If this is not possible the equipment should be
thoroughly cleaned and properly disinfected before returning
to the farm or use with other animals. All supplies that are
non-disposable should be cleaned and disinfected after each
animal. Another important point about traffic (both vehicular
and personnel) is traffic flow patterns. It is always best
(because of differences in immunity and susceptibility ) to
visit the youngest animals first then progress age-wise to the
oldest. All quarantined and/or sick animals should be checked
last.
Summary
Disease outbreaks can reduce farm efficiency and profits.
Effective Biosecurity programs can reduce the risk of disease
outbreaks. Effective Biosecurity programs reduce the prob-
ability that diseases will gain entrance to the farm. Animals
and animal movement is the greatest biosecurity risk farms
face, while traffic (people, vehicles and equipment) to and
from the farm can transmit disease.
The Office of International
Epizootics
Background
In 1920 Rinderpest, a deadly and highly infectious viral disease of cattle, was found in
cattle from India being held in Belgium for shipment to Brazil. While swift action could have
limited the disease, the inevitable slowness of negotiations using diplomatic channels between
nations allowed the disease to spread and hampered eradication efforts. Realizing their predica-
ment, the founding 28 countries created the Office of International Epizootics or OIE in 1924.
The OIE is headquartered in Paris and held its first session in 1927. Since this beginning;
membership in the OIE has grown and the stature of the organization has as well. The OIE
presently includes 162 member countries.
Operating Procedures
The International Committee, which is composed of delegates from member countries, is
the controlling body of OIE. The International Committee holds a general meeting every year
in Paris for the purpose of adopting international trade standards and resolutions related to
animal health or animal disease control. Additional business conducted at the general meeting
includes: election of members to governing bodies or commissions, appointing the OIE Director
General, approving annual activity reports and authorizing budgets. The general meeting also
allows delegates to discuss regional problems and report on the worldwide animal health
situation.
Meeting OIE Objectives
OIE members agree to strive toward four objectives. First, member countries agree to tell
the truth about what diseases have been found in their countries so that other countries can
protect themselves. Second, members agree to analyze their own disease situation and share
that data with other members in an effort to help each other understand how to control these
diseases. Third, members agree help each other learn how to control and eradicate diseases.
Fourth and last members agree to develop standards for protection of member countries without
erecting trade barriers. This standard is called the International Animal Health Code (AHC). The
World Trade Organization recognizes the AHC of the OIE as international sanitary rules.
How does OIE accomplish its objectives? This is done via OIEs world animal health
information system through which member countries declare current animal diseases and
zoonoses (diseases that are transmitted from animals to man) in their respective countries. OIE
information can be viewed at http://www.oie.int/eng/oie/en_oie.htm. Diseases reported to the
OIE are classified into two categories: List A and List B.
Disease Classifications
List A diseases are transmissible diseases that have the potential for very serious and rapid
spread, irrespective of national borders, that are of serious socio-economic or public health
consequence and that are of major importance in the international trade of animals and animal
products. List B diseases are diseases that are transmissible, are considered to be of socio-
economic and/or public health importance within the reporting countries, and that are significant
in the international trade of animals and animal products. While important enough to be
tracked, List B diseases tend to be those that spread less easily and are controlled more readily.
EPIZOOTICS - continued on next page
17
Trade and Economic Effects of OIE
Members also agree to abide by the International Animal Health Code which states:
International trade in animals and animal products depends on a combination of factors which
should be taken into account to ensure unimpeded trade, without incurring un acceptable risks to
human and animal health.
As a part of this trade agreement certain countries that meet the criteria are declared disease
free for List A diseases. When a country has a disease free status, unimpeded trade can
proceed with that country. However, if a List A disease is discovered in a disease free
country, trade is restricted with that country so that the disease can be controlled. Unimpeded
trade can resume with the affected country six months after the last positive has been discov-
ered. Although, this procedure is needed and necessary, it has economic consequences. These
consequences are outlined in another article.
The List A and List B diseases for avians are listed below:
List A List B
Newcastle disease Avian chlamydiosis
Highly pathogenic avian Avian infectious bronchitis
influenza
Avian infectious
laryngotracheitis
Avian mycoplasmosis
(M. gallisepticum)
Avian tuberculosis
Duck virus enteritis
Duck virus hepatitis
Fowl Cholera
Fowl Pox
Fowl typhoid
Infectious bursal disease
(Gumboro disease)
Mareks disease
Pullorum disease
Integrity and Rules of
Practice for Veterinarians
Veterinarians Oath
We probably all realize that, once they have completed their training, veterinarians must
pass state board examinations and are required to take an oath. That oath is as follows:
Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my
scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of
animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of livestock resources,
the promotion of public health and the advancement of medical knowledge.
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity and in keeping with the
principles of veterinary medical ethics.
I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowl-
edge and competence.
Regulations Veterinarians Must Follow and Why
Most veterinarians honor the personal commitment they make upon taking their oath,
maintaining the integrity of the profession. However, as the oath implies, veterinarians, like
other professionals, have rules to obey and are expected maintain their competency. Veterinar-
ians are expected to obey the same regulations that any other citizen of the United States must
obey. However, there are also additional regulations that apply only to the practice of veterinary
medicine. Veterinarians who do not follow these regulations are punished and could have their
licence to practice within the state revoked.
In the United States the veterinary profession is regulated in each state by a state Veterinary
Medical Board, which enforces a set of regulations known as the Veterinary Practice Act.
While specific regulations found in the Veterinary Practice Act may vary slightly from state to
state, regulations, and policies are similar. Regulations are usually set forth by the legislative
body of the state(i.e. the state house or senate) and are established to define the practice of
veterinary medicine in the state, establish a veterinary board, and establish penalties for the
illegal practice of veterinary medicine. Some of the duties of the veterinary board may include:
examining to determine the qualifications of applicants to practice in the state, issue of veteri-
nary licenses, investigate complaints against veterinarians, and enforce the provisions of the
Veterinary Practice Act.
Consequences for Violating Regulations
The Veterinary Practice Act is designed to protect the general public and their animals by
insuring that licensed, qualified veterinarians are properly engaged in the practice of veterinary
medicine. The practice act outlines a code of professional conduct for veterinarians to follow.
Any veterinarian that violates the rules of the practice act is investigated by the veterinary board
and may be issued a citation, temporary suspension of their license or a revocation of their
license to practice. Unprofessional conduct, such as conviction of a felony, negligence, animal
cruelty, dishonesty, and a host of other behaviors are all grounds for investigation and punish-
ment.
INTEGRITY - continued on next page
19
The diagnosis of disease in an animal by a veterinarian is also somewhat regulated by the
agency responsible for the control of animal diseases in the state. This agency issues a list of
diseases that are considered reportable within the state. A reportable disease in one that
veterinarians are required to report to the agency in charge of animal disease control. These
diseases are those that have the potential to be communicable to people, are easily spread, or are
a foreign animal disease (ie. one not endemic to the United States). A few examples of report-
able diseases are rabies, Brucellosis, Tuberculosis, Avian Influenza, Exotic Newcastle, Anthrax,
and Hog Cholera. In most states a veterinarian is legally obligated to report any disease listed as
reportable in that state or the United States if the disease is even suspected in an affected animal.
In other words, the veterinarian must report the disease even if he/she suspects the disease is
present and has not definitively diagnosed the disease. Once reported, certain diseases may lead
to animals being quarantined until the disease can be contained. Although such quarantines can
be inconvenient for producers and processors, regulations may require veterinarians to issue
these orders.
Summary
Veterinarians are bound by honor bound to uphold their oath and the regulations within the
states that grant them licences to practice. The oath as well as the regulations are designed to
protect health of the public, the health of animals, the food supply and to prevent deadly and
costly disease outbreaks. In addition, these oath and the regulations insure that a veterinarian is
practicing with a certain level of knowledge, and professional conduct.
Avian Advice
Published approximately four times per year, Avian Advice is sponsored by The University of
Arkansas Division of Agriculture, The Cooperative Extension Service and The Center of
Excellence for Poultry Science.
Graphic Designer: Karen Eskew, Communication Specialist
Phone: (479) 575-4952 Fax: (479) 575-3026
You may e-mail the editor at ftjones@uark.edu
UA Poultry Science
Dr. R. Keith Bramwell, Extension Reproductive Physiologist, Dr. Bramwell attended Brigham Young University where he
received his B.S. in Animal Science in 1989. He then attended the University of Georgia from 1989 to 1995 where he received
both his M.S. and Ph.D. in Poultry Science. As part of his graduate program, he developed the sperm penetration assay, which
is still in use today, as both a research tool and as a practical troubleshooting instrument for the poultry industry. He then spent
one year studying in the Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology Lab at Colorado State University. In 1996, Bramwell returned
Dr. Frank Jones, Extension Section Leader, received his B. S. from the University of Florida and earned his M. S. and Ph.D.
Excellence in Poultry Science as Extension Section Leader in 1997.
Telephone: 479-575-5443, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: ftjones@uark.edu
processing personnel.
Telephone: 479-575-2211, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: jmarcy@uark.edu
for Poultry Science
INSIDE
page 4
Biology, Impact on
Production and Control
of the Northern Fowl Mite
By D. Steelman
page 7
The Campaign for
Quality Drinking Water
Continues
By S.E. Watkins
page 10
Egg Shell Mottling and
Hatchability
By R.K. Bramwell
page 12
By G.T. Tabler
page 15
Coming Events
Advice
AVIAN
Feed Antibiotics - Can We Get
Along Without Them?
by S.E. Watkins, Extension Specialist, and F.T. Jones, Extension Section Leader
ANTIBIOTICS - continued on page 2
Introduction
Regulatory, medical and government
officials have stated for decades that antibiotics
should not be fed to farm animals for growth
promotion. While there is still not conclusive
evidence that use of antibiotics for growth
promotion increases drug resistance among
human pathogens, it appears likely that the use of
antibiotics for growth promotion will be phased
out. The prospect of raising poultry with no feed
antibiotics has raised concern in the minds of
many growers. In view of this situation, an
experiment was undertaken to determine the
possible performance and economic conse-
quences of raising broilers without antibiotics.
group was numerically better than the antibiotic
treated group. These data illustrate the fact that,
with careful management, feed antibiotics may
not be necessary.
A technical service manager for a
pharmaceutical company visited the farm
during one of the flocks. The company that
employed the manager manufactured the
antibiotic being fed. When asked to identify
which group of animals was receiving feed
antibiotics, the manager could tell no difference
between the birds. Someone remarked, It
appears that we dont need this antibiotic at all.
The manager replied, In this particular
situation, you may not.
Procedures
Four broilers houses (40
x 400') were used in this
study. Two houses received
feed with antibiotics while
the remaining two houses
received feed that had no
antibiotics, but did contain
coccidiostat. Birds were
placed at approximately the
same density in each house
and feed treatments were
continued for approximately
a year (5 flocks). Data were
then compiled and averaged.
Findings
Production and economic data obtained
from the trial are shown in Table 1. When the
treatments were compared, no statistically
significant difference was found between any of
the variable examined. In fact, the no antibiotic
Poultry Production without Antibiotics
Whether antibiotic use in the production of
food animals causes bacterial resistance in
humans or not, public perception will continue
to drive the industry to limit antibiotic use. For
many years the industry has benefited from the
Table 1. Performance of broilers with and
without antibiotics.
Treatment Feed Livability Age Wt Cost/Lb Pay/Lb
With
Antibiotics 2.13 93.82 53.10 5.69 14.16 3.77
Without
Antibiotics 2.09 94.52 52.90 5.88 13.80 4.13
ANTIBIOTICS - continued from page 1
ANTIBIOTICS - continued on next page
use of antibiotics to promote and maintain flock health and seeing a future without them can be
intimidating. However, with careful thought and planning, producers can minimize the risk of
disease in their flocks and consequently minimize the need for antibiotics. Minimizing the use of
drugs is not only a more effective way to produce poultry products, but it also promotes good
relations between cautious consumers and food suppliers. The paragraphs that follow focus on
areas where producers can strengthen their production practices to minimize the risk of disease
making the transition to little or no antibiotic use positive.
Biosecurity
This word has been used a great deal in the last few months and with good reason. Limiting
the access people have to your operation is extremely important. There should be no exception to
the rule with particular emphasis on visitors who may have their own poultry. However, it is also
important to limit the access animals have to your operation. Limiting the access that rodents, wild
birds, insects and predatory animals such as raccoons and coyotes can be a producers number one
defense against disease invasion. ALWAYS keep poultry houses secure from entry by foreign
animals (this would include everything from cats to opossums to birds) to reduce the risk of disease.
Recently a turkey producer had a chronic problem with corona virus. The producer had made
a concerted effort to clean up his operation and keep it clean including his dead bird disposal area,
which was a composter. However, the producer decided to set traps around the composter. Over
a short period of time, the producer trapped numerous coyotes, raccoons, opossums, skunks and rats
at the composter. Following disposal of these wild animals, the farm was thoroughly cleaned, the
composter area was secured and the disease issues went away. All of these wild animals were
probably bringing disease organisms onto the farm and the producer was tracking them into his
houses.
One company used drag swabs to test the floors of poultry barns between flocks and
discovered an increased incidence of Salmonella in one of the barns. It turns out that the producer
had failed to shut the end doors a few days after load-out and skunks had been visiting the house,
tracking in this and maybe other diseases.
While we may all realize that humans can carry diseases from on poultry flock to another, wild
animals may be even more of a disease threat because they are often unseen. The bottom line is
dont give potential disease sources an invitation into your facilities.
Provide the right environment
Providing new chicks and poults with the right temperature, the appropriate amount of fresh air
exchange as well as clean feed and water can greatly reduce the birds susceptibility to diseases.
Chilled or hot birds are almost guaranteed to become sick, particularly if birds are placed in stuffy,
ammonia filled barns. Making sure the litter is the right temperature before birds are placed will get
birds eating and drinking quicker as well as stimulating the development of a healthy immune system.
Producers who have a chronic problem with poor performance during the first week, might benefit
from taking the time to do a brood area audit. This audit would include examining the following
questions about the brood area.
Are there enough heaters? Are there too many birds per heater?
Is there adequate brood space?
Are birds brooded for an adequate period of time?
How many drinkers are present? Are there enough functioning drinkers so that birds have
adequate water?
What type of drinker is present? Do these drinkers allow young birds to easily access water?
How is the feeder system set up? Do birds have access to feed without leaving the brooding area?
Write the answers to these questions down on paper and then compare what you are doing to what
producers with good starts are doing. This comparison could reveal weaknesses in the brood setup
that can be corrected.
An additional action producers could take to get birds off to a good start is to flush the water
lines right before bird placement. This procedure will minimize the risk of microbial contamination
that might occur in warm, stagnant water lines. Develop a water sanitation program and stick too
Providing new chicks
and poults with the
right temperature,
the appropriate
amount of fresh air
exchange as well as
clean feed and water
can greatly reduce
susceptibility to
diseases.
3
it. It is amazing how good water quality remains even at the end of the lines on farms that have
consistent water sanitation programs. Some top producers will even chlorinate city water,
particularly if they are at the end of the city water distribution line.
Many times producers who struggle with unexplainable poor bird performance have put little
effort into water sanitation programs. It has been eye opening to see how much contamination and
debris can be found in the water systems of these producers. A few dollars spent on daily water
sanitation can save producers lots of production headaches and more than pay for itself in bird
performance. Take time to address the little details of water sanitation and the rewards will often be
flocks that return profits.
Good litter management can not be emphasized enough when it comes to bird health. Wet
litter not only can chill birds, but wet litter promotes the growth of pathogens such as E. coli, oocysts
(that cause coccidiosis), Salmonella and other organisms. In addition, wet litter results in ammonia
release which can damage a birds respiratory tract. Ammonia levels as low as 25 parts per million
have been found to damage the trachea, leaving the bird much more susceptible to diseases such as
bronchitis. A litter moisture level of 15 to 25% is a good target. Controlling litter moisture through
proper ventilation is one of the most critical steps in maximizing poultry health.
Sanitation
House sanitation should include a plan for cleaning between flocks with litter present as well
as a total house clean out plan. Cleaning between flocks with litter present should be done in a way
that does not lead to excessive moisture levels in the litter. Many producers like
to wash down fans, brooders and other equipment with water between flocks.
However, if wet cleaning procedure is used it should be done as quickly as
possible after the last flock is removed so that the litter has plenty of time to dry.
An alternative strategy is to dry clean by using air pressure to blow off
equipment. Dry dust promotes the growth of organisms much less than mud or
wet litter does. The more often a producer can rest a facility or have a true down
time of at least 14 days between flocks, the more chance there will be fewer
disease pathogens in the house when the next flock arrives.
For producers that are completely cleaning their facilities, it is important to
get the floor as clean as possible. Field research has shown that the cleaner the
floor the more effective the disinfectant. The more organic matter left, the less
likely disinfectants are to kill bacteria, viruses, yeasts and molds. Field research
has also shown that for maximum pathogen kill floors and facilities should be
allowed to dry completely before new litter is placed in the barn. In addition producers should pay
attention to sanitation of areas just outside the house. This is particularly true of the area just outside
the load-out door. Many times this area contains a great deal of old litter and mud. The new litter
truck must pass through this area when delivering a load and may end up tracking pathogens back
into the house.
Summary
Although it is difficult to imagine producing poultry without using antibiotics, with careful
thought and planning, producers can minimize the risk of disease in their flocks and consequently
minimize the need for antibiotics. To minimize disease risks producers should address the
following:
Biosecurity programs which limit the access of humans and wild animals to facilities.
Allowing birds to grow and develop healthy immune systems by providing birds with the right
environment and addressing:
- Providing new chicks and poults with the right temperature,
- Providing the appropriate amount of fresh air exchange
- Providing clean and accessible feed
- Providing clean and accessible water
Proper sanitation procedures between flocks.
Biology, Impact on
Production and Control of
the Northern Fowl Mite
C. Dayton Steelman, Professor
Department of Entomology University of Arkansas
Introduction
The Northern Fowl Mite, Ornithonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini and Fanzago), is considered to
be the most common external parasite found on a wide variety of domestic fowl and wild birds. Mite
populations often reach population levels that cause substantial losses in commercial egg and
broiler-breeder egg production. Large numbers of mites cause poor fertility, anemia and frequently
death in males. Egg production by hens is reduced from 10 to 20% in most infestations.
Conservative estimates of losses in annual egg production are reported to be in excess of $283
million in the United States. In addition, poultry house workers are often reluctant to perform their
duties inside infested facilities so bird management suffers.
Infestation
Northern Fowl Mites can be transported between poultry facilities in many ways. Wild birds,
rats, mice and infested pullets have all been implicated in the dissemination of the mites. In addition,
personnel moving between poultry facilities, egg crates and flats and vehicles transporting poultry
are sources that are known to initiate infestations.
Mite populations increase rapidly after a bird has been infested, especially during the colder
months and on the younger birds (18-22 weeks of age) that have just been placed in the facility. Nine
to 10 weeks after the birds have become infested, they may support more than 20,000 mites per bird.
However, the mite population does not generally become established on the birds in large numbers
until the birds have become sexually mature. Although the reason is unknown, birds older than 40
weeks usually do not support many mites.
On female birds mites tend to congregate first in the vent area, then on the tail, back and legs.
Mites are more scattered on the male birds. As the mites increase in numbers the feathers become
soiled from the presence of mite eggs, cast skins, dried blood, and mite excrement. The resulting
soiling of the feathers in the vent area causes the characteristic blackened feathers indicative of
large numbers of Northern Fowl Mites.
Impact of Infestation
The impact of northern fowl mite infestation is as follows:
1. In many instances scabs may form in the vent area preventing copulation in broiler-breeders.
2. Death due to the actual anemia caused by continued blood loss is rare. However, birds with heavy
infestations of 50,000 mites per bird can loose 6% of their blood on a daily basis. For each 1,000
mites there is a 1-ml of blood loss per day.
3. A 10-20% reduction in egg production by Broiler-breeder hens is common.
4. Caged-layers generally experience up to 15% reduction in egg production.
5. There is decreased feed consumption by infested birds.
6. Feed conversion is generally poorer in infested birds.
7. Roosters generally experience lower body weight and decreased seminal fluid volume.
5
MITE - continued on page 6
Life Cycle
The Northern Fowl Mite completes its entire life cycle on the bird host. However, mites can
survive off the host for 2 to 3 weeks under suitable conditions. The mite passes through 5 stages
during its life cycle. One to 2 days after laying, a mite egg will hatch into a six-legged larva called
a protonymph. The protonymph or larval stage develops to maturity in 8-9 hours and then molts into
a blood-feeding nymph. The blood-feeding nymph fully matures in 1 to 2 days and molts again. The
second stage nymph is called a deutonymph which, like the larva, do not feed before molting into
an 8-legged adult mite in less than 1 day. The entire life cycle can be completed within a week under
favorable conditions.
Mite Detection and Monitoring
A mite-monitoring program is essential and allows early detection when the initial infestation
is at a low level allowing effective and economical control procedures. The early detection of mites
is extremely important. For example early detection of the mites in a caged-layer egg production
system can allow successful control without the necessity of treating the entire facility. In the
broiler-breeder production system the monitoring system should consist of 10 males and 10 females
being picked up while walking through the facility and examined. In caged-layer production
systems, 10 hens should be examined at random in each cage row in the entire facility. Bird
monitoring should be conducted weekly throughout the production cycle.
When the bird is examined, the vent area should be observed with a bright light, and the
feathers should be parted to reveal the mites. Single caged birds often have more mites than those
caged in groups and because of bird-line variation in susceptibility. One bird may have mites while
its cage mates or birds in neighboring cages have no mites. The following rating scale is an effective
way to estimate the level of northern fowl mite infestation levels:
Infestation Estimated Number of Mites
Rating on the Entire Birds
0 No mites observed
1 1-2
2 3-9
3 10-31
4 32-99
5 100-300
6 301-999
7 1000-3000
8 3001-9999
9 10000-32000
10 >32,000
An average of 5 or more mites observed on the vent area out of all the birds examined generally
indicates the need for treatment procedures.
The decision to treat involves consideration of the flock age, time of year, and distribution of
the infestation within the facility. As stated above, because of older birds supporting lower numbers
of mites, it is not usually economical to treat these birds. High numbers of Northern Fowl Mites
generally build up in young flocks. Mite infestations can increase to extremely high numbers in
either cool or warm months. In caged-layer facilities the infestation may be restricted to one part of
the house and may not spread, but the infested area must be monitored closely. In broiler-breeder
production facilities the detection of mites generally means the entire flock must be treated.
It is highly recommended that all birds and transportation equipment be carefully examined
for Northern Fowl Mites prior to movement of the birds to the egg production facilities.
MITES- continued from page 5
Control Procedures
At the present time poultry producers are dependent upon pesticides to manage populations of
the Northern Fowl Mite. In caged-layer operations direct pesticide applications are made to the vent
region of the hens with sufficient pressure (minimum 100 to 125 psi) to penetrate the feathers. The
spray should be directed upwards from beneath the cages to reach the vent. Since water is held better
by feathers if they are already wet, a split treatment is recommended to increase effectiveness of the
treatment. The split treatment method is done by mixing one-half of the insecticide in the standard
amount of water for the first application, spray the birds and then mix the other half of the
insecticide in another standard amount of water for the second application. There are also dust
formulations available that are ready to use and may be applied with a hand operated crank duster
or a power blower.
Resistance to Insecticides
Although currently unpublished, research conducted in California indicates that Northern
Fowl Mites collected at over 20 caged-layer farms have developed resistance to Sevin, Permethrin,
Rabin and Malathion. In preliminary studies it appears that the mites found on many Arkansas
flocks are also resistant to these insecticides. Research is currently being conducted in Arkansas to
determine the resistance/susceptibility of the mites infesting broiler-breeders.
CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS:
Insecticide/Formulation Application/Rate Restrictions
Sevin (carbaryl) 5% Dust No mixing necessary. Dust birds Use no more than every four weeks.
thoroughly 1 lb/100 birds Do not contaminate feed, water or
eggs. Wait 7 days after treatment
before slaughter.
Sevin (carbaryl) (50%) 5 lb of 80% WP/100 gal water. Wait 7 days after treatment
Wettable Powder (WP) 1 gal spray/100 birds. Repeat in before slaughter.
4 weeks if needed.
Permethrin 5.7% or 11% 1 qt. 5.7% or 1 pt 11%/25 gal water. Read label
Emulsifiable Concentrate Apply to vent of birds at 1 gal spray/
(EC) 100 birds
Permethrin 40% EC 1-4 oz/3.75 gal water, apply to 1,500 Read label
birds at 1 gal spray per 100 birds
Malathion 4 or 5% Dust No mixing, use directly to dust birds Read label
thoroughly at 1 lb/100 birds
Malathion 0.5% Spray 6 1/2 pt. of 57% EC or 16 lb of 25% Read label
WP in 100 gal water. Apply at 1
gal/100 birds
Rabon 50% WP 8 lb of 50% WP/100 gal water. Apply Do not repeat moer often than
at 1 gal/100 birds 14 days. Spray birds lightly.
RaVap EC Mix 1 gal Ra Vap/50 gal water. Apply Do not repeat more often than
at 1 gal/100 birds every 14 days.
7
Susan Watkins Extension Poultry Specialist
The Campaign for Quality
Drinking Water Continues
Introduction
Public concern over the use of antibiotics in feed animals has forced the poultry industry to
limit the use of antibiotics in poultry production. Some companies have even reduced usage of other
feed additives such as copper sulfate in an effort to reduce proventriculitis (gizzard erosion) and
feed costs. As the use of antibiotics decreases in daily production, the emphasis on a healthy rearing
environment for optimum bird performance will increase. One critical aspect of a healthy
environment is high quality drinking water. Water comprises 70 % of the birds body and it is
essential for virtually every bodily function.
Nature designed the chicken and turkey to swallow whole seeds and bugs. Swallowed
materials collect in the crop where they become softened by water before moving into the
proventriculus or true stomach and on to the gizzard to begin the grinding process. When seeds are
whole the outside protective coating prevents it from being attacked by bacteria so that a limited
number of bacteria would develop within the crop. However, most feed today is ground and easily
digested by both bird and microbes. Thus, feed can encourage bacterial, mold or yeast growth in the
crop, particularly if the water supply is contaminated. This extra microbial growth may reduce
performance and could increase contamination rates. This is just one of many reasons why a
producer should continuously strive for good water quality.
Water Quality Problems More Common than You Think.
As the modern broiler has been bred for more and more efficiency in growth and feed
conversion, birds have become less and less tolerant of stressors. What might have had no impact
on birds fifteen years ago could be devastating for the bird of today. The industrys evolution
towards enclosed water systems might result in a false sense of security bout the quality of drinking
water over the life of production facilities. The reality is that when birds activate nipples there can
be some backflow of water in the compartment above the nipple. Water in the backflow may contain
whatever infection or contaminant the birds drinking have, including bacteria and viruses. To make
matters worse, any loss in pressure in the water system can result in water recirculating back as far
as the well or municipal water line. If this happens, contamination can exist not only in the drinkers,
but also throughout the entire system. If no action is taken to maintain adequate levels of sanitizer
in the water supply then over time, given the warm stable environment of the water system, a film
of bacteria can build up where harmful pathogens can survive for days if not months. Bordetella has
been isolated (which causes turkey coryza) from the inside of nipple drinkers and from the rubber
seal in the water line regulator in houses from Bordetella positive turkey flocks.
Recent Field Findings
Bacterial contamination in closed water lines
Years of testing and numerous water quality evaluations for poultry producers have produced
surprising results. Regularly we have found high levels of aerobic (meaning oxygen requiring)
bacteria in closed water lines. Up to a million bacteria per milliliter (ml) have been found in
contaminated water, when acceptable levels are 100 bacteria/ml. While performance may or may
not be poor on farms with this level of bacteria, the situation makes the water system a potential
disaster because if a harmful organism does get in, there are now so many hiding places in the water
system that drastic sanitation measures will be required to get rid of the problem. Remember
organisms such as E. coli can multiply into trillions in only a few hours given the right conditions.
WATER - continued on page 8
WATER - continued on next page
Contamination in Well or Municipal Water
Extensive testing has shown that many water sources such as wells or municipal supplies at the
farm are contaminated with bacteria. This finding further stresses the need to have back flow
protectors to prevent pulling water from poultry houses back into clean systems. Should a well turn
out to be contaminated, the best solution is shock chlorination between flocks. Instructions on how
to accomplish this are listed at the end of this article. It is important to note that drinker
manufacturers do not recommend running high levels of bleach through drinker lines because it can
be damaging to the equipment. Therefore, a shock chlorinated well should not be flushed through
the poultry house. Instead, after the well has been cleaned, follow up with line sanitation using an
approved cleaner and disinfectant. Bacteria tests conducted on contaminated wells that have been
properly shock chlorinated have shown a dramatic reduction in bacterial count.
Mineral Build-Up
Minerals such as iron tend to build up in water lines. This is particularly true in drinker lines
that have never been flushed properly. This has been documented by measuring mineral levels at
the source (the well or medication room) and then at the end of the drinker line. Since mineral build
up (sediment) provides harmful organisms with food and a place to hide, prevention of mineral
sediment alone is an adequate reason for high pressure flushing. However, many producers may
not have the proper regulator bypass flush systems or water pressure to get a good flush. Producers
who have drain lines that run up into the ceiling before exiting the house may not have adequate
pressure to achieve a strong flushing action in the line. It might on occasion help with flushing to
drop these drain lines onto the floor and let the water run out a door. Certainly it is worthwhile to
check with the manufacturer of your water system to determine if it is designed properly for high
pressure flushing.
Coping with High Sodium and Chloride Content
Producers who have high sodium and chloride (salt) levels in the water seem to minimize
flushing in their birds when water sanitation is excellent. Producers with high salt levels and poor
sanitation almost always suffer from poor flock performance. Since there are no economical
solutions for high salt content in the water, everything a producer can do to minimize its impact can
only benefit bird performance.
Too Much Sanitizer
Not only is a water sanitation program important, but also the proper use of sanitizers is
essential. Recently we tested the water on a poultry farm that had suffered poor performance flock
after flock. The birds not only did not grow and convert well, but also had pasty coloring. A test
on water taken at the end of the line revealed a chloride level of over 600 parts per million (ppm).
It turns out that the producer had improvised chlorination utilizing a system that had not been
designed for delivering this sanitizer. After the equipment was disconnected the total water chloride
levels dropped to less that 7 ppm and flock performance improved.
Testing for Water Problems
If a producer suspects that a water supply might be the cause of chronic flock problems such
as feed passage, poor weight gains or poor feed conversion, then it is important to have the water
tested for both minerals and bacteria. The Center of Excellence for Poultry Science is currently
equipped to conduct pH and mineral testing (with the exception of nitrates and sulfate), as well as
aerobic bacteria counts for a small fee. The contact number is 479-575-3250 for more information
about water testing.
A Procedure for Shock Chlorinating Wells
1
For shock chlorination, the goal is to achieve 200 parts per million (ppm) chlorine in the
system. Remove any activated carbon filters that might be in the system to prevent filter damage.
Household bleach can be used for shock chlorination. Approximately 3 pints per 100 gallons will
give a 200 ppm solution. Caution should be used when handling chlorine compounds and minimize
human exposure to chlorine fumes in confined areas such as well houses.
MITES- continued from page 5
9
STEPS FOR SHOCK CHLORINATING WELLS:
1
Step 1. Determine the depth of water in the well. It might be necessary to contact the company that
drilled the well to get an exact well depth and water level.
Step 2. Determine the volume of water in the well. Measure the inside diameter of the well and then
refer to Table 1 to determine gallons per foot of water depth.
Table 1: Volume of water contained per foot of well depth
Well casing diameter Water volume
(Inches) (Gallons/foot of water depth)
4 0.65
6 1.47
8 2.61
10 4.08
12 5.88
18 13.22
24 23.5
30 36.72
36 52.87
Step 3. Estimate the volume of water in the distribution system and then calculate the total amount
of water in the system. Plan for at least 50 gallons in the pipelines and also calculate how much is
in hot water heaters, holding tanks etc.
Step 4. Determine the amount of chlorine product required for a 200 ppm solution for all of the
water in the system.
Step 6. Pour the chlorine mixture into the well and distribution system. Dissolve the amount of
chlorine solution needed into a clean 5 gallon plastic bucket and then slowly poor this into the well
but splash it onto the well casing when possible. It is recommended that a hose be attached to a
nearby water hydrant and this be allowed to drain back into the well. This will help mix the bleach
with the well water. Once the solution has been placed in the well, then turn on hydrants and let run
until a strong bleach smell is observed. Turn off hydrants and let bleach stand in system for 2-3
hours or overnight if possible.
Step 7. Flush the system to remove the chlorine. The entire system must be emptied of chlorine and
thoroughly flushed. Do not put the chlorinated water into a septic system. Drain the water where
it will have a minimal impact on vegetation and animals.
References
Anonymous. 2002. How to Shock Chlorinate your private well supply. http://wilkes.edu/~eqc/
shock1.htm Visited July, 2002.
Langston, J. 1994. Improving Home Water Quality. Cooperative Extension Service, University of
Arkansas, Publication number MP292.
1
Adapted from Anon. 2002
EGG SHELL- continued on next page
Egg Shell Mottling and
Hatchability
R. Keith Bramwell, Extension Reproductive Specialist
Hatchability Problems
Hatching egg quality parameters have become increasingly important as commercial broiler
breeder producers attempt to maximize hatchability. The egg pack can be easily monitored and
growers held responsible for sending too many poor quality eggs to the hatchery. However, even
good quality eggs can be mishandled. When care is not taken the incidence of otherwise good
hatching eggs sent to the hatchery in the form of upside-down, or filth covered eggs, which may
cause contamination, or even slab sided eggs, will also reduce hatchability.
When troubleshooting hatchability problems, traditionally producers have placed the blame in
one of three areas, fertility, hatchery (incubation) conditions, or egg handling. Obviously most of
the attention is usually turned to the males in the breeder house and overall flock fertility. This is
normal considering that the majority of actual hatchability related problems are directly related to
poor fertility. Additionally, poor fertility is correlated with increased early embryo mortality which
results reduced hatchability. A second area often responsible for poor hatchability can be directly
linked to actual hatchery or incubation conditions. Even with the modern technology available
today, hatchery equipment can, and does, wear out and malfunction over time. Equipment
maintenance is often more than a full time job when trying to manage a hatchery for optimum
production. A third area often responsible for reductions in hatchability is egg handling conditions
and procedures. While it is obvious that we have much to learn in this area and that our tried and
true methods for egg handling may not be the best, that will be the focus of future articles. The
purpose of this article is to address another area that is sometimes blamed for poor hatchability,
namely egg shell quality.
Egg Shell Mottling
Recently, there has been an apparent increase in the incidence of egg shell mottling. Egg shells
that are mottled appear as a thinner, weaker portion of the egg shell. It has been postulated by many
commercial hatchery personnel that eggs with mottled shells cause reduced hatchability and
increased moisture loss. Many integrators have spent time and money on products in an attempt to
reduce or eliminate shell mottling with the hopes of improving hatchability. Therefore, a study was
conducted to identify if, and to what extent, shell mottling affects hatchability and potentially chick
quality.
Setting up a Field Study on Egg Shell Mottling
Four flocks of broiler breeders were chosen ranging from 37 to 55 weeks of age, with a different
flock selected for each of the four replicate trials. Hatching eggs from the egg storage room from
two commercial hatcheries were candled and sorted into two groups; one group contained eggs with
extreme cases of shell mottling, and another group contained eggs with no visible shell mottling.
All eggs in each individual trial were laid on the same day and stored and handled as normally
mandated by company protocol. Each replicate trial consisted of three trays of 154 eggs per tray for
each of the mottled and non-mottled egg shell groups. In each trial, each tray of eggs was weighed
prior to placement in the commercial setter and weighed again at transfer at 18 days of incubation
to determine percent moisture loss. Following transfer to the egg hatching baskets, each of the three
trays of eggs from each group was pulled from the hatchers following normal company procedures
after 21 days of incubation to determine percent hatchability. These trials were spread out
throughout the year to eliminate any potential seasonal effect.
Recently, there
has been an
apparent increase
in the incidence
of egg shell
mottling.
11
Field Study Results
The results of this study were somewhat surprising. Moisture loss was 13.16 % for the mottled,
or windowed eggs and 13.71% for the control eggs or eggs without any apparent shell mottling. The
moisture loss data was very consistent in the four separate trials with no significant difference in any
trial. Hatchability for the two groups of eggs was 78.79 % for the mottled eggs and 72.73 % for the
non mottled eggs, respectively. In three of the trials hatchability was numerically higher for the
mottled eggs and nearly identical in the fourth trial. Although these hatchability data were not
significant due to the fact that we had a wide range in hatchability values with a low of 58.4 %
(control) and 61.0 % (mottled) for set number one (oldest flock) and high percent hatch of 90.28 %
(control) and 90.33 % (mottled) in set number four, the numerical results indicate that shell mottling
did not cause losses in hatchability. Furthermore, specific gravity was used to estimate shell quality
in a different group of mottled and non-mottled eggs with no correlation there either.
What causes the appearance of some eggs shells, like the one shown
above, to change resulting in these windows or mottled looking eggs?
The discoloration results from a slight separation of the underlying egg
shell membrane from the shell itself.
Conclusion
So, what is causing the appearance of some eggs shells to change resulting in these windows
or mottled looking eggs? Apparently the discoloration results from a slight separation of the
underlying egg shell membrane from the shell itself. This occurs in pockets which then become
discolored giving the appearance of a thinner portion of the shell often called windows. From this
study and discussions with at least one other hatchery who conducted a similar type trial, egg shell
mottling does not affect percent moisture loss or hatchability in commercial broilers. Although the
appearance on the shell can be somewhat alarming, particularly if hatching eggs are sold on the
open market, it does not negatively affect hatchability.
REPORT - continued on next page
Tom Tabler, Applied Broiler Research Unit (Savoy) Manager
Information Key
Variable
Units Explanation
House number
Feed conversion or pounds of feed per pound of gain
Number of chicks place in the house at the beginning of grow-out.
Number of birds sent to the processing plant
Livability or Head sold/Head placed * 100
Age of birds at processing in days
Average live bird weight at processing
Percentage of birds condemned by the government inspector
Feed costs in dollars
Chick costs in dollars
Medication Costs in dollars
Total costs in dollars
Total costs per pound of live bird weight in cents per pount
Payment received from the poultry company in cents per pound.
Fuel allowance-a payment provided by the poultry company to help
defray heating fuel costs
Propane usage in gallons
Electrical usage in kilowatt hours
HSE
FEED CONV
HEAD PLACED
HEAD SOLD
LIV
AGE
AVE BIRD WT
COND
FEED COST
CHICK COST
MED COST
TOTAL COST
COST/LB
PAY/LB
F.A.
GAS USAGE
ELECT
No.
LB/LB
No.
No.
%
D
LBS
%
$
$
$
$
Cent
Cent
$
GAL
KWH
Unit Description
Houses are also equipped with temperature monitoring equipment (about 80 sensors per house), an
electronic water flow monitoring system, weigh bins for feed delivery to the house, sensors for the
monitoring of fan run time and devices to determine gas flow from storage tanks.
13
Houses 1 and 2 were built with steel trusses with R10 insulation in the ceiling while houses 3 and
4 were constructed with wood trusses, R19 ceiling insulation and drop ceilings. Houses 1 and 3 are
conventionally ventilated with misters for summer cooling, but 2 and 4 are tunnel ventilated. House
2 contains a sprinkler cooling system for summer cooling. The system was developed at the
University of Arkansas and utilizes a landscape sprinkler system to deliver a coarse, cooling mist
to the backs of the birds. House 4 utilizes evaporative cooling pads to cool the inlet air.
Placement was 24,600 birds per house resulting in a stocking density of 0.65 sq. ft. per bird.
Condemnation percentage was low at 0.22 %, but will likely increase as more flocks are grown on
the same litter. Mortality at harvest was: House 1 - 1343; House 2 - 757; House 3 - 9540; and House
4 - 967. On the night of January 29, the controller on House 3 malfunctioned preventing the
sidewall exhaust fans from running for some period of time during the night. When the problem
was discovered at 5:30 am, approximately 8800 birds had succumb to what we believe to be
asphyxiation. The electricity was never off and the house temperature did not overheat but the
humidity was extremely high. Since there was inadequate air exchange in the house because the
curtains were up and the exhaust fans were not running, we theorize the birds utilized the oxygen
available at bird level. We believe that the problem occurred sometime well after midnight because
had it occurred earlier in the night, death losses would likely have been much higher. Because of
these losses, we were on the bottom of the settlement sheet for this flock. Down time between flocks
was 14 days. Caked litter removal after harvest was as follows: House 1 - 11 loads; House 2 - 12
loads; House 3 - 8 loads; and House 4 - 9 loads. Propane usage for the flock was high, totaling 9,685
gallons.
AVE
FEED HEAD HEAD BIRD FEED CHICK MED. TOTAL GAS ELECT
HSE CONV PLACED SOLD LIV AGE WT COND COST COST COST COST COST/LB PAY/LB F.A.
1
USAGE USAGE
1 2.10 24580 23237 94.54 47 4.52 0.22
2
11009 4179 41.82 15229 14.540 3.2883 444.01 2152 2754
2 2.21 24579 23822 96.92 47 4.45 0.22 11732 4179 41.82 15953 15.076 2.7527 444.01 2640 2622
3
3
2.66 24542 15002 61.13 47 5.13 0.22 10235 4172 41.82 14449 18.803 -0.9742 444.01 2521 1732
4 1.99 24576 23609 96.07 47 5.08 0.22 11966 4178 41.82 16186 13.513 4.3157 444.01 2372 2649
FARM 2.20 98277 85670 87.17 47.00 4.76 0.22 44943 16707 167.28 61817 15.182 2.8000 1776.04 9685 9757
1
2
Condemnation percentage could not be divided by house
3
8800 birds lost to asphyxiation in House 3 on January 29 due to controller malfunction.
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 64 (December 21, 2001 - February 6, 2002)
REPORT - continued on page 14
LITTER- continued from page 13
Placement was 25,500 birds per house which tightened the stocking density to 0.627 sq. ft. per
bird. Condemnation percentage was 0.48%. Mortality at harvest was: House 1 - 1141; House 2 -
1040; House 3- 946; and House 4 - 1540. Ranking was 9
th
out of 14 growers with House 3
performing the best followed House 2, House 1, and House 4. Propane consumption remained high,
totaling 9,187 gallons. Down time was 9 days. Caked litter removal after harvest was; House 1 -
10 loads; House 2 - 8 loads; House 3 - 8 loads; and House 4 - 11 loads.
Placement was 25,200 birds per house resulting in a stocking density of 0.63 sq. ft. per bird.
Condemnation percentage was 0.57%. Mortality at harvest was: House 1 - 385; House 2 - 466;
House 3 - 1257; and House 4 - 1257. Ranking was a disappointing 7
th
out of 13 growers on this flock
with House 1 outperforming all other houses based on monetary return even though House 2 had
a better feed conversion. Based on pay, House 2 was second, followed by House 4 and House 3.
Down time between flocks was 10 days. Caked litter removal was: House 1 - 6 loads; House 2 - 9
loads; House 3 - 7 loads; and House 4 - 12 loads.
AVE
1
USAGE USAGE
1 2.01 25509 24368 95.53 45 4.31 0.48
2
10540 4337 59.14 14936 14.305 3.8550 0.00 1931 2579
2 2.00 25360 24320 95.90 45 4.46 0.48 10839 4311 59.14 15209 14.105 4.0547 0.00 2418 2703
3 1.98 25519 24598 96.39 45 4.51 0.48 10995 4338 59.14 15393 13.949 4.2114 0.00 2255 1739
4 2.09 25051 23511 93.85 45 4.46 0.48 10965 4259 59.14 15283 14.653 3.5066 0.00 2583 2402
FARM 2.02 101439 96797 95.42 45.00 4.43 0.48 43339 17245 236.56 60820 14.248 3.9124 0.00 9187 9423
1
2
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 65 (February 15, 2002 - April 1, 2002)
AVE
1
USAGE USAGE
1 2.05 25175 24790 98.47 47 4.90 0.57
2
12458 4280 41.82 16780 13.897 3.8352 0.00 948 2444
2 2.01 25220 24754 98.15 47 4.74 0.57 11789 4287 41.82 16118 13.807 3.9249 0.00 521 2832
3 2.04 25175 23918 95.01 47 4.49 0.57 10937 4280 41.82 15259 14.283 3.4488 0.00 788 1646
4 2.05 25162 23980 95.30 47 4.72 0.57 11616 4278 41.82 15935 14.173 3.5597 0.00 928 2913
FARM 2.04 100732 97442 96.73 47.00 4.71 0.57 46800 17124 41.82 64091 14.032 3.6999 0.00 3185 9835
1
2
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 66 (April 11, 2002 - May 28, 2002)
15
Avian Advice
Phone: (479) 575-4952 Fax: (479) 575-3026
You may e-mail the editor at ftjones@uark.edu or designer keskew@uark.edu
Coming
Events
Heres what to look forward to this fall:
Annual Nutrition Conference, September 10-12, 2002,
Fayetteville Clarion Contact The Poultry Federation (501) 375-
8131
Turkey Committee Meeting, September 13-14, 2002, Best West-
ern Inn, Eureka Springs, The Poultry Federation (501) 375-8131
Arkansas State Fair, October 11-20, 2002, State Fair Grounds,
Little Rock, State Fair Office (501) 372-8341
Processors Workshop, October 16-17, 2002, Fayetteville Clarion,
The Poultry Federation (501) 375-8131
UA Poultry Science
received his B.S. in Animal Science in 1989. He then attended the University of Georgia from 1989 to 1995 where he
received both his M.S. and Ph.D. in Poultry Science. As part of his graduate program, he developed the sperm penetration
assay, which is still in use today, as both a research tool and as a practical troubleshooting instrument for the poultry industry.
In 1996, Bramwell returned to the University of Georgia as an Assistant Professor and Extension Poultry Scientist. Dr.
Bramwell joined the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science at the University of Arkansas as an Extension Poultry Specialist
in the fall of 2000. His main areas of research and study are regarding the many factors (both management and physiological)
that influence fertility and embryonic mortality in broiler breeders. Telephone: 479-575-7036, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail:
bramwell@uark.edu
for Poultry Science
INSIDE
page 5
Infectious
Laryngotracheitis
By F.D. Clark
page 6
Fascinate, then
Educate
By S.E. Watkins
page 8
Litter Management: In
and outside the poultry
house
By G.T. Tabler
page 15
Coming Events
Advice
AVIAN
Fertility and Embryonic
Mortality in Breeders
by R. Keith Bramwell, Extension Reproductive Physiologist
FERTILITY - continued on page 2
Introduction
Broiler breeder fertility is, somewhat
indirectly, of utmost importance to the overall
success of the poultry industry. Through many
years of intense genetic selection and improved
nutritional management, there has been a steady
and rapid increase in the growth rate of broilers
produced for the meat market. A natural result of
this is that the present day breeders also have the
propensity for extremely rapid growth which
usually has detrimental effects on reproduction.
Consequently, a few years ago some people
believed that in order to maintain acceptable
fertility levels, artificial insemination would find
its place in the broiler industry much like it has in
modern turkey breeding programs. However,
artificial insemination is not commonly ac-
cepted by the broiler industry and it is not likely
to be accepted as a necessary alternative for the
production of fertile eggs in the near future.
Therefore, the broiler industry will continue to
use natural mating systems as the primary means
of reproduction of broilers destined for the meat
market.
Observations in Figure 1 were reported by
The University of Georgia and support the
importance of fertility and its negative influence
on hatchability. Obviously, these data indicate
that fertility is the primary factor resulting in
fewer chicks hatched per hen housed since even
the best incubators and hatchery management
procedures can not produce chicks from infertile
eggs! In addition, losses in hatch due to early
dead embryos often occur concurrently with a
reduction in fertility. Thus, in order to more
effectively manage flock fertility, it is beneficial
to have a better understanding of the series of
events which occur prior to and at the site of
fertilization in the avian egg.
Fertilization
Successful fertilization in birds occurs
following a culmination of a series of events
between properly grown breeder males and
females. These events, in order, are: the
physical act of mating, sperm storage within the
hen, sperm transport within the oviduct,
recognition of and penetration through the wall
of the ovum, and the successful joining of the
male and female gamete.
Under natural mating conditions, the
physical act of mating is often proceeded by
courtship which is sometimes very brief.
Nevertheless, the physical act of mating, or
copulation, is the first actual step in the
fertilization process. A necessary component to
successfully completed matings is maintaining
male breeders which have the desire, or libido,
to continue to mate throughout the life of the
flock. When the mating process occurs
normally, semen is deposited by the male in the
hens cloaca at the rate of approximately 100 to
200 million sperm per ejaculation. Mating must
occur frequently enough to ensure that
relatively fresh and viable sperm are available
to the hen at the time she ovulates. However,
avian sperm do have an extended fertilizable
life span due to the presence of sperm storage
glands located in the hens oviduct. This allows
for stored sperm to travel from these storage
tubules to the infundibulum (the site of
ovulation and fertilization) at the appropriate
time. Although the ability for sperm to be
maintained in these storage sites eliminates the
need for fertilization on a daily basis, frequent
matings insure the availability of fresh, high
quality semen in the fertilization process.
FERTILITY - continued from page 1
After the sperm cell has arrived at the site of fertilization, the male gamete, or sperm cell, must
recognize the appropriate sites on the outer surface of the ovum prior to its passage through this
outer wall. After recognizing the appropriate sites on the ovum, through enzymatic action (called
an acrosome reaction) the sperm cell creates a hole, or pathway, through which it passes into the
ovum (this process is referred to as sperm penetration). If the sperm cell passes through the outer
layer of the ovum in the germinal disc region, it gains access to the female genetic material, or
pronuclei. After gaining entrance into the egg, syngamy, or joining of the male and female gametes,
can occur. Following these steps, the avian egg has been successfully fertilized; and, given the
proper incubational conditions, embryonic development may begin.
Assessing Reproduction in Breeder Flocks
There are several common methods for assessing the reproductive characteristic of breeder
flocks. Reproduction in breeders is usually evaluated in the hatchery as part of an egg candling and
egg breakout program. Results of an egg candling and breakout program reveal flock by flock
patterns and fluctuations in embryonic mortality, embryo abnormalities, fertility, hatchability,
hatch of fertiles, and contamination. Other programs can reveal egg shell quality, and egg pack
qualities such as percent small end up, dirty eggs, off size or misshaped eggs, farm cracks, etc. On
farm egg breakouts can also be used to immediately assess flock fertility without incubation in
certain situations. However, the results of all this information must be tabulated and evaluated in
order to improve flock performance.
There are generalities associated with some of these data. There is a relationship between the
condition of hatching eggs brought into the hatchery and breeder house conditions. Poor egg pack
can be attributed to on farm house conditions, frequency of egg collection, as well as time and care
taken during on farm egg grading. Fertility is understandably related directly to the current status
of the breeder flock and/or a result of lingering conditions related to the grow out phase of pullet and
cockerel production. Although the breeder flock itself can affect hatch of fertiles, hatch of fertiles
is often determined by the conditions the eggs are subjected after lay as well as during the storage,
transportation and incubation processes.
Fertility & Embryonic Mortality
Most individuals involved in reproduction of animals are familiar with the common
conception that it only takes one sperm to fertilize an egg. While this is true in mammals, it is only
partly true in the avian world. While it may be true that a single sperm is all that is necessary to
fertilize an avian egg, the conditions which cause low sperm numbers or single sperm activity at the
site of fertilization can cause reductions in the actual number of chicks hatched. When few sperm
are available to fertilize an egg in broiler breeders there is an associated reduction in fertility as well
as an increase in early embryonic mortality. This is a common occurrence in flocks of older breeder
hens or any other flock experiencing infrequent mating activity.
As previously mentioned, during natural mating, approximately 100 to 200 million sperm are
deposited in the oviduct of the hen. Using the technique of counting the holes in the ovum caused
by sperm penetration, a study was conducted in which hens were artificial inseminated with either
400, 200, 100, or 50 million sperm. In this study, eggs were collected and evaluated each day
following a single insemination until sperm penetration activity ceased. The intent was to
determine how rapidly the sperms ability to fertilize eggs decreased following insemination.
As shown in Table 1, sperm penetration in the germinal disc region decreased rapidly with
time and sperm concentration. In the groups of hens inseminated with what may be considered a
normal dose of semen (100 or 200 million sperm), 8 to 10 days following insemination average
sperm activity dropped below 10 holes or sperm penetration sites. Two weeks following
insemination, both groups averaged less than 5 holes created by this sperm activity. In situations
in which more than normal numbers of sperm are deposited in the hens (400 million sperm dose),
12 to 14 days must elapse between matings before numbers under 10 sperm penetration sites are
observed. Consequently, under normal conditions it may be understood that anything less than 10
sperm holes indicates a situation where infrequent mating has occurred. In short, few sperm
available to fertilize an egg is a result of less frequent mating activity.
FERTILITY - continued on next page
3
Table 1. Sperm Penetration Activity in the Germinal Disc Region
Days After Insemination
Sperm
Number 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
400 109.5 62.1 31.8 21.4 13.6 9.3 7.8 4.5 3.1 1.8
200 69.2 50.6 18.9 14.1 10.5 8.7 7.0 3.6 2.3 1.1
100 35.9 20.4 10.5 8.8 7.3 4.8 3.7 2.5 1.2 0.9
50 24.6 14.1 7.8 6.2 5.0 3.6 2.0 0.7 0.4 0.1
Previous research has indicated that old, stale sperm in the oviduct is associated with poor
chick quality and early embryonic mortality. Old, stale sperm is sperm that has been inseminated
in the hen and stored in the storage tubules of the hens oviduct for an extended period of time and
not to old sperm at the time of insemination or sperm from old males. As part of the previously
mentioned study, the relationship between the decrease in fertility due to days post insemination
and early embryo mortality of fertile eggs was examined. In this experiment, hens were inseminated
with one of two normal doses of semen, either 100 or 200 million sperm. Fertility, and early
embryonic mortality (0 to 3 days) was measured until the cessation of fertility at 22 days following
insemination. As can be seen in Table 2, as fertility decreased in succeeding days following
insemination, early embryonic mortality of fertile eggs increased in both groups of hens beginning
12 days after the initial insemination. This is not due to few sperm, but, as has been seen in similar
trials, to sperm residing within the hens storage tubules for an extended period of time. Thus, time
causes both a decrease in the number of sperm available to fertilize, and an increased occurrence of
in embryo death.
Essentially, 12 days after mating, early embryo mortality begins to rise with up to 10 percent
of the fertile eggs dying during the first three days of development. The situation gets worse 16 to
18 days after mating when as much as 93 % of eggs fertilized at this point die during the first three
days of development. Interestingly, actual embryo mortality does not increase as drastically
because there are fewer developing embryos due to lower fertility. So does it take more than one
sperm to fertilize an egg? Not necessarily. Does it take more than one sperm to ensure an egg has
the potential to produce a viable quality chick? Yes, absolutely.
Summary
Understanding the relationship between fertility and early embryonic mortality as it relates to
the production of quality chicks is important when trying to improve hatchability. As flocks age,
mating frequency decreases, fertility decreases, and embryonic mortality increases. Part of the
increase in embryonic mortality and decrease in hatch in older hens is undoubtedly due to reduced
shell quality and other associated factors. Often times the declining egg production and other flock
conditions cause a reduction in interest and attention from the grower. As conditions deteriorate in
the flock due to age, attention to detail often subsides and additional hatching egg quality problems
result. Problems such as unidentified farm cracks which affect moisture loss in the incubating egg,
poor sanitation resulting in contaminated hatching eggs, or simply poor egg handling resulting in
weak embryos. However, in addition to the conditions previously mentioned, frequent mating
activity must be maintained in breeders throughout the life of the flock as infrequent mating not
only results in poor fertility, but reduced hatch of fertiles due to losses from early embryo mortality.
Although these factors are very commonly seen in flocks as they age, it is much more costly when
these problems arise while the flocks are near peak production or shortly thereafter.
Table 2. Fertility and Embryonic Mortality
Parameter/
Sperm Dose 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Fertility (100 mil sperm) 94.2 88.7 89.3 87.8 63.0 50.0 23.4 15.7 7.0 0 0
Fertility (200 mil sperm) 97.5 94.7 94.7 94.7 81.3 52.9 48.1 21.4 17.5 4.7 0
% embryo mortality (100) 2.4 0.9 2.2 5.2 2.4 4.7 5.1 4.9 6.5 0 0
% embryo mortality (200) 2.1 1.1 1.6 3.6 2.7 4.1 8.2 7.7 6.9 3.3 0
% mortality of fertile (100) 2.5 1.0 2.5 5.9 3.3 10.0 17.9 33.3 93.8 0 0
% mortality of fertile (200) 2.2 1.1 1.7 3.8 3.3 8.0 16.9 32.5 36.7 60.0 0
These data indicate that
fertility is the primary
factor resulting in fewer
chicks hatched per hen
housed since even the best
incubators and hatchery
management procedures can
not produce chicks from
infertile eggs!
Figure 1. Causes for Losses in Hatchability
Fertility 42.0%
Mid-term Mortality
6.0%
Late Mortality and
Pips 24.0%
Early Mortality
28.0%
5
F. Dustan Clark Extension Poultry Veterinarian
Infectious
Laryngotracheitis
INFECTIOUS - continued on page 6
Introduction
Infectious Laryngotracheitis (LT) was described almost 70 years ago and has been identified
in most countries of the world. In spite of the long history with the industry, the availability of
vaccines and Biosecurity procedures, LT breaks still occur. In fact, LT remains one of the most
economically important diseases facing poultry producers.
The Virus
The causative agent of LT is a herpes virus. Although only one serotype of the LT virus has
been recognized, field strains vary in virulence. Field infections may cause mild inapparent
infections or produce high mortality depending on the strain.
Susceptible Avian Species
LT is primarily a disease of chickens, and can affect any age chicken. The disease has also been
reported as being isolated from pheasants, peafowl, and pheasant-chicken hybrids. Although LT is
not thought to cause disease in other poultry, common domestic birds such as turkeys, ducks, geese,
pigeons and quail may spread it. Usually the disease causes the characteristic symptoms and lesions
in adult chickens.
Symptoms and Lesions
Once infected, a chicken will generally show symptoms (become sick) in one to two weeks.
The symptoms of the disease vary with the virus virulence. In the mild form, symptoms are barely
distinguishable from other respiratory problems. Symptoms that have been associated with
infections from mild LT strains, vaccine reactions, and other respiratory irritation (from ammonia,
dust, or mycoplasmosis) include mild rales, nasal discharge, watery eyes, conjunctivitis, coughing,
and possibly a small decline in egg production. Dual infections of LT and bacteria (such as E. coli)
can produce severe symptoms and mortality. In infections involving more virulent LT strains, the
clinical symptoms may include moist rales, nasal discharge, coughing and sneezing followed by
gasping for air, severe depression and death due to asphyxiation. Some birds will have extreme
difficulty breathing and will cough up blood stained mucus. Birds exhibiting characteristic
symptoms and sounds are often referred to as caller birds. The percentage of affected birds in a
flock can range up to 100 percent, with death usually occurs in 5 to 30percent of the flock. Lesions
associated with the disease are usually seen in the trachea and larynx. The lesions can vary with
virus virulence and may include excess mucus, hemorrhages, tracheal inflammation, inflammation
of the conjunctiva of the eye, and formation of a tracheal plug (consisting of dead epithelial cells,
mucus, and blood). As with other herpes viruses, LT is capable of establishing latency in birds by
migrating from the trachea to the brain, where it can remain indefinitely. This latent or carrier state
complicates preventative measures and control programs, since current techniques cannot detect
it. This carrier state means that birds that appear to be perfectly healthy can be the vehicles through
which many other birds become infected. Stress often brings out the disease since it causes carrier
birds to shed the virus. Stress may also cause carrier birds to exhibit LT symptoms. Social stress,
poor ventilation, inadequate space, lack of feed or water, drastic changes in temperature, and many
other factors may be associated with LT breaks.
FASCINATE - continued on next page
Susan E. Watkins, Extension Poultry Specialist
Fascinate, then Educate
INFECTIOUS - continued from page 5
Allowing children to
be fascinated by the
incubation process...
is a golden
opportunity to help
kids better
understand what is
involved in the
production of their
food supply.
Transmission
LT is a highly contagious disease. The virus is easily spread through droplets associated with
sneezing, coughing, and/or direct touching. The virus easily gains entry into the bird via the
respiratory tract or eye. People, animals, litter or equipment that has been in contact with infected
chickens can also spread the virus mechanically.
Prevention and Control
The best method of control would be to have an entire industry that is free of LT. However, this
appears to be an unlikely possibility. Thus, it is important to ensure that the disease does not spread
from infected birds to uninfected birds. This can be accomplished by controlling the flow of
humans, animals, equipment, materials and supplies entering the farm, wearing appropriate
protective equipment, as well as proper cleaning and disinfection following an infected flock.
Service personnel should always service infected flocks on a last-stop basis. While immunization
methods generally yield satisfactory resistance to the disease symptoms, vaccination is generally
done only in LT endemic areas or when the disease is present in the immediate area. Flocks in low
risk areas are usually not vaccinated for LT. In fact, it is illegal to vaccinate for LT in some states.
The disease is also listed as a reportable disease in many states.
Fascinate then educate is really a simple concept that is difficult to implement when the
audience is a roomful of first graders with little idea about where their chicken nuggets really come
from. What started a few years earlier as a request from my own childrens teachers has progressed
into a demonstration that captures the attention of city kids from kindergarten to fifth grade, teaches
them biology, a little physics and most important of all, that the poultry industry is taking good care
of the birds they raise.
Allowing children to be fascinated by the incubation process and giving them the opportunity
to hatch eggs right in the classroom is a golden opportunity to help kids with very little background
about animal husbandry have a better understanding of what is involved in the production of their
food supply. There are hundreds of websites extolling the evils of factory farming and how cruel
the industry is to the animals they raise for meat. Unfortunately there are few places where kids can
go to learn positive information about how the poultry industry raises birds for meat and how the
industry works every day to produce a safe, wholesome and inexpensive protein source.
The demonstration starts when I smile and hold up a perfectly shaped brown egg and ask
casually, Who wants to turn this into a baby chick? Squeals of delight ripple across the room as
all hands shoot to the sky. Well good, I say, Ive come to the right classroom. First though, there
are a few rules we need to learn about the incubation process. I cup the egg and then look surprised.
Oh my goodness, I feel the chick wiggling in the egg, he is getting ready to come out.
7
From that moment on, all eyes are glued on the egg, me and a computer generated presentation.
In less than twenty-five minutes, the students learn about what is necessary for the incubation
process to be successful. They learn that in 21 days a chick goes from being the size of a pin head
to a forty-five gram chick and that the egg contains everything the chick needs to hatch normally.
Even a short physics lesson is thrown in when I talk about how gravity impacts the growth in the
egg, making it necessary to turn the egg daily. To emphasize the miracle of the 21-day incubation
cycle, I show pictures of the developing embryo throughout the cycle. And at the end of the cycle
are pictures of a fluffy chick, a shell with nothing inside and what looks like a submarine hatch for
an opening. The last few minutes are devoted to pictures of chickens and turkeys in commercial
production facilities. I show the children where the birds get their food and water and how they keep
warm. Most importantly, I ask the students if it looks like these birds are being mistreated. No!
They reply in unison. Thats right because the industry does their very best to take care of the birds
they raise because sick, mistreated birds dont grow very well and it is important to the industry to
raise the best birds that they can.
Maybe it doesnt seem like much of plug for a billion dollar industry. But when less than 2
percent of the population is directly involved with food production and even less are involved in the
production of food animals, it is a positive step towards making the next generation of consumers
feel good about what they eat.
Dr. Watkins solicits questions from second graders after presenting
her Fun with Incubation presentation...
Dr. Watkins responds with a smile and
laugh to one of the more interesting
questions asked by the children...
Dr. Watkins explains how things really work. As is typical in her
presentations, the children in this class were fascinated by the
entire process.
1.
2.
3.
Litter Management: In
and Outside the Poultry
House
Introduction
Growers must now be concerned not only with how their litter management is affecting the in-
house environment, but also with how their litter management practices are affecting the outside
environment when litter is removed. This situation will only warrant increasing attention as more
concern is focused on the environment. With this perspective in mind, lets review some of the
important issues in poultry litter management both inside and outside the poultry house.
Preventing in house wet litter
If litter moisture averages above 35 percent moisture, poor and unsanitary growing conditions
may result. These conditions could include offensive odors, harmful gases (including ammonia),
insect problems (particularly flies), soiled feathers, footpad lesions, breast bruises and breast
blisters. Litter moisture that averages between 25 and 35 percent moisture in the broiler house can
be reused over numerous flocks, unless serious disease problems occur which warrant a total
cleanout (Butcher and Miles, 1995). However, it is important to assure the new flock is started on
loose, friable material.
For each pound of feed consumed, chickens produce approximately 1-lb. of fresh manure
containing about 75 percent moisture. Turkeys produce similar amounts of manure (Vest et al.,
1994). While the moisture in manure tends to evaporate, litter will remain wet if excess moisture
is not removed from the house. Temperature and ventilation rate must be managed properly to
remove moisture from the house. Improper management will result in poor litter and environmental
conditions leading to increased stress levels and decreased bird performance. It may come as a
surprise to some growers that ammonia levels of just 25 ppm have been found to decrease growth
rate by 4 to 8 percent and increase feed conversion by 3 to 6 percent. This level of ammonia has been
linked to increased incidence of air sacculitis, viral infections and condemnations. Even low levels
(5 ppm) have been shown to injure the protective systems of the chicks respiratory system, causing
chicks to be more susceptible to respiratory diseases (Lacy, 2002)
Improper management of waterers may result in elevated litter moisture levels leading to
excessive amounts of caked litter. Caked litter is litter that is or has been saturated with water.
Newly formed caked litter exposes birds to a continually damp, slippery and sticky surface (Butcher
and Miles, 1995). When caked litter begins to dry it forms a crusted area that prevents the litter
beneath from drying and provides cover for insects. Caked litter is more common in cooler weather
when temperatures and ventilation rates are low, but can also be a problem in warmer weather.
Caked litter is most often found under water lines. Therefore, management of both water line
pressure and height are important to prevent cake formation and buildup. In addition, it is important
to promptly replace leaky nipples to keep litter moisture as low as possible. Collins Jr. (1996)
indicated that reducing water spillage will:
LITTER - continued on next page
9
1. save water
2. improve bird quality
3. improve production environment
4. reduce ammonia release from litter
5. reduce volume of wet cake
6. extend time between litter cleanouts
Excessive litter moistures can also be caused by factors other than improper management.
High intake of minerals such as potassium, sodium, magnesium, sulfate or chloride can lead to
excessive water consumption and wet droppings (Butcher and Miles, 1995). These minerals could
be delivered in the feed or present in the water supply. This means that growers should periodically
have their water checked for mineral concentrations and also bacterial loads. The consumption of
moldy feed can mean that birds are exposed to mycotoxins, which may also result in wet droppings.
Growers should periodically clean their storage bins and feed hoppers to ensure that caked or moldy
feed is removed. Numerous diseases cause poultry to excrete wet droppings, either through
alimentary canal damage or by birds going off feed but maintaining water consumption (Butcher
and Miles, 1995). The type and amount of bedding material can also have an impact on litter
quality. While soft wood shavings may be the product of choice, many times it is unavailable or too
expensive leading to use of other, less absorbent materials (rice hulls, straw, etc.). A lack of bedding
material on the floor may also lead to wet houses. A depth of 4-6 inches is usually recommended
to assure adequate moisture absorption and cushioning capabilities.
Management of litter after removal from the house
Proper management of litter in the house will reduce the need to move excessive amounts of
litter between flocks and will aid in developing a cleanout schedule that allows direct application
of manure to forage or crop land without intermediate storage (Collins Jr., 1996). This direct
application is more efficient because it decreases handling costs (moving litter once versus twice)
and nitrogen will be more efficiently utilized.
Tabler (2000) estimated that 105 tons of litter are produced annually in 40 by 400 broiler
houses. Caked litter accounted for 28 percent of this total with the remaining 72 percent being dry
litter. Thus, approximately 13 lbs of litter are produced per square foot of house. Vest et al. (1994)
estimated annual manure production at 2.5 lbs. of manure per broiler, 40 lbs. per commercial layer,
44 lbs. per broiler breeder, 8 lbs. per replacement pullet and 31 lbs. per turkey. While differences
exist in these estimates, the volume of litter produced has made litter management an important
issue for both the poultry industry and farmers.
As a fertilizer, compared to mineral salts, organic amendments such as poultry litter offer
several advantages (Table 1). Although poultry litter contains significant amounts of plant
nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, other essential nutrients are also included in
poultry litter in trace amounts. Experience has shown the nutrients in poultry litter become
available for plant uptake when applied to soil. Unfortunately this availability of nutrients in litters,
as compared to commercial fertilizers, is unpredictable. Phosphorus and potassium become most
readily available in soil, while nitrogen has the slowest release rate of the three major nutrients
(Dick et al., 1998). In order to create a balance of nutrients in their soils, farmers must plan a method
of fertilization according to these differing release properties. Dick et al. (1998) indicated two
possible strategies were (1) apply litter so as to receive the desired amounts of phosphorus and then
add commercial potassium and nitrogen fertilizers to make up the deficit in these nutrients or (2)
apply enough litter so as to insure a proper amount of nitrogen will be released into the soil. The
danger with the second method is that it greatly increases the risk that phosphorus and potassium
will be oversupplied, thereby adversely affecting soil and water quality.
Litter nutrient concentration depends on type of bedding used, feed source, type of poultry
being raised, number of flocks between house cleanouts and management practices. This results in
a wide range of nutrient values (Table 2). While calcium supplement for egg layers increases the
LITTER- continued on page 10
REDUCING WATER
SPILLAGE CAN:
LITTER- continued on next page
Timing of litter
application to
forage or crop land
can be extremely
important in
influencing the
amount of
nutrients
released, and the
rate at which
they are released.
calcium carbonate concentration in the litter, it also results in an increased pH in the litter which,
in turn, increases the potential for nitrogen to be lost as ammonia gas (Dick et al., 1998). Tables 3
and 4 list average nutrient content of broiler and hen manures (Table 3) and turkey manure (Table
4).
Timing litter application and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Time of litter application to forage or crop land can be extremely important in influencing the
amount of nutrients released and the rate at which they are released. Fall application allows
maximum time for litter to decompose and release nutrients for next years crop. However, this also
offers the greatest potential for soluble nutrients to be lost by leaching and for nitrogen to be lost by
denitrification. Spring litter application will usually conserve more nutrients, but may also interfere
with other types of farm operations that must be accomplished in a timely manner (Dick et al.,
1998).
Most of the nitrogen in poultry litter is available the first year after it is applied. The amount
of nitrogen available two years after application is difficult to predict because it is dependent on
climatic conditions during the previous year and the crop produced. The amount of nitrogen carry
over will also vary depending on the number of years litter has been applied to the location. A soil
treated with litter only once will carry over almost no nitrogen whereas a soil treated annually for
five or more years may carry over 5 to 10 percent of the applied nitrogen (Dick et al., 1998).
Litter applied in sufficient quantity to meet nitrogen needs of a healthy growing crop results in
more phosphorus added to the soil than plants can utilize. Phosphorus utilization by plants during
the year following litter application will range from 20 to 80 percent of the total applied depending
on soil types and other factors (Mississippi State University, 2001). Until the early 1990s, it was
thought soils had an infinite capacity to store the unused phosphorus (Mississippi State University,
2001). However, recent research has revealed that increasing the phosphorus level above that
needed for crop production increases the potential for phosphorus in the runoff water from the field
(VanDevender et al., 2000). Since phosphorus is usually the limiting nutrient in low-fertility
clearwater lakes and streams, a slight increase can result in unwanted algae blooms and other
aquatic vegetation (VanDevender et al., 2000). The following Best Management Practices (BMPs)
are recommended by VanDevender et al. (2000) for proper litter management. The objectives of the
following BMPs are to maximize the value of poultry litter, protect the environment and maintain
good relationships with neighbors.
Develop and follow a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) for your operation.
This plan will be tailored to fit the conditions of your farm and provide management guidelines that
are more specific to your farm than the BMPs listed below.
Have the soils in the application fields tested (see the local county Extension office for assistance).
If soil test phosphorus is a concern, consider reducing litter application rates and supplementing
with commercial fertilizer.
Spread litter uniformly over the application site. Unless specified by a CNMP, apply no more than
2 tons per acre for each application, with an annual application of no more than 4 tons per year.
Do not apply poultry litter on land when the soil is saturated, frozen, covered with snow, during
rainy weather or when precipitation is in the immediate forecast.
Do not apply litter on slopes with a grade of more than 15 percent or in any way that allows manure
to enter water sources.
Do not apply litter within 100 feet of streams, ponds, lakes, springs, sinkholes, wells, water
supplies and dwellings. Do not apply within 25 feet of rock outcroppings.
Keep records of dates, amounts and litter application sites. If you sell litter, keep a record of who
buys the litter and the dates and amounts sold.
11
Cover or tarp vehicles when transporting litter on public roads.
Develop a good relationship with the surrounding community. Avoid spreading litter when it would
be objectionable to your neighbors.
Make it a habit to develop and then stay on a regular soil testing program. You cant manage what
you cant measure is a phrase heard quite often these days and with good reason. You must know what
you have before you can know your next step. Soil testing is inexpensive, simple, and is a powerful tool
for farm management. You will learn not only the nutrient levels in your soils, but also the pH and lime
requirements. Mississippi State University (2001) research has indicated that in most soils litter
applications tend to increase pH levels and decrease lime requirements over time. Thus, when litter is
land applied, it has a liming effect. Increasing the pH by meeting recommended lime requirements
provides the extra benefit of increasing availability of native nutrients in the soil.
Mukhtar et al. (2001) recommends the following common sense approaches for applying litter to land:
Before scheduling an application, talk with neighbors to make sure the application is not made on a day
when they have planned outdoor activities.
Do not apply litter on weekends or holidays.
Apply litter early in the morning when the typical airflow patterns will lift odors high into the air.
Select a day when the wind is blowing away from neighbors.
Do not apply litter on hot, still afternoons when there is little air movement and odors are concentrated.
Avoid extremely dry, windy days when application is likely to generate a lot of dust and rainy periods
or when rain is in the immediate forecast.
Summary
Poultry growers should strive to maintain an in-house environment which will allow the birds to
perform up to their genetic potential. This means paying special attention to the ventilation, heating,
water and feed systems. Proper temperature and air flow must be maintained to prevent moist, humid
conditions from developing in the house leading to wet, caked litter and increased ammonia problems.
Dry litter can be used for numerous growouts reducing cleanout and bedding costs and improving the
nutrient content of the litter thereby increasing its fertilizer value.
Poultry litter is a natural soil amendment that adds nutrients and organic matter to increase soil
fertility. However, significant potential for pollution exists if Best Management Practices are ignored.
All farmers should have a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) in place for their farm
and follow it. Timing land application of litter is important in influencing the amount of nutrients
released and the rate at which they are released. Following BMPs and having a CNMP in place will help
assure that litter is spread when and where and in the proper amount to prevent potential pollution
problems. Contact your local county extension office or Natural Resources and Conservation Service
offices for assistance with a CNMP and to learn more about BMPs.
References
Butcher, G. D., and R. D. Miles. 1995. Causes and prevention of wet litter in broiler houses. Fact Sheet
VM 99. College of Veterinary Medicine, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Collins Jr., E. R. 1996. Storing and handling broiler and turkey litter. Publication Number 442-054.
Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Dick, W. A., J. W. Johnson, and D. J. Eckert. 1998. Land application of poultry litter. Fact Sheet
ANR-4-98. Ohio State University Cooperative Extension Service, College of Food, Agriculture
and Environmental Science, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Lacy, M. 2002. Broiler Management. In Bell, D. D. and W. D. Weaver, Jr, eds. Commercial
Chicken Meat and Egg Production. 5
th
ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA
Mississippi State University. 2001. Fertilizer management: Poultry litter nutrient management in
forage production. Mississippi State University Extension Service, Mississippi Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Starkville.
Mukhtar, S., J. Carey, and R. Lacey. 2001. Managing nuisance odor and dust from poultry growing
operations. Fact Sheet L-5401. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A&M University
System, Texas A&M University, College Station.
Tabler, T. 2000. How much litter do broilers produce? Avian Advice 2(1):6-8.
VanDevender, K., J. Langston, and M. Daniels. 2000. Utilizing dry poultry litter - An overview.
FAS2000-2.5M. Agriculture and Natural Resources, Cooperative Extension Service, Division of
Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Vest, L., B. Merka, and W. I. Segars. 1994. Poultry Waste: Georgias 50 million dollar forgotten
crop. Leaflet 206. University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences,
Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia, Athens.
LITTER- continued on next page
13
Material Advantages Disadvantages
Mineral Convenient Some easily leached
Fertilizers Transport and handling Nutrient availability is
cost lower tied to application time
Quick Crop Response and is not sustained
Organic Improves soil structure Dilute nutrient source
Fertilizers Controls erosion High transport cost
Supplied wide range of May be difficult to
nutrients apply evenly
Improves water holding High C/N raios may rob
capacity N from soil
1
Source: Dick et al., (1998)
Table 1: Comparisons of organic amendments and mineral salts as fertilizers.
1
Table 2: pH, organic carbon content, and nutrient composition of poultry litter.
1
Sample Type
Parameter Eggs layer litter Broiler litter
Organic C (%) 15.3 (4.7)
2
32.5
pH 8.1 6.4
Salts (dS/m) 7.2 7.0
Macronutrients
Nitrogen, % 3.3 4.1
Phosphorus, % 2.9 2.1
Potassium, % 3.6 2.7
Sulfur, % 1.0 0.73
Calcium, % 17.9 4.0
Magnesium, % 0.8 0.7
Micronutrients
Boron, ppm 42.7 33.5
Copper, ppm 163 163
Iron, ppm 2040 3254
Manganese, ppm 647 444
Molybdenum, ppm 10.7 6.2
Zinc, ppm 403 383
1
Source: Dick et al., (1998)
2
Value in parenthesis is inorganic C as calcium carbonate
Table 3: Average amount of plant nutrients in broiler and hen manures on an as-is
basis.
1
Manure Total N
2
N
2
as Phos.
2
Pot.
2
Type Present NH
4
as P
2
O
5
as K
2
O
------------------------lbs./ton--------------------------
Broiler house litter
3
66 10 50 40
Roaster house litter
3
68 11 53 41
Breeder house litter
4
31 7 40 35
Stockpiled litter 36 85 5 35
1
Source: Vest et al., (1994)
2
N=Nitrogen, Phos.=Phosphorus, Pot.=Potassium
3
Assumes a moisture content of 23%
4
Assumes a moisture content of 40%
Table 4: Average nutrient content of turkey manures.
1
Manure Total N
2
N
2
as Phos.
2
Pot.
2
Type Present NH
4
as P
2
O
5
as K
2
O
----------------NH
4
lbs./ton P
2
O
5
------------------
Brooder house litter
3
45 9 52 32
Grower house litter
4
57 16 72 40
Stockpiled litter
5
36 8 72 33
1
Source: Vest et al., (1994)
2
N=Nitrogen, Phos.=Phosphorus, Pot.=Potassium
3
Based on cleanout after each flock
4
Based on annual cleanout after full production
5
Based on annual house accumulation removed to uncovered stockpile to be spread within six months
15
Avian Advice
Phone: (479) 575-3952 Fax: (479) 575-3026
Coming
Events
Heres what to look forward to
this summer:
Poultry Festival
June 7-8, 2002
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Contact: The Poultry Federation
Phone: (501) 375-8131
Poultry Science Youth Conference
July 9-12, 2002
Center of Excellence for Poultry Science
Contact: Gary Davis
Phone: (479) 575-7526
Poultry Science Association
August 11-14, 2002
Annual Meeting at University of Delaware, Newark, DE
Contact: Poultry Science Association
Phone: (217) 356-3182
UA Poultry Science
assay, which is still in use today, as both a research tool and as a practical trouble-shooting instrument for the poultry industry.
bramwell@uark.edu
for Poultry Science
INSIDE
page 5
Reproductive Biology of
the Broiler Breeder Male
By R.K. Bramwell
page 6
Dont let Rodents Nibble
Away your Profits
By S.E. Watkins
page 9
Ventilation Considerations
for Turkey Producers
By G.T. Tabler
page 13
By G.T. Tabler
Advice
AVIAN
Spreadsheet for Broiler Farm
Economic Analyses
by H.L. Goodwin, Jr., Economist, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science
IBIS - continued on page 2
Introduction
The poultry industry has experienced
unprecedented production and marketing effi-
ciencies since 1960 in large part due to vertical
integration facilitated by production contracts
between growers and integrators. Contracts have
worked very well for a number of years;
however, recently complaints have arisen
largely as a result of unrealistic expense and
revenue expectations by poultry growers. Yet
the lack of realistic, publicly available data
makes it nearly impossible for poultry growers
to determine the overall financial situation. At
present growers make their business decisions
regarding the feasibility of new or expanded
poultry farms based primarily upon information
provided by an informal network of other
poultry growers in their area or by integrators.
Many integrators give the grower only oral
information about the profits that they will
receive under the contract, perhaps because the
integrator does not have complete information.
Growers and potential growers need complete
and unbiased information about all aspects of the
process, especially the potential income.
Problems with Economic Estimates
It is extremely difficult to forecast profit-
ability of broiler operations for three primary
reasons. First, because of the grower pay system,
it is nearly impossible to effectively determine
revenue for poultry growers. Payment amount
may not actually reflect the growers perfor-
mance since performance is compared to the
other growers who sell in the same weekly pool.
This means that an average grower may do
very well when selling with inefficient
producers, but fare poorly when selling with
efficient producers.
Secondly, estimating income may be
difficult because of varying poultry house size.
While most new poultry houses are built on a
standard house size, many older houses were
not built to any standard sizes. Variable
dimensions of older houses can lead to difficulty
in estimating profitability. Many potential
growers are faced with trying to determine their
revenues and expenses from an estimate sheet
provided by the integrators based on standard-
sized houses and secondary information.
Finally, many potential poultry farm sellers
are not usually willing to supply all of their past
records to be evaluated before the sale of their
farm. This situation leaves buyers with little
actual data upon which to judge the profitability
of their impending purchase, and potential
growers are faced with the difficult task of
approximating of the farms past performance.
IBIS development to Address Farm
Economic Issues
The Interactive Broiler Income Spread-
sheet (IBIS) was developed to help prospective
and current poultry producers to better estimate
profits. IBIS is an unbiased tool that uses a
spreadsheet format to assist growers in making
decisions regarding the current and potential
profitability of raising broilers. Specifically,
IBIS will provide growers to:
Precisely estimate revenues and expenses;
Assess feasibility of new investments;
Easily change any of the factors that will
influence revenues and
Readily alter expenses to reflect current
weather, price, interest, or regulatory condi-
tions.
IBIS - continued from page 1
Developing Farm Budgets for New Investments using IBIS
Default Data
Budgets play an important role in planning for any new
investment. The two types of budgets of particular interest to
poultry farmers are capital investment budgets and enterprise
budgets. Capital investment budgets allow growers to analyze
major purchases, while enterprise budgets allow growers to
examine profitability prior to farm building or purchase.
Obviously, developing budgets requires cost and income
estimates (data). Yet growers do not always have the data
required. For this reason default data were developed for the
IBIS program. Default data was gathered from four growers with
four different companies (16 total) over a four-year period.
Participating companies approved of the project and provided
the names of at least four contract growers. Growers names
submitted were from the top one-third of each production
complex based on their past performance and record-keeping
practices. Actual data were collected though personal contact
with growers. All grower information was averaged to provide
default values for the various cost and income components of
IBIS.
IBIS is divided into two parts: assumptions and budget
analysis. The assumptions section is the input part of IBIS
where the data on costs and income are provided for analysis in
the budget section. The budget analysis section uses the data
provided in the assumptions section to generate revenue,
expenses, income and returns for the farm.
Assumptions Section of Interactive Broiler Income
Spreadsheet (IBIS)
The assumption section of IBIS, outlined in Table 1 is
divided into initial qualifying questions (house dimensions and
property tax information), estimated revenues, estimated
expenses and loan information. If the information entered in this
section provides IBIS with the data necessary to do a budget
analysis on your farm.
IBIS is designed so users may enter up to three unique house
sizes along with the number of houses of that particular size. The
total square footage data provided in this section allows IBIS to
determine the net cash returns on a square foot basis. In addition,
the budget data generated by IBIS allow users to compare returns
on different sized operations.
The income section separates all areas of possible income-
generating activities associated with broiler production, but
excludes any associated activities such as livestock or hay
production. Default information is provided for almost every
category except gas and utility allowances. These two items
vary tremendously by company, geographic location, and
individual grower preferences so default values would be
meaningless. Although bonus pay may vary greatly by grower
and company a default was generated using a high, medium and
low grower performance.
The expense section is divided into variable and fixed
expenses. Fixed expenses include taxes, insurance, deprecia-
tion, and opportunity costs. Many of the fixed expenses do not
have default values because they are unique to each farm.
Variable expenses include items such as bedding, clean-out,
propane or natural gas, electricity, water and labor.
The loan information section includes three areas: house
loans, equipment loans, and upgrade loans. Many IBIS users
may not utilize all three areas. Some may have a combined house
and equipment loan. Also, current producers may only need to
compute the payments on an upgrade if that is what they are
considering.
Budget Analysis Section of Interactive Broiler Income
Spreadsheet (IBIS)
The budget analysis section of IBIS uses the information
provided in the assumptions section to compute total operating
revenue, total operating expenses, total fixed expenses, total
expenses, net farm income, net farm income per square foot, net
cash returns, and net cash returns per square foot. The budget
analysis includes both budget value and cash value. IBIS
computes the operating revenues by using the revenue
information supplied in the assumptions section and the
following formula: Chicks per flock* Flocks per year* (100-
Percent mortality)/100* Average pounds per finished bird*
cents per pound (contract base)/100. Other broiler related,
income-generating activities (such as litter revenue, gas
allowances, utility allowances, or performance bonuses) are
then add to the pay formula to get the total operating revenue.
Total operating expenses are then subtracted from total
operating revenues to get net cash returns. Net cash returns per
square foot is simply net cash returns divided by the total square
footage computed in the assumption section. Net farm income is
computed by taking the total budget value expenses, which
includes depreciation and opportunity costs of the land, from the
total operating revenues.
Testing and Availability of IBIS
IBIS has been extensively verified for effectiveness and
accuracy. Poultry integrators in the Northwest Arkansas area
were consulted about the feasibility of this project. Current
poultry producers gave advice on revenues and expenses that
were incorporated, including many hidden expenses that were
not on any of the published budgets. A panel consisting of four
lenders is being asked to compare IBIS results with their records
to see if projections are in line with what they see from their
customers. Trial runs are being conducted through poultry
companies as they consult with current and prospective growers
before IBIS is released to the public. Continued monitoring of
IBIS as the poultry industry changes will be necessary to keep
the program up-to-date and functional.
IBIS will be available to producers, poultry integrators and
area lenders and the Cooperative Extension offices through the
University of Arkansas Home page. The complete package is
expected to be ready to access in April, 2002. A nominal fee will
be charged for the password-protected software. Poultry
integrators may use IBIS as a decision tool with potential
growers. With IBIS, field supervisors can quickly demonstrate
to growers the effects of management decisions on farm income.
IBIS will also allow users play what if games and to identify
their risk tolerance to varying income and expense levels.
Growers to gauge the effects of capital improvements/
equipment upgrades and chicken placements per year may use
IBIS.
3
IBIS - continued on page 4
As useful as IBIS can be, it is also important to remember that the best budget planning cannot take the place of good management.
IBIS is simply a tool to help management be more effective. Those interested in obtaining access to IBIS should visit the website
http://www.uark.edu/depts/posc/poultry.html or contact H.L. Goodwin at haroldg@uark.edu
Table 1. Information Required in Assumption Section
A. Initial Questions
Do you have foggers?
What are your house dimensions?
Estimated value of poultry farm
Total property tax millage rate
B. Estimated Revenues
Chicks per flock
Flocks per year
Percent mortality
Ave lbs/finished birds
Cents/lb contract base
Annual tons of litter
Price per ton of litter
Annual fuel allowance
Annual utility allowance
Annual average performance bonuses
C. Estimated Expenses
Variable Expenses
Annual trailer loads of bedding
Price per trailer load of bedding
Annual number of clean out loads
Pricer per clean out load
Annual number of cake out loads
Price per cake out load
Annual number of propane gallons
Price per propane gallon
Annual number cubic feet natural gas
Price per foot natural gas
Annual number of kilowatt hour
Price per kilowatt hour
Annual gallons of drinking water
Price per 1000 gallons of water
Annual repair costs on facilities
Annual cleaning supplies cost
Annual pest and rodent control costs
Annual dead bird costs
Annual hours of paid farm labor
Hourly wage, paid farm labor
Annual paid labor for services
Annual misc. expenses
Fixed Expenses
Total initial house investment
Salvage value on house
Years in house life
Total initial house equipment investment
Salvage value on equipment
Years in equipment life
Annual insurance cost
Annual property taxes
Annual land charge
D. Load Information
Original House Loan
Interest rate on house loan
Number of years on loan
Number of payments per year
Amount borrowed on houses
Original Equipment Loan
Interest rate on equipment loan
Number of years in loan
Amount borrowed on equipment
Upgrade Equipment Loan
Interest rate on upgrade loan
Number of years on loan
Amount borrowed on upgrade
The interactive broiler
income spreadsheet
(IBIS) Part II:
Budget Analysis
Section.
IBIS - continued from page 3
II. Budget Analysis Section Budget Cash
Value Value
Poultry contract 78081 78081
Litter revenue 2160 2160
Allowances 5112 5112
Bonuses 9760 9760
Total operating revenue 95113 95113
Litter removal 4905 4905
Utilities 11725 11725
Repairs 7590 7590
Maintenance 4500 4500
Labor cost 2700 2700
Misc. expenses 1200 1200
Total operating expenses 32620 32620
Insurance 1875 1875
Property taxes 680 680
Annual land charge 4000 0
Depreciation 14000 0
House payment 27154 27154
Equipment payment 0 0
Upgrade payment 5578 5578
Total fixed expenses 53287 53287
Total expenses 85907 67907
Net farm income 9206
Net farm income per sq. ft. 0.192
Net cash returns 27206
Net cash returns per sq. ft. 0.567
5
Reproductive Biology of
the Broiler Breeder Male
Introduction
In the poultry industry, there are numerous challenges facing individuals responsible for the
reproduction of broiler breeders. Many of these problems stem from the knowledge that increasing
body growth rate will generally result in a reduction in reproductive characteristics, and vice versa.
This situation is likely to escalate due to increased consumer demands for more white meat and less
dark meat, which are attained in the high yield faster growing birds. Therefore, the continued trend
toward high-yielding, fast-growing broilers is evident. Consequently, it does not appear that the
task of managing broiler breeders is going to get any easier in the near future.
Developing Fertile Males
The testes of young cockerel chicks contain cells that will form the structure of the testes
(somatic cells) as well as cells that will later become sperm cells (germinal cells). Some somatic
cells (called Sertoli or nurse cells) function to protect the developing sperm cells while other cells
(called Leydig cells) are involved in testosterone production. Although the broiler breeder male can
theoretically produce trillions of sperm, the number of Sertoli cells contained within the testes
limits the actual number of mature sperm produced. Sertoli cell growth occurs sometime between
2 and 12 weeks of age (generally thought to be between eight and ten weeks) but not at anytime after
this point (Kirby, 1998). Therefore, the maximum potential for sperm production is established in
the first eight to ten weeks of age. Anything that may cause unnecessary stress to the developing
male at this time may interfere with proper development of these very important testicular cells.
During this early period of development, portions of the brain (such as the hypothalamus) and
the pituitary gland are also establishing a critical hormonal relationship with the testes. These
portions of the brain must work together with the testes to maintain proper reproductive hormone
levels so that testes functions (such as sperm production) can start and be sustained. During the
early stages of maturation the testes help to establish a relationship called a feed back loop with
the pituitary gland that will regulate pituitary function over the life of the male. Thus, appropriate
levels of reproductive hormones (FSH, LH, etc.) are not only critical for the proper development
and function of the testes, but also for the development of the relationship between the brain and the
developing testes. These relationships can be established only at this time of male maturation.
Sexual Maturity in Males
As reproductive hormone secretions (primarily FSH) increase, there is a tremendous growth in
testes mass that is associated with the onset of sperm production. This time period, also referred to
as puberty, occurs between 16 and 24 weeks of age. Once the males attain peak semen production,
testes weight and sperm production continue to decline thereafter.
The establishment of normal reproductive hormone secretion is at least partially completed
within the first few weeks of a males life. Even mild stressors which cause either weight loss or
reduced water intake can lead to complete shutdown of testes function when they occur during
critical early stages of development (Kirby, 1998). These males may be those that are usually
grown back to the curve due to problems during development. Additionally, it is possible to
disrupt the normal pattern of testes development with too severe feed restriction between 6 to 8
weeks. This results in reduced testes size, sperm production, and the theoretical maximum number
of sperm produced. Also, reduced reproductive performance has been demonstrated with severe
feed restriction in males between 18-23 weeks of age (Kirby, 1998), suggesting that the resources
BROILER - continued on page 6
RODENTS - continued on next page
Susan E. Watkins, Extension Poultry Specialist
Dont let Rodents Nibble
Away your Profits
and hormone secretion required for normal testes function can be negatively and permanently
affected around the time of photostimulation.
Summary
Young cockerel chicks that are in stressful situations between 2 and 12 weeks of age may not
develop the capacity to form sperm cells adequately. Testical development can also be disrupted
by severe feed restrictions between 6 and 8 weeks. Normal testes function can also be negatively
and permanently affected by sever feed restriction around the time of photostimulation.
Proper management of breeder males will reduces stress consideration these critical points in
their development. Any unnecessary stress placed upon these birds at these critical points can have
profound effects on the reproductive potential of the males. Many of these effects are either
permanent or long lasting and can seriously affect the overall performance of the breeder males in
the hen house. Once these biological systems are set firmly in place in the young breeder male,
management to sustain these reproductive systems are less critical and more forgiving.
References:
Kirby, John D., 1998. Broiler Breeder Male Reproductive Efficiency: Where Management
and Biology Collide. Proceedings, North Carolina Breeder/Hatchery Management Symposium.
BROILER - continued from page 5
Damage By Rodents
Did you know that a single rat eats as much as 20 to 40 pounds of feed a year? Multiply this
by 1000 and you can experience a loss that will impact feed conversion that will affect your bottom
line. It has been estimated that rodents can increase poultry feed usage by as much as 2%. When
the weather cools, mice and rats move indoors and can wreak havoc on not only feed conversion as
well as jeopardize bird health and damage facilities.
Rodents spread diseases to flocks by contaminating feed and bird living area with urine or
droppings. Rats and mice do not have bladders, so they continuously urinate and defecate on
everything they contact. Rats and mice are linked to poultry diseases such as salmonellosis,
colibacillosis, coryza, pasteurellosis, mycoplasmosis, hemorrhagic enteritis, hymenolepiasis,
capilariasis and ascaridiasis. Rodents are often vectors that carry over disease organisms from one
flock to the next flock. Even if the facilities are cleaned and disinfected, if rodents are present, they
jeopardize sanitation efforts by keeping diseases active on a farm due to their ability to harbor
pathogens.
Since the upper incisor teeth of rodents continue to grow throughout their life, mice and rats
must chew constantly to keep their teeth from becoming too long. This means that insulation, wood,
curtains, electrical wiring and even metal objects can be damaged.
7
RODENTS - continued on page 8
Rodent Reproduction and Habits
The most common rodent pests in poultry houses are the house mouse (Mus musculus) and the
Norway rat (Rattus norwegicus). Rats mature in four to six months while mice mature in six weeks.
Mice produce as many as 8 litters per year with up to six young per litter while rats produce three
to seven litters with as many as 18 young per litter. This means that within a year, 42 mice and 16
rats can produce 4,000 rodents!
Mice usually nest within 10 to 30 feet of their food source, but rats will travel miles in search
of food. Rodents are typically shy creatures that like dark hiding places. They prefer to travel along
walls and stay away from open areas. Mice can crawl through openings the size of a dime and rats
can contort their bodies to squeeze through openings the size of a quarter. The Norway rat will
burrow under foundations or footings and can dig tunnels up to 48 inches deep with several
entrances. Mice can live without a source of water, but rats need about .5-oz. to 1-oz. of water
daily. Rodents are nocturnal and prefer to feed at night.
Dont Give Rodents an Invitation to Stay
Maintain a minimum three-foot space around the outside of poultry barns that is free of brush,
trash and weeds. The more bare ground or short grass next to buildings, the less likely rodents will
build nests or burrow under footings. Clean up spilled feed near feed bins or feed pans and keep
medication rooms tidy and clutter free. Keep unused equipment stored away from production
facilities. Keep dead bird disposal area clean and dispose of dead birds on a daily basis. If rodents
dont find the living arrangements attractive, they wont stay.
Keep Rodents Out and Monitor for Signs of Activity
Prevent access to buildings by plugging holes and sealing doors. Carefully check the perimeter
of all buildings for potential entryways and burrows. A common entry point for mice is the
unprotected end of corrugated metal siding on buildings. Close openings around augers, pipes and
wires with cement or metal collars. Burrows with signs of fresh dirt indicate new rat activity and
should be addressed immediately.
Dont leave rodent monitoring to chance. Develop a schedule for closely checking all facilities
and stick to it. Addressing rodents when there are only tell tale signs such as droppings will be much
more effective and less costly than waiting until you actually see rodents. It has been estimated that
for every rodent, which is actually observed, there are 20 to 50 unseen. This is because of the rodent
hierarchical structure. It is young and the old rats that are usually forced to scavenge for food during
the day. Therefore seeing rodents during the day means the prime night feeding time is overrun.
In addition to establishing a monitoring schedule, keep records. Knowing where farm rodent
havens are and when activity is likely to increase can help a producer to develop an effective control
program that prevents infestations.
Maintain Bait and Trapping Stations
Any drastic change to their habitat may cause rodents to abandon a facility. Therefore, when
cleaning the exterior of facilities or removing litter, first plan to eliminate the rodent population.
Disrupting a rodent nesting area will only encourage them to move to a new location until the
changes are no longer threatening.
Rodents are continuously exploring their environment and have a strong dislike for new
objects. This makes it important to keep bait stations in the environment continuously. Rodents
have poor eyesight and do not see color so adding color to bait is not helpful. In addition, rodents
have a keen sense of smell and taste. They can detect even small amounts of toxic chemicals so
overdosing baits may only discourage consumption. Rodents can learn to associate tastes with
harmful effects of new foods and they can remember this for up to six months. Rodents also prefer
fresh foods. Therefore, if a heavy rodent population is suspected, frequent baiting and changing
the type of bait may be helpful.
The most common control methods for rodents are poisonous chemicals that are classified as
anticoagulants. Anticoagulants disrupt the blood clotting mechanism and cause rodents to slowly
bleed to death internally. Most anticoagulant baits must be consumed over several days before
enough anticoagulant is built up in the rodents system to cause an effect. However, second-
generation anticoagulant baits can effectively kill rodents with one dose.
If rodents do not
find the living
arrangements
attractive, they
will not stay.
RODENTS - continued from page 7
Getting the Most From Rodent Baits
Since rodents must consume traditional baits for several days, it is critical that bait stations be kept stocked with fresh bait and
that adequate numbers of bait stations are present to supply the whole population. Bait stations are important for presenting poison
to rodents because they 1) provide a dark, enclosed environment that attracts rodents, 2) keep bait clean and away from children, pets
and livestock and 3) prevent unnecessary loss of bait. Bait stations can be purchased or they can be made out of pvc pipe.
To make a bait station use a 1.5-inch diameter pipe for mice stations or 2.5- to 4-inch diameter pipe for rat stations. Construct a
T with a cap for the bottom of the T. Make the base of the T up to 8 to 12 inches long and both sides of the top of the T at least 12
to 18 inches long. Turn it over and attach permanently to side walls along footings. (The picture pg. 7 illustrates these instructions.)
Table 1 shows the baits available as well as their effects on rodents. Familiarize yourself with the different types of bait and be
aware that resistant rodent populations can develop if there are inadequate levels of bait for treating a population or baits are overused.
This means that it is just as important to maintain records on what baits are used, as it is to maintain a monitoring schedule. One
rodenticide company recommends that baits be switched as often as every two months for second-generation products, but traditional
products may be effective for as long as six months.
Conclusion
Rodents can have a detrimental effect on poultry operations because they consume feed, harbor diseases and destroy equipment.
Keep facilities clean so rodents dont want to stay. Monitoring for rodent activity on a set schedule, maintaining adequate bait stations
and change baits on a set schedule to head off uncontrollable rodent problems.
Table 1. Commercially Available Rodenticides
Generic Name Type Dose Trade Names
Brodifacoum Anticoagulant Single feeding Attack Havoc
Slow acting death 5-7 days post feeding. Talon Just
Rodent continues to feed after lethal dose One Bite Jaguar
has been ingested Ropax Weather-Blok
Difethialone Anticoagulant Single feeding Generation
Slow acting death 5-7 days post feeding. D-Cease
Rodent continues to feed after lethal dose Hombre
has been ingested
Bromadiolone Anticoagulant Single feeding Boothill Hawk
Slow acting death 5-7 days post feeding. Maki Contrac
Rodent continues to feed after lethal dose Trax-one Terminator
has been ingested
Chlorophacinone Anticoagulant Multiple feeding Rozol
Slow acting death 5-7 days post feeding. Rozol-Laq-Berry
Rodent continues to feed after lethal dose
has been ingested
Diphacinone Anticoagulant Multiple feeding Ramik Green Ditrac
(rats only) Slow acting death 5-7 days post feeding. Trap-N-A-Sak Liqua
Rodent continues to feed after lethal dose Tox II
has been ingested Tomcar
Contrax-D
Warfarin Anticoagulant Multiply feedings Ferret Final
Slow acting Contrax Co-rax
RAX
Bromethalin Metabolic inhibitor Single feeding Clout Assault
Quick acting-death 2-3 days post feeding Trounce Rampage
Vengeance
Cholecalciferol Vitamin D Single-multiple feedings Quintox
Death 3-5 days post feeding
Zinc phosphide Stomach poison Single feeding. Eraze
Death immediately Ridal-Zinc
ZP
Squirrel & gopher pellets
Source: Leslie Hinkle, AgriLynx Corporation, Rodent Management on Poultry Farms
9
VENTILATION - continued on page 10
Ventilation Considerations
for Turkey Producers
Introduction
Todays genetically superior turkeys must be provided with an optimum environment to reach
their genetic potential and receive maximum benefit from feed. Oderkirk (2001) has indicated that
an optimum environment will ensure that livestock or poultry are:
Draft-free
Free from extremes in temperature
Free from rapid temperature fluctuations
Free from excessive humidity and odors
Dry
Provided with adequate space to avoid stress and reduce risk of injury
Provided with an abundance of fresh water and feed
The environmental factors which can be controlled by ventilation include 1) air distribution and
circulation, 2) temperature, 3) humidity and 4) air composition (Oderkirk, 2001).
Purpose of Ventilation
Modern confinement turkey houses allow year-round production and provide substantial
control of light and temperature (Noll et al., 1995). However, in confinement housing, air
contaminants such as ammonia, dust, and microorganisms and their endotoxins can build up. Air
exchange is one way these contaminants as well as heat and moisture are removed. The rate of air
exchange needed must be controlled to economically maintain an appropriate environment all year-
round (Janni and Jacobson, 1995).
While ventilation is important at all times, perhaps winter ventilation is the most critical. The
heat produced within the house may come from that generated by the birds or from brooders and
furnaces. The quantity of heat produced must satisfy the following three heat losses to keep the
building at some selected temperature (Moore, 1993):
1. There will be heat loss through the roof, walls, doors, etc., depending on the type of
construction and level of insulation.
2. Some heat will be lost in the exhausted ventilation air.
3. Heat will be needed to evaporate moisture.
If the building temperature is to remain constant, the heat produced must be warm enough to
equal the three heat losses. All systems of ventilation work on this principle of heat balance. If a
balance cannot be achieved then the building temperature will fluctuate until a balance can be
reached. However, heat balance is a dynamic situation, always changing, due to such things as
outside temperature, solar energy, wind, bird activity, growth of birds or ventilation adjustments
(Oderkirk, 2001).
It is important to have sufficient insulation in the walls and especially the roof of the turkey
house to help maintain heat balance. But remember, some supplemental heat will be required at
various times even in well-insulated houses to maintain the desired temperature and to allow
enough ventilation to remove the moisture produced by the turkeys. Adequate insulation, that helps
VENTILATION- continued from page 9
maintain inside surface temperatures above inside dew point temperatures, reduces condensation
formation. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between temperature and water holding capacity
(Vest and Tyson, 1991).
Types of Heat
Several types of heat exist within turkey houses (and other houses). Many of us probably think
of a thermometer when we think of heat. This type of heat is known at sensible heat. Sensible heat
is that heat that we can measure (like with a thermometer). Sources of sensible heat in a turkey
house include turkey body heat; mechanical heat from lights, motors, etc.; supplemental heat from
brooders or furnaces; and solar heat gain (Porter, N.D.). Figure 2 shows the sensible heat generated
by turkey toms during their growth. However, it is important to understand that there is another
form of heat present in turkey houses.
All of us have noticed that the evaporation of water (or sweat) from our skin makes our skin feel
cooler, even if the temperature of the air around us is warm. Our skin feels cool because the water
took energy from our skin to transform itself from liquid to vapor. This type of heat is called latent
heat. Latent heat in the turkey house comes from sources such as the respiration of turkeys, turkey
fecal material, spilled water, wet litter, or water vapor from incoming air. Latent heat is lost through
ventilation (Porter, N.D.). Latent heat in a turkey house affects litter moisture conditions, the
relative humidity, the potential for condensation and can affect bird comfort (Janni and Jacobson,
1995). While latent heat is difficult to measure, it has a real impact on ventilation costs. If you doubt
this reality remember when your house got wet inside. How much extra air and gas did it require
to dry out the house? That extra air and gas was because of latent heat. Figure 3 gives both estimated
respirable moisture and feces moisture production rates for toms from 1 to 24 weeks of age (Janni
and Jacobson, 1995).
Air Quality and the Turkey Respiratory System
Turkeys cannot change the environment they are provided with; only react to that environment.
If the environment we provide is less than optimal, the turkeys performance will quite likely be less
than optimal. Good air quality is vital to maintaining a healthy respiratory system. With each
breath, the turkeys respiratory system is exposed to the environment inside the turkey house. Poor
environments normally do not cause disease directly but they do reduce the birds defenses, making
them more susceptible to existing viruses and pathogens (Noll et al., 1995).
Birds were designed to be very efficient at extracting oxygen and removing air-borne
organisms. When a turkey breathes in, the air passes through a long convoluted pathway in the
upper airway (turbinates) and the sinuses (Wojcinski, N.D.). Here the air is warmed and particles
of dust, bacteria and mold are filtered out with clean air being sent to the trachea. The turkeys
respiratory tract is equipped with tiny hair like structures called cilia that sweep trapped particles
from the trachea. Mucus is secreted which serves as a vehicle to transport particles and scavenging
cells consume foreign materials. It is the integrated function of cilia, mucus and scavenging cells
that keeps the airways free of disease-producing organisms. The impairment of even one of these
components permits an accumulation of disease agents in the respiratory tract and may result in
disease (Noll et al., 1995).
Research on the respiratory tract of turkeys has shown that as little as 10 ppm ammonia will
cause excessive mucus production and damage to the cilia. Research has also revealed that
ammonia levels of 10 to 40 ppm reduced the clearance of E. coli from air sacs, lungs and tracheas
in turkeys (Noll et al., 1995). Ammonia is produced by the decomposition of turkey droppings in
the presence of heat and moisture. Humans can initially detect ammonia at levels of 10 ppm or less.
However, many people who work in turkey houses become desensitized to the smell of ammonia
and can no longer detect it. People may be in the houses only a few hours each day while the turkeys
live in the houses 24 hours a day, greatly increasing the ammonia challenge. Since the ammonia is
highly soluble in water, it will react with the moist membranes of the eye and respiratory system
(Morishita, 1991). Some of the signs of ammonia toxicosis include excessive tearing, shallow
breathing, and clear or purulent nasal discharge. Look for birds with their eyes closed most of the
time, listlessness, and reduced feed intake. Air for turkeys should contain less than 20 parts per
million ammonia.
VENTILATION- continued on next page
Turkeys cannot
change the
environment they
are provided with;
only react to that
environment.
11
VENTILATION- continued on page 12
Turkey growers must also ventilate for carbon dioxide. The
main sources of carbon dioxide within a turkey house are the
turkeys themselves and unvented combustion heaters. Turkeys
exposed to increased levels of carbon dioxide may exhibit
listlessness, disorientation, uncoordination, difficult breathing
and, in extreme cases, death. Carbon dioxide concentration in
outdoor air is around 300-350 ppm (0.030-0.035 %). Be aware
however, that levels above 2,500 ppm have been linked with
significant spontaneous turkey cardiomyopathy (or roundheart
disease) mortality in turkeys raised at moderate to high altitudes
(Frame et al., 1999).
Air for turkeys should have less than 5 milligrams per cubic
meter dust at bird level. Dust levels of 8 milligrams per cubic
meter can be tolerated if the birds are not being stressed by
ammonia, heat, or presence of respiratory disease agents.
Increasing the moisture level of the litter and increasing the
humidity of the air can control dust. Relative humidity can be
increased by lowering house temperatures or adding moisture
through periodic sprinkling of the house space. Keeping relative
humidity in the range of 60-70% and litter moisture at 35-45%
will keep dust levels suppressed (Noll et al., 1995).
The interaction of dust, ammonia, and warm temperatures
in the environment of the turkey house can negatively affect the
respiratory system. Once damage occurs in the respiratory tract,
bacteria colonize damaged epithelial cells and can invade the
blood stream. Osteomyelitis due to Staphylococcus aureus has
been correlated with dry dusty house conditions and the
subsequent air sacculitis (Wojcinski, N.D.). Thus, turkeys
raised in a poorly ventilated house can expose birds to a variety
of diseases.
Summary
Only with an optimum environment can todays genetically
superior turkeys reach their genetic potential and maximize
benefits from scientifically blended feed rations. The ventilation
system present in the turkey house is a key element in providing
this optimum environment.We ventilate to remove heat,
moisture, disease organisms and gases such as ammonia and
carbon dioxide while replenishing oxygen consumed by the
turkeys and unvented supplemental gas heat sources. All
ventilation systems work on the heat balance principle. This
means the heat produced (by turkeys and supplemental sources)
must equal heat lost (through evaporation, ventilated exhaust air,
and roofs, walls and doors) plus the heat required to warm
incoming ventilation air. Ventilation must account for and
balance sensible heat gains and losses as well as latent heat gains
and losses. Air quality in the turkey house is an important
management consideration and vital to maintaining a healthy
turkey respiratory system.
References
Frame, D.D., R.E. Buckner, and G.L. Anderson. 1999.
Causes and control of spontaneous cardiomyopathy or
roundheart disease in Utah turkeys. Bulletin AG506,
Cooperative Extension Service, Utah State University, Logan,
UT.
Janni, K.A., and L.D. Jacobson. 1995. Poultry ventilation
fundamentals and air exchange rates. University of Minnesota
Avian Research Center, Minnesota Extension Service,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Moore, J.A. 1993. Basic ventilation considerations for
livestock or poultry housing. PNW 307. A Pacific Northwest
Extension Publication. Oregon State University Extension
Service, Washington State University Cooperative Extension,
and the University of Idaho Extension Service.
Morishita, T. 1991. Ventilation and toxic gases. California
Poultry Letter. University of California at Davis. February 1991.
Noll, S.L., K.V. Nagaraja, D.A. Halvorson, and K.A. Janni.
1995. Air quality in turkey production. University of Minnesota
Avian Research Center, Minnesota Extension Service,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Oderkirk, A. 2001. The theory of poultry ventilation.
Poultry Fact Sheet. Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and
Marketing. Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Porter, D.O. No Date. Preparing for winter: Ventilation in
poultry and livestock shelters. West Virginia University
Extension Service, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
Vest L., and B.L. Tyson. 1991. Key factors for poultry
house ventilation. Bulletin 893. University of Georgia College
of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Cooperative
Extension Service, University of Georgia, Athens.
Wojcinski, H. No Date. The respiratory system: a critical
control point during grow-out. Technical Service/Health
Programs, Hybrid Turkeys, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
3.45
5.21
7.66
11.06
15.82
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
L
b
s

W
a
t
e
r
/
1
0
0
0

l
b
s

a
i
r
30 40 50 60 70
Air Temperature (Degrees F)
p y
Figure 1. Moisture Holding Capacity of Air
VENTILATION- continued from page 11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Weeks of Age
B
o
d
y

W
e
i
g
h
t

i
n

l
b
s
.
Body Weight in lbs
Sensible Heat (BTU/hr/bird)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
L
b
s

W
a
t
e
r
/
H
r
/
1
0
0
0

B
i
r
d
s
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22
Weeks of Age
Production Estimates
Respirable
Fecal
Figure 2. Tom Turkey Weights and Heat Production
Figure 3. Tom Turkey Moisture Production Estimates
13
PERFORMANCE- continued on page 14
Information Key
House number
HSE
FEED CONV
HEAD PLACED
HEAD SOLD
LIV
AGE
AVE BIRD WT
COND
FEED COST
CHICK COST
MED COST
TOTAL COST
COST/LB
PAY/LB
F.A.
GAS USAGE
ELECT
No.
LB/LB
No.
No.
%
D
LBS
%
$
$
$
$
Cent
Cent
$
GAL
KWH
Unit Description
Houses are also equipped with temperature monitoring equipment (about 80 sensors per house), an
electronic water flow monitoring system, weigh bins for feed delivery to the house, sensors for the
monitoring of fan run time and devices to determine gas flow from storage tanks.
Houses 1 and 2 were
built with steel trusses with
R10 insulation in the ceiling
while houses 3 and 4 were
constructed with wood trusses,
R19 ceiling insulation and
drop ceilings. Houses 1 and 3
are conventionally ventilated
with misters for summer
cooling, but 2 and 4 are
tunnel ventilated. House 2
contains a sprinkler cooling
system for summer cooling.
The system was developed at
the University of Arkansas
and utilizes a landscape
sprinkler system to deliver a
coarse, cooling mist to the
backs of the birds. House 4
utilizes evaporative cooling
pads to cool the inlet air.
PERFORMANCE- continued from page
13
Managers Comments on Flock 61
Chick quality continued to improve. Placement was approximately 23,800 birds per house. Mortality by house at harvest time
was as follows: House 1 - 719; House 2 - 669; House 3 - 505; and House 4 - 514. Condemnation percentage was 0.67 % ; improving
from 0.81 % on the previous flock even though this was the ninth flock of birds grown on the same litter. A total cleanout is planned
after the next flock of birds are sold which should be mid October. Down time between this and the last flock was 5 days. Ranking
was 12
th
out 21 growers with the two tunnel houses performing better than the two conventional houses. House 4 performed the best
(which rarely happens), followed by House 2, House 3 and finally House 1. The litter remained quite dry even though the foggers,
sprinklers and cool cell system were running much of the time. Caked litter removed with the decaking machine after flock 61 was:
House 1 - 1 load; House 2 - 2 loads; House 3 - 3 loads; and House 4 - 2 loads.
Chick quality was similar to flock 61. Placement was approximately 22,800 birds per house. Mortality at harvest was: House
1 - 679; House 2 - 737; House 3 - 693; and House 4 - 614. Condemnation was 0.48 %. Ranking was 6
th
out of 19 growers with the
two tunnel house again outperforming the two conventional houses although the differences were much smaller than on the previous
flock. In fact, feed conversion was the same for each of the 4 houses. Average weight per bird was slightly heavier in the tunnel houses
giving them the edge in performance. House 2 performed the best followed by House 4, House 3, and House 1. Down time was 13
days. A 32-stage controller was installed at House 2 after the flock was harvested which should provide better environmental control
for that house. The controller is similar to the one installed at House 4 just over a year ago that has proved beneficial at controlling
the environment in that house. The two conventional houses are equipped with the original six-stage controllers installed at time of
construction although we are looking to gradually update these with more modern systems having expanded capabilities. The houses
were cleaned out, washed down and disinfected after the flock was harvested. Ten flocks had been raised since the previous cleanout
and litter removal was as follows: House 1 - 27 loads; House 2 - 28 loads; House 3 - 26 loads; and House 4 - 25 loads for a farm total
of 106 loads. Assuming 5.5 tons per spreader truck load, litter removal was approximately 583 tons. Total caked litter removal since
the previous cleanout was estimated at approximately 300 tons; bringing total litter removal since the previous cleanout to
approximately 883 tons.
AVE
1
USAGE USAGE
1 1.96 23796 23077 96.98 43 3.78 0.67
2
8573 4045 0.00 12618 14.555 3.0828 0.00 150 5701
2 1.86 23790 23121 97.19 43 4.31 0.67 9279 4044 0.00 13324 13.448 4.1890 0.00 154 5824
3 1.88 23854 23349 97.88 43 4.09 0.67 8977 4055 0.00 13032 13.753 3.8846 0.00 145 5925
4 1.86 23811 23297 97.84 43 4.43 0.67 9589 4047 0.00 13637 13.306 4.3318 0.00 380 6356
FARM 1.89 95251 92844 97.47 43.00 4.15 0.67 36418 16192 0.00 52611 13.736 3.9015 0.00 829 23806
1
2
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 61 (July 5, 2001 - August 17, 2001)
AVE
1
USAGE USAGE
1 1.74 22867 22188 97.03 41 4.17 0.48
2
8040 3887 7.85 11935 12.974 4.3547 0.00 365 1016
2 1.74 22790 22053 96.77 41 4.35 0.48 8356 3874 7.85 12238 12.818 4.5108 0.00 231 820
3 1.74 22844 22151 96.97 41 4.18 0.48 8040 3883 7.85 11932 12.956 4.3730 0.00 342 754
4 1.74 22797 22183 97.31 41 4.21 0.48 8141 3875 7.85 12025 12.939 4.3894 0.00 295 1736
FARM 1.74 91298 88575 97.02 41.00 4.23 0.48 32578 15520 7.85 48130 12.921 4.4079 0.00 1233 4326
1
2
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 62 (August 30, 2001 - October 10, 2001)
15
Avian Advice
Phone: (479) 575-3952 Fax: (479) 575-3026
This flock was started on new litter, which was a mixture of rice hulls and pine sawdust. Chick quality was the best it has been
in quite some time. Placement per house was approximately 22,900. Mortality at harvest was: House 1 - 350; House 2 - 368; House
3 - 424; and House 4 - 592. Condemnation percentage was 0.34%. Even though condemnation percentage was low, chick quality was
good and we started the flock on new litter, flock performance was very disappointing. Our ranking was 14
th
out of 20 growers. On
this flock, the two conventional houses outperformed the two tunnel houses. House 3 performed the best followed by House 1, House
2, and House 4. Caked litter removed after flock harvest was as follows: House 1 - 8 loads; House 2 - 9 loads; House 3 - 8 loads; and
House 4 - 8 loads.
AVE
1
USAGE USAGE
1 1.88 22886 22536 98.47 38 3.62 0.34
2
7676 3890 0.00 11566 14.229 3.7457 464.88 911 1948
2 1.88 22945 22577 98.40 38 3.60 0.34 7642 3900 0.00 11543 14.260 3.7151 464.89 724 1847
3 1.78 22886 22462 98.15 38 3.84 0.34 7651 3890 0.00 11542 13.443 4.5317 464.88 1321 1122
4 1.87 22965 22373 97.42 38 3.55 0.34 7441 3904 0.00 11345 14.314 3.6616 464.89 1094 1823
FARM 1.85 91682 89948 98.11 38.00 3.65 0.34 30410 15585 0.00 45996 14.051 3.9239 1859.5 4050 6740
1
2
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 63 (October 20, 2001 December 7, 2001)
UA Poultry Science
bramwell@uark.edu
for Poultry Science
INSIDE
page 6
Anthrax on the Poultry
Farm
By F.D. Clark
page 7
Agroterrorism: Are You
Prepared?
By F.D. Clark
page 11
Thinking about Stress and
Disease in Turkeys
By G. Huff
page 13
West Nile Virus
Encephalitis: An Emerging
Infectious Disease
By F.D. Clark
page 15
Coming Events
Advice
AVIAN
Heating the Broiler House:
Fuel or Bird Heat?
by G. Tom Tabler, Applied Broiler Research Unit Manager - Savoy
HEAT - continued on page 2
Introduction
Broiler growers have three primary options
when it comes to heating their poultry houses.
Growers can use bird heat (which really isnt
much of an option when the birds are small but
becomes more valuable as the birds increase in
age and weight) or they can burn propane or
natural gas fuel. If propane and natural gas are
put under the same umbrella (lets call it
purchased heat), growers have only two primary
options - bird heat or purchased heat. To be
successful growers must use both options
wisely. If growers rely too much on purchased
heat they can be faced with excessively high fuel
bills, but relying too heavily on bird heat will
negatively affect in-house environment, feed
conversion, bird health and flock performance
leading to reduced returns. Its a balancing act
that is difficult to pull off correctly, so this article
is aimed at helping growers understand the
decisions they face and perhaps making
decisions easier.
Differences in Purchased Fuel
At the Applied Broiler Research Unit we
burn propane for fuel since natural gas lines do
not run by the farm. However, many growers
can choose between propane and natural gas so it
is important to compare the fuel sources. Even
though poultry houses can be heated equally
well with propane or natural gas, growers
(particularly those who are considering switch-
ing fuels) should be aware that there are some
significant differences between the two fuels
(Czarick and Lacy, 2001a).
One obvious difference is that propane is
delivered to the farm on a tank truck as a liquid
that is pumped into storage tanks, while natural
gas is a gas piped into the house from the main
supply line. In fact, growers should notice that
the propane tank truck driver will never fill the
storage tank 100% full since there must be an air
space at the top of the tank to allow the liquid to
change into gas for burning. This difference in
form (liquid versus gas) makes cost compari-
sons of the two fuels challenging, but we will
look at that subject in a moment.
There are also several less obvious
differences between the two fuels. Natural gas
is 60% lighter than air, while propane is 156%
heavier than air. This means the gas from
propane leaks around brooders or furnaces
could settle on birds, while natural gas leaks
would tend to accumulate above the birds. An
additional difference between the two fuels is
that there is less heat in a cubic foot of natural
gas than in a cubic foot of propane (Czarick and
Lacy, 2001a). Although there is almost no
difference between the flame temperature of
natural gas (3550F) and propane (3573F),
burning one cubic foot of natural gas produces
approximately 1,012 BTUs of heat while
burning one cubic foot of propane produces
2,520 BTUs of heat (Czarick and Lacy,
2001a). The exact amount of heat each gas
produces may vary a few percent as the
composition of the gases change from time to
time. Typically natural gas will consist of
94.8% methane, 2.9% ethane, 0.8% propane,
0.2% butane, 0.1% carbon dioxide, and 1.2%
nitrogen (Fig.1). Propane or liquid petroleum
gas (LPG) is typically a mixture of at least 90%
propane, 2.5% butane and higher hydrocarbons,
and the balance ethane and propylene (Czarick
HEAT - continued from page 1
HEAT - continued on next page
and Lacy, 2001a) (Fig.2). Since burning a cubic foot of propane produces 2.5 times the amount of
heat as a cubic foot of natural gas, it takes 2.5 times the volume of natural gas to heat a house as it
does propane.
Before going any further, lets explain some terms. The term BTU is a short version of British
Thermal Unit. One British Thermal Unit (BTU) is the amount of heat required to raise the
temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. A BTU is about the amount of heat
produced by burning one match. A Therm is the amount of gas required to produce 100,000
BTUs. Propane is sold by the gallon, while natural gas is sold by the Therm. However, we will
address those differences in a minute.
The two fuels are distinctive in the system required to burn them within the poultry house (i.e.
pipes, pressure regulators and burner orifices). Different operating pressures and pressure
regulators are required for propane and natural gas. Propane systems operate at 11 inches of water
column pressure, while natural gas systems operate at 7 inches of pressure. In addition, because
natural gas produces less heat per cubic foot than does propane, the gas supply lines to the brooders/
furnaces must be larger in houses using natural gas heat. For instance, a 100 ft., one-inch gas pipe
will carry 333,000 BTUs/hr of propane compared while the same amount of natural gas produces
only 206,700 BTUs/hr, or 37% less heat (Czarick and Lacy, 2001a). This means that you must
change the in-house piping if you switch from propane to natural gas, otherwise the brooders/
furnaces will either burn poorly or not at all because of lack of fuel. The orifices in the brooders/
furnaces will also need to be changed if you switch fuels since larger orifices are required for
natural gas than for propane. The switch from propane to natural gas can become expensive
equipment-wise and these costs must be weighed against the savings in the natural gas purchase
price. Switching from natural gas to propane generally requires less expensive equipment changes
since the only the regulators, smaller orifices and hooking up the propane tanks to the existing gas
lines is required. However, propane would have to be priced attractively enough to warrant
switching.
As mentioned earlier, it takes 2.5 times the volume of natural gas to heat a poultry house as it
does propane, but that doesnt mean it will cost 2.5 times as much because the two fuels are priced
differently. Natural gas is sold by the Therm (which we said earlier was 100,000 BTUs) while
propane is sold by the gallon (Czarick and Lacy, 2001a). One Therm of natural gas is
approximately 100 cubic feet. One gallon of propane produces 91,500 BTUs of heat. To convert
the cost per Therm of natural gas to an equivalent cost per gallon, divide the cost per Therm by 1.09
(100,000 BTUs/91,500 BTUs). To determine the equivalent cost per Therm multiply cost per
gallon of propane times 1.09 (Czarick and Lacy, 2001a). There are also usually additional service
charges associated with natural gas that vary from place to place and may add 5% or more to the
bill (Czarick and Lacy, 2001a).
Keeping Birds Warm With Purchased Heat
Since heating costs can account for as much as 40% of a growers out-of-pocket expense for
growing birds (Donald et al., 2001), efficient fuel management can mean the difference between
profit and loss. One important way to save fuel is to prevent temperature stratification, with warm
air staying near the ceiling and cold air collecting at bird level (Donald et al., 2001). Proper
ventilation and air inlet management are critical to promoting good air mixing during colder
weather.
During cold weather some growers may overlook the need of birds for fresh air and focus
solely on house or litter temperature. Yet propane gas combustion occurs according to the
following formula:
CH
3
-CH
2
-CH
3
+ 5 O
2
3 CO
2
+ 4 H
2
O
(Propane) (Oxygen) (Carbon dioxide) (Water)
Natural gas is combusted in a similar manner and according to the following formula:
CH
4
+ 2O
2
CO
2
+ 2 H
2
O
(Methane) (Oxygen) (Carbon dioxide) (Water)
3
This means the combustion of one molecule of fuel generates
one or more molecules of carbon dioxide and several water
molecules. In fact, burning one gallon of propane requires 850
cubic feet of air and produces 108 cubic feet of carbon dioxide
and 0.8 gallons of water (Czarick and Lacy, 2001b). The water
and carbon dioxide generated by burning these fuels must be
exhausted from the house since they do not dissipate. If water is
not exhausted from the house environment, moisture can collect
on curtains, equipment and (maybe most importantly) in litter.
Excess litter moisture can evaporate causing young birds to chill.
Increased litter moisture in litter can also lead to an increase in
ammonia within the house. The accumulation of ammonia can
also force the grower to either live with health consequences on
the birds or pay extra to ventilate the ammonia out of the house.
Brooder stoves are often burning right over chicks. Since
burning brooder stoves consume oxygen and carbon dioxide is
heavier than air, the air around chicks can be the lowest oxygen
level in the house. If the house is not properly ventilated carbon
dioxide will tend to collect near the birds, making breathing
difficult and worsening ascites in the flock later on. It is
generally recommended that carbon dioxide concentrations
should be kept below 5,000 ppm (fresh air has about 500 ppm of
carbon dioxide) which can normally be accomplished through
typical timer fan settings. In view of these facts, it is crucial that
the 0.1 to 0.2 cfm per bird be provide to young birds during the
brooding period. This minimum ventilation can go a long way
towards determining how well the flock does at settlement time.
To get good moisture removal with minimum fuel cost it is
imperative to bring cool outside air into the house in such a way
that it mixes with the warm air near the top of the house. This
incoming air can then be warmed so that when it falls to the floor
it will be able to pick up as much moisture as possible, and will
not chill the birds (Donald et al., 2001). The best control of fuel
usage and proper mixing of incoming air is achieved with static
pressure controlled vent boxes and properly set fan timers. For
those growers who are still using curtain crack ventilation,
minimum fuel usage is all but impossible. Curtain crack
ventilation is by far the least effective and is quickly becoming
the least desirable method of minimum ventilation.
Keeping the House Warm With Birds
Since a day old chick does not produce much heat, growers
must rely heavily on propane or natural gas to maintain house
temperatures when birds are small. As birds age and their
weights increase, it becomes possible to use bird heat for a
significant portion of heat required to maintain proper house
temperatures. A broiler produces approximately 5 BTUs of
heat per pound of body weight per hour. However, to produce
the same amount of heat as burning one gallon of propane,
approximately 18,000 pounds of birds are required (Czarick and
Lacy, 2001b). This extra body heat makes it much easier to
maintain adequate temperature and air quality (conditions that
help optimize performance) during cooler periods, while
burning a minimum amount of fuel.
Birds produce heat as they digest feed and the more feed
consumed and digested, the more heat produced. For instance,
Czarick (2001) has indicated (Table 1) that 23,000 three-week-
old birds produce the same amount of heat has six conventional
pancake brooders while the same number of four-week-old birds
produce the same amount of heat as 10 conventional brooders.
When birds are distributed unevenly there is too much bird heat
being produced in the densely populated areas and not enough in
the sparsely populated areas. The furnaces/brooders will run in
sparsely populated areas, but exhaust fans may come on to cool
heavily populated areas of the house (Czarick, 2001).
Growers must also keep in mind that it is vitally important to
maintain uniform bird densities to optimize performance. Bilgili
and Hess (1995) reported that increasing the density from 0.9
square feet per bird to 0.8 square feet per bird decreased the bird
weight from 5.88 lbs. to 5.77 lbs. and increased feed conversion
from 1.85 to 1.88. In cold weather it is not uncommon to have
higher densities in the brood area than in other parts of the house
because the birds never uniformly distribute after being turned
out of the brooding chamber. This can even be a problem in
houses with clear curtains on bright, sunny days and high light
intensities if the nonbrooding areas are kept too cool. It is
important to be sure that the non-brooding areas are warmed a
day or two before turning birds out of the brooding chamber so
that birds are encouraged to quickly and evenly distribute
themselves throughout the house. In solid sidewall or black-out
curtained houses bird distribution problems can be even worse
since at full intensity the light levels in these houses are often 100
times dimmer than what is experienced in the typical
conventional clear curtain house (Czarick et al., 2001). These
lower light levels dramatically reduce bird activity which means
it takes significantly longer for the birds to spread out. Low light
levels coupled with cooler temperatures in the nonbrood areas
can make it almost impossible to get uniform bird distribution.
In addition, if the birds have not evenly distributed by three to
four weeks of age, they most likely never will (Czarick, 2001).
The problem of too many birds in some parts of the house and not
enough in other parts can result in birds in the crowded brooding
area having lower weights and higher feed conversions than
birds in less dense areas of the house. Not only do these bird
density differences decrease flock uniformity and negatively
affect flock performance, heating costs are also affected.
As birds produce heat during feed digestion, they also
produce moisture through respiration and defication. This
moisture must be removed from the house to prevent
condensation, caked litter and ammonia build up. For every
pound of weight a bird will produce 0.010 lbs. of moisture. For
every 90,000 BTUs of heat produced by the birds nearly 21
gallons of moisture is added to the house, as compared to the 0.8
gallons of water produced by the burning of one gallon of
propane which produces the same 90,000 BTUs of heat
(Czarick and Lacy, 2001b). In a sense, the heat produced by the
birds is a wet heat compared to the dry heat produced by the
brooders/furnaces. The greater the amount of wet heat used,
the greater the potential for build-up of moisture (Czarick and
Lacy, 2001b). Many times growers create moisture problems for
themselves when they cannot maintain desired air temperatures
with bird heat alone. Instead of supplementing the bird heat with
a small amount of heat from furnaces/brooders, which would not
only keep the house temperature up but dry out the house as well,
growers will often cut back on their timer fan settings (Czarick
Growers considering
switching fuels must
consider both the
cost of the fuel itself
and any additional
plumbing and
equipment costs
associated with
the switch.
HEAT- continued on next page
and Lacy, 2001b). Reducing timer fan settings does maintain more of the bird heat and keep the
temperature up but, it also retains more of the moisture generated by the birds. The more timer fan
settings are reduced, the greater the potential for moisture buildup (Czarick and Lacy, 2001b).
Once moisture has built to the point that caked litter begins to form, it will be very difficult to dry
it back out. It would be less expensive to burn a small amount of fuel as needed throughout the flock
than to wait until a serious moisture problem has developed and have to burn excess fuel to try and
correct the problem.
Summary
Broiler growers have limited options when it comes to heating their houses. Purchased fuel
(propane or natural gas) is costly and its use must be managed frugally to prevent expenses from
getting out of hand. With older birds, bird heat can be used to temper fuel usage although it is a
delicate balancing act to determine how much of each heat source to rely upon. If a grower depends
too heavily on purchased fuel, most of his/her returns will go to pay the gas bill. If bird heat is used
too much, moisture levels can build and result in undesirable house conditions which can negatively
affect flock performance.
Growers considering switching fuels must consider both the cost of the fuel itself and any
additional plumbing and equipment costs (pressure regulators, orifices, etc.) associated with the
switch. While both fuels work equally well for heating poultry houses, there are significant
differences between the two which growers should be aware of and must consider before making
a switch. Regardless of the fuel used, birds must be evenly distributed throughout the house to help
keep fuel use to a minimum. Uneven distribution will not only increase fuel usage but will
negatively affect flock uniformity and performance. Be sure to preheat the nonbrooding areas for
a day or two before turning birds out of the brooding chamber to assist in a quick and even
distribution. Proper management and balancing of bird heat and fuel throughout the growout period
will help insure positive flock performance and a profitable return at harvest time.
References
Bilgili, S. F., and J. B. Hess.1995. Placement density influences broiler carcass grade and meat
yields. J. Appl. Poultry Res. 4:384-389.
Czarick, M. 2001. The importance of uniform bird distribution during cold weather. Poultry
Housing Tips.13(9). Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agricultural and Environmental
Science, University of Georgia, Athens.
Czarick, M., and M. Lacy. 2001a. Propane (LPG) vs. natural gas. Poultry Housing Tips.13(3).
Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agricultural and Environmental Science, University of
Georgia, Athens.
Czarick, M., and M. Lacy. 2001b. Keeping birds warm with propane and feed. Poultry Housing
Tips.13(2). Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agricultural and Environmental Science,
University of Georgia, Athens.
Donald, J., M. Eckman, and G. Simpson. 2001. Paddle and recirculating fans-A progress
report. The Alabama Poultry Engineering and Economics Newsletter No. 13 (Sept). Alabama
Cooperative Extension System. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Table 1. Heat Production of 23,000 Broilers (Czarick, 2001)
Bird Age Heat Production Equivalent number Equivalent
(Weeks) (BTUs/hr) of conventional gallons of
pancake brooders propane per day
1 35,000 1 9
2 88,750 3 22
3 183,750 6 46
4 303,750 10 76
5 432,500 14 108
6 602,500 20 150
7 778,750 25 195
5
Fig. 1. Gases in Natural Gas
Propane 90%
Ethane + propylene
7.5%
Butane + higher
hydrocarbons 2.5%
Fig. 2. Gases in Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) or propane
Nitrogen 1.2%
Carbon Dioxide 0.1%
Butane 0.2%
Propane 0.8%
Ethane 2.9%
Methane 94.8%
ANTHRAX - continued on next page
Anthrax on the
Poultry Farm
Background
Anthrax is not a problem for most farmers and ranchers in the United States. The disease is
only rarely seen in birds (in fact chickens are highly resistant). However, since approximately
85% of Arkansas poultry farms have cattle on them it is prudent that the poultry farmer be
aware of the disease. This is especially important considering the current news releases and
media coverage of the disease in people and the attendant apprehension about the disease.
Anthrax is found worldwide with the distribution of the disease dependent upon climatic
conditions, soil types, etc. Although rare in the United States, there are outbreaks of anthrax in
animals. The majority of the bacteria in the genus Bacillus species of bacteria do not cause
disease, but the organism which causes anthrax, Bacillus anthracis, is considered the most
pathogenic of the genus. This bacteria is rod shaped and is capable of producing a spore. A
spore is a highly resistant form of the bacteria and can remain viable for years.
Anthrax as a disease has a long history. It was reported as a disease in ancient Egypt and
Rome. In the late 1800s Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch worked with the disease in animals. In
fact, Louis Pasteur developed a vaccine against anthrax in animals in 1881. The disease can
affect any warm blooded animal, but is primarily a problem in herbivores (commonly in cattle
and sheep and less frequently in goats and horses). It can also infect swine and humans. Reptiles
and carnivorous birds are resistant to the disease.
Anthrax in Animals
Animals get the disease via three routes ingestion, inhalation, and skin. The usual route is
ingestion of the bacterial spore via contaminated food (such as close grazing of the infected
pasture) or contaminated water. The bacterial spore germinates in the intestinal tract or throat
mucosal membranes. It is suspected that injury to the mouth mucosa occurs when animals
closely graze on sparse pasture and the spore gains entry via these injuries. However, the
bacteria can cause disease without an injury being present. The bacteria multiples at the local-
ized site and causes swelling of the surrounding tissue. It then spreads to the regional lymph
nodes and from there to the bloodstream, thus, seeding the body tissues. The bacteria produces
a toxin which causes edema, tissue damage, shock and is lethal. Animals infected with anthrax
may be found without any clinical signs or may exhibit depression, high fever, difficulty
breathing, rumen stasis, lack of appetite, and terminal convulsions. Horses commonly have colic
and intestinal inflammation. The animals commonly have a bloody discharge at body openings
such as the nostrils, anus, etc. The signs observed does depend upon the route of infection.
When infection is via the respiratory route the signs are similar to those seen when it is ac-
quired via ingestion, but they tend to develop more rapidly. The disease often has a sudden
onset and short course with minimal signs prior to death when the animal has inhaled or
ingested the bacteria. Localized skin infections are not common in animals and when they are
present usually become systemic.
In animals the disease is tentatively diagnosed by the rapid onset of clinical signs and death.
The dead animal will decompose rapidly and there are large amounts of gas present in the carcass.
Photo Courtesy Bernie Adams
and BioPort Corporation.
7
AGROTERRORISM - continued on page 8
Agroterrorism - Are You
Prepared?
In addition, there is no rigor mortis and there is a dark, tarry bloody discharge from the body orifices. In most states the disease is
reportable and samples should only be taken for confirmation by a qualified veterinarian. Commonly a sample of blood is taken for
bacterial culture from the ear vein of the dead animal (this is done to prevent spore formation since the bacteria will form spores if
exposed to the air). It is important to not open the animal to minimize spore formation. Infected animal carcasses should be completely
burned (if allowable) and/or buried with quick lime.
Anthrax can be effectively treated in animals if the treatment is started early in the course of the disease. Several antibiotics can
be used to treat animals in the early stages of anthrax. Unfortunately, many animals exhibit few, if any, signs prior to death with anthrax
so prevention using vaccines in endemic areas is of value.
Anthrax in Humans
In humans the disease can be a skin form, respiratory form, or intestinal form.
The skin form (cutaneous) in humans results when the bacterial spores contaminate a cut or skin abrasion. The lesion that develops
is a bump similar to a rash that develops into a hot, painful swelling that becomes a necrotic painless ulcer. The lymph nodes near the
ulcer may also become swollen. This form of the disease can cause death but it is rare. Cutaneous anthrax is contracted when
contaminated wool or hides are handled. Antibiotic therapy usually results in a complete cure.
The more serious forms of anthrax are the respiratory and intestinal forms. The respiratory form is the result of inhalation of the
bacterial spores which subsequently multiply in the lungs causing respiratory difficulty, flu like symptoms, and eventually death (if
not treated early in the progression of the disease). The intestinal form is the result of consumption of spore contaminated meat.
Following consumption of contaminated meat the bacteria proliferates in the intestinal tract causing vomiting, fever, severe diarrhea
and death if treatment is not started early in the course of the disease. However, it should be noted that naturally occurring anthrax in
animals is rare in the United States and in humans it is even more so.
Introduction
Recent events in the United States have resulted in a tremendous increase in security measures
to prevent similar events from occurring. There has also been an increased awareness of the public
concerning disease prevention and a heightened apprehension concerning farm vulnerability to
agroterrorism. Can the agricultural community prevent or reduce the effects of agroterrorism
attacks? How can an individual farmer or rancher implement protective measures to prevent their
farm or ranch from being a potential site of disease outbreak whether accidental or intentional?
Governmental Systems to Prevent Diseases
Veterinarians provide growers and ranchers with disease diagnoses in the local area. Local
veterinarians also work with state and federal agencies in the state to ensure that health certificates
that allow the legal movement of animals out of state are issued. Veterinarians provide growers and
ranchers with information on animal health and disease prevention as well as quarantining suspect
animals. All licenced veterinarians in any state have a list of reportable diseases. If they diagnose
a reportable disease an animal or suspect an animal to have one they are bound by law to report the
details of the situation to the appropriate state or federal authorities and quarantine the animal until
a diagnosis can be confirmed. Most states also have a veterinary public health agency that functions
AGROTERRORISM - continued from page 7
to enforce and administer programs designed to prevent the spread of diseases from animals to the
public.
The agriculture system of the United States has several systems in place to prevent disease
from spreading. Most citizens are aware of the Center for Disease Control which becomes involved
in disease outbreaks in people. They are also aware that there is in place a system for inspecting
meat, poultry , and other foods to insure wholesomeness. In addition, each state has a state
veterinarian in charge of an animal health agency that works to prevent the introduction of animal
diseases into that state. These state veterinary agencies are usually a part of the state department of
agriculture or another state agency (such as the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission
[ALPC]) that administers regulations applying to state livestock. The ALPC monitors diseases that
are routinely found in the state and seeks ways to prevent the spread of these diseases.
The federal government also operates veterinary agencies through the Animal and Plant
Inspection Service (APHIS) branch of the United States Department of Agriculture. APHIS
monitors diseases found in the three regions of the United States (Eastern, Central, and Western
regions). There are, of course diseases commonly found in various regions of the United States.
Diseases that are not commonly found are classified as foreign animal diseases. Each of these
regions is comprised of several states and there is an Area Veterinarian in charge (AVIC) located
within each state . The AVIC administers federal programs related to animal health in the state via
several veterinary medical officers or VMOs. These programs are designed to reduce the
incidence of common diseases and prevent the introduction of foreign animal diseases. There are
also several veterinarians in each state that have been specifically trained to recognize foreign
animal diseases ( called Foreign Animal Disease Diagnosticians or FADDs). These FADDs assist
with the diagnoses, prevention and control of any foreign animal disease.
In the last few years many states have also organized task forces or teams of experts to
recognize and respond to emergency disease outbreaks in the state. These task forces are usually
comprised of veterinarians or individuals with expertise on a wide variety of animals. Arkansas has
such a task force; the Arkansas Animal Disease Emergency Response team (AADER). The
AADER team, in cooperation with the animal industries has discussed and planned responses to an
animal disease emergency situations. The AADER team has also conducted four disease scenarios
over the past two years. Animal industry personnel, state government representatives, federal
government agency representatives, emergency management officials, veterinarians, livestock
inspectors, county judges, and other necessary people were included in the discussions of response
strategies to emergency animal diseases. These scenarios or tabletop discussions have allowed
participants to address various strategies (such as quarantines, recognition of sieases control
measures, preventative practices, animal movement and animal care) that would be needed in and
animal disease emergency outbreak. Disease scenarios have been conducted on Hog Cholera, Foot
and Mouth Disease, Exotic Newcastle Disease and Avian Influenza.
Biosecurity and the Prevention of Disease
The nation has responded to the recent terrorist attacks by increased security measures and
awareness to prevent future attacks. The best way an individual involved in animal production can
assist in the prevention of an agroterrorism attack is by implementing Biosecurity measures. These
measures are done to minimize the chance of farm animals being infected by pathogens.
Biosecurity is a term that is frequently used when discussing disease control in poultry. The
word itself is a combination of two terms, bio and security. The term Bio is from the Greek
word bios and means life. The definition of security means safety or freedom from risk or danger.
When combined together as the word Biosecurity translates as life free of risk or in other words
safety for the living. In regard to poultry; the word means any procedure or practice which will
prevent or limit the exposure of a flock to disease causing organisms. Biosecurity involves many
common sense procedures which are often overlooked or only carelessly or sporadically
followed. Good Biosecurity programs need to address two broad areas: the physical facilities on the
farm and the farm management routines.
Physical Facilities to Prevent Disease
A properly planned poultry farm is located and designed to prevent the entrance of disease
organisms into the facilities. Changes to physical facilities are often the most difficult and costly
to change so poultry facilities should not be hastily planned or constructed. Poultry farms should
be located 1-3 miles from any other poultry facility. Farm buildings should be located as far away
The agriculture
system of the
United States
has several
systems in place
to prevent
disease from
spreading.
9
as possible from main roadways since vehicles (including live haul trucks) can spread disease
between flocks. Automobile traffic on the farm should not be allowed to park near house entrances
so that the chance of transmission of disease organisms on vehicles to birds is minimized. Facilities
should be constructed so that wild birds in and vermin can be effectively excluded. Facilities should
also be constructed so that maitenancecan be easily done and should be kept in good repair. All
poultry houses should be constructed of wire small enough to prevent wild birds and animals from
entering the house.
Farm Management Routines to Prevent Disease
Farm management rountines comprise the second component of Biosecurity programs. Farm
routines are the easiest, quickest, and least costly component to change and can have the greatest
impact on disease prevention. Farm routines can either assist in the spread of diseases or prevent the
disease spread. Thus, it is important to understand how farm routines can cause the transmission of
disease organisms from disease sources to flocks. Poultry flocks may be exposed to disease
organisms via the following five sources:
1. Diseased or Carrier Poultry
2. Vermin (rodents, wildlife, free flying birds, insects)
3. Personnel (clothing and shoes of on farm caretakers and visitors)
4. Inanimate objects contaminated with disease organisms
5. Contaminated air or water.
Dealing with Diseased or Carrier Poultry
Carrier birds are those birds which have the disease organism, but do not show disease
symptoms. It is impossible to detect carrier birds without testing and often the disease has already
spread once these birds have been detected. Thus, it is generally best for growers to avoid contact
with all other birds to minimize disease risk. It is also important that no other avian (bird) species
be present on the poultry farm since these birds can carry diseases. The utilization of all in / all out
facilities can greatly reduce the risk of disease transmission since potentially infected birds are
removed from the premises before new birds are acquired. In addition, adequate time should be
allowed between flocks to clean and disinfect. All replacement poultry should be from disease free
stock. Caretakers should learn to recognize symptoms of disease so diseases can be recognized
early and diseases do not spread to other poultry. Dead birds should be quickly removed from
poultry houses to prevent disease spread via cannibalism. Dead birds should be disposed off by
approved methods such as incineration, composting, or rendering. Since dead birds can carry
disease, it is important not to bring dead birds from other farms on to your own farm. In addition,
since litter can also carry disease organisms, it is important to keep litter from other farms off you
own farm.
Prevention of Disease via Vermin:
All poultry houses should be constructed of wire small enough to prevent wild birds and
animals from entering the house. They should be checked and repaired as needed. Since rodents
contaminate and consume feed and water, spread many diseases, and destroy and/or damage
equipment all poultry buildings should be rodent proofed. The area around a poultry house and
farm should be cleaned to prevent rodent infestation and all spilled feed should be cleared away
as soon as possible. A baiting program should also be implemented on the poultry farm to keep
rodent populations low. Litter and manure beetles can act as disease reservoirs and also damage
poultry house insulation and wooden structures. Flies can also spread disease and can be a
nuisance on the farm or to neighbors. House condiitons should be maintained to minimize
insect numbers and approved pesticide application program should be in place to further reduce
the insect population. In addition, maintaining litter in dry condition and repair or water leaks in
and around the house is also helpful.
AGROTERRORISM - continued on page 10
Poultry flocks
may be exposed
to disease
organisms via the
following five
sources
Prevention of disease from personnel:
Access to the poultry farm should be restricted so that only necessary authorized personnel
are allowed on the farm. Farm caretakers should also be cognizant of the possibility of disease
spread via daily on farm movement. When multiple age farms can not be avioided, a traffic flow
pattern should be established so that the youngest birds are checked first. Clean clothing
(coveralls) and boots should be provided for all personnel entering the poultry farm. A log
should be maintained so that personnel, vehicle, and equipment can be tracked as to when, who,
and why the farm was visited. A footbath containing a disinfectant may help reduce tracking of
organisms via footwear. However, it is important to remember that dirty disinfectant footbaths
are worse than no footbaths at all. Also remember that cleaning of rubber boots and/or other
footwear before disinfecting is advisable since most disinfectants will be rendered useless by
large amounts of organic matter such as litter or fecal material.
Prevention of Disease from Inanimate Objects:
Inanimate objects such as equipment should be thoroughly washed and disinfected after
use. Do not borrow equipment from other farms for use on your farm. All feed and water
systems should be cleaned and disinfected on a regular schedule. Do not bring home and use
anything from another poultry farm or area where other avian species are kept without cleaning
and disinfecting it first or better yet do not bring on the farm under any circumstance.
Disease Prevention from Contaminated Water or Air.
It is important to not use water that is suspect. Chlorination of water and cleaning of water
systems will assist in the prevention of disease. Do not water poultry from ground water sources
such as a pond without proper disinfection of the water. Air borne pathogens are more difficult
to prevent since poultry need ventilation to reduce humidity, ammonia, dust, and heat. Location
of the house as far as possible from other poultry farms will assist in prevention of airborne
disease.
Biosecurity is one of the most important tools to use in the prevention of disease. A
Biosecurity program should be an integral part of poultry farm disease prevention practices and
should be flexible to allow changes as needed. Constant vigilance and common sense can pay
big dividends in the reduction of mortality and condemnations from disease. Prevention of
disease is always less costly than treatment, control, and/or salvage. Biosecurity practices are
vital to the prevention of disease and the protection of both the agriculture industries and food
supply in the United States. Biosecurity pracitces are our first line of defense again on-farm
agroterrorism.
AGROTERRORISM - continued from page 9
11
STRESS- continued on page 12
Gerry Huff USDA/ARS Poultry Production and Product Safety Research Unit
Thinking about Stress and
Disease in Turkeys
Stress was
originally an
engineering term
meaning a force that
strains or deforms.
What is stress?
What is stress? You have probably been told time after time that reducing bird stress will help
to fight E. coli infections. But just what does that mean? Perhaps if you think about what stress
means to you, it may help you to understand what you can do to decrease the stressors faced by your
birds.
The word stress means different things to different people. Stress was originally an
engineering term meaning a force that strains or deforms. Stress was first used in a biological
sense by a Harvard physiologist, Walter B. Cannon in 1914. Cannon used the term to describe the
effects that emotions have on physiology and health. However, the term stress became popular
in a biologic sense beginning with the work of Hans Selye. In 1950, Selye published an influential
book summarizing his work studying The General Adaptation Syndromeand the diseases of
adaptation titled The Physiology and Pathology of Exposure to Stress. Since then, this concept has
become so common, that today the biologic sense of the word is probably the first that comes to
most peoples minds.
Awareness of stress and the effects of stress has become so pervasive in our modern society
that in June of 1983, Time magazine ran a cover story which referred to stress as The Epidemic of
the 80s. Awareness of the effects of stress has escalated since then. A brief search on the internet
brought up the following varied definitions submitted by individuals:
Stress is the force applied to a structure to test its breaking strength. We have come to
use the term to mean both the forces that pressure us and the damage they cause.
Stress is the things you let bother you and some things that cause stress are school, work,
money, driving, and just people.
Stress is any demand or change, whether positive or negative, in a persons life. The graduate
school experience is inherently stressful.
Stress is the bodys response to any demand or pressure.
Stress is like a ghost. It cannot be seen but it can be felt.
Stress is the mental, emotional, or physical response of our bodies to changes in our lives.
Stress in itself is neither positive nor negative. Rather, our reaction to stress can be positive
or negative.
As William Shakespeare once said NOTHING IS GOOD OR BAD BUT THINKING
MAKES IT SO, which is one reason the effects of stressful situations are so different for different
individuals. In todays world our stressors include but are certainly not limited to:
Traffic jams, deadlines, eating on the run, an angry spouse, or boss, or parent, teenagers,
bills to pay, a job, no job, new job, job changes, moving, living on unemployment, endless chores,
screaming kids, school, tests, pop quizzes, getting called on in class, talking in front of an audience,
writing assignments, bereavement, divorce, poverty, friends, no friends, errands and demands,
demands, and more demands. And today we know the fear of war, fear of terror, fear of the
unknown.
STRESS- continued from page 11
Stress would seem to be a scientifically unworkable
concept. However, we know that stress has adverse effects, even
without ever having resolved the problem of precisely defining
stress or even agreeing on ways to measure this condition. The
best we can try to do is measure stress by concentrating on the
effects stressors have in our lives. Transferring this thinking to
our animals, we need to pay attention to the effects of stress on
reproduction, immunity, and metabolism, all of which serve as
indicators of animal well-being.
What does stress do to animals?
It has been documented that stress can lead to an increased
susceptibility to disease. The confusing part is that stress can also
lead to an increased protection from disease. The effects of stress
are so variable because: 1) The effects are specific for the type,
degree, and duration of stress; 2) Effects are influenced by the
complexity of the immune system and the neuro-endocrine
system; 3) Effects are strongly influenced by individual genetic
differences in physiology as well as the psychological response
or perception of different stressors; and 4) The development of
each individual response to stress is strongly influenced by the
environment, which includes all previous experience, as well as
nutrition and disease.
Research on stress
Our research program uses an experimental disease model
to produce E. coli air sacculitis and osteomyelitis in turkeys by
stressing birds with injections of one of the major chemicals
involved in the birds response to stress. A general response of
birds to stress is the release of ACTH from the anterior pituitary
gland which stimulates the adrenal cortex to increase the
synthesis and secretion of corticosterone, the major glucocorti-
coid in birds. Dexamethasone, the chemical we inject, is a
synthetic glucocorticoid that is commonly administered to cattle
for the treatment of many problems including mastitis, ketosis,
udder edema, respiratory disease, inflammatory musculoskel-
etal disease, and induction of parturition. However,
dexamethasone usage is a good example of a treatment that can
become worse than the problem when used in excess. Just
remember that a little stress is good for you, but too much is a
killer. Dexamethasone decreases immunity to coccidiosis in
chickens and in our studies, dexamethasone treatment leads to
E. coli and S. aureus air sac infection and osteomyelitis. This
model clearly and reproducibly shows that too much stress can
lead to an increase in disease in turkeys and that by reducing the
effects of stress you can dramatically increase the health of your
birds.
What can be done about stress?
But, what can you do about it ??? If the effects of stress are
so complex, why even bother trying? Probably the easiest and
most important thing you can do is to just think. Think about
how your birds can be stressed, and then do all that you can to fix
the situation. A lot of things just cant be changed, but many can
be improved by a little consideration. Ive had fun trying to list
the stressors I know can be faced by poults throughout a growout
and Ive listed them below.
My challenge to you is to try to think of more. What is it in
your particular situation that can produce unexpected changes in
the environment, unexpected surprises for your birds. What are
they afraid of? A turkey grower in Kansas, after reading this list,
realized that running the housekeeping tiller in his brooding
house was really scaring his poults. He believes that since he
stopped tilling, his birds have had less osteomyelitis.
Coincidence? Maybe. But if you add together all of the little
things you can do to make birds more comfortable and less
fearful, you will make a big difference in bird health. For turkey
growers, one of the greatest stressors on the poults is having to
move their birds from one house to another in a multi-stage
system. We need to find alternatives to these types of
management practices that really impact health and disease. We
are searching for ways to improve the birds stress response
through genetics and nutrition. But until real solutions are found,
decreasing stress is up to you. Think about ways to decrease the
fear and reduce the changes faced by your birds. If you think of
any other stressors for this list, or have some good ideas on how
to decrease stress, please let me know. My email is
grhuff@uark.edu and Id be happy to hear from you.
Since September 11, all Americans have experienced a new
kind of stressful anxiety caused by not knowing what will
happen next, a feeling of loss of control and an inability to plan
our next response. Perhaps this general uncertainty, even though
it is so hard to describe, so hard to even know when we are
feeling it, may be our best connection to understanding the stress
experienced by our poultry flocks. As humans we have
developed an intuitive feeling for the concept of stress from our
personal experiences. For your birds, the term stress can be used
to describe everything from the discomfort caused by high or
low environmental temperatures, or running out of feed, to the
anguish of emotional or physical conflict with no place to hide.
Perhaps the best thing you can do to reduce stress in your flocks
is to try to maintain a sense of consistency as best as possible.
Make careful observations and be aware of ways you can reduce
fear and uncertainty. And continue to think about how
sometimes big changes and sometimes small changes in our
lives and our environment can profoundly affect the way we feel.
SOME STRESSES ON TURKEYS DURING PRODUCTION
Hatching, Catching, Handling
Beak and toe trimming
Vaccination
Transportation, Cold Stress
Open field stress
Heat stress
People
Ammonia, dust, endotoxin
Disease
Social hierarchy
Overcrowding
Genetic selection for fast growth
Extended lighting schedules
Running out of feed
Running out of water
Wet litter
Moving from brooder houses to grow-out houses
Catching and transportation to processing plant
13
WEST NILE- continued on page 14
West Nile Virus
Encephalitis: An Emerging
Infectious Disease
History and Background
The first documented case of West Nile virus (WNV) encephalitis was in 1937 in a feverish
woman in the West Nile region of Uganda, Africa. This virus was identified as a Flavivirus of the
Japanese Encephalitis Serocomplex. There are several other Flaviviruses in this complex that can
cause encephalitis in people (such as St. Louis encephalitis and Murray valley and Kunjin
encephalitis of Australia). There have been infrequent outbreaks of fevers associated with West
Nile virus since the 1930s in Israel in the 1950s and South Africa in the 1970s. However, many
infections were apparently without symptoms and the disease was only a problem in Africa, West
Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. It was detemined early that the virus was transmitted
via mosquitoes. In 1990s there were outbreaks of the disease caused by a new variant of the virus.
In 1999, the first infection of WNV was documented in the Western Hemisphere in Connecticut,
Maryland, New York and New Jersey. There were 62 human cases (seven fatal) in the affected area
and numerous cases in horses and birds. There were, in fact, tremendously high mortality rates in
wild birds (particularly crows) that coincided with the outbreak in humans and horses. The
reservoir for the virus is wild birds. Mosquitoes feeding on the birds become infected and can the
transmit the virus to other birds, horses, or people. In 2000, there were 21 cases (two fatal) in
humans in the New York area. These outbreaks prompted a 5 area surveillance program. The five
areas monitored were human patients for signs of WNV, animals for neurological signs,
mosquitoes for the virus, dead birds for virus, wild, captive and sentinel chickens for antibodies.
The Spread of West Nile Virus in the United States
The surveillance program showed (as expected) that the disease has spread from the original
area around New York city. Human cases in 2001 are currently at 41 with others pending
confirmation. The surveillance program to date has detected WNV in approximately 4000 crows
and 1400 other birds in 27 states and the Washington, D.C. area. However, it should be noted that
these numbers may increase as states continue surveillance. The number of equine cases of WNV
in 2001 (as of October 31, 2001) stands at 347 cases in 18 states. Many of the infected horses have
either died from the encephalitis or were euthanized. WNV has been detected in dead birds in
Arkansas. The most recent cases have been in the El Dorado and Ft. Smith areas. Since this disease
is spreading and could have an impact on the animal and public health in Arkansas it is important
to discuss a few details.
West Nile Virus Infections in Humans and Animals
To date, WNV has only been confirmed in dead wild birds in Arkansas; no human cases have
been documented. The Arkansas Department of Health and the Livestock and Poultry Commission
are continuing their surveillance programs and have encouraged citizens to contact their offices if
they find any dead wild birds found in their yard. Persons at risk for the disease include the elderly
and individuals with a compromised immune system. Horses are at risk and can die from the
disease, although most seem to recover. They contract the disease by being bitten by WNV infected
mosquitoes. Signs in an infected horse are those resulting from inflammation of the brain and
Central Nervous System (CNS). These signs can be seen with any disease that infects the CNS and
SOURCE: Center for
Disease Control and
Prevention. http://
www.cdc.gov/dvbid/
index.htm
WEST NILE- continued from page 13
include: fever, appetite loss, depression, head tilt, muscle tremors, head pressing, paralysis of the
hindlegs, impaired vision, and other types of CNS signs. It is important to contact your veterinarian
so a correct diagnosis can be made. There is no specific treatment other than supportive care of the
animal. A vaccine has been recently approved for horses but its effectiveness is unknown at
present.
Birds also develop an encephalitis and can die from the disease. Typically, birds do not show
signs of WNV other than a high mortality. Experimentally infected geese have developed CNS
signs such as twisting of the head and neck, depression, weight loss, and death. Exotic birds also can
become infected as evidenced by deaths in exotic birds at the New York zoo in 1999. Chickens and
turkeys have been experimentally infected with the WNV but they did not develop clinical signs.
The susceptibility of gamebirds and many exotic and pet birds to WNV is still unknown.
Prevention of West Nile Virus Infections
Since WNV is spreading and could become an important human and animal disease
(especially in horses), procedures and practices to prevent or minimize the impact should be
considered. Prevention of the disease is most effectively done by management of mosquitoes
(which serve as the vector) and prevention of mosquito bites. This can be done by using effective
mosquito repellants, wearing long sleeve shirts when outside, keeping window screens in good
repair and reducing areas where mosquitoes breed. A reduction of mosquito breeding areas can be
done by disposing of items that can hold water, cleaning livestock water troughs regularly and
removing vegetation from around ponds. Drain pipes, gutters and bird baths should be cleaned and
maintained. Ornamental pools should be aerated or stocked with small fish to consume mosquito
larvae. Vaccination may be a very effective way of preventing the disease in horses. If you develop
symptoms of an illness it is very important to seek medical attention for a proper diagnosis. It is also
important to seek veterinary care if any of your animals become ill so a proper diagnosis and
treatment regime can be started. If you have questions concerning West Nile virus (WNV) in
humans you should contact your physician, local public health department or health care provider.
Questions regarding WNV in animals should be directed to your veterinarian, county extension
agent, or the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission.
15
Coming
Events:
Avian Advice
Phone: (501)*575-3952 Fax: (501) 575-3026
* Area code is scheduled to change after Jan. 2002 to 479.
January 16 - 18, 2002 International Poultry Trade Show
Georgia World Conress Center
Atlanta, Georgia
Contact: U.S. Poultry and Egg Association
Phone: (770) 493-9401
February 22-23, 2002 Poultry Federation Spring Meeting
Arlington Hotel
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Phone: (501) 375-8131
March 11-15, 2002 Short Course on Modern Poultry Production
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Contact: Dr. Frank T. Jones
Phone: (501)* 575-5443
April 8, 2002 Poultry Science Scholarship Golf Tourney
Poultry Science Department
Valley View Golf Course
Farmington, Arkansas
Contact: Diana Bisbee
Phone: (501)* 575-2025
April 9 - 10, 2002 Poultry Symposium
Holiday Inn Convention Center
Springdale, Arkansas
Phone: (501) 375-8131
*Area code is scheduled to change in northwest Arkansas in Jan. 2002.
New area code number is 479.
UA Poultry Science
that influence fertility and embryonic mortality in broiler breeders. Telephone: 501*-575-7036, FAX: 501-575-8775, E-mail:
bramwell@uark.edu
Telephone: 501*-575-4375, FAX: 501-575-8775, E-mail: fdclark@uark.edu
Telephone: 501*-575-5443, FAX: 501-575-8775, E-mail: ftjones@uark.edu
Telephone: 501*-575-2211, FAX: 501-575-8775, E-mail: jmarcy@uark.edu
Telephone: 501*-575-7902, FAX: 501-575-8775, E-mail: swatkin@uark.edu
Telephone: 501**-671-2189, FAX: 501-671-2185, E-mail: jwooley@uaex.edu
* Area code for northwest Arkansas is scheduled to change after January 2001 to 479.
** Area code for Jerry Wooley in Little Rock is to remain the same.
for Poultry Science
INSIDE
page 4
What do poultry growers
think?
By H.L. Goodwin, Jr.
page 7
Why birds grow fast
without hormones
By F.T. Jones
page 11
Management to minimize
reduction in fertility and
hatachability late in lay
By R.K. Bramwell
page 14
E. coli infections
(Colibacillosis) in poultry
By F.D. Clark
page 16
Applied broiler research
unit performance report
By G.T. Tabler
page 19
Coming Events
Advice
AVIAN
A 10-year Comparison of On-
Farm Feed Weights and Feed
Truck Weights
by G. Tom Tabler, Applied Broiler Research Unit Manager - Savoy
WEIGHTS - continued on page 2
Introduction
For a number of years there has been
concern among poultry growers as to whether
the feed weight stamped on a growers feed
tickets is the actual weight of feed delivered to
that growers farm. Since feed makes up 65-70%
of the cost of production, and the lower the cost
of production, the better the bottom line, grower
concern over accurate feed weights is under-
standable.
Because contract growers are not respon-
sible for feed manufacturing, or delivery, it is
almost inevitable that growers will have
questions about the process. Many growers do
not realize that truck scales at feed mills are
required by law to be certified scales. They must
be routinely checked, calibrated and serviced by
scale manufacturers to maintain this certifica-
tion. These professional inspections usually
occur at least every six months. In addition to
professional servicing, an increasing number of
feed mills have purchased and use their own
calibrated test weights on a regular basis to
check truck scale calibration. In recent years,
several integrators have responded to grower
concerns about accuracy of feed weights by
inviting growers to be present at the feed mill
when their feed is being weighed. Growers are
also invited to follow feed trucks to and from
their farm if they feel the need.
The Applied Broiler Research Unit (ABRU)
at the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science at
the University of Arkansas is in a unique
position since it operates similarly to other
contract broiler growers, but has the capability to
weigh feed on-farm. November 2000 marked 10
years worth of data consisting of 56 flocks of
broilers available for comparison. Thus, this
project was undertaken to compare feed ticket
weights with weights obtained on-farm.
How Feed Weights were Compared
Each of the four houses on the ABRU has
two large (11-ton capacity) feed storage bins
and a small feed bin (3-ton capacity). Each
small bin is equipped with a J-Star Electronics
Model 15 Electronic Scale Indicator System
(Digistar Electronics, Ft. Atkinson, WI
1
) so that
all feed that enters each house enters through
the weigh bin at that house. The two large
storage bins are used to refill the weigh bin once
or twice each day depending on bird age and
feed consumption patterns. Measurements are
recorded before and after each refill and at
12:00 pm each day. Weights were totaled to get
a 24-hour feed consumption for each house.
After the flock was harvested, daily feed
weights were totaled to obtain the weight of
feed consumed for each house and the farm.
The weight of feed delivered according to
integrator feed tickets was calculated by adding
together feed ticket weights for that flock and
comparing that weight to the weight charged to
the farm on the settlement sheet after the flock is
harvested. The two weights (on-farm system vs
feed tickets) are then compared to determine the
difference between the two. Percentage differ-
ences between feed weights were determined
by dividing the difference in weight by the on-
farm weight and multiplying by 100.
WEIGHTS - continued from page 1
WEIGHTS - continued on next page
Side-by Side Comparison of Feed Weights
A comparison of on-farm feed weights and feed delivery ticket weights for 56 flocks of broilers produced from November 1990
through November 2000 is shown in Table 1. These data show that the on-farm weights and those shown on feed tickets were never
exactly the same. However, it should be noted that on all but four occasions, weight differences favored the grower. In addition,
differences between on-farm weights and feed ticket weights averaged 0.96% for the entire 10-year period and over 43 million pounds
of feed.
On-farm feed weights were less than feed ticket weights for flocks 20, 25, 30 and 51. While weight differences for these four
flocks were each less than 1%, a 6.86% difference in favor of the grower was detected in flock 46. This difference was 51,190 lbs,
which happens to be very close to the weight of a semitrailer load of feed. Records were double checked by both farm personnel and
the integrator, but no record of an additional feed ticket was ever discovered by either source. In addition, there were no problems
detected with the on-farm scale system. While it may seem unlikely, it is not beyond possibility that a load of feed was actually
delivered for which no record exists.
How Feed Weights Get Confusing
Unavoidable events occur that give growers reason to question the feed weighing process. Feed trucks break down on the road
and at the farm and must be taken back for repairs before the entire load of feed is delivered. The remaining feed on the truck must
be weighed and the grower credited for that amount. Feed storage bins on farms may not hold all the feed on the truck and again the
remaining feed must be returned to the mill, weighed, and the grower given credit. Unless growers are willing to follow the truck to
the mill, they must trust that the credit process is handled accurately. They must also trust that the scales are working accurately when
each load of feed is weighed and that the truck driver delivers the correct amount of feed to each farm. However, growers must also
recognize their responsibility with feed.
Integrators are justified in their concern that growers properly maintain their feed storage bins and manage feed delivery systems
inside the poultry house to obtain maximum benefits and efficiency from the feed. Investments in high-quality feed ingredients, feed
mills, manufacturing and delivery equipment, and the salaries associated with feed manufacturing and deliveries represent much of
the expense related to maintaining an integrated poultry operation. Feed is a high cost item for integrators as well as growers.
Making the System Work
While at times it may seem that growers and integrators are on opposite sides of the fence, both parties actually want high-quality
feed that is weighed accurately, delivered correctly and fed properly. This doesnt happen of its own accord and it takes a committed
team effort from numerous individuals for the system to work. While mistakes happen, in most cases, there are enough checkpoints
and safeguards along the way to eventually find the answer to any questions that may arise. However, situations are best resolved
when both the integrator and the grower keep records.
Growers can help themselves out by keeping up with their feed tickets. Be aware of when the last load came and how much was
delivered. This can help determine if you are getting feed too often or if too much is being delivered. Pay attention to the type of feed
stamped on your ticket. You should not be getting withdrawal if your chicks are 2 weeks old. If you cannot find your ticket after a
delivery, ask your service technician to bring you a copy. It is to your advantage as a grower to monitor what goes on at your farm.
You should be able to catch something out of the ordinary at your farm before anyone else. The sooner a potential problem is brought
to the integrators attention, the better it will be for everyone involved. It is much easier to solve a problem with a load of feed while
that feed is still in your bins. If you wait until after that load of feed has been eaten and additional loads delivered or after the flock
has sold, it becomes much more difficult to resolve any problems associated with the flock. An integrator may be responsible for
hundreds of growers at each complex making it difficult to monitor everyone at once. Any help growers can provide immediately after
a question arises is often times extremely valuable. However, if you wait too long to speak up, there may little the integrator can do
to help resolve your concerns.
Summary
The feed weighing and distribution process in the poultry industry almost ensures that there will be concerns as to the accuracy
of the system. However, 10 years of data comparing feed weights of two different integrators between two different scale systems
found less than 1 percent average difference between the two weighing systems. The average difference in feed weights for the 56
flocks over the entire 10-year study period was 0.96%. Feed weights from an on-farm weigh system were actually greater than feed
ticket weights for 52 of 56 flocks. Therefore, it appears that the weight of feed charged and delivered to contract commercial poultry
farms by poultry integrators is quite similar to the weight of feed actually fed on the farm. Yet the data make it clear that errors in feed
deliveries will occur. Both growers and integrators must be vigilant in their record keeping of feed deliveries to help resolve any
questions that may arise. However, the data indicate that the current feed weighing and delivery system is accurate and reliable most
of the time.
1
Mention of trade names does not constitute endorsement by the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service or the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science
and does not imply their approval to the exclusion of other products that may be suitable.
3
Table 1. On-Farm Feed Weights Versus Feed Ticket Weights
Flock Flock Dates Farm Feed Scale Ticket Difference Difference
No.
1
Flock Dates Wts (lbs) Wts (lbs) (lbs) (%)
1 11\19\90 - 1/14/91 853330 846900 6430 0.75
2
2 2/1/91 - 3/29/91 819520 814480 5040 0.61
3 4/15/91 - 6/9/91 814290 806240 8050 0.99
4 6/20/91 - 8/18/91 Load Cells Inaccurate Due to Lightening
5 8/29/91 - 10/23/91 865658 859360 6298 0.73
6 11/12/91 - 1/7/92 911938 903720 8218 0.90
7 1/23/92 - 3/16/92 802864 793960 8904 1.11
8 4/2/92 - 5/21/92 688720 683580 5140 0.75
9 6/8/92 - 7/30/92 757580 751230 6350 0.84
10 8/7/92 - 10/1/92 885928 881620 4308 0.49
11 10/15/92 - 12/10/92 967180 962810 4370 0.45
12 12/21/92 - 2/17/93 970436 962900 7536 0.78
13 3/2/93 - 4/29/93 973240 965190 8050 0.83
14 5/11/93 - 7/6/93 875352 868970 6382 0.73
15 7/9/93 - 9/2/93 857972 853220 4752 0.56
16 9/17/93 - 11/11/93 984974 978570 6404 0.65
17 11/29/93 - 1/25/94 1072612 1062440 10172 0.95
18 2/10/94 - 4/6/94 948546 935060 13486 1.42
19 4/19/94 - 5/31/94 660784 655240 5544 0.84
20
3
6/9/94 - 8/3/94 748054 748560 -506 -0.07
21 8/5/94 - 9/14/94 588722 586160 2562 0.44
22 9/20/94 - 11/3/94 666354 664020 2334 0.35
23 11/15/94 - 12/28/94 671776 665860 5916 0.88
24 1/10/95 - 2/23/95 692770 686280 6490 0.94
25 3/7/95 - 4/19/95 578528 582980 -4452 -0.77
26 5/5/95 - 6/15/95 649266 644900 4366 0.67
27 6/29/95 - 8/9/95 618756 610200 8556 1.38
28 8/18/95 - 9/28/95 647574 641960 5614 0.87
29 10/13/95 - 11/22/95 613104 605720 7384 1.20
30 12/7/95 - 1/22/96 665134 671360 -6226 -0.93
31 1/26/96 - 3/7/96 557626 552940 4686 0.84
32 3/15/96 - 4/26/96 601490 595900 5590 0.93
33 5/9/96 - 6/20/96 598276 593240 5036 0.84
34 7/4/96 - 8/16/96 618418 606780 11638 1.88
35 10/31/96 - 12/10/96 685446 689340 3896 0.57
36 12/30/96 - 2/6/97 591834 581120 10714 1.81
37 2/24/97 - 4/7/97 663096 654200 8896 1.34
38 4/24/97 - 6/6/97 661088 652410 8678 1.31
39 6/26/97 - 8/18/97 858594 850380 8214 0.96
40 9/1/97 - 10/22/97 776572 770300 6272 0.81
41 11/7/97 - 12/30/97 839070 830120 8950 1.07
42 1/27/98 - 3/20/98 848298 843280 5018 0.59
43 4/6/98 - 5/27/98 777952 767860 10092 1.30
44 6/12/98 - 8/6/98 816662 813440 3222 0.39
45 8/18/98 - 10/12/98 866424 863020 3404 0.39
46 10/30/98 - 12/15/98 746540 695350 51190 6.86
47 1/8/99 - 3/1/99 818744 810900 7844 0.96
48 3/22/99 - 5/14/99 831298 820820 10478 1.26
49 5/31/99 - 7/27/99 933730 928680 5050 0.54
50 8/5/99 - 9/29/99 911550 901080 10470 1.15
51 10/12/99 - 12/3/99 851880 856600 -4720 -0.55
52 12/20/99 - 2/8/00 784042 778900 5142 0.66
53 3/13/00 - 5/4/00 854550 845030 9522 1.11
54 5/15/00 - 7/11/00 930726 930940 214 0.02
55 7/21/00 - 9/12/00 853534 842980 10553 1.24
56 9/22/00 - 11/13/00 844766 841120 3646 0.43
TOTALS 43813528 43497180 402975 ---
AVERAGE 781330 774731 7327 0.96
1
Flocks 1-34 were grown for Integrator 1. Flocks 35-56 were grown for Integrator 2.
2
% Difference = (Difference (lbs) / Farm Feed Wt (lbs)) x 100
3
Bold numbers indicate when scale ticket weights were greater than farm feed weights.
H.L. Goodwin, Jr., Agricultural Economist
What do Poultry Growers
Think?
Company personnel
may believe they
understand the
thoughts of growers.
Yet growers may
have an entirely
different view of
what they and their
fellow growers think.
THINK- continued on next page
Introduction
What do growers think? Company personnel may believe they understand the thoughts of
growers. Yet growers may have an entirely different view of what they and their fellow growers
think. Since few surveys of grower attitudes have been published, there is little objective data.
In 1999, the Arkansas Farm Bureau sanctioned and funded the distribution of a survey sent
to their members identified as poultry growers. Its purpose was to determine characteristics of their
growers and to identify attitudes of these growers regarding a range of production and economic
issues they currently face. The survey, conducted in late 1999 by the Department of Agricultural
Economics and Agribusiness at the University of Arkansas Fayetteville, was structured to address
questions and concerns raised by the Poultry Division of the Arkansas Farm Bureau. Initial results
of the survey were communicated to the Arkansas Farm Bureau in early 2000 and have been shared
with various integrators and the Poultry Federation. Permission has now been received to publish
the results. Results of the survey are briefly summarized here and a full, detailed report on the
survey is expected to be available in published form later this year.
Characteristics of Farms Surveyed.
Of the 1,310 surveys mailed, 283 were completed and returned in usable form; 109 survey
recipients were no longer producing poultry and 11 surveys were not deliverable. Washington,
Howard, Benton, Polk, Hempstead and Pike Counties accounted for 31% of responses. Of the
respondents, 82% produced broilers, 15% produced breeders and 3% produced turkeys. Their
farms averaged 208 acres, with 137 acres in pasture/hay, 61 acres in woodlands and 15 acres in
cropland. The average farm had 3.4 houses ranging in average age from 14 to 20 years. On average,
2.1 houses were under mortgage. In addition, 1.2 houses had tunnel ventilation and 0.5 had cooling
pads.
Grower Characteristics
Regarding characteristics of respondents, their average age was 48 years; 77% of the
respondents were male. Educational levels of growers were as follows: 8% - less than a high school
education; 54% - high school degree; 17% - associate or trade school degree; 16% - college degree
and 5% - graduate degree. Respondents had been poultry growers an average of 18 years. Seventy-
four percent of the growers classified themselves as full-time, 14% related they worked part-time
on other on-farm work and 11% worked off-farm part-time. For spouses of respondents, 37% had
full-time off-farm employment, 10% had part-time off-farm employment and 44% had no off-farm
employment. Nine percent were not married. Poultry contributed 59% of all family income, other
agriculture contributed 12%, off-farm employment contributed 23% and retirement and pension
contributed 6% of all income.
Grower Thoughts
Growers stated they were generally satisfied with their business and were optimistic about
the future of the Arkansas poultry industry. They were comfortable with their field representatives
(Fig. 1) and hold them in high regard both personally and professionally. Growers felt that their
representatives help them improve their operations (53% agree or strongly agree). Growers also felt
they had a good relationship with their companies. However, there was a general feeling of
disconnectedness between growers and the companies they grew for as evidenced by the
companys understanding of grower concerns over profits (Fig. 2).
5
THINK - continued on page 6
Growers appeared to be quite satisfied with many of the services provided to them by their companies. These services included
feed quality (Fig. 3) and scheduling/timing of feed and chick delivery and pickup of birds and/or eggs (70%, 86% and 88% positive
responses, respectively). However, chick quality was a point of dissatisfaction in general, with a large number of growers questioning
whether chick quality was evenly distributed among growers (Fig. 4).
Fig. 1. I have a good relationship with my
current field representative
Fig. 2. My company is concerned with
helping me increase my profit from my
poultry operation
Fig. 3. Feed quality was consistent
throughout the year
Fig. 4. Chick quality is evenly distributed
among all growers
THINK - continued on next page
THINK - continued from page 5
A continuing area of concern for poultry producers -- and all agricultural producers -- was financial reward for their efforts.
Growers felt inadequately compensated for their efforts, with 62% relating that their average payments were not adequate to maintain
their standard of living. Additionally, a large percentage of growers responding (over 70%) did not think their payments should be
tied to other growers performance, commonly referred to as the tournament, or grower pool, method of payment (Fig. 5). Similarly,
67% of growers responded that they did not feel they were making adequate returns on their investments in poultry production. In
excess of 65% of all respondents said the terms of their contracts were clear and that they understood the manner in which their
settlement calculations were made. But growers overwhelmingly favored fixed-length contracts that guaranteed a set number of
flocks and birds per year (Fig. 6). The average contract length suggested was five years.
Fig. 5. Grower payments should be tied
to the performance of other growers
Fig. 6. I prefer a fixed-length contract that
guarantees the number of flocks and birds
Growers also felt that there was room for improvement for communication among growers and integrators and specifically
identified inadequate information from integrators related to information on the financial benefits of technological improvements. In
addition, growers favored improvement programs for below average growers (Fig. 7) and educational programs for all growers on
income and expenses related to their operations (Fig. 8). Formation of properly functioning grower committees was supported by
three-fourths of all respondents.
Fig. 7. There should be a special company
program for growers who have fallen below
average, with emphasis on problem
identification and peformance
improvement
7
HORMONES - continued on page 8
Fig. 8. My company should provide
educational programs to help producers
better estimate income and expenses
Summary
Growers were generally optimistic about the future of the poultry industry and they trusted their field representatives. However,
growers apparently saw that improvements could be made in the production system. Growers recognized that certain services are done
well (e.g. feed quality, scheduling/timing of feed and chick deliveries, scheduling/timing of bird or egg pickup), but were suspicious
of chick quality issues. While growers understood their contracts, they view themselves as vulnerable economically. Yet growers
were apparently willing to participate in programs designed to help them improve their operations.
Frank T. Jones Extension Section Leader
Why Birds Grow Fast
Without Hormones
Introduction
During a recent meeting, a group of growers were asked by a visitor if their birds were fed
hormones. To my complete shock, virtually every grower stated that their birds were fed hormones.
Let me hasten to add (as I did in the meeting) COMMERCIAL POULTRY ARE NOT FED
HORMONES! Following my impromptu lecture, growers were quick to ask, If there are no
hormones used, why do birds grow so fast? This article will briefly address the question of why
birds grow so quickly as well as a few other related questions.
Why hormones are NOT used.
First of all, why are hormones NOT used in poultry feeds? Dale and Davis (2001) recently
published a concise list of reasons why hormones are not and, in fact, cannot be used in poultry
production. These are listed on the next page with brief explanations.
Hormone use is
illegal in the
United States.
Additionally,
hormones are not
effective.
1. Hormone use is illegal. The United States and most other countries have regulations that strictly
forbid the use of hormones in feeds.
2. Hormones are not effective. Growth is a complex event which requires a combination of
adequate nutrition, specific metabolic events, and exact hormonal signals. The administration of a
single hormone will not lead to rapid growth in a reliable fashion in poultry.
3. Administration is extremely difficult. Poultry growth hormones are proteins. When protein is
fed to birds it is broken down by the digestive tract and is used by the bird like proteins from other
sources (like corn or soybean meal). Obviously, breaking the hormone down in the birds digestive
tract would make them ineffective. Birds would have to be injected with the hormone to retain its
effect. In addition, the hormone would have to be injected numerous times for the hormone to have
any lasting effect.
4. High Cost. Chicken growth hormone is presently not commercially produced. Starting mass
production of chicken growth hormone would be expensive. In addition, the production of enough
hormone to supply over 8 billion birds with several injections would require a sizable investment.
When the facts are all examined, the cost of the hormone alone would far exceed the value of the
bird itself.
5. Negative impact on bird performance. Modern birds are already bred for maximum growth.
In fact, birds often grow so fast that the major organ systems in their bodies have trouble keeping
up. This is why, for instance, we lose birds to leg problems, heart attacks and ascites. If we were
able to suddenly force rapid growth in modern birds, that growth would likely mean that most major
organ systems in the birds could not keep up. It would not lead to an increase in productivity.
6. What about anabolic steroids? The press has documented the fact that athletes use anabolic
steroids to increase muscle mass. There is no question that anabolic steroids can lead to an increase
muscle mass if they are used AND are accompanied by strenuous physical exercise. If there is no
exercise program there is no benefit to anabolic steroid use. The breast muscles are the most
valuable part of commercial birds. Breast muscles are used by the bird to raise and lower its wings.
Yet, domesticated birds such as these have been unable to fly for several thousand years. Thus, the
lack of exercise would make it unlikely that birds would benefit from the use of anabolic steroids.
7. Hormones are simply not needed. The rapid growth of modern commercial birds is the
outcome of steady improvements in genetics, nutrition, management and disease control.
Hormones are simply not needed.
HORMONES - continued from page 7
0
2
4
6
8
10
W
e
i
g
h
t

i
n

P
o
u
n
d
s
3 6 8 10 12
Weeks of Age
Figure 1. Broiler Body Weights
by Bird and Feed Type
'91 Bird/ '91 Feed
'91 Bird/ '57 Feed
'57 Bird/ '91 Feed
'57 Bird/ '57 Feed
Why birds grow so quickly
If hormones are not fed to birds, what makes
them grow so fast? Perhaps a study done at North
Carolina State University will help answer this
question. Havenstein and coworkers (1994) com-
pared the performance of a broiler strain used in 1957
with a strain of broilers used in 1991. These
researchers fed each of the strains feeds typical in
1957 or feeds typical today. The broilers were fed no
antibiotics and (of course) no hormones. The average
body weights of these birds are shown in Fig. 1 to the
right.
9
HORMONES - continued on page 10
While feed improved performance slightly, 1991 birds simply weighed more than 1957 birds
regardless of the feed fed. At eight weeks of age the 1991 bird weighed approximately 4 pounds
more than the 1957 bird! The comparison of the 1957 bird with the 1991 bird provides an example
of the genetic progress made in the poultry industry with respect to growth. In addition, modern
birds more efficiently convert feed to meat.
Feed conversion data are shown in Fig. 2. The 1991 bird more efficiently converted feed to
meat than did the 1957 bird, in spite of the fact that it was much heavier. Yet, the news about rapidly
growing strains of birds is not always good.
Fig. 3 shows the mortality data
gathered in this trial. Mortality for the 1957
bird was highest between 0 and 3 weeks of
age, while mortality for the 1991 bird
peaked between 3 and 6 weeks. After 3
weeks of age, mortality for the 1957 strain
was always less than 1%, while mortality
for the 1991 strain was always above 2%.
These data may be a reflection of the fact
that modern birds are growing at the limits
of their physical capabilities. This, in turn,
means that in comparison to earlier broiler
strains, modern birds grow much faster, but
are more difficult to manage. HOWEVER,
it should be noted that Havenstein and
coworkers provided birds in this trial with
23 hours of light daily throughout the trial.
0
1
2
3
4
5
P
o
u
n
d
s

F
e
e
d
/
P
o
u
n
d

G
a
i
n
3 6 8 10 12
Weeks of Age
Figure 2. Feed Conversion by
Bird and Feed Type
'91 Bird/ '91 Feed
'91 Bird/ '57 Feed
'57 Bird/ '91 Feed
'57 Bird/ '57 Feed
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
%

M
o
r
t
a
l
i
t
y
0-3 3-6 6-8 8-10 10-1
Weeks of Age
Figure 3. Mortality by Bird and Feed Type
'91 Bird/ '91 Feed
'91 Bird/ '57 Feed
'57 Bird/ '91 Feed
'57 Bird/ '57 Feed
Nicholson (1998) published data similar to
those above. These data are shown in Table 1 ( page
10). The 1994 bird is superior to the 1976 bird in
every way. In fact, Nicholson noted that it required
25 days longer for the 1976 bird to reach a weight of
2 kg (4.4 lbs) when compared to the 1994 bird!
Clearly, the 1994 bird grows faster and produces
more meat than the 1976 bird. However, Nicholson
points out that modern birds cannot be managed the
same as earlier genetic strains of birds.
New Broiler Management Techniques
Fifteen to twenty years ago the objective of
broiler producers was to ensure that birds reach
market weight as rapidly as possible. This meant
providing birds with 23 hours of light so that they
could eat as much as they want and grow as rapidly
as possible. However, fast growing birds are at the
limits of their physical capabilities and so
management techniques have changed from earlier
years. Present day management techniques are
designed to slightly slow growth so that birds can
grow within their physical capabilities (Nicholson,
1994).
Present day management techniques are designed
to slightly slow growth so that birds can grow
within their physical capabilities.
HORMONES - continued from page 9
The data in Fig. 3 show that when fast growing strains of birds are provided with 23 hours of light,
mortality increases as compared to earlier broiler strains. This mortality costs the grower. Nicholson
(1994) points out that a 1% reduction in mortality in a flock of 50,000 broilers will yield an extra 2,200
pounds (1000 kg) of weight to sell at the end of the flock. This extra weight would obviously mean extra
money for the grower.
Lighting programs recommended by many complexes are designed to limit access to feed and, in
turn, to slow growth. Growth is slowed slightly so that the systems within the bird (primarily the
circulatory system) are less likely to fail and the grower is able to deliver more birds to the plant. While
delivering more birds to the plant requires generally means more pay for growers, more effort is required
from growers than several decades ago.
Since present day broiler strains are growing to the limit of their physical capabilities, they tend to
be more susceptible to the effects of environmental conditions and stressors than earlier broiler strains.
This susceptibility means that for the bird to live up to its potential, growers must ensure as near an ideal
growing environment as possible. Furthermore, rapid growth rates mean that bird health can deteriorate
quicker and death can come much more rapidly than it did with earlier strains. Thus, fast growing strains
of broilers allow producers to be extremely efficient, but clearly they must be managed so that they do
not self-destruct!
Perspective and Conclusions
The modern day poultry industry makes production of massive amounts of high quality poultry
products look quick and easy. Television and folklore may entice us to fantasize that some magic potion
is responsible for the industrys ability produce products efficiently. However, nothing could be further
from the truth.
The benefits of rapid, efficient bird growth are a result of the work of countless industry and
university personnel over the last five decades. These individuals have worked innumerable hours
seeking solutions to industry problems and improving production efficiency. Few magic bullets are
used by the industry to attain this efficiency. Clearly in order to maintain this efficiency producers as
well as company personnel must work harder than in previous years since birds are operating a the limits
of their physical capabilities. Nevertheless, the efficient production of poultry products has been
attained through use of scientifically based information, record keeping, communication, and through
hard work, NOT magic potions.
References
Dale, Nick and Adam Davis. 2001. The hormone myth. Poultry USA 2(4): 20,22.
Havenstein, G. B., P. R. Ferket, S. E. Scheideler and B. T. Larson. 1994. Growth, livability, and
Feed Conversion of 1957 vs 1991 broilers when fed typical 1957 and 1991 broiler diets. Poultry
Science 73:1785-1794.
Nicholson, Dinah. 1998. Research: is it the broiler industrys partner into the new millennium?
World Poultry Science Journal 54:271-278.
Table 1. A comparison of broilers in 1976 and 1994
1
Bird Characteristic 1976 1994
Weight at 49 days, lbs 2.83 5.90
Feed Conversion 2.20 1.89
Carcass Yield, (%) 65.1 70.0
Breast Meat Yield, (%) 11.53 16.82
1
Adapted from Nicholson. 1998. Worlds Poultry Science 54:271-278
11
R. Keith Bramwell Extension Specialist
Management to Minimize
Reduction in Fertility and
Hatchability Late in Lay
Introduction & Review
In all avian species, as well as in other animals in the animal kingdom, increasing age has an
adverse effect on reproductive success. The age related decrease in reproduction in the commercial
fowl is due, in part, to a decline in egg production, fertility and hatch of fertile. This decline in egg
production begins to occur once hens reach their peak in egg production. However, the precise
factors that influence and cause the age related decline in reproduction are poorly understood.
The decrease in fertility and hatchability with increasing hen age may be due to a decline in the
ability of older hens to retain sperm in special sperm host glands in their oviduct. Research has
shown that the number of sperm residing in the sperm storage glands of virgin old and young
chicken hens was equivalent. However, the release of the sperm from the sperm host glands in old
hens was twice that observed in young hens. The exact cause of the release of larger numbers of
stored sperm cells by older hens is unknown.
However, in older hens which have experienced a decrease in fertility, artificially
insemination with an increased number of sperm or by reducing the time frame between
inseminations can reduced the drop in fertility. From a practical standpoint, this means that older
hens require inseminations at a greater frequency than when they were young. Perhaps this
supports the belief that the older hens are somehow less able than younger hens to internally store
sperm for long periods.
Controlled Experimental Data
A study was conducted to determine the effects of age of both the male and the female broiler
breeder on sperm penetration, and thus fertility, using artificial insemination in caged birds. In this
study, young hens had significantly higher sperm penetration values [holes in the outer membrane
of the yolk caused by sperm cell attachment ] (7.27), and fertility (73.7%) as compared to old hens
(4.79, and 54.9%, respectively). When comparing the males based on age, interestingly enough, old
males had slightly higher sperm penetration and fertility values (7.24 and 70.6%) as compared to
young males (4.82 and 58.0%), respectively. As expected, egg production from the old hens was
significantly lower over the four-week period than the young hens (37.3 vs. 79.2%, respectively).
Male role in infertility. It has been well documented that as males age the decline in fertility
is associated with a reduction in the number of spermatozoa in the ejaculate and the volume of
semen produced. However, when artificially inseminating hens with 50 million total sperm from
either young or old males, there was not a decline in fertility or sperm penetration with increased
age of the male. These results were not expected, but indicate that the physiological capabilities of
sperm to penetrate and fertilize the ovum remains largely intact in older males. Results from this
study show that if the physical abilities and libido of older males is preserved, their ability to
fertilize hens will not be reduced as they age. The challenge, then, lies in preserving the older males
desire and physical abilities to successfully complete matings. In the hen, physical impairments or
the lack of response to male aggression may contribute to the decrease in fertility; while male
competition, physical injuries and decreased libido are contributing factors in the male.
In all avian species,
as well as other
animals in the
animal kingdom,
increasing age has an
adverse effect on
reproductive success.
Many producers try to overcome the negative effects of the
older males by spiking flocks with young males beginning at ~
40 weeks of age or when the male to female ratio gets too low.
According to the literature, these young males should have
higher concentrations of sperm and ejaculates of greater volume,
however this may not always be the case. More often than not,
the benefits of spiking are not due to increased mating by the
newly added younger males. The primary initial reproductive
benefits come from an increase in activity and aggression of the
older, established males as they are challenged by new males.
This idea is supported by the concept of intra-spiking in which a
number of males are switched from either one end of the house
to the other, or same age males moved from adjoining houses on
the same farm. The young males used to spike flocks should be
well fleshed and physically fit in order to establish themselves in
the house and avoid the social castration that occurs to males
unable to compete with the established males in a flock.
Hen role in infertility. As expected, in the previously
mentioned study there was a considerable effect of hen age on
egg production. Also, as expected, there was a corresponding
drop in fertility in older hens as compared to the younger hens.
Although the effects of age on fertility and egg production are
well understood, prior to this study it was not known whether
sperm had the same opportunities to fertilize ova from older hens
as compared to the younger hens. Results from this study
indicate that, when artificially inseminated with similar numbers
of sperm, average sperm penetration was decreased in the older
hens as compared to the young hens (4.8 vs. 7.3 holes) regardless
of the age of the males used for sperm collection and
insemination. However, the method of evaluating sperm
penetration used in this study evaluated both sperm transport and
storage within the hen and the capabilities of sperm to bind and
penetrate. Thus, it was impossible to determine if the decrease in
fertility was due to a reduction in the sperm transport and storage
capacity of the hen or if sperm were less able to bind and
penetrate. Nevertheless, the data indicate an obvious reduction
in the ability of older hens to maintain optimum fertility when
managed similarly to younger hens.
A few possible explanations exist as to why this drop in
fertility occurs in older hens. These possibilities are: 1) sperm
are released from the sperm storage glands in older hens more
readily or in larger numbers than in young hens, 2) older hens are
typically heavier and fatter which likely reduces the size of the
sperm storage tubules thus older hens would not store as many
sperm as younger hens, 3) sperm stored in older hens do not
retain their viability as long as when stored in young hens, or 4)
older hens produce less receptor sites on the ovum for which the
sperm are able to bind and penetrate prior to fertilization.
The first scenario involving a more rapid release of sperm
from the storage tubules does not seem as likely as a sole player
in the reduction in fertility. This is due to the fact that if viable
sperm were released from the sperm storage tubules in larger
numbers in the older hens, this should be reflected in a
subsequent increase in the measured sperm penetration values
while not necessarily indicated by increases in fertility. From the
previous study, following a single insemination older hens
actually had a more drastic drop off in sperm numbers available
to fertilize the ovum than younger hens.
FERTILITY - continued on next page
The second scenario would help to explain why older,
heavier hens can attain similar fertility levels if they are
inseminated more frequently. If the reduction in fertility was
solely due to less sperm available for fertilization then simply
increasing sperm numbers in older hens would provide adequate
fertility as data in our study showed. This would mean that
commercial flocks in peak production with males which deposit
excess sperm into the hens with each mating are likely to see a
less drastic drop in fertility as the birds age. However, flocks in
which the males do not produce and deposit excess sperm, will
undoubtedly experience fertility problems much earlier in their
life.
The third suggestion that sperm that is stored in older hens
do not retain their viability as long is also possible. The more
rapid decline in sperm penetration and fertility in older hens
following a single insemination could occur due to sperm cells
that are less capable of fertilizing the egg. There may be enough
physiological changes in the hen to change the environment in
the reproductive tract where sperm are stored in the host glands.
If there are enough changes in the sperm storage environment of
the hens oviduct, a smaller percentage of the stored sperm
would remain viable and capable of fertilizing the egg.
Lastly, there is likely a decrease in the number of sperm
receptors on the surface of the ovum in older hens. When values
for sperm penetration of the outer membrane of the ovum were
determined for both old and young hens in vitro (outside the
body of the hen), there was less sperm penetration in ovum from
older hens. This method removes factors such as sperm release
from storage sites, quantity of sperm stored, and duration of
viable sperm storage as well as sperm transport in the oviduct
and the success rate of actual insemination.
From this study then, what is the effect of age on the ability
of older hens to produce fertile eggs? While it is commonly
believed that most flock fertility problems are male related, from
this study it is evident that the reduced fertility in older flocks is
due in part to physical and physiological changes in the hen.
However, given the fact that each male is responsible for
anywhere from seven to ten hens, and through proper flock
management fertility is often maintained, male management is
still often to blame for poor fertility.
Field Data
Recently, records from broiler breeder flocks raised in the
last several years were sorted and analyzed. These records were
then separated out to include all flocks where a male body
weight, or a hen body weight was recorded. Each record
included flock information for a specific week of production,
therefore, the total number of records does not indicate a total
number of flocks. The records which included either a hen or
male body weights were then sorted by age and records were
pulled to compare all flocks at 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60
weeks of age. Flock production was then compared with the
average body weight of the breeders.
Effects of male body weight. For the records which
included a male body weight, each group from 35 to 55 weeks of
age showed an increase in production parameters as there was a
13
FERTILITY- continued on page 14
corresponding decrease in male body weight as shown in Figures
1 and 2. Obviously, there is a happy medium in obtaining proper
male body weight. Too light a male will also cause serious
problems reproductively. However, the data from this large
sample of commercial broiler breeder flocks, clearly suggest
that flocks with overweight males do not perform as well as those
flocks where male body weight has been kept in control. As
previously mentioned, although most older males are
physiologically capable of producing high levels of fertility,
they tend to lose the physical necessities to effectively mate
breeder hens as often as necessary. The reduction in the physical
necessities to mate may be caused by soreness in the legs and feet
which restrict the mobility and balance necessary to successfully
complete matings, or they simply lose the desire to mate hens
frequently. Also, as was discussed previously, older hens
require more frequent matings in order to maintain fertility, and
overweight males often do not provide this.
Although this concept is well understood by most broiler
breeder managers, too often they are more concerned with
having under weight or under fed males as opposed to a thicker,
robust and slightly heavy male. Also, it is well understood that
breeder males should not lose weight at anytime in their life
cycle, so keeping them gaining a small amount, but not too much
weight is difficult. Indeed, while severely under weight males
will actually shut down their reproductive system, over weight
males often do not experience physical problems which reduce
fertility until late in the production cycle of the flock. While
many producers feel that a slightly heavy male may be more
active and capable of attaining fertility early, from this data set
flocks with the lowest male body weight at 35, 40 and 45 weeks
of age also had better reproductive performance. So, from this
data, the benefits of strict control of male body weight are seen
throughout the production life of the flock. Strict control of
weight gain and over all body and fitness can only be achieved
through monitoring the body weight from a sufficient number of
males often and correctly throughout the breeder house.
Effects of hen body weight. Other than egg production and
shell quality, reproductive performance of a flock is determined
by fertility, and when problems exist the male is generally
blamed. Indeed, considering that each male is responsible for
eight to ten hens, it would appear that male problems can rapidly
affect a large number of hens. However, this concept is probably
over rated with hens contributing a greater responsibility to
fertility than previously believed. Using the same data set
discussed previously, flocks with hen weights recorded at 50 and
55 weeks of age were sorted by reproductive success and it was
found that hen body weight was also a significant factor in
overall flock hatchability as seen in Figures 3 (this page) and 4 on
the next page.
Again, there is a happy medium as to maintaining breeders
too light, but the data set indicates that when older hens are too
heavy, reproductive performance suffers as well as egg
production. The possible explanations of this are several. One,
relates to the storage of sperm cells in the sperm storage glands.
As it was postulated, when hens become overweight, the excess
mass in the abdominal region may cause the holding capacity of
the sperm storage tubules to be reduced. If these hens, which are
Figure 1. Males at 55 weeks of
age
132 flocks, avg=10.7 lbs, 9.05 - 13.29 lbs
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
% hatch Male body weight Linear (Male body weight)
Figure 2. Males at 50 weeks of
age
121 flocks, avg=10.58 lbs, 8.96-13.63
lbs
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
6
8
10
12
14
% hatch male body weight
Linear (male body weight)
Figure 3. Hens at 55 weeks of
age
202 flocks, avg=9.31 lbs, 8.16-10.72
lbs
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
4
6
8
10
12
% hatch hen body weight
Linear (hen body weight)
already less capable of producing fertilized eggs, have a reduced ability to store viable sperm cells
long term, and cannot internally store as many total sperm cells, fertility problems due to age would
be compounded. Additionally, excess body weight, whether a function of a larger frame size or
body mass, may decrease the success rate of male mating activity. In either case, the data makes
it apparent that heavier hens do not reproduce as well as lighter hens as they age.
Summary
In conclusion, it is well understood that age does negatively affect reproduction and fertility
in broiler breeders. While the fertilizing and penetration abilities of sperm from older males appears
to be relatively unaffected by age, the hen undergoes some physiological changes as they age that
affect their ability to be fertilized. However, in addition to management practices such as spiking,
and maintaining appropriate active male:female ratios, body weight is clearly a major factor to
maintain broiler breeder physical ability and desire to produce fertile eggs. While frame size and
actual fleshing of the bird are equally important to actual body weight, these data clearly indicates
a strong correlation between weight control in breeders and achieving a high fertility level
throughout the life a broiler breeder flock.
E. coli Infections
(Colibacillosis) in Poultry
E. coli Strains
Colibacillosis is the term used for an infection caused by the bacteria Escherichia coli (E. coli).
The condition may also be referred to as coliform infections. Poultry worldwide are affected with
E. coli infections.
Figure 4. Hens at 50 weeks of
age
244 flocks, avg=9.26 lbs, 7.96-10.8
lbs
30
50
70
90
4
6
8
10
12
% hatch hen body weight
Linear (hen body weight)
F. Dustan Clark, Extension Poultry Veterinarian
E. Coli- continued on next page
Photo courtesy of Dr. Marlene E. Janes and
Dr. Mike G. Johnson, Department of
Food Science, University of Arkansas.
15
E. coli is a gram negative, rod-shaped bacteria that can be found worldwide. It inhabits the
intestinal tract of most species of mammals and many species of birds. There are many different
strains of E. coli in poultry. Some strains can cause severe disease, while others often do not show
symptoms in birds. These strains are widespread in the environment and in fact may be normal
inhabitants of the intestinal tracts of chickens, turkeys, and other poultry.
E. coli can cause infections that result in numerous problems. Some infections cause high
mortality (death loss), while other infections are more chronic (long term) in nature with few deaths
resulting. E.coli infections can also worsen other diseases since it is considered a secondary or
opportunistic invader.
Poultry can be infected with E. coli at almost any age. However, the disease is seen primarily
in young growing birds or birds that have been immune compromised. E. coli infections that enter
via the navel are usually associated with very high death losses. However, the bacteria usually gains
entry into the bird via the respiratory or gastrointestinal tract.
Symptoms, Lesions and Diagnosis
The clinical symptoms of Colibacillosis vary with the type of infection. In the acute (sudden)
septicemic form of the disease there are sudden death losses and usually few symptoms. Most
E.coli infections cause a high number of sick birds (morbidity) with infected birds listless, unthrifty,
and having ruffled feathers. Other symptoms may include, poor growth performance, loss of
appetite, and weight loss. When the bacteria have infected the respiratory system there can be
associated labored breathing, coughing, sneezing, or rales. E. coli may also be involved with
intestinal infections with associated diarrhea.
Lesions associated with the disease depend upon the organ infected.
Numerous organs can be affected or only a few. In the septicemic
infection, which affects most organs, there is swelling, dehydration, and
congestion of the liver, spleen, and kidneys with pinpoint (petechial)
hemorrhages on organ surfaces. The most common lesion is a grey-
white membranous exudate on the organ surfaces such as the liver,
pericardial sac, kidney and air sacs. A caseous (cheesey) type of exudate
can also be found on the organs. Infected intestines are usually reddened
externally with a thickened internal (mucosal) surface. Hemorrhages
may also be present and intestines may contain mucous or watery
contents. A yolk sac infection may be seen in very young birds.
The disease is tentatively diagnosed by the symptoms and lesions.
It is confirmed by isolating the bacteria from the affected organs. This is
usually performed in a diagnostic laboratory and often the organs are
examined microscopically for the associated pathological lesions. In
addition, an antibiotic sensitivity can be performed to determine which
antibiotic can be used since E.coli infections are often difficult to treat.
Treatment
Antibiotic therapy may have only limited use, since the bacterium develops resistance with
amazing rapidity. Thus, management procedures designed to minimize the disease should be used.
Sanitation is very important in reducing the E.coli organisms in the poultry house environment. A
good cleaning and disinfection program using approved chemicals can help in the prevention of the
disease. Efforts to reduce stress on the birds should also be utilized. Things to consider include;
good litter management, adequate ventilation, chlorination of the water supply, vermin and rodent
control, and keeping clean feed and water available to the birds. Other factors to consider are
avoiding overcrowding, visiting the youngest birds first, and preventing chilling and overheating.
These managerial practices and a good Biosecurity will not only assist with the prevention and
control of E. coli; but, will help with numerous other diseases.
Summary
E. coli infections can affect almost any organ, with infection severity ranging from acute to
nonexistent. Characteristic symptoms and lesions can provide a tentative diagnosis, but the
organism must be isolated from affected organs to confirm the diagnosis. Antibiotic treatment can
be of limited value in controlling the disease. E. coli infections are most effectively controlled by
limiting bacterial exposure levels and reducing bird stress.
REPORT- continued on next page
G. Tom Tabler Applied Broiler Research Unit Manager - Savoy
Unit Description
The first flock at the Savoy Broiler Unit was placed on November 19, 1990. The unit contains four 40 x 400 foot broiler houses.
Each house contains Cumberland pan feeders, Ziggity nipple waterers and about 1.5 million BTU propane heating capacity for
brooding. Each house is equipped with a computer controller which controls fans, brooders and curtains for temperature control.
Houses are also equipped with temperature monitoring equipment (about 80 sensors per house), an electronic water flow monitoring
system, weigh bins for feed delivery to the house, sensors for the monitoring of fan run time and devices to determine gas flow from
storage tanks.
Information Key
House number
HSE
FEED CONV
HEAD PLACED
HEAD SOLD
LIV
AGE
AVE BIRD WT
COND
FEED COST
CHICK COST
MED COST
TOTAL COST
COST/LB
PAY/LB
F.A.
GAS USAGE
ELECT
No.
LB/LB
No.
No.
%
D
LBS
%
$
$
$
$
Cent
Cent
$
GAL
KWH
17
REPORT - continued on page 18
Houses 1 and 2 were built with steel trusses with R10 insulation in the ceiling while houses 3 and 4 were constructed with wood
trusses, R19 ceiling insulation and drop ceilings. Houses 1 and 3 are conventionally ventilated with misters for summer cooling, but
2 and 4 are tunnel ventilated. House 2 contains a sprinkler cooling system for summer cooling. The system was developed at the
University of Arkansas and utilizes a landscape sprinkler system to deliver a coarse, cooling mist to the backs of the birds. House 4
utilizes evaporative cooling pads to cool the inlet air.
AVE
1
USAGE USAGE
1 2.20 20680 18531 89.61 52 5.52 2.92
2
11271 3516 48.35 14835 14.940 2.7322 579.30 1680 3946
2 2.07 20765 19174 92.34 52 6.00 2.92 11935 3530 48.35 15514 13.885 3.7868 579.30 1245 1995
3 2.08 20697 19211 92.82 52 5.61 2.92 11239 3518 48.35 14806 14.141 3.5307 579.30 1363 2430
4 2.05 20691 19016 91.90 52 5.84 2.92 11390 3517 48.35 14956 13.878 3.7939 579.30 2420 2549
FARM 2.10 82833 75932 91.67 52.00 5.74 2.92 45835 14082 193.40 60110 14.194 3.4780 2317.30 6708 10920
1
2
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 58 (January 30 - March 23, 2001)
Chick quality may have been a major factor in the poor performance of Flock 58. First week
mortality was high and mortality stayed high throughout the flock. Final mortality figures are
shown in the table. House 4 lost a significant number of birds in the first 2 weeks, while house 1
was breaking with a respiratory problem the last 2 days of the flock. Even though condemnation
percentages could not be equally divided, it seems reasonable to assume that since House 1 was
breaking with disease, it is responsible from most of the 2.92% condemnation. The high death
losses near the end of the flock and the high condemnation rate dramatically increased feed
conversion for the flock putting us well down on the ranking sheet. We ranked 9
th
out of 13 growers
which was better than expected given the high mortality and bird health problems. Down time was
11 days between this and the previous flock and that is pretty close together given the winter season
and built-up litter. This was the 6
th
flock grown on the same litter. The integrator paid to have 400
lbs of PLT put in brood end of each house before chick placement to assist with ammonia control.
Caked litter removed from the houses was as follows: House 1 - 2 loads, House 2 3 loads, House
3 4 loads, and House 4 4 loads.
House Mortality Count by Days of Age
No.
0-14 15-43 44-52 TOTAL
1 494 639 1016 2149
2 447 597 547 591
3 501 510 475 1486
4 815 534 326 1675
Farm 2257 2280 2364 6901
Chick quality may again have been a serious problem on Flock 59. Overall mortality
improved from the previous flock, however, birds were extremely uneven in size during the
entire flock. Even though rigorous culling was maintained throughout the flock, over 1300
birds were left on the farm after catching due to their size and a few hundred more should
probably have been left. Total birds left by house were as follows: House 146 birds, House 2
209 birds, House 3 447 birds, House 4 561 birds. Condemnation remained high at 2.28%,
but most of the condemnation on this flock was sep-tox, which was probably related to the poor
flock uniformity. Ranking was a very lackluster 15
th
out of 20 growers. A small average weight
bird coupled with a high condemnation rate and high feed conversion led to less-than-desirable
performance. We were switched by the integrator from 8-week birds to 6-week birds on this
flock and will continue to grow 6-week birds at least until the fall season. The integrator again
paid for 400 lbs of PLT placed in the brood end at chick placement for ammonia control. While
this did seem somewhat beneficial, House 4 continues to be our problem house for high
ammonia. This can be seen in the fact that gas and electric usage was highest in House 4 due, in
large part, to the extra ventilation needed for ammonia removal and the extra gas burned to
compensate for the extra ventilation. Down time between this and the previous flock was 6
days. Caked litter removal was as follows: House 1 0 loads, House 2 2 loads, House 3 - 3
loads, and House 4 3 loads. To give you an idea of how much weight that is, we have a single
axle decaker that hauls 3500 lbs of loose, dry litter or 4000 lbs of wet, caked litter per load.
REPORT - continued from page 17
REPORT- continued on next page
AVE
1
USAGE USAGE
1 1.87 22879 21861 95.55 42 4.04 2.28
2
8276 3889 27.21 12192 14.134 4.1564 0.00 723 1941
2 1.87 22912 21954 95.82 42 4.10 2.28 8394 3895 27.21 12316 14.007 4.2831 0.00 625 1541
3 1.98 22885 21225 92.75 42 3.73 2.28 7844 3890 27.21 11762 15.196 3.0944 0.00 984 1754
4 1.98 22878 21477 93.88 42 3.83 2.28 8171 3889 27.21 12088 15.020 3.2701 0.00 1351 2022
FARM 1.92 91554 86517 94.50 42.00 3.93 2.28 32685 15564 108.84 48358 14.563 3.7276 0.00 3683 7258
1
2
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 59 (March 29 - May 10, 2001)
AVE
1
USAGE USAGE
1 1.95 22820 21651 94.88 43 3.68 0.81
2
7775 3879 24.14 11678 14.762 2.8060 0.00 531 4180
2 1.80 22775 22057 96.89 43 4.37 0.81 8666 3872 24.14 12561 13.147 4.4214 0.00 367 3589
3 1.81 22874 21986 96.12 42 4.11 0.81 8184 3889 24.14 12096 13.509 4.0595 0.00 478 4071
4 1.92 22775 22099 97.03 42 3.94 0.81 8375 3872 24.14 12271 14.209 3.3597 0.00 749 3501
FARM 1.87 91244 87803 96.23 42.50 4.03 0.81 32999 15511 96.56 48607 13.866 3.7031 0.00 2125 15341
1
2
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 60 (May 18 - June 29, 2001 [Houses 3 & 4] June 30, 2001 [Houses 1 & 2])
19
Coming
Events:
Chick quality improved on Flock 60 with the exception of House 1, which remained
extremely uneven in size and mortality approaching 1200 birds by harvest. Condemnation was
a much more respectable 0.81% even though this was the 8
th
flock of birds grown on the same
litter. Ranking was 19
th
out of 27 growers. While Houses 2 and 3 did quite well, Houses 1 and
4 did not perform as well, which had a negative effect on our ranking. A couple of interesting
observations can be made concerning House 2. In terms of both gross pay and net pay (gross
pay minus fuel and electricity) per house, House 2 performed the best on each of the previous 3
flocks (Flocks 58, 59, and 60). House 2 is also the house that has received major renovations
(for both summer and winter conditions) since its construction. These renovations have given
us our best air speed and uniform air movement in the summer and the greatest control of
minimum ventilation in the winter. Down time between this and the previous flock was 8 days.
Caked litter removal after flock 60 was: House 1 1.5 loads, House 2 2 loads, House 3 3
loads, and House 4 3 loads.
Avian Advice
Phone: (501) 575-3952 Fax: (501) 575-3026
September 11-13, 2001 Annual Nutrition Conference
Clarion Hotel, Fayetteville, AR
Contact: The Poultry Federation (501) 375-8131
September 13-15, 2001 Annual Turkey Committee Meeting
Eureka Springs. AR
Contact: The Poultry Federation (501) 375-8131
October 1-4, 2001 Americas Clean Water Foundation
Environmental Auditor Training
Morrilton, AR (501) 575-3250
October 12-21, 2001 Arkansas State Fair
State Fair Grounds
Little Rock, AR (501) 372-8341
November 26-29, 2001 Americas Clean Water Foundation
Environmental Auditor Training
Hope, AR (501) 575-3250
UA Poultry Science
bramwell@uark.edu
Telephone: 501-575-4375, FAX: 501-575-8775, E-mail: fdclark@comp.uark.edu
Telephone: 501-575-5443, FAX: 501-575-8775, E-mail: ftjones@comp.uark.edu
Telephone: 501-575-2211, FAX: 501-575-8775, E-mail: jmarcy@comp.uark.edu
Telephone: 501-575-7902, FAX: 501-575-8775, E-mail: swatkin@comp.uark.edu
for Poultry Science
INSIDE
page 2
Caring for Hatching Eggs
Prior to Incubation
By R.K. Bramwell
page 4
Mad Cow and You
By F.T. Jones
page 5
Should My Old Broiler
Houses be Remodeled?
By G.T. Tabler
page 9
and Other Foreign Animal
Diseases
By F.D. Clark
page 10
Litter Conditioning for a
Healthy Flock
By S.E. Watkins
page 13
Heat Stress, Evaporative
Cooling and Tunnel
Ventilation
By G.T. Tabler
page 19
Fun with Incubation
By F.T. Jones
The Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service of fers its programs to all eligible persons regardless of race, color , national origin, sex, age or disability , and is an Equal Opportunity Employer .
Advice
AVIAN
Beat the Heat!
Arkansas I s
Our Campus
by Susan Watkins, Extension Poultry Specialist
Be Prepared for Summer Flocks
Hot or cold, which is worse?
Whats worse for your birds, being too
hot or too cold? You may be surprised to know
that heat stress is more detrimental to bird
performance than cold stress. The effects of
being too hot begin with the breeder birds that
fail to eat adequately and produce smaller
chicks and poults. Then place these birds in a
hot environment. Not only do they not want to
eat properly, but they also use valuable feed
energy to get rid of heat instead of growing.
Heat stressed birds experience poor feed
conversion and weight gains as well as higher
mortality and morbidity. Heat stress can begin
at 80F for turkeys and 85 90F for broilers
(depending on age). If birds are panting, they
are hot and not productively using feed.
Minimize the impact of heat stress by
maximizing air movement over birds and using
foggers or fogging pads to reduce the air
temperature sensed by the birds. Most poultry
houses are equipped to handle heat. The key is
to make sure ALL equipment is ready for that
sudden spike in temperature.
Optimize air movement
The most effective air movement is at
bird level. Lower circulation fans so that they
move air directly over birds. Even a light
breeze of 4 miles/hour can help reduce the
temperature sensed by the birds as much as 10
to 15F. In conventional houses, place 36 inch
circulation fans every 40 to 50 feet blowing in
the same direction. If circulation fans wont
lower, then use baffles to direct air-flow
downward. Position circulation fans so that
they blow with prevailing winds. Turn fan
thermostats to 74F during the day so that fans
will continue to run in early evening and help
get birds cooled down more quickly.
Dont allow fan thermostats to get wet
from foggers. A wet thermostat will sense a
lower temperature than what the air really is.
Wet thermostats may also cause electrical
shorts. A 2-liter plastic beverage bottle can be
modified into a protective umbrella for
thermostats. Cut the bottom out of the bottle,
remove the thermostat and slide the bottle
over the wire. Reattach the thermostat and
then seal the top of the bottle around the wire
with electrical tape.
If you are paying the utility bill for fan
motors to run, make sure you are getting the
most for your money. Inspect all belt-driven
fans and replace old or worn belts. Worn belts
reduce fan efficiency by 10%. Keep fan belts
tight because loose belts are 30% less effi-
cient. Clean shutters, blades, housing and
screens on a regular basis. This will improve
fan efficiency by 20-30%. Fans motors should
also be on a regular maintenance and service
schedule that includes properly lubricating the
bearings. Avoid disasters by having spare fan
belts, motors and circuit breakers.
Dont allow weeds grass, bushes to block
air flow into poultry houses. Utilize herbicides
to control vegetation growth around houses.
Warning: Do not spray herbicides when birds
could be exposed and be certain that your
company approves of the herbicide you are
using.
R. Keith Bramwell, Extension Reproductive Physiologist
Caring for Hatching Eggs
Prior to Incubation
Fogger system maintenance.
Make sure all nozzles work. Clean or replace nozzles that are clogged or several years old. Remember fogging can provide
birds with some heat relief because humidity during the hottest part of the day is the lowest. This hot air can hold more water and
by saturating the air with moisture, the more heat the air will absorb before it rises in temperature. The end result ca be a reduc-
tion in temperature by 10 to 15F. It is important to note that the cleaner used should be compatible with the fogger nozzle
material to prevent damage to the nozzles.
Water System Check
Conduct a water system inventory to assure that every drinker is working properly. Birds double water consumption when
hot which means they spend twice as much time drinking. If even a few drinkers are not working then competition for water
causes bird stress. And if birds are really hot, they may completely give up if their closest water source fails to quench their thirst.
Insulate water lines as well as flush water lines 2 to 3 times a day to reduce water temperature. Birds will not drink hot water.
Increased water consumption and low levels of water in wells may also result in water filters becoming dirty and clogged more
frequently. Have extra filters on hand to prevent water flow problems. Dont let your guard down with your water sanitation
program which includes cleaning lines with a sanitizer once a week and cleaning plassons every day. Warm water can support
tremendous explosions in bacterial growth.
Other tips, work birds before 9:00 a.m. Encourage birds to consume feed during the coolest parts of the day such as mid-
night to early morning. If foggers and fans arent providing adequate heat relief then use soaker hoses on roof.
In conclusion, being prepared for hot weather can provide relief for the most detrimental stress mother nature can give a
flock. Making sure equipment is ready and back up supplies are on hand can prevent disasters and keep flocks profitable.
References
Czarick, Michael and Mike Lacy. 1995. Poultry Housing Tips, Summertime Check List. Vol 7, Number 5.The University of
Georgia
Plyler, Jim. 1994. Summer Grow-Out Program, McClain Farms.
Anon. 2001. Management steps can reduce effects of heat stress. Poultry Times, April 16, 2001.
Introduction
There are many factors which affect chick quality and percent hatchability from hatching eggs.
As a general rule, other than fertility, conditions in the hatchery are considered to be more important
to successfully hatching quality chicks than conditions on the farm. However, providing the proper
temperature and environmental conditions for hatching eggs prior to incubation can be nearly as
important as during incubation. As midday summer temperatures continue to rise both in, and
around breeder houses, it then becomes even more critical to handle hatching eggs properly. To
maximize the number of quality chicks hatched from these eggs, it is helpful to understand how the
avian embryo develops and why maintaining a proper storage temperature of hatching eggs is so
critical.
EGGS - continued on next page
3
Sperm storage in the hen
The avian reproductive system is somewhat unusual in that
it allows the hen to store sperm in specialized sperm storage sites
within the oviduct. After successful mating and insemination by
the male, sperm cells deposited in the hen accumulate in these
storage sites called sperm storage tubules, in the oviduct. These
primary, long term sperm storage tubules are located in the lower
portions of the oviduct, while additional short term storage sites
are located in the upper portions of the oviduct closer to the site of
fertilization. The domestic chicken hen can store viable sperm for
20 days or longer after a single insemination. Reports indicate
that turkey hens have the ability to maintain viable sperm within
their storage tubules for as long as 40 days. However, while these
stored sperm cells may maintain their ability to fertilize an egg,
eggs fertilized from sperm stored in the hen for longer than 12-14
days have increased incidences of early embryonic mortality
(particularly in days 1-3 of incubation).
Fertilization and Embryo Development
Twenty to thirty minutes after a hen lays an egg, the next
ovum (or yolk) is ovulated and this is the egg that will be laid the
following day. The ovum that has just been ovulated must be
fertilized within the first 5-10 minutes after it is released from the
ovary. The addition of egg albumen around the yolk begins
within these first few minutes following ovulation and will
prevent fertilization from occurring. The addition of the egg
albumen renders the sperm cells incapable of penetrating the
outer layer of the ova thus preventing fertilization of the egg. As
the yolk, or ova, moves down the reproductive tract, additional
albumen is laid around the yolk, egg membranes are laid around
the albumen then a shell is formed on the membranes to surround
the entire package. This process requires approximately 24-26
hours from the time of ovulation to the time the egg is laid.
While the egg progresses down the oviduct, it is maintained
at the hens body temperature of between 104 and 106 F (40 to
41.1C). Although the ideal incubation temperature is near 100 F
(~37.8C), following fertilization of the avian egg, any tempera-
ture greater than 70F (21.1C) can allow for embryonic develop-
ment. Obviously, the hens body temperature of 104-106F is
sufficient to allow for embryonic development in the 24-26 hours
after fertilization and before the egg is laid. Therefore, at the time
the egg is laid, the chicken embryo is composed of approximately
20,000 to 40,000 cells. What this really means is that from
fertilization to hatching it requires approximately 22 days to
complete development in the chicken egg and about 29 days for
turkeys, with about 4.5% (in chickens) of this time occurring
prior to the egg being laid.
Arresting Embryo Development
After the egg is laid, further development of the embryo can
be carefully interrupted by lowering the temperature of the egg.
This is natures way of allowing a hen to accumulate enough
fertile eggs to form her clutch, which she will incubate and hatch.
By bringing the internal temperature of the egg below the
physiological temperature of 70 F, further development of the
embryo stops. The longer the egg remains above approximately
70 F, the greater the potential for embryonic development to
occur. If the embryo undergoes too much pre-incubational
development prior to being cooled, the chick can hatch early and
will dehydrate and weaken by the time the entire hatch is pulled
out of the hatchers.
Additionally, if the internal temperature of the egg is
allowed to oscillate above and below a 70 to 80 temperature
range, the embryo may continue to start and stop development. It
is not uncommon to see producers remove partial buggies of
hatching eggs from the cool room to fill the remainder of the rack.
This situation allows the eggs to oscillate above and below the
physiological temperature of 70 F. When this happens, the
embryo becomes weakened and there is a greater chance for the
embryo to die in the first few days of development inside the
setters. Obviously, when this happens there will be a decrease in
the overall hatch of the eggs as well as a subsequent reduction in
chick quality.
Egg storage prior to incubation
To maximize the chance of fertile eggs developing properly
into healthy chicks, hatching eggs should be handled with care.
Hatching eggs should be removed from the hen house as often as
possible and placed in the cool egg storage rooms to avoid
unnecessary pre-incubation development. Frequent gathering of
eggs becomes more and more important as the midday summer
temperatures continue to rise. Houses equipped with mechanical
nests provide an opportunity to remove eggs from the houses
more frequently and more rapidly as compared to conventionally
equipped houses. Houses which rely completely on manual egg
collection generally expose the hatching eggs to elevated
temperatures for extended periods of time
. Once the eggs are removed from the breeder house, they
should be stored between 50-70 F (65 - 68 F recommended)
with a relative humidity of 75% if possible for no more than
seven days. This temperature will safely arrest embryo develop-
ment and the humidity will prevent excessive egg moisture loss
from the eggs. Storage of eggs for longer than seven days will
result in significant reductions in hatchability. Turning eggs
during storage is generally not necessary when stored for less
than seven days, but if done, wont hinder normal embryonic
development. When eggs have been placed in the cool egg
storage environment, they should not be allowed to warm up
above the physiological temperature until they are ready to be
placed in the incubator. Pre-warming of eggs is gaining popular-
ity and is beneficial as a method to slowly bring the arrested
embryo back into active development. Remember, eggs already
contain a live developing embryo and any added stress negatively
effects their development and reduces the number of quality
chicks hatched.
Summary
During the hot days of the summer, increase frequency of
egg collections times, particularly in the afternoon hours. This
should be done in an effort to get hatching eggs into the cool
room as soon as possible. This is much more important in older
houses not equipped with many of the modern environmental
control systems. Once eggs have been placed in the egg storage
room, do not remove them unnecessarily. Once embryo develop-
ment is arrested, it should not be allowed to proceed until the eggs
are ready to be placed in the setters. Remember that poor egg
handling on the breeder farm can reduce both overall egg
hatchability and chick quality.
Frank T. Jones, Extension Section Leader
Mad Cow and You
Background on TSEs
BSE or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy is also known as mad cow disease. BSE is a
central nervous system disease of cattle. The disease is progressive in its effects and is always
fatal. BSE is characterized by the appearance of vacuoles (clear holes) in the tissue of the brain.
These vacuoles give the brain the appearance of a sponge, thus, the term spongiform.
BSE belongs to an unusual group of progressive, neurological diseases known as Transmis-
sible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs). TSEs are characterized by a long incubation period
(several years), during which there are no visible sign of the disease. When symptoms appear
there is a gradual impairment of the central nervous system that is invariably fatal. There is no
known treatment or cure for TSEs.
No one really knows what causes TSEs. However, the current theory is that TSEs are
caused by small proteins called prions (pronounced pree-ons). Prions are abnormal variants of
proteins that normally occur in brain cells. When prions enter the body they are able to convert
their normal counterparts to abnormal forms. Although enzymes easily degrade normal proteins
within the brain when they are not needed, prions are folded in such a way as to prevent their
degradation. Thus, prions accumulate in brain and spinal cord tissue and tend to link together
causing abnormal central nervous system function and eventually death. No one really knows
how many prions are required to cause the disease. However, most experts believe that very few
prions required to cause TSEs. While prions are not completely understood, they are resistant to
the effects of cooking or rendering, but are known to be sensitive to solvents, oxidizing agents
and extremely high temperatures.
While we are on the subject, a TSE disease called Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) occurs
in a small number of American elk and deer in certain parts of the country, particularly Colo-
rado and Wyoming. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is working with other govern-
ment agencies and public health officials to address CWD in wild animals. Wildlife officials in
Colorado and Wyoming have advised individuals not to harvest, handle or consume any wild
deer or elk, especially in Colorado or Wyoming, that appear to be sick, regardless of the causes.
A Very Short History of Mad Cow Disease
BSE was first recognized in cattle in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1986 and had apparently
not occurred before then. It is believed that BSE originated from the scrapie organism. Scrapie
is a disease of sheep which was present in the UK for nearly 200 years. It is presumed that the
scrapie agent changed species and adapted to cattle. The initial spread of BSE was through
rendered animal products (such as meat and bone meal) made from scrapie infected sheep. BSE
then spread in epidemic proportions via rendered animal products made from affected cattle.
Interestingly, in the UK fat was extracted from rendered animal products using solvents prior to
1980. The extraction with solvent apparently destroyed the BSE agent. However, after 1980
the solvent fat extraction process was not used, allowing the BSE agent to survive and spread.
Approximately 95% of all BSE cases in the world have been found in the UK.
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) in humans is a TSE disease that is linked to
BSE. There have been a total of 92 cases of vCJD worldwide and there is a genetic component
of vCJD (i.e. it tends to run in families) which accounts for about 10% of cases. However, the
incubation period for BSE appears to be 6 to 7 years in cattle and the incubation period for
vCJD may be equally long or longer.
When symptoms
appear there is a
gradual impairment of
the central nervous
system that is
invariably fatal. There
is no known treat-
ment or cure for
TSEs.
MAD COW - continued on next page
5
G. Tom Tabler Applied Broiler Research Unit Manager - Savoy
Keeping BSE from U.S. meats
BSE has NEVER been found in meats produced in the U.S. However, regulatory officials remain cautious and have been
aggressive in strategies to prevent BSE from entering the country. In 1989 imports of live ruminants and many ruminant products
were banned from countries where BSE had been found. In 1997 the import of live ruminants and most ruminant products from
all the countries of Europe were banned. In 1998 a survey of downer cows for BSE was intensified. Federal regulators have also
been very aggressive in efforts to prevent the spread of BSE in the unlikely event that it does enter the country. For example, as
early as 1997 the FDA banned the use of mammalian proteins (e.g. meat and bone meal) in ruminant feeds. The importation of
rendered proteins or rendering wastes from Europe was also banned in 2000.
In addition to governmental actions, beef packers and retail operations established certification programs this spring to insure
that they are not receiving cattle that have been fed ruminant derived protein materials. Packers participating in the certification
program will not purchase any cattle from producers who have not signed a statement certifying that none of their cattle or other
ruminant animals have been fed any feed containing protein derived from ruminant tissues and / or that none of their livestock
have illegal levels of drug residues
How BSE can affect you.
Poultry are apparently not affected by TSEs or BSE but, an estimated 75% of poultry rations contain ruminant products.
Those feeds that do not contain ruminant products have been produced in feed mills where such products are in inventory. Since
the FDA declared the feeding of mammalian products to ruminants illegal in 1997 and most poultry feeds contain mammalian
products, the feeding of poultry feeds to cattle is illegal and can not be defended. In addition, feeding poultry feeds to cattle
would result in filing a false certification at the sale barn. A false certification would mean that the producer is vulnerable to
civil suits by packers and retail operations.
IF BSE or mad cow disease were ever discovered in the U.S. this issue would likely become big news to the news media.
Investigative reporters would likely attack such a story vigorously. These reporters would try to tie the story to everything they
felt they could. There could also be panic created among consumers, leading to reduced meat consumption. Any tie of BSE to
the poultry industry could mean that poultry products become suspect in the mind of the consumer.
In view of this situation, it is imperative that poultry growers keep cattle from eating any poultry feed. Not only is feeding
poultry feed to cattle unwise, it is illegal. In addition, feeding poultry feed to cattle can mean that poultry products would be
implicated in any BSE news event.
BOTTOM LINE: DO NOT FEED ANY POULTRY FEED TO CATTLE.
Should My Old Broiler
Houses be Remodeled?
Introduction
Last winter we all struggled through the coldest temperatures in memory and the highest
gas prices we ever endured. Many growers were unprepared and some growers were forced by
the high gas prices not to place birds for an extended period. The prospect of a long, hot summer
now looms ahead. Last winters gas prices and increasing electrical costs have forced many
growers with older houses to seriously evaluate their houses and decide whether or not they will
continue to grow poultry. Some houses that may still be useful to their owners as hay barns or
implement sheds, but should soon be retired as broiler houses. Yet, there are many more older
REMODEL - continued on page 6
broiler houses that, with some investment, can be profitable
operations for several years to come. However, before
investing in house renovation growers should take a hard,
honest look at where they can get the most return for their
investment.
Most new broiler houses being built today have dropped
ceilings, are well insulated, tunnel ventilated, evaporatively
cooled and have automatic electronic controllers. Many
houses also have static-pressure controlled sidewall or ceiling
air inlets. Most older houses do not have this advanced
technology and it will be harder and harder for these houses to
compete with modern facilities. Options should be carefully
weighed before deciding to retrofit, but what should you be
looking for?
Where to Start
One of the first things to consider is the integrity of the
house structure itself. If the house will not last long enough to
recoup an investment in advanced technology, then it should
be gradually phased out of production. Take a long, hard look
at your houses. How old is the house in question? Does it
have center posts? Is it leaning? Does it have a dropped
ceiling? In what shape is the ceiling or insulation? Does the
roof leak? (Donald et al., 2001).
If renovation is a viable option, before spending any
money, visit with your live production personnel and be
certain of their future direction in broiler operations. Also, ask
questions and get information from extension poultry special-
ists and agricultural engineers.
Consult local equipment dealers for price quotes and to take a
look at manufacturers literature. In most cases, if an older
house is judged worthy of reworking, the items with the most
significant payoff possibilities are (Donald et al.,2001):
1. Improving house tightness and insulation
2. Converting to tunnel ventilation
3. Adding static-pressure controlled air inlets
4. Adding pad-type evaporative cooling
5. Installing an automatic electronic controller
Improving House Tightness and Insulation
Loose houses use much more fuel, have poor litter
quality and poor temperature control than do tight houses.
Having a tight house makes it easier in cold weather to keep
fuel costs down, while maintaining adequate temperature and
litter conditions. During hot weather in a pad cooled house,
birds receive maximum cooling, since all air enters through
the pads and not through unwanted cracks and leaks. This
results in less heat buildup from the inlet end to the fan end of
the house. Tightening up the house should be first on the list
of where to spend money on an older house to get the most
return (Donald et al., 1999b).
To test the tightness of your house you will need a static-
pressure meter. You will also need to be sure that your fans
are rated at about 20,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) at 0.05
inches of static pressure. With all the inlets and doors closed,
turn on one 48-inch fan or two 36-inch fans and test the static
pressure. A tight house should show a reading of 0.12 to 0.15
inches. However, many older houses may test out at 0.05
inches or less, indicating they have at least 14 square feet of
leakage. Consider that a continuous uncaulked 1/8-inch crack
under a sill plate that runs along both sidewalls of a 500-foot
house adds up to a 10 square foot (sq ft) opening. So it
doesnt take much before a tight house becomes a loose house
(Donald et al. 2001).
The condition of insulation should also be checked when
checking for tightness. Since loose insulation tends to settle
and lose insulating value over time, older houses with drop
ceilings should be checked and insulation added if needed to
reach an R19. In open truss houses, R-10 should be consid-
ered the minimum under-roof insulation. Adequate insulation
will not only will save fuel costs in winter, but it will protect
birds in summer from solar heat re-radiated from an un-
insulated roof (Donald et al. 2001).
Converting to Tunnel Ventilation
Most new houses now being built are tunnel ventilated.
While the benefits of tunnel ventilation are well documented
for all sizes of birds, the larger the bird being grown, the more
valuable tunnel ventilation is and the greater the importance of
high wind speed. Many companies today consider 500 feet
per minute air velocity to be the minimum required fan
capacity. In some cases where broilers are being grown to
very large sizes, some companies are designing for 600 feet
per minute. Yet older tunnel houses may not have enough
fans, enough pad space, or a combination of the two to provide
adequate wind speed. However, before purchasing new fans
growers should decide about the drive type, electrical effi-
ciency and cfm delivery under static pressure.
Direct drive fans tend to cost less and require less
maintenance than belt driven fans. However, direct drive fans
are less efficient, move less air and are louder than belt driven
fans. The drive type decision will depend on the size of the
fan and how it is to be used. Direct drive fans might make
sense as mixing or minimum ventilation fans since these fans
are normally 36 inch fans which do not run constantly, but
should be reliable and long lasting. Belt-drive fans are
generally preferred for 48 inch tunnel ventilation because they
generally move more air at less cost than direct-drive fans.
(Donald, 1997).
Fan efficiency is usually measured by the number of
cfms per watt of power expended (cfm/watt). The higher the
cfm/watt the greater the fan efficiency. For instance, if fan
number 1 is a 20,000 cfm fan rated at 20 cfm/watt, while fan
number 2 is a 20,000 cfm fan rated at 18 cfm/watt that means
that fan number 2 will require 10% more electricity than fan
number 1 to move the same amount of air. If this 10%
difference in efficiency is multiplied by 8 to 10 fans, the added
electrical costs can be substantial. Exhaust fans are commonly
rated on an efficiency scale from 0 to 5. Fans with an energy
efficiency of 16 cfm/watt or less are rated 0, while fans at 24
cfm/watt or greater are rated 5. The efficiency rating increases
by one for every 1.6 cfm/watt increase (Czarick and Lacy,
1999a). Fans with a high efficiency ratings are important
today, and may be even more important in the future, since
electricity rates are likely to continue to rise.
REMODEL - continued on next page
REMODEL - continued from page 5
7
Fans are usually advertised for a given cfm capacity at
0.05 inches static pressure, but fans used in tunnel ventilation
will usually be operating at 0.10 inches or higher (Czarick and
Lacy, 1999b). As the static pressure increases, the amount of
air any fan moves is decreased. This decreased movement of
air means that it is harder for fans to draw air into the house and
the amount of air moved by the fan decreases. This diminished
fan output can result in decreased air speeds and lower air
exchange rates, which can lead to increased environmental
problems within the house. How much does a fans output
decrease? That decrease varies dramatically from fan to fan and
is generally measured by the air flow ratio. The air flow ratio is
determined by dividing the amount of air moved at a static
pressure of 0.20 inches by the amount moved at a static pressure
of 0.05 inches. Fans that moved the same amount of air at 0.20
and 0.05 would have an air flow rating of 1, while fans that
moved half as much air at 0.20 as at 0.05 would have a rating of
0.5. Fans air flow ratios can range from 0.85 to 0.40. This
means that when fans are put under static pressure outputs can
decrease between 15 and 60% depending on the fan. (Czarick
and Lacy 1999a). While fan selection is crucial to the efficient
performance of a tunnel ventilated house, the location of inlet
openings is equally important.
Static Pressure Controlled Air Inlets
In less than ideal weather many older houses allow
ventilation air into the house by lowering the curtain on the
south side slightly, but this system is by far the least efficient
system available. Heat escapes through the crack whenever the
fans are not running and it is a challenge to keep the crack width
uniform the entire length of the house. When the fans do run, it
is difficult to maintain a high enough static pressure to jet the air
across the house instead of having it fall to the floor just inside
the south wall. This situation results in two different environ-
mental conditions inside the house, neither of which are
desirable. The birds along the south wall are usually always
chilled as cold outside air comes over the lip of the curtain and
immediately drops to the floor and birds along the north wall
never have the benefit of fresh air mixing and diluting the
contaminated air (ammonia, dust, high humidity) inside the
house. A much improved system is a specific number of air
inlets based on the size of your house. It is vital that you have
the right number, type and distribution of air inlet within the
house so that in-house conditions can be properly managed.
There are a variety of inlet systems available today. These may
be cable- or static-pressure controlled. If the inlets are not
cable-controlled, you should be able to open and close indi-
vidual inlets to obtain the desired static pressure depending on
weather conditions and your situation (brooding, power vent
mode, etc.). Air inlets allow us to bring air into the house
when we dont need to be in tunnel mode and dont want
outside air flowing directly on our birds. The inlet should be
mounted high enough and angled in such a way that the jet of
air they provide when the fans run will shoot along ceiling or
roof line of your house and mix with the hot air in place before
falling to the floor. Inlets allow air to come into the house based
on the static pressure. During very cold weather, static pres-
sures of 0.08 to 0.10 inches should be maintained so that air will
move rapidly into the house allowing maximum mixing before
dropping. During milder weather, static pressures of about 0.05
should allow adequate mixing. How many inlets are required?
The answer to that question will vary with the system involved.
However, one good rule of thumb is to equip your houses with
15 sq ft of inlet space for each 10,000 cfm of fan capacity
(Donald et al., 2000a). For example, if you have ten 48" fans
each rated at 23,800 cfm, your total fan capacity is (10 x 23,800
=) 238,000 cfm and you would need (15 sq ft/10,000 cfm x
238,000 =) 357 sq ft of inlet area. Your integrator, equipment
dealers and/or extension personnel can assist you in determining
the exact number of inlets needed in your house.
Pad Type Evaporative Cooling
While most older houses use in-house fogging to cool
birds, pad cooling is becoming the standard on new house
construction. The difficulty with in-house fogging is that if
more water is put into the air than it can absorb, water drops
onto the birds and litter. Fogging systems must be managed
such that just the right amount of water is fogged into the air to
get maximum cooling, without wetting the house. Many older
houses will have a very difficult time providing just the right
amount of water since the water applied in fog is controlled
only by a thermostat, and not by a timer. Although, properly
designed and operated in-house fogging with tunnel ventilation
can be both efficient and effective. Evaporative cooling is
becoming much more common in conjunction with tunnel
ventilation, in part because wind-chill effects begin to fall off as
temperatures approach 100 F (Donald et al., 2001).
Even though evaporative cooling is becoming the standard,
there are some important areas you must address before
retrofitting your house to pad cooling. It is important to
remember to balance air velocity and pad area. It is the
combination of tunnel air flow and evaporative cooling that
provides the most advantageous results in the hot summer
months. The air flow provides the wind chill effect and removes
bird heat while evaporative cooling provides cool air during
sweltering temperatures (Donald et al., 2000b). The most
common mistake made in designing pad systems is not having
enough pad area. You want to achieve the desired cooling
efficiency with the least pad area possible, while keeping the
static pressure below 0.10 inches. As static pressure increased,
fan efficiency decreases, so if you do not have enough pad area,
static pressure will reduce the output of the fans and lower
cooling efficiency (Donald et al., 2001). To determine the total
sq ft of pad area required, divide the installed fan capacity (cfm)
by the recommended air velocity through the pads in feet per
minute (fpm) (Donald et al. 2000b). For instance, if your house
has a total fan capacity of 190,000 cfm and the designed air
velocity through the pad you are considering is 350 fpm the
total pad area needed would be (190,000/350 =) 542 sq ft.
However, remember that a higher volume of air through a wet
pad is more desirable than a higher velocity of air. The lower
the air velocity through a wet pad, the higher the cooling
efficiency.
A second major area you must address is to design the pad
installation in such a way that the air flow into the house
through the pad will not greatly increase the static pressure. A
direct sidewall mount system (as opposed to a dog house
REMODEL - continued on page 8
system) may be more appropriate for an older house. Many new
houses now use a dog-house room attached to the side of the
broiler house with a 6-inch recirculating pad system. This is an
expensive system and can be difficult to install in a retrofit.
However, you should evaluate your needs, ask questions and
compare prices of direct mount vs dog house style pad cooling
systems if your cooling system is on your remodel list. Before
making drastic changes to your cooling system, you should also
verify that your water source can supply the quantity and quality a
new cooling system will demand. A typical cooling system will
use about 8 gallons per minute per house (Donald et al., 2001)
Electronic Controller
New houses now come equipped with electronic controllers
and if you are planning to retrofit an older house, you should
seriously consider one on your list of improvements. It cannot take
the place of you being in the chicken house, but it can help you
save and manage your time more efficiently. Controllers can be
intimidating at first if you are not familiar with all the lights,
screens and buttons, but they are much simpler than they look. The
installers can usually explain the system (dont let them drive away
until they do) and most of the instruction manuals are very helpful
and user friendly. A good system will be fairly easy to learn,
having a good display screen and being menu driven. Manufactur-
ers want growers to be able to understand and use their products so
they try to keep them as non-complicated as possible. Controllers
should be capable of keeping heating and cooling systems from
working against each other, and be able to automatically move the
house from heating to minimum ventilation to transitional (or
natural) to tunnel to evaporative cooling (and back). A controller
should also have built in protection against power line surges or
spikes that are common in many rural areas and it should have
enough capacity (channels) to operate everything you want. The
capability to handle area in your house as zones is an additional
important feature in controllers. This zone capacity will allow you
to place several temperature sensors in various locations of the
house and set the controller to read and control each zone indepen-
dent of other zones. More advanced controllers allow growers to
look at data on house conditions over the past few days or weeks.
Remote monitoring which allows growers to check house condi-
tions from any personal computer (PC) and to quickly respond to
problems is also possible in advanced systems. The ability to
interface with an off-site PC will likely become more important in
the future. In fact, if remote monitoring allows integrators to
oversee house conditions, controller features such as these could
become a required capability.
What Will It All Cost?
So far we have addressed some of the major changes involved
in a retrofit, but what about the rest of the equipment in your house?
What is the condition of your feed system, water system, and
heating system? If these are 12, 15, 18 years old or older, are they
in need of repair or replacement? If so, what will it cost to do all
this work? Table 1 contains cost estimates I gathered from two
Arkansas poultry equipment dealers on the building adaptations
and equipment necessary to remodel an older broiler house. Please
remember that these estimates are just that estimates. Prices will
vary depending on the contractor, the size of the job and where
your farm is located. However, the numbers in Table 1 should
provide an idea of the investment involved to retrofit a 40' x 400'
conventional ventilation.
Summary
It is increasingly difficult for growers with older houses to
compete with growers with newer more well equipped houses.
Improvements such as tighter houses, better insulation, tunnel
ventilation, static pressure air inlets, evaporative cooling, and
integrated controllers are paying dividends in new house construc-
tion. These improvements can be incorporated into older houses
with adequate structural integrity. However, before embarking on
such a project, each grower should carefully consider the costs
involved, payback time required and possible returns in the future.
Do not make such a decision on your own!! Consult with your
poultry integrator about their plans for the future. Ask questions!!
Get opinions from several different individuals including: your
integrator representatives, contractors or equipment dealers,
extension personnel and, if possible, other growers that may have
retrofitted an older house. In some cases, an older house may
simply not justify the expense of a retrofit, but in those cases where
an older house has sound structural integrity and the grower plans
on raising broilers for several more years, retrofitting may be a
viable option.
Table 1. Cost Estimates to Retrofit 40' x 400'
Conventional Broiler House
Cost Estimate $
Item Firm A Firm B
Building Adaptation and Electrical Work 3000 4100
Electronic Controller 2700 3400
New Curtain 1200 1200
Recirculating Cool Cell System 6000 7200
New Fans 5200 5300
New Heaters 3300 3500
New Brooders 3000 3300
New Nipple Water System 6000 6000
New Feed System (w/o feed bins) 6800 7000
Total 37,200 41,000
References:
Czarick, Michael and Michael P. Lacy. 1999a. Tunnel
ventilation fan performance ratings. University of Georgia
Cooperative Extension Service Poultry Housing Tips 12(10):1-4.
Czarick, Michael and Michael P. Lacy. 1999b. House
tightness, environmental control and energy usage. University of
Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Poultry Housing Tips
11(10):1-3.
Donald, Jim. 1997. Answers to your questions about selection
poultry house fans. Poultry Ventilation Pointers. Alabama Coop-
erative Extension System. Auburn University. pp 1-2.
Donald, Jim, Mike Eckman and Gene Simpson. 2000a. What
is the most important part of your poultry house ventilation system?
The Alabama Poultry Engineering and Economics Newsletter No.
4 pp 1-4.
Donald, Jim, Mike Eckman and Gene Simpson. 2000b. Keys
to getting good performance from your evaporative cooling system.
The Alabama Poultry Engineering and Economics Newsletter No.
5 pp 1-4.
REMODEL - continued from page 7
9
and Other Foreign Animal
Diseases
Avian Influenza (see Avian Advice vol. 2, no 1, Fall, 2000) and Exotic Newcastle
Disease are two of the Foreign Animal Diseases (FADs) that can cause devastating losses in the
poultry industry. Exotic Newcastle Disease can affect many species of domesticated, wild, or
exotic birds and was first seen in 1926 in Great Britain, Java, and Korea. The name Newcastle
comes from the location where the disease occurred in Great Britain (Newcastle-on-Tyne). The
disease is still present endemically in many areas of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The disease was first reported in the United States in 1944 with other outbreaks
reported in 1946 and 1951. However, Exotic Newcastle Disease was quickly eradicated from the
United States. The most serious recent outbreak in the United States occurred in southern
California in 1971 and cost almost 56 million dollars to eradicate.
The causative agent of Exotic Newcastle Disease is a Rubulavirus in the family
Paramyxoviridae. The virus can persist in feces for long periods of time and some bird species
(parrots and some wild birds) may be asymptomatic carriers of the virus. Outbreaks of the
disease can cause severe losses in a short period of time. The incubation period for the disease
varies from 2-15 days with the incubation period in chickens being 2-6 days. Clinical symptoms
include gasping for air, green watery diarrhea, coughing, depression, loss of appetite, thin shell
misshapen eggs, droopy wings, twisting of the head and neck, and spasms. Mortality varies with
the viral strain and species infected; but may be high at the initial onset. Lesions observed with
the disease include: swelling in the neck tissues around the trachea, hemorrhages on the tracheal
mucosal surface, small pinpoint hemorrhages on the inside lining of the proventriculus, hemor-
rhage and necrosis of the lymphoid tissue in the intestines, and hemorrhages in the vent.
A presumptive diagnosis of suspicious for Exotic Newcastle Disease can be made
based upon the symptoms and lesions. However, since there are no symptoms or lesions
exclusive for Exotic Newcastle Disease the disease must be differentiated from similar diseases
such as Avian Influenza and fowl cholera. A definitive diagnosis is based upon virus isolation
and identification.
The best method for control of Exotic Newcastle Disease is prevention. This is
accomplished via Biosecurity protocols (Avian Advice vol.1, no. 1, Fall, 1999) and vigilance for
FADs to prevent entry into the United States. Exotic Newcastle Disease could be devastating
to the poultry industry if an outbreak occurred. Currently, there is an Emergency Poultry
Diseases Technical Poultry committee that is determining how to handle an outbreak of Exotic
Newcastle Disease if an outbreak were to occur Arkansas. This group organized and conducted
a Tabletop Exercise in December 2000 and plans another scenario for October 2001. The
purpose of these exercises is to help in the development of plans and procedures for handling
outbreaks if the disease were introduced into the United States. These plans are very necessary
considering that in 1999 outbreaks of Exotic Newcastle Disease occurred in Argentina, Brazil,
Venezuela, Canada, and New South Wales, Australia. In 2000 there were outbreaks in Russia
and Italy with 231 outbreaks in Italy alone. Vigilance, common sense, and Biosecurity protocols
all can help in the prevention of this disease, other Foreign Animal Diseases as well as more
common, less devastating diseases.
DISEASES - continued on page 10
The best method for
control of Exotic
Newcastle Disease
is prevention.
Newcastle Disease Virus
Source: Stewart McNulty,
Veterinary Services, Queens
University, Belfast.
Foot and Mouth Disease and Other Foreign Animal Diseases
The last few months there has been tremendous news coverage of the outbreaks of Foot
and Mouth disease in the United Kingdom. In addition to the outbreaks in the United Kingdom,
there are currently other Foot and Mouth Disease outbreaks in Argentina, Uruguay, Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, and the Netherlands. Foot and Mouth Disease is a viral disease that affects cattle,
goats, sheep, swine, deer and other cloven footed animals. The disease does affects not affect
poultry, but an outbreak in the United States would affect the poultry industry because of
restrictions on movement of animals, supplies, and people in and out of quarantined areas.
The reasons for the restrictions on movement would be to prevent spread of the disease so it
could be more easily contained and eliminated.
Foot and Mouth Disease and some other diseases are considered by the United States
Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Inspection Service (USDA - APHIS) to be Foreign
Animal diseases (FADs). FADs are those diseases which have either never occurred in the
United States or have been eradicated from the United States. Examples of some FADs are: Hog
Cholera, African Swine Fever, Dourine, Glanders, African Horse Sickness, Heartwater Disease,
Screwworms, Rinderpest, Avian Influenza, and Exotic Newcastle Disease (END). There is
continued surveillance and vigilance by the USDA - APHIS, private veterinary practitioners,
and Foreign Animal Disease Diagnosticians (FADDs) to prevent these diseases from entering or
re-entering the United States.
Susan E. Watkins Extension Poultry Specialist
DISEASES - continued from page 9
Introduction
The high cost of clean out, litter disposal and new bedding makes it economical for broiler
producers to re-utilize bedding material for one, two, three or even more years of production.
However, this practice makes proper litter conditioning an essential tool of good management
for keeping flocks healthy and profitable. Conditioning litter between flocks addresses where
the birds live, which is the most crucial aspect of the poultry house environment. Litter quality
impacts bird health, skin and footpad quality and even the bacteria levels on the final product.
While occasionally a good flock is produced on poor litter, the odds are far more likely that a
flock will have a lower average weight, poor feed conversion, higher condemnation rates with a
loss in profit when litter quality is allowed to deteriorate.
Critical Factors in Litter Quality: Moisture, Temperature and pH.
Moisture is the key factor which influences litter quality. Litter moisture is linked to the
survival of harmful organisms (pathogens) such as Salmonella, E. coli, Clostridium, viruses,
coccidiosis and mold that can impact both bird and human health. The wetter litter is, the more
Litter Conditioning for a
Healthy Flock
LITTER - continued on next page
11
likely bacteria will survive for extended periods of time.
Bacteria can survive for weeks in wet litter versus days or
hours in dry litter. It has recently been documented that by
lowering the moisture level of litter through increased air
flow, it is possible to reduce the litter Salmonella levels, which
can help to reduce the contamination entering the processing
plant. The key was dry litter. Friability is a physical property
of litter that directly impacts litter available water. Friability
is a measure of how easily the litter will crumble or break up.
Practically speaking the more friable the litter, the easier it is
to break up and less likely to mat and hold water on the
surface.
In addition, litter moisture helps support the bacteria which
converts litter nitrogen or uric acid (a key component of birds
manure) into ammonia. High levels of ammonia cause
blindness, damage trachea or lungs and depress appetite.
Once the birds trachea is damaged, dust, bacteria and viruses
can easily enter the birds system making it very susceptible to
air sacculitis infections.
Temperature will also contribute to ammonia production.
The warmer the litter, the more active the bacteria will be in
converting uric acid to ammonia. Thus, while raising the
temperature is critical for brooding young birds, it results in a
release of ammonia from the litter.
Litter pH is another critical factor affecting quality. The
pH of litter is alkaline or basic and typically ranges from 7.5-
8.5. Within three flocks litter pH can be well above 8.0. Most
bacteria, including the ammonia-producing bacteria, grow best
at pH values above 7.0, while few grow below 4.0. Also yeast
and mold growth is slowed at low pHs. Reducing litter pH as
a means to control microorganisms requires reducing and
maintaining the litter pH at 4.0 or below.
Ideal Litter Conditions
In order to understand how litter can be managed to
provide an optimum environment, it is first important to have
litter quality goals. Ideal litter has the following characteris-
tics:
Loose and not caked over
Not too dry or too wet (20-30 % moisture is ideal)
Low level of ammonia (less than 20 parts per million)
Uniform particle size (No large clumps)
Minimum insect load
Addressing Litter Quality
The best time to address litter quality is immediately after
the last flock has been removed. Litter should be decaked by
removing or pulverizing the material that has become satu-
rated with moisture and is severely clumped together. Allow-
ing litter cake to remain in a facility can create a protective
seal keeping moisture trapped in the litter. Litter cake creates
a microenvironment where bacteria can remain living even
when birds are absent and the house temperature is cold. The
moisture trapped in caked litter will also contribute to a
substantial ammonia release once the house is closed and re-
warmed for the next flock.
After decaking, when possible, stirring litter or raking the
litter will help the release of moisture. Many turkey producers
deep stacking litter down the center of the house and allow it
to go through a heat cycle for 10 to 14 days to destroy bacteria
and lose moisture. The litter is then re-spread in the house.
Litter Amendments and How to Use Them
An additional way to enhance litter quality is through the
use of litter amendments. The three most commonly used
amendments are all chemicals that acidify the litter. These
contain either sulfate or sulfuric acid. The sulfate when
combined with air or litter moisture converts to sulfuric acid,
which as a strong acid that will acidify the litter. When used
at the manufacturers recommendations of 50 to 100 pounds
per 1000 square feet, the treatments will drop the litter surface
pH to below 4 and in some cases, such as newer litter, as low
as 2. The low litter pH then results in an unfavorable environ-
ment for most bacterial growth including the bacteria respon-
sible for creating ammonia. Properly adding litter treatments
prior to the placement of a new flock will reduce ammonia
during the brooding cycle, which allows producers to run fans
for minimum ventilation instead of over ventilating to remove
high atmospheric ammonia levels. Litter treatments also
reduce bacterial exposure for young birds. Yet as new
manure and moisture are added to the litter, the litter treat-
ments will become neutralized and lose their ability to control
ammonia production and bacteria growth. Litter treatments
usually control ammonia for two to three weeks. The less
treatment used, the shorter the time of ammonia control.
Each litter treatment is unique in the way that it works.
The aluminum sulfate (or alum) based treatment, commonly
called Al+ Clear must be worked or tilled into the litter to be
most effective. While this litter treatment will give some
ammonia control if not worked into the litter, the producer will
not get the most effective use from the product. The AL+
Clear product works best if applied 7 days before chick
placement if the litter is dry and 3 days before chick placement
if the litter is moist. The other two commonly used amend-
ments, sodium bisulfate (PLT) and a clay product acidified
with sulfuric acid (Poultry Guard) work best when top-
dressed on the surface of the litter. The sodium bisulfate
product (PLT) works best when applied as close to chick
placement as possible. This product will actually pull mois-
ture from the air and combine with ammonia. Poultry Guard
works best if applied 3 days or less before chick placement. A
trend that has recently started is the use of two treatments in a
facility. For example, blending the Al+ Clear with one of the
other products. One suggestion is to apply 50 pounds/1000
square feet of Al+ Clear and then apply 50 pounds/1000
square feet of a second product.
All of the common litter treatment products can easily be
applied with standard equipment such as a rotary disk
spreader. However, before amendments are applied, it is
crucial that the litter be properly prepared through decaking,
tilling or pulverizing. The longer litter is maintained in a
house, the more important good decaking or litter pulverizing
is before amendment applications. It is also important to level
the litter surface as a final step before application to ensure
uniformity of application so that ammonia and bacteria can be
LITTER - continued on page 12
controlled through out the house. Since litter treatments are acids, they will corrode metal over
time, so it is important to keep them away from footings and equipment.. Remember to follow
all listed safety precautions when handling the products. Protective eye gear is especially
important.
Another amazing benefit from the use of litter treatments is a reduction in darkling beetle
population. Since beetles will eat anything, they also consume these products. The products
turn into strong acids in their digestive tracts and the beetle is destroyed. Facilities which
consistently use litter treatments have fewer beetles. In addition, insecticides last longer under
acid conditions versus alkaline conditions. Thus, litter treatments may increase the residual
killing power of insecticides. Therefore, by applying liquid insecticides before litter treatment
application and dry insecticides after litter treatment application, extended effectiveness of the
insecticide can be obtained. Make sure that liquid insecticides have had time to dry before litter
treatment application.
Choosing the right litter treatment should include information on cost, availability and other
factors such as nutrient best management practices. The aluminum sulfate product will tie up
the phosphorus in litter and prevent it from becoming a runoff hazard when the litter is spread
on pasture or crop land. This has become an accepted tool by the Arkansas Natural Resource
Conservation Service, which might allow producers who regularly use alum to spread litter on
soil that has a high phosphorus level. To get optimum phosphorus binding, it is necessary to use
the higher levels of alum (200 pounds/1000 ft
2
) and to use it every flock. See your local
conservation district water quality technician to obtain more details on how this practice could
be utilized in your operation.
The utilization of the aluminum sulfate product for extended periods does make the litter less
desirable as a feed stuff for cattle. The key reason is the aluminum imparts a bitter, metallic
taste to the litter. It is recommended that if litter is fed to cattle, it should not be treated with
aluminum sulfate. Remember that cattle have a maximum recommended sulfur intake of 0.4%.
The sulfur content of poultry litter ranges from 0.2 to 0.8% sulfur without added litter treat-
ments. The use of any of the litter treatments could raise the litter sulfur to levels that are toxic
for cattle. One symptom of sulfur toxicity in cattle is reduced feed consumption. Check with
your county extension agent for information on us of litter for cattle feed.
A final word of caution, follow the manufacturers recommendations when using litter
treatments. Utilizing levels below recommendations may drop litter pH to a level that is close to
7. This reduced amount of litter treatment can enhance bacterial growth instead of depressing it.
Table 1 shows results of a trial where three-flock old litter was autoclaved and inoculated with
known levels of Salmonella. Litter was then treated with either Poultry Guard or PLT (Poultry
Litter Treatment) at different levels and sterile drag swabs were used to collect Salmonella
samples. The results showed that using low levels such as 25 pounds of treatment/1000 square
feet of litter resulted in higher levels of Salmonella as compared to the untreated litter. The pH
of the low level application litter was high enough to support the growth of the Salmonella. It
took utilizing 100 pounds/1000 square feet to drop the Salmonella to levels which were much
lower than what was found in the untreated litter.
LITTER - continued from page 11
Table 1. Affects of litter amendments on autoclaved litter inoculated with Salmonella.
Litter Treatment Application Rate Salmonella
(Pounds/1000 ft
2
) Count/Sponge
1
Litter pH
1
Litter Moisture (%)
Untreated Litter 0 589
abc
8.300
a
23.60
Poultry Guard 25 2723
a
5.825
bc
25.40
50 697
abc
4.425
d
24.30
75 191
bcd
3.550
e
23.75
100 53
d
2.675
f
23.80
PLT 25 1026
ab
6.233
b
23.27
50 123
cd
5.475
c
23.33
75 146
cd
4.425
d
25.60
100 30
d
3.475
e
24.98
SEM 2.29 .272 .813
P-value .0075 .0001 .7610
1
Means followed by a different letter in the same column are significantly different.
Choosing the right
litter treatment
should include
information on cost,
availability and other
factors such as
nutrient best
management
practices.
13
Conclusion
In conclusion, managing litter is a crucial step in promoting flock health and well being.
Conditioning litter between flocks can help keep the environment productive and the operation
profitable. Controlling litter moisture and utilizing litter amendments at the proper rates can
maintain litter quality maintained for extended periods of time.
LITTER - continued from page 12
G.Tom Tabler Applied Broiler Research Unit Manager - Savoy
Heat Stress, Evaporative
Cooling and Tunnel
Ventilation
Introduction
Todays broiler and turkey are among the fastest growing and most efficient birds ever.
However, this tremendous potential comes with a greater susceptibility to many different types
of stress. Commercial birds are particularly susceptible to heat stress because metabolic heat
production increases with growth rate, while the capacity to dissipate heat does not (Teeter et
al., 1996). With summer soon upon us, its time to review some of the effects of heat stress on
broilers and methods which can be used to partially alleviate the detrimental effects of heat
stress. We will also look at ways of getting the most benefit from evaporative cooling and
tunnel ventilation.
Understanding and Managing Heat Stress
Broilers that are subjected to elevated environmental temperatures will reduce their activity
level and rest more during periods of heat stress. Some birds will stand quietly in place while
others will sit throughout the house. In most cases, they will have their wings spread away from
their body to promote cooling by reducing body insulation. Blood flow is diverted from the
internal organs to dilated blood vessels near the surface of the skin to facilitate heat loss
(Butcher and Miles, 1990). Skin which is normally pink will turn dark as blood circulation is
shifted to the body surface to dissipate heat (Donald, 1999). However, it is impossible for
increased peripheral blood flow to completely dissipate body heat when birds are exposed to
high environmental temperatures. As temperatures increase birds will begin panting, which
allows them to utilize evaporative cooling for heat loss. In fact, broilers dissipate more than
80% of their heat production by evaporative cooling (panting) (Teeter et al., 1996).
Panting is accompanied by an increase of water loss from the lungs. This water must be
replaced to prevent birds from dehydrating. However, birds will often avoid drinking warm or
HEAT STRESS - continued on page 14
HEAT STRESS - continued from page 13
hot water. Cool drinking water stimulates water intake and consuming water lower than body
temperature absorbs heat, reducing heat stress. Water can be kept cooler by, avoiding placing
pipes near the ceiling where it is extra hot. In addition, lines with warm water in them can be
drained to allow cooler water to reach the waterers. The importance of providing birds with an
adequate supply of cool drinking water during heat stress can not be over emphasized (Ander-
son and Carter, 1993).
Normally, panting starts when at temperatures is near 86F (30C), and will increase as the
temperature rises. As the bird pants, there is a corresponding decrease in the levels of blood
carbon dioxide, which causes an increase in blood pH. This decrease in blood pH causes the
kidneys to excrete excessive amounts of potassium and other minerals (electrolytes), which
alters the birds electrolyte balance. As the pH shift occurs, feed intake is increasingly de-
pressed (Anderson and Carter, 1993).
This decrease in feed consumption occurs because the bird does not feel like eating and
because the process of digestion generates heat. In fact, it has been estimated that approxi-
mately 60% of the metabolizable energy consumed by the bird will be lost as heat (Teeter et al.,
1996). While the reduction in feed intake results in lower daily nutrient intake, fewer nutrients
to metabolize means less heat produced by the body. Growth rate is slowed, but research has
demonstrated that as feed intake increases during heat stress fewer birds survive (Butcher and
Miles, 1990). Yet, studies have demonstrated that low phosphorous consumption can contribute
to increased heat prostration losses (Kutlu and Forbes, 1993). Thus, it is important that birds
consume some feed during hot weather.
HEAT STRESS - continued on next page
Growers seem to have a natural tendency to encourage birds to eat. However, management
techniques which promote feed consumption during peak hot periods must be used cautiously.
During hot weather most integrators usually formulate feeds with increased levels of protein,
energy and fat to compensate for decreased consumption levels. Vitamin and mineral concen-
trations may also be increased (Butcher and Miles, 1990). Hot weather normally means that
birds consume the greatest amount of feed at dawn or just after the lights come on. Feed
consumption will then decrease as ambient temperature increases, but will then increase
dramatically just before the lights go out (Anderson and Carter, 1993). To safely encourage
feed consumption, growers should encourage consumption just after dawn or lights on and just
before lights out. Growers may also encourage feed consumption by cooling birds as much as
possible during the evening hours. Birds tend to build up heat in their body during the hot parts
of the day, but cooling birds can dissipate the heat, and encourage feed consumption during
Cool drinking water
stimulates water intake and
consuming water lower than
body temperature absorbs heat,
reducing stress.
15
early morning (Teeter et al., 1996). Some integrators recommend fasting broilers during hot
periods of the day to lessen the heat load, but fasting requires additional management skills.
Fasted birds will survive heat better than full fed birds, but fasting reduces weight gain
(Kutlu and Forbes, 1993). Fasting has a calming effect and reduces the heat of digestion, but
the timing and length of the fast is critical to success (Butcher and Miles, 1990). In order for
fasting to be effective the birds digestive tract must be nearly clear during heat stress. How-
ever, it is often difficult to predict when temperatures will rise to critical levels and time is
required for the digestive tract to clear. In addition, it is not uncommon for fasted birds to rush
the feeder when feed becomes available (Teeter et al., 1996). This rush can cause injuries
within the flock and could hamper feed withdrawal times since birds will tend to gorge them-
selves. Check with your service technician to determine if and when a fasting program is
recommended.
Keeping birds calm and still during hot weather is important because the muscle contraction
required for movement generates heat, which adds to the heat load. Many growers walk their
birds during hot weather to release trapped heat between birds. However, be aware that bird
movement generates heat.
Panting allows the broiler to dissipate body heat, but panting requires approximately 540
calories per gram of water lost by the lungs. The energy used for panting can not be used for
growth. Thus, decreased energy efficiency accompanies hot weather (Butcher and Miles, 1990).
Panting itself also generates body heat, which must be eliminated (Anderson and Carter, 1993).
In addition, panting increases the relative humidity of the air surrounding the bird. As the
relative humidity rises, birds work harder to lose body heat (Teeter et al., 1996). In addition,
litter can become wet, raising the humidity at bird level and making the situation even worse.
Broilers simply cannot tolerate high temperature coupled with high relative humidity. Death
due to heat exhaustion will occur quickly, especially in birds near harvest weight, if both
temperature and humidity are high (Butcher and Miles, 1990). In hot/humid environments,
ventilation should be maximized to facilitate removal of heat and moisture.
Tunnel Ventilation and Evaporative Cooling
Most new houses now being constructed are tunnel ventilated and an increasing number of
older houses are being retrofitted to tunnel. Most of these houses also have some form of
evaporative cooling. This trend is occurring because todays fast growing bird can not withstand
the stresses that its predecessors could. This lack of ability to withstand stress is placing more
and more demands on housing and equipment systems. Evaporative cooling technology has
become a refined tool for managing the environment in hot weather. However, one must
understand that evaporative cooling systems work only as an add-on to tunnel ventilation.
Proper airflow is the most important item within the poultry house during hot weather. If you
dont have enough fans, or fans arent operating properly, the evaporative cooling system will
not be able to overcome the lack of air velocity.
All evaporative cooling systems work by forcing warm incoming air through a thin film of
water. The heat energy in the air powers the change water from liquid to water vapor. About
8,700 BTUs of heat are removed from the air for every gallon of water evaporated (Donald,
2000). Evaporative cooling cannot bring 95 or 100F air down to 70F, but if the evaporative
cooling system is working in conjunction with tunnel ventilation, it only needs to bring the air
temperature down to the range where the tunnel wind-chill effect can help the birds feel as
though it was near 70F. For example, if the air temperature is 95F and the evaporative
cooling system can bring the temperature down by 12 degrees, and we get another 10F effec-
tive temperature reduction from wind-chill, the birds will feel like they are in 73-degree air.
This is what we should expect from properly designed evaporative cooling systems on most hot
summer days. However, the actual performance of the cooling system will depend on two
factors.
1. The moisture is present in the air (or relative humidity) determines the theoretical
maximum cooling potential. The lower the relative humidity (RH) and the higher the tempera-
ture, the greater the theoretical cooling potential. When air temperatures are in the 90-100F
Keeping birds calm
and still during hot
weather is important
because the muscle
contraction required
for movement
generates heat, which
adds to the heat load.
range the maximum theoretical cooling potential typically is around 15 to 17 degrees under
Southeast U. S. conditions (Donald, 2000). This corresponds to a relative humidity of about
50%.
As mentioned earlier, relative humidity is critical because the less moisture or relative
humidity in the air, the more cooling will occur. For example, early in the morning on a typical
summer day, relative humidity may be close to 100%, but the temperature will be in the low
70s. As the day goes on, the temperature rises and the relative humidity drops. This is because
hot air is capable of holding more moisture than cold air can. This means that when the
temperature rises 20F, the moisture in the air (relative humidity) is cut in half. By the time air
temperature reaches 95F, the relative humidity will have dropped to around 50%. This allows
the evaporative cooling system to be effective, evaporating water into warm air, raising its RH
but lowering its temperature.
2. The efficiency of the evaporative cooling system is an estimate of how much of the
theoretical cooling potential we will actually achieve (Donald, 2000). Efficiencies of current
systems range from around 50% to 76%. A 50%-efficient system, for example, will give half
(50%) of the maximum potential cooling. This means that because of inefficiencies in the
system we may actually drop the temperature 7 to 13F when the air temperature is in the 90-
100F range, with 50% RH (76% of 17 = 13; 50% of 15 = 7.5).
Evaporative cooling systems should be turned on when the house temperature reaches 80-
84F, before signs of heat stress, with fully feathered birds. It is easier for the system to deal
with heat as it comes into the house than to cope with a large heat build-up already in place
when it is turned on. Care must be taken, however, not to chill younger birds by running tunnel
ventilation or evaporative cooling when temperature reduction is not a necessity. Tunnel
ventilation has proven to be very effective in keeping birds cool during hot weather but will
only do so if maintained and operated properly. Czarick and Lacy (2000) recommend the
following tips to help maximize cooling in tunnel-ventilated houses:
1) Install migration fences by 3 weeks of age. When birds pack in at the pad end of the
house, bird performance will be harmed due to insufficient feeder space and increased
heat stress. Cool air coming in through the evaporative pads cannot move between
crowded birds.
2) Starting the fifth week, clean shutters weekly. Dirty shutters can reduce the air
moving capacity of a fan by 30%. A 30% reduction in wind speed can result in a 50%
decrease in wind-chill effect.
3) Check fan belts. Are they riding high in the motor pulley. If the belt is riding below
the top of the motor pulley, the air moving capacity of the fan can be reduced by 20%.
4) If birds have been heat stressed during the day, make sure you run all your fans all
night long. Studies have shown that cooling birds off at night can increase weights by 20
points or more.
5) Make sure side wall curtains are held tight against the side wall. Air leaking around
the side wall curtains will dilute the cold air entering through the evaporative cooling pads
resulting in large temperature differences between the pad and fan ends of a house. Air
leakage can increase house temperature 3 degrees or more.
6) Do not use all your tunnel fans on small birds. It will not improve performance and
wastes electricity. Use fogging pads on young birds to temper the air, if temperatures rise
significantly above your desired set points. However, bear in mind that young birds
exposed to some heat can become acclimated so that they suffer less from its effects.
HEAT STRESS - continued on next page
t
i
p
s

f
o
r

c
o
o
l
i
n
g

t
u
n
n
e
l
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
e
d

h
o
u
s
e
s
17
7) If you use fogging pads, make sure the nozzles are wetting the entire pad. Many
pads are dry along the top because the top line of fogging nozzles are placed too low.
To maximize pad wetting, and therefore cooling, the top line of nozzles should be
placed within one foot of the top of the fogging pad.
8) Make sure that the tunnel curtain when open does not restrict air flow through
evaporative cooling pads. When the tunnel curtain hangs down in front of evaporative
cooling pads the cooling produced by the pads is reduced and static pressure is
increased. This situation reduces the air moving capacity of the fans.
9) If you have a controller, do not operate the tunnel fans off the average of all
temperature sensors in the house. At night as temperatures decrease, the temperature
at the inlet end of the house decreases while the temperature of the air at the fan end of
the house increases. The average remains the same. By operating the tunnel fans off
the temperature sensor nearest the tunnel fans, more fans will run at night and bird
cooling will be maximized.
10) If you have a tunnel ventilated house with fogging pads, make sure that your
water pressure is at least 180 psi, but a pressure of 220 psi is preferable. The higher
water pressure will result in smaller water droplet size which will maximize air
temperature reduction while at the same time keeping house wetting to a minimum.
11) If you have fogging pads, make sure you have between 40 and 60 one gallon per
hour nozzles inside the house to increase cooling on extremely hot days. The nozzles
should be installed in four to six lines running across the house. Two lines should be
placed in the brooding end of the house while the other two to four should be placed in
the nonbrooding (tunnel fan end of the house). Do not place fogging nozzles within
125' of the tunnel fans. Do not turn on interior nozzles until air temperature within the
house exceeds 87F. Turning on the nozzles before this point may lead to house and
equipment wetting which may increase heat stress related problems.
12) Do not turn on evaporative cooling pads until house temperature has reached at
least 80F. During warm weather when outside air temperature is below 80F the
relative humidity of the air is above 80%, and therefore very little evaporative cooling
can take place. Running an evaporative cooling system before the air temperature has
reached 80F will increase house moisture and encourage algae growth on pads which
in turn will reduce the flow of air through the pads as well as decrease pad life.
13) Make sure you flush evaporative cooling pads with plenty of fresh water at the
beginning of each growout to remove any trapped dust from the flutes. If allowed to
accumulate, over time this dust will restrict air flow through the pads which leads to
reduced bird cooling.
14) If you have fogging nozzles in your houses, make sure the temperature sensors
and/or thermostats are protected from the fog. If the sensors/thermostats get wet, they
will indicate that the air temperature is lower than it actually is which can cause
exhaust fans to turn off prematurely.
Summary
Broilers under heat stress have to make critical life sustaining physiological adjustments.
Feed intake decreases while water intake increases. Dietary adjustments can help reduce
metabolic heat production and maintain nutrient intake. Minimizing bird activity during the
TIPS CONTINUED
hottest parts of the day lessens the heat burden. Fasting can be beneficial and may increase
survival rate of broilers during heat stress, but it must be closely controlled to be successful.
Check with your service technician before implementing such an fasting program. Ventilation
and cooling are a must for birds to survive high summertime temperatures. Adequate air flow is
more important than any other factor in a hot weather house. Tunnel ventilation coupled with
some form of evaporative cooling has proven to be very effective in keeping birds cool during
hot weather. But tunnel ventilation and evaporative cooling are only effective if you maintain
and operate the systems properly.
References
Anderson, K. E. and T. A. Carter. 1993.Hot weather management of poultry. Poultry Science
and Technology Guide No. 30. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Butcher, G. D., and R. Miles. 1990. Heat stress management in broilers. Fact Sheet VM-65.
College of Veterinary Medicine, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricul-
tural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Czarick, M., and M. Lacy. 2000.Maximizing bird cooling in tunnel ventilated houses. Poultry
Housing Tips 12(8). Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agricultural and Environmental
Science, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Donald, J. 1999. Temperature effects on broilers - A quick reference guide. Auburn University
publication, Auburn, Alabama
Donald, J. 2000. Getting the most from evaporative cooling systems in tunnel ventilated broiler
houses. Article prepared for Poultry World magazine (in press as of 2/00). Alabama Cooperative
Extension Service, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Kutlu, H. R. and J. M. Forbes. 1993. Alleviation of the effect of heat stress by dietary methods
in broilers: A review. World Review of Animal Production. 28(3):16-26.
Teeter, R. G., T. Belay and J. J. Cason. 1996. Poultry production can be optimized during heat
stress. Feedstuffs 68(33):12-15
Coming
Events:
Date: June 28, 2001 Location: Conway
Event: Farm Bureau Policy Development Meeting
Arkansas Farm Bureau
(501) 228-1856
Date: July 10-13, 2001 Location: Fayetteville
Event: Poultry Science Youth Conference
Dr. Jason Emmert,
UAF, (501) 575-3595
Date: July 24-28, 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN
Event: Poultry Science Association Annual Meeting
Poultry Science Association
(217) 356-3182
19
Frank T. Jones, Extension Section Leader
Fun with Incubation - A
New Booklet to Share With
School-aged Children
What is it?
Cooperative Extension agents and specialists often visit local schools and organizations to
present information about poultry production in the state. Often these visits involve hatching
chicks within the classroom. Yet often these experiences could be enhanced by a deeper
understanding of the process involved.
To meet this need for understanding, extension poultry specialist Susan Watkins and one of
her students, Cheryl Esters, have put together a 20-page booklet, highlighting the incubation
process. The booklet includes instructions on the temperatures needed for successful incubation
in various incubator types as well as step-by-step instructions on how to hatch healthy chicks
from fertile eggs.
What ages are appropriate?
The booklet is aimed primarily at elementary
school students. However, with some adaptation, the
materials might be used with middle school or junior
high students.
Added benefits
The booklet includes photos, which show the
development of chicks from a tiny spot on an egg
yolk to a healthy, fluffy chick. In addition, the
booklet describes how chicks emerge from eggs and
how to care for newly hatched chicks. The booklet
also contains a worksheet to assist students in
learning the parts of the egg and projects for younger
students to cut out and color.
Getting more information
If you would like to have Dr. Watkins or an
extension agent to present a program or demonstra-
tion to your school or organization, you may call the Poultry Center for more information at
(501) 575-4952. A copy of the booklet can also be made available to assist you with your own
presentation or workshop. The booklet is on 8.5" x 11" paper and is designed to be repro-
duced on a standard copy machine. For further information, please contact Dr. Watkins at:
Dr. Susan Watkins
Center of Excellence for Poultry Science
POSC 0-114
(501) 575-7902
swatkin@uark.edu
UA Poultry Science
bramwell@uark.edu
for Poultry Science
1
. . . helping ensure the efficient production of top-quality poultry products in Arkansas and beyond.
INSIDE
page 2
New Poultry Specialist
at the U of A
By F. Jones
page 3
Importance of Litter Quality
to Broiler Producers
By T. Tabler
page 6
Computers and
Controllers
By T.Tabler
page 8
Identification of Poultry
Parasite Problems
By F.D.Clark
page 10
Biology and Control of Bed
Bugs in Poultry Houses
By D. Steelman
page 11
Water Quality can
Influence Poultry
Performance
By S. Watkins
page 13
Combating Floor and Slat
Eggs in the Breeder
House
By R.K. Bramwell
Advice
AVIAN
Arkansas I s
Our Campus
Avian Pox in Exhibition &
Backyard Poultry
Dr. F. Dustan Clark
Extension Poultry Veterinarian
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
B
irds Affected. Avian pox often causes
problems in exhibition and backyard
flocks. The pox virus is also capable
of causing disease in almost any avian species
including pigeons, wild birds, turkeys, ducks,
quail, pheasant, and all breeds of chickens. Af-
fected birds exhibit poor growth, reduced egg
production, weight loss, and pox can cause
death in severely affected birds.
Forms of Avian Pox. Avian pox is a viral
disease that occurs in two forms: the dry (or
skin) form and the wet (or diphtheritic) form.
The dry form of avian pox causes lesions on
areas of the head, legs, and body that contain
no feathers. These lesions start as small blis-
ters, then progress into wart-like nodules and
later become dry scabs. Wet pox causes throat
and upper respiratory tract lesions that usually
begin as white nodules and may become large
patches which interfere with eating, drinking,
and breathing. The wet form of pox, when se-
vere enough, is likely to cause death in affected
avian species.
Spread of Avian Pox. Avian pox usually
spreads relatively slowly throughout the flock
by two methods: mosquitoes and scabs from
infected birds. Mosquitoes (Culex and Aedes
species) can harbor the virus for more than a
month after feeding on the blood of an infected
bird. Following feeding on affected birds the
mosquito is capable of transmitting the virus
to every unaffected birds on which she feeds.
The avian pox virus is high resistant in the dry
scabs from recovering birds and may be easily
transmitted to uninfected birds. Unaffected
birds can be infected from the scabs by virus
entering through skin abrasions and cuts. Birds
of all ages are susceptible to pox and the dis-
ease may occur at any time of the year. How-
ever, fully recovered birds do not remain carri-
ers.
Control of Avian Pox. Since no satisfac-
tory treatment exists for avian pox, it is best to
prevent the disease by vaccination. Several
pox vaccines are available for use in backyard
and commercial flocks. A wing-stick method
of vaccination using a two needle applicator
usually is used in chickens and pigeons.
Turkeys are most often vaccinated by the
thigh-stick method; this method may also be
used in pigeons. Birds can be vaccinated for
pox at any age if necessary, however, the
recommendations listed on the vaccine should
be followed as to age and route of administra-
tion. Vaccinated birds should be examined for
vaccination takes 7 to 10 days after vaccina-
tion. A vaccination take is an area of
swelling and scab formation at the injection
site. Satisfactory vaccination in a flock is
indicated by a large number of birds having
vaccination takes. A vaccination program
that routinely includes pox will help prevent
the problems associated with disease and
make the hobby of keeping backyard flocks
more enjoyable. For more information about
pox in birds contact Dr. Clark at 501-575-
4375 or your local Arkansas Cooperative
Extension Service county agent.
From: http://www.cvm.okstate.edu/~groups/
students/web/2001/virology/DNAviruses/
poxvirdae/fowl_pox1.jpg Used with permission.
If you would like to contact Dr. Bramwell, you may log onto his website at http://
www.uark.edu/depts/posc/bramwell.html. His e-mail and contact information is located
on his personal web page.
New Extension
Poultry Specialist
Arrives at U of A
Dr. Frank T. Jones Extension Section Leader
D
r. Keith Bramwell joined our team at the Center of Excellence for Poultry
Science, University of Arkansas in November. Dr. Bramwell is new to
Arkansas, but not new to Poultry Science.
Dr. Bramwells interest in poultry began when he was in grade school when he won
a contest at the county fair. The prize was a live chicken! This first chicken was no
prize, but he became interested in poultry and began breeding and showing chickens as
a hobby. When college opportunities came along, Dr. Bramwell eventually decided on a
career in Poultry Science and completed his Ph.D. in 1995 at the University of Georgia.
After graduation Dr. Bramwell worked for a year as a Post Doctoral Fellow at Colorado
State University before accepting a position as an Extension Poultry Specialist at the
University of Georgia in 1996. In this position, Dr. Bramwell was stationed at Tifton,
Georgia, some 200 miles from the main campus.
In spite of the fact that he was the only
Extension Poultry Scientist in a rapidly
growing poultry area, Dr. Bramwell
accomplished much. Dr. Bramwell was
responsible for breeder management,
hatchery management, broiler manage-
ment, game bird and ratite management,
waste management and 4-H/youth program
development in his position. Yet Dr.
Bramwell addressed each of the educa-
tional needs of his clientele and also
managed to become involved in several
research projects. Many in Arkansas know
Dr. Bramwell because of his frequent
involvement as a speaker on the Breeder
Program of the Arkansas Poultry Sympo-
sium.
We are extremely pleased to have Dr.
Keith Bramwell join our team at the Center
of Excellence for Poultry Science, Univer-
sity of Arkansas.
WELCOME!
Dr. R. Keith
Bramwell has joined
the University of
Arkansas poultry
science faculty as an
Extension Poultry
Specialist.
3
Because birds are
in continuous
contact with litter,
litter conditions
significantly
influence broiler
performance and,
eventually, the
profits of
producers and
integrators.
S.E. Watkins, J.B. Payne and A.L. Waldroup
Importance of Litter
Quality to Broiler
Producers
Tom Tabler Applied Broiler Unit Manager - Savoy
I
ntroduction. The quality of litter on the floor in our broiler houses probably does not in
most cases receive sufficient emphasis. As broiler producers, we are greatly concerned
about the quality of our chicks, feed and water, but seldom do we worry about litter.
However, because birds are in continuous contact with litter, litter conditions significantly
influence broiler performance and, eventually, the profits of producers and integrators. Litter
serves the following important functions
1
:
It absorbs moisture & promotes drying by increasing surface area of the house floor,
It dilutes fecal material, thus reducing contact between birds and manure, and
It insulates chicks from the cooling effects of the ground and provides a protective
cushion between the birds and the floor.
Pine shavings and sawdust
Hardwood shavings and
sawdust
Pine or hardwood chips
Rice hulls
Peanut hulls
Sugarcane pomace (bagasse)
Crushed corn cobs
Chopped straw, hay or corn
stover
Processed paper
Preferred litter material; limited in supply and
expensive in areas.
Often high in moisture and susceptible to dangerous
mold growth if stored improperly prior to use.
Used successfully, but may cause increased incidence
of breast blisters if allowed to become too wet.
A good litter material where available at a competitive
price. Young chicks may be prone to litter-eating (not
serious).
Very inexpensive litter material in peanut-producing
areas. Tends to cake and crust, but can be managed.
Some problems with pesticides have been noted in
the past.
Prone to caking first few weeks, but can be used
effectively.
Limited availability. Possible breast blister problems.
Considerable caking tendency. Mold growth also a
disadvantage.
Various forms have proven to be good litter material
in research and commercial situations. Topdressing
paper base with shavings may minimize caking.
Careful management essential.
1 Lacy, M.P. 1991. Litter quality and broiler performance. Univ. of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service
Publication No. L426-W.
LITTER QUALITY continued on page 4
An effective litter material must be absorbent, light, affordable and non-toxic. In addition, it
must be compatible as a fertilizer or livestock feed after it has served its purpose in the broiler
house. Many poultry growers also raise cattle, and view litter as a valuable fertilizer for
pastures and hay meadows or an economical feed ingredient for beef cattle. In view of its value,
steps should be taken to insure its litter quality for poultry and cattle producers alike. Table 1
(page 3) lists various materials that have been tried with some degree of success and briefly
discusses advantages and disadvantages of particular litter sources.
Ammonia and Pathogen Challenges. Todays modern broiler strains have the genetic
potential to gain weight and convert feed- to-meat at a remarkable rate. However, broilers do not
perform to their genetic potential in a less-than-optimum environment. Environmental quality is
highly dependent on litter quality and litter quality is influenced by 1) manure production and
2) moisture. As growers, we have little influence over the manure production portion, but we
can and must control litter moisture if we expect to maintain the quality litter conditions
necessary to produce a healthy, efficient and profitable flock. Excess litter moisture increases
the incidence of skin burns, breast blisters, condemnations and downgrades at processing. Wet
litter can further aggravate coccidiosis by providing an ideal environment for oocysts to
sporulate, increasing challenge levels. In addition, wet litter leads to ammonia production
one of the greatest challenges affecting broiler production today.
Volatilization of ammonia in poultry houses is caused by microbial decomposition of
nitrogenous compounds, principally the uric acid, in poultry house litter. Once formed, free
ammonia will be in one of two forms: the uncharged form of NH
3
(ammonia) or the charged
ammonium ion (NH
4
+
), depending on the pH of the litter. The gaseous release of ammonia
(NH
3
) can be inhibited if it is converted to ammonium (NH
4
+
), which can be accomplished by
lowering litter pH. Ammonia concentration tends to increase with increasing litter pH. Ammo-
nia release is small when litter pH is below 7.0, but can be substantial when litter pH is above
8.0. Uric acid decomposition is most favored under alkaline (pH > 7.0) conditions. Typically,
litter pH in a broiler house tends to be alkaline unless a litter treatment has been applied.
Various litter treatments are available for lowering litter pH including chemical, microbial and
enzyme-based products. In the past, the primary reason for using a litter treatment was to control
ammonia levels. However, in recent years, the reasons for using a litter treatment and potential
benefits from its use have expanded to include improvements in flock performance as well as
environmental concerns (mainly phosphorus issues).
Many poultry growers underestimate the serious detrimental effects of ammonia.
Humans are able to detect ammonia levels at around 20 parts per million (ppm) but most
growers (including the author) gradually lose this level of sensitivity over time. Ammonia
concentrations of 50 to 100 ppm cause the human eye to burn and tear. Birds are also sensitive
to ammonia. Prolonged exposure to high levels (50 to 100 ppm) causes keratoconjunctivitis
(blindness). This is most often seen in broiler flocks grown during cooler weather when the
curtains are up and minimum ventilation is used. Ammonia levels that are high enough to blind
birds obviously affect production; however, low levels of only 25 ppm can depress growth and
increase feed conversion. Yet it is possible to get litter too dry.
Litter that is too dry and dusty can cause dehydration of young chicks, respiratory
disease and increased condemnations. For ideal conditions, litter moisture should be maintained
at 20 to 25 percent. However, we all know that there are times when this is just not possible. A
good rule of thumb in estimating litter moisture is to squeeze a handful of litter. If it sticks
together tightly and remains in a ball, it is too wet. If it sticks together slightly, it has about the
proper moisture content. If it will not stick together at all, it is probably too dry.
The practice of using litter to grow multiple flocks before a total cleanout is performed
is commonplace in Arkansas. However, this practice requires a higher degree of management
since ammonia is always more of a problem on built-up litter than on new litter. In addition,
growers must be aware that, over time, used litter can become seeded with pathogens that
negatively affect bird performance. We at the Applied Broiler Research Unit used litter for an
extended period (3-4 years) and observed a slow, but steady increase in condemnation percent-
age as the number of flocks grown on the same litter increased. Parasites, such as roundworms,
tapeworms and coccidia, can be a potential problem in built-up litter as well. Laryngotracheitis,
avian influenza, gangrenous dermatitis, reovirus, gumboro, bronchitis and botulism are some of
LITTER QUALITY continued from page 3
LITTER QUALITY continued on page 5
Many poultry
growers under-
estimate the
serious
detrimental
effects of
ammonia.
5
the more serious viral and bacterial diseases also known to spread easily in contaminated litter.
While a total cleanout after each flock could minimize the possibility of disease spread and
parasitic infestation, cost and time restraints make this practice an unrealistic option for most
producers.
Proper Litter Management. There are a number of factors that affect litter moisture
and quality and some factors can be controlled with farm management practices, some can=t.
For instance, growers can control whether or not new litter is damp before spreading. However,
nutrition (an area where growers have little control) can also influence litter quality. Certain
dietary ingredients (salt for one), when fed in excess, cause broilers to consume and excrete
large amounts of water resulting in wet litter conditions. Some drugs may also stimulate excess
water consumption and excretion. Environmental conditions such as very cold temperatures or
several days of wet and humid weather can also result in wet litter if the broiler house ventila-
tion system is unable to eliminate moisture effectively. During periods of hot weather, waterers,
foggers, and evaporative cooling pads can contribute to wet litter problems if not managed and
maintained properly. Some key points to remember concerning quality litter management
include:
1. Increase minimum ventilation rates the first few days of the flock to reduce
ammonia levels at this critical stage in the life of the birds.
2. In colder weather, bring adequate fresh air into the house. In negative pressure
houses, static pressure should range from .05 to .10 inches of water so that air
velocity through inlets stays within the 600 to 1200 feet per minute range. This will
keep a jet of air above the birds, prevent cold air from dropping to the floor as it
enters the house and promotes good air mixing.
3. Use stir or mixing fans to move air within the house. These fans will move hot air,
which can hold more moisture, off the ceiling, closer to the floor and help dry the
litter.
4. Maintain proper height and pressure adjustments on nipple water systems.
5. Check for water leaks often, and promptly repair.
6. Promptly remove the affected litter when leaks or spills occur.
7. Add supplemental heat when necessary to facilitate moisture removal. As the inside
air is warmed, its ability hold moisture increases. This combination of heating and
ventilating will remove considerable amounts of moisture from the house.
8. Ensure adequate drainage around the house so that no moisture seeps in from
outside.
9. Remove all caked litter after each flock if a total cleanout is not undertaken.
10. Leave curtains down between flocks to allow fresh air to blow through houses.
This will help dilute ammonia release and pathogenic challenge.
Summary. Litter serves several functions in the broiler house; it absorbs moisture and pro-
motes drying by increasing surface area of the floor, dilutes fecal material, insulates chicks from
the cold ground and provides a protective cushion between birds and floor. It must be light,
absorbent, affordable and non-toxic. In addition, it is a valuable commodity for later use as a
fertilizer or livestock feed and should be managed with this in mind.
One of the greatest challenges to broiler production today is ammonia. How well
growers manage ammonia determines, in large part, how well their flock performs. And how
well they have maintained their litter quality determines how much ammonia they will have to
manage. The gaseous release of ammonia from the litter tends to increase with increasing litter
pH.
The practice of reusing old litter to grow multiple flocks is commonplace but requires a
higher degree of management to be successful. Not only is ammonia more of a problem on
built-up litter, but pathogens that negatively affect bird performance may also become seeded in
the litter. While a total cleanout after each flock might be ideal, in reality, this practice is
usually not an option for most producers due to cost constraints.
Numerous factors affect the quality of broiler litter. Growers should constantly be alert
to changing litter conditions and take necessary steps to insure optimum litter quality for
increased bird performance and, have a valuable commodity for use as a fertilizer or livestock
feed at cleanout time.
LITTER QUALITY continued from page 4
Reference:
Lacy, M. P. 1991. Litter
quality and broiler perfor-
mance. Univ. of Georgia
Service Publication No.
L426-W.
Some
Key Points
to remember
concerning
quality litter
management:
Tom Tabler Applied Broiler Unit Manager - Savoy
Computers and Controllers:
Technology Goes Down on
the Farm
1
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
I
ntroduction. The average poultry farmer in the United States usually operates a farm with two
to four grow-out houses. If this farmer is a broiler grower, the control of temperature, relative
humidity, ammonia levels, feed consumption and water consumption within each house deter-
mines the size and quality of broilers produced. Most poultry producers presently utilize some type
of electronic monitoring or control system (e.g. timers or thermostats) to help them control house
conditions. In the past, farmers used their own judgment to determine when to turn brooders,
furnaces, fans, foggers, and other equipment on or off and each piece of equipment was operated
independently. Today, however, an increasing number of producers are turning to some form of
computerized control. Farm computer systems allow the grower to simultaneously monitor and
control equipment from one unit at a central location in or near each house.
Background History. Affordable personal computers, with their versatile capabilities, were
first introduced in the U.S. market in the early 1980s. Researchers and commercial firms soon
realized that poultry farmers could benefit from computer-based systems that would allow them to
check house conditions and adjust equipment settings from a single location. Egg producers were
among the first to move to totally computerized management systems, which allowed them to keep
flock performance records, monitor house conditions and adjust equipment settings in multiple
houses from a single remote location such as a farm office. However, individual broiler grow-out
operations generally could not afford these initial systems. As a result, research groups began
focusing on simpler, lower-cost alternatives. One of the earliest development efforts took place at the
Georgia Tech Research Institute in the mid-1980s.
2
What has evolved from those efforts is a rather
simple process where a personal computer within the farm office communicates with a central
controller located within each grow-out house. Such a set-up can be modified for each farm allowing
producers to keep an eye on their operations at all times and generate data for specific periods within
a grow-out or for an entire flock
Some Currently Available Systems. Some of the companies actively marketing these
systems include: Aerotech, Inc., Chore-Time Equipment Inc., Hired Hand Inc., Poultry Management
Systems, Inc., and Rotem Computerized Controllers Ltd. Since systems offer unique features and
differences with respect to ease of use, cost, reliability, etc., prospective buyers must evaluate his/her
needs vs. system capabilities. As with almost everything else, you get what you pay for. The more
features you get, the more the system costs. Depending on the functions ordered, the cost of a farm
computer system could range from $1,500 to $10,000. Although some growers may not be able to
pay this initial investment, these systems can provide useful information to integrators. In view of
the benefits to integrators, programs in which growers and integrators share the initial investment
costs could encourage the rapid adoption this technology.
The Up Side. Farm computer technology could provide potential benefits to virtually every
aspect of poultry production. Processing plants could benefit from greater uniformity in bird
weights. The feed mill could use on-line information provided by farm systems to schedule feed
deliveries. Live-production managers could check average bird weights. Service technicians could
identify possible symptoms that might indicate developing health problems requiring a necessary
farm visit and growers would have a powerful tool to augment their management skills. Improved
environmental control alone could help the poultry grower earn more money by reducing bird stress,
thereby improving bird health.
COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY continued on page 7
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
1
Mention of trade names
does not constitute endorse-
ment by the University of
Arkansas Cooperative
Extension Service or the
Center of Excellence for
Poultry Science and does not
imply their approval to the
exclusion of other products
that may be suitable.
2
Angela Colar, Georgia
Tech Research Institute,
personal communication.
7
The Down Side. Two important challenges remain to large-scale integration of the more sophisticated farm computer
technology: integrators/producer cost share plans and the establishment of a standard communications protocol for all systems.
Working out equitable funding schemes between integrators and farmers to assist with system purchase costs is currently a work-
in-progress in many companies. Development of a standard communications protocol is an area where integrators may need to
become more assertive. Current controller systems operate using unique proprietary software. Without a standard communications
protocol, integrators would be forced to maintain several different software packages to ensure access to data from each farm. In
reality, maintaining any number of different software packages is not a viable option. Standard communication protocols must be
developed.
Getting Started Right. Most new-house construction and many retrofitted older houses now have electronic systems
that control most (if not all) of the heating, cooling and ventilation equipment in the house (e.g. fans, foggers, brooders, furnaces,
curtains, and ventilation inlets). Growers must understand the workings of these sophisticated controller systems, otherwise they
will be of little value. Spending thousands of dollars for a system you dont thoroughly understand and cant utilize to its maxi-
mum potential is money thrown away. Make sure that the salesperson or the technician who installs your system has thoroughly
explained all of the system features and that you understand all of the system capabilities before you let the representative drive
away. You have no way of knowing if the controller is working correctly if you are unsure how the system operates.
Backup Systems. Once you understand how your controller works you must then have a plan of action in place for
when it doesnt work (in the event of a controller malfunction or an electrical power outage). Backup power systems are becom-
ing more of a necessity each year as the poultry industry shifts to more sophisticated broiler housing. There was a time growers
had little control over bird comfort and control of ventilation simply meant adjusting the curtain openings. In those days, if you
didnt get things exactly right, nothing too drastic was likely to go wrong. However, the adoption of power ventilation has meant
that those days are now long gone and far away. Today, the development of ventilation modes (minimum, transitional and tunnel
ventilation) for different weather has yielded vast improvements in our ability to control the in-house environment. Growers are
now able to achieve a much higher level of performance on a year-round basis because of the ability to keep temperature and air
quality factors consistently within the birds comfort zone. However, this higher performance has a price tag.
Generally, less day-to-day adjustment of controls is required with environmentally controlled housing; but the need to
monitor the house environment, the birds, and the desired target settings becomes an even more critical daily task, and the risk of
a catastrophic loss from power or equipment failure becomes an even greater concern. A power failure or controller malfunction
on one of the larger, more sophisticated, high bird density broiler houses of today puts the entire flock at great risk within minutes
unless backup power systems are in place and work properly. Remember these backup systems cannot be part of the primary
control system. All backup systems must be independent of the main power supply.
Curtain Drops. Perhaps the oldest form of system backup is the standard curtain drop which has the basic function of
dropping the curtains in the event of a power failure. However, some producers (including the Broiler Research Farm at Savoy)
also electronically tie curtain drops to the high-temperature thermostat so that the curtains drop if the house temperature gets too
hot. While curtain drops may always function normally, it is a good idea to periodically inspect the release winches to make sure
they spin freely and are in good working condition. During the winter, it is good to attach a short length of chain to the curtain
cable and the wall to limit the amount that the curtain can open so as to not chill the birds if the curtain drops.
Controller Backup. Today a grower almost has to have an independent backup for any integrated electronic controller.
This allows the controller to operate within the range that you set. However, the backup system will take over when the primary
system gets to far away from the range you establish. This means that you want to set each system so that the backup system does
not activate except in emergencies. For instance, if the desired electronic controller target temperature is 80 F, you may want to
set the high limit temperature on your backup controller about 10 F above the target temperature. This will prevent the 2 systems
from fighting one another but will not allow the temperature range to get totally out of hand. Growers must remember to adjust
the temperature set points on BOTH the primary controller and the backup system to reflect the changing temperature need of the
growing birds. The low limit for heating must also be set just as a high limit for cooling mentioned earlier. Most people will agree
that this set point should be about 10F below the target temperature. It is crucial that the settings on backup systems be adjusted
when the primary controller is adjusted.
Generators. The ideal situation would be for all poultry houses to have generators, but conventionally ventilated houses
can sometimes be managed without electricity. Curtain-sided houses can be set up so that curtains drop to reduce losses from heat
stress. However, totally enclosed houses must have generators, since fans provide the only means of ventilation or cooling of
these houses. The generators on totally enclosed houses must automatically start and provide power to the house within a few
minutes in order to maintain suitable within the house. One of the features on your controller system should be the ability to stage
start the fans so that the surge load on the generator is reduced. It is a good idea to start the generator periodically and allow it to
run for four to five minutes so that it will start and run when needed. In addition, it is essential that you have enough fuel to run a
minimum of 24 hours on hand. It is also wise to an adequate amount other essential fluids (i.e. motor oil, hydraulic fluid, coolant,
etc) on hand.
COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY continued from page 6
COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY continued on page 8
Identification of Poultry
Parasite Problem
Summary. Electronic controllers and computers have been available for farm operations
since the mid-1980s. As sophistication of houses increases within the poultry industry electronic
controllers will become more commonplace. A wide array of controllers in various price ranges is
currently available from various manufactures. This technology has the potential to provide valuable
information to growers, service techs, feed mill, live production and processing plant personnel.
However, proper training and a thorough understanding of system features are necessary to take
advantage of the benefits. Challenges still remain in the areas of integrator/grower cost sharing and
in standard communication protocols. Backup systems, including curtain drops, backup controllers
and stand-alone generators, are essential to guard against catastrophic losses in event of controller
malfunction or power outage. These backup systems must be routinely checked, serviced and
maintained to guarantee performance when needed.
________________
Special thanks to Angela Colar, Georgia Tech Research Institute, for portions of the information
contained herein.
COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY continued from page 7
Dr. F. Dustan Clark Extension Poultry Veterinarian
I
ntroduction. There are a large variety of parasites that cause problems in the avian species. These
problems can be corrected easier if a few facts are known about the parasites life cycle, clinical
signs, parasite identification and treatment.
Poultry parasites can be grouped in two broad categories: (1) external and (2) internal para-
sites. The external parasites are more readily observed and include various species of lice, mites, ticks,
fleas and biting insects. Internal parasites include the various species of worms and protozoa and are
usually more difficult to detect.
External Parasites. When birds are parasitized by external parasites, the signs and methods
of parasite detection depend on the parasite involved. The biting insects such as mosquitoes, gnats,
beetles, and bed bugs usually cause some degree of poor growth in young birds or poor performance,
anemia, and skin irritation in older animals. Often the parasites can be identified by close examination
of affected birds (especially at night or late evening) to look for the actual insects on or around the bird.
These species of parasites can be treated by sanitation, routine pest control protocols, insecticide strips
in the area, screening, or use of flying insect electrocution devices (bug zappers).
If birds have damaged feathers, excessively preen and scratch, and have decreased activity
and productivity they may be infested with lice. The lice are easily detected on the bird. They are flat,
fast moving and brown to yellow in color, many people call them dandruff that runs. Lice are usually
found on the head, neck, or vent areas of the bird. Lice eggs (nits) may be observed attached to feathers
in the above areas. A few species of lice live inside the shaft of the feather and can only be detected by
splitting the feather shaft with a sharp blade. Lice are easily treated with sprays or powders that contain
pyrethrins, rotenone, and carbaryl. The treatment should be repeated in 2-3 weeks and cages should be
cleaned and disinfected.
Mites are another external parasite affecting poultry. Some species (Knemidocoptes) cause
severe irritation and a crusty appearance on the legs. This mite is referred to as the scaly leg mite. If the
infestation is severe enough, the bird may have weight loss, leg deformation, difficulty walking, poor
POULTRY PARASITES continued on page 9
9
production, and could die. These mites are very small and only visible with magnification. They can be readily observed with a
microscope in a scrapings of the affected leg scales and dry crusts that form on them. The best treatment for scaly leg mites is
ivermectin; however, topical preparations containing such chemicals as rotenone can also be used.
Other species of mites, such as the Chicken red mite, cause unthriftiness, feather damage from excessive preening, and
anemia. However, this mite is not easily detected since it lives off the bird and only gets on the bird at night to take a blood meal.
Birds should be examined at night for restlessness and the presence of tiny red to brown colored moving spots. The roosting perches
and nest boxes can also be checked for the presence of mites.
Another mite species, the Northern fowl mite, causes similar signs in chickens. This mite differs from the red mite in that
it is grey to black in color and can be found on the bird during the day. Handling of affected birds may also reveal the mites on your
hands. The treatment for red and fowl mites is the same (pyrethrins, carbaryl, rotenone, etc. sprays or powders) but the application
is somewhat different. It is very important that the treatment for red mites include the perches and cage environment, in addition to
the bird; whereas with fowl mites treatment of the bird is usually sufficient.
Fleas and ticks may be occasionally found on chickens. These parasites can cause anemia and unthriftiness and are readily
visible. They should be treated with sprays or powders in the same manner as lice. Good sanitation of the birds environment will
also help control them.
Internal Parasites. The internal parasites are more difficult to detect by observation and examination; and as such usually
require microscopic examination of feces to detect their eggs. One of the most common internal parasites is ascarids, usually
referred to as roundworms.
Birds infested with roundworms may have weakness, diarrhea, weight loss, and poor condition. Occasionally, an
obstruction of the intestines can result causing sudden death. The adult worms may be seen in droppings but usually the condition
is diagnosed by microscopic observation of eggs in a fecal smear or flotation. The eggs are thick shelled and round in appearance.
Ascarids are easily controlled by regular use of piperazine, levamisole, or ivermectin. Good sanitation is also very important to
control ascarids since birds are infected by consuming materials which have been contaminated with ascarid egg laden feces from
infected birds.
The threadworms or capillarial worms may also be a problem. The signs are similar to roundworm infestation in that weight
loss, poor condition and diarrhea may be present in affected birds. However, one species of capillaria lives in the crop and esophagus
and may cause vomiting or swallowing difficulty. These worms are rarely observed in feces or mouth discharges since they are very
thin and filamentous. Eggs can be observed using a microscope and fecal flotation. A fecal smear may also be positive and a scraping
or swab from the mouth or crop of an affected bird may show a few eggs. The eggs are readily distinguished from roundworm eggs
since they are elongated with plugs at each end (bipolar). Treatment is similar to ascarids except that piperazine may not be as
effective in capillarial infections. Sanitation is also important to prevent reinfection of birds via access to infected feces.
The worm known as the gapeworm (Syngamus sp.) should be considered if birds are having difficulty breathing and are
constantly gaping (hence the parasites name). They are commonly seen in pheasants and guinea fowl. These worms live in the
trachea and bronchi of the birds respiratory system and may be occasionally seen in the trachea by the owner when the bird gapes for
air. A fecal flotation will show the eggs and a microscopic examination of excess mucous from the mouth and trachea may reveal
eggs similar in appearance to capillaria worms. The worms eggs are passed from an infected bird and either ingested by a nonin-
fected bird or eaten by an intermediate host (beetle, worm, etc.) which is in turn eaten by the bird. Sanitation is important to prevent
infestations and good insect control is necessary. Affected birds can be treated with several compounds such as ivermectin or
levamisole and in some instances the worms can be physically removed from the trachea of the bird using small forceps.
Two parasites which live in the gizzard and proventriculus are Dispharynx sp. and Tetrameres respectively. The worms use
intermediate hosts such as beetles, arthropods, etc. which are in turn eaten by the birds. The signs are similar to other worm infesta-
tions and commonly include weight loss, diarrhea, inactivity, and unthriftiness. A routine microscopic exam of a fecal smear or
flotation may not show the eggs and it is advisable to check the sediment of the fecal flotation for ovoid eggs. These parasites cause
considerable inflammation in the gizzard and proventriculus. Treatment should be directed towards eliminating the worms and
preventing access to or eliminating intermediate hosts. Ivermectin and levamisole are affective to treat the worms and intermediate
hosts can be controlled with insecticides and better sanitation.
Tapeworms (cestodes) are one of the most common internal parasites observed by poultry owners. The reason is not that
tapeworms are a widespread problem in birds, but that the tapeworm segments are usually large enough to be readily seen in feces.
These parasites are flattened, ribbon like worms which attach to the small intestinal wall and compete with the bird for nutrients.
Several species of tapeworms can affect birds. A severe infestation can cause diarrhea, weight loss, and even intestinal impaction.
Microscopic examination of fecal flotations will reveal eggs or worm segments; often the segments are observed in the feces directly.
Tapeworms also use an intermediate host such as a beetle or ant, in their life cycle. An effective treatment is the drug niclosamide or
praziquantel coupled with improved sanitation and insect control.
Internal parasites, other than worms, which are of importance are protozoa. The most common gastrointestinal protozoal
infections in pet birds are Coccidia, and Trichomoniasis.
POULTRY PARASITES continued on page 10
POULTRY PARASITES continued from page 8
Coccidiosis is a common problem in backyard poultry and can be caused by several species of
the protozoa Eimeria. The signs associated with these infections include diarrhea (often bloody), weight
loss, weakness, and death losses. These parasites reproduce in the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract
and can reach large numbers of infective oocysts in a few days. A diagnosis of coccidiosis is done by
microscopic examination of feces, either by direct smear or flotation, for oocysts shed in the feces. It
is important to practice good sanitation. Treatment for coccidia includes sulfa drugs, amprolium, and
other anticoccidial compounds available.
The parasite Trichomonas also affects the gastrointestinal tract of various avian species. Pi-
geons and doves are the most commonly affected species but the disease has also been observed in
chickens and turkeys. Birds infected with Trichomonas sp may have weight loss, vomiting, respiratory
difficulty and possibly dry or wet cauliflower type lesions observed in the mouth. An infection by
Trichomonas may also lead to secondary bacterial infections because of damage to the gastrointestinal
lining thus allowing bacterial invasion. The parasite can be identified microscopically using crop and
saliva wet mounts. Treatment is similar to that for Giardia and proper sanitation is very important since
it is spread to other birds by direct contact.
Summary. Parasite control in the avian species is dependent on recognizing signs of
parasitism, identification of the parasite, and good sanitation. Poultry owners should carefully
examine and observe all birds periodically to check for signs of parasite problems or diseases.
Several of the parasites (or signs there of) can be easily found if care is taken to adequately examine
the feathering (external parasites) and weight condition (internal parasites) of any bird. If available,
a microscope can be used to examine a direct fecal smear, throat wet mount, or fecal flotation for the
presence of internal parasite eggs or protozoans. If parasites are found they should be treated with
an appropriate drug and, since there are many different drugs for parasites, a veterinarian should be
consulted for the appropriate dose to prevent toxicity problems. In all cases of parasitism good
husbandry and sanitation practices are important to prevent spread and reinfection.
POULTRY PARASITES continued from page 9
Coccidiosis is a
common problem
in backyard
poultry...
Biology and Control
of Bed Bugs
I
ntroduction. The Bed Bug is associated with humans and poultry in most areas of the
world. The life cycle consists of the egg, 5 stages of nymphs (each one progressively larger
than the preceding) and the adults. Adults Bed Bugs are reddish brown in color while the
nymphs and eggs are yellowish white. Bed Bugs feed only at night and hide in crevices or
cracks during the day. They are gregarious, hiding in great numbers in dark areas where the eggs
are deposited. The areas surrounding hiding places are generally covered with tarry black
excrement and contain large accumulations of nymphs. Bed Bug infestations are most often a
problem in breeder houses, but can also be occasionally found in broiler houses.
Monitoring. Because the Bed Bugs feed at night, the monitoring for the presence of
Bed Bugs in poultry flocks should be conducted at night. Birds, cracks, crevices in roosts, slats,
and nesting boxes should be thoroughly examined with a bright light to detect the presence of
the Bed Bugs.
Biology. The female deposits eggs in batches of 10-50, totaling 200-500. The eggs are
relatively large and are laid in a large yellowish white patch. Eggs usually hatch in about 10
Dr. F. Dayton Steelman Entomologist
Department of Entomology University of Arkansas
BED BUGS continued on page 15
(Cimex lectularius L.)
in Poultry Houses
The copyrighted photo above was
obtained from Dr. Marcelo de
Campos Pereira, Department of
Parasitology, Institute of Biomedi-
cal Sciences, University of Sao
Paulo, Brazil.
Used with permission.
http://icb.usp.br/~marcelcop
11
Water Quality can
Influence Poultry
Performance
Dr. Susan Watkins Extension Poultry Specialist
I
ntroduction. Since young rapidly growing birds typically consume twice as much water as
feed, it is important to supply birds with a clean, healthy water supply. Water not only
serves as a vital nutrient but it also has many essential functions. Water softens feed in the
crop, serves as a carrier for feed moving through the digestive tract and acts as an aid in several
digestive processes. In addition, water is the key component of blood and lymph that are vital
for a healthy immune system. Birds rely heavily on the evaporative cooling effect of water loss
from the lungs and air sacs for temperature control during heat stress. Therefore factors which
might alter water quality such as changes in bacterial content, pH, nitrogen levels, hardness or
mineral levels might directly impact water consumption or the birds ability to utilize consumed
water.
Unfortunately much of the water quality information is several years old and the modern
broiler has undergone dramatic changes in growth rate, feed efficiency and immune system
function. Recent field observations indicate the modern broiler may be more susceptible to
water quality problems as compared to the type of broiler that was in the field just ten years ago.
Complicating the issue, many water supplies such as well water, are very dynamic and can
change in quality as often as season to season. If a producer experiences poor flock performance
as measured by feed passage, poor weight gains or health problems that can not be explained, it
might be worth while to have the water supply evaluated.
Level considered
average
Maximum
acceptable level
Contaminant,
mineral or ion
Bacteria
total bacteria
Coliform bacteria
Acidity and hardness
pH
Total hardness
Naturally occurring elements
Calcium (Ca)
Chloride (Cl)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Nitrate
Sulfate
Zinc
Sodium (Na)
0 CFU/ml
0 CFU/ml
6.8 - 7.5
60-180 ppm
60 mg/l
14 mg/l
0.002 mg/l
0.2 mg/l
0
14 mg/l
10 mg/l
125 mg/l
32 mg/l
100 CFU/ml
50 CFU/ml
6.0 - 8.0
110 ppm
250 mg/l
0.6 mg/l
0.3 mg/l
0.02 mg/l
125 mg/l
25 mg/l
250 mg/l
1.5 mg/l
50 mg/l
Source: Muirhead, Sarah. 1995. Good, clean water is critical component
of poultry production. Feedstuffs.
Acceptable Water Quality.
Acceptable and unacceptable water
quality parameters for poultry are
outlined in Table 1. Note that CFU/ml
means colony forming units of bacteria/
milliliter of water and mg/l is also the
same as ppm or parts per million. A
good rule of thumb for understanding
how much is a ppm is think of one gallon
of sugar dissolved into a million gallons
of water. That would give 1 ppm of
sugar. While parts per million of any-
thing seems quite small, remember, the
birds already receive a balanced diet and
if they are also receiving such nutrients
as salt in the water in the form of sodium
and chloride ions, then over time the
birds may exhibit poor performance
because they just have more than their
systems can handle.
WATER QUALITY continued on page 12
Summary. In conclusion, water is the most essential nutrient birds receive, yet the quality of
water is often overlooked. Providing flocks with a clean, wholesome water source can make a
difference in performance. Should water be a suspect for flock problems, contact your county
agent for information on how and where to have a water sample tested.
Water pH. While pH is not a chemical or specific contaminant, it can impact water quality.
First, it impacts the effectiveness of disinfectants such as chlorine. If the pH is above 8.0, the
chlorine is present mainly as chloric ions that add very little sanitizing quality. Chlorine is most
effective when used in water with a pH of 6.0 to 7.0. This pH level results in a greater percent-
age of hypochlorous ions that are a strong sanitizer. Water treatments which acidify the water
may provide a beneficial protection against bacterial action in the birds digestive tract, but be
careful not overuse acidifiers such as citric or acetic acid products because they may cause birds
to consume less water. One company could not understand why all of their birds consistently
experienced weight gains below average after seven days of age.The problem was discovered to
be the addition of citric acid to the drinking water at six days of age for the rest of the growout
cycle. Removal of the citric acid from the drinking water and supplementing it for short
intervals throughout the grow cycle returned weight gains to normal.
Unfortunately interpreting the effects of water contaminates on poultry performance is not
always straightforward. Several years ago, a company conducted an evaluation of water quality
and its impact on bird performance. This company found that while certain contaminants might
not cause problems when present alone, the contaminants would have a detrimental effect on
performance when other contaminants were present. Table 2 shows the relationship on of
several chemicals.
Levels
(mg/l)
Effect
Chemical
combinations
Sodium
Chloride
Sodium
Sulfate
Sulfate
Magnesium
Sodium
Bicarbonate
Nitrates
Magnesium
Sulfate
50
14
50
50
50
50
200
500 or greater
> 20
68
50
Detrimental to performance
No effect
Source: Waggoner, R.E., R.W. Good, and R.E. Good. 1984. Water Quality
and Poultry Production, North Carolina Nutrition Conference.
Water Line Sanitation. A regular water
sanitation and water line cleaning program can
provide protection against microbial contamina-
tion and the build-up of bio-films, a clear slimy
film, in water lines. While bio-films may not be a
source of problem to birds, once established in
water lines, bio-films provide a place for more
detrimental bacteria and viruses to hide from
disinfectants. On several occasions water samples
taken at the well house have been compared to
samples taken at the end of the water line in the
poultry house and counts would be much higher in
the latter samples. Once detrimental bacteria or
even large numbers of normal bacteria become
present in water supplies, then bird performance
could be jeopardized. In addition, the warm
environment of the poultry house can aggravate
contamination by encouraging bacteria to grow in
water lines. A single E. coli organism can multiply
into 24 trillion organisms in 24 hours at a tempera-
ture of 90 F. Table 3 provides recommendations
for routine water line cleaning and sanitizing.
Ammonia
(Water pH is
less than 7.2)
Citric Acid
(Water pH higher
than 7.2)
35%
Hydrogen
Peroxide
Household
Bleach
(Chlorine) Vinegar Iodine
6 oz. Clear
household
Ammonia per
gallon water
1 pack Citric
Acid per
gallon
water
1/2 to
3/4 oz.
per gallon
water
5 to 6 oz.
Household
Bleach per
gallon water
64 oz. White
Household
Vinegar per
64 oz. water
2 oz. of 18.05%
Iodine Complex
Disinfectant per
one gallon of
stock solution
Stock solutions to be metered at a rate of 1 oz. stock/128 oz.
1
1 Use the 18.05% iodine product with rubber seated drinkers.
Source: Water is the most important nutrient, I.D. Russell, Company, Longmont, CO.
WATER QUALITY continued from page 11
13
Dr. R. Keith Bramwell Extension Poultry Specialist
Combating Floor
and Slat Eggs in the
Breeder House
I
ntroduction. Hatching eggs laid on the floor or slats of the breeder house can present a signifi
cant problem for the hatching egg producer as well as the integrator. Most eggs laid on the floor
or slats are unacceptable as hatching eggs because of the increased likelihood of being cracked
and/or contaminated. Unfortunately, often these eggs are, at most, gently wiped off and placed with
nest clean eggs in the egg cooler. Once delivered to the hatchery, it only takes a small few contami-
nated eggs placed in the setter to further contaminate the environment and many of the surrounding
eggs. The best case scenario is that only those eggs placed near the floor eggs in the incubator racks
will be affected. Therefore, floor and slat eggs are costly to the contract breeder grower as they may
cause reductions in overall hatchability of eggs from their own flock. More importantly, these
contaminated eggs that somehow slip in with nest clean hatching eggs are often very costly to the
integrator as they can affect hatchability and chick quality from eggs of other flocks placed nearby in
the setters. The incidence of floor and slat eggs in the breeder house can range from moderate to
severe with reports of floor and slat eggs exceeding 25 percent in some cases.
Laying and Nesting Behavior. The basic nature of the breeder hen tells her to find a nesting
site where she can feel safe, secure and comfortable. She is searching for a place where she feels
will be suitable to incubate and raise chicks. Obviously, commercial broiler breeders will never
incubate and brood young, but their basic instincts tell them they should find an appropriate site to
do so.
Manufacturers of nesting equipment, as well as those involved in designing breeder houses,
have attempted to provide ideal nesting areas for breeder hens. However, ease of gathering and
handling hatching eggs is of equal if not greater concern to the hatching egg producer. Therefore, the
nature of the commercial poultry industry and the design of breeder houses in general, allow for egg
laying in other than designated areas of the breeder house. Proper flock training and management, as
will be discussed, can encourage hens to use the designated nest sites for egg laying. The design or
setup of a breeder house should, as much as possible,
SLAT EGGS continued on page 14
What Causes Floor Eggs? Floor and slat eggs are not a new problem to the
poultry industry. Recently, this problem was readdressed with a group of hatching egg
producers and a list of causes for their increase in the incidence of floor eggs was
identified. As these areas were addressed, the percentage of flocks with floor egg
problems was reduced by more than one half. Further improvements continue for this
group of hatching egg producers.
The first area identified was poor initial training of the birds by the grower. This is
a preventive measure in combating the incidence of floor/slat eggs in the breeder house.
As a preventive measure, it is critical that training of the birds be performed prior to the
onset of the chores of gathering hatching eggs. It is not uncommon for growers to want
to extend their resting time after house preparation until the first eggs appear because
they never had a floor egg problem before. Indeed, they deserve the time off as the
demands are heavy for hatching egg producers. However, late training of birds is not
effective once floor/slat eggs become a problem since birds are creatures of habit and
tend to reuse the same nesting sites day after day.
Placing too many
hens in the breeder
house places limits
on each hens
access to proper
nesting sites.
To properly train breeders to use the nest boxes, it is important that birds be walked several
times each day prior to egg production. It is recommended that the slats and scratch area are walked
at least six and up to 10 times each day prior to egg production. This will encourage hens to find the
nests and acclimate them to the breeder house and the associated human activity. However, rapidly
walking the breeder house and not training the birds to use the nests and get up on the slats is not
effective. Rapid walking tends to startle the hens and scare them away from the nests. Walk the hens
slowly, especially during the training period. Walk the houses in a pattern that will force the birds
toward the nesting sites, not away from them. If the pattern of grower traffic forces birds into corners,
they will be introduced to improper potential nesting sites. The slat area should be walked close to
the side walls and corners to encourage bird movement away from the edges and toward the nest
boxes. Walking the birds should be continued through their peak in egg production although less
often as the birds become trained.
As previously discussed, housing design and equipment layout coupled with bird management
protocol can often encourage floor and slat eggs. For instance, placing too many hens in the breeder
house places limits on each hens access to proper nesting sites. Although the nest manufacturers
suggested number of hens per nest hole will vary, the industry average is 5.5 hens per nest hole.
Further complicating the matter is the fact that hens, being creatures of habit, will generally choose
the same nesting site day after day to lay their eggs. That is why many times multiple hens will pile
in one nest box when a neighboring box is empty. Each hen feels that box belongs to them and it is
the same place they were the day before. If access to their specific box is denied, they may choose an
alternative nest site such as the floor or slat area. Make sure that the number of birds housed does not
exceed the recommendations for the nest type in the breeder house. Also, make sure that all nest
boxes are accessible to the hens. Take into account hen houses that may be partially used for housing
surplus males and consequently are rendering a number of nest boxes inaccessible to the hens. This
setup can create additional dark spots and corners within the house at an impressionable age of the
young hens.
Another similarly associated factor was ease of access to the nest boxes and ease of going from
the floor to the slat area. If a hen cannot see the nest boxes or they are difficult to get into she is less
likely to enter. This problem can actually increase as birds age. Older birds are heavier and often have
reduced mobility due to physical limitations caused by foot and leg problems. Ramps or perches on
the fronts of the nests or slanted slats at the front edge of the nests have proven to be helpful. Slat
height should also be kept to a minimum. It is recommended that slat height not exceed 20-22 inches
from the ground to the front edge of the slat. As birds scratch in the litter below the slats, the slat
height is often exceeded in houses with older flocks. Coincidently, this is also the time when birds are
often less mobile.
Another area identified was poor nest sanitation and preparation prior to egg production.
Dirty belts and manure buildup on nest pads tend to discourage hens from entering the nest hole.
Every factor needs to be attended to in order to encourage hens to use the appropriate nest sites. From
a sanitation standpoint, eggs which are laid in dirty nests will be similar to many of the floor and slat
eggs. Additionally, worn nest pads tend to be uncomfortable to the hens and may discourage them
from using the proper nesting sites. Birds prefer a clean and dry area to lay their eggs. Clean and
comfortable nest sites will assist in enticing hens to find and continue using the nest boxes provided
for them.
A fourth factor was poor feeding methods and equipment problems that caused birds to spend
too much time at the feeders. Excessive time intervals between feeder run times causes birds to spend
extra time on slats near the feeders waiting for feed. In adequate feeder space for the number of hens
housed will also cause birds to hover around the feed lines for longer than necessary. Feed spills over
the slats not only create serious pest control problems and are costly to the integrator, they cause
shortages in feed and, after accumulation under the slats cause additional areas where hens will
hover. Time spent eating, looking or waiting for feed is time that should be spent in or around the
nest boxes. Increases in slat eggs are often related to feed or water problems. Also, male feeders
running for prolonged periods of time tend to attract hens to the scratch area during the peak egg-
laying times of the day. Male feeder problems are confounded when feed spills occur. When hens are
excessively drawn to the scratch area at this time of day, an increase in floor eggs usually results.
Poor ventilation was also found to contribute to the incidence of floor and slat eggs especially
in the newer houses, such as tunnel ventilated houses. When air movement within the house is
Slat Eggs continued from page 14
SLAT EGGS continued on page 15
15
insufficient, birds have a tendency to migrate to a more comfortable area of the house. One addi-
tional problem identified was late transfer of pullets to the breeder house. Some producers feel that
maintaining pullets in the pullet house several extra days will improve bird fleshing and conforma-
tion. This has been a somewhat recent trend within certain areas of the poultry industry. Producers
believe they can hold birds in the pullet house longer in order to improve uniformity of sexual
maturity within the flock. Although in many cases their desired results have been achieved, there
have been several side effects of this practice. Obviously, the pullets have a shorter period of time in
the hen house before egg production begins. This practice decreases the time available for training
the flock and increases the likelihood that some hens will choose alternative nest sites as they come
into production in their new and unfamiliar environment.
Summary and Conclusion. If floor and slat eggs are a problem, evaluate your management
practices and housing conditions as soon as the problem is detected. The longer the problem persists,
the more difficult it is to correct. Remember, birds are creatures of habit and habits are difficult to
break. Observe your birds to try and determine the cause of them not choosing the provided nesting
sites. Record and tabulate what time of day most of the floor or slat eggs are laid. What percent of
the eggs are laid at first lighting, after feeding, late in the afternoon, etc. Keep a record of where they
are found. What percent of the eggs are found against the walls, next to the slats, near the fans, on
the slats and next to the feeders, etc. Managing to prevent a problem is always preferred. However, if
a problem does exist, diagnosing where and when the problem is occurring will greatly increase the
likelihood of correction.
SLAT EGGS continued from page 14
days, but can hatch 4 to 21 days after laying, depending on the temperature. The time within each of the 5 nymph stages depends
upon the temperature of the hiding places and how soon nymphs are able to obtain a blood meal. Nymphs molt to the next stage
only after completion of a blood meal. In poultry facilities nymphs generally obtain blood meals rapidly so the time within a
given nymph stage is usually dependent upon the temperature of the hiding places. At 80F, the interval between nymph stages is
about 4 days. Thus, the entire life cycle from egg to adult requires about 30 days. Adult Bed Bugs feed at intervals of about 3 to 7
days depending upon the temperature. At 80 F, adult Bed Bugs may live up to 4 months. Adults may live even longer than 4
months at lower temperatures. Both nymphs and adults can survive several months without a blood meal. Thus, a Bed Bug
infestation in a breeder house can easily survive through the down time between flocks.
Distribution. Bed Bugs may be introduced into poultry facilities as eggs, nymphs or adults attached to boxes, clothing,
cages, slats, manure removal equipment or other equipment brought from infested poultry facilities. Bed Bugs can infest houses
as 20-22 week old hens and/or roosters are initially placed on the farms to start the broiler egg production cycle or later as
replacement roosters are placed on the farms. Only one impregnated female Bed Bug can produce a well-developed infesta-
tion within a few months!!
Control. Successful control of Bed Bug infestations can not be attained without measures to prevent their intro-
duction into poultry facilities. Control when the birds are present. - At night when hens are not laying, spraying the inside of
nest boxes at night is recommended. Nest boxes should be sprayed as early as possible in the evening to allow time for them to
dry before morning. The slats and equipment should be sprayed with as high a pressure as possible. Control when birds are not
present:When all birds have been removed from the facility a high-pressure (175-200 psi) spray should be used to penetrate the
cracks, crevices, and hiding places of the Bed Bug. The spray should be directed at such places, particularly around the slats and
nesting boxes. Thorough cleaning and spraying of the house with the chemicals described below is necessary to eliminate
the infestation. Slats, roosts, nests boxes and other equipment should be thoroughly cleaned and sprayed with chemical
before introducing a new flock to prevent reinfestation.
Insecticide Recommendations. When birds are present. Seven (carbaryl) 5% dust or 0.5% spray, Malathion 4 or 5%
dust or 0.5% spray, Rabon 0.5% spray, Permethrin 5.7, 10, 11 or 40% spray (depending on the manufacture and formulation),
and Ravap EC. can be used to reduce the bed bug population. The registration/label should be followed for each of these
insecticides to determine application rates, determine restrictions of applications prior to bird slaughter, contamination of feed and
water. Treatment of the facilities is least disturbing to the birds if hand application equipment is used (2-4 gallon hand-pump
sprayers or small engine back-pack sprayers or dusters). When no birds are in the facility. The same insecticides described
above can be used, but may be applied more effectively with high-pressure equipment. In addition to the insecticides listed above,
Tempo can be applied when no birds are in the facility
Humans spreading Bed Bugs. Care must be taken by all humans that are involved with the poultry production
system to prevent the spread of Bed Bugs from infested facilities. Bed Bugs can be easily transferred from one farm facility to
another by becoming attached to the shoes, clothes, boxes or equipment. If precautions are not taken, pullet farms can supply both
22-week-old hens and infestations of Bed Bugs to breeder farms. In fact, Bed Bug infestations can spread in similar fashion to
northern fowl mite infestations. In addition, Bed Bugs can infest human dwellings if precautions are not taken.
BED BUGS continued from page 10
UA Poultry Science
received his B.S. in Animal Science in 1989. He then attended the University of Georgia from 1989 to 1995 where he received
both his M.S. and Ph.D. in Poultry Science. As part of his graduate program, he developed the sperm penetration assay, which
is still in use today, as both a research tool and as a practical trouble shooting instrument for the poultry industry. In 1996,
Bramwell returned to the University of Georgia as an Assistant Professor and Extension Poultry Scientist. Dr. Bramwell
joined the Center of Excellence at the University of Arkansas as an Extension Poultry Specialist in the fall of 2000. His main
responsibility in the Arkansas Youth Poultry Program, and helps young people, parents, 4-H leaders, and teachers to become
aware of the opportunities in poultry science at the U of A and the integrated poultry industry. He helps compile annual figures
of the states poultry production by counties and serves as the superintendent of poultry at the Arkansas State Fair. Mr.
Wooley is chairman of the 4-H Broiler show and the BBQ activity at the annual Arkansas Poultry Festival.
Write Extension Specialists, except Jerry Wooley, at: Center of Excellence
for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
1
INSIDE
page 3
Brooding Chicks in
Colder Weather
By T. Tabler
page 5
Mycoplasmosis-- A
Continued Threat
By F.D. Clark
page 6
How Much Litter Do
Broilers Produce?
By T.Tabler
page 9
Savoy Broiler Unit
Performance Report
By T.Tabler
page 12
Low-Cost, Temporary
Poultry Litter Storage
By T. Costello
page 16
U of A Poultry Extension
Staff & Coming Events
Advice
AVIAN
Arkansas Is
Our Campus
Diagram of an avian
influenza particle
Avian Influenza: Always a
threat in the fall
B
ackground and History: Avian
Influenza is a disease that can cause
extremely high mortality in poultry.
Outbreaks have cost the industry many
millions to eradicate and the 1994-95 outbreak
in Mexico that is still a problem in certain
areas of that country. Costs can be devastating
to producers since entire flocks can die in only
a few hours after infection with a highly
virulent strain of Avian Influenza. The costs
associated with Avian Influenza outbreaks
make it extremely important for the producer
to be aware of the signs of the disease and
take steps to prevent it.
The disease was first recog-
nized in Italy in 1878 and was
first reported in the United
States in 1924 in New York
City. An outbreak in
Pennsylvania in 1983-84
was the most devastating
disease outbreak in the
recorded history of the U.S.
poultry industry. It cost the
industry an estimated $60 million
to eradicate the disease and consum-
ers about $349 million to
replace the table eggs lost in the
quarantine region.
Virus Description: The older literature
called Avian Influenza Fowl Plague. A virus
called an Orthomyxovirus causes Avian
Influenza. The virus has two types of glyco-
proteins that project from the virus coat which
may either protect the particle from destruc-
tion or allow it to adhere to a surface. These
glycoproteins are called Hemmaglutinin (H)
and Neuraminidase (N). There are 15
different types of H glycoproteins and nine
different types of N glycoproteins. These H
and N glycoproteins are used by poultry health
professionals to tell one Avian Influenza virus
strain from other types, such as H5N2. The
viruses are also designated as low pathogenic
and high pathogenic based on their ability to
cause death in susceptible chickens. Thus you
can have a virus designated H5N2 that causes
low mortality and is called a low pathogenic
type or you could have an H5N2 that causes
high mortality and as such is called a high
pathogenic type. However, the virus can
change from a low pathogenic type to a high
pathogenic type without warning.
Disease Symptoms Diagnosis and
Spread: Avian Influenza has an
incubation period of 3-7 days
depending on the virus dose,
poultry species infected,
route of exposure, and
several other factors. The
symptoms exhibited by an
infected bird are variable
and depend on the pathoge-
nicity of the virus. Some of the
possible symptoms are: depres-
sion, diarrhea, dehydration, appetite
loss, weight loss, huddling, a drop
in egg production and respiratory
symptoms (cough, sneeze, sinusitis).
The lesions that could be observed include: a
bloody nasal discharge, facial swelling, blue
discoloration of the face, subcutaneous
hemorrhages, tracheal inflammation, nasal
inflammation and hemorrhages on the shanks
and in the proventriculus. There is no accept-
able or practical treatment for poultry infected
with high pathogenic Avian Influenza infected
poultry.
Avian Influenza is diagnosed by blood
testing and virus isolation. Blood testing is
Dr. F. Dustan Clark
Extension Poultry Veterinarian
(continued on page 2)
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
considerably more rapid and less expensive than virus isolation, but virus isolation is much
more accurate than blood testing. Poultry found positive for the Avian Influenza virus are
currently quarantined and destroyed to prevent spread to other flocks. Destruction of affected
animals is the only viable method to control the spread of the disease.
The disease spreads from infected birds to non-infected birds via respiratory and gas-
trointestinal secretions. Susceptible birds can be exposed to respiratory or gastrointestinal
secretions in numerous ways. Secretions can be spread on contaminated footwear, clothing, egg
flats, equipment, cages, etc. In fact, Avian Influenza is most often spread from infected to non-
infected flocks by people carrying the virus usually on their clothes or footwear. However, the
virus can live for short periods on human skin or in human nasal passages. In addition, the virus
can be shed by infected wild birds including migratory waterfowl (e.g. ducks and geese) or
game birds, which show no clinical signs of the disease. The Avian Influenza virus has also been
frequently isolated from clinically normal exotic birds. At moderate temperatures the virus can
remain viable in organic materials for long periods of time and can survive indefinitely in frozen
materials.
Steps to Prevent the Disease Exposure
1. Keep No Visitors and/or Restricted signs posted at the road entrance
of the farm.
2. Do not allow visitors in the poultry houses or on the farm.
3. All farm personnel should wear separate clothing (including shoes, boots,
hats, gloves, etc.) on the farm. Clothes used on the farm should stay on the
farm.
4. Completely change all clothing after caring for the flock and wash hands
and arms thoroughly before leaving the premises.
5. Do not visit other poultry farms or flocks or have contact with any other
species of birds.
6. Keep all poultry houses securely locked. Lock all houses from the inside
while working inside.
7. All equipment, crates, coops, etc., must be thoroughly cleaned and disin-
fected before and after use.
8. All essential visitors (owners, feed delivery personnel, poultry catchers and
haulers, service men, etc.) are to wear protective outer clothing (coveralls),
boots, and headgear prior to being allowed near the poultry flock or farm.
9. Monitor all vehicles (service, feed delivery, poultry delivery or removal,
etc.) entering the premises to determine if they have been properly cleaned
and disinfected. This includes disinfection of the tires and vehicle under-
carriage.
10. Sick and dying birds should be submitted to a diagnostic laboratory for
proper diagnosis of the problem. All commercial growers should contact
their flock supervisor and follow their instructions.
11. Dead birds are to be properly disposed of by burial, incineration or other
approved method.
12. Any person handling wild game (especially waterfowl) must completely
change clothing and shower or bathe before entering the premises.
13. Do not borrow equipment, vehicles, etc., from another poultry farm.
14. Do not visit areas where Avian Influenza is a problem.
(Avian Influenza: continued from page 1)
Diagram of Avian Influenza particle was obtained with permission from http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/335/V.html
3
When brooding
chicks, we must
always be aware of
the fact that the
environmental condi-
tions we are sensing
about five feet from
the floor may be very
different than those
the chicks are
experiencing.
Brooding Chicks
in Colder Weather
Tom Tabler Broiler Unit Manager - Savoy
C
older weather means that we, as producers, are faced with some decisions about brood-
ing. A number of studies have shown that birds brooded at 80F vs. 90F weighed as
much as 20% less at 10 days of age, had 10% higher feed conversion and were far more
likely to exhibit symptoms of ascites (water belly) (Figures 1, 2, & 3). Yet brooding chicks
means using fuel and fuel costs money. In fact, the fuel bill is usually the highest during colder
weather so we spend our fuel dollars wisely.
ARE CHICKS WARM?
TEMPERATURE STRATIFICATION
When brooding chicks, we must always be aware of the fact that the environmental
conditions we are sensing about five feet from the floor may be very different than those the
chicks are experiencing two inches above the floor. Even though house temperatures appear to
be adequate, many times producers notice chicks near the brooding curtain or in other locations
throughout the house huddling and appearing to be cold.
This may be because the air three feet above the floor (where
the temperature sensor hangs) may be four to seven degrees
warmer than at floor level. So you think you are brooding at 86F,
but you may only be brooding at or about 80F. This is primarily
due to the fact that hot air is lighter than cold air so the hot air
produced by brooders and furnaces collects at the ceiling while
cold air leaking in from various cracks and other locations collects
at the floor. The amount of stratification can depend upon how
much the heating system is operating, house tightness and location
within the house.
continued on page 4
PROPER TEMPERATURE SENSOR PLACEMENT (continued from page 3)
Temperature stratification is a particularly bad problem with brooder/furnace thermostats since they are placed two to three
feet above the floor. If a grower wants a house temperature of about 88F he/she may set the thermostats, located a few feet
above the floor, at 86F. Stratification and drafts will probably result in a temperature at floor level being at least five degrees
cooler. As a result, brooding temperature is actually closer to 80F than 88F.
In houses with radiant or conventional brooders the bird is warmed by both hot air and radiant heat emanating from the
brooders. So if the air is a little cool in one location, chicks can move toward the brooders to warm themselves. But in houses with
forced air furnaces, if the air temperature is too low the only way chicks can keep warm is by huddling because radiant heat is not
an option. Obviously, huddling is not a good thing; the more chicks huddle the less they eat, drink and grow.
The best way to ensure that you are brooding at a proper temperature is to place sensors/thermostats three to four inches
above the floor with baby chicks. This should be high enough that the chicks cannot reach them. Once the birds are a week to 10
days of age sensors/thermostats can be raised to two feet or so above the floor so the birds cannot peck at them or possibly sit on
them. By this time brooders/furnaces are not operating quite as much, so stratification is less of a problem. Also, at older ages the
birds are a little less sensitive to lower air temperatures. Moving your sensors will require some degree of extra management on
your part but the results should prove beneficial to the health and well-being of the birds.
PROPER GAS PRESSURE
Something else to be aware of as winter approaches is the importance of having proper gas pressure. If you have difficulty
maintaining the proper house temperature when you have young chicks and the outside temperature drops into the 20s or less
even though your brooders are operating constantly, several possible explanations exist. It could be that your ceiling insulation is
inadequate and needs to be increased, your house lets in too much unwanted air or you may be having to ventilate a great deal
because there is too much ammonia in the house. However, another possibility is something not considered very often... insuffi-
cient gas pressure. Each brooder/furnace is designed to operate most efficiently at a specific gas pressure. When the gas pressure
is too low not only do you get insufficient heat, but you may not get complete gas combustion resulting in the production of
carbon monoxide. Conversely, if the pressure is too high the brooder could get too hot resulting in reduced life span. It is
possible to have too much gas pressure, however, low gas pressure is more common. In general, gas pressure determines the
amount of gas that flows to a brooder/furnace. The higher the gas pressure, the greater the amount of fuel burned by the brooder/
furnace, and the greater the amount of heat produced. The opposite is also true ... lower pressure, less gas, less heat.
Forced air furnaces require a higher operating pressure than conventional brooders. The University of Arkansas Broiler
Research Farm at Savoy has a combination of brooders and forced air furnaces in each of the four houses. The houses are heated
by propane with two 1,000-gal storage tanks at each house. When gas pressure begins to drop due to inadequate propane in the
tanks, the furnaces at the ends of the gas lines begin to burn inefficiently with a weak yellow flame instead of the normal strong
blue flame. If the problem is not remedied by additional gas delivery to the tanks, the rest of the furnaces will eventually start to
burn inefficiently followed by the brooders at the ends of the lines and finally the remaining brooders nearest the tanks.
Recent tests of radiant brooders at the University of Georgia have shown that relatively small drops in gas pressure can have
a significant effect on the amount of heat radiant brooders produce. Reducing gas pressure from a manufacturers specified 11" of
water column (for propane) to 9" reduced radiant heat output from the brooder by approximately 13%. When gas pressure was
reduced from 11" to 7" radiant heat output was reduced by 30%. Finally, when gas pressure was reduced from 11" to 5" radiant
heat output was reduced by nearly 40%.
It should be obvious that having low gas pressure hurts producers in two ways; it reduces the amount of radiant heat a
brooder produces as well as the amount of hot air a brooder/furnace produces, both of which are very important in keeping chicks
warm during cold weather. Improper gas pressure not only affects heat output but also gas usage. Furnaces/brooders burn fuel
most efficiently when gas pressure is adjusted correctly. Remember that low gas pressure will affect heat output of not only
radiant brooders, but conventional brooders and forced air furnaces as well.
If you think that you may have a gas pressure problem check with the manufacturer of the brooder/furnace or your local
equipment installer on proper procedure for checking gas pressure as well as information on possible causes of low gas pressure
(i.e., proper gas line sizing both inside and outside your house, proper amount of propane in your tanks). Then, if necessary, call
your local gas company to set up a time for them to check your gas pressure. The gas pressure needs to be checked at the last
brooder/furnace on the gas line with all the brooders/furnaces operating.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
With the arrival of fall and the approaching onset of winter try to find some time in your schedule to evaluate such things as
your thermostat/sensor locations, gas pressure, tightness and durability of your brooding curtains, and the condition of your side
wall curtains. Also, if you do not have stir or mixing fans in your house moving hot air from the ceiling to the chicks, consider
getting them. If you have them be sure to use them. Our research shows that stir fans have one of the fastest pay backs of any
investment, and the higher the gas prices, the quicker the payback. A thorough evaluation could pay huge dividends in fuel
savings and bird performance as we enter another winter season.
Grateful appreciation is extended to Michael Czarick and Michael Lacy, University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, for portions of
the information contained herein.
5
Mycoplasmosis --
A Continued Threat
T
he data in Figure 1 indicate that there has been a continued steady increase in outbreaks of
Mycoplasma in Arkansas poultry in the last few years. In fact, if the trend continues, there will
be a record number in Arkansas during 2000. The purpose of this article is to discuss symptoms
and effects of the disease in poultry, help poultry producers better recognize the disease and prevent
the spread of mycoplasmas to other poultry flocks.
Mycoplasma are small bacteria that can cause disease in a variety of poultry species. There are
four species of mycoplasma that affect commercial poultry: Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG),
Mycoplasma synoviae (MS), Mycoplasma meleagridis (MM) and Mycoplasma iowae (MI). The first
two species (MG and MS) are responsible for the current mycoplasma problems in Arkansas poultry.
Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) causes a respiratory disease in chickens and turkeys infecting
the sinuses, air sacs, trachea and bronchi of the bird after an incubation period of 1-3 weeks. Chick-
ens with the disease have a cough, eye inflammation (conjunctivitis) and a nasal discharge. A drop in
egg production can also be seen in breeders and layers. Turkeys usually have a severe swelling of the
sinuses, nasal discharge and frothy eyes. Affected chickens and turkeys do not gain well and may die
or be downgraded at slaughter. The disease can be much more severe when birds with mycoplas-
mosis are also infected by bacteria such as E. coli or viruses. The disease is almost always more
severe in turkeys than in broilers.
Mycoplasma synoviae (MS) can also cause a respiratory infection. In addition, MS can infect
the joints and tendon sheaths of the bird. Chickens infected with MS have reduced growth, swollen
joints (hocks) and footpads, and may breast blisters. While air sacculitis (air sac infection) can occur
and chickens may show respiratory distress, MS usually does not cause any symptoms when the
respiratory tract is infected. Turkeys have similar signs and lesions to broilers, but usually lameness
is the most predominant problem. As with MG the problem is more severe when bacteria or viruses
also infect the birds.
Several methods are used to diagnose the disease in poultry. The clinical signs and lesions can
be used to make a presumptive diagnosis, which is confirmed by isolation of the bacteria, blood
testing and/or specialized tests such as the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR test) on tracheal swabs.
continued on page 6
Mycoplasma are
small bacteria
that can cause
disease in a
variety of
poultry species.
Data collected
by the Arkansas
Livestock
and Poultry
Commission
Successful treatment of mycoplasma infections is unpredictable since there is a great deal
of variation in the sensitivity of mycoplasma to antibiotics. There are vaccines available for use
in MG infections, but since they are live vaccines there is concern that the vaccine strain will
spread to other birds. In fact, many states do not allow vaccination for MG or at least restrict
vaccine use since most MG vaccine strains have shown a potential to spread to unvaccinated
chickens and turkeys. There has been little use of vaccination for MS infections. The preferable
method of controlling mycoplasma infections is prevention.
Preventative measures are designed to exclude the bacteria from the flock. One step in
excluding mycoplasma from flocks is maintaining clean breeder stock. This is done in the
poultry industry by the National Poultry Improvement Plan, which is a testing and control
program for egg transmitted diseases such as MG and MS. This program has been extremely
successful nationwide and the majority of poultry in the United States are mycoplasma free.
Unfortunately, a few problems still arise and as such an increased awareness and biosecurity are
needed. Points to remember for better biosecurity are as follows:
1. Restrict visitor access to only necessary visitors.
2. All visitors should wear protective gear (including coveralls, boots or boot covers
and headgear) that can be disposed of or disinfected on the farm.
3. Foot dips should be available on each farm at each poultry house.
4. Do not share equipment, egg flats, etc., between farms.
5. Vehicles should be cleaned and disinfected between farms.
6. Wildlife and vermin should be restricted from poultry houses.
Naturally, all points of an on-farm biosecurity program should be reviewed and followed
and a good cleaning and disinfection program should be in place to prevent any disease. If
mycoplasmosis is suspected in your birds, it is important to immediately contact supervisor/
service personnel so a diagnosis can be made and appropriate procedures can be implemented.
Prevention is always more economical than treatment and early recognition of a problem can
prevent spread of a disease from house to house or farm to farm.
MYCOPLASMOSIS-- continued from page 5
Tom Tabler Broiler Unit Manager - Savoy
How Much Litter Do
Broilers Produce?
D
ue to increasing environmental concerns regarding land application of animal wastes and the high replacement cost of
new bedding materials, poultry producers are looking more at the option of reusing old litter for an extended period of
time. The University of Arkansas Broiler Research Farm at Savoy recently concluded an extended period of reusing old
litter in which litter in House 1 was used to produce18 flocks of birds while litter in Houses 2, 3 & 4 each grew 12 flocks of birds
without cleanout or topdressing. Caked litter was removed from each house after each flock with a decaking machine. Total loads
of caked litter removed were recorded for each house after each flock for future reference. In an effort to document as closely as
possible the exact amount of litter produced during this extended reuse period, portable scales were used to weigh each load of
litter removed from each broiler house during the total cleanout. Number of loads of dry litter removed as well as total weight
removed (in pounds and tons) from each house was then calculated. (Table 1.)
B
i
o
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y

s
t
e
p
s

t
o

p
r
e
v
e
n
t
t
h
e

s
p
r
e
a
d

o
f

m
y
c
o
p
l
a
s
m
s
7
A private contractor using commercial spreader trucks with 16-ft beds removed 106 loads of litter
to predetermined best management sites after each load was weighed. The same contractor removed 24
dump bed loads that were deep-stacked on-site in preparation for additional research. An additional 4.09
tons were also removed from House 4 and added to the deep-stacked litter using a farm tractor. The 106
spreader truckloads averaged 5.78 tons per load. In addition to litter removed at cleanout, weight of
caked litter removed since the last cleanout was also estimated for each house (Table 2). These weights
were based on an average weight of 3500 pounds per decaker load as determined by portable scales.
In addition to decaking, House 1 also had old litter removed from the non-brood end in October
1999 for an off-site research trial. Based on weights at cleanout, this litter would have equaled
approximately 44 tons. The total amount of litter removed from each house since the previous
cleanout is indicated in Table 3. This includes original bedding material placed in each house that
was not weighed at time of placement, litter removed prior to cleanout and all litter removed during
the recent total cleanout. Previous cleanouts were May 1996 for House 1 and October 1997 for
Houses 2, 3 & 4. Table 3 also contains the percentage of the litter removed as caked litter as well as
the percentage removed as dry litter.
During the summer of 1998, the fogging nozzles in House 3 had worn to the point that they
were putting out much more water than the normal 2-gals/hr-flow rating. This caused an excess
amount of water to be added to the litter that summer, which was later removed as cake. This is
evident in Table 2 by the additional loads of caked litter removed from House 3 and in Table 3 by the
increased percentage of caked litter removed from that house. New nozzles were installed in the
spring of 1999 preventing any such problem that summer.
continued on page 8
House
No.
No.
Flocks
Lbs/
House
Tons/
House
Loads/
House
1
2
3
4
ALL
18
12
12
12
421,850
431,440
315,650
391,330
1,560,270
210.93
215.72
157.83
195.67
780.15
33
38
27
32
130
1
1
An additional 8,170 lbs (4.09 tons) was removed from House 4
with a farm tractor for use in deep-stacking research.
House
No.
No.
Flocks
Lbs/
House
Tons/
House
Loads/
House
1
2
3
4
ALL
18
12
12
12
159,250
147,000
220,500
101,500
628,250
79.63
73.50
110.25
50.75
314.13
45.5
42.0
63.0
29.0
179.5
A rule of thumb is that each broiler house will generate approximately 100 tons of litter
per year. Based on data presented here, that rule appears slightly conservative, but reliable
(Table 3). While not cleaning out for an extended period such as this will create some monetary
savings where new bedding is concerned, it creates costs in other areas. Therefore, each pro-
ducer must answer the following questions for him/herself to determine if extended litter usage
is a viable option:
1) Do I need litter for fertilizer each year or is extended use something I might consider?
If pastures and/or hay fields have been receiving chicken litter applications, commer-
cial fertilizer may be necessary as a nutrient replacement. Commercial fertilizer would
then be an added cost if litter were reused for an extended period.
2) Will extra ventilation to remove ammonia cost more than having new litter at least
once a year? Our observations were that after about a year the ammonia levels reached
a plateau. They did not get worse the longer we were on reused litter, but how much
better would we have done if we did not have to ventilate for ammonia? During cold
weather, ammonia problems caused us to have to pull more air than the birds actually
needed in order to get rid of the ammonia. This over ventilation was more expensive
than simply pulling in the amount of air the birds needed for respiration.
3) Will extended usage cause increased condemnation problems? We observed a gradual
increase in condemnation percentage as the litter got older. Not every flock had a
higher condemnation percentage than the previous flock, but the pattern was a steady
increase over time. Condemnation percentages the first six months on the litter ranged
from .50% to .75%, while the last six months prior to cleanout ranged from 1.35% to
1.87%. Additional factors influence condemnation percentage, but it is likely that the
longer a farm goes without a total cleanout, washdown and disinfect program, the
greater the disease challenge on that farm. This disease challenge may make it more
difficult for subsequent flocks to perform up to their potential. This is especially true if
other critical management areas such as environmental quality or biosecurity are
compromised.
In conclusion, land application of animal waste will continue to be a sensitive environ-
mental issue in the future. Federal, state and local authorities continue to look at where, when
and how much animal waste may be applied to given locations. Producers should be aware of
and follow voluntary best management practices developed for their area concerning animal
waste application. Questions exist that each individual poultry producer must answer for him/
herself when considering reusing old litter for an extended time period. Information presented
here should be of value in regards to the amount of litter produced by broiler chickens and may
be helpful by pointing out some of what has been observed at the Broiler Research Farm during
extended litter usage.
The author gratefully
acknowledges Dr. Tom Costello,
Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department,
Fayetteville, for assistance with
data collection and Dr. Karl
VanDevender and Paul Ballantyne,
Cooperative Extension Service,
Little Rock, for use
of the portable scales.
A rule of thumb
is that each broiler
house will generate
approximately
100 tons of
litter per year.
House
No.
No.
Flocks
Lbs/
House
Tons/
House
Caked
(%)
Dry
(%)
Tons/
Flock
Tons/
year
1
2
3
4
ALL
18
12
12
12
669,100
578,440
536,150
492,830
2,276,520
334.55
289.22
268.08
246.42
1138.27
23.80
25.41
41.13
20.60
27.60
76.20
74.59
58.87
79.40
72.40
18.59
24.10
22.34
20.53
21.07
92.95
120.5
111.7
102.7
105.4
Assuming 5 flocks/year
Includes 88,000 lbs of litter removed for a research trial
Includes 44 tons of litter removed for a research trial
9
Information Key
House number
HSE
FEED CONV
HEAD PLACED
HEAD SOLD
LIV
AGE
AVE BIRD WT
COND
FEED COST
CHICK COST
MED COST
TOTAL COST
COST/LB
PAY/LB
F.A.
GAS USAGE
ELECT
No.
LB/LB
No.
No.
%
D
LBS
%
$
$
$
$
Cent
Cent
$
GAL
KWH
Tom Tabler Broiler Unit Manager -Savoy
Savoy Broiler Unit
Performance Report
T
he first flock at the Savoy Broiler Unit was placed on November 19, 1990. The unit
contains four 40 x 400 foot broiler houses. Each house contains Cumberland pan feeders,
Ziggity nipple waterers and about 1.5 million BTU propane heating capacity for brooding.
Each house is equipped with a computer controller, which controls fans, brooders and curtains
for temperature control. Houses are also equipped with temperature monitoring equipment
(about 80 sensors per house), an electronic water flow monitoring system, weigh bins for feed
delivery to the house, sensors for the monitoring of fan run time and devices to determine gas
flow from storage tanks.
Houses 1 and 2 were built with steel trusses with R10 insulation in the ceiling while houses
3 and 4 were constructed with wood trusses, R19 ceiling insulation and drop ceilings. Houses 1
and 3 are conventionally ventilated with misters for summer cooling, but 2 and 4 are tunnel
ventilated. House 2 contains a sprinkler cooling system for summer cooling. The system was
developed at the University of Arkansas and
uses a landscape sprinkler system to deliver a
coarse, cooling mist to the backs of the birds.
House 4 uses evaporative cooling pads to cool
the inlet air.
MANAGERS COMMENTS ON FLOCK 50
House 2, with its unconventional sprinkler
cooling system, once again produced the
heaviest chicken. This has been the case for
most hot weather flocks since this system was
installed in 1995. While somewhat different
compared to most cooling systems, we have
been quite pleased with results we have
achieved. House 1 had the best feed conversion
and the greatest return and House 2 with the
heaviest chicken had the second greatest return.
Caked litter removed after the flock was as
follows: House 1 2 loads, House 2 5 loads,
House 3 3 loads and House 4 3 loads.
House 2 with its unique sprinkler system did
have the most caked litter to remove but not so
much as to create problems in the house. The
House 2 sprinkler system is capable of putting
out much more water than any of our other
cooling systems and this fact does appear
beneficial to the birds. It does have the potential
to create caking problems; however, if managed
properly by precisely timing the water output
and pulling enough air over the birds, caked
litter can be kept in check and the birds con-
tinue to eat and gain weight in hot weather.
continued on page 10
House 1 had both the heaviest chicken and best feed conversion. These factors allowed House 1 to also have the greatest
return on this flock. The wood burning pellet furnace was once again in use in House 3. This is apparent by the lesser amount of
gas usage in that house compared to the other houses. Data collection on the furnace system will now continue until spring 2000.
Caked litter removal after the flock sold was as follows: House 1 1 load, House 2 1 load, House 3 1 load and House 4 1
load. Litter was quite dry and dusty. As litter depth has increased, fewer loads of caked litter are removed.
House 2 had the heaviest chicken, best feed conversion and, in turn, the greatest monetary return. Pellet furnace usage
greatly affected gas consumption in House 3. All houses were cleaned out, washed down and disinfected after an extended period
of reusing old litter. House 1 grew 18 flocks of birds without cleanout or topdressing. Houses 2, 3 & 4 each grew 12 flocks
without cleanout or topdressing. Previous cleanouts were May 1996 for House 1 and October 1997 for Houses 2, 3 & 4. Con-
demnation percentage has steadily eased upward as litter has gotten older.
HSE
(No)
FEED
CONV
(LB/LB)
HEAD
PLACED
(No)
SOLD
(No)
HEAD
LIV
(%)
AGE
(D)
WT
(LB)
AVE
BIRD
COND
(%)
COST/LB
(Cent)
FEED
COST
($)
CHICK
COST
($)
MED.
COST
($)
TOTAL
COST
($)
PAY/LB
(Cent)
F.A.
($)
GAS
USAGE
(GAL)
ELECT
USAGE
(KWH)
1
2
3
4
FARM
2.08
2.13
2.16
2.11
2.12
18109
18309
18409
18409
73236
17384
17296
17302
17474
69456
96.00
94.47
93.99
94.92
94.84
55
55
55
55
55.0
6.10
6.26
6.00
6.08
6.11
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
11053
11540
11242
11220
45054
3079
3113
3130
3130
12450
23.60
23.60
23.60
23.60
94.40
14155
14676
14395
14373
57599
13.594
13.803
14.122
13.778
13.822
3.7813
3.5727
3.2533
3.5974
3.5529
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
264
168
99
209
740
4167
4456
4460
3463
16546
1 F.A. = Fuel allowance
2 Condemnation percentage could not be divided by house
3 Lower gas usage and increased electrical usage in House 3 is a reflection of wood pellet furnace
HSE
(No)
FEED
CONV
(LB/LB)
HEAD
PLACED
(No)
SOLD
(No)
HEAD
LIV
(%)
AGE
(D)
WT
(LB)
AVE
BIRD
COND
(%)
COST/LB
(Cent)
FEED
COST
($)
CHICK
COST
($)
MED.
COST
($)
TOTAL
COST
($)
PAY/LB
(Cent)
F.A.
($)
GAS
USAGE
(GAL)
ELECT
USAGE
(KWH)
1
2
3
4
FARM
2.03
2.11
2.13
2.13
2.10
19631
19612
19250
18991
77484
18318
18048
18446
18012
72824
93.31
92.03
95.82
94.84
93.99
52
52
52
52
52.0
6.00
5.45
5.32
5.67
5.61
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
11153
10348
10459
10870
42830
3337
3334
3272
3228
13172
50.70
50.70
50.70
50.70
202.80
14541
13732
13782
14149
56205
13.418
14.162
14.225
14.049
13.949
4.1961
3.4518
3.3888
3.5649
3.6651
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1119
620
271
834
2844
1372
1561
3075
1876
7884
HSE
(No)
FEED
CONV
(LB/LB)
HEAD
PLACED
(No)
SOLD
(No)
HEAD
LIV
(%)
AGE
(D)
WT
(LB)
AVE
BIRD
COND
(%)
COST/LB
(Cent)
FEED
COST
($)
CHICK
COST
($)
MED.
COST
($)
TOTAL
COST
($)
PAY/LB
(Cent)
F.A.
($)
GAS
USAGE
(GAL)
ELECT
USAGE
(KWH)
1
2
3
4
FARM
2.08
1.94
1.98
2.08
2.02
18806
18868
18813
18862
75349
18027
17995
17871
18012
71905
95.86
95.37
94.99
95.49
95.43
50
49
50
50
49.75
5.21
5.75
5.33
5.18
5.37
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
9791
10024
9425
9705
38945
3197
3208
3198
3207
12809
181.29
181.29
181.29
181.29
725.16
13169
13413
12804
13093
52479
14.268
13.198
13.668
14.290
13.838
3.5247
4.5948
4.1247
3.5026
3.9544
378
378
378
378
1512
1867
1553
519
2365
6304
1342
2090
3282
2067
8781
4 Medication cost includes disinfectant and litter beetle control costs related to cleanout
11
Flock 53 was marked by high mortality as indicated by a livability of only 92.46%. This was due in part to early chick
mortality and partially to respiratory problems late in the flock as indicated by a condemnation percentage of 2.63%. This was the
first flock after a complete clean out, wash down and disinfection of all houses. Houses 2 & 4 tied for the heaviest weight at 5.62
lbs, however, House 2 had the best feed conversion and the greatest dollar return. Many of the respiratory problems were in
House 4 causing it to have a 2.24 feed conversion and the lowest monetary return. Caked litter removed with the decaker after the
flock sold was: House 1 - 3 loads, House 2 - 10 loads, House 3 - 5 loads and House 4 - 10 loads.
Flock 54 was highlighted by the best quality baby chicks we have had in quite some time. The weather caused some major
problems as it stayed cool and rainy for the first six weeks of the flock and very hot and dry the last two weeks. Birds were not
acclimated to the heat and, as a result, we lost 1003 birds in House 4 (cool cell house) the last seven days of the flock. We are
currently discussing possible options involving modifications to House 4. Even with the heat loss, the flock as a whole did quite
well. House 3 had the heaviest chicken at 6.30 lbs but House 2 (with its unconventional summer sprinkler system) was close
behind with a 6.24 lb bird and a much better feed conversion of 2.08 allowing it to have the greatest return. House 3 made only
slightly less money than House 1. House 4, with all its heat loss problems, had the smallest payback, the lightest bird and the
highest feed conversion. The unconventional sprinkler system in House 2 used 5,271 gals of water during the flock compared to
the cool cell system in House 4 which used 35,510 gals of water. Caked litter removed after the flock was as follows: House 1 - 4
loads, House 2 - 8 loads, House 3 - 10 loads and House 4 - 6 loads.
HSE
(No)
FEED
CONV
(LB/LB)
HEAD
PLACED
(No)
SOLD
(No)
HEAD
LIV
(%)
AGE
(D)
WT
(LB)
AVE
BIRD
COND
(%)
COST/LB
(Cent)
FEED
COST
($)
CHICK
COST
($)
MED.
COST
($)
TOTAL
COST
($)
PAY/LB
(Cent)
F.A.
($)
GAS
USAGE
(GAL)
ELECT
USAGE
(KWH)
1
2
3
4
FARM
2.16
2.12
2.18
2.24
2.18
19065
19111
19069
19165
76410
17651
17844
17866
17289
70650
92.58
93.37
93.69
90.21
92.46
51
51
51
52
51.25
5.23
5.62
5.51
5.62
5.50
2.63
2.63
2.63
2.63
2.63
9988
10631
10740
10892
42252
3241
3249
3242
3258
12990
33.18
33.18
33.18
33.18
132.70
13262
13913
14015
14184
55374
14.745
14.246
14.627
14.989
14.647
3.5496
4.0489
3.6678
3.3063
3.6477
000
000
000
000
000
1290
856
756
1323
4225
1687
1913
2851
1761
8212
HSE
(No)
FEED
CONV
(LB/LB)
HEAD
PLACED
(No)
SOLD
(No)
HEAD
LIV
(%)
AGE
(D)
WT
(LB)
AVE
BIRD
COND
(%)
COST/LB
(Cent)
FEED
COST
($)
CHICK
COST
($)
MED.
COST
($)
TOTAL
COST
($)
PAY/LB
(Cent)
F.A.
($)
GAS
USAGE
(GAL)
ELECT
USAGE
(KWH)
1
2
3
4
FARM
2.16
2.08
2.16
2.18
2.15
18557
18891
19118
19355
75921
17459
17905
18263
17593
71220
94.08
94.78
95.53
90.90
93.81
56
56
56
55
55.75
6.05
6.24
6.30
5.77
6.09
1.92
1.92
1.92
1.92
1.92
11385
11627
12451
11083
46547
3155
3211
3250
3290
12906
45.50
45.50
45.50
45.50
182.00
14586
14884
15747
14419
59636
14.083
13.594
13.953
14.488
14.017
4.2183
4.7081
4.3488
3.8132
4.2842
000
000
000
000
000
218
208
151
344
921
4868
4716
6688
4516
20788
Tom Costello Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department University of Arkansas
Low-Cost,
Temporary Poultry
Litter Storage
M
ost poultry growers realize that dry poultry litter is a valuable by-product of produc-
tion. Yet applications of poultry litter to hay fields and pasture lands generally supply
more phosphorus than the crop can use. To avoid long-term phosphorus buildup in
soils and the associated pollution risk, many farmers are seeking off-farm markets for litter.
Storage systems are often necessary to provide flexibility in clean-out scheduling and off-farm
transport arrangements.
Poultry litter storage systems must be economical for the grower and maintain environmen-
tal protection while retaining litter quality. Excessive temperatures during storage (as litter goes
through a heat cycle similar to composting) can degrade litter quality and lead to safety
concerns (spontaneous combustion). Allowing litter to be wetted by rain or runoff can lead to
odors, pests, degradation of quality and loss of product. Current environmental regulations in
Arkansas also dictate that dry animal manure be stored in a way that keeps it dry and isolated
from natural rainfall and runoff. Hence, some method of cover is required unless the farmer has
a permit to manage the litter as a liquid waste.
Storage alternatives include permanent structures (e.g., traditional wood frame or pole
structure with sheet metal roof) or temporary systems (e.g., outdoor litter pile with tarp cover).
Some estimated costs are shown in Table 1. Costs can be spread over the life of the structure,
during which litter from several clean-outs may be successfully stored. For example, if the
temporary system was put in place for 100 tons of storage capacity, the initial cost would be
$450. If the tarp lasted three years and was used three times, then the cost would be $150 per
year or $1.50 per ton of litter stored. Reduced costs often make temporary storage techniques
more practical when large volumes of litter must be stored for short periods. One objective of
on-going work at the U of A has been to configure a covered pile that effectively stores litter, but
is inexpensive and easy to construct and maintain.
Construction
Type
permanent wood
structure, steel roof
semi-permanent
steel tubing
structure,
polyethylene cover
temporary free-
standing wind-row,
polyethylene cover
Life
Exp.
(years)
Cost
($/ft )
Cost
($/ton)
20+
5 - 10
2 - 5
$6.50
$3.50
$0.30
$105
$56
$4.50
13
FIELD TESTING
Two low-cost, temporary litter storage systems were constructed and monitored at the University of Arkansas Broiler
Research Unit near Savoy, Arkansas, in February, 2000. One pile was a free-standing wind-row of litter (Figure 1) and the other
was a bunker built from two rows of large round hay bales (Figure 2). Piles were each covered with a 6 mil polyethylene, 30 ft x
60 ft, plastic tarp (Poly-Tec Hay Tarps
1
).
The free standing wind-row and the round bale bunker method of temporary litter storage appeared equally effective in this
trial. While more litter could be stored in the bunker bale method, construction of the bunker required considerable time and
expense. Based on our field experience, the free-standing, covered litter pile seems to be the best choice for a grower to tempo-
rarily store litter outside for a few weeks or months. The technique is inexpensive, easy to construct, maintains litter quality and
protects the environment.
Figure 1. Free-standing wind-
row litter storage system with
tarp cover. Pile cross-section
has dimensions 20 ft. bottom
width, 3 ft. top width and 6 ft
height. Tarp is 30 ft. wide, 6 mil
thick, 3-ply polyethylene.
Sandbags placed every 2 to 3
foot along the perimeter hold
the tarp down.
Figure 2. Hay bunker litter storage system with tarp cover.
Two rows of large round bales were used to form bunker
walls. Outside width of bunker is 20 ft. (10 ft. between
bales). Litter is piled about 2 ft above the top of the 5-ft
diameter bales to a total depth of 7 ft. Same tarp as
described in Figure 1. Tarp was originally held down using
grommets and ropes every 2 ft (left side of photo) and tires
and ropes ever 4 ft (right side of photo). Both of these
methods failed during heavy wind. Pile was eventually held
successfully using grommets and ropes with sandbags added
on top to counteract the lift forces of the wind.
Steps in Implementing Temporary Litter Storage
1. Estimate the Amount of Litter to Move
The quantity of litter removed during full-house clean-out depends directly on the number of flocks of birds that have been
grown since the last clean-out. Table 2 gives guidelines for planning temporary systems for storing dry poultry litter from full-
house clean-out, based on our tests at Savoy. Our data is based on multi-year re-use of bedding/old litter. Between flocks, no
bedding was added and caked-litter was removed. Broilers were grown to an age of 6-8 weeks. To include storage for caked litter
removed between flocks, estimate cake litter as an additional 6 tons per 16,000-ft
2
house per flock. All litter weights are on the as-
is moisture basis. Table 2 also shows that the average litter depth increases roughly 5/8 inch per flock. Knowing the bulk density
of the litter and the depth, the total litter weight and volume in the house can be estimated. These data can then be used to estimate
the number of truckloads of litter that will be removed during clean-out and to size the storage structure. The storage structure is
assumed to be a free-standing pile, 6 ft tall with a 20 ft bottom width and 3 ft top width.
Example. A broiler farmer has five broiler houses, 40 ft x 400 ft, on a clean-out schedule of once every two years (about 12
flocks). How much litter will be removed and how much storage space will be needed? Refer to Table 2.
Litter depth: assume 8 inches
House area: equivalent to five 16,000-ft
2
houses
Litter weight: 188 tons x 5 = 940 tons total
Pile length: 134 ft x 5 = 670 ft
continued on page 14
1
Poly-Tec Hay Tarps, Walk-Winn Plastics, Little Rock, Arkansas. Mention of a name brand product
in no way endorses that product nor implies that other similar products are not appropriate for use.
POULTRY LITTER STORAGE continued from page 13
If the same grower alternated clean-outs so that one house can be cleaned out every five months,
then the storage capacity required and the storage costs could be reduced by a factor of 5 (188 tons,
134 ft of storage).
To estimate litter weight, volume and storage requirements for turkeys or cornish hens, at the
time of clean-out, measure the litter depth carefully throughout the house and take an average.
Choose the closest litter depth from Table 2 and use the estimated litter weights and volumes for that
depth. This assumes that the bulk density of the litter will be similar to the broiler litter we monitored
at Savoy. This should give a good estimate for planning purposes.
2. Properly Site and Construct the Pile
Locate the storage system close to the
poultry houses to minimize travel time during
clean-out/construction. Choose a site that is
relatively flat (less than 5% slope) on high
ground that will not intercept overland flow of
rainfall/runoff water from upstream land.
Orient the pile with the long axis in the
direction of the greatest slope. Be sure that the
pile is surrounded by a 100 ft buffer zone of
well established grass with no rocky outcrops,
creeks, streams, sink holes or other water
sources. Avoid building on soils which have
excessive leaching capacity or shallow depth.
If possible, select a site which is protected
from the wind by trees or some other wind-
break (this will reduce potential problems with
the tarp blowing off).
Unload litter from the truck along the pile
centerline. Between truck unloadings, use a
front-end loader to move the litter, piling it
higher to build the desired cross-section. It
should not be necessary to shape the pile with
the tractor from the sides. The natural slope of
dry litter (about 37) should form a pile about 20 ft wide when a maximum depth of 6-6.5 ft is
attained (deeper piles are at risk for over-heating). More than one pile may be needed, depend-
ing upon the total volume of material, the topography of the site and the length of the available
tarp.
3. Correctly Cover the Pile
A pile 6 ft tall, 20 ft bottom width and 3 ft top width will require a 30 ft wide tarp. The
length of the tarp will, of course, depend on the length of the pile. When determining tarp
length, be sure to allow enough tarp length to cover both ends of the pile. Our experience
indicates that a tarp thickness of 6 mils with a UV inhibitor will provide a tarp life greater than
one year (the manufacturer suggests a five year life if tarp is well maintained). Clear plastic
tarps should be avoided to reduce solar heating of the piles. Less expensive plastic sheeting may
be used but the material will degrade quickly, will probably need to be disposed of after a single
storage period, will tend to rip easily and could fail during extended storage periods.
Recruit several people to help unroll the tarp and place it over the pile. Adjust the tarp so
that overlap is equal on both sides of the pile. Have some weights ready along the sides of the
pile to hold down the tarp temporarily while it is put into position.We recommend that the tarp
be held down using weights along the perimeter. Sandbags placed every 2-3 feet have worked
very well in our tests. (Tires are not heavy enough if placed only on the perimeter, they also
present a disposal problem at the end of the storage period).With a free-standing pile, grommets/
ropes and stakes are not easy to install since there are no sidewalls. Commercial sandbags
15
(empty) can be purchased or one could get new or used plastic/fiberglass feed sacks. Feed sacks
seem to deteriorate quicker than sandbags. Fill partially with sand or soil and tie off with twine.
Once in place, the bags will not abrade the tarp. Sandbags are preferred over steel pipe,
concrete blocks or other weights that could potentially damage mowing machinery if left in the
field.
4. Maintain the Pile
Under normal weather conditions, the covered pile should hold up well, keeping the litter
dry and preventing contamination of rain or runoff water. After storm events, check the tarp and
readjust as necessary. Pull out any slack (and eliminate any low spots that puddle water) that
may have developed from wind action. This will prolong tarp life by reducing abrasion associ-
ated with tarp billowing. Re-position sandbags as necessary.
5. Reclaim the Litter
At the end of the storage period, roll back the tarp as needed to uncover a section of the
pile. Load the litter onto the trucks for transport off the farm. Re-cover the end of the pile if the
next load will be removed at a later date. After the pile has been completely loaded out, gather
any residual litter, load into a spreader and land apply locally in a manner approved for land
application of dry poultry litter. Carefully fold the dry tarp and store for re-use.
SUMMARY
A simple system of temporarily storing poultry litter can be used to protect product quality
and prevent negative environmental impacts. A free-standing litter pile, about 20 ft wide and 6
ft deep, can be covered with a tarp, 30 ft wide, 6 mil thick. Sandbags placed every 2-3 ft along
the perimeter will hold the tarp in place. Litter from an annual clean-out of a typical 40 ft x 400
ft broiler house can be stored temporarily in an 80 ft long pile, costing approximately $450 for
materials. If the tarp is well maintained, the cost of the system can be spread over several years
use and many hundreds of tons of stored litter.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was partially supported by an EPA 319h grant through the Arkansas Soil and
Water Conservation Commission. Thanks to Tom Tabler, John Cook and Amy Cotter for help in
construction and maintenance of litter piles. Students in Biological and Agricultural Engineering
4913 at the University of Arkansas (Spring 2000) contributed to the litter storage designs. Karl
VanDevender suggested the idea for this demonstration. Tarps were provided by Walk-Winn
Plastics, Little Rock.
AVIAN ADVICE
Avian Advice is anewsletter distributed by the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. Articles in Avian
Advice focus on current production issues and provide information on recently completed field trials. If you
have a question regarding any of the articles published in this newsletter, please contact Dr. Frank T. Jones at
the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science (501) 575-5443 or e-mail ftjones@uark.edu
Avian Advice is published bi-annually.
Editor: Dr. Frank T. Jones
Graphic Designer: Karen Eskew
Avian Advice
c/o The Center of Excellence for Poultry Science
POSC 0-114, Fayetteville, AR 72701
A simple system
of temporarily
storing poultry
litter can be used
to protect product
quality and prevent
negative environmen-
tal impacts.
UA Poultry Science
Dr. Dustan Clark, Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian, earned his D.V.M. from Texas
A&M University. He then practiced in Texas before entering a residency program in
avian medicine at the University of California Veterinary School at Davis. After his
residency, he returned to Texas A&M University and received his M.S. and Ph.D. Dr.
Clark was director of the Utah State University Provo Branch Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratory prior to joining the Poultry Science faculty at the University of Arkansas in
1994. Dr. Clarks research interests include reoviruses, rotaviruses and avian diagnostics.
He is also responsible for working with the poultry industry on biosecurity, disease
diagnosis, treatment and prevention.
Dr. Frank Jones, Extension Section Leader, received his B. S. from the University of
Florida and earned his M. S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Kentucky.
Following completion of his degrees Dr. Jones developed a feed quality assurance
extension program which assisted poultry companies with the economical production of
high quality feeds at North Carolina State University. His research interests include pre-
harvest food safety, poultry feed production, prevention of mycotoxin contamination in
poultry feeds and the efficient processing and cooling of commercial eggs. Dr. Jones
joined the Center of Excellence in Poultry Science as Extension Section Leader in 1997.
Dr. John Marcy, Extension Food Scientist, received his B.S. from the University of
Tennessee and his M.S. and Ph.D. from Iowa State University. After graduation, he
worked in the poultry industry in production management and quality assurance for
Swift & Co. and Jerome Foods and later became Director of Quality Control of Portion-
Trol Foods. He was an Assistant Professor/Extension Food Scientist at Virginia Tech
prior to joining the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science at the University of Arkansas
in 1993. His research interests are poultry processing, meat microbiology and food safety.
Dr. Marcy does educational programming with Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Points (HACCP), sanitation and microbiology for processing personnel.
Dr. Susan Watkins, Extension Poultry Specialist, received her B.S., M.S. and Ph.D.
from the University of Arkansas. She served as a quality control supervisor and field
service person for Mahard Egg Farm in Prosper, Texas, and became an Extension Poultry
Specialist in 1996. Dr. Watkins has focused on bird nutrition and management issues.
She has worked to identify economical alternative sources of bedding material for the
poultry industry and has evaluated litter treatments for improving the environment of the
bird. Research areas also include evaluation of feed additives and feed ingredients on the
Mr. Jerry Wooley, Extension Poultry Specialist, served as a county 4-H agent for Conway
County and County Extension Agent Agriculture Community Development Leader in
Crawford County before assuming his present position. He has major responsibility in
the Arkansas Youth Poultry Program, and helps young people, parents, 4-H leaders, and
teachers to become aware of the opportunities in poultry science at the U of A and the
integrated poultry industry. He helps compile annual figures of the states poultry
production by counties and serves as the superintendent of poultry at the Arkansas State
Fair. Mr. Wooley is chairman of the 4-H Broiler show and the BBQ activity at the
annual Arkansas Poultry Festival.
for Poultry Science
Coming Events
September 12-14, 2000
Arkansas Nutrition
Conference, Clarion Hotel,
Fayetteville, AR
Contact: The Poultry
Federation at
(501) 375-8131
Turkey Symposium,
Inn of the Ozarks,
Eureka Springs, AR
Contact: The Poultry
Federation at
(501) 375-8131
Poultry Production and
Health Seminar, the
Sheraton Hotel,
Birmingham, AL
Contact: U.S. Poultry &
Egg Association at
(770) 493-9401
October 6-15, 2000
Arkansas State Fair,
State Fair Grounds,
Little Rock, AR
Contact: State Fair
office at
(501) 372-8341
October 16-18, 2000
National Poultry Waste
Management Symposium,
Fountainbleau Hotel,
Ocean City, MD
Contact: Nick Zimmerman
at (410) 651-9111 or
Rich Reynells at
(202) 401-5352
January 17-19, 2001
International Poultry
Exposition, Georgia World
Congress Center,
Atlanta, GA
Contact: U.S. Poultry & Egg
Association at (770) 493-9401
1
INSIDE
page2
The Bio-Burner:
A New Tool in Poultry
Sanitation
By S.E. Watkins, J.B.
Payne and A.L. Waldroup
page 5
Water - Do Your Birds
Have Enough?
By F.T. Jones
page 8
Poultry Biosecurity
By F.D. Clark
page10
Savoy Unit
Performance Report
Comments by T.Tabler
page12
U of A Poultry
Extension Staff
& Coming Events
Advice
AVIAN
W
elcome to our first issue of
Avian Advice!
The dictionary defines the
word Avian as of or pertaining to birds
and the word Advice as an opinion or
recommendation offered as a guide to
action or conduct. We hope that these
definitions help to clarify both the title and
our intent.
Articles in Avian Advice will focus on
current production issues and provide
information on recently completed field
trials. In addition, each issue will include
dates of upcoming meetings, some research
Our First Issue
trials at the Center of Excellence for
Poultry Science and information on who to
contact with questions.
Although we hope to provide a wide
range of information, we hope to keep
Avian Advice usable and practical while
maintaining a focus on production issues.
We hope to make the articles useful for the
long haul so we have printed Avian Advice
with three-hole punches, which will allow
you to keep issues in a notebook.
Please let us know what you think
(both positive and negative) about Avian
Advice.
H
ow did we ever come up with a name
like Avian Advice?
We in Extension Poultry Science decided
to produce a newsletter aimed at production
issues some time ago, but could never agree
on a name. Then we hit upon an the idea of a
name the newsletter contest for 4-H members.
To make the contest interesting, we
offered $100 in prize money and to print the
winners picture in the first issue. We
received a total of 118 names entered in the
contest from 54 contestants. Obviously, we
needed to narrow the list down so that we
could finally decide on one name.
Each newsletter name was listed and
Extension Poultry Specialists rated each name
submitted on a scale from 1 to 5. After the
initial rating, several names were tied so an
additional rating was done in the same
fashion. The vote was very close.
Laine Short of White County submitted
the name Avian Advice and, as promised, she
The Naming of a Newsletter
Name the Newsletter winner, Laine Short of White
County, receives her prize money from Extension
section leader Frank Jones.
received the prize money and her picture in
the first issue. We thank Laine and all the
other 4-H members who submitted newsletter
names.
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
Arkansas Is
Our Campus
P
oultry house sanitation plays a crucial
role in the control and prevention of
harmful diseases. Unfortunately,
poor sanitation procedures can actually do
more harm than good by creating an
environment that allows bacteria to grow and
thrive. Most chemical disinfectants have a
limited effectiveness in killing organisms
when organic matter such as litter, manure
and soil are present. Even a thin layer of
organic material can provide a protected
environment for bacterial spores, viruses,
worm eggs and fungi. In addition, moist
organic matter may actually provide a food
source for bacteria.
The concept of using heat to kill bacteria
and other organisms is not new. In the late
1800s, Louis Pasteur actually recommended
that surgeons flame their hands to prevent
contaminating patients. Heat can be very
effective in killing bacteria and other harmful
organisms mainly because organisms can not
acquire resistance to heat. In addition, heat
requires no special conditions to be effective
and it leaves behind no residues. Through the
years, the poultry industry has courted the
concept of using an open flame to burn the
floor or heating the barn to elevated
temperatures in attempts to control many
bacterial and viral diseases. In South
America, particularly Peru, a flame torch is
often used to burn the litter surface even with
birds present in the house.
The bio-burner originated as an attempt
to burn out corona virus in the floors of
turkey barns. In the last year, the concept has
been modified until the current bio-burner
evolved. The bio burner is an insulated,
stainless steel cabinet measuring 4 x 7 x 2
feet. Six liquid propane torches supply a
The bio-burner
originated as an
attempt to burn out
corona virus in the
floors of turkey
barns. In the last
year, the concept has
been modified until the
current bio-burner
evolved.
The Bio-Burner:
A New Tool in
Poultry Sanitation
1
direct flame creating a temperature of greater
than 1900
o
F within the cabinet. Surface
temperature during burning has been
measured in excess of 900
o
F. Exposure time
is approximately 12 seconds. Surface
temperature immediately post burning is
about 700
o
F but drops to around 125
o
F
within 60 seconds. (Figures 1 and 2.)
Several evaluations have been conducted
to determine if the bio-burner is an effective
tool in reducing and/or eliminating bacteria
from the floor or litter surface in broiler and
turkey houses. The first evaluation was
conducted in a turkey brood house which had
been cleaned of litter, washed and disinfected.
Sterile drag swabs were dragged in a zigzag
pattern down each half of the house. The drag
swabs are used to pick up bacteria which
might be present. Barns were swabbed pre
and post burning. The swabs were then used
to determine how much E. coli, coliform,
Salmonella and aerobic (oxygen requiring)
bacteria might be present before and after
floor burning. It is important to note that
these bacteria may or may not be harmful to
the birds, but their presence or absence gives
an indication of how well the poultry barn
was cleaned and disinfected. It was found
that bacteria were still present on the floor
surface after washing and disinfecting and
that burning the floor resulted in a 99 %
reduction in all the bacteria measured as
compared to the levels seen before the floor
was burned. (Table 1.)
A second evaluation was conducted in
two turkey brood houses which had been
cleaned of litter and thoroughly washed and
disinfected. Standing water was present in
areas of the barns. Again, drag swabs were
used to sample the floor of the barn both pre
1
Poultry Health &
Production Seminar
U.S. Poultry & Egg Association
Memphis, Tennessee
September 15, 1999
3
and post floor burning. In addition, the floors
were sampled again 12 hours post floor
burning. The aerobic bacteria count was
reduced from over 1,000,000 colony forming
units (CFU)/sponge to 234,423 CFU/sponge
immediately post burning and were holding
fairly steady at 275,423 CFU/sponge 12
hours post floor burning. This indicated that
additional killing of bacteria does not appear
to be occurring after burning. E. coli count
was reduced from 69 CFU/sponge pre floor
burning down to 17 CFU/sponge post and 21
CFU/sponge 12 hours post burning.
Coliforms were reduced from 481 CFU/
sponge to 34 post and 75 12 hours post floor
burning. (Table 2). Salmonella was still
detectable in the barn after burning. These
results indicate that if too much water is used
during the clean out procedure so that
standing water remains in the barn, then even
burning the floor will not eliminate bacteria
that may be present. This is an excellent
example of how improper sanitation may
actually provide bacteria with an opportunity
to not only remain in the barn but also thrive.
The effect of the burner on selected litter
surface bacteria was evaluated on a broiler
farm. Built up litter which had been decaked
was surface burned in four broiler houses.
Four additional houses on the farm were
decaked and the litter not burned. Drag
swabs were used to measure pre and post
burn levels of aerobic bacteria, E. coli,
coliform and Salmonella. Shallow litter
samples were evaluated for moisture and pH
levels. Aerobic bacteria were reduced in the
houses from 1,105,885 to 419,015 CFU/
sponge. (Table 3.) E. coli and coliform levels
were almost nonexistent pre and post burn
with a count of 4 CFU/sponge pre burn and 0
post burn. Litter moisture dropped from
20.89 % to 17.23 % and litter pH was
unaffected (7.17 versus 7.16). Only two
samples tested positive for Salmonella pre
burn and all samples tested negative for
Salmonella post burn. Birds from the houses
with the burned litter weighed more and had
similar feed conversions as compared to birds
grown in the houses which did not have the
litter burned. (Table 4.) Livability for the
control house birds averaged 97.04% and the
test house birds averaged a 94.17% livability.
This lower livability reflected a high first
week mortality for one of the four test barns.
All barns experienced an outbreak of the
coccidiosis (Eimeria tenella)as did other
farms in the complex during the test period.
A poultry house which had experienced a
gangrenous dermatitis outbreak was used as a
Sample Time
PRE BURN
POST BURN
E. coli
(CFU/Sponge)
220
0
Coliform
(CFU/Sponge)
210
0
Aerobic Bacteria
(CFU/Sponge)
3,096,706
24,592
Salmonella
(Incidence)
Positives Total
2 4
0 4
Table 1. Effect of floor burning on E. coli and Coliform levels in a turkey brood
house floor
Figure 2. Effect of the Bio-burner on soil temperature over time.
Figure 1. The floor temperature was monitored immediately post
burning every 10 feet to determine if the bio-burner had a consistent
effect on the floor surface temperature.
test site for the bio-burner. Since the bacteria
Clostridium has been identified as a potential
culprit in gangrenous dermatitis outbreaks,
this bacteria was measured on the floor. A
second farm which had experienced a
botulism outbreak (also caused by
Clostridium) served as another test site for
the bio-burner. Again drag swabs were used
both pre and post burning the cleaned dirt
floors. A 93.6% reduction in Clostridium
counts was found in the dermatitis house
when post floor burning counts were
compared to pre floor burning counts.
Clostridium levels in the houses which had
experienced botulism were determined to be
almost 1,000,000 CFU/sponge and dropped
to an average of 755 CFU/sponge post
burning. (Table 5.) Flocks reared after the
floors had been burned did not experience
dermatitis or botulism problems.
A farm which had experienced an E. coli
outbreak beginning the first week of the
flocks life was used to determine the effect
of the bio-burner on controlling disease
pathogens without completely cleaning the
barn. Prior to the sick flock, the house had
been thoroughly cleaned and new rice hulls
had been placed in the two barns. Again
sterile drag swabs were used to compare
selected bacterial populations pre and post
litter surface burning. Aerobic bacteria, E.
coli, coliform, yeast and mold levels were
measure. Aerobic bacteria, E. coli, coliform,
yeast and mold levels were reduced after
litter surface burning. (Table 6.)
In conclusion, evaluations have been
conducted with the bio-burner, an apparatus
which exposes poultry houses floor surfaces
to a direct and intense flame for a few
seconds. Initial evaluations indicate the bio-
burner has potential as an aid in reducing
microbial populations in the floor and litter
surface and appears to show promise in the
elimination or reduction of disease problems
in the floor surface of poultry facilities.
However, the bio-burner cannot replace good
management and sanitation. s
Sample Time
PRE BURN
POST BURN
12 HOURS
POST BURN
E. coli
(CFU/Sponge)
69
17
21
Coliform
(CFU/Sponge)
481
44
75
Aerobic Bacteria
(CFU/Sponge)
1,047,129
234,423
275,423
Salmonella
(Incidence)
Positives Total
3 6
2 6
4 4
Table 2. Effect of floor burning on bacteria levels in turkey houses which have
been cleaned and sanitized
Sample Time
PRE BURN
POST BURN
FARM ONE
(Dermatitis)
Clostridium
(CFU/Sponge)
1,883
121
FARM TWO
(Botulism)
Clostridium
(CFU/Sponge)
822,422
755
Table 5. Effect of floor burning on
Clostridium levels in broiler houses which
had experienced Dermatitis and Botulism
Sample Time
PRE BURN
POST BURN
E. coli
(CFU/Sponge)
83
8
Coliform
(CFU/Sponge)
38
1
Aerobic Bacteria
(CFU/Sponge)
2,244,399
634,892
Molds
(CFU/Sponge)
750
273
Table 6. Effect of litter surface burning on the microbial populations in a broiler facility that had
experienced an E. coli outbreak
Yeast
(CFU/Sponge)
5,572
334
Sample Time
PRE BURN
POST BURN
E. coli
(CFU/Sponge)
4
1
Total
Aerobic Bacteria
(CFU/Sponge)
1,105,885
416,015
Salmonella
(Incidence)
Positives Total
2 8
0 8
Table 3. Effect of burning the litter surface in broiler houses
on bacteria levels
House
Treatment
Burn Houses
No Burn Houses
Average Bird
Weights (lbs)
6.04
5.84
Feed-to-Gain
Ratios (lb:lb)
2.16
2.17
Livability
(%)
94.17
97.04
Table 4. Flock performance for birds which were reared on
litter that had been surface burned with the bio-burner
5
Frank T. Jones Extension Poultry Specialist
W
ater makes up about 70% of a
birds body. It is used within
the birds body to transport
nutrients to cells, lubricate joints, excrete
waste materials and keep the bird cool
through panting. The delivery of an adequate
amount of water to birds is one of the most
important single factors affecting perfor-
mance of a flock. Yet, too often it is simply
assumed that water is delivered because the
pipe is at the right height and drinkers are
present.
The University of Arkansas Broiler Unit
at Savoy near Fayetteville has been in
operation for about nine years. The farm
contains four 40 x 400 ft broiler houses in
which broilers are grown under contract with
a local integrator. There have been a total of
49 flocks grown since the Unit began.
Twenty-nine (29) flocks were heavy birds (7-
8 weeks old), while the remaining 20 flocks
were lighter birds (5-6 weeks
old). When the production
records were examined it was
noticed that when light birds
were grown the Unit consis-
tently ranked in the top 5
when compared with other
growers. However, when the
Unit produced heavier birds,
results were never as consis-
tent.
Water consumption per
day was determined and
averaged for the 4 houses on
the Unit. Figure 1 shows a
plot of this information.
Water consumption per day
steadily increased from
placement to day 42 (6 weeks of age), but
after 6 weeks of age water consumption
increased very little. Water consumption
information was then determined for each
Water - Do Your
Birds Have Enough?
house. This information is shown in Figure
2. Water consumption was very similar
among the houses until 5 weeks of age. At 6
and 7 weeks of age houses 1 and 3 consumed
more water than did houses 2 and 4. Since
all the houses contained identical sized water
lines, an examination of water flow through
the nipples was conducted.
Water flow through nipples was mea-
sured using a calibrated measuring cup called
a graduate cylinder. The pin on each nipple
was pushed to the very top and the water that
flowed through the nipple in 1 minute was
measured. This procedure was designed to
be certain that the maximum water flow was
collected through each nipple. Nipples were
chosen randomly, but were spaced evenly
between the standpipe end to the inlet end of
the water line. The information on nipple
water flow is shown in Table 1.
How to Test Nipple Water Flow
1. Obtain a kitchen measuring cup. Measuring cups can be purchased for under $1.
2. Obtain paper and a pencil or pen for recording results and a watch to time flows.
3. Select at least 10 (preferably 20) nipples per water line. Be certain that approxi-
mately the same number of nipples is chosen from the inlet, middle and standpipe
end of the line.
4. Hold the measuring cup under the nipple with one hand and activate the pin with
the other hand. Press the pin so as to ensure that a maximum amount of water
flows from each nipple, which usually means the pin is pushed to the very top.
5. Use the watch to time the water flow and collect water for 1 minute.
6. Observe and record the amount of wate collected.
7. Average water flows from each line.
8.Average water flows for heavy birds should average at least 2oz./min.
Several things are apparent from the
information in Table 1. On average, less
water flowed through nipples in houses 2 and
4 than those in houses 1 and 3. This lower
water flow may explain why birds in houses 2
and 4 consumed less water than birds in
houses 1 and 3 (Figure 2). Even though the
nipples were all the same brand and model,
there was a good deal of variation in the
water flow from each nipple. For instance,
the flow rate in house 1 ranged from 52 to 74
ml/minute. This variability in flow rate means
that when determining average nipple water
flow a minimum of 10 (preferably 20) nipples
should be tested. Water flow was less in the
first nipples tested (nipples 1-10) than in the
last nipples tested (nipples 11-20). This
suggests that the position of the nipple in the
line will tend to affect water flow. In order to
get an accurate average water flow nipples
must be tested at the beginning, middle and
end of the line. However, how much differ-
ence does the levelness of the line make in
water flow?
Nipples in one line within house 1 were
used to test the effect of levelness on nipple
water flow. The average water flow from 10
nipples was determined at the inlet. Then the
average flow rates from 10 nipples in the
middle and ten at the standpipe end of the
same waterline were determined. When the
line was level, average flow was greatest at
the inlet end and least at the standpipe end
(see Figure 3). When the inlet end of the line
was raised by 15 to 20 from level, water
flow was greatest in nipples in the middle of
the line and least at the end of the line (see
Figure 4). However, average water flow from
all nipples was greater with the inlet end
elevated rather than with the line level.
Raising the middle of the line by 15 to 20
Maximum Water Flow Rates From Nipple Waterers (in ml/min)
Observation / Item House 1 House 2 House 3 House 4
In ml/min
1 64 44 70 29
2 52 50 70 28
3 60 48 76 28
4 62 42 62 28
5 60 44 60 30
6 64 48 61 24
7 54 44 64 26
8 56 40 66 26
9 68 40 68 28
10 60 46 64 30
11 62 42 68 38
12 64 42 64 28
13 70 50 66 28
14 64 40 64 30
15 60 52 62 40
16 62 50 68 36
17 66 58 62 36
18 74 48 70 36
19 58 58 70 30
20 74 52 70 46
Mean (ml/min) 62.7 46.9 66.25 31.25
Fl. Oz/min 2.11 1.58 2.23 1.06
Note: 1 fl. oz = 29.6 ml
Table 1. Water Flow Through
Nipples at the U of A Broiler Unit
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Weeks of Age
G
a
l
/
1
0
0
0

B
i
r
d
s
/

W
e
e
k
House 1
House 2
House 3
House 4
Figure 2. Daily Water Consumption by House at the
UA Broiler Unit
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 6
1
1
1
6
2
1
2
6
3
1
3
6
4
1
4
6
5
1
Days of Age
G
a
l
/
1
0
0
0

B
i
r
d
s
/
D
a
y
Figure 1. Daily Water Consumption of Broilers at the
UA Broiler Unit
7
Item Before
2
After
3
Feed Conversion 2.028 1.930
Livability 94.41 95.87
Wt gain/day
4
.1102 .1114
Proj Wt @ 50 da
5
5.51 5.57
Cost/lb 13.5 12.95
Pay/lb 4.124 4.203
1
Average of Houses 2 and 4
2
Average of Flocks 41 & 42
3
Average of Flocks 45 & 46
4
Body wt/days of age
5
Wt gain/day * 50
Table 2. Performance Before
and After Water Nipple Change
1
Figure 3. Average Nipple Water Flow in House 1 of
the UA Broiler Unit - Line Level
60.9
59.1
54.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

F
l
o
w

(
m
l
/
m
i
n
)
Inlet Middle Standpipe
Nipple Position in the Line
63.3 65.2
58.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

F
l
o
w

(
m
l
/
m
i
n
)
the UA Broiler Unit - Inlet Up
the UA Broiler Unit - Middle Up
66.3
58.6
59.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

F
l
o
w

(
m
l
/
m
i
n
)
from level resulted in the greatest average
flow at the inlet end and the least flow in the
middle (see Figure 5). The effect of raising
the standpipe end of the line was not tested,
but it was assumed from the results in Figure
5 that raising the standpipe end of the line
would result in highest water flow at the inlet
end and lowest flow at the standpipe. This
information suggests that water lines should
be raised slightly at the inlet end rather than
level. However, it should be noted that
levelness of the line affected water flow by
about 10%. In contrast, the use of a nipple
with a low water flow rate can mean that birds
receive 50% less water than birds on nipples
with higher flow rates (see Table 1).
Following this investigation, nipples in
houses 2 and 4 were changed to nipples with
flow rates similar to those in house 3 (see
Table 1). Two flocks of heavy birds were
grown on the new nipples and the perfor-
mance results from these flocks were com-
pared with the performance of flocks grown
approximately the same time the previous
year. The results of this comparison are
shown in Table 2. After the installation of the
new nipples, feed conversion improved,
livability increased, weight gain improved,
projected weight at 50 days was heavier, cost/
lb decreased and pay/lb increased.
In conclusion, it is essential that broilers
have adequate water. To insure that birds are
receiving adequate water by testing nipples
periodically. s
b
io
-, m
e
a
n
in
g
life
, liv
in
g
o
rg
a
n
is
m
s
e
c
u
rity
, n
.,1
. fre
e
d
o
m
fro
m
d
a
n
g
e
r, ris
k
, e
tc
.; s
a
fe
ty
or costly to change. Ideally, the poultry farm
should be constructed as isolated from other
animal facilities as is possible. A rule of
thumb has been to locate farms 1-3 miles from
any other poultry facility. The facilities
should be constructed so that wild birds and
vermin can be effectively excluded and they
should be kept in good repair. In addition,
facilities should be constructed so that
maintenance can be easily and efficiently
done. Farm buildings should be located as far
away as possible from main roadways since
vehicles (including live haul trucks) can
spread disease between flocks. Automobile
traffic on the farm should not be allowed to
park near house entrances so that the chance
of transmission of disease organisms on
vehicles to birds is minimized.
The second component of biosecurity
programs (farm managerial routines) is
directed at controlling the sources of disease.
Farm routines are the easiest, quickest, and
least costly to change and can have the
greatest impact on disease prevention. Farm
routines can either assist in the spread or
diseases or prevent the disease spread. Thus,
it is important to understand how farm
routines can cause the transmission of disease
organisms from disease sources to flocks.
Diseases in poultry flocks come from the
following five sources:
1. Diseased or Carrier Poultry
2. Vermin (rodents, wildlife, free flying birds,
insects)
3. Personnel (clothing and shoes of on-farm
caretakers and visitors)
4. Inanimate objects contaminated with
disease organisms
5. Contaminated air and water.
ROUTINES FOR DEALING WITH
DISEASED OR CARRIER POULTRY
Carrier birds are those birds that have the
disease organism, but do not show the disease.
It is impossible to detect carrier birds without
testing and often the disease has already
spread once these birds have been detected.
F.D. Clark Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian
D
iseases cost the poultry industry an
estimated 10% of the total bird value
each year. In Arkansas this means that
diseases may cost the industry as much as
$230 million per year. These losses include
direct losses from mortality, decreases in egg
production and indirect costs from poor
performance, increased medication costs,
downgrades at the plant, increased condemna-
tion rates and other similar costs. Severe
disease outbreaks such as the 1983-84 avian
influenza outbreak in Pennsylvania resulted in
the eradication of over 17 million birds and
direct costs of almost $65 million as well as
countless millions in indirect costs. Preven-
tion programs provide some
protection against losses
such as these. A good
disease prevention program will
incorporate disinfection and
sanitation procedures,
vaccination practices, and A
Biosecurity to reduce the
exposure of birds to diseases.
Biosecurity is a term that is fre-
quently used when discussing disease
control in poultry. The word itself is a
combination of two terms, bio and secu-
rity . The term bio is from the Greek word
bios and means life. The definition of
security is safety or freedom from risk or
danger. When combined together as the word
biosecurity translates as life free of risk or in
other words safety for the living. In regard to
poultry; the word means any procedure or
practice which will prevent or limit the
exposure of a flock to disease causing
organisms. Biosecurity involves many
common sense procedures which are often
overlooked or only carelessly or sporadically
followed. Good biosecurity programs need to
address two broad areas: the physical farm
and the farm managerial routines.
The physical poultry farm itself is aimed
at preventing the entrance of disease organ-
isms into poultry facilities. Changes to
physical facilities are often the most difficult
Poultry Biosecurity
9
Thus, it is generally best to avoid contact with
all other birds to minimize disease risk. It is
also important to have no other avian (bird)
species on the poultry farm since these birds
can carry diseases. The utilization of all in /
all out facilities can greatly reduce the risk of
disease transmission since potentially infected
birds are removed from the premises before
new birds are acquired. In addition, all in/ all
out facilities allow a period of time between
flocks to clean and disinfect. All replacement
poultry should be from disease free stock.
Caretakers should learn to recognize symp-
toms of disease so that assistance can be
contacted as soon as possible to prevent
disease spread to other poultry on the farm.
Dead birds should be quickly removed from
poultry houses to prevent disease spread via
cannibalism. Dead birds should be disposed
off by approved methods such as incineration,
composting, or rendering. Since dead birds
can carry disease, it is important not to bring
dead birds from other farms on to your own
farm. In addition, since litter can also carry
disease organisms, it is important to keep
litter from other farms off you own farm.
ROUTINES FOR PREVENTION OF
DISEASE VIA VERMIN
All poultry houses should be constructed
with wire small enough to prevent wild birds
and animals from entering the house. They
should be checked and repaired as needed.
Since rodents contaminate and consume feed
and water, spread many diseases, and destroy
and/or damage equipment all poultry build-
ings should be rodent proofed. In addition, the
area around a poultry house and farm should
be cleaned to prevent rodent infestation and
all spilled feed should be cleared away as
soon as possible. A baiting program should
also be implemented on the poultry farm to
keep rodent populations low. Litter and
manure beetles can act as disease reservoirs
and also damage poultry house insulation and
wooden structures. Flies can also spread
disease and can be a nuisance on the farm or
to neighbors. Approved pesticide application
programs will help reduce the number of
beetles and flies. In addition, maintaining
litter in dry condition and repair or water
leaks in and around the house is also helpful.
PREVENTION OF DISEASE FROM
PERSONNEL
Access to the poultry farm should be
restricted to allow only necessary authorized
personnel. It is important to not only restrict
visitors but on-farm caretakers should also be
cognizant of the possibility of disease spread
via daily on farm movement. A traffic flow
pattern should be established so that the
youngest birds are checked first. Clean
clothing (coveralls) and boots should be
provided for all personnel entering the poultry
farm. If possible a log should be maintained
so that personnel, vehicle, and equipment can
be tracked as to when, who, and why the farm
was visited. A footbath containing a disinfec-
tant may help reduce tracking of organisms
via footwear. It is important to remember to
change out the disinfectant footbath when it
becomes dirty and in accordance with label
directions. Also remember that cleaning of
rubber boots and/or other footwear before
disinfecting is advisable since most disinfec-
tants will be rendered useless by large
amounts of organic matter such as litter or
fecal material.
PREVENTION OF DISEASE FROM
INANIMATE OBJECTS
Inanimate objects such as equipment
should be thoroughly washed and disinfected
after use. Do not borrow equipment from
other farms for use on your farm. All feed and
water systems should be cleaned and disin-
fected on a regular schedule. Do not bring
home and use anything from another poultry
farm or area where other avian species are
kept without cleaning and disinfecting it first
or better yet do not bring on the farm under
any circumstance.
DISEASE PREVENTION FROM CON-
TAMINATED WATER AND AIR
It is important to not use water that is
possibly contaminated. Chlorination of water
and cleaning of water systems will assist in
the prevention of disease. Do not water
poultry from outside sources such as a pond
without proper disinfection of the water. Air
borne pathogens are more difficult to prevent
since poultry do need ventilation to reduce
humidity, ammonia, dust, and heat. Location
of the house as far as possible from other
poultry farms does assist in prevention of
airborne disease.
Biosecurity is one of the most important
tools to use in the prevention of disease. A
biosecurity program should be an integral part
of poultry farm disease prevention practices
and should be flexible to allow changes as
needed. Constant vigilance and common
sense can pay big dividends in the reduction
of mortality and condemnations from disease.
Prevention of disease is always less costly
than treatment, control, and/or salvage. s
Diseased or Carrier
Poultry
Vermin (rodents,
wildlife, free flying birds,
insect s)
Personnel (clothing and

shoes of on-farm
caretakers and visitors)
Inanimate objects
contaminated with
disease organisms
Contaminated air and

water
Diseases in poultry
flocks come from the
following five sources
Comments from Tom Tabler Savoy Broiler Unit Manager
T
he performance report will be a regular feature of the newsletter. The report will
provide performance data from the unit as well as comments from the Broiler Unit
Manager, Mr. Tom Tabler.
Savoy Broiler Unit
Performance Report
Information Key
House number
HSE
FEED CONV
HEAD PLACED
HEAD SOLD
LIV
AGE
AVE BIRD WT
COND
FEED COST
CHICK COST
MED COST
TOTAL COST
COST/LB
PAY/LB
F.A.
GAS USAGE
ELECT
No.
LB/LB
No.
No.
%
D
LBS
%
$
$
$
$
Cent
Cent
$
GAL
KWH
UNIT DESCRIPTION
The first flock at the Savoy Broiler Unit
was placed on November 19, 1990. The unit
contains four 40 x 400 foot broiler houses.
Each house contains Cumberland pan feeders,
Ziggity nipple waterers and about 1.5 million
BTU propane heating capacity for brooding.
Each house is equipped with a computer
controller which controls fans, brooders and
curtains for temperature control. Houses are
also equipped with temperature monitoring
equipment (about 80 sensors per house), an
electronic water flow monitoring system,
weigh bins for feed delivery to the house,
sensors for the monitoring of fan run time and
devices to determine gas flow from storage
tanks.
Houses 1 and 2 were built with steel
trusses with R10 insulation in the ceiling
while houses 3 and 4 were constructed with
wood trusses, R19 ceiling insulation and drop
ceilings. Houses 1 and 3 are conventionally
ventilated with misters for summer cooling,
but 2 and 4 are tunnel ventilated. House 2
contains a sprinker cooling system for
summer cooling. The system was developed
at the University of Arkansas and uses a
landscape sprinkler system to deliver a
coarse, cooling mist to the backs of the birds.
House 4 uses evaporative cooling pads to
cool the inlet air.
11
Manager's Comments on Flock 47
A wood pellet burning furnace was installed in House 3 to begin this flock. The furnace was outside at the middle of the house and heated air is
blown into the house and picked up by the 2 axial fans and blown each direction down plastic jet tubes which distribute the heated air the length
of the house. Data collection from this project will allow cost comparisons between this system and the conventional propane fired brooder and
furnace system. Caked litter removal from houses after the flock sold was as follows: House 1 - 1 load, House 2 - 5 loads, House 3 - 2 loads and
House 4 - 1 load. For Flock 47, House 1 had the best feed conversion, while House 2 had the heaviest chicken.
AVE
1
USAGE USAGE
1 2.06 19439 17869 91.92 52 5.47 2.60
2
10071 3305 16.55 13393 14.057 3.6448 375.29 1440 2364
2 2.17 19291 17288 89.62 52 5.56 2.60 10416 3279 16.55 13712 14.639 3.0627 375.29 1100 2409
3 2.11 19295 17516 90.78 52 5.51 2.60 10165 3280 16.55 13461 14.332 3.3696 375.29 264
3
3753
4 2.12 19226 17929 93.25 52 5.22 2.60 9893 3268 16.55 13178 14.463 3.2389 375.29 1638 2388
FARM 2.11 77251 70602 91.39 52.00 5.44 2.60 40545 13133 66.20 53744 14.371 3.3310 1501.16 4442 10914
1
2
3
Lower gas usage and increased electrical usage in House #3 is a reflection of wood pellet furnace installed on this flock.
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 47 (January 8, 1999 - March 1, 1999)
AVE
1
USAGE USAGE
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 48 (March 22, 1999 - May 13 (1,2,3) and May 14 (4), 1999)
1 1.94 18893 17792 94.17 51 5.99 2.04
2
10334 3212 25.95 13572 13.003 4.5222 0.00 955 1997
2 2.08 18827 17457 92.72 51 5.79 2.04 10502 3201 25.95 13729 13.874 3.6504 0.00 580 1546
3 2.02 18893 16923 89.57 51 5.57 2.04 9505 3212 25.95 12743 13.802 3.7233 0.00 467
3
2601
4 2.12 8893 17744 93.92 52 5.70 2.04 10699 3212 25.95 13937 14.068 3.4567 0.00 838 1516
FARM 2.04 75506 69916 92.60 51.25 5.76 2.04 41041 12836 103.80 53981 13.675 3.8493 0.00 2840 7660
1
2
3
Lower gas usage and increased electrical usage in House #3 is a reflection of wood pellet furnace installed on this flock.
AVE
1
USAGE USAGE
PRODUCTION SUMMARY: FLOCK 49 (May 31, 1999 - July 27, 1999)
1
2
1 2.26 17982 17037 94.74 57 5.94 1.44
2
11446 3057 26.60 14530 14.575 4.7912 0.00 280 5875
2 2.22 17897 17267 96.48 57 6.29 1.44 12059 3042 26.60 15128 14.135 5.2306 0.00 172 5325
3 2.28 17934 16906 94.27 57 6.03 1.44 11609 3049 26.60 14684 14.605 4.7606 0.00 153 6485
4 2.32 17924 16188 90.31 57 6.02 1.44 11321 3047 26.60 14394 14.993 4.3725 0.00 448 5111
FARM 2.27 71737 67398 93.95 57.00 6.07 1.44 46434 12195 106.40 58736 14.565 4.8005 0.00 1053 22796
Manager's Comments on Flock 48
The wood burning furnace project in House 3 continued, but warmer weather prevented an ideal testing climate. Data collection will resume in
October when cooler weather returns. House 1 had both the best feed conversion and the heaviest chicken. While House 1 also had the best
feed conversion on Flock 47, this is not a consistent pattern. Over time, all four houses are quite similar in performance. We have not proved
that one construction style (steel vs wood) or one ventilation style (conventional vs tunnel)produces consistently better results. Caked litter
removal from the houses after the flock sold was as follows: House 1 - 1 load, House 2 - 2 loads, House 3 - 2 loads and House 4 - 1 load.
Between flocks 48 and 49 extra fogging nozzles were added in Houses 1 and 3, bringing the total number of nozzles in each house to 74. The 2
fogging lines in each house were winched and the "outside" lines were moved closer to the summer cooling fans along the south wall of each house.
These changes were beneficial and these two houses lost a combined total of 400 to 500 birds due to heat stress. House 2, with its somewhat
unconventional sprinkler cooling system, produced the heaviest chicken and had the best feed conversion. Caked litter removal from the houses
with the decaking machine after the flock sold was as follows: House 1 - 5 loads, House 2 - 7 loads, House 3 - 8 loads and House 4 - 2 loads.
UA Poultry Science
Dr. Dustan Clark, Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian, earned his D.V.M. from Texas
A&M University. He then practiced in Texas before entering a residency program in
avian medicine at the University of California Veterinary School at Davis. After his
residency, he returned to Texas A&M University and received his M.S. and Ph.D. Dr.
Clark was director of the Utah State University Provo Branch Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratory prior to joining the Poultry Science faculty at the University of Arkansas in
1994. Dr. Clarks research interests include reoviruses, rotaviruses, and avian diagnostics.
He is also responsible for working with the poultry industry on biosecurity, disease
diagnosis, treatment and prevention.
Dr. Frank Jones, Extension Section Leader, received his B. S. from the University of
Florida and earned his M. S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Kentucky.
Following completion of his degrees Dr. Jones developed a feed quality assurance
extension program which assisted poultry companies with the economical production of
high quality feeds at North Carolina State University. His research interests include pre-
harvest food safety, poultry feed production, prevention of mycotoxin contamination in
poultry feeds and the efficient processing, and cooling of commercial eggs. Dr. Jones
joined the Center of Excellence in Poultry Science as Extension Section Leader in 1997.
Dr. John Marcy, Extension Food Scientist, received his B.S. from the University of
Tennessee and his M.S. and Ph.D. from Iowa State University. After graduation, he
worked in the poultry industry in production management and quality assurance for
Swift & Co. and Jerome Foods and later became Director of Quality Control of Portion-
Trol Foods. He was an Assistant Professor/Extension Food Scientist at Virginia Tech
prior to joining the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science at the University of Arkansas
in 1993. His research interests are poultry processing, meat microbiology and food safety.
Dr. Marcy does educational programming with Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Points (HACCP), sanitation and microbiology for processing personnel.
Dr. Susan Watkins, Extension Poultry Specialist, received her B.S., M.S. and Ph.D.
from the University of Arkansas. She served as a quality control supervisor and field
service person for Mahard Egg Farm in Prosper, Texas, and became an Extension Poultry
Specialist in 1996. Dr. Watkins has focused on bird nutrition and management issues.
She has worked to identify economical alternative sources of bedding material for the
poultry industry and has evaluated litter treatments for improving the environment of the
bird. Research areas also include evaluation of feed additives and feed ingredients on the
Mr. Jerry Wooley, Extension Poultry Specialist, served as a county 4-H agent for Conway
County and County Extension Agent Agriculture Community Development Leader in
Crawford County before assuming his present position. He has major responsibility in
the Arkansas Youth Poultry Program, and helps young people, parents, 4-H leaders, and
teachers to become aware of the opportunities in poultry science at the U of A and the
integrated poultry industry. He helps compile annual figures of the states poultry
production by counties, and serves as the superintendent of poultry at the Arkansas State
Fair. Mr. Wooley is chairman of the 4-H Broiler show and the BBQ activity at the
annual Arkansas Poultry Festival.
January 19-21, 2000
International Poultry Exposition;
Georgia World Congress Center,
Atlanta
Contact: U.S. Poultry & Egg
Association (770) 493-9401
Mar ch 30, 2000
De Queen Poultry Conference;
De Queen High School
Contact: Ralph Tyler,
Sevier Co. CES
(870) 584-3013
April 6, 2000
Producer Workshop
Undetermined Location, Missouri
(501) 375-8131
April 11-12, 2000
Arkansas Poultry Sympsoium;
Holiday Inn,
April 13, 2000
Producer Workshop;
Holiday Inn,
April 18, 2000
Producer Workshop;
Conway, Arkansas
Apr il 20, 2000
Producer Workshop;
Hope, Arkansas
for Poultry Science
Coming Events

Abubakar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abubakar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abubakar Tahir Ramay

M.Sc.( Hons ) Animal Nutrition

(34% stabilized), Proxy-Clean

(50% stabilized), and Oxy Blast Plus

and Oxy Blast

also has NSF International

Peroxide Test Strips

produced 50ppm concentration of H

and Oxy Blast

, respectively . However, the data in Table 1 suggest that in

at 4 oz/gal gave a 25 ppm

AVIAN Advice Spring 2009 Vol. 11, No. 1

and Oxy Blast

at a 2 oz/gal stock solution concentration should be

AVIAN Advice Spring 2009 Vol. 11, No. 1

Cooperative Extension Service

Table 1. Average Daily Mortality of Chickens during

Cooperative Extension Service

Energy Use and Cost for Lighting

AVIAN Advice Fall 2008 Vol. 10, No. 3

AVIAN Advice Fall 2008 Vol. 10, No. 3

National Safety Council. 2003. Accident facts: 2003

Weigel, R .1983. Stress on the Farm. North Central

Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) Meters

Cooperative Extension Service

AVIAN Advice Summer 2008 Vol. 10, No. 2

AVIAN Advice Summer 2008 Vol. 10, No. 2

AVIAN Advice Summer 2008 Vol. 10, No. 2

AVIAN Advice Summer 2008 Vol. 10, No. 2

AVIAN Advice Summer 2008 Vol. 10, No. 2

Cooperative Extension Service

AVIAN Advice Spring 2008 Vol. 10, No. 1

AVIAN Advice Spring 2008 Vol. 10, No. 1

AVIAN Advice Spring 2008 Vol. 10, No. 1

AVIAN Advice Spring 2008 Vol. 10, No. 1

AVIAN Advice Spring 2008 Vol. 10, No. 1

Cooperative Extension Service

AVIAN Advice Winter 2007 Vol. 9, No. 4

SUCCESSFUL SERVICE TECHNICIAN/ FLOCK

AVIAN Advice Winter 2007 Vol. 9, No. 4

AVIAN Advice Winter 2007 Vol. 9, No. 4

AVIAN Advice Winter 2007 Vol. 9, No. 4

Cooperative Extension Service

Cooperative Extension Service

Cooperative Extension Service

Cooperative Extension Service

Cooperative Extension Service

Cooperative Extension Service

Personnel (clothing and

Contaminated air and

You might also like