Poultry Health at Elanco

Coccidiosis is a ubiquitous parasitic disease affecting the intestinal tract of poultry caused by specific species of the protozoal parasite Eimeria.

Signs of coccidiosis in poultry include^1,2 :

• Enteritis
• Wet litter
• Poor Feed Conversion Rate (FCR)
• Decreased weight gain

The majority of poultry infected with coccidia show no symptoms, but young or immunocompromised animals may suffer more severe signs of disease. Keeping the challenge as low as possible is critical to protecting bird health and performance.

Managing coccidiosis is best achieved through a holistic approach. While it is important to use an appropriate anticoccidial in at risk birds, it is also critical to consider how the immune status of the flock and management factors may help reduce the impact of coccidiosis.

To learn more about our commitment to sustainable poultry production, click here.

There are a number of infectious diseases which can affect poultry, impacting their health and performance. These diseases include:

• Salmonellosis: This disease has important implications for human health. Eggs sold in the UK must be certified as being free from Salmonella, under the Lion Code of Practice.
• Chicken Anaemia Virus (CAV): This infection impairs poultry immune system functionality and red blood cell production. It can cause weakness and death, as well as being a significant source of economic loss to producers.
• Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD), (also known as Gumboro disease): This disease targets the birds' immune system leading to reduced response to vaccination against other pathogens and increased susceptibility to secondary infections. It is a major potential cause of economic loss to producers. These diseases can be managed through the use of specific and targeted vaccination programs.

The Elanco Food Safety Program works alongside the British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) to support producers in ensuring their eggs are free from salmonella.

To learn more visit The FSP Hub

• Parasitic worms can affect intestinal and respiratory health, leading to marked effects on poultry health and performance
• All poultry are at risk of parasitic worm infection: layers, breeders, broilers, turkeys, ducks and geese
• There is a risk of worms in all production systems, especially free range and floor husbandry, as the birds are not separated from their infective worm eggs
• Worm eggs can survive in the environment providing a source of infection for birds¹, and if no measures are taken to reduce shedding by infected birds, the infection pressure in the environment can increase over time ²

Birds can develop infection directly or indirectly, depending on the species of the bird. Direct infection may be caused through the consumption of worm eggs from the floor or pasture or through contact with infected wild birds. Worm eggs can also be brought in to a system on food sacks, litter or clothing. This is irrespective of whether the birds are housed or free range. Indirect infection may be caused by consuming intermediate hosts (earthworms, insects, slugs) infected by parasitic worms.

Worm eggs require warm, damp conditions to develop and cannot be killed through disinfectants - they can survive for years in the environment. They build up in large numbers where there is concentrated use of land by birds (overstocking or little rotation of land), especially if poorly drained.

References

• Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in different poultry production systems, A. Permin , M. Bisgaard , F. Frandsen , M. Pearman , J. Kold & P. Nansen, British Poultry Science 1999; 40: 439-443.
• Genetic differences of Ascaridia galli egg output in laying hens following a single dose infection. Gauly

ß-Mannans (ß-galactomannans) are non-starch polysaccharide (NSP) fibres found in leguminous feed ingredients including soybean meal. The animals’ innate immune system recognizes ß-mannans as an intruder because they have a similar molecular pattern to some pathogens.^1,2,3,4,5 This triggers an innate immune response which consumes energy and nutrients.^6,7,8,9 Even small amounts of ß-mannans trigger the response. The presence of the ß-mannan fibres causes the diversion of energy away from growth.^6-9(It also reduces nutrient absorption ^12,13 and lowers secretion of insulin.^10,11) This response can consume about 3% of total metabolizable energy.¹⁴

A health enzyme can be used to combat this. It works by breaking down ß-mannans in soybean meal and other common feedstuffs.^12,14 By acting on the ß-mannans in the feed, the innate immune response is minimized. The resulting breakdown product created does not trigger the Feed-Induced Immune Response (FIIR). Instead, the animal’s body directs energy to growth and performance.^6-9

References

• Song, W., Wang, G., Chen, L. et al. 1995. “A Receptor Kinase-Like Protein Encoded by the Rice Disease Resistance Gene, Xa21.” Science. 270: 1804-1806.
• Beutler, B., Jiang, Z., Georgel, P. et al. 2006. “Genetic Analysis of Host Resistance: Toll-Like Receptor Signaling and Immunity at Large.” Annu. Rev. Immunol. 24: 353-389.
• Ausubel, F. 2005. “Are innate immune signaling pathways in plants and animals conserved?” Nature Immunol. 6(10): 973-979.
• Didierlaurent, A., Simonet, M. and Sirard, J-C. 2005. “Innate and acquired plasticity of the intestinal immune system.” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 62: 1285- 1287.
• Stahl, P. and Ezekowitz, R. 1998. “The mannose receptor is a pattern recognition receptor involved in host defense.” Curr. Opin. Immunol. 10(1): 50-55.
• Spurlock, M. 1997. “Regulation of metabolism and growth during immune challenge: an overview of cytokine function.” J. Anim. Sci. 75: 1773-1783.
• Gabler, N. and Spurlock, M. 2008. “Integrating the immune system with the regulation of growth and efficiency.” J. Anim. Sci. 86: E64-E74.
• Korver, D. 2006. “Overview of the Immune Dynamics of the Digestive System.” J. Appl. Poultry Res. 15: 123-135.
• Klasing, K. 2007. “Nutrition and the immune system.” Br. Poult. Sci. 48(5): 525-537.
• Leeds, A. and Kang, S. 1980. “The pig as a model for studies on the mode of action of guar gum in normal and diabetic man.” Proc. Nutrition Society 44A.
• Sambrook, I. and Rainbird, A. 1985. “The effect of guar gum and level and source of dietary fat on glucose tolerance in growing pigs.” Brit. J. Nutr. 54(01): 27-35.
• Lee, J., Bailey, C. and Cartwright, A. 2003. “ß-Mannanase Ameliorates Viscosity-Associated Depression of Growth in Broiler Chickens Fed Guar Germ and Hull Fractions.” Poultry Sci. 82: 1925-1931.
• Couch, J., Bakshi, Y., Ferguson, T. et al. 1967. “The effect of processing on the nutritional value of guar meal for broiler chicks.” Brit. Poultry Sci. 8(4): 243-250.
• Daskiran, M., Teeter, R., Fodge, D. and Hsiao, H. 2004. “An Evaluation of Endo-ß-D-mannanase Hemicell™) Effects on Broiler Performance and Energy Use in Diets Varying in ß-mannan Content.” Poultry Sci. 83: 662-668.

Elanco has many years of experience in delivering additional value to its customers through its comprehensive data analytics systems. These systems have allowed Elanco to build a wealth of experience and comparative historical data, which can be used to benchmark production systems.

Elanco’s Health Tracking System (HTSi™) is an established, independently verified and globally recognised broiler benchmarking platform that incorporates multiple lesions to assess gut health, locomotor function, respiratory stability and bird welfare¹.

It has been used successfully for many years to monitor the performance of birds and help drive towards future improvements.

Benefits of HTSi:

• Allows the health of broilers to be tracked over time
• Evaluates a broad range of health conditions of broilers
• It is backed by 20 years of Elanco global poultry experience and records

HTSi puts producers in control by:

• Identifying trends
• Giving early indications of health problems
• Allowing early, targeted therapeutics
• Comparing performance
• Creating a sustainable competitive advantage

References:

• Kasab-Bachia H, Arrudab A, Robertsa T, Wilsona J. (2017). The use of large databases to inform the development of an intestinal scoring system for the poultry industry. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 146, pp. 130–135.