Progress report for LS23-388
Project Information
This project is a system approach to enhance sustainability of small flock poultry farming through improvement in production practices in bird nutrition, food safety, and farm produce marketing. Nutritional/feeding studies will be conducted to understand better approaches in feeding management (dietary energy), food safety practices (minimize food borne pathogens) and farm produce (eggs) marketing strategies. The findings of the study will be disseminated primarily through training-workshops across the state of Tennessee targeting small flock producers, county agents, and other poultry stakeholders.
Improving the profitability of farm operations is a pillar to sustainability that can be achieved through balanced feeding and enhanced feed efficiency. Feed costs account for 70 % of the total cost of production in poultry operation. Managing dietary energy is an important aspect of feeding management that directly affects the performance of birds. Dietary energy levels play an important role in regulating feed intake, and thus, the intake of overall nutrients. Additionally, dietary energy impacts dietary calcium (Ca2+) absorption in the gut of chicken. Efficient intestinal Ca2+ absorption is paramount to layer hens to maintain body Ca2+ homeostasis and to fulfill daily Ca2+ needs for egg-shell calcification. In the feeding study, an egg-type breed will be evaluated to understand its energy need for optimal performance (feed efficiency) and egg shell quality (Ca2+ absorption).
Pre-harvest food safety practices play an important role in any animal production system. The proposed study will also evaluate impacts of poultry drinking water supplies sanitation practices on bird health, and microbial (food-borne pathogens) safety of eggs. Routine swabbing of the eggs and birds (cloacal) will be conducted to check for the prevalence of food borne pathogens and to assess if farm water supplies treatment has any effect on microbial safety of farm produce.
For small-scale farmers, raising poultry can provide additional income and support to their farm business. However, small-scale farmers do not always have the marketing skills needed for a successful operation. Management and marketing skills are also needed to optimize their operation whether it is for home consumption or directed at a market. Indeed, these skills will play an important role in the farmer's decision-making process. They can help in deciding the size of the flock(s), the timing of the production, the location of the operation, the inputs to use, the market to target, etc. This project will educate farmers on best practices of record-keeping, budgeting, as well as the development of other financial statements needed to evaluate the costs of the operation, pricing, and strategizing marketing of farm produce to improve income and profitability in small-flock operation.
The objectives of the project are as follows:
- Establish specific dietary energy level that is optimal to calcium absorption for an egg type breed in a free-range pastured operation (Dr. Maharjan and Dr. Nahashon)
- Evaluate performance and egg quality differences between conventional diets and organic soy-free diets (Dr. Maharjan, Dr. Nahashon, Dr. Tabler, and Co-operating farmers)
- Conduct prevalence study of food borne pathogens with the farm produce under treated and untreated poultry drinking water supplies (Dr. Kilonzo, Dr. Maharjan, and Co-operating farmers)
- Assess cost associated with production inputs and performance outputs in each conventional and organic based dietary approaches by preparing budget sheets and evaluate farm profitability (Dr. Lawani, Dr. Maharjan, and Co-operating farmers)
- Educate small flock producers, county agents, and poultry stakeholders on basics of feeding management, food safety practices, and farm economics for sustainable poultry operation (Dr. Maharjan, Dr. Tabler, Dr. Kilonzo, Dr. Lawani and Co-operating farmers)
Cooperators
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
Research
- Establish specific dietary energy level that is optimal to calcium absorption for an egg type breed in a free-range pastured operation
Treatment diets and husbandry practices
A commonly reared egg- type backyard breed, Isa-Brown Red, was utilized in the study. Two types of production setting was studied- one cage based study and another one was in pastured free-range setting.
The study was conducted at the Poultry Research Unit, College of Agriculture, Tennessee State University, Tennessee. All experimental procedures for the study were performed following the guidelines set by the Local Experimental Animal Care Committee and received approval from the ethics committee of the College of Agriculture, TSU, Tennessee.
This study consisted of a total of thirty-six ISA brown laying hen strain at the late phase of production (~65 weeks) randomly allocated in 36 cages to one of three dietary treatments with low (T1), medium (T2), and high levels (T3) of energy (11.50, 12.75, and 13 MJ/kg, respectively). Treatment diets were formulated to be isonitrogenous and with the same inclusion level of calcium. Feed was made in the feed mill of the poultry research unit, TSU. Each treatment consisted of 6 replicates, considering two consecutive cages as a replicate (1 bird/cage). The experiment was conducted over a 6-week period. The experiment design was a completely randomized design (CRD). All birds were each given 110 g feed per day. Water was provided ad libitum by a nipple drinker.
Birds were also reared in free-range in pasture with the same treatment diets (six replicate pen units- 5’ X 6’ pen size). The detail on the methods and results on this study component is underway, and will be presented in the next progress report. There were three replicate plots per treatment, with 9 birds per replicate at production phase (~ 30 sq. foot run/replicate). Pasture were rotated every 7 days. Forage coverage % were accounted for each rotation made. The experiment was evaluated for two weeks for each dietary energy level.
Experimental diets (corn-soy based) consisted of three different energy levels (~135 kcal/lb difference). This experiment will also test organic soy-free diet (TBD). The dietary energy level of soy-free diet will be selected based on field practice. The major ingredient for soy-free diet will be corn and other minor ingredient will include wheat. Calcium levels and other nutrient profile of test diets will be kept constant (Table 1). All the ingredients used in test diets: corn, soy, and wheat, are the major crops grown in TN.
Table 1. An illustration of nutrient profile of experimental diets.
Nutrient profile |
TRT 1 |
TRT 2 |
TRT 3 |
TRT 4 |
Diet based-on |
Corn-soy |
Corn-soy |
Corn-soy |
Soy-free |
DM, % |
90.68 |
90.68 |
90.68 |
90.68 |
Crude Protein, % |
17.5 |
17.5 |
17.5 |
17.5 |
Metabolizable Energy (kcal/lb) |
1365* |
1501.5 |
1638 |
TBD |
Calcium |
4.00 |
4.00 |
4.00 |
4.00 |
Phosphorous total |
0.65 |
0.65 |
0.65 |
0.65 |
Available Phosphorus |
0.45 |
0.45 |
0.45 |
0.45 |
*The energy level chosen for treatment 1 is the recommended energy levels for a typical commercial egg-type breed. TBD: To Be Determined. TRT= Treatment. TRT 1-3: conventional corn-soy diet; TRT 4: Organic soy-free diet.
Other details on the methods for the variables measured for the cage-type setting is presented below:
Performance and egg quality materials
Birds were weighed at the beginning of the experiment (d0), and on d14, d28 and d42 of the experimental period. Feed intake was measured for each bird’s weight period. Similarly egg weight, egg production percentage were measured in daily basis. Feed intake and egg weight data were utilized to calculate the FCR for d0-d14, d15-d28, d29-d42, and d0-d42 for the experimental period.
On the last day of the experiment, eggs from each cage were collected and stored at 4ºC for subsequent measurements and later eggshell thickness was measured to the nearest 0.001 mm at the blunt and sharp ends and the equatorial region using a micrometer.
Blood Sample
Five millilitres of blood (with anticoagulant) from the wing vein of one randomly sampled bird per replication were obtained after oviposition, after 8 hours and again after 24 hours on day 42 of experiment. Plasma was separated by centrifugation of the blood at 1500 rpm for 15 min at 4C and stored at 56ºC until use. Calcium level in blood and the circadian dynamics of Ca- metabolism related hormones in blood (dihydroxy cholecalciferol (1,25 (OH)2D3), 17β-Estradiol-2, Parathyroid Hormone (PTH), calcitonin, and Parathyroid Hormone-Related Peptide (PTHrP)) will be measured.
Amino acid digestibility
A digestibility assay to understand apparent dietary ileal digestibility of amino acids was conducted on d42 of the experiment. The ileal digesta was collected by carefully excising the small intestine from Meckel’s diverticulum to 2 cm anterior to the ileo-cecal junction. The contents were gently flushed out with ice-cold saline, and the digesta from the one randomly selected bird per replication were pooled. Ileal digesta samples were frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored in a freezer at − 64◦C and later subjected to freeze drying before amino acid analysis. TiO2 was used as an indigestible marker at a rate of 0.5 % in the diets. TiO2 was thoroughly mixed into the diets using a standard feed mixer to ensure uniform distribution throughout the feed. The diet was provided in mash form to ensure a well-balanced intake, as mash prevents birds from separating out ingredients.
Tissue collection
Uterus, kidney and duodenum tissue samples were collected with RNA later from one bird per replication and stored in a freezer at − 64◦C until further analysis.
ELISA Analysis
The concentration of ovalbumin (OVA), ovotransferrin (OVO) were measured through commercial ELISA kit from the uterus, kidney and duodenum samples. The ovalbumin was measured using General Ovalbumin (OVA) ELISA kit (Catalog No.- MBS2000240, MyBioSource INC, San Diego, CA 92195) and the ovotranferrin were measured by Chicken Ovotransferrin (OT) ELISA kit (Catalog No.- MBS944289, MyBioSource INC, San Diego, CA 92195).
Quantitative PCR Analysis
Tissue samples were stored with RNA later for real-time PCR analysis, and total RNA was extracted from the uterine tissues, duodenum, and kidney using RNeasy Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) and then RNA concentrations were measured using a NanoDrop 2000c (Thermo Scientific, Waltham). The cDNA was synthesized using QuantiNova Reverse Trancription Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany).
Finally eggshell calcification related genes (calbindin d28k and carbonic anhydrase II (CA2)) for differential expression in the duodenum, kidney, and uterine tissue were measured. The β -actin gene was used as a housekeeping gene. The quantitative PCR (qPCR) was performed in triplicate with SYBR Green supermix (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) in CFX Duet Real-Time PCR machine (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). The qPCR conditions were as follows: 95ºC for 2 min and then 40 cycles of 95ºC for 5s, 60ºC for 30s, and 72ºC for 5s per step as melt curve. Each group had 3 replicates, and 3 samples were examined for each uterine, kidney and duodenal tissue.
Gene Name |
Primer sequence (5’-3’) |
Product Size (bp) |
Calbindin D28k (CALB1) |
F: TGTTATGGAGTGCAGGATGG R: TAGAGCGAACAAGCAGGTGA |
131 |
Carbonic anhydrase II (CA2) |
F: CTCCTCCGACAAGTCAGTGC R: TACGACGGCCAAACCATCAG |
214 |
β -actin (Reference Gene) |
F: ACACCCACACCCCTGTGATGAA R: TGCTGCTGACACCTTCACCATTC |
136 |
Statistical Analysis:
All results were expressed as the mean standard error of the means (SEM). Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the post hoc Duncan’s test using SAS software (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). The level was considered up to statistically significant when P < 0.05.
Educational material output:
- Bird responses to dietary energy levels on performance
- Specific dietary energy level that is optimal to calcium absorption
- Evaluate performance and egg quality differences for conventional and organic soy-free diets between farms
The on-farm rearing of the birds will be performed by the three co-operating farmers (Susan Kyle, Ron Bridges, and Cynthia Capers) in their respective farms, with either conventional or organic based diets (Table 3). At least 50 birds will be utilized at each farm, and study will be conducted for the 12-week period at the same time as TSU research farm utilizing the same batch of birds. Treated and untreated drinking water supplies will be alternated weekly for these farms with co-operating farmers and at TSU research farm for Treatment 4 diet. Environmental friendly UV-based water treatment technology will be applied to sanitize farm water supplies. Feed conversion values, daily egg production, egg weight, eggshell quality, and livability will calculated for conventional and organic based dietary approaches for each farm (of co-operating farmers) and will be compared with performance values obtained at TSU research farm. The fatty acids profile of eggs will also be measured between these two feeding approaches. The co-operating farmers have been informed about their roles (research and education components) in the project. Furthermore, they have actively participated in planning of project and the farm trial. We have had opportunity to meet in-person through on-site farm visits (Rustic Farm and Heniscity Farm) and remotely via (multiple) zoom meetings.
Table 3: Dietary table for on-farm studies by co-operating farmers
Co-operating farmers |
Diet type |
Water treatment |
Susan Kyle |
Soy-free (TRT 4) |
Alternate week |
Ron Bridges |
Corn-soy (TRT 1) |
|
Cynthia Capers |
Corn-soy (TRT 1) |
|
TSU research farm |
Soy-free (TRT 4) |
Educational Output:
- Possible farm to farm variation in performance outputs for same dietary approaches
- Impacts of poultry water supplies treatment on performance (within farm comparison).
- Assessing prevalence of Salmonella species, E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes under treated and untreated water supplies
Three farms under co-operating farmers and the TSU research farm (Treatment 4 replicates) will be subjected for this evaluation. During the 12-week experimental period, poultry drinking water samples, egg rinse samples and cloacal swab samples will be taken biweekly and assessed for the prevalence of foodborne pathogens (Salmonella spp., E. coli and Listeria). There will be total of six sampling occasions- three occasions will be utilized on the 7th day during when water treatment is in place, whereas other three occasions will be during when water supplies are not treated. Eggs (n= 15), and cloacal swabs (n=10 birds) and water supply source will be aseptically collected from each farm on each occasion. All samples will be transported in an insulated foam box with ice and processed in the laboratory within 24 h of collection or stored overnight at 4°C until processed the next day.
For this reporting cycle:
Samples collected:
Egg Swabs
- Layer Hens in Cages: 3 egg swabs per cage (18 cages) = 54 samples
- Layer Hens in pasture: 6 egg swabs per cage (6 cages) = 36 samples
Procedure for microbial analysis
Each egg will be placed separately in a sterile bag containing 300 mL of buffered peptone water (BPW) and manually rinsed for 2 min, ensuring that all external parts have contact with the rinse. Sterile cotton swabs in 0.1% BPW will be used to take cloacal samples and thereafter will be immersed in 10 ml of 0.1% BPW and vortexed for 30 s. Farm drinking water (10 ml) and 90 mL of BPW will be added and pummeled in a stomacher 400 circulator at 230 rpm for 2 min. All homogenates will be evaluated for Salmonella spp, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes by using both traditional and biochemical methods.
Detection of Salmonella spp, E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes characterized according to (Liu and Kilonzo-Nthenge, 2017). Briefly, 0.1 ml of each pre-enriched sample will be added to 10 mL of Rappaport-Vassiliadis (RV), enterohemorrhagic E. coli enrichment broth, and Listeria enrichment broth base, respectively, and then incubated at 37°C for 24 h. Similarly, for each water sample, 1 ml will be added directly to 10 ml of each respective broth and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. Consequently, a loop (10 μl) of cultured broths will be streaked onto respective plates: Xylose-Lysine-Desoxycholate (XLD) selective agar (Oxoid, Basingstoke, Hants, England) for Salmonella spp, Sorbitol MacConkey agar (CM0813; Oxoid) supplemented with cefixime (50 ng/ ml) and potassium tellurite (25 mg/ml) supplement (SR0172E; Oxoid) for Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Listeria selective agar for Listeria monocytogenes. Plates will be incubated at 37°C for 24 to 48 h. Presumptive Salmonella spp colonies of red, yellow with black centers, colorless E. coli O157:H7, and brownish-black colonies Listeria monocytogenes presumptive colonies will be preserved in sterilized 80% glycerol at -80 ºC for confirmation with PCR.
Educational outputs:
- Understand the relationship of food pathogen prevalence that exist between environment (treated versus untreated water supplies), bird (cloaca) and farm produce (eggs)
- Assess cost associated with production inputs and performance outputs in each conventional and organic based dietary approaches by preparing budget sheet and evaluate profitability (Dr. Lawani and co-operating farmers)
During the experimental phase, data will be collected to estimate production and marketing costs in each conventional and organic based dietary approaches for small flock production. The data will be used to generate sample budgets for each approach and analyzed to compare their profitability.
The budget will consider three time-horizons: raising of rearing phase (before egg production), production phase, and the marketing phase. In addition to the cost commonly associated with rearing chickens, some specific costs will vary and will be related to each time horizon. During the rearing phase, we will collect variable costs associated with the pullet diet. In the production phase, the cost of the experimental diets with the associated three different energy levels will also be evaluated in addition to the cost related to feed consumption and other operating costs. During the marketing phase, we will examine different scenarios. We assume that most of the production will be sold directly to consumers through farmers markets, roadside stands, or directly on the farm. We will also examine indirect marketing options where producers can sell for example as a group to retailers. The rationale behind separating the time horizon into three phases is that i) it allows us to identify the source of difference of performance between the conventional and organic based dietary approaches for small flock production, ii) it offers farmers the possibility to change/adapt their strategy to the market conditions (e.g., if after the day-old chicks raising farmers realize that the market price will not lead to a profitable enterprise, they can change and use the conventional approach instead of the organic based dietary one).
We will also conduct research on consumers’ willingness to pay for organic based dietary eggs. This research will help us estimate how much more consumers are willing to pay for eggs produced using this approach and their market share. We will use a choice experiment for this research. A choice experiment is a tool to elicit consumer utility and is widely applied in consumer studies. Choice experiment allows researchers to uncover how consumer value attributes of a product by asking them to state their choice over different alternatives. The stated choices are econometrically estimated and transformed into utility. This research will be conducted using a representative sample of U.S. consumers through Qualtrics.
The results will be published in extension outlets. Sample budgets will also be developed in Excel and made accessible to farmers. Farmers will also be trained on using the budgets and the marketing strategies for profitable small flock poultry operation.
Education outputs:
- Hands-on on budget sheets, and product pricing, and marketing options
PS: The flow diagram for bird trial and activities involved are outlined herewith. Farm trial_ outline
LOS_ Research Dean_SSARE Research and Education
- Educate small flock producers, county agents, and poultry stakeholders on basics of feeding, food safety practices, and farm economics for sustainable poultry operation
Detailed out in the Outreach Plan.
Experimental diets are formulated using the AFOS feed formulation software. Diets created are different at the 165 kcal ME/kg differences, starting at 12.5 MJ/kg. Calcium levels and crude protein values are kept constant across the diets so that energy impacts on Ca digestibility can be assessed.
Treatment diets (ingredients and nutrient specs) are presented below.
Treatment 1.
Code |
Name |
Result [%] |
||||||
1084 |
Poultry premix 3% |
0.10 |
||||||
MI-011 |
Dicalcium phosphate_CaHPO4 |
13.55 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
1099 |
Lysine HCL |
2.00 |
||||||
1100 |
DL methonine |
1.50 |
||||||
MI-051 |
Sodium chloride_NaCl |
0.34 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1004 |
Corn (Maize) |
55.57 |
||||||
1064 |
Soybean Meal 48 |
21.12 |
||||||
1081 |
Soybean Oil |
5.82 |
||||||
Nutrients: |
||||||||
Code |
Name |
|
Result As Fed |
|||||
106 |
Metabolizable (Poultry) |
|
12.50 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101 |
Crude protein |
|
17.50 |
|||||
110 |
Lysine |
|
2.35 |
|||||
111 |
Methionine |
|
1.73 |
|||||
112 |
Methionine+cystine |
|
0.49 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
129 |
Calcium |
|
3.75 |
|||||
132 |
Sodium |
|
0.16 |
|||||
131 |
Available phosphorous |
|
2.76 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
134 |
Chloride |
|
0.25 |
|||||
133 |
Potassium |
|
0.62 |
Treatment 2:
Code |
Name |
Result [%] |
|
|
|||||||
1084 |
Poultry premix 3% |
0.10 |
|
||||||||
MI-011 |
Dicalcium phosphate_CaHPO4 |
13.54 |
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
1099 |
Lysine HCL |
2.00 |
|
||||||||
1100 |
DL methonine |
1.50 |
|
||||||||
MI-051 |
Sodium chloride_NaCl |
0.34 |
|
||||||||
1004 |
Corn (Maize) |
51.27 |
|
||||||||
1064 |
Soybean Meal 48 |
21.96 |
|
||||||||
1081 |
Soybean Oil |
9.28 |
|
||||||||
Nutrients: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code |
Name |
|
Result As Fed |
|
|
||||||
106 |
Metabolizable (Poultry) |
|
13.26 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
101 |
Crude protein |
|
17.50 |
|
|
||||||
110 |
Lysine |
|
2.36 |
|
|
||||||
111 |
Methionine |
|
1.72 |
|
|
||||||
112 |
Methionine+cystine |
|
0.48 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
129 |
Calcium |
|
3.75 |
|
|
||||||
132 |
Sodium |
|
0.16 |
|
|
||||||
131 |
Available phosphorous |
|
2.76 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
134 |
Chloride |
|
0.25 |
|
|
||||||
133 |
Potassium |
|
0.62 |
|
|
||||||
Treatment 3
Code |
Name |
Result [%] |
|
||||||||
1084 |
Poultry premix 3% |
0.10 |
|
||||||||
MI-011 |
Dicalcium phosphate_CaHPO4 |
13.54 |
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
1099 |
Lysine HCL |
2.00 |
|
||||||||
1100 |
DL methonine |
1.50 |
|
||||||||
MI-051 |
Sodium chloride_NaCl |
0.35 |
|
||||||||
1004 |
Corn (Maize) |
47.37 |
|
||||||||
1064 |
Soybean Meal 48 |
22.72 |
|
||||||||
1081 |
Soybean Oil |
12.43 |
|
||||||||
Nutrients: |
|
||||||||||
Code |
Name |
|
Result As Fed |
|
|
||||||
106 |
Metabolizable (Poultry) |
|
13.95 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101 |
Crude protein |
|
17.50 |
|
|
||||||
110 |
Lysine |
|
2.38 |
|
|
||||||
111 |
Methionine |
|
1.72 |
|
|
||||||
112 |
Methionine+cystine |
|
0.48 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
129 |
Calcium |
|
3.75 |
|
|
||||||
132 |
Sodium |
|
0.16 |
|
|
||||||
131 |
Available phosphorous |
|
2.76 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
134 |
Chloride |
|
0.25 |
|
|
||||||
133 |
Potassium |
|
0.62 |
|
|
These diets will be further cross verified with the additional members in the team, and colleagues for the ingredient inclusion levels and nutrient matrix composition before the start of the experiment.
Experimental preparation:
We are processing our request for acquiring experimental facility to conduct the bird trial with the Main Campus Research Farm.
We are also coordinating with the participant farmers and other farmers for conducting on-farm studies.
We are communicating on logistics with the co-operating farmers for the on-farm research execution and conducting some feed evaluations to understand the energy values in feed and other nutrient matrix that are prevalent in the field situations. Dietary ingredients or the nutrient matrix in experimental diets will be reassessed based on the field observation values, if necessary.
Farms visited:
Crooked road farm: Layer diet evaluation (analyzed value)
Sample ID |
Al |
Ca |
Cu |
Fe |
K |
Mg |
Mn |
Na |
P |
ppm |
ppm |
ppm |
ppm |
ppm |
ppm |
ppm |
ppm |
ppm |
|
16% Layer Pellets |
80.1 |
31249 |
17.9 |
184 |
8268 |
3050 |
129 |
1107 |
6821 |
Dry Matter |
N/ Protein |
Calories |
|||||||
% |
% |
cal/g ADB |
|||||||
16% Layer Pellets |
90.1 |
16.9 |
3667 |
The result tables for the cage study on dietary energy levels are presented below:
Table 1: Effects of dietary treatments on body weight (Mean ± SE)
Age |
Weight (g) Based on Treatment (Mean ± SE) |
|||
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
P value |
|
Week 46 |
1739.42±33.15 |
1786.17±32.89 |
1788.17±29.81 |
0.3579 |
Week 48 |
1707.50±28.57 |
1798.33±62.20 |
1828.33±46.61 |
0.1609 |
Week 50 |
1581.00b±47.07 |
1769.92a±82.96 |
1766.17a±46.04 |
0.0409 |
Week 52 |
1557.50b±56.64 |
1832.08a±72.65 |
1754.58a±41.13 |
0.0074 |
Table 2: Effects of dietary treatments on Egg Production % (Mean ± SE)
Age |
Egg Production (%) Based on Treatment (Mean ± SE) |
|||
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
P value |
|
Week 48 |
67.78±6.30 |
66.78±4.11 |
71.11±5.93 |
0.9190 |
Week 50 |
85.002±8.99 |
92.778±2.91 |
90.555±2.22 |
0.2916 |
Week 52 |
71.798b±4.53 |
92.308a±2.78 |
78.848ab±5.23 |
0.0165 |
Table 3: Effects of dietary treatments on Feed Intake per day (Mean ± SE)
Age |
Feed Intake (gm) Based on Treatment (Mean ± SE) |
|||
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
P value |
|
Week 48 |
116.255±2.13 |
115.433±3.79 |
120.152±2.44 |
0.2913 |
Week 50 |
110.330±2.59 |
107.980±4.47 |
114.695±5.19 |
0.5149 |
Week 52 |
105.595±1.48 |
103.723±3.33 |
113.717±2.89 |
0.1733 |
Table 4: Effects of dietary treatments on Egg Weight (Mean ± SE)
Age |
Egg Weight (gm) Based on Treatment (Mean ± SE) |
|||
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
P value |
|
Week 48 |
67.693±1.50 |
64.978±1.46 |
67.693±1.79 |
0.5172 |
Week 50 |
65.825±0.84 |
65.443±1.25 |
66.875±1.28 |
0.7942 |
Week 52 |
65.222±1.89 |
65.832±1.35 |
66.983±1.42 |
0.7734 |
Table 5: Effects of dietary treatments on Feed Conversion Ratio (Mean ± SE)
Age |
FCR Based on Treatment (Mean ± SE) |
|||
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
P value |
|
Week 48 |
2.640±0.26 |
3.115±0.66 |
2.576±0.24 |
0.6984 |
Week 50 |
1.888±0.06 |
1.878±0.13 |
1.911±0.07 |
0.9674 |
Week 52 |
2.216±0.12 |
1.816±0.09 |
2.188±0.22 |
0.1678 |
Total FCR |
2.195±0.08 |
2.078±0.07 |
2.160±0.09 |
0.6322 |
Table 6: Effects of dietary treatments on Eggshell thickness (Mean ± SE)
Eggshell thickness Based on Treatment (Mean ± SE) mm |
|||
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
P value |
0.420±0.0099 |
0.418±0.0057 |
0.416±0.0126 |
0.5270 |
Table 7: Effects of dietary treatments on Ovotransferrin (Mean ± SE)
Tissue |
Ovotransferrin Based on Treatment (Mean ± SE) μg/ml *1000=ng/ml |
|||
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
P value |
|
Uterus |
0.47792±0.0423 |
0.58373±0.0795 |
0.44427±0.0142 |
0.2378 |
Kidney |
0.43526±0.0773 |
0.53787±0.0329 |
0.45578±0.0135 |
0.4131 |
Duodenum |
0.40602±0.0187 |
0.40662±0.0392 |
0.43709±0.0258 |
0.4518 |
Table 8: Effects of dietary treatments on Ovalbumin (Mean ± SE)
Tissue |
Ovalbumin Based on Treatment (Mean ± SE) pg/ml *10^-3=ng/ml |
|||
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
P value |
|
Uterus |
0.4980±0.00017 |
0.4977±0.00057 |
0.4983±0.00007 |
0.5644 |
Kidney |
0.4968±0.00051 |
0.4975±0.00052 |
0.4972±0.00006 |
0.5604 |
Duodenum |
0.4983±0.00017 |
0.4984±0.00006 |
0.4984±0.00003 |
0.6595 |
Table 9: Effects of dietary treatments on CA2 (Mean ± SE)
Tissue |
CA2 Based on Treatment (Mean ± SE)
|
|||
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
P value |
|
Uterus |
2.412±1.646 |
1.713±0.884 |
2.493±0.759 |
0.8758 |
Kidney |
1.22±0.564 |
0.5372±0.098 |
1.2397±0.589 |
0.5282 |
Duodenum |
1.0018a±0.042 |
0.5631b±0.192 |
0.5115b±0.022 |
0.0432 |
Table 10: Effects of dietary treatments on Calbindin d28k (Mean ± SE)
Tissue |
Calbindin d28k Based on Treatment (Mean ± SE)
|
|||
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
P value |
|
Uterus |
3.830±2.098 |
0.585±0.442 |
1.54±1.380 |
0.3438 |
Kidney |
1.158±0.375 |
0.883±0.529 |
2.909±1.401 |
0.2924 |
Duodenum |
1.0379±0.207 |
0.7530±0.354 |
0.4370±0.027 |
0.2763 |
a,b,c values with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly (P<0.05), 5% level of significance. SE: Standard Error
T1: Feed with 12.50 MJ/Kg,
T2: Feed with 12.75 MJ/Kg,
T3: Feed with 13.00 MJ/Kg.
Results for Microbial swabbing in caged and pastured hens:
- Egg Swabs:
- Pasture Layer Birds (18 samples)- Escherichia coli: 61% positive (11/18), Staphylococcus aureus: 100% positive (18/18),Salmonella: 22.2% positive (4/18)
- Farm Caged Layer Birds (54 samples)- Escherichia coli: 17.4% positive (8/54), Staphylococcus aureus: 46.3% positive (25/54), Salmonella: 18.5% positive (10/54)
- Cloacal Swabs:
- Pasture Layer Birds (52 samples)- Escherichia coli: 100% positive (52/52), Staphylococcus aureus,7% positive (43/52), Salmonella: 9.6% positive (5/52)
- Farm Caged Layer Birds (36 samples), Escherichia coli: 94.4% positive (34/36), Staphylococcus aureus: 33.3% positive (12/36), Salmonella: 5.6% positive (2/36)
- Pasture Broiler Birds (48 samples)-Escherichia coli: 100% positive (48/48), Staphylococcus aureus: 81.3% positive (39/48), Salmonella: 20.8% positive (10/48)
- Farm Caged Broiler Birds (48 samples)- Escherichia coli: 87.5% positive (42/48), Staphylococcus aureus: 77.1% positive (37/48),Salmonella: 10.4% positive (5/48)
Conclusion: The prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus was notably high in both egg and cloacal swabs from all groups, particularly in pasture layer birds. Escherichia coli was commonly found in both egg and cloacal swabs, with high prevalence in all bird types, while Salmonella was less prevalent, especially in cloacal swabs from caged layer and broiler birds. Pasture-raised birds generally showed higher infection rates than caged birds.
See the table below:
Results
|
|
Escherichia coli |
Staphylococcus aureus |
Salmonella |
EGG SWABS |
Pasture Layer Birds 18 samples |
11 positive 7 negative (61%) |
18 positive 0 negative (100%) |
4 positive 16 negative (22.2%) |
Farm Caged Layer Birds 54 samples |
8 positive 46 negative (17.4%) |
25 positive 29 negative (46.3%) |
10 positive 44 negative (18.5%) |
|
CLOACAL SWABS |
Pasture Layer Birds 52 samples |
52 positive 0 negative (100%) |
43 positive 9 negative (82.7%) |
5 positive 47 negative (9.6%) |
Farm Caged Layer Birds 36 samples |
34 positive 2 negative (94.4%) |
12 positive 24 negative (33.3%) |
2 positive 34 negative (5.6%) |
|
Pasture Broiler Birds 48 samples |
48 positive 0 negative (100%) |
39 positive 9 negative (81.3%) |
10 positive 38 negative (20.8%) |
|
Farm caged Broiler Birds 48 samples |
42 positive 6 negative (87.5%) |
37 positive 11 negative (77.1%) |
5 positive 43 negative (10.4%) |
Education
One-day In-service workshop training was conducted primarily focused on small flock poultry management (Dr. Maharjan and Dr. Tabler) to educate primarily county agents of East, Middle and West TN regions and interested small flock producers in the region. The topics included in the training were as follows:
Topics |
Instructor |
Initiating Backyard Poultry: Things to know |
Dr. Tom Tabler |
Biosecurity basics of poultry rearing |
Dr. Tabler |
Feeding and nutrition in a small flock poultry |
Dr. Maharjan |
Backyard poultry drinking water quality management |
Dr. Maharjan |
The participant list in the training workshops are presented below (Appendix 1).
The follow up workshops will be conducted continually working with the county agents, and during and post completion of study primarily focusing on the small-flock producers on feeding management, food safety and marketing of farm produce, to fulfill the project objectives.
The needs assessment survey was continued at a county level to understand small-flock needs. The findings are underway publication.
Appendix I. Participant list of the training workshop for each region.
Eastern Region (June 29th, 2023)
Name |
County |
Emmanuel Bedwell |
Hamblen |
Olivia Cass |
McMinn |
Shannon DeWitt |
Union |
Robyn Elswick |
Jefferson |
Julia Finchum |
Jefferson |
Whitney Jackson |
Bledsoe |
Christie Jones |
Rhea |
Carrie Kruska |
Sullivan |
Jamia Long |
Eastern Region Office |
Jennifer Morgan |
Jefferson |
Sarah Orr |
Cocke |
Robert Paxton |
Polk |
Angela Personeni |
Morgan |
Ann Ramsey |
Union |
Tommy Rison |
Claiborne |
Nancy Rucker |
Hamilton |
Melissa Shelton |
Unicoi |
Jessica Smith |
Roane |
Sara Smith |
McMinn |
Madelyn Stokely-Cook |
Union |
Haley Treadway |
Hamilton |
Central Region: September 15th, 2023
Name |
County |
Alyssa Ann Anderson |
Overton |
Sheldon Barker |
Sequatchie |
Johnny D Barnes |
Dekalb |
Ronald L Barron |
Cheatham |
Douglas Ray Berny |
Williamson |
Shana Danielle Delozier |
Davidson |
Kelsey Shea Holden |
Marion |
Lucan Andrew Holman |
Wilson |
Jonathan Johns |
Marshalls |
Timmy Mann |
Robertson |
Western Region (November 10th, 2023)
Name |
County |
Chloe Rae Anderson |
Humphreys |
Tonya G Bain |
Western Region |
Whitney Dixon |
Lewis |
Staci D Foy |
Henry |
Audrey Fulton |
Humphreys |
Ranson goodman |
Henry |
Logan Meeks |
Agricultural and Resources Economics |
Tresten Mathew Tyler |
Hendeson |
John Williams |
McNairy |
More agents were trained on poultry topics, and research findings were communicated.
East TN- 10/31/24
Name |
County |
Lee Rumble |
Knox |
James McMillion |
Blount |
Tom Rison |
Claiborne |
Lane Brooks |
Cocke |
Alyssa Large |
Hancock |
Anna Gafford |
Scott |
Middle TN - 11/12/2024
Name |
County |
Lauren Balthrop |
Robertson County |
Johnny Barnes |
Dekalb county |
Michael Berry |
Central Region Office |
Morgan Beaty |
Wilson County |
Douglas Berny |
Williamson County |
Shana Delozier |
Davidson County |
Andrew Elrod |
Sumner county |
Lucas Holman |
Wilson County |
Trent Jones |
Putnam County |
Amy Prince |
Coffee County |
Michael Shirely |
Rutherford County |
William Thomas |
Moore County |
Martin Koon |
Ext. Program Leader |
West TN- 11/19/24
Name |
County |
Jared Stricklin |
Hardin |
Samantha McAllister |
Fayette |
Cheyenne Rushing |
Decatur |
Also, farmers (n= ~10) were trained in Giles county, TN, on the feeding management practices in small flock poultry (including dietary energy management.
Educational & Outreach Activities
Participation Summary:
Detailed Budget Narrative_ Justification and Itemization
Outreach/Dissemination Plan:
The outreach plan is the educational component of this project. The educational material will be delivered primarily through workshops, and with various publication formats (discussed below). The advisory team (discussed in the Evaluation and Management Plan) will provide inputs in dissemination plans through routine meetings. The meetings will discuss the agenda for workshops in details, dissemination strategies, and implementation plans. It will also decide on the target audience selection, and venue of the event or workshops. These meetings will ensure that each educational milestone as discussed in the Management Plan is met timely, and also identify new needs.
Workshop 1.
The purpose of Workshop 1 (one-and- half day workshop) is to give general education on poultry production practices and take need assessments survey on existing feeding approaches, food safety measures and marketing practices. Workshop 1 will meet before the farm/bird trial. The tentative agenda for the workshop is presented in table below. The information of the survey will be utilized to revisit and adjust some of the experimental activities of the bird trial (discussed above in the Approach and Methods) that will be conducted after Workshop 1. Three replicate workshops -one on each region of Tennessee-West, Middle and East, will be conducted. A total of 30 small-flock poultry producers will serve as target audience, 10 producers from each of the region will be covered. These producers will also serve as target audience for Workshop 2.
Workshop 1: Tentative Agenda
Topics |
Content |
Instructor |
Time |
Day 1 |
|||
Initiating small flock pastured poultry operation |
Things to consider while beginning small flock free-range pastured poultry operation; ordinances; breed selection; routine bird care |
Dr. Tabler |
10:00 AM-12:00 PM |
Basics of small flock nutrition: Nutrients and nutrient requirements (egg- type breed) |
Energy, protein, fats, vitamins, and mineral needs specific to breed |
Dr Maharjan |
1:00-3:00 PM |
On-farm food safety practices and biosecurity measures |
Understanding the current food safety practices-pre- and post- harvest; farm biosecurity measures |
Dr. Kilonzo and Dr. Maharjan |
3:00- 5:00 PM |
Day 2 |
|
|
|
Farm produce marketing practices |
Existing marketing practices in relation to poultry produce |
Dr. Lawani |
8:00-10:00 AM |
Need Assessments based on existing practices-Nutrition (dietary energy and feed formulation practices), food safety measures and marketing strategies |
Conducting a detailed questionnaire survey on diets, food safety practices, and farm economics (Questionnaire will be reviewed by Advisory Team before it is distributed) |
|
10:00 AM -12:00 PM |
Adjourn |
|
|
1:00 PM |
Workshop 2:
Workshop 2 will be conducted after the completion of the bird trial. Three one-and-half day workshops will be conducted- one on each region (Middle, West and East) of TN. The target audience (total 60; 20 participants/workshop) will be the small flock producers from workshop 1 (10), 5 extension agents who have poultry interest, and 5 spots will be kept open for representatives from societies such as Farmer Veteran coalition, TN Association of Farmers Market, Tennessee Farmers Co-operative, etc.
Workshop 2: Tentative agenda
Topics |
Content |
Instructor |
Time |
Day 1 |
|
|
|
Energy needs for egg type breed: Revisiting nutrient requirement values based on research findings |
Performance and egg quality differences for the various treatment diets assessed in the study; Recommendations on dietary energy levels for optimal production and eggshell quality |
Dr. Maharjan |
10:00 AM-12:00 PM |
Conventional and soy-free organic diets and poultry production practices |
Dietary management practices in pastured poultry operations; On-farm food safety measures; Farm produce marketing strategies; Public perceptions on farm produce |
Co-operating farmers |
1:00-3:00 PM |
Sustainable feed formulations strategies |
Feed formulations basics using locally available ingredients in relation to free-range pastured poultry operation; Feed nutrient analysis and understanding nutrient values |
Dr. Tabler |
3:00-5:00 PM |
Day 2 |
|
|
|
Revisiting on-farm food safety practices and impacts of treating poultry drinking water supplies |
Discuss research results on microbial samplings; Best management practices- pre- and post- harvest food safety habits; Discuss water treatment effects on performance and food safety |
Dr. Kilonzo (food safety) and Dr. Maharjan (Poultry water supplies treatment and biosecurity) |
8:00-10:00 AM |
Farm economics: Budget and Marketing strategies for small flock poultry |
Train on how to develop a budget in general and budgeting for small-flock poultry. The results of consumers’ willingness to pay for eggs produced using the organic approach will be presented and the implications in terms of the niche market for them (characteristics of consumers in that niche). Finally, farmers will be trained on marketing strategies for their products. |
Dr. Lawani |
10:00 AM-12:00 PM |
Workshop evaluation |
Questionnaire survey on the knowledge gain and willingness to adopt the updated farm practices on feeding, food safety practices and farm economics (Questionnaire will be prepared by the Advisory Team consisting of Evaluators) |
Dr. Maharjan |
1:00-2:00 PM |
Adjourn |
|
|
2:00 PM |
Education materials: Education materials will be released in the form of factsheets, training-videos, and journal publications. Factsheets (5 total) will be developed on each topic covered in the Workshop 2. Training videos (3) will be made- i) Nutritional formulation of diets using local ingredients to match the energy need; ii) On-farm aseptic sampling technique methods for food borne pathogens and sample dispatching, and iii) Basics of farm economics and budget sheet preparation for margin calculation. Fact sheets and videos will be housed in TSU extension webpage for public access. Three (3) journal articles will be published compiling the research results, one publication from objectives 1 and 2 and another publication will be from objective 3, and third one will be farm economic analysis. The first two articles will be published in Journal of Applied Poultry Research, whereas the third one will be aimed for publishing in Agricultural Economics. A teaching curriculum on small flock poultry management will be then developed covering the synopsis from the factsheets, training videos, and journal publications.
Learning Outcomes
In working progress.
Project Outcomes
In progress.