STRATEGY ▶▶▶
are part of the solution and not part of the problem, Mr Poelstra thinks. “Preventing coccidiosis is essential for a better gut health and contributes to healthy animals, more animal welfare, a better defence against secondary infections (and because of that; the use of antibiotics) and a good feed conversion. In short: it is essential for sustainable poultry farming, which we very much need to meet the increasing demand for poultry.”
Not standard in Norway or the United States There are countries in which the use of coccidiostats are no longer standard. This is mostly the case in Norway and United States. In the US, the production of poultry in so-called anti- biotic-free chains has increased significantly. Because the US classifies coccidiostats as antibiotics, they are not used in
these chains. European broiler farmers do not want measures that would not allow the use of coccidiostats in feed. They point to, among other things, the cost in the US of keeping broilers without coccidiostats. These are not always positive.
See box: Ban on coccidiostats does not contribute to a sustaina- ble feed production.
There is a persistent rumour that coccidiostats will be phased out. It is not known where this rumour originates or if it is false. The EU has regulated the use of coccidiostats in regula- tion No 1831/2003. It does work towards a revision of the reg- ulation, in which the use of feed additives is outlined, as well as the use of coccidiostats. MEP Annie Schreijer-Pierik (CDA) thinks it is important that broiler farmers in the EU can keep using coccidiostats in feed.
“Ban on coccidiostats does not contribute to a sustainable feed production”
Sustainable production does not only mean producing envi- ronmentally friendly. Focus on the economy and the welfare of human and animal is also very important, thinks Matthew J. Salois. He is chief economist at the American Veterinary Medical Association and conducted research into the sus- tainability of antibiotic free (AB free) poultry chains in the United States. As far as he is concerned, there is no sustaina- bility. In the US, producing AB free also means not using coccidiostats. These chains now make up almost half of the poultry production in the US.
What about animal welfare in AB free chains? “Mortality says a lot about animal welfare in a poultry house. For years, we saw mortality decrease in poultry farm- ing. However, the mortality rate has been slowly increasing since 2013. The cause: AB free chains. In these chains, the average mortality rate is 5.5% by now, against 3-3.5% in regular production. We saw that there are much more health problems in AB free chains. For example: 3.5 times as much deterioration of the broilers’ corneas because of the ammonia in the air, 1.4 times as much sole lesions and 1.5 times as much respiratory problems. These three conditions are not only more prevalent in AB free poultry houses; they are also far more serious.”
What about the environmental side? “Because of the prolonged growth period and the less fa- vourable feed conversion, producing poultry in AB free chains is far less efficient. In combination with the higher mortality rate, this means that far more broilers have to be
kept to meet the demand for poultry meat. We calculated that 680 to 880 million extra broilers are needed to produce enough meat for American consumers if we produced all poultry in AB free chains. Translate this to extra feed, water and land for these chickens and you will be shocked. Espe- cially if you know that the demand for food will increase sharply in the coming years.” Surely, entrepreneurs that chose to participate in AB free chains must be ok economically? “The economic sustainability is also lacking. Entrepreneurs that produce poultry in an AB free chain do receive a higher selling price for their animals, but they also have to deal with a much higher purchase price. Furthermore, we have seen the price difference between AB free chains and regu- lar chains decrease more and more over the last few years. This has to do with the difficult carcase balance of poultry in AB free chains.”
Consumer demand for poultry from an AB free chain is obviously large. Would it not be better to just ac- cept this form of production? “It very much remains the question whether this is truly what consumers want. We find that many consumers are confused. This is corroborated by research. It appears that many consumers think that regular chicken contains antibi- otics and hormones. That is why they choose meat with the label AB free. As far as we are concerned, the use of antibiot- ics for sick animals should not be a part of marketing around poultry meat. It is better to let the consumer choose for animal welfare and sustainability. These are subjects that broiler farmers can actually use.”
▶ POULTRY WORLD | No. 2, 2019 27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
