Fall 2004 • Volume 6, Number 2

AVIAN

Cooperative Extension Service

Advice
Shelterbelts: Has Their Time
Come for Arkansas Poultry
INSIDE Producers?
page 3 by G.T. Tabler, Poultry Science Department
Effects of Water
Acidification on Broiler Introduction Livestock Production
Performance The increasing urban expansion into rural In the United States about 130 times more
areas creates numerous challenges for animal waste is produced annually than
by Susan Watkins, Jana livestock producers to various types of human waste. Livestock in the U.S. produce
Cornelison, Cheyanne farming operations. A strong livestock more than 1.4 billion tons of manure annually
Tillery, Melony Wilson and industry is essential to the nation’s economic (U.S. Senate Committee, 1997). Livestock
Robert Hubbard stability, the viability of many small rural production in the U.S. is characterized by
communities, and the sustainability of a fewer yet much larger production facilities.
page 7 healthful, plentiful and high quality food USDA data indicate that nationwide about
The Arkansas supply for the American public. Farmers and 85% of estimated 450,000 agricultural
Surveillance Program ranchers view odors and dust associated with operations with confined animals have fewer
for Exotic and livestock as part of production agriculture and than 250 animal units (GAO, 1995).
Newcastle Disease and have come to accept them as part of their way Therefore, only about 15% of farms
Avian Influenza of life. However, as urban dwellers are less house the vast majority of the animal units
by F. Dustan Clark likely to accept dust or odors, differences in nationwide. USDA estimates that only about
lifestyles between farmers and city folks are 6,600 animal feeding operations nationwide
page 9 becoming increasingly apparent. Although have more than 1,000 animal units (GAO,
Strategies for there will probably always be some odor and 1995). From 1978-1992, the average number
Successful Turkey dust issues associated with animal production of animal units per facility increased by 56,
Production units, there are some simple, economical 93, 134, 176, 148 and 129% for cattle, hogs,
by G. Tom Tabler methods of reducing the frequency of layers, broiler and turkeys, respectively, while
complaints. during the same period the number of
page 11 For poultry producers, shelterbelts offer facilities dropped by over 40% in the cattle
Coming Events an opportunity for poultry growers to be industry, and over 50% in the dairy, hogs and
proactive in demonstrating good neighbor poultry industries (USDA and EPA, 1999).
relations and environmental stewardship. Figure 1 demonstrates the increase in broiler
Shelterbelts are typically vegetation (most production and decrease in broiler farm
often trees and shrubs) planted in purposeful numbers from 1975 to 1995. Increased size
rows to alter wind flow in order to achieve of production facilities and greater numbers
certain objectives. Planting trees and shrubs of livestock at each facility has meant larger
as screens around poultry houses will help amounts of animal waste, concentrated into
remove them from public view (perhaps also relatively smaller geographic areas. This
the public’s mind) and buffer odor, dust and concentration of animals has increased the
noise.
SHELTERBELTS — continued on page 2

. . . helping ensure the efficient production of top quality poultry products in Arkansas and beyond.

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.
 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 Density is a simple ratio of the porous area (the areas wind can
residents were within a half mile or less of a livestock facility. pass through) to the total area of the shelterbelt. A density of
In the same survey 71% of residents were within one mile of a approximately 40-60% is the most beneficial (Brandle and
livestock facility (Lasley and Larson, 1998). This finding is Finch, 1991). The trees or shrubs chosen for the shelterbelt
consistent with the average separation distances nationwide and the spacing of those plants will determine the overall
(Tyndall and Colletti, 2000). Odor compounds may be density. Remember that deciduous species tend to be more
transmitted as gases, aerosols (a suspension of relatively small open closer to the ground and conifers have branch cover
solid or liquid particles in gas) or dust (relatively large close to the ground (Griffith, 2001).
particles in gas or air). Efforts to control odors from animal Shelterbelts physically also intercept dust and other
production units fall into three basic strategies (Tyndall and aerosols. A forest cleans the air of micro-particles twenty-fold
Colletti, 2000): better than barren land. Leaves with complex shapes and large
1. Prevent odors from forming circumference to area ratios collect particles most efficiently.
2. Capture or destroy odorous compounds and Shelterbelts attract and bind the chemical constituents of odor.
3. Collection, dispersion or dilution of odor compound. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) have an affinity to the
In most cases the third strategy is the easiest and most cuticle of plant leaves. Microorganisms on plant surfaces can
economical procedure to implement in animal production metabolize and breakdown VOCs.
units. In operations without protection wind or breezes often Finally, shelterbelts provide a visual and aesthetic screen.
transmit odors gases, aerosols and dust to neighbors. A well-landscaped livestock operation is much more
Shelterbelts hinder this transmission, by trapping odors, acceptable to the public than one that is not. Shelterbelts
redirecting air or creating turbulence so that odor compounds should be designed for the specific location, according to the
are diluted. expected and experienced odors, so that the tree and shrub
species chosen can provide year round interception of odors
Odor Control using Shelterbelts and aerosols (Griffith, 2001).
The source of animal odors is near the ground and tends to
travel along the ground (Takle, 1983), shelterbelts can Why Shelterbelts Now
intercept and disrupt the transmission of these odors (Heisler Although shelterbelts have been used for many years in
and DeWalle, 1988; Thernelius, 1997). Shelterbelts also the Midwest to modify wind flow; control wind erosion,
reduce the release of dust and aerosols by reducing wind speed increase crop yields, protect farm buildings, and protect
near production facilities. Wind tunnel modeling of a three- livestock, few in poultry producing areas considered their use.
row shelterbelt quantified reductions of 35% to 56% in the However, urban encroachment is forcing changes in how
downwind transport of dust. However, shelterbelt density poultry growers manage their operations and tunnel ventilated
determines the degree to which dust and aerosols are reduced. houses have made the use of shelterbelts feasible. Few

2 AVIAN Advice • Fall 2004 • Vol. 6, No. 2

recommended planting trees around poultry facilities for fear a shelterbelt is available in some states; unfortunately,
of blocking air flow through conventionally-ventilated houses, Arkansas is not one of these states at the present time.
but today, with the poultry industry shifting to tunnel-
ventilated, solid sidewall poultry houses, restricting natural air Barriers to Shelterbelt Adoption
flow is much less of a problem. Although shelterbelts around the perimeter of poultry
Trees have a pleasing image across a large cross section of houses offer many advantages, there are some barriers to
the American population. Planting trees around poultry adoption and some negative aspects to consider. For example,
houses may help foster a positive image of your farming Malone and Abbott-Donnelly (2001) indicate:
operation. In addition, as the trees mature, less of your • A limited amount of land will be taken out of production
agricultural operation will attract attention, your farm takes on to support the shelterbelt
a more attractively landscaped appearance, and property • There will be cost associated with purchasing the trees,
values increase for both you and your neighbors (Malone and labor for planting and maintenance
Abbott-Donnelly, 2001). • You will encounter a restricted view of your houses
access will be limited to designated roadways
Plants used in Shelterbelts trees will create a potential habitat for wild birds.
Dense evergreen trees are perhaps the best choice for the
tunnel fan end for maximum filtering during summer and Summary
screening year round. For greatest emissions scrubbing, Air quality issues will become an increasing concern to
shelterbelts should be as close to the tunnel exhaust as production agriculture with continued urban encroachment
possible. As a general rule, to not interfere with fan into previously rural, agricultural areas. Shelterbelts offer one
efficiency, no trees should be planted closer than a distance of method by which poultry producers can take proactive steps to
five times the diameter of the fans (Malone and Abbott- address the issue; demonstrating good public relations efforts
Donnelly, 2001). Check with your integrator before and environmental stewardship by buffering odor, dust and
constructing a shelterbelt. Take into account the width of the noise emissions from their facilities while improving farm
shelterbelt at maturity and how this may affect roads, loadout aesthetics and property values. Dense shelterbelts may detract
areas, or chick delivery areas. attention from farming operations and help reduce air
There are a variety of trees and shrubs suitable for emission concerns surrounding poultry facilities by capturing
Arkansas conditions that would work well to screen poultry dust particles and ameliorating odors. Consult your integrator
houses. White pine, properly spaced, creates a dense concerning placement before constructing a shelterbelt. Select
shelterbelt, grows rapidly and is reasonably priced. Virginia trees or shrubs suitable for your area. Your local Extension
pine and loblolly pine also do well. Various cedars also form office, NRCS office, Arkansas Forestry Commission or local
a dense mat; however, some consider certain varieties a landscape nursery can be of valuable assistance on species
nuisance and the berries may attract wild birds. A variety of information. If planted during warmer weather, be sure to
hollies and other ornamental shrubs such as Red Tip Photinia provide plenty of water to assure successful establishment. A
form highly effective screens and have a beautifying effect on well-landscaped livestock operation is more pleasing to the
the surrounding landscape. The plants you choose will depend public than one that is not. A shelterbelt used as a pollution
on the site, soil conditions, available space, number of plants control device is visible proof that producers are making an
required, growth rate of plants, personal preference for effort to control what leaves their operation. This could prove
landscaping effects and cost of the plants. For more valuable in the court of public opinion and perhaps reduce
information on trees and plants that do well in your area, tension levels between farming and non-farming segments of
contact your local county Extension office, local Conservation the population.
District, Arkansas Forestry Commission or a professional
landscape nursery/garden center. References
Air quality issues surrounding poultry production facilities Brandle, J. R., and S. Finch. 1991. How windbreaks work.
are no longer a matter of “if”, but “when.” Arkansas poultry University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Publication
producers should take proactive steps to plan for management EC91-1763-B.
changes these issues will bring. The planting of trees in General Accounting Office (GAO). 1995. Animal
strategic locations around poultry houses is one method to Agriculture: Information on Waste Management and Water
help address these issues before and as they arise. In addition, Quality Issues.
research has shown that shelterbelts can reduce heating costs Griffith, C. 2001. Improvement of air and water quality
10-40% and reduce cooling costs as much as 20%. around livestock confinement areas through the use of
Strategically placed trees can also reduce wind speeds by shelterbelts. South Dakota Association of Conservation
50%, adding protection from spring and fall storms. The Districts.
leaves of trees physically trap dust particles that may be laden Hammond, E. G., C. Fedler, and R. J. Smith. 1981.
with nitrogen, and root systems will absorb up to 80% of the Analysis of particle bourne swine house odors. Agriculture
nutrients that might escape the proximity of the poultry and Environment. 6:395-401.
operation (Stephens, 2003). Cost-share assistance for planting SHELTERBELTS — continued on page 4

AVIAN Advice • Fall 2004 • Vol. 6, No. 2 3

 SHELTERBELTS— continued from page 3

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
Center of Excellence for Poultry Science • University of Arkansas

Effects of Water Acidification

R. Keith Bramwell • Extension Reproductive Physiologist
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture

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
Which water 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
pH level is final water pH mainly because of the broad diversity of water pH found in nature. A report from
optimum for North Carolina State University several years ago claimed that a water pH of less than 5.9 was
broiler 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? 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.

4 AVIAN Advice • Fall 2004 • Vol. 6, No. 2

Trial One At day forty-two, 10 birds per treatment were killed
Trial one was conducted during the summer months when with carbon dioxide gas and the pH of the crop and gizzard
the outside daily temperatures exceeded 90° F, particularly contents was determined.
late in the grow-out cycle. The effects of heat stress were
reduced through the utilization of tunnel ventilation and spray Both Trials
on fogger pads. In both trials the birds were group weighed by pen at
Twelve hundred male broiler chicks were randomly placed day 1 and on days 7, 21, 35 and 42. On day 42 birds were
into 24 floor pens to give 50 birds per pen at a density of .85 individually weighed. Feed and water consumption were
square feed per bird. There were three pens per treatment. determined for each of these time periods. Water usage was
Each pen was equipped with two hanging tube feeders and one measured at each feed change.
Val nipple drinker line complete with regulator and six nipple
drinkers. Flow was adjusted weekly to provide the milliliters/ Results
week of age recommended by Lott et al. (2003). The formula The results for the two trials were combined because
for determining rates added 7 ml/week of age plus 20 ml, so there were no differences in the way birds responded to the
that, for example, a 21 day old broiler received 3 x 7=21 ml treatments for the two trials. The average weights of the
plus 20 for a total of 41 ml. Each pen had its own water supply broilers for the different ages evaluated are shown in Table 2.
via a 5- gallon poly-bucket reservoir. Table 1 denotes the The statistical analysis indicates that while there may be slight
treatments. PWT®, which is sodium bisulfate, was used to numerical differences in the average weights of the broilers
adjust the pH. Fayetteville, Arkansas municipal drinking receiving the different treatments, there was no advantage or
water was used as the control and the average initial pH was disadvantage for the broilers receiving different pH drinking
8.3. All water and feed added to the pens was weighed. Birds water as compared to birds receiving the control water. The
received diets formulated to meet their nutrient requirements. closer the P value is to one, the more statistically similar the
In Trial one, Coban® was used for coccidiosis control. Also results. Table 3 shows the average feed conversions (adjusted
the growth promoter BMD was used in all the feeds. to account for the weight of the dead birds). Cumulative feed
conversions for days 7, 21 and 35 were not statistically
Table 1. Water Treatments different. The feed conversions at day 42 show birds on the
continuous 4 and 5 pH water and the intermittent 3 and 4 pH
Treatment Label Water pH pH Frequency water had the numerically best feed conversions. However,
Control (8.3) Continuous the conversions were statistically similar to the conversions
6C 6 Continuous for broilers receiving the control water. Water usage as shown
5C 5 Continuous by milliliters of water used per gram of gain showed that the
4C 4 Continuous birds used similar amounts of water regardless of drinking
3C 3 Continuous water pH (Table 4). When the crops and gizzards of birds
5I 5 Intermittent1 receiving the different pH water were tested for pH, it was
4I 4 Intermittent found that the birds receiving the pH 3, 4 and 5 water had a
3I 3 Intermittent significantly lower crop pH than birds receiving the 6 and
control pH water (Table 5). No difference was found in the
1
Intermittent pH program- First 7 days, 48 hours before gizzard pH and this would be expected since the bird adds
and after feed changes, 72 hours prior to end of trial hydrochloric acid to the digestion process.

Trial Two Table 2. Impact of Drinking Water pH on Male Broiler

Trial two was conducted during January and February Average Weights
when outside daily temperatures ranged from 10 to 45° F. In
this trial, two thousand male broiler chicks were randomly Treatment Day 7 Day 21 Day 35 Day 42
placed in 40 floor pens to give five pens per treatment. Four (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)
replicate pens per treatment were equipped with nipple drinker
lines and the water added to these pens was measured for the Control .359 1.958 4.79 5.85
determination of water usage. A fifth replicate pen per 6 Continuous .355 1.954 4.79 5.77
treatment was equipped with a Plasson drinker. Water 5C .355 1.956 4.77 5.92
consumption was not measured in the pens with the Plasson 4C .361 1.986 4.75 5.90
drinkers. As in trial one each pen had its own water supply 3C .350 1.986 4.80 5.95
via a 5-gallon poly bucket reservoir and two hanging tube 5 Intermittent .346 1.938 4.83 5.90
feeders. Treatments were identical to trial one with PWT® 4I .350 1.965 4.83 5.89
used to adjust the pH. All feed added to the pens was weighed 3I .355 1.990 4.87 5.97
for determining feed conversion. Birds received the same SEM .008 .04 .08 .09
diets as in trial one. In this trial, the coccidiostat Sacox® was P Value .9678 .9455 .8951 .6428
used. No growth promoting antibiotic products were used.

AVIAN Advice • Fall 2004 • Vol. 6, No. 2 5

 SHELTERBELTS— continued from page 5

Table 3. Impact of Drinking Water pH Comments and Conclusions

on Male Broiler Adjusted1 Feed Conversions- This research project found no significant improvement
in average weights, feed conversion or water consumption
Treatment Day 7 Day 21 Day 35 Day 42 when the drinking water pH was lowered to 3, 4 or 5. The
(lb:lb) (lb:lb) (lb:lb) (lb:lb) results indicate that birds are very tolerant of a wide range of
Control .884 1.257 1.473 1.667abc pH water. The findings that the crop pH was significantly
6 Continuous .903 1.245 1.482 1.682ab lowered by reducing the water pH might explain why produc-
5C .930 1.235 1.481 1.643bc ers have reported that bird droppings become more firm when
4C .889 1.242 1.468 1.651abc acidifiers are added to the water. The crop serves as a storage
3C .895 1.228 1.498 1.684a compartment for consumed particles. Nature designed the
5 Intermittent .953 1.237 1.470 1.649bc crop to store whole bugs and seeds, not the finely ground,
4I .916 1.233 1.466 1.633c easily digested feed utilized by broilers for efficient feed
3I .895 1.225 1.469 1.642c conversions. If the crop is full of feed and poor quality water
SEM .029 .001 .013 .013 is added, then there is an increased risk for the development of
P Value .6874 .4794 .7044 .0504 harmful bacterial and mold that could impact the rest of the
digestive tract. However, research done in Alabama by
1
Weight of all dead birds is used to determine the feed Hardin and Roney (no date) found that a pH range of 4 was
conversion 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
Table 4. Impact of Drinking Water pH on Male Broiler an environment that is hostile for undesirable microbes.
Average Water Usage-per Gram of Gain However, given the diversity of drinking water sources it is a
very good idea to measure the pH of the drinking water when
Treatment Day 7 Day 21 Day 35 Day 42 using acidifiers at manufacturer’s recommendations because
(ml:g) (ml:g) (ml:g) (ml:g) the natural buffering capacity of water may result in reduced
Control 1.054 2.187 4.111 5.261 impact of the acidifier on pH. It may even be necessary to add
6 Continuous 1.099 2.217 4.022 5.234 more acidifier to the stock solution to achieve a lower
5C 0.977 2.249 4.073 5.327 drinking water pH.
4C 1.103 2.252 4.102 5.307
3C 1.163 2.313 4.114 5.315 References
5 Intermittent 1.328 2.317 4.151 5.307 Carter, Thomas. 1987. Drinking Water Quality for
4I 1.078 2.211 3.942 5.029 Poultry, Poultry Science and Technology Guide No. 42,
3I 1.118 2.265 4.087 5.185 Extension Poultry Science, North Carolina University.
SEM .150 .06 .08 .09 Hardin, Boyd and C.S. Roney. No Date. Effects of pH
P Value .8117 .6563 .6490 .2760 on Selected Poultry Bacterial Pathogens, Alabama Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Industries State Diagnostic Lab.
1
The weight of all dead birds was used to calculate milliliters Lott, B. D., W. A. Dozier, J. D. Simmons and W. B.
of average water usage per gram of gain Roush. 2003. Water flow rates in commercial broiler houses.
Poultry Sci. 82 (Suppl. 1):102.

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

6 AVIAN Advice • Fall 2004 • Vol. 6, No. 2

 F. Dustan Clark, Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian
Center of Excellence for Poultry Science • University of Arkansas

The Arkansas Surveillance

Program for Exotic
Newcastle Disease and
Avian Influenza
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.
SURVEILLANCE — continued on page 8

AVIAN Advice • Fall 2004 • Vol. 6, No. 2 7

 SUREVEILLANCE— continued from page 7

Educational Efforts services free of charge for any hobby, exhibition, or backyard
Any person in the state of Arkansas who has a hobby, flock that has lost birds.
exhibition, backyard, or gamefowl chicken flock can
participate in the project free of charge. The educational Program Future
portion of the project consists of seminars for flock owners Currently, the grant funding this program will expire the
covering the importance of Biosecurity, disease recognition, end of December 2004. Anyone wishing to participate in the
and Biosecurity measures to prevent disease. The seminar survey, testing program, or wanting information should
covers various diseases (including END and AI) and also contact their county agent, area livestock inspector or the
describes the surveillance portion of program. Fact sheets and extension poultry veterinarian. Any person or group that
pamphlets are distributed at the seminar and county agents are wishes to have an educational seminar on disease recognition
encouraged to visit flock owners to document the number and (including Exotic Newcastle and Avian Influenza),
type(s) of birds owned. Data obtained from these visits Biosecurity measures to prevent disease, and what it takes to
provide a better understanding of the types of birds in a county participate in the surveillance program should contact their
so that effective educational materials can be developed. The county agent or the extension poultry veterinarian.
survey data also provides county agents with the tools needed
to alert flock owners about disease threats in the area and Protecting Flocks from Disease with Basic Biosecurity
ensure that preventative measures are in place. Practices
In addition to the seminar presentations, the program The best way to reduce the risk of introducing the
provides educational materials to ALPC inspectors for disease into your birds is by following Biosecurity practices
distribution to poultry owners who sell birds at the various (Additional information on Biosecurity is available at http://
trade days, auctions, flea markets, and swap meets. Inspectors www.uark.edu/depts/posc/avianindex.html). Some examples
are also available to make farm visits. of such practices are:

Disease Surveillance
The program also includes actual testing of birds for
Exotic Newcastle (END) and Avian Influenza (AI). Flock 1. Do not purchase birds that appear sick or that may have
owners who participate in the program and have their birds been illegally brought into the country.
tested are provided with New Castle vaccine free of charge. 2. Avoid sick birds if at all possible.
If a flock owner decides to have birds tested, the county 3. Practice good hygiene principles.
agent or a livestock inspector takes samples for testing. The 4. Clean and disinfect thoroughly.
samples taken are vent (also called a cloacal or rectal) swabs. 5. Do not visit aviaries that have sick birds.
A metal band is placed on the leg of the chicken and the 6. Prevent rodents and wild birds from entering the
number of the band is written on the sample. The band is for facilities where birds are kept.
bird identification only and can be removed after the test 7. If you visit a facility with birds that may be suspected of
results are reported. The collected swabs are refrigerated and being infected it is important to change clothes, shower,
immediately transported to the Arkansas Livestock and wash your hands and thoroughly disinfect all items
Poultry Commission in Little Rock for testing. The swabs are taken on the premise before contact with your birds.
tested for only two diseases (END and AI) and the PCR test 8. Report signs of disease immediately and get a veterinary
(Polymerase Chain Reaction) used is extremely specific for diagnosis immediately.
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 For additional information or to report disease contact any of
encountered in the United States, not for Exotic Newcastle. the following:
However, it was shown in the California END outbreak that
birds vaccinated with similar vaccines had less mortality than
non-vaccinated birds. County Agent,
Local veterinarian,
Expected Results and Assistance State Veterinarian,
Since there have been no reports of high mortality in State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory or
flocks in Arkansas or surrounding areas, samples are not Extension Veterinarian.
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

8 AVIAN Advice • Fall 2004 • Vol. 6, No. 2

 G.T. Tabler • Applied Broiler Research Unit Manager, Savoy
Center of Excellence for Poultry Science • University of Arkansas

Strategies for Successful

Turkey Production
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. Let’s 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 poult’s 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 on page 10

AVIAN Advice • Fall 2004 • Vol. 6, No. 2 9

 TURKEYS— continued from page 9

Brooding
It is of vital importance to light brooders 24-48 hours ventilating are to:
before poult arrival to warm the litter (not just the air
temperature) and prevent poult chilling. If the poult becomes • Maintain an adequate supply of oxygen
chilled because the floor is cold, its movement level decreases • Remove harmful gases, such as CO, CO2, and ammonia
and it will not actively seek out feed or water. Obviously, • Control moisture accumulation in the building
ample feed and water must be available at all times and (i.e., humidity)
integrator guidelines regarding number of feeders and drinkers • Control temperature
per brooder or brooder ring should be followed. Feeders and • Remove dust and dander particles
drinkers must be arranged in such a manner within the ring as
to allow poults to move unimpeded from the heat source to the When it comes to ventilating the turkey house, producers
edge of the ring. This will help reduce or limit the chance of have two options: natural or power ventilation. Natural
piling inside the ring. Do not place feeders or drinkers ventilation consists of using the curtains and end doors along
directly under or too near the brooder; poults will not eat or with natural wind conditions to move air through the turkey
drink feed and water that is too hot. Brooder stove height will house. If there is any breeze at all this allows a large quantity
vary depending on type being used and integrator guidelines. of air to be moved through the building in a short period of
Lighting must be adequate and should be uniform to reduce time and requires no electrical power usage because fans are
incidence of shadows that can frighten poults and possibly not running. However, in reality, natural ventilation allows
cause piling. producers very little control over the ventilation of their
houses. It is difficult to regulate temperature and optimize
Disease Control airflow inside the house. Changing wind speed and direction
Modern turkeys are geared for growth, not biological and outside air temperature only complicates this problem.
warfare. While the bird is capable of reallocating body Turkeys under natural ventilation may be over heated from
resources to combat disease challenge, this reallocation lack of ventilation or chilled as a result of over ventilation.
usually results in a reduction in growth, activity level, and Power ventilation allows producers to efficiently move a
defenses (Gross and Siegel, 1997). Producers should make consistent quantity of air in a given time period and fan run
every attempt to provide management conditions time can be adjusted to control humidity and temperature
recommended by integrator technical service representatives inside the turkey house. Stirring or re-circulation fans can also
that will minimize the disease threat and allow birds to be used to move hot air off the ceiling and mix with the rest of
perform to their genetic potential. These efforts should the air in the house. Keep in mind that air exchange and air
include a strict Biosecurity program that excludes unnecessary movement are not the same thing. Air movement is the
visitors from the farm (Tabler, 2004) process of relocating air to a different place in the house using
There is little disagreement in the turkey industry circulation fans, while air exchange is the transfer of inside air
regarding the harmful effects of ammonia on turkey health. to the outside and outside air to the inside of the turkey house.
Research has shown what turkey growers already know, that Air exchange rate is expressed in changes of air per minute, or
high levels of ammonia can increase airsacculitis and feed in cfm/turkey (Frame and Anderson, 2002).
conversions, and reduce performance and profitability Proper static pressure is also important when power
(Sandstrom, 1990). Whenever the ammonia level in the air ventilating turkey houses. Static pressure is the negative
exceeds 10 ppm, the turkey=s ability to fight respiratory pressure created in a turkey house when the exhaust fans are
disease is impaired. A minimum litter moisture of running. The higher the static pressure, the greater the
approximately 30% is required to support growth of ammonia- velocity of the air entering the house. A simple rule of thumb
producing bacteria and this growth accelerates as moisture is that each 0.05" of static pressure will shoot air about 12 feet.
levels increase from 30 to 40%. It is very difficult to keep Static pressure in turkey buildings should be maintained
moisture levels below 30% throughout the life of the flock between 0.03" and 0.10" (Frame and Anderson, 2002). If the
without incurring high ventilation and heating costs or using static pressure is too low, cold air will not mix with warm air,
very low bird densities (Bennett, 2001). However, proper but will fall to the floor causing a cold spot that birds will
drinker management, which decreases total water spillage, will avoid. Many times birds avoid the sidewalls because cold air
reduce the total amount of moisture in the turkey house and has fallen to the floor immediately after entering due to
lower ammonia production in the litter. inadequate static pressure. If static pressure is too high, fan
motors have to work excessively hard, decreasing their life
Ventilation expectancy, without any additional benefit to the turkeys. If
Turkeys are living creatures and must have adequate ventilation and temperature regulation are inadequate,
amounts of high quality air to breathe just like their caretakers. especially at night, humidity builds up in the turkey house
Due to the anatomic structure of their respiratory system, birds causing house condensation (sweating), damp litter and
are very sensitive to air quality, especially ammonia and dust. increased ammonia levels. Frame and Anderson (2002) offer
Frame and Anderson (2002) noted the main reasons for the following ventilation tips:

10 AVIAN Advice • Fall 2004 • Vol. 6, No. 2

 Air must be controlled as it enters the building. This is decreases and it will not actively seek out feed or water.
best achieved by mounting rectangular vent boxes along the Modern turkeys are geared for growth, not biological warfare.
upper part of sidewalls that automatically adjust to variations While the bird is capable of reallocating body resources to
in negative pressure. Proper installation of vent boxes will combat disease challenge, this reallocation usually results in a
direct incoming air slightly upwards where it will mix with reduction in growth, activity level, and defenses. Ventilate
warmer air and gently fall to bird level. properly by:
Consider using a five minute time cycle rather than ten.
Temperature and moisture levels will tend to fluctuate less • Controlling the air as it enters the building,
severely. • Using a five minute time cycle rather than ten,
Keep inlets, fans, and shutters clean. Brushing off dust • Keep inlets, fans, and shutters clean,
accumulated on fan blades, guards, and shutters can increase • Adjust building inlet area to number of cfm being moved
fan efficiency 12% to 15%. by fans,
Adjust building inlet area to number of cfm being moved • Maintaining a minimum air exchange rate of 0.2 cfm/
by fans. Static pressure should optimally be maintained poultry in the brooder house,
between 0.05" and 0.08". In loose houses this may require • Using wire brooder guards offer better ventilation than
sealing cracks and crevices to reduce amount of unneeded air cardboard shields,
entering the building. As a rule of thumb, one 2.41 to 2.44 ft2 • Maintaining a complete air exchange in the turkey growout
vent box opening will accommodate 1500 cfm of fan capacity. house every 3 to 5 minutes, and
Minimum air exchange rate in a brooder house with • Power ventilating in growout houses to first control
newly placed poults should be 0.2 cfm/poult. moisture, then ammonia, and last, temperature.
If brooder house temperature is stable and comfortable,
especially from 1 to 7 days of age, wire brooder guards offer References
better ventilation than cardboard shields. Carbon dioxide Bennett, C. 2001. Managing ammonia production in your
levels rapidly build up within cardboard shields. Young turkey litter. Manitoba Agriculture and Food. May 2001. 2
turkeys are very sensitive to high levels of carbon dioxide gas. pages
Poults may become lethargic or sleepy when exposed to high Frame, D. D., and G. L. Anderson. 2002. Ventilation
carbon dioxide levels resulting in inadequate feed and water basics for Utah turkey facilities. Utah State University
intake. Cooperative Extension Service Publication Ag/Poultry/01.
One complete air exchange should occur in turkey March 2002. Utah State University, Logan, UT.
growouts at least every 3 to 5 minutes. This air exchange rate Gross, W. B., and P. B. Siegel. 1997. Why some get sick.
will need to be even greater (i.e., every 1 to 2 minutes) during J. Appl. Poultry Res. 6:453-460.
summer months. Plan fan capacity to meet this need. Lacy, M. P. and J. D. French. 1989. Effective broiler
Use power ventilation in growout houses to first control house clean out and disinfection techniques. University of
moisture, then ammonia, and last, temperature. Many growers Geogia Cooperative Extension Service Circular 815. 6 pages
have a tendency to reverse the order of these priorities. It is Nicholas Turkey Breeding Farms. 2000. Brooding. Nicholas
important to keep in mind that using additional heat can Turkey News. 42(6):1-4.
stabilize temperature during power ventilation. However, Sandstrom, J. 1990. Ammonia myths...A real gas.
moisture and ammonia can only be controlled by sufficient air Perspectives (The information newsletter of Hybrid Turkeys).
exchange (i.e., ventilation). Leg problems and airsacculitis Winter 1990/91.
caused by wet litter and ammonia are much more Tabler, G. T. 2004. Arkansas turkey growers face variety
economically devastating than a slightly higher gas bill. of challenges. Avian Advice 6(1):9-11.

Summary
Proper set up for a flock, correct brooding, rigorous Coming Events:
disease control and appropriate ventilation are four areas vital
to producing profitable turkey flocks. Birds that are started • Annual Nutrition Conference, September 15-17, 2004,
Embassy Suites, Rogers, AR, The Poultry Federation (501) 375-
well have a much greater chance of finishing well. Since
8131
young birds are generally more susceptible to diseases than
older birds and diseases can carry over from one flock to the • Turkey Committee Meeting, September 17-18, 2004, Best
next, the success of the flock may depend on how completely Western Inn of the Ozarks, Eureka Springs, AR, The Poultry
the house has been cleaned and disinfected prior to the arrival Federations (501) 375-8131
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 • State Fair, October 8-17, 2004, State Fair Grounds, Little Rock,
air temperature) and prevent poult chilling. If the poult AR, (501) 372-8341
becomes chilled because the floor is cold, its movement level

AVIAN Advice • Fall 2004 • Vol. 6, No. 2 11

Write Extension Specialists,
except Jerry Wooley, at:
Center of Excellence
for Poultry Science
UA Poultry Science
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701 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: [email protected]

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. Clark’s 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: [email protected]

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. Telephone: 479-575-5443, FAX: 479-575-8775,
E-mail: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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.
Telephone: 479-575-7902, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: [email protected]

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 state’s 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: [email protected]