THE FUTURE OF ANIMAL PROTEIN IN POULTRY DIETS potx

Multi-State Poultry Meeting
May 14-16, 2002
Gary G. Pearl, D.V.M.








THE FUTURE OF ANIMAL PROTEIN IN POULTRY DIETS

Gary G. Pearl, D.V.M.
Fats and Proteins Research Foundation, Inc.
16551 Old Colonial Road
Bloomington, Illinois 61704

Ph: 309-829-7715; Fax: 309-829-5147; E-mail:


Multi-State Poultry Meeting
May 14-16, 2002
Gary G. Pearl, D.V.M.

Introduction
Animal derived protein meals such as meat and bone meal (MBM), meat meal
(MM), poultry meal (PM), hydrolyzed feather meal (HFM) and to a lesser extent
blood meal (BM) and fish meal (FM) have all contributed as important feedstuffs for
poultry nutrition. The production and processing of livestock and poultry for food
production in North America annually produces nearly 50 billion pounds of raw

animal tissues that are not subsequently utilized as food. The raw materials have been
used as valuable feed ingredient resources following their further processing by the
rendering industry. The rendering process is a biosecure proven process, which
evaporates water, extracts fat and results in approximately a 25% fat and a 25%
protein yield from the raw material. The process completely decharacterizes muscle
and other tissues into protein rich granular type substrates and fats with specific
nutritional components that has absolutely no resemblance to the original raw
material. The resultant ingredients have been characterized into their nutritional
contributions for fulfilling the specific requirements of nutrient demands for multiple
animal species.

Traditionally the composite poultry industry has utilized approximately 37% of the
total animal protein annual production. Thus the poultry industry has been a very
important market for rendered animal proteins. Synergistically the rendering industry
has for over 100 years provided services and products that have been valuable
economic, biosecurity and environmental resources for the animal industries.
Resources and a synergism that has allowed for the sustainable and the most efficient,
safest meat producing system in the world. I have been asked to address the future of
animal protein usage in poultry diets. The most difficult stories to write are those that
involve predicting the future. Certainly the assigned topic is a most complex issue
with many influencing factors to which scientific answers are not available.

Multi-State Poultry Meeting
May 14-16, 2002
Gary G. Pearl, D.V.M.

Historical Perspective
The use of animal protein for poultry feed has been reported to occur as early as the
1880’s even prior to the establishment of a rendering industry. Perhaps the first
species to utilize animal protein was poultry as the byproducts from country

slaughterhouses and on farm butchering that were air-dried and “the tankage” sold by
the barrel for chicken feed. Scott et. al. (1969) in Nutrition of the Chicken wrote
“Early experience has demonstrated protein sources such as fish meal, meat scraps and
dried skim milk when added to poultry diets, produced results which were vastly
superior to those obtained with similar diets containing only plant proteins”. Thus
animal proteins have been a very integral part of the unprecedented progress
demonstrated by poultry production in overall efficiency. Historically the use of
animal proteins has been guided by the research framework of academia and industry
representation. Dedicated researchers have provided a base of scientific literature
addressing the resourceful attributes of their nutritional contributions as well as
directing solutions to the commonly raised questions of variability, nutrient
bioavailability and microorganism biosecurity. Where as today, with production and
processing technology enhancements, analytical capabilities and formulation concepts
having not solved all of the nutritional questions, animal proteins have been used with
great confidence in poultry rations. Their continued use, however, will be dictated by
factors using criteria that are not as easily and scientifically defined as amino acid
bioavailability, true metabolizable energy, or grams of available phosphorus. Criteria,
which are devoid of and even defy the development of scientific parameters. Todays
and tomorrows decisions will be directed by the consumers or at least those, which are
the most vocal or influential upon the consumer. Nutritionists, veterinarians,
microbiologists, epidemiologists and toxicologists are generally not the first source in
which advice is gathered when inputs are assembled by retail executives, politicians
and regulators. Inputs from headlines, the evening news, accountants and pollsters are
generally considered as being much more important in acquiring decision-making
clues. Thus what are the forces that will influence the usage of animal proteins by the
poultry industry?
Multi-State Poultry Meeting
May 14-16, 2002
Gary G. Pearl, D.V.M.

Future Influencers
Food safety or more directly the perceptions associated with food safety will be
paramount. Today there are no scientific reasons that animal protein ingredients are
not safe feed ingredients for poultry or livestock, companion animal and aquaculture
rations. However, the world today is nothing more than a “global village” in which a
food safety incidence anywhere is an incident everywhere. It must also be recognized
that globalization has not reconciled all of the regional precedents and molded all of
the world countries into a common political, cultural and economic agenda. Thus the
evidence of numerous uncompromising views on such activities as regulatory and
trade issues prohibit common agendas. Specifically international “trade wars” can site
many previous examples addressing differences in food safety interpretations such as
hormone, antibiotic and most recently genetically modified grain and oil seed usage as
feed ingredients for animals. Certainly the perceptions, interpretations and actions
established during the 16 year period following the advent of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) commonly referred to as “mad cow disease” drastically altered
the perceptions of food safety. Even though BSE has been confined to a relatively
small segment of the world, and an unproven food safety issue, repercussions have
been felt globally. Again it must be emphasized that an incident anywhere becomes an
incident everywhere. The development of a series of some 33 specific aggressive and
proactive regulatory policies and control measures taken by the United States
beginning in 1986 following the first confirmatory diagnosis of BSE in the United
Kingdom, has resulted in no cases of BSE found in U S cattle nor have any cases of
the human form, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) been detected. This in the
presence of the most intensive surveillance program in the world that concentrated on
high-risk animals. Questions however have not abated concerning “have we done
enough”? In 1998 the United States Department of Agriculture asked the Harvard
University Center for Risk Analysis to evaluate the robustness of US measures to
prevent the spread of BSE to animals and humans if it were to arise in this country.
Multi-State Poultry Meeting

May 14-16, 2002
Gary G. Pearl, D.V.M.

The findings of that study were recently published and are under review. The study
reported the following basic conclusions.

1. “Our analysis finds that the U.S. is highly resistant to any introduction of BSE or a
similar disease. BSE is extremely unlikely to become established in the US.”

2. There appears to be no potential for an epidemic of BSE resulting from scrapie,
chronic wasting disease or other cross-species transmission of similar diseases found
in the U.S.”

3. “Measures in the U.S. that are most effective at reducing the spread of BSE include
the ban on the import of live ruminants and ruminant meat and bone meal from the
United Kingdom (since 1989) and all of Europe (since 1997) by USDA/APHIS and
the feed ban instituted by the FDA in 1997 to prevent recycling of potentially
infectious cattle tissues.”

4. “Ensuring compliance with the FDA feed ban will ensure that the risks remain low.”

The current U.S. and the very similar Canadian rules directed at prohibiting the use
of certain mammalian proteins in feed for cattle and other ruminants have affected the
handling and usage of all animal protein products by the feed industry. But if
understood and implemented, the actual requirements differ little from those that
addressed past issues in using medications and antimicrobials. There has been
controversy as to the degree of compliance associated with the use of restricted protein
products. FDA has been challenged on several of their past compilations of regulatory
compliance that differed significantly from feed and ingredient industry records. This
controversy has prompted third party certification programs to emerge as

supplemental assurance for the proper use of restricted protein ingredients. It is
paramount that the suppliers, the feed industry and the producer all understand that if
protein ingredients cannot be verified to be 100% from non-ruminant material it is
Multi-State Poultry Meeting
May 14-16, 2002
Gary G. Pearl, D.V.M.

prohibited from use in feeds in cattle and other ruminant animals. The Facility
Certification Institute as an independent third party certification should be considered
as a precautionary assurance that your facilities and the industry is in compliance.
Although both ruminant and non-ruminant protein meals can both be utilized in
poultry rations, should a feed mill be manufacturing both ruminant and poultry rations
specific requirements exist to prevent cross-contamination.

Although the exact etiology of BSE is uncertain, the transmission of the disease has
been evaluated as though it arises from an infectious agent. The exact nature of the
infectious agent is unclear. Thus the exact mechanism of transmission has defied the
ability to meet all of Koch’s Postulates traditional in the scientific process of
describing cause and effect for any given disease. Dr. Danny Mathews of the
Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Weybridge U.S. has reported (USDA/ARS, BSE
Workshop Meeting – March 15, 2002) that studies incorporating intracranial,
intraperitoneal and the oral inoculation of BSE infected brain stem into chickens
showed no transmission from either inoculation route. Inoculated chickens were taken
to a 57-month endpoint with no infectivity detected in any tissues at endpoint. The
parenteral challenge consisted of 50 micro-milliliters injected intracranial and 50
milliliters injected intraperitoneal. Chickens that demonstrated any “motor
disturbance” following inoculation were sacrificed and tissues sub-passaged back to
chickens in an attempt to determine the presence of any subclinical form of disease.
Sub-passage in mice was also attempted with negative results. The oral challenge
consisted of 5 grams of infective BSE brain tissue administered via esophageal tube

into the crop at 4, 5 and 6 weeks. Again no infectivity was found in tissues or any
symptoms were observed at endpoint. For perspective, it has been reported that the
bovine can be infected with as little as 0.5-1gm of infective tissue orally. Thus poultry
have been described as being extremely refractory to any of the transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) and have not been diagnosed in any avian species.
Further the transmission studies completed using parental inoculations and other
exposure techniques cannot be compared directly to that of oral transmission. The
Multi-State Poultry Meeting
May 14-16, 2002
Gary G. Pearl, D.V.M.

relative efficiencies of infection by different routes when measured by titration of
brain inocula used in research models show that the oral route of infection is more
than 100,000 times less efficient than inoculation directly into the brain as has been a
common procedure for experiments that involve the TSE’s.

The Harvard Risk Assessment though indicating the risk in the US is near zero for
an incident or for the amplification of BSE there are current regulatory initiatives to
pursue further “precautionary principle” based actions. The USDA’s Food Safety
Inspection Service (FSIS) has issued its intent in a “thinking paper” requesting
industry comments concerning further certification procedures for cattle to be
slaughtered and the exclusion of certain tissues for food or feed. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is completing efforts to publish an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking to amend the current ruminant to ruminant feed rule (21 CFR – 589.2000).
The General Office of Accounting has published its report of regulatory concern
focused on the improvements that should be made in current compliance to the above
stated rule. Several federal and state proposed legislation have and continues to be
directed at the need to develop further precautionary actions based primarily on the
past postulates, hypotheses, as well as failure to responsibly respond and comply to
established regulations as demonstrated in the United Kingdom’s experiences.

Fortunately legislation in the US has not superceded the regulatory process. The
methodology has in general been directed by science in the US in a manner much
more evident than in many of the countries that are not BSE free. It is especially
important that the US continue and all countries be encouraged to make their decisions
on sound science and not based on politics, public perception or trade issues. But the
rendering and feed industries of North America will continue to be challenged by the
frequent emerging requirements for directives emanating from the European
Commission and influencing other countries around the world.



Multi-State Poultry Meeting
May 14-16, 2002
Gary G. Pearl, D.V.M.

Anti-Animal Initiatives

Certainly a current influencer for the utilization of animal byproduct ingredients as
animal feed ingredients is the BSE/TSE issue. The complexity, media attention, myths
and anecdotal information that have accompanied the disease has created a forum to
challenge all of animal agriculture. Animal production has been a staple in the worlds
food supply and projected to become even more so in most forecasts. However the
supporters of all vegetarian diets, animal rights advocates, various segments of the
nutritional and medical professions and even the plant protein segments of the
agriculture industry are highly promotive of diets that replace animal proteins with
plant origin products. These initiatives are becoming more prominent in both the food
and feed sectors. There is a growing segment of the worlds population that possess
rightist beliefs that precludes the use of animal or their products from food or fiber
usage. This belief is also possessed by an increasing number of vegetarians. The trend
is increasing among teens and those without knowledge of animal production except

for their domestic pets. Teenage Research Limited in Illinois found in a recent survey
that 38% of girls and 18% of boys with opinions that vegetarianism is a fashionable
trait.

The advent of marketing programs that promote “No animal protein”, “No animal
byproducts used” and other natural/organic food claims, though opportunistic have
promoted marketing concepts that infers a negative connotation to the use of animal
derived products. These have been evident in nearly every food animal species and
especially so in poultry products both meat and eggs. There are numerous forces
reminding us daily of the nutritional and ethical rancor derived from the consumption
of animal derived products. The US poultry industry processes nearly 9 billion broilers
and other poultry species into approximately 36 billion pounds of poultry meat
annually. This production represents only about 60% of the total product produced.
The remaining feathers, blood, bone, viscera, skin, fat, other trim tissues and fallen
birds also must be utilized or discarded. The percentage of each animal utilized as
Multi-State Poultry Meeting
May 14-16, 2002
Gary G. Pearl, D.V.M.

food when compared to byproduct generation declines each year as further processing
and table ready product development occurs. Poultry generated byproduct tissue when
coupled with that from other livestock species account to over 50 billion pounds of
annual raw material. The traditional utilization has been via rendering these tissues
into valuable protein and fat ingredients. Other alternatives to rendering exist such as
burial, burning, incineration, landfilling, composting or extruding. But when compared
to rendering all are very unacceptable either due to human and animal health,
environmental, ecological or economic challenges. Therefore the question needs to be
asked. What are the “No animal byproducts” advocates proposing to do with the 50
million annual pounds of ancillary production resulting from the livestock and poultry
industries for producing meat, milk and eggs? Perhaps there are future options but in

today’s environment the production and processing realities are a dependent
relationship between utilization of the produced byproducts and sustaining animal
production.

The future of animal protein in poultry diets in reality lies within the decisions
made by the industry itself and the consumers of its products. There are no
scientifically based reasons for the exclusion of animal protein ingredients from
poultry diets. Without the recycling and processing services of renderers, massive
problems of disposal from farms/feedlots, slaughter facilities, food processors,
restaurants and institutions would result, contributing to serious challenges for disease
transmission, disease prevention and control and environmental and public health.