Choosing The Best Coccidiosis Control Programme Is A Critical Decision

Ben Dehaeck

Estimates put the cost of coccidiosis to the poultry industry at over $10 billion dollars annually (based on 2016 prices). This makes optimising control programmes critical to the sustainability of poultry production. 

Currently the most popular control programme is what is known as a 'shuttle programme'. This involves using a potentiated ionophore (nicarbazin plus an ionophore), typically from day 1 to between day 14 and day 28 of the production cycle, followed by an ionophore given on its own for the last part of the cycle.

During the last phase of the shuttle programme, producers have the option to either use the same ionophore included in the potentiated product during the first phase of the programme, or to rotate to a different ionophore altogether.

Huvepharma has conducted an analysis of lesion scores and feed conversion rate (FCR) performance data input into Aviapp® by producers between 2016 and 2024 to compare the results from shuttle programmes that rotate to a different ionophore with those that continue to use the same ionophore throughout the shuttle programme.

The programmes evaluated were:

  • Same ionophore shuttle programmes: narasin + nicarbazin followed by narasin; and monensin + nicarbazin followed by monensin
  • Mixed ionophore shuttle programmes: narasin + nicarbazin followed by salinomycin or monensin; and monensin + nicarbazin followed by salinomycin or narasin

 

Ionophore rotation makes sense for reduced lesion scores

Rotating to a different ionophore from that included in the potentiated ionophore resulted in a significant reduction in lesion scores for all Eimeria species: E. acervulinaE. maxima, and E. tenella (Figures 1 - 4). The greatest overall difference was observed in week 5 (days 28-35) when the shuttle programme switched to the ionophore without potentiation. The difference in the average lesion score across all three Eimeria species equated to a 1-point reduction in FCR. 

While E. acervulina lesions accounted for most of the total mean lesion scores, the differences in E. maxima (Figure 3) were significant between both strategies in all production weeks (p-value < 0.001). Overall, E. tenella lesion scores were very low, however in week 5 when E. tenella challenge typically peaks, a clear difference was observed. Based on mortality and FCR, E. tenella is highly detrimental to performance so even the small differences shown in Figure 4 can result in the loss of up to 2 points in FCR. 

 

Figure 1. Comparison of average lesion scores for all Eimeria species (E. acervulinaE. maxima, and E. tenella)

 

Figure 2. Comparison of average lesion scores for E. acervulina

 

Figure 3. E. maxima average lesion scores for two different control strategies

 

Figure 4. E. tenella average lesion scores for two different control strategies

 

Ionophore rotation makes sense for improved FCR

The feed conversion ratio (FCR) data in Figure 5 shows the average FCR for both ionophore rotation and non-rotation strategies as a function of slaughter age. At all slaughter ages there was a significant improvement in feed efficiency when a different ionophore was used in the latter part of the control programme. The difference between both strategies becomes increasingly marked as the slaughter age increases, with a difference of 4 points in FCR at a slaughter age of 42 days.

 

Figure 5. Comparison of the average FCR as a function of slaughter age

 

Summary

Shuttle programmes that rotate to using an ionophore which is not part of the potentiated product improve the coccidiosis lesion score and FCR. This means that mixed ionophore shuttle programmes such as Monimax® / Sacox® are significantly more effective than shuttle programmes that use the same ionophore such as narasin + nicarbazin / narasin.