Poultry Times August 12, 2013 Edition

Poultry Times PERIODICALS

Since 1954, the nation’s only poultry industry newspaper

August 12, 2013

See page 8D

PRESERVE INTERNATIONAL proudly presents

SYNERGIZE ORANGE CLEANER-DISINFECTANT

Because Biosecurity Doesn’t Cost, It Pays!

✹ Provene effectivst again Avian a Influenz

PRESERVE I N T E R N AT I O N A L

Reno, Nevada 89511, USA

1-800-995-1607

Telephone: (209) 664-1607 • FAX: (209) 664-1728 www.preserveinternational.com

Poultry Times

August 12, 2013 Volume 60, Number 17 www.poultrytimes.net

U.S. wins WTO case on chicken exports to China

By Barbara Olejnik Poultry Times Staff

bolejnik@poultrytimes.net

WASHINGTON — The United States won a major case at the World Trade Organization on Aug. 2 on behalf of U.S. chicken producers, proving that China’s imposition of higher duties on chicken “broiler products” is unjustified under international trade rules.

The WTO dispute settlement panel held that China’s basis for finding dumping — the so-called “average cost of production” theory — was inconsistent with WTO rules.

The panel also held that China’s

determination that U.S. chicken imports were causing injury to the domestic industry is inconsistent with WTO rules and therefore are not subject to countervailing (antisubsidy) or anti-dumping duties.

Bill Lovette, National Chicken Council chairman and president and CEO of Pilgrim’s Pride, said in a statement: “This announcement is welcome news to U.S. poultry producers and the U.S. poultry industry. Regaining meaningful access to this critical market presents an opportunity to compete in a valuable and viable export market.

“We look forward to sharing the

high quality poultry products that American consumers enjoy every day with our partners and customers in China.”

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack noted that farm exports in fiscal year 2012 reached $135.8 billion and more than $23 billion worth of those agricultural products went to China alone.

“But China’s prohibitive duties on broiler products were followed by a steep decline in exports to China — and now we look forward to seeing China’s market for broiler products restored.

“This is an important victory today for the U.S. poultry industry and

Robots to revolutionize farming, ease labor woes of harvesting The Associated Press

SALINAS, Calif. — On a windy morning in California’s Salinas Valley, a tractor pulled a wheeled, metal contraption over rows of budding iceberg lettuce plants.

Engineers from Silicon Valley tinkered with the software on a laptop to ensure the machine was eliminating the right leafy buds.

The engineers were testing the Lettuce Bot, a machine that can “thin” a field of lettuce in the time it takes about 20 workers to do the job by hand.

The thinner is part of a new generation of machines that target the last frontier of agricultural mechanization — fruits and vegetables destined for the fresh market, not processing, which have thus far resisted mechanization because

they’re sensitive to bruising.

Researchers are now designing robots for these most delicate crops by integrating advanced sensors, powerful computing, electronics, computer vision, robotic hardware and algorithms, as well as networking and high precision GPS localization technologies.

Most ag robots won’t be commercially available for at least a few years.

In this region known as America’s Salad Bowl, where for a century fruits and vegetables have been planted, thinned and harvested by an army of migrant workers, the machines could prove revolutionary.

Farmers say farm robots could provide relief from recent labor shortages, lessen the unknowns of immigration reform, even reduce

costs, increase quality and yield a more consistent product.

“There aren’t enough workers to take the available jobs, so the robots can come and alleviate some of that problem,” said Ron Yokota, a farming operations manager at Tanimura & Antle, the Salinasbased fresh produce company that owns the field where the Lettuce Bot was being tested.

Many sectors in U.S. agriculture have relied on machines for decades and even the harvesting of fruits and vegetables meant for processing has slowly been mechanized. But nationwide, the vast majority of fresh-market fruit is still harvested by hand.

Research into fresh produce mechanization was dormant for

See Robots, Page 10

for American farmers and ranchers,” Vilsack said..

The U.S. appealed to the WTO after China said that the U.S. had engaged in dumping and had imposed tariffs on imports of “broiler products,” which include most chicken products with the exception of live chickens.

When the case was initiated the USA Poultry & Egg Export Council board and Executive Committee hired legal council to peruse options on behalf of the U.S. chicken industry.

“We immediately realized the long-term implications that this case could have had for our industry’s

exports,” said USAPEEC President Jim Sumner. “We knew that we could not wait to act” The WTO ruling, Sumner said, validates the poultry industry’s long support for the WTO, which provides an important venue for resolving international trade disputes in a fair and equitable manner.

“Now that the WTO panel has rendered it decision, the U.S. industry hopes that this dispute can quickly be put to rest and that mutually beneficial trade in poultry products between China and the U.S. can be restored,” Sumner said.

See WTO, Page 15

Poultry Power

Special

Poultry Power golf winners: The annual National Chicken Council Poultry Power Golf Tournament was held in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, as part of the NCC/National Poultry & Food Distributors Association Marketing Seminar activities. Poultry Times provides the tournament trophy and first place plaques presented to the winning team. The winners were, left to right, Greg Nelson, director of sales, George’s Inc.; Darren Thames, national accounts manager, International Paper; John Bartelme, consultant, Bartelme Associates; and Michael Teachey, vice president, sales & marketing, House of Raeford.

2

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

Could robotics lead the way for poultry processing?

By J. Michael Matthews Special to Poultry Times

ATLANTA — The poultry industry relies heavily on fixed automation as well as specialized robotics and perception techniques, implemented in a step-by-step “perception then manipulation” process.

For many tasks, especially those involving rigid materials (package sorting and stacking) or static objects (chicken breast water jet portioning) this works well and is very efficient.

However, for tasks that involve deformable product that must be manipulated (gripped, pulled, flipped, cut, etc.), this fixed “perception then manipulation” process is no longer valid. This is because the manipulation itself changes the

object in real-time, invalidating prior perception measurements.

Fixed automation and current robotics techniques result in loss of accuracy, precision and yield. For example, consider gripping, flipping, or cutting tasks.

Imagine taking a single look at the object, closing your eyes and performing the tasks without further perception; this is similar to conventional step-by-step automation.

In contrast, a human worker has no difficulty continuing to sense the object during manipulation.

Researchers with the Georgia Tech Research Institute’s Agricultural Technology Research Program are working on an exploratory project with the goal of developing perception algorithms that will allow continual “perception during ma-

nipulation.” In addition, the algorithms will be designed to work with any type of object, having the ability to learn new objects and thus adapt to many different applications.

This is particularly beneficial to the poultry industry due to the difficult nature of sensing and handling meat products. Combined with robotics and manipulation research, this effort will enable advanced robotics platforms for the next generation of poultry processing.

The envisioned full system will be capable of learning a new object model, and then use the model for detection and tracking the product throughout manipulation.

Basically, the system will perform general object modeling (learning) with skeletal and shape components to identify key features specifically for deformable objects, allowing the tracking of those objects in realtime. Development will take place in four steps. yy Sensing: For this application, it is expected that both 3D and 2D color data are required. The application will determine the requirements and sensors used in an end product; however, a generic research sensor is important here. For this project, we chose the Microsoft Kinect, a general gaming sensor being utilized for robotics research. It includes a standard color camera, and

an infrared pattern projector and infrared camera, to sense both depth and location of every pixel. yy Segmentation: Segmentation means determining which pixels in the field of view belong to the object and which belong to the background. During learning, a non-model based system will be used to detect the object surface, and this data will be sent to the tracker for modeling. During run-time, the model will be used to detect the object surface, and the tracker aligns the model for complete detection. yy Tracker: The tracker takes data from segmentation to track the object over several frames, updating the model during learning, or morphing the model during run-time to align and match the current state of the object.

This alignment and matching occurs in 2D to track segmented image data as the object moves, and in 3D to track and solve for a full 3D solution of the object’s state. This process is standard for rigid objects; however, meat is not rigid, and has few image features to track, so this makes alignment difficult. In fact, learning a deformable object model and matching to a constantly deforming object is significantly more difficult. yy Model: The model will be a basic triangle mesh that can store

USDA announces AEB appointments WASHINGTON — U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has appointed one member and two alternates to the American Egg Board for the remainder of the 2013-2014 term.

Appointed board members and alternates, by region, are: North Atlantic states — John Puglisi, New Jersey, member.

South Atlantic states — Alex R. Simpson, North Carolina, alternate member.

Western states — Jill I. Benson, California, alternate member.

Composed of 18 members and 18 alternates representing six regions, the board administers an egg research and promotion program authorized by the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act of 1974.

Terms on the board are staggered so that half of the membership is appointed each year in order to provide continuity in policy.

The secretary of agriculture selects appointees from egg producers nominated by organizations representing the egg industry.

color and texture, size and shape and variable parameters for object motion. This type of model is crucial because it must be capable of handling various constraints, and be feasible for detection and tracking in real-time.

Traditional 3D animation and modeling, such as the type used in video games and movie special effects, will be considered to develop skeletal and skin models for poultry objects. As the object is deformed during learning, the mesh will grow and adapt, and during run-time, the mesh will stretch and move to match the object within its learned constraints.

System development is under way, and the research team expects initial results soon.

J. Michael Matthews is a research engineer in the Georgia Tech Research Institute’s Food Processing Technology Division. Reprinted from PoultryTech, a publication of the Agricultural Technology Research Program of the Georgia Tech Research Institute, a program conducted in cooperation with the Georgia Poultry Federation with funding from the Georgia Legislature.

INDEX AEB Hotline...........................15 Business.............................6--7 Calendar.................................9 Classified..............................12 Markets................................14 Viewpoint................................4 A directory of Poultry Times advertisers appears on Page 15

To subscribe call 770-536-2476 or www.poultrytimes.net

3

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

PEPA presents annual person & scientist of year SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Pacific Egg and Poultry Association honored two individuals in 2013, presenting the annual Industry Person of the Year award to Tom Silva and the 2013 Poultry Scientist of the Year award to Dr. Peter Woolcock.

The association noted that Silva and Woolcock are well known throughout the poultry industry for their exemplary service to the egg farmers of California.

“They are the epitome of selflessness. Over the years as California has faced serious disease outbreaks . . . two of the state’s most potent weapons have been Silva and Woolcock. Their efforts in the realm of poultry health have contributed greatly to the success of our avian disease control program,” the association added.

Silva currently serves as vice president of operations for J.S. West Milling Co., responsible for poultry operations including food safety, egg quality and animal welfare. He has served on numerous committees and boards for the Pacific Egg and Poultry Association, California Poultry Federation, United Egg Producers, California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Grain and Feed Association. He has been instrumental in ensuring open lines of communication between all avian species in California.

Silva is credited for the successful installation and operation of the first enriched colony housing system(s) in the U.S. (2010).

Woolcock was a professor of Clinical Diagnostic Virology at the

Department of Population Health and Reproduction School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California at Davis and also served as Avian Virology Section Head of the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System at the School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis.

Woolcock co-authored 68 publications and 33 book chapters.

In June Woolcock retired after 22 years of service to the California egg and poultry industries. He has played key roles in the diagnostics of all avian viral diseases in California, most notably during outbreaks of avian influenza and exotic Newcastle disease. He also contributed to isolation of such viruses as Muscovy duck parvovirus, hepatitis E virus and bunyavirus.

NCC: Processing aids are tools to kill pathogens WASHINGTON — “Food safety is our top priority and we rely on the latest and best science to continuously improve our products and constantly strive to decrease the risk of potential foodborne pathogens,” said National Chicken Council Vice President of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs Dr. Ashley Peterson in response to a recent Washington Post article that conveyed concerns regarding the use of processing aids in the poultry industry.

“We are at war with salmonella and campylobacter, and we use every approved tool at our disposal to kill bacteria on chicken products to reduce the risk of foodborne illness,” Peterson said. “Our customers and consumers expect nothing less.”

Some of those tools include antimicrobials used as processing aids that are applied to poultry carcasses to kill foodborne pathogens.

Two common processing aids that were mentioned by the Wash-

ington Post are cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and peracetic acid (PAA).

CPC is an antiseptic that kills bacteria and other microorganisms. It is commonly found in toothpaste, mouthwash and nasal sprays.

Peracetic acid (PAA) is an organic compound, made up of basically vinegar and hydrogen peroxide. It is applied to poultry carcasses at concentrations that are less acidic and more dilute than products commonly found in kitchen cabinets and refrigerators.

Within the water at poultry processing plants, poultry is treated at concentrations that are less acidic than lemon juice and more dilute than household vinegar.

“The bottom line for consumers is that these processing aids are diluted significantly, break down in water to non-harmful substances and are often rinsed-off after their application,” Peterson said. “They have no impact on public health

other than to make chicken products safer.”

Peterson refuted some of the claims made in the article regarding the “neutralization” of certain processing aids by noting that companies that manufacture these processing aids do extensive research and must document their safety and effectiveness before any product is approved for use by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and USDA. She said this evaluation is frequently repeated by others in the industry.

“USDA-approved processing aids by definition have no lasting effect after application,” Peterson continued. “As such, we are confident that testing results are indicative of effective chemistry.”

Questions and answers about processing aids used in chicken processing can be found at www. nationalchickencouncil.org/questions-answers-about-antimicrobial-use-in-chicken-processing/

Special

Industry award: Tom Silva, left, is presented with the Pacific Egg & Poultry Association 2013 Industry Person of the Year award by PEPA President John Bedell, both with J.S. West Milling Co.

Special

Top scientist: Dr. Richard Breitmeyer, right, presents Dr. Peter Woolcock with the Pacific Poultry & Egg Association’s 2013 Poultry Scientist of the Year award. Both are from the California Animal Health & Food Safety Laboratory System.

4

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

Viewpoint Compiled by Barbara Olejnik, Associate Editor 770-718-3440 bolejnik@poultrytimes.net

The poultry plant of the future

By Dr. Douglas F. Britton Special to Poultry Times

ATLANTA — In a continued quest to drive transformational innovation in the poultry industry, the Agricultural Technology Research Program (ATRP) at Georgia Tech has joined the University of Georgia Britton (UGA) and other labs and individuals in a strategic initiative, “The Poultry Plant of the Future.”

This initiative is focused on envisioning what poultry production and processing should look like in 20, 30, or even 50 years.

The concept stems from the fact that the practices of poultry production and processing have not changed fundamentally in the past 60 years. The consensus among re-

searchers was that the time is right to reconsider these processes and to actively drive and evaluate new and different approaches to poultry processing.

Much of the technology used in today’s poultry processing is based on a system that has been in place since the 1950s. Current methods are a mixture of historical practices and labor-saving mechanization retrofitted with modern technologies.

These retrofits were done in an attempt to meet more and more stringent sanitation, worker safety and environmental regulatory demands. However, continuing to plug new technology into a 60-yearold system is not a viable long-term strategy for maintaining a thriving poultry processing system.

At the same time, U.S. poultry production faces international competition to produce products in larger quantities at lower costs. There are also growing regulatory pressures to improve food safety and reduce overall environmental impact. Current methods will eventually reach a limit in their ability to address these

growing demands/issues.

The goal of this strategic initiative is to develop innovative approaches for improving the overall performance and efficiency of poultry processing.

The underlying drivers are shifting with increased focus on animal welfare, water consumption, waste minimization, sanitation, food safety, environmental impact and worker safety. Using integrated systems-based approaches, researchers are seeking to address many of the challenges by looking across the entire production and processing chain (see diagram below).

The first and most important aspect of establishing a strategic initiative of this scope is to build a network of collaborators from a variety of disciplines with complementary areas of expertise. ATRP and UGA’s Department of Poultry Science researchers are building a network of potential collaborators with other universities and labs with targeted poultry-related research activities.

Several one-day workshops have been held to lay the foundation for what we hope will become a multiinstitutional center with research focused on the exploration of key technological and scientific challenges that face the poultry industry.

However, we continue to welcome input and ideas from anyone and everyone who has an interest in thinking about and developing the future direction of poultry production and processing.

In addition, kernels of “out-ofthe-box” research project ideas have begun to form through discussions among researchers from the various institutions. We strongly believe that it will be at the intersection between the traditional sciences and engineering where truly new and interesting approaches are developed.

In order for this to occur, we must encourage and enable crossdisciplinary teams that can focus on specific common challenges. In the end, it will be the ideas generated and the results of the research that will determine the success of the effort.

Another key component and somewhat more challenging aspect of this strategic initiative is identifying funding opportunities to support the research, given the fiscal constraints at both the federal and state level. ATRP has begun to seed research activities that are aligned with this strategic effort with the anticipation that larger funding opportunities will eventually come.

The need for transformational research in animal agriculture systems (and poultry, in particular) has been discussed with key federal and state government stakeholders. The national trade organizations and affiliated industry members also have

played a crucial role in helping to build the case for targeted research focused on the future of poultry production and processing.

Rapid adoption of technology has made the U.S. poultry industry an American success story. For the poultry industry to continue to be a global leader in protein production, it is imperative that the research to enable technological change be promoted and funded.

Dr. Douglas F. Britton is manager of the Agricultural Technology Research Program, Food Processing Technology Division, of the Georgia Tech Research Institute in Atlanta, Ga.

Poultry Times www.poultrytimes.net

Corporate Headquarters

Poultry & Egg News Inc. P.O. Box 1338 Gainesville, Georgia 30503 Telephone: 770-536-2476; 770-718-3444 (after 5:30 p.m.)

Fax: 770-532-4894

Poultry Times (USPS 217-480) ISSN 0885-3371 is published every other Monday, 345 Green Street, N.W., Gainesville, Georgia 30501. Telephone 770-536-2476; Fax 770-532-4894.

Postage paid at Gainesville, Georgia 30501.

General Manager

Poultry Times assumes responsibliity for error in first run of an in-house designed ad only. Advertisers have ten (10) days from publication date to dispute such an advertisement. After ten (10) days, ad will be deemed correct and advertiser will be charged accordingly. Proofs approved by advertiser will always be regarded as correct.

Cindy Wellborn 770-718-3443

cwellborn@poultrytimes.net

Editorial/Advertising Staff Editor David B. Strickland 770-718-3442 dstrickland@poultrytimes.net

Associate Editor Barbara L. Olejnik 770-718-3440

bolejnik@poultrytimes.net

Subscriptions: Surface mail in U.S., $18.00 for one year, $29 for two years and $40 for three years. Business or occupation information must accompany each subscription order.

Change of Address: Postmaster, report change of address to Poultry Times, P.O. Box 1338, Gainesville, GA 30503.

Companion Poultry Publications: A Guide to Poultry Associations; Poultry Resource Guide; Georgia Ag News.

Account Executive Stacy Louis 770-718-3445

The opinions expressed in this publication by authors other than Poultry Times staff are those of the respective author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Poultry Times.

Account Executive Dinah Winfree 770-718-3438

Advertisement content is the sole responsibility of the advertiser. Poultry Times assumes no liability for any statements, claims or assertions appearing in any advertisement.

slouis@poultrytimes.net

dwinfree@poultrytimes.net

5

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

Research: Smartphone use to gain ergonomics data

By Sim Harbert & Linda Harley

Special to Poultry Times

ATLANTA — Ergonomics continues to play an important role in the poultry industry’s ongoing efforts to improve worker safety and health. While the industry has Sim Harbert is a senior research engineer in the GTRI’s Food Processing Technology Division and Linda Harley is a research scientist in the GTRI’s Electronic Systems Laboratory/Human Systems Integration Program. Reprinted from PoultryTech, a publication of the Agricultural Technology Research Program of the Georgia Tech Research Institute, a program conducted in cooperation with the Georgia Poultry Federation with funding from the Georgia Legislature.

made significant gains in worker safety over the years, it is vital that researchers continue to develop tools and instruments specifically for poultry processing-related tasks and environments.

Ergonomists use survey instruments to evaluate human movement; however, these qualitative instruments may not correlate with quantitative measurements because of human subjectivity. The literature recommends that workers be assessed by combining qualitative and quantitative instruments to obtain a comprehensive view of their motion and posture. Traditional motion capture systems are ill suited as quantitative instruments in poultry processing environments due to hardware and calibration constraints, size and portability and the expertise required to use them.

In-plant motion tracking systems should be user-friendly, self-con-

tained, portable, unobtrusive and not interfere with or be degraded by plant machinery or processes.

The Georgia Tech Research Institute’s (GTRI) Food Processing Technology Division (FPTD) demonstrated in a proof-of-concept study that it is feasible to use Wiimotes as sensors to collect motion data from participants performing a simulated poultry plant lifting task.

Wiimotes contain solid state accelerometers and rate gyros that are transmitted wirelessly to provide translation and rotation information. Currently, FPTD is developing MiMiC (Mobile Motion Capture), a smartphone application that wirelessly collects and stores movement data from kinematic modules that contain sensors similar to Wiimotes. This system will initially collect data from modules made by the Shimmer Corp. that relay accelerometer, rate gyro and mag-

netic compass data over Bluetooth.

The modules are housed in a small, lightweight enclosure.

The goals of the MiMiC system are that it be affordable, versatile and mobile. But most important, it must be useful in real-life environments, with the ability to be worn by workers performing their dayto-day jobs in the processing plant and in other locations such as growout houses or feed mills. The very small Shimmer modules with integrated batteries allow the modules to be easily worn by workers with little interference with their normal work movement. Currently, the components are not waterproof, but this should not be an issue even in poultry processing environments, because workers will wear clothing over the smartphone and modules and not subject the components to wash-down procedures.

The versatility of the MiMiC

system will allow it to use a number of different “plug-n-play” modules, including Wiimotes, Shimmer modules that include kinematic and ECG/EMG alternatives, as well as other Bluetooth modules. The ability to choose the more affordable Wiimotes that cost $50 each rather than $500 Shimmer modules would make the system more useful when affordability is important and the data precision requirements are not as stringent.

The use of a smartphone as the data collection center for the MiMiC system will keep the system lightweight and relatively small, while still providing the data storage, user interaction and communications capabilities that are needed to make the system useful. With the communications capabilities of the smart-

See Phone, Page 8

6

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

Business Compiled by David B. Strickland, Editor 770-718-3442 dstrickland@poultrytimes.net

FDA proposes rules for safer food imports The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Food & Drug Administration proposed new steps on July 26 to ensure that fresh produce, cheeses and other foods imported into the United States are safe.

The proposed rules, required by a sweeping food safety law passed

by Congress 2 1/2 years ago, are meant to establish better checks on what long has been a scattershot effort to guard against unsafe food imported from more than 150 countries. Only around 2 percent of that food is inspected by the government at ports and borders.

About 15 percent of the food Americans eat is imported, including about 50 percent of fruits and 20 percent of vegetables. An estimated 3,000 people die from foodrelated illnesses every year.

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the new rules could help prevent outbreaks like 153 recent Hepatitis A illnesses that were linked to a frozen berry mix sold at Costco. That outbreak, which hit nine states, was linked to frozen pomegranate seeds from Turkey.

Hamburg said that the berry outbreak “illustrated the growing complexity of the food supply.”

FDA investigators had to look at berries from several different countries in the mix before they zeroed in on the Turkish seeds as the probable source of the illnesses.

The proposed guidelines would require U.S. food importers to verify that the foreign companies they are importing from are achieving

the same levels of food safety required in this country. The rules, which would also improve audits of food facilities abroad, could cost the food industry up to $472 million annually.

Since Congress passed the food safety law in December 2010 and President Barack Obama signed it in early 2011, there have been several outbreaks caused by imported foods, including an occurrence of listeria in imported Italian cheese last year that killed four people.

Other illnesses were linked to tainted papayas, mangoes and nuts and spices used as ingredients.

Michael Taylor, FDA deputy commissioner for foods, says the rules show a major shift in thinking in the way the government works to keep food safe.

Like rules for domestic farmers and food companies released earlier this year, the idea is to make businesses more responsible for the food they are selling or importing by proving that they are using good food safety practices. They might do that by documenting basic information about their suppliers’ cleanliness, testing foods or acquiring food safety audits.

Currently, the government does little to ensure that companies are trying to prevent food safety problems but generally waits and responds to outbreaks after they happen.

“The onus is on us to detect the problem that has already occurred,” Taylor said.

See FDA, Page 7

Other Business News Cal-Maine reports quarterly results JACKSON, Miss. — Cal-Maine Foods Inc. has announced financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended June 1, 2013. For the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013, net sales were $325.9 million compared with net sales of $275.2 million for the fourth quarter a year ago. The company reported a net loss of $3.8 million, or 16 cents per basic share, for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013 compared with net earnings of $37.3 million, or $1.56 per basic share, for the same period last year.

Results for the fourth quarter of 2013 include a one-time charge of $17 million, or 71 cents per basic share, after tax, related to the settlement of a direct purchaser class claim against the company. Results for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 included a one-time gain of approximately $27 million, or $1.12 per share, after tax, as a result of a distribution from Eggland’s Best Inc. related to the joint venture between Eggland’s Best Inc. and Land O’Lakes Inc., announced on May 1, 2012.

Excluding these one-time items, net earnings were $13.2 million, or 55 cents per basic share, for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013 compared with $10.3 million, or 44 cents per basic share, for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012. The fourth quarter of fiscal 2013 had 13 weeks compared with 14 weeks in the prior year period.

For the fiscal year 2013, net sales were $1.3 billion compared with net sales of $1.1 billion for fiscal 2012.

The company reported net income of $50.4 million, or $2.10 per basic share, for fiscal 2013 compared with net income of $89.7 million, or $3.76 per basic share, in fiscal 2012. Excluding the one-time items described above for the fourth quarter of each fiscal year, net income for fiscal 2013 was $67.5 million, or $2.81 per basic share, compared with $62.7 million, or $2.64 per

basic share, in fiscal 2012. Fiscal 2013 had 52 weeks compared with 53 weeks in fiscal 2012.

As announced on July 23, 2013, the company reached a settlement in an egg antitrust class action claim, whereby the company has agreed to make a single payment of $28 million, which amounts to a charge of $17 million, or 71 cents per basic share, after tax.

“We believe we have negotiated a settlement for an amount that is in the best interest of our company and our shareholders,” said Dolph Baker, chairman, president and CEO of Cal-Maine Foods. “While the one-time charge related to the settlement affected our fourth quarter and fiscal 2013 financial results, we had a solid operating performance and we do not expect any material future impact on our operations. With this distraction behind us, we will focus on our business strategy and the opportunities ahead in fiscal 2014.”

Commenting on the results for the fourth quarter and fiscal 2013, Baker added, “We were pleased with our results with our fourth quarter sales up 18 percent over the same period a year ago. These results reflect higher volumes related to acquisitions with a 6 percent increase in eggs produced and sold compared with the same period a year ago. Notably, we achieved this growth even though we had an extra week of sales in the previous year’s fourth quarter.”

“For the year, we were pleased to exceed our previous year’s sales record with $1.3 billion in sales,” he said. “We experienced strong demand for shell eggs throughout the year from our retail, egg product and export customers. Sales of specialty eggs accounted for 16.4 percent of our total number of eggs sold and 23.7 percent of our shell egg sales revenue for the year. Specialty eggs have been an important area of strategic focus for Cal-Maine and, as a result, we achieved a 7.8 percent increase in specialty egg volume for

the year and a 6.1 percent increase in specialty egg selling prices.

“Overall, our average selling prices were up 7.9 percent in fiscal 2013. We expect specialty eggs, which have a higher retail selling price, will continue to gain market share over regular eggs as more consumers are willing to pay for these premium products.”

“Our operations have continued to run well in fiscal 2013, in spite of experiencing higher and more volatile feed costs primarily related to a tight national corn supply,” Baker noted. “For the year, our feed costs per dozen were up 15 percent compared with fiscal 2012, and the higher input costs adversely affected our gross profit margins. In spite of these cost pressures, our management team has continued to focus on making Cal-Maine an efficient, low-cost producer with consistent operating results. Looking ahead, we are cautiously optimistic about the yield of this year’s corn and soybean crops which could provide some relief to our feed costs in fiscal 2014.

“Overall, we are very pleased with Cal-Maine’s performance in fiscal 2013 and our ability to execute our strategy in the marketplace.

We have worked hard this year to integrate the operations of both the Pilgrim’s Pride and Maxim egg operations and we are pleased with the operating synergies we have achieved from these acquisitions.

In addition, we have the opportunity to leverage the additional capacity from these facilities and expand our market reach.”

“We have many reasons to be optimistic for continued growth in the year ahead,” he added. “Our strong balance sheet provides us with the flexibility to pursue our growth strategy. We will look for additional strategic acquisition opportunities that meet our criteria and add value to our operations. And, we will continue to manage our operations efficiently and identify ways to im(Continued on next page)

7

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013 (Continued from previous page)

prove our product mix and expand our sales of specialty eggs. Together, we believe these efforts will reward both our customers and shareholders in fiscal 2014 and beyond.”

Pursuant to Cal-Maine’s variable dividend policy, in each quarter for which the company reports net income, the company pays a cash dividend to shareholders in an amount equal to one-third of such quarterly income.

No dividends are paid in a quarter for which the company does not report net income. Therefore, the company will not pay a dividend for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013.

Cal-Maine paid a total of $18.1 million in dividends, or 75 cents per share, in fiscal 2013.

As previously disclosed, on Aug. 10, 2012, and Nov. 15, 2012, the company purchased the commercial egg assets of Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. and Maxim Production Co. Inc., respectively.

On a comparable basis, excluding the acquisitions, for the 13-week period ended June 1, 2013, net sales were $288 million and dozens sold were 210.5 million, and for the 52week period ended June 1, 2013, net sales were $1.2 billion and dozens sold were 866 million.

More information can be obtained at www.calmainefoods.com.

House of Raeford officially closes site RAEFORD, N.C. — On Aug. 1, House of Raeford Farms officially ceased slaughter operations at its turkey processing plant in Raeford, N.C. Closure plans were announced last March and also included the phasing out of turkey growing and hatchery operations in eastern N.C. Although the plant has been involved with poultry processing operations since the 1950’s, the facility became part of House of Raeford in 1975. House of Raeford founder,

Marvin Johnson, became an innovator in the turkey industry for the next 35 years.

The company noted that he was a major proponent of making turkey production and processing a yearround business instead of just a seasonal operation. Johnson was also the first to put an oven in a turkey processing plant to produce fully cooked turkey and chicken products.

“Providing the marketplace with quality turkey products was a lifelong passion of my father,” said Bob Johnson, son of the founder and current CEO of the company.

“Because our entire family has been involved in growing turkeys for so many years, leaving the commodity turkey business was one of the most difficult decisions we have ever made.”

House of Raeford also recognizes that about 950 associates, several employed for 20 years or more, will have to transition to other employment or perhaps retirement.

“This fact made our decision to close even harder,” Johnson said.

“We have been doing all we can to assist our employees as they move to the next phase.”

Some employees will be transferred to House of Raeford’s further processing or “cook” plant also located in Raeford and to other company facilities in North Carolina and South Carolina.

The company is also providing severance packages to those associates who are eligible. In addition, a “job fair” is planned to directly connect employees with regional companies who have job openings and educational institutions who can offer retraining opportunities.

Finally, the company will file all unemployment insurance claims electronically for employees to make that process easier.

House of Raeford will continue to operate its Raeford, N.C., cook plant, currently employing approximately 400, and expand its fully cooked turkey and chicken product

lines during the next two to three years.

The company will also focus more of its resources on increasing chicken production volumes which at this time accounts for 90 percent of sales.

House of Raeford continues to be ranked as one of the nation’s top 10 chicken producers and processors.

More information can be obtained at www.houseofraeford.com.

Land O’Lakes notes strategic agreement ARDEN HILLS, Minn. — Land O’Lakes Inc. has announced a multi-year strategic agreement with 830 WCCO-AM, extending a longtime relationship between these two Minnesota brands.

As part of the two-year agreement, the national, farmer-owned food and agricultural cooperative will serve as 830 WCCO-AM’s exclusive sponsor of its broadcast facility, to now be known as the Land O’Lakes Studio. As part of this agreement, Land O’Lakes will receive customized on-air and online recognition.

Additionally, Land O’Lakes and 830 WCCO-AM will work together to broaden their joint participation at local events and initiatives that make a difference in the lives of area residents.

“Land O’Lakes is a Minnesota company, founded by farmers, with deep roots in the community. We were born out of the ideas of innovation and the power of cooperation and have prided ourselves on not only our top-quality products but our commitment to our communities, our members our consumers and employees,” said Chris Policinski, president and CEO of Land O’Lakes. “This partnership formalizes a long-standing relationship between two companies that partner on issues important to our communities.”

Business “We have created an unique opportunity to work with one of the nation’s iconic brands that also happens to call Minnesota home,” said Mick Anselmo, CBS Radio Minneapolis senior vice president and market manager. “Our listeners have heard Land O’Lakes on our air for many years, delivering important insight into food trends and agribusiness. And our philanthropic partnerships have provided aid and resources for the community. Today’s announcement is yet another development in a successful

relationship that has spanned many years.”

Land O’Lakes and 830 WCCOAM have previously worked together on multiple philanthropic events such as the Let’s Kick Hunger Radiothon, Dave Lee’s Gutter Bowl and the St. Thomas Kickoff to Kick Hunger, and a partnership with United Way. Terms of the agreement weren’t disclosed.

More information about Land O’Lakes can be obtained at www. landolakesinc.com.

•FDA (Continued from page 6)

Requiring better prevention was the intent when Congress passed the bill. But since then, the law has run into several obstacles, including FDA delays in issuing the rules, a lack of congressional funding and increasing opposition from some rural members of Congress who represent worried farmers.

A farm bill passed in the House included an amendment sponsored

by Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Mich.), that would delay all of the food safety rules. Farmers and importers have expressed concern that the rules will require too much time, cost and paperwork.

FDA regulators say the new rules are necessary as the food system becomes more complex and more global. Food often stops in several locations and passes through many different hands in a matter of days before it hits grocery shelves.

And a lack of funding has given the FDA little oversight over what is being produced. The agency inspects most food companies in the United States only every five to 10 years, and it does even fewer inspections abroad. The food safety law

requires the agency to step up those inspections, and Taylor said the FDA inspected as many as 1,300 facilities in foreign countries last year, up from 300 in 2010.

That is still a just a fraction of the companies that import to the United States.

Many food companies and importers already follow the steps that the FDA is proposing.

But officials say the new requirements for domestic and imported foods could have saved lives and prevented illnesses in several of the large-scale outbreaks that have hit the country in recent years.

The domestic food safety rules proposed in January would require U.S. farms and food processors to take new precautions against contamination such as making sure workers’ hands are washed, irrigation water is clean and livestock stay out of fields.

Food manufacturers will have to submit food safety plans to the government to show they are keeping their operations clean.

The FDA will take comments on both the domestic and foreign food safety proposals for the next several months and then move to issue final rules.

8

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

Egg-sanitizer machine could save millions of chicks annually Texas A&M AgNews

COLLEGE STATION, Texas — Dr. Craig Coufal hopes his eggsanitizing machine may revolutionize the poultry industry.

Every year, the U.S. poultry industry incubates about 9 billion eggs to hatch the chicks that will become billions of pounds of meat, most of which was will be consumed domestically, according to Coufal, a Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service poultry specialist in College Station.

Eggs destined to hatch into broiler chicks are not normally washed, Coufal said. Instead, producers have accepted 1 percent or more losses from bacteria entering the shell and causing the egg to become rotten or the embryo to abort or the chick to hatch malformed.

A 1 percent loss may not seem like much, Coufal noted, but 1 percent of 9 billion means about 90 million chicks lost yearly.

“It’s a highly competitive industry that measures profit per chick as a penny or two,” he said. “If we could just cut that 1 percent loss in half, it would represent substantial savings to the industry.”

When an egg is laid it is coated with a waxy layer called a “cuticle.” The cuticle seals the pores of the eggshell for the first week or so, working as a kind of “invisible natural barrier” against bacterial in-

vasion, Coufal said.

The cuticle protects the egg until the embryo needs to respire — to take in oxygen and give off CO2.

During the early stages of development, the embryo doesn’t need much oxygen, but as its needs increase, the cuticle breaks down and flakes off which allows the pores to open up, allowing the embryo to breathe.

For eggs to be eaten, producers use mild detergents along with water as hot as 110 to 120 degrees to sanitize, according to Coufal.

Such washing, while it sanitizes the eggs for consumption and does not change the taste or nutritional content of eggs, destroys the delicate cuticle.

“The breeder part of the poultry industry does not want hatchery eggs to even get wet as it is believed that may aid bacteria to enter the pores and may actually increase the number of rotten eggs during incubation,” Coufal said.

To this end, Coufal and his team have designed a machine that can sanitize eggs quickly and cheaply without leaving a residue that would damage the cuticle or interfere with the embryo’s natural development.

The machine sprays the eggs with hydrogen peroxide — identical to what’s used to disinfect a skin cut or abrasion — followed by exposure to germicidal UV light. The UV lamps are similar to those used to sterilize

barber shop equipment or medical instruments.

Coufal found that neither treatment alone was sufficient to completely kill bacteria on the egg surface. But when the treatments are used together, his lab tests found eggs are rendered essentially bacteria-free.

This is because the UV light changes the hydrogen peroxide into hydroxide ions, which actually does the sanitization process.

“With most eggs treated with the process, we are unable to culture any bacteria at all,” he said.

The process proceeds very quickly, within a protective housing, allowing the eggs to be carried on a rapidly moving conveyor belt, he said. The hydroxide ions quickly react with the bacteria or other matter and are consumed, leaving no toxic chemicals to be disposed of or any residue on the egg.

Just as important, there’s no apparent damage to the egg cuticle.

“We haven’t found any increase in bacteria invasion into the egg or any loss of hatching weight that would signal we’ve damaged the cuticle,” Coufal said.

Coufal actually started the project for his master’s thesis in 1999. Since then he’s done lab tests on egg sanitization, mainly by hand in the lab, but wanted to streamline the process so it could be used commercially.

He and his colleagues started the

into the MiMiC software for others to use. Hopefully, MiMiC can become a core part of other research projects and work in the area of motion analysis.

Other software enhancements such as data analysis modules could be proprietary. Initial MiMiC data analysis code may include slip, trip and fall detection. Further analysis algorithms may provide onboard analysis of the wearer’s motions, giving feedback to the wearer of

such things as extreme ranges of motion that can potentially lead to strains, sprains, or worse injuries through notification tones and/or vibration of the smartphone.

This immediate feedback could also be related to the performance of the worker’s actions, an assessment of a worker’s suitability to a task, or a tool for determining job rotation scheduling.

This initial effort in creating the MiMiC mobile motion capture sys-

Robert Burns/TAMU

Egg sanitizer: Dr. Craig Coufal, left, a Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service poultry specialist, examines the second-generation egg-sanitizing machine built from his design by a local College Station, Texas, fabricator.

construction on a prototype in early 2012.

“We built it with common shop tools, using off-the-shelf materials,” he said.

During 2012, they did a lot of fine-tuning, found they needed two treatments of hydrogen peroxide, each followed by a bath of UV light, to achieve the high sanitization rate.

By June 2013, a local machine fabricator finished building a sec-

ond-generation unit based on Coufal’s prototype.

The second-generation unit has electronic controls and monitoring and automatic shutdowns.

During the next year, Coufal, working with a local commercial hatchery, will measure just how effective the sanitization process is in reducing egg losses during largescale field testing.

tem is meant to be the main building block of further efforts to bring motion capture into the work environment for better analysis of worker safety issues in a broad range of areas such as slip/fall detection and prediction, ergonomic stress in lift-

ing and deboning and even worker training.

The key purpose of MiMiC is to optimize the individual’s performance — leading to increased productivity while reducing risk of injury.

•Phone (Continued from page 5)

phone, it will be possible to add the ability to upload data to remote servers for further analysis and monitoring.

The core code for MiMiC that consists of the data collection portion will be made open source to allow other researchers to make enhancements. This code will be maintained by FPTD so these enhancements can be incorporated

www.poultrytimes.net

QuickBayt Fly Bait and QuickBayt Spot Spray are designed to quickly lure and kill nuisance flies. QuickBayt Fly Bait starts killing house flies in as little as 60 seconds.1 QuickBayt products come ready-to-work, and they control nuisance flies for up to 4 weeks in and around poultry, dairy, swine and horse facilities.

The original nuisance fly killer is still as effective as ever.

Data on file. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Animal Health Division, Shawnee Mission, Kansas.

1

©2012 Bayer HealthCare LLC, Animal Health Division, Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66201 Bayer, the Bayer Cross and QuickBayt are registered trademarks of Bayer.

QuickBayt products ®

Q12220

SAY GOODNIGHT

MITE

The northern fowl mite (Ornithonyssus sylviarum) is the most common external poultry parasite in the United States.1 Unchecked, they can impair performance by reducing weight gain or egg production.1 They’re also a nuisance to workers.

Elector PSP is approved for control of northern fowl mites — along with flies and other pests — as part of Elanco’s Defense Sequence strategy. One direct application of Elector PSP breaks the mites’ life cycle — ensuring they become less common.

Visit Elanco.us for more information about Defense Sequence and parasiticides rotation.

The labels contain complete use information, including cautions and warnings. Always read, understand and follow the label and use directions.

1 “Northern Fowl Mite.” Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Department of Entomology website. Accessed 1/17/13. <http://entomology.cornell.edu/extension/vet/aid/chicken/nfmite.cfm>.

Elanco , Defense Sequence , Elector PSP and the diagonal bar are all trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and Company, its subsidiaries or affiliates. © 2013 Elanco Animal Health. All rights reserved.

USPBUELS00006

Creative:Clients:Elanco:2310-21881 2013 Parasiticides Portfolio Print Ad:2310-21881 2013 Parasiticides Portfolio Print Ad_PoultryTimes_v09.indd

March 20, 2013 10:58 AM

page 2

COMPLETE SANITATION PROGRAM FOR FIELD AND HATCHERIES BIOGEL

UFC+

• The strongest cleaner • Gel clings on longer than classical foam = superior cleaning result

• Universal foam cleaner for farms, hatcheries, trucks, ...

• Can be foamed or sprayed

VIROCID

KENO X5

• EPA approved “broad spectrum disinfectant” • QAC/glutaraldehyde based, dil 1/3 oz – ½ oz/gal • Non corrosive • Apply by spray, foam or (thermo)fog • Maintains pad cooling systems

• EPA approved “broad spectrum disinfectant” • Per Acetic Acid based, dil ½ oz/gal • 100% biodegradable • Tested and approved to kill Clostridium perfringens spore at 1:50

CID 2000

CID CLEAN

®

• H2O2 removes heavy soils • Peracetic Acid removes scale / mineral build up • Equipment friendly • Proven “greatest reduction in microbial load” by U. of Arkansas

BEST VETERINARY SOLUTIONS,INC. Ellsworth, IA ...............888-378-4045 Willmar, MN ................800-533-1899 Washington,IN ............877-254-3410 Dagsboro, DE ..............877-732-3894 Manheim,PA ...............717-940-4805

CLEARVIEW ENTERPRISES

Tontitown,AR .............866-361-4689 Monroe, NC .................704-219-7959

The patented industry leading electronic indicator for harsh washdown environments

Bench Scales

TM

• 50% Stabilized Hydrogen Peroxide • H2O2 removes heavy soils • Equipment friendly • NO heavy metals

The WeighTech line of bench scales offers processors the best of both worlds: functionality and durability.

Our bench scales feature our industry leading MicroWeigh indicator, and is available in many sizes to fit your processing needs.

In today’s fast paced processing world, efficient, reliable and rugged scale systems and equipment are crucial.

K SUPPLY CO.

Albertville, AL .............256-894-0034

VET SERVICE

Fresno, CA ...................559-485-7474

POULTRY TECH SERVICE

Gainesville, GA ...........770-287-7891

www.cidlines.com www.bestvetsolutions.com

1-800-457-3720

www.weightechinc.com

1649 Country Elite Drive, Waldron, AR 72958

Phone: 479-637-4182 Fax: 479-637-4183

JHPawPT5713.indd 1

5/8/13 10:43 AM

Trouble Free with

Exclusive Infrared Technology • Easy Installation • Reliable Feed Sensing • 60-Second Delay • Dependable Operation • Easy-to-Use • No Sensitivity Adjustments • No Moving Parts • Low Maintenance

If you could save If you could save If you could save up to 40% on fly up toup40% on fly 40% on fly control If you could save If you could save control If you could save up toand and control havehave up to 40% on fly up to 40% on fly have better cont www.cumberlandpoultry.com/i-plus3 better control, better control, 40%control on flyand control and havewould control and havewould would you do you do it? you do it? have better control, better control, better control, Integrate your fly control program Integrate your fly control program Integrate your fly control program would you do it? would you do it? wouldusing you do it? using fly parasites parasites using fly from fly parasites fromfrom

“I have already started recommending the i-plus3 control pans to other growers. The installation was quick and easy and there has been no cleaning or adjustments to make.”

Mark Young

Owner - Herbine Poultry, Inc. Rison, AR Grower for Tyson Foods

For more information visit us at:

Your Source for Innovative Solutions

Cumberland is a part of GSI, a worldwide brand of AGCO. Copyright © 2013 AGCO Corporation • 217-226-4401 • 1004 E. Illinois St., Assumption, IL 62510

Over the past 30 years, Beneficial Insectary, Inc. has grown from a small family business to one of the largest producers and suppliers of beneficial insects used for...

AffordAble Integrate your fly control program Beneficial Insectary flyBeneficial Control Beneficial Insectary Integrate your fly control program Integrate your fly control program Insectary

using flyCall parasites from using fly parasites from using fly parasites for a free fly parasites for aCall freefrom video on video using on fly using parasites and learnand howlearn you how can you can save upon to your 40% fly oncontrol your flybill control bill and havecontrol! better control! save upInsectary to 40% and have better Beneficial Beneficial Insectary Beneficial Insectary

1-800-477-3715 a free fly parasites 1-800-477-3715 Call for aCall freefor video on video using on fly using parasites and learnand howlearn you how can you can phil@insectary.com save upon to your 40% fly oncontrol your flybill control bill and havecontrol! better control! phil@insectary.com save up to 40% and have better 1-800-477-3715 1-800-477-3715 phil@insectary.com phil@insectary.com

9

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

Calendar Compiled by Barbara Olejnik, Associate Editor 770-718-3440 bolejnik@poultrytimes.net

AUG 16-17 — TPA ANNUAL MTNG. / SUMMER GETAWAY, Doubletree Hotel Downtown, Nashville, Tenn.

Contact: Tennessee Poultry Association, P.O. Box 1525, Shelbyville, Tenn.

37162-1525. Ph: 931-225-1123; dbarnett@tnpoultry.org; www.tnpoultry.org.

AUG 19 — UEP AREA MTNG., Hilton Airport Hotel, Atlanta, Ga. Contact: United Egg Producers, 1720 Windward Concourse, Suite 230, Alpharetta, Ga. 30005. Ph: 770-360-9220; www.unitedegg.com.

AUG 19-21 — NATIONAL SAFETY CONF. FOR THE POULTRY INDUSTRY, Omni Amelia Island Plantation Resort, Amelia Island, Fla. Contact: U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, 1530 Cooledge Road, Tucker, Ga. 30084-7303, Ph: 770-493-9401, seminar@uspoultry. org, www.uspoultry.org/edu_index.cfm 21 — UEP AREA MTNG., AUG Renaissance Airport Hotel, Philadelphia, Pa. Contact: United Egg

erly@gapf.org;

www.gapf.org.

http://EFonline.uga.edu; EFS!uga.edu.

AUG 26 — INTER’L. BIOTECHNOLOGY SYMPM., Hilton Garden Inn, Champaign. Ill. Contact: Hosted by Illinois Soybean Association, 1605 Commerce Pkwy., Bloomington, Ill. 61704. Ph: 309-663-7692. www.ilsoy. org, www.biotechnologysymposium.com.

SEP 12-15 — MPA ANNUAL CONV., Hilton Sandestin Resort & Spa, Destin, Fla. Contact: Becky Beard, Mississippi Poultry Association, 110 Airport Road, Suite C, Pearl, Miss. 39208. Ph: 601932-7560; beard@mspoultry.org.

Producers, 1720 Windward Concourse, Suite 230, Alpharetta, Ga. 30005. Ph: 770-360-9220; www.unitedegg.com.

AUG 27 — UEP AREA MTNG., Holiday Inn at Jordan Creek, Des Moines, Iowa. Contact: United Egg Producers, 1720 Windward Concourse, Suite 230, Alpharetta, Ga. 30005. Ph: 770360-9220; www.unitedegg.com.

AUG 22 — UEP AREA MTNG., Crowne Plaza Airport Hotel, Indianapolis, Ind. Contact: United Egg Producers, 1720 Windward Concourse, Suite 230, Alpharetta, Ga. 30005. Ph: 770360-9220; www.unitedegg.com.

28 — UEP AREA MTNG., AUG Doubletree Airport Hotel, Ontario, Calif. Contact: United Egg Producers, 1720 Windward Concourse, Suite 230, Alpharetta, Ga. 30005. Ph: 770360-9220; www.unitedegg.com.

AUG 22-23 — WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP CONF., Omni Amelia Island Plantation Resort, Amelia Island, Fla. Contact: U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, 1530 Cooledge Road, Tucker, Ga. 30084-7303, Ph: 770493-9401, seminar@uspoultry.org, www.uspoultry.org/edu_index.cfm

29 — UEP AREA MTNG., AUG Doubletree Airport Hotel, Seattle, Wash. Contact: United Egg Producers, 1720 Windward Concourse, Suite 230, Alpharetta, Ga. 30005. Ph: 770360-9220; www.unitedegg.com.

AUG 24 — GPF NIGHT OF KNIGHTS, Cobb Galleria Centre, Atlanta, Ga. Contact: Georgia Poultry Federation, P.O. Box 763, Gainesville, Ga. 30503. Ph: 770-532-0473; bev-

SEP 10-11 — POULTRY PROCESSING & SAFETY WKSHP., Athens, Ga. Contact: Poultry Processing & Safety Workshop, Extension Food Science Outreach, University of Georgia, 240A Food Science Bldg., Athens, Ga. 30602-2610. Ph: 706-542-2574;

SEP 10-12 — AFIA LIQUID FEED SYMPM., Union Station Marriott, St. Louis, Mo. Contact: American Feed Industry Association, 2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 916. Arlington, Va. 22201. Ph: 703524-0810; afia@afia.org; www.afia.org.

SEP 17-18 — POULTRY PRODUCTION & HEALTH SMNR., Marriott Downtown, Memphis, Tenn. Contact: U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, 1530 Cooledge Road, Tucker, Ga. 30084-7303, Ph: 770-493-9401, seminar@uspoultry. org, www.uspoultry.org/edu_index.cfm SEP 18-19 — PA. POULTRY SALES & SERVICE CONF., & AVIAN DISEASES CONF., Eden Resort & Suites, Lancaster, Pa. Contact: Paul Patterson, Penn State University, University Park, Pa.. Ph: 814-865-3414; php1@psu. edu; http://extension.psu.edu/animals/poultry/conferences/psscnecad.

SEP 19-20— CPF ANNUAL MTNG. & CONF., Monterey Plaza Hotel, Monterey, Calif. Contact: California Poultry Federation, 4640 Spyres Way, Suite 4, Modesto, Calif. 95356.

Ph:

209-576-6355;

www.cpif.org.

SEP 22-25 — NPFDA FALL MTNG., Gaylord Opryland Resort, Nashville, Tenn. Contact: National Poultry & Food Distributors Association, 2014 Osborne Road, St. Mary’s, Ga. 31558.

Ph: 770-535-9901; www.npfda.org.

24-25 — GEORGIA POULTRY SEP CONF., Classic Center, Athens, Ga. Contact: JoAnn Mosko, Department of Poultry Science, University of Georgia, 222 Poultry Science Bldg., Athens, Ga. 30602-4356, Ph: 706-542-1325, jmosko@uga.edu; or Georgia Poultry Federation, P.O. Box 763, Gainesville, Ga. 30503. Ph: 770-532-0473.

SEP 25-26 — INTERNATIONAL AGRIBUSINESS CONF. & EXPO, International Trade & Convention Center, Savannah, Ga. Contact: J. Marie Lutz, 912-478-1763, Curtis Woody, 912-478-8678; www.iace.us.com.

OCT 2-3— NCC ANNUAL CONF. & FALL BOARD MTNG., Mandarin Oriental, Washington, D.C. Contact: National Chicken Council, 1052 15th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.

Ph: 202-296-2622; ncc@chickenusa.org; www.nationalchickencouncil.org; www.eatchicken.com.

OCT 3-4 — PPFC SEMINAR, Doubletree Hotel, Nashville, Tenn. Contact: Poultry Protein & Fat Council, 1530 Cooledge Road, Tucker, Ga. 30084.

Ph: 770-493-9401; info@uspoultry.org; www.uspoultry.org/ppfc .

10

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

•Robots (Continued from page 1)

years because of an over-abundance of workers and pressures from farmworker labor unions.

In recent years, as the labor supply has tightened and competition from abroad has increased, growers have sought out machines to reduce labor costs and supplement the nation’s unstable agricultural workforce. The federal government, venture capital companies and commodity boards have stepped up with funding.

“We need to increase our efficiency, but nobody wants to work in the fields,” said Stavros G. Vougioukas, professor of biological and agricultural engineering at the University of California, Davis.

But farmworker advocates say mechanization would lead to workers losing jobs, growers using more pesticides and the food supply becoming less safe.

“The fundamental question for consumers is who and, now, what do you want picking your food; a machine or a human, who with the proper training and support, can” ... take significant steps to ensure a safer, higher quality product, said Erik Nicholson, national vice president of the United Farm Workers of America.

On the Salinas Valley farm, entrepreneurs with Mountain Viewbased startup Blue River Technology are trying to show that the Lettuce Bot can not only replace two dozen workers, but also improve production.

“Using Lettuce Bot can produce more lettuce plants than doing it any other way,” said Jorge Heraud, the company’s co-founder and CEO. After a lettuce field is planted, growers typically hire a crew of farmworkers who use hoes to remove excess plants to give space for others to grow into full lettuce heads. The Lettuce Bot uses video cameras and visual-recognition software to identify which lettuce plants to eliminate with a squirt of concentrated fertilizer that kills the unwanted buds while enriching the soil.

Blue River, which has raised more than $3 million in venture capital, also plans to develop machines to automate weeding — and eventually harvesting — using many of the same technologies.

Another company, San Diegobased Vision Robotics, is developing a similar lettuce thinner as well as a pruner for wine grapes.

The pruner uses robotic arms and cameras to photograph and create a computerized model of the vines,

figure out the canes’ orientation and the location of buds — all to decide which canes to cut down.

Fresh fruit harvesting remains the biggest challenge.

Machines have proved not only clumsy, but inadequate in selecting ripe produce. In addition to blunders in deciphering color and feel, machines have a hard time distinguishing produce from leaves and branches. And most importantly, matching the dexterity and speed of farmworkers has proved elusive.

“The hand-eye coordination workers have is really amazing, and they can pick incredibly fast. To replicate that in a machine, at the speed humans do and in an economical manner, we’re still pretty far away,” said Daniel L. Schmoldt at the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

In southern California, engineers with the Spanish company Agrobot are taking on the challenge by working with local growers to test a strawberry harvester.

The machine is equipped with 24 arms whose movement is directed through an optical sensor; it allows the robot to make a choice based on fruit color, quality and size. The berries are plucked and placed on a conveyor belt, where the fruit is packed by a worker.

Still, the harvester collects only strawberries that are hanging on the sides of the bed, hence California’s strawberry fields would have to be reshaped to accommodate the machine, including farming in single rows, raising the beds and even growing varieties with fewer clusters.

Experts say it will take at least 10 years for harvesters to be available commercially for most fresh-market fruit — not a moment too soon for farmers worried about the availability of workers, said Lupe Sandoval, managing director of the California Farm Labor Contractor Association.

“If you can put a man on the moon,” Sandoval said, “you can figure out how to pick fruit with a machine.”

AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez

Robotic farming: In this May 23, 2013, photo, field operations manager Matthew Rossow tests the Lettuce Bot in Salinas, Calif. In the Salinas Valley, the lettuce capital of the world, entrepreneurs with the Silicon Valley company Blue River Technology are testing the Lettuce Bot, a boxy robotic machine that can thin fields of lettuce, a job that now requires detailed hand work by 20 farm workers.

APHIS increasing invasive pest awareness WASHINGTON — USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service is highlighting how invasive species can enter the U.S. and spread, and how the general public can take simple, specific actions to leave these hungry pests behind.

Invasive pests and diseases are non-native species that cause — or are likely to cause — harm to the economy, the environment or human health.

“At its core, APHIS’ mission is protecting animal and plant health in the United States,” said Acting APHIS Administrator Kevin Shea.

“This includes programs to address the invasive pests and diseases that have cost the U.S. billions of dollars in lost agricultural jobs, closed export markets and damaged ecosystems.”

Devastating invasive pests and diseases — insects, disease-causing microorganisms, snails, slugs,

mites, microscopic worms, weed seeds and fungal spores — often hitch rides on things people move and pack. These common pathways include passenger baggage; plants and plant parts like fruit, vegetables and bud wood; Internet-purchased plants and plant products; firewood; and outdoor gear, among many others. Fortunately, once people are aware of these risks, they can easily prevent the spread of hungry pests.

The Hungry Pests website, which is available in English and Spanish, at www.HungryPests.com, features an interactive map to learn about invasive pests and diseases that are affecting or could affect individual states, and how to report them.

The website’s “What You Can Do” section offers the public “Seven Ways to Leave Hungry Pests Behind.” Also, by using Facebook and Twitter links, visitors can engage on the invasive pest issue on social media.

11

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

Steps to take to control variety of poultry pests

By Dr. Ralph E. Williams Special to Poultry Times

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — Several kinds of flies, beetles and external parasites are a major concern facing poultry producers.

The shift from small farm flocks to larger commercial poultry operations has greatly increased these pest concerns. The high-density, confined housing systems used in poultry production today create conditions that favor the development of manure-breeding flies and beetles associated with poultry litter accumulations. External parasites (e.g., northern fowl mite, lice) are also of concern in confined housing systems.

Flies yy House Fly - Musca domestica The house fly is considered the major pest species associated with poultry manure, especially in caged-layer operations. Accumulated poultry manure can be highly suitable for house fly breeding, especially where general sanitation is poor and when there is exces-

Dr. Ralph E. Williams is an Extension entomologist in the Department of Entomology at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind.

sive moisture. They prefer manure as a breeding source but have been found breeding in moist, spilled feeds and other moist, warm decaying organic matter.

With today’s concern about environmental conditions, fly control takes on added importance. Flies are considered environmental pollutants just by their presence. Fly populations may create a public health nuisance in nearby communities, resulting in poor community relations and threats of litigation.

Unfortunately, as urbanization and rural non-farm residences increase, poultry producers will be faced with growing pressure to reduce fly populations. Also, flies are suspected of harboring numerous disease organisms.

The female house fly produces up to six batches of 75 to 200 eggs at three to four day intervals. Larvae (maggots) hatch in 12 to 24 hours.

The maggots complete their development in four to seven days and then form into dark reddish-brown pupae. The pupal stage usually lasts three to four days, after which adult flies emerge. A complete life cycle can occur in seven to 10 days under optimal conditions, longer in cooler temperatures. Adult flies live an average three to four weeks.

They are most active during the day at temperatures above 70 degrees F and become inactive at night

and at temperatures below 45 degrees F. Resting adults can be seen on ceilings, walls, posts and other surfaces inside a poultry house, as well as outside on the building and surrounding vegetation. Preferred resting places can be detected by the accumulation of “fly specks,” light colored spots formed from regurgitation and darker fecal spots. The effective house fly dispersal range appears to be 1/2 to 2 miles from their preferred breeding sources. This will vary somewhat with different environmental conditions. yy Little House Fly - Fannia sp.

The little house fly is generally smaller than the house fly and not as common in Indiana. When it does occur, high populations can develop on poultry farms. Although this fly may invade homes in nearby residential areas, it tends to be less annoying in that it does not readily settle on food or people. Adult males show a distinctive aimless hovering or circling flight behavior of long duration within the poultry house or at outside shaded areas. Females are less active and more often found near breeding sites.

Because this fly is less tolerant of hot, midsummer temperatures than the house fly, it often emerges in large numbers in early spring, declines in midsummer, and may peak again in late fall. The little house fly prefers a less moist medium in

which to breed than the house fly.

Poultry manure generally is preferred over other media. Little house fly larvae are quite different that the creamy white cylindrical house fly larvae. They are brownish red, flattened and spiny. The complete life cycle ranges from 18 to 22 days but may be longer depending upon temperature. yy Black Garbage Fly - Hydrotea (Ophyra) aenescens Black garbage flies (also called “dump flies”) can be found in large numbers in poultry facilities. They are shiny-black in appearance and a little smaller than house flies. They prefer moisture manure to breed in than the house fly. Their life cycle ranges from 14 to 45 days. They will breed throughout the year in poultry houses.

These flies are generally considered to be beneficial, especially in enclosed egglayer houses. Black garbage fly larvae will actually kill house fly larvae and often dominate the manure habitat when presence, especially in moist manure. Adult black garbage flies tend to stay on and around the manure surface in enclosed facilities. In poultry housing exposed to the outside, these flies are sometimes considered as nuisance pests. yy Blow Flies - Calliphoridae Numerous species of blow flies (green or bland bottle flies) may oc-

cur in poultry houses. They breed in decaying animal carcasses, dead birds, broken eggs and wet garbage.

Prompt removal of dead birds and rodents, preventing accumulation of broken eggs, and daily cleanup of processing areas is usually sufficient to prevent the build-up of these flies. yy Small Dung Fly - Sphaeroceridae Small dung flies, along with several other small gnats, readily breed in poultry manure and other decaying materials. They can occur in large numbers in poultry operations but generally are not a nuisance on the farm or in nearby communities.

Population levels are often higher in spring and late summer.

Fly Control Successful fly control in poultry operations should be an integrated approach with emphasis on proper manure management. Four basic management strategies make up a successful integrated fly control program: (1) cultural/physical, (2) biological, (3) mechanicals and. chemical control. yy Cultural/Physical Control Management of poultry manure so that it is not conducive to fly breeding is the most effective means

See Pests, Page 13

CMYK

12

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

EPA proposes rule to modernize Clean Water Act reporting WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a rule that would modernize Clean Water Act (CWA) reporting processes for hundreds of thousands of municipalities, industries and other facilities by converting to an electronic data reporting system.

The proposed e-reporting rule would make facility-specific information, such as inspection and enforcement history, pollutant monitoring results and other data required by permits accessible to the public through EPA’s website.

EPA estimates that, once the rule is fully implemented, the 46 states and the Virgin Island Territory that are authorized to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program will collectively save approximately $29 million each year as a result of switching from paper to electronic reporting.

“In addition to dramatically cutting costs for states and other regulatory authorities, the e-reporting rule will substantially expand transparency by making it easier for everyone to quickly access critical data on pollution that may be affecting communities,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “The e-reporting rule will also allow states and other regulatory authorities to focus limited resources on the most serious water quality problems, which will lead to increased compliance, improved water quality and a level playing field for the regulated community.”

Currently, facilities subject to reporting requirements submit data in paper form to states and other regulatory authorities, where the information must be manually entered into data systems.

Through the e-reporting rule,

these facilities will electronically report their data directly to the appropriate regulatory authority.

EPA expects that the e-reporting rule will lead to more comprehensive and complete data on pollution sources, quicker availability of the data for use and increased accessibility and transparency of the data to the public.

The CWA requires that municipal, industrial or commercial facilities that discharge wastewater directly into waters of the U.S. obtain a permit.

The NPDES program requires that permitted facilities monitor and report data on pollutant discharges and take other actions to ensure discharges do not affect human health or the environment.

Most facilities subject to reporting requirements will be required to start submitting data electronically one year following the effective date

of the final rule.

Facilities with limited access to the Internet will have the option of one additional year to come into compliance with the new rule.

EPA will work closely with states to provide support to develop or enhance state electronic reporting capabilities.

EPA will hold several webinars in an effort to help states, trade organizations, and other interested parties better understand the details and requirements of the proposed rule.

The proposed rule will be avail-

able for review and public comment for 90 days following the publication date in the Federal Register.

More information View the proposed rule in the Federal Register at https:// www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/30/2013-17551/npdes-electronic-reporting-rule More information on webinars can be found at http://www2.epa. gov/compliance/proposed-npdeselectronic-reporting-rule.

To subscribe to Poultry Times call 770-536-2476

Classifieds

For classified advertising information 770-536-2476 All Star Packaging

For Sale: egg Cartons - pulp or foam, 30 dozen egg cases, 5x6 or 4x5 filler flats, 2 1/2 dozen egg sleeves and plastic 5x6 filler flats. 954-781-9066. or www.eggboxes.com.

WANTED

Chick Master Incubators Model 66, 99, 102 and Generators Also 42 and 48 CM Egg Flats Joe Lawing PH 828-738-4427

www.incubators.com Email joe@incubators.com

The Egg Carton Store

All Star Packaging

WANTS: To buy Used pulp and plastic egg flats - used 15 dozen wire or plastic baskets - overruns or misprint egg cartons foam or pulp - egg carts 240 or 360 dozen.

954-781-9066. or www.eggboxes.com.

Insect Control Specialists, Disease Control Specialists Foggers + Formulations Electric FLYPOP’R Mite Control Applications Beneficial Insects Water Purification Aerosol Disinfecting

Insect Guard of Virginia

800-367-3597 www.InsectGuardinc.com

Buying and selling used Incubators, Farm Racks, Egg Trays, Hatch Baskets, Incubator Parts and more.

800-252-4295

www.hatcheryequipment.com

CLAY CONCEPTS Ceramic nest/dummy eggs for laying hens. Other uses include props for advertising/demo and home decor.

Website www.CeramicEggs.com Wholesale/retail pricing call 877-938-4001or email clayconcepts@shreve.net

WHOLESALE PRICES: On cartons, flats, trays, nests, marketing items, poultry supplies and more!

866.333.1132 or www.eggcartonstore.com

FOR SALE 2000 Ford F-650 31’ Chandler Spreader Body

706-652-2095

FLY PROBLEMS? Poultry Equipment Got Manure? We have the cure!

Entomologist on Staff.

Free Phone Consultation.

1-800-832-1113

www.kunafin.com

FPM Inc. CO2 Modified Atmosphere Killing cart Approved for the disposal of spent fowl.

FPM Fairbury, NE 402-729-2264

www.fpmne.com

13

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

•Pests (Continued from page 11)

of control. Fresh poultry manure generally contains 60 percent to 80 percent moisture. Flies can readily breed in manure with a moisture content of 50 percent to 85 percent.

Manure moisture below 50 percent is less suitable for fly breeding, and fly breeding usually does not occur at 30 percent moisture or less.

Dry manure management is practiced under two types of systems: (1) frequent manure removal (at least weekly) and (2) long-term, inhouse storage of manure. Frequent manure removal systems to prevent fly breeding are based upon weekly (or more frequent) removal and field spreading it or transporting it to a holding area/composting site for drying/composting. This can be effective if done regularly and thoroughly, but it does require adequate and available agricultural land where manure can be spread or suitable facilities for holding manure or for composting. With in-house storage of manure, efforts should be made to reduce manure moisture below 50 percent (preferably to about 30 percent or less) and to maintain this level.

In either system, any practice that limits moisture in the droppings or aids rapid drying is helpful. A few practices to follow include: 1. Prevent leaks in waterers. Inspect the pit daily to check for leaks, and repair them when found.

2. When the water table is high or there is a danger of water running in from the outside, adjust the floor/ grade relationship so that the floor of the house is higher than the surrounding ground and water runs away from the building.

3. Provide abundant ventilation both in the manure pit for effective drying and in the house for bird comfort.

4. Avoid excessively high house temperatures that encourage abnormal water intake.

5. Avoid rations that are laxative.

6. Use absorbent litter where

practical.

7. Maintain proper insulation on water lines to prevent condensation.

In facilities designed for in-house storage of manure, accumulated droppings, if left undisturbed with adequate ventilation and free of additional moisture, will form a coneshaped mound under the cages and allow for natural composting.

Undisturbed manure accumulations normally support large populations of parasites and predators of breeding flies. These parasite/predator populations primarily consist of predaceous beetles, mites and parasitic wasps. The build-up of these natural fly enemies is usually slower than that of flies. Populations high enough to substantially benefit fly control can develop only if the manure is not disturbed for relatively long periods of time. To encourage parasites and predators: Maintain dry manure, Remove manure in cooler months when flies are less active, Stagger manure removal over a few weeks to preserve beneficial insect populations, and, Minimize the use of insecticides in the manure pit/storage area.

Additional sanitation practices are also important in fly control.

Remove dead birds daily and dispose of them properly. Minimize accumulations of spilled feed and broken eggs that attract flies and pest beetles. On the outside, keep grass and weeds adjacent to poultry houses mowed to eliminate resting areas for adult flies and to allow for adequate air movement around the buildings. yy Biological Control As indicated above, cultural/ manure management practices encourage the survival and buildup of beneficial predators and parasites that can suppress house fly populations. Keeping manure dry also encourages the increase in other insects that compete for nutrients in the manure habitat.

Such beneficial organisms as predacious mites and small black hister beetles (Carcinops pumilo)

will readily feed on house fly eggs and first-instar house fly larvae. Another group of beneficial insects is tiny parasitic wasps. Female wasps oviposit their eggs in fly pupae.

Inside the fly pupa, the developing larval wasp kills and consumes the fly before it emerges.

With proper dry manure management predaceous mite and hister beetle populations often build up in higher numbers. Parasitic wasps (often called “parasitoids”) usually occur naturally in lower numbers.

Control using these parasitoids is sometimes based on mass releases of commercially reared parasitoids.

Parasitoids are currently available from several commercial insectaries. For a release program to be successful, the producer needs to consider which parasitoid species are best suited for their particular operation and in what numbers to release them and when. Check with the suppliers of these parasitoids for recommendations.

Other insects, such as the darkling beetle (lesser mealworm) and dermestid beetles, often build up in high numbers under dry manure management. They can be beneficial in competing for the nutrients in the manure and prevent house fly buildup. However, they are responsible for damaging poultry structures (wood and insulation), harboring poultry disease organisms, and often being the cause of nuisance complaints when manure is transported and field applied with higher beetle populations. yy Mechanical Control Screens and fly traps are two methods of mechanical fly control, if used properly. Where possible, doors and windows should screened to prevent entry of flies, especially in processing areas. Several kinds of fly traps are available. Usually, these traps are electrical, employing a black light with an electrically charged grid to kill the insects, or they may be baited traps with a fly attractant material. Traps do appear to be helpful in tight, enclosed areas where good sanitation practices

are followed. However, in areas of heavy fly populations, traps are not effective in reducing fly numbers to satisfactory levels. They are best used as a supplement to other fly control procedures. yy Chemical Control Insecticides should be considered as supplementary to sanitation and management measures aimed at preventing fly breeding. Producers should monitor fly populations on a regular basis to evaluate their fly management program and to decide when insecticide applications are needed. Chemical insecticides can play an important role in an integrated fly control program.

However, improper timing and indiscriminate insecticide use can lead to increase fly populations.

Also, selective application of insecticides can avoid killing beneficial fly predators and parasites.

Insecticide applications may be directed to adult flies (adulticides) or fly larvae (larvicides). Methods of application include sprays (knockdown, residual), baits, and

feed additives. yy Space Sprays, Mists and Fogs These sprays are designed for quick knockdown and kill of flies with no residual action. They are usually the most effective and economical method to control potentially heavy populations of adult flies. Because they do have very little residual activity, resistance to the insecticides recommended as space sprays is low, especially when using products containing synergized natural pyrethrins. There are many machines on the market designed to produce the small particle spray desired for this type of application.

Space application should be made to the point of “filling” the room with the spray mist. Treatments should be made as frequently as needed to keep fly numbers down below identified nuisance levels.

This method of fly control is best achieved in the cooler early morning hours when flies are resting

See Control, Page 16

We are a registered 25b FIFRA Product

14

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

Markets Compiled by David B. Strickland, Editor 770-718-3442 dstrickland@poultrytimes.net

Nat’l. Broiler Market: (Aug. 6): Whole broiler/fryer prices were steady to weak in the East and Midwest, steady in the West.

Offering covered the full range but

was mostly moderate to heavy and slow to clear. Retail demand was light to good, mostly light to moderate. Foodservice demand was light to moderate for early week trading. Floor stocks were closely balanced as buyers limited purchases

to regular orders unless enticed by discounts. Market activity was slow to moderate. In the parts structure, movement was light to moderate.

Prices were steady to higher for tenders, boneless/skinless breasts and some dark meat; steady to weak for bone-in breasts and steady for the balance of items. Offerings were light for boneless/skinless breasts and tenders. The balance of parts was moderate to heavy with some slow to clear. Market activity for parts was slow to moderate. In production areas, live supplies were moderate at mixed but mostly desirable weights.

F owl: Aug. 2: Live spent heavy fowl

P arts: Georgia:

ter for the week ending Aug. 3 is 1,765,000.

Actual slaughter for the week ending Jul. 27 was 1,724,000.

Light-type hen: Estimated slaughter for the week ending Aug. 3 is 1,330,000. Actual slaughter for the week ending Jul. 27 was 1,618,000.

Total: Week of Aug. 3: 160,070,000.

Week of Jul. 27: 159,417,000.

N ational Slaughter: Broiler: Estimated slaughter

Estimates: The estimated number of broiler/ fryers available for slaughter the week ending Aug. 3 were 155.4 million head, compared to 156.8 million head slaughtered the same week last year. The estimated slaughter for the week of Aug. 3 is 157.3 million. For the week of Aug. 10, the estimated available is 158.2 million head, notes USDA.

Final prices at Farm Buyer Loading (per pound): range 10-21½¢

The f.o.b. dock quoted prices on ice-pack parts based on truckload and pool truckload lots for the week of Aug. 5: line run tenders $2.09½; skinless/boneless breasts $2.08; whole breasts $1.24½; boneless/skinless thigh meat $1.46½; thighs 73¢; drumsticks 75½¢; leg quarters 53½¢; wings $1.45.

for week ending Aug. 3 is 156,975,000.

Actual slaughter for the week ending Jul. 27 was 156,075,000.

Heavy-type hen: Estimated slaugh-

Broiler/Fryer Report

Industry Stock Report The following chart provides an annual high and a comparison of recent activity of major poultry company stocks.

USDA Shell Eggs AMS weekly combined region shell egg prices Average prices on sales to volume buyers, Grade A or better, White eggs in cartons, delivered warehouse, cents per dozen.

Aug. 2

Company Annual High Jul. 23 Aug. 6

Cal-Maine 52.43 51.82 50.58 Campbell Soup 48.83 47.33 47.48 37.28 36.94 37.06 ConAgra Hormel 43.52 41.41 43.38 Pilgrim’s Pride 19.23 16.28 18.49 Sanderson Farms 74.61 68.96 74.17 Seaboard 2948.24 2894.95 2858.66 Tyson 30.74 27.15 30.71

Extra Large Regions: Northeast 108.50 Southeast 115.50 Midwest 103.50 South Central 115.50 Combined 110.93

Large

Medium

108.00 78.50 113.50 78.00 101.50 72.50 113.50 77.50 109.30 76.62

Computed from simple weekly averages weighted by regional area populations

Grain Prices OHIO COUNTRY ELEV. Jul. 16 Jul. 25 Aug. 8 No. 2 Yellow Corn/bu. $6.21 $6.28 $5.83 Soybeans/bu. $15.49 $14.57 $13.06 (Courtesy: Prospect Farmers Exchange, Prospect, Ohio)

(Courtesy: A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc.)

Broiler Eggs Set/Chicks Placed in 19 States

EGGS SET (Thousands)

CHICKS PLACED (Thousands)

Jul. 6

Jul. 13

Jul. 20

Jul. 27

Jul. 6

Jul. 13

Jul. 20

Jul. 27

Del Fla Ga Ky La Md Miss Mo. N.C. Okla Pa S.C. Tex Va Other states

28, 160 21,784 10,817 3,688 1,222 33,551 7,968 3,486 7,497 17,876 8,226 20,424 6,836 4,022 5,381 14,970 6,558 7,901

28,292 21,859 11,377 3,690 1,225 33,717 8,009 3,485 7,558 17,905 7,901 20,044 6,698 4,010 5,267 14,710 6,529 7,762

28,408 21,223 10,183 3,692 1,223 34,162 7,887 3,485 7,606 16,863 8,357 19,598 6,880 4,007 5,274 14,734 6,396 7,909

28,114 21,643 10,492 3,691 1,225 33,353 7,996 3,485 7,631 17,770 8,201 20,444 6,828 4,102 5,110 14,915 6,391 7,861

21,391 20,458 11,297 4,694 1,439 26,355 6,084 3,035 5,805 14,610 5,216 16,492 5,525 3,108 4,775 12,309 5,287 5,910

21,621 19,637 10,074 4,722 1,303 27,607 6,471 3,169 6,068 15,186 5,433 16,053 4,692 3,063 4,430 12,435 5,162 5,787

22,343 20,104 10.142 4,206 1,212 26,274 6,036 3,178 6,831 14,703 5,412 15,856 4,716 3,229 4,916 11,964 4,647 5,944

21,302 19,843 10,104 4,468 1,385 27,585 6,126 3,088 5,272 15,225 5,870 16,024 4,569 3,156 4,570 12,788 5,848 6,167

19 States Total

202,466

202,276

199,978

201,391

167,880

167,126

165,769

167,223

% Prev. yr.

105

103

103

103

102

102

101

104

Ala Ark

Ca,Tn,Wv

1/Current week as percent of same week last year.

USDA National Composite Weighted Average For week of: Aug. 2 For week of: Jul. 26

93.36¢ 97.30¢

Majority (whole body) Eastern Region:

New York: Central Region: Chicago: Western Region: Los Angeles:

Aug. 2 91¢--98¢ 93¢--98¢ 75¢--90¢ 75¢--90¢ 89¢--97¢ 89¢--97¢

Negotiated prices in trucklot and less-than-trucklot quantities of ready-to-cook whole body broiler/fryers delivered to first receivers; prices in cents per pound.

Turkey Markets Weighted avg. prices for frozen whole young turkeys Weighted average (cents/lb.) F.O.B. shipper dock National

Week ending Aug. 2 Last year Hens (8-16 lbs.)

99.00 108.12 Toms (16-24 lbs.)

102.70 106.70 Week ending Jul. 26 Hens (8-16 lbs.)

Toms (16-24 lbs.)

97.50 97.50

July avg.

99.09 98.20

Egg Markets USDA quotations New York cartoned del. store-door: Jul. 23 Aug. 6 Extra large, no change $1.15--$1.19 $1.15--$1.19 Large, no change $1.13--$1.17 $1.13--$1.17 85¢--89¢ 92¢--96¢ Medium, up 7¢ Southeast Regional del. warehouse: Jul. 23 Aug. 6 Extra large, down 2¢ $1.13½--$1.30 $1.11½--$1.30 Large, down 2¢ $1.12--$1.29 $1.10--$1.28 Medium, up 1¢ 75½¢--93¢ 76½¢--93¢

15

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

AMERICAN EGG BOARD HOTLINE AEB Hotline appears regularly in Poultry Times and provides an update on programs and services provided for egg producers by the American Egg Board. Details on any item mentioned may be obtained by contacting AEB at 1460 Renaissance Dr., Park Ridge, Ill. 60068.

Phone: 847-296-7043. yy AEB’s partnerships through the Good Egg Project (GEP) have yielded impressive results totaling more than 80 million total media impressions.

Below is a recap: The Share Our Strength Radio Media Tour (RMT): In total, 41 RMT interviews have aired (29 radio and 12 online) reaching more than 18.8 million listeners. Audio News Release (ANR): The ANR with Bob Krouse ran on 800+ radio shows, reaching a combined audience of 43 million listeners — 3 million impressions more than anticipated! NBC Launch: The GEP NBC segments have garnered 18.3 million impressions — approximately 3 million impressions above the goal for the program. yy AEB continues to focus on taking advantage of timely opportunities such as pitching preexisting AEB recipes to fit into holiday-themed slide shows, such as Cinco de Mayo and National Egg Salad Week, to the media. By being timely and flexible, AEB has inserted eggs into conversations and media placements in cost-effective ways.

With the success of Easter, AEB has generated more than 519 million impressions to date and growing. The Easter Program

alone received 20 million more media impressions than anticipated. Recently, posts that have really resonated with fans have included key pop-culture icons or very quirky and fun facts, like the Guinness World Record for the most eggs to be carried in a single hat. If you haven’t connected with AEB on social media yet, visit IncredibleEgg. org, and look in the upper right corner for each icon to easily connect with each. yy AEB surveys U.S. eggs processers every other year to update the print and online version of the Egg Product Buyers’ Guide. Production of the 2013 edition is complete and is accessible at AEB.org/food-manufacturers/egg-product-buyersguide, or by requesting a printed copy through Sheryl Slagle at sslagle@aeb.org. AEB’s Egg Product Buyers’ Guide is one of the most visited sections on AEB.org/FoodManufacturers and typically has more than 18,000 page views annually. yy AEB’s Incredible Egg Recipes on Pinterest, the virtual bulletin board site, are now “rich.” Rich Recipe Pins include at-a-glance information like ingredients, cooking times and serving sizes. This will help engage the Incredible Edible Egg’s followers on Pinterest, one of the fastest growing social media sites. This update to the site’s features transforms Pinterest into a legitimate recipe platform. Currently, the Incredible Edible Egg on Pinterest has more than 2,550 followers and 20,000+ repins of AEB content.

•WTO (Continued from page 1)

“The U.S. poultry industry has enjoyed a long, positive and productive relationship with its industry counterparts in China,” Sumner added. “This dispute has not diminished the importance we place on the Chinese market or on our friendship with the Chinese government, industry and people. We hope that conditions for vigorous trade can be restored that that the two countries will move forward expeditiously to create conditions for free and open trade, and to increase poultry consumption that will benefit the industries and consumers in both nations.”

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said the WTO ruling was a win for American farmers, businesses and workers and that he hopes it will “discourage further violations that hurt American exporters.”

The Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) launched antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in late 2009, alleging that these products were being “dumped” on the Chinese market and were also receiving the benefit of illegal subsidies.

In early 2010, MOFCOM imposed dumping duties on three U.S.

chicken companies — Tyson Foods, Keystone Foods and Pilgrim’s Pride — ranging from 43.1 percent to 80.5 percent. MOFCOM also imposed a “weighted average” duty of 64.5 percent on imports from 32 additional U.S. companies that filed responses to China’s actions, and an “all-others” rate of 105.4 percent to all those companies that chose not to participate in the investigation. Also MOFCOM imposed additional countervailing duties ranging from 3.8 percent to 31.4 percent.

At the industry’s request, in 2012 the U.S. Trade Representative appealed to the WTO, which then assembled a dispute settlement panel to adjudicate the case.

In its report, the panel found in favor of the U.S. on nearly all U.S. claims. USDA listed the report findings as follows: Specifically, with regard to MOFCOM’s substantive errors, the panel found that China breached its WTO obligations by: yy Levying countervailing duties on U.S. producers in excess of the amount of subsidization; yy Relying on flawed price comparisons for its determination that China’s domestic industry had suffered injury; yy Unjustifiably declining to use the books and records of two major

U.S. producers in calculating their costs of production; failing to consider any of the alternative allocation methodologies presented by U.S. producers and instead using a weight-based methodology resulting in high dumping margins; improperly allocating distinct processing costs to other products inflating dumping margins; and allocating one producer’s costs in producing non-exported products to exported products creating an inflated dumping margin; and yy Improperly calculating the “all others” dumping margin and subsidy rates.

With respect to procedural failings in the MOFCOM investigations, the panel found that China breached its WTO obligations by: yy Denying a hearing request during the investigation; yy Failing to require the Chinese industry to provide non-confidential summaries of information it provided to MOFCOM; yy Failing to disclose essential facts to U.S. companies including how their dumping margins were calculated.

A copy of the WTO report can be found at www.wto.org/english/ news_e/news13_e/427r_e.htm.

Index of Advertisers Acme, 8B........................................................................................................................................................... 918-682-7791; www.acmeag.com Agrifan, 2........................................................................................................................................................ 800-236-7080; www.envirofan.com Alltech, 8G.......................................................................................................................................................... 417-886-1000; www.alltech.com Bayer, 8C....................................................................................................................................................................................... www.bayer.com Beneficial Insectary, 8F..................................................................................................................................................................... 800-477-3715 Car Mac, 10........................................................................................................................................................................................800-424-8108 Cid Lines, 8D...............................................................................................................................................................................www.cidlines.com Cumberland, 8F...............................................................................................................................217-226-4401; www.cumberlandpoultry.com Danisco, 8H.....................................................................................................................314-771-7766; www.danisco.com/animalnutrition.com Elanco, 8D........................................................................................................................................................... 800-428-4441; www.elanco.com Farmer Automatic, 8B.........................................................................................................................912-681-2763; www.farmerautomatic.com Flame, 9............................................................................................................................................. 800-255-2469; www.flameengineering.com Grassworx, 5................................................................................................................................................................................. grassworxllc.com H.J. Baker & Bro. Inc., 8B......................................................................................................................................... 501-664-4870; bakerbro.com IPS- Carefree Enzymes, 13..................................................................................................................262-878-3899; www.naturesenzymes.com Jones-Hamilton-PLT, 8E....................................................................................................................800-379-2243; www.joneshamiltonAg.com Lubing, 8A..........................................................................................................................................................................................423-709-1000 Motomco, Cover III........................................................................................................................................ 800-237-6843; www.motomco.com Preserve, Cover II...............................................................................................................................................................................800-995-1607 Reeves, Cover IV.......................................................................................................................................888-854-5221; www.reevessupply.com Space-Ray, 11 .................................................................................................................................................. 800-849-7311; www.spaceray.com Star Labs, 8F.....................................................................................................................................................800-894-5396; www.primalac.com Weigh Tech, 8D........................................................................................................................................ 800-457-3720; www.weightechinc.com

16

POULTRY TIMES, August 12, 2013

•Control (Continued from page 13)

higher up in the house and ventilation fans can be safely turned off during the time of spraying without causing increased house temperatures. yy Residual Sprays Treating building surfaces with residual sprays has been a common practice over the years. Dependence on this method has led to high levels of fly resistance of the available insecticides used as residual sprays. Also, treated surfaces tend to quickly get covered over with dust, and this could reduce fly exposure on the treated surface. Residual sprays should be used sparingly and only as a last resort to control fly outbreaks that cannot be managed with other techniques. yy Fly Baits Baits are a viable part of an integrated fly control program to maintain low fly populations. They are a very effective supplement to sprays.

Commercial dry baits, in granular form, are readily available. Bait placement should be on walkways/ aisles, avoiding application into the manure pit and other areas where flies tend to congregate. Baits must also be placed out of reach of birds and placed so they don’t contaminate food and water sources. yy Larvicides Direct application of chemical larvicides to the manure surface to kill fly maggots should be avoided, except for spot treatments. This is especially so with products (e.g., pyrethroids, organophosphates) that will destroy beneficial insects inhabiting the manure. Cyromazine and pyridine spot treatments of small areas with high numbers of maggots can be effective and yet have a minimal effect on the beneficial insect population and potential fly resistance development in the manure. yy Feed-Through Larvicides Cyromazine (Larvadex) is the only feed-through insecticide for breeding flies registered for caged

layers. It is an insect growth inhibitor and kills fly larvae before development is completed. Its selective mode of action does not adversely affect natural fly predators. Larvadex premix is blended into the egg layer ration at the rate of 1 pound of premix per ton of feed for fly control. It passes through the bird’s digestive tract and is present in the manure essentially in its unaltered state. It has no adverse effect on feed palatability or consumption, or on eggs or meat.

Cyromazine will give best results when intergraded into a wellmanaged fly control program. Use of this product too frequently can be expensive. Also, where it has been used extensively, high levels of fly resistance have been reported. It is best to use Larvadex after a complete manure. After cleanout, it can be fed to the birds continuously for 4 to 6 weeks. Its use after that should be avoided until the next cleanout.

This will reduce the chance of development of fly resistance. If adult flies should become a problem during its use or after the time it is used, then proper adult fly control measures should be carried out.

Beetles Two species of beetles that commonly inhabit poultry manure and litter accumulations are the lesser mealworm or darkling beetle (Alphitobius diaperinus) and the hide beetle (Dermestes maculatus).

Adults and larvae of both species can become extremely abundant in poultry manure and litter, especially in drier poultry wastes that accumulate in poultry buildings.

On one hand, these beetles can be considered beneficial in that they compete in the same habitat as house flies and can help aerate and dry manure, making it unsuitable for house fly development. On the other hand, both beetles can cause extensive damage as mature larvae bore into structural materials seeking areas to pupate and complete their development. They are also known

as potential vectors of several poultry disease pathogens (e.g., acute leukosis-March’s disease, fowl pox, numerous pathogenic bacteria and poultry tapeworms). Large beetle populations, especially of darkling beetles, may become a public nuisance at cleanout time because of adult beetle migration from fields where manure is spread into nearby residential areas.

The adult lesser mealworm is dark brown or black and about 1/4 inch long. Larvae are wirewormlike, yellowish brown, and up to 3/4 inch long. They spend most of their time in the manure or litter feeding on damp and moldy grain sources.

Development ranges from 40-100 days, depending on temperature.

When mature, larvae seek drier areas of the manure or litter and crack and crevice areas to pupate. They will bore into walls and can destroy house insulation in seeking areas to pupate. Once adult beetles emerge, they can live from three months to a year.

Hide beetles are larger than darkling beetles, about 1/3 inch long.

Scavenging hide beetles feed on bird carcasses, skins, hides, feathers, dead insects and other animal and plant products. Broken eggs and dead bird accumulations in the manure enhance hide beetle populations. Development ranges from 20 to 45 days or more. Mature larvae often bore into wood posts, beams and paneling to pupate. Adult hide beetles can live from 60 to 90 days.

In controlling these beetles in infested poultry houses, applying dusts and sprays to manure and litter is fairly effective, but it can destroy other beneficial insect populations.

A thorough house cleaning, combined with chemical control when the birds are removed, will usually suppress beetle populations, at least for a short time. Migration within the poultry house may be reduced by applying insecticide sprays to pit walls and posts.

During time when manure is removed from a building, especially during warmer weather, ef-

forts should be made to treat the manure to control developing flies and beetles. Treating the manure pit with a recommended insecticide, a few days before it is removed, will kill active stages of these insects.

Once manure is removed from the building, if it is immediately spread, treatment of the field may be necessary to kill surviving beetles. If stockpiled, treatment of the manure surface will provide further control.

Thorough tarping of stockpiled manure will also kill developing flies and beetles in the manure. A minimum of two weeks under the tarp will assure proper insect kill.

External parasites Several species of lice and mites make up the complex of external parasites of poultry. The physical damage caused by these pests may result in lowered egg production, reduced weight gain, and carcass downgrading. Also important is the nuisance to people handling eggs that are crawling with mites. yy Northern Fowl Mite The northern fowl mite is the most important and common external parasite infesting poultry. It infests a wide variety of domestic fowl and wild birds and is found throughout many temperate regions of the world.

These small blackish-brown pests spend their entire life cycle on a host. They congregate near the vent, tail and, occasionally, the back.

Adult female mites lay their eggs on the host bird in the fluff feathers.

The entire life cycle can be completed within a week under favorable conditions Populations can rise rapidly after a bird has been initially infested. When conditions are optimal, newly infested birds may support mite populations in excess of 20,000 per bird by nine to 10 weeks. The feathers will darken because of the excrement and eggs from the mites. Scabbing of the skin may develop in the vent region.

Severe anemia and death may result in birds infested with large northern fowl mite populations.

Mite-stressed birds usually reduce food intake, lose weight rapidly and exhibit a pale pink comb, and there can be lowered egg production in

layers (up to 10 percent to 15 percent in higher infestations). Mites can also annoy egg handlers and other personnel.

Northern fowl mites are more of a problem in cool weather (winter), but they may be found on birds the year round. Also, even though they normally live on the host, northern fowl mites can survive for two to three weeks, at room temperature, off the host. Therefore, removing birds from an infested house and replacing them two weeks later may not solve the pest problem.

Northern fowl mites are normally transmitted from bird to bird by contact or simply by crawling to new hosts. Mites may be introduced into a clean house by introduction of infested birds or by wild birds.

Populations can readily build up on young birds 20 to 30 weeks of age.

Birds older than 40 weeks usually do not support many mites.

The detection of an initial low mite population that can be controlled effectively and economically is important in a mite-monitoring program. With early detection, only part of the caged-layer house may need to be treated. At least 10 randomly selected birds from each cage row in the entire house should be monitored weekly. The vent area should be examined under a bright light, and the feathers parted to reveal the mites. Cages with one or two birds often have more mites than those with more birds, and, because of variation in susceptibility among birds, one bird may have mites while its cage mates have few or no mites.

Sanitation and cleanliness help prevent infestations of lice and mites. A poultry house should be clean and parasite free before new birds are moved in.

New birds should be checked and free of infestation before being brought in. Once a flock is in the facility, care should be taken to prevent contamination from workers and equipment. Mites and lice can be transferred from an infested house to an uninfested house by contaminated egg flats, bird crates, and other equipment. Wild birds and rodents can harbor and disseminate these parasites as well (especially mites).

Cooling SyStemS Built to l aSt

REEVES SUPPLY • Custom built cooling systems for specific cooling needs • Foam injected fiberglass tunnel doors • 18”,20” and 24” stir fans • Complete line of pumps, motors, filter housings and elements, fan belts and pullies

1-888-854-5221 • reevessupply.com