Posted on

Morocco’s poultry feed mills: a concentrated market under pressure from imported grain

A growing sector, a growing feed bill

Morocco is Africa’s third-largest poultry producer, behind Egypt and South Africa. According to the poultry federation FISA, the sector produced 654,000 tonnes of chicken and 174,000 tonnes of turkey in 2025, along with 7.06 billion table eggs. Poultry meat consumption reached 23.6 kg per person, up from 20.9 kg a year earlier.1

Feed is the base of that growth. FISA puts poultry feed production at 3.3 million tonnes in 2023, up 10% on 2022.2 Poultry accounts for 76% of all compound feed made in Morocco.3 Feed inputs, mainly corn, soybean and other grains, make up 60–70% of poultry production costs.1

Infographic: Morocco poultry output in 2025, poultry feed production, compound feed plants and market concentration, and drinking-water findings on farms.
Morocco’s poultry sector, its feed mills and water on the farm. Sources: FISA; Conseil de la concurrence, Avis A/3/24; El Hraiki et al. 2021; World Bank 2023.

A concentrated market

Morocco’s Competition Council reviewed the compound feed market in 2024. It counted 46 compound feed plants, according to the manufacturers’ association AFAC, with half of them on the Casablanca–Kénitra axis, close to ports and poultry farms. The eight largest operators held 73% of the market by volume in 2022, and two vertically integrated groups held close to half between them.3 The Council did not name the operators, and the sector ran below 60% of its installed capacity.3

Several of the leading mills describe their own scale publicly:

  • Alf Sahel. Founded in 1999 by the Mohemmane family, whose group also runs hatcheries and the Sahel Abattoirs poultry processing complex.4 Its director general has described it as Morocco’s largest feed mill, producing more than 1.2 million tonnes a year across poultry, ruminant and other species.5
  • Zalar Holding (Alf Al Maghrib). Its subsidiaries El Alf and Agro Industrielle Al Atlas sell feed under the Alf Al Maghrib brand. Zalar reports a national market share above 18% and a capacity of 960,000 tonnes a year, and also makes premixes and additives through Feed & Food Additifs.6
  • INAAM. Industrie d’Alimentation Animale Moderne, based in Casablanca, is one of the two historic founders of Morocco’s compound feed industry: the Competition Council dates it to 1954.3 INAAM makes compound feeds and concentrates for poultry and ruminants and offers on-farm feeding advice through its technical sales team.7

Integration is a common thread. The largest producers own breeders, hatcheries, processing plants and retail outlets as well as feed mills.3,5

Challenges mills are working through

Imported grain and price swings. Morocco became a net importer of corn, with domestic production close to zero.3 Corn imports were about 2.6 million tonnes in 2025, led by Brazil, with Argentina and the United States the other main origins.8 Cereals, mainly corn, make up at least half of a standard compound feed, and oilseed meals about 25% by volume but close to half by value. The Council found that poultry feed prices tracked the corn price with a 94% correlation.3

Drought. Seven consecutive years of drought cut domestic cereal yields and exposed producers to world price swings.1 Rain returned in 2025–26: the Agriculture Minister projected a 9 million tonne cereal harvest, more than double the previous season.1 USDA expects better domestic crops to reduce wheat and barley imports.9 Corn, however, remains imported.

Mycotoxins and raw material quality. The Council notes that changes in the type or origin of raw materials can affect feed quality, and that moulds and mycotoxins can harm animal health. It reports that hatchery feeds use more additives and steam treatment to manage mycotoxin risk for breeders. It also records feed conversion ratios above 2 in Morocco, against 1.4–1.9 in Europe.3

Heat stress. Heat lowers feed intake, raises feed conversion and increases water demand.10 Betaine, an osmolyte that helps cells hold water, and the antioxidant vitamins C and E are widely studied in heat-stressed birds. Reviews describe them as partly offsetting the effects of heat rather than removing them.10,11

Water quality. Industry contacts in Morocco also raise drinking water as a production issue, and published farm surveys point the same way. In 150 samples from poultry farms in the Marrakech, El Kelaa des Sraghna, Chtouka-Aït Baha and Tiznit regions, average hardness was 70 °f, above the 50 °f recommended for poultry. Sodium and chloride were high, and only a quarter of samples met poultry standards. Hard water also reduced the solubility of several veterinary medicines given through the drinking water.14 On turkey farms in Khemisset, every sample taken at the water-line inlet failed microbiological standards.15 Supply adds pressure: groundwater withdrawals exceed renewable resources by about 28%, and the national water plan looks to seawater desalination for nearly 1 billion m³ a year by 2050.16 Salt content matters to the bird. In a trial under hot, arid conditions, water intake rose with dissolved solids, and weight gain and feed efficiency fell at the highest level tested, 3,448 ppm.17 Heat compounds the effect, because birds drink more to cool themselves, and electrolytes are among the measures studied for heat-stressed flocks.10 Producers commonly respond with regular water testing, water-line cleaning and electrolyte support in hot periods.

Antibiotic reduction. Morocco prohibits the unauthorised use of antibiotics, including as growth promoters, and monitors the quantities of antimicrobials used in livestock.12 That shifts attention to gut health, feed hygiene and nutrition.

Buyer checklist: what leading mills commonly track

  • Origin, vessel and certificate of analysis for each corn and soybean meal lot
  • Moisture, temperature and mycotoxin tests at intake and in storage
  • Binder choice matched to the toxins found: clay-based binders work best against aflatoxins, less well against DON and fumonisins13
  • Summer formulas and water plans, with vitamins or betaine where nutritionists see a need10,11
  • Drinking-water tests for hardness, salts and bacteria at source and at the end of the line, especially where farms rely on wells14,15
  • ONSSA authorisation for every additive purchased, and no antibiotic growth promoters12
  • Feed conversion by season, to see where heat and raw material changes cost money3

How BioSpec additives fit

BioSpec supplies additives to compound mills and producers. It does not make compound feed. The BSF 2X BindAway range of mycotoxin binders is based on aluminosilicates with broad-spectrum adsorption capacity. BSF ImmuGrow L (drinking water) and ImmuGrow P (feed) combine organic acids and their salts, plant extracts, essential oils and betaine. For the water line, BSF Electrolyte P, a water-soluble powder, and BSF Electrolyte L, a mixture of electrolytes in liquid form, stabilise the hydric and electrolytic balance, and BSF DrinkSupport, a mixture of organic acids and copper, controls the development of microorganisms in drinking water and helps prevent biofilm in water lines. BioSpec’s vitamin, mineral and amino acid supplements complete the range.

See the additives for compound mills  or talk to us about your mill.

References

  1. Morocco World News. “Moroccans Now Eat 23.6 Kg of Poultry Per Person Annually” (FISA data). 23 April 2026. https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2026/04/288437/moroccans-now-eat-23-6-kg-of-poultry-per-person-annually/
  2. Le Brief. “Aviculture, un secteur volatile ?” (FISA data for 2023). https://www.lebrief.ma/aviculture-un-secteur-volatile-145017/
  3. Conseil de la concurrence (Morocco). Avis n° A/3/24 on the compound feed market, non-confidential version, 2024. https://conseil-concurrence.ma/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Livre-AVIS-A-3-24-FR-Non-Confidentielle.pdf
  4. Alf Sahel, company website. https://www.alfsahel.com/en
  5. Iowa Soybean Association. “U.S., Morocco Seek Resolution on New Rules for Soybean Sales.” https://www.iasoybeans.com/newsroom/article/us-morocco-seek-resolution-on-new-rules-for-soybean-sales
  6. Zalar Holding. Animal feed. https://zalar.ma/en/animal-feed-production/
  7. INAAM, company website. https://inaam.ma/qui-sommes-nous/
  8. U.S. Grains & BioProducts Council. Morocco market profile. https://grains.org/markets-tools-data/markets/market-profiles/morocco/
  9. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, FAS Rabat. Morocco: Grain and Feed Annual. GAIN report MO2026-0005, 17 April 2026. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/gain/2026/04/morocco-grain-and-feed-annual
  10. Wasti S, Sah N, Mishra B. Impact of heat stress on poultry health and performances, and potential mitigation strategies. Animals 2020; 10(8): 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10081266
  11. Begum M, Musa L, Grilli G, et al. A review on heat stress in broiler chickens: mechanisms, effects and mitigation strategies. Veterinary Medicine and Science 2026; 12(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.71219
  12. FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius. “JISSA / Le Maroc renforce la lutte contre la résistance aux antibiotiques dans l’élevage.” 19 June 2026. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/news-and-events/news-details/fr/c/1759706/
  13. Olariu RM, Fiţ NI, Bouari CM, Nadăş GC. Mycotoxins in broiler production: impacts on growth, immunity, vaccine efficacy, and food safety. Toxins 2025; 17(6): 261. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins17060261
  14. El Hraiki A, Marouane A, Lamhaous H, Bengoumi M. Qualité de l’eau de boisson et impact sur la solubilité des médicaments vétérinaires en aviculture. Revue Marocaine des Sciences Agronomiques et Vétérinaires 2021; 9(3): 353–359. https://www.agrimaroc.org/index.php/Actes_IAVH2/article/view/1008
  15. El Allaoui A, Rhazi Filali F, Derouich A. Water quality in turkey farms in Khemisset (Morocco) and potential risk factors. Revue scientifique et technique (OIE) 2016; 35(3). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28332638/
  16. World Bank. Morocco Country Climate and Development Report, Background Note: Water Scarcity and Droughts. April 2023. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/073ccc31324add86357b143f4cf64a8e-0280012023/original/BN-Water-Scarcity-and-Droughts-apr23-FINAL.pdf
  17. Performance and immune response of broiler chicks as affected by different levels of total dissolved solids in drinking water under hot arid environments. Animal Production Science 2013. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN12165
Posted on

Egypt’s poultry growth and its feed bill: what compound mills are watching

Green banner with grain ears

A bigger flock, a bigger feed bill

Egypt’s poultry sector produced 1.6 billion commercial broilers in 2025, plus 320 million birds from rural production. Together they covered 97% of domestic broiler demand. The sector also produced 16 billion table eggs, or 140 per person. Before 2023 the figures were 1.4 billion birds and 14 billion eggs.1

USDA’s Cairo office calls the poultry industry “the primary driver of feed and corn demand”.1 Large integrated companies are investing in new chick, broiler and egg projects, and the government is similarly expanding licences for poultry and feed projects.1,2

For compound mills, that growth comes with a feed bill that is largely priced abroad.

A feed bill priced in dollars

USDA describes the typical Egyptian poultry feed mix as 70% yellow corn and 19.4% soybean meal, plus wheat bran, concentrates, minerals and vitamins.3 Currently, both main ingredients depend on imports:

  • Corn. Egypt’s domestically grown yellow corn covers less than 40% of feed demand.1 In its September update, USDA raised its estimate of 2025/26 corn imports by about 23%, to 12.5 million tons, and forecasts the same for 2026/27.2
  • Soybeans. Domestic production is expected to cover less than 2% of demand in 2026/27. Imports are forecast at 5.2 million tons, up from 5.0 million, and are milled locally for meal.4
Chart: Egypt's corn and soybean imports, 2024/25 to 2026/27, and where Egypt's corn came from in 2025/26.
Egypt’s corn and soybean imports, and the main corn origins in 2025/26 (October–July). 2026/27 figures are USDA forecasts. Sources: USDA FAS Cairo, GAIN reports EG2025-0009, EG2026-0002, EG2026-0004 and EG2026-0013.

The currency side of the bill

Because most grain is bought in dollars, the exchange rate matters as much as world prices. Periods of currency adjustment between 2022 and 2024 raised the local cost of imported feed.5

Since the Central Bank of Egypt moved to a market-set exchange rate in March 2024,6 foreign currency has been much easier to obtain. USDA links this to larger feed imports and lower feed production costs,1,2 and the IMF reports no backlog of currency requests at banks.7

For purchasing teams, access to dollars is now far less of a constraint, while the price in pounds still moves with the exchange rate.

Where the grain comes from

Over the five years to 2024/25, Egypt’s top corn suppliers were Brazil (19.9 million tons), Ukraine (11.7) and Argentina (9.5).1 The mix is shifting. In 2025/26 (October–July), Brazil supplied 6.18 million tons, Argentina 3.95 and Ukraine 0.86.2 USDA points to renewed Ukrainian shipping setbacks, including port strikes and costlier rerouting, and expects more corn from the United States and South America.2 For soybeans, about 72% of Egypt’s imports since 2020/21 came from the United States.4

A change of origin brings a different harvest, a longer voyage and a different storage history. BioSpec’s guide to imported feed grains, storage and mycotoxins covers what is commonly checked at intake and in the silo.

Summer heat makes every ton count

An Egyptian study followed 186,300 broilers over 18 cycles between April and September 2024.8 Birds in open houses had 15.96% mortality, compared with 5.46% in closed, climate-controlled houses. Heat-attributed mortality was 4.4% against 0.23%. Feed conversion ratios averaged 1.93 in open houses compared with 1.65 in closed environments, meaning 17% greater feed consumption for each kilogram of gain. Feed cost 91.04 EGP per bird in open houses, out of a total cost of 138.79 EGP, or about two thirds.8

Heat stress lowers feed intake while raising feed conversion ratios. Birds need to drink much more water to cope.9 So in hot months, each kilogram of meat costs more feed.

Alongside housing and ventilation, nutrition is one of the tools studied. Betaine acts as an osmolyte and a methyl donor, and under heat stress it helps cells hold water.9 Studies have reported better feed intake and production in heat-stressed broilers and layers given betaine.9 The antioxidant vitamins C and E are also widely studied, and have been reported to improve antioxidant status and heat tolerance in broilers.10 Results vary between studies, and reviews describe these measures as partly offsetting the effects of heat, not removing them.10

Stretching the bill: where additives fit

Additives do not change the price of corn, but some help protect each ton or make it go further:

  • Mycotoxin binders. Clay-based binders such as bentonite, zeolite and hydrated sodium calcium aluminosilicate are among the most widely used. They work best against aflatoxins and are less effective against toxins such as DON and fumonisins.11 They support good sourcing, storage and testing rather than replacing them, as the mycotoxin guide explains.
  • Phytase. Phytate is present in all plant-based broiler feeds. Phytase releases the phosphorus bound in phytate, which allows less inorganic phosphorus in the diet. It is now a routine addition to broiler diets, and its matrix values are used in least-cost formulation to reduce ingredient costs.12

Regulators are active too. In 2025 the Ministry of Agriculture approved 8,247 registrations of feed mixtures, additives and concentrates: 5,395 local and 2,852 imported. It ran more than 250 surprise inspection campaigns and seized 187 tons of non-compliant feed.13 It also carried out mixing-homogeneity tests at 497 feed factories with 1,104 production lines.14

Common practices at import-dependent mills

Area Common practice Why it matters
Formula exposure Tracking the imported share of each formula, mainly corn and soybean meal Corn and meal make up about 90% of a typical Egyptian poultry mix3
Origin Recording origin and vessel for each lot, with a certificate of analysis Longer shipping journeys as corn origins have shifted away from Ukraine2
Intake and storage Testing moisture, temperature and mycotoxins at intake Origin, voyage and storage all affect mould risk (see the storage guide)
Mycotoxin binders Adding clay-based binders when aflatoxin risk is high Clay binders are among the most widely used, mainly against aflatoxins11
Phytase Checking a supplier’s matrix values against in-house analysis Matrix values drive the cost saving12
Summer Summer formulas and water plans, with vitamins or betaine where nutritionists see a need Heat raises feed conversion ratio and mortality8,9
Registration Confirming Ministry registration for every additive purchased 2,852 imported registrations were approved in 202513
Mixing In-house mixer homogeneity tests The Ministry tests homogeneity before licensing14

Additives for compound mills

When most of the feed bill is imported, every ton has to perform. BioSpec supplies compound mills with mycotoxin binders, vitamin, mineral and amino acid supplements, pellet binders and antioxidants, and its BSF ImmuGrow blends, ImmuGrow L for drinking water and ImmuGrow P for feed, which combine organic acids and their salts, plant extracts, essential oils and betaine.

See the additives for compound mills  or talk to us about your mill.

References

  1. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, FAS Cairo. Egypt: Grain and Feed Annual. GAIN report EG2026-0002, 11 March 2026. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Grain+and+Feed+Annual_Cairo_Egypt_EG2026-0002
  2. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, FAS Cairo. Egypt: Grain and Feed Update. GAIN report EG2026-0013, 28 September 2026. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Grain+and+Feed+Update_Cairo_Egypt_EG2026-0013
  3. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, FAS Cairo. Egypt: Grain and Feed Annual. GAIN report EG2025-0009, 27 March 2025. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Grain+and+Feed+Annual_Cairo_Egypt_EG2025-0009
  4. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, FAS Cairo. Egypt: Oilseeds and Products Annual. GAIN report EG2026-0004, 23 March 2026. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Oilseeds+and+Products+Annual_Cairo_Egypt_EG2026-0004
  5. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, FAS Cairo. Egypt: Grain and Feed Annual. GAIN report EG2023-0003, 4 April 2023. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Grain+and+Feed+Annual_Cairo_Egypt_EG2023-0003
  6. Central Bank of Egypt. Special Monetary Policy Committee meeting, press release, 6 March 2024. https://www.cbe.org.eg/-/media/project/cbe/listing/mpc-meetings/2024/english/special-mpc-press-release—6-march-2024.pdf
  7. International Monetary Fund. Arab Republic of Egypt: Seventh Review under the Extended Fund Facility and Second Review under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility. IMF Country Report No. 26/224, August 2026 (staff report dated 17 July 2026). https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/cr/2026/english/1egyea2026002.pdf
  8. Abd-El Hamed AM, Abo-Gamil ZH, Elbarbary NK, et al. A comparative study of performance and profitability measures for broilers raised in open and closed systems: investigating the histopathological effects of heat stress during summer in Egypt. Open Veterinary Journal 2025; 15(5): 2039–2048. https://doi.org/10.5455/OVJ.2025.v15.i5.20
  9. Wasti S, Sah N, Mishra B. Impact of heat stress on poultry health and performances, and potential mitigation strategies. Animals 2020; 10(8): 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10081266
  10. Begum M, Musa L, Grilli G, et al. A review on heat stress in broiler chickens: mechanisms, effects and mitigation strategies. Veterinary Medicine and Science 2026; 12(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.71219
  11. Olariu RM, Fiţ NI, Bouari CM, Nadăş GC. Mycotoxins in broiler production: impacts on growth, immunity, vaccine efficacy, and food safety. Toxins 2025; 17(6): 261. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins17060261
  12. Selle PH, Macelline SP, Chrystal PV, Liu SY. The contribution of phytate-degrading enzymes to chicken-meat production. Animals 2023; 13(4): 603. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040603
  13. Daily News Egypt. “EGP 10.05bn injected into national veal project in 2025: Official.” 18 January 2026. https://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2026/01/18/egp-10-05bn-injected-into-national-veal-project-in-2025-official/
  14. Saeid Gate (Arabic), reporting the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation’s 2025 livestock and poultry sector report. 18 January 2026. https://www.saeidgate.com/104519
Posted on

Eggshell quality and trace minerals: what layer feed needs to get right

Green banner with egg outlines

Why shell quality matters more now

On 6 October 2026, Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture (MEWA) reported egg production of more than 9 billion eggs in 2026, and self-sufficiency of 100% in table eggs [1]. With the home market now supplied by local flocks, every egg lost to a poor shell is a loss the local industry carries itself.

Those losses are not small. One study cites about 10–15% of eggs lost to eggshell quality problems before or during collection [2]. Cracked eggs are a food safety issue as well as a financial one, because bacteria can get in through the shell [3]. Shell problems also become more common as hens age [3].

Shell quality depends on genetics, health, housing and handling as well as feed. This article covers the feed side: calcium, vitamin D3 and three trace minerals.

Infographic: what goes into an eggshell. Calcium, vitamin D3, zinc, manganese and copper, and the roles each plays in shell formation.
What goes into an eggshell: the roles of calcium, vitamin D3, zinc, manganese and copper. Sources: Hervo et al. 2022; Qiu et al. 2020; Adhikari et al. 2020.

How a shell is built

A shell is about 95% calcium carbonate [4]. The hen puts about 2 g of calcium into each shell. The diet supplies 60–70% of that, and the rest comes from a reserve in the bones called medullary bone [4].

Timing matters. Shell formation takes about 20 hours and happens mainly at night, when the hen is not eating [4]. So the question is not only how much calcium is in the feed, but whether it is still available in the gut during the night.

The shell also has an organic framework, and three trace minerals help build it [2]:

  • Zinc is part of carbonic anhydrase, the enzyme that produces bicarbonate, the raw material for the shell’s calcium carbonate [2][5].
  • Manganese activates glycosyltransferase, which helps form the crystal nucleation sites and controls how calcite crystals grow [2].
  • Copper is part of lysyl oxidase, which forms cross-links in the shell membranes. Copper deficiency can lead to abnormal membranes [2].

Calcium: particle size matters

The 1994 NRC requirement for white-egg layers eating 100 g of feed a day is 3.25% calcium, or 3.25 g per hen per day. A footnote adds that the requirement may be higher for maximum shell thickness [6].

Particle size is where many feeds differ. A meta-analysis of 71 experiments published between 1971 and 2019 found that coarse limestone stays longer in the gizzard and is dissolved more completely there than fine limestone [4]. Going from 0.15 mm to 1.5 mm particles increased shell thickness by 1.1% and shell breaking strength by 3%, with no effect on production performance [4]. The authors explain this by coarse particles releasing calcium through the night, when the shell is being formed [4].

“Coarse” in this work means particles larger than 0.8 mm. There is no consensus on the best coarse-to-fine ratio, though 75% coarse and 25% fine is often used for older hens [4]. The response to coarse limestone was greater when dietary calcium was below the optimum [4].

Vitamin D3

Vitamin D is needed to absorb calcium and phosphorus [7]. When hens are fed a diet short of vitamin D, the first sign is thinner eggshells [7]. In the body it is converted to an active form that stimulates calcium absorption in the gut. As hens age, levels of that active form fall and calcium absorption declines [4].

NRC lists 300 IU of vitamin D3 per kg of diet at 100 g of feed a day [6]. A metabolite, 25-hydroxyvitamin D3, is also used commercially. Whether it gives better results than vitamin D3 is still debated [7].

Trace minerals: manganese, zinc and copper

NRC 1994 lists 20 mg/kg manganese and 35 mg/kg zinc at 100 g of feed a day. It gives no copper figure for laying hens; the table shows a question mark [6]. These are 1994 estimates for Leghorn-type hens, not commercial specifications.

Two trials show why the levels used in practice matter:

  • Older hens. A corn-soybean diet already contained about 33 mg/kg zinc, 25 mg/kg manganese and 5 mg/kg copper. Adding zinc, manganese and copper improved shell breaking strength and fracture toughness in hens aged 60 and 69 weeks. The effect was the same whether the minerals came from organic or inorganic sources [8].
  • Cutting levels. In late-lay hens, reducing inorganic trace minerals to a third of the commercial level lowered shell strength and increased egg losses over an eight-week trial [2].

Heat adds pressure

Hot climates make this harder. Panting in heat-stressed birds upsets the acid-base balance of the blood and leads to respiratory alkalosis, and heat stress lowers egg quality [5]. For Gulf layer flocks, the summer months are when shell specifications matter most.

What a mill buyer can check

Item What to ask for Why
Limestone Particle-size distribution (sieve analysis) for each lot, including the share above 0.8 mm, plus calcium content Particle size affects how much calcium is available overnight [4]
Layer feed by phase The coarse-to-fine limestone ratio used for older flocks Older hens absorb calcium less well [4]
Vitamin D3 Declared and analysed vitamin D3 in the premix, plus expiry date Deficiency first shows as thinner shells [7]
Trace minerals Analysed manganese, zinc and copper in the premix compared with the label, and total levels in the finished feed The base diet already contributes some, as the trial above shows [8]
Records Batch numbers and a certificate of analysis for each delivery SFDA requires batch-level records of incoming materials [9]

When shell quality drops, these records let you rule the feed in or out quickly, before looking at health, housing or handling.

If you would like to talk through layer feed specifications, contact BioSpec.

References

  1. Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture (MEWA). MEWA adopts 5 qualitative initiatives to support poultry industry localization. 6 October 2026. https://www.mewa.gov.sa/en/MediaCenter/News/Pages/mewa-5-initiatives-poultry-localization.aspx (also Saudi Press Agency, https://www.spa.gov.sa/en/N2694658)
  2. Qiu JL, Zhou Q, Zhu JM, Lu XT, et al. Organic trace minerals improve eggshell quality by improving the eggshell ultrastructure of laying hens during the late laying period. Poultry Science 2020; 99(3): 1483–1490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.11.006
  3. Cheng X, Ning Z. Research progress on bird eggshell quality defects: a review. Poultry Science 2023; 102(1): 102283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102283
  4. Hervo F, Narcy A, Nys Y, Létourneau-Montminy M-P. Effect of limestone particle size on performance, eggshell quality, bone strength, and in vitro/in vivo solubility in laying hens: a meta-analysis approach. Poultry Science 2022; 101(4): 101686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101686
  5. Wasti S, Sah N, Mishra B. Impact of heat stress on poultry health and performances, and potential mitigation strategies. Animals 2020; 10(8): 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10081266
  6. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, 9th revised edition. National Academy Press, 1994, Table 2-4 (nutrient requirements of Leghorn-type laying hens). https://doi.org/10.17226/2114
  7. Adhikari R, White D, House JD, Kim WK. Effects of additional dosage of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 on calcium and phosphorus utilization, egg quality and bone mineralization in laying hens. Poultry Science 2020; 99(1): 364–373. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez502
  8. Mabe I, Rapp C, Bain MM, Nys Y. Supplementation of a corn-soybean meal diet with manganese, copper, and zinc from organic or inorganic sources improves eggshell quality in aged laying hens. Poultry Science 2003; 82(12): 1903–1913. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.12.1903
  9. Saudi Food and Drug Authority. Technical Requirements for Feed Factories and Warehouses. 2025. https://www.sfda.gov.sa/sites/default/files/2025-04/TechnicalRequirementsFeedFactoriesWarehouses_0.pdf
Posted on

Imported feed grains, storage and mycotoxins: a practical guide for compound feed mills

Why imported grain matters

Across the Middle East and North Africa, imports were estimated to supply 74% of the grain used for animal feed over 2015–2020, with maize and barley the main feed grains [1]. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries combine high dependence on food imports with limited arable land and water scarcity [2]. In Saudi Arabia specifically, limited domestic production capacity means substantial imports of animal feed [3].

For a compound mill this means that the mycotoxin risk of a batch is set partly in a field thousands of kilometres away, then added to during the sea voyage, port handling and storage on site. Each stage can be managed, but only if the mill knows what it is looking for.

Field moulds and storage moulds

Grain fungi are commonly grouped into field fungi, which colonise the crop before harvest (mainly Fusarium and Alternaria), and storage fungi, mainly Aspergillus and Penicillium, which can increase during storage when conditions favour them [4]. The split is not absolute: storage fungi may be more common in the field at lower latitudes [4], and aflatoxin-producing fungi are found especially in hot, humid climates, with contamination arising both before and after harvest [5].

Most field fungi do not infect grain after harvest, although they can produce mycotoxins before or just after harvest [4]. Fusarium can keep growing if grain is not dried properly [13]. Aspergillus and Penicillium, which include the producers of aflatoxins and ochratoxin A, can multiply in storage [4][5][9]. So the Fusarium toxins (DON, zearalenone, fumonisins, T-2/HT-2) are mainly an origin and drying issue, while aflatoxins and ochratoxin A can also increase during the voyage and on site.

The main mycotoxins at a glance

Mycotoxin Main producing fungi Commodities most affected Main effects in livestock
Aflatoxin B1 Aspergillus flavus, A. parasiticus [5] Maize; peanuts and peanut products [12] Poultry: poorer performance, lower immunity, organ damage, reduced egg production [12]; suppressed cell-mediated immunity [5]. Dairy ruminants: aflatoxin M1 appears in milk [11].
Fumonisins (B1, B2) Fusarium verticillioides, F. proliferatum [6] Cereals, especially maize [6] EFSA judged the risk low for poultry and very low for ruminants [6]. Chickens: kidney damage, diarrhoea, reduced weight gain reported [12].
Deoxynivalenol (DON) Fusarium species [7] Wheat, barley, oats, rye and maize [7] Adverse effects not expected in ruminants or poultry at mean EU dietary levels [7]. At high dietary concentrations, EFSA saw a potential risk of chronic adverse effects in fish [7].
Zearalenone (ZEN) Fusarium species, particularly F. graminearum [8] Cereal grains [8] Oestrogenic. Effects on oestrous cycle in sheep reported [8]. Poultry regarded as quite tolerant [8].
Ochratoxin A (OTA) Penicillium verrucosum, Aspergillus ochraceus, A. carbonarius [9] Maize, wheat, barley, rye; in warmer regions A. ochraceus mainly on peanuts and soybeans [9] Kidney and liver damage, immunosuppression, poorer performance; monogastrics more susceptible than ruminants, whose rumen microbes largely detoxify OTA [9]. Considered the most important cause of poultry nephropathy [9].
T-2 and HT-2 toxins F. poae, F. sporotrichioides, F. langsethiae [11] Highest levels in oats and oat products [10] Poultry: immunosuppression and lesions (for example, spleen) reported [12]. Calves and lambs: gastrointestinal lesions at high exposure [11]. EFSA judged ruminant risk unlikely to be a concern and poultry risk low at estimated EU exposures [17].

Ruminants are generally less susceptible than monogastrics because rumen microbes can degrade, deactivate or bind several mycotoxins [11]. Aflatoxin needs particular care in dairy herds: in the rumen, aflatoxin B1 is converted to several metabolites including aflatoxin M1, which is found in milk [11].

Storage conditions that favour mould

The Codex Alimentarius code of practice for cereals gives internationally agreed guidance [13]:

  • Moisture: cereals should be dried to moisture levels below those that support mould growth in storage, “generally less than 15%”. The code’s annex on ochratoxin A goes further: grain should be dried to a moisture content corresponding to a water activity (aw) below 0.70, which it equates to less than 14% moisture in small grains [13].
  • Temperature: measure stored-grain temperature at fixed intervals. A rise of 2–3 °C may indicate microbial growth or insect infestation [13].
  • Aeration: where possible, aerate to keep temperatures uniform, and check moisture and temperature regularly [13].
  • Condensation: protect shipments from extra moisture and avoid temperature swings that cause condensation, which can lead to local moisture build-up and mould growth [13].
  • Insects and hygiene: use good housekeeping to keep insects and fungi down in storage [13].

These are cereal figures. Safe moisture differs by commodity and grain size, so oilseed meals such as soybean meal need their own specification. In Saudi Arabia, SFDA requires feed warehouses to have temperature and humidity gauges with records, adequate ventilation, measures against dripping or condensation, and temperature and humidity checks on incoming materials [14].

Regulatory limits

European Union: maximum levels (binding). Directive 2002/32/EC sets aflatoxin B1 limits in mg/kg relative to feed with a moisture content of 12% [15]:

Product Aflatoxin B1 (mg/kg, 12% moisture)
Feed materials 0.02
Complementary and complete feed 0.01
Compound feed for dairy cattle and calves, dairy sheep and lambs, dairy goats and kids, and young poultry 0.005
Compound feed for cattle (except dairy cattle and calves), sheep (except dairy sheep and lambs), goats (except dairy goats and kids) and poultry (except young animals) 0.02

Only the ruminant and poultry categories are shown; the Directive lists further categories.

Feed above a maximum level may not be mixed with other feed to dilute it [15].

European Union: guidance values. Commission Recommendation 2006/576/EC sets guidance values, also in mg/kg at 12% moisture [16]. Selected values for ruminants, poultry and fish, plus general cereal and compound-feed values:

Mycotoxin Product Guidance value (mg/kg, 12% moisture)
DON Cereals and cereal products (except maize by-products) 8
Maize by-products 12
Compound feed (general) 5
Compound feed for calves (< 4 months), lambs and kids 2
ZEN Cereals and cereal products (except maize by-products) 2
Maize by-products 3
Compound feed for calves, dairy cattle, sheep (including lambs) and goats (including kids) 0.5
OTA Cereals and cereal products 0.25
Compound feed for poultry 0.1
Fumonisins B1 + B2 Maize and maize products 60
Compound feed for fish 10
Compound feed for poultry, calves (< 4 months), lambs and kids 20
Compound feed for adult ruminants (> 4 months) and mink 50

The cereal values were set for the most tolerant species and are upper guidance values. For more sensitive species, the Recommendation expects manufacturers to apply lower values to cereals [16].

T-2 and HT-2. Recommendation 2013/165/EU sets indicative levels for the sum of T-2 and HT-2 in feed (relative to 12% moisture): 2,000 µg/kg (2 mg/kg) for oat milling products (husks), 500 µg/kg (0.5 mg/kg) for other cereal products, and 250 µg/kg (0.25 mg/kg) for compound feed other than cat feed [17]. These are triggers for investigation, not feed safety limits [17].

Saudi Arabia and the GCC. SFDA prohibits feed factories from accepting feed materials that exceed the maximum legislative limits approved by the Authority [14]. Two GCC technical regulations are relevant: GSO 193:2021, Contaminants and toxins in food and feed [18], and GSO 2814:2026, Contaminants and Toxins in Feed, approved on 30 April 2026 [19]. Both are sold documents and we could not check their full texts, so we do not quote numerical limits here. Mills should get the current texts from SFDA or GSO and build their acceptance criteria on them.

United Kingdom. Directive 2002/32/EC is EU law. Mills supplying Great Britain should confirm the current domestic requirements with the Food Standards Agency or Food Standards Scotland.

A practical checklist for mills

  1. Supplier specifications and certificates of analysis. Write mycotoxin limits into contracts, based on the destination market’s rules and your most sensitive species, and ask for certificates of analysis for each lot. SFDA prohibits raw materials of unknown origin [14].
  2. Representative sampling at intake. Mycotoxins are unevenly distributed. EU Regulation 152/2009, as amended, classes aflatoxins and other mycotoxins in feed materials as likely to be unevenly distributed and requires 2.5 times the usual number of incremental samples [20]. In Saudi Arabia, SFDA requires sampling according to GSO 999 and sample preparation according to GSO ISO 6498 [14].
  3. Rapid tests and laboratory confirmation. ELISA and lateral-flow strips are quick, low-cost screening tools; lateral-flow results can be read in 5–15 minutes [21]. Use HPLC or LC-MS/MS for confirmation and disputes. LC-MS can confirm identity and measure many mycotoxins at once [21]. SFDA requires in-house laboratories to follow the international standard on general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories (ISO/IEC 17025), and external laboratories to be licensed [14].
  4. Moisture and temperature control. Measure moisture and temperature at intake and reject material that is out of specification or shows damage or decay [14]. Hold cereals at or below the Codex moisture guidance [13].
  5. Silo hygiene and aeration. Keep storage areas clean and dry [13][14], aerate to keep temperatures uniform, and watch temperature trends for the 2–3 °C rise that can signal trouble [13].
  6. First in, first out. SFDA requires FIFO and FEFO stock rotation in warehouses and silos [14].
  7. Monitoring and records. Keep written self-monitoring plans for raw materials and finished feed, and retain reference samples for at least 180 days [14]. Record moisture, temperature and humidity [13].
  8. Where additives fit. The EU has a functional group of technological additives called “substances for reduction of the contamination of feed by mycotoxins”: substances that can suppress or reduce absorption, promote excretion of mycotoxins or modify their mode of action [22]. Products are commonly described as sorbents or binders (clays, for example) and as enzymes or micro-organisms that transform mycotoxins [11]. Each EU authorisation covers a named substance and sets its conditions of use. These additives must not be used as a way around maximum or guidance levels [22]. They add to good sourcing, storage and testing; they do not replace them.

If you would like to talk through mycotoxin risk management for your mill, contact BioSpec.

References

  1. Rahimi J, Smerald A, Moutahir H, Khorsandi M, Butterbach-Bahl K. The potential consequences of grain-trade disruption on food security in the Middle East and North Africa region. Frontiers in Nutrition 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2023.1239548
  2. Elzaki RM. Food Security–Climate Change–National Income Nexus: Insights from GCC Countries. Foods 2026. https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13025400
  3. Alnafissa M, Alotaibi BA, Aldawdahi N, Imran Azeem M, Muddassir M. Optimizing animal care through compound feed management in Saudi Arabia. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2024; 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1406715
  4. Mannaa M, Kim KD. Influence of temperature and water activity on deleterious fungi and mycotoxin production during grain storage. Mycobiology 2017; 45(4): 240–254. https://doi.org/10.5941/MYCO.2017.45.4.240
  5. EFSA CONTAM Panel. Risk assessment of aflatoxins in food. EFSA Journal 2020; 18(3): 6040. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6040
  6. EFSA CONTAM Panel. Risks for animal health related to the presence of fumonisins, their modified forms and hidden forms in feed. EFSA Journal 2018; 16(5): 5242. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5242
  7. EFSA CONTAM Panel. Risks to human and animal health related to the presence of deoxynivalenol and its acetylated and modified forms in food and feed. EFSA Journal 2017; 15(9): 4718. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4718
  8. EFSA CONTAM Panel. Risks for animal health related to the presence of zearalenone and its modified forms in feed. EFSA Journal 2017; 15(7): 4851. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4851
  9. EFSA CONTAM Panel. Risks for animal health related to the presence of ochratoxin A (OTA) in feed. EFSA Journal 2023; 21(11): 8375. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8375
  10. EFSA. Human and animal dietary exposure to T-2 and HT-2 toxin. EFSA Journal 2017; 15(8): 4972. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4972
  11. Gallo A, Giuberti G, Frisvad JC, Bertuzzi T, Nielsen KF. Review on mycotoxin issues in ruminants. Toxins 2015; 7(8): 3057–3111. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins7083057
  12. Ochieng PE, Scippo ML, Kemboi DC, Croubels S, Okoth S, et al. Mycotoxins in poultry feed and feed ingredients from Sub-Saharan Africa and their impact on the production of broiler and layer chickens: a review. Toxins 2021; 13(9): 633. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins13090633
  13. Codex Alimentarius. Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Mycotoxin Contamination in Cereals (CAC/RCP 51-2003), in FAO/WHO, Prevention and Reduction of Food and Feed Contamination, 1st edition, Rome 2012. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/1798500a-c71a-43a4-8010-a8c465e9a3e9/content
  14. Saudi Food and Drug Authority. Technical Requirements for Feed Factories and Warehouses. 2025. https://www.sfda.gov.sa/sites/default/files/2025-04/TechnicalRequirementsFeedFactoriesWarehouses_0.pdf
  15. Directive 2002/32/EC on undesirable substances in animal feed, consolidated version of 28 November 2019, Annex I Section II and Article 5. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02002L0032-20191128
  16. Commission Recommendation 2006/576/EC, consolidated version of 2 August 2016 (as amended by Recommendation (EU) 2016/1319). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006H0576-20160802
  17. Commission Recommendation 2013/165/EU on the presence of T-2 and HT-2 toxin in cereals and cereal products. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2013/165/oj
  18. GCC Standardization Organization. GSO 193:2021 Contaminants and toxins in food and feed (catalogue entry). https://www.gso.org.sa/store/standards/GSO:781074/GSO%20193:2021?lang=en
  19. GCC Standardization Organization. GSO 2814:2026 Contaminants and Toxins in Feed (catalogue entry). https://dgsm.gso.org.sa/store/standards/GSO:1080630/GSO%202814:2026?lang=en
  20. Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009, Annex I as replaced by Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2013, points 5.2 and 5.3. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/691/oj
  21. Singh J, Mehta A. Rapid and sensitive detection of mycotoxins by advanced and emerging analytical methods: a review. Food Science & Nutrition 2020; 8: 2183–2204. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.1474
  22. Commission Regulation (EC) No 386/2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 (new functional group of feed additives), recitals 2–3 and Article 1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/386/oj
Posted on

USDA opens the door to engineered biologics in poultry

On 29 September 2026, US animal health company BiomEdit announced that the USDA’s Center for Veterinary Biologics granted conditional licensure for CPerf LLV, an engineered probiotic strain designed to neutralise the Clostridium perfringens toxins (alpha toxin and NetB) behind necrotic enteritis in broilers.

Key points from the announcement:

  • Conditional licensure is based on safety and a “reasonable expectation of efficacy”; full licensure still requires more data.
  • BiomEdit reports that its pivotal study, reviewed by USDA CVB, showed necrotic enteritis-associated mortality falling from 13.1% in challenged controls to 6.6% in treated birds.
  • The company believes it is the first genetically engineered probiotic biologic licensed for any animal species worldwide.
  • Commercial evaluation has started with three major US poultry producers, covering more than 35 million broilers.

Why it matters

Necrotic enteritis is one of the most costly diseases in broiler production, and pressure to reduce antibiotic use is growing in every market we serve. Science has been producing new non-antibiotic tools for years, including engineered probiotics, bacteriophages and targeted antibodies. Very often the bottleneck is not the biology but the regulatory route to market. A national regulator creating a workable, conditional pathway for a genuinely new class of biologic is a significant step. It shows these technologies can be assessed, licensed and put into real production systems while the evidence base keeps growing.

For mills and nutrition teams, the practical message is that the toolkit for gut health without antibiotics is widening. We will keep following how regulators in Europe and the Gulf respond to this new class of products.

Read BiomEdit’s full announcement: BiomEdit press release (PR Newswire)

Posted on

Technical Feed Additives have an important place in modern agriculture

Poultry growth support

 

Dr Amit Kini

A feed additive is defined as products used in animal nutrition for purposes of improving the quality of feed and the quality of food from animal origin, or to improve the animal performance and health (EC, Animal feed). According to European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the feed additive categories can be divided into 5 main categories, which include; 1) Technological feed additives 2) Sensory feed additives 3) Nutritional feed additives 4) Zoo technical feed additives and 5) Coccidiostats & Histomonostats.These classifications are primarily dependant on functional areas of product categorisation. Immunological products also form a major part of new technological changes to develop the same, yet we would reserve this article to only feed additives. Also, we will refrain the article to mainly monogastric animals with few references to ruminants.
Successful feed additives have always been developed after understanding the need of the customers. In terms of development processes, feed additives can be classified into two categories; 1) Generic products and 2) Innovations.

The generic products originating from diverse categories spanning the pharmaceutical spectrum to nutraceuticals and the newly developed phytogenic origin molecules form a huge pile of alternatives. On the other hand, innovations are products originating from core research development and try to tackle the problem in a new way. Although it is important here to understand that Generic products commercially are no way less and even command more demand in certain markets. The recommended product development process can involve in vitro and in vivophases,which may have several critical control points depending on type of feed additive and its spectrum of usage. Recent trends have shown a divide in research-oriented feed additives developing companies who patent the new developments, which are eventually sold to mass producers. These bifurcations help in separating the marketing biases from core development indications.
Product development criteria are moving towards the health of the animal and diverging from attributes solely focusing on performance enhancement. Although, this change is seen more in developed markets, but is slowly being picked up by developing countries. The concepts of free range and slow growing broilers are univocal with such changes. Animal health was always an important parameter in animal production although in many ways masked by the need to have larger yields in animal produce. Owing to multiple issues pertaining to antibiotic resistance, cruelty on animal, import regulations and improved regulatory norms the producers have shown a shift to develop feed additives for preventive health rather than focus on curative solutions. Looking from a systemic perspective Gut health is now a major driving force for new developments. Categories included revolve around novel probiotic strains and plant origin phytogenic actives which are forming a well-known niche in the market. Along with health, finding a cheap protein has been major need for research. Using insect protein sources is establishing well, but only in certain markets. Using alternative plant proteins like Lupins,algae and grain by products have been used for formulating cheap, seasonal and supply dependant feed formulations.
Intestinal health in poultry and other Livestock directly relates to clean animal produce. Novel feed additive needs are the current market demand to reduce intestinal stress in fast growing birds. Research on understanding the microbial diversity and probiotic enrichment with specific strains form a major part of the evaluation. Study of surface charges (Zeta potential) and its inference also marks a new trend in understanding gut interactionsand effect of different antibacterial agents on pathological bacteria(Kurinčićet al.,2016). Utilization of feed enzymes for altering gut viscosity and reducing lower intestinal infection form a major priority today in feed formulations. Recently, gut mucins have come into the picture as an important component to provide barrier protection and prevent intestinal diseases (Cao et al., 2012). As in most cases cues for

this development where taken from studying human prognosis and treatment of disease. Specifically, inflammatory bowel disease affecting a large population lead researches to understand mucin differentiation in human gut. Association of mucin with campylobacter colonization of poultry gut and necrotic enteritis affections with coccidia mediated gut inflammation proved the role of mucin in preventing barrier breach of the intestinal epithelial cells(Alemkaet al.,2010) The recent restrictionson ionophore anti-coccidials has aggravated the same condition.Cost saving strategies and supply strains have led to use of alternative feed ingredients (Fig 2.), many of these ingredients require a new feed additive category to be used simultaneously to fit the nutritional matrix. Australian sweet Lupins form one such example where Soybean meal prices regulate its use in animal feed (Jerochet al.,2016). Presence non-starch polysaccharide (NSP)content in Lupins warrants the simultaneous use of NSP degrading enzymes as digestibility enhancers.
The marketing and sale regulations in various developed markets, make it imperative that the additive is passed through an intense product efficacy check pipeline. Recently, the focus on environment health has led to a more stringent in development regulation for potentials of bioaccumulation. Implementation of organic certified feed additives is one such avenue that needs further investigation. Use of fossil fuels as a source of feed additive manufacturing has its consequence of reduced sustainability and immense price variations. The amino acid DL-methionine fits this case, where the industry was actively

searching for alternatives. Development of L-methionine from microbial source is a result of the changing industry outlook.Usage of by-products of food industry or sustainable renewable resources that will leave the least of carbon foot print is in trend. Feed additives containing sea weed, paper industry by-products and bakery yeast cultivation waste are few categories already implemented widely. The researchers are finding the most cost-effective ways to efficiently divert waste of one industry to be used as an efficacious and value for money raw material for the animal industry.
Newer techniques, such as lipid encapsulation, nano-emulsification and bioavailability enhancement by ligand mediated transport have also emerged as mechanism to improve feed additive performance and stability. Vitamin and mineral nutrition seeking stability enhancements in vitamin C supplementation has beentackled in Aqua industry by using encapsulation techniques. Organic minerals claim an improved bioavailability by ligand bound moieties or yeast enriched varieties. New trends in human nutrition use a differentiation of ‘true’ organic minerals versus ligand bound chelated mineral supplements. BLK water is one such specialized bottled drinking water for human consumption, claiming effects via 77 organic minerals present in a natural complex. Such innovations form an ideal bridge between the human and animal supplements. Many natural phytogenic sources claiming an anti-inflammatory potential solely depend on the antioxidant value of actives. Hence seasonal variations, post extraction stability and true efficacy potentials raise many questions on field usage of the such feed additives. Knowledge oftrue analytical standards for these feed additives form an important phase of development. Consequently, following norms such as FAMI-QS, cGMP, OSHA and ISO equivalence at the development level helps easier dossier formation and market acceptability.
Future developments in feed additives will warrant an alliance with biosecurity products used in the farm and structural enhancements made to animal houses(Fig. 3) that need new application methods for feed additives. Aerosol nutrition, nano-bots and imaging techniques which are currently too costly to be used for preventive measures in the animal industry, need to be implemented well. Nutritional programming of young animals, eradication of fungal toxins, functional enrichment of animal produce, improved shelf life of dairy and poultry produce and testing the efficacy of feed additives by using novel gold standard tests, mark new avenues for feed additive research. An ideal feed additive is the one which clearly and consistently addresses the need of animal industry and provides this solution with use of the most eco-sustainable resources. Its efficacy needs to be repeatedly proved in the field with a reproducible mechanism of actions and

its quality is measurable by standard, easily accessible lab instruments. This additive should have significant impact on quality animal produce and should do this using the least of monetary surplus at the farmer level. To reach this point of win-win for everyone, our manufacturers of feed additives should actively work together with our farmers to understand their critical current and future needs (Fig. 4). These needs will eventually drive the new developments in feed additives.
References are available upon request.