Marys Medicine

Avianadvice_su07.indd

Summer 2007 • Volume 9 no. 2 Cooperative Extension Service by Vijay Durairaj and Dustan Clark, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas intestinal parasites (especially round The disease necrotic enteritis was first worms); and immune suppression by mold page 3 described in chickens in England in 1961
toxins (mycotoxins), chicken anemia virus, Applied Broiler and since that time has been reported in
Gumboro disease or Marek's disease have all Research Farm Report: the majority of countries around the world.
been specifically linked to the disease. Electricity Usage Before Necrotic enteritis has been identified in
and After Remodel
broilers, laying hens, turkeys and quail. Necrotic enteritis has been estimated to affect Necrotic enteritis is commonly seen in up to 40% of the commercial broiler flocks 2-to 5-week old broiler chickens raised on page 5 and is believed to cost the industry about 5¢
litter and in 7-to 12-week-old turkeys. At Understanding and per broiler in the United States (McDevitt et
times, the only symptom the clinical (severe) Control of House al, 2006).
disease is the rapid and unexplained death of Sparrows
(Passer domesticus) Cause
When symptoms such as severe by Frank T. Jones Necrotic enteritis is caused by toxins depression, decreased appetite, dark colored produced by Clostridium perfringens as diarrhea, closed eyes or ruffled feathers it grows in the intestinal tract of birds. appear they are often short-lived because Clostridium perfringens is a bacterium that birds die rapidly. Dead birds appear grows under anaerobic conditions (in the dehydrated and seem to rot very quickly from absence of oxygen) and produces spores that are highly resistant to drying, heat, acid When dead birds are opened it may and other harsh conditions. The spores appear that the bird has coccidiosis, but the produced by this organism are commonly intestines are ballooned with gas, fragile and found in water, soil, feed, manure and other contain a foul-smelling brown fluid. Early environmental sources. in the disease intestines may contain ulcers Although, small numbers of Clostridium or light yellow spots on the surface. Later in perfringens are also commonly found in the the disease the interior surface of intestines intestinal tract of healthy broilers, they do not may contain what seems to be a tan to yellow cause disease. Under normal conditions the colored membrane that is often said to "good bacteria" in the intestinal tract keep the resemble a "Turkish towel." Clostridium perfringens population small in The disease will linger in the flock for 5 to 10 days, causing 2 to 50% mortality However, when conditions change in (Merck Veterinary Manual, 1998).
the intestinal tract, Clostridium perfringens While symptoms of the clinical (severe) numbers increase, toxins are produced and the form of necrotic enteritis are fairly easy to disease appears. recognize, the sub-clinical (mild) form of the While anything that causes intestinal irritation can lead to necrotic enteritis, stress; intestinal disease (particularly coccidiosis); NECROTIC — continued on page 2 . . helping ensure the efficient production of top quality poultry products in Arkansas and beyond.
The Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service offers its programs to all eligible persons regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability, and is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
NECROTIC — continued from page 1 disease is not so easily recognized. Birds with mild necrotic are not present, moldy feed is unpalatable and contains fewer enteritis may simply look like they don't feel good and/or may nutrients that fresh feed. Hence, it is important to ensure that gain or perform poorly (Kaldhusdal and Lovland, 2002). Yet, feed handling and storage equipment is properly maintained.
scientists believe that the mild form of necrotic enteritis has Rodents and wild birds (vermin) are often found to a much greater impact on flock performance and profitability transmit disease organisms and parasites. Since, such than the severe form.
microbes and pests can either cause disease or stress in the flock, it is imperative that these vermin be controlled.
Prevention, Control and Treatment
Intestinal damage from the disease coccidiosis can easily Antibiotics such as bacitracin, penicillin or lincomycin allow an "opening" for necrotic enteritis to develop. Thus, can be used to treat the necrotic enteritis, but it is often it is extremely important to ensure that coccidiosis does not impossible to effectively use antibiotics since the disease develop in the flock. While all poultry companies maintain progresses so rapidly and the toxins involved produce coccidiosis control programs, inadequate management irreversible intestinal damage. Thus, it is most often easier to practices can threaten these programs.
prevent necrotic enteritis rather than treat it. Unfortunately, it Perhaps, the most important management practice is not always possible to address every situation that may lead involved in the control of necrotic enteritis is the regular to the onset of the disease. Still, in view of the performance collection and disposal of the dead. If the dead are not and economic issues involved, it is important to address all the frequently collected, the cannibalism will occur, exposing issues possible, including: keeping bird stress to a minimum, other birds to large number of Clostridium perfringens, maintaining feed storage and delivery systems, vermin control spreading the disease.
and coccidiosis control.
Any factor that causes stress in the bird can alter the intestinal environment, allowing Clostridium perfringens Kaldhusdal, M. and A. Lovland. 2002. Clostridial to grow and produce toxin. While stress can come from necrotic enteritis and cholangiohepatitis. Proc. The Elanco innumerable sources, the proper set-up and management of Global Enteritis Symposium, July 9-11, 2002 at http://www.
poultry house environment is the most obvious method of controlling stress.
Since it provides the power and raw materials required McDevitt, R. M., J. D. Brooker, T. Acamovic and N. H. for the bird to grow, it is also important to properly handle C. Sparks. 2006. Necrotic enteritis; a continuing challenge for feed. Feed that has been allowed to become old, damp or wet the poultry industry. World's Poultry Sci. J. 62:221-247.
will encourage mold growth and possibly toxin (mycotoxin) Merck Veterinary Manual. 1998. Necrotic enteritis. http:// production and should not be used. Almost all mycotoxins reduce disease immunity in the bird and certain mycotoxins bc/201200.htm visited 5/18/07.
are known to irritate the intestinal tract. Even if mycotoxins CHECKING THINGS OVER - Dr. Dustan Clark, poultry veterinarian at the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, does a routine check of a bird.
AVIAN Advice • Summer 2007 • Vol. 9, No. 2

G. Tom Tabler, Manager, Applied Broiler Research Unit - Savoy Center of Excellence for Poultry Science • University of Arkansas Applied Broiler Research Farm
Report: Electricity Usage Before
and After Renovation
The Applied Broiler Research Farm (ABRF) is a 4-house commercial scale broiler farm owned by the University of Arkansas with research capabilities that include the close monitoring of total electricity usage and the individual electricity usage of each house. The farm was constructed in 1990 and completely renovated in early 2006, with resumption of growing broilers in April 2006. This is the second of a planned series of "before and after" reports on ABRF performance in various areas.
Electricity Usage

The ABRF has electric meters on each broiler house that allows electricity usage to be closely monitored on the farm. Electric meters are read weekly and usage has been calculated for each of the 92 flocks of broilers raised on the farm since 1990. As expected, electricity usage is always much greater in the summer when tunnel fans and cool cells are running much of the time as opposed to the winter season when minimum ventilation is used. Total electricity usage by flock for the period 2001-2006 is listed in Table 1. During the period 2001-2004, the farm raised 6 flocks of broilers per year. In general, flocks were placed in the months of January, March, May, July, September, and November. There were no flocks placed in November 2005, January 2006, or March 2006 because the farm was shut down for renovations.
Table 1. Electricity usage (kilowatt hours) at the Applied Broiler Research Farm (2001-6).
Placement
Electricity usage increased for each flock in 2006 compared to the average of the previous 5 years. This was expected because there is no longer natural ventilation available since curtains were replaced by solid sidewalls on all 4 houses. Mechani-cal ventilation (either sidewall or tunnel fans) is now the only method of air exchange. In addition, there is also no natural light available after renovations. All lighting is now with artificial light (light bulbs), which requires additional electricity, compared to ELECTRICITY — continued on page 4 AVIAN Advice • Summer 2007 • Vol. 9, No. 2 ELECTRICITY— continued from page 3 the period before renovations when natural lighting available periods. Also, an experimental litter burning furnace was during the day. We are currently investigating the use of cold installed at that house which used additional electricity that cathode lighting in one house which may have the potential could not be separated from house electricity. After reno- for substantial energy savings over more typical incandescent vations, and during 2006, electricity usage was similar for lighting and, unlike fluorescent lighting; cold cathode bulbs houses 2, 3, and 4. Usage was somewhat higher in house 1 are easily dimmable. These efforts will be reported at a later due, in part, to the experimental litter burning furnace. Aside from the experimental furnace at house 1, renova- Even though electricity usage has increased versus before tions have made all 4 houses quite similar in design and (as renovations, that may not be as bad as it sounds. While the illustrated by Figure 2) houses were similar electricity usage solid sidewalls have increased electricity usage, if those same during 2006, especially in houses 2, 3, and 4. Again, only a solid sidewalls can save enough fuel (propane), the farm is partial year (8 months) is included in the 2006 data. In the better off in the long run. When the farm was built, electric- future, more data collection will provide a better understand- ity costs were roughly $0.05 per kilowatt hour and propane ing of actual yearly usage. cost $0.52 cents per gallon. Electricity costs are now roughly $0.06 per kilowatt hour while propane costs are roughly Figure 2. Electricity usage by house at the ABRF (2001-6).
$1.35 to 1.50 per gallon. As you can see, electricity costs are roughly the same now as when the farm was originally built in 1990, but, propane costs have roughly tripled. Therefore, the farm can afford to use several extra kilowatt hours of electric-ity and still be ahead if it can save on propane use. Kilowatt hours: Total and by individual house

Figure 1 illustrates the total kilowatt hours used on the farm from 2001 through 2006. During the 6 flocks per year in 2001 through 2004 and 5 flocks in 2005 before renovations, the farm had never used more than 76,500 kilowatt hours in a single year. However, in 2006, during which time only 4 flocks were grown after renovations were complete; the farm used almost 91,000 kilowatt hours. This figure will be consid-erable higher in the future when a full year's worth of produc-tion is calculated vs. the 8 months worth of production shown here. Again however, it may be possible to compensate for this greater kilowatt hour usage with increased fuel savings. This is something we will continue to investigate.
Electricity usage was higher after the renovations than before. This was expected and is due, in part, to solid sidewall Figure 1. Total kilowatt hours of electricty used (by year)
construction, loss of natural daylight as a light source, and an at the Applied Broiler Research Farm (2001-6).
increase in mechanical ventilation throughout the year. How-ever, if the solid sidewall construction and an overall tighter house save enough on the fuel bill, the increase in electricity usage will be more than offset by increased fuel savings be-cause propane is much more expensive than electricity at the present time. Data collection will continue on both propane and electricity usage and will be disseminated to provide producers a better "before and after" assessment of the value of renovations at the ABRF. Figure 2 indicates the kilowatt hour usage by individual house for the period 2001 to 2006. During most years, house 1 used the most kilowatt hours. This was due (among other things) to the stir fans and jet tubes were used to distribute hot air off the ceiling back down toward the floor during winter AVIAN Advice • Summer 2007 • Vol. 9, No. 2

Frank T. Jones, Center of Excellence for Poultry Science • University of Arkansas Understanding and Control
of House Sparrows
House Sparrow History and Invasion Tactics
brain usually accounts for about 4.3% of the body weight of In the 1800's attempts were made to introduce a number sparrows, which is considerable more than those of other birds. of European avian species to the United States. Few of these species survived, but the house sparrow (which will be re- House Sparrow Biology
ferred to as a sparrow in the rest of the article) is an exception Sparrows (pictured above) are generally about 5.75 (Van Vleck, 1994). In the 1850's the sparrow was introduced inches in total length and have brown plumage. Sexually ma- into New York City's Central Park to eliminate the destruc- ture males have a black striped back, gray on the crown of the tion of trees by inch worms (Eno, 1996). Other introductions head and a characteristic black "bib" or stripe on their throat. were made by homesick European immigrants who wanted a Females and young are brown with striped backs and a pale reminder of their homelands (Kern, 2001). Following intro- tan "eye brow" or stripe over their eyes (Kern, 2001).
duction, sparrow numbers increased rapidly, making them now Sparrows tend to be "home bodies," spending their entire one of the most common birds in North America (Zimmerman, life 2 to 3 miles from their roosts and feeding sites (Casto, 2005). Sparrows are found in nearly every locale except dense 2001). Plant materials (grain, fruit, seeds and garden plants) forests, alpine habitats and desert environments. Sparrow make up 96% of the adult diet but young are fed insects until numbers have been estimated at 150 million (Zimmerman, they are almost grown (Fitzwater, 1994a; Kern, 2001). How- 2007). However, sparrow numbers have fallen from their peak ever, sparrows are known to eat more than 830 foods and com- in the 1920's, when food and waste from horses furnished an monly use the same nesting site year after year (Casto, 2001). unlimited supply of food (Fitzwater, 1994a).
Nests of sparrows are usually an untidy mass of dried Nevertheless, sparrows have adapted to life in close grass, leaves, pine straw, string, paper and feathers, usually po- association with humans using following characteristics to sitioned 8-30 feet off the ground for protection from predators successfully invade the United States and other countries: (Kern, 2001; Zimmerman, 2005). Nesting sites are usually rapid reproduction; effective dispersal mechanisms; rapid, claimed by the males in mid to late winter, prior to courtship easy establishment; rapid growth and aggressive competition in late winter or early spring (Eno, 1996). Both males and with other species (Zimmerman, 2007). One pair of spar- females participate in nest building, but females supply the rows can produce up to 20 chicks per breeding season. While majority of construction activity. Nest building may begin unlikely, this means that one pair could potentially increase to just a few days before the first egg (Zimmerman, 2005). About 1,250 birds in 5 years. Sparrows are not exposed to the rigors 90% of adults stay within a radius of 1.25 mi during nesting and mortality associated with migration. Sparrows simply fly (Fitzwater, 1994a). a few miles from the nest to take advantage of the nesting sites Sparrows are monogamous, but appear more closely and food sources available. This steady progressing has effec- bonded to a nest site than a mate. Males spend 60% of their tively dispersed sparrow populations throughout the country. perching time at nesting sites during breeding season. Males House sparrows are not finicky eaters or picky about nesting with wide bib sizes mate more often than those with narrower sites. They will consume virtually any food that is available bibs, and aggressively defend nest sites mostly from other and readily build nests near other bird species. House spar- male sparrows (Zimmerman, 2005).
rows also quickly build nests 8 to 30 feet from the ground and Egg laying starts in March or April usually with 3 to 4 reuse them each year. In addition, sparrows tend to feed in clutches of an average of 5 speckled white eggs. Studies have small flocks to avoid predation. It takes only 25 to 30 days shown that in a suburban setting 67% of house sparrow eggs from the time house sparrow eggs are laid to produce an inde- were infected with E. coli pathogenic to avian species (Pi- pendent juvenile and sexual maturity comes in 6 to 9 months. nowski et al., 1994).
Additionally, house sparrows aggressively defend both nesting Eggs are incubated by both males and females for 10-16 and feeding sites, destroying eggs and injuring or killing other days and the young remain in the nest about 15 days (Casto, competitive species. House sparrows are persistent, resource- 2001; Kern, 2001). Females take the primary responsibility ful and intelligent. In fact, Fitzwater (1994b) reports that the SPARROWS — continued on page 6 AVIAN Advice • Summer 2007 • Vol. 9, No. 2 for raising nestlings, visiting the young 15-19 times per hour, cloth, and attaching signs flat against buildings can assist in but both parents feed young by regurgitation. Fledglings are control of sparrows. It is also important to cover any source of able to feed themselves 7-10 days after leaving the nest. After grain or food to prevent access by sparrows.
fledging, birds may wander 0.6 – 1.2 mi to find new feeding areas (Zimmerman, 2005).
Predators, disease and stress cause heavy sparrow mortal- There are two general types of sparrow repellant systems: ity during the first year of life and few birds survive past the tactile and sound repellants. Tactile repellants are those that fifth season, but the typical lifespan of 3 years is relatively are placed on roosting or nesting surfaces to discourage spar- long in comparison to other species. However, individual row activity. Unfortunately tactile repellants (such as electri- birds have been found to live up to 11 years in the wild (Casto, fied wire, porcupine wire or sticky substances) are generally 2001; Fitzwater, 1994a, Zimmerman, 2007).
more effective against pigeons than sparrows. Sound repel-lants (such as loud noises from fireworks or firearms; ultrason- Concerns about House Sparrows
ic devices or recorded distress calls) may discourage sparrows House sparrows are often hated by bird lovers and some for a time, but usually they learn to ignore the sounds (Fitzwa- call them "flying rats" or "weeds of the air." Bluebird and ter, 1994a; Kern, 2001).
purple martin lovers are particularly venomous toward house sparrows because they effectively (sometimes brutally) com- pete for nesting and feeding sites (Van Vleck, 1994). Poisons used to control sparrow populations are restricted use pesticides that are regulated by both federal and state laws. Sparrows have also been reported to carry:
Considerable skill is required to ensure that these poisons 1. Bacterial diseases that can affect both humans and ani- do not affect humans. The use of poisons will also require mals like salmonellosis (Whitney, 2004) and perhaps anthrax; considerable study of sparrow nesting, roosting and feeding 2. Mycoplasma diseases including such as Mycoplasma sites and can have very serious unintended consequences. gallisepticum (MG), which is pathogenic to many avian spe- Remember that most bird species are legally protected by state cies (including poultry); laws, federal laws and international treaties. The person using 3. Protozoan diseases such as sarcosporidiosis, and coc- poisons as a control method is legally responsible for the con- cidiosis, which affect primarily animals as well as toxoplas- sequences (intended or not). In addition, poisons that affect mosis, and chlamydiosis (psittacosis) which are maladies in sparrows may have similar affect on poultry species and/or both humans and animals could produce residues in poultry products.
4. Viral diseases such as West Nile Virus, Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE), Western Equine Enchephalitis (WEE), St. Louis Encephalitis, and Venezuelan Encephalitis which infect While trapping of sparrows is often more labor intensive humans and animals via mosquitos; Poultry diseases such as and expensive than other control methods, trapping can ef- Newcastle disease or fowl pox and TGE in swine; fectively reduce sparrow populations. In addition, since most 5. Internal parasites such as round worms, tape worms, traps are live traps, if birds other than sparrows are caught, they can be quickly released. Yet, no matter what trap is used, 6. External parasites such as fleas, ticks, mites (including the secret to trapping is to put out bait (pre-bait) about a week the northern fowl mite), bed bugs and lice. before setting traps (Kern, 2001). It is also important to use External parasite populations are readily propagated the right bait. Fitzwater (1994b) developed the data in Table by sparrow populations since nests are unkempt and reused 1, which show that sparrows preferentially consume white (Kern, 2001; Fitzwater, 1994a; Zimmerman, 2005). In addi- millet, corn cracked to 1/16 to 4/16 inch in size or whole milo.
tion, nesting materials may cause fire hazards when construct-ed near lights or other heat sources (Kern, 2001).
Table. 1. Preference shown by sparrows for eight candidate
Sparrow Control Methods

Although sparrows are a nuisance as well as spreading Materials taken in 24hrs
disease organisms and parasites, their close association with humans limits safe alternatives for control. However, control Grams taken
Percent of total
methods can be divided into the following seven categories: exclusion, repellants, poisons, trapping, shooting, nest destruc- tion and predators (Fitzwater, 1994a).
Since sparrows are intelligent, hardy and adaptable, total exclusion is virtually impossible. In addition, exclusion efforts must be sustained over long periods to be effective. Nevertheless, closing all openings of 0.75 inches or larger, covering large openings (such as under eaves) with hardware AVIAN Advice • Summer 2007 • Vol. 9, No. 2 discourage birds from building. However, sparrows are persis- Materials taken in 24hrs
tent and nest removal must be repeated every two weeks during Grams taken
Percent of total
breeding season. Long insulated poles may be used to remove nests from high places and destroyed to prevent reuse. In addi- tion, nesting materials may be infested with external parasites (especially mites) and infected with disease organisms.
1 Adapted from Fitzwater (1994b) There are more types of traps available for sparrows than Both cats and sparrows often live in symbiotic relation- for any other bird, making it impractical to attempt to describe ships with humans. One farmer used scrap lumber to build cat every model (Fitzwater, 1994a). Still there are a few general walks between exposed rafters where sparrows usually roosted types of traps, each of which have pluses and minuses.
or nested. These makeshift walks, allowed farm cats access to Funnel or drop-in traps are the most common type of locations where sparrows usually roosted or nested and resulted sparrow trap and can accommodate a sizable number of birds. in a reduction of the resident house sparrow population by 80% Funnel traps employ a funnel or trough shaped entrance that over the course of a year. allows sparrows to easily pass through the large end into the trap, but the small end inside the trap discourages exits. Fun- nel traps can capture relatively large numbers of sparrows, but House sparrows are not native to the United States and in they can also escape with relative ease. Therefore, it is impor- most cases are not protected by federal or state laws. House tant to frequently check funnel type traps (Fitzwater, 1994a; sparrows are intelligent, persistent and resourceful. However, house sparrows can destroy insulation, cause fire hazards with Although there are numerous design variations; auto- nesting materials as well as spread disease and parasites. Con- matic, counter balanced, or elevator traps that allow a spar- trol of house sparrows may be accomplished through exclu- row to enter an enclosed compartment attached to the end of sion, repellants, poisons, trapping, shooting, nest destruction a holding cage. The sparrow enters to get the bait, which is and predators (e.g. cats). However, control efforts must be on a small box inside the compartment. The box is enclosed consistent, diverse and organized. In addition, it is important to on two sides with the entrance to the cage below. The shelf keep in mind that control efforts should not compromise flock or box is attached to the end of rod or narrow thin board that performance or produce residues in poultry meat or eggs.
pivots around a fulcrum in the center, similar to a see-saw. A counter weight balances the box, and as the sparrow con- sumes the bait, its weight causes the rod (or see-saw) to tip Casto, S. D. 2001. House Sparrow. The Online Handbook downward closing off the original entrance and, when the rod reaches the bottom, exposing the entrance to the holding cage. HH/tbh2_print.html visited 1/30/07 The sparrow enters the holding cage and the counter weight Eno, S. 1996. House Sparrows. http://audubon-omaha.
returns the box to its original position. Elevator traps tend org/bbbox/ban/hsbyse.htm visited 2/1/07 to catch fewer birds than funnel traps, but the birds that are Fitzwater, W. D. 1994a. House Sparrows. In: Prevention caught generally do not escape (Fitzwater, 1994a). and Control of Wildlife Damage, Eds, S. E. Hygnsrom, R. M. Triggered traps are snares that generally catch one spar- Timm and F. E. Larson, U of Nebraska-Lincoln 2 vol http:// row at a time and usually involve a spring operated door or closure. Sparrows enter the trap, trigger the closing of the ROWS.PDF visited 1/30/07 door and are trapped. Obviously this type of trap catches only Fitzwater, W. D. 1994b. Outwitting the house sparrow one or maybe two sparrows at a time. Thus, such traps are not suited for controlling large populations, but may be effective chapters/pdf/5gpfitzwater.pdf visited 1/18/07 against a few persistent individual birds.
Kern, W. H. Jr. 2001. House or English Sparrow. Univer- sity of Florida IFAS pub no SSWEC119 Shooting with firearms
Pinowski, J., M. Barkowska, A. H. Kruszewicz and A. Since rifle slugs can travel over a mile and penetrate tin, G. Kruszewicz. 1994. The causes of the mortality of eggs and drywall, plywood or other such materials, it may be wise to nestlings of Passer spp. J. Biosci. 19(4):441-451 use air guns, a 410 gauge shotgun with a no. 10 to 12 size shot Van Vleck, R and D. Van Vleck .1994. The house spar- or a 22 rifle with rat shot. Such weapons may be an effective row in America. Home Ground. http://wwww.americanartifacts.
method of controlling a few sparrows in a relatively small com/smma/per/spar1.htm visited 2/1/07 area, but are ineffective at controlling large numbers of birds. Whitney, H. 2004. Salmonella in Songbirds. Government Furthermore, such weapons can become increasingly ineffec- of Newfoundland and Labrador Dept of Natural Resources Pub. tive when sparrows become wary.
AP033, July 27, 2004.
Zimmerman, E. A. 2005. House Sparrow Biology. http:// www.sialis.org/hospbio.htm visited 1/18/07 Sparrow populations will continue to increase if nests are Zimmerman, E. A. 2007. House Sparrow History. http:// allowed to remain. Removal of nests, eggs and young tends to www.sialis.org/hosphistory.htm Visited 2/6/07 AVIAN Advice • Summer 2007 • Vol. 9, No. 2

Write Extension Specialists, except Jerry Wooley, at: Center of Excellence UA Poultry Science for Poultry Science University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701 Extension Faculty Dr. R. Keith Bramwell, Extension Reproductive Physiologist, attended Brigham Young University where he received
his B.S. in Animal Science in 1989. He then attended the University of Georgia from 1989 to 1995 where he received both his M.S. and Ph.D. in Poultry Science. As part of his graduate program, he developed the sperm penetration assay, which is still in use today, as both a research tool and as a practical troubleshooting instrument for the poultry industry. He then spent one year studying in the Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology Lab at Colorado State University. In 1996, Bramwell returned to the University of Georgia as an Assistant Professor and Extension Poultry Scientist. Dr. Bramwell joined the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science at the University of Arkansas as an Extension Poultry Specialist in the fall of 2000. His main areas of research and study are regarding the many factors (both management and physiological) that influence fertility and embryonic mortality in broiler breeders. Telephone: 479-575-7036, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Dustan Clark, Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian, earned his D.V.M. from Texas A&M University. He then
practiced in Texas before entering a residency program in avian medicine at the University of California Veterinary School at Davis. After his residency, he returned to Texas A&M University and received his M.S. and Ph.D. Dr. Clark was director of the Utah State University Provo Branch Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory prior to joining the Poultry Science faculty at the University of Arkansas in 1994. Dr. Clarkʼs research interests include reoviruses, rotaviruses and avian diagnostics. He is also responsible for working with the poultry industry on biosecurity, disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention.
Telephone: 479-575-4375, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Frank Jones, Extension Section Leader, received his B.S. from the University of Florida and earned his M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees from the University of Kentucky. Fol owing completion of his degrees Dr. Jones developed a feed quality assurance extension program which assisted poultry companies with the economical production of high quality feeds at North Carolina State University. His research interests include pre-harvest food safety, poultry feed production, prevention of mycotoxin contamination in poultry feeds and the efficient processing and cooling of commercial eggs. Dr. Jones joined the Center of Excellence in Poultry Science as Extension Section Leader in 1997. Telephone: 479-575-5443, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: [email protected] Dr. John Marcy, Extension Food Scientist, received his B.S. from the University of Tennessee and his M.S. and Ph.D.
from Iowa State University. After graduation, he worked in the poultry industry in production management and quality assurance for Swift & Co. and Jerome Foods and later became Director of Quality Control of Portion-Trol Foods. He was an Assistant Professor/Extension Food Scientist at Virginia Tech prior to joining the Center of Excel ence for Poultry Science at the University of Arkansas in 1993. His research interests are poultry processing, meat microbiology and food safety. Dr. Marcy does educational programming with Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), sanitation and microbiology for processing personnel. Telephone: 479-575-2211, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Susan Watkins, Extension Poultry Specialist, received her B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Arkansas.
She served as a quality control supervisor and field service person for Mahard Egg Farm in Prosper, Texas, and became an Extension Poultry Specialist in 1996. Dr. Watkins has focused on bird nutrition and management issues. She has worked to identify economical alternative sources of bedding material for the poultry industry and has evaluated litter treatments for improving the environment of the bird. Research areas also include evaluation of feed additives and feed ingredients on the performance of birds. She also is the departmental coordinator of the internship program.
Telephone: 479-575-7902, FAX: 479-575-8775, E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Jerry Wooley, Extension Poultry Specialist, served as a county 4-H agent for Conway County and County Extension
Agent Agriculture Community Development Leader in Crawford County before assuming his present position. He has major responsibility in the Arkansas Youth Poultry Program and helps young people, parents, 4-H leaders and teachers to become aware of the opportunities in poultry science at the U of A and the integrated poultry industry. He helps compile annual figures of the stateʼs poultry production by counties and serves as the superintendent of poultry at the Arkansas State Fair. Mr. Wooley is chairman of the 4-H Broiler show and the BBQ activity at the annual Arkansas Poultry Festival.
Address: Cooperative Extension Service, 2301 S. University Ave., P.O. Box 391, Little Rock, AR 72203 AVIAN Advice • Summer 2007 • Vol. 9, No. 2

Source: http://www.avianadvice.uark.edu/AA%20PDFs/avianadvice_su07.pdf