Copyright © 2010 SCD Probiotics
Table of Contents
Introduction ………………………… 3
EM: Historical, Technical and Theoretical Background ………………………… 4
The Odor Problem in Poultry Production ………………………… 7
Conventional Odor Control Methods ………………………… 9
EM for Odor Control …………………………11
Disease Prevention in Poultry Production …………………………14
EM for Disease Prevention …………………………15
EM for Control of Pathogenic Microorganisms …………………………17
Bird Performance Improvement with EM Waste Treatment …………………………19
Poultry Litter Management with EM Waste …………………………21
Bibliography …………………………22
Introduction
This manual and literature review was originally completed in 1999. The
Introduction, Background and various product naming throughout have been updated in
2009, but the literature review has not been updated. There are many more research
articles and case studies, some published and unpublished, after 1999 and are not
included here.
This manual was created to explain the fundamental concepts and background of
SCD Probiotics Technology for the poultry industry. SCD Probiotics Technology has
been developed on a consortia technology platform known generically as “effective
microorganisms” or “EM”. The basic theories and scientific data about EM were used to
develop unique and proprietary consortia probiotic products known as SCD Probiotics.
This is a review of historical data about EM. Based on a technology platform developed
in Japan over thirty years ago, SCD Probiotics’ research and development team has
spent the last ten years refining the process, using a selected number of microbial strains
in consortia (co-growth environment) to produce a variety of proprietary, probiotic
products. Matthew Wood founded SCD Probiotics in 1998 after extensive study in the
science of EM. This manual explains what EM offers and a comprehensive evaluation of
the theoretical basis for and previous scientific research of EM in poultry production.
Because every region and management system is different, a basic experimental design is
included in this manual as a guideline for researching the best rates, frequency and
methods of application for unique circumstances. Laboratory and field trials have shown
very good results when using EM for health, performance, disease control, odor control,
and waste treatment in poultry production. The manual also includes general guidelines
for the use of EM in poultry production. EM, like poultry, is a living thing and therefore
certain conditions must be met in order to achieve positive results with EM. If you are
interested in using EM in poultry production or research, please read this manual
carefully in order to understand how EM is used and why it is used so that your production or research will be effective. If SCD Probiotics are used in accordance with the information in this manual, many problems of poultry production can be reduced or
eliminated.
EM: Historical, Technical and Theoretical Background
EM stands for "effective microorganisms" or “efficient microbes”. Many of the
basic theories and consortia fermentation practices used to make and apply EM were
pioneered by Dr. Teruo Higa of the College of Agriculture at the University of the
Ryukyus in Okinawa, Japan. EM (and SCD Probiotics) is grown in consortia through the
interaction of a diverse group of naturally occurring, non-pathogenic, facultative
anaerobic and aerobic microorganisms, which could include high populations of lactic
acid bacteria (Lactobacillus and Pedicoccus) and fewer amounts of photosynthetic bacteria,
yeast, bacillus sp., actinomyces and other organisms.
Various products based on EM applied science have been tested and used for
over 30 years and proven safe for humans and other animals. The microorganisms
contained in EM are generally recognized as safe (GRAS). Some species of
microorganisms contained in various EM products are not GRAS listed according to
AAFCO in USA. However, SCD Probiotics has developed a consortia technology based
on EM, sold under the brand SCD Bio Livestock, which contains species on the
AAFCO approved list and is compliant with regulations prevalent in the U.S. for poultry
consumption.
EM was initially developed and used as inoculate for soil conditioning in grain,
vegetable and fruit production. As the research and applications of EM developed
throughout the 1970s and 1980s EM was found to be an effective tool for manipulating
and managing the overall microbial ecology of complex and diverse systems.
Microorganisms are in abundance everywhere and have a large influence on biological
and chemical qualities such as the extent of putrefaction, fermentation, disease, and
oxidation of any system. Prior to the development of EM, the ability to manage these
microbial populations on a large scale in an economically viable way did not exist. EM
has therefore become a revolutionary tool for managing the dominant microbial
populations and increasing the efficiency of most systems. The world of microorganisms is complex and diverse. Microorganisms are categorized into different kingdoms and yet
they are often found to co-exist in a small area. The diverse biochemical interactions
between multiple species of organisms in infinite numbers of microclimates, makes the
academic study, research, and definition of microorganisms difficult. In a laboratory it
can take years of study to understand one species of microorganism, let alone the
interactions between two, three, or four species. With respect to EM, this means that it
is very difficult to know exactly what is occurring and why. EM contains microorganisms
living in co-existence from several different genera and at least two different kingdoms
(microbiologists disagree on the separation of kingdoms). This makes the research and
mechanistic understanding of EM extremely difficult. However, EM has been developed
during three decades of trial and error in the laboratory and in the field. There are
thousands of pages of documentation regarding the function of EM. Unfortunately for
most of the world, only about 20% of this documentation exists in English (most is in
Japanese, Korean and Chinese). However, there is still a large amount of documentation
in English and the in vivo efficacy and economic viability cannot be denied. Therefore it is
up to researchers and producers around the world to continue to develop the
fundamental theories and understanding of EM so that this valuable tool can benefit the
growing human population.
During the mid-1980s, livestock researchers and producers in Japan began to
test EM for odor control and waste management. This research continues to the
present and has found EM to be effective as a probiotic, waste treatment and biological
control agent (Kitazato Environmental Center, 1994). One of the most valuable
contributions of EM to the livestock industry is its deodorizing effect within confined
facilities for poultry operations. EM eliminates odors by dominating the microbial
ecology with organisms that exploit a fermentative pathway and therefore do not
produce odorous gases (Yongzhen and Weijiong, 1994).
The Odor Problem in Poultry Production
Odor control is a major problem confronting confined livestock production
systems (Ritter, 1981). In poultry facilities some of the odor-causing compounds like
ammonia are health hazards for people who work in the facility, for the animals, and are
also a nuisance for the surrounding community (Mote, 1984). With the rising costs in
both labor and materials, poultry farmers are re-using old litter for as long as four or
five flocks. The result of this practice is a significant increase in the levels of ammonia
inside and outside the chicken houses (Carlile, 1984).
Theformation of ammonia has been attributed to the microbial decomposition
of uric acid in the manure (Carlile, 1984). The rate of ammonia volatilization and
resulting ammonia concentration in a chicken house depends on factors such as litter
moisture content and pH, temperature and wind speed (Moore, et al., 1996).
Research on the effects of ammonia on poultry show that it adversely affects
growth rates, feed efficiency, egg production, respiratory tract, susceptibility to
Newcastle disease, incidence of airsacculitis, levels of Mycoplasma gallisepticum, and
incidence of Keratoconjunctivitis (Moore et al., 1996). For this reason Deaton and
Reece (1980) cited by Carlile (1984) recommend ammonia levels not to exceed 25 ppm.
In practice however, the birds are often exposed to levels of over 50 ppm to as high as
200 ppm. Humans detect ammonia levels above 25 ppm and exposure of 100 ppm for
eight hours as acute adverse health affects (Carlile, 1984).
Several approaches have been developed in an effort to reduce the levels of
ammonia within the facilities. The most common method is ventilation, replacing air
from the inside with air from the outside (Mote, 1984). This approach poses a problem
to farmers during the winter, when ventilation needs to be reduced to avoid excessive
heat loss. The condensation effect, also greater during the winter, generates wet litter
that favors ammonia release (Carlile, 1984). In addition, this technique does not reduce
the amount of ammonia released to the vicinity and the whole environment. This is an issue to be considered knowing that ammonia plays a key role in the production of acid
rain (Moore, et al., 1996).
Conventional Odor Control Methods
Ritter (1981) mentions six categories for odor controlling agents in livestock operations:
- Masking agents: mixtures of aromatic oils that have strong particular odors
that can cover up the manure odor.
- Counteractants: mixtures of aromatic oils that neutralize the manure odor.
- Digestive deodorants: bacteria or enzymes that eliminate odors through
biochemical digestive processes.
- Adsorbents: products with a large surface area that adsorb the odors before
they are released to the environment.
- Feed additives: compounds added to feeds to improve the animal's efficiency
in nutrient intake and consequently reduce odors.
- Chemical deodorants: these fall into two categories. Those that inhibit
microbial decomposition of uric acid and those that combine with ammonia
and neutralize it (Moore, et al., 1996).
According to Burnett and Dondero (1970) cited by Ritter (1981) masking agents and
counteractants were the most effective, followed by chemical deodorants. Digestive
deodorants were the least effective.
Carlile, (1984) and Moore et al. (1996) mention several effective chemical agents for
reducing ammonia production from poultry litter: paraformaldehyde, zeolites,
superphosphate and phosphoric acid, acetic and propionic acids, antibiotics, alum and
ferrous sulfates. Besides the cost/efficiency problems of these products, some of them
can be the source for other problems. Parafomaldehyde is suspected to be carcinogenic
(Carlile, 1984), ferrous sulfate can cause iron toxicity in the birds, and the phosphoric
acid can increase the phosphorus runoff from fields receiving poultry litter, which is
already a current problem facing the industry (Moore et al. 1996). Nevertheless, the use
of some of these products like zaolites and alum are associated with the increase in egg production, improved animal health (Carlile, 1984) and higher weight gain and feed
conversion rate (Moore et al., 1996).
EM for Odor Control
There are four different ways in which EM inoculants can be introduced into the
production system in order to achieve a deodorizing effect.
- As a probiotic additive to drinking water (SCD Bio Livestock® produced by SCD Probiotics™ is used).
- As a probiotic feed additive (SCD ProBio Feed™ produced by SCD Probiotics™ is used).
- As an additive to sanitation spray water for washing the facility (SCD Odor Away™ produced by SCD Probiotics™ is used).
- As a treatment added to the waste handling process (SCD BioKlean™ produced by SCD Probiotics™ is used).
Considering the 4 methods of application of EM, SCD Probiotics approaches the
problem in three of the categories described by Ritter (1981).
- As a digestive deodorant: SCD Bio Livestock® is added to drinking water at a
dilution ranging from 1:1000 up to 1:10,000 (SCD Bio Livestock®: Drinking
Water) and can be made available to the animals continually or periodically
throughout the growth cycle (Yongzhen and Weijong, 1 994).
- As a feed additive: SCD ProBio Feed™ is mixed with normal feed rations at a
ratio of 1 – 5% (Yongzhen and Weijong, 1994). If the SCD ProBio Feed™ cannot
be easily fermented SCD Bio Livestock® can be lightly sprayed over the feed at a
ratio of 1 : 100 (Kitazato Environmental Center, 1994).
- Non-chemical deodorant: SCD Odor Away™ is used as a disinfectant to
regularly spray the facility and to inoculate the litter (once a week is usually
enough) with beneficial microorganisms (Philips, 1997).
SCD Bio Livestock® helps balance the microflora within the animal's digestive
tract. According to Yongzhen and Weijiojng (1994) EM increases the coefficient of
nitrogen utilized by the bird. At the same time the wastes generated by the broiler or
laying hen receiving EM direct-fed microbial will tend to begin fermenting while they are
being produced. This represents a big advantage for the future management of the
manure because it will be populated with fermentative microorganisms rather than
putrefactive and pathogenic ones (Philips, 1997). With this same purpose, SCD Odor
Away™ is applied to wash down the facilities and to inoculate the litter with beneficial
microorganisms. The photosynthetic bacteria in SCD Odor Away™ are able to separate
the hydrogen in ammonia, in hydrogen sulfide and in hydrocarbons; it deoxidizes carbon
gases and synthesizes sugars. The lactic acid bacteria in SCD Odor Away™ produces
lactic acid that kills pathogenic microorganism. Yeast in SCD Odor Away™ form
alcohol and various organic acids.
Ammonia is the largest contributor to foul odors being emitted from poultry
facilities. Experiments done by Yongzhen and Weijiong (1994), with groups of 400 to
500 broilers and laying hens, indicate that the use of EM in the drinking water reduced
the ammonia concentrations within the chicken houses by 42.12%. The use EM feed
reduced ammonia concentrations by 54.25% and the combination of the two techniques
reduced ammonia concentrations by 69.7%. A case study with 30,000 adult and 20,000
young Mary and Borisbrown chickens took place. Another case study reported from the
Aichi Prefecture, Japan on a farm of 150,000 laying hens showed a significant reduction
in the foul odor of the poultry houses and the dung. EM was mixed in the drinking
water, it was used in1%-2% of the feed and it was also sprayed throughout the inside of
the poultry houses once a week. The ammonia concentration in the chicken houses was
reduced from 4.4 ppm to 3.9 ppm after the introduction of EM in the system. It must be
mentioned that the data obtained previous to the use of EM was taken with the doors open, and the data obtained after using EM was taken with the doors closed (Kitazato Environmental Center, 1 994).
EM’s deodorizing effect has also been demonstrated in the urban waste
management field. In Naha City, Japan, an EM culture was introduced in the standard
activated sludge management plant, adding one liter of EM to each ton of raw sewage.
EM was added before the sewage entered the aeration tank. In terms of odor, Hydrogen
Sulfide and Methyl mercaptan were analyzed before and after EM treatment.
Table 1.Hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan concentrations in the Sewage
Management Plant of Naha City, Japan.
Disease Prevention in Poultry Production
The poultry industry has become the most intensive of all the branches of livestock
production. Both eggs and chicken meat are now generally produced in units of 100,000
birds or more, requiring good planning and subsequent management (Sainsbury, 1992).
Due to the degree of the confinement, the breakout of a disease can represent the loss
of many animals. Therefore great emphasis must be made in the prevention of diseases
(Sainsbury, 1992). Some of the basic steps concerning the prevention of chicken diseases
are:
- Control of the environmental conditions: appropriate air movement, ventilation,
temperature and moisture levels.
- Vaccination: some respiratory infections like Newcastle disease can be effectively controlled through vaccination.
- Disinfecting of buildings: disinfecting has the purpose of providing the birds with an environment free of pathogenic agents such as, bacteria, fungus, virus, and parasites
- Appropriate litter management: if inappropriately managed, the litter can become a source of inoculate of pathogenic microorganisms (Sainsbury, 1992).
EM for Disease Prevention
SCD Odor Away™ used as a spray to wash down the facilities acts as a
disinfectant of the building. In a study done in the Aichi Prefecture, Japan, after one year
of the introduction of an EM culture in the production system, it became totally
unnecessary to use antibiotics and disinfectants for the 150,000 laying hens. Almost all of
the vaccines that had been used were no longer necessary as a result of the overall
improvement of the bird health (Kitazato Environmental Science Center, 1994).
Disinfectants used are generally chemical products such as phenol compounds or
formaldehyde, although the latter has been prohibited in some countries because it can
be hazardous to the health of humans. These products are usually applied when a flock
is harvested and the building is empty (Sainsbury, 1992). Because of the nature of the
product, SCD Odor Away™ can be used to spray down the building even when the
birds are in it.
Another approach for health improvement using SCD Probiotics is related to
the use of SCD Bio Livestock® as an additive to drinking water and feed. The gastrointestinal
tract of birds may house several pathogenic microorganisms (Larbier and
Leclercq, 1994). The consumption of SCD Bio Livestock® by the animals is expected to
result in health improvements apparently because of competition with pathogenic
microflora in the digestive tract.
Anjum et al., (1996) reported greater bursa and thymus index in commercial
broiler chicken supplemented with EM through drinking water and feed. According to
this study EM supported these two important lymphoid organs that make up the vital
components of humoral and cellular immunity. Antibody geometric mean titre (GMT)
against Newcastle disease vaccine virus was 6.5 times in broilers given EM in drinking
water, 3.85 times in broilers given EM feed and 3.73 times in broilers given both EM in
drinking water and feed. At the same time, the EM treated birds which had an increase
in live body weight compared to the non treated birds, presented a decrease in the
following measurements: offal weight, liver index, gizzard index, intestinal weight index,
intestinal length index, kidneys index, and heart index. This indicates that EM can work
as a growth promoter without any associated risks.
EM for Control of Pathogenic Microorganisms
Poultry products have been blamed for the transmission of Salmonella spp and
other human diseases (Stern, 1994). Salmonella enteritidis is the most reported strain
causing human infection and there has been clear epidemiological association of these
cases with the consumption of eggs and poultry meat (Sainsbury, 1992).
According to Edens et al. (1997) the colonization of lactic acid bacteria in the
chickens intestinal tract apparently controls the population of pathogenic
microorganisms such as Salmonella spp., Enterococci and E. Coli. Lactic acid bacteria
produce significant amounts of bacterial growth inhibitory substances such as reuterin.
Reuterin has a broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity that has proven to inhibit the
growth of bacteria, fungi and protozoa.
SCD Bio Livestock® contains selected species of microorganisms that include
predominant populations of lactic acid bacteria. The information about the effect of
lactic acid bacteria over these pathogens, suggests a possible positive response to the
use of SCD Bio Livestock®.
Another fact that suggests the possible effectiveness of EM against these types of
pathogenic microorganisms is related to the results obtained in several studies in urban
waste management. The experience in Naha City, Japan shows significant reduction in E.
coli populations after the introduction of EM in the system.
Table 2. E. coli population before and after EM Treatment in the Sewage management
Plant in Naha City, Japan.
According to Higa (1995), 30 days after treating the waste water in the
Gushikawa City Library, (Okinawa) with EM, E. coli levels were undetectable, dropping
from 8500 parts/ml to 0 parts/ml. EM was used in a solution of 1 : 1000 EM/waste
water. The EM solution was flushed down the toilets.
Bird Performance Improvement with EM Waste Treatment
The improvement of the animal’s performance after the use of EM can be related
to the inoculation of the gastro-intestinal tract with beneficial microorganisms. The
gastro-intestinal tract of birds is host to approximately 40 species of microorganisms
with three or more different types of each one. The flora plays an important role in the
digestion process. Bacterial enzymes promote the digestion of protein, Iipids and
carbohydrates and bacteria also synthesize vitamins that contribute to the nutrition of
the bird (Larbier and Leclercq, 1994). According to Yongzhen and Weijiong (1994) EM
improves the co-efficient of nitrogen absorption in the animal. After 45 days of EM
treatment in day-old commercial broilers; live body weight was approximately 2004
grams for broilers given EM in drinking water, approximately 1978 grams for broilers
given EM feed and approximately 2022 grams for broilers given EM in both ways,
compared to approximately 1690 g of the control broilers.
Yongzhen and Weijiong (1994) also found that the concentration of amino acids
in the feed was improved 28% after the fermentation process with EM, indicating that
EM improves the quality of the feed. A study that took place in the Aichi Prefecture in
Japan with 70,000- 80,000 Arbor Acre broilers using EM for two years, shows an
improvement in the feed conversion rate and an increase in the weight increase per day.
The average broiler weight at shipment went from 2.68 Kg to 2.9 Kg. EM was given in
the drinking water once a week and it was also sprayed inside and outside the chicken
house before the birds were brought in (Kitazato Environmental Science Center, 1 994).
Regarding egg quality, a study done in the Gifu Prefecture, Japan, with 30,000
adult and 20,000 young Mary and Borisbrown chickens shows the effect of working with
EM for two years. EM was given to the birds as EM feed at 1% rate. The EM treated
group had higher values than the non treated group in the following categories: average
egg weight, eggshell strength, eggshell thickness, albumen height, Haugh units and yolk
color. In this same farm, the chicken excreta is being sprayed with EM to create a fermented compost that has a good reputation as being effective in increasing crop
yields (Kitazato Environmental Science Center, 1994).
Poultry Litter Management with EM Waste
Another of the positive effects that EM has in the general management of poultry
facilities is related to the quality of the organic fertilizer produced with the manure.
Poultry manure is a very useful resource for the production of organic fertilizers.
Hussain et al. (1994) found that the nitrogen content of poultry manure increased after
composting with EM.
According to Hussein et al. (1994) the amount the time needed to obtain
compost was significantly reduced after the inoculation of the piles with EM.
Using EM, solid wastes from the poultry industry can be processed alone or
mixed with other easily obtained organic materials. Other materials used can include
legumes, rejected seed yams, fish meal, corn meal, rice husks, sawdust, carbon and ash.
The materials are chopped, mixed well, and inoculated.
*SCD Probiotics is not affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by EM Research Organization, Inc. or their affiliates.
Bibliography
ANJUM, A.; HUSSAlN, T.; RIZVI, F.; GILANI, G.; JAVAID, T. 1996. Influence of Effective
Microorganisms on Health and Immune System of Broilers Under Experimental
Conditions.5th Conf. on the Technology of Effective Microorganisms at Sara Buri,
Thailand on 10-11Dec. Organized by APNAN and INFRC. P-5
CARLILE, F.S. Ammonia in poultry houses. A literature review. World’s Poultry Science
Journal. Aylesbury: World’s Poultry Science Association. June 1984. v. 40. p. 99-113.
EDENS, F.W.; PARKHURST,C.R.; CASAS, I.A.; DOBROGOSZ, W.J. Principles of ex
ovo competitive exclusion and in ovo administration of Lactobacillus reuteri. Poultry
Science. Savoy, IL: Poultry Science Association, Inc. Jan 1997. v. 76 p. l79- 196
HIGA, T. 1 995. Studies on Purification and Recycling of Animal Waste Using Effective
Microorganism (EM). 7 p.
HUSSAIN, T.; JILANI, G.; YASEEN, M.; ABBAS, M.A. 1994. Effect of Organic
Amendments and EM on Crop Production in Pakistan. Pp. 1 32- 1 39. In: J.F. Parr, S.B.
Hornick, and M.E. Simpson (eds). Proc. 2nd Intl. Conf. on Kyusei Nature Farming. Oct.
7-11, 1991, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil. Pub. USDA. Washington, D.C.
KITAZATO ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE CENTER. 1 994. What is EM? EM is Non
Toxic, lp. Application of EM in Livestock Farming, 2p. Case Study 1 (Effects of EM in
Broiler Production: The reduction of costs and disinfectants), 3p. Case Study 2 (Effects
of EM in laying hen raising: Foul odor reduction and egg quality improvement), 4p. Case
Study 3 (Effects of EM on raising laying hens: Foul odor reduction and health improvement), 3p. Case Study 4 (Improvement of milk quality by using EM; Experiments
1 and 2), 4p.
LARBIER, M.; LECLERCQ, B. 1994. Nutrition and Feeding of Poultry. Nottingham
University Press. U.K. 305 p.
MOORE, P.A.; DANIEL, T.C.; EDWARDS, D.R.; MILLER,D.M. Evaluation of chemical
amendments to reduce ammonia volatilization from poultry litter . Poultry Science.
Savoy, IL: Poultry Science Association. Mar 1996. v.75 p. 315-320.
MOTE, C.R Evaluation of the potential of catalytic converters for ammonia and odor
control in poultry houses. Poultry Science. Champaign, IL: Poultry Science Association.
Dec 1984. v. 63 p. 2364-2367.
PHILIPS, J. Using EM Technology for Swine Waste Management by Pork producers in
British Columbia. August, 1997. 17 p.
RITTER, W.F. Chemical and biochemical odor control of livestock wastes: a review.
Canadian Agricultural Engineering. Ottawa, Canadian Society of Agricultural Engineering.
Summer 1981. v. 23.p1-4,
SAlNSBURY, D. 1992. Poultry Health and Management. 3rd ed. Blackwell Scientific.
London, U.K. 214p.
STERN, N.J. Mucosal competitive exclusion to diminish colonization of chickens by
Campylobacter jejuni. Poultry Science. Champaign, IL: Poultry Science Association.
Mar 1994. v. 73 p. 402-407 -YONGZHEN, N. ; WAIJIONG, L. 1994.
Report on the Deodorizing Effect of Effective Microorganisms (EM) in Poultry
Production. Beijing, China. 4p.
