IPPE: Why risk-based feed biosecurity is replacing blanket treatment strategies
Anitox’s Amy Lin explains why feed customers now demand documented, system-level programs that verify risk management
13 April 2026
3 minute read
By: Amy Lin, technical director at Anitox, recently spoke to The Poultry Site’s Sarah Mikesell at the 2026 IPPE convention in Atlanta, Georgia, USA about managing feed biosecurity in the poultry industry.
How has the broader biosecurity climate changed in recent years? What do poultry integrators and feed customers expect from mills in 2026, especially with documentation, monitoring and prevention?
Over the last few years, customer expectations have shifted from reactive control to demonstrating prevention. In 2026, integrators and feed customers are no longer satisfied with a single control step or a pass or fail testing result. They're looking for a more documented system-level biosecurity program.
Customers want one that has shown how risk is identified upstream and how it's controlled at multiple control points and how the performance is being verified over time. There’s a need to have clear documentation of where interventions are being applied and how routine samples are being collected. This goes beyond just the finished feed alone.
Prevention strategies need to be defensible under audits. More importantly, the customers are also asking why a program is designed instead of what's being used. A program that can link the rationale of science to how things work in the field is the new expectation.
When ingredient risk and sourcing shift, what is the most reliable way to maintain consistent salmonella control operationally and scientifically without over-treating everything?
The most reliable approach is to move away from a blanket treatment to a more risk-based multi-point strategy. Ingredient risk will always fluctuate due to resources, seasonality and market pressure. Trying to compensate by simply increasing treatment everywhere can be very costly and often ineffective for the operation.
Our research has shown that consistency comes from placing the right intervention at the right control point based on how and where the risks are actually entering the system. Scientifically, this requires understanding the differences in the mode of action and matching them to the contamination challenge. Operationally, this requires designing programs that are flexible – available to scale up or down and being flexible at specific points without disrupting the entire process. This balance is what allows the mills to maintain control without over-treating.
You discussed why it matters whether an intervention can address contamination beyond the surface in certain raw materials. How should mills translate this concept into practical decisions about which ingredients warrant upstream intervention and which can be managed later in-process?
The key is to distinguish between inherent ingredient risk and the process-related risk. Some raw materials, particularly oil seed meals and protein ingredients, are more likely to carry the internalized contamination due to the structure and handling history of it.
For these ingredients, surface level control later in the process may not be sufficient and upstream interventions become very critical. Other materials may present a low inherent risk and can be effectively managed through downstream control.
The practical takeaway is to prioritize upstream intervention for high risk, structurally complex ingredients while using downstream protection to manage contamination and environmental exposure. The ingredients-specific decision making is far more effective than applying the same solution across the board.
Based on your validation approach across lab, pilot and commercial environments, what monitoring plan and KPIs best reflect system level control and how quickly should a mill expect to see a signal in those metrics?
System-level control is best reflected by the trends, not just a single data point. The key metrics to watch for include reduction in Salmonella prevalence across raw materials, finished feed and environmental samples as well as improved consistency in routine monitoring results.
Environmental positives and carryover indicators are useful early signs because they reflect how well the system is being controlled throughout production and not just in the final product.
In terms of timing, the mills should expect to see early signals within weeks, particularly in environmental and raw material data with more stable trends emerging over one to three months as the program becomes established.
The goal here is not zero-positive overnight, but predictable, sustained reduction that holds condition changes.
