The end of 2010 is upon us, although it appears that the issues facing the industry continue in the same vein, and are set to do so for some time to come. Aside from the general malaise in the world economy, with some companies being more adversely affected than others, a large part of the world once again has had problem harvests. The wet weather in Northern Europe, fires in Eastern Europe and flooding in Asia and Australasia have caused major problems with arable crops. Whilst working in Northern Europe over their summer, the poor harvest was very evident. Crops standing in the fields turning brown are never a pleasant sight – especially for a nutritionist. Fears now abound regarding the nutritional value and the risk of high fungal contamination in cereals, and predictions for very high cereal costs abound. Let’s see how things pan out – but one thing is sure – costs of poultry production will inevitably increase in the next few months.

However, the poultry industry is nothing if not a survivor of harsh economic conditions. As the price of human food continues to increase, the relative affordability of chicken meat and eggs still means they are a cheap protein alternative compared to red meats on the supermarket shelf. Hopefully this will make them a more attractive proposition to consumers, if the media are right in their assertion that increasing numbers of people are budgeting for their weekly food purchases.

In this issue of the Journal, we have reached somewhat of a landmark position, as this issue contains the last of the papers that were submitted under our old, direct submission system. All papers from now on will have come through the online system via ScholarOne, which most users seem to be getting used to – and thanks to all of those who have helped us out and given feedback during the initial usage of the new system. The new submission system does allow us to process more papers in an efficient manner, and there’s little chance of papers going missing in the ether of emails now – which was always a worry. We have a good mix of disciplines being reviewed this quarter, and we continue to encourage authors to submit papers on a variety of topics in the Journal. So it only remains for me to wish all our contributors and readers seasons greeting and a prosperous 2011.

Dr Lucy Waldron

Editor

Welcome to the first edition of the World’s Poultry Science Journal for 2010. I trust all our members are enjoying a productive and interesting new year. However, as always there are challenges and opportunities ahead within the agricultural sectors of the world, including our own poultry world. The economic climate continues to be difficult, and, even though there has been media discussion of an upturn, it looks as though the situation will continue for the next 12 months at least, and maybe longer in some regions. Many of the developed countries affected continue to have problems within the poultry production sector with major losses being reported, especially in the USA. Globally, however agriculture is possibly less affected compared to other businesses. Let’s hope this continues to be the case. Perhaps the major changes and efficiencies made in the last 15 years or so within poultry will be the saving grace of the industry is such difficult times. Of course, people will always need to eat, and poultry meat and eggs continue to be a prime source of essential nutrients and cost-effective protein for the human population.

Within the press we still have the usual issues rumbling on – concerns about using genetically modified feed materials, the move towards higher welfare systems especially for laying hens, poultry as a vector for disease, the carbon footprint of production and pollution. However poultry science is devoting much effort and funding to solving these issues, and meat and eggs can only benefit as a result of being viewed as a health form of food. Hopefully the costs of implementing some of these changes will not cause further economic problems, and buyers and consumers will recognise the need to meet any extra costs. In addition, many areas have experienced severe weather in the last few months which will hopefully not affect the feed and meat industry unduly – although some Asian countries have been affected to the extent they have increased poultry imports.

On the positive side, white meat often becomes the choice of consumers with shrinking purses, which bodes well for our industry. We also have the usual list of excellent WPSA-linked conferences, seminars and events to look forward to in the coming year. These are always highly worthwhile supporting, whether you are a researcher, academic or commercial poultry scientist, as it is an excellent way of getting up to date with the latest ideas and knowledge in an efficient manner, as well as making the most of networking opportunities. The current issue contains the bi-annual INFPD papers, which includes information on diseases important within developing countries. The WPSJ continues to be very proud of its role with the FAO in hosting these papers – please keep sending them in – the more variety within the topics addressed the better. Likewise I am very pleased to say that we are getting more unsolicited papers than ever before. However, I would like to reiterate that we only accept review papers – please send any single experiments to our sister journal British Poultry Science. Regarding sending in papers, we also have the exciting announcement that anyone with a suitable paper for the journal will, from now on, be submitting on-line. Simply go onto the WPSA website and follow the instructions and links.

Lucy Tucker

Editor

As I sit at my desk, I am admiring the first proper day of rain seen in the UK for quite a while. Hopefully this will increase grain fill, if it’s not already too late, and improve the European grain harvests that otherwise look as though they may be pretty poor. This of course will have a major impact on costs for the poultry industry. So fingers crossed, things will come right in the weather this harvest time to ensure the economics of product remain favourable in an increasingly unfavourable time for all businesses.

Sadly the global economy is still very uncertain. Even though the media has been talking up the situation in many countries, it now increasingly appears we will have a ‘double dip’ recession, looking at current received wisdom for those in the know. Fortunately this seems to have improved the lot of poultry production where it relates to the sales of cheaper meat products and eggs, at least so many of my commercial contacts are telling me. This would make sense, as people in recession-hit communities’ look for cheaper protein sources and cut back on red meat purchases for the dinner table. So maybe the poultry sector will survive this furore in rather better shape than other parts of agriculture, although we may still suffer with higher prices due to competition for feedstuffs with the human food markets, for example. Whatever the outcome, the poultry industry in general is very efficient and highly adaptable to meet market forces, so we have the best chance of success in tough times.

Recently we’ve had some very good news regarding the WPSJ – our citation rating is once again, on the up! We now have an Impact Factor which has grown by 15.4% to 1.613 from the 2008 level of 1.398. This means that, on average, each review paper published by the WPSJ is cited 1.6 times per year in other journals. Since 2008, the WPSJ has grown from 14th out of 47 in its category (Agriculture, Dairy and Animal Science) to reach 10th out of 49. So not only have we increased our standing, we are now in a more competitive market with higher number of journals in our sector. This makes our rather small journal very important in terms of the readership and usage by other authors. I hope this translates as the WPSJ being the first choice for review papers in the poultry world! The new online system is also going well. We’ve had some transitional issues to deal with, as expected, but we now have papers that are ready for publishing in 2011 (we already have full issues until year end). Apologies for any authors who were expecting a faster turnaround for their publications, but I guess this is a sign of pour success in that we have more papers to process now than before. Never complain about being busy – it’s a good sign and long may it continue for our journal and poultry science.

Dr Lucy Waldron (previously Tucker)

Editor

We’re already half way through another year – with the WPSA and the journal as busy as ever, with some major changes now in place regarding how we handle papers. As of 9th March, the journal moved to online submissions. This is a great move, as it allows us to monitor papers far better, as well as increasing our capacity for handling more papers, which has become an issue of late. It allows me to gather statistics on the papers we receive and the reviewing system, which will help us to become more efficient in future. Already the first submissions have been received and processed via the online system, and it appears to be working well. However, we still have the problem of authors sending in papers that are not reviews. It is crucial that authors follow the instructions for submitting papers carefully – as papers that are not reviews will be rejected directly. We would welcome feedback from authors who have used the new system too – as I am sure there will be some improvements we can make along the way.

The poultry industry continues to be a strong player in the world of agriculture. Even though the global economic woes continue unabated, the poultry sector remains important as a primary producer of human food, and sales of eggs and meat seem to have been hit less than the red meat sector, for instance. This seems logical, as people start to cut back on their food budgets. However, the academic world has been hit by cuts in funding, and we can only hope this doesn’t curtail research and development within the animal sciences.

In this issue of the journal you will notice we have some events planned with new branches, as well as a range of papers covering diverse topics. As we continue to get more INFPD papers submitted, I have decided to include these in every issue, as there are too many now to be used in just two issues per year.

Dr Lucy Waldron (previously Tucker)

Editor

Poultry disease and its control require effective co-operation and communication between the poultry producer, their veterinary surgeon and other professional scientists and experts. The most effective way to ensure health and welfare requires a three-way dialogue between all the interested parties. This paper sets out to discuss ways in which poultry veterinarians approach disease diagnosis, treatment and control, together with the important role liaison with nutritionists can have in resolving problems and ensuring optimal flock performance.

Benefits from probiotic micro-organisms have been recognised for over 100 years, and as being useful in poultry for 50 years. Fuller (1989) redefined probiotics as ‘a live microbial feed supplement which beneficially affects the host animal by improving its intestinal microbial balance’. Benefits derived from this improved intestinal microbial balance could be reflected in performance or prevention of pathogen colonisation. Probiotic micro-organisms use in poultry production has been widely accepted and new opportunities arose from the 2006 EU ban on antimicrobial growth promoters. The majority of microbial products for compound feeds are made up from a relatively small number of micro-organisms that are normally present in the GI tract. They include non-sporulated bacteria, sporulated bacteria, fungi or yeasts; and presented from single to multi-strain products. A review on the proposed modes of action is presented including recent approaches to quorum sensing interference.

The application of poultry litter on land over many years may lead to excessive quantities of nutrients in soils and water contamination. In a watershed in Oklahoma and Arkansas, litter applications by large numbers of poultry producers have led the state of Oklahoma to bring a lawsuit against poultry integrators under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Oklahoma alleges that poultry waste is being disposed of as a hazardous substance, and that the poultry integrators are facilitating the disposal by placing birds at facilities that deposit litter on fields that do not need additional nutrients. Oklahoma is requesting that the integrators be ordered to pay for all monetary damages suffered and incurred by the state to remedy such wrongful conduct. The state also seeks a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to abate their pollution-causing conduct and other relief, including punitive and exemplary damages. While poultry litter may not appear to be a hazardous substance, in 2005 a federal district court found that it was a substance regulated by CERCLA. Thus, the poultry industry and producers might avoid liability by qualifying for a CERCLA exception. Two are available: federally permitted releases and normal applications of fertiliser. However, despite qualifying under these exceptions, it is incumbent on producers and the industry to recognise that public concerns about environmental contamination require greater efforts. All producers should be employing best management practices and limit applications of litter to only those amounts needed for crop production. Additional voluntary and mandatory oversight might be advantageous in precluding shirkers from engaging in unacceptable practices that contaminate land and water resources.

In a commercial hatchery, chicks (or poults) hatch over a 24-48 hour period. All chicks remain in the incubator until the majority of the chicks have emerged from the shell. Once removed from the incubator, the newly hatched chick has to undergo several hatchery treatments and is then transported before being placed on the broiler farm. This means that, under practical conditions, chicks are deprived of feed and water for up to 72 hours. In addition, the time of hatch within the hatching window and the spread of hatch cause variability in the amount of time that chicks are feed deprived. Literature on feed deprivation after hatch clearly demonstrates the detrimental effects of any delay in feed access on performance of the chicks with respect to growth, immune system activation, digestive enzyme stimulation and organ development. Improved management strategies, such as shortening the hatching window or the time to first feeding by specific management measures, provide an alternative in dealing with the negative effects caused by a delay in feed access. The development of pre-starter diets that better meet the needs of the newly hatched chicks or in ovo feeding to bridge the gap between hatch and first feeding provide other alternatives in overcoming these problems. However, speculation remains regarding the importance of in ovo or early feeding, or whether the in ovo or early feeding itself is responsible for the beneficial effects reported. The aim of the following review is to discuss the current status of research into early feeding and to stimulate future and further research regarding these topics.

There is a global demand for turkey products and a high value attributed to breast meat from these birds. Breast meat can be considered the most important component of the carcass and consequently it is important to investigate factors that influence breast meat yield (BMY). The BMY trait is influenced by both genetics and the environment at all stages from pre-hatch until the end of the commercial growing period. Additive genetic effects appear to be the primary contributor to BMY, as there is minimal evidence for heterosis or maternal inheritance. The genetic potential for BMY is affected by sex, strain, and selection pressure within a pure line and this affects both muscle morphology and yield. For a turkey to fulfil its full genetic potential for BMY, optimal husbandry and management is required. Nutrition is an important component of production efficiency, although turkeys may be able to tolerate a reduction in dietary protein levels without a negative response in BMY, provided that the levels of all other nutrients are sufficient to meet metabolic needs. Housing conditions, such as barn temperature and lighting, also influence production efficiency. Cooler temperatures increase both weight gain and BMY, relative to a warmer rearing environment. Further, a light cycling programme with a daily set light and dark schedule is associated with higher BMY values compared to frequently alternating light and dark periods throughout the day in an intermittent lighting regime. Due to the influence of both genetics and the environment on BMY, maximisation of yield requires optimum management by all segments of the turkey production industry from the primary breeder through to the commercial grower.

The embryonic and immediate post-hatch developmental period represents a significant phase in attaining quality broiler performance at marketing. An efficient transition period from late term embryo to a viable independent chick is necessary to achieve such results. Immediately, post-hatch birds must undergo a shift from egg and embryonic nutrients to exogenous feed. Under practical conditions, many birds have access to feed only 36 to 48 hours after hatching, and during this time body weight decreases, and intestine and muscle development are retarded. In order to overcome these limitations, a continuous feeding process can be established which would supply nutrients to the developing embryo, feed and water to the newly hatched chick within the hatchery, and a highly digestible pre-starter diet at placement. In ovo feeding stimulates intestinal development by enhancing villi, increasing intestinal capacity to digest and absorb nutrients and provides a basis for muscle growth. Immediate access to feed (1 hour after clearing the shell) initiates uptake and growth processes some 24 hours post-ingestion compared to poultry with delayed feed intake. The enhanced growth caused by early feeding improves nutritional maturity of the bird, stimulates yolk utilisation, increases intestinal development, and has long term metabolic effects. Providing highly digestible ingredients in the pre-starter diet increases body weight performance at day seven, and through to marketing. Together, these processes provide appropriate nutrition pre- and post-hatch which can accelerate gastrointestinal development, muscle growth and therefore result in increased performance. This paper will summarise studies dealing with the different approaches to early nutritional strategies in our modern, fast growing broiler.

The following review aims to gain more insight into farm management in European poultry farms, to identify prevalent risk factors for the introduction of avian influenza (AI) and to develop a procedure to assess a farms risk status. Data on farm management were gathered by using questionnaires and visitor books in 343 farms in Austria, Germany, and The Netherlands. In addition, the farmers documented private and production related visitors for 30 days in a logbook. To evaluate the results, an international expert panel defined and weighted the most important risk factors for AI introduction at farm level within a three-stage Delphi study. Based on this evaluation, all farms were assigned to three classes of risk. To communicate the results to the farmers as comprehensible as possible, a traffic-light scheme was used. The highest risk class represented poultry farms with a high potential for AIV introduction.

Over the past 15 years, the European processing industry has gradually increased the availability of poultry meat in a large variety of processed ready-meals, which follows recent trends in North America. The shift towards further processed products has underscored the necessity for higher quality standards in poultry meat in order to improve sensory characteristics and functional properties. Poultry meat quality is a complex and multivariate property, which is affected by multiple interacting factors including genetics, feeding, husbandry, pre-slaughter handling, stunning and slaughter procedures, chilling, processing and storage conditions. However it is likely that the effects exerted by ante-mortem handling (feed withdrawal, catching, crating, transport and lairage) and slaughter (hanging, stunning, killing, scalding, plucking, evisceration, chilling and processing) conditions on final product quality may be greater than those attributable to variation in husbandry practises. Many problems may occur at these stages that potentially increase the rate of mortality, carcass downgrading and meat quality. This paper is aimed at making a general statement of recent studies on the effects exerted by pre-slaughter handling and slaughtering on product quality.

The ban of sub-therapeutic antibiotic use in the European Union countries and elsewhere, and recent moves toward removal or reduced use of these compounds in other countries has put pressure on the poultry industry to look for viable alternatives. Available data suggest that specific egg yolk antibodies (EYA) have beneficial effects in prevention or treatment of bacterial and viral infections in humans and different animal species. The number of studies conducted in chickens, however, is quite low compared to other species and this may be a limiting factor in the current use of this technology in the poultry industry. The objectives of this review paper are to discuss how EYA are produced and work, to present examples of their applications in different pathological conditions in chickens, and to address challenges that this technology is currently facing.

Currently most breeds and lines of geese in use at a commercial scale are derived from two wild species; the swan goose (Anser cygnoides L.) and the true goose-greylag (Anser anser L.). Interestingly, local selections performed for centuries from these two ancestors have resulted in strains or breeds expressing large differences for a range of phenotypic traits including size, body weight, feather colour, behaviour and physiology (including reproductive performance), along with carcass characteristics, flavour and chemical composition of the meat.

When compared with other poultry species, the main factors that have limited geese production and geese meat consumption in Europe are the seasonality of its reproduction and the low fertility of breeder flocks (e.g. egg production, fertility and hatchability rates, low male to female ratio, poor semen quality) associated with, on average, relatively high proportions of lipid tissues in the carcasses of their progeny. Some of the above problems can be eliminated or at least reduced by the application of artificial insemination procedures and by selective breeding on fertility and seasonality.

The present paper reviews the main particularities of artificial insemination techniques developed in the goose with regards to the morphology and physiology of male reproductive organs. The main characteristics of ejaculates along with some morphological aspects of sperm morphology, semen collection procedures and semen quality assessment are also described. Finally, geese insemination procedures along with their interests and limits are discussed.

The poultry industry has faced many difficulties with bacterial contamination which affects carcass microbiological status, hence influencing its shelf life and safety as human food. During processing, contamination from carcasses can be transferred to equipment, allowing cross-contamination of subsequent carcasses. HACCP strategies suggest the establishment of water showers to minimise the apparent infection of carcasses, thus allowing them to pass through the PCC2 stage with minimal contamination. The only problem is that some countries do not allow implementation of such washing procedures. The following review article compares the results of studies in this matter, and raises potential strategies for ameliorating the situation.

The poultry industry has seen significant changes in the methods used to harvest fresh poultry meat over the past four decades. Some of the major changes include a more than four-fold increase in line speed (new plants are designed to process 12,000 broilers per hour), a large increase in the proportion of cut up and deboned meat produced, as well as substantial improvements in sanitation. These advancements have been possible by gaining knowledge in areas such as computer science (e.g. image analysis, on line weighing and tracking), live bird handling (transportation, unloading, stunning), muscle biology (post mortem processes), heat and mass transfer (scalding, chilling), and engineering (machine building, metallurgy). This article includes a general overview of the different steps involved in primary poultry processing and focuses on some of the principles that have been used to achieve greater efficiencies in mechanising the whole process. The focus areas include stunning, electrical stimulation, chilling, and mechanical filleting. These topics will be used to demonstrate the importance of obtaining high meat quality (e.g. fewer downgrades, high water holding, acceptable tenderness and colour) currently demanded by processors as well as consumers. The advantages of in-line-processing will also be highlighted, where improved efficiencies have been achieved by incorporating real-time computerised monitoring and tracking systems.

Overall, a comprehensive understanding of the whole process and the integration of the different steps is a challenge that must be met by both the equipment manufacturer and processing plant personnel. Because of the increased complexity of the whole integrated process, it is highly recommended that the processor team up with a very knowledgeable equipment manufacturer who has the technical understanding and experience within all stages of the process (farm gate to fork), to effectively optimise quality, yield, and speed.