Growth rate, carcass traits and meat quality of slow-growing chicken grown according to three raising systems

• Autorzy: Dou T.C. , Shi S.R. , Sun H.J. , Wang K.H.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Tempo wzrostu, cechy tuszy i jakość mięsa wolno rosnących kurcząt w trzech systemach utrzymania

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The experiment was conducted to study the effect of indoor-floor, indoor-net and free-range raising systems on growth rate, carcass traits and meat quality of slow-growing broiler chicken. One-day old Gushi chicks were raised until day 35 of life. On day 36, 135 female birds of similar body weight (mean 354 g), were randomly selected and assigned to one of three raising systems (indoor-floor,indoor-net and free-range), each with three replicates of 15 birds (i.e. 45 birds per system). Both the indoor-floor and indoor-net systems were run in pens with solid or net floor, respectively, in a poultry research house (7 birds/m2). The free-range system was run in a similar indoor house (7 birds/m2), but with a free access of birds to grassy paddock (1 bird/m2). All birds were offered the same diets and were kept growing for 112 days. The body weight and body weight gain of birds from free-range system were found to be significantly lower than of those kept in indoor-floor system (P <0.05), while for feed conversion ratio (feed/gain) the reverse relation (P <0.05) was observed. There was no difference in eviscerated carcass, and breast and thigh percentages among three raising systems (P>0.05), while the systems significantly affected the abdominal fat and stomach per cent of carcass, and tibia strength (P<0.05). The water, protein and fat contents, water-holding capacity, shear force and pH of the meat were unaffected (P>0.05) by the raising system. It is concluded that in slow-growing chicken the free-range raising system had significant effect on growth performance,but only limited on carcass traits and meat quality, except for abdominal fat, stomach percentage and tibia strength.

PL

Kurczęta utrzymywano w budynkach z podłogą stałą, z podłogą z siatki oraz w systemie wolnym w budynkach, ale z dostępem do trawiastego wybiegu – odpowiednio system I, II i III. Obsada we wszystkich systemach wynosiła 7 ptaków/m2, a systemie III na jednego ptaka dodatkowo 1m2. Badania prowadzono przez 112 dni, stosując jednakową paszę, a następnie ptaki ubito. Masa ciała i przyrosty w systemie III okazały się istotnie niższe niż w I, podczas gdy zużycie paszy na przyrost kształtowało się odwrotnie. Nie stwierdzono różnic między systemami utrzymania w masie tuszy oraz masie mięśni mostka i nóg wyrażonej jako procent tuszy. Stwierdzono wpływ systemu utrzymania na udział tłuszczu wewnętrznego i masy żołądka w masie tuszy i na kruchość kości. System utrzymania nie wpływał istotnie na zawartość wody, białka i tłuszczu, jak również na zdolność utrzymywania wody własnej, siłę cięcia i pH mięsa.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Animal Science Papers and Reports
• Rocznik: 2009
• Tom: 27
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.361-369,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Dou T.C.

• Poultry Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province, 225003, China

autor

Shi S.R.

• Poultry Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province, 225003, China

autor

Sun H.J.

• Poultry Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province, 225003, China

autor

Wang K.H.

• Poultry Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province, 225003, China

Bibliografia

• ALLEN C.D., FLETCHER D.L., NORTHCUTT J.K., RUSSEL S.M., 1998 – The relationship of broiler breast color to meat quality and shelf-life. Poultry Science 77, 361-366.
• ALVARADO C.Z., WENGER E., O’KEEFE S.F., 2005 – Consumer perception of meat quality and shelf-life in commercially raised broilers compared to organic free ranged broilers. Poultry Science 84 (Supplement 1), 129 (Abstract).
• AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists), 1990 – Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edition, Arlington, VA.
• APPLEBY M.C., HUGHES B.O., 1997 – Animal Welfare. CAB International, New York.
• CASTELLINI C., MUGNAI C., DAL BOSCO A., 2002 – Effect of organic production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Science 60, 219-225.
• CULIOLO J., TOURAILLE C., BORDES P, GIRAUD J.P., 1990 – Carcass and meat quality in fowls given the “farm production label”. Archiv fuer Gefluegelkunde 53, 237-245.
• DABES A.C., 2001 – Propriedades da carne fresca. Revista Nacional da Carne, Săo Paulo, 25, 32-40.
• FANATICO A.C., CAVITT L.C., PILLAI P.B., EMMERT J.L., OWENS C.M., 2005a – Evaluation of slow-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: meat quality. Poultry Science 84, 1785-1790.
• FANATICO A.C., PILLAI P.B., CAVITT L.C., OWENS C.M., EMMERT J.L., 2005b. – Evaluation of slow-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: growth performance and carcass yield. Poultry Science 84, 1321-1327.
• FANATICO A.C., PILLAI P.B., CAVITT L.C., EMMERT J.L., MEULLENET J.F., OWENS C.M., 2006 – Evaluation of slow-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access:sensory attributes. Poultry Science 85, 337-343.
• FANATICO A.C., PILLAI P.B., EMMERT J.L., OWENS C.M. 2007 – Meat quality of slow-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoor or with outdoor access.Poultry Science 86, 2245-2255.
• FARMER L.J., PERRY G.C., LEWIS P.D., NUTE G.R., PIGGOTT J.R., PATTERSON R.L.S., 1997 – Responses of two genotypes of chicken to the diets and stocking densities of conventional UK and label rouge production systems. II. Sensory attributes. Meat Science 47, 77-93.
• GORDON S.H., CHARLES D.R., 2002 –. Niche and Organic Chicken Products. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham,UK.
• JIN X., 2008 – Organic Food Industry. China Food Industry 6, 68.
• JONES M., MILLIS A.D., 1999 – Divergent selection for social reinstatement and behaviors in Japanese quail: effects on sociality and social discrimination. Poultry and Avian Biology Review 10, 13-223.
• LATTER-DUBOIS J., 2000 –. Poulets Fermiers: Leurs Qualite´s Nutritionnelle et Organoleptiques et la Perception du Consommateur. M.Sc. Thesis. Faculte´ des Sci. de l’Agric. de L’Alimentation, Univ. Laval, Quebec, Canada.
• LEWIS P.D., PERRY G.C., FARMER L.J., PATTERSON R.L.S., 1997 – Responses of two genotypes of chicken to the diets and stocking densities typical of UK and “Label Rouge” systems: I. Performance, behaviour and carcass composition. Meat Science 45, 501-516.
• JONES M., MILLIS A.D., 1999 – Divergent selection for social reinstatement and behaviors in Japanese quail: effects on sociality and social discrimination. Poultry and Avian Biology Review 10, 13-223.
• MARIN R.H., FRETES P., GUSMAN D., JONES R.B., 2001 – Effects of an acute stressor on fear and on the social reinstatement responses of domestic chicks to cage mates and strangers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 57-66.
• MENDL M., 1999 – Performing under pressure: stress and cognitive function. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 221-224.
• MOLETTE C., REMIGNON H., BABILE R., 2003 – Maintaining muscle at a high postmortem temperature induces PSE-like meat in turkey. Meat Science 63, 525-532.
• National Research Council, 1994 – Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, 9th reviewed edition. National Academic Press, Washington, DC.
• RICARD T., 1977 – Influence de l’age et du patrimone ge′ne′tique sur l’e′tat d’engraissement du poulet. La composition corporelle des volailles (pp. 79-86). INRA.
• SANTOS A.L., SAKOMURA N.K., FREITAS E.R., FORTES C.M.S., CARRILHO E.N.V.M., 2005 – Comparison of free range broiler chicken strains raised in confined and semi-confined systems. Revista Brasileira de Ciencia Avicola 7, 85-92.
• WIEBICKI E., DEATHERAGE F.E., 1958 – Determination of water-holding capacity of fresh meats.Agricultural and Food Chemistry 6, 387-392.