Effects of different raising systems on growth performance, carcass, and meat quality of medium-growing chickens

Abstract

A growing awareness of human health, nutrition, and animal welfare concerns has led to the development of specialty markets for organic food. Poultry produced in alternative systems, such as free-range or organic, are part of this trend. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the differences in growth performance, carcass traits, and meat quality of medium-growing chickens raised in three different raising systems: indoor-floor, cage, and free-range. One hundred and twenty female Lingnanhuang medium-growing birds were reared in each system. All birds were offered the same diets and were grown for 90 days. The body weight gain and feed conversion ratios (feed/gain) of birds from the cage and indoor-floor systems were superior to those kept in the free-range system. The raising system significantly affected eviscerated carcass, abdominal fat, breast muscle, and leg muscle yields as well as shear force value of muscle (P < .05). There was no difference in pH, water-holding capacity, intramuscular fat, and inosine monophosphate content among the systems (P > .05). In conclusion, in medium-growing chickens, the free-range raising system had significant negative effects on growth performance and abdominal fat content. ARTICLE HISTORY

Effects of rearing systems on growth performance, carcass yield, meat quality, lymphoid organ indices, and serum biochemistry of Wannan Yellow chickens

“…Meat drip loss and shear force are important parameters that can directly affect the tenderness and juiciness of meat, with meat that has a higher drip loss value considered to be drier or tougher. In the current study, the pectoralis major and thigh muscles of birds raised under FRS conditions had lower drip loss and higher shear force than those of chickens reared under CRS conditions, which was consistent with the findings of previous studies (Li et al., ; Yang et al., ). Under FRS conditions, the greater amount of physical activity may enhance the development and density of muscle fibers in chickens, and this might be a major factor underlying the increased shear force and decreased drip loss (Vestergaard et al., ).…”

“…It was demonstrated that the percentage of breast muscle in a free‐range group at 35 weeks of age was higher than that of birds in a cage group (Fu et al., ). Consistent with a previous study (Li, Luo, Wang, & Guo, ), we found that birds reared in the FRS had higher breast yield than those in the CRS. In contrast, it was reported that different rearing systems had no significant effects on the carcass traits of chickens (Chen, Jiang et al.…”

“…The lower abdominal fat content of FRS birds noted in this study were consistent with the findings of Li et al. () and can probably be attributed to the fact that the FRS birds had more physical exercise than did the CRS birds. More physical exercise may result in a greater expenditure of energy and consequently lower fat deposition in chickens.…”

“…A probable explanation for the disparities in findings of different studies was the use of different chicken breeds with different growth rates, including fast-growing and slower-growing chickens (Mikulski, Celej, Jankowski, Majewska,& Mikulska, 2011). The lower abdominal fat content of FRS birds noted in this study were consistent with the findings of Li et al (2016) and can probably be attributed to the fact that the FRS birds had more physical exercise than did the CRS birds.…”

Difference in the Carcass Quality and Meat Chemical Composition in Two Lines of Slowgrowing Chickens With or Without Access to Pasture

“…On the other hand, Cömert et al (2016) observed significantly higher live weight in fast-growing chickens, reared outdoors, but no effect of the rearing system in slow-growing lines. Our results are in line with Wang et al (2009) who reported lower live weight in slow-growing chickens reared free-range with access to grass paddocks and Li et al (2017) in medium -growing chickens raised indoors on floor and outdoors with pasture. However, both studies did not observe any significant difference between the free-range and conventional system in regard to the dressing percentage.…”