Advertisement

Organic Agriculture

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 57–68 | Cite as

Are carcass and meat quality of male dual-purpose chickens competitive compared to slow-growing broilers reared under a welfare-enhanced organic system?

  • Philipp C. MuthEmail author
  • Shahin Ghaziani
  • Iris Klaiber
  • Anne Valle Zárate
Article
  • 229 Downloads

Abstract

In the face of intense societal debate on the animal health and welfare aspects of chicken production, the appropriation of dual-purpose chickens for the production of both meat and eggs is gaining attention in Germany. This study aimed to evaluate male birds from a local dual-purpose chicken breed (Bresse Gauloise; n = 20) raised under a welfare-enhanced organic system that includes access to pasture. Males (n = 19) and females (n = 21) of a slow-growing commercial broiler (ISA 657) bred for outdoor production served as the reference. All birds were slaughtered at an age of 84 days. The growth and slaughter performance and functional breast meat properties were analyzed. Inosine-5′-monophosphate was determined by mass spectrometry. Additionally, a sensory test was carried out. Dual-purpose chickens achieved weight gains (31 g/day) comparable to the slow-growing broiler (26 to 34 g/day), but the latter achieved superior dressing and breast meat percentages. The exclusive use of male birds for fattening in dual-purpose production had the advantage of a reduced variation in carcass characteristics because the sexual dimorphism was circumvented. Both genetics delivered low-fat breast fillets free of obvious meat defects and hence an acceptable product. The ability of the taste panel to discriminate cooked breast meat of dual-purpose chickens from that of slow-growing broilers encourages further investigations. In conclusion, the dual-purpose chicken breed examined in the present work could be suitable for the production of “ready-to-grill/cook” carcasses under a welfare-enhanced organic system, assuming that synergies between dual-purpose production and (animal welfare) label production can be exploited.

Keywords

Animal welfare Dual-purpose chickens Carcass characteristics Meat quality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Ministry for Rural Areas and Consumer Protection of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. The authors would like to particularly thank Prof. Dr. M. Grashorn (Livestock Population Genomics, Institute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim) and Dr. J. Pfannstiel (Core Facility Hohenheim, University of Hohenheim) for their valuable advice. Mr. H. Stegmann, Mr. J. Abegg, and Mrs. H. Hartmann are gratefully acknowledged for rearing and slaughtering the birds; Mrs. A. Zipp, Ms. F. Khajehei, Ms. S. Sahamishirazi, and Mrs. G. Tietgens for their technical assistance; and Ms. K. Cresswell Riol for proofreading.

Compliance with ethical standards

The experiment was approved by the Animal Welfare Commissioner of the University of Hohenheim.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Almasi A, Andrassyne BG, Milisits G, Kustosne PO, Suto Z (2015) Effects of different rearing systems on muscle and meat quality traits of slow- and medium-growing male chickens. Br Poult Sci 56:320–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarado CZ, Richards MP, O’Keefe SF, Wang H (2007) The effect of blood removal on oxidation and shelf life of broiler breast meat. Poult Sci 86:156–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baéza E, Chartrin P, Le Bihan-Duval E, Lessire M, Besnard J, Berri C (2009) Does the chicken genotype ‘Géline de Touraine’ have specific carcass and meat characteristics? Animal 3:764–771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baéza E, Chartrin P, Meteau K, Bordeau T, Juin H, Le Bihan-Duval E, Lessire M, Berri C (2010) Effect of sex and genotype on carcase composition and nutritional characteristics of chicken meat. Br Poult Sci 51:344–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc B 57:289–300Google Scholar
  6. Castellini C, Berri C, Le Bihan-Duval E, Martino G (2008) Qualitative attributes and consumer perception of organic and free-range poultry meat. World Poultry Sci J 64:500–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castellini C, Boggia A, Cortina C, Dal Bosco A, Paolotti L, Novelli E, Mugnai C (2012) A multicriteria approach for measuring the sustainability of different poultry production systems. J Clean Prod 37:192–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen R, Brockhoff P (2015) sensR: Thurstonian models for sensory discrimination. R package version 1.4–5. https://cran.r-project.org/package=sensR. Accessed 20 Jan 2015
  9. Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri = OJ:L:2009: 054: 0001:0130:EN:PDF. Accessed 22 Jan 2016
  10. Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri = OJ:L:2008: 250:0001:0084:EN:PDF. Accessed 24 Jan 2016.
  11. Culler RD, Parrish FC Jr, Smith GC, Cross HR (1978) Relationship of MFI to certain chemical, physical and sensory characteristics of bovine. J Food Sci 43:1177–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Damme K, Urselmans S, Schmidt E (2015) Economics of dual-purpose breeds—a comparison of meat and egg production using dual purpose breeds versus conventional broiler and layer strains. Lohmann Information 50:4–9Google Scholar
  13. Deutscher Tierschutzbund e.V. (2013) Zeichen für ein besseres Leben. http://www.tierschutzlabel.info/ fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/Tierschutzlabel-Brosch%C3%BCre_01_16.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
  14. Dransfield E, Sosnicki AA (1999) Relationship between muscle growth and poultry meat quality. Poult Sci 78:743–746CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) (2010) Scientific opinion on the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial broilers. EFSA J 8:1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fanatico AC, Pillai PB, Cavitt LC, Owens CM, Emmert JL (2005) Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: growth performance and carcass yield. Poult Sci 84:1321–1327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fanatico AC, Pillai PB, Emmert JL, Owens CM (2007) Meat quality of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poult Sci 86:2245–2255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Grashorn MA, Clostermann G (2002) Mast- und Schlachtleistung von Broilerherkünften für die Extensivmast. Arch Geflugelkd 66:173–181Google Scholar
  19. Herold P, De Craigher G, Muth P, Valle Zárate A (2016) Perspektiven für Zweinutzung. Oekologie und Landbau 177:39Google Scholar
  20. Horsted K, Allesen-Holm BH, Hermansen JE, Kongsted AG (2012) Sensory profiles of breast meat from broilers reared in an organic niche production system and conventional standard broilers. J Sci Food Agric 92:258–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Keppler C, Brenninkmeyer C, Knierim U (2011) Einfluss der täglichen Zunahme und des Körpergewichtes auf die Tiergesundheit von langsam wachsenden Masthühnern unter ökologischen Bedingungen – Eine Feldstudie. In: Leithold G, Becker K, Brock C, Fischinger S, Spiegel AK, Spory K, Wilbois KP, Williges U (eds) Es geht ums Ganze: Forschen im Dialog zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis, Tierproduktion, Sozioökonomie, vol 2. Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin, pp. 18–21Google Scholar
  22. Kornbrust DJ, Mavis RD (1980) Relative susceptibility of microsomes from lung, heart, liver, kidney, brain and testes to lipid peroxidation: correlation with vitamin E content. Lipids 15:315–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Krzywicki K (1982) The determination of heam pigments in meat. Meat Sci 7:29–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Leenstra FR, Pit R (1988) Fat deposition in a broiler sire strain. 3. Heritability of and genetic correlations among body weight, abdominal fat, and feed conversion. Poult Sci 67:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lenth R (2015) lsmeans: Least-squares means. R package version 2.21–1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lsmeans. Accessed 22 Jan 2016
  26. Mead GC (1987) Recommendation for a standardized method of sensory analysis for broilers. World Poultry Sci J 43:64–68Google Scholar
  27. Moula N, Antoine-Moussiaux N, Farnir F, Leroy P (2009) Evaluation of the production performances of an endangered local poultry breed, the Famennoise. Int J Poult Sci 8:389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Muth PC, Valle Zárate A (2013) Insights into the background of instrumental chicken breast meat color as revealed by PLSR. World Poultry Sci J 69: Supplement.Google Scholar
  29. Petracci M, Cavani C (2012) Muscle growth and poultry meat quality issues. Nutrients 4:1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Petracci M, Mudalal S, Bonfiglio A, Cavani C (2013) Occurrence of white striping under commercial conditions and its impact on breast meat quality in broiler chickens. Poult Sci 92:1670–1675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 22 Jan 2016
  32. Scheuermann GN, Bilgili SF, Tuzun S, Mulvaney DR (2004) Comparison of chicken genotypes: myofiber number in pectoralis muscle and myostatin ontogeny. Poult Sci 83:1404–1412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sirri F, Castellini C, Bianchi M, Petracci M, Meluzzi A, Franchini A (2011) Effect of fast-, medium- and slow-growing strains on meat quality of chickens reared under the organic farming method. Animal 5:312–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith DP, Northcutt JK (2009) Pale poultry muscle syndrome. Poult Sci 88:1493–1496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Steinhilber S (2003) Einfluss von genetischem Typ, Legeabschnitt und Futterfett auf die Anreicherung von Hühnereiern mit Omega-3-Fettsäuren und die Auswirkungen auf die Produktqualität. Dissertation, University of HohenheimGoogle Scholar
  36. Tang J, Faustman C, Hoagland TA (2004) Krzywicki revisited: equations for spectrophotometric determination of myoglobin redox forms in aqueous meat extracts. J Food Sci 69:717–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tang H, Gong YZ, Wu CX, Jiang J, Wang Y, Li K (2009) Variation of meat quality traits among five genotypes of chicken. Poult Sci 88:2212–2218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Vaclavik VA, Christian EW (2008) Evaluation of food quality. In: Essentials of food science, 3rd edn. Springer, New York, pp. 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Laack R, Berry B, Solomon M (1996) Effect of precooking conditions on color of cooked beef patties. J Food Protect 59:976–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Oeckel MJ, Warnants N, Boucqué CV (1999) Comparison of different methods for measuring water holding capacity and juiciness of pork versus on-line screening methods. Meat Sci 51:313–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Verdiglione R, Cassandro M (2013) Characterization of muscle fiber type in the pectoralis major muscle of slow-growing local and commercial chicken strains. Poult Sci 92:2433–2437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Wattanachant S, Benjakul S, Ledward DA (2005) Microstructure and thermal characteristics of Thai indigenous and broiler chicken muscles. Poult Sci 84:328–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilhelm AE, Maganhini MB, Hernández-Blazquez FJ, Ida EI, Shimokomaki M (2010) Protease activity and the ultrastructure of broiler chicken PSE (pale, soft, exudative) meat. Food Chem 119:1201–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Woelfel RL, Owens CM, Hirschler EM, Martinez-Dawson R, Sams AR (2002) The characterization and incidence of pale, soft, and exudative broiler meat in a commercial processing plant. Poult Sci 81:579–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Zanetti E, De Marchi M, Dalvit C, Molette C, Remignon H, Cassandro M (2010) Carcase characteristics and qualitative meat traits of three Italian local chicken breeds. Br Poult Sci 51:629–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp C. Muth
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shahin Ghaziani
    • 1
  • Iris Klaiber
    • 2
  • Anne Valle Zárate
    • 1
  1. 1.Animal Husbandry and Breeding in the Tropics and Subtropics, Hans-Ruthenberg-Institute of Agricultural Sciences in the TropicsUniversity of HohenheimStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Core Facility HohenheimUniversity of HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations