It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The carcass and meat quality of three different commercial chicken genotypes reared according to the organic system and slaughtered at two different ages (70 and 81 days) were compared. The used genotypes were Naked Neck (CN1), Kabir (KR4) and Ross 308 (R). All animals were raised in the facilities of a big Italian company, in production units of 3000 birds. Before slaughtering, plumage conditions, foot pad dermatitis as well as qualitative traits of carcasses, such as skin damage and the presence of breast blisters, were registered (n=50). Naked Neck birds showed the best plumage conditions at both ages; the other genotypes had similar body conditions showing a dramatically worsening at the end of rearing cycle (81 days), mainly at breast level. The carcass conformation showed differences mainly for the CN1 genotype, which was more slender with higher proportions of head, neck and legs; thus, ready-to-cook-carcass yield was lower. The meat of CN1 chickens showed lower levels of lipids, pH and brightness values, but higher index of redness. Ross 308 genotype showed a bad welfare status even at 70 days, confirming that the rearing of this strain should not be permitted in organic systems. In conclusion, this study indicates that genotype deeply affects performance, welfare and qualitative characteristics of meat. Regarding the slaughtering age, although the inconsistency of European Commission rules which authorise the reduction of slaughtering age in less mature strains, at 70 days chickens show higher feed efficiency and thinness of carcass and meat.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari ed Ambientali, Università di Perugia, Italy
2 Dipartimento di Scienze degli Alimenti, Università di Teramo, Mosciano Sant’Angelo, Italy
3 Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Roma, Italy





