Abstract

Simple Summary

The worldwide demand for productivity and quality meat, eggs, and other animal products is increasing. More and more people are expressing concerns relating to product quality and animal welfare. Our study aimed to provide scientific knowledge regarding how welfare factors contribute to quantity and quality of chicken. We used 400 Beijing You chickens to compare welfare factors by providing free dietary choice under cage rearing, and further comparing cage rearing with the free-range rearing system. Results showed that under cage rearing, free dietary choice of mealworms and fresh grass contributed to better meat quality, gait score and foot pad dermatitis than the conventional cage feeding and rearing system. This also gave rise to higher values of blood platelets and a richer gut microbial composition. As compared to caged chickens, free-range chickens developed better meat quality, gait score, and feather conditions, as well as a richer microbial composition. Our work provides a comprehensive understanding of welfare factors under both cage and free-range systems, and also broadens knowledge of health-related gut microbial composition in chickens.

Abstract

Poultry welfare has been extensively studied; however, there is a lack of rigorous scientific knowledge relating to the different aspects of welfare factors and how this may contribute to the production quantity and product quality as well as the welfare of chickens. Therefore, we conducted an integrated study to compare welfare factors in chickens by providing free dietary choice under cage rearing, and further comparing cage rearing with free-range rearing. One hundred chickens each were allocated to a cage rearing group with conventional feeding (CC), a cage rearing group with free dietary choice of mealworms (FDM), a cage rearing group with free dietary choice of mealworms and fresh grass (FDMG), and a free-range rearing system group with free dietary choice of mealworms and fresh grass (FRMG). Results showed that under cage rearing, free dietary choice contributed to better meat quality and gait score, higher values of blood platelets, and a richer gut microbial composition, but poorer egg production than CC chickens. As compared to FDMG, FRMG chickens showed better meat quality, gait score, and feather conditions, as well as a richer gut microbial composition; however, they had poorer egg production and a poorer foot pad and foot feather condition. We conclude that free dietary choice and free-range rearing systems improve the product quality, gait score, and microbial richness of chickens.

Details

Title
Free Dietary Choice and Free-Range Rearing Improve the Product Quality, Gait Score, and Microbial Richness of Chickens
Author
Chen, Siyu 1 ; Xiang, Hai 2   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Zhu, Xu 3 ; Zhang, Hui 3 ; Wang, Dan 3 ; Liu, Huagui 4 ; Wang, Jikun 3 ; Yin, Tao 3 ; Liu, Langqing 3 ; Kong, Minghua 3 ; Zhang, Jian 4 ; Ogura, Shin-ichiro 5   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Zhao, Xingbo 3   VIAFID ORCID Logo 

1  National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China; Laboratory of Land Ecology, Field Science Center, Graduate School of Agricultural Science, Tohoku University, Miyagi 9896711, Japan; School of Life Science and Engineering, Foshan University, Foshan 528225, China 
2  National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China; School of Life Science and Engineering, Foshan University, Foshan 528225, China; Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China 
3  National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China 
4  Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Beijing 100097, China 
5  Laboratory of Land Ecology, Field Science Center, Graduate School of Agricultural Science, Tohoku University, Miyagi 9896711, Japan 
First page
84
Publication year
2018
Publication date
2018
Publisher
MDPI AG
e-ISSN
20762615
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8060084
ProQuest document ID
2582791330
Copyright
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.