Comparison of performance and carcass composition of a novel slow-growing crossbred broiler with fast-growing broiler for chicken meat in Australia.

M Singh, A J Lim, W I Muir, P J Groves
Author Information
  1. M Singh: Sydney School of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia. Electronic address: mini.singh@sydney.edu.au.
  2. A J Lim: School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia.
  3. W I Muir: School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia.
  4. P J Groves: Sydney School of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia; Birling Avian Laboratories, Bringelly, NSW 2556, Australia.

Abstract

Slow-growing broilers offer differentiation in the chicken meat market for consumers who have distinct preferences based on perceived higher welfare indices and willingness to pay a higher price for the product. Although breeding for slow-growing broilers is relatively advanced in Europe and the United States, it is limited in Australia. Crossbreeding is one of the approaches taken to developing slow-growing broiler strains. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare performance, immune response, leg health, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of a novel crossbred slow-growing broiler breed (SGB) with the conventional, fast-growing Cobb 500 broiler (CB) to assess their suitability as an alternative for chicken meat production in Australia. A total of 236 one-day-old broiler chicks (116 SGB and 120 fast-growing CB) were reared on standard commercial diet in an intensive production system. Birds and feed were weighed on a weekly basis and feed intake and feed conversion ratio calculated. At 21 d of age, a 2% suspension of sheep red blood cells was injected subcutaneously into 8 broilers of each breed to compare their antibody response. Birds from both breeds were grown to a final live weight of 2.0-2.2 kg, before a latency-to-lie (LTL) test, carcass analysis and apparent metabolizable energy (AME) assay were performed. The SGB reached the target weight at 55 d of age compared with 32 d in CB. However, SGB stood for longer during LTL, had higher thigh, drumstick, and wing yields (as a percentage of carcass weight) as well as darker and redder meat in comparison with the CB. The CB had better feed conversion efficiency, higher antibody (IgM) production, higher AME, heavier breast yield, and lower meat drip loss than the SGB. Although fast-growing CB outperformed the SGB for traditional performance parameters, the crossbred in this study was comparable with other slow-growing broiler breeds and strains across different countries and is thus a suitable candidate for a slow-growing alternative in Australia.

Keywords

References

  1. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2005 Dec;12(12):1387-92 [PMID: 16339061]
  2. J Therm Biol. 2019 Jan;79:8-14 [PMID: 30612689]
  3. Poult Sci. 2012 Aug;91(8):1790-5 [PMID: 22802169]
  4. Poult Sci. 1993 Sep;72(9):1679-92 [PMID: 8234128]
  5. Poult Sci. 2000 Jun;79(6):804-9 [PMID: 10875759]
  6. Vet Rec. 2018 Aug 11;183(6):192 [PMID: 29848764]
  7. Poult Sci. 2003 Oct;82(10):1509-18 [PMID: 14601726]
  8. Poult Sci. 2012 Jun;91(6):1489-95 [PMID: 22582311]
  9. PLoS One. 2018 Oct 19;13(10):e0204921 [PMID: 30339691]
  10. Poult Sci. 2018 Jul 1;97(7):2356-2364 [PMID: 29669019]
  11. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2002 Oct 8;89(1-2):47-56 [PMID: 12208050]
  12. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2009 Jun;41(5):807-18 [PMID: 18987986]
  13. Poult Sci. 2003 Oct;82(10):1519-29 [PMID: 14601727]
  14. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2016 Jul;29(7):987-97 [PMID: 26954206]
  15. Biol Open. 2013 Sep 26;2(11):1239-44 [PMID: 24244861]
  16. Poult Sci. 2001 Jul;80(7):833-8 [PMID: 11469641]
  17. Animal. 2017 Jan;11(1):112-120 [PMID: 27297908]
  18. Vet Rec. 2002 Dec 21-28;151(25):762-4 [PMID: 12521248]
  19. Poult Sci. 2019 Nov 1;98(11):6177-6186 [PMID: 31222363]
  20. Poult Sci. 2005 Aug;84(8):1321-7 [PMID: 16156218]
  21. Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 14;8(1):4562 [PMID: 29540782]
  22. Poult Sci. 2020 Jun;99(6):3086-3091 [PMID: 32475445]
  23. Animal. 2011 Feb;5(2):312-9 [PMID: 22440776]
  24. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46950 [PMID: 23071672]
  25. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2017 May 5;8:43 [PMID: 28484596]
  26. Br Poult Sci. 2005 Oct;46(5):572-9 [PMID: 16359110]
  27. Poult Sci. 2005 Nov;84(11):1785-90 [PMID: 16463978]
  28. Br Poult Sci. 2000 May;41(2):193-200 [PMID: 10890216]
  29. Poult Sci. 2004 Feb;83(2):184-92 [PMID: 14979568]
  30. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 1992 Jun;33(1-2):115-27 [PMID: 1632073]
  31. Poult Sci. 2007 Oct;86(10):2245-55 [PMID: 17878457]
  32. PLoS One. 2017 Nov 22;12(11):e0188505 [PMID: 29166389]
  33. Poult Sci. 2018 Sep 1;97(9):3325-3336 [PMID: 29788213]
  34. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2011 Dec;95(6):744-55 [PMID: 21158953]
  35. Poult Sci. 2008 Jun;87(6):1012-21 [PMID: 18492987]

MeSH Term

Animal Feed
Animals
Australia
Body Composition
Breeding
Chickens
Diet
Eating
Growth and Development
Meat

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0broilermeatslow-growingSGBCBhighercarcasschickenAustraliaperformancecrossbredfast-growingfeedbroilersproductionweightAlthoughstrainsstudycompareresponsenovelbreedalternativeBirdsconversionageantibodybreedsLTLAMEcompositionSlow-growingofferdifferentiationmarketconsumersdistinctpreferencesbasedperceivedwelfareindiceswillingnesspaypriceproductbreedingrelativelyadvancedEuropeUnitedStateslimitedCrossbreedingoneapproachestakendevelopingThusaimimmuneleghealthcharacteristicsqualityconventionalCobb500assesssuitabilitytotal236one-day-oldchicks116120rearedstandardcommercialdietintensivesystemweighedweeklybasisintakeratiocalculated21 d2%suspensionsheepredbloodcellsinjectedsubcutaneously8grownfinallive20-22 kglatency-to-lietestanalysisapparentmetabolizableenergyassayperformedreachedtarget55 dcompared32 dHoweverstoodlongerthighdrumstickwingyieldspercentagewelldarkerreddercomparisonbetterefficiencyIgMheavierbreastyieldlowerdriplossoutperformedtraditionalparameterscomparableacrossdifferentcountriesthussuitablecandidateComparison

Similar Articles

Cited By