Poult. Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Poult Sci 2008. 87:1012-1021. doi:10.3382/ps.2006-00424
© 2008 Poultry Science Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fanatico, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Emmert, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fanatico, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Emmert, J. L.

ENVIRONMENT, WELL-BEING, AND BEHAVIOR

Performance, Livability, and Carcass Yield of Slow- and Fast-Growing Chicken Genotypes Fed Low-Nutrient or Standard Diets and Raised Indoors or with Outdoor Access

A. C. Fanatico*, P. B. Pillai*, P. Y. Hester{dagger}, C. Falcone{ddagger}, J. A. Mench{ddagger}, C. M. Owens* and J. L. Emmert*,1

* Center for Excellence in Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701; {dagger} Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907; and {ddagger} Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis 95616

1 Corresponding author: jemmert{at}uark.edu

Two experiments were conducted to assess the effect of genotype, production system, and nutrition on performance and livability of meat chickens for niche markets. Slow-growing (SG) and fast-growing genotypes (FG) were raised for 91 and 63 d, respectively, in experiment 1 (females) or 84 and 56 d, respectively, in experiment 2 (males). In each trial, SG were placed before FG to achieve a similar BW at processing. In experiment 1, each genotype was assigned to 8 pens of 20 birds each, with 4 pens within each genotype raised indoors in a conventional research facility or in a small facility with outdoor access. All birds were fed a low-nutrient diet. In experiment 2, genotype assignment to pens was as in experiment 1; however, 4 pens within each genotype were fed a low-nutrient diet or a conventional diet, and birds were raised indoors. Birds were gait-scored and commercially processed; legs were examined for tibial dyschon-droplasia lesions and scanned for bone mineral density. In experiment 1, FG gained more weight than SG (P < 0.05) even though they were placed later. Outdoor access increased feed intake, and feed efficiency was poorer (P< 0.05). Fast-growing genotypes had higher breast meat yield, whereas SG had higher wing and leg yields (P < 0.05). In experiment 2, the low-nutrient diet reduced (P< 0.05) gain of the SG; FG increased feed intake of the low-nutrient diet such that their gain was unaffected (P> 0.05). For FG, the low-nutrient diet resulted in a poorer (P < 0.05) feed efficiency. Although weight gain of the FG was maintained on the low-nutrient diet, breast yield was reduced (P < 0.05). Genotype affected bone health in both experiments, with SG having better gait scores and less tibial dyschondroplasia (P < 0.05). Outdoor access and the low-nutrient diet also resulted in better gait score (P < 0.05). These data indicate differences among genotypes and provide information about the efficiency and potential for alternative poultry systems.

Key Words: broiler • free range • organic • growth performance • livability







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the Poultry Science Association.