The effects of three housing systems on performance, meat quality and muscular histological characteristics of broilers were investigated. Four hundred and eighty 21-day-old healthy male Arbor Acres (AA) broilers with the similar weight of (367.66±1.12) g were randomly assigned to one of the three housing systems: net-rearing and floor-rearing with or without outdoor access. Straws were used as the bedding of broilers in floor-rearing with or without outdoor access. Four pens were placed in a rearing pattern containing forty birds each, and a pen was a replicate. The experiment ended at 49 days of age. The results showed as follows: 1) there were no significant differences in the average daily feed intake of the broilers among three treatments (P>0.05), while the broilers in floor-rearing with outdoor access showed higher mortality and feed to gain ratio (P<0.05), and the average daily weight gain was lower than that in net-rearing (P<0.05); 2) the abdominal fat proportion of the broilers in floor-rearing with outdoor access was significantly lower than that in the other two groups (P<0.05), the shear force was significantly higher than that in the other two groups (P<0.05), and breast muscle fiber diameter was the largest in the three treatments, followed by that of broilers in floor-rearing without outdoor access, and then in net-rearing (P<0.05), but as to the muscle fiber density it was in reverse order; there were no significant differences in pH, drop lose, intramuscular fat (IMF) and insine monphosphate (IMP) of breast muscle among the three housing systems (P>0.05). The results suggest that among the three housing systems, the broilers in floor-rearing with outdoor access show lower performance, lower abdominal fat proportion, thicker breast muscle fiber and harder meat.[Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2010,22(5):1237-1242]
LU Qingping,ZHANG Hongfu,JIANG Xuming,HAO Jingyu
. Effects of Different Housing Systems on Performance, Meat Quality and Muscular Histological Characteristics of Broilers[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2010
, 22(05)
: 1237
-1242
.
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2010.05.017