Loading...

Variations in carcass yield and meat sensory quality attributes between turkeys (meleagris gallopavo) reared in free-range and confinement rearing systems
 

DOI: 10.18805/ijar.v0iOF.9141    | Article Id: B-622 | Page : 1543-1547
Citation :- Variations in carcass yield and meat sensory quality attributes between turkeys (meleagris gallopavo) reared in free-range and confinement rearing systems.Indian Journal of Animal Research.2019.(53):1543-1547
Irfan, Arshad Javid, Ali Hussain, Muhammad Ashraf, Athar Mahmud, Muhammad Altaf, Syed Makhdoom Hussain and Syed Mohsin Bukhari irfanbaboo@gmail.com
Address : Department of Wildlife and Ecology, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan 
Submitted Date : 14-09-2016
Accepted Date : 11-04-2017

Abstract

Experiment was conducted to compare carcass yield and meat sensory quality parameters of turkeys Meleagris gallopavo reared under free-range and confinement rearing systems. There were two treatments, each containing 25 birds. In indoor treatment, the turkeys were raised in a 20 × 20 feet (length × width) room. In the free-range treatment, the birds were housed in an open cage having same dimensions i.e. 20 × 20 feet (length × width), in addition, they had a free-range grass paddock. To compare sensory attributes 4 ready to-cook turkeys having equal size were selected from free-range and indoor rearing systems. The birds were skinned and boneless breast fillets and thighs were weighed and steam roasted. The roast breast meat of free-range turkeys was darker and yellower whereas cooked thigh was light yellow than meat from indoor birds. Among the rearing systems non-significant variations in all the meat sensory quality attributes were recorded for chest pieces of male and female and thigh piece of female birds. However, significant (p<0.05) differences in color, tenderness, oiliness and overall acceptability were observed for thigh meat of male M. gallopavo. Similarly, significantly (p<0.05) heavier wing piece, liver, kidneys and claws were observed in M. gallopavo reared in confinement as compared to free-range rearing system. It can be concluded from the present study that carcass yield and meat sensory quality attributes are influenced by the rearing systems and meat of the birds reared under free-range system is preferred by the consumers due to better sensory quality attributes. 

Keywords

Flavor Tenderness Free-range rearing system Thigh meat

References

  1. Aberle, E. D. Forrest, J. C. Gerrard, D. E. and Mills, E. W. (2001). Principles of Meat Science. 4thed. Kendall/Hunt Publ. 
  2. Allen, C. D. Fletcher, D. L. Northcutt, J. K. and Russell, S. M. (1998). The relationship of broiler breast color to meat quality and shelf-    life. Poult Sci. 77: 361-366.
  3. AOAC and Latimer, G. W. (2006). Official methods of analysis of AOAC international. W. Horwitz (Ed.). AOAC International. 
  4. AOAC. (1990). Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Gaithersburg, MD.
  5. Cavitt, L. C. Youm, G. W. Meullenet, J. F. Wens, C. M. and Xiong, R. (2004). Prediction of poultry meat tenderness using razor blade shear, Allo-Kramer shear, and sarcomere length. J Food Sci. 69: 11-12.
  6. Chen, X. Jiang, W. Tan, H. Z. Xu, G. F. Zhang, X. B. Wei, S. and Wang, X. Q. (2013). Effects of outdoor access on growth performance, carcass composition, and meat characteristics of broiler chickens. Poult Sci. 92: 435-443.
  7. Duclos, M. J. Berri, C. and Le Bihan-Duval, E. (2007). Muscle growth and meat quality. J Appl Poult Res. 16: 107-112.
  8. Fanatico, A. C. Cavitt, L. C. Pillai, P. B. Emmert, J. L. and Owens, C. M. (2005). Evaluation of slow-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Meat quality. Poult Sci. 84: 1785-1790.
  9. Fanatico, A. C. Cavitt, L. C. Pillai, P. B. Emmert, J. L. and Owens, C. M. (2007). Meat quality of slow and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poult Sci. 86: 2245-2255.
  10. Fanatico, A. C. Pillai, P. B. Cavitt, L. C. Emmert, J. L. Meullenet, J. F. and Owens, C. M. (2006). Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Sensory attributes. Poult Sci. 85: 337-343.
  11. Farmer, L. J. Perry, G. C. Lewis, P. D. Nute, G. R. Piggot, J. R. and Patterson, R. L. P. (1997). Responses of two genotypes of chicken to the diets and stocking densities of conventional UK and Label Rouge production systems-II. Sensory attributes. Meat Sci. 47: 77-93.
  12. Gordon, S. H. and D. R. Charles (2002). Niche and Organic Chicken Products. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.
  13. Irfan, Arshad, J. Muhammad, A. Athar, M. Muhammad, A. Shahid, M. and Muhammad A. Y. (2016). Effect of varying levels of dietary protein on growth and relationship of egg weight with egg quality parameters in Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Indian J Anim Res. DOI:10.18805/ijar.11171
  14. Jones, M. and Millis, A. D. (1999). Divergent selection for social reinstatement and behaviors in Japanese quail: Effects on sociality and social discrimination. Poult Avian Biol Rev. 10: 213-223.
  15. Latter-Dubois. (2000). Poulets Fermiers: Leurs Qualite´s Nutritionnelle et Organoleptiques et la Perception du Consommateur. M.S. Faculte´ des Sciences de l’Agriculture et de L’Alimentation. Univ. Laval, Quebec, Canada.
  16. Lewis, P. D. and Gous, M. R. (2006). Effect of final photoperiod and twenty-week body weight on sexual maturity and early egg production in broiler breeders. Poult Sci. 85: 377-383.
  17. Lewis, P. D. Perry, G. C. Farmer, L. J. and Patterson, R. L. S. (1997). Responses of two genotypes of chicken to the diets and stocking densities typical of UK and “label roug” systems: I. Performance, behaviour and carcass composition. Meat Sci. 45: 501-516.
  18. Lonergan, S. M. Deeb, N. Fedlerand, C. A. and Lamont, S. J. (2003). Breast meat quality and composition in unique chicken populations. Poult Sci. 82: 1990-1994.
  19. Marin, R. H. Fretes, P. Gusmanand, D. and Rones, B. R. (2001). Effects of an acute stressor on fear and on the social reinstatement responses of domestic chicks to cage mates and strangers. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 71: 57-66.
  20. Meilgaard, M. Civille, G. V. and Carr, B. T. (2007). Overall difference tests: does a sensory difference exist between samples. Sensory evaluation techniques. 4: 63-104.
  21. Mendl, M. (1999). Performing under pressure: Stress and cognitive function. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 65: 221-224.
  22. Molette, C. Rémignon, H. and Babilé, R. (2003). Maintaining muscles at a high post-mortem temperature induces PSE-like meat in turkey. Meat Sci. 63: 525-532.
  23. Peryam, D. R. and Girardot, N. F. (1952). Advanced taste test method. Food Eng. 24: 58-61.
  24. Ponte, P. I. Rosado, C. M. Crespo, J. P. Crespo, D. G. Mourao, J. L. Chaveiro-Soares, M. A. Bras, I. Mendes, J. L. Gama, L. T. Prates, J. A. Ferreira, L. M. and Fontes, C. M. (2008). Pasture intake improves the performance and meat sensory attributes of free-    range broilers. Poult Sci. 87: 71-79.
  25. Wattanachant, S. Benjakul, S. and Ledward, D. A. (2004). Composition, color, and texture of Thai indigenous and broiler chicken muscles. Poult Sci. 83: 123-128.
  26. Wiebicki, E. and Deatherage, F. E. (1958). Determination of water-holding capacity of fresh meats. Agri Food Chem. 6: 387-392.
  27. Wood, J. D. Richardson, R. I. Nute, G. R. Fisher, V. A. Campo, M. M. and Kasapidou, E. (2003). Effects of fatty acids on meat quality: a review. Meat Sci. 66: 21-32. 

Global Footprints