» Articles » PMID: 32867983

Differences in Performance, Body Conformation, and Welfare of Conventional and Slow-growing Broiler Chickens Raised at 2 Stocking Densities

Overview
Journal Poult Sci
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2020 Sep 2
PMID 32867983
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Consumer concern for broiler welfare has increased interest in chicken from slower growing (SG) broiler strains. Broilers from SG strains take longer to reach market weight, which may necessitate differences in management practices, such as stocking density. This study evaluated the effects of 2 stocking densities on production performance, body conformation, and welfare of broilers from 2 strains. Broilers from strains that reach market weight at age 42 D (CONV; N = 284) and at 63 D (SG; N = 284) were exclusively stocked into pens at a density of either 29 kg/m or 37 kg/m. Birds were provided the same starter, grower, and finisher diets with diet phase changes occurring when SG bird body weight (BW) matched CONV. Live BW, body length, pelvic width, shank length, shank width, keel length, breast width, and breast depth were collected at 4 phases: Phase 1-chick placement, Phase 2-starter, Phase 3-grower, and Phase 4-finisher. At Phase 4, footpad dermatitis (FPD), hock burn (HB), and toe damage (TD) were scored. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) and mortality for each pen were recorded throughout the study. Final BW was similar (2.68 kg) for both strains and stocking densities of birds (P > 0.05). CONV bird FCR was 35% more efficient than SG (P < 0.0001). CONV birds had shorter bodies and shanks compared with SG birds at Phases 3 and 4 (P < 0.05). Slower growing birds stocked at 37 kg/m had the longest bodies and keel bones at Phase 4 (P < 0.01). Also at Phase 4, SG birds stocked at 29 kg/m had the lowest prevalence of HB (4%), yet the highest prevalence of TD (28%; P < 0.01). These results indicate differences in the effects of strain and stocking density on male broiler conformation, performance, and welfare and highlight the importance of tailoring management practices to the strain of broiler raised.

Citing Articles

Effects of genetic strain, stocking density, and age on broiler behavior.

Whittle R, Karcher D, Erasmus M, Weimer S Poult Sci. 2024; 104(2):104723.

PMID: 39740497 PMC: 11750527. DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2024.104723.


Exercise Volume Provides New Insight into the Effects of Housing Systems on Chicken Body Conformation, Carcass Traits, Meat Quality, and Serum Biochemical Parameters.

Ren P, Zhou L, Xu Y, Chen M, Luo Z, Li J Animals (Basel). 2024; 14(16).

PMID: 39199922 PMC: 11350860. DOI: 10.3390/ani14162387.


Assessment of Welfare Problems in Broilers: Focus on Musculoskeletal Problems Associated with Their Rapid Growth.

Kwon B, Park J, Kim D, Lee K Animals (Basel). 2024; 14(7).

PMID: 38612355 PMC: 11011155. DOI: 10.3390/ani14071116.


Effects of Species-Specific Auditory Stimulation on Broiler Embryos on Hatchability, Developmental Stability, Behavior, and Performance Characteristics.

Narinc D, Aygun A Animals (Basel). 2023; 13(23).

PMID: 38067090 PMC: 10705324. DOI: 10.3390/ani13233739.


Fast- and slower-growing broilers respond similarly to a reduction in stocking density with regard to gait, hock burn, skin lesions, cleanliness, and performance.

van der Eijk J, van Harn J, Gunnink H, Melis S, van Riel J, de Jong I Poult Sci. 2023; 102(5):102603.

PMID: 36996512 PMC: 10070940. DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2023.102603.


References
1.
Kestin S, Knowles T, Tinch A, Gregory N . Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Vet Rec. 1992; 131(9):190-4. DOI: 10.1136/vr.131.9.190. View

2.
Caldas J, Boonsinchai N, Wang J, England J, Coon C . The dynamics of body composition and body energy content in broilers. Poult Sci. 2018; 98(2):866-877. DOI: 10.3382/ps/pey422. View

3.
Dawkins M, Donnelly C, Jones T . Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature. 2004; 427(6972):342-4. DOI: 10.1038/nature02226. View

4.
Gous R, Moran Jr E, Stilborn H, BRADFORD G, Emmans G . Evaluation of the parameters needed to describe the overall growth, the chemical growth, and the growth of feathers and breast muscles of broilers. Poult Sci. 1999; 78(6):812-21. DOI: 10.1093/ps/78.6.812. View

5.
Latshaw J, Moritz J . The partitioning of metabolizable energy by broiler chickens. Poult Sci. 2008; 88(1):98-105. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2008-00161. View