4.2 Article

A comparative study on the effect of quantitative feed restriction in males and females of broiler chickens, rabbits and nutrias. II. Meat quality

Journal

CZECH JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
Volume 67, Issue 2, Pages 55-64

Publisher

CZECH ACADEMY AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.17221/186/2021-CJAS

Keywords

species; sex; feed restriction; physical and chemical meat quality; muscle fibres

Funding

  1. Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic [QJ1510192, QK 1910387]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the effects of feed restriction and sex on the meat quality of chickens, rabbits, and nutrias. The results showed that feed restriction and sex primarily affected the nutritional value of meat, with minimal effects on physical measurements. In rabbits and nutrias, the interaction between feed restriction and sex influenced the cross-sectional area of muscle fibers.
The objective of the study was to evaluate the effects of feed restriction and sex on the physical, chemical and histochemical parameters of meat quality in chickens, rabbits and nutrias. Feed restriction was applied at a rate of 70% ad libitum from 14 to 21 days of age in chickens, 70% ad libitum from 42 to 49 days of age in rabbits, and 70% ad libitum from 12 to 15 weeks of age in nutrias. Animals were fed ad libitum prior to and following restriction. The results showed stronger effects of feed restriction, sex, and their interaction on the meat quality of broiler chickens than in rabbits and nutrias. The effect of feed restriction, sex and their interaction were mainly observed in the nutritional value of meat, while physical measurements of meat were negligibly affected. The interaction between feed restriction and sex affected the cross-sectional area of muscle fibre only in rabbits and nutrias. The data indicated the relationships between compensatory growth, muscle fibre distribution, and nutritional value of meat.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available