Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Key words: stocking density, immune status, performance, carcass yield, meat quality
2012 Poultry Science 91:667673
http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01597
INTRODUCTION
667
668
Tong et al.
did not affect bursa weight, mortality, or concentrations of corticosterone metabolites in droppings but did
influence leg health and footpad and hock dermatitis
and tended to influence fearfulness (8, 19, 29, 40, 45,
51, 61, and 72 birds per 3.3 m2). However, most of the
reports focused on heavy birds, and relatively little information is available on lightweight ones (Ravindran
et al., 2006; Thaxton et al., 2006; Vanhonacker et al.,
2008; Buijs et al., 2009).
In addition, most of the studies designed the same
stocking density in both starter and finisher periods,
which was not in accordance with the practice typically
used in the Chinese broiler industry. In practice, the
stocking density in the finisher period is equal to half
that in the starter period. Therefore, 3 stocking density
treatments were used in this experiment to evaluate
the effect on growth performance, carcass yield, and
immune status of a local chicken breed.
669
diets1
Starter (128 d)
Finisher (2942 d)
61.00
30.45
5.00
1.40
1.40
0.16
0.30
0.12
0.02
0.15
21.50
12.13
1.03
0.45
1.00
0.50
64.86
25.00
7.00
1.25
1.25
0.05
0.30
0.12
0.02
0.15
20.20
12.38
0.92
0.42
0.80
0.40
and analyzed nutrient composition were both provided by Yangzhou Hope Feed Co. (Yangzhou, China).
Statistical Analysis
Performance data were subjected to repeated measures analysis, with cage means as the experimental
unit (SAS Institute, 1996). The parameters were averaged per cage. Prior to analysis, homogeneity of variance was examined and the normality of the data was
verified. The data were analyzed by using categorical
model analysis (low, medium, and high). Stocking density was treated as one variable. Data were compared in
a completely randomized design by the GLM procedure
of SAS software (SAS Institute, 1996). Statements of
significance were based on P < 0.05, unless otherwise
stated.
670
Tong et al.
increased stocking density (Feddes et al., 2002). However, the amount of feeding and drinking space available
per bird was kept constant across density in this study,
and the maximum distance from a feeder was less than
0.7 m. Therefore, feeder accessibility cannot explain the
changes in F/G.
Upon processing, stocking density did not lead to
apparent differences in the incidence of mortality (P
> 0.05), which was in agreement with Cravener et al.
(1992), Feddes et al. (2002), and Buijs et al. (2009).
The mortality during the study ranged between 1.33
and 2.34% and was not related to any treatment (Table
2). Published data from studies conducted under research farm conditions indicate that stocking density
has no effect on mortality (Shanawany, 1988; Cravener
et al., 1992; Feddes et al., 2002; Thomas et al., 2004;
Ravindran et al., 2006), and these findings were confirmed in the present study.
Carcass Yield
An increase in stocking density was expected to decrease breast muscle thickness, as the more-crowded
birds were not expected to grow to their full potential. However, in the present study, stocking density did
not influence carcass and eviscerated carcass yields and
abdominal fat yields (P > 0.05, Table 3). This result
was consistent with the data of Dozier et al. (2005,
2006), who found that stocking density did not influence carcass and abdominal fat yields relative to BW.
Breast muscle yield as a percentage of eviscerated carcass weight ranged between 16.27 and 16.60%, which
was consistent with Bilgili and Hess (1995), Feddes et
al. (2002), and Dozier et al. (2005), who concluded that
the stocking density had no effect on breast meat yield.
In contrast, other research determined that increasing
stocking density decreased breast fillet yield (Ricard,
1977; Castellini et al., 2002; Dozier et al., 2006).
However, the thigh yield of chickens in the mediumdensity group improved significantly (P < 0.05), which
was different from Ricard (1977) and Castellini et al.
Table 2. Effect of stocking density on BW (g), daily BW gain (g/bird), daily feed intake (g/bird), feed/gain (g/g), and mortality (%)1
Stocking density2 (bird/m2)
Item
Age (d)
Low
Medium
High
SEM
Significance
BW
28
42
1 to 28
29 to 42
1 to 42
1 to 28
29 to 42
1 to 42
1 to 28
29 to 42
1 to 42
1 to 42
690.17
1,172.38
23.33
34.45
27.03
42.55
88.86
57.98
1.8250
2.5900
2.1458
1.33
652.74
1,139.01
22.08
34.52
26.23
39.90
81.54
53.78
1.8092
2.3683
2.0517
2.34
611.91
1,100.03
20.55
34.50
25.20
37.47
78.65
51.20
1.8258
2.3008
2.0367
1.92
6.298
14.574
0.221
0.848
0.357
0.475
1.792
0.853
0.017
0.065
0.030
1.11
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.998
0.004
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.744
0.010
0.029
0.815
Daily BW gain
Daily feed intake
Feed/gain
Mortality
1Each
2Stocking
tively).
671
Low
Medium
High
SEM
Significance
Slaughter yield3
Eviscerated carcass yield3
Breast yield4
Thigh yield4
Abdominal fat yield4
91.27
67.29
16.50
22.78
0.77
91.01
67.24
16.60
24.07
0.79
91.43
68.04
16.27
22.68
0.73
0.572
0.489
0.275
0.312
0.113
0.871
0.437
0.684
0.005
0.932
1Each
2Stocking
tively).
3Calculated as a percentage of live BW.
4Calculated as a percentage of eviscerated carcass weight.
(2002), who found that percentages of thigh meat increased when birds had a lower stocking density and
outdoor access in an organic production system because of forced motor activity.
Medium
High
SEM
Significance
31.71
2.03
0.288
5.78
31.33
2.04
0.309
5.84
29.29
2.17
0.295
5.83
1.104
0.084
0.016
0.012
0.264
0.444
0.620
0.004
2Stocking
tively).
Low
Meat Quality
672
Tong et al.
organs1
Stocking density2 (bird/m2)
Item
Low
Medium
High
SEM
Significance
21.87
1.99
1.36
0.12
1.07
0.10
6.67
0.61
22.26
2.10
1.36
0.13
1.19
0.11
6.71
0.62
20.86
2.04
1.25
0.12
1.16
0.11
6.12
0.60
0.415
0.034
0.087
0.008
0.099
0.009
0.388
0.034
0.062
0.097
0.637
0.607
0.693
0.423
0.494
0.838
1Each
2Stocking
tively).
Low
Medium
High
SEM
Significance
2.503
0.233
11.413
1.093
32.293
16.433
5.370
149.42
119.093
2.517
2.58
680.86
7,599.583
8.593
0.887
20.157
2.647
0.267
10.913
1.09
37.033
17.61
5.427
149.423
118.38
2.56
2.53
619.777
5,742.75
7.877
0.917
22.937
2.537
0.280
11.127
0.993
33.503
16.777
4.827
147.343
117.34
2.487
2.54
646.083
5,656.443
8.053
1.007
20.987
0.125
0.022
0.231
0.105
0.994
0.288
0.138
0.554
0.462
0.019
0.075
34.164
897.384
1.089
0.068
1.255
0.711
0.367
0.37
0.757
0.035
0.066
0.040
0.059
0.092
0.092
0.886
0.490
0.297
0.891
0.479
0.341
Immunological Parameters
ties of 8, 19, 29, 40, 45, 51, 61, and 72 birds per 3.3 m2
(Buijs et al., 2009).
The effects of stocking density on some blood parameters are shown in Table 6. The stocking density of birds
was found to significantly affect the levels of blood total
protein and K (P < 0.05), but no significant differences
were found in other blood parameters (P > 0.05). The
results were in agreement with Thaxton et al. (2006),
who found that stocking density did not result in a recognizable trend in corticosterone, glucose, cholesterol,
and total nitrite concentrations. This was primarily due
to a great degree of variability seen between birds when
applying these immunological measures. Talebi et al.
(1995) also found that there was a great deal of individual bird variability in the lymphocyte blastogenesis
assay under even more controlled conditions than used
in this study. However, stocking density of rock partridges was found to significantly affect the levels of
blood total protein, total cholesterol, triglyceride, urea,
glucose, calcium, phosphorus, alkaline phosphatase, sodium, chlorine, and potassium (zbey and Esen, 2007).
This might be because the degree of variability in broilers is greater than that for rock partridges.
The findings of this study suggest that decreasing the
stocking density adversely affects F/G and increased
the final BW, whereas no evidence was found that
stocking density caused changes in any of the measured
immune parameters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was financially supported by a special
fund for Agro-scientific Research in the public interest of the Ministry of Agriculture (201003011, National Spark Program Project (S2011C100476), and
Agro-three Project of Jiangsu Province [SX(2010)138,
SX(2010)019], P. R. China.
Feddes, J. J. R., E. J. Emmanuel, and M. J. Zuidhof. 2002. Broiler performance, body weight variance, feed and water intake,
and carcass quality at different stocking densities. Poult. Sci.
81:774779.
Food Marketing Institute and National Council of Chain Restaurants. 2003. FMI-NCCR animal welfare program. Food Marketing Inst., Washington, DC.
Heckert, R. A., I. Estevez, E. Russek-Cohen, and R. Pettit-Riley.
2002. Effects of density and perch availability on the immune
status of broilers. Poult. Sci. 81:451457.
Lacy, M. P. 2002. Broiler management. Pages 829868 in Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production. 4th ed. D. Bell and W.
D. Bell, ed. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Maga, J. A. 1994. Pink discoloration in cooked white meat. Food
Rev. Int. 10:273286.
Mancini, R. A., and M. C. Hunt. 2005. Current research in meat
color. Meat Sci. 71:100121.
Molette, C., H. Remignon, and R. Babile. 2003. Maintaining muscle
at a high postmortem temperature induces PSE-like meat in turkey. Meat Sci. 63:525532.
NRC. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th rev. ed. Natl.
Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
zbey, O., and F. Esen. 2007. The effects of breeding systems and
stocking density on some blood parameters of rock partridges
(Alectoris graeca). Poult. Sci. 86:420422.
Pope, C. R. 1991. Pathology of lymphoid organs with emphasis on
immunosuppression. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 30:3144.
Proudfoot, F. G., H. W. Hulan, and D. R. Ramey. 1979. The effect of four stocking densities on broiler carcass grade, the incidence of breast blisters, and other performance traits. Poult.
Sci. 58:791793.
Ravindran, V., D. V. Thomas, D. G. Thomas, and P. C. H. Morel.
2006. Performance and welfare of broilers as affected by stocking density and zinc bacitracin supplementation. Anim. Sci. J.
77:110116.
Ricard, T. 1977. Influence de lage et du patrimone genetique sur
letat dengraissement du poulet. Pages 7986 in La Composition
Corporelle des Volailles. INRA, Paris, France.
SAS Institute. 1996. SAS Users Guide: Statistics. Version 7.0. SAS
Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.
SCAHAW. 2000. The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers). Pages 6266 in European Commission: Health &
Consumer Protection Directorate-General. http://ec.europa.eu/
food/fs/sc/scah/out39_en.pdf.
Shanawany, M. M. 1988. Broiler performance under high stocking
densities. Br. Poult. Sci. 29:4352.
Talebi, A., P. R. Torgerson, and G. Mulcahy. 1995. Optimal conditions for measurement of blastogenic responses of chickens to
concanavalin A in whole blood assays. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 46:293301.
Thaxton, J. P., W. A. Dozier III, S. L. Branton, G. W. Morgan, D.
W. Miles, W. B. Roush, B. D. Lott, and Y. Vizzier-Thaxton.
2006. Stocking density and physiological adaptive responses of
broilers. Poult. Sci. 85:819824.
Thomas, D. G., V. Ravindran, D. V. Thomas, B. J. Camden, Y.
H. Cottam, P. C. H. Morel, and C. J. Cook. 2004. Influence
of stocking density on the performance, carcass characteristics,
and selected welfare indicators of broiler chickens. N. Z. Vet. J.
52:7681.
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, S. Buijs, and F. A.
M. Tuyttens. 2008. Societal concern related to stocking density,
pen size, and group size in farm animal production. Livest. Sci.
123:1622.
Wiebicki, E., and F. E. Deatherage. 1958. Determination of waterholding capacity of fresh meats. J. Agric. Food Chem. 6:387
392.
REFERENCES
673