International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research

2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiaar.2018.174.9
Copyright © 2018. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND

Original article

Carcass and Meat Composition in F1 Crosses of Two Lines of Slow-

Growing Chickens Reared in Conventional or Alternative System
with Access to Pasture1
Evgeni Petkov a, *, Teodora Popova a & Maya Ignatova a, b
a
Institute of Animal Science, 2232 Kostinbrod, Bulgaria
b
Agricultural Academy, 1373 Sofia, Bulgaria

Abstract
The study was carried out to compare the carcass quality, meat chemical composition and its fatty acid profile in two slow-growing
crosses obtained from La Belle (LB) and Bresse Gauloise (BB) parents, reared in conventional or alternative system with pasture
access. At the age 12 weeks, male chickens (n=6) of each cross were slaughtered. Two-way ANOVA was used to assess the effect
of the rearing strategies as well as the crossbreed on the carcass quality and meat chemical and fatty acid composition. The live
and carcass weight of both crosses, as well as the dressing percentage were influenced mostly by the rearing system, showing
advantage of the indoors grown birds. Despite the reduced values of these parameters, no deposition of abdominal fat was detected
in the pastured birds from both crosses, which is a positive influence of the outdoors system observed in the particular crosses. In
regard to the chemical composition of the meat, the pasture access decreased the protein content in both breast and thigh meat
(P<0.001) but increased the moisture (P<0.001). The cross and the rearing system had different effect on the fatty acid composition
of the meat and the related lipid indices, associated with its dietetic quality. While the thigh meat was mostly affected by the cross
of the chickens, showing higher content of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) (P<0.01) but lower in polyunsaturated fatty acids
(PUFA) (P<0.05) in the ♂BBx♀LB birds, the fatty acid of the breast meat, showed different response according to the crossbreed

and the rearing system. The differences were more pronounced in the ♂LBx♀BB, indicating certain advantage of the pastured
chickens from this cross with lower content of saturated fatty acids (SFA) but higher of PUFA and improved values of the
polyunsaturated/saturated fatty acids (P/S) and n-6/n-3 PUFA ratios.

Keywords: Crossbred slow-growing lines, Pasture access, Carcass quality, Meat chemical composition, Fatty acid profile.

Received: 19 August 2018 * Accepted: 10 November 2018 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiaar.2018.174.9

* Corresponding author:

Evgeni Petkov, Institute of Animal Science, 2232 Kostinbrod, Bulgaria.

Email: [email protected]

1
A part of this study was presented at the International Agricultural, Biological and Life Science Conference, Edirne, Turkey, September 2-5, 2018.

359
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

INTRODUCTION

Autochthonous chicken lines have been recently gaining popularity for production of high quality
meat with improved dietetic and nutritional value (Anh et al., 2015; Sokolowicz et al., 2016). Such lines
are usually slow-growing and are slaughtered at later age. Contrary to the commercial broilers, the slow-
growing lines are better adapted to alternative systems similar to the natural environment and usually
providing access to pasture (Fanatico et al., 2005). In attempt to study the possibilities of some
indigenous lines for production of slow-growing chickens with high quality meat we described in details
the La Belle line (LB) which is representative for the national gene pool of Bulgaria. We compared it
with White Plymouth Rock (Popova et al., 2016) and the recently imported Bresse Gauloise (BB)
(Popova et al., 2017; Popova et al., 2018). Since the latter has been recognised for the high quality of its
meat and meat products, we were interested to what extent the LB and BB lines could affect the
performance and meat quality of their crossbred lines. Hence their crosses ♂LBx♀BB and ♂BBx♀LB
have been described in our studies so far (Popova et al., 2017) when they have been compared with the
pure lines LB and BB and reared only in conventional conditions. In the present work, we aimed to
examine the differences in the carcass quality, chemical composition and fatty acid profile of the meat
between the two F1 crossbred lines when they are reared in conventional and pastured system.

Material and Methods

The experiment was designed as two trials carried out simultaneously in the experimental poultry
farm of the Institute of Animal Science- Kostinbrod, Bulgaria (conventional system) and the symbiotic
Livadi farm, situated in Damyanitsa village, Sandanski region, Bulgaria (pasture system).

Experimental birds and rearing systems

For the first trial (conventional system), a total of 26 ♂LBx♀BB and 27 ♂BBx♀LB 1-day old
male chickens were obtained after crossing of the parent lines La Belle (LB) and Bresse Gauloise (BB)
from the stock in the Institute. After hatching, they were placed into a deep litter facility with a stocking
density of 14 birds/m2 in separate pens in the same poultry house in the Institute. All the birds were fed
ad libitum starter (ME-13.18MJ/kg; protein content-19.41%) and finisher (ME -13.00 MJ/kg, protein
content-17.77%) diets, respectively for 4 and 8 weeks. Water was provided ad libitum with a nipple
drinker. The lighting regime was 15 h of light and 9 h of darkness, and the temperature ranged between
20 and 24 (started from 32-36℃ in the first 3 days after hatching, followed by a programmed decrease).

In the second trial, the total number of chickens hatched and reared in Livadi farm was 43, divided
into two groups, each containing 23 and 20 chickens according to the crossbreed – ♂LBx♀BB and
♂BBx♀LB. For a period of 3 weeks after hatching, the chickens were kept in controlled microclimate
conditions (as described by Salatin, 1998). From 4 to 12 weeks of age, the birds were reared outdoors
in wooden cages covered inside with aluminium plates to prevent the overheating of the chickens. The

360
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

cages were equipped with nipple drinkers and feeders while being open so that the birds could access
pasture. Additionally, the chickens were fed ad libitum the same diet as the ones reared conventionally
in the first trial. The fatty acid composition of the diets and grass is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Fatty acid composition (% FAME) of the diet and grass

Fatty acid Starter (1-28d) Finisher (29 d +) Grass (29 d +)

C14:0 0.19 0.09 3.97
C16:0 16.38 14.30 36.61
C16:1 0.26 0.22 2.80
C18:0 2.75 2.63 7.15
C18:1 25.97 28.76 12.98
C18:2n-6 53.43 52.34 22.59
C18:3n-3 1.01 1.65 13.90

Slaughtering and carcass analysis

At 12 weeks of age, 6 birds of each cross from both trials (rearing systems) were selected for
slaughter based on the average live weight. After stunning, decapitation and bleeding, the carcasses were
plucked, eviscerated and their feet removed. The edible by-products (neck, liver, gizzard, heart and
spleen) were weighed and their content was calculated as percentage of the live weight. Hot carcass
weight was recorded and dressing percentage was calculated. The carcasses were then stored at 4⁰C for
24 h and weighed again. Further the internal fat was removed from the carcasses and they were separated
into breast, thigh, back and wings. The weight of the internal fat and the parts was recorded. The skin
and bones from the breast and thighs were removed to obtain the muscles and they were also weighed.
The content of the separated parts, muscles and internal fat was calculated as percentage of the cold
eviscerated carcass weight. Then the breast and thigh muscles were minced and frozen at -20 ⁰C until
further analysis of the chemical composition of the meat.

Analysis of the chemical and fatty acid composition of the meat

The breast and thigh meat was analysed for lipid, protein, moisture and ash content following the
AOAC (2004) Official method of analysis. For the analysis of the fatty acid profile, total lipids from
the breast meat were extracted according to the method of Bligh and Dyer (1959). Methyl esters
of the total lipids, isolated by preparative thin layer chromatography, were obtained using 0.01
% solution of sulfuric acid in dry methanol for 14 h, as described by Christie (1973). The fatty
acid composition of total lipids was determined by gas–liquid chromatography (GLC) analysis
using a chromatograph CSi 200 equipped with a capillary column (DM-2330:30 m×0.25 mm×0.20
μm) and hydrogen as a carrier gas. The oven temperature was first set to 160⁰C for 0.2 min, then
raised until 220◦C at a rate of 5◦C/min and then held for 5 min. The temperatures of the detector and
injector were 230◦C. Methyl esters were identified through comparison to the retention times of the

361
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

standards. Fatty acids are presented as percentages of the total amount of the methyl esters (FAME)
identified (Christie, 1973).

Statistical evaluation

Data were statistically evaluated by two-way ANOVA as the rearing system, the cross of the birds
and their interaction were included in the model. The Fit model procedure of JMP v.7 software package
was used to perform the statistical analysis (JMP Version 7, SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC). The effects
were considered to be significant at P<0.05; P<0.01 and P<0.001. Significant differences among the
means were determined using Tukey post hoc test (P<0.05). All data were expressed as mean values
with pooled standard errors.

Results and discussion

Carcass analysis

The carcass traits of the crossbred lines reared in the two systems are presented in Table 2. Both
crosses reared on pasture had significantly lower live weight when compared to the indoors reared ones,
however this trait depended on the line (P<0.001). As a whole, the chickens from the ♂BBx♀LB
crossbred line displayed higher live weight that ♂LBx♀BB when grown conventionally, but this trait
had significantly lower value in this cross when reared in pasture system. The same was observed in
regard to the carcass weight and dressing percentage. The differences could be explained with the
performance abilities of both crosses and could indicate also necessary modifications in the pasture
system to compensate the lower weight and yield in the ♂BBx♀LB cross, since clear difference between
the lines regardless of the rearing system was not observed. Lower live, carcass weight and dressing
percentage of the birds on pasture has been observed in a previous study on the pure LB and BB lines
(Popova et al., 2018 in press).

362
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

Table 2. Effect of the rearing system, cross and their interaction on the carcass characteristics of the chickens
Treatment Live Carcass Dressing, Inedible, Edible, Abdominal Breast Thigh Breast Thigh Back, % Wings,
weight, g weight, % % % fat, % (skin+bone), (skin + (muscle), (muscle), %
g % bone), % % %
♂LBx♀BB c 2025.83b 1290.19 63.68a 11.67 6.12 3.03 25.81 36.68 18.09 24.97 20.55 13.18
♂LBx♀BB p 1883.50a 1114.33 59.10b 10.47 7.07 0.00 24.71 37.78 14.69 25.54 21.53 13.39
♂BBx♀LB c 2137.50d 1322.16 61.84ab 12.41 6.49 3.61 25.08 35.51 18.01 23.88 21.38 13.90
♂BBx♀LB p 1741.67c 1062.33 61.02ab 10.87 7.45 0.00 25.09 36.99 15.18 24.38 21.04 13.57
Rearing
system (R)
Conventional 2081.67 1306.17 62.76 12.04 6.31 3.32 25.44 36.09 18.06 24.42 20.97 13.54
Pasture 1812.58 1088.33 60.06 10.67 7.26 0.00 24.90 37.39 14.93 24.96 21.28 13.48
Cross (C)
♂LBx♀BB 1954.67 1202.25 61.39 11.07 6.60 1.51 25.26 37.23 16.39 25.26 21.04 13.28
♂BBx♀LB 1939.58 1192.25 64.44 11.64 6.98 1.81 25.08 36.25 16.60 24.13 21.21 13.73
Sig.
RxC *** 0.09 * ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
R *** *** ** *** *** *** ns 0.07 *** ns ns ns
C ns ns ns 0.08 0.05 ns ns ns ns 0.06 ns ns
Pooled SEM 32.96 25.64 0.51 0.21 0.14 0.37 0.52 0.36 0.39 0.29 0.27 0.15
*P<0.05;**P<0.01;*** P<0.001.Values connected with different letters differ at P<0.0

363
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

Similarly, Ipek and Sozcu (2017) found consderably lower live weight in slow-growing lines
reared with pasture access, however they did not observe any effect of the rearing system on the dressing
percentage. Fanatico et al. (2005) found no differences in the carcass yield of indoor and outdoor reared
birds, and Ponte et al. (2008) observed increases in carcass yields in pastured broilers. The rearing
system affected significantly the inedible parts of the carcass (P<0.001) showing lower percentage in
the birds reared on pasture. This corresponded to the higher part of the edible by-products in the pastured
crosses (P<0.001). On the other hand, these two parameters tended to differ between the crossbred lines,
showing higher content in the ♂BBx ♀LB birds. These results partly contradict to the previously
observed in the LB and BB lines where the pastured birds showed higher percentage of both inedible
parts and edible internal organs. The higher percent of the edible gastrointestinal organs in the pastured
lines is mainly due to the considerably higher content of the gizzard, as seen from Figure 1, and shows
adaptation of the birds to the higher content of fiber in the diet.

6
LB x BB c
5
% LB x BB p
4
BB x LB c
3 BB x LB p
2

0
intestines liver gizzard heart spleen

Figure 1. Content of the intestines and giblets in the crosses

It is known that the dietary fiber content in the diet could affect considerably the development
and the size of the digestive tract organs in the chickens (Mourão et al., 2007) which has also a significant
impact on the carcass yield. The deposition of the abdominal fat content has been positively affected by
the rearing system in this study (P<0.001), showing lack of abdominal fat in the crossbred lines reared
on pasture. In regards to this trait, the crossbred lines reared on pasture show clear advantage over the
pure parent lines, which were not affected by the pasture access (Popova et al., 2018, in press). The
abdominal fat deposition causes economical losses, hence its decrease is desirable in the poultry
breeding. So far, the results of the studies about the effect of the pasture access on the abdominal fat has

364
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

been inconclusive. In line with our observations, Wang et al. (2009) and Li et al. (2017) registered
significant decline in the deposition of abdominal fat in free-range reared chickens with access to grass.
There was no significant influence of the rearing conditions on the main carcass parts, except the breast
muscle which was considerably diminished in the crossess on pasture (P<0.001), corresponding to the
lower dressing percentage. Contrary to our findings, Castellini et al. (2002) observed significant increase
in the breast and thigh parts in outdoors raised chickens in organic production system, because of the
better muscle development due to higher motor activity.

Meat chemical composition and fatty acid profile

The chemical composition of the breast and thigh meat has been affected to a different extent by
both factors- rearing system and cross, as well as their interaction (Table 3). Despite the lack of
significant difference, the lipid content of the breast meat in the pastured birds was decreased by 36%.
Similarly, in the thigh meat, rearing system did not affect the lipids, however, their content differed
significantly between the crosses (P<0.05) showing higher contents in the ♂BB x ♀LB chicks. Both
rearing system and cross interacted significantly (P<0.05) showing the different response of the crosses
to the pastured and conventional rearing in regard to the lipid content of the thigh meat. As expected,
the lipids were higher in the crosses reared conventionally but only in the ♂BB x ♀LB birds, while
surprisingly, the chicken from the ♂LB x ♀BB crossbred line displayed higher content of the lipids in
thigh when reared on pasture. So far the results reported in the literature concerning the effect of the
outdoor system on the lipids of poultry meat vary considerably. Fanatico et al. (2007) observed
decreased intramuscular lipids in breast of chickens reared outdoors, while Küçükyalmaz (2012),
Mikulski et al. (2011) and Li et al. (2017) did not observe any change of the lipid content in meat in
pastured birds in comparison to the indoors reared. The different effect of the rearing system on the
intramuscular lipids in the breast and thigh meat suggests different response of these muscles due to
their metabolic type. Poultry meat is known for being low in fat, especially the breast, since the lipids
are mainly deposited subcutaneously or in the abdomen rather than in the meat. The higher deposition
of fat in the thigh meat of ♂LB x ♀BB cross reared on pasture could be considered positive, since the
LB line initially has very low intramuscular fat content due to the selection process and its increase in
the cross could improve the organoleptic qualities of meat.

Breast meat of both lines reared on pasture, exhibited lower protein (P<0.001) but higher moisture
content (P<0.001) in the pastured birds. Although the significant interaction (P<0.05) between the cross
and rearing system found, both factors affected the protein content of the thigh. In line with the results
for the breast meat, indoors reared birds had higher protein content (P<0.001). Furthermore, ♂LB x
♀BB cross had more protein in thighs when compared to the ♂BB x ♀LB (P<0.05). Moisture was higher
in the thigh meat of the pastured crosses as well (P<0.001). The lower protein content in the meat,
particularly the breast of the pastured birds found in our study corresponds to the lower percentage of

365
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

the breast muscle separated from the carcass of these chickens. Contrary to us, Fanatico et al. (2007)
found higher protein content in slow-growing chickens reared outdoors, while Wang et al. (2009) did
not observe any effect of the outdoors rearing on the protein in meat. These authors also did not find
any significant difference in regard to the moisture in the meat between the indoors and outdoors reared
chicks, while Castellini et al. (2002) determined higher moisture in the organically raised chickens.

366
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

Table 3. Effect of the rearing system, cross and their interaction on the chemical composition of the breast and thigh meat in the chickens
Treatment Breast Thigh
Lipids, % Protein,% Moisture,% Ash, % Lipids, % Protein,% Moisture,% Ash, %
♂LBx♀BB c 1.15 24.85 70.89 1.13a 4.29a 20.47a 72.29 1.04a
♂LBx♀BB p 1.02 22.13 73.75 1.12a 5.81ab 17.28ab 74.11 0.91c
♂BBx♀LB c 1.61 24.74 70.57 1.11a 6.82b 18.07b 72.27 0.97b
♂BBx♀LB p 0.75 22.60 73.62 1.03b 5.88ab 16.99b 74.30 0.94bc
Rearing system (R)
Conventional 1.38 24.80 70.73 1.12 5.56 19.27 72.28 1.004
Pasture 0.88 22.37 73.68 1.07 5.84 17.13 74.20 0.93
Cross (C)
♂LBx♀BB 1.08 23.49 72.32 1.13 5.05 18.87 73.20 0.98
♂BBx♀LB 1.18 23.67 72.10 1.07 6.35 17.53 73.28 0.96
Sig.
RxC ns ns ns *** * * ns ***
R ns *** *** *** ns *** *** ***
C ns ns ns *** * * ns 0.08
Pooled SEM 0.16 0.30 0.32 0.009 0.30 0.36 0.31 0.01
*P<0.05;*** P<0.001.Values connected with different letters differ at P<0.05

367
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

This finding was confirmed in our previous study where the pure LB and BB lines reared on
pasture exhibited higher moisture (Popova et al., 2018 in press).

The ash content in the breast and thigh meat showed differences between the two crosses. The
♂BB x ♀LB birds had considerably lower ash content in breast, but significant interaction between the
crossbreed and the rearing system was also detected. It was determined by the stronger influence of the
rearing system (P<0.001).

The fatty acid profile of the breast meat (Table 4) was affected by the significant interaction of
the rearing system and the cross of the birds. The content of C14:0 and C16:0 showed different response
in both crosses according to the rearing system, showing lower levels in the ♂LB x ♀BB birds reared
outdoors, and at the same time increased in the pastured ♂BB x ♀LB birds. Rather different were the
results for the PUFA contents showing the opposite trends. Generally, the amounts of C20:2n-6, C20:3n-
6, C20:4n-6, C 22:5n-3 and C22:6n-3 showed dramatic increase in the ♂LB x ♀BB chickens reared on
pasture, while the differences in the ♂BB x ♀LB chickens reared in different systems were not strongly
pronounced. Both the cross and the rearing system affected the contents of the essential C18:2n-6 and
C18:3n-3. These fatty acids showed higher content in the pastured chickens, but their levels were
significantly lower in the ♂BB x ♀LB cross. The increase of the levels of C18:2n-6 and C18:3n-3 in
the breast meat of the pastured birds was expected and could be explained by the higher content of the
latter in the grass (Table 1) and the additional intake of feed in this group of chickens. This was also
observed by Popova et al. 2018 (in press). However, Cömmert et al. (2016) observed decrease in the
content of C18:2n-6 in organically reared poultry, when compared to conventional.

The fatty acid composition of the thigh meat (Table 5) was affected mostly by the cross, showing
significantly higher C16:1n-7 (P<0.05) in the meat of the ♂BB x ♀LB birds. This crossbreed also tended
to have higher levels of C16:0 (P=0.08), and C18:1n-9 (P=0.06), while in regard of the individual PUFA,
certain advantage was observed in the other cross. The chickens of the ♂LB x ♀BB displayed higher
content of C18:2n-6, C 18:3n-3, C20:2n-6, C20:4n-6 and C22:5n-3. The effect of the rearing system
was limited to only one of the fatty acids – C16:0 which tended to decrease in the pastured birds.

The total amounts of the fatty acids and related nutritional indices (P/S and n-6/n-3) are presented
in Table 6. The results are to a great extent determined by the effects of both factors or their interaction
on the individual fatty acids. The content of the SFA in the breast meat was decreased in the pastured
♂LB x ♀BB line, while their content was higher in the outdoors reared ♂BB x ♀LB. As for the content
of PUFA, n-3 and n-6, their amounts were mostly increased in the ♂LB x ♀BB birds reared in the
pastured system. This cross also exhibited positively augmented P/S ratio as well as lower n-6/n-3 ratio.
The content of MUFA was significantly affected only by the kind of the rearing system, showing
considerable decrease in the pastured birds (P<0.001).

368
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

The total amount of the fatty acids in the thigh meat were determined by the crossbreed, presenting
significantly higher content of MUFA in the ♂BB x ♀LB (P<0.01), while at the same time, this cross
was characterized by lower (P<0.05) content of PUFA (including n-3 and n-6), when compared to the
♂LB x ♀BB birds. These differences in the content of PUFA led to lower values of the ratio P/S and
higher n-6/n-3 in the thigh meat of the ♂BB x ♀LBs. Fatty acid composition is an important trait which
can be affected by many factors. One of the most important is the rearing conditions of the animals. The
studies on the fatty acid profile, affected by the rearing systems, especially outdoors with pasture access
appear to be very different. In line with our results, Cömmert et al. (2016) reported higher content of
SFA but lower in MUFA in slow growing genotype, reared organically with pasture access. This also
has been observed by Husak et al. (2008) comparing meat from free range and conventionally grown
chicks. On the other hand, Molee et al. (2012) did not find any difference in SFA and MUFA in
conventional and free range reared birds. However, these authors found significantly augmented levels
of n-3 in the breast but not in thigh meat. Besides the rearing systems, line can be significant source of
variation in the fatty acid profile (Dal Bosco et al., 2012). In our study we also found difference between
the lines in regard to the individual and total amounts of fatty acids, especially in the thigh meat which
affected the P/S and n-6/n-3 ratio showing more favourable values in the ♂LB x ♀BB birds. P/S ratio
varied in the range of 0.66 – 0.67 respectively for the ♂LB x ♀BB and the reciprocal cross. These values
are due exclusively to the higher levels of C18:2n-6, which is the major polyunsaturated fatty acid in
the poultry meat. The recommended values of P/S should not be less than 0.4. On the other hand, the
results of the present study show that besides the pasture rearing and the effect of the line, n-6/n-3 ratio
is much above the recommended values of 4, and differ substantially from the reported by Dal Bosco et
al. (2012) and Cömmert et al. (2016). However, Küçükyalmaz et al. (2012) determined this ratio in
thighs to be 50.9 and 46.7, while in breast 39.2 vs. 50.7 respectively for the conventional and organically
reared birds with pasture access. This suggests that the pasture alone is not enough to meet the
nutritional recommendation in regards to this trait.

Conclusions

The results of the study indicated that the live and carcass weight, as well as dressing percentage
of the crosses were mostly affected by the rearing system, with advantage of the indoors grown birds.
On the other hand, the crossbred birds reared on pasture did not deposit abdominal fat, which is a positive
influence of the outdoors system observed in these particular crossbred lines. In regard to the nutritional
composition of the breast and thigh meat, the pasture rearing decreased the protein content in both kinds
of meat and increased the moisture. The cross and the rearing system had different effect on the fatty
acid composition of the meat and the related indices, characterizing the dietetic quality. The thigh meat
was mostly affected by the line of the chickens, showing higher content of MUFA but lower in PUFA
in the ♂BB x ♀LB birds. The fatty acid of the breast meat, however showed different response according

369
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

to the cross and the rearing system. The differences were more pronounced in the ♂LB x ♀BB, and it
showed certain advantage with lower content of SFA but higher of PUFA and improved values of P/S
and n-6/n-3 ratios in the pastured chickens of this crossbreed.

Acknowledgement: The authors gratefully acknowledge the kind support of Mr. Philip
Harmandjiev, owner of Livadi symbiotic farm.

REFERENCES

Anh, N.T. L., S. Kunhareang and M. Duangjinda (2015). Association of chicken growth hormones and
insulin-like growth factor gene polymorphisms with growth performance and carcass traits in Thai
broilers. Asian-Australas. .J Anim. Sci., 28(12), 1686–1695.

Bligh, E. G., and W.Y. Dyer (1959). A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can. J.
Biochem. Physiol., 37(8), 911-917.

Castellini, C., C. Mugnai, and A. Dal Bosco (2002). Effect of organic production system on broiler carcass
and meat quality. Meat Sci. 60, 219–225.

Cömert, M., Y. Şayan, F. Kırkpınar, Ö. Hakan Bayraktar and S. Mert (2016). Comparison of carcass
characteristics, meat quality, and blood parameters of slow and fast grown female broiler chickens
raised in organic or conventional production system. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci., 29(7), 987-997.

Christie, W. W. (1973). Lipid analysis. Pergamon Press, Oxford

Dal Bosco, A., C. Mugnai, S. Ruggeri, S. Mattioli and C. Castellini (2012). Fatty acid composition of meat
and estimated indices of lipid metabolism in different poultry genotypes reared under organic system,
Poult. Sci., 91, 2039-45.

Fanatico, A., L. C. Cavitt, P. Pillai, J. Emmert, and C. Owens (2005). Evaluation of slower-growing broiler
genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: meat quality. Poult. Sci. 85, 1785-1790.

Fanatico, A. C., P. B. Pillai, L. C. Cavitt, C. M. Owens, and J. L. Emmert (2005). Evaluation of slower-
growing broiler genotypes grow with and without outdoor access: Growth performance and carcass
yields. Poult. Sci., 84, 1321–1327.

Fanatico, A.C., P.B. Pillai, J. L. Emmert and C. M. Owens (2007). Meat quality of slow- and fast-growing
chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poultry
Sci., 86, 2245–2255.

Husak, R. L., J. G. Sebranek and K. Bregendahl (2008). A survey of commercially available broilers
marketed as organic, free-range, and conventional broilers for cooked meat yields, meat composition,
and relative value. Poult. Sci., 87 (11), 2367–2376.

Ipek, A., and A. Sozcu (2017). The effect of access to pasture on growth performance, behavioural patterns,
some blood parameters and carcass yield of a slow-growing broiler genotype. J. Appl. Anim. Res.,
45(1), 464-469.

Küçükyılmaz, K., M. Bozkurt, A.U. Çatlı, E. N. Herken, M. Çınar and E. Bintaş (2012). Chemical
composition, fatty acid profile and colour of broiler meat as affected by organic and conventional
rearing systems. South Afr. J. Anim. Sci., 42 (4), 360-368.

370
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

Li, Y., C. Luo, J. Wang and F. Guo (2017). Effects of different raising systems on growth performance,
carcass and meat quality of medium-growing chickens. J. Appl. Anim. Res., 45 (1), 326-330.

Mikulski, D., J. Celej, J. Jankowski, T. Majewska, M. Mikulska (2011). Growth performance, carcass traits
and meat quality of slower-growing and fast-growing chickens raised with and without outdoor access.
Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci., 24 (10), 1407 – 1416.

Molee, W., P. Puttaraksa and S. Khempaka (2012). Effect of rearing systems on fatty acid composition and
cholesterol content of thai indigenous chicken meat. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology International Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 6 (9), 746-748.

Mourão, J. L., V. M. Pinheiro, J. A. M. Prates, R. J. B. Bessa, L. M. A. Ferreira, C. M. G. A. Fontes, and P.

I. P. Ponte (2008). Effect of dietary dehydrated pasture and citrus pulp on the performance and meat
quality of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 87, 733–743.

Ponte, P. I. P., S. P. Alves, L. T. Gama, L. M. A. Ferreira, R. J. B. Bessa, C. M. G. A. Fontes, and J. A. M.

Prates (2008). Influence of pasture intake on the fatty acid composition, cholesterol, tocopherols and
tocotrienols in meat from free-range broilers. Poult. Sci., 87, 80–88.

Salatin J., 1998. You can farm: the entrepreneur's guide to start & succeed in a farming enterprise. Polyface,
1st Edition, June1, 1998, 480p. ISBN-10: 0963810928, ISBN13: 9780963810922

Sokołowicz, Z. J. Krawczyk and S. Świątkiewicz (2016). Quality of poultry meat from native chicken breeds
–a review. Ann. Anim. Sci., 16 (2), 347–368.

Popova, T., M. Ignatova and E. Petkov (2017). Carcass quality and meat chemical composition in two lines
of slow growing chickens and their crosses. Proc. VIII International Agricultural Symposium
„AGROSYM 2017“, 2133-2139.

Popova , T., E. Petkov and M. Ignatova (2018). Fatty acid composition of breast meat in two lines of slow-
growing chickens reared conventionally or on pasture. Food Sci. Appl. Biotech., 1(1), 70-76.

Popova, T., M. Ignatova, E. Petkov and N. Stanišić (2016). Difference in fatty acid composition and related
nutritional indices of meat between two lines of slow-growing chickens slaughtered at different ages.
Arch. Anim. Breeding, 59, 319-327.

Popova, T., E. Petkov and M. Ignatova 2018. Difference in the carcass quality and meat chemical
composition in two lines of slow-growing chickens with or without access to pasture, In press.

Wang, K.H., S. R. Shi, T.C. Dou and H. J. Sun (2009). Effect of a free-range raising system on growth
performance, carcass yield, and meat quality of slow-growing chicken. Poult Sci., 88, 2219-2223.

371
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

Table 4. Effect of the rearing system, cross and their interaction on the fatty acid composition (%FAME) in the breast meat of the chickens
Treatment C14:0 C16:0 C16:1 C18:0 C18:1 C18:2n- C18:3n-3 C20:2n- C20:3n- C20:4n- C20:5n- C22:5n- C22:6n-
6 6 6 6 3 3 3
♂LBx♀BB c 0.71a 28.73b 5.89 8.39 35.77a 18.75 0.40 0.21a 0.20a 0.88a 0.00 0.06a 0.01a
♂LBx♀BB p 0.63a 25.26c 5.46 8.16 33.81ab 21.79 0.53 0.34b 0.39b 3.17b 0.02 0.33b 0.11b
♂BBx♀LB c 0.73a 29.15b 7.48 7.30 37.33a 16.85 0.39 0.14a 0.14a 0.46a 0.00 0.04a 0.00a
♂BBx♀LB p 1.22b 34.55a 8.13 7.85 30.04b 16.98 0.42 0.13a 0.09a 0.59a 0.00 0.00a 0.00a
Rearing
system (R)
Conventional 0.72 28.94 6.69 7.84 36.55 17.80 0.39 0.18 0.17 0.66 0.00 0.05 0.01
Pasture 0.92 29.90 6.80 8.01 31.92 19.38 0.47 0.24 0.24 1.88 0.01 0.17 0.06
Cross ( C)
♂LBx♀BB 0.67 26.99 5.67 8.28 34.79 20.27 0.47 0.27 0.29 2.03 0.01 0.20 0.06
♂BBx♀LB 0.97 31.85 7.81 7.59 33.68 16.91 0.40 0.14 0.11 0.52 0.00 0.02 0.00
Sig.
RxC *** *** ns ns * 0.06 ns * *** *** 0.13 *** **
R *** ns ns ns *** * *** 0.06 * *** 0.13 *** **
C *** *** *** ns ns *** * *** *** *** 0.13 *** ***
Pooled SEM 0.05 0.76 0.28 0.22 0.76 0.54 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.25 0.002 0.03 0.001
*P<0.05;**P<0.01;*** P<0.001.Values connected with different letters differ at P<0.05

372
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

Table 5. Effect of the rearing system, cross and their interaction on the fatty acid composition (%FAME) in the thigh meat of the chickens
Treatment C14:0 C16:0 C16:1 C18:0 C18:1 C18:2n- C18:3n-3 C20:2n- C20:3n- C20:4n- C20:5n- C22:5n- C22:6n-
6 6 6 6 3 3 3
♂LBx♀BB c 0.98 27.07 8.66 7.08 34.31 19.58 0.49 0.19 0.15 1.34 0.02 0.11 0.02
♂LBx♀BB p 0.91 25.04 7.74 6.93 37.02 20.47 0.50 0.23 0.14 0.90 0.01 0.11 0.00
♂BBx♀LB c 1.09 29.97 10.64 5.94 38.18 13.48 0.28 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00
♂BBx♀LB p 0.99 27.09 9.39 6.37 37.84 16.98 0.40 0.16 0.10 0.61 0.01 0.05 0.01
Rearing
system (R)
Conventional 1.02 28.55 9.64 6.51 36.24 16.53 0.39 0.16 0.13 0.76 0.01 0.05 0.01
Pasture 0.95 26.07 8.56 6.65 37.42 18.73 0.45 0.20 0.12 0.75 0.01 0.08 0.005
Cross (C)
♂LBx♀BB 0.94 26.06 8.20 7.00 35.66 20.03 0.50 0.22 0.14 1.11 0.02 0.11 0.01
♂BBx♀LB 1.04 28.53 10.02 6.16 38.01 15.23 0.34 0.14 0.11 0.39 0.004 0.03 0.005
Sig.
RxC ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns 0.08
R ns 0.07 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
C ns 0.08 * ns 0.06 * * * ns ** ns * ns
Pooled SEM 0.04 0.72 0.38 0.21 0.63 0.98 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.006 0.02 0.004
*P<0.05.Values connected with different letters differ at P<0.05

373
 Petkov, Popova & Ignatova / International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research,
2018, Vol. 2 (4), 359-374

Table 6. Effect of the rearing system, cross and their interaction on the total amounts of fatty acids and lipid nutritional indices in the breast and thigh meat
of the chicken
Treatment Breast Thigh
SFA MUFA PUFA n-3 n-6 P/S n-6/n-3 SFA MUFA PUFA n-3 n-6 P/S n-6/n-3
♂LBx♀BB c 37.83a 41.66 20.50a 0.46a 20.04a 0.54a 43.56a 35.13 42.97 21.90 0.64 21.26 0.62 33.21
♂LBx♀BB p 34.05b 39.27 26.68b 0.99b 25.69b 0.78b 25.95b 32.28 44.76 22.36 0.62 21.74 0.68 35.06
♂BBx♀LB c 37.18a 44.81 18.01a 0.43a 17.58a 0.48c 40.88a 37.00 48.82 14.18 0.28 13.90 0.38 49.64
♂BBx♀LB p 43.62c 38.17 18.21a 0.42a 17.79a 0.42ac 42.36a 34.45 47.23 18.32 0.47 17.85 0.53 37.98
Rearing
system (R)
Conventional 37.50 43.24 19.26 0.45 18.81 0.51 41.80 36.08 45.88 18.04 0.46 17.58 0.50 38.21
Pasture 38.83 38.72 22.45 0.71 21.74 0.68 30.63 33.67 45.98 20.35 0.54 19.80 0.60 36.33
Cross (C)
♂LBx♀BB 35.94 40.46 23.60 0.74 22.86 0.66 30.89 34.00 43.87 22.14 0.64 21.50 0.65 33.59
♂BBx♀LB 40.41 41.49 18.10 0.42 17.68 0.45 42.09 35.73 48.03 16.25 0.38 15.87 0.45 41.87
Sig.
RxC *** 0.09 ** *** ** *** *** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
R ns ** ** *** ** ** ** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
C *** ns *** *** *** *** ** ns ** * * ** * *
Pooled SEM 0.84 0.78 0.84 0.05 0.79 0.03 1.86 0.75 0.81 1.18 0.05 1.13 0.04 2.40
*P<0.05;**P<0.01;*** P<0.001.Values connected with different letters differ at P<0.05

374