Next Article in Journal
Automated Behavior Recognition and Tracking of Group-Housed Pigs with an Improved DeepSORT Method
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Irrigation, Nitrogen Fertilization and Amino Acid Biostimulant on Proximate Composition and Energy Value of Pisum sativum L. Seeds
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis and Design of Operating Parameters of Floor-Standing Jujube Pickup Device Based on Discrete Element Method
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rearing Performance and Carcass Composition of Broiler Chickens Fed Rations Containing Guar Meal at Graded Levels
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Genotype and Diet on Performance, Carcass Traits, and Blood Profiles of Slow-Growing Chicks Obtained by Crosses of Local Breed with Commercial Genotype

1
Faculty of Engineering and Animal Production Management, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, 011464 Bucharest, Romania
2
Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Biotechnology, National Research Development Institute for Biology and Animal Nutrition, 077015 Balotesti, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2022, 12(11), 1906; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111906
Submission received: 11 October 2022 / Revised: 8 November 2022 / Accepted: 10 November 2022 / Published: 12 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Dietary Interventions on Poultry Production)

Abstract

:
The effects of genotype and diet on growth performance, carcass traits and blood metabolites were investigated. The commercial Ross 308 (R) chickens genotype, a local Black Transylvanian Naked Neck (BTNN) breed, and their crosses were used in an 81-day study. A total of 720 one-d-old chicks were allotted into eight groups in a 4 × 2 factorial design with 4 genotypes: Rmale × Rfemale (R), BTNNmale × Rfemale (BTNN-R), BTNNmale × BTNNfemale (BTNN), Rmale × BTNNfemale (R-BTNN), and 2 diets: control and low-metabolisable energy (LME). Genotype affected performance parameters, namely body weight gain (BWG), feed intake (FI), energy intake (EI), feed conversion ratio (FCR), energy conversion ratio (ECR), and production efficiency factor (PEF), irrespective of growth phase (p < 0.05). Diet had no significant effect on overall BWG, EI, ECR and PEF, except that it increased FI and FCR. Genotype influenced the carcass and organ yields (p < 0.05), except bursa weight, while diet had no significant effect. Blood parameters (total cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, albumin and phosphorus) were affected only by genotype (p < 0.05). In summary, results show that from the two crossbreedings obtained between R and BTNN genotypes, the BTNN-R growth performance and carcass traits were superior to R-BTNN, even though both have had a similar improved plasma response. Lowering the ME level did not significantly affect the BWG but increased FI and FCR, whereas the production index was similar regardless of the genotype. Based on the present results, we concluded that the BTNN-R crosses are the most suitable for use in alternative rearing systems for slow-growing chickens.

1. Introduction

The global poultry meat production in 2021 was 135.4 million tons, which was 3.5% higher compared to 2019 and represented about 38% of the global meat production [1]. The consumer interest in poultry meat production increased due to many benefits issued from several essential and meaningful properties; it is affordable, a safe and healthy protein source, suitable for processing, and without any religious constraints concerning its consumption [2,3,4]. Due to this increased demand, the poultry sector has had to continuously modify its production strategies (i.e., genetic selection, economics, management, veterinary, and nutrition) to advance sustainability [5]. All these factors have contributed to a higher broiler growth rate and an increased production level emphasising quality and animal welfare [6]. Poultry production and meat quality are influenced by genotype, intensive selection [7,8], age, sex, production systems [9,10,11,12,13,14], and nutrition [15,16,17,18].
Nowadays, the slow-growing broiler breeders increased consumer interest by adding value to the meat qualities obtained using a specific rearing system adapted to the animal health, safety and welfare rules [19,20,21], although it is associated with increased production costs [22]. Previous studies found that slow-growing broilers adjust better to alternative rearing systems than fast-growing broilers [23] and have a superior meat quality corroborated with higher profitability [24,25,26].
An important and decisive limiting factor in poultry production is the feeding costs comprising about 70% of the total production costs; meanwhile, dietary energy sources represent the major cost (around 70%) of the total feed. Therefore, optimising the dietary energy level is an important tool to decrease production costs while considering performance and meat quality enhancement [27]. It was stated that increasing the dietary energy level improved the broilers’ feed conversion ratio by decreasing feed intake [28,29], whereas using a higher energy level can alter carcass quality by increasing abdominal fat deposition [30]. Although there are several studies concerning the optimal dietary energy on broilers [31,32,33], there are not so many concerning slow-growing broilers [6,19,26,27].
On the other hand, it is well-known that the local breeds may not compete with the specialised lines regarding productivity, resources and economic efficiency. Still, they could be evaluated as dual-purpose breeds to supply niche markets and used in crossbreeding with commercial breeds [16]. In Romania, the dual-purpose breed Transylvanian Naked Neck (TNN) has gained attention due to its productive potentiality in alternative rearing systems linked with the efficient valorisation of feeds, adaptability to climatic conditions, and disease resistance [34]. This medium-sized breed of chicken reaches sexual maturity around 180–200 d of age and has different plumage colour varieties (black, red, barred, white). To reduce the significant decline in TNN livestock [35] as a consequence of economic inefficiency, and considering the current demands of consumers for slow-growing chickens with meat quality close to traditional chicken, the crossbreeding of this local breed with a commercial genotype could represent an opportunity to improve the sustainability and durability of rural areas [36]. So far, in Romania, there is no literature data available on the productivity of the local TNN breeds, or slow-growing chickens obtained by crossbreeding TNN breeds with a fast-growing commercial genotype, and their response to different dietary energy levels. Based on these considerations, we hypothesised, on one hand, that the TNN breed could provide the biological material to locally obtain slow-growing chickens for which Romania has a favourable perspective, and on the other hand, that genotype may have a different response in terms of productivity and blood metabolites to low dietary energy levels. Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of genotype (Ross 308, Black TNN breed and their crosses) and two dietary energy levels on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and blood profiles in chicks.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethical Statement

All trial procedures were approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the National Research Development Institute for Biology and Animal Nutrition (INCDBNA), Balotesti, Romania (Protocol no. 2277/14 April 2021). The chicks were managed and handled following the Romanian Law 43/2014 and EU principles of Directive 63/2010/EU regarding protecting the animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes [37].

2.2. Genotypes

The fast-growing genotype used was Ross-308 breeder (R), while the local Black TNN (BTNN) breed was used as the slow-growing genotype. Table 1 shows the parents’ design used for crossbreeding to obtain the slow-growing chicks used in the present trial.

2.3. Chicks and Management

The trial was conducted for 81 days (d) from April to July 2021 at research Biobase INCDBNA-Balotesti (Ilfov county, Romania) in an environmentally controlled poultry house. A total of 720 d-old mixed-sex chicks (n = 180 chicks/genotype subdivided in two diets) were individually weighed and wing-tagged. The average weights of chicks from each genotype were 37.80 ± 0.32 g for R, 36.70 ± 0.35 g for BTNN-R, 36.50 ± 0.45 g BTNN, and 37.15 ± 0.16 g for R-BTNN. The chicks were raised under the same management conditions on a floor system in pens with wood-shaving litter. Each pen provided manual feeders and, in the first 4 d, the water was supplied by bell drinkers, and the rest of the trial by the nipple drinker line. The lighting program provided 23L:1D for the first 7 d and was gradually reduced to 16L:8D for the rest of the period, with a light intensity of about 20 lux. The immunisation protocol includes vaccinations against Marek’s, Newcastle, Infectious Bursal, and Bronchitis. During the trial, birds had free access to water and feed. Feed was administrated in crumble or pelleted form according to the growth phase.

2.4. Experimental Design and Diets

Chicks were randomly allotted into eight groups (n = 90 chicks/group, six replicates of 15 chicks each) in a 4 × 2 factorial design with 4 genotypes, namely R, BTNN-R, BTNN, and R-BTNN, and 2 diets, namely control and low-metabolisable energy (LME). Based on chemical composition analyses of feed ingredients, the two-phase diets (1 to 28 d and 29 to 81 d) were formulated according to NRC [31] and Ross guide [38] to be isonitrogenous and with similar content of lysine and sulphury amino acids (Table 2). Compared to the C diet, the ME level was reduced by 100 kcal in the LME diet.

2.5. Chemical Analyses

The ingredients and diets samples were analysed in duplicate for their contents in dry matter (ISO 6496:2001), crude protein (ISO 5983-2:2009), crude fat (ISO 6492:2001), crude fibre (ISO 6865:2002), crude ash (ISO 2171:2010), minerals (calcium, ISO 6490-1:2006; phosphorus by photometric method), and amino acids profile by high-performance liquid chromatography method [39], according to EU Regulation no. 152/2009 [40].

2.6. Performance Variables

The performance parameters determined were body weight (BW) by individually weighing at d 1, 28 d and 81 d of age to calculate the body weight gain (BWG) for each growth phase (1 to 28 d; 29 to 81 d) and overall-phase (1 to 81 d). Feed intake (FI) per pen was recorded daily, and mortality was as well. Energy intake (EI), feed conversion ratio (FCR), and energy conversion ratio (ECR) were calculated for each growth phase and overall. The overall phase production efficiency factor (PEF) was calculated by the formula: livability (%) × BW (kg)/age (d) × FCR × 100.

2.7. Slaughter Sampling

On d 81, after 12 h fasting, blood collection and slaughter measurements were performed with 12 chicks per group (6 male and 6 female) selected close to the average weight from each of the two diets. Blood was sampled from the wing vein using 23Gx3/4′-gauge needles into 4 mL heparinized tubes (Vacutest Kima, Italy).
Chicks were slaughtered by cervical dislocation, bled, and the carcasses were manually de-feathered and eviscerated. Carcasses were weighed, and carcass yield was calculated as % of BW at slaughter. Carcass cut-up parts, including breast, legs (with skin and bone), wings, back, abdominal fat, and internal organs, were removed, weighed, and their relative weights were expressed as % of BW at slaughter.

2.8. Blood Analyses

After blood centrifugation at 3000× g for 15 min at 4 °C (Centrifuge 5804R, Eppendorf AG, Hamburg, Germany), plasma was preserved in tubes at −20 °C until analysis. The plasma biochemical parameters, namely total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), glucose (Glu), total protein (TP), albumin (Alb), uric acid (UA), calcium (Ca), and inorganic phosphorus (IP), were determined by dry chemistry using specific reagent kits (Spotchem EZ SP-4430, Arkray Inc., Kyoto, Japan). The globulin (Glb) concentration was calculated as differences between TP and Alb.

2.9. Statistical Analysis

Data were analysed using the statistical software IBM SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) [41]. The normal data distribution was checked with Shapiro–Wilk’s test. The data were analysed by the general linear model (GLM) procedure as a 4 × 2 factorial design using a two-way ANOVA following the model: Yijk = µ + Gi + Dj + (G × D)ij + eijk, where Yijk—dependent variables; µ—overall mean; Gi—effect of genotype (R, BTNN-R, BTNN, R-BTNN); Dj—effect of diet (control and low-metabolisable energy); (G × D)ij—interaction between genotype and diet; and eijk—residual error. The replicate pen was considered the experimental unit for growth performance and each chick’s sample for carcass traits and blood variables. Results are shown as mean values with SEM (standard error of the mean). The significant mean differences were estimated using Tukey’s posthoc test at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Growth Performance

Table 3 presents the productive performance of chicks as effect of genotype and diet. During the two growth phases and overall phase, all performance parameters (BWG, FI, EI, FCR and ECR) were significantly affected by the main factor genotype (p < 0.05). From 1 to 28 d phase, the BWG, FI, and EI differ significantly between all genotypes, with R having the highest values, followed by BTNN-R, R-BTNN crossbreds and BTNN. Regarding the FCR and ECR values, both were significantly increased in BTNN, intermediary in R-BTNN and BTNN-R crossbreds, and decreased in the R genotype. During 29 to 81 d, the higher BWG was achieved by R, the crossbreds R-BTNN and BTNN-R have similar values, and BTNN had the significant lowest value. The FI and EI significantly differed among all genotypes, with an increased intake in R and a decrease in BTNN. The R genotype obtained the most efficient FCR, while BTNN-R had the poorer value in this phase. The ECR were higher in BTNN-R and R-BTNN crossbreds than in R and BTNN genotypes. Overall phase (1 to 81 d) results showed that BWG were significantly higher in R, similar in BTNN-R and R-BTNN crossbreds, and lower in BTNN. At the same time, the FI and EI have a similar significant trend, with the highest values in R and the lowest in BTNN. The R and BTNN genotypes archived similar FCR and ECR, significantly different from the other genotypes. The PEF was significantly increased in R genotype, similar in BTNN-R and R-BTNN crossbreds, and reduced in the BTNN genotype.
Feeding the LME diet significantly influenced (p < 0.05) chicks’ performance; during phase 1 to 28 d, BWG increased while EI, FCR, and ECR decreased; in phase 29 to 81 d, the FI, FCR and ECR increased whereas, in overall phase (1 to 81 d), no significant differences were found for BWG, EI, ECR and PEF, while FI and FCR significantly increased.
Genotype × diet interaction was found for FI, EI, FCR and ECR in 1 to 28 d and overall phases and for FI and EI in phases 29 to 81 d (p < 0.05).

3.2. Carcass Traits

Table 4 shows the effect of genotype and diet on carcass characteristics of chicks slaughtered at 81 d of age. Genotype significantly affects the carcass and organ yields (p < 0.05), except for the relative weight of bursa. The higher carcass yield was achieved by R, followed by BTNN-R, while R-BTNN and BTNN obtained similar carcass yield values. Breast yield was higher in the R genotype, similar in BTNN-R and R-BTNN crossbreds, and lower in BTNN. The R-BTNN had the lowest leg yield compared to the other genotypes. The R and R-BTNN genotypes have lower wings yield. Back yield was lower in BTNN-R compared to the other genotypes. The relative weights of heart and liver were higher in BTNN and R-BTNN genotypes. Gizzard weights were higher in BTNN and lowered in R genotype. Spleen was lower in R than the other genotype. Abdominal fat deposition was significantly higher in the R-BTNN and BTNN-R crossbreds than in parent genotypes R and BTNN.
Diet had no significant effect on carcass traits (p > 0.05). A genotype × diet interaction effect was found (p < 0.05) for breast and wing yields.

3.3. Blood Profiles

The effect of genotype and diet on certain blood metabolites is given in Table 5. A significant effect of genotype was found for plasma parameters TC, TG, Glu, Alb, and IP (p < 0.05). TC concentration was higher in the R genotype, similar in BTNN-R and R-BTNN crossbreds, and lower in the BTNN genotype. The R genotype had the highest TG value than the other genotype, while the BTNN genotype had the lowest value but was not significantly different to BTNN-R and R-BTNN crossbreds. Glu level was higher in the R genotype, while the other genotypes had similar values. The R genotype was found to have the highest Alb value. The IP concentration was higher in the R genotype, with no significant effect on the Ca/IP ratio. Dietary treatments did not alter plasma biochemical parameters (p > 0.05). No genotype × diet interaction was found.

4. Discussion

4.1. Growth Performance

The significant effect of genotype on growth performance (body weight gain, feed consumption, and feed conversion ratio) obtained between the genotypes and their crosses used in this study are supported by several reports [10,11,42,43,44]. Aggrey et al. [45] stated a positive genetic correlation exists between body weight gain and feed consumption. Several previous studies [46,47] reported that the increased feed intake in naked neck broilers than normally feathered birds is related to better thermo-regulatory efficiency and increased heat tolerance due to more exposed skin.
Our results revealed that the BWG was superior in chicks fed the LME diet only in phases 1 to 28 d with an improved FCR, while in the overall phase, the BWG had similar results, whereas FI and FCR were increased. These results partially agree with Attia et al. [26], who fed low-protein and low-protein-energy diets in Sasso slow-growing broilers and reported no effect on final weight, BWG, or FCR. The authors noticed that compared to the control, these diets reduced feed and protein intakes, protein and metabolisable energy conversion ratios, as well as energy intake. Infante-Rodríguez et al. [29] found that energy level did not affect the BWG in broilers but reduced FI.
The significant genotype × diet interaction found for FI, EI, FCR, and ECR in overall phases suggests that these interactions were caused by the different responses of genotype to dietary treatments. For example, R genotype and BTNN-R and R-BTNN crosses showed the highest FI, FCR and ECR when fed the LME diet, while the BTNN genotype showed converse results.

4.2. Carcass Traits

The present results have shown a significant genotype effect on carcass yield, cut-up parts, organ yields, and abdominal fat, except the relative weight of the bursa. Cömert et al. [12] compared the genotype effect in fast- and slow-growing chicks (Ross 308 vs. Hubbard Red JA) in different rearing systems (organic vs. conventional). They reported higher live weight, carcass, breast, leg weights, and breast yield in Ross 308 and higher leg yield in Hubbard Red JA, whereas abdominal fat increased in the organic system. Isidahomen et al. [48] noticed a significant effect of genotype and sex, as well as an improved slaughter weight, carcass weight, and dressing yield in the naked neck vs. the frizzle chicken at 20 weeks. The current study revealed that the BTNN genotype had the lowest abdominal fat percentage of the genotypes. These results are in line with Isidahomen et al. [48], who reported variation in abdominal fat and fat percentage in normal feather, naked neck, and frizzled matured chickens’ genotypes. Imasuen and Otoikhian [49] also found differences in abdominal fat from naked neck, frizzle birds, normal feathers and dominant black breeds of layer. Conversely, Fernandes et al. [10], when evaluating the carcass traits of different commercial genotypes (Ross, Cobb, Hubbard, and Arbor Acres), noticed no significant differences in carcass yield but a higher abdominal fat deposition in Ross, Cobb, and Hubbard than Arbor Acres. In addition, Mikulski et al. [15] reported lower breast and thigh muscle yield and a higher abdominal fat content in slower- vs. fast-growing Hubbard chickens.
Our results show that for the present genotypes studied, dietary LME level did not affect the carcass yield, the main carcass cuts traits, abdominal fat or relative organ weights. Similar findings were reported previously when fed different dietary energy levels close to the level used in our study by Copat et al. [50] in free range-broiler chicks, by Abouelezz et al. [27] in slow-growing Chinese yellow chickens, or by other reports on broilers [29,51,52]. Recently, Attia et al. [26] evaluated the low-protein-energy diet and supplementation with two phytases (Escherichia coli and Aspergillus niger) in Sasso slow-growing broilers for 64 d. These authors reported no effects on carcass traits, only a higher abdominal fat deposition when fed a low-protein-energy diet supplemented with Aspergillus niger than an unsupplemented diet.
Genotype × diet interaction was significant only for breast and wing yields, which suggests that these interactions were caused by the different responses of genotype to dietary treatments. For example, R and R-BTNN genotypes showed the highest breast yield of the genotypes when fed the LME diet, and lower wing yield irrespective of diet. The BTNN-R crossbred had higher wings yield when fed the C diet. The BTNN genotype showed the lowest breast yield in both diets.

4.3. Blood Profiles

Several studies [53,54,55,56] suggested that biochemical parameters in chickens could be affected by different factors, i.e., genotype, sex, nutrition, management and stress. Blood metabolites, such as total cholesterol and lipoprotein fractions, triglyceride, glucose, and protein concentrations, are important markers directly related to health [57] and meat quality [58]. The average cholesterol range in chickens is between 90–210 mg/dL [59]. Our study results found cholesterol levels of the R genotype to be in these ranges, but the cholesterol levels of the other genotypes were below. These results suggest that cholesterol concentration can be decreased in slow-growing chickens depending on the crossing [47]. According to Griffin et al. [60] and Whitehead and Griffin [61], triglycerides are considered indices of total body fat. In the present study, the BTNN genotype had the lowest triglycerides level and the lower abdominal fat percentage. Similar findings were reported by Zein-El-Dein et al. [62] and Patra et al. [47] in coloured naked neck broilers compared with normally feathered broilers. These authors explain that the better heat tolerance of the naked neck can also be linked to its lower triglyceride level, allowing better heat dissipation. Adedeji et al. [63] also reported that the naked neck genotype displayed the lowest cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, and abdominal fat amount, while the kuroiler naked neck crossbred chickens had the highest value of high-density lipoprotein. Sarica et al. [64], comparing different slow-growing chicken genotypes, found that lower blood triglyceride levels were associated with lower total protein levels. Our results showed that plasma total protein concentration was comparable to the normal reference of 40 mg/dL [55], but no significant effect of genotype used was noticed. Although the plasma total protein was not affected, the present results showed an increase in albumin and glucose concentrations in the R genotype compared to the others. However, these partially agree with previous studies [64,65], who stated that there is a link between the decrease of blood triglyceride and total protein and the increase of blood glucose attributed to gluconeogenesis.
Reducing the dietary energy level did not significantly change chicks’ plasma blood metabolite response at 81 d of age. This is partially consistent with Attia et al. [26], who found no effect of decreasing the level of dietary protein or energy and protein on blood biochemistry, only an increase in plasma albumin with no changes in total protein content. In contrast, other research [66,67] found an increased plasma uric acid and reduced plasma concentrations of cholesterol and triglyceride to be an effect of reducing dietary energy in broilers.

5. Conclusions

The present study highlighted a significant effect of chickens’ genotype on performance, carcass parameters, and some plasma metabolites response. Results show that from the two crossbreedings obtained between R and BTNN genotypes, the BTNN-R growth performance and carcass traits were superior to R-BTNN, even though both have had a similar improved plasma response. The use of LME diets did not significantly affect the BWG but increased FI and FCR, whereas the production index was similar regardless of the genotype used. Based on the present results, we concluded that the BTNN-R crosses are the most suitable for use in alternative rearing systems for slow-growing chickens. Further in-depth meat quality analysis investigations are still needed to support these findings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, M.T., I.C. and A.G.; methodology, A.G., M.H. and N.A.L.; software, A.G.; validation, M.T., I.C. and A.G.; formal analysis, N.A.L., E.N.P. and D.C.P.; investigation, N.A.L. and A.G.; resources, M.T. and I.C.; data curation, A.G. and N.A.L.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G. and M.T.; writing—review and editing, A.G.; visualisation, all authors; project administration, M.T.; funding acquisition, M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Romanian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (grant ADER 8.1.9/2019), and supported thought the Ministry of Research, Innovation, and Digitalization (grant PFE 8/2021).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the National Research Development Institute for Biology and Animal Nutrition, Balotesti (Protocol no. 2277/14 April 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ioana Trifu and Vasile Birlogeanu for their technical support during the trial.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. FAO. 2021. Available online: https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7491en (accessed on 1 August 2022).
  2. Petracci, M.; Bianchi, M.; Mudalal, S.; Cavani, C. Functional Ingredients for Poultry Meat Products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 33, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dalle Zotte, A.; Gleeson, E.; Franco, D.; Cullere, M.; Lorenzo, J.M. Proximate Composition, Amino Acid Profile, and Oxidative Stability of Slow-Growing Indigenous Chickens Compared with Commercial Broiler Chickens. Foods 2020, 9, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Biesek, J.; Kuzniacka, J.; Banaszak, M.; Kaczmarek, S.; Adamski, M.; Rutkowski, A.; Zmudzinska, A.; Perz, K.; Hejdysz, M. Growth Performance and Carcass Quality in Broiler Chickens Fed on Legume Seeds and Rapeseed Meal. Animals 2020, 10, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Weimer, S.L.; Mauromoustakos, A.; Karcher, D.M.; Erasmus, M.A. Differences in Performance, Body Conformation, and Welfare of Conventional and Slow-Growing Broiler Chickens Raised at 2 Stocking Densities. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 4398–4407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Fanatico, A.C.; Pillai, P.B.; Emmert, J.L.; Owens, C.M. Meat Quality of Slow- and Fast-Growing Chicken Genotypes Fed Low-Nutrient or Standard Diets and Raised Indoors or with Outdoor Access. Poult. Sci. 2007, 86, 2245–2255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bihan-Duval, L.; Debut, M.; Berri, C.M.; Sellier, N.; Santé-Lhoutellier, V.; Jégo, Y.; Beaumont, C. Chicken Meat Quality: Genetic Variability and Relationship with Growth and Muscle Characteristics. BMC Genet. 2008, 9, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Tang, H.; Gong, Y.Z.; Wu, C.X.; Jiang, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, K. Variation of Meat Quality Traits Among Five Genotypes of Chicken. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 2212–2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Połtowicz, K.; Doktor, J. Effect of Slaughter Age on Performance and Meat Quality of Slow-Growing Broiler Chickens. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2012, 12, 621–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Fernandes, J.I.M.; Bortouzzi, C.; Triques, G.E.; Neto, A.F.G.; Peiter, D.C. Effect of Sex and Age on Carcass Parameters of Broilers. Acta Sci. 2013, 35, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Benyi, K.; Tshilate, T.S.; Netshipale, A.J.; Mahlako, K.T. Effects of Genotype and Sex on the Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Broiler Chickens. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2015, 47, 1225–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Cömert, M.; Şayan, Y.; Kırkpınar, F.; Bayraktar, Ö.H.; Mert, S. 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. 2016, 29, 987–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Cygan-Szczegielniak, D.; Maiorano, G.; Janicki, B.; Buzała, M.; Stasiak, K.; Stanek, M.; Ro’slewska, A.; Elminowska-Wenda, G.; Bogucka, J.; Tavaniello, S. Influence of Rearing System and Sex on Carcass Traits and Meat Quality of Broiler Chickens. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2019, 47, 333–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Gálvez, F.; Domínguez, R.; Maggiolino, A.; Pateiro, M.; Carballo, J.; De Palo, P.; Barba, F.; Lorenzo, J. Meat Quality of Commercial Chickens Reared in Different Production Systems: Industrial, Range and Organic. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2020, 20, 263–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Mikulski, D.; Celej, J.; Jankowski, J.; Majewska, T.; Mikulska, M. 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. 2011, 24, 1407–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nolte, T.; Jansen, S.; Weigend, S.; Moerlein, D.; Halle, I.; Simianer, H.; Sharifi, A.R. Genotypic and Dietary Effects on Egg Quality of Local Chicken Breeds and Their Crosses Fed with Faba Beans. Animals 2021, 11, 1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Tůmová, E.; Chodová, D.; Skřivanová, E.; Laloučková, K.; Šubrtová-Salmonová, H.; Ketta, M.; Machander, V.; Cotozzolo, E. The Effects of Genotype, Sex, And Feeding Regime on Performance, Carcasses Characteristic, And Microbiota in Chickens. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 760–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Baéza, E.; Guillier, L.; Petracci, M. Review: Production Factors Affecting Poultry Carcass and Meat Quality Attributes. Animal 2022, 16, 100331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fanatico, A.C.; Pillai, P.B.; Hester, P.Y.; Falcone, C.; Mench, J.A.; Owens, C.M.; Emmert, J.L. Performance, Livability, and Carcass Yield of Slow- and Fast-Growing Chicken Genotypes Fed Low-Nutrient or Standard Diets and Raised Indoors or With Outdoor Access. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 1012–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sirri, F.; Castellini, C.; Bianchi, M.; Petracci, M.; Meluzzi, A.; Franchini, A. Effect of Fast-, Medium- and Slow-Growing Strains on Meat Quality of Chickens Reared Under the Organic Farming Method. Animal 2011, 5, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Wilhelmsson, S.; Yngvesson, J.; Jönsson, L.; Gunnarsson, S.; Wallenbeck, A. Welfare Quality Assessment of a Fast-Growing and a Slower-Growing Broiler Hybrid, Reared Until 10 Weeks and Fed a Low-Protein, High-Protein or Mussel-Meal Diet. Livest. Sci. 2019, 219, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lusk, J.L. Consumer Preferences for and Beliefs About Slow Growth Chicken. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 4159–4166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rack, A.L.; Lilly, K.G.S.; Beaman, K.R.; Gehring, C.K.; Moritz, J.S. The Effect of Genotype, Choice Feeding, and Season on Organically Reared Broilers Fed Diets Devoid of Synthetic Methionine. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2009, 18, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Attia, Y.A.; Hassan, R.A.; Tag El-Din, A.E.; Abou-Shehema, B.M. Effect of Ascorbic Acid or Increasing Metabolizable Energy Level with Or Without Supplementation of Some Essential Amino Acids on Productive and Physiological Traits of Slow-Growing Chicks Exposed to Chronic Heat Stress. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2011, 95, 744–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Attia, Y.A.; Abd-Elhamidb, A.-E.E.M.; Mustafac, A.-H.M.A.; Muhammadb, M. Response of Slow-Growing Chickens to Feed Restriction and Effects on Growth Performance, Blood Constituents and Immune Markers. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2017, 8, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Attia, Y.A.; Bovera, F.; Al-Harthi, M.A.; El-Din, A.E.-R.E.T.; Said Selim, W. Supplementation of Microbial and Fungal Phytases to Low Protein and Energy Diets: Effects on Productive Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, and Blood Profiles of Broilers. Agriculture 2021, 11, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Abouelezz, K.F.M.; Wang, Y.; Wang, W.; Lin, X.; Li, L.; Gou, Z.; Fan, Q.; Jiang, S. Impacts of Graded Levels of Metabolizable Energy on Growth Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Slow-Growing Yellow-Feathered Male Chickens. Animals 2019, 9, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Ferreira, G.D.; Pinto, M.F.; Neto, M.G.; Ponsano, E.H.; Goncalves, C.A.; Bossolani, I.L.; Pereira, A.G. Accurate Adjustment of Energy Level in Broiler Chickens Diet for Controlling the Performance and the Lipid Composition of Meat. Ciênc. Rural 2015, 45, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Infante-Rodríguez, F.; Salinas-Chavira, J.; Montaño-Gómez, M.F.; Manríquez-Nuñez, O.M.; González-Vizcarra, V.M.; Guevara-Florentino, O.F.; Ramírez-De León, J.A. Effect of Diets with Different Energy Concentrations on Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics and Meat Chemical Composition of Broiler Chickens in Dry Tropics. Springerplus 2016, 5, 1937–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Ghaffari, M.; Shivazad, M.; Zaghari, M.; Taherkhani, R. Effects of Different Levels of Metabolizable Energy and Formulation of Diet Based on Digestible and Total Amino Acid Requirements on Performance of Male Broiler. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2007, 6, 276–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry; National Research Council, Ed.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0-309-04892-7.
  32. Rostagno, H.S.; Albino, L.F.T.; Donzele, J.L.; Gomes, P.C.; de Oliveira, R.F.; Lopes, D.C.; Ferreira, A.S.; Barreto, S.L.T.; Euclides, R.F. Brazilian Tables for Poultry and Swine: Composition of Feedstuffs and Nutritional Requirements, 3rd ed.; Rostagno, H.S., Ed.; Federal University Viҫosa: Viҫosa, Brazil, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  33. Applegate, T.J.; Angel, R. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry Publication: History and Need for an Update. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2014, 23, 567–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gheorghe, A.; Custură, I.; Lefter, N.A.; Idriceanu, L.; Tudorache, M.; Dumitru, M.; Hăbeanu, M. Assessment of Plasma Biochemistry and Intestinal Microflora in Transylvanian Naked Neck Breed Compared with Commercial Breeders. Sci. Pap. Ser. D. Anim. Sci. 2022, LXV, 376–383. [Google Scholar]
  35. Monitorul Oficial 774/11 Decembrie 2013. Hotărâre Guvern nr. 962/2013 Privind Aprobarea Acordării Ajutoarelor de Minimis Pentru Conservarea Raselor Locale de Animale în Pericol de Abandon. Available online: http://www.monitoruljuridic.ro/monitorul-oficial/774/2013-12-11/ (accessed on 11 November 2019).
  36. Custura, I. Activity Report, Phase II of the ADER Project 8.1.9/2019. Researches on the Capacity of General and Specific Combination of the Transylvania Naked Neck Breed with Different Breeds and Lines of Hens Regarding the Quality of the Meat. 2020. Available online: https://www.madr.ro/ader-2019-2022/ader-8-2019-2022.html (accessed on 2 November 2020).
  37. European Union Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes. Off. J. Eur. Union 2010, 50, 33–79.
  38. Aviagen. Ross Broiler Management Handbook. Available online: en.aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_Broiler/Ross-BroilerHandbook2018-EN.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2019).
  39. Vărzaru, I.; Untea, A.E.; Martura, T.; Olteanu, M.; Panaite, T.D.; Schitea, M.; Van, I. Development and Validation of an RP-HPLC Method for Methionine, Cystine and Lysine Separation and Determination in Corn Samples. Rev. Chim. 2013, 64, 673–679. [Google Scholar]
  40. European Union. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 152/2009 Laying Down the Methods of Sampling and Analysis for the Official Control of Feed; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  41. SPSS. Statistics, Version 20.0; IBM SPSS: Armonk, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  42. Amao, S.R.; Ojedapo, L.O.; Sosina, A.S. Evaluation of Growth Performance Traits in Three Strains of Broiler Chickens Reared in Derived Savanna Environment of Nigeria. World J. Young Res. 2011, 1, 28–31. [Google Scholar]
  43. Choo, Y.K.; Kwon, H.J.; Oh, S.T.; Um, J.S.; Kim, B.G.; Kang, C.W.; Lee, S.K.; An, B.K. Comparison of Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics and Meat Quality of Korean Local Chickens and Silky Fowl. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 27, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Castellini, C.; Mugnai, C.; Dal Bosco, A. Effect of Organic Production System on Broiler Carcass and Meat Quality. Meat Sci. 2002, 60, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Aggrey, S.E.; Kamuah, A.B.; Sebastian, B.; Anthony, N.B. Genetic Properties of Feed Efficiency Parameters in Meat-Type Chickens. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2010, 42, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Fathi, M.M.; Zein-El-Dein, A.; El-Athar, A.M.; Ayoub, H. Association of Naked Neck Gene with Carcass Measurements in New Hampshire Chicken. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of Agricultural Development Research, Cairo, Egypt, 13–18 February 1993; pp. 659–668. [Google Scholar]
  47. Patra, B.N.; Bais, R.K.S.; Prasad, R.B.; Singh, B.P. Performance of Naked Neck versus Normally Feathered Coloured Broilers for Growth, Carcass Traits and Blood Biochemical Parameters in Tropical Climate. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 15, 1776–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Isidahomen, C.E.; Iori, B.M.; Akano, K. Genetic and Sex Differences in Carcass Traits of Nigerian Indigenous Chickens. J. Anim. Sci. Adv. 2012, 2, 636–648. [Google Scholar]
  49. Imasuen, J.A.; Otoikhian, C.S.O. Preliminary Investigation on the Relationship Between Blood Lipid Profile and Egg Lipid Profile in Different Breeds of Layers. Int. J. Pharma Med. Biol. Sci. 2012, 1, 287–291. [Google Scholar]
  50. Copat, P.L.L.; Souza Nascimento, K.M.; Kiefer, C.; Berno, P.R.; Freitas, H.B.; Silva, T.R.; Chaves, N.R.; Amin, M.; Santana, P.G.; Oliveira, N.G. Metabolizable Energy Levels for Free-Range Broiler Chickens. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 8, 820–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Duarte, K.F.; Junqueira, O.M.; Borges, L.L.; Rodrigues, E.; da Filardi, R.S.; Praes, M.F.; de Laurentiz, A.C.; de Domingues, C.H.F. Performance, Carcass Traits, and Body Composition of Broilers Fed Different Linseed Oil Levels between 21 and 56 Days of Age. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2014, 16, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Nunes, J.O.; Bertechini, A.G.; de Brito, J.A.G.; Makiyama, L.; Mesquita, F.R.; Nishio, C.M. Evaluation of Cysteamine Associated with Different Energy Patterns in Diets for Broiler Chickens. Braz. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 41, 1956–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Manzoor, A.; Cheema, M.A.; Qureshi, A.; Havenstein, G.B. A Comparison of the Immune Profile of Commercial Broiler Strains when Raised on Marginal and High Protein Diets. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2003, 2, 300–312. [Google Scholar]
  54. Silva, P.R.L.; Freitas-Neto, O.C.; Laurentiz, A.C.; Junqueira, O.M.; Fagliari, J.J. Blood Serum Components and Serum Protein Test of Hybro-PG Broilers of Different Ages. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2007, 9, 229–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Filipović, N.; Stojević, Z.; Milinković-Tur, S.; Ljubić, B.B.; Zdelar-Tuk, M. Changes in Concentration and Fractions of Blood Serum Proteins of Chickens During Fattening. Veterinarski Arhiv. 2007, 77, 319–326. [Google Scholar]
  56. Toghyani, M.; Toghyani, M.; Gheisari, A.; Ghalamkari, G.; Mohammadrezaei, M. Growth Performance, Serum Biochemistry and Blood Hematology of Broiler Chicks Fed Different Levels of Black Seed (Nigella Sativa) and Peppermint (Mentha Piperita). Livestock Sci. 2010, 129, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ozbey, O.; Esen, F. The Effects of Breeding Systems and Stocking Density on Some Blood Parameters of Rock Partridges (Alectoris Graeca). Poult. Sci. 2007, 86, 420–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fletcher, D.L. Poultry Meat Quality. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2002, 58, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ritchie, B.W.; Harrison, G.J.; Harrison, L.R. Avian Medicine: Principles and Application; Wingers Publishing, Inc.: Lake Worth, FL, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  60. Griffin, H.D.; Whitehead, C.C.; Broadbent, L.A. The Relationship between Plasma Triglyceride Concentrations and Body Fat Content in Male and Female Broilers-a Basis for Selection. Br. Poult. Sci. 1982, 23, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Whitehead, C.C.; Griffin, H.D. Development of Divergent Lines of Lean and Fat Broilers Using Plasma Very Low Density Lipo-Protein Concentration as Selection Criteria: The First Three Generations. Br. Poult. Sci. 1984, 25, 573–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Zein-el-Dein, A.; Bordas, A.; Merat, P. Composition corporella de poulets cou nu ou normalement emplumas selon le taux proteique de la ration. Ann. Genet. Sel. Anim. 1984, 16, 491–502. [Google Scholar]
  63. Adedeji, T.A.; Amao, S.R.; Popoola, D.A. Physico-Chemical Attributes of Meat, Abdominal Fats and Blood Lipids Indices of Nigerian Indigenous Chickens and their Crossbreds. J. Prod. Agric. Technol. 2021, 17, 34–41. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sarica, M.; Yamak, U.S.; Turhan, S.; Boz, M.A.; Sarıcaoğlu, F.T.; Altop, A. Comparing Slow-Growing Chickens Produced by Two-And Three-Way Crossings with Commercial Genotypes. 2. Carcass Quality and Blood Parameters. Eur. Poult. Sci. 2014, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Carsia, R.V.; Harvey, S.; Adrenal, S. Sturkie’s Avian Physiology, 5th ed.; Whittow, G.C., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 489–537. [Google Scholar]
  66. Rosebrough, R.W.; McMurtry, J.P.; Vasilatos-Younken, R. In Vitro Lipid Metabolism, Growth and Metabolic Hormone Concentrations in Hyperthyroid Chickens. Br. J. Nutr. 1992, 68, 667–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rosebrough, R.W.; McMurtry, J.P.; Vasilatos-Younken, R. Dietary Protein Effects on the Broiler’s Adaptation to Triiodothyronine. Growth Dev. Aging 1999, 63, 85–98. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Experimental parents design 1.
Table 1. Experimental parents design 1.
Mating DesignAbbreviations
R (Male) × R (Female): Rm × RfR
BTNN (Male) × R (Female): BTNNm × RfBTNN-R
BTNN (Male) × BTNN (Female): BTNNm × BTNNfBTNN
R (Male) × BTNN (Female): Rm × BTNNfR-BTNN
1 The eggs incubation for each genotype was done during the same period at a local hatchery station (Dambovita county, Romania).
Table 2. Ingredients and nutrient analyses of experimental diets.
Table 2. Ingredients and nutrient analyses of experimental diets.
Ingredients (% as-Fed)1 to 28 d29 to 81 d
CLMECLME
Corn 54.2255.7255.5456.90
Soybean meal16.0016.0010.7010.70
Rapeseed meal5.005.008.008.00
Pea15.0015.0018.0018.00
Corn gluten meal3.503.502.002.00
Vegetable oil1.5001.400
Monocalcium phosphate1.701.701.501.50
Calcium carbonate1.251.251.101.10
Salt0.300.300.300.30
L-Lysine 0.220.220.200.20
DL-Methionine0.210.210.200.20
Premix choline0.100.100.100.10
Vitamin-mineral premix 11.001.001.001.00
Analysed composition (%)
Metabolisable energy (kcal/kg) c3000290031003000
Dry matter89.5388.9089.8789.75
Crude protein20.1020.1418.1018.06
Lysine1.171.170.990.99
Digestible Lysine c 1.041.040.910.91
Methionine + Cysteine0.890.890.800.80
Digestible Methionine + Cysteine c 0.800.800.720.72
Calcium0.870.870.800.80
Available phosphorus c0.440.440.390.40
Crude fat3.392.784.964.50
Crude fibre3.863.893.863.88
Crude ash5.425.714.614.73
1 Supplies per kg of diet: vitamin A—900,000 IU; vitamin D3—200,000 IU; vitamin E—3000 IU; vitamin K3—300 mg; vitamin B1—200 mg; vitamin B2—400 mg; vitamin B3—2700 mg; vitamin B5—1500 mg; vitamin B6—300 mg; vitamin B9—100 mg; vitamin B12—1.8 mg; vitamin C—2000 mg; manganese—8000 mg; zinc—6000 mg; iron—8000 mg; cooper—500 mg; iodine—45 mg; selenium—18 mg; cobalt—25 mg; monensin sodium—60 mg (except for phase 29 to 81 d); antioxidant. c calculated values. Abbreviations: C, control diet; LME, low-metabolisable energy diet.
Table 3. Effect of genotype and diet on growth performance 1 of chickens.
Table 3. Effect of genotype and diet on growth performance 1 of chickens.
Item1 to 28 d29 to 81 d1 to 81 d
BWG
g
FI
g
EI
Kcal
FCR
g/g
ECR
Kcal/g
BWG
g
FI
g
EI
Kcal
FCR
g/g
ECR
Kcal/g
BWG
g
FI
g
EI
Kcal
FCR
g/g
ECR
Kcal/g
PEF
Genotype
R1114 a2117 a6242 a1.91 b5.62 b4605 a14,574 a44,446 a3.18 c9.68 b5719 a16,690 a50,065 a2.93 c8.78 c219 a
BTNN-R595 b1158 b3417 b1.95 ab5.77 ab2190 b8283 c25,235 c3.79 a11.54 a2784 b9442 c28,296 c3.39 b10.17 b97.1 b
BTNN289 d607 d1794 d2.21 a6.58 a898 c3065 d9354 d3.42 b10.44 b1187 c3672 d11,025 d3.10 c9.31 c42.7 c
R-BTNN468 c989 c2916 c2.12 ab6.25 ab2216 b8702 b26,536 b3.55 ab12.04 a2685 b9691 b29,066 b3.62 a10.86 a87.1 b
SEM17.5212.9338.470.0660.19559.5034.13104.650.0610.21865.8741.11124.250.0590.1764.88
Diet
C592 b12153646 a2.18 a6.54 a25318494 b26,3313.39 b10.62 b31239709 b29,6123.19 b9.72115
LME640 a12203538 b1.91 b5.54 b24238815 a26,4553.57 a11.22 a306410,038 a29,6133.33 a9.83108
SEM12.389.1527.200.0470.13842.0724.1374.000.0430.15446.5829.1087.860.0410.1253.45
Genotype × Diet
RC10932068 b6201 a1.89 b5.67 bc468314,502 a44,962 a3.099.60577616,570 a50,542 a2.87 d8.75 d226
LME11352167 a6283 a1.92 b5.56 bc452714,643 a43,929 b3.269.77566216,810 a49,588 b2.98 cd8.80 cd211
BTNN-RC5691147 c3440 b2.02 b6.06 bc21467702 d23,875 d3.6011.1527158849 d26,988 d3.27 bc9.96 bc99.1
LME6201170 c3393 b1.89 b5.48 bc22348865 b26,595 c3.9711.92285410,035 b29,603 c3.52 ab10.38 ab95.0
BTNNC253668 e2005 d2.65 a7.95 a9493169 e9825 e3.3410.3612023837 e11,704 e3.19 bcd9.74 bcd42.9
LME324546 e1583 e1.75 b5.10 c8482961 e8883 f3.5110.5211723507 f10,346 f3.01 cd8.87 cd42.8
R-BTNNC454979 d2937 c2.17 b6.49 b23488600 b26,660 c3.5511.3628019579 c29,216 c3.42 b10.43 ab91.1
LME483998 d2894 c2.07 b6.02 bc20858804 c26,412 c3.5412.7025689802 bc28,916 c3.83 a11.28 a83.2
SEM 24.7718.3054.400.0900.27584.1448.26148.000.0880.30893.1658.14175.720.0850.2496.84
p-Value
Genotype0.00010.00010.00010.010.010.00010.00010.00010.00010.00010.00010.00010.00010.00010.00010.0001
Diet0.011NS0.010.00010.0001NS0.0001NS0.0090.01NS0.0001NS0.022NSNS
Genotype × DietNS0.00010.0010.00010.0001NS0.00010.0001NSNSNS0.00010.00010.0140.015NS
1 Means of 90 chicks/group (15 chicks × 6 replicates each). Data were analysed as a 4 × 2 factorial design. a–f Means with different superscripts within a column differ (p < 0.05). Abbreviations: R = Ross 308; BTNN = Black Transylvanian Naked Neck; R = (Rm × Rf); BTNN-R = (BTNNm × Rf); BTNN = (BTNNm × BTNNf); R-BTNN = (Rm × BTNNf); C = control diet; LME = low-metabolisable energy diet; BWG = body weight gain; FI = feed intake; EI = energy intake; FCR = feed conversion ratio; ECR = energy conversion ratio; PEF = production efficiency factor; SEM = standard error of the mean; NS = not significant difference (p > 0.05).
Table 4. Effect of genotype and diet on slaughter traits 1 of chickens at 81 d.
Table 4. Effect of genotype and diet on slaughter traits 1 of chickens at 81 d.
ItemParameters (% of BW)
CarcassBreastLegsWingsBackHeartGizzardLiverSpleenBursaAbd. Fat
Genotype
R76.73 a31.32 a22.50 a7.50 b15.42 a0.390 b0.900 c1.613 b0.104 b0.0900.889 c
BTNN-R68.97 b21.18 b22.96 a9.94 a14.88 b0.395 b1.515 b1.722 b0.155 a0.1081.693 b
BTNN66.18 c18.02 c22.24 a9.27 a16.64 a0.522 a2.330 a2.273 a0.170 a0.1060.825 c
R-BTNN66.41 c21.74 b21.01 b7.64 b16.65 a0.475 a1.293 b1.978 a0.158 a0.1012.556 a
SEM0.3670.3970.3310.1830.4610.0160.0740.0570.0120.0080.218
Diet
C69.4222.8722.308.7415.510.4471.5061.8990.1360.1001.404
LME69.7323.2622.058.4316.290.4441.5131.8940.1570.1021.577
SEM0.2600.2810.2340.1300.3260.0120.0520.0400.0080.0060.154
Genotype × Diet
RC76.3230.31 a22.467.71 dc15.840.3830.8061.5510.0960.1090.936
LME77.1432.32 a22.547.28 dc14.990.3950.9931.6740.1110.0700.842
BTNN-RC69.3521.75 b23.1510.69 a13.750.3791.6501.8140.1640.1091.532
LME68.5820.61 bc22.779.17 bc16.020.4101.3781.6290.1440.1061.853
BTNNC66.3918.29 cd22.869.36 b15.860.5052.3932.1500.1750.0970.781
LME65.9717.75 d21.629.18 bc17.430.5372.2672.3950.1640.1140.868
R-BTNNC65.6221.11 b20.737.20 dc16.570.5171.1742.0810.1090.0862.365
LME67.2022.37 b21.278.08 c16.720.4341.4111.8750.2070.1172.747
SEM 0.1840.1990.1660.0920.2300.0080.0370.0290.0060.0040.109
p-Value
Genotype0.00010.00010.0010.00010.020.00010.00010.00010.002NS0.0001
DietNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
Genotype × DietNS0.024NS0.001NSNSNSNSNSNSNS
1 Means of 12 chicks/group. Data were analysed as a 4 × 2 factorial design. a–d Means with different superscripts within a column differ (p < 0.05). Abbreviations: R = Ross 308; BTNN = Black Transylvanian Naked Neck; R = (Rm × Rf); BTNN-R = (BTNNm × Rf); BTNN = (BTNNm × BTNNf); R-BTNN = (Rm × BTNNf); C = control diet; LME = low-metabolisable energy diet; SEM = standard error of means; NS = not significant difference (p > 0.05).
Table 5. Effect of genotype and diet on plasma biochemical parameters 1 of chickens at 81 d.
Table 5. Effect of genotype and diet on plasma biochemical parameters 1 of chickens at 81 d.
ItemEnergyProteinMineral
TC mg/dLTG mg/dLGlu mg/dLTP
g/dL
Alb
g/dL
Glb
g/dL
UA mg/dLCa mg/dLIP
mg/dL
Ca/IP
Ratio
Genotype
R126.2 a56.25 a231.6 a3.762.28 a1.494.797.794.47 a1.74
BTNN-R88.63 b45.31 bc216.2 b3.492.06 b1.434.537.584.22 b1.80
BTNN82.75 c39.75 c213.2 b3.532.04 b1.484.507.774.29 b1.81
R-BTNN96.13 b51.81 bc217.0 b3.522.08 b1.444.697.954.30 b1.84
SEM2.803.354.670.0900.0590.0670.0710.1640.1340.03
Diet
C95.9445.06214.23.552.101.454.547.774.411.76
LME100.9151.50224.73.602.131.474.717.734.201.84
SEM1.982.373.310.0640.0420.0470.0510.160.0940.02
Genotype × Diet
RC124.853.75225.43.712.211.504.708.004.841.65
LME127.558.75237.83.812.341.484.877.584.101.84
BTNN-RC84.6240.75210.13.432.081.354.387.504.301.74
LME92.6249.87222.23.552.051.504.687.654.151.84
BTNNC79.0036.88207.93.462.031.444.457.684.151.85
LME86.5042.63218.53.592.051.544.567.864.431.77
R-BTNNC95.2548.88213.53.582.061.534.657.904.381.80
LME97.0054.75220.53.462.091.384.737.824.231.84
SEM 3.974.756.620.1280.080.100.100.230.190.04
p-Value
Genotype0.00010.0100.006NS0.033NSNSNS0.030NS
DietNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
Genotype × DietNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
1 Means of 12 chicks/group; Data were analysed as a 4 × 2 factorial design. a–c Means with different superscripts within a column differ (p < 0.05). Abbreviations: R = Ross 308; BTNN = Black Transylvanian Naked Neck; R = (Rm × Rf); BTNN-R = (BTNNm × Rf); BTNN = (BTNNm × BTNNf); R-BTNN = (Rm × BTNNf); C = control diet; LME = low-metabolisable energy diet; TC = total cholesterol; TG = triglycerides; Glu = glucose; TP = total protein; Alb = albumin; Glb = globulin; UA = uric acid; Ca = calcium; IP = inorganic phosphorus; SEM = standard error of means; NS = not significant difference (p > 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tudorache, M.; Custura, I.; Gheorghe, A.; Habeanu, M.; Lefter, N.A.; Pogurschi, E.N.; Popa, D.C. Effects of Genotype and Diet on Performance, Carcass Traits, and Blood Profiles of Slow-Growing Chicks Obtained by Crosses of Local Breed with Commercial Genotype. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1906. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111906

AMA Style

Tudorache M, Custura I, Gheorghe A, Habeanu M, Lefter NA, Pogurschi EN, Popa DC. Effects of Genotype and Diet on Performance, Carcass Traits, and Blood Profiles of Slow-Growing Chicks Obtained by Crosses of Local Breed with Commercial Genotype. Agriculture. 2022; 12(11):1906. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111906

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tudorache, Minodora, Ioan Custura, Anca Gheorghe, Mihaela Habeanu, Nicoleta Aurelia Lefter, Elena Narcisa Pogurschi, and Dana Catalina Popa. 2022. "Effects of Genotype and Diet on Performance, Carcass Traits, and Blood Profiles of Slow-Growing Chicks Obtained by Crosses of Local Breed with Commercial Genotype" Agriculture 12, no. 11: 1906. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111906

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop