Evaluation of meat quality from 3 turkey genotypes reared with or without outdoor access

Abstract

To evaluate color [lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*)], water-holding capacity (WHC), and pH values, and for proximate analysis of breast and thigh meats from slow-growing (Bronze; B), fast-growing (Hybrid; H), and medium-growing (crosses; H × B) turkey genotypes raised with or without outdoor access, 36 turkeys (2 females and 2 males from each replicate) per housing system or 12, 16, and 8 turkeys per B, H, and H × B genotype, slaughtered at 17 and 21 wk of age, respectively, were used. Therefore, data were analyzed as a factorial arrangement (2 × 3 × 2 × 2) of treatments. All birds were provided with the same starter, grower, and finisher feeds. Muscle samples were collected at 12 h postmortem for evaluation of meat quality and proximate analysis. Outdoor access increased the a* value and protein content of the breast muscle (P < 0.05) and the b* value of the thigh muscle (P < 0.01). The B and H genotypes had higher (P < 0.01) L* values for the breast meat than did the H × B genotype, whereas the B genotype had lower a* (P < 0.01) and pH (P < 0.01) values for the breast meat or a higher (P < 0.05) pH value for the thigh muscle compared with the H genotype. The breast meat of the B genotype was more yellow (P < 0.01) than that of the H and H × B genotype. Thigh meat from the H genotype had a higher L* value and a lower a* value than did thigh meat from the other genotypes (P < 0.01). Thigh meat from the H × B genotype was higher in protein and lower in fat than was thigh meat from the B and H genotypes, respectively (P < 0.05). No interaction effect of housing system and genotype was observed on the parameters studied (P > 0.05). These results show that housing system did not affect the main quality parameters (pH, water-holding capacity, and L* values) of either muscle, and that genotype created more differences in terms of these parameters.

Influence of Meat Type, Sex and Storage Time on Fatty Acid Profile of Free Range Dalmatian Turkey

“…Concerning influence of meat type, our results are in accordance to Sarica et al (4). The aforementioned authors (4) did not see any influence of sex, while we found significant differences between male and female.…”

“…Recently, numerous studies have been performed to investigate the fatty acid composition of poultry meat reared on commercial farms (3,4). The meat fatty acid composition of poultry depends on the poultry diet, rearing practices and breed (5) and these factors can serve as a tool for manipulation of the fatty acids content.…”

The effects of raising system on the lipid metabolism and meat quality traits of slow-growing chickens

“…The meat of animals raised outdoor is reported (Smith et al 2012) to have superior quality and tenderness, and other studies have shown that there are no differences in meat quality of broilers (Wang et al 2009) reared outdoor or indoor. Maybe genotypes and growth rate have significant effects on the sensory attributes of meat (Fanatico et al 2007;Sarica et al 2011). Intramuscular fat (IMF) content is a major determinant of meat quality (Zhao et al 2007), particularly influencing sensory characteristics, tenderness and physical attributes.…”

Differences in carcass composition of males and females of two turkeys hybrids

“…However, Marks (1990) reported that fast growing birds deposit more fat than the slow-growing ones. The slow-growing turkeys are intended for organic production (Sarica et al, 2011). Slow-growing birds are selected by reduced live weight at slaughter and slower growth rates (Fernandez et al, 2001;Updike et al, 2005).…”