IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlvet/v61y2016i11id286-2015-vetmed.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of qualitative and quantitative properties of the wings, necks and offal of chicken broilers from organic and conventional production systems

Author

Listed:
  • F.A.A. Abdullah

    (University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

  • H. Buchtova

    (University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate qualitative and quantitative properties of wings, offal (liver, heart and gizzard) and necks of chickens from organic and conventional production systems, currently available on the market for Czech consumers. Production properties (yield and weight), surface colour (lightness, redness, yellowness) and chemical indicators (dry matter, total protein, net protein, collagen, hydroxyproline, fat, ash and phosphorus) were evaluated in fresh chicken broilers. Conventionally produced chickens had higher carcass yields but higher wing yields and weights were observed in organic broilers. The skin, bones, tip (left wings) and the meat with skin (right wings) of organic broilers were heavier (P < 0.05) than those of conventional chickens. The dry matter and total protein content of deboned organic broiler wings (meat with skin) was greater (P < 0.01) than those of conventional wings. Similarly as for yields, the offal (heart, gizzard) and necks of organic chickens had significantly (P < 0.01) higher weights in comparison with conventional chickens. Colour indicators showed that the external surface of the livers, necks and gizzards (muscle) from organic chickens were darker (lightness; P < 0.01). Total protein content in livers, hearts and necks of organic chickens was greater; fat content in the livers and necks of organic broilers was also higher (P < 0.05) than those of conventional broilers. The ash and phosphorus in the necks of conventional broilers was higher (P < 0.05) than in organic chickens. This study indicates that the quantity and quality of offal and neck from organic broilers are slightly superior compared to conventional chickens.

Suggested Citation

  • F.A.A. Abdullah & H. Buchtova, 2016. "Comparison of qualitative and quantitative properties of the wings, necks and offal of chicken broilers from organic and conventional production systems," Veterinární medicína, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 61(11), pages 643-651.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlvet:v:61:y:2016:i:11:id:286-2015-vetmed
    DOI: 10.17221/286/2015-VETMED
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://vetmed.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/286/2015-VETMED.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://vetmed.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/286/2015-VETMED.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/286/2015-VETMED?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Iva Živělová & Michaela Crhová, 2013. "Organic food market in the Czech Republic," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 539-546.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kefala Taye Mekonnen & Dong-Hui Lee & Young-Gyu Cho & Ah-Yeong Son & Kang-Seok Seo, 2023. "Estimation of Carcass Trait Characteristics, Proportions, and Their Correlation with Preslaughter Body Weight in Indigenous Chickens in Southeastern Ethiopia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlvet:v:61:y:2016:i:11:id:286-2015-vetmed. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.