Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:42:05.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the composition of food

1. Some differences in the composition of broiler and free range chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Jean Robertson ,
Margaret S. Vipond ,
D. Tapsfield  and
J. P. Greaves
Jean Robertson
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Great Westminster House, Horseferry Road, London, SW 1
Margaret S. Vipond
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Great Westminster House, Horseferry Road, London, SW 1
D. Tapsfield
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Great Westminster House, Horseferry Road, London, SW 1
J. P. Greaves
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Great Westminster House, Horseferry Road, London, SW 1
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The nutrient content and distribution of the carcass meat in broilers (B) and free range cockerels (FR) was studied in two experiments in 1961–2. Half the birds of each type were roasted at 177°C, without additional fat, before dissection and analysis. The breast muscles and red meat were separately analysed for moisture, protein, fat and thiamine. 2. Chunky hybrids (frozen) and Light Sussex × Rhode Island Red (LS × RIR) cockerels were used in both experiments. Expt 1 (group 1) was a pilot study (using groups of six) inwhich B and FR of similar dressed weight were compared. Expt 2 (group 2) consisted of twelve ‘fresh’ (B1) and twelve frozen (B2) broiler hybrids from the same batch of birds killed at 9 weeks; twelve slightly heavier LS × RIR cockerels (FR2) were killed at 18 weeks and twelve Sykes hybrid 3 cockerels (FR1) killed at 20 weeks. The birds received various standard feeds. 3. The edible portion (skin plus meat), expressed as a percentage of the dressed weight, was greater in the free range birds than in the broiler chickens. Increased cooking losses resulting from freezing were responsible for a significantly smaller proportion of edible meat in the cooked frozen broilers. In both groups the edible portion increased with age irrespective of breed or weight. 4. In broiler and free range chickens differenccs in the mean protein content of the total edible meat were small. 5. Fat content appeared to be related to breed as well as to type of bird. In group 1, B contained slightly more fat than FR1. In group 2, B1, and B2, contained significantly more fat then FR1, but the fat content of the raw meat in FR2, was greater. 6. In both experiments the flesh of the free range chickens contained more thiamine than the broiler meat. In group 1 this difference was significant in all the cooked birds; in group 2 significant differences between free range chickens and broilers were found in the breast and red meat of the cooked birds for all comparisons except FR2 and B1. About one-third of the thiamine was lost on cooking both types of chicken in group 1; in group 2 the loss from the broilers was similar but in the FR birds between 18% (FR1) and 26% (FR2) of the thiamine was destroyed. 7. In general the meat of the broilers contained less thiamine and more fat than did that of the free range chickens. Though such differences are of no significance in a mixed diet (as chicken supplies so little thiamine) they are a useful index of differences in nutritive value which result from the different systems of management.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 1966 , pp. 675 - 687
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1966

References

Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1960). Official Methods of Analysis, 9th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Brown, P. B. & Bean, H. W. (1952). Poult. Sci. 31, 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J., Mathieson, J., Williams, R. B. & Boyne, A. W. (1964). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 15, 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilpin, G. L., Harkin, A. M., Redstrom, R. A. & Dawson, E. H. (1960). Poult. Sci. 39, 924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hathaway, H. E., Champagne, G. B., Watts, A. B. &Upp, C. W. (1953). Poult. Sci. 32, 968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, H.N. (1960). Scand. J. clin. Lab. Invest. 12, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, A. W. (1962). J. Fd Sci. 27, 430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondra, P. A., Richards, J. F. & Hodgson, G. C. (1962). Poult. Sci. 41, 922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCance, R. A. & Widdowson, E. M. (1960). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond. no. 297.Google Scholar
Medical Research Council (1945). Med. Res. Coun. War Memo. no 14.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1964). Board of Trade Journal 187, 742.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: National Food Survey Committee (1965).Domestic Food Consumption and Expenditure: 1963. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Ministry of Agriculture, Northern Ireland (1964). Agricultural Statistics 1961/62, United Kingdom Agricultural Censuses of Production. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Morrison, M. A., Sauter, E. A., McLaren, B. A. & Stadelman, W. J. (1954). Poult. Sci. 33, 1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pendry, A. R. (1960). R. Soc. Hlth J. 80, 132.Google Scholar
Polin, D., Wynosky, E. R. & Porter, C. C. (1962 a). J. Nutr. 76, 59.Google Scholar
Polin, D., Wynosky, E. R. & Porter, C. C. (1962 b). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 110, 844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polin, D., Wynosky, E. R. & Porter, C. C. (1963 a). Poult. Sci. 42, 1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polin, D., Wynosky, E. R. & Porter, C. C. (1963 b). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 114, 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pudelkewicz, C., Gordon, H. W. & Kahlenberg, O. J. (1963). Poult. Sci. 42, 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrimpton, D. H. (1960). Br. Poult. Sci. 1, 101.Google Scholar
Society of Public Analysts and other Analytical Chemists: Analytical Methods Committee (1951). Analyst 76, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vipond, M. S., Robertson, J. & Tapsfield, D. (1964). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 23, xxxviii.Google Scholar
Watt, B. K. & Merrill, A. L. (1963). Composition of Foods, Handbook no. 8. Washington, DC: USDA Agricultural Research Service.Google Scholar