A comparison of fast growing broiler chickens with a slower-growing breed type reared on Higher Welfare commercial farms

Slowing the growth of modern broiler chickens can have a positive effect on a number of welfare outcomes. However, relatively few studies have compared fast and slower growing broiler chickens reared under the same commercial conditions. The main aim of this study was to evaluate a slower growing br...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2021-11, Vol.16 (11), p.e0259333-e0259333
Hauptverfasser: Baxter, Mary, Richmond, Anne, Lavery, Ursula, O'Connell, Niamh E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0259333
container_issue 11
container_start_page e0259333
container_title PloS one
container_volume 16
creator Baxter, Mary
Richmond, Anne
Lavery, Ursula
O'Connell, Niamh E
description Slowing the growth of modern broiler chickens can have a positive effect on a number of welfare outcomes. However, relatively few studies have compared fast and slower growing broiler chickens reared under the same commercial conditions. The main aim of this study was to evaluate a slower growing breed and standard fast growing broilers on commercial farms. Ross 308 broilers and slower growing Hubbard Redbro broilers were housed on six farms for 17 production cycles. Production data were available for all cycles. Behaviour and environmental measures were taken over one cycle on each of two farms. The farms were visited during weeks 3-6 for both breeds and week 7 for Redbros. We found that breed had a significant effect on a number of measures, including gait score, latency to lie, feather cover, avoidance distances, perch use and play behaviour (p < 0.05). Gait scores were consistently lower among the Redbro flocks during weeks 4, 5, 6 and 7. Redbro broilers generally had longer latency to lie times, better feather cover, and were more reactive to approaching observers. They also showed higher levels of perch use and play. Despite these indications of improved locomotion and physical ability, we found little difference in their general behaviour. However, Redbro broilers did perform longer activity bouts in week 7 than Ross 308s in their final week. There was no effect of breed on dust levels, ammonia concentration or litter condition. Redbro broilers were slaughtered 5.5 days later than Ross 308 birds at a lower average weight (2.32 vs 2.52kg) and had lower mortality, fewer culls and fewer carcasses downgraded at the abattoir. Our results suggest that the slower growing strain was healthier throughout the cycle and more capable of displaying some natural behaviours.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0259333
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2593588744</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A681288082</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_2de1e65b15084c2d9850061a26fd78cf</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A681288082</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-1bfc4f526bd78c4b2242b88c4872203da4a232a94aa1fa8e680440bb6fc038c43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk01v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBEQkJw2MVfyToXpFUFdKVKlfg8Wo4zTrw48WInbPvvcdq0bFAPyIeMnGfe1zP2JMlzjJaYrvC7rRt8J-1y5zpYIpIVlNIHyTEuKFnkBNGHB_FR8iSELUIZ5Xn-ODmibEWzDOPj5HKdKtfupDfBdanTqZahT2vv9qar09I7Y8GnqjHqJ3Qh3Zu-SWUarNuDX_zFAKq0v9pB6kH6GEetM1M3MfUHWB23RpcWvDLSRgvfhqfJIy1tgGfT9yT59vHD19OzxfnFp83p-nyh8oL0C1xqxXRG8rJaccVKQhgpeYz4isTCKskkoUQWTEqsJYecI8ZQWeZaIRoxepK8vNHdWRfE1LQgxn5lnK_YSGxuiMrJrdh500p_JZw04nrD-VpI3xtlQZAKMORZiTPEmSJVwTOEcixJrsfj6aj1fnIbyhYqBV3vpZ2Jzv90phG1-y14lnNMSBR4Mwl492uA0IvWBAXWyg7ccH1uRgpcrGhEX_2D3l_dRNUyFmA67aKvGkXFerTkHPHRdnkPFVcFrVHxhen4DuYJb2cJkenhsq_lEILYfPn8_-zF9zn7-oBtQNq-Cc4OvXFdmIPsBlTeheBB3zUZIzEOyG03xDggYhqQmPbi8ILukm4ngv4B0OkLpw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2593588744</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of fast growing broiler chickens with a slower-growing breed type reared on Higher Welfare commercial farms</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Baxter, Mary ; Richmond, Anne ; Lavery, Ursula ; O'Connell, Niamh E</creator><contributor>Yildirim, Arda</contributor><creatorcontrib>Baxter, Mary ; Richmond, Anne ; Lavery, Ursula ; O'Connell, Niamh E ; Yildirim, Arda</creatorcontrib><description>Slowing the growth of modern broiler chickens can have a positive effect on a number of welfare outcomes. However, relatively few studies have compared fast and slower growing broiler chickens reared under the same commercial conditions. The main aim of this study was to evaluate a slower growing breed and standard fast growing broilers on commercial farms. Ross 308 broilers and slower growing Hubbard Redbro broilers were housed on six farms for 17 production cycles. Production data were available for all cycles. Behaviour and environmental measures were taken over one cycle on each of two farms. The farms were visited during weeks 3-6 for both breeds and week 7 for Redbros. We found that breed had a significant effect on a number of measures, including gait score, latency to lie, feather cover, avoidance distances, perch use and play behaviour (p &lt; 0.05). Gait scores were consistently lower among the Redbro flocks during weeks 4, 5, 6 and 7. Redbro broilers generally had longer latency to lie times, better feather cover, and were more reactive to approaching observers. They also showed higher levels of perch use and play. Despite these indications of improved locomotion and physical ability, we found little difference in their general behaviour. However, Redbro broilers did perform longer activity bouts in week 7 than Ross 308s in their final week. There was no effect of breed on dust levels, ammonia concentration or litter condition. Redbro broilers were slaughtered 5.5 days later than Ross 308 birds at a lower average weight (2.32 vs 2.52kg) and had lower mortality, fewer culls and fewer carcasses downgraded at the abattoir. Our results suggest that the slower growing strain was healthier throughout the cycle and more capable of displaying some natural behaviours.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259333</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34735511</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Abattoirs ; Ammonia ; Animal Welfare ; Animals ; Behavior, Animal ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Birds ; Body Weight ; Breeding - methods ; Broilers (Poultry) ; Chickens ; Chickens - classification ; Chickens - growth &amp; development ; Commercial farms ; Comparative analysis ; Dermatitis ; Farms ; Feathers ; Female ; Food security ; Gait ; Gait Analysis ; Growth ; Houses ; Latency ; Locomotion ; Male ; Management ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Mortality ; Poultry ; Social Sciences</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-11, Vol.16 (11), p.e0259333-e0259333</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 Baxter et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 Baxter et al 2021 Baxter et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-1bfc4f526bd78c4b2242b88c4872203da4a232a94aa1fa8e680440bb6fc038c43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-1bfc4f526bd78c4b2242b88c4872203da4a232a94aa1fa8e680440bb6fc038c43</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4575-3420</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8568122/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8568122/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34735511$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Yildirim, Arda</contributor><creatorcontrib>Baxter, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richmond, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lavery, Ursula</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Connell, Niamh E</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of fast growing broiler chickens with a slower-growing breed type reared on Higher Welfare commercial farms</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Slowing the growth of modern broiler chickens can have a positive effect on a number of welfare outcomes. However, relatively few studies have compared fast and slower growing broiler chickens reared under the same commercial conditions. The main aim of this study was to evaluate a slower growing breed and standard fast growing broilers on commercial farms. Ross 308 broilers and slower growing Hubbard Redbro broilers were housed on six farms for 17 production cycles. Production data were available for all cycles. Behaviour and environmental measures were taken over one cycle on each of two farms. The farms were visited during weeks 3-6 for both breeds and week 7 for Redbros. We found that breed had a significant effect on a number of measures, including gait score, latency to lie, feather cover, avoidance distances, perch use and play behaviour (p &lt; 0.05). Gait scores were consistently lower among the Redbro flocks during weeks 4, 5, 6 and 7. Redbro broilers generally had longer latency to lie times, better feather cover, and were more reactive to approaching observers. They also showed higher levels of perch use and play. Despite these indications of improved locomotion and physical ability, we found little difference in their general behaviour. However, Redbro broilers did perform longer activity bouts in week 7 than Ross 308s in their final week. There was no effect of breed on dust levels, ammonia concentration or litter condition. Redbro broilers were slaughtered 5.5 days later than Ross 308 birds at a lower average weight (2.32 vs 2.52kg) and had lower mortality, fewer culls and fewer carcasses downgraded at the abattoir. Our results suggest that the slower growing strain was healthier throughout the cycle and more capable of displaying some natural behaviours.</description><subject>Abattoirs</subject><subject>Ammonia</subject><subject>Animal Welfare</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Behavior, Animal</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>Body Weight</subject><subject>Breeding - methods</subject><subject>Broilers (Poultry)</subject><subject>Chickens</subject><subject>Chickens - classification</subject><subject>Chickens - growth &amp; development</subject><subject>Commercial farms</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Dermatitis</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Feathers</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Food security</subject><subject>Gait</subject><subject>Gait Analysis</subject><subject>Growth</subject><subject>Houses</subject><subject>Latency</subject><subject>Locomotion</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Poultry</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk01v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBEQkJw2MVfyToXpFUFdKVKlfg8Wo4zTrw48WInbPvvcdq0bFAPyIeMnGfe1zP2JMlzjJaYrvC7rRt8J-1y5zpYIpIVlNIHyTEuKFnkBNGHB_FR8iSELUIZ5Xn-ODmibEWzDOPj5HKdKtfupDfBdanTqZahT2vv9qar09I7Y8GnqjHqJ3Qh3Zu-SWUarNuDX_zFAKq0v9pB6kH6GEetM1M3MfUHWB23RpcWvDLSRgvfhqfJIy1tgGfT9yT59vHD19OzxfnFp83p-nyh8oL0C1xqxXRG8rJaccVKQhgpeYz4isTCKskkoUQWTEqsJYecI8ZQWeZaIRoxepK8vNHdWRfE1LQgxn5lnK_YSGxuiMrJrdh500p_JZw04nrD-VpI3xtlQZAKMORZiTPEmSJVwTOEcixJrsfj6aj1fnIbyhYqBV3vpZ2Jzv90phG1-y14lnNMSBR4Mwl492uA0IvWBAXWyg7ccH1uRgpcrGhEX_2D3l_dRNUyFmA67aKvGkXFerTkHPHRdnkPFVcFrVHxhen4DuYJb2cJkenhsq_lEILYfPn8_-zF9zn7-oBtQNq-Cc4OvXFdmIPsBlTeheBB3zUZIzEOyG03xDggYhqQmPbi8ILukm4ngv4B0OkLpw</recordid><startdate>20211104</startdate><enddate>20211104</enddate><creator>Baxter, Mary</creator><creator>Richmond, Anne</creator><creator>Lavery, Ursula</creator><creator>O'Connell, Niamh E</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4575-3420</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211104</creationdate><title>A comparison of fast growing broiler chickens with a slower-growing breed type reared on Higher Welfare commercial farms</title><author>Baxter, Mary ; Richmond, Anne ; Lavery, Ursula ; O'Connell, Niamh E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-1bfc4f526bd78c4b2242b88c4872203da4a232a94aa1fa8e680440bb6fc038c43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Abattoirs</topic><topic>Ammonia</topic><topic>Animal Welfare</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Behavior, Animal</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>Body Weight</topic><topic>Breeding - methods</topic><topic>Broilers (Poultry)</topic><topic>Chickens</topic><topic>Chickens - classification</topic><topic>Chickens - growth &amp; development</topic><topic>Commercial farms</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Dermatitis</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Feathers</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Food security</topic><topic>Gait</topic><topic>Gait Analysis</topic><topic>Growth</topic><topic>Houses</topic><topic>Latency</topic><topic>Locomotion</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Poultry</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Baxter, Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richmond, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lavery, Ursula</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Connell, Niamh E</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Baxter, Mary</au><au>Richmond, Anne</au><au>Lavery, Ursula</au><au>O'Connell, Niamh E</au><au>Yildirim, Arda</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of fast growing broiler chickens with a slower-growing breed type reared on Higher Welfare commercial farms</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2021-11-04</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e0259333</spage><epage>e0259333</epage><pages>e0259333-e0259333</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Slowing the growth of modern broiler chickens can have a positive effect on a number of welfare outcomes. However, relatively few studies have compared fast and slower growing broiler chickens reared under the same commercial conditions. The main aim of this study was to evaluate a slower growing breed and standard fast growing broilers on commercial farms. Ross 308 broilers and slower growing Hubbard Redbro broilers were housed on six farms for 17 production cycles. Production data were available for all cycles. Behaviour and environmental measures were taken over one cycle on each of two farms. The farms were visited during weeks 3-6 for both breeds and week 7 for Redbros. We found that breed had a significant effect on a number of measures, including gait score, latency to lie, feather cover, avoidance distances, perch use and play behaviour (p &lt; 0.05). Gait scores were consistently lower among the Redbro flocks during weeks 4, 5, 6 and 7. Redbro broilers generally had longer latency to lie times, better feather cover, and were more reactive to approaching observers. They also showed higher levels of perch use and play. Despite these indications of improved locomotion and physical ability, we found little difference in their general behaviour. However, Redbro broilers did perform longer activity bouts in week 7 than Ross 308s in their final week. There was no effect of breed on dust levels, ammonia concentration or litter condition. Redbro broilers were slaughtered 5.5 days later than Ross 308 birds at a lower average weight (2.32 vs 2.52kg) and had lower mortality, fewer culls and fewer carcasses downgraded at the abattoir. Our results suggest that the slower growing strain was healthier throughout the cycle and more capable of displaying some natural behaviours.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>34735511</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0259333</doi><tpages>e0259333</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4575-3420</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2021-11, Vol.16 (11), p.e0259333-e0259333
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2593588744
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Abattoirs
Ammonia
Animal Welfare
Animals
Behavior, Animal
Biology and Life Sciences
Birds
Body Weight
Breeding - methods
Broilers (Poultry)
Chickens
Chickens - classification
Chickens - growth & development
Commercial farms
Comparative analysis
Dermatitis
Farms
Feathers
Female
Food security
Gait
Gait Analysis
Growth
Houses
Latency
Locomotion
Male
Management
Medicine and Health Sciences
Mortality
Poultry
Social Sciences
title A comparison of fast growing broiler chickens with a slower-growing breed type reared on Higher Welfare commercial farms
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T17%3A54%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20fast%20growing%20broiler%20chickens%20with%20a%20slower-growing%20breed%20type%20reared%20on%20Higher%20Welfare%20commercial%20farms&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Baxter,%20Mary&rft.date=2021-11-04&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e0259333&rft.epage=e0259333&rft.pages=e0259333-e0259333&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0259333&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA681288082%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2593588744&rft_id=info:pmid/34735511&rft_galeid=A681288082&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_2de1e65b15084c2d9850061a26fd78cf&rfr_iscdi=true