Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T16:48:29.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences between spent hens of different genotype in performance, meat yield and suitability of the meat for sausage production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2014

Y. Loetscher ,
D. Albiker ,
R. Stephan ,
M. Kreuzer  and
R. E. Messikommer
Y. Loetscher
Affiliation:
ETH Zurich, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Universitaetstrasse 2, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
D. Albiker
Affiliation:
Foundation Aviforum, Burgerweg 22, 3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
R. Stephan
Affiliation:
University of Zurich, Institute for Food Hygiene and Safety, Winterthurerstrasse 272, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland
M. Kreuzer*
Affiliation:
ETH Zurich, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Universitaetstrasse 2, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
R. E. Messikommer
Affiliation:
ETH Zurich, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Universitaetstrasse 2, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
*
†E-mail: michael.kreuzer@inw.agrl.ethz.ch
Get access

Abstract

The valorization of spent hens via the food chain has some major limitations, which include low meat yield and tough meat. The latter issue can be overcome by producing convenience foods; the first may be alleviated by employing a genotype with higher meatiness. To quantitatively compare two common layer genotypes in production performance, meat yield and sausage quality, 2200 57 weeks old Institut de Sélection Animale (ISA) Warren and Dekalb White hens each were investigated during the last 60 days of egg laying. The hens were housed in an aviary system in 2×10 compartments (10 compartments/each genotype). Measurements included feed intake, laying performance, egg weight and feed conversion ratio as measured per compartment. BW was determined twice on 10 animals per compartment. Finally, two sub-groups of five hens per compartment were slaughtered, meat yield was recorded and bratwurst-type sausages were produced (n=20 per genotype). Fat proportion, cooking loss, connective tissue properties and Kramer shear energy were measured. After 1, 4, 7 and 10 months of frozen storage, oxidative stability (thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS)) and microbiological status were determined as shelf-life related criteria. ANOVA was performed considering genotype as the main effect. The ISA Warren hens were inferior in laying performance (−11%) and feed conversion ratio (+10%) compared with Dekalb White, but had the same feed intake. The ISA Warren had higher BW and carcass weight than the Dekalb White. Carcass yield was higher by 5.9%. There were 80 g (23%) more meat available for sausage production from ISA Warren compared with Dekalb White. Sausages prepared from meat of ISA Warren hens contained less fat than those from Dekalb White, but showed the same cooking loss. Although the collagen proportion of the sausages produced from ISA Warren was lower than from Dekalb White, collagen solubility was lower and shear energy was higher. During the 10 months of frozen storage, TBARS increased continuously, but not to an extent that would prevent its use as food. The sausages from the ISA Warren genotype had marginally higher TBARS levels during storage. Total colony counts decreased with storage time, with slightly lower values found in the non-spiced sausage material from the ISA Warren hens. In conclusion, when intending to use spent hens as food, ISA Warren are clearly superior to Dekalb White in meat and sausage yield. When processing the meat to sausages, the higher shear energy is probably advantageous.

Keywords

laying hengenotypemeatsausagelipid oxidation
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , February 2015 , pp. 347 - 355
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almasi, A, Suto, Z, Fulop, T, Kustosne, PO, Milisits, G and Horn, P 2011. Improving the final liveweight and growing ability of TETRA-H a dual purpose chicken type by using a new experimental sire line. Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus 76, 245–248.Google Scholar
Althaus, D, Hofer, E, Corti, S, Julmi, A and Stephan, R 2012. Bacteriological survey of ready-to-eat lettuce, fresh-cut fruits and sprouts collected from the Swiss market. Journal of Food Protection 75, 1338–1341.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2013. Pressemitteilung: NRW setzt Zeichen für den Tierschutz: Ministerium untersagt massenhaftes Töten männlicher Eintagsküken von Legehennenrassen. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from http://archive.is/Rxx3D Google Scholar
AOAC 1997. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Biswas, S, Chakraborty, A and Sarkar, S 2006. Comparison among the qualities of patties prepared from chicken broiler, spent hen and duck meats. The Journal of Poultry Science 43, 180–186.Google Scholar
Bundesamt für Gesundheit (BAG) and Lebensmittelbuchkommission 1999. Schweizerisches Lebensmittelbuch, Bundesamt für Gesundheit, Abteilung Lebensmittelsicherheit, Berne, Switzerland. Retrieved November 19, 2013, from http://www.slmb.bag.admin.ch/slmb/index.html Google Scholar
Carballo, J, Barreto, G and Colmenero, FJ 1995. Starch and egg white influence on properties of bologna sausage as related to fat content. Journal of Food Science 60, 673–677.Google Scholar
Chen, H and Marks, B 1998. Visible/near-infrared spectroscopy for physical characteristics of cooked chicken patties. Journal of Food Science 63, 279–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chueachuaychoo, A, Wattanachant, S and Benjakul, S 2011. Quality characteristics of raw and cooked spent hen Pectoralis major muscles during chilled storage: effect of salt and phosphate. International Food Research Journal 18, 601–613.Google Scholar
Dawson, P, Sheldon, B and Miles, J 1991. Effect of aseptic processing on the texture of chicken meat. Poultry Science 70, 2359–2367.Google Scholar
de Souza, KMR, Araujo, RB, dos Santos, AL, Rodrigues, CEC, de Faria, DE and Trindade, MA 2011. Adding value to the meat of spent laying hens manufacturing sausages with a healthy appeal. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 13, 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economou, K, Oreopoulou, V and Thomopoulos, C 1991. Antioxidant activity of some plant extracts of the family Labiatae . Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society 68, 109–113.Google Scholar
Gerken, M, Jaenecke, D and Kreuzer, M 2003. Growth, behaviour and carcass characteristics of egg-type cockerels compared to male broilers. World’s Poultry Science Journal 59, 46–49.Google Scholar
Institut de Sélection Animale (ISA) B.V. 2011. Product performance Dekalb White commercial layer. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from http://www.isapoultry.com/products/dekalb/dekalb-white/ Google Scholar
Institut de Sélection Animale (ISA) B.V. 2012. ISA Warren management guide. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from http://www.joiceandhill.co.uk/en/products/isa-warren/ Google Scholar
Johnston, NP, Jeffries, lK, Rodriguez, B and Johnston, EE 2011. Acceptance of brown-shelled eggs in a white-shelled egg marked. Poultry Science 90, 1074–1079.Google Scholar
Koenig, M, Hahn, G, Damme, K and Schmutz, M 2012. Utilization of laying-type cockerels as ‘coquelets’: influence of genotype and diet characteristics on growth performance and carcass composition. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 76, 197–202.Google Scholar
Kondaiah, N and Panda, B 1992. Processing and utilization of spent hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 48, 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, T, Williams, S, Sloan, D and Littell, R 1997. Development and evaluation of a chicken breakfast sausage manufactured with mechanically deboned chicken meat. Poultry Science 76, 415–421.Google Scholar
Lee, Y, Saha, A, Xiong, R, Owens, C and Meullenet, J 2008. Changes in broiler breast fillet tenderness, water-holding capacity, and color attributes during long-term frozen storage. Journal of Food Science 73, 162–168.Google Scholar
Lentfer, TL, Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Fröhlich, EKF and von Borell, E 2013. Nest use is influenced by the positions of nests and drinkers in aviaries. Poultry Science 92, 1433–1442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, A, Nishimura, T and Takahashi, K 1996. Relationship between structural properties of intramuscular connective tissue and toughness of various chicken skeletal muscles. Meat Science 43, 43–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loetscher, Y, Kreuzer, M and Messikommer, RE 2013. Oxidative stability of the meat of broilers supplemented with rosemary leaves, rosehip fruits, chokeberry pomace and entire nettle, and effects on performance and meat quality. Poultry Science 92, 2938–2948.Google Scholar
Loetscher, Y, Kreuzer, M, Albiker, D, Stephan, R and Messikommer, RE 2014. Effect of replacing dietary vitamin E by sage on performance and meatiness of spent hens, and the oxidative stability of sausages produced from their meat. British Poultry Science, doi:10.1080/00071668.2014.946885.Google Scholar
Mertens, DR, Allen, M, Carmany, J, Clegg, J, Davidowicz, A, Drouches, M, Frank, K, Gambin, D, Garkie, M, Gildemeister, B, Jeffress, D, Jeon, CS, Jones, D, Kaplan, D, Kim, GN, Kobata, S, Main, D, Moua, X, Paul, B, Robertson, J, Taysom, D, Thiex, N, Williams, J and Wolf, M 2002. Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beakers or crucibles: collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International 85, 1217–1240.Google Scholar
Naveena, B and Mendiratta, S 2001. Tenderisation of spent hen meat using ginger extract. British Poultry Science 42, 344–349.Google Scholar
Pawar, V, Karthikeyan, B, Zanjad, P, Machewad, G and Chappalwar, A 2011. Process optimization for chicken patties manufactured with a combination of spent hen and rabbit meat. Journal of Food Quality 34, 236–244.Google Scholar
Rizzi, C, Marangon, A and Chiericato, G 2007. Effect of genotype on slaughtering performance and meat physical and sensory characteristics of organic laying hens. Poultry Science 86, 128–135.Google Scholar
SAS 2011. Version 9.3 for Windows. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Scott, TA and Silversides, FG 2000. The effect of storage and strain of hen on egg quality. Poultry Science 79, 1725–1729.Google Scholar
Shan, B, Cai, YZ, Sun, M and Corke, H 2005. Antioxidant capacity of 26 spice extracts and characterization of their phenolic constituents. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53, 7749–7759.Google Scholar
Szczesniak, AS 1963. Objective measurements of food texture. Journal of Food Science 28, 410–420.Google Scholar
Szentirmai, E, Milisits, G, Donkó, T, Budai, Z, Ujvári, J, Fülöp, T, Repa, I and Sütő, Z 2013. Comparison of changes in production and egg composition in relation to in vivo estimates of body weight and composition of brown and white egg layers during the first egg-laying period. British Poultry Science 54, 587–593.Google Scholar
Tarladgis, BG, Watts, BM, Younathan, MT and Dugan, L Jr 1960. A distillation method for the quantitative determination of malonaldehyde in rancid foods. Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society 37, 44–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trindade, MA, Contreras, CC and Felício, PE 2005. Mortadella sausage formulations with partial and total replacement of beef and pork backfat with mechanically separated meat from spent layer hens. Journal of Food Science 70, 236–241.Google Scholar
Verbeke, W and Viaene, J 2000. Ethical challenges for livestock production: meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12, 141–151.Google Scholar