This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.

0/)

P-ISSN: 2304-3075; E-ISSN: 2305-4360

International Journal of Veterinary Science

www.ijvets.com; editor@ijvets.com

Review Article https://doi.org/10.47278/journal.ijvs/2024.192

Comparison Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Native Chicken Breeds

under Free-Range and Intensive Rearing System: A Meta-Analysis
Jonathan Anugrah Lase 1,4, Rudi Afnan 2*, Zakiah Wulandari 2, Sri Estuningsih 3, Tike Sartika 4,
Surya 4, Sari Yanti Hayanti 4, Mohammad Miftakhus Sholikin 4 and Cece Sumantri 2
1
Graduate School of Animal Production and Technology, Faculty of Animal Science, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
2
Department of Animal Production and Technology, Faculty of Animal Science, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
3
Division of Veterinary Pathology, School of Veterinary and Biomedicine, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
4
Research Center for Animal Husbandry, Research Organization for Agriculture and Food, National Research and
Innovation Agency of the Republic of Indonesia (BRIN), Cibinong, Bogor District 16915, Indonesia
*Corresponding author: rudi_afnan@apps.ipb.ac.id

Article History: 24-472 Received: 16-Apr-24 Revised: 09-Jun-24 Accepted: 13-Jun-24 Online First: 20-Jun-24

AB S T RA C T
Poultry-rearing systems generally consist of intensive, semi-intensive, or free-range systems. Currently, free-range is a
system that guarantees healthy poultry products. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effects of intensive and free-
range rearing systems on live weight (LW), feed intake (FI), feed conversion ratio (FCR), body weight gain (BWG),
carcass weight (CW), breast meat weight (BM), water holding capacity (WHC), shear force (SF), flavor (Flav),
tenderness (Tend), juiciness (Juic), thigh meat (TM), meat water content (MW), protein content (Prot), color (Col), and
mortality (Mort) in native chickens. Literature search served as the data source using searches in platforms such as
Elsevier, Google Scholar, Springer, Wiley, and Oxford University Press. Twenty-seven (27) articles were identified,
covering seven parameters related to the growth performance and carcass characteristics of 30 free-range chickens. The
influence of the maintenance system significantly affects the live weight (g) parameter (SMD=-1.21; C.I. 95%=-1.73 to
-0.687) (P<0.001) and the carcass weight (g) parameter (SMD=-3.02; C.I. 95%=-4.59 to -1.45) (P<0.001). Regarding
breast meat quality parameters, there is a significant influence on part b* (SMD=3.048; C.I. 95%=1.31 to 4.79)
(P<0.001). The meta-analysis results concluded that performance and carcass characteristics are better in the intensive
system. At the same time, the breast meat quality parameter is better in the free-range system.
Key words: Carcass, Meta-analysis, Native chicken, Performance

INTRODUCTION et al. (2016) shows that free-range rearing positively affects

the welfare and quality of wild chicken meat. Consumers
Organic and natural foods are currently prevalent food are interested in buying and even willing to pay more for
sources and the main target for consumers worldwide free-range raised animal products because they believe the
(Wang et al. 2009). Poultry products such as meat and eggs resulting products have better sensory quality and taste
are also important food sources. Currently, poultry-rearing (Mcfadden et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2018).
systems are receiving much attention due to the demand for The demand for animal products produced from free-
food products, including poultry products that are free from range rearing is believed to expand globally as people
chemical residues, antibiotics, and other synthetic become more aware of consuming animal products raised
materials. There is a growing number of consumers with animal welfare principles (Tong et al. 2014). The issue
interested in poultry products, particularly those raised in of animal products raised with consideration for welfare
free-range systems (Miao et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2009). has been ongoing for a long time. Since the 1990s,
Free-range rearing systems are becoming increasingly countries such as the United States, Australia, and Europe
popular because they affect the welfare of livestock, have initiated and promoted animal welfare, focusing on
production efficiency, and the health of poultry products eliminating complete confinement systems for animals,
(Chen et al. 2013; Tong et al. 2014). Research by Yamak especially those intended for meat and egg consumption

Cite This Article as: Lase JA, Afnan R, Wulandari Z, Estuningsih S, Sartika T, Surya, Hayanti SY, Sholikin MM and
Sumantri C, 2024. Comparison performance and carcass characteristics of native chicken breeds under free-range and
intensive rearing system: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Veterinary Science 13(6): 970-979.
https://doi.org/10.47278/journal.ijvs/2024.192

970
 Int J Vet Sci, 2024, 13(6): 970-979.

(Hansen and Østerås 2019; Jin et al. 2019). One form of systems of native chickens; studies compared intensive
animal husbandry that upholds animal welfare is the and free-range rearing systems of native chickens; studies
free-range system. Free-range rearing allows animals to measuring growth performance and carcass
exhibit natural behaviors, move freely, receive natural characteristics, quality of breast, and thigh meat; the
sunlight, and consume natural feed (Pettersson et al. results of statistical analysis were in the form of average
2018; Fitra et al. 2021). Since this issue has been raised, values and SD (if the statistical results are in the form of
market segmentation for animal products produced from SEM, they were converted to SD for uniformity of data);
free-range rearing has increased in these countries and published in English with the Digital Object Identifier
(Scrinis et al. 2017). (DOI) and indexed by Scopus. Meanwhile, exclusion
Poultry products from free-range rearing are generally criteria included removing research subjects from a target
healthier than those from intensive rearing systems study that were researched because they did not meet the
(Rehman et al. 2016; Scrinis et al. 2017). Free-range inclusion criteria of the study, such as studies of free-range
chickens have better meat quality, composition, and flavor rearing systems other than native chickens (such as laying
(Yamak et al. 2016). Free-range chickens exhibit better hens and broiler chickens); studies that only examine
growth performance, meat quality, carcass characteristics, intensive or semi-intensive or free-range rearing systems
and immune function than cage-raised chickens (Stadig et for native chickens; and the results of the statistical
al. 2016; Tong et al. 2014). Free-range chickens without analysis did not have mean values and SD or SEM.
confinement have better carcass quality and meat flavor
(Fanatico et al. 2007; Lewis et al. 1997). On the other hand, Meta-Analysis approach
poultry raised in confinement systems tend to be more The meta-analysis approach used is a cumulative
stressed, resulting in physiological responses and behaviors meta-analysis approach to see changes in the cumulative
that deviate from their natural tendencies and poorer effect size observed for each parameter. Meta-analysis
growth performance (Marin et al. 2001). was conducted using OpenMEE (Makmur et al. 2022;
Previous studies have discussed the effects of free- Ariyanti et al. 2023). All analyses on each parameter were
range and intensive rearing systems on the growth carried out with the same method; the author has marked
performance and meat quality of native chickens. However, as the Study ID column, and the number of samples, in
the results vary, so a meta-analysis study is needed to the control category (intensive) and in the treatment
review and obtain valid conclusions from various studies category (free-range), has been converted into count
comprehensively. Therefore, this research aims to compare format. Meanwhile, the average value and SD (Standard
the growth performance and carcass characteristics of thigh Deviation) for the control category (intensive) and
and breast parts of native chickens raised in two rearing treatment category (free-range) were changed to a
systems, namely free-range and intensive-rearing systems, continuous format. Next, the differences in all the data
using the meta-analysis method. collected in a calculated effect size wizard were measured
with data types in the form of means and SD and effect
MATERIALS AND METHODS size Hedges' d (Palupi et al. 2012). Hedges effect size
method was calculated using Eq.
Metadata (𝑋̅ 𝑇 − 𝑋̅ 𝐶
The articles were obtained from various electronic
𝑑= 𝑆
𝐽 (1)
databases such as Elsevier, Google Scholar, Springer, ̅𝑇
Where 𝑋 is the average value of the treatment category
Wiley, and Oxford University Press. The keywords used ̅ 𝐶 is the average value of the control
group (free-range), 𝑋
are “chicken,” “native,” “free-range and “rearing systems.” category group (intensive), S is the combined standard
The search results on the database and the selection deviation, and J is the correction factor for sample size
process, from identification to inclusion (Fig. 1), are used calculated using Eq. (2) and (3):
to complete the grammatical qualifications. Articles that
2
have been collected from several web publishers were then (𝑁 𝑇 −1)(𝑠𝑇 )2 + (𝑁𝐶 −1)(𝑠𝐶 )
coded. Fill in the coding in the form of the author's name, 𝑆= √ (2)
(𝑁 𝑇 + 𝑁𝐶 −2)
year of publication, publisher, article title, free-range
3
chicken breed, free-range chicken sex, cage size, number 𝐽 =1− (3)
(4(𝑁 𝐶 + 𝑁𝑇 −2)−1)
of samples, research parameters, and research results
(intensive rearing as control and free-range rearing as Where 𝑁 𝑇 is the number of samples from the treatment
treatment). Articles that have been coded were then category group (free-range), 𝑁 𝐶 is the number of samples
checked by all authors for double checking. The results of from the control category group (intensive), 𝑠 𝑇 is the
the minutes of the study search and selection process can standard deviation of the treatment category group (free-
be seen in Table 1. After completing the checking process,
range), and 𝑠 𝐶 is the standard deviation of the control
it continued to the inclusion and exclusion evaluation
category group (intensive). Then, the inverse variance of
selection stage.
fixed effect method for estimating effect size C.I. 95% use
Eq. (4). This range is the confidence interval (CI) which is
Selection criteria
The selection process applies an inclusion and estimated on the basis of a desired confidence level:
exclusion evaluation of the articles that have been 𝐶𝐼 = 𝜃 ± 𝑍 . 𝑆𝐸 (4)
collected. Inclusion criteria were the general Where CI is the Confidence Interval, θ is the value of the
characteristics of research subjects from a target study to combined effect estimate from the meta-analysis (the
be researched, such as studies of free-range rearing weighted average of the effects of the analyzed studies),

971
 Int J Vet Sci, 2024, 13(6): 970-979.

Fig. 1: Flow of the article search and selection process

Z is the z score corresponding to the 95% confidence level (SMD=-0.362; C.I. 95%=- 0.946 to 0.221), feed
(usually around 1.96 to 95% confidence) and SE is the consumption (SMD=-4.19; 95% C.I.=-8.38 to 0.007), FCR
Standard Error of the combined effect estimate, where this (SMD=-0.798; 95% C.I.=-1.68 to 0.08), and mortality
SE measures the extent to which the average effect (SMD=4.7; 95% C.I.=1.3 to 8.13).
estimate can vary.
In the OpenMEE software, control group and Quality of breast meat
treatment group categories are filled in based on the mean Table 3 shows the meta-analysis of breast meat
(x), SD (sd), and sample size (n) codes. Subgroup Meta- quality between free-range and intensive-rearing systems.
Analysis is seen based on the variables sex and cage area. The results obtained on free-range chickens have
The random-effects method uses DL (DerSimonian-Liard) evidence of the effect of the rearing system on meat
and a Confidence level of 95%. Standard Meta-Analysis quality parameters for b* (SMD=3.048; C.I. 95%=1.31 to
analyzes df and effect size C.I. 95% (SMD, lower, upper, 4.79). Meanwhile, parameters that have no evidence of an
SE, and p-value). Furthermore, the standard tool for effect on the rearing system are breast weight parameters
checking publication bias uses a funnel plot based on data in percent (SMD=0.682; C.I. 95%=0.072 to 1.29), meat
exploration. The article search and selection process flow quality for L* (SMD=1.37; C.I. 95%=0.129 to 2.61), a *
is presented in Fig. 1, and the studies included in the meta- (SMD=1.49; C.I. 95%=0.492 to 2.49), pH (SMD=-0.281;
analysis are presented in Table 1. C.I. 95%=-1.11 to 0.547), shear force (SMD=-0.469; C.I.
95%=-2.04 to 1.11), WHC (SMD=-0.262; 95% C.I.=-
RESULTS 0.758 to 0.234), meat water (SMD=0.808; 95%
C.I.=0.128 to 1.487), as well as chemical composition for
Growth performance and carcass characteristics protein (SMD=0.642; C.I. 95%=-0.105 to 1.39) and fat
A total of 27 articles with seven parameters related to (SMD=-1.66; C.I. 95%=-3.03 to -0.299), as well as on
growth performance and carcass characteristics of 30 sensory for aroma (SMD=0.957; C.I. 95%=-1.52 to 3.44),
native chickens and 49 studies that cover eligibility rules taste (SMD=-0.144; C.I. 95 %=-0.53 to 0.243), juiciness
are to be accepted in the meta-analysis. In this case, we are (SMD=-0.517; C.I. 95%=-1.45 to 0.414), and tenderness
measuring intensive rearing systems with free-range (SMD=-0.026; C.I. 95%=-0.411 to 0.359).
rearing systems in native chickens on performance growth
and carcass characteristics. Table 2 shows that native Quality of thigh meat
chickens have evidence of an effect on the rearing system Table 4 shows the thigh meat quality meta-analysis
on live weight parameters (SMD=-1.21; C.I. 95%=-1.73 to results between free-range and intensive-rearing systems.
-0.687) and carcass weight in grams (SMD=-3.02; C.I. The parameters that were not proven to show a significant
95%=-4.59 to -1.45). Meanwhile, the parameters that were difference in the rearing system were the thigh weight
not proven to show a significant difference in the rearing parameters (SMD=0.228; C.I. 95%=-0.304 to 0.761),
system were the weight gain parameters (SMD=-0.355; meat quality for L* (SMD=1.19; C.I. 95%=0.109 to 2.27),
C.I. 95%=-0.701 to -1.-10), carcass weight in percent a* (SMD = 0.842; C.I. 95%=-0.092 to 1.78), b*

972
 Int J Vet Sci, 2024, 13(6): 970-979.

Table 1: Studies included in the meta-analysis

Study Reference Breed Sex Cage Area Rearing Parameters
(m2/head) Systems
1 Martínez-Pérez et al. Rhode Island Red Ma 0.1667 FR and IN LW, FI, FCR and BWG
(2023)
2 Ahmad et al. (2019) Rhode Island Red x Naked Neck, Mix 0.2300 FR and IN LW
Black Australorp x Naked Neck,
Naked Neck
3 Rehman et al. (2016) Lakha, Mushki, Peshawari, Sindhi Fe 0.3528 FR and IN LW and BWG
4 Cheng et al. (2008) Taiwan Black Fe 0.1300 FR and IN CW, LW, BM (We, WHC, SF, pH, Flav,
Tend, Juic), and TM (We, WHC, SF, Ph,
Flav, Tend, Juic)
5 (Dou et al., 2009) Gushi Fe 0.1429 FR and IN LW, BWG, MW, BM (We, Prot, Fat, WHC,
SF, pH) and TM (We)
6 Li et al. (2016) Lingnanhuang Fe 0.1250 FR and IN CW, LW, BM (We, WHC, SF, pH) and TM
(We)
7 Mikulski et al. (2011) Hybrid Ma 0.1300 FR and IN CW, LW, FCR, BM (We, Prot, Fat, WHC,
pH, Col, Flav, Tend, Juic) and TM (We,
WHC, pH, Col)
8 Wang et al. (2009) Gushi Fe 0.1429 FR and IN CW, MW, LW, BWG, BM (We, Prot, Fat,
WHC, SF, pH) and TM (We)
9 Bosco et al. (2014) Native chicken Ma 0.1000 IN LW, FI, FCR, BWG, and Mort
10 Jiang et al. (2011) Chinese Local Chicken (Local x Ma 0.3800 FR and IN CW, LW, FI, FCR, BWG, BM (We, SF, pH,
Broiler) Col) and TM (We)
11 Niranjan et al. (2008) C1 cross, C2 cross, Vanaraja 234, Ma - FR LW
Gramapriya 212
12 Jin et al. (2019) Yellow chicken (wannan) Ma 0.6667 FR CW, LW, FI, FCR, BWG, Mort, BM (We,
SF, pH, Col) and TM (We)
13 Sogunle et al. (2012) Harco black, Novogen Ma 0.2500 FR and IN LW, FI, FCR, BWG, Mort
14 Evaris et al. (2020) Rhode Island Red Fe 2.9400 FR and IN CW, LW, and BM (We, Fat)
15 Rehman et al. (2022) Aseel Ma 1.1577 FR and IN CW, LW, BWG, BM (We), and TM (We)
16 Ahmad et al. (2019) Rhode Island Red x Naked Neck, Ma 0.2300 FR and IN CW and LW
Black Australorp x Naked Neck,
Naked Neck
17 Duran (2004) Azul Ma 2.7174 IN CW, LW, BM (We, Flav, Tend, Juic) and TM
(We)
18 Lin et al. (2014) Taiwan Fe 1.2500 FR and IN BM (Flav, Tend, Juic) and TM (Flav, Tend,
Juic)
19 Volk et al. (2011) Slovenian hybrid Prelux-G Ma 8.0000 FR CW, BM (Ph and Col), and TM (pH and Col)
20 Calik (2017) Yellowleg Partridge breed (Z-33) Ma 1.0000 IN LW, BM (We, WHC, pH, Col, Flaf, Tend,
Juic) and TM (We, WHC, pH, Col, Flav,
Tend, Juic)
21 Cerolini et al. (2019) Milanino Fe and 2.0000 and IN CW, and LW
Ma 10.0000
22 Miguel et al. (2008) Castellana Negra Ma 1.0000 IN CW, LW, BM (pH, Col, Flav, Tend, Juic),
and TM (pH, and Col)
23 Mosca et al. (2018) Milanino Fe and 8.0000 FR CW, LW, BM (WHC, pH, Col), and TM
Ma (WHC, pH, Col)
24 Tong et al. (2014) Suqin yellow Ma 2.4000 FR CW, LW, FI, FCR, BWG, Mort, BM (We,
WHC, SF, pH, Col), and TM (We)
25 Yamak et al. (2016) Alectoris chukar Fe and 3.5000 FR and IN CW, LW, BM (We, pH, Col) and TM (We,
Ma pH, Col)
26 Olaniyi et al. (2012) Harco black, Novogen - 0.2500 FR and IN LW, FI, FCR, and Mort
27 Sosnówka-Czajka et Yellowleg Partridge (Z-33), Rhode Mix 1.0000 FR and IN LW, BM (WHC, pH, Col), and TM (WHC,
al. (2017) Island Red (R-11) pH, Col)
Ma=male; Fe=female; Mix=mix; FR=free-range; IN=intensive; LW=live weight; FI=feed intake; FCR=feed conversion ratio; BWG=body weight gain;
CW=carcass weight; BM=breast meat; We=weight; WHC=water holding capacity; SF=shear force; Flav=flavor; Tend=Tenderness; Juic=Juiciness;
TM=thigh meat; MW=meat water; Prot=protein; Col=colour; Mort=mortality

(SMD=0.391; C.I. 95%=-0.712 to 1.5), pH (SMD=-1.01; native chickens and other types of feed in each study.
C.I. 95%=-2.24 to 0.217), WHC (SMD=0.011; C.I. Studies have shown that chicken breeds vary in various
95%=-0.433 to 0.456), sensory for flavor (SMD=0.179; regions, so the phenotype and genotype can differ
C.I. 95%=-0.24 to 0.598), juiciness (SMD=0.117; C.I. depending on the breed. For example, Saudi native
95%=-0.301 to 0.536), and tenderness (SMD=0.18; C.I. chickens have different morphological appearances and
95%=-0.239 to 0.599). colors and feather patterns (black, black striped, dark
brown, light brown, and grey), where the black breed has a
DISCUSSION lighter body weight than other breeds of the Saudi native
chicken (Fathi et al. 2017).
The meta-analysis results showed a significant According to research by Wang et al. (2023), ten local
influence between the rearing system for native chickens chicken breeds native to China show genetic and
on live weight and carcass weight in grams but not performance variations related to body weight and different
significantly on the parameters of body weight gain, body sizes (small, medium and large). The same can also
carcass weight in percent, feed intake, FCR, and mortality. be seen in the growth curves for four local Italian chicken
This situation is caused by the different types or breeds of breeds and two crosses showing different performances

973
 Int J Vet Sci, 2024, 13(6): 970-979.

Table 2: Comparison of growth performance and carcass characteristics between free-range and intensive system
Parameters Specification df Effect Size (C.I. 95%)
SMD (lower; upper) SE P Value
Live weight (g) General 30 -1.21 -1.73 -0.687 0.266 <0.001
Cage area (m2/h) 0.125 -8.53 -9.34 -7.73 0.41 NA
0.13 -0.057 -0.358 0.244 0.154 0.712
0.143 -1.48 -2.22 -0.742 0.376 <0.001
0.167 -0.088 -0.446 0.27 0.183 NA
0.23 -0.767 -1.56 0.021 0.402 0.056
0.25 -1.47 -1.65 -1.29 0.091 <0.001
0.353 -0.173 -0.756 0.41 0.297 0.56
0.38 0.085 -1.16 1.33 0.633 NA
1 0.627 0.446 0.808 0.092 <0.001
1.16 -0.288 -0.62 0.04 0.168 NA
2.94 -0.677 -1.12 -0.237 0.224 NA
3.5 -3.62 -5.07 -2.161 0.743 <0.001
Body weight gain (g/h/d) General 10 -0.355 -0.701 -0.010 0.176 0.044
Sex Ma -0.412 -0.733 -0.092 0.164 0.012
Fe -0.44 -1.33 0.445 0.451 0.33
Cage area (m2/h) 0.143 -2.3 -3.14 -1.45 0.43 <0.001
0.167 -0.009 -0.367 0.349 0.183 NA
0.25 -0.72 -0.885 -0.555 0.084 <0.001
0.353 0.221 -0.152 0.595 0.19 0.245
0.38 0.053 -1.19 1.29 0.633 NA
11.6 -0.215 -0.543 0.112 0.167 NA
Carcass weight (%) General 7 -0.362 -0.946 0.221 0.298 0.224
Sex Ma -0.295 -1.24 0.647 0.481 0.539
Fe -0.449 -0.702 -0.195 0.129 <0.001
2
Cage area (m /h) 0.125 -0.46 -0.716 -0.204 0.131 NA
0.13 -0.028 -1.01 0.952 0.5 NA
0.143 -0.01 -1.61 1.59 0.817 NA
0.23 0.167 -0.773 1.11 0.48 0.728
0.38 0.14 -0.738 1.02 0.448 NA
1.16 -1.87 -2.55 -1.2 0.346 NA
Carcass weight (g) General 7 -3.02 -4.59 -1.45 0.8 <0.001
Sex Ma -4.3 -6.04 -2.59 0.881 <0.001
Fe -2.07 -3.7 -0.449 0.829 0.012
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 -0.31 -0.933 0.314 0.318 NA
2.94 0.622 0.184 1.06 0.223 NA
3.5 -4.27 -5.61 -2.9 0.683 <0.001
Feed intake (g) General 5 -4.19 -8.38 0.007 2.14 0.05
Cage area (m2/h) 0.167 -0.025 -0.382 0.333 0.183 NA
0.25 -6.56 -9.1 -4.03 1.29 <0.001
0.38 0.145 -1.1 1.39 0.633 NA
FCR (%) General 6 -0.798 -1.68 0.08 0.448 0.075
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 0.213 -0.132 0.558 0.176 NA
0.167 -0.367 -0.728 -0.006 0.184 NA
0.25 -1.54 -2.44 -0.632 0.461 <0.001
0.38 0.19 -1.05 1.432 0.634 NA
Mortality (%) General 3 4.7 1.3 8.13 1.74 0.007
Cage area (m2/h) 0.25 4.7 1.3 8.13 1.74 0.007
Ma=male; Fe=female; C.I.=confidence interval; df=degrees of freedom, equal to n (number of observation) – 1; SE=standard error; SMD=standardized
mean difference.

Table 3: The quality of breast meat in native chicken between free-range and intensive
Parameter Specification df Effect Size (C.I. 95%)
SMD (lower; upper) SE p Value
Breast weight (%) General 13 0.682 0.072 1.29 0.311 0.028
Sex Ma 0.168 -0.489 0.826 0.336 0.616
Fe 1.02 0.078 1.97 0.483 0.034
Cage area (m2/h) 0.125 -0.573 -0.831 -0.315 0.132 NA
0.13 0.342 -2.02 2.7 1.2 0.776
0.143 1.2 0.489 1.91 0.362 <0.001
0.38 -0.183 -1.06 0.695 0.448 NA
1.16 0.191 -0.376 0.758 0.289 NA
2.94 1.61 1.11 2.1 0.251 NA
3.5 0.979 0.166 1.79 0.415 0.018
Meat Quality
L* General 9 1.37 0.129 2.61 0.633 0.03
Sex Ma 2.21 0.023 4.39 1.11 0.048
Fe 4.02 -1.93 9.97 3.04 0.186
Mi -0.507 -1.51 0.499 0.513 0.323
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 -0.434 -1.43 0.557 0.506 NA
0.38 0.043 -0.834 0.919 0.447 NA
1 -0.507 -1.51 0.499 0.513 0.323
3.5 5.25 1.58 8.93 1.88 0.005
a* General 9 1.49 0.492 2.49 0.51 0.003
Sex Ma 1.84 -0.023 3.7 0.95 0.053
Fe 3.41 0.164 6.65 1.66 0.039

974
 Int J Vet Sci, 2024, 13(6): 970-979.

Mi 0.36 -0.804 1.53 0.594 0.544

Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 0.81 -0.209 1.83 0.52 NA
0.38 0.099 -0.778 0.976 0.447 NA
1 0.36 -0.804 1.53 0.594 0.544
3.5 3.54 1.05 6.03 1.27 0.005
b* General 9 3.048 1.31 4.79 0.887 <0.001
Sex Ma 1.86 -0.308 4.03 1.11 0.093
Fe 4.95 -1.6 11.5 3.34 0.139
Mi 3.8 1.01 6.59 1.4 0.008
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 0.572 -0.428 1.57 0.51 NA
0.38 -0.387 -1.27 0.497 0.451 NA
1 3.8 1.01 6.59 1.42 0.008
3.5 4.37 0.809 7.92 1.81 0.016
pH General 13 -0.281 -1.11 0.547 0.422 0.506
Sex Ma -1.28 -4.15 1.58 1.46 0.38
Fe -0.369 -1.64 0.901 0.648 0.569
Mi 0.074 -0.664 0.813 0.377 0.843
Cage area (m2/h) 0.125 0.854 0.59 1.12 0.135 NA
0.13 0.643 -0.162 1.45 0.411 0.117
0.143 -0.803 -1.48 -0.123 0.347 0.021
0.38 0.208 -0.671 1.09 0.448 NA
1 0.074 -0.664 0.813 0.377 0.843
3.5 -3.5 -9.09 2.1 2.86 0.221
Shear force (Kg) General 4 -0.469 -2.04 1.11 0.803 0.559
Sex Ma -0.657 -1.56 0.243 0.459 NA
Fe -0.418 -2.37 1.53 0.994 0.674
Cage area (m2/h) 0.125 -2.2 -2.53 -1.89 0.164 NA
0.13 1.56 0.85 2.27 0.361 NA
0.143 -0.518 -1.18 0.146 0.339 0.126
0.38 -0.657 -1.56 0.243 0.459 NA
WHC (%) General 6 -0.262 -0.758 0.234 0.253 0.301
Sex Ma -1.33 -2.41 -0.244 0.552 NA
Fe 0.201 -0.02 0.423 0.113 0.075
Mi -0.602 -1.8 0.593 0.61 0.323
Cage area (m2/h) 0.125 0.272 0.017 0.526 0.13 NA
0.13 -0.71 -1.706 0.285 0.508 0.162
0.143 0.281 -0.376 0.937 0.335 0.402
1 -0.602 -1.797 0.593 0.61 0.323
Meat water (%) General 1 0.808 0.128 1.487 0.347 0.02
Sex Fe 0.808 0.128 1.487 0.347 0.02
Cage area (m2/h) 0.143 0.808 0.128 1.487 0.347 0.02
Chemical Composition
Protein (%) General 2 0.642 -0.105 1.39 0.381 0.092
Sex Ma 1.42 0.322 2.52 0.559 NA
Fe 0.293 -0.364 0.949 0.335 0.383
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 1.42 0.322 2.51 0.559 NA
0.143 0.293 -0.364 0.949 0.335 0.383
Fat (%) General 3 -1.66 -3.03 -0.299 0.696 0.017
Sex Ma -0.189 1.17 0.793 0.501 NA
Fe -2.2 -3.535 -0.867 0.681 0.001
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 -0.189 -1.17 0.793 0.501 NA
0.143 -2.17 -5.1 0.763 1.5 0.147
2.94 -2.1 -2.63 -1.56 0.272 NA
Sensory
Aroma General 1 0.957 -1.52 3.44 1.27 0.449
Sex Ma 2.28 1.03 3.54 0.643 NA
Fe -0.248 -0.87 0.374 0.317 NA
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 0.957 -1.52 3.44 1.27 0.449
Flavor General 2 -0.144 -0.53 0.243 0.197 0.466
Sex Ma -0.709 -1.72 0.301 0.515 NA
Fe -0.047 -0.465 0.371 0.213 0.827
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 -0.278 -0.806 0.251 0.27 0.303
1.25 0.01 -0.556 0.576 0.289 NA
Juiciness General 2 -0.517 -1.45 0.414 0.475 0.277
Sex Ma -1.996 -3.195 -0.796 0.612 NA
Fe -0.01 -0.428 0.408 0.213 0.964
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 -0.956 -2.85 0.938 0.966 0.323
1.25 0.03 -0.535 0.596 0.289 NA
Tenderness General 2 -0.026 -0.411 0.359 0.197 0.896
Sex Ma -0.473 -1.47 0.521 0.507 NA
Fe 0.053 -0.365 0.471 0.213 0.803
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 -0.101 -0.627 0.425 0.268 0.706
1.25 0.061 -0.505 0.627 0.289 NA
L*=(Lightness) represents the lightness or darkness of meat; a*=(Redness-Greenness) represents the position of meat color on the red-green axis;
b*=(Yellowness-Blueness) represents the position of meat color on the yellow-blue axis; Ma=male; Fe=female; Mi=Mix; WHC=water holding capacity;
C.I.=confidence interval; df=degrees of freedom, equal to n (number of observation) – 1; SE=standard error; SMD=standardized mean difference.

975
 Int J Vet Sci, 2024, 13(6): 970-979.

(Mancinelli et al. 2023). Furthermore, research by al. 2015; Chai and Sheen 2021). Meat color in poultry is
Chaiwang et al. (2023) reported that four different chicken essential to consumer interest (Kim et al. 2020).
breeds kept in the same conditions and with the same Intensive rearing and free-range rearing systems for
commercial feed also showed other growth performance in native chickens have no evidence of an effect on thigh
terms of growth performance (body weight, feed intake, meat quality. These results were driven by reference
body weight gain, feed conversion ratio), carcass trait (live studies using different native chicken breeds. According
weight, carcass percentage, carcass weight), meat quality to Chaiwang et al. (2023), performance, carcass, meat
traits, amino acid content, rancidity of chicken meat, and quality traits, chemical content, nucleotides, and
nucleotide content and derivatives. However, if the feed is derivatives are different for each chicken breed
given with different metabolic energy (ME) and crude (commercial broilers, Mae Hong Son Thai native
protein (CP) contents, it will affect feed intake and chickens, Pradu Hang Dam Thai native chickens, and
mortality rates (Chang et al. 2023). Apart from that, the male layer chickens) in the section tight.
effect size value generally shows that the treatment is lower Several research results related to thigh meat have also
than the control, which means that the intensive been carried out for research objects on native chickens
maintenance system has better performance and carcass (Mahuang and Tuer) and commercial broilers (Deng et al.
characteristics than the free-range maintenance system; one 2022); mixed-sex Thai indigenous crossbred chickens
example of this is the higher amount of intramuscular fat in (Hang et al. 2018); Korean native chickens (Jayasena et al.
intensive raised chicken as opposed to free-range chickens 2015); Korat hybrid chickens (Katemala et al. 2021);
(Yang et al. 2009; Yang et al. 2014). This is because crossbred native chickens, namely LBC chickens (Layer-
controlled management is the primary factor that promotes Broiler crossed with Chee), LSC chickens (Layer-Shanghai
improved chicken production in the intensive system. A crossed with Chee), and LSRBC chickens (Layer-Shanghai
review of indigenous chickens in East Africa with Road Bar crossed with Chee) (Promket et al. 2016); two
intensive, semi-intensive, and free-range rearing systems Chinese native chickens, namely Wuding chicken and
shows that they correlate with different performance and Yanji silky fowl chicken (Xiao et al. 2021); and local
the highest body weight in intensive rearing systems Chinese chicken breeds, namely Beijing-you chickens
(Mujyambere et al. 2022). (Zheng et al. 2019). Besides breed factors, meat quality is
The results show a significant influence between the also influenced by genetic configuration, environment,
rearing system on native chickens only on the meat quality feed, and stress (Chaiwang et al. 2023). The general effect
parameter for b*. Meanwhile, other parameters did not size values obtained show that the treatment is higher than
substantially affect the rearing system for native chickens. the control, where the free-range maintenance system has a
The meat quality in the research literature, especially the better quality of thigh meat than the intensive maintenance
breast meat part, is more dominant in yellowness. system. According to Yamak et al. (2016), the quality of
According to (Mikulski et al. 2011), the feed consumed by thigh meat with a free-range rearing system is better than
the chicken causes the yellow breast meat in poultry. On that of an intensive rearing system. Various chicken species
the other side, access in and out of the cage led to greater may cause performance variations in research studies,
amounts of polyunsaturated fat in the muscles of chickens feeds, and rearing systems (Zheng et al. 2019). The free-
(Sokołowicz et al. 2016). This is supported by several range rearing system benefits animal welfare compared to
previous studies regarding yellowish meat color (Freitas et other rearing systems (Stefanetti et al. 2023).

Table 4: The quality of thigh meat in native chicken between free-range and intensive
Parameter Specification df Effect Size (C.I. 95%)
SMD (lower; upper) SE p Value
Thigh weight (%) General 12 0.228 -0.304 0.761 0.272 0.4
Sex Ma 0.07 -0.868 1.01 0.479 0.883
Fe 0.392 -0.232 1.02 0.318 0.218
Cage area (m2/h) 0.125 0.406 0.15 0.661 0.13 NA
0.13 0.071 -0.454 0.595 0.268 0.791
0.143 1.05 0.357 1.75 0.356 0.003
0.38 0 -0.877 0.877 0.447 NA
1.16 -1.53 -2.17 -0.882 0.328 NA
3.5 0.535 -0.658 1.73 0.609 0.379
Meat Quality
L* General 8 1.19 0.109 2.27 0.551 0.031
Sex Ma 1.23 -1.2 3.65 1.24 0.321
Fe 3.23 0.768 5.68 1.25 0.01
Mi 0.128 -0.312 0.568 0.224 0.569
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 -1.54 -2.65 -0.42 0.569 NA
1 0.128 -0.312 0.568 0.224 0.569
3.5 2.85 0.914 4.79 0.987 0.004
a* General 8 0.842 -0.092 1.78 0.477 0.077
Sex Ma 1.47 -1.62 4.57 1.58 0.351
Fe 0.758 -0.691 2.21 0.739 0.305
Mi 0.68 0.229 1.13 0.23 0.003
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 -0.356 -1.34 0.632 0.504 NA
1 0.68 0.229 1.13 0.23 0.003

976
 Int J Vet Sci, 2024, 13(6): 970-979.

3.5 1.38 -0.581 3.34 1 0.168

b* General 8 0.391 -0.712 1.5 0.563 0.487
Sex Ma 0.129 -2.38 2.63 1.28 0.919
Fe 0.871 -1.87 3.61 1.4 0.533
Mi 0.795 0.021 1.57 0.395 0.044
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 -0.889 -1.92 0.138 0.524 NA
1 0.795 0.021 1.57 0.395 0.044
3.5 0.744 -1.42 2.9 1.11 0.501
pH General 9 -1.01 -2.24 0.217 0.626 0.107
WHC (%) General 3 0.011 -0.433 0.456 0.227 0.96
Sex Ma -0.328 -1.39 0.738 0.544 NA
Fe 0.057 -0.563 0.677 0.316 NA
Mi 0.071 -0.857 1 0.474 0.88
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 -0.04 -0.576 0.495 0.273 0.882
1 0.071 -0.857 1 0.474 0.88
Sensory
Flavor General 10.179 -0.24 0.598 0.214 0.403
Sex Fe 0.179 -0.24 0.598 0.214 0.403
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 0.292 -0.331 0.915 0.318 NA
1.25 0.086 -0.48 0.652 0.289 NA
Juiciness General 1 0.117 -0.301 0.536 0.213 0.583
Sex Fee 0.117 -0.301 0.536 0.213 0.583
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 0.173 -0.448 0.794 0.317 NA
1.25 0.071 -0.495 0.637 0.289 NA
Tenderness General 1 0.18 -0.239 0.599 0.214 0.399
Sex Fe 0.18 -0.239 0.599 0.214 0.399
Cage area (m2/h) 0.13 0.295 -0.329 0.918 0.318 NA
1.25 0.086 -0.48 0.652 0.289 NA
L*=(Lightness) represents the lightness or darkness of meat; a*=(Redness-Greenness) represents the position of meat color on the red-
green axis; b*=(Yellowness-Blueness) represents the position of meat color on the yellow-blue axis; Ma=male; Fe=female; Mi=Mix;
WHC=water holding capacity; C.I.=confidence interval; df=degrees of freedom, equal to n (number of observation) – 1; SE=standard
error; SMD=standardized mean difference.

Conclusion pavement using bacterial: A meta-analysis. Science of the

This meta-analysis provides critical scientific insights Total Environment 902: 166019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
into the effects of rearing systems for native chickens in scitotenv.2023.166019
many regions on their growth performance and carcass Bosco AD, Mugnai C, Rosati A, Paoletti A, Caporali S and
Castellini C, 2014. Effect of range enrichment on
characteristics. The conclusion is that the performance and
performance, behavior, and forage intake of free-range
carcass characteristics are better in the intensive system. chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23(2): 137–
Meanwhile, the better breast meat quality parameter is in 145. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2013-00814
the free-range system. Future research should concentrate Calik J, 2017. Effect of caponizing yellowleg partridge (z-33)
on modern free-range rearing systems to evaluate the cockerels on body weight and meat quality. Acta
impact on chicken growth performance and meat quality in Scientiarium Polonorum Zootecnica 14(1): 51-60.
various regions. Cerolini S, Vasconi M, Sayed AA, Iaffaldano N, Mangiagalli
MG, Pastorelli G, Moretti VM, Zaniboni L and Mosca F,
Conflict of interest: There is no conflict of interest with 2019. Free-range rearing density for male and female
milanino chickens: carcass yield and qualitative meat traits.
any organization regarding the discussion in this Journal of Applied Poultry Research 8(4): 1349-1358.
manuscript. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfz058
Chai HE and Sheen S, 2021. Effect of high pressure processing,
Author’s Contribution allyl isothiocyanate, and acetic acid stresses on Salmonella
JAL, S, and MMS: conceptualization, formal analysis, survivals, storage, and appearance color in raw ground
investigation, methodology, computing resources, chicken meat. Food Control 30(40): 1-5. https://doi.org/10.
validation, data curation, writing-original draft, writing, 1016/j.foodcont.2020.107784
and editing. JAL, RA, ZW, SE, TS, CS, S, SYH, and MMS: Chaiwang N, Marupanthorn K, Krutthai N, Wattanakul W,
investigation, data curation, formal analysis, validation, Jaturasitha S, Arjin C, Sringarm, K and Setthaya P, 2023.
Assessment of nucleic acid content, amino acid profile,
writing-review, and editing.
carcass and meat quality of thai native chicken. Poultry
Science 102(11): 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.
REFERENCES 103067
Chang C, Zhang QQ, Wang HH, Chu Q, Zhang J, Yan ZX, Liu
Ahmad S, Mahmud A, Hussain J and Javed K, 2019. HG and Geng AL, 2023. Dietary metabolizable energy and
Morphological and carcass traits of three chicken genotypes crude protein levels affect pectoral muscle composition and
under free-range, semiintensive, and intensive housing gut microbiota in native growing chickens. Poultry Science
systems. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 102(2): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102353
43(3): 342-352. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-1902-9 Chen X, Jiang W, Tan HZ, Xu GF, Zhang XB, Wei S and Wang
Ariyanti D, Sasongko NA, Fansuri MH, Fitriana EL, Nugroho RA XQ, 2013. Effects of outdoor access on growth performance,
and Pratiwi SA, 2023. Retrofitting of concrete for rigid carcass composition, and meat characteristics of broiler

977
 Int J Vet Sci, 2024, 13(6): 970-979.

chickens. Poultry Science 92(2): 435-443. https://doi.org/10. Poultry Science 98(12): 6602-6610. https://doi.org/10.3382/
3382/ps.2012-02360 ps/pez504
Cheng FY, Huang CW, Wan TC, Liu YT, Lin LC and Lou CY, Katemala S, Molee A, Thumanu K and Yongsawatdigul J, 2021.
2008. Effects of free-range farming on carcass and meat Meat quality and Raman spectroscopic characterization of
qualities of black-feathered taiwan native chicken. Asian- Korat hybrid chicken obtained from various rearing periods.
Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 21(8): 1201-1206. Poultry Science 100(2): 1248-1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/
https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2008.80080 j.psj.2020.10.027
Deng S, Liu R, Li C, Xu X and Zhou G, 2022. Meat quality and Kim HJ, Kim HJ, Jeon JJ, Nam KC, Shim KS, Jung JH, Kim KS,
flavor compounds of soft-boiled chickens: effect of chinese Choi Y, Kim SH and Jang A, 2020. Comparison of the
yellow-feathered chicken breed and slaughter age. Poultry quality characteristics of chicken breast meat from
Science 101(12): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022. conventional and animal welfare farms under refrigerated
102168 storage. Poultry Science 99(3): 1788-1796. https://doi.org/
Dou TC, Shi SR, Sun HJ and Wang KH, 2009. Growth rate, 10.1016/j.psj.2019.12.009
carcass traits and meat quality of slow-growing chicken Lewis PD, Perry GC, Farme LJ and Pattersonc RL, 1997.
grown according to three raising systems. Animal Science Responses of two genotypes of chicken to the diets and
Papers and Reports 27(4): 361-369. stocking densities typical of uk and “label rouge” production
Duran M, 2004. The effect of caponization on production indices systems: i. performance, behaviour and carcass composition.
and carcass and meat characteristics in free-range extremeña Meat Science 45(4): 501-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/
zzul chickens. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research S0309-1740(96)00084-8
2(2): 211-216. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2004022-75 Li Y, Luo C, Wang J and Guo F, 2016. Effects of different raising
Evaris EF, Franco LS and Castro CS, 2020. Productive systems on growth performance, carcass, and meat quality of
performance and carcass yield of egg type male chickens medium-growing chickens. Journal of Applied Animal
raised with outdoor access in the tropics. Tropical Animal Research 45(1): 326-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.
Health and Production 52(6): 3225-3232. https://doi.org/10. 2016.1190735
1007/s11250-020-02348-w Lin CY, Kuo HY and Wan TC, 2014. Effect of free-Range rearing
Fanatico AC, Pillai PB, Emmert JL and Owens CM, 2007. Meat on meat composition, physical properties and sensory
quality of slow-and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low- evaluation in taiwan game hens. Asian-Australasian Journal
nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor of Animal Sciences 27(6): 880-885. https://doi.org/10.5713/
access. Poultry Science 86(10): 2245-2255. https://doi.org/ ajas.2013.13646
10.1093/ps/86.10.2245 Makmur M, Zain M, Sholikin MM, Suharlina and Jayanegara A,
Fathi MM, Al-Homidan I, Motawei MI, Abou-Emera OK and El- 2022. Modulatory effects of dietary tannins on
Zarei MF, 2017. Genetics and genomics: evaluation of polyunsaturated fatty acid biohydrogenation in the rumen: a
genetic diversity of saudi native chicken populations using meta-analysis. Heliyon 8(7): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
microsatellite markers. Poultry Science 96(3): 530-536. heliyon.2022.e09828
https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew357 Mancinelli AC, Menchetti L, Birolo M, Bittante G, Chiattelli D
Fitra D, Ulupi N, Arief II, Mutia R, Abdullah L and Erwan E, and Castellini C, 2023. Crossbreeding to improve local
2021. Development of chicken production on free-range chicken breeds: predicting growth performance of the
system. Wartazoa 31(4): 175-184. http://dx.doi.org/10. crosses using the gompertz model and estimated heterosis.
14334/wartazoa.v31i4.2683 Poultry Science 102(8): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.
Freitas ER, Borges AS, Pereira AL, Abreu VK, Trevisan MS and 2023.102783
Watanabe PH, 2015. Effect of dietary ethanol extracts of Marin RH, Freytes P, Guzman D and Jones B, 2001. Effects of an
mango (mangifera indica l.) on lipid oxidation and the color
acute stressor on fear and on the social reinstatement
of chicken meat during frozen storage. Poultry Science
responses of domestic chicks to cagemates and strangers.
94(12): 2989-2995. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev295
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71(1): 57–66.
Hang TT, Molee W and Khempaka S, 2018. Linseed oil or tuna
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00167-2
oil supplementation in slow-growing chicken diets: Can their
Martínez-Pérez M, Sarmiento-Franco L, Sandoval-Castro CA,
meat reach the threshold of a “high in n-3 polyunsaturated
Santos-Ricalde RH, Safwat AM and García Hernández Y,
fatty acids” product? Journal of Applied Poultry Research
2023. Effect of indoor and free-range raising systems on
27(3): 389-400. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfy010
Hansen BG and Østerås O, 2019. Farmer welfare and animal growth performance of male rhode island red chickens.
welfare-exploring the relationship between farmer’s Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 26(2): 1-7.
occupational well-being and stress, farm expansion and http://doi.org/10.56369/tsaes.4312
animal welfare. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 170: 1-36. Mcfadden JR, Huffman WE and Huffman WH, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104741 Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional
Jayasena DD, Jung S, Bae YS, Park HB, Lee JH and Jo C, 2015. foods: the effects of information and meaningful labels. Food
Comparison of the amounts of endogenous bioactive Policy 68: 214-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.
compounds in raw and cooked meats from commercial 02.007
broilers and indigenous chickens. Journal of Food Miao ZH, Glatz PC and Ru YJ, 2005. Free-range poultry production
Composition and Analysis 37: 20-24. https://doi.org/10.1016 - a review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
/j.jfca.2014.06.016 18(1): 113-132. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2005. 113
Jiang S, Jiang Z, Lin Y, Zhou G, Chen F and Zheng C, 2011. Miguel JA, Ciria J, Asenjo B and Calvo JL, 2008. Effect of
Effects of different rearing and feeding methods on meat caponisation on growth and on carcass and meat
quality and antioxidative properties in chinese yellow male characteristics in castellana negra native spanish chickens.
broilers. British Poultry Science 52(3): 352-358. Animal 2(2): 305-311. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173110
https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2011.569926 7001127
Jin S, Yang L, Zang H, Xu Y, Chen X, Chen X, Liu P and Geng Mikulski D, Celej J, Jankowski J, Majewska T and Mikulska M,
Z, 2019. Influence of free-range days on growth 2011. Growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality
performance, carcass traits, meat quality, lymphoid organ of slower-growing and fast-growing chickens raised with
indices and blood biochemistry of wannan yellow chickens. and without outdoor access. Asian-Australasian Journal of

978
 Int J Vet Sci, 2024, 13(6): 970-979.

Animal Sciences 24(10): 1407-1416. https://doi.org/10. Annals of Animal Science 17(4): 1197-1213. https://doi.org/
5713/ajas.2011.11038 10.1515/aoas-2017-0009
Mosca F, Zaniboni L, Stella S, Kuster CA, Iaffaldano N and Stadig LM, Bas Rodenburg T, Reubens B, Aerts J, Duquenne B
Cerolini S, 2018. Slaughter performance and meat quality of and Tuyttens FA, 2016. Effects of free-range access on
Milanino chickens reared according to a specific free-range production parameters and meat quality, composition and
program. Poultry Science 97(4): 1148-1154. taste in slow-growing broiler chickens. Poultry Science
https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex439 95(12): 2971-2978. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew226
Mujyambere V, Adomako K, Olympio SO, Ntawubizi M, Stefanetti V, Mancinelli AC, Pascucci L, Menchetti L, Castellini
Nyinawamwiza L, Mahoro J and Conroy A, 2022. Local C, Mugnai C, Fiorilla E, Miniscalco B, Chiattelli D,
chickens in east african region: their production and Franciosini MP and Proietti PC, 2023. Effect of rearing
potential. Poultry Science 101(1): 1-21. https://doi.org/10. systems on immune status, stress parameters, intestinal
1016/j.psj.2021.101547 morphology and mortality in conventional and local chicken
Niranjan M, Sharma RP, Rajkumar U, Reddy B, Chatterjee RN breeds. Poultry Science 102(12): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.
and Battacharya TK, 2008. Comparative evaluation of 1016/j.psj.2023.103110
production performance in improved chicken varieties for Tong HB, Wang Q, Lu J, Zou JM, Chang LL and Fu SY, 2014.
backyard farming. International Journal of Poultry Science Effect of free-range days on a local chicken breed: growth
7(11): 1128-1131. performance, carcass yield, meat quality, and lymphoid
Olaniyi OA, Oyenaiya OA, Sogunle OM, Akinola OS, Adeyemi organ index. Poultry Science 93(8): 1883-1889.
OA and Ladokun OA, 2012. Free range and deep litter https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03470
housing systems: effect on performance and blood profile of Volk M, Malenšek J, Prevolnik M, Škrlep M, Šegula B, Čandek-
two strains of cockerel chickens. Tropical and Subtropical Potokar M and Bavec M, 2011. Differences in carcass and
Agroecosystems 15(3): 511-523. meat quality between organically reared cocks and capons.
Palupi E, Jayanegara A, Ploeger A and Kahl J, 2012. Comparison Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus 76(3): 153-155.
of nutritional quality between conventional and organic https://hrcak.srce.hr/72024
dairy products: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Science of Wang H, Zhao X, Wen J, Wang C, Zhang X, Ren X, Zhang J, Li
Food and Agriculture 92(14): 2774-2781. https://doi.org/10. H, Muhatai G and Qu L, 2023. Comparative population
1002/jsfa.5639 genomics analysis uncovers genomic footprints and genes
Pettersson IC, Weeks CA, Wilson LM and Nicol CJ, 2018.
influencing body weight trait in chinese indigenous chicken.
Consumer perceptions of free-range laying hen welfare.
Poultry Science 102(11): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.
British Food Journal 118(8): 1999-2013. https://doi.org/10.
2023.103031
1108/BFJ-02-2016-0065
Promket D, Ruangwittayanusorn K and Somchan T, 2016. The Wang KH, Shi SR, Dou TC and Sun HJ, 2009. Effect of a free-
study of carcass yields and meat quality in crossbred native range raising system on growth performance, carcass yield,
chicken (chee). Agriculture and Agricultural Science and meat quality of slow-growing chicken. Poultry Science
Procedia 11: 84-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.12 88(10): 2219-2223. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00423
.014 Xiao Z, Zhang W, Yang H, Yan Z, Ge C, Liao G and Su H, 2021.
Rehman MS, Khan MT, Raziq F, Bughio E, Liaqat S, Gondal 1H NMR-based water-soluble lower molecule
MA, Rauf M, Jalees MM, Farooq, Sarwar F, Ayesha AP, characterization and fatty acid composition of Chinese
Azad A, Azhar M, Asad T, Arslan M, Abbas G and Shakir native chickens and commercial broiler. Food Research
M, 2022. Evaluation of growth performance and slaughter International 140: 110008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.
traits of Aseel chicken grown with and without outdoor 2020.110008
access. Research Square 1: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs. Yamak US, Sarica M, Boz MA and Ucar A, 2016. The effect of
3.rs-1179992/v1 production system (barn and free-range), slaughtering age
Rehman MS, Mahmud A, Mehmood S, Pasha TN, Javed K, and gender on carcass traits and meat quality of partridges
Hussain J and Khan MT, 2016. Production performance of (aalectoris chukar). British Poultry Science 57(2): 185-192.
aseel chicken under free range, semi intensive and https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2016.1144920
confinement rearing systems. The Journal of Animal & Plant Yang Y, Wen J, Fang GY, Li ZR, Dong ZY and Liu J, 2014. The
Sciences 26(6): 1589-1596. effects of raising system on the lipid metabolism and meat
Scrinis G, Parker C and Carey R, 2017. The caged chicken or the quality traits of slow-growing chickens. Journal of Applied
free-range egg? the regulatory and market dynamics of layer- Animal Research 43(2): 147-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/
hen welfare in the UK, Australia and the USA. Journal of 09712119.2014.928631
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30(6): 783-808. Yang Y, Gui-you FG, Li Zhongrong L, Furong L and Yulan F,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9699-y 2009. Effects of different rearing modes on the muscular
Sokołowicz Z, Krawczyk J and Swiatkiewicz S, 2016. Quality of histological traits and meat tenderness of chicken. Animal
poultry meat from native chicken breeds - a review. Annals Husbandry and Feed Science 1(3): 24-27.
of Animal Science 16(2): 347-368. https://doi.org/10.1515/ Zhang C, Razafindrabe RH, Chen K, Zhao X, Yang L, Wang L,
aoas-2016-0004 Chen X, Jin S and Geng Z, 2018. Effects of different rearing
Sogunle OM, Olaniyi OA, Egbeyale LT, Akinola OS, Shittu TA, systems on growth performance, carcass traits, meat quality
Abiola SS, Ladokun AO and Sobay RA, 2012. Free range and serum biochemical parameters of chaohu ducks. Animal
and deep litter poultry production systems: effect on Science Journal 89(4): 672-678. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.
performance, carcass yield and meat composition of cockerel 12976
chickens. Tropical Animal Health and Production 45(1): Zheng M, Mao P, Tian X, Guo Q and Meng L, 2019. Effects of
281–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-012-0213-2 dietary supplementation of alfalfa meal on growth
Sosnówka-Czajka E, Skomorucha I and Muchacka R, 2017. performance, carcass characteristics, meat and egg quality,
Effect of organic production system on the performance and and intestinal microbiota in beijing-you chicken. Poultry
meat quality of two purebred slow-growing chicken breeds. Science 98(5): 2250-2259. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/ pey550

979