Carcass and meat quality characterization of indigenous and improved variety of chicken genotypes

Carcass and meat quality characterization of indigenous and improved variety of chicken genotypes ABSTRACT A study was conducted to examine four genotypes of chicken for their carcass and meat quality characteristics. From each genotype, 20 birds were slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Breast and thigh muscles were evaluated for meat quality characteristics. Transport loss and carcass weight were highest in the white commercial broiler (WBR) and lowest in Aseel (ASL) and Indbro Aseel (ASR). Dressing percentage ranged between 66.41 and 72.56 and was not significantly different among genotypes. The yield of various cut-up parts for different genotypic birds was significantly different (P < 0.05). Highest percent yield for breast (29.15), thigh (15.57), drumstick (13.82) and wings (18.44) were observed in WBR, rainbow rooster (RR), ASR and rainbow rooster Plus (RRP), respectively. Giblet % was highest in RR and meat:bone ratio of thigh portion was highest in WBR. Higher ultimate pH was recorded for RR, RRP, and WBR, and higher water-holding capacity was detected in ASL and ASR. Further, bound water was higher in RR, RRP, and WBR, and free water was maximum in ASL and ASR. A significant (P < 0.05) higher shear force was observed in ASL and higher muscle fiber diameter in WBR. Cooking yield did not differ significantly among genotypes. The breast meat from ASL showed significantly (P < 0.05) higher redness value and WBR showed the lower redness. Further, ASL and ASR meats were darker and red in color than broiler meat. Meat from two indigenous birds (ASL and ASR) had significantly (P < 0.05) lower fat content compared to broilers and other crosses. ASL gave a slightly firmer meat as liked by consumers. The sensory evaluation showed breast meat from RR birds and ASL birds had better flavor scores than other birds. These results indicated that meat of indigenous chickens (ASL and ASR) has some unique features over commercial fast-growing birds that would increase their demand by consumers who prefer chewy, low-fat chicken meat. INTRODUCTION In recent years, consumers are increasingly interested in meat from indigenous and local birds because of desirable and unique taste, rich flavor and firm texture. Further, consumers perceive these birds as naturally produced in extensive farming systems. Consequently, consumer's growing awareness regarding health and nutrition has led to specialty markets for the local variety of poultry produced in extensive farming systems. In contrast to modern broiler breeds, local birds grow very slow as they have not undergone any genetic selection, intensive feeding, and veterinary attention. In modern broilers, selection for fast growth and high yield have pushed muscle fibers to their maximum functional size and have negatively impacted the sensorial and functional qualities of the meat (Dransfield and Sosnicki, 1999; Le Bihan-Duval, 2003; Macrae et al., 2006). Further, consumer interests in quality aspects rather than quantity of meat provide opportunities for marketing of meat and meat products from native free-range birds. In India, the major contributor of meat among poultry is the white commercial broilers (WBR), with a total production of 3.8 million tons and further growing at a rate of 10–12%. However, a section of Indian meat consumers has acquired a preference for the taste of meat from native breeds over that of broiler meat. The total value of output from native backyard system of poultry rearing is 15% (Chatterjee and Rajkumar, 2015) and the market for native breeds for meat is steadily growing. A total of 16 native chicken breeds have been recognized and registered as indigenous breeds of chicken in India. Aseel (ASL) is one of the most popular breeds which is mainly confined to the states of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and Chattisgarh (Chatterjee and Rajkumar, 2015). Aseel (Peela) is a game-type native bird with long legs and neck and with brownish yellow-colored feathers. This bird is commonly used for meat purpose and commands better price compared to improved birds due to its desirable meat qualities (Haunshi et al., 2013). Extensive information on meat quality of this important breed of chicken is not available, although certain studies on carcass traits and meat quality were reported by Gupta et al. (2000), Haunshi et al. (2013), and Singh and Pathak (2017). To bridge the gap between the efficiency, taste, and price line, efforts for development of intermediaries between broiler and local native chicken have been made in several countries. These crosses can utilize the tropical adaptability, disease resistance and colorful plumage of native breeds and at the same time the feed efficiency and growth rate of broiler breeds. These intermediaries are finding their way to the market to meet the increased demand for traditional slow-growing native chicken. In this context, Indbro Research & Breeding Farms, Hyderabad, Telangana state, India has developed three variants of birds combining the native slow-growing chicken variety, modern fast-growing broiler lines and commercial layer lines. It is done to improve the efficiency in the production line, with improved chick quality and fit into the commercial production system better than native ASL. Meat quality is a complex trait that is influenced by genetic and environmental factors, and the variation in meat quality within and between animals can be large (Rehfeldt et al., 2004). Therefore, alternative poultry production systems and genotypes need to be evaluated. It is important to provide information on the new variety of birds to help producers and consumers to make informed decisions. Further, little information is known about the meat characteristics of some rare Indian native breeds and their crosses. Therefore, the main objective of the current experiment was to determine the diversity of meat quality traits among different chicken genotypes at their respective market ages. The impact of genotype, specifically, slow- and fast-growing genotypes on quantitative and qualitative meat characteristics of chickens from one unique Indian native breed, one improved native breed, one commercial broiler stock and two commercial layer and broiler crosses were studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study was carried out in ICAR-National Research Centre on Meat, Chengicherla, Hyderabad, India in collaboration with Indbro Research and Breeding farms, Hyderabad, India. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Ethical Committee. Geographical coordinates of Hyderabad are 17.3850°N and 78.4867°E in the southern part of India, with a height of 500 m above sea level and maximum temperature ranging from 20°C to 45°C. Experimental Population Slow-growing and fast-growing genotypes of birds compared in this study were: rainbow rooster Plus (RRP), a colored broiler containing 75% broiler inheritance (Red Cornish) and 25% layer (Rhode Island Red), growing at a slower pace, takes 10–15 days more than commercial broiler to get market weight (2 kg). Rainbow rooster (RR), a dual purpose multi-colored, and low technology input bird containing 50% broiler inheritance (Red Cornish) and 50% layer (Rhode Island Red). These birds are sturdy to survive the low input conditions prevailing in the backyard poultry sector. The third intermediary variety developed is Indbro Aseel (ASR), which is a cross of traditional ASL and layer-type Rhode Island Red. From each genotype, 20 birds (10 male and 10 female) of appropriate body weight (BW) were utilized for the study. All the four genotypes of birds were bred, hatched and reared in the Indbro Research and Breeding Farm, Hyderabad and supplied for studies at the appropriate age of slaughter. All birds were vaccinated against ND, IB, and Gumboro. The average slaughter weight was 2 kg in broilers, RR, and RRP. For slow-growing native birds (ASL and ASR), the average weight at slaughter was 1.3 kg. All birds were fed ad libitum with standard commercial feed. Broiler birds were fed with broiler pre-starter crumps for 7 days (21% CP and 2,900 kcal/kg ME; Table 1) followed by broiler starter crumps (20% CP and 2,950 kcal/kg ME up to 21 days) and broiler finisher mash (19.5% CP and 3,000 kcal/kg ME) afterward. RR and RRP birds were fed with layer chick mash (21% CP and 2,600 kcal/kg ME) for 45 days (till the time of slaughter). Aseel and Indbro Aseel birds were fed with layer chick mash (21% CP and 2,600 kcal/kg ME) for 90 days. All the birds were having free access to clean drinking water round the clock. The birds were wing banded; farm weight was recorded and transported in cages to ICAR-National Research Centre on Meat, Hyderabad during early cool hours of the day. Table 1. Ingredient composition (g/kg) of diets. Item  Diet for white broilers1  Diet for colored broilers2  Ingredients/g/kg diet  Pre-starter  Starter  Finisher  Single diet  Maize  632  662  662  655  Soya deoiled  5  5  5  7  Sunflower deoiled  15  20  50  20  Vegetable oil  10  10  10  15  Dicalcium phosphate  3  3  3  3  Salt  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  DL-Methionine  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  L-Lysine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.0  Threonine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Vitamin-premix  2  2  2  2  Total protein (%)  21  20  19  20  ME (kcal)  2,850  2,900  3,000  2,900  Item  Diet for white broilers1  Diet for colored broilers2  Ingredients/g/kg diet  Pre-starter  Starter  Finisher  Single diet  Maize  632  662  662  655  Soya deoiled  5  5  5  7  Sunflower deoiled  15  20  50  20  Vegetable oil  10  10  10  15  Dicalcium phosphate  3  3  3  3  Salt  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  DL-Methionine  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  L-Lysine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.0  Threonine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Vitamin-premix  2  2  2  2  Total protein (%)  21  20  19  20  ME (kcal)  2,850  2,900  3,000  2,900  1White broilers: RR and WBR. 2Colored broilers: RRP, ASL and ASR. Same diet was fed throughout the growing period. View Large Table 1. Ingredient composition (g/kg) of diets. Item  Diet for white broilers1  Diet for colored broilers2  Ingredients/g/kg diet  Pre-starter  Starter  Finisher  Single diet  Maize  632  662  662  655  Soya deoiled  5  5  5  7  Sunflower deoiled  15  20  50  20  Vegetable oil  10  10  10  15  Dicalcium phosphate  3  3  3  3  Salt  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  DL-Methionine  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  L-Lysine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.0  Threonine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Vitamin-premix  2  2  2  2  Total protein (%)  21  20  19  20  ME (kcal)  2,850  2,900  3,000  2,900  Item  Diet for white broilers1  Diet for colored broilers2  Ingredients/g/kg diet  Pre-starter  Starter  Finisher  Single diet  Maize  632  662  662  655  Soya deoiled  5  5  5  7  Sunflower deoiled  15  20  50  20  Vegetable oil  10  10  10  15  Dicalcium phosphate  3  3  3  3  Salt  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  DL-Methionine  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  L-Lysine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.0  Threonine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Vitamin-premix  2  2  2  2  Total protein (%)  21  20  19  20  ME (kcal)  2,850  2,900  3,000  2,900  1White broilers: RR and WBR. 2Colored broilers: RRP, ASL and ASR. Same diet was fed throughout the growing period. View Large Table 2. Carcass characteristics of various genotypes of chicken slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Slaughter weight (kg)  1.39b  1.59a  0.85d  1.16c  1.75a  0.05  0.000  Dressed weight (kg)  0.97b,c  1.06b  0.69d  0.82c,d  1.27a  0.06  0.000  Dressing %  70.20  66.41  71.11  69.06  72.56  0.92  0.187  Retail cuts3  Giblet  7.64a  7.53a,b  6.88b,c  7.17a,b  6.68c  0.18  0.012  Breast  21.72b,c  22.94b  20.98c  21.16b,c  29.15a  0.62  0.000  Thigh  15.54a  15.57a  14.04b  13.54b  13.75b  0.28  0.000  Drumstick  12.45b,c  11.94c  13.06a,b  13.82a  11.43c  0.20  0.000  Wings  15.21  18.44  12.60  12.98  12.47  0.70  0.217  Meat:bone ratio  3.82b  4.53a,b  4.00b  2.46c  5.41a  0.42  0.000  Wt. loss in transport %  5.71  5.63  5.62  4.48  6.70  0.46  0.312  Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Slaughter weight (kg)  1.39b  1.59a  0.85d  1.16c  1.75a  0.05  0.000  Dressed weight (kg)  0.97b,c  1.06b  0.69d  0.82c,d  1.27a  0.06  0.000  Dressing %  70.20  66.41  71.11  69.06  72.56  0.92  0.187  Retail cuts3  Giblet  7.64a  7.53a,b  6.88b,c  7.17a,b  6.68c  0.18  0.012  Breast  21.72b,c  22.94b  20.98c  21.16b,c  29.15a  0.62  0.000  Thigh  15.54a  15.57a  14.04b  13.54b  13.75b  0.28  0.000  Drumstick  12.45b,c  11.94c  13.06a,b  13.82a  11.43c  0.20  0.000  Wings  15.21  18.44  12.60  12.98  12.47  0.70  0.217  Meat:bone ratio  3.82b  4.53a,b  4.00b  2.46c  5.41a  0.42  0.000  Wt. loss in transport %  5.71  5.63  5.62  4.48  6.70  0.46  0.312  n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–dMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 2All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. 3Expressed as % of chilled carcass weight. View Large Table 2. Carcass characteristics of various genotypes of chicken slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Slaughter weight (kg)  1.39b  1.59a  0.85d  1.16c  1.75a  0.05  0.000  Dressed weight (kg)  0.97b,c  1.06b  0.69d  0.82c,d  1.27a  0.06  0.000  Dressing %  70.20  66.41  71.11  69.06  72.56  0.92  0.187  Retail cuts3  Giblet  7.64a  7.53a,b  6.88b,c  7.17a,b  6.68c  0.18  0.012  Breast  21.72b,c  22.94b  20.98c  21.16b,c  29.15a  0.62  0.000  Thigh  15.54a  15.57a  14.04b  13.54b  13.75b  0.28  0.000  Drumstick  12.45b,c  11.94c  13.06a,b  13.82a  11.43c  0.20  0.000  Wings  15.21  18.44  12.60  12.98  12.47  0.70  0.217  Meat:bone ratio  3.82b  4.53a,b  4.00b  2.46c  5.41a  0.42  0.000  Wt. loss in transport %  5.71  5.63  5.62  4.48  6.70  0.46  0.312  Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Slaughter weight (kg)  1.39b  1.59a  0.85d  1.16c  1.75a  0.05  0.000  Dressed weight (kg)  0.97b,c  1.06b  0.69d  0.82c,d  1.27a  0.06  0.000  Dressing %  70.20  66.41  71.11  69.06  72.56  0.92  0.187  Retail cuts3  Giblet  7.64a  7.53a,b  6.88b,c  7.17a,b  6.68c  0.18  0.012  Breast  21.72b,c  22.94b  20.98c  21.16b,c  29.15a  0.62  0.000  Thigh  15.54a  15.57a  14.04b  13.54b  13.75b  0.28  0.000  Drumstick  12.45b,c  11.94c  13.06a,b  13.82a  11.43c  0.20  0.000  Wings  15.21  18.44  12.60  12.98  12.47  0.70  0.217  Meat:bone ratio  3.82b  4.53a,b  4.00b  2.46c  5.41a  0.42  0.000  Wt. loss in transport %  5.71  5.63  5.62  4.48  6.70  0.46  0.312  n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–dMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 2All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. 3Expressed as % of chilled carcass weight. View Large Dressing of Birds and Calculation of Carcass Yield Data The birds were slaughtered on their respective age of slaughter (RR, RRP of 60 days, ASL, ASR of 90 days and commercial broilers/WBR with 37 days) in the experimental abattoir following standard scientific procedures. Birds were properly rested, then weighed and slaughtered by cutting the cervical blood vessels and bled out for 7–10 min. After scalding in water at a temperature of 56°C for 1 min, the birds were manually plucked and eviscerated and the carcasses were stored at 4°C for 24 h, and then dissected. Weights of various cut-up parts, along with live weight, dressed weight, and breast and thigh weights were recorded separately for each bird. Then, dressing percentage was calculated as the ratio between the carcass weight and live body weight after fasting. The weight percentages of breast muscle and thigh muscle and other parts were given as the percentages of cold carcass weight. Sampling for Meat Quality Evaluation After the recording of the weight of major retail cut-up parts of dressed birds, sampling for meat quality studies was carried out. Twenty breast portions (Pectoralis major and Pectoralis minor) for each genotype and parameter were used for determining cooking yield, shear force value (SFV), muscle fiber diameter, sensory studies and texture profile analysis (TPA). Twenty thigh muscles (Biceps femoris) for each genotype and parameter were used for analysis of pH, water-holding capacity (WHC), free and bound water, meat color and proximate compositions. Determination of pH, WHC, Free and Bound Water Carcass pH was measured at 1 and 24 h post-mortem (PM) for the thigh muscle using a portable pH-meter connected to a glass electrode (Eutech Instruments, Hyderabad, India) as per AOAC (1995). Five gram of thigh meat sample from each bird (20 birds per genotype) was homogenized with 45 mL distilled water until a clear homogenate was obtained. pH was recorded by dipping the glass electrode of pH meter in the homogenate. Water-holding capacity was estimated according to the method described by Wardlaw et al. (1973). Ten gram minced meat sample from each bird (20 birds per genotype) was stirred with 15 mL of 0.6 M sodium chloride in a centrifuge tube. The tube was then kept at 4 ± 1°C for 15 min, stirred again and centrifuged at 5,000 rpm (Eppendorf, Bangalore, India) for 25 min. The supernatant was measured and the difference between initial volume (15 mL) and the supernatant was expressed in percentage of meat weight to calculate WHC. For measuring free and bound (immobilized and tightly bound) water in the meat sample, a thigh muscle sample (approximately 2 g, whole intact) from each bird (20 birds per genotype) in duplicate was removed and accurately weighed. Each 2 g sample was placed with fibers vertically aligned, into a plastic centrifugation tube and centrifuged for 15 min at 5,000 rpm (Eppendorf). The water lost, termed “free water” or centrifuged free water, was the percentage difference in weight before and after centrifugation. After centrifugation, each remaining sample was dried in a 105°C oven for 24 h to determine the residual water content in the sample. The water dried off in the oven was termed “bound water” which includes immobilized and tightly bound water. The dried sample remaining was termed “dry matter”. The sum of the free water, bound water, and dry matter was 99–100% indicating that all components had been accounted for (Kristensen and Purslow, 2001). Determination of Cooking Yield For calculating cooking loss, breast muscles (150 g approx.) were removed from individual birds and placed in sealed polyethylene bags for cooking in a water bath at 80°C, for 25 min. Cooked samples were allowed to cool at room temperature and blotted dry. The cooking loss values were calculated based on the difference in weight before and after cooking. Determination of Muscle Fiber Diameter For measuring muscle fiber diameter, thigh muscle samples (approximately 1 × 2 cm size) were fixed in 10% formal saline for 48 h, sliced and then homogenized at a low speed (500 rpm) for 30 s in an ultra turrax homogenizer (IKA-T25, IKA, Bangalore India). Few drops of homogenized tissue samples were poured into a clean glass slide and a coverslip was placed and observed through a simple microscope at 100× magnification. The width of 15 randomly selected fibers per bird (a total of 20 birds per genotype) was recorded using ocular micrometer (Tuma et al., 1962). Determination of Shear Force Value Warner–Bratzler shear force of breast muscle was measured using a food texture analyzer (Tinius Olsen, Horsham, PA) attached with a Warner–Bratzler shear blade. From cooked breast muscles, 10 cores of approximately 1 × 1 × 2 cm (height × width × length) from each sample were cut parallel to the long axis of the muscle fibers. They were sheared perpendicular to the fiber with a shear blade. The crosshead speed was 5 mm/s. For each sample, the maximum shear force was recorded and the value (Newton force) reported for each sample was the average of 10 cores. Instrumental Color Analysis Muscle colorimetric parameters were evaluated by Hunter Colorimeter (Hunter and Harold, 1987). Colorimetric analysis of breast and thigh muscles was performed using a Hunter Lab Miniscan XE Plus colorimeter (Hunter Associates Laboratory Inc., Reston, VA) with a 25 mm aperture set for illumination D65, 10_ standard observer angle. Hunter L (lightness), a (redness) and b (yellowness) values were measured by touching down the spectrophotometer directly onto the muscle cross-section surfaces. Measurements were made after the newly cut surface was exposed to ambient air. Psychometric hue angle (H*) and psychometric chroma (C*) were calculated using the equations: hue angle, H* = tan −1(b/a) and chroma, C* = (a2 + b2)1/2. All color parameters were measured at 1 and 24 h PM. Determination of Proximate Compositions Moisture, fat, protein and ash were determined by following the procedures of AOAC (1995) using hot air oven, soxhlet apparatus, Kjeldahl instrument and muffle furnace, respectively. Texture Profile Analysis The TPA was conducted using a Tinius Olsen food texture analyzer (Tinius) attached to software, texture expert. Five slices from each cooked breast sample (1.5 cm height and 2.5 cm diameter) were compressed twice to 50% of their original height. The parameters determined were: hardness (N)—maximum force required to compress the sample; springiness (cm)—ability of the sample to recover to its original shape after the deforming force was removed; cohesiveness—extent to which the sample could be deformed prior to rupture (A2/A1, A1 being the maximum force required for the first compression and A2 being the maximum force required for the second compression); gumminess (N)—force to disintegrate a semi-solid meat sample for swallowing (hardness × cohesiveness); and chewiness (N cm)—work to masticate the sample for swallowing (springiness × gumminess). Sensory Evaluation A semi-trained panellist was used for evaluation of sensorial qualities of cooked breast meat from different genotypic birds. Breast meat from different birds was subjected to uniform cooking in water added with 1.5% w/w of sodium chloride. A modified 8-point hedonic scale was used for the same. Before the beginning of each session, panellists were briefed about the products and qualities to be evaluated. Panellists were asked to judge the eating qualities like color and appearance, meat flavor, tenderness and overall acceptability of the meat/meat products on the 8-point scale where 8 is extremely desirable and 1 is extremely undesirable. A minimum of 10–12 judges were present during each session and average scores of each session were calculated and analyzed for the variance. Statistical Analysis The present experiment was conducted based on a completely randomized design (Steel and Terrie, 1980). Data were subjected to ANOVA by the general linear model procedure considering genotype as effect and animal within genotype (replicate) as a random effect using SPSS version 20 (IBM, USA). Comparisons among treatment means were carried out by Tukey's method. Data given in tables are the least square mean values for the genotypes, the corresponding SEM, and the probabilities of error (P < 0.05). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Carcass Characteristics of Various Genotypes of Chicken Most genotypes were having significantly (P < 0.05) different live weight at slaughter, which clearly indicates the differences in age at slaughter and the growth rate of respective genotypes. Live weight, slaughter weight and dressed carcass weight were found to be highest for WBR and lowest for ASL at their respective age of slaughter (Table 2). Live weight was significantly different (P < 0.05) for all the other three genotypes except for WBR and RRP. Similarly, fresh carcass weight of RR and RRP, ASL and ASR were not different significantly, but WBR showed significant (P < 0.05) difference in carcass weight compared to all other genotypes. Dressing percentage was not different for different genotypic birds. Generally, indigenous bird types (ASL and ASR) had the lowest weight (live/dressed) among all genotypes of birds. Similar growth differences have also been found when comparing indigenous Thai and cross-bred chickens (Jaturasitha et al., 2002).The native chickens are extremely active and aggressive even under captivity resulting in more energy dissipation (Khalid et al., 2012). Table 3. Meat quality characteristics of different genotypes of chicken slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  pH1h PM  6.68a  6.62a  6.35b  6.37b  6.32b  0.04  0.000  pH24h PM  6.53a  6.68a,b  6.20c  6.20c  6.58a,b  0.06  0.000  WHC (%)  18.75b  16.00b,c  30.95a  39.20a  7.50c  2.80  0.000  Bound water (%)  60.45a  60.08a  39.57b  39.53b  58.14a  1.85  0.000  Free water (%)  15.59b  14.50b,c  20.42a  16.95a,b  11.27c  1.20  0.001  Cooking yield (%)  84.37  83.73  82.82  83.72  83.45  1.25  0.909  Muscle fiber diameter (μ)  52.68c  57.50±b  60.47±b  59.14b  64.16±a  1.40  0.001  Shear force (N/cm)  9.26b,c  9.07b,c  11.16a,b  11.73a  7.16c  0.56  0.002  Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  pH1h PM  6.68a  6.62a  6.35b  6.37b  6.32b  0.04  0.000  pH24h PM  6.53a  6.68a,b  6.20c  6.20c  6.58a,b  0.06  0.000  WHC (%)  18.75b  16.00b,c  30.95a  39.20a  7.50c  2.80  0.000  Bound water (%)  60.45a  60.08a  39.57b  39.53b  58.14a  1.85  0.000  Free water (%)  15.59b  14.50b,c  20.42a  16.95a,b  11.27c  1.20  0.001  Cooking yield (%)  84.37  83.73  82.82  83.72  83.45  1.25  0.909  Muscle fiber diameter (μ)  52.68c  57.50±b  60.47±b  59.14b  64.16±a  1.40  0.001  Shear force (N/cm)  9.26b,c  9.07b,c  11.16a,b  11.73a  7.16c  0.56  0.002  PM, post-mortem; WHC, water-holding capacity. n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–cMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 2All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. View Large Table 3. Meat quality characteristics of different genotypes of chicken slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  pH1h PM  6.68a  6.62a  6.35b  6.37b  6.32b  0.04  0.000  pH24h PM  6.53a  6.68a,b  6.20c  6.20c  6.58a,b  0.06  0.000  WHC (%)  18.75b  16.00b,c  30.95a  39.20a  7.50c  2.80  0.000  Bound water (%)  60.45a  60.08a  39.57b  39.53b  58.14a  1.85  0.000  Free water (%)  15.59b  14.50b,c  20.42a  16.95a,b  11.27c  1.20  0.001  Cooking yield (%)  84.37  83.73  82.82  83.72  83.45  1.25  0.909  Muscle fiber diameter (μ)  52.68c  57.50±b  60.47±b  59.14b  64.16±a  1.40  0.001  Shear force (N/cm)  9.26b,c  9.07b,c  11.16a,b  11.73a  7.16c  0.56  0.002  Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  pH1h PM  6.68a  6.62a  6.35b  6.37b  6.32b  0.04  0.000  pH24h PM  6.53a  6.68a,b  6.20c  6.20c  6.58a,b  0.06  0.000  WHC (%)  18.75b  16.00b,c  30.95a  39.20a  7.50c  2.80  0.000  Bound water (%)  60.45a  60.08a  39.57b  39.53b  58.14a  1.85  0.000  Free water (%)  15.59b  14.50b,c  20.42a  16.95a,b  11.27c  1.20  0.001  Cooking yield (%)  84.37  83.73  82.82  83.72  83.45  1.25  0.909  Muscle fiber diameter (μ)  52.68c  57.50±b  60.47±b  59.14b  64.16±a  1.40  0.001  Shear force (N/cm)  9.26b,c  9.07b,c  11.16a,b  11.73a  7.16c  0.56  0.002  PM, post-mortem; WHC, water-holding capacity. n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–cMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 2All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. View Large Table 4. Instrumental color scores of breast and thigh muscles: fresh, chilled1 and cooked2. Genotype3/Parameter4    RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Breast  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  55.41a,b  52.28a  53.92±a,b  55.62±a  49.22c  0.72  0.000    2. Chilled  54.11a  52.16a  51.77a  53.52a  42.91b  0.75  0.000    3. Cooked  71.85a  71.56a  72.42a  72.22a  68.11b  0.60  0.046  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  1.451b  1.55b  2.30a  1.10b  0.26c  0.12  0.000    2. Chilled  3.32a,b  3.63a  3.45a  2.38b  3.95±a  0.30  0.001    3. Cooked  3.32c  6.32a  5.91a,b  5.32b  5.48a,b  0.12  0.000  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  5.73b  4.63b  7.66a  5.58b  0.84c  0.26  0.000    2. Chilled  8.58a  7.91a,b  8.68a  6.55b,c  5.45c  0.46  0.000    3. Cooked  8.58c  16.89b  18.67a  17.26a,b  17.39a,b  0.28  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  76.44a  76.46a  73.72a  78.06a  68.95b  0.78  0.007    2. Chilled  69.23a  66.34a  68.56a  68.86a  49.32b  1.62  0.000    3. Cooked  69.23a,b  69.66b  72.50b  72.64b  72.48a  0.42  0.000  Chroma  1. Fresh  5.95b  4.99b  8.02a  6.45a,b  0.91c  0.30  0.000    2. Chilled  9.25a  8.75a,b  9.43a  7.02b,c  6.81c  0.52  0.000    3. Cooked  9.25a  18.09a,b  19.61a  18.11b,c  18.24c  0.32  0.000  Thigh  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  48.98  49.88  49.68  49.46  49.04  0.78  0.914    2. Chilled  44.14  43.75  46.91  46.05  44.38  0.72  0.11  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  4.73b  4.55b  7.47a  4.46b  4.02b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  7.05a,b  6.96b  8.61a  6.36b  7.13a,b  0.35  0.001  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  4.28c  3.56c  7.61a  5.74b  6.12b  0.38  0.000    2. Chilled  7.73a,b  6.69b  8.01a,b  6.54b  10.56a  0.33  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  38.86b,c  36.32c  44.87b  46.84b  56.57a  1.85  0.11    2. Chilled  48.61a,b  43.63b  43.44b  44.06b  56.39a  1.41  0.005  Chroma  1. Fresh  6.57b  6.07b  10.85a  7.37a,b  7.39a,b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  10.57a,b  9.83a,b  12.63a  9.21b  12.78a  0.53  0.000  Genotype3/Parameter4    RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Breast  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  55.41a,b  52.28a  53.92±a,b  55.62±a  49.22c  0.72  0.000    2. Chilled  54.11a  52.16a  51.77a  53.52a  42.91b  0.75  0.000    3. Cooked  71.85a  71.56a  72.42a  72.22a  68.11b  0.60  0.046  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  1.451b  1.55b  2.30a  1.10b  0.26c  0.12  0.000    2. Chilled  3.32a,b  3.63a  3.45a  2.38b  3.95±a  0.30  0.001    3. Cooked  3.32c  6.32a  5.91a,b  5.32b  5.48a,b  0.12  0.000  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  5.73b  4.63b  7.66a  5.58b  0.84c  0.26  0.000    2. Chilled  8.58a  7.91a,b  8.68a  6.55b,c  5.45c  0.46  0.000    3. Cooked  8.58c  16.89b  18.67a  17.26a,b  17.39a,b  0.28  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  76.44a  76.46a  73.72a  78.06a  68.95b  0.78  0.007    2. Chilled  69.23a  66.34a  68.56a  68.86a  49.32b  1.62  0.000    3. Cooked  69.23a,b  69.66b  72.50b  72.64b  72.48a  0.42  0.000  Chroma  1. Fresh  5.95b  4.99b  8.02a  6.45a,b  0.91c  0.30  0.000    2. Chilled  9.25a  8.75a,b  9.43a  7.02b,c  6.81c  0.52  0.000    3. Cooked  9.25a  18.09a,b  19.61a  18.11b,c  18.24c  0.32  0.000  Thigh  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  48.98  49.88  49.68  49.46  49.04  0.78  0.914    2. Chilled  44.14  43.75  46.91  46.05  44.38  0.72  0.11  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  4.73b  4.55b  7.47a  4.46b  4.02b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  7.05a,b  6.96b  8.61a  6.36b  7.13a,b  0.35  0.001  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  4.28c  3.56c  7.61a  5.74b  6.12b  0.38  0.000    2. Chilled  7.73a,b  6.69b  8.01a,b  6.54b  10.56a  0.33  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  38.86b,c  36.32c  44.87b  46.84b  56.57a  1.85  0.11    2. Chilled  48.61a,b  43.63b  43.44b  44.06b  56.39a  1.41  0.005  Chroma  1. Fresh  6.57b  6.07b  10.85a  7.37a,b  7.39a,b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  10.57a,b  9.83a,b  12.63a  9.21b  12.78a  0.53  0.000  CIE-L* = lightness, CIE-a* = redness, and CIE-b* = yellowness. n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–cMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1Chilled at 4 ± 1°C for 24 h. 2Cooked to a core temperature of 82°C for 20 min. 3RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 4All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. View Large Table 4. Instrumental color scores of breast and thigh muscles: fresh, chilled1 and cooked2. Genotype3/Parameter4    RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Breast  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  55.41a,b  52.28a  53.92±a,b  55.62±a  49.22c  0.72  0.000    2. Chilled  54.11a  52.16a  51.77a  53.52a  42.91b  0.75  0.000    3. Cooked  71.85a  71.56a  72.42a  72.22a  68.11b  0.60  0.046  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  1.451b  1.55b  2.30a  1.10b  0.26c  0.12  0.000    2. Chilled  3.32a,b  3.63a  3.45a  2.38b  3.95±a  0.30  0.001    3. Cooked  3.32c  6.32a  5.91a,b  5.32b  5.48a,b  0.12  0.000  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  5.73b  4.63b  7.66a  5.58b  0.84c  0.26  0.000    2. Chilled  8.58a  7.91a,b  8.68a  6.55b,c  5.45c  0.46  0.000    3. Cooked  8.58c  16.89b  18.67a  17.26a,b  17.39a,b  0.28  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  76.44a  76.46a  73.72a  78.06a  68.95b  0.78  0.007    2. Chilled  69.23a  66.34a  68.56a  68.86a  49.32b  1.62  0.000    3. Cooked  69.23a,b  69.66b  72.50b  72.64b  72.48a  0.42  0.000  Chroma  1. Fresh  5.95b  4.99b  8.02a  6.45a,b  0.91c  0.30  0.000    2. Chilled  9.25a  8.75a,b  9.43a  7.02b,c  6.81c  0.52  0.000    3. Cooked  9.25a  18.09a,b  19.61a  18.11b,c  18.24c  0.32  0.000  Thigh  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  48.98  49.88  49.68  49.46  49.04  0.78  0.914    2. Chilled  44.14  43.75  46.91  46.05  44.38  0.72  0.11  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  4.73b  4.55b  7.47a  4.46b  4.02b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  7.05a,b  6.96b  8.61a  6.36b  7.13a,b  0.35  0.001  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  4.28c  3.56c  7.61a  5.74b  6.12b  0.38  0.000    2. Chilled  7.73a,b  6.69b  8.01a,b  6.54b  10.56a  0.33  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  38.86b,c  36.32c  44.87b  46.84b  56.57a  1.85  0.11    2. Chilled  48.61a,b  43.63b  43.44b  44.06b  56.39a  1.41  0.005  Chroma  1. Fresh  6.57b  6.07b  10.85a  7.37a,b  7.39a,b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  10.57a,b  9.83a,b  12.63a  9.21b  12.78a  0.53  0.000  Genotype3/Parameter4    RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Breast  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  55.41a,b  52.28a  53.92±a,b  55.62±a  49.22c  0.72  0.000    2. Chilled  54.11a  52.16a  51.77a  53.52a  42.91b  0.75  0.000    3. Cooked  71.85a  71.56a  72.42a  72.22a  68.11b  0.60  0.046  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  1.451b  1.55b  2.30a  1.10b  0.26c  0.12  0.000    2. Chilled  3.32a,b  3.63a  3.45a  2.38b  3.95±a  0.30  0.001    3. Cooked  3.32c  6.32a  5.91a,b  5.32b  5.48a,b  0.12  0.000  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  5.73b  4.63b  7.66a  5.58b  0.84c  0.26  0.000    2. Chilled  8.58a  7.91a,b  8.68a  6.55b,c  5.45c  0.46  0.000    3. Cooked  8.58c  16.89b  18.67a  17.26a,b  17.39a,b  0.28  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  76.44a  76.46a  73.72a  78.06a  68.95b  0.78  0.007    2. Chilled  69.23a  66.34a  68.56a  68.86a  49.32b  1.62  0.000    3. Cooked  69.23a,b  69.66b  72.50b  72.64b  72.48a  0.42  0.000  Chroma  1. Fresh  5.95b  4.99b  8.02a  6.45a,b  0.91c  0.30  0.000    2. Chilled  9.25a  8.75a,b  9.43a  7.02b,c  6.81c  0.52  0.000    3. Cooked  9.25a  18.09a,b  19.61a  18.11b,c  18.24c  0.32  0.000  Thigh  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  48.98  49.88  49.68  49.46  49.04  0.78  0.914    2. Chilled  44.14  43.75  46.91  46.05  44.38  0.72  0.11  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  4.73b  4.55b  7.47a  4.46b  4.02b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  7.05a,b  6.96b  8.61a  6.36b  7.13a,b  0.35  0.001  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  4.28c  3.56c  7.61a  5.74b  6.12b  0.38  0.000    2. Chilled  7.73a,b  6.69b  8.01a,b  6.54b  10.56a  0.33  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  38.86b,c  36.32c  44.87b  46.84b  56.57a  1.85  0.11    2. Chilled  48.61a,b  43.63b  43.44b  44.06b  56.39a  1.41  0.005  Chroma  1. Fresh  6.57b  6.07b  10.85a  7.37a,b  7.39a,b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  10.57a,b  9.83a,b  12.63a  9.21b  12.78a  0.53  0.000  CIE-L* = lightness, CIE-a* = redness, and CIE-b* = yellowness. n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–cMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1Chilled at 4 ± 1°C for 24 h. 2Cooked to a core temperature of 82°C for 20 min. 3RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 4All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. View Large All birds were transported in the early hours of the day for a maximum duration of 2 h. The maximum weight loss during transportation (6.70% of BW) was observed in WBR and minimum (4.48% of BW) in ASR. In general, indigenous birds/slow-growing types were more tolerant than fast-growing type to transportation stress as indicated by the loss of weight during transportation in the experiment. The yield of giblets (as % of chilled carcass weight) was found to be maximum in RR and minimum in WBR, whereas the maximum percentage of breast meat was observed in WBR and minimum in ASL. All these variations reported were significant (P < 0.05). A significant (P < 0.05) high yield of thigh meat was observed for RR and RRP, drumstick for ASR and wings for RRP. Overall, yields of different cut-up parts for different genotypic birds were significantly different (P < 0.05). Meat:bone ratio of the thigh was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in WBR followed by RRP, ASL, RR, and ASR. Jaturasitha et al. (2008) reported that bone proportion was high and lean: bone ratio was low in imported layer chickens like Rhode Bresse chickens against local chickens. According to Olawumi (2013), there is a positive correlation between breast weight and thigh weight with the live weight of birds. Fanatico et al. (2007) studied the meat quality of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes and observed that the fast genotype exhibited superior breast yield. Similarly, Tang et al. (2009) observed significant effects of genotypes of birds on BW, carcass weight and carcass composition. The slow-growing genetic groups had higher leg yields than the other two fast-growing groups. The higher live weight and breast percentage could be due to the larger size of muscle fibers because postnatal growth is achieved by muscle fiber hypertrophy (Larzul et al., 1997; Chen et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2013). The differences in chicken breeds associated with muscle fiber characteristics could be due to the selection (Dransfield and Sosnicki, 1999). pH, WHC, Bound and Free Water and Cooking Yields of Meat From Various Genotypes of Chickens Post-mortem pH decline is one of the most important events in the conversion of muscle to meat due to its impact on meat texture, color, and WHC (Aberle et al., 2001). Initial meat pH (1 h of PM) of RR and RRP were significantly (P < 0.05) different from that of ASL, ASR, and WBR. But after 24 h of PM, the differences in meat pH between RR, RRP and WBR were not significant but pH varied significantly (P < 0.05) from Aseel genotypes (Table 3). pH1h was highest in RR, followed by Aseel genotypes and lowest for WBR, whereas lowest significant ultimate pH (24 h of PM) was recorded for meat from Aseel genotypes (Table 3). Similarly, Fanatico et al. (2007) also reported lower ultimate meat pH for slow-growing genotypes compared to the fast-growing counterpart. These results are also in agreement with Wattanachant et al. (2004), Berri et al. (2005), and Santos et al. (2005).The rate of pH decline is dependent on the activity of glycolytic enzymes just after death and the ultimate pH is determined by the initial glycogen reserves of the muscle (Bendall, 1973). In broiler-type genotypes, selection for fast growth and high yield has reduced the rate and extent of pH decline (Berri et al., 2001, 2005), possibly due to a decrease in the glycolytic potential, which is essentially a measure of glycogen content (Monin and Sellier, 1985; Baeza et al., 2002). Similarly, a lower concentration of glycogen in the pectoralis muscle of fast-growing genotypes of turkey compared to slow-growing ones was reported by Fernandez et al. (2001). Debut et al. (2005) and Rajkumar et al. (2016) also reported that active birds such as slow-growing birds with less body weight are more prone to shackling stress, which leads to rapid breast muscle acidification whereas the fast-growing heavy birds do not struggle much, and their pH decline is slower. They also reported that breast muscles are more sensitive to wing flapping on the shackling line than thigh muscle. WHC is important both in whole meat and further processed meat products and can be measured by different methods. Poor WHC affects functionality, as well as sensory characteristics of meat. WHC was significantly (P < 0.05) higher for Aseel genotypes, lowest for WBR, and RR and RRP showed intermediate WHC (Table 3). Similarly, lowest WHC for broiler-type birds, intermediate WHC for layers and layer crosses and highest WHC for native birds were reported by Tang et al. (2009). Bound water was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in RR, RRP and WBR compared to ASL and ASR, whereas free water was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in both ASL and ASR. The cooking yield was not significantly different in different genotypes of birds. However, earlier studies reported that the fillets from slow-growing birds, because of smaller size and larger surface area ratio, had higher drip loss than the fast-growing birds (Fanatico et al., 2005). Janisch et al. (2011) reported that the breast muscles of older broilers had better WHC accompanied with reduced drip loss values. Baeza et al. (2002) found a decrease in drip loss with increasing age at slaughter and which is partly explained by the decrease in muscle water content of duck breast. Meat from the fast-growing birds also lost more water than the slow-growing genotypes during cooking and led to reduced cooking yield, which may be related to higher fat in the meat of fast-growing birds (Lonergan et al., 2003; Chartrin et al., 2006). Shear Force Value and Muscle Fiber Diameter of Breast Muscles of Various Genotypes of Chicken Texture, particularly tenderness, measured as SFV, is a crucial consumer attribute in determining palatability and quality of meat and products. SFV of breast meat was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in ASR and ASL, followed by RR and RRP, and lowest SFV were observed in WBR (Table 3). It is evident from the present results that, birds carrying Aseel germplasm have a higher SFV than broiler birds. Similarly, rainbow rooster birds (both RR and RRP) have significantly (P < 0.05) higher SFV than WBR. It is expected that the slow-growing genotypes would be less tender compared to fast-growing genotypes because the slow-growing birds were physiologically older at the time of slaughter. Generally, older birds are more physiologically mature at the time of harvest and have more crosslinking of collagen (Fletcher, 2002). In addition, the fast-growing birds have more intramuscular fat in breast meat, which is usually associated with higher tenderness of meat from those genotypes (Le Bihan-Duval, 2003). Other studies have also found that the meats of slow-growing or older genotypes are less tender compared with fast-growing genotypes (Castellini et al., 2002; Wattanachant et al., 2004; Fanatico et al., 2005). It has been reported that meat of ASL birds had higher SFV and hydroxyproline content in comparison to broiler chicken (Rajkumar et al., 2016). Even though all treatments were deboned at 24 h PM, it is possible that fast and slow genotypes may have different rates of rigor due to their different body weight. The differences in tenderness can also be related to endogenous proteolytic activity during aging. Further, collagen crosslinking increases with age and is more often associated with the increased toughness of meat (Shrimpton and Miller, 1960; Fletcher, 2002). Tang et al. (2009) reported that the older slow-growing birds of 110 days age had higher SFV than the fast-growing birds of 49 and 56 days of age, which could be explained by the differences in collagen cross-linking. Further, increase in the amount of connective tissue with age might have contributed to the higher SFV in slow-growing indigenous birds and other genotype birds studied in this experiment. Purslow (2005) reported that the thermal and mechanical stability of the connective tissue and toughness of the meat will be more in older animals. In contrast to SFV, muscle fiber diameter of thigh muscles was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in WBR followed by ASL > ASR > RRP > RR (Table 3). But, muscle fiber diameter did not vary significantly among ASL, ASR and RRP. Rainbow rooster had the lowest muscle fiber diameter among all genotypes of birds studied. It has been reported that characteristics of the growth and time course for full growth of each muscle in the chicken are unique (Chen et al., 2007). Postnatal growth of skeletal muscle is accompanied by the increased size of individual myofibers, both diameter and elongation (Smith, 1963; Chen et al., 2007). It was shown that muscle fibers from fast-growing lines of chickens have larger fiber diameters than slow-growing lines (Essen-Gustavasson, 1993; Mahon, 1999). The fast-growing broilers grew faster and had more mass of leg and breast muscles than slow-growing crosses suggesting that they may possess more large-diameter fibers than the latter (Tang et al., 2009). Instrumental Color Scores of Breast and Thigh Muscles of Various Genotypes of Chicken Meat color was measured for fresh meat (1 h of slaughter), chilled meat (4 ± 1°C for 24 h) and cooked meat (cooked in water to a core temperature of 82°C) and described by L*, a*, and b* values, along with hue and chroma (Table 4). Color values of the breast meat were found to be significantly (P < 0.05) different among various genotypes of birds. In all the three conditions studied, genotype had the most significant (P < 0.05) effect on all color attributes of breast meat (Table 3). The L* value of fresh breast meat from both ASL and ASR showed significant (P < 0.05) differences compared to WBR, but L* value of fresh breast meat of Aseel genotypes (ASL and ASR) and Rainbow Rooster genotypes (RR and RRP) did not vary significantly. In the chilled and cooked breast, differences for lightness were significant (P < 0.05) only between WBR and other groups. Lowest significant (P < 0.05) a* (redness) value for fresh breast muscle was observed in WBR and highest significant (P < 0.05) a* value in ASL. Similarly, Rajkumar et al. (2016) reported a significantly higher redness for Aseel meat compared to commercial broilers of Cobb 400 strain. In contrary, differences in a* value of fresh breast meat between RR, RRP and ASR were found to be not significant. In chilled breast meat, ASR showed the significant (P < 0.05) lowest a* value and other birds were not significantly different in terms of redness. But after cooking, breast meat from RRP and RR showed highest and lowest significant (P < 0.05) values for redness, respectively. Other three groups of birds did not show a significant difference for the redness in the cooked breast meat. Yellowness (b*) of fresh and chilled breast meat from WBR were significantly (P < 0.05) lower compared to other genotypic birds. However, in the cooked breast, b* value was (P < 0.05) lower in RR and other type of birds did not differ significantly. The hue of the fresh and chilled breast was significantly (P < 0.05) lower in WBR and higher in ASL. However, hue values of cooked breast did not differ significantly among different genotypes of birds. Chroma or color intensity of fresh and chilled breast meat was significantly (P < 0.05) lower in WBR and highest in ASL, whereas other three genotypes did not show any significant difference. In cooked meat, chroma values were significantly (P < 0.05) higher in ASL and lower in RR as compared to other three groups. Similar results for breast meat color were reported by Jaturasita et al. (2008). In their study, breast meat from Bresse chicken (a breed introduced from France to Thailand), showed significantly higher a* value compared to Rhode Island Red (a layer-type breed), which showed paler (higher L*) and more yellow (high b*) meat. High a* value of fresh ASL breast is comparable to Bresse and both the breeds described for intensively red-colored meat. In fresh and chilled thigh, L* value does not vary significantly among various genotypes of birds (Table 3). Fresh and chilled thigh from ASL showed highest significant (P < 0.05) redness (a*) values compared to other genotypes. Highest yellowness (b*) for fresh thigh and chilled thigh was reported in ASL and WBR, respectively. Fresh and chilled thigh from WBR showed highest hue values, whereas fresh thigh from ASL and chilled thigh from both ASL and WBR showed highest chroma values in the present study. The fresh meat acceptability by consumers is directly related to an appealing meat color and which in turn depends on myoglobin content, chemical state of heme structure and meat pH (Fletcher, 2002). The higher redness of ASL meat is due to high myoglobin content and broilers contain less myoglobin and, consequently, meat becomes less red (Rajkumar et al., 2016). Generally, broiler breast muscles with lower a* values have lower total pigment, myoglobin, and iron concentrations (Boulianne and King 1995; Clark et al., 1997; Berri et al., 2001). The differences in meat color might be due to the strong influence of genotypes of birds as reported by Rajkumar et al. (2016) and Jaturasitha et al. (2008). They also reported that higher myoglobin concentration in ASL is due to higher exercise and age. Similarly, Jaturasitha et al. (2004) and Chaosap and Tuntivisoottikul (2006) reported darker and redder meat in Thai native breeds compared to broilers. Chemical Compositions of Thigh Meat From Various Genotypes of Chicken Chemical compositions of thigh meat from different genotypes of birds are presented in Table 5. ASR and WBR have a significantly (P < 0.05) lower moisture and higher dry matter percentage as compared to RR, RRP, and ASL birds. The higher % of DM in thigh meat as observed by Haunshi et al. (2013) compared to the present study might be due to the higher age of slaughter and physiological maturity of birds in their experiment. Moisture % was highest in ASL birds followed by RR. Protein content was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in ASR followed by WBR and RR birds and lowest in ASL. There was no significant variation in protein content between RR/RRP and WBR and ASL genotypes. WBR and RRP showed the highest significant (P < 0.05) amount of fat (>8%) and ASL showed the lowest significant (P < 0.05) amount of fat (3.18%). Total ash content was significantly (P < 0.05) different among RRP, ASR, and WBR only. Nowsad et al. (2000) reported higher moisture and less protein in the meat of spent hens compared with that of broilers, whereas Shaarani et al. (2006) found moisture contents of broiler meat being as high as 76%. Similar to the present study, Jaturasitha et al. (2008) found a lower fat content in thigh meat of indigenous strains of birds and higher fat in Bresse and Rhode chickens, respectively. Liu and Niu (2008) also reported higher fat % in a broiler-type bird (Arbor Acres) compared to native quality chicken (White Lueyang). Table 5. Chemical compositions of thigh muscle, texture profile and sensory analysis of cooked meat from various genotypes of chicken slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Genotype1/Parameter2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Chemical composition  Moisture %  73.37b  74.34b  78.66a  66.70c  67.52c  1.40  0.000  Dry matter %  26.62b  28.65b  21.33c  33.29a  32.47a  1.24  0.000  Protein %  17.50b,c  18.31b,c  16.61c  25.69a  19.60b  0.86  0.012  Fat %  6.51a,b  8.44a  3.18c  4.87b  8.32a  0.32  0.000  Texture profile  Hardness (N)  14.15c  19.80b  20.21b  19.34b  25.68a  1.48  0.000  Chewiness (N cm)  10.86c  17.54b  27.72a,b  26.42a,b  30.99a  4.52  0.000  Gumminess (N)  10.15c  16.51b  19.42a,b  18.17a,b  24.60a  2.65  0.006  Cohesiveness  0.78  0.79  0.89  0.86  0.93  0.08  0.788  Springiness (cm)  1.04  0.96  1.01  1.01  1.10  0.03  0.678  Sensory evaluation scores  Color/appearance  7.04a,b  7.27a  6.85b  6.95b  6.87b  0.11  0.101  Flavor  6.89a,b  7.13a  6.86a,b  7.00±a,b  6.64±b  0.05  0.018  Tenderness  6.97a,b  7.19a  6.68b  6.77±b  6.77±b  0.12  0.035  Juiciness  6.97a,b  7.21a  6.65b  6.81b  6.72b  0.11  0.005  Genotype1/Parameter2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Chemical composition  Moisture %  73.37b  74.34b  78.66a  66.70c  67.52c  1.40  0.000  Dry matter %  26.62b  28.65b  21.33c  33.29a  32.47a  1.24  0.000  Protein %  17.50b,c  18.31b,c  16.61c  25.69a  19.60b  0.86  0.012  Fat %  6.51a,b  8.44a  3.18c  4.87b  8.32a  0.32  0.000  Texture profile  Hardness (N)  14.15c  19.80b  20.21b  19.34b  25.68a  1.48  0.000  Chewiness (N cm)  10.86c  17.54b  27.72a,b  26.42a,b  30.99a  4.52  0.000  Gumminess (N)  10.15c  16.51b  19.42a,b  18.17a,b  24.60a  2.65  0.006  Cohesiveness  0.78  0.79  0.89  0.86  0.93  0.08  0.788  Springiness (cm)  1.04  0.96  1.01  1.01  1.10  0.03  0.678  Sensory evaluation scores  Color/appearance  7.04a,b  7.27a  6.85b  6.95b  6.87b  0.11  0.101  Flavor  6.89a,b  7.13a  6.86a,b  7.00±a,b  6.64±b  0.05  0.018  Tenderness  6.97a,b  7.19a  6.68b  6.77±b  6.77±b  0.12  0.035  Juiciness  6.97a,b  7.21a  6.65b  6.81b  6.72b  0.11  0.005  n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–cMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 2All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. View Large Table 5. Chemical compositions of thigh muscle, texture profile and sensory analysis of cooked meat from various genotypes of chicken slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Genotype1/Parameter2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Chemical composition  Moisture %  73.37b  74.34b  78.66a  66.70c  67.52c  1.40  0.000  Dry matter %  26.62b  28.65b  21.33c  33.29a  32.47a  1.24  0.000  Protein %  17.50b,c  18.31b,c  16.61c  25.69a  19.60b  0.86  0.012  Fat %  6.51a,b  8.44a  3.18c  4.87b  8.32a  0.32  0.000  Texture profile  Hardness (N)  14.15c  19.80b  20.21b  19.34b  25.68a  1.48  0.000  Chewiness (N cm)  10.86c  17.54b  27.72a,b  26.42a,b  30.99a  4.52  0.000  Gumminess (N)  10.15c  16.51b  19.42a,b  18.17a,b  24.60a  2.65  0.006  Cohesiveness  0.78  0.79  0.89  0.86  0.93  0.08  0.788  Springiness (cm)  1.04  0.96  1.01  1.01  1.10  0.03  0.678  Sensory evaluation scores  Color/appearance  7.04a,b  7.27a  6.85b  6.95b  6.87b  0.11  0.101  Flavor  6.89a,b  7.13a  6.86a,b  7.00±a,b  6.64±b  0.05  0.018  Tenderness  6.97a,b  7.19a  6.68b  6.77±b  6.77±b  0.12  0.035  Juiciness  6.97a,b  7.21a  6.65b  6.81b  6.72b  0.11  0.005  Genotype1/Parameter2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Chemical composition  Moisture %  73.37b  74.34b  78.66a  66.70c  67.52c  1.40  0.000  Dry matter %  26.62b  28.65b  21.33c  33.29a  32.47a  1.24  0.000  Protein %  17.50b,c  18.31b,c  16.61c  25.69a  19.60b  0.86  0.012  Fat %  6.51a,b  8.44a  3.18c  4.87b  8.32a  0.32  0.000  Texture profile  Hardness (N)  14.15c  19.80b  20.21b  19.34b  25.68a  1.48  0.000  Chewiness (N cm)  10.86c  17.54b  27.72a,b  26.42a,b  30.99a  4.52  0.000  Gumminess (N)  10.15c  16.51b  19.42a,b  18.17a,b  24.60a  2.65  0.006  Cohesiveness  0.78  0.79  0.89  0.86  0.93  0.08  0.788  Springiness (cm)  1.04  0.96  1.01  1.01  1.10  0.03  0.678  Sensory evaluation scores  Color/appearance  7.04a,b  7.27a  6.85b  6.95b  6.87b  0.11  0.101  Flavor  6.89a,b  7.13a  6.86a,b  7.00±a,b  6.64±b  0.05  0.018  Tenderness  6.97a,b  7.19a  6.68b  6.77±b  6.77±b  0.12  0.035  Juiciness  6.97a,b  7.21a  6.65b  6.81b  6.72b  0.11  0.005  n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–cMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 2All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. View Large Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) and Sensory Evaluation of Cooked Meat From Various Genotypes of Chicken TPA of breast meat indicated significant (P < 0.05) differences in hardness, chewiness, and gumminess among various genotypes. Highest significant (P < 0.05) hardness values were reported for WBR and lowest for RR. A similar pattern of variation was observed for chewiness and gumminess of cooked meat among different genotypes of birds. However, chewiness and gumminess did not vary significantly between ASL and ASR. Further, cohesiveness and springiness did not differ significantly between genotypes (Table 5). A significant higher hardness and chewiness in broiler breast is attributed to the maximum functional size of breast attained due to intensive breeding and feeding. It is further reported in fast-growing commercial broiler, the occurrence of woody breast and white stripping. These conditions cause chicken breast meat to be hard to the touch and often pale in color with poor quality texture. (Chatterjee et al., 2016). Sensory evaluation of cooked breast meat from various genotypes was carried out by an experienced semi-trained panellist. Color/appearance scores were significantly (P < 0.05) higher for RR and RRP, but color scores did not vary significantly between ASL, ASR, and WBR (Table 5). All the four slow-growing genotypes (RR, RRP, ASL, and ASR) showed superior flavor scores than fast-growing commercial broiler (WBR). It is a key observation that most consumers prefer the flavor of slow-growing genotypes of indigenous birds compared to WBR. RR and RRP had a significantly (P < 0.05) higher tenderness and juiciness scores as compared to other genotypes of birds. Overall acceptability scores were also significantly (P < 0.05) higher in RR and RRP. In general, sensory panelist highly liked the breast meat from slow-growing birds as compared to fast-growing commercial broilers. An appreciably higher sensory score for Aseel meat compared to broiler meat was reported by Rajkumar et al. (2016). It is reported that usually, native chicken has a unique taste, firm texture and rich flavor which is cherished by most of the consumers in comparison with broiler meat (Wattanachant et al., 2004; Jayasena et al., 2013). Higher concentrations of principal flavor precursor, inosine monophosphate, in the meat of Chinese native breeds (Wenchang and Xianju) compared to commercial broiler line (Avian, AV) were reported by Tang et al. (2009). CONCLUSIONS From the present study, different characteristic features of native and improved crosses of broiler and layer genotypes and commercial broilers were identified. Genotypic differences for both qualitative and quantitative traits of meat were found as significant. Local/native genotypes and slow-growing genotypic crosses were more acceptable to the consumers from meat color, flavor and texture point of view. Commercial broilers were desirable from meat yield and other quantitative qualities. Improved genotypes were having the intensive red meat color, and firm texture meeting the preference of consumers. Low-fat content and firm texture of Aseel genotypes are the most striking qualities from consumer acceptability point of view. Thus, local genotypes and improved variety of genotypes have the potential to provide a successful product for a niche market serving consumers who prefer low-fat, slightly firm and dark-colored chicken meat. REFERENCES Aberle E. D. Forrest J. C. Gerrard D. E. Mills E. W.. 2001. Principles of Meat Science . 4th ed. Kendall/Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, IA. AOAC. 1995. Official Method of Analysis . Association of Analytical Communities, Arlington, VA. Baeza E. Dessay C. Wacrenier N. Marche G. Listrat A.. 2002. Effect of selection for improved body weight and composition on muscle and meat characteristics in Muscovy duck. Br. Poult. Sci.  43: 560– 568. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bendall J. R. 1973. Post-mortem changes in muscle. Page 243 in Structure and Function of Muscle . Bourne G. H., ed. Acad. Press, New York, NY. Berri C. Debut M. Santé-Lhoutellier V. Arnould C. Boutten B. Sellier N. Baéza E. Jehl N. Jego Y. Duclos M. J. Le Bihan-Duval E.. 2005. Variations in chicken breast meat quality: implications of struggle and muscle glycogen content at death. Br. Poult. Sci.  46: 572– 579. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Berri C. Wacrenier N. Millet N. Le Bihan-Duval E.. 2001. Effect of selection for improved body composition on muscle and meat characteristics of broilers from experimental and commercial lines. Poult. Sci.  80: 833– 838. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Boulianne M. King A. J.. 1995. Biochemical and color characteristics of skinless boneless pale chicken breast. Poult. Sci.  74: 1693– 1698. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Castellini C. Mugnai C. Dal Bosco A.. 2002. Effect of organic production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Ital. J. Food Sci.  14: 401– 412. Chaosap C. Tuntivisoottikul K.. 2006. The study of meat quality of Burmese native, broiler and Thai native chicken. Proc. 44th Kasetsart Univ. Annu. Conf. Anim. Vet. Med., Bangkok, Thailand. 230– 239. Chartrin P. Meteau K. Juin H. Bernadet M. D. Guy G. Larzul C. Remignon H. Mourot J. Duclos M. J. Baeza E.. 2006. Effects of intramuscular fat levels on sensory characteristics of duck breast meat. Poult. Sci.  85: 914– 922. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Chatterjee R. N. Rajkumar U.. 2015. An overview of poultry production in India. Indian J. Anim. Health.  54: 2449– 2454. Chatterjee D. Zhuang H. Bowker B. C. Rincon A. M. Sanchez-Brambila G.. 2016. Instrumental texture characteristics of broiler pectoralis major with the wooden breast condition. Poult. Sci.  95: 914– 922. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Chen X. D. Ma Q. G. Tang M. Y. Ji C.. 2007. Development of breast muscle and meat quality in Arbor Acres broilers, Jingxing 100 crossbred chickens and Beijing fatty chickens. Meat Sci.  77: 220– 227. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Clark E. M. Mahoney A. W. Carpenter C. E.. 1997. Heme and total iron in ready-to-eat chicken. J. Agric. Food Chem.  45: 124– 126. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Debut M. Berri C. Arnould C. Guemene D. Santelhoutellier V. Sellier N. Bacza E. Zehl N. Zego Y. Beaumont C. Le-Bihan-Duval E.. 2005. Behavioural and physiological responses of three chicken breeds to pre-slaughter shackling and acute heat stress. Br. Poult. Sci.  46: 527– 535. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dransfield E. Sosnicki A. A.. 1999. Relationship between muscle growth and poultry meat quality. Poult. Sci.  78: 743– 746. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Essen-Gustavsson B. 1993. Muscle-fiber characteristics in pigs and relationships to meat-quality parameters—Review. Pages 140– 159 in Pork Quality: Genetic and Metabolic Factors . Puolanne E. Demeyer D. I. Ruusunen M. Ellis S., ed. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Fanatico A. C. Cavitt L. C. Pillai P. B. Emmert J. L. Owens C. M.. 2005. Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Meat quality. Poult. Sci.  84: 1785– 1790. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fanatico A. C. Pillai P. B. Emmert J. L. Owens C. M.. 2007. Meat quality of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poult. Sci.  86: 2245– 2255. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fernandez X. Sante V. Baeza E. Lebihan-Duval E. Berri C. Remignon H. Babile R. Le Pottier G. Millet N. Berge P. Astruc T.. 2001. Post mortem muscle metabolism and meat quality in three genetic types of turkey. Br. Poult. Sci.  42: 462– 469. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fletcher D. L. 2002. Poultry meat quality. Worlds Poult. Sci. J.  58: 131– 145. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gupta R. K. Singh M. Singh U. Gurung B. S.. 2000. Feed efficiency and carcass characteristics of Aseel chicken. Indian J. Anim. Sci.  70: 1170– 1171. Haunshi S. Sunitha R. Shanmugam M. Padhi M. K. Niranjan M.. 2013. Carcass characteristics and chemical composition of breast and thigh muscles of native chicken breeds. Indian J. Poult. Sci.  48: 219– 222. Hunter R. S. Harold R. W.. 1987. The measurement of appearance . John Wiley and Sons, New York. Janisch S. Krischek C. Wicke M.. 2011. Color values and other meat quality characteristics of breast muscles collected from 3 broiler genetic lines slaughtered at 2 ages. Poult. Sci.  90: 1774– 1781. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jaturasitha S. Khiaosaard R. Pongpaew A. Leawtharakul A. Saitong S. Apichatsarangkul T. Leaungwunta V.. 2004. Carcass and indirect meat quality of native and Kai Baan Thai chickens with different sex and slaughter weight. Proc. 42nd Annu. Conf. Kasetsart Univ., Bangkok, Thailand. 116– 126. Jaturasitha S. Leangwunta V. Leotaragul A. Phongphaew A. Apichartsrungkoon T. Simasathitkul N. Vearasilp T. Worachai L. Meulen U.. 2002. A comparative study of Thai native chicken and broiler on productive performance, carcass and meat quality. Page 146 in Deutscher Tropentag 2002: Challenges to Organic Farming and Sustainable Land Use in the Tropics and Subtropics . Book of Abstracts. Deininger A., ed. Univ. Kassel, Witzenhausen, Germany. Jaturasitha S. Srikanchai T. Kreuzer M. Wicke M.. 2008. Differences in carcass and meat characteristics between chicken indigenous to Northern Thailand (Black-boned and Thai native) and imported extensive breeds (Bresse and Rhode Island Red). Poult. Sci.  87: 160– 169. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jayasena D. D. Jung S. Kim H. J. Bae Y. S. Yong H. I. Lee J. H. Kim J. G. Jo C.. 2013. Comparison of quality traits of meat from Korean native chickens and broilers used in two different traditional Korean cuisines. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci.  26: 1038– 1046. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Khalid A. M. Yousif I. A. Omer M. I. Elamin K. M.. 2012. Genetic variability of body composition traits in Sudanese Native large Beladi Chicken. Agric. Biol. J. North America . 3: 69– 76. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kim G. D. Kim B. W. Jeong J. Y. Hur S. J. Cho I. C. Lim H. T. Joo S. T.. 2013. Relationship of carcass weight to muscle fiber characteristics and pork quality of crossbred (Korean native black pig × Landrace) F2 pigs. Food Bioprocess Technol.  6: 522– 529. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kristensen L. Purslow P. P.. 2001. The effect of ageing on the water-holding capacity of pork: role of cytoskeletal proteins. Meat Sci.  58: 17– 23. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Larzul C. Lefaucheur L. Ecolan P. Gogué J. Talmant A. Sellier P. Le Roy P. Monin G.. 1997. Phenotypic and genetic parameters for longissimus muscle fiber characteristics in relation to growth, carcass, and meat quality traits in large white pigs. J. Anim. Sci.  75: 3126– 3137. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Le Bihan-Duval E. 2003. Genetic variability of poultry meat. Pages 11– 20 in Proc. 52nd Annu. Natl. Breeders Roundtable, May 8–9, 2003, St. Louis, MO . US Poult. Egg Assoc., Tucker, GA. Liu F. Niu Z.. 2008. Carcass quality of different meat-typed chickens when achieve a common physiological body weight. Int. J. Poult. Sci.  7: 319– 322. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Lonergan S. M. Deeb N. Fedlet C. A. Lamont S. J.. 2003. Breast meat quality and composition in unique chicken populations. Poult. Sci.  82: 1990– 1994. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Macrae V. E. Mahon M. Gilpin S. Sandercock D. A. Mitchell M. A.. 2006. Skeletal muscle fibre growth and growth associated myopathy in the domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus). Br. Poult. Sci.  47: 264– 272. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mahon M. 1999. Muscle abnormalities: morphological aspects. Page 19– 64 in Poultry Meat Science: Poultry Science Symposium, Vol. 25 . Richardson R. I. Mead G. C., ed. CABI Publ., Oxon, UK. Monin G. Sellier P.. 1985. Pork of low technological quality with a normal rate of muscle pH fall in the immediate post-mortem period: the case of the Hampshire breed. Meat Sci.  13: 49– 63. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nowsad A. A. K. M. Kanoh S. Niwa E.. 2000. Thermal gelation characteristics of breast and thigh muscles of spent hen and broiler and their surimi. Meat Sci.  54: 169– 175. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Olawumi S. O. 2013. Phenotypic correlations between live body weight and carcass traits in Arbor Acre breed of broiler chicken. Int. J. Sci. Nat.  4: 145– 149. Purslow P. P. 2005. Intramuscular connective tissue and its role in meat quality. Meat Sci.  70: 435– 447. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rajkumar U. Muthukumar M. Haunshi S. Niranjan M. Raju M. V. L. N. Rama Rao S. V. Chatterjee R. N.. 2016. Comparative evaluation of carcass traits and meat quality in native Aseel chickens and commercial broilers. Br. Poult. Sci.  57: 339– 347. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rehfeldt C. Fiedler I. Stickland N. C.. 2004. Number and size of muscle fibres in relation to meat production. Pages 1– 38 in Muscle Development of Livestock Animals: Physiology, Genetics and Meat Quality . te Pas M. F. W. Everts M. E. Haagsman H. P., ed. CABI Publ., Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Santos A. L. Sakomura N. K. Freitas E. R. Fortes C. M. L. S. Carrilho E. N. V. M. Fernandes J. B. K.. 2005. Growth, performance, carcass yield and meat quality of three broiler chickens strains. R. Bras. Zootec.  34: 1589– 1598. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Shaarani S. M. Nott K. P. Hall L. D.. 2006. Combination of NMR and MRI quantitation of moisture and structure changes for convection cooking of fresh chicken meat. Meat Sci.  72: 398– 403. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Shrimpton D. H. Miller W. S.. 1960. Some causes of toughness in broilers (young roasting chickens): II. Effects of breed, management and sex. Br. Poult. Sci.  1: 111– 121. Singh V. P. Pathak V.. 2017. Quality characterization of giblets of indigenous Indian chicken breeds. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci.  6: 784– 797. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Smith J. H., 1963. Relation of body size to muscle cell size and number in the chicken. Poult. Sci.  42: 283– 290. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Steel R. G. D. Torrie J. H.. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics . 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. Tang H. Gong Y. Z. Wu C. X. Jiang J. Wang Y. Li K.. 2009. Variation of meat quality traits among five genotypes of chicken. Poult. Sci.  88: 2212– 2218. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Tuma A. J. Venable J. H. Wuthier P. R. Henrickson R. L.. 1962. Relationship of fiber diameter to tenderness and meatiness as influenced by bovine age. J. Anim. Sci.  21: 33– 36. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wardlaw F. B. Maccaskill L. H. Acton J. C.. 1973. Effect of postmortem muscle changes on poultry meat loaf properties. J Food Sci.  38: 421– 423. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wattanachant S. Benjakul S. Ledward D. A.. 2004. Composition, color, and texture of Thai indigenous and broiler chicken muscles. Poult. Sci.  83: 123– 128. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  © 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Poultry Science Oxford University Press

Carcass and meat quality characterization of indigenous and improved variety of chicken genotypes

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/carcass-and-meat-quality-characterization-of-indigenous-and-improved-dK9lI8J6ts
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc.
ISSN
0032-5791
eISSN
1525-3171
D.O.I.
10.3382/ps/pey108
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ABSTRACT A study was conducted to examine four genotypes of chicken for their carcass and meat quality characteristics. From each genotype, 20 birds were slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Breast and thigh muscles were evaluated for meat quality characteristics. Transport loss and carcass weight were highest in the white commercial broiler (WBR) and lowest in Aseel (ASL) and Indbro Aseel (ASR). Dressing percentage ranged between 66.41 and 72.56 and was not significantly different among genotypes. The yield of various cut-up parts for different genotypic birds was significantly different (P < 0.05). Highest percent yield for breast (29.15), thigh (15.57), drumstick (13.82) and wings (18.44) were observed in WBR, rainbow rooster (RR), ASR and rainbow rooster Plus (RRP), respectively. Giblet % was highest in RR and meat:bone ratio of thigh portion was highest in WBR. Higher ultimate pH was recorded for RR, RRP, and WBR, and higher water-holding capacity was detected in ASL and ASR. Further, bound water was higher in RR, RRP, and WBR, and free water was maximum in ASL and ASR. A significant (P < 0.05) higher shear force was observed in ASL and higher muscle fiber diameter in WBR. Cooking yield did not differ significantly among genotypes. The breast meat from ASL showed significantly (P < 0.05) higher redness value and WBR showed the lower redness. Further, ASL and ASR meats were darker and red in color than broiler meat. Meat from two indigenous birds (ASL and ASR) had significantly (P < 0.05) lower fat content compared to broilers and other crosses. ASL gave a slightly firmer meat as liked by consumers. The sensory evaluation showed breast meat from RR birds and ASL birds had better flavor scores than other birds. These results indicated that meat of indigenous chickens (ASL and ASR) has some unique features over commercial fast-growing birds that would increase their demand by consumers who prefer chewy, low-fat chicken meat. INTRODUCTION In recent years, consumers are increasingly interested in meat from indigenous and local birds because of desirable and unique taste, rich flavor and firm texture. Further, consumers perceive these birds as naturally produced in extensive farming systems. Consequently, consumer's growing awareness regarding health and nutrition has led to specialty markets for the local variety of poultry produced in extensive farming systems. In contrast to modern broiler breeds, local birds grow very slow as they have not undergone any genetic selection, intensive feeding, and veterinary attention. In modern broilers, selection for fast growth and high yield have pushed muscle fibers to their maximum functional size and have negatively impacted the sensorial and functional qualities of the meat (Dransfield and Sosnicki, 1999; Le Bihan-Duval, 2003; Macrae et al., 2006). Further, consumer interests in quality aspects rather than quantity of meat provide opportunities for marketing of meat and meat products from native free-range birds. In India, the major contributor of meat among poultry is the white commercial broilers (WBR), with a total production of 3.8 million tons and further growing at a rate of 10–12%. However, a section of Indian meat consumers has acquired a preference for the taste of meat from native breeds over that of broiler meat. The total value of output from native backyard system of poultry rearing is 15% (Chatterjee and Rajkumar, 2015) and the market for native breeds for meat is steadily growing. A total of 16 native chicken breeds have been recognized and registered as indigenous breeds of chicken in India. Aseel (ASL) is one of the most popular breeds which is mainly confined to the states of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and Chattisgarh (Chatterjee and Rajkumar, 2015). Aseel (Peela) is a game-type native bird with long legs and neck and with brownish yellow-colored feathers. This bird is commonly used for meat purpose and commands better price compared to improved birds due to its desirable meat qualities (Haunshi et al., 2013). Extensive information on meat quality of this important breed of chicken is not available, although certain studies on carcass traits and meat quality were reported by Gupta et al. (2000), Haunshi et al. (2013), and Singh and Pathak (2017). To bridge the gap between the efficiency, taste, and price line, efforts for development of intermediaries between broiler and local native chicken have been made in several countries. These crosses can utilize the tropical adaptability, disease resistance and colorful plumage of native breeds and at the same time the feed efficiency and growth rate of broiler breeds. These intermediaries are finding their way to the market to meet the increased demand for traditional slow-growing native chicken. In this context, Indbro Research & Breeding Farms, Hyderabad, Telangana state, India has developed three variants of birds combining the native slow-growing chicken variety, modern fast-growing broiler lines and commercial layer lines. It is done to improve the efficiency in the production line, with improved chick quality and fit into the commercial production system better than native ASL. Meat quality is a complex trait that is influenced by genetic and environmental factors, and the variation in meat quality within and between animals can be large (Rehfeldt et al., 2004). Therefore, alternative poultry production systems and genotypes need to be evaluated. It is important to provide information on the new variety of birds to help producers and consumers to make informed decisions. Further, little information is known about the meat characteristics of some rare Indian native breeds and their crosses. Therefore, the main objective of the current experiment was to determine the diversity of meat quality traits among different chicken genotypes at their respective market ages. The impact of genotype, specifically, slow- and fast-growing genotypes on quantitative and qualitative meat characteristics of chickens from one unique Indian native breed, one improved native breed, one commercial broiler stock and two commercial layer and broiler crosses were studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study was carried out in ICAR-National Research Centre on Meat, Chengicherla, Hyderabad, India in collaboration with Indbro Research and Breeding farms, Hyderabad, India. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Ethical Committee. Geographical coordinates of Hyderabad are 17.3850°N and 78.4867°E in the southern part of India, with a height of 500 m above sea level and maximum temperature ranging from 20°C to 45°C. Experimental Population Slow-growing and fast-growing genotypes of birds compared in this study were: rainbow rooster Plus (RRP), a colored broiler containing 75% broiler inheritance (Red Cornish) and 25% layer (Rhode Island Red), growing at a slower pace, takes 10–15 days more than commercial broiler to get market weight (2 kg). Rainbow rooster (RR), a dual purpose multi-colored, and low technology input bird containing 50% broiler inheritance (Red Cornish) and 50% layer (Rhode Island Red). These birds are sturdy to survive the low input conditions prevailing in the backyard poultry sector. The third intermediary variety developed is Indbro Aseel (ASR), which is a cross of traditional ASL and layer-type Rhode Island Red. From each genotype, 20 birds (10 male and 10 female) of appropriate body weight (BW) were utilized for the study. All the four genotypes of birds were bred, hatched and reared in the Indbro Research and Breeding Farm, Hyderabad and supplied for studies at the appropriate age of slaughter. All birds were vaccinated against ND, IB, and Gumboro. The average slaughter weight was 2 kg in broilers, RR, and RRP. For slow-growing native birds (ASL and ASR), the average weight at slaughter was 1.3 kg. All birds were fed ad libitum with standard commercial feed. Broiler birds were fed with broiler pre-starter crumps for 7 days (21% CP and 2,900 kcal/kg ME; Table 1) followed by broiler starter crumps (20% CP and 2,950 kcal/kg ME up to 21 days) and broiler finisher mash (19.5% CP and 3,000 kcal/kg ME) afterward. RR and RRP birds were fed with layer chick mash (21% CP and 2,600 kcal/kg ME) for 45 days (till the time of slaughter). Aseel and Indbro Aseel birds were fed with layer chick mash (21% CP and 2,600 kcal/kg ME) for 90 days. All the birds were having free access to clean drinking water round the clock. The birds were wing banded; farm weight was recorded and transported in cages to ICAR-National Research Centre on Meat, Hyderabad during early cool hours of the day. Table 1. Ingredient composition (g/kg) of diets. Item  Diet for white broilers1  Diet for colored broilers2  Ingredients/g/kg diet  Pre-starter  Starter  Finisher  Single diet  Maize  632  662  662  655  Soya deoiled  5  5  5  7  Sunflower deoiled  15  20  50  20  Vegetable oil  10  10  10  15  Dicalcium phosphate  3  3  3  3  Salt  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  DL-Methionine  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  L-Lysine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.0  Threonine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Vitamin-premix  2  2  2  2  Total protein (%)  21  20  19  20  ME (kcal)  2,850  2,900  3,000  2,900  Item  Diet for white broilers1  Diet for colored broilers2  Ingredients/g/kg diet  Pre-starter  Starter  Finisher  Single diet  Maize  632  662  662  655  Soya deoiled  5  5  5  7  Sunflower deoiled  15  20  50  20  Vegetable oil  10  10  10  15  Dicalcium phosphate  3  3  3  3  Salt  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  DL-Methionine  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  L-Lysine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.0  Threonine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Vitamin-premix  2  2  2  2  Total protein (%)  21  20  19  20  ME (kcal)  2,850  2,900  3,000  2,900  1White broilers: RR and WBR. 2Colored broilers: RRP, ASL and ASR. Same diet was fed throughout the growing period. View Large Table 1. Ingredient composition (g/kg) of diets. Item  Diet for white broilers1  Diet for colored broilers2  Ingredients/g/kg diet  Pre-starter  Starter  Finisher  Single diet  Maize  632  662  662  655  Soya deoiled  5  5  5  7  Sunflower deoiled  15  20  50  20  Vegetable oil  10  10  10  15  Dicalcium phosphate  3  3  3  3  Salt  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  DL-Methionine  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  L-Lysine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.0  Threonine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Vitamin-premix  2  2  2  2  Total protein (%)  21  20  19  20  ME (kcal)  2,850  2,900  3,000  2,900  Item  Diet for white broilers1  Diet for colored broilers2  Ingredients/g/kg diet  Pre-starter  Starter  Finisher  Single diet  Maize  632  662  662  655  Soya deoiled  5  5  5  7  Sunflower deoiled  15  20  50  20  Vegetable oil  10  10  10  15  Dicalcium phosphate  3  3  3  3  Salt  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  DL-Methionine  2.5  2.0  1.5  1.5  L-Lysine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.0  Threonine  0.5  0.5  0.5  0.5  Vitamin-premix  2  2  2  2  Total protein (%)  21  20  19  20  ME (kcal)  2,850  2,900  3,000  2,900  1White broilers: RR and WBR. 2Colored broilers: RRP, ASL and ASR. Same diet was fed throughout the growing period. View Large Table 2. Carcass characteristics of various genotypes of chicken slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Slaughter weight (kg)  1.39b  1.59a  0.85d  1.16c  1.75a  0.05  0.000  Dressed weight (kg)  0.97b,c  1.06b  0.69d  0.82c,d  1.27a  0.06  0.000  Dressing %  70.20  66.41  71.11  69.06  72.56  0.92  0.187  Retail cuts3  Giblet  7.64a  7.53a,b  6.88b,c  7.17a,b  6.68c  0.18  0.012  Breast  21.72b,c  22.94b  20.98c  21.16b,c  29.15a  0.62  0.000  Thigh  15.54a  15.57a  14.04b  13.54b  13.75b  0.28  0.000  Drumstick  12.45b,c  11.94c  13.06a,b  13.82a  11.43c  0.20  0.000  Wings  15.21  18.44  12.60  12.98  12.47  0.70  0.217  Meat:bone ratio  3.82b  4.53a,b  4.00b  2.46c  5.41a  0.42  0.000  Wt. loss in transport %  5.71  5.63  5.62  4.48  6.70  0.46  0.312  Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Slaughter weight (kg)  1.39b  1.59a  0.85d  1.16c  1.75a  0.05  0.000  Dressed weight (kg)  0.97b,c  1.06b  0.69d  0.82c,d  1.27a  0.06  0.000  Dressing %  70.20  66.41  71.11  69.06  72.56  0.92  0.187  Retail cuts3  Giblet  7.64a  7.53a,b  6.88b,c  7.17a,b  6.68c  0.18  0.012  Breast  21.72b,c  22.94b  20.98c  21.16b,c  29.15a  0.62  0.000  Thigh  15.54a  15.57a  14.04b  13.54b  13.75b  0.28  0.000  Drumstick  12.45b,c  11.94c  13.06a,b  13.82a  11.43c  0.20  0.000  Wings  15.21  18.44  12.60  12.98  12.47  0.70  0.217  Meat:bone ratio  3.82b  4.53a,b  4.00b  2.46c  5.41a  0.42  0.000  Wt. loss in transport %  5.71  5.63  5.62  4.48  6.70  0.46  0.312  n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–dMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 2All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. 3Expressed as % of chilled carcass weight. View Large Table 2. Carcass characteristics of various genotypes of chicken slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Slaughter weight (kg)  1.39b  1.59a  0.85d  1.16c  1.75a  0.05  0.000  Dressed weight (kg)  0.97b,c  1.06b  0.69d  0.82c,d  1.27a  0.06  0.000  Dressing %  70.20  66.41  71.11  69.06  72.56  0.92  0.187  Retail cuts3  Giblet  7.64a  7.53a,b  6.88b,c  7.17a,b  6.68c  0.18  0.012  Breast  21.72b,c  22.94b  20.98c  21.16b,c  29.15a  0.62  0.000  Thigh  15.54a  15.57a  14.04b  13.54b  13.75b  0.28  0.000  Drumstick  12.45b,c  11.94c  13.06a,b  13.82a  11.43c  0.20  0.000  Wings  15.21  18.44  12.60  12.98  12.47  0.70  0.217  Meat:bone ratio  3.82b  4.53a,b  4.00b  2.46c  5.41a  0.42  0.000  Wt. loss in transport %  5.71  5.63  5.62  4.48  6.70  0.46  0.312  Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Slaughter weight (kg)  1.39b  1.59a  0.85d  1.16c  1.75a  0.05  0.000  Dressed weight (kg)  0.97b,c  1.06b  0.69d  0.82c,d  1.27a  0.06  0.000  Dressing %  70.20  66.41  71.11  69.06  72.56  0.92  0.187  Retail cuts3  Giblet  7.64a  7.53a,b  6.88b,c  7.17a,b  6.68c  0.18  0.012  Breast  21.72b,c  22.94b  20.98c  21.16b,c  29.15a  0.62  0.000  Thigh  15.54a  15.57a  14.04b  13.54b  13.75b  0.28  0.000  Drumstick  12.45b,c  11.94c  13.06a,b  13.82a  11.43c  0.20  0.000  Wings  15.21  18.44  12.60  12.98  12.47  0.70  0.217  Meat:bone ratio  3.82b  4.53a,b  4.00b  2.46c  5.41a  0.42  0.000  Wt. loss in transport %  5.71  5.63  5.62  4.48  6.70  0.46  0.312  n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–dMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 2All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. 3Expressed as % of chilled carcass weight. View Large Dressing of Birds and Calculation of Carcass Yield Data The birds were slaughtered on their respective age of slaughter (RR, RRP of 60 days, ASL, ASR of 90 days and commercial broilers/WBR with 37 days) in the experimental abattoir following standard scientific procedures. Birds were properly rested, then weighed and slaughtered by cutting the cervical blood vessels and bled out for 7–10 min. After scalding in water at a temperature of 56°C for 1 min, the birds were manually plucked and eviscerated and the carcasses were stored at 4°C for 24 h, and then dissected. Weights of various cut-up parts, along with live weight, dressed weight, and breast and thigh weights were recorded separately for each bird. Then, dressing percentage was calculated as the ratio between the carcass weight and live body weight after fasting. The weight percentages of breast muscle and thigh muscle and other parts were given as the percentages of cold carcass weight. Sampling for Meat Quality Evaluation After the recording of the weight of major retail cut-up parts of dressed birds, sampling for meat quality studies was carried out. Twenty breast portions (Pectoralis major and Pectoralis minor) for each genotype and parameter were used for determining cooking yield, shear force value (SFV), muscle fiber diameter, sensory studies and texture profile analysis (TPA). Twenty thigh muscles (Biceps femoris) for each genotype and parameter were used for analysis of pH, water-holding capacity (WHC), free and bound water, meat color and proximate compositions. Determination of pH, WHC, Free and Bound Water Carcass pH was measured at 1 and 24 h post-mortem (PM) for the thigh muscle using a portable pH-meter connected to a glass electrode (Eutech Instruments, Hyderabad, India) as per AOAC (1995). Five gram of thigh meat sample from each bird (20 birds per genotype) was homogenized with 45 mL distilled water until a clear homogenate was obtained. pH was recorded by dipping the glass electrode of pH meter in the homogenate. Water-holding capacity was estimated according to the method described by Wardlaw et al. (1973). Ten gram minced meat sample from each bird (20 birds per genotype) was stirred with 15 mL of 0.6 M sodium chloride in a centrifuge tube. The tube was then kept at 4 ± 1°C for 15 min, stirred again and centrifuged at 5,000 rpm (Eppendorf, Bangalore, India) for 25 min. The supernatant was measured and the difference between initial volume (15 mL) and the supernatant was expressed in percentage of meat weight to calculate WHC. For measuring free and bound (immobilized and tightly bound) water in the meat sample, a thigh muscle sample (approximately 2 g, whole intact) from each bird (20 birds per genotype) in duplicate was removed and accurately weighed. Each 2 g sample was placed with fibers vertically aligned, into a plastic centrifugation tube and centrifuged for 15 min at 5,000 rpm (Eppendorf). The water lost, termed “free water” or centrifuged free water, was the percentage difference in weight before and after centrifugation. After centrifugation, each remaining sample was dried in a 105°C oven for 24 h to determine the residual water content in the sample. The water dried off in the oven was termed “bound water” which includes immobilized and tightly bound water. The dried sample remaining was termed “dry matter”. The sum of the free water, bound water, and dry matter was 99–100% indicating that all components had been accounted for (Kristensen and Purslow, 2001). Determination of Cooking Yield For calculating cooking loss, breast muscles (150 g approx.) were removed from individual birds and placed in sealed polyethylene bags for cooking in a water bath at 80°C, for 25 min. Cooked samples were allowed to cool at room temperature and blotted dry. The cooking loss values were calculated based on the difference in weight before and after cooking. Determination of Muscle Fiber Diameter For measuring muscle fiber diameter, thigh muscle samples (approximately 1 × 2 cm size) were fixed in 10% formal saline for 48 h, sliced and then homogenized at a low speed (500 rpm) for 30 s in an ultra turrax homogenizer (IKA-T25, IKA, Bangalore India). Few drops of homogenized tissue samples were poured into a clean glass slide and a coverslip was placed and observed through a simple microscope at 100× magnification. The width of 15 randomly selected fibers per bird (a total of 20 birds per genotype) was recorded using ocular micrometer (Tuma et al., 1962). Determination of Shear Force Value Warner–Bratzler shear force of breast muscle was measured using a food texture analyzer (Tinius Olsen, Horsham, PA) attached with a Warner–Bratzler shear blade. From cooked breast muscles, 10 cores of approximately 1 × 1 × 2 cm (height × width × length) from each sample were cut parallel to the long axis of the muscle fibers. They were sheared perpendicular to the fiber with a shear blade. The crosshead speed was 5 mm/s. For each sample, the maximum shear force was recorded and the value (Newton force) reported for each sample was the average of 10 cores. Instrumental Color Analysis Muscle colorimetric parameters were evaluated by Hunter Colorimeter (Hunter and Harold, 1987). Colorimetric analysis of breast and thigh muscles was performed using a Hunter Lab Miniscan XE Plus colorimeter (Hunter Associates Laboratory Inc., Reston, VA) with a 25 mm aperture set for illumination D65, 10_ standard observer angle. Hunter L (lightness), a (redness) and b (yellowness) values were measured by touching down the spectrophotometer directly onto the muscle cross-section surfaces. Measurements were made after the newly cut surface was exposed to ambient air. Psychometric hue angle (H*) and psychometric chroma (C*) were calculated using the equations: hue angle, H* = tan −1(b/a) and chroma, C* = (a2 + b2)1/2. All color parameters were measured at 1 and 24 h PM. Determination of Proximate Compositions Moisture, fat, protein and ash were determined by following the procedures of AOAC (1995) using hot air oven, soxhlet apparatus, Kjeldahl instrument and muffle furnace, respectively. Texture Profile Analysis The TPA was conducted using a Tinius Olsen food texture analyzer (Tinius) attached to software, texture expert. Five slices from each cooked breast sample (1.5 cm height and 2.5 cm diameter) were compressed twice to 50% of their original height. The parameters determined were: hardness (N)—maximum force required to compress the sample; springiness (cm)—ability of the sample to recover to its original shape after the deforming force was removed; cohesiveness—extent to which the sample could be deformed prior to rupture (A2/A1, A1 being the maximum force required for the first compression and A2 being the maximum force required for the second compression); gumminess (N)—force to disintegrate a semi-solid meat sample for swallowing (hardness × cohesiveness); and chewiness (N cm)—work to masticate the sample for swallowing (springiness × gumminess). Sensory Evaluation A semi-trained panellist was used for evaluation of sensorial qualities of cooked breast meat from different genotypic birds. Breast meat from different birds was subjected to uniform cooking in water added with 1.5% w/w of sodium chloride. A modified 8-point hedonic scale was used for the same. Before the beginning of each session, panellists were briefed about the products and qualities to be evaluated. Panellists were asked to judge the eating qualities like color and appearance, meat flavor, tenderness and overall acceptability of the meat/meat products on the 8-point scale where 8 is extremely desirable and 1 is extremely undesirable. A minimum of 10–12 judges were present during each session and average scores of each session were calculated and analyzed for the variance. Statistical Analysis The present experiment was conducted based on a completely randomized design (Steel and Terrie, 1980). Data were subjected to ANOVA by the general linear model procedure considering genotype as effect and animal within genotype (replicate) as a random effect using SPSS version 20 (IBM, USA). Comparisons among treatment means were carried out by Tukey's method. Data given in tables are the least square mean values for the genotypes, the corresponding SEM, and the probabilities of error (P < 0.05). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Carcass Characteristics of Various Genotypes of Chicken Most genotypes were having significantly (P < 0.05) different live weight at slaughter, which clearly indicates the differences in age at slaughter and the growth rate of respective genotypes. Live weight, slaughter weight and dressed carcass weight were found to be highest for WBR and lowest for ASL at their respective age of slaughter (Table 2). Live weight was significantly different (P < 0.05) for all the other three genotypes except for WBR and RRP. Similarly, fresh carcass weight of RR and RRP, ASL and ASR were not different significantly, but WBR showed significant (P < 0.05) difference in carcass weight compared to all other genotypes. Dressing percentage was not different for different genotypic birds. Generally, indigenous bird types (ASL and ASR) had the lowest weight (live/dressed) among all genotypes of birds. Similar growth differences have also been found when comparing indigenous Thai and cross-bred chickens (Jaturasitha et al., 2002).The native chickens are extremely active and aggressive even under captivity resulting in more energy dissipation (Khalid et al., 2012). Table 3. Meat quality characteristics of different genotypes of chicken slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  pH1h PM  6.68a  6.62a  6.35b  6.37b  6.32b  0.04  0.000  pH24h PM  6.53a  6.68a,b  6.20c  6.20c  6.58a,b  0.06  0.000  WHC (%)  18.75b  16.00b,c  30.95a  39.20a  7.50c  2.80  0.000  Bound water (%)  60.45a  60.08a  39.57b  39.53b  58.14a  1.85  0.000  Free water (%)  15.59b  14.50b,c  20.42a  16.95a,b  11.27c  1.20  0.001  Cooking yield (%)  84.37  83.73  82.82  83.72  83.45  1.25  0.909  Muscle fiber diameter (μ)  52.68c  57.50±b  60.47±b  59.14b  64.16±a  1.40  0.001  Shear force (N/cm)  9.26b,c  9.07b,c  11.16a,b  11.73a  7.16c  0.56  0.002  Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  pH1h PM  6.68a  6.62a  6.35b  6.37b  6.32b  0.04  0.000  pH24h PM  6.53a  6.68a,b  6.20c  6.20c  6.58a,b  0.06  0.000  WHC (%)  18.75b  16.00b,c  30.95a  39.20a  7.50c  2.80  0.000  Bound water (%)  60.45a  60.08a  39.57b  39.53b  58.14a  1.85  0.000  Free water (%)  15.59b  14.50b,c  20.42a  16.95a,b  11.27c  1.20  0.001  Cooking yield (%)  84.37  83.73  82.82  83.72  83.45  1.25  0.909  Muscle fiber diameter (μ)  52.68c  57.50±b  60.47±b  59.14b  64.16±a  1.40  0.001  Shear force (N/cm)  9.26b,c  9.07b,c  11.16a,b  11.73a  7.16c  0.56  0.002  PM, post-mortem; WHC, water-holding capacity. n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–cMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 2All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. View Large Table 3. Meat quality characteristics of different genotypes of chicken slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  pH1h PM  6.68a  6.62a  6.35b  6.37b  6.32b  0.04  0.000  pH24h PM  6.53a  6.68a,b  6.20c  6.20c  6.58a,b  0.06  0.000  WHC (%)  18.75b  16.00b,c  30.95a  39.20a  7.50c  2.80  0.000  Bound water (%)  60.45a  60.08a  39.57b  39.53b  58.14a  1.85  0.000  Free water (%)  15.59b  14.50b,c  20.42a  16.95a,b  11.27c  1.20  0.001  Cooking yield (%)  84.37  83.73  82.82  83.72  83.45  1.25  0.909  Muscle fiber diameter (μ)  52.68c  57.50±b  60.47±b  59.14b  64.16±a  1.40  0.001  Shear force (N/cm)  9.26b,c  9.07b,c  11.16a,b  11.73a  7.16c  0.56  0.002  Genotypes1/Parameters2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  pH1h PM  6.68a  6.62a  6.35b  6.37b  6.32b  0.04  0.000  pH24h PM  6.53a  6.68a,b  6.20c  6.20c  6.58a,b  0.06  0.000  WHC (%)  18.75b  16.00b,c  30.95a  39.20a  7.50c  2.80  0.000  Bound water (%)  60.45a  60.08a  39.57b  39.53b  58.14a  1.85  0.000  Free water (%)  15.59b  14.50b,c  20.42a  16.95a,b  11.27c  1.20  0.001  Cooking yield (%)  84.37  83.73  82.82  83.72  83.45  1.25  0.909  Muscle fiber diameter (μ)  52.68c  57.50±b  60.47±b  59.14b  64.16±a  1.40  0.001  Shear force (N/cm)  9.26b,c  9.07b,c  11.16a,b  11.73a  7.16c  0.56  0.002  PM, post-mortem; WHC, water-holding capacity. n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–cMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 2All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. View Large Table 4. Instrumental color scores of breast and thigh muscles: fresh, chilled1 and cooked2. Genotype3/Parameter4    RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Breast  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  55.41a,b  52.28a  53.92±a,b  55.62±a  49.22c  0.72  0.000    2. Chilled  54.11a  52.16a  51.77a  53.52a  42.91b  0.75  0.000    3. Cooked  71.85a  71.56a  72.42a  72.22a  68.11b  0.60  0.046  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  1.451b  1.55b  2.30a  1.10b  0.26c  0.12  0.000    2. Chilled  3.32a,b  3.63a  3.45a  2.38b  3.95±a  0.30  0.001    3. Cooked  3.32c  6.32a  5.91a,b  5.32b  5.48a,b  0.12  0.000  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  5.73b  4.63b  7.66a  5.58b  0.84c  0.26  0.000    2. Chilled  8.58a  7.91a,b  8.68a  6.55b,c  5.45c  0.46  0.000    3. Cooked  8.58c  16.89b  18.67a  17.26a,b  17.39a,b  0.28  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  76.44a  76.46a  73.72a  78.06a  68.95b  0.78  0.007    2. Chilled  69.23a  66.34a  68.56a  68.86a  49.32b  1.62  0.000    3. Cooked  69.23a,b  69.66b  72.50b  72.64b  72.48a  0.42  0.000  Chroma  1. Fresh  5.95b  4.99b  8.02a  6.45a,b  0.91c  0.30  0.000    2. Chilled  9.25a  8.75a,b  9.43a  7.02b,c  6.81c  0.52  0.000    3. Cooked  9.25a  18.09a,b  19.61a  18.11b,c  18.24c  0.32  0.000  Thigh  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  48.98  49.88  49.68  49.46  49.04  0.78  0.914    2. Chilled  44.14  43.75  46.91  46.05  44.38  0.72  0.11  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  4.73b  4.55b  7.47a  4.46b  4.02b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  7.05a,b  6.96b  8.61a  6.36b  7.13a,b  0.35  0.001  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  4.28c  3.56c  7.61a  5.74b  6.12b  0.38  0.000    2. Chilled  7.73a,b  6.69b  8.01a,b  6.54b  10.56a  0.33  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  38.86b,c  36.32c  44.87b  46.84b  56.57a  1.85  0.11    2. Chilled  48.61a,b  43.63b  43.44b  44.06b  56.39a  1.41  0.005  Chroma  1. Fresh  6.57b  6.07b  10.85a  7.37a,b  7.39a,b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  10.57a,b  9.83a,b  12.63a  9.21b  12.78a  0.53  0.000  Genotype3/Parameter4    RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Breast  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  55.41a,b  52.28a  53.92±a,b  55.62±a  49.22c  0.72  0.000    2. Chilled  54.11a  52.16a  51.77a  53.52a  42.91b  0.75  0.000    3. Cooked  71.85a  71.56a  72.42a  72.22a  68.11b  0.60  0.046  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  1.451b  1.55b  2.30a  1.10b  0.26c  0.12  0.000    2. Chilled  3.32a,b  3.63a  3.45a  2.38b  3.95±a  0.30  0.001    3. Cooked  3.32c  6.32a  5.91a,b  5.32b  5.48a,b  0.12  0.000  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  5.73b  4.63b  7.66a  5.58b  0.84c  0.26  0.000    2. Chilled  8.58a  7.91a,b  8.68a  6.55b,c  5.45c  0.46  0.000    3. Cooked  8.58c  16.89b  18.67a  17.26a,b  17.39a,b  0.28  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  76.44a  76.46a  73.72a  78.06a  68.95b  0.78  0.007    2. Chilled  69.23a  66.34a  68.56a  68.86a  49.32b  1.62  0.000    3. Cooked  69.23a,b  69.66b  72.50b  72.64b  72.48a  0.42  0.000  Chroma  1. Fresh  5.95b  4.99b  8.02a  6.45a,b  0.91c  0.30  0.000    2. Chilled  9.25a  8.75a,b  9.43a  7.02b,c  6.81c  0.52  0.000    3. Cooked  9.25a  18.09a,b  19.61a  18.11b,c  18.24c  0.32  0.000  Thigh  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  48.98  49.88  49.68  49.46  49.04  0.78  0.914    2. Chilled  44.14  43.75  46.91  46.05  44.38  0.72  0.11  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  4.73b  4.55b  7.47a  4.46b  4.02b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  7.05a,b  6.96b  8.61a  6.36b  7.13a,b  0.35  0.001  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  4.28c  3.56c  7.61a  5.74b  6.12b  0.38  0.000    2. Chilled  7.73a,b  6.69b  8.01a,b  6.54b  10.56a  0.33  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  38.86b,c  36.32c  44.87b  46.84b  56.57a  1.85  0.11    2. Chilled  48.61a,b  43.63b  43.44b  44.06b  56.39a  1.41  0.005  Chroma  1. Fresh  6.57b  6.07b  10.85a  7.37a,b  7.39a,b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  10.57a,b  9.83a,b  12.63a  9.21b  12.78a  0.53  0.000  CIE-L* = lightness, CIE-a* = redness, and CIE-b* = yellowness. n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–cMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1Chilled at 4 ± 1°C for 24 h. 2Cooked to a core temperature of 82°C for 20 min. 3RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 4All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. View Large Table 4. Instrumental color scores of breast and thigh muscles: fresh, chilled1 and cooked2. Genotype3/Parameter4    RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Breast  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  55.41a,b  52.28a  53.92±a,b  55.62±a  49.22c  0.72  0.000    2. Chilled  54.11a  52.16a  51.77a  53.52a  42.91b  0.75  0.000    3. Cooked  71.85a  71.56a  72.42a  72.22a  68.11b  0.60  0.046  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  1.451b  1.55b  2.30a  1.10b  0.26c  0.12  0.000    2. Chilled  3.32a,b  3.63a  3.45a  2.38b  3.95±a  0.30  0.001    3. Cooked  3.32c  6.32a  5.91a,b  5.32b  5.48a,b  0.12  0.000  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  5.73b  4.63b  7.66a  5.58b  0.84c  0.26  0.000    2. Chilled  8.58a  7.91a,b  8.68a  6.55b,c  5.45c  0.46  0.000    3. Cooked  8.58c  16.89b  18.67a  17.26a,b  17.39a,b  0.28  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  76.44a  76.46a  73.72a  78.06a  68.95b  0.78  0.007    2. Chilled  69.23a  66.34a  68.56a  68.86a  49.32b  1.62  0.000    3. Cooked  69.23a,b  69.66b  72.50b  72.64b  72.48a  0.42  0.000  Chroma  1. Fresh  5.95b  4.99b  8.02a  6.45a,b  0.91c  0.30  0.000    2. Chilled  9.25a  8.75a,b  9.43a  7.02b,c  6.81c  0.52  0.000    3. Cooked  9.25a  18.09a,b  19.61a  18.11b,c  18.24c  0.32  0.000  Thigh  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  48.98  49.88  49.68  49.46  49.04  0.78  0.914    2. Chilled  44.14  43.75  46.91  46.05  44.38  0.72  0.11  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  4.73b  4.55b  7.47a  4.46b  4.02b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  7.05a,b  6.96b  8.61a  6.36b  7.13a,b  0.35  0.001  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  4.28c  3.56c  7.61a  5.74b  6.12b  0.38  0.000    2. Chilled  7.73a,b  6.69b  8.01a,b  6.54b  10.56a  0.33  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  38.86b,c  36.32c  44.87b  46.84b  56.57a  1.85  0.11    2. Chilled  48.61a,b  43.63b  43.44b  44.06b  56.39a  1.41  0.005  Chroma  1. Fresh  6.57b  6.07b  10.85a  7.37a,b  7.39a,b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  10.57a,b  9.83a,b  12.63a  9.21b  12.78a  0.53  0.000  Genotype3/Parameter4    RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Breast  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  55.41a,b  52.28a  53.92±a,b  55.62±a  49.22c  0.72  0.000    2. Chilled  54.11a  52.16a  51.77a  53.52a  42.91b  0.75  0.000    3. Cooked  71.85a  71.56a  72.42a  72.22a  68.11b  0.60  0.046  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  1.451b  1.55b  2.30a  1.10b  0.26c  0.12  0.000    2. Chilled  3.32a,b  3.63a  3.45a  2.38b  3.95±a  0.30  0.001    3. Cooked  3.32c  6.32a  5.91a,b  5.32b  5.48a,b  0.12  0.000  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  5.73b  4.63b  7.66a  5.58b  0.84c  0.26  0.000    2. Chilled  8.58a  7.91a,b  8.68a  6.55b,c  5.45c  0.46  0.000    3. Cooked  8.58c  16.89b  18.67a  17.26a,b  17.39a,b  0.28  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  76.44a  76.46a  73.72a  78.06a  68.95b  0.78  0.007    2. Chilled  69.23a  66.34a  68.56a  68.86a  49.32b  1.62  0.000    3. Cooked  69.23a,b  69.66b  72.50b  72.64b  72.48a  0.42  0.000  Chroma  1. Fresh  5.95b  4.99b  8.02a  6.45a,b  0.91c  0.30  0.000    2. Chilled  9.25a  8.75a,b  9.43a  7.02b,c  6.81c  0.52  0.000    3. Cooked  9.25a  18.09a,b  19.61a  18.11b,c  18.24c  0.32  0.000  Thigh  CIE-L*  1. Fresh  48.98  49.88  49.68  49.46  49.04  0.78  0.914    2. Chilled  44.14  43.75  46.91  46.05  44.38  0.72  0.11  CIE-a*  1. Fresh  4.73b  4.55b  7.47a  4.46b  4.02b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  7.05a,b  6.96b  8.61a  6.36b  7.13a,b  0.35  0.001  CIE-b*  1. Fresh  4.28c  3.56c  7.61a  5.74b  6.12b  0.38  0.000    2. Chilled  7.73a,b  6.69b  8.01a,b  6.54b  10.56a  0.33  0.000  Hue  1. Fresh  38.86b,c  36.32c  44.87b  46.84b  56.57a  1.85  0.11    2. Chilled  48.61a,b  43.63b  43.44b  44.06b  56.39a  1.41  0.005  Chroma  1. Fresh  6.57b  6.07b  10.85a  7.37a,b  7.39a,b  0.42  0.000    2. Chilled  10.57a,b  9.83a,b  12.63a  9.21b  12.78a  0.53  0.000  CIE-L* = lightness, CIE-a* = redness, and CIE-b* = yellowness. n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–cMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1Chilled at 4 ± 1°C for 24 h. 2Cooked to a core temperature of 82°C for 20 min. 3RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 4All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. View Large All birds were transported in the early hours of the day for a maximum duration of 2 h. The maximum weight loss during transportation (6.70% of BW) was observed in WBR and minimum (4.48% of BW) in ASR. In general, indigenous birds/slow-growing types were more tolerant than fast-growing type to transportation stress as indicated by the loss of weight during transportation in the experiment. The yield of giblets (as % of chilled carcass weight) was found to be maximum in RR and minimum in WBR, whereas the maximum percentage of breast meat was observed in WBR and minimum in ASL. All these variations reported were significant (P < 0.05). A significant (P < 0.05) high yield of thigh meat was observed for RR and RRP, drumstick for ASR and wings for RRP. Overall, yields of different cut-up parts for different genotypic birds were significantly different (P < 0.05). Meat:bone ratio of the thigh was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in WBR followed by RRP, ASL, RR, and ASR. Jaturasitha et al. (2008) reported that bone proportion was high and lean: bone ratio was low in imported layer chickens like Rhode Bresse chickens against local chickens. According to Olawumi (2013), there is a positive correlation between breast weight and thigh weight with the live weight of birds. Fanatico et al. (2007) studied the meat quality of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes and observed that the fast genotype exhibited superior breast yield. Similarly, Tang et al. (2009) observed significant effects of genotypes of birds on BW, carcass weight and carcass composition. The slow-growing genetic groups had higher leg yields than the other two fast-growing groups. The higher live weight and breast percentage could be due to the larger size of muscle fibers because postnatal growth is achieved by muscle fiber hypertrophy (Larzul et al., 1997; Chen et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2013). The differences in chicken breeds associated with muscle fiber characteristics could be due to the selection (Dransfield and Sosnicki, 1999). pH, WHC, Bound and Free Water and Cooking Yields of Meat From Various Genotypes of Chickens Post-mortem pH decline is one of the most important events in the conversion of muscle to meat due to its impact on meat texture, color, and WHC (Aberle et al., 2001). Initial meat pH (1 h of PM) of RR and RRP were significantly (P < 0.05) different from that of ASL, ASR, and WBR. But after 24 h of PM, the differences in meat pH between RR, RRP and WBR were not significant but pH varied significantly (P < 0.05) from Aseel genotypes (Table 3). pH1h was highest in RR, followed by Aseel genotypes and lowest for WBR, whereas lowest significant ultimate pH (24 h of PM) was recorded for meat from Aseel genotypes (Table 3). Similarly, Fanatico et al. (2007) also reported lower ultimate meat pH for slow-growing genotypes compared to the fast-growing counterpart. These results are also in agreement with Wattanachant et al. (2004), Berri et al. (2005), and Santos et al. (2005).The rate of pH decline is dependent on the activity of glycolytic enzymes just after death and the ultimate pH is determined by the initial glycogen reserves of the muscle (Bendall, 1973). In broiler-type genotypes, selection for fast growth and high yield has reduced the rate and extent of pH decline (Berri et al., 2001, 2005), possibly due to a decrease in the glycolytic potential, which is essentially a measure of glycogen content (Monin and Sellier, 1985; Baeza et al., 2002). Similarly, a lower concentration of glycogen in the pectoralis muscle of fast-growing genotypes of turkey compared to slow-growing ones was reported by Fernandez et al. (2001). Debut et al. (2005) and Rajkumar et al. (2016) also reported that active birds such as slow-growing birds with less body weight are more prone to shackling stress, which leads to rapid breast muscle acidification whereas the fast-growing heavy birds do not struggle much, and their pH decline is slower. They also reported that breast muscles are more sensitive to wing flapping on the shackling line than thigh muscle. WHC is important both in whole meat and further processed meat products and can be measured by different methods. Poor WHC affects functionality, as well as sensory characteristics of meat. WHC was significantly (P < 0.05) higher for Aseel genotypes, lowest for WBR, and RR and RRP showed intermediate WHC (Table 3). Similarly, lowest WHC for broiler-type birds, intermediate WHC for layers and layer crosses and highest WHC for native birds were reported by Tang et al. (2009). Bound water was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in RR, RRP and WBR compared to ASL and ASR, whereas free water was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in both ASL and ASR. The cooking yield was not significantly different in different genotypes of birds. However, earlier studies reported that the fillets from slow-growing birds, because of smaller size and larger surface area ratio, had higher drip loss than the fast-growing birds (Fanatico et al., 2005). Janisch et al. (2011) reported that the breast muscles of older broilers had better WHC accompanied with reduced drip loss values. Baeza et al. (2002) found a decrease in drip loss with increasing age at slaughter and which is partly explained by the decrease in muscle water content of duck breast. Meat from the fast-growing birds also lost more water than the slow-growing genotypes during cooking and led to reduced cooking yield, which may be related to higher fat in the meat of fast-growing birds (Lonergan et al., 2003; Chartrin et al., 2006). Shear Force Value and Muscle Fiber Diameter of Breast Muscles of Various Genotypes of Chicken Texture, particularly tenderness, measured as SFV, is a crucial consumer attribute in determining palatability and quality of meat and products. SFV of breast meat was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in ASR and ASL, followed by RR and RRP, and lowest SFV were observed in WBR (Table 3). It is evident from the present results that, birds carrying Aseel germplasm have a higher SFV than broiler birds. Similarly, rainbow rooster birds (both RR and RRP) have significantly (P < 0.05) higher SFV than WBR. It is expected that the slow-growing genotypes would be less tender compared to fast-growing genotypes because the slow-growing birds were physiologically older at the time of slaughter. Generally, older birds are more physiologically mature at the time of harvest and have more crosslinking of collagen (Fletcher, 2002). In addition, the fast-growing birds have more intramuscular fat in breast meat, which is usually associated with higher tenderness of meat from those genotypes (Le Bihan-Duval, 2003). Other studies have also found that the meats of slow-growing or older genotypes are less tender compared with fast-growing genotypes (Castellini et al., 2002; Wattanachant et al., 2004; Fanatico et al., 2005). It has been reported that meat of ASL birds had higher SFV and hydroxyproline content in comparison to broiler chicken (Rajkumar et al., 2016). Even though all treatments were deboned at 24 h PM, it is possible that fast and slow genotypes may have different rates of rigor due to their different body weight. The differences in tenderness can also be related to endogenous proteolytic activity during aging. Further, collagen crosslinking increases with age and is more often associated with the increased toughness of meat (Shrimpton and Miller, 1960; Fletcher, 2002). Tang et al. (2009) reported that the older slow-growing birds of 110 days age had higher SFV than the fast-growing birds of 49 and 56 days of age, which could be explained by the differences in collagen cross-linking. Further, increase in the amount of connective tissue with age might have contributed to the higher SFV in slow-growing indigenous birds and other genotype birds studied in this experiment. Purslow (2005) reported that the thermal and mechanical stability of the connective tissue and toughness of the meat will be more in older animals. In contrast to SFV, muscle fiber diameter of thigh muscles was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in WBR followed by ASL > ASR > RRP > RR (Table 3). But, muscle fiber diameter did not vary significantly among ASL, ASR and RRP. Rainbow rooster had the lowest muscle fiber diameter among all genotypes of birds studied. It has been reported that characteristics of the growth and time course for full growth of each muscle in the chicken are unique (Chen et al., 2007). Postnatal growth of skeletal muscle is accompanied by the increased size of individual myofibers, both diameter and elongation (Smith, 1963; Chen et al., 2007). It was shown that muscle fibers from fast-growing lines of chickens have larger fiber diameters than slow-growing lines (Essen-Gustavasson, 1993; Mahon, 1999). The fast-growing broilers grew faster and had more mass of leg and breast muscles than slow-growing crosses suggesting that they may possess more large-diameter fibers than the latter (Tang et al., 2009). Instrumental Color Scores of Breast and Thigh Muscles of Various Genotypes of Chicken Meat color was measured for fresh meat (1 h of slaughter), chilled meat (4 ± 1°C for 24 h) and cooked meat (cooked in water to a core temperature of 82°C) and described by L*, a*, and b* values, along with hue and chroma (Table 4). Color values of the breast meat were found to be significantly (P < 0.05) different among various genotypes of birds. In all the three conditions studied, genotype had the most significant (P < 0.05) effect on all color attributes of breast meat (Table 3). The L* value of fresh breast meat from both ASL and ASR showed significant (P < 0.05) differences compared to WBR, but L* value of fresh breast meat of Aseel genotypes (ASL and ASR) and Rainbow Rooster genotypes (RR and RRP) did not vary significantly. In the chilled and cooked breast, differences for lightness were significant (P < 0.05) only between WBR and other groups. Lowest significant (P < 0.05) a* (redness) value for fresh breast muscle was observed in WBR and highest significant (P < 0.05) a* value in ASL. Similarly, Rajkumar et al. (2016) reported a significantly higher redness for Aseel meat compared to commercial broilers of Cobb 400 strain. In contrary, differences in a* value of fresh breast meat between RR, RRP and ASR were found to be not significant. In chilled breast meat, ASR showed the significant (P < 0.05) lowest a* value and other birds were not significantly different in terms of redness. But after cooking, breast meat from RRP and RR showed highest and lowest significant (P < 0.05) values for redness, respectively. Other three groups of birds did not show a significant difference for the redness in the cooked breast meat. Yellowness (b*) of fresh and chilled breast meat from WBR were significantly (P < 0.05) lower compared to other genotypic birds. However, in the cooked breast, b* value was (P < 0.05) lower in RR and other type of birds did not differ significantly. The hue of the fresh and chilled breast was significantly (P < 0.05) lower in WBR and higher in ASL. However, hue values of cooked breast did not differ significantly among different genotypes of birds. Chroma or color intensity of fresh and chilled breast meat was significantly (P < 0.05) lower in WBR and highest in ASL, whereas other three genotypes did not show any significant difference. In cooked meat, chroma values were significantly (P < 0.05) higher in ASL and lower in RR as compared to other three groups. Similar results for breast meat color were reported by Jaturasita et al. (2008). In their study, breast meat from Bresse chicken (a breed introduced from France to Thailand), showed significantly higher a* value compared to Rhode Island Red (a layer-type breed), which showed paler (higher L*) and more yellow (high b*) meat. High a* value of fresh ASL breast is comparable to Bresse and both the breeds described for intensively red-colored meat. In fresh and chilled thigh, L* value does not vary significantly among various genotypes of birds (Table 3). Fresh and chilled thigh from ASL showed highest significant (P < 0.05) redness (a*) values compared to other genotypes. Highest yellowness (b*) for fresh thigh and chilled thigh was reported in ASL and WBR, respectively. Fresh and chilled thigh from WBR showed highest hue values, whereas fresh thigh from ASL and chilled thigh from both ASL and WBR showed highest chroma values in the present study. The fresh meat acceptability by consumers is directly related to an appealing meat color and which in turn depends on myoglobin content, chemical state of heme structure and meat pH (Fletcher, 2002). The higher redness of ASL meat is due to high myoglobin content and broilers contain less myoglobin and, consequently, meat becomes less red (Rajkumar et al., 2016). Generally, broiler breast muscles with lower a* values have lower total pigment, myoglobin, and iron concentrations (Boulianne and King 1995; Clark et al., 1997; Berri et al., 2001). The differences in meat color might be due to the strong influence of genotypes of birds as reported by Rajkumar et al. (2016) and Jaturasitha et al. (2008). They also reported that higher myoglobin concentration in ASL is due to higher exercise and age. Similarly, Jaturasitha et al. (2004) and Chaosap and Tuntivisoottikul (2006) reported darker and redder meat in Thai native breeds compared to broilers. Chemical Compositions of Thigh Meat From Various Genotypes of Chicken Chemical compositions of thigh meat from different genotypes of birds are presented in Table 5. ASR and WBR have a significantly (P < 0.05) lower moisture and higher dry matter percentage as compared to RR, RRP, and ASL birds. The higher % of DM in thigh meat as observed by Haunshi et al. (2013) compared to the present study might be due to the higher age of slaughter and physiological maturity of birds in their experiment. Moisture % was highest in ASL birds followed by RR. Protein content was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in ASR followed by WBR and RR birds and lowest in ASL. There was no significant variation in protein content between RR/RRP and WBR and ASL genotypes. WBR and RRP showed the highest significant (P < 0.05) amount of fat (>8%) and ASL showed the lowest significant (P < 0.05) amount of fat (3.18%). Total ash content was significantly (P < 0.05) different among RRP, ASR, and WBR only. Nowsad et al. (2000) reported higher moisture and less protein in the meat of spent hens compared with that of broilers, whereas Shaarani et al. (2006) found moisture contents of broiler meat being as high as 76%. Similar to the present study, Jaturasitha et al. (2008) found a lower fat content in thigh meat of indigenous strains of birds and higher fat in Bresse and Rhode chickens, respectively. Liu and Niu (2008) also reported higher fat % in a broiler-type bird (Arbor Acres) compared to native quality chicken (White Lueyang). Table 5. Chemical compositions of thigh muscle, texture profile and sensory analysis of cooked meat from various genotypes of chicken slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Genotype1/Parameter2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Chemical composition  Moisture %  73.37b  74.34b  78.66a  66.70c  67.52c  1.40  0.000  Dry matter %  26.62b  28.65b  21.33c  33.29a  32.47a  1.24  0.000  Protein %  17.50b,c  18.31b,c  16.61c  25.69a  19.60b  0.86  0.012  Fat %  6.51a,b  8.44a  3.18c  4.87b  8.32a  0.32  0.000  Texture profile  Hardness (N)  14.15c  19.80b  20.21b  19.34b  25.68a  1.48  0.000  Chewiness (N cm)  10.86c  17.54b  27.72a,b  26.42a,b  30.99a  4.52  0.000  Gumminess (N)  10.15c  16.51b  19.42a,b  18.17a,b  24.60a  2.65  0.006  Cohesiveness  0.78  0.79  0.89  0.86  0.93  0.08  0.788  Springiness (cm)  1.04  0.96  1.01  1.01  1.10  0.03  0.678  Sensory evaluation scores  Color/appearance  7.04a,b  7.27a  6.85b  6.95b  6.87b  0.11  0.101  Flavor  6.89a,b  7.13a  6.86a,b  7.00±a,b  6.64±b  0.05  0.018  Tenderness  6.97a,b  7.19a  6.68b  6.77±b  6.77±b  0.12  0.035  Juiciness  6.97a,b  7.21a  6.65b  6.81b  6.72b  0.11  0.005  Genotype1/Parameter2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Chemical composition  Moisture %  73.37b  74.34b  78.66a  66.70c  67.52c  1.40  0.000  Dry matter %  26.62b  28.65b  21.33c  33.29a  32.47a  1.24  0.000  Protein %  17.50b,c  18.31b,c  16.61c  25.69a  19.60b  0.86  0.012  Fat %  6.51a,b  8.44a  3.18c  4.87b  8.32a  0.32  0.000  Texture profile  Hardness (N)  14.15c  19.80b  20.21b  19.34b  25.68a  1.48  0.000  Chewiness (N cm)  10.86c  17.54b  27.72a,b  26.42a,b  30.99a  4.52  0.000  Gumminess (N)  10.15c  16.51b  19.42a,b  18.17a,b  24.60a  2.65  0.006  Cohesiveness  0.78  0.79  0.89  0.86  0.93  0.08  0.788  Springiness (cm)  1.04  0.96  1.01  1.01  1.10  0.03  0.678  Sensory evaluation scores  Color/appearance  7.04a,b  7.27a  6.85b  6.95b  6.87b  0.11  0.101  Flavor  6.89a,b  7.13a  6.86a,b  7.00±a,b  6.64±b  0.05  0.018  Tenderness  6.97a,b  7.19a  6.68b  6.77±b  6.77±b  0.12  0.035  Juiciness  6.97a,b  7.21a  6.65b  6.81b  6.72b  0.11  0.005  n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–cMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 2All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. View Large Table 5. Chemical compositions of thigh muscle, texture profile and sensory analysis of cooked meat from various genotypes of chicken slaughtered at their respective age of maturity. Genotype1/Parameter2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Chemical composition  Moisture %  73.37b  74.34b  78.66a  66.70c  67.52c  1.40  0.000  Dry matter %  26.62b  28.65b  21.33c  33.29a  32.47a  1.24  0.000  Protein %  17.50b,c  18.31b,c  16.61c  25.69a  19.60b  0.86  0.012  Fat %  6.51a,b  8.44a  3.18c  4.87b  8.32a  0.32  0.000  Texture profile  Hardness (N)  14.15c  19.80b  20.21b  19.34b  25.68a  1.48  0.000  Chewiness (N cm)  10.86c  17.54b  27.72a,b  26.42a,b  30.99a  4.52  0.000  Gumminess (N)  10.15c  16.51b  19.42a,b  18.17a,b  24.60a  2.65  0.006  Cohesiveness  0.78  0.79  0.89  0.86  0.93  0.08  0.788  Springiness (cm)  1.04  0.96  1.01  1.01  1.10  0.03  0.678  Sensory evaluation scores  Color/appearance  7.04a,b  7.27a  6.85b  6.95b  6.87b  0.11  0.101  Flavor  6.89a,b  7.13a  6.86a,b  7.00±a,b  6.64±b  0.05  0.018  Tenderness  6.97a,b  7.19a  6.68b  6.77±b  6.77±b  0.12  0.035  Juiciness  6.97a,b  7.21a  6.65b  6.81b  6.72b  0.11  0.005  Genotype1/Parameter2  RR  RRP  ASL  ASR  WBR  SEM  P-value  Chemical composition  Moisture %  73.37b  74.34b  78.66a  66.70c  67.52c  1.40  0.000  Dry matter %  26.62b  28.65b  21.33c  33.29a  32.47a  1.24  0.000  Protein %  17.50b,c  18.31b,c  16.61c  25.69a  19.60b  0.86  0.012  Fat %  6.51a,b  8.44a  3.18c  4.87b  8.32a  0.32  0.000  Texture profile  Hardness (N)  14.15c  19.80b  20.21b  19.34b  25.68a  1.48  0.000  Chewiness (N cm)  10.86c  17.54b  27.72a,b  26.42a,b  30.99a  4.52  0.000  Gumminess (N)  10.15c  16.51b  19.42a,b  18.17a,b  24.60a  2.65  0.006  Cohesiveness  0.78  0.79  0.89  0.86  0.93  0.08  0.788  Springiness (cm)  1.04  0.96  1.01  1.01  1.10  0.03  0.678  Sensory evaluation scores  Color/appearance  7.04a,b  7.27a  6.85b  6.95b  6.87b  0.11  0.101  Flavor  6.89a,b  7.13a  6.86a,b  7.00±a,b  6.64±b  0.05  0.018  Tenderness  6.97a,b  7.19a  6.68b  6.77±b  6.77±b  0.12  0.035  Juiciness  6.97a,b  7.21a  6.65b  6.81b  6.72b  0.11  0.005  n = 20 (10 males and 10 females) for all genotypes except for WBR, where n = 6. a–cMeans with different superscript vary significantly (P < 0.05) within the row. 1RR, dual purpose; RRP, colored broiler; ASL, Asseel; ASR, Indbro/Improved Asseel; and WBR, white commercial broiler. 2All parameters measured at slaughtering age of 60 days for RR and RRP, 90 days for ASL and ASR and 38 days for WBR. View Large Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) and Sensory Evaluation of Cooked Meat From Various Genotypes of Chicken TPA of breast meat indicated significant (P < 0.05) differences in hardness, chewiness, and gumminess among various genotypes. Highest significant (P < 0.05) hardness values were reported for WBR and lowest for RR. A similar pattern of variation was observed for chewiness and gumminess of cooked meat among different genotypes of birds. However, chewiness and gumminess did not vary significantly between ASL and ASR. Further, cohesiveness and springiness did not differ significantly between genotypes (Table 5). A significant higher hardness and chewiness in broiler breast is attributed to the maximum functional size of breast attained due to intensive breeding and feeding. It is further reported in fast-growing commercial broiler, the occurrence of woody breast and white stripping. These conditions cause chicken breast meat to be hard to the touch and often pale in color with poor quality texture. (Chatterjee et al., 2016). Sensory evaluation of cooked breast meat from various genotypes was carried out by an experienced semi-trained panellist. Color/appearance scores were significantly (P < 0.05) higher for RR and RRP, but color scores did not vary significantly between ASL, ASR, and WBR (Table 5). All the four slow-growing genotypes (RR, RRP, ASL, and ASR) showed superior flavor scores than fast-growing commercial broiler (WBR). It is a key observation that most consumers prefer the flavor of slow-growing genotypes of indigenous birds compared to WBR. RR and RRP had a significantly (P < 0.05) higher tenderness and juiciness scores as compared to other genotypes of birds. Overall acceptability scores were also significantly (P < 0.05) higher in RR and RRP. In general, sensory panelist highly liked the breast meat from slow-growing birds as compared to fast-growing commercial broilers. An appreciably higher sensory score for Aseel meat compared to broiler meat was reported by Rajkumar et al. (2016). It is reported that usually, native chicken has a unique taste, firm texture and rich flavor which is cherished by most of the consumers in comparison with broiler meat (Wattanachant et al., 2004; Jayasena et al., 2013). Higher concentrations of principal flavor precursor, inosine monophosphate, in the meat of Chinese native breeds (Wenchang and Xianju) compared to commercial broiler line (Avian, AV) were reported by Tang et al. (2009). CONCLUSIONS From the present study, different characteristic features of native and improved crosses of broiler and layer genotypes and commercial broilers were identified. Genotypic differences for both qualitative and quantitative traits of meat were found as significant. Local/native genotypes and slow-growing genotypic crosses were more acceptable to the consumers from meat color, flavor and texture point of view. Commercial broilers were desirable from meat yield and other quantitative qualities. Improved genotypes were having the intensive red meat color, and firm texture meeting the preference of consumers. Low-fat content and firm texture of Aseel genotypes are the most striking qualities from consumer acceptability point of view. Thus, local genotypes and improved variety of genotypes have the potential to provide a successful product for a niche market serving consumers who prefer low-fat, slightly firm and dark-colored chicken meat. REFERENCES Aberle E. D. Forrest J. C. Gerrard D. E. Mills E. W.. 2001. Principles of Meat Science . 4th ed. Kendall/Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, IA. AOAC. 1995. Official Method of Analysis . Association of Analytical Communities, Arlington, VA. Baeza E. Dessay C. Wacrenier N. Marche G. Listrat A.. 2002. Effect of selection for improved body weight and composition on muscle and meat characteristics in Muscovy duck. Br. Poult. Sci.  43: 560– 568. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Bendall J. R. 1973. Post-mortem changes in muscle. Page 243 in Structure and Function of Muscle . Bourne G. H., ed. Acad. Press, New York, NY. Berri C. Debut M. Santé-Lhoutellier V. Arnould C. Boutten B. Sellier N. Baéza E. Jehl N. Jego Y. Duclos M. J. Le Bihan-Duval E.. 2005. Variations in chicken breast meat quality: implications of struggle and muscle glycogen content at death. Br. Poult. Sci.  46: 572– 579. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Berri C. Wacrenier N. Millet N. Le Bihan-Duval E.. 2001. Effect of selection for improved body composition on muscle and meat characteristics of broilers from experimental and commercial lines. Poult. Sci.  80: 833– 838. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Boulianne M. King A. J.. 1995. Biochemical and color characteristics of skinless boneless pale chicken breast. Poult. Sci.  74: 1693– 1698. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Castellini C. Mugnai C. Dal Bosco A.. 2002. Effect of organic production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Ital. J. Food Sci.  14: 401– 412. Chaosap C. Tuntivisoottikul K.. 2006. The study of meat quality of Burmese native, broiler and Thai native chicken. Proc. 44th Kasetsart Univ. Annu. Conf. Anim. Vet. Med., Bangkok, Thailand. 230– 239. Chartrin P. Meteau K. Juin H. Bernadet M. D. Guy G. Larzul C. Remignon H. Mourot J. Duclos M. J. Baeza E.. 2006. Effects of intramuscular fat levels on sensory characteristics of duck breast meat. Poult. Sci.  85: 914– 922. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Chatterjee R. N. Rajkumar U.. 2015. An overview of poultry production in India. Indian J. Anim. Health.  54: 2449– 2454. Chatterjee D. Zhuang H. Bowker B. C. Rincon A. M. Sanchez-Brambila G.. 2016. Instrumental texture characteristics of broiler pectoralis major with the wooden breast condition. Poult. Sci.  95: 914– 922. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Chen X. D. Ma Q. G. Tang M. Y. Ji C.. 2007. Development of breast muscle and meat quality in Arbor Acres broilers, Jingxing 100 crossbred chickens and Beijing fatty chickens. Meat Sci.  77: 220– 227. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Clark E. M. Mahoney A. W. Carpenter C. E.. 1997. Heme and total iron in ready-to-eat chicken. J. Agric. Food Chem.  45: 124– 126. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Debut M. Berri C. Arnould C. Guemene D. Santelhoutellier V. Sellier N. Bacza E. Zehl N. Zego Y. Beaumont C. Le-Bihan-Duval E.. 2005. Behavioural and physiological responses of three chicken breeds to pre-slaughter shackling and acute heat stress. Br. Poult. Sci.  46: 527– 535. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Dransfield E. Sosnicki A. A.. 1999. Relationship between muscle growth and poultry meat quality. Poult. Sci.  78: 743– 746. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Essen-Gustavsson B. 1993. Muscle-fiber characteristics in pigs and relationships to meat-quality parameters—Review. Pages 140– 159 in Pork Quality: Genetic and Metabolic Factors . Puolanne E. Demeyer D. I. Ruusunen M. Ellis S., ed. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Fanatico A. C. Cavitt L. C. Pillai P. B. Emmert J. L. Owens C. M.. 2005. Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Meat quality. Poult. Sci.  84: 1785– 1790. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fanatico A. C. Pillai P. B. Emmert J. L. Owens C. M.. 2007. Meat quality of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poult. Sci.  86: 2245– 2255. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fernandez X. Sante V. Baeza E. Lebihan-Duval E. Berri C. Remignon H. Babile R. Le Pottier G. Millet N. Berge P. Astruc T.. 2001. Post mortem muscle metabolism and meat quality in three genetic types of turkey. Br. Poult. Sci.  42: 462– 469. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Fletcher D. L. 2002. Poultry meat quality. Worlds Poult. Sci. J.  58: 131– 145. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gupta R. K. Singh M. Singh U. Gurung B. S.. 2000. Feed efficiency and carcass characteristics of Aseel chicken. Indian J. Anim. Sci.  70: 1170– 1171. Haunshi S. Sunitha R. Shanmugam M. Padhi M. K. Niranjan M.. 2013. Carcass characteristics and chemical composition of breast and thigh muscles of native chicken breeds. Indian J. Poult. Sci.  48: 219– 222. Hunter R. S. Harold R. W.. 1987. The measurement of appearance . John Wiley and Sons, New York. Janisch S. Krischek C. Wicke M.. 2011. Color values and other meat quality characteristics of breast muscles collected from 3 broiler genetic lines slaughtered at 2 ages. Poult. Sci.  90: 1774– 1781. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jaturasitha S. Khiaosaard R. Pongpaew A. Leawtharakul A. Saitong S. Apichatsarangkul T. Leaungwunta V.. 2004. Carcass and indirect meat quality of native and Kai Baan Thai chickens with different sex and slaughter weight. Proc. 42nd Annu. Conf. Kasetsart Univ., Bangkok, Thailand. 116– 126. Jaturasitha S. Leangwunta V. Leotaragul A. Phongphaew A. Apichartsrungkoon T. Simasathitkul N. Vearasilp T. Worachai L. Meulen U.. 2002. A comparative study of Thai native chicken and broiler on productive performance, carcass and meat quality. Page 146 in Deutscher Tropentag 2002: Challenges to Organic Farming and Sustainable Land Use in the Tropics and Subtropics . Book of Abstracts. Deininger A., ed. Univ. Kassel, Witzenhausen, Germany. Jaturasitha S. Srikanchai T. Kreuzer M. Wicke M.. 2008. Differences in carcass and meat characteristics between chicken indigenous to Northern Thailand (Black-boned and Thai native) and imported extensive breeds (Bresse and Rhode Island Red). Poult. Sci.  87: 160– 169. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Jayasena D. D. Jung S. Kim H. J. Bae Y. S. Yong H. I. Lee J. H. Kim J. G. Jo C.. 2013. Comparison of quality traits of meat from Korean native chickens and broilers used in two different traditional Korean cuisines. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci.  26: 1038– 1046. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Khalid A. M. Yousif I. A. Omer M. I. Elamin K. M.. 2012. Genetic variability of body composition traits in Sudanese Native large Beladi Chicken. Agric. Biol. J. North America . 3: 69– 76. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kim G. D. Kim B. W. Jeong J. Y. Hur S. J. Cho I. C. Lim H. T. Joo S. T.. 2013. Relationship of carcass weight to muscle fiber characteristics and pork quality of crossbred (Korean native black pig × Landrace) F2 pigs. Food Bioprocess Technol.  6: 522– 529. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kristensen L. Purslow P. P.. 2001. The effect of ageing on the water-holding capacity of pork: role of cytoskeletal proteins. Meat Sci.  58: 17– 23. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Larzul C. Lefaucheur L. Ecolan P. Gogué J. Talmant A. Sellier P. Le Roy P. Monin G.. 1997. Phenotypic and genetic parameters for longissimus muscle fiber characteristics in relation to growth, carcass, and meat quality traits in large white pigs. J. Anim. Sci.  75: 3126– 3137. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Le Bihan-Duval E. 2003. Genetic variability of poultry meat. Pages 11– 20 in Proc. 52nd Annu. Natl. Breeders Roundtable, May 8–9, 2003, St. Louis, MO . US Poult. Egg Assoc., Tucker, GA. Liu F. Niu Z.. 2008. Carcass quality of different meat-typed chickens when achieve a common physiological body weight. Int. J. Poult. Sci.  7: 319– 322. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Lonergan S. M. Deeb N. Fedlet C. A. Lamont S. J.. 2003. Breast meat quality and composition in unique chicken populations. Poult. Sci.  82: 1990– 1994. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Macrae V. E. Mahon M. Gilpin S. Sandercock D. A. Mitchell M. A.. 2006. Skeletal muscle fibre growth and growth associated myopathy in the domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus). Br. Poult. Sci.  47: 264– 272. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Mahon M. 1999. Muscle abnormalities: morphological aspects. Page 19– 64 in Poultry Meat Science: Poultry Science Symposium, Vol. 25 . Richardson R. I. Mead G. C., ed. CABI Publ., Oxon, UK. Monin G. Sellier P.. 1985. Pork of low technological quality with a normal rate of muscle pH fall in the immediate post-mortem period: the case of the Hampshire breed. Meat Sci.  13: 49– 63. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Nowsad A. A. K. M. Kanoh S. Niwa E.. 2000. Thermal gelation characteristics of breast and thigh muscles of spent hen and broiler and their surimi. Meat Sci.  54: 169– 175. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Olawumi S. O. 2013. Phenotypic correlations between live body weight and carcass traits in Arbor Acre breed of broiler chicken. Int. J. Sci. Nat.  4: 145– 149. Purslow P. P. 2005. Intramuscular connective tissue and its role in meat quality. Meat Sci.  70: 435– 447. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rajkumar U. Muthukumar M. Haunshi S. Niranjan M. Raju M. V. L. N. Rama Rao S. V. Chatterjee R. N.. 2016. Comparative evaluation of carcass traits and meat quality in native Aseel chickens and commercial broilers. Br. Poult. Sci.  57: 339– 347. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Rehfeldt C. Fiedler I. Stickland N. C.. 2004. Number and size of muscle fibres in relation to meat production. Pages 1– 38 in Muscle Development of Livestock Animals: Physiology, Genetics and Meat Quality . te Pas M. F. W. Everts M. E. Haagsman H. P., ed. CABI Publ., Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Santos A. L. Sakomura N. K. Freitas E. R. Fortes C. M. L. S. Carrilho E. N. V. M. Fernandes J. B. K.. 2005. Growth, performance, carcass yield and meat quality of three broiler chickens strains. R. Bras. Zootec.  34: 1589– 1598. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Shaarani S. M. Nott K. P. Hall L. D.. 2006. Combination of NMR and MRI quantitation of moisture and structure changes for convection cooking of fresh chicken meat. Meat Sci.  72: 398– 403. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Shrimpton D. H. Miller W. S.. 1960. Some causes of toughness in broilers (young roasting chickens): II. Effects of breed, management and sex. Br. Poult. Sci.  1: 111– 121. Singh V. P. Pathak V.. 2017. Quality characterization of giblets of indigenous Indian chicken breeds. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci.  6: 784– 797. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Smith J. H., 1963. Relation of body size to muscle cell size and number in the chicken. Poult. Sci.  42: 283– 290. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Steel R. G. D. Torrie J. H.. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics . 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. Tang H. Gong Y. Z. Wu C. X. Jiang J. Wang Y. Li K.. 2009. Variation of meat quality traits among five genotypes of chicken. Poult. Sci.  88: 2212– 2218. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Tuma A. J. Venable J. H. Wuthier P. R. Henrickson R. L.. 1962. Relationship of fiber diameter to tenderness and meatiness as influenced by bovine age. J. Anim. Sci.  21: 33– 36. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wardlaw F. B. Maccaskill L. H. Acton J. C.. 1973. Effect of postmortem muscle changes on poultry meat loaf properties. J Food Sci.  38: 421– 423. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wattanachant S. Benjakul S. Ledward D. A.. 2004. Composition, color, and texture of Thai indigenous and broiler chicken muscles. Poult. Sci.  83: 123– 128. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  © 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

Poultry ScienceOxford University Press

Published: May 14, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off