Department of Poultry Science, Auburn University College of Agriculture, Auburn, AL 36849, USA.
Department of Poultry Science, Auburn University College of Agriculture, Auburn, AL 36849, USA; Department of Pathobiology, Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn, AL 36849, USA.
Poult Sci. 2023 Mar;102(3):102422. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.102422. Epub 2022 Dec 10.
Increased consumer concern for animal welfare has led some poultry producers to alter their stunning methods from electrical to controlled atmosphere stunning. The potential for different impacts on meat quality between commercially applied controlled atmosphere stunning (CAS) and electrical stunning (ES) using current US parameters needs further evaluation. Three trials were conducted in a commercial broiler processing facility that uses separate processing lines for ES and CAS. Blood glucose concentrations were measured from broilers stunned by either CAS or ES at: 1) lairage, 2) pre-stunning, and 3) post-stunning, using a glucose monitor. Occurrence of visible wing damage was evaluated post-defeathering and breast fillet meat quality was evaluated through measurement of pH, color, and drip loss at deboning and after 24 h. Data were analyzed using GLM or chi-square with a significance at P ≤ 0.05 and means were separated by Tukey's HSD. Blood glucose concentrations (mg/dL) from CAS and ES birds were not different at lairage (284, 272, P = 0.2646) or immediately prior to stunning (274, 283, P = 0.6425). Following stunning and neck cut, circulating blood glucose from birds stunned by CAS was higher than ES (418, 259, P < 0.0001). CAS carcasses had more visible wing damage than ES carcasses (3.6%, 2.2%, P < 0.0001). Breast fillet pH was lower, L* was higher, and a* was lower at debone for CAS fillets (5.81, 54.65, 1.96) compared to ES fillets (5.92, 53.15, 2.31, P < 0.0001, P = 0.0005, P = 0.0303). Drip loss did not differ between breast fillets from CAS or ES broilers (4.83, 4.84; P = 0.0859). The implications of increased blood glucose concentration post-CAS are unknown and require further evaluation. However, the increase in visible wing damage observed post-defeathering from CAS carcasses indicated a need for equipment parameter adjustments during the process from stunning through defeathering when using CAS for broiler stunning. Although differences were observed in breast fillet attributes at deboning, these differences would have minimal practical application and were no longer present at 24 h. Overall, use of CAS in a commercial facility resulted in differences in subsequent product quality when compared to ES.
消费者对动物福利的关注度不断提高，促使一些家禽生产商改变了电击晕的方法，转而采用空气控制晕技术。目前美国采用的商业应用空气控制晕（CAS）和电击晕（ES）对肉质的潜在影响需要进一步评估。本研究在一家使用单独加工线进行 ES 和 CAS 的商业肉鸡加工厂进行了三项试验。使用血糖仪测量了分别用 CAS 或 ES 晕鸡的肉鸡在以下三个时间点的血糖浓度：1）待宰期，2）预晕期，3）晕后。脱羽后评估可见翅损伤的发生情况，在去骨和 24 小时后通过测量 pH 值、颜色和滴水损失来评估胸肉品质。使用 GLM 或卡方检验进行数据分析，显著水平为 P ≤ 0.05，并用 Tukey 的 HSD 进行均值分离。CAS 和 ES 鸡在待宰期（284，272，P=0.2646）或晕前即刻（274，283，P=0.6425）的血糖浓度（mg/dL）没有差异。CAS 晕鸡的循环血糖在颈部切断后高于 ES 晕鸡（418，259，P<0.0001）。CAS 胴体的可见翅损伤比 ES 胴体多（3.6%，2.2%，P<0.0001）。CAS 胸肉的 pH 值更低，L值更高，a值更低（5.81，54.65，1.96），而 ES 胸肉的 pH 值更高，L值更低，a值更高（5.92，53.15，2.31，P<0.0001，P=0.0005，P=0.0303）。CAS 和 ES 肉鸡的胸肉滴水损失无差异（4.83，4.84；P=0.0859）。CAS 后血糖浓度升高的影响尚不清楚，需要进一步评估。然而，CAS 胴体脱羽后可见翅损伤的增加表明，在使用 CAS 对肉鸡进行晕鸡时，需要在晕鸡到脱羽过程中调整设备参数。虽然在去骨时观察到胸肉属性存在差异，但这些差异的实际应用意义不大，在 24 小时后不再存在。总体而言，与 ES 相比，商业设施中使用 CAS 会导致后续产品质量的差异。
