Potential impact of stocking density on growth, carcass traits, indicators of biochemical and oxidative stress and meat quality of different broiler breeds

The aim of the current study to investigate the potential impact of different stocking densities on growth performance, carcass traits, indicators of biochemical and oxidative stress and meat quality of Arbor Acres and Ross-308 broiler breeds to recommend the better stocking density with low production cost simultaneously with high quality. A total of 312 one-day old of each Arbor Acres broiler and Ross-308 were randomly classified into 3 experimental groups with different stocking density, each of 6 replicates. The first group (SD(1)) was 14 birds/m(2) (28 kg/m(2)), while the second group (SD(2)) was 18 birds/m(2) (36 kg/m(2)) and the third group (SD(3)) was 20 birds/m(2) (40 kg/m(2)). The growth performance, carcass traits, meat quality hematological and biochemical parameters were measured. SD(3) group possessed the lowest body weight. Alanine transaminase in Arbor Acres was 15 and 14% higher in SD(3) when compared with SD(1) and SD(2), respectively. While, was 21 and 20% of Ross-308, respectively. SD(3) revealed the highest values of cholesterol, TG, MDA, and LDL of both breeds when compared with SD(1) and SD(2,) with the lowest levels of HDL, GPX, and IGG. Birds of SD(3) was the nastiest carcass weight 873 (P = 0.000) and 1,411.60 g (P = 0.000); dressing percentage 63.07 (P = 0.000) and 75.83% (P = 0.000); breast weight 513.10 g (P = 0.000) and 885.50g (P = 0.000); thigh weight 359.90 g (P = 0.000) and 526.08 g (P = 0.000) when compared with SD(1) and SD(2) of Arbor Acres and Ross-308, respectively. The dressing % of SD(1) and SD(2) was approximately 19% better than that of SD(3) of Arbor Acres, while it was 4% of Ross-308. The cooking loss and drip loss of breast and thigh muscles were higher in SD(3) of both breeds. Moreover, SD(3) possessed the highest bacterial count. In conclusion birds reared in medium stocking density revealed better performance and welfare than high density but similar to low density. Therefore, from the economic point, medium density was the best.