Improving the efficiency of crossbred Pradu Hang Dam chicken production for meat consumption using cold plasma technology on eggs.

Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101563288 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2045-2322 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 20452322 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Sci Rep Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: London : Nature Publishing Group, copyright 2011-

Chickens* ; Plasma Gases*; Female ; Animals ; Male ; Meat/analysis ; Poultry ; Eggs

The Pradu Hang Dam chicken, a Thai Native Chicken (TNCs) breed, plays an important role in many regions of Thailand because of its chewiness. However, there are some challenges with Thai Native Chicken, such as low production and slow growth rates. Therefore, this research investigates the efficiency of cold plasma technology in enhancing the production and growth rates of TNCs. First, this paper presents the embryonic development and hatch of fertile (HoF) values of treated fertilized eggs. Chicken performance indices, such as feed intake, average daily gain (ADG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), and serum growth hormone measurement, were calculated to assess chicken development. Furthermore, the potential of cost reduction was evaluated by calculating return over feed cost (ROFC). Finally, the quality aspects of chicken breast meat, including color, pH value, weight loss, cooking loss, shear force, and texture profile analysis, were investigated to evaluate cold plasma technology's impact on chicken meat. The results demonstrated that the production rate of male Pradu Hang Dam chickens (53.20%) was higher than females (46.80%). Moreover, cold plasma technology did not significantly affect chicken meat quality. According to the average return over feed cost calculation, the livestock industry could reduce feeding costs by approximately 17.42% in male chickens. Therefore, cold plasma technology is beneficial to the poultry industry to improve production and growth rates and reduce costs while being safe and environmentally friendly.
(© 2023. The Author(s).)

Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2018 Jul;17(4):892-904. (PMID: 33350115)
Animals (Basel). 2021 Mar 22;11(3):. (PMID: 33809894)
Sci Rep. 2015 Aug 12;5:13033. (PMID: 26264651)
J Exp Med. 2014 Dec 15;211(13):2583-98. (PMID: 25422496)
Scientifica (Cairo). 2016;2016:2604685. (PMID: 27144053)
Mol Nutr Food Res. 2011 Jan;55(1):83-95. (PMID: 21207515)
Biomol Ther (Seoul). 2014 Nov;22(6):477-90. (PMID: 25489414)
Crit Care. 2015 Apr 28;19:197. (PMID: 25928417)
PLoS One. 2011 Jan 21;6(1):e16270. (PMID: 21283714)
Anim Nutr. 2015 Sep;1(3):184-191. (PMID: 29767136)
J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 2007 Jul;42(8):1177-81. (PMID: 17616891)
Br Poult Sci. 2015;56(4):486-93. (PMID: 26098792)
J Appl Bacteriol. 1989 May;66(5):365-78. (PMID: 2666378)
Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Aug 06;19(8):. (PMID: 30082605)
Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2019 Jul;18(4):1292-1309. (PMID: 33337006)
Sci Rep. 2022 Mar 7;12(1):3645. (PMID: 35256635)
Biosci Rep. 2020 Mar 27;40(3):. (PMID: 32124930)
Sci Rep. 2022 Mar 18;12(1):4657. (PMID: 35304509)
Ann Biomed Eng. 2010 Mar;38(3):748-57. (PMID: 20013154)
Sci Rep. 2014 Jul 31;4:5859. (PMID: 25080862)
Oncotarget. 2017 Sep 20;8(49):85642-85654. (PMID: 29156747)
Indoor Air. 2000 Dec;10(4):269-88. (PMID: 11089331)
Int J Food Microbiol. 2019 Mar 16;293:24-33. (PMID: 30634068)
Sci Rep. 2017 Feb 07;7:41917. (PMID: 28167819)
J Food Sci Technol. 2019 Nov;56(11):4938-4945. (PMID: 31741517)

0 (Plasma Gases)

Date Created: 20230221 Date Completed: 20230223 Latest Revision: 20230419

20230419

PMC9938122

10.1038/s41598-023-29471-6

36801899