HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Northcutt, J. K. Articles by Dickens, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Northcutt, J. K. Articles by Dickens, J. A.

Effect of Electrical Stimulation and Feed Withdrawal on Broiler Gastrointestinal Content and Intestinal pH, and Intestinal Breaking Strength of Broiler Breeders

USDA, ARS, Russell Research Center, P. O. Box 5677, Athens, GA 30604-5677; Phone: (706) 546-3592; FAX: (706) 546-3633

Correspondence: J. K. Northcutt, E-mail:jnorthcutt{at}saa.ars.usda.gov

Commercial poultry processors that use electrical stimulation (ES) systems to accelerate rigor mortis and resolution of rigor for early cut-up and deboning of meat have suggested that these systems also cause cloacal voiding of excreta during bleeding. Cloacal voiding would be advantageous to processors because it reduces available material for carcass contamination during evisceration. The present study used market-aged broilers and broiler breeders to evaluate effects of ES and feed withdrawal on gastrointestinal contents, intestinal tissue pH, and intestinal breaking strength. ES (200 V AC, 60 Hz pulsed 2 s on, 1 s off for 60 s) was found to have no effect on gastrointestinal contents or intestinal tissue pH of broilers. Gastrointestinal contents for full-fed broilers were 2.6- to 3-fold greater (51 to 57 g feces or ingesta), based on weight of filled intestines, than gastrointestinal contents of broilers held without feed. Intestinal breaking strength of roosters was 20 to 26% greater than intestinal breaking strength of hens, by as much as 160 g (jejunal) to 200 g (ileal). ES had no effect on viscera weight, ileal breaking strength, or jejunal breaking strength, with the exception of jejunal breaking strength for hens, which was 14% higher in ES hens as compared to non-stimulated hens. The increased intestinal strength for ES hens (14%) was less than the strength difference observed between sexes (20 to 26%) and, thus, would not provide a processing advantage.

Key Words: electrical stimulation • feed withdrawal • intestinal contents • pH • intestinal strength