Growth, Production Performance, and Meat Quality Assessment of Broiler Chickens Using an Alternative, Affordable Biofield Energy Treatment StrategyABSTRACT
This study aimed to determine the growth and quality of broiler meat under different treatments. The experiment consisted of four distinct groups: viz. control (UBCONG), biofield energy treatment on eggs (BTEG), biofield energy treatment on chicks (BTCG), and biofield energy treatment on eggs and chicks (DBECG). Body weight, feed conversion ratio (FCR), carcass characteristics, and sensory features score (9-point hedonic scale) were evaluated. FCR was significantly (p<0.001) reduced in biofield treatment groups compared to UBCONG. Edible meat weight was significantly higher in BTCG (p<0.01; 55.23%), and DBECG (p<0.05; 47.67%) compared to UBCONG. Monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) was significantly increased by 111.11% in BTCG and 118.52% (p<0.05) in DBECG compared to UBCONG. Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) was significantly increased by 108.70% (p<0.01) in BTCG and 130.43% (p<0.001) in DBECG compared to UBCONG. Oleic acid was significantly (p<0.05) increased by 172.22% in BTCG and 150% in DBECG compared to UBCONG. Linoleic acid was significantly (p<0.001) increased in BTCG (146.67%) and DBECG (160%) compared to UBCONG. Sensory characteristics were significantly (p<0.001) improved in the biofield treatment group as compared to UBCONG. Overall, the biofield treatment significantly improved growth and quality of broiler chicken meat compared to the untreated group.
Keywords:
Biofield energy treatment; broiler chicken; EPEF; FCR; meat quality; sensory feature; cost-effective approach; nutritional parameter
INTRODUCTION
Poultry meat is a very popular and unique food commodity around the world, boasting high nutritional values and being sold both with intact skin or without skin. Most Americans prefer pale to deep pigmentation meat, whilst consumers from the UK prefer a white and non-pigmented meat. The colour of poultry meat varies due to several factors, including age, sex, strain, chemical exposure, cooking temperature, irradiation, and freezing conditions (Mugler & Cunningham, 1972; Fletcher, 2002). The quality of poultry meat not only depends on its colour, but also its texture, tenderness, juiciness, flavours, and nutritional components. Texture is probably the most important quality factor associated with consumer satisfaction with poultry meat quality. The texture and degree of firmness/juiciness of the meat is a function of the amount of water held intramuscularly. Tenderness development is a function of myofibrillar protein denaturation, connective tissue content, and juiciness (Northcutt et al., 2001; Cavitt et al., 2005). Another important meat quality attribute is meat juiciness, or water-holding capacity, which refers to the ability of raw meat to retain its inherent water during processing (Jayasena et al., 2013). Flavour is another quality attribute that consumers use to determine the acceptability of poultry meat. Flavours and aromas are developed during the cooking process due to chemical reactions among different components such as proteins, fat, minerals, spices, among other. It may also occur due to interactions between sugar and amino acid, lipid, thermal oxidation, and thiamine degradation (Jayasena et al. 2013). The term “quality” can also have a different meaning depending on the user. “Farmers” usually define it as poultry that are fast-growing, healthy, and have a low feed conversion ratio (FCR). The “meat processing sectors” are very much more interested in uniformity, high yield, and no defects in hens (Fletcher, 2002). On the other hand, the “consumer” mainly focuses on the appearance, texture, juiciness, and flavours of meat (Baéza et al., 2022). Various cost-efficiency strategies are available in poultry farming. Among them, “sex-separate feeding” and “maintaining optimum grow-out period” of birds are two important recent strategies that farmers can easily adopt to increase profit margins (Samarakoon & Samarasinghe, 2012). The males can be kept for more days after the achievement of the target slaughter live weight to achieve a heavier carcass weight and high meat yield than females (Waldroup et al., 1990).
Apart from the above-mentioned strategies, an alternative, cost-effective, biofield energy-based approach (Trivedi Effect®) has been significantly impact in various fields at both preclinical and clinical levels (Branton et al. 2015; Trivedi et al., 2015; Patil et al., 2024). The Trivedi Effect® is one of the scientifically validated biofield energy healing treatment approaches and widely reported as a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) system in which renowned biofield energy healing practitioners can harness this subtle form of energy from the universe and transmit it to living organisms and non-living materials (Trivedi & Tallapragada, 2008; Trivedi et al., 2014). Based on the excellent reported outcomes (Trivedi et al., 2024; Branton et al., 2025), the authors are optimistic that this approach will prove to be cost-effective in poultry production. The goal of this experiment was to examine whether the biofield (blessing) energy treatment could affect the meat quality of white broilers at their respective market ages by assessing their growth-related parameters, sensory characteristics, and nutritional parameters compared to the control group.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Animal ethics and study facility
All the animals were handled humanely, with due regard for their welfare. The animal care complied with the regulations of the Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CCSEA), Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India. This study was carried out at Anand Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., Nasik, India (Reg. No. UDYAM-MH-23-0177371). The research facility (research conducting Institute, Saraswathi Vidya Bhavan’s College of Pharmacy (SVBCP), Dombivli East, Thane, Maharashtra) was registered (Reg. No. 704/PO/Re/S/2002/CCSEA) for experiments with animals with the CCSEA. The use of animals (eggs and chicks) this experiment was approved under protocol SVBCP/IAEC/AB/DCF/24-25/89 by the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC), and the animal husbandry conditions followed the recommendations of the CCSEA.
Experimental design and farm management
Commercial laying eggs (6468 x 2=12936) of white broiler chicks Cobb 430Y were sourced from Anand Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.. The broiler chicken eggs (n=12936) were equally divided into two groups before incubation, i.e., control (UBCONG) and biofield energy-treated eggs group (BTEG), as per Figure 1.
Briefly, both groups’ incubation duration in setters was 456 hours (19 days). The fertility of the eggs was assessed through candling, and they then were shifted to hatchers for the next 48 hours for both the control and biofield energy treatment groups. All the groups were treated for a full-time incubation period of 21 days (504 hours). Dead-in-shell (DIS) were individually recorded for each group, and then transferred to the respective farms for growing.
The body weight of the chicks was determined immediately after they reached the farm. A rectangular-shaped poultry house was built with iron poles. Iron wire was used to cover the shed, and an asbestos sheet was used as the roof to provide adequate ventilation. The floor was well-cemented and covered with wood shavings that were used as litter. A two-hundred-watt electric light bulb was used as a source of light and heat to provide adequate temperature and light. For the first two (2) weeks, the pens were covered with tarpaulin to conserve heat for the chicks. The brooders were strategically located to provide heat for 24 hours for four (4) weeks. Chicks were provided with a sugar solution and drinking water after arrival at the farm to minimize transportation and handling stresses. There was sufficient ventilation and 12 hours of natural light, and the entire farm was covered with iron wire mesh. The control and treatment birds were grown under the same environmental conditions. A digital hygrometer was used to measure temperature and relative humidity (RH). To overcome the effects of environmental changes, the sheds were situated in the same geographical region. Feed was given twice a day, and clean drinking water was always supplied. The starter (0-1 week), grower (2-3 weeks), and finisher (4-6 weeks) broiler feeds were used for all experimental groups. The same feed was provided to the control and treatment groups of birds. The details of feed composition are given as a supplementary document (Annex 1). No medicines were provided during the study. In the hatchery, the chicks were vaccinated on day 1 by spraying Lasota vaccine at a 300 mL/min flow rate, keeping the distance about 30 cm above the chicks.
Biofield (blessing) energy treatment strategy
The broiler chicken eggs (n=12936) were divided into two groups before incubation, i.e., the control group and the biofield (blessing) energy-treated egg group, as per the diagram in Figure 1. The control group did not receive any treatment and was labeled the unblessed control group (UBCONG), while the biofield energy treatment eggs group, - labeled BTEG - received remote/distant biofield (blessing/prayer) energy treatment (Trivedi Effect®) from Florida, USA for approximately 5 minutes at Anand Hatcheries, Nashik, Maharashtra, India, by an experienced (>12 years), renowned spiritual energy healing practitioner at day 0 of incubation. The biofield energy treatment was provided through the healer’s unique, inherent thought intention process and prayer (channeling universal life force energy known as the energy of consciousness) to the biofield energy treatment group of eggs and chicks.
The newborn chicks of the UBCONG group were randomly divided into two equal groups, labeled UBCONG (n=2680) and BTCG (n=2680). Similarly, on day one, newborn chicks of the BTEG group were randomly divided into two equal groups, labeled as BTEG (n=2705) and DBECG (n=2705). Fifty percent of the chicks of the UBCONG and BTEG groups received the healer’s biofield energy treatment for approximately 5 minutes under standard farming conditions at the experimental farm located in Nashik, Maharashtra, India, on day 8 of the farming process. One group of BTEG chicks (treatment/blessing group) received the second session of biofield energy treatment, known as the double biofield energy treatment, in both the eggs and chicks’ group (i.e., DBECG). Fifty percent of the UBCONG chicks also received a single session of biofield energy treatment, known as biofield energy treatment in the chicks’ group (i.e., BTCG). This experimental design is represented in detailed in Figure 1 above.
Evaluation of signs and symptoms, body weight, feed intake, and mortality
The chicks were monitored daily for signs and symptoms, health status, mortality, and feed intake by the farm supervisor. Every 7 days, fifty chicks were randomly selected from each group and weighed. FCR was calculated by dividing the total kilograms of feed consumed by the total kilograms of live body weight.
Based on the FCR, the European production efficiency factor (EPEF) index was calculated for the whole batch performance. A higher index number represents a better batch performance in terms of profitability.
Where, Livability (%): Percentage of birds that survive to the end of the production cycle.
Average Live Weight (kg): The average weight of the birds at the end of the production cycle.
Age (days): The age of the birds at the end of the production cycle.
Nutritional analysis of chicken breast meat
The feed was withdrawn for 12 hours before the day of slaughter. Twenty-eight (28) individual birds were used from each group to monitor the nutritional parameters defined in this study. After dressing the birds, samples of breast meat were taken for nutritional content analysis and samples of breast and thigh meat were taken for sensory evaluation. The different nutritional parameters analyzed in the meat sample (breast) were carbohydrates, total energy, minerals (Fe, Ca, Na, Cu, Zn, Mg, P, K, and Se), lipids, and fatty acids profile viz. cholesterol, total fats, saturated fatty acids, MUFA, PUFA, C16:0 (palmitic acid), C18:1 (oleic acid), and C18:2 (linoleic acid).
Sensory evaluation for post-cooked chicken meat
A consumer preference test was conducted with 25 consumers who were asked to express their impressions of meat samples among four coded groups provided to them. Diverse age groups, socioeconomic status, and educational qualifications were represented among the consumers. Coded samples of cooked breast and thigh meat were provided to consumers for tasting, and they were asked to rate the samples and submit their scores. Meat samples were prepared by using the same cooking methods and procedures described below in all the groups. Based on six vital parameters - viz. colour, flavour, odour, juiciness, tenderness, and quality/acceptability - a sensory evaluation was conducted to assess the quality of cooked chicken samples.
Meat preparation
Pieces of chicken meat were selected randomly, ensuring uniformity in size and weight (approximately 1250 grams per sample). Excessive fat, skin, or connective tissue was removed, except where required for the sensory test. The meat was cut into standardized pieces (e.g., 2-3 cm thick slices or cubes) to ensure consistent cooking.
Cooking procedure
A pot containing approximately 3000 mL of water was brought to a boil for approximately 30 minutes, with salt added for seasoning. Cooking continued for another 5 minutes, or until the meat was tender and could be easily separated with a fork. Cooked meat samples were allowed to rest for 2-3 minutes before evaluation.
Assessment
The sensory evaluation contemplated smell, taste, touch, sight, and tenderness characteristics. Consumers evaluated the sensory characteristics and provided a response using a 9-point hedonic scale (9: extremely, 8: very much, 7: moderately, 6: slightly, 5: neither like nor dislike, 4: dislike slightly, 3: dislike moderately, 2: dislike very much, 1: dislike extremely), and these responses were used to assessed the scores (Wichchukit & O’Mahony, 2015).
Shelf-life analysis
A chemical and microbiological shelf-life study was carried out on the meat for four weeks. The analysis was done at weekly intervals as per standard procedures.
Statistics
Data were expressed as Mean ± SEM. The study data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Dunnett’s as a post hoc test. p<0.05 was considered as the level of statistical significance.
RESULTS
Evaluation of signs and symptoms, body weight, feed intake, and mortality
Chicks from both groups were transferred to separate broiler farms in individual houses using environmentally-controlled vehicles. The temperature and relative humidity (RH) were recorded daily. The temperature-humidity index (THI) was calculated, with the 42-day mean THI values being 22.52 (UBCONG), 22.49 (BTEG), 22.55 (BTCG), and 22.60 (DBECG), which were within the normal THI range (normal<27.8) for broilers, as reported in the literature (Marai et al. 2001). The calculated THI data indicated no heat stress nor any other environmental factors that affected the study parameters. During the 42-day study period, mortality, feed intake, weight gain, and FCR were recorded weekly, while signs and symptoms were observed on a daily basis, and the results are presented in Table 1.
The mean feed conversion ratio (FCR) was found to be significantly better in the BTEG (p<0.001; 1.47), BTCG (p<0.001; 1.38), and DBECG (p<0.001; 1.43) groups than the UBCONG (1.67) group. Mean feed intake (g/bird) was significantly higher for the BTEG (3598.46), BTCG (p<0.001; 3889.28), and DBECG (p<0.001; 3859.82) groups than the UBCONG (3232.63) group. Weight gain was recorded to have been at maximum and statistically significant (p<0.001) for groups BTEG (2446.98), BTCG (2817.39), and DBECG (2704.37), as compared to UBCONG (1938.33); and mean mortality was reduced in the BTEG (6.42), BTCG (6.19), and DBECG (6.34) as compared to the UBCONG (7.22) group (Table 1).
Evaluation of carcass parameters
Carcass yield, edible meat weight, and internal organ weight at the time of slughter in the present study are shown in Table 2. Slaughter weight was significantly better in the BTCG (p<0.01) and DBECG (p<0.05) groups than the UBCONG group. Moreover, internal organ weight, skin and feather weight were better in the treatment groups than the UBCONG group, but the data were not significant. The percent of edible meat weight was significantly increased in BTEG (32.19%), BTCG (p<0.01; 55.23%) and DBECG (p<0.05; 47.67%) compared to the control group, UBCONG (Table 2).
Nutritional analysis of chicken breast meat
Total carbohydrate was significantly increased by 35.44% (p<0.05) in BTCG compared to UBCONG. Energy was non-significantly increased by 21.35% in BTCG compared to UBCONG. Potassium was significantly increased by 5.66% (p<0.05) in BTEG, 7.03% (p<0.01) in BTCG, and 12.09% (p<0.001) in DBECG compared to UBCONG. Selenium was non-significantly increased by 18.53% in BTEG and 34.05% in DBECG compared to UBCONG. Monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) was significantly increased by 111.11% in BTCG and 118.52% (p<0.05) in DBECG as compared to UBCONG. Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) was significantly increased by 108.70% (p<0.01) in BTCG and 130.43% (p<0.001) in DBECG compared to UBCONG. C18:1 - Oleic acid was significantly increased by 16.67% in BTEG, 172.22% (p<0.05) in BTCG, and 150% (p<0.05) in DBECG compared to UBCONG. C18:2-linoleic acid was significantly increased by 13.33% in BTEG, 146.67% (p<0.001) in BTCG and 160% (p<0.001) in DBECG compared to UBCONG. Threonine was non-significantly increased by 30.15% in BTCG and 11.76% in DBECG compared to UBCONG. Cysteine + cystine was non-significantly increased by 23.26% in BTEG, 13.95% in BTCG, and 6.97% in DBECG compared to UBCONG.
Sensory investigations on post-cooked chicken meat
Sensory evaluation test results in broiler chicken after cooking are shown in Table 4. The sensory parameters were assessed using a 9-point hedonic scale with reference to colour, flavour, taste, tenderness, juiciness, and overall quality/acceptability. All the organoleptic parameters (colour, odour, taste) along with tenderness, juiciness, and overall acceptability were significantly (p<0.001) improved in the BTEG, BTCG, and DBECG as compared to the UBCONG (Table 4).
Shelf-life analysis
The results of a chemical and microbiological shelf-life examination of raw chicken breast meat during 28 days of storage are presented in Table 5. The table below shows the results of total plate count (TPC), coliforms, E. coli, and yeast and mold in meat samples of breasts without skin during the 28 days of storage. All the parameters like TPC, total coliforms, E. coli, and yeast and mold were within the acceptable reference ranges up to 28 days of storage (Table 5).
DISCUSSION
About 40% of global production of chicken meat comes from the United States, followed by China and Brazil. Chickens produces about 90% of global meat, followed by turkeys, ducks, geese, etc. (Goluch et al., 2023). The study’s assessment of the effect of biofield energy treatment on the average daily gain (ADG), feed intake (FI), and feed conversion ratio (FCR) of broiler chickens across various treatment groups (BTEG, BTCG, and DBECG) provides an insightful result (Table 1). The treatment groups had significantly enhanced growth performance. The studied biofield energy treatment notably improved ADG, FI, FCR, and broiler performance efficiency index. The most widely used broiler retail cut worldwide is the breast, because of its high demand due to its high protein and low-fat content (Park et al., 2021). The nutritional parameters evaluated in this study were taken from raw chicken breast meat samples. Upon thermal treatment (cooking), some minerals like sodium, potassium, calcium, and phosphorus might be lost, as they are present in the form of soluble dissociable salts. Moreover, the minerals that combined with the protein can remain intact (Goluch et al., 2023). Potassium (K) plays an important role in maintaining physiological homeostasis in hens, such as regulation of osmotic pressure, acid-base balance, development of membrane potential, and activation of various intracellular enzyme systems (Oliveira et al., 2005). Wei et al., 2024 reported that that presence of selenium (Se) in chicken breast meat increases its quality, preservation time, and economic benefits. It also acts as an antioxidant in poultry, increases absorption of vitamin E, and enhances biological growth and development (Wei et al., 2024). In our studies, the determined amount of K and Se in the breast of the biofield treatment groups (BTEG, BTCG, DBECG) were significantly increased compared to the UBCONG. Poultry meat is a sustainable source of LC-PUFA, which is responsible for various enzymatic biosynthesis processes in hens (Pérez et al., 2021). In this study, biofield energy treatment significantly improved PUFA contents in breast meat of the BTCG and DBECG groups compared to the control group (UBCONG). Colour is one of the vital comercial organoleptic features of chicken meat, as it influences the consumer’s willingness to purchase and displays the freshness of the product. Consumers always like bright cherry-red or pink meat that is fresh and of good quality. This perception can directly impact marketability, and any type of discoloration of meat is likely to be rejected by the consumers (Collman et al., 2004). Biofield energy treatment significantly improved the colour of breast meat, which is probably due to restoration of various pre-slaughter and slaughter conditions, and obviously the chemical state of myoglobin. Flavour is another organoleptic feature that indicates the quality of the meat and ultimately influences consumer acceptance. Although it is very difficult to recognise differences in flavour/aroma/smell when breast meat (Sipos et al., 2021), different chicken breast meat samples have distinct characteristic features due to interactions between sugar and amino acids, lipid and thermal oxidation, and vitamin B1 (thiamine) degradation. Due to the formation of lipid-derived products, aldehydes are responsible for a perceptible distinct aroma and flavour (Deng et al., 2022). In this experiment, biofield energy satisfactorily improved flavour in the biofield treated groups (BTEG, BTCG, and DBECG), which could be due to the acceleration of the glycosamine reaction, causing a huge amount of formation of heterocyclic compounds that add aroma flavour to the chicken meat. Regarding the fatty acid profile, it is clear that biofield energy significantly increased the levels of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid (LC-PUFA) i.e., oleic acid, which indirectly enhanced flavour in chicken meat, which is corroborated by Mir et al., 2017. Tenderness is considered the most important quality indicator in consumer satisfaction with poultry meat. The tenderness of a muscle depends on how the muscle proteins are bound with the muscle fibres, and on the space between muscle fibres. It also depends on the rate and extent of poultry slaughter (He et al., 2021). In this study, biofield energy treatment significantly enhanced muscle tenderness, possibly by improving the maturity of the connective tissues and the contraction ability of myofibrillar proteins, while simultaneously reducing the environmental stress conditions to some extent. Juiciness is the most important and perceptible meat feature that gives satisfaction to consumers before and after the purchase. In sensory studies, juiciness has been attributed to the flow of juices from the meat, and the simultaneous release of saliva in the mouth during mastication (Winger & Hagyard, 1994). Increasing water in muscle increases juiciness and tenderness, and ultimately improves meat quality and the economic value of meat (Mir et al., 2017). For cooked chicken breast meat, the juiciness scores were collected during chewing and found to be significantly (p<0.001) higher in the biofield treatment groups (BTEG, BTCG, and DBECG) compared to UBCONG. Table 5 shows that the initial (day 0) coliform bacterial count in the control raw chicken meat (UBCONG) after slaughtering was 80 cfu/g; which was gradually increased at days 7, 14, 21, and 28. Treatment groups also showed similar patterns, with the maximum reported at day 14 in the BTCG (800 cfu/g), which was below the permissible limit (>2000 cfu/g) for total coliform count in raw chicken meat samples as per the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications of Food (ICMSF) (Kumari et al., 2019), indicating that the raw meat was safe up to 28 days.
The exact mechanism by which biofield (blessing) energy treatment works remains unclear. Various theories suggest that this treatment may operate at the quantum level through the healer’s energy and thoughts, potentially involving quantum entanglement (Trivedi et al., 2024). The study proposes that biofield energy might stimulate brain areas, leading to improved growth, performance, and meat quality in broiler chickens. It posits that this energy information transmits to the nervous, immune, and endocrine systems, potentially impacting the overall physiology of broilers. As a result, there were significant improvements in body weight gain, reduced mortality, and enhanced feed conversion ratio (FCR) and organoleptic qualities. However, scientific research has not yet fully explained the mechanisms of action of this treatment.
CONCLUSION
The study findings revealed that chicken meat produced from hens treated with biofield (blessing) energy, specifically BTEG, BTCG, and DBECG, displayed notable improvements across various physical parameters such as increased body weight gain, reduced mortality rates, and improved feed conversion ratios (FCR). Additionally, the organoleptic qualities were enhanced, showing better color, flavor, taste, juiciness, and tenderness when compared to the control group. The overall quality and acceptability of the chicken meat from the biofield energy-treated groups were significantly superior to that of the control.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Anand Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., Nashik, Maharashtra, India, and Divine Connection Foundation for the assistance and support during the work. The authors also express gratitude to Saraswathi Vidya Bhavan’s College of Pharmacy (SVBCP), Thane, Maharashtra, India for providing research guidance and their ethical and scientific cooperation. The authors further extend gratitude to Dr. Gangadhar Gyanoba Dhamangave and Dr. Shailendra R Patil, India, for their enormous support and guidance to perform this study.
REFERENCES
-
Baéza E, Guillier L, Petracci M. Review: production factors affecting poultry carcass and meat quality attributes. Animal 2022;16(1):100331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100331
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100331 - Branton A, Trivedi MK, Trivedi D, et al. Investigation of non-pharmacological distant energy therapy in adults with self-perceived mental and psychological health problems: proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 2025;31(3):26-33.
-
Cavitt LC, Meullenet JF, Xiong R, et al. The correlation of razor blade shear, Allo-Kramer shear, Warner-Bratzler shear, and sensory tests to changes in tenderness of broiler breast fillets. Journal of Muscle Foods 2005;16(3):223-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4573.2005.00001.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4573.2005.00001.x -
Collman JP, Boulatov R, Sunderland CJ, et al. Functional analogues of cytochrome C oxidase, myoglobin, and hemoglobin. Chemical Reviews 2004;104(2):561-88. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr0206059
» https://doi.org/10.1021/cr0206059 -
Deng S, Liu R, Li C, et al. Meat quality and flavor compounds of soft-boiled chickens: effect of Chinese yellow-feathered chicken breed and slaughter age. Poultry Science 2022;101(12):102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102168
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102168 -
Fletcher DL. Poultry meat quality. World's Poultry Science Journal 2002;58(2):131-45. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS20020013
» https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS20020013 -
Goluch Z, Slupczynska M, Okruszek A. et al. The energy and nutritional value of meat of broiler chickens fed with various addition of wheat germ expeller. Animals (Basel) 2023;13(3):499. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030499
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13030499 -
He K, Sun Q, Tang X. Prediction of tenderness of chicken by using viscoelasticity based on airflow and optical technique. Journal of Texture Studies 2021;53:133-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12633
» https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12633 -
Jayasena DD, Ahn DU, Nam KC. et al. Flavour chemistry of chicken meat: a review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2013;26(5):732-42. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12619
» https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12619 - Kumari M, Kumar A, Gupta R. Enumeration of total viable and total coliform count in chicken meat and meat products using tempo(r) system. The Haryana Veterinarian 2019;57(2):204-6.
-
Marai IFM, Ayyat MS, Abd El-Monem UM. Growth performance and reproductive traits at first parity of New Zealand white female rabbits as affected by heat stress and its alleviation under Egyptian conditions. Tropical Animal Health and Production 2001;33:451-62. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012772311177
» https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012772311177 -
Mir NA, Rafiq A, Kumar F, et al. Determinants of broiler chicken meat quality and factors affecting them: a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology 2017;54(10):2997-3009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-017-2789-z
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-017-2789-z -
Mugler DJ, Cunningham FE. Factors affecting poultry meat color: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 1972;28(4):400-6. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS19720017
» https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS19720017 -
Northcutt JK, Buhr RJ, Young LL, et al. Influence of age and postchill carcass aging duration on chicken breast fillet quality. Poultry Science 2011;80(6):808-12. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/80.6.808
» https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/80.6.808 -
Oliveira JE, Albino LFT, Rostagno HS, et al. Dietary levels of potassium for broiler chickens. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2005;7(1):33-7. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2005000100006
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2005000100006 -
Park SY, Byeon DS, Kim GW, et al. Carcass and retail meat cuts quality properties of broiler chicken meat based on the slaughter age. Journal of Animal Science and Technology 2021;63(1):180-90. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2021.e2
» https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2021.e2 - Patil S, Trivedi MK, Branton A, et al. Case report: biofield photon energy-antibiotic therapy for pyometra in Belgian Malinois dog. Online Journal of Veterinary Research 2023;27(12):695-701.
-
Pérez JA, Castro A, Rolo C, et al. Fatty acid profiles and omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFA) biosynthesis capacity of three dual purpose chicken breeds. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 2021;102:104005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2021.104005
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2021.104005 -
Samarakoon SMR, Samarasinghe K. Strategies to improve the cost effectiveness of broiler production. Tropical Agricultural Research 2012;23(4):338-46. https://doi.org/10.4038/tar.v23i4.4869
» https://doi.org/10.4038/tar.v23i4.4869 -
Sipos L, Nyitrai Á, Hitka G, et al. Sensory panel performance evaluation-comprehensive review of practical approaches. Applied Sciences 2021;11(24):11977. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411977
» https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411977 - Trivedi D, Trivedi MK, Branton A. et al. The improvement of cognitive-motor function scores using the NIH-Toolbox in adults subjects after biofield energy therapy: a randomized controlled double-blind trial. Alternative Therapies, Health and Medicine 2024;30(9):28-35.
-
Trivedi MK, Tallapragada RM. A transcendental to changing metal powder characteristics. Metal Powder Reports 2008;63(9):22-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0026-0657(08)70145-0
» https://doi.org/10.1016/S0026-0657(08)70145-0 -
Trivedi MK, Branton A, Trivedi D, et al. The use of biofield energy therapy as complementary and alternative medicine in human health care system: a narrative review and potential mechanisms. Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine 2024;21(4):451-60. https://doi.org/10.1515/jcim-2024-0027
» https://doi.org/10.1515/jcim-2024-0027 -
Trivedi MK, Branton A, Trivedi D, et al. Effect of biofield treated energized water on the growth and health status in chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus). Journal of Poultry, Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences 2015;3(2):140. https://doi.org/10.4172/2375-446X.1000140
» https://doi.org/10.4172/2375-446X.1000140 -
Trivedi MK, Patil S, Tallapragada RM. Atomic, crystalline and powder characteristics of treated zirconia and silica powders. Journal of Material Science and Engineering 2014;3(144):144. https://doi.org/10.4172/2169-0022.1000144
» https://doi.org/10.4172/2169-0022.1000144 -
Waldroup PW, Tidwell NM, Izat AL. The effects of energy and amino acid levels on performance and carcass quality of male and female broilers grown separately. Poultry Science 1990;69(9):1513-21. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0691513
» https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0691513 -
Wei C, Wang S, Wang C, et al. Meta-analysis of selenium effects on the meat quality of broilers. Poultry Science 2024;103(4):103523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103523
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103523 -
Wichchukit S, O'Mahony M. The 9-point hedonic scale and hedonic ranking in food science: some reappraisals and alternatives. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2015;95(11):2167-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.699310.1002/jsfa.6993
» https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.699310.1002/jsfa.6993 -
Winger RJ, Hagyard CJ. Juiciness - its importance and some contributing factors. In: Pearson AM, Dutson TR, editors. Quality attributes and their measurement in meat, poultry and fish products. advances in meat research. Boston: Springer; 1994. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2167-9_4
» https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2167-9_4
-
FUNDING
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other types of support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
-
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
-
ETHICS APPROVAL
The use of animals (eggs and chicks) used in this experiment was approved by the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC) of Saraswathi Vidya Bhavan’s College of Pharmacy (Reg. No. 704/PO/Re/S/2002/CCSEA), Thane, Maharashtra, India. The approved study protocol number was SVBCP/IAEC/AB/DCF/24-25/89 on 21-09-2024.
-
DISCLAIMER/PUBLISHER’S NOTE
The published papers’ statements, opinions, and data are those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s). The editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.
-
ABBREVIATIONS
FCR: feed conversion ratio, EPEF: European production efficiency factor, UBCONG: unblessed control group, BTEG: biofield treated eggs group, BTCG: biofield treated chicks group, DBECG: double blessing eggs and chick group, SFA: saturated fatty acid, MUFA: mono-unsaturated fatty acid, PUFA: poly-unsaturated fatty acid, TPC: total plate count, Y & M: yeast and mold, BW: body weight, DIS: dead in shell, TES: total number of eggs set, FES: total number of fertile eggs: SEM: standard error of mean, ANOVA: analysis of variance; CCSEA: Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
