Physicochemical parameters of chicken drumstick and breast cuts raised in free-range and conventional systems: Comparative interpretation in the 2024-2025 context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v14i12.50410Keywords:
Chicken, Centesimal Composition, Meat Quality, Free-range System, Conventional System.Abstract
This study aimed to characterize the physicochemical parameters of chicken drumstick and breast cuts from conventional and free-range production systems, reinterpreting original laboratory data in light of technological and regulatory updates from 2024–2025. Moisture, lipid, protein and ash contents were evaluated on a wet basis using official methodologies from the Ministry of Agriculture and current ISO standards. Original results indicated moisture levels between 73.03% and 76.41%, lipids between 0.45% and 2.63%, proteins ranging from 20.09% to 26.81%, and ash contents from 0.98% to 1.52%, all compliant with current Brazilian legislation. Comparative analysis indicates that, despite significant production advances in poultry farming between 2020 and 2025 — including improvements in animal welfare, biosafety, nutrition and traceability — physicochemical parameters of chicken meat have remained stable. It is concluded that differences between anatomical cuts remain more relevant than differences between production systems, demonstrating consistency and robustness of the original data within the contemporary scenario.
References
Almeida, F. S., & Lima, J. P. (2022). Physicochemical quality of chicken meat in different production systems. Brazilian Journal of Zootecnia, 51(2), 112–123.
Araújo, M. S., & Torres, R. A. (2023). Advances in poultry biosecurity in the post-pandemic period. Journal of Poultry Science, 44(1), 77–89.
Barbosa, A. O., & Mendes, A. A. (2020). Quality characteristics of poultry meat in intensive production systems. Ciência Animal Brasileira, 21(4), 1–15.
Bhawana, et al. (2023). Physico-chemical, sensory, and microbiological quality of raw chicken meat: an exploratory study in the Hisar city of Haryana, India. Frontiers in Nutrition, 10:1184005. doi:10.3389/fnut.2023.1184005.
Bianchi, M., & Petracci, M. (2021). Poultry meat quality: Current approaches and future prospects. Meat Science, 181, 108–113.
Brazil. Ministry of Agriculture. (2019). Official analytical methods for the control of products of animal origin. MAPA.
Campos, R. T., & Souza, L. P. (2024). Traceability and food safety in the poultry production chain. Food Safety Journal, 6(3), 54–66.
Carvalho, L. O., & Garcia, R. G. (2023). Alternative production systems and meat quality. Pesquisa Agropecuária Atual, 18(2), 98–104.
Castro, D. F., & Faria, P. M. (2024). Nutritional effects on physicochemical parameters of chicken meat. Nutrition and Animal Health, 12(1), 33–44.
Cunha, M. L., & Furtado, R. P. (2021). Proximate composition of free-range chicken meat. Revista Ciência Rural, 52(1), 201–210.
Dalle Zotte, A., Gleeson, E., Franco, D., Cullere, M., & Lorenzo, J. M. (2020). Proximate composition, amino acid profile, and oxidative stability of slow-growing indigenous chickens compared with commercial broiler chickens. Foods, 9(5), 546. doi:10.3390/foods9050546.
Esteves, A. R., & Paiva, F. N. (2024). Comparative analysis of poultry production systems in Brazil. Agronegócio em Foco, 10(2), 29–45.
FAO. (2023). Global poultry production and market trends. FAO Publishing.
Ferreira, R. M., & Olivo, R. (2022). Technological quality of poultry meat: Recent advances. Brazilian Journal of Food Technology, 25(3), 222–238.
Gomes, C. H., & Silva, V. P. (2020). Physicochemical properties of chicken meat. Revista Nutrição Animal, 14(2), 71–82.
IBGE. (2024). Poultry production statistics in Brazil. IBGE.
Lopes, J. M., & Barros, F. E. (2023). Genetics and muscle performance in broiler chickens. Animal Genetics Review, 39(4), 301–315.
Mendes, A. A., & Nääs, I. A. (2022). Environmental impact in modern poultry production. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 24(2), 145–160.
Oliveira, M. S., & Pádua, R. F. (2021). Validation of physicochemical methods in foods. Food Analysis Review, 9(2), 1–13.
Pereira, A. S. et al. (2018). Metodologia da pesquisa científica. (Free ebook). Santa Maria. Editora da UFSM.
Pereira, P. M., & Santos, R. V. (2024). Animal welfare in poultry production: Regulatory updates. Animal Welfare Update, 7(1), 14–27.
Santos, D. L., & Queiroz, M. T. (2025). Chicken meat consumption trends in Brazil. Revista Mercado Alimentar, 11(1), 67–81.
Shitsuka, R. et al. (2014). Matemática fundamental para a tecnologia. (2ed). Editora Érica.
Silva, R. P., & Mendes, F. G. (2022). Muscle composition of modern broiler chickens. Journal of Food Composition, 18(3), 88–96.
Souza, T. C., & Freitas, L. A. (2023). Physicochemical evaluation of white meats. Brazilian Food Research, 8(2), 55–64.
Zhang, D., Liu, Y., et al. (2023). A comparison of the meat quality, nutritional composition, carcass traits, and fiber characteristics of different muscular tissues between aged indigenous chickens and commercial laying hens. Foods, 12(19), 3680. doi:10.3390/foods12193680.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Iris Maria de Araújo Lopes, Guilherme Franco Rocha, Guiomar Magela da Mota, Laura Aparecida Corrêa da Silva, Renata de Oliveira Castro, Cláudia Maria Tomás Melo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
