000171193 001__ 171193
000171193 005__ 20260515163945.0
000171193 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1016/j.jafr.2026.102969
000171193 0248_ $$2sideral$$a149267
000171193 037__ $$aART-2026-149267
000171193 041__ $$aeng
000171193 100__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-8180-8663$$aCampo, María del Mar$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000171193 245__ $$aPredictive modelling of skin color in broilers based on sex and dietary xanthophylls
000171193 260__ $$c2026
000171193 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted
000171193 5203_ $$aA factorial design was used to predict skin color in broilers depending on the sex and the xanthophylls added to the diet using multiple regression models with interactions. A total of 2160 1-day- old ROSS 308 chicks were distributed across 36 pens, half containing males and half containing females. After a common starter diet, at 14 days of age each pen was assigned to one of three treatments based on the pigment added to a basal diet until 41 days of age: 68 ppm of natural yellow xanthophylls; 34 ppm of synthetic apo-ester or 68 ppm of stabilized natural yellow xanthophylls. Color was measured in the apterial latero-pectoral area and in the hock by means of a MINOLTA 600d spectrophotometer in the CIEL∗a∗b∗ color space after 0 and 13 days of pigment intake on the live animal, and after 26 days of pigment intake on the carcass. The reliability of lightness and redness predictions were poor for practical implications. Yellowness predictions were more accurate but a moderate predictive ability was found using cross validation. The models described significant different interactions between sex and days of pigment intake, or natural and synthetic pigments and days of pigment intake. The dose of 34 ppm of synthetic apo-ester was not sufficient to obtain skin color results comparable to those with 68 ppm of natural pigments. Predicting retail color at farm level could serve as a tool for producers to offer the desired color to consumers at the lowest possible cost.
000171193 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aby-nc$$uhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.es
000171193 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
000171193 700__ $$aMur, Leticia
000171193 700__ $$aLópez-Carbonell, David$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000171193 7102_ $$11001$$2420$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Anatom.,Embri.Genét.Ani.$$cÁrea Genética
000171193 7102_ $$12008$$2700$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Produc.Animal Cienc.Ali.$$cÁrea Producción Animal
000171193 773__ $$g28 (2026), 102969 [9 pp.]$$tJournal of Agriculture and Food Research$$x2666-1543
000171193 8564_ $$s685766$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/171193/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yVersión publicada
000171193 8564_ $$s2568283$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/171193/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yVersión publicada
000171193 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:171193$$particulos$$pdriver
000171193 951__ $$a2026-05-15-14:54:48
000171193 980__ $$aARTICLE