alexa Breast and Thigh Meat Chemical Composition and Fatty Acid Profile in Broilers Fed Diet with Dietary Fat Sources | Open Access Journals
ISSN: 2157-7110
Journal of Food Processing & Technology
Like us on:
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Breast and Thigh Meat Chemical Composition and Fatty Acid Profile in Broilers Fed Diet with Dietary Fat Sources

Rubayet Bostami ABM, Hong Seok Mun and Chul-Ju Yang*

Department of Animal Science and Technology, Sunchon National University, Jeonnam, Republic of Korea

*Corresponding Author:
Chul-Ju Yang
Department of Animal Science and Technology
Sunchon National University, 255 Jungangno
Suncheon, Jeonnam 57922, Republic of Korea
Tel: +82-617503235
E-mail: [email protected]

Received date: April 11, 2017; Accepted date: May 02, 2017; Published date: May 09, 2017

Citation: Rubayet Bostami ABM, Mun HS, Yang C (2017) Breast and Thigh Meat Chemical Composition and Fatty Acid Profile in Broilers Fed Diet with Dietary Fat Sources. J Food Process Technol 8:672. doi:10.4172/2157-7110.1000672

Copyright: © 2017 Rubayet Bostami ABM, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Food Processing & Technology

Abstract

Experiment was conducted to evaluate effects of different fat sources on breast and thigh meat chemical composition and fatty acid profile in broilers. Treatments were 1) DF1: basal diet + soybean oil; 2) DF2: basal diet + chicken fat; 3) DF2: basal diet + tallow; 4) DF3: basal diet + tallow and lard, and 5) DF5: basal diet + lard. Addition of different fat sources had no significant impact on relative organ weight (P>0.05). Breast meat crude fat content was suppressed in DF1 and DF5 relative to DF4 (P<0.05). Total SFA content was downtrended and total PUFA content was elevated in DF1 relative to other groups for both breast and thigh meat (P<0.05). Total MUFA content did not differ in breast meat however, it was lower in DF1 and DF3 compared to DF2, DF4 and DF5 (P<0.05). The n-3 PUFA was not affected by fat sources in breast meat, whereas it was elevated in DF1 relative to DF3, DF4 and DF5 in thigh meat (P<0.05). Breast and thigh meat n-6 PUFA was improved in DF1 in comparison to DF2, DF3, DF4 and DF5 (P<0.05). Ratio of PUFA to SFA upgraded in DF1 and DF3, and downgraded in DF2, DF4 and DF5 for breast meat; and upgraded in DF1 than other groups for thigh meat (P<0.05). Breast and thigh meat n-6 to n-3 PUFA was upgraded in DF1 group compared to other groups (P<0.05). To sum up, results indicated that dietary fat sources with different fatty acid content can significantly influence the breast and thigh meat composition and fatty acid profile without negative impact on the relative organ weight. Where DF1 group exhibited better result based on fatty acid profile and lower breast meat fat content which can be preferred for quality broiler meat production.

Keywords

Fat source; Meat composition; Fatty acid profile; Broilers

Introduction

A considerable elevation of global meat consumption (62%) has been reported in the last 50 years, with a significant increase occurring in developing countries (three-fold since 1963) and the largest occurring in Asia (Commodity Analysis, Informa UK, 2012). The highest global chicken meat intake is 11.8 kg per person, whereas in Asia it is 6.4 kg per person, where the forecast average meat intake for China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and India is 11.1, 15.8, 15.4, 13.9, 4.5, and 3.1 kg/person, respectively (Commodity analysis, Informa UK, 2012). Among different meats, poultry is firmly and continuously increasing worldwide due to its low-price relative to other meat, as well as its healthy aspects. Currently, consumers are more concerned about their food, especially nutritional aspects. Among the nutritional aspects of food, lipid content and fatty acid profile are the most important factors. Chicken meat contains a high protein and lowfat content and deliberated as the principal source of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) with paramount concentration of n-3 PUFA [1,2]. Fatty acids play a significant role in the health aspects of humans, with long chain fatty acids being beneficial for maintenance of metabolic disorders, as well as for development of the brain and retinal tissue [3-5]. Food containing higher amounts of PUFA are considered functional and beneficial for the prevention of coronary heart disease and other chronic diseases [6,7]. The most desirable issue influencing the poultry industry is the improvement of performance while developing higher carcass and meat quality, higher meat yield and lower abdominal fat with better composition [8]. The fatty acid content of broiler meat depends on the type of diet intake by the birds. Pigs and broilers fed a sunflower based diet, which contains linoleic acid, show substantially elevated levels of linoleic acid and arachidonic acid in the meat [9,10]. It has also been reported that the fatty acid content of poultry, especially the PUFA (ecosapentanoic acid, C20:5n-3; and docosa hexanoic acid, C22:6n-3), can be improved by the addition of oily fish byproducts [11]. Replacement of fish oil with vegetable oil has resulted in a lower level of long chain n-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and higher levels of the C:18 fatty acids, oleic acid, linoleic acid and linolenic acid in tissues of several aquatic studies [12,13]. Plant fats generally contain higher amounts of PUFA, while animal fats are composed of relatively higher SFA levels. Differences in the fatty acid composition of the fats will vigorously affect the digestibility and performance of birds. In addition, the composition of dietary lipids is important to chickens because it dictates the actual extent to which it can be utilized as a source of metabolizable energy [14]. Fats with a higher proportion of unsaturated lipids are more easily absorbed than those that may undergo synergism between fat compositions [15-17].

Studies have been conducted to improve the PUFA content in chicken through dietary addition of fat and oil sources that contains PUFA or linoleic acid [9,17], as well as dietary feed additives such as probiotics, prebiotics and natural plant materials [18-22]. However, PUFA tends to be oxidized as it is the first target for the free radical strike upon initiation of lipid peroxidation [23]. Several studies have investigated fat sources of livestock and poultry to investigate their performance, digestibility, and carcass characteristics [8,17,24-26]. There are many plant and animal fat sources with large variations in fatty acid profile or other aspects of their nutritional composition; on the other hand, due to genetic improvement of broiler strains it urges paramount importance of continual research on both the basal and feed additives research. Fatty acid composition can be an important benchmark for the quality of carcass that can potentially be influenced by the fatty acid profile [25-30]. However, to the best of our knowledge, although several investigations are currently being conducted on feed additives, few studies have investigated basal feed materials, especially the impact of fat sources on meat composition and fatty acid profile in broilers. Therefore, we conducted this comparative study to investigate the effects of fat sources with different fatty acid profiles on carcass characteristics, breast and thigh meat chemical composition and fatty acid profile in broilers.

Materials and Methods

Experimental design, dietary treatments and bird management

Experimental birds were reared at the Sunchon National University experimental farm, Suncheon, Republic of Korea. A total of 150 one day-old Ross 308 broiler chicks were randomly allocated into five treatments with five replications (six birds per replicate) in a completely randomized design. The dietary treatments were as follows: 1) DF1: basal diet + soybean oil; 2) DF2: basal diet + chicken fat; 3) DF3: basal diet + beef fat/tallow; 4) DF4: basal diet + beef fat/tallow and pork fat/lard and 5) DF5: basal diet + pork fat/lard. The basal diet was formulated to meet the Nutrient Requirements of Poultry following both the National Research Council (NRC), 1994. Nutrient requirements of poultry. 9th rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA and the Korean Feeding Standard for poultry (KFS), 2012, NIAS, RDA, Republic of Korea. Birds were reared for a total of 5 weeks in two stages: starter (0 to 3 weeks) and finisher (4 to 5 weeks). All diets were in mashed form. The chemical composition of the experimental diet was analyzed in triplicate for crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), moisture and ash as described by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists [31]. The ingredients, chemical composition, and vitamin and mineral content of the basal diets are shown in Table 1. The PUFA content in soybean oil, chicken fat, tallow, tallow + lard and lard was 58%, 21%, 4%, 7.1% and 11%, respectively.

Items DF1 DF2 DF3 DF4 DF5 SEM P-value
% of LW
Crop 0.294 0.261 0.264 0.244 0.261 0.023 0.682
Proventriculus 0.364 0.384 0.388 0.401 0.360 0.017 0.418
Gizzard 2.124 2.190 2.175 2.088 2.082 0.109 0.938
Heart 0.446 0.431 0.463 0.461 0.445 0.029 0.940
Liver 1.729 1.666 1.652 1.546 1.652 0.065 0.459
Gall bladder 0.112 0.125 0.120 0.131 0.138 0.011 0.562
Spleen 0.067 0.060 0.070 0.060 0.065 0.006 0.810
Pancreas 0.211 0.210 0.219 0.210 0.195 0.015 0.884
Small intestine 2.349 2.268 2.463 2.151 2.266 0.086 0.186
Large intestine 0.153 0.157 0.149 0.122 0.171 0.021 0.608
Cecum 0.414 0.417 0.476 0.422 0.503 0.029 0.136
Kidney 0.662 0.622 0.630 0.583 0.559 0.032 0.243
Abdominal fat 1.111 1.182 0.965 1.315 1.333 0.120 0.225
Bursa 0.221 0.223 0.207 0.208 0.182 0.030 0.884

Table 1: Effect of dietary fat sources on carcass characteristics and internal organ weight in broilers.

The plant oil and animal fat amended with the basal feed ingredients were purchased from local markets in Daejon and Suwon in the Republic of Korea. Chicken fat and beef tallow were collected from the slaughterhouse in which animals were inspected by a veterinarian to ensure that they were disease free and chickens and cattle were slaughtered according to halal methods. After collection of raw fat, it was chopped into smaller chunks of equal size (1 inch), then was placed into a frying pan. Water was then added at a 1:1 ratio (W/W), after which the fat was covered with a lid and boiled for 30 minutes, followed by an additional 30 minutes of boiling without the lid. When the boiled fat showed a reddish color indicating that the fatty liquid had been extracted from the solid portions, the heater was switched off. Next, a wire mesh strainer was used to remove the remnants and particles. After straining, three times, the fat was poured into a heatproof ceramic container and covered tightly, then stored for further use. After soybean oil and lard were purchased, they were stored in separate containers and locations until further use. The fatty acid composition of the experimental fat and oil sources was determined by following the direct method for fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) synthesis using a gas chromatograph (GC), with slight modification as previously described [32].

During the experiment, all guidelines for the care and use of animals in research set by the Korean Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries were followed. Broilers were reared in a closed, ventilated, wire-floor caged broiler house (100 cm long × 90 cm wide × 40 cm high) with a floor space of 1,125 cm2/bird. To provide ad libitum feed intake and free access to water, the cages were designed with having a linear feeder in the front and a nipple drinker in the back. The internal temperature of the broiler house was set and maintained at 34°C for the first week, after which it was gradually reduced to 23°C at 3°C per week, where it was maintained until the end of the experimental period. The internal relative humidity was maintained at approximately 50% throughout the experimental period.

Measurement of carcass characteristics and meat sampling procedure

At the end of the experiment, two chickens from each replicated pen were randomly selected based on similar body weight, then slaughtered using the halal method with light stunning. Live weight, carcass weight, eviscerated carcass weight, breast and thigh meat weight, and abdominal fat content were weighed. Breast and thigh muscles of birds were removed by trained personnel and weighed individually. The abdominal fat pad (including fat surrounding gizzard, bursa of fabricius, cloaca, and adjacent muscles) was removed and weighed individually for each replication of treatments. After slaughtering the birds, the breast and thigh meat were excised by removing the skin, bones and connective tissue. After weighing, the breast and thigh meat samples were ground separately using a meat grinder. The samples were subsequently divided into aliquots for analysis of meat microbiology, pH, and oxidative stability (TBARS value) analysis, and for meat composition and fatty acid content analysis. Finally, the samples were poured into plastic sample bottles, after which those for oxidative rancidity analysis were refrigerated at 4°C and samples for other analyses were stored at -27°C.

Determination of breast and thigh meat proximate composition

The chemical composition of the breast and thigh meat samples was analyzed in triplicate for crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), moisture and ash as described by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists [30-36].

Determination of breast and thigh meat fatty acids

The fatty acids compositions of breast and thigh meat were determined by a direct method for fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) synthesis using a slight modification of the method described by O’Fallon et al. [37]. Briefly, 1 g of minced meat sample was placed into a 15 ml Falcon tube, after which 0.7 ml of 10 N KOH in water and 6.3 ml of methanol were added. The tube was then incubated in a 55°C water bath for 1.5 h with vigorous hand-shaking for 10 s every 30 min to properly permeate, dissolve and hydrolyze the sample. After cooling to below room temperature in a cold tap water bath, 0.58 ml of 24 N H2SO4 in water was added. The tube was then mixed by inversion, after which K2SO4 precipitated. The sample with the precipitate was incubated again in a 55°C water bath for 1.5 h with vigorous hand-shaking for 10 s every 30 min. Following FAME synthesis, the tube was cooled in a coldwater bath, after which 3 ml of hexane were added and the tube was vortexed for 5 min on a multitube vortexer. The tube was subsequently centrifuged for 5 min at 3000 × g (HANIL, Combi-514R, Korea), after which the top (hexane) layer containing the FAME was dehydrated through the anhydrous Na2SO4. The extracted and dehydrated hexane was then concentrated to 1.5 ml and placed into a GC vial for analysis.

The fatty acid composition of the FAME was determined using a Gas Chromatograph (Agilent, 7890A series, 2850 Centerville Road Wilmington, DE 19808-1610 USA) equipped with a flame ionization detector and a Hewlett Packard HP-88 capillary column (J&W Scientific, USA) with a length of 60 m, a 0.52 mm internal diameter and a 0.20 μm polyethylene glycol-film thickness. Samples were then injected using an auto-sampler (Agilent Technologies 7693, USA). The initial oven temperature was 125°C, which was held for 1 min, then increased to 145°C at 10°C/min, where it was held for 26 min, then further increased to 220°C at 2°C/min, where it was held for 2 min. Purified air and hydrogen were applied at a flow rate of 400 ml/min and 40 ml/min as the carrier gas, whereas helium was applied at 40 ml/min as the makeup gas. Both the injector and detector temperature were set at 260°C, and the split ratio was 30:1. Fatty acids were identified by comparison of their retention times with those of a standard FAME mixture (Supelco™ 37 Component FAME Mix, 10 mg/ml in CH2Cl2. Catalog Number 47885-U. Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA). Sums and ratios useful for evaluating the nutritional value and healthiness of the fatty acid profile were also determined; specifically, the sum of saturated fatty acids (ΣSFA), monounsaturated fatty acids (ΣMUFA), polyunsaturated fatty acids (ΣPUFA), n-3 fatty acids (Σn-3), n-6 fatty acids (Σn-6) and the ratios of MUFA to SFA (MUFA/SFA), PUFA to SFA (PUFA/SFA), n-6 to n-3 (n-3/n-6) and hypocholesterolaemic to hypercholesterolaemic (H/H) fatty acid. The H/H ratio was determined as follows: H/H = [(sum of C18:1 cis-9, C18:2 n-6, C20:4n-6, C18:3 n-3, C20:3n-6, C20:5 n-3, and C22:6 n-3)/(sum of C14:0 and C16:0)].

Statistical analyses

All data were subjected to ANOVA using the General Linear Models (GLM) function of the Statistical Analysis System [33]. The means were calculated using the least square method and presented with the standard error of the mean (SEM). Differences among means were determined by the Student's t-test. A P ≤ 0.05 was considered to indicate significance for all analyses, while a P < 0.10 was considered a tendency.

Results

Carcass characteristics and breast and thigh meat composition

As shown in Table 1, there were no significant differences on the relative organ weights of broilers after dietary addition of different fat sources in broilers (P>0.05). The proximate composition of breast and thigh meat was shown in Tables 2 and 3. Among chemical composition, there were no significant differences in breast meat moisture, crude protein and crude ash content; however, the crude fat content was lower in the DF1 and DF5 group than that of the DF4 group (P<0.05) (Table 2). In the case of thigh meat, chemical composition among dietary fat treatments did not differ significantly (P>0.05) (Table 3).

Items DF1 DF2 DF3 DF4 DF5 SEM P-value
Moisture (%) 75.52 75.46 75.21 75.70 74.87 0.19 0.261
Crude protein (%) 27.43 26.20 27.03 26.93 27.13 0.50 0.168
Crude fat (%) 0.70b 0.83ab 0.64bc 0.91a 0.49c 0.07 0.003
Crude Ash (%) 1.44 1.42 1.47 1.51 1.51 0.03 0.184

Table 2: Effect of dietary fat sources on breast meat proximate composition in broilers.

Items DF1 DF2 DF3 DF4 DF5 SEM P-value
Moisture (%) 73.61 72.74 73.02 72.50 72.13 0.76 0.594
Crude protein (%) 21.53 21.22 21.51 22.10 21.98 0.28 0.342
Crude fat (%) 5.21 5.90 4.71 4.75 4.10 0.54 0.337
Crude Ash (%) 1.07 1.09 1.06 1.10 1.12 0.03 0.859

Table 3: Effect of dietary fat sources on thigh meat proximate composition in broilers.

Breast and thigh meat fatty acid profile

Tables 4 and 5 shows the fatty acid pattern data of breast and thigh meat respectively. Total SFA content was downtrended and total PUFA content was elevated in DF1 group relative to other groups for both breast and thigh meat (P<0.05). Total MUFA content did not differ in breast meat however, it was lower in DF1 and DF3 compared to DF2, DF4 and DF5 (P<0.05). The n-3 PUFA was not affected by the fat sources in breast meat, whereas it was elevated in DF1 relative to DF3, DF4 and DF5 in thigh meat. Breast and thigh meat n-6 PUFA was improved in DF1 in comparison to DF2, DF3, DF4 and DF5 (P<0.05). The PUFA to SFA was affected both in breast and thigh meat, higher value being observed in DF1 and DF3 and lower in DF2, DF4 and DF5 for breast meat; and higher in DF1 than other groups for thigh meat (P<0.05). The breast and thigh meat n-6 to n-3 PUFA was upgraded in the DF1 group compared to the other groups (P<0.05). Breast meat alfa-linoleic acid was found to be higher in the DF1 group, while eicosapentanoic acid was higher in the DF2 group relative to the other fat groups (DF3, DF4 and DF5) (P<0.05). Thigh meat ecosapentanoic acid was higher in the DF2 group, while docosahexanoic acid was higher in the DF1 fed group than in other fat groups (DF3, DF4 and DF5) (P<0.05).

Items DF1 DF2 DF3 DF4 DF5 SEM P-value
Breast meat (g/100 of total fatty acids)
Myristic acid C14:0 0.76 0.79 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.06 0.996
Palmitic acid C16:0 19.47 21.99 23.08 22.07 22.13 0.57 0.139
Stearic acid C18:0 6.85 7.05 6.66 6.86 8.55 0.35 0.102
Arachidic acid C20:0 0.48 0.49 0.37 0.58 0.60 0.05 0.200
Total SFA - 27.56b 30.32a 30.86a 30.26a 32.05a 0.45 0.027
Palmitoleic acid C16:1 4.18 4.08 3.91 4.11 4.58 0.45 0.963
Oleic acid C18:1 30.61 32.09 30.67 32.29 32.17 1.38 0.866
Eicosenoic acid C20:1 1.34 1.30 1.63 1.61 1.65 0.11 0.323
Nervonic acid C24:1 1.23 1.30 1.32 1.25 1.33 0.06 0.870
Total MUFA 37.36 38.78 37.52 39.26 39.73 1.22 0.771
Linoleic acid C18:2 (n-6) 26.85a 17.57b 17.70b 16.85b 17.02b 0.25 <0.01
Eicosadienoic acid C20:2 (n-6) 0.33 0.42 0.42 0.38 0.45 0.03 0.386
DGLA C20:3 (n-6) 0.84 0.72 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.03 0.252
Arachidonic acid C20:4 (n-6) 2.24 2.12 2.84 2.61 2.62 0.13 0.091
Total n-6 30.25a 20.84b 21.71b 20.58b 20.82b 0.30 <0.01
Alfa-linoleic aicd C18:3 (n-3) 1.79a 1.58b 1.58b 1.61b 1.51b 0.03 0.022
Eicosapentanoic acid C20:5 (n-3) 0.53b 0.60a 0.53b 0.50b 0.52b 0.01 0.020
Docosahexaenoic acid C22:6 (n-3) 1.47 1.57 1.53 1.60 1.46 0.09 0.827
Total n-3 - 3.80 3.75 3.65 3.71 3.49 0.08 0.383
Total PUFA - 34.05a 24.59b 25.35b 24.29b 24.31b 0.34 <0.01
H/H - 3.20a 2.49b 2.35b 2.48b 2.47b 0.05 0.001
MUFA/SFA - 1.36 1.28 1.22 1.30 1.24 0.03 0.365
PUFA/SFA - 1.24a 0.81bc 0.82b 0.80c 0.76d 0.00 <0.01
n-6/n-3 - 7.97a 5.56b 5.96b 5.54b 5.97b 0.16 0.001

Table 4: Effect of dietary fat sources on breast meat fatty acid content in broilers.

Item DF1 DF2 DF3 DF4 DF5 SEM P-value
Thigh meat (g/100 of total fatty acids)
Myristic acid C14:0 0.51 0.59 0.65 0.66 0.72 0.07 0.537
Palmitic acid C16:0 19.48b 22.80a 23.98a 23.16a 23.41a 0.33 0.002
Stearic acid C18:0 6.05c 6.24c 7.19a 7.06ab 7.02ab 0.20 0.048
Arachidic acid C20:0 0.46 0.47 0.37 0.57 0.58 0.05 0.190
Total SFA 26.50c 30.10b 32.19a 31.45ab 31.74a 0.35 0.001
Palmitoleic acid C16:1 3.90b 5.66a 3.91b 5.37a 5.39a 0.27 0.038
Oleic acid C18:1 33.30b 40.04a 30.67b 40.44a 41.47a 1.00 0.022
Eicosenoic acid C20:1 1.38c 1.49bc 1.63ab 1.58bc 1.80a 0.05 0.022
Nervonic acid C24:1 1.02c 1.06c 1.32a 1.13bc 1.25ab 0.03 0.012
Total MUFA 39.60b 48.24a 37.52b 48.52a 49.91a 1.16 0.003
Linoleic acid C18:2 (n-6) 28.38a 16.28b 15.60b 14.39b 14.27b 0.97 0.001
Eicosadienoic acid C20:2 (n-6) 0.32c 0.42a 0.41ab 0.33bc 0.38abc 0.02 0.063
DGLA C20:3 (n-6) 0.87a 0.78ab 0.77ab 0.66b 0.70ab 0.03 0.123
Arachidonic acid C20:4 (n-6) 2.50 2.36 2.11 2.47 2.30 0.14 0.669
Total n-6 32.07a 19.85b 18.89b 17.85b 17.65b 0.93 0.001
Alfa-linoleic aicd C18:3 (n-3) 1.74 1.54 1.56 1.55 1.51 0.07 0.314
Eicosapentanoic acid C20:5 (n-3) 0.51ab 0.60a 0.57ab 0.45ab 0.41b 0.03 0.154
Docosahexaenoic acid C22:6 (n-3) 1.86a 1.62ab 1.53ab 1.61ab 1.43b 0.07 0.124
Total n-3   4.11a 3.77ab 3.66b 3.61b 3.35b 0.11 0.048
Total PUFA   36.18a 23.62b 22.54b 21.46b 21.01b 0.94 0.001
H/H   3.48a 2.72b 2.16c 2.60b 2.59b 0.07 0.001
MUFA/SFA   1.49a 1.60a 1.17b 1.54a 1.57a 0.04 0.004
PUFA/SFA   1.37a 0.79b 0.70b 0.68b 0.66b 0.04 0.001
n-6/n-3   7.81a 5.27b 5.16b 4.94b 5.27b 0.26 0.006

Table 5: Effect of dietary fat sources on thigh meat fatty acid content in broilers.

Discussion

Carcass characteristics and breast and thigh meat composition

Perpetual development of livestock and poultry industry through nature and nurture imposing to conduct research on both basic feed materials and feed additives. In the present experiment, the effects of fat sources with different fatty acid contents on broiler breast and thigh meat composition and meat storage quality were investigated. There was no significant differences in carcass characteristics and internal organ weight in the different fat sources group. Supporting to the present study, dietary addition of soybean oil, animal/vegetable fat blend, rapeseed oil, and processed fat product in the broilers unable to affect breast and thigh meat proportion and abdominal fat in the previous study [24]. The impact of fat sources on carcass characteristics usually impacted due to fatty acid composition and digestibility differences. Ketels and DeGroote [16] demonstrated the superiority of vegetable oils to animal fats; the main reason for the better result is the higher digestibility of the unsaturated fat relative to the saturated fat content in the dietary fat [34]. However, Azmzn et al. [35] found that supplementation of fatty acid in iso-energy diets with positive energy balance had no remarkable impact on metabolism of total lipids. There were also no significant differences observed among the proximate composition of the breast and thigh meat of broilers, except for the fat content in breast meat. Zollitsch et al. [24] reported no significant impact of different dietary fat sources (soybean oil, animal/vegetable fat blend, rapeseed oil, and processed fat product) on the chemical composition of broiler meat. A study revealed that fatty acid supplementation (3.0-3.4 g/d CLA) had no significant effect on body composition [36,37]. However, several studies showed that fatty acid can influence meat quality. Park et al. [38] observed that a 0.5% conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) diet significantly elevated whole body protein, water, and ash in rats. Azman et al. [35] demonstrated the impact of CLA on improvement of protein deposition in mice and pigs. Feeding CLA to pigs tended to increase the firmness of the belly and the lean meat content, as well as to improve other aspects of meat quality in growing-finishing pigs [39]. A study in mice study indicated that CLA feeding induced a rapid and remarkable decrease of fat accumulation and an elevation of protein deposition [38], and was able to repartition the body fat to lean in rats [40]. Dugan et al. [41] reported that pigs fed CLA decreased subcutaneous fat accumulation by 6.8%, and gained 2.3% more lean than pigs. The lower fat content in the DF1, DF3 and DF5 group than that of DF4 indicated the leanness of broiler meat, which could be the beneficial outcome of the present study.

Breast and thigh meat fatty acid profile

The composition of poultry meat can be modified by a dietary approach, in which fat and oil sources are important dietary ingredients that can potentially be reflected in the animal products because of their enrichment of energy and fatty acid pattern [42]. Adipose tissues are affected by dietary fat. Some polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), such as linoleic and linolenic acid are essential for humans and animals [27] and must therefore be added into the diet. There is evidence that feeding with certain fatty acids will affect the levels of essential fatty acids in broiler meat [30]. Chicken meat can be a source for these essential fatty acids for humans. However, when fat supplementation is performed in broilers, carcass fat quality must be considered because dietary fatty acids that show little change can greatly affect the body fat as well [30]. The saturated fatty acids (SFAs) in the muscle of poultry depends on the presence of fatty acids in the diet and synthesis in the liver [43]. The synthesis of SFA is inhibited in the liver to a greater extent during digestion of unsaturated fats than saturated fats [44]. In addition, increases in PUFA can influence suppression of the synthesis of monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) through inhibition of the action of 9-desaturase enzyme complex, which is the principal enzyme responsible for conversion of the SFA to MUFA [27]. Consistent with the present study, Azman et al. [35] reported an increase in PUFA and a decrease in SFA after dietary inclusion of soybean oil in broilers. For swine feed, also it creates attention to the nutritionist to formulate the feed with natural feed resources including higher content of PUFA, n-3 PUFA and CLA to enrich these contents into the pork for human health aspects [45]. Addition of vegetable oil (soybean oil, corn oil and sunflower oil) in the diet of non-ruminants results elevation of PUFA percentage which are the consumer demanded healthier products [46]. The suppression of SFA and elevation of PUFA in the meat of DF1 group mainly resulted due to diminution of palmitic (C16:0) and stearic acid (C18:0) and upgradation of linoleic (C18:2n-6) and alfa-linoleic acid (C18:3n-3). The DF1 containing higher linoleic acid levels (51%) which might have influence on elevation of linoleic acid in the meat of broilers relative to other fat groups (DF2, DF3, DF4 and DF5). Linoleic acid (C18:2n-6) is an essential fatty acid that acts as the primary precursor of n-6 PUFAs [7]. Linoleic acid in the diet can suppress lymphocyte proliferation in rats [47]; and alfa-linoleic acid can prevent cardiovascular disease [48], which all could be beneficial for human health through consumption of broiler meat. Eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) was found to be higher in DF2 than DF5 both for breast and thigh meat in the present study. Eicosapentanoic acid is an important fatty acid that is the precursor of eicosanoids (prostaglandins, thromxoxanes, prostacyclins, and leukotrienes) and important to brain function and vision [49]. Such types of fatty acids are important to human health since they are precursors for the biosynthesis of eicosanoids, which are considered an important bio-regulator of many cellular metabolic processes, blood pressure and clotting, tissue growth and immune system modulation [50].

Petrović et al. [51] reported that plant fat sources (hempseed oil containing ɤ-linolenic and stearidonic acid) induces health benefits against cardiovascular diseases, rheumatoid arthritis and dermatitis when consumed. The n-3 PUFA has a number of beneficial effects in humans and animals, such as reducing circulating cholesterol concentrations and reducing the risk of heart disease [52,53]. A fashion of higher alfa-linoleic acid (ALA) and lower arachidonic acid (AA) was exhibited in the breast meat of DF1 group and vice versa for DF3 group which might be attributable to the action of desaturase enzyme. An increase in n-3 PUFA, especially alfa-linoleic acid in the muscle may cause a substantial decrease in arachidonic acid because of the action of delta-6/5-desturase enzymes in the elongation and desaturation metabolism [54]. In the present study, a difference in the SFA and PUFA was apparent; however, no impact on MUFA was observed in the case of breast meat. Valencia et al. [55] reported that when different fat sources are added to the diet, monounsaturated fatty acids have a minimal effect, whereas saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids have a profound effect. There was a higher PUFA/SFA ratio in the DF1 fed group than the other fat fed groups in the current study for both breast and thigh meat. This result is most desirable by the consumers since this phenomenon exhibits positive health benefits for humans through protection against cardiovascular disease [6]. In support of the results of the present study, previous studies have shown that the use of vegetable oils as a dietary source to improve PUFA/SFA in meat are recommended [56]. A decrease in the ratio of n-6 to n-3 PUFA in the animal fat group (DF2, DF3, DF4 and DF5) compared to the plant fat group (DF1) was exhibited in breast meat. Consistently, study conducted by Skrivan et al. [57] demonstrated that substitution of rapeseed oil by lard can decrease the n-6 to n-3 PUFA ratio. A dietary ratio of n-6 to n-3 PUFA is recommended at 4:1 to 7.5:1 by several international organizations to decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease [58-60] and a ratio of 10:1 and 2:1 is reported as the associates of negative consequence on health [61-64]. However, present result revealed that, dietary inclusion of fats in the diet of broilers ensures the n-6 to n-3 PUFA ration with minimum and not exceed the higher or lower limit (10:1 or 2:1) which could be negatively impacted on the human health.

Conclusion

The effects of dietary fat sources with different fatty acid content was evaluated in broilers on carcass characteristics, breast and thigh meat chemical composition and fatty acid profile in broilers. No significant impact on relative organ weight were observed in response to the addition of different fat sources. Breast meat crude fat content was suppressed in DF1 and DF5 relative to DF4 group. Total SFA content was downtrended and total PUFA content was elevated in DF1 group relative to other groups for both breast and thigh meat. The n-3 PUFA was not affected by the fat sources in breast meat, whereas it was elevated in DF1 relative to DF3, DF4 and DF5 in thigh meat. The PUFA to SFA upgraded in DF1 and DF3 and downgraded in DF2, DF4 and DF5 for breast meat; and upgraded in DF1 than other groups for thigh meat. Breast and thigh meat n-6 to n-3 PUFA was upgraded in the DF1 group compared to other groups. The result of the present study elucidated that dietary fat sources with different fatty acid content can significantly influence the breast and thigh meat composition and fatty acid profile without negative impact on the relative organ weight. Results indicated that dietary fat sources with different fatty acid content can significantly influence the breast and thigh meat composition and fatty acid profile without negative impact on the relative organ weight. Among fat treatments, DF1 (corn-soybean meal based basal diet + soybean oil) exhibited better result based on fatty acid profile and lower breast meat fat content which can be preferred for quality broiler meat production.

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted with the support of the “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project title: Development of livestock production manual for halal certification and substantiation studies (Phase 1), Project No. PJ0122822016)” through the Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

Article Usage

  • Total views: 72
  • [From(publication date):
    May-2017 - Jun 23, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 55
  • PDF downloads :17
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords