4.7 Article

Effect of slaughter age and feeding system on the neutral and polar lipid composition of horse meat

期刊

ANIMAL
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 417-425

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1751731117001689

关键词

foal; lipid fractions; dimethylacetals; n-3 fatty acids; long-chain fatty acids

资金

  1. Department of Economic Development and Competitiveness of the Basque Government
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness
  3. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) through the 'Ramon y Cajal' program [RYC-2011-08593]
  4. UPV/EHU [EHUA 13/29]
  5. Basque Government [IT766-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was undertaken to provide a thorough analysis of the neutral lipid (NL) and polar lipid (PL) fractions of horse meat that included the content and distribution of acyl and alkenyl moieties in foals under different rearing conditions. Two groups of crossbred horses were studied; the first group was selected from suckling foals produced under grazing conditions and slaughtered at 4 months of age (n=8), and the second group was selected from concentrate-finished foals and slaughtered at 12 months of age (n=7). There were significant differences related to the age and feeding practices of foals which affected the intramuscular (IM) fat content and the fatty acid (FA) composition of NL and PL fractions. Samples from suckling foals were leaner and provided the highest content of methylation products from the plasmalogenic lipids, and total and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA). By contrast, the meat from concentrate-finished foals had a higher IM fat level resulting in a greater accumulation of 16:0 and total monounsaturated FAs in the NL fraction, whereas the muscle PL fraction retained a similar FA composition between both groups. Linolenic acid was preferentially deposited in the NL fraction, but linoleic acid and the long-chain n-3 and n-6 PUFAs were incorporated into the PL fraction where they served as cell membrane constituents and in eicosanoid formation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据