4.4 Article

Echium oil is better than rapeseed oil in enriching poultry meat with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosapentaenoic acid

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 101, 期 5, 页码 709-715

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114508030742

关键词

Echium oil; Stearidonic acid; Rapeseed oil; Poultry meat; n-3 Polyunsaturated fatty acids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

alpha-Linolenic acid (ALA; 18: 3n-3) and stearidonic acid (SDA; 18:4n-3) are on the biosynthetic pathway of EPA (20: 5n-3) and DHA (22: 6n-3). The n-3 fatty acid in rapeseed oil is ALA while Echium oil contains both ALA and SDA. To determine the comparative efficacy of ALA- and SDA-rich oils in enriching broiler meat with n-3 PUFA, we offered diets supplemented with rapeseed oil (rapeseed group) or Echium oil (Echium group) for 35 d to two groups of chicks (age 21 d). There were no differences in carcass weight (2.20 (SEM 0.06) v. 2.23 (SEM 0.05) kg), boned, skinless thigh muscle (494 (SEM 20.5) v. 507 (SEM 16.7) g), boned, skinless breast muscle (553 (SEM 13.4) v. 546 (SEM 11.6) g) or organ weights (heart, liver and gizzard) between the two groups. The total intramuscular fat (IMF) percentage of thigh (8.0 (SEM 0.64) v. 8.1 (SEM 0.62) %) and breast muscles (2.3 (SEM 0.24) v. 2.0 (SEM 0.19) %) were also similar between the groups. In contrast, the concentrations of most of the individual n-3 fatty acids (ALA, SDA, EPA and docosapentaenoic acid) were all higher in the Echium than the rapeseed group (P<0.05). However, differences in DHA concentrations were significant in breast but not thigh muscle IMF. The total n-3 yields/100g serve thigh muscle were 265 and 676 mg for the rapeseed and Echium groups, respectively (P<0.0001). The corresponding values for equivalent breast muscles were 70 and 137 mg, respectively (P<0.01). We conclude that Echium oil is a better lipid supplement than rapeseed oil in changing the concentration and yield of n-3 fatty acids, except DHA, in broiler meat.

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

4.4
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