4.2 Article

The effect of lycopene and vitamin E on growth performance, quality and oxidative stability of chicken leg meat

期刊

CZECH JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
卷 56, 期 12, 页码 536-543

出版社

CZECH ACADEMY AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.17221/4416-CJAS

关键词

antioxidants; lycopene; alpha-tocopherol; broiler; growth traits; meat quality; malondialdehyde

资金

  1. Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic [MZE 0002701404]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 2 x 3 factorial design experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of adding lycopene (0 and 75 mg/kg) and vitamin E (0.50 and 100 mg/kg) to the diet of chickens. Moreover, the study investigated growth traits, oxidative stability and chemical composition of leg meat and the vitamin content of meat and liver. The study was conducted using five hundred and forty Ross 308 male broilers that were assigned to one of the six dietary treatments. Significant interactions between lycopene and vitamin E additions affected the body weight of 21-days-old chickens (P = 0.005), the malondialdehyde content in fresh leg meat (P < 0.001) and leg meat stored for 3 days at temperatures of 2.5 to 4 degrees C (P = 0.032), the cholesterol content in leg meat (P < 0.001) and the lycopene content in liver (P = 0.006). The chickens with the highest body weight were fed 75 mg/kg of lycopene and 50 mg/kg of vitamin E. The vitamin E supplement increased the oxidative stability of fresh and stored leg muscle (P < 0.001). The lowest mean cholesterol value (3.49 g/kg of dry matter) was found out in the meat from broilers that were fed 75 mg/kg of lycopene in contrast to broilers fed the control treatment without lycopene (3.93 g/kg of dry matter). Dietary vitamin E significantly reduced the fat content (P = 0.033) and increased the ash content of leg meat. The highest lycopene concentration in liver (2.82 mg/kg of dry matter) was in chickens that were fed the highest levels of vitamin E and lycopene in contrast with the control group (0.28 mg/kg of dry matter).

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

4.2
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