Display options
Share it on

J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2015 Dec 03;6:51. doi: 10.1186/s40104-015-0050-z. eCollection 2015.

Influence of dietary canola oil and palm oil blend and refrigerated storage on fatty acids, myofibrillar proteins, chemical composition, antioxidant profile and quality attributes of semimembranosus muscle in goats.

Journal of animal science and biotechnology

Kazeem D Adeyemi, Azad B Sabow, Rafiat M Shittu, Roselina Karim, Awis Q Sazili

Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor Malaysia ; Department of Animal Production, University of Ilorin, PMB 1515, Ilorin, Nigeria.
  2. Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor Malaysia ; Department of Animal Resource, University of Salahaddin, Erbil, Kurdistan Region Iraq.
  3. Department of Food Technology, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor Malaysia.
  4. Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor Malaysia ; Halal Products Research Institute, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor Malaysia ; Laboratory of Animal Production, Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor Malaysia.

PMID: 26635960 PMCID: PMC4668711 DOI: 10.1186/s40104-015-0050-z

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Improving the unsaturated fatty acid content of ruminant meat is essential due to the generally saturated nature of fatty acids in ruminant meat and the negative effects this can have on human health. Nonetheless, enhancing the unsaturated fatty acid content of ruminant meat can have adverse effects on the shelf life and quality attributes of the meat. This study assessed the effects of dietary 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil blend (CPOB) on fatty acid composition, antioxidants, oxidative spoilage, cholesterol and physicochemical properties of semimembranosus (SM) muscle from goats. Twenty four Boer bucks were randomly assigned to diets containing on dry matter basis 0, 4 and 8 % CPOB, fed for 100 d and slaughtered. The carcasses were subjected to a 7 d postmortem refrigerated storage. All analyses were conducted on the SM muscle.

RESULTS: Diet had no effect (P > 0.05) on the concentration of free thiol and carbonyl and the band intensity of myosin heavy chain, actin and troponin T. The muscle glycogen, pH, water holding capacity, tenderness, glutathione peroxidase (GPX) activity, total carotenoid, δ-tocopherol, cholesterol and proximate composition did not differ (P > 0.05) between diets. The SM muscle from goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB had lower (P < 0.05) concentration of C14:0 and C16:0 and higher (P < 0.05) concentration of C18:1 trans-11, C18:1ω-9, C18:3ω-3, C20:5ω-3 and C22:5ω-3 than the SM muscle from the control goats. Dietary CPOB increased (P < 0.05) the concentration of α and γ tocopherol and meat redness (a*) on d 1 and 4 postmortem. Regardless of diet, antioxidant vitamins, and shear force decreased (P < 0.05) while drip loss, lipid and protein oxidation increased (P < 0.05) as postmortem storage progressed.

CONCLUSION: Results evince that dietary CPOB can be used as a management tool to enhance the beneficial fatty acids and antioxidant contents of chevon without deleterious effects on its physicochemical properties and shelf life.

Keywords: Actin; Cholesterol; Lipid oxidation; Meat quality; Myosin; Protein oxidation

References

  1. J Agric Food Chem. 1999 Mar;47(3):867-72 - PubMed
  2. J Agric Food Chem. 1999 Jan;47(1):237-44 - PubMed
  3. Lipids. 2000 Apr;35(4):427-35 - PubMed
  4. Poult Sci. 2001 Feb;80(2):228-34 - PubMed
  5. J Anim Sci. 2001 Apr;79(4):895-903 - PubMed
  6. Biomed Pharmacother. 2002 Oct;56(8):365-79 - PubMed
  7. Public Health Nutr. 2003 May;6(3):259-69 - PubMed
  8. J Lipid Res. 1973 May;14(3):364-6 - PubMed
  9. J Dairy Sci. 1991 Oct;74(10):3583-97 - PubMed
  10. J Anim Sci. 2007 Mar;85(3):706-16 - PubMed
  11. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2008;17 Suppl 1:316-9 - PubMed
  12. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Apr;53(4 Suppl):1050S-1055S - PubMed
  13. Meat Sci. 2012 Jan;90(1):28-35 - PubMed
  14. Methods Enzymol. 1990;186:265-72 - PubMed
  15. Meat Sci. 2012 Feb;90(2):297-303 - PubMed
  16. Meat Sci. 1996 Jun;43(2):111-21 - PubMed
  17. Meat Sci. 1998 Oct;50(2):211-21 - PubMed
  18. Meat Sci. 2006 Jul;73(3):536-43 - PubMed
  19. Meat Sci. 2005 Jan;69(1):17-25 - PubMed
  20. Meat Sci. 2005 Sep;71(1):194-204 - PubMed
  21. Meat Sci. 2012 Dec;92(4):848-54 - PubMed
  22. Meat Sci. 2013 Mar;93(3):455-62 - PubMed
  23. Meat Sci. 2013 Jun;94(2):165-9 - PubMed
  24. Nutr Rev. 2013 Jun;71(6):370-85 - PubMed
  25. Lipids. 2014 Aug;49(8):757-66 - PubMed
  26. Meat Sci. 2014 Nov;98(3):505-19 - PubMed
  27. Meat Sci. 2014 Nov;98(3):445-51 - PubMed
  28. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2014 Mar;27(3):447-56 - PubMed
  29. Anim Sci J. 2015 Mar;86(3):270-8 - PubMed
  30. Meat Sci. 2015 Jun;104:78-84 - PubMed
  31. Anim Sci J. 2015 Dec;86(12):981-91 - PubMed
  32. Anim Sci J. 2016 Sep;87(9):1137-47 - PubMed
  33. Anim Sci J. 2016 Jun;87(6):816-26 - PubMed
  34. Food Res Int. 2014 Oct;64:171-181 - PubMed
  35. Aust J Biol Sci. 1985;38(1):33-40 - PubMed
  36. Nature. 1970 Aug 15;227(5259):680-5 - PubMed
  37. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Sep 1;90(17):7915-22 - PubMed
  38. Biochemistry. 1996 Oct 15;35(41):13353-62 - PubMed
  39. Anal Biochem. 1976 May 7;72:248-54 - PubMed
  40. J Anim Sci. 1998 Jan;76(1):110-7 - PubMed

Publication Types