This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library] On: 28 October 2014, At: 07:34 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
British Poultry Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbps20
Carcass yield and meat quality in broilers fed with canola meal a
b
a
a
c
b
E. Gopinger , E. G. Xavier , J. S. Lemes , P. O. Moraes , M. C. Elias & V. F. B. Roll a
Graduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Pelotas, 96010-900, Pelotas
b
Animal Science Department, Federal University of Pelotas, 96010-900, Pelotas
c
Graduate Program in Food Science and Technology, Federal University of Pelotas, 96010-900, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil Accepted author version posted online: 27 Oct 2014.
To cite this article: E. Gopinger, E. G. Xavier, J. S. Lemes, P. O. Moraes, M. C. Elias & V. F. B. Roll (2014): Carcass yield and meat quality in broilers fed with canola meal, British Poultry Science, DOI: 10.1080/00071668.2014.980394 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2014.980394
Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
1
Publisher: Taylor & Francis & British Poultry Science Ltd Journal: British Poultry Science DOI: 10.1080/00071668.2014.980394
CBPS-2014-154
cr
M an
us
Carcass yield and meat quality in broilers fed with canola meal
E. GOPINGER, E. G. XAVIER1, J. S. LEMES, P. O. MORAES, M. C. ELIAS2 AND V. F. B. ROLL1
d
Graduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Pelotas, 96010-900,
pt e
Pelotas, 1Animal Science Department, Federal University of Pelotas, 96010-900, Pelotas, and 2Graduate Program in Food Science and Technology, Federal University of Pelotas,
ce
96010-900, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Running title: MEAT YIELD AND QUALITY WITH CANOLA
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
ip t
Ed. Kjaer, September 2014; MacLeod, October 2014
Correspondence to: E. Gopinger, Graduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Pelotas, 96010-900, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Tel: +55 53 32757472. Email: [email protected]
Accepted for publication 29th August 2014
2
Abstract. 1. This study evaluated the effects of canola meal in broiler diets on carcass yield, carcass composition, and instrumental and sensory analyses of meat. 2. A total of 320 one-d-old Cobb broilers were used in a 35-d experiment using a completely randomised design with 5 concentrations of canola meal (0, 10, 20, 30 and 40%) as a dietary
ip t
substitute for soybean meal (SBM). 3. Polynomial regression at 5% significance was used to evaluate the effects of canola meal
cr
and instrumental and sensorial analyses.
us
4. The results showed that carcass yield exhibited a quadratic effect that was crescent to the
M an
level of 18% of canola meal based on the weight of the leg and a quadratic increase at concentrations up to 8.4% of canola meal based on the weight of the chest. The yield of the chest exhibited a linear behaviour.
5. The chemical composition of leg meat, instrumental analysis of breast meat and sensory
d
characteristics of the breast meat was not significantly affected by the inclusion of canola
pt e
meal. The chemical composition of the breast meat exhibited an increased linear effect in terms of dry matter and ether extract and a decreased linear behaviour in terms of the ash
ce
content.
6. In conclusion, soybean meal can be substituted with canola meal at concentrations up
to 20% of the total diet without affecting carcass yield,
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
content. The following variables were measured: carcass yield, chemical composition of meat,
composition of meat or the
instrumental or sensory characteristics of the meat of broilers. INTRODUCTION
Canola meal is produced by grinding canola seeds to extract oil for human consumption and contains low concentrations of anti-nutritional substances, such as glucosinolates and erucic acid, which can affect the performance of broiler birds (Canola Council of Canada, 2009). However, the effects of canola meal are not limited to the altered growth rate of broilers. In
3
addition, the metabolic processes that facilitate food transformation, including the formation and retention of protein and fat deposits, can also be significantly affected. As a protein source, canola meal contains approximately 34 to 37% crude protein, and for this reason, it can represent an alternative dietary source to soybean meal (SBM) for broilers.
ip t
Nonetheless, it contains a high crude fibre content (11.20%) and 7.08 MJ ME/kg energy for birds (Rostagno et al., 2011).
cr
quantity and/or quality of the edible portions produced. Studies have indicated that both the
us
protein composition and biological value of canola meal might be comparable in quality to
M an
that of soybean meal. According to Franzoi et al. (2000), the use of canola meal does not alter the live weight, carcass weight or the amount of edible tissues produced and results in an improved carcass quality of broilers. On the other hand, Mikulski et al. (2011) observed that an inclusion of up to 120 g/kg of canola meal does not affect the fundamental characteristics
d
of turkey meat, whereas the addition of 180 g/kg increases the cooking loss, tenderness
pt e
(reduction in shear force) and intensity of the yellow colour in breast meat. The main factors that influence the consumer´s approval or disapproval of meat include
ce
the appearance, tenderness, juiciness and flavour, which are properties that are directly influenced by the age, sex, breed and feeding system of the animals (Sañudo et al., 2000). Thus, the sensory evaluation of meat provides a profile for consumer market preference and
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
Any changes in the composition of diets should not be accompanied by a reduction in the
therefore ensures the quality of a more satisfying product. However, few studies have reported on how the inclusion of canola meal affects the sensory characteristics and meat quality of broilers. Thus, the objective of this work was to evaluate the effects of substituting dietary soybean meal with canola meal for male broilers on the carcass yield, percentage composition, and instrumental and sensory analyses of meat.
4
MATERIAL AND METHODS The methodology and protocols for this experiment were approved by the Ethics Commission in Animal Experimentation of the Federal University of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, under protocol number 4154.
ip t
Animals
cr
During the first week, plate-type feeders and child-cup waterers were used. Subsequently,
us
metal gutter feeders external to the cage and nipple waterers were used. At 21 d of age, the chickens were housed in boxes with rice husk litter containing tubular feeders and nipple
water ad libitum. Experimental design and diets
M an
waterers up to 35 d of age. Throughout the experimental period, the birds received food and
A completely randomised design was used with 5 treatments and 8 replicates, totalling 40
d
experimental units, where each box represented an experimental unit consisting of 8 birds.
pt e
The diets were formulated to meet the nutritional requirements for each developmental stage according to the recommendations of Rostagno et al. (2011). A pre-starter control diet
ce
was fed to all birds at 1 to 7 d of age. Starter diets were used at 8 to 21 d of age, and grower and finisher diets were used at 22 to 35 d of age. Canola meal replaced SBM at following levels:0, 10, 20, 30, and 40% (see Table 1).
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
A total of 320 one-d-old male Cobb broilers were housed in metal batteries with grid floors.
Table 1 near here
Carcass weight and yield A total of 40 birds (8 per treatment) were individually weighed prior to slaughtering at 35 d of age. Cuts of the breast without skin, legs (thighs and drumsticks) and wings with skin were obtained. To evaluate the yield of the parts, the hot carcass cuts were weighed (g) and the yield was calculated relative to live weight prior to slaughter using the following formula:
5
yield = [(cuts weight/live weight)* 100]. After weighing, the cuts were frozen for percentage determination. Chemical composition of the meat To assess the chemical composition of the meat, in natura samples of the leg (thigh and
ip t
drumstick) and breast (skinless and boneless) of 40 birds were thawed and ground. Next, the samples were pre-dried in a forced air oven (55°C) for 72 h. Subsequently, the samples were
cr
were performed according to AOAC (2000).
us
Instrumental analysis
M an
For instrumental analysis, 4 breasts were randomly selected from each treatment group (totalling 20 breast samples) and thawed for 24 h under refrigeration at 4°C for subsequent colour determination using a Chroma Meter CR-310 colorimeter (Minolta, Osaka, Japan) and the L*, a*, b* system, where L* = luminosity, a* = red colour intensity, and b* = yellow
d
colour intensity. Three distinct points of the Pectoralis major muscle were measured to obtain
pt e
a mean value for the colour of this muscle.
Analysis of water retention capacity was also performed and evaluated using a previously
ce
described method of pressure (Sierra, 1973). The resulting meat sample was weighed again using a digital scale to calculate water loss. The results were expressed as the amount of water retained relative to the initial sample weight.
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
ground, and analyses of dry matter (DM), ether extract (EE), crude protein (CP) and ash (AS)
To evaluate the shear force, the samples were wrapped in aluminium foil and baked until
an internal temperature of 85º C was reached. Next, smaller samples were cut parallel to the muscle fibres with the aid of a pourer with a diameter of 1.2 cm2. The shear force was
recorded using Instron equipment coupled to a Warner-Bratzler accessory, which measured the force (N/cm2) required to break the fibres of the samples.
6
To determine cooking loss, the samples were initially weighed in natura, wrapped up in aluminium foil and baked in an electric grill (Black & Decker, model 1600 GS, Brazil) until an internal temperature of 85°C was reached. Cooking loss was determined as the percentage of weight loss of the sample at room temperature.
ip t
Sensory analysis Eight breast cuts were randomly selected per treatment group at 35 d of age (totalling 40
cr
Meilgaard et al. (1999), who evaluated 8 replicates of each of the 5 treatments.
us
The breast samples were thawed under refrigeration at 4°C for 24 h. Next, the samples
M an
were wrapped in aluminium foil and bake on a preheated electric grill until an internal temperature of 82 to 85°C was reached. The samples were cut parallel to the muscle fibres into 1.5-cm cubes, which were coded with three-digit numbers and served at a temperature of 60°C. The samples were analysed in individual cabins and evaluated according to the
d
following attributes: colour intensity, characteristic odour, characteristic flavour, strange
pt e
flavour, residual aftertaste flavour, hardness, fibrousness, juiciness and overall acceptability. The parameters used in the evaluations were chosen by the assessors during a training session.
ce
The panel evaluated the samples on a 9-point structured scale in which intensity was from low (0) to high (9), and overall acceptability was from very bad (0) to very good (9) (Stone and Sidel, 1998).
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
samples). Four sessions were held with 9 trained assessors, as previously described by
Statistical analysis The data were analysed using the generla linear models (GLM) procedure of the SAS
program (SAS, 2002). The polynomial regression used the following model: Yij = µ + Ti + εij, where Yij = observation, µ = population mean, Ti = diet effect (i = 1 to 4) and εij = residual error.
Regression was selected based on the significance of the regression
coefficients (P < 0.05) and the coefficients of determination.
7
RESULTS Carcass weight and yield The means of the variables weight and the yield of the leg, breast and wing at 35 d of age depending on the concentrations of canola meal and the overall F test results for the
ip t
adjustment of the regression equations are presented in Table 2. Wing weight was not significantly affected by the various concentrations of canola meal. However, the leg and the
cr
inclusion of canola meal, respectively, which subsequently decreased. The body weight (g) of
us
the birds increased quadratically to maximal levels at the 20% concentration of canola meal TableTable 2 near2 here near here
M an
and diminished thereafter, coinciding with a reduction in leg and breast weight.
The inclusion of canola meal did not significantly affect the leg yield and wing yield. However, increasing contents of canola meal were associated with a linear decrease of the breast yield.
d
Breast weight of birds fed with 0 and 10% of canola meal was significantly higher than
pt e
the ones fed with 40% of canola meal, according to Student–Newman–Keuls (SNK) (P < 0.05). Additionally, the breast yield of broilers fed with 40% of canola meal was lower than
ce
the ones fed with no canola meal (P < 0.05). However, no difference was found in relation to the other concentrations (P > 0.05). Accordingly, no difference was observed for body weight, leg weight and yield, wing weight and yield among the birds fed with different
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
breast weights exhibited an increasing quadratic response to maximal levels at 18 and 8.4%
concentrations of canola meal (P > 0.05). Chemical composition of the meat Chemical composition values of the leg meat (thigh and drumstick) are shown in Table 3. No significant effect (P > 0.05) was observed by the inclusion of canola meal on the composition of dry matter (DM), ether extract (EE), crude protein (CP) or ash (AS) in the leg meat.
8
Thigh and drumstick samples from chickens exhibited values of bromatological composition ranging from 23.08 to 24.88% for DM, 5.96 to 7.40% for EE, 14.51 to 17.14% Table 3 near here
for CP and 0.94 to 1.03% for ash.
With respect to the chemical composition of the breast meat (Table 4), the concentrations
ip t
of canola meal showed a significant effect only on the dry matter and ether extract content, resulting in an increasing linear response (P = 0.003 and 0.008, respectively). In contrast, the
cr
Chemical composition of breast meat of broilers fed with 40% canola meal showed
us
higher dry matter content than breast meat of birds fed with low concentrations of canola meal
M an
(0 and 10%), according to Student–Newman–Keuls (SNK) (P < 0.05). However, no difference was found in relation to the other concentrations (P > 0.05). Additionally, no difference was observed for EE, CP and ash content among the birds fed with the different
Instrumental analysis
Table 4 near here
d
levels of inclusion of canola meal in the diets (Table 4).
pt e
The substitution of soybean meal with increasing amounts of canola meal did not significantly affect the L* (luminosity), a* (red colour intensity) and b* (yellow colour intensity)
ce
parameters nor did it significantly affect the water retention capacity (WHC), shear force (SF) or the cooking loss (CL) of breast meat (Table 5).
Table 5 near here
Sensory analysis
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
inclusion of canola meal elicited a linear decreasing effect (P = 0.01) on the ash content.
The sensory characteristics of the breast meat were not affected significantly (P > 0.05) by the inclusion of canola meal in the diet (Table 6). The results indicate that canola meal can included at a level up to 40% of the broiler diet without affecting the sensory attributes (colour, texture, juiciness, flavour, odour, and tenderness) of the flesh. At this level the meat quality is maintained, and the organoleptic characteristics are not affected.
Table 6 near here
9
DISCUSSION Carcass weight and yield The results demonstrate that canola meal concentrations of 18 and 8.4% elicit a maximal quadratic response of the leg and breast weights, respectively, which may be attributed to the
ip t
performance of the birds. The body weight (g) of the birds increased quadratically up to 20% concentration of
cr
increasing crude fibre content in diets with increasing canola meal content, which can result in
M an
the birds (Khajali and Slominski, 2012).
us
decreased protein digestibility, leading to less weight gain and a reduced average weight of
However, a linear decrease in the breast yield was observed with increasing concentrations of canola meal, which was likely attributed to the reduced availability of lysine in canola meal. Lysine is directly related to the formation of the breast muscle, and even with
d
isoaminoacidic diets, the availability of lysine is lower in canola meal.
pt e
Khajali et al. (2011) observed that broiler carcass yield was significantly reduced when dietary soybean meal was substituted with canola meal.
ce
Chemical composition of the meat
The inclusion of canola meal did not affect the chemical composition of leg meat. However, the different concentrations of canola meal resulted in an increased linear response of the
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
canola meal and reduced afterwards. The weight reduction observed might be attributed to the
composition of breast meat in terms of dry matter and ether extract. Nonetheless, crude protein content of breast meat was not affected. The results obtained corroborate those of Rehman et al. (2002), who found that the inclusion of canola meal at 0, 7.5 or 15% of the diet had no effect on protein content of chicken breast meat. Similarly, Mikulski et al. (2011) also found no significant differences in
10
the composition of breast meat of turkeys that were fed with different concentrations of canola meal. According to Vieira (2004), although breast meat of birds has a low fat content, there is a significant deposition of subcutaneous fat within the abdominal cavity and drumsticks. As
ip t
shown in Tables 3 and 4, the leg meat (thigh and drumstick) exhibited a fat content that was 2.5 times higher than that of the breast.
cr
are high in protein produce leaner carcasses (Leeson et al. 1996; Raju et al. 2004). However,
us
when energy consumption exceeds what is required for maintenance and growth, this excess
M an
energy is deposited as fat (Lecznieski et al. 2001). Although, in this study, the diets were isoproteic and isoenergetic, the increased amounts of canola meal required increased inclusion of vegetable oil to make the diets isoenergetic, a factor that may have contributed to increase ether extract composition of the breast meat. According to Moreira et al. (2003), an increased
pt e
Instrumental analysis
d
proportion of fat tissue increases dry matter content, as adipose tissue is hydrophobic.
The inclusion of canola meal did not affect the instrumental characteristics of the breast meat.
ce
Samples of chicken breast exhibited values of cooking loss ranging from 24.28 to 26.25%. These values are similar to those cited by Lopes (2007) for breasts of chickens fed with different sources of vegetable protein-containing foods.
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
It is known that diets that are high in energy produce fatter carcasses, whereas diets that
Mikulski et al. (2011) previously evaluated inclusion of canola meal at levels of 0, 60,
120 and 180 g/kg in diets for growing turkeys and observed that the inclusion of 0 to 120 g/kg
did not affect the instrumental characteristics of the meat. However, the inclusion of canola meal at 180 g/kg resulted in increased cooking loss, tenderness (reduced shear force) and increased intensity of yellow colour within the breast meat.
11
Similar to the results obtained in this study, Larmond et al. (1983) observed no significant differences in shear force of breast and thigh meat of turkeys fed with diets containing canola meal at 0, 73, 144 or 211 g/kg. Sensory analysis
ip t
The results show that canola meal can compose up to 40% of the diet of broilers without affecting the sensory attributes. Data from this study corroborate findings previously reported
cr
juiciness or tenderness in the breast and thigh meat of broilers fed with diets containing canola
us
meal at concentrations up to 300 g/kg.
M an
When testing dietary concentrations of canola meal at 0, 73, 144 and 211 g/kg for turkeys, Larmond et al. (1983) reported no significant differences in flavour intensity of thigh and breast meat but found that birds fed with diets containing 211 g/kg of canola meal exhibited reduced juiciness in the breast meat.
d
Sensory properties are important characteristics that influence the acceptance and
pt e
consumption of food. Values of overall acceptance ranged from 4.28 to 4.71 and were not influenced by the inclusion of canola meal in the diets.
ce
In conclusion, the results suggested that soybean meal can be replaced by canola meal at concentrations up to 20% of the total diet without affecting carcass yield, composition of meat or the instrumental or sensory characteristics of the meat of broilers.
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
by Salmon et al. (1984), who observed no significant differences in flavour intensity,
REFERENCES
AOAC (2000). Official methods of analysis of the AOAC, 13th ed., (Arlington, VA, AOAC
International), 989p. BERTOL, T.M., & MAZZUCO, H. (1998) Farelo de canola: uma alternativa proteica para alimentação de suínos e aves. Concórdia: EMBRAPA-CNPSA, 56p. (EMBRAPA-CNPSA. Documentos, 55).
12
CANOLA COUNCIL OF CANADA – CCC (2009) Canola meal: Feed Industry Guide. 4. ed. Canadian International Grains Institute. Available at: . Access in: Oct. 29, 2012. FRANZOI, E.E., SIEWERDT, F., RUTZ, F., BRUM, P. A. R. DE, & GOMES, P. C. (2000)
ip t
Composição de carcaça de frangos de corte alimentados com farelo de canola. Ciência Rural, 30(2): 337-342.
cr
WIDEMAN R. F. (2011) Effects of supplementation of canola meal-based diets with arginine
M an
high altitude. Poultry Science, 90: 2287–2294.
us
on performance, plasma nitric oxide, and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens grown at
KHAJALI, F., & B. A. SLOMINSKI. (2012) Factors that affect the nutritive value of canola meal for poultry. Poultry Science, 91: 2564–2575.
LARMOND, E., SALMON, R. E, & KLEIN, K. K. (1983) Effect of Canola Meal on the
d
Sensory Quality of Turkey Meat. Poultry Science, 62: 397-400.
pt e
LECZNIESKI, J. L., RIBEIRO, A. M. L., KESSLER, A. M., & PENZ JR, A. M. (2001) Influência da forma física e do nível de energia da ração no desempenho e na composição de
ce
frangos de corte. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Producción Animal, 9 (1): 6-11. LEESON, S., CASTON, L., & SUMMERS, J. D. (1996) Broiler responses to diet energy. Poultry Science, 75: 529–535.
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
KHAJALI, F, TAHMASEBI, M., HASSANPOUR, H., AKBARI, M. R., QUJEQ, D., &
LOPES, I.R.V. (2007) Uso de antioxidante nos farelos da castanha de caju e de côco na alimentação de aves. Thesis (doctor). Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza.
MEILGAARD, M. , CIVILLE, G.V. , & CARR, B.T. (1999) Sensory Evaluation Techniques. 3. ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
13
MIKULSKI, D., JANKOWSKI, J., ZDUNCZYK , Z., JUSKIEWICZ , J., & SLOMINSKI , B. (2011) The effect of different dietary levels of rapeseed meal on growth performance, carcass traits, and meat quality in turkeys. Poultry Science, 91: 215–223. MOREIRA, F.B., SOUZA, N.E., MATSUSHITA, M., PRADO, I.N, & NASCIMENTO W.G.
ip t
(2003) Evaluation of carcass characteristics and meat chemical composition of Bos indicus and Bos indicus x Bos taurus crossbred steers finished en pasture systems. Brazilian Archives
cr
RAJU, M. V., SUNDER, G. S., CHAWAK, M. M., RAO, S. V. R. & SADAGOPAN, V. V.
us
(2004) Response of naked neck (Nana) and normal (nana) broiler chickens to dietary energy
M an
level in a subtropical climate. Bristich Poulty Science, 45: 186-193.
REHMAN, A., BHATTI, B., HAMEED, S., & AFZAL, S. (2002) Effect of substitution of soybean meal with canola and sunflower meals on the performance of broilers. Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 22(2):52-55.
d
ROSTAGNO, H.S., ALBINO, L.F.T., DONZELE, J.L, GOMES, P.C., OLIVEIRA, R. F.,
pt e
LOPES, D. C., FERREIRA, A.S., BARRETO, S.L.T, & EUCLIDES, R. F. (2011) Tabelas brasileiras para aves e suínos: composição de alimentos e exigências nutricionais. 3. ed.
ce
Viçosa, MG: UFV, DZO, 252p.
SALMON, R. E., FROEHLICH, D., & BUTLER, G. (1984) Effect of Canola Meal, Fish Meal, and Choline Plus Methionine on the Sensory Quality of Broiler Chickens. Poultry
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
of Biology and Technology, 46: 607-614.
Science, 63: 1994-1998. SAÑUDO, C. ENSER, M. E., & CAMPO, M.M. (2000) Fatty acid composition and sensory characteristic of lamb carcasses from Britain and Spain. Meat science, 54: 339-346. SAS. (2002) SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. Cary: SAS Inst. Inc. SIERRA, I. (1973) Producción de cordero joven y pesado em lar aza. Raza Argoneza. I.E.P.G.E. 18, 28p.
14
STONE, H. & SIDEL, J.L. (1998) Quantitative descriptive analysis: developments, applications and the future. Food technology, 52(8): 48-52. VIEIRA, M. (2004) Qualidade de carcaça em Frangos de corte. Course conclusion work
cr us M an d pt e ce Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
ip t
(Animal Science Faculty) - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.
15
Table 1. Composition of experimental diets (g/kg) Grower and finisher diets (22-35 d) Concentration of canola meal Concentration of canola meal (%) (%) 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 Item 564. 500. 456. 400. 580. 530. 479. 424. 370. Maize 3 0 0 0 349.6 0 0 2 0 0 339. 277. 213. 149. 309. 245. 180. 117. Soybean meal (45% CP) 7 6 2 5 85.4 4 2 8 3 54.6 100. 200. 300. 100. 200. 300. 400. Canola meal (34% CP) 00.0 0 0 0 400.0 00.0 0 0 0 0 116. Soybean oil 29.1 51.4 66.6 86.0 103.2 44.2 61.6 79.0 98.0 6 Iodised salt 04.3 04.3 04.3 04.3 04.3 04.1 04.0 04.0 04.0 04.0 Vitamin mineral mix1 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Dicalcium phosphate 17.8 17.3 16.7 16.4 15.6 12.8 12.6 12.0 11.4 10.8 Kaolin 00.0 05.1 00.2 01.2 00.0 03.7 01.5 00.5 01.4 01.3 DL- Methionine 02.3 01.8 01.1 00.6 00.0 02.6 02.0 01.4 00.8 00.2 L- Lysine HCl 01.8 02.0 01.8 01.9 01.8 02.5 02.5 02.5 02.5 02.5 L- Threonine 00.4 00.4 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.7 00.6 00.6 00.6 00.0 Calculated composition ME (MJ/kg) 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 206. 206. 206. 206. 195. 195. 195. 195. 195. Crude protein 5 5 5 5 206.5 0 0 0 0 0 Calcium 14.8 15.0 15.2 15.5 15.6 13.5 13.8 14.0 14.2 14.4 Available phosphorus 04.3 04.3 04.3 04.4 04.4 03.4 03.4 03.4 03.4 03.4 Digestible Lysine 11.1 11.3 11.1 11.2 11.4 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 Digestible Methionine 05.1 04.9 04.4 04.2 03.8 05.2 04.9 04.5 04.2 03.8 Dig. Methionine+Cystine 07.9 07.9 07.9 08.0 08.0 07.8 07.9 07.9 07.9 07.9
cr
us
M an
d
pt e
ce
Analysed composition
Ash
Crude protein
8.25 20.1 2
8.27 20.2 4
7.91 20.0 4
Ether extract Crude fibre
5.68 3.67
7.25 4.43
9.33 5.30
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
ip t
Starter diet (8-21 d)
1
8.42 20.2 6 11.0 1 5.58
8.38
8.13 19.3 20.69 4
8.37 19.1 8
8.09 19.6 7
12.40 6.16 6.71 3.89
7.96 4.61
9.83 5.55
8.44 19.1 2 11.7 5 5.72
Composition per kg of product: Zinc: 1000 mg; Manganese: 1250 mg; Zinc Bacitracin:
637.50 mg; Iron: 750 mg; Iodine: 18.20 mg; dl-tocopheryl: 200 mg; Thiamin: 17 mg; Pyridoxine: 41 mg; Menadione: 20.30 mg; Cyanocobalamin: 230 mcg; Retinol: 45 mg; Cholecalciferol: 1 mg; Riboflavin : 88 mg; Pantothenic acid: 180 mg; Copper: 200 mg;
8.26 19.0 8 13.1 2 6.87
16
Selenium 7.50 mg; Methionine: 27.20 g; Choline: 3.250 mg; Biotin: 0.80 mg; Folic Acid: 14.60 mg; Salinomycin: 1.650 mg; Nicotinic acid: 524.60 mg; Calcium: 230 g; Phytase:
cr us M an d pt e ce Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
ip t
12500 unit of phytase activity/ kg; Fluoride: 476.40 mg; Phosphorus: 47.64 g.
17
Table 2. Weight and cut yield of broilers fed with canola meal (CM) and slaughtered at 35 d CM
Body
(%)
weight
0
WW
%LW
%BW
%WW
2152.50 a 199.50 a
534.75 a
77.25 a
9.26 a
24.77 a
3.59 a
10
2282.50 a 214.87 a
543.87 a
82.00 a
9.40 a
23.78 ab
3.59 a
20
2281.00 a 212.62 a
524.16 ab
77.00 a
9.33 a
22.29 ab
3.37 a
30
2263.00 a 206.50 a
484.37 ab
83.75 a
9.12 a
21.39 ab
3.70 a
40
2018.50 a 186.00 a
420.75 b
73.62 a
9.21 a
20.76 b
3.64 a
P*
0.008
0.01
0.004
0.22
0.46
0.0005
0.34
CV
5.65
6.80
10.11
7.16
3.44
6.84
5.06
cr
us
LW
ip t
BW
CM: Canola meal, LW: Leg weight (g); Breast weight (g), WW: Wing Weight (g); %LW:
M an
Leg yield (%); %BW: Breast yield (%). %WW: wing yield (%); P*: significance level of 5%, by the adjusted polynomial regression; CV: coefficient of variation (%). Equation adjusted for body weight = 2147.6 + 18.99x - 0.546x2; Equation adjusted for LW = 200.17 + 1.80x - 0.05x2; Equation adjusted for BW = 535.43 + 1.85x - 0.11x2; Equation adjusted for %BW = 24.68 - 0.10x.
Within a column, values not sharing a common superscript letter are significantly different
d
a,b
ce
pt e
(P < 0.05).
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
of age
18
Table 3. Percentage composition of leg meat (thigh on drumstick) of at 35 d of age in broilers given diets with a range of canola meal contents DM (%)
EE (%)
CP (%)
AS (%)
0
23.92
6.78
17.14
0.99
10
23.08
5.96
16.88
1.02
20
24.51
6.70
14.51
30
23.87
6.55
15.56
40
24.88
7.40
16.81
P*
0.28
0.40
0.23
cr
Concentration of canola meal
CV
6.45
20.24
12.64
6.59
ip t 1.03 0.98 0.94
us
0.15
M an
P*: significance level at 5%; CV: coefficient of variation (%); DM: dry matter (%); EE: ether
ce
pt e
d
extract; CP: crude protein (%); AS: Ash (%). Values expressed as percentage of wet weight.
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
(%)
19
Table 4. Adjusted percentage composition of leg meat (thigh on drumstick) of at 35 d of age in broilers given diets with a range of canola meal contents Concentration of
DM (%)
EE (%)
CP (%)
AS (%)
23.36 b
1.97 a
21.48 a
1.09 a
10
23.07 b
1.56 a
21.23 a
1.05 a
20
24.44 ab
2.24 a
21.57 a
30
24.13 ab
2.68 a
20.89 a
40
25.09 a
2.87 a
21.75 a
1.01 a
P*
0.003
0.008
0.72
0.01
CV
3.49
27.56
ip t
0
1.03 a
us
cr
0.97 a
3.79
5.27
M an
P*: significance level at 5%; CV: coefficient of variation (%); DM: dry matter (%); EE: ether extract; CP: crude protein (%); AS: Ash (%).
Equation adjusted for DM = 23.12 + 0.04x; Equation adjusted for EE = 1.68 + 0.029x; Equation adjusted for AS = 1.08 - 0.002x. Values expressed in natural base. a,b
Within a column, values not sharing a common superscript letter are significantly different
ce
pt e
d
(P < 0.05).
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
canola meal (%)
20
Table 5. Instrumental characteristics of meat from chickens fed with canola meal Concentration Colour of canola
SF
CL
b*
a*
(%)
(N/cm2)
(%)
0
55.84
6.93
2.78
15.82
14.51
25.38
10
53.50
6.15
4.17
16.20
17.06
25.78
20
54.77
5.45
3.70
17.37
15.69
24.45
30
56.22
5.45
3.36
18.47
17.95
26.25
40
58.07
7.71
3.15
19.87
16.67
25.04
P*
0.13
0.06
0.05
0.21
CV
5.46
19.87
18.15
29.21
cr
ip t
L*
0.57
0.96
35.17
13.45
us
meal (%)
P* - significance level at 5% by the adjusted regression analysis; CV - coefficient of variation
M an
(%); WHC - water retention capacity; SF - shear force, CL - cooking loss. L* - luminosity, b*
ce
pt e
d
- yellow colour intensity, a* - red colour intensity.
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
WHC
21
Table 6. Sensory characteristics of meat from broilers fed with canola meal Concentration of canola meal (%) Standard Attribute 1
0
10
20
30
40
P*
error
Colour
2.54
3.11
2.63
3.10
2.63
0.54
0.12
odour
3.99
4.21
3.66
4.34
3.85
0.87
0.14
Strange odour
1.52
1.73
1.54
1.54
1.59
0.94
0.12
Hardness
2.52
2.64
3.24
2.74
2.51
0.16
0.12
Juiciness
3.61
3.80
3.42
2.99
3.68
0.11
0.13
Fibrousness
3.94
3.69
4.05
3.95
3.74
0.88
0.16
3.60
3.46
3.69
3.43
0.46
0.12
Residual flavour 2.45
2.65
Strange flavour 2.20
2.15
Overall acceptablity
4.70
4.68
ip t
cr
3.56
2.81
0.07
0.14
2.55
3.01
2.07
0.15
0.14
4.28
4.51
4.71
0.57
0.15
Attributes: structured scale of 9 points(1 = lowest intensity, 9 = highest intensity).
ce
pt e
1
3.91
2.90
d
P* - significance level at 5%.
us
flavour
M an
Characteristic
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
Characteristic
British Poultry Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbps20
Carcass yield and meat quality in broilers fed with canola meal a
b
a
a
c
b
E. Gopinger , E. G. Xavier , J. S. Lemes , P. O. Moraes , M. C. Elias & V. F. B. Roll a
Graduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Pelotas, 96010-900, Pelotas
b
Animal Science Department, Federal University of Pelotas, 96010-900, Pelotas
c
Graduate Program in Food Science and Technology, Federal University of Pelotas, 96010-900, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil Accepted author version posted online: 27 Oct 2014.
To cite this article: E. Gopinger, E. G. Xavier, J. S. Lemes, P. O. Moraes, M. C. Elias & V. F. B. Roll (2014): Carcass yield and meat quality in broilers fed with canola meal, British Poultry Science, DOI: 10.1080/00071668.2014.980394 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2014.980394
Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
1
Publisher: Taylor & Francis & British Poultry Science Ltd Journal: British Poultry Science DOI: 10.1080/00071668.2014.980394
CBPS-2014-154
cr
M an
us
Carcass yield and meat quality in broilers fed with canola meal
E. GOPINGER, E. G. XAVIER1, J. S. LEMES, P. O. MORAES, M. C. ELIAS2 AND V. F. B. ROLL1
d
Graduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Pelotas, 96010-900,
pt e
Pelotas, 1Animal Science Department, Federal University of Pelotas, 96010-900, Pelotas, and 2Graduate Program in Food Science and Technology, Federal University of Pelotas,
ce
96010-900, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Running title: MEAT YIELD AND QUALITY WITH CANOLA
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
ip t
Ed. Kjaer, September 2014; MacLeod, October 2014
Correspondence to: E. Gopinger, Graduate Program in Animal Science, Federal University of Pelotas, 96010-900, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Tel: +55 53 32757472. Email: [email protected]
Accepted for publication 29th August 2014
2
Abstract. 1. This study evaluated the effects of canola meal in broiler diets on carcass yield, carcass composition, and instrumental and sensory analyses of meat. 2. A total of 320 one-d-old Cobb broilers were used in a 35-d experiment using a completely randomised design with 5 concentrations of canola meal (0, 10, 20, 30 and 40%) as a dietary
ip t
substitute for soybean meal (SBM). 3. Polynomial regression at 5% significance was used to evaluate the effects of canola meal
cr
and instrumental and sensorial analyses.
us
4. The results showed that carcass yield exhibited a quadratic effect that was crescent to the
M an
level of 18% of canola meal based on the weight of the leg and a quadratic increase at concentrations up to 8.4% of canola meal based on the weight of the chest. The yield of the chest exhibited a linear behaviour.
5. The chemical composition of leg meat, instrumental analysis of breast meat and sensory
d
characteristics of the breast meat was not significantly affected by the inclusion of canola
pt e
meal. The chemical composition of the breast meat exhibited an increased linear effect in terms of dry matter and ether extract and a decreased linear behaviour in terms of the ash
ce
content.
6. In conclusion, soybean meal can be substituted with canola meal at concentrations up
to 20% of the total diet without affecting carcass yield,
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
content. The following variables were measured: carcass yield, chemical composition of meat,
composition of meat or the
instrumental or sensory characteristics of the meat of broilers. INTRODUCTION
Canola meal is produced by grinding canola seeds to extract oil for human consumption and contains low concentrations of anti-nutritional substances, such as glucosinolates and erucic acid, which can affect the performance of broiler birds (Canola Council of Canada, 2009). However, the effects of canola meal are not limited to the altered growth rate of broilers. In
3
addition, the metabolic processes that facilitate food transformation, including the formation and retention of protein and fat deposits, can also be significantly affected. As a protein source, canola meal contains approximately 34 to 37% crude protein, and for this reason, it can represent an alternative dietary source to soybean meal (SBM) for broilers.
ip t
Nonetheless, it contains a high crude fibre content (11.20%) and 7.08 MJ ME/kg energy for birds (Rostagno et al., 2011).
cr
quantity and/or quality of the edible portions produced. Studies have indicated that both the
us
protein composition and biological value of canola meal might be comparable in quality to
M an
that of soybean meal. According to Franzoi et al. (2000), the use of canola meal does not alter the live weight, carcass weight or the amount of edible tissues produced and results in an improved carcass quality of broilers. On the other hand, Mikulski et al. (2011) observed that an inclusion of up to 120 g/kg of canola meal does not affect the fundamental characteristics
d
of turkey meat, whereas the addition of 180 g/kg increases the cooking loss, tenderness
pt e
(reduction in shear force) and intensity of the yellow colour in breast meat. The main factors that influence the consumer´s approval or disapproval of meat include
ce
the appearance, tenderness, juiciness and flavour, which are properties that are directly influenced by the age, sex, breed and feeding system of the animals (Sañudo et al., 2000). Thus, the sensory evaluation of meat provides a profile for consumer market preference and
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
Any changes in the composition of diets should not be accompanied by a reduction in the
therefore ensures the quality of a more satisfying product. However, few studies have reported on how the inclusion of canola meal affects the sensory characteristics and meat quality of broilers. Thus, the objective of this work was to evaluate the effects of substituting dietary soybean meal with canola meal for male broilers on the carcass yield, percentage composition, and instrumental and sensory analyses of meat.
4
MATERIAL AND METHODS The methodology and protocols for this experiment were approved by the Ethics Commission in Animal Experimentation of the Federal University of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, under protocol number 4154.
ip t
Animals
cr
During the first week, plate-type feeders and child-cup waterers were used. Subsequently,
us
metal gutter feeders external to the cage and nipple waterers were used. At 21 d of age, the chickens were housed in boxes with rice husk litter containing tubular feeders and nipple
water ad libitum. Experimental design and diets
M an
waterers up to 35 d of age. Throughout the experimental period, the birds received food and
A completely randomised design was used with 5 treatments and 8 replicates, totalling 40
d
experimental units, where each box represented an experimental unit consisting of 8 birds.
pt e
The diets were formulated to meet the nutritional requirements for each developmental stage according to the recommendations of Rostagno et al. (2011). A pre-starter control diet
ce
was fed to all birds at 1 to 7 d of age. Starter diets were used at 8 to 21 d of age, and grower and finisher diets were used at 22 to 35 d of age. Canola meal replaced SBM at following levels:0, 10, 20, 30, and 40% (see Table 1).
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
A total of 320 one-d-old male Cobb broilers were housed in metal batteries with grid floors.
Table 1 near here
Carcass weight and yield A total of 40 birds (8 per treatment) were individually weighed prior to slaughtering at 35 d of age. Cuts of the breast without skin, legs (thighs and drumsticks) and wings with skin were obtained. To evaluate the yield of the parts, the hot carcass cuts were weighed (g) and the yield was calculated relative to live weight prior to slaughter using the following formula:
5
yield = [(cuts weight/live weight)* 100]. After weighing, the cuts were frozen for percentage determination. Chemical composition of the meat To assess the chemical composition of the meat, in natura samples of the leg (thigh and
ip t
drumstick) and breast (skinless and boneless) of 40 birds were thawed and ground. Next, the samples were pre-dried in a forced air oven (55°C) for 72 h. Subsequently, the samples were
cr
were performed according to AOAC (2000).
us
Instrumental analysis
M an
For instrumental analysis, 4 breasts were randomly selected from each treatment group (totalling 20 breast samples) and thawed for 24 h under refrigeration at 4°C for subsequent colour determination using a Chroma Meter CR-310 colorimeter (Minolta, Osaka, Japan) and the L*, a*, b* system, where L* = luminosity, a* = red colour intensity, and b* = yellow
d
colour intensity. Three distinct points of the Pectoralis major muscle were measured to obtain
pt e
a mean value for the colour of this muscle.
Analysis of water retention capacity was also performed and evaluated using a previously
ce
described method of pressure (Sierra, 1973). The resulting meat sample was weighed again using a digital scale to calculate water loss. The results were expressed as the amount of water retained relative to the initial sample weight.
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
ground, and analyses of dry matter (DM), ether extract (EE), crude protein (CP) and ash (AS)
To evaluate the shear force, the samples were wrapped in aluminium foil and baked until
an internal temperature of 85º C was reached. Next, smaller samples were cut parallel to the muscle fibres with the aid of a pourer with a diameter of 1.2 cm2. The shear force was
recorded using Instron equipment coupled to a Warner-Bratzler accessory, which measured the force (N/cm2) required to break the fibres of the samples.
6
To determine cooking loss, the samples were initially weighed in natura, wrapped up in aluminium foil and baked in an electric grill (Black & Decker, model 1600 GS, Brazil) until an internal temperature of 85°C was reached. Cooking loss was determined as the percentage of weight loss of the sample at room temperature.
ip t
Sensory analysis Eight breast cuts were randomly selected per treatment group at 35 d of age (totalling 40
cr
Meilgaard et al. (1999), who evaluated 8 replicates of each of the 5 treatments.
us
The breast samples were thawed under refrigeration at 4°C for 24 h. Next, the samples
M an
were wrapped in aluminium foil and bake on a preheated electric grill until an internal temperature of 82 to 85°C was reached. The samples were cut parallel to the muscle fibres into 1.5-cm cubes, which were coded with three-digit numbers and served at a temperature of 60°C. The samples were analysed in individual cabins and evaluated according to the
d
following attributes: colour intensity, characteristic odour, characteristic flavour, strange
pt e
flavour, residual aftertaste flavour, hardness, fibrousness, juiciness and overall acceptability. The parameters used in the evaluations were chosen by the assessors during a training session.
ce
The panel evaluated the samples on a 9-point structured scale in which intensity was from low (0) to high (9), and overall acceptability was from very bad (0) to very good (9) (Stone and Sidel, 1998).
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
samples). Four sessions were held with 9 trained assessors, as previously described by
Statistical analysis The data were analysed using the generla linear models (GLM) procedure of the SAS
program (SAS, 2002). The polynomial regression used the following model: Yij = µ + Ti + εij, where Yij = observation, µ = population mean, Ti = diet effect (i = 1 to 4) and εij = residual error.
Regression was selected based on the significance of the regression
coefficients (P < 0.05) and the coefficients of determination.
7
RESULTS Carcass weight and yield The means of the variables weight and the yield of the leg, breast and wing at 35 d of age depending on the concentrations of canola meal and the overall F test results for the
ip t
adjustment of the regression equations are presented in Table 2. Wing weight was not significantly affected by the various concentrations of canola meal. However, the leg and the
cr
inclusion of canola meal, respectively, which subsequently decreased. The body weight (g) of
us
the birds increased quadratically to maximal levels at the 20% concentration of canola meal TableTable 2 near2 here near here
M an
and diminished thereafter, coinciding with a reduction in leg and breast weight.
The inclusion of canola meal did not significantly affect the leg yield and wing yield. However, increasing contents of canola meal were associated with a linear decrease of the breast yield.
d
Breast weight of birds fed with 0 and 10% of canola meal was significantly higher than
pt e
the ones fed with 40% of canola meal, according to Student–Newman–Keuls (SNK) (P < 0.05). Additionally, the breast yield of broilers fed with 40% of canola meal was lower than
ce
the ones fed with no canola meal (P < 0.05). However, no difference was found in relation to the other concentrations (P > 0.05). Accordingly, no difference was observed for body weight, leg weight and yield, wing weight and yield among the birds fed with different
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
breast weights exhibited an increasing quadratic response to maximal levels at 18 and 8.4%
concentrations of canola meal (P > 0.05). Chemical composition of the meat Chemical composition values of the leg meat (thigh and drumstick) are shown in Table 3. No significant effect (P > 0.05) was observed by the inclusion of canola meal on the composition of dry matter (DM), ether extract (EE), crude protein (CP) or ash (AS) in the leg meat.
8
Thigh and drumstick samples from chickens exhibited values of bromatological composition ranging from 23.08 to 24.88% for DM, 5.96 to 7.40% for EE, 14.51 to 17.14% Table 3 near here
for CP and 0.94 to 1.03% for ash.
With respect to the chemical composition of the breast meat (Table 4), the concentrations
ip t
of canola meal showed a significant effect only on the dry matter and ether extract content, resulting in an increasing linear response (P = 0.003 and 0.008, respectively). In contrast, the
cr
Chemical composition of breast meat of broilers fed with 40% canola meal showed
us
higher dry matter content than breast meat of birds fed with low concentrations of canola meal
M an
(0 and 10%), according to Student–Newman–Keuls (SNK) (P < 0.05). However, no difference was found in relation to the other concentrations (P > 0.05). Additionally, no difference was observed for EE, CP and ash content among the birds fed with the different
Instrumental analysis
Table 4 near here
d
levels of inclusion of canola meal in the diets (Table 4).
pt e
The substitution of soybean meal with increasing amounts of canola meal did not significantly affect the L* (luminosity), a* (red colour intensity) and b* (yellow colour intensity)
ce
parameters nor did it significantly affect the water retention capacity (WHC), shear force (SF) or the cooking loss (CL) of breast meat (Table 5).
Table 5 near here
Sensory analysis
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
inclusion of canola meal elicited a linear decreasing effect (P = 0.01) on the ash content.
The sensory characteristics of the breast meat were not affected significantly (P > 0.05) by the inclusion of canola meal in the diet (Table 6). The results indicate that canola meal can included at a level up to 40% of the broiler diet without affecting the sensory attributes (colour, texture, juiciness, flavour, odour, and tenderness) of the flesh. At this level the meat quality is maintained, and the organoleptic characteristics are not affected.
Table 6 near here
9
DISCUSSION Carcass weight and yield The results demonstrate that canola meal concentrations of 18 and 8.4% elicit a maximal quadratic response of the leg and breast weights, respectively, which may be attributed to the
ip t
performance of the birds. The body weight (g) of the birds increased quadratically up to 20% concentration of
cr
increasing crude fibre content in diets with increasing canola meal content, which can result in
M an
the birds (Khajali and Slominski, 2012).
us
decreased protein digestibility, leading to less weight gain and a reduced average weight of
However, a linear decrease in the breast yield was observed with increasing concentrations of canola meal, which was likely attributed to the reduced availability of lysine in canola meal. Lysine is directly related to the formation of the breast muscle, and even with
d
isoaminoacidic diets, the availability of lysine is lower in canola meal.
pt e
Khajali et al. (2011) observed that broiler carcass yield was significantly reduced when dietary soybean meal was substituted with canola meal.
ce
Chemical composition of the meat
The inclusion of canola meal did not affect the chemical composition of leg meat. However, the different concentrations of canola meal resulted in an increased linear response of the
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
canola meal and reduced afterwards. The weight reduction observed might be attributed to the
composition of breast meat in terms of dry matter and ether extract. Nonetheless, crude protein content of breast meat was not affected. The results obtained corroborate those of Rehman et al. (2002), who found that the inclusion of canola meal at 0, 7.5 or 15% of the diet had no effect on protein content of chicken breast meat. Similarly, Mikulski et al. (2011) also found no significant differences in
10
the composition of breast meat of turkeys that were fed with different concentrations of canola meal. According to Vieira (2004), although breast meat of birds has a low fat content, there is a significant deposition of subcutaneous fat within the abdominal cavity and drumsticks. As
ip t
shown in Tables 3 and 4, the leg meat (thigh and drumstick) exhibited a fat content that was 2.5 times higher than that of the breast.
cr
are high in protein produce leaner carcasses (Leeson et al. 1996; Raju et al. 2004). However,
us
when energy consumption exceeds what is required for maintenance and growth, this excess
M an
energy is deposited as fat (Lecznieski et al. 2001). Although, in this study, the diets were isoproteic and isoenergetic, the increased amounts of canola meal required increased inclusion of vegetable oil to make the diets isoenergetic, a factor that may have contributed to increase ether extract composition of the breast meat. According to Moreira et al. (2003), an increased
pt e
Instrumental analysis
d
proportion of fat tissue increases dry matter content, as adipose tissue is hydrophobic.
The inclusion of canola meal did not affect the instrumental characteristics of the breast meat.
ce
Samples of chicken breast exhibited values of cooking loss ranging from 24.28 to 26.25%. These values are similar to those cited by Lopes (2007) for breasts of chickens fed with different sources of vegetable protein-containing foods.
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
It is known that diets that are high in energy produce fatter carcasses, whereas diets that
Mikulski et al. (2011) previously evaluated inclusion of canola meal at levels of 0, 60,
120 and 180 g/kg in diets for growing turkeys and observed that the inclusion of 0 to 120 g/kg
did not affect the instrumental characteristics of the meat. However, the inclusion of canola meal at 180 g/kg resulted in increased cooking loss, tenderness (reduced shear force) and increased intensity of yellow colour within the breast meat.
11
Similar to the results obtained in this study, Larmond et al. (1983) observed no significant differences in shear force of breast and thigh meat of turkeys fed with diets containing canola meal at 0, 73, 144 or 211 g/kg. Sensory analysis
ip t
The results show that canola meal can compose up to 40% of the diet of broilers without affecting the sensory attributes. Data from this study corroborate findings previously reported
cr
juiciness or tenderness in the breast and thigh meat of broilers fed with diets containing canola
us
meal at concentrations up to 300 g/kg.
M an
When testing dietary concentrations of canola meal at 0, 73, 144 and 211 g/kg for turkeys, Larmond et al. (1983) reported no significant differences in flavour intensity of thigh and breast meat but found that birds fed with diets containing 211 g/kg of canola meal exhibited reduced juiciness in the breast meat.
d
Sensory properties are important characteristics that influence the acceptance and
pt e
consumption of food. Values of overall acceptance ranged from 4.28 to 4.71 and were not influenced by the inclusion of canola meal in the diets.
ce
In conclusion, the results suggested that soybean meal can be replaced by canola meal at concentrations up to 20% of the total diet without affecting carcass yield, composition of meat or the instrumental or sensory characteristics of the meat of broilers.
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
by Salmon et al. (1984), who observed no significant differences in flavour intensity,
REFERENCES
AOAC (2000). Official methods of analysis of the AOAC, 13th ed., (Arlington, VA, AOAC
International), 989p. BERTOL, T.M., & MAZZUCO, H. (1998) Farelo de canola: uma alternativa proteica para alimentação de suínos e aves. Concórdia: EMBRAPA-CNPSA, 56p. (EMBRAPA-CNPSA. Documentos, 55).
12
CANOLA COUNCIL OF CANADA – CCC (2009) Canola meal: Feed Industry Guide. 4. ed. Canadian International Grains Institute. Available at: . Access in: Oct. 29, 2012. FRANZOI, E.E., SIEWERDT, F., RUTZ, F., BRUM, P. A. R. DE, & GOMES, P. C. (2000)
ip t
Composição de carcaça de frangos de corte alimentados com farelo de canola. Ciência Rural, 30(2): 337-342.
cr
WIDEMAN R. F. (2011) Effects of supplementation of canola meal-based diets with arginine
M an
high altitude. Poultry Science, 90: 2287–2294.
us
on performance, plasma nitric oxide, and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens grown at
KHAJALI, F., & B. A. SLOMINSKI. (2012) Factors that affect the nutritive value of canola meal for poultry. Poultry Science, 91: 2564–2575.
LARMOND, E., SALMON, R. E, & KLEIN, K. K. (1983) Effect of Canola Meal on the
d
Sensory Quality of Turkey Meat. Poultry Science, 62: 397-400.
pt e
LECZNIESKI, J. L., RIBEIRO, A. M. L., KESSLER, A. M., & PENZ JR, A. M. (2001) Influência da forma física e do nível de energia da ração no desempenho e na composição de
ce
frangos de corte. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Producción Animal, 9 (1): 6-11. LEESON, S., CASTON, L., & SUMMERS, J. D. (1996) Broiler responses to diet energy. Poultry Science, 75: 529–535.
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
KHAJALI, F, TAHMASEBI, M., HASSANPOUR, H., AKBARI, M. R., QUJEQ, D., &
LOPES, I.R.V. (2007) Uso de antioxidante nos farelos da castanha de caju e de côco na alimentação de aves. Thesis (doctor). Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza.
MEILGAARD, M. , CIVILLE, G.V. , & CARR, B.T. (1999) Sensory Evaluation Techniques. 3. ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
13
MIKULSKI, D., JANKOWSKI, J., ZDUNCZYK , Z., JUSKIEWICZ , J., & SLOMINSKI , B. (2011) The effect of different dietary levels of rapeseed meal on growth performance, carcass traits, and meat quality in turkeys. Poultry Science, 91: 215–223. MOREIRA, F.B., SOUZA, N.E., MATSUSHITA, M., PRADO, I.N, & NASCIMENTO W.G.
ip t
(2003) Evaluation of carcass characteristics and meat chemical composition of Bos indicus and Bos indicus x Bos taurus crossbred steers finished en pasture systems. Brazilian Archives
cr
RAJU, M. V., SUNDER, G. S., CHAWAK, M. M., RAO, S. V. R. & SADAGOPAN, V. V.
us
(2004) Response of naked neck (Nana) and normal (nana) broiler chickens to dietary energy
M an
level in a subtropical climate. Bristich Poulty Science, 45: 186-193.
REHMAN, A., BHATTI, B., HAMEED, S., & AFZAL, S. (2002) Effect of substitution of soybean meal with canola and sunflower meals on the performance of broilers. Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 22(2):52-55.
d
ROSTAGNO, H.S., ALBINO, L.F.T., DONZELE, J.L, GOMES, P.C., OLIVEIRA, R. F.,
pt e
LOPES, D. C., FERREIRA, A.S., BARRETO, S.L.T, & EUCLIDES, R. F. (2011) Tabelas brasileiras para aves e suínos: composição de alimentos e exigências nutricionais. 3. ed.
ce
Viçosa, MG: UFV, DZO, 252p.
SALMON, R. E., FROEHLICH, D., & BUTLER, G. (1984) Effect of Canola Meal, Fish Meal, and Choline Plus Methionine on the Sensory Quality of Broiler Chickens. Poultry
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
of Biology and Technology, 46: 607-614.
Science, 63: 1994-1998. SAÑUDO, C. ENSER, M. E., & CAMPO, M.M. (2000) Fatty acid composition and sensory characteristic of lamb carcasses from Britain and Spain. Meat science, 54: 339-346. SAS. (2002) SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. Cary: SAS Inst. Inc. SIERRA, I. (1973) Producción de cordero joven y pesado em lar aza. Raza Argoneza. I.E.P.G.E. 18, 28p.
14
STONE, H. & SIDEL, J.L. (1998) Quantitative descriptive analysis: developments, applications and the future. Food technology, 52(8): 48-52. VIEIRA, M. (2004) Qualidade de carcaça em Frangos de corte. Course conclusion work
cr us M an d pt e ce Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
ip t
(Animal Science Faculty) - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.
15
Table 1. Composition of experimental diets (g/kg) Grower and finisher diets (22-35 d) Concentration of canola meal Concentration of canola meal (%) (%) 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 Item 564. 500. 456. 400. 580. 530. 479. 424. 370. Maize 3 0 0 0 349.6 0 0 2 0 0 339. 277. 213. 149. 309. 245. 180. 117. Soybean meal (45% CP) 7 6 2 5 85.4 4 2 8 3 54.6 100. 200. 300. 100. 200. 300. 400. Canola meal (34% CP) 00.0 0 0 0 400.0 00.0 0 0 0 0 116. Soybean oil 29.1 51.4 66.6 86.0 103.2 44.2 61.6 79.0 98.0 6 Iodised salt 04.3 04.3 04.3 04.3 04.3 04.1 04.0 04.0 04.0 04.0 Vitamin mineral mix1 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Dicalcium phosphate 17.8 17.3 16.7 16.4 15.6 12.8 12.6 12.0 11.4 10.8 Kaolin 00.0 05.1 00.2 01.2 00.0 03.7 01.5 00.5 01.4 01.3 DL- Methionine 02.3 01.8 01.1 00.6 00.0 02.6 02.0 01.4 00.8 00.2 L- Lysine HCl 01.8 02.0 01.8 01.9 01.8 02.5 02.5 02.5 02.5 02.5 L- Threonine 00.4 00.4 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.7 00.6 00.6 00.6 00.0 Calculated composition ME (MJ/kg) 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 206. 206. 206. 206. 195. 195. 195. 195. 195. Crude protein 5 5 5 5 206.5 0 0 0 0 0 Calcium 14.8 15.0 15.2 15.5 15.6 13.5 13.8 14.0 14.2 14.4 Available phosphorus 04.3 04.3 04.3 04.4 04.4 03.4 03.4 03.4 03.4 03.4 Digestible Lysine 11.1 11.3 11.1 11.2 11.4 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 Digestible Methionine 05.1 04.9 04.4 04.2 03.8 05.2 04.9 04.5 04.2 03.8 Dig. Methionine+Cystine 07.9 07.9 07.9 08.0 08.0 07.8 07.9 07.9 07.9 07.9
cr
us
M an
d
pt e
ce
Analysed composition
Ash
Crude protein
8.25 20.1 2
8.27 20.2 4
7.91 20.0 4
Ether extract Crude fibre
5.68 3.67
7.25 4.43
9.33 5.30
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
ip t
Starter diet (8-21 d)
1
8.42 20.2 6 11.0 1 5.58
8.38
8.13 19.3 20.69 4
8.37 19.1 8
8.09 19.6 7
12.40 6.16 6.71 3.89
7.96 4.61
9.83 5.55
8.44 19.1 2 11.7 5 5.72
Composition per kg of product: Zinc: 1000 mg; Manganese: 1250 mg; Zinc Bacitracin:
637.50 mg; Iron: 750 mg; Iodine: 18.20 mg; dl-tocopheryl: 200 mg; Thiamin: 17 mg; Pyridoxine: 41 mg; Menadione: 20.30 mg; Cyanocobalamin: 230 mcg; Retinol: 45 mg; Cholecalciferol: 1 mg; Riboflavin : 88 mg; Pantothenic acid: 180 mg; Copper: 200 mg;
8.26 19.0 8 13.1 2 6.87
16
Selenium 7.50 mg; Methionine: 27.20 g; Choline: 3.250 mg; Biotin: 0.80 mg; Folic Acid: 14.60 mg; Salinomycin: 1.650 mg; Nicotinic acid: 524.60 mg; Calcium: 230 g; Phytase:
cr us M an d pt e ce Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
ip t
12500 unit of phytase activity/ kg; Fluoride: 476.40 mg; Phosphorus: 47.64 g.
17
Table 2. Weight and cut yield of broilers fed with canola meal (CM) and slaughtered at 35 d CM
Body
(%)
weight
0
WW
%LW
%BW
%WW
2152.50 a 199.50 a
534.75 a
77.25 a
9.26 a
24.77 a
3.59 a
10
2282.50 a 214.87 a
543.87 a
82.00 a
9.40 a
23.78 ab
3.59 a
20
2281.00 a 212.62 a
524.16 ab
77.00 a
9.33 a
22.29 ab
3.37 a
30
2263.00 a 206.50 a
484.37 ab
83.75 a
9.12 a
21.39 ab
3.70 a
40
2018.50 a 186.00 a
420.75 b
73.62 a
9.21 a
20.76 b
3.64 a
P*
0.008
0.01
0.004
0.22
0.46
0.0005
0.34
CV
5.65
6.80
10.11
7.16
3.44
6.84
5.06
cr
us
LW
ip t
BW
CM: Canola meal, LW: Leg weight (g); Breast weight (g), WW: Wing Weight (g); %LW:
M an
Leg yield (%); %BW: Breast yield (%). %WW: wing yield (%); P*: significance level of 5%, by the adjusted polynomial regression; CV: coefficient of variation (%). Equation adjusted for body weight = 2147.6 + 18.99x - 0.546x2; Equation adjusted for LW = 200.17 + 1.80x - 0.05x2; Equation adjusted for BW = 535.43 + 1.85x - 0.11x2; Equation adjusted for %BW = 24.68 - 0.10x.
Within a column, values not sharing a common superscript letter are significantly different
d
a,b
ce
pt e
(P < 0.05).
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
of age
18
Table 3. Percentage composition of leg meat (thigh on drumstick) of at 35 d of age in broilers given diets with a range of canola meal contents DM (%)
EE (%)
CP (%)
AS (%)
0
23.92
6.78
17.14
0.99
10
23.08
5.96
16.88
1.02
20
24.51
6.70
14.51
30
23.87
6.55
15.56
40
24.88
7.40
16.81
P*
0.28
0.40
0.23
cr
Concentration of canola meal
CV
6.45
20.24
12.64
6.59
ip t 1.03 0.98 0.94
us
0.15
M an
P*: significance level at 5%; CV: coefficient of variation (%); DM: dry matter (%); EE: ether
ce
pt e
d
extract; CP: crude protein (%); AS: Ash (%). Values expressed as percentage of wet weight.
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
(%)
19
Table 4. Adjusted percentage composition of leg meat (thigh on drumstick) of at 35 d of age in broilers given diets with a range of canola meal contents Concentration of
DM (%)
EE (%)
CP (%)
AS (%)
23.36 b
1.97 a
21.48 a
1.09 a
10
23.07 b
1.56 a
21.23 a
1.05 a
20
24.44 ab
2.24 a
21.57 a
30
24.13 ab
2.68 a
20.89 a
40
25.09 a
2.87 a
21.75 a
1.01 a
P*
0.003
0.008
0.72
0.01
CV
3.49
27.56
ip t
0
1.03 a
us
cr
0.97 a
3.79
5.27
M an
P*: significance level at 5%; CV: coefficient of variation (%); DM: dry matter (%); EE: ether extract; CP: crude protein (%); AS: Ash (%).
Equation adjusted for DM = 23.12 + 0.04x; Equation adjusted for EE = 1.68 + 0.029x; Equation adjusted for AS = 1.08 - 0.002x. Values expressed in natural base. a,b
Within a column, values not sharing a common superscript letter are significantly different
ce
pt e
d
(P < 0.05).
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
canola meal (%)
20
Table 5. Instrumental characteristics of meat from chickens fed with canola meal Concentration Colour of canola
SF
CL
b*
a*
(%)
(N/cm2)
(%)
0
55.84
6.93
2.78
15.82
14.51
25.38
10
53.50
6.15
4.17
16.20
17.06
25.78
20
54.77
5.45
3.70
17.37
15.69
24.45
30
56.22
5.45
3.36
18.47
17.95
26.25
40
58.07
7.71
3.15
19.87
16.67
25.04
P*
0.13
0.06
0.05
0.21
CV
5.46
19.87
18.15
29.21
cr
ip t
L*
0.57
0.96
35.17
13.45
us
meal (%)
P* - significance level at 5% by the adjusted regression analysis; CV - coefficient of variation
M an
(%); WHC - water retention capacity; SF - shear force, CL - cooking loss. L* - luminosity, b*
ce
pt e
d
- yellow colour intensity, a* - red colour intensity.
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
WHC
21
Table 6. Sensory characteristics of meat from broilers fed with canola meal Concentration of canola meal (%) Standard Attribute 1
0
10
20
30
40
P*
error
Colour
2.54
3.11
2.63
3.10
2.63
0.54
0.12
odour
3.99
4.21
3.66
4.34
3.85
0.87
0.14
Strange odour
1.52
1.73
1.54
1.54
1.59
0.94
0.12
Hardness
2.52
2.64
3.24
2.74
2.51
0.16
0.12
Juiciness
3.61
3.80
3.42
2.99
3.68
0.11
0.13
Fibrousness
3.94
3.69
4.05
3.95
3.74
0.88
0.16
3.60
3.46
3.69
3.43
0.46
0.12
Residual flavour 2.45
2.65
Strange flavour 2.20
2.15
Overall acceptablity
4.70
4.68
ip t
cr
3.56
2.81
0.07
0.14
2.55
3.01
2.07
0.15
0.14
4.28
4.51
4.71
0.57
0.15
Attributes: structured scale of 9 points(1 = lowest intensity, 9 = highest intensity).
ce
pt e
1
3.91
2.90
d
P* - significance level at 5%.
us
flavour
M an
Characteristic
Ac
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 07:34 28 October 2014
Characteristic
