Effects of Dietary Hempseed or Camelina Cakes on Fatty Acid Composition of Quail Meat
Department of Ecology, Animal Science Institute, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, R. Zebenkos 12, 82317 Baisogala, Lithuania
Department of Animal Breeding and Reproduction, Animal Science Institute, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, R. Zebenkos 12, 82317 Baisogala, Lithuania; arturas.siukscius@lsmu.lt (A.Š.); giedrius.sarauskas@lsmu.lt (G.Š.)
Department of Animal Feeding and Feedstuffs, Animal Science Institute, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, R. Zebenkos 12, 82317 Baisogala, Lithuania; raimondas.leikus@lsmu.lt
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of dietary hempseed or camelina cakes on the fatty acid profiles of intramuscular fat in quail. A total of 189 one-day-old quail were allocated to three dietary treatment groups. The diet of the control (C) group was supplemented with 10% rapeseed cake, whereas the rapeseed in experimental 1 (HE) and experimental 2 (CA) groups was replaced by, respectively, hempseed cake and camelina cake in the same proportions. The length of the study was 42 days. Dietary enrichment with camelina cake increased the α-linolenic fatty acid (ALA) content in the meat of CA group 2.5 times (p < 0.01). The muscle tissues of CA contained 3.4–3 times more eicosapentaenoic acid (p < 0.01), 1.2 times more docosapentaenoic acid (p < 0.05–p < 0.01) and 1.3 times more docosahexaenoic acid (p < 0.01) and, thus, demonstrated the increase in total long chain (LC) n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) (p < 0.01) and total n-3 PUFA (p < 0.01) compared with the C group. The ALA and total n-3 PUFA content in the breast and leg meat of HE-treated quail were, respectively, 1.3 and 1.1 times higher (p < 0.01) than in the C group but the accumulation was lower compared to the CA group. The content of γ-linolenic acid was found to be 1.21–1.31 times higher in HE quail meat (p < 0.01). However, hempseed cake supplementation had a negative effect on growth performance. The supplementation of quail feed with camelina or hempseed cakes resulted in the production of healthy meat with an increased n-3 PUFA content.
Untitled section
Keywords: quail, oilseed by-products, n-3 fatty acids, meat, health
Article notes
Untitled section
Received 2023 Nov 9; Revised 2023 Dec 12; Accepted 2023 Dec 22; Collection date 2024 Jan.
1. Introduction
Consumers give preference to poultry meat due to its high quality, nutritive value and lower costliness compared to other meats. Epidemiological studies conducted in diverse populations with different food preferences and nutritional habits established a relation between the consumption of poultry in a balanced diet and good health [1].
Broiler chickens are the most produced poultry in the world. In 2020, 33 billion broil-er chickens were raised [2]. It is predicted that animal protein consumption will continue to increase in low- and middle-income countries due to population and income growth. Meanwhile, it is expected that in high-income countries the consumption of poultry meat will stabilize or decrease [2]. In the aging populations of the latter countries, consumer decisions are increasingly influenced by the health effects of consumed products. Greater protein source diversity is also desirable and the impact of production on the environment is being taken into account.
One of such alternatives that could occupy a specific niche is quail meat. An estimated 1.4 billion quail are farmed annually, which accounts for 0.2% of the total poultry production [3,4]. Over 80% of quail are grown in China. More than 100 million quail are raised annually in the European Union [4]. Compared to other bird species, quail production is distinguished by the possibility to grow large quail numbers in small facilities, moreover, quail are characterized by early sexual maturity, shorter generation interval (2 to 5 generations per year can be achieved), are known for their longevity, heat tolerance, resistance to diseases and low production cost [3,5,6]. In many countries, among consumers, the opinion has been formed that quail meat is more valuable than that of chickens grown under intensive poultry farming and stands out as being more natural and healthier [5].
Studies show that quail meat contains more fat than chicken, but the composition of fatty acids in quail is more favorable to human health [7,8,9,10,11,12]. The content of harmful to human health saturated fatty acids (SFA) in quail breast is lower [12,13,14,15] and that of favorable α-linolenic fatty acid (ALA) higher compared to chicken [12,13,14,15]. The n-6/n-3 ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), which important in human nutrition, in the breast meat of quail and chicken is similar (9.54–22.10 vs. 13.77–18.2) [12,13,14,15], but higher than that to be found in a healthy diet [16].
Research has established a direct positive correlation between the amount of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) in feed and n-3 PUFA accumulation in the body tissues [17]. Therefore, there arises a possibility to manipulate the fatty acid composition of birds’ muscles through the composition of the feed and, thus, generate consumer health beneficial food.
In order to increase the sustainability of poultry production by implementing the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations and EU Farm to Fork Strategy, it is recommended to reduce dependence on imported feed raw materials, for example, soya; shorten supply chains; and look for alternative protein and oilseed crops adapted to local conditions.
Camelina (Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz) [18] and hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) [19] has recently become a matter of interest in agriculture and industry. These underexploited crops are naturally resistant to pests and diseases, require less mineral fertilization and water [20,21] and are considered more sustainable than other cultures [22] satisfying the goals the EU Green Deal for reduced chemical input use by 2030. Moreover, camelina and hemp are multipurpose crops widely used in food, feed, chemical and energy industries. After extracting oil from their seeds, considerable amounts of cake containing valuable nutrients are formed, which can be used for bird feeding. The protein content in camelina cake amounts to 33.1–38.42% [23,24], and that of fat to 10.52–13.9% [23,24], with as much as 25.88–31.50% ALA [25,26,27,28] and 26.72–33.36% total n-3 PUFA [25,26,27].
Meanwhile, hempseed cake contains 24.8–34.3% protein [29,30,31], 8.7–12.7% fat [29,30], 12.82–19.1% ALA [26,29,32] and 14.62–19.1% total n-3 PUFA [26,29,32].
Research shows that supplementation of the chicken diet with camelina cake increases the accumulation of n-3 PUFA in their muscles. In breast muscles, ALA was found to be 1.34 to 3.90 times higher, the total n-3 PUFA was 1.32 to 3.23 times higher and the n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio was decreased from 1.32 to 2.83 times [7,10,27,33,34]. In thigh muscles, ALA increased from 1.32 to 4.37 times and the total n-3 PUFA from 1.74 to 3.73 times. Meanwhile, the n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio decreased from 1.78 to 2.89 times [7,27].
Jing et al. [35] indicated that the supplementation of the chicken diet with hemp oil resulted in 2.46–5.45 times higher ALA content, 3.82–14.76 times higher total n-3 PUFA content and 2.25–3.25 times higher long-chain (LC) n-3 PUFA content in the meat.
So far, we have not been able to find any scientific research aimed at evaluating the changes in the fatty acid content of quail meat after enriching their diets with camelina or hempseed cakes.
The results of research conducted with chickens and the fact that quail belong to the same gallinaceous birds (Galliformes order) allow us to assume that camelina and hempseed cakes in their diets should have an effect on the fatty acid content changes in quail meat. The knowledge that camelina and hempseed cakes differ in their PUFA composition also leads to the assumption that cake feeding effects on the accumulation of fatty acids in quail meat could be different.
The purpose of our study was to investigate the effects of dietary hempseed or camelina cakes on the fatty acid profiles of intramuscular fat in the muscles of quails.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Poultry, Management and Study Design
The study was carried out on the experimental farm of the LUHS Animal Science Institute.
The investigations were conducted in accordance with the law of the Republic of Lithuania for animal welfare and handling, Law No. IX-2271 [36], and a sub-statutory act by the State Food and Veterinary Service of Lithuanian Republic regarding the confirmation of the order on the animals for experiments, research, storage, maintenance and operating requirements [37].
One-day old quail males of the Estonian breed were obtained from a commercial hatchery. This breed was developed from the Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) in Estonia and recognized in 1987. Three treatment groups of 63 birds each were formed from 189 birds in total. The groups consisted of 9 replicates of 7 birds each. The quail in the control group (C) were fed compound feed containing 10% rapeseed cake. In the second and third quail groups, rapeseed cake was replaced by 10% hempseed (HE) and camelina cakes (CA), respectively. The feed for all groups was isoprotein and isocaloric, produced according to the requirements of the NRC (National Research Council, 1994) (Table 1).
| Specification | Control Group (C) | Experimental 1 (HE) | Experimental 2 (CA) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Until 28 Days | Over 28 Days | Until 28 Days | Over 28 Days | Until 28 Days | Over 28 Days | |
| Wheat, % | 19.93 | 31.76 | 18.48 | 29.84 | 20.67 | 32.74 |
| Barley, % | 4.00 | 6.00 | 4.00 | 6.00 | 4.00 | 6.00 |
| Maize, % | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 |
| Peas, % | 8.00 | 10.00 | 8.00 | 10.00 | 8.00 | 10.00 |
| Sunflower meal, % | 10.00 | 8.61 | 10.00 | 10.60 | 10.00 | 7.63 |
| Rape cake, % | 10.00 | 10.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Hempseed cake, % | 0.00 | 0.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Camelina cake, % | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 |
| Soybean meal, % | 18.07 | 4.00 | 19.56 | 4.00 | 17.34 | 4.00 |
| Brewers’ yeast, % | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
| Oyster shells, % | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Feeder’s chalk, % | 1.24 | 1.25 | 1.39 | 1.43 | 1.25 | 1.27 |
| Premix, % * | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Sunflower oil, % | 1.50 | 1.00 | 1.50 | 1.00 | 1.50 | 1.00 |
| Fodder salt, % | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Monocalcium phosphate, % | 0.66 | 0.78 | 0.47 | 0.53 | 0.64 | 0.76 |
| Calculated nutritional value of feed mixture | ||||||
| Dry matter, kg/kg | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.87 |
| Metabolizable energy, MJ/kg | 10.93 | 11.20 | 11.17 | 11.39 | 11.03 | 11.32 |
| Crude protein, g/kg | 240.04 | 190.51 | 240.03 | 190.51 | 240.03 | 190.50 |
| Lysine, g/kg | 12.62 | 9.24 | 12.24 | 8.71 | 12.28 | 8.98 |
| Methionine + Cysteine, g/kg | 6.96 | 5.88 | 6.96 | 6.05 | 7.32 | 6.16 |
| Threonine, g/kg | 8.92 | 7.23 | 8.53 | 6.87 | 8.74 | 7.02 |
| Tryptophan, g/kg | 2.81 | 2.33 | 2.63 | 2.17 | 2.78 | 2.28 |
| Fiber, g/kg | 59.39 | 49.89 | 75.00 | 70.53 | 60.96 | 50.27 |
| Fat, g/kg | 47.39 | 42.59 | 40.96 | 36.59 | 42.16 | 37.15 |
| Calcium, g/kg | 12.48 | 12.37 | 12.46 | 12.39 | 12.46 | 12.38 |
| Phosphorus, g/kg | 7.23 | 7.02 | 7.30 | 7.09 | 7.28 | 7.01 |
| Glucosinolates, g/kg | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
The composition of fatty acid in the feed for the meat type quail is presented in Table 2 and Table 3.
| Item | Rapeseed Cake | Hempseed Cake | Camelina Cake |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry matter % | 88.86 | 94.88 | 89.42 |
| Metabolizable energy MJ/kg | 8.24 | 11.01 | 9.03 |
| Crude protein % | 36.12 | 30.95 | 38.61 |
| Lysine g/kg | 17.80 | 10.30 | 16.20 |
| Methionine + cysteine g/kg | 10.90 | 9.90 | 15.00 |
| Threonine g/kg | 14.50 | 8.80 | 13.60 |
| Tryptophan g/kg | 4.30 | 2.00 | 4.20 |
| Ether extract % | 12.71 | 6.30 | 7.46 |
| Crude fiber % | 12.35 | 27.32 | 14.23 |
| Calcium % | 0.58 | 0.25 | 0.57 |
| Phosphorus % | 0.95 | 1.42 | 1.07 |
| Glucosinolates % | 0.16 | 0.00 | 0.25 |
| Fatty acids (% of total fatty acids): | |||
| Capric (C10:0) | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 |
| Myristic (C14:0) | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.06 |
| Pentadecanoic (C15:0) | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| Palmitic (C16:0) | 8.22 | 6.34 | 6.12 |
| Margaric (C17:0) | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.04 |
| Stearic (C18:0) | 1.36 | 2.35 | 2.17 |
| Arachidic (C20:0) | 0.36 | 0.70 | 1.28 |
| Behenic (C22:0) | 0.20 | 0.32 | 0.33 |
| Lignoceric (C24:0) | 0.16 | 0.12 | 0.23 |
| SFA * | 10.60 | 10.01 | 10.27 |
| Palmitoleic (C16:1n-9) | 1.13 | 0.02 | 0.05 |
| Hexadecenoic (C16:1n-7) | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.13 |
| Heptadecenoic (C17:1n-9) | 0.17 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
| Elaidic (C18:1n-9t) | 0.31 | 0.00 | 0.22 |
| Oleic (C18:1n-9) | 41.34 | 8.84 | 12.57 |
| Vaccenic (C18:1n-7) | 10.55 | 0.91 | 1.33 |
| Eicosenoic (C20:1n-9) | 0.66 | 0.35 | 11.73 |
| Erucic (C22:1n-9) | 0.21 | 0.00 | 2.52 |
| Nervonic (C24:1) | 0.00 | 0.06 | 1.16 |
| MUFA * | 54.47 | 10.30 | 29.71 |
| Octadecadienoic (C18:2n-6c,t) | 0.33 | 0.07 | 0.00 |
| Linoleic (C18:2n-6) | 28.42 | 57.26 | 20.65 |
| γ-linolenic (C18:3n-6) | 0.06 | 1.99 | 0.11 |
| Eicosadienoic (C20:2n-6) | 0.00 | 0.80 | 1.85 |
| Docosadienoic (C22:2n-6) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.40 |
| n-6 PUFA | 28.81 | 60.12 | 23.01 |
| α-linolenic (C18:3n-3) | 6.12 | 19.51 | 35.54 |
| Eicosatrienoic (C20:3n-3) | 0.00 | 0.06 | 1.47 |
| n-3 PUFA | 6.12 | 19.57 | 37.01 |
| PUFA * | 34.93 | 79.69 | 60.02 |
| n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio | 4.71 | 3.07 | 0.62 |
| linoleic (C18:2)/α-linolenic (C18:3n-3) ratio | 4.64 | 2.93 | 0.58 |
| Fatty Acid | Control (C) | Experimental 1 (HE) | Experimental 2 (CA) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capric (C10:0) | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.03 |
| Myristic (C14:0) | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.07 |
| Palmitic (C16:0) | 9.05 | 8.75 | 9.68 |
| Margaric (C17:0) | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.00 |
| Stearic (C18:0) | 2.50 | 2.51 | 2.26 |
| Arachidic (C20:0) | 0.32 | 0.35 | 0.63 |
| Behenic (C22:0) | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.29 |
| Lignoceric (C24:0) | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.20 |
| SFA * | 12.58 | 12.29 | 13.16 |
| Oleic (C18:1n-9) | 17.08 | 16.07 | 15.46 |
| Eicosenoic (C20:1n-9) | 0.33 | 0.37 | 3.34 |
| Erucic (C22:1n-9) | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.73 |
| MUFA * | 19.27 | 17.80 | 21.13 |
| Octadecadienoic (C18:2n-6c, t) | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.00 |
| Linoleic (C18:2n-6) | 63.11 | 63.88 | 50.19 |
| γ –linolenic (C18:3n-6) | 0.36 | 0.53 | 0.50 |
| Eicosadienoic (C20:2n-6) | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.71 |
| Arachidonic (C20:4n-6) | 0.46 | 0.21 | 0.39 |
| Docosadienoic (C22:2n-6) | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.10 |
| n-6 PUFA | 64.11 | 64.94 | 51.89 |
| α-linolenic (C18:3n-3) | 4.01 | 4.96 | 13.43 |
| Eicosatrienoic (C20:3n-3) | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.39 |
| n-3 PUFA | 4.04 | 4.97 | 13.82 |
| PUFA * | 68.15 | 69.91 | 65.71 |
| n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio | 15.87 | 13.07 | 3.75 |
| Linoleic/α-linolenic ratio | 15.74 | 12.88 | 3.74 |
During the experimental period, water and feed were provided ad libitum. The quail were raised in “Comfortplast” brooders for up to 28 days, and each bird was provided with 145 cm2 floor space. From the age of 29 days, the quail were reared in “Comfortplast” cages. Each bird was provided with 225 cm2 of floor space. All birds were reared under the same conditions. The quail were individually weighed at the beginning, day 28 and day 42 of the study. Feed intake was measured daily per cage.
The temperature of 34–35 °C was maintained in the cages in the first week, 30 °C in the second week, 26 °C in the third week and 20 °C in the last week of raising. The light–dark schedules were L24:D0h and L23:D1h from day 1 to day 14 and day 15 to day 42, respectively. The temperature in the quail raising room was maintained at 20 °C, relative humidity amounted to 60–65%, air speed 0.3 m/s and ammonia concentration to 5 ppm.
The length of the study was 42 days. At the end of the study, a control slaughter was performed by selecting 15 quail from each group. Prior to slaughter, the birds had not been fed for 12 h and afterwards were slaughtered in a commercial EU-licensed abattoir. The quail were electrically stunned in a water bath and then had their jugular vein cut. Carcasses were anatomically dissected according to the methodological recommendation [38].
At slaughter, breast and leg muscle samples were taken from each bird for the fatty acid composition analysis. The musculus pectoralis major was taken for analysis from the breast. All the thigh and drumstick muscles were taken from the legs of the quail for analysis. The composition of fatty acids was also analyzed in the feed for over 28 days old quail in the control and experimental groups.
2.2. Fatty Acid Analyses
The lipids for fatty acids analysis were extracted using a chloroform (Chromasolv Plus for HPLC with 0.5–1.0% ethanol)/methanol (Chromasolv for HPLC ≥ 99.9%) mixture (2:1 v/v) following the method outlined by Folch et al. [39]. The preparation of fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) from the total lipids followed the protocol described by Christopherson and Glass [40]. The analysis of the FAME was conducted using a Shimadzu GC-2010 Plus gas chromatograph (Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan) equipped with a flame ionization detector. The separation of FAME was carried out on a capillary column Rt-2560 (100 m; 0.25 mm ID; 0.25 µm df) from Restek (Bellefonte, PA, USA) through temperature programming ranging from 160 °C to 230 °C.
The injector temperature was maintained at +240 °C and the detector at +260 °C. The carrier gas (nitrogen) flow rate was set at 0.79 mL/min. The total duration of the gas chromatography analysis was 60 min, and the injection volume was 1.0 µL. The identification of FAME was achieved by comparing its retention times with those of authentic standard mixtures (Supelco 37 comp. FAME mix.) The relative proportion of each fatty acid in the sample was expressed as a percentage relative to the total sum of fatty acids using the ”LABSolutions LC/GC” (version 5.71) software for Shimadzu gas chromatograph workstations.
2.3. Lipid Quality Indices
The atherogenic index (AI) and the thrombogenic index (TI) [16,41], hypocholesterolemic/hypercholesterolemic (h/H) [42], peroxidability index (PI) [43] and the desirable fatty acids (DFA) [44] and hypercholesterolemic saturated fatty acids (HSFA) [45] indices were calculated on the basis of fatty acid analysis data.
2.4. Cholesterol Determination
The cholesterol content in quail muscles was determined according to the method described by Polak et al. [46]. For that purpose, we used a Shimadzu (Shimadzu corp., Kyoto, Japan) low pressure gradient HPLC system, consisting of a solvent delivery module LC-10ATVP, auto injector SIL-10ADVP, column oven CTO-10ACVP, UV–Vis detector SPD-10AVVP, system controller SCL-10AVP and on-line degasser DGU-14A. For HPLC system control and data collection, we used a Workstation LC Solution (Shimadzu corp., Kyoto Japan). A LiChrospher 100 RP-18e (150 × 4.6 mm, 5 μm) chromatography column (Alltech Associates Inc., Deerfield, Illinois, USA) was used for cholesterol separation. The chromatogram was executed at a wavelength of 210 nm. The mobile phase consisted of acetonitrile and 2-propanol (55:45), and a flow rate of 1.0 mL min−1 was used.
2.5. Statistical Analyses
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results of our study. Statistical analysis was conducted using the software package Statistica (StatSoft Inc. STATISTICA 2006, Version 7). The results are presented as mean values and standard error (SE). Statistical data were examined through a standard one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods. In instances where ANOVA revealed differences between the groups, the significance of these differences within specific groups were determined using the Ryan–Einot–Gabriel–Welsh studentized range Q (REGWQ) post hoc test. The differences were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Growth Performance
Our study indicated that the addition of hempseed cake had negatively affected the growth performance of quail (Table 4). The live weights of HE quail at the age of 28 and 42 days were, respectively, 9.83 g (p < 0.01) and 12.01 g (p < 0.01) lower in comparison with C group. Feed intake in the HE quail group was 19 g lower throughout the entire raising period (p < 0.05). This led to an increase in feed conversion ratio (FCR) (p < 0.05).
| Item | Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (C) | Experimental 1 (HE) | Experimental 2 (CA) | ||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | |
| Live weight, g | ||||||
| 28 days | 165.56 A | 1.945 | 155.73 B | 1.737 | 161.64 | 1.694 |
| 42 days | 214.01 A | 2.624 | 202.00 B | 2.371 | 208.40 | 2.547 |
| Feed intake (g/bird) | ||||||
| 1–28 day | 277.00 | 3.873 | 267.57 | 3.022 | 273.71 | 3.205 |
| 29–42 day | 288.29 | 4.224 | 278.00 | 2.370 | 281.43 | 3.108 |
| 1–42 day | 565.29 a | 6.998 | 545.57 b | 3.265 | 555.14 | 5.152 |
| Feed conversion ratio | ||||||
| 1–28 day | 1.77 B | 0.004 | 1.82 A | 0.018 | 1.79 | 0.013 |
| 29–42 day | 5.97 | 0.124 | 6.02 | 0.079 | 6.03 | 0.085 |
| 1–42 day | 2.75 b | 0.012 | 2.82 a | 0.025 | 2.78 | 0.020 |
The reason for the decrease in quail growth and feed intake in the HE group can be explained by a higher crude fiber content in hempseed cake, which could have reduced nutrient digestibility [47]. Similar data were obtained in a study with chickens by Stastnik et al. [31].
Meanwhile, the growth performance parameters of CA quail did not differ from the control group. Other researchers have also found that camelina cake does not have a negative effect on the growth performance of chickens [10] and quail [48,49].
3.2. Carcass Dissection Data
Our study showed that the use of hempseed and camelina cakes in the diet of quail did not affect anatomical carcass dissection indicators (Table 5). No differences were found between the groups for the carcass yield and non-edible internal, heart, liver and abdominal fat. The proportions of the most valuable breast and leg muscles in the carcass did not decrease either (Table 5). No changes in anatomical carcass dissection data were found by Bulbul et al. [48] and Konca et al. [50], who also used camelina or hempseed in quail feed.
| Item | Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (C) | Experimental 1 (HE) | Experimental 2 (CA) | ||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | |
| Carcass yield | 71.31 | 2.174 | 72.44 | 0.820 | 71.71 | 0.460 |
| Non-edible internal parts | 9.84 | 0.930 | 7.80 | 0.467 | 8.72 | 0.672 |
| Heart | 1.21 | 0.037 | 1.25 | 0.039 | 1.19 | 0.034 |
| Gizzard | 2.34 A | 0.116 | 2.08 | 0.080 | 1.95 B | 0.085 |
| Liver | 2.18 | 0.140 | 2.34 | 0.089 | 2.35 | 0.233 |
| Abdominal fat | 2.44 | 0.373 | 2.76 | 0.459 | 1.96 | 0.286 |
| Breast muscle | 22.40 | 3.194 | 22.49 | 1.795 | 22.33 | 2.796 |
| Leg muscle | 18.29 | 2.099 | 19.86 | 0.777 | 19.50 | 0.851 |
3.3. Fatty Acid Profiles of Intramuscular Fat in the Muscles of Quail
3.3.1. Saturated Fatty Acids
Our study showed that supplementing quail diets with hempseed or camelina cakes did not increase the total SFA content in quail meat; however, differences between individual saturated fatty acids were found (Table 6 and Table 7).
| Fatty Acid | Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (C) | Experimental 1 (HE) | Experimental 2 (CA) | ||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | |
| Lauric (C12:0) | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.003 |
| Myristic (C14:0) | 0.34 b | 0.008 | 0.33 b | 0.010 | 0.37 a | 0.010 |
| Pentadecanoic (C15:0) | 0.04 A | 0.001 | 0.03 B,b | 0.001 | 0.04 A,a | 0.001 |
| Palmitic (C16:0) | 18.13 B | 0.158 | 18.10 B,b | 0.277 | 19.12 A,a | 0.275 |
| Margaric (C17:0) | 0.09 | 0.004 | 0.08 | 0.003 | 0.09 | 0.005 |
| Stearic (C18:0) | 9.79 | 0.261 | 9.49 | 0.238 | 9.53 | 0.264 |
| Arachidic (C20:0) | 0.06 | 0.002 | 0.06 | 0.002 | 0.07 | 0.002 |
| Behenic (C22:0) | 0.06 A | 0.005 | 0.03 B | 0.002 | 0.08 A | 0.011 |
| Total SFA | 28.52 a,b | 0.374 | 28.14 b | 0.414 | 29.30 a | 0.323 |
| Myristoleic (C14:1n-7) | 0.09 | 0.007 | 0.08 | 0.007 | 0.09 | 0.006 |
| Palmitelaidic (C16:1n-7t) | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.004 |
| Hexadecenoic (C16:1n-9) | 0.25 | 0.007 | 0.26 | 0.011 | 0.27 | 0.006 |
| Palmitoleic (C16:1n-7) | 4.88 | 0.304 | 4.61 | 0.312 | 4.98 | 0.277 |
| Heptadecenoic (C17:1n-9) | 0.05 A | 0.003 | 0.03 B | 0.004 | 0.05 A | 0.004 |
| Elaidic (C18:1n-9t) | 0.07 | 0.003 | 0.07 | 0.002 | 0.08 | 0.010 |
| Oleic (C18:1n-9) | 24.53 b | 0.514 | 25.69 a,b | 0.597 | 26.83 a | 0.811 |
| Vaccenic (C18:1n-7) | 1.87 | 0.027 | 1.79 | 0.056 | 1.92 | 0.063 |
| Eicosenoic (C20:1n-9) | 0.19 B | 0.005 | 0.20 B | 0.006 | 0.57 A | 0.024 |
| Erucic (C22:1n-9) | 0.00 B | 0.000 | 0.00 B | 0.000 | 0.03 A | 0.005 |
| Total MUFA | 31.93 b | 0.786 | 32.74 a,b | 0.717 | 34.82 a | 1.070 |
| Fatty Acid | Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (C) | Experimental 1 (HE) | Experimental 2 (CA) | ||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | |
| Lauric (C12:0) | 0.010 A | 0.003 | 0.010 a | 0.003 | 0.00 B,b | 0.000 |
| Myristic (C14:0) | 0.39 A,B | 0.008 | 0.38 B | 0.006 | 0.42 A | 0.009 |
| Pentadecanoic (C15:0) | 0.05 A | 0.001 | 0.04 B,b | 0.002 | 0.05 a | 0.001 |
| Palmitic (C16:0) | 17.45 b | 0.183 | 16.90 B | 0.271 | 18.27 A,a | 0.275 |
| Margaric (C17:0) | 0.08 | 0.004 | 0.08 | 0.003 | 0.08 | 0.004 |
| Stearic (C18:0) | 7.14 | 0.210 | 7.11 | 0.318 | 7.36 | 0.347 |
| Arachidic (C20:0) | 0.06 B,b | 0.002 | 0.08 a | 0.005 | 0.08 A | 0.004 |
| Behenic (C22:0) | 0.05 A | 0.004 | 0.03 B | 0.005 | 0.05 A | 0.005 |
| Total SFA | 25.22 a,b | 0.340 | 24.62 b | 0.475 | 26.31 a | 0.448 |
| Myristoleic (C14:1n-7) | 0.09 a,b | 0.006 | 0.07 b | 0.005 | 0.09 a | 0.006 |
| Palmitelaidic (C16:1n-7t) | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.01 | 0.003 |
| Hexadecenoic (C16:1n-9) | 0.26 | 0.010 | 0.26 | 0.012 | 0.27 | 0.008 |
| Palmitoleic (C16:1n-7) | 5.12 | 0.284 | 4.69 | 0.261 | 5.44 | 0.356 |
| Heptadecenoic (C17:1n-9) | 0.04 B | 0.002 | 0.04 B | 0.004 | 0.06 A | 0.003 |
| Elaidic (C18:1n-9t) | 0.01 | 0.011 | 0.08 | 0.002 | 0.08 | 0.004 |
| Oleic (C18:1n-9) | 30.03 b | 0.463 | 30.76 a,b | 0.676 | 32.72 a | 1.014 |
| Vaccenic (C18:1n-7) | 1.80 A | 0.020 | 1.63 B | 0.045 | 1.85 A | 0.062 |
| Eicosenoic (C20:1n-9) | 0.23 B | 0.005 | 0.24 B | 0.007 | 0.79 A | 0.045 |
| Erucic (C22:1n-9) | 0.00 B | 0.000 | 0.00 B | 0.000 | 0.04 A | 0.003 |
| Total MUFA | 37.67 b | 0.691 | 37.78 b | 0.818 | 41.35 a | 1.314 |
In our study, lauric acid (C12:0), which is most harmful to humans, was not detected in CA-treated quail leg meat [51]. However, it was found (0.01%) in the control and HE groups. This is in agreement with the studies of other authors who also indicated that lauric acid (C12:0) was not detected in the meat of CA-treated chickens [7,8,10,11,33,34].
Conversely, the content of less harmful to human’s palmitic acid (C16:0) was found to be higher in the breast and leg meat of CA-treated quail. Jaskiewicz et al. [52] who studied camelina oil addition to chicken feed also indicated an increased content of palmitic (C16:0) acid in chicken breast and leg muscles.
Moreover, a higher content of arachidic (C20:0) acid was detected in the leg meat of both CA- and HE-treated quail (p < 0.05–p < 0.01). Arachidic (C20:0) acid in human food has been shown to improve their blood lipid profiles [53]. Other researchers also found more arachidic (C20:0) acid in chickens fed camelina supplement [10].
3.3.2. Monosaturated Fatty Acids
The CA group quail received more monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) with their feed and their meat also had higher amounts of MUFA in comparison with the control group (p < 0.05).
The amount of dominant oleic acid (C18:1n-9) in CA quail meat was higher (p < 0.05) compared to the control group. Leg meat contained 1.2 times more oleic acid (C18:1n-9) than breast. Since oleic acid (C18:1n-9) affects the reduction in LDL-cholesterol in the human body [9,54], CA group quail meat is more favorable for human health due to the higher content of this acid.
Eicosenoic acid (C20:1n-9) in the fatty acid profile of quail meat increased more than three times compared to the control group (p < 0.01). Such changes can be explained by the fact that the feed offered to the CA group contained 10 times more eicosenoic acid (C20:1n-9).
A higher amount (p < 0.01) of erucic acid (C22:1n-9) was also detected in CA meat, but it was lower than the European Union limit for human consumption (5%) [55].
Studies with other poultry species such as chickens and ducks indicated that the supplementation of the diets with camelina cake lowered the total MUFA content in the tissues [10,26,56]. It is claimed that the feed with a higher n-3 PUFA content inhibits ∆9-desaturase enzyme activity, which reduces MUFA synthesis in the body [57,58]. Meanwhile, in our study, an increase in MUFA content in quail meat was found. Different results could have been caused by the peculiarities of quail physiology and the fact that their feed conversion ratio is higher than that of other bird species [5], and it could be assumed that the increase in n-3 PUFA in the feed was not sufficient to inhibit MUFA synthesis.
Enriching the diet of quail with camelina cake increased the accumulation of MUFA in the meat making it more useful for humans because MUFA reduces LDL-cholesterol levels [51], and, consequently, a lower cholesterol level reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease [59] and increases the anti-carcinogenic effect [60].
Meanwhile, hempseed cake addition to the quail feed had no influence on the MUFA content profile in quail meat.
3.3.3. Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
n-6 PUFA: In our study, supplementation of quail diets with camelina cake resulted in 1.2 times lower content of total n-6 PUFA. This had a direct influence on the FA changes in meat: the amounts of linoleic (C18:2 n-6; LA) (p < 0.01), arachidonic (C20:4n-6) (p < 0.01) acids, total n-6 PUFA (p < 0.01) and LC n-6 PUFA (p < 0.05) decreased in meat (Table 8 and Table 9).
| Fatty Acid | Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (C) | Experimental 1 (HE) | Experimental 2 (CA) | ||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | |
| Linolelaidic (C18:2n-6t) | 0.03 A | 0.002 | 0.02 B | 0.003 | 0.03 A | 0.002 |
| Octadecadienoic (C18:2n-6c,t) | 0.02 A | 0.004 | 0.00 B | 0.000 | 0.023 A | 0.003 |
| Octadecadienoic (C18:2n-6t,c) | 0.01 B | 0.004 | 0.03 A | 0.001 | 0.00 C | 0.000 |
| Linoleic (C18:2n-6) | 25.79 A | 0.352 | 25.59 A | 0.372 | 21.00 B | 0.542 |
| γ-linolenic (C18:3n-6) | 0.14 B | 0.004 | 0.17 A | 0.007 | 0.13 B | 0.004 |
| Eicosadienoic (C20:2n-6) | 0.14 B | 0.005 | 0.16 B | 0.008 | 0.23 A | 0.011 |
| Eicosatrienoic (C20:3n-6) | 0.26 B | 0.009 | 0.26 B | 0.010 | 0.31 A | 0.013 |
| Arachidonic (C20:4n-6) | 7.52 A | 0.350 | 7.07 A,a | 0.258 | 6.28 B,b | 0.238 |
| Docosatetraenoic (C22:4n-6) | 0.23 A | 0.009 | 0.18 B | 0.009 | 0.14 C | 0.008 |
| Total LC n-6 PUFA | 8.15 a | 0.356 | 7.66 a,b | 0.264 | 6.96 b | 0.248 |
| Total n-6 PUFA | 34.14 A | 0.434 | 33.47 A | 0.492 | 28.14 B | 0.686 |
| α-linolenic (C18:3n-3) | 0.90 C | 0.031 | 1.15 B | 0.036 | 2.26 A | 0.090 |
| Eicosatrienoic (C20:3n-3) | 0.00 B | 0.000 | 0.00 B | 0.000 | 0.07 A | 0.004 |
| Eicosapentaenoic (C20:5n-3) | 0.11 B | 0.008 | 0.13 B | 0.008 | 0.37 A | 0.023 |
| Docosapentaenoic (C22:5n-3) | 0.56 B | 0.027 | 0.57 B | 0.025 | 0.69 A | 0.028 |
| Docosahexaenoic (C22:6n-3) | 1.59 B | 0.090 | 1.66 B | 0.064 | 2.08 A | 0.093 |
| Total LC n-3 PUFA | 2.27 B | 0.102 | 2.36 B | 0.079 | 3.22 A | 0.122 |
| Total n-3 PUFA | 3.17 C | 0.082 | 3.51 B | 0.091 | 5.48 A | 0.179 |
| Total PUFA | 37.31 A | 0.462 | 36.99 A | 0.546 | 33.63 B | 0.839 |
| n-6/n-3 ratio | 10.85 A | 0.261 | 9.89 B | 0.209 | 5.17 C | 0.094 |
| Linoleic (C18:2n-6)/α-linolenic (C18:3n-3) ratio | 29.07 A | 0.860 | 22.53 B | 0.660 | 9.377 C | 0.216 |
| PUFA/SFA | 1.31 A | 0.018 | 1.32 A | 0.027 | 1.15 B | 0.027 |
| PUFA/MUFA | 1.18 A | 0.044 | 1.14 A,a | 0.044 | 0.99 B,b | 0.050 |
| Fatty Acid | Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (C) | Experimental 1 (HE) | Experimental 2 (CA) | ||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | |
| Linolelaidic (C18:2n-6t) | 0.03 a | 0.002 | 0.02 b | 0.002 | 0.04 a,b | 0.007 |
| Octadecadienoic (C18:2n-6c,t) | 0.03 A | 0.003 | 0.00 B | 0.000 | 0.04 A | 0.007 |
| Octadecadienoic (C18:2n-6t,c) | 0.00 B | 0.003 | 0.03 A | 0.002 | 0.00 B | 0.000 |
| Linoleic (C18:2n-6) | 29.03 A | 0.399 | 29.44 A | 0.540 | 22.60 B | 0.653 |
| γ-linolenic (C18:3n-6) | 0.13 B | 0.002 | 0.17 A | 0.006 | 0.13 B | 0.004 |
| Eicosadienoic (C20:2n-6) | 0.11 C | 0.003 | 0.13 B | 0.005 | 0.18 A | 0.011 |
| Eicosatrienoic (C20:3n-6) | 0.16 B | 0.006 | 0.15 B | 0.008 | 0.20 A | 0.014 |
| Arachidonic (C20:4n-6) | 3.51 | 0.161 | 3.27 | 0.234 | 3.03 | 0.200 |
| Docosatetraenoic (C22:4n-6) | 0.27 A | 0.014 | 0.24 A | 0.017 | 0.16 B | 0.013 |
| Total LC n-6 PUFA | 4.04 | 0.178 | 3.77 | 0.261 | 3.58 | 0.232 |
| Total n-6 PUFA | 33.27 A | 0.463 | 33.44 A | 0.579 | 26.38 B | 0.808 |
| α-linolenic (C18:3n-3) | 1.05 C | 0.029 | 1.36 B | 0.048 | 2.71 A | 0.116 |
| Eicosatrienoic (C20:3n-3) | 0.00 B | 0.000 | 0.00 B | 0.000 | 0.07 A | 0.005 |
| Eicosapentaenoic (C20:5n-3) | 0.05 B | 0.003 | 0.05 B | 0.004 | 0.15 A | 0.012 |
| Docosapentaenoic (C22:5n-3) | 0.38 b | 0.020 | 0.40 a,b | 0.028 | 0.47 a | 0.036 |
| Docosahexaenoic (C22:6n-3) | 0.97 b | 0.052 | 1.03 a,b | 0.073 | 1.25 a | 0.090 |
| Total LC n-3 PUFA | 1.40 B | 0.069 | 1.47 B | 0.100 | 1.94 A | 0.135 |
| Total n-3 PUFA | 2.45 C | 0.069 | 2.86 B | 0.085 | 4.64 A | 0.197 |
| Total PUFA | 35.72 A | 0.491 | 36.28 A | 0.628 | 31.02 B | 0.990 |
| Total trans acid | 0.17 | 0.013 | 0.14 | 0.005 | 0.16 | 0.011 |
| n-6/n-3 ratio | 13.69 A | 0.380 | 11.90 B | 0.310 | 5.74 C | 0.119 |
| Linoleic (C18:2n-6)/α-linolenic (C18:3n-3) ratio | 27.88 A | 0.896 | 21.85 B | 0.651 | 8.46 C | 0.211 |
| PUFA/SFA | 1.42 A | 0.025 | 1.48 A | 0.035 | 1.18 B | 0.035 |
| PUFA/MUFA | 0.96 A | 0.029 | 0.97 A | 0.041 | 0.77 B | 0.046 |
Meanwhile, the results of research with other bird species are controversial. Some studies showed that the use of camelina cake influenced the increase in LA accumulation [8,10]; however, other authors did not report any effects [7,26,34].
The reason for this could be the assumption that higher dietary ALA causes competition for the same elongation–desaturation enzymes necessary for the synthesis of both n-3 and n-6 LC PUFA fatty acids, thus resulting in a lower LA content [61]. Meat with lower n-6 PUFA content is healthier, because n-6 PUFA in human food are promoters of inflammatory processes and increase the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases [51].
Our study showed that hempseed cake supplementation did not increase the total n-6 PUFA accumulation in quail muscles. However, an increase in the amount of γ-linolenic acid (C18:3n-6; GLA) was found in the meat of HE group (p < 0.01). Jing et al. [35] also found an increase in this acid in chicken meat after the trials with hemp oil. GLA has anti-inflammatory and anti-proliferative properties. Food containing GLA is a preventive measure against coronary heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis and ensures skin health [62,63,64,65].
n-3 PUFA: In our study, the addition of camelina or hemp cakes to quail feed increased the amount of n-3 PUFA in their meat. However, changes in the n-3 PUFA profile were more significant with camelina cake than hempseed cake addition (Table 8 and Table 9).
The ALA content in the feed for the CA group was 3.4 times higher than in the control and this resulted in 2.5 times higher ALA content in the breast and leg meat of this group (p < 0.01). Aziza et al. [7] also reported similar changes in the breast and leg meat of chickens fed the diet with 10% camelina cake.
Meanwhile, supplementing the diet with hempseed cake resulted in a 1.2-fold ALA increase in the feed compared to the control. The ALA content in the breast and leg meat of HE group was 1.3 times higher (p < 0.01), but the accumulation was lower compared to the CA group. Yalcin et al. [66] in the trial with hempseed (5–20%) addition to the feed have also reported ALA increase in quail breast meat. A higher content of ALA was also found in the breast and thigh meat of chickens fed hemp oil (3–6%)-supplemented diets [35].
However, in our study, no LC n-3 PUFA increase was observed in HE-treated quail muscle tissues. This is in agreement with the study of Skrivan et al. [67], who found no differences in LC n-3 PUFA content in chickens fed 4% hempseed. Conversely, Jing et al. [35], in a trial with chickens given hempseed oil, reported an increase in all individual LC n-3 PUFA and total LC n-3 PUFA in the meat. This result was determined by the use of hempseed oil (3–6%), which contains more fatty acids than seed or cake.
In our trial with quail, the diet enriched with camelina cake had influenced the bioconversion of LC n-3 PUFA from ALA. The muscle tissues of CA-treated quail contained 3–3.4 times more eicosapentaenoic (C20:5n-3; EPA) (p < 0.01), 1.2 times more docosapentaenoic (C22:5n-3; DPA) (p < 0.05–p < 0.01) and 1.3 times more docosahexaenoic (C22:6n-3; DHA) (p < 0.01) acid compared with the control group, and this resulted in the increase in total LC n-3 PUFA (p < 0.01).
The breast meat of CA-treated quail contained an amount of DHA similar to that determined by Aronen et al. [33] in their study with chickens given 25% camelina cake. Meanwhile, DHA accumulation in quail leg muscles was higher than that indicated by Aziza et al. and Nain et al. [7,27] in their trials with chickens fed camelina cake-supplemented diets.
Other authors who used camelina cake in chicken diets found an increase in only single LC n-3 PUFA in the muscles, although in their studies the content of ALA in the feed was higher (17.8%) [7,27,33] than in our study (13.43%). Thus, it can be assumed that augmentation of n-3 PUFA in the diet triggers the synthesis of LC n-3 PUFA from ALA in the body of quails, like in other birds, which is perhaps even more intense than in chickens and ducks.
The above changes in the amounts of n-3 PUFA resulted in an increase in total n-3 PUFA (p < 0.01) in CA-treated quail meat. An increase in total n-3 PUFA in the muscles of chickens fed camelina cake-supplemented diets was also observed by Aronen et al., Aziza et al., Nain et al., Orczewska-Dudek and Pietras and Ryhänen et al. [7,10,27,33,34].
However, the amount of total n-3 PUFA was higher in the breast and leg meat of CA-treated quail than that reported by Aziza et al. [7] in the study with chickens (4.64–5.48 vs. 3.33–4.27%) and in breast meat it was also higher than that found by Juodka et al. [26] in the study with ducklings (5.48 vs. 4.53%).
The use of camelina cake in the diet of quail reduced the n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio in the CA diet and meat by 4.23 and 2.10–2.39 times, respectively, compared to the control group (Table 8 and Table 9). In CA-treated quail meat, this ratio approached the recommended (5.17–5.74 vs. 4–5) [68]. Meanwhile, the addition of hempseed cake to the diet reduced the n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio in quail meat to only 21.85–22.53.
The addition of camelina cake to the quail diet had greater influence on the n-3 PUFA profile changes than addition of hempseed cake. Research has shown and this is in agreement with our study that the lower is the linoleic/α-linolenic (LA/ALA) ratio in the diet, the higher is the expression of genes (FADS1, FADS2, ELOVL2 and ELOVL5) related with lipid metabolism in the liver and breast of broiler chickens [69,70]. The use of hempseed cake in the quail diet resulted in the LA/ALA ratio being 12.88, whereas the addition of camelina cake reduced it to 3.74 and determined a higher n-3 PUFA accumulation in the muscle tissues. The LA/ALA ratio in the muscles of CA-treated quail decreased to 8.46–9.38 and the LC n-6/LC n-3 ratio to 1.94–3.22, while in HE group the LA/ALA ratio was 2.5 times higher.
Although the use of camelina and hempseed cakes showed different efficacies of n-3 PUFA accumulation in the muscles, the effect was significant and allowed the production of quail meat of exceptional quality.
The amount of EPA + DHA in the breast meat of HE and CA-treated quail was, respectively, 50.12 and 66.64 mg/100 g, whereas in the leg meat, this amount was, respectively, 52.60 and 69.58 mg/100 g. The amount of EPA + DHA in the breast and leg meat of CA-treated quail was from 1.33 to 1.32 times higher than that in the HE-treated group. In accordance with the European Commission Nutrition Claims, the meat of CA and H treated quail can be labeled as “a source of omega-3 fatty acids” [71].
In the human body, the synthesis of individual LC n-3 PUFA from dietary ALA is limited and accounts to 1% in infants [72] and to 0.05–0.2% in adults [73]. A sufficient LC n-3 PUFA amount in human nutrition is a factor that reduces the occurrence of cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and increases anti-inflammatory effects in the human body [51].
3.3.4. Indices
The atherogenic index (AI) is the ratio between pro-atherogenic and anti-atherogenic fatty acids [74]. The value of AI in our study did not change in the HE group, while in the CA group it was higher (p < 0.05–p < 0.01) in the breast and leg meat compared to the C group and reached 0.3 (Table 10 and Table 11). However, this indicator is more favorable than that found in the meat of other bird species, i.e., in chicken (0.49–0.63) [15,75,76], turkey (0.47) [77], geese (0.29–0.37) [78,79] and duck (0.35–0.40) [80] without using any feed additives.
| Item | Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (C) | Experimental 1 (HE) | Experimental 2 (CA) | ||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | |
| Atherogenic index | 0.26 b | 0.004 | 0.25 B | 0.005 | 0.28 A,a | 0.005 |
| Thrombogenic index | 0.58 a | 0.010 | 0.55 a,b | 0.015 | 0.54 b | 0.011 |
| Hypo/hypercholesterolemic index | 3.78 B,b | 0.054 | 3.98 A,a | 0.072 | 3.50 C | 0.061 |
| Peroxidation index | 58.28 | 1.260 | 58.81 | 1.716 | 56.58 | 2.314 |
| Unsaturation index | 123.18 | 0.792 | 124.46 | 1.204 | 119.73 | 1.557 |
| Desirable fatty acids | 79.04 A | 0.219 | 79.21 | 0.279 | 77.98 B | 0.273 |
| Hypercholesterolemic saturated fatty acids | 19.51 B | 0.171 | 19.45 | 0.030 | 20.60 A | 0.299 |
| Cholesterol mg/100 g | 67.53 | 2.637 | 59.44 | 3.532 | 65.25 | 2.769 |
| Total lipids, % | 2.99 | 0.142 | 2.80 | 0.178 | 2.72 | 0.168 |
| Item | Group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (C) | Experimental 1 (HE) | Experimental 2 (CA) | ||||
| Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | |
| Atherogenic index | 0.26 b | 0.004 | 0.25 B | 0.005 | 0.28 A,a | 0.005 |
| Thrombogenic index | 0.58 a | 0.010 | 0.55 a,b | 0.015 | 0.54 b | 0.011 |
| Hypo/hypercholesterolemic index | 3.78 B,b | 0.054 | 3.98 A,a | 0.072 | 3.50 C | 0.061 |
| Peroxidation index | 58.28 | 1.260 | 58.81 | 1.716 | 56.58 | 2.314 |
| Unsaturation index | 123.18 | 0.792 | 124.46 | 1.204 | 119.73 | 1.557 |
| Desirable fatty acids | 80.52 a | 0.216 | 81.17 | 0.268 | 79.73 b | 0.280 |
| Hypercholesterolemic saturated fatty acids | 19.04 b | 0.199 | 18.42 | 0.286 | 19.95 a | 0.295 |
| Cholesterol mg/100 g | 67.53 | 2.637 | 59.44 | 3.532 | 65.25 | 2.769 |
| Total lipids, % | 4.74 | 0.186 | 4.87 | 0.242 | 4.97 | 0.277 |
In our study, the AI indicators of quail meat were higher than those found in free-range chickens [76]. In our previous study, a higher AI was obtained in the leg meat of ducks given camelina cake than in quail [26]. When AI is lower than 0.5, the possibility of developing coronary diseases decreases [74,81].
Thrombogenic index (TI), shows the possibility of clot formation in the blood vessels. The recommended value of this index in human food should be less than 1 [74,81].
Our research showed that the CA-treated quail meat had the lowest TI (0.54–0.60) (p < 0.05–p < 0.01).
This index in the breast meat of CA-treated quail was lower than those found in other studies with chicken (0.94–1.27) [15,75,76], turkey (0.63–0.91) [77,82], geese (0.61–0.74) [78,79] and duck (0.83–0.98) [80] offered standard feed and ducks fed camelina cake supplement [26].
Our results show that the AI and TI indices of quail meat are lower than those of other bird species, which makes it possible to assert that, according to these indices, the meat of quail fed both conventionally and with hempseed or camelina supplements is the healthiest of all poultry species. Such quail meat can protect against coronary artery disease.
h/H index indicate the ratio between hypocholesterolemic and hypercholesterolemic fatty acids and the higher the ratio, the healthier is the food product. An h/H index score of higher than 2 reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, including atherosclerosis, because it lowers the level of LDL cholesterol in blood serum [83,84,85,86,87,88].
The highest h/H index in our study were found in the leg meat of HE-treated quail, and they were higher than those in the C group (p < 0.05). The lowest h/H index was found in the CA group, lower than that in the C group (p < 0.01).
Our research showed that the value of h/H index in quail meat was higher and more favorable to human health than that found in other studies with turkeys (1.26–1.41) [82], chickens (1.21–2.61) [15,75,89] and geese (2.60–3.47) [78,90] given standard feed and with ducklings fed rapeseed, hempseed or camelina-supplemented diets (2.45–2.88) [26].
Desirable fatty acid (DFA) and hypercholesterolemic saturated fatty acid (HSFA) indicators did not differ between HE and C quail groups. CA muscles showed lower DFA and higher HSFA (p < 0.05–p < 0.01) contents compared to C. In our study, there were no significant differences between the groups for the cholesterol levels in both breast and leg meat. In the C and CA groups, more cholesterol was found in the leg than breast meat. The cholesterol level in the breast meat of the quail in our study was lower than that indicated by Quaresma et al. [13] in their study of farmed Japanese quail (71.07 mg) and wild Common quail (64.38 mg). Pietras and Orczewska-Dudek [11] also did not find any difference in cholesterol levels between the groups in their study with chickens fed a camelina oil-supplemented diet.
4. Conclusions
The supplementation of diets with oil industry by-products rich in n-3 PUFA had a significant impact on the changes in the intramuscular fatty acid profile of quail.
The enrichment of quail diet with hempseed cake (10%) increased the amounts of beneficial to humans GLA and ALA and total n-3 PUFA and decreased n-6/n-3 PUFA and LA/ALA ratios in intramuscular fat compared to C group quail fed rapeseed cake. However, the effect of hempseed cake on the accumulation of ALA and its bioconversion to LC n-3 PUFA was lower compared to the effect of camelina cake addition. Meanwhile, hempseed cake supplementation had a negative effect on growth performance, also resulting in lower feed intake and higher FCR. The use of camelina cake (10%) supplement in a quail diet did not show any negative impact on growth performance and increased the amounts of MUFA and total n-3 PUFA. The accumulation of ALA and LC n-3 PUFA was 2.5 and 1.4 times higher in comparison with that of the C group quail meat. The decrease was observed in the amounts of LA, total n-6 PUFA, n-6/n-3 PUFA and LA/ALA ratios and TI index.
Enriching the diet of quail with camelina cake makes it possible to produce meat with a lower n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio and provide consumers with health-beneficial products.
Meanwhile, the addition of hempseed cake made it possible to produce quail meat of exceptional quality with an increased GLA content. A wider employment of oil industry by-products in quail farming could contribute to higher production sustainability and reduce dependence on imported feed materials.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The animal study was approved by the Institutional Board of the Animal Science Institute of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (protocol No 21/03/31/02), 31 March 2021.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no external funding.
Footnotes
Footnote Group
References
Untitled section
References
- 1.Marangoni F., Corsello G., Cricelli C., Ferrara N., Ghiselli A., Lucchin L., Poli A. Role of poultry meat in a balanced diet aimed at maintaining health and wellbeing: An Italian consensus document. Food Nutr. Res. 2015;59:27606. doi: 10.3402/fnr.v59.27606.
- 2.Statista Number of Chickens Worldwide from 1990 to 2021 (in Million Animals) [(accessed on 24 April 2023)]. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263962/number-of-chickens-worldwide-since-1990/
- 3.Lima H.J.D., Morais M.V.M., Pereira I.D.B. Updates in research on quail nutrition and feeding: A review. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2023;79:69–93. doi: 10.1080/00439339.2022.2150926.
- 4.Compassion in World Farming Farm Animals. About Quail. [(accessed on 22 April 2023)]. Available online: https://www.ciwf.eu/farm-animals/quail/
- 5.Minvielle F. The future of Japanese quail for research and production. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2004;60:500–507. doi: 10.1079/WPS200433.
- 6.Filho J.J., Vilar da Silva J.H., Silva C.T., Perazzo Costa F.G., Batista de Souza J.M., Givisiez P.E.N. Energy requirement for maintenance and gain for two genotypes of quails housed in different breeding rearing systems. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2011;40:2415–2422. doi: 10.1590/S1516-35982011001100019.
- 7.Aziza A.E., Quezada N., Cherian G. Feeding Camelina sativa meal to meat-type chickens: Effect on production performance and tissue fatty acid composition. J. App. Poult. Res. 2010;19:157–168. doi: 10.3382/japr.2009-00100.
- 8.Ciurescu G., Ropota M., Toncea I., Habeanu M. Camelia (Camelia sativa L. Crantz Variety) Oil and Seeds as n-3 Fatty Acids Rich Products in Broiler Diets and Its Effects on Performance, Meat Fatty Acid Composition, Immune Tissue Weights, and Plasma Metabolic Profile. J. Agr. Sci. Technol. 2016;18:315–326.
- 9.Gecgel U., Yilmaz I., Gurcan E.K., Karasu S., Dulger G.C. Comparison of Fatty Acid Composition between Female and Male Japanese Quail Meats. J. Chem. 2015;2015:569746. doi: 10.1155/2015/569746.
- 10.Orczewska-Dudek S., Pietras M. The Effect of Dietary Camelina sativa Oil or Cake in the Diets of Broiler Chickens on Growth Performance, Fatty Acid Profile, and Sensory Quality of Meat. Animals. 2019;9:734. doi: 10.3390/ani9100734.
- 11.Pietras M.P., Orczewska-Dudek S. The effect of dietary Camelina Sativa oil on quality of broiler chicken meat. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2013;13:869–882. doi: 10.2478/aoas-2013-0059.
- 12.Tavaniello S., Siwek M., Maiorano G., Knaga S., Witkowski A., Manchisi A., Bednarczyk M. Fatty acid composition of meat and genetic mapping of quantitative trait loci in 3 generations of Japanese quail populations. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2017;18:806–822. doi: 10.5513/JCEA01/18.4.1963.
- 13.Quaresma M.A.G., Antunes I.C., Ferreira B.G., Parada A., Elias A., Barros M., Santos C., Partidario A., Mourato M., Roseiro L.C. The composition of the lipid, protein and mineral fractions of quail breast meat obtained from wild and farmed specimens of Common quail (Coturnix coturnix) and farmed Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica domestica) Poult. Sci. 2022;101:101505. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101505.
- 14.Trembecka L., Haščik P., Čuboň J., Bobko M., Pavelkova A. Fatty acids profile of breast and thigh muscles of broiler chickens fed diets with propolis and probiotics. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2016;17:1179–1193. doi: 10.5513/JCEA01/17.4.1828.
- 15.Del Puerto M., Cabrera M.C., Saadoun A. A Note on Fatty Acids Profile of Meat from Broiler Chickens Supplemented with Inorganic or Organic Selenium. Int. J. Food Sci. 2017;2017:7613069. doi: 10.1155/2017/7613069.
- 16.Okrouhla M., Stupka R., Cítek J., Šprysl M., Brzobohatý L. Effect of dietary linseed supplementation on the performance, meat quality, and fatty acid profile of pigs. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2013;58:279–288. doi: 10.17221/6826-CJAS.
- 17.Nguyen L.Q., Nuijens N.C.G.A., Everts H., Salden H., Beynen A.C. Mathematical relationships between the intake of n-6 and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and their contents in adipose tissue of growing pig. Meat Sci. 2003;65:1399–1406. doi: 10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00062-7.
- 18.Zanetti F., Alberghini B., Marjanović Jeromela A., Grahovac N., Rajković D., Kiprovski B., Monti A. Camelina, an ancient oilseed crop actively contributing to the rural renaissance in Europe. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021;41:2. doi: 10.1007/s13593-020-00663-y.
- 19.Feng X., Sun G., Fang Z. Effect of Hempseed Cake (Cannabis sativa L.) Incorporation on the Physicochemical and Antioxidant Properties of Reconstructed Potato Chips. Foods. 2022;11:211. doi: 10.3390/foods11020211.
- 20.Shariatmadari F. Emergence of hemp as feed for poultry. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2023;79:1–14. doi: 10.1080/00439339.2023.2234871.
- 21.Hryhoriv Y., Lyshenko M., Butenko A., Nechyporenko V., Makarova V., Mikulina M., Bahorka M., Tymchuk D.S., Samoshkina I., Torianyk I. Competitiveness and Advantages of Camelina sativa on the Market of Oil Crops. Ecol. Eng. Environ. Technol. 2023;24:97–103. doi: 10.12912/27197050/161956.
- 22.Singh Y., Cullere M., Tůmová E., Dalle Zotte A. Camelina sativa as a sustainable and feasible feedstuff for broiler poultry species: A review. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2023;68:277–295. doi: 10.17221/29/2023-CJAS.
- 23.Hilbrands M., Johnston L.J., Cox R.B., Forcella F., Gesch R., Li Y.Z. Effects of increasing dietary inclusion of camelina cake on growth performance of growing-finishing pigs. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2021;5:1–10. doi: 10.1093/tas/txab140.
- 24.Riaz R., Ahmed I., Sizmaz O., Ahsan U. Use of Camelina sativa and By-Products in Diets for Dairy Cows: A Review. Animals. 2022;12:1082. doi: 10.3390/ani12091082.
- 25.Habeanu M., Lefter A.N., Ropota M. Effects of the camelina cake on fatty acids composition in different organs of the pigs. Arch. Zootech. 2016;19:5–16.
- 26.Juodka R., Juska R., Juskiene V., Leikus R., Stankeviciene D., Nainiene R. The effect of feeding with hemp and Camelina cakes on the fatty acid profile of duck muscles. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2018;61:293–303. doi: 10.5194/aab-61-293-2018.
- 27.Nain S., Oryschak M.A., Betti M., Beltranena E. Camelina sativa cake for broilers: Effects of increasing dietary inclusion from 0 to 24% on tissue fatty acid proportions at 14, 28, and 42 d of age. Poult. Sci. 2015;94:1247–1258. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev080.
- 28.Oryschak M.A., Christianson C.B., Beltranena E. Camelina sativa cake for broiler chickens: Effects of increasing dietary inclusion on clinical signs of toxicity, feed disappearance, and nutrient digestibility. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2020;4:1263–1277. doi: 10.1093/tas/txaa029.
- 29.Arango S., Guzzo N., Raffrenato E., Bailoni L. Effect of Dietary Hemp Cake Inclusion on the In Vivo and Post Mortem Performances of Holstein Veal Calves. Animals. 2022;12:2922. doi: 10.3390/ani12212922.
- 30.Bailoni L., Bacchin E., Trocino A., Arango S. Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Seed and Co-Products Inclusion in Diets for Dairy Ruminants: A Review. Animals. 2021;11:856. doi: 10.3390/ani11030856.
- 31.Šťastník O., Jůzl M., Karásek F., Fernandová D., Mrkvicová E., Pavlata L., Nedomová Š., Vyhnánek T., Trojan V., Doležal P. The effect of hempseed expellers on selected quality indicators of broiler chicken’s meat. Acta Vet. Brno. 2019;88:121–128. doi: 10.2754/avb201988010121.
- 32.Mierlita D. Effects of diets containing hemp seeds or hemp cake on fatty acid composition and oxidative stability of sheep milk. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2018;48:504–515. doi: 10.4314/sajas.v48i3.11.
- 33.Aronen I., Valkonen E., Tupasela T., Hiidenhovi J., Valaja J. The Effect of Camelina Sativa Cake on Fatty Acid Composition and Sensory Quality of Eggs and Broiler Meat. 2009. [(accessed on 7 February 2023)]. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/748c/be17aeb67241466db54687c3dc5d96642336.pdf?_ga=2.253177551.710654730.1589791031-675995229.1575974901.
- 34.Ryhänen E.-L., Pertilä S., Tupasela T., Valaja J., Eriksson C., Larkka K. Effect of Camelina sativa expeller cake on performance and meat quality of broilers. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2007;87:1489–1494. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2864.
- 35.Jing M., Zhao S., House J.D. Performance and tissue fatty acid profile of broiler chickens and laying hens fed hemp oil and HempOmegaTM. Poult. Sci. 2017;96:1809–1819. doi: 10.3382/ps/pew476.
- 36.Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania The Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania (2012-10-03) for Animal Welfare and Handling: Vilnius, Lithuania. 2012. [(accessed on 27 April 2023)]. Available online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.434660.
- 37.State Food and Veterinary Service of Lithuania Sub-Statutory Act by the State Food and Veterinary Service of Lithuanian Republic Regarding the Confirmation of the Requirements for Keeping, Maintenance and Use of Animals Intended for Science and Education Purposes: Vilnius, Lithuania 2012. [(accessed on 27 April 2023)]. Available online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.437081/asr.
- 38.Lukashenko V.S., Lisenko M.A., Stoliar T.A. Methodological Recommendation of Anatomic Carcass Dissection and Organoleptic Evaluation of Poultry. VASCHNIL; Moscow, Russia: 1984.
- 39.Folch J., Less M., Sloane-Stanley G.H. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 1957;226:497–509. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)64849-5.
- 40.Christopherson S.W., Glass R.L. Preparation of milk fat methylesters by alcoholysis in an essentially nonalcoholic solution. J. Dairy Sci. 1969;52:1289–1290. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(69)86739-1.
- 41.Ulbricht T.L.V., Southgate D.A.T. Coronary disease seven dietary factors. Lancet. 1991;338:985–992. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)91846-M.
- 42.Fernández M., Ordóñez J.A., Cambero I., Santos C., Pin C., de la Hoz L. Fatty acid composition of selected varieties of Spanish dry ham related to their nutritional implications. Food Chem. 2007;101:107–112. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.01.006.
- 43.Arakawa K., Sagai M. Species differences in lipid peroxide levels in lung tissue and investigation of their determining factors. Lipids. 1986;21:769–775. doi: 10.1007/BF02535410.
- 44.Medeiros E., Queiroga R., Oliveira M., Medeiros A., Sabedot M., Bomfim M., Madruga M. Fatty Acid Profile of Cheese from Dairy Goats Fed a Diet Enriched with Castor, Sesame and Faveleira Vegetable Oils. Molecules. 2014;19:992–1003. doi: 10.3390/molecules19010992.
- 45.Renna M., Cornale P., Lussiana C., Malfatto V., Mimosi A., Battaglini L.M. Fatty acid profile of milk from goats fed diets with different levels of conserved and fresh forages. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2012;65:201–207. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0307.2011.00754.x.
- 46.Polak T., Rajar A., Gašperlin L., Žlender B. Cholesterol concentration and fatty acid profile of red deer (Cervus elaphus) meat. Meat Sci. 2008;80:864–869. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.04.005.
- 47.Singh A.K., Kim W.K. Effects of Dietary Fiber on Nutrients Utilization and Gut Health of Poultry: A Review of Challenges and Opportunities. Animals. 2021;11:181. doi: 10.3390/ani11010181.
- 48.Bulbul T., Rahman A., Ozdemir V. Effect of False flax meal on certain growth, serum and meat parameters of Japanese quails. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2015;25:1245–1250.
- 49.Cullere M., Singh Y., Pellattiero E., Berzuini S., Galasso I., Clemente C., Zotte A.D. Effect of the dietary inclusion of Camelina sativa cake into quail diet on live performance, carcass traits and meat quality. Poult. Sci. 2023;102:102650. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2023.102650.
- 50.Konca Y., Yalcin H., Karabacak M., Kaliber M., Durmuscelebi F.Z. Effect of hempseed (Cannabis sativa L.) on performance, egg traits and blood biochemical parameters and antioxidant activity in laying Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) Br. Poult. Sci. 2014;55:785–794. doi: 10.1080/00071668.2014.978264.
- 51.Lorenzo J.M., Sichetti Munekata P.E., Pateiro M., Barba F.J., Domínguez R. In: Foods Lipids. Sources, Health Implications, and Future Trends. Lorenzo J.M., Sichetti Munekata P.E., Pateiro M., Barba F.J., Domínguez R., editors. Academic Press; Cambridge, MA, USA: 2022.
- 52.Jaskiewicz T., Sagan A., Puzio I. Effect of the Camelina sativa oil on the performance, essential fatty acid level in tissues and fat—Soluble vitamins content in the livers of broiler chickens. Livest. Sci. 2014;165:74–79. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2014.04.003.
- 53.Malik V.S., Chiuve S.E., Campos H., Rimm E.B., Mozaffarian D., Hu F.B., Sun Q. Circulating Very-Long Chain Saturated Fatty Acids and Incident Coronary Heart Disease in U.S. Men and Women. Circulation. 2015;28:260–268. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.014911.
- 54.Khalifa A.H., Omar M.B., Hussein S.M., Abdel-Mobdy H.E. Nutritional Value of Farmed and Wild Quail Meats. Assiut J. Agric. Sci. 2016;47:58–71.
- 55.European Community Council Directive 76/621/EEC. Official Journal L 202, 28.07.1976, 35–37. 1976. [(accessed on 18 April 2023)]. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31976L0621.
- 56.Aziza A.E., Awadin W.F., Quezada N., Cherian G. Gastrointestinal morphology, fatty acid profile, and production performance of broiler chicken fed camelina meal or fish oil. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2014;116:1727–1733. doi: 10.1002/ejlt.201400019.
- 57.Palmquist D.L. Omega-3 fatty acids in metabolism, health, and nutrition and for modified animal product foods. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2009;25:207–249. doi: 10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30713-0.
- 58.Villaverde C., Baucells M.D., Cortinas L., Barroeta A.C. Effects of dietary concentration and degree of polyunsaturation of dietary fat on endogenous synthesis and deposition of fatty acids in chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2006;47:173–179. doi: 10.1080/00071660600610898.
- 59.Schwingshackl L., Hoffmann G. Monounsaturated Fatty Acids and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: Synopsis of the Evidence Available from Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Nutrients. 2012;4:1989–2007. doi: 10.3390/nu4121989.
- 60.Janiszewski P., Lisiak D., Borzuta K., Grzeskowiak E., Schwarz T., Siekierko U., Andres K., Swiatkiewicz S. The Effect of Feeding Chicken and Geese Broilers with Different Cereals on the Fatty Acids Profile in Meat. Foods. 2021;10:2879. doi: 10.3390/foods10112879.
- 61.Wood J.D., Enser M., Fisher A.V., Nute G.R., Sheard P.R., Richardson R.I., Hughes S.I., Whittington F.M. Fat deposition, fatty acid composition and meat quality: A review. Meat Sci. 2008;78:343–358. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.07.019.
- 62.Fan Y.-Y., Chapkin R.S. Importance of Dietary γ-Linolenic Acid in Human Health and Nutrition. J. Nutr. 1998;128:1411–1414. doi: 10.1093/jn/128.9.1411.
- 63.Kapoor R., Huang Y.S. Gamma linolenic acid: An antiinflammatory omega-6 fatty acid. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2006;7:531–534. doi: 10.2174/138920106779116874.
- 64.Sergeant S., Rahbar E., Chilton F.H. Gamma-linolenic acid, Dihommo-gamma linolenic, Eicosanoids and Inflammatory Processes. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2016;785:77–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2016.04.020.
- 65.Van Hoorn R., Kapoor R., Kamphuis J. A short review on sources and health benefits of GLA, The GOOD omega-6. OCL. 2008;15:262–264. doi: 10.1051/ocl.2008.0207.
- 66.Yalcin H., Konca Y., Durmuscelebi F. Effect of dietary supplementation of hemp seed (Cannabis sativa L.) on meat quality and egg fatty acid composition of Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2018;102:131–141. doi: 10.1111/jpn.12670.
- 67.Skrivan M., Englmaierová M., Taubner T., Skrivanová E. Effects of Dietary Hemp Seed and Flaxseed on Growth Performance, Meat Fatty Acid Compositions, Liver Tocopherol Concentration and Bone Strength of Cockerels. Animals. 2020;10:458. doi: 10.3390/ani10030458.
- 68.Wood J.D., Enser M. Factors influencing fatty acids in meat and the role of antioxidants in improving meat quality. Br. J. Nutr. 1997;78:49–60. doi: 10.1079/BJN19970134.
- 69.Jing M., Gakhar N., Gibson R.A., House J.D. Dietary and ontogenic regulation of fatty acid desaturase and elongase expression in broiler chickens. Prostaglandins Leukot. Essent. Fatty Acids. 2013;89:107–113. doi: 10.1016/j.plefa.2013.05.006.
- 70.Gou Z.Y., Cui X.Y., Li L., Fan Q.L., Lin X.J., Wang Y.B., Jiang Z.Y., Jiang S.Q. Effects of dietary incorporation of linseed oil with soybean isoflavone on fatty acid profiles and lipid metabolism-related gene expression in breast muscle of chickens. Animal. 2020;14:2414–2422. doi: 10.1017/S1751731120001020.
- 71.European Commission European Commission Nutrition Claims. [(accessed on 25 November 2022)]. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling_nutrition/claims/nutrition_claims_en.
- 72.Brenna J.T., Salem N., Jr., Sinclair A.J., Cunnane S.C. α-Linolenic acid supplementation and conversion to n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in humans. Prostaglandins Leukot. Essent. Fatty Acids. 2009;80:85–91. doi: 10.1016/j.plefa.2009.01.004.
- 73.Burdge G.C., Calder P.C. Conversion of α-linolenic acid to longer-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in human adults. Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 2005;45:581–597. doi: 10.1051/rnd:2005047.
- 74.Ghaeni M., Ghahfarokhi K.N., Zaher L. Fatty Acids Profile, Atherogenic (IA) and Thrombogenic (IT) Health Lipid Indices in Leiognathusbindus and Upeneussulphureus. J. Marine Sci. Res. Dev. 2013;3:1000138. doi: 10.4172/2155-9910.1000138.
- 75.Dal Bosco A., Mancinelli A.C., Vaudo G., Cavallo M., Castellini C., Mattioli S. Indexing of Fatty Acids in Poultry Meat for Its Characterization in Healthy Human Nutrition: A Comprehensive Application of the Scientific Literature and New Proposals. Nutrients. 2022;14:3110. doi: 10.3390/nu14153110.
- 76.Popova T., Petkov E., Ignatova M., Lukić M. Fatty Acid Composition of Thigh Meat in Two Lines of Slow-Growing Chickens as Affected by the Access to Pasture. IJIAAR. 2018;2:123–132. doi: 10.29329/ijiaar.2018.141.5.
- 77.Skiepko N., Chwastowska-Siwecka I., Kondratowicz J., Mikulski D. Fatty acid profile, total cholesterol, vitamin content TBARS value of Turkey breast muscle cured with the addition lycopene. Poult. Sci. 2016;95:1182–1190. doi: 10.3382/ps/pew005.
- 78.Werenska M., Haraf G., Woloszyn J., Goluch Z., Okruszek A., Teleszko M. Fatty acid profile and health lipid indicies of goose meat in relation to various types of heat treatment. Poult. Sci. 2021;100:101237. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.101237.
- 79.Woloszyn J., Haraf G., Okruszek A., Werenska M., Goluch Z., Teleszko M. Fatty acid profiles and health lipid indices in the breast muscles of local Polish goose varieties. Poult. Sci. 2020;99:1216–1224. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2019.10.026.
- 80.Banaszak M., Kuźniacka J., Biesek J., Maiorano G., Adamski M. Meat quality traits and fatty acid composition of breast muscles from ducks fed with yellow lupin. Animal. 2020;14:1969–1975. doi: 10.1017/S1751731120000610.
- 81.Fernandes C.E., da Silva Vasconcelos M.A., de Almeida Ribeiro M., Sarubbo L.A., Andrade S.A.C., de Molo Filho A.B. Nutritional and lipid profiles in marine fish species from Brasil. Food Chem. 2014;160:67–71. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.03.055.
- 82.Goluch Z., Okruszek A., Haraf G., Moroch R., Rybarczyk A., Werenska M., Teleszko M. Fatty acid composition of turkey breast muscle and the salutogenic feeding regimen formulations (a pilot study) J. Elem. 2020;25:59–69. doi: 10.5601/jelem.2019.24.2.1820.
- 83.Chen J., Liu H. Nutritional Indices for Assessing Fatty Acids: A Mini-Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020;21:5695. doi: 10.3390/ijms21165695.
- 84.Rafieian-Kopaei M., Setorki M., Doudi M., Baradaran A., Nasri H. Atherosclerosis: Process, indicators, risk factors and new hopes. Int. J. Prev. Med. 2014;5:927–946.
- 85.Santos-Silva J., Bessa R.J.B., Santos-Silva F. Effect of genotype, feeding system and slaughter weight on the quality of light lambs. II. Fatty acid composition of meat. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2002;77:187–194.
- 86.Frota K.M.G., Matias A.C.G., Areas J.A.G. Influence of food components on lipid metabolism: Scenarios and perspective on the control and prevention of dyslipidemias. Ciênc. Tecnol. Aliment. 2010;30((Suppl. S1)):7–14. doi: 10.1590/S0101-20612010000500002.
- 87.Carneiro M.M.Y., de Tonissi e Buschinelli de Goes R.H., Barros B.C.B., de Oliveira R.T., Fernandes A.R.M., Gonçalves da Silva N., Anschau D.G., Cardoso C.A.L., Silva Oliveira S., dos Santos Picanço Y. Fatty acids profile, atherogenic and thrombogenic health lipid indices in the meat of lambs that received canola grain. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 2021;58:e178023. doi: 10.11606/issn.1678-4456.bjvras.2021.178023.
- 88.Dietschy J.M. Dietary Fatty Acids and the Regulation of Plasma Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Concentrations. J. Nutr. 1998;128:444S–448S. doi: 10.1093/jn/128.2.444S.
- 89.Attia Y.A., Al-Harthi M.A., Korish M.A., Shiboob M.M. Fatty acid and cholesterol profiles, hypocholesterolemic, atherogenic, and thrombogenic indices of broiler meat in the retail market. Lipids Health Dis. 2017;16:40. doi: 10.1186/s12944-017-0423-8.
- 90.Haraf G., Woloszyn J., Okruszek A., Goluch Z., Werenska M., Teleszko M. The protein and fat quality of thigh muscles from Polish goose varieties. Poult. Sci. 2021;100:100992. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2021.01.015.
Associated Data
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.