| Literature DB >> 25049878 |
Sangbuem Cho1, Chaehwa Ryu1, Jinho Yang1, David Tinotenda Mbiriri1, Chang-Weon Choi1, Jung-Il Chae1, Young-Hoon Kim1, Kwan-Seob Shim1, Young Jun Kim1, Nag-Jin Choi1.
Abstract
The effect of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) feeding on growth performance and fatty acid profiles in thigh meat of broiler chicken was investigated using meta-analysis with a total of 9 studies. Overall effects were calculated by standardized mean differences between treatment (CLA fed) and control using Hedges's adjusted g from fixed and random effect models. Meta-regression was conducted to evaluate the effect of CLA levels. Subgroups in the same study were designated according to used levels of CLA, CP levels or substituted oils in diets. The effects on final body weight, weight gain, feed intake and feed conversion ratio were investigated as growth parameters. Total saturated and unsaturated fatty acid concentrations and C16:0, C18:0, C18:2 and C18:3 concentrations in thigh meat of broiler chicken were used as fatty acid profile parameters. The overall effect of CLA feeding on final weight was negative and it was only significant in fixed effect model (p<0.01). Significantly lower weight gain, feed intake and higher feed conversion ratio compared to control were found (p<0.05). CLA feeding on the overall increased total saturated fatty acid concentration in broilers compared to the control diet (p<0.01). Total unsaturated fatty acid concentration was significantly decreased by CLA feeding (p<0.01). As for individual fatty acid profiles, C16:0, C18:0 and C18:3 were increased and C18:2 was significantly decreased by CLA feeding (p<0.01). In conclusion, CLA was proved not to be beneficial for improving growth performance, whereas it might be supposed that CLA is effective modulating n-6/n-3 fatty acids ratio in thigh meat. However, the economical compensation of the loss from suppressed growth performance and increased saturated fatty acids with the benefit from enhanced n-6/n-3 ratio should be investigated in further studies in order to propose an appropriate use of dietary CLA in the broiler industry.Entities:
Keywords: Broiler Chicken; Conjugated Linoleic Acid; Growth Performance; Meat Fatty Acids; Meta-analysis
Year: 2013 PMID: 25049878 PMCID: PMC4093496 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13071
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Studies used in data sets and their information for feeding trials
| Study | Animal | DOE | Conjugated linoleic acids
| Feeding practices | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levels (%) | Substituted oils | Isomers profiles | ||||
| A | 5×4×10 | 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 | No info. | (A), c-9, t-11 (24.1%); t-10, c-12 (25.6%) ; others | Basal: 1–7 d | |
| R | 6×6×9 | 4.0 | Soybean oil (partially) | (B), C18:1 (14.2%); C18:2 (n-6) (4.0%); c-9, t-11 (34.2%); t-10, c-12 (34.0%); other CLA (4.0%); C18:3 (0.02%); other fatty acid (9.6%) | Basal: 1–21 d | |
| A | 4×6×10 | 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 | Soybean oil | (C), c-9, t-11 (39.2%); t10, c12 (38.9%), other CLA (2.0%) | CLA: 1–42 d | |
| R | 2×8×4 | 1.0 | Sunflower oil | (D), CLA-79.5%; c-9, t-11, t-10, c-12 all in equal amount | Basal: 1–21 d | |
| R | 3×2×8 | 0.75, 1.5 | Corn oil | (A), c-9,t-11 (24.1%), t-10, c-12 (25.6%); others | Basal: 1–21 d | |
| R | 2×8×2 | 1.0 | No info. | (E), c-9, t-11/t-9, c-11 (34.5%); t-10, c-12 (35.7%); c-9, c-12/c-10, c-12, t-9, t-11/t-10, t-12 (2.4%) | Basal: 1–10 d | |
| R | 5×2×35 | 0.5 | Sunflower, olive, beef tallow, hazelnut oils (individually) | (N), c-9, t-11, t-9, c-11 (35.33%); t-10, c-12 (35.72%); c-9, c-11 (1.11%); c-10, c-12 (1.57%); t-9, t-11, t-10, t-12 (0.91%) | CLA: 1–35 d | |
| R | 2×12×4 | 5.0 | Corn oil | (F), c-9,t-11 (30.7%); t-10,c-12 (30.6%); t-9, t-11 (2.3%) | CLA: 1–21 d | |
| CR | 5×4×6 | 2.0 | Flaxseed and menhaden oils | (G), c-9, c-11 (50%); t-10, c-12 (50%) | CLA: 1–42 d | |
Animal = A, Arbor Acre; R = Ross; CR = Cobb×Ross.
DOE = Design of experiment, no. of treatment×no. of replication×animals per replication.
Substituted oil sources in feed with CLA.
CLA manufacturers: (A), Chumdan Yangdon Institute, Korea; (B), TrofoCell Research and Trade GmbH, Hamburg, Germany; (C), Auhai Biotech Ltd, Qingdo, P. R. China; (D), Lipid Nutrition B.V. Wormerveer, The Netherland; (E), Rinoru Oil Milss Co. Ltd Tokyo Japan; (F), BASF, D-67056 Ludwigshafen, Germany; (G), Luta-CLA 60, BASF, Ludwigshafen, Germany, (N), no information.
Effect of CLA feeding on the growth performance of broiler chicken
| Items | df | Fixed effect model | Random effect model | Heterogeneity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| ES | z-value | p-value | ES | z-value | p-value | N<5% | Q | ||
| FBW | 14 | −0.2998 | −4.6391 | <0.0001 | −0.0540 | −0.1630 | 0.8705 | 1 | 361.61 (<0.0001) |
| WG | 14 | −0.4939 | −8.2970 | <0.0001 | −0.6410 | −2.7788 | 0.0055 | 1 | 204.53 (<0.0001) |
| FI | 11 | −0.3760 | −5.4107 | <0.0001 | −0.4219 | −1.9964 | 0.0492 | 0 | 100.27 (<0.0001) |
| FCR | 10 | 0.3737 | 5.3644 | <0.0001 | 0.3867 | 1.9648 | 0.0494 | 0 | 77.61 (<0.0001) |
FBW = Final body weight; WG = Weight gain; FI = Feed intake; FCR = Feed conversion ratio.
df = degree of freedom.
ES = Overall effect size.
Number of eliminated studies that showed a weight below 5% in the random model.
Cochran’s Q test.
Figure 1.Forest plots for the effect of CLA feeding on growth performance of broiler.
Effect of CLA feeding on fatty acid profiles of chicken thighs
| Items | df | Fixed effect model | Random effect model | Heterogeneity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| ES | z-value | p-value | ES | z-value | p-value | N<5% | Q | ||
| TSFA | 7 | 6.0828 | 12.1000 | <0.0001 | 12.1213 | 4.9631 | <0.0001 | 1 | 134.53(<0.0001) |
| TUSFA | 10 | −1.6014 | −7.0992 | <0.0001 | −2.9005 | −4.1307 | <0.0001 | 3 | 87.64(<0.0001) |
| C16:0 | 8 | 5.3095 | 14.2700 | <0.0001 | 8.1144 | 5.0817 | <0.0001 | 0 | 128.92(<0.0001) |
| C18:0 | 8 | 0.5057 | 3.3106 | 0.0009 | 1.8968 | 3.6932 | 0.0002 | 0 | 62.54(<0.0001) |
| C18:2 | 11 | −2.0036 | −10.0130 | <0.0001 | −4.2733 | −4.7834 | <0.0001 | 0 | 193.87(<0.0001) |
| C18:3 | 10 | 0.5076 | 3.7712 | 0.0002 | 0.3758 | 1.2857 | 0.1985 | 3 | 43.12(<0.0001) |
TSFA and TUSFA mean total saturated fatty acid and total unsaturated fatty acid, respectively.
df = Degree of freedom.
ES = Overall effect size.
Number of eliminated study that showing below 5% of weight in random model.
Cochran’s Q test.
Figure 2.Forest plots for the effect of CLA feeding on total saturated fatty acid (A) and unsaturated fatty acid (B) in thigh meat of broiler chicken.
Figure 3.Forest plots for the effect of CLA feeding on fatty acid profiles in thigh meat of broiler chicken. (A) palmitic acid, (B) stearic acid, (C) C18:3, (D) C18:2.
Effect of CLA levels in diet on growth performance and fatty acids profiles in thigh of broiler chicken
| Category | Items | Slope | Intercept |
|---|---|---|---|
| Growth performance | FBW | −0.5894±0.2754 (0.0324) | 0.8271±0.5186 (0.1107) |
| WG | −0.2089±0.2000 (0.2969) | −0.3183±0.3818 (0.4044) | |
| FI | −0.2185±0.1952 (0.2632) | −0.0268±0.4152 (0.9485) | |
| FCR | −0.0576±0.1813 (0.7507) | 0.4944±0.3981 (0.2143) | |
| Fatty acids profiles | Total SFA | −1.2668±2.4261 (0.6000) | 15.0235±5.8924 (0.0108) |
| Total USFA | 0.1494±0.6269 (0.8116) | −3.3094±1.735 (0.0562) | |
| C16:0 | −0.9898±1.4754 (0.5023) | 10.1301±3.4175 (0.0030) | |
| C18:0 | 1.4894±0.5174 (0.0040) | −0.5655±1.0231 (0.5804) | |
| C18:3 | −0.2418±0.2810 (0.3894) | 0.8165±0.5983 (0.1724) | |
| C18:2 | −0.4063±0.8891 (0.6477) | −3.5627±1.8964 (0.0603) |
Mean±standard error (p-value).