| Literature DB >> 35454692 |
Petru Alexandru Vlaicu1, Arabela Elena Untea1, Raluca Paula Turcu1, Mihaela Saracila1, Tatiana Dumitra Panaite1, Gabriela Maria Cornescu1.
Abstract
Meat industries across the world are constantly focusing to find natural low-cost additives for the development of novel meat products to meet consumer demand for improving the health benefits. In this study, we investigated the chemical composition and the bioactive compounds of some herbal plants, namely basil, thyme, sage, and their functionality on broiler chicken thigh meat quality. Chemical composition, as well as total antioxidant activity, polyphenols, vitamin E lutein and zeaxanthin and the fatty acids of the plants, were analyzed. According to findings, total polyphenols was 21.53 mg gallic acid/g in basil, 31.73 mg gallic acid/g in thyme and 38.87 mg gallic acid/g in sage. The antioxidant capacity was 19.91 mM Trolox in basil, 54.09 mM Trolox in thyme and 54.09 mM Trolox in sage. Lutein and zeaxanthin from basil was 267.91 mg/kg, 535.79 mg/kg in thyme and 99.89 mg/kg, and vitamin E ranged from 291.71 mg/kg in basil to 379.37 mg/kg in thyme and 148.07 mg/kg in sage, respectively. After, we developed a trial on 120 unsexed broiler chickens (n = 30) which were separated into four groups with six replications of five chickens each: control (C); 1% basil (B); 1% thyme (T) and 1% sage (S). The B, T and S groups deposited significantly higher (p < 0.05) concentration of zinc, polyphenols, antioxidant capacity and vitamin E in meat samples compared with the C group. In the experimental groups, the proportion of total polyunsaturated fatty acids, the ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids, and the ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to saturated fatty acids in the thigh muscles were significantly improved (p < 0.05). The tested plants exhibited a significant (p = 0.0007) hypocholesterolemic effect in the meat of the B (45.90 mg/g), T (41.60 mg/g) and S (48.80 mg/kg) experimental groups compared with the C (60.50 mg/g) group. These results support the application of the studied plants as natural sources of additives which could be effective in improving meat quality, from the human consumption perspective.Entities:
Keywords: additives; antioxidants; basil; chicken; fatty acids; meat quality; plants; sage; thigh meat; thyme
Year: 2022 PMID: 35454692 PMCID: PMC9029320 DOI: 10.3390/foods11081105
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Nutritional and mineral composition of the plants.
| Item | Basil | Thyme | Sage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical Composition * | |||
| Dry matter, % | 91.35 | 91.65 | 90.64 |
| Crude protein, % | 22.53 | 15.38 | 9.56 |
| Crude fat, % | 1.51 | 2.09 | 3.15 |
| Crude fibre, % | 12.22 | 17.08 | 27.92 |
| Ash, % | 14.12 | 9.43 | 10.36 |
| Mineral Composition * | |||
| Copper, mg/kg | 27.69 | 7.41 | 7.89 |
| Iron, mg/kg | 624.51 | 690.05 | 732.72 |
| Manganese, mg/kg | 78.46 | 96.11 | 68.92 |
| Zinc, mg/kg | 54.63 | 31.73 | 38.87 |
* The values are reported as average of three determinations (n = 3).
Figure 1Bioactive compounds with antioxidant activity of plants; (A) total antioxidant capacity; (B) polyphenol content; (C) lutein and zeaxanthin; (D) vitamin E content; (n = 3).
Fatty acid composition of the plants.
| Fatty Acids, g/100 g | Basil | Thyme | Sage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caproic C6:0 | 0.48 | 0.36 | 1.72 |
| Caprylic C8:0 | 0.45 | 0.38 | 6.88 |
| Capric C10:0 | 0.75 | 0.51 | 0.39 |
| Lauric C12:0 | 1.92 | 0.94 | 2.38 |
| Myristic C14:0 | 5.20 | 21.41 | 0.43 |
| Pentadecanoic C15:0 | 0.59 | nd | 0.38 |
| Palmitic C16:0 | 22.98 | 17.12 | 21.38 |
| Heptadecanoic C17:0 | nd | 0.08 | 0.49 |
| Stearic C18:0 | 8.16 | 3.06 | 4.10 |
| Tricosanoic C23:0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.64 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Miristioleic C14:1 | 0.73 | 1.59 | 0.27 |
| Pentadecenoic C15:1 | 1.41 | 1.23 | 3.23 |
| Palmitoleic C16:1 | 1.99 | 0.89 | 2.46 |
| Heptadecenoic C17:1 | nd | 0.06 | 0.29 |
| Oleic cis C18:1 | 17.85 | 7.54 | 12.65 |
| Nervonic C24:1n9 | 0.00 | 0.68 | 0.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Linoleic cis C18:2n6 | 17.36 | 12.62 | 11.40 |
| Linolenic γ C18:3n6 | nd | 0.16 | nd |
| Eicosadienoic C20:2n6 | nd | 0.17 | 3.21 |
| Eicosatrienoic C20:3n6 | nd | nd | 3.48 |
| Arachidonic C20:4n6 | 0.55 | 0.46 | 5.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
| α-Linolenic C18:3n3 | 15.95 | 27.96 | 12.61 |
| Octadecatetraenoic C18:4n3 | 2.71 | 0.90 | 5.27 |
| Eicosapentaenoic C20:5n3 | nd | 0.92 | nd |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Others | 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.56 |
| n-6/n-3 ratio | 0.96 | 0.45 | 1.29 |
SFA—saturated fatty acids; MUFA—monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA—polyunsaturated fatty acids; nd—not determined; The values are reported as average of three determinations (n = 3).
Effect of dietary plants on chemical and mineral composition of chicken meat.
| Item | C | B | T | S | SEM |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical Composition | ||||||
| Dry matter, % | 28.23 | 29.53 | 28.08 | 28.78 | 0.549 | 0.6568 |
| Crude protein, % | 18.33 | 18.18 | 18.06 | 18.23 | 0.321 | 0.9938 |
| Crude fat, % | 8.36 | 7.87 | 8.08 | 7.88 | 0.291 | 0.0671 |
| Ash, % | 1.11 | 1.15 | 1.14 | 1.06 | 0.023 | 0.8591 |
| Mineral Composition | ||||||
| Copper, mg/kg | 1.10 | 1.27 | 1.07 | 1.14 | 0.058 | 0.8592 |
| Iron, mg/kg | 38.14 | 41.00 | 41.28 | 41.19 | 0.723 | 0.2592 |
| Manganese, mg/kg | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.022 | 0.1056 |
| Zinc, mg/kg | 50.63 b | 58.52 a | 54.92 a | 54.79 a | 1.075 | 0.0408 |
a,b Means in the same row with different superscript letters are significantly different by Tukey’s multiple comparison method (p < 0.05). C—control diet; B—a diet containing 1% basil; T—a diet containing 1% thyme; S—diet containing 1% sage; (n = 6); SEM = standard error of the mean.
Figure 2Effect of dietary plant on concentrations of compounds with biological value and antioxidant potential, determined in meat samples; (A) total antioxidant capacity; (B) total polyphenol content; (C) lutein and zeaxanthin; (D) vitamin E; ns—not significant; a,b Different superscript letters are significantly different by Tukey’s multiple comparison method (p < 0.05); C- the control diet; B—a diet containing 1% basil; T—a diet containing 1% thyme; S—diet containing 1% sage; (n = 6).
Effect of dietary plants on fatty acid profiles (g/100 g) of thigh meat.
| Fatty Acids, g/100 g | C | B | T | S | SEM |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Butyric C4:0 | 0.170 a | 0.123 b | 0.121 b | 0.090 c | 0.007 | <0.0001 |
| Caproic C6:0 | 0.122 a | 0.102 b | 0.107 b | 0.083 b | 0.004 | 0.0018 |
| Caprylic C8:0 | 0.352 a | 0.138 b | 0.063 c | 0.073 c | 0.021 | <0.0001 |
| Capric C10:0 | 0.288 a | 0.113 b | 0.093 bc | 0.048 c | 0.019 | <0.0001 |
| Lauric C12:0 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.003 | 0.6454 |
| Myristic C14:0 | 1.040 a | 0.720 b | 0.623 b | 0.528 c | 0.042 | <0.0001 |
| Pentadecanoic C15:0 | 0.455 a | 0.327 b | 0.378 b | 0.367 b | 0.013 | 0.0336 |
| Palmitic C16:0 | 27.07 a | 26.37 a | 26.12 a | 23.13 b | 0.333 | 0.0002 |
| Heptadecanoic C17:0 | 0.08 | 0.27 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.023 | 0.0948 |
| Stearic C18:0 | 7.652 b | 8.705 a | 7.878 b | 8.095 b | 0.109 | 0.0009 |
| Lignoceric C24:0 | 0.563 b | 0.530 b | 0.637 ab | 0.697 a | 0.020 | 0.0280 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Miristoleic C14:1 | 0.278 a | 0.232 ab | 0.242 a | 0.153 b | 0.083 | 0.0287 |
| Pentadecenoic C15:1 | 1.59 | 1.84 | 1.48 | 1.18 | 0.075 | 0.0678 |
| Palmitoleic C16:1 | 5.203 a | 4.157 b | 4.983 ab | 3.643 c | 0.117 | <0.0001 |
| Heptadecenoic C17:1 | 0.23 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.24 | 0.018 | 0.5986 |
| Oleic cis C18:1n9 | 40.24 a | 39.62 a | 39.75 a | 35.86 b | 0.460 | 0.0040 |
| Erucic C22:1n9 | 2.695 a | 3.222 a | 2.663 a | 1.708 b | 0.142 | 0.0032 |
| Nervonic C24:1n9 | 0.092 b | 0.057 b | 0.092 b | 0.235 a | 0.018 | 0.0046 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Linoleic cis (LA) C18:2n6 | 5.695 b | 5.950 b | 7.193 a | 7.150 a | 0.201 | 0.0482 |
| Linolenic γ C18:3n6 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.012 | 0.7736 |
| Conjugated LA C18:2 | 0.50 | 0.52 | 0.42 | 0.31 | 0.026 | 0.0782 |
| Eicosadienoic C20:2n6 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.013 | 0.2434 |
| Eicosatrienoic C20:3n6 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.008 | 0.1917 |
| Arachidonic C20:4n6 | 0.092 b | 0.110 b | 0.103 b | 0.820 a | 0.083 | 0.0088 |
| Docosadienoic C22:2n6 | 0.327 b | 0.373 b | 0.485 a | 0.465 a | 0.015 | 0.0001 |
| Docosatrienoic C22:3n6 | 0.37 | 0.43 | 0.51 | 0.45 | 0.017 | 0.1213 |
| Docosatetraenoic C22:4n6 | 0.22 | 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.20 | 0.032 | 0.4246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| α-Linolenic (ALA) C18:3n3 | 0.090 c | 0.240 b | 0.263 b | 0.333 a | 0.021 | 0.0350 |
| Octadecatetraenoic C18:4n3 | 0.81 | 0.89 | 0.67 | 0.59 | 0.043 | 0.1228 |
| Eicosatrienoic C20:3n3 | 0.058 b | 0.080 b | 0.221 a | 0.230 a | 0.017 | 0.0032 |
| Eicosapentaenoic (EPA) C20:5n3 | 0.443 b | 0.523 a | 0.533 a | 0.557 a | 0.015 | 0.0081 |
| Docosapentaenoic C22:5n3 | 0.093 b | 0.223 a | 0.340 a | 0.390 a | 0.045 | 0.0452 |
| Docosahexaenoic (DHA) C22:6n3 | 0.130 b | 0.332 a | 0.372 a | 0.350 a | 0.031 | 0.0160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PUFA | 9.240 b | 10.35 a | 11.72 a | 12.07 a | 0.261 | 0.0023 |
| others | 2.621 b | 2.823 a | 2.718 a | 2.020 b | 0.141 | 0.0189 |
| n-6/n-3 ratio | 4.719 a | 3.531 b | 3.945 b | 3.927 b | 0.164 | 0.0310 |
| PUFA/SFA | 0.24 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.36 | 0.144 | 0.0615 |
| Cholesterol, mg/100g DM | 60.50 a | 45.90 b | 41.60 b | 48.40 b | 0.002 | 0.0007 |
| H/H | 1.66 b | 1.73 a | 1.79 a | 1.88 a | 0.033 | 0.0302 |
a,b,c Values with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly (p < 0.05). C—control diet; B—a diet containing 1% basil; T—a diet containing 1% thyme; S—diet containing 1% sage; SEM—standard error of the mean; SFA—saturated fatty acids; MUFA—monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA—polyunsaturated fatty acids; PUFA/SFA—polyunsaturated to saturated fatty acids ratio; HH—ratio between hypocholesterolemic/hypercholesterolemic fatty acid; (n = 6).
Figure 3Biplot correlation circle from principal component (PC) analysis of plants (blue lines) and meat (red lines). PC1 covered 39.52% of variance in plants and 74.31% variance in meat. PC2 covered 20.19% variance in plants and 19.79% variance in meat.