KEYWORDS

Broiler feed, Fat source,

Commercial multienzyme,

chicken meat, fatty acid, Quality

characteristics.

PAGES

40 – 50

REFERENCES

Vol. 5 No. 1 (2018)

ARTICLE HISTORY

Submitted: February 05, 2018

Accepted: March 15 2018

Published: April 20 2018

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR

Engy, F. Zaki

Animal Breeding Department,

Desert Research Center, ,

1 Matariya St., B.O.P.11753

Matariya Cairo, Egypt

mail: angyfayz@yahoo.com.

phone: +202 26332846

Fax: +202 26357858

JOURNAL HOME PAGE

riviste.unimi.it/index.php/haf

Article

Fatty acids profile and quality

characteristics of broiler chicken

meat fed different dietary oil

sources with some additives

Engy F. Zaki
1,

*, El Faham A.I.
2
and Nematallah G.M.

1
Meat Production and Technology Unit, Animal Breeding Department,

Desert Research Center, Cairo, Egypt.

2
Poultry Production Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams

University, Cairo, Egypt.

Abstract

The study was carried out to investigate the effect of feeding broiler
chicken on different vegetable oils with feed additives on the quality
characteristics of chicken meat. A total of 216 one-day-old chicks of Hubbard
strain were randomly assigned to six dietary treatments as (2×3) factorial
designs where two sources of dietary oil with three levels of commercial
multi-enzyme feed additives. Treatments were: soybean oil only (T1),
soybean oil+ ZAD (T2), soybean oil + AmPhi-BACT (T3), palm oil only (T4),
palm oil + ZAD (T5) and palm oil + AmPhi- BACT (T6). Results showed that
feeding broiler chickens on different types of dietary oils had significant
effect on the fatty acid profile of broiler chicken meat. UFA/SFA ration of
broiler chicken fed palm oil were significantly lower compared with those
fed soybean oil. Broiler fed on soybean oil had significantly higher n-6: n-3
ration compared with broiler fed on palm oil. Regardless of the source of
dietary oil, significant differences were observed in the most of fatty acid
profile in the chicken meat among levels of commercial multi- enzyme feed
additives. Meat of T5and T6 had the higher pH value, followed by meat of
T1and T3 groups, while the lowest pH value found in meat of T2 and T4. The
higher cooking loss was found in meat of T4 while, meat of T5had the
lowest value. Data of chilling loss indicated that the differences between
dietary treatments were not significantly different except for meat of T6
which had the higher chilling loss. No significant differences were found in
color measurements between dietary treatments.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 40 - 50 41

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

1 Introduction

Poultry feeding is one of the most important aspects of poultry production. Therefore, for

profitable poultry rearing, provision of economical and balanced feed is due. Fats constitute

the main energetic source for poultry and they have the highest caloric value among all the

nutrients (Anjum et al., 2004). Poultry meat contains high and low total fat content and, more

importantly a higher monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acid (MUFA and PUFA)

content than other meats (Howe et al., 2006). Currently, consumers are more concerned

about their food, especially nutritional aspects. Among the nutritional aspects of food, lipid

content and fatty acid profile are the most important factors (Bostami, et al., 2017). Plant oils

have commonly been used as energy sources in diets of broiler chicks (Jalali et al., 2015).

Advantages of utilizing oils in poultry diet include decrease of feed dust, increase in absorption

and hydrolysis of lipoproteins supplying the essential fatty acids, (Nobakht et al., 2011). The

fatty acid content of broiler meat depends on the type of diet intake by the birds (Crespo &

Esteve-Garcia, 2002).

Enzyme such as microbial phytase has been used as commercial feed additive in broiler

feed production to improve nutritive values of plant based diets. Inclusion of exogenous

enzyme in animal’s diet has been shown to improve broiler’s performance (Wang, et al., 2013 )

but the effect on meat quality has to be determined as certain feed additives have been found

to affect Performance and carcass characteristics (Omojola, et al., 2014) .

Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the effect of palm oil and soybean

oil with or without addition of feed additives in finisher diets on the fatty acids profile of

chicken meat and to examine the impact of these oils and feed additives on the quality

characteristics of meat such as color measurements, pH value, chilling and cooking loss.

2 Material and method

2.1 Experimental Design

The experimental procedures were approved by the Poultry Production Department,

Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University and as followed by the Animal Breeding

Department, Animal and Poultry Production Division, Desert Research Center.

The current study was conducted at Poultry Experimental Unit, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain

Shams University, located in Agricultural Research Station, Shalaqan, Qalyobia Governorate,

Egypt. The experiment was a 2 × 3 factorial design with two sources of vegetable oils (soybean

oil and palm oil) with three levels of commercial multi-enzyme feed additives included (ZAD

which contains bacteria (Ruminococcus flavefaciens) with concentration of (28 x 104). Also it

contains a mixture of enzymes (Cellulase - Xylanase - α-Amylase -Protease). AmPhi-BACT,

which contains bacteria (Lactobacillus acidophilus) and (Lactobacillus planterum) and

(Bifidobacterium bifidum) and extract ferment of both (Bacillus subtilus) and (Aspergillus

niger) with concentration of 5 g / kg and also contains a mixture of enzymes that is estimated

as 34.5 units / gram, that is equivalent to 2 g / kg (Cellulase - Beta-glucanase - Hemicellulase ).

A total of 216 one-day-old chicks of Hubbard strain were used for this study, the chicks

were randomly assigned to six treatment groups. Each group included six replicates and each

replicate was made up of six chicks. The basal diet was formulated to meet the nutrient

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 40 - 50 42

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

requirements of broiler chicken following the National Research Council (NRC, 1994) as shown

in Table (1). Diets were offered in three feeding phases, starter from one-day-old to 11 days

(basal diet – without additives - all birds), grower from 12 to 22 days (basal diet - without

additives - all birds) and finisher from 23 to 35 days (experimental diets specified per

treatment).

Table 1: Feed ingredients and chemical analyses of experimental diets

Starter
(0-11)

Grower
(12-22)

Finisher (23-35)

Ingredients T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

Corn (grains) 52.05 55.91 56.80 56.80 56.80 56.80 56.80 56.80

Soybean Meal (44%) 31.50 30.00 28.25 28.25 28.25 28.25 28.25 28.25

Corn Gluten Meal (62%) 7.20 4.86 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40

Soybean Oil 3.00 3.65 5.00 5.00 5.00 - - -

Palm Oil - - - - - 5.00 5.00 5.00

Wheat Bran 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Di-Calcium Phosphate 1.85 1.60 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34

Calcium Carbonate 1.30 1.50 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35

Premix* 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

Salt (NaCl) 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

DL-Methionine 0.29 0.28 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

L-Lysine HCL 0.21 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Nutrient content (Calculated) **

Crude Protein % 23.00 21.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

Crude Fat % 5.69 6.39 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.76

Crude Fiber % 3.88 3.75 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70

ME Kcal/ Kg diet 3029 3076 3171 3171 3171 3171 3171 3171

Calcium % 1.00 1.01 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

Available Phosphorus % 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

Lysine % 1.30 1.15 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Methionine & Cystein % 0.97 0.93 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

* Each 3 Kg of premix contains: Vitamins: A: 12000000 IU; Vit. D3 2000000 IU; E: 10000 mg; K3: 2000 mg; B1:1000 mg; B2: 5000
mg; B6:1500 mg; B12: 10 mg; Biotin: 50 mg; Coline chloride: 250000 mg; Pantothenic acid: 10000 mg; Nicotinic acid: 30000 mg;
Folic acid: 1000 mg; Minerals: Mn: 60000 mg; Zn: 50000 mg; Fe: 30000 mg; Cu: 10000 mg; I: 1000 mg; Se: 100 mg and Co: 100 mg.
** Nutrient content calculated based on chemical analysis data of feedstuffs provided by NRC (1994).

The present trial was designed as testing dietary treatments was focused on only finisher

stage and thus experimental diets will be offered for 12 days before marketing, from 23 days

and up to 35 days. Chicks were housed in galvanized cages, where nine birds were allotted to a

pen cage of 100 cm long, 40 cm width and 40 cm height. The cages were kept in

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 40 - 50 43

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

environmentally controlled rooms, where the temperature was maintained around 32° C for

the first week and was decreased by 3° C weekly afterwards. Lighting program was controlled

to provide 23 hours light and one hour dark daily by candescent bulb lighting system.

At the end of experiment, four chickens from each treatment were randomly selected

based on similar body weight for slaughtering. Slaughtered birds were scalded in hot water

bath, plucked and eviscerated manually. Chicken meat from thigh and abdominal muscles were

collected, packed and frozen at -18ºC until further analyses.

2.2 Determination of fatty acid profile

The fatty acid profiles of broiler chicken meat were analyzed as describe by AOAC (2012).

The fatty acids were methylated with boron tri fluoride in methanol, extracted with heptanes

and determined on a gas chromatograph with FID detector (PE Auto System XL) with auto

sampler and Eȥchrom integration system. Carrier gas (He); ca. 25Psi- air 450ml/min- Hydrogen

45ml- split100 ml/min. Oven temperature 200°C injector and detector 250°C. Lipid extraction

and direct methylation were performed in accordance with Folsch et al. (1957).

2.3 Physical analysis

2.3.1 pH value

Raw chicken meat pH values were determined as described by Hood (1980). Ten grams of

sample was homogenized with 100ml distilled water and measured using a digital pH-meter

Jenway 3310 conductivity and pH meter. Values of pH were determined in triplicate for each

treatment.

2.3.2 Cooking loss

Chicken meat samples of each treatment were cooked in a water bath at 85°C until the

internal temperature reached 78°C (Meek et al., 2000). Cooked meat samples were cooled in

running tap water for 1 h and then cooked samples were reweighed. All cooking

measurements were done on three replicates per treatment. The cooking loss was determined

as follows:

2.3.3 Chilling loss

Chilling loss of broiler chicken meat was determined as describe by Omojola et al. (2014).

Broiler chicken meat samples (200±10 g) were chilled at 4ºC for 24 hours, after which the meat

was thawed and weighed .Three replicates were done for each treatment. Chilling loss was

calculated as follows:

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 40 - 50 44

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

2.4 Color measurements

Color of raw chicken meat samples was measured by Chroma meter (Konica Minolta,

model CR 410, Japan) calibrated with a white plate and light trap supplied by the manufacturer

(CIE, 1976). The color was expressed as L* (lightness), a* (the redness) and b* (the

yellowness). The average of three spectral readings at different locations was obtained for

each treatment.

2.5 Statistical analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the obtained data using the general linear

modeling procedure (SAS, 2000). The used design was one way analysis. Duncan’s multiple

tests (1955) were applied for comparison of means and the significance was defined as P<0.05.

3 Results

Data of fatty acid profile of broiler chicken meat fed on different types of oil and

commercial multi- enzyme additives are showed in Table (2). It was observed that meat of

chicken fed on diets containing palm oil (T3,T4and T6) had higher content of palmitic

acid(C16:0) than those fed on soybean oil(T1,T2 andT3). Meat of broiler chicken fed soybean oil

had higher content of linoleic acid (C18:2ω6) than that fed on palm oil. Also, it can be found

that UFA/SFA ration of broiler chicken fed on palm oil groups (T4, T5adT6) were significantly

lower compared with those fed on soybean oil (T1,T2 and T3). The polyunsaturated fatty acids

content was significantly higher in broiler chicken meat fed on diets containing soybean oil

than that fed on diets containing palm oil. Broiler fed on soybean oil had significantly higher n-

6: n-3 ration compared with broiler fed on palm oil. Regardless of the source of dietary oil,

significant differences were observed in the most of fatty acid profile in the chicken meat

among levels of commercial multi- enzyme feed additives.

Table (3) showed the physical characteristics of broiler chicken meat fed on different types

of vegetable oil and feed additives. Broiler chicken fed on palm oil (T5and T6) had the higher

pH value, followed by broiler fed on soybean oil (T1and T3). Also; it can be found that addition

of commercial multi-enzyme feed additives had a significant effect on pH value of broiler

chicken meat fed on soybean oil (T2 and T3), while no significant effect was found on pH value

of those fed on palm oil with addition of commercial multi-enzyme feed additives (T5 and T6).

Data of cooking loss of broiler chicken meat fed on different types of oils showed that no

significant differences were found between broiler fed on soybean oil T1 and T2; slight

difference was found in cooking loss of T3 group, while significant differences were found in

cooking loss of broiler fed on palm oil. Addition of commercial multi- enzyme feed additives

had significant effect on cooking loss. Broiler chicken fed on palm oil supplemented with

commercial multi- enzyme feed additives had lower cooking loss 21.59 and 26.40 %but slight

difference was found in cooking loss of broiler chicken fed on soybean oil with commercial

multi- enzyme feed additives.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 40 - 50 45

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

Table 2: fatty acid composition (% of total fatty acids) of broiler chicken meat

Fatty acids T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 SEM

Caproic acid C6:0 1.18 - - - - -

Caprlyic acid C8:0 - - - - - 0.33
Capric acid C10:0 - - - - - 0.73

Lauric acid C12:0 0.13 0.16 0.16 1.80

Myristic acid C14:0 0.67e 2.00b 0.79ed 1.31c 0.88d 3.62a 0.06

Pentadecanoic acid C15:0 - 0.43 0.25 0.15 0.18 1.0

Palmitic acid C16:0 24.70b 21.39e 23.34cd 33.60a 22.66d 23.99cb 0.37

Heptadecanoic acid C17:0 0.20d 0.34c 0.48b 0.40c 0.40c 1.13a 0.01

Stearic acid C18:0 5.50d 5.96cd 6.31bc 6.42bc 6.89b 10.19a 0.24

Arachidic acid C20:0 - 0.25 0.14 0.71 0.20 0.33

Behenic acid C22:0 - - - 0.50 - -

∑SFA 32.25b 30.54c 31.44bc 43.25a 31.38bc 43.14a 0.49

Tetradecenoic acid C14:1ω5 - - - 0.15 - -

C15:1ω6 - - - - - 0.38

Palmiticoleic acid C16:1ω9 4.56 0.27 0.16 - 0.13 0.20

C16:1ω7 3.55 3.89 1.57 3.53 2.80

C16:1ω5 0.36 - - - -

Oleic acid C18:1ω9 37.30a 29.46d 36.94a 32.39c 33.49b 31.81c 0.35

Vaccinic acid C18:1ω7 2.39c 3.91a 2.89b 2.39c 3.00b 0.48d 0.06

Gadolic acid C20:1ω9 0.23 0.96 - 0.40 0.30 0.66

Eicosaenoic acid C20:1ω11 - - 0.27 - - -

C20:1ω7 - - - - - 0.40

Eicosaenoic acid C20:1ω5 - - - - - 0.25

Docosenoic acid C22:1ω11 0.20 0.10 0.26 - - -

C22:1ω9 - - - 0.24 - -

∑MUFA 44.68a 38.60c 44.41a 37.15d 40.44b 36.96d 0.36

C16:2ω4 - 0.36 - 0.16 - -

C18:2ω5 - 0.21 - 0.36 - 0.22

Linoleic acid C18:2ω6 22.00b 24.98a 22.62b 14.39d 25.19a 16.62c 0.32

C18:2ω4 0.20 - - - - 0.21

C20:2ω6 0.17 0.67 0.18 - 0.12 0.55

Decatrienoic acid C16:3ω4 - 0.21 0.11 0.64 0.15 0.21

γ linolenic acid C18:3ω6 - 0.71 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.37

Linolenic acid C18:3ω3 0.73d 1.57a 0.72d 1.20b 1.16b 0.89c 0.03

α octadectetraenoic C18:4ω3 - - - 0.27 - 0.30

Eicosatrienoic acid C20:3ω6 - 0.51 - - 0.13 0.36

Arachidonic acid C20:4ω6 - 1.10 0.40 0.36 0.42 0.52

Eicosapentaenoic C20:5ω3 - 0.16 - 1.06 0.17 -

∑PUFA 23.30c 30.45a 24.14c 18.29e 27.51b 20.27d 0.39

∑UFA 67.84a 69.05a 68.55a 55.44b 67.96a 57.16b 0.63

UFA/SFA 2.10b 2.25a 2.17ab 1.27c 2.16b 1.32c 0.02

MUFA/ SFA 1.38a 1.25b 1.40a 0.85c 1.28b 0.85c 0.02

PUFA/ SFA 0.72d 0.99a 0.76c 0.42f 0.87b 0.46e 0.01

∑ω6 22.17d 27.91a 23.31c 14.89f 26.03b 18.80e 0.34

∑ω3 0.73d 1.74b 0.72d 2.23a 1.33bc 1.20c 0.13

n-6:n-3 30.55a 16.25bc 32.47a 6.88d 19.60b 15.68c 1.15

Non identified 0 0.52 0.01 1.20 0.04 0

a-e means within the same column with different superscripts letters are different (p<0.05). T1, T2 and T3: Treatments for soybean oil/ soybean
oil with ZAD 0.5kg/ton and soybean oil with AmPhi-BACT 0.5kg/ton. T4, T5andT6: Treatments for palm oil/ palm oil with ZAD 0.5kg/ton and palm
oil with AmPhi-BACT 0.5kg/ton. Means ± standard deviation. SEM: standard error of means.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 40 - 50 46

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

Table 3: physical properties of broiler chicken meat

Treatments
Parameters

pH Cooking loss (%) Chilling loss (%)

T1 6.11±0.02
b
33.21±4.67

ab
3.64±0.42

T2 5.96±0.06
c
31.77±1.14

ab
3.25±0.23

T3 6.08±0.01
b
30.14±0.94

b
3.13±0.05

T4 5.99±0.01
c
33.89±1.90

a
3.37±0.11

T5 6.19±0.01
a
21.59±0.45

d
3.64±0.51

T6 6.18±0.03
a
26.40±2.76

c
4.20±0.18

SEM 0.01 1.03 0.14

a-d means within the same column with different superscripts letters are different (p<0.05). T1, T2 and T3: Treatments for
soybean oil/ soybean oil with ZAD 0.5kg/ton and soybean oil with AmPhi-BACT 0.5kg/ton. T4, T5andT6: Treatments for
palm oil/ palm oil with ZAD 0.5kg/ton and palm oil with AmPhi-BACT 0.5kg/ton. Means ± standard deviation. SEM:
standard error of means

Results of chilling loss of broiler chicken fed on different types of vegetable oil showed

that the differences between broiler chicken fed on soybean oil were not significantly

different. No significant differences were found between broiler chicken fed on palm oil

except for T6 which had the higher chilling loss.

Addition of commercial multi-enzyme had no significant effect on chilling loss of broiler

chicken meat except for broiler chicken fed on palm oil with multi- enzyme feed additives

(T6)which had the higher chilling loss.

Color measurements of broiler chicken meat fed on different dietary oils and commercial

multi- enzyme feed additives shown in Table (4). No significant differences were found in L*

value between dietary treatments.

Table 4: color measurements of broiler chicken meat

Parameters

Treatments L a b

T1 51.82±4.37 11.80±2.02 20.05±3.24

T2 54.02±2.09 12.18±0.48 16.56±7.38

T3 53.74±2.70 12.89±2.36 19.53±1.26

T4 53.60±5.30 11.58±1.72 18.65±1.08

T5 52.41±1.25 13.55±0.33 21.06±2.96

T6 53.71±3.48 11.51±2.53 22.17±4.35

SEM 2.00 1.03 2.30

Means within the same column with different superscripts letters are different (p<0.05). T1, T2 and
T3: Treatments for soybean oil/ soybean oil with ZAD 0.5kg/ton and soybean oil with AmPhi-BACT
0.5kg/ton. T4, T5andT6: Treatments for palm oil/ palm oil with ZAD 0.5kg/ton and palm oil with
AmPhi-BACT 0.5kg/ton. Means ± standard deviation. SEM: standard error of means.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 40 - 50 47

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

Also, data showed no significant differences were found between a* and b* values of

broiler chicken meat. Addition of commercial multi- enzyme feed additives had no significant

effect on color measurements.

4 Discussion

Feeding broiler chicken on different types of dietary oils had significant effect on the fatty

acid profile of broiler chicken meat. The higher content of palmitic acid (C16:0) in chicken

groups fed on palm oil than that groups fed on soybean oil may be due to the high content of

palmitic acid in palm oil. These results are in agreement with that obtained by Abdulla et al.

(2015) they found that the proportion of palmitic acid (C16:0) increased in meat from broiler

fed palm oil (PO) in comparison with those fed diets supplemented with soybean oil (SO)and

linseed oil(LO). The increase in the proportion of palmitic acid in chicken fed the palm oil diet

could be owing the high palmitic acid content of palm oil (Abdulla et al., 2015).This result is

similar to the findings of Hitn (2006) and Smink et al. (2010) they reported that the levels of

palmitic acid increased significantly in broiler breast muscle supplemented with palm oil

compared with groups supplemented with soybean oil, coconut oil and sunflower oil. Higher

content of linoleic acid (C18:2ω6) was found in meat of broiler chicken fed soybean oil than

that fed on palm oil. These results are agree with that found by Abdulla et al. (2015) who

reported that birds fed LO and SO diets had significantly higher linoleic acid compared with

those fed PO. Also, Ayed et al. (2015) found that soybean oil caused large increase in the level

of linoleic acid in broiler chicken meat compared with palm oil. The increasing level of linoleic

acid is more pronounced because this acid is readily absorbed and deposited within the

chicken’s fat depot (Ayed et al., 2015). UFA/SFA ration of broiler chicken fed palm oil were

significantly lower compared with broiler chicken fed soybean oil. These results are close to

that obtained by Abdulla et al. (2015) they reported that the proportion of total saturated of

meat samples increased, while total UFA content decreased when palm oil (PO) was

incorporated in the diet, resulting in a significantly lower UFA: SFA ratio of the broiler breast

muscle compared with those fed soybean oil (SO) and linseed oil (LO) diets. The

polyunsaturated fatty acids content was significantly higher in broiler chicken meat fed on

diets containing soybean oil than that fed on diets containing palm oil. These results are agrees

with Ayed et al. (2015) they found that the polyunsaturated fatty acids content was

significantly (p<0.05) higher in the group fed by ration containing soybean oil.

The n-6: n-3 ratio significantly differs among sources of oil. These results are close to that

obtained by Bostami et al. (2017) they found that the higher n-6: n-3 ratio was found in broilers

fed on soybean oil. Significant differences were observed in the most of fatty acid profile in the

chicken meat among levels of commercial multi- enzyme feed additives. Responses to

enzymes vary widely and are difficult to predict since enzyme action may be affected by many

factors, including environment, amount of enzyme in the reaction, and interactions between

enzyme and other substances, which are still not fully understood (Zakaria et al., 2010).

Effect of feeding broiler chicken on different types of oils showed significant differences in

pH values of chicken meat. These results are disagrees with that obtained by Pekel et al. (2012)

they found that the pH of breast meat did not differ between broilers fed on diets

supplemented with soybean oil and the neutralized sunflower soapstock oil.

Addition of commercial multi-enzyme feed additives had no significant effect on pH value

of broiler chicken meat fed on palm oil. These results are close to that obtained by Zakaria et

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 40 - 50 48

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

al. (2010) they found that enzymes addition had no effect on pH value of broiler chicken meat.

However, the effect of dietary enzyme on pH value of chicken meat was difficult to

understand. These may be due to that enzymes are difficult to predict since enzyme action

may be affected by many factors, including environment, amount of enzyme in the reaction,

and interactions between enzyme and other substances, which are still not fully understood.

Data of cooking loss indicated that addition of commercial multi- enzyme feed additives

had significant effect on cooking loss of broiler chicken meat. Broiler chicken fed on diets

supplemented with commercial multi- enzyme feed additives had lower cooking loss than

those fed on diets without feed additives. These results are disagrees with that obtained by

Omojola et al. (2014) they found that chicken fed diets containing sesame and soybean diet

supplemented with enzymes had higher cooking loss than those on sesame and soybean diet

without enzymes. While, Zakaria et al. (2010) found that dietary enzyme had no effect on

cooking loss of broiler chicken meat. However, the lower cooking loss in meat of T5and T6may

be attributed to their pH values. Low pH of meat is known to negatively affect the water-

holding capacity of the meat and cooking loss is a function of the WHC (Warris and Brown,

1987). The higher pH improved the WHC and reduced the cooking loss.

Data of chilling loss indicated that the differences between dietary treatments were not

significantly different except for broiler chicken fed on palm oil with commercial multi- enzyme

(T6) which had the higher chilling loss. These results are close to that obtained by Teye et al.

(2015) they found that palm kernel oil residue inclusion up to 17.5% in broiler rations has no

significant effects on chilling loss of broiler chicken meat. Also, the results of the present study

are consonance with that obtained by Omojola et al. (2014) they reported that there was no

significant effect on chilling loss of broiler chicken meat fed on diets (soybean and sesame)

supplemented with or without microbial phytase.

Data of color measurements indicated that color characteristics of broiler chicken meat

were not affected by the dietary oil types and feed additives. These results are close to that

obtained by Pekel et al. (2012) they found that breast meat color (L*, a*, b* values) were not

affected by the dietary fat source on any of the measurement days (storage at 4°C for 0, 1, 2,

and 5 days). Also, Dalólio et al. (2015) found that enzyme supplementation in diets based on

corn and soybean meal did not influence the color parameters of chicken meat. L* was

reduced when the dietary levels of fat increased. Zakaria et al. (2010) they reported that

dietary enzyme had no effect on the broiler chicken meat color. Also, they reported that

enzyme addition did not affect the different meat quality parameters which are related to each

other, such as the pH value and color. Woelfel et al. (2002) reported that there was a

relationship between L* value and muscle pH in which L* value increased as the muscle pH

decreased in broiler chicken meat. Results of L* and pH values showed the same trend.

5 Conclusion

The results of the current study confirmed that using soybean oil and palm oil in broiler

chicken diets would subsequently affect the composition of fatty acids in chicken meat. Broiler

fed on palm oil had higher total n-3 and lower n-6:n3 compared with broiler fed on soybean oil.

However, palm oil can be used in broiler chicken feeding with positive effects on meat

quality and human health.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 40 - 50 49

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

References

Abdulla, N. R., Loh, T.C., Akit, H., Sazili, A.Q., Foo, H.L., Mohamad, R., Abdul Rahim, R.,

Ebrahimi, M., Sabow, A.B., 2015. Fatty acid profile, cholesterol and oxidative status in

broiler chicken breast muscle fed different dietary oil sources and calcium levels. South

African Journal of Animal Science. 45(2), 153-163.

Anjum, M. I., Mirza, I. H., Khan, A. G., Azim, A., 2004. Effect of fresh versus oxidized soybean

oil on growth performance, organs weights and meat quality of broiler chicks. Pakistan

Veterinary journal, 24(4), 173-178.

AOAC. Official method of analysis. 19th ed. Gaithersburg Maryland: Association of Official

Analytical Chemists; 2012.

Ayed, H. B., Attia, H., Ennouri, M., 2015. Effect of oil supplemented diet on growth

performance and meat quality of broiler chickens. Advanced Techniques in Biology &

Medicine. 4, 1- 4.

Bostami, A.B.M.R., Mun, H.S., Yang, C.J., 2017. Breast and thigh meat chemical composition

and fatty acid profile in broilers fed diet with dietary fat sources. Journal of Food

Processing & Technology.8, 672.

CIE. Commission International de L´ Eclairage (1976) Official recommendations on uniform

colour spaces. Colour difference equations and metric colour terms, Suppl. No. 2. CIE

Publication No. 15 Colourimetry. Paris.

Crespo, N., Esteve-Garcia, E., 2002. Nutrient and fatty acid deposition in broilers fed different

dietary fatty acid profiles. Poultry Science. 81, 1533-1542.

Dalólio, F. S., Vaz, D. P., Moreira, J., Albino, L. F. T., Valadares, L. R., 2015. Carcass characteristics

of broilers fed enzyme complex. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry. 31 (2), 153-162.

Duncan, D. B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple Ftests. Biometrics. 11, 1- 42.

Folsch, J., Lee, M., Sloane-Stanely, G.H., 1957. A simple method for the isolation and

purification of total lipids from animal tissue. Journal of biological Chemistry. 226, 497-509.

Hood, D. E., 1980. Factors affecting the rate of metmyoglobin accumulation in prepackaged

beef. Meat Science. 4 (4), 47–50.

Howe, P., Meyer, B., Record S., Baghurst, K., 2006. Dietary intake of long-chain ω-3

polyunsaturated fatty acids: contribution of meat sources. Nutrition. 22, 47-53.

Htin, N.N., 2006. Effects of dietary fatty acid saturation on broiler chickens subjected to high

ambient temperatures. Ph.D. Thesis research. Universiti Putra Malaysia. Accessed January

2006.

Jalali, S. M. A., Rabiei, R., Kheiri, F., 2015. Effects of dietary soybean and sunflower oils with

and without L-carnitine supplementation on growth performance and blood biochemical

parameters of broiler chicks. Archives Animal Breeding. 58, 387–394.

Meek, K. I., Claus, J. R., Duncan, S. E. , Marriott, N. G. , Solomon, M. B., Kathman, S. J. , Marini,

M. E., 2000. Quality and sensory characteristics of selected post rigor, early deboned

broiler breast meat tenderized using hydrodynamic shock waves. Poultry sci. 79,126 –136.

Engy F. Zaki et al. - Int. J. of Health, Animal science and Food safety 5 (2018) 40 - 50 50

Vol. V, No. 1 ISSN: 2283-3927

Nobakht, A., Tabatbaei, S., and Khodaei, S. 2011. Effects of different sources and levels of

vegetable oils on performance, carcass traits and accumulation of vitamine in breast meat

of broilers. Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences.3(6), 601–605.

NRC, 1994. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry 9th Ed. Composition

of poultry feedstuffs. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Omojola, A. B., Otunla, T. A., Olusola, O. O., Adebiyi, O. A., Ologhobo, A. D., 2014. Performance

and carcass characteristics of broiler chicken fed soybean and sesame/soybean based diets

supplemented with or without microbial phytase. American Journal of Experimental

Agriculture. 4 (12), 1637-1648.

Pekel, A. Y., Demirel, G., Midilli, M., Yalcintan, H., Ekiz, B., Alp, M., 2012. Comparison of broiler

meat quality when fed diets supplemented with neutralized sunflower soapstock or

soybean oil. Poultry Science. 91, 2361–2369.

SAS, 2000. User’s Guide Statistics. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, N.C., USA.

Smink, W., Gerrits, W., Hovenier, R., Geelen, M., Verstegen, M., Beynen, A., 2010. Effect of

dietary fat sources on fatty acid deposition and lipid metabolism in broiler chickens.

Poultry Science. 89, 2432-2440.

Teye, M., Apori, S.O., Ayeida, A.A., 2015. Carcass parameters and sensory characteristics of

broiler chicken fed diets containing palm (Elaeis guineensis) kernel oil residue.

International Journal of current microbiology and Applied Science. 4(6), 1030-1038.

Wang, W., Wang, Z., Yang, H., Cao, Y., Zhu, X., Zhao, Y., 2013. Effects of phytase

supplementation on growth performance, slaughter performance, growth of internal

organs and small intestine and seum biochemical parameters of broilers. Open Journal of

Animal. Science. 3(3), 236-241.

Warriss, P. D., S. N. Brown., 1987. The relationship between initial pH, reflectance and

exudation in pig muscle. Meat Science. 20, 65–74.

Woelfel, R. L., C. M. Owens, E. M. Hirschler, R. Martinez-Dawson, and A. R. Sams. 2002. The

characterization and incidence of pale, soft and exudative broiler meat in a commercial

processing plant. Poultry Science. 81, 579–584.

Zakaria, H. A. H., Mohammad, A. R. J., Abu Ishmais, M. A., 2010. The Influence of Supplemental

Multi-enzyme Feed Additive on the Performance, Carcass Characteristics and Meat Quality

Traits of Broiler Chickens International. Journal of Poultry Science. 9 (2), 126-133.