Effect of different feed supplements on selected quality indicators of chicken meat

<table style="height: 461px;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="498" align="left"><tbody><tr><td height="461" align="left" valign="top"><p>The aim of the study was...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Peter Haščík, Lenka Trembecká, Marek Bobko, Miroslava Kačániová, Ondřej Bučko, Jana Tkáčová, Simona Kunová
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: HACCP Consulting 2015-12-01
Series:Potravinarstvo
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.potravinarstvo.com/journal1/index.php/potravinarstvo/article/view/517
id doaj-1de247a063a84de6bf359bf3733e8240
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1de247a063a84de6bf359bf3733e82402020-11-24T21:17:58ZengHACCP ConsultingPotravinarstvo 1337-09602015-12-019142743410.5219/517380Effect of different feed supplements on selected quality indicators of chicken meatPeter Haščík0Lenka Trembecká1Marek Bobko2Miroslava Kačániová3Ondřej Bučko4Jana Tkáčová5Simona Kunová6Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Department of Animal Products Evaluation and Processing, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 NitraSlovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 NitraSlovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 NitraSlovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 NitraSlovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 NitraSlovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 NitraSlovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 Nitra<table style="height: 461px;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="498" align="left"><tbody><tr><td height="461" align="left" valign="top"><p>The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of different feed additives (bee pollen extract, propolis extract, and probiotic) on meat quality of broiler chickens. A total of 180 one day-old broiler chicks of mixed sex (Ross 308) were randomly divided into 3 groups. Dietary treatments were as follows: basal diet, free of supplements (control group; C); &nbsp;basal diet &nbsp;plus 400 mg bee pollen extract per 1 kg of feed mixtures and 3.3 g probiotic preparation added to drinking water (group E1); basal diet &nbsp;plus 400 mg propolis extract per 1 kg of feed mixtures and 3.3 g probiotic preparation added to drinking water (group E2). In the experiment, the probiotic preparation based on <em>Lactobacillus fermentum </em>(1.10<sup>9</sup> CFU.g<sup>-1</sup> of bearing medium) was used. Fattening period lasted for 42 days. Feed mixtures were produced without any antibiotic preparations and coccidiostatics. Meat quality was evaluated by following technological properties: cooling, freezing and roasting loss; colour parameters based on CIELab system; and shear force. Both dietary supplementations led to decrease in cooling (<em>p </em>&le;0.05) and freezing (<em>p</em> &ge;0.05) losses compared with control. On the contrary, the supplemented diet tended to increase roasting losses (<em>p </em>&le;0.05) and shear force values in thigh muscle (<em>p </em>&le;0.05). Significantly higher L* values (<em>p </em>&le;0.05) in breast and thigh muscles, as well as the b* values in thigh muscle, were found when broiler chickens were fed the supplements, especially bee pollen extract and probiotics. In addition, the supplements improve redness (a*) of meat. The redness of breast muscle appeared to be the most affected (<em>p</em> &ge;0.05) by propolis extract plus probiotics supplementation, while thigh muscle had the highest value (<em>p </em>&le;0.05) in bee pollen extract plus probiotics supplemented group. These findings suggested that the supplements have a&nbsp;beneficial effect on quality of chicken meat due to positive changes in most of quality indicators investigated in the study.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> <!--[endif] -->http://www.potravinarstvo.com/journal1/index.php/potravinarstvo/article/view/517chickenlosscolourshear forcebee pollenpropolisprobiotic
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Peter Haščík
Lenka Trembecká
Marek Bobko
Miroslava Kačániová
Ondřej Bučko
Jana Tkáčová
Simona Kunová
spellingShingle Peter Haščík
Lenka Trembecká
Marek Bobko
Miroslava Kačániová
Ondřej Bučko
Jana Tkáčová
Simona Kunová
Effect of different feed supplements on selected quality indicators of chicken meat
Potravinarstvo
chicken
loss
colour
shear force
bee pollen
propolis
probiotic
author_facet Peter Haščík
Lenka Trembecká
Marek Bobko
Miroslava Kačániová
Ondřej Bučko
Jana Tkáčová
Simona Kunová
author_sort Peter Haščík
title Effect of different feed supplements on selected quality indicators of chicken meat
title_short Effect of different feed supplements on selected quality indicators of chicken meat
title_full Effect of different feed supplements on selected quality indicators of chicken meat
title_fullStr Effect of different feed supplements on selected quality indicators of chicken meat
title_full_unstemmed Effect of different feed supplements on selected quality indicators of chicken meat
title_sort effect of different feed supplements on selected quality indicators of chicken meat
publisher HACCP Consulting
series Potravinarstvo
issn 1337-0960
publishDate 2015-12-01
description <table style="height: 461px;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="498" align="left"><tbody><tr><td height="461" align="left" valign="top"><p>The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of different feed additives (bee pollen extract, propolis extract, and probiotic) on meat quality of broiler chickens. A total of 180 one day-old broiler chicks of mixed sex (Ross 308) were randomly divided into 3 groups. Dietary treatments were as follows: basal diet, free of supplements (control group; C); &nbsp;basal diet &nbsp;plus 400 mg bee pollen extract per 1 kg of feed mixtures and 3.3 g probiotic preparation added to drinking water (group E1); basal diet &nbsp;plus 400 mg propolis extract per 1 kg of feed mixtures and 3.3 g probiotic preparation added to drinking water (group E2). In the experiment, the probiotic preparation based on <em>Lactobacillus fermentum </em>(1.10<sup>9</sup> CFU.g<sup>-1</sup> of bearing medium) was used. Fattening period lasted for 42 days. Feed mixtures were produced without any antibiotic preparations and coccidiostatics. Meat quality was evaluated by following technological properties: cooling, freezing and roasting loss; colour parameters based on CIELab system; and shear force. Both dietary supplementations led to decrease in cooling (<em>p </em>&le;0.05) and freezing (<em>p</em> &ge;0.05) losses compared with control. On the contrary, the supplemented diet tended to increase roasting losses (<em>p </em>&le;0.05) and shear force values in thigh muscle (<em>p </em>&le;0.05). Significantly higher L* values (<em>p </em>&le;0.05) in breast and thigh muscles, as well as the b* values in thigh muscle, were found when broiler chickens were fed the supplements, especially bee pollen extract and probiotics. In addition, the supplements improve redness (a*) of meat. The redness of breast muscle appeared to be the most affected (<em>p</em> &ge;0.05) by propolis extract plus probiotics supplementation, while thigh muscle had the highest value (<em>p </em>&le;0.05) in bee pollen extract plus probiotics supplemented group. These findings suggested that the supplements have a&nbsp;beneficial effect on quality of chicken meat due to positive changes in most of quality indicators investigated in the study.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> <!--[endif] -->
topic chicken
loss
colour
shear force
bee pollen
propolis
probiotic
url http://www.potravinarstvo.com/journal1/index.php/potravinarstvo/article/view/517
work_keys_str_mv AT peterhascik effectofdifferentfeedsupplementsonselectedqualityindicatorsofchickenmeat
AT lenkatrembecka effectofdifferentfeedsupplementsonselectedqualityindicatorsofchickenmeat
AT marekbobko effectofdifferentfeedsupplementsonselectedqualityindicatorsofchickenmeat
AT miroslavakacaniova effectofdifferentfeedsupplementsonselectedqualityindicatorsofchickenmeat
AT ondrejbucko effectofdifferentfeedsupplementsonselectedqualityindicatorsofchickenmeat
AT janatkacova effectofdifferentfeedsupplementsonselectedqualityindicatorsofchickenmeat
AT simonakunova effectofdifferentfeedsupplementsonselectedqualityindicatorsofchickenmeat
_version_ 1726011058752061440