Bilberry pomace in growing rabbit diets: effects on quality traits of hind leg meat

Figures & data

Table 1. Ingredients (g/kg as fed) and proximate composition (g/kg DM, unless otherwise stated) of bilberry pomace (BP) and experimental diets.

Experimental diets	BP	C	BP5	BP10	BP15
Ingredients
Basal mixture^a	–	980	930	880	830
Bilberry pomace	–	0	50	100	150
Vitamin-mineral premix^b	–	15	15	15	15
Bicalcium phosphate	–	5	5	5	5
Proximate composition
Dry matter, g/kg	944	882	882	880	885
Ash	18	75	75	71	72
Crude protein (CP)	142	177	177	175	176
Ether extract (EE)	155	26	33	39	42
Neutral detergent fibre (NDF)	626	368	372	391	408
Acid detergent fibre (ADF)	433	198	208	220	233
Acid detergent lignin (ADL)	258	35	46	56	68
Gross energy, MJ/kg DM	22.7	17.9	18.1	18.4	18.6
Digestible energy^c, MJ/kg DM	–	11.5	11.4	11.3	11.1

DM: dry matter.

a Containing (g/kg fresh matter): alfalfa meal 300, wheat bran 200, barley 170, dried beet pulp 150, soybean meal 115, molasses 20, wheat straw 20, soybean oil 5.

b Containing (per kg of diet): Vitamin A 200 U, α-tocopheryl acetate 16 mg, Niacin 72 mg, Vitamin B6 16 mg, Cholin 0.48 mg, DL-methionin 600 mg, Ca 500 mg, P 920 mg, K 500 mg, Na 1 g, Mg 60 mg, Mn 17 mg, Cu 0.6 mg.

c The digestible energy content of the diets was estimated according to the following prediction equation proposed by Villamide et al. (2009): DE =16.43 − 0.0191 ADF − 0.0208 Ash + 0.0148 EE.

Table 2. Fatty acid composition (g/100 g of total FA) of bilberry pomace (BP) and experimental diets.

Fatty acid	BP	C	BP5	BP10	BP15
C10:0	<0.01	0.03	0.04	0.05	0.02
C12:0	0.02	0.09	0.09	0.10	0.09
C14:0	0.06	0.39	0.32	0.33	0.24
C16:0	4.82	21.21	17.25	15.09	13.37
C16:1 t3	0.03	0.08	0.07	0.05	0.05
C16:1 c9	0.09	0.19	0.16	0.14	0.14
C18:0	1.19	3.41	2.85	2.63	2.48
C18:1 c9	23.50	17.28	18.78	20.02	21.50
C18:1 c11	0.58	0.98	0.92	0.86	0.83
C18:2 n-6	36.33	45.33	44.24	42.08	40.61
C18:3 n-3	32.59	8.88	13.47	16.98	19.06
C18:3 n-6	0.10	0.07	0.08	0.09	0.09
C20:0	0.30	0.54	0.47	0.49	0.52
C20:1 c11	0.16	0.35	0.34	0.28	0.27
C20:4 n-6	0.02	0.17	0.14	0.12	0.09
C22:0	0.13	0.57	0.44	0.42	0.38
C24:0	0.09	0.42	0.34	0.28	0.26
Σ SFA	6.61	26.66	21.80	19.39	17.36
Σ MUFA	24.35	18.89	20.28	21.35	22.79
Σ PUFA	69.03	54.45	57.92	59.27	59.85
TFA, g/100 g DM	15.21	2.13	2.72	3.32	3.98

FA: fatty acids; t: trans; c: cis; SFA: saturated fatty acids; MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acids; TFA: total fatty acids; DM: dry matter.

Table 3. Effect of dietary bilberry pomace (BP) on the quality traits of hind leg meat.

	C	B5	BP10	BP15	SEM	p Value
Colour
L*	53.53	55.44	54.98	55.08	0.378	.299
a*	−1.02	−1.21	−1.46	−1.55	0.128	.451
b*	3.18	3.58	3.59	3.40	0.136	.683
Hue	106.25	108.37	115.55	115.11	2.293	.380
Chroma	3.51	4.18	4.12	4.00	0.134	.278
Cooking losses, %	23.47	23.73	22.67	23.31	0.343	.742
Proximate composition, % fresh matter
Water	74.05	74.17	73.56	73.09	0.155	.051
Protein	21.78	21.30	21.82	22.15	0.115	.063
Ether extract	2.22^c	2.68^b	2.90^a^,^b	3.15^a	0.086	<.001
Ash	1.33	1.34	1.34	1.33	0.005	.456

a–c Different superscripts within a row indicate significant differences.

Table 4. Effect of dietary bilberry pomace (BP) on the fatty acid profile (g/100 g of total FA) of hind leg meat.

	C	BP5	BP10	BP15	SEM	p-Value
Σ SFA	45.80^a	41.26^b	40.63^b	37.74^c	0.485	<.001
C10:0	0.20	0.20	0.16	0.21	0.011	.351
C12:0	0.23	0.24	0.20	0.21	0.060	.421
C14:0	3.21^a	2.81^b	2.62^b	2.41^c	0.054	<.001
C15:0	1.08^a	0.96^b	0.91^b^,^c	0.87^c	0.018	<.001
C16:0	31.97^a	28.56^b	28.00^b	25.53^c	0.400	<.001
C17:0	0.73^a	0.72^a^,^b	0.66^c	0.67^b^,^c	0.010	.014
C18:0	7.18	6.55	6.94	6.76	0.084	.050
C20:0	0.07	0.06	0.06	0.06	0.002	.549
C22:0	0.12^b	0.17^a	0.14^b	0.15^a^,^b	0.006	.019
Σ BCFA	1.01^a	0.99^a	0.97^a	0.86^b	0.018	.014
C15:0 iso	0.10	0.11	0.13	0.09	0.006	.237
C15:0 aiso	0.10^a^,^b	0.11^a	0.09^b^,^c	0.08^c	0.003	.019
C16:0 iso	0.32	0.31	0.30	0.29	0.006	.366
C17:0 iso	0.09	0.09	0.10	0.09	0.005	.916
C17:0 aiso	0.40^a	0.38^a	0.34^b	0.31^c	0.007	<.001
Σ MUFA	32.94^a	30.42^b	29.73^b^,^c	27.72^c	0.470	.001
C16:1 c9	5.66^a	4.54^b	4.36^b	3.98^b	0.187	.008
C17:1 c9	0.41^a	0.37^b	0.34^c	0.31^d	0.007	<.001
C18:1 t6-11	0.42	0.34	0.33	0.31	0.016	.078
C18:1 t12-14	0.07^b	0.09^a^,^b	0.11^a	0.12^a	0.007	.042
C18:1 c9	24.56^a	23.47^a^,^b	23.05^a^,^b	21.52^b	0.366	.028
C18:1 c11	1.46^a	1.20^b	1.14^b^,^c	1.06^c	0.029	<.001
C18:1 c12	0.09	0.10	0.10	0.12	0.004	.114
C18:1 c14 (+c13+c15)	0.09^c	0.15^b	0.17^a	0.15^b	0.005	<.001
C20:1 c11	0.18	0.16	0.14	0.14	0.007	.060
Σ PUFA	21.27^c	28.32^b	29.63^b	34.55^a	0.773	<.001
Σ C18:2^e	0.81	0.83	0.91	0.77	0.041	.654
C18:2 n-6	17.44^c	21.62^b	21.43^b	23.65^a	0.418	<.001
C18:2 c9t11 (CLA)	0.08^b	0.11^a	0.11^a	0.11^a	0.004	.012
C18:3 n-3	2.15^d	4.77^c	6.36^b	9.19^a	0.383	<.001
C20:3 n-6	0.11^a	0.12^a	0.09^b	0.09^b	0.005	.009
C20:4 n-6	0.68	0.87	0.74	0.75	0.033	.219
Σ n-3 FA	2.15^d	4.77^c	6.36^b	9.19^a	0.383	<.001
Σ n-6 FA	18.23^c	22.61^b	22.26^b	24.48^a	0.433	<.001
Σ n-6 FA/Σn-3 FA	8.55^a	4.81^b	3.55^c	2.68^d	0.329	<.001
Σ PUFA/Σ SFA	0.46^c	0.69^b	0.73^b	0.92^a	0.026	<.001
PI^f	26.33^c	36.47^b	38.94^b	46.66^a	1.16	<.001
Δ5- plus Δ6-desaturase^f	3.34^a	3.20^a^,^b	2.61^b^,^c	2.21^d	0.120	.001
AI^g	0.85^a	0.69^b	0.66^b	0.58^c	0.016	<.001
TI^g	1.32^a	0.93^b	0.83^c	0.65^d	0.037	<.001
HH^h	1.28^c	1.63^b	1.69^b	1.99^a	0.44	<.001
TFA, mg/100 g FM	1935.15	2169.02	2318.83	2591.99	113.88	.233

FA: fatty acids; SFA: saturated fatty acids; BCFA: branched-chain fatty acids; MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acids; c, cis; t, trans; PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acids; CLA: conjugated linoleic acid; PI: peroxidability index; AI: atherogenicity index; TI: thrombogenicity index; HH: hypocholesterolemic/hypercholesterolemic fatty acids; TFA: total fatty acids; FM: fresh matter.

a–d Different superscripts within a row indicate significant differences.

e Sum of octadecadienoic isomers t9t12, c9t13, t8c12, c9t12, t8c13, t9c12, t11c15.

f Calculated as reported by Dal Bosco et al. (2014a):

PI = (% monoenoic ×0.025) + (% dienoic ×1) + (% trienoic ×2) + (% tetraenoic ×4) + (% pentaenoic ×6) + (% hexaenoic ×8);

Estimated Δ5-desaturase plus Δ6-desaturase activity = (C20:2 n6 + C20:4 n6 + C20:5 n3 + C22:5 n3 + C22:6 n3)/(C18:2 n6 + C18:3 n3 + C20:2 n6 + C20:4 n6 + C20:5 n3 + C22:5 n3 + C22:6 n3) × 100.

g Calculated as reported by Ulbricht and Southgate (1991):

AI = (C12:0 + 4 × C14:0 + C16:0)/[(Σ MUFA + Σ n-6) + Σ n-3];

TI = (C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0)/[(0.5 × Σ MUFA +0.5 × Σ n-6 + 3 × Σ n-3) + (Σ n-3/Σ n-6)].

h Calculated, as reported by Santos-Silva et al. (2002):

HH = (C18:1 c9 + C18:2 n6 + C20:4 n6 + C18:3 n3 + C20:5 n3 + C22:5 n3 + C22:6 n3)/(C14:0 + C16:0).

Villamide MJ, Carabaño R, Maertens L, Pascual J, Gidenne T, Falcao-E-Cunha L, Xiccato G. 2009. Prediction of the nutritional value of European compound feeds for rabbits by chemical components and in vitro analysis. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 150:283–294.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dal Bosco A, Mugnai C, Roscini V, Mattioli S, Ruggeri S, Castellini C. 2014a. Effect of dietary alfalfa on the fatty acid composition and indexes of lipid metabolism of rabbit meat. Meat Sci. 96:606–609.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ulbricht TLV, Southgate DAT. 1991. Coronary heart disease: seven dietary factors. Lancet. 338:985–992.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Santos-Silva J, Bessa RJB, Santos-Silva F. 2002. Effect of genotype, feeding system and slaughter weighton the quality of light lambs: II. Fat acid composition of meat. Livest Prod Sci. 77:187–194.

 Google Scholar