Effects of dietary chitosan oligosaccharides supplementation on meat quality, chemical composition and anti-oxidant capacity in frizzled chickens

Figures & data

Table 1. Dietary chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) supplementation on growth performance of frizzled chickens.

Item^1	COS supplementation level, mg/kg				SEM^2	p Value^3
	0	300	600	900		Linear	Quadratic
Body weight, g
Day 1	34.15	34.75	34.55	34.05	0.5232	.5948	.5395
Day 28	319.49^a	332.09^a	372.89^b	329.85^a	5.2798	<.0001	.0413
Day 56	839.49^a	887.92^b	973.82^c	887.85^b	8.2328	<.0001	.0779
Day 84	1308.15^a	1365.59^b	1453.82^c	1357.85^b	10.9417	<.0001	.2640
Day 1–28
ADG, g	10.19^a	10.62^a	12.09^b	10.57^a	0.1922	<.0001	.0390
ADFI, g	20.18^a	20.50^a	22.03^b	0.42^a	0.2974	.0003	.1137
FCR	1.98^a	1.93^a	1.82^b	1.94^a	0.0264	.0004	.3904
Day 29–56
ADG, g	18.57^a	19.85^b	21.46^c	19.93^b	0.2656	<.0001	.6175
ADFI, g	55.30^ab	57.54^a	54.81^b	54.68^b	0.8383	.6818	.0251
FCR	2.98^a	2.90^a	2.56^b	2.75^c	0.0423	<.0001	.0194
Day 57–84
ADG, g	16.74	17.06	17.14	16.79	0.3990	.4812	.8098
ADFI, g	65.19	65.43	65.16	64.81	0.6393	.9666	.7473
FCR	3.90	3.85	3.81	3.88	0.0972	.5202	1.0000
Day 1–84
ADG, g	11.51^a	12.12^b	13.19^c	12.11^b	0.1452	<.0001	.2121
ADFI, g	46.89	47.83	47.33	46.64	0.4561	.4998	.2152
FCR	4.08^a	3.95^ab	3.59^c	3.86^b	0.0530	<.0001	.0831

^a,b,cMean values with no same superscript in a row were significantly different (p < .05).

¹ ADG: average daily gain; ADFI: average daily feed intake; FCR: feed conversion ratio.

² SEM: standard error of mean.

³ Linear and quadratic effects with increasing level of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) conducted by orthogonal polynomial contrast.

Table 2. Dietary chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) supplementation on carcass characteristics of frizzled chickens.

Item, %	COS supplementation level, mg/kg				SEM^1	p Value^2
	0	300	600	900		Linear	Quadratic
Carcass yield	90.64	90.07	91.39	92.12	0.6453	.4178	.2470
Half-eviscerated yield	82.14	82.06	82.00	81.26	0.6118	.8761	.9947
Eviscerated yield	65.81^a	67.46^a	69.64^b	67.17^a	0.6481	.0005	.7443
Breast muscle yield	15.86^a	19.35^b	19.94^b	19.32^b	0.3916	<.0001	.0068
Leg muscle yield	21.53	22.27	23.91	23.30	0.9239	.0839	.6972
Abdominal fat yield	2.37^a	2.15^b	1.96^b	2.14^b	0.0622	.0001	.8041

^a,bMean values with no same superscript in a row were significantly different (p < .05).

¹ SEM: standard error of mean.

² Linear and quadratic effects with increasing level of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) conducted by orthogonal polynomial contrast.

Table 3. Dietary chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) supplementation on meat quality and nutrient composition of frizzled chickens.

Item	COS supplementation level, mg/kg				SEM^1	p Value^2
	0	300	600	900		Linear	Quadratic
Breast muscle
pH45min	6.30^b	6.51^a	6.39^ab	6.49^a	0.0562	.2709	.0264
pH24h	5.86^a	5.91^ab	5.92^ab	5.98^b	0.0453	.3872	.4795
Lightness, L*	52.71^a	50.90^b	51.29^b	51.26^b	0.3785	.0151	.0272
Redness, a*	2.40	2.43	2.42	2.60	0.1582	.9180	.8986
Yellowness, b*	9.11	9.33	9.14	9.14	0.1337	.8484	.2325
Drip loss, %	1.25^a	1.07^b	1.14^ab	1.24^ab	0.5366	.1689	.0809
Cooking loss, %	17.09^a	16.20^b	16.23^b	16.22^b	0.3240	.0742	.2584
Share force, N	23.15	22.18	23.08	25.00	1.4233	.9726	.5963
Moisture, %	73.60	73.48	74.19	73.65	0.7208	.5649	.6461
Crude protein, %	23.96	23.76	23.83	23.80	0.5060	.8558	.8361
Intramuscular fat, %	3.71	3.68	3.91	3.72	0.4772	.7681	.8263
Thigh muscle
pH45min	6.53^b	6.56^b	6.69^a	6.76^a	0.0378	.0083	.0041
pH24h	6.03^b	6.18^a	6.19^a	6.13^ab	0.0399	.0117	.2100
Lightness, L*	52.71^a	50.90^b	51.29^b	51.26^b	0.3785	.0151	.0272
Redness, a*	2.40	2.44	2.42	2.60	0.1582	.9180	.8986
Yellowness, b*	9.11	9.33	9.14	9.14	0.1337	.8482	.2325
Drip loss, %	1.59^a	1.32^b	1.42^ab	1.58^ab	0.0878	.1990	.0966
Cooking loss, %	18.45^a	17.13^b	17.26^b	17.40^ab	0.4335	.0658	.1863
Share force, N	25.38	24.41	25.31	27.22	1.4228	.9719	.5965
Moisture, %	69.27	69.15	69.86	69.32	0.7208	.5657	.6461
Crude protein, %	21.74	21.54	21.61	21.58	0.5060	.8558	.8361
Intramuscular fat, %	6.26	6.40	6.80	6.27	0.4412	.4011	.8124

^a,bMean values with no same superscript in a row were significantly different (p < .05).

¹ SEM, standard error of mean.

² Linear and quadratic effects with increasing level of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) conducted by orthogonal polynomial contrast.

Figure 1. Effects of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) supplementation on free radical scavenging activity in breast and thigh muscle of frizzled chickens. ^a,b,cMean values with no same superscript in a row were significantly different (p < .05); DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; O²–: superoxide radical; OH·: hydroxyl radical; ABTS⁺·: 2,2-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) diammonium salt; free radical scavenging activity was calculated on the basis of the protein content in muscle. Linear and quadratic effects with increasing level of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) conducted by orthogonal polynomial contrast.

Figure 2. Effects of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) supplementation on anti-oxidant capacity in breast and thigh muscle of frizzled chickens. ^a,b,cMean values with no same superscript in a row were significantly different (p < .05); MDA: malondialdehyde; GSH-Px: glutathione peroxidase; SOD: superoxide dismutase; CAT: catalase; linear and quadratic effects with increasing level of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) conducted by orthogonal polynomial contrast.

Figure 3. Effects of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) supplementation on relative gene expression of anti-oxidant related genes in breast and thigh muscle of frizzled chickens. ^a,b,cMean values with no same superscript in a row were significantly different (p < .05); Nrf2: nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2; HO-1: heme oxygenase-1; NQO1: NAD(P)H quinone dehydrogenase 1; SOD: superoxide dismutase; CAT: catalase; GSH-Px: glutathione peroxidase; linear and quadratic effects with increasing level of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) conducted by orthogonal polynomial contrast.

Data availability statement

The original data of the paper are available upon request from the corresponding author.