Comparison of meat quality parameters in three chicken strains fed Moringa oleifera leaf meal-based diets

Comparison of meat quality parameters in three chicken strains fed Moringa oleifera leaf... Abstract The effect of dietary Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on the quality and fatty acid profile of meat from 3 chicken strains, normally used in low-input, extensive production systems, was evaluated. The MOLM was included in a commercial broiler finisher diet at 0 (MOLM0), 25 (MOLM25), 50 (MOLM50), and 100 (MOLM100) g/kg. All diets were formulated to be isonitrogenous and isoenergetic. Two hundred and sixteen (216) Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK), Ovambo (OV) and Black Australorp (BA) chickens were offered the diets for a period of 13 wk in a 2 × 3 × 4 factorial treatment arrangement in a complete randomized design (CRD). The 3-way interaction (diet × strain × gender) term did not (P > 0.05) affect redness (a*), yellowness (b*), pH or meat cooking loss, but significantly influenced (P < 0.001) lightness (L*) and shear force. In OV female chickens fed MOLM25, MOLM50, and MOLM100, shear force did not differ significantly; only MOLM0 had significantly higher shear force. However, OV male chickens, feeding MOLM50 resulted in lower shear force. The MOLM0, MOLM50, and MOLM100 had the lowest cooking loss values for BA; however, no dietary differences were observed in OV and PK. The fatty acid profile of meat from chickens offered the control diet was similar to those offered MOLM-based diets. Chicken strains varied (P < 0.05) in terms of eicosatrienoic acid, docosahexanoic acid and palmitic acid contents. It can be concluded that using M. oleifera leaf as a feed supplement resulted in lower shear force for OV females only but did not alter the fatty acid profile of meat. DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM The consumption of chicken has steadily increased over the years due to its low price and fewer religious restrictions than other meat [1]. In rural communities of many developing nations, chicken meat is supplied from chicken strains that are adapted to extensive rearing. These indigenous chicken strains are known for their tough, lean and flavorful meat. Unfortunately, the productivity of these birds is low due to suboptimal nutrition and disease incidence, among other factors. One strategy to improve the productivity of these chicken strains is to shift to semi-intensive production systems, where richer diets can be supplied to maximize growth performance. It is, therefore, prudent to explore the possibility of incorporating inexpensive, locally available, non-conventional feed resources into the diets of indigenous chicken strains reared under intensive or semi-intensive systems. In our previous study [2], we demonstrated that Moringa oleifera leaves are a good source of nutrients for these chicken strains, promoting growth performance similar to the commercial diet used as a positive control. Moringa oleifera (family: Moringaceae), commonly known as horseradish tree or drumstick tree, has foliage that contains some useful minerals, vitamins, amino acids, and bioactive secondary plant compounds [3, 4]. However, the effect of feeding M. oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on the meat quality of chickens was not explored. The nutritional evaluation of non-conventional feed resources, by necessity, must also include their possible effect on the quality of the meat produced. Moringa oleifera is rich in antioxidants, which are known to diminish lipid oxidation [5] and may function as growth promoters [2] while boosting immune responses in chickens. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the effect of dietary supplementation with MOLM on fatty acid composition and quality parameters of meat from 3 chicken strains that are normally reared in extensive production systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study Sites This study was conducted at the North-West University Experimental Farm (Molelwane) [2]. Diet Formulation Four diets were constituted using MOLM as follows: 100% broiler finisher (MOLM0); 97.5% broiler finisher and 2.5% MOLM (MOLM25); 5% MOLM and 95% broiler finisher (MOLM50); and 10% MOLM and 90% broiler finisher (MOLM100). The composition of MOLM and experimental diets are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for descriptive purposes [6, 7]. Table 1. Gross composition of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM)-based experimental diets. Diet1 MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOLM (g/kg diet) 0 25.0 50.0 100.0 Yellow maize 670.6 658.8 647.1 623.6 Prime gluten 60 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Full fat soya meal 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 Soya bean meal 85.3 71.8 58.2 31.1 Sunflower oilcake 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 Limestone powder 12.3 9.7 7.1 1.8 Potassium carbonate 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 Monocalcium phosphate 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.3 Salt 3.2 3.17 3.15 3.11 Soya oil 7.8 10.6 13.5 19.1 Premix 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 Lysine 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Methionine 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 Total 1000 1000 1000 1000 Chemical analysis of diets on an ‘as fed’ basis (MOLM) MOL Dry matter 896.0 874.0 851.0 807.0 950.8 Crude protein 189.0 189.0 189.0 189.0 263.4 Ether Extract 52.0 57.0 61.0 69.0 53.9 Ash 49.0 47.0 45.0 42.0 80.4 Acid detergent fiber 36.0 42.0 47.0 57.0 52.1 Neutral detergent fiber 96.0 100.1 106.0 116.0 761.7 Crude fiber 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 54.9 Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) 3157.6 3157.4 3157.2 3156.8 367.4 Lysine 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 Methionine 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.5 Diet1 MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOLM (g/kg diet) 0 25.0 50.0 100.0 Yellow maize 670.6 658.8 647.1 623.6 Prime gluten 60 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Full fat soya meal 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 Soya bean meal 85.3 71.8 58.2 31.1 Sunflower oilcake 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 Limestone powder 12.3 9.7 7.1 1.8 Potassium carbonate 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 Monocalcium phosphate 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.3 Salt 3.2 3.17 3.15 3.11 Soya oil 7.8 10.6 13.5 19.1 Premix 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 Lysine 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Methionine 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 Total 1000 1000 1000 1000 Chemical analysis of diets on an ‘as fed’ basis (MOLM) MOL Dry matter 896.0 874.0 851.0 807.0 950.8 Crude protein 189.0 189.0 189.0 189.0 263.4 Ether Extract 52.0 57.0 61.0 69.0 53.9 Ash 49.0 47.0 45.0 42.0 80.4 Acid detergent fiber 36.0 42.0 47.0 57.0 52.1 Neutral detergent fiber 96.0 100.1 106.0 116.0 761.7 Crude fiber 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 54.9 Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) 3157.6 3157.4 3157.2 3156.8 367.4 Lysine 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 Methionine 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.5 1 Diet: MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted with 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted with 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg; MOL, Moringa oleifera leaf. View Large Table 1. Gross composition of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM)-based experimental diets. Diet1 MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOLM (g/kg diet) 0 25.0 50.0 100.0 Yellow maize 670.6 658.8 647.1 623.6 Prime gluten 60 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Full fat soya meal 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 Soya bean meal 85.3 71.8 58.2 31.1 Sunflower oilcake 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 Limestone powder 12.3 9.7 7.1 1.8 Potassium carbonate 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 Monocalcium phosphate 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.3 Salt 3.2 3.17 3.15 3.11 Soya oil 7.8 10.6 13.5 19.1 Premix 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 Lysine 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Methionine 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 Total 1000 1000 1000 1000 Chemical analysis of diets on an ‘as fed’ basis (MOLM) MOL Dry matter 896.0 874.0 851.0 807.0 950.8 Crude protein 189.0 189.0 189.0 189.0 263.4 Ether Extract 52.0 57.0 61.0 69.0 53.9 Ash 49.0 47.0 45.0 42.0 80.4 Acid detergent fiber 36.0 42.0 47.0 57.0 52.1 Neutral detergent fiber 96.0 100.1 106.0 116.0 761.7 Crude fiber 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 54.9 Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) 3157.6 3157.4 3157.2 3156.8 367.4 Lysine 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 Methionine 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.5 Diet1 MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOLM (g/kg diet) 0 25.0 50.0 100.0 Yellow maize 670.6 658.8 647.1 623.6 Prime gluten 60 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Full fat soya meal 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 Soya bean meal 85.3 71.8 58.2 31.1 Sunflower oilcake 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 Limestone powder 12.3 9.7 7.1 1.8 Potassium carbonate 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 Monocalcium phosphate 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.3 Salt 3.2 3.17 3.15 3.11 Soya oil 7.8 10.6 13.5 19.1 Premix 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 Lysine 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Methionine 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 Total 1000 1000 1000 1000 Chemical analysis of diets on an ‘as fed’ basis (MOLM) MOL Dry matter 896.0 874.0 851.0 807.0 950.8 Crude protein 189.0 189.0 189.0 189.0 263.4 Ether Extract 52.0 57.0 61.0 69.0 53.9 Ash 49.0 47.0 45.0 42.0 80.4 Acid detergent fiber 36.0 42.0 47.0 57.0 52.1 Neutral detergent fiber 96.0 100.1 106.0 116.0 761.7 Crude fiber 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 54.9 Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) 3157.6 3157.4 3157.2 3156.8 367.4 Lysine 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 Methionine 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.5 1 Diet: MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted with 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted with 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg; MOL, Moringa oleifera leaf. View Large Table 2. Fatty acid composition of the 4 experimental diets and Moringa oleifera leaf offered to chickens. Diet1 Fatty acids (%) MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOL Myristic (C14:0) 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.11 4.76 Palmitic (C16:0) 15.91 10.98 10.92 10.24 31.19 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.35 Margaric (C17:0) 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.27 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 Stearic acid (C18:0) 5.61 4.06 4.74 4.59 4.18 Oleic (C18:1c9) 28.16 23.63 22.16 22.27 5.97 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 45.44 56.71 57.29 57.97 8.93 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.56 0.41 0.43 0.44 1.78 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.00 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 2.64 2.95 3.16 3.15 33.06 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Behenic (C22:0) 0.56 0.46 0.50 0.54 2.62 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.28 4.85 Nervonic (C24:1c15) 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.28 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 22.90 16.08 16.80 16.02 45.10 Total monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 28.71 24.01 22.49 22.57 7.37 Total polyunsaturated fatty acids 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 45.50 56.72 57.30 57.97 9.12 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 2.89 3.19 3.41 3.43 38.41 PUFA : SFA 2.11 3.73 3.61 3.83 1.05 n-6/n-3 15.73 17.78 16.80 16.90 0.24 Diet1 Fatty acids (%) MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOL Myristic (C14:0) 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.11 4.76 Palmitic (C16:0) 15.91 10.98 10.92 10.24 31.19 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.35 Margaric (C17:0) 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.27 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 Stearic acid (C18:0) 5.61 4.06 4.74 4.59 4.18 Oleic (C18:1c9) 28.16 23.63 22.16 22.27 5.97 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 45.44 56.71 57.29 57.97 8.93 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.56 0.41 0.43 0.44 1.78 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.00 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 2.64 2.95 3.16 3.15 33.06 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Behenic (C22:0) 0.56 0.46 0.50 0.54 2.62 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.28 4.85 Nervonic (C24:1c15) 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.28 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 22.90 16.08 16.80 16.02 45.10 Total monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 28.71 24.01 22.49 22.57 7.37 Total polyunsaturated fatty acids 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 45.50 56.72 57.30 57.97 9.12 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 2.89 3.19 3.41 3.43 38.41 PUFA : SFA 2.11 3.73 3.61 3.83 1.05 n-6/n-3 15.73 17.78 16.80 16.90 0.24 1 Diet: MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g/kg MOLM MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g/kg MOLM; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g/kg MOLM, MOL = Moringa oleifera leaf. Source: Sebola et al., 2015 [2]. View Large Table 2. Fatty acid composition of the 4 experimental diets and Moringa oleifera leaf offered to chickens. Diet1 Fatty acids (%) MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOL Myristic (C14:0) 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.11 4.76 Palmitic (C16:0) 15.91 10.98 10.92 10.24 31.19 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.35 Margaric (C17:0) 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.27 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 Stearic acid (C18:0) 5.61 4.06 4.74 4.59 4.18 Oleic (C18:1c9) 28.16 23.63 22.16 22.27 5.97 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 45.44 56.71 57.29 57.97 8.93 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.56 0.41 0.43 0.44 1.78 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.00 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 2.64 2.95 3.16 3.15 33.06 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Behenic (C22:0) 0.56 0.46 0.50 0.54 2.62 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.28 4.85 Nervonic (C24:1c15) 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.28 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 22.90 16.08 16.80 16.02 45.10 Total monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 28.71 24.01 22.49 22.57 7.37 Total polyunsaturated fatty acids 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 45.50 56.72 57.30 57.97 9.12 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 2.89 3.19 3.41 3.43 38.41 PUFA : SFA 2.11 3.73 3.61 3.83 1.05 n-6/n-3 15.73 17.78 16.80 16.90 0.24 Diet1 Fatty acids (%) MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOL Myristic (C14:0) 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.11 4.76 Palmitic (C16:0) 15.91 10.98 10.92 10.24 31.19 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.35 Margaric (C17:0) 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.27 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 Stearic acid (C18:0) 5.61 4.06 4.74 4.59 4.18 Oleic (C18:1c9) 28.16 23.63 22.16 22.27 5.97 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 45.44 56.71 57.29 57.97 8.93 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.56 0.41 0.43 0.44 1.78 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.00 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 2.64 2.95 3.16 3.15 33.06 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Behenic (C22:0) 0.56 0.46 0.50 0.54 2.62 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.28 4.85 Nervonic (C24:1c15) 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.28 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 22.90 16.08 16.80 16.02 45.10 Total monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 28.71 24.01 22.49 22.57 7.37 Total polyunsaturated fatty acids 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 45.50 56.72 57.30 57.97 9.12 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 2.89 3.19 3.41 3.43 38.41 PUFA : SFA 2.11 3.73 3.61 3.83 1.05 n-6/n-3 15.73 17.78 16.80 16.90 0.24 1 Diet: MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g/kg MOLM MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g/kg MOLM; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g/kg MOLM, MOL = Moringa oleifera leaf. Source: Sebola et al., 2015 [2]. View Large Experimental Design Two hundred and sixteen (72 per strain, 216 chickens in total) chickens from Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK), Ovambo (OV), and Black Australorp (BA) strains were raised on a commercial starter mash for 4 wk. At 4 wk of age, the chickens from each breed were randomly allotted to the 4 experimental diets until 13 wk of age. A 2 (male and female) × 3 (chicken strains) × 4 (diets) factorial arrangement of treatments in a complete randomized design (CRD) was used for this experiment [8]. Ethical Considerations of the Study The management and care of the chickens were in accordance with Animal Research Ethics [2]. Cooking Loss and pH Changes in Breast Muscle At 13 wk of age, 216 chickens (109 males and 109 females) were electrically stunned and killed by manual exsanguination. Feed was withdrawn 4 h prior to loading in crates to be transported to slaughter house. The chickens were rested for 1 h before slaughtering. At 2 to 3 h postmortem, breast meat samples were cut from pectoralis major muscles from one side and stored at 4°C. The post-mortem pH was measured on the breast muscle of each bird at 24 h after slaughter [9]. The cooking loss of breast meat was calculated as the loss in sample weight after cooking, which was expressed as a proportion of the sample weight before cooking [10]. Meat Color Measurement Color of the meat (L* = lightness, a* = redness and b* = yellowness) was determined on breast meat 24 h after slaughter using a color guide [11]. Shear Force Determination Breast fillets were cooked on racks in aluminum-lined, covered pans in a preheated convection oven to an internal temperature of 76°C for 10 min. The Meullenet Owens razor shear (MORS) method was used to evaluate the shear force of the cooled cooked breast fillets. Shear force was determined on intact fillets using a texture analyzer [12]. Fatty Acid Profile Determination [13, 14, 15] Statistical Analysis [16, 17] RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Meat Quality Assessment The 3-way interaction (diet × strain × gender) did not (P > 0.05) affect a*, b*, pH, and meat cooking loss, but significantly influenced (P < 0.001) L* and shear force (Table 3). These physical attributes are vital indicators of meat quality. Color is generally influenced by animal-related factors, mainly the genotype [18] and the age of the animal [19]. In both male and female chickens, diet and strain interacted significantly to influenced meat L* and shear force (Table 4). No variation (P > 0.05) in lightness of meat was observed in all strains for both male and female chicken. However, no significant difference (P > 0.05) between strains was observed in L* when female chickens were offered either MOLM25 or MOLM100. Table 3. Statistical significance (P-value) of the effects of main factors and their interactions on quality parameters of meat from 3 chicken strains (Black Australorp, Ovambo, and Potchefstroom Koekoek) offered 4 diets diluted with graded levels of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (0, 25, 50, and 100 g/kg). Effect of treatment Interaction Parameter Strain (S) Diet (D) Gender (G) D × G S × G D × S D × G × S L* NS * * NS *** * *** a* ** NS * *** *** *** NS b* * *** * NS * ** NS pHU *** NS NS * NS NS NS SF (N*mm) *** *** *** NS NS *** *** CL *** ** *** NS NS * NS Effect of treatment Interaction Parameter Strain (S) Diet (D) Gender (G) D × G S × G D × S D × G × S L* NS * * NS *** * *** a* ** NS * *** *** *** NS b* * *** * NS * ** NS pHU *** NS NS * NS NS NS SF (N*mm) *** *** *** NS NS *** *** CL *** ** *** NS NS * NS L*, lightness; a*, redness; b*, yellowness; SF, shear force; CL, cooking loss. *P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001; NS, not significant. View Large Table 3. Statistical significance (P-value) of the effects of main factors and their interactions on quality parameters of meat from 3 chicken strains (Black Australorp, Ovambo, and Potchefstroom Koekoek) offered 4 diets diluted with graded levels of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (0, 25, 50, and 100 g/kg). Effect of treatment Interaction Parameter Strain (S) Diet (D) Gender (G) D × G S × G D × S D × G × S L* NS * * NS *** * *** a* ** NS * *** *** *** NS b* * *** * NS * ** NS pHU *** NS NS * NS NS NS SF (N*mm) *** *** *** NS NS *** *** CL *** ** *** NS NS * NS Effect of treatment Interaction Parameter Strain (S) Diet (D) Gender (G) D × G S × G D × S D × G × S L* NS * * NS *** * *** a* ** NS * *** *** *** NS b* * *** * NS * ** NS pHU *** NS NS * NS NS NS SF (N*mm) *** *** *** NS NS *** *** CL *** ** *** NS NS * NS L*, lightness; a*, redness; b*, yellowness; SF, shear force; CL, cooking loss. *P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001; NS, not significant. View Large Table 4. Effect of dietary inclusion of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on lightness (L*) and shear force of meat from 3 chicken strains (Black Australorp, Ovambo, and Potchefstroom Koekoek). Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male L* MOLM0 50.78a,b,c 46.87c,C 48.27b,c 52.15a,b,B 53.06a 48.79b,c MOLM25 51.94b,c 50.22b,c,B,C 51.81b,c 57.49a,A 53.37b 49.17c MOLM50 49.81c 54.64a,b,A 51.09b,c 49.99c,B 55.59a 50.26c MOLM100 52.33 51.49A,B 48.59 52.03B 52.37 49.40 Shear force (N*mm) MOLM0 45.58c,B 80.65a,A,B 63.02b,A 85.79a,A 56.54b,A,B 84.65a MOLM25 60.72b,A 77.13a,B 50.22c,B 80.12a,A,B 50.79c,B 78.08a MOLM50 40.31d,B 86.82a,A 46.94d,B 61.03c,C 60.39c,A 77.66b MOLM100 62.87b,A 78.98a,A,B 41.29c,B 74.13a,B 56.06b,A,B 82.49a Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male L* MOLM0 50.78a,b,c 46.87c,C 48.27b,c 52.15a,b,B 53.06a 48.79b,c MOLM25 51.94b,c 50.22b,c,B,C 51.81b,c 57.49a,A 53.37b 49.17c MOLM50 49.81c 54.64a,b,A 51.09b,c 49.99c,B 55.59a 50.26c MOLM100 52.33 51.49A,B 48.59 52.03B 52.37 49.40 Shear force (N*mm) MOLM0 45.58c,B 80.65a,A,B 63.02b,A 85.79a,A 56.54b,A,B 84.65a MOLM25 60.72b,A 77.13a,B 50.22c,B 80.12a,A,B 50.79c,B 78.08a MOLM50 40.31d,B 86.82a,A 46.94d,B 61.03c,C 60.39c,A 77.66b MOLM100 62.87b,A 78.98a,A,B 41.29c,B 74.13a,B 56.06b,A,B 82.49a a–d In a row and within gender, lowercase superscripts compare strains within diet. A–C In a column and within gender, uppercase superscripts compare diets within strains. Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1 MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg. View Large Table 4. Effect of dietary inclusion of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on lightness (L*) and shear force of meat from 3 chicken strains (Black Australorp, Ovambo, and Potchefstroom Koekoek). Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male L* MOLM0 50.78a,b,c 46.87c,C 48.27b,c 52.15a,b,B 53.06a 48.79b,c MOLM25 51.94b,c 50.22b,c,B,C 51.81b,c 57.49a,A 53.37b 49.17c MOLM50 49.81c 54.64a,b,A 51.09b,c 49.99c,B 55.59a 50.26c MOLM100 52.33 51.49A,B 48.59 52.03B 52.37 49.40 Shear force (N*mm) MOLM0 45.58c,B 80.65a,A,B 63.02b,A 85.79a,A 56.54b,A,B 84.65a MOLM25 60.72b,A 77.13a,B 50.22c,B 80.12a,A,B 50.79c,B 78.08a MOLM50 40.31d,B 86.82a,A 46.94d,B 61.03c,C 60.39c,A 77.66b MOLM100 62.87b,A 78.98a,A,B 41.29c,B 74.13a,B 56.06b,A,B 82.49a Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male L* MOLM0 50.78a,b,c 46.87c,C 48.27b,c 52.15a,b,B 53.06a 48.79b,c MOLM25 51.94b,c 50.22b,c,B,C 51.81b,c 57.49a,A 53.37b 49.17c MOLM50 49.81c 54.64a,b,A 51.09b,c 49.99c,B 55.59a 50.26c MOLM100 52.33 51.49A,B 48.59 52.03B 52.37 49.40 Shear force (N*mm) MOLM0 45.58c,B 80.65a,A,B 63.02b,A 85.79a,A 56.54b,A,B 84.65a MOLM25 60.72b,A 77.13a,B 50.22c,B 80.12a,A,B 50.79c,B 78.08a MOLM50 40.31d,B 86.82a,A 46.94d,B 61.03c,C 60.39c,A 77.66b MOLM100 62.87b,A 78.98a,A,B 41.29c,B 74.13a,B 56.06b,A,B 82.49a a–d In a row and within gender, lowercase superscripts compare strains within diet. A–C In a column and within gender, uppercase superscripts compare diets within strains. Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1 MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg. View Large The 2-way interaction term (diet × strain) did not (P > 0.05) affect pH but significantly influenced all color characteristics, shear force, and cooking loss (Table 5). In this study, diet had a significant effect on meat color in all 3 chicken strains, a finding similar to reports by Fanatico et al. [19] and Ponte et al. [20]. The breast meat of females (51.58 ± 0.421) was significantly lighter than that of males (51.04 ± 0.421) (Table 3), in agreement with Saláková et al. [21] and Wapi et al. [22]. A study by Puchała et al. [23] reported that diet containing xanthophylls, which are deposited in subcutaneous fat, increases color intensity of carcasses, making them more yellow. Table 5. Effect of feeding incremental levels of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on lightness (L*), redness (a*), yellowness (b*), pH (pH24 h), cooking loss and shear force of meat from 3 chicken strains. Diet1 Parameter Strain MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 SE L* BA 48.83b 51.08a,b,B 52.23a 51.91a 1.031 OV 50.21b 54.65a,A 50.55b 50.31b PK 50.93 51.27B 52.92 50.89 a* BA 3.27c,B 4.88a,A 4.10b,B 4.32a,b,A,B 0.211 OV 5.04a,b,A 3.67c,B 5.37a,A 4.64b,A PK 4.49a,b,A 4.65a,A 4.26a,b,B 3.93b,B b* BA 15.62b,B 15.84b,B 21.42a,A 19.92a,B 0.951 OV 19.96b,c,A 17.46c,A,B 20.21a,b,A,B 22.82a,A PK 16.49b,B 19.14b,A 18.49b,B 22.40a,A,B pH24 h BA 5.45b,C 5.67a,B 5.46b,B 5.66a,B 0.019 OV 5.49b,A 5.69a,A 5.49b,A 5.69a,A PK 5.47c,B 5.67a,B 5.41d,C 5.61b,C Cooking loss, % BA 30.98b 34.46a,A 32.58b,A 32.25b 0.635 OV 29.79b 31.49a,b,B 31.50a,b,A,B 32.41a PK 30.85 30.89B 29.97B 31.36 Shear force, N*mm BA 63.12b,B 68.93a,b 63.56b,A 70.93a,A 2.276 OV 74.41a,A 65.17b 53.98c,B 57.71c,B PK 70.59A 64.44 69.02A 69.28A Diet1 Parameter Strain MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 SE L* BA 48.83b 51.08a,b,B 52.23a 51.91a 1.031 OV 50.21b 54.65a,A 50.55b 50.31b PK 50.93 51.27B 52.92 50.89 a* BA 3.27c,B 4.88a,A 4.10b,B 4.32a,b,A,B 0.211 OV 5.04a,b,A 3.67c,B 5.37a,A 4.64b,A PK 4.49a,b,A 4.65a,A 4.26a,b,B 3.93b,B b* BA 15.62b,B 15.84b,B 21.42a,A 19.92a,B 0.951 OV 19.96b,c,A 17.46c,A,B 20.21a,b,A,B 22.82a,A PK 16.49b,B 19.14b,A 18.49b,B 22.40a,A,B pH24 h BA 5.45b,C 5.67a,B 5.46b,B 5.66a,B 0.019 OV 5.49b,A 5.69a,A 5.49b,A 5.69a,A PK 5.47c,B 5.67a,B 5.41d,C 5.61b,C Cooking loss, % BA 30.98b 34.46a,A 32.58b,A 32.25b 0.635 OV 29.79b 31.49a,b,B 31.50a,b,A,B 32.41a PK 30.85 30.89B 29.97B 31.36 Shear force, N*mm BA 63.12b,B 68.93a,b 63.56b,A 70.93a,A 2.276 OV 74.41a,A 65.17b 53.98c,B 57.71c,B PK 70.59A 64.44 69.02A 69.28A BA, Black Australorp; OV, Ovambo; PK, Potchefstroom Koekoek. a–c In a row, lowercase superscripts compare diets within strain. A–C In a column, uppercase superscripts compare strains within diet. Means with similar superscripts do not differ (P > 0.05). 1 MOLM0 = broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g/kg MOLM MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g/kg MOLM; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g/kg MOLM. View Large Table 5. Effect of feeding incremental levels of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on lightness (L*), redness (a*), yellowness (b*), pH (pH24 h), cooking loss and shear force of meat from 3 chicken strains. Diet1 Parameter Strain MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 SE L* BA 48.83b 51.08a,b,B 52.23a 51.91a 1.031 OV 50.21b 54.65a,A 50.55b 50.31b PK 50.93 51.27B 52.92 50.89 a* BA 3.27c,B 4.88a,A 4.10b,B 4.32a,b,A,B 0.211 OV 5.04a,b,A 3.67c,B 5.37a,A 4.64b,A PK 4.49a,b,A 4.65a,A 4.26a,b,B 3.93b,B b* BA 15.62b,B 15.84b,B 21.42a,A 19.92a,B 0.951 OV 19.96b,c,A 17.46c,A,B 20.21a,b,A,B 22.82a,A PK 16.49b,B 19.14b,A 18.49b,B 22.40a,A,B pH24 h BA 5.45b,C 5.67a,B 5.46b,B 5.66a,B 0.019 OV 5.49b,A 5.69a,A 5.49b,A 5.69a,A PK 5.47c,B 5.67a,B 5.41d,C 5.61b,C Cooking loss, % BA 30.98b 34.46a,A 32.58b,A 32.25b 0.635 OV 29.79b 31.49a,b,B 31.50a,b,A,B 32.41a PK 30.85 30.89B 29.97B 31.36 Shear force, N*mm BA 63.12b,B 68.93a,b 63.56b,A 70.93a,A 2.276 OV 74.41a,A 65.17b 53.98c,B 57.71c,B PK 70.59A 64.44 69.02A 69.28A Diet1 Parameter Strain MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 SE L* BA 48.83b 51.08a,b,B 52.23a 51.91a 1.031 OV 50.21b 54.65a,A 50.55b 50.31b PK 50.93 51.27B 52.92 50.89 a* BA 3.27c,B 4.88a,A 4.10b,B 4.32a,b,A,B 0.211 OV 5.04a,b,A 3.67c,B 5.37a,A 4.64b,A PK 4.49a,b,A 4.65a,A 4.26a,b,B 3.93b,B b* BA 15.62b,B 15.84b,B 21.42a,A 19.92a,B 0.951 OV 19.96b,c,A 17.46c,A,B 20.21a,b,A,B 22.82a,A PK 16.49b,B 19.14b,A 18.49b,B 22.40a,A,B pH24 h BA 5.45b,C 5.67a,B 5.46b,B 5.66a,B 0.019 OV 5.49b,A 5.69a,A 5.49b,A 5.69a,A PK 5.47c,B 5.67a,B 5.41d,C 5.61b,C Cooking loss, % BA 30.98b 34.46a,A 32.58b,A 32.25b 0.635 OV 29.79b 31.49a,b,B 31.50a,b,A,B 32.41a PK 30.85 30.89B 29.97B 31.36 Shear force, N*mm BA 63.12b,B 68.93a,b 63.56b,A 70.93a,A 2.276 OV 74.41a,A 65.17b 53.98c,B 57.71c,B PK 70.59A 64.44 69.02A 69.28A BA, Black Australorp; OV, Ovambo; PK, Potchefstroom Koekoek. a–c In a row, lowercase superscripts compare diets within strain. A–C In a column, uppercase superscripts compare strains within diet. Means with similar superscripts do not differ (P > 0.05). 1 MOLM0 = broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g/kg MOLM MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g/kg MOLM; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g/kg MOLM. View Large When offered MOLM50 and MOLM100, BA resulted in higher b* of breast meat, which is a result of high carotene found in plant leaves such as M. oleifera. Prince [24] reported that M. oleifera leaves contain 16.3 mg carotene/100 g. Also in OV and PK, b* values were not influenced by feeding MOLM at any level. When offered MOLM100, female OV produced meat with lower shear force (41.29) than female PK (56.06) and female BA (62.87) strains. Feeding OV male chickens with MOLM50 produced meat with lower (P < 0.05) shear force (61.03) compared with BA (86.82) and PK (77.66) strains. This could be attributed to differences in muscle fiber size and genetic variation among strains [25] and suggest that OV would have tender breast muscle meat. Female chickens had lower (P < 0.05) shear force across all diets than male chickens. Meat tenderness is affected by the amount and quality of connective tissue and by the contractile state of muscle fibers and bundles [26, 27]. Diets did not affect shear force in PK chickens. Male chickens produced meat with higher shear force than female chickens. This corroborates previous results by Lyon [28], Musa et al. [29] and Yin et al. [30] who reported that breast fillets from females had more tender meat than those from males. The 2-way interaction term (diet × strain) did not (P > 0.05) affect pH but significantly influenced all color characteristics, shear force, and cooking loss (Table 5). The 2-way interaction term (diet × gender) did not (P >0.05) affect L*, b*, shear force and cooking loss but significantly (P < 0.05) influenced a* and pH. There was no variation (P > 0.05) in a* when PK and BA chickens were fed MOLM25, MOLM 50, and MOLM 100 diets. When offered MOLM, OV and BA chickens produced meat with higher (P < 0.05) a* values than PK chickens. Incremental levels of MOLM resulted in higher (P < 0.05) a* values for meat from male chickens. Meat from females had the lowest a* (3.81 ± 0.172) value than males (4.98 ± 0.172) when the chickens were offered MOLM25. Sebola et al. [2] reported that BA and OV strains had had the same growth rates. However, PK chickens had higher growth rates compared to both BA and OV chickens at all MOLM inclusion levels. The ultimate pH values reached after 24 h across the 3 different strains ranged between 5.41–5.69. In the present study, no significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed in pH between male and female breast muscle. Similar results were observed by Abdullah and Matarneh [31]. However, Yates et al. [32] reported that breast muscle from male birds had a higher pH value than that from female birds. Cooking loss was significantly affected (P < 0.05) by diet (Table 3). Cooking loss percentage was significantly affected by MOLM25 and MOLM100 for BA and OV, respectively. Shear force for BA and PK chicken strains did not differ significantly when offered MOLM50. No shear force variation was observed in MOLM0, MOLM25, and MOLM50 diets for BA strain. Variation in pH, cooking loss, and shear force might be associated with genetic differences in bird strains. The Proximate Composition of Breast Meat Black Australorp contained a lower (P < 0.05) fat free dry matter (FFDM) (224 g/kg) and higher moisture (766.0 g/kg) content compared with OV and PK chicken strains (Table 6). The 3-way interaction term (diet × gender × strain) significantly (P < 0.05) influenced breast fat. No significant differences (P > 0.05) in fat breast meat were observed when male chicken strains were offered incremental levels of MOLM (Table 7). In females, PK and BA breast meat had higher (P < 0.05) fat content (1.88% and 1.57%) when offered MOLM50 and MOLM100, respectively). While in PK chickens offered MOLM 50, meat from females had a higher fat content (1.88%) compared with male chickens. Sebola et al. [2] stated that PK and OV chicken strains had a higher MOLM intake compared with BA strain. In the present study, it was not expected that higher inclusion rate of MOLM would result in higher breast fat content, and these findings could not be explained. Table 6. Effect of feeding Moringa oleifera leaf meal on proximate fat composition of the breast meat (g/kg) from Black Australorp (BA), Ovambo (OV) and Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK) chicken strains. Parameters Strain FFDM Moisture BA 224.0b 766.2a OV 232.0a 757.0b PK 237.0a 752.0b S.E. 0.247 0.289 Parameters Strain FFDM Moisture BA 224.0b 766.2a OV 232.0a 757.0b PK 237.0a 752.0b S.E. 0.247 0.289 a,b Means within the same column with different lowercase superscripts differ (P < 0.05); FFDM = Fat free dry matter. View Large Table 6. Effect of feeding Moringa oleifera leaf meal on proximate fat composition of the breast meat (g/kg) from Black Australorp (BA), Ovambo (OV) and Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK) chicken strains. Parameters Strain FFDM Moisture BA 224.0b 766.2a OV 232.0a 757.0b PK 237.0a 752.0b S.E. 0.247 0.289 Parameters Strain FFDM Moisture BA 224.0b 766.2a OV 232.0a 757.0b PK 237.0a 752.0b S.E. 0.247 0.289 a,b Means within the same column with different lowercase superscripts differ (P < 0.05); FFDM = Fat free dry matter. View Large Table 7. Effect of dietary inclusion of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on breast fat from 3 chicken strains (Black Australorp, Ovambo, and Potchefstroom Koekoek). Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male Breast fat MOLM0 1.16a,B 0.96a,b 0.97a,b,B 0.75b 0.89a,b,C 0.79b MOLM25 1.09a,b,B 0.90b 1.28a,A 0.87b 1.03a,b,B,C 0.93b MOLM50 1.17b,B 0.90b 0.99b,B 0.96b 1.88a,A 1.02b MOLM100 1.57a,A 0.81d 1.17b,c,A,B 0.91c,d 1.27b,B 0.88d Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male Breast fat MOLM0 1.16a,B 0.96a,b 0.97a,b,B 0.75b 0.89a,b,C 0.79b MOLM25 1.09a,b,B 0.90b 1.28a,A 0.87b 1.03a,b,B,C 0.93b MOLM50 1.17b,B 0.90b 0.99b,B 0.96b 1.88a,A 1.02b MOLM100 1.57a,A 0.81d 1.17b,c,A,B 0.91c,d 1.27b,B 0.88d a–d In a row and within gender, lowercase superscripts compare strains within diet. A–C In a column and within gender, uppercase superscripts compare diets within strains. Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1 MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg. View Large Table 7. Effect of dietary inclusion of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on breast fat from 3 chicken strains (Black Australorp, Ovambo, and Potchefstroom Koekoek). Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male Breast fat MOLM0 1.16a,B 0.96a,b 0.97a,b,B 0.75b 0.89a,b,C 0.79b MOLM25 1.09a,b,B 0.90b 1.28a,A 0.87b 1.03a,b,B,C 0.93b MOLM50 1.17b,B 0.90b 0.99b,B 0.96b 1.88a,A 1.02b MOLM100 1.57a,A 0.81d 1.17b,c,A,B 0.91c,d 1.27b,B 0.88d Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male Breast fat MOLM0 1.16a,B 0.96a,b 0.97a,b,B 0.75b 0.89a,b,C 0.79b MOLM25 1.09a,b,B 0.90b 1.28a,A 0.87b 1.03a,b,B,C 0.93b MOLM50 1.17b,B 0.90b 0.99b,B 0.96b 1.88a,A 1.02b MOLM100 1.57a,A 0.81d 1.17b,c,A,B 0.91c,d 1.27b,B 0.88d a–d In a row and within gender, lowercase superscripts compare strains within diet. A–C In a column and within gender, uppercase superscripts compare diets within strains. Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1 MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg. View Large Fatty Acid Composition of Breast Meat Fatty acid composition of breast meat from BA, OV, and PK chicken strains was not affected by diet; however, strain differences were significant (P < 0.05) (Table 8). Eicosatrienoic acid, also known as γ-linolenic acid (GLA), is an omega 6-fatty acid known to exert clinical efficacy in a variety of diseases, including suppression of chronic inflammation, vasodilation, and lowering of blood pressure, as well as the inhibition of smooth muscle cell proliferation associated with atherosclerotic plaque development [33, 34]. High (P < 0.05) proportion of docosahexanoic acid was observed in meat from OV (2.14%), followed by BA (1.81%) and then PK (1.43%). Black Australorp breast meat exhibited the highest (P < 0.05) palmitic acid content (20.29%) followed by PK (19.97%) and OV (19.09%). Sung et al. [35] have reported that chicken meat contains palmitic acid (C16:0) as one of the major fatty acids; this finding was in agreement with the current results. Since essential fatty acids should be provided through the diet because of low biosynthesis in the human body [36], the higher eicosatrienoic acid and docosahexanoic acid contents of meat from the 3 chicken strains is an attractive nutritional quality for health-conscious consumers. Breed-related differences in fatty acid composition of chickens have previously been reported by Van Marle-Köster and Webb [37]. Table 8. Fatty acids composition (%) of Black Australorp (BA), Ovambo (OV), and Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK) chicken strains. Chicken Strain1 Fatty acids BA OV PK SEM Myristic (C14:0) 0.187a 0.168b 0.19a 0.010 Palmitic (C16:0) 20.3a 19.1b 19.9a,b 0.340 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 1.14 0.86 1.16 0.147 Margaric (C17:0) 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.009 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.88 1.01 0.96 0.069 Stearic acid (C18:0) 12.52 12.96 12.63 0.329 Oleic (C18:1c9) 20.96 21.75 21.28 0.917 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 3.41 3.44 3.42 0.108 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 0.02 0.018 0.026 0.009 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.060 0.093 0.073 0.018 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.028 0.018 0.026 0.009 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.117 0.145 0.111 0.013 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 0.349 0.359 0.398 0.049 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.308 0.341 0.333 0.027 Behenic (C22:0) 0.062 0.075 0.070 0.006 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.789a 0.598b 0.668a,b 0.044 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 14.59 14.70 14.12 0.948 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.016 Docosahexanoic C22:6c4,7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.81a,b 2.14a 1.42b 0.166 Docosapentaenoic C22:5c7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.23 1.28 1.01 0.103 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 33.21 32.51 33.05 0.470 Total mono unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 26.52 27.22 26.95 1.043 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 40.25 40.14 39.99 0.873 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 36.67 36.23 36.45 0.774 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 3.57 3.91 3.53 0.242 PUFA : SFA 1.21 1.23 1.21 0.029 n-6/n-3 10.83 9.88 11.46 0.925 Chicken Strain1 Fatty acids BA OV PK SEM Myristic (C14:0) 0.187a 0.168b 0.19a 0.010 Palmitic (C16:0) 20.3a 19.1b 19.9a,b 0.340 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 1.14 0.86 1.16 0.147 Margaric (C17:0) 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.009 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.88 1.01 0.96 0.069 Stearic acid (C18:0) 12.52 12.96 12.63 0.329 Oleic (C18:1c9) 20.96 21.75 21.28 0.917 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 3.41 3.44 3.42 0.108 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 0.02 0.018 0.026 0.009 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.060 0.093 0.073 0.018 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.028 0.018 0.026 0.009 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.117 0.145 0.111 0.013 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 0.349 0.359 0.398 0.049 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.308 0.341 0.333 0.027 Behenic (C22:0) 0.062 0.075 0.070 0.006 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.789a 0.598b 0.668a,b 0.044 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 14.59 14.70 14.12 0.948 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.016 Docosahexanoic C22:6c4,7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.81a,b 2.14a 1.42b 0.166 Docosapentaenoic C22:5c7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.23 1.28 1.01 0.103 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 33.21 32.51 33.05 0.470 Total mono unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 26.52 27.22 26.95 1.043 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 40.25 40.14 39.99 0.873 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 36.67 36.23 36.45 0.774 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 3.57 3.91 3.53 0.242 PUFA : SFA 1.21 1.23 1.21 0.029 n-6/n-3 10.83 9.88 11.46 0.925 1 Diet: MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted with 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted with 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg. View Large Table 8. Fatty acids composition (%) of Black Australorp (BA), Ovambo (OV), and Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK) chicken strains. Chicken Strain1 Fatty acids BA OV PK SEM Myristic (C14:0) 0.187a 0.168b 0.19a 0.010 Palmitic (C16:0) 20.3a 19.1b 19.9a,b 0.340 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 1.14 0.86 1.16 0.147 Margaric (C17:0) 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.009 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.88 1.01 0.96 0.069 Stearic acid (C18:0) 12.52 12.96 12.63 0.329 Oleic (C18:1c9) 20.96 21.75 21.28 0.917 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 3.41 3.44 3.42 0.108 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 0.02 0.018 0.026 0.009 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.060 0.093 0.073 0.018 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.028 0.018 0.026 0.009 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.117 0.145 0.111 0.013 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 0.349 0.359 0.398 0.049 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.308 0.341 0.333 0.027 Behenic (C22:0) 0.062 0.075 0.070 0.006 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.789a 0.598b 0.668a,b 0.044 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 14.59 14.70 14.12 0.948 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.016 Docosahexanoic C22:6c4,7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.81a,b 2.14a 1.42b 0.166 Docosapentaenoic C22:5c7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.23 1.28 1.01 0.103 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 33.21 32.51 33.05 0.470 Total mono unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 26.52 27.22 26.95 1.043 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 40.25 40.14 39.99 0.873 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 36.67 36.23 36.45 0.774 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 3.57 3.91 3.53 0.242 PUFA : SFA 1.21 1.23 1.21 0.029 n-6/n-3 10.83 9.88 11.46 0.925 Chicken Strain1 Fatty acids BA OV PK SEM Myristic (C14:0) 0.187a 0.168b 0.19a 0.010 Palmitic (C16:0) 20.3a 19.1b 19.9a,b 0.340 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 1.14 0.86 1.16 0.147 Margaric (C17:0) 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.009 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.88 1.01 0.96 0.069 Stearic acid (C18:0) 12.52 12.96 12.63 0.329 Oleic (C18:1c9) 20.96 21.75 21.28 0.917 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 3.41 3.44 3.42 0.108 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 0.02 0.018 0.026 0.009 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.060 0.093 0.073 0.018 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.028 0.018 0.026 0.009 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.117 0.145 0.111 0.013 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 0.349 0.359 0.398 0.049 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.308 0.341 0.333 0.027 Behenic (C22:0) 0.062 0.075 0.070 0.006 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.789a 0.598b 0.668a,b 0.044 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 14.59 14.70 14.12 0.948 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.016 Docosahexanoic C22:6c4,7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.81a,b 2.14a 1.42b 0.166 Docosapentaenoic C22:5c7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.23 1.28 1.01 0.103 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 33.21 32.51 33.05 0.470 Total mono unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 26.52 27.22 26.95 1.043 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 40.25 40.14 39.99 0.873 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 36.67 36.23 36.45 0.774 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 3.57 3.91 3.53 0.242 PUFA : SFA 1.21 1.23 1.21 0.029 n-6/n-3 10.83 9.88 11.46 0.925 1 Diet: MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted with 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted with 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg. View Large CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS MOLM inclusion in chicken diets improved b* without alteration of fatty acid profiles. However, variations were observed in chicken strains within diets. No shear force variation was observed in MOLM0, MOLM25, and MOLM50 diets for BA strain. Cooking loss percentages were significantly increased (P < 0.05) by diet. Cooking loss percentage was significantly affected by MOLM25 and MOLM100 for BA and OV, respectively. In females, PK and BA breast meat had higher (P < 0.05) fat content (1.88% and 1.57%) when offered MOLM50 and MOLM100, respectively). Up to 100 g/kg inclusion rate can be used for MOLM without any negative effect on meat quality and fatty acid profiles. Note Primary Audience: Poultry researchers, Consumers Food Security and Safety Niche Area, School of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Mafikeng 2735, South Africa REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Jaturasitha S. , Srikanchai T. , Kreuzer M. , Wicke M. . 2008 . Differences in carcass and meat characteristics between chicken indigenous to Northern Thailand (Black boned and Thai native) and imported extensive breeds (Bresse and Rhode Island Red) . Poult. Sci. 87 : 160 – 169 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 2. Sebola N. A. , Mlambo V. , Mokoboki H. K. , Muchenje V. . 2015 . Growth performance and carcass characteristics of three chicken strains in response to incremental levels of dietary Moringa oleifera leaf meal . Livest. Sci. 178 : 202 – 208 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 3. Yang R. , Chang L. , Hsu J. C. , Weng J. , Palada B. B. C. , Chadha M. L. , Levasseur V. , 2006 . Nutritional and Functional Properties of Moringa Leaves from Germplasm, to Plant, to Food, to Health . American Chemical Society , Washington, D.C , pp 1 – 17 . 4. Fahey J. 2005 . Moringa oleifera: a review of the medical evidence for its nutritional, therapeutic, and prophylactic properties part 1 . Trees Life J. 1 : 1 – 15 . 5. Qwele K. , Hugo A. , Oyedemi S. O. , Moyo B. , Masika P. J. , Muchenje V. . 2013 . Chemical composition, fatty acid content and antioxidant potential of meat from goats supplemented with Moringa (Moringa oleifera) leaves, sunflower cake and grass hay . Meat Sci . 93 : 455 – 462 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 6. Moringa oleifera leaves were harvested in summer from Patience Wellness Centre in Limpopo province (24.305° S 29.565° E) of South Africa . 7. The experimental diet formulation was done by a commercial feed manufacturing company. Experimental diets were provided in mash form and formulated to be iso-nitrogenous and isoenergetic . 8. The experimental unit was a pen holding 8 birds, which was replicated 3 times, resulting in a total of 48 floor pens (measuring 3.5 m × 1.0 m × 1.85 m (L × B × H)). Feed and water were offered ad libitum during the 13-d experimental period under continuous lightning. All chickens were vaccinated against Marek's disease, Newcastle disease, and infectious bursal disease (Gumboro) for the first 4 weeks . 9. Postmortem pH was measured using a portable digital pH meter (CRISON pH25, CRISON instruments SA, Spain) with a piercing electrode . 10. $$Cooking\;loss(\% ) =\frac{{Weight\;before\;cooking - Weight\;after\;cooking}}{{{l}Weight\;before\;cooking}} \times 100$$ . 11. The color measurements were taken on the dorsal surface of left breast fillet (bone side) in an area free from color defects, bruising and hemorrhages.45°/0° colorimeter (catalogue no: 6805; BYK USA Inc., Wallingford, CT) . 12. Texture analyzer (TA-XT2i; Scarsdale, NY, USA),using a razor blade (24 mm in height and 8.9 mm in width) with a 5-kg load cell set to 20-mm penetration depth. Crosshead speed was triggered by a 10-g of contact force with 5 mm/s. Breasts were punctured across muscle fibers . 13. AOAC . 2003 . Official Methods of Analysis . ( 18th ed ). Association of Official Analytical Chemists , Rockville, MD. Total lipid from feed material was extracted with a Soxhlet extraction according to standard procedures for determination of fats . 14. Folch J. , Lees M. , Sloane-Stanley G. H. . 1957 . A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues . J. Biol. Chem. 226 : 497 – 509 . Total lipid from muscle samples were quantitatively extracted, according to the method of [14, 15] using chloroform and methanol in a ratio of 2:1. Forty eight (48) breast samples were analyzed for fatty acids and 1 g breast muscle was used for analyses. Fatty acid methyl ester (FAMEs) from subcutaneous fat, feed and muscle were quantified using a Varian 430 flame ionization GC, with a fused silica capillary column, Chrompack CPSIL 88 (100 m length, 0.25 mm ID, 0.2 μm film thickness). Analysis was performed using an initial isothermic period (40°C for 2 min). Thereafter, temperature was increased at a rate of 4°C/min to 230°C. Finally an isothermic period of 230°C for 10 min followed. Fatty acid methyl ester (FAMEs) n-hexane (1 μL) was injected into the column using a Varian CP 8400 Auto sampler. Fatty acid methyl ester samples were identified by comparing the retention times of FAME peaks from samples with those of standards obtained from Supelco [15] (Supelco 37 Component Fame Mix 47885-U, Sigma-Aldrich Aston Manor, Pretoria, South Africa). Fatty acids were expressed as the proportion of each individual fatty acid to the total of all fatty acids present in the sample. Forty eight (48) breast samples (6 breast/pen/treatment) weighing 1 g were used for fatty acids determination . Google Scholar PubMed 15. SAS . 2008 . SAS User's Guide: Statistics , 9th edition . SAS Institute, Inc. , Cary, NC . PubMed PubMed 16. The experiment takes the form of a 2 (male and female) × 3 (strains of indigenous birds) × 4 (experimental diets) factorial treatment arrangement in a completely randomized design. Variation in color, cooking loss, pH changes and fatty acids profile data was analysed using SAS (2011, version 9.3) software according to a general linear model. For all statistical tests, significance was declared at P ≤ 0.05. Least square means were compared using the probability of difference (pdiff) option in the lsmeans statement of SAS. General linear model: $$\rm Y_{\rm ijkl}=\mu + \rm D_{i} + S_{j} + G_{j} + G_{k} + (D \times S)_{ij} + (D \times G)_{ik} + (S \times G)_{jk} + (D \times S \times G)_{ijk} + E_{ijkl}$$, where Yijkl = observation of the dependent variable ijkl, μ = fixed effect of population mean for the variable, Di = effect of experimental diet (i = 4; MOLM0, MOLM25, MOLM50, and MOLM100), Sj = effect of chicken strain (j = 3; PK, OV and BA), Gk = effect of gender of chicken (k = 2; male and female), (D × S)ij = effect of interaction between diet at level i and chicken strain at level j, (D × G)ik = effect of interaction between diet at level i and gender at level k, (S × G)jk = effect of interaction between chicken strain at level j and gender at level k, (D × S × G)ijk = effect of interaction between diet at level i, chicken strain at level j and gender at level k, and Eijkl = random error associated with observation ijkl. For all statistical tests, significance was declared at P ≤ 0.05 . 17. Fletcher D. L. 1995 . Relationship of breast meat color variation to muscle pH and texture . Poult. Sci. 78 : 1323 – 1327 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 18. Fanatico A. , Cavitt L. , Pillai P. , Emmert J. , Owens C. . 2005 . Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Meat quality . Poult. Sci. 84 : 1785 – 1790 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 19. Ponte P. I. P. , Rosado C. M. C. , Crespo J. P. , Crespo D. G. , Mourao J. L. , Chaveiro-Soares M. A. , Bras I. , Mendes J. L. A. , Gama L. T. , Prates J. A. M. , Ferreira L. M. A. , Fontes C. M. G. A. . 2008 . Pasture intake improves the performance and meat sensory attributes of free-range broilers. Poult. Sci . 87 : 71 – 79 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 20. Saláková A. , Straková E. , Válková V. , Buchtová H. , Steinhauserová I. . 2009 . Quality indicators of chicken broiler raw and cooked meat depending on their sex . Acta Vet. Brun. 78 : 497 – 504 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 21. Wapi C. , Nkukwana T. T. , Hoffman L. C. . 2013 . Physicochemical shelf-life indicators of meat from broilers given Moringa oleifera leaf meal . S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 43 : S43 – S47 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 22. Puchala M. , Krawczyk J. , Sokolowicz Z. , Utnik-Banaś K. . 2015 . Effect of breed and production system on physicochemical characteristics of meat from multi-purpose hens . Ann. Anim. Sci. 15 : 247 – 261 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 23. Price M. L. 2000 . The Moringa Tree . Ft. Myers, FL : ECHO Publishers . 24. Cavitt L. C. , Youm G. W. , Meullenet J. F. , Owens C. M. , Xiong R. . 2004 . Prediction of poultry meat tenderness using Razor blade shear, Allo-Kramer shear, and sarcomere length . J. Food Sci . 69 : 11 – 15 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 25. Tang H. , Gong Y. Z. , Wu C. X. , Jiang J. , Wang Y. , Li K. . 2009 . Variation of meat quality traits among five genotypes of chicken . Poult. Sci. 88 : 2212 – 2218 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 26. Koohmaraie M. , Kent M. P. , Shackelford S. D. , Veiseth E. , Wheeler T. L. . 2002 . Meat tenderness and muscle growth: Is there any relationship? Meat Sci. 62 : 345 – 352 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 27. Lyon C. E. , Lyon B. G. , Papa C. M. , Robach M. C. . 1992 . Broiler tenderness: Effects of postchill deboning time and fillet holding time . J. Appl. Poult. Res. 1 : 27 – 32 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 28. Musa H. H. , Chen G. H. , Cheng J. H. , Li B. C. , Mekki D. M. . 2006 . Study on carcass characteristics of chicken breeds raised under the intensive condition . Int. J. Poult. Sci. 5 : 530 – 533 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 29. Yin H. , Zhang Z. , Lan X. , Zhao X. , Wang Y. , Zhu Q. . 2011 . Association of MyF5, MyF6 and MyOG gene polymorphisms with carcass traits in Chinese Meat Type Quality chicken populations . J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 10 : 704 – 708 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 30. Fanatico A. C. , Pillai P. B. , Emmert J. L. , Owens C. M. . 2007 . Meat quality of slow-and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access . Poult. Sci. 86 : 2245 – 2255 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 31. Abdullah A. Y , Matarneh S. K . 2010 . Broiler performance and the effects of carcass weight, broiler sex, and postchill carcass aging duration on breast fillet quality characteristics . J. Appl. Poult. Res. 19 : 46 – 58 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 32. Yates J. D. , Brunson C. C. , Webb J. E. 1976 . Relationships of certain biochemical, Physical, and quality characteristics of broiler muscles . Poult. Sci. 55 : 369 – 378 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 33. Fan Y. Y. , Ramos K. S. , Chapkin R. S. . 1995 . Dietary g-linolenic acid modulates macrophage-vascular smooth muscle cell interactions: evidence for evidence for a derived soluble factor that down regulates DNA synthesis in smooth muscle cells . Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 15 : 1397 – 1403 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 34. Zurier R. B. , Rossetti R. G. , Jacobson E. W. , DeMarco D. M. , Liu N. Y. , Temming J. E. , White B. M. , Laposata M. . 1996 . Gamma-linolenic acid treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial . Arthr. Rheumatol. 39 : 1808 – 1817 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 35. Sung S. K. , Yang T. M. , Kwon Y. J. , Choi J. D. , Kim D. G. . 2000 . The quality characteristics of Korean native chicken by the age . J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 42 : 693 – 702 . 36. Choe J. H. , Lee J. C. , Jo C. . 2009 . Relationship between the economical defects of broiler meat carcass and quality grade A by a meat grader . Korean J. Food Sci. 29 : 494 – 499 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 37. Van Marle-Köster E. , Webb E. C. . 2000 . Carcass characteristics of South African native chicken lines . S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 30 . © 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Poultry Research Oxford University Press

Comparison of meat quality parameters in three chicken strains fed Moringa oleifera leaf meal-based diets

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/comparison-of-meat-quality-parameters-in-three-chicken-strains-fed-ULtydzPG0E
Publisher
Applied Poultry Science, Inc.
Copyright
© 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc.
ISSN
1056-6171
eISSN
1537-0437
D.O.I.
10.3382/japr/pfy001
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract The effect of dietary Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on the quality and fatty acid profile of meat from 3 chicken strains, normally used in low-input, extensive production systems, was evaluated. The MOLM was included in a commercial broiler finisher diet at 0 (MOLM0), 25 (MOLM25), 50 (MOLM50), and 100 (MOLM100) g/kg. All diets were formulated to be isonitrogenous and isoenergetic. Two hundred and sixteen (216) Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK), Ovambo (OV) and Black Australorp (BA) chickens were offered the diets for a period of 13 wk in a 2 × 3 × 4 factorial treatment arrangement in a complete randomized design (CRD). The 3-way interaction (diet × strain × gender) term did not (P > 0.05) affect redness (a*), yellowness (b*), pH or meat cooking loss, but significantly influenced (P < 0.001) lightness (L*) and shear force. In OV female chickens fed MOLM25, MOLM50, and MOLM100, shear force did not differ significantly; only MOLM0 had significantly higher shear force. However, OV male chickens, feeding MOLM50 resulted in lower shear force. The MOLM0, MOLM50, and MOLM100 had the lowest cooking loss values for BA; however, no dietary differences were observed in OV and PK. The fatty acid profile of meat from chickens offered the control diet was similar to those offered MOLM-based diets. Chicken strains varied (P < 0.05) in terms of eicosatrienoic acid, docosahexanoic acid and palmitic acid contents. It can be concluded that using M. oleifera leaf as a feed supplement resulted in lower shear force for OV females only but did not alter the fatty acid profile of meat. DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM The consumption of chicken has steadily increased over the years due to its low price and fewer religious restrictions than other meat [1]. In rural communities of many developing nations, chicken meat is supplied from chicken strains that are adapted to extensive rearing. These indigenous chicken strains are known for their tough, lean and flavorful meat. Unfortunately, the productivity of these birds is low due to suboptimal nutrition and disease incidence, among other factors. One strategy to improve the productivity of these chicken strains is to shift to semi-intensive production systems, where richer diets can be supplied to maximize growth performance. It is, therefore, prudent to explore the possibility of incorporating inexpensive, locally available, non-conventional feed resources into the diets of indigenous chicken strains reared under intensive or semi-intensive systems. In our previous study [2], we demonstrated that Moringa oleifera leaves are a good source of nutrients for these chicken strains, promoting growth performance similar to the commercial diet used as a positive control. Moringa oleifera (family: Moringaceae), commonly known as horseradish tree or drumstick tree, has foliage that contains some useful minerals, vitamins, amino acids, and bioactive secondary plant compounds [3, 4]. However, the effect of feeding M. oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on the meat quality of chickens was not explored. The nutritional evaluation of non-conventional feed resources, by necessity, must also include their possible effect on the quality of the meat produced. Moringa oleifera is rich in antioxidants, which are known to diminish lipid oxidation [5] and may function as growth promoters [2] while boosting immune responses in chickens. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the effect of dietary supplementation with MOLM on fatty acid composition and quality parameters of meat from 3 chicken strains that are normally reared in extensive production systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study Sites This study was conducted at the North-West University Experimental Farm (Molelwane) [2]. Diet Formulation Four diets were constituted using MOLM as follows: 100% broiler finisher (MOLM0); 97.5% broiler finisher and 2.5% MOLM (MOLM25); 5% MOLM and 95% broiler finisher (MOLM50); and 10% MOLM and 90% broiler finisher (MOLM100). The composition of MOLM and experimental diets are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for descriptive purposes [6, 7]. Table 1. Gross composition of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM)-based experimental diets. Diet1 MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOLM (g/kg diet) 0 25.0 50.0 100.0 Yellow maize 670.6 658.8 647.1 623.6 Prime gluten 60 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Full fat soya meal 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 Soya bean meal 85.3 71.8 58.2 31.1 Sunflower oilcake 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 Limestone powder 12.3 9.7 7.1 1.8 Potassium carbonate 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 Monocalcium phosphate 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.3 Salt 3.2 3.17 3.15 3.11 Soya oil 7.8 10.6 13.5 19.1 Premix 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 Lysine 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Methionine 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 Total 1000 1000 1000 1000 Chemical analysis of diets on an ‘as fed’ basis (MOLM) MOL Dry matter 896.0 874.0 851.0 807.0 950.8 Crude protein 189.0 189.0 189.0 189.0 263.4 Ether Extract 52.0 57.0 61.0 69.0 53.9 Ash 49.0 47.0 45.0 42.0 80.4 Acid detergent fiber 36.0 42.0 47.0 57.0 52.1 Neutral detergent fiber 96.0 100.1 106.0 116.0 761.7 Crude fiber 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 54.9 Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) 3157.6 3157.4 3157.2 3156.8 367.4 Lysine 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 Methionine 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.5 Diet1 MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOLM (g/kg diet) 0 25.0 50.0 100.0 Yellow maize 670.6 658.8 647.1 623.6 Prime gluten 60 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Full fat soya meal 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 Soya bean meal 85.3 71.8 58.2 31.1 Sunflower oilcake 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 Limestone powder 12.3 9.7 7.1 1.8 Potassium carbonate 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 Monocalcium phosphate 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.3 Salt 3.2 3.17 3.15 3.11 Soya oil 7.8 10.6 13.5 19.1 Premix 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 Lysine 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Methionine 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 Total 1000 1000 1000 1000 Chemical analysis of diets on an ‘as fed’ basis (MOLM) MOL Dry matter 896.0 874.0 851.0 807.0 950.8 Crude protein 189.0 189.0 189.0 189.0 263.4 Ether Extract 52.0 57.0 61.0 69.0 53.9 Ash 49.0 47.0 45.0 42.0 80.4 Acid detergent fiber 36.0 42.0 47.0 57.0 52.1 Neutral detergent fiber 96.0 100.1 106.0 116.0 761.7 Crude fiber 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 54.9 Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) 3157.6 3157.4 3157.2 3156.8 367.4 Lysine 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 Methionine 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.5 1 Diet: MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted with 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted with 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg; MOL, Moringa oleifera leaf. View Large Table 1. Gross composition of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM)-based experimental diets. Diet1 MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOLM (g/kg diet) 0 25.0 50.0 100.0 Yellow maize 670.6 658.8 647.1 623.6 Prime gluten 60 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Full fat soya meal 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 Soya bean meal 85.3 71.8 58.2 31.1 Sunflower oilcake 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 Limestone powder 12.3 9.7 7.1 1.8 Potassium carbonate 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 Monocalcium phosphate 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.3 Salt 3.2 3.17 3.15 3.11 Soya oil 7.8 10.6 13.5 19.1 Premix 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 Lysine 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Methionine 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 Total 1000 1000 1000 1000 Chemical analysis of diets on an ‘as fed’ basis (MOLM) MOL Dry matter 896.0 874.0 851.0 807.0 950.8 Crude protein 189.0 189.0 189.0 189.0 263.4 Ether Extract 52.0 57.0 61.0 69.0 53.9 Ash 49.0 47.0 45.0 42.0 80.4 Acid detergent fiber 36.0 42.0 47.0 57.0 52.1 Neutral detergent fiber 96.0 100.1 106.0 116.0 761.7 Crude fiber 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 54.9 Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) 3157.6 3157.4 3157.2 3156.8 367.4 Lysine 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 Methionine 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.5 Diet1 MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOLM (g/kg diet) 0 25.0 50.0 100.0 Yellow maize 670.6 658.8 647.1 623.6 Prime gluten 60 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Full fat soya meal 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 Soya bean meal 85.3 71.8 58.2 31.1 Sunflower oilcake 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 Limestone powder 12.3 9.7 7.1 1.8 Potassium carbonate 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 Monocalcium phosphate 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.3 Salt 3.2 3.17 3.15 3.11 Soya oil 7.8 10.6 13.5 19.1 Premix 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 Lysine 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Methionine 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 Total 1000 1000 1000 1000 Chemical analysis of diets on an ‘as fed’ basis (MOLM) MOL Dry matter 896.0 874.0 851.0 807.0 950.8 Crude protein 189.0 189.0 189.0 189.0 263.4 Ether Extract 52.0 57.0 61.0 69.0 53.9 Ash 49.0 47.0 45.0 42.0 80.4 Acid detergent fiber 36.0 42.0 47.0 57.0 52.1 Neutral detergent fiber 96.0 100.1 106.0 116.0 761.7 Crude fiber 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 54.9 Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) 3157.6 3157.4 3157.2 3156.8 367.4 Lysine 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 Methionine 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.5 1 Diet: MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted with 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted with 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg; MOL, Moringa oleifera leaf. View Large Table 2. Fatty acid composition of the 4 experimental diets and Moringa oleifera leaf offered to chickens. Diet1 Fatty acids (%) MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOL Myristic (C14:0) 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.11 4.76 Palmitic (C16:0) 15.91 10.98 10.92 10.24 31.19 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.35 Margaric (C17:0) 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.27 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 Stearic acid (C18:0) 5.61 4.06 4.74 4.59 4.18 Oleic (C18:1c9) 28.16 23.63 22.16 22.27 5.97 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 45.44 56.71 57.29 57.97 8.93 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.56 0.41 0.43 0.44 1.78 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.00 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 2.64 2.95 3.16 3.15 33.06 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Behenic (C22:0) 0.56 0.46 0.50 0.54 2.62 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.28 4.85 Nervonic (C24:1c15) 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.28 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 22.90 16.08 16.80 16.02 45.10 Total monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 28.71 24.01 22.49 22.57 7.37 Total polyunsaturated fatty acids 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 45.50 56.72 57.30 57.97 9.12 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 2.89 3.19 3.41 3.43 38.41 PUFA : SFA 2.11 3.73 3.61 3.83 1.05 n-6/n-3 15.73 17.78 16.80 16.90 0.24 Diet1 Fatty acids (%) MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOL Myristic (C14:0) 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.11 4.76 Palmitic (C16:0) 15.91 10.98 10.92 10.24 31.19 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.35 Margaric (C17:0) 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.27 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 Stearic acid (C18:0) 5.61 4.06 4.74 4.59 4.18 Oleic (C18:1c9) 28.16 23.63 22.16 22.27 5.97 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 45.44 56.71 57.29 57.97 8.93 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.56 0.41 0.43 0.44 1.78 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.00 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 2.64 2.95 3.16 3.15 33.06 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Behenic (C22:0) 0.56 0.46 0.50 0.54 2.62 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.28 4.85 Nervonic (C24:1c15) 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.28 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 22.90 16.08 16.80 16.02 45.10 Total monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 28.71 24.01 22.49 22.57 7.37 Total polyunsaturated fatty acids 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 45.50 56.72 57.30 57.97 9.12 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 2.89 3.19 3.41 3.43 38.41 PUFA : SFA 2.11 3.73 3.61 3.83 1.05 n-6/n-3 15.73 17.78 16.80 16.90 0.24 1 Diet: MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g/kg MOLM MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g/kg MOLM; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g/kg MOLM, MOL = Moringa oleifera leaf. Source: Sebola et al., 2015 [2]. View Large Table 2. Fatty acid composition of the 4 experimental diets and Moringa oleifera leaf offered to chickens. Diet1 Fatty acids (%) MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOL Myristic (C14:0) 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.11 4.76 Palmitic (C16:0) 15.91 10.98 10.92 10.24 31.19 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.35 Margaric (C17:0) 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.27 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 Stearic acid (C18:0) 5.61 4.06 4.74 4.59 4.18 Oleic (C18:1c9) 28.16 23.63 22.16 22.27 5.97 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 45.44 56.71 57.29 57.97 8.93 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.56 0.41 0.43 0.44 1.78 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.00 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 2.64 2.95 3.16 3.15 33.06 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Behenic (C22:0) 0.56 0.46 0.50 0.54 2.62 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.28 4.85 Nervonic (C24:1c15) 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.28 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 22.90 16.08 16.80 16.02 45.10 Total monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 28.71 24.01 22.49 22.57 7.37 Total polyunsaturated fatty acids 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 45.50 56.72 57.30 57.97 9.12 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 2.89 3.19 3.41 3.43 38.41 PUFA : SFA 2.11 3.73 3.61 3.83 1.05 n-6/n-3 15.73 17.78 16.80 16.90 0.24 Diet1 Fatty acids (%) MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 MOL Myristic (C14:0) 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.11 4.76 Palmitic (C16:0) 15.91 10.98 10.92 10.24 31.19 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.35 Margaric (C17:0) 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.27 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 Stearic acid (C18:0) 5.61 4.06 4.74 4.59 4.18 Oleic (C18:1c9) 28.16 23.63 22.16 22.27 5.97 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 45.44 56.71 57.29 57.97 8.93 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.56 0.41 0.43 0.44 1.78 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.00 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 2.64 2.95 3.16 3.15 33.06 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Behenic (C22:0) 0.56 0.46 0.50 0.54 2.62 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.29 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.28 4.85 Nervonic (C24:1c15) 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.28 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 22.90 16.08 16.80 16.02 45.10 Total monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 28.71 24.01 22.49 22.57 7.37 Total polyunsaturated fatty acids 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 48.39 59.91 60.71 61.41 47.54 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 45.50 56.72 57.30 57.97 9.12 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 2.89 3.19 3.41 3.43 38.41 PUFA : SFA 2.11 3.73 3.61 3.83 1.05 n-6/n-3 15.73 17.78 16.80 16.90 0.24 1 Diet: MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g/kg MOLM MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g/kg MOLM; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g/kg MOLM, MOL = Moringa oleifera leaf. Source: Sebola et al., 2015 [2]. View Large Experimental Design Two hundred and sixteen (72 per strain, 216 chickens in total) chickens from Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK), Ovambo (OV), and Black Australorp (BA) strains were raised on a commercial starter mash for 4 wk. At 4 wk of age, the chickens from each breed were randomly allotted to the 4 experimental diets until 13 wk of age. A 2 (male and female) × 3 (chicken strains) × 4 (diets) factorial arrangement of treatments in a complete randomized design (CRD) was used for this experiment [8]. Ethical Considerations of the Study The management and care of the chickens were in accordance with Animal Research Ethics [2]. Cooking Loss and pH Changes in Breast Muscle At 13 wk of age, 216 chickens (109 males and 109 females) were electrically stunned and killed by manual exsanguination. Feed was withdrawn 4 h prior to loading in crates to be transported to slaughter house. The chickens were rested for 1 h before slaughtering. At 2 to 3 h postmortem, breast meat samples were cut from pectoralis major muscles from one side and stored at 4°C. The post-mortem pH was measured on the breast muscle of each bird at 24 h after slaughter [9]. The cooking loss of breast meat was calculated as the loss in sample weight after cooking, which was expressed as a proportion of the sample weight before cooking [10]. Meat Color Measurement Color of the meat (L* = lightness, a* = redness and b* = yellowness) was determined on breast meat 24 h after slaughter using a color guide [11]. Shear Force Determination Breast fillets were cooked on racks in aluminum-lined, covered pans in a preheated convection oven to an internal temperature of 76°C for 10 min. The Meullenet Owens razor shear (MORS) method was used to evaluate the shear force of the cooled cooked breast fillets. Shear force was determined on intact fillets using a texture analyzer [12]. Fatty Acid Profile Determination [13, 14, 15] Statistical Analysis [16, 17] RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Meat Quality Assessment The 3-way interaction (diet × strain × gender) did not (P > 0.05) affect a*, b*, pH, and meat cooking loss, but significantly influenced (P < 0.001) L* and shear force (Table 3). These physical attributes are vital indicators of meat quality. Color is generally influenced by animal-related factors, mainly the genotype [18] and the age of the animal [19]. In both male and female chickens, diet and strain interacted significantly to influenced meat L* and shear force (Table 4). No variation (P > 0.05) in lightness of meat was observed in all strains for both male and female chicken. However, no significant difference (P > 0.05) between strains was observed in L* when female chickens were offered either MOLM25 or MOLM100. Table 3. Statistical significance (P-value) of the effects of main factors and their interactions on quality parameters of meat from 3 chicken strains (Black Australorp, Ovambo, and Potchefstroom Koekoek) offered 4 diets diluted with graded levels of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (0, 25, 50, and 100 g/kg). Effect of treatment Interaction Parameter Strain (S) Diet (D) Gender (G) D × G S × G D × S D × G × S L* NS * * NS *** * *** a* ** NS * *** *** *** NS b* * *** * NS * ** NS pHU *** NS NS * NS NS NS SF (N*mm) *** *** *** NS NS *** *** CL *** ** *** NS NS * NS Effect of treatment Interaction Parameter Strain (S) Diet (D) Gender (G) D × G S × G D × S D × G × S L* NS * * NS *** * *** a* ** NS * *** *** *** NS b* * *** * NS * ** NS pHU *** NS NS * NS NS NS SF (N*mm) *** *** *** NS NS *** *** CL *** ** *** NS NS * NS L*, lightness; a*, redness; b*, yellowness; SF, shear force; CL, cooking loss. *P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001; NS, not significant. View Large Table 3. Statistical significance (P-value) of the effects of main factors and their interactions on quality parameters of meat from 3 chicken strains (Black Australorp, Ovambo, and Potchefstroom Koekoek) offered 4 diets diluted with graded levels of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (0, 25, 50, and 100 g/kg). Effect of treatment Interaction Parameter Strain (S) Diet (D) Gender (G) D × G S × G D × S D × G × S L* NS * * NS *** * *** a* ** NS * *** *** *** NS b* * *** * NS * ** NS pHU *** NS NS * NS NS NS SF (N*mm) *** *** *** NS NS *** *** CL *** ** *** NS NS * NS Effect of treatment Interaction Parameter Strain (S) Diet (D) Gender (G) D × G S × G D × S D × G × S L* NS * * NS *** * *** a* ** NS * *** *** *** NS b* * *** * NS * ** NS pHU *** NS NS * NS NS NS SF (N*mm) *** *** *** NS NS *** *** CL *** ** *** NS NS * NS L*, lightness; a*, redness; b*, yellowness; SF, shear force; CL, cooking loss. *P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001; NS, not significant. View Large Table 4. Effect of dietary inclusion of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on lightness (L*) and shear force of meat from 3 chicken strains (Black Australorp, Ovambo, and Potchefstroom Koekoek). Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male L* MOLM0 50.78a,b,c 46.87c,C 48.27b,c 52.15a,b,B 53.06a 48.79b,c MOLM25 51.94b,c 50.22b,c,B,C 51.81b,c 57.49a,A 53.37b 49.17c MOLM50 49.81c 54.64a,b,A 51.09b,c 49.99c,B 55.59a 50.26c MOLM100 52.33 51.49A,B 48.59 52.03B 52.37 49.40 Shear force (N*mm) MOLM0 45.58c,B 80.65a,A,B 63.02b,A 85.79a,A 56.54b,A,B 84.65a MOLM25 60.72b,A 77.13a,B 50.22c,B 80.12a,A,B 50.79c,B 78.08a MOLM50 40.31d,B 86.82a,A 46.94d,B 61.03c,C 60.39c,A 77.66b MOLM100 62.87b,A 78.98a,A,B 41.29c,B 74.13a,B 56.06b,A,B 82.49a Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male L* MOLM0 50.78a,b,c 46.87c,C 48.27b,c 52.15a,b,B 53.06a 48.79b,c MOLM25 51.94b,c 50.22b,c,B,C 51.81b,c 57.49a,A 53.37b 49.17c MOLM50 49.81c 54.64a,b,A 51.09b,c 49.99c,B 55.59a 50.26c MOLM100 52.33 51.49A,B 48.59 52.03B 52.37 49.40 Shear force (N*mm) MOLM0 45.58c,B 80.65a,A,B 63.02b,A 85.79a,A 56.54b,A,B 84.65a MOLM25 60.72b,A 77.13a,B 50.22c,B 80.12a,A,B 50.79c,B 78.08a MOLM50 40.31d,B 86.82a,A 46.94d,B 61.03c,C 60.39c,A 77.66b MOLM100 62.87b,A 78.98a,A,B 41.29c,B 74.13a,B 56.06b,A,B 82.49a a–d In a row and within gender, lowercase superscripts compare strains within diet. A–C In a column and within gender, uppercase superscripts compare diets within strains. Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1 MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg. View Large Table 4. Effect of dietary inclusion of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on lightness (L*) and shear force of meat from 3 chicken strains (Black Australorp, Ovambo, and Potchefstroom Koekoek). Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male L* MOLM0 50.78a,b,c 46.87c,C 48.27b,c 52.15a,b,B 53.06a 48.79b,c MOLM25 51.94b,c 50.22b,c,B,C 51.81b,c 57.49a,A 53.37b 49.17c MOLM50 49.81c 54.64a,b,A 51.09b,c 49.99c,B 55.59a 50.26c MOLM100 52.33 51.49A,B 48.59 52.03B 52.37 49.40 Shear force (N*mm) MOLM0 45.58c,B 80.65a,A,B 63.02b,A 85.79a,A 56.54b,A,B 84.65a MOLM25 60.72b,A 77.13a,B 50.22c,B 80.12a,A,B 50.79c,B 78.08a MOLM50 40.31d,B 86.82a,A 46.94d,B 61.03c,C 60.39c,A 77.66b MOLM100 62.87b,A 78.98a,A,B 41.29c,B 74.13a,B 56.06b,A,B 82.49a Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male L* MOLM0 50.78a,b,c 46.87c,C 48.27b,c 52.15a,b,B 53.06a 48.79b,c MOLM25 51.94b,c 50.22b,c,B,C 51.81b,c 57.49a,A 53.37b 49.17c MOLM50 49.81c 54.64a,b,A 51.09b,c 49.99c,B 55.59a 50.26c MOLM100 52.33 51.49A,B 48.59 52.03B 52.37 49.40 Shear force (N*mm) MOLM0 45.58c,B 80.65a,A,B 63.02b,A 85.79a,A 56.54b,A,B 84.65a MOLM25 60.72b,A 77.13a,B 50.22c,B 80.12a,A,B 50.79c,B 78.08a MOLM50 40.31d,B 86.82a,A 46.94d,B 61.03c,C 60.39c,A 77.66b MOLM100 62.87b,A 78.98a,A,B 41.29c,B 74.13a,B 56.06b,A,B 82.49a a–d In a row and within gender, lowercase superscripts compare strains within diet. A–C In a column and within gender, uppercase superscripts compare diets within strains. Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1 MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg. View Large The 2-way interaction term (diet × strain) did not (P > 0.05) affect pH but significantly influenced all color characteristics, shear force, and cooking loss (Table 5). In this study, diet had a significant effect on meat color in all 3 chicken strains, a finding similar to reports by Fanatico et al. [19] and Ponte et al. [20]. The breast meat of females (51.58 ± 0.421) was significantly lighter than that of males (51.04 ± 0.421) (Table 3), in agreement with Saláková et al. [21] and Wapi et al. [22]. A study by Puchała et al. [23] reported that diet containing xanthophylls, which are deposited in subcutaneous fat, increases color intensity of carcasses, making them more yellow. Table 5. Effect of feeding incremental levels of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on lightness (L*), redness (a*), yellowness (b*), pH (pH24 h), cooking loss and shear force of meat from 3 chicken strains. Diet1 Parameter Strain MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 SE L* BA 48.83b 51.08a,b,B 52.23a 51.91a 1.031 OV 50.21b 54.65a,A 50.55b 50.31b PK 50.93 51.27B 52.92 50.89 a* BA 3.27c,B 4.88a,A 4.10b,B 4.32a,b,A,B 0.211 OV 5.04a,b,A 3.67c,B 5.37a,A 4.64b,A PK 4.49a,b,A 4.65a,A 4.26a,b,B 3.93b,B b* BA 15.62b,B 15.84b,B 21.42a,A 19.92a,B 0.951 OV 19.96b,c,A 17.46c,A,B 20.21a,b,A,B 22.82a,A PK 16.49b,B 19.14b,A 18.49b,B 22.40a,A,B pH24 h BA 5.45b,C 5.67a,B 5.46b,B 5.66a,B 0.019 OV 5.49b,A 5.69a,A 5.49b,A 5.69a,A PK 5.47c,B 5.67a,B 5.41d,C 5.61b,C Cooking loss, % BA 30.98b 34.46a,A 32.58b,A 32.25b 0.635 OV 29.79b 31.49a,b,B 31.50a,b,A,B 32.41a PK 30.85 30.89B 29.97B 31.36 Shear force, N*mm BA 63.12b,B 68.93a,b 63.56b,A 70.93a,A 2.276 OV 74.41a,A 65.17b 53.98c,B 57.71c,B PK 70.59A 64.44 69.02A 69.28A Diet1 Parameter Strain MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 SE L* BA 48.83b 51.08a,b,B 52.23a 51.91a 1.031 OV 50.21b 54.65a,A 50.55b 50.31b PK 50.93 51.27B 52.92 50.89 a* BA 3.27c,B 4.88a,A 4.10b,B 4.32a,b,A,B 0.211 OV 5.04a,b,A 3.67c,B 5.37a,A 4.64b,A PK 4.49a,b,A 4.65a,A 4.26a,b,B 3.93b,B b* BA 15.62b,B 15.84b,B 21.42a,A 19.92a,B 0.951 OV 19.96b,c,A 17.46c,A,B 20.21a,b,A,B 22.82a,A PK 16.49b,B 19.14b,A 18.49b,B 22.40a,A,B pH24 h BA 5.45b,C 5.67a,B 5.46b,B 5.66a,B 0.019 OV 5.49b,A 5.69a,A 5.49b,A 5.69a,A PK 5.47c,B 5.67a,B 5.41d,C 5.61b,C Cooking loss, % BA 30.98b 34.46a,A 32.58b,A 32.25b 0.635 OV 29.79b 31.49a,b,B 31.50a,b,A,B 32.41a PK 30.85 30.89B 29.97B 31.36 Shear force, N*mm BA 63.12b,B 68.93a,b 63.56b,A 70.93a,A 2.276 OV 74.41a,A 65.17b 53.98c,B 57.71c,B PK 70.59A 64.44 69.02A 69.28A BA, Black Australorp; OV, Ovambo; PK, Potchefstroom Koekoek. a–c In a row, lowercase superscripts compare diets within strain. A–C In a column, uppercase superscripts compare strains within diet. Means with similar superscripts do not differ (P > 0.05). 1 MOLM0 = broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g/kg MOLM MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g/kg MOLM; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g/kg MOLM. View Large Table 5. Effect of feeding incremental levels of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on lightness (L*), redness (a*), yellowness (b*), pH (pH24 h), cooking loss and shear force of meat from 3 chicken strains. Diet1 Parameter Strain MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 SE L* BA 48.83b 51.08a,b,B 52.23a 51.91a 1.031 OV 50.21b 54.65a,A 50.55b 50.31b PK 50.93 51.27B 52.92 50.89 a* BA 3.27c,B 4.88a,A 4.10b,B 4.32a,b,A,B 0.211 OV 5.04a,b,A 3.67c,B 5.37a,A 4.64b,A PK 4.49a,b,A 4.65a,A 4.26a,b,B 3.93b,B b* BA 15.62b,B 15.84b,B 21.42a,A 19.92a,B 0.951 OV 19.96b,c,A 17.46c,A,B 20.21a,b,A,B 22.82a,A PK 16.49b,B 19.14b,A 18.49b,B 22.40a,A,B pH24 h BA 5.45b,C 5.67a,B 5.46b,B 5.66a,B 0.019 OV 5.49b,A 5.69a,A 5.49b,A 5.69a,A PK 5.47c,B 5.67a,B 5.41d,C 5.61b,C Cooking loss, % BA 30.98b 34.46a,A 32.58b,A 32.25b 0.635 OV 29.79b 31.49a,b,B 31.50a,b,A,B 32.41a PK 30.85 30.89B 29.97B 31.36 Shear force, N*mm BA 63.12b,B 68.93a,b 63.56b,A 70.93a,A 2.276 OV 74.41a,A 65.17b 53.98c,B 57.71c,B PK 70.59A 64.44 69.02A 69.28A Diet1 Parameter Strain MOLM0 MOLM25 MOLM50 MOLM100 SE L* BA 48.83b 51.08a,b,B 52.23a 51.91a 1.031 OV 50.21b 54.65a,A 50.55b 50.31b PK 50.93 51.27B 52.92 50.89 a* BA 3.27c,B 4.88a,A 4.10b,B 4.32a,b,A,B 0.211 OV 5.04a,b,A 3.67c,B 5.37a,A 4.64b,A PK 4.49a,b,A 4.65a,A 4.26a,b,B 3.93b,B b* BA 15.62b,B 15.84b,B 21.42a,A 19.92a,B 0.951 OV 19.96b,c,A 17.46c,A,B 20.21a,b,A,B 22.82a,A PK 16.49b,B 19.14b,A 18.49b,B 22.40a,A,B pH24 h BA 5.45b,C 5.67a,B 5.46b,B 5.66a,B 0.019 OV 5.49b,A 5.69a,A 5.49b,A 5.69a,A PK 5.47c,B 5.67a,B 5.41d,C 5.61b,C Cooking loss, % BA 30.98b 34.46a,A 32.58b,A 32.25b 0.635 OV 29.79b 31.49a,b,B 31.50a,b,A,B 32.41a PK 30.85 30.89B 29.97B 31.36 Shear force, N*mm BA 63.12b,B 68.93a,b 63.56b,A 70.93a,A 2.276 OV 74.41a,A 65.17b 53.98c,B 57.71c,B PK 70.59A 64.44 69.02A 69.28A BA, Black Australorp; OV, Ovambo; PK, Potchefstroom Koekoek. a–c In a row, lowercase superscripts compare diets within strain. A–C In a column, uppercase superscripts compare strains within diet. Means with similar superscripts do not differ (P > 0.05). 1 MOLM0 = broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g/kg MOLM MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g/kg MOLM; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g/kg MOLM. View Large When offered MOLM50 and MOLM100, BA resulted in higher b* of breast meat, which is a result of high carotene found in plant leaves such as M. oleifera. Prince [24] reported that M. oleifera leaves contain 16.3 mg carotene/100 g. Also in OV and PK, b* values were not influenced by feeding MOLM at any level. When offered MOLM100, female OV produced meat with lower shear force (41.29) than female PK (56.06) and female BA (62.87) strains. Feeding OV male chickens with MOLM50 produced meat with lower (P < 0.05) shear force (61.03) compared with BA (86.82) and PK (77.66) strains. This could be attributed to differences in muscle fiber size and genetic variation among strains [25] and suggest that OV would have tender breast muscle meat. Female chickens had lower (P < 0.05) shear force across all diets than male chickens. Meat tenderness is affected by the amount and quality of connective tissue and by the contractile state of muscle fibers and bundles [26, 27]. Diets did not affect shear force in PK chickens. Male chickens produced meat with higher shear force than female chickens. This corroborates previous results by Lyon [28], Musa et al. [29] and Yin et al. [30] who reported that breast fillets from females had more tender meat than those from males. The 2-way interaction term (diet × strain) did not (P > 0.05) affect pH but significantly influenced all color characteristics, shear force, and cooking loss (Table 5). The 2-way interaction term (diet × gender) did not (P >0.05) affect L*, b*, shear force and cooking loss but significantly (P < 0.05) influenced a* and pH. There was no variation (P > 0.05) in a* when PK and BA chickens were fed MOLM25, MOLM 50, and MOLM 100 diets. When offered MOLM, OV and BA chickens produced meat with higher (P < 0.05) a* values than PK chickens. Incremental levels of MOLM resulted in higher (P < 0.05) a* values for meat from male chickens. Meat from females had the lowest a* (3.81 ± 0.172) value than males (4.98 ± 0.172) when the chickens were offered MOLM25. Sebola et al. [2] reported that BA and OV strains had had the same growth rates. However, PK chickens had higher growth rates compared to both BA and OV chickens at all MOLM inclusion levels. The ultimate pH values reached after 24 h across the 3 different strains ranged between 5.41–5.69. In the present study, no significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed in pH between male and female breast muscle. Similar results were observed by Abdullah and Matarneh [31]. However, Yates et al. [32] reported that breast muscle from male birds had a higher pH value than that from female birds. Cooking loss was significantly affected (P < 0.05) by diet (Table 3). Cooking loss percentage was significantly affected by MOLM25 and MOLM100 for BA and OV, respectively. Shear force for BA and PK chicken strains did not differ significantly when offered MOLM50. No shear force variation was observed in MOLM0, MOLM25, and MOLM50 diets for BA strain. Variation in pH, cooking loss, and shear force might be associated with genetic differences in bird strains. The Proximate Composition of Breast Meat Black Australorp contained a lower (P < 0.05) fat free dry matter (FFDM) (224 g/kg) and higher moisture (766.0 g/kg) content compared with OV and PK chicken strains (Table 6). The 3-way interaction term (diet × gender × strain) significantly (P < 0.05) influenced breast fat. No significant differences (P > 0.05) in fat breast meat were observed when male chicken strains were offered incremental levels of MOLM (Table 7). In females, PK and BA breast meat had higher (P < 0.05) fat content (1.88% and 1.57%) when offered MOLM50 and MOLM100, respectively). While in PK chickens offered MOLM 50, meat from females had a higher fat content (1.88%) compared with male chickens. Sebola et al. [2] stated that PK and OV chicken strains had a higher MOLM intake compared with BA strain. In the present study, it was not expected that higher inclusion rate of MOLM would result in higher breast fat content, and these findings could not be explained. Table 6. Effect of feeding Moringa oleifera leaf meal on proximate fat composition of the breast meat (g/kg) from Black Australorp (BA), Ovambo (OV) and Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK) chicken strains. Parameters Strain FFDM Moisture BA 224.0b 766.2a OV 232.0a 757.0b PK 237.0a 752.0b S.E. 0.247 0.289 Parameters Strain FFDM Moisture BA 224.0b 766.2a OV 232.0a 757.0b PK 237.0a 752.0b S.E. 0.247 0.289 a,b Means within the same column with different lowercase superscripts differ (P < 0.05); FFDM = Fat free dry matter. View Large Table 6. Effect of feeding Moringa oleifera leaf meal on proximate fat composition of the breast meat (g/kg) from Black Australorp (BA), Ovambo (OV) and Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK) chicken strains. Parameters Strain FFDM Moisture BA 224.0b 766.2a OV 232.0a 757.0b PK 237.0a 752.0b S.E. 0.247 0.289 Parameters Strain FFDM Moisture BA 224.0b 766.2a OV 232.0a 757.0b PK 237.0a 752.0b S.E. 0.247 0.289 a,b Means within the same column with different lowercase superscripts differ (P < 0.05); FFDM = Fat free dry matter. View Large Table 7. Effect of dietary inclusion of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on breast fat from 3 chicken strains (Black Australorp, Ovambo, and Potchefstroom Koekoek). Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male Breast fat MOLM0 1.16a,B 0.96a,b 0.97a,b,B 0.75b 0.89a,b,C 0.79b MOLM25 1.09a,b,B 0.90b 1.28a,A 0.87b 1.03a,b,B,C 0.93b MOLM50 1.17b,B 0.90b 0.99b,B 0.96b 1.88a,A 1.02b MOLM100 1.57a,A 0.81d 1.17b,c,A,B 0.91c,d 1.27b,B 0.88d Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male Breast fat MOLM0 1.16a,B 0.96a,b 0.97a,b,B 0.75b 0.89a,b,C 0.79b MOLM25 1.09a,b,B 0.90b 1.28a,A 0.87b 1.03a,b,B,C 0.93b MOLM50 1.17b,B 0.90b 0.99b,B 0.96b 1.88a,A 1.02b MOLM100 1.57a,A 0.81d 1.17b,c,A,B 0.91c,d 1.27b,B 0.88d a–d In a row and within gender, lowercase superscripts compare strains within diet. A–C In a column and within gender, uppercase superscripts compare diets within strains. Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1 MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg. View Large Table 7. Effect of dietary inclusion of Moringa oleifera leaf meal (MOLM) on breast fat from 3 chicken strains (Black Australorp, Ovambo, and Potchefstroom Koekoek). Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male Breast fat MOLM0 1.16a,B 0.96a,b 0.97a,b,B 0.75b 0.89a,b,C 0.79b MOLM25 1.09a,b,B 0.90b 1.28a,A 0.87b 1.03a,b,B,C 0.93b MOLM50 1.17b,B 0.90b 0.99b,B 0.96b 1.88a,A 1.02b MOLM100 1.57a,A 0.81d 1.17b,c,A,B 0.91c,d 1.27b,B 0.88d Black Australorp Ovambo Potchefstroom Koekoek Parameter Diet1 Female Male Female Male Female Male Breast fat MOLM0 1.16a,B 0.96a,b 0.97a,b,B 0.75b 0.89a,b,C 0.79b MOLM25 1.09a,b,B 0.90b 1.28a,A 0.87b 1.03a,b,B,C 0.93b MOLM50 1.17b,B 0.90b 0.99b,B 0.96b 1.88a,A 1.02b MOLM100 1.57a,A 0.81d 1.17b,c,A,B 0.91c,d 1.27b,B 0.88d a–d In a row and within gender, lowercase superscripts compare strains within diet. A–C In a column and within gender, uppercase superscripts compare diets within strains. Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). 1 MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted at 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted at 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg. View Large Fatty Acid Composition of Breast Meat Fatty acid composition of breast meat from BA, OV, and PK chicken strains was not affected by diet; however, strain differences were significant (P < 0.05) (Table 8). Eicosatrienoic acid, also known as γ-linolenic acid (GLA), is an omega 6-fatty acid known to exert clinical efficacy in a variety of diseases, including suppression of chronic inflammation, vasodilation, and lowering of blood pressure, as well as the inhibition of smooth muscle cell proliferation associated with atherosclerotic plaque development [33, 34]. High (P < 0.05) proportion of docosahexanoic acid was observed in meat from OV (2.14%), followed by BA (1.81%) and then PK (1.43%). Black Australorp breast meat exhibited the highest (P < 0.05) palmitic acid content (20.29%) followed by PK (19.97%) and OV (19.09%). Sung et al. [35] have reported that chicken meat contains palmitic acid (C16:0) as one of the major fatty acids; this finding was in agreement with the current results. Since essential fatty acids should be provided through the diet because of low biosynthesis in the human body [36], the higher eicosatrienoic acid and docosahexanoic acid contents of meat from the 3 chicken strains is an attractive nutritional quality for health-conscious consumers. Breed-related differences in fatty acid composition of chickens have previously been reported by Van Marle-Köster and Webb [37]. Table 8. Fatty acids composition (%) of Black Australorp (BA), Ovambo (OV), and Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK) chicken strains. Chicken Strain1 Fatty acids BA OV PK SEM Myristic (C14:0) 0.187a 0.168b 0.19a 0.010 Palmitic (C16:0) 20.3a 19.1b 19.9a,b 0.340 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 1.14 0.86 1.16 0.147 Margaric (C17:0) 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.009 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.88 1.01 0.96 0.069 Stearic acid (C18:0) 12.52 12.96 12.63 0.329 Oleic (C18:1c9) 20.96 21.75 21.28 0.917 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 3.41 3.44 3.42 0.108 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 0.02 0.018 0.026 0.009 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.060 0.093 0.073 0.018 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.028 0.018 0.026 0.009 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.117 0.145 0.111 0.013 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 0.349 0.359 0.398 0.049 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.308 0.341 0.333 0.027 Behenic (C22:0) 0.062 0.075 0.070 0.006 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.789a 0.598b 0.668a,b 0.044 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 14.59 14.70 14.12 0.948 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.016 Docosahexanoic C22:6c4,7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.81a,b 2.14a 1.42b 0.166 Docosapentaenoic C22:5c7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.23 1.28 1.01 0.103 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 33.21 32.51 33.05 0.470 Total mono unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 26.52 27.22 26.95 1.043 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 40.25 40.14 39.99 0.873 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 36.67 36.23 36.45 0.774 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 3.57 3.91 3.53 0.242 PUFA : SFA 1.21 1.23 1.21 0.029 n-6/n-3 10.83 9.88 11.46 0.925 Chicken Strain1 Fatty acids BA OV PK SEM Myristic (C14:0) 0.187a 0.168b 0.19a 0.010 Palmitic (C16:0) 20.3a 19.1b 19.9a,b 0.340 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 1.14 0.86 1.16 0.147 Margaric (C17:0) 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.009 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.88 1.01 0.96 0.069 Stearic acid (C18:0) 12.52 12.96 12.63 0.329 Oleic (C18:1c9) 20.96 21.75 21.28 0.917 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 3.41 3.44 3.42 0.108 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 0.02 0.018 0.026 0.009 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.060 0.093 0.073 0.018 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.028 0.018 0.026 0.009 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.117 0.145 0.111 0.013 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 0.349 0.359 0.398 0.049 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.308 0.341 0.333 0.027 Behenic (C22:0) 0.062 0.075 0.070 0.006 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.789a 0.598b 0.668a,b 0.044 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 14.59 14.70 14.12 0.948 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.016 Docosahexanoic C22:6c4,7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.81a,b 2.14a 1.42b 0.166 Docosapentaenoic C22:5c7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.23 1.28 1.01 0.103 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 33.21 32.51 33.05 0.470 Total mono unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 26.52 27.22 26.95 1.043 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 40.25 40.14 39.99 0.873 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 36.67 36.23 36.45 0.774 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 3.57 3.91 3.53 0.242 PUFA : SFA 1.21 1.23 1.21 0.029 n-6/n-3 10.83 9.88 11.46 0.925 1 Diet: MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted with 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted with 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg. View Large Table 8. Fatty acids composition (%) of Black Australorp (BA), Ovambo (OV), and Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK) chicken strains. Chicken Strain1 Fatty acids BA OV PK SEM Myristic (C14:0) 0.187a 0.168b 0.19a 0.010 Palmitic (C16:0) 20.3a 19.1b 19.9a,b 0.340 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 1.14 0.86 1.16 0.147 Margaric (C17:0) 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.009 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.88 1.01 0.96 0.069 Stearic acid (C18:0) 12.52 12.96 12.63 0.329 Oleic (C18:1c9) 20.96 21.75 21.28 0.917 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 3.41 3.44 3.42 0.108 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 0.02 0.018 0.026 0.009 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.060 0.093 0.073 0.018 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.028 0.018 0.026 0.009 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.117 0.145 0.111 0.013 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 0.349 0.359 0.398 0.049 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.308 0.341 0.333 0.027 Behenic (C22:0) 0.062 0.075 0.070 0.006 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.789a 0.598b 0.668a,b 0.044 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 14.59 14.70 14.12 0.948 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.016 Docosahexanoic C22:6c4,7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.81a,b 2.14a 1.42b 0.166 Docosapentaenoic C22:5c7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.23 1.28 1.01 0.103 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 33.21 32.51 33.05 0.470 Total mono unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 26.52 27.22 26.95 1.043 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 40.25 40.14 39.99 0.873 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 36.67 36.23 36.45 0.774 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 3.57 3.91 3.53 0.242 PUFA : SFA 1.21 1.23 1.21 0.029 n-6/n-3 10.83 9.88 11.46 0.925 Chicken Strain1 Fatty acids BA OV PK SEM Myristic (C14:0) 0.187a 0.168b 0.19a 0.010 Palmitic (C16:0) 20.3a 19.1b 19.9a,b 0.340 Palmitoleic (C16:1c9) 1.14 0.86 1.16 0.147 Margaric (C17:0) 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.009 Heptadecenoic (C17:1c10) 0.88 1.01 0.96 0.069 Stearic acid (C18:0) 12.52 12.96 12.63 0.329 Oleic (C18:1c9) 20.96 21.75 21.28 0.917 Vaccenic(C18:1c7) 3.41 3.44 3.42 0.108 Linoleic (C18:2c9,12 (n-6)) 0.02 0.018 0.026 0.009 Arachidic (C20:0) 0.060 0.093 0.073 0.018 γ-Linolenic (C18:3c6,9,12 (n-3)) 0.028 0.018 0.026 0.009 Eicosenoic (C20:1c11) 0.117 0.145 0.111 0.013 α-Linolenic (C18:3c9,12,15 (n-3)) 0.349 0.359 0.398 0.049 Eicosadienoic (C20:2c11,14 (n-6)) 0.308 0.341 0.333 0.027 Behenic (C22:0) 0.062 0.075 0.070 0.006 Eicosatrienoic (C20:3c8,11,14 (n-6)) 0.789a 0.598b 0.668a,b 0.044 Tricosanoic (C23:0) 14.59 14.70 14.12 0.948 Eicosopentaenoic (C20:5c5,8,11,14,17 (n-3)) 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.016 Docosahexanoic C22:6c4,7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.81a,b 2.14a 1.42b 0.166 Docosapentaenoic C22:5c7,10,13,16,19 (n-3) 1.23 1.28 1.01 0.103 Fatty acid ratios: Total saturated fatty acids (SFA) 33.21 32.51 33.05 0.470 Total mono unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) 26.52 27.22 26.95 1.043 Total poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 40.25 40.14 39.99 0.873 Total omega-6 fatty acids (n-6) 36.67 36.23 36.45 0.774 Total omega-3 fatty acids (n-3) 3.57 3.91 3.53 0.242 PUFA : SFA 1.21 1.23 1.21 0.029 n-6/n-3 10.83 9.88 11.46 0.925 1 Diet: MOLM0, broiler finisher without MOLM inclusion; MOLM25, broiler finisher diluted with 25 g MOLM/kg; MOLM50, broiler finisher diluted with 50 g MOLM/kg; MOLM100, broiler finisher diluted at 100 g MOLM/kg. View Large CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS MOLM inclusion in chicken diets improved b* without alteration of fatty acid profiles. However, variations were observed in chicken strains within diets. No shear force variation was observed in MOLM0, MOLM25, and MOLM50 diets for BA strain. Cooking loss percentages were significantly increased (P < 0.05) by diet. Cooking loss percentage was significantly affected by MOLM25 and MOLM100 for BA and OV, respectively. In females, PK and BA breast meat had higher (P < 0.05) fat content (1.88% and 1.57%) when offered MOLM50 and MOLM100, respectively). Up to 100 g/kg inclusion rate can be used for MOLM without any negative effect on meat quality and fatty acid profiles. Note Primary Audience: Poultry researchers, Consumers Food Security and Safety Niche Area, School of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Mafikeng 2735, South Africa REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Jaturasitha S. , Srikanchai T. , Kreuzer M. , Wicke M. . 2008 . Differences in carcass and meat characteristics between chicken indigenous to Northern Thailand (Black boned and Thai native) and imported extensive breeds (Bresse and Rhode Island Red) . Poult. Sci. 87 : 160 – 169 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 2. Sebola N. A. , Mlambo V. , Mokoboki H. K. , Muchenje V. . 2015 . Growth performance and carcass characteristics of three chicken strains in response to incremental levels of dietary Moringa oleifera leaf meal . Livest. Sci. 178 : 202 – 208 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 3. Yang R. , Chang L. , Hsu J. C. , Weng J. , Palada B. B. C. , Chadha M. L. , Levasseur V. , 2006 . Nutritional and Functional Properties of Moringa Leaves from Germplasm, to Plant, to Food, to Health . American Chemical Society , Washington, D.C , pp 1 – 17 . 4. Fahey J. 2005 . Moringa oleifera: a review of the medical evidence for its nutritional, therapeutic, and prophylactic properties part 1 . Trees Life J. 1 : 1 – 15 . 5. Qwele K. , Hugo A. , Oyedemi S. O. , Moyo B. , Masika P. J. , Muchenje V. . 2013 . Chemical composition, fatty acid content and antioxidant potential of meat from goats supplemented with Moringa (Moringa oleifera) leaves, sunflower cake and grass hay . Meat Sci . 93 : 455 – 462 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 6. Moringa oleifera leaves were harvested in summer from Patience Wellness Centre in Limpopo province (24.305° S 29.565° E) of South Africa . 7. The experimental diet formulation was done by a commercial feed manufacturing company. Experimental diets were provided in mash form and formulated to be iso-nitrogenous and isoenergetic . 8. The experimental unit was a pen holding 8 birds, which was replicated 3 times, resulting in a total of 48 floor pens (measuring 3.5 m × 1.0 m × 1.85 m (L × B × H)). Feed and water were offered ad libitum during the 13-d experimental period under continuous lightning. All chickens were vaccinated against Marek's disease, Newcastle disease, and infectious bursal disease (Gumboro) for the first 4 weeks . 9. Postmortem pH was measured using a portable digital pH meter (CRISON pH25, CRISON instruments SA, Spain) with a piercing electrode . 10. $$Cooking\;loss(\% ) =\frac{{Weight\;before\;cooking - Weight\;after\;cooking}}{{{l}Weight\;before\;cooking}} \times 100$$ . 11. The color measurements were taken on the dorsal surface of left breast fillet (bone side) in an area free from color defects, bruising and hemorrhages.45°/0° colorimeter (catalogue no: 6805; BYK USA Inc., Wallingford, CT) . 12. Texture analyzer (TA-XT2i; Scarsdale, NY, USA),using a razor blade (24 mm in height and 8.9 mm in width) with a 5-kg load cell set to 20-mm penetration depth. Crosshead speed was triggered by a 10-g of contact force with 5 mm/s. Breasts were punctured across muscle fibers . 13. AOAC . 2003 . Official Methods of Analysis . ( 18th ed ). Association of Official Analytical Chemists , Rockville, MD. Total lipid from feed material was extracted with a Soxhlet extraction according to standard procedures for determination of fats . 14. Folch J. , Lees M. , Sloane-Stanley G. H. . 1957 . A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues . J. Biol. Chem. 226 : 497 – 509 . Total lipid from muscle samples were quantitatively extracted, according to the method of [14, 15] using chloroform and methanol in a ratio of 2:1. Forty eight (48) breast samples were analyzed for fatty acids and 1 g breast muscle was used for analyses. Fatty acid methyl ester (FAMEs) from subcutaneous fat, feed and muscle were quantified using a Varian 430 flame ionization GC, with a fused silica capillary column, Chrompack CPSIL 88 (100 m length, 0.25 mm ID, 0.2 μm film thickness). Analysis was performed using an initial isothermic period (40°C for 2 min). Thereafter, temperature was increased at a rate of 4°C/min to 230°C. Finally an isothermic period of 230°C for 10 min followed. Fatty acid methyl ester (FAMEs) n-hexane (1 μL) was injected into the column using a Varian CP 8400 Auto sampler. Fatty acid methyl ester samples were identified by comparing the retention times of FAME peaks from samples with those of standards obtained from Supelco [15] (Supelco 37 Component Fame Mix 47885-U, Sigma-Aldrich Aston Manor, Pretoria, South Africa). Fatty acids were expressed as the proportion of each individual fatty acid to the total of all fatty acids present in the sample. Forty eight (48) breast samples (6 breast/pen/treatment) weighing 1 g were used for fatty acids determination . Google Scholar PubMed 15. SAS . 2008 . SAS User's Guide: Statistics , 9th edition . SAS Institute, Inc. , Cary, NC . PubMed PubMed 16. The experiment takes the form of a 2 (male and female) × 3 (strains of indigenous birds) × 4 (experimental diets) factorial treatment arrangement in a completely randomized design. Variation in color, cooking loss, pH changes and fatty acids profile data was analysed using SAS (2011, version 9.3) software according to a general linear model. For all statistical tests, significance was declared at P ≤ 0.05. Least square means were compared using the probability of difference (pdiff) option in the lsmeans statement of SAS. General linear model: $$\rm Y_{\rm ijkl}=\mu + \rm D_{i} + S_{j} + G_{j} + G_{k} + (D \times S)_{ij} + (D \times G)_{ik} + (S \times G)_{jk} + (D \times S \times G)_{ijk} + E_{ijkl}$$, where Yijkl = observation of the dependent variable ijkl, μ = fixed effect of population mean for the variable, Di = effect of experimental diet (i = 4; MOLM0, MOLM25, MOLM50, and MOLM100), Sj = effect of chicken strain (j = 3; PK, OV and BA), Gk = effect of gender of chicken (k = 2; male and female), (D × S)ij = effect of interaction between diet at level i and chicken strain at level j, (D × G)ik = effect of interaction between diet at level i and gender at level k, (S × G)jk = effect of interaction between chicken strain at level j and gender at level k, (D × S × G)ijk = effect of interaction between diet at level i, chicken strain at level j and gender at level k, and Eijkl = random error associated with observation ijkl. For all statistical tests, significance was declared at P ≤ 0.05 . 17. Fletcher D. L. 1995 . Relationship of breast meat color variation to muscle pH and texture . Poult. Sci. 78 : 1323 – 1327 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 18. Fanatico A. , Cavitt L. , Pillai P. , Emmert J. , Owens C. . 2005 . Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Meat quality . Poult. Sci. 84 : 1785 – 1790 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 19. Ponte P. I. P. , Rosado C. M. C. , Crespo J. P. , Crespo D. G. , Mourao J. L. , Chaveiro-Soares M. A. , Bras I. , Mendes J. L. A. , Gama L. T. , Prates J. A. M. , Ferreira L. M. A. , Fontes C. M. G. A. . 2008 . Pasture intake improves the performance and meat sensory attributes of free-range broilers. Poult. Sci . 87 : 71 – 79 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 20. Saláková A. , Straková E. , Válková V. , Buchtová H. , Steinhauserová I. . 2009 . Quality indicators of chicken broiler raw and cooked meat depending on their sex . Acta Vet. Brun. 78 : 497 – 504 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 21. Wapi C. , Nkukwana T. T. , Hoffman L. C. . 2013 . Physicochemical shelf-life indicators of meat from broilers given Moringa oleifera leaf meal . S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 43 : S43 – S47 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 22. Puchala M. , Krawczyk J. , Sokolowicz Z. , Utnik-Banaś K. . 2015 . Effect of breed and production system on physicochemical characteristics of meat from multi-purpose hens . Ann. Anim. Sci. 15 : 247 – 261 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 23. Price M. L. 2000 . The Moringa Tree . Ft. Myers, FL : ECHO Publishers . 24. Cavitt L. C. , Youm G. W. , Meullenet J. F. , Owens C. M. , Xiong R. . 2004 . Prediction of poultry meat tenderness using Razor blade shear, Allo-Kramer shear, and sarcomere length . J. Food Sci . 69 : 11 – 15 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 25. Tang H. , Gong Y. Z. , Wu C. X. , Jiang J. , Wang Y. , Li K. . 2009 . Variation of meat quality traits among five genotypes of chicken . Poult. Sci. 88 : 2212 – 2218 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 26. Koohmaraie M. , Kent M. P. , Shackelford S. D. , Veiseth E. , Wheeler T. L. . 2002 . Meat tenderness and muscle growth: Is there any relationship? Meat Sci. 62 : 345 – 352 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 27. Lyon C. E. , Lyon B. G. , Papa C. M. , Robach M. C. . 1992 . Broiler tenderness: Effects of postchill deboning time and fillet holding time . J. Appl. Poult. Res. 1 : 27 – 32 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 28. Musa H. H. , Chen G. H. , Cheng J. H. , Li B. C. , Mekki D. M. . 2006 . Study on carcass characteristics of chicken breeds raised under the intensive condition . Int. J. Poult. Sci. 5 : 530 – 533 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 29. Yin H. , Zhang Z. , Lan X. , Zhao X. , Wang Y. , Zhu Q. . 2011 . Association of MyF5, MyF6 and MyOG gene polymorphisms with carcass traits in Chinese Meat Type Quality chicken populations . J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 10 : 704 – 708 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 30. Fanatico A. C. , Pillai P. B. , Emmert J. L. , Owens C. M. . 2007 . Meat quality of slow-and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access . Poult. Sci. 86 : 2245 – 2255 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 31. Abdullah A. Y , Matarneh S. K . 2010 . Broiler performance and the effects of carcass weight, broiler sex, and postchill carcass aging duration on breast fillet quality characteristics . J. Appl. Poult. Res. 19 : 46 – 58 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 32. Yates J. D. , Brunson C. C. , Webb J. E. 1976 . Relationships of certain biochemical, Physical, and quality characteristics of broiler muscles . Poult. Sci. 55 : 369 – 378 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 33. Fan Y. Y. , Ramos K. S. , Chapkin R. S. . 1995 . Dietary g-linolenic acid modulates macrophage-vascular smooth muscle cell interactions: evidence for evidence for a derived soluble factor that down regulates DNA synthesis in smooth muscle cells . Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 15 : 1397 – 1403 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 34. Zurier R. B. , Rossetti R. G. , Jacobson E. W. , DeMarco D. M. , Liu N. Y. , Temming J. E. , White B. M. , Laposata M. . 1996 . Gamma-linolenic acid treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial . Arthr. Rheumatol. 39 : 1808 – 1817 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 35. Sung S. K. , Yang T. M. , Kwon Y. J. , Choi J. D. , Kim D. G. . 2000 . The quality characteristics of Korean native chicken by the age . J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 42 : 693 – 702 . 36. Choe J. H. , Lee J. C. , Jo C. . 2009 . Relationship between the economical defects of broiler meat carcass and quality grade A by a meat grader . Korean J. Food Sci. 29 : 494 – 499 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 37. Van Marle-Köster E. , Webb E. C. . 2000 . Carcass characteristics of South African native chicken lines . S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 30 . © 2018 Poultry Science Association Inc.

Journal

Journal of Applied Poultry ResearchOxford University Press

Published: Mar 17, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off