曼加利察和长白猪品种肉品营养品质的一些参数

IF 0.8 4区 工程技术 Q4 ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL Hemijska Industrija Pub Date : 2017-05-13 DOI:10.2298/HEMIND140604071S
J. R. Sevic, R. Lukáč, S. V. Vidivic, M. Puvača, M. Savic, B. Ljubojević, M. Tomović, R. N. Dzinic
{"title":"曼加利察和长白猪品种肉品营养品质的一些参数","authors":"J. R. Sevic, R. Lukáč, S. V. Vidivic, M. Puvača, M. Savic, B. Ljubojević, M. Tomović, R. N. Dzinic","doi":"10.2298/HEMIND140604071S","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study was to provide a comparative analysis of chemical and \n fatty acid composition, as well as of the connective tissue proteins in pigs \n of different genotypes, Mangalitsa and Landrace. Both pig genotypes were fed \n with the same feed of standard composition and quality. At the end of the \n fattening period, in total 24 pigs of both genotypes were slaughtered. Based \n on the analysis of the chemical composition we came to the conclusion that \n the protein content in both genotypes was similar. Moisture and ash content \n in the Landrace pig genotype differed significantly (P<0.01) compared with \n genotype of pigs Mangalitsa breed. Statistically significant differences \n (P<0.01) were established in the fat content, which was 7.95 g/100g, in pigs \n of Mangalitsa breed and 1.59 g/100g in the Landrace pigs breed. Content of \n hydroxyproline, non-proteinogenic amino acids, in meat of Landrace was \n significantly higher (P<0.01) compared to the content in the Mangalitsa \n breed. The same tendency was observed with regard to the connective tissue \n protein content as well as with the relative connective tissue protein \n content. The fatty acid composition of the meat indicated that the most \n common saturated fatty acid (SFA) in both tested breeds was palmitic fatty \n acid (C16), whose content was significantly higher in Landrace (P<0.01) \n compared with its content in Mangalitsa breed. In addition, the share of \n stearic acid (C18) was significantly higher (P<0.01) in Landrace compared to \n Mangalitsa pig breed, what significantly contributed to the increase of the \n SFA share in Landrace compared to Mangalitsa breed. The most common \n monounsaturated fatty acid in both pig breeds was the oleic fatty acid \n (C18:1), whose share was significantly higher in Mangalitsa compared to the \n Landrace breed (P<0.01). Out of the polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), \n linoleic fatty acid (C18:2) was the most predominant in both pig breeds, with \n no statistically significant differences (P>0.05). The content of PUFA was \n not statistically significantly different between the tested breeds, as well \n as the content of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids, which caused no statistically \n significant differences in the n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio. Ratio of the unsaturated \n fatty acids, i.e., of the sum of MUFA and PUFA, and of the saturated fatty \n acids was significantly higher in Mangalitsa compared to Landrace breed (1.86 \n versus 1.4), and the same was observed when it comes to the relationship \n MUFA/SFA (1.51 in Mangalitsa versus 1.08 in Landrace breed) and MUFA/PUFA \n (4.35 versus 3.38).","PeriodicalId":12913,"journal":{"name":"Hemijska Industrija","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Some parameters of nutritional quality of meat obtained from Mangalitsa and Landrace pig breeds\",\"authors\":\"J. R. Sevic, R. Lukáč, S. V. Vidivic, M. Puvača, M. Savic, B. Ljubojević, M. Tomović, R. N. Dzinic\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/HEMIND140604071S\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this study was to provide a comparative analysis of chemical and \\n fatty acid composition, as well as of the connective tissue proteins in pigs \\n of different genotypes, Mangalitsa and Landrace. Both pig genotypes were fed \\n with the same feed of standard composition and quality. At the end of the \\n fattening period, in total 24 pigs of both genotypes were slaughtered. Based \\n on the analysis of the chemical composition we came to the conclusion that \\n the protein content in both genotypes was similar. Moisture and ash content \\n in the Landrace pig genotype differed significantly (P<0.01) compared with \\n genotype of pigs Mangalitsa breed. Statistically significant differences \\n (P<0.01) were established in the fat content, which was 7.95 g/100g, in pigs \\n of Mangalitsa breed and 1.59 g/100g in the Landrace pigs breed. Content of \\n hydroxyproline, non-proteinogenic amino acids, in meat of Landrace was \\n significantly higher (P<0.01) compared to the content in the Mangalitsa \\n breed. The same tendency was observed with regard to the connective tissue \\n protein content as well as with the relative connective tissue protein \\n content. The fatty acid composition of the meat indicated that the most \\n common saturated fatty acid (SFA) in both tested breeds was palmitic fatty \\n acid (C16), whose content was significantly higher in Landrace (P<0.01) \\n compared with its content in Mangalitsa breed. In addition, the share of \\n stearic acid (C18) was significantly higher (P<0.01) in Landrace compared to \\n Mangalitsa pig breed, what significantly contributed to the increase of the \\n SFA share in Landrace compared to Mangalitsa breed. The most common \\n monounsaturated fatty acid in both pig breeds was the oleic fatty acid \\n (C18:1), whose share was significantly higher in Mangalitsa compared to the \\n Landrace breed (P<0.01). Out of the polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), \\n linoleic fatty acid (C18:2) was the most predominant in both pig breeds, with \\n no statistically significant differences (P>0.05). The content of PUFA was \\n not statistically significantly different between the tested breeds, as well \\n as the content of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids, which caused no statistically \\n significant differences in the n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio. Ratio of the unsaturated \\n fatty acids, i.e., of the sum of MUFA and PUFA, and of the saturated fatty \\n acids was significantly higher in Mangalitsa compared to Landrace breed (1.86 \\n versus 1.4), and the same was observed when it comes to the relationship \\n MUFA/SFA (1.51 in Mangalitsa versus 1.08 in Landrace breed) and MUFA/PUFA \\n (4.35 versus 3.38).\",\"PeriodicalId\":12913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hemijska Industrija\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hemijska Industrija\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/HEMIND140604071S\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hemijska Industrija","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/HEMIND140604071S","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本研究的目的是对不同基因型(曼加利察和长白猪)猪的化学成分和脂肪酸组成以及结缔组织蛋白进行比较分析。两种基因型猪均饲喂相同的标准成分和质量饲料。育肥期结束时,两种基因型共屠宰24头猪。根据化学成分分析,两种基因型的蛋白质含量相似。各基因型长白猪水分和灰分含量差异显著(P0.05)。试验品种间PUFA含量、n-3和n-6脂肪酸含量差异无统计学意义,因此n-6/n-3 PUFA比值差异无统计学意义。Mangalitsa品种的不饱和脂肪酸(即MUFA和PUFA的总和)和饱和脂肪酸的比例显著高于长白品种(1.86比1.4),在MUFA/SFA (Mangalitsa品种1.51比长白品种1.08)和MUFA/PUFA(4.35比3.38)的关系上也观察到相同的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Some parameters of nutritional quality of meat obtained from Mangalitsa and Landrace pig breeds
The aim of this study was to provide a comparative analysis of chemical and fatty acid composition, as well as of the connective tissue proteins in pigs of different genotypes, Mangalitsa and Landrace. Both pig genotypes were fed with the same feed of standard composition and quality. At the end of the fattening period, in total 24 pigs of both genotypes were slaughtered. Based on the analysis of the chemical composition we came to the conclusion that the protein content in both genotypes was similar. Moisture and ash content in the Landrace pig genotype differed significantly (P<0.01) compared with genotype of pigs Mangalitsa breed. Statistically significant differences (P<0.01) were established in the fat content, which was 7.95 g/100g, in pigs of Mangalitsa breed and 1.59 g/100g in the Landrace pigs breed. Content of hydroxyproline, non-proteinogenic amino acids, in meat of Landrace was significantly higher (P<0.01) compared to the content in the Mangalitsa breed. The same tendency was observed with regard to the connective tissue protein content as well as with the relative connective tissue protein content. The fatty acid composition of the meat indicated that the most common saturated fatty acid (SFA) in both tested breeds was palmitic fatty acid (C16), whose content was significantly higher in Landrace (P<0.01) compared with its content in Mangalitsa breed. In addition, the share of stearic acid (C18) was significantly higher (P<0.01) in Landrace compared to Mangalitsa pig breed, what significantly contributed to the increase of the SFA share in Landrace compared to Mangalitsa breed. The most common monounsaturated fatty acid in both pig breeds was the oleic fatty acid (C18:1), whose share was significantly higher in Mangalitsa compared to the Landrace breed (P<0.01). Out of the polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), linoleic fatty acid (C18:2) was the most predominant in both pig breeds, with no statistically significant differences (P>0.05). The content of PUFA was not statistically significantly different between the tested breeds, as well as the content of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids, which caused no statistically significant differences in the n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio. Ratio of the unsaturated fatty acids, i.e., of the sum of MUFA and PUFA, and of the saturated fatty acids was significantly higher in Mangalitsa compared to Landrace breed (1.86 versus 1.4), and the same was observed when it comes to the relationship MUFA/SFA (1.51 in Mangalitsa versus 1.08 in Landrace breed) and MUFA/PUFA (4.35 versus 3.38).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hemijska Industrija
Hemijska Industrija 工程技术-工程:化工
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
12
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal Hemijska industrija (abbreviation Hem. Ind.) is publishing papers in the field of Chemical Engineering (Transport phenomena; Process Modeling, Simulation and Optimization; Thermodynamics; Separation Processes; Reactor Engineering; Electrochemical Engineering; Petrochemical Engineering), Biochemical Engineering (Bioreactors; Protein Engineering; Kinetics of Bioprocesses), Engineering of Materials (Polymers; Metal materials; Non-metal materials; Biomaterials), Environmental Engineeringand Applied Chemistry. The journal is published bimonthly by the Association of Chemical Engineers of Serbia (a member of EFCE - European Federation of Chemical Engineering). In addition to professional articles of importance to industry, scientific research papers are published, not only from our country but from all over the world. It also contains topics such as business news, science and technology news, information on new apparatus and equipment, and articles on environmental protection.
期刊最新文献
Transport properties and permeability of textile materials Water vapour permeability of nylon pantyhose Controllable arrangement of integrated obstacles in silicon microchannels etched in 25 wt.% TMAX Microstructure as an essential aspect of EN AW 7075 aluminum alloy quality influenced by electromagnetic field during continuous casting process Improving the viability and stability of a probiotic product with Saccharomyces boulardii DBVPG
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1