HAL Id: hal-00890056
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00890056
Submitted on 1 Jan 2006
HAL
is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire
HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
The effects of genotype and overfeeding on fat level and composition of adipose and muscle tissues in ducks
Pascal P. Chartrin, Marie-Dominique Bernadet, Gérard Guy, Jacques Mourot, Michel Jacques M.J. Duclos, Elisabeth Baéza
To cite this version:
Pascal P. Chartrin, Marie-Dominique Bernadet, Gérard Guy, Jacques Mourot, Michel Jacques M.J.
Duclos, et al.. The effects of genotype and overfeeding on fat level and composition of adipose and
muscle tissues in ducks. Animal Research, EDP Sciences, 2006, 55 (3), pp.231-244. �hal-00890056�
c INRA, EDP Sciences, 2006 DOI: 10.1051/animres:2006011
Original article
The e ff ects of genotype and overfeeding on fat level and composition of adipose and muscle tissues
in ducks
Pascal C
a*, Marie-Dominique B
b, Gérard G
b,
Jacques M
c, Michel J. D
a, Elisabeth B ´
aaStation de Recherches Avicoles, INRA Tours, 37380 Nouzilly, France
bUnité Expérimentale des Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, INRA Artiguères, 40280 Benquet, France
cUnité Systèmes d’Élevage, Nutrition et Alimentation Humaine, INRA, 35590 St Gilles, France (Received 6 January 2005 – Accepted 2 February 2006)
Abstract– This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of genotype (Muscovy, Pekin and their crossbred hinny and mule ducks) and overfeeding (14 days from 12 weeks of age) on the quantity and quality of lipid deposition in adipose and muscle tissue in ducks. Samples of muscles (Pectoralis majorandIliotibialis superficialis) and abdominal fat were collected at 14 weeks of age to determine lipid levels, lipid classes and fatty acid composition. By comparison with the other genotypes, Pekin ducks exhibited higher amounts of abdominal fat and higher lipid levels in muscles (+105 and+120% inP. major andIliotibialis superficialis, respectively) by comparison with Muscovy ducks. By comparison with other genotypes, Muscovy ducks exhibited the lowest triglyceride and phospholipid levels in muscles and Pekin ducks the highest levels. Muscovy ducks also showed the lowest cholesterol levels inI. Superficialismuscles. Muscovy ducks exhibited the highest levels of saturated fatty acids (SFA) and poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) in muscle and adipose tissues and the lowest levels of mono-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), and Pekin ducks exhibited the reverse. For all these parameters, the crossbred ducks always presented intermediate values. Overfeeding induced an accumulation of lipids in adipose and muscle tissues (1.2- to 1.7- fold, depending on muscle type and genotype). This increase was higher inP. major than inI.
superficialismuscles. The increase in the amount of abdominal fat was 1.7- to 3.1-fold, depending on genotype. This increase in lipid levels in peripheral tissues was mainly induced by triglyceride deposition. Finally, it induced a considerable increase in proportions of MUFA (particularly oleic acid) (expressed as % of total fatty acids) at the expense of PUFA (particularly arachidonic acid) and SFA. However, the amounts (expressed as g per 100 g of tissue) of SFA and MUFA increased in tissues while the amounts of PUFA remained unchanged in muscles and decreased in abdominal fat. The quantity and quality of fat deposition in peripheral tissues depends on the liver’s ability to synthesise and also to export lipids.
lipids/fatty acids/meat/muscles/ducks
* Corresponding author: chartrin@tours.inra.fr
Article published by EDP Sciences and available at http://www.edpsciences.org/animresor http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/animres:2006011
Résumé–Influence du génotype et du gavage sur la teneur en lipides des tissus adipeux et musculaires de canards. Cette étude avait pour objectif d’évaluer les effets du génotype (Bar- barie, Pékin et leurs croisements, hinny et mulard) et du gavage (14 jours à partir de l’âge de 12 semaines) sur la quantité et la qualité des lipides déposés dans le tissu adipeux et les muscles de canards. Des échantillons de muscle (Pectoralis majoretIliotibialis superficialis) et de gras abdo- minal ont été collectés à l’âge de 14 semaines afin de déterminer leur teneur en lipides, les classes de lipides et la composition en acides gras. Par comparaison avec les autres génotypes, les canards Pékin avaient plus de gras abdominal et une quantité de lipides intramusculaires plus élevée (+105 et+120 % dans leP. majoret l’Iliotibialis superficialis, respectivement par comparaison avec le ca- nard de Barbarie). Par comparaison avec les autres génotypes, les canards de Barbarie présentaient les teneurs en triglycérides et phospholipides dans les muscles les plus faibles et les canards Pékin les plus élevées. La teneur en cholestérol de l’Iliotibialis superficialisétait également plus faible chez les canards de Barbarie. Dans les muscles et les tissus adipeux, les canards de Barbarie pré- sentaient les proportions d’acides gras saturés (AGS) et poly-insaturés (AGPI) les plus élevées et le pourcentage d’acides gras mono-insaturés (AGMI) le plus faible. La situation inverse était observée chez les canards Pékin. Pour tous ces paramètres, les canards hinnies et mulards présentaient des valeurs intermédiaires. Le gavage a induit une accumulation de lipides dans les tissus adipeux et musculaires : multiplié par 1,2 à 1,7 selon le muscle et le génotype. Cette augmentation était plus importante dans leP. majorque dans l’Iliotibialis superficialis. La quantité de gras abdominal a été multipliée par 1,7 à 3,1 selon le génotype. Cette augmentation de la teneur en lipides des tissus péri- phériques a surtout été induite par un dépôt de triglycérides. Enfin, le gavage accroît le pourcentage (exprimé en % des AG totaux) d’AGMI (en particulier l’acide oléique) au détriment des AGPI (en particulier l’acide arachidonique) et des AGS. Cependant, les quantités (exprimées en g par 100 g de tissu) d’AGS et d’AGMI augmentent dans les tissus alors que celle des AGPI reste stable dans les muscles et décroît dans le gras abdominal. La quantité et la qualité des lipides déposés dans les tissus périphériques dépendent donc de l’aptitude du foie à les synthétiser mais également à les exporter.
lipides/acides gras/viande/muscles/canards
1. INTRODUCTION
Intramuscular fat (IMF) is involved in determining meat quality, particularly the nutritional and sensory characteristics and storage ability [16]. Lipid levels in duck meat are higher than in chicken and turkey meat and depend on the species, age, sex and nutrition [3]. Moreover, in Pekin and Muscovy ducks, selection for low abdom- inal fat also decreases lipid levels in mus- cles [4, 22], but this type of selection has no effect on IMF in broiler chickens [24].
By comparison with lean Muscovy ducks, lipid levels of breast meat were found to be twice as high in overfed Muscovy ducks [28]. Depending on the source of energy in the diet (starch and lipids) the fatty acid profile of IMF in poultry reflects a bal- ance between hepatic lipogenesis and di- etary lipids [21]. In birds, lipids are mainly
synthesised in the liver and then exported to peripheral tissues, including the muscles [18]. Guy et al. [13] and Hermier et al.
[14] showed that different duck genotypes (Pekin, Muscovy and their crossbred hinny and mule ducks) present different suscep- tibilities to storing lipids in the liver and in peripheral tissues such as adipose tis- sues and muscles during an overfeeding period. Pekin ducks show more marked extra-hepatic fattening (higher amounts of abdominal and subcutaneous fat) and Mus- covy ducks exhibit the opposite. It there- fore seemed interesting to use these dif- ferent duck genotypes in combination with feeding levels (ad libitum vs. overfeed- ing) to analyse more precisely the conse- quences of hepatic export ability on lipid quantity and quality (lipid classes and fatty acid profiles) deposited in muscles and ab- dominal fat.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Animals and diets
We used male ducks from four differ- ent genotypes: Pekin, Muscovy and their crossbred mule (male Muscovy duck×fe- male Pekin duck) and hinny ducks (male Pekin duck×female Muscovy duck). The ducks (50 per genotype) originated from the same sires and dams provided by the Grimaud Company (Roussay, France).
They were reared under natural light and temperature conditions at the Experimental Station for Waterfowl Breeding (INRA Ar- tiguères, France), distributed at one geno- type per pen. They were fed ad libitum from hatching to 6 weeks of age. From 6 to 12 weeks of age, the birds were fed on a restricted diet at levels appropriate to the ingestion ability of each genotype (200–
250 g per duck at the beginning, increas- ing to 360–380 g at the end of the period).
At 12 weeks of age, 35 ducks per genotype were overfed at the maximum of their in- gestion potential for 14 days with corn and corn meal (Tab. I). During the overfeed- ing period, 12 ducks per genotype were fed with the growing diet ad libitum (con- trols). The composition and main charac- teristics of the diets (starting, growing and overfeeding) are shown in Tables I and II.
The overfeeding diet had lower protein lev- els, higher lipid levels and higher levels of metabolisable energy than the growing diet. The differences in fatty acid composi- tion were small.
2.2. Growth and overfeeding performance
Growth rate and feed conversion ratio were evaluated by the individual weigh- ing of animals and measuring food con- sumption per genotype (n = 1) at 4, 6 and 12 weeks of age. At 14 weeks of age, 8 ducks per genotype and dietary treatment
chosen at random were weighed and sac- rificed by sectioning of the neck. Imme- diately after bleeding,Pectoralis major(a breast muscle), Iliotibialis superficialis(a thigh muscle), liver and abdominal fat were excised and weighed. The samples of adi- pose and muscle tissues were frozen and stored at –20◦C.
The present study was carried out in agreement with the French legislation on animal experimentation and with authori- sation from the French Ministry of Agri- culture (Animal Health and Protection Di- rectorate).
2.3. Chemical analysis
Moisture and mineral levels in the di- ets were determined with the oven method [2], and protein levels with the Kjeldahl copper catalyst method [2]. Total lipids were extracted quantitatively from diets and tissues, by homogenising samples of minced tissue in chloroform/methanol 2/1 v/v and collecting gravimetrically [9].
The classes of lipids were determined us- ing Iatroscan (Iatron, Tokyo, Japan) with 10 silica-gel thin layer chromatography rods and a flame ionisation detector sys- tem (TLC-FID) according to Mares et al.
[19]. The hydrogen flow rate was 160 mL per min, the air flow rate 2 L per min and scanning speed 0.3 cm per s. The software used (Boreal, JMBS Develop- ment, Grenoble, France) recorded chro- matograms and integrated peaks with ref- erence to an external standard (Sigma, St Quentin Fallavier, France). The fatty acid composition was determined after trans- methylation of lipids [20] by gas chro- matography (Perkin Elmer Autosystem, St Quentin en Yvelines, France). Injector and detector (FID) temperatures were 250◦C, the carrier gas was nitrogen with a head column pressure of 16.5 psi using a cap- illary column (25 m×0.22 mm, BPX70, SGE, Villeneuve St Georges, France).
Table I.Composition and characteristics of feed for rearing and overfeeding periods. The prepara- tion for overfeeding contained corn (25%), corn meal (35%) and water (40%).
Composition (g per kg) Starting Growing Overfeeding
(0–4 weeks) (4–12 weeks) (12–14 weeks)
Wheat 200.00 254.50
Wheat starch 2.90
Corn 357.02 370.48 988.49
Sorghum 80.00
Triticale 100.00
Extruded soybean seeds 40.00 15.00
Rapeseed oilmeal solvent extracted 30.00 50.00
Soybean meal 184.75 138.75
Sunflower meal 29.00 44.50
Sugarcane molasses 20.00 15.00
Calcium carbonate 13.50 10.00
Dicalcium phosphate 17.75 15.00
Sodium chloride 1.00 1.75 1.45
Sodium bicarbonate 2.50 1.50 1.45
DL-methionine 1.88 1.12
Choline-HCl 75% 0.60 0.40
Vitamin and mineral supplement 2.001 2.001 5.712
Characteristics (g per kg)*
Metabolisable Energy (MJ per kg) 11.83 11.68 13.92
Crude proteins 175.10 160.00 82.46
Total lipids 30.40 27.40 37.36
Lysine 9.20 7.80 –
Sulphur amino acids 7.70 7.10 –
Calcium 11.0 9.00 –
Available phosphorus 4.50 4.00 –
* Calculated values.
1 Supplied per kilogram of diet: 9 000 IU vitamin A; 1 500 IU cholecalciferol; 22 mg vitamin E;
2 mg vitamin K3; 1 mg vitamin B1; 85 mg Mn; 80 mg Zn; 30 mg Fe; 15 mg Cu.
2 Supplied per kilogram of diet: 3.48 mg vitamin E; 34.22 mg Mn; 29.58 mg Zn; 17.40 mg Fe;
4.64 mg Cu; 1.16 mg I.
Methyl esters were identified and quanti- fied by comparison with standards (Sigma, St Quentin Fallavier, France).
2.4. Statistical analysis
Data were analysed by analysis of vari- ance using the SAS General Linear Model procedure [27]. The model included the main effects of genotype, feeding plan and their interaction. Significant differ-
ences between means were shown in the different groups according to the Newman- Keul test.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Feed consumption, growth
performance and body composition of ducks
Muscovy ducks displayed the lowest feed conversion ratios and consumption
Table II.Chemical composition of feed for rearing and overfeeding periods. The preparation for overfeeding contained corn (25%), corn meal (35%) and water (40%).
Composition (%) Starting Growing Overfeeding
(0–4 weeks) (4–12 weeks) (12–14 weeks)
Dry matter 89.86 89.21 89.25
Crude protein 18.21 15.98 8.28
Minerals 5.92 5.03 1.57
Total lipids 3.34 2.84 3.38
Triglycerides* 76.68 77.18 89.01
Cholesterol* 5.72 4.97 3.37
Phospholipids* 17.60 17.83 7.62
ΣSFA** 17.17 16.10 14.52
C16:0 12.31 12.55 11.56
C18:0 3.06 2.37 2.03
C20:0 1.03 1.18 0.94
C22:0 0.77 nd nd
ΣMUFA** 24.98 28.36 27.43
C18:1 n-9 24.98 28.36 27.43
ΣPUFA** 57.85 55.54 58.03
C18:2 n-6 54.24 53.32 56.80
C18:3 n-3 3.61 2.22 1.23
PUFA+MUFA/SFA 4.82 5.21 5.89
SFA, MUFA, PUFA=Saturated, Mono-Unsaturated and Poly-Unsatured Fatty Acids.
*=Expressed as % of total lipids. **=Expressed as % of total fatty acids nd=not detected.
Table III.The effects of duck genotype on feed conversion ratio (FCR, kg of feed/kg of weight gain) during the rearing period (0 to 12 weeks), total feed consumption of equivalent dry maize (g) during the overfeeding period (12 to 14 weeks), total feed consumption (g) of control ducks during the same period (n=1) and body weight (BW, g) during the rearing period (mean±SEM, n=50).
Periods Muscovy Hinny Mule Pekin
FCR during the rearing period 2.76 3.23 3.29 3.63
Total consumption of overfeeding diet 8219 10341 10552 9674
Total consumption of growing diet 3112 4027 4295 3923
BW at 4 weeks 1257±92 d 1593±85 c 1684±115 b 1741±124 a BW at 6 weeks 2715±148 c 2626±148 d 2846±209 b 2985±183 a BW at 12 weeks 4919±323 a 4588±395 b 4622±314 b 4477±294 b a–d: Significant difference between genotypes for one parameter,P<0.05.
of maize or growing diet during the rear- ing and overfeeding periods, respectively (Tab. III). Pekin ducks had the highest feed conversion ratios during the rearing period.
Mule ducks displayed the highest ingestion capacity during the overfeeding period.
By comparison with the other geno- types, Muscovy ducks exhibited the low- est body weights at 4 weeks of age, and the highest at 12 and 14 weeks of age (Tabs. III, IV). Between 4 and 14 weeks of age, body weights of control Muscovy
TableIV.Theeffectsofgenotypeandoverfeedingonbodyweight(g),weight(g)ofliver,muscles(P.majorandI.superficialis)andabdominal fat,totallipid,triglyceride,cholesterolandphospholipidlevels(gper100goftissue)inP.majorandI.superficialismusclesandabdominalfatin 14-week-oldducks(means±SEM–n=8). FattyacidsMuscovyHinnyMulePekinGenotypeOverfeeding OverfedControlOverfedControlOverfedControlOverfedControleffecteffect Bodyweight6393±441a5418±245b6315±402a4854±497c6473±351a4455±392c5999±353a4623±426c****** Liverweight467±90a77±7c495±85a61±6c494±97a61±13c318±75b56±11c****** P.major Weight408±49398±39290±25297±29309±28278±30208±33216±18***ns Totallipids3.65±0.512.26±0.365.92±0.983.87±1.445.24±0.963.13±0.547.57±0.854.59±0.68****** Triglycerides2.37±0.47d1.02±0.24e4.35±0.76b2.19±0.87d3.66±0.91c1.79±0.32d5.95±0.86a3.09±0.58c****** Cholesterol0.13±0.050.12±0.040.14±0.050.16±0.080.16±0.040.13±0.030.15±0.020.17±0.03nsns Phospholipids1.15±0.171.13±0.101.43±0.261.53±0.511.42±0.111.21±0.241.46±0.131.33±0.15**ns I.superficialis Weight30.09±3.2632.82±4.3723.01±2.5122.93±3.5523.06±3.0822.34±2.4619.00±1.6319.48±2.79***ns Totallipids2.52±0.612.16±0.293.99±0.973.16±0.613.74±0.612.79±0.395.73±0.764.55±0.54****** Triglycerides1.54±0.481.30±0.322.75±0.822.12±0.562.55±0.561.88±0.304.20±0.683.39±0.51****** Cholesterol0.11±0.020.12±0.020.14±0.030.13±0.030.14±0.010.11±0.010.17±0.040.15±0.04***ns Phospholipids0.87±0.190.73±0.081.10±0.160.90±0.071.05±0.120.80±0.111.35±0.181.00±0.07****** Abdominalfat Weight220±23109±20256±27107±35224±4273±35265±22155±29****** Totallipids94.60±3.2289.00±9.1493.23±4.0291.89±4.5590.98±10.6189.39±5.8496.88±3.2391.35±4.12ns* Triglycerides93.80±3.1287.75±9.2092.00±3.9290.46±4.4190.03±10.4388.02±5.9095.87±3.0989.00±4.92ns** Cholesterol0.44±0.150.59±0.150.93±0.220.74±0.220.60±0.240.65±0.250.62±0.331.74±2.06nsns Phospholipids0.36±0.250.65±0.410.30±0.260.68±0.380.35±0.150.72±0.750.39±0.140.61±0.41ns** *,**,***:Significanteffect,P<0.05,P<0.01,P<0.001;ns=nonsignificant. a–e:Significantdifferencebetweengroupsforonecriterion,P<0.05(interactionbetweengenotypeandoverfeeding).
ducks were 4.3 times higher whereas they were 2.6 to 3.0 times higher for the other genotypes.
By comparison with other genotypes, Pekin ducks had the lowest liver weights.
Muscovy ducks had the highest muscle weights (Tab. IV).
By comparison with control ducks, overfeeding induced a significant increase in body (+30%), liver (7-fold) and abdom- inal fat (2.2-fold) weights but had no effect on muscle weight (Tab. IV). The increase in body weight was about 45% for mule ducks, 30% for hinny and Pekin ducks and 18% for Muscovy ducks. Liver weight was 8.1 times higher for mule and hinny ducks, 6.1 times higher for Muscovy ducks and 5.7 times higher for Pekin ducks.
3.2. Lipid levels and composition in muscle and adipose tissues By comparison with other genotypes, Muscovy ducks exhibited the lowest lipid, triglyceride and phospholipid levels in muscles and Pekin ducks the highest levels of lipids and triglycerides (Tab. IV). Pekin ducks had the highest cholesterol levels in I. superficialismuscle. InP. majormuscle, the cholesterol levels were similar for all genotypes. Triglyceride and phospholipid levels were lower in I. superficialis than inP. majormuscles (calculated average of 2.47 vs. 3.05 and 0.98 vs. 1.33 g per 100 g of muscle) and cholesterol levels were sim- ilar (calculated average of 0.14 g per 100 g of muscle). Genotype had no significant ef- fect on lipid levels or lipid classes in ab- dominal fat (Tab. IV). Abdominal fat had 30 times more triglycerides than breast muscle (calculated average of 91 vs. 3 g per 100 g of tissue) and 6 times more choles- terol (calculated average of 0.79 vs. 0.14 g per 100 g of tissue). By contrast, phospho- lipid levels were lower (calculated average of 0.51 vs. 1.33 g per 100 g of tissue).
Overfeeding induced a significant in- crease in lipid levels ofP. major(1.6-fold) andI. superficialismuscles (1.3-fold) and a slight increase in the amount of abdom- inal fat (+4%, Tab. IV). Triglyceride lev- els only increased in the P. major mus- cle (2.0-fold, Tab. IV). Triglyceride and phospholipid levels were higher in overfed ducks than in control ducks in I. superfi- cialismuscle (+27% for both lipid classes, Tab. IV). Overfeeding induced a significant increase in triglyceride levels (+4.6%) to the detriment of phospholipid levels in ab- dominal fat (Tab. IV).
The main fatty acids in muscle and adipose tissues were C16:0 (23–25%) and C18:0 (7–10%) (saturated fatty acids, SFA), C18:1 n-9 (40–52%) and C16:1 n- 7 (3–4%) (mono-unsaturated fatty acids, MUFA), C18:2 n-6 (12–13%) and C20:4 n-6 (4–5%) (poly-unsaturated fatty acids, PUFA, Tabs. V–VII). This latter was not detected in abdominal fat (Tab. VII). Mus- cles and fatty tissues contained high pro- portions of n-6 fatty acids and very low proportions of n-3 fatty acids. I. super- ficialis muscle had higher proportions of MUFA and lower proportions of SFA and PUFA than theP. majormuscle (Tab. VI).
Abdominal fat had higher proportions of MUFA and lower proportions of PUFA than muscle tissues. Overall Pekin ducks exhibited the highest proportions of MUFA and the lowest proportions of SFA and PUFA in all tissues analysed (Tabs. V–
VII). Muscovy ducks exhibited the highest proportions of SFA and PUFA and the low- est proportions of MUFA.
In all tissues, overfeeding induced an increase in the proportions of MUFA and a decrease in the proportions of PUFA (Tabs. V–VII). The increase in the pro- portions of SFA was only significant in I. superficialismuscle and abdominal fat.
Calculating the amounts of fatty acids per 100 g of tissue showed that overfeed- ing finally induced large increases in SFA and MUFA levels in all tissues (Fig. 1).
TableV.Theeffectsofgenotypeandoverfeedingonfattyacidcomposition(%oftotalfattyacids)oftotallipidsinP.majormusclein14-week-old ducks(means±SEM–n=8). FattyacidsMuscovyHinnyMulePekinGenotypeOverfeeding OverfedControlOverfedControlOverfedControlOverfedControleffecteffect C13:00.22±0.30b1.48±1.00a0.05±0.15b0.32±0.35b0.16±0.23b0.47±0.56b0.11±0.19b0.40±0.27b****** C14:00.49±0.360.43±0.660.37±0.150.14±0.250.44±0.050.41±0.620.35±0.150.46±0.34nsns C16:026.25±1.0824.19±2.3725.66±1.6124.40±2.3426.08±1.0724.97±1.9423.24±0.8423.40±1.08*** C17:0nd0.12±0.35ndndnd0.13±0.37ndndnsns C18:010.06±0.84ab11.21±1.41a9.75±0.71b9.40±1.44b10.39±0.94ab9.71±1.16b9.22±0.64b7.46±0.78c***ns C20:0nd0.17±0.34ndndnd0.26±0.57ndndnsns C24:00.95±0.111.60±0.880.57±0.081.09±0.170.83±0.280.96±0.810.49±0.040.72±0.30**** ΣSFA37.97±1.2239.20±1.5936.40±1.8035.35±3.3137.91±1.1936.92±1.8233.39±1.3132.42±1.15***ns C15:1n-51.29±0.65c3.21±0.60a0.86±0.19cd1.82±0.41b1.24±0.28c2.11±0.64b0.60±0.12d1.09±0.28cd****** C16:1n-73.10±0.24b2.47±0.76c3.20±0.25b3.24±0.49b3.25±0.33b3.29±0.88b3.60±0.36b4.18±0.61a***ns C17:1n-70.53±0.120.62±0.570.44±0.050.42±0.470.56±0.080.38±0.430.40±0.040.40±0.25nsns C18:1n-941.37±2.03b30.58±2.07d43.89±2.66b37.38±3.79c40.60±1.02b36.06±3.10c46.58±2.10a43.51±2.17b****** C20:1n-90.06±0.180.31±0.600.13±0.24ndnd0.37±0.700.44±0.190.08±0.22nsns ΣMUFA46.35±1.61c37.20±2.24e48.52±2.61bc42.86±3.42d45.66±0.92c42.22±3.18d51.62±1.79a49.26±2.25ab****** C18:2n-611.62±0.82d16.04±1.02a11.26±0.50d15.47±0.95ab11.71±0.78d14.59±1.43b11.30±0.70d13.49±0.83c****** C18:3n-30.08±0.160.30±0.650.33±0.140.31±0.340.20±0.210.33±0.720.46±0.040.64±0.35nsns C20:3n-60.29±0.34nd0.33±0.23nd0.34±0.240.19±0.540.55±0.170.05±0.13ns* C20:4n-63.70±0.60cd7.26±1.42a3.15±0.50cd6.02±0.98b4.18±0.61c5.75±1.75b2.68±0.37d4.14±1.11c****** ΣPUFA15.69±1.39d23.60±1.86a15.08±1.00d21.80±1.26b16.43±1.32d20.86±3.27b14.99±1.03d18.32±1.77c****** MUFA/SFA1.64±0.091.55±0.101.75±0.151.85±0.291.64±0.081.71±0.122.00±0.122.09±0.11***ns PUFA/SFA0.41±0.040.60±0.060.41±0.020.62±0.070.44±0.050.57±0.100.45±0.030.56±0.05ns*** Σn-615.60±1.45cd23.30±1.95a14.75±0.97d21.49±1.40b16.23±1.41cd20.53±3.06b14.53±1.00d17.68±1.82c****** Σn-30.08±0.160.30±0.650.33±0.140.31±0.340.20±0.210.33±0.720.46±0.040.64±0.35nsns *,**,***:Significanteffect,P<0.05,P<0.01,P<0.001;ns=nonsignificant;nd=notdetected. a–d:Significantdifferencebetweengroupsforonecriterion,P<0.05(interactionbetweengenotypeandoverfeeding). SFA,MUFA,PUFA=Saturated,Mono-UnsaturatedandPoly-UnsaturedFattyAcids.
TableVI.Theeffectsofgenotypeandoverfeedingonfattyacidcomposition(%oftotalfattyacids)oftotallipidsinI.superficialismusclein14-week- oldducks(means±SEM–n=8). FattyacidsMuscovyHinnyMulePekinGenotypeOverfeeding OverfedControlOverfedControlOverfedControlOverfedControleffecteffect C13:01.91±0.860.72±1.011.14±0.280.14±0.341.01±0.350.16±0.341.05±0.450.23±0.37***** C14:00.15±0.270.07±0.190.44±0.270.13±0.210.28±0.300.08±0.170.17±0.240.12±0.19ns** C16:023.76±1.0323.43±1.8823.75±0.6023.16±0.6923.61±1.1923.11±0.3021.00±0.6521.05±0.87***ns C18:010.37±1.37ab11.14±1.11a10.29±1.17ab9.77±1.35ab9.57±0.93b9.06±0.63b9.20±1.11b7.30±0.52c**** C20:0nd1.07±1.27and0.30±0.49bnd0.41±0.44bnd0.07±0.17b**** ΣSFA36.19±1.1936.44±2.8535.61±1.3933.49±1.8234.46±1.1632.82±0.4631.43±1.5328.77±1.28****** C15:1n-52.21±0.522.56±0.831.03±0.221.60±0.291.23±0.271.54±0.290.30±0.350.84±0.18****** C16:1n-74.03±0.29b3.12±0.26c4.36±0.44ab3.84±0.39b4.66±0.42a4.19±0.24ab4.20±0.39ab4.61±0.55a****** C17:1n-70.07±0.190.08±0.24nd0.31±0.370.26±0.280.44±0.300.06±0.18nd**ns C18:1n-941.08±1.7439.53±2.5244.27±1.5941.95±1.4144.17±1.0842.27±2.5650.33±1.3949.28±1.88****** C20:1n-90.07±0.190.16±0.44ndndndnd0.11±0.21ndnsns ΣMUFA47.45±1.5145.46±2.1749.66±1.6347.71±1.2250.31±0.9448.43±2.2255.00±1.4954.73±1.96****** C18:2n-612.07±0.7713.63±2.3111.75±0.5914.41±0.7911.81±0.7514.61±1.1211.21±0.4013.11±0.79**** C18:3n-3nd0.14±0.25nd0.26±0.310.06±0.160.38±0.250.11±0.200.33±0.29ns*** C20:4n-64.29±0.934.35±1.552.97±0.494.12±0.863.37±0.813.75±0.732.25±0.413.06±0.83***** ΣPUFA16.36±1.5018.11±3.7114.72±0.8418.80±0.9615.23±1.3618.75±1.9213.57±0.5316.50±1.33***** MUFA/SFA1.77±0.09d1.76±0.21d1.81±0.11c1.99±0.15c1.91±0.09cd2.05±0.04c2.19±0.16b2.48±0.16a****** PUFA/SFA0.45±0.050.50±0.130.41±0.030.56±0.050.44±0.050.57±0.060.43±0.030.57±0.05ns*** Σn-616.36±1.5017.97±3.6514.72±0.8418.53±0.7615.18±1.4018.36±1.7813.46±0.5316.17±1.53***** Σn-3nd0.14±0.25nd0.26±0.310.06±0.160.38±0.250.11±0.200.33±0.29ns*** *,**,***:Significanteffect,P<0.05,P<0.01,P<0.001;ns=nonsignificant;nd=notdetected. a–d:Significantdifferencebetweengroupsforonecriterion,P<0.05(interactionbetweengenotypeandoverfeeding). SFA,MUFA,PUFA=Saturated,Mono-UnsaturatedandPoly-UnsaturedFattyAcids.
