AMINO ACID PROFILE OF DIFFERENT PRODUCTIVE LINES OF CHICKEN, TURKEY AND PORK MEAT
Background and objectives: The nutritional composition of meat has variated through time due to industrialization of production systems, genetic improvement and lean carcasses design experienced by domestic animals. Objective: Compare the amino acid (AA) composition of cuts of chicken, turkey and po...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of nutrition and metabolism 2017-10, Vol.71 (Suppl. 2), p.1067 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | Suppl. 2 |
| container_start_page | 1067 |
| container_title | Annals of nutrition and metabolism |
| container_volume | 71 |
| creator | Figueroa, Constanza Bas, Fernando Larrain, Rafael Matilla, Eugenio Dorta, Eva |
| description | Background and objectives: The nutritional composition of meat has variated through time due to industrialization of production systems, genetic improvement and lean carcasses design experienced by domestic animals. Objective: Compare the amino acid (AA) composition of cuts of chicken, turkey and pork meat with standards utilized for the evaluation of AA of the Chilean diet. Methods: The samples of chicken cuts (wings, breast, thigh, leg, liver and gizzard), turkey (whole, breast, thigh and leg) and pork (veiled chop, ribs, fillet, leg, shoulder, bacon-loin and heart), were given by the company Agrosuper and selected by the investigators. The samples where homogenized and freezed at -20°C before the analysis. A T-Test was performed to estimate the difference between AA analysis and AA composition referred by the FAO 1981. Results: Chicken thigh had less concentration for all AA (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1159/000480486 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2061893983</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2061893983</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_20618939833</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNi8sKwjAURIMoWB8L_yDg1upNn8mypDc0VFOtUXAlLupCxFf1_23BDxAGDsyZIWTCYM5YKBYAEPAmUYc4LPCYKyIRd4kDXghuxCHuk0FdXwCYx4PQIZtkpU1BE6lTui4LpZdIC0VTrRSWaGxbpjtp9R7pUhvctlZmWuZoZtTuyhwPNDHNuShzusLEjkjvfLrW1fjHIZkqtDJzH6_781PV7-Pl_nndGnX0IGJc-IL7_n-rLzYGO34</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2061893983</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>AMINO ACID PROFILE OF DIFFERENT PRODUCTIVE LINES OF CHICKEN, TURKEY AND PORK MEAT</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Karger Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Figueroa, Constanza ; Bas, Fernando ; Larrain, Rafael ; Matilla, Eugenio ; Dorta, Eva</creator><creatorcontrib>Figueroa, Constanza ; Bas, Fernando ; Larrain, Rafael ; Matilla, Eugenio ; Dorta, Eva</creatorcontrib><description>Background and objectives: The nutritional composition of meat has variated through time due to industrialization of production systems, genetic improvement and lean carcasses design experienced by domestic animals. Objective: Compare the amino acid (AA) composition of cuts of chicken, turkey and pork meat with standards utilized for the evaluation of AA of the Chilean diet. Methods: The samples of chicken cuts (wings, breast, thigh, leg, liver and gizzard), turkey (whole, breast, thigh and leg) and pork (veiled chop, ribs, fillet, leg, shoulder, bacon-loin and heart), were given by the company Agrosuper and selected by the investigators. The samples where homogenized and freezed at -20°C before the analysis. A T-Test was performed to estimate the difference between AA analysis and AA composition referred by the FAO 1981. Results: Chicken thigh had less concentration for all AA (p<0,05) according to the standard, meanwhile, fillet and shoulder had higher amount of almost all AA (p=0,05), except for isoleucine, which had lower concentration (p<0,05). All turkey cuts presented a smaller amount in relation to the standard for phenylalanine (p<0,05). The whole turkey presented higher concentration of threonine, leucine, and lysine (p=0,02, 0,01 and <0,0001 respectively); the breast had higher concentration of leucine and lysine (p=0,03 and 0,002) and lower in valine (p=0,03); the thigh had less amount for all AA except for arginine, leucine and lysine (p=0,41, 0,08 and 0,86 respectively); turkey leg had higher concentration of leucine and lysine (p=0,006 and 0,006), and less of proline, valine, methionine, phenylalanine (p=0,02, 0,04, 0,03 and 0,01). Conclusions: There is a difference between the AA composition of some cuts of chicken, turkey and pork meat and the standard. An explanation for this situation could be the genetic and nutrition improvement of these animals that modified their nutritional composition.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0250-6807</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1421-9697</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1159/000480486</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: S. Karger AG</publisher><subject>Amino acid composition ; Amino acids ; Animals ; Arginine ; Bacon ; Carcasses ; Chickens ; Comparative analysis ; Composition ; Domestic animals ; Gizzard ; Isoleucine ; Leg ; Leucine ; Liver ; Lysine ; Meat ; Methionine ; Nutrition ; Phenylalanine ; Pork ; Poultry ; Proline ; Shoulder ; Thigh ; Threonine ; Valine</subject><ispartof>Annals of nutrition and metabolism, 2017-10, Vol.71 (Suppl. 2), p.1067</ispartof><rights>Copyright S. Karger AG Oct 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27929,27930</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Figueroa, Constanza</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bas, Fernando</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larrain, Rafael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matilla, Eugenio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dorta, Eva</creatorcontrib><title>AMINO ACID PROFILE OF DIFFERENT PRODUCTIVE LINES OF CHICKEN, TURKEY AND PORK MEAT</title><title>Annals of nutrition and metabolism</title><description>Background and objectives: The nutritional composition of meat has variated through time due to industrialization of production systems, genetic improvement and lean carcasses design experienced by domestic animals. Objective: Compare the amino acid (AA) composition of cuts of chicken, turkey and pork meat with standards utilized for the evaluation of AA of the Chilean diet. Methods: The samples of chicken cuts (wings, breast, thigh, leg, liver and gizzard), turkey (whole, breast, thigh and leg) and pork (veiled chop, ribs, fillet, leg, shoulder, bacon-loin and heart), were given by the company Agrosuper and selected by the investigators. The samples where homogenized and freezed at -20°C before the analysis. A T-Test was performed to estimate the difference between AA analysis and AA composition referred by the FAO 1981. Results: Chicken thigh had less concentration for all AA (p<0,05) according to the standard, meanwhile, fillet and shoulder had higher amount of almost all AA (p=0,05), except for isoleucine, which had lower concentration (p<0,05). All turkey cuts presented a smaller amount in relation to the standard for phenylalanine (p<0,05). The whole turkey presented higher concentration of threonine, leucine, and lysine (p=0,02, 0,01 and <0,0001 respectively); the breast had higher concentration of leucine and lysine (p=0,03 and 0,002) and lower in valine (p=0,03); the thigh had less amount for all AA except for arginine, leucine and lysine (p=0,41, 0,08 and 0,86 respectively); turkey leg had higher concentration of leucine and lysine (p=0,006 and 0,006), and less of proline, valine, methionine, phenylalanine (p=0,02, 0,04, 0,03 and 0,01). Conclusions: There is a difference between the AA composition of some cuts of chicken, turkey and pork meat and the standard. An explanation for this situation could be the genetic and nutrition improvement of these animals that modified their nutritional composition.</description><subject>Amino acid composition</subject><subject>Amino acids</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Arginine</subject><subject>Bacon</subject><subject>Carcasses</subject><subject>Chickens</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Composition</subject><subject>Domestic animals</subject><subject>Gizzard</subject><subject>Isoleucine</subject><subject>Leg</subject><subject>Leucine</subject><subject>Liver</subject><subject>Lysine</subject><subject>Meat</subject><subject>Methionine</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Phenylalanine</subject><subject>Pork</subject><subject>Poultry</subject><subject>Proline</subject><subject>Shoulder</subject><subject>Thigh</subject><subject>Threonine</subject><subject>Valine</subject><issn>0250-6807</issn><issn>1421-9697</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNi8sKwjAURIMoWB8L_yDg1upNn8mypDc0VFOtUXAlLupCxFf1_23BDxAGDsyZIWTCYM5YKBYAEPAmUYc4LPCYKyIRd4kDXghuxCHuk0FdXwCYx4PQIZtkpU1BE6lTui4LpZdIC0VTrRSWaGxbpjtp9R7pUhvctlZmWuZoZtTuyhwPNDHNuShzusLEjkjvfLrW1fjHIZkqtDJzH6_781PV7-Pl_nndGnX0IGJc-IL7_n-rLzYGO34</recordid><startdate>20171001</startdate><enddate>20171001</enddate><creator>Figueroa, Constanza</creator><creator>Bas, Fernando</creator><creator>Larrain, Rafael</creator><creator>Matilla, Eugenio</creator><creator>Dorta, Eva</creator><general>S. Karger AG</general><scope>7QP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171001</creationdate><title>AMINO ACID PROFILE OF DIFFERENT PRODUCTIVE LINES OF CHICKEN, TURKEY AND PORK MEAT</title><author>Figueroa, Constanza ; Bas, Fernando ; Larrain, Rafael ; Matilla, Eugenio ; Dorta, Eva</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_20618939833</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Amino acid composition</topic><topic>Amino acids</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Arginine</topic><topic>Bacon</topic><topic>Carcasses</topic><topic>Chickens</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Composition</topic><topic>Domestic animals</topic><topic>Gizzard</topic><topic>Isoleucine</topic><topic>Leg</topic><topic>Leucine</topic><topic>Liver</topic><topic>Lysine</topic><topic>Meat</topic><topic>Methionine</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Phenylalanine</topic><topic>Pork</topic><topic>Poultry</topic><topic>Proline</topic><topic>Shoulder</topic><topic>Thigh</topic><topic>Threonine</topic><topic>Valine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Figueroa, Constanza</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bas, Fernando</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larrain, Rafael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matilla, Eugenio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dorta, Eva</creatorcontrib><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><jtitle>Annals of nutrition and metabolism</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Figueroa, Constanza</au><au>Bas, Fernando</au><au>Larrain, Rafael</au><au>Matilla, Eugenio</au><au>Dorta, Eva</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>AMINO ACID PROFILE OF DIFFERENT PRODUCTIVE LINES OF CHICKEN, TURKEY AND PORK MEAT</atitle><jtitle>Annals of nutrition and metabolism</jtitle><date>2017-10-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>71</volume><issue>Suppl. 2</issue><spage>1067</spage><pages>1067-</pages><issn>0250-6807</issn><eissn>1421-9697</eissn><abstract>Background and objectives: The nutritional composition of meat has variated through time due to industrialization of production systems, genetic improvement and lean carcasses design experienced by domestic animals. Objective: Compare the amino acid (AA) composition of cuts of chicken, turkey and pork meat with standards utilized for the evaluation of AA of the Chilean diet. Methods: The samples of chicken cuts (wings, breast, thigh, leg, liver and gizzard), turkey (whole, breast, thigh and leg) and pork (veiled chop, ribs, fillet, leg, shoulder, bacon-loin and heart), were given by the company Agrosuper and selected by the investigators. The samples where homogenized and freezed at -20°C before the analysis. A T-Test was performed to estimate the difference between AA analysis and AA composition referred by the FAO 1981. Results: Chicken thigh had less concentration for all AA (p<0,05) according to the standard, meanwhile, fillet and shoulder had higher amount of almost all AA (p=0,05), except for isoleucine, which had lower concentration (p<0,05). All turkey cuts presented a smaller amount in relation to the standard for phenylalanine (p<0,05). The whole turkey presented higher concentration of threonine, leucine, and lysine (p=0,02, 0,01 and <0,0001 respectively); the breast had higher concentration of leucine and lysine (p=0,03 and 0,002) and lower in valine (p=0,03); the thigh had less amount for all AA except for arginine, leucine and lysine (p=0,41, 0,08 and 0,86 respectively); turkey leg had higher concentration of leucine and lysine (p=0,006 and 0,006), and less of proline, valine, methionine, phenylalanine (p=0,02, 0,04, 0,03 and 0,01). Conclusions: There is a difference between the AA composition of some cuts of chicken, turkey and pork meat and the standard. An explanation for this situation could be the genetic and nutrition improvement of these animals that modified their nutritional composition.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>S. Karger AG</pub><doi>10.1159/000480486</doi></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0250-6807 |
| ispartof | Annals of nutrition and metabolism, 2017-10, Vol.71 (Suppl. 2), p.1067 |
| issn | 0250-6807 1421-9697 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2061893983 |
| source | JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Karger Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Amino acid composition Amino acids Animals Arginine Bacon Carcasses Chickens Comparative analysis Composition Domestic animals Gizzard Isoleucine Leg Leucine Liver Lysine Meat Methionine Nutrition Phenylalanine Pork Poultry Proline Shoulder Thigh Threonine Valine |
| title | AMINO ACID PROFILE OF DIFFERENT PRODUCTIVE LINES OF CHICKEN, TURKEY AND PORK MEAT |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T13%3A38%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=AMINO%20ACID%20PROFILE%20OF%20DIFFERENT%20PRODUCTIVE%20LINES%20OF%20CHICKEN,%20TURKEY%20AND%20PORK%20MEAT&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20nutrition%20and%20metabolism&rft.au=Figueroa,%20Constanza&rft.date=2017-10-01&rft.volume=71&rft.issue=Suppl.%202&rft.spage=1067&rft.pages=1067-&rft.issn=0250-6807&rft.eissn=1421-9697&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159/000480486&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2061893983%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2061893983&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |