Serum Biochemical and Meat Fatty Acid Profiles of Different Chicken Genotypes ()
1. Introduction
The poultry sector is possibly the fastest growing and most flexible of all livestock sectors expanding in countries of all income levels [1]. Cholesterol has been defined to be a member of class of lipids that contain the same four ring system [2] and serve as component of cell membrane and precursor for synthesis of all other steroids [3]. References have confirmed that Triglycerides can be defined as ester of fatty acids with trihydric alcohol [4]. Lipoproteins like HDL have been witnessed as aggregate of lipids and proteins that carry cholesterol from the body to the liver as opposed to LDL [5]. The lipoproteins in serum could be transported in association with apoproteins as special hydrophilic mechanism to transport in blood [6]. Reports have also noted that lipids in serum could primarily found as cholesterol, triglyceride, and fatty acids [7].
The quality of meat and egg can be measured from the standpoint of consumers and industries [8] [9] [10]. Meats and eggs of chickens deliver essential nutrients for efficient and balanced nutrition in humans [11] [12]. Likewise, meats and eggs have relatively low-fat content, good source of proteins, vitamins, and mineral sources [13] [14] [15] findings. Studies revealed that intake of saturated fat as a percentage of calories had strong correlation with coronary death rates, where each 5% increase of energy from saturated fat was associated with 17% increase in coronary heart diseases and characterized by amyloid beta (AB) deposition in brain impact for age related memory problems [16]. The genetic variability of chickens can influence serum, meat, and egg by affecting Stearoyl-CoA Desaturase (SCD) gene expression and Lipogenic enzymes activity [17] studies.
Proportion of saturated fatty acid and unsaturated fatty acid in chickens could affect human health [18]. Polyunsaturated (PUFA) and monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) have cholesterol-lowering properties [19]. Polyunsaturated (PUFA) to monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) regularly used to describe the balance of fatty acid composition of nutritional ingredients and health importance as stated in [20].
The rationale for the initiation of this research was that the serum biochemical and meat fatty acid profiles of the Cosmopolitan (C), Improved Horro (H), Cosmopolitan♂*♀Improved Horro (CH), Improved Horro♂*♀Cosmopolitan (HC), indigenous (L) and Koekkoek (KK) chickens and the role of genetics to produce healthy eggs and meats for consumption and marketing were not studied. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the selected chicken genotypes and sexes on serum biochemical parameters, meat fatty acid profiles and their correlations.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of the Study Areas
The experiment was conducted at Werer Agricultural Research Centre (WARC) of 280 km way from Addis Ababa. The Werer Agricultural Research Center was found at an altitude of 820 meters above sea level and at 9˚55'N latitude and 40˚40'E longitude. The annual rainfall and average minimum and maximum temperatures for Werer Agricultural Research Center ranges from 400 mm to 600 mm, and 19.3˚C and 45˚C, respectively.
2.2. Sampling Procedures and Experimental Animals
A total of 144 chickens were transported from Werer Agricultural Research Center and three-day rest periods were provided before slaughter at Debrezeit Agricultural Research Center at 24 weeks of age from six genotypes and sexes (72 males and 72 females). The chickens were slaughtered following the guidelines approved by the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). Moreover, after stunning the chickens were slaughtered. The chickens were scalded at recommended water temperature 53˚C. The scalded chickens were defeathered. The defeathered carcasses were eviscerated, washed and placed in airtight plastic bags and carcasses were chilled for 24 h at 4˚C. After chilling, the carcass samples were prepared and taken for farther laboratory analyses.
2.3. Determination of Serum Biochemical Parameters
Blood samples were collected from six genotypes and sexes of the chickens under study. Moreover, from each chicken sex twelve blood samples were collected. The total blood samples collected were 144 from all chickens considered. Then each chicken was taken as much as 10 ml from axillary vein by using disposable syringe. Blood sample inserted into vacuum tubes containing anticoagulant ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA). The blood samples were centrifuged at 3000 g for 10 min, and the serum was stored in a freezer at −20˚C until analyses. The blood sample collection and serum separation were done. The methods used for total cholesterol, Triglycerides, High density lipoproteins and Low-density lipoproteins determination from serum samples collected from each chicken were automatically determined by Roche/Hitachi cobas c 501 systems using the Enzymatic colorimetric method (Roche 501). The results were expressed in mg/dl.
2.4. Fatty Acid Profile Determination
The meat was dried at temperature of 60˚C for 72 h using an oven according to the standard meat drying method. After drying, the meat size was reduced by grinder. Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) was prepared. Ten gram of homogenate meat was weighed into a screw cap glass vial along with an internal standard solution of tridecanoic acid (0.5 mg/mL in methanol). The Vials were placed in a water bath for incubation at 55˚C. Hexane was used to extract FAME prior to analysis by gas liquid chromatography (GC). Separation of FAME was carried. The separation of FAME was equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID). The Gas Chromatography (GC) was operated. The injector was held at 250˚C fitted with deactivated split/splitless liner packed with glass wool. The column head pressure was 195.6 kPa and a total flow rate of 129.1 mL/min. The oven method was carried on in such a way by increasing temperature at 35˚C held for 2 min, increased to a temperature of 170˚C at the rate of 4˚C/min, held for 4 min, then increased to a temperature of 240˚C at the rate of 3.5˚C/min, held for 7 min. The Hydrogen was used as the carrier gas and the FID was operated at 250˚C. Fatty acids was identified based on the similarity of retention times with the GC reference standards. Finally, 36 meat samples were analyzed for fatty acid profile determination study.
2.5. Experimental Design
A factorial arrangement having two factors (Genotypes and Sex) was used. The study was employed in CRD design. There were about 12 blood samples collected and separated from each sex of the chickens used. A total of 144 serum samples were taken to Ethiopian Public Health Institute for total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), low density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) laboratory analysis for the study.
2.6. Statistical Analyses
The data was recorded as per the prepared recording sheet and was entered into excel regularly. The data collected was summarized and analyzed by GLM model using SAS software. When the GLM showed presence of significant difference among the different samples at P < 0.05, the Duncan’s multiple range tests was used for mean separation.
The model used for the analysis was:
where,
Yijk = the response variables.
µ = the overall Mean.
β1i = the effect of sex.
β2j = the effect of genotype.
(β1β2)ij = The effect of interaction between sex and genotype.
eijk = Random error.
3. Results and Discussion
Effect of Sex and Genotype on Serum Biochemical Parameters
Mean concentration of serum biochemical parameters of KK, CH, HC, C, H and L chickens at 24 weeks of age were in Table 1. In this study, it was revealed that mean values of TC for KK, CH, HC, C, H and L were 170.90 ± 6.17, 159.98 ±
![]()
Table 1. Effect of sex and genotype on chicken serum biochemical parameters.
abcdMean values under the same category across column that bear different superscript letters are significantly different, Ns = P > 0.05, *** = P < 0.001, ** = P < 0.01, * = P < 0.05, SE = standard error of mean, KK = Koekoek, H = Horro, C = Cosmopolitan, HC = Horro male and Cosmopolitan female crosses, CH = Cosmopolitan male and Horro female crosses.
4.44, 154.29 ± 3.39, 153.65 ± 4.82, 151.79 ± 3.87 and 148.88 ± 2.96 mg/dl, respectively. Moreover, KK had significantly higher TC concentration (P ≤ 0.001) than CH, HC, C, H and L genotypes.
There were significantly higher TC concentrations (P ≤ 0.001) in male (167.50 ± 2.59) than female (145.66 ± 1.28) among genotypes. TC concentration of male and female for KK and L chickens were 189.41 ± 4.62, 152.38 ± 3.01, 157.62 ± 2.72 and 140.13 ± 0.71 mg/dl, consecutively. In addition, significantly higher TC concentrations (P ≤ 0.001) were obtained in male than female KK and L chickens. TC concentration of male and female for CH and HC chickens were 171.73 ± 4.60, 148.24 ± 3.21, 163.18 ± 3.94 and 145.40 ± 1.87 mg/dl, respectively. Similarly, male had significantly higher TC concentration (P ≤ 0.01) than female CH and HC chickens. TC concentration of male and female for C and H chickens were 162.39 ± 7.02, 144.91 ± 4.74, 160.68 ± 5.39 and 142.90 ± 2.27 mg/dl, consecutively. Besides, significantly higher TC concentrations (P ≤ 0.05) were observed in male than female C and H within chickens.
Slow growing chickens had significantly (P < 0.05) lower serum TC concentration (152.25 ± 5.39 mg/dl) than fast growing (180.91 ± 6.49 mg/dl) chickens [21]. Likewise, indigenous (146.44 ± 2.28 mg/dl) chicken had significantly (P < 0.001) lower serum TC content than broiler (170.63 ± 3.02 mg/dl) chickens [22]. Similarly, indigenous (107.13 ± 12.26 mg/dl) chicken had significantly (P < 0.01) lower serum TC content than broiler (209.50 ± 5.67 mg/dl) chickens [23]. Male showed significantly (P < 0.01) higher level of TC than female in Anka and Rugao chickens as observed in [24] scrutiny. TH slow growing chickens had significantly (P < 0.05) lower meat TC compared to SH, BPR and THB fast growing chickens [25]. Lipogenic enzymes such as lipoprotein lipase, hepatic lipase, HMGCoA-reductase, and cholesterol 7a-hydroxylase might affect endogenous TC concentration [26] [27] studies. Lipoproteins were found highly sensitive to hormonal and genetic modulation [7] [28]. The difference in cholesterol and other steroid levels could affect the production and reproduction performances [21] [29].
Mean values of TG for KK, CH, HC, C, H and L were 133.94 ± 2.63, 130.19 ± 2.02, 128.64 ± 1.57, 126.31 ± 1.06 and 125.61 ± 1.06 and 124.65 ± 0.94 mg/dl, in that order. Moreover, KK had significantly higher TG concentration (P ≤ 0.001) than CH, HC, C, H and L genotypes. Likewise, there were significantly higher TG concentration (P ≤ 0.001) in male (132.26 ± 1.09) than female (124.19 ± 0.44) among chickens. It was noted that TG concentration of male and female for KK and L were 141.82 ± 2.01, 126.07 ± 1.27 and 126.76 ± 1.19 and 122.54 ± 0.83 mg/dl, congruently. Additionally, significantly higher TG concentrations (P ≤ 0.001) were noted in male than female KK and L chickens. TG concentration of male and female for CH and HC were 135.43 ± 2.45, 124.96 ± 0.96, 133.32 ± 1.05 and 123.96 ± 1.00 mg/dl, respectively. Further, male had significantly higher TG concentration (P ≤ 0.01) than female for CH but significantly higher (P ≤ 0.001) for HC chickens. TG concentration of male and female for C and H chickens were 128.82 ± 1.39, 123.80 ± 0.70 and 127.43 ± 1.23 and 123.79 ± 1.45 mg/dl, successively. Significantly higher TG concentrations (P ≤ 0.05) were found in male than female for C and H chickens. TG was significantly affected (P ≤ 0.001) by genotype and sex interaction among the chickens.
There were significantly (P < 0.05) lower serum TG levels observed Dandarawi (139.15 mg/dl) than in Dokki (143.16 mg/dl) of native Egyptian chickens [30]. There were significant (P < 0.01) variations in serum TG levels among the chickens [26] [31]. TH slow growing chickens had significantly (P < 0.05) lower meat TG compared to SH, BPR and THB fast growing chickens [25]. TG concentration might be varied due to acetyl-CoA carboxylase [18] and fatty acid synthase [24]. Similarly, TG concentration might be influenced due to insulin activities [2]. TG concentration might be affected due to acyl-Coenzyme oxidase1 (ACOX1) and carnitine palmitoyltransferase1 (CPT1) [5]. Added, TG concentration might be affected due to stearoyl-coa desaturase (SCD) [27]. Likewise, TG concentration might be affected due to Triglyceride lipase (TAG-Lipase) [5]. Adipogenesis inhibitors (1,25-(OH)2D3) could also affect mRNA abundance and expression of genes to influence fat and TG [28].
Mean values of LDL for KK, CH, HC, C, H and L were 91.03 ± 5.22, 88.16 ± 7.73, 87.49 ± 3.91, 83.88 ± 2.78, and 80.78 ± 2.86 and 78.88 ± 3.19 mg/dl, in order. Moreover, KK had significantly higher LDL concentration (P ≤ 0.001) than CH, HC, C, H and L genotypes. Likewise, there were significantly higher LDL concentration (P ≤ 0.001) in male (91.54 ± 2.31) than females (78.53 ± 1.38) among chickens. The study discovered that LDL concentration of male and female for KK and L chickens were 98.14 ± 7.75, 83.92 ± 6.28, 85.21 ± 4.71 and 72.54 ± 2.57 mg/dl, sequentially. Moreover, significantly higher LDL concentration (P ≤ 0.05) were found in male than female KK and L chickens. Results have shown that LDL concentration of male and female for CH and HC chickens were 95.55 ± 5.94, 80.76 ± 2.03, 94.22 ± 6.71, 80.76 ± 2.03 mg/dl, chronologically. Similarly, significantly higher LDL concentration (P ≤ 0.05) were found in male than female CH and HC chickens. It had also shown that LDL concentration of male and female for C and H chickens were 90.75 ± 3.24, 77.00 ± 2.13, and 85.38 ± 4.75 and 76.17 ± 2.23 mg/dl, in sequence. Further, significantly higher LDL concentration (P ≤ 0.05) were found in male than female C and H chickens.
Indigenous (25.80 ± 9.06 mg/dl) chicken had significantly (P < 0.001) lower serum LDL content than broiler (81.94 ± 4.19 mg/dl) chickens [23]. Male showed significantly (P < 0.05) higher level of LDL than female in Anka (52.66 ± 5.63, 34.22 ± 5.21) and Rugao (46.58 ± 7.05, 24.54 ± 5.57) chickens [30], respectively. Lipoprotein lipase and apoB-100 and apoE can regulate the LDL contents [7]. Hepatic lipase may influence the activity of serum LDL levels [6] [23] [27]. The suppression of hepatic lipogenic enzymes is attributed to their ability to suppress or inhibit the expression of genes coding for lipogenic proteins [5] [32]. Aspartate transaminase (AST) and Alanine transaminase (ALT) may determine the liver function and LDL concentration [23] study.
Mean values of HDL for L, H, C, HC, CH, and KK were 86.45 ± 3.20, 84.37 ± 3.43, 79.86 ± 3.63, 78.63 ± 3.56, and 78.38 ± 3.67 and 76.01 ± 3.27 mg/dl, uninterruptedly. Moreover, KK had significantly higher HDL concentration (P ≤ 0.001) than CH, HC, C, H and L genotypes. Likewise, there were significantly higher HDL concentration (P ≤ 0.001) in Female (89.83 ± 1.29) than male (71.40 ± 1.33) among chickens. Study has noted that HDL concentration of female and male for L and KK chickens were 96.04 ± 1.78, 76.85 ± 2.26, 85.45 ± 2.05 and 66.57 ± 2.69 mg/dl, in turn. Besides, significantly higher HDL concentrations (P ≤ 0.001) were found in female than male L and KK chickens. It had observed that HDL concentration of female and male for HC and CH chickens were 88.35 ± 3.58, 68.92 ± 2.25, 88.35 ± 3.58 and 68.42 ± 2.56 mg/dl, in turn. Significantly higher HDL concentrations (P ≤ 0.001) were found in female than male in HC chicken. Besides, significantly higher HDL concentrations (P ≤ 0.01) were found in female than male in CH chicken. It had witnessed that HDL concentration of female and male for H and C chickens were 92.13 ± 1.75, 76.61 ± 4.95, 88.68 ± 4.45 and 71.03 ± 2.65 mg/dl, in turn. Significantly higher HDL concentrations (P ≤ 0.05) were found in female than male in H chicken. Furthermore, significantly higher HDL concentrations (P ≤ 0.01) were found in female than male in H chicken (see Table 2).
![]()
Table 2. Effect of sex on serum biochemical parameters.
abcdMean values each sex of a genotype under the same category across column that bear different superscript letters are significantly different, Ns = P > 0.05, *** = P < 0.001, ** = P < 0.01, * = P < 0.05, SE = standard error of mean, KK = Koekoek, H = Horro, C = Cosmopolitan, HC = Horro male and Cosmopolitan female crosses, CH = Cosmopolitan male and Horro female crosses.
Significantly (P < 0.01) higher HDL levels were observed in Rugao (118.15 ± 3.99) than Anka (93.97 ± 2.78) chickens [24]. Indigenous (131.31 ± 5.84 mg/dl) chicken had significantly (P < 0.01) higher HDL content than broiler (103.33 ± 12.61 mg/dl) chickens [23]. There were significant (P < 0.05) differences in serum HDL levels among the six chicken lines [26]. Male (91.97 ± 4.16; 125.47 ± 5.76 mg/dl) had comparable (P > 0.05) HDL concentration with female (95.97 ± 3.71; 110.82 ± 5.28 mg/dl) in Rugao and Anka chickens, respectively [24]. Lipoprotein lipase and apolipoproteins (apoA-I; apoE; apoC-II) can regulate the HDL contents [7]. Hepatic lipase may impress the bustle of HDL concentration [6] [27]. HDL concentration might be affected due to esterase and oxidase [2].
The fatty acid content of meats obtained from KK, CH, HC, C, H and L chickens were indicated in Table 3. There were significantly higher (P ≤ 0.05) Myristic acid contents in HC meat (1.23 ± 0.34) followed by H (1.02 ± 0.08), C (0.88 ± 0.05), CH (0.71 ± 0.04), L (0.56 ± 0.01) and KK (0.53 ± 0.12) chickens. There were significantly lower (P ≤ 0.05) Pentadecanoic acid contents in L meat (1.48 ± 0.11) than C (2.07 ± 0.06), CH (2.06 ± 0.13), KK (2.02 ± 0.04), HC (1.92
![]()
Table 3. Saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acid profile of meats of KK, CH, HC, C, H and L chickens.
abcdMean values each sex and genotype that bear different superscript letters are significantly different, Ns = P > 0.05, *** = P < 0.001, ** = P < 0.01, * = P < 0.05, SE = standard error of mean, KK = Koekoek, H = Horro, C = Cosmopolitan, HC = Horro male and Cosmopolitan female crosses, CH = Cosmopolitan male and Horro female crosses.
± 0.07) and H (1.82 ± 0.05) chickens. However, there were significantly higher (P ≤ 0.05) Palmitic acid contents in L meat (21.14 ± 0.23) followed by KK (20.20 ± 0.14), CH (19.90 ± 0.88), HC (19.56 ± 1.71), H (18.41 ± 0.80) and C (17.14 ± 0.97) chickens. Regarding to SFAs, Myristic, Pentadecanoic and Palmitic showed significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) among genotypes due to difference in the number of carbon atoms and the least calories could be metabolized due to unavailability of double bond. However, Margaric (P ≤ 0.01) and Stearic (P ≤ 0.001) acids were significantly varied within sex. Margaric (P ≤ 0.05) and Stearic (P ≤ 0.001) acids were significantly influenced by genotype and sex interaction of chickens.
Myristoleic acid and Palmitoleic acid showed significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected among genotypes and between sex due to difference in number of carbon and SCD activity. Nevertheless, Oleic acid and Eicosenoic were affected in sex. Oleic and Eicosenoic acids were also significantly (P ≤ 0.01) affected by genotype and sex interaction of the chickens due to stearoyl-CoA desaturase (SCD) and lipase activities. However, Linoleic acid had significantly (P ≤ 0.01) influenced among genotypes. Whereas, α-linolenic showed significant (P ≤ 0.01) difference between sex. α-linolenic acid contents were also significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected by genotype and sex interaction of the chickens. The Linoleic and α-linolenic acid contents varied due to difference in the number and position of the double bonds. Saturated fatty acid (SFA) significantly (P < 0.05) higher for male (33.63 ± 0.54) than female (31.28 ± 0.77) chickens due to Adipogenesis inhibitors (1,25-(OH)2D3) might affect mRNA in sex [28], acetyl-CoA carboxylase [24] and SCD activity [27] [28]. [29] also noted saturated fatty acid (SFA) significantly (P < 0.05) higher for male (33.24 ± 2.19) than female (28.69 ± 1.32) Naked-Neck chickens.
MUFA had significantly (P ≤ 0.05) influenced among H (47.51 ± 1.05), KK (47.00 ± 2.13), C (45.53 ± 1.84), CH (45.46 ± 0.27), HC (45.40 ± 0.06) and L (41.98 ± 0.893) genotypes. MUFA had also significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected between male (44.44 ± 0.76) and female (46.52 ± 0.94) chickens. MUFA had significantly affected among genotypes and within sex [14] [33]. MUFA had significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected among Fast-growing (38.00), Medium-growing (34.80) and Slow-growing (28.70) chickens [34]. The results could be varied among genotypes due to difference in number of carbons as noted by [35], SCD in line with [28] and fatty acid lipase in agreement with [36]. Female might have superior bioactivity than male except effect of isoproterenol in agreement with [29]. PUFA significantly (P ≤ 0.05) varied among L (24.49 ± 0.25), C (23.60 ± 0.90), CH (22.07 ± 0.33), HC (21.48 ± 0.30), H (21.08 ± 0.04) and KK (19.65 ± 0.25) genotypes. PUFA had significantly (P ≤ 0.001) varied among chicken genotypes as similarly noted by [14] [37]. The results could be varied among genotypes due to difference in number and position of double bonds as noted by [37], SCD in line with [28] and internal factors in agreement with [33].
UFA had significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected between male (66.37 ± 0.54) and female (68.72 ± 0.77) chickens. The UFA might be varied between sex due to globulin and albumin [2] [12] [37] [38] and Desaturases [18] [33]. PUFA/MUFA had significantly (P ≤ 0.001) influenced among L (0.58 ± 0.01), C (0.52 ± 0.01), CH (0.49 ± 0.01), HC (0.47 ± 0.01), H (0.44 ± 0.01) and KK (0.42 ± 0.01) chickens. The results might be affected among genotypes due SCD activity in line with [32] and internal factors in agreement with and PUFA/MUFA of meat with less 0.40:1 ratio could affect the dietary balance [39]. UFA/SFA had significantly (P < 0.05) influenced in male (1.98 ± 0.05) and female (2.21 ± 0.08) chickens. UFA/ SFA of meat with above 4:1 ratio could affect the dietary balance [34] and oxidative effect by isoproterenol [25]. Eggs obtained from indigenous chickens had higher PUFA than commercial chickens [18] [35]. Indigenous chickens produced healthier eggs than commercial chickens and the eggs of low growing chickens had lower pathogenic risk than eggs of fast-growing chickens [35].
Correlation coefficient (r) of serum biochemical parameter and meat fatty acid profile of different chickens indicated in Table 4. The UFA/SFA was strongly (P ≤ 0.001) and positively correlated with UFA (r = 0.997) but strongly (P ≤ 0.001) and negatively correlated with SFA (r = −0.997). Moreover, the PUFA/ MUFA was strongly (P ≤ 0.001) and positively correlated with PUFA (r = 0.974) but strongly (P ≤ 0.01) and negatively correlated with MUFA (r = −0.929). However, UFA was perfectly (P ≤ 0.001) and negatively correlated with SFA (r = −1.000). Likewise, PUFA was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) and negatively correlated with MUFA (r = −0.828). Also, TC was strongly (P ≤ 0.01) and positively (r = 0.973) correlated with TG. TC had also significant (P ≤ 0.05) and positive(r = 0.877) and negative correlation (r = −0.826) with LDL and HDL, respectively. Similarly, TG was strongly (P ≤ 0.01) and positively (r = 0.949) correlated with
![]()
Table 4. Pearson’s correlation (r) between serum biochemical parameters and meat fatty acid profile of KK, CH, HC, C, H and L Chickens.
UFA/SFA = Unsaturated Fatty Acid Ratio Saturated Fatty Acid, PUFA/MUFA = Poly Unsaturated Fatty Acid Ratio Monounsaturated Fatty Acid, SFA = Saturated Fatty Acid, UFA = Unsaturated Fatty Acid, PUFA = Poly Unsaturated Fatty Acid, MUFA = monounsaturated Fatty Acid, LDL = Low Density Lipoprotein, HDL = High Density Lipoprotein, TG = Triglycerides, TC = Total Cholesterol, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, Ns = Nonsignificant.
LDL. Nonetheless, TG had significant (P ≤ 0.05) negative (r = −0.884) correlation with HDL. Equally, LDL was strongly (P ≤ 0.01) and negatively (r = −0.976) correlated with HDL. The serum lipid profile of broilers has positive correlation with the muscle lipid [32] [40]. There was positive significant (P < 0.05) correlation between abdominal fat weight and serum cholesterol content of each Rugao (r = 0.440) and Anka (r = 0.089) chicken genotypes [23]. Significant (P < 0.05) positive correlations (r = 0.669) for white and (r = 0.240) brown chickens were determined between serum TC level and egg production and correlation of serum lipids and egg lipids could be significantly varied [38] [39]. However, serum cholesterol was negatively correlated with egg cholesterol in white and brown chickens [39]. The serum lipid profile of chickens had positive correlation with the egg lipid and could direct much research towards enabling to produce low cholesterol eggs and might have market implication [27]. BPR and SH chickens have faster growth rate and accumulate more fat than TH chickens. TG had positive correlation with fat accumulation in meat of chickens [25] [41].
Saturated fatty acids would be related to increased levels of total cholesterol, LDL, and triglyceride while UFA associated to increase the LDL level in chickens [40] [42]. The result of this study suggests that lipoproteins in serum could be directly related with lipoproteins of chicken products [43]. PUFA/SFA ratio below 0.45 in chicken meats had been reported unhealthy for consumers [31]. Fast growing chicken strains had higher fatty meats than slow growing strains [31] [38]. Slow growing breast and thigh meats of chickens had shown lower composition of lipids than fast growing chickens [34] [44]. PUFA and PUFA n-6 resulted significantly (P < 0.01) higher in both thigh and breast meat of slow growing than fast growing chickens [34] [45] and slow growing chickens could be better sources of desirable FA than fast growing chickens [22] [46]. Padovana meat had indicated significantly (P < 0.05) higher UFA/SFA and lower n-6/n-3 than Polverara chickens [47].
4. Conclusion and Recommendation
In this study, it was revealed that TC, TG, LDL and HDL concentrations had significantly higher difference (P ≤ 0.001) among and within KK, CH, HC, C, H and L chickens. TC, TG and LDL concentration of the chickens were in the order of KK > CH > HC > C > H > L except HDL. Male had significantly higher TC, TG, LDL but lower HDL (P ≤ 0.001) than female. L had lower Myristic and Pentadecanoic but higher Palmitic deposition than others. Female had significantly lower (P ≤ 0.05) SFA deposition than male chickens. H chicken had higher MUFA deposition than others. L chicken had higher PUFA deposition than others. Female had significantly higher (P ≤ 0.05) UFA deposition than male. UFA values were higher than SFA across genotypes and sexes. Serum biochemical and meat fatty acid profile varied across and within genotypes and sexes. Level of serum biochemical parameters can be transferred into human. All in all, chicken products with higher level TC, TG, LDL and SFA might have human health problems. Recommendation, dietary manipulation may improve lipids in chicken products. It could also be interesting topic for future studies.
Acknowledgements
The authors express gratitude to International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI-ACGG program) for funding the research, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) for providing necessary opportunities. We also Haramaya University and those who directly or indirectly contributed to the accomplishment of this study.