Nutritional composition of farm chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera) meat

Nutritional composition of farm chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera) meat

Journal Pre-proof Nutritional composition of farm chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera) meat Rimante Vinauskiene, Daiva Leskauskaite PII: S0889-1575(19)3...

2MB Sizes 0 Downloads 16 Views

Journal Pre-proof Nutritional composition of farm chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera) meat Rimante Vinauskiene, Daiva Leskauskaite

PII:

S0889-1575(19)30220-0

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2019.103303

Article Number:

103303

Reference:

YJFCA 103303

To appear in: Received Date:

12 February 2019

Revised Date:

17 July 2019

Accepted Date:

27 August 2019

Please cite this article as: Vinauskiene R, Leskauskaite D, Nutritional composition of farm chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera) meat, Journal of Food Composition and Analysis (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2019.103303

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.

Nutritional composition of farm chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera) meat

Rimante Vinauskiene Daiva Leskauskaite Kaunas University of Technology Radvilenu pl. 19

ro of

[email protected]

Highlights

-p

re

   

Data about amino acids and mineral composition of chinchilla meat are presented for the first time Meat from farm-raised chinchilla is a good source of protein Dietary indispensable amino acid score value is 114% (valine) in chinchilla meat Levels of MUFA and PUFA in chinchilla meat are one of the highest in rodents’ meat Chinchilla meat is characterised by low sodium content

lP



na

Abstract

This study examined the nutritional composition of farm chinchilla meat from Lithuania and

ur

compared with the nutrient levels found in other studies for rodents’ meat. The chinchilla meat

Jo

was characterised as a good source of animal protein (19.96–21.44 g/100 g) and was found to be rich in lysine (8.67 ± 0.13 g/100 g protein), glutamic acid (15.42 ± 0.19 g/100 g protein) and sulphur-containing methionine (5.43 ± 0.09 g/100 g protein). For the first time, the score based on individual dietary indispensable amino acid digestibility was determined for chinchilla and other rodents’ meat. The DIAAS values ranged from 89% (SSA) in nutria meat to 114% (valine) in chinchilla meat. Lipids of chinchilla meat had lower SFA content, and the content of PUFA n-3 and n-6 was always higher than those reported for nutria, capybara and rabbit meat. The mineral 1

composition of chinchilla meat is presented for the first time in this study. It was different from that of other rodents with a small amount of sodium (32.65 ± 0.78 mg/100 g muscle). Nutritional information on chinchilla meat is limited. The data obtained in this study might be useful for further discussions on farm chinchilla meat as potential meat sources. Key words: chinchilla meat, amino acids, fatty acids, microelements

ro of

1. Introduction

The chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera) is a medium-sized hystricomorphic rodent native to the Andes Mountains in South America (Cortés et.al 2002). The fur of chinchillas is one of the

-p

most valuable, which was the reason for the establishment of intensive chinchilla fur farming systems all over the world.

re

Recently, approximately 3.5 million chinchillas are believed to exist worldwide, most of which are grown in special farms in the United States, Canada, Australia and almost all over

lP

Europe. In Lithuania, chinchillas began to be farmed in 1996. According to the data presented by Fur Europe (Hanhimaki, 2016), Lithuanian chinchilla farms produce approximately 36,000

na

animals per year. Suitable for the fur production chinchillas weigh is about 0.65 kg, of which 0.3 kg is carcasses weight. Considering these data, the Lithuanian farms generate around 11,000 kg of

ur

chinchilla meat per year, which is regarded as a by-product. Globally, this figure would reach 1 million kg of meat. Utilisation of chinchilla meat is a challenge for the farmers since it is costly to

Jo

be treated and disposed ecologically (Ryder et al., 2015). On the other hand, chinchilla meat may become a valuable resource if handled to produce meat products for human nutrition. However, the potential utilisation of chinchilla meat in human nutrition is not used for several reasons. Certain exotic meats, together with meat by-products, can be considered suitable for human consumption depending on the country and local traditions (Ockerman and Basu, 2004). According to Cawthorn and Hoffman (2016), Western societies view the consumption of rodents 2

with a large degree of scepticism. Some religious prohibitions stop the rodent consumption around the world as well. Muslims avoid rodents, and Jewish dietary laws forbid such consumption. Another reason is the lack of knowledge about the nutritive value of chinchilla meat. To the best of our knowledge, there are only few publications which provide data about the chemical composition and quality characteristics of chinchilla meat. Echalar et al. (1998) reported results from their study about the nutritional value of raw, wet heat– and dry heat–treated chinchilla meat. They concluded that chinchilla meat has good food value and acceptability by consumers. More

ro of

recently, Fellenberg et al. (2016) published additional information about the nutritional value of meat from chinchillas. This study revealed that chinchilla meat is a good source of polyunsaturated fatty acids and has a high level of linoleic acid. Its crude protein and fat content was found to be either similar or less than other rodents’ meat. According to authors, the commercialisation of

-p

chinchilla meat is prevented by the limited amount of its production.

re

Without a doubt, chinchilla meat cannot compete with traditional meat types. However, it can be positioned as exotic or non-traditional meat. In a very interesting review, Hoffman and

lP

Cawthorn (2013) discussed the positive and negative aspects of rodent species as potential meat sources. They concluded that rodents play an important role in supplying protein in the informal

na

market of Africa. The study of Sánchez-Macías et al. (2018) indicated an increasing interest in guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) farming because it provides a regular source of high-quality animal

ur

protein for domestic consumption. Although the domestic guinea pig is mainly a food source in Latin America, it has been successfully introduced and farmed in Africa and Asia (Lammers et al.,

Jo

2009; National Research Council, 1991). The utilisation of meat from the capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) and the nutria or coypu (Myocastor coypus) for human nutrition has been discussed in previous papers (Hoffman, 2008; Hoffman and Cawthorn, 2013). This study aimed to determine the nutritional composition of farm chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera) meat from Lithuania and compare with the nutrient levels found in other studies for rodents’ meat. Available data about nutritional composition of rodents of three species that are 3

currently utilised in the meat trade were used in this study: capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) and the nutria or coypu (Myocastor coypus) and guinea pig (Cavia porcellus).

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Chinchilla meat sample collection

ro of

The study was carried out on 51 chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera) males and females at the age of eight months, as it is a common practice for chinchillas slaughtering in fur processing industry. All the care and procedures involving animals followed the law of the Republic of Lithuania (2012-10-03) for animal welfare and handling, Law No. IX-2271 (Valstybės žinios

-p

(Official Journal), 1997, No. 108-2728; 2012, No. 122-6126) and EU regulation 1099/2009. The

re

animals originated from the farm in the Kaunas County in Lithuania. Chinchillas were fed with the commercial pelleted diet three times per day and had free access to drinking water. The pelleted

lP

diet contained 18.70 – 19.50 g/100g protein, 2.7 – 3.0 g/100g fat, 15.9 – 16.5 g/100g crude fiber, 3.6 g/100g ash, 12 500 IE/kg vitamin A, 1250 IE/kg vitamin D, 50 mg/kg vitamin E. One chinchilla

na

was fed 40-44 g of commercial pelleted diet per day. The procedure of chinchilla meat sample preparation was performed three times between

ur

April and July of 2017. Every time 17 chinchilla (7 females and 10 males at age of eight months) were selected randomly. All animals were stunned with CO2 and immediately bled, pelted and

Jo

eviscerated according to the requirements of EU regulation 1099/2009. After the slaughter, the furs were withdrawn, and the viscera (heart, lung, kidneys and liver) were separated. The carcasses were chilled at 4°C and delivered to the Competence Centre of Food Science and Technology of Kaunas University of Technology. The carcasses were boned. Chinchilla meat samples (approximately 900 g) were collected from all the muscles and were grinded. Meat samples were frozen at −18°C and were kept at this temperature until further analysis of gross chemical 4

composition and qualitative and quantitative analyses of proteins and some minerals. Lipids were collected from the carcasses. They were frozen at −18°C, and this temperature was maintained until fatty acid analysis. Before analysis, the lipids were grinded and melted at 40°C in the water bath. As a result, three representative samples of chinchilla meat were obtained for the further analysis.

ro of

2.2. Reagents

All solvents used, which were of HPLC grade, and common reagents of the highest available grade were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany). Double distilled water was used throughout the experiments and was produced in a Siplicity 185 System (Millipore, MA,

re

-p

Burlington, USA).

lP

2.3. Chemical analysis

Moisture, fat, protein and ash contents were estimated according to methods

na

recommended by the ISO 1442 1997(E), ISO 1444 1996, ISO 937.1978 (E) and ISO 936 1998, respectively. For the determination of proteins, content digestion system InKjel P (Düsseldorf,

ur

Germany) and distillation equipment Behr S 4 (behr Labor-Technik GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany) were used. Lipids were extracted from the sample using n-hexane as solvent and In line Extraction

Jo

Units R 306 (behr Labor-Technik GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany).

2.4. Amino acid analysis

Hydrolysis of meat samples proceeded as described in Commission Regulation No. 152/2009. Hydrolysate was filtered, 1 ml of hydrolysate was pipetted to 100 ml volumetric flask and 50 L of 100 mol/ml L-2-Aminobutyric acid was added as an internal standard. Flask content 5

was diluted to the mark with ultrapure water, thoroughly mixed and filtered through a 0.22 m syringe filter. The reagents for the derivatisation procedure were prepared and the calibration and sample derivatisation were performed as described in Waters AccQ Tag Chemistry Package Instruction Manual (1993). Separation by analytical RP-HPLC was performed using Shimadzu (Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) low pressure gradient HPLC system with solvent delivery module LC10ATVP, autoinjector SIL-10ADVP, column oven CTO-10ACVP, spectrofluorometric detector RF-

ro of

10AXL, system controller SCL-10AVP, and on-line degasser DGU-14A. The Nova-Pak C18, 4 m, 150 × 3.9 mm (Waters Corporation, Milford, MA, USA) chromatography column was used with a temperature of 37°C for the separation of derivatives. Separated derivatives were detected at Ex 250 nm–Em 395 nm. The injection volume was 10 μL.

-p

The analyses were carried out by applying a ternary gradient flow. Eluent A was

re

prepared from Waters AccQ Tag Eluent A Concentrate by diluting 100 mL of concentrate to 1 L of ultrapure water, eluent B was acetonitrile and eluent C was ultrapure water. The following

lP

gradient elution program was used: 100% A at 0 min; 0.5 min 98% A – 2 % B; 18 min 94% A – 6% B; 19 min 90% A – 10% B; 29 min 83% A – 17% B; 35 min 60% B – 40% C; 40 min 60% B

na

– 40% C; 41 min 100 % A; 51min 100 % A.

To assess the protein quality of the samples, the DIAAS values were calculated using the

ur

true ileal digestibility of individual dietary indispensable amino acid (IAA) against adults (>18) amino acid scoring patterns (i.e. amino acid pattern of the reference protein) as recommended by

Jo

the FAO (FAO, 2013). To calculate the DIAAS of the samples, the digestible IAA reference ratio was calculated for each IAA according to the following equation:

𝐷𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐼𝐴𝐴 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =

𝑛𝑚𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐼𝐴𝐴 𝑖𝑛 1 𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑚𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝐼𝐴𝐴 𝑖𝑛 1 𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑖𝑛

6

For a given reference of protein amino acid pattern, the DIAAS (expressed as a percentage) was then calculated by the following equation:

DIAAS % = 100 × lowest value of digestible IAA reference ratio

2.5. Fatty acid analysis

ro of

Aliquots of lipids were esterified with BF3-methanol as described by the AOAC method but with slight modifications (Cunniff, 1995). The esterified fatty acids were quantified by gas chromatography apparatus HRGC 5300 (Mega Series, Carlo Erba, Milan, Italy), equipped with a flame ionisation detector and column Rastek RT-2560 (100 m × 0.20 mm i.d., 0.25 m film

-p

thickness). The oven temperature was ramped to 80°C for 5 min, increased to 240°C at 40 oC/min

re

and held at 240 oC for 30 min. Helium was used as carrier gas. The injection port temperature was 220 oC, and the detector temperature was 240 oC. Fatty acids were identified by comparing sample

lP

retention times with standard retention times using the SupelcoTM Component Fame Mix (SigmaAldrich Corporation) mixture of 37 saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acid

na

standards. The individual fatty acid content (% of the total fatty acids) was calculated in terms of

ur

peak area versus standard compound peak area.

Jo

2.6. Mineral content

For mineral content, aliquots of approximately 0.5 g (± 0.01) of chinchilla meat sample

were accurately weighed and digested with concentrated nitrogen acid in CEM MARS 230/60 Microwave Accelerated Reaction System (USA) at 570 °C for 4–6 h. Sodium, calcium and potassium contents were determined by flame photometer (BWB XP, United Kingdom) following the description of Barretto et al. (2018). Phosphorus, iron and magnesium contents were 7

determined by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (PerkinElmer ELAN DRC II, Shelton, USA) as described by Otalora et al. (2018). In both analyses, the calibration standards were prepared from the standard 1000 mg/l solutions obtained from Merck KGaA (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). 2.7. Statistical analysis Each sample was analysed in triplicate, with two or three measurements being made per individual sample. The mean and standard deviations were calculated from these values using

ro of

Microsoft Excel 2011.

re

3.1. Gross chemical composition of chinchilla meat

-p

3. Results and discussion

The chemical composition of chinchilla meat expressed in moisture, crude fats, protein

lP

and ash content is presented in Table 2.

Based on the results of our study, the meat from farm-raised chinchilla from Lithuania

na

contained 19.96 ± 0.54 g/100 g protein, 6.96 ± 0.66 g/100 g fat, 71.71 ± 0.78 g/100 g moisture and 0.98 ± 0.12 g/100 g ash. Protein, fat and ash content of the general meat sample were very close

ur

to those reported for farm-raised chinchilla from Chile (Fellenberg et al., 2016). The chinchilla meat in our study had less moisture than the chinchilla meat from Chile. Echalar et al. (1998) found

Jo

that farm-raised chinchilla meat from Argentina have moisture of 68.24 g/100 g, protein of 20.03 g/100 g and fat of 11.26 g/100 g. The chemical composition of meat from other rodents traditionally consumed by humans

is presented in Table 1. Oda et al. (2004) found in capybara meat a moisture content of 75.1 ± 0.28 g/100 g, protein content of 22.62 ± 0.42 g/100 g, fat content of 0.83 ± 0.32 g/100 g and ash content of 0.92 ± 0.07 g/100 g. Nutria meat values for the same components were 73.98 ± 1.4 g/100 g 8

moisture, 21.03 ± 0.7 g/100 g protein, 3.31 ± 1.1 g/100 g fat and 1.11 ± 0.1 g/100 g ash (Tůmová et al., 2017). Hence, the proximate composition of chinchilla meat in the present study was very similar to that described for nutria meat, while capybara meat had more protein and less fat. Moreover, Januskevicius et al. (2015) measured a higher protein, ash and lower fat content in nutria meat influenced by the protein diet comparing with the data presented by Tůmová et al. (2017). Sánchez-Macías et al. (2018) reported about chemical composition of the meat from a guinea pig. The guinea pig meat varied widely in the carcass and contained 13.58–22.89 g/100 g

ro of

protein, 2.64–15.95 g/100 g fat, 70.6–75.78 g/100 g moisture and 00.9–1.16 g/100 g ash. Since the chemical composition of rodent meat consumed my humans is often compared with rabbit meat, we have also included the chemical composition of rabbit meat in our study. From the data about the white rabbit meat from New Zealand presented by Migdał et al. (2013), rabbit meat is richer

-p

in proteins (23.20 ± 0.91 g/100 g), and there is less fat (0.70 ± 0.21 g/100g) in it in comparison

lP

presented by Tůmová et al. (2017).

re

with chinchilla meat. The moisture and ash content were very similar to that in nutria meat

na

3.2. Proteins and amino acids in chinchilla meat

The chemical composition studies characterised chinchilla meat as a good source of

ur

animal proteins. The protein content in chinchilla meat (19.96–21.44 g/100 g) was very close to the protein content of traditional types of meat. According to the Lithuanian nutritional database

Jo

(http://foodbase.azurewebsites.net/), beef’s protein content range from 19.40 g/100 g (shoulder) to 20.60 g/100 g (loin), and pork contain 15.30 g/100 g (neck) and 21.00 g/100 g (loin) of protein. Poultry protein content vary from 19.40 g/100 g and 20.10 g/100 g for turkey and chicken leg to 21.50 g/100 g and 23.60 g/100 g for turkey and chicken breast. Rabbit meat has 19.6 g/100 g of protein, while lamb protein content is less and ranges from 14.50 to 17.90 g/100 g. Despite differences that could be expected due to the animal breeds, selected carcass parts, meat aging, 9

feeding rations and so on, the review by Pereira and Vincente (2013) presented similar composition of meat from different animals. The acceptance of chinchilla meat as a viable source of protein requires more knowledge about the quality of protein present in it. According to the FAO recommendations, in dietary protein quality evaluation, amino acids should be treated as individual nutrients, and wherever possible, data for digestible or bioavailable amino acids should be given on an individual amino acid basis (FAO/WHO, 2013). If the food is rich in protein, this does not necessarily mean that it

ro of

contains a large amount of bioavailable indispensable amino acids. Therefore, a new protein quality measure (digestible indispensable amino acid score or DIAAS) was recommended by the FAO. The amino acid composition of proteins from chinchilla, nutria and rabbit meat is presented in Table 2.

-p

The most abundant IAA in chinchilla meat was lysine (8.67 ± 0.13 g/100 g protein), while

re

the least abundant was histidine (3.64 ± 0.08 g/100 g protein). In the group of dispensable amino acids (DAAs), the highest amount of glutamic acid (15.42 ± 0.19 g/100 g protein) and the lowest

lP

amount of tyrosine (3.67 ± 0.08 g/100 g protein) were detected. No cystine was found in the chinchilla meat. However, the amount of methionine, which is another sulphur-containing amino

na

acid, was considerably higher than that of rabbit and nutria meat. To our knowledge, no data on amino acid profile of the chinchilla meat have been reported. Therefore, we compared our data

ur

with the amino acid profile of rabbit and nutria meat. In our study, the proportion of IAAs in chinchilla meat was comparable with that of the rabbit meat (Simonova et al., 2010; Nasr et al.,

Jo

2017). The analysis of individual IAA content showed that chinchilla meat had lower amounts of valine, isoleucine, leucine, histidine and lysine and have higher amounts of methionine and arginine than rabbit meat. In general, the profile of dispensable amino acids was similar to that of the rabbit meat, except for the proline content, which was higher in the chinchilla meat. As reported by Migdal et al. (2013), nutria meat was characterised by a slightly lower amount of IAAs than

10

that of the Lithuanian chinchilla meat. The level of methionine found in nutria meat was extremely lower than that obtained in our study on the meat from chinchilla. Since the individual dietary indispensable amino acid (DIAA) digestibility can be different from the digestibility of protein, a score based on individual DIAA digestibility is used as a new protein quality measure. Following FAO recommendations, the DIAA should be based on the true ileal digestibility (i.e. determined at the end of the small intestine) of each amino acid preferably determined in humans. DIAA values for the proteins in chinchilla, nutria and rabbit

ro of

meat are presented in Table 3. As no data are currently available on the true ileal digestibility values for IAA from chinchilla, nutria and rabbit meat protein, we used in our calculations the true ileal digestibility coefficients for IAA from cooked poultry proteins (Kashyap et al., 2018). The DIAAS values

-p

ranged from 89% (SSA) in nutria meat to 114% (valine) in chinchilla meat. Meat protein sources

re

can be ranked on the basis of DIAAS values as ‘excellent’ if the DIASS ≥100 and ‘good’ if it is 75 ≤ DIAAS ≤ 99. Following such classification, chinchilla and rabbit meat proteins are of

lP

‘excellent’ quality, while nutria meat proteins can be described as ‘good’ quality. These data indicate that chinchilla meat contain a surplus amount of indispensable amino acids and are highly

na

advantageous to improve low-quality diets.

The data about the protein quality of the chinchilla meat are only obtained from our study.

ur

Thus, these data need to be confirmed by more studies. Future studies should generate data on

Jo

amino acid composition and their true ileal digestibility in chinchilla meat.

3.3. Fat and fatty acids in chinchilla meat

In the current trial, determined fat content in chinchilla meat (3.66–6.96%) was similar to or slightly higher than that reported for other rodent meat (Table 1). In the group of traditional meat, the fat content in the chicken (leg), turkey (breast and leg), pork (lean) and beef (loin) was close to the fat content in chinchilla meat (http://foodbase.azurewebsites.net/). 11

The fatty acid profile of chinchilla meat is presented in Table 4. The SFA shows a level of 24.46% (mainly the palmitic acid). Furthermore, the level of MUFA in chinchilla meat is 40.79% with dominating oleic acid (30.57%) and palmitoleic acid (9.39%). The level of PUFA is 36.08% with dominating linoleic acid (29.44%) and linolenic acid (4.88%).

Our results concerning the fatty acid profile of chinchilla meat from Lithuania are in contrast with those of Fellenberg et al. (2016), who found lower SFA content and higher PUFA in

ro of

chinchilla meat from Chile. Unfortunately, only lauric, myristic, palmitic, stearic and arachidic acids (0.08, 1.60, 16.56, 3.13 and 0.05 %, respectively) are the reported SFA in the chinchilla meat from Chile. There were no data recorded for the other SFA. In the report of Fellenberg et al. (2016), the level of MUFA in chinchilla meat was lower, while the level of PUFA was higher than what

-p

we found in the chinchilla meat from Lithuania. The disagreement in MUFA content is mainly due

re

to the differences found for C16:1, which was considerably higher in chinchilla meat from Lithuania. By analysing the PUFA content in our study, we found that the content of C18:2n-6c

(2016) for Chilean chinchilla.

lP

was lower, while the content of C18:3n-3 was higher than those recorded by Fellenberg et al.

na

The fatty acid profile of nutria, capybara and rabbit meat was different from chinchilla meat, as presented in Table 4. The results about the fatty acid content of nutria and rabbit meat are

ur

of two experiments carried out by Fellenberg et al. (2016) and Migdal et al. (2013). We compared the composition of fatty acids in capybara meat with the results presented by Saadoun and Cabrera

Jo

(2008). In chinchilla meat, the content of SFA was always lower and the content of PUFA was always higher than those reported for nutria, capybara and rabbit meat. When the level of PUFA n-3 and PUFA n-6 is considered, the chinchilla meat can be ranked as one of the highest from the animals discussed in the present paper.

12

Additionally, the PUFA/SFA and n-6/n-3 ratios were 1.48 ± 0.20 and 6.02 ± 0.40 for chinchilla meat from Lithuania (Table 5). These values were lower than ratios reported for chinchilla meat from Chile (Fellenberg et al., 2016). However, these values satisfied the current recommendations for PUFA/SFA and exceeded the recommended n-6/n-3 ratios (British Department of Health, 1994). The PUFA/SFA and n-6/n-3 ratios are considered as good indicators of nutritional value of lipids and should be above 0.45 for PUFA/SFA and not transcend 4.0 for n6/n-3. In our study, the value of the PUFA/SFA ratio of chinchilla meat was higher than those

ro of

reported for nutria meat, which is 0.55–0.92 (Migdał et al., 2013); capybara meat, which is 0.72– 0.73 (Saadoun and Cabrera, 2008, Girardi et al., 2005); and rabbit meat, which is 0.83–0.94 (Dalle Zotte and Szendrő, 2011). The n-6/n-3 ratio of chinchilla meat in the present experiment was higher than the values recommended by nutrition experts, but lower than the n-6/n-3 ratio values

-p

defined for other rodents’ meat.

re

With respect to the health concern about the intake of fatty acids by consumers, the chinchilla meat can be considered more advantageous than other rodents’ meat. It should be

lP

emphasised that the levels of MUFA and PUFA observed in chinchilla meat are one of the highest

na

in rodents’ meat, and that can offset the negative effects of the SFA in human health.

ur

3.4. Mineral content in chinchilla meat

Our sources do not contain information on the mineral content in chinchilla meat. The

Jo

data from our study about the mineral composition of chinchilla meat are presented in Table 6. Potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium, iron and phosphorus were the major minerals found in chinchilla meat. Calcium, magnesium and iron contents were in general agreement with the mineral content in nutria and rabbit meat as reported by Hermida et al. (2006), Dalle Zotte and Szendrő (2011), Nistor et al. (2013) and Cholewa et al. (2014). The noticeable nonconformity was determined for sodium content. We found that the sodium content in chinchilla meat was 32.65 ± 0.78 mg/100 g, and compared with nutria and rabbit meat, it was appreciably lower. When 13

nutritional recommendations for sodium are considered, the lower level of sodium in chinchilla meat makes it particularly attractive for the diets. The level of potassium found in chinchilla meat in our experiment was 243.75 ± 23.26 mg/100 g. Hermida et al. (2006) determined a higher content of potassium for the rabbit meat. It ranged from 342 to 450 mg/100 g fresh muscle. However, the nutria meat was characterised by a considerably lower potassium content. Based on the results from a study by Cholewa et al. (2014), it was in the range of 104.7–111.2 mg/100 g fresh muscle. In comparison with the usual meat, the potassium content of chinchilla meat is equal to the lower limit of the range reported for veal and

ro of

chicken meat, but lower than beef and pork meat (Dalle Zotte and Szendrő, 2011). Compared with rabbit meat, chinchilla meat is poor in phosphorus. We found 119.1 ± 0.28 mg of phosphorus in 100 g of fresh muscle, which is lower than in usual meats such as chicken meat (180–200 mg/100

-p

g), beef (168–175 mg/100 g) and veal meat (170–214 mg/100 g) (Dalle Zotte and Szendrő, 2011).

re

Therefore, chinchilla meat is not a relevant source of phosphorus.

lP

4. Conclusion

This study provides data on the composition of farm chinchilla meat from Lithuania.

na

Since information on this subject is very limited in the literature, the data obtained might be useful for further discussions about farm chinchilla meat as potential meat sources. We also compared

ur

the results of our study with levels of nutrients found in other studies for rodents’ meat. Based on the data of our study chinchilla meat contain high amount of protein and is highly advantageous

Jo

to improve low-quality diets. It is rich in lysine, glutamic acid and sulphur-containing amino acid methionine. For the first time, the score based on individual dietary indispensable amino acid digestibility was determined for chinchilla and other rodents’ meat. According to this score, chinchilla and rabbit meat proteins were classified as ‘excellent’ quality, while nutria meat proteins were described as ‘good’ quality. Lipids of chinchilla meat had lower SFA content, and the content of PUFA was always higher than that reported for other rodent’s meat. When the level of PUFA 14

n-3 and PUFA n-6 is considered, the n-6/n-3 ratio of chinchilla meat in the present experiment was higher than the values recommended by nutrition experts, but lower than the n-6/n-3 ratio values defined for other rodents’ meat. Data about the mineral composition of chinchilla meat are presented for the first time in this study. The mineral composition of chinchilla meat is different from that of other rodents with a small amount of sodium. References Barretto, T. L., Pollonio, M. A. R., Telis-Romero, J., Barretto, A. C. S., 2018. Improving sensory

ham with salt (NaCl) reduction. Meat Science, 145, 55-62.

ro of

acceptance and physicochemical properties by ultrasound application to restructured cooked

British Department of Health. Nutritional aspects of cardiovascular disease. Report of Health and

-p

Social Subjects. No 46. London, HMSO: 1994.

Cawthorn, D., Hoffman, L. C., 2016. Controversial cuisine: A global account of the demand,

re

supply and acceptance of “unconventional” and “exotic” meats. Meat Science, 120, 19-36. Cholewa, R., Beutling, D., Mleczek, M., Arndt, G. 2014. Mineral content in leg muscle and liver

lP

of coypu (Myocastor coypus). Aparatura Badawcza i Dydaktyczna, 19, 7–14. Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 of 27 January 2009 laying down the methods of

na

sampling and analysis for the official control of feed. Cortés, A., Miranda, E., & Jiménez, J. E., 2002. Seasonal food habits of the endangered long-tailed

Jo

175.

ur

chinchilla (Chinchilla lanigera): the effect of precipitation. Mammalian Biology, 67(3), 167-

Cunniff, P., 1995. AOAC, Official Methods of Analysis of Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 16th Edition edn. Arlington, AOAC International.

Dalle Zotte, A., Szendrő, Z., 2011. The role of rabbit meat as functional food. Meat Science, 88(3), 319-331. Echalar, S. R., Jiménez, M. J. M., Ramón, A. N., 1998. Valor nutritivo y aceptabilidad de la carne de chinchilla. Archivos latinoamericanos de nutricion, 48, 77-81. 15

Fellenberg, A., Mac Cawley, A., Ivan, P., 2016. Nutritional value of chinchilla meat and its Agroindustrial derivatives. Carpathian Journal of Food Science and Technology, 8(2), 22-29. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nation/World Health Organisation. Protein Quality Evaluation: Report of the FAO Expert Consultation. Rome, Italy; 2013. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 92. Girardi, F., Cardozo, R. M., de Souza, V. L., de Moraes, G. V., dos Santos, C. R., Visentainer, J. V., Zarab, R.F., de Souza, N. E., 2005. Proximate composition and fatty acid profile of semi

Food Composition and Analysis, 18(7), 647-654.

ro of

confined young capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris hydrochaeris L. 1766) meat. Journal of

Hanhimaki, P. P., 2016. Fur farming in Europe. In: Effect of chinchilla farming and keeping conditions on the animal welfare and economic benefit. International scientific conference.

-p

Lithuanian Chinchilla Breeders Association (pp. 15).

re

Hermida, M., Gonzalez, M., Miranda, M., Rodríguez-Otero, J. L., 2006. Mineral analysis in rabbit meat from Galicia (NW Spain). Meat Science, 73(4), 635-639.

lP

Hoffman, L. C., 2008. The yield and nutritional value of meat from African ungulates, camelidae, rodents, ratites and reptiles. Meat Science, 80(1), 94-100.

764-771.

na

Hoffman, L. C., Cawthorn, D., 2013. Exotic protein sources to meet all needs. Meat Science, 95(4),

ur

Januskevicius, A., Bukelis, R., Andruleviciute V., Sinkeviciene I., Budreckiene R., Kasauskas A., 2015. Dynamics of growth, biochemical blood parameters, carcass and meat characteristics of

Jo

foddering nutria (myocastor coypus) influenced by proteins diet. Veterinarija ir zootechnika, 71(93), 21-25.

Kashyap S., Shivakumar N., Varkey A., Duraisamy R., Thomas T., Preston T., Devi S., Kurpad A.V., 2018. Ileal digestibility of intrinsically labeled hen’s egg and meat protein determined with the dual stable isotope tracer method in Indian adults. The American journal of clinical nutrition,108(5), 980–987. 16

Lammers, P.J., Carlson, S.L., Zdorkowski, G.A., Honeyman M.S., 2009. Reducing food insecurity in developing countries through meat production: The potential of the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus). Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 24, 155-162. Law of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1-2271 on Protection, Keeping and Use of Animals, dated 03/10/2012 (Valstybės žinios (Official Journall) No. 122-6126 dated 20/10/2012). Meat and meat products. Determination of moisture content (Reference method) (idt ISO1442:1997(E)).

ro of

Meat and meat products. Determination of nitrogen content (Reference method) (idt ISO 937:1978(E)).

Meat and meat products. Determination of total ash (idt ISO 936:1998(E)).

Meat and meat products. Determination of total fat content (idt ISO1443:1973(E)).

-p

Migdał, Ł., Barabasz, B., Niedbała, P., Łapiński, S., Pustkowiak, H., Živković, B., Migdał, W.,

re

2013. A comparison of selected biochemical characteristics of meat from nutrias (Myocastor coypus Mol.) and rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Annals of Animal Science, 13(2), 387-400.

lP

Nasr, M. A. F., Abd-Elhamid, T., Hussein, M. A., 2017. Growth performance, carcass characteristics, meat quality and muscle amino-acid profile of different rabbits breeds and their

na

crosses. Meat Science, 134, 150-157.

National Research Council, 1991. National Research Council. Microlivestock: Little-known small

ur

animals with a promising economic future. 0-309-04437-5, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (1991).

Jo

Nistor, E., Bampidis, V. A., Păcală, N., Pentea, M., Tozer, Prundeanu, H., 2013. Nutrient content of rabbit meat as compared to chicken, beef and pork meat. Journal of Animal Production, 3(4), 172 – 176.

Ockerman, H.W., Basu, L., 2004. By-products. In W. Jensen, C. Devine, M. Dikemann (Eds.), Encyclopedia of meat sciences (pp. 104–112). London, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.

17

Oda, S. H. I., Bressan, M. C., de Freitas, R. T. F., Miguel, G. Z., Vieira, J. O., Faria, P. B., Taciana, V. Savian., 2004. Composic_ao centesimal e teor de colesterol dos cortes comerciais de capibara (Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris L., 1766). Ciencia e Agrotecnologia, Lavras, 28(6), 1344–1351. Otálora, G., Piñero, M. C., López-Marín, J., Varó, P., del Amor F. L., 2018. Effects of foliar nitrogen fertilization on the phenolic, mineral, and amino acid composition of escarole (Cichorium endivia L. var. latifolium). Scientia Horticulturae, 239, 87-92

human diet. Meat Science, 93, 586–592.

ro of

Pereira, P. M. C., Vicente A.F.R.B., 2013. Meat nutritional composition and nutritive role in the

Ryder, K., Ha, M., Bekhit, A. E., Carne, A., 2015. Characterisation of novel fungal and bacterial protease preparations and evaluation of their ability to hydrolyse meat myofibrillar and

-p

connective tissue proteins. Food Chemistry, 172, 197-206.

re

Saadoun, A., Cabrera, M. C., 2008. A review of the nutritional content and technological parameters of indigenous sources of meat in South America. Meat Science, 80(3), 570-581.

lP

Sánchez-Macías, D., Barba-Maggi, L., Morales-delaNuez, A., Palmay-Paredes, J., 2018. Guinea pig for meat production: A systematic review of factors affecting the production, carcass and

na

meat quality. Meat Science, 143, 165-176.

Simonová, M. P., Chrastinová, L., Mojto, J., Lauková, A. Szabóvá R., Rafay R., 2010. Quality of

ur

Rabbit Meat and Phyto-Additives. Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 28(3), 161–167. Sub-statutory act by the State Food and Veterinary Service of Lithuanian Republic regarding the

Jo

confirmation of the order on the animals for experiments, research, storage, maintenance and operating requirements No. B1-866, dated 31/10/2012 (Valstybės žinios (Official Journall) No. 130-6595 dated 10/11/2012

Tůmová, E., Chodová, D., Vlčková, J., Němeček, T., Uhlířová, L., Skřivanová, V., 2017. Agerelated changes in the carcass yield and meat quality of male and female nutrias (Myocastor coypus) under intensive production system. Meat Science, 133, 51-55. 18

Waters AccQ Tag chemistry Package Instruction Manual, Millipore Corporation, Milford, MA,

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

ro of

1993.

19

Table 1. Chemical composition (g/100g) of chinchilla meat in comparison with meat from other rodents

Chinchilla/total deboned meat1 Chinchilla2 Chinchilla3 Capybara4 Guinea pig5 Nutria6 Nutria7 Rabbit8

n Chinchilla lanigera Chinchilla lanigera Chinchilla lanigera Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris Cavia pocellus M. coypus M. coypus New Zealand White

Nutrient, g/100g Protein Fat 19.96 ± 0.54 6.96 ± 0.66

3

Moisture 71.71 ± 0.78

8

73.7

19.1

6.1

1.1

68.24

20.03

11.26

-

75.1 ± 0.28

22.62 ± 0.42

0.83 ± 0.32

0.92 ± 0.07

70.6 - 75.78

13.58 - 22.89

2.64 -15.95

0.9 - 1.16

73.98 ±1.4 71.17 ±0.42 74.4 ± 1.28

21.03 ± 0.7 22.96 ± 0.21 23.20 ±0.91

3.31 ± 1.1 1.85 ± 0.05 0.70 ± 0.21

1.11 ± 0.1 4.03 ± 0.23 1.21 ± 0.11

13

90 15 10

Ash 0.98 ± 0.12

ro of

Species/category

1

Data from our study, presented as means ± standard deviation of triplicate analysis of chinchilla meat Fellenberg et al. (2016), total deboned meat of male and female mixed 3 Echalar et al. (1998), total deboned meat of male and female mixed 4 Oda et al. (2004), capybara loin meat of male and female mixed 5 Sánchez-Macíasa et al. (2018), summary of the chemical composition of guinea pig reported in different countries 6 Tůmová et al. (2017), 8 months of age nutria hind leg meat 7 Januskevicius et al. (2015), nutria thigh of the right hind leg, male and female mixed 8 Migdał et al. (2013), samples from loin (m. longissimus dorsi)

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

2

20

Table 2. Amino acids composition (g/100g protein) of proteins from chinchilla, nutria, rabbit meat 5.11 ± 0.06 7.90 ± 0.08 4.80 ± 0.07 4.09 ± 0.00 4.43 ± 0.03 5.43 ± 0.09 8.67 ± 0.13 3.64 ± 0.08 7.74 ± 0.10 51.79 ± 0.46

5.99 ± 0.03 9.34 ± 0.11 5.75 ± 0.07 2.92 ± 0.02 4.64 ± 0.03 3.52±0.04 10.32 ± 0.12 4.54 ± 0.12 5.66 ± 0.09 52.67 ± 0.62

6.63 ± 0.16 4.91 ± 0.29 3.67 ± 0.08 9.79 ± 0.04 3.90 ± 0.03 15.42 ± 0.19 3.90 ± 0.19 48.21 ± 0.46

6.49 ± 0.04 -5.13 ± 0.32 5.22 ± 0.11 9.19 ± 0.05 3.74 ± 0.02 16.73 ± 0.25 0.87 ± 0.08 47.37± 0.87

1

6.77 9.90 5.97 4.37 4.65 2.57 9.00 4.52 3.17 50.92 6.35 1.29 5.97 3.22 9.20 4.06 17.60 1.00 48.69

-p

IAAs5 Valine Leucine Isoleucine Phenylalanine Threonine Methionine Lysine Histidine Arginine ΣIAAs DAAs6 Alanine Cystine Glycine Tyrosine Aspartic acid Serine Glutamic acid Proline ΣDAAs

Rabbit meat3

Nutria4 5.38 8.42 4.90 4.18 4.62 2.26 9.17 4.06 7.55 50.53

ro of

Chinchilla meat1 Rabbit meat2

5.62 0.90 4.58 3.33 10.52 4.10 15.61 4.45 49.1

re

Data from our study, presented as means ± standard deviation of triplicate analysis of chinchilla meat Simonová et al. (2010) 3 Nasr et al. (2017) 4 Migdał et al. (2013) 5 Indispensable Amino Acids 6 Dispensable Amino Acids

lP

2

Table 3. Digestable Indispensable Amino Acids values* of chinchilla, nutria, rabbit meat

na

Chinchilla meat1 Rabbit meat2 1.14 1.34 1.15 1.36 1.42 1.70

Jo

Nutria4 1.21 1.23 1.45

1.79

1.87

1.75

1.73

1.66

1.74

1.74

1.73

1.52

0.99

1.08

0.89

1.72 114 (Valine)

2.05 100 (SAA)

1.79 108 (SAA)

1.82 89 (SAA)

ur

Valine Leucine Isoleucine Phenylalanine + Tyrosine (AAA)5 Threonine Methionine + Cystine (SAA)6 Lysine DIAAS(%(IAA))7

Rabbit meat3 1.52 1.44 1.77

*

The IAA reference patterns are expressed as mg amino acid/g protein: Valine – 40, Leucine – 61, Isoleucine – 30, AAA – 41, Threonine – 25, SAA – 23, Lysine – 48 (FAO, 2013) 1 Data from our study, presented as means ± standard deviation of triplicate analysis of chinchilla meat 2 Simonová et al. (2010) 3 Nasr et al. (2017) 4 Migdał et al. (2013) 5 Aromatic Amino Acids 6 Sulfur Amino Acids 7 Digestable Indispensable Amino Acids Score

21

Table 4. Fatty acid profile (% of total fatty acids) of chinchilla, nutria, capybara and rabbit meat Fatty acid composition

Chinchilla meat from Lithuania1 0.07 ± 0.01 2.52 ± 0.13 0.39 ± 0.04 18.33 ± 1.12 0.39 ± 0.06 2.41 ± 0.40 0.03 ± 0.04 0.30 ± 0.04 0.06 ± 0.08

Chinchilla meat from Chile2 0.08 1.60 16.56 3.13 0.05 -

Nutria meat2

Nutria meat3

Capybara male (Hydrochoerus hydrohaeris)4 3.93 ± 0.33 29.8 ± 1.17 5.60 ± 0.42 -

0.82 ± 0.14 3.04 ± 0.59 0.58 ± 0.06 26.86 ± 1.72 0.53 ± 0.06 5.76 ± 0.81 0.10 ± 0.01 37.69 ± 1.92 0.12 ± 0.07 3.00 ± 0.89 0.22 ± 0.04 21.61 ± 1.71 0.23 ± 0.05 26.64 ± 1.71 26.86 ± 1.76 0.09 ± 0.02 2.85 ± 0.32 0.23 ± 0,05 0.27 ± 0.10 3.36 ± 2.10 0.86 ± 0.20 0.11 ± 0.06 35.45 ± 1.92

Jo

ur

na

lP

re

-p

ro of

C12:0 0.13 ± 0.01 C14:0 3.60 3.94 ± 0.36 C15:0 0.33 ± 0.04 C16:0 21.90 26.96 ± 1.82 C17:0 0.40 0.21 ± 0.01 C18:0 8.40 5.24 ± 0.44 C20:0 0.10 0.03 ± 0.01 C21:0 C23:0 Saturated 24.46 ± 1.63 21.42 34.40 36.87±1,28 38.76 fatty acids C14:1 0.35 ± 0.11 0.13 0.64 ± 0.13 C16:1 9.39 ± 1.87 4.98 8.90 17.26 ± 0.15 C17:1 0.46 ± 0.01 0.40 0.33 ± 0.01 C18:1n-9 30.57 ±.49 28.58 27.50 18.38 ± 0.74 28.05 ± 1.58 C20:1 0.03 ± 0.04 00.27 0.30 0.15 ± 0.02 Monounsat urated 40.79 ± 0.70 34.0 37.1 42.31 ± 0.43 28.05 fatty acids C18:2n-6 29.44 ± 0.92 36.23 21.30 14.51 ± 0.87 18.97 ± 1.53 C18:3n-6 0.11 ± 0.00 0.04 0.06 ± 0.01 C18:3n-3 4.88 ± 0.19 3.34 0.66 ± 0.20 5.06 ± 0.47 C20:2 0.24 ± 0.00 0.24 0.30 0.09 ± 0.01 C20:3n-6 0.08 ± 0.02 0.10 0.09 ± 0.02 C20:4n-6 0.06 ± 0.01 0.12 1.80 3.44 ± 0.42 3.00 ± 0.85 C22:2 0.05 ± 0.07 C22:5 0.02 0.20 0.56 ± 0.11 0.45 ± 0.12 C22:6n-3 0.05 ± 0.00 0.07 0.10 0.36 ± 0.02 0.16 ± 0.03 Polyunsatur ated fatty 36.08 ± 2.38 40.20 23.70 20.16 ± 1.02 28.27 acids 1 Data from our study, presented as means ± standard deviation of triplicate analysis of chinchilla meat 2 Fellenberg et al. (2016) 3 Migdał et al. (2013), intramuscular fat from nutria and rabbits 4 Saadoun et al. (2008)

Rabbit meat3

22

Table 5. Fatty acids classes (% of total fatty acid) and ratios in meat of chinchilla, nutria, capybara and rabbit Chinchilla meat from Chile2

Nutria meat3

Nutria meat3

Rabbit meat3

Capybara4

Capybara5

Rabbit meat6

SFA

24.46 ± 1.63

21.42

36.87 ± 1,28

34.5 35.5

37.69 ± 1.92

38.76

37.7 ± 2.07

38.9 ± 4.4

MUFA

40.79 ± 0.70

34.0

42.31 ± 0.43

33.5 35.8

26.64 ± 1.71

30.83

34.9 ± 2.12

28.0 ± 4.1

PUFA

36.08 ± 2.38

40.20

20.16 ± 1.02

31.6 28.4

35.45 ± 1.92

28.27

27.4 ± 1.54

32.5 ± 6.1

1.48 ± 0.20

1.88

0.55 ± 0.05

0.92 0.80

0.94 ± 0.07

0.73

0.72 ± 0.01

0.835

4.93 ± 0.19

3.44

1.65 ± 0.30

4.17 3.63

3.90 ± 0.29

5.67

3.33 ± 0.310

5.50 ± 4.66

29.69 ± 0.84

36.28

18.52 ± 1.13

27.4 24.7

31.50 ± 1.77

22.6

23.7 ± 2.86

24.1 ± 5.60

PUFA /SFA PUFA n-3

-p

PUFA n-6

ro of

Chinchilla meat from Lithuania1

6.02 ± 11.22 ± 6.59 8.08 ± 10.55 3.98 7.12 0.40 3.02 6.82 1.85 1 Data from our study, presented as means ± standard deviation of triplicate analysis of chinchilla meat 2 Fellenberg et al. (2016) 3 Tumova et al. (2015), standart nutria hing leg male and female meat. 3 Migdał et al. (2013), intramuscular fat from nutria and rabbits 4 Saadoun et al. (2008) 5 Girardi et al. (2005), in ham, without pond. 6 Dalle Zotte et al. (2011)

7.02 ± 3.62

lP

re

n-6/n-3

Table 6. Mean minerals content (mg/100 g fresh muscle) in meat of chinchilla, nutria and rabbit Na

P

K

Ca

Fe

Rabbit meat2

na

Meat

50 - 75

219 - 249

342 - 450

6.1 - 15.1

2.93 - 9.22

Rabbit meat3

37 - 49

222 - 230

428 - 431

2.7 - 9.3

1.1 - 1.3

40.5 ± 0.89

347 ± 0.26

-

21.4 ± 0.09

-

-

104.7 - 111.2

4.0 - 6.0

Jo

Rabbit4

32.65 ± 0.78

ur

Chinchilla meat1

Nutria 5

232.4 - 221.6

119.1 ± 0.28 243.75 ± 23.26

Mg

5.9 ± 0.99

1.35 ± 0.07 27.3 ± 3.39 22 - 23

-

1.04 - 1.14 25.0 - 26.0

1

Data from our study, presented as means ± standard deviation of triplicate analysis of chinchilla meat Hermida et al. (2006), all animals meat range. 3 Dalle Zotte et al. (2011). 4 Nistor et al. (2013). 5 Cholewa et al. (2014), date from 10-18 old months female and male animals. 2

23