Next Article in Journal
Understanding Social Dimensions in Wildlife Conservation: Multiple Stakeholder Views
Previous Article in Journal
An Investigation of Ovarian and Adrenal Hormone Activity in Post-Ovulatory Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Meat Fatty Acid Composition of Wild Boars Hunted in Romania in Relationship to Gender and Age-Class

by
Marius Mihai Ciobanu
1,†,
Alina Narcisa Postolache
2,†,
Florin Daniel Lipşa
1,*,
Mugurel Munteanu
3,
Roxana Nicoleta Rațu
1,
Otilia Cristina Murariu
1 and
Paul Corneliu Boișteanu
3
1
Faculty of Agriculture, “Ion Ionescu de la Brad” University of Life Sciences, M. Sadoveanu Alley, No. 3, 700490 Iasi, Romania
2
Research and Development Station for Cattle Breeding Dancu, 707252 Iasi, Romania
3
Faculty of Animal and Food Resources Engineering, “Ion Ionescu de la Brad” University of Life Sciences, M. Sadoveanu Alley, No. 8, 700490 Iasi, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Animals 2022, 12(7), 810; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070810
Submission received: 18 February 2022 / Revised: 13 March 2022 / Accepted: 19 March 2022 / Published: 22 March 2022

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Game meat has a good nutritional profile; wild boar, in particular, has lower fat, high protein, and higher iron content than meat from other domesticated animals. The present study aimed to assess the carcass characteristics and chemical composition and also to investigate the effect of gender and age on the intramuscular fatty acid profile of wild boar meat harvested during the 2010–2017 winter hunting seasons in the Frasin District hunting area (Romania). The age-class factor influenced the carcass traits (p ≤ 0.05), but not the yield, although overall, adults were heavier and had a better yield compared to the younger specimens (77.36 vs. 74.79 kg). The differences induced by gender for carcass traits and dressing yield were present but not statistically significant (p > 0.05). For the chemical composition of wild boar meat, the percentages of protein, fat, ash, and water did not present significant differences (p > 0.05) within the factors applied (gender, age-class). Regarding the studied effects, results showed that the wild boars’ age-class significantly influenced (p ≤ 0.001) the amount of meat total fat, with the adults having the highest fat content than subadults (7.60% vs. 4.52%). As for the fatty acid profile, a high ratio of PUFA/SFA (P/S: polyunsaturated fatty acids/saturated fatty acids) and n-6/n-3 PUFA was present in the meat, showing good functional properties for human health.

Abstract

The present study evaluates the influence of gender and age-class on the carcass traits, meat chemical composition, and fatty acid profiles of randomly hunt-harvested wild boars from Romania’s Frasin District hunting area, which is an important part of the stock density management strategy. Only 76 wild boars were chosen to participate in the experimental design from a total of 94 wild boars hunted over seven winter seasons, based on two main criteria: right carcass part intact and animal health status (suitable for human consumption) as determined by the veterinary health notice issued by the Food Safety Authority, with all wild boars being evaluated before slaughtering. After sanitary inspection and within the first 24 h postmortem, meat samples were taken in duplicate from the right side of wild boar carcasses (m. Biceps femoris). The aim of this study was to compare the carcass characteristics, chemical composition, and fatty acid profile of wild boar Biceps femoris muscle obtained from the right side of carcasses, as well as the effects of gender, age-class, and their interaction on these traits, in a context where venison is frequently regarded as organic food by consumers due to the natural habitat in which wild animals live. The age of the animals had an effect on the postmortem undressed warm and cold carcass weights (p ≤ 0.05). Considering the proximal chemical composition, only the intramuscular fat (IMF) content was higher in adult meat samples compared to young animals. C18:1 n-9 was the most abundant fatty acid in wild boar meat, followed by C16:0, C18:2 n-6, and C18:0. For IMF content, gender, age class, and their interaction influenced mainly MUFA fatty acids, in particular C16:1 n-9, C20:1 n-9 and C22:1 n-9, and also PUFA fatty acids C18:3 n-6, C20:3 n-3, C20:4 n-6, C20:5 n-3, C22:4 n-6, and C22:5 n-6. The appropriate amounts of individual fatty acids in the muscles of the wild boars translate into a ratio of P/S acids that promotes health as a bio-alternative resource of meat.

1. Introduction

Consumers today are encouraged to look for alternative meat types due to the changes in their eating habits and the increased disease risk associated with conventional farm meat [1,2] For these reasons, game meat has grown in popularity, despite the fact that consumption of game meat has traditionally been higher in mountainous areas. There is a link between these areas and hunting activity, as harvested animals are consumed by hunters and their families, as well as those who have a certain degree of knowledge and are familiar with game meat products [3,4]. The latest survey on the consumption of game meat in Europe showed higher consumption in the South-East region than in Central Europe [5]. Men and older consumers eat more game meat than women and younger consumers due to its nutritional attributes, organic characteristics, sensory properties, and well-known health-related benefits [6]. This positive trend has resulted from a combination of factors, including an increase in wild boar populations in Europe due to their adaptability and fertility [7,8,9,10,11], the importance of animal welfare-related to the development of raising practices as close to their natural environment as possible [12], consumer interest in organic game meat [13], and its quality, particularly in terms of health-related fat quality meat indicators [12]. Consumers’ choice for game meat derives from a series of factors that include availability, price, and quality. The quality concept from the consumer’s point of view includes microbiological safety, nutritional value, and the sensory profile in terms of color, aroma, flavor, taste, texture, and tenderness [14].
It is generally known that game meat has a good nutrient composition, wild boar, in particular, has a low-fat content, a high protein content, and a higher iron content compared to pork or beef meat [15,16,17]. Game meat is considered to be healthier than meat from domesticated animals because of its lipid content, fatty acid profile, and nutritious protein [18,19].
Intramuscular fat is well known to contribute to meat’s sensory attributes [12]. The gender of the animal influences fat deposition, with an important impact on the flavor of the meat. Females assimilate protein differently and tend to accumulate more fat than males, and have a higher percentage of fat at any chronological age [20]. Despite the fact that numerous studies on the fatty acid composition of wild boar meat have been conducted in various parts of the world [21,22,23,24], no studies on wild boar meat hunted in Romania and used as a raw material for industrial processors have been done.
Plants (grasses, leaves, roots, bushes, seeds, forest fruits) and, less frequently, bird eggs, snails, insects, earthworms, larvae, and beetles are the primary food sources for wild boars in their natural habitats [25,26]. Due to the natural habitat in which wild animals thrive, venison is frequently referred to as organic food. In light of this, the objectives of this research were to investigate the carcass characteristics, chemical composition, and fatty acid profile of wild boar Biceps femoris muscle and also to analyze the effects of gender, age-class, and their interaction on the mentioned traits.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals and Muscle Samples

The study included 76 wild boars (Sus scrofa ferus), which were harvested under Romania’s national game, hunting, and wildlife protection legislation [27] during the 2010–2017 hunting seasons (winter), with the purpose of stock density control in the Frasin District hunting area. At the beginning of this study, the livestock spring population of wild boars had an estimated value of 95 animals (Table 1).
Since the availability of feed is limited in cold winters, between 1 November and 31 March of each year, additional feed in the amount of 86 kg/animal/year was provided in concentrated (cereals and seeds) and juicy forms (fresh fruits, beets, turnips, potatoes, and carrots).
Animals were shot during the morning period, and the sanitary inspection was carried out outside during the afternoon (at the evisceration checkpoint), with an average external temperature between −5 °C and −15 °C. Those shot in the upper right thigh were eliminated from the study.
The carcass parameters for all animals were determined using a calibrated scale with a limit of 150 kg, as follows: Warm carcass weight represents the weight of animals shot without organs and kidneys 5 h after shooting; cold carcass weight represents the weight of animals shot without organs, and kidneys 24 h after slaughtering, and dressing percentage represents the cold carcass as a percentage of its undressed weight. The animal’s age was calculated using tooth eruption, which takes over 26 months to complete, replacement, and wear patterns [28,29].
The samples used to determine the proximate composition and total lipid (intramuscular fat) fatty acid composition was m. Biceps femoris (duplicate samples/muscle) obtained from the right side of wild boar half carcasses. After the sanitary inspection [30] in the first 24 h postmortem, muscle samples were collected, identified according to gender and age-class, sealed in sterile bags and transported to the laboratory under refrigerated conditions (0–4 °C), trimmed of connective and adipose tissues, vacuum packed, and frozen at −20 °C until analysis.

2.2. Proximate and Fatty Acid Analysis

The samples were thawed overnight, hacked, and homogenized prior to analysis. According to AOAC [31], the nutrient content was analyzed for moisture (AOAC 950.46), ash (mineralization at 550 °C for 16 h according to AOAC 920.153), fat (extraction under hot treatment influence, with petroleum ether as a solvent, in a Soxtherm 416 equipment—AOAC 960.39) and protein content (Kjeldahl method—AOAC 928.08).

2.3. Fatty Acid Analysis

Gas-liquid chromatography was used to determine the concentration of individual fatty acids in two extracts from all samples [32]. As an internal standard, 3–5 mg of nonadecanoic acid (C19:0; 1.5–2.5 g) was added to the sample (1.5–2.5 g) (IS). Folch et al. [33] described the extraction of lipids from meat samples with a mixture of chloroform and methanol (2:1 v/v). Following that, the lipid extracts were trans-esterified with methylene to produce fatty acid methyl esters (FAME). A CarloErba 5300 mega-series GC gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector suited for a fused-silica Omegawax 320 capillary column type SP-2380 was used to separate and quantify FAME (60 m × 0.25 mm internal diameter × 0.20 m film thickness, Supelco Inc., Bellafonte, PA, USA). The following were the chromatographic operating conditions: the initial column oven temperature of 160 °C was programmed to rise at a rate of 4 °C/min up to 250 °C, with a 45-min run time. Temperatures in the injection and detector ports were kept at 250 °C and 260 °C, respectively. Helium was used as the carrier gas, with a flow rate of 1.2 mL/min and a splitting ratio of 1:20. By comparing the retention times of the standard fatty acid methyl esters, the peaks were identified.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analysis was carried out using the SPSS v.20 software package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The carcass characteristics were subjected to one-way analysis of variance with gender (males and females) and age-class (sub-adults and adults) as fixed factors. A general linear model (GLM) was used to examine the fatty acid profiles and chemical composition, using gender (males and females), age class (sub-adults and adults), and their interaction as fixed factors. As corrected confounders, carcass weight and muscle fat content were included. By evaluating the association between the various FA and condensing them into meaningful components, principal component analysis (PCA) was utilized to analyze and comprehend the variability of wild boar meat composition (PCs).

3. Results and Discussion

To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive assessment of the nutritional value of Romanian hunted wild boar muscle lipids. The descriptors for the obtained wild boar’s carcass are shown in Table 2. The undressed weight, warm carcass weight, and cold carcass weight of wild boar were higher on males than females, adults vs. sub-adults, with significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). Our findings are in accordance with early preliminary results for the differences found in dressed weight between males (65–108 kg) and females (50–80 kg) of 3–4 years old [34] or other data research summarized by Pedone et al. [35], as cited in Sales and Kotrba’s [36] review of the effects of animal age and gender on carcass weights of wild boars hunted in different European countries. These results support the findings of other authors [15,37,38,39,40], who state that the meat quality of wild boars is determined by the season, available feed, as well as the animals’ living conditions, and sexual activity.
The proximate composition of wild boar meat is shown in Table 3. The percentage of protein, ash, and water was not influenced by gender (p > 0.05). Only intramuscular fat content was influenced by age-class, with adults having a significantly (p ≤ 0.001) higher content than subadults, a result that can often be explained by age, feed availability amount, and sexual activity [36].
The chemical composition reported by Marsico et al. [41], Strazdina et al. [10] and Lazăr et al. [42] was similar to that found in the present study, in terms of moisture (69–70.5%), protein (20.16–22.92%) and ash content (1.15–1.30%). The influence of gender and age-class on these parameters was not significant (p > 0.05). Our results (over 4.5%) were higher than those reported by the above-mentioned authors but close to the values obtained by Reka et al. [43] (4.3–6.4% IMF), and in accordance with previous intermediate studies by Postolache et al. [44] (2.65–5.22%) for wild boars hunted in Romania. The results for IMF showed that age-class had a significant impact (p ≤ 0.001), with mean values ranging from 4.52% for subadults to 7.60% for adults.
The literature points out that animal diets are reflected in their meat chemical composition, which depends on the season and animal food availability [24]. Moreover, IMF content is influenced by age-class; Neethling et al. [45] reported that IMF content increases with age, being the last tissue to mature. IMF content differences are mainly a result of animal age and various animal feed intakes: 1.23–4.27% [44], 3.5–5.2% [46], 1.95% [47] or 4.27–14.2% [26].
Table 4 presents data on the fatty acid profile of wild boar intramuscular fat across a number of 24 fatty acids with varying saturation levels and chain lengths, as well as their health-related lipid indices. Monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), which accounted for 41.8–44.3% of the total IMF, were the most prevalent lipid component in wild boar meat, according to total fat content measurements. C18:1 n-9 was the most major MUFA group, accounting for 79.52% of all MUFA. With average values between 32.7% and 34.30% of total intramuscular FA, the saturated FA (SFA) fraction was the second most important group. The most prominent C16:0 and C18:0 were identified, accounting for 64.15% and 33.4% of total SFA, respectively. All of the other SFAs were insignificant. The polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) computed average values ranged from 17.12% to 19.19% of total intramuscular FA, making them the third most important fraction of total FA in terms of percentage importance. With an average value of 74.44% of total PUFA, C18:2 n-6 was the most prevalent in terms of amount. With an average of 10.61% of total PUFA, C20:4 n-6 came in second. No effect (p > 0.05) of gender, age-class, or their interactions was found for SFA, MUFA, PUFA, and Fatty Acid Indices.
Most influenced (p ≤ 0.05; p ≤ 0.01; p ≤ 0.001) fatty acid composition typology by gender, age group or their interactions was in case of PUFA content. IMF of females displayed significantly greater percentages for C15:0, C22:0, C20:1 n-9, C22:1 n-9, C18:2 n-6, C18:3 n-6 and lower percentages of C16:1 n-9, C20:3 n-3, C20:4 n-6, C20:5 n-3, C22:4 n-6, C22:5 n-6 in comparacy to males. Regarding age effect, adults had a higher content in C14:0, C15:0 (p ≤ 0.05), C20:1 n-9, C22:1 n-9 (p ≤ 0.01) and lower in C16:1 n-9, C18:3 n-6, C22:5 n-6 (p ≤ 0.05) than sub-adults.
Based on the study results, the fatty acid composition of wild boar muscle tissues showed that increasing animal maturity reduces the proportion of C22:0, C16:1 n-9, C18:3 n-6, and C22:5 n-6, findings that differ from those reported by Razmaitė et al. [25] for the same subject, but for eicosapentaenoic acid (C20:5 n-3), margaric (C17:0), heptadecenoic (C17:1), linolenic (C18:3 n-3), arachidonic (C20:4 n-6), and docosapentaenoic (C22:5 n-3) acid composition of wild boar muscles, organs, or adipose tissue.
The fatty acid composition of our samples was aligned with the results of other studies [10,25,48], where C18:1 n-9 (oleic) was the most abundant fatty acid, followed by C16:0, C18:2 n-6, and C18:0. The same decreasing order of concentration was found in wild boar meat with different feeding regimes (natural feed, supplementary feed, complete diet) [26], age, or gender [44].
The fatty acid composition of wild boar meat is a reflection of their diet [49,50]. These differences were reported in terms of supplementary feed influence on SFA content in wild boars (m. serratus anterior) hunted during the cold season in Hungary. The animals with a controlled complete diet had a lower SFA content (32.91% of total fatty acids) compared to boars that have access to supplementary feed (39.13%) or without access (34.72%) [26].
The nutritional quality of wild boar’s IMF was assessed through the PUFA: SFA acid ratio (P/S) and the n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio. For a healthy human diet, the recommended ratio for P/S is 0.4 or higher [51], and the ratio for n-6/n-3 PUFA was less than 4 (WHO). Due to the content of C18: 2 n-6, the P/S ratio (0.50–0.59) in our wild boar meat was slightly higher than that obtained by Razmaitė et al. [25] (0.27–0.53) in meat from wild boars hunted in Lithuania, but similar to the values obtained by Quaresma et al. [48] (0.52–0.60) and Strazdina et al. [10] (0.50) in meat from wild boars hunted in Portugal. These results highlighted that the lipid composition of wild boar raw meat provides a source of fatty acids (AA, EPA, DHA, and LA) with functional properties for human health and should be included in a balanced diet.
The principal component analysis was used to create a simplified set of parameters that account for the majority of the variability in the original data. The retention of the principal components was performed according to PCs eigenvalues > 1. Six principal components that fit these criteria explained 95.07% of the wild boar meat fatty acids content total variance. Figure 1 displays a plot of the scores for the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2), which accounted for 60.62% of the overall variation. PC1 defined 37.52% of the total variance and for the most part was associated positively with C16:1 n-9 (0.873), C20:3 n-3 (0.801), C20:4 n-6 (0.850), C20:5 n-3 (0.678), and C22:4 n-6 (0.884), and negatively with C15:0 (−0.802), C18:0 (−0.732), C22:0 (−0.694), C20:1 n-9 (−0.858), C18:2 n-6 (−0.671), C18:3 n-6 (−0.635), and C20:2 (−0.684). PC2 explained 23% of the total variance and it was positively correlated with C18:1 n-7 (0.520), C22:1 n-9 (0.718), C22:5 n-3 (0.650), and C22:6 n-3 (0.761), and negatively with C14:0 (−0.884) and C22:5 n-6 (−0.670).
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) also identifies clear differences and affinities in the composition of fatty acids between samples and groups of animals, respectively (Figure 2).

4. Conclusions

According to the above-mentioned findings, the primary unprocessed traits of wild boar carcasses were affected by gender and age-class (p ≤ 0.05), with adults, particularly males, weighing more than subadults and females. In terms of chemical composition, total fat content was significantly (p ≤ 0.001) influenced by the age-class of the animals, with adults having fatter meat than younger animals. Furthermore, gender and age-class influenced the content of some individual MUFA (C16:1 n-9, C20:1 n-9, C22:1 n-9) and PUFA (C18:3 n-6, C22:5 n-6) fatty acids in the context where total MUFA content was highest in males and adults and PUFA content was highest in females and subadult meat samples.
In summary, these findings suggest that the low intramuscular fat content of wild boar meat is the most advantageous feature that can be used to promote the species. This is due to the fact that sufficient amounts of individual fatty acids in wild boar muscle translate into a health-promoting P/S acid ratio, making it a bio alternative protein resource.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.C.; methodology, M.M.C. and A.N.P.; validation, F.D.L. and M.M.; formal analysis, R.N.R. and O.C.M.; investigation, M.M.C., A.N.P., R.N.R. and O.C.M.; resources, M.M.; data curation, A.N.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.C.; writing—review and editing, F.D.L. and P.C.B.; supervision, P.C.B.; project administration, P.C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, since the entire study and sampling were performed on dead animals harvested in accordance with the provisions of the hunting law in Romania.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Senauer, B. The Food Consumer in the 21st Century New Research Perspectives; Working Paper 01–03; The Retail Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ulbritch, T.L.V.; Southgate, D.A.T. Coronary Heart Disease: Seven Dietary Factors. Rev. Artic. Lancet 1991, 338, 985–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Guardone, L.; Armani, A.; Mancianti, F.; Ferroglio, E. A Review on Alaria alata, Toxoplasma gondii and Sarcocystis spp. in Mammalian Game Meat Consumed in Europe: Epidemiology, Risk Management and Future Directions. Animals 2022, 12, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Marescotti, M.E.; Demartini, E.; Gibbert, M.; Viganò, R.; Gaviglio, A. Disentangling Individual Phases in the Hunted vs. Farmed Meat Supply Chain: Exploring Hunters’ Perceptions in Italy. Foods 2021, 10, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tack, J. Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) populations in Europe. In A Scientific Review of Population Trends and Implications for Management; European Landowners’ Organization: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; p. 56. Available online: https://www.europeanlandowners.org/images/Wild_Boar_Report_2018/122193_WILD_BOAR_GB.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2022).
  6. Tomasevic, I.; Novakovic, S.; Solowiej, B.; Zdolec, N.; Skunca, D.; Krocko, M.; Nedomova, S.; Kolaj, R.; Aleksiev, G.; Djekic, I. Consumers’ perceptions, attitudes and perceived quality of game meat in ten European countries. Meat Sci. 2018, 142, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kamieniarz, R.; Jankowiak, Ł.; Fratczak, M.; Panek, M.; Wojtczak, J.; Tryjanowski, P. The Relationship between Hunting Methods and the Sex, Age and Body Mass of Wild Boar Sus scrofa. Animals 2020, 10, 2345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Massei, G.; Kindberg, J.; Licoppe, A.; Gačić, D.; Šprem, N.; Kamler, J.; Náhlik, A. Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ranucci, D.; Roila, R.; Onofri, A.; Cambiotti, F.; Primavilla, S.; Miraglia, D.; Andoni, E.; Di Cerbo, A.; Branciari, R. Improving Hunted Wild Boar Carcass Hygiene: Roles of Different Factors Involved in the Harvest Phase. Foods 2021, 10, 1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Strazdina, V.; Jemeljanovs, A.; Sterna, V.; Ikauniece, D. Nutrition value of deer, wild boar and beaver meat hunted in Latvia. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Nutrition and Food Sciences IPCBEE, Moscow, Russia, 27–28 July 2013; pp. 71–76. Available online: http://www.ipcbee.com/vol53/014-ICNFS2013-F1018.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  11. European Commission. Directorate G—Crisis management in food, animals and plants, DG SANTE European Commission. In Proceedings of the Outcomes of the Ministerial Conference December 2019: “The Long Term Management of Wild Boar Populations”, Prague, Czech Republic, 11–12 March 2019; Available online: https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/8_sge-asf12_eu_ministerial_conference_outcome.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  12. Morán, L.; Insausti, K.; Barron, L.J.R.; Aldai, N. Wild Boar—Production, Meat Quality Traits and Derived Products. In More than Beef, Pork and Chicken—The Production, Processing, and Quality Traits of Other Sources of Meat for Human Diet; Lorenzo, J., Munekata, P., Barba, F., Toldrá, F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2019; pp. 211–226. [Google Scholar]
  13. Metzger, M.J.; Murray-Rust, D.; Houtkamp, J.; Jensen, A.; La Riviere, I.; Paterson, J.S.; Marta Pérez-Soba, M.; Valluri-Nitsch, C. How do Europeans want to live in 2040? Citizen visions and their consequences for European land use. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2018, 18, 789–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Niewiadomska, K.; Kosicka-Gębska, M.; Gębski, J.; Jeżewska-Zychowicz, M.; Sułek, M. Perception of the Health Threats Related to the Consumption of Wild Animal Meat—Is Eating Game Risky? Foods 2021, 10, 1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Korpysa-Dzirba, W.; Różycki, M.; Bilska-Zając, E.; Karamon, J.; Sroka, J.; Bełcik, A.; Wasiak, M.; Cencek, T. Alaria alata in Terms of Risks to Consumers’ Health. Foods 2021, 10, 1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ludwiczak, A.; Składanowska-Baryza, J.; Stanisz, M. Effect of Age and Sex on the Quality of Offal and Meat of the Wild Boar (Sus scrofa). Animals 2020, 10, 660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Niewiadomska, K.; Kosicka-Gębska, M.; Gębski, J.; Gutkowska, K.; Jeżewska-Zychowicz, M.; Sułek, M. Game Meat Consumption—Conscious Choice or Just a Game? Foods 2020, 9, 1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kelava Ugarković, N.; Konjačić, M.; Malnar, J.; Tomljanović, K.; Šprem, N.; Ugarković, D. Proximate Chemical Composition, Fatty Acid Profile, and Lipid Qualitative Indices of Brown Bear Meat. Foods 2021, 10, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Needham, T.; Engels, R.A.; Bureš, D.; Kotrba, R.; van Rensburg, B.J.; Hoffman, L.C. Carcass Yields and Physiochemical Meat Quality of Semi-extensive and Intensively Farmed Impala (Aepyceros melampus). Foods 2020, 9, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Hoffman, L.C.; van Schalkwyk, D.L.; Muller, M.; Needham, T.; McMillin, K.W. Carcass Yields and Physical-Chemical Meat Quality Characteristics of Namibian Red Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus) as Influenced by Sex and Muscle. Foods 2021, 10, 2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Stasiak, K.; Roślewska, A.; Stanek, M.; Jankowiak, H.; Cygan-Szczegielniak, D.; Bocian, M. Comparison of the Fatty Acid Profile in the Meat of Pigs and Wild Boars. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2018, 30, 707–714. [Google Scholar]
  22. Strazdiņa, V.; Jemeaļjanovs, A.; Šterna, V. Nutrition value of wild animal meat. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. Sect. B Nat. Exact Appl. Sci. 2013, 67, 373–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Valencak, T.G.; Gamsjäger, L.; Ohrnberger, S.; Culbert, N.J.; Ruf, T. Healthy n-6/n-3 fatty acid composition from five European game meat species remains after cooking. BMC Res. Notes 2015, 8, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Viganò, R.; Demartini, E.; Riccardi, F.; Corradini, A.; Besozzi, M.; Lanfranchi, P.; Chiappini, P.L.; Cottini, A.; Gaviglio, A. Quality parameters of hunted game meat: Sensory analysis and pH monitoring. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2019, 8, 7724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Razmaite, V.J.; Svirmickas, G.; Siukscius, A. Effect of Weight, Sex and Hunting Period on Fatty Acid Composition of Intramuscular and Subcutaneous Fat from Wild Boar. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 11, e32. Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4081/ijas.2012.e32?scroll=top&needAccess=true (accessed on 26 January 2022). [CrossRef]
  26. Skobrák, E.B.; Bodnár, K.; Jónás, E.M.; Gundel, J.; Jávor, A. The comparison analysis of the main chemical composition parameters of wild boar meat and pork. Sci. Pap. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2011, 44, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  27. Legea Vânătorii și a Protecției Fondului Cinegetic nr. 407/2006. O.U.G. nr. 102/2010 Pentru Modificarea și Completarea Legii Vânătorii și a Protecției Fondului Cinegetic nr. 407/2006. Available online: https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/77053 (accessed on 5 January 2022). (In Romanian).
  28. Ashraf, I.; Khan, R.A.; Yaqoob, S.; Ali, A. Eco-biological study of wild boar (Sus scrofa cristatus) in Islamabad area, Pakistan. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 51, 307–315. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sáez-Royuela, C.; Gomariz, R.P.; Tellería, J.L. Age Determination of European Wild Boar. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1989, 17, 326–329. [Google Scholar]
  30. Regulation (EC) no. 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Lay. Down Specif. Hyg. Rules Hyg. Foodst. 2004, 4, 30. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32004R0853&from=RO (accessed on 26 January 2022).
  31. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC): Washington, DC, USA, 1990; Volume 1, Available online: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/002/aoac.methods.1.1990.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2022).
  32. Christie, W.W. A Simple Procedure for Rapid Transmethylation of Glycerolipids and Cholesteryl Esters. J. Lipid Res. 1982, 23, 1072–1075. Available online: http://www.jlr.org/content/23/7/1072.full.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2021). [CrossRef]
  33. Folch, J.; Lees, M.; Sloane Stanley, G.H. A Simple Method for the Isolation and Purification of Total Lipids from Animal Tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 1957, 226, 497–509. Available online: http://www.jbc.org/content/226/1/497.full.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2021). [CrossRef]
  34. Postolache, A.N.; Lazăr, R.; Boişteanu, P.C. Researches on the Characterization of Physical and Chemical Parameters of Refrigerated Meat from Wild Boar Sampled from the N-E Part of Romania. Lucr. Ştiinţifice Ser. Zooteh. 2010, 54, 193–197. Available online: http://www.uaiasi.ro/zootehnie/Pdf/Pdf_Vol_54/Alina_Postolache.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2021).
  35. Pedone, P.; Mattiolo, S.; Mattiolo, L. Body size and growth patterns in wild boars of Tuscany, Central Italy. IBEX J. Mt. Ecol. 1995, 3, 66–68. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sales, J.; Kotrba, R. Meat from wild boar (Sus scrofa L.): A review. Meat Sci. 2013, 94, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ivanović, S.D.; Stojanović, Z.M.; Popov-Raljic, J.V.; Baltić, M.Ž.; Pisinov, B.P.; Nešić, K.D. Meat quality characteristics of Duroc × Yorkshire, Duroc × Yorkshire × Wild Boar and Wild Boar. Hem. Ind. 2013, 67, 999–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Kasprzyk, A. Technological and Culinary Usefulness of Meat from Hybrids of Wild Boar (Sus Scrofa Scrofa) and Some Pig Breeds. Postdoctoral Dissertation, Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego w Lublinie, Lublin, Poland, 2012; p. 77, (In Polish, English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  39. Skewes, O.; Morales, R.; Mendoza, N.; Smulders, F.J.M.; Paulsen, P. Carcass and meat quality traits of wild boar (Sus scrofa s. L.) with 2n = 36 karyotype compared to those of phenotypically similar crossbreeds (2n = 37 and 2n = 38) raised under the same farming conditions 2: Fatty acid profile and cholesterol. Meat Sci. 2009, 83, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Tesarova, S.; Jezek, F.; Hulankova, R.; Plhal, R.; Drimaj, J.; Steinhauserova, I.; Borilova, G. The individual effect of different production systems, age and sex on the chemical composition of wild boar meat. Acta Vet. Brno 2018, 87, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Marsico, G.; Rasulo, A.; Dimatteo, S.; Tarricone, S.; Pinto, F.; Ragni, M. Pig, F1 (wild boar × pig) and wild boar meat quality. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 6 (Suppl. 1), 701–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lazăr, M.; Lazăr, R.; Diaconu, N.; Boişteanu, P.C. Researches Regarding the Characterization of the Nutritional Profile of Wild Boar (Sus Scrofa Ferus). Bull. UASVM Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2014, 71, 291–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Reka, S.; Bud, I.; Botha, M.; Ladoúi, D. Impact of Gender and Age on Game Meat Quality. Glob. J. Sci. Front. Res. Agric. Vet. 2013, 13, 975–5896. [Google Scholar]
  44. Postolache, A.N.; Ionescu, O.; Lazăr, R.; Boişteanu, P.C. Quality parameters of game meat (Sus scrofa ferus) hunted in Frasin area. Lucr. Științifice Med. Vet. 2011, 44, 213–222. [Google Scholar]
  45. Neethling, J.; Hoffman, L.C.; Muller, M. Factors influencing the flavour of game meat: A review. Meat Sci. 2016, 113, 139–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zomborszky, Z.; Szentmihályi, G.; Sarudi, I.; Horn, P.; Szabó, C.S. Nutrient composition of muscles in deer and boar. J. Food Sci. 1996, 61, 625–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Żmijewski, T.; Korzeniowski, W. Technological Properties of Wild Boar’s Meat. Electron. J. Pol. Agric. Univ. 2001, 4, 1–8. Available online: http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume4/issue2/food/art-02.html (accessed on 13 February 2022).
  48. Quaresma, M.A.G.; Alves, S.P.; Trigo-Rodrigues, I.; Pereira-Silva, R.; Santos, N.; Lemos, J.P.C.; Barreto, A.S.; Bessa, R.J.B. Nutritional evaluation of the lipid fraction of feral wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa) meat. Meat Sci. 2011, 89, 457–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dimatteo, S.; Marsico, G.; Facciolongo, A.M.; Ragni, M.; Zezza, F. Chemical and fatty acid composition of meat of wild boars fed on diets containing polyunsaturated fatty acids. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 2 (Suppl. 1), 418–420. [Google Scholar]
  50. Fernández, M.; Ordóñez, J.A.; Cambero, I.; Santos, C.; Pin, C.; de la Hoz, L. Fatty acid compositions of selected varieties of Spanish ham related to their nutritional implications. Food Chem. 2007, 101, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wood, J.D.; Richardson, R.I.; Nute, G.R.; Fisher, A.V.; Campo, M.M.; Kasapidou, E.; Sheard, P.R.; Esner, M. Effects of fatty acids on meat quality: A review. Meat Sci. 2003, 66, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. PCA screen plots of fatty acids on all samples and variables.
Figure 1. PCA screen plots of fatty acids on all samples and variables.
Animals 12 00810 g001
Figure 2. PCA factor-scores biplots, explaining the two components score (PC1 and PC2) for the samples of wild boar’s meat and display grouping similarities between samples according to their fatty acids concentration. SFA = Saturated Fatty Acids, MUFA = Monounsaturated Fatty Acids, PUFA: Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids; F_Age (14, 21, 24, 27, 32, 35): samples from female wild boars aged 14 to 35 months; M_Age (15, 20, 24, 25, 30, 34): samples taken from wild boar males aged 15 to 34 months.
Figure 2. PCA factor-scores biplots, explaining the two components score (PC1 and PC2) for the samples of wild boar’s meat and display grouping similarities between samples according to their fatty acids concentration. SFA = Saturated Fatty Acids, MUFA = Monounsaturated Fatty Acids, PUFA: Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids; F_Age (14, 21, 24, 27, 32, 35): samples from female wild boars aged 14 to 35 months; M_Age (15, 20, 24, 25, 30, 34): samples taken from wild boar males aged 15 to 34 months.
Animals 12 00810 g002
Table 1. Wild boar population dynamics in the Frasin Forest District.
Table 1. Wild boar population dynamics in the Frasin Forest District.
Wild Boar
Population
Hunting Seasons
2010/20112011/20122012/20132013/20142014/20152015/20162016/2017
Spring livestock (no.)95100989810197104
Hunting quota (no.)15151719202122
Hunted animals (no.)15101113141516
Table 2. Wild boar’s carcass distribution (mean ± SEM).
Table 2. Wild boar’s carcass distribution (mean ± SEM).
TraitGenderAge-Class eEffect
Male
(n = 27)
Female
(n = 49)
Subadults A
(n = 39)
Adults B
(n = 37)
GenderAge-ClassGender ×
Age-Class
Undressed weight a (kg)92.77 ± 9.3676.76 ± 4.1971.89 ± 3.7797.64 ± 7.100.030.050.18
Warm carcass weight b (kg)74.90 ± 8.2959.99 ± 3.5156.49 ± 3.8778.40 ± 6.350.030.030.13
Cold carcass weight c (kg)72.01 ± 8.10 57.70 ± 3.5253.96 ± 3.6975.75 ± 6.130.030.040.16
Dressing percentage d (%)77.09 ± 1.3375.05 ± 0.5774.79 ± 1.1377.36 ± 0.750.160.880.73
a weight of the freshly shot animal; b without organs but with kidneys, 5 h after shooting; c without organs but with kidneys, 24 h after slaughtering; d cold carcass as a proportion of undressed weight; e animal age was estimated based on tooth eruption, replacement and wear pattern; A animals with age ranging from 13–24 months; B animals with age older than 24 months; SEM: standard error of the mean; ns: p > 0.05; significant: p ≤ 0.05.
Table 3. Chemical composition (mean ± SEM) of Biceps femoris muscle from wild boars hunted in Romania.
Table 3. Chemical composition (mean ± SEM) of Biceps femoris muscle from wild boars hunted in Romania.
TraitsGenderAge-Class eEffect
Male
(n = 27)
Female
(n = 49)
Subadults A
(n = 39)
Adults B
(n = 37)
GenderAge-ClassGender ×
Age-Class
Moisture (%)64.59 ± 2.1261.83 ± 1.0061.86 ± 1.7564.55 ± 1.580.2620.274 0.315
Protein (%)22.76 ± 0.5622.00 ± 0.5322.78 ± 0.5921.99 ± 0.500.3650.347 0.494
Fat (%)5.56 ± 0.756.55 ± 0.824.52 ± 0.237.60 ± 0.580.1290.0010.525
Ash (%)1.14 ± 0.05 1.06 ± 0.170.99 ± 0.111.20 ± 0.130.676 0.243 0.188
A animals with age ranging from 13–24 months; B animals with age older than 24 months; e animal age was estimated based on tooth eruption, replacement, and wear patterns; SEM: standard error of the mean; ns: p > 0.05; significant: p ≤ 0.001.
Table 4. Effect of gender and age-class on the fatty acid composition (% of total fatty acids, mean ± SEM) of M. Biceps femoris, corrected for carcass weight and muscle fat content component.
Table 4. Effect of gender and age-class on the fatty acid composition (% of total fatty acids, mean ± SEM) of M. Biceps femoris, corrected for carcass weight and muscle fat content component.
GenderAge-class eEffect
Male
(n = 27)
Female
(n = 49)
Subadults A
(n = 39)
Adults B
(n = 37)
GenderAge-ClassGender ×
Age-Class
C14:00.24 ± 0.1610.31 ± 0.3030.27 ± 0.1050.28 ± 0.1280.197 0.0170.964
C15:00.01 ± 0.0070.04 ± 0.0100.03 ± 0.0110.02 ± 0.0130.0330.987 0.864
C16:021.44 ± 0.50121.62 ± 0.63020.93 ± 0.21522.13 ± 0.7360.745 0.976 0.592
C17:00.23 ± 0.0100.24 ± 0.0090.23 ± 0.0120.23 ± 0.0080.605 0.298 0.229
C18:010.89 ± 0.19211.50 ± 0.16810.99 ± 0.28411.39 ± 0.1900.065 0.761 0.643
C20:00.02 ± 0.0080.06 ± 0.0170.04 ± 0.0100.04 ± 0.0200.052 0.2780.404
C22:00.12 ± 0.0290.23 ± 0.0200.18 ± 0.0400.18 ± 0.0330.0060.0110.085
SFAa32.95 ± 0.77234.00 ± 0.73432.67 ± 0.51134.28 ± 0.9800.341 0.764 0.795
C16:1 n-94.78 ± 0.1953.55 ± 0.2234.24 ± 0.3814.09 ± 0.310<0.0010.0090.023
C18:1 n-73.87 ± 0.4523.19 ± 0.3283.53 ± 0.2423.53 ± 0.5480.1540.2780.208
C18:1 n-934.74 ± 0.44333.72 ± 0.79233.11 ± 0.26935.35 ± 0.7160.2640.7370.600
C20:1 n-90.82 ± 0.0521.12 ± 0.0390.95 ± 0.1070.99 ± 0.060<0.0010.0060.003
C22:1 n-90.10 ± 0.0400.22 ± 0.0160.15 ± 0.0440.17 ± 0.0380.0060.0030.035
MUFAb44.31 ± 0.66341.79 ± 1.03941.97 ± 0.46644.13 ± 1.2640.080 0.708 0.962
C18:2 n-612.56 ± 0.42114.57 ± 0.64114.28 ± 0.62012.85 ± 0.6270.0090.987 0.849
C18:3 n-30.91 ± 0.0630.87 ± 0.0400.90 ± 0.0560.88 ± 0.0500.2300.0970.922
C18:3 n-60.03 ± 0.0110.07 ± 0.0140.06 ± 0.0140.04 ± 0.0180.0130.0410.958
C20:20.04 ± 0.0070.05 ± 0.0060.04 ± 0.0080.04 ± 0.0060.1870.9410.17
C20:3 n-30.27 ± 0.0220.19 ± 0.0080.25 ± 0.0280.21 ± 0.0130.0010.948 0.083
C20:3 n-60.37 ± 0.0130.37 ± 0.0080.37 ± 0.0130.37 ± 0.0090.8670.351 0.648
C20:4 n-62.46 ± 0.2341.44 ± 0.0522.15 ± 0.3471.75 ± 0.168<0.0010.9710.007
C20:5 n-30.33 ± 0.0630.22 ± 0.0120.31 ± 0.0610.24 ± 0.0300.0440.3090.330
C22:4 n-60.50 ± 0.0520.32 ± 0.0120.44 ± 0.0660.37 ± 0.034<0.0010.2510.032
C22:5 n-30.12 ± 0.0120.10 ± 0.0040.11 ± 0.0090.11 ± 0.0100.0650.0980.228
C22:5 n-60.14 ± 0.0180.09 ± 0.0060.12 ± 0.0210.10 ± 0.0140.0220.0280.209
C22:6 n-30.11 ± 0.0270.17 ± 0.0990.13 ± 0.0230.14 ± 0.0260.1590.0800.889
PUFAc17.82 ± 0.77318.49 ± 0.68619.19 ± 0.41117.12 ± 0.5720.4500.5890.153
Fatty Acid Indices
n 6 16.04 ± 0.70116.87 ± 0.65917.42 ± 0.43415.48 ± 0.5270.285 0.980 0.258
n 3 1.74 ± 0.1741.55 ± 0.0331.71 ± 0.1511.58 ± 0.0970.076 0.094 0.544
PUFA/SFA0.54 ± 0.0290.55 ± 0.0230.59 ± 0.0180.50 ± 0.0170.541 0.589 0.486
n-6/n-39.59 ± 0.97610.86 ± 0.27210.54 ± 0.9319.91 ± 0.5290.161 0.140 0.936
A animals with age ranging from 13–24 months; B animals with age older than 24 months; a Saturated fatty acids; b Monounsaturated fatty acids; c Polyunsaturated fatty acids; e animal age was estimated based on tooth eruption, replacement, and wear patterns; SEM: standard error of the mean.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ciobanu, M.M.; Postolache, A.N.; Lipşa, F.D.; Munteanu, M.; Rațu, R.N.; Murariu, O.C.; Boișteanu, P.C. Meat Fatty Acid Composition of Wild Boars Hunted in Romania in Relationship to Gender and Age-Class. Animals 2022, 12, 810. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070810

AMA Style

Ciobanu MM, Postolache AN, Lipşa FD, Munteanu M, Rațu RN, Murariu OC, Boișteanu PC. Meat Fatty Acid Composition of Wild Boars Hunted in Romania in Relationship to Gender and Age-Class. Animals. 2022; 12(7):810. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070810

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ciobanu, Marius Mihai, Alina Narcisa Postolache, Florin Daniel Lipşa, Mugurel Munteanu, Roxana Nicoleta Rațu, Otilia Cristina Murariu, and Paul Corneliu Boișteanu. 2022. "Meat Fatty Acid Composition of Wild Boars Hunted in Romania in Relationship to Gender and Age-Class" Animals 12, no. 7: 810. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070810

APA Style

Ciobanu, M. M., Postolache, A. N., Lipşa, F. D., Munteanu, M., Rațu, R. N., Murariu, O. C., & Boișteanu, P. C. (2022). Meat Fatty Acid Composition of Wild Boars Hunted in Romania in Relationship to Gender and Age-Class. Animals, 12(7), 810. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070810

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop