A METHOD FOR PREPARING ANIMAL MEAT ENRICHED WITH OMEGA-3 POLYUNSATURATED FATTY ACIDS

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method for preparing animal meat enriched with Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids comprising providing animal meat enriched with Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids; identifying meat from at least one portion of the animal; and separating the meat from the at least one portion of the animal from the remainder of the animal.

Claims

1. A method for preparing animal meat enriched with Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, the method comprising the steps of: (a) providing animal meat enriched with Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids; (b) identifying meat from at least one portion of the animal; and (c) separating the meat from the at least one portion of the animal from the remainder of the animal.

2. A method according to claim 1, wherein the identifying step (b) comprises identifying meat from the chest or breast of the animal; and the separating step (c) comprises separating the chest or breast meat from the remainder of the animal.

3. A method according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the identifying step (b) comprises identifying meat from the leg or thigh of the animal; and the separating step (c) comprises separating the leg or thigh meat from the remainder of the animal.

4. A method according to any one of claims 1-3, wherein the providing step (a) comprises providing a whole animal carcass comprising meat enriched with Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

5. A method according to any one of claims 1-4, wherein the providing step (a) comprises (i) administering a composition comprising at least one source of Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid to the animal, prior to the providing step (a).

6. A method according to any one of claims 1-5, wherein the method further comprises the step of identifying the skin of the animal and removing the skin from the meat.

7. A method according to any one of claims 1-5, wherein the animal is a domesticated bird or poultry selected from chicken, quail, turkey, goose, duck, guinea fowl, pheasant, pigeon, and squab.

8. A method according to claim 7, wherein the identifying step (b) comprises identifying meat from each or any of the breast, thigh, drumstick, wing, mini-fillet, or liver of the animal; and the separating step (c) comprises separating the meat from the breast, thigh, drumstick, wing, mini-fillet, or liver from the remainder of the animal.

9. A method according to any one of claims 1-5, wherein the animal is a domesticated swine, hog, or pig.

10. A method according to claim 9, wherein the identifying step (b) comprises identifying meat from each or any of loin fat, loin lean, shoulder, belly, and rind of the animal; and the separating step (c) comprises separating the meat from at least one of the loin fat, loin lean, shoulder, belly, and rind from the remainder of the animal.

Description

EXAMPLES

[0091] Embodiments of the present invention will now be described with reference to the following non-limiting examples.

Example 1

[0092] Study 1. Poultry-Meat Enrichment with DHA and EPA

[0093] The trial was carried out to assess the level of enrichment of EPA and DHA in poultry meat after using various sources and levels of EPA and DHA in the poultry diet. The eating quality of the broiler meat was also examined.

[0094] 972 Ross 308 birds, split housed and sexed were used in this trial. The day old chicks were delivered from commercial hatcheries. They were fed ad libitum with tube feeders with hoppers and nipple drinkers. All birds had 23 hours of light per day from day 0 to day 7, and 18 hours of light for the remainder of the crop. The birds were vaccinated at day 18.

[0095] Three groups of poultry were fed one of 3 diets: [0096] Control diet (T1) [0097] Control diet with 7.5% (w/w) composition of the invention (T2) [0098] Control diet with 15.0% (w/w) composition of the invention (T3)

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Formulation of the control Diet (T1) Broiler Broiler Broiler Finisher/ Starter Grower Withdrawal Maize 15.0 10.0 10.0 Wheat 47.9 55.8 59.4 Full fat soya 12.5 12.5 12.5 Soya bean meal 19.1 15.3 11.5 Soyabean oil 1.35 2.64 2.89 Calcium carbonate, dicalcium phosphate, 2.900 2.800 2.700 sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, vitamins and minerals Amino acids 1.100 1.000 1.000

[0099] The composition of the invention comprised % (w/w):

TABLE-US-00002 Group description % in OMP Linseed micronised 66.7 Dehydrated algae cells 8.0 Protected fish oil 3.3 Surfactant/emulsifier/binder/flow agent 5.3 Synthetic/Natural Antioxidants 2.0 Cereal base 14.7

[0100] The composition of the invention was added directly into the feed during production at 7.5% and 15% to give experimental diets T2 and T3, respectively.

[0101] Fatty acid analysis of the meat portions was carried out using gas chromatography via methyl esters. The method for fatty acid hydrolysis is British Standard 4401 Pt 4:1970. Tests are UKAS accredited to BS ENO/IE17025:2005.The samples were analysed in Mylnefield Research Services Ltd, Dundee, Scotland. Mylnefield Research Services Ltd, is an accredited laboratory under ISO:17025.

[0102] Sensory analysis was carried out by Wirral Sensory Services Ltd. A Central Location Test of 100 typical consumers was carried out (regular consumers of whole chickens with a mix of age, gender and socio-economic demographics). The respondents were presented with the products in a sequential monadic order; the products were de-branded before being given to the respondents and the order of presentation was rotated to prevent any potential bias. Respondents were then asked to score each of the products for a number of key parameters on a 0-10 point hedonic scale, as well as noting down any specific likes and dislikes. They were also asked to score the products on a 5-point diagnostic scale for certain parameters to offer a greater understanding. Results of the fatty acid analysis are shown in Table 2, and results of the sensory analysis are shown in Table 3.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 2 Average sum of DHA + EPA (mg)/100 g meat in broiler meat portions Breast Thigh Drumstick Wings + skin skin + skin + skin + skin T1 (Control) 41.3 30.2 56.3 47.1 57.5 T2 (+7.5% fat premix) 83.5 57.2 135.6 104.3 162.7 T3 (+15% fat premix) 91.3 55.0 151.4 79 148.7

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 3 sensory results (10-point acceptance scale; results show mean score where 1 = Extremely Unacceptable, 10 = Extremely Acceptable) Control (T1) T2 T3 Overall 7.6.sup.a 8.02.sup.b 7.34.sup.b Appearance 7.4.sup.a 7.87.sup.b 7.72.sup.ab Aroma 7.09 7.44 7.39 Texture 7.39 7.79 7.45 Moisture 7.44.sup.a 8.14.sup.b 6.94.sup.c Succulence 7.5 .sup.a 7.88.sup.a 6.87.sup.b Tenderness 7.91.sup.ab 7.57.sup.a 8.23.sup.b Flavour 7.39 7.77 7.45 Preference (%) 31 44 18 .sup.a,b,cvalues are significantly different at P < 0.05, means that share the same superscript significantly different from each other

[0103] Supplementation with high levels of omega fatty acids (up to 15%% of the composition of the invention in the diet) resulted in enrichment of the meat. Analysis of the cooked meat showed no significant differences in texture or in flavour between the 3 treatments. However, the enriched meat from the supplementation at 7.5% composition of the invention was overall the most acceptable product, showing differences between the treatments in succulence, moistness, tenderness and visual score (see Table 3). This meat was also the most preferred meat.

Example 2

[0104] Optimisation of Feed, Bird Performance and Human Health Benefits

[0105] A trial was carried out as a feed production study, a study on bird performance and a clinical human study. The aims were to optimise the formulation of the composition of the invention, to assess the effects of dietary supplementation with the composition of the invention on bird production performance, to study the time course of absorption and accumulation of chicken-meat derived omega-3 PUFAs in humans and to look at the effects of omega-enriched chicken meat on clinical measurements of the reduction of the risk factors of cardiovascular health. The composition of the invention was optimised by increasing the level of fish oil and reducing the level of linseed (Table 5). 22,800 Ross birds, split housed and sexed were used in the trial. The day old chicks were delivered from commercial hatcheries. They were fed and watered ad libitum with automatic feeders and nipple drinkers. All birds had 23 hours of light per day from day 0 to day 7, and 18 hours of light for the remainder of the crop. The birds were vaccinated at day 18. Birds were fed a standard starter and grower diet (same as control starter and grower diet) and then offered a finisher ration containing 10% (w/w) of a composition of the invention as defined in Table 4 from 21 days for approximately 20 days (until final kill).

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 4 Broiler Broiler Broiler Finisher/ Control diet Starter Grower Withdrawal Maize 15.0 10.0 10.0 Wheat 47.9 55.8 59.4 Full fat soya 12.5 12.5 12.5 Soya bean meal 19.1 15.3 11.5 Soyabean oil 1.35 2.64 2.89 Calcium carbonate, dicalcium 2.900 2.800 2.700 phosphate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, vitamins and minerals Amino acids 1.100 1.000 1.000

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 5 Adapted omega premix formulation % in OMP Linseed micronised 30.0 Dehydrated algae cells 7.5 Protected fish oil 20.0 Surfactant/emulsifier/ 4.0 binder/flow agent Synthetic/Natural 1.5 Antioxidants Cereal base 37.0

[0106] Male birds were selected for the trial. Birds were processed, this typically involves stunning, bleeding, spay washing, de-feathering, scalding, head/foot removal, evisceration, carcass inspection, spray washing, primary chilling, weighing and secondary chilling. The birds were then portioned as required and frozen until required by the study participants or minced and sent to the laboratory for fatty acid profiling.

[0107] Poultry performance results showed that birds receiving the a composition of the invention showed similar growth rates, feed efficiency and mortality as compared to birds receiving standard commercial diets:

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 6 Performance results, whole house Omega-premix Bodyweight 2.2 kg FCR 1.63 Ave age at slaughter 37.48 days Mortality 1.47% EFEP 355

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 7 Average sum of DHA + EPA (mg)/100 g meat in broiler meat portions average sum DHA + EPA (mg)/100 g Portion Control Omega Premix Whole bird 14.40 77.85 Deboned fillet + skin 12.95 70.43 Deboned fillet skin 10.28 55.8 Deboned thigh + skin 17.23 116.45 Deboned thigh skin 14.65 122.08 Drums + skin 11.25 82.43 Wings + skin 11.45 83.8

[0108] High levels of enrichment in all of the meat portions were achieved.

Example 3

[0109] Optimisation for Maximum EnrichmentReplacement of Fish Oil and Sensory Analysis

[0110] A trial was carried out to further modify the dietary composition of the invention in order to achieve the maximum enrichment of all meat portions including the breast meat. The diets were further modified to try to achieve enrichment of the poultry meat without the use of fish oil, in order to meet the needs of birds for which animal-derived ingredients are not permitted.

[0111] 2268 Ross 308 split housed and sexed were used in the trial. The day old chicks were delivered from commercial hatcheries. They were fed ad libitum with tube feeders with hoppers and nipple drinkers. All birds had 23 hours of light per day from day 0 to day 7, and 18 hours of light for the remainder of the crop. The birds were vaccinated at day 18.The birds were, divided into 7 treatments. The treatments were

[0112] T1. Control, standard diet

[0113] T2. Omega Premix A fed during finisher and withdrawal periods

[0114] T3. Omega Premix B fed during finisher and withdrawal periods

[0115] T4. Omega Premix C fed during finisher and withdrawal periods

[0116] T5. Omega Premix D fed during finisher and withdrawal periods

[0117] T6. Omega Premix E fed during finisher and withdrawal periods

[0118] T7. Omega Premix A fed during grower, finisher and withdrawal periods

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Broiler Finisher/ Broiler Broiler with- Starter Grower drawal Maize 15.0 10.0 10.0 Wheat 47.9 55.8 59.4 Full fat soya 12.5 12.5 12.5 Soya bean meal 19.1 15.3 11.5 Soyabean oil 1.35 2.64 2.89 Calcium carbonate, dicalcium phosphate, 2.900 2.800 2.700 sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, vitamins and minerals Amino acids 1.100 1.000 1.000

[0119] The compositions of the invention used are shown in Table 10. Compositions of the invention were added into the final feed at 10% of the total diet. Bird performance was recorded by the trial investigator daily and at slaughter.

[0120] 30 composite samples were sent for meat analysis. This involved stunning, bleeding, spay washing, de-feathering, scalding, head/foot removal, evisceration, carcass inspection, spray washing, primary chilling, weighing and secondary chilling. The birds were then portioned as required and sent to Agri-Food and BioSciences Institute (AFBI), Belfast, Northern Ireland for fatty acid profiling. Fatty acid analysis of the meat portions was carried out using gas chromatography via methyl esters. The fatty acids measured were: C10:0 Capric acid, C10:1(n-1)cis cis-9-Decenoic acid, C12:0 Lauric acid, C12:1(n-1)cis cis-11-Dodecenoic acid, C12:1(n-3)cis cis-9-Dodecenoic acid, C13:0 Tridecanoic acid, C14:0 ante-iso 11-Methyltridecanoic acid, C14:0 iso 12-Methyltridecanoic acid, C14:0 Myristic acid, C14:1(n-5)cis Myristoleic Acid, C15:0 ante-iso 12-Methyltetradecanoic acid, C15:0 iso 13-Methylmyristic acid, C15:0 Pentadecanoic acid, C15:1(n-5)cis cis-10-Pentadecenoic Acid, C16:0 iso 14-Methylpentadecanoic acid, C16:0 Palmitic acid, C16:1(n-5)cis cis-11-Hexadecenoic acid,C16:1(n-7)cis Palmitoleic acid, C16:1(n-9)cis cis-5-Hexadecenoic acid, C17:0 ante-iso 14-Methylhexadecanoic acid, C17:0 Heptadecanoic acid, C17:0 iso 15-Methylpalmitic acid, C17:1(n-7)cis cis-10-Heptadecenoic Acid, C18:0 ante-iso 15-Methylheptadecanoic acid, C18:0 iso 16-Methylheptadecanoic acid, C18:0 Stearic acid, C18:1(n-11)trans trans-7-Octadecenoic acid, C18:1(n-6)cis cis-12-Octadecenoic acid, C18:1(n-6)trans trans-12-Octadecenoic Acid, C18:1(n-7)cis cis-Vaccenic Acid, C18:1(n-7)trans trans-Vaccenic acid, C18:1(n-9)cis Oleic acid, C18:1(n-9)trans Elaidic acid, C18:2(n-6)cis Linoleic acid, C18:2(n-6)trans Linolelaidic acid, C18:2conj Total Conjugated Linoleic acid (CLA), C18:3(n-3)cis Alpha-Linolenic acid (ALA), C18:3(n-6)cis Gamma-Linolenic acid (GLA), C18:4(n-3)cis Stearidonic acid, C20:0 Arachidic acid, C20:1(n-11) Gadoleic Acid, C20:1(n9)cis cis-11-Eicosenoic Acid, C20:2(n-6)cis cis-11,14-Ecosadienoic acid, C20:3(n-3)cis cis-11,14,17-Eicosatrienoic acid, C20:3(n-6)cis cis-8,11,14 Eicosatrienoic acid, C20:4(n-3)cis cis-8,11,14,17-Eicosatetraenoic acid, C20:4(n-6)cis Arachidonic Acid, C20:5(n-3)cis Eicosapentenoic acid (EPA), C22:0 Behenic acid, C22:1(n-11)cis Cetoleic acid, C22:1(n-9)cis Erucic acid, C22:2(n-6)cis Docosadienoic acid, C22:4(n, 6)cis Docosatetraenoic acid, C22:5(n-3)cis Docosapentaenoic (DPA), C22:5(n-6)cis cis4,7,10,13,16Docosapentaenoic acid, C22:6(n-3)cis Docosahexaenoic (DHA), C24:0 Lignoceric acid, C24:1(n-9)cis Nervonic acid, C25:0 Pentacosanoic acid, C4:0 Butyric acid, C5:0 Valeric acid, C6:0 Caproic acid, C7:0 Heptanoic acid, C8:0 Caprylic acid, C9:0 Nonanoic acid. The method for fatty acid hydrolysis is British Standard 4401 Pt 4:1970. The tests are UKAS accredited to BS ENO/IE 17025:2005.The samples were analysed in Eurofins Scientific, an accredited laboratory under ISO:17025.

[0121] In addition, sensory analysis was carried out using (blind-coded) chicken. The chicken was cooked in the oven at 190 C. until a minimum deep thigh muscle temperature of 86 C. was achieved. Sensory 15 analysis were carried out by Wirral Sensory Services Ltd. A Central Location Test of 109 typical consumers was carried out (regular consumers of whole chickens with a mix of age, gender and socio-economic demographics). The respondents were presented with the products in a sequential monadic order; the products were de-branded before being given to the respondents and the order of presentation was rotated to prevent any potential bias. Respondents were then asked to score each of the products for a number of key parameters on a 0-10 point hedonic scale, as well as noting down any specific likes and dislikes. They were also asked to score the products on a 5-point diagnostic scale for certain parameters to offer a greater understanding.

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 Composition Formulations A B C D E Micronised linseed 30 20 30 15 30 Dehydrated algae 7.5 7.5 15 15 15 Encapsulated fish oil 20 40 20 40 0 Surfactant/emulsifier/ 4 4 4 4 4 binder/flow agent Synthetic/Natural 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Antioxidants Cereal 37 27 29.5 24.5 49.5

[0122] Results of bird performance are shown in tables 11 and 12.

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 Live weight gain (g/bird) Control T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 7 days 180 189 183 183 186 181 191 14 days 480 507 499 519 499 499 512 21 days 935 974 924 945 958 967 997 28 days 1478 1561 1470 1563 1476 1549 1606 Av 36.5d 2113 2083 2068 2089 2061 2012 2059 (37d)

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Feed conversion ratio Control T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 7 days 0.828 0.834 0.826 0.834 0.833 0.855 0.865 14 days 1.142 1.118 1.081 1.053 1.112 1.086 1.102 21 days 1.282 1.287 1.285 1.326 1.272 1.240 1.212 28 days 1.397 1.423 1.444 1.438 1.493 1.411 1.391 Av 36.5d 1.571 1.613 1.608 1.606 1.607 1.644 1.638 (37d)

[0123] Fat analysis of the chicken meat from two different laboratories is shown in table 13, while taste panel results are shown in tables 14 and 15:

TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 Sum of DHA + EPA (mg)/100 g meat in broiler meat portions Breast Thigh + skin skin + skin skin T1 12.95 10.28 17.23 14.65 T2 52.72 40.25 60.46 59.28 T3 65.81 59.97 94.41 104.99 T4 86.17 79.7 78.49 130.69 T5 110.84 95.32 217.62 176.94 T6 94.23 76.55 121.35 95.03 T7 61.43 52.27 85.16 52.27

TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 Taste panel results; mean scores for product attributes of white meat samples T1 Attribute Control T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 Cooked 6.89a 7.21a 7.16a 7.37a 7.21a 7.21a 7.00a appearance Aroma 6.89a 7.21a 6.68a 7.16a 7.21a 7.00a 6.74a Taste 6.58a 7.21a 6.68a 7.26a 7.11a 7.32a 6.95a After taste 6.37a 6.68a 6.47a 6.95a 7.05a 7.16a 6.58a Texture 5.74b 6.74a 6.32ab 6.95a 6.89a 6.95a 6.58ab Succulence 5.74a 6.00a 6.00a 6.53a 6.74a 6.63a 6.16a Overall 6.00b 6.68ab 6.26ab 6.89a 6.89a 7.11a 6.68ab acceptability

TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 15 Taste panel results; mean scores for product attributes of dark meat samples T1 Attribute Control T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 Cooked 7.07a 7.14a 7.21a 7.00a 7.00a 7.00a 7.14a appearance Aroma 7.00a 7.07a 6.57a 6.93a 7.07a 7.07a 7.21a Taste 7.14a 7.14a 6.71ab 7.21a 5.71b 6.29ab 7.00ab After taste 6.79ab 6.86ab 6.36ab 6.93a 5.50b 6.14ab 6.86ab Texture 6.86a 7.21a 6.57a 6.36a 6.36a 6.29a 6.93a Succulence 6.64a 7.07a 6.36a 6.29a 6.14a 6.50a 6.93a Overall 6.86a 7.07a 6.21ab 6.43ab 5.43b 6.00ab 6.71ab acceptability

[0124] There were no significant differences between treatments for the white or dark meat samples with regards to the cooked appearance, aroma, or succulence. There were slight significant differences noted with regards to texture and overall acceptability of white meat, with the high algal oil-fed birds, and the zero fish oilfed birds scoring better than the control birds for both of these attributes. There were some slight significant differences noted with regards to taste, after taste and overall acceptability of dark meat; birds receiving the high fish oil, high algaloil treatment scored worse for taste, aftertaste and overall acceptability.

Example 4

[0125] Refining the Composition of the Invention and to Evaluate Alternative Sources of Omega 3 Sources

[0126] A trial was carried out to refine the composition of the invention and to evaluate alternative sources of Omega 3 sources (micronized linseed, dehydrated algae and algal oil). 972 Ross 308 birds sexed and placed in 3 pens with 324 birds per pen. The day old chicks were delivered from commercial hatcheries. They were fed ad libitum with tube feeders with hoppers and nipple drinkers. All birds had 23 hours of light per day from day 0 to day 7, and 18 hours of light for the remainder of the crop. The birds were vaccinated at day 18. They were fed a standard commercial starter and grower diet. Omega-enriched diets were fed from day 22, at 10% of the total diet. Birds were thinned at 35 days and final slaughter was at 39 days.

[0127] Treatments were: [0128] Control [0129] T1 : 10% Premix 1 from day 22 to end (Finisher and withdrawal) [0130] T2 10% Premix 2 from day 22 to end (Finisher and withdrawal)

[0131] Formulae of the premixes is shown in table 21.

TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 21 Premix formulations Premix 1 Premix 2 Micronized linseed 30 15 Algal oil 6.9 5.2 Surfactant, emulsifier, 1 1 binder and flow agent Synthetic and natural 1.5 1.5 antioxidants Cereals 59 75.8 Inclusion rate in feed % 10 10 C18:2% in feed 0.58 0.30 C20:5 + C22:6% in feed 0.27 0.20

[0132] Results: Performance results are shown in table 22 and 23.

TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 22 Bodyweight gain g/day Control Av (g/d) T1 (g/d) T2 (g/d) 7 d 17.8 19.4 19.3 14 d 41.7 45.7 43.6 21 d 67.1 66.8 72.8 28 d 83.0 91.3 68.0 35 d 74.0 73.3 86.4 37 d Av 88.8 63.8 80.8

TABLE-US-00018 TABLE 23 Feed Conversion Ratio Control Av T1 T2 7 d 0.88 0.87 0.91 14 d 1.16 1.10 1.17 21 d 1.13 1.26 1.26 28 d 1.45 1.35 1.46 35 d 1.65 1.53 1.56 37 d Av 1.66 1.61 1.59

TABLE-US-00019 TABLE 24 Omega 3 deposition in the meat for treatment 1 and 2 Average Average Treatment 1 Treatment 2 BREAST EPA mg/100 g 9.7 9.2 DHA mg/100 g 70.6 65.7 THIGH EPA mg/100 g 36.3 30.4 DHA mg/100 g 202.4 173.6

[0133] The algae oil and linseed are capable of enriching chicken meat.

EXAMPLE 5

[0134] Fish-Free Compositions

[0135] A trial was carried out to compare results from an Omega 3 enrichment of chicken with and without fish oil or algal oil.

[0136] 972 Ross 308 split housed and sexed were used in the trial. The day old chicks were delivered from commercial hatcheries. They were fed ad libitum with tube feeders with hoppers and nipple drinkers. All birds had 23 hours of light per day from day 0 to day 7, and 18 hours of light for the remainder of the crop. The birds were vaccinated at day 18.The birds were, divided into 3 treatments. The treatments were [0137] T1. Control, standard diet [0138] T2. Omega Premix A fed during finisher and withdrawal periods [0139] T3. Omega Premix B fed during finisher and withdrawal periods

[0140] Compositions according to the present invention were prepared as indicated in Tables 26 below.

TABLE-US-00020 Broiler Finisher/ Broiler Broiler with- T25. Control diet Starter Grower drawal Maize 15.0 10.0 10.0 Wheat 47.9 55.8 59.4 Full fat soya 12.5 12.5 12.5 Soya bean meal 19.1 15.3 11.5 Soyabean oil 1.35 2.64 2.89 Calcium carbonate, dicalcium phosphate, 2.900 2.800 2.700 sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, vitamins and minerals Amino acids 1.100 1.000 1.000

TABLE-US-00021 TABLE 26 Composition of premixtures with and without fish oil Premix A Premix B Ingredient (%) (%) Cereal 37.0 49.5 Micronised linseed 30.0 30.0 Fish oil (45%) 20.0 0.0 Microalgae 7.5 15.0 Anti-caking agent and antioxidants 5.5 5.5

[0141] Compositions of the invention were added into the final feed at 10% of the total diet. Bird performance was recorded by the trial investigator daily and at slaughter.

[0142] 30 composite samples were sent for meat analysis. This involved stunning, bleeding, spay washing, de-feathering, scalding, head/foot removal, evisceration, carcass inspection, spray washing, primary chilling, weighing and secondary chilling. The birds were then portioned as required and sent to Agri-Food and BioSciences Institute (AFBI), Belfast, Northern Ireland for fatty acid profiling. Fatty acid analysis of the meat portions was carried out using gas chromatography via methyl esters. The fatty acids measured were: C10:0 Capric acid, C10:1(n-1)cis cis-9-Decenoic acid, C12:0 Lauric acid, C12:1(n-1)cis cis-11-Dodecenoic acid, C12:1(n-3)cis cis-9-Dodecenoic acid, C13:0 Tridecanoic acid, C14:0 ante-iso 11-Methyltridecanoic acid, C14:0 iso 12-Methyltridecanoic acid, C14:0 Myristic acid, C14:1(n-5)cis Myristoleic Acid, C15:0 ante-iso 12-Methyltetradecanoic acid, C15:0 iso 13-Methylmyristic acid, C15:0 Pentadecanoic acid, C15:1(n-5)cis cis-10-Pentadecenoic Acid, C16:0 iso 14-Methylpentadecanoic acid, C16:0 Palmitic acid, C16:1(n-5)cis cis-11-Hexadecenoic acid,C16:1(n-7)cis Palmitoleic acid, C16:1(n-9)cis cis-5-Hexadecenoic acid, C17:0 ante-iso 14-Methylhexadecanoic acid, C17:0 Heptadecanoic acid, C17:0 iso 15-Methylpalmitic acid, C17:1(n-7)cis cis-10-Heptadecenoic Acid, C18:0 ante-iso 15-Methylheptadecanoic acid, C18:0 iso 16-Methylheptadecanoic acid, C18:0 Stearic acid, C18:1(n-11)trans trans-7-Octadecenoic acid, C18:1(n-6)cis cis-12-Octadecenoic acid, C18:1(n-6)trans trans-12-Octadecenoic Acid, C18:1(n-7)cis cis-Vaccenic Acid, C18:1(n-7)trans trans-Vaccenic acid, C18:1(n-9)cis Oleic acid, C18:1(n-9)trans Elaidic acid, C18:2(n-6)cis Linoleic acid, C18:2(n-6)trans Linolelaidic acid, C18:2conj Total Conjugated Linoleic acid (CLA), C18:3(n-3)cis Alpha-Linolenic acid (ALA), C18:3(n-6)cis Gamma-Linolenic acid (GLA), C18:4(n-3)cis Stearidonic acid, C20:0 Arachidic acid, C20:1(n-11) Gadoleic Acid, C20:1(n9)cis cis-11-Eicosenoic Acid, C20:2(n-6)cis cis-11,14-Ecosadienoic acid, C20:3(n-3)cis cis-11,14,17-Eicosatrienoic acid, C20:3(n-6)cis cis-8,11,14 Eicosatrienoic acid, C20:4(n-3)cis cis-8,11,14,17-Eicosatetraenoic acid, C20:4(n-6)cis Arachidonic Acid, C20:5(n-3)cis Eicosapentenoic acid (EPA), C22:0 Behenic acid, C22:1(n-11)cis Cetoleic acid, C22:1(n-9)cis Erucic acid, C22:2(n-6)cis Docosadienoic acid, C22:4(n, 6)cis Docosatetraenoic acid, C22:5(n-3)cis Docosapentaenoic (DPA), C22:5(n-6)cis cis4,7,10,13,16Docosapentaenoic acid, C22:6(n-3)cis Docosahexaenoic (DHA), C24:0 Lignoceric acid, C24:1(n-9)cis Nervonic acid, C25:0 Pentacosanoic acid, C4:0 Butyric acid, C5:0 Valeric acid, C6:0 Caproic acid, C7:0 Heptanoic acid, C8:0 Caprylic acid, C9:0 Nonanoic acid. The method for fatty acid hydrolysis is British Standard 4401 Pt 4:1970. The tests are UKAS accredited to BS ENO/IE17025:2005.The samples were analysed in Eurofins Scientific, an accredited laboratory under ISO:17025.

[0143] The results of the average sum of DHA+EPA (mg)/100 g meat in broiler meat are shown in Table 27.

TABLE-US-00022 TABLE 27 Sum of DHA + EPA (mg)/100 g meat in broiler meat portions Breast Thigh + skin + skin T2 (n = 20) 75.08 194.995 T3 (n = 30) 52.72 60.46

EXAMPLE 6

[0144] Enrichment of Ppork with Omega 3 Fatty Acids

[0145] The objective of this research was to determine the best method for omega 3 enrichment of pork.

[0146] Pigs starting at 60 kg (50 days pre-slaughter) and 90 kg (25 days pre-slaughter) were balanced for weight, gender (at least 8 gilts in each pen) and assigned into treatment groups. There were 2 pen replicates of each treatment with 15 pigs allocated per pen which were kept in the same group until slaughter. Pigs were weighed at the beginning of the trial and every 4 weeks after. Performance parameters such as feed intake, growth rate and FCR were calculated and pigs were followed to factory so that carcass performance data to include killing-out percentage (KO %) and back fat (P2) could be recorded for pigs on each treatment. Pigs from both start weights were all slaughtered on the same day. In this study 4 dietary treatments were tests over 2 feeding periods to give 8 diets. The four treatments included:

[0147] T1=Control, 25 days

[0148] T2=Control, 50 days

[0149] T3=Premix 1, 25 days

[0150] T4=Premix 1, 50 days

[0151] T5=Premix 2, 25 days

[0152] T6=Premix 2, 50 days

[0153] T7=Premix 3, 25 days

[0154] T8=Premix 3, 50 days

TABLE-US-00023 TABLE 28 Premix 1 Premix 2 Premix 3 Wheat 70 31 59.5 Micronised linseed 15 60 20 Linseed oil 0 5 0 Dehydrated algal cells 11 0 16.5 Antioxidents, emulsifier 4 4 4 and anti-caking agent

[0155] On the day slaughter, meat was recovered from gilts as per standard commercial practice. The treatment carcasses were labelled on the loin, shoulder and belly so that samples of each could be obtained and prepared for analysis. The fatty acid profile was analysed from loin meat, loin fat, pork belly, shoulder and rind. The laboratory used was Eurofins Scientific, Dublin. For the loin lean samples, the rind and all visible fat was removed. For the loin fat samples the rind was removed from the fat. The rind samples were taken from the belly. For the belly and shoulder samples the rind was removed.

[0156] Results 50 Days Pre-Slaughter

[0157] Pigs on treatment T4 reported a heavier finishing weight compared to the other treatment groups (T2, T6 or T8) although the differences were not statistically significant (Table 29). Numerically all treatments had an increased feed intake compared to pigs within control group with Premix 1 reporting the highest feed intake. Additionally, Premix 1 had the highest growth rate compared to the remaining treatments with Premix 2 and 3 reporting a lower growth rate than pigs on control diet. From 0-28 days pigs within the control treatment had a statistically significant (P<0.05) improved FCR as compared to the remaining three treatment groups. Over 0-50 days numerically pigs on control diet had an improved FCR whereas pigs within treatment Premix 3 reported the worse performance (Table 29).

[0158] No statistically significant differences were observed for carcass dead weight, kill out percentage or P2 (Table 30). Numerically Premix 3 reported the highest kill out percentage of 81.13% and back fat of 13.69mm with the control group reporting the lowest kill out percentage and least amount of back fat (Table 30).

TABLE-US-00024 TABLE 29 Live performance data for pigs allocated to different omega 3 enriched diets 50 days pre-slaughter Diet Control Premix 1 Premix 2 Premix 3 No. Pigs 29 29 30 29 S.E.M Significance Weight Start 62.37 63.05 63.45 63.63 0.845 0.74 28d 91.72 91.25 89.85 89.83 2.153 0.926 50d 111.88 114.34 111.68 112.27 2.439 0.858 ADFI (g/d) 0-28d 2292 2496 2381 2381 98.302 0.566 29-50d 2270 2746 2765 2473 99.356 0.178 0-50d 2369 2606 2550 2451 95.08 0.41 ADG (g/d) 0-28d 1048 1007 943 936 51.133 0.587 29-50d 916 1049 992 949 57.599 0.479 0-50d 990 1026 965 973 33.389 0.621 FCR 0-28d 2.19.sup.a 2.48 .sup.b 253 .sup.b 254 .sup.b 0.05 0.027 29-50d 2.7 2.62 2.79 2.61 0.213 0.945 0-50d 2.39 2.54 2.64 2.52 0.064 0.191

TABLE-US-00025 TABLE 30 Carcass performance for pigs allocated to different omega 3 enriched diets 50 days pre-slaughter Diet Control Premix 1 Premix 2 Premix 3 S.E.M Significance Start Wt 62.1 63.07 63.45 63.62 0.845 0.74 End Wt. 111.83 114.33 111.68 112.29 2.438 0.909 Dead Wt. 91.16 91.91 90.51 90.85 2.134 0.974 KO % 81 78.7 81.13 79.08 1.966 0.827 P2 12.68 13.6 13.69 12.77 0.415 0.307

[0159] 25 Days Pre-Slaughter

[0160] No statistically significant differences were observed in finish weight for pigs within the four treatments. Control pigs had the heaviest finish weight of 115.96 kg whilst treatment Premix 1 reported the lowest finish weight of 112.87 kg but that treatment did have the lightest start weight (Table 31). There was no statistically significant differences in feed intake, growth rate and FCR between treatment groups. Numerically treatment Premix 2 reported the highest feed intake, highest growth rate which was similar to the control treatment and had an improved FCR compared to Premix 1 and Premix 3 treatments. The control treatment did however have the most improved FCR over all treatments with a value of 2.81 (Table 31).

[0161] No statistically significant differences were observed in carcass dead weight, kill out percentage and P2 between all four treatments (Table 32). On a numerical basis Premix 3 had the lowest kill out percentage and Premix 2 reported the highest amount of back fat.

TABLE-US-00026 TABLE 31 Live performance of pigs allocated to different omega 3 enriched diets 25 days pre-slaughter Diet Control Premix 1 Premix 2 Premix 3 No. Pigs 30 28 30 30 S.E.M Significance Weight (kg) Start 92.04 90.55 93.48 91.63 1.108 0.416 25d 115.96 112.87 113.6 115.55 2.944 0.853 ADFI (g/d) 0-25d 2690 2762 2567 2833 72.021 0.199 ADG (g/d) 0-25d 957 893 805 957 89.467 0.624 FCR 0-25d 2.81 3.09 3.19 2.96 0.317 0.751

TABLE-US-00027 TABLE 32 Carcass performance for pigs allocated to different omega 3 enriched diets 25 days pre-slaughter Diet Control Premix 1 Premix 2 Premix 3 S.E.M Significance Start Wt 92.03 90.56 93.48 91.63 1.108 0.416 End Wt. 115.93 112.96 113.6 115.55 2.944 0.853 Dead Wt. 93.77 92.78 92.67 94.24 2.515 0.95 KO % 81.41 82.36 80.12 81.02 0.84 0.378 P2 12.78 12.97 12.53 14.21 0.683 0.375

[0162] Comparison of Performance Data Between Omega 3 Enrichment Over 50 days and 25 Days Pre Slaughter

[0163] Pigs that commenced their omega 3 enrichment 25 days pre-slaughter typically had heavier finish weights upon slaughter. Furthermore, feed intake was higher for pigs that began their treatment diets at 25 days pre-slaughter as opposed to 50 days but generally growth rates were better for pigs on the 50 day treatments with improved FCR's reported for pigs on the 50 day treatments. From comparing 0-25 day enrichment period to the latter period of the 50 day treatment (29-50 day), the 29-50 day enrichment period resulted in numerically higher feed intake for treatment Premix 3, higher growth rates for Premix 1 and Premix 3 and improved FCR's across all regimes (Control, Premix 1,2 and 3).

TABLE-US-00028 TABLE 33 Average ALA, EPA and DHA per 100 kcal on pig meat, fat and rind using various Omega 3 enriched feed treatments Control T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Averages ALA mg/100 kcal Loin lean 108.6 90 191 217.7 281.7 103.7 151.3 Loin fat 256 372 461 509.7 1121.4 196.8 502.5 Belly 221.6 239 339 436.7 725.8 302.7 388.9 Shoulder 213.8 280 440 461.3 681 298.1 390 Rind 346.8 536 720 588 788 381.2 912 Averages DHA mg/100 kcal Loin lean 5.1 31 56 5.9 7.4 37.2 72.2 Loin fat 6.6 65 117 18.1 12.4 53.1 158 Belly 5.9 46 89.6 26.2 10.1 62.2 129.8 Shoulder 10.8 50 101.7 15.6 10.7 70.2 118.7 Rind 9.4 121 165.6 27 12 76.8 287.2 Averages EPA + DHA mg/100 kcal Loin lean 7.6 42 70.1 11.1 24.4 46 92.3 Loin fat 9.5 74 128 23.4 23.6 58.6 173.3 Belly 8.9 51 103.4 32.8 24.6 70.8 143.9 Shoulder 14 58 118.4 23.1 25.2 81 132.3 Rind 13.5 133 188.8 35.2 33 90.4 325.9

[0164] T6 gave the highest concentration of ALA and across all treatments ALA concentrated mostly in the rind. T8 gave the highest concentration of DHA and across all treatments DHA concentrated mostly in the loin fat. T8 gave the highest concentration of EPA and across all treatments DHA concentrated mostly in the rind. ALA, DHA and EPA deposited similarly in the belly and should across all treatments.

[0165] No statistically significant differences were found for live performance and carcass performance parameters between all four treatments (Control, Premix 1,2 and 3) across a 25 day and 50 day finishing period. Omega 3 enrichment over a 50 day period has proven to be more beneficial for the performance of animals as opposed to a 25 day pre-slaughter enrichment period.

[0166] The present invention accordingly provides a composition for animals such as poultry or pigs, based on different sources of omega-3 fatty acids, optionally together with antioxidant(s), flow agent(s) and surfactant(s), to achieve the desired levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the animals. The resulting meat, enriched with Omega-3 fatty acids, provides a range of, for example. poultry and pig meat portions with levels of Omega-3 fatty acids above a threshold limit at which health properties for the consumer can occur. Feeding high levels of Omega-3 fatty acids according to the compositions and methods of the invention allows enrichment of animal meat without detrimental effects on meat sensory quality or animal performance.