Next Article in Journal
Glycine Supplementation Enhances the Growth of Sow-Reared Piglets with Intrauterine Growth Restriction
Previous Article in Journal
Equipotent Dose and Cost Comparison of Atracurium and Rocuronium in Laboratory Pigs Anesthetized with Propofol
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of the Lactation Period Gut Microbiota of Two Different Beef Cattle Breeds on Spring-Born Calves
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/ani15131856
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Rumen-Protected Cod Liver Oil Supplementation on Fatty Acid Profile of Meat from Limousin and Red Angus Cattle

by
Andrzej Zachwieja
1,
Ewa Pecka-Kiełb
2,*,
Anna Zielak-Steciwko
1,
Bożena Króliczewska
2,
Jowita Kaszuba
1 and
Robert Kupczyński
3
1
Animal Breeding, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, ul. Chelmonskiego 38C, 51-631 Wroclaw, Poland
2
Department of Biostructure and Animal Physiology, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Norwida Str. 31, 50-375 Wroclaw, Poland
3
Department of Environment Hygiene and Animal Welfare, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, ul. Chelmonskiego 38C, 51-631 Wroclaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2025, 15(13), 1856; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15131856
Submission received: 27 May 2025 / Revised: 14 June 2025 / Accepted: 22 June 2025 / Published: 23 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Beef Cattle Feedlot: Nutrition, Production and Management)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Simple Summary

Meat is one of the main dietary sources of essential fatty acids, which the human body cannot synthesize. Beef, particularly its intramuscular fat, contains a relatively high amount of unsaturated fatty acids, which may positively influence human health. As consumer awareness of food quality grows, the meat industry is shifting toward the production of functional foods. One practical approach is to modify the fatty acid composition of meat through feeding strategies, which are more efficient than long-term genetic approaches. In this study, Limousin and Red Angus beef cattle were fed rumen-protected cod liver oil. The supplementation resulted in a decreased content of myristic acid (C14:0) and stearic acid (C18:0) in Limousin meet, saturated fatty acids associated with negative health effects. Both breeds also showed increased levels of cis-oleic acid in meat and fat, along with higher overall concentrations of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) in adipose tissue. These changes in fatty acid profile are considered beneficial. Reducing the dietary intake of C14:0 and C18:0, while increasing with MUFA consumption has been linked to improved cardiovascular function and may aid in managing diet-related chronic diseases. This study demonstrates that targeted nutritional interventions can effectively enhance the health value of beef.

Abstract

In beef cattle production, both diet and breed are key factors influencing the composition and quality of meat. This study evaluated the effects of rumen-protected cod liver oil supplementation on meat and fat quality parameters in Limousin (n = 30) and Red Angus (n = 30) bulls maintained under identical conditions. During the final three weeks of finishing, animals received 100/g/day of cod liver oil. Red Angus bulls exhibited a significantly higher intramuscular fat content in meat compared to Limousin (p < 0.01). The study demonstrated a reduction (p < 0.05) in intramuscular fat content in both breeds receiving cod liver oil supplementation. In Limousin, cis-oleic acid (C18:1 cis-9) levels increased significantly in meat (p < 0.05) without a concurrent increase in trans isomers. Subcutaneous fat in both breeds showed a significant increase in monounsaturated fatty acids in the supplemented group compared to the control (p < 0.01). Limousin bulls also showed reduced levels of myristic acid (C14:0) and stearic acid (C18:0) in subcutaneous fat. Additionally, Limousin muscle tissue showed significantly higher (p < 0.01) concentrations of C18:3n3, C22:6n3, and total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) compared to Red Angus. These finding indicate that the short-term dietary inclusion of rumen-protected cod liver oil in cattle rations enhances the nutritional profile of beef, potentially offering benefits for human health.

1. Introduction

The growing number of studies on functional foods with targeted effects on the human body reflects increasing consumer interest in functional products [1,2,3,4,5]. In addition to health benefits, consumers are giving a greater emphasis on the sensory qualities of food, such as taste [6]. In this context, beef plays an important role, as the fatty acid composition of muscle and adipose of beef tissue not only determines the nutritional value of meat, but also affects its technological and sensory quality, including shelf life [7].
Due to the established link between dietary saturated fats and cardiovascular diseases of human, health authorities worldwide recommend reducing the intake of saturated fatty acids (SFAs) and cholesterol while encouraging the consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) [8]. In 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that, to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, the ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fatty acids (PUFAs/SFAs) in food should exceed 0.45 (WHO, 2003) [9]. In 2023, the WHO called for the global elimination of industrially produced trans fatty acids from the food supply and recommended minimizing their intake in the human diet (WHO, 2023) [10]. Intramuscular fat in beef is characterized by a relatively high proportion of unsaturated fatty acids, which may have a positive impact on human health [6,11]. Furthermore, these unsaturated fatty acids enhance sensory characteristics such as the aroma, flavor, juiciness, and tenderness of meat [12,13].
In cattle, both genetic and non-genetic factors influence the content and composition of subcutaneous and intramuscular fat [13,14]. Differences in intramuscular fatty acid profiles have been observed among various breeds, including Angus, Hereford, and Charolais [15]. Similar changes in fatty acid profiles have also been observed in Limousin and Aberdeen Angus cattle, which are very popular among breeders [16,17,18]. Additional variations have been reported in crossbreeds such as Angus–Simmental, Wagyu–Simmental, and Chinese–Simmental [19]. But breeders often choose Red Angus and Limousin cattle due to their ease of calving, efficient feed utilization, and rapid adaptation to environmental conditions [17]. In addition, both breeds are characterized by high meat quality and a flavor that is desirable to consumers [20]. However, the effects of rumen-protected cod liver oil supplementation on fatty acid deposition in beef muscle and fat across different breeds remain underexplored. Although the concentration of desirable compounds in meat can be improved through genetic selection or crossbreeding, such approaches are time-consuming and costly. Nutritional strategies, including the use of functional feed additives, offer a more immediate and cost-effective method of enhancing meat quality [21,22,23,24,25].
One promising nutritional intervention involves marine-derived products, particularly fish oil. Fishing and the subsequent processing of fish intended for human consumption generate large quantities of by-products, including heads, viscera, skins, tails, scales, minced meat, and blood [26]. It is estimated that only 50–60% of the wet mass of fish obtained from marine fisheries is used for direct human consumption, while the remaining 40–50% is processed into fish oil and fishmeal [27,28]. According to the Marine Ingredients Organization (IFFO), which represents the global marine ingredients sector, by-products accounted for approximately 54% of global fish oil production in 2023 [29]. Cod offal, containing approximately 4.3% lipids, is considered a suitable raw material for fish oil production [30]. Fish oil is a valuable source of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids that support animal health, improve reproductive performance, and contribute to enhanced average daily weight gain. These fatty acids also aid in digestive efficiency and the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins [31,32]. However, the economic feasibility of fish oil use varies widely across regions. In countries such as Norway or Iceland, where cod liver oil is a by-product of the fishing industry, its inclusion in ruminant diets may be more economically viable. Supplementation with marine-derived products such as fish oil or marine algae has been shown to positively affect the concentration of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in beef [33,34,35], and enhance the levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in meat and blood plasma [35]. However, when unsaturated fatty acids are administered in an unprotected form, they are susceptible to microbial hydrogenation in the rumen, which can reduce fiber digestibility and dry matter intake in ruminants [36]. To circumvent ruminal biohydrogenation and maintain the integrity of supplemented fatty acids, rumen-protected forms of fat are used [37,38]. This strategy allows for unsaturated fatty acids to bypass the rumen and be absorbed in the small intestine, thereby preserving their biological value [39,40]. Rumen protection prevents the microbial conversion of unsaturated fatty acids into their saturated forms, thus increasing the nutritional and functional quality of the resulting meat [41]. The use of fish oil in cattle diets is associated with both physiological benefits and additional production costs. Although the production of premium meat products typically requires greater financial investment, consumers are increasingly willing to accept higher prices due to greater awareness of the relationship between nutrition and human health [42]. Given the costs associated with animal feed, it is reasonable to assess changes in the nutritional composition of meat following the short-term inclusion of lipid-based supplements in ruminant diets. Marino et al. (2019) [43] reported that flaxseed supplementation for 40 days prior to slaughter enhances the concentration of n-3 fatty acids and decreases the n-6/n-3 ratio in meat, despite flaxseed containing unprotected fatty acids. Similarly, Hennessy et al. [44] observed an increase in plasma fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) concentrations after just 10 days of rumen-protected n-3 fatty acid supplementation. Short-duration supplementation protocols have also been explored with other compounds, such as magnesium, which is typically administered 7 to 14 days pre-slaughter to improve carcass quality and reduce pre-slaughter stress [45]. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of short-term supplementation with rumen-protected cod liver oil on the fat and protein content and fatty acid profile in the muscle and adipose tissue of Limousin and Red Angus bulls.

2. Materials and Methods

The procedures were carried out in accordance with European regulations (Directive 2010/63/EU), and all efforts were made to minimize animal suffering and stress. In accordance with relevant legislation, the collection of material post-mortem during routine animal slaughter does not require approval from the Ethics Committee.

2.1. Animal Experimental Design

The study was carried out on a commercial beef cattle herd located in the West Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland. The herd comprised 350 Limousin and 500 Red Angus animals. The experimental groups comprised young beef cattle fattened to a body weight of 500–550 kg. The animals were kept in group pens housing 20–30 individuals each, in accordance with established animal welfare standards. None of the animals showed any signs of disease throughout the study period. Throughout the study, the health and performance of all animals were regularly monitored. All animals remained healthy and continued to meet the inclusion criteria for the duration of the experimental period. The experiment followed a randomized block design, and animals were assigned based on breed, age, and body weight. A total of 60 finishing bulls (Limousin n = 30; Red Angus n = 30) were selected and grouped into four blocks based on age (18 ± 0.5 months) and body weight (680 ± 23 kg; 625 ± 21 kg, respectively). Within each block, bulls were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups: Limousin bulls fed a control diet without added fat (CL n = 15); Limousin bulls supplemented with microencapsulated cod liver oil (EL n = 15); Red Angus bulls on a control diet (CA n = 15); and Red Angus bulls receiving microencapsulated cod liver oil (EA n = 15). All animals had unrestricted access to fresh water and were fed ad libitum using a total mixed ration (TMR) system under intensive production conditions. The feed rations were formulated in accordance with INRA standards [46]. The basal diet consisted of 80% corn silage, 15% grass silage, and 5% barley straw, supplemented with a complete feed mixture provided at 3 kg/animal/day. The nutritional composition of the feed dose is presented in Table 1. The experimental factor involved the administration of microencapsulated cod liver oil, delivered at a dose of 100 g/animal/day during the final three weeks of the fattening period. From the total daily amount of 3 kg of concentrate per animal, 0.5 kg was set aside for manual mixing with the 100 g of the experimental microcapsules and was administrated to the animals daily between 06:00 and 07:00 a.m. during routine feeding. On average, 2–5% of the roughage feed remained uneaten each day. Each microcapsule contained 50 µL of cod liver oil and was encapsulated in a gelatin matrix composed of fish-derived gelatin, glycerol, and water. The capsules were approximately spherical in shape, with a diameter of about 5 mm and a wall thickness of 0.3 mm. The fatty acid composition of the cod liver oil is shown in Table 2. Prior to in vivo administration, in vitro stability tests were conducted. Using the Ankom rumen simulation system (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY, USA), a 12 h incubation in simulated rumen fluid revealed no visible degradation of the microcapsules (Figure 1a,b). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in the profile of major short-chain fatty acids (acetic, propionic, and butyric acids) compared to the control, indicating minimal ruminal disruption.
After the completion of the experimental period, all bulls were humanely slaughtered on the same day at a commercial, EU-approved slaughterhouse, in accordance with European Union Regulation ((EC) no. 1099/2009 [47]) on the protection of animals at the time of killing. Post-mortem, samples of the longissimus dorsi muscle were collected from the left half-carcass at the level of the 12th thoracic vertebra, along with adjacent subcutaneous fat tissue. For analysis, 10 g samples were obtained from the central portion of the muscle or fat tissue. Samples were collected prior to the meat aging process, specifically within 4–6 h post-slaughter. Efforts were made throughout the study to ensure sample uniformity. After collection, all samples were properly labeled, vacuum-sealed, and transported to the laboratory under refrigerated conditions at a constant temperature of 4 °C.

2.2. Chemical Analysis

Samples of roughage and the complete feed mixture were subjected to proximate chemical analysis, with all procedures conducted in accordance with the official methods of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists [48] (AOAC, 2005). Dry matter (DM) content was determined using the oven drying method (934.01), while crude protein (CP) content was assessed using the Kjeldahl method (984.13) with a FOSS Tecator 2300 Kjeltec Analyzer Unit (FOSS Tecator, Höganäs, AB, Sweden). Crude protein was calculated as total nitrogen (N) × 6.25. Ether extract (EE) was determined according to method 920.39 using the Fibertec extraction system (FOSS Tecator, Höganäs, Sweden). Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) contents were analyzed following method 973.18, also employing the Fibertec system [48]. The chemical composition of the feedstuffs used in the dietary rations is presented in Table 1. The fatty acid profile of the cod liver oil was determined using a method analogous to the ether extract procedure and is presented in Table 2.

2.3. Meat and Fat

In the collected longissimus dorsi muscle samples, fat content was determined according to the PN-ISO 1444:2000 [49] standard using a Büchi B-811 automatic extraction system. Total protein content was measured using the Kjeldahl method in accordance with the PN-75/A-04018 [50] standard, employing a DK 6 digestion unit and a UDK 129 steam distillation apparatus (VELP Scientifica, Italy).
The fatty acid profile was analyzed in both muscle and subcutaneous fat samples. Lipids from the muscle tissue were extracted using the Folch method [51] (Christie & William, 1973). Fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) were then prepared from both the extracted intramuscular fat and directly collected subcutaneous fat samples using the method described by Christopherson and Glass (1969) [52], which involved transesterification with 2 M KOH in methanol. The fatty acid profile of the obtained samples was determined using an Agilent Technologies 7890A gas chromatograph (Santa Clara, CA, USA) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID). The detection range for saturated fatty acids was from C14 to C20, and for unsaturated fatty acids from C14 to C22. The chromatographic separation was performed using an HP-88 capillary column (Agilent Technologies; 100 m length, 0.25 mm internal diameter, 0.20 μm film thickness). The oven temperature was initially set at 50 °C and increased at a rate of 3 °C/min to a final temperature of 220 °C. The injector and detector temperatures were maintained at −270 °C and 270 °C, respectively. Helium was used as the carrier gas, with hydrogen, synthetic air, and nitrogen supplied to the detector. Identification of the obtained fatty acid peaks was performed by comparing the retention times to those of fatty acid methyl ester standards SupelcoTM 37 (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA) and CLA cis-9, trans-11 and trans-10, cis-12 (Larodan, Malmö, Sweden), using ChemStation software (Agilent Technologies). The concentration of each fatty acid was expressed in g/100 g, with 100 g representing the sum of all identified FAME peak areas.
The obtained fatty acid results from muscle and fat were used to calculate the atherogenic index (AI) and thrombogenic index (TI) according to Ulbricht and Southgate (1991) [53]:
AI = [(4 × C14:0) + C16:0]/[(ΣPUFA) + (ΣMUFA)]
TI = [C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0]/[(0.5 × ΣMUFA) + (0.5 × n-6) + (3 × n-3) + (n-3/n-6)]

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data obtained from the analysis of muscle and fat tissues were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the STATISTICA software package, version 13.3 (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK, USA) [54]. Prior to the analysis, the data were tested for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test and for homogeneity of variances using Levene’s test. Differences between groups were evaluated using Duncan’s multiple-range test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05 and highly significant differences at p < 0.01.

3. Results

3.1. Chemical Composition of Meat: Protein Content, Fat Content, and Fatty Acid Profile

In Limousin cattle, the control group (CL) exhibited a significantly lower (p < 0.01) protein content, and a higher (p < 0.05) intramuscular fat content compared to the group supplemented with fish oil (EL) (Table 3). Similarly, in Red Angus cattle, a significant reduction in fat content (p < 0.05) was observed in the experimental group (EA) relative to the control group (CA). Overall, Red Angus meat was characterized by a significantly higher (p < 0.01) fat content compared to Limousin meat. In contrast, protein content was higher in groups CA, EA, and EL compared to the CL group.
The supplementation administered during the final three weeks of the fattening period influenced the concentration of saturated fatty acids (SFAs) in the longissimus dorsi muscle of Limousin cattle (Table 4). In the group receiving cod liver oil (EL), a reduction was observed in both pentadecanoic acid (C15:0) and total SFA content compared to the control group (CL).
Meat from Red Angus cattle was characterized by higher concentrations of myristic acid (C14:0), palmitic acid (C16:0), and total SFAs relative to Limousin meat. Regardless of dietary treatment, Limousin meat exhibited significantly higher levels (p < 0.05) of eicosanoic acid (C20:0) compared to Red Angus meat. Additionally, the proportion of C15:0 acid was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in the CL group compared to all other groups.
The experimental factor exerted breed-dependent effects on the proportion of individual unsaturated fatty acids in the longissimus dorsi muscle (Table 5). In Limousin cattle from the EL group, a significantly higher proportion (p < 0.05) of cis-Δ8-octadecenoic acid (C18:1n8c) and an increased n-6/n-3 fatty acid ratio were observed compared to the CL group. In Red Angus cattle, the EA group exhibited a significantly higher thrombogenic index (TI) (p < 0.01) and a greater total content of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) (p < 0.05) relative to the CA group. Additionally, the levels of α-linolenic acid (C18:3n3) and arachidonic acid (C20:4n6) were significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the EA group compared to CA. Breed had a notable influence on the unsaturated fatty acid profile. Red Angus meat was characterized by a higher MUFA content, as well as elevated atherogenic index (AI) and thrombogenic index (TI) values, in comparison to Limousin meat. Conversely, meat from Limousin cattle exhibited higher concentrations and a more favorable profile of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), along with improved PUFAs/∑SFAs. In the meat of Limousin bulls fed with protected oil supplementation, higher levels of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids were observed (p < 0.01), along with an increased n-6/n-3 ratio (p < 0.05). In contrast, the meat of Red Angus bulls in the EA group showed a reduced (p < 0.05) level of n-3 fatty acids compared to the CA group.

3.2. Fatty Acid Composition of Subcutaneous Fat

The dietary supplement influenced the SFA profile of subcutaneous fat in both cattle breeds (Table 6). In the experimental groups, a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in heptadecanoic acid (C17:0) and stearic acid (C18:0), as well as a decrease in total SFA content (p < 0.01) was observed compared to the respective control groups. In addition, within the Limousin breed, the proportion of myristic acid (C14:0) was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the CL group compared to the EL group. When comparing breeds, subcutaneous fat from Red Angus cattle contained higher concentrations of myristic acid (C14:0), palmitic acid (C16:0), and short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), and lower levels of heptadecanoic acid (C17:0), stearic acid (C18:0), and eicosanoic acid (C20:0), compared to Limousin cattle.
Changes in the proportions of individual unsaturated fatty acids (UFAs) in the subcutaneous fat of beef cattle were observed in response to the applied dietary supplementation (Table 7). In both breeds, the supplement led to a significant increase (p < 0.05) in cis-Δ8-octadecenoic acid (C18:1n8c) and total MUFAs, as well as a significant increase (p < 0.01) in total UFA content compared to the respective control groups. In the experimental groups, the TI index was significantly reduced (p < 0.05) in both breeds. In Limousin cattle, the AI index was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the CL group compared to the EL group. In the Red Angus breed, subcutaneous fat from group EA showed significantly higher levels of heptadecenoic acid (C17:1; p < 0.05) and cis-Δ9-octadecenoic acid (C18:1n9c; p < 0.01) compared to group CA. In Limousin cattle, a higher level of palmitoleic acid (C16:1) (p < 0.05) was recorded in group EL compared to CL. No statistically significant breed-related differences were observed in the overall profile of unsaturated fatty acids in subcutaneous adipose tissue. Moreover, the addition of cod liver oil had no effect on the total levels of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids, or their ratio in subcutaneous fat.

4. Discussion

In the present study, Limousin and Red Angus bulls were fattened under identical housing and feeding conditions on the same farm. This experimental design enabled a direct comparison of the effects of a protected cod liver oil supplement on selected meat and fat quality parameters in two distinct beef cattle breeds. Both Limousin and Red Angus breeds have long been favored by European cattle breeders and beef producers due to their desirable growth performance and meat quality traits [16,17].

4.1. Protein and Fat Content in Muscle Tissue

Available literature data suggest breed-specific differences in fat deposition, while protein levels tend to remain relatively stable across breeds [55,56]. Limousin cattle, in particular, are recognized for producing lean beef with a relatively high protein content [56], and the results of our own study are consistent with these literature findings.
To date, there are no published reports specifically evaluating the effects of protected cod liver oil supplementation in cattle diets on fat and protein content in beef. However, various studies have demonstrated that the inclusion of plant-based oils rich in unsaturated fatty acids in ruminant diets can influence the composition of animal-derived products. For instance, rapeseed oil supplementation in dairy cows has been reported to have no significant effect on meat fat content [57], though it was associated with reduced milk fat production and increased milk protein content [58]. Similarly, Oliveira et al. (2012) [59] observed that dietary supplementation with soybean and linseed oils in Nellore bulls increased muscle protein content while reducing fat deposition in the longissimus dorsi muscle. A comparable fat-reducing effect was noted in goats, where the addition of soybean and rapeseed oils decreased kidney fat accumulation [60]. In the present study, the inclusion of protected cod liver oil in the diet of Limousin cattle was associated with a favorable increase in muscle protein content. This is particularly relevant given the growing global demand for high-quality animal protein, driven by increased meat production and consumption over the past five decades [61]. Intramuscular fat, commonly referred to as marbling, plays a critical role in determining meat tenderness and flavor [62]. In our study, the experimental groups from both breeds exhibited reduced intramuscular fat levels, potentially indicating lower tenderness and a less favorable sensory profile. However, leaner meat is often preferred by health-conscious consumers due to its lower caloric density and potential dietary benefits [56].

4.2. Fatty Acid Profile

The level and composition of fatty acids in meat significantly affect its nutritional quality, sensory attributes, and potential health implications for consumers [63]. SFAs primarily function as an energy source; however, excessive dietary intake is associated with elevated concentrations of atherogenic lipoproteins and increased blood coagulation, thereby contributing to cardiovascular risk [64]. The predominant SFAs found in ruminant-derived meat products include myristic acid (C14:0), palmitic acid (C16:0), and stearic acid (C18:0). Of these, C14:0 and C16:0 are particularly atherogenic, as they are known to raise blood cholesterol levels, which is an established risk factor for ischemic heart disease in humans [65]. In the present study, dietary supplementation with protected cod liver oil in Limousin bulls led to a reduction in the proportions of myristic acid (C14:0) and stearic acid (C18:0) in subcutaneous adipose tissue. These findings align with previous research showing that the inclusion of plant-derived oils rich in UFAs in ruminant diets can reduce SFA levels and concurrently increase the proportion of UFAs [57,59]. A similar trend was observed in the longissimus dorsi muscle, where cod liver oil supplementation in Limousin bulls resulted in a decrease in total SFA content. However, in subcutaneous fat, regardless of breed, the dietary inclusion of cod liver oil was associated with a reduction in the total level of UFA and a corresponding increase in total SFA content. These contrasting effects between muscle and fat tissues may reflect tissue-specific lipid metabolism and warrant further investigation.
Monounsaturated fatty acids are characterized by the presence of a single double bond in their carbon chain, and can occur in both cis and trans configurations. Among MUFAs, cis-oleic acid (C18:1n9c) represents the predominant form found in beef [65,66]. While beef meat naturally contains trans fatty acids, excessive dietary intake of these compounds has been associated with adverse health outcomes in humans. Specifically, trans fatty acids have been shown to increase low-density lipoprotein (LDL, “bad cholesterol”) and decrease high-density lipoprotein (HDL, “good cholesterol”), thereby elevating the risk of cardiovascular symptoms such as myocardial infarction and stroke [66,67]. As such, the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) recommends that trans fats contribute no more than 2% of total daily energy intake [68]. In the present study, supplementation with protected cod liver oil led to a favorable increase in cis-oleic acid and total MUFA levels in both the muscle and subcutaneous fat of Limousin and Red Angus cattle, without affecting the content of trans fatty acids. These findings contrast with those of Wistuba et al. (2007) [35], who reported a reduction in C18:1 cis and total MUFA levels in meat following dietary supplementation with 3% fish oil. Similarly, Scollan et al. (2001) [69] observed a decrease in C18:1n9 cis and a concurrent increase in C18:1 trans isomers when cattle were fed diets supplemented with unprotected fish oil and flaxseed. In both of those studies, the lipid supplements were not protected, which may account for the differences in fatty acid metabolism and deposition observed in the present study.
In addition to cis-MUFAs, PUFAs are essential for human health due to their regulatory role in lipid metabolism and their ability to reduce blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels [11,70]. However, elevated levels of PUFAs in meat may negatively impact sensory attributes, particularly by contributing to the development of undesirable flavors upon cooking [71]. According to literature data, dietary supplementation with fish oil increases the PUFA content in beef [35,72]. Meanwhile, Scollan et al. (2001) [69] reported that the inclusion of fish oil and flaxseed in cattle diets led to a reduction in arachidonic acid (C20:4n-6) and an increase in α-linolenic acid (C18:3n-3) in the longissimus thoracis muscle. In the present study, a reduction in both C20:4n-6 and C18:3n-3 fatty acid levels was observed in the meat of Red Angus cattle. However, no significant effect of the dietary supplementation was detected on the total PUFA content in either muscle or fat tissue in both breeds. As noted by Jeong et al. (2024) [70], excessive consumption of omega-6 fatty acids and a high dietary omega-6 to omega-3 (n-6/n-3) ratio are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, inflammatory disorders, and autoimmune conditions. The inclusion of flaxseed oil, both protected and unprotected, in bull diets has been shown to enhance the fatty acid profile of beef by increasing n-3 fatty acid content and improving the n-6/n-3 ratio [59]. Similarly, the use of fish oil in cattle diets has been reported to elevate n-3 fatty acid levels and improve the n-6/n-3 ratio [35,72]. In contrast, the present study found that fish oil supplementation resulted in an increased n-6/n-3 ratio in the meat of Limousin cattle, whereas a decrease in n-3 levels was observed in Red Angus cattle. Nevertheless, the observed n-6/n-3 ratios and n-3 fatty acid levels remained within the typical range for beef and lean meat, which are considered nutritionally desirable components of the human diet [69,73].
In the present study, breed was found to influence the fatty acid composition of muscle tissue. Meat from Red Angus cattle exhibited higher levels of SFAs and MUFAs, whereas Limousin meat was characterized by higher levels of PUFAs, a more favorable PUFA/SFA ratio, and elevated concentrations of both n-3 and n-6 fatty acids. No statistically significant breed-related differences were observed in the fatty acid composition of subcutaneous adipose tissue. The findings of this study are in agreement with available literature. Prieto et al. (2011) [18] reported higher concentrations of SFAs, MUFAs, and n-3 fatty acids in the meat of Aberdeen Angus cattle compared to Limousin. Conversely, Jukna et al. (2013) [14] observed that Limousin beef contained higher levels of PUFAs, trans fatty acids, and n-6 fatty acids, along with an elevated n-6/n-3 ratio, but lower concentrations of MUFAs and n-3 fatty acids when compared to Angus meat. In general, the PUFA/SFA ratio in beef is relatively low, typically around 0.1, with the exception of double-muscling breeds, which tend to be very lean and may exhibit PUFA/SFA ratios ranging from 0.5 to 0.7 [74]. For optimal cardiovascular health, the World Health Organization (2003 and 2023) [9,10] recommends a PUFA/SFA ratio greater than 0.45 in the human diet. In the current study, a relatively high PUFA/SFA ratio was recorded in the meat of Limousin cattle, suggesting its potential nutritional advantage for health-conscious consumers.
The short-term use of feed additives, including oils, in the diet may be an attractive solution for the meat industry due to economic considerations [43]. Within a short period, it is possible to obtain meat with desirable properties [43,45]. The use of additives derived from oilseed plants and oils is considered safe. Cancino-Padilla et al. (2021) [75] demonstrated that supplementation with 3% lipids in dry matter does not negatively affect the rumen microbiome. According to INRA guidelines (2007) [46], the fat content in the dry matter of feed intended for finishing cattle should not exceed 6%. Fish oils and oils derived from oilseed crops contain long-chain unsaturated fatty acids, including omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids [31]. In ruminants, these unsaturated fatty acids undergo physiological biohydrogenation in the rumen, resulting in the formation of saturated fatty acids [76]. To prevent this transformation and preserve the biological value of the supplemented fats, unsaturated fatty acids are often administered in rumen-protected forms, which have been shown to improve the fatty acid profile of beef [31,77]. In the present study, cod liver oil was used as a dietary supplement to enhance fat quality. One of the key factors influencing the fatty acid composition of both subcutaneous and intramuscular fat is cattle breed [19]. The fatty acid profile of beef differs between Limousin and Red Angus cattle. Red Angus beef typically exhibits higher concentrations of saturated fatty acids (SFAs), particularly stearic acid, whereas Limousin beef is characterized by a greater proportion of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) [18,78]. Bovine adipose tissue contains approximately 39.3 kJ/g of energy. As a result, animals with greater fat deposition require more dietary energy, which increases feed conversion efficiency [79]. This may explain the higher levels of SFAs, and the lower levels of PUFAs and n-3 fatty acids observed in Red Angus meat compared to Limousin meat in the present study. Additionally, due to the higher fat content of Red Angus beef, a longer period of cod liver oil supplementation may be necessary to observe comparable improvements in fatty acid composition. This hypothesis requires further investigation. Intramuscular fat is in the perimysial spaces between muscle fibers, and its accumulation contributes to visible marbling [80]. Marbling is considered one of the most important factors influencing beef quality and sensory characteristics [20]. Theoretically, Red Angus beef should exhibit a higher degree of marbling compared to Limousin beef. The present study also revealed differences in the response of subcutaneous and intramuscular fat to cod liver oil supplementation. These differences may be attributed to genetic factors. In Angus and Limousin cattle, the genetic correlation for intramuscular fat deposition is r = 0.32, whereas for subcutaneous fat, it is only r = 0.05 [81]. In cattle, subcutaneous fat tends to accumulate more rapidly than intramuscular fat, which may also influence its fatty acid profile. Subcutaneous fat typically contains a higher proportion of saturated fatty acids than intramuscular fat [76]. The fatty acid composition influences key physical properties such as melting point, consistency, and firmness of both fat and meat. Adipocytes with a higher proportion of saturated fatty acids are firmer and lighter in color. In contrast, unsaturated fatty acids are more prone to oxidation, particularly those containing more than two double bonds, which may lead to rancidity and discoloration of the meat [17,82]. An elevated PUFA content increases susceptibility to lipid oxidation [83]. However, it is important to note that thermal oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids contributes to desirable flavor and aroma in cooked meat, whereas autoxidation leads to undesirable off-flavors [75,83]. Therefore, meat from Limousin cattle supplemented with cod liver oil may require protection against autoxidation, while Red Angus meat is more likely to retain its sensory properties for a longer period. Further studies are needed to evaluate both the health benefits and the sensory quality of beef from animals receiving cod liver oil supplementation.
The atherogenic index (AI) reflects the relationship between hypercholesterolemic fatty acids and those considered protective, which inhibit the formation of atherosclerotic plaques and contribute to the reduction in plasma cholesterol levels, thereby supporting the prevention of coronary heart disease [84]. The thrombogenic index (TI) is defined as the ratio of pro-thrombogenic (primarily saturated) to anti-thrombogenic fatty acids, and it serves as an indicator of the potential for thrombus (blood clot) formation within blood vessels. From a human health perspective, it is generally recommended that the TI value remain as low as possible [85]. Both AI and TI values have been reported to be more strongly influenced by species-specific characteristics than by production systems or feeding regimes [86]. In the present study, a reduction in TI was observed in subcutaneous fat tissue across both breeds in response to cod liver oil supplementation. Furthermore, Limousin cattle exhibited lower AI and TI values compared to Red Angus cattle, suggesting a more favorable fatty acid profile in terms of human cardiovascular health.

5. Conclusions

In summary, short-term supplementation with protected cod liver oil led to a reduction in intramuscular fat content, and altered the fatty acid composition of both muscle and subcutaneous fat tissues. Meat and fat from both Limousin and Red Angus cattle exhibited a desirable increase in cis-oleic acid, without affecting the trans fatty acid content. In contrast, in the adipose tissue of both breeds, higher overall levels of MUFAs were observed in the group receiving cod liver oil. Given that myristic acid (C14:0) and stearic acid (C18:0) in the human diet are associated with adverse health effects, the inclusion of cod liver oil in the diet of beef cattle may be considered beneficial for improving the quality of subcutaneous fat. In Limousin cattle, supplementation resulted in a reduced proportion of both C14:0 and C18:0 fatty acids in subcutaneous adipose tissue, whereas in Red Angus bulls, a reduction was observed specifically in C18:0. The inclusion of protected cod liver oil in the finishing diet contributed to the production of beef with health-promoting characteristics, supporting its suitability for inclusion in a balanced human diet. However, long-term studies are required to evaluate the sustainability of human dietary use and its potential impact on human health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Z., E.P.-K., A.Z.-S. and R.K.; methodology, A.Z., E.P.-K., A.Z.-S. and B.K.; software, J.K.; validation, A.Z. and R.K.; formal analysis, A.Z., E.P.-K. and J.K.; investigation, A.Z., E.P.-K., A.Z.-S. and B.K.; resources, A.Z., E.P.-K. and B.K.; data curation, A.Z., E.P.-K. and B.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.Z., E.P.-K., A.Z.-S., B.K., J.K., A.Z. and R.K.; Writing—review and editing, J.K., E.P.-K. and B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The experimental procedures were conducted under European Union Directive 2010/63/EU. The study did not involve procedures that caused pain, discomfort, or distress to animals, and was reviewed by the local ethics committee on animal experiments.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Anwar, A.; Ali, E.; Nisar, W.; Ashraf, S.; Javed, N.; Anwar, L.; Zulfiqar, A.; Nazir, M.A.; Tahir, F. Development and quality evaluation of functional carbonated pomegranate orange nectar. Agrobiol. Rec. 2024, 15, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ahmad, M.; Ali, S.W.; Aasim, M.; Awais, M.; Ahmad, Z.; Murtaza, A.; Nadeem, M.; Muzzafar, M.A.; Ahmed, A. Development and characterization of locally prepared Aloe Vera juice and its functional potential against Hyperlipidemia. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2023, 61, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hussain, N.; Xia, Y.; Han, J.; Saeed, M.; Arain, M.A.; Hassan, M.F.; Chen, H. Lactoferrin in aquaculture: A holistic review of its health benefits and functional feed application. Pak. Vet. J. 2024, 3, 581–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Subtain, M.; Pasha, I.; Rakha, A.; Jamil, A. Extraction efficiency and characteristic evaluation of turmeric oleoresins; a potential functional ingredient. Pak. J. Agric. Res. 2023, 2, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Boukrouh, S.; Mnaouer, I.; Mendes de Souza, P.; Hornick, J.-L.; Nilahyane, A.; El Amiri, B.; Hirich, A. Microalgae supplementation improves goat milk composition and fatty acid profile: A meta-analysis and meta-regression. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2025, 68, 223–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Decker, E.A.; Park, Y. Healthier meat products as functional foods. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Prado, J.M.; Prado, I.N.; Visentainer, J.V.; Rotta, P.P.; Perotto, D.; Moletta, J.L.; Prado, I.M.; Ducatti, T. The effect of breed on the chemical composition and fatty acid profile of the Longissimus dorsi muscle of Brazilian beef cattle. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2009, 18, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Griel, A.E.; Kris-Etherton, P.M. Beyond Saturated Fat: The Importance of the Dietary Fatty Acid Profile on Cardiovascular Disease. Nutr. Rev. 2006, 64, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. World Health Organization. Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases; WHO Technical Report Series 916; WHO: Brussels, Belgium, 2003; pp. 1–160. [Google Scholar]
  10. World Health Organization. Saturated Fatty Acid and Trans-Fatty Acid Intake for Adults and Children; WHO Guideline: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 1–117. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fuente, J.D.L.; Díaz, M.T.; Álvarez, I.; Oliver, M.A.; Font I Furnols, M.; Sañudo, C.; Campo, M.M.; Montossi, F.; Nute, G.R.; Cañeque, V. Fatty acid and vitamin E composition of intramuscular fat in cattle reared in different production systems. Meat Sci. 2009, 82, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Listrat, A.; Gagaoua, M.; Andueza, D.; Gruffat, D.; Normand, J.; Mairessec, G.; Picard, B.; Hocquettea, J.F. What are the drivers of beef sensory quality using metadata of intramuscular connective tissue, fatty acids and muscle fiber characteristics? Livest. Sci. 2020, 240, 104209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nogoy, K.M.C.; Sun, B.; Shin, S.; Lee, Y.; Li, X.Z.; Choi, S.H.; Park, S. Fatty Acid Composition of Grain- and Grass-Fed Beef and Their Nutritional Value and Health Implication. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2022, 42, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Pitchford, W.S.; Deland, M.P.B.; Siebert, B.D.; Malau-Aduliand, A.E.O.; Bottema, C.D.K. Genetic variation in fatness and fatty acid composition of crossbred cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 2825–2832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jukna, V.; Jukna, Č.; Garmienė, G.; Zaborskienė, G.; Meškinytė-Kaušilienė, E.; Klementavičiūtė, J.; Valaitienė, V.; Narkevičius, R. An impact of animal breed on the compositions of fatty acid in musculus longissimus doris. Vet. Ir Zootech. 2013, 64, 16–22. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chambaz, A.; Scheeder, M.R.L.; Kreuzer, M.; Dufey, P.-A. Meat quality of Angus, Simmental, Charolais and Limousin steers compared at the same intramuscular fat content. Meat Sci. 2002, 63, 491–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Filippini, R.; Gennai-Schott, S.; Sabbatini, T.; Lardon, S.; Marraccini, E. Quality Labels as Drivers of Peri-Urban Livestock Systems Resilience. Land 2020, 9, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Prieto, N.; Ross, D.W.; Navajas, E.A.; Richardson, R.I.; Hyslop, J.J.; Simm, G.; Roehe, R. Online prediction of fatty acid profiles in crossbred Limousin and Aberdeen Angus beef cattle using near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Animal 2011, 5, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, T.; Wu, J.-P.; Lei, Z.-M.; Zhang, M.; Gong, X.-Y.; Cheng, S.-R.; Liang, Y.; Wang, J.-F. Fatty Acid Profile of Muscles from Crossbred Angus-Simmental, Wagyu-Simmental, and Chinese Simmental Cattles. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2020, 40, 563–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Park, S.J.; Beak, S.-H.; Jung, D.J.; Yeob, K.S.; Jeong, I.H.; Piao, M.Y.; Kang, H.J.; Fassah, D.M.; Na, S.W.; Baik, M.; et al. Genetic, management, and nutritional factors affecting intramuscular fat deposition in beef cattle—A review. Asian-Australas J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 1043–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wahid, A.S.; Purwanti, S.; Pakiding, W. Performance and meat quality of broiler chicken with the addition of guanidino acetic acid and betaine as feed additive. J. Glob. Innov. Agric. Sci. 2024, 12, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Purwanti, S.; Syamsu, J.A.; Lahay, N.; Nadir, M.; Dwiyana, Z.; Yamin, A.A.; Laras, R.G.; Sumiati; Akit, H. Supplementation of guanidinoacetic acid in feed on growth performance, intestine histomorphology, muscle histology, and meat quality of native chicken. Int. J. Agric. Biosci. 2024, 13, 588–595. [Google Scholar]
  23. Enriquez, R.L.M.; Secondez, S.J. Enhancing Muscovy Duck Meat Quality and Growth Development through Oregano Extract Supplementation: A Study in Agricultural Innovation. J. Glob. Innov. Agric. Sci. 2024, 12, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ahmad, S.; Yousaf, M.S.; Tahir, S.K.; Rashid, M.A.; Majeed, K.A.; Naseem, M.; Raza, M.; Hayat, Z.; Khalid, A.; Zaneb, H.; et al. Effects of co-supplementation of β-galacto-oligosaccharides and methionine on breast meat quality, meat oxidative stability, and selected meat quality genes in broilers. Pak. Vet. J. 2023, 3, 428–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yu, H.; Rahman, A.; Umer, F.; Waqas, M.; Mahmood, M.; Berberoğlu, T.M.; Riaz, T.; Sherzada, S.; Khan, M.; Raza, A.; et al. Effect of supplementing a blend of essential oils on the growth performance, carcass characteristics, meat quality, serological parameters and gut health in broiler chickens. Pak. Vet. J. 2024, 44, 1329–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Olsen, R.L.; Toppe, J.; Karunasagar, I. Challenges and realistic opportunities in the use of by-products from processing of fish and shellfish. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 36, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rustad, T.; Storrø, I.; Slizyte, R. Possibilities for the utilisation of marine by-products. Int. J. Food Sci. + Technol. 2011, 46, 2001–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Monteiro, J.P.; Domingues, M.R.; Calado, R. Marine Animal Co-Products—How Improving Their Use as Rich Sources of Health- Promoting Lipids Can Foster Sustainability. Mar. Drugs 2024, 22, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bachis, E.; The Marine Ingredients Organisation (IFFO). Update on by-Product Marine Ingredients. Available online: https://www.iffo.com/by-product (accessed on 21 June 2025).
  30. Shahidi, F.; Naczk, M.; Pegg, R.B.; Synowiecki, J. Chemical composition and nutritional value of processing discards of cod (Gadus morhua). Food Chem. 1991, 42, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bodkowski, R.; Wierzbicki, H.; Mucha, A.; Cholewińska, P.; Wojnarowski, K.; Patkowska-Sokoła, B. Composition and fatty acid profile of milk from cows fed diets supplemented with raw and n-3 PUFA-enriched fish oil. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 10968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Šimat, V.; Vlahović, J.; Soldo, B.; Skroza, D.; Ljubenkov, I.; Mekinić, I.G. Production and Refinement of Omega-3 Rich Oils from Processing By-Products of Farmed Fish Species. Foods 2019, 8, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Plaha, N.S.; Kaushik, N.; Awasthi, S.; Singh, M.; Kaur, V.; Langyan, S.; Kumar, A.; Kalia, S. Comparison of nutritional quality of fourteen wild Linum species based on fatty acid composition, lipid health indices, and chemometric approaches unravelling their nutraceutical potential. Helyon 2023, 9, e21192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. de Medeiros, V.P.B.; Pimentel, T.C.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Magnani, M. Microalgae in the meat processing chain: Feed for animal production or source of techno-functional ingredients. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 37, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wistuba, T.J.; Kegley, E.B.; Apple, J.K.; Rule, D.C. Feeding feedlot steers fish oil alters the fatty acid composition of adipose and muscle tissue. Meat Sci. 2007, 77, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Cant, J.P.; Fredeen, J.H.; MacIntyre, T.; Gunn, J.; Crowe, N. Effect of fish oil on milk composition in dairy cows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 77, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Boukrouh, S.; Noutfia, A.; Moula, N.; Avril, C.; Hornick, J.-L.; Chentouf, M.; Cabaraux, J.-F. Effects of Sulla Flexuosa Hay as Alternative Feed Resource on Goat’s Milk Production and Quality. Animals 2023, 13, 709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Pecka-Kiełb, E.; Tumanowicz, J.; Zachwieja, A.; Miśta, D.; Kupczyński, R.; Króliczewska, B.; Kaszuba, J.; Zigo, F.; Suchocki, T. Changes in Fatty Acid Levels during In Vitro Ruminal Fluid Incubation with Different Proportions of Maize Distillers Dried Grains (DDGS). Agriculture 2023, 13, 763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pena, O.M.; Murphy, K.; Long, N.; Lascano, G.J.; Jenkins, T.C.; Aguerre, M.J. Evaluating the Rumen Degradation of Novel Protected Gelatin Capsules Containing Fish Oil Fed to Lactating Dairy Cows. Animals 2023, 13, 2555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rico, J.E.; Sáinz de la Maza-Escolà, V.; Senevirathne, N.D.; Deme, P.; Haughey, N.J.; Gervais, R.; McFadden, J.W. Temporal changes in plasma and milk lipids in response to an esophageal bolus of rumen-protected fish oil in lactating Holstein dairy cows. Animal 2025, 19, 101381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jenkins, T.C.; Wallace, R.J.; Moate, P.J.; Mosley, E.E. Board-Invited Review: Recent advances in biohydrogenation of unsaturated fatty acids within the rumen microbial ecosystem. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 397–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Liu, J.; Ellies-Oury, M.-P.; Stoyanchev, T.; Hocquette, J.-F. Consumer Perception of Beef Quality and How to Control, Improve and Predict It? Focus on Eating Quality. Foods 2022, 11, 1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Marino, R.; della Malva, A.; Caroprese, M.; de Palo, P.; Santillo, A.; Sevi, A.; Albenzio, M. Effects of whole linseed supplementation and treatment duration on fatty acid profile and endogenous bioactive compounds of beef muscle. Animal 2019, 13, 444–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hennessy, A.A.; Kenny, D.A.; Byrne, C.J.; Childs, S.; Ross, R.P.; Devery, R.; Stanton, C. Fatty acid concentration of plasma, muscle, adipose and liver from beef heifers fed an encapsulated n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplement. Animal 2021, 15, 100039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Loudon, K.M.W.; Tarr, G.; Lean, I.J.; McLerie, L.; Leahy, N.; Pethick, D.W.; Gardner, G.E.; McGilchrist, P. Short term magnesium supplementation to reduce dark cutting in pasture finished beef cattle. Meat Sci. 2021, 180, 108560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. INRA. Alimentation Minérale et Vitaminique des Ruminants: Actualisation des Connaissances, 16th ed.; INRA: Paris, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  47. Council of Europe. Council Regulation (EC) 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing. OJ. Eur. Union. 2009, L303. pp. 1–30. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32009R1099 (accessed on 21 June 2025).
  48. AOAC. International Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed.; AOAC International: Arlington, TX, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  49. Polish Standard, PN-ISO 1444:2000; Meat and Meat Products. Free Fat Contents Determination. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2000. (In Polish)
  50. Polish Standard, PN-75/A-04018:1975/Az3:2002; Agricultural Food Products. Nitrogen Contents Determination with Kjeldahl’s Method and Recalculation into Protein. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2002. (In Polish)
  51. Christie, W.; William, S. Lipid Analysis. Isolation, Separation, Identification and Structural Analysis of Lipids; The Isolation of Lipids from Tissues; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1973; pp. 39–40. [Google Scholar]
  52. Christopherson, S.W.; Glass, R.L. Preparation of milk fat methyl esters by alcoholysis in an essentially nonalcoholic solution. J. Dairy Sci. 1969, 52, 1289–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ulbricht, T.L.V.; Southgate, D.A.T. Coronary heart disease: Seven dietary factors. Lancet 1991, 338, 985–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. STATISTICA (Data Analysis Software System), v. 13.3; StatSoft. Inc.: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2020.
  55. Bureš, D.; Barton, L.; Teslik, V.; Zahradkova, R. Chemical composition, sensory characteristics and fatty acid profile of muscle from Aberdeen Angus, Charolais, Simmental and Hereford bulls. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 51, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wiśniewski, K.; Swiątek, M.; Król, J.; Kuczyńska, B. The nutritional value of beef from Polish Red and Limousin cattle breeds maintained by an extensive production system. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2024, 67, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Correa, L.B.; Netto, A.S.; da Silva, J.S.; Cônsolo, N.R.B.; Pugine, S.M.P.; de Melo, M.P.; de Souza Santana, R.S.; Zanetti, M.A. Changes on meat fatty acid profile, cholesterol and hepatic metabolism associated with antioxidants and canola oil supplementation for Nellore cattle. Livest. Sci. 2022, 257, 104850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Welter, K.C.; de Magalhães Rodrigues Martins, C.M.; de Palma, A.S.V.; Martins, M.M.; dos Reis, B.R.; Schmidt, B.L.U.; Netto, A.S. Canola Oil in Lactating Dairy Cow Diets Reduces Milk Saturated Fatty Acids and Improves Its Omega-3 and Oleic Fatty Acid Content. PLoS ONE 2016, 25, e0151876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Oliveira, E.A.; Sampaio, A.A.M.; Henrique, W.; Pivaro, T.M.; Rosa, B.L.; Fernandes, A.R.M.; Andrade, A.T. Quality traits and lipid composition of meat from Nellore young bulls fed with different oils either protected or unprotected from rumen degradation. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ponnampalam, E.N.; Priyashantha, H.; Vidanarachchi, J.K.; Kiani, A.; Holman, B.W.B. Effects of Nutritional Factors on Fat Content, Fatty Acid Composition, and Sensorial Properties of Meat and Milk from Domesticated Ruminants: An Overview. Animals 2024, 14, 840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gil, M.; Rudy, M.; Duma-Kocan, P.; Stanisławczyk, R.; Krajewska, A.; Dziki, D.; Hassoon, W.H. Sustainability of Alternatives to Animal Protein Sources, a Comprehensive Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tan, Z.; Jiang, H. Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms of Intramuscular Fat Development and Growth in Cattle. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 2520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Leroy, F.; Smith, N.W.; Adesogan, A.T.; Beal, T.; Iannotti, L.; Moughan, P.J.; Mann, N. The role of meat in the human diet: Evolutionary aspects and nutritional value. Anim. Front. 2023, 13, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Shramko, V.S.; Polonskaya, Y.V.; Kashtanova, E.V.; Stakhneva, E.M.; Ragino, Y.I. The short overview on the relevance of fatty acids for human cardiovascular disorders. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Davis, H.; Magistrali, A.; Butler, G.; Stergiadis, S. Nutritional Benefits from Fatty Acids in Organic and Grass-Fed Beef. Foods 2022, 11, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Paliwal, B.K.; Wan, M. Elimination of industrial Trans Fatty Acids from the food supply chain: With a focus on India. Food Chem. Adv. 2024, 5, 100802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shoko, P.T.; Landry, J.D.; Blanch, E.W.; Torley, P.J. The prediction of fatty acid composition in beef muscles using Raman spectroscopy and chemometrics. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2025, 139, 107069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Shaw, D.I.; Thompson, A.K.; Minihane, A.-M.; Williams, C.M. Update on Trans Fatty Acids and Health: Position Statement by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN); TSO, Government Report; City of Publication: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  69. Scollan, N.D.; Choi, N.; Kurt, E.; Fisher, A.V.; Enser, M.; Wood, J.D. Manipulating the fatty acid composition of muscle and adipose tissue in beef cattle. Br. J. Nutr. 2001, 85, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Jeong, H.Y.; Moon, Y.S.; Cho, K.K. ω-6 and ω-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids: Inflammation, Obesity and Foods of Animal Resources. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2024, 44, 988–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Calkins, C.R.; Hodgen, J.M. A fresh look at meat flavour. Meat Sci. 2007, 77, 63–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, F.; Li, L.; Meng, X.; Liu, J.; Cui, X.; Ma, Q.; Wei, Y.; Liang, M.; Xu, H.; Rombenso, A. Feeding Strategy to Use Beef Tallow and Modify Farmed Tiger Puffer Fatty Acid Composition. Animals 2023, 13, 3037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. United States Department of Agriculture USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. 2011. Available online: https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeast-area/beltsville-md-bhnrc/beltsville-human-nutrition-research-center/food-surveys-research-group/docs/fndds-download-databases/ (accessed on 21 June 2025).
  74. Raes, K.; De Smet, S.; Demeyer, D. Demeyer Effect of double-muscling in Belgium Blue young bulls on the intramuscular fatty acid composition with emphasis on conjugated linoleic acid and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Anim. Sci. 2001, 73, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cancino-Padilla, N.; Catalán, N.; Siu-Ting, K.; Creevey, C.J.; Huws, S.A.; Romero, J.; Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E. Long-Term Effects of Dietary Supplementation with Olive Oil and Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil on the Rumen Microbiome of Dairy Cows. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Schumacher, M.; DelCurto-Wyffels, H.; Thomson, J.; Boles, J. Fat Deposition and Fat Effects on Meat Quality—A Review. Animals 2022, 12, 1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lee, M.R.F.; Tweed, J.K.S.; Moloney, A.P.; Scollan, N.D. The effects of fish oil supplementation on rumen metabolism and the biohydrogenation of unsaturated fatty acids in beef steers given diets containing sunflower oil. Anim. Sci. 2005, 80, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Flowers, S.; Hamblen, H.; Leal-Gutiérrez, J.D.; Elzo, M.A.; Johnson, D.D.; Mateescu, R.G. Fatty acid profile, mineral content, and palatability of beef from a multibreed Angus–Brahman population. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 23, 4264–4275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Liu, S.; Yang, Y.; Luo, H.; Pang, W.; Martin, G.B. Fat deposition and partitioning for meat production in cattle and sheep. Anim. Nutr. 2024, 17, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nishimura, T.; Hattori, A.; Takahashi, K. Structural changes in intramuscular connective tissue during the fattening of Japanese black cattle: Effect of marbling on beef tenderization. J. Anim. Sci. 1999, 77, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bergen, R.; Miller, S.; Wilton, J.; Mandell, I. Genetic correlations between live yearling bull and steer carcass traits adjusted to different slaughter end points. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 84, 558–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wood, J.D.; Richardson, I.R.; Nute, G.R.; Fisher, A.V.; Campo, M.M.; Kasapidou, E.; Sheard, P.R.; Enser, M. Effects of fatty acids on meat quality: A review. Meat Sci. 2003, 66, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Dinh, T.T.N.; To, K.V.; Schilling, M.W. Fatty Acid Composition of Meat Animals as Flavor Precursors. Meat Muscle Biol. Meat Muscle Biol. 2021, 5, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dal Bosco, A.; Cavallo, M.; Menchetti, L.; Angelucci, E.; Cartoni Mancinelli, A.; Vaudo, G.; Marconi, S.; Camilli, E.; Galli, F.; Castellini, C.; et al. The Healthy Fatty Index Allows for Deeper Insights into the Lipid Composition of Foods of Animal Origin When Compared with the Atherogenic and Thrombogenicity Indexes. Foods 2024, 13, 1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Goluch, Z.; Rybarczyk, A.; Poławska, E.; Haraf, G. Fatty Acid Profile and Lipid Quality Indexes of the Meat and Backfat from Porkers Supplemented with EM Bokashi Probiotic. Animals 2023, 13, 3298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Króliczewska, B.; Miśta, D.; Korzeniowska, M.; Pecka-Kiełb, E.; Zachwieja, A. Comparative evaluation of the quality and fatty acid profile of meat from brown hares and domestic rabbits offered the same diet. Meat Sci. 2018, 145, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 15 01856 g001
Figure 1. (a) Microcapsules before in vitro incubation. (b) Microcapsules after 24 h incubation. No visible damage was observed; rupture occurred only under mechanical pressure. A change in capsule coloration was noted due to the action of rumen fluid.
Figure 1. (a) Microcapsules before in vitro incubation. (b) Microcapsules after 24 h incubation. No visible damage was observed; rupture occurred only under mechanical pressure. A change in capsule coloration was noted due to the action of rumen fluid.
Animals 15 01856 g001
Table 1. Chemical analysis of the composition of feeds and the complete feed mixture for fattening cattle included in the rations.
Table 1. Chemical analysis of the composition of feeds and the complete feed mixture for fattening cattle included in the rations.
ItemConcentration
Ingredient (% of DM)
Triticale37.3
Rapeseed cake29
Wheat19
Protein concentrates for fattening cattle6
Soybean meal4
Sodium bicarbonate3
Soybean oil1
Vitamin and mineral mix0.7
DMCPEENDFADF
(%)(% of DM)
Proximate composition88.423.92.912.86.9
Corn silage38.572.831.0816.58.09
Grass silage37.009.191.2422.3912.23
Barley straw88.864.122.6971.7949.45
DM = dry matter; CP = crude protein; EE = ether extract; NDF = neutral detergent fiber; ADF = acid detergent fiber.
Table 2. Fatty acid composition of cod liver oil.
Table 2. Fatty acid composition of cod liver oil.
Fatty Acidg/100 g FatFatty Acidg/100 g Fat
C14:03.64C20:58.22
C16:011.60C22:00.70
C16:19.11C22:110.01
C18:02.22C22:51.86
C18:124.50C22:611.31
C18:22.36n-322.47
C18:31.08n-62.36
C20:110.01n-6/n-30.11
Table 3. Fat and protein content in muscle tissue (%) in beef cattle.
Table 3. Fat and protein content in muscle tissue (%) in beef cattle.
LimousineRed AngusSEMp-Value
CLELCAEA
Protein20.81 Bb22.65 A22.45 A21.85 a0.1780.000
Fat0.74 Ba0.57 Bb1.21 Aa1.03 Ab0.0680.003
Means within the same row followed by different superscript letters differ significantly: lowercase letters (a, b) indicate significance at p < 0.05; uppercase letters (A, B) indicate significance at p < 0.01. CL—control group, Limousin bulls; EL—experimental group, Limousin bulls; CA—control group, Red Angus bulls; EA—experimental group, Red Angus bulls. SEM—standard error of the mean.
Table 4. Concentration of saturated fatty acids in muscle tissue (g/100 g fat) in beef cattle.
Table 4. Concentration of saturated fatty acids in muscle tissue (g/100 g fat) in beef cattle.
Saturated Fatty AcidLimousineRed AngusSEMp-Value
CLELCAEA
C14:01.33 B1.08 Bb1.71 a2.00 A0.0090.010
C15:00.55 A0.40 B0.42 B0.42 B0.0190.007
C16:020.21 B19.42 B22.87 A23.38 A0.4370.001
C17:00.920.810.880.980.0330.302
C18:019.7018.2719.2119.660.4420.589
C20:00.25 a0.24 a0.17 b0.17 b0.0130.014
∑SFA42.69 A39.99 B45.22 A46.60 A0.4780.000
CL—control group, Limousin bulls; EL—experimental group, Limousin bulls; CA—control group, Red Angus bulls; EA—experimental group, Red Angus bulls. SFA—saturated fatty acid. SEM—standard error of the mean. Means within the same row followed by different superscript letters differ significantly: lowercase letters (a, b) indicate significance at p < 0.05; uppercase letters (A, B) indicate significance at p < 0.01.
Table 5. Proportion of unsaturated fatty acids, atherogenic index, and thrombogenic index in muscle tissue (g/100 g fat) in beef cattle.
Table 5. Proportion of unsaturated fatty acids, atherogenic index, and thrombogenic index in muscle tissue (g/100 g fat) in beef cattle.
Unsaturated Fatty AcidLimousineRed AngusSEMp-Value
CLELCAEA
C14:10.400.620.450.570.0770.344
C15:10.350.290.320.340.0100.193
C16:12.19 B2.11 B2.94 A3.20 A0.1200.000
C17:10.76 b0.63 Bb0.84 a0.99 A0.0390.002
C18:1n9c26.11 B23.85 B31.44 Ab34.87 Aa0.9510.000
C18:1n8c1.92 b2.23 a1.96 b1.92 b0.0490.030
C18:1n9t0.400.420.280.290.0380.331
C18:1n7t1.251.191.111.560.0670.108
C20:10.12 Bb0.19 b0.30 Aa0.280.0190.002
MUFA33.42 B30.78 B39.91 Aa44.47 Ab1.1900.000
C18:2n6c10.96 A15.38 A6.87 B4.32 B1.0460.000
C18:2n61.500.310.330.340.0200.864
C18:3n32.36 A2.61 A1.53 Ba0.94 Bb0.1530.000
C20:4n64.24 A5.17 A2.60 ab1.15 Bb0.4340.001
C20:5n31.00 A1.06 Aa0.56 b0.26 B0.0870.001
C22:6 n30.27 A0.30 A0.12 B0.06 B0.0320.003
PUFA19.65 A24.55 A11.92 B6.98 B1.6740.000
∑ UFA53.0755.251.7751.430.64670.116
PUFA/∑SFA0.50 A0.63 A0.27 B0.15 B0.0490.000
n33.45 A3.80 A2.17 Ba1.17 Bb0.2480.000
n616.20 A20.75 A9.75 B5.80 B1.4420.000
n3/n60.210.190.230.200.0060.230
n6/n34.76 b5.44 a4.415.030.0920.017
AI index0.49 b0.43 B0.58 A0.61 Aa0.0200.001
TI index1.23 B1.05 B1.40 C1.57 A0.05430.000
CL—control group, Limousin bulls; EL—experimental group, Limousin bulls; CA—control group, Red Angus bulls; EA—experimental group, Red Angus bulls. SFA—saturated fatty acid. MUFA—monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA—polyunsaturated fatty acid; UFA—unsaturated fatty acid (MUFA + PUFA); AI—atherogenic index; TI—thrombogenic index. SEM—standard error of the mean. Means within the same row followed by different superscript letters differ significantly: lowercase letters (a, b) indicate significance at p < 0.05; uppercase letters (A, B) indicate significance at p < 0.01.
Table 6. Proportion of saturated fatty acids in subcutaneous adipose tissue (g/100 g fat) in beef cattle.
Table 6. Proportion of saturated fatty acids in subcutaneous adipose tissue (g/100 g fat) in beef cattle.
Saturated Fatty AcidLimousineRed AngusSEMp-Value
CLELCAEA
C14:02.23 Bb2.55 a2.70 A2.88 A0.0660.003
C15:00.870.880.760.690.0300.091
C16:019.98 B19.38 B22.49 A23.87 A0.4720.000
C17:01.55 Aa1.42 b1.42 b1.30 Ba0.0250.002
C18:039.57 Aa35.64 b36.11 b28.62 Ba0.9210.000
C20:00.53 Aa0.61 a0.470.36 Bb0.0280.008
∑SFA64.71 A60.44 BCa63.93 Cb57.38 Bb0.6750.000
CL—control group, Limousin bulls; EL—experimental group, Limousin bulls; CA—control group, Red Angus bulls; EA—experimental group, Red Angus bulls. SFA—saturated fatty acid. SEM—standard error of the mean. Means within the same row followed by different superscript letters differ significantly: lowercase letters (a, b) indicate significance at p < 0.05; uppercase letters (A, B) indicate significance at p < 0.01.
Table 7. Proportion of unsaturated fatty acids in subcutaneous adipose tissue (g/100 g fat) in beef cattle.
Table 7. Proportion of unsaturated fatty acids in subcutaneous adipose tissue (g/100 g fat) in beef cattle.
Unsaturated Fatty AcidLimousineRed AngusSEMp-Value
CLELCAEA
C14:10.630.750.640.690.0210.151
C15:10.660.680.610.580.0180.149
C16:12.09 Bb2.57 a2.412.75 A0.0720.039
C17:10.53 b0.53 b0.59 b0.68 Aa0.0190.004
C18:1n9c20.12 B22.64 B22.41 B28.20 A0.7080.001
C18:1n8c1.23 b1.38 a1.17 b1.43 a0.0370.017
C18:1n9t0.510.610.390.440.0440.403
C18:1n7t2.633.12 a2.32 b2.710.0940.034
C20:10.360.360.350.300.0410.632
MUFA28.63 Bb32.34 a30.66 a36.29 Ab0.6780.001
C18:2n6c1.451.671.211.470.0490.598
C18:2n60.250.260.270.340.0160.247
C18:3n30.530.520.460.510.0180.971
C20:4n60.510.710.381.780.4240.772
C20:5n30.620.480.380.590.7860.371
PUFA2.993.532.343.290.3570.714
∑ UFA31.62 B36.87 A33.49 B40.37 A0.7580.001
PUFA/∑SFA0.040.060.040.060.0060.622
n30.891.350.640.520.2800.648
n61.852.181.702.770.9490.486
n3/n60.480.510.410.280.0870.771
n6/n32.643.561.853.230.2830.532
AI index0.93 a0.53 b1.01 b0.90.1940.010
TI index3.41 Aa2.85 b3.35 a2.61 Bb0.1040.007
CL—control group, Limousin bulls; EL—experimental group, Limousin bulls; CA—control group, Red Angus bulls; EA—experimental group, Red Angus bulls. SFA—saturated fatty acid. MUFA—monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA—polyunsaturated fatty acid; UFA—unsaturated fatty acid (MUFA + PUFA); AI—atherogenic index; TI—thrombogenic index. SEM—standard error of the mean. Means within the same row followed by different superscript letters differ significantly: lowercase letters (a, b) indicate significance at p < 0.05; uppercase letters (A, B) indicate significance at p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zachwieja, A.; Pecka-Kiełb, E.; Zielak-Steciwko, A.; Króliczewska, B.; Kaszuba, J.; Kupczyński, R. Effect of Rumen-Protected Cod Liver Oil Supplementation on Fatty Acid Profile of Meat from Limousin and Red Angus Cattle. Animals 2025, 15, 1856. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15131856

AMA Style

Zachwieja A, Pecka-Kiełb E, Zielak-Steciwko A, Króliczewska B, Kaszuba J, Kupczyński R. Effect of Rumen-Protected Cod Liver Oil Supplementation on Fatty Acid Profile of Meat from Limousin and Red Angus Cattle. Animals. 2025; 15(13):1856. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15131856

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zachwieja, Andrzej, Ewa Pecka-Kiełb, Anna Zielak-Steciwko, Bożena Króliczewska, Jowita Kaszuba, and Robert Kupczyński. 2025. "Effect of Rumen-Protected Cod Liver Oil Supplementation on Fatty Acid Profile of Meat from Limousin and Red Angus Cattle" Animals 15, no. 13: 1856. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15131856

APA Style

Zachwieja, A., Pecka-Kiełb, E., Zielak-Steciwko, A., Króliczewska, B., Kaszuba, J., & Kupczyński, R. (2025). Effect of Rumen-Protected Cod Liver Oil Supplementation on Fatty Acid Profile of Meat from Limousin and Red Angus Cattle. Animals, 15(13), 1856. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15131856

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