Open Access

Carcass traits, meat yield and fatty acid composition of adipose tissues and Supraspinatus muscle in goats fed blend of canola oil and palm oil

  • K. D. Adeyemi1, 5,
  • M. Ebrahimi4,
  • A. A. Samsudin1, 3,
  • A. B. Sabow1, 6 and
  • A. Q. Sazili1, 2, 3Email author
Journal of Animal Science and Technology201557:42

DOI: 10.1186/s40781-015-0076-y

Received: 2 August 2015

Accepted: 22 November 2015

Published: 7 December 2015

Abstract

Background

Dietary fats can alter the deposition and distribution of body fats in ruminants. The deposition and distribution of body fat play a vital role in the quality of ruminant carcasses and are of great commercial value since they influence the profitability and consumer acceptability of ruminant meat. The current study examined the effects of dietary blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil (BCPO) on carcass characteristics, meat yield and accretion of fatty acid (FA) in subcutaneous, omental, perirenal, and mesentery adipose depots and m. supraspinatus (SS) in goats.

Methods

Twenty four Boer crossbred bucks (BW 20.54 ± 0.47 kg) were randomly assigned to diets containing on DM basis 0, 4 and 8 % BCPO, fed for 100 d and harvested.

Results

Diet had no effect (P > 0.05) on slaughter weight, dressing percentage, carcass and non-carcass components, meat yield, color, moisture and carotenoid contents and weight of adipose tissues in goats. The proportion of C18:1n-9 and cis-9 trans-11 CLA in the omental, perirenal and SS was higher (P < 0.05) in goats fed 4 and 8 % BCPO compared with the control goats. Dietary BCPO reduced (P < 0.05) the proportion of C14:0 in the omental, perirenal and mesentery depots, C18:0 in the perirenal depot, C16:0 in the SS and C16:1n-7 in the SS, omental and perirenal tissues. Dietary BCPO enhanced the proportion of C18:1 trans-11 Vaccenic and C18:3n-3 in SS and C20:5n-3 in SS and mesentery depot. No significant changes were found in the FA composition of subcutaneous depot.

Conclusions

Results indicate that dietary BCPO can be utilized to alter the FA composition of adipose tissues without detrimental effects on carcass characteristics in goats. Nonetheless, dietary BCPO is not an effective repartitioning agent for body fats in goats.

Keywords

Fat color Mesentery Omental Perirenal Subcutaneous

Background

Dietary fat is a popular means of increasing the energy density of diet in ruminant nutrition and can influence adipose depots and carcass composition [13]. Dietary fat can also be used to modify the fatty acid composition of meat and milk to fulfill the nutritional demands of consumers [4, 5]. The deposition and distribution of fat play a vital role in the quality of ruminant carcasses [2, 3, 6] and are of great commercial value since they influence profitability and consumer acceptability of ruminant meat [3, 6].

Goats deposit more visceral fat and less subcutaneous, inter and intra muscular fat compared with sheep and cattle [7, 8]. The deposition of more visceral fats aside its effect on product quality is expensive and represent a waste of dietary energy [3, 7, 8]. In addition, a poor subcutaneous fat cover decreases grading of goat carcasses and could instigate carcass evaporative losses [7, 8]. Albeit, the low intramuscular fat in goat meat is concordant with the present day consumers’ demands [7], a low intramuscular fat is responsible for the low juiciness and tenderness of goat meat [8, 9].

Although, there are large discrepancies, dietary fat can influence deposition of body fats and fatty acid composition of adipose tissue in ruminants [2, 3, 10]. In this respect, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) has been identified as a potent modulator and repartitioning agent in fat metabolism [11, 12]. The CLA can be synthesized in the rumen by the biohydrogenation of linoleic and linolenic acids [13, 14]. The CLA can also be synthesized endogenously in the tissue by the action of Δ-9 desaturase on trans-vaccenic acid [13, 14]. The C18:1 trans-11 Vaccenic is a mutual intermediate product of biohydrogenation of C18:1n-9, C18:2n-6 and C18:3n-3 [4, 13, 14]. Thus, oils rich in linoleic, linolenic and/or oleic acids could alter adipose depots in ruminants [4, 13]. Canola oil is an excellent source of oleic (59 %), linoleic (21 %) and linolenic (11 %) [15]. Palm oil contains about 40 % oleic acid and 11 % linoleic acid [16]. Given the attributes of both canola and palm oils, it will be of great significance for goat meat production to examine if the blend of palm oil and canola oil could affect lipid metabolism and partitioning of body fat in goats. The efficacies of various combinations of canola oil and palm oil on in vitro rumen fermentation have been investigated [Adeyemi et al. unpublished] and it has been shown that the blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil (BCPO) had no detrimental effect on in vitro [17] and in vivo rumen fermentation and growth performance in goats [18] and yielded substantial ruminal biohydrogenation intermediates. Nonetheless, we are unaware of any study that has examined the effect of blend of canola oil and palm oil on carcass traits and tissue fatty acids in goats. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the effects of graded levels of blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil on fat deposition, carcass traits, tissue composition of primal cuts, fat characteristics and the fatty acid composition of omental, subcutaneous, perirenal and mesentery adipose tissues and supraspinatus muscle in goats.

Methods

Animal welfare

The study was conducted following the guidelines of research policy of the Universiti Putra Malaysia on animal welfare and ethics.

Experimental animals and diet

Twenty four Boer bucks (4–5 months old, 20.54 ± 0.47 kg body weight) were used in the study. Each animal was individually housed in wooden slatted floor pens (1.20 m × 0.80 m × 0.70 m) equipped with feeding and drinking facilities. The animals were randomly assigned to dietary treatments containing on dry matter basis 0, 4 or 8 % BCPO and fed for 100 d following two weeks of adaptation. All diets were formulated to meet the nutritional requirements of growing goats based on NRC [19] recommendations and animals were fed twice daily with ad libitum access to clean water. The proximate composition of the diets was determined following the method of AOAC [20] while acid detergent fibre (ADF) and neutral detergent fibre (NDF) were determined following the method of Van Soest et al. [21]. The ingredients and chemical composition of dietary treatments are presented in Table 1 while the fatty acid (FA) composition of the diets is presented in Table 2.
Table 1

Ingredients and chemical composition of dietary treatments

Ingredient (% DM)

Level of BCPOa (%)

 

0

4

8

Fresh OPFb

40.00

40.00

40.00

OPFb silage

10.00

10.00

10.00

Corn grain

22.00

12.50

6.00

Soybean meal

17.00

19.00

20.00

Rice bran

2.00

7.00

10.50

Palm kernel cake

7.50

6.00

4.00

BCPOa

0.00

4.00

8.00

Limestone

0.50

0.50

0.50

Salt

0.50

0.50

0.50

Mineral-vitamin premixc

0.50

0.50

0.50

Chemical composition, % DM

Dry matter

67.70

67.90

68.07

Organic matter

93.16

93.42

93.55

Metabolizable energy, MJ/Kg DMb

11.59

11.61

11.62

Crude Protein,

14.27

14.37

14.39

Ether extract

3.06

6.56

11.45

Crude fibre

28.48

27.64

26.81

ADF

35.04

33.28

32.52

NDF

63.52

62.67

62.06

Nitrogen free extract

16.56

13.97

12.45

Ca

1.02

1.05

1.04

P

0.52

0.54

0.54

Total carotenoid (mg/kg)

14.81

16.71

19.86

ablend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil. bOil palm frond. cContained (g/kg) CuSO4.5H2O, 70; ZnSO4.7H2O, 240; FeSO4.7H2O, 170; MnSO4.5H2O, 290; (mg/kg) CoCl2.6H2O 510; KI, 220; NaSeO, 130; vitamin B1, 450; pantothenic acid, 750; vitamin K3, 150; folic acid, 15; vitamin B12, 0.9; vitamin B5, 1,050; (IU) vitamin D3, 324,000; vitamin A, 620,000. bcalculated

Table 2

Fatty acid composition (g/kg DM) of dietary treatments

 

Level BCPOa (%)

Parameter

0

4

8

C12:0, lauric

0.01

0.03

0.04

C14:0, myristic

0.53

0.51

0.51

C16:0, palmitic

2.79

5.98

7.78

C16:1, palmitoleic

0.08

0.11

0.15

C18:0, stearic

0.56

1.12

1.43

C18:1n-9, oleic

3.82

14.87

25.23

C18:2n-6, linoleic

7.05

11.87

13.07

C18:3n-3, linolenic

1.06

2.61

4.23

Total FA

15.89

37.09

52.27

FA sums and ratios

∑SFA

3.89

7.79

9.79

∑UFA

12.00

29.31

42.52

∑PUFA

8.11

14.49

16.19

n-6:n-3

6.65

4.54

3.08

ablend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil. ∑SFA = (C12:0 + C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0), ∑UFA = (C16:1+ C18:1 + C18:2n-6 + C18:3n-3), n-6:n-3 = (C18:2n-6÷C18:3n-3)

Slaughtering procedure and carcass analysis

The animals were fasted for 12 h with free access to water, weighed and slaughtered in a commercial abattoir according to the Halal procedure as outlined in MS1500:2009 [22]. After slaughter, the head, fore- and hind limbs were removed at the atlanto-occipital, carpal and tarsal joints respectively. The animals were skinned while suspended by their achilles tendon and later eviscerated. Carcass and non-carcass components were weighed. Subcutaneous fat was sampled from inguinal region, omental fat was sampled near its free part close to the rumen (omentum majus), perirenal fat was sampled near the kidney on its great curve (between the renal fascia and renal capsule), and mesentery fat was sampled between the ileum and jejunum while pelvic fat was sampled at the left pelvic region. The Supraprinatus muscle was sampled from the right forelimb. The weight of gut fill was estimated by subtracting the weight of empty gut from the weight of full gut. Empty body weight was estimated as the difference between the slaughter weight and weight of gut fill. Dressing percentage (based on full live body weight and empty body weight) was estimated as described by Kadim et al. [23]. Dressed carcasses were weighed (hot carcass weight) within 45 min postmortem, chilled at 4 °C for 24 h and reweighed (cold carcass weight). Chilling loss was estimated as the difference between hot and cold carcass weight expressed as percentage. Carcasses were split along the midline into right and left halves. The right half was separated into neck, shoulder, breast flank, loin and leg cuts. Each cut was separated into lean, fat and bone. Longissimus muscle area (rib eye area) was measured between the 12th and 13th ribs using tracing paper and estimated using two-dimension polygons area calculator software as described by Branscome and Jesseman [24]. Carcass linear measurements were determined as outlined by Fisher and De Boer [25] and Laville et al. [26]. These measurements were used to estimate carcass compactness (cold carcass weight/internal carcass length), shoulder compactness (shoulder weight/length of shoulder) and leg compactness (leg weight/leg length) as described by Carrasco et al. [27]. Saleable meat yield (SMY) was estimated as SMY% = (100 – fat %) × (meat:bone)/ ((meat:bone) + 1) as outlined by Purchas [28].

Fat color and moisture content

The color coordinates of adipose tissues were measured with a ColorFlex spectrophotometer (Hunter Lab Reston, VA, USA) based on the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) Lab-values (also known as L*, a*, b*) with D65 illuminant and 10° standard observer. The device was calibrated against black and white reference tiles prior to use. The moisture content of the adipose tissue was measured in accordance to the method of AOAC [20].

Total carotenoid

Total carotenoid in feed and adipose tissues was determined in accordance to the method described by Okonkwo [29]. One gram of each sample was homogenized with 5 mL acetone. The content was stirred for 30 min and two 2.5 mL aliquot of acetone was used to rinse the flask and re-extract the residue. The extracts were pooled and 1 mL of deionized water was added. The mixture was transferred into 5 mL n-hexane and centrifuged at 3000 g for 10 min. The absorbance of the hexane layer was read at 450 nm using spectrophotometer (Secomam, Domont, France). Total carotenoid content was estimated by the following formula
$$ \mathrm{Conc}.\left(\upmu \mathrm{g}/\mathrm{g}\right)=\left(\mathrm{A} \times \mathrm{V} \times 1{0}^4\right)/\left(2592 \times \mathrm{W}\right) $$
$$ \mathrm{Where}\ \mathrm{A}=\mathrm{absorbance} $$
$$ \mathrm{V}=\mathrm{Volume}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{n}-\mathrm{hexane}\left(\mathrm{mL}\right) $$
$$ \mathrm{W}=\mathrm{Weight}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{sample} $$

Fatty acid (FA) analysis

The total lipids in feed and tissue samples was extracted in chloroform:methanol (2:1, v/v) mixture following the method of Folch et al. [30] modified by Rajion et al. [31]. The fatty acids were transmethylated into their fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) using 0.66 N KOH in methanol and 14 % methanolic boron trifluoride (BF3) in accordance with the method of AOAC [20]. Heneicosanoic acid was used as the internal standard. The FAME was separated in a gas chromatograph (Agilent 7890A) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and a splitless injector. The column used was fused silica capillary (Supelco SP-2560, 100 m, 0.25 mm ID, 0.20 mm film thickness). High purity nitrogen was used as the carrier gas at 40 mL/min. Compressed air and high purity hydrogen were used for the FID in the chromatograph. To facilitate optimal separation, the oven temperature was set at 100 °C, for 2 min and warmed to 170 °C at 10 °C/min, held for 2 min, warmed to 230 °C at 5 °C/min, and then held for 20 min. Identification of sample fatty acids was done by comparing the relative retention times of FAME peaks from samples with those of standards. The indices of Δ 9 desaturase enzyme activities (ID16 and ID18) and elongase enzyme activity in tissues were estimated as described by Malau-Aduli et al. [32] as follows: ID16 = 100(C16:1)/(C16:0 + C16:1), ID18 = 100(C18:1)/C18:0 + C18:1) and Elongation index = 100[(C18:0 + C18:1 n-9)/(C18:0 + C18:1n-9 + C16:0 + C16:1)].

Statistical analysis

The experiment followed a completely randomized design. Data obtained for all parameters were subjected to the generalized linear model (GLM) procedure of SAS [33]. Slaughter weight was used as a covariate. However, the covariate analysis was not significant. Orthogonal contrasts (linear and quadratic effects) were tested with coefficients estimated based on the level of dietary oil.

Results

Ingredients, chemical and fatty acid composition of experimental diets

The ingredients and chemical composition of the experimental diets are shown in Table 1 while the fatty acid composition is shown in Table 2. In each treatment, oil palm fronds (OPF) accounted for 50 % of the total ration. The OPF is obtained from oil palm (Elaeis guinensis) tree and constitute one of the main by-products of the oil palm industry in Malaysia [34]. The OPF is made up of three main components namely the petioles, leaflets and rachis. The petiole is the main structure of the OPF and accounts for about 70 % of the dry matter (DM) of OPF. The proximate analysis of OPF used in the current study showed that it contained on DM basis: 4.6 % crude protein, 2 % ether extract, 39 % crude fiber, 78.5 % NDF, 56.4 % ADF, 3.2 % ash, and 5.7 MJ/kg metabolizable energy. As a percentage of total FA, the OPF contained 31.3 % C16:0, 5.4 % C16:1, 4.4 % C18:0, 20.9 % C18:1n-9, 16 % C18:2n-6, 17 % C18:3n-3 and 5 % other FA. The concentrate portion of the diets consisted of various ingredients which were adjusted to make the experimental diets isocaloric and isonitrogenous since the addition of graded level of BCPO would increase the energy content of the diet. This was done to prevent confounding experimental results that could accompany changing the protein and energy status of the diets. Thus, responses by animals can be attributed to the addition of BCPO to the diets. In addition, the varied ingredients (corn, soybean meal, palm kernel cake and rice bran) are not fat sources and thus contributed 1.74 and 1.67 % FA to the total FA in the 4 and 8 % BCPO diets respectively. Hence, the FA composition of such ingredients would not be a confounding factor in the current trial. Similar experimental design (control diet vs. oil based diets) which necessitates altering the composition of other dietary ingredients was used in goats [35], sheep [36, 37] and cattle [1, 2, 5, 38, 39]. The chemical composition of the experimental diets met the minimum requirements for growing goats recommended by NRC [19]. As expected, the total FA in the supplemented diets was greater than the control diet. Notably, addition of BCPO increased the concentration (g/kg DM) of C16:0, C18:1n-9, C18:3n-3 and C18:2n-6 but lowered the n6/n3 ratio.

Carcass traits and fat depots

The carcass traits of goats fed varying levels of BCPO are presented in Table 3. Dietary BCPO did not affect (P > 0.05) live, empty body and carcass weights, dressing percentage and meat yield in goats. Similarly, the rib eye area and other carcass linear measurements (Table 3), non-carcass components (Table 4) and proportion, weight and tissue composition of primal cuts (Table 5) were unaffected (P > 0.05). The back fat thickness, intramuscular fat (Table 3) of supraspinatus muscle, and the weights of perirenal, omental, mesentery and pelvic adipose depots (Table 4) were not influenced (P > 0.05) by diets. The carotenoid and moisture contents and color coordinates of all adipose tissues (Table 6) were similar (P > 0.05) across dietary treatments.
Table 3

Least square means for the carcass traits of goats fed graded levels of blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

 

Level of BCPOa (%)

 

P value

Parameter

0

4

8

SEM

Overall

Linear

Quadratic

Slaughter weight (Kg)

29.58

32.19

31.33

0.91

0.144

0.064

0.511

Empty body weight (Kg)

24.87

26.18

25.72

0.81

0.515

0.284

0.691

Hot carcass weight (kg)

13.56

14.21

13.78

0.42

0.542

0.408

0.467

Cold carcass weight (kg)

13.21

13.90

13.48

0.41

0.497

0.352

0.469

Chilling loss (%)

2.60

2.17

2.19

0.21

0.304

0.127

0.955

Dressing percentageb

45.81

44.41

44.02

1.62

0.366

0.177

0.694

Dressing percentagec

54.56

54.52

53.55

0.94

0.701

0.654

0.479

Back fat thickness (mm)

2.17

2.28

2.29

0.20

0.844

0.598

0.848

Rib eye area (cm2)

13.08

13.92

13.41

0.54

0.568

0.407

0.527

Saleable meat yield (%)

68.86

69.24

69.34

1.45

0.700

0.581

0.620

IMFd

2.78

2.76

2.79

0.03

0.221

0.551

0.761

Linear measurements

Carcass length (cm)

79.34

78.00

78.40

1.09

0.691

0.428

0.805

Internal carcass length (cm)

71.34

70.00

70.40

1.09

0.691

0.428

0.805

Carcass compactness (g/cm)

184.78

200.56

192.14

8.62

0.477

0.315

0.515

Shoulder width (cm)

45.33

46.33

45.67

0.94

0.757

0.584

0.634

Shoulder length (cm)

24.33

23.17

22.84

0.92

0.403

0.415

0.581

Shoulder compactness (g/cm)

177.97

189.47

190.89

7.20

0.617

0.569

0.511

Leg width (cm)

40.00

40.23

40.53

0.49

0.754

0.548

0.681

Leg length (cm)

46.03

46.41

46.00

0.92

0.457

0.415

0.581

Leg compactness (g/cm)

95.22

98.84

92.47

7.47

0.837

0.963

0.568

Carcass composition

Lean (%)

68.60

69.41

69.08

0.86

0.453

0.366

0.391

Bone (%)

23.81

22.93

22.56

0.42

0.132

0.620

0.057

Subcutaneous fat (%)

2.33

2.54

2.58

0.21

0.687

0.597

0.511

Intermuscular fat (%)

4.91

5.34

5.44

0.44

0.686

0.589

0.515

ablend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil. bestimated based on full live body weight. cestimated based on empty body weight (Kadim et al., 2003). dintramuscular fat of supraspinatus muscle. SEM = standard error of means. Values are least square means for 8 goats per diet

Table 4

Least square means for the weight of non-carcass components from goats fed graded levels of blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

 

Level of BCPOa (%)

 

P value

Parameter (Kg)

0

4

8

SEM

Overall

Linear

Quadratic

Head

2.36

2.46

2.25

0.09

0.257

0.9545

0.103

Feet

1.00

1.04

0.98

0.03

0.379

0.871

0.171

Skin

3.40

3.65

3.23

0.15

0.168

0.818

0.063

Heart

0.11

0.12

0.12

0.01

0.785

0.494

0.936

Lungs

0.24

0.22

0.23

0.01

0.606

0.357

0.710

Kidney

0.07

0.07

0.08

0.01

0.548

0.325

0.463

Liver

0.43

0.43

0.45

0.02

0.612

0.830

0.338

Reticulo-rumen

1.25

1.29

1.46

0.07

0.120

0.179

0.118

Intestine

0.84

0.87

1.01

0.05

0.187

0.176

0.113

Omental fat

0.24

0.29

0.27

0.02

0.357

0.188

0.583

Perirenal fat (K)

0.10

0.12

0.09

0.02

0.654

0.763

0.389

Mesentery fat

0.24

0.26

0.24

0.01

0.195

0.318

0.129

Pelvic fat (P)

0.15

0.19

0.18

0.03

0.440

0.243

0.348

Heart fat (H)

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.01

0.771

0.825

0.810

KPH%b

2.42

2.73

2.52

0.12

0.423

0.560

0.240

ablend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil. bestimated based on percentage of cold carcass weight. SEM = standard error of means. Values are least square means for 8 goats per diet

Table 5

Least square means for the proportion, weight and tissue composition of primal cuts from goats fed graded levels of blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

 

Level of BCPOa (%)

 

P value

Parameters

0

4

8

SEM

Overall

Linear

Quadratic

Proportion (%)b

Neck

6.43

6.54

6.75

0.52

0.5722

0.909

0.751

Shoulder

32.77

31.58

31.53

2.54

0.8369

0.656

0.881

Loin

10.06

9.78

10.16

0.28

0.9263

0.643

0.335

Breast

17.56

19.35

19.21

0.57

0.8413

0.987

0.817

Leg

33.16

32.73

32.34

2.61

0.9917

0.747

0.822

Shoulder (kg)

4.33

4.39

4.25

0.29

0.6252

1.000

0.901

Lean (%)

71.73

73.17

73.33

4.65

0.3524

0.234

0.981

Bone (%)

22.18

21.71

21.58

2.18

0.6556

0.242

0.968

Fat (%)

5.81

5.12

5.08

0.97

0.7557

0.569

0.981

Loin (Kg)

1.33

1.36

1.37

0.07

0.2934

0.715

0.927

Lean (%)

67.40

67.97

67.89

2.69

0.8436

0.474

0.343

Bone (%)

21.93

20.96

20.34

0.66

0.7529

0.162

0.531

Fat (%)

10.67

11.07

11.77

2.20

0.4219

0.659

0.329

Neck (Kg)

0.85

0.91

0.91

0.04

0.5459

0.310

1.000

Lean (%)

74.72

78.20

77.22

2.52

0.3116

0.369

0.791

Bone (%)

21.64

20.18

17.27

0.99

0.3683

0.054

0.084

Fat (%)

5.55

5.17

5.52

0.48

0.6094

0.740

0.626

Leg (kg)

4.38

4.55

4.36

0.11

0.2992

0.963

0.568

Lean (%)

70.41

68.97

69.23

0.62

0.7893

0.567

0.153

Bone (%)

23.03

24.90

24.31

0.95

0.7279

0.776

0.211

Fat (%)

6.56

6.13

6.02

0.36

0.6233

0.476

0.427

Breast (kg)

2.32

2.69

2.59

0.08

0.4845

0.589

0.867

Lean (%)

62.09

61.97

62.00

2.05

0.4640

0.821

0.891

Bone (%)

29.23

30.09

29.86

0.54

0.4768

0.744

0.923

Fat (%)

8.68

7.94

8.14

2.10

0.8383

0.723

0.562

ablend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil. bestimated based on percentage of cold carcass weight. SEM = standard error of means. Values are least square means for 8 goats per diet

Table 6

Least square means for color coordinates, carotenoid and moisture contents of adipose tissues from goats fed graded levels of blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

  

Level of BCPOa (%)

 

P value

Adipose tissue

Color coordinates

0

4

8

SEM

Overall

Linear

Quadratic

Subcutaneous

L*

78.07

80.02

81.29

2.07

0.563

0.335

0.674

 

a*

0.92

0.26

0.40

0.05

0.646

0.373

0.847

 

b*

10.97

9.53

10.16

0.84

0.506

0.304

0.606

Omental

L*

78.14

78.71

81.03

1.17

0.235

0.226

0.199

 

a*

1.04

0.96

1.00

0.25

0.318

0.384

0.239

 

b*

11.01

11.03

10.57

0.38

0.660

0.632

0.423

Perirenal

L*

79.07

80.07

82.18

1.61

0.080

0.053

0.380

 

a*

3.12

2.34

2.62

0.55

0.805

0.064

0.347

 

b*

12.87

12.28

10.32

0.83

0.068

0.247

0.055

Mesentery

L*

80.57

79.63

77.62

1.58

0.104

0.058

0.102

 

a*

1.62

1.46

1.45

0.39

0.203

0.726

0.986

 

b*

11.28

13.99

11.87

0.78

0.100

0.092

0.080

Total carotenoid (mg/kg)

Subcutaneous

 

0.09

0.11

0.12

0.01

0.210

0.100

0.213

Omental

 

0.17

0.19

0.22

0.01

0.215

0.200

0.341

Perirenal

 

0.19

0.24

0.26

0.01

0.223

0.180

0.119

Mesentery

 

0.18

0.22

0.24

0.01

0.190

0.200

0.401

Moisture content (%)

Subcutaneous

 

14.87

13.45

8.04

2.63

0.233

0.248

0.196

Omental

 

19.04

16.66

14.56

2.08

0.374

0.956

0.178

Perirenal

 

18.75

13.94

11.15

2.84

0.239

0.124

0.512

Mesentery

 

22.68

17.04

16.92

2.81

0.324

0.149

0.977

ablend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil. L*, lightness, a*, redness, b*, yellowness. SEM = standard error of means. Values are least square means for 8 goats per diet

Fatty acid composition of Supraspinatus muscle

The FA composition of Supraspinatus (SS) muscle from goats fed varying level of BCPO is shown in Table 7. Regardless of the diet, the most abundant FA in SS was C18:1n-9 followed by C16:0 and C18:0 in that order. The proportion of C16:0 and C16:1n-7 decreased (P < 0.05) while that of C18:1n-9, C18:1 trans-11, CLA cis-9 trans-11, C18:3n-3 and C20:5n-3n increased (P < 0.05) as the level of BCPO increased in diet. The proportion of C18:0, C18:2n-6 and C20:4n-6 was not influenced (P > 0.05) by diet. The total saturated fatty acids (SFA), the n-6/n-3 ratio and ID 16 decreased (P < 0.05) while the total monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), PUFA/SFA ratio, ID 18 and elongation index increased (P < 0.05) with increase in the level of BCPO in diet.
Table 7

Least square means for the fatty acid composition (% of total FA) of supraspinatus muscle in goats fed graded levels of blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

 

Level of BCPOd (%)

 

P value

Parameter

0

4

8

SEM

Overall

Linear

Quadratic

C14:0, myristic

2.98

2.17

2.11

0.03

0.213

0.421

0.212

C16:0, palmitic

24.53a

21.63b

17.34c

2.14

0.011

0.031

0.330

C16:1n-7, palmitoleic

3.29a

2.16b

1.09c

0.01

0.046

0.002

0.175

C18:0, stearic

17.93

17.35

15.39

1.54

0.541

0.472

0.112

C18:1n-9, oleic

28.13c

31.93b

36.44a

3.00

0.021

0.041

0.331

C18:1 trans-11 Vaccenic

2.02a

3.02b

4.78c

0.20

0.012

0.031

0.221

CLA cis-9 trans-11

0.66c

1.08b

1.14c

0.02

0.012

0.012

0.221

CLA trans-10 cis-12

0.68

0.76

0.79

0.22

0.556

0.213

0.451

C18:2n-6, linoleic

10.61

10.26

10.60

1.20

0.150

0.187

0.156

C18:3n-3, linolenic

0.72a

1.00b

1.45c

0.02

0.013

0.048

0.189

C20:4n-6, arachidonic

5.55

5.34

5.24

0.56

0.212

0.568

0.118

C20:5n-3, eicosapentaenoic

0.86a

1.28b

1.54c

0.02

0.045

0.042

0.091

C22:5n-3, docosapentaenoic

0.99

1.00

0.74

0.10

0.541

0.219

0.871

C22:6n-3, docosahexaenoic

1.06

1.04

1.05

0.01

0.342

0.221

0.448

Total FA (mg/g of muscle)

2.11

2.34

2.18

0.03

0.112

0.574

0.378

FA ratios and sums

∑SFA

45.44a

41.15b

34.84c

4.21

0.001

0.002

0.019

∑MUFA

33.26c

37.11b

42.31a

3.21

0.005

0.001

0.003

∑PUFA

21.13

21.76

22.55

3.11

0.213

0.445

0.318

∑n-3

3.63c

4.32b

4.78a

0.76

0.014

0.047

0.231

∑n-6

16.16

15.60

15.84

1.21

0.223

0.345

0.186

n-6:n-3

4.45a

3.61b

3.31c

0.50

0.034

0.041

0.176

UFA:SFA

1.20a

1.43b

1.86c

0.07

0.013

0.045

0.124

PUFA:SFA

0.46c

0.52b

0.65a

0.01

0.025

0.019

0.332

Desaturase and elongase indices

ID16

11.83a

9.08b

5.91c

1.20

0.032

0.001

0.664

ID18

61.07c

64.29b

70.30a

5.11

0.041

0.045

0.716

Elongation Index (EI)

68.46a

67.44a

73.76b

6.72

0.045

0.043

0.212

a,b,cmeans having different superscript along the a row are significantly different (P < 0.05). ∑SFA = (C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0), ∑MUFA = (C16:1+ C18:1+ C18:1 trans-11), ∑UFA = (C16:1+ C18:1+ C18:1 trans-11+ CLA cis-9 trans-11+ CLA cis-12 trans-10 + ∑n-3 + ∑n-6), ∑PUFA = (C18:1 trans-11+ CLA cis-9 trans-11+ CLA cis-12 trans-10 + ∑n-3 + ∑n-6), ∑n-3 = (C18:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:5n-3 + C22:6n-3), ∑n-6 = (C18:2n-6 + C20:4n-6) n-6:n-3 = (C18:2n-6 + C20:4n-6) ÷ (C18:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:5n-3 + C22:6n-3), UFA:SFA = (∑UFA)/∑SFA), PUFA:SFA = (∑PUFA/∑SFA). ID16, (Δ 9 desaturase enzyme activity on C16:0) = 100(C16:1)/(C16:0 + C16:1), ID18, (Δ 9 desaturase enzyme activity on C18:0) = 100(C18:1)/C18:0 + C18:1). EI = 100[(C18:0 + C18:1 n-9)/(C18:0 + C18:1n-9 + C16:0 + C16:1)]. SEM = standard error of means. Values are least square means for 8 goats per diet. dblend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

Fatty acid composition of adipose tissues

The FA composition of omental, perirenal, mesentery and subcutaneous adipose tissues from goats fed graded levels of BCPO is shown in Tables 8, 9, 10and 11 respectively. The major fatty acids in all examined adipose tissues were C16:0, C18:0 and C18:1n-9.
Table 8

Least square means for the fatty acid (FA) composition (% of total FA) of omental adipose tissue in goats fed graded levels of blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

 

Levels of BCPOd (%)

 

P value

Parameter

0

4

8

SEM

Overall

Linear

quadratic

C14:0, myristic

5.55a

4.18b

4.04b

0.30

0.003

0.001

0.757

C16:0, palmitic

26.67

21.87

24.57

1.92

0.232

0.158

0.331

C16:1n-7, palmitoleic

2.94a

2.25b

2.01c

0.12

<.0001

<.0001

0.176

C18:0, stearic

31.24

35.41

32.42

1.86

0.092

0.142

0.096

C18:1n-9, oleic

24.99b

29.67a

31.07a

2.85

0.006

0.037

0.730

C18:1 trans-11 Vaccenic

4.77a

0.78b

0.61b

0.79

0.001

0.0004

0.882

CLA cis-9 trans-11

0.96b

1.29a

1.29a

0.07

0.004

0.001

0.940

CLA trans-10 cis-12

0.29

0.31

0.39

0.04

0.197

0.200

0.198

C18:2n-6, linoleic

3.14

3.40

3.96

0.42

0.387

0.306

0.357

C18:3n-3, linolenic

0.17

0.25

0.18

0.02

0.055

0.189

0.039

C20:4n-6, arachidonic

0.11

0.10

0.11

0.01

0.560

0.418

0.483

C20:5n-3, eicosapentaenoic

0.08c

0.16b

0.56c

0.08

0.001

0.008

0.002

C22:5n-3, docosapentaenoic

0.20

0.29

0.40

0.13

0.574

0.383

0.561

C22:6n-3, docosahexaenoic

0.15

0.08

0.09

0.05

0.463

0.223

0.894

Total FA (mg/g of fat)

651.60

610.23

697.51

117.30

0.871

0.987

0.604

FA ratios and sums

∑SFA

63.46

61.46

61.02

2.68

0.792

0.669

0.601

∑MUFA

31.45

32.69

33.69

2.83

0.959

0.887

0.806

∑PUFA

5.09a

5.86b

6.96c

0.51

0.018

0.048

0.145

∑n-3

0.60

0.78

1.22

0.19

0.096

0.112

0.128

∑n-6

3.24

3.49

4.07

0.42

0.397

0.324

0.350

n-6:n-3

9.85a

6.26b

3.90c

1.74

0.047

0.036

0.350

UFA:SFA

0.58

0.62

0.66

0.05

0.665

0.448

0.632

PUFA:SFA

0.08

0.10

0.11

0.01

0.102

0.127

0.124

Elongase and desaturase indices

ID16

9.90

9.30

7.56

1.34

0.116

0.671

0.094

ID18

44.44

45.59

48.95

2.16

0.324

0.567

0.713

Elongation index (EI)

65.50

72.96

70.49

3.01

0.772

0.712

0.546

a,b,cmeans having different superscript along the a row are significantly different (P < 0.05). ∑SFA = (C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0), ∑MUFA = (C16:1+ C18:1+ C18:1 trans-11), ∑UFA = (C16:1+ C18:1+ C18:1 trans-11+ CLA cis-9 trans-11+ CLA cis-12 trans-10 + ∑n-3 + ∑n-6), ∑PUFA = (C18:1 trans-11+ CLA cis-9 trans-11+ CLA cis-12 trans-10 + ∑n-3 + ∑n-6), ∑n-3 = (C18:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:5n-3 + C22:6n-3), ∑n-6 = (C18:2n-6 + C20:4n-6) n-6:n-3 = (C18:2n-6 + C20:4n-6) ÷ (C18:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:5n-3 + C22:6n-3), UFA:SFA = (∑UFA)/∑SFA), PUFA:SFA = (∑PUFA/∑SFA). ID16, (Δ 9 desaturase enzyme activity on C16:0) = 100(C16:1)/(C16:0 + C16:1), ID18, (Δ 9 desaturase enzyme activity on C18:0) = 100(C18:1)/C18:0 + C18:1). EI = 100[(C18:0 + C18:1 n-9)/(C18:0 + C18:1n-9 + C16:0 + C16:1)] SEM = standard error of means. Values are least square means for 8 goats per diet. dblend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

Table 9

Least square means for the fatty acid (FA) composition (% of total FA) of perirenal adipose tissue in goats fed graded levels of blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

 

Level of BCPOd (%)

 

P value

Parameter

0

4

8

SEM

Overall

Linear

Quadratic

C14:0, myristic

6.02a

3.87b

3.85b

0.46

0.005

0.001

0.974

C16:0, palmitic

23.44

25.74

24.18

2.34

0.774

0.614

0.619

C16:1n-7, palmitoleic

2.94a

1.99b

1.83c

0.13

<.0001

<.0001

0.336

C18:0, stearic

40.18a

38.92b

30.64c

1.79

0.001

0.027

0.002

C18:1n-9, oleic

17.69c

21.03b

29.05c

1.73

0.001

0.003

0.002

C18:1 trans-11 Vaccenic

4.27

3.55

5.15

1.34

0.668

0.966

0.376

CLA cis-9 trans-11

0.80b

1.09a

1.11a

0.04

0.054

0.046

0.191

CLA trans-10 cis-12

0.36

0.36

0.33

0.15

0.578

0.369

0.603

C18:2n-6, linoleic

3.52

3.20

3.70

0.27

0.404

0.839

0.188

C18:3n-3, linolenic

0.27

0.32

0.28

0.02

0.213

0.240

0.185

C20:4n-6, arachidonic

0.08

0.06

0.08

0.12

0.702

0.757

0.440

C20:5n-3, eicosapentaenoic

0.76

0.53

0.52

0.18

0.593

0.313

0.966

C22:5n-3, docosapentaenoic

0.15

0.47

0.32

0.15

0.356

0.218

0.463

C22:6n-3, docosahexaenoic

0.11

0.30

0.24

0.16

0.705

0.751

0.445

Total FA (mg/g of fat)

544.47

673.58

692.52

124.31

0.679

0.389

0.909

FA ratios and sums

∑SFA

69.64a

68.53b

58.67c

2.36

<.0001

0.004

0.0002

∑MUFA

24.91c

26.57b

36.02a

1.54

<.0001

0.005

0.0001

∑PUFA

5.78

6.33

6.55

0.33

0.884

0.127

0.654

∑n-3

1.29

1.63

1.36

0.29

0.709

0.517

0.613

∑n-6

3.63

3.26

3.78

0.40

0.224

0.966

0.376

n-6:n-3

2.81

2.00

2.78

0.89

0.643

0.354

0.988

UFA:SFA

0.44c

0.47b

0.71a

0.04

<.0001

0.005

<.0001

PUFA:SFA

0.08

0.09

0.11

0.01

0.144

0.758

0.054

Desaturase and elongase indices

ID16

11.14a

7.18b

7.03c

0.90

0.020

0.031

0.123

ID18

30.57c

35.08b

48.67a

1.34

0.014

0.042

0.070

Elongation Index (EI)

68.68

68.37

69.64

2.19

0.859

0.706

0.901

a,b,cmeans having different superscript along the a row are significantly different (P < 0.05). ∑SFA = (C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0), ∑MUFA = (C16:1+ C18:1+ C18:1 trans-11), ∑UFA = (C16:1+ C18:1+ C18:1 trans-11+ CLA cis-9 trans-11+ CLA cis-12 trans-10 + ∑n-3 + ∑n-6), ∑PUFA = (C18:1 trans-11+ CLA cis-9 trans-11+ CLA cis-12 trans-10 + ∑n-3 + ∑n-6), ∑n-3 = (C18:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:5n-3 + C22:6n-3), ∑n-6 = (C18:2n-6 + C20:4n-6) n-6:n-3 = (C18:2n-6 + C20:4n-6) ÷ (C18:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:5n-3 + C22:6n-3), UFA:SFA = (∑UFA/∑SFA), PUFA:SFA = (∑PUFA/∑SFA). ID16, (Δ 9 desaturase enzyme activity on C16:0) = 100(C16:1)/(C16:0 + C16:1), ID18, (Δ 9 desaturase enzyme activity on C18:0) = 100(C18:1)/C18:0 + C18:1). EI = 100[(C18:0 + C18:1 n-9)/(C18:0 + C18:1n-9 + C16:0 + C16:1)]. SEM = standard error of means. Values are least square means for 8 goats per diet. dblend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

Table 10

Least square means for the fatty acid (FA) composition (% of total FA) of mesentery adipose tissue in goats fed graded levels of blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

 

Level of BCPOd (%)

 

P value

Parameter

0

4

8

SEM

Overall

Linear

Quadratic

C14:0, myristic

6.67a

5.70b

5.04c

0.53

0.048

0.049

0.395

C16:0, palmitic

27.06

27.05

24.22

1.18

0.170

0.334

0.104

C16:1n-7, palmitoleic

3.49

3.44

2.74

0.44

0.409

0.461

0.266

C18:0, stearic

26.10

25.28

24.42

2.56

0.898

0.814

0.693

C18:1n-9, oleic

19.97b

18.98b

26.30a

2.42

0.050

0.044

0.377

C18:1 trans-11 Vaccenic

3.48

4.27

4.87

0.73

0.422

0.569

0.239

CLA cis-9 trans-11

1.30

1.51

1.20

0.22

0.612

0.337

0.841

CLA trans-10 cis-12

1.54

2.08

1.72

0.39

0.618

0.521

0.463

C18:2n-6, linoleic

3.63

3.65

3.53

0.53

0.986

0.878

0.953

C18:3n-3, linolenic

1.56

1.44

1.71

0.23

0.712

0.417

0.952

C20:4n-6, arachidonic

1.89

1.62

2.13

0.52

0.784

0.491

0.980

C20:5n-3, eicosapentaenoic

1.87c

2.78b

2.91c

0.39

0.043

0.011

0.051

C22:5n-3, eicosapentaenoic

1.42

1.67

2.11

0.42

0.501

0.458

0.365

C22:6n-3, docosahexanoic

1.92

1.87

2.29

0.52

0.824

0.574

0.804

Total FA (mg/g of fat)

842.23

925.87

982.87

160.09

0.827

0.804

0.577

FA sums and ratios

∑SFA

59.83

58.03

54.09

3.24

0.402

0.353

0.328

∑MUFA

26.95

26.69

33.90

6.62

0.169

0.113

0.299

∑PUFA

15.12

16.61

17.60

1.61

0.437

0.563

0.606

∑n-3

7.013

7.76

9.028

0.86

0.268

0.307

0.205

∑n-6

6.22

5.27

5.653

0.76

0.696

0.730

0.442

n-6:n-3

0.89

0.68

0.69

0.09

0.195

0.921

0.074

UFA:SFA

0.70

0.91

0.77

0.11

0.411

0.317

0.317

PUFA:SFA

0.23

0.25

0.26

0.03

0.790

0.782

0.535

Desaturase and elongase indices

ID16

11.42

11.28

10.12

0.87

0.711

0.418

0.111

ID18

43.35

42.88

51.85

2.99

0.612

0.234

0.516

Elongation Index (EI)

60.13

59.74

65.29

3.03

0.875

0.324

0.198

a,b,cmeans having different superscript along the a row are significantly different (P < 0.05). ∑SFA = (C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0), ∑MUFA = (C16:1+ C18:1+ C18:1 trans-11), ∑UFA = (C16:1+ C18:1+ C18:1 trans-11+ CLA cis-9 trans-11+ CLA cis-12 trans-10 + ∑n-3 + ∑n-6), ∑PUFA = (C18:1 trans-11+ CLA cis-9 trans-11+ CLA cis-12 trans-10 + ∑n-3 + ∑n-6), ∑n-3 = (C18:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:5n-3 + C22:6n-3), ∑n-6 = (C18:2n-6 + C20:4n-6) n-6:n-3 = (C18:2n-6 + C20:4n-6) ÷ (C18:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:5n-3 + C22:6n-3), UFA:SFA = (∑UFA)/∑SFA), PUFA:SFA = (∑PUFA/∑SFA). ID16, (Δ 9 desaturase enzyme activity on C16:0) = 100(C16:1)/(C16:0 + C16:1), ID18, (Δ 9 desaturase enzyme activity on C18:0) = 100(C18:1)/C18:0 + C18:1). EI = 100[(C18:0 + C18:1 n-9)/(C18:0 + C18:1n-9 + C16:0 + C16:1)] SEM = standard error of means. Values are least square means for 8 goats per diet. dblend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

Table 11

Least square means for the fatty acid composition (% of total FA) of subcutaneous fat in goats fed graded levels of blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

 

Level of BCPOa (%)

 

P value

Parameter

0

4

8

SEM

Overall

Linear

Quadratic

C14:0, myristic

5.64

4.96

4.32

0.34

0.379

0.239

0.461

C16:0, palmitic

25.52

20.09

20.03

2.68

0.114

0.119

0.988

C16:1n-7, palmitoleic

3.57

3.20

2.86

0.24

0.126

0.073

0.327

C18:0, stearic

22.07

26.39

26.51

2.24

0.300

0.125

0.968

C18:1n-9, oleic

24.15

25.28

23.34

1.44

0.640

0.929

0.352

C18:1 trans-11 Vaccenic

3.15

3.19

3.45

0.56

0.833

0.713

0.637

CLA cis-9 trans-11

1.25

1.56

1.98

0.31

0.282

0.192

0.360

CLA trans-10 cis-12

1.88

2.03

1.74

0.26

0.739

0.970

0.443

C18:2n-6, linoleic

3.05

3.47

3.78

0.58

0.663

0.418

0.697

C18:3n-3, linolenic

2.04

1.60

1.63

0.38

0.679

0.386

0.955

C20:4n-6, arachidonic

2.60

1.89

2.32

0.43

0.512

0.356

0.492

C20:5n-3, eicosapentaenoic

2.80

2.20

3.16

0.68

0.607

0.890

0.328

C22:5n-3, docosapentaenoic

1.63

2.04

2.58

0.29

0.098

0.075

0.209

C22:6n-3, docosahexaenoic

1.78

2.71

2.01

0.48

0.371

0.329

0.311

Total FA (mg/g of fat)

526.53

579.41

549.34

87.20

0.428

0.425

0.320

FA sums and ratios

∑SFA

53.23

51.43

50.86

2.11

0.944

0.741

0.956

∑MUFA

30.87

31.66

29.47

1.59

0.643

0.878

0.357

∑PUFA

17.02

17.49

19.20

2.06

0.612

0.325

0.667

∑n-3

8.24

8.54

9.89

0.80

0.679

0.833

0.395

∑n-6

5.65

5.36

6.37

1.18

0.810

0.514

0.446

n-6:n-3

0.74

0.66

0.67

0.04

0.911

0.530

0.916

UFA:SFA

0.83

0.86

0.87

0.08

0.658

0.677

0.919

PUFA:SFA

0.32

0.34

0.37

0.03

0.553

0.581

0.458

Desaturase and elongase indices

ID16

12.27

13.74

12.49

0.98

0.291

0.348

0.237

ID18

52.25

48.92

46.82

2.12

0.100

0.222

0.277

Elongation Index (EI)

61.37

68.93

68.53

3.47

0.138

0.091

0.450

∑SFA = (C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0), ∑MUFA = (C16:1+ C18:1+ C18:1 trans-11), ∑UFA = (C16:1+ C18:1+ C18:1 trans-11+ CLA cis-9 trans-11+ CLA cis-12 trans-10 + ∑n-3 + ∑n-6), ∑PUFA = (C18:1 trans-11+ CLA cis-9 trans-11+ CLA cis-12 trans-10 + ∑n-3 + ∑n-6), ∑n-3 = (C18:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:5n-3 + C22:6n-3), ∑n-6 = (C18:2n-6 + C20:4n-6) n-6:n-3 = (C18:2n-6 + C20:4n-6) ÷ (C18:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:5n-3 + C22:6n-3), UFA:SFA = (∑UFA)/∑SFA), PUFA:SFA = (∑PUFA/∑SFA). ID16, (Δ 9 desaturase enzyme activity on C16:0) = 100(C16:1)/(C16:0 + C16:1), ID18, (Δ 9 desaturase enzyme activity on C18:0) = 100(C18:1)/C18:0 + C18:1). EI = 100[(C18:0 + C18:1 n-9)/(C18:0 + C18:1n-9 + C16:0 + C16:1)]. SEM = standard error of means. Values are least square means for 8 goats per diet. ablend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

In the omental depot, the proportion of C14:0, C16:1n-7 and C18:1 trans-11 decreased (P < 0.05) as the level of BCPO increased in diet. Goats fed 4 and 8 % BCPO had similar (P > 0.05) proportion of cis-9 trans-11 CLA which was greater (P < 0.05) than those fed the control diet. The proportion of C18:3n-3 was greater (P < 0.05) in goats fed 4 % BCPO compared with those fed 0 and 8 % BCPO. The proportion of C20:5n-3 increased (P < 0.05) while the n-6/n-3 decreased (P < 0.05) with increasing level of BCPO in diet. Proportions of C16:0, C18:0, C18:2n-6, C20:4n-6, trans-10 cis-12 CLA, C22:5n-3 and C22:6n-3, total FA, sums and ratios of FA and the estimated elongase and desaturase indices were not affected (P > 0.05) by diet.

In the perirenal depot, the proportion of C14:0, C16:1n-7, C18:0 and total SFA decreased (P < 0.05) as the level of BCPO increased in diet. The proportion of C18:1n-9 and CLA cis-9 trans-11, total MUFA and UFA:SFA increased (P < 0.05) with increasing level of BCPO in diet. The control goats had higher (P < 0.05) ID 16 compared to those fed 4 and 8 % BCPO. The ID 18 increased linearly (P < 0.05) as the level of BCPO increased in diet. No significant (P > 0.05) changes were observed for total FA, proportion of C16:0, C18:2n-6, C18:3n-3, C20:4n-6, C22:5n-3, C22:6n-3 and trans-10 cis-12 CLA and the estimated elongase activity across the treatments.

In the mesentery depot, the proportion of C14:0 decreased (P < 0.05) as the level of BCPO increased in diet. The proportion of C18:1n-9 in goats fed 8 % BCPO was significantly higher (P < 0.05) compared with those fed 0 and 4 % BCPO. Goats fed 4 and 8 % BCPO had greater (P < 0.05) proportion of C20:5n-3 than the control goats. No significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed between diets with respect to the proportions of C16:0, C16:1n-7, C18:0, C18:2n-6, C20:4n-6, C18:3n-3, C22:5n-3, C22:6n-3, C18:1 trans-11, cis-9 trans-11 CLA and trans-10 cis-12 CLA and total FA. Similarly, estimated elongase and desaturase indices were not affected (P > 0.05) by diet.

In the subcutaneous depot, dietary BCPO was not a significant source of variation (P > 0.05) influencing the proportions of all FA, sums and ratios of FA and the estimated elongase and desaturase indices. However, the proportions of C14:0 and C16:1n-7 tended (P = 0.07) to decrease while that of C22:5n-3 tended (P = 0.07) to increase with increase in the level of BCPO in diet.

Discussion

Carcass traits, meat yield and adipose tissue partitioning

Dietary BCPO had no effect on live, empty and carcass weights, carcass linear measurements, and meat yield in goats. This finding could be due to the similarity in the slaughter weight across dietary treatments. Slaughter weight is one of the major determinants of carcass weight and meat yield in ruminants [23, 37]. The similarity in slaughter weight was likely due to the similar nutrient composition of diets fed to the goats. This finding is consistent with the similarity in the feed efficiency and average daily gain observed in a companion feeding trial [18]. As found in the current study, dietary sunflower oil (2.5 %) compared with the control diet did not affect the dressing percentage and carcass measurements in goats [3]. Similarly, Bock et al. [10] observed that 3.5 % tallow or soybean soap stock versus control diet did not affect dressing percentage in steers. Also, goats fed 4.5 % soybean oil or sunflower oil had similar carcass traits as those fed control diet [35]. In contrast, decreased dressing percentage and hot carcass weight were observed in steers fed 4 % soybean oil [40] and 4 and 8 % animal-vegetable oil blends [39] while carcass yield increased in steers fed 3.5 % soybean oil, tallow or yellow grease versus steers fed control diet [2] and Nellore steers fed soybean and linseed oils or their calcium salts compared to those fed control diet [1]. The dressing percentage (based on empty body weight) of the goats ranged from 53.55 to 54.56 %. These values are similar to those reported by Marinova et al. [3] and Kadim et al. [23].

The similarity in the back fat thickness, intramuscular fat and the weights of adipose tissues across dietary treatments suggests that dietary supplementation of BCPO did not alter the deposition and distribution of fat in the adipose tissues of goats. This finding could be attributed to the similar metabolizable energy content of the diets. Feed energy supplied in excess of the basal requirement can increase fat deposition in animals [41]. The major substrate for de novo fatty acid synthesis in tissues is glucose [42]. Thus, diets capable of promoting glucose supply to the tissues might increase fat deposition. Propionate is a gluconeogenic precursor and thus could increase supply of glucose to the tissues [42, 43]. Erstwhile companion studies have shown that supplementation of BCPO did not affect in vitro [17] and in vivo [18] ruminal molar concentration of propionate. These observations lend credence to the similar fat deposition across the treatments. The current observation contrasts past studies [2, 39] wherein oil supplementation increased back fat thickness and weight of adipose tissues. In line with the current findings, dietary palm oil or its calcium soap compared with the basal diet did not affect the weights of omental and perirenal fat in lambs [37]. Marinova et al. [3] observed that dietary supplementation of 2.5 % sunflower oil did not affect the weight of perirenal fat, sweetbread and caul but increased intramuscular fat in lambs. The discrepancies between the current findings and the earlier reports could be due to differences in the amounts and fatty acid composition of the dietary lipids used.

The similarity in the weights of adipose tissues across dietary treatments corroborates the similarity in the moisture content of adipose tissues which suggests that supplementation of BCPO in diet did not play a significant role in the maturation of adipose cells. High proportion of water in adipose tissues signifies a less mature tissue [41]. Bas et al. [6] observed that the moisture content of omental and perirenal adipose tissue of goats raised indoors with concentrate (high fat diet) was lower than those raised outdoors with concentrate and grass or with only Argan pulp (low fat diet) suggesting that high fat diets may increase hyperplasia and hypertrophy of adipose cells.

Dietary BCPO had no effect on color coordinates especially yellowness and the concentration of total carotenoid in adipose tissues in goats. This observation is unexpected given the increase in dietary fat and carotenoid contents of the diet as the level of BCPO increased, and the 100 d feeding duration employed in this study. Diet and feeding duration are some of the important factors influencing the yellowness of adipose tissues in ruminants [44]. The absorption and deposition of carotenoid in various tissues in ferrets was positively correlated with dietary fat [45]. However, mammals differ in their ability to absorb carotenoids [46]. For example, humans can accumulate carotenes and xanthophylls in their adipose tissues without discrimination, cattle and horses can accumulate only carotenes while goats and sheep accumulate neither carotenes nor xanthophylls [46]. In addition, Mora et al. [47] reported that goats have higher levels of jejunal and duodenal 15, 15’dioxygenase activities than cattle when fed dietary beta-carotene which may explain the lower pigmentation of adipose tissue in goats compared with cattle. The 15, 15’dioxygenase is the enzyme responsible for the conversion of beta-carotene to retinal [47].

Tissue fatty acid composition

The management strategies employed in the current study were successful in ensuring similar carcass weight, carcass fatness and total fatty acids in all the tissues examined. Thus, the observed FA composition in the examined tissues was not confounded by carcass fatness.

Regardless of the diet, the most abundant FA in SS was C18:1n-9 and its concentration was influenced by diet. This observation is in tandem with previous studies in goats [35], sheep [36] and cattle [38] in which C18:1n-9 was identified as the most abundant FA in muscle following dietary oil supplementation. The increase in C18:1n-9 in response to BCPO could be due to the increase in dietary C18:1n-9 and/or increase in the Δ 9 desaturase enzyme activities (ID 18) necessary for the de novo conversion of C18:0 to C18:1n-9. This observation is consistent with those observed in a companion in vitro study where the ruminal concentration of C18:1n-9 after 24 h incubation increased as the level of BCPO increased in the substrate [17]. As found in the current study, supplementation of 3.3 % canola oil, canolamide or canola oil-canolamide mix oil increased the concentration of C18:1n-9 in bovine milk [5]. Conversely, 3 % dietary canola oil compared with 3 % palm oil did not affect the concentration of C18:1n-9 in longissimus lumborum muscle from goats [48].

Dietary supplementation of BCPO depressed the concentration of C16:0 and C16:1n-7 in SS muscle. These observations concur with those of Loor et al. [5] and Ferlay et al. [49]. Depression of medium chain FA in response to dietary unsaturated fats could be due to the inhibition of the activities of lipogenic enzymes required for the synthesis of medium chain FA or the preferential incorporation of long chain FA from diet and/or adipose tissues [4, 5, 49, 50]. This lends credence to the significant decrease in the Δ 9 desaturase activity (ID 16) which coincides with the linear decrease in the concentration of C16:0 and C16:1 as BCPO increased in diet. Palmitic acid (C16:0) can be converted to C16:1n-7 by Δ 9 desaturase [51].

The concentration of C18:1 trans-11 Vaccenic and CLA cis-9 trans-11 in SS increased as BCPO increased in diet. This observation could be due to the increase in the dietary concentration of unsaturated fatty acids. Both C18:1 trans-11 Vaccenic and CLA cis-9 trans-11 are intermediate products of ruminal biohydrogenation of unsaturated FA [4, 13, 14]. Feeding unsaturated FA causes incomplete biohydrogenation of unsaturated FA accompanied with biohydrogenation intermediates [13, 14]. In addition, it has been established that Δ 9 desaturation of C18:1 trans-11 Vaccenic in adipose tissue could yield CLA cis-9 trans-11 [4, 16, 17]. In line with the current observation, supplementation of 3.3 % canola oil, canolamide or canola oil-canolamide mix (Loor et al. [5] and 1 kg/day canola oil [50] increased the concentration of C18:1 trans-11 Vaccenic and CLA cis-9 trans-11 in bovine milk compared with the control diet.

The proportion of C18:0, C18:2n-6 and C20:4n-6 in SS was not influenced by diet. In contrast, the concentration of C18:3n-3 and C20:5n-3 increased linearly in response to dietary BCPO. Similarly, Karami et al. [48] found that 3 % canola oil compared with 3 % palm oil did not affect the concentration of C18:0, C18:2n-6 and C20:4n-6 but enhanced the concentration C18:3n-3 in longissimus lumborum muscle from goats. However, the authors did not observe increment in the concentration of long chain n-3 FA. The linear increase in the proportion of C18:3n-3 in goats fed 4 and 8 % BCPO relative to those fed control diet could be responsible for the increase in the proportion of C20:5n-3 in their muscles since the FA is a metabolite of C18:3n-3 [4] suggesting in vivo elongation and desaturation. This coincides with the linear increase in the elongation index in response to supplementation of BCPO. This observation is consistent with those of Gjerlaug-Enger et al. [52] who observed that dietary rapeseed products enhanced the concentration of C18:3n-3, C20:5n-3 and C22:5n-3 in longissimus dorsi muscle of pork compared with the control diet.

The linear increase in total n-3 PUFA was accompanied by a linear decrease in n6/n3 ratio as the level of BCPO increased in the diet. The n6/n3 ratio for the 4 and 8 % BCPO was within the range of the recommended value (<4) for healthy diet [53]. Dietary BCPO enhanced the total MUFA and decreased the total SFA in SS muscle. Diet had no effect on the total PUFA and total FA. The PUFA/SFA ratio increased with increase in dietary BCPO. This could be attributed to the decrease in the SFA in BCPO based diets. Regardless of diet, the PUFA/SFA ratio of SS was within the range of the recommended value (>0.4) [53].

The major fatty acids in all adipose tissues were C16:0, C18:0 and C18:1n-9. This observation is in line with those of Bas et al. [6] and Castro et al. [37]. The decrease in the proportion of C14:0 and C16:1n-7 in the perirenal and omental fats from goats fed 4 and 8 % BCPO relative to the control goats could be due to the reduction in the mRNA abundance and activity of lipogenic enzymes required for synthesis of medium chain FA [4]. The decrease in the proportion of C16:1n-7 coincides with the linear decrease in the Δ 9 desaturase activity (ID 16) as BCPO increased in the diets. Dietary BCPO deceased the proportion of C18:0 and total SFA and enhanced the concentration of C18:1n-9, CLA cis-9 trans-11 and total MUFA in perirenal fat. In omental fat, dietary BCPO increased the concentration of CLA cis-9 trans-11, C20:5n-3 and total PUFA. In the mesentery fat, goats fed 8 % BCPO had higher C18:1n-9 and Δ 9 desaturase activity (ID 18) compared to other diets. Also, BCPO caused a linear increase in the proportion of C20:5n-3. The current observation is consistent with those of Stanford et al. [54] who observed that increasing the level of canola screening in diets reduced the concentration of C14:0, C16:0, C16:1n-7, C18:0 and total SFA and enhanced that of C18:1n-9, C18:3n-3, total MUFA and PUFA in perirenal adipose tissue in lambs. In contrast, dietary rapeseed oil, linseed oil or hydrogenated rapeseed oil did not alter the fatty acid composition of perirenal adipose tissues in lambs [55].

Contrary to the findings in perirenal, mesentery and omental adipose tissues, dietary BCPO did not affect the FA composition of subcutaneous adipose tissue. This finding concurs with those of Potkański et al. [55] who observed that dietary rapeseed oil did not alter the FA composition of subcutaneous adipose tissues in lambs. Similarly, dietary fish oil did not alter the FA composition of subcutaneous adipose tissue in lambs [56]. Contrary to the present findings, earlier trials have reported significant alterations in the FA composition of subcutaneous adipose tissue when oils high in unsaturated FA were fed to sheep [57] and goats [35]. The inconsistencies observed in the FA composition of adipose tissues in response to dietary BCPO reflect variation in FA metabolism in the adipose tissues.

Conclusions

The results of this study showed that dietary supplementation of blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil in diet did not affect carcass traits, fat color, and fat deposition and distribution in goats. Thus, dietary BCPO is not an effective repartitioning agent for fat in goats. However, BCPO altered the fatty acid composition of supraspinatus muscle, mesentery, omental and perirenal adipose tissues in goats.

Abbreviations

BCPO: 

Blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil

FA: 

Fatty acid

SS: 

Supraspinatus muscle

SFA: 

Saturated fatty acid

MUFA: 

Monounsaturated fatty acids

PUFA: 

Polyunsaturated fatty acids

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the management and staff of ar-Raudhah biotech farm where the feeding trial was conducted. Technical assistance rendered by Dr. Lydia, Pn. Rabiza and Mr. Priyono is appreciated.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia
(2)
Halal Products Research Institute, Universiti Putra Malaysia
(3)
Laboratory of Animal Production, Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia
(4)
Department of Veterinary Preclinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia
(5)
Department of Animal Production, University of Ilorin
(6)
Department of Animal Resource, University of Salahaddin

References

  1. Rosa BL, Sampaio AAM, Henrique W, Oliveira EAD, Pivaro TM, Andrade ATD, et al. Performance and carcass characteristics of Nellore young bulls fed different sources of oils, protected or not from rumen degradation. Revista Brasileira De Zootecnia. 2013;42:109–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandt RT, Anderson SJ. Supplemental fat source affects feedlot performance and carcass traits of finishing yearling steers and estimated diet net energy value. J Anim Sci. 1990;68:2208–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Marinova P, Banskalieva V, Alexandrov S, Tzvetkova V, Stanchev H. Carcass composition and meat quality of kids fed sunflower oil supplemented diet. Small Rum Res. 2001;42:217–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Kim SC, Adesogan AT, Badinga L, Staples CR. Effects of dietary n-6: n-3 fatty acid ratio on feed intake, digestibility, and fatty acid profiles of the ruminal contents, liver, and muscle of growing lambs. J Anim Sci. 2007;85:706–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Loor J, Herbein J, Jenkins T. Nutrient digestion, biohydrogenation, and fatty acid profiles in blood plasma and milk fat from lactating Holstein cows fed canola oil or canolamide. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2002;97:65–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Bas P, Dahbi E, El Aich A, Morand-Fehr P, Araba A. Effect of feeding on fatty acid composition of muscles and adipose tissues in young goats raised in the Argan tree forest of Morocco. Meat Sci. 2005;71:317–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Webb EC, Casey NH, Simela L. Goat meat quality. Small Rum Res. 2005;50:153–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Tshabalala PA, Strydom PE, Webb EC, De Kock HL. Meat quality of designated South African indigenous goat and sheep breeds. Meat Sci. 2003;65:563–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Sheradin R, Hoffman LC, Ferreira AV. Meat quality of Boer goat kids and Mutton Merino lambs 2. Sensory meat evaluation. Anim Sci. 2003;76:73–9.Google Scholar
  10. Bock BJ, Harmon DL, Brandt RT, Schneiders JE. Fat source and calcium level effects on finishing Steer performance, digestion, and metabolism. J Anim Sci. 1991;69:2211–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Malinska H, Hüttl M, Oliyarnyk O, Bratova M, Kazdova L. Conjugated linoleic acid reduces visceral and ectopic lipid accumulation and insulin resistance in chronic severe hypertriglyceridemia. Nutr. 2015;31:1045–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Qi R, Yang F, Huang J, Peng H, Liu Y, Liu Z. Supplementation with conjugated linoleic acid decreases pig back fat deposition by inducing adipocyte apoptosis. BMC Vet Res. 2014;10:141.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bauman D, Perfield J, De Veth M, Lock A. New perspectives on lipid digestion and metabolism in ruminants. Proc Cornell Nutr Conf. 2003;65:175–89.Google Scholar
  14. Jenkins T. Lipid metabolism in the rumen. J Dairy Sci. 1993;76:3851–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lin L, Allemekinders H, Dansby A, Campbell L, Durance-Tod S, Berger A, et al. Evidence of health benefits of canola oil. Nutr Rev. 2013;71:370–85.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Siew W, Ng W. Differential scanning thermograms of palm oil triglycerides in the presence of diglycerides. J Oil Palm Res. 2000;12:1–7.Google Scholar
  17. Adeyemi KD, Ebrahimi M, Samsudin AA, Alimon A, Karim R, Karsani SA, et al. Influence of Carotino oil on in vitro rumen fermentation, metabolism and apparent biohydrogenation of fatty acids. Anim Sci J. 2015;86:270–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Adeyemi KD, Sazili AQ, Ebrahimi M, Samsudin AA, Alimon AR, Karim R, et al.. Influence of dietary blend of canola oil and palm oil on nutrient intake and digestibility, growth performance, rumen fermentation and fatty acids in goats. Anim. Sci. J. 2015: doi: 10.1111/asj.12549.
  19. NRC, National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of small ruminant. 6th ed. Washington: National Academy Press; 2007. p. 384.Google Scholar
  20. AOAC. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 18th ed. Washington: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 2007.Google Scholar
  21. Van Soest PJ, Robertson J, Lewis B. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991;74:3583–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Department of Standards, Malaysia. MS1500:2009: Halal food production, preparation, handling and storage-General guidelines (second revision) Malaysia. 2009.Google Scholar
  23. Kadim I, Mahgoub O, Al-Ajmi D, Al-Maqbaly R, Al-Saqri N, Ritchie A. An evaluation of the growth, carcass and meat quality characteristics of Omani goat breeds. Meat Sci. 2004;66:203–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Branscome J, Jesseman C. ArC Software Download and User Guide, https://www.sketchandcalc.com . 1999. Assessed 21/10/2014
  25. Fisher A, De Boer H. The EAAP standard method of sheep carcass assessment. Carcass measurements and dissection procedures report of the EAAP working group on carcass evaluation, in cooperation with the CIHEAM Instituto Agronomico Mediterraneo of Zaragoza and the CEC directorate general for agriculture in Brussels. Livest Prod Sci. 1994;38:149–59.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Laville E, Bouix J, Sayd T, Eychenne F, Marcq F, Leroy P, et al. La conformation bouchere des agneaux. etude d’apres la variabilite genetique entre races. Prod Animales. 2002;15:53–66.Google Scholar
  27. Carrasco S, Ripoll G, Sanz A, Álvarez-Rodríguez J, Panea B, Revilla R, et al. Effect of feeding system on growth and carcass characteristics of churra tensina light lambs. Livest Sci. 2006;121:56–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Purchas R. Factors affecting carcass composition and beef quality. Profitable Beef Production in New Zealand. New Zealand beef council report. 2003; 124–152.
  29. Okonkwo J. Effects of breed and storage duration on the beta-carotene content of egg yolk. Pakistan J Nut. 2009;8:1629–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Folch J, Lees M, Sloane-Stanley G. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. J Biol Chem. 1957;226:497–509.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Rajion M, McLean J, Cahill RN. Essential fatty acids in the fetal and newborn lamb. Aust J Biol Sci. 1985;38:33–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Malau-Aduli A, Siebert BD, Bottema CDK, Pitchford WS. A comparison of the fatty acid composition of triacylglycerols in adipose tissue from Limousin and Jersey cattle. Aust J Agr Res. 1997;48:715–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Institute SAS. Statistical Analytical System. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.; 2003.Google Scholar
  34. Dahlan I. Oil palm frond, a feed for herbivores. Asian-Austral J Anim Sci. 2000;13:300–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Roy A, Mandal G, Patra A. Evaluating the performance, carcass traits and conjugated linoleic acid content in muscle and adipose tissues of black Bengal goats fed soybean oil and sunflower oil. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2013;185:43–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Ferreira E, Pires A, Susin I, Gentil R, Parente M, Nolli C, et al. Growth, feed intake, carcass characteristics, and meat fatty acid profile of lambs fed soybean oil partially replaced by fish oil blend. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2014;187:9–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Castro T, Manso T, Mantecón A, Guirao J, Jimeno V. Fatty acid composition and carcass characteristics of growing lambs fed diets containing palm oil supplements. Meat Sci. 2005;69:757–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Oliveira E, Sampaio A, Henrique W, Pivaro T, Rosa B, Fernandes A, et al. 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Zinn RA. Influence of level and source of dietary fat on its comparative feeding value in finishing diets for feedlot steers: Feedlot cattle growth and performance. J Anim Sci. 1989;67:1029–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Engle TE, Spears JW, Fellner V, Odle J. Effects of soybean oil and dietary copper on ruminal and tissue lipid metabolism in finishing steers. J Anim Sci. 2000;78:2713–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Wood J, Enser M, Fisher A, Nute G, Sheard P, Richardson R, et al. Fat deposition, fatty acid composition and meat quality: A review. Meat Sci. 2008;78:343–58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith SB, Crouse JD. Relative contributions of acetate and glucose to lipogenesis in bovine intramuscular and subcutaneous adipose-tissue. J Nutr. 1984;114:792–800.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Pethick DW, Harper GS, Oddy VH. Growth, development and nutritional manipulation of marbling in cattle: A review. Aust J Exp Agr. 2004;44:705–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Dunne P, Monahan F, O’Mara F, Moloney A. Colour of bovine subcutaneous adipose tissue: A review of contributory factors, associations with carcass and meat quality and its potential utility in authentication of dietary history. Meat Sci. 2009;81:28–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lakshman MR, Liu QH, Sapp R, Somanchi M, Sundaresan PR. The effects of dietary taurocholate, fat, protein, and carbohydrate on the distribution and fate of dietary beta-carotene in ferrets. Nutr Cancer. 1996;26:49–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Goodwin TW. Biochemical Society Symposium, No. 12. UK: Cambridge University Press; 1934. p. 71.Google Scholar
  47. Mora O, Romano J, Gonzalez E, Ruiz F, Shimada A. Low cleavage activity of 15, 15’dioxygenase to convert beta-carotene to retinal in cattle compared with goats, is associated with the yellow pigmentation of adipose tissue. Int J Vit Nutr Res. 2000;70:199–205.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Karami M, Ponnampalam E, Hopkins D. The effect of palm oil or canola oil on feedlot performance, plasma and tissue fatty acid profile and meat quality in goats. Meat Sci. 2013;94:165–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ferlay A, Chabrot J, Elmeddah Y, Doreau M. Ruminal lipid balance and intestinal digestion by dairy cows fed calcium salts of rapeseed oil fatty acids or rapeseed oil. J Anim Sci. 1993;71:2237–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Chelikani PK, Bell JA, Kennelly JJ. Effects of feeding or abomasal infusion of canola oil in Holstein cows 1. Nutrient digestion and milk composition. Dairy J Res. 2004;71:279–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Cook HW, McMaster CR. Fatty acid desaturation and chain elongation in eukaryotes. In: Vance DE, Vance JE, editors. Biochemistry of Lipids, Lipoproteins and Membranes. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2002. p. 129.Google Scholar
  52. Gjerlaug-Enger E, Haug A, Gaarder M, Ljøkjel K, Stenseth RS, Sigfridson K, et al. Pig feeds rich in rapeseed products and organic selenium increased omega-3 fatty acids and selenium in pork meat and back fat. Food Sci Nutr. 2015;3:120–8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. World Health Organization. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases: report of a joint WHO/FAO expert consultation, vol. 916. Geneva: WHO technical report; 2003.Google Scholar
  54. Stanford K, Wallins GL, Smart WG, McAllister TA. Effects of feeding canola screenings on apparent digestibility, growth performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot lambs. Can J Anim Sci. 1999;80:355–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Potkański A, Čermák B, Szumacher-STRABEL M, Kowalczyk J, Cieślak A. Effects of different amounts and types of fat on fatty acid composition of fat deposit in lambs. Czech J Anim Sci. 2002;47:72–5.Google Scholar
  56. Ashes JR, Siebert BD, Gulati SK, Cuthbertson AZ, Scott TW. Incorporation of n − 3 fatty acids of fish oil into tissue and serum lipids of ruminants. Lipids. 1992;27:629–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Cooper SL, Sinclair LA, Wilkinson RG, Hallett KG, Enser M, Wood JD. Manipulation of the n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid content of muscle and adipose tissue in lambs. J Anim Sci. 2004;82:1461–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Adeyemi et al. 2015

Advertisement