Open Access

Serum fatty acids, biochemical indices and antioxidant status in goats fed canola oil and palm oil blend

  • Kazeem D. Adeyemi1, 5,
  • Azad B. Sabow1, 6,
  • Zeiad A. Aghwan2, 7,
  • Mahdi Ebrahimi4,
  • Anjas A. Samsudin1,
  • Abdul R. Alimon1 and
  • Awis Q. Sazili1, 2, 3Email author
Journal of Animal Science and Technology201658:6

DOI: 10.1186/s40781-016-0088-2

Received: 22 September 2015

Accepted: 12 January 2016

Published: 8 February 2016

Abstract

Background

Dietary supplementation of unsaturated fats in ruminants, if not stabilized, can instigate oxidative stress which can have negative impact on production performance and enhance the susceptibility to various diseases. The current study examined the effect of dietary 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil blend (CPOB) on serum fatty acids, antioxidant profile and biochemical indices in goats. Thirty Boer bucks (4–5 months old; initial BW, 20.34 ± 0.77 kg) were randomly assigned to diets containing 0, 4 or 8 % CPOB and fed daily for a period of 90 days. Blood was sampled from the goats on 0, 30, 60 and 90 days of the trial and the serum was analyzed for fatty acids, cholesterol, glucose, total protein, antioxidants and lipid oxidation.

Results

Neither diet nor sampling time influenced serum TBARS value, catalase, glutathione peroxidase and superoxide dismutase activities, LDL cholesterol, VLDL cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose and total protein. Goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB had higher (P < 0.05) total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol than the control goats on day 30, 60 and 90. The proportion of C15:0 decreased with increasing level of CPOB on day 30 and 60. Serum C18:1n-9 increased with increasing level of CPOB in diet on day 60. The proportion of C18:3n-3 and C22:5n-3 increased (P < 0.05), while the proportion of C18:2n-6 decreased (P < 0.05) with increase in the level of CPOB on day 60 and 90. Dietary CPOB did not affect serum total carotenoid and δ-tocopherol but did increase (P < 0.05) α and γ-tocopherol.

Conclusion

Dietary canola oil and palm oil blend could be supplemented in diets without instigating oxidative stress in goats.

Keywords

Carotenoid Catalase Cholesterol Glutathione peroxidase Superoxide dismutase Tocopherol

Background

The utilization of dietary fats in ruminant nutrition is a continued research endeavor. Due to the high energy density and being low priced, dietary fats can be used to solve the glitches of energy supply in ruminants [13]. Also, dietary unsaturated fats can be utilized to alter the fatty acid (FA) profile of ruminant meat [2] and milk [3]. However, dietary supplementation of unsaturated fats especially polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), if not stabilized, could instigate oxidative stress in animals [3, 4]. Oxidative stress could alter physiological functions, impart negatively on growth performance and enhance susceptibility to various diseases [36].

The level and type of dietary fat influence the biochemical parameters of the blood, which are sensitive indicators of the state of health and reflect the intensity of metabolic processes taking place in the animals [35]. It is commonly assumed that animals exposed to oxidative stress respond with compensatory induction of antioxidant enzymes [47]. Nonetheless, the effect of dietary antioxidants and fats on the activities of antioxidant enzymes is contentious [4, 6, 7]. In addition, the impact of dietary fat on serum biochemical indices in ruminants has been highly variable and inconsistent [1, 4] in the published literature. This scenario justifies the need for additional studies in different production systems to permit tailored decisions and informed choices in the utilization of fat supplements in ruminant nutrition.

Albeit, dietary supplementation of vitamin E provides a practicable alternative to prevent oxidative stress in animals fed unsaturated fats, this practice can impose an extra financial burden on livestock farmers. Some vegetable oils are rich in natural antioxidants [8]. Thus, the utilization of such oils in animal nutrition may be an effective and economical method of attenuating dietary fat-induced oxidative stress in animals [8, 9]. One of such oils is canola oil which is an excellent source of polyphenols, phytosterol and tocopherol [10]. Palm oil is rich in lipid soluble antioxidants such as tocopherol, tocotrienols, lycopenes, ubiquitone and carotenoids [11]. Given the attributes of both canola and palm oils, it was proposed that their mix could be utilized in ruminant nutrition without deleterious effects on serum antioxidant status and biochemical indices. Companion in vitro [12] and in vivo [13] studies have shown that dietary blend of 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil did not have deleterious effects on rumen fermentation, nutrient intake and digestibility and growth performance in goats. Thus, the current study aimed at elucidating the consequences of utilizing 80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil blend (CPOB) in ruminant nutrition on the serum antioxidant status, fatty acids and biochemical indices in goats.

Methods

Animal welfare and ethics

The study was conducted according to the guidelines approved by the Universiti Putra Malaysia Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. The health and welfare of the goats were monitored by a qualified veterinarian who is a member of the research team.

Experimental animals and diet

Thirty Boer bucks of 4–5 months old, having initial body weight of 20.34 ± 0.77 kg were used for the trial. The animals were treated against endo and ecto parasites prior the commencement of the trial. Each animal was individually housed in wooden slatted floor pen (1.20 m × 0.80 m × 0.70 m) furnished with drinking and feeding facilities. The goats were randomly assigned to diets containing on DM basis 0, 4 or 8 % CPOB fed for 90 days following 2 weeks of adaptation. The diets were formulated to meet the nutritional requirements of growing goats following the recommendation of NRC [14]. Animals were fed twice a day at 8.30 and 14.30 with free access to clean water. The chemical and fatty composition and antioxidant profile of the diets are presented in Table 1.
Table 1

Chemical, fatty acid and antioxidant composition of dietary treatments

 

Levels of CPOBa (% )

SE

P value

Chemical composition, g/kg DM

0

4

8

  

 Dry matter

676.96

678.99

680.73

32.00

0.56

 Crude Protein

142.72

143.73

143.92

14.23

0.11

 Ether extract

23.00

63.50

111.10

2.19

0.01

 Ash

68.40

65.80

62.60

4.11

0.17

 Organic matter

931.60

934.20

935.50

44.22

0.65

 Nitrogen free extract

165.56

139.67

124.51

15.06

0.17

 Acid detergent fibre

350.40

332.80

325.20

18.99

0.26

 Neutral detergent fibre

635.24

626.72

620.60

27.12

0.80

 Metabolizable energy, MJ/Kg DM

11.59

11.61

11.62

0.78

0.10

 Ca %

1.02

1.05

1.04

0.02

0.18

 P %

0.52

0.54

0.54

0.01

0.12

Fatty acid (g/100 g total FA)

 

 C12:0

0.07

0.07

0.08

0.01

0.45

 C14:0

3.35

1.38

0.99

0.05

0.04

 C16:0

17.64

16.14

14.90

1.89

0.14

 C16:1

0.52

0.31

0.29

0.01

0.13

 C18:0

3.52

3.00

2.73

0.02

0.23

 C18:1n-9

24.17

40.06

50.37

4.19

0.01

 C18:2n-6

44.57

32.00

23.03

3.20

0.02

 C18:3n-3

6.70

7.04

7.90

0.12

0.15

 ∑SFA

24.52

21.00

18.70

1.15

0.36

 ∑UFA

75.48

79.00

81.30

8.23

0.03

 n-6:n-3

6.66

4.54

2.92

0.66

0.01

Total FA (g/kg DM)

15.83

37.09

52.27

2.03

0.01

 Antioxidants

 

 Total carotenoid (mg/kg)

14.81

16.71

19.86

1.92

0.02

 α-tocopherol (mg/kg)

101.12

112.47

123.21

7.81

0.01

 γ-tocopherol (mg/kg)

10.22

34.55

49.17

4.50

0.01

 δ-tocopherol (mg/kg)

1.21

3.45

5.93

0.04

0.02

a80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil blend. ∑SFA = (C12:0 + C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0), ∑MUFA = (C16:1+ C18:1), ∑PUFA = (C18:2n-6 + C18:3n-3) n-6:n-3 = (C18:2n-6÷C18:3n-3)

Blood sampling

Blood samples were collected through jugular venipuncture into plain serum bottles on 0, 30, 60 and 90 days of the experiment. The blood samples were centrifuged at 4000 g for 15 min and the resulting supernatant was collected into centrifuged tubes and stored at −80 °C until further analysis.

Determination of serum cholesterol, glucose and total protein

The serum total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, glucose, triglycerides and total protein was determined using automatic analyzer (Automatic analyzer 902, Hitachi, Germany). The low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol was estimated using the equation of Friedwald et al. [15]: LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol- very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol. Where VLDL cholesterol = Triglycerides/5

Determination of total carotenoid

The carotenoid contents in feed and serum samples was extracted and determined following the method described by Adeyemi et al. [16]. Two gram of each sample was homogenized with 10 mL acetone. The contents were stirred for 30 min and 10 mL of acetone was used to rinse the flask and to re-extract the residue. Thereafter, extracts were pooled and 1 mL of distilled water was added to the extract. A 5 mL n-hexane was added to the mixture and centrifuged at 3500 g for 15 min. The absorbance of the hexane layer was read at 450 nm using a spectrophotometer (Secomam, Domont, France). Total carotenoid content was estimated by the following formula:
$$ \mathrm{Conc}.\ \left(\upmu \mathrm{g}/\mathrm{g}\right)=\left({\mathrm{A}\times \mathrm{V}\times 10}^4\right)/\left(2592\times \mathrm{W}\right) $$
Where A: 

absorbance

V: 

Volume of n-hexane (mL)

W: 

Sample weight

Determination of tocopherol

Extraction of tocopherol from serum and feed samples followed the method of Kamal-eldin et al. [17]. Quantification of tocopherol contents was done with Agilent 1200 series HPLC as described by Pegg and Amarowic [18]. The column used was C30 YMCTM carotenoid (250 mm x 4.6 mm. i.d, 5 μm) (YMC, USA). An isocratic mobile phase made up of 99 % n-hexane and 1 % Isopropanol was used. The flow rate and injection volume was 0.5 mL/min and 20 μL respectively. The UV detection was monitored at 295 nm. The isomers of tocopherol were quantified by comparing the peak area of sample with those of tocopherol standards in the HPLC controller software.

Determination of fatty acids

The fatty acids (FA) in the feed and serum samples were extracted in chloroform: methanol (2:1, v/v) as described by Rajion et al. [19]. The FAs were transmethylated into their fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) using 0.66 N KOH in methanol and 14 % methanol boron trifluoride (BF3) in accordance to the method of AOAC [20]. Heneicosanoic acid was used as internal standard. The FAME was separated in a gas chromatograph (Model 6890 Agilent Technologies, USA). The column used was fused silica capillary (Supelco SP-2330, 30 m, 0.25 mm ID, 0.20 μm film thickness). The carrier gas was high purity nitrogen at 40 mL/min. High purity nitrogen and compressed air were used for the flame ionization detector in the chromatograph. 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 to facilitate optimal separation. The FA was identified by comparing the sample relative FAME peak and retention times with that of fatty acid methyl standards (Sigma chemical).

Lipid oxidation

Lipid oxidation was measured as 2-thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) using QuantiChrom™ TBARS Assay Kit (DTBA-100, BioAssay Systems, USA) following the manufacturer’s procedure.

Antioxidant enzyme activities

Glutathione peroxidase (GPx) was measured with the aid of EnzyChromTM Glutathione Peroxidase Assay Kit EGPX-100, (BioAssay Systems, USA), the Superoxide Dismutase (SOD) activity was measured with the aid of Cayman SOD Assay kit 706002, (Cayman chemical) while the catalase activity was measured using Cayman Catalase Assay Kit 707002, (Cayman chemical) following the manufacturer’s procedure.

Statistical analysis

The data obtained for all serum parameters were subjected to a repeated measure analysis of variance using the mixed procedure of SAS [21] in which dietary treatment, days of sampling and interaction between dietary treatments and sampling days were fitted as fixed effects while goats and baseline values of parameters were fitted as random effects. Tukey HSD test was used to separate means at P < 0.05 significance level.

Results

Chemical and fatty acid composition of diets

The chemical, fatty acid, and antioxidant composition of the dietary treatments is shown in Table 1. The forage portion of the diet was oil palm frond (OPF) which accounted for 50 % of the basal diet in all treatments. The oil blend was incorporated into the concentrate portion of the diets which consisted of 22 % corn grain, 17 % soybean meal, 7.5 % palm kernel cake and 2 % rice bran and 0.5 % limestone, 0.5 % salt and 0.5 % mineral vitamin premix. The concentrate portion was adjusted to make the diet isocaloric and isonitrogenous. Dietary DM, NDF, ADF, crude protein and energy were similar across the treatments. However, dietary ether extract increased (P < 0.05) in response to incremental level of CPOB in diet. Addition of CPOB increased the concentration of total fatty acids, C18:3n-3 and C18:1n-9 but reduced the concentration of C18:2n-6 and C14:0 and the n-6/n-3.

Serum cholesterol, glucose and total protein

The serum biochemical parameters of goats fed graded levels of CPOB are shown in Table 2. Diet and sampling day did not affect the concentration of serum glucose, VLDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides and total protein. Goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB had higher (P < 0.05) total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol than the control goats on day 30, 60 and 90. There was a diet x sampling day interaction (P < 0.05) for total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol. Serum total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol increased (P < 0.05) in oil-fed goats as sampling day progressed.
Table 2

Effect of diet and sampling time on serum biochemical parameters (mean ± standard error) in goats

  

Level of CPOBg

P value

Parameter (mmol/L)

Sampling day

0

4

8

Diet

Diet x sampling

Total cholesterol

0

2.51 ± 0.3

2.05 ± 0.3d

2.28 ± 0.5d

0.20

 

30

1.85 ± 0.1b

2.09 ± 0.3abd

2.55 ± 0.4ad

0.05

0.03

60

2.54 ± 0.5b

3.75 ± 0.4ae

3.27 ± 0.4ae

0.02

 

90

2.09 ± 0.2b

2.58 ± 0.3ad

2.44 ± 0.2ad

0.04

P value

0.54

0.04

0.02

 

HDL cholesterol

0

1.57 ± 0.1

1.34 ± 0.3

1.33 ± 0.3

0.27

 

30

0.94 ± 0.2c

1.35 ± 0.3b

1.66 ± 0.4a

0.02

60

1.64 ± 0.3b

2.30 ± 0.8a

2.08 ± 0.3a

0.01

0.01

90

1.09 ± 0.3b

1.49 ± 0.3a

1.42 ± 0.2a

0.02

 

P value

0.21

0.23

0.12

 

LDL cholesterol

0

0.94 ± 0.2

0.74 ± 0.1

0.95 ± 0.2

0.37

 

30

0.91 ± 0.1

0.84 ± 0.3

0.89 ± 0.1

0.07

60

0.90 ± 0.2

1.45 ± 0.2

1.20 ± 0.3

0.21

0.23

90

1.00 ± 0.3

1.07 ± 0.3

1.02 ± 0.1

0.95

 

P value

0.15

0.12

0.08

 

VLDL cholesterol

0

0.08 ± 0.0

0.09 ± 0.0

0.10 ± 0.0

0.77

 

30

0.04 ± 0.0

0.06 ± 0.0

0.06 ± 0.0

0.14

60

0.09 ± 0.0

0.13 ± 0.0

0.10 ± 0.0

0.24

0.56

90

0.04 ± 0.0

0.05 ± 0.0

0.05 ± 0.0

0.16

 

P value

0.41

0.07

0.06

 

Triglycerides

0

0.43 ± 0.0

0.44 ± 0.1

0.50 ± 0.1

0.76

 

30

0.48 ± 0.1

0.65 ± 0.1

0.51 ± 0.1

0.11

60

0.20 ± 0.0

0.32 ± 0.0

0.29 ± 0.1

0.31

0.84

90

0.21 ± 0.0

0.27 ± 0.0

0.21 ± 0.0

0.26

 

P value

0.09

0.21

0.33

 

Glucose

0

2.50 ± 0.1

2.34 ± 0.2

2.80 ± 0.2

0.19

 

30

3.18 ± 0.2

2.84 ± 0.2

3.02 ± 0.2

0.57

60

2.31 ± 0.3

2.38 ± 0.4

2.50 ± 0.2

0.93

0.67

90

2.83 ± 0.1

2.62 ± 0.3

2.81 ± 0.3

0.85

 

P value

0.11

0.21

0.36

 

Protein (g/L)

0

72.90 ± 4.4

75.66 ± 3.7

76.55 ± 1.9

0.75

 

30

65.80 ± 4.5

68.10 ± 3.8

71.88 ± 4.1

0.17

60

72.25 ± 4.3

80.12 ± 4.2

81.07 ± 3.5

0.07

0.35

90

64.80 ± 2.2

67.52 ± 2.7

63.65 ± 2.4

0.54

 

P value

0.57

0.22

0.45

 

a, b, cmeans having different superscript along the same row are significantly different (P < 0.05). d, emeans having different superscript along the same column are significantly different (P < 0.05). g80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil blend

Serum fatty acids

The serum fatty acid profile of goats fed varying level of CPOB is shown in Tables 3 and 4. Neither diet nor sampling day influenced the proportion of C14:0, C16:0, C16:1n-7 and C18:0 (Table 3), C18:3n-6; C20:4n-6, C20:5n-3, C22:6n-3 and total FA (Table 4). However, goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB had higher proportion (P < 0.05) of C18:3n-3 (on day 30, 60 and 90), C22:5n-3 (on day 60 and 90) and lower (P < 0.05) proportion of C15:0 (on day 30 and 60) and C18:2n-6 (on day 60 and 90) compared with the control goats. Increasing sampling time decreased (P < 0.05) the proportion of C15:0 in goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB. On day 60, increasing level of CPOB enhanced (P < 0.05) the proportion of C18:1n-9.
Table 3

Effects of diet and sampling time on saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids (mean ± standard error) in serum of goats

  

Levels of CPOBg

P value

Fatty acid (% of total fatty acid)

Sampling day

0

4

8

Diet

Diet x sampling day

C14:0

0

3.68 ± 0.4

3.83 ± 0.2

3.71 ± 0.3

0.82

0.20

30

4.32 ± 0.9

3.08 ± 0.5

3.45 ± 0.6

0.50

60

3.40 ± 0.6

3.07 ± 0.6

3.09 ± 0.6

0.52

90

2.94 ± 0.3

2.05 ± 0.3

2.56 ± 0.3

0.58

P value

0.39

0.12

0.60

 

C15:0

0

3.03 ± 0.2

3.16 ± 1.1d

3.31 ± 0.2d

0.18

0.01

30

1.91 ± 0.3a

0.89 ± 0.1be

0.79 ± 0.1be

0.01

60

2.98 ± 0.2a

1.04 ± 0.4be

1.75 ± 0.3be

0.04

90

1.99 ± 0.1a

1.61 ± 0.3ae

2.03 ± .92ae

0.35

P value

0.30

0.01

0.02

 

C16:0

0

18.46 ± 0.7

18.28 ± 1.1

18.94 ± 1.0

0.51

0.67

30

17.66 ± 0.5

19.36 ± 2.7

17.33 ± 1.1

0.77

60

18.40 ± 2.0

18.64 ± 1.2

18.53 ± 1.4

0.62

90

17.23 ± 0.6

18.66 ± 2.9

18.89 ± 1.7

0.19

P value

0.90

0.23

0.56

 

C16:1n-7

0

3.23 ± 0.2

3.64 ± 0.2

3.95 ± 0.1

0.53

0.91

30

2.82 ± 0.3

2.66 ± 0.5

3.38 ± 0.6

0.67

60

2.12 ± 2.0

2.58 ± 0.3

3.26 ± 1.3

0.08

90

2.83 ± 0.3

2.87 ± 1.5

2.82 ± 0.2

0.27

P value

0.43

0.11

0.22

 

C18:0

0

14.76 ± 1.1

14.91 ± 1.1

16.66 ± 1.2

0.47

0.22

30

18.38 ± 1.1

19.00 ± 2.0

19.58 ± 1.2

0.79

60

18.91 ± 1.1

18.31 ± 2.9

17.06 ± 0.9

0.49

90

18.00 ± 1.8

16.41 ± 2.3

16.53 ± 1.3

0.72

P value

0.36

0.47

0.23

 

C18:1n-9

0

25.92 ± 1.3

22.10 ± 1.2

23.07 ± 2.1

0.30

0.23

30

21.17 ± 0.7

23.02 ± 1.4

21.49 ± 1.3

0.10

60

17.58 ± 0.8a

19.83 ± 0.8b

23.85 ± 1.2c

0.01

90

20.81 ± 2.6

18.88 ± 1.6

18.00 ± 1.8

0.45

P value

0.67

0.14

0.33

 

a, b cmeans having different superscript along the same row are significantly different (P < 0.05). d, e, fmeans having different superscript along the same column are significantly different (P < 0.05). g80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil blend

Table 4

Effect of diet and sampling time on polyunsaturated fatty acids (mean ± standard error) and total fatty acids in serum of goats

  

Level of CPOBg (%)

P value

Fatty acid (% of total fatty acid)

Sampling days

0

4

8

Diet

Diet x sampling

C18:2n-6

0

16.40 ± 1.3

17.00 ± 1.5d

16.25 ± 2.1d

0.27

0.07

30

19.00 ± 1.3

17.00 ± 0.5d

19.66 ± 1.6d

0.49

60

20.03 ± 2.1a

17.24 ± 1.4bd

14.60 ± 2.2ce

0.01

90

18.28 ± 2.1a

16.00 ± 3.9be

14.00 ± 2.1ce

0.02

P value

0.32

0.02

0.03

 

C18:3n-6

0

2.06 ± 0.2

1.78 ± 0.1

1.90 ± 0.2

0.54

0.22

30

2.59 ± 0.2

1.80 ± 0.2

2.00 ± 0.1

0.12

60

2.00 ± 0.2

1.30 ± 0.2

1.70 ± 0.2

0.60

90

2.50 ± 0.1

2.00 ± 0.3

2.00 ± 0.1

0.39

P value

0.13

0.21

0.10

 

C18:3n-3

0

3.38 ± 0.7

3.85 ± 0.6d

2.95 ± 0.5d

0.09

0.08

30

2.76 ± 0.6b

4.10 ± 0.3ad

3.32 ± 0.3ad

0.05

60

3.99 ± 0.8b

4.99 ± 0.8ae

5.56 ± 0.6ae

0.01

90

3.55 ± 1.0c

6.34 ± 0.8be

7.41 ± 1.7ae

0.02

P value

0.06

0.02

0.01

 

C20:4n-6

0

1.65 ± 0.1

2.82 ± 0.5

1.68 ± 0.3

0.19

0.21

30

1.58 ± 0.3

1.62 ± 0.2

1.43 ± 0.2

0.90

60

3.31 ± 0.7

3.00 ± 0.7

3.06 ± 0.3

0.32

90

2.68 ± 0.6

2.57 ± 0.7

2.12 ± 0.7

0.33

P value

0.40

0.23

0.33

 

C20:5n-3

0

2.85 ± 1.0

3.20 ± 0.2

3.01 ± 1.0

0.47

0.16

30

3.75 ± 0.4

2.90 ± 0.4

2.64 ± 0.2

0.13

60

3.03 ± 0.4

3.49 ± 0.6

3.73 ± 0.8

0.25

90

2.54 ± 0.4

3.24 ± 0.6

2.63 ± 0.5

0.63

P value

0.72

0.81

0.63

 

C22:5n-3

0

2.58 ± 0.5d

2.71 ± 0.4d

2.53 ± 0.3d

0.34

 

30

2.17 ± 0.1d

2.41 ± 0.1d

1.94 ± 0.4d

0.97

0.02

60

3.12 ± 2.0cd

4.58 ± 0.3bd

5.26 ± 0.3ad

0.02

90

5.55 ± 0.1ce

7.81 ± 3.6be

9.04 ± 2.2ae

0.01

P value

0.04

0.04

0.02

 

C22:6n-3

0

2.28 ± 0.6

2.62 ± 0.5

2.14 ± 0.5

0.80

0.32

30

1.96 ± 0.3

1.14 ± 0.2

0.97 ± 0.1

0.30

60

2.13 ± 0.7

1.33 ± 0.2

1.71 ± 0.3

0.50

90

1.16 ± 0.2

1.50 ± 0.1

1.28 ± 0.1

0.91

P value

0.219

0.532

0.365

 

Total fatty acid (μg/mL)

0

956.65 ± 16.0

993.45 ± 28.6

918.12 ± 22.0

0.33

0.23

30

962.56 ± 37.3

1410.22 ± 27.2

1246.04 ± 41.7

0.16

60

960.45 + 45.0

837.70 ± 36.9

1359.23 ± 34.3

0.20

90

1334.5 ± 45.0

1071.88 ± 76.2

1436.67 ± 50.0

0.67

P value

0.20

0.45

0.32

 

a, b cmeans having different superscript along the same row are significantly different (P < 0.05). d, e, fmeans having different superscript along the same column are significantly different (P < 0.05). g80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil blend

The sums and ratios of serum FA is shown in Table 5. The total saturated FA and total monounsaturated FA were not influenced by sampling time and diet. Regardless of diet, total PUFA increased (P < 0.05) as sampling day progressed. No significant effect of diet was observed on total PUFA on day 0, 30 and 60. However, goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB had higher (P < 0.05) total PUFA than the control goats on day 90. Diet did not affect total n-3 and n-6 FA and n-6/n-3 on day 0 and 30. The control goats had higher (P < 0.05) total n-6 FA and n-6/n-3 and lower (P < 0.05) total n-3 FA compared to the oil-fed goats on day 60 and 90.
Table 5

Effect of diet and sampling time on sums and ratios (mean ± standard error) of fatty acids in serum of goats

  

Level of dietary CPOBg

P value

Parameter

Sampling day

0

4

8

Diet

Diet x sampling day

∑SFA

0

39.93 ± 1.4

40.18 ± 2.0

42.62 ± 1.4

0.66

0.23

30

42.27 ± 1.2

43.08 ± 3.6

41.15 ± 2.7

0.88

60

43.69 ± 2.3

41.06 ± 2.4

40.43 ± 1.4

0.70

90

40.16 ± 2.3

38.73 ± 4.3

40.01 ± 1.8

0.16

P value

0.75

0.23

0.64

 

∑MUFA

0

29.15 ± 2.4

25.74 ± 1.1

27.02 ± 2.0

0.19

0.08

30

23.99 ± 0.7

25.68 ± 1.6

24.87 ± 1.7

0.23

60

19.70 ± 2.1

22.41 ± 1.3

27.11 ± 2.2

0.70

90

23.64 ± 4.3

21.75 ± 2.3

20.82 ± 1.8

0.45

P value

0.07

0.21

0.06

 

∑PUFA

0

31.20 ± 1.4d

30.23 ± 2.0d

30.46 ± 2.3d

0.56

0.19

30

33.81 ± 1.2d

30.23 ± 3.6d

32.78 ± 4.1d

0.55

60

36.64 ± 2.6e

36.10 ± 3.4e

35.6 ± 2.2e

0.11

90

36.26 ± 3.2ae

39.46 ± 2.5be

38.48 ± 3.1be

0.03

P value

0.04

0.02

0.03

 

∑n-3

0

11.09 ± 2.4

12.38 ± 1.6d

10.63 ± 2.0d

0.82

0.04

30

10.64 ± 1.1

10.55 ± 1.1d

8.87 ± 0.9d

0.24

60

11.30 ± 2.4a

14.56 ± 3.0be

16.26 ± 2.1be

0.03

90

12.80 ± 3.0a

18.89 ± 4.1ae

20.36 ± 2.2ae

0.01

P value

0.51

0.02

0.01

 

∑n-6

0

20.11 ± 0.9d

21.60 ± 1.2

19.83 ± 2.2e

0.10

0.56

30

23.17 ± 1.4d

21.61 ± 2.6

23.89 ± 2.1e

0.38

60

25.34 ± 2.0e

21.54 ± 1.2

19.36 ± 1.5e

0.91

90

23.46 ± 1.7d

20.57 ± 2.0

18.12 ± 1.3d

0.56

P value

0.04

0.55

0.03

 

n-6:n-3

0

1.81 ± 0.3

1.94 ± 0.2d

1.86 ± 0.2d

0.22

0.03

30

2.17 ± 0.3

1.86 ± 0.4d

2.70 ± 0.4d

0.27

60

2.20 ± 0.1a

1.74 ± 0.3bd

1.00 ± 0.3ce

0.04

90

1.83 ± 0.2a

1.49 ± 0.3be

0.89 ± 0.1ce

0.01

P value

0.18

0.02

0.01

 

a, b cmeans having different superscript along the same row are significantly different (P < 0.05). d, e, fmeans having different superscript along the same column are significantly different (P < 0.05). g80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil blend. ∑SFA = (C14:0 + C15:0 + C16:0 + C18:0), ∑MUFA = (C16:1 + C18:1), ∑PUFA = (∑n-3 + ∑n-6), ∑n-3 = (C18:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:5n-3 + C22:6n-3), ∑n-6 = (C18:2n-6+ C18:3n-6) + C20:4n-6) n-6:n-3 = (C18:2n-6 + C18:3n-6 + C20:4n-6) ÷ (C18:3n-3 + C20:5n-3 + C22:5n-3 + C22:6n-3)

Serum antioxidants and lipid oxidation

Table 6 shows the serum TBARS value, tocopherol, total carotenoid and antioxidant enzyme activities in goats. No significant effect of sampling time, diet and interaction between sampling time and diet was observed for serum TBARS value. Neither diet nor sampling time influenced catalase, superoxide dismutase, and glutathione peroxidase activities. The serum α and γ tocopherol increased (P < 0.05) as the level of CPOB increased in diet on day 30, 60 and 90. Diet did not affect the concentration of total carotenoid and δ-tocopherol. Sampling time was a significant source of variation affecting serum α, γ and δ-tocopherol and total carotenoid in goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB.
Table 6

Effect of diet and sampling time on serum antioxidants and lipid oxidation (mean ± standard error) in goats

Parameter

Sampling day

Level of CPOBg (%)

P value

0

4

8

Diet

Diet x sampling day

TBARS (mg MDA/kg)

0

0.39 ± 0.1

0.37 ± 0.1

0.37 ± 0.1

0.57

0.55

30

0.42 ± 0.0

0.35 ± 0.1

0.28 ± 0.1

0.35

60

0.35 ± 0.1

0.25 ± 0.1

0.30 ± 0.1

0.53

90

0.51 ± 0.1

0.39 ± 0.1

0.34 ± 0.1

0.07

P value

0.38

0.48

0.92

0.78

Glutathione peroxidaseh

0

57.79 ± 2.3

51.80 ± 1.9

52.90 ± 2.2

0.17

0.78

30

62.14 ± 2.4

57.00 ± 3.2

60.11 ± 1.9

0.44

60

70.26 ± 2.2

54.22 ± 2.3

61.28 ± 4.2

0.76

90

68.20 ± 3.3

60.56 ± 3.1

58.22 ± 2.2

0.27

P value

0.14

0.76

0.67

0.12

Catalasei

0

1500.94 ± 23.4

1450.75 ± 19.24

1543.43 ± 32.3

0.22

0.34

30

1624.22 ± 27.3

1623.88 ± 28.2

1600.45 ± 33.7

0.18

60

1550.45 ± 22.1

1601.97 ± 41.4

1673.22 ± 23.5

0.67

90

1724.45 ± 23.8

1555.29 ± 26.6

1500.78 ± 30.0

0.55

P value

0.39

0.98

0.43

 

Superoxide dismutasej

0

2.21 ± 0.1

2.30 ± 0.1

2.21 ± 0.1

0.66

0.19

30

2.40 ± 0.2

2.37 ± 0.2

2.54 ± 0.2

0.54

60

2.33 ± 0.1

2.34 ± 0.1

2.34 ± 0.1

0.12

90

2.43 ± 0.2

2.54 ± 0.2

2.40 ± 0.1

0.32

P value

0.24

0.45

0.75

 

α-tocopherol (μg/mL)

0

3.00 ± 0.3

3.20 ± 0.2d

2.90 ± 0.1d

0.63

0.25

30

3.20 ± 0.2c

3.83 ± 0.2bd

4.22 ± 0.2ae

0.04

60

3.10 ± 0.2c

4.10 ± 0.1ae

4.67 ± 0.2ae

0.03

90

3.24 ± 0.3b

4.35 ± 0.3ae

4.80 ± 0.1ae

0.02

P value

0.10

0.02

0.03

 

γ-tocopherol (μg/mL)

0

0.60 ± 0.1

0.58 ± 0.1d

0.57 ± 0.1d

0.34

0.22

30

0.62 ± 0.2

0.68 ± 0.1e

0.72 ± 0.1e

0.54

60

0.62 ± 0.2a

0.70 ± 0.1be

0.75 ± 0.2be

0.01

90

0.64 ± 0.2c

0.73 ± 0.2be

0.80 ± 0.3ae

0.02

P value

0.32

0.04

0.04

 

δ-tocopherol (μg/mL)

0

0.03 ± 0.0

0.03 ± 0.0d

0.02d ± 0.0

0.62

0.58

30

0.04 ± 0.0

0.06 ± 0.0e

0.06e ± 0.0

0.50

60

0.05 ± 0.0

0.05 ± 0.0e

0.06e ± 0.0

0.20

90

0.04 ± 0.0

0.06 ± 0.0e

0.07e ± 0.0

0.11

P value

0.11

0.02

0.01

 

Total carotenoid (μg /mL)

0

0.20 ± 0.0

0.20 ± 0.0d

0.19 ± 0.0d

0.43

0.27

30

0.20 ± 0.0

0.23 ± 0.0e

0.25 ± 0.0e

0.22

60

0.21 ± 0.0

0.23 ± 0.0e

0.25 ± 0.0e

0.45

90

0.21 ± 0.0

0.25 ± 0.0e

0.26 ± 0.0e

0.23

P value

0.77

0.04

0.03

 

a, b cmeans having different superscript along the same row are significantly different (P < 0.05). d, e, fmeans having different superscript along the same column are significantly different (P < 0.05). g80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil blend. hexpressed as nmoles NADPH oxidized /min/mg protein. iexpressed as nmol.H2O2/min/mg protein. jexpressed as Unit/ 50 % mg protein

Discussion

Diet is one of the prominent factors affecting serum biochemical indices in ruminants [22]. Dietary supplementation of CPOB increased serum total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol. This observation could be attributed to the increase in intestinal sterolgenesis which suggests the need to transport large amount of fat [23]. The current findings are similar to those of Bu et al. [24]. In contrast, Ponnampalam et al. [25] observed a reduction in serum total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol in lambs fed fish oil and fish meal compared to those fed basal diet. However, the authors observed similar LDL cholesterol and triglycerides between the treatments which are in tandem with the present findings.

Dietary CPOB had no effect on serum triglycerides, LDL cholesterol and VLDL cholesterol. These observations are akin to those of Li et al. [26] who observed a non-significant difference in triglycerides, VLDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol in lactating goats fed linseed oil or soybean oil compared with those fed the control diet. Contrarily, Roy et al. [22] reported a significant increase in triglyceride levels in goats fed 4.5 % sunflower oil or soybean oil compared to those fed the control diet.

Dietary CPOB had no effect on serum glucose and total protein. This finding presumably reflects the similarity in the protein and energy contents of the diets. The similarity in serum glucose observed in the current study is in tandem with the reports of Dai et al. [27] and Roy et al. [22]. Nonetheless, Li et al. [26] reported increased serum glucose but a non-significant difference in total serum protein in lactating goats fed linseed oil or soybean oil compared with those fed the control diet.

Dietary fats can influence the fatty acid profile of serum which is an important medium for transporting fatty acids to target tissues [28]. The serum FA profile observed in the current study partly reflects the in vivo [13] and in vitro [12] ruminal fatty acids. Dietary CPOB depressed the concentration of C15:0 in the serum. The C15:0 is an odd chain FA obtained solely from rumen microbial biomass [29]. Thus, the decrease in its proportion with oil supplementation could be due to the effect of unprotected CPOB on rumen microbial ecology and metabolism which reduced the concentration of odd chain fatty acid in microbial biomass [13, 29, 30] or the flow of microbial biomass to the duodenum [28].

Dietary CPOB had no effect on the concentration of C14:0 and C16:0. Corroborating the present observation, Karami et al. [8] did not observe significant difference in the proportion of serum C14:0 and C16:0 between goats fed 3 % canola oil and those fed 3 % palm oil. In contrast, supplementation of 3.3 % canola oil, canolamide or blend of canola oil and canolamide reduced serum C14:0 and C16:0 in dairy cows [31]. The concentration of C18:0 was unaffected by oil supplementation. This observation is in line with that of Chang et al. [32].

The increase in serum C18:1n-9 in goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB compared to the control diet on day 60 presumably reflect dietary intake of C18:1n-9. This observation could also be due to the desaturation of the absorbed C18:0 by tissue desaturase. This finding concurs with those of Loor et al. [31] who observed that dairy cattle fed 3.3 % canola oil, canolamide or blend of canola oil and canolamide had higher serum C18:1n-9 compared with those fed control diet. In addition, Ahmadi sheik et al. [33] observed that lambs fed extruded canola and cotton seeds had higher plasma C18:1n-9 compared to those fed control diets.

The reduction of serum C18:2n-6 in goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB relative to those fed the control diet could be due to its lower dietary (Table 1) and ruminal concentrations [13]. It could also be due to the increase in serum long chain n-3 fatty acids (e.g., C22:5n-3) which preferentially substituted for C18:2n-6.

Dietary CPOB enhanced the concentration of serum C18:3n-3 in goats. This observation reflects the FA composition of the dietary treatments suggesting that some C18:3n-3 escaped ruminal biohydrogenation. Companion in vitro [12] and in vivo [13] studies showed that the ruminal concentration of C18:3n-3 increased as the level of CPOB increased in the diet. The current observation is in tandem with those of Karami et al. [8] who observed a significant increase in the plasma C18:3n-3 of goats fed 3 % canola oil compared to those fed 3 % palm oil.

The increase in serum C22:5n-3 in goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB on day 60 and 90 could be due to the increase in the proportion of C18:3n-3 suggesting considerable in vivo elongation of C18:3n-3. This finding is in tandem with those of Goodridge et al. [34] and Kim et al. [35] who observed significant increase in serum long chain n-3 FA in cattle fed flax seed compared to those fed the control diet. Contrarily, Karami et al. [8] did not observed significant differences in the proportion of long chain n-3 FA between goats fed 3 % canola oil versus 3 % palm despite the increase in C18:3n-3 in the plasma of goats fed canola oil.

Dietary CPOB did not affect serum total saturated fatty acid. Sampling time was a significant source of variation influencing the total MUFA of goats fed control diet and 8 % CPOB; however the changes were inconsistent. The significant decrease in the n-6/n-3 in goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB on day 60 and 90 could be attributed to the higher total n-3 FA observed in the serum of these animals.

Oxidative stress in tissues is caused by the imbalance between generation of free radicals and antioxidant defense systems [37]. Increase in tissue unsaturated fatty acids in the presence of a weak antioxidant defense system could trigger lipid oxidation [36]. Given the increase in serum n-3 FA in goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB on day 60 and 90, one would expect an increase in serum TBARS. Thus, the similarity in TBARS value across the treatments especially on day 60 and 90 may be due to the increase in α and γ-tocopherol observed in serum of goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB compared to those fed control diet. This is particularly true for antioxidant enzymes whose activities have been reported to increase with increase in oxidative stress [5, 36]. Increased glutathione peroxidase [37], superoxide dismutase [38] and catalase [39] activities in response to dietary unsaturated fatty acids have been documented. In contrast, dietary oxidized fish oil depressed plasma catalase, superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase activities in pigs [6]. The current findings indicate that the significant increase in the serum α and γ tocopherol compensated well for the increase in the n-3 fatty acids. This finding corroborates the report of Karami et al. [8] who observed that goats fed 3 % canola oil had similar plasma TBARS value as those fed 3 % palm oil throughout the feeding trial.

The significant increase in the concentration of α and γ tocopherol in goats fed 4 and 8 % CPOB relative to the control diet presumably reflect the antioxidant contents of the dietary treatments (Table 1). Tocopherol is a fat soluble vitamin [40]. Thus, the increase in fat content of the diet as dietary CPOB increased might have aided the absorption and deposition of these antioxidants in the serum of oil-fed goats compared to the control goats. The current observation is akin to the findings of Soler-Velasquez et al. [41] who observed that swine fed 5 and 10 % canola oil had higher serum α-tocopherol compared with those fed control diet. Similarly, Jakobsen et al. [42] observed that increasing the concentration of α, γ and δ-tocopherol in chicken’s diet increased the blood plasma contents of the tocopherol. The increase in α, γ and δ-tocopherol and total carotenoid in serum of oil-fed goats as sampling day progressed reflects dietary antioxidant contents resulting from the palm oil and canola oil in the diet.

Conclusion

The results of the current study demonstrate that dietary CPOB enhanced the proportion of serum n-3 fatty acids without compromising lipid oxidative stability and biochemical parameters in goats.

Abbreviations

CPOB: 

80 % canola oil and 20 % palm oil blend.

FA: 

fatty acid

GPx: 

glutathione peroxidase

HDL: 

high density lipoprotein

LDL: 

low density lipoprotein

MUFA: 

monounsaturated fatty acid

PUFA: 

polyunsaturated fatty acid

SFA: 

saturated fatty acid

TBARS: 

thiobarbituric reactive substance

VLDL: 

very low density lipoprotein

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the management and staff of Ar-Raudhah Biotech Farm Sdn. Bhd. for giving us the opportunity to conduct the feeding trial using the facilities on the farm. Technical assistance rendered by Dr. Lydia, Mrs. Rabizah 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)
Animal Production Laboratory, 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
(7)
Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, University of Mosul

References

  1. Radmanesh A, Kuhi HD, Riaci A. Relationship of dietary fat sources with semen characteristics, blood plasma metabolites and scrotal circumference in mature rams. Iranian J Appl Anim Sci. 2015;5:623–8.Google Scholar
  2. Adeyemi KD, Ebrahimi M, Samsudin AA, Sabow AB, Sazili AQ. Carcass traits, meat yield and fatty acid composition of adipose tissues and Supraspinatus muscle in goats fed blend of canola oil and palm oil. J Anim Sci Tech. 2015;57:42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Vazquez-Anon M, Nocek J, Bowman G, Hampton T, Atwell C, Vazquez P, et al. Effects of feeding a dietary antioxidant in diets with oxidized fat on lactation performance and antioxidant status of the cow. J Dairy Sci. 2008;91:3165–72.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews J, Va´zquez-Anon M, Bowman G. Fat stability and preservation of fatty acids with AGRADO antioxidant in feed ingredients used in ruminant rations. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89:60. Abstr.Google Scholar
  5. Walsh DM, Kennedy DG, Goodall EA, Kennedy S. Antioxidant enzyme activity in the muscles of calves depleted of vitamin E or selenium or both. Br J Nutr. 1993;70:621–30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Shi-bin Y, Dai-wen C, Ke-ying Z, Bing Y. Effects of oxidative stress on growth performance, nutrient digestibilities and activities of antioxidative enzymes of weanling pigs. Asian Austr J Anim Sci. 2007;10:1600–5.Google Scholar
  7. Maraschiello C, Sárraga C, Garcia RJ. Glutathione peroxidase activity, TBARS, and α-tocopherol in meat from chickens fed different diets. J Agr Food Chem. 1999;47:867–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Kang K, Cherian G, Sim J. Dietary palm oil alters the lipid stability of polyunsaturated fatty acid-modified poultry products. Poult Sci. 2001;80:228–34.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Atawodi SE, Yusufu L, Atawodi JC, Asuku O, Yakubu OE. Phenolic compounds and antioxidant potential of Nigerian red palm oil (Elaeis guineensis). Int J Biol. 2011;3:153–61.Google Scholar
  12. Adeyemi KD, Ebrahimi M, Samsudin AA, Alimon AR, 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.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Adeyemi KD, Sazili AQ, Ebrahimi M, Samsudin AA, Alimon AR, Karim R, et al. Effects of 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.
  14. NRC. Nutrient requirements of small ruminant (6th ed.). Washington, D. C., USA: National Academy Press; 2007. p. 384.Google Scholar
  15. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clinical Chem. 1972;18:499–502.Google Scholar
  16. Adeyemi KD, Sabow AB, Shittu RM, Karim R, Karsani SA, Sazili AQ. Impact of chill storage on antioxidant status, lipid and protein oxidation, color, drip loss and fatty acids of semimembranosus muscle in goats. CyTA. J Food. 2015; doi: 10.1080/19476337.2015.1114974.
  17. Kamal-Eldin A, Frank J, Razdan A, Tengblad S, Basu S, Vessby B. Effects of dietary phenolic compounds on tocopherol, cholesterol, and fatty acids in rats. Lipids. 2000;35:427–35.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Pegg RB, Amarowicz R. Content of tocopherol isomers in oilseed radish cultivars–a short report. Polish J Food Nutr Sci. 2009;59:129–33.Google Scholar
  19. Rajion M, McLean J, Cahill RN. Essential fatty acids in the fetal and newborn lamb. Aust J Bio Sci. 1985;38:33–40.Google Scholar
  20. AOAC. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (18th ed.). Washington D.C., USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 2007.Google Scholar
  21. SAS. Statistical Analysis System package (SAS) Version 9.2 software. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc; 2003.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Nestel PJ, Poyser A, Hood RL, Mills SC, Willis MR, Cook LJ, et al. The effect of dietary fat supplements on cholesterol metabolism in ruminants. J Lipid Res. 1998;19:899–909.Google Scholar
  24. Bu D, Wang J, Dhiman T, Liu S. Effectiveness of oils rich in linoleic and linolenic acids to enhance conjugated linoleic acid in milk from dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90:998–1007.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Ponnampalam EN, Sinclair AJ, Egan AR, Blakeley SJ, Li D, Leury BJ. Effect of dietary modification of muscle long-chain n-3 fatty acid on plasma insulin and lipid metabolites, carcass traits, and fat deposition in lambs. J Anim Sci. 2001;79:895–903.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Li X, Yan C, Lee H, Choi C, Song M. Influence of dietary plant oils on mammary lipogenic enzymes and the conjugated linoleic acid content of plasma and milk fat of lactating goats. Anim Feed Sci Tech. 2012;174:26–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Dai X, Wang C, Zhu Q. Milk performance of dairy cows supplemented with rapeseed oil, peanut oil and sunflower seed oil. Czech J Anim Sci. 2011;56:181–91.Google Scholar
  28. Chilliard Y, Glasser F, Ferlay A, Bernard L, Rouel J, Doreau M. Diet, rumen biohydrogenation and nutritional quality of cow and goat milk fat. Eur J Lipid Sci Tech. 2007;109:828–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Vlaeminck B, Fievez V, Cabrita ARJ, Fonseca AJM, Dewhurst RJ. Factors affecting odd- and branched-chain fatty acids in milk: A review. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2006;131:389–417.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Kelly JC, Spiers WG. Influence of host diet on the concentrations of fatty acids in rumen bacteria from cattle. Aust J Agric Res. 1991;42:243–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Chang JHP, Lunt DK, Smith SB. Fatty acid composition and fatty acid elongase and stearoyl-CoA desaturase activities in tissues of steers fed high oleate sunflower seed. J Nutr. 1992;122:2074–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ahmadi AS, Golian A, Akbarian A, Ghaffari MH, Shirzadi H, Mirzaee M. Effect of extruded cotton and canola seed on unsaturated fatty acid composition in the plasma, erythrocytes and livers of lambs. South Afr J Anim Sci. 2010;40:311–8.Google Scholar
  34. Goodridge J, Ingalls JR, Crow GH. Transfer of omega-3 linolenic acid and linoleic acid to milk fat from flaxseed or linola protected with formaldehyde. Can J Anim Sci. 2001;81:525–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Kim CM, Kim JH, Chung TY, Park KK. Effects of Flaxseed Diets on Fattening Response of Hanwoo Cattle: 2. Fatty Acid Composition of Serum and Adipose Tissues. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci. 2004;17:1246–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodriguez-Martinez MA, Ruiz-Torres A. Homeostasis between lipid peroxidation and antioxidant enzyme activities in healthy human aging. Mechanism Ageing Dev. 1992;66:213–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Lemaitre D, Véricel E, Polette A, Lagarde M. Effects of fatty acids on human platelet glutathione peroxidase: Possible role of oxidative stress. Biochem Pharmacol. 1997;53:479–86.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Luostarinen R, Wallin R, Saldeen T. Dietary (n-3) fatty acids increase superoxide dismutase activity and decrease thromboxane production in the rat heart. Nutr Res. 1997;17:163–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Venkatraman JT, Pinnavaia L. Effects of saturated, ω-6 and ω-3 lipids on activities of enzymes involved in antioxidant defense in normal rats. Nutr Res. 1998;18:341–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Adeyemi KD, Sabow AB, Shittu RM, Karim R, Sazili AQ. Influence of dietary canola oil and palm oil blend and refrigerated storage on fatty acids, myofibrillar proteins, chemical composition, antioxidant profile and quality attributes of semimembranosus muscle in goats. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2015;6:51.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Soler-Velasquez MP, Brendemuhl JH, McDowell LR, Sheppard KA, Johnson DD, Williams SN. Effects of supplemental vitamin E and canola oil on tissue tocopherol and liver fatty acid profile of finishing swine. J Anim Sci. 1998;76:110–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Jakobsen K, Engberg RM, Andersen JO, Jensen SK, Lauridsen C, Sørensen P, et al. Supplementation of broiler diets with all-rac-α- or a mixture of natural source RRR-α-, γ-, δ-tocopheryl acetate. 1. Effect on vitamin E status of broilers in vivo and at slaughter. Poult Sci. 1995;74:1984–94.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Adeyemi et al. 2016

Advertisement