Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:46:07.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nutritive value of fat in the diet of the milk-fed lamb

1. The apparent and corrected digestibilities of different dietary fats and of their constituent fatty acids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. M. Walker  and
G. B. Stokes
D. M. Walker
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Australia
G. B. Stokes
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Thirty-five male cross-bred lambs at 3 d of age were given artificial milks with a protein- calorie concentration of 25 % and containing either lard, coconut fat, cottonseed oil, rapeseed oil, groundnut oil, soya-bean oil, safflower oil, tallow, maize oil or olive oil, homogenized with reconstituted skimmed cow's milk to provide 50 yo of the total energy of the diet. Two lambs were given a low-fat diet of reconstituted dried skim milk. All lambs were bottle-fed for 28 d.

2. The dietary fats and oils were highly digestible (97.2–99.5 %) with the exception of lard (89.1 %), rapeseed oil (61.9 %) and tallow (77.8 %). The indigestibility of these dietary fats was related to their content of stearic or erucic acids. The fatty acid patterns of the faecal fat were similar within each dietary group, but differed between diets.

3. Metabolic faecal fat excretion was 4.1 k0.5 g/100 g faecal dry matter. There was no similarity between the fatty acid composition of the metabolic faecal fat and that of the faecal lipids excreted by lambs given fat in their diet. The metabolic faecal fat made only a minor contribution to the total faecal lipids, so that the apparent and ‘ corrected’ digestibility coeffi-cients were very similar.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 1970 , pp. 425 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1970

References

Bartlet, J. C. & Iverson, J. L. (1966). J. Ass. off. analyt. Chem. 49, 21.Google Scholar
Bayley, H. S. & Lewis, D. (1965). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 64, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergström, S. & Blomstrand, B. (1956). Biochemical Problems of the Lipids. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Bligh, E. G. & Dyer, W. J. (1959). Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 37, 911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gompertz, S. M. & Sammons, H. G. (1963). Clinica chim. Acta 8, 591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, A. T., Webb, J. P. W. & Kellock, T. D. (1961). Biochem. J. 78, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalfe, L. D., Schmitz, A. A. & Pelka, J. R. (1966). Analyt. Chem. 38, 514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrin, D. R. (1958). J. Dairy Res. 25, 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, B. A., Hashim, S. A. & Sebrell, W. H. (1967). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 20, 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Faichney, G. J. (1964 a). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Faichney, G. J. (1964 b). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, J. P. W., James, A. T. & Kellock, T. D. (1963). Gut 4, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wollaeger, E. E., Lundberg, W. O., Chipault, J. R. & Mason, H. L. (1953). Gastroenterology 24, 422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar