UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of fatty acid balancing by oil blending on performance and utilization by growing chicks Crick, Dean Calvin 1984

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A6_7 C74.pdf [ 3.94MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096055.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096055-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096055-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096055-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096055-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096055-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096055-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096055-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096055.ris

Full Text

THE  E F F E C T S OF FATTY ACID ON  PERFORMANCE  BALANCING  BY OIL  BLENDING  AND U T I L I Z A T I O N  BY GROWING  CHICKS  By DEAN CALVIN B.Sc,  The U n i v e r s i t y  A T H E S I S SUBMITTED THE  o-f B r i t i s h  REQUIREMENTS FOR  i  THE DEGREE OF  SCIENCE  n  THE FACULTY  OF GRADUATE  (Department  o-f P o u l t r y  accept this to  thesis  the required  THE UNIVERSITY  STUDIES Science)  a s con-forming standard  OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA  December ®Dean  Columbia,  IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT  MASTER OF  We  CRICK  Calvin  1934  Crick,  1984  1982  OF  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree at the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be granted by  department or by h i s or her  the head of  representatives.  my  It is  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Department of  POULTRY SCIFNCF  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  23/12/1984  Columbia  written  ABSTRACT  The effects on  the  o b j e c t i v e s o-f t h i s of  blending  nutritive  oils,  and  to  (free  fatty  research  Canbra or  value  and  i n the  study  of  o i l or  acid)  blended  6/4  was  and  chicks  5/5. fed  feeding  The lipid  period.  animal with  lard  at  gain,  feed  consumption,  lipid  digestibility, total  metabolizable Results  energy  significantly  and  sunflower  acid  u t i l i z a t i o n over  Canola  o i l was  supporting synergistic and  that  growth.  improvement  metabolizable  diet  energy  7/3  and  in promoting  9/1,  using  during  oils  with  a 4  8/2,  7/3,  growing week  body w e i g h t ,  weight  acid d i g e s t i b i l i t y .  by  the  equivalent  growth  lard  Canbra o i l and  fatty  Canbra o i l  alone.  soybean  blends  growth,  animal  Blending  D i l and 5/5  to  chick  u t i l i z a t i o n . I t was  Canola o i l i s n u t r i t i o n a l l y  blended  ratios  o i l .  improved  sunflower  The  blended  feed d i g e s t i b i l i t y ,  fatty  demonstrated to  the  fats  acid d i g e s t i b i l i t y ,  to sunflower lard  or  hydrolyzed  was  Canbra o i l i s e q u i v a l e n t  animal  oils  balancing.  assayed  conversion,  individual  equivalent  chick  was  made u s i n g  fatty  inferior  o i l or  was  feed  and  show t h a t  but  value  the  C a n o l a o i l (0.55% e r u c i c  o i l i n the  in a p r a c t i c a l  Evaluation  acid  (w/w).  sunflower  3%  fatty  using  erucic acid)  1/1  nutritional  other  s t a b i l i t y of  p o s s i b i l i t y of  C a n b r a o i l ( c o n t a i n i n g 6.1% sunflower  investigate  Canola o i l with  autoxidative  i n v e s t i g a t e the acids)  were t o  showed  fatty  acid,  concluded  to either  o i l in  protein  that  sunflower  o i l or  soybean its  o i l and t h a t  nutritional  detrimental The  value.  effects  fatty  blending  acids  on  with  sun-flower  O i l blending  rendered  of h y d r o l y z e d  performance equivalent  oils.  The f a t t y  acids  of a hydrolyzed  and  sunflower  o i l showed  and  the f a t t y  acids  and  fatty  method  reduced  that  of i n v e s t i g a t i n g f a t t y  required  in this  area.  5/5 b l e n d  soybean  relative feeding  to that  absorption  of hydrolyzed  absorption  demonstrate  significant  C a n o l a and s u n f l o w e r o i l  nutritive  results  no  improved  stability.  showed  acid  o i lfurther  of Canola o i l  o i l showed  hydrolyzed  intact  o f some f a t t y  to the intact  acid balance  of the  oils  reduced  oils. may  b u t more  acids diet  These  be a u s e f u l research  is  i i ii  TABLE OF  CONTENTS Page  ABSTRACT  ii  LIST  vi  OF TABLES  L I S T OF FIGURES L I S T OF APPENDIX T A B L E S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  vii viii v i i ii  INTRODUCTION  1  L I T E R A T U R E REVIEW  4  Fat Supplementation i n P o u l t r y Rations ' F a t D i g e s t i o n and A b s o r p t i o n i n P o u l t r y Fatty Acid Absorption Essential Fatty Acids N u t r i t i o n a l and M e t a b o l i c R e l a t i o n s h i p s B e t w e e n Fatty Acid Families R e l a t i v e N u t r i t i o n a l P r o p e r t i e s of Rapeseed O i l D e v e l o p e m e n t o f Low E r u c i c A c i d R a p e s e e d O i l . . . N u t r i t i o n a l P r o p e r t i e s o f Low E r u c i c A c i d Rapeseed O i l S y n e r g i s t i c E f f e c t s of Blending O i l s Free Fatty Acids Physico-chemical Properties of O i l  4 .6 8 10 11 13 16 17 20 24 25  METHODS AND MATERIALS 27 Experimental Animals. 27 O i l s and B l e n d i n g 27 Oil Hydrolysis 29 Feeding Experiments.... 29 Trial 1 29 Trial 2 33 Trial 3 33 Digestibility 34 Fecal c o l l e c t i o n 34 Dry m a t t e r . • 34 Apparent d i g e s t i b i l i t y c a l c u l a t i o n . . . . . 35 Metabol i z a b l e Energy 35 Fatty Acid Analysis 36 Lipid extraction 36 T o t a l l i p i d and f a t t y a c i d d e t e r m i n a t i on. •. . . . . . . . 37 Fatty acid derivatization 37 Gas l i q u i d c h r o m a t o g r a p h y . . . 38 Fatty acid identification 39  V  Physico-chemical Determinations Oven t e s t P e r o x i d e and t h i o b a r b i t u r i c Smoke p o i n t Statistics  acid  values  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. Trial 1 Chick performance. Apparent d i g e s t i b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s Apparent individual fatty acid absorption Trial 2 Chick performance Apparent d i g e s t i b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s Apparent m e t a b o l i z a b l e energy of t h e d i e t s Apparent individual fatty acid absorption Trial 3 Chick performance Apparent d i g e s t i b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s Apparent individual fatty acid absorption Physico-chemical Analysis Oil stability Smoke p o i n t s SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  39 39 40 40 41 42 . . . 42 44 46 49 52 54 56 .60 60 63 68 74  76  BIBLIOGRAPHY  80  APPENDICES  92  A. T r i a l 4 B. D i e t a r y F a t t y A c i d C o m p o s i t i o n T a b l e s C. A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e T a b l e s . . . . . .  93 96 .....99  VI  L I S T OF T A B L E S  Table  Page  1.  Fatty  Acid  Composition  of L i p i d s , T r i a l  2.  Fatty  Acid  Composition  of O i l s ,  3.  Composition  4.  E f f e c t o f O i l B l e n d i n g on t h e G r o w t h P e r f o r m a n c e o f C h i c k s a t 4 Weeks, T r i a l 1  43  Apparent D i g e s t i b i l i t y Trial 1  45  5.  of Experimental  Basal  7.  E f f e c t s o f O i l B l e n d i n g on t h e G r o w t h o f C h i c k s a t 4 Weeks, T r i a l 2  Trial 9.  Fatty  Digestibility  30 32  Acid  Absorption,  Trial  1  47  Performance 50  C o e f f i c i e n t s a t 4 Weeks,  2  53  Apparent  Metabolizable  10.  Apparent  Individual  11.  E f f e c t of Free of C h i c k s  12.  2...  C o e f f i c i e n t s a t 4 Weeks,  Apparent  Apparent  28  Diet  6.  8.  Individual  Trial  1  Energy  Fatty  Fatty Acids a t 4 Weeks,  Apparent D i g e s t i b i l i t y Trial 3  13.  Apparent  Individual  14.  Peroxide  v a l u e s Under  15.  Thiobarbituric  16.  O i l Smoke P o i n t  Acid  Acid  of Diets,  Trial  Absorption,  on t h e G r o w t h Trial 3  2  Trial  55 2......57  Performance 61  C o e f f i c i e n t s a t 4 Weeks, 62  Fatty  Acid  Absorption,  Accelerated  V a l u e s Under  Trial  Storage Accelerated  3  64 69  Storage....72 75  L I S T OF  FIGURES  Figure 1.  2.  Page Developement Storage  D-f P e r o x i d e V a l u e s U n d e r C o n d i t i o n s (70°C)  Developement of T h i o b a r b i t u r i c A c i d A c c e l e r a t e d S t o r a g e (70°C)  Accelerated  Values  70 Under 73  vi i i  L I S T OF APPENDIX TABLES  Table I.  Page Effect of  of O i l Blending Chicks  on t h e G r o w t h  a t 4 Weeks, T r i a l  Performance  4  94  II.  Fatty  Acid  Composition  of Diets,  Trial  1  96  III.  Fatty  Acid  Composition  of Diets,  Trial  2  97  IV.  Fatty  Acid  Composition  of D i e t s ,  Trial  3  98  V. VI. VII.  VIII.  IX.  X.  Analysis  of Variance  A n a l y s i s of Variance Trial 1  XII. XIII.  XIV.  Parameters,  of D i g e s t i b i l i t y  Trial  Fatty  Acid 101  o f Growth P a r a m e t e r s and  A n a l y s i s of Variance T r i a l 2.  of D i g e s t i b i l i t y  Analysis  Df Individual  Analysis  102 Coefficients, 103  Trial  of Variance  Fatty  Acid  2  of Grwoth P a r a m e t e r s ,  104 Trial  3....105  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e of D i g e s t i b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s , Trial 3 A n a l y s i s of Variance of I n d i v i d u a l F a t t y Acid Absorption, T r i a l 3 Analysis  of Variance  99  Coefficients,  A n a l y s i s of Variance AMEn, T r i a l 2  of Variance  1  100  A n a l y s i s of Variance of I n d i v i d u a l Absorption, T r i a l 1  Absorption, XI.  o f Growth  o f Growth Parameters,  Trial  106 107  4....108  VI 1  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  The capable  author guidance  thesis. is  and  also  and a d v i c e  gratefully author  h i sfellow  through  t o D r . J . S . S i m -for h i s out the progress  o-f t h i s  commitee  members  acknowledged.  also  wishes t o acknowledge the help  s t u d e n t s and t h e t e c h n i c a l  staff  and s u p p o r t  (both l a b o r a t o r y  farm). Very  her  indebted  The d e d i c a t e d a s s i s t a n c e o f t h e o t h e r  The of  i s deeply  special  t h a n k s must  p a t i e n c e and h e l p  parents  f o rtheir  Financial Canada  (CUAP g r a n t  i n the course  support  support  be g i v e n  to h i swife,  of t h i s  study,  Janine, f o r and t o h i s  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g .  was p r o v i d e d  « 33-6).  by t h e C a n o l a  Council of  1  INTRODUCTION  Two  - f a m i l i e s of  omega-6} and essential  polyunsaturated  linolenic,  -for a n i m a l  prostaglandins  are  omega-3) h a v e  and  synthesized  arachidonic  (especially  eicosapentaenoic regulation  quantitatively  optimum  a c i d s which w i l l there  are  fatty  acids  between  and  but  these  quantitative must  be  met  (Holman,  acids  with  oil  these  growth  for cellular  must  two  and  acids  role  be  f a m i l i e s of In  f a c t o r to  balance  enable prostanoids  The  acids,  ratio  fact,  a  e q u i l i b r i u m of  e_t a l . , 1 9 8 2 ) .  fatty  these i n d i v i d u a l  h a v e b e e n met  balanced  in  a  health.  essential fatty  adequately  o i l , soybean i n Canada.  amoung t h e  rich  in both  been  well  decreased  there  most  acids  important  requirements f o r  (Crawford  Since  as  of  therefore,  fatty  acids  1982).  products being  an  health.  an  requirements  of  recognized  omega-3 f a t t y  play  between  been  (linoleic,  omega-6 f a t t y  is a critical  achieved  requirement  Rapeseed  as  ratio  membrane s t a b i l i t y  the  the  acid)  identifiable  fatty  and  i t seems t h a t  once these  t o be  and  p r o d u c e optimum  clearly  conditions  acid)  from  acids  long  human g r o w t h  (especially  prostaglandin  -fatty  few  Rapeseed  feed  intake  sunflower and  o i l are  soybean  edible vegetable  f a m i l i e s of  documented  o i l and  essential fatty  oils  the  are  major recognized  o i l s o u r c e s which acids.  that  feeding  rapeseed  and  growth  in several  However,  are  it  has  o i l r e s u l t s in species  (compared  to  2  soybean  oil).  In t h e p a s t  content  o-f e r u c i c  developements cultivars  designated  rapeseed  low  rapeseed  from  20-40% t o  designated  less  less  2%)  than  have been  acid  than  as C a n b r a  that  oils.  Recently,  the  of  still  also  relative  o v e r c o m e by  this tend  5.0%.  have  been  t o show  t o soybean  low  oil.  and  experimental rapeseed  f e e d but  animals.  o i l has  a fatty  fat utilization.  synergism i n an  between  fats  Canola  acid  content  commercially t h e r e has  profile also  These  oils,  of  cultivars  although  i n promoting  performance  either  animal  improves  not  that  and  and  been  lard only  or the  in  that  i s inadequate  been s u g g e s t e d  animal  has  fat utilization  interactive  digestion  been  (generally  led to the s u g g e s t i o n  I t has  of  acid  content  performance  g a i n and  i s highly  understanding  acid  T h i s low  T h i s has  change  Canola.  o i l with  weight  first  ( f o r consumption)  This blending synergistically of  were  in glucosinolates.  b l e n d i n g rapeseed  consumption  The  the e r u c i c  in erucic  the Canbra  new  cultivars  (LEAR).  d e s i g n a t e d as  of  c o n t e n t o-f  E v e n more r e c e n t l y  low  rapid  introduction  These o i l s  lower  high  acid  new  rapeseed  to the  the e r u c i c  the p r o d u c t i o n  a r e even  commercially  improved,  These  oils.  toward  and  In s p i t e  lies  attributed  o i l t o LEAR o i l r e d u c e d  cultivars  maximal  been  g e n e t i c s and  oils.  erucic  movement  tallow.  in rapeseed  in plant  from  growth  has  -for p r o d u c t i o n h a v e r e d u c e d  the Canadian  another  acid  this  that  for the  i t s explanation  absorption  (Freeman,  1983). These f a c t s is  blended  combined  exclusively  with  with  reports that  sunflower  in A l g e r i a  o i l to produce  a  Canola o i l consumer  3  product  (SAFIA)  herein.  The o b j e c t i v e s  nutritive oil, oil  qualities  Canola  oil,  or animal  The e f f e c t s blends  (Cambell,  was  of t h i s  o-f d i e t a r y  animal  lard  1982)  lard,  and b l e n d s  l e d to the research reported r e s e a r c h were sunflower  blends  oil,  t o compare soybean  o-f C a n b r a o i l and  of Canola  investigated.  oil,  Canbra  sun-flower  o i l and s u n f l o w e r o i l .  o f b l e n d i n g on t h e a u t o x i d a t i v e s t a b i l i t y also  the  of the  4  LITERATURE  Fat  Supplementation  It  has  density be  long  been  thought  f a t s and  oils  (of b o t h  useful  feed  publications the  years.  tolerate are  in Poultry  ingredients.  on It  high  the  Rations  that  l e v e l s of  due  animal  This  utilization  is generally  REVIEW  resulted  in the  that  diet  high  vegetable  f a t and  conceded  fat  their  and  has  of  to  in  origin)  would  numerous  o i l by indeed  energy  poultry poultry  if certain  over can  conditions  met. However  this  was  reported  that  added  l e v e l s over  at  soybean  (1953) r e p o r t e d oil, but  soybean  that  o i l or  more t h a n  not  10%  o i l was 10%  of  the  diet.  produced  these  Henderson  detrimental  supplementation lard  of  always so.  fats  In of  to  chick  2.5  diet  or  Irwin growth  addition  increased  i n the  and  when  Yacowitz  5.0%  growth  (1940)  of  cottonseed  in b r o i l e r s  retarded  chick  growth. More r e c e n t Blely with  and fat  addition growth fat to  March  literature (1954,  increased of  and  the  feed  fact  important  1957)  showed  efficiency  f a t to d i e t s with efficiency,  supplementation the  s h e d s some  to  that the  the  will  chick.  that  on  but  protein  i f the both  these r e s u l t s .  dietary  supplementation  utilization.  adequate p r o t e i n  retard  energy  of  light  protein  improved level  parameters.  to p r o t e i n  ratio  of  a  The  both  i s IDW  This  pointed  diet  is  T h e s e r e s u l t s were c o n f i r m e d  by  5  Donaldson Uaibel  (1955,1958) f o r b o t h  It of  et, aj_ ( 1 9 5 7 ) , S c o t t  was d i s c o v e r e d  f a tproviding  Donaldson used  was m a i n t a i n e d . that  essentially  of  effect  Donaldson  poultry  could  the dietary  level  diet  providing  This  the chick's  experiments that  have  both  feed  e t a i , 1957 5 Rand  improvement  and a p p e a r s  and o i l s  (Carew  demonstrated  change  and S e l l ,  depending  dietary efficiency of f a t .  i n c h i c k e n s (Rand  t h e term  and March,  1954;  efc. a l .  and V a n s c h o u b r o e k , 1977).  1968;  This o f f a t added  to  on t h e s o u r c e o f t h e and  has o f t e n This  been  effect  attributed  was  clearly  e_t a l . , 1958; Menge and  Denton,  More r e c e n t l y H o r a n i  "extra metabolic effect"  of f a t . Leeson  dietary f a t  e t aj., 1 9 7 3 ) .  i n r a t i o n metabolizab1e energy  addition  who  t o demonstrate  that  (Biely  e£. a l . , 1964; V e r m e e r s c h  a n d Carew e £ a l . , 1 9 6 4 ) .  (1977) u s e d  conclusion  and g r o w t h  to differ  1968; B r a g g  increased  undertaken  r e l a t e d to the level  the " e x t r a c a l o r i c e f f e c t "  1961;  e£. a l . (1958)  ratio  t o t h e d i e t s on t h e p e r f o r m a n c e  1961; V e r m e e r s c h  i s not d i r e c t l y  Vanschoubroek,  to  energy/protein  e t aj., 1958} Dam  et,. aj., 1973; and H o r a n i  The  increased.  f a r f a t , per se. i s  have been  efficiency  Bragg  fats  levels  up t o 3 3 . 8 % f a t c a n be  an a d e q u a t e  led to the general  Menge and D e n t o n ,  diet  t o l e r a t e high  o f p r o t e i n was a l s o  that  tolerance  1959;  the  turkeys.  was c o n f i r m e d by Rand  of a d d i t i o n of f a t s  poultry  improves  and  unlimited.  Several the  chicken  e£. a l . (1957) r e p o r t e d  in a chick  reported  that  e t a l _ , (1955) and  and Summers  and  Sell  to describe the  (M.E.) c a u s e d  (1976)•proposed  by t h e a hypothesis  6  which  s t i p u l a t e d the  existance  of  fatty  acids  in ration  ingredients  which  r e s u l t s in  Fat  Digestion  There of the  inherent  fats  between  Therefore,  the  et By  The  and  regions,  the  of  for  conjugated  the the  bile  polar  i n the  dissolved tension  of  therefore results  portion  the  bile  salt  emulsion  increasing surface  of  of  for  transport.  (1976)  a diet  majority  of  to provide  soluble in f a t .  and  is a  polar  act  and  the  bile  salts  i n t e s t i n e with  sterol  decreases  a detergent.  upon.  non-polar  and  Therefore,  by  and  larger  i n water  in the  the  the  p r o j e c t i n g outward the  of  and  is  fats  triglycerides  fragmentation as  except  noted.  dissymetric  effectively  acts  absorption  d i g e s t i v e enzymes t o  salt  fluids  fat allowing bile  the  fat globules  the  f a t . This  in smaller  With  of  surrounding  in the the  of  Griminger  salts  soluble  surface  soluble  bile  i s highly  on  and  route  constituent  region  aggregate  fat  fat.  species  their  (1976),  possess  i s highly  carboxyl  and  water-soluble  salts  added  description i s a compilation  lipid  f a t by  the  digestion  mammalian  i n d i g e s t i o n of  region the  the  where s p e c i f i c a l l y  non-polar  the  the  w h i c h makes up  step  of  i n the  Guyton  common  portion  with  the  Poultry  absorption  from  most  first  area  in  following brief  f a r the  surface  avian  i n t e r a c t i o n between  content  difference  a l . (1982) e x c e p t  emulsification  The  the  gleaned  triglyceride  M.E.  Absorption  p r o d u c t s of  information  oils.  and  is little  mucosal  Scott  increased  an  and  portion the  interfacial  agitation This  and  fragmentation  globules. area  due  to emulsion  the  activity  of  7  the  pancreatic  juice  juice  contains  enzymes  several  include  co-lipase  is greatly lipolytic  pancreatic  <Borgstrom,  accelerated. e n z y m e s and  1977).  The  and  m o n o g l y c e r i d e s and  fatty acids.  the  ester  primary  has  a specificity  degree of ester long  chain  pancreatic  juice  emulsification  The process,  salts  play  fatty  acids  propensity  bile  25  1977). take  to  the  aggregate  to  the  length  as  further  role  in the  a r e a of  a small  A esters  bile  of  and  s a l t s to  be  co-factor  substrate bicarbonate  i t aids  of  i n the  soaps as  of  the  rapid recognized  highly  by  digestion. removal  fat digestion  composed  fat  the  of  free bile  monoglycerides  through are  and  their  small  globules  20-50 m o l e c u l e s  of  polar-nonpolar  20-50 b i l e  globule.  However,  of  These m i c e l l e s  of  reversible  m o n o g l y c e r i d e s and  their dissymetrical nuclei  the The  and  1977).  in diameter,  sterol  salts.  accumulation  blocks  the  to  and  carboxylic  i s a polypeptide  formation  form m i c e l l e s .  form  chain  require  triglycerides is a  the  Because of  structure  bile  (Borgstrom, of  to  l i p a s e back  important  f a t s by  Angstroms  salt.  Co-lipase  the  is also  appears  of  glycerides  vitamin  important  from  for  esters,  quickly an  fatty acid  is specific  sterol  therefore  acids  the  di-  hydrolyzes  hydrolysis  fatty  of  tri-,  The  p r e s e n c e of  of  i n 1891  positions  lipase  and  hydrolyzes  mixture  1974).  to  in the  This  These  hydrolase  lipase  e£. a_J.,  m o n o g l y c e r i d e s and  functions  equilibrium  ester  (Morely  (Borgstrom,  Rockford  an  in r e l a t i o n to  saturation  interface  about  i n the  hydroxylase  active which  t r i g l y c e r i d e s to  pancreatic  dietary  pancreatic  bicarbonate.  lipase, carboxylic  the  bonds  The  This  salt  molecules  aggregation  allows  8  the  polar  molecules  the  micelle.  Since  entire micelle alimentary The  to  to extend  outward  these  negatively  are  dissolve  i n the  lipid-bile  salt  <mixed) m i c e l l e  l a r g e amounts of  interior.  In  this  form  m o n o g l y c e r i d e s and  in  the  aqueous phase of  to  the  mucosal  digestion)  are  micelles  membrane.  lipid  undigested  the  cell  high  lipid  allow  in  the  i s able  to  dissolve  point  its fatty  materials  are  solubilized  contents  and  transported  the  site  in contact  with  free  acids  i s due  in the  micelles  to  the  not and  of  fat  epithelial  mucosa  d i f f u s e through that  they  are  both  cell  membrane.  d i g l y c e r i d e s are  also  soluble  they  do  not  absorbed,  as  transported  to  in  not  the  membrane.  affected  by  factors:  (1)  chain  several  McDonald,  length 1969;  of  the  fatty  R e n n e r and  f a t s or  acids  Hill,  fatty  (Carroll,  1961bj-Ward  acids  is  1958;  Hamilton  and  Marquardt,  1983); the  the  i n the  highly are  the  fact  actually dissolve  t r i g l y c e r i d e s and are  fatty  a b s o r b a b i l i t y of  (2)  of the  solution  melting  (away f r o m  percentage  and  they  compounds w i t h i n  intestinal  come  and  membrane b u t  epithelial  The  charged  exterior  absorbed.  This  soluble  The  The  the  m o n o g l y c e r i d e s and  epithelial  dissolve  the  Absorption  When t h e  highly  other  membrane  where t h e y  Acid  the  cell  non-polar  non-polar,  acids,  both  polar  cover  tract.  relatively  Fatty  and  degree of  unsaturation  (Carroll  and  Richards,  1958;  9  Renner and  and H i l l ,  1961b;  F i s h e r , 1975}  1982; (3)  Atteh  Austreng  this  1958;  has been  Young (4)  and M c D o n a l d ,  e t al., 1979;  and L e e s o n , 1983;  the presence  Richards,  Hamilton  Ward  and H i l l ,  questioned  Kussaibati  linkages  1961a;  (Young,  Whitehead  eta l ,  and M a r q u a r d t , 1 9 8 3 ) ;  or absence of e s t e r  Renner  1969;  1961;  (Carroll  Sklan, Young  1979)  and  although  and G a r r e t t ,  1963;  et. al., 1963) ; the speci-fic  moiety Hill,  arrangement of t h e -fatty  of the t r i g l y c e r i d e 1961a;  Hamilton  ( F e d d e e£. a l .  and M c D o n a l d ,  acids  on  the  I960; Renner  1969;  Whitehead  glycerol  and  and  Fisher,  1975); (5)  t h e age o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  Renner 1963;  I960; Renner  Hakansson,  Muztar may  and H i l l ,  1974;  e t a l , 1981;  n o t be  true  animal  and H i l l ,  ( F e d d e e£. a l , 1961b;  W h i t e h e a d and F i s h e r ,  Ward  1975;  and M a r q u a r d t , 1983)  i n the weanling  Young  p i g (Hamilton  I960; et-. a l .  Salmon,  although and  1977;  this  McDonald,  1969); (6)  the r e l a t i v e  acid  mixture  ratios  (Hopkins ei. a l ,  Young  and G a r r e t t ,  1970;  W a l k e r e £ aj., 1970;  Slinger, et  1973;  a l , 1980;  Fuller  and  of f a t t y  1963;  Salmon,  Mateos  Dale,  (7)  the composition  fed  (Carroll  and  Hill,  Kramer  1977;  Renner  and H i l l ,  and L e c l e r c ,  e i . a_L,  1981;  of the d i e t s  Young  i n the o i l or f r e e  1973;  Lall  1958;  1983;  and  i n which the f a t s  e t a l , 1963;  Hakansson,  Corino  1981;  H u l a n et. a l ,  F e d d e et. a l ,  Salmon,  1979;  Muztar e t al,  fatty  1961a;  1969;  Chow and H o l l a n d e r ,  Freeman,  and R i c h a r d s ,  1961b;  1955;  Rocquelin  and S e l l ,  1982;  acids  1984); are  i960; 1974;  Renner Mateos  10  and  Sell,  1981}  Muztar  Ward  and  Marquardt,  (8)  the  amount  In  addition,  contains that  a fatty  increases  1980)  of  and  e i . aj_, 1981}  bile  salts  i t has acid  with  i n the  b e e n shown  binding  age  and  fat  that  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  absorption  has  not  diets  1929  1930  This  these  failure  and  chicken  intestine  ( K a t o n g o l e and  i n the  this  the  tract.  diet I  March,  (Katongole  in rats  binding  (Ockner  protein  and  1979) March,  et. a l .  in fatty  acid  f a t from  rat  demonstrated.  showed  death  was  further  exclusion  i n which  suffered  the  accompanied  by  demonstrated  linolenic  that  prevented  the  was  not  grew  failure  prevented  by  become known a s  and  dermatitis.  In  the and  arachidonic  dermatitis,  individual saturated  have s i n c e  rats  that  linoleic,  which  of  growth  acids  f a c t o r s or acids  then  failure  fatty  that  syndrome  m o n t h s and  a blopotency  fatty  acids  Burr  researchers  antirachitic three  and  growth  polyunsaturated possessed  been  deficiency  f o r 4-6  normally death.  a  1982}  Acids  Burr  caused  yet  that  described  the  In  Dale,  alimentary  protein  1972), but  Fattv  and  1983)}  i s s i m i l a r to  Essential  Fuller  growth  antixerophthalmia fatty the  acids.  essential  or  These fatty  (EFA). A dietary  chicks 1960). rates,  requirement  (Reiser, EFA  deficiency  enlarged  resistance  1950}  to  livers  for  Bieri  et  i n the with  respiratory  the  EFA  has  a l _ , 1956} diet  Machlin  resulted  increased  been d e m o n s t r a t e d and  Gordon,  in reduced  f a t content  and  i n f e c t i o n s ( H o p k i n s et. aj_,  growth reduced 1963}  in  11  Balnave, are  due  roles  1970). to  the  It  i s now  fact  that  in maintaining  membranes a s  well  (prostaglandins,  established  EFA  fatty  thrombocyte  and  serving  acids).  platelet  muscle c o n t r a c t i o n  and  important  as  precursors  leukotrienes,  function, 1975;  Sprecher,  Metabolic  cellular autocoids  prostacyclins important  function  Vergroesen  symptoms  physiological  the  are  cardiac  these  of  of  These a u t o c o i d s  (Holman,  Murphy e i . a l . 1979;  have  that  structural integrity  thromboxanes,  hydroperoxy  Nutritional  the  the  as  well  and  e i . aj.,  and  in smooth  1975;  1983).  Relationships  Between F a t t v  Acid  Fami1les  Lipid the  fatty  metabolism acid  (1938) showed increased Mead  and  acids  (C16:lw7), linolenic  the  that oleic  acid  was  Klenk  EFA  acid  acid.  This  was  that  were t h e acid  there  the  the and  acid  radio-isotope Mohrhauer by  pathway  acid  (1981).  The  i s arachidonic  of  dietary  acids.  f a m i l i e s of acid  (C18:2w6)  and  interconvertab1e.  Steinberg literature  The  and  a  fatty  separate  were n o t  work o f  was  palmitoleic  linoleic  (1960).  Sprecher  of  Fulco  evidence  specific  were f o u r  which  dramatically  acid  first  by  Smed1ey-MacLean  deficient rats.  metabolites  (CIS:lw9),  is affected  was  5,8,11-eicosatrienoic  (C18:3w3) and  reviewed  linoleic  Nunn and  i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  confirmed  (1957),  fat absorption  a diet.  t i s s u e of  that  (1961) s u g g e s t e d  fatty  this  liver  oleic  metabolic  of  as  5,8,11-eicosatrienoic  (1959) showed  Mead  This  that  of  well  composition  i n the  metabolite  as  ei. al. pertaining  chief metabolite  acid  to  of  <5,8,11,14-20:4w6)  12  (Widmer  and  H o i man,  1975).  The  chief  eicosatrienoic Sprecher, acids  i n humans  6-desaturase of  Sprecher,  linoleic  linoleic  eicosatrienoic  acid  triene/tetraene The  chief  in  acid et  1981).  fish the  diet  arachidonic  acid  they  compete f o r  acid  (Lands, 1979).  antagonistic  1975; This  is  Mead,  19595  r a t i o of  these  2  an  The  fatty  indicator  basis  compete f o r  When t h e r e a r e the  pathway  and  as  1960).  conversion  of  the  of  EFA  this  is  the  same  s u f f i c i e n t amounts of  oleic  inhibited  linolenic acid  acid  keeping  metabolism  <5,8,11,14,17-20:5w3) and  and  (Widmer and  Mohrhauer, acid  I960;  i s the  eicosapentaenoic  ( T i n o c o et,. a l ,  to  acid  Sprecher,  to  the  low.  linolenic acid  antagonistic  The  acid  1956;  (Fulco  i s competitively  Docosahexaenoic  members o f  al,  1964).  the  acid  animals while  oleic  suggested  oleic  p r o d u c t s of  Klenk  mammals and  are  was  (4,7,10,13,16,19-22:6w3)  a l . 1957;  land  and  ratio  eicosapentaenoic  the  1981).  (Hoiman,  (Holman, acid  of  et,, a l i  (5,8,11-20:3w9)  <triene/tetraene)  that  Steinberg  metabolite  acid  1975;  deficiency fact  1950;  the  (Machlin,  manipulated  by  alteration  which might  be  useful  The has  in  presence  2  acid  and  1979;  that fatty  in  of  consequences.  linoleic  r i s e to  dietary  in decreasing  and  They  to  Holman,  lipoxygenase with  functions Df  1975  i s common  Mohrhauer  gives  Steinberg  marine  B e a r e - R o g e r s e_t a l ,  physiological  Sprecher,  1950;  acid  of  eye 1 o x y g e n a s e and  competition  Holman,  found  pathway  1962;  docosahexaenoic  member m o s t o f t e n  1979).  conversion  are  1963),  and  arachidonic  Needleman e i . a u t o c o i d s which  can  possibly  acid  thrombic  have  be  composition,  tendencies  and  13  myocardial The due  infarcts  palmitoleic  to t h e i r  autocoids  Relative  It fatty  low  acid  and  i n 1948  these  olive,  this  results  1966;  et  a l . 1971;  1982)  feed  and  and  and  only  soybean  i t was  efficiency  relative  similar  in the  review  and  oils  reported  in rats  Rocquelin  Hulan  that  to peanut,  e t al_  corn, rapeseed  in the In  poor  subsequent  (Alexander and  to  Cluzan,  and 1968;  Ziemlanski,  1962;  Sell,  1983).  led  of  largest o i l  but  acid  gross  has  outperformed  Kramer,  1968;  Hodgson,  and  it is  article  Deuel  butter-fat  implicated erucic  C l a n d i n i n et. aj_, 1978;  In a d d i t i o n  of  s t i m u l a t e d by  e_t aj., 1973;  (Joshi  metabolism  o i l (Canada's  Beare,  Kramer  acid  fats  were amply c o n f i r m e d  (Sell  in turkeys  fatty  lipid  rapeseed  o i l (Sauer  C r a i g and  chickens  affecting  In C a n a d a t h i s  and and  characteristic  (1968).  t h a t not  trials  have  shown  work was  peanut  W a l k e r e i . ai., 1970; 1977),  this  form  c o n t a i n s many r e p o r t s o f  clearly  involving  Much o f  performance of  Mattson,  was  Vanschoubroek  i n r a t growth  years  literature  demonstrated  cottonseed,  factors  values for o i l s  this  research  crop).  the  fats  a b s o r p t i o n and  vermeersch  oil  and  fatty  nutritional  to  Rapeseed O i l  Given  Indeed  who  P r o p e r t i e s of  that the  failure  unimportant  1981).  known t h a t o i l s  energies.  seed  1975,  acid  relatively  d e s a t u r a t i o n and  profiles.  surprising  extensive  metabolites are  r a t e s of  Nutritional  i s well  varying  acid  (Sprecher,  digestion, not  ( N e e d l e m a n et. aj., 1 9 7 9 ) .  Salmon,  Sheppard  e t aj.,  1964;  Salmon,  rapeseed corn  1969b;  or  1969a).  o i l depressed  olive  rat  o i l (Rocquelin  14  and  Cluzan,  1968)  Walker  relative  t o c o r n and  However,  i n 1966  was  and  and  reported that  Mattson  was  this  o f R o c q u e l i n and  utilization  et. a l ,  e q u i v a l e n t t o soybean  However,  energy  o i l (Walker  reported e a r l i e r  presentation. studies  olive  Alexander  energetically  "toxicity"  e t a l . , 1970)  due  1970).  o i l and  rapeseed o i l  that  some o f  t o the methods o f  dietary  i s d o u b t f u l i n the c a s e s of  Cluzan  (1968) and  the  the  Walker e t a l  (1970). In  chickens  depressed Hulan  §_t a l i  1970).  As  energetic et  by  was  a s was  feed  i t was  also  tallow  of  olive  to corn  rapeseed  and  olive  Mattson  o i l reduced (Walker  1978)  o i l (Salmon,  rapeseed  of  the  diets  in the  significantly  were e q u i v a l e n t .  differences  of  diet  that  was  a t 5%  t h e M.E. f o r the  of  the  rapeseed  o i l , soybean  o i l or  However, S a l m o n  that  diet  o i l diet animal  the  i n the  higher f o r  o i l , soybean  total  between  inclusion  significantly  the rapeseed  Joshi  o i l , sunflower o i l ,  w h i c h w e r e e q u i v a l e n t , and  diet  higher  the sunflower  total  o i l but  1969b)  (1966).  c o n t a i n i n g soybean  or  that  significant  1969b;  e£. a l .  oil  e t al,  r e s p e c t t o soybean and  was  o i l (Salmon,  o i l (Walker  o i l (Clandinin  Alexander  diets  o i l than  tallow  inclusion  t o soybean  shown t h a t  relative  sunflower  by  and  (1964) r e p o r t e d no  t h e M.E.  animal  corn  feed e f f i c i e n c y  d a t a f o r t u r k e y p o u l t s i s e v e n more c o n f u s i n g .  efficiency  sunflower  for  and  o i l relative  and  efficiency  suggested  Sell  animal diet  1982)  reported that  equivalent in this  The and  rapeseed  in rats  a l . 1970)  but  i t was  o i l or at  10%  was  than  tallow  was  the  diets  (1969a) r e p o r t e d t h a t  M.E.  which  rapeseed  15  oil  depressed  both  feed  and e n e r g e t i c  days o f age b u t not a f t e r The reduced been  most  consistent  weight  blamed  gain  solely  1966), d e c r e a s e d to  due et  a complex  a l . 1982);  K r a m e r et. aj., 1 9 7 3 ) .  depression not  transitions  In  with  occured long  literature property diets  fatty  and l e f t  of rapeseed  i n the rodent  utilization  these  (Sauer  (Hulan  reported  that  fatty growth  and c o u l d  to  that  and e n e r g y  d i d not r e f e r this  damage  1983).  o i l over to early  was a u n i q u e  a general  and Kramer,  correspond  acids.  r a t s f e d rapeseed  researchers  was  growth  of consumption,  with  or  e t aj_, 1970;  hypothesis  of saturated  than  acid  efficiency  i n 1960 t h a t m y o c a r d i a l  o i l rather  which  fatutilization  acid profile  the impression  due  mitochondrial  t o e r u c i c a c i d b u t seemed  the d i e t a r y content  however  and M a t t s o n ,  erucic acid  1968; W a l k e r  (1969a) who  i t was r e p o r t e d  feed  acid profile in  maximum  i n young male Sprague-Dawley  periods,  feed  absorbed  a d d i t i o n to problems a s s o c i a t e d  utilization,  energy  associating  was n o t a r e s u l t  be a t t r i b u t e d s o l e l y  roughly  of poorly  The f a t t y  of p o u l t s  T h i s has  decreased  1964; A l e x a n d e r  decreased  and C l u z a n ,  by S a l m o n  o i l .  due t o d i e t a r y f a t t y  does not allow  (Rocquelin  i sthe  i n membrane p h o s p h o l i p i d s  a n d an u n b a l a n c e d  supported  include:  dynamic mechanism  levels  o i l which  absorption  also  changes  reports  rapeseed  and d e c r e a s e d  ( C l a n d i n i n e£. a l _ , 1 9 7 8 ) ;  to increasing  rapeseed  f a c t o r s , which  consumption  structural-functional balance  by f e e d i n g  a t 11 a n d 14  poults.  of a l l these  ( J o s h i and S e l l ,  d i e t a r y o i l induced  indicated  i n turkey  feature  produced  on s e v e r a l  consumption  that  efficiency  effect  of high f a t  Abdellatif  and  16  Vies at  (1970) r e p o r t e d  50%  o-f t h e  infiltration confirmed 1971;  of  of  objections  to  food  Minister stated  of  were a b l e  This  and  use  and  1973,  the  5%  without  from  and  i n a dichotomy  5%  1975  another  of  prior  the  new  Saskatoon  erucic  as  rapeseed acid,  and  c h a n g e was  early oils  less  erucic  acid  (often  been than  the This  had  1963) had  trade was  and  by  and low  and  plants acid  1983). The levels  rapeseed  developed  in  became known definition  name C a n b r a . the  to  rapeseed"  acid  acid  been  developed 2%)  "prudent  (Daun,  erucic  had  1970,  erucic  erucic  in  the  12,  o i l types.  I 9 6 0 and  initiated.  1958)  crushing  oils  with high  were g i v e n  than  quickly  evidence  free  l e v e l s of  (which  as  no  i t was  Canadian  (LEAR) w h i c h  had  were  (since  August  acid  other  1970  varieties  on that  rapeseed  to  newer LEAR v a r i e t i e s w h i c h 5%  of  with  had  though  erucic  2 0 - 4 0 % became known a s  acid  than  to  o i l with  blending  s e v e r e -fat  problems e x i s t e d  felt  majority  rapeseed  acid)  o i l i n m o d e r a t e amounts  Welfare,  Government  in production  erucic  rapeseed  Health  erucic  B e a r e - R o g e r s et. a l .  1 9 8 3 ) . However, e v e n  Federal  and  Drug D i r e c t o r a t e  of  (49%  Rapeseed o i l  Canada's change over  (HEAR) and  Winnipeg low  the  resulted  varieties  oils  the  t D produce  than  ranging  Food  Acid  rapid  i n d i c a t i n g human h e a l t h  r e s u l t , by  lower  Erucic  National  that  accelerate a  Low  oil  These f i n d i n g s  e£. a l . , 1970;  1973).  (Daun,  been p r e s e n t e d  rapeseed  r a t myocardium.  al,  Canadian  Canadian  as  the  -feeding  c a l o r i e s caused  (Houtsmuller  Developement  no  dietary  Kramer e t  The  that  as  less In  change over  to  contained  less  levels  of  17  glucosinolates  (Daun,  1983).  t r a d e mark C a n o l a .  The  Canola  sulfur  the  oils  was  the  research the  in the  areas  nutritional  not  oils  of  origins  Nutritional  Hulan  et  et  al  or  undetectable  effects  even  rats.  the  though  the  fatty  lesion  decrease  However, of  as  rapeseed  also  o i l with LEAR.  rats fed either  HEAR  could  or  show  i n monkeys, p i g s o r p o u l t r y cardiotoxic  i s fed  effects  lipidosis  fast  Kramer i s mild  t o male c h i c k s , r a t s , fatty  acid  but  not  profile i n the  were c o n f i r m e d  t h a t LEAR  relative  cardiotoxic  t o male  with  and in  other by  Kramer not  rats,  t o soybean  a c i d s combined  pigs  resulted  i n t a k e does  incidence in Chester-Beatty chickens  in  i n agreement w i t h  that myocardial  observed  a c i d s was  as w e l l  t h e r e was  V i e s e£. aj,. (1977) who  t o be  omega-3 f a t t y  continued  A c i d Rapeseed O i l  hooded  These r e s u l t s  ducks or  in  1983).  c o m p a r i s o n s o f HEAR w i t h  n e c r o s i s i n the male r a t s  heart  and  no p a t h o l o g i c a l  unbalanced  animals.  the  oil.  Erucic  T h i s was  when LEAR  reflected  o i l cardiotoxicity  the  hens or  reported  However,  monkeys,  saturated  with  by  Canbra  comparison  o f LEAR  (1979) when t h e y  increase pigs,  of  (1977) who  experimental al  but  the  the  i n d u s t r y promoted  rapeseed  i n the  confirmed  growing s t r a i n s  et  only  were g i v e n  between  (Daun,  rapeseed  t h e r e d i d appear  myocardial  Canola  of  in laying  cardiotoxic  monkeys.  which  al_ (1977) r e p o r t e d  T h i s was  although  level  P r o p e r t i e s o f Low  abnormalities LEAR.  of  quality  interest other  difference  i n the Canadian  much  no  major  g l u c o s i n o l a t e s i n the These changes  These v a r i e t i e s  low  mice,  o i l .intake levels  Sprague-Dawley  of  18  rats.  I t i s now g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d  (except not  to rats).  Other  species  Craig  i s not c a r d i o t o x i c  develope heart  lesions that are  weight  gain  (1970),  oils  (1968) r e p o r t e d  superior  t o HEAR.  by R o c q u e l i n  that  and C l u z a n  the reduction  had c o n s i d e r a b l y  Lall  in chicks  and S l i n g e r  chicks) reported rats  that  LEAR g a v e  1973);  efficiency  chicks,  reported  Improved  Hulan  e i . aJL,  o f LEAR r e l a t i v e  poults  that  that  1979),  Ziemlanski, Engfeldt  properties. superior  I t was a l s o  efficiency  over  HEAR i n  1968) and c h i c k s and p o u l t s 1982).  ( L a l l and  The r e p o r t s D f energy  t o HEAR a r e c o n f l i c t i n g .  HEAR was s u p e r i o r  different  sunflower  source  W a l k e r et.  of energy  t o LEAR f o r e n e r g y other  seed  oils  i t was r e p o r t e d  from poppyseed  1977), peanut  and B r u n i u s ,  with  utilization.  i n terms of weight that  LEAR was n o t  o i l (Beare-Rogers gi.  D i l ( B e a r e - R o g e r s e i aj., 1979; o i l (Rocquelin  1975), o l i v e  by  ( f o r male  a n d r a t s b u t C l a n d l n i n e i . a_l_ (1978)  or p r o d u c t i v i t y i n r a t s  significantly  of rapeseed  T h i s was s u p p o r t e d  (chicks).  LEAR was a s u p e r i o r  When LEAR was c o m p a r e d gain  d i d HEAR.  feed  ei. al.  LEAR p r o d u c e d  K r a m e r § 1 § 1 (1977)  and C l u z a n ,  (1970) r e p o r t e d  for  than  that  for rat  e t aj_ (1977)  i t s nutritional  a n d C l a n d l n i n e i . a_l_ (1978)  (Rocquelin  Slinger,  (1973),  Walker  of e r u c i c acid content  improved  and p o u l t s  C a n b r a o i l was  (1968),  Vies  W a l k e r et. aj_ (1970) r e p o r t e d growth  that  T h i s was c o n f i r m e d  and Kramer e i . a l (1977).  reported  etiology  1983).  and B e a r e  nutritionally  al.  LEAR  g e n e r a l l y -fat r e l a t e d a n d seem t o h a v e a d i f f e r e n t  ( K r a m e r and S a u e r ,  al  that  and C l u z a n ,  o i l or corn  1968;  o i l ( W a l k e r e_t  19  1970),  al. et.  or soybean  a l <1973)  erucic  reported  acid)>  LEAR  when f e d a t 20% et  al  that  (1981)  acid  This  for poultry  reported  and  productivity  reported  Hampshire  oil.  However, C l a n d i n i n e_t  significantly and  H u l a n e£.  soybean  inferior  n o t a t 4 and  but  In that while  Walker  o i l and  e£  Walker  d i f f e r e n c e s i n growth f o r LEAR, c o r n  o i l or  o i l or  10%  a l (1978)  olive  differences in  c h i c k s or White Leghorn  cockerels  rapeseed o i l or reported  that  soybean  LEAR  was  o i l i n promoting chick  that  to  p r o m o t i o n o f c h i c k s a t 8 and  12  efficiency,  a l (1970) olive  LEAR was  and  inferior  reported  energy u t i l i z a t i o n .  that  energy u t i l i z a t i o n  than  t h o s e f e d LEAR. i s c l e a r that  Hulan e t  growth  weeks  was  LEAR was  poults  C l a n d i n i n §_t higher  the genetic  a l (1982)  reported  t o soybean o i l f o r c h i c k s ,  that  o i l for chicks,  feed  It  fatty  inferior  significantly et.  t h a n LEAR  weeks.  terms of feed  LEAR was  corn  16  more g r o w t h  no s i g n i f i c a n t  reported  o i l i n the growth  Kramer  reported  as c o n f l i c t i n g .  to sunflower  a l (1982)  who  by  soybean o i l .  i s just  4% r a p e s e e d o i l o r c o r n  fed  (1983)  fed diets containing  o f New  (1.6%  LEAR  a t t r i b u t e to the r e l a t i v e  no s i g n i f i c a n t  (1977)  March  supported  significantly  The  Kramer  i n r a t growth promotion  Kramer  they  However,  soybean o i l >  T h i s was  o f t h e LEAR and  data  oil>  erucic acid)  patterns  (1970)  oil,  corn  F a r n w o r t h and  erucic acid).  chicks or poults  to  (4.3%  soybean o i l promoted  (0.6%  al  that  of the d i e t .  and  1977).  o i l (Ziemlanski,  and  equivalent r a t s i n terms of  a l (1978)  reported  in chicks fed sunflower o i l  s e l e c t i o n which  reduced the  20  erucic  acid content  value.  However,  whether  or  and  not  soybean  difference  relationship researchers  not  i t has  LEAR  Sibbald between found  o i l had  the  M.E.  value of  the  this  chick  are  would  Further  and  that  chicks fed  work at  the gains  energy  be  of  the  that  of  and  f o r equal  constant  M.E.  feed  These  soybean  the  than  the  This  the  was  alone  value  of that  M.E.  M.E.  values  allowed  an  acids  indicated of  in  the  that the  M.E.  a l s o expressed The  than  by  to a f a c t o r  weight  expected  calorie/protein ratio  This  was  were, c o n f i r m e d  independent  efficiency.  which oil  two  stearic  fats  undegummed  indicated  synergism  a l . , 1962)  These  combined  o i l which  between  and  soybean  results  partially  intake,  little  oil".  cal/gm  The  p a l m i t i c and  feed  concentration.  8.41  from  f a t m i x t u r e s were g r e a t e r  adjusted  soybean  higher  expected  synergism  oil  "a s y n e r g i s t i c  additive.  (Sibbald et least  i s probably  tallow  of  a t t r i b u t e d the  undegummed  was  weight  not  to sunflower  gain.  tallow alone.  individually.  utilization  synergism  effects  the  fed  there  undegummed  from  f o r the  fats  than  f a c t o r s in the  tallow.  and  significantly  e£. aj_ (1961) who  increased  in  of  higher  fats  Sibbald or  obtained  seem  a 50/50 m i x t u r e o f  different was  equivalent  Slinger reported  tallow  i t s nutritional  Oils  a metabolizable  values  was  and  improved  c o n c l u s i v e l y demonstrated  i t would  Blending  that  <8.46 c a l / g m ) b u t cal/gm  been  to promote weight  E f f e c t s of  significantly  6.94  not  o i l also  is nutritionally  in a b i l i t y  1960,  soybean  rapeseed  o i l although  Synergistic  In  of  itself  gains even and  f u r t h e r supported  by  of when  21  Artman  (1964) who  tallow  and  Since  soybean  Young and  unsaturated saturated a  also  fatty  fatty  the  that  could  i t was  and  influence suggested  influenced  unsaturated  triglycerides,  by  triglycerides addition high  of  utilization  soybean  of  increased  Payne  the  tallow)  This  of  total to  to  was  adding to  85%  in weight  that  soybean 20%  or  showed  both  that the  good the was  5%  of  the  clearly  soybean o i l tallow  66%  oil  of  expected  shown  (for  o i l increased soybean  as  utilization  to beef from  that  the  weight  adding  fat)  Artman  as m i x t u r e s  only  to  of  relatively  shown  utilization  dietary  and  he  the  acids  fat absorption 10%  content. as  equally  of  pure  total  increased  86.0%. shown  that  interactions  when b l e n d e d  chickens  rats.  utilization  this  also  to  growth.  absorbability  were s u p p l i e d  reported  added  apparent  acid  y i e l d s not  increased  total  30%,  soon  and  equal  (1966) who  fat absorption  absorption It  tallow  the  whether  I t was  o i l but  and  utilization  that  free fatty  tallow  soybean  the  a proportion  apparent  of  as  acids.  o i l to  o i l added.  L e w i s and  beef  fatty  soybean  a portion  (as  and  the  supported  acids  blending  that  i t s fatty  fatty  both  utilization  shown  same s y n e r g i s t i c e f f e c t s o c c u r e d  neutral  by  energy  (1963) had  acids  acids  s y n e r g i s t i c e f f e c t s of  chicU  his results strongly  saturated  of  o i l on  Garrett  f a t m i x t u r e was  felt  reported  In  rapeseed  with  fact,  1977;  Muztar  Slinger,  1973;  Slinger,  animal  synergism  ( W a l k e r e i . a l . , 1970;  Slinger,  o i l also  Lall  f t al., 1 9 8 1 ) , 1 9 7 7 ) , and  tallow was and  showed s y n e r g i s t i c i n the  shown  in  Slinger,  fat utilization body w e i g h t  gain  d i e t s of energy 1973; (Lall  and  (Slinger.  both  22  1977J  Hulan  e i . aj_, 1 9 8 4 ) .  demonstrated improved  that  Hulan  blending rapeseed  monetary  even  blended  shown  that  not  w i t h soybean  synergism blended  o i l (Sibbald  in absorbability  1/1  (Fedde  f e d a t 9%  compared was  t o an  similar  gains). showed and no  of  isocaloric  (each o i l f e d  I t was no  that  the d i e t  also  synergism  showed  tallow  Griffiths poultry  and  in poults  were  weight  though  increased  (1/1) gain  feed  body  intake  weight  b l e n d i n g HEAR w i t h s o y b e a n o i l  or c h i c k s  in f a t u t i l i z a t i o n  when no  lard  grease blended  even  reported that  was  It  a±  e i  o i l free  individually  synergism  pork  depressed  diet  results.  There  significantly  b l e n d i n g LEAR w i t h c o c o n u t  synergism  show s i m i l a r  et. aj_, 1 9 6 2 ) .  c o r n o i l and  animal f a t  industry.  tallows  when b e e f  e i . aj., 1 9 6 0 ) ,  (1977) r e p o r t e d t h a t and  d i d not  a l l animal  also  o i l (LEAR) w i t h  r e t u r n s in the b r o i l e r  However, b l e n d i n g a l l o i l s was  e i . a l . (1984)  (Salmon,  1969a,  o i l or sunflower  i n the r a t  1969b)  o i l caused  (Bellenand ei. a l .  1980). It showed as,  was  shown t h a t  synergistic  when b l e n d e d  stearic and  also  with  1973)  and  succeeded  i n showing to  These fatty  the saturated  and  Farnworth  w e r e due  acid  Kramer,  increased results  o i l ( b o t h HEAR and  i n t e r a c t i o n s when b l e n d e d  in particular)  Slinger,  rapeseed  for chicks rats  (Walker  Farnworth  the r e s u l t i n g  body  acids  e i . a l . 1970;  and  c o m p o s i t i o n which  to  indicate  was  Kramer  f a t and  that  well  and  Lall  (1983) weight  gains  protein.  rapeseed  inappropriate  as  and  increased  c o n t e n t of both  appeared  tallow,  (palmitic  ( K r a m e r e i . a i , 1981;  1983). that  fatty  with  LEAR)  o i l had  f o r maximal  a  23  utilization, patterns Walker  only  relatively  were a p p r o p r i a t e .  et. a j . (1970),  Sibbald Sell  and t h a t  and K r a m e r  Lall  This  specific  fatty  acid  h y p o t h e s i s h a s b e e n s u p p o r t e d by  and S l i n g e r  (1973), S a l m o n  (1977),  (1977), K r a m e r e£. a_l_ (1981), M a t e o s and  (1981), F a r n w o r t h  and K r a m e r  (1983) and H u l a n  e£. a l  (1984). There  a r e 3 prominent  hypotheses  these s y n e r g i s t i c i n t e r a c t i o n s . e£. a j . (1970), L a i 1 and S l i n g e r and  Hulan  produce  absorption, palmitic and is  a fatty  particularly  and s t e a r i c  Kramer  will  inclusion  result absorbed  that  blending  fatty  acids  acids  The t h i r d ,  Freeman,in between f a t s  enhances  by  acid  Farnworth acid  pattern  improved  involved in  proposed  interact  by S i b b a l d  (1982),  to allow  increased f a t  absorption  of other  and  e i . a l (1981),  and D a l e  states  that  d i e t a r y components.  passage  time  thruogh the  1981).  h i s e x c e l l e n t review  i s highly  fatty  saturated  proposed  (1981), M u z t a r  p o s s i b l y b e due t o i n c r e a s e d and S e l l ,  1977)  to those appropriate f o r  This  (Mateos  increased  Walker  appropriate  due t o r e d u c e d m e t a b o l i c l o a d  and  gut  (1970,  of the adipose t i s s u e ,  absorption could  which  by  as the d i e t a r y f a t t y  (1982) and F u l l e r  and f a t t y  Salmon  The s e c o n d ,  (1977), M a t e o s and S e l l  fats  proposed  of the long chain,  in adipose tissue.  D a l e and F u l l e r the  that  (1983), s t a t e s t h a t  converting  Kramer  (1973),  acid profile  acids.  a l t e r e d to resemble  growth  The f i r s t ,  e£. a l . (1984), s t a t e s t h a t  fats will  as t o t h e mechanism of  interactive  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f d i g e s t i o n and  (1983),states  and  that  i t sexplaination  absorption.  synergism lies in  24  Free Fatty  It  Acids  has  nutrition  long  been u n d e r s t o o d  experiments  has  been  that  the  a con-founding f a c t o r  v a r i a b l e content  unsaponifiables,  s t e r o i d s , and  this  e£. a j . (1983) s u g g e s t e d  Hakkaralnen  soybean They  o i l as  observed  allowed This  a f a t source that  normal  growth  supported  fatty rats  acids  this  the  (from  by  Carroll Bayley acids This  and  i s not  (1961) and in  weight  chicks  Richards  gains,  mixtures  rather  and  Carroll  feed  and  than  Renner  the  be  that  sole source  in studying and  lipid  free by  of  fat.  intestinal  metabolism  with  this  Hill  (1961a),  (1979) r e p o r t e d  that  feeding  oils  chicks.  utilized  and  of  FFA  feeding  semi-purified  or  acids  (1961),  reported  with  of  fatty  Young  conversion  Richards  vitamins)  observed  o i l ) could  useful  diets.  White Leghorn  problems associated  (1964) who  absorption  Feeding  of  with  hydrolysed  fat soluble  absorption  absorption  hydrolyzed  that  be  to deal  as  acids.  i n agreement with  reported  1963).  acid  (1938),  Sklan  reduced  Artman  fed  fatty  would  h o w e v e r , be  (1976) and (FFA)  this  of  E deficient  (1979) who  soybean  dietary fatty  T h e r e may,  added  Chen  order  feeding  l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s as  that  In  vitamin  developement  hydroysed  re-esterification, influenced  (with  r e s u l t s of  which were f e d  Chen s u g g e s t e d  to study  diet  and  vitamins.  in o i l  no  was  d i e t s as  (1938) d i d  free  Y o u n g and  energy diets.  increased  s i n g l e FFAs  Swiss  total  significant  f a t or  practical  and  by  and  reduces f a t t y  and  fatty  lipid.  Artman differences  utilization I t was  in  also  feeding  (Young and  Renner  as  in  Qarrett,  Hill  (1961b)  acid  absorption  25  compared results value  to p r a c t i c a l indicate  diets  that  o-f - f e e d i n g FFA  (Young et. al_,  i t would  be  worth  to assess t h e i r  1963).  These  mixed  re-investigating  the  use-fulness i n s t u d y i n g -fatty  acid absorption.  Physico-chemical  It are  i s well  oxidized  components  properties  known t h a t  more r a p i d l y  (Sonntag,  o-f o i l  t h e p o l y u n s a t u r a t e d c o m p o n e n t s o-f than  1979).  referenced earlier  blending  the o x i d a t i v e  suggested animal  that  such  methyl  d i d not  stability  investigate  of  fats,  economically feasible  is traditionally  oxidation oleate  peroxide  the  the e f f e c t s  particularly to blend  and  developed between  the  Eskin  and  as  of  some  fats for  of  and  that  oxidatively The  test,  lightly  smoke p o i n t  test  no  content  dialdehyde  and  as  (Sonntag,  the  1979).  in conjunction with accellerated no  an  oxidation  s t a n d a r d s have  comparisons  can  these procedures  soybean  and  hydrogenated  than  the  be  been made  1979).  (1977) u s e d  hydrogenated  more s t a b l e  acid  however  therefore,  of  of a n a l y s e s such  A simple  (Sonntag,  Frenkel  deterioration concluded  test.  test,  laboratories  t h e use  to o i l products  or Schaal  for this  by  thiobarbituric  oxidation  i s t h e oven  t h e measurement  p r o d u c t s as p e r o x i d e s , malonic  are applied  accellerated  done by  hydroperoxide  test  These t e s t s  test  saturated  feeds.  This of  i t was  and  It i s therefore curious that  researchers on  the mono-unsaturated  fats  rapeseed  soybean  oil  to study (LEAR)  the  oils  was  rapeseed o i l .  i s the temperature  at which  smoking  is  first  26  detected drafts  i n an o i l i n a l a b o r a t o r y  and p r o v i d e d  affected  by t h e o i l ' s  molecular The  This  set  and f r e e f a t t y  Consumer  This  parameter  is little  d e g r e e o f s a t u r a t i o n b u t d e p e n d s on t h e a c i d content  (1977) r e p o r t e d  value  f o r LEAR a g r e e d  f o r LEAR by Ackman t h e smoke p o i n t  However,  illumination.  from  (Formo,  smoke p o i n t s  1979).  o f 241°C f o r  o i l , 2 3 8 ° C f o r LEAR, a n d 2 4 6 ° C f o r s u n f l o w e r o i l .  reported  238°C than  weight  Canadian  soybean  with  apparatus protected  by t h e C a n a d i a n  with  t h e smoke p o i n t o f  (1983) b u t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y  o f 218°C  a l l of these  well  values  that  he r e p o r t e d  are well  government  f o r HEAR.  above t h e 200°C  for frying  oils.  higher  minimum  27  METHODS AND  EXPERIMENTAL  Single experimental conducted  ANIMALS  Comb W h i t e L e g h o r n animals  with  and  light.  randomly  raised  g r o u p s o f 10 b i r d s  i n Petersime The b i r d s  assigned  c o c k e r e l s were c h o s e n  f o rthe 3 feeding t r i a l s .  3 replicate  w h i c h were kept 24-hour  MATERIALS  t o treatment  were  and p r o v i d e d  a s day o l d c h i c k s ,  and cage,  f o r a p e r i o d o f 4 weeks. F o o d  These  per treatment,  battery brooders  were o b t a i n e d  as the  where t h e y  and water  with weighed  were  was p r o v i d e d ad  libitum.  O I L S AND BLENDING  The or oil  lipids  lard  used  intended  <Maple L e a f  were c o m m e r c i a l l y  available  f o r human c o n s u m p t i o n . Soya Salad  grade  The C a n b r a o i l ,  O i l ) and l a r d  were o b t a i n e d  Canada Packers  Inc. (Toronto  and V a n c o u v e r ) .  sunflower  were o b t a i n e d  from  oils  food  soybean from  The C a n o l a and  CSP F o o d s L t d .  (Saskatoon,  Saskatchewan). To glass  balance  the fatty  acids lipids  c o n t a i n e r s by s t i r r i n g  f o r 15 m i n u t e s w i t h  stirrer.  Canbra o i l (6.1% e r u c i c  sunflower  o i l or lard  Trial  Due t o t h e h i g h m e l t i n g  1.  were b l e n d e d  at a ratio  acid)  o f 50/50  (w/w)  in large  a magnetic  was b l e n d e d  with  (Table  p o i n t of t h e l a r d  oils  1) i n  i t was  Table  1. F a t t y  Dietary Oil  Acid  Composition  Fatty  ci4:o*  ci6:o  CBO*  3.16  SFO  6.28  AL  1.21  23.57  CBO+SFO CBO+AL  Content  0.60  Trial  (per cent  Ci6:i  ci8:o  0.23  2.47  4.74  58  x  Acid  o-f L i p i d s ,  1.  by w e i g h t )  ci8:i  cis:2  1.51  53.96  20.41  5.46  17.80  66.87  17.68  43.13  8.13  3.71  36.84  42.18  13.27  1.33  10.14  48.49  14.12  C18:3 + C20:o*  C20:i  C22:o  C22:i  C24:o  CBO  9.58  3.99  6.13  1.01  SFO  1.04  0.36  1.44  0.27  0.47  AL  1.05  1.43  0.55  0.38  0.40  CBO+SFO  5.46  2.40  1.02  3.20  0.45  CBO+AL  5.17  2.94  0.42  3.03  0.48  T h e number p r e c e e d i n g t h e c o l o n i n d i c a t e s t h e l e n g t h o-f t h e c a r b o n c h a i n , t h e number - f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t e s t h e number o f double bonds p r e s e n t .  "CBO = C a n b r a o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r "Indicates  o i l blended  1:1  o i l , AL = A n i m a l  lard.  by w e i g h t .  "•The v a l u e s f o r l i n o l e n i c a n d a r a c h i d i c t o p e a k o v e r l a p on t h e 15% DEGS p a c k e d  a c i d s a r e combined column.  due  29  liquified  (50-65°C) be+ore b l e n d i n g .  acid)  blended  was  reciprocal  fashion  and  5/5)  OIL  HYDROLYSIS  graded  and  fatty  acids  a 5/5  blend  of Canola  were p r o d u c e d  by  Chen  A mixture  in  70%  flask. and 3%  alcoholic  e t h a n o l was The  the f a t t y NaCl.  The  of  allowed  solution acid  was  layer  fatty  5 blends  of Canola  acid  and  1 kg  of  was  o i l and  neutralized  layer  was  and  then  7/3,  2  6/4,  2.  oil,  o i l used  soybean  in Trial  3  a s d e s c r i b e d by  litres  overnight  removed  8/2,  in Trial  hydrolysis  erucic  o i l in  sunflower  sunflower  to stand  then  (9/1,  assay  oil,  alkaline  o i l (0.55%  o-f sun-flower  for nutritional  free  (1979).  levels  ( T a b l e 2 ) , and  were s e l e c t e d  The oil  with  Canola  of  i n an  with  2.5  washed  10%  NaOH  Erlenmyer N H»S0*»  6 times with  dehydrated  over  warm  anhydrous  Na S0«. 2  FEEDING  Trial  EXPERIMENTS  1 Five  either  experimental  Canbra  oil,  b l e n d s of Canbra basal  diet  assigned  sunflower  o i l and  ( T a b l e 3)  randomly  diets  were f o r m u l a t e d oil,  animal  sunflower  a t 8%.  to incorporate  lard  or  o i l or animal  These experimental  in t r i p i c a t e  1/1  per  treatment  to  (w/w)  lard  into  diets  were  15  groups  a  of  c h i c k s f o r a 4 week f e e d i n g p e r i o d . Body w e i g h t , weekly  weight  (grams/bird).  apparent  At  g a i n and t h e end  feed d i g e s t i b i l i t y  feed of  consumption  were m e a s u r e d  4 weeks f e e d c o n v e r s i o n  were c a l c u l a t e d  and  apparent  and  lipid  Table  2. F a t t y  Oil Blend  Acid  Composition  Fatty  ci6:o*  Acid  Ci6:i  of O i l s ,  Content  Trial  2.  ( p e r c e n t by  weight)  ci8:o  Ci8:i  C18:2  ci8:3  CAO»  4.33  2.54  60.61  19.90  7.10  9/l»  4.44  2.85  57.97  22.51  6.52  8/2  4.52  2.93  56.57  24.24  6.49  7/3  4.97  3.86  48.26  33.03  5.01  6/4  5.22  4.28  44.38  36.99  4.51  5/5  5.38  4.75  39.70  41.98  3.71  4/6  5.57  5.07  35.05  47.13  3.11  3/7  5.83  5.69  30.88  51.79  1.89  2/8  6.03  6.01  26.40  56.79  1.29  1/9  6.29  6.67  22.01  60.88  0.63  SFO  6.51  6.96  17.29  66.03  0.08  SBO  10.93  5.75  25.80  48.40  6.69  0.15  *The number p r e c e e d i n g t h e c o l o n i n d i c a t e s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e c a r b o n c h a i n , t h e number f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t e s t h e number o f double bonds p r e s e n t . a  CA0 = Canola  o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r  'Indicates Canola (weight/weight).  and S u n f l o w e r  Continued  page-  on n e x t  o i l , SBO = S o y b e a n o i l .  o i l blended  9/1  31  Table  2  (continued)  Oil Blend  F a t t y A c i d Content  (per cent  by w e i g h t )  C2o:o  C20:i  C22:o  C22:i  C24:o  CAO  1.24  2.32  0.74  0.53  0.44  9/1  1.25  2.48  0.85  0.54  0.48  8/2  1.17  2.27  0.85  0.50  0.46  7/3  1.05  1.80  1.09  0.43  0.50  6/4  1.00  1.60  1.17  0.37  0.49  5/5  0.96  1.37  1.29  0.32  0.52  4/6  0.87  1.15  1.33  0.27  0.49  3/7  0.68  0.94  1.52  0.22  0.37  2/8  0.62  0.71  1.53  0.15  0.51  1/9  0.63  0.51  1.79  0.58  SFO  0.59  0.29  1.71  0.54  SBO  0.75  0.41  0.83  0.29  *The number p r e c e e d i n g t h e c o l o n i n d i c a t e s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e c a r b o n c h a i n , t h e number - f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t e s t h e number o f double bonds p r e s e n t . a  CA0 = Canola  oil,  "Indicates Canola (weight/weight).  SFO = S u n f l o w e r and S u n f l o w e r  oil,  SBO = S o y b e a n o i l .  o i l blended  9/1  32  Table  3.  Composition  of Experimental  Basal  Diet.  Ingredient  Ground  Percent  wheat  (12.5% p r o t e i n )  59.65  Soybean meal  (44.5% p r o t e i n )  29.00  Calcium  mu1tiphosphate  1.75  Limestone  0.60  Vitamin  premix*  0.50  Mineral  premix*  0.50  Lipid  8.00  Calculated  Analysis  Constituent  Amount  Crude p r o t e i n  20.40%  Crude  lipid  Metabolizable  9.33% energy  2,895  kcal/kg  Calcium  0.90%  Phosphorus  0.70%  Lysine  1.08%  Methionine  0.38%  " • S u p p l i e s p e r k i l o g r a m o f f e e d : V i t a m i n A, 8800 III; Vitamin D , 380 ICU; V i t a m i n E, 22 IU; V i t a m i n B 13.2 meg; R i b o f l a v i n , 6.6mg; C a l c i u m p a n t o t h e n a t e , 8.8 mg; Niacin, 22 mg; C h o l i n e c h l o r i d e , 220 mg; A m p r o l i u m , 124.9 mg; B a c i t r a c i n , 9.7mg, a n d S a n t o q u i n , 454 mg i n a c o r n s t a r c h , wheat carrier. 3  ^ S u p p l i e s p e r k i l o g r a m o f f e e d : Mn, 5 5 mg; Cu, 4.0 mg i n an i o d i z e d N a C l c a r r i e r .  1 2 p  Z n , 40 mg; a n d  33  absorption, individual Trial  apparent fatty  total  acid  -fatty a c i d  absorption  absorption  were  and a p p a r e n t  determined.  2 Eight  either  experimental  Canola o i l , sunflower  sunflower  o i lblended  5/3  into  <w/w)  diets  diets  o i l , soybean  in the proportions  a basal  were a s s i g n e d  were f o r m u l a t e d  diet  (Table  to  incorporate  o i l , o r C a n o l a o i l and 9/1, 8/2, 7/3, 6/4 and  3) a t 8%.  The  experimental  t o 24 g r o u p s o f c h i c k s a s d e s c r i b e d  in Trial  1. Body w e i g h t , weekly  weight  (grams/bird).  conversion  lipid  apparent  individual  diet  feed  absorption,  metabolizable  and f e e d  consumption  At t h e end o f t h e 4 *  and a p p a r e n t  apparent  gain  digestibility  apparent  H  week  acid  absorption,  energy  were  determined.  feed  were c a l c u l a t e d  total fatty  fatty  were m e a s u r e d  acid  nitrogen  and  absorption, retention  and  Tr'Ul 3 T h i s experiment feeding  hydrolyzed  steroids, Four  hydrolyzed of  Canola  The  The used  were f o r m u l a t e d  and s u n f l o w e r diets  results  per treatment  were compared w i t h  in Trial  a basal  were r a n d o m l y  acid  f a c t o r s of absorption.  to Incorporate  o i l , sunflower  o i l into  the f e a s i b i l i t y of  the confounding  and t r i g l y c e r i d e s on f a t t y  diets  in triplicate  t o determine  to eliminate  C a n o l a o i l , soybean  experimental  chicks  oils  vitamins,  experimental  was d e s i g n e d  diet  assigned  either the  o i l o r a 5/3 (Table  3) a t 8%.  t o 12 g r o u p s o f  f o r a 4 week f e e d i n g  the results  blend  of the intact  period. oils  2.  Body w e i g h t ,  weight  gain  and f e e d  consumption  were measured  34  weekly  (grams/bird).  apparent  feed  absorption, individual  At  the  digestibility  apparent fatty  total  acid  end  o-f 4 weeks -feed c o n v e r s i o n  were c a l c u l a t e d and fatty  apparent  acid absorption  absorption  were  and  and  lipid  apparent  determined.  DIGESTIBILITY  After randomly  the  4**  s e l e c t e d from  facilitate  a total  digestibility, acid  a l l cases  ferric  twelve a  oxide  hours a f t e r  period  After  of  this  b a s i s of  24  and  collection lipid  the  marker  had  been  period given  individual  4 b i r d s were  a marker  in order  absorption,  which  marked  ferric  feces  The  unmarked  oxide  diet  the  diet  diet  to  to determine  apparent  fatty  and  placed  microgrinder  and  the  This  unmarked which  was  total  acid  feed fatty  absorption.  which  could  content.  diet  diet  again  be  was  was  The  in a dessicator.  was  24  for  12  in the from  T h e y were t h e n  for  hours.  identified  separated  which  provided  f o r another  hours  to  measured.  b i r d s were t h e n  of  diet  provided  again  visually  were t h e n m a n u a l l y  stored  treatment  consumption  given  a i r dried for a period feces  was  added.  hours during  the  the  Dry  group  apparent  This -resulted in feces  feces  feeding  collection In  0.5%  fecal  and  the  each  apparent  absorption  Fecal  week o f  on  removed  the and  brooders. the  ground  marked with  a  in a dessicator.  matter The  X  dry  time of  lipid  placing  them  matter  of  the  e x t r a c t i o n by in a drying  feces  and  feed  was  determined  weighing d u p l i c a t e samples  oven  f o r 48  hours at  80°C,  at  the  and  followed  by  35  cooling loss.  f o r 5 hours  in a dessicator prior  A l l c a l c u l a t i o n s and r e s u l t s  t o determining  are presented  moisture  on a d r y m a t t e r  b a s i s. Apparent The  digestibility apparent  calculation  digestibility  or absorption  of a l l n u t r i e n t s  were c a l c u l a t e d by t h e f o r m u l a : Intake %  Absorption  - Excretion  =  X 100 Intake  Dietary  intake of i n d i v i d u a l  basis  of the analyzed  oil.  These f a t t y  II,  fatty  acid  fatty acid  profiles  a c i d s was d e t e r m i n e d  profile  of the d i e t  a r e given  on t h e  and n o t t h e  i n Appendix  B,  (Tables  I I I and I V ) .  METABOLI2ABLE ENERGY  In T r i a l from  2, t h e a p p a r e n t  the nitrogen  content  macro K j e l d a h l method  nitrogen  of feed  (AOAC,  r e t e n t i o n was c a l c u l a t e d  and f e c e s a s d e t e r m i n e d  1980),  and t h e g r o s s  feed  and f e c e s was d e t e r m i n e d  by oxygen  Parr  Oxygen Bomb C a l o r i m e t e r .  These v a l u e s  the  apparent metabolizable  diets  as described  energy  by S i b b a l d  [(FI AMEn/g o f f e e d  NR = FI  using  ( F I x NF) - ( E x NE) i n t a k e (g)  E = excreta  output  GEF  energy/g  = gross  (g) of feed  a  to calculate of the  the formula:  X GEF) - ( E X G E E ) 3 - ( N R X K)  =  = feed  were u s e d  (nitrogen corrected)  (1979),  of t h e  bomb c a l o r i m e t r y u s i n g  FI Where  energy  by t h e  36  GEE .= g r o s s e n e r g y / g NF = n i t r o g e n / g r a m  o f -feed  NE = n i t r o g e n / g r a m  of e x c r e t a  K = 8.22  FATTY ACID  Lipid  e£, a j . ( 1 9 5 7 ) . (feed  lipids  were t h e n  Approximately  of f e c a l  filtered  upper  saline  phase, was  chloroform  and  1 filter  solution  was  lipids  were a l l o w e d  chloroform:1ipid  and d i s c a r d e d . taken  preparation  was f u r t h e r  was  (GLC).  washed  aliquots  esters  by t h e  was  a graduated  cylinder,  to separate.  and w a t e r  The with  The f i n a l  lower  phase of  Again,  volume of t h e layer  of the c h l o r o f o r m  of the f a t t y  soluble  a  and t h e u p p e r  lipid,  as  The e x t r a c t  (3:47:48 v/v) s o l u t i o n .  recorded  (15 ml o f In t h e  acidified  allowed  methanol  o f f and d i s c a r d e d .  Three  of methyl  into  and t h e p h a s e s  f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n of %  Chromatography  paper  to separate.  layer  reagent  Total  t o h y d r o l y s e soaps  (1966).  c o n t a i n i n g water,  chloroform:methanol:saline phases  reagent  and C o n s t a n t i n  siphoned  Folch  Flasks.  solution/gram of sample).  samples the F o l c h  on Whatman No.  o f t h e method o f  Erlenmyer  extracted overnight with  by S a v a r y  washed w i t h  material  into  o f 2% c o n c e n t r a t e d f o r m i c a c i d  described  then  1958)  5 grams o f homogenized  o r f e c e s ) were p l a c e d  v/v chloroform:methanol  addition  off  and A n d e r s o n ,  w e r e e x t r a c t e d by a m o d i f i c a t i o n  sample  The  (Hill  extraction  Folch  case  Kcal  ANALYSIS  Lipids  2:1  of e x c r e t a  % total  a c i d s f o r Gas  lower  siphoned  layer  fatty  the  were  acid,  and  Liquid  37  Total  lipid Total  lipid  chloroform dish,  and f a t t y  acid  determination  was d e t e r m i n e d  l a y e r and p l a c i n g  evaporating  i t under  by t a k i n g  a 5.0 ml a l i q u o t o f t h e  i t i n a tared  a stream  of nitrogen,  and p l a c i n g i n a  oven  cooled  i n a d e s s i c a t o r f o r 5 h o u r s and t h e s a m p l e w e i g h t  % total  lipid  Percent  in  fatty  c u l t u r e tube  s a m p l e was e v a p o r a t e d  under  water bath  over  twice  5 ml p e t r o l e u m  resulting  50 m i n u t e s .  biphasic  ether  then recorded  by a m o d i f i e d  lined  as described  caps).  placed  This  and t h e d r y l i p i d s KOH o n a 5 0 ° C  t o remove t h e u n s a p o n i f i a b l e with  ether  2 ml o f 1 M HC1 and was a d d e d  T h e s o l u t i o n was t h e n "fluff"  preweighed  f o r total  AOAC  t h e s o l u t i o n was e x t r a c t e d  the i n t e r f a c i a l  t o dry,  e x t r a c t was  stream  hydrolyzed  solution.  was t r a n s f e r e d  treated  Then  H » 0 and 5 ml p e t r o l e u m  20 m i n u t e s t o p a c k  layer  teflon  a nitrogen  T h e s o a p was t h e n  1 ml d i s t i l l e d  for  (with  4.0 ml 0.5 M m e t h a n o l i c  were s a p o n i f i e d w i t h  fraction.  a c i d was d e t e r m i n e d  A 10 ml a l i q u o t o f t h e F o l c h  a screw-top  with  The s a m p l e s were  calculated.  total  (1980) m e t h o d .  night.  weighing  drying  and  a t 65-70° C over  aluminum  lipids  to the  centrifuged  and t h e e t h e r  aluminum d i s h e s and  and % t o t a l  fatty  acids  was  calculated. Fatty  acid The  modified  derlvitization  methyl A0CS  e s t e r s of the f a t t y  (1980) m e t h o d .  2 5 0 - 3 0 0 mg o f l i p i d  0.5 M m e t h a n o l i c  Enough F o l c h  was p l a c e d  s a m p l e was e v a p o r a t e d  under  a c i d s were p r o d u c e d  to provide  i n a screw cap c u l t u r e tube.  a nitrogen  NaOH was a d d e d  extract  by a  stream.  Then  This  4.0 ml o f  a n d t h e s o l u t i o n was i n c u b a t e d  at  38  70°C  -for 10 m i n u t e s  i n a water b a t h .  of  14% b o r o n t r i f l u o r i d e  was  on  t h e t u b e and  placed  hour. in  At t h i s  an o v e n  this  point  and  until  the layers  with  t o septum  acid Gas  Liquid  packed  1 the s t a t i o n a r y  lipid  fatty  placed  bath f o r 1  allowed  was and  3  placed  of heptane  and  layer a  loosely  then  was  to stand dried  a  w h i c h were s t o r e d  under  analysis.  acids  minutes,  a program  minutes.  Injector  ml/minute.  3) Q  and  a Vista  was  400  80/100).  The  range of  160rate  5CP  15% D i e t h y l e n e 80/100 M)  and  an  of  with  an  10 ° C / m i n u t e  phase)  initial and  and  flow  rate  time of  time of  7  47  and  30  the packing Q  material  (mesh  size  over a temperature  time of 7 minutes,  a final  of the  t h e r u n s were  was  on C h r o m o s o r b  In  Succinate  initial  a final  r u n s were t e m p e r a t u r e programed 2 3 0 ° C,  Glycol  t e m p e r a t u r e s were 200  the nitrogen  (stationary  inside  data processor.  In a l l subsequent d e t e r m i n a t i o n s  10% S i l a r  3700, e q u i p p e d  f o r the determination  of 5 ° C/minute  and  determined  (3.18 mm  160-190° C with  detector  was  model  2 meter  (mesh s i z e  from  rate  respectively,  Chromatograph,  and  (table  programed  of the l i p i d s  phase used  on C h r o m a s o r b  temperature  program  until  detector,  column,  Trial  was  vials  composition  a flame i o n i z a t i o n  230°c,  heptane  ml  t h e t u b e was  3 ml  shaken  5.0  chromatography  a Varian  Polyester  and  Then  vigorously  refrigeration  fatty  diameter)  i n the water  tightened  The  solution  t h e c a p was  a  liquid  using  back  this  m i x t u r e of anhydrous Na S0*:Na C0  and  The  was  separated.  transferred  nitrogen Gas  the s o l u t i o n  a 4:1  portion  t h e c a p was  and  a t 6 5 - 7 0 ° C f o r 12 h o u r s .  added  over  was  added  To  a  t i m e o f 26 m i n u t e s .  39  Injector  and d e t e c t o r t e m p e r a t u r e s  respectively, Fattv  acid  a n d t h e n i t r o g e n -flow r a t e was 30 m l / m i n u t e .  identi-fication  Identification of  o-f f a t t y  a c i d s was a c c o m p l i s h e d  t h e chromatogram peak r e t e n t i o n  standards. the  ratio  400  data  Percent o f peak  composition  area  processor.  converted  were 250 and 3 0 0 ° C ,  to percent  of f a t t y  to total  F a t t y A c i d by W e i g h t  those  of f a t t y  acid  a c i d s were c a l c u l a t e d  as  a r e a by t h e V i s t a  compositions  were  later  by t h e f o r m u l a :  % %  with  chromatogram  These percent by weight  times  by c o m p a r i s o n  FA X  MW  =  X 100 Sum o f Wt o f t h e FA  Present  Where: FA = F a t t y A c i d MW  =» M o l e c u l a r  PHYSICO-CHEMICAL  Oven  oil  deterioration  E s k i n and F r e n k e l , which  contained beakers in  DETERMINATIONS  test The  by  Weight  were p l a c e d  a t 70°C.  was m o d e l l e d  after  1977. I t was c o n d u c t e d i n c l e a n 600 ml P y r e x  T e f l o n coated  were c o v e r e d  an oven  study  magnetic  with  stirrers.  a 75 mm  The b e a k e r s  diameter  distribute and  with  the magnetic  beakers  the oxidation products  d u p l i c a t e samples f o r p e r o x i d e  which  T h e mouth o f t h e watch  w e r e removed  stirrers  published  on 300 ml s a m p l e s o f  0, 2, 5, 8, 12, and 16 d a y s o f i n c u b a t i o n . was m i x e d  a study  g l a s s and p l a c e d  from  t h e oven a t  At t h i s  f o r 1 minute  time  theo i l  t o homogenously  and t o c h a n g e t h e i n t e r f a c e , value  and  thiobarbituric  40  acid in  value  glass  determination  scintillation  were t a U e n .  vials  under  These samples  nitrogen  were  a t -25°C  stored  until  analysis. Peroxide  and t h i o b a r b i t u r i c  acid  values  P e r o x i d e v a l u e s were d e t e r m i n e d b y 0 - f - f i c i a l <A0CS, 1 9 8 0 ) .  Thiobarbituric  method m o d i f i e d was w e i g h e d  into  thiobarbituric with  after  a Teflon  Sidwell  acid  e t a l . 1954.  r e a g e n t was a d d e d .  lined  c a p and p l a c e d  3.18 cm o s c i l l a t i o n  f o r 4 minutes.  transfered for  to a test  30 m i n u t e s .  transfered against Smoke  to a cuvette  distilled  Cc 9 a - 4 8  (A0CS,  The aqueous  capped  layer  in a boiling  was t h e n c o o l e d  a n d 10 ml  shaker with  and a  and t h e a b s o r b a n c y was r e a d  burner  A Cleveland  of t h e cup.  a  was t h e n  water  bath  portion a t 530 nm  in a vertical  t h e bottom The sample  T h e smoke p o i n t  by t h e t h e r m o m e t e r  continuous stream of b l u i s h  of the bulb  c u p was  Method filled  touched the f i l l i n g  position about  cabinet i n the  6.35 mm  was t h e n h e a t e d w i t h increased  from  a. b u n s e n a t about  was t a k e n a s t h e t e m p e r a t u r e  when t h e s a m p l e smoke.  Official  illuminated  t h e temperature o f t h e sample  per minute.  indicated  flash  i n a 4 6 x 5 1 x 4 4 cm  was s u s p e n d e d  o f t h e cup w i t h  so that  open  the top of t h e meniscus  I t was t h e n p l a c e d  bottom  5-6°C  T h e t u b e was  were d e t e r m i n e d by a m o d i f i e d  1980).  a thermometer  center the  10 ml C C l *  water.  the o i l so that  line. and  grams)  point Smoke p o i n t s  with  O i l <3.0  on a h o r i z o n t a l  t u b e a n d immersed  The s o l u t i o n  Cd 8-53  v a l u e s w e r e d e t e r m i n e d by a  a screw cap tube t o which  acid  Method  gave  off a  thin,  41  STATISTICS  D a t a -for t h e 3 f e e d i n g by  analysis  Multiple  Range T e s t  Percentage prior method  of variance  trials  recommended  for significance  and means were c o m p a r e d  as described  d a t a were t r e a t e d  to analysis  were t e s t e d  with  and m i s s i n g by S t e e l  by S t e e l  by D u n c a n ' s  and T o r r i e  the arcsine  transformation  v a l u e s were c a l c u l a t e d  and T o r r i e  (1980).  (1980).  by t h e  New  42  RESULTS AND  DISCUSSION  TRIAL 1 Chick  performance The  <P  dietary  < 0.05)  o i l s used  affected  in this  body w e i g h t ,  experiment  weight  consumption  but  n o t on  feed  conversion  body w e i g h t  and  weight  gain  Canbra  growth to  promotion  but  e£. a j . (1978) w h i c h  acid)  inferior  blended  than  has  those of  been  et. aj_,  body weight b i r d s was  1984) .  On  (Lall  and  final  g a i n s of  in  inferior  agrees with the report  promotion,  t o be  1973)  from  the  weight  somewhat  (Table 4).  the  The  different or  of  erucic  of growth  smaller  The  i n weight Slinger,  gain  as  1977;  Canbra  synergism in  as the average weight  i n the Canbra  (2.5%  body w e i g h t  above t h e a r i t h m e t i c  the b i r d s  lard  utilization.  Slinger,  t h e o t h e r hand,  gain  slightly  This  LEAR  synergism  o i l b l e n d d i d n o t show any  or weight  (P < 0.05)  (P < 0.05)  t h e s e body w e i g h t s t e n d e d  reported  only  treatments.  that  energy  definite  to  of  agrees with the report  the sunflower o i l f e d groups  oi1/sunflower  weight  and  in either  o i l / l a r d b l e n d showed  often  Hulan  consumption  o i l treatment  However,  Canbra  indicated  o i l s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  sunflower gain.  This  In t e r m s  equivalent  t o s u n f l o w e r o i l i n terms  of feed  feed  (Table 4).  o i l was  respect.  Clandinin  stimulation  and  b o t h were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  sunflower o i l in t h i s  was  gain  significantly  gain  mean o f  o i l and  of the  the average  sunflower o i l  o f B e l l e n a n d et. a l .  Table  4.  Effect Chicks  o f O i l B l e n d i n g on t h e G r o w t h a t 4 weeks, T r i a l 1.  Dietary Oil*  Chick Body w e i g h t (g/bird)  Weight g a i n (g/bird)  P e r f o r m a n c e of  Performance*  F e e d Consumed <g/bird)  Feed Conversion <g c o n s u m e d / g a i n )  CBO  299.2*  262.0-  548.1-  2.09  SFO  322.3«  283.0=  595.8  2.10  AL  304.8-*  268.1»  CBO+SFO"  313.8*=  CBO+AL  319.5°  SEM-  4.53  577.7*»  2.16  277.2*»=  574.6-«»  2.07  283.1""  5 8 7 . 9«  2.08  &  4.45  *CB0 = C a n b r a o i l , SFO  —Standard  1:1.  error  of  a  9.11  0.02  = S u n f l o w e r o i l , AL = A n i m a l  "Means f o l l o w e d by t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t different (P < 0 . 0 5 ) . »0iIs blended  D  t h e mean  (n = 3 ) .  are not  lard.  significantly  44  (1980). The 0.05)  Canbra  less  except  o i l treatment  feed consumption  the Canbra  significantly the other  different  Interestingly  This  seems t o s u p p o r t  observed  toward agree that  with  the  acid  apparent  profile  cause  lower  than  o i l treatment  or  between  Sell  that  of weight  the  (r=0.90).  <1964)  depressed  and feed  gain depression  no  blended  oils  differences  showed  e £ a j . (1984) who o i l may  alter  a trend  These  result  proposed the metabolism  a b s o r p t i o n of  coefficients  significant  (Table 5).  The  o i l treatment  total  significant  fatty  of  acids.  coefficients  in the other  showed  and this  (P < 0.05)  was  There  total  trend.  was of  fatty The  a  the acid  total  and  total  differences  of  significantly  digestibility the  of f e e d  digestibility  treatments.  lipid  o i l blend  blends also  not  in feed conversion.  o f an  digestibility  treatments  oi1/sunflower  and  indicated  in intestinal  demonstrated  i n the  was  in these treatments  r e p o r t s of J o s h i  of Hulan  digestibility  i n the Canbra  both  gains  improvement  lipid  increase  the Canbra  treatments  a strong correlation  However, b o t h  particularly  acids  between  either  (1966) who  results  the f a t t y  the other  c o n t a i n i n g rapeseed o i l .  synergistic  The  the  the primary  treatments.  Apparent  of  f e e d c o n v e r s i o n d a t a shows no  chickens,  fatty  weight  Mattson  in diets  The between  and  was  from  t h e r e was  consumption  consumption  any  (P <  in this respect.  feed  and  than  in s i g n i f i c a n t l y  o i 1 / s u n f l o w e r o i l b l e n d which  treatments  Alexander  resulted  the  total  (P <  0.05)  synergistic Canbra digestibility  fatty  acid  of  Table  5.  Apparent  Dietary Oil  D i g e s t i b i l i t y Coe-f f i c i e n t s  Apparent Feed  Total  lipid  Total  87.21-  89.71  SFO  79.14  89.OS"  91.76  AL  81.29  90.22«»  90.67  79.62  90.02  92.86  78.83  89.39 »  3  e  &  Trial  1  -fatty  79.56  CBO+AL  a  D i g e s t i b i l i t y Coeff ic i e n t  CBO*  CBO+SFO  1  a t 4 Weeks,  acid  92.01  M e a n s - f o l l o w e d by t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t <P < 0 . 0 5 ) , a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d on t r a n s f o r m e d data. CB0 = Canbra  "Oils  blended  o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r 1:1.  o i l , AL = A n i m a l  lard.  46  digestibility  also correlated well  These r e s u l t s  indicate that  may a f f e c t Apparent The well  t h e growth  with  something  weight  other  than  individual  fatty  acid absorption  data  the total  lipid  and t o t a l  acid data  That  i s , with  sunflower  values o i l .  absorption  fatty  the exception  ( w h i c h make up a r e l a t i v e l y absorption  small  The l a r d  shows p o o r  absorption  the beta  p o s i t i o n on t h e t r i g l y c e r i d e  Hill,  I960;  and F i s h e r ,  exception  fatty  being  found  of the  o f C18:2 a n d C 1 8 : 3  absorption  o f C16:0.  has been  well  incorporation  molecule  ( R e n n e r and  1975).  A p o s i t i v e synergistic increase individual  t o those  o f t h e C16:0 i n l a r d  into  the  presented  p o r t i o n of the o i l ) the  and i s a t t r i b u t e d t o i t s p r e f e r e n t i a l  Whitehead  6) a g r e e s  C 1 8 : 3 a n d C20:1  of the Canbra o i l a r e i n f e r i o r  degree of absorption  documented  (Table  of C18:l,  (87.23% and 81.55% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) b u t a h i g h high  consumption  performance of the c h i c k s . acid  with  <r=0.80).  feed  Individual fatty  earlier.  The  gain  a c i d s was s e e n  i n the absorption i n both  blends  of a l l of  with  the only  i n t h e C18:2 o f t h e C a n b r a o i l / a n i m a l  lard  blend. These r e s u l t s  indicate that  imbalanced  f o r maximum a b s o r p t i o n  al  Lall  (1970),  and S l i n g e r  These workers a l l suggested the  long  would lard  chain  explain blend  saturated  as suggested  (1973) a n d H u l a n that  fatty  the synergism  Canbra o i l f a t t y  rapeseed  acids.  observed  i t does not e x p l a i n  Canbra o i l / s u n f l o w e r o i l blend.  b y W a l k e r e£.  efc. a j . ( 1 9 8 4 ) .  oils  While  acids are  were d e f i c i e n t i n  this  hypothesis  i n the Canbra o i l / a n i m a l  the synergistic effects Indeed  Beare-Rogers  of the  (1977)  47  T a b l e 6.  Apparent I n d i v i d u a l T r i a l 1.  Dietary Oil  Apparent  Fatty  Fatty  Acid  Acid  Absorption,  Absorption (per 1  cent)  Ci6:o*  cis:o  ci8:i  cis:2  81.08-  79.68-  92.17-*  38.40-  SFO  86.41*  90.32**  90.54-  93.76*  AL  91.82"=  82.58-  94.34*  87.23-  CBO+SFO-  86.60*  91.55*  94.11*  93.06'  CBO+AL  90.86=  92.53*  94.24*  87.36-  C18:3  C20: 1  C22: 1  CBO  92.09=  87.72-*  87.03  SFO  72.77-  82.60*  AL  31.55*  90.35*=  CBO+SFO  91.27=  93.33=  93. 06  CBO+AL  90.70=  92.75*=  92. 69  CBO  3  '•Means - f o l l o w e d by t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( P < 0 . 0 5 ) , a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d on t r a n s f o r m e d d a t ; z  T h e number p r o c e e d i n g t h e c o l o n i n d i c a t e s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e c a r b o n c h a i n , t h e number f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t e s t h e number o f d o u b l e bonds p r e s e n t .  "CBO = C a n b r a o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r -Indicates  o i l blended  o i l , AL = A n i m a l  1:1 by w e i g h t .  lard.  48  quotes  Rocquelin  saturated  to unsaturated  utilization This can  when  be improved  toward  fatty  supports  o i l (highly  this  very  unsaturated  well  view.  either oil).  interaction  p o s t u l a t e d and i n d i c a t e s  area could  t h a t the. r a t i o of  a c i d s i n an o i l i s u n i m p o r t a n t  by b l e n d i n g w i t h  a much more c o m p l e x  previously  as s t a t i n g  t h e o i l c o n t a i n s more t h a n  research c l e a r l y  sunflower  this  and C l u z a n  prove  10% l i n o l e i c  in  acid.  Canbra o i l u t i l i z a t i o n  lard  (saturated fat) or  These r e s u l t s of f a t t y  a c i d s than  that continued  productive.  point was  research in  49  TRIAL  2  There weights  was  of  and  rats.  was  inferior  and  to sunflower  e£. a j . ( 1 9 7 3 ) ,  except  body w e i g h t .  by  significantly Canola  oil,  (P < 0.05)  9/1,  sunflower  6/4  blend  appeared  compared This  with  result  event  with  feeding this  and  t o be  result  largest  that  indicate  be  logically of  less  (see appendix  A)  by  the  significantly  a real  (P < or  improvement  Canola  expected  as a  Therefore, to determine  8/2  when  containing Canola  to d i r e c t l y  in  o i l and  gain data f o r the  than  5%.  was  not  explained except  than  r e p e a t a b l e and  gain  the sunflower  both  treatments  weight  demonstrated  i t was  weight  However,  increases in  in the  was  g a i n s of e i t h e r  The  acid).  weight  this  treatments  the other  s e t up  was  shown  c h i c k growth over  a probability was  also  although  T h i s would  and  o i l promoted  synergistic  The  LEAR  Farnworth  showed  c o n s i d e r a b l y lower  a l l of  (1977)  c h i c k growth  (0.6% e r u c i c  g r e a t e r than 5/5  (1977) f o r  LEAR  individually.  c o u l d not  trial  6/4  the weight  to support  o i l fed  than  soybean  body  o i l or soybean o i l  Ziemlanski  e t a j . (1981) and  blend,  o i l treatments.  the a b i l i t y  not  t h e 7/3  the f i n a l  e£. a j . (1978) r e p o r t e d t h a t  (Table 7).  g r e a t e r than  soybean  and  d a t a of March  T h i s p a t t e r n was  the b i r d s  demonstrated  0.05)  8/2  sunflower  o i l in promoting  Kramer  more growth  between  et. a l . (1979) and  (1983) r e p o r t e d t h a t  blends  g a i n s of  oil,  the  However, C l a n d i n i n  Kramer  final  with  Beare-Rogers  significantly all  difference  fed Canola  T h i s agrees  for  Kramer  significant  the b i r d s  (Table 7). chickens  no  oil.  random  another whether  compare Canbra  or and  50  Table  7.  E f f e c t s o f O i l B l e n d i n g on t h e C h i c k s a t 4 Weeks, T r i a l 2.  Di e t a r y 011  Chick Body w e i g h t (g/bird)  Weight g a i n (g/bird)  Growth P e r f o r m a n c e of  Performance  F e e d Consumed (g/bird)  2  Feed C o n v e r s i o n (g c o n s u m e d / g a i n )  CAO*  332.l-»=  292.0-»=  599.7  2.05  9/1  336.5==  296.8==  604.7  2.04  8/2  308.6-  269.0-  560.2  2.08  7/3  343.1 =  303.4=  631.3  2.08  6/4  323.8- =  284.1«»=  604.1  2.13  5/5  332.7-*=  292.8*"=  613.7  2.10  SFO  310.4-  270.6-  575.9  2.14  SBO  314.7-*»  274.7-=  586.9  2.14  3  SEM-  x  to  7.29  7.21  17.08  C A O = C a n o l a o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r o i l ,  "Means f o l l o w e d by t h e same d i f f e r e n t (P < 0 . 0 5 ) .  superscript  SBO = S o y b e a n o i l a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  " I n d i c a t e s C a n o l a and S u n f l o w e r o i l b l e n d e d 9/1 (weight/weight). -Standard  error  o f t h e mean  (n = 3 ) .  0.03  51  Canola o i l . earlier  trials  sunflower, 8/2  blend  weight  The  the  gains  trial.  that  the  blend.  for this  in feed  strong  in T r i a l there  consumption  The  precision  to detect  feeding  trial  the  depression Alexander  that  caused and  the  f o r any  gain  oils  This  that  e a r l y rapeseed 1966).  related  T h e r e was reported  and  Hulan  caused  by  study.  between  to weight  was  unbalanced  But  i n t e r a c t i o n s in both  interaction  by  no  and  consumption  synergistic  in t h i s  are  the  due  that  there  fatty  i s the  consumption  and  the  did  was  not  there and  was  weight  consumption allow  enough  a l s o supported  These major  by  results factor  ( J o s h i and  as  i n growth  Sell,  exclude  1964;  the  shown by  body w e i g h t  and  appears that  other  in  theory  However,  acid profile  It therefore  low  different  i t does not  final  the  random.  consumption  design  oils  the  were a c t u a l  A.  for  t r e a t m e n t s used  to  blends.  i n Appendix  of  seen  gains  of  significant  of  conclusion  possibility  gain  Canola,  2 were p r o b a b l y  experimental  them.  by  Canbra,  weight  were no  implies that  Mattson, an  the  described  theory  results  indicating  <r»0.94) between f e e d  correlation  d i f f e r e n c e s but  by  the  seem t o c o n c r e t e l y s u p p o r t  p r o p e r t i e s of correlation  confirmed  supported  increased  blend  T h i s would  trial  However t h e  d i f f e r e n c e s in weight  nutritive  support  growth  7 a l s o shows t h a t  this  the  7/3  this  were c o n s i d e r a b l y  differences  gain.  of  for chick  and  Table  a  results  the  weight  there  was  an  f a c t o r s w h i c h were a l l  gain. significant  Joshi  and  d i f f e r e n c e s in feed  Sell  (1964),  however, Salmon  etj, a j . (1982) r e p o r t e d  increased  rapeseed  to  o i l compared  conversion  soybean  feed  as  (1969b)  conversion  o i l . The  values  for  52  this  parameter  ranged  from  a h i g h o-f 2.14 f o r b o t h  s u n f l o w e r and  soybean  o i l and a low o f 2.04 f o r t h e 9/1 b l e n d w i t h  falling  i n between  improvement spite  digestibility  There  synergistic  was no s i g n i f i c a n t  showed  (Table 8 ) .  significantly  A l l blends  except  and s u n f l o w e r  higher  i n feed  different  oils.  digestion from  the Canola  from  respect.  Three  of the blends  ( 7 / 3 , 6/4  digestibilities  statistically  similar  lower  lipid  digestibility  (P < 0.05) t h a n  reason  for this  digestibility treatments Data oil  the Canola  different  9/1  i s not r e a d i l y  showed  when c o m p a r e d  the sunflower  o i l or the sunflower  pertaining  to that  treatments apparent.  and s o y b e a n although  o i l treatments  t h e soybean  result  significantly  (Table 8), the  differences  i n T a b l e 8.  o i l in this  of soybean o i l .  The t o t a l  to nitrogen retention  summarized  o i l b u t was  and 5/5) had f e e d  o f t h e 9/1 b l e n d was  showed; no s i g n i f i c a n t  to the  significantly  fatty  acid  between  b u t f o l l o w e d t h e same t r e n d a s t h e f e e d  are also  the Canola  the other  o i l but the  T h e o t h e r b l e n d s were n o t  different  Total  either  oil.  than  between  (P < 0.05) h i g h e r f e e d  T h e 7/3 b l e n d was  promotion  due t o o i l  difference  o i l and s u n f l o w e r  increases i n feed d i g e s t i b i l i t y  Canola  not  i n feed d i g e s t i b i l i t i e s  f o r the Canola  o i l treatment  digestibility  coefficients  differences  t y p e were a p p a r e n t .  soybean  toward  of s i g n i f i c a n c e .  digestibility  Significant  feed  T h i s d a t a shows a t r e n d  i n f e e d c o n v e r s i o n f o r t h e 9/1, 8/2 and 7/3 b l e n d s i n  of the lack  Apparent  (Table 7 ) .  the others  relative  digestibility. to dietary  The n i t r o g e n r e t e n t i o n i n were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y was c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r .  T a b l e 8.  Apparent D i g e s t i b i l i t y T r i a l 2.  Apparent  Dietary U  C o e f f i c i e n t s a t 4 WeeUs,  Digestibi1ity  Coeff i e c e n t s  1  1 1  Total  Feed  lipid  Total  f a t t y acid  N  retention  CAO»  80.07-**  88.90=  89.31  69.40-"  9/1*  79.07-  83.84-  89.50  66.20-  8/2  80.08-=  90.96=  89.33  67.34-  7/3  83.95»«  92.59=  93. 15  75.07=  6/4  30.39-"=  88.94=  89. 19  67.54-  S/S  81.97-==  91.70=  91.94  71.93-=  SFO  79.14-  89.68=  90.43  66.75-  SBO  84.17=  91.23=  91. 16  75.32=  •Means f o l l o w e d - b y t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l d i f f e r e n t <P < 0 . 0 5 ) , a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d on t r a n s f o r m e d data. "CA0 = C a n o l a  o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r  "Indicates Canola (weight/weight).  and S u n f l o w e r  o i l , SBO = S o y b e a n o i l .  o i l blended  9/1  54  Similarly  t h e r e was  sunflower  treatments  significantly The  blended  retention  lower  except  the soybean  cent, The  also  o i l with  above  result  The  in nitrogen  b l e n d s which were  either  the Canola  7/3  blend  was  o i l treatment.  effects  not  o i l treatment  h o w e v e r , was  nitrogen retentions  and  components  i s supported  reported that  of  or  equivalent  75.07 and  the hypothesis that  at. aj., 1981;  and  Kramer,  Dale  Farnworth  and  protein  fats  f a t a b s o r p t i o n and  (Sibbald  by  b l e n d i n g LEAR r e s u l t e d  i n c r e a s e d body f a t and  Increased  Muztar  5/5  and  treatment  the soybean  synergistic  and  than  the Canola  75.32  respectively.  support  allow  than  show no  i n t h e 7/3  between  the sunflower  (P < 0.05)  o i l treatment.  (1983) who growth,  although  different  the soybean  per  difference  treatments  significantly  to  no  and  and  Kramer  in  improved  in rats. fatty  These  acids  interact  a b s o r p t i o n of o t h e r  1977;  Fuller,  M a t e o s and 1982;  and  to  dietary  Sell,  Fuller  results  1981; Dale,  1982). Apparent The of  m e t a b o l i z a b l e energy nitrogen corrected  the d i e t s  soybean either  o i l diet  The  apparent  reported that  m e t a b o l i z a b l e energy I t can  The  7/3,  interaction  agree  well  t h e r e was  with no  be  seen  (P < 0.05)  the sunflower  of  those  and  7/3  that  (AMEn)  the  h i g h e r AMEn  o i l diets  6/4  with  equivalent to that  results  diets  a significantly  o i l or  a synergistic  the  i n T a b l e 9.  equivalent values.  AMEn, w h i c h was  who  had  the Canola  roughly showed  a r e shown  of  5/5  having  which  than  had  blends  again  the highest  the soybean o i l . of S e l l  significant  and  Hodgson  difference  in  (1962)  ration  T a b l e 9. A p p a r e n t M e t a b o l i z a b l e C o r r e c t e d ) , T r i a l 2.  Oil  Type  CAO 9/1  Energy  o-f D i e t s ( N i t r o g e n  AMEn  z  4044.85-  3  9/2  4067.77-  7/3  4265.ll =  6/4  4107.52-°  5/5  4174.85-"=  SFO  4097.40-  SBO  4281.50=  b  50.93  Means - f o l l o w e d by t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t d i f f e r e n t <P < 0 . 0 5 ) . CA0  (Kcal/kg)  4082.39-  a  SEM-  1  1  = Canola  oil,  'Indicates Canola (weight/weight). —Standard  error  SFO = S u n f l o w e r and S u n f l o w e r  o f t h e means  oil,  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t  SBO = S o y b e a n o i l .  o i l blended  (n = 3 ) .  9/1  56  M.E. o-f c h i c k e n but  that  M.E.  diets containing  Joshi  poults  diets containing  and S e l l  although  sunflower  8% s o y b e a n  in this  o i l diets.  case  This  difference  M.E. f o r c h i c k e n s  only  o i l o r soybean  Salmon  reported  -for  M.E. was s i m i l a r  although  o i l .  he r e p o r t e d fed diets  I t should  higher turkey  lower f o r by Salmon  (1969b) no containing  be noted  the e r u c i c a c i d content  oil  f o r the  d i f f e r e n c e was a l s o r e p o r t e d  poults,  rapeseed  results  and s i g n i f i c a n t l y  (1969a) f o r t u r k e y in diet  similar  the diet  treatments  o i l o r sun-flower  o i l had s i g n i f i c a n t l y  (1964) r e p o r t e d  and s o y b e a n  rapeseed  8% r a p e s e e d  however,  that  of h i s rapeseed o i l  ( w h i c h was H E A R ) . The  d i f f e r e n c e s i n AMEn f o u n d  supports  the data  digestibility oil.  That  (r=0.97),  and n i t r o g e n  i s , AMEn nitrogen  digestibility but  AMEn,  As  various  higher  weight  gain  feed  weight  gain.  total  i n Table  i n those  derived  diet,  blending  fatty  acid (r=0.71),  These  acid profile  nitrogen  affects  r e t e n t i o n and  i s the over-riding  absorption  10 o n l y  Of t h e s e from  by  digestibility  (r=0.17).  5 fatty  and C24:0) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y treatments.  diet  also  diet  digestibility  consumption  acid  total  improved  the dietary fatty  but that  c a n be s e e n  lipid  of the t o t a l  Individual fattv  C18.3, C 2 0 : l the  with  indicate that  i n chick  A°°apent  (r=0.96),  ( r « 0 . 7 8 ) and t o t a l  absorption  i n which  r e t e n t i o n were  retention  the absorption  factor  earlier  experiment  c o r r e l a t e s s t r o n g l y with  correlates poorly  correlations  fat  presented  in this  fatty  soybean  acids  (C16:0,  C18:2,  (P < 0.05) a f f e c t e d by  acids  o i l than  the absorption those  from  was  Canola  Table  10.  Dietary Oil  Apparent  Individual  Fatty  Apparent  Fatty  Absorption  016:0*  Acid  Acid  Absorption,  1  <per  Trial  cent)  cis:o  cis:i  cis:2  cis:3  CAO"  81.99-  81.97  91.71  87.61-  92.30-*  9/1-  83.80-*  82.76  91.39  88.72-  92.01-*  8/2  83.41-*  83.21  91.27  89.10-  91.72-*  7/3  88.63=  90.62  94.50  93.03=  94.41=  6/4  81.70-  85.63  90.88  89.88-*  90.69*  5/5  86.80*=  88.58  93.07  92.63=  92.93*==  SFO  85.60-*=  87.65  89.63  91.96*=  82.36-  SBO  88.40=  85.70  91.40  92.32*=  93.58==  1  Means - f o l l o w e d by t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ( P < 0 . 0 5 ) , a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d on t r a n s f o r m e d d a  "The number p r e c e e d i n g t h e c o l o n i n d i c a t e s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e c a r b o n c h a i n , t h e number f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t e s t h e number o f d o u b l e bonds p r e s e n t . 3  2  C A 0 = C a n o l a o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r  — I n d i c a t e s C a n o l a and S u n f l o w e r (weight/weight).  Continued  on n e x t  page-  o i l , SBO = S o y b e a n o i l .  o i l blended  9/1  58  Table  10  Dietary Oil  (continued)  Apparent  Absorption  (per cent)  C20:o  C20:i  C22:o  C22:i  C24:o  CAO  82.28  86.08**  72.67  77.87  75.27**  9/1  80.97  87.29**  75.75  79.19  81.83*  8/2  81.73  85.44*  72.38  75.73  77.16**  7/3  89.27  91.05*  85.19  85.70  86.92=«  6/4  80.32  83.91*  73.69  72.30  71.30*  5/5  85.98  88.05**  82.96  77.86  75.97**  SFO  80.52  82.69-  79.82  73.27  80.26**  SBO  83.18  83.15*  74.43  Q a  e  88.45"  'Means - f o l l o w e d by t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i - f - f e r e n t ( P < 0 . 0 5 ) , a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d on t r a n s f o r m e d d a t a . a  T h e number p r e c e e d i n g t h e c o l o n i n d i c a t e s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e c a r b o n c h a i n , t h e number f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t e s t h e number o f double bonds p r e s e n t .  3  CA0 = Canola  o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r  -Indicates Canola (weight/weight).  and S u n f l o w e r  o i l , SBO  o i l blended  = Soybean o i l . 9/1  59  oil  except  C 2 0 . 1 . When c o m p a r e d  absorption  of  all  C18.3  except  these  individual  and  o i l treatment.  oil  Canola  As  which  showed  treatment.  particularly  T h i s may  the sunflower absorption The  have been  o i l diet  o f C18.3  blended  as  treatments  in individual  fatty  d e r i v e d from  acids  absorbable  as  synergistic  to  fatty  to the  fatty  and  7/3  fatty  acid  and  5/5  acid  fatty  C18:3  absorption. except  and  1963;  inhibit  All  C18.3).  synergistic individual  results acid  Artman, 1973;  as  The noticable  Blending the  individual  Slinger,  the  t h e C24.0 w e r e  particularly  the  in  1979).  b l e n d s . The  Garrett,  o f C18:2  to  o i l treatment.  (C18.2 and  fat u t i l i z a t i o n (Lall  these 5  level  appears  increased saturated fatty  ( Y o u n g and  sunflower  showed m a r k e d  these 2 blends  5/5  the  f o r the  high  Hollander,  the soybean  acids  i n t h e 7/3  r e p o r t s of  blending  total  due  t h e a b s o r p t i o n o f most o f  especially earlier  of  of  a b s o r p t i o n i n the sunflower o i l  i n c r e a s e i n a b s o r p t i o n was  the e s s e n t i a l improved  those  g r e a t e r a b s o r p t i o n i n the  the a b s o r p t i o n of  this  (Chow and  improvments  showed  e q u i v a l e n t except low  o i l , the  a c i d s were e q u i v a l e n t i n  f o r the comparison  o i l treatments,  a c i d s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y  sunflower  fatty  C24:0 w h i c h  soybean and  with  in  oils  fatty  acids,  agree  with  the  utilization  1964)  and  Slinger,  due  increased 1977).  60  TRIAL  3  Chick  performance This  feeding  experiment  {free f a t t y on b o d y  gain  less  weight  gain,  However,  Apparent  intact which diet.  oils  effect  except  significantly  Artman  agree  well  with  effects  conversion  except  t o consume  f o r the  less  feed  when f e d h y d r o l y z e d  (1964)  and  (1979) f o r r a t s .  Young  Hakkarainen The  fatty  feed  acids  were  i n the case of the Canola o i l treatment. was  r e p o r t e d by Y o u n g  and  Artman  coefficients 12 shows t h a t  on f e e d  feeding  h y d r o l y z e d o i l had  d i g e s t i b i l i t y when c o m p a r e d  to  i n the c a s e of t h e h y d r o l y z e d soybean o i l (P < 0.05)  however  than  However,  tended  was  reduced  shown  another  their  the d i g e s t i b i l i t y of the  i n the t o t a l  trend  t h e h y d r o l y z e d o i l t r e a t m e n t s were  digestibility  or feed  t o d e c r e a s e when f r e e  T h i s same p a t t e r n  digestibility,  (P < 0.05)  oils  (1964) .  in Table  no s i g n i f i c a n t  oils.  Table  hydrolyzed  t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d by  (1961),  except  digestibility  The d a t a  intact  and Chen  tended  Artman  containing  consumption  the b i r d s  the reverse trend  (1961) and  feed  agrees with  a l (1983) f o r c h i c k s  to the chicks  diets  of  counter parts.  (but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y )  and A r t m a n  ratio  intact  the e f f e c t s  h a s no s i g n i f i c a n t  containing  weight  t o compare  their  practical  mixtures)  This  Young  conversion  of  with  o i l treatments,  acids.  (1961),  fed  acid  to diets  sunflower  et  feeding  weight,  compared  fatty  designed  hydrolysed o i l s  11 shows t h a t  and  was  emerged lower  lipid  in this  data.  in total  lipid  corresponding intact  o i l . These  t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s r e p o r t e d by R e n n e r  and  All  results Hill  61  Table  11.  E f f e c t of Free F a t t y A c i d s o f C h i c k s a t 4 Weeks, T r i a l  Chick  Dietary  on t h e G r o w t h 3.  Performance  Performance  011 Body w e i g h t <g/bird)  F e e d Consumed (g/bird)  Weight g a i n <g/bird)  Feed C o n v e r s i o n (g c o n s u m e d / g a i n )  332. 1  292.0  599.7  2.05  316.9  278.2  591.9  2.13  SFO  310.4  270.6  575.9  2.14  SFO FFA  320.5  281.0  582. 1  2.08  5/5-  332.7  292.8  613.7  2.10  3/3 FFA  317.a  279.6  565.8  2.02  SBO  314.7  274.7  586.9  2. 14  SBO FFA  303.6  264. 6  554.7  2.09  CAO  a  CAO  FFA  a  9. IO  SEM»  9.00  24.70  ''Means f o l l o w e d b y t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t d i f f e r e n t <P < 0 . 0 5 ) . z  CA0  = Canola  o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r  3  CA0  FFA i n d i c a t e s f r e e f a t t y  -Indicates Canola (weight/weight). "Standard  error  acids  and S u n f l o w e r  o f t h e means  a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  o i l , SBO = S o y b e a n o i l . of Canola o i l .  o i l blended  (n=3).  0.03  5/5  Table  12.  Apparent D i g e s t i b i l i t y T r i a l 3.  Dietary Oil  Apparent Feed  CAO*  Coefficients  Digestibility  Total  lipid  a t 4 Weeks,  Coeffiecents Total  fatty  SO.07-  88.90*  89.31  81.70-*  88.77*  88.49  SFO  79.14-  89.68*  90.43  SFO F F A  81.45**  88.99*  89.91  5/5-  81.95-*  91.20*  91.94  5/5 FFA  79.67-  87.70**  88.63  SBO  84.17*  91.23*  9 1 . 16  SBO FFA  80.28-  84.21*  85. 42  CAO  FFA  3  1  acid  'Means f o l l o w e d by t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t different <P < 0 . 0 5 ) , a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d on t r a n s f o r m e r data. *CA0 = C a n o l a o i l , SFO = "CAO  FFA i n d i c a t e s  free  S u n f l o w e r o i 1, SBO = S o y b e a n o i l . fatty  acids  — I n d i c a t e s C a n o l a and S u n f l o w e r <weight/weight).  of Canola o i l .  o i l blended  5/5  63  (1961a) and soybean  Sklan  o i l were  However, Young or  corn  Artman fat  less  no  effect  R e n n e r and  decreases  tallow  and  results  Artman in the  blends  These r e s u l t s  unclear.  of  be  may  partially  the  the  literature  of  Apparent The  oil.  There d i d  acids  except  absorption in  the  the  and  18  the  carbon 18  treatments.  treatments  with  the  by  toward  hydrolyzed. o i l and for  this to  o i l blend  the point  hydrolysed  intact  oils.  results  oils  This  reported  in  experiment.  absorption  C24.0  resulted of  (Table  a pattern  in s i g n i f i c a n t  only  absorption  chain  carbon  to  i n the  e i t h e r Canola  t o be  animal  reported  trend  reason  response  this  absorption and  with  appear  hydrolyzed  sunflower  acid  of  and  o i l or  were  i s at  response  Young  degree a  soybean  soybean o i l ,  fats  The  variability  d i f f e r e n c e s in the  c h i c k s were f e d  to the  o i l types  o i l treatments  were C18.1, C13.2, C18.3  the  hydrolyzed  soybean  of  hydrolyzed  intact o i l .  o i l , Canola  chick's  results  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  significant  the  their  Individual fattv hydrolyzed  not  when t h e s e  the  the  the  but  experiment.  more v a r i a b l e t h a n  and  -feeding  -from  absorbability.  sunflower  that  explain  o-f  (1964) a l s o r e p o r t e d  in t h i s  It appears  those  digestibilities  in response  may  their  acids  h y d r o l y s i s of  tallow  support  obtained  differences  that  that  digestibility  Hill.  slight  on  -fatty  than  reported  (1961) r e p o r t e d their  total  absorbable  (1961),  o i l had  reduced  0.05)  (1979) t h a t  4 fatty  13). of  o i l or  fatty This  exception  A l l of  slight  a c i d s showed was  fatty  of  of  no when  Canola  the  fatty  increases  slight  also true  These  acids  hydrolyzed  though.  o n e s showed  acids.  T h e r e were  the  (P <  in  decreases  the  C24.0 w h i c h  showed  a  Table  13.  Dietary Oil  Apparent  Apparent  Individual  Fatty  Acid  Fatty  Acid  Digestibility,  Digestibi1ity*(per  cent)  016:0"  ci8:o  ci8:i  cis:2  C18-.3  81.99  81.95  91.71==  87.61-  92.30=-  CAO  F F A - 82.59  83.00  90.07==  87.41-  90.77=*  SFO  85.60  87.65  89.63 *«=  91.96==  82.36-  SFO FFA  86.76  88.27  89.25*»  90.99==  85.32-"  5/5"  86.80  88.58  93.07=  92.63=  92.93=-  5/5 FFA  84.06  85.89  89.62==  89.28-=  89.54=  SBO  88.40  85.70  91.40==  92.32=  93.58-  82.63  78.84  84.60-  86.16-  88.26==  CAO  3  SBO  FFA  t  Trial  *Means - f o l l o w e d by t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y different ( P < 0 . 0 5 ) , a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d on t r a n s f o r m e d d a t " T h e number p r e c e e d i n g t h e c o l o n i n d i c a t e s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e c a r b o n c h a i n , t h e number f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t e s t h e number o f double bonds p r e s e n t . 3  CA0 = Canola  -FFA  indicates  o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r free  fatty  acids.  "Indicates Canola (weight/weight).  and S u n f l o w e r  Continued  page-  on n e x t  o i l , SBO = S o y b e a n o i l .  o i l blended  5/5  Table  13 ( c o n t i n u e d ) .  Dietary Oil  Apparent  Digestibility  (per cent)  C20.0  C20:l  C22.0  C22:1  C24.0  82.28  86.08  72.67  77.87  75.27-=  84.48  86.86  79.24  82.54  88.85-  SFO  80.52  82.69  79.82  73.27  80.26-"  SFO FFA  82.88  85.05  83.84  69.59  95.17=  5/5  83.98  88.05  82.96  77.86  75.60-=  3/5 FFA  83.26  85.06  81.21  73.03  82.99-=  SBO  83.18  83.15  74.43  88.45=  76.81  77.81  71.08  71.21-  CAO CAO  SBO  l  FFA  FFA  b  M e a n s - f o l l o w e d by t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (P<0.05), a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d on t r a n s f o r m e d d a t  " T h e number p r e c e e d i n g t h e c o l o n i n d i c a t e s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e c a r b o n c h a i n , t h e number f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t e s t h e number o f double bonds p r e s e n t . "CAO  = Canola  -FFA  indicates  o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r free  "Indicates Canola (weight/weight).  fatty  o i l , SBO = S o y b e a n o i l .  acids.  and S u n f l o w e r  o i l blended  5/5  66  significant intact  o i l and  o-f t h i s may  (P < 0.05)  be  -fatty  95.17% acid  assumed  had  the  than  increased  oil.  (P  when h y d r o l y z e d . of  this  a l l of  but  not  oil  reduced  the  by  Skian  (1979).  decrease fatty  or  This  w h i c h showed a l l of  C24:0.  These  Renner  Hill to  than  show t h i s  for  d i f f e r e n c e s between  the  patterns  soybean  o i l are  isomerism  of  but  was  there  explanation is, of  the the  major  not  the  flatty soybean  drawback  clear.  other  It  profile  of  the  of  acid  the  may  and  the  soybean  the  5/5  of  i n f l u e n c e the  to  e x p l a i n a t i o n comes f r o m  fatty  reasons of and  positional responsible  A  better  the  oils.  That  matches  that  nearly  this  the  saturated  blend  the  this.  mast  published  that  The  o i l was  profile  blend  C18:l,  those  absorption the  the  soybean  unsaturated  o i l and this  of  trend.  to support  fatty of  acids  i s possible that  evidence  l i e i n the  acid  the  Canola o i l versus  triglyceride  no  may  and  h y d r o l y s i s of  of  not  in  resembled  (1961a) r e p o r t e d  did  sunflower  absorption  closely  h y d r o l y s i s ) of  blend  (which  agree with  This  hydrolyzed  C18:3  C24.0  absorption  that  overall  This  depression  fatty  acids. the  experiment  the  results  and  much g r e a t e r  the  o i l .  result  that  the  somewhat  and  showed  concentration  alter  sunflower C18.2  the  o i l however, so i t  behaved  blend  reduced  The  and  a c i d s except  i n a b s o r b a b i l i t y (due  a c i d s was  blend  < 0.05)  But  oil).  diet  depressed  of  (80.26% i n  significantly  Canola  fatty  absorption  and  5/5  significantly).  o i l results  C13:2, C18:3  does not  the  the  soybean  (P  i n the  hydrolyzed  the  significantly  low  < 0.05)  The  in absorption  hydrolyzed  The  either  significantly  absorption  in the  i s very  that  p e r f o r m a n c e of differently  increase  absorption. the  other  The pair  of  67  oils.  The  sunflower  when h y d r o l y z e d their  fatty In  or  was  It also little  absorption (1983). the  diet  and  very  behave  in very  similar  ways  considerable differences  by  the  oil.  may  be  and by  soybean be  used  affect  i n the  individual the  chick  case  of  fatty  in  acid  i t can  i n the  study  be of  f a t s o l u b l e v i t a m i n or Chen  (1979) and i s needed  o i l and i n the  study  of  soybean  in the  cases  concluded lipid  steroid e £ aj_  to e x p l a i n the before  fatty  in  absorption  Hakkarainen  o i l blend  oils  performance the  o i l except  Therefore,  useful  However, more r e s e a r c h hydrolyzed  that feeding hydrolyzed  h y d r o l y s i s of  soybean oils  seen  significantly  that  suggested  p r e p a r a t i o n s can  oils  or f a t except  metabolism as  be  does not  appears  hydrolyzed  absorption,  there are  i t can  affected  the blend  that  of  case,  diets  Canola  profiles.  a b s o r p t i o n of  oil.  of  acid  any  practical  but  and  acid  behavior  these balance.  68  PHYSICO-CHEMICAL  Oil  ANALYSIS  stability Two  used  tests  (peroxide value  to assess  stability  the  test.  and  thiobarbituric  autoxidative stability  The  results  o i l was  of  the  relatively  sunflower  oil  or  the  soybean  o i l (Table  14).  Canola  and  soybean  o i l a t day  0 w e r e 2.OS  the of  values 13.01  oil  gm  r e p o r t e d by  oil,  EsUin  and  mi 1 1 i e q u i v a l e n t s / 1 0 0 0  and  the  straight  v a l u e s over induction  time  line  point.  The  data  in the  was  T h i s would  started.  trials  a s O e r t e l and  either  fresh  or  peroxide blended  oils.  oxidized  peroxide oven  test  This  trend  gm  been  the  o i l would  a t Day  one  0 and  increasing  is clearly  feed  effects  The  f o r the  the  impact  the  on  oven  the  that poultry fed 90-180  differences  in feed  However  this  relatively  high of  i n d u c t i o n p e r i o d of to see  c o n t i n u i n g through sunflower 1.  test  feeding  the  in Figure  value  peroxide  o i l with  expect  with  sunflower  stability  the  the  high  the  amounts o f  shown  Canola  on  reduce  that  already past i t s  efficiency.  Canola  would  no  the  the p l o t t e d  (1982) r e p o r t e d  o i l ) showed  oven  v a l u e s of  oxidized before little  i n the  indicate  (1977).  o i l obtained of  were  T h i s agrees  t h a t a l l of  have marked  Therefore,  with  Frenkel  test)  5.22  respectively.  h a v e had  gm  Blending  value  and  indicates  gain or  would  sunflower  oil.  peroxide  o x i d i z e d o i l ( p e r o x i d e v a l u e s of  weight  value  The  o i l was  Hartfiel  ml 1 1 i e q u i v a l e n t s / 1 0 0 0 consumption,  test  that t h i s  o i l had  oils  more o x i d i z e d t h a n  ( F i g u r e 1)  indicates  anti-oxidants  Canola  of  the  peroxide  the  mi 1 1 i e q u i v a l e n t s / 1 0 0 0  of  acid  an the  the  increasing p e r i o d of  o i l in the  However,  the  the  the  blend.  peroxide  Table  14. P e r o x i d e V a l u e s Under  Accelerated  Peroxide  Storage.  Value  1  Oi 1 Day  CA0«  0  Day  2  Day 5  Day 8  Day  12  Day  16  2.05+0.58  6.34+..591  16.63+0.16  30.15+.1.92  44.72i0.39  61.20i0.37  15.01+0.10  28.62+0.25  45.84+.0.72  64.59i0.49  89.13il.88  120.68i0.58  9.11+0.15  17.07+.0.98  31.58i0.10  46.66+.0.43  68.00il.15  90.45i0.28  7/3  6.24i0.44  12.05i0.33  22.85i0.90  32.91i0.82  52.33i0.08  71.44i0.91  SBO  5.22+1.01  13.28+0.87  26.27+0.18  41.29+0.52  59.23+1.88  83.19+1.04  SFO 5/5  3  *Mi 11 i - e q u i v a l e n t s •CAO = C a n o l a 'Indicates  p e r 1000 grams o-f o i l < i s t a n d a r d  deviation).  o i l , SFO = Sun-flower o i l , SBO = S o y b e a n o i l .  Canola  and sun-flower c i l b l e n d e d  5/5  (weight/weight).  71  value the  of the 2 blends  soybean  peroxide oil  o i l over  tested  were n o t d r a m a t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t  the test  period.  values f o r the blends  and s u n f l o w e r  decrease  o i l indicating  in stability  indicates  that  developement  fell  More  importantly the  between t h o s e  t h e r e was n o t a  due t o t h e b l e n d i n g .  The  of the Canola synergistic  lack  of  b l e n d i n g does not have a s e r i o u s impact  of peroxide v a l u e  These r e s u l t s  synergism on t h e  i n an o i l .  w e r e s u b s t a n t i a t e d by t h e t h i o b a r b i t u r i c  acid  test.  In c o n t r a s t t o t h e p e r o x i d e v a l u e s t h e t h i o b a r b i t u r i c  values  (absorbance  identical However, of  a t 330 nm)  at the beginning they  showed  thiobarbituric  (Figure 2).  reactive  thiobarbituric  acid  a total  w h i c h was  b e i n g more o x i d i z e d small  amount  pattern  of level  soybean  o i l > 7/3  the  absorbance At  > 3/3  a t 16 d a y s r e f l e c t s  increased with Since  of absorbance  s l o w l y and  this  due t o t h e  oil.  o i l alone  b e assumed  The oil > that  same p a t t e r n . showed  i n c r e a s e was oil,  t h e i n c r e a s e i n amount  i t may  attained  15 shows  and 5/5 b l e n d s The  the  i n s p i t e of  this  o i l and T a b l e  of the sunflower  sunflower  o i l developed  i n t h e o i l was C a n o l a  > sunflower  state  more  a s s o c i a t e d with acid  (Table 13).  T h i s was p r o b a b l y  i n c r e a s e i n absorbance.  the blend.  level  acid  of l i n o l e n i c  to the oxidized  oxidation in  with.  were  during the test  the other o i l s  2 d a y s o f i n c u b a t i o n t h e 7/3  synergistic due  than  test  acid  i n t h e developement  the sunflower  substances  less  to begin  differences substances  that  reactive  of l i n o l e n i c  and 2 b l e n d s  of the d e t e r i o r a t i o n  I t c a n be seen  amount  f o r the 3 o i l s  substantial  acid  from  probably  as the degree  of  of sunflower o i l  d i d not develope  that  a  the peroxides  this added t o  72  Table  15. T h i o b a r b i t u r i c  Acid  V a l u e s Under  2-Thiobarbituric  Acid  Accelerated  Storage.  Value*  Oi 1 Day  0  Day 2  Day 5  Day 8  Day 16  CAO»  0.02+0.00  0.22+0.01  1.47+.0.08  1.73±0.04  1.86+0.03  SFO  0.02+0.00  0.05+0.00  0.08±0.01  0.13±0.01  0.49+0.01  5/5"  0.02+0.00  0.37+0.01  0.74+0.03  0.92+0.00  0.99+0.04  7/3  0.02+0.00  0.28+0.00  0.84+0.06  1.10+0.01  1.21+0.01  SBO  0.02+0.00  0.68±0.01  1.15+0.01  1.31+0.01  1.20±0.01  x  a  Absorbance  a t 530 nm  CAO = Canola  'Indicates  <+_ s t a n d a r d  o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r  Canola  and s u n f l o w e r  deviation). o i l , SBO = S o y b e a n o i l .  o i l blended  5/5  (weight/weight).  74  t h e b l e n d by linolenic also  the  acid  reflected  shown  or  the t o t a l less  than  The  o i l hastened  T h i s hastened  i n the  induction  reduced  Despite this  still  absorbance that  of  attained  at  which  at  soybean It  probably  t h e oven o i l used  16  was  patterns  was  oxidative  i n t h e b l e n d s was  those  and  r e p o r t e d by  the d i f f e r e n c e s  conducted  that  and  the  b l e n d i n g d i d not  of p e r o x i d e v a l u e o r and,  the  as  period  of  soybean o i l equivalent to  soybean  oils  E s k i n and in  Frenkel  temperature  hydrogenation  of  the  those researchers.  concluded  developement  shown by  was  the blends  induction  days f o r the Canola  reflects  test by  the  the  the soybean o i l .  absorbances  this  that  of  deterioration  p e r i o d s of  synergism  g r e a t e r than  were c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r t h a n (1977),  the d e t e r i o r a t i o n  i n the blend.  i n F i g u r e 2.  t h e b l e n d s was and  sun-flower  therefore,  stability  of  seriously  thiobarbituric d i d not  the o i l s  acid  alter  the  value  significantly  reduce  the  involved.  Smoke p o i n t s Table Canadian  16  shows t h a t  government  a l l of  standard of  v a l u e s o b t a i n e d f o r the Canbra, compare w e l l  with  although  they  values.  I t can  oil  i n 5/5  and  smoke p o i n t s .  7/3  seen  There  was  T h i s was  no  200°C f o r f r y i n g sunflower  that  6°C  and  evidence  oils.  expected  and that  free  the The  oils  Consumer  (1977),  the reported  the b l e n d i n g of sunflower  t o be  weight  above  soybean  higher than  p r o p o r t i o n s d i d not  measure of m o l e c u l a r oil.  were w e l l  those p u b l i s h e d i n Canadian  are approximately be  the o i l s  and  synergistically  change  a s t h e smoke p o i n t  fatty  acid  blending alters  content these  Canola  of  the  is a an  parameters.  Table  16. O i l Smoke  Oil  Point.  Type  Smoke P o i n t  ± SD*  1  Canbra  244  +_  1.53  Canola  247  +_  1. 15  Sunt lower  252  +_  0.38  Soybean  246  +_  1.00  5/5"  249  +_  0.58  7/3  246  +_  0.58  'Degrees C e l s i u s . "Standard  deviation  "Indicates Canola (weight/weight).  (n = 3 ) .  and S u n f l o w e r  o i l blended  5/5  76  SUMMARY  The  effects  (6.1% e r u c i c blending acid  of  other  of  effects  of  lard  1/1  (w/w).  ratios  the o i l s  was  practical  evaluation  feed  with  additions  and  blended  5/5.  Canbra  o i l with  and  blends  performance Under Canbra  (P < 0.05)  and  animal  animal  lard  of C a n o l a  the c o n d i t i o n s of  inferior  The  weight  acid  lard,  diet  The  the  nutritional lipid The  effects  oil,  sunflower  a t 8%  of  in a used  consumption, energy,  and  of  Canola  dietary blends oil,  of  soybean  chick  discussed.  investigation lard  o i l in  criteria  oil,  o i l on  and  animal  value  metabolizable  sunflower  e q u i v a l e n t to animal to sunflower  smoke  sunflower  digestibility  were c o m p a r e d this  and  o i l or  gain, feed  sunflower  o i l and  utilization  o i l was  or  fatty  feasibility  to study  with  chicks fed  digestibility.  oil,  by and  the  sunflower  a 4 week f e e d i n g p e r i o d .  fatty  Canbra  examined.  either  u s i n g growing  acid  of Canbra  acid) o i l s  In a d d i t i o n ,  o i l was  6/4  total  of  the a u t o x i d a t i v e s t a b i l i t y  were body w e i g h t ,  fatty  profiles  c h i c k performance  b a l a n c i n g was  7/3,  digestibility,  individual  that  over  erucic  conversion, feed d i g e s t i b i l i t y ,  lipid  oil,  8/2,  on  acid  (hydrolyzed o i l s )  Canola  assayed  diet  as,  blended  The  9/1,  oils  acids  acid  o i l was  or  (0.55%  investigated.  fatty  fatty  Canbra  for  fats  t h e o i l were  feeding free  the  Canola  a b s o r p t i o n , as w e l l  point  CONCLUSIONS  of b a l a n c i n g the f a t t y  a c i d ) and  with  AND  i t was  and  observed  significantly  o i l in the promotion  of  growth  77  and or  -feed c o n s u m p t i o n . sun-flower  over  o i l showed  the Canbra  oil/animal  lard  was  acid  blend  digestibility  fatty  between t h e s e  This  than  either  increases fatty  inferior  indicates  increase in l i p i d  a c i d s of the Canbra  absorbable  Canbra  synergistic.  those  animal  There  both  o i l and a n i m a l  or sunflower  oil.  total  treatments i n  blends exibited The  lard  or  were  Canbra o i l  to the other  of the sunflower  lard  treatments.  that  lard  consumption  of the  digestibility.  in the absorbability  a  individual  generally  were  less  B l e n d i n g Canbra o i l  o i l caused  synergistic  of the m a j o r i t y of the  individual  acids. Canola  oil,  sunflower  o i l and s o y b e a n  be e q u i v a l e n t i n t h e p r o m o t i o n consumption. except  t h e 8/2  body w e i g h t . blend  and t h i s  weight oil.  g a i n and  In t h e case  i n c r e a s e was  (P < 0.0S)  digestibility.  synergistic  with  this  o i l and a n i m a l  i n feed conversion, feed d i g e s t i b i l i t y  significantly  lipid  o-f C a n b r a  i n c r e a s e d weight  o i l -fed a l o n e .  no d i f f e r e n c e s fatty  The b l e n d s  A l l of the blends and 6/4 The  significantly sunflower  was  soybean  weight  by e i t h e r  digestibility <P < 0.03)  shown  to a level  of Canola  showed  significantly  and s u n f l o w e r o i l  synergistic  g a i n was  However,  b y t h e 7/3,  6/4  soybean  o i l treatment  of the Canola  the synergism  also  was  o i l or  i n feed  and 5/3 b l e n d s  T h i s p a t t e r n was  the  o i l or the  raised  equivalent to the d i g e s t i b i l i t y  o i l treatment.  by t h e 7/3  g r e a t e r than  the sunflower  that  increases in  demonstrated  (P < 0.03)  than  to  g a i n and f e e d  of t h e soybean  higher  o i l treatments.  digestibility parameter  blends  largest  g a i n s promoted The f e e d  of weight  o i l were d e t e r m i n e d  shown  shown  this i n the  in nitrogen  78  retention 5/3  and a p p a r e n t  and 7/3  blends  no s i g n i f i c a n t acid  were The  less 7/3  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the feed  fatty  and 5/5  exceeding This  values  showed  derived  obtained  acids  from  to a level  f o r the f a t t y  over  time  true  acid  nitrogen therefore  conclusions  and b l e n d s  was  and t h i o b a r b i t u r i c  Results  showed  that  on o i l s t a b i l i t y .  w e r e drawn f r o m  o f C a n b r a o i l by b l e n d i n g  feed  acid  blending This  was  absorption.  retention,  f o r t h e 5/3  correlation  o i l (unsaturated  o i l ) improves  chick  absorption  acid balancing weight fatty  gain,  <w/w)  gain  and  individual  of Canola o i l with  feed  digestibility,  acid absorption, energy  o i l fed individually.  between weight  i n d i c a t e s that  lipid  metabolizable  and 7/3  Fatty lard  individual  d i e t a r y apparent  results.  e i t h e r animal  Fatty  o i l improves c h i c k  these with  consumption,  Canola o i l or sunflower noticable  effects  f a t ) or sunflower  gain,  sunflower  detrimental  test.  acids.  o f t h e smoke p o i n t s .  balancing  weight  i n an o v e n  t o or  a c i d s of soybean o i l .  of the o i l s values  i n the  equivalent  stability peroxide  fatty  the soybean o i l .  autoxidatlve  by d e t e r m i n i n g  were  In terms o f  synergistic increases  fatty  the  from C a n o l a o i l g e n e r a l l y  The  (saturated  cases  those  treatments.  true f o r the e s s e n t i a l f a t t y  . Several  fatty  blends  of i n d i v i d u a l  no s e r i o u s  acid  than  derived  There  or total  particularly  values  also  those  the best.  was  assessed  had  acids  of the d i e t s with  conversion  between any o f t h e s e  absorbable  absorption  energy  c o n s i s t a n t l y performing  digestibility  individual  metabolizable  blends.  and f e e d  compared t o This  was  The h i g h  consumption  i n ad. 1 i b i t u r n f e e d i n g ,  and  feed  most  degree of shown  in a l l  consumption  79  is  t h e most The  the  was  soybean  of -feeding  assayed  intact  for evaluation  blend  oils  weight  hydrolyzed  by f e e d i n g  o i l and a 5/5  corresponding  Criteria  -factor i n c h i c U  -feasibility  mixtures) oil,  important  gain.  oils  (free fatty  hydrolyzed  Canola o i l ,  of Canola  and s u n f l o w e r  a t 8% o f a p r a c t i c a l  acid  sunflower o i lor  diet.  o f p e r f o r m a n c e were t h e same a s  described  previously. Results  showed  that  equivalent  to the intact  hydrolyzed  blend  promotion,  feed  but  significant  of  showed  0.05) that  reduced  diet  elucidate  acids.  the reduced  soybean o i l .  oils  but that  conversion reduction Hydrolyzed  i n c h i c k s showed  and f a t t y  hydrolyzed  acid balance  feed  be a u s e f u l  further research  a b s o r b a b i l i t y shown  blend and  The  i n growth  lipid  absorption  i n the a b s o r b a b i l i t y soybean  oil  while  a significantly  acid absorption. may  o i l were  performance.  to the intact  (P < 0.05)  fatty  C a n o l a and s u n f l o w e r  in nutritive  equivalent  t h e same g r o w t h  feeding  fatty  oils  consumption,  some i n d i v i d u a l  supporting  and  was  hydrolyzed  I t was tool  (P <  concluded  i n the study  i s needed  of  to  by t h e h y d r o l y z e d  blend  80  BIBLIOGRAPHY  A b d e l l a t i f , A.M.M. a n d R.O. V i e s , 1970. P a t h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s o f d i e t a r y rapeseed o i l i n r a t s . N u t r i t i o n and M e t a b o l i s m . 12:285-295. Ackman, R.G., 1983. C h e m i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n o f r a p e s e e d o i l . I n : H i g h and Low E r u c i c A c i d R a p e s e e d O i l s . Production, Usage, C h e m i s t r y and T o x i c o l o g i c a l E v a l u a t i o n . J.K.G. K r a m e r , F.D. S a u e r and W.J. P i g d e n e d s . A c a d e m i c P r e s s . New Y o r k , New York. Pp. 85-129. A l e x a n d e r , J . C . and F.H. M a t t s o n , 1966. A n u t r i t i o n a l c o m p a r i s o n of r a p e s e e d o i l and soybean o i l . C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l o f Biochemistry. V o l 44: 3 5 - 4 3 . AOAC  ( A s s o c i a t i o n o f O f f i c i a l A n a l y t i c a l C h e m i s t s ) , 1980. O f f i c i a l methods o f a n a l y s i s , 1 3 e d . S e c t i o n 28. W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. t h  AOCS  ( O f f i c i a l and T e n t a t i v e Methods o f t h e A m e r i c a n O i l C h e m i s t s ' S o c i e t y , 3»-» e d . ) , 1980. R.O. W a l k e r e d . American O i l C h e m i s t s ' S o c i e t y , Champaign, I l l i n o i s .  A r t m a n , N.R., 1964. I n t e r a c t i o n s o f f a t s a n d f a t t y energy sources f o r t h e c h i c k . Poultry Science  a c i d s as 43:994-1004.  A t t e h , J.O. a n d S. L e e s o n , 1983. E f f e c t s o f d i e t a r y f a t t y a c i d s and c a l c i u m l e v e l s on p e r f o r m a n c e and m i n e r a l m e t a b o l i s m D f b r o i l e r chickens. Poultry Science 62:2412-2419. A u s t r e n g , E . , A. S k r e d e and A. E l d e g a r d , 1979. E f f e c t o f d i e t a r y f a t s o u r c e on t h e d i g e s t i b i l i t y o f f a t a n d f a t t y a c i d s i n R a i n b o w T r o u t and M i n k . Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, 29:119-126. B a l n a v e , D., 1970. E s s e n t i a l f a t t y a c i d s i n p o u l t r y W o r l d ' s P o u l t r y S c i e n c e J o u r n a l , 26:442-460.  nutrition.  B e a r e - R o g e r s , J . L . , 1977. D o c o s e n o i c a c i d s i n d i e t a r y f a t s . C h e m i s t r y o f F a t s and O t h e r L i p i d s . V o l 15, p p . 29-56. Pergamon P r e s s , G r e a t B r i t a i n . B e a r e - R o g e r s , J . L . , L . G r a y , E.A. N e r a and O.L. L e v i n , 1979. N u t r i t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s o f p p p p y s e e d o i l r e l a t i v e t o some other o i l s . N u t r i t i o n and M e t a b o l i s m , 23:335-346.  In:  31  B e a r e - R o g e r s , J . L . , E.A. N e r a and H.A. H e g g t v e i t , 1971. Cardiac l i p i d c h a n g e s i n r a t s -fed o i l s c o n t a i n i n g l o n g - c h a i n fatty acids. C a n a d i a n I n s t i t u t e o f Food T e c h n o l o g y J o u r n a l , 4:120-124. B e l l e n a n d , J . F . , G. B a l o u t c h , N. Ong and J . L e l e r f , 1980. E f f e c t s o f c o c o n u t o i l on h e a r t l i p i d s and on f a t t y a c i d u t i l i z a t i o n i n r a p e s e e d o i l . L i p i d s , V o l 15, ttll:938-943. B l e l y , J . and B. M a r c h , 1954. F a t s t u d i e s i n p o u l t r y , 2. Fat s u p p l e m e n t s i n c h i c k and p o u l t r a t i o n s . P o u l t r y S c i e n c e 33: 1220-1227. B i e l y , J . and B. M a r c h , 1957. F a t s t u d i e s i n p o u l t r y , 7. Fat and n i t r o g e n r e t e n t i o n i n c h i c k s f e d d i e t s c o n t a i n i n g d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f f a t and p r o t e i n . Poultry Science 36:1235-1240. B l e r i , J.G., G.M. B r i g g s , M.R. S p i v e y - F o x , C . J . P o l l a r d and L.O. O r t i z , 1956. E s s e n t i a l f a t t y a c i d s i n t h e c h i c k , 1. Developement of f a t - d e f i c i e n c y . P r o c e e d i n g s of the S o c i e t y o f E x p e r i m e n t a l B i o l o g y and M e d i c i n e , 9 3 : 2 3 7 - 2 4 0 . B o r g s t r o m , B., 1977. Nutrio et Dieta,  Intestinal absorption 25:1-6.  of f a t s .  Bibliotheca  B r a g g , D.B., J . S . S i m , and G.C. H o d g s o n , 1973. I n f l u e n c e Df d i e t a r y e n e r g y s o u r c e on p e r f o r m a n c e and f a t t y liver syndrome i n White Leghorn l a y i n g hens. Poultry Science 52:736-740. Burr,  8.0. and M.M. B u r r , 1929. A new d e f i c i e n c y d i s e a s e p r o d u c e d by t h e r i g i d e x c l u s i o n o f f a t f r o m t h e d i e t . J o u r n a l o f B i o l o g i c a l C h e m i s t r y , 82:345-367.  Burr,  G.O. and M.M. B u r r , 1930. T h e n a t u r e and r o l e o f t h e f a t t y acids essential in nutrition. Journal of B i o l o g i c a l C h e m i s t r y , 86:587-621.  C a m p b e l l , S.,1982. R e p o r t on t h e C a n o l a C o u n c i l t e c h n i c a l s e m i n a r and m i s s i o n t o A l g i e r s .  o f Canada  C a n a d i a n C o n s u m e r , 1977. Test: C o o k i n g o i l s and f a t s . F e b r u a r y , p. 4 5 . • Carew, L.B. J r . , D.T. H o p k i n s and M.C. N e s h e i m , 1964. Influence o f amount and t y p e o f f a t on m e t a b o l i c e f f i c i e n c y o f e n e r g y u t i l i z a t i o n by t h e c h i c k . J o u r n a l of N u t r i t i o n , 83:300-306. Carroll, the  K.K., rat.  1958. D i g e s t i b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l f a t t y J o u r n a l of N u t r i t i o n , 64:399-410.  acids in  82  C a r r o l l , K.K. and J . F . R i c h a r d s , 1958. Factors, a f f e c t i n g d i g e s t i b i l i t y of -fatty a c i d s i n t h e r a t . J o u r n a l o-f N u t r i t i o n , 64:411-428. Chen,  S.C.-H., 1979. Feeding f r e e f a t t y a c i d s to study lipid metabolism in r a t s . J o u r n a l of N u t r i t i o n , 109:39-47.  Chow, S.L. and D. H o l l a n d e r , 1979. Linoleic acid absorption in the unanesthetized r a t : m e c h a n i s m o f t r a n s p o r t and i n f l u e n c e o f l u m i n a l f a c t o r s on a b s o r p t i o n . L i p i d s , V o l 14, No. 4:378-385. C l a n d i n i n , T., S.M. I n n i s and R. R e n n e r , 1978. The e f f e c t o f h i g h and low e r u c i c a c i d r a p e s e e d o i l on e n e r g y m e t a b o l i s m in chicks. P r o c e e d i n g s Df the 5 I n t e r n a t i o n a l Rapeseed Conference, Malmo, Sweden. V o l 2:279-283. t h  Corino, C , V. D e l l ' O r t o and 0. P e d r o n , 1980. E f f e t t i del l a c o m p o s i z i o n e a c i d i c a d i g r a s s i ed o l i i s u l l a e f f i c a c i a n u t r i t i v a d e i mangimi p e r b r o i l e r s . R e v 1 s t a Di Z o o t e c n i a V e t e r i n a r i a , No. 2:94-98.  E  C r a i g , B.M. and J . L . B e a r e , 1968. N u t r i t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s of Canadian Canbra o i l . Canadian I n s t i t u t e of Food T e c h n o l o g y J o u r n a l , 1:64-67. C r a w f o r d , M.A., P. B u d o w s k i , W. H a r e and A.6. H a s s a n , q u e s t i o n of f a t t y a c i d e s s e n t i a l i t y . J o u r n a l of A m e r i c a n O i l C h e m i s t s ' S o c i e t y , 59:290A-291A.  1982. the  Dale,  N.M. and H.L. F u l l e r , 1982. True metabolizable energy f a t s a t low l e v e l d i e t a r y i n c l u s i o n . Poultry Science 61:2415-2420.  Dam,  R., R.M. L e a c h , J r . , T.S. N e l s o n , L.C. N o r r i s and 1959. S t u d i e s on t h e e f f e c t o f q u a n t i t y and t y p e c h i c k growth. J o u r n a l of N u t r i t i o n , 68:615-632.  A  of  F.M. Hill, o f f a t on  Daun, J.K., 1983. The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f low e r u c i c a c i d rapeseed v a r i e t i e s i n t o Canadian production. In: H i g h and Low E r u c i c A c i d Rapeseed O i l s : P r o d u c t i o n , Usage, C h e m i s t r y and Toxicological Evaluation. J.K.G. K r a m e r , F.D. S a u e r and W.J. Pigden eds. Academic P r e s s , Toronto. Pp.161-130. D o n a l d s o n , W.E., Q.F. Combs, G.L. Romoser and W.C. Supplee, 1957. S t u d i e s on e n e r g y l e v e l s i n p o u l t r y r a t i o n s , 2. Tolerance of growing c h i c k s t o d i e t a r y f a t . Poultry Science, 36:807-815. E n g f e l d t , B. and E . B r u n i u s , 1975. M o r p h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s of rapeseed o i l i n r a t s , I I . Long term s t u d i e s . Acta Medica Scandinavica. S u p p l e m e n t a , V o l 585:27-40.  83  E s k i n , N.A.M. and C. F r e n k e l , 1977. A study o f . t h e d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f s o y b e a n and r a p e s e e d o i l s by m e a s u r e m e n t o f h y d r o p e r o x i d e s . P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e 1 3 * World Congress International Society Fat Research. Pp. A l - 7 . H  Farnworth, fatty rat.  E.R. and J.K.G. K r a m e r , 1983. The e f f e c t o f d i e t a r y a c i d s on t h e g r o w t h and c a r c a s s c o m p o s i t i o n i n t h e N u t r i t i o n R e p o r t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 27:794-809.  F e d d e , M.R., P.E. W a i b e l and R.E. B u r g e r , 1960. Factors a f f e c t i n g the a b s o r b a b i l i t y of c e r t a i n d i e t a r y f a t s in the chick. J o o u r n a l o f N u t r i t i o n , 70:447-452. F o l c h , J . , M. L e e s and G.H. S l o a n e - S t a n l e y , 1957. A simple method f o r t h e i s o l a t i o n and p u r i f i c a t i o n o f t o t a l lipides from animal t i s s u e s . J o u r n a l of B i o l o g i c a l Chemistry, 226:497-509. Formo, M.W., 1979. P h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s o f f a t s and f a t t y a c i d s . In: B a i l e y ' s I n d u s t r i a l O i l and F a t P r o d u c t s . D a n i e l Swern ed. J o h n W i l e y and S o n s , New Y o r k , C h i c h e s t e r , B r i s b a n e and Toronto. Pp.177-232. F r e e m a n , C P . , 1983. Fat supplementation i n animal p r o d u c t i o n monogastric animals. Procedures of the N u t r i t i o n a l S o c i e t y , 42:351-359. F u l c o , A . J . and J . F . Mead, 1959. Metabolism of e s s e n t i a l f a t t y a c i d s , V I I . O r i g i n o f 5, 8, 1 1 - e i c o s a t r i e n o i c a c i d i n t h e f a t - d e f i c i e n t r a t . J o u r n a l of B i o l o g i c a l Chemistry, 234:1411-1416. F u l l e r , H.L. and N.M. D a l e , 1982. E f f e c t of r a t i o of basal d i e t f a t t o t e s t f a t on t h e t r u e m e t a b o l i z a b l e e n e r g y o f t h e t e s t fat. P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 61:914-918. G r i f f i t h s , L . , S. L e e s o n and J.D. Summers, 1977. I n f l u e n c e of e n e r g y s y s t e m and l e v e l o f v a r i o u s f a t s o u r c e s on p e r f o r m a n c e and c a r c a s s c o m p o s i t i o n o f b r o i l e r s . Poultry S c i e n c e , 56:1018-1026. G r i m i n g e r , P., 1976. L i p i d Metabolism. In: Avian Physiology, 31-a E d i t i o n . P.D. S t u r k i e e d . S p r 1 n g e r - V e r 1 a g , New Y o r k , Heidelberg, Berlin. Pp. 2 5 2 - 2 6 2 . G u y t o n , A.C., 1976. Textbook of M e d i c a l P h y s i o l o g y . W.B. S a u n d e r s Company. P h i l a d e l p h i a , London, T o r o n t o . Pp. 883-891. H a k a n s s o n , J . , 1974. F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the d i g e s t i b i l i t y of and f a t t y a c i d s i n c h i c k s and h e n s . Swedish J o u r n a l of A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h , 4:33-47.  fats  Hakkarainen, Vitamin diets.  J . , S. H a s s a n , J . T y o p p o n e n and P. L i n d b e r g , 1983. E d e f i c i e n t f a t component f o r c o m p o s i n g e x p e r i m e n t a l A c t a V e t e r e n a r i a S c a n d i n a v i c a , 24:129-132.  H a m i l t o n , R.M.8. and B.E. M c D o n a l d , 1969. E f f e c t of d i e t a r y f a t s o u r c e on t h e a p p a r e n t d i g e s t i b i l i t y o f f a t and t h e c o m p o s i t i o n of f e c a l l i p i d s o f t h e young p i g . J o u r n a l o f N u t r i t i o n , 97:33-41. H e n d e r s e n , E.W. and W.E. I r w i n , 1940. The t o l e r e n c e o f g r o w i n g c h i c k s f o r soybean o i l i n t h e i r r a t i o n . Poultry Science, 19:389-395. Hill,  F.W. and D.L. A n d e r s o n , 1958. Comparison of m e t a b o l i z a b l e e n e r g y and p r o d u c t i v e e n e r g y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s w i t h g r o w i n g chicks. J o u r n a l o f N u t r i t i o n , 64:587-603.  Holman, R.T., 1960. The r a t i o o f t r i e n o i c : t e t r a e n o i c a c i d s i n t i s s u e l i p i d s as a measure of e s s e n t i a l f a t t y a c i d requirement. J o u r n a l o f N u t r i t i o n , 70:405-410. Holman, R.T., 1964. N u t r i t i o n a l and m e t a b o l i c interrelationships between f a t t y a c i d s . Federation Proceedings, 23:1062-1067. Holman, R.T., 1975. D e f i c i e n c y of e s s e n t i a l f a t t y a c i d s i n humans. I n : The E s s e n t i a l F a t t y A c i d s . M i l e s Symposium, 1975. W.W. Hawkins ed. The N u t r i t i o n S o c i e t y of Canada, U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, Winnipeg. Pp. 4 5 - 5 7 . Holman, R.T., 1982. L i n o l e n i c a c i d a s an e s s e n t i a l f a t t y a c i d and i t s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h L i n o l e i c a c i d . Journal of the A m e r i c a n O i l C h e m i s t s S o c i e t y , 59:290A. H o p k i n s , C.Y., T.K. M u r r a y and J.A. C a m p b e l l , 1955. Optimum r a t i o of s a t u r a t e d t o mono-unsaturated f a t t y a c i d s i n r a t diets. C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l o f B i o c h e m i s t r y and P h y s i o l o g y , 33:1047-1054. H o p k i n s , D.T., R.C. W i t t e r and M.C. N e i s h e i m , 1963. A r e s p i r a t o r y d i s e a s e syndrome i n c h i c k e n s f e d e s s e n t i a l acid deficient diets. P r o c e e d i n g s of the S o c i e t y of E x p e r i m e n t a l B i o l o g y and M e d i c i n e , 114:82-86.  fatty  H o r a n i , F. and J . L . S e l l , 1977. E f f e c t of feed grade animal t a l l o w s on l a y i n g hen p e r f o r m a n c e and on m e t a b o l i z a b l e energy of r a t i o n s . P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 56:1972-1980. H o u t s m u l l e r , V.M.T, C.B. S t r u i j k and A. Van D e r Beek, 1970. D e c r e a s e i n r a t e o f ATP s y n t h e s i s o f i s o l a t e d r a t h e a r t m i t o c h o n d r i a i n d u c e d by d i e t a r y e r u c i c a c i d . Biochimica B i o p h y s i c a A c t a , 218:564-566.  85  H u l a n , H.W., A.H. C o r n e r , D.M. N a s h and F.G. P r o u d - f o o t , 1982. G r o w t h , h e a r t w e i g h t , c a r d i a c l i p i d , and p a t h o l o g y o f c h i c k e n s f e d soybean o i l , or o i l e x t r a c t e d from d i f f e r e n t rapeseed c u l t i v a r s . P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 61:1154-1166. H u l a n , H.W., J.K.G. K r a m e r and A.H. C o r n e r , 1977. Myocardial l e s i o n s i n r a t s f e d rapeseed o i l , I. I n f l u e n c e of s t r a i n of r a t s . Canadian J o u r n a l of P h y s i o l o g i c a l Pharmacology, 55:258-264. H u l a n , H.W., F.G. P r o u d f o o t and D.M. N a s h , 1984. The e f f e c t s o f d i f f e r e n t d i e t a r y f a t s o u r c e s on g e n e r a l p e r f o r m a n c e and c a r c a s s f a t t y a c i d composition of b r o i l e r c h i c k e n s . P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 63:324-332. J o s h i , S.K. and J . L . S e l l , 1964. Comparative d i e t a r y v a l u e of s o y b e a n o i l , s u n f l o w e r o i l , r a p e s e e d o i l , and a n i m a l t a l l o w for turkey poults. Canadian J o u r n a l of Animal S c i e n c e , 44:34-38. K a t o n g o l e , J.B.D. and B.E. M a r c h , 1979. Fatty p r o t e i n i n the i n t e s t i n e of the c h i c k e n . 58:372-375.  acid binding Poultry Science,  K a t o n g o l e , J.B.D. and B.E. M a r c h , 1980. Fat u t i l i z a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o i n t e s t i n a l f a t t y a c i d b i n d i n g p r o t e i n and b i l e s a l t s i n c h i c k s o f d i f f e r e n t a g e s and d i f f e r e n t g e n e t i c sources. P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 59:819-827. K l e n k , E . and H. M o h r h a u e r , 1960. Metabolism of p o l y e n e f a t t y a c i d s i n t h e r a t . J o u r n a l o f P h y s i o l o g y and C h e m i s t r y , 320:218-232. K r a m e r , J.K.G., E.R. F a r n w o r t h , B.K. Thompson and A.H. Corner, 1981. The e f f e c t o f d i e t a r y f a t t y a c i d s on t h e i n c i d e n c e o f c a r d i a c l e s i o n s and c h a n g e s i n t h e c a r d i a c p h o s p h o l i p i d s in male r a t s . P r o g r e s s i n L i p i d R e s e a r c h , 20:491-499. K r a m e r , J.K.G., H.W. H u l a n , A.H. C o r n e r , B.K. Thompson, N. H o l f e l d and J . H . L . M i l l s , 1979. C a r d i o p a t h o g e n i c i t y of S o y b e a n o i l and Tower r a p e s e e d o i l t r i g l y c e r i d e s when f e d t o male r a t s . L i p i d s , 14:773-780. K r a m e r , J.K.G., H.W. H u l a n , S. M a d a h e v a n , F.D. S a u e r and A.H. C o r n e r , 1977. N u t r i t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n of rapeseed o i l - a review. In: R a p e s e e d O i l , Meal and B y - p r o d u c t Utilization P r o c e e d i n g s , V a n c o u v e r , B.C. J.M. B e l l , e d . Pp. 64-74. K r a m e r , J.K.G., S. M a d a h e v a n , J.R. H u n t , F.D. S a u e r , A.H. Corner and K.M. C h a r l t o n , 1973. Growth r a t e , l i p i d c o m p o s i t i o n , m e t a b o l i s m and m y o c a r d i a l l e s i o n s o f r a t s f e d r a p e s e e d o i l s ( B r a s s i c a c a m p e s t r i s v a r . A r l o , E c h o and S p a n , and B. n a p u s var. Oro). J o u r n a l of N u t r i t i o n , 103:1696-1708.  86  K r a m e r , J.K.G. and F.D. S a u e r , 1983. Results obtained with • f e e d i n g low e r u c i c a c i d r a p e s e e d o i l s and o t h e r v e g e t a b l e o i l s t o r a t s and o t h e r s p e c i e s . In: H i g h and Low E r u c i c A c i d Rapeseed O i l s . P r o d u c t i o n , Usage, C h e m i s t r y , and Toxicological Evaluation. J.K.G. K r a m e r , F.D. S a u e r , and W.J. P i g d e n e d s . A c a d e m i c P r e s s , New Y o r k , New Y o r k . Pp. 414-474. K u s s a i b a t i , R., J . G u l l l a u m e and 8. L e c l e r c q , 1982. The e f f e c t s of e n d o g e n o u s e n e r g y , t y p e o f d i e t , and a d d i t i o n o f b i l e s a l t s on t r u e m e t a b o l i z a b l e e n e r g y v a l u e s i n y o u n g c h i c k s . P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 61:2218-2223. Lall,  S.P. and S . J . S l i n g e r , 1973. The m e t a b o l i z a b l e e n e r g y c o n t e n t o f r a p e s e e d o i l s and r a p e s e e d o i l f o o t s and t h e e f f e c t of b l e n d i n g with o t h e r f a t s . Poultry Science, 52:143-151.  L a n d s , W.E.N., 1975. S e l e c t i v i t y of m i c r o s o m a l acy1transformases. M i l e s Symposium, 1975. W.W. The N u t r i t i o n S o c i e t y o f C a n a d a , U n i v e r s i t y o f Winnipeg. Pp. 15-26. Leeson, of  Hawkins ed. Manitoba,  S. and J.D. Summers, 1976. F a t M.E. Values: The f a t t y a c i d s a t u r a t i o n . F e e d s t u f f s , 48:26-28.  Effect  L e w i s , D. and C.G. P a y n e , 1966. F a t s and a m i n o a c i d s i n b r o i l e r r a t i o n s , 6. Synergistic relationships in fatty acid utilization. B r i t i s h P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 66:209-218. M a c h l i n , L . J . , 1962. Effect p r o p o r t i o n of l i n o l e a t e Nature, 194:868-869.  o f d i e t a r y l i n o l e n a t e on t h e and a r a c h i d o n a t e i n l i v e r .  M a c h l i n , L . J . and R.S. G o r d o n , 1960. chicken f o r certain unsaturated P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 39:1271.  The r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e fatty acids (abstr.).  M a r c h , B.E., 1977. Response of c h i c k s t o the f e e d i n g of d i f f e r e n t r a p e s e e d o i l s and r a p e s e e d o i l f r a c t i o n s . C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l of Animal S c i e n c e , 57:137-140.  ->  M a t e o s , G.G. and J . L . S e l l , 1981. Nature of the e x t r a m e t a b o l i c e f f e c t of supplemental f a t used i n s e m i - p u r i f i e d d i e t s f o r l a y i n g hens. P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 60:1925-1930. Mead, J . F . , acids.  1961. S y n t h e s i s and m e t a b o l i s m o f p o l y u n s a t u r a t e d F e d e r a t i o n P r o c e e d i n g s , 20:952-955.  Menge, H. and C A . D e n t o n , 1961. E f f e c t of d r i e d egg y o l k , o i l s and f a t on c h i c k g r o w t h . J o u r n a l Df N u t r i t i o n , 75:107-115.  87  M o h r h a u e r , H. and R.T. Holman, 1 9 6 3 . E f f e c t o f . l i n o l e n i c a c i d upon t h e m e t a b o l i s m o-f l i n o l e i c a c i d . J o u r n a l o-f N u t r i t i o n , 81:67-74. M o r e l y , N.H., A. K u k s i s and D. B u c h n e a , 1974. s y n t h e t i c t r i a c y l - g l y c e r o l s by p a n c r e a t i c lipase. L i p i d s , 9:481-488.  H y d r o l y s i s of and l i p o p r o t e i n  Murphy, R . C , S. Hammerstrom and B. S a m u e l s s o n , 1979. Leukotriene C A s l o w - r e a c t i n g substance from murine mastocytoma c e l l s . P r o c e e d i n g s o-f t h e N a t i o n a l Academy o-f S c i e n c e s , U.S.A., 7 6 : 4 2 7 5 - 4 2 7 9 . M u z t a r , A . J . , S. L e e s o n and S . J . S l i n g e r , 1981. E f f e c t o f b l e n d i n g and l e v e l o f i n c l u s i o n on t h e m e t a b o l i z a b l e energy o f t a l l o w a n d Tower r a p e s e e d s o a p s t o c k s . Poultry Science, 60:365-372. N e e d l e m a n , P., A. R a z , M.S. M i n k e s , J . A . F e r r e n d e l l i and H. S p r e c h e r , 1979. T r i e n e p r o s t a g l a n d i n s : P r o s t a c y c l i n and t h r o m b o x a n e b i o s y n t h e s i s and u n i q u e b i o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s . P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s , U.S.A., 76:944-948. Nunn, L.C.A. and I . S m e d l e y - M a c l e a n , 1938. T h e n a t u r e o f t h e f a t t y a c i d s s t o r e d by t h e l i v e r i n t h e f a t - d e f i c i e n c y disease of rats. The B i o c h e m i c a l J o u r n a l , 32:2178-2184. O c k n e r , R.K., J . A . M a n n i n g , R.B. P o p p e n h a u s e n and UI.K.L. Ho, 1972. A binding p r o t e i n f o r f a t t y acids i n c y t o s o l of i n t e s t i n a l m u c o s a , l i v e r , m y o c a r d i u m and o t h e r t i s s u e s . Science, 177:56-58. O e r t e l , V.M.L. a n d W. H a r t f i e l , 1982. E f f e c t o f f r e s h and o x i d i z e d f a t s / o i l s and o f p r o - and a n t i o x i d a n t s on t h e growth o f b r o i l e r c h i c k s . A r c h i v F u r G e f l u g e l k u n d e 1:13-17. Rand,  N.T., H.M. S c o t t and F.A. Kummerow, 1958. D i e t a r y f a t in t h e n u t r i t i o n of t h e growing c h i c k . Poultry Science, 37:1075-1085.  R e i s e r , R., 1950. T h e e s s e n t i a l r o l e o f f a t t y a c i d s i n r a t i o n s for growing c h i c k s . J o u r n a l o f N u t r i t i o n , 42:319-323. R e n n e r , R. and F.W. H i l l , 1960. l a r d and t a l l o w b y c h i c k e n s S c i e n c e , 39:849-854.  The u t i l i z a t i o n o f c o r n o i l , of v a r i o u s ages. Poultry  R e n n e r , R. and F.W. H i l l , 1961a. Factors a f f e c t i n g the a b s o r b a b i l i t y of saturated f a t t y a c i d s i n the chick. J o u r n a l o f N u t r i t i o n , 74:254-258. R e n n e r , R. and F.W. H i l l , 1961b. U t i l i z a t i o n of f a t t y the chicken. J o u r n a l o f N u t r i t i o n , 74:259-264.  a c i d s by  68  R o c q u e l i n , G. and R. C l u z a n , 1968. L ' h u i l e de C o l z a r i c h e en a c i d e e r u c i q u e e t L ' h u i l e de C o l z a s a n s a c i d e e r u c i q u e : v a l l e u r n u t r i t i o n e l l e e t e-f-fets p h y s i o l o g i q u e s c h e z l e r a t , I. E-f-fets s u r l a c r o i s s a n c e , 1 *e-f f i c a c i t e a l i m e n t a i r e e t i ' e t a t de d i - f - f e r e n t s o r g a n e s . A n n a l e s de B i o l o g i e A n i m a l e , BiDchemie, Biophysique, 8:395-406.  R o c q u e l i n , G. and J . L e c l e r c , 1969. L ' h u i l e de c o l z a r i c h e en a c i d e e r u c i q u e e t l ' h u i l e de c o l z a s a n s a c i d e e r u c i q u e . A n n a l e s de B i o l o g i e A n i m a l e , B i o c h e m i e , Biophysique, 9:413-426 S a l m o n , R.E., 1969a. Soybean v e r s u s rapeseed o i l i n starter diets. P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 48:87-93. S a l m o n , R.E., 1969b. The r e l a t i v e o i l s in chick starter diets.  turkey  v a l u e s o-f r a p e s e e d and s o y b e a n P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 48:1045-1050.  S a l m o n , R.E., 1970. Rapeseed o i l i n p o u l t r y d i e t s . Proceedings o-f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on t h e S c i e n c e , T e c h n o l o g y and M a r k e t i n g o f R a p e s e e d and R a p e s e e d P r o d u c t s . Ste. A d e l e , Quebec, Canada. P u b l i s h e d by t h e R a p e s e e d A s s o c . o f Canada. Pp. 3 6 9 - 3 7 6 . S a l m o n , R.E., 1977. E f f e c t s o f age on t h e a b s o r p t i o n o f t u r k e y s f e d m i x t u r e s o f b e e f f a t and r a p e s e e d o i l . J o u r n a l of Animal S c i e n c e , 57:427-431.  f a t by Canadian  S a u e r , F.D. and J.K.G. K r a m e r , 1983. The p r o b l e m s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e f e e d i n g o f h i g h e r u c i c a c i d RS0 and some f i s h o i l s to e x p e r i m e n t a l animals. In: H i g h and Low E r u c i c A c i d Rapeseed O i l s . P r o d u c t i o n , Usage, C h e m i s t r y and Toxicological Evaluation. J.K.G. K r a m e r , F.D. S a u e r and W.J. Pigden eds. A c a d e m i c P r e s s , New Y o r k , New York. Pp. 2 5 4 - 2 9 2 . S a v a r y , P. and M.J. C o n s t a n t i n , 1966. Sur l a r e s o r p t i o n i n t e s t i n a l e des c h a l n e s e r u c i q u e s e t l e a r i n c o r p o r a t i o n dans les chylomicrons l y m p h a t i q u e s du r a t . Biochimica Biophysica A c t a , 125:118-128. S c o t t , M.L., M.C. N e s h e i m and R . J . Young, 1982. N u t r i t i o n of Chicken, 3 ed. M.L. S c o t t and A s s o c i a t e s , I t h a c a , New York. Pp. 562.  the  r d  S c o t t , H.M., L.C. S i m s and D.L. S t a h e l i , 1955. The e f f e c t v a r y i n g p r o t e i n and e n e r g y on p e r f o r m a n c e o f c h i c k s (abstr.). P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 34:1220.  Sell,  of  J . L . and G.C. H o d g s o n , 1962. Comparative v a l u e of d i e t a r y r a p e s e e d o i l , s u n f l o w e r s e e d o i l , s o y b e a n o i l and animal tallow for chickens. J o u r n a l of N u t r i t i o n , 76:113-118.  t  89  S h e p p a r d , A . J . , J . C . F r i t z , W.H. H o o p e r , T. R o b e r t s , W.D. H u b b a r d , A.R. P r o s s e r and J.W. B o e h n e , 1971. Crambe and r a p e s e e d o i l s a s e n e r g y s o u r c e s -for r a t s and c h i c k s and some a n c i l l a r y d a t a on o r g a n w e i g h t s and b o d y c a v i t y -fat composition. P o u l t r y S c i e n c e 30:79-84. S i b b a l d , I.R., 1979. M e t a b o l i z a b l e e n e r g y e v a l u a t i o n o-f p o u l t r y chicks. In: Recent Advances i n Animal N u t r i t i o n . w. H a r e s l g n and 0. L e w i s e d s . B u t t e r w o r t h s London. Pp.35-49. S i b b a l d , I.R. and J.K.G. K r a m e r , 1977. The t r u e m e t a b o l i z a b l e e n e r g y v a l u e s o-f -fats and -fat m i x t u r e s . Poultry Science, 56:2079-2086. S i b b a l d , I.R. and S . J . S l i n g e r , 1960. A synergistic relationship b e t w e e n t a l l o w and undegummed s o y b e a n o i l ( a b s t r . ) . Poultry S c i e n c e , 39:1295. S i b b a l d , I.R., S . J . S l i n g e r and G.C. A s h t o n , 1961. Factors a f f e c t i n g t h e m e t a b o l i z a b l e e n e r g y c o n t e n t o-f p o u l t r y -feeds, I. V a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e M.E. v a l u e s a t t r i b u t e d t o s a m p l e s o-f t a l l o w and undegummed s o y b e a n o i l . Poultry Science, 40:303-308. S i b b a l d , I.R., S . J . S l i n g e r and G.C. A s h t o n , 1962. The u t i l i z a t i o n o-f a number o-f - f a t s - f a t t y m a t e r i a l s , and mixtures t h e r e o f e v a l u a t e d i n terms of m e t a b o l i z a b l e energy, c h i c k w e i g h t g a i n s and g a i n : f e e d r a t i o s . Poultry Science, 41:46-61. S i d w e l l , CO., H. S a l w i n , M. B e n c a and J.H. M i t c h e l l , J r . , 1954. The u s e o f t h i o b a r b i t u r i c a c i d a s a m e a s u r e o f f a t oxidation. J o u r n a l of the American O i l Chemist's S o c i e t y , 31:603-606. S k l a n , D., 1979. D i g e s t i o n and a b s o r p t i o n D f l i p i d s i n c h i c k s fed t r i g l y c e r i d e s or f r e e f a t t y a c i d s : S y n t h e s i s of monoglycerides i n the i n t e s t i n e . Poultry Science, 58:885-889. S l i n g e r , S . J . , 1977. R a p e s e e d , r a p e s e e d o i l and r e f i n i n g byproducts in feeds. In: R a p e s e e d O i l , M e a l and B y - P r o d u c t U t i l i z a t i o n P r o c e e d i n g s , V a n c o u v e r , B.C. J.M. B e l l ed. Pp. 9 3 - 1 1 1 . S o n n t a g , N.O.V., 1979. R e a c t i o n s o f f a t s and f a t t y a c i d s . In: B a i l e y ' s I n d u s t r i a l O i l and F a t P r o d u c t s . D a n i e l Swern e d . J o h n W i l e y and S o n s , New Y o r k , C h i c h e s t e r , B r i s b a n e and Toronto. Pp. 9 9 - 1 7 5 . S p r e c h e r , H., 1975. B i o s y n t h e s i s of p o l y u n s a t u r a t e d f a t t y a c i d s . M i l e s Symposium, 1975. W.W. Hawkins ed. The N u t r i t i o n S o c i e t y of Canada. U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, Winnipeg.  90  S p r e c h e r , H., 1981. The r e g u l a t i o n o f u n s a t u r a t e d f a t t y a c i d biosynthesis. In: New T r e n d s i n N u t r i t i o n , L i p i d R e s e a r c h and C a r d i o v a s c u l a r D i s e a s e s . B a z a n and P a o l e t t i e d s . A.R. L i s s , I n c . , New Y o r k , New Y o r k . Pp. 3-15. S p r e c h e r , H., 1983. The m e c h a n i s m s o f f a t t y a c i d c h a i n e l o n g a t i o n and d e s a t u r a t i o n i n a n i m a l s . In: H i g h and Low E r u c i c A c i d Rapeseed O i l s . P r o d u c t i o n , U s a g e , C h e m i s t r y and Toxicological Evaluation. J.K.G. K r a m e r , F.D. S a u e r and W.J. Pigden eds. A c a d e m i c P r e s s , New Y o r k , New York. Pp. 3 8 3 - 4 1 1 . S t e e l , R.G.D. and J.H. T o r r i e , 1980. Principles o-f S t a t i s t i c s . A B i o m e t r i c a l Approach, 2 h i l l Book Company, New Y o r k . Pp. 633. n d  and ed.  Procedures McGraw-  S t e i n b e r g , G., W.H. S l a t o n , D.R. Howton and J . F . Mead, 1956. M e t a b o l i s m o f e s s e n t i a l f a t t y a c i d s , IV. Incorporation linoleate into arachidonic acid. J o u r n a l of B i o l o g i c a l C h e m i s t r y , 220:257-264.  of  S t e i n b e r g , G., W.H. S l a t o n , D.R. Howton and J . F . Mead, 1957. M e t a b o l i s m o f e s s e n t i a l f a t t y a c i d s , V. M e t a b o l i c pathway of l i n o l e n i c a c i d . J o u r n a l of B i o l o g i c a l C h e m i s t r y , 224:841-849. S w i s s , L.D. and H.S. B a y l e y , 1976. I n f l u e n c e of the degree of h y d r o l y s i s o f b e e f t a l l o w on i t s a b s o r p t i o n i n t h e y o u n g pig. C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l of Pharmacology, 54:719-727. T i n o c o , J . , R. B a b c o c k , I . H i n l e n b e r g s , M i l j a n i c h and M.A. W i l l i a m s , 1979. deficiency. L i p i d s , 14:167-173.  B. Medwadowski, Linolenic acid  P.  V e r g r o e s e n , A . J . , E.A.M. D e D e c k e r e , F. Ten H o o r , G. H o r n s t r a and U.M.T. H o u t s m u l l e r , 1975. P h y s i o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n s of the essential fatty acids. M i l e s Symposium, 1975. W.W. Hawkins ed. The N u t r i t i o n S o c i e t y o f C a n a d a , U n i v e r s i t y o f M a n i t o b a Winnipeg. Pp. 5-12. V e r m e e r s c h , G. and F. V a n s c h o u b r o e k , 1968. The q u a n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e e f f e c t o f i n c r e a s i n g l e v e l s o f v a r i o u s f a t s on b o d y w e i g h t g a i n , e f f i c i e n c y o f f o o d c o n v e r s i o n and f o o d i n t a k e Df growing c h i c k s . B r i t i s h P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 9:13-30. Vies,  R.O., G.M. B i j s t e r and W.G. Timmer, 1977. Nutritional e v a l u a t i o n o f low e r u c i c a c i d r a p e s e e d o i l s . Archives o f T o x i c o l o g y S u p p l e m e n t , 1:23-32.  W a i b e l , P.E., 1955. E f f e c t o f d i e t a r y p r o t e i n l e v e l and a d d e d t a l l o w on g r o w t h and c a r c a s s c o m p o s i t i o n o f c h i c k s ( a b s t r . ) P o u l t r y S c i e n c e , 34:1226.  91  W a i b e l , P.E., 1958. E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f unknown g r o w t h f a c t o r s , a n t i b i o t i c s and a n i m a l f a t i n t u r k e y p o u l t r y r a t i o n s . Poultry Science, 37:1144-1149. W a l k e r , B.L., S.P. L a l l , S . J . S l i n g e r and H.S. B a y l e y , 1970. N u t r i t i o n a l a s p e c t s of rapeseed o i l : d i g e s t i b i l i t y , p r o c e s s i n g and i n f l u e n c e Df e r u c i c a c i d on t i s s u e l i p i d s . P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on t h e S c i e n c e , T e c h n o l o g y and M a r k e t i n g o f R a p e s e e d and R a p e s e e d P r o d u c t s . S t e . A d e l e , Quebec, Canada. Pp. 3 7 7 - 4 0 4 . Ward, T.A. and R.R. M a r q u a r d t , 1983. The e f f e c t o f s a t u r a t i o n , c h a i n l e n g t h o f p u r e t r i g l y c e r i d e s , and a g e o f b i r d on t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of rye d i e t s . Poultry Science, 62:1054-1062. W h i t e h e a d , C.C. and C. F i s h e r , 1975. The u t i l i z a t i o n o f f a t s by t u r k e y s o f d i f f e r e n t a g e s . British Poultry 16:481-485. Widmer, C , J r . and R.T. Holman, 1950. PDlythenoid metabolism, I I . D e p o s i t i o n of polyunsaturated i n f a t - d e f i c i e n t r a t s upon s i n g l e f a t t y a c i d supplementation. A r c h . Biochem., 25:1-12.  fatty fatty  various Science,  acid acids  Y a c o w i t z , H., 1953. S u p p l e m e n t a t i o n o f c o r n - s o y b e a n o i l meal r a t i o n s w i t h p e n i c i l l i n and v a r i o u s f a t s ( a b s t r . ) . Poultry Science, 32:930. Young, R . J . , 1961. T h e e n e r g y v a l u e o f f a t s and f a t t y a c i d s f o r c h i c k s , I. Metabolizable energy. Poultry Science, 40:1225-1233. Y o u n g , R . J . and N.R. A r t m a n , 1961. T h e e n e r g y v a l u e o f f a t s and f a t t y a c i d s f o r c h i c k s , I I . E v a l u a t e d by c o n t r o l l e d f e e d intake. Poultry Science, 40:1653-1662. Y o u n g , R . J . and R.L. G a r r e t t , 1963. E f f e c t o f o l e i c and l i n o l e i c a c i d s on t h e a b s o r p t i o n o f s a t u r a t e d f a t t y a c i d s i n t h e chick. J o u r n a l o f N u t r i t i o n , 81:321-329. Y o u n g , R . J . , R.L. G a r r e t t and M. G r i f f i t h , 1963. Factors a f f e c t i n g the a b s o r b a b i l i t y of f a t t y a c i d m i x t u r e s high saturated f a t t y acids. Poultry Science, 42:1146-1154.  in  Z i e m l a n s k i , S., 1977. Pathophysiological e f f e c t s of long-chain fatty acids. B i b l i o t h e c a N u t r i o e t D i e t a , 25:134-157.  92  APPENDIX  93  TRIAL 4 M e t h o d s and m a t e r i a l s This  experiment  of  t h e 8/2 b l e n d  to  directly Five  was d e s i g n e d  of Canola  t o check  and s u n f l o w e r  t h e poor  o i l used  performance  in Trial  2 and  compare t h e C a n b r a and C a n o l a o i l .  experimental  d i e t s were f o r m u l a t e d  either  C a n b r a o i l <6.1% e r u c i c a c i d ) ,  acid),  sunflower  ratios  8/2 a n d 7/3  o i l or blends (w/w)  d i e t s assigned  groups over  a 4 week f e e d i n g  Canola  o i l (0.55% e r u c i c  o f C a n o l a and s u n f l o w e r  into a basal  Experimental  to incorporate  a t random period  diet  o i l at the  (Table 3 ) .  in triplicate  as described  t o 15 c h i c k  in Trials  1 and  2. In  this  experiment  only  body w e i g h t ,  consumption  and f e e d  statistical  a n a l y s i s the data  corresponding replicates  conversion  treatments  per treatment  weight  were measured.  was c o m b i n e d  in Trials  with  gain,  Prior to that  .1 a n d 2, t h i s  and an i n c r e a s e  feed  of the  resulted  in 6  in statistical  prec1sion. Results It  and d i s c u s s i o n c a n be s e e n  superior gain  (Table  Increase blend  t o both  over  weight  treatments  those  (P <0.05)  o i l i n promoting  The d a t a  there  a l s o shows t h a t  body w e i g h t  reported  between gain.  Canola o i l i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y  C a n b r a o i l and s u n f l o w e r  i n the f i n a l  difference of  I).  that  in Trial  t h e 8/2 b l e n d  T h e 7/3 b l e n d  in this  and w e i g h t  respect,  2.  There  weight  i s a marked  gain i s no  o f t h e 8/2 significant  and t h e C a n o l a o i l i n p r o m o t i o n  i s superior  although  to the other  i t i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  94  Table  I.  Effect Chicks  o f O i l B l e n d i n g on t h e G r o w t h P e r f o r m a n c e o f a t 4 Weeks, T r i a l 4.  Dietary Oil  Chick Body w e i g h t <g/bird)  Weight g a i n <g/bird)  Performance*  F e e d Consumed <g/bird)  Feed C o n v e r s i o n <g c o n s u m e d / g a i n )  CAO*  331.6-*  293.9*  598.0*=  2.04  8/2  319.0*=  281.4-*  577.3-*=  2.05  7/3  335.0*  297.6*  608.7=  2.05  SFO  311.7-*  274.2-  573.6-*  2.10  CBO  302.0-  265.9-  554.0-  2.08  3.16  5.28  10.83  0.03  3  SEM-  'Means n o t f o l l o w e d b y t h e same s u p e r s c r i p t d i f f e r e n t <P < 0 . 0 5 ) .  are s i g n i f i c a n t l y  *CA0 = C a n o l a o i l , SFO  = Canbra  = S u n f l o w e r o i l , CBO  ' I n d i c a t e s C a n o l a and S u n f l o w e r o i l b l e n d e d (weight/weight). -Standard  error  o f t h e mean  <n = 3 ) .  8/2  Dill  95  superior this  to the Canola  direction  concluded increase  that  total  I also  However  supports  t h e 7/3  i n weight  Table in  which  oil.  blend  shows  in  o i l treatment.  this  difference  showed  in and  that  ai  was  greater  Even  consumption  of T r i a l  As  this  in Trials  i s a major  in Trials  different  between  than  2.  of feed  1 and 2  factor  was than  the sunflower o i l  the Canola The 7/3 than  In t h i s  o i l treatment  blend  treatment  the Canola o i l  experiment  (r=»0.99). i s affected  i n t h e weight  1 and 2 f e e d c o n v e r s i o n was treatments.  observed  o i l treatment  g a i n and f e e d c o n s u m p t i o n  1 lbiturn f e e d i n g consumption  that  though  higher consumption  between weight  shown  I t c a n be  synergistic  i n the Canola  not s i g n i f i c a n t .  the r e s u l t s  correlation than  less  a t r e n d toward  confirming  2.  t h e same p a t t e r n c a n b e The c o n s u m p t i o n  <P < 0.05)  showed  of T r i a l  shows a p o s i t i v e  that  significantly  treatment  the r e s u l t s  trend in  gain.  feed consumption.  the Canbra  i t shows a d e f i n i t e  the  was  higher  This indicates  that  by b l e n d i n g o i l gain of the c h i c k s . not  significantly  Table  I I . Fatty  Acid  Dietary Oil  Composition  Fatty C14:0*  C16.0  Content  Trial  (per cent  C16.1  1.  by w e i g h t )  C18.0  C18:1  C18.2  CBO"  5.51  1.96  49.69  25.80  SFO  7.94  5.21  18.71  63.37  14.36  40.74  15.40  3.69  35.94  45.51  1.23  8.50  44.35  20.45  C22.0  C22". 1  C24.0  AL  0.86  21.29  CBO+SFO" CBO+AL  l  Acid  o-f D i e t s ,  2.22  6.71 0.45  13.63  C18:3  C20.0  C20.1  CBO  8.38  0.72  3.37  SFO  1.32  0.46  0.74  AL  1.85  0.34  1.33  CBO+SFO  5.22  0.65  2.11  0.77  2.55  CBO+AL  5.05  0.52  2.24  0.22  2.24  4.56 1.18  0.50  0.38  0.31 0.31  T h e number p r e c e e d i n g t h e c o l o n i n d i c a t e s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e c a r b o n c h a i n , t h e number - f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t e s t h e number o-f d o u b l e bonds p r e s e n t .  "CBO = C a n b r a o i l , SFO =» S u n f l o w e r "Indicates  o i l blended  o i l , AL = A n i m a l  1:1 b y w e i g h t .  lard.  Table  III.  Fatty  Dietary Oil  Acid  Fatty  ci4:o  1  Composition  Acid  ci6:o  of D i e t s ,  Content  Trial  (per cent  C16.1  by  2.  weight)  ci8:o  Ci8:i  C18:2  CAO*  6.97  0.17  2.38  51.38  27.23  9/1'  7.06  0.16  2.63  47.79  31.39  8/2  0.12  7.38  0.15  2.90  44.44  34.69  7/3  0.21  7.39  0.14  3.19  41.01  38.53  6/4  7.06  0.13  3.34  37.89  42.78  5/5  7.66  0.11  3.74  33.99  46.59  SFO  8.57  5.13  16.77  66.52  SBO  11.53  4.26  23.37  51.29  C24:o  0.11  C18:3  C20:o  C20:i  C22:o  C22:i  CAO  7.61  1.08  2.09  0.44  0.38  0.26  9/1  7.02  0.90  1.97  0.50  0.37  0.21  8/2  6.39  1.02  1.83  0.54  0.34  0.20  7/3  5.73  1.00  1.69  0.61  0.33  0.19  6/4  5.26  0.96  1.50  0.66  0.28  0.15  5/5  4.63  0.89  1.35  0.66  0.24  0.13  SFO  0.93  0.33  0.33  0.97  0.17  0.29  SBO  7.23  0.79  0.73  0.49  0.20  'The number p r e c e e d i n g t h e c o l o n i n d i c a t e s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e c a r b o n c h a i n , t h e number f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t e s t h e number o f double bonds p r e s e n t . z  CA0 = Canola  o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r  'Indicates Canola (weight/weight).  and S u n f l o w e r  o i l , SBO  o i l blended  = Soybean o i l . 9/1  98  Table  IV. F a t t y  Acid  Dietary Oil  Fatty C14.0  CAO» CAO F F A  Composition  3  1  Acid  C16.0  of D i e t s ,  Content C16.1  Trial  3.  ( p e r c e n t by w e i g h t ) . C18.0 C18:1  C18.2  6.97  0.17  2.38  51.38  27.23  6.42  0.16  2.51  52.88  25.94  SFO  8.57  5.13  16.77  66.52  SFO FFA  8.37  5.79  17.11  65.36  5/5*  7.66  0.11  3.74  33.99  46.59  5/5 FFA  7.40  0.10  4.01  35.01  45.40  SBO  11.53  0.11  4.26  23.37  51.29  SBO FFA  11.75  0.09  4.65  23.75  50.13  C24.0  C18.3  C20:0  C20:l  C22.0  C22.1  CAO  7.61  1.08  2.09  0.44  0.38  0.26  CAO FFA  7.10  1.21  2.38  0.60  0.49  0.33  SFO  0.93  0.33  0.33  0.97  0.17  0.29  SFO F F A  0.81  0.39  0.36  1.25  0.19  0.37  5/5  4.63  0.89  1.35  0.66  0.24  0.13  5/3 F F A  4.30  0.98  1.45  0.87  0.30  0.17  SBO  7.23  0.79  0.73  0.49  SBO F F A  7.08  0.84  0.76  0.60  0.20 0.13  0.23  T h e number p r e c e e d i n g t h e c o l o n i n d i c a t e s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e c a r b o n c h a i n , t h e number f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t e s t h e number o f d o u b l e bonds p r e s e n t . C A 0 = C a n o l a o i l , SFO = S u n f l o w e r o i l , SBO = S o y b e a n o i l . FFA indicates free fatty acids. - I n d i c a t e s C a n o l a and S u n f l o w e r o i l b l e n d e d 5/5 (weight/weight). 4  2  3  99  Table  V.  Analysis  Parameter  Body  Treatment  weight  Weight  of variance  gain  df  of growth parameters, T r i a l  Error  Treatment  MS  Error  MS  F  x  4  10  285. 79  54.06  5. 2 9 *  4  10  291. 12  51.63  5. 64*-  986. 11  223.16  4. 4 2 *  Feed  consumption  4  10  Feed  conversion  4  10  'Level  df  1.  o f s i g n i f i c a n c e * = 5%, * * =  0. 0037  1%.  0.0019  1. 92  100  Table  VI.  Parameter  A n a l y s i s o-f v a r i a n c e T r i a l 1.  Treatment  df  o-f d i g e s t i b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s ,  Error  df  Treatment  MS  Error  MS  F*  Feed  4  10  1.36  0.91  1.50  Lipid  4  10  3.48  0.44  7.87"«  4  10  4.52  Total  fatty acid  ' L e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e * = 5%, * * » 1%, d a t a arcsine transformation p r i o r to analysis.  was  2.11  treated  with  2.14  101  Table  VII.  Fatty  acid  A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e T r i a l 1.  Treatment  df  of  Error  df  individual fatty acid  Treatment  MS  absorption,  Error  MS  F  1  C16:0  4  10  39.61  2.28  17.38**  C18.0  4  10  75.31  6.71  11.22**  C18.1  4  10  9.89  1.78  5.54*  C18:2  4  10  29.84  1.55  19.22**  C18C3  4  10  131.39  1.63  80.65*'  C20I1  4  10  43.47  6.06  7.18*  C22.1  2  6  31.12  10.22  ' L e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e * = 5%, * * = 1%, d a t a was arcsine transformation prior to analysis.  treated  with  3.05  Table  VIII.  Parameter  Body  A n a l y s i s of variance T r i a l 2.  Treatment df  weight  Weight  gain  E r r o r df  MS  Error  MS  F  1  16  495.03  159.39  3. 1 1 *  7  16  496.15  155.85  3. 1 8 *  1490.01  consumption  7  16  Feed  conversion  7  16  7  16  'Level  Treatment  7  Feed  AMEn  f o r g r o w t h p a r a m e t e r s a n d AMEn,  o f s i g n i f i c a n c e * = 5%, * * = 1%.  0.0043 24577.30  875.60 0.0023 7781.61  1.70 1.87 3. 1 6 *  103  Table  IX.  Parameter  A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e T r i a l 2.  Treatment  df  of d i g e s t i b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s ,  Error  df  Treatment  MS  Error  MS  F  1  Feed  7  16  6.78  2.48  2.74*  Lipid  7  16  16.73  3.66  4.57*  7  16  13.09  8.43  1.79  7  16  16.33  3.18  2.64-  Total  fatty acid  Nitrogen  retention  ' L e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e • * • 3%, * • =» 1%, d a t a arcsine transformation prior to analysis.  was  treated  with  1  104  Table  X.  Fatty  acid  A n a l y s i s of variance T r i a l 2.  Treatment df  of i n d i v i d u a l  Error  df  fatty acid  Treatment  MS  absorption,  Error  MS  F  1  C16:0  7  16  14.71  3.81  C18.0  7  16  18.96  10.22  1.85  C18: 1  7  16  7.35  2.73  2.70  C18:2  7  16  12. 16  1.97  6.18**  C18:3  7  16  35.29  1.61  21.87**  C20:o  7  16  19. 12  9.85  1.94  C20: i  7  16  16.99  5.70  2.98*  C22!0  7  16  33.69  21.97  1.53  C22: 1  6  14  29.80  14.93  2.00  C24:0  7  1.6  55.41  11.53  4.81**  ' L e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e * = 5%, • * = 1%, d a t a was arcsine transformation prior to analysis.  treated  with  3.86*  105  Table  XI.  Parameter  Body  A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e  Treatment  weight  Weight  gain  df  of growth  E r r o r df  Treatment  MS  Trial  Error  3.  MS  F*  7  16  297.50  248.23  1.20  7  16  279.85  242.86  1. 15  1562.10  1829.77  0.85  Feed  consumption  7  16  Feed  conversion  7  16  'Level  parameters,  of s i g n i f i c a n c e  * = 5%,  0.0050  =» 1%.  0.0027  1.84  106  Table  XII.  Parameter  Analysis of variance T r i a l 3.  Treatment  df  Error  of d i g e s t i b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s ,  df  Treatment  MS  Error  MS  F  1  Feed  7  16  4.38  1.32  3.33*  Lipid  7  16  11.09  3.47  3.20*  7  16  9.61  3.833  2.51  Total  fatty acid  ' L e v e l D f s i g n i f i c a n c e * = 5%, * * = 1%, d a t a arcsine transformation prior to analysis.  was  treated  with  107  Table  XIII.  Fatty  acid  A n a l y s i s o-f v a r i a n c e T r i a l 3.  Treatment df  Error  o-f i n d i v i d u a l  fatty acid  df  MS  Treatment  Error  absorption,  MS  F*  C16:0  7  16  10.87  5.16  2. 10  C18.0  7  16  21.70  10.43  2.08  C18: 1  7  16  15.59  3.43  4.54**  C18:2  7  16  17.22  2.21  7.81**  C18.3  7  16  37.66  2.21  17.02**  C20:o  7  16  11.82  10.66  1.11  C20: l  7  16  17. 10  7.50  2.28  C22:0  7  16  32.05  20.78  1.54  C22: 1  3  12  24.40  12.60  1.94  C24:0  7  16  184.14  35.79  5.15**  ' L e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e * = 5%, * * => 1%, d a t a was arcsine transformation prior to analysis.  treated  with  108  Table  .  Parameter  Body  A n a l y s i s of variance  Treatment  weight  Weight  gain  df  f o r growth parameters,  E r r o r df  MS  Error  MS  4.  FX  4  25  1131.34  159.49  7. 09*~  4  25  1055.73  167.58  6. 30*"  2761.31  Feed  consumption  4  25  Feed  conversion  4  25  'Level  Treatment  Trial  of s i g n i f i c a n c e  *i.5%,  0.0040  704.18 0.0018  3. 9 2 ~ 2. 27  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096055/manifest

Comment

Related Items