Influence of supplemental canola or soybean oil on milk yield, fatty acid profile and postpartum weight changes in grazing dairy goats

Article information

Asian-Australas J Anim Sci.. 2018;31(2):225-229
Publication date (electronic) : 2017 June 27
doi : https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0058
1Facultad de Agronomía y Veterinaria, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí 78321, México
2Departamento de Producción Agrícola y Animal, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Xochimilco, Ciudad de México 04970, México
3Centro Universitario UAEM-Temascaltepec, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Estado de México 51300, México
4Facultad de Agronomia, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán Sinaloa 80000, México
5Instituto de Investigaciones en Zonas Desérticas, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosi 78377, México
*Corresponding Author: Héctor A. Lee-Rangel, Tel: +52-444-8-52-40-56, Fax: +52-444-8-52-40-58, E-mail: hector.lee@uaslp.mx
Received 2017 January 25; Revised 2017 May 15; Accepted 2017 January 19.

Abstract

Objective

This experiment was designed to evaluate the effect of supplementation with soybean or canola oil on milk production and the composition of long chain fatty acids as well as weight changes in the goats and their kids.

Methods

Thirty nine mulitparous crossed Alpine×Nubian goats (initial body weight [BW] 43.5±1.7 kg) from the day of parturition were assigned to the treatments: grazing control (n = 15); grazing plus 20 mL/goat/d of supplemental soybean oil (n = 12); and grazing plus 20 mL/goat/d of supplemental canola oil (n = 12) from November 26, 2014 to March 7, 2015. The planned contrasts were: CI (control vs supplemented with oils); CII (soybean vs canola oil) to compare the treatment effects.

Results

The vegetable oil supplementation reduced weight losses in lactating goats (CI: −0.060 vs 0.090 kg/d; p = 0.03) but did not improve milk production or affect kids’ growth. The content of C4, C6, C8, C10, C11, C14, and C18:1n9t in the milk was increased (p<0.05) with respect to control. However, C12, C14, C16, C18, C18:1n9c, C18:2n6c, and C18:3n3 were reduced (p<0.05) in supplemented goats. Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) was increased (p<0.05) in goats supplemented with oils compared to the control group.

Conclusion

Supplementation with 20 mL/d of soybean or canola oil did not affect milk production or kids’ performance; however, it increased CLA concentration and reduced the reduced weight losses in lactating goats.

INTRODUCTION

Goat production in México since their introduction has been associated with poverty because only low income families who live in rural areas raised goats for profit or food (meat, milk, skins, etc.). Eighty percent of the goats in the world inhabit subtropical semi-arid regions [1], where the availability of good quality forage is limited throughout the year [2]. Eighty percent of parturitions occur during the dry season (between November and February) when forage is scarce, reducing colostrum and milk production and therefore affecting neonates’ health and survival [3]. Kid mortality can reach up to 51%, associated with under-nutrition of the does [4].

Fat supplements are used in animal diets not only because they supply essential fatty acids and fat-soluble vitamins, but also because they provide more energy, approximately twice that of carbohydrates, for milk production. The actual choice of fat or oil and the form by which it is included in the feed is decided by a number of factors. These include, the cost and availability of the raw material, both locally and globally, the impact of fat or oil form (oilseed or extracted oil) and its fatty acid composition on feed digestibility [5]. Energy is critical for milk production [6] and the addition of lipids to ruminant feed is a strategy to increase the energy density of the diet without increasing the proportion of grains [7], preventing ruminal acidosis and low fat yield, [8] while providing essential fatty acids. Palm oil, canola oil, soybean oil, and sunflower oil are the most common sources of lipids used in animal feeding and provide polyunsaturated fatty acids [9]. Their inclusion may alter the composition of the goat milk fat [10], with some potential benefits for the goats’ kids or people consuming the milk. Therefore, this experiment of evaluated the effects of soybean and canola oil supplementation on milk production, changes in long-chain fatty acid milk composition, and changes in goat kid live weight.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Animal care

All animal care and management procedures involving goats were conducted according to the guidelines approved by Mexican Official Norms (NOM-051-ZOO-1995: Humanitarian care of animals during mobilization; NOM-033-ZOO-1995: Slaughter of domestic and wild animals).

Locale

The study was conducted in the Altiplano Potosino region in the northern part of subtropical Mexico (22° 23′ 24″ N). This region possesses a semi-arid climate where the mean annual rainfall is 492 mm from June to September. The dry season is characterized by a dramatic decrease in food availability [11]. In this region, goats are fed only by grazing the natural rangeland daily from 0700 to 1700 h. During the night they are kept in rural shelters. The vegetative species available are shrubs (Prosopis leavigata, Acacia farneciana, Atriplex acantocarpa, Agave scabra, Mimosa biuncifera, Celtis pallida, Condalia lycioides, and Castella texana), herbaceous (Heliantus ciliaris, Salsola kali, and Solanum elaeagnilolium) and grasses (Bouteloua radicosa, Bouchloe dactyloides, Setarias spp, and Cencchrus ciliaris L.). The goats’ diet throughout the year in the region consists of 82% shrubs, 12% herbaceous plants and 6% grasses [2].

Animals, experimental treatments, and management

Thirty nine mulitparous crossed Alpine×Nubian goats, 3 years old (initial body weight [BW] 43.5±1.7 kg) from the day of parturition were assigned to one of the following treatments: i) grazing control (n = 15); ii) grazing plus 20 mL/goat/d of supplemental soybean oil (n = 12); and iii) grazing plus 20 mL/goat/d of supplemental canola oil (n = 12). During the day, all goats grazed the rangeland and returned at 17:00 hour to pens. Supplemental oil was dosed individually using a 20 mL syringe every day at 07:00 h, before grazing. The goat kids were weighed each 7 days to estimate daily gain. They were slaughtered on day 35 and hot carcass weight was recorded. Does were weighted at the day of parturition and on day 35. To estimate the feed intake the equation of AFRC [12] was used as:

Lactating goats dry matter intake=(119.6×BW0.75)/1,000

Where BW 0.75 is metabolic body weight, kg.

Milk production

Milk production was measured each 7 days as described by Reynolds et al [13]. Goats were separated from their kids at 07:00 h and were immediately milked by hand after an injection of oxytocin (20 IU) into the jugular vein. This milk was offered to the goat kids. After 3 h, the goats were milked again using oxytocin and the yield was recorded. Milk samples were frozen at 4°C until further analysis. Samples which were mixed, homogenized in a water bath for 1 min (40°C) until the temperature reached 29°C and analysed (fat and protein) with a Lactoscan Ultrasonic milk analyzer (Milkotronic, Nova Zagora, Bulgaria).

Fatty acid composition of milk fat

Lipids for fatty acid analysis were extracted from the milk and analyzed using 2:1 (vol/vol) chloroform-methanol [14]. A total of 10 to 20 mg of extracted lipid was derivatized using 1:4 (vol/vol) tetramethylguanidine and methanol [15] after including heptadecanoic acid (17:0) as an internal standard. Fatty acid profiles were determined by chromatography on a Supelco-2560, 100 m× 0.25 mm×0.20 μm column (Sigma Aldrich Canada, Oakville, ON, Canada) installed in a gas chromatograph (Agilent 6890, Santa Clara, CA, USA) by flame ionization detection and splitless injection using conventional standards (Sigma Aldrich Canada, Canada).

Statistical analyses

Results were analyzed as a Completely Randomized Design and means were compared with those of the planned contrasts: CI, control vs supplemented with oils; CII, soybean vs canola oil. Means were also compared via Tukey test [16]. Data were analyzed with the JMP7 software [17].

RESULTS

Performance of goats

The soybean and canola oil supplementation reduced weight losses in the lactating goats (CI: −0.060 vs 0.090 kg/d; p = 0.03) but did not improve milk production or affect the growth of the kids (Table 1).

Effects of supplementation with soybean and canola oil on does and kid performance in goats

Fatty acid composition of milk fat in goats

The milk fat and protein content did not show differences (p<0.05) between treatments. Milk fatty acids, although no differences were detected in the planned contrasts, the Tukey test showed some differences (Table 2). Vegetable oil supplementation reduced linoleic acid to 76%, palmitoleic 23%, and heptadecanoic 35% compared to unsupplemented control group (Table 2), although there was an increase in undecylic, myristoleic, and conjugated linoleic acids (CLA) up to 70% respect the fat milk content (Table 2). Soybean oil increased the concentrations of butyric, caproic, capric and oleic acid and canola oil increased the concentrations of stearic and trans oleic acid. Heptadecanoic, alpha linolenic and linoleic acids all showed higher concentrations in the control group of grazing goats.

Effects of soybean and canola oil on fatty acid composition (g/100 g) of milk fat in goats

DISCUSSION

Oil supplementation could prevent weight loss during lactation and reduce the impact of the negative energy balance. Some authors [5] did not find a response in terms of live weight changes in Red Sokoto goats during the first 17 weeks of lactation when supplemented with palm oil at doses of 0, 16, 32, 48, and 64 g/d, but milk production was increased by 16 g/d. However, there has not been a clear trend concerning the effect of early fat supplementation on body weight changes in goats [18].

Since there were no changes in milk production, the growth of the kids was not modified. Changes in body weight in goat kids reflect the efficiency of converting suckled milk into body weight during the suckling period [19] and differences in milk yield as well as in milk fat and protein levels in the milk can be significant [20]. In this study, goat kids were fed exclusively on maternal milk.

Milk fatty acids have a dual origin; they are either taken up from plasma lipoproteins (composed of mobilized fat and dietary fat), or synthesized de novo in the mammary gland [21]. During early lactation, goats are normally in negative energy balance and mobilize extensively from their body fat stores, mainly in the form of non-esterified fatty acids [22]. The enzyme fatty acid synthase is involved in de novo fatty acid synthesis in mammary tissue and is responsible for the synthesis of short and medium chain fatty acids (C4 to C16) in the mammary gland during lactation [23], indicating a reduction in de novo synthesis [24]. In this study, the fatty acid composition of milk lipids was influenced by oil supplementation. Changes in milk composition and production have been observed with higher levels of lipids or sunflower seed oil [25] or on linseed oil in diets based on grass hay [26].

The higher secretion of C18:1n9t and 18:1n9c with soybean and canola oil could be due to partial biohydrogenation of dietary cis-9 C18:1 to C18:0 followed by its desaturation by mammary stearoyl-CoA desaturase, and by partial protection of soybean oil cis-9 C18:1 from ruminal biohydrogenation. In contrast to published observations in ewes and goats fed supplemental oils, a decreased proportion of C18 unsaturated fatty acids in milk lipids was noted in our study, which is inconsistent with its reported increase in goats’ milk [27,28]. Banskalieva et al [29] indicated that the major fatty acids in body fat stores of goats are C18:1-n9t, C16:0, and C18:0, which are incorporated into milk fat during mobilization [30]. Increments in the ratio of USFA to saturated fatty acids in milk lipids in response to oil supplementation have been reported in goats fed hay-based diets supplemented with plant oils or oilseeds [25]. Agreement with our results Collomb et al [31], Rego et al [32] and Stergiadis et al [33] found decreased concentrations in milk of C18:1 cis-9, C18:2 cis-9, cis-12, and C18:3 cis-9, cis-12, cis-15 from animals given an oil supplementation in contrast with basal diets. This could be explained because unsaturated trans FA as vaccenic and rumenic acids increase in grassland cows [34]. Rumenic acid is the primary octadecadienoic acid isomer (cis-9, trans- 11-octadecadienoic acid), which accounts for more than 82% of the total in dairy products [35]. Rumenic acid in milk is mainly formed from linoleic acid, which is transformed in the rumen forming vaccenic acid (trans-11-octadecenoic acid) by means of Butyrivibrio fibrisolves (biohydrogenation). Vaccenic acid can pass into milk directly or after transformation to rumenic acid by the action of Δ-9 desaturase in the epithelium of the mammary gland [36]. This metabolism could be accelerated by a higher amount of fresh grass in the diet [37].

The increase in milk cis-9, trans-11 CLA concentration seen with the soybean and canola oil was expected. Bauman et al [38] mentioned cis-9, trans-11 CLA in milk originates from either ruminal biohydrogenation of linoleic acid as an intermediate product or from endogenous synthesis in mammary gland from vaccenic acid, which could explain the decreased C18:2nc6 and C18:3n3 if they were used for the formation of CLA. The endogenous synthesis of cis-9, trans-11 CLA from vaccenic acid has been proposed as the major pathway of cis-9, trans-11 CLA synthesis in lactating cows, accounting for an estimated 0.90 of the cis-9, trans-11 CLA in milk fat [39].

Dietary manipulation of goat milk by feeding goats plant oils rich in either linoleic acid (C18:2, LA) or α-linolenic acid (C18:3) has been shown to increase the CLA content in goat milk fat [10]. CLA has been identified as an anti-mutagenic substance [40] and a potent anti-carcinogen in several cell culture and animal models [41]. Other benefits attributed to CLA consumption include effects on the immune system, atherosclerosis and bone health [42].

CONCLUSION

Supplementation with 20 mL/d of soybean or canola oil to grazing goats did not affect milk production or the performance of the goats’ kids; however, it increased CLA levels and reduced weight losses in lactating goats.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí for the economic contribution of Project C16-FAI-09-04.04.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.

References

1. Knights M, Garcia GW. The status and characteristics of the goat (Capra hircus) and its potential role as a significant milk producer in the tropics: a review. Small Rumin Res 1997;26:203–15.
2. Ramírez RG, Loyo A, Mora R, Sanchez EM, Chaire A. Forage intake and nutrition of range goats in a shrubland in northeastern Mexico. J Anim Sci 1991;69:879–85.
3. Nowak R, Murphy TM, Lindsay DR, et al. Development of preferential relationship with the mother by the newborn lamb: Importance of the sucking activity. Physiol Behav 1997;62:681–8.
4. Mellor DJ, Stafford KJ. Animal welfare implications of neonatal mortality and morbidity in farm animals. Vet 2004;168:118–33.
5. Tripathi MK. Effect of nutrition on production, composition, fatty acids and nutraceutical properties of milk. J Adv Dairy Res 2014;2:115.
6. Morand-Fehr P, Sauvant D. Nutrition and optimum performance of dairy goats. Livest Prod Sci 1978;5:203–13.
7. Silva TM, Olivera RO, Barbosa LP, Garcez AF, Bagaldo AR. Preliminarystudy onmeat quality of goats fed levels of licury oil in the diet. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2011;24:1112–9.
8. Groehn JA, Kaneene JB, Foster D. Risk factors associated with lameness in lactating dairy cattle in Michigan. Prev Vet Med 1992;14:77–85.
9. Karami M, Ponnampalam EN, Hopkins DL. The effect of palm oil or canola oil on feedlot performance, plasma and tissue fatty acid profile and meat quality in goats. Meat Sci 2013;94:165–9.
10. Li XZ, Long RJ, Yan CG, et al. Rumen microbial responses in fermentation characteristics and production of CLA and methane to linoleic acid in associated with malate or fumarate. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2010;155:132–9.
11. Sáenz-Escárcega P, Hoyos FGL, Salinas GH, et al. Establishment of goat modules with cooperating producers. Evaluation of caprine modules in the lagunera region Matamoros, Coahuila, México: SARH. INIFAP. CIID; 1991. p. 24–34.
12. AFRC (Agricultural and Food Research Council). An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC technical committee on responses to nutrients Wallingford, UK: CAB International; 1998.
13. Reynolds CK, Cannon VL, Loerch SC. Effects of forage source and supplementation with soybean and marine algal oil on milk fatty acid composition of ewes. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2006;131:333–57.
14. Folch J, Lees M, Stanley GHS. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. J Biol Chem 1957;226:497–509.
15. Shantha NC, Decker EA, Hennig B. Comparison of methylation methods for the quantitation of conjugated linoleic acid isomers. J AOAC Int 1993;76:644–9.
16. Steel GDR, Torrie JH, Dickey DA. Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach 3rd ednth ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1997.
17. Sall J, Lehman A, Stephens M, Creighton L. JMP Start Statistics: a guide to statistics and data analysis Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc; 2012.
18. Chilliard Y, Bocquier F, Doreau M. Digestive and metabolic adaptations of ruminants to undernutrition, and consequences on reproduction. Nutr Dev 1998;38:131–52.
19. Titi HH, Hasan YL, Al-Ismail K, Zakaria H, Tabbaa MJ. Response of Shami goats and kids to variable levels of soyabean or sunflower oils in diets. J Anim Feed Sci 2011;20:493–508.
20. Manso T, Bodas R, Vieira C, Mantecon AR, Castro T. Feeding vegetable oils to lactating ewes modifies the fatty acid profile of suckling lambs. Animal 2011;5:1659–67.
21. Chilliard Y, Ferlay A. Dietary lipids and forage interactions on cow and goat milk fatty acids composition and sensory properties. Reprod Nutr Dev 2004;44:467–92.
22. Dunshea FR, Bell AV, Trigg TE. Body composition changes in goats during early lactation estimated using a two-pool model of tritiated water kinetics. Br J Nutr 1990;64:121–32.
23. Griinari JM, Corl BA, Lacy SH, et al. Conjugated linoleic acid is synthesized endogenously in lactating dairy cows by Delta(9)-desaturase. J Nutr 2000;130:2285–91.
24. Grummer RR. Effect of feed on the composition of milk fat. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3244–57.
25. Bernard L, Rouel J, Leroux C, et al. Mammary lipid metabolism and milk fatty acid secretion in alpine goats fed vegetable lipids. J Dairy Sci 2005;88:1478–89.
26. Bernard L, Leroux C, Faulconnier Y, et al. Effect of sunflower-seed oil or linseed oil on milk fatty acid secretion and lipogenic gene expression in goats fed hay-based diets. J Dairy Res 2009;76:241–8.
27. Nudda A, Battacone G, Usai MG, Fancellu S, Pulina G. Supplementation with extruded linseed cake affects concentrations of conjugated linoleicacid and vaccenic acid in goat milk. J Dairy Sci 2006;89:277–82.
28. Jóźwik A, Strzałkowska N, Bagnicka E, et al. The effect of feeding linseed cake on milk yield and milk fatty acid profile in goats. Anim Sci Pap Rep 2010;3:245–51.
29. Banskalieva V, Sahlu T, Goetsch AL. Fatty acid composition of goat muscles and fat depots: a review. Small Rumin Res 2000;37:255–68.
30. Palmquist DL, Beaulieu AD, Barbano DM. Feed and animal factors influencing milk-fat composition. J Dairy Sci 1993;76:1753–71.
31. Collomb M, Schmid A, Sieber R, Wechsler D, Ryhänen EL. Impact of a basal diet of hay and fodder beet supplemented with rapeseed, linseed and sunflower seed on the fatty acid composition of milk fat. Int Dairy J 2004;14:549–59.
32. Rego OA, Alves SP, Antunes LMS, et al. Rumen biohydrogenation-derived fatty acids in milk fat from grazing dairy cows supplemented with rapeseed, sunflower, or linseed oils. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:4530–40.
33. Stergiadis S, Leifert C, Seal CJ, et al. Improving the fatty acid profile of winter milk from housed cows with contrasting feeding regimes by oilseed supplementation. Food Chem 2014;164:293–300.
34. Roda G, Fialà S, Vittorini M, Secundo F. Fatty acid composition and fat content in milk from cows grazing in the Alpine region. Eur Food Res Technol 2015;241:413–8.
35. Borsonelo EC, Galduroz JCF. The role of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in development, aging and substance abuse disorders: review and propositions. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2008;78:237–45.
36. Chilliard Y, Glasser F, Ferlay A, et al. Rumen biohydrogenation and nutritional quality of cow and goat milk fat. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 2007;109:828–55.
37. Kliem KE, Shingfield KJ. Manipulation of milk fatty acid composition in lactating cows: opportunities and challenges. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 2016;118:1661–83.
38. Bauman DE, Barbano DM, Dwyer DA, Griinari JM. Technical note: production of butter with enhanced conjugated linoleic acid for use in biomedical studies with animal models. J Dairy Sci 2000;83:2422–5.
39. Kay JK, Mackle TR, Auldist MJ, Thomson NA, Bauman DE. Endogenous synthesis of cis-9, trans-11 CLA in dairy cows fed fresh pasture. J Dairy Sci 2004;87:369–78.
40. Guzel-Seydim ZB, Seydim AC, Greene AK, Tas T. Determination of antimutagenic properties of acetone extracted fermented milks and changes in their total fatty acid profiles including conjugated linoleic acids. Int J Dairy Technol 2006;59:209–15.
41. Lee SH, Yamaguchi K, Kim JS, et al. Conjugated linoleic acid stimulates an anti-tumorigenic protein NAG-1 in an isomer specific manner. Carcinogenesis 2006;27:972–81.
42. Song HJ, Grant I, Rotondo D, et al. Effect of CLA supplementation on immune function in young healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Nutr 2005;59:508–17.

Article information Continued

Table 1

Effects of supplementation with soybean and canola oil on does and kid performance in goats

Grazing Soybean oil Canola oil CI1) CII1) SEM
Lactating goat
 Initial weight (kg) 44.32 43.39 42.92 0.47 0.91 1.73
 Final weight (kg) 41.02 40.85 40.93 0.94 0.79 1.77
 Difference (kg) −3.30a −2.53ab −1.98b 0.03 0.22 0.51
 LW changes (kg/d) 0.09a 0.07ab 0.05b 0.03 0.22 0.07
 Initial feed intake (kg) 2.05 2.02 2.00 0.56 0.19 0.73
 Final feed intake (kg) 1.93 1.93 1.93 0.49 0.97 0.15
 Milk production (kg/d) 1.05 1.08 1.03 0.76 0.32 0.30
 Fat (%) 3.82 4.12 4.07 0.21 0.79 0.19
 Protein (%) 3.20 3.33 3.28 0.84 0.35 0.53
Goat kid
 Initial weight (kg) 3.41 3.36 3.38 0.60 0.49 0.08
 Final weight (kg) 8.65 8.58 8.80 0.82 0.24 0.15
 Difference (kg) 5.23 5.22 5.42 0.60 0.25 0.11
 ADG (g/d) 149 147 155 0.60 0.25 1.17
 Carcass weight (kg) 4.65 4.55 4.92 0.72 0.67 0.25

SEM, standard error of the mean; LW, live weight; ADG, average daily gain.

1)

p-value for CI, control vs oil supplements; CII, soybean vs canola oil.

Table 2

Effects of soybean and canola oil on fatty acid composition (g/100 g) of milk fat in goats

Fatty acid Only grazing Soybean Canola CI1) CII1) SEM
C4:0; butyric 2.13b 4.76b 3.15ab 0.24 0.66 0.63
C6:0; caproic 3.14a 5.54b 3.81a 0.59 0.84 0.36
C8:0; caprylic 3.88a 6.23b 4.67a 0.80 0.93 0.40
C10:0; capric 11.98b 16.79a 13.68ab 0.87 0.91 1.02
C11:0 undecylic 0.29b 0.64a 0.48ab 0.80 0.93 0.07
C12:0; lauric 5.28a 5.40a 4.81a 0.76 0.81 0.33
C14:0; myristic 10.82a 10.21a 9.86a 0.70 0.41 0.42
C14:1 myristoleic 0.31b 0.52a 0.43ab 0.54 0.30 0.04
C15:0 pentadecylic 1.0a 1.16a 1.15a 0.91 0.94 0.04
C16:0; palmitic 22.73a 19.60b 20.52ab 0.59 0.72 0.64
C16:1 palmitoleic 1.22a 1.06a 1.07a 0.48 0.71 0.04
C17:0 heptadecanoic 1.18a 1.02b 0.87c 0.77 0.72 0.03
C17:1 cis-heptadecenoic 0.61a 0.33b 0.39b 0.78 0.57 0.02
C18:0; stearic 11.47a 8.13b 11.25ab 0.83 0.47 0.79
C18:1 trans oleic 1.83b 3.77a 4.23a 0.80 0.69 0.21
C18:1 cis-9; oleic 16.11ab 18.92a 12.16b 0.42 0.71 1.43
C18:2 cis-9, cis-12; linoleic 2.24a 1.43b 1.74b 0.44 0.68 0.10
C18:3 cis-9, cis-12, cis-15; α-inolenic 0.77a 0.45b 0.58b 0.46 0.61 0.03
C18:2 cis-9, trans-11; CLA 0.47a 0.82b 0.85b 0.57 0.71 0.06

SEM, standard error of the mean; CLA, conjugated linoleic acid.

1)

p-value for CI, control vs oil supplements; CII, soybean vs canola oil.

a,b,c

Different letters differ by Tukey test (p<0.05).