Use of docosahexaenoic acid for lamb diet
Maria Júlia Pereira de Araújo
1
; Erica Beatriz Schultz
2
*; Thauane Ariel Valadares de Jesus
3
; Marina Elizabeth
Barbosa Andrade
4
;
Luciana Melo Sousa
5
; Gilberto de Lima Macedo Júnior
6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2020.20203
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of docosahexaenoic acid in the concentrated acid on intake, digestibility,
metabolic profile and ingestive behavior of lambs diets. Five crossbred Dorper x Santa Inês lambs with initial age and body
weight average of six months and 33 kg, respectively, were used in the trial. The animals were assigned into a 5×5 Latin
square design and they received one of the following treatments: 0, 1.5, 3, 4.5 and 6 % of microalgal product
(Aurantiochytrium limacinum algae) or ALL-G Rich® in the concentrate. The diets were composed of corn silage and
concentrate offered twice daily. During the experimental period, feed, water, feces, blood, and urine were sampled to
calculate the intake and digestibility and to characterize the metabolic profile. The ingestive behavior was measured during 24
hours on the last day each experimental period. The time spent on feeding, rumi- nating and idle activities was measured.
Regression analyses were performed considering 5 % of significance. There were no difference on nutrients intake,
digestibility, and ingestive behavior with the inclusion of ALL-G Rich® in the diet (p>0.05). There was a significant effect on
serum concentrations of cholesterol, low density lipoprotein, alkaline phosphatase and gammaglutamyl transferase, however, all
metabolites remained within the range recommended for the animal category. Thus, ALL-G Rich® can be used up to 6% in the
concentrate, on dry matter basis, of lambs diet without affect intake, digestibility, metabolic profile, and ingestive behavior.
Keywords:
Digestibility. Intake. Lipids.
Uso do ácido docosahexaenóico na dieta para cordeiros
Resumo
A proposta da pesquisa foi avaliar o efeito da inclusão de ácido docosahexaenóico no concentrado da dieta de cordei- ros sobre
o consumo, digestibilidade, perfil metabólico e comportamento ingestivo. Foram utilizadas cinco borregas mestiças (Dorper x
Santa Inês) com média de 6 meses de idade e 33 kg. Os animais foram distribuídos em delinea- mento quadrado latino 5x5
sendo os tratamentos: 0; 1,5; 3,0; 4,5 e 6% de ALL-G Rich® no concentrado. As dietas foram compostas de silagem de milho
e concentrado ofertadas duas vezes ao dia. Durante os períodos de avaliação foram mensurados e amostrados os alimento,
água, fezes, sangue e urina. A partir dessas amostras foram calculados o consumo e digestibilidade. O comportamento
ingestivo foi realizado durante 24 horas no último dia cada período experimental, mensurando o tempo gastos nas atividades
de alimentação, ruminação e ócio. Análises de regressão
1Universidade Federal de Uberlândia. Uberlandia, MG. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7730-5828
2Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1916-2117
3Universidade Federal de Uberlândia. Uberlandia, MG. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3127-7697
4Universidade Estadual Paulista. Jaboticabal, SP. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3713-6377 5Universidade
Estadual Paulista. Jaboticabal, SP. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1016-8248
6Universidade Federal de Uberlândia. Uberlandia, MG. Brasil.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5781-7917
*Autor para correspondência: ericabeatrizschultz@gmail.com
CADERNO DE CIÊNCIAS AGRÁRIAS
Agrarian Sciences Journal
2
Araújo, M. J. P. et al.
foram utilizadas considerando 5% de significância. Não houve efeito significativo diante do consumo e digestibilidade
de matéria
seca e dos nutrientes, tal como no comportamento ingestivo com a crescente inclusão de ALL-G Rich® na
dieta. Houve efeito
significativo para as concentrações séricas de colesterol, lipoproteína de baixa densidade, fosfatase
alcalina e gamma glutamil
transferase, porém todos os metabolitos mantiveram-se dentre da faixa recomendada para categoria. Portanto, a ALL-G Rich®
pode ser utilizada até 6% na matéria seca do concentrado em dietas de cordeiras sem afetar o consumo, digestibilidade, o perfil
metabólico e o comportamento ingestivo.
Palavras-chave:
Consumo. Digestibilidade. Lipídeos.
Introduction
Lipids in the feed are energy source that de-
creases increment caloric, improves energy efficiency, and
absorption of vitamins. The importance of lipids is related
to the fatty acid profile, where saturated fatty
acids lack
double bonds and unsaturated fatty acids have at least one
double bond. Also, fatty acids can be divided according to
requirement and availability as essential and
nonessential fatty
acids (Palmiquist & Mattos, 2011).
can alter intake, digestibility, ingestive behavior and the
metabolic profile of lambs.
The aim of this research was to evaluated the
effect of inclusion of docosahexaenoic acid on nutrient
intake, ingestive behavior, digestibility and metabolic
profile of lambs.
Material and Methods
As examples of essential fatty acids, linoleic (ome-
ga-
6) and linolenic (omega-3) acids are encountered mainly in
fish oil, canola, linseed, soy, and algae, which has attracted
attention for human health because of the decrease in obesity,
cardiovascular disease, and increase in immunity (Calder,
2014). Also reported by Stark et
al. (2016) that animal
producers enriched with omega-3
long-chain polyunsaturated
fatty acids (LCPUFA), eico- sapentaenoic acid (EPA, 20:5n-
3) and docosahexaenoic
acid (DHA, 22:6n-3) have been
associated with a decrea-
sed risk of chronic disease, in
particular cardiovascular mortality and cognitive decline.
All procedures were conducted in accordance with
the guidelines set out by the Brazilian College of Animal
Experimentation in the Code of Practice for the
Care and Use
of Animal for Experimental Purposes, which
were approved
by the Ethics Committee on Use of Ani- mal for Research
(CEUA) of the Universidade Federal de Uberlândia under
license number 183/2016.
Five lambs crossbred Dorper x Santa Inês with an
initial average age of 180 ± 8 days and body weight
(BW) of
33.59 ± 6.41 kg were assigned into a 5×5 Latin
square design.
The animals were housed in individual pens of 2 m2 with
individual feeders and drinkers accor- ding to National
Institute of Science and Technology
(INCT). In total, the
trial lasted 75 days, divided into five experimental periods of
15 days each one. An adaptation
period was performed from
the 1st to 10th day of each
period and the collection period of
feed, water, feces and urine sampling was performed from 10
th
to 15
th
day. Also,
observation of ingestive behavior was
performed from 14th to 15th day of each experimental
period.
Conventionally, in ruminant nutrition is used 1 to
5% of lipids in the diet because more than 6% can
reduce
microorganism access to fiber and exceed hydroly-
ze capacity,
reducing intake and digestibility of the feed
(Palmquist &
Jenkis, 1980). A ruminant particularity is the
biohydrogenation
process in the rumen, which converts unsaturated to
saturated fatty acids. Thus, the offered unsaturated source
will be absorbed as saturated fatty acids in the intestine
(Church, 1993). The exceptions that escape from this
process is the polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) as
docosahexaenoic (omega-3) and eicosapentaenoic (omega-
3) acids that are absorbed at intestinal level (Ponnampalam
et al., 2009).
The diets were composed of corn silage, corn
meal,
soybean meal, and mineral premix. The treatments were
characterized by the inclusion of 0, 1.5, 3, 4.5 and 6
% of the microalgal product (Aurantiochytrium limacinum
algae) or ALL-G Rich® in the concentrate. The ALL-G
Rich® composition are showed in Table 1.
Some studies using distinct sources of omega-3 in
the ruminant feed showed a decrease in methane
production, improvement in animal health, meat and milk
fatty acids profile for human consumption without damage
animal’s performance (Boeckaert et al., 2008; Pirondini et
al., 2015; Thanh et al., 2018). Therefore, considering the
contribution for animals and human our hypothesis is that the
inclusion of docosahexaenoic acid
The ration was formulated according to Nutrient
Requirements of Small Ruminants (NRC, 2007) for an
average daily gain of 200 g. Also, the diets were compo- sed
of 30 % of roughage and 70 % of concentrate. The
concentrate composition and chemical composition of the
experimental diets are showed in Table 2.
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–08, https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2020.20203
3
Araújo, M. J. P. et al.
Table 1 – ALL-G Rich® chemical composition.
Item*
Value
Item*
Value
Ethereal extract (%)
Carbohydrates (%)
Crude Protein (%)
Diglycerides (%)
50
24.88
19.22
4.69
Glycerol (%)
Monoglycerides (%)
Triglycerides (%)
Docosahexaenoic acid (%)
3.81
<1.0
85.80
27.20
*The data were provided by Alltech®.
The silage and concentrate were weighted and
offered twice a day (08 h 00 min and 16 h 00 min) as total
mixed ration (TMR). The amount of supplied feed was
corrected to generate 10% of leftovers in the dry matter
basis. To adjust the amount of provided ration, the animals
were weighted in the first and last day of
each experimental period. In each experimental period,
samples of feed and leftovers were collected daily and
stored in plastic bags at -20°C. Also, the amount of total
feces was weighted and sampled daily in each experi-
mental period and stored in plastic bags at -20°C.
Table 2 – The concentrate and chemical compositions of the experimental diets.
ALL G-Rich
®
(%)
Item
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
Corn meal
Soybean meal
ALL-G Rich®
Mineral premix
Adsorbent
67.35
30.45
0
2
0.2
66.25
30.05
1.5
2
0.2
65.2
29.6
3
2
0.2
64.1
29.2
4.5
2
0.2
63
28.8
6
2
0.2
ALL G-Rich
®
(%)
Item
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
Crude protein (%)
Neutral detergent fiber (%)
Acid detergent fiber (%) Ether
extract (%)
Total digestive nutrients (%)
16.55
19.94
11.08
1.60
76.84
16.55
19.76
11.43
1.65
77.01
16.55
20.18
11.34
1.67
77.18
16.55
19.78
11.09
1.69
77.34
16.55
20.13
11.33
1.79
77.51
An amount of 6 liter of water per animal in a
bucket with capacity of 8 liter was offered once a day at 08 h
00 min. Meanwhile, one reference bucket of same size with
6 liter of water was used to measure the daily evaporation,
thus, the water intake was daily measured.
Also, urine
production were measured through graduated
test tube with
precision of 20 mL in each experimental period.
The DM, EE, NDF, and ADF intake were calcu-
lated by difference between offered feed and leftovers. The
water intake was determined by difference among offered,
leftover, and evaporation. The DM and NDF digestibility
was estimated by difference among intake and feces divided
by intake. After quantification of urine
volume, a sample of
100 mL was collected to measure the
urine density, using
Megabrix® manual refractometer.
Blood samples were collected on 11th, 13th and 15th
day of each experimental period before first feeding
by
jugular vein puncture with auxiliary vacuntainner tubes without
anticoagulant. After collection, the blood samples
were
immediately centrifuged at 2.700×g for 20 min.
The plasma
samples were pipetted and frozen at -18°C for
later analysis
according to Russell et al. (2007) for total protein, albulmin,
globulin, uric acid, urea, creatinine, cholesterol,
triglycerides, low density lipoprotein, high
Samples of feeds, leftovers and feces were analy-
zed
to determine the concentration of dry matter (DM),
ether
extract (EE) and crude protein (CP) (AOAC, 1990).
The
concentration of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and
acid
detergent fiber (ADF) were based on the description
of Van
Soest et al. (1991).
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–08, https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2020.20203
4
Araújo, M. J. P. et al.
density lipoprotein, very low density lipoprotein, aspartate
aminotransferase, gammaglutamyl transferase, and alka-
line
phosphatase using a commercial kit from Lab Test® in an
automated biochemical analyzer (Bioplus® 2000).
of each experimental period in every five minutes during 24
hours, according to methodology proposed by Fischer
et al.
(1998). The chewing time was calculated by sum of eating
and rumination times. The eating, rumination and chewing
efficiencies were calculated by dividing the intake of dry
matter by the total eating, rumination and chewing times.
Feeding behavior such as eating, ruminating and
idling time of all ewes were evaluated on 14th to 15th day
The statistical model was:
;
this study intake was not restricted by rumen fill. Howe- ver,
the average of DMI (1.0 to 1.30 kg day) and DMI in
relation to BW (2.97 to 3.87 % of BW) are within the
recommended for lambs according to NRC (2007). Thus,
we can conclude that despite NDF intake, %NDF of BW
was beyond suggested, do not observing intake restriction.
where:
= observation ijkl; = treatment
fixed effect i; = period fixed effect j; = animal
random effect k;
= random error l. Comparisons
between ALL-G Rich
®
levels in the diets were conducted by
the sum decomposition of squares in orthogonal contrasts
to
linear and quadratic effects with 5% of significance (p
< 0.05).
According to Forbes (1996), intake regulator
factors operate in an integrated process, therefore, DM
intake was not limited by physical effects because diet
digestibility showed an average of 83.45%. Diets with this
percentage of digestibility is considered highly fer-
mentable
and with high production of volatile fatty acids,
leading
consequently to the interaction of physical and
osmotic
intake controls. This control interaction happened
in all
treatments, therefore, increasing ALL G-Rich® in
the
concentrate did not change DM and NDF digestibility
(p
>0.05) (Table 3).
Results and Discussion
Intake of DM, DM in relation to body weight, EE,
NDF, and ADF were not different across the treatments (p >
0.05) (Table 3). The ruminant intake is regulated
by a
compilation of factors, for instance, physical (i.e. fill
ruminal),
chemical (i.e. satiety), and psychogenic (i.e. palatability)
associated with diet composition (Mertens, 1994).
Furthermore, inclusion of algae percentages sho- wed no
differences on chemical profile of the diets (isoe- nergetic and
isoproteic) (Table 2), leading to equivalent nutrient intake
between treatments.
The docosahexaenoic intake in the treatments was
estimated as 0, 1.5, 3, 4,5 and, 6 % of ALL G-Rich®,
being 3.78, 7.23, 10.96 and 13.70 g d-1, respectively. Thus,
ALL G-Rich® up to 6% with 13.70 g d-1 as a source of
docosahexaenoic was used without change the nu- trients
intake and digestibility. This response opposes that reported
by Palmquist e Mattos (2011) and Borghi (2018), it’s
because these studies increased algae and lipids more than
our used, nearly 6%, thus, when we increase PUFA sources
in the ruminant diet the DM and NDF digestibility decrease
due to toxicity to ruminal microbiota, hampering fiber
degradation. The results of these studies show that the
unsaturated lipid can dama- ge rumen, reducing DM and
DND. However, the levels included in our study were not
detrimental to the dry matter intake and digestibility.
Another fact related with no change in nutrients
intake can be the percentage of ether extract in the diets.
According to Palmquist e Jenkis (1980) the maximum
amount of lipids in the diet should be between 5% to avoid
negative effects on ruminal microbiota. Therefore, in our
experimental diets with 1.79% maximum of EE, there was no
influence on nutrient intake among treatments (Table
3). As
reported by Thanh et al. (2018), where sunflower and fish oil
were used as sources of docosahexaenoic, there was no
difference in the nutrients intake because the maximum
percentage ethereal extract was 4.67 %, no exceeding the
recommendations.
In relation to lipid composition, the algae product
is
rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAS), as doco-
sahexaenoic acid, which according to Altomonte et al.
(2018) may have toxic effects on the ruminal microflora.
However, we emphasize that given the low inclusion of
ALL G-Rich® up to 6% in the concentrate, it did not change
intake and nutrient digestibility (Table 3).
Similarly to nutrients intake, there were no sig-
nificant differences among treatments for water intake and
water losses (p > 0.05) (Table 4). The water intake and urine
density in relation dry matter intake did not
change (p >
0.05) (Table 4). The average of water intake
and urine volume
was 4.97 and 1.51 l d-1, respectively. The water intake was
27.11 % higher to the calculated by the equation proposed by
Forbes (1968), which NRC
(2007) recommends. However,
this equation is a general requirement for all ewes class, and our
study used growing
lambs. Thus, it is still necessary specific
equations to all small ruminants classes. The response of
water is also related to diet profile, which was composed
of 70% of
The average values of DM and NDF intake were
1.27 and 0.594 kg.d
-1
, respectively, corresponding to 3.78
and
1.76 % of body weight, respectively. The average of NDF
and NDF in relation to BW were higher than reported by
Mertens (1997), which suggest that NDF intake can reach
1.20% of BW, demonstrating that in
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–08, https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2020.20203
5
Araújo, M. J. P. et al.
concentrate containing little humidity, increasing intake
requirements of water. Urine volume and urine density are
within the range describe by Reece (2006) of 100
to 400 ml per 10 kg of BW and 1.015 to 1.045 g ml-1
(Carvalho, 2008).
Table 3 – Digestibility and nutrients intake of lambs with levels ALL G-Rich® in the concentrate.
ALL G-Rich
®
(%)
p-values
Item
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
SEM
L
Q
Dry matter intake (kg d-1) Dry
matter intake (kg d-1 BW)
Ethereal extract intake (kg d-1)
Neutral detergent fiber intake (kg d-1)
Acid detergent fiber intake (kg d-1) Dry
matter digestibility (%)
Neutral detergent fiber digestibility (%)
1.35
3.37
0.032
0.591
0.204
83.39
65
1.27
3.14
0.031
0.48
0.186
83.53
60.79
1.28
3.26
0.031
0.591
0.231
81.31
67.29
1.27
3.17
0.030
0.511
0.21
84.45
68.14
1.20
3.01
0.032
0.573
0.219
84.06
62.14
0.053
0.094
0.001
0.026
0.012
0,009
2.735
0.157
0.197
0.958
0.974
0.504
0.399
0.625
0.992
0.915
0.234
0.303
0.902
0.635
0.982
BW: body weight; SEM: standard error of the mean; L: linear effect; Q: quadratic effect.
Table 4 – Intake and loss of water of lambs with levels ALL G-Rich® in the concentrate.
ALL G-Rich
®
(% of concentrate)
p-values
Item
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
SEM
L
Q
Water intake (l d-1)
Water / Dry matter intake (l kg d-1)
Urine volume (l d-1)
Urine density (g ml-1)
4.69
3.43
1.528
1.022
5.28
4.65
1.523
1.021
5.16
4.2
1.737
1.014
5.11
4.19
1.292
1.025
4.61
4.13
1.474
1.020
0.222
0.303
0.188
0.002
0.663
0.386
0.771
0.874
0.149
0.084
0.744
0.697
SEM: standard error of the mean; L: linear effect; Q: quadratic effect.
In relation to metabolic profile, there was no
significant differences on total protein, albumin, globulin,
uric
acid, urea, creatinine, triglycerides, very low den- sity
lipoprotein and high-density lipoprotein as increase
docosahexaenoic increased in the diet (p> 0.05) (Table 5).
However, cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein showed a
significant (p<0.05) quadratic behavior as increased feeding
levels of ALL G-Rich® were added in the concentrate (Table
5). All energy and protein meta- bolites values are between
reference values.
reflects the ammonia generated in the rumen by the
degradation of the nitrogen compounds that were not
converted into microbial protein. Thus, ammonia crosses
the
rumen wall where it is transformed into urea in the liver
with high energy expenditure. Subsequently, this urea can
be eliminated by urinary excretion or milk (in the case of
lactating animals), and return to the rumen via salivation or
perfusion in the ruminal wall.
The urea values remained within the recommen- ded
range with inclusion of ALL G-Rich
®
. Treatments did
not
affect the synergism of the degradation of nitrogen and
carbohydrate sources in the ruminal environment, leading to
no ammonia escape and subsequent no unne-
cessary energy
expenditure for the animals. Therefore, all protein metabolites
remained within the normal range of
protein metabolism as
recommended by Varanis (2018) for growing lambs.
The metabolic profile is used to access and prevent
metabolic and nutritional disorders in animal production,
mainly, when unusual products are included in the diet.
Protein metabolites: total protein, albumin, globulin, uric
acid,
urea, and creatinine are positive correlated with dietary
protein intake, rumen degradability, and dietary amino acid
composition (Puppel e Kuczynska, 2016). As the diets were
formulated to be isoprotein, there was no difference between
treatments for concentration of protein metabolites.
Among energetic metabolites, there were reduc-
tion
in cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein concen- trations
up to 4%, and an increase in concentration with 6 % of ALL
G-Rich®.
The diet balance is verified through the urea
concentration. According to Wittwer (2000), blood urea
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–08, https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2020.20203
6
Araújo, M. J. P. et al.
Table 5 – Energetic and protein metabolites of lambs with levels ALL G-Rich® in the concentrate.
ALL G-Rich
®
(%)
p-value
Item
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
SEM
RV
L
Q
Total protein (mg dL)*
Albulmin (mg dL)*
Globulin (mg dL)**
Uric acid (mg dL)* Urea
(mg dL)* Creatinine
(mg dL)* Cholesterol
(mg dL)1* Triglycerides
(mg dL)*
Low density lipoprotein (mg dL)* 2
High density lipoprotein (mg dL)* Very
low density lipoprotein (mg dL) *
7.44
3.49
3.94
0.48
48.56
0.74
52.56
25.82
21.22
37.56
5.16
7.98
3.85
4.45
0.46
46.46
0.72
51.76
24.78
11.12
41.64
4.95
8.34
3.29
5.04
0.5
57.76
0.74
53.5
21.92
11.95
40.04
4.38
7.06
3.18
3.88
0.44
46.78
0.72
49.22
19.56
8.12
37.18
3.91
8.2
2.86
5.34
0.48
48.44
0.74
55.78
20.82
14.85
36.76
4.16
0.021
0.001
0.148
0.108
0.225
0.001
0.196
0.207
0.366
0.284
0.189
3.1 to 11.4
1.12 to 5.38
3.5 to 5.7 0
to 2.9
12.8 to100
0.40 to 1.80
15 to 139.9
5 to 78
0.80 to 83.36
13 to 79
1 to17.4
0.258
0.398
0.473
0.597
0.148
0.163
0.362
0.589
0.093
0.111
0.589
0.893
0.748
0.698
0.259
0.123
0.543
0.042
0.969
0.001
0.473
0.969
*RV: reference value accord to Varanis, (2018); **RV: reference value accord to Kaneko, (2008); SEM: standard error of the mean; L: linear effect; Q:
quadratic effect. ¹Y = 53.02 - 1.39X + 0.27X²; R² = 30.06%; ²Y = 20.74 - 6,56X + 0.92X²; R² = 86.20%
The ALL G-Rich® is rich in PUFA’s, which is
biohydrogenated in the rumen. When the docosahexae- noic
acid is biohydrogenated, it is converted to a long saturated
long chain fatty acid, the docosonaic acid (C 22:0) (Aldai et
al., 2018). Thus, the increase in serum cholesterol
concentration may occur due to the high demand for
digestion, absorption, and transport of lon- g-chain fatty
acids (Freitas Júnior et al., 2010).
The reduction of LDL concentration may occur- red
due to the greater use of fat from ALL G-Rich® in the diet
as energy source, which leaded to less need for fat
mobilization from the liver to the tissues. This is also
favorable because according to Brás et al. (2014) it leads to a
lower probability of developing health problems such
as
cardiovascular diseases. It is worth mentioning that,
although there were differences in cholesterol and LDL
between treatments, all energy metabolites were within
recommended range to the animal category according to
Varanis (2018).
In this context, we call attention to the reduction
of
low-density lipoprotein concentration (LDL) up to 4% of
ALL G-Rich® in the diet, the LDL acts on the transport of
cholesterol from the liver to the tissues. The increase in
cholesterol is indicative of an increase in energy me-
tabolism in the liver (NDLOVU et al., 2007).
In relation to hepatic metabolites, there were a
quadratic and linear effect for alkaline phosphatase
and
gammaglutamyl transferase (p<0.05), respectively.
However,
means values of aspartate aminotransferase were not
affected by the increase DHA in the diet.
Table 6 – Hepatic metabolite of lambs with levels ALL G-Rich® in the concentrate.
ALL G-Rich
®
(%)
p-value
Item
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
SEM
RV*
L
Q
Aspartate aminotransferase (U L)
Alkaline phosphatase (U L) 3
Gammaglutamyl transferase (U L) 4
161.24
283.98
62.66
214.04
328.18
80.16
357.84
347.56
97.2
269.02
311.62
87.72
199.3
328.16
94.52
12,36
25,36
4,23
47 to 353.5
58 to 727.7
31 to154
0.256
0.398
0.558
0.445
0.025
0.002
*RV: reference value according to Varanis, (2018); SEM: standard error of the mean; L: linear effect; Q: quadratic effect; 3Y = 289.73 + 25.86X - 3.51X²; R² =
61.48%; 4Y = 70.19+ 4.75X; R² = 66.17%.
According to Dallago et al. (2011), elevated
concentrations of alkaline phosphatase, gammaglutamyl
transferase and aspartate aminotransferase are related to
hepatic injuries. When hepatic injuries happen, hepa-
tocellular damage overflows the hepatocytes by raising
their serum concentration. Although the values changed with
increase DHA in the diet, all metabolites hepatics remained
within reference intervals for lambs, showing that there is no
risk of intoxication when ALL G-Rich® is used as source of
DHA in lambs diet.
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–08, https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2020.20203
7
Araújo, M. J. P. et al.
In relation to animal behavior, the time lambs
spent in feeding, rumination, idle, and chewing as well as
efficiency times of these activities were not different
between treatments (p > 0.05) when added up to 6 % of
ALL
G-Rich® in the concentrate (Table 7). Mean values of
feeding, rumination, idle and chewing were 191.8, 349.4,
898.8 and 541.2 min d-1, respectively.
increased levels of ALL G-Rich
®
in the experimental diets
did
not change the time spent in feeding, rumination, idle and
chewing activities, and consequently on their efficiency.
We call attention to the value of ruminating time that was
lower than showed by Van Soest (1994), which reports a
time of 360 to 480 min day-1 rumina- ting. However, the diet
composition of this study had high proportion of soluble
carbohydrates. The values of feeding, ruminating and idle
activities of 3.19, 5.82 e 14.98 h day-1 were similar as those
reported by Silva (2018) of 4.76, 5.98, 13.26 h day-1,
respectively, using up to 4% algae meal in lamb diet.
The ingestive behavior is controled by several
factors, for instance, nutrients intake, particle size and
nutrients digestibility (Van Soest, 1994). We did not
observed changes in this factors among treatments, thus,
Table 7 – Ingestive behavior of lambs with levels ALL G-Rich® in the concentrate.
ALL G-Rich
®
(% of concentrate)
p-values
Item
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
SEM
L
Q
Feeding time (min d-1)
Rumination time (min d-1)
Idle time (min d-1) Chewing
time (min d-1)
Feeding efficiency (g of DM min-1)
Rumination efficiency (g of DM min-1)
Chewing efficiency (g of DM min-1)
187
347
906
534
7.3
3.96
2.56
188
352
900
540
6.74
3.6
2.33
197
351
892
548
6.76
3.69
2.37
195
368
877
563
6.76
3.53
2.29
192
329
919
521
6.52
3.68
2.33
6.524
8.804
12.08
12.08
0.345
0.162
0.102
0.712
0.761
0.396
0.760
0.242
0.460
0.249
0.627
0.375
0.971
0.368
0.689
0.452
0.391
SEM: standard error of the mean; L: linear effect; Q: quadratic effect.
Conclusion
sion do not affect ingestive behavior, digestibility, and
nutrient intake, also, maintains metabolic profile within
the
recommended range for the animal category, increases
cholesterol and reduces LDL concentration.
The ALL-G RICH® is viable to use on diets for lambs in a
level up to 6%, which represents up to 13.70 g d-1 of
docosahexaenoic acid intake. This percentage of inclu-
References
Aldai, N., P. Delmonte, S. Alves, R. J. B. Bessa, and J. Kramer. 2018.
Evidence for the initial steps of DHA biohydrogenation by mixed ruminal
microorganisms from sheep involves formation of conjugated fatty acids.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 66: 842–855. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
jafc.7b04563.
Brás, P., Possenti, R. A., Bueno, M. S., Canova, E. B., Schammas, E. A.
2014. Avaliação nutricional de coprodutos da extração de óleos vegetais em
dieta de ovinos. Boletim de Indústria Animal, 71(2), 160–175. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.17523/bia.v71n2p160.
Calder, P. C. 2014. Very long chain omega
-
3 (n
-
3) fatty acids and human
health. European journal of lipid science and technology, 116(10): 1280–
1300. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejlt.201400025.
Altomonte, I., Salari, F., Licitra, R., & Martini, M. 2018. Use of
microalgae in ruminant nutrition and implications on milk quality-A
review. Livestock science, 214: 25–35. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
livsci.2018.05.006.
Carvalho, M. B. Semiologia do Sistema Urinário. In: FEITOSA, F.L.
SemiologiaVeterinária. São Paulo: Roca, 2008. p. 389–409.
Association of official analytical chemistry (AOAC). 1990. Official
methods of analysis. 15.ed. Arlington: AOAC International, 1117p.
Church, D.C. Fisiologia digestiva y nutrición de los ruminantes. Zaragoza:
Acríbia, 1993. 641p.
Boeckaert, C., Vlaeminck, B., Dijkstra, J., Issa-Zacharia, A., Van Nespen,
T.,
Van Straalen, W., Fievez, V. 2008. Effect of dietary starch or micro algae
supplementation on rumen fermentation and milk fatty acid
composition of
dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(12): 4714–4727.
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1178.
Dallago, B. S. L., McManus, C. M., Caldeira, D. F., Lopes, A. C., Paim,
T. D. P., Franco, E., Louvandini, H. 2011. Performance and ruminal
protozoa in lambs with chromium supplementation. Research in veterinary
science, 90(2): 253–256. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rvsc.2010.06.015.
Borghi, T.H. Farinha de algas marinhas (Schizochytrium sp.) na
alimentação de cordeiros confinados: desempenho, digestibilidade e
qualidade da carcaça e da carne. 2018. 113f. Tese (Doutorado em
Zootecnia) - Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Universidade
Estadual Paulista.
Mertens, D. R. 1996. Methods in modelling feeding behaviour and
intake in herbivores. In Annales de zootechnie (Vol. 45, pp. 153–164).
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–08, https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2020.20203
8
Araújo, M. J. P. et al.
Fischer, V., Deswysen, A. G., Dèspres, L., Dutilleul, P., Lobato, J. F.
P. 1998. Padrões nictemerais do comportamento ingestivo de ovinos.
Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 27(2):362–369.
Puppel, K., Kuczyńska, B. 2016. Metabolic profiles of cow’s blood; a
review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 96(13): 4321–
4328. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7779.
Forbes, J. M. 1968. The water intake of ewes. British Journal of Nutrition,
22(1):
33–43. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19680006.
Reece, W. O. Função Renal nos Mamíferos. In: Reece, W. O. DUKES -
Fisiologia dos animais domésticos. 12. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara
Koogan, 2006. p. 68–96.
Forbes, J. M. 1996. Integration of regulatory signals controlling forage intake
in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science, 74(12): 3029–3035. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74123029x.
Russell, K. E., & Roussel, A. J. 2007. Evaluation of the ruminant serum
chemistry profile. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal
Practice, 23(3): 403–426. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cvfa.2007.07.003.
Freitas Júnior, J. E. D., Rennó, F. P., Silva, L. F. P., Gandra, J. R.,
Maturana Filho, M., Foditsch, C., & Venturelli, B. C. 2010. Parâmetros
sanguíneos de vacas leiteiras suplementadas com diferentes fontes de
gordura. Ciência Rural, 40(4): 950–956. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/
S0103-
84782010005000039.
Silva, L.G. Farinha de algas marinhas (Schizochytrium sp.) e vitamina E na
alimentação de cordeiros confinados. 2018. 85p. Dissertação
(Mestrado em
Zootecnia) - Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias,
Universidade
Estadual Paulista, 2018.
Kaneko, J.J.; Harvey, J.W.; Bruss, M.L. Clinical biochemistry of domestic
animals.6. ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 2008. 916p.
Stark, K. D., Van Elswyk, M. E., Higgins, M. R., Weatherford, C. A., &
Salem Jr, N. (2016). Global survey of the omega-3 fatty acids,
docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid in the blood stream
of
healthy adults. Progress in lipid research, 63: 132–152. Doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.plipres.2016.05.001.
Mertens, D. R., Regulation of forage intake. In: FAHEY, G. C. (Ed.)
Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization. Madison: American Society
Agronomy. p.450–493, 1994.
Thanh, L. P., Phakachoed, N., Meeprom, C., Suksombat, W. 2018.
Replacement of fish oil for sunflower oil in growing goat diet induces shift
of ruminal fermentation and fatty acid concentration without affecting
intake and digestion. Small ruminant research, 165: 71–78. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2018.05.015.
Mertens, D. R. 1997. Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of
dairy cows. Journal of dairy science, 80(7): 1463–1481. Doi: https://
doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76075-2.
National research council (NRC). Nutrient Requeriments of Small
Ruminants. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press, 2007. 362p.
Van Soest, P.J. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. 2.ed. London:
Constock Publishing Associates, USA, 1994, 476 p.
Ndlovu, T., Chimonyo, M., Okoh, A. I., Muchenje, V., Dzama, K., Raats,
J. G. 2007. Assessing the nutritional status of beef cattle: current
practices and future prospects. African Journal of Biotechnology, 6(24).
Van Soest, P. V., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. 1991. Methods for
dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in
relation
to animal nutrition. Journal of dairy science, 74(10): 3583– 3597. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2.
Palmquist, D. L., & Jenkins, T. C. 1980. Fat in lactation rations. Journal of
dairy science, 63(1): 1–14. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-
0302(80)82881-5.
Varanis, L.F.M. Prospecção de metabólitos sanguíneos referenciais para
ovinos em distintas categorias. 2018. 45f. Dissertação (Mestrado em
Ciências Veterinárias) - Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade
Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, 2018.
Palmquist D. L.; Mattos, W. R. S. Metabolismo de lipídios. In: Berchielli,
T. T.; Pires, A. V.; Oliveira, S. G. (Ed.). Nutrição de ruminantes. 2. ed.
Jaboticabal: Funep, 2011. p. 299–322.
Wittwer, F. Diagnóstico dos desequilíbrios metabólicos de energia em
rebanhos bovinos. In: Gonzalez, F.H.D.; Barcelos, J.O.; Patinõ, H.O.;
Ribeiro, L.A. Perfil metabólico em ruminantes. Seu uso em nutrição e
doenças nutricionais. Porto Alegre: UFRGS, 2000. p.9–22.
Ponnampalam, E. N., Hopkins, D. L., Butler, K. L., Dunshea, F. R.,
Sinclair, A. J., & Warner, R. D. 2009. Polyunsaturated fats in meat from
Merino, first-and second-cross sheep slaughtered as yearlings. Meat
Science, 83(2): 314–319. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
meatsci.2009.05.018.
Pirondini, M., Colombini, S., Mele, M., Malagutti, L., Rapetti, L., Galassi, G.,
Crovetto, G. M. 2015. Effect of dietary starch concentration and fish
oil
supplementation on milk yield and composition, diet digestibility,
and
methane emissions in lactating dairy cows. Journal of dairy science,
98(1):
357–372. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8092.
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 12, p. 01–08, https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2020.20203