4.7 Article

Freeze-dried Nannochloropsis oceanica biomass protects eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) from metabolization in the rumen of lambs

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-01255-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT) [SFRH/BD/136609/2018, DL 57/2016/CP1438/CT0008, PTDC/CAL-ZOO/29654/2017, UIDB/00276/2020]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/136609/2018, DL 57/2016/CP1438/CT0008, PTDC/CAL-ZOO/29654/2017] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that FD N. oceanica biomass is a natural rumen-protected source of EPA for ruminants, increasing EPA concentration in the rumen and affecting the ruminal biohydrogenation of C18 fatty acids.
Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) from freeze-dried biomass of Nannochloropsis oceanica microalgae resists ruminal biohydrogenation in vitro, but in vivo demonstration is needed. Therefore, the present study was designed to test the rumen protective effects of N. oceanica in lambs. Twenty-eight lambs were assigned to one of four diets: Control (C); and C diets supplemented with: 1.2% Nannochloropsis sp. oil (O); 12.3% spray-dried N. oceanica (SD); or 9.2% N. oceanica (FD), to achieve 3 g EPA /kg dry matter. Lambs were slaughtered after 3 weeks and digestive contents and ruminal wall samples were collected. EPA concentration in the rumen of lambs fed FD was about 50% higher than lambs fed SD or O diets. Nevertheless, the high levels of EPA in cecum and faeces of animals fed N. oceanica biomass, independently of the drying method, suggests that EPA was not completely released and absorbed in the small intestine. Furthermore, supplementation with EPA sources also affected the ruminal biohydrogenation of C18 fatty acids, mitigating the shift from the t10 biohydrogenation pathways to the t11 pathways compared to the Control diet. Overall, our results demonstrate that FD N. oceanica biomass is a natural rumen-protected source of EPA to ruminants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据