4.4 Article

Growth, clinical chemistry and immune function in domestic piglets fed varying ratios of arachidonic acid and DHA

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 107, 期 6, 页码 809-816

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S000711451100359X

关键词

Arachidonic acid; DHA; Growth; Long-chain PUFA; Piglets

资金

  1. Martek Biosciences Corporation (Columbia, MD, USA)
  2. DSM Food Specialties (Delft, The Netherlands)
  3. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [T32DK007158]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the USA, infant formulas contain long-chain PUFA arachidonic acid (ARA) and DHA in a ratio of 2:1 and comprise roughly 0.66 g/100 g and 0.33 g/100 g total fatty acids (FA). Higher levels of dietary DHA appear to provide some advantages in visual or cognitive performance. The present study evaluated the effect of physiologically high dietary ARA on growth, clinical chemistry, haematology and immune function when DHA is 1.0 g/100 g total FA. On day 3 of age, formula-reared (FR) piglets were matched for weight and assigned to one of six milk replacer formulas. Diets varied in the ratio of ARA:DHA as follows (g/100 g FA/FA): A1, 0.1/1.0; A2, 0.53/1.0; A3-D3, 0.69/1.0; A4, 1.1/1.0; D2, 0.67/0.62; D1, 0.66/0.33. A seventh group was maternal-reared (MR) and remained with the dam during the study. Blood collection and body weight measurements were performed weekly, and piglets were killed on day 28 of age. No significant differences were found among any of the FR groups for formula intake, growth, clinical chemistry, haematology or immune status measurements. A few differences in clinical chemistry, haematology and immune function parameters between the MR pigs and the FR groups probably reflected a difference in growth rate. We conclude that the dietary ARA level up to 1.0 g/100 g total FA is safe and has no adverse effect on any of the safety outcomes measured, and confirm that DHA has no adverse effect when ARA is at 0.66 g/100 g FA.

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

4.4
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