4.3 Article

Gastrointestinal morphology, fatty acid profile, and production performance of broiler chickens fed camelina meal or fish oil

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF LIPID SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 116, 期 12, 页码 1727-1733

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ejlt.201400019

关键词

Broiler chickens; Camelina meal; Fish oil; Intestinal morphology; Omega-3 fatty acids

资金

  1. Oregon State University Agriculture Research Foundation
  2. USDA animal health award
  3. Higher Education Ministry
  4. Government of Egypt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gastrointestinal morphology, fatty acid profile, and production performance of broiler chickens fed camelina meal (CAM) or fish oil were investigated. One hundred and twenty eight 1-day-old Cobb chicks were randomly assigned to one of four treatments. Each treatment was replicated four times with eight chicks (n=8). The experimental diets were: corn soybean meal-based with 3.2% corn oil (control), control + 10% CAM, 10% camelina meal + 3.2% fish oil (CAM + FISH), and 3.2% fish oil (FISH). Villous height (VH) was lowest in the jejunum of FISH and CAM + FISH (p<0.04). Crypt depth (CD) was lowest in the jejunum of Control and CAM (p<0.002). Villous perimeter was higher in control and CAM when compared to CAM + FISH and FISH (p=0.02). The VH: CD followed the order of control > CAM > CAM + FISH = FISH (p<0.0001). No difference was observed in villus width, surface area, and muscularis thickness. Total omega-6 fatty acids were higher in the duodenum of control and CAM than FISH and CAM + FISH diets (p<0.0001). Long chain (> 20-C) omega-3 fatty acids were higher in CAM + FISH and FISH (p<0.0001). No significant differences were detected in the total saturated and total monounsaturated fatty acid content in the duodenum (p>0.05). Weight gain varied significantly and was lowest for CAM + FISH and FISH diets at Day 21 and 42 (p=0.01). There were no differences in feed intake between control and CAM diets. However, inclusion of fish oil reduced feed consumption (p=0.019).

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

4.3
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