Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:37:21.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of fats in pig feeding:II. The digestibility of various fats and fatty acids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. S. Bayley  and
D. Lewis
H. S. Bayley
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics.
D. Lewis
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The apparent and corrected digestibilities of beef tallow, H.E.F. and soyabean oil have been determined in the newly weaned pig. Determinations of the individual fatty acids in the food and faecal lipids allowed the digestibility of each acid to be calculated separately. The purest available forms of oleic, stearic and palmitic acids and their corresponding triglycerides were also used in the determination of digestibility. Although the digestibility of each fatty acid is to some extent a characteristic of the acid, the extent of absorption can also be modified by the other acids in the diet. The results.of these experiments give no clear indication of a difference between feeding fatty acids in the free form or as the triglycerides. The digestible energy values of the fats have been calculated as the product of gross energy value and corrected digestibility.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , June 1965 , pp. 373 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bayley, H. S. & Lewis, D. (1965). J. Agric. Sci. 64, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breyer, B. & Goodwin, P. B. (1962). Clin. Chem. Acta, 7, 647.Google Scholar
Carroll, K. K. (1958). J. Nutr. 64, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, K. K. & Richards, J. F. (1958). J. Nutr. 64, 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clawson, A. J., Blumer, T. N., Smart, W. W. G. & Barrick, E. R. (1962). J. Anim. Sci. 21, 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desnuelle, P. (1961). Advanc. Enzymol. 23, 129.Google Scholar
Frazer, A. C. (1943). J. Physiol. 102, 306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoagland, R. & Snider, G. C. (1943). J. Nutr. 25, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, L. E. & Crampton, E. N. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 377.Google Scholar
Mattil, K. F. & Higgins, J. W. (1945). J. Nutr. 29, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, F. H. (1959). J. Nutr. 69, 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, R. & Hill, F. W. (1958). Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conference, pp. 95–100.Google Scholar
Renner, R. & Hill, F. W. (1960). Poult. Sci. 39, 849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, R. & Hill, F. W. (1961 a). J. Nutr. 74, 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, R. & Hill, F. W. (1961 b). J.Nutr. 74, 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. W., Lewis, D. & Morgan, J. T. (1964).J. Agric. Sci. 63, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar