Next Article in Journal
Implications of ICT for the Livelihoods of Women Farmers: A Study in the Teesta River Basin, Bangladesh
Previous Article in Journal
Climate Concern and Pro-Environmental Behaviour in the Light of Trust
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/su151914431
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluating the Effect of Using Different Levels of Sunflower Hulls as a Source of Fiber in a Complete Feed on Naemi Ewes’ Milk Yield, Composition, and Fatty Acid Profile at 6, 45, and 90 Days Postpartum

by
Mohsen M. Alobre
*,
Mutassim M. Abdelrahman
,
Ibrahim A. Alhidary
,
Abdulkareem M. Matar
,
Riyadh S. Aljumaah
and
Rashed A. Alhotan
Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Food and Agriculture, King Saud University, P.O. Box 460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(19), 14431; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914431
Submission received: 27 July 2023 / Revised: 23 August 2023 / Accepted: 30 August 2023 / Published: 2 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Food Production Processing and Byproduct Utilization)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of using different levels of sunflower hulls (SFH) as a source of fiber in a complete feed on Naemi ewes’ milk yield, composition, and fatty acid profile at 6, 45, and 90 days postpartum. In this study, 48 primiparous lactating Naemi ewes were randomly selected for the four treatment groups as follows: C (control), total mixed ratio (TMR; 0% SFH); TMR1, including S12% SFH; TMR2, including S20% SFH; and TMR3, including S28% SFH. The data were analyzed by SAS software 9.4 as a complete randomized design with repeated measurements. Both the S20 and S28 groups showed significant effects on milk yield and persistence at 45 and 90 days compared to the control and S12 groups. The triglyceride concentration level at 6 and 90 days postpartum was significantly higher (p < 0.05; p < 0.001) in the blood serum. The treatment significantly affected fat, protein, and total solids (p < 0.05), with quadratic and cubic responses, respectively. The time significantly influenced protein (p < 0.001), lactose (p < 0.01), and total solids (p < 0.05). A significant difference (p < 0.05) in the treatments showed varying responses in the fatty acid concentration in milk. Saturated fatty acids (SFAs) and omega 6 (n-6)/omega 3 (n-3) in the milk fat of ewes from the S12, S20, and S28 groups were significantly lower compared to the others. Furthermore, the (n-6) and atherogenicity (AI) were high and low, respectively, in S28, which is considered beneficial to human health. In conclusion, ewes can be fed up to 28% SFH during lactation as a complete pelleted feed to obtain an acceptable milk yield, nutritive value, and healthy fatty acid profile.

1. Introduction

Sunflower cultivation has significantly increased in recent years, resulting in a subsequent increase in the production of its by-products (e.g., hulls and straw) at a lower cost. About 20–30% of sunflower seeds are hulls, which are often removed before oil extraction to avoid damaging oil presses and improve oil quality [1]. Sunflower hulls have a higher content of fiber, neutral detergent fiber (NDF, 72.12%), acid detergent fiber (ADL, 22.01%), and calcium (1.47%) compared with other fiber sources [2]. On the other hand, higher lignin is found in SFH, which may negatively affect nutrient digestibility and utilization [3]. The replacement of different levels of fiber in a complete feeding system is composed of a mixture of roughage feed with added concentrate; this system increases energy density in a single feed unit [4]. Fiber is an essential component of the ruminant diet, providing nutrients and energy for microbial fermentation in the rumen, regulating milk fat content, and controlling dry matter intake [5]. A reduction in the levels of dietary fiber decreases rumen pH because of the reduction in rumination/chewing time, resulting in a decreased flow of saliva into the rumen, which, in turn, leads to a reduced flow of buffering substances, affecting the acetate:propionate ratio and hence influencing milk fat levels [6]. Ewe milk yield, in comparison to that of goats and cows, is characterized by a higher protein, mineral, and fat concentration, as well as a higher digestibility [7]. Milk composition in ewes is directly affected by fiber levels, which can interfere with rumen fermentation and the accessibility of precursors for fat, protein, and lactose synthesis [8]. A diet containing a high amount of concentrates and/or a low amount of forage is the most common cause of low fat in milk. Ewe milk yield and composition are influenced by different factors, primarily the ewes’ diets’ nutritive value, especially fiber [9,10]. The milk fatty acid (FA) composition influences milk quality in several ways; for instance, ruminant milk FA composition varies significantly with different feeding regimens, including a diet that includes both forage and concentrates [11,12]. Given the negative effects of saturated fatty acids (SFA) on human health, researchers are investigating ways to reduce the amount of SFA in milk [13]. Many studies have focused on increasing the content of valuable FA, such as short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), and conjugated linolenic acid (CLA) [14,15]. SFH is considered an excellent alternative source of fiber for ruminant animals, but there is no report to investigate the effect of using SFH for ewes during lactation or the preparation levels to be used in a complete feed. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate how using different levels of SFH as a source of fiber in complete feed at 6, 45, and 90 days postpartum affected milk yield, composition, and FA profile in Naemi ewes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Diets and Experimental Designs

The study was carried out at the Experimental Station of the Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, and Scientific Research Ethics Committee guidelines were followed for all the research projects (approval number: KSU-SE-20-27). In total, 84 primiparous pregnant ewes in an early stage of gestation (body weight: 50.0 ± 4.8 kg; age: 12–13 months) were used in the study. They were fed 4 different diets with various concentrations of SFH. The following are the dietary groups: (1) complete feed as TMR containing 0% SFH (Control: C), (2) complete pelleted diet containing 12% sunflower hulls (SFH12), (3) complete pelleted diet containing 20% sunflower hulls (SFH20), and (4) complete pelleted diet containing 28% sunflower hulls (SFH28). One of the four dietary regimens underwent three replicates at random. Every sheep received its prescribed food, which was created to satisfy all nutritional needs in accordance with the National Research Council [2], including the fatty acid profile shown in Table 1. Then, 48 Naemi ewes were randomly chosen during parturition from the 84 pregnant ewes. They were equally divided into 12 groups, comprising 4 groups per treatment, for milk sampling and other measurements. The selected ewes were fed in shaded, separate pens (7.0 m long × 6.0 m wide; 3 ewes per pen). Each pen was equipped with a feed trough and a water bucket. All the required vaccines and medical treatments were performed according to standard practices. The ewes continued to receive the same assigned diets as described above up to 90 days postpartum. The experiment was conducted over a 90-day period after parturition, which was further subdivided into three continuous periods for data collection as follows: (1) early lactation at 6 days; mid-lactation at 45 days; and late lactation at 90 days.

2.2. Blood Sample Processing and Analysis

Blood samples were collected by jugular venipuncture from all the ewes before the morning feeding at 07:00 am on days 6, 45, and 90 within the lactation period [16]. Using a commercial kit and a semi-automated analyzer, the serum triglyceride concentration in milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) was calculated (RX Monza; Randox Laboratories, Crumlin, UK).

2.3. Milk Yield and Analysis

The milk yield potential samples of 60 milliliters (mL) were randomly collected over a given 24 h period and were estimated by 6 h*4 times, for the total milk yield of each ewe (48 primiparous lactating Naemi ), on days 6, 45, and 90 postpartum [17]. A sample of milk was taken after collection and stored until analysis. Milko Scan was used to determine the content of fat, protein, lactose, and total soluble solids in the milk (Minor Type 78,100, Foss Electric, Hillerod, Denmark).

2.4. Fat Extraction for Fatty Acid Profile

Using the methods recommended by [18], the FA profile of the sheep milk fat (SMF) samples was measured. The milk samples were centrifuged at 5000× g rpm for 10 min at 4 °C, after which the floating globules were collected. Using the method reported by Nehdi et al. [18], the triacylglycerols in the sheep milk fat (SMF) were saponified and converted to fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs). At first, a 40 mg fat fraction was treated with 2 mL of hexane and 200 µL of 2 M sodium methoxide. The fat mixture was heated in a water bath at 50 °C for a few seconds, and then 200 µL of 2 M HCl was added. Using a gas chromatography–mass spectrometry ultra-instrument (GCMS-QP2010, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) and an Rtx-1 column (30 m × 0.25 mm. 0.25 µm film thickness), a 1 µL aliquot of the top layer was used to determine the milk’s fatty acid content (MFAS), as a following the method of Nehdi et al. [18]. Helium was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1.41 mL/min−1. The oven temperature was increased from 150 to 180 °C at a rate of 15 °C/min, followed by an increase to 210 °C at a rate of 1 °C/min−1. The temperatures of the injector and detector were 220 °C and 275 °C, respectively. An electron ionization device with an ionization energy of 70 eV was utilized for GCMS detection. Based on the ratios of the peak areas of the individual FAs to the total of the peak areas of all the FAs in the milk fat samples, the relative percentages of the individual FAs were computed.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The data obtained from each milk yield and serum triglyceride were analyzed using a complete randomized design (CRD) using SAS, (2003).
Using the PROC MIXED model in SAS, a complete randomized design with repeated measurement (CRDR) analysis of the milk composition and FA profile was performed [19]. The dietary treatment (SFH concentration), time of measurement, and the treatment × time interaction were tested. Using SAS’s contrast statement, linear, quadratic, and cubic orthogonal contrasts were examined [19]. Orthogonal contrasts were performed between the treatment groups. The effects of the different factors were declared significant at p ≤ 0.05 unless otherwise noted.

3. Results

3.1. Milk Yield

Figure 1 shows the impact of the various SFH levels on the Naemi ewe milk yields at 6, 45, and 90 days postpartum. A significant increase was reported for the SFH S20 group in the milk yield of ewes at 6, 45, and 90 days of lactation compared to the C, S12, and S28 groups. A significant effect on milk yield and persistence was observed (p < 0.01) at 45 and 90 days for the S20 and S28 groups compared to the C and S12 groups. Furthermore, the milk yield at 90 days was significantly lower (p < 0.02) compared to 45 days for the ewes fed S20, but no significant differences were reported with the other groups. The effect of treatments on milk yield showed linear responses at 6, 45, and 90 days of lactation.

3.2. Blood Serum Triglycerides

Table 2 shows the effect of different dietary treatments on triglyceride concentration in the blood serum of the ewes at 6, 45, and 90 days postpartum. The triglyceride concentration level at 6 and 90 days postpartum was significantly higher (p < 0.05; p < 0.001) in the blood serum of ewes from the C and S12 groups compared to ewes from the S20 and S28 groups, but no significant difference was reported at 45 days postpartum.

3.3. Milk Composition

Table 3 presents the results of the milk physicochemical analysis for the treatment, time, and interaction. The treatment had a particularly significant effect on the fat, protein, and total solids (p < 0.05, 0.04, and, 0.05, respectively), while the time significantly influenced the protein (p < 0.001), lactose (p < 0.01), and total solids (p < 0.05). However, the fat did not significantly differ between the three periods, whereas the interaction between the treatment and the time only significantly (p < 0.03) affected the protein levels in the milk. The effect of the treatments on the fat and total solids showed quadratic responses. Quadratic responses for the fat % results were reported. The protein and total solids in the milk significantly (p < 0.04 and 0.05) varied according to the different levels of SFH, and cubic responses were reported. The lactose content was relatively stable, and no significant effects of the treatments were found.
Table 4 shows the effect of the treatments with different levels of SFH as a source of fiber on the FA profile in the Naemi ewes’ milk. A significant effect of the treatments (p < 0.04, 0.05, 0.04, 0.01, 0.04) on C6:0, C8:0, C15:0, C18:2 cis 9, cis 12 (LA), C18:3 cis 9, 12, and 15 was seen with quadratic responses. A significant effect of the treatments (p < 0.01, 0.04, 0.05, 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.04, 0.01) C12:0, C16: 1 cis 7, C17: iso, C18:2 cis 9, cis 12 (LA), C19:1 cis, C20:4 cis 5,8,11,14, C22:5 cis 7, 10,13,16, and C22:4 cis 7,10,13,16 (n-6) was seen with linear responses. A significant effect of the treatments (p < 0.05, 0.03, 0.05), C16:0 iso, C18:2 cis 11, 17, C18:2 cis 9, and trans11, respectively, was seen with cubic responses. Different dietary concentrations of SFH (S20 and S28) significantly reduced (p < 0.05) the proportions of C6, C8, C12, C18:2 cis 11, 17, C18:2 cis 9, trans 11 (CLA) and C19, and C19:1 cis, compared to the C group. Moreover, the S12, S20, and S28 levels significantly increased the C15, C16 iso, C17 iso, C18:2 cis 9, cis 12, C22:5 cis 7, 10, 13, and 16 compared to the C group, but the S20 and S28 levels significantly increased the C18:2 cis 9 and cis 12 (LA), C20:4 cis 5, 8, 11, and 14 (ETA), and C22:4 cis 7, 10, 13, and 16 compared to the C group. However, the different dietary levels of SFH also significantly increased (p < 0.02) the total and individual linoleic acid (LA), with increasing proportions of C18:2 cis 9 and cis 12, as well as decreasing proportions of C18:2 cis 9, trans11, compared with the control. Furthermore, the SFH levels showed a significant increase in n-3, by increasing the proportions of C20:4 cis 5, 8, 11, and 14 (ETA), and C22:5 cis 7, 10, 13, and 16 (CPA). The C22:4 cis 7, 10, 13, and 16 levels in the milk fat for the S28 ewes were significantly higher (p < 0.04) compared with the other groups. The effect of time at the three lactation periods significantly (p < 0.05) affected the levels of C12:0, C16:1 cis 7, C18:1 cis 9, C19:0, and C22:0, respectively, as reported in Table 4. A significant interaction effect (p < 0.05) on C16:0 iso, C16:1 cis 7, C17:0 iso, C19:0, and C20:0 iso was also reported.
Table 5 reports the effects of SFH supplementation on Naemi ewes’ milk FA classes and indices. The average SFAs were 65.67%, 64.96%, 62.84%, and 61.30% of milk fat for the Naemi ewes fed with C, S12, S20, and S28, with linear responses, respectively. The SFA concentration was significantly lower in the S20 and S28 groups. The total USFA was significantly greater in the S20 and S28 groups (36.26 and 38.31% of total milk fat) compared to that of C and S12 (34.13% and 34.79%, respectively) with linear responses. Total PUSFA was significantly higher in the S20 group (7.19%) than in the milk fat from Naemi ewes fed C, S12, and S28, with cubic responses. The n-3 concentration was significantly higher in the S20 group (2.63% of total milk fat) compared to that of the C, S12, and S28 groups (0.74%, 1.38%, and 1.40%, respectively) with a quadratic response, while the n-6 concentration was significantly higher in S28 (5.32%) compared to C, S12, and S20, (3.83%, 4.82%, and 4.34%, respectively) with cubic responses. The SCFA was significantly higher in the C and S12 (4.64% and 4.03%, respectively) groups compared to the others, with quadratic responses. Additionally, there were low concentrations of SCFA in the S20 and S28 groups (3.41% and 3.63%, respectively), while not significantly different. The MCFA proportions were significantly lower in S28 (44.01%) compared to the control (50.94%), but there were no significant differences between S12 and S20. The LCFA concentration was significantly higher in S28 (35.93%) compared to the control (32.49%). Total C18:2 significantly differed among all the groups, except C and S28, with linear responses. The total C18:1 cis concentration was significantly higher in S28 (28.52%) compared to the other groups. Moreover, the atherogenicity index (AI) was significantly lower in S28 (1.77%) compared to the other groups, while no significant difference and linear responses were observed between S12 and S20 with the control group. There was no significant effect of (p > 0.05) treatment on the thrombogenicity index (TI).

4. Discussion

Sunflower hulls possess a higher content of fiber, NDF, ADL, and calcium compared to other roughage sources [20]. According to the literature, very limited research has been reported regarding using sunflower hulls as a source of fiber in a complete feed for ewes. However, many studies have reported the importance of milk fat in ewes for humans [21]. This study shows significant increases in the milk yields reported during the 6, 45, and 90 days of lactation with increasing SFH levels of the S20–S28 groups, as well as groups supplemented with S20 and S28% SFH yielded significantly higher milk yields by day 90 compared to the C and S12 groups. The major cause of the observed variances is diet composition (Table 1). In the present study, the average daily milk yield for Naemi ewes was higher than that reported in studies conducted by Aydin [22] in Awassa ewes. However, these findings were similar to those for Turkish Awassa [23]. The maximum milk supply was recorded by the Naemi ewes used in the study on day 45 of lactation, and the average lactation peak value was determined to be 1260.12 ± 80.76 mL/day. After 30 days, the milk yield in the ewes peaked, and the pathways involved in FA production changed [24]. The NDF content of the complete feed was increased in all the treatment groups by adding SFH; these results are consistent with those of Sarwar [25], who reported that a maximum of 37.8% dietary NDF in ruminant feed adequately resulted in high milk yield and suitable composition without affecting feed intake. Many researchers used the alternative by-product to be a source of fiber as a replacement for soybean hulls as a traditional fiber source and found that they were beneficial and profitable without affecting milk production and milk composition [25,26]. Although the NDF is higher in S28 (41.52 NDF%) with a high lignin content (9.07%), this limits the fermentation and possibly acetic acid production, which has a role in increasing milk fat in the rumen as a precursor for milk FA synthesis in the mammary gland. The high lignin in the SFH did not cause any negative effect on fiber fermentation because of the grinding and pelleting of the complete feed, as well as reducing the particle size [27]. According to the results reported by Nudda [28], the high digestible fiber content of soybean hulls, which increased the acetic acid availability for milk fat synthesis and encouraged energy partitioning towards milk synthesis rather than body fat reserve deposition, is likely the cause of the association between milk yield and milk fat concentration [29]. Milk fat, one of the quality parameters examined in the present study, decrease compared with the control group in every period of lactation. Moreover, the average milk fat and protein content were in the same range average (6.85% and 4.90%, respectively) as reported for Najdi ewes [29] and Awassi ewes [30] fed TMR.
Diet plays an important role in the modification of ruminal biohydrogenation and the fatty acid profile; in this study, the NDF content in the C, S12, S20, and S28 groups directly correlated to some fatty acids. Fatty acids originate from plasma (60%) or are synthesized in the mammary gland from acetate and hydroxybutyrate, produced by rumen fermentation involving acetyl CoA carboxylase enzymes and the fatty acid synthesis baseline from the rumen [12,31]. Therefore, the lowest levels of sunflower hulls in the diets (C and S12) in two periods (6 days postpartum and 90 days postpartum; Table 2) reflected an increase in blood serum triglyceride concentrations of 72.78 and 70.84 mg/dL at 6 days postpartum, and 58.78 and 63.57 mg/dL at 90 days postpartum. In addition, the milk fat results in Table 3 were quadratic responses for ewe’s milk from the groups, which agree with the results obtained in a previous study by Sanz et al. [32], who reported the effects of concentrates on fat in goats. Further, the milk fat content was positively correlated with these fatty acids [33]. This is in line with research by Weimer et al. [34], who reported that the ruminal cellulolytic bacterial population increased with higher dietary NDF, which correlated positively with iso C15:0 and iso C17:0. SFH contains more C18 and LA than the control, and this could explain the partially quadratic responses found in milk of animals fed with SFH. However, in our study, in the controls and SFH-supplemented ewes, there was a lower average proportion of CLA and ALA for C, S12, S20, and S28, respectively, than of the LA for the same groups. Moreover, the lack of change in C18:0 content with the highest levels of SFH may be partly related to higher rumen biohydrogenation of C18:1 cis9 to C18:0, and partly to the chain elongation of palmitate (C16:0) to stearate (C18:0) catalyzed by fatty acids that has been found active also in the mammary gland. Furthermore, this agrees with the results of [35,36,37], which reported that C18:2 cis-9 trans-11 CLA accounts for between 70% and 90% of the total CLA content in the milk fat of sheep. In addition, the dietary effect of SFH supplementation on the milk’s FA profile depends on the energy value, FA composition, and fiber content of the by-products [38]. We observed that the inclusion of SFH in complete feed increased the apparent transfer of USFA with decreased SFA from the feed to the milk. This may be due to the following mechanism—the existence of metabolic programming to maintain certain levels of USFA since the mammary gland preferentially takes up FA with 18 carbons from the circulating plasma triglycerides and very low-density lipoprotein [39]. Moreover, Table 1, which shows the chemical composition of FA and the amount of PUFA (17.85%, 26.03%, and 23.94% in the S12, S20, and S28 groups, respectively), and Table 5, which shows the FA classes and indices and the amount of PUFA in milk (6.89%, 7.19% and 6.84% in S12, S20, and S28 groups, respectively), are consistent with Chilliard and Ferlay [40], who reported that the amount of PUFAs in milk is closely related to the amount absorbed in the gut and, consequently, the amount reaching the rumen. Dietary PUFA consumption, elements that lessen rumen hydrogenation, and elements that enhance USFAs can all increase these amounts. The milk FA profile (Table 5) was improved with the SFH fed to the Naemi ewes, with increased PUFA and MUSFA contents, decreased SFA (62.84%, and 61.30%), and increased USFA (36.26%, and 38.31%) content for the S20 and S28 groups compared to the control. However, these results are also consistent with Renes et al. [41], who reported that the effect of the feeding regimen on the fatty acid profile of sheep bulk tank milk for the third group (consisting of sheep managed under an intensive system) was similar to the average proportions of SFA (66.65%), MUFA (26.57%), and PUFA (6.78%). Moreover, these findings diverge from those reported by Tsiplakou et al. [36], who found 71.35% SFA, 22.10% MUFA, and 6.54% PUFA in ovine milk. In this study, the average proportion of (ALA) C18:2 in the Naemi ewes’ milk was lower in the control group compared to the S12, S20, and S28 groups. The medium-chain fatty acid (MCFA) milk concentration was lower in the S28 group compared to the control, S12, and S20 (Table 5). In Table 1, the C group is rich in C12:0, which is related to an increase in the proportion of C12 (Table 4), as well as an increase in the MCFA in the milk fat (Table 5), and this is consistent with Dohme et al. [42]. However, it was reported that increased propionate in the rumen decreased the yield of all the SCFAs, thereby decreasing the acetate and butyrate concentration in the rumen [43]. Thus, when long-chain fatty acids (LCFA) are available from the diet (Table 1), there is a decrease in the MCFA concentration due to low concentrations in the SFH groups, as well as a higher secretion of LCFA from the blood; this is consistent with what was mentioned by Chilliard [44,45]. In our findings, the contents of total SFSs and total C18:1 trans were lower in the S28 group (61.30 and 0.91 mg/g, respectively). The consumption of large amounts of SFAs and total C18:1 trans negatively affects human health by causing cardiovascular disease. A high intake of SFA contributes to the development of coronary heart disease, while a high intake of trans-fatty acids has been associated with direct or indirect increased risk of coronary heart disease, sudden death, diabetes mellitus, and increased markers of systematic inflammation [46]. However, in contrast, food with a healthier lipid profile can have beneficial effects on human health: PUFA and a low n-6:n-3 ratio can boost metabolism and benefit physiological systems, to prevent or even help in the treatment of human disease [47,48]. Some FAs can help to prevent or promote coronary thrombosis and atherosclerosis, depending on their effect on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentration and serum cholesterol [49]. The equations proposed by Ulbricht and Southgate [49] for the atherogenicity and thrombogenicity indices showed that C12:0, C14:0, and C16:0 FA are atherogenic while C14:0, C16:0, and C18:0 are thrombogenic, while n-3 PUFA, n-6 PUFA, and MUFA are all anti-atherogenic and anti-thrombogenic. Furthermore, the ratio between saturated and unsaturated FA is used to calculate atherogenicity and thrombogenicity (Table 5). In this study, the SFH supplementation in the S20 and S28 groups had a significant effect on PUFA, resulting in lower AI, TI, and n-6/n-3 ratio. In our study, AI ranged between 1.77 and 2.39, which was in the range of values (1.42–5.13) reported for dairy products by Chen and Liu [50] and Satir et al. [51]. Their research showed that dietary treatment is the main factor influencing AI [52]. Refs. [26,50] reported a decrease in milk atherogenicity and thrombogenicity values by dietary supplementation with by-products, e.g., (soybean and cocoa hulls), which is similar to the index values obtained in this study. Our findings on the transfer efficiency of selected FAs, including n-6, n-3, and PUFA, in milk was higher in the S20- and S28-fed Naemi ewe groups, which was consistent with [53,54], which reported that the lower apparent transfer was observed in diets with higher USFAs concentration in fat, which has a positive effect on human health.

5. Conclusions

The use of 20% and 28% sunflower hulls in complete feed numerically increased milk production in Naemi ewes at 45 days postpartum, and the milk yield in both the S20 and S28 groups continued to increase up to 90 days. Moreover, the SFAs and n-6/n-3 in the milk fat of the ewes from the S20 and S28 groups were reduced compared with the others. Dietary supplementation with 20% and 28% sunflower hulls increased the USFA in the milk fat. Dietary supplementation with 20% sunflower hulls increased the milk fat PUFA, especially n-3. However, the n-6 and AI were high and low, respectively, in S28, which is considered beneficial to human health. So, using 20 and 28% SFH in a complete feed for lactating ewes is highly recommended.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, data curation, M.M.A. (Mohsen M. Alobre) and M.M.A. (Mutassim M. Abdelrahman); formal analysis, M.M.A. (Mohsen M. Alobre); investigation, M.M.A. (Mutassim M. Abdelrahman); project administration, I.A.A.; resources, A.M.M. and I.A.A.; software, I.A.A.; supervision, R.S.A.; writing—original draft, M.M.A. (Mohsen M. Alobre); writing—review, R.A.A.; money supported and dating, R.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Supporting Project, number [RSPD2023R581], King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of King Saud University (KSU-SE-20-27 and 12 May 2020).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Research Supporting Project, number [RSPD2023R581], King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kartika, I.A. New Process of Fractionation of Sunflower Seeds: Expression and Extraction in Twin-Screw Extruder, Purification by Ultrafiltration of Sunflower Oil. Ph.D. Thesis, National Polytechnic Institute of Toulouse, Sciences des Agroressources, Toulouse, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  2. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Albrecht, K.A.; Wedin, W.F.; Buxton, D.R. Cell-wall composition and digestibility of alfalfa stems and leaves. Crop Sci. 1987, 27, 735–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pulina, G.; Nudda, A.; Battacone, G.; Cannas, A. Effects of nutrition on the contents of fat, protein, somatic cells, aromatic compounds, and undesirable substances in sheep milk. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2006, 131, 255–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lailer, P.C.; Dahiya, S.S.; Chauhan, T.R. Complete feed for livestock concept, present status and future trend: A review. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 75, 84–91. [Google Scholar]
  6. Lammers, B.P.; Buckmaster, D.R.; Heinrichs, A.J. A simple method for the analysis of particle sizes of forage and total mixed rations. J. Dairy Sci. 1996, 79, 922–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barłowska, J.; Szwajkowska, M.; Litwińczuk, Z.; Król, J. Nutritional value and technological suitability of milk from various animal species used for dairy production. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2011, 10, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barker, D.J.P. The developmental origins of well–being. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2004, 359, 1359–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wu, G.; Bazer, F.W.; Wallace, J.M.; Spencer, T.E. Board-invited review: Intrauterine growth retardation: Implications for the animal sciences. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 84, 2316–2337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Reynolds, L.P.; Borowicz, P.P.; Caton, J.S.; Vonnahme, K.A.; Luther, J.S.; Hammer, C.J.; Maddock Carlin, K.R.; Grazul-Bilska, A.T.; Redmer, D.A. Developmental programming: The concept, large animal models, and the key role of uteroplacental vascular development. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 88 (Suppl. S13), E61–E72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chilliard, Y.; Glasser, F.; Ferlay, A.; Bernard, L.; Rouel, J.; Doreau, M. Diet, rumen biohydrogenation and nutritional quality of cow and goat milk fat. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2007, 109, 828–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kholif, A.E.; Khattab, H.M.; El-Shewy, A.A.; Salem, A.Z.; Kholif, A.M.; El-Sayed, M.M.; Gado, H.M.; Mariezcurrena, M.D. Nutrient digestibility, ruminal fermentation activities, serum parameters and milk production and composition of lactating goats fed diets containing rice straw treated with Pleurotus ostreatus. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 27, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nantapo, C.T.W.; Muchenje, V.; Hugo, A. Atherogenicity index and health-related fatty acids in different stages of lactation from Friesian, Jersey and Friesian× Jersey cross cow milk under a pasture-based dairy system. Food Chem. 2014, 146, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kholif, A.E.; Morsy, T.A.; Abdo, M.M. Crushed flaxseed versus flaxseed oil in the diets of Nubian goats: Effect on feed intake, digestion, ruminal fermentation, blood chemistry, milk production, milk composition and milk fatty acid profile. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2018, 244, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Teng, F.; Reis, M.G.; Ma, Y.; Day, L. Effects of season and industrial processes on volatile 4-alkyl-branched chain fatty acids in sheep milk. Food Chem. 2018, 260, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Buchwalter, D.B. Metals. In Molecular and Biochemical Toxicology; Smart, R.C., Hodgson, E., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 413–439. [Google Scholar]
  17. Carcangiu, V.; Mura, M.; Vacca, G.; Dettori, M.; Pazzola, M.; Luridiana, S.; Bini, P. Improvement of the reproduc- tive efficiency for the development of the Sardinian sheep breeding. In New Trends for Innovation in the Mediterranean Animal Production; EAAP Scientific Series, 129; Bouche, R., Derkimba, A., Casabianca, F., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 82–88. [Google Scholar]
  18. Nehdi, I.A.; Sbihi, H.; Tan, C.P.; Al-Resayes, S.I. Evaluation and characterisation of Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad seed oil: Comparison with Helianthus annuus (sunflower) seed oil. Food Chem. 2013, 136, 348–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. SAS Institute. SAS User’s Guide: Statistical Version, 8th ed.; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fisette, T. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada AAFC. Sunflower Seed—Profile, Horticulture and Special Crops Division; AAFC: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chiofalo, V.; Savoini, G.; Micari, P.; Zumbo, B.V.; Ziino, M. Use of different energy sources for sheep feeding effects on the qualitative and qualitative characteristics of milk. Natl. Congr. ASPA (Italy) 1993, 10, 339–344. [Google Scholar]
  22. Aydın, D.A.Ş.; Kahraman, M.; Güngören, G.; Daş, B.D.; Boyraz, M.Ü. Milk yield and milk quality characteristics of Awassi sheep under semi-ıntensive conditions. J. Adv. VetBio Sci. Tech. 2022, 7, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Al-Samarai, W.I.; Al-Kazraji, W.J.; Al-Jelawi, J.R.; Ajeel, H.M. The effect of some environmental factor in some growth traits and milk production in Turkish Awassi sheep. Diyala J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 7, 59–68. [Google Scholar]
  24. Inostroza, K.; Bravo, S.; Larama, G.; Saenz, C.; Sepúlveda, N. Variation in Milk Composition and Fatty Acid Profile during the Lactation of Araucana Creole Ewes in a Pasture-Based System. Animals 2020, 10, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sarwar, M.; Firkins, J.L.; Eastridge, M.L. Effects of varying forage and concentrate carbohydrates on nutrient digestibilities and milk production by dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1992, 75, 1533–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Carta, S.; Nudda, A.; Cappai, G.; Lunesu, F.; Atzori, S.; Battacone, G.; Pulina, G. Cocoa husks can effectively replace soybean hulls in dairy sheep diets—Effects on milk production traits and hematological parameters. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 1553–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Alobre, M.M.; Abdelrahman, M.M.; Alhidary, I.A.; Alharthi, A.S.; Aljumaah, R.S. Effects of the Inclusion of Different Levels of Dietary Sunflower Hulls on the Colostrum Compositions of Ewes. Animals 2021, 11, 777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nudda, A.; Cannas, A.; Correddu, F.; Atzori, S.; Lunesu, F.; Battacone, G.; Pulina, G. Sheep and goats respond differently to feeding strategies directed to improve the fatty acid profile of milk fat. Animals 2020, 10, 1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Matar, A.M.; Ayadi, M.; Sbihi, H.M.; Nehdi, I.A.; Abdelrahman, M.M.; Aljumaah, R.S. Effect of Diet Composition on Milk Composition and Fatty Acid Profile of Najdi Ewes. Pak. J. Zool. 2020, 52, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abbeddou, S.; Rischkowsky, B.; Hilali, M.E.D.; Haylani, M.; Hess, H.D.; Kreuzer, M. Supplementing diets of Awassi ewes with olive cake and tomato pomace: On-farm recovery of effects on yield, composition and fatty acid profile of the milk. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2015, 47, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Mesquita, I.V.; Costa, R.G.; de Cássia Ramos do Egypto, R. Profile of milk fatty acids from moxotó goats fed with different levels of manicoba (Manihot Glaziovii Muel Arg.) silage. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2008, 51, 1163–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sanz Sampelayo, M.R.; Pérez, L.; Martin Alonso, J.J.; Amigo, L.; Boza, J. Effects of concentrates with different contents of protected fat rich in PUFAs on the performance of lactating Granadina goats: 1. Feed intake, nutrient digestibility, N and energy utilisation for milk production. Small Rumin. Res. 2002, 43, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Inostroza, K.; Larama, G.; Bravo, S.; Díaz, M.; Sepúlveda, N. Utilization of Wool Integral Lipids to Determine Milk Fat Content in Suffolk Down Ewes. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Weimer, P.; Waghorn, G.C.; Odt, C.L.; Mertens, D.R. Effect of diet on populations of three species of ruminal cellulolytic bacteria in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1999, 82, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. De Renobales, M.; Amores, G.; Arranz, J.; Virto, M.; Barrón, L.J.R.; Bustamante, M.A.; De Heredia, I.B. Part-time grazing improves sheep milk production and its nutritional characteristics. Food Chem. 2012, 130, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tsiplakou, E.; Mountzouris, K.C.; Zervas, G. Concentration of conjugated linoleic acid in grazing sheep and goat milk fat. Livest. Sci. 2006, 103, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. De La Fuente, L.F.; Barbosa, E.; Carriedo, J.A.; Gonzalo, C.; Arenas, R.; Fresno, J.M.; San Primitivo, F. Factors influencing variation of fatty acid content in ovine milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 3791–3799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vasta, V.; Nudda, A.; Cannas, A.; Lanza, M.; Priolo, A. Alternative feed resources and their effects on the quality of meat and milk from small ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 147, 223–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Prado, A.; Schmidely, P.; Nozière, P.; Ferlay, A. Milk saturated fatty acids, odd-and branched-chain fatty acids, and isomers of C18: 1, C18: 2, and C18: 3n-3 according to their duodenal flows in dairy cows: A meta-analysis approach. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 3053–3070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chilliard, Y.; Ferlay, A. Dietary lipids and forages interactions on cow and goat milk fatty acid composition and sensory properties. Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 2004, 44, 467–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Renes, E.; De la Fuente, F.; Fernández, D.; Tornadijo, M.E.; Fresno, J.M. Effect of feeding regimen on the fatty acid profile of sheep bulk tank milk. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2018, 71, 857–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dohme, F.; Machmüller, A.; Sutter, F.; Kreuzer, M. Digestive and metabolic utilization of lauric, myristic and stearic acid in cows, and associated effects on milk fat quality. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 2004, 58, 99–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wang, L.; Zhang, G.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y. Effects of high forage/concentrate diet on volatile fatty acid production and the microorganisms involved in VFA production in cow rumen. Animals 2020, 10, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chilliard, Y.; Delouis, C.; Smith, M.C.; Sauvant, D.; Morand-Fehr, P. Mammary metabolism in the goat during normal or hormonally-induced lactation. Reprod. Nutr. Dév. 1986, 26, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Chilliard, Y.; Morand-Fehr, P.; Sauvant, D.; Bas, P. Utilization métabolique des lipides par leruminant en lactation. Boll. Tech. CRZV Theix INRA 1989, 63, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dias, F.d.S.; Passos, M.E.; do Carmo, M.d.G.T.; Lopes, M.L.; Valente Mesquita, V.L. Fatty acid profile of biscuits and salty snacks consumed by Brazilian college students. Food Chem. 2015, 171, 351–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bell, S.; Cooney, J.; Packard, C.J.; Caslake, M.J.; Deighan, C.J. The effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the atherogenic lipoprotein phenotype in patients with nephrotic range proteinuria. Clin. Nephrol. 2012, 77, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Guida, B.; Napoleone, R.; Trio, A.; Nastasi, N.; Balato, R.; Laccetti, M. Energy-restricted, n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids-rich diet improves the clinical response to immuno-modulating drugs in obese patients with plaque-type psoriasis: A randomized control clinical trial. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 33, 399–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ulbricht, T.L.V.; Southgate, D.A.T. Coronary heart disease: Seven dietary factors. Lancet 1991, 338, 985–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Chen, J.; Liu, H. Nutritional indices for assessing fatty acids: A mini-review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Satir, G.; Akturk, K.U.; Yavuz, M. Effects of adding rumen-protected palm oil in diet on milk fatty acid profile and lipid health indices in Kivircik ewes. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2023, 55, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Huang, Y.; Schoonmaker, J.P.; Bradford, B.J.; Beitz, D.C. Response of milk fatty acid composition to dietary supplementation of soy oil, conjugated linoleic acid, or both. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91, 260–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dewhurst, R.J.; Fisher, W.J.; Tweed, J.K.S.; Wilkins, R.J. Comparison of grass and legume silages for milk production. 1. Production responses with different levels of concentrate. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 2598–2611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Côrtes, C.; da Silva-Kazama, D.C.; Kazama, R.; Benchaar, C.; Santos, G.T.D.; Zeoula, L.M.; Petit, H.V. Intake and digestion of fatty acids by dairy cows fed whole flaxseed and Ca salts of flaxseed oil. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 169, 270–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 14431 g001
Figure 1. The influence of each treatment on milk yield in milliliters (mL). C = the basal diet without sunflower supplementation; S12 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 12% SFH; S20 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 20% SFH; S28 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 28% SFH. a,b Means within a period with different superscript letters significantly differ.
Figure 1. The influence of each treatment on milk yield in milliliters (mL). C = the basal diet without sunflower supplementation; S12 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 12% SFH; S20 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 20% SFH; S28 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 28% SFH. a,b Means within a period with different superscript letters significantly differ.
Sustainability 15 14431 g001
Table 1. Composition of experimental diets and FA profile.
Table 1. Composition of experimental diets and FA profile.
Ingredient (%) CS12S20S28
Barley grain32.5620.4122.2129.20
Palm kernel meal20.0020.0020.009.25
Wheat straw 16.3016.336.51
Sunflower meal13.8013.8413.7116.03
Sunflower hulls 0.0012.0020.0028.00
Wheat bran10.0010.0010.0010.00
Molasses5.005.005.005.00
Acid buffer0.80.80.80.8
Limestone0.720.740.870.90
Salt0.520.560.570.49
Vitamin and mineral premix0.300.300.300.30
Barley grain32.5620.4122.2129.20
Palm kernel meal20.0020.0020.009.25
Chemical composition (%)
Dry matter (DM)90.3988.4788.7488.54
Protein14.8614.5514.1814.98
Fiber18.2620.7822.1621.81
Ash14.256.616.345.88
Fat4.024.354.354.00
Salt0.800.800.800.80
G.E. (cal/g)3641361337103744
ADF28.4630.2530.6629.55
NDF36.5037.5939.7441.52
Lignin7.376.998.889.07
Cellulose%19.7721.3518.5121.06
Hemicellulose%6.96 8.499.1310.87
Fatty acid profile g/100 g
of total FA		0.190.100.090.13
C6:01.201.261.621.50
C8:01.371.491.521.00
C10:024.92 22.0321.7615.41
C12:08.538.887.805.42
C14:00.130.150.090.09
C1516.2714.0411.4314.88
C16:00.040.070.010.08
C172.993.473.874.32
C180.150.000.050.12
C18:1 ∆ 9t31.5326.6525.7233.42
C18:1 ∆ 9c13.4017.4225.6323.36
C18:2 cis 9, cis 12 (LA)0.620.430.400.58
C18:3 cis 9,12,150.210.710.890.52
C2054.3055.4948.2042.51
SFA31.6826.6525.7733.55
MUFA14.0217.8526.0323.94
PUFA0.190.100.090.13
C = the basal diet plus without sunflower supplementation; S12 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 12% SFH; S20 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 20% SFH; S28 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 28% SFH. SFA, saturated fatty acids; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Table 2. The effect of different dietary treatments on triglyceride level (mg/dL) in serum at 6, 45, and 90 days postpartum.
Table 2. The effect of different dietary treatments on triglyceride level (mg/dL) in serum at 6, 45, and 90 days postpartum.
6 Days Postpartum45 Days Postpartum90 Days Postpartum
C72.78 a55.4058.78 a
S1270.84 a65.0763.57 a
S20 59.02 b57.1541.78 b
S2856.25 b64.3445.84 b
SEM2.692.902.54
p value0.050.550.001
C = the basal diet without sunflower supplementation; S12 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 12% SFH; S20 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 20% SFH; S28 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 28% SFH. a,b Means in a row with various superscript letters differ significantly.
Table 3. The effect of feeding different levels of SFH supplementation, time, and interaction on milk composition of Naemi ewes.
Table 3. The effect of feeding different levels of SFH supplementation, time, and interaction on milk composition of Naemi ewes.
Treatments *p-Value
VariableCS12S20S28SEMTreat.TimeTreat × Time
Fat %8.36 a6.18 b6.55 ab6.32 ab0.360.05 Q0.650.83
Protein %4.80 b5.25 a4.70 b4.86 ab0.120.04 C<0.0010.03
Lactose %4.904.865.004.880.070.860.010.95
T.S %17.78 a17.34 ab15.55 b17.07 ab0.340.05 Q0.050.85
* C = the basal diet without sunflower supplementation; S12 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 12% SFH; S20 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 20% SFH; S28 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 28% SFH. Treat, Treatments; Time, Time Lactation; T.S, total solids. a,b Means within a row with different superscript letters significantly differ. SEM, standard error of means; C, cubic response; Q, quadratic response (p < 0.05).
Table 4. The effect of treatments on fatty acid profile of milk fat of Naemi ewes.
Table 4. The effect of treatments on fatty acid profile of milk fat of Naemi ewes.
Treatments *p-Value
Fatty Acid (g/100 g)CS12S20S28SEMTreatTimeTreat × Time
C6:02.14 a1.80 ab1.59 b1.69 b0.080.04 Q0.740.42
C8:02.51 a2.22 ab1.81 b1.94 b0.100.05 Q0.800.70
C10:06.636.796.076.400.370.920.830.84
C12:08.19 a6.62 ab6.30 b4.41 c0.440.01 L0.010.15
C13:00.030.030.040.050.010.890.690.25
C14:011.1411.6010.629.050.520.340.160.40
C14:1 iso0.140.230.250.140.040.700.570.74
C15:10.050.050.090.050.020.820.710.55
C15:0 iso0.270.290.320.390.040.740.230.11
C15:00.04 b0.50 a0.39 a0.36 a0.060.04 Q0.930.92
C16:0 iso0.06 b0.12 a0.10 a0.18 a0.020.05 C0.890.04
C16:024.9824.2423.9324.170.470.880.210.66
C16: 1 cis 70.220.340.640.380.060.04 Q0.020.05
C16:1 cis 91.210.751.011.020.070.300.400.76
C17:0 iso0.29 a0.51 b0.57 b0.60 b0.030.05 L0.060.02
C17:0 antiso0.040.050.060.170.030.160.490.53
C17:00.470.340.630.370.060.580.710.90
C17: 1 cis 100.320.320.470.460.040.570.580.47
C187.458.729.8711.700.510.100.650.33
C18:1, trans 90.270.210.250.110.040.390.570.26
C18:1, cis 924.9124.4823.8028.530.980.330.030.10
C18:1 trans 110.620.901.340.490.280.700.200.53
C18:1 tran 6s0.340.530.610.310.050.140.450.50
C18:2 cis 11,170.54 a0.11 b0.08 b0.10 b0.030.03 C0.890.93
C18:2 cis 9, cis 12 (LA)2.84 b3.33 a3.51 a3.83 a0.160.02 L0.970.22
C18:3 cis 9,12,15 (ALA)0. 08 b0. 12 b0.14 b0.29 a0.020.01 Q0.160.16
C18:2 cis 9, trans 11 (CLA)0.11 a0.05 b0.05 b0.07 b0.030.04 Q0.090.26
C19:01.43 a0.11 b0.70 c0.12 b0.070.05 C0.020.03
C19:1cis1.01 a0.63 b0.18 c0.17 c0.090.01 L0.980.88
C20 iso0.170.180.120.080.040.750.450.05
C20:00.060.070.100.070.010.920.610.65
C20:2 cis 8,110.030.040.050.070.020.490.270.29
C20:2 cis 11.140.030.270.080.030.010.390.190.56
C20:3 cis 5,8,110.090.030.060.080.020.600.380.80
C20:4 cis 5.11.14.170.060.030.130.020.010.300.290.46
C20: 3 cis 8,11,140.050.160.080.090.030.610.430.87
C20:4 cis 5,8,11,14 (ETA; n-3)0.23 a0.24 a0.65 b0.79 b0.120.02 L0.300.62
C21:00.510.460.120.600.010.080.140.90
C22:00.040.020.050.030.010.260.020.21
C22:4 cis 7,10,13,16 (n-6)0.03 b0.04 b0.08 a0. 16 a0.020.04 L0.860.99
C22:5 cis 7, 10,13,16 (CPA; n-3)0.15 c0.46 b0.58 b1.73 a0.060.01 L0.510.36
C22:5 cis 4,70.330.760.860.560.180.740.180.69
* C = the diet without sunflower supplementation; S12 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 12% SFH; S20 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 20% SFH; S28 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 28% SFH. a,b,c Significant differences between means within a row of different superscript letters. SEM, standard error of the mean; C, cubic response; L, linear response; Q, quadratic response (p < 0.05); CLA, conjugated linoleic acid; ETA, eicosatetraenoic acid; n-3, omega 3; n-6, omega 6; CPA, cryoprotective; LA, linoleic acid; ALA, alpha-linoleic acid.
Table 5. Fatty acid indices (%) of milk fat of Naemi ewes (the values are mean ± SEM).
Table 5. Fatty acid indices (%) of milk fat of Naemi ewes (the values are mean ± SEM).
Dietary Treatments 1
IndicesCS12S20S28SEM 2p Value
SFA65.67 a64.96 a62.84 b61.30 b1.100.05 L
USFA34.13 b34.79 b36.26 a38.31 a1.060.05 L
MUSFA29.5427.9629.1731.521.000.34
PUSFA4.65 c6.89 b7.19 a6.84 b0.500.03 Q
n-30.74 c1.38 b2.63 a1.40 b0.300.04 Q
n-63.83 c4.82 b4.34 b5.32 a0.250.02 C
SFA/USFA1.921.861.731.600.110.63
n-6/n-35.17 a3.50 b1.65 c3.81 b1.130.04 Q
BCFA0.320.350.310.330.040.65
OCFA1.071.001.040.900.070.51
SCFA4.64 a4.03 a3.41 b3.63 b0.170.05 Q
MCFA50.94 a49.26 ab46.91 ab44.01 b1.430.02 L
LCFA32.49 a33.04 ab33.90 ab35.93 b0.620.05 L
Total C18:126.1526.1426.0029.440.950.25
Total C18:24.04 a3.86 b3.71 b4.53 a0.170.03 Q
Total C18:1cis24.91 a24.48 a23.80 a28.52 b0.980.05 Q
Total C18:1trans1.241.662.200.910.290.13
AI2.39 a2.32 a2.08 a1.77 b0.130.04 L
TI1.811.561.701.640.080.80
a,b,c Significant differences between the means of a row of superscript letters; 1 C = the basal diet without sunflower supplementation; S12 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 12% SFH; S20 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 20% SFH; S28 = complete pelleted diet supplemented with 28% SFH. 2 SEM, standard error of means; C, cubic response; L, linear response; Q, quadratic response (p < 0.05). SFA, saturated fatty acids; USFA, unsaturated fatty acids; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids; BCFA, branched-chain fatty acids; OCFA, odd-chain fatty acids; SCFA, short-chain fatty acids; MCFA, medium-chain fatty acids; LCFA, long-chain fatty acids; n-3, omega 3; n-6, omega 6; AI, atherogenicity index; TI, thrombogenicity index.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alobre, M.M.; Abdelrahman, M.M.; Alhidary, I.A.; Matar, A.M.; Aljumaah, R.S.; Alhotan, R.A. Evaluating the Effect of Using Different Levels of Sunflower Hulls as a Source of Fiber in a Complete Feed on Naemi Ewes’ Milk Yield, Composition, and Fatty Acid Profile at 6, 45, and 90 Days Postpartum. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914431

AMA Style

Alobre MM, Abdelrahman MM, Alhidary IA, Matar AM, Aljumaah RS, Alhotan RA. Evaluating the Effect of Using Different Levels of Sunflower Hulls as a Source of Fiber in a Complete Feed on Naemi Ewes’ Milk Yield, Composition, and Fatty Acid Profile at 6, 45, and 90 Days Postpartum. Sustainability. 2023; 15(19):14431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914431

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alobre, Mohsen M., Mutassim M. Abdelrahman, Ibrahim A. Alhidary, Abdulkareem M. Matar, Riyadh S. Aljumaah, and Rashed A. Alhotan. 2023. "Evaluating the Effect of Using Different Levels of Sunflower Hulls as a Source of Fiber in a Complete Feed on Naemi Ewes’ Milk Yield, Composition, and Fatty Acid Profile at 6, 45, and 90 Days Postpartum" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914431

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop