Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-b5k59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T12:31:38.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Manipulating dietary PUFA in animal feed: implications for human health

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2013

Gillian Butler*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, NE1 7RU, UK
*
* Corresponding author: G. Butler, email gillian.butler@ncl.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Milk, meat and eggs tend not to be regarded as an important source of PUFA. They are disproportionally high in SFA compared with their PUFA content, especially those from cattle and sheep, since their rumen microbes are responsible for the loss of over 90 % of PUFA intake by livestock. This need not necessarily be the case since the relative proportion of PUFA in these foods is dictated by livestock management, especially feeding, and this can be manipulated to boost their content of crucial long-chain n-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic fatty acids. The present paper considers the fatty acid composition in animal-derived foods and how these can be manipulated to be more conducive for consumers’ health. The importance of recognising the effect of livestock production systems on fat composition is also highlighted along with the fact that we may have to compromise between intensive, high levels of production and this particular aspect of food quality.

Information

Type
Conference on ‘PUFA mediators: implications for human health’
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2013 
Figure 0

Table 1. Fatty acid composition of animal-derived foods: UK(11) and US(12) values

Figure 1

Table 2. Typical total lipid and individual fatty acid (FA) content of feedstuffs used in livestock diets

Figure 2

Fig. 1. Changes in α-linolenic acid (no fill) and DHA (grey columns) content of egg yolk following linseed supplementation(6). Columns depict 2nd and 3rd percentiles, with median values and error bars representing the range.

Figure 3

Fig. 2. (a) Milk fat composition from European Farm survey; Concentrations of α-linolenic acid (ALA) and conjugated linoleic acid cis-9,trans-11-18 : 2 (CLA9) and (b) Diet composition: Breakdown of DM intake recorded on farms under different systems of production in different countries (average over all samples)(20). Mean values within countries were compared by Tukey's honest significant difference test, and those with the same letter do not differ significantly (P < 0·05) (a,b,c for α-linolenic acid and x,y,z for conjugated linoleic acid), ANOVA: *P < 0·05, **P < 0·01 and ***P < 0·001. Key to farm ID: Management: C = conventional, O = Organic LI = low input not organic. Italy: P = Potenza, C = Cosenza, B = Bologna, Mi = Milan and Mo = Modena. Sweden: HF = Holstein Friesian cows South, RS = Swedish Red cows South, RC = Swedish Red cows Central. Denmark: FM = frequent milking (>2 times/d), C = conserved forage feeding, S = standard, M = maize silage. UK: N = NE England, W = SW Wales.

Figure 4

Table 3. Variation in milk fat composition in NE England 2006–2008(19)

Figure 5

Fig. 3. Milk PUFA content from cows with and without dietary oilseed supplementation(13). CLA, conjugated linoleic acid.

Figure 6

Table 4. Simplified explanation of factors that influence PUFA content of intramuscular fat in beef mediated either (a) directly by dietary PUFA supply or (b) via the proportion of carcass fat (Note that interactions exist between the factors listed)(4,23,24)

Figure 7

Fig. 4. n-3 Fatty acid content of (a) plasma and (b) platelets in study groups following 4-week consumption of red meat from grass or cereal finishing systems(26). ALA, α-linolenic acid, DPA, docosapentaenoic acid. *P < 0·05, **P < 0·01: level of significance between the study groups pre- or post-intervention.