<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">AS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Agricultural Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2156-8553</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/as.2018.92015</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AS-82527</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject><subject> Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Effect of Diet Supplementation with Combinations of Soybean and Linseed Oils on Milk Production and Fatty Acid Profile in Lactating Dairy Ewes
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Liliana</surname><given-names>Elisabet Antonacci</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Margarita</surname><given-names>Bussetti</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>María</surname><given-names>Alejandra Rodriguez</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Adriana</surname><given-names>Virginia Cano</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gerardo</surname><given-names>Antonio Gagliostro</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Area de Produccion Animal, Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria, Anguil, Argentina</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Centro de Investigaciones Tecnológicas de la Industria Láctea, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Industrial, Parque Tecnológico Miguelete, Buenos Aires, Argentina</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Area de Produccion Animal, Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria, Balcarce, Argentina</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>09</day><month>02</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><volume>09</volume><issue>02</issue><fpage>200</fpage><lpage>220</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>27,</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2017</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>11,</day>	<month>February</month>	<year>2018</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>14,</day>	<month>February</month>	<year>2018</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Thirty-six Pampinta ewes were used in a completely randomized design to examine the effectiveness of soybean (SO) and linseed (LO) oils to reduce the concentration of the atherogenic fatty acids (FA) of milk (C12:0 to C16:0) and increase the content of conjugated linoleic (
  cis-9, 
  trans-11 C18:2) also called rumenic acid (RA) and vaccenic acids (
  trans-11C18:1, VA). Six ewes per treatment received a Control diet alone (71% alfalfa hay and 29% concentrate) or supplemented (0.24 kg/ewe&#183;day) with pure oils (SO100 or LO100) or their blend at (%) SO75-LO25, SO50-LO50 and SO25-LO75. Milk yield, milk fat content and milk fat secretion were not affected. Milk protein content resulted higher in SO75-LO25, SO50-LO50 and SO25-LO75 without changes in milk protein yield. Total solid content of milk tended (
  p &lt; 0.10) to increase after oil intake. Concentration of total atherogenic FA decreased and stearic, oleic and linolenic acids increased after oil intake. Milk content of VA and RA resulted higher in treatments with oils without differences between oil blends. The atherogenicity index (AI) in Control milk (2.23) was reduced (
  p &lt; 0.001) by oil intake (1.15 to 1.37). The n-6/n-3 ratio averaged 7.27 in Control milk and was reduced (
  p &lt; 0.001) by oils reaching a minimum value of 1.89 in LO100. Feeding polyunsaturated oils at 7% of total dry matter (DM) intake did not affect the productive response of dairy ewes resulting in an effective tool to improve the healthy value of milk fat. The SO50-LO50 blend showed the highest number of healthy changes in milk FA composition.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Ewe Milk</kwd><kwd> Soybean Oil</kwd><kwd> Linseed Oil</kwd><kwd> Conjugated Linoleic Acid</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Milk from ewes (9.584 million tons per year on average for 2007-2011) represents about 1.4% of the whole world production (FAOSTAT, 2013, http://faostat.fao.org/site/569) and is characterized by a low allergenic activity, a high concentration of total solids and the presence of nutraceutical compounds what gives the ewe’s cheese a high market value and a growing interest in countries like USA, Brazil and China [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref1">1</xref>] . Since a large part of the ewe’s milk is processed into yoghurt and cheese, its industrial quality is evaluated mainly in terms of its technological and coagulation properties which in turn depend on the fat and protein contents as well as the number of somatic cells [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref1">1</xref>] .</p><p>Consumers and dairy industry are highly interested in the healthy value of products which in part depends on levels of those milk FA having a potential negative effect on human health like the saturated FA lauric (C12:0), myristic (C14:0), palmitic (C16:0) and some trans FA (trans-9 and trans-10 C18:1) and concentration of antiatherogenic [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref3">3</xref>] or anticarcinogenic FA like butyric acid (C4:0), oleic (cis-9 C18:1) and RA [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref7">7</xref>] .</p><p>Ovine milk is a highly valued product for its nutritional quality and aptitude for industrial technology based on its high solids content. In Argentina, the main use of ewe’s milk is the production of cheese with other industrial destinations being minority [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref9">9</xref>] . The Pampinta breed is a double purpose ewe (dairy and meat) developed at INTA during the 80’s in the Province of La Pampa (Argentine) from the crossing of Corriedale sheep with East Frisian rams [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref10">10</xref>] . These sheep provide milk with a solid content higher than 19 g/100g averaging 6.7 g/100g for protein and 7.4 g/100g for fat which confers an excellent cheese making quality [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref11">11</xref>] . As reported for dairy cows [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref12">12</xref>] , goats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref13">13</xref>] , and buffaloes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref14">14</xref>] , supplementation of dairy ewes with polyunsaturated FA sources (PUFA) reduce milk content of C12:0 to C16:0 and consequently the AI of milk [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref15">15</xref>] .</p><p>Studies in vitro showed that the partial substitution of linoleic acid (cis-9, cis-12 C18:2) for linolenic acid (cis-9, cis-12, cis-15 C18:3) would increase the conversion rates of linoleic to RA and VA to RA with a higher isomerization rate of linoleic acid when it is combined with linolenic acid [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref16">16</xref>] . In dairy ewes, the addition of SO at 6% to a low forage/concentrate (20:80) diet increased milk concentration of RA and AV which decreased after the first week post-supplementation when the trans-10 C18:1 increased up to 6 g/100g [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref17">17</xref>] .</p><p>By the other hand, supplementation with LO showed to reduce the n-6/n-3 ratio in milk from goats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref13">13</xref>] and sheep [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref15">15</xref>] with an increase in the levels of CLA in milk and ruminal fluid [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref17">17</xref>] . This strategy leads to the formation of VA with a lower risk of undesirable shifts towards the trans-10 C18:1 that is unfavorable for human health. Previous studies in goats showed that SO and LO supplied at 5% - 6% of total DM intake induced the desired effects to obtain healthy functional milk [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref13">13</xref>] .</p><p>The effect of supplementary PUFA on the FA profile of ewe’s milk is scarce when compared to studies conducted in cows and goats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref19">19</xref>] . In our knowledge, experimental results that examine the potential advantage of combining supplementary SO and LO in the diet of dairy ewes to improve the healthy value of milk fat are still lacking. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of different combinations of SO and LO in order to increase milk RA content reducing the presence of those FA which have a potential negative effect on human health without affecting milk yield and composition in dairy ewes.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Material and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Treatments, Animals and Experimental Design</title><p>The experiment was carried out at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) at the “Guillermo Covas” Experimental Station located in Anguil, province of La Pampa, Argentina. Thirty-six Pampinta ewes (3 lactations, 50 &#177; 2.5 days in milk), producing 1.058 (&#177;0.28) kg milk per day and averaging 72.3 (&#177; 2.3) kg live weight (LW) were used in a 36 days trial. The first 7 days were used as a covariate period without supplementary oils, followed by 7 days of adaptation at 50% of the target oil dose and 22 days at full oil dose. Milk production and LW were recorded prior to the start of the experiment in order to homogeneously allocate the animals to the treatments. The ewes were milked once a day in the early morning and kept separate by treatment in pens of 10 m<sup>2</sup> at open sky with natural shade and clean water ad libitum. The presence of mastitis and the somatic cell count was monitored throughout the trial. The sheep were fed once a day with alfalfa hay (2.3 kg DM/sheep) and 1.2 kg of a commercial concentrate (18% crude protein) at milking time. The concentrate was composed (% as fed) by corn grain (38.7%), sunflower meal (25.3%), soybean meal (5.0%), wheat bran (29%), salt (0.8%) and a commercial mineral mixture (AF Mix, Milk ACA, 1.2%). Six sheep per treatment received one of six combinations (% by weight) of SO and LO in a completely randomized design at 0-0 (Control, without oils), 100% SO, 75 - 25, 50 - 50, 25 - 75 and 100% LO. The pure oils or their blends were individually fed at 6% of estimated total DM intake (4 kg) manually mixed to the concentrate at milking time.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Sampling Measurements and Laboratory Procedures</title><p>Two samples of alfalfa hay and concentrate were dried in an oven with forced air circulation (60˚C during 48 hours) to determine DM, crude protein (CP) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref20">20</xref>] with a LECO FP-528 analyzer. Neutral (NDF) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref21">21</xref>] and acid detergent fiber (ADF) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref22">22</xref>] were analyzed by the filter bag technique using an autoanalyzer (ANKOM Corp., Fairtport, New York, USA, 1970). Ether extract (EE) was obtained by extraction with solvents at high temperature [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref23">23</xref>] using an autoanalyzer (ANKOM Corp., Fairtport, New York, USA). Digestibility of DM (DMD) was measured at 48 hours of in vitro incubation (Daisy II equipment, ANKOM).</p><p>Milk production was individually recorded (5 consecutive days per week) throughout the trial. Chemical composition of milk was measured from samples (100 ml) collected during two non-consecutive days in each week. They were analyzed for fat, protein, lactose and total solid content by mid-infrared spectrophotometry (Milko Scan-Minor, Foss Electric, Hillerod, Denmark). Intake of alfalfa hay was grouply measured within each treatment during 5 consecutive days in each experimental week. Concentrate and oil consumption were daily and individually measured by quantities offered and refused at the end of milking throughout the experimental period. Samples of milk (36) and foods (1) were collected on days 7, 15, 22, 29 and 36 of the trial, stored at −20˚C and analyzed for FA composition by gas-liquid chromatography (GLC) as described in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref24">24</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Statistical Analyses</title><p>The average value of the last three weeks of data collection was used for the analysis of milk production, milk composition and FA profile adjusted for covariate using the PROC GLM program of SAS/STAT&#174; [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref25">25</xref>] according to the following model:</p><p>Y i = μ + T i + C o v + E i</p><p>where Yi = dependent variable; μ = overall mean; Cov = covariate (milk yield and composition over the first 7 days), Ti = treatment effect and Ei = residual error associated with the i<sup>-th</sup> experimental unit.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results and Discussion</title><p>The quality of the alfalfa hay was adequate (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>) considering its digestibility and CP values with moderate contents of NDF, EE and DM resulting comparable to those reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref26">26</xref>] .</p><p>The concentrate showed a high CP content and digestibility (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). These results compared well with the quality of the foods used in the meta-analysis of 21 experiments by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref27">27</xref>] when sheeps were supplemented with seeds and PUFA oils. The FA profile of feeds and oils is shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>.</p><p>As expected, SO was characterized by a high content of linoleic acid (50%) that resulted lower than that reported by other authors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref30">30</xref>] but comparable to that used in the work of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref30">30</xref>] . The saturated FA content of SO was low while the level of oleic acid (cis-9 C18:1) resulted important (19.81%). The linolenic acid represented 46.8% of the total FA in LO (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>), a value that resulted lower than that reported in other experiments [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref33">33</xref>] . In the alfalfa hay, the observed level of linoleic acid was low (12.82%) and lower than that reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref34">34</xref>] although near to the value of 13.59% reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref35">35</xref>] .</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility of pasture and commercial concentrate</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Parameter<sup>1</sup></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Alfalfa hay</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Concentrate</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dry matter,%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.09 &#177; 3.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.50 &#177; 2.53</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crude protein,% DM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.39 &#177; 1.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.00 &#177; 1.74</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >NDF,% DM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.65 &#177; 5.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.10 &#177; 4.60</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ADF,% DM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.40 &#177; 3.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.40 &#177; 3.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >In vitro DM digestibility,%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.83 &#177; 1.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.00 &#177; 2.48</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ether extract,% DM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.59 &#177; 0.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.50 &#177; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Metabolic energy, Mcal/kg DM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.34 &#177; 0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.89 &#177; 0.06</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>1</sup>Values are expressed as the mean &#177; standard deviation.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Fatty acid composition of alfalfa hay, commercial concentrate soybean (SO) and linseed (LO) oils</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Fatty acid g/100g FA</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Alfalfa hay</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >SO</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >LO</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Concentrate<sup>1</sup></th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C16:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.48</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C18:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.79</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >cis-9 C18:1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.96</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >cis-11 C18:1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.95</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >cis-9 cis-12 C18:2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.19</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >cis-9 cis-12 cis-15 C18:3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.50</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>1</sup>Commercial concentrate showed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>.</p><p>An average decrease of the order of 20% in the content of linolenic acid in the conserved forages has been reported [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref36">36</xref>] .</p><p>Average milk production in oil-supplemented ewes (877 g/sheep/day) was numerically greater (+12.2%) compared to Control treatment (782 g/day) although this difference was not significant (p &lt; 0.54, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><p>Results indicated the absence of negative effects on milk production of feeding free vegetable oils in the ewe’s diet when the forage:concentrate ratio (F:C) was close to 80:20. When this ratio was 20:80, a lower milk yield without differences in fat and milk protein contents was observed by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref37">37</xref>] feeding 167 g/sheep・day of sunflower oil. In our experiment, no changes in milk fat content or yield were detected (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). This suggests that the important drop (27%) in the concentration of de novo synthesized FA (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) was compensated by an increase in the uptake of the preformed FA from supplementary oil since its concentration in milk increased (39%) after oil intake (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). These findings were consistent with that reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref27">27</xref>] .</p><p>Milk protein content (g/100g) resulted lower in Control (5.69) (p &lt; 0.05) compared to SO50-LO50 (6.10) and SO25-LO75 (6.10) treatments without effects (p &gt; 0.05) on milk protein yield (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). The increase in milk protein</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Milk production and composition in dairy ewes supplemented or not (Control) with combinations of soybean (SO) and linseed (LO) oils at different percentages (w/w)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Parameter</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="7"  >Treatment<sup>1</sup></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >p &lt;<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SO100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SO75-LO25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SO50-LO50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SO25 LO75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >LO100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SEM</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Milk yield, g/d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >782</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >963</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >854</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >805</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >902</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >862</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fat, g/100g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Protein, g/100g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.69<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.67<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.79<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.10<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.10<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.18<sup>abc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lactose, g/100g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Solids, g/100g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fat yield, g/d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.006</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.87</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Protein yield, g/d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.003</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.71</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>1</sup>Values are expressed as least squares means and standard error of least squares means. Ewes were fed a basal diet (Control) without oils or the basal diet supplemented with pure oils or blends at 6% of estimated total DM intake: SO100 = 0.24 kg SO; SO75LO25 = 0.18 kg SO and 0.6 kg LO; SO50LO50 = 0.12 kg SO and 0.12 kg LO; SO25LO75 = 0.6 kg SO and 0.18 kg LO and LO100 = 0.24 kg LO. <sup>2</sup>Treatment (T) effect. a, b, c = Means in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly for treatment effect with P-value as mentioned in column for significance at p &lt; 0.05 (Test Tukey-Kramer).</p><table-wrap-group id="4"><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Milk fatty acid (FA) composition from dairy ewes supplemented or not (Control) with combinations of soybean (SO) and linseed (LO) oils at different percentages (w/w)</title></caption><table-wrap id="4_1"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >FA (g/100g FA reported)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="7"  >Treatment<sup>1</sup></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >p &lt;<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Control</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SO100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SO75-LO25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SO50-LO50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SO25-LO75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >LO100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SEM</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.62<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.84<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.53<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.51<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.75<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.72<sup>abc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.074</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C6:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.74<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.78<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.17<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.12<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.18<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.90<sup>cd</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C8:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.94<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.50<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.21<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.14<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.13<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.78<sup>cd</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C10:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.21<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.18<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.43<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.45<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.11<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.30<sup>cd</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C10:1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.20<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.14<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C12:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.38<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.91<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.58<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.73<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.59<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.36<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C12:1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C14:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.68<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.39<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.27<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.07<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.28<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.85<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C14:1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.29<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.14<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.17<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.17<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >IsoC15:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.13<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C15:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.65<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.75<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.75<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.78<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.75<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C15:1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.22<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.13<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.13<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.14<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.13<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C16:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.34<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.01<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.07<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.11<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.40<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.38<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C16:1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.04<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.59<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.59<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.57<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C17:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0,55<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0,44<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.44<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C17:1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.009</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C18:0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.11<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.89<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.95<sup>abc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.01<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.27<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.79<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="4_2"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >C18:1</th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Trans-8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.87<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.79<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.74<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.76<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.78<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0002</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Trans-9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.58<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.67<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.58<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0007</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Trans-10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.07<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.20<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.84<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.94<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.51<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.11<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.004</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Trans-11 (VA)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.26<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.98<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.50<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.63<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.76<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.20<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.006</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total trans</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.32<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.61<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.71<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.98<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.61<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.63<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >cis-9 C18:1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.57<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.40<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.94<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.89<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.32<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.48<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >cis-11 C18:1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.71<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.09<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.06<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.06<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C18:2 (n-6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.51<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.25<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.34<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.31<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.08<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.18<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C18:3 (n-3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.63<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.97<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.40<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.24<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.49<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.18<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >cis-9trans-11 C18:2 (RA)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.50<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.42<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.79<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.04<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.72<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.50<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C20:4 (AA)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.012</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C20:5 (EPA)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C22:6 (DHA)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.004</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Short chain FA<sup>3</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.88<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.42<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.57<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.43<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.36<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.79<sup>cd</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Medium chain FA<sup>4</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.76<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.34<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.51<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.37<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.74<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.46<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Long chain FA<sup>5</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.38<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.13<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.76<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.71<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.55<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.58<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Saturated FA (SFA)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.68<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.19<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.82<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.94<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.29<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unsaturated FA (UFA)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.48<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.30<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.83<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.15<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.05<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.70<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SFA/UFA</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.03<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.19<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.23<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.12<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AI<sup>6</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.23<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.15<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.30<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.32<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.37<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.26<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >∆9-D products</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.42<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.48<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.28<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.67<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.70<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.96<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Substrates</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.74<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.18<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.35<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.58<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.60<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.47<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#205;ndex<sup>7</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.34<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.40<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.006</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >De novo FA (C4:0-C15:1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.41<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.59<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.87<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.30<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.33<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.19<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Preformed FA (&gt;17:0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.11<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.67<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.85<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.52<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.55<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.06<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >n-6/n-3 FA</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.27<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.66<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.79<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.87<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.32<sup>de</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.89<sup>e</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AR/AV</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.69<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.46<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.48<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47<sup>bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#229;(C12:0-C16:0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.26<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.32<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.04<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.15<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.29<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.31<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.0001</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></table-wrap-group><p><sup>1</sup>Values are expressed as least squares means and standard error of least squares means. Ewes were fed a basal diet (Control) without oils or the basal diet supplemented with pure oils or blends at 6% of estimated total DM intake: SO100 = 0.24 kg SO; SO75-LO25 = 0.18 kg SO and 0.6 kg LO; SO50-LO50 = 0.12 kg SO and 0.12 kg LO; SO25-LO75 = 0.6 kg SO and 0.18 kg LO and LO100 = 0.24 kg LO. <sup>2</sup>Treatment effect. <sup>3</sup>Short chain FA (C6:0 to C10:0). <sup>4</sup>Medium chain FA: (C12:0 to C17:1). <sup>5</sup>Long chain FA: (C18:0 to C22:6). <sup>6</sup>Atherogenicity index: (C12 + 4 * C14 + C16)/(ΣUFA). UFA: cis-9 C14:1, C16:1, cis-9 C18:1, cis-11 C18:1, trans-11 C18:1, C18:3, C18:2, C18:2 cis-9 trans11 CLA. The detrimental FA trans-6-8, 9, 10 C18:1 were excluded. <sup>7</sup>Index: ([ΣΔ9Dproducts]/[ΣΔ9D products + Susbstrates]). <sup>8</sup>Substrates:C14:0 + C15:0 + C16:0 + C17:0 + C18:0 + Trans 11 C18:1. <sup>ad</sup>Means in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly for treatment effect with P-value as mentioned in column for significance at p &lt; 0.05 (Test Tukey-Kramer).</p><p>concentration with linseed oil intake was comparable to that reported in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref27">27</xref>] . Total milk solid content tended to increase after oil intake (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>) an important result for cheese making as reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref37">37</xref>] after the inclusion of increasing levels (60, 117 and 167 g/sheep・day) of sunflower oil in the ration. Feeding sunflower oil at 2.5% of the diet did not change milk production nor fat, protein, lactose and total solids yields [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref38">38</xref>] .</p><p>Ovine milk has a high industrial aptitude for its high yield (20% or 5:1) for the production of cheese compared to 14% (7:1) of goat’s milk and 10% (10:1) of cow’s milk [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref9">9</xref>] . In the present work, the milk cheese extract (fat and protein) resulted higher in ewes supplemented with oil mixtures (12.80 g/100g) compared to Control (12.11 g/100g) with the lowest values observed in treatments with pure soybean (11.63 g/100g) and linseed (11.77 g/100g) oils (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). Therefore, the inclusion of a mixture of PUFA-rich oils in the diet of dairy sheep would not affect the commercial value of the milk in a payment system referenced to the cheese extract as proposed by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref39">39</xref>] . In addition, the fat:protein ratio resulted optimal (1 &#177; 0.1) according to that reported in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref37">37</xref>] guaranteeing an adequate level of fat for industrial processing and cheese maturation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref40">40</xref>] .</p><p>The somatic cell count (SCC) is a technique used to diagnose subclinical mastitis and in the case of sheep’s milk a healthy reference value of 10 to 200 &#215; 10<sup>3</sup> cells/ml was established in the USA [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref9">9</xref>] . In the present work, the average values of SCC in the oil supplemented sheep (99 &#215; 103 cells/ml, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>) were within the reference values and lower than those observed in the Control treatment (128 &#215; 10<sup>3</sup> cel/ml) and also to the value of 191 &#215; 10<sup>3</sup> reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref9">9</xref>] .</p><p>Concentrate intake (kg DM/ewe・day) resulted higher (p &lt; 0.05) in supplemented ewes receiving pure oils (SO-100 = 0.950, and LO-100 = 0.965) compared to Control (0.933) and also in the 50:50 treatment (964) being numerically lower (p &gt; 0.05) in SO-75 and SO-25 treatments (0.925 and 0.932 kg MS respectively). Total DM intake averaged 3.24 kg/ewe・day comprising 2.30 kg of alfalfa</p><p>hay and 0.94 kg concentrate. Voluntary DM intake was not affected in sheeps consuming 83.6 (&#177;33.6) g of lipid [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref27">27</xref>] or after the inclusion of 6% soybean oil in the ration [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref19">19</xref>] results that were consistent with those observed in the present work. A reduction in DM intake after vegetable oil feeding is a frequently observed result [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref41">41</xref>] that may be linked to detrimental effects on ruminal fermentation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref42">42</xref>] .</p><p>The inclusion of lipids in ruminants diets usually reduces fiber digestion when the level is higher than 4% of DM [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref43">43</xref>] . In the present trail, the lack of differences in DM at 7% of oil supply suggests the absence of any negative effect on ruminal digestion as was observed in dairy cows supplemented with polyunsaturated oils [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref24">24</xref>] . The results available on forage type or processing are scarce since most of the work in sheeps has been done using hay and the number of plant species involved is relatively low [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref44">44</xref>] . Intake (g/sheep・day) of linoleic and linolenic acids from the concentrate, hay and oils averaged 106 and 18 g/day in SO100, 96 and 27 in SO75-LO25, 79 and 46 in SO50-LO50, 71 and 51 in SO25-LO75 and 58 and 63 in LO100 respectively.</p><p>Milk content of butyric acid (C4:0) did not decrease or even increase (SO100 and SO25) after oil intake (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) according to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref3">3</xref>] . The result can be considered as relevant considering the favorable effects of C4:0 on human health [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref3">3</xref>] . Butyric acid is partly synthesized by a malonyl-CoA independent way and therefore not associated with the activity of the enzyme acetyl CoA carboxylase which is inhibited by exogenous FA [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref45">45</xref>] . Compared to Control, total concentration of FA from C6:0 to C12:0 was significantly reduced by intake of pure oils or their mixtures (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). This was a relevant result considering the characteristic flavors and aromas that these FA’s confer to dairy products from ewes being in turn partially responsible for the economic value of them [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref9">9</xref>] . Caprylic (C8:0) and capric (C10:0) FA represent between 3% to 18% of total FA in ewe’s milk while in cow’s milk this contribution is only 3% to 5% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref9">9</xref>] . The content of these two FA’s in milk from Control ewes comprised 12.15% (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) and the decrease after oil intake averaged 7.65% (p &lt; 0.01) a result frequently observed when free oils are fed [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref3">3</xref>] .</p><p>Concentration of saturated medium chain FA (44.76 g/100g) decreased (−22%, p &lt; 0.05) to an average value of 34.88 g/100g after oil intake without differences between blends (p &gt; 0.05). The observed decrease of de novo synthesized FA (C4:0 to C15:1) after oil intake was important in all treatments with the lowest values observed in SO100 and LO100. This effect can be explained by the inhibition in the activity of lipogenic mammary enzymes such as acetyl-CoA carboxylase [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref46">46</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref47">47</xref>] . The reduction was apparently compensated by a concomitant increase in mammary uptake of preformed FA’s since milk fat concentration or yield was not decreased (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>) despite of the important increase in milk content of trans-10 C18:1 in SO100 and SO75 tretments (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). A negative correlation (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.46, p &lt; 0.05) between this trans-10 isomer and milk fat concentration was observed (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>) according to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref48">48</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref49">49</xref>] .</p><p>In dairy cattle, the decrease in milk fat content in the presence of PUFA is frequently associated with an increase in trans-10 C18:1 levels [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref48">48</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref49">49</xref>] . The presence of this FA and/or its related compounds (trans-10, cis-12 C18:2) have been associated with dysfunctions in the activity of enzymes such as lipoprotein lipase (LPL) and stearyl CoA desaturase (SCD) involved in the capture (LPL) and synthesis of FA which explains the drop in milk fat content.</p><p>The basal AI in Control milk (2.23) was reduced by oil intake as the consequence of the significant decrease observed in the concentration of C12:0 to 16:0 FA and the increase in unsaturated FA without important differences between oil blends. Compared to the Control treatment, total concentration of the pro-atherogenic FA (C12:0 to C16:0) decreased (−21%) from 41.26 g/100g to an average of 32.62 g/100g FA. This result could be explained by the inhibitory effect of certain FA (trans-10 C18:1, trans-10, cis-12 C18:2) on de novo mammary lipogenesis as already stated. This result contributes to avoid an excessive intake of unhealthy saturated FA improving the nutritional value of milk and reducing the atherogenic potential of ovine milk fat. Compared to Control, the average reduction (19.7%) in milk content of myristic acid (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) can be considered important taking into account that its pro-atherogenic role is considered to be very potent [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref50">50</xref>] .</p><p>The reduction in milk saturated FA concentration (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) improves the nutritional value of milk due to its association with the incidence of cardiovascular diseases [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref51">51</xref>] . A similar but more accentuated trend to decrease the level of saturated medium chain FA was also observed by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref19">19</xref>] after the inclusion of unsaturated FA at 6% of the ration and also by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref37">37</xref>] with the inclusion of increasing levels of them to a basal diet with a high Concentrate:Forage ratio (80:20).</p><p>The basal levels of trans-9 C18:1 (0.45 g/100g FA) were increased (p &lt; 0.01) by supplementary oil in all treatments while those of trans-10 C18:1 (2.07 g/100g FA) resulted higher only when SO was the predominant oil (SO100 = 6.20 and SO75 = 4.84 g/100g FA, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). It is advisable to avoid any excessive consumption of trans-10 C18:1 due to the increase in the lipid deposition in the aorta artery, the higher VLDL, total and LDL cholesterol and the reduced concentration of HDL cholesterol observed in rabbits after the consumption of a butter rich in trans-10 C18:1. In contrast, animals that consumed butter rich in VA and RA presented neutral effects or a tendency to reduce lipid deposition in the artery [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref52">52</xref>] .</p><p>In our trial, since the lowest numerical concentration of trans-10 C18:1 (3.94 g/100g of FA) and the highest numerical values of RA (3.04 g/100g FA) were found in the 50:50 oil-blend while maintaining a high RA/VA ratio, this oils blend behaved as the most promising. The shift towards the synthesis of the unwanted isomer trans-10 C18:1) is linked to starch-rich rations through mechanisms capable of altering the ruminal microbial activity associated with the biohydrogenation of the PUFA and the presence of a source of linoleic acid [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref45">45</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref53">53</xref>] . In a low forage diet rich in concentrate (F/C ratio = 20:80), intake of increasing amounts of sunflower oil (60, 117 and 167 g/sheep・day) induced significant increases in milk content of trans-10 C18:1 which remained constant and below 1% in the control ration [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref37">37</xref>] . It was reported that increasing levels of concentrate generate significant increases in trans-10 C18:1 in sheep’s milk [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref54">54</xref>] .</p><p>Milk content of oleic acid increased (p &lt; 0.05) only in treatments with pure oils (SO100 and LO100) as observed in dairy cattle [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref28">28</xref>] . This increase did not seem to be explained by a greater desaturation activity of stearic acid [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref55">55</xref>] since its concentration did not decrease or even increase in SO100 and SO25 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). It could be explained by a higher intake and mammary uptake of the oleic acid contained in the oils (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). The increases in milk concentration of C18:0 in SO100 and SO25 were consistent with results from [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref37">37</xref>] after feeding 167 g/sheep・day of sunflower oil in a high concentrate ration and also with the inclusion of 2.5% sunflower oil in a 60:40 F/C diet [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref38">38</xref>] .</p><p>Linoleic acid content in Control milk (6.51 g/100g FA, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) resulted higher than the normal range of 2 - 3 g/100g FA observed in bovine milk [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref3">3</xref>] . In all treatments with supplementary oil, the basal level of this FA was strongly increased (44.9% on average, p &lt; 0.01) reaching a maximum record of 11.25 g/100g FA in SO100. These values are higher than the maximums reported [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref45">45</xref>] for dairy cows supplemented with soybean and linseed oils (4 g/100g FA) or the range (2.74 - 3.92 g/100g FA) observed in grazing dairy cows [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref49">49</xref>] . These results did not keep with that reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref37">37</xref>] who showed a lower impact on the levels of linoleic acid in milk (2.63, 2.87 and 2.95 g/100g FA) with increasing intakes (60, 117 and 167 g/sheep・day) of sunflower oil in the diet. In cows or goats supplemented with sources of linoleic acid, the presence of this FA in milk does not generally exceed more than 1.5 percentage units over basal [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref45">45</xref>] with increases in sheep’s or goat’s milk between +0.5 and +1.8 g/100g FA at an increase-rate of 0.07% (&#177;0.02) per gram of linoleic acid/kg of DM ingested [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref44">44</xref>] . Therefore, those results were not consistent with what was observed in the present experiment. Other studies conducted with sheep [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref19">19</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref56">56</xref>] were consistent with [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref44">44</xref>] .</p><p>The non-conjugated isomers of linoleic acid that escape ruminal biohydrogenation are included in the phospholipids and cholesterol esters that are poorly used (3%) by the mammary gland [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref57">57</xref>] . The level of VA (hypocholesterolemic, antiatherogenic and precursor of RA) in the milk from Control ewes was 2.26 g/100g AG showing a strong increase (140%, p &lt; 0.05) after oil intake in all treatments without differences between oil blends. Numerical values of VA increased with the inclusion of SO in the mixture up to a maximum of 75% and then decreased in LO100 treatment (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). In Control milk, VA represented 42.5% of the total trans-C18:1 a value that was maintained in the range of 39% - 54% in the treatments with supplementary oil. The observed RA/VA ratios may be considered low if compared to the values observed in milk from grazing dairy cows (77% - 82%) supplemented with the same oil mixtures [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref49">49</xref>] . The difference could be explained in part by the greater presence of trans-9 and especially trans-10 C18:1 in milk from the oil-supplemented ewes.</p><p>The changes observed in levels of trans-10 C18:1 and VA are consistent with that reported in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref64">64</xref>] after supplementation with sunflower and fish oils at 2% of the diet (trans-10 C18:1 = 6.48 and VA = 8.05 g/100g FA) in a ration with 80% concentrate and similar to that observed by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref37">37</xref>] after supplementation with sunflower oil (167 g) to dairy ewes (trans-10 = 3.74 and VA = 8.50 g/100g FA). Soybean oil fed at 6% of a concentrate rich ration (F:C = 20:80) induced a transient increase in VA levels during the first week with a significant subsequent increase in levels of C18:1 trans-10 (10 g/100g FA) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref17">17</xref>] . On the other hand, an increase of 79% in milk VA content (2.36 g/100g FA) was reported over basal value (1.32 g/100g FA) when supplementing with sunflower oil at 2.5% of total DM intake [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref38">38</xref>] .</p><p>The highest total trans-C18:1 concentrations in ewe’s milk would be obtained in pasture based diets (5.7 &#177; 1.1 g/100g FA) if compared to confined production systems (3.4 &#177; 2.5 g/100 FA) being the trans-11 C18:1 the major isomer (2% to 3.5%) as reported for cows and goats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref44">44</xref>] . These average values resulted lower than those obtained in the present work (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) without the inclusion of fresh forage in the diet.</p><p>In humans, VA can exert direct anticarcinogenic effects [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref58">58</xref>] or mediated via endogenous conversion to RA at tissue level with an estimated conversion rate of 20% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref59">59</xref>] by the ∆-9 desaturase activity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref60">60</xref>] . This route has been shown to be an effective prevention of the chemically induced cancer in rats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref61">61</xref>] and increases the bioavailability of RA in peripheral tissues [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref62">62</xref>] .</p><p>In the present work, the average conversion rate of VA into RA appeared to be 43% (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>) and so, higher than the 33% reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref63">63</xref>] for dairy cows. Taking the RA/VA ratio as an estimator, the average conversion rate in oil treatments was in the order of 48 (&#177;3.2)% (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) similar to the 50% value reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref38">38</xref>] and greater than those informed (35% and 30%) by other authors</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref37">37</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref64">64</xref>] . In dairy cows, an average conversion rate of 41% has been proposed [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref44">44</xref>] a value that resulted close to that obtained in the present work (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>).</p><p>The basal level of RA (1.50 g/100g FA, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) was higher than the values reported for dairy ewes fed rations without fresh forage (0.6 g RA/100g) and close to that observed in grazing ewes (1.6 &#177; 0.53 g/100g) or values of 1.3 (&#177;0.6) g/100g observed with pasture and concentrate [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref44">44</xref>] . This basal level increased 1.79 times (p &lt; 0.05) after oil intake (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) without differences (p &gt; 0.05) between oil mixtures. The highest numerical value of RA was observed in the SO50-LO50 treatment (3.04 g/100g FA) and the lowest when the oils were supplied in pure form (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). Baseline values for RA of 0.69 g/100g AG were reported in diets with 60 forage: 40 concentrate reaching values of 1.18 g/100g after the inclusion of 2.5 sunflower oil at 2.5% of total DM intake [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref38">38</xref>] .</p><p>The increase in milk concentration of VA and RA (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) resulted relevant for their beneficial effects on cardiovascular health [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref65">65</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref66">66</xref>] and the anti-carcinogenic properties [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref67">67</xref>] . The inclusion of sunflower oil at 5.1% of the dairy ewes diet allowed to obtain a milk containing 2.19 g RA/100g FA [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref37">37</xref>] a result comparable to the 2.31 g/100g obtained in a similar ration with a lower inclusion (2%) of oil by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref64">64</xref>] . In a high concentrate (80%) ration, SO supply at 6% induced a transient increase in RA which declined after the first week of oil intake [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref17">17</xref>] . In the present work, the highest values of RA in milk were observed in week 2 of the trial (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>) without a well-defined or different pattern of response between the oil-blends tested.</p><p>A high concentration of RA in milk (2.59 g/100g) was obtained feeding sunflower oil at a rate of 117 and 167 g/ewe・day day with concomitant increases of the trans-10 C18:1 isomer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref37">37</xref>] . In our trial, supplementation with the 50% SO-LO blend showed the greatest persistence in milk RA content (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>) suggesting to be a usefull dietary strategy. The basal level of VA and RA as well</p><p>as the increase registered after oil intake obtained in ewes (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>) were lower than those observed in grazing dairy cows consuming similar blends of SO and LO [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref49">49</xref>] . Enrichment of ewe’s milk and cheese with these bioactive compounds (VA, RA) and also with linolenic acid has gained relevance due to the promising results on human health. In clinically healthy subjects, the consumption of 200 g per week of a cheese with a high content of VA (3.26 g/100g FA) and RA (1.56 g/100g FA) during a 10 weeks period produced favorable biochemical changes in the atherosclerotic markers compared to intake of a standard cheese with 0.4 g/100g of VA and 0.19 g/100g of RA [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref68">68</xref>] . In hypercholesterolemic individuals, the consumption of a cheese rich in rumenic acid (2.5 g/100g FA) decreased (7%) plasma LDL cholesterol compared to a control cheese containing only 1.5 g of RA [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref69">69</xref>] .</p><p>In the present work, the reduction in concentration of total saturated FA after oil intake averaged 0.8 times while the increase in concentration of unsaturated FA was 1.4 times (p &lt; 0.01) without significant differences between oil mixtures (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). Milk fat from Pampinta ewes is characterized by its lower content of long chain FA and a higher level of short chain FA compared to cow’s milk. The capric, lauric, myristic, palmitic and oleic acids comprise about 65% of the total FA [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref9">9</xref>] as observed in milk from Control ewes (67%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). The majority of the milk FA showed important modifications after supplementary oil intake or their blends showing increased milk content of C18 FA at the expense of saturated FA concentration (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). This pattern of response has been reported in cows and goats [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref45">45</xref>] as well as in sheep fed high levels of SO [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref54">54</xref>] .</p><p>Milk content of linolenic acid (C18:3n-3) increased with intake of LO averaging 400% over Control. No significant differences were detected (p &gt; 0.05) between the 100SO and SO75-LO25 treatments or between SO50LO50 and SO25-LO75. Values recorded in LO100 showed to be the highest (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). Feeding LO at 4% of DM intake increased (+170%) milk concentration of linolenic acid compared to control without effects of SO alone or the 50:50 mixture of oils [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref70">70</xref>] .</p><p>The n-6/n-3 ratio in Control milk resulted relatively high (7.27) and was reduced (p &lt; 0.05) after the inclusion of LO in the mixtures. The lowest values (2.32 and 1.89) were observed in LO75 and LO100 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). In dairy sheep supplemented with sunflower oil (2%), this ratio averaged 8.14 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref64">64</xref>] resulting therefore much higher than that recorded in SO100 (5.66) with 7% SO in the ration. In dairy cows the lowest n-6/n-3 ratio (2.13) was observed when LO was supplied at 4% of DM intake with an intermediate result (3.44) using the SO50-LO50 mixture [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref71">71</xref>] . Compared to the Control value of 4.25 no differences were detected in this ratio when pure SO was supplied (4.35, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). When the n-6/n-3 ratio is lower than 4 a decrease in mortality due to cardiovascular diseases and breast cancer risk was postulated with healthy effects on chronic diseases such as colon cancer and rheumatoid arthritis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref72">72</xref>] . Recent studies also showed positive effects on depression [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.82527-ref73">73</xref>] . In the present work, the n-6/n-3 values were below 4 after the SO75 treatment (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). Concentration of total unsaturated FA in milk significantly increased (p &lt; 0.05) after oil intake averaging 40% over Control without significant differences (p &gt; 0.05) between pure oils.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusion</title><p>The results obtained confirmed the existence of a broad plasticity in the FA composition of ovine milk when PUFA oils are included in the ration an aspect that can be advantageously used to improve the nutritional value of milk and dairy products. Feeding oils at 7% in a forage-concentrate ration (71:29) did not affect the productive response or the yield and content of milk fat, lactose and total solids showing positive increases on milk protein content. The milk cheese extract and the somatic cell count were also not affected by supplementary oil which constitutes a suitable feeding strategy to produce ewe’s milk for cheese industrialization. Concerning the nutritional value of the milk, the reduction in the hypercholesterolemic fatty acids (C12:0 to C16:0) and the concomitant increase in bioactive fatty acids like VA, RA and linolenic with absence of important shifts towards the trans-9 and trans-10 C18:1 FA represent a potential benefit for the consumer’s health and for the addition of value for dairy products at the farm level using a natural way like controlled changes in the diet of ewes. Taking toghether, results suggest that the soybean-linseed oil blend at 50% generated the highest number of favorable nutritional changes in ewe’s milk taking into account the decrease in the hypercholesterolemic fraction of milk, the simultaneous increase in vaccenic, rumenic and linolenic acids, the n-6/n-3 ratio lower than 4 and an low atherogenic index. The laws of response to incremental doses of oils and the persistence of the favorable changes induced in the milk merits to be experimentally explored.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This work was supported by the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA). This Institute is a decentralized state agency with operational and financial autarchy, under the Ministry of Agroindustry of the Argentine Republic. This publication is part of the requirements to access to the academic degree of Doctor in Agricultural Sciences by the Mar del Plata National University, Argentina.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Antonacci, L.E., Bussetti, M., Rodriguez, M.A., Cano, A.V. and Gagliostro, G.A. (2018) Effect of Diet Supplementation with Combinations of Soybean and Linseed Oils on Milk Production and Fatty Acid Profile in Lactating Dairy Ewes. Agricultural Sciences, 9, 200-220. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2018.92015</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.82527-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nudda, A., Battacone, G., Boaventura Neto, O., Cannas, A., Francesconi, A.H.D., Atzori, A.S. and Pulina, G. (2014) Feeding Strategies to Design the Fatty Acid Profile of Sheep Milk and Cheese. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 43, 445-456.  
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982014000800008</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lee, K.N., Kritchevsky, D. and Pariza, M.W. (1994) Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Atherosclerosis in Rabbits. Atherosclerosis, 108, 19-25.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9150(94)90034-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chilliard, Y., Ferlay, A., Mansbridge, R.M. and Doreau, M. (2000) Ruminant Milk Fat Plasticity: Nutritional Control of Saturated, Polyunsaturated, Trans and Conjugated Fatty Acids. Annales de Zootechnie, 49, 181-205.  
https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2000117</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ip, C., Singh, M., Thompson, H.J. and Scimeca, J.A. (1994) Conjugated Linoleic Acid Suppreses Mammary Carcinogenesis and Proliferative Activity on the Mammary Gland in the Rat. Cancer Research, 54, 1212-1215.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ip, C., Banni, S., Angioni, E., Carta, G., McGinley, J., Thompson, H.J., Barbano, D. and Bauman, D. (1999) Conjugated Linoleic Acid-Enriched Butter Fat Alters Mammary Gland Morphogenesis and Reduces Cancer Risk in Rats. Journal of Nutrition, 129, 2135-2142.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">De La Torre, A., Debiton, E., Juanéda, P., Durand, D., Chardigny, J.M., Barthomeuf, C., Bauchart, D. and Gruffat, D. (2006) Beef Conjugated Linoleic Acid Isomers Reduce Human Cancer Cell Growth Even When Associated with Other Beef Fatty Acids. British Journal of Nutrition, 95, 346-352.  
https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN20051634</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kelley, N.S., Hubbard, N.E. and Erickson, K. (2007) Conjugated Linoleic Acid Isomers and Cancer. The Journal of Nutrition, 137, 2599-2607.  
https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/137.12.2599</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Suárez</surname><given-names> V. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2004</year>)<article-title>Sheep Dairy and Pampinta Breed</article-title><source> Revista de Información Sobre Desarrollo e Investigación Agropecuaria</source><volume> 21</volume>,<fpage> 194</fpage>-<lpage>200</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Busetti</surname><given-names> M. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2006</year>)<article-title>The Quality of Sheep’s Milk</article-title><source> Boletín de Divulgación Técnica</source><volume> 90</volume>,<fpage> 206</fpage>-<lpage>214</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Suárez, V. and Busetti, M. (1992) Pampinta: A Breed to Obtain Lean Meat and Milk. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Busetti, M. (2005) Milk Composition of Pampinta Sheep throughout a Period of lactation. Sitio Argentino de Producción Animal.  
http://www.produccion-animal.com.ar/.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gagliostro</surname><given-names> G.A. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2004</year>)<article-title>Nutritional Control of Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) Content in Milk and Its Presence in Functional Natural Foods. 2. Production of CLA-Enriched Milk in the Dairy Cow</article-title><source> Revista Argentina de Produccion Animal</source><volume> 24</volume>,<fpage> 137</fpage>-<lpage>163</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gagliostro</surname><given-names> G.A </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2004</year>)<article-title>Nutritional Control of Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) Content in Milk and Its Presence in Functional Natural Foods. 3. Production of Milk with High CLA Content through Strategic Supplementation of the Goat</article-title><source> Revista Argentina de Producción Animal</source><volume> 24</volume>,<fpage> 165</fpage>-<lpage>185</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gagliostro, G.A., Patino, E.M. Sanchez Negrette, M., Sager, G. Castelli, L., Antonacci, L.E., Raco, F., Gallello, L., Rodríguez, M.A., Canameras, C., Zampatti, M.L. and Bernal, C. (2015) Milk Fatty Acid Profile from Grazing Buffaloes Fed a Blend of Soybean and Linseed Oils. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Vetérinaria e Zootecnica., 67, 927-934. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4162-7811</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gómez-Cortés, P. (2010) Effect of Supplementation of the Ovine Diet with Different Lipid Sources on the Fatty Acid Profile of Milk. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Facultad de Ciencias Químicas. Departamento de Química Física I. ISBN: 978-84-693-6546-5.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Castillo Vargas, J.A. (2012) Kinetics of In Vitro Biohydrogenation of Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in Ruminal Fluid. Tesis de Magister en Producción Animal, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y de Zootecnia, Departamento de Producción Animal. Bogotá, Colombia.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gómez-Cortés, P., Frutos, P., Mantecón, A.R., Juárez, M., De la Fuente, M.A. and Hervás, G. (2008) Milk Production, Conjugated Linoleic Acid Content, and In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation in Response to High Levels of Soybean Oil in Dairy Ewe. Diet Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 1560-1569. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0722</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chilliard. Y., Ferlay, A., Rouel, J. and Lamberet, G.A. (2003) Review of Nutritional and Physiological Factors Affecting Goat Milk Lipid Synthesis and Lipolysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 86, 1751-1770.  
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73761-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hervás, G., Luna, P., Mantecón, A.R., Castanares, N., De La Fuente, M.A., Juárez, M. and Frutos, P. (2008) Effect of Diet Supplementation with Sunflower Oil on Milk Production, Fatty acid Profile and Ruminal Fermentation in Lactating Dairy ewes. Journal of Dairy Research, 75, 399-405. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029908003506</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Horneck, D.A. and Miller, R.O. (1998) Determination of Total Nitrogen in Plant Tissue. In: Kalra, Y.P., Eds., Handbook of Reference Methods for Plant Analysis, Soil and Plant Analysis Council, CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, 75-83.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Komareck, A.R., Robertson, J.B. and Van Soest, P.J. (1994) Comparison of the Filter Bag Technique to Conventional Filtration in the Van Soest NDF Analysis of 21 Feeds. In: Fahey, G.C., Ed., Proceedings of National Conference on Forage Quality, Evaluation and Utilization, Nebraska University, Lincoln, 2.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Komareck</surname><given-names> A.R. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1993</year>)<article-title>An Improved Filtering Technique for the Analysis of Neutral Detergent Fiber and Acid Detergent Fiber Utilizing the Filter Bag Technique</article-title><source> Journal of Animal Science</source><volume> 71</volume>,<fpage> 824</fpage>-<lpage>829</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">AOAC. (2006) Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 18th Edition, AOAC International, Gaithersburg.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gagliostro, G.A., Garciarena, D.A., Rodriguez, M.A. and Antonacci, L.E. (2017) Feeding Polyunsaturated Supplements to Grazing Dairy Cows Improve the Healthy Value of Milk Fatty Acids. Agricultural Sciences, 8, 759-782.  
https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2017.88057</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">SAS Institute Inc. (2002-2010) SAS/STAT User’s Guide.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Prieto, N.R., Bodas, ó., López-Campos, S., Andrés, S. and Giráldez, F. J. (2014) Effect of Sunflower Oil Supplementation and Milking Frequency Reduction on Sheep Milk Production and Composition. Journal of Animal Science, 91, 446-454.  
https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5187</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Martínez-Marín, A.L., Núnez Sánchez, N., Garzón Sigler, A.I., Pena Blanco, F., Domenech García, V. and Hernández Ruipérez, F. (2015) Meta-Analysis of the Use of Seeds and Oils in the Diet of Sheep and Goats, Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 50, 821-828.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Glasser, F., Ferlay, A. and Chilliard, Y. (2008) Oilseed Lipid Supplements and Fatty Acid Composition of Cow Milk: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 4687-4703. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-0987</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Antonacci, L.E., Rodriguez, A., Castelli, L., Zampatti, M., Castaneda, R., Ceaglio, J. and Gagliostro, G.A. (2013) Supplementation with a Blend of Vegetable Oils and the Fatty Acid Profile of Bovine Milk. Revista Argentina de Produccion Animal, 33.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ortega Perez, R. (2012) Fatty Acids Profile in Alternative Forages for the Feeding of Bovines in arid Ecosystems and Fatty Acid Profile in the Milk of Cows of Different Racial Groups in Different Feeding Systems. Tesis de Doctorado. Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, México.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Flowers, G., Ibrahim, S.A. and AbuGhazaleh, A.A. (2008) Milk Fatty Acid Composition of Grazing Dairy Cows When Supplemented with Linseed Oil. Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 3786-3801.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pires, J.A.A., Pescara, J.B.,  Brickner, A.E., Silva del Rio, N., Cunha, A.P and Grummer, R.R. (2008) Effects of Abomasal Infusion of Linseed Oil on Responses to Glucose and Insulin in Holstein Cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 1378-1390.  
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0714</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cieslak, A., Kowalczyk, J., Czauderna, M., Potkanski, A. and Szumascher-Strabel, M. (2010) Enhancing Unsaturated Fatty Acids in Ewe’s Milk by Feeding Rapeseed or Linseed Oil. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 55, 496-504.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Solís Limón, F.P (2010) Chemical Composition and Fatty Acid Profile in Drought Resistant forages. Tesis de Grado. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur, área de Conocimiento de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Departamento Académico de Zootecnia, 56.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nahum, M., Marín, M., Ríos, C. and Meléndez, P. (2016) Milk Fatty Acids Profile and Metabolic Indicators in Postpartum Dairy Cattle Fed with Soiling or Alfalfa Silage under Confinement System. Archivo Medicina Vetérinaria, 48, 29-36.  
https://doi.org/10.4067/S0301-732X2016000100004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dewhurst, R.J. and King, P.J. (1998) Effects of Extended Wilting, Shading and Chemical Additives on the Fatty Acids in Laboratory Grass Silages. Grass and Forage Science, 53, 219-224. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2494.1998.00130.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gómez-Cortés, P., Toral, P.G., Frutos, P., Juárez, M., De la Fuente, M.A. and Hervás, G. (2011) Effect of the Supplementation of Dairy Sheep Diet with Incremental Amounts of Sunflower Oil on Animal Performance and Milk Fatty Acid Profile. Food Chemistry, 125, 644-651.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.09.053</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Castro-Carrera, T., Frutos, P., Leroux, C., Chilliard, Y., Hervás, G., Belenguer, A., Bernard, L. and Toral, P.G. (2015) Dietary Sunflower Oil Modulates Milk Fatty Acid Composition without Major Changes in Adipose and Mammary Tissue Fatty Acid Profile or Related Gene mRNA Abundance in Sheep. Animal an International Journal of Animal Bioscience, 9, 582-591.  
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002882</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pirisi, A., Lauret, A. and Dubeuf, J.P. (2007) Basic and Incentive Payments for Goat and Sheep Milk in Relation to Quality. Small Ruminant Research, 68, 167-178.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2006.09.009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Caja, G. and Bocquier, F. (2000) Effects of Nutrition on the Composition of Sheep’s Milk. Options Méditerranèennes, 52, 59-74.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shingfield, K.J., Reynolds, C.K., Hervas, G., Griinari, J.M., Grandison, A.S. and Beever, D.E. (2006) Examination of the Persistency of Milk Fatty Acid Composition Responses to Fish Oil and Sunflower Oil in the Diet of Dairy Cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 714-732. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72134-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jenkins, T.C. (1993) Lipid Metabolism in the Rumen. Journal of Dairy Science, 76, 3851-3863. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(93)77727-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Martínez Marín, A.L., Pérez Hernández, M., Pérez Alba, L.M., Gómez-Castro, G. and Carrion Pardo, D. (2011) Effect of Fat Sources on Fiber Digestion in Ruminants. Revista Electrónica de Veterinaria, 12, 1-22.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chilliard, Y., Glasser, F., Enjalbert, F., Ferlay, A., Bocquier, F. and Schmidely, P.H. (2007) Recent Data on Effects of Feeding Factors on Milk Fatty Acid Composition in Cow, Goat and Ewe. Revista Argentina de Producción Animal , 27, 197-213.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chilliard, Y. and Ferlay, A. (2004) Dietary Lipids and Forages Interactions on Cow and Goat Milk Fatty Acid Composition and Sensory Properties. Reproduction Nutrition Dévelopément, 44, 467-492. https://doi.org/10.1051/rnd:2004052</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Christie, W.W. (1981) The Effects of Diet and Other Factors on the Lipid Composition of Ruminant Tissues and Milk. In: Christie, W.W., Ed., Lipid Metabolism of Ruminant Animals, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 193-226.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-023789-3.50009-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Storry, J.E. (1981) The Effect of Dietary Fat on Milk Composition. In: Haresing, W., Ed., Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition, Butterworths, London, 3-33.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-408-71014-5.50005-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Piperova, L.L., Teter, B.B., Bruckental, I., Sampugna, J., Mills, S.E., Yurawecz, M.P., Fritsche, J., Ju, K. and Erdman, R.A. (2000) Mammary Lipogenic Enzyme Activity,Trans Fatty Acids and Conjugated Fatty Acids Are Altered in Lactating Dairy Cows Fed a Milk-Fat Depressing Diet. Journal of Nutrition, 130, 2568-2574.  
https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/130.10.2568</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Antonacci, L.E., Gagliostro, G.A., Cano, A.V. and Bernal, C.A. (2017) Effects of Feeding Combinations of Soybean and Linseed Oils on Productive Performance and Milk Fatty Acid Profile in Grazing Dairy Cows. Agricultural Sciences, 8, 984-1002.  
https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2017.89072</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ulbritch, T.L. and Southgate, D.A.T. (1991) Coronary Heart Disease: Seven Dietary Factors. Lancet, 338, 985-992. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)91846-M</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mensink, R.P., Zock, P.L., Kester, A.D.M. and Katan, A.N.D. (2003) Effects of Dietary Fatty Acids and Carbohydrates on the Ratio of Serum Total to HDL Cholesterol and on Serum Lipids and Apolipoproteins: A Meta-Analysis of 60 Controlled Trials. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 77, 1146-1155.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Roy, A., Chardigny, J.M., Bauchart, D., Ferlay, A., Lorenz, S., Durand, D., Duffart, D., Faulconnier, Y., Sebedio, J.L. and Chilliard, Y. (2007) Butters Rich Either in Trans-10-C18:1 or in Trans-11-C18:1 Plus Cis-9-Trans11 CLA Differentially Affect Plasma Lipids and Aortic Fatty Streak in Experimental Atherosclerosis in Rabbits. Animal an International Journal of Animal Bioscience, 1, 467-476.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Palmquist, D.L., Lock, A.L., Shingfield, K.J. and Bauman, D.E. (2005) Biosynthesis of Conjugated Linoleic Acid in Ruminants and Humans. In: Taylor, S.L., Ed., Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, 179-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1043-4526(05)50006-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mele, M., Contarini, G., Cercaci, L., Serra, A., Buccioni, A., Povolo, M., Conte, G., Funaro, A., Banni, S., Lercker, G. and Secchiari, P. (2011) Enrichment of Pecorino cheese with Conjugated Linoleic Acid by Feeding Dairy Ewes with Extruded Linseed: Effect on Fatty Acid and Triglycerides Composition and on Oxidative Stability. International Dairy Journal, 21, 365-372.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lock, A.L. and Garnsworthy, P.C. (2003) Seasonal Variation in Milk Conjugated Linoleic Acid and &amp;#2017; 9-Desaturase Activity in Dairy Cows. Livestock Production Science, 79, 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00118-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Castro, T., Manso, T., Jimeno, V., Del Alamo, M. and Mantecón, A.R. (2009) Effects of Dietary Sources of Vegetable Fats on Performance of Dairy Ewes and Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) in Milk. Small Ruminant Research, 84, 47-53.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.05.005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tyburczy, C., Lock, A.L., Dwyer, D.A., Destaillats, F., Mouloungui, Z. and Candy, L. (2008) Uptake and Utilization of Trans Octadecenoic Acids in Lactating Dairy Cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 3850-3861.  
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0893</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Awad, A.B., Hermann, T., Fink, C.S. and Horvath, P.J. (1995) 18:1 N7 Fatty Acids Inhibit Growth and Decreased Inositol Phosphate Release in HT-29 Cells Compared to N-9 Fatty Acids. Cancer Letters, 91, 55-61.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3835(95)03725-C</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Turpeinen, A.M., Mutanen, M., Aro, A., Salminen, I., Basu, S., Palmquist, D.L. and Griinari, J.M. (2002) Bioconversion of Vaccenic Acid to Conjugated Linoleic Acid in Humans. American Journal of Clininical Nutrition, 76, 504-510.  
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/76.3.504</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Parodi, P.W. (2003) Conjugated Linoleic Acid in Food. In: Sébédio, J.L., Christie, W.W. and Adloff, R., Eds., Advances in Conjugated Linoleic Acid in Food, AOCS Press, Champaign, 101-122. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781439822166.ch8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Banni, S., Angioni, E., Murru, E., Carta, G., Melis, M.P., Bauman, D., Dong, Y. and Ip, C. (2001) Vaccenic Acid Feeding Increases Tissue Levels of Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Suppreses Development of Premalignant Lesions in Rat Mammary Gland. Nutrition and Cancer, 41, 91-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/01635581.2001.9680617</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Siurana, A. and Calsamiglia, S. (2016) A Met Analysis of Feeding Strategies to Increase the Content of Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) in Dairy Cattle Milk and the Impact on Daily Human Consumption. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 217, 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.04.013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Griinari, J.M. and Bauman, D.E. (1999) Biosynthesis of Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Its Incorporation into Meat and Milk in Ruminants. In: Yurawecz, M.P., Mossoba, M.M., Kramer, J.K.G., Pariza, M.W. and Nelson, G.J., Eds., Advances in Conjugated Linoleic Acid Research, AOCS Press, Champaign, 180-200.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Toral</surname><given-names> P.G.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Frutos</surname><given-names> P.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Hervás</surname><given-names> G.; Gómez-Cortés</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> P.</surname><given-names> Juárez</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> M. and De La Fuente</surname><given-names> M.A. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2010</year>)<article-title>Changes in Milk Fatty Acid Profile and Animal Performance in Response to Fish Oil Supplementation, Alone or in Combination with Sunflower Oil, in Dairy Ewes</article-title><source> Journal of Dairy Science</source><volume> 93</volume>,<fpage> 1604</fpage>-<lpage>1615</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lock, A.L, Horne, C.A.M., Bauman, D.E. and Salter, A.M. (2005) Butter Naturally Enriched in CLA and Vaccenic Acid Alters Tissue Fatty Acids and Improves the Plasma Lipoprotein Profile in Cholesterol-Fed Hamsters. Journal of Nutrition, 135, 1934-1939. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/135.8.1934</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Smit, L.A., Baylin, A. and Campos, H. (2010) Conjugated Linoleic Acid in Adipose Tissue and Risk of Myocardial Infarction. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92, 34-40. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2010.29524</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gagliostro</surname><given-names> G.A. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2004</year>)<article-title>Nutritional Control of Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) Content in Milk and Its Presence in Functional Natural Foods. 1. Effects on Human Health</article-title><source> Revista Argentina de Producción Animal</source><volume> 24</volume>,<fpage> 113</fpage>-<lpage>136</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sofi, F., Buccioni, A., Cesari, F., Gori, A. M., Minieri, S., Mannini, L., Casini, A., Gensini, G.F., Abbate, R. and Antogiovanni, M. (2010) Effects of a Dairy Product (Pecorino Cheese) Naturally Rich in Cis-9, Trans-11 Conjugated Linoleic Acid on Lipid, Inflammatory and Haemorheological Variables: A Dietary Intervention Study. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, 20, 117-124.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2009.03.004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pintus, S., Murru, E., Carta, G., Cordeddu, L., Batetta, B., Accossu, S., Pistis, D., Uda, S., Ghiani, M.E., Mele, M., Secchiari, P., Almerighi, G., Pintus, P. and Banni, S. (2013) Sheep Cheese Naturally Enriched in A-Linolenic, Conjugated Linoleic and Vaccenic Acids Improves the Lipid Profile and Reduces Anandamide in the Plasma of Hypercholesterolaemic Subjects. British Journal of Nutrition, 109, 1453-1462.  
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114512003224</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mele, M., Buccioni, A., Petacchi, F., Serra, A., Serra, S., Banni, S., Antongiovanni, M. and Secchiari, P. (2006) Effect of Forage/Concentrate Ratio and Soybean Oil Supplementation on Milk Yield, and Composition from Sarda Ewes. Animal Research, 55, 273-285. https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2006019</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bu, D.P., Wang, J.G., Dhiman, T.R. and Liu, S.J. (2007) Effectiveness of Oils Rich in Linoleic and Linolenic Acids to Enhance Conjugated Linoleic Acid in Milk from Dairy Cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 998-1007.  
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71585-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">FAO (2012) Grasas y ácidos Grasos en Nutrición Humana. Consulta de Expertos. Estudio Fao Nutrición, 204.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.82527-ref73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Husted, K.S. and Bouzinova, S.V. (2016) The Importance of N-6/N-3 Fatty Acids Ratio in the Major Depressive Disorder. Medicina, 52, 139-147.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medici.2016.05.003</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>