Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:06:49.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

320. Comparison of the growth-promoting value for rats of butter fat, of margarine fat and of vegetable oils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

K. M. Henry ,
S. K. Kon ,
T. P. Hilditch  and
M. L. Meara
K. M. Henry
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
S. K. Kon
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
T. P. Hilditch
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Chemistry, University of Liverpool
M. L. Meara
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Chemistry, University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A series of experiments with rats is described in which the growth-promoting properties of butter fat have been compared with those of the solid and liquid fractions of butter fat, with margarine and with certain vegetable oils.

2. The separation of butter fat into fractions containing a preponderance of glycerides of saturated or unsaturated acids was effected by means of crystallization from acetone.

3. The following results were obtained by incorporating fats in liquid skim milk:

(a) No differences were detected between the growth-promoting properties of butter and margarine or of butter fat and deodorized arachis oil; in the latter comparison the arachis oil was more economically used than the butter fat.

(b) No differences were found between butter fat and maize oil alone or containing the solid or liquid fractions of butter fat in the approximate proportions in which they occur in the original fat. The less saturated oils, i.e. maize oil and maize oil + the liquid butter fraction, were more economically used than butter fat and its solid fraction mixed with maize oil.

(c) No differences were observed between the growth-promoting values of butter fat, arachis oil, cottonseed oil or soya-bean oil. The butter fat was rather less well utilized than the less saturated oils, but the differences were not significant.

(d) Poorer growth was observed with the more saturated fraction of butter fat than with the original fat or the liquid fraction.

4. When butter fat, margarine fat or arachis oil was incorporated in a dry basal diet, no differences were observed in the growth-promoting value of these fats, but the arachis oil was more economically used than the other fats. This finding was not con- firmed in a second experiment of longer duration in which poorer growth was observed with the arachis-oil diet, though the economy of gains was the same with all diets.

5. It is concluded from these experiments that it is unlikely that butter fat possesses superior nutritive properties to those of other fats, and that the more saturated fraction of butter fat is certainly not superior in growth-promoting value to that of the more unsaturated fraction or to more unsaturated vegetable oils.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 14 , Issue 1-2 , March 1945 , pp. 45 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1945

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

(1)Schantz, Elvehjem, & Hart, (1940). J. Dairy Sci. 23, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Schantz, , Boutwell, , Elvehjem, & Hart, (1940). J. Dairy Sci. 23, 1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Schantz, , Boutwell, , Elvehjem, & Hart, (1940). J. Dairy Sci. 23, 1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Boutwell, Geyer, , Elvehjem, & Hart, (1941). J. Dairy Sci. 24, 1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Boutwell, , Geyer, , Elvehjem, & Hart, (1943). J. Dairy Sci. 26, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Deuel, , Movitt, & Hallman, (1943). Science, 98, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Gullickson, & Fountaine, (1939). J. Dairy Sci. 22, 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Gullickson, , Fountains, & Fitch, (1942). J. Dairy Sci. 25, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Harris, & Rosenfeld, (1940). Abstr. Pap. Amer. chem. Soc. 5A.Google Scholar
(10)Harris, & Mosher, (1940). Food Res. 5, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Freeman, & Ivy, (1942). J. Dairy Sci. 25, 877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Boer, & Jansen, (1941). Voeding, 2, 204.Google Scholar
(13)Boer, & Jansen, (1941). Voeding, 3, no. 2, 15 06.Google Scholar
(14)Euler, , Euler, & Säberg, (1942). Ernähr. Pfl. 7, 65.Google Scholar
(15)Donaldson, (1924). The Rat, 2nd ed., p. 202. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology.Google Scholar
(16)Leathes, & Raper, (1925). The Fats. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
(17)De Loureiro, (1931). Arch. Patol., Lisboa, 3, 72.Google Scholar
(18)Nicolaysen, (1943). Private communication.Google Scholar
(19)Hilditoh, & Paul, (1940). J. Soc. chem. Ind., Land., 59, 138.Google Scholar
(20)Bertram, (1928). Biochem. Z. 197, 433.Google Scholar
(21)American Medical Association. Council on Foods and Nutrition (1942). J. Amer. med. Ass. 119, 1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22)‘Student’, (1908). Biometrika, 6, 1.Google Scholar
(23)‘Student’, (1925). Matron, 5, 105.Google Scholar
(24)White, (1937). Milk and Nutrition, Part I, p. 64. Reading: Nat. Inst. Res. Dairying.Google Scholar
(25)Beznák, , Beznák, & Hajdu, (1943). Ernähr. Pfl. 8, 209.Google Scholar
(26)Beznák., , Beznák, & Hajdu, (1943). Ernähr. Pfl. 8, 236.Google Scholar
(27)Deuel, , Movitt, , Hallman, & Mattson, (1944). J. Nutrit. 27, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(28)Deuel, , Hallman, , Movitt, , Mattson, & Wu, (1944). J. Nutrit. 27, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(29)Deuel, & Movitt, (1944). J. Nutrit. 27, 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(30)Deuel, , Movitt, & Hallman, (1944). J. Nutrit. 27, 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(31)Boutwell, , Geyer, , Elvehjem, & Hart, (1944). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol, N.Y., 55, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(32)Euler, , Euler, & Säberg, (1943). Ernähr. Pfl. 8, 257.Google Scholar