Table 8.

Effects of fat source and dietary FFA content on the lipid-class composition¹ of the excreta.

Item	TAG	DAG	MAG	FFA
Experimental diet
S10	0.16b	0.28	0.03c	2.30
S20	0.17b	0.28	0.06bc	2.24
S30	0.22a	0.45	0.12a	3.08
S45	0.24a	0.28	0.14a	2.53
P10	0.17b	0.17	0.07b	3.45
P20	0.16b	0.19	0.07b	3.76
P30	0.16b	0.19	0.05bc	3.83
P45	0.16b	0.21	0.06bc	4.65
Fat source
Soybean	0.20a	0.33a	0.09a	2.54b
Palm	0.16b	0.19b	0.06b	3.92a
FFA content
10%	0.16	0.22	0.05b	2.88b
20%	0.16	0.24	0.06b	3.00ab
30%	0.19	0.32	0.09a	3.45ab
45%	0.20	0.25	0.10a	3.59a
SEM2	0.01	0.04	0.01	0.24
Effects, P-values
Fat source	0.004	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
FFA content	0.067	0.071	<0.001	0.019
Fat source × FFA	0.012	0.069	<0.001	0.059
Linear contrast3, P-values
Overall	-	-	-	0.002
Soybean	<0.001	-	<0.001	-
Palm	0.689	-	0.464	-

S = soybean; P = palm; TAG = triacylglycerols; DAG = diacylglycerols; MAG = monoacylglycerols; FFA = free fatty acids.

^a–c Means within each variable with more than 2 levels (experimental diet or FFA content) not sharing a common superscript differ according to Tukey's test (P < 0.05).

¹Lipid-class (mg/g)/TiO₂ (mg/g).

²Pooled standard error of the means.

³Linear responses to dietary FFA content.