## 3 Results
### Influence of Lactation Stage on Milk Quality  
In the current study, the stage of lactation showed no effect on milk composition (\(p>0.05\)), except for the protein content, which increased significantly (\(p<0.05\)) as lactation progressed, as shown in Table 6. The fatty acid profile in milk fat changed with the stage of lactation, as shown in Table 7. Medium chain fatty acids (MCFA) such as myristic acid; C14:0, myristoleic acid; C14:1, isopentadecylic acid; C15:0 iso, palmitic \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Components**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Dietary Treatments 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SEM**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\) Value**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-6}  & **TR** & & & & & \\ \hline Fat \% & 5.25  & 4.18  & 4.95  & 4.13  & 0.35 & 0.024 \\ Protein \% & 3.99  & 4.14  & 4.18  & 4.67  & 0.13 & 0.003 \\ Lactose \% & 4.42  & 4.42 & 4.50 & 4.13 & 4.52 & 0.17 & 0.39 \\ Total soled & 14.42  & 13.13  & 13.18  & 13.68  & 0.38 & 0.048 \\ SNF & 9.23  & 9.22  & 8.81  & 9.75  & 0.19 & 0.014 \\ FPD & 0.57 & 0.58 & 0.53 & 0.56 & 0.02 & 0.25 \\ SCC & 600.62 & 549.65 & 646.07 & 538.92 & 107.17 & 0.93 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Influence of dietary PUFA content on the milk components of Najdi ewes fed traditional and TMR diets. acid; C16:0, palmitoleic acid; and C16:1 cis9 increased significantly (\(p<0.05\)) from early to late lactation. On the other hand, long chain fatty acids (LCFA), including stearic acid, C18:1 trans8, C18:1 trans13, oleic acid, and C18:2 trans9 trans12, were significantly reduced (\(p<0.05\)) as lactation progressed; this is shown in Table 7. In addition, Table 8 shows the total fatty acid profile, such as UFA, MUFA, and PUFA, which were affected by the lactation stage and significantly decreased (\(p<0.05\)) from early to late lactation. By contrast, AI increased significantly (\(p<0.05\)) with continued lactation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Fatty Acid Profiles**}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Dietary Treatments 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SEM**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\) Value 2**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-6}  & **TR** & **TMR1** & **TMR2** & & **TMR3** \\ \hline C6:0 & 1.46 1 & 1.20 1 & 1.21 1 & 1.46 1 & 0.08 & 0.02 \\ C8:0 & 1.82 22 2 & 1.34 1 & 1.52 1 & 1.90 1 & 0.18 & 0.01 \\ C10:0 & 5.92 & 5.98 & 5.13 & 6.92 & 0.48 & 0.09 \\ C11:0 & 0.15 & 0.22 & - & 0.15 & 0.02 & 0.06 \\ C12:0 & 3.77 1  & 6.22 2 & 5.41 2 & 7.33 2 & 0.45 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ C14:0 & 10.68 1 [FOOTNOTE:1]Footnote 1: \(\mathrm{c}\) within a row, the means with and without a common superscript differ (\(p<0.05\)). 1 Dietary treatments are as follows TR = a traditional feed (basal diet alfalfa and barley) PUFA = 57.59 g/100 g; TMR1 = TMR diet with PUFA = 25.20 g /100 g; TMR2 = TMR diet with PUFA = 15.06 g/100 g; TMR3 = TMR diet with PUFA = 10.14 g/100 g; SEM = standard error of mean; OA = oleic acid; VA = vaccine acid; LA = inlonic acid; ALA  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**FA Groups 1**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Dietary Treatments 2**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SEM**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\) Value 3**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-6}  & **TR** & **TMR1** & **TMR2** & **TMR3** & \\ \hline SFA & 67.46 b  & 69.67 ab  & 2.98 & 0.03 \\ UFA & 32.50 ab  & 33.92  & 28.65 c  & 33.68 ab  & 19.72 b  & 24.88 a  & 73.87 b  & 34.46 a  & 34.46 a  & 25.54 b  & 14.07 b [FOOTNOTE:b]Footnote b: \({}^{\text{a-c}}\) within a row, the means with and without a common superscript differ (\(p<0.05\)). \({}^{1}\) Dietary treatments are as follows: TR = a traditional feed (basal diet alfalfa and barley) PUFA = 57.59 g/100 g; TMR1 = TMR1 diet with PUFA = 25.20 g/100 g; TMR2 = TMR1 diet with PUFA = 15.06 g/100 g; TMR3 = TMR1