Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T12:11:42.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metabolisable Energy Content of a Saponified Palm Fat Product for Ruminants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

D I Givens ,
Jeannie M Everington  and
N Shepperson
D I Givens
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation Unit Alcester RoadStratford on Avon CV37 9RQ
Jeannie M Everington
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation Unit Alcester RoadStratford on Avon CV37 9RQ
N Shepperson
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation Unit Alcester RoadStratford on Avon CV37 9RQ
Get access

Extract

Many experiments have shown (see Armstrong and Ross, 1968) that the addition of fats to ruminant diets can lead to a reduction in the digestibility of forage cell walls due to adverse affects on the rumen microflora. Jenkins and Palmquist (1982) showed in vitro that the formation of insoluble calcium soaps in rumen fluid could prevent this problem. Additionally, Jenkins and Palmquist (1984) reported that the feeding of the preformed calcium soaps of tallow and soya oil fatty acids to dairy cows allowed normal rumen digestion of fibre whereas non-saponified tallow fatty acids caused a reduction in fibre digestion.

The main aims of the present experiment were to examine a new calcium soap of palm fatty acids for its effects on whole tract digestibility of various feed fractions and to measure its effective metabolisable energy (ME) content at maintenance, the present United Kingdom standard.

Type
Energy and Protein Utilisation by Dairy cows
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1988 , March 1988 , pp. 22
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1988

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

Armstrong, D G and Ross, I (1968). Proc. 2nd Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers. University of Nottingham, pp 2–21.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K L and Clapperton, J L (1965). Br. J. Nutr. 19, 511 Google Scholar
Jenkins, T C and Palmquist, D L (1982). J. Anim. Sci. 55, 957–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, T C and Palmquist, D L (1984). J. Dairy Sci. 67, 978–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D and Payne, C G (1966). Br. Poult. Sci. 7, 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingstone, R M, Dewey, P J S and Smart, R (1987). Proc. Ruminant Conf. of Soc. of Feed Technol. pp A1–A11.Google Scholar
Wainman, F W, Dewey, P J S and Smith, J S (1982). In ‘Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals’. Eds. Ekern, A and Sundstøl, F Ag. Univ. of Norway, pp 116–119.Google Scholar
Wainman, F W and Dewey, P J S (1987). Anim.Prod. 44, 227–232.Google Scholar
Wiseman, J and Cole, D J A (1987). Anim.Prod. 45, 117–122.Google Scholar