Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:39:39.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The rumen solubility of a calcium soap of palm fatty acids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

D I Givens
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation Unit, Alcester Road, Stratford on Avon CV37 9RQ
Jeannie M Everington
Affiliation:
ADAS Feed Evaluation Unit, Alcester Road, Stratford on Avon CV37 9RQ
N Shepperson
Affiliation:
UFAC (UK) Ltd Waterwitch House, Exeter Road, Newmarket CB8 8LR
Get access

Extract

Several experiments have shown (see Armstrong and Ross, 1968) that the addition of fats to ruminant diets can lead to a reduction in the digestibilities of forage cell walls due to adverse effects on the rumen microflora. Jenkins and Palmquist (1982) showed in vitro that the in situ formation of calcium soaps in the rumen could prevent this problem. Subsequently Jenkins and Palmquist (1984) have provided evidence that the feeding of preformed calcium soaps of tallow and soya oil fatty acids to dairy cows allowed normal rumen digestion of cell walls whereas non-saponified tallow fatty acids caused cell wall digestibility to be reduced.

Givens et al (1988) reported that a calcium soap of palm fatty acids (Protector, UFAC-UK Ltd) did not cause any reduction in the digestibility of neutral detergent fibre (NDF) when fed to sheep at up to 152.4 gkg-1 of total diet dry matter (DM). Since it is believed that these beneficial effects of calcium soaps are due to their reduced rumen solubility, the present experiment has examined this aspect in further detail.

Type
Ruminant Feeds and Nutrition
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1989

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 221.Google Scholar
Burgess, P L, Muller, L D, Varga, G A and Griel, L C (1987) J Dairy Sci. 70 (Suppl 1), 220 (Abs).Google Scholar
Givens, D I, Everington, J M and Shepperson, N (1988) Anim.Prod 46, 489 (Abs).Google Scholar
Jenkins, T C and Palmquist, D L (1982) J Anim.Sci. 957963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, T C and Palmquist, D L (1984) J Dairy Sci. 67 978986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E R and McDonald, I (1979) J Agric. Sci. Cambs, 92, 499503.Google Scholar