The effect of feeding coconut oil mealon milk production and composition

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Mohammed, Kasheed, 1930-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 08/04/2018 14:22:28

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/319424

THE EFFECT OF FEEDING COCONUT OIL MEAL ON MILK PRODUCTION AND COMPOSITION

Kaskeed Mohammed

A Thesis Submitted to the Faeulty of the DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY SCIENCE

Im Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE

In the Graduate College UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in The University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library•

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable with­out special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quo­tation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar­ship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED: CMTUTVlCi

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

U / y O—C/\x / 3Stull f D$te

rofessor of Dairy Science ^

ACMOWLEDE0MTS

Tke author wishes to express his simeer© appreeia= tioa to the followiag mBalers of the faculty of The University of Arizona5, fueson, Arizona9 for their valuable suggestions and assistance in the preparation of this manuscript: Dr, W0 Stull ; Professor of Dairy Science 5Dr, Yearl R0 Smith9 Head9 Department of Dairy Science;Drso Wo H0 Brown and Perry Wo Riley9 Assistant Professors of Dairy Science; and Dr, Henry Tucker, Associate Director of Systems Sngineerimg, Dollege of Engineering=

The cooperation of Dr, lb Pe Garden of Srly»Fat Divest©ek Peed Company, Tucson, Arizona, was greatly appreciated, and also that of Mrs, Joyce Staggs for her time spent in typing this thesis,

iii

TABLE OB CONTENTS

CHAPTERlo INTRODUCTION = / 0Ho REVIM OB LITERATURE III. .EXPERBCENTAL PROCEDURE IT. RESULTS . . . ; o.T. DISCUSSION o . .TIo CONCLUSION = . • .LITERATURE CITED . . . .APRINDIX . o = 0 , » o

PAGEo p o o o o o o o

O 0 O O O O 0 . 0 o

O 0 0 0 ,0 o o o o

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE.1# Experimental rations » * <>•«.♦'« * ®. o s 92e, Gomposltion of the eoconut oil used, in the

experimental rations » i «» o o , <> „ * 103o Production and composition of milk produced

on the experimental diets * * * > 0 » « 144e Per cent digestibility of feeds and body

weights of experimental animals 0 » = . © 155» Influence of diet upon the composition of

the milk fat o o ©, © o o. <> » &. © © l16© VoFoA© content of rumen fluid ® ® © © ® IS7o Per cent protein and SoNoF© in milk © <, © .© © 29S© Ration sequence and cow weights © © © © « © 30

.9© Ration sequence and per cent fat © © © ® © © 3110© Ration sequence and milk production (lb) © © ® 32

11© Per cent digestibility of the ration © © © © 3312© Per cent digestibility of protein © © © © © 3413© Per cent digestibility of combustible

energies © © © © © © © © © © © © © 3514© Per cents of fatty acids 06a ^Ss^l©* Qll> __

. ,615© V»FoAo in rumen contents inZ/M/ml © © © © © 41

TABLE PAGEl6o Molar percentages ©f rwem YoEoA0 , 4217o Eesmlts of statistical analyses 0 0 » 0 0 .« 43

ABSTRACT

Twelve Holsteim cows were used la a swltehbaek feed- iBg trial o; Sixty per eest of the rat lorn was supplied by good quality hay, the remaining 40 per eent by one of four concen­trates : (a) cotton seed oil meal (control); (b) added coconutoil| (e) added, eooommt oil meal5 (d) added Goeeamt oil pirns eoeonmt oil meal0 The rations were fed individually to each cow so that the total feed consumption equalled 11©$ of Morrison8 s standard for maintenance and production.

. ' ' .v/ - "y , ' ' - . -Observations were made on production and composition

of milk, dlggstlbility of ration and rumen ToF.A. production. The following conclusions were made: (a)- Rations with coconutoil or coconut oil meal are . equivalent to those with cotton seed oil meal for milk productions (b) Rations of this type do not alter gross milk eompositiono (e) Feeding coconut oil or coconut oil meal increased the amounts of @2.2 f&tty acid in the milk fat. (d) Digestibilities of the feed and combustible energies were greater in the rations with coconut oil meal or the meal with added oil. (e) Concentrate mix­tures with coconut oil or its meal depressed the total butyrate and valerate content of the rumen fluid6

CHAPTER. I INTRODUCTION

TR@ fey-produet residue obtained in the manufacture of oil from the eoeonmt9 Cocos nucifera is referred to variously as coconut oil meal 9 coconut meal., coconut oil sake,, coconut cake, copra oil meal, copra meal, coconut extraction grains and coconut expressed eake«. The terms are synonymous* The material will he designated as coco­nut oil meal in;this study0 ’ ' • 5

The production of coconut oil and tie resultant meal by-product represents an industry of considerable importance in many tropical areas of the world, such as the Philippines and the West Indies0 In 1958, world production of copra was estimated at three million tons which was fen per cent below, the volume in the previous year (10)* The sharpest declines occurred among the main Ear Eastern producers, who supplied eighty per cent of the total, while elsewhere in the world 1957 levels Were barely maintained at around 600,000 tons*

The methods by which coconut oil is extracted fall conveniently under three heads; First, methods involving no special apparatus, but consisting in the mere maceration of the meat and squeezing out as much of the oil as can be

expressed; second, more complieated methods characteristic of single regions where they have been locally developed; and third; factory production by modern methods involving solvent extractiong ©xpeller process; wgata$? method (26) and through bacterial agency (35)« The oil content of the meals thusly produced varies from 2 to 8 per cento Solvent extraction produces a coconut oil meal with the lowest oil contentc

Wp to the present time, coconut oil meal is not used to any great extent in the United States9 although the feed is being offered to dairymen as a high protein supplement»In some of the countries mentioned aboveg., the coconut oil meal cannot be utilized efficiently because the rancidity which may develop during storage causes unpalatability0 Rancidity development is accelerated by high oil content0 From time to time there has been considerable demand for information regarding its value and us©».. There is, however9 disagreement regarding its exact value as compared with other concentrate feeds such as cotton seed oil meal, which has been.generally accepted as suitableo Incomplete informa­tion is available regarding its effect on milk production and composition,.

The purpose of this work was to study the effect of feeding coconut oil meal on milk production and composition0 It was also deemed advisable to include observations concern­ing the effect of feeding this material on volatile fatty

acid (VoFoAo) produetion in the rumen as well as digestibil­ity measurements involving feed and feeal analyses«

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

la the' review of literature, some workers reported ©a'eertala•aspects of eoeoaat oil meal feediag but none included all of the factors studied in this thesis0 For example9 many reports involved observations on fat test only with limited ©r no information on production levelo Ho literature was cited which dealt with component fatty acid distribution in rumen contents or digestibility studies involving feed and fecal analyseso

Hansen (12) has reviewed the earlier literature in Europe and reported as early as I864 that coconut oil meal and palm kernel oil meal increased the fat content in milk* In 1914, Lindsey (21) noted a 0o4© per cent increase in the fat test of milk produced in favor of coconut oil meal when compared with corn gluten feed0 Ewing et al®(9) in 1918 directly compared coconut oil meal with cotton seed meal for dairy cattle and observed ©c13 per cent increase when the coconut oil meal was fedo The body weights of the cows remained practically constant from start to finish* Well (41) reported that coconut oil meal caused an increase in the fat content though very insignificant. MeClan&lish and Weaver (24) found an increase of ©*42 per cent in fat test

5wkem eoGomit ©11. meal was fed as eompared to linseed oil meal, Holland et al» (16) foumd that laurie (O g) and myristie (0^) adids were increased in the milk fat when coednmt oil was fed as the dairy ration. Bmschmana {7)3 Brouwer (5)9 dodder et al» ( 20), and Schmidt et al» (3.1) observed a significant increase in per cent fat when either coconut oil cake or palm kernel oil meal was used in the concentrate ration for dairy cattle o In 1930<, Hilditch and SI eight holme (15) reported that, in the ease of coconut cake feeding, the milk fat showed that laurie acid is definitely increased, but in proportionately less degree than the increase in myristie aeido Perkins et, al* (29) found that the fat test of the milk produced was not increased by the use of coconut oil meal when compared with various other concentrates„ In his experi­ments with coconut oil meal rations of varying protein content, Perkins (2S) found no change in the composition of the milk producedo In 1933? Honeamp et' al- (l?) in four trials with 35 cows, showed that, if 205 kgo of either coconut cake or palm kernel cake were replaced by a mixture of both cakes (with equivalent protein), no difference was observable in the milk fat or milk yield0 Savage et al° (30) reported that the trend was slightly in favor of the ration containing coconut oil meal and palm kernel oil meal for milking cows, The increase was less than 0,1 per cent fat0 In 19399 Gardner (11).ob* served that coconut oil meal and palm kernel oil meal in the dairy ration increased the percentage of fate Results of

Sijaghverma et al (33) showed that a mixture ©f hydrogenated eocount oil and hydrogenated ground nut oil caused a drop in milk prodmetiono Siere was a slight increase in.the fat test when hydrogenated eoeommt oil meal was used alone in the rationo Henke and Otagoki (14) replaced part of the dairy ration with coconut oil mealo. This caused an increase in the fat content of the concentrate from 3°14 to 4o$6 per cento The fat percentage of the milk increased from 3=42 to 3°70o Total production of milk was the same<, Henke et al (13) found that 28 per cent coconut oil meal was a good substitute for soybean oil meal and pineapple bran in a dairy coneen^ trate mixtureo Kendall and Engberson (19) observed that ceconut oil and palm kernel meal caused a very slight or inconsistent increase in the richness of milko ■

Barboriak and Sehureh8s (3) results with coconut extraction grains and;coconut processed cake shewed no sig= nifieant difference with respect to milk yield, fat content, or total solids eonteatc. The extraction process did not appear to have any harmful effect on the value of the product as a feed for dairy cows*, Witt • (4©) observed that when coconut cakes and palm kernel cakes with lo25 to 5=0 per cent fat were given to dairy cows, there was no effect on yield of milk or the weight Of the cows, but the fat per cent increased by about 0*15, a small but significant change<,

Warner-et al (38) reported results which showed that cows receiving corn distillers dried grains produced more

milk than did. those on either eora glntem feed or eoeommt oil ' mealo The latter - result ed in a. higher fat percentageo.HeLaren (25)9 in 1962, stated:

The eoeonmt meal used in Jamaica is manufactured by the expeller processo This meal is often widely used without supplement for feeding dairy cows with no ill effects observedo A number of dairy rations containing ‘20-45 per cenf of coconut meal (air-dry basis) are currently in useo When the feed is mixed with molasses, the moisture content is inefeasedo This often leads to complaints of rancidity, due to fungal growth®

CHAPTER III EZPEP.I1CEHTAL PROCEDURE

Twel'fe H@lsteim eows fr©B The University of Arizona dairy herd were.selected for nearness to peak of lactation and used as experimental animals„ Sixty per cent of the " ration consisted of good quality alfalfa haye The remaining 40 per eent was provided.hy one of four eoneehtrate rations shown in Tahle lo The rate.of feeding was based on body weight and prodmotion of each e©w0 The composition of the coconut oil is given in Table 2, Using Lucas9 (22) experi«= mental design for 4 treatments (type of concentrate in this case)5, a cow was randomly assigned to each treatment se­quence*

The roughage and pelleted concentrate mixture were fed individually to each cow so that the total feed consump­tion equalled .110% of Morrison’s standard (2?) for maimten= snee and production» Each experimental period consisted of three weeks plus one week change-over0 Milk samples were collected weekly during the four consecutive milkings at the end of each weeko Milk weights were recorded and per cent fat was determined by the standard Babeoek method (l) <> Also, protein (3?) and total solids (39) were determined on these composite samples0 Milk production and fat test figures for each week were compiled to determine the average daily

■ 8

TABLE 1 Experimental rationsRation 1 Ration 2 Ration 3 Ration L

Added Added Added coconutcoconut coconut oil plusControl oil oil meal coconut oil mealih

Barley 375 375 375 375Corn 250 250 25 250

Milo 937.5 862.5 625 550Cotton seed meal (solvent) 312.5 312.5Beet pulp 250 250 250 250

Molasses 250 250 250 250

Dynaphosa 25 25 25 25Trace mineral salt 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5Vit. A 30,000 I.U. 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37Diammonium phosphate 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5Coconut oil meal (solvent) 625 625Coconut oil 75 75Bentonite13 50 ... JO .... ......JO________ 50

aDlcalcium phosphatebThls is a hinder, a clay mineral consisting chiefly of the clay MontmorilIonite (4 )

NO

TABLE 2GoM'PositiQa of the eocomt oil msed im the experimemtal rations

Q&eoamt ©il (%)

11predwtiea for the entire period0 The average of the weekly figures for milk production and percentages of fat, protein and' total solids was used as the values for each experimental period„ The fatty acid composition of the milk fat was determined on the final week’s sample only*

#hole milk samples were frozen at until theycould he analyzed by gas-llquld chromatography for the compo­nent fatty acids of the milk fat. In preparation for gas** lituid ehromatography, approximately 1 g of fat was separated from the milk by the Te Sa method for fat testing-*- and dried under vacuum (6)0 The fatty acids were converted to their methyl esters by transmethylation$, using sodium methoxide (23) 0 The-methyl esters were extracted in hexane and separa­ted oh a diethylene glycol succinate column (2 m by i inch), using a Perkin»Tllmer Model .154«G instrument with a flame ionization detectoro The esters were identified by comparison with retention times of authentic compounds and their relative amounts were determined by comparison of the areas under the peaks drawn by the recorder*

Mgnin was determined on the roughage, concentrates and feces by the method of 13.1 is et al {$) 0 The feces sample was a composite taken reetally on two consecutive afternoons

^Technical Industries, Fort Lauderdale, Florida*

12at the end of eaeh experimental period0 Total eomhnstitle energies were determined on the experimental rations, the roughage and the feees by the use ©f a Model 1221 Adiabatie Calorimeter^*

Rumen fluid samples were taken -by rumen tube ©nee during, eaeh period on the morning after the last milk sample had been t aken*- The rumen fluid samples were strained through two layers of cheese eloth, preserved by the addition of one part saturated mercuric chloride solution to ten parts of rumen fluid, and stored under refrigeration at UQ0! until analyzed by the method of Keeney (18) 0

The data were analyzed for varianee and based on the error variances for the separate analyses, a statistical test of differences between treatments was mad© (34)®

%arr Instrument 6©*, Moline, Illinois*

. . GHABEBR IT 1ES1LTS

the ©xperiaental 3?atl©as (added eoeonut oils added eoeonut @11 meal and added doconnt oil plus coeonut meal) were readily eonsmed "by the animalso H@ digestion or other physiological disturbances were noticed0

. Hone of the diets earnsed a signifleant ehange (P<0o05) in the average daily milk production, the per-* e@nta.ges of fat9 protein or solids-mot-fat (SoHoZ,) when compared’with the control diet (see Table 3)= The per« eentages of fats protein and S»Ha?» were slightly higher in the control than in the other rations« This difference, howevers was not significant (P<Qo05)o

The valmes for the body weights of the animals and the per cent digestibility characteristics of the feeds are shown in Table 4= There were a© significant differences in the body weights of the animals or the per cent digest!® bility of the protein in the four diets». The rations exhibited effects on the percentages of digestibilities on feeds and on combustible energies0 Hamely, the addition of coconut oil meal or the meal plus its oil significantly increased (P<0001) these two digestibility values over that of the control ration or that with added coconut oil alone«

13

TABLE 3and composition of milk ... — Bat ion 1

Control

produced on theexperimentaldleto Ration 2> Added.coconut'.",.

Added COCO] oil meal

Added coconut. . : .Oil .plUS. . . ...coconut oil meaJ

Avg daily milk production (lb) Fat (fo)

Solids«=not=-fat (%)

3o?23oS49o©3

40 a#3=57 3 ® 66

8o80

"39=44 3 = 60 3=67So 8?

lolS3=51 3 = 58 8e 80

TABLE 4Per cent

Avg body wfcs ©f eows (lb) Digestibility ©f proteim Digestibility ©f feeds (%)Digestibility of

combustible,energies.($)

feeds and body weights of experimental animals Ration 1 Ration 2 - Ration

Added •Oontrol1309.471*6272.95

71o05a

a

eoeonmtoil

1327*7

72.55-

Idded . eooonnt oil meal

Added eoeonut -; oil.pins. . coconut oil meal

1327.673oS2

75o24a»b73.788.9%

1312.4

75.41 .

74.29a »%'

73 .©2a 9 %

a>^Values with identical letters indicate a significant difference (R-C©.©!)

H

There were me aigaifleant differenees in these digestIh11ity Talxa.es in the control as compared with the ration with added eoconmt oil onlyo

The results of the gas-liquid chromatography of the methyl esters of the milk lipids are shown in Table 5» The only significant differences in the fatty acid values were in the/ 'itgo In this fraction9 the feeding of coconut oil, comnut oil meal or a combination thereof caused a slgaifi* ©ant iMreets© (KOo Q5) over that in the control ration,, The

content in the milk fat produced on the added coconut oil ration compared with the valme from the added coconut oil meal alone was not significant 05)0 A combinationof the coconut oil with its meal caused an additive effects significantly increasing (P‘CQa05) the 0^2 content above that obtained by feeding either the oil or the meal aloneo

In the T.F0A0 analysis of the rumen contents (see Table 6)s mo significant'differences were found when the values were expressed as molar percentages0 Alsb9 me sig® nifleant differences were observed when the values were expressed as^M/ml except in the ease of bmtyrate and valerate0

Added coconut oil caused a significant decrease (P<0oQ5) in the butyrate C^M/ml) content of the rumen'fluid, when compared with that ef the meal, coconut oil pirns the meal and the, control e Rations with coconut meal only or the

17TABLE 5

I&flme&ee of'&let mtem the ©ompositloa of the mlIk fatRation 1 Ration. 2 • Ration 3 Ration 4

©©ntrolAdded - eoeenmt ,

. . - oil..’ Added

, . ..eoeenmt, oil meal

Added eoeommt oil.pirns

eoeonmt oil meal( M

% Oo 5© 0,41 ©,56 0,39

% Oo75 0,62 0,76 0 064°1© 2 <,71 2<,5© 2,7© 2,19®11 0o28 0,2© Oo 25 0,21

3<,69asi 5o26a . ■ : ' 3 o M h 7o©6a»te ,

. ®13 ©o 35 0,25 0,34 0,2?GU Ho 38 12,54 12,9© 13,64

eH 1 2o51 2,85 : 2,78 3,4©

: ®15; 2*26 . 2,29 " 3,1© . 2,48, 0,42 0,31 0,45 0,28 ■

. @16 30o©6 30*31 33,53 30,26■Cl*1' 5o22 5*41 4,67 4,87

6162 .3 o 38 3*17 2,7© 2,83

@17 Oo37 ©o33 0i39 0,37@18 7o77 7o44 ■ 5,9l 5,25©is1 21,85 21,18 19,75 22,03@182 4,58 4 ol2 3,35 3,42

— i i s L — .............. lo55 0,82 0,83 0,42a>Palme's with ifentieal letters iaiieate a sigaifieaat

differenee (P'C0o©5)»

TABLE 6 ToJoAa-. e©ateBt- ef rtiaen flmid .

■ • ■ ■ ■ • - . . Batlea 1 - - RaMoa 2- ■ Rati©M- 3- - - - Bati©a- A - ^• - • ' Added • Addei. - - • ; ■ .Added eoe©nt3.i>

. . . .... . . . . . .... .... ceeosmt eeeonut . . .. ©11 plus.foatTQl oil oil meal eeeommt ail me

Total aeids (m/ml) ; 105o79 93o44 84*64 95*03Aeetat© (AM/ml) 64?63 , 62o79 - 50*80 53*64Aeetat© (Malar ft) . 6©&88 6l®62 60*45 62®86Fropioaate (itiM/ml) 2308© 21*79 18®79 20®78Froplomate (Molar ft) s 22*12 22*08 .21*3© \ 20*84Emtyrate ( M/ml) l2o9©a£,b 9*1#&^ 11*21& 10*83%Bmtyrate (Molar'll, - / 12,19 - 9*53- . 13*24 ■ 1 1 * 3 ©' Valerate (m/ml}'". " 1 2®34a 2,25% l,l6a»% 1,79^%Valerate (Molar ft) 1 V ' - ■ 2,31 v. ' - 2*36 . 1*25 1*78Higker aei'ds (AM/ml) ■ 2*73 4=24 3*16 3*14Higher.aeids, (Molar - . . . . . . . . ... 1 .2,51. . . . . .4*4©...'.... 3®75. . . .3*21. : . .'.

a»%Values with ideatieal letters imdieate a sigmifieaat diff@rea.ee (P<©,©5) *

H

meal plus the oil caused a significant decrease (P<©o©5) in the hutyrate (4M/sil) content of the rumen fluid when e©a» pared with the -control» However9 the change caused by the added coconut oil plus its meal was not significant (P<0o©5) when compared with the added epeonut oil meal alone*

Dietary coconut oil meal showed a significant &©« crease (P<0e®5) ia the amount of valerate (ffli/ml) produced in the rumen contents when, compared to the rations with oils the oil plus its meal or the control* The added coconut oil meal with its oil also showed a significant decrease (P<0o05) in the amount of valerate produced (- E/ml) when compared with ceither added coconut oil or the control* Neither the added coconut oil nor the control showed a significant difference (P<©»©5) in the amount of valerate produced ) in the rumen fluids .

. OHAPflE T .' B.IS©USSI©H ' ,

At the levels fed in tb.is ©xpe±-imeat9 eoeonmt oil* eoeomat ©il meal or a combination of 'both 9 generally did- mot influence milk produetion or composition0. The results eoneernimg level of milk production are in close agreement with earlier reports in the literature (3$ .17» 40)o

With reference to per cent milk fat the values obtained here are in general agreement, with some workers ■ {3s-17s ’28s 29>) s but in disagreement with other workers ' . .(5» 79 9P 119 12? 14V 19, 20V 219 24, 30, 31, 33, 38, 4©, 41), 'who stated- that an increase ©f per cent milk fat was observed* In the ease of total solids variation, the re« suits in this experiment confirm those of Barberiak and Schmreh (3),-who further stated ho significant, difference in the amounts of milk produced on coconut oil meal rations* In this trials the various combination of coconut oil and its meal did not affect the amounts of protein produced in any way* Increases in the body weights of the animals were insignificant (P<Qo05), confirming the reports of Witt (4©) and Ewing ®t al (9)»

Added coconut oil neither improved nor depressed per cent digestibility of feeds or per cent digestibility

21ef eembmstifole energies (see Table 4)$ when eem^ared with the controlo The coconut oil meal and the coconut oil plus its mealj however, improved the per cent digestibility of feeds arid combustible energieso This may have been due to differences in proteim quality as indicated in the trend towards increased per cent digestibility of the protein even though it was not significant (P>0o05)o

It is unfortunate in this study that the methods used to separate the component acids of milk fat did not allow for the detection of butyric aeid0 There is some agreement between the present study and the work dome by Holland et al (16) and Hilditch. and SI eight holme (15) who stated that the dietary coconut oil increased the propor* tioris of @22 and 62.4 is- the milk fat leaving the other fatty acids unaffected= In this work, the was signifi® eantly increased (B<0o©5)o Though there was an increase in the the difference was not significant (P^OoOSK Thissuggests that some of the lauromyristins (012, 6^) present in the coconut oil and its meal, may have passed directly into the milk fat6

'While it is known that the ratios of the various ToFoA, produced in the rumen affect the production of milk fat (2, 32, 36)9 it is not known what the effect of their absolute concentration is on the production of milk or its constituentso For this reason, no explanation is given for

the depressioa of brntyrate and valerate by theooeonmt @11, •• eeeoaut oil meal or the eoeonut oil plus eoeomut oil meal#

CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION

Using an experimental design involving switchback feeding trials, concentrate rations with coconut oil and eoeoamt oil meal were compared with a conventional diet based on cotton seed oil meal» Observations were made on pfodnetion and composition of milk, digestibility of diet, and the production of rumen V0FoA= From this work it can be eonclmded that”

a0 Diets with coconut oil or coconut oil meal are equivalent tO' ones with cotton seed oil meal for milk production,

bo Rations of this type do not alter gross milk composition, ;

Co Feeding coconut oil or coconut oil meal in= creases the amountsof in the milk fat, :

d9. Digestibilities of the feed and combustible energies are greater in the rations with Coconut oil meal or the meal with added oil,

e. Concentrate mixtures with coconut oil or its meal depressed the total butyrate and valerate content of the rumen fluido

XlfBBATOKE CITED

1 o ASSOCIATION OF. OFFICIAL AGRIGULTIJRAL CHEMISTS0 Official Methods of AnalysiSo 9th Fdo g g. 1906 19600

2 0 BALCHj C„ Co., BALOHj Do A., BARTLETT/ So 9 OOF, Co P., and ROWLAND, So I, Studies of the Secretion of Milk of Low Fat Content by Cows on Diets Low in Hay and High in Coneehtrateso I, The Effect of Variations in the Amount of Hay0 Jo Dairy Sei*, 19: 39. 19o

BARBORIAK, Jo, and SCHURCH, A0 Report Of a Comparative Feedini Trial with Dairy Cows of Coconut Extraction Crains and Coconut Processed Oake0

• tTrahSo) ' Landwirtsehaft0 Jahrb<, Schweiz9 64:Hoehscho, Zuricho) French Summaryo (As cited in Jo Dairy S©iob 4©‘s 1230 1957o

40 BECHTKfER, PAULo Bentonite0 American Colloid Company, Skokie., Illinois, 1959.

50 BROUWER, Eo Two Feeding Experiments on Milking Cows with Cocoanmt Mealo .1 Trans„) Verslago Landbomwko Onderseoko, 35: 39. 1930b (As citedin Jo Dairy Seio, 40: 123. 1957.), Wo Ho, STULL, J. Wo, AND STOTT, Go Ho Fatty Acid Composition of Milko. I. Effect of Roughage

. and Dietary Fat0 J. Dairy Sci., 45% 191. 19620', A. Experiments on the Importance Of Fat in

Feeding Dairy CowSo (Trans.) Tierefnahro, 1:^1929o (As cited in J0 Dairy Seio, 40: 123«

So ELLIS, Go Ho, MATRONE, Go, and MAYNARD, L. A„ A 72 per .cent HgSC. Method for the Determination of Lignim and its Use in Animal Nutrition Studies0 J0 Animal Seio, 5° 285. 19460

24

25, Po To, amd SPEW01 j So Eo Goeoanut Meal ts0 Cotton Seed Meal for Dairy OowSo fexas Sxp.to Stao. Stall o 225 0 l91Se

10 0 ZOQB M B AGRIOULTHRS ORGANIZATION OF TEE I3NIT1BNATIONSji Rome, Italy0 Gooonnt SitmtloBs FoAoOo

■ 5/37^3/19 59 o .11 o GARBNSRs, Ko So The Influence of Goeoanmt Oil Meal

and' Palm-=Kernel Oil Meal ©n the Fat Percentage ©f G©w9s Milkp MoSo Thesiso Gornell Wniv©rsitys Ithaca, .No Y, 1939» (As cited in I© Dairy Sei69

123o 1957o)12 o HANSENJo The Influence of PalM»Kernel Cake on the

Milk Production of Cattle0 Landwirtseho Hahrh 0, 47$ lo 1914o (As cited in I0 Dairy Sei„s:40$123o 1957=)

13o HEMS, Lo A0 9 IWANAGAj I0, and MORITA, K„ "Coconut©ir Meal in Dairy Rations0t? Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station Biennial Report, p= 55o

14o MINES, Lo Ao, and 0TAG0KI, E0 Fat Content ofConcentrates and Milk Productiono Hawaii Rept 0 s po 35o 1946-194S0

15© HILBITCH, T; Po, and SLSIGHTHOLMS, Jo Jo Variations - in the Component Fatty Acids of Butter Due to

Changes in Seasonal and Feeding Conditionso J» Blookem., 24$ 1@9#» 193©s

I6 0 HOLLAND, So Bo, GARVEY, M 0 So, PURGE, Ho Bo, MESSER,. Ao Co, ARCHIBALD, Jo Go, and DUNBAR, Go ©»

Determination of Fatty Acids in Butter Fat.Jo Agr0 ReSo, 24$ 365o 19230

17o HQNCAMP, Fo, "HELMS, Wo, and MAIKOMESIUS, Ph. Effectof a Mixture of Coconut and Palm-Kernel Cakeson Yield and Composition of Milk, Compared withthat ©f Feeding Each Cake Separately. Dieder- manns Zentralhlo B. Tierernahr.-, 5$ 554^5B2.19330 (Agr. Res. Sta., Rostock I. M.)

26XSo EEEKlYj Mo Direct Chrometograph1e Determination of

Ci to C^ Fatty AeMs ia liiaem Fluido . Marylamd Agr0 Sxpto, Sta-o 9 Mise ' Pmfcl. ,, 238$23, 1956*

19=. KEITOALL, Ko A,ant ENCBlRSOH$ Ro D= The Effects of , .. . Partial' ReplaeemeBt of Alfalfa Hay with

Concentrateso J0 Dairy Seio9 33« 3880 1950o20o KODDERp ,C„ PETEHMNp A0 s H0NCAMP, E., and. HEEES, Wo

The Influence of Reeding Coooanut and Palm- Kernel Cake on the, Rat - Content of Milk* (Trans») Milehwirtseho.. Rorscho p. 9 » l6lo 1929= (As cited in J= Dairy Sei„> 40i 123= 1957=)

21 o LIHDSEYp Jo Bo Cocoanut Meal= Hass0 Agro Expt0 Sta0 Bullo 155= 1914=

22o LUCAS 9 Ho Lo : Switehhack Trials for More Than Two Treatmentso J= Dairy Sei,, 39; 146= 1956=

23= LUDDYp Ro l.o p BARFORDp ' Ro A. / and RIEMEHSCHHEIDER,Ro Wo Direct Con'rersion ©f Lipid Components to Their Ratty Acid Methyl Esterso Jo Amo Oil Chemists8 SoCop 37: 447= 1960«

24=' MeCLAHDLISHp A, p. and WEAVER, Eo" Goeoanut Meal, Gluten Reedp Feamut Meal and Soylean Meal as Protein Supplements for Dairy Cows,, J 0 Dairy Seio, 5»

: ' . , ;■ 27 0" 1922,0 . ; : ' r ■' * - , . ' . ; .25= MeLAREN p Lo E= Animal. Smt fit ion Research Officer s

Division of. Animal Nutrition, Bodies, Old Hafhourp Jamaicap W= 1= (Personal Correspondence$

.)-''-VSMMZAEILIAp.Eo Bof E ffect of Rreesing the Coeonut.

Endosperm on the Extraction of the O ii0 The Philippine Agriculturistp 37- 369= - 1953=

27= MORRISONp Eo Bo. Reeds and Reeding, 22nd Ed, $ MorrisonCo,., ,Ithacap Ho Y0 : 1 9 5 6 0

2?28o PERKINSs Ac E= ■ The Gheraieal Gompdsition and

Hmtritlve Properties of Milk as Affected fey the Level of P rotsia I’esdihgo ©hi© Agf6 Expt.o Stab

.0 515 J P O 3 629o PERKINSs Ao lo, HAYDENs Co Co 9 BACHT1LLS H0 A. , and "

WEAVER, Wo E, Coeonnt Meal in the Dairy Rat ion 0 Ohio Bimonthly Ihllb 152 i 175;?. 1931

30<, SAVAGE, Eb SbBARRISON, Eo #», MAINARB,\Lo A0 ,assisted fey WORK, So Ho Influence of ©oeonut Oil Meal on Percentage of Eat in 0owss Milko Amn0 Repto, Ho T 0 (Cornell), p0 820 -1936o

31o SCHMIDT, Jo, VOCEL, Ho, andDUCKSTEIN, F0 Experiments with Milking Cows Eed. Palm-Kernel ©oooanmt Oil Meal Mixtur eso .tfrahs0) Tierernahro, 4 $ 557°1932; (As cited in w. .Ealry S©i0 g 40: 123°1957°) ■ v . ■■■■•■•.

32 e SHAW, Jo Co / ROBINSON, R= R„SENCER, Mo'E-s LAEBHEANAN,So, and' LEWIS, To R= Production of Low^Eat Milko lo Effect of Quality and Quantity of Concentrate

, on Rumen Volatile Eatty Acids and Milk Composi- tiono. ' ooHhtritien,. 9?'.235° 1959°

33 0 SINGHVEREA, I0 P=, PAUL,, T0 Mo , MMTAKRISHNAN, C= P0,/ and .RANGrASWAMT, ffio. Go The Influence of Dietary

Eat on the Yield and CoMposiiion of Butter Eato Indian lournal of Veterinary .Sei„ , 14$ 2356 .

34° SNEBICOR, Co Wo Statistical MethodSo 5th Edo, TheIowa State College Press, Ames0 1956°

35b . SOLIVIN, Eo A», and deEEON, A° 1° Liberation of .Coconut Oil Through Bacterial Agency° The Philippine Agrieulturist, 2?; 200o 1938°,

36° STEWART, Wo Eo,. STEWART, Do Co ,■ SCHULTZ, Lo H„ Ratesof VoEoAo Production in the Bovine Rumen° I0Animal Scio, 17: 733° 1958°

37° UDY, Do Co A Rapid Method for Estimating Total Protein in Milk, Mature, 178: 314° 1956°

28386 WARNER, Ro G., LOOSLI, J. Ko, and DAVIS, R. F0

A Study of the Value of Corn Distillers Dried Grains, Coconut Oil.Meal9 and Corn Gluten Feed for Milk Production. I. Dairy S e l . 40:123. 1957.

39. WATSON, P, D. A Lactometer Method for Determiningthe Solids in Milk. Wnited States Department of . Agriculture, Agricultural Research Services, Publication ARS-73-10. 1956.

40. WITT, M. Studies of the Effect of Palm-Kernel andCoconut Cakes and Meals of Different Fat Contents on Milk Yield and the Fat Content of Milk. (Trans.) Arch. TierernBhrung, 3° 80. 1952. (Max Planch Inst. Tierzucht, Mariensee, Trenthorst.)

41. WOLL, F. W. Cocoanut Meal as a Feed for Dairy Cows and Other Livestock. Calif. Agr.Expt. Sta. Bull. 335. 1921. ^

APPENDIX

TABLE 7Per eeat proteia aad BoHqFo in milk

. ' "Protein {%) , ; ; _ . . m ... . .Gow E qo Period X Period II Period III Period I Period li Period ill

.3,38 3,33 3,93 8,96 So 56 8,92669 3,53 3,63 4,03. 9,08 9,08 9,02670 3,46 3,14 3,87 8083 806I 8069661 4,08 4,60 4,33 9,13 9,66 9,10629 3,14, 3,0? 3,77 8047 8036 8*37674 3,85" 3,67 4,10 V 9,35 9,12 9,18664 3,58 3,82 4,17 9,07 9,16 9,18673 3,43 3,78 4,17 9,08 9,37 9,28671 3,29 3,25 4,17 80 59 806I 80 90824 3,09 3,34 3,80 8,25 8045 8*31839 3,60 3,71 4,13 9,18 9,09 9,10

. 810 .... .3,24. 3,39 . . . 3,93:. .. 8,53 . . 8,53 ... . 8,4® . .

3©TABLE 8

Ratioa seqmeae© a M ©ow weights Gow Nop Secnaeaeea Period I Period IX Period III845 1^2=1 1138 1134 1139669 1—3—1 1195 1212 1206670 1=4"=1 1258 1310 1321661 2-1=2 1477 1498 1553629 2=3=2 1365 1345 1344674 2=4=2 1038 • 1048 1075664 3=1^3 1489 1484 1529673 3=2=3 1200 . 1205 1209671 3-4=3 • 103© 977 993824 4=1=4 148? 1495 1522839 4=2=4 1468 1543 1545810 4=3=4 . 1547 .:1558.: . 1558

Ratioa setmeaee f©r all sneceeSiBg tables is thesame:

lo ©ohtrol (added eottos seefl meal)20 Addled eoeohmt oil3o Added eoeoamt oil meal4o Added eoeomiat--oil plus eoeoamt oil meal

EatIonTABU 9

seauenee and ner cent fat5©w No o

Ration Sea iienee Period' I

Fat W Period II Period :

845 1=2=1 ■ 3.25 . 3,43 3,37669 1=3=1 3o5© 3,47 4,22670 1=4=1 4.03 2,95 3,67661 2=1=2 3,87 4,36 4,43629 2=3=2 3.0-32 3,23 . 3,13674 ^=4=2 3,90 4,38 4, 4©664 3=1=3 4,35 3,83 4,17673 3=2=3 3 0 73 4,32 3,92671 3=4=3 2 063 2,57 :.3,02824 ' 4=1=4 2 0 20 3,23 3,45839 - 4=2=4 .. 3,68 3,63 4,57816 4=3=4 3,12 3,47 3,47

32TABLE ,1©

Ratioii 8@ciiien.ee aad milk •erodmetiQa (lb)Milk production (Ifej .

I Peri©d II Period IIIat ion

670661

674

673671824839

i"*2='l 51o7 50.0 46.3l=»3<al 30ol 27=6 22.01.-4*”! 45 = 0 48=1 48=02-1^2 19=7 7=7 0.82-3-2 75 = 5 75=1 75 = 52—4“ 2 24=5 22.1 19 = 93-1-3 36 = 7 37=1 29 = 83—2—3 51=2 ,50=3 48.23-4-3 42 o 9 42 = 4 41=84-1-4 35=5 28.6 27=04—2—4 52=5 51 = 6 43 = 94-3-4 . 50=0 42.7 32=2

33TABLE. 11: ...

. Per cent digestiMlity of the ration . - .Ration . DigestIblllty of ratioa W

Gqw Mo 6 seqmeae.e Period I Period II Period III845 . 1«2«1 7308669 1®3&1 733367© : 1-4*1 744666l 2=1»2 7581629 2=»3«2 7519674 2^4^2 7280664 3*”1*>3 ' ; 76916?3 ::V ;'.3-2-3. ■ : 7462671 3®4-3 7516824 ■4-1-4 • 7&51839 4—2—4 757281© .4-3r4 .. .742©

TABLE 12Per cent digestibility of protein .Eat lorn . Digestibility of protein (fo)

Period,1 Period XI Peri@a 111S45 1“2^1 695# 6961 . 715©6 6 9 1—3^1 x 7 5 0 5 7206 725167# 1—4-1 72$8 7621 7 0 6 4

661. 2sil e=2 _ , . 7646 7059 7857629 2-3® 2 7691 7304 6934674 5—4®2 7567 7782 73136 6 4 ■ 3“1®3 7304 6735 7466

673; 3=2-3 7288 714© ‘ 7290671 3—4=3 7729 7535 . 6732S24 , 4'=1^4 7833 •7559 7102S39 4"2»4 7698 7074 7588810 4-3=4 7314 754# 731#

mBLH 13Per cent digestibility of combustible energies

. • • . : . ■ Bigo of ooxaJoc, . energies . .Cow Npa seqmemee Period I Period II Period. XIX845 1- 2* 1. 7053 7189 7147669 1-3 7169 7174 711167© 1-4^1 7222 7135 7183661 2-1-2 7418 7263 7412629 2^3*2 7333 7420 6896674 2—4* 2 7216 7388 7186664 3-1-3 7566 7038 7419673 3-2-3 735© 6965 7253671 3-4“ 3 7361 6983 6912S24 4s”lt”4 751© 7©57 7121839 4*”2@4 7501 6982 7349810 4—3^4 7257 7157 7157

TABLE HPer eents of fatty acids 65, aa& G ^ im the milk fat

* » » - • • - . ,• • * » « | vrj ~ * • • r .low NOo "I ^ II III I - II III I ' II"" III i I±AA inS45 066 ,5© =38 1=27 =88 *52 3 = 52 2*73 "2*32 *38 = 24 = 20S69 o56 ,46 ,38 = 85 ,72 .61 3,40 2 = 49 1=85 = 54 =25 =10S70 0 53 ,30 = 32 =71 =66 = 63 2=51 2 = 71 2*67 = 19 =18 =13S6l 080 066 =49 =97 =79 = 56 3=07 2=49 1=87 = 37 = 28 =07629 ®7© 086 *-51 1*02 loll 069 3=72 3 = 88 3*05 *43 = 36 = 20674 *47 = 35 337 *72 *66 =45 2 = 93 1*81 1=70 =17 =17 = 20664 *34 ,45 o26 =43 =91 =42 1=42 3 = 08 1=62 = 11 = 27 =14673 *79 = 32 * 0 28 1=03 *47 = 50 2=99 2*16 1 = 98 = 33 = 22 = 16671 * 51 = 27 ,31 =79 =40 =42 2 = 68 2 = 16 2*33 *28 = 17 = 16824 o51 =34 =30 *76 = 56 = 51 2 = 46 2*02 2=16 = 26 = 25 = 12839 *4S =42 = 38 = 70 = 64 * 44 2 = 70 2=74 2*11 *39 = 21 = 24810 =47 = 30 = 67 *92 = 56 2 = 00 3,8© 1=78 = 24 = 40 = 10

-Per cents ef

€ow lei I xl12 III IS45 4o69 5o54 3.21 »37669 4.71 5.82 2.59 .55670 3.93 8.92 4.58 .20661 5.54 3.81 4.08 .32629 6.4© 6.65 5.09 .29674 5.46 4.57 3.55 .22664 2.71 3.60 3.66 .05673 5.42 4.11 4.92 .42671 5.99 10.03 5.61 .40 '824 8.31 3.57 5.94 .29839 7.26 5.64 5.12 .63810 6.75 5.55. 6.4#; ..22 .

fa tty acids 8^25 G13 and ®^G'i o ■ """ ~ G* * ■ ■ - - G-j/iii 3 in i ii14 in i il4 V tit

.18 .33 14.19 13.54

.29 .20 12.5© 13.02

.25 .22 9.45 16". 54,22 .15 13.63 11.33.34 .32 14.15 15.68.09 .37 12.14 9.34.31 .46 7.75 10.60.25 .34 13.47 9.27.27 .4© 14.44 17.38.43 .38 14.33 11.22,19 .41 14.39 13.94,37 .. .18 14.18 ,13.94.

11.45 2.50 1.98 3.28 9,12 2.84 2.44 2.53 13607 1=57 2.84 1.80 10=70 3.27 2.70 2.93 13.52 2,54 2.63 3.3610=73 1=77 1=21 3=09 10.56 1.86 2.29 6.08 11.99 2.15 3,19 3.72 13,22 2,15 4.4© 4.7212.73 2,38 2.44 4.2812.44 3.03 2.34 4.82 13=15 .2,35.2=42. 3.94

Pea? eemts ©f fatty aeids ^16’ ^16^. .-..........: ; . .' .■ ■ . : ,• ."'. - . . . . .' - . Qt f. : : : : 9"! 4 . . . .gow i©fl i ii i n i n A? i n i n XQ i n i r r 0 i n 845 I*97 2ol3 3o©4 o?6 013 =50 30,09 30.44 31c36 4=69 3»47 4o546Sf 2o5S 3ol7 3o06 o$8 . ,56 0i9 28^92 31oil 27058 6=36 4=7© 5o5267© lo93 2 065 2ol6 al6 <,3© =16 26,53 25o58 31<56l 5o42 5 086 6017661 2.0.15 4o©0 2,93 , 73 . 39 . 29 29.27 27.39 27.36 4,53 4.85 7.03629 .I068 3.19 3.23 ,5© .3© o23 29,98 31,84 32.95 3.92 3.76 3.77674 1.88 1,69 .3.68 ,26 ,26 ,27 3©.75 28,13 31,14 4.98 6.71 10,84664 1.28 2.13 4.27 .17 .4© .26 28.43 27.©3 3©.51 7.4© 4.79 3=71673 1.91 1.86 3.24 .33 .33 .18 35=64 27,83 37.97 3.86 6.43 4.25671 2.55 1.59 4.22 ,9© ,21 ,34 31.21 27.61 ,34.33 4.35 4.65 3.96824 1,79 2.53 3.74 .52 .57 .21 35=54 28 ,M 34=73 4.83 5 = 25 4.©7839 2.20 ,2.47 3=67 .54 . .19 .27 28.8© 33=97 34=98 4.95 4=51 5.06.81© ...1,87 2.34 3.67 .24. ,65 ,20 .35=19. 35.36 35=97 4.20 .4=42 3.72

I

Per cemts of fatty aeids » Sl8g III

C181Ill(b©W NOo ii16'

&III I ii17 H I I i!18 I it18

S45 3*16 1=73 2,47 ,48 ,05 = 20 7=35 80.61 7,20 20,02 23=79 22,65669 3 = 21 3=10 2 069 = 54 ,51 = 20 7=65 7=97 18,58 19=28 29,87670 2o9© 3 = 92 3=84 = 26 <,3 2 ' = 2© 11=45 5 = 36 7=12 ;26066 18=51 21,50661 3=11 3=74 3=7© = 59 ,25 = 35 '■; 7=42: 8,41 9 = 29 19,97 20,17 22,95629 10 56 1,80 2,65 ,32 ,09 = 32: = 7=44 6=45 5,84 19,90 15*77 19,45674 2 ©82 3 = 62 5=35 .. 61 ,33 = 20 /;9=55 8,12 3,59 21,23 29,04 20,58664 20 51 3 = 01 2.55 , 64 ,42 ,27 s; 19 8,58 3=79 31=4© 26,87 27,34673 2 21 5=22 3 = 63 0 66 . ,28 = 28 6=98 10,96 3,80 18,03 20,95 18,75671 2 = 04 1,88 2©48 ,58 = 37 = 29 4=94 2=41 1,59 20=57 20,23 20,86S24 1=96 4=09 2,84 =34 ,47 ,19 5=93 8=47 2,94 16,32 19=49 21,01839 3=98 3 = 52 4=00 1=00 ©29 = 24 7,42 6,95; 3 = 94 19,20 16 = 80 18,7©.810.. . 2©45. .2 0 46. .2,47. ..= 42. . ,=35. = 27: . .5=41 6,15 '.2=49. .18,40 .16,86. 21=68

■ .... F @2? ■©emts of fa tty aeiSs ©2.8 ^: BBd • ©2^ ", G1 <3 . ,

Sow W@ o I IX18 111 I . . . II1S Ill@45 3o35 . 3,32 5,24 - ,55 , ,89 1,0966$ 4,47 3,05 4,53 '' :4,i5 1,06 1,006?© 4,47 4,12 3,3@ ' ■ I0-I4 ’ ,9@ ,45661 3,43 4,77 4o59 ,83 1,74 ,67629 3 066 4,©@ 3,90 o@© 1,21 ,93674 3,31 3,34 3,51 _ ,73 • ,5@ ,37664 4,40 3 = 88 3,67 ,92 1,39 ,43673 3,12 5,24 3,25 • ,62 >90 ,77671 4,62 4,75 4,91 . ,99 1,23 . ,44824 2o77 60 01 > 3,45 ,71 - 4,23 ,39@39 1,94 4,36 2,87 oi© ,80 ,3081© .... .:4,25. . . . 2,40... 2,81. . 966 ,93 . . ., 24

TABLE 1541

TqEqAo in rmenc on tents iniiM/ml"" ' - • ' y ''" "' ' ' _ - '' y' ' " "'-

PeriQ.d I ' '845 1°2=»1 234 216 1L53 25=50 74=54 1160?669 1-3-1 328 <66 919 20,72 69.20 103056?0 1-4-1: 206 .56 8,72 1613 4332 70-79661 2-1 <*2 2=25 <47 600 8=53 49-97 6122629 2-3-2 300 131 9=38 2466 6317 10352674 2-4 -2 1031 225 1191 18,57 706© 113,64664 3-1-3 103 <47 3.56 422 21=47 30,756?3 3-2-3 422 3J8 1097 25<8S 77.73 12068671 3-4-3 506 216 1247 4013 73.51 13333824 4-1-4 2,53 47 7=88 166© 466© 7408839 4-2-4 IJSS .75 844 1678 556© 8345.810. . 4-3-4 366 66 ; 8,72 .1678 6123 9105Period II ...#45 1-2-1 234 159 1341 2372 7510 11616669 1-3-1 . 2,53 <84 7o97 1622 4309 712567© 1-4-1 413 .94 863 27.94 5682 9846661 2-1-2 2.91 209 1228 1144 5945 87.77629 ; 2-3-2 3=84 =84 16,97 1913 3431 7509674 2-4-2 2.34 244 1406 2222 1641 10247664 3-1-3 131 244 1000 1847 5995 9077673 3-2-3 431 3=56 10=97 19=88 5673 9245671 3-4=3 553' ' "2=81 12=56 408# 6901 130=79824 4-1-4 47 141 150© 3244 70=79 12011839 4-2-4 3J84 203 1135 2147 4894 8823810 4-3-4 131 . 141 1041 . 1631.. 51=57 1891

Perloa III : ' ■845 1-2-1 109 131 1753 2.7=10 8186 12949669 1-3-1 394 544 1088 1444 5©26 849667© 1-4-1 291 .94 788 2457 4285 7915661 2-1-2 441 225 1022 1041 4200 6929629 2-3-2 319 225 1088 31=5© 6685 11407674 2-4-2 544 30© 1103 2494 6929 11430664 3-1-3 319 113 928 13.97 4876 7633673 3-2-3 30© 206 1481 2©<63 7107 111576?1 3-4-3 403 459 1088 3422 59.73 11355824 4-1-4 347 328 1435 2353 7576 12039839 4-2-4 388 319 1210 1922 6713 10502810 . 4-3-4 .356 . . 1.97 , .1294 . .1725 5945 .9517

TABLE 1642

@©w HeRation.

-§45

674

6?1

1- 2-11— 3—11-4-1 2* 1- 2 '

2-3-2 2—4=2 3-1-33—2*3 3=4=3 4*1=44—2—4 4=3—4

tolar percentages of rumen T.E.A.■Molar per cent %3

318291

342

$2186

127153156

2Q1113932382163413722144 6441

55131611

234126111843

Period II845 • '• 1-2*1 2,01 137 1154 2042 6465669 1-3=1 ; 355 U 8 1119 2276 6132670 1—4=1 419 <95 876 2838 5771661 2-1=2 332 193 1399 1303 67o?3629 : 2*3=2 511 ii'2 2260 2%8 4569674 2=4—2 228 238 1372 2168 5993664 3-1-3 144 269 1168 2©35 6384673 ■ 3*2-3■ 452 373, 1149 2083 5944671 3=4-3 423 215. 98© 3126 . 5277824 ,4=1*4' <39 117 1249 2701 5894839 4-2=4 ■'435- 298 1286 2433 5547810 . .4=3*4 .162 174 1285 : 26i3 6366

Pferiod III845 '1—2—1 131 HOI 1354 2093 6322669 1-3-1 464 640 1281 . 1700 591667© ,1=4*1' 368 119 996 3104 5414661 2-1-2 636 325 1475 . 1502 6061629 2=3=2 278 : 196 949 2747 58-3©674 2=4—2 476 262 . 1018 2182 6062664 3-1-3 418 148 1216 18-30 6388673 3—2=3 269 185 1327 1849 63=7©671 3=4=3 365 ; 404 9-58 3©=23 520©824 4=1*4 288 272 1192 19-54 6293839 4=2=4 322 3#4 II52 18-30 639281©. 4=3=4 3-74. . 207 . . 136© 1813 6247

TABLE I?Rd taltB ®f statistical analyses __

error of ...Coefficient of.Item treatment differerne© variation (%) E* Valme

Body weights ;Dig* of ration (%)Dig* of comfe* energies (fo) Digo of protein ( T • - ■-Milk prodmetion (iTs)Fat in milk (%) -Protein, in milk C$)SsHoF* in milk {%) -Fatty aeid eompositiom of

milk fat06

I?1

6l8ioir

60 76 - 1 = 21 4 = 160o42 2.20 17=lla0.53 ' 2.70 _ 14=79%I088 4=37 1=440.72 4=12 2 = 340 0 21 8* 40 0.390.10 " 5=44 2.26 -0.08 • g 611 • ' 3 = 94

0=07 27=62 2=270 .11 25.34 0.890o43 24.83 0=630=05 32.99 1 =39.0 .81 37=03 5 = 85%0.07 .38.74 1=021=40 16.19 0=920=31 ■ 25=62 2=780.43 27=41 1=280=13 60=57 0=841.61 9 = 78 2=130=49 17=26 0=950.49 . 25 = 81 0.800=11 . '3 8 = 55 x 0=101=13 . 30=23 "22=282=35 14=87 0=390=68 28.42 1=54

■ • '90.62 • 2=57

__________ ResTaijs of. statistical analyses of YoFoAo■ ■ • • ;• / Standard error .©f ; Coefficient of. , .■

Item treatment difference variation {‘m F, valmeTotal acids {M/ml} 18«#4 2608l 0o42Acetate ( M/ml) 12o45 36*75 0.59Acetate (Molar %) 2o81 6o30 0o2SPropionate ( M/ml) 3.39 22,80 0,76Propionate (Molar %) 1.13 9 = 18 0.62Butyrate ( M/ml) - 0,89 20,74 . 6.11aButyrate (Molar fo) 1,89 27.64 1.38Valerate ( M/ml). 0.34 ^45.59 5a03aValerate (Molar. %) 0.44 46,27 2.76Higher acids (M/ml) 1,12 50.22 ■ 0.64Higher.acids. (Molar7%). .... .1,11. ... . . . . . . , . . 50.00, . . . . . .1.05, . .

d(P<0.05)