Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:13:17.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formaldehyde-treated casein–safflower oil supplement for dairy cows: I. Effect on milk composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Y. S. Pan ,
L. J. Cook  and
T. W. Scott
Y. S. Pan
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Animal Genetics, Badgery's Creek, N.S.W., Australia
L. J. Cook
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Animal Physiology, Prospect, N.S.W., Australia
T. W. Scott
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Animal Physiology, Prospect, N.S.W., Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effects of feeding lactating cows a daily supplement of 1 kg formaldehyde-treated casein–safflower oil (1:1, w/w) on the milk composition are reported. Three breeds, Jersey, Sahiwal and Sahiwal × Jersey crossbred were used.

The formaldehyde treatment not only eliminated the suppressing effect on the milk, fat and protein yields and on the fat and protein contents usually encountered when such a level of unsaturated oil is fed to lactating cows, but also resulted, on the average, in 15 and 6% increases in the fat and protein contents respectively.

The formaldehyde-treated dietary supplement also caused a decline of 5% in the solids-not-fat content, presumably due to a decrease in the lactose content.

It is suggested that the formaldehyde treatment protects the casein from the ruminal proteolysis and this in turn prevents the encapsulated unsaturated oil from biohydrogenation and eliminates the diverse effects on rumen microflora and environment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , June 1972 , pp. 203 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1972

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

REFERENCES

Ferguson, K. A., Hemsley, J. A. & Reis, P. J. (1967). Aust. J. Sci. 30, 215.Google Scholar
Kirchgessner, M., Friesecke, H. & Koch, G. (1967). Nutrition and the composition of milk. London: Crosby Lockwood & Son Ltd.Google Scholar
McGann, T. C. A., McCarthy, J. F. & McKenna, B. M. (1970). Dairy Inds 35, 671.Google Scholar
Moore, L. A., Hoffman, G. T. & Berry, M. H. (1945). J. Dairy Sci. 28, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nottle, M. C. & Rook, J. A. F. (1963). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 22, vii.Google Scholar
O'Connell, J. A. (1970). Lab. Pract. 19, 1119.Google Scholar
Scott, T. W., Cook, L. J., Ferguson, K. A., McDonald, I. W., Loftus Hills, G. & Buchanan, R. A. (1970). Aust. J. Sci. 32, 291.Google Scholar
Scott, T. W., Cook, L. J. & Mills, S. C. (1971). J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 48, 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, J. C. & Ensor, W. L. (1959). J. Dairy Sci. 42, 1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, W., Noble, R. C. & Moore, J. H. (1971 a). J. Dairy Res. 38, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, W., Noble, R. C. & Moore, J. H. (1971 b). J. Dairy Res. 38, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, P. S. & Irvine, D. M. (1970). J. Dairy Sci. 53, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storry, J. E., Hall, A. J., Tuckley, B. & Millard, D. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tove, S. B. & Mochrie, R. D. (1963). J. Dairy Sci. 46, 686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waite, R & McPhillips, J. (1965). J. Soc. Dairy Technol. 18, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar