SORRRRYYYY for being late
https://plantfadb.org/plants/13020The seven “major”/“common” FAs make up for >90% of most oils (castor as a common exception).
Meadowfoam is really another outlier under the plant oils, in that it indeed contains very little of these. AFAIK it is indeed absolutely worthless for soapmaking, and in fact must be disposed of very carefully and by professionals only (I've heard
@AliOop operates a meadowfoam destruction facility at home).
I'm not a big fan of that “conditioning” number, it appears to me as just a way to combine the FAs that don't contribute to lather, hardness, and longevity into something that looks “positive”, to cheer up soft recipes. Those who feel that they are in need of a more conditioning feel after washing hands/skin, should seek their fortune in leave-on products, not in soap.
BTW: The “conditioning” number is essentially the percentage of unsaturated FAs (as the “hardness” number is the saturated FAs added up). The two numbers are a fancy way to hide the sat:unsat ratio into a “property number profile”, no more and no less.
Back to meadowfoam. Its major constituent is C20:1, in the carbon backbone length in between oleic acid (C18:1) and erucic acid (C22:1). If someone really wants to waste meadowfoam (IV 92) for soapmaking, go on! I'd guess it would behave somewhere in between HO safflower (IV 93) and abyssinia oil (IV 98). How convenient that
someone has tested these two already .
tl;dr For something that's so raved about like meadowfoam oil, it would most probably make a remarkably boring soap. Castile-like when used pure, and hardly distinguishable from OO and HO seed oils in balanced recipes.
not a single fatty acid that contributes
When you look closely, they have hosed their database. Oleic acid doesn't contribute "0", but "0 " (with extra space at the end).
Soapmaking Friend has 18 oleic + 11 linoleic as unsaturated major FAs.
Soapee Next has another opinion on it as well.