Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T21:37:00.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protein and amino acid digestion characteristics of two forms of preserved lucerne forage fed to mature horses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2013

N.L. Stowers ,
L.A. Waldron ,
D.G. Thomas  and
I.D. Pryor
N.L. Stowers*
Affiliation:
Fiber Fresh Feeds Ltd, State Highway 5, Reporoa, New Zealand
L.A. Waldron
Affiliation:
LWT Animal Nutrition Limited, PO Box 119, Feilding, New Zealand
D.G. Thomas
Affiliation:
Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North, New Zealand
I.D. Pryor
Affiliation:
Fiber Fresh Feeds Ltd, State Highway 5, Reporoa, New Zealand
*
*Corresponding author:Nikita@Fiber-Fresh.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A trial was conducted, using 12 mature thoroughbred horses in a cross-over design, to compare the protein and amino acid digestibility of dry lucerne chaff (LC) against a controlled fermented lucerne (CFL) product (HNF Fiber®; Fiber Fresh Feeds Ltd, Reporoa, New Zealand). Crude protein levels were higher in CFL compared to LC, and when individual amino acids were analysed, the majority (88%) of these were also higher. Crude protein digestibility was significantly (18%) higher in CFL diets (P < 0.001) compared to LC. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were seen in individual amino acid digestibility in favour of the CFL diet for lysine (24%) and methionine (30%), as well as threonine, histidine, tyrosine, leucine, isoleucine, valine, alanine, proline, serine and aspartamine. Although amino acid requirements in horses are still poorly defined, the higher availability of amino acids in CFL compared to LC should be taken into account when formulating horse diets including these feedstuffs.

Keywords

Lucerneproteinprocessinghorsesdigestion
Type
Original Research
Information
Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition , Volume 1 , 2012 , e6
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition Ltd. 2013 

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. (2005) Official methods of analysis. 18th ed. Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Crozier, J.A., Allen, V.G., Jack, N.R., Fontenot, J.P. and Cochran, M.A. (1997) Digestibility, apparent mineral absorption and voluntary intake by horses fed alfalfa, tall fescue and Caucasian bluestem. Journal of Animal Science, 75: 1651–1658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuddeford, D., Pearson, R.A., Archibald, R.F. and Muirhead, R.H. (1995) Digestibility and gastro-intestinal transit time of diets containing different proportions of alfalfa and oat straw given to Thoroughbreds, Shetland ponies, Highland ponies and donkeys. Animal Science, 61: 407–417.Google Scholar
Haelein, G.F.W., Holdren, R.D. and Yoon, Y.M. (1966) Comparative response of horses and sheep to different physical forms of alfalfa hay. Journal of Animal Science, 25: 740–743.Google Scholar
NRC. (1989) Nutrient Requirements of Horses. National Research Council of the National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
NRC. (2007) Nutrient Requirements of Horses. National Research Council of the National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Unistat. (2007) Statistical package version 5.5. Unistat UK Ltd, Maida Vale, London, UK.Google Scholar
Waldron, L.A., Thomas, D.G. and Pryor, I. (2012) Digestion characteristics of two forms of preserved lucerne forage fed to mature horses. Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition online 5 January 2012.Google Scholar