Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:39:32.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palatability, in situ and in vitro nutritive value of dried sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

H. KHALILVANDI-BEHROOZYAR ,
M. DEHGHAN-BANADAKY  and
K. REZAYAZDI
H. KHALILVANDI-BEHROOZYAR
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 31587-77871, Karaj, Iran
M. DEHGHAN-BANADAKY*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 31587-77871, Karaj, Iran
K. REZAYAZDI
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 31587-77871, Karaj, Iran
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: dehghanb@can.ut.ac.ir
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The current study was conducted to determine chemical composition, nutrient content and availability, metabolizable energy (ME) content and nutritive value of sainfoin hay for ruminants. Three ruminally cannulated Holstein cows were used for in situ and in vivo experiments, to determine rumen degradability and digestibility of sainfoin hay. Apparent total tract digestibility of nutrients was determined with feeding of sainfoin hay as the sole diet to achieve 10% more than maintenance energy requirements. Six Zandi ewes were used in the palatability experiment. Means for dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF) and condensed tannins (CTs) of sainfoin hay were: 940·4 g/kg and 93·43, 12·13, 47·87, 43·33 and 2·13 g/kg DM, respectively. In situ effective degradability of CP and DM were 0·38 and 0·54 g/g with a ruminal outflow rate of 0·05/h, respectively. OM apparent digestibility was in the range of 0·592–0·689, respectively, for Tilley & Terry and total faecal collection assays. ME content of sainfoin hay, according to different methods (gas production, in vitro and in vivo determined digestible organic matter in dry matter (DOMD)) was in the range 6·87–10·11 MJ/kg DM. Metabolizable protein (MP) content was 483·4 g/kg CP. Sainfoin was more palatable than alfalfa for sheep. It was concluded that sainfoin has a potential use in ruminant rations, especially if environmental conditions are not suitable for alfalfa production.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 148 , Issue 6 , December 2010 , pp. 723 - 733
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Agricultural and Food Research Council (1992). Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. Report No: 10. Nutritive requirements of ruminant animals: protein. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews B 62, 787–835.Google Scholar
Agricultural and Food Research Council (1993). Energy and Protein Requirements of Ruminants. Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
AOAC (2000). Official Methods of Analysis, 17th edn. Gaithersburg, MD: AOAC International.Google Scholar
Aufrère, J., Dudilieu, M., Poncet, C., Baumont, R. & Dumont, B. (2007). Effect of condenced tannins in sainfoin on in vitro protein solubility of lucerne as affected by the proportion of sainfoin in the mixture and the preserving conditions. Options Mediterrameennes A 74, 63–66.Google Scholar
Aufrère, J., Dudilieu, M. & Poncet, C. (2008). In vivo and in situ measurements of the digestive characteristics of sainfoin in comparison with lucerne fed to sheep as fresh forages at two growth stages and as hay. Animal 2, 1331–1339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bal, M. A., Ozturk, D., Aydin, R., Eral, A., Ozkan, C. O., Ata, M., Karakas, E. & Karabay, P. (2006). Nutritive value of sainfoin (Onobrychis vicifolia) harvested at different maturity stages. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science 9, 205–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N. (1985). The role of condensed tannins in the nutritional value of Lotus pedunculatus for sheep. 3. Rates of body and wool growth. British Journal of Nutrition 54, 211–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barry, T. N. & McNabb, W. C. (1999). The implications of condensed tannins on the nutritive value of temperate forages fed to ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition 81, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumont, R. (1996). Palatability and feeding behavior in ruminants. A review. Annales de Zootechnie 45, 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben Salem, H., Nefzaoui, A. & Abdouli, H. (1994). Palatability of shrubs and fodder trees measured on sheep and dromedaries: 1. Methodological approach. Animal Feed Science and Technology 46, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben Salem, H., Saghrouni, L. & Nefzaoui, A. (2005). Attempts to deactivate tannins in fodder shrubs with physical and chemical treatments. Animal Feed Science and Technology 122, 109–121.Google Scholar
Bento, M. H. L., Acamovic, T. & Makkar, H. P. S. (2005). The influence of tannin, pectin and polyethylene glycol on attachment of 15N-labelled rumen microorganisms to cellulose. Animal Feed Science and Technology 122, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borreani, G., Peiretti, P. G. & Tabacco, E. (2003). Evolution of yield and quality of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia scop.) in the spring growth cycle. Agronomie 23, 193–201.Google Scholar
Cannas, A., Tedeschi, L. O., Fox, D. G., Pell, A. N. & Van Soest, P. J. (2004). A mechanistic model for predicting the nutrient requirements and feed biological values for sheep. Journal of Animal Science 82, 149–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cherney, D. J. R. (2000). Characterization of forages by chemical analysis. In Forage Evaluation in Ruminant Nutrition (Eds Givens, D. I., Owen, E., Axford, R. F. E. & Omed, H. M.). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Coblentz, W. K., Fritz, J. O., Cochran, R. C., Rooney, W. L. & Bolsen, K. K. (1997). Protein degradation in response to spontaneous heating in alfalfa hay by in situ and ficin methods. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 700–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ditterline, R. L. & Cooper, C. S. (1975). Fifteen Years with Sainfoin. Bulletin No. 681. Bozeman, MT: Montana Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
FASS (1999). Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching, 1st revised edn. Savoy, IL: Federation of Animal Science Societies.Google Scholar
Frame, J. (2005). Forage Legumes for Temperate Grasslands. Enfield, NH: Science Publishers, Inc. co-published with Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Graham, E. H. (1941). Legumes for Erosion Control and Wildlife, p. 83. USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 412. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Hobson, P. N. & Stewart, C. S. (1997). The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoste, H., Gaillard, L. & Le Frileux, Y. (2005). Consequences of the regular distribution of sainfoin hay on gastrointestinal parasitism with nematodes and milk production in dairy goats. Small Ruminant Research 59, 265–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, W. T. & Lyttleton, J. W. (1971). Bloat in cattle. XXXIV. A survey of legume forages that do and do not produce bloat. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G. A., McAllister, T. A., Muir, A. D. & Cheng, J. (1994). Effects of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia Scoop.) condensed tannins on growth and proteolysis by four strains of ruminal bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 60, 1374–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, C. G., Albercht, K. A., Reed, J. D., Bures, E. J. & Owens, V. N. (1999). Sodium sulphite effects on recovery and composition of detergent fibre and lignin from forage legumes varying in levels of proanthocyanidins. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture 79, 1351–1356.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Licitra, G., Hernandez, T. M. & Van Soest, P. J. (1996). Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkar, H. P. S. (2000). Quantification of Tannins in Tree Foliage: A Laboratory Manual for the FAO/IAEA Co-ordinated Research Project on ‘Use of Nuclear and Related Techniques to Develop Simple Tannin Assays for Predicting and Improving the Safety and Efficiency of Feeding Ruminants on Tanniniferous Tree Foliage’. Vienna, Austria: IAEA.Google Scholar
Makkar, H. P. S. (2003). Effects and fate of tannins in ruminant animals, adaptation to Tannins, and strategies to overcome detrimental effects of feeding tannin-rich feeds. Small Ruminant Research 49, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, L. R., Majak, W., McAllister, T. A., Hall, J. W., Jones, G. A., Popp, J. D. & Cheng, K. J. (1999). Effect of sainfoin on in vitro digestion of fresh alfalfa and bloat in steers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, K. H. & Steingass, H. (1988). Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28, 7–55.Google Scholar
Menke, K. H., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D. & Schneider, W. (1979). The estimation of digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedstuffs from the gas production when they incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 217–222.Google Scholar
Miles, P. H., Wilkinson, N. S. & McDowell, L. R. (2001). Analysis of Minerals for Animal Nutrition Research, 3rd edn, pp. 2–91. Gainesville, FL: Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida USDA/T-STAR Research Report.Google Scholar
Min, B. R., Barry, T. N., Attwood, G. T. & McNabb, W. C. (2003). The effect of condensed tannins on the nutrition and health of ruminants fed fresh temperate forages: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 106, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mlambo, V., Mould, F. L., Sikosana, J. L. N., Smith, T., Owen, E. & Mueller-Harvey, I. (2008). Chemical composition and in vitro fermentation of tannin-rich tree fruits. Animal Feed Science and Technology 140, 402–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NRC (2001). Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th edn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Orskov, E. R. & McDonald, I. (1979). The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, R. J. & Moss, B. R. (1981). Nutritional value of sainfoin hay compared with alfalfa hay. Journal of Dairy Science 64, 206–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, J. D., Soller, H. & Woodward, A. (1990). Fodder tree and straw diets for sheep: Intake, growth, digestibility and the effects of phenolics on nitrogen utilization. Animal Feed Science and Technology 30, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, J. D. (1995). Nutritional toxicology of tannins and related polyphenols in forage legumes. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1516–1528.Google Scholar
Reid, C. S. W., Ulyatt, M. J. & Wilson, J. M. (1974). Plant tannins, bloat and nutritive value. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society for Animal Production 34, 82–92.Google Scholar
SAS (2002). Version 9.1 SAS/STAT User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Scharenberg, A., Arrigo, Y., Gutzwiller, A., Soliva, C. R., Wyss, U., Kreuzer, M. & Dohme, F. (2007 a). Palatability in sheep and in vitro nutritional value of dried and ensiled sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), and chicory (Cichorium intybus). Archives of Animal Nutrition 61, 481–496.Google Scholar
Scharenberg, A., Arrigo, Y., Gutzwiller, A., Wyss, U., Hess, H. D., Kreuzer, M. & Dohme, F. (2007 b). Effect of feeding dehydrated and ensiled tanniferous sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) on nitrogen and mineral digestion and metabolism of lambs. Archives of Animal Nutrition 61, 390–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sniffen, C. J., O'Connor, J. D., Van Soest, P. J., Fox, D. G. & Russell, J. B. (1992). A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3562–3577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, G. J., Abrahams, S. & Larkin, P. J. (1999). Biosynthesis of proanthocyanidins (Condensed Tannins). In Tannins in Livestock and Human Nutrition: Proceedings of an International Conference, Adelaide, 31 May–2 June 1999 (Ed. Brooker, J. D.), pp. 52–61. Canberra: ACIAR.Google Scholar
Terry, R. A. & Tilley, J. M. A. (1964). The of periennial ryegrass, cocksfoot, timothy, tall fescue, lucerne and sainfoin as digestibility of the leaves and stems measured by in vitro procedure. Grass and Forage Science 19, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Harrison, D. G., Hill, I. W. & Osbourn, D. F. (1971). The digestion of dried lucerne and sainfoin by sheep. Proceedings of Nutrition Society 3, 14A–15A.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). Two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.Google Scholar
Turgut, L. & Yanar, M. (2004). In situ dry matter and crude protein degradation kinetics of some forages in Eastern Turkey. Small Ruminant Research 52, 217–222.Google Scholar
Van Keulen, J. & Young, B. A. (1977). Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. Journal of Animal Science 44, 282–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanzant, E. S., Cochran, R. C. & Titgemeyer, E. C. (1998). Standardization of in situ techniques for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2717–2729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed