Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T14:06:24.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of feeding diets containing intact or partially detoxified lupin on voluntary intake and milk production by Friesian dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

E. A. Mukisira ,
L. E. Phillip  and
B. N. Mitaru
L. E. Phillip
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, McGill University, Macdonald Campus, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada H9X 3V9
B. N. Mitaru
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, University of Nairobi, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, Kabete Campus, PO Box 29053, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

The study determined the effects of partial removal of alkaloids (detoxification) in crushed lupin seed (CLS) on voluntary food intake, and yield and composition of milk from dairy cattle. Twenty multiparous Friesian dairy cows (first 90 days of lactation) were assigned, according to a randomized complete-block design, to five diets. The diets were formulated to be isonitrogenous (25·6 g N per kg of diet dry matter (DM)) and contained napier grass, lucerne hay, maize bran and urea. The control diet (CON) contained sunflower meal; two diets contained intact CLS at 150 (LUI-15) or 300 g (LUl-30) per kg diet DM. The other two diets contained detoxified CLS at 150 (LUD-15) or 300 g (LUD-30) per kg diet DM. Lupin seeds were detoxified by treatment with boiling water, followed by steeping in cold water. The diets were analysed by gas chromatography for the alkaloids, lupanine and 13-hydroxylupanine. The total alkaloid content of LUI-15 and LUl-30 was 3·8 and 8·0 g/kg diet DM, respectively; by contrast that of LUD-15 and LUD-30 was 2·1 and 5·2 g/kg diet DM respectively. Increasing the level of intact CLS in the diet led to a decrease in voluntary food intake. Cows given LUl-30 had a lower milk yield (11·1 kg/day) than those given LUI-15 (13·8 kg/day; P < 0·01) but there was no difference in either milk protein yield or content. Detoxification of lupin removed proportionately about 0·40 of the total alkaloids from intact CLS and increased food intake, and the yield of milk and milk protein (P < 0·05) but reduced milk fat content. Detoxification of CLS also reduced the rumen degradability of lupin protein (P< 0·05). It is concluded that the reduction in organic matter intake and milk yield of cows given diets containing intact CLS was due to the presence of lupanine and 13-hydroxylupanine. To maximize its usage in diets for dairy cattle, lupin should be detoxified; it can then be included at levels up to 300 g/kg diet DM.

Keywords

alkaloidsdairy cowsfood intakelupinsrumen digestion
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 169 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1995

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. 1984. Official methods of analysis. 14th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Arguilera, J. F., Gerngross, M. F. and Lusas, E. W. 1983. Aqueous processing of lupin seed. Journal of Food Technology 18: 327–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerbulis, J. and Farrel, H. M. 1974. Composition of milk of dairy cattle. I. Protein, lactose, and fat contents and distribution of protein fraction. Journal of Dairy Science 58: 817–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheeke, P. R. and Kelly, J. D. 1989. Metabolism, toxicity and nutritional implications of quinnolizidine (lupin alkaloids). In Recent advances of research in antinutritional factors in legume seeds (ed. Huisman, J., Poel, T. F. B. Van der and Liener, I. E.). Pudoc, Wagengen.Google Scholar
Douglas, M., Mclean, E. R., Graham, B. and Ponzoni, J. R. W. 1984. Effects of milk protein genetic variants on milk yield and composition. Journal of Dairy Research 51: 531–540.Google Scholar
Eggum, B. O., Tomes, G., Beames, R. M. and Datta, F. U. 1993. Protein and energy evaluation with rats of seeds from 11 lupin cultivars. Animal Feed Science and Technology 43: 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freer, M. and Dove, E. L. 1984. Rumen degradation of protein in sunflower meal, rape seed meal, and lupin seed placed in nylon bags. Animal Feed Science and Technology 11: 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fibre analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some applications). Agriculture handbook, US Department of Agriculture, no. 379.Google Scholar
Grimmelt, B. and McNiven, M. A. 1992. Determination of alkaloids in sweet white lupin (Lupinus albus) cultivated in Prince Edward Islands. Canadian journal of Animal Science 12:1011–1012 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Guillaume, B., Otterby, D. E., Linn, J. G. and Stern, M. D. 1987. Comparison of sweet white lupin seeds with soybean meal as a protein supplement for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 70: 2339–2348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hale, O. M. and Miller, J. D. 1985. Effects of either sweet or semi-sweet blue lupin on performance of swine. Journal of Animal Science 60: 989–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, D. J. and Wilson, P. E. 1988. A rapid manual method of lupin alkaloid analysis. Fifth lupin conference in Poland, pp. 598–601.Google Scholar
International Dairy Federation. 1986. Whole milk. Determination of nitrogen content (Kjeldahl method) and calculation of crude protein content. International provisional standard 20 A. Brussels.Google Scholar
Isaac, R. A. and Johnson, W. L. 1985. Elemental analysis of plant tissue by plasma emission spectroscopy: collaboration study. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 68: 499–505.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. C., Miller, J. D. and Bedell, D. M. 1986. Trifwhite-78 lupin seed as feedstuff for cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 69: 142–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, V. W. 1982. The significance of using special protein in early lactation. In Protein and energy supply for high production of milk and meat, p. 117. Pergamon Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopency, J. and Wallace, R. J. 1982. Cellular location and some properties of proteolytic enzymes of rumen bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 43: 1026–1033.Google Scholar
Kung, L., Maciorowski, K., Powell, K. M., Weidner, S. and Eley, C. L. 1991. Lupin as a protein supplement for growing jambs. Journal of Animal Science 69: 3398–3405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquardt, D. W. 1963. An algorithm for least square estimation of non-linear parameters. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 24: 431–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosimanyana, B. M. and Mowat, D. N. 1992. Rumen protection of heat-treated soybean proteins. Canadian journal of Animal Science 72: 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. 1980. Mineral tolerance of domestic animals. National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1989. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 6th. rev. ed. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Nocek, J. E. 1985. Evaluation of specific variables affecting in situ estimates of ruminal dry matter and protein digestion. Journal of Animal Science 60: 1347–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hovell, F. D. DeB. and Mould, F. 1980. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Tropical Animal Production 5: 195–213.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of the protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, F. W. and Goestch, A. L. 1986. Digesta passage and microbial protein synthesis. In Control of digesta in metabolism in ruminants (ed. Milligan, L., Grovum, W. and Dobson, A.). Prentice Hall, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H. and McNiven, M. A. 1993. Nutritive value of raw and roasted sweet white lupin (Lupinus abus) for lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 43: 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satter, L. and Slyter, L. L. 1973. Effect of ammonia concentration in rumen protein production in vitro. British journal of Nutrition 32: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute. 1988. SAS/STAT user's guide, release 6.03 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Tracy, V. A., Banton, B. A., Anderson, G. W. and Williams, M. S. 1988. Comparison of sweet white lupin seeds with soybean oil meal as a protein supplement for sheep Journal of Animal Science 66: suppl. 1, p. 499 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Van Hellen, R. W. and Ellis, W. C. 1977. Sample container porosities for rumen in situ studies. Journal of Animal Science 44: 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar