Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:27:38.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mixing sainfoin and lucerne to improve the feed value of legumes fed to sheep by the effect of condensed tannins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2012

J. Aufrère ,
M. Dudilieu ,
D. Andueza ,
C. Poncet  and
R. Baumont
J. Aufrère*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
M. Dudilieu
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
D. Andueza
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
C. Poncet
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
R. Baumont
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, BP 10448, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of sainfoin-based condensed tannins (CT) enhances feed value when given with tannin-free legumes (lucerne) to sheep. The experiments were conducted with fresh sainfoin and lucerne harvested at two stages (vegetative stage as compared with early flowering) in the first growth cycle. Fresh sainfoin and lucerne forages were combined in ratios of 100 : 0, 75 : 25, 25 : 75 and 0 : 100 (denoted S100, S75, S25 and S0, respectively). Voluntary intake, organic matter digestibility (OMD) and nitrogen (N) retention were measured in sheep fed the different sainfoin and lucerne mixtures. Loss of dry matter (DM) and N from polyester bags suspended in the rumen, abomasum and small intestine (SI) was also measured using rumen-fistulated sheep and intestinally fistulated sheep. The CT content in sainfoin (S100) decreased with increasing percentage of lucerne in the mixture (mean value from 58 g/kg DM for S100 to 18 g/kg DM for S25) and with growth stage (S100: 64 to 52 g/kg DM). OMD did not differ between different sainfoin/lucerne mixture ratios. Sainfoin and lucerne had an associative effect (significant quadratic contrast) on voluntary intake, N intake, total-tract N digestibility, N in faeces and urine (g/g N intake) and N retained (g/g N intake). Compared with lucerne mixtures (S0 and S25), high-sainfoin-content mixtures (S100 and S75) increased the in situ estimates of forage N escaping from the rumen (from 0.162, 0.188 for S0 and S25 to 0.257, 0.287 for S75 and S100) but decreased forage N intestinal digestibility (from 0.496, 0.446 for S0 and S25 to 0.469, 0.335 for S75 and S100). The amount of forage N disappearing from the bags in the SI (per g forage N) was the highest for high-sainfoin mixtures (from 0.082, 0.108 for S100 and S75 to 0.056, 0.058 for S25 and S0, P < 0.001). Rumen juice total N (tN) and ammonia N (NH3-N) values were the lowest in the high-sainfoin diet (mean tN 0.166 mg/g in S100 as compared with 0.514 mg/g in S0; mean NH3-N 0.104 mg/g in S100 as compared with 0.333 mg/g in S0, P < 0.001).

Keywords

ruminantsin vivocondensed tanninssainfoin–lucerne mixtures.
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 82 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Aufrère, J, Michalet-Doreau, B 1983. In vivo digestibility and prediction of digestibility of some by-products. In Feeding value of by-products and their use by beef cattle (ed. ChV Boucqué, LO Fiems and BG Cottyn), pp. 25–33. Commission of the European Communities Publishing, Brussels, Luxembourg.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.Google Scholar
Aufrère, J, Theodoridou, K, Baumont, R 2012. Valeur alimentaire chez les ruminants des légumineuses contenant des tannins condensés en milieux tempérés. Productions Animales 25, 29–44.Google Scholar
Aufrère, J, Dudilieu, M, Poncet, C, Baumont, R 2005. Effect of condensed tannins in sainfoin on in vitro protein solubility of lucerne. In XX International Grassland Congress Grasslands – a global resource. (ed. FP O'Mara, RJ Wilkins, L't Mannetje, DK Lovett, PAM Rogers and TM Boland), pp. 248. University College Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Bal, MA, Ozturk, D, Aydin, R, Erol, A, Ozkan, CO, Ata, M, Karakas, E, Karabay, P 2006. Nutritive value of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) harvested at different maturity stages. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science 2, 205–209.Google Scholar
Barry, TN, McNabb, WC 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
Borreani, G, Peiretti, PG, Tabacco, E 2003. Evolution of yield and quality of sainfoin (Onobrychis vicii folia Scop) in the spring growth cycle. Agronomie 23, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, C, Damasceno, JC, Jamot, J, Prache, S 2006. Ewes increase their intake when offered a choice of herbage species at pasture. Animal Science 82, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demarquilly, C, Chenost, M, Giger, S 1995. Pertes fécales et digestibilité des aliments et des rations. In Nutrition des ruminants domestiques (ed. R Jarrige, Y Ruckebusch, C Demarquilly, MH Farce and M Journet), pp. 601–647. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Fraser, M-D, Fychan, R, Jones, R 2000. Voluntary intake, digestibility and nitrogen utilization by sheep fed ensiled forage legumes. Grass and Forage Science 55, 271–279.Google Scholar
Getachew, G, Pittroff, W, DePeters, E-J, Putnam, DH, Dandekar, A, Goyal, S 2008a. Influence of tannic acid application on alfalfa hay: in vitro rumen fermentation, serum metabolites and nitrogen balance in sheep. Animal 2, 381–390.Google Scholar
Getachew, G, Pittroff, W, Putnam, DH, Dandekar, A, Goyal, S, DePeters, EJ 2008b. The influence of addition of gallic acid, tannic acid, and quebracho tannins to alfalfa hay on in vitro rumen fermentation and microbial protein synthesis. Animal Feed Science and Technology 140, 444–461.Google Scholar
Ginane, C, Baumont, R, Lassalas, J, Petit, M 2002. Feeding behaviour and intake of heifers fed on hays of various quality, offered alone or in choice situation. Animal Research 51, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hervas, G, Frutos, P, Giralgez, FJ, Mantecon, AR, Avarez Del Pino, C 2003. Effect of different doses of quebracho tannins extract on rumen fermentation in ewes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 9, 65–78.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, T, Weisberg, M-R, Andersen, LS 1992. Estimation of the true digestibility of rumen undegraded dietary protein in the small intestine of ruminants by the mobile bag technique. Acta Agricultural Scandinavia, Section A, Animal Science 42, 34–39.Google Scholar
Jones, G-A, Mc Allister, T-A, Muir, AD, Cheng, KJ 1994. Effect of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia Scop.) condensed tannins on growth and proteolysis four strains on ruminal bacteria. Applied Environmental Microbiology 60, 1374–1378.Google Scholar
Julier, B, Lila, M, Huygue, C, Morris, P, Allison, G, Robbins, M 2002. Effect of condensed tannin content on protein solubility in legume forages. In Multi-function grasslands. Quality forages, Animal Products and Landscapes (ed. JL Durand, JC Emile, C Huygue and G Lemaire), vol. 7, pp. 134–135. La Rochelle, France.Google Scholar
Julier, B, Huygue, C 2010. Quelles légumineuses fourragères (espèces et variétés) et quelles conduites pour améliorer l'autonomie protéique des élevages herbivores. Innovations Agronomiques 11, 101–114.Google Scholar
Kraiem, K, Garrett, JE, Meiske, JC, Goodrich, RD, Marten G, C 1990. Influence of method of forage preservation on fibre and protein digestion in cattle given lucerne, birdsfoot trefoil and sainfoin. Animal Production 50, 221–230.Google Scholar
Lees, GL, Howarth, RE, Goplen, BP, Fessr, AC 1981. Mechanical disruption of leaf tissues and cells in some bloat-causing and bloat-safe legumes. Crop Science 21, 444–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, LR, Majak, W, Mc Allister, TA, Hall, JW, Jones, GA, Popp, JD, Cheng, KJ 1999. Effect of sainfoin on in vitro digestion of fresh alfalfa and bloat in steers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79, 203–212.Google Scholar
McMahon, LR, Mc Allister, TA, Berg, BP, Majak, W, Acharya, SN, Popp, JD, Coulman, BE, Wang, Y, Cheng, KJ 2000. A review of the effects of forage condensed tannins on ruminal fermentation and bloat in grazing cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 80, 469–485.Google Scholar
Michalet-Doreau, B, Ould-Bah, MY 1989. Estimation of the extent of bacterial contamination in bag residues and its influence on in sacco measurements of forage nitrogen degradation in rumen. In XVI International Congress (ed. Association française pour la Production Fourragère), vol. 2, pp. 909–910. INRA, France.Google Scholar
Min, BR, Barry, TN, Attwood, GT, McNabb, WC 2003. The effect of condensed tannins on the nutrition and health of ruminants fed fresh temperate forages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 106, 3–19.Google Scholar
Niderkorn, V, Baumont, R 2009. Associative effects between forages on feed intake and digestion in ruminants. Animal 3, 951–960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nozières, MO, Dulphy, JP, Peyraud, JL, Poncet, C, Baumont, R 2007. La valeur azotée des fourrages. Nouvelles estimations de la dégradabilité des protéines (DT) dans le rumen et de la digestibilité réelle des protéines alimentaires dans l'intestin grêle: conséquences sur les valeurs PDI. INRA Productions Animales 20, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, ER, McDonald, I 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science 92, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagan, S, Wolfe, RM, Terrill, TH, Muir, JP 2009. Effect of drying method and assay methodology on detergent fiber analysis in plants containing condensed tannins. Animal Feed Science and Technology 154, 119–124.Google Scholar
Reed, JD 1995. Nutritional toxicology of tannins and related polyphenols in forage legumes. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1516–1528.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 2000. SAS version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Terrill, TH, Rowan, AM, Douglas, GB, Barry, TN 1992. Determination of extractable and bound condensed tannin concentrations in forage plants, protein concentrate meals and cereal grains. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 58, 321–329.Google Scholar
Theodoridou, K, Aufrère, J, Andueza, D, Lemorvan, A, Picard, F, Pourrat, J, Baumont, R 2012. Effect of condensed tannins in wrapped silage bales of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) on in vivo and in situ digestion in sheep. Animal 6, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theodoridou, K, Aufrère, J, Andueza, D, Lemorvan, A, Picard, F, Stringano, E, Pourrat, J, Mueller-Harvey, I, Baumont, R 2011. Effect of plant development during first and second growth cycle on chemical composition, condensed tannins and nutritive value of three sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) varieties and lucerne. Grass and Forage Science 66, 402–414.Google Scholar
Tiemann, TT, Avila, P, Ramirez, G, Lascano, CE, Kreuer, M, Hess, HD 2008. In vitro ruminal fermentation of tanniniferous tropical plants: plant-specific tannin effects and counteracting efficiency of PEG. Animal Feed Science and Technology 146, 222–241.Google Scholar
Turne, KE, Neel, JPS 2003. Quebracho tannin influence on nitrogen balance in small ruminants and in-vitro parameters when utilizing alfalfa forages. Sheep and Goat Research Journal 18, 34–44.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Wine, RH 1967. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50, 50–55.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press, 476pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Shelton, ID, McNabb, WC 1994a. Effects of condensed tannins in Lotus pedunculatus on its nutritive value for sheep. 1. Non-nitrogenous aspects. Journal of Agricultural Science 123, 99–107.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Shelton, ID, McNabb, WC, McCutcheon, SN 1994b. Effects of condensed tannins in Lotus pedunculatus on its nutritive value for sheep. 1. Nitrogenous aspects. Journal of Agricultural Science 123, 109–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waghorn, GC, Shelton, ID 1997. Effect of condensed tannins in Lotus corniculatus on the nutritive value of pasture for sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science 128, 365–372.Google Scholar
Waghorn, GC 2008. Beneficial and detrimental effects of dietary condensed tannins for sustainable sheep and goat production – progress and challenges. Animal Feed Science and Technology 147, 116–139.Google Scholar
Wang, Y, Barbieri, LR, Berg, BP, Mc Allister, TA 2007. Effects of mixing sainfoin with alfalfa on ensiling ruminal fermentation and total tract digestion of silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 135, 296–314.Google Scholar
Wang, Y, Berg B, P, Barbieri, LR, Veira, DM, Mc Allister, TA 2006. Comparison of alfalfa and mixed alfalfa–sainfoin pastures for grazing cattle: effects on incidence of bloat, ruminal fermentation, and feed intake. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 86, 383–392.Google Scholar
Weatherburn, MW 1967. Phenol hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia. Analytical Chemistry 39, 971–974.Google Scholar
Willman, D, Mtengi, EJ, Moseley, G 1996. Physical structure of twelve forage species in relation to rate of intake by sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science 126, 277–295.Google Scholar