Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T18:10:22.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of method of forage preservation on fibre and protein digestion in cattle given lucerne, birdsfoot trefoil and sainfoin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

K. Kraiem ,
J. E. Garrett ,
J. C. Meiske ,
R. D. Goodrich  and
G. C. Marten
K. Kraiem
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55116, USA
J. E. Garrett
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55116, USA
J. C. Meiske
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55116, USA
R. D. Goodrich
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55116, USA
G. C. Marten
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55116, USA
Get access

Abstract

Six steers, each fitted with a ruminal cannula and T-type duodenal and ileal cannulae, were used to investigate protein and fibre utilization from lucerne, birdsfoot trefoil and sainfoin preserved both as hay and silage. Steers were fed at 2-h intervals during six 12-day periods in an experiment with a 6 × 6 Latin-square design. Animals were fed all-forage diets of six treatments (lucerne hay and silage, birdsfoot trefoil hay and silage, sainfoin hay and silage). Samples were collected from all alimentary sites twice daily during the last 3 days of each period. Acid insoluble ash was used as a solid marker and Cr-ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid as a liquid marker. Organic matter (OM), hemicellulose (HC) and cellulose (CL) total tract digestibilities of lucerne, birdsfoot trefoil and sainfoin were similar (OM: 599, 608, 580 g/kg; HC: 499, 497, 480 g/kg; CL: 590, 618, 608 g/kg). However, crude protein (CP) digestibilities were lower (P < 0·001) for sainfoin (582 g/kg) than for lucerne (732 g/kg) or birdsfoot trefoil (693 g/kg). Nitrogen (N) flows at the duodenum or ileum were similar among forages despite lower N intake for sainfoin. Presence of tannins in sainfoin may have been responsible for low protein degradation in the rumen, and reduced N digestion in the small intestine. Forage preserved as hay or silage had similar CL, HC and OM digestibilities, while CP digestibility was higher (P < 0·05) for silages.

Keywords

cattledigestionfibrefodder legumesprotein
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 1990 , pp. 221 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1975. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 12th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Atwal, A. S. 1983. Effects of preserving alfalfa forage as formic-acid treated silage, wilted silage, and as hay in large round bales on chemical composition, recovery of nutrients, digestibility and heifer growth. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 63: 925–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J. and Cammell, S. B. 1976. The digestion of frozen and dried grass by sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 86: 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Pfeffer, E. and Armstrong, D. G. 1971. The effect of drying and ensiling grass on its digestion in sheep. Sites of energy and carbohydrate digestion. British Journal of Nutrition 26: 123–134.Google Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., Klooster, A. Th. Van't and Frens, A. M. 1968. Soluble chromium indicator measured by atomic absorption in digestion experiments. Veterinary Record 82: 470.Google Scholar
Burns, R. E. 1963. Methods of tannin analysis for forage crop evaluation. Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 32.Google Scholar
Ditierline, R. L. and Cooper, C. S. 1975. Fifteen years with sainfoin. Montana Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 681.Google Scholar
Driedger, A. and Hatfield, E. E. 1972. Influence of tannins on the nutritive value of soybean meal for ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 34: 465–468.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. 1975. The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (ed. McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 277–291. University of New England Publication Unit, Armidale, NSW.Google Scholar
Garrett, J. E., Goodrich, R. D., Meiske, J. C. and Stern, M. D. 1987. Influence of supplemental nitrogen source on digestion of nitrogen, dry matter and organic matter and on in vivo rate of ruminal protein degradation. Journal of Animal Science 64: 1801–1812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook No. 379.Google Scholar
Ingalls, J. R., Thomas, J. W., Benne, E. J. and Tesar, M. 1965. Comparative response of wether lambs to several cuttings of alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, bromegrass and reed canarygrass. Journal of Animal Science 24: 1159–1164.Google Scholar
Jensen, E. H., Torell, C. R., Lesperance, A. L. and Speth, C. F. 1968. Evaluation of sainfoin and alfalfa with beef cattle. In Sainfoin Symposium (ed. Cooper, C. S. and Carleton, A. E.. Montana Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 627, pp. 97–99.Google Scholar
Jones, W. T. and 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
Kemble, A. R. 1956. Studies on the nitrogen metabolism of the ensilage process. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 7: 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loosli, J. K., Krukovsky, V. N., Lofgreen, G. P. and Musgrave, R. B. 1950. The comparative value of ladino clover, birdsfoot trefoil, timothy and alfalfa hays for yield and quality of milk. Journal of Dairy Science 33: 228–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P. and Whittenbury, R. 1973. The ensilage process. In Chemistry and Biochemistry of Herbage Vol. 3 (ed. Butler, G. W. and Bailey, R. W.), pp. 33–60. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Merchen, N. R. and Satter, L. D. 1983a. Digestion of nitrogen by lambs fed alfalfa conserved as baled hay or as low moisture silage. Journal of Animal Science 56: 943–951.Google Scholar
Merchen, N. R. and Satter, L. D. 1983b. Changes in nitrogenous compounds and sites of digestion of alfalfa harvested at different moisture content. Journal of Dairy Science 66: 789–801.Google Scholar
Miller, B. L., Meiske, J. C. and Goodrich, R. D. 1986a. Effects of grain source and concentrate level on B-vitamin production and absorption in steers. Journal of Animal Science 62: 473–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, B. L., Meiske, J. C. and Goodrich, R. D. 1986b. Effects of dietary additives on B-vitamin production and absorption in steers. Journal of Animal Science 62: 484–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulos, Y. A. and McKersie, B. D. 1983. A comparison of protein degradation during wilting and ensiling of six forage species. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 63: 903–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, R. J. and Moss, B. R. 1981. Nutritional value of sainfoin hay compared with alfalfa hay. Journal of Dairy Science 64: 206–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prange, R. W., Stern, M. D., Jorgensen, N. A. and Satter, L. D. 1984. Site and extent of protein digestion in lactating cows fed alfalfa silage or baled alfalfa hay. Journal of Dairy Science 67: 2308–2314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robles, A. Y., Belyea, R. L., Martz, F. A. and Weiss, M. F. 1980. Effect of particle size upon digestible cell wall and rate of in vitro digestion of alfalfa and orchardgrass forage. Journal of Animal Science 51: 783–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. W., Goering, H. K. and Gordon, C. H. 1972. Relationships of forage compositions with rates of cell wall digestion and indigestibility of cell walls. Journal of Dairy Science 55: 1140–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. W., Goering, H. K., Waldo, D. R. and Gordon, C. H. 1971. In vitro digestion rate of forage cell wall components. Journal of Dairy Science 54: 71–76.Google Scholar
Stallings, C. C., Townes, R., Jesse, B. W. and Thomas, J. W. 1981. Changes in alfalfa haylage during wilting and ensiling with and without additives. Journal of Animal Science 53: 765–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Gary, NC.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Harrison, D. G., Hill, I. W. and Osbourn, D. F. 1971. The digestion of dried lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) and dried sainfoin (Onobrychis vicüfolia Scop.) by sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 30: 14A–15A (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Thonney, M. L., Palhof, B. A., Susko, J. L., Duhaime, D. J. and Heffron, C. 1980. Effect of daily variation in cattle feces acid insoluble ash content on determination of diet digestibility by the AIA marker method. Journal of Animal Science 51: Suppl. 1, p. 402 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18: 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Keulen, J. and Young, B. A. 1977. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. Journal of Animal Science 44: 282–287.Google Scholar
Waldo, D. R., Miller, R. W., Okamoto, M. and Moore, L. A. 1965. Ruminant utilization of silage in relation to hay, pellets and hay plus grain. I. Composition, digestion, nitrogen balance, intake and growth. Journal of Dairy Science 48: 910–916.Google Scholar