Determination of nutritive value, fermenability and degradability in two genotypes of Quinoa crop residues

Authors

1 Animal Sciences Department, College of Agriculture, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

2 Crop and Horticultural Science Research Department, Kerman Agricultural and Natural Resource Research

3 Animal nurtition Research Department, Animal Science Research Institute of Iran, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.

Abstract

Background and objectives: Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd.) is an annual plant considered as pseudocereals and belongs to the family Chenopodiaceae. Quinoa has excellent properties as low water requirement for growth, resistant to drought and salinity and nutritional good quality, which are the reason for the great interest. With increasing import of Quinoa seeds to IRAN, its planting is under development and soon will be produced a large amount of Quinoa crop residues. There is very limit information about nutritive value and digestibility of Quinoa crop residues. The objective of this study was to determine nutritive value and digestibility in two genotypes of Quinoa crop residues.
Materials and methods: Complete Quinoa plant from two genotypes of Sjama and Sjama Iranshahr were harvested from an experimental farm. The plants were dried in the shade and then the seeds were separated. The sample of two genotypes of Quinoa crop residues were used for determine of chemical composition, fermentation, ruminal degradability, ruminal and post-ruminal dry matter (DM) disappearance.
Results: There is no different in concentration of chemical composition including crude protein (CP), ether extract, non fiber carbohydrate, crude ash, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber between two genotypes of Quinoa crop residues. The averages of these chemical compositions in two genotypes of Quinoa were 13.11, 1.68, 22.74, 13.68, 48.80 and 32.69 % respectively. The gas production after 24h, potential of gas production (b), rate of gas production (c), metabolisable energy and short chain fatty acid were not different across two genotypes of Quinoa and were similar to values in alfalfa hay. The amounts of ruminal DM disappearance (51.60 vs. 57.76 %) and total tract DM disappearance (54.80 vs. 60.57 %) were lower (p < 0.01) for Sjama genotype than Sjama Iranshahr genotype, while the post-ruminal DM disappearance was similar in both genotypes. Furthermore, rapidly degradable DM fraction (a), slowly degradable DM fraction (b) and rate constant of degradation of the b fraction (c) were lower (p < 0.05) for Sjama genotype than Sjama Iranshahr genotype.
Conclusion: The concentration of CP in two genotypes of Quinoa crop residues were determined about 13%, which is higher than cereal straw and other residues of agriculture crops. On the other hand, coefficients of DM degradability were suitable and the values of total tract DM disappearance were about 55-60%. In general, these findings indicated that Quinoa crop residues can be used as a new feedstuff that provide nutritive requirement of ruminants.
Conclusion: The concentration of CP in two genotypes of Quinoa crop residues were determined about 13%, which is higher than cereal straw and other residues of agriculture crops. On the other hand, coefficients of DM degradability were suitable and the values of total tract DM disappearance were about 55-60%. In general, these findings indicated that Quinoa crop residues can be used as a new feedstuff that provide nutritive requirement of ruminants.

Keywords

References

  1. AOAC, 2000. Official Methods of Analysis, 17th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.
  2. Arzani, H., Motamedi, J., and Zare Chahoki, M.A. 2010. Final report of national project "Forage quality in Iran rangeland". Forests, Range and Watershed Management Organization. (In Persian)
  3. Coblentz, W.K., and Grabber, J.H. 2013. In situ protein degradation of alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil hays and silages as influenced by condensed tannin concentration. J. Dairy. Sci. 96: 3120-3137.
  4. Danesh Mesgaran, M., and Stern, M.D. 2005. Ruminal and post-ruminal protein disappearance of various feeds originating from Iranian plants varieties determined by the in situ mobile bag technique and alternative methods. J. Anim. Feed Sci. Techno. 118: 31-46.
  5. El-Shatnawi, M.K.J., and Abdullah, A.Y. 2003. Composition changes of Atriplex nummularia L. under Mediterranean arid environment. African J. Range. Forage. Sci. 20: 253-257.
  6. Fedorak, P.M., and Hurdy, D.E. 1983. A simple apparatus for measuring gas production by methanogenic cultures in serum bottles. J. Environ. Technol. 4: 425-432.
  7. Gawlik-Dziki, U., Świeca, M., Sułkowski, M., Dziki, D., Baraniak, B., and Czyż, J. 2013. Antioxidant and anticancer activity of Chenopodium quinoa leaves extracts – In vitro study. J. Food. Chem. Toxic. 57: 154-160
  8. Gurbuz, Y. 2006. Determination of nutritive value of leaves of several Vitis vinifera varieties as a source of alternative feedstuff for sheep using in vitro and in situ measurements. Small Rum. Res. 71: 59-66.
  9. Heidari, H., Bashtani, M., Asghari, M.R., and Naimipour Younesi, H. 2016. Determination of Nutritional value of Fat-hen processed with lime at different times using in situ technique. Range Manag. 3 (1): 81-97. (In Persian).
  10. Hoseini Nejad, Z., Yoosefollahi, M., and Fazayeli, H. 2012. Nutritive Value of Five Halophytes Determined in Sistan Area. Iranian. J. Anim. Sci. 43 (1): 1-10. (In Persian).
  11. James, L.E. 2009. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): composition, chemistry, nutritional, and functional properties. Adv. Food. Nutr. Res. 58: 1-31.
  12. Kamalak, A., Canbolat, O., and Gurbuz, Y. 2004. Comparison between in situ dry matter degradation and in vitro gas production of tannin containing leaves from four tree species. South African J. Anim. Sci. 34(4): 524-532.
  13. Larbi, A., Smith, J.W., Kurdi, I.O., Adeknle, I.O., Rajj, A.M., and Ladipo. D.O. 1998. Chemical composition, rumen degradation and gas production characteristics of some multipurpose fodder trees and shrubs during wet and dry seasons in the humid tropics. J. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 72:81- 96.
  14. Masters, D.G., Bennes, S.E. and Norman, H.C., 2007. Biosaline Agriculture for forage and livestock production. Agriculture. J. Ecosyst. Environ. 119: 234-248.
  15. Menke, K.H., and Steingass, H. 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. J. Anim. Res. Dev. 28: 7-55.
  16. Norton, B.W. 1994. The nutritive value of tree legumes. Forage tree legum. Tropic. Agric. 1-10.
  17. Ørskov, E.R., and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J. Agric.Sci. 92: 499-503.
  18. Paterson, J., Funston, R., and Cash, D. 2001. Forage Quality Influences Beef Cow Performance and Reproduction. Presented at the 2001 Intermountain Nutrition Conference. 11Pp.
  19. Razzaghi, A., Valizadeh, R., and Tarahimi, M. 2015. Chemical Composition, in situ Ruminal Degradability, and Gas Production of Atriplex canesences, Salsola rigida and Aeluropus littoralis. Iranian J. Anim. Sci. Res. 7(1): 1-11. (In Persian).
  20. Riasi, A., Danesh Mesgaran M., Stern, M.D., and Ruiz Moreno, M.J. 2008. Chemical composition, in situ ruminal degradability and post-ruminal disappearance of dry matter and crude protein from the halophytic plants Kochia scoparia, Atriplex dimorphostegia, Suaeda arcuata and Gamanthus gamacarpus. J. Anim. Feed Sci. Techno. 141: 209-219.
  21. Robinson, T.F., Roeder, B.L., and Johnston, N.P. 2013. Nitrogen Balance and Blood Metabolites of Llama (Lama Glama) Fed Barley Hay Supplemented with Alfalfa and Quinoa Straw in Bolivia. J. Anim. Sci. Advan. 3(8): 386-391.
  22. Ruales, J., and Nair, B.M. 1993. Content of fat, vitamins and minerals in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa, Willd) seeds. J. Food Chem. 48: 131-136.
  23. Salehi, M., Soltani, V. and Dehghani, F. 2019. Effect of salt stress and seed priming methods on emergence and seedling characteristics of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). J. Environ. Stresses Crop. Sci. 11(2): 381-391. (In Persian).
  24. SAS. 2003. SAS User’s Guide Statistics. Version 9.1 Edition. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary NC.
  25. Shakeri, P., and Fazaeli, H. 2004. A survey of nutritive value of Gramineae range species in Kerman province, Iran. Proceeding of the 4th International Iran & Russia Conference. University of Shahrekord, Iran.1044-1047.
  26. Tavosi, M., and Lotfali Ayeneh, G.A. 2017. Quinoa Planting. 1st Ed. Agriculture Education Press. Tehran.  32Pp. (In Persian).
  27. Valencia-Chamorro, S.A. 2003. Quinoa. In: Caballero B: Encyclopedia of Food Science and Nutrition. Academic Press, Amsterdam. 8: 4895-4902.
  28. Van Soest, P.J. 1994. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. 2th ed. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY, 476Pp.
Journal of Ruminant Research
Volume 7, Issue 2
September 2019
Pages 83-96

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics