Investigating the performance of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd.) forage and determining its digestibility in dried and ensiled form

Authors

1 Animal Nutrition and Physiology Research Department, Animal Science Research Institute of Iran, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

2 Member of the faculty of animal nutrition and physiology research department, Iran Animal Science Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization

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

4 Veterinary student of Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch

Abstract

Investigating the performance of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd.) forage and determining its digestibility in dried and ensiled form
ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives: Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd.) is a dual-purpose crop for grain and forage production. Quinoa has excellent properties such as low water requirement for growth, resistance to drought, salinity and nutritional good quality, which are the reason for the great interest in Iran. The objective of this study was to investigate the performance of quinoa forage and determine its digestibility in dried and ensiled forms.
Material and methods: Three genotypes of quinoa forage (Sejama, Titicaca and Q12) were used in a completely randomized design in dry in the shade and silage forms. All genotypes were sown at the same time and harvested at the time dough of seeds and then were calculated performance of quinoa forage. The harvested forages were chopped and one part was dried in the shade and the other part was ensiled during 60 days in experimental silos. The silages were appearance characteristics evaluated after opening the silos. The samples were ground to pass a 1-mm screen, and then were used for evaluation of rumen degradability and rumen disappearance of dry matter (via incubating the samples inside the bag (pores 50 micrometers) in the rumen of steers) and post-ruminal disappearance of dry matter (via incubating the samples inside the bag in the DAISYII incubator). The samples were incubated in the rumen using polyester bags. All variables were statistically analyzed in a completely randomized design by the Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS).
Results: The results show that, the duration of sowing to the dough stage of seeds was 60 days in Kerman condition, and wet plant yield for Sejama, Titicaca and Q12 genotypes were 34500, 30400 and 36610 kg/ha respectively. The appearance characteristics of silages were in an acceptable condition and were scored 16.75, 17.50 and 18.13 for Sejama, Titicaca and Q12 genotypes respectively in a 0 to 20 scoring system (P<0.01). The average of ruminal and gastro intestinal tract DM disappearance varied between 64.64 to 69.86 % and 69.64 to 75.19 % respectively (P<0.01). Furthermore, rapidly degradable DM fraction (a), in dried forage was lower (39.65 vs. 45.23 %) than in ensiled forage, and slowly degradable DM fraction (b) and rate constant of degradation of the b fraction (c) in dried forage was higher (41.46 vs. 36.39 % and 0.079 vs. 0.063 per hour respectively) than ensiled forage (P<0.01).
Conclusion: In general, the results have shown that quinoa forage had an acceptable digestibility and can be used as a substitution feedstuff with low water requirement in ruminant nutrition.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abarghuei, M.J., Shakeri, P., Fazaeli, H., Karimi, A.H., Boostani, A., Izadi, G.A., Izadi, M., Salehi, M., Mohammadi, D. Owji, T. Agah, M.J. and Mardaneh, A. 2023. Determination of chemical composition, degradability and digestibility of quinoa forage in different stages of harvesting. Final reports of research project. Animal Science Research Institute of Iran. (In Persian).
Abdallah, M. El, S. 2016. Evaluation of (Chenopodium quinoa willd) as a new forage crop under Egyptian condition. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master in agriculture science, Department of Animal Production Faculty of Agriculture in Shams University.
Adesogan, A.T. 2005. Effect of bag type on the apparent digestibility of feeds in Ankom DaisyII incubators. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 119: 333-344.
Ashera, A., Shmuel, G., Travis, W. and Lior, R. 2020. The potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) cultivation in Israel as a dual-purpose crop for grain production and livestock feed. Scientia Horticulturae, 272: 109534.
Barros-Rodríguez, M., Cajas-Naranjo, M., Núñez-Torres, O., Mera-Andrade, R., Artieda-Rojas, J., Sandoval-Castro, C. and J. Solorio-Sánchez. 2018. In situ rumen degradation kinetics and in vitro gas production of seed, whole plant and stover of chenopodium quinoa. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 28(1): 327-331.
Bazile, D., Pulvento, C., Verniau, A., Al-Nusairi, M.S., Ba, D., Breidy, J., Hassan, L., Mohammed, M.I., Mambetov, O., Otambekova, M., Sepahvand, N.A., Shams, A., Souici, D., Miri, K. and Padulosi, S. 2016. Worldwide evaluations of quinoa: preliminary results from post international year of quinoa FAO projects in nine countries. Frontiers in Plant Science, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls. 2016.00850.
Buxton, R., Muck, R.E. and Harrison, F. 2003. Silage science and technology. American society of agronomy, Madison, Wiscosin, USA.
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. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 118: 31-46.
Erdoğan, H. and Koca, Y.O. 2020. Effect of Quinoa-Corn intercropping production system on yield and quality of mixture silage. Turkish Journal of Range and Forage Science, 1(2): 57-65.
Hameleers, A., Leach, K.A. Offer, N.W. and Roberts, D.J. 1999. The effect of incorporating sugar beet pulp with forage maize at ensiling on silage fermentation and effluent output using drum silos. Grass and Forage Science, 54: 322-335.
Heidari, H., Bashtani, M., Asghari, M.R. and Naimipour Younesi, H. 2014. Determination of nutritional value of Fat-hen processed with lime at different times using in situ technique. Range Management, 3 (1): 81-97. (In Persian).
Hoseini Nejad, Z., Yoosefollahi, M. and Fazayeli, H. 2012. Nutritive Value of Five halophytes determined in Sistan area. Iranian Journal Animal Science, 43 (1): 1-10. (In Persian).
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 Journal of Animal Science, 34(4): 524-532.
Kaya, E. and Aydemir, S.K. 2020. Determining the forage yield, quality and nutritional element contents of quinoa cultivars and correlation analysis on these parameters. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 57(2): 311-317.
Kilic, A. 1986. Silo feed (instruction, education and application proposals). Bilgehan Pres. 327.
Khorvash, M. Colombatto, D., Beauchemin, K.A., Ghorbani, G.R. and Samei. A.H. 2005. Use of absorbant and inoculants to enhance the quality of corn silage. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 86: 97-107.
Mahmodi Abyaneh, M. 2011. Comparison of Nutritional Value of 3 Halophyte species with wheat straw and alfalfa hay. Thesis of Master Science, Mashhad Ferdowsi University. (In Persian).
McDonald, P., Henderson A.R. and Heron, S.J.E. 1991. The biochemistry of silage, 2nd ed. Holcombe Publications, UK.
Muller, T.H., Seyfarthw, F. and Krabe, O. 1991. Quality of grass silage depending on epiphytic lactic acid bacteria. In Forage Conservation Towards 2000 ed. Braunschweig: Institute of Grassland and Forage Research.
Ørskov, E.R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 92: 499-503.
Ørskov, E.R., Deb hovel, F.D. and mould, F. 1980. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feed stuffs. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 5: 195-213.
Papastylianou, P., Kakabouki, I., Tsiplakou, E., Travlos, I., Bilalis, D., Hela, D., Chachalis, D., Anogiatis, G. and Zervas, G. 2014. Effect of fertilization on yield and quality of biomass of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) and green amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Bulletin UASVM Horticulture, 71(2): 288-292.
Peiretti, P.G., Gai, F. and Tassone, S. 2013. Fatty acid profile and nutritive value of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) seeds and plants at different growth stages. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 183: 56-61.
Podkówka, Z., Gęsiński, K. and Podkówka, L. 2018. The influence of additives facilitating ensiling on the quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) silage. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 19(3): 607-614.
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 Journal of Animal Science Research, 7 (1): 1-11. (In Persian).
Saberi, A. and Kiani, A. 2023. The effects of plant density and irrigation frequency on production and water content of varieties Kochia, Quinoa and Forage sorghum. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 17(1): 56-67.
Salama, R., Yacout, M.H. Elgzar, M.I.T. and Awad, A.A. 2021. Nutritional evaluation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd) crop as unconventional forage resource in feeding ruminants. Egyptian Journal of Nutrition and Feeds, 24(1): 77-84.
SAS. 2003. SAS User’s Guide Statistics. Version 9.1 Ed. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary NC.
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.
Shakeri, P., Dayani, O., Asadi Korom, M., Naghafineghad, H. and Aghashahi, A.R. 2019. Determination of nutritive value, fermenability and degradability in two genotypes of Quinoa crop residues. Journal of Ruminant Research, 7(2): 83-96. (In Persian).
Sheikhi Sanandaji, D., Heidari, G., Fathi, P., Sharifi, Z. and Khodaverdiloo, H. 2023. Investigating the effects of different levels of vermicompost and irrigation on the yield and quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) forage. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 54(2): 15-29.
Valizadeh, R., Ghadami Koohestani, M. and Melati, F. 2010. Chemical composition, in situ degradability and in vitro gas production of winter fat plant (Eurotia ceratoides). Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research, 3(2): 159-165.(In Persian)
Van Soest, P.J. 1994. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. 2th ed. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY, PP. 476.
Wilson, R.K. 1985. Laboratory studies on chemical, electric-resistance and physical changes in grass silage over the first 14 days. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research, 24:39.
Journal of Ruminant Research
Volume 12, Issue 1
April 2024
Pages 51-68

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics