Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T12:20:09.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of condensed tannins in the nutritional value of Lotus pedunculatus for sheep

2. Quantitative digestion of carbohydrates and proteins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

T. N. Barry  and
T. R. Manley
T. N. Barry
Affiliation:
Invermay Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Mosgiel, New Zealand
T. R. Manley
Affiliation:
Invermay Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Mosgiel, New Zealand
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Primary growth vegetative Lotus pedunculatus containing 46 and 106 g/kg dry matter (DM) of total condensed tannin and 3 and 14 g/kg DM of free condensed tannin, was cut and fed fresh at hourly intervals (750 g DM/d) to sheep fitted with permanent cannulas into the rumen and duodenum. Low- and high-tannin lotus contained respectively 41.3 and 31.6 g total nitrogen/kg DM and 132 and 152 g lignin/kg DM. The two forms of lotus were similar in carbohydrate composition.

2. Nutrient intake was recorded and faecal output measured by direct collection. Digesta flow to the duodenum was estimated by measuring dilution at the duodenum of inert ruthenium phenanthroline (Ru-P) and chromium-EDTA markers continuously infused into the rumen.

3. Effects attributable to condensed tannins were assessed by comparing the digestion of the two diets, and by comparing the digestion of each with predicted values for non-tannin-containing fresh forages fed at similar intakes.

4. Apparent digestibility of all nutrients measured was less for high- than for low-tannin lotus (P < 0.01). The levels of cellulose digested ruminally and post-ruminally in both forms of lotus were similar to predicted values. However, less hemicellulose and readily fermentable carbohydrate (RFC; soluble carbohydrate + pectin) was digested in the rumen in sheep given both forms of lotus than would be predicted for non-tannin-containing fresh forage diets, but this was compensated for by greater post-ruminal absorption of both nutrients.

5. Total N gains across the rumen (duodenal N flow – total N intake) were 1.8 and 10.5 g/d for low- and high-tannin lotus v. predicted losses of 3.7 and 2.1 g/d for non-tannin-containing fresh forages given at the same total N intakes. Post-ruminal digestion of non-amonia-N (NAN; proportion NAN flowing at duodenum) was 0.71 and 0.67 for low- and high-tannin lotus respectively v. 0.76 for comparable non-tannin-containing fresh forages. Energy absorbed as amino acids from the small intestine was calculated to be 0.29 of metabolizable energy for both forms of lotus, compared with 0.17 and 0.21 for perennial ryegrass and white clover.

6. It was concluded that the presence of condensed tannins in lotus markedly increased post-ruminal NAN absorption compared with non-tannin-containing fresh forage diets, but depressed ruminal digestion of RFC and hemicellulose.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , May 1984 , pp. 493 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

REFERENCES

Bailey, R. W. (1967). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 521–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N. (1982). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of New Zealand 7, 66–76.Google Scholar
Barry, T. N. & Duncan, S. J. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 51, 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N. & Forss, D. A. (1983). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 34, 1047–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N., Manley, T. R. & Duncan, S. J. (1984). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Cammell, S. B. & Harrison, D. G. (1977). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., van't Klooster, A. Th. & Frens, A. M. (1968). Veterinary Record 82, 470.Google Scholar
Black, J. L. (1974). Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 10, 211–218.Google Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1974). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 25, 613–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliot, R. & Armstrong, D. G. (1982). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C. C., MacRae, J. C. & Wilson, S. (1977). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975 a). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant pp. 277–291 [McDonald, W.I., Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975 b). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P., Weston, R. H. & Lindsay, J. R. (1970). In Proceedings of the XI International Grassland Congress pp. 706–709. [Norman, M. J. T., editor]. St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
John, A. & Lancashire, J. A. (1981). Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 42, 152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, W. T., Broadhurst, R. B. & Lyttleton, J. W. (1976). Phytochemistry 15, 1407–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, W. T. & Mangan, J. L. (1977). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 28, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, N. M. (1974). Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 44, 803–815.Google Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, T. N., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes 22, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Technicon (1974). Auto Analyser II method No. 321–74A. Ammoniacal nitrogen. Technicon Industrial Systems. Tarrytown, NY 10591 U.S.A.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & Egan, A. R. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & MacRae, J. C. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. F. (1964). Formaldehyde. New York: Reinhold Publ. Corp.Google Scholar