Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T12:17:21.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

1. Voluntary intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

T. N. Barry  and
S. J. Duncan
T. N. Barry
Affiliation:
Invermay Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Mosgiel, New Zealand
S. J. Duncan
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. Voluntary intake was determined with vegetative Lotus pedunculatus cut and fed fresh to growing sheep of 42–46 kg live weight. Effects attributable to condensed tannins were assessed by growing the plant under high and low levels of soil fertility, inducing low and high concentrations of tannin (Expt 1), or by binding the tannins through spraying the herbage with polyethylene glycol (molecular weight 3350, PEG; Expt 2). Primary-growth lotus was used in Expt 1 and secondary-growth lotus in Expt 2. Concentrations of total and free condensed tannin were determined in fresh lotus, free tanning being defined as that not bound by mascerates of the plant.

2. In Expt 1 the herbages fed contained respectively 46 and 106 g total condensed tannin/kg dry matter (DM) and 3 and 14 g free condensed tannin/kg DM. Mean metabolizable energy (ME) intakes were 0.89 and 0.77 MJ/kg live weight0.75 per d (P < 0.05) respectively.

3. The lotus used in Expt 2 contained 63 and 5 g total reactive condensed tannin and free condensed tannin/kg DM respectively. After spraying with PEG at 2.4 g/g total condensed tannin, these values were reduced to 7 and 0.5 g/kg DM respectively. PEG addition increased apparent digestibility (proportion of each nutrient ingested) of cellulose, hemicellulose and nitrogen by 0.05, 0.08 and 0.26, and increased ME intake from 0.48 to 0.69 MJ/kg live weight0.75 per d.

4. It was concluded that high concentrations of condensed tannins depressed ME intake, due to depressions in both the voluntary intake and digestion of organic matter. The stimulation of hemicellulose and cellulose digestion by PEG addition suggests that the condensed tannin was depressing rumen digestion.

5. It is considered that free tannins are most likely to have been responsible for the depressive effects in the present study. This could be due to their reaction with microbial enzymes in the rumen, the tannin content of the plant exceeding the capacity of the plant protein to bind it, or to reaction with enzymes secreted into the small intestine following the absorption of amino acids. In either instance free tannins could also react with proteins of the gut wall.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , May 1984 , pp. 485 - 491
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, C. S. (1974). New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 2, 333–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, R. W. (1967). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N. (1980). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 427–431.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. & Forss, D. A. (1983). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 34, 1047–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N. & Manley, T. R. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 51, 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadhurst, R. W. & Jones, W. T. (1978). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 29, 788–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, W. & Lancashire, J. A. (1981). Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 42, 152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, W. T., Anderson, L. B. & Ross, M. D. (1973). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 16, 441–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, W. T. & Mangan, J. L. (1977). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 28, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowther, W. L. (1980). New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 8, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, N. M. (1974). Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 44, 803–815.Google Scholar
Ross, M. D. & Jones, W. T. (1974). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 17, 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Fennessy, P. F., Rattray, P. V. & Jagusch, K. T. (1980). In Supplementary Feeding, Occasional Publication of New Zealand Society of Animal Production, no. 7, pp. 157–184. [Drew, R.K., Fennessy, P. F., editors]. Mosgiel: New Zealand Society of Animal Production.Google Scholar