Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:12:26.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing effects of tannin-rich sainfoin supplements for grazing dairy goats on feed protein efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2020

Florian Leiber ,
Nadine Arnold ,
Felix Heckendorn  and
Steffen Werne
Florian Leiber*
Affiliation:
Department of Livestock Sciences, FiBL, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Ackerstrasse 113, 5070, Frick, Switzerland
Nadine Arnold
Affiliation:
Department of Livestock Sciences, FiBL, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Ackerstrasse 113, 5070, Frick, Switzerland
Felix Heckendorn
Affiliation:
Department of Livestock Sciences, FiBL, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Ackerstrasse 113, 5070, Frick, Switzerland
Steffen Werne
Affiliation:
Department of Livestock Sciences, FiBL, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Ackerstrasse 113, 5070, Frick, Switzerland
*
Author for correspondence: Florian Leiber, Email: florian.leiber@fibl.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research communication presents a study evaluating the effects of dried sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) supplemented to dairy goats on their milking performance and feed protein efficiency under commercial conditions. During July and August 2015, a herd of 20 Alpine goats was divided into two treatments (n = 10), balanced by milk yield and days in milk. They were supplied with either 700 g/d sainfoin pellets (condensed tannins: 4.0 g/kg DM) or 700 g/d lucerne (Medicago sativa) pellets (condensed tannins: 0.3 g/kg DM). The goats remained in one herd and were separated by treatments only during milking. In the milking parlour each goat received 350 g of the respective pellets, twice daily. During the day, the herd had 5 h access to a high-quality pasture (crude protein >200 g/kg DM), whilst during the rest of the day and the night animals were housed and offered grass hay ad libitum. The experiment lasted for seven weeks. Individual milk yields and composition were controlled in weeks 1, 3, 5, and 7 after the start of the experiment. No differences between the treatments were found, either for milk, protein or urea yields, nor for protein, urea and fat concentrations. Urea to protein ratio in milk was lower with the sainfoin treatment. In conclusion, sainfoin compared to lucerne, supplied for 7 weeks to dairy goats at approximately 25% of the diet, had only weak beneficial and no adverse effects on milking performance, milk composition and feed protein efficiency under commercial conditions of pasture-based dairy production.

Keywords

Alfalfadairy goatmilk ureanitrogen efficiencyplant secondary compound
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 87 , Issue 4 , November 2020 , pp. 397 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hannah Dairy Research Foundation

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.)

References

Agroscope (2016) Fütterungsempfehlungen für Wiederkäuer. Posieux, Switzerland. Available at https://www.agroscope.ch/gruenes-buch.Google Scholar
Al-Kindi, A, Dickhoefer, U, Schlecht, E, Sundrum, A and Schiborra, A (2016) Effects of quebracho tannin extract (Schinopsis balansae Engl.) and activated charcoal on nitrogen balance, rumen microbial protein synthesis and faecal composition of growing Boer goats. Archives of Animal Nutrition 70, 307–321.10.1080/1745039X.2016.1175807CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jayanegara, A, Marquardt, S, Kreuzer, M and Leiber, F (2011) Nutrient and energy content, in vitro ruminal fermentation characteristics and methanogenic potential of alpine forage plant species during early summer. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 91, 1863–1870.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jayanegara, A, Marquardt, S, Wina, E, Kreuzer, M and Leiber, F (2013) In vitro indications for favourable non-additive effects on ruminal methane mitigation between high-phenolic and high-quality forages. British Journal of Nutrition 109, 615–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jonker, A and Yu, P (2017) The occurrence, biosynthesis, and molecular structure of proanthocyanidins and their effects on legume forage protein precipitation, digestion and absorption in the ruminant digestive tract. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 18, 1105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nousiainen, J, Shingfield, KJ and Huhtanen, P (2004) Evaluation of milk urea nitrogen as a diagnostic of protein feeding. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 386–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waghorn, G (2008) Beneficial and detrimental effects of dietary condensed tannins for sustainable sheep and goat production – progress and challenges. Animal Feed Science and Technology 147, 116–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y, McAllister, TA and Acharya, S (2015) Condensed tannins in sainfoin: composition, concentration, and effects on nutritive and feeding value of sainfoin forage. Crop Science 55, 13–22.10.2135/cropsci2014.07.0489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, SP, Terranova, M, Kreuzer, M, Marquardt, S, Eggerschwiler, L and Schwarm, A (2018) Supplementation of pelleted hazel (Corylus avellana) leaves decreases methane and urinary nitrogen emissions by sheep at unchanged forage intake. Scientific Reports 8, 5427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werne, S, Perler, E, Maurer, V, Probst, JK, Hoste, H, Drewek, A and Heckendorn, F (2013) Effect of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) and faba bean (Vicia faba) on the periparturient rise in ewes infected with gastrointestinal nematodes. Small Ruminant Research 113, 454–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, H, Kreuzer, M and Leiber, F (2013) Vegetation-type effects on performance and meat quality of growing Engadine and Valaisian Black Nose sheep grazing alpine pastures. Livestock Science 151, 80–91.10.1016/j.livsci.2012.10.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Leiber et al. supplementary material

Leiber et al. supplementary material

Download Leiber et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 754.8 KB