Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T09:25:42.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of condensed tannins on the site of digestion of amino acids and other nutrients in sheep fed on Lotus corniculatus L

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G. C. Waghorn ,
M. J. Ulyatt ,
A. John  and
M. T. Fisher
G. C. Waghorn
Affiliation:
Applied Biochemistry Division, DSIR, Palmerston North, New Zealand
M. J. Ulyatt
Affiliation:
Applied Biochemistry Division, DSIR, Palmerston North, New Zealand
A. John
Affiliation:
Applied Biochemistry Division, DSIR, Palmerston North, New Zealand
M. T. Fisher
Affiliation:
Applied Biochemistry Division, DSIR, Palmerston North, 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. Sheep were used to evaluate the nutritional consequences of a low condensed-tannin concentration (22 g/kg dry matter (DM)) in lotus (Lotus corniculatus L.) (control group) compared with lotus given to sheep receiving intraruminal polyethylene glycol (PEG) infusion (PEG group). PEG selectively binds to tannins and prevents tannins from binding proteins.

2. DM intakes (1430 (SE 28) g/d) and digestibility of energy (663 (SE 4.5) kJ/MJ intake) were similar for both groups but the apparent digestion of nitrogen was lower in the control sheep (0.70) than in the PEG sheep (0.78; P < 0.001).

3. The proportion of N apparently digested before the abomasum (i.e. in the rumen) was lower (P < 0.05) in control sheep (0.12) than in PEG sheep (0.21; P < 0.05). Rumen ammonia concentrations were lower (P < 0.001) in control sheep than in PEG sheep. The proportion of neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) digested in the rumen was similar for both groups (0.48 (SE 0.012)) but less energy was digested in the rumen of the control (0.42) than of the PEG sheep (0.47; P < 0.05).

4. The flux of essential amino acids (EAA) through the abomasum of control sheep was 50% greater than that in PEG sheep; flux of non-essential amino acids (NEAA) was 14% higher in control than in PEG sheep. Apparent digestibility of EAA in the small intestine was similar for both treatments (0.67), but NEAA were less well digested in the control (0.55) than in the PEG sheep (0.69).

5. The presence of tannins in the control group increased net apparent absorption of threonine (57%), valine (89%), isoleucine (94%), leucine (30%), tyrosine (41%), phenylalanine (93%), histidine (90%) and lysine (59%), and reduced NEAA absorption by 10%, compared with PEG sheep.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 115 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1987

References

REFERENCES

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1982) Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 65, 496.Google Scholar
Barry, T. N. & Duncan, S. J. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 51, 485–491.Google Scholar
Barry, T. N. & Forss, D. A. (1983). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 34, 1047–1056.Google Scholar
Barry, T. N. & Manley, T. R. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 51, 492–504.Google Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., van't Klooster, A. Th. & Frens, A. M. (1968). Veterinary Record 82, 470–472.Google Scholar
Broadhurst, R. B. & Jones, W. T. (1978). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculrure 29, 788–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. R. & Ulydtt, M. J. (1980). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 47–56.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 227–291 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Fisher, M. T. (1983). In Symposium on Food Chemistry, pp. 28–40 [Richards, E. L., editor]. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University.Google Scholar
Fisher, M. T., Lee, J. & Mara, K. M. (1986). Analyst (In the Press)Google Scholar
Grace, N. D. (1983). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 59–70.Google Scholar
Grodsky, G. M. (1979). In Review of Physiological Chemistry, pp. 556–568 [Harper, H. A., Rodwell, V. W. and Nayes, P. A., editors]. Los Altos, California: Lange Medical Publications.Google Scholar
Harrison, D. G., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J. & Osbourn, D. F. (1973). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, A. (1984). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, A. & Lancashire, J. A. (1981). Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 42, 152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, W. T. & Mangan, J. L. (1977). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 28, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (1981). Technical Report no. 3. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Applied Biochemistry Division, DSIR.Google Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangan, J. L. (1982). In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production, Occasional Publication no. 6, pp. 25–40 [Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G., editors]. Milton Keynes: British Society of Animal Production.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. B. & Van Soest, P. J. (1980). In Basic and Clinical Nutrition, vol. 3, pp. 123–158 [James, W. P. T. and Theander, O., editors]. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.Google Scholar
Tan, T. N., Weston, R. H. & Hogan, J. P. (1971). International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes 22, 301–308.Google Scholar
Technicon Industrial Systems (1973). Autounalyser II Method no. 270–73W. Tarrytown, NY 10591, USA: Technicon Ltd.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Harrison, D. G., Hill, I. W. & Osbourn, D. F. (1971). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 30, 14A.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & Egan, A. R. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 605–616.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Lancashire, J. A. & Jones, W. T. (1977). Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 38, 107–118.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J. & Macrae, J. L. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 295–307.Google Scholar
Waghorn, G. C., Flux, D. S. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1987). Animal Production 44 (In the Press).Google Scholar
Williams, C. H. & Twine, J. R. (1967). CSIRO Technical paper no. 24, pp. 119–126. Melbourne: CSIRO.Google Scholar