Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:43:56.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of cottonseed processing and chitosan supplementation on lamb performance, digestibility and nitrogen digestion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2020

T. S. Magalhães ,
G. G. P. Carvalho Open the ORCID record for G. G. P. Carvalho [Opens in a new window] ,
E. M. Santos ,
J. E. Freitas Júnior ,
D. S. Pina ,
L. F. B. Pinto ,
G. B. Mourão ,
F. D. S. Soares ,
C. E. Eiras  and
L. G. A. Cirne
...Show all authors
T. S. Magalhães
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Bahia, 40170110, Salvador, BA, Brazil
G. G. P. Carvalho*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Bahia, 40170110, Salvador, BA, Brazil
E. M. Santos
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Paraíba, 58397000, Areia, PB, Brazil
J. E. Freitas Júnior
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Bahia, 40170110, Salvador, BA, Brazil
D. S. Pina
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Bahia, 40170110, Salvador, BA, Brazil
L. F. B. Pinto
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Bahia, 40170110, Salvador, BA, Brazil
G. B. Mourão
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of São Paulo, 13418900, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
F. D. S. Soares
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Southwest Bahia State University, 45700000, Itapetinga, BA, Brazil
C. E. Eiras
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Bahia, 40170110, Salvador, BA, Brazil
L. G. A. Cirne
Affiliation:
Institute of Biodiversity and Forestry, Federal University of Western Pará, 68035110, Santarém, PA, Brazil
L. C. Leite
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Recôncavo da Bahia, 44380000, Cruz das Almas, BA, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: G. G. P. Carvalho, E-mail: gleidsongiordano@yahoo.com.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current study was carried out to examine the effect of cottonseed processing and chitosan supplementation on lamb performance, digestibility and nitrogen digestion. Eighty uncastrated Santa Inês lambs (23 ± 2.2 kg average weight, 4 months old) were distributed in a completely randomized design in a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement that consisted of two cottonseed processing forms (whole or ground) and two chitosan levels (0 or 136 mg/kg live weight). Higher dry matter and organic matter apparent digestibility coefficient (ADC) was achieved with the diets containing the whole cottonseed. Ether extract ADC was higher in the animals fed the chitosan-containing diet. There was an interaction effect on the ADC of neutral detergent fibre corrected for ash and protein, which increased with chitosan inclusion associated with the whole cottonseed. The lambs that received the treatment containing the whole cottonseed showed higher microbial protein synthesis. Chitosan addition increased nitrogen retention. The animals fed chitosan-containing diets showed higher microbial protein synthesis. There was an interaction effect on microbial protein synthesis. Whole cottonseed associated with chitosan in lamb diets increases ether extract ADC and microbial protein synthesis.

Keywords

Intakemicrobial protein synthesisnitrogen balanceweight gain
Type
Animal Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 157 , Issue 7-8 , October 2019 , pp. 636 - 642
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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

AOAC (1990) Official Methods of Analysis. Arlington, VA, USA: AOAC.Google Scholar
AOAC (2002) Official Methods of Analysis. Arlington, VA, USA: AOAC.Google Scholar
Araújo, APC, Venturelli, BC, Santos, MCB, Gardinal, R, Consolo, NRB, Calomeni, GD, Freitas, JE, Barletta, RV, Gandra, JR, Paiva, PG and Rennó, FP (2015) Chitosan affects total nutrient digestion and ruminal fermentation in Nellore steers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 206, 114–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassi, MS, Ladeira, MM, Chizzotti, ML, Chizzotti, FHM, de Oliveira, DM, Machado Neto, OR, de Carvalho, JRR and Nogueira Neto, AA (2012) Oilseeds in zebu cattle diet: intake, digestibility and performance. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 41, 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belanche, A, Pinloche, E, Preskett, D and Newbold, CJ (2016) Effects and mode of action of chitosan and ivy fruit saponins on the microbiome, fermentation and methanogenesis in the rumen simulation technique. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 92, article no. fiv160. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiv160.Google ScholarPubMed
Calsamiglia, S, Busquet, M, Cardozo, PW, Castillejos, L and Ferret, A (2007) Invited review: essential oils as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2580–2595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, XB and Gomes, MJ (1992) Estimation of Microbial Protein Supply to Sheep and Cattle Based on Urinary Excretion of Purine Derivatives – an Overview of Technical Details. Occasional publication. Aberdeen, UK: International Feed Resources Unit, Rowett Research Institute.Google Scholar
Cunha, MGG, Carvalho, FFR, Véras, ASC and Batista, AMV (2008) Performance and apparent digestibility of feedlot sheep fed with different dietary whole cottonseed levels. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 37, 1103–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Valle, TA, de Paiva, PG, de Jesus, EF, de Almeida, GF, Zanferari, F, Costa, AGBVB, Bueno, ICS and Rennó, FP (2017) Dietary chitosan improves nitrogen use and feed conversion in diets for mid-lactation dairy cows. Livestock Science 201, 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Paiva, PG, de Jesus, EF, Del Valle, TA, de Almeida, GF, Costa, AGBVB, Consentini, CEC, Zanferari, F, Takiya, CS, Bueno, ICS and Rennó, FP (2016) Effects of chitosan on ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestibility, and milk yield and composition of dairy cows. Animal Production Science 57, 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dias, AOC, Goes, RHTB, Gandra, JR, Takiya, CS, Branco, AF, Jacaúna, AG, Oliveira, RT, Souza, CJS and Vaz, MSM (2017) Increasing doses of chitosan to grazing beef steers: nutrient intake and digestibility, ruminal fermentation, and nitrogen utilization. Animal Feed Science and Technology 225, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutta, PK, Dutta, J and Tripathi, VS (2004) Chitin and chitosan: chemistry, properties and applications. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 63, 20–31.Google Scholar
Fadel El-Seed, NMA, Kamel, HEM, Sekine, J, Hishinuma, M and Hamana, K (2003) Chitin and chitosan as possible novel nitrogen sources for ruminants. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 161–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandra, JR, Takiya, CS, de Oliveira, ER, de Paiva, PG, de Tonissi, RH, de Goes, B, Gandra, ERS and Araki, HMC (2016) Nutrient digestion, microbial protein synthesis, and blood metabolites of jersey heifers fed chitosan and whole raw soybeans. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 45, 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Rodriguez, A, Arranz, J, Mandaluniz, N, Beltrán-De-Heredia, I, Ruiz, R and Goiri, I (2015) Production performance and plasma metabolites of dairy ewes in early lactation as affected by chitosan. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 13, article no. e06SC04. 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2015134-7683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geron, LJV, Mexia, AA, Garcia, J, Zeoula, LM, Garcia, RRF and Moura, DC (2012) Performance of finishing lambs supplemented with cottonseed (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and ground corn (Zea mays L.). Archives of Veterinary Science 17, 34–42.Google Scholar
Goiri, I, Garcia-Rodriguez, A and Oregui, LM (2009) Effect of chitosan on mixed ruminal microorganism fermentation using the rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). Animal Feed Science and Technology 152, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goiri, I, Indurain, G, Insausti, K, Sarries, V and Garcia-Rodriguez, A (2010) Ruminal biohydrogenation of unsaturated fatty acids in Vitro as affected by chitosan. Animal Feed Science and Technology 159, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, MB (2003) Challenges with nonfiber carbohydrate methods. Journal of Animal Science 81, 3226–3232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henry, DD, Ruiz-Moreno, M, Ciriaco, FM, Kohmann, M, Mercadante, VRG, Lamb, GC and DiLorenzo, N (2015) Effects of chitosan on nutrient digestibility, methane emissions, and in vitro fermentation in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 93, 3539–3550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kong, M, Chen, XG, Xing, K and Park, HJ (2010) Antimicrobial properties of chitosan and mode of action: a state of the art review. International Journal of Food Microbiology 144, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Licitra, G, Hernandez, TM and Van Soest, PJ (1996) Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, DR (1997) Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1463–1481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertens, DR (2002) Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beakers or crucibles: collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International 85, 1217–1240.Google ScholarPubMed
National Research Council (NRC) (2007) Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants. Sheep, Goats, Cervids and New World Camelids. Washington, DC, USA: NRC.Google Scholar
Nocek, JE and Tamminga, S (1991) Site of digestion of starch in the gastrointestinal tract of dairy cows and its effect on milk yield and composition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3598–3629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmquist, DL and Jenkins, TC (1980) Fat in lactation rations: review. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pereira, MLA, Pereira, TCJ, Silva, HGO, Cruz, JF, Almeida, PJP, Santos, AB, Santos, EJ and Peixoto, CAM (2013) Substitution of corn by mesquite pod meal in pellet diets for lambs: nitrogen compounds metabolism. In Oltjen, JW, Kebreab, E and Lapierre, H (eds), Energy and Protein Metabolism and Nutrition in Sustainable Animal Production. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 93–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute (2005) SAS: User's Guide: Statistics. Version 9.1.3. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Senel, S and McClure, SJ (2004) Potential applications of chitosan in veterinary medicine. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 56, 1467–1480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva, RVMM, Carvalho, GGP, Pires, AJV, Pereira, MLA, Pereira, L, Campos, FS, Perazzo, AF, Bezerra, LS, Moreira, JV and Rufino, LMA (2016) Nitrogen balance, microbial protein synthesis digestive behavior of lambs fed diets containing cottonseed cake in substitution of soybean meal. Semina: Ciências Agrárias 37, 2155–2166.Google Scholar
Sniffen, CJ, O'Connor, JD, Van Soest, PJ, Fox, DG and Russel, JB (1992) Net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3562–3577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teixeira, JC, Silva, EA, Braga, RAN and Moron, IR (2002) Ruminal degradability of cottonseed and corn at different physical [sic] forms in Holstein dairy cows. Ciência e Agrotecnologia 26, 842–845.Google Scholar
Valadares, FD, Broderick, GA, Valadares Filho, SC and Clayton, MK (1999) Effect of replacing alfalfa silage with high moisture corn on ruminal protein synthesis estimated from excretion of total purine derivatives. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2686–2696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, WP (1999) Energy prediction equations for ruminant feeds. In Proceedings of the 61th Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University, pp. 176–185.Google Scholar
Wencelová, M, Varadyová, Z, Mihaliková, K, Kišidayová, S and Jalč, D (2014) Evaluating the effects of chitosan, plant oils, and different diets on rumen metabolism and protozoan population in sheep. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 38, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, J (2018) Digestibility and degradability in animal nutrition studies. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 156, 1161–1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar