Journal of Animal Production, Print ISSN: 2008-6776., Online ISSN: 2382-994X

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

Journal Metrics

News

Evaluation of agricultural yield, and morphological, chemical, and nutritional characteristics of vetches and fodder pea compared to Alfalfa hay

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, Aburaihan College of Agricultural Technology, University of Tehran, Pakdasht, Iran. E-mail: j_khani@ut.ac.ir

2 Corresponding Author, Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, Aburaihan Faculty of Agricultural Technology, University of Tehran, Pakdasht, Iran. E-mail: a.alamouti@ut.ac.ir

3 Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran. E-mail: myari@malayeru.ac.ir

4 Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding Sciences, Aburaihan College of Agricultural Technology, University of Tehran, Pakdasht, Iran. E-mail: elias.soltani@ut.ac.ir

10.22059/jap.2025.384484.623809

Abstract

Objective: Climate change has intensified research efforts toward replacing alternative forages for traditional sources used in the diets of ruminants. In Iran, water scarcity has severely limited alfalfa cultivation during the past decade, despite that it has been traditionally fed as a main portion of cattle diets. The aims of this study were to evaluate the agricultural performance, botanical characteristics, and chemical and nutritional value of two varieties of fodder vetch (Common vetch (Vicia sativa) and hairy vetch (Vicia villosa)) and one variety of fodder pea (Pisum arvense) as compared to alfalfa hay (Medicago sativa).
Method: The experiment was carried out in 2020, as a completely randomized design, with each of the four legume crops cultivated on one hectare as the experimental treatments. The seeding rate was 60 kg/ ha and the soil type was loamy-clay.
Results: The results indicated that both fresh and dry forage yields from hairy vetch were significantly higher than those of the other forages (p<0.05). Additionally, hairy vetch exhibited the highest physical productivity (crop yield per unit water) and economic productivity (benefit per unit water), while alfalfa had the lowest values for the latter parameters (p<0.05). Alfalfa and fodder pea contained the highest quantities of organic matter (89.6% and 89.5% of dry matter, respectively), followed by hairy and common vetch (86.6% and 85.4% of dry matter, respectively). Common vetch fodder contained 27.2% crude protein, while alfalfa contained 17.9%. Fodder peas and hairy vetch contained 22.1% and 22.7% crude protein, respectively. The highest neutral detergent fiber content was found in hairy vetch and alfalfa (41.1% and 41.2%, respectively), whereas the lowest was observed in common vetch fodder at 36.6% of dry matter. Alfalfa had lower soluble protein content (fraction A) but higher contents of protein fractions B2, B3, and C, compared to fodder peas and fodder vetch varieties. Nutritional parameters estimated from equations developed for forages showed that common vetch had superior feed consumption potential, digestible dry matter, total digestible nutrients, relative forage quality, net energy for lactation, and relative feed quality across treatments (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Favorable nutritional characteristics of the experimental forages combined with agronomic yield parameters, and water utilization efficiency led to the conclusion that the legume crops studied in this experiment were potentially comparable to alfalfa for ruminant diets. In vivo studies are needed to further explore the performance effects of these legumes and their optimal inclusion levels as forage substitutes for alfalfa.

Keywords

References
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). (1990). Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. AOAC, Washington, DC. USA.
Alzueta, C., Caballero, R., Rebole, A., Trevino, J., & Gil, A. (2001). Crude protein fractions in common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) fresh forage during pod filling. Journal of Animal Science, 79(9), 2449-2455. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7992449x.
Ayed, M. H., González, J., Caballero, R., & Alvir, M. R. (2001). Effects of maturity on nutritive value of field-cured hays from common vetch and hairy vetch. Animal Research, 50(1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2001103.
Berhane, G., & Eik, L.O. (2006a). Effect of vetch (Vicia sativa) hay supplementation to Begait and Abergelle goats in northern Ethiopia. I. Milk yield and composition. Small Ruminant Research. 64, 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.04.021.
Berhane, G., & Eik, L. O. (2006b). Effect of vetch (Vicia sativa) hay supplementation to Begait and Abergelle goats in northern Ethiopia: II. Reproduction and growth rate. Small Ruminant Research. 64(3), 233-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.04.020.
Blagojević, M., Bora, D., Marković, J., Vasić, T., Milenković, J., & Petrović, M. (2017). Determination of green forage and silage protein degradability of some pea (Pisum sativum L.)+ oat (Avena sativa L.) mixtures grown in Serbia. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 23(4), 415-422.
Buonaiuto, G., Cavallini, D., Mammi, L. M. E., Ghiaccio, F., Palmonari, A., Formigoni, A., & Visentin, G. (2021). The accuracy of NIRS in predicting chemical composition and fiber digestibility of hay-based total mixed rations. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 20(1), 1730-1739.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2021.1990804.
Chen, H., Xiong, F., Wu, Q., Wang, W., Cui, Z., Zhang, F., & Yang, H. (2023). Estimation of energy value and digestibility and prediction equations for sheep fed with diets containing leymus chinensis hay. Agriculture, 13(6), 1213. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13061213.
Chrenková, M., Ceresnakova, Z., Weisbjerg, M. R., Formelová, Z., Polacikova, M., & Vondrakova, M. (2014). Characterization of proteins in feeds according to the CNCPS and comparison to in situ parameters. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 59(6), 288-295. https://doi.org/10.17221/7499-CJAS.
Demirkan, A. K., Nizam, I., Orak, A., Şen, C., Serkan Tenikecier, H., Güler, N., & Ersoy, H. (2018). Determination of some morphological characters and forage yield of Vetch (Vicia sp.) genotypes collected from Thrace region of Turkey. International Journal of Advanced Research, 11, 276-283. https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/7997.
Diatta, A. A., Min, D., & Jagadish, S. K. (2021). Drought stress responses in non-transgenic and transgenic alfalfa-Current status and future research directions. Advances in Agronomy, 170, 35-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2021.06.002.
 Fox, D. G., Tedeschi, L. O., Tylutki, T. P., Russell, J. B., Van Amburgh, M. E., Chase, L. E., & Overton, T. R. (2004). The Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System model for evaluating herd nutrition and nutrient excretion. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 112, 29-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2003.10.006.
Hayashi, Y., Devkota, N. R., & Kumagai, H. (2007). Effects of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) hay feeding on dry matter intake and milk production of Murrah buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) fed rice straw ad libitum. Animal Science Journal, 78(2), 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00419.x.
Heuzé V., Tran, G., & Baumont, R. (2015a). Common vetch (Vicia sativa). Feedipedia, a programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://feedipedia.org/node/239. Last updated on May 11, 2015.
Heuzé V., Tran G., & Giger-Reverdin S. (2015b). Pea forage. Feedipedia, a programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://feedipedia.org/node/7047. Last updated on September, 29, 2015.
Higgs, R. J., Chase, L. E., & Van Amburgh, M. E. (2012). Case study: application and evaluation of the Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System as a tool to improve nitrogen utilization in commercial dairy herds. The Professional Animal Scientist, 28(3), 370-378. https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30370-3.
Huang, Y. F., Matthew, C., Li, F., & Nan, Z. B. (2021). Common vetch varietal differences in hay nutritive value, ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestibility and performance of fattening lambs. Animal, 15(7), 100244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100244.
Inal, F., Tamkoc, A., Alatas, M. S., Kahraman, O., Ozbilgin, A., & Coskun, B. (2018). Determination of protein degradability of alfalfa hay via buffer or protease. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 17(2), 353-358.
Jeon, S., Kang, H., Park, S., & Seo, S. (2022). Evaluation of the Equations to Predict Net Energy Requirement for Lactation in the Cattle Feeding System: Based on the Literature Database. Agriculture, 12(5), 654. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050654.
Karagić, Đ., Mihailović, V., Katić, S., Mikić, A., Milić, D., Vasiljević, S., & Milošević, B. (2011). Effect of row spacing on seed yield of hairy, common and Hungarian vetches. Romanian Agricultural Research, (28), 143-150.
Katoch, R. (2022). Techniques in forage quality analysis. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
Lanzas, C., Tedeschi, L. O., Seo, S., & Fox, D. G. (2007). Evaluation of protein fractionation systems used in formulating rations for dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 90(1), 507-521. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)72653-X.
Mikić, A., Mihailović, V., Ćupina, B., Kosev, V., Warkentin, T., McPhee, K., & Ellis, N. (2011). Genetic background and agronomic value of leaf types in pea (Pisum sativum). Ratarstvo i povrtarstvo, 48(2), 275-284. https://doi.org/10.5937/ratpov1102275M.
Milić, D., Karagić, Đ., Vasiljević, S., Mikić, A., Mijić, B., & Katić, S. (2011). Leaf and stem chemical composition of divergent alfalfa cultivars. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, 27(4), 1505-1511. https://doi.org/10.2298/BAH1104505M.
Moore, K. J., Lenssen, A. W., & Fales, S. L. (2020). Factors affecting forage quality, In  Moore, L. K., Collins, M.,  Jerry Nelson, C., &  Redfearn, D. d. (Eds), Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture, John Wiley and Sons, NY, USA.
Moore, J. E., & Undersander, D. J. (2002). Relative forage quality: An alternative to relative feed value and quality index. Proceedings 13th annual Florida ruminant nutrition symposium. pp, 16-32.
Pirsamadi, N., Sedghi, M., Rasoul Fakhari, R. A. S. O. U. L., Hasanzadeh, N., & Barghi, A. (2014). Effect of Different Planting Distributions on Yield and Forage Quality of Common Vetch (Vicia sativa L.). Research On Crop Ecophysiology, 9(2), 82-88.
Rebolé, A., Treviño, J., Caballero, R., & Alzueta, C. (2001). Effect of maturity on the amino acid profiles of total and nitrogen fractions in common vetch forage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 81(4), 455-461. https://doi.org/10.1002/JSFA834.3.0.2V.
Rondahl, T., Bertilsson, J., & Martinsson, K. (2011). Effects of maturity stage, wilting and acid treatment on crude protein fractions and chemical composition of whole crop pea silages (Pisum sativum L.). Animal Feed Science and Technology, 163(1), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.09.017.
Sadafzadeh, E., Javanmard, A., Amani Machiani, M., & Sofo, A. (2023). Application of bio-fertilizers improves forage quantity and quality of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) intercropped with soybean (Glycine max L.). Plants, 12(16), 2985. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12162985.
Saha, U. K., Sonon, L. S., Hancock, D. W., Hill, N. S., Stewart, L., Heusner, G. L., & Kissel, D. E. (2010). Common terms used in animal feeding and nutrition. University of Georgia cooperative extension bulletin, 1367. 19 pp.
Saha, U., Hancock, D., & Kissel, D. (2014). How do we calculate relative forage quality in Georgia. Agricultural and environmental services laboratories, cooperative extension service, University of Georgia. pp 1-4.
Sheaffer, C. C., Martin, N. P., Lamb, J. F., Cuomo, G. R., Jewett, J. G., & Quering, S. R. (2000). Leaf and stem properties of alfalfa entries. Agronomy Journal, 92(4), 733-739.
Sniffen, C. J., O'connor, J. D., Van Soest, P. J., Fox, D. G., & Russell, J. B. (1992). A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of animal science, 70(11), 3562-3577.
Tan, M. (2013). Determination of dry matter yield and yield components of local forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) ecotypes. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 19(4), 289-296.   https://doi.org/10.1501/Tarimbil_0000001254.
Usman, S., Bedasa, E., & Tamirat, D. (2018). Performance evaluation of improved oat varieties/accessions at the highland of Guji Zone, Bore, Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 8(17).
Van Soest, P. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant, O & B Books Inc., Corvallis, OR, USA. 230-248.
Yari, M., Valizadeh, R., Naserian, A. A., Jonker, A., & Yu, P. (2013). Protein molecular structures in alfalfa hay cut at three stages of maturity and in the afternoon and morning and relationship with nutrient availability in ruminants. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 93(12), 3072-3080. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6141.
Yari, M., Valizadeh, R., Naserian, A. A., Ghorbani, G. R., Moghaddam, P. R., Jonker, A., & Yu, P. (2012). Botanical traits, protein and carbohydrate fractions, ruminal degradability and energy contents of alfalfa hay harvested at three stages of maturity and in the afternoon and morning. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 172(3-4), 162-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.01.004.
Yu, P., Christensen, D. A., & McKinnon, J. J. (2004). In situ rumen degradation kinetics of timothy and alfalfa as affected by cultivar and stage of maturity. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 84(2), 255-263. https://doi.org/10.4141/A03-116.
 Zhang, X., Liu, Y., Kong, F., Wang, W., & Li, S. (2023). Comparison of Nutritional Components, Ruminal Degradation Characteristics and Feed Value from Different Cultivars of Alfalfa Hay. Animals, 13(4), 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040734.
Journal of Animal Production, Print ISSN: 2008-6776., Online ISSN: 2382-994X
Volume 26, Issue 4
February 2025
Pages 419-434
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics