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

Feeding value of Lactuca Serriola at different harvesting stages and prediction of lag time with different models

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Hossien Bayatani
Mohammad Ali Norouzian
Ahmad Afzalzadeh

---

https://doi.org/10.22059/jap.2019.270353.623341
Abstract
The aim of this research was to study the feeding value of Lactuca Serriola at different harvesting stages and comparison of different models for prediction of its lag time. The forage was cut at tow growing stages before and after bloom and chemical composition, degradability and gas production parameters were compared with alfalfa hay. Also lag time of experimental forages was determined. The crud protein and NFC concentration were the lowest and NDF and ADF content were the highest after bloom compared with alfalfa hay (p<0.05). potentially digestible fraction (b) of DM increased by enhancement of the growing stage od Lactuca Serriola (p<0.05). effective degradability (ED) and gas production potential before bloom stage were significantly higher than the other experimental forages (p<0.05). Results obtained from prediction of lag time showed that the lag timewas the highest before bloom of Lactuca Serriola (p<0.05). In conclusion, Lactuca Serriola ( before bloom) could be considered as a good potential forage source in ruminant nutrition.

Keywords

alfalfa hay
Chemical composition
effective degradability
Lactuca Serriola
lag time
  1.  افضل زاده ا، پورعابدین م، خادم ع ا (1389) اثر سطوح مختلف تغذیه بر فاز تأخیری، ضریب انباشتگی، پتانسیل عبور و پتانسیل تجزیه برخی مواد علوفه­ای مورد استفاده در تغذیه نشخوارکنندگان. چهارمین کنگره علوم دامی ایران. پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران(کرج).
  2. پایی ن، کفیل‌زاده ف، فضایلی ح (1393) تعیین ارزش غذایی و عملکرد علوفۀ سیب‌زمینی ترشی. مجله پژوهش و سازندگی. 17(2): 335 - 350.
  3. دهقان م، افضل زاده ا (1388) بررسی اثر سطوح تغذیه و فرایند کردن بر فازتأخیری در تجزیه‌پذیری برخی مواد علوفه‌ای. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. گروه علوم دام و طیور، پردیس ابوریحان. دانشگاه تهران.
  4. دهقانی م، افضل‌زاده ا، رضا یزدی ک، نوروزیان م (1393) تأثیر جایگزینی یونجه با علوفه کنگر فرنگی بر گوارش‌پذیری، عملکرد و خصوصیات لاشۀ بره‌های پرواری لری- بختیاری. مجله تولیدات دامی، 16 (1):20-11.
  5. رزم‌آذر و، تربتی نژاد ن م، سیف دواتی ج، حسنی س (1390) ارزشیابی تغذیه­ای علوفه ماشک، خلر و گاودانه به روش­های شیمیایی و آزمون گاز. تولیدات دامی، 42 (1):93-85.
  6. طالب‌زاده م (1393) اصول ایجاد شیردهی و برقراری مجدد شیردهی. ترجمه، فصلنامه شماره 59 و 60.
  7. کردونی ع، عالم‌زاده ب (1383) تعیین ترکیبات شیمیایی، ضرایب هضمی نی با روش‌های in vitro و in vivo در استان خوزستان. پژوهش و سازندگی، 68: 24-30.
  8. معینی م م، آذری تربتی م، امانلو ح (1390) بررسی ارزش غذایی، خصوصیات تجزیه‌پذیری و تعیین سطح مطلوب گاودانه در جیره گاوهای هلشتاین شیرده. تولیدات دامی، 12(2): 59-51.
  9. Abarsaji, Gh, Shahi Gh and Passandi M (2008) Forage quality of Hedysarum coronariumat phenological stages. Journal of Research and Development 78: 55-51.
    1. Carroll NV, Longley W and Roe JH (1956) The determination of glycogen in liver and muscle by use of anthrone reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry 220:583-593.
    2. Dhanoa MS (1988) On the analysis of dacron bag data for low degradability feeds. Grass and Forage Science 43(4):441-444.
    3. Dong Shuang-zhao D, Azarfar A, Yang Z, Sheng-li L, Yajing W, Zhijun Z (2017) Effects of sequence of nylon bags rumen incubation on kinetics of degradation in some commonly used feedstuffs in dairy rations. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 16(1): 162–168.
    4. Grant RJ and Mertens DR (1992) Influence of buffer pH and raw corn starch addition on in vitro fiber buffer pH and raw corn starch addition on in vitro fiberdigestion kinetics. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 2762-2768.
    5. Hanf M (1983) The arable weeds of Europe with their seedling and seeds. BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Ludwigshafen, Germany.494 pp.
    6. Keim P, Valderrama X, Alomar D, López, I (2013)  In situ rumen degradation kinetics as affected by type of pasture and date of harvest. Sci Agric 70:405-414.
    7. Madsen  J,  Haelplund T,  wisbjerg  MR (1997) Appropriate  methods  for  evaluation  of  tropical  feeds  for ruminants.  Anim Feed Sci Tech 69(2):53-66.
    8. Menke KH, Salewski LA,  Steingass H, Fritz D and Schneider W (1979) The estimation of the digestibility and metabolisable energy content of ruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor. The Journal of Agricultural Science 93: 217-222.
    9. Menke KH and Steingass YH (1988) Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Developments 28:7-55.
    10. Nocek JE (1985) Evaluation of specific variables affecting in situ estimates of ruminal dry matter arzd protem digestion. Journal of Animal Science 60:1347–1358.
    11. Ørskov ER and McDonald I (1979) The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge92:499–503.
    12. Stern MD, Bach A and Calsamiglia S (2001) Alternative techniques for measuring nutrient digestion in ruminants. Journal of Animal Scince 75: 2256-2276.
    13. Tefera S, Mlamboa V, Dlamini B, Dlamini AM, Koralagama KDN and Mould FL (2008) Chemical  composition  and  in  vitro ruminal  fermentation  of  common  tree  forages  in  the  semi-arid  rangelands of Swaziland. Animal feed Science and Technology142:99–110.
    14. Van Eys JE and Reid RL (1987) Ruminal solubility of nitrogen and minerals from fescue and fescue-red clover herbage. Journal of animal science65(4):1101-1112.
    15. Van Milgen J, Berger L and Murphy MR (1993) An integrated, dynamic model of feed hydration and digestion, and subsequent bacterial mass accumulation in the rumen. British Journal of Nutrition 70(02):471-483.
    16. Varga GA (1986) Factors which affect estimation of lag time in the rumen. Feed Intake Symposium.
    17. Weaver S, Cluney K, Downs M, and Page E (2006) Prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) interference and seed production in soybeans and winter wheat. Weed Science54:496-503.
Journal of Animal Production, Print ISSN: 2008-6776., Online ISSN: 2382-994X
Volume 21, Issue 2
Summer 2019
Pages 209-221

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us