4.7 Article

Nutritive value of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) as a feed for ruminants: in sacco degradability and in vitro gas production

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 23, 页码 35241-35252

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-18698-x

关键词

Clover hay; In sacco; In vitro; Nutritive value; Quinoa; Unconventional feed

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the nutritive value of quinoa as a feed for ruminants. The results showed that quinoa had a high crude protein content and suitable fatty acid composition. The study also found that replacing clover hay with quinoa did not significantly affect gas production, but had a quadratic effect on methane production.
Replacement of conventional feedstuffs with inexpensive and non-conventional ingredients such as quinoa may improve animal performance and the quality of their products. Quinoa supplementation is believed to have a good nutritive value as a ruminant feed, but evidence is scarce. The present experiment aimed to evaluate the nutritive value of whole, dried quinoa plant (Chenopodium quinoa) as a feed for ruminants. In the first experiment, the in sacco technique was used to evaluate nutrient disappearance and fermentation kinetics of quinoa. In the second experiment, the in vitro gas production technique was used to evaluate diets with substitution of clover hay with quinoa at 0 (Q0), 15 (Q15), 30 (Q30), and 45% (Q45) of the diets. Proximate analysis showed that quinoa contained about 18.6% crude protein (CP) with oleic acid, arachic acid, linoleic acid, and palmitic acid as the major fatty acids. The in sacco degradability showed that the a fraction of dry matter (DM) was low, while the fraction b was high for DM and CP. Replacing clover hay with quinoa did not affect gas or methane production; however, Q30 treatment quadratically increased (P < 0.05) its production. It is concluded that quinoa can be used as a feed for ruminants and can replace clover hay up to 45% in the diet.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据