3.8 Article

Rumen digestion and intestinal nutrient flows in sheep consuming pea seeds:: the effect of extrusion or chestnut tannin addition

期刊

ANIMAL RESEARCH
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 201-216

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/animres:2002021

关键词

pea; digestion; extrusion; tannin; ruminant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different treatments aimed at reducing rumen degradability of pea protein were evaluated by in situ and in vivo measurements of rumen and intestine digestion of proteins. Four fistulated sheep were used. Pea seed provided 50% of dietary crude protein (CP) and was used raw ( RP), with chestnut tannin ( RPT2, 20 g.kg(-1) of pea CP; RPT3, 30 g.kg(-1) of pea CP), and extruded (EP). Rumen in situ degradability of pea protein was decreased by extrusion (83.3% vs. 90.8%) but was not affected by tannin addition. In vivo tannin addition did not affect the organic matter (OM) and N apparent digestibility, at the level of the rumen, the intestine or the whole tract. Extrusion decreased the apparent digestion of OM in the rumen but increased it in the small intestine. Total tract OM digestibility was not affected. Duodenal flow of non-ammonia N (NAN) increased by 27% between the RP and EP diet. This increase was mainly related to an increase in non-microbial N flow. Small intestine NAN apparent digestibility was not affected by extrusion and the amount of NAN apparently digested in the small intestine increased by 23% between the RP and EP diet. A slight decrease in total tract N digestibility was observed with extrusion. The efficiency of microbial protein synthesis was increased by extrusion. Small intestine apparent digestion of amino acids was greater for EP than for RP, but the profile of apparently absorbed amino acids was not affected. This study showed that low doses of tannins (up to 30 g.kg(-1) of pea CP, 15 g.kg(-1) of dietary CP) were inefficient in decreasing protein rumen degradability, however, the extrusion treatment largely increased the nitrogenous value of the pea seeds.

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

3.8
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