Effect of variety on nutritive value and anti-methanogenic potential of oat grain
Main Article Content
Keywords
Oat, chemical composition, digestibility, methane production, variety
Abstract
The objective of the study was to evaluate effect of variety on chemical composition, in vitro gas production, methane production, metabolisable energy (ME), organic matter digestibility (OMD) of oat grain. Variety had on chemical composition, in vitro gas production, methane production, ME, OMD of oat grain. Crude protein contents of oat varieties ranged from 9.30 to 12.65% with the highest values in TL293 and the lowest in Arslanbey. NDF and ADF contents of oat varieties ranged from 33.21 to 45.57% and 14.10 to 17.31 % respectively. NDF content of Variety of TL 258 was significantly higher than the others whereas ADF content of variety of Checorta was significantly higher than the others. GP and MP ranged from 49.70 to 58.01 ml, 7.72 to 10.18 ml. The GP from TL 80, Arslanbey and Faikbey were significantly higher than the others whereas methane production from variety of TL 304 was significantly lower than the others. The percentage of CH4 of oat grain ranged from 15.20 to 17.60%. ME and OMD of oat grains from different varieties ranged from 10.46 to 12.03 MJ (kg /DM) and 71.44 to 78.76 % respectively with the highest values in TL 80 and the lowest in TL 258. Variety had a significant effect on chemical compositions, GP, CH4 production, ME and OMD of grain. There is considerable amount of variation among oat varieties in terms of chemical compositions, gas production, CH4 production, ME and OMD of oat grain. The oat grains from different varieties had provided new raw materials with a range of nutritional characteristics and will provide not only energy and protein but also fiber for ruminant animals. Based on the chemical composition and fermentation parameters, variety TL 80 can be recommended for grain production since it has a high CP, ME and OMD.
References
2. Criscioni P, Fernandez C. Effect of rice bran as a replacement for oat grain in energy an nitrogen balance, methane emissions, and milk performance of Murciano-Granadina goats. J Dairy Sci 2016; 99:1-11.
3. Varma P, Bhankharia H, Bhatia S, Oats: A multi-functional grain. Clin Prev Cardiol 2019; 5:9-17.
4. Yasar S, Gok MS. Fattening performance of Japanese Quails (Coturnix coturnix japonica) fed on diets with high levels of dry fermented wheat, barley and oats grains in whey with citrus pomace. Bul UASVM Anim Sci Biotechnol 2014; 71(1):51-56.
5. Kliseviciute V, Svirmickas GJ, Alijosis S, Gruzauskas R, Sasyte V, Raceviciute-Stupeliene A. Nutritional value and digestible energy of different genotypes of oats in the horses nutrition. Vet Med Zoot 2016; 73(95):78-81.
6. Sterna V, Zute S, Brunava L, Oat grain composition and its nutrition benefice. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 2016; 8:252-256.
7. Buerstmayr H, Krenn N, Stephan U, Grausgruber H, Zechner E. Agronomic performance and quality of oat (Avena sativa L.) genotypes of worldwide origin produced under Central European growing conditions. Field Crops Res 2007; 101: 341-351.
8. Martinez MF, Arelovich HM, Wehrhahne LN. Grain yield, nutrient content and lipid profile of oat genotypes grown in a semiarid environment. Field Crops Res 2010; 116: 92-100.
9. Redaelli R, Lagana P, Rizza F, Nicosia OLD, Cattivelli L. Genetic progress of oats in Italy. Euphytica 2008; 164: 679-687.
10. Peterson DM, Wesenberg DM, Burrup DE, Erickson CA. Relationships among agronomic traits and grain composition in oat genotypes grown in different environments. Crop Sci 2005; 45: 1249-1255.
11. Uslu O.S., Kurt O, Kaya E, Kamalak A. Effect of species on the chemical composition, metabolisable energy, organic matter digestibility and methane production of some legume plants grown in Turkey. J App Anim Res 2018; 46(1):1158-1161.
12. Canbolat O, Akbay KC, Kamalak A. Possibilities of use of molasses as carbohydrate source in pea silages. KSU J Agric Nat 2019; 22(1):122-130.
13. Akbay F, Kamalak A, Erol A. The effect of vegetative periods of Faselya (Phacelia tanacetifolia Bentham) on hay yield, nutrient content and methane production. KSU J Agric Nat 2020; 23(4):981-985.
14. AOAC. Official method of analysis. 15th ed., pp.66-88. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1990, Washington, DC, USA.
15. Van Soest PV, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991; 74(10): 3583- 3597.
16. EEC. Determination of starch. Polarimetric method. Official Journal of European Communities, Brussels, Belgium. 1972; p. 6.
17. Menke KH, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J Agric Sci (Camb), 1979; 93:217-222.
18. Goel G, Makkar HPS, Becker K. Effect of Sesbania sesban and Carduus pycnocephalus leaves and Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L) seeds and their extract on partitioning of nutrients from roughage and concentrate-based feeds to methane. Anim. Feed Sci Technol 2008; 147 (1-3): 72-89.
19. Menke KH, Steingass H. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim Res Dev 1988; 28:7-55.
20. Biel W, Jacyno E, Kawecka M. Chemical composition of hulled, dehulled and naked oat grains. S Afr J Anim Sci 2014; 44(2):189-197.
21. Naneli I, Sakin MA. 2017. Determination of yield and quality parameters of some oat varieties (Avena sativa L) in different locations. Journal of Central Research Institute for Field Crops 2017; 26:37-44.
22. Sahin M, Akcacık, Aydogan S, Hamzaoğlu S, Çeri S, Demir B. Determination of some physical traits and nutrient components in oat (Avena sativa spp.). J Bahri Dagdas Anim Res 2017; 6(1):23-28.
23. Morgan CA, Campling RC. Digestibility of whole barley and oat grains by cattle of different ages. Anim Prod 1978;27:323-329.
24. Lopez, S., H.P.S. Makka, Soliva C.R Screening plants and plant products for methane inhibitors. In, Vercoe PE, Makkar HPS, Schlink A (Eds): In vitro screening of plant resources for extra-nutritional attributes in ruminants: Nuclear and Related Methodologies. 2010; pp.191-231, London, New York.
25. Lee HJ, Lee SC, Kim JD, oh YG, Kim BK, Kim CW, Kim KJ. Methane production potential of feed ingredients as measured by in vitro gas test. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci 2003; 16(8):1143-1150.
26. NRC. Nutrient requirements of small ruminants. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 2007, page, 316.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
How to Cite
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Transfer of Copyright and Permission to Reproduce Parts of Published Papers.
Authors retain the copyright for their published work. No formal permission will be required to reproduce parts (tables or illustrations) of published papers, provided the source is quoted appropriately and reproduction has no commercial intent. Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
özer kurt, University of Mus Alparslan, Faculty of Applied Science, Department of Animal Production and Technology
University of Mus Alparslan, Faculty of Applied Science, Department of Animal Production and TechnologyHow to Cite
