The potential of sunflower (Helianthus annuus) residue silage as a forage source in Mohabadi dairy goats

Authors

Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the chemical composition and nutritive value of sunflower residues silage (SRS) and effects of its substitution with alfalfa hay and corn silage on lactation performance, feed intake, nutrient digestibility and some blood parameters of Mohabadi dairy goats. Four experimental diets were formulated to gradually replace alfalfa hay and corn silage with SRS as follows: Control (no inclusion of SRS, group 1) and groups 2 to 4, representing 15, 30 and 45.00% replacement of common forages in the diet with SRS, respectively. Sixteen multiparous dairy goats weighing 60.00 ± 3.00 were divided into two 4 × 4 latin square design. Ensiling was being able to increase crude protein content, reduce neutral detergent fiber and increase acid detergent lignin in sunflower residues. Daily dry matter (DM) intake and DM and organic matter (OM) digestibility decreased with increasing levels of SRS in the diet. The highest and the lowest digestibility coefficients belonged to 30 and 45.00% embedment levels, respectively. Milk yield decreased with increasing levels of SRS and differences were statistically significant compared to the highest substitution level. Milk composition was similar among diets, but daily production of milk decreased in higher substation levels. Statistically significant differences were found in serum low-density lipoproteins (LDL) concentrations between treatments and LDL levels decreased as dietary levels of SRS increased. According to these results, SRS is an acceptable feed for dairy goats and common dietary forages can be replaced up to 30.00% with SRS without negative effects on milk yield and composition.

Keywords

Main Subjects

 

  1. Givens DI, Owen E, Omed HM, et al. Forage evaluation in ruminant nutrition. Wallingford, UK: CABI 2000; 1-43.
  2. Food and Agriculture Organization. Production year book. Food and agriculture organization. FAO, Rome. 2013; 128-130. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ i3107e/i3107e00.htm. Accessed March 8, 2019.
  3. Iranian Ministry of Agriculture. Production year Book. IT and statistic center. Iranian ministry of agriculture. Tehran, I.R. Iran. 2009. Available at:https://www.maj.ir/Index.aspx?page_=form&lang=1&pageid=11583&tempname=amar&sub=65&methodname=showmodulecontent. Accessed March 8, 2019.
  4. Lehmkuhler J, Kerley MS. The effects of alkaline hydrogen peroxide treatment on the composition, rate and extent of degradation of sunflower heads, stalks and hulls. J Anim Sci 1997; 75(Suppl. 1): 252.
  5. Mupetal B, Coker R, Zaranyika E. The utilization of low-fiber sunflower residue in the diet of hybrid and village chickens raised in pens and on free-range Available at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/pdf/outputs/R7524d.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2019.
  6. Snyaman LD, Joubert HW. The chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility of untreated and ammoniated crop residues. S Afr J Anim Sci 2002; 32(2): 83-87.
  7. Lardy G, Anderson V. Alternative Feeds for Ruminants. Available at: https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/ livestock/alternative-feeds-for-ruminants/as1182.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2019.
  8. National Sunflower Association of Canada. Sunflowers as an Alternative Feed Source - Ohio State University
    316 Extension- Fairfield. 2001. Available at: http:// www.canadasunflower.com/production/feeding-sunf lower-to-livestock/. Accessed March 8, 2019.
  9. Amini-Jabalkandi J, Pirmohammadi R, Razzagzadeh S. Effects of different levels of sunflower residue silage replacement with alfalfa hay on Azeri male buffalo calves fattening performance. Italian J Anim Sci 2007; 6 (Suppl. 2): 495-498.
  10. FASS. Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in agricultural research and teaching. 3rd ed. Savoy, USA: Federation of Animal Science Societies 2010; 128-138.
  11. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 17th ed. Gaithersburg, USA: AOAC International 2000; 69-88.
  12. Vansoest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991; 74(10): 3583-3597.
  13. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press 2007; 457.
  14. Khalilvandi-Behroozyar H, Dehghan-Banadaki M, Reza-Yazdi K. The effects of phenolic compounds deactivation through different treatments on Sainfoin hay chemical composition, and a determination of its crude protein fractioning in AFRC in CNCPS systems. Iranian J Anim Sci 41(4): 391-403.
  15. Van Soest PJ. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. 2nd ed. Ithaca, USA: Cornell University Press 1994;
    140-195.
  16. Makkar HPS, Singh B. Effect of storage and urea addition on detannification and in Sacco dry matter digestibility of mature oak (Quercus incana) leaves. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1993; 41(3): 247-259.
  17. BenSalem H, Saghrouni L, Nefzaoui A. Attempts to deactivate tannins in fodder shrubs with physical and chemical treatments. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2005; 122(1-2): 109-121.
  18. Gregoiro T. Sunflower silage. Available at: https://www. ag.ndsu.edu/winterstorm/winter-storm-information-farm-and-ranch-information/farm-and-ranch-crops-general/sunflower-silage. Accessed March 8, 2019.
  19. McDonald P, Edwards RA, Greenbolgh JFD, et al. Animal Nutrition. 7th ed. Harlow, United Kingdom: Oliver and Boyd Publisher 2011.461-500.
  20. Allen MS. Effects of diet on short-term regulation of feed intake by lactating dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2000; 83(7): 1598-1624.
  21. National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 7th ed. Washington DC, USA: National Academy Press 2001; 3-22.
  22. National Research Council. Predicting feed intake of food-producing animals. Washington DC, USA: National Academy Press 1987; 200-452.
  23. Forbs JM. Voluntary food intake and diet selection in farm animals. Wallingford, UK: CAB International 2007; 1-50.
  24. Sneddon N, Thomas VM, Murray GA, et al. Feeding value of sunflower silage for growing dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci 1979; 62 (Suppl. 1): 138.
  25. Vandersall JH, Lanari D. Sunflower versus corn silage at two grain ratios fed to cows. J Dairy Sci 1973; 56(10): 1384.
  26. Thomas VM, Sendon DN, Roffler RE, et al. Digestibility and Feeding value of sunflower silage for beef steers. J Anim Sci 1982; 54(5): 933-937.
  27. Demirel M, Bolat D, Celik S, et al. Evaluation of fermentation qualities and digestibilities of silage made from sorghum and sunflower alone and the mixtures of sorghum – sunflower. J Biol Sci 2006; 6(5): 926-930.
  28. Christensen FW. A Comparison of Some Silage for Feeding Cattle. Proc American Soc Anim Nutr. 1923; 1 (1):75-76.
  29. Dayyani A, Azarzamzam M. Determination of nutritive value of sunflower residues in animal nutrition. In Proceedings of Third National Congress on Animal Science. Mashhad, Iran. 2008; 59.
  30. Adebosin OG, Egahi JO, Dim NI. The effect of genotype and time of milking on milk yield and composition of Holstein-Friesian X White Fulani crossbred cattle in a tropical environment. Agric Biol J N Am 2010; 1(5): 909-911.