Veterinary Research Forum
Vet Res Forum

Different processing effects on nutritive value of barely grains by gas production method

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Abbas Ali Ahmadinaghadehi 1
Younes Ali Alijoo 2
Abbas Ali Naserian 3

1 PhD Candidate, Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

2 Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

3 Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

https://doi.org/10.30466/vrf.2017.84395.2022
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of warm and cold physical as well as chemical processing methods on the nutritive value of barley grains by gas production technique. The processing methods included milling, steam flaking, extruding and soaking up the grain in water containing 1.00% citric acid, 1.00% propionic acid and 0.01 M sulfuric acid. Two-hundred mg of milling samples were incubated in special 100 mL glasses and the amount of gas produced at different hr was measured. The data were analyzed in a completely randomized design. The results showed that different treatments did not have a significant effect on chemical composition of barley seeds. Other methods of processing compared to the grinding method, significantly reduced the total amount of produced gas. In the 72 hr incubation period, the lowest amount of gas production was in the extruded (245.6 mL per g dry matter) treatment. However, there was no significant difference between the two methods of extruding and flaking. The highest percentage of digestible organic matter was associated with propionic acid (64.90%), while the steam cracking method (58.74%) was the least. Among the processing methods, the highest amounts of methane production, total protozoa population and volatile fatty acid concentration were related to the grinding method and the least amount of extrusion treatment was observed during 24 hr of incubation. Different experimental treatments had a significant effect on ammonia nitrogen condensation and the highest level was observed in milling. According to our results, processing methods such as extrusion and flaking may improve the grain nutritive value.

Keywords

Extruding
Gas production technique
Incubation
Processing

  1.  

    1. Dehghan-Banadaky M, Corbett R, Oba M. Effects of barley grain processing on productivity of cattle. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2007; 137(1-2): 1-24.
    2. Beauchemin KA, McAllister TA, Dong Y, et al. Effects of mastication on digestion of whole cereal grains by cattle. J Anim Sci 1994; 72(1): 236-246.
    3. Allen MS. Effects of diet on short-term regulation of feed intake by lactating dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2000; 83(7): 1598-1624.
    4. Yang WZ, Beauchemin KA, Rode LM. Effects of barley grain processing on extent of digestion and milk production of lactating cows. J Dairy Sci 2000; 83(3): 554-568.
    5. Kassem MM, Thomas PC, Chamberlain DG, et al. Silage intake and milk production in cows given barley supplements of reduced ruminal degradability. Grass Forage Sci 1987; 42(2): 175-183.
    6. Harder H, Khol-Parisini A, Zebeli Q. Treatments with organic acids and pullulanase differently affect resistant starch and fiber composition in flour of various barley genotypes (Hordeum vulgare L.). Starke 2015; 67: 512-520.
    7. Deckardt K, Khol-Parisiniand A, Zebli Q. Peculiarities of enhancing resistant starch in ruminants using chemical methods: Opportunities and challenges. Nutrients 2013; 5(6): 1970-1988.
    8. Iqbal S, Zebeli Q, Mazzolari A, et al. Feeding barley grain steeped in lactic acid modulates rumen fermentation patterns and increases milk fat content in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2009; 92(12): 6023-6032.
    9. Getachew G, Makkar HPS, Becker K. Tropical browses: Content of phenolic compounds, in vitro gas production and stoichiometric relationship between short chain fatty acids and in vitro gas production. J Agric Sci 2002; 139(3): 341-352.
    10. Taghizadeh A. The estimation of feed value of energy supplement using in vitro gas production technique. In proceedings: Canadian Society of Animal Science; CSAS Annual Meeting. Guelph, Canada: 2004: 134.
    11. Parand A, Taghizadeh A. Investigation of the digestibility of processed barley corn with different methods using the production method and the microbial enzyme source [Persian]. J Anim Sci Res (Agricultural Science) 2010; 20(20): 1-13.
    12. Parnian Khaje Dizaj F, Taghizadeh A, Moghadam GH, et al. Use of in vitro gas production technique for evaluation of nutritive parameters of barley and corn grain treated by different microwave irradiation times [Persian]. J Anim Sci Res (Agricultural Science) 2010; 21(1): 15-27.
    13. Tabatabaei M, Najafnejad B, Zamani P, et al. Study of the nutritional value of barley seeds and seeds of some raw and rough beans by in vivo and in vitro methods [Persian]. J Anim Sci Res (Agricultural Science) 2011; 21(2):11 -21.
    14. Hudyma WT. Extruded barley fed to early weaned calve. MSc thesis. Montana State University. Bozeman, USA: 1989.
    15. Official methods of analysis of the AOAC. 15th ed. Arlington, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1990; 323.
    16. Van Soest PJ, 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): 3588-3597.
    17. Menke K, Steingass H. Estimation of the energetic feed value from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim Res Dev 1988; 28: 7-55.
    18. National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 7th ed. Washington DC, USA: National Academy Press 2001.
    19. Ørskov ER, McDonald I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J Agric Sci 1979; 92(2): 499-503
    20. Menke KH, Steingass H. Estimation of the energetic feed value from the gas formation determined in-vitro with rumen juice and the chemical analysis. II. Regression equation [German]. Animal nutrition overviews 1987;15: 59-94.
    21. Patra AK, Kamra DN, Agarwal N. Effect of plant extracts on in vitro methanogenesis, enzyme activities and fermentation of feed in rumen liquor of buffalo. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2006; 128: 276-291.
    22. Broderick GA, Kang JH. Automated simultaneous determinations of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J Dairy Sci; 1980(63): 64-75.
    23. Laki A, Dehghan Banadaky M, Zali A, et al. Investigation of treated barley grain with lactic and citric acid on performance and feeding behavior of Holstein cows. J Anim Produc 2016; 18 (2): 249-260.
    24. Ghorbani GR, Hadj-Hussaini A. In situ degradability of Iranian barley grain cultivars. Small Rumi Res 2002; 44(3): 207-212.
    25. Svihus B, Uhlen AK, Harstad OM. Effect of starch granule structure, associated components and processing on nutritive value of cereal starch: A review. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2005; 122(3-4): 303-320
    26. Engstrom DF, Mathison GW, Goonewardene LA. Effect of β-glucan, starch, and fiber content and steam vs. dry rolling of barley grain on its degradability and utilization by steers. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1992; 37: 33-46.
    27. Osman HF, Theurer B, Hale WH, et al. Influence of grain processing on in vitro enzymatic starch digestion of barley and sorghum grain. J Nutr 1970; 100: 1133-1139.
    28. Sveinbjornsson J, Murphy M, Uden P. In vitro evaluation of starch degradation from feeds with or without various heat treatments. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2007; 132: 171-185.
    29. Taghizadeh A, Janmohamadi H, Moghadam GA, et al. In vitro gas production profiles in some concentrate ingredients. J Anim Vet Adv 2008; 7 (2): 137-139.
    30. Hosseini Z. Common methods of food decomposition [Persian]. Shiraz, Iran: Shiraz University Press 2010; 37-55.
    31. Kazemi-Bonchenari M, Salem AZM, López S. Influence of barley grain particle size and treatment with citric acid on digestibility, ruminal fermentation and microbial protein synthesis in Holstein calves. Animal 2017; 11(8): 1295-1302.
    32. Busquet M, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, et al. Effects of cinnamaldehyde and garlic oil on rumen microbial fermentation in a dual flow continuous culture. J Dairy Sci 2005; 88: 2508-2516.
    33. Morgavi DP, Forano E, Martin C, et al. Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants. Animal 2010; 4: 1024-1036.
    34. Alemua AW, Dijkstra J, Bannink A, et al. Rumen stoichiometric models and their contribution and challenges in predicting enteric methane production. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2011; 166-167: 761-778.
    35. García-González R, Lopez S, Fernandez M, et al. Dose response effects of Rheum officinale root and Frangula alnus bark on ruminal methane production in vitro. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2008; 145(1-4): 319-334.
    36. Hess HD, Kreuzer M, Diaz TE, et al. Saponin rich tropical fruits affect fermentation and methanogenesis in faunted and defaunated rumen fluid. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2003; 109: 79-94.
    37. Hayase F, Kato H, Fujimaki M. Racemization of amino acid residues in proteins and poly (L-amino acids) during roasting. J Agri Food Chem 1975; 23(3): 491-494.
    38. Finley JW. Effects of processing on proteins: An overview. In: Phillips RD, Finley JW (Eds). Protein quality and the effects of processing. New York, USA: CRC Press 1988; 1-7.
    39. Broderick GA, Wallace RJ, Orskov ER. Control of rate and extent of protein degradation. In: Physiological aspects of digestion and metabolism in ruminants. New York, USA: Academic Press 1991; 541-591.
    40. Yu P, Sprague M, Egan AR, et al. Comparison of raw and roasted narbon beans (Vicia narbonensis) on performance and meat sensory attributes of lambs fed a roughage-based diet. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2001; 92(1-2): 1-16.
    41. Mustafa AF, Seguin P. Effects of stage of maturity on ensiling characteristics and ruminal nutrient degradability of oat silage. Arch Anim Nutr 2003; 57(5): 347-357.
    42. Murphy SR, Mc Niven MA. Raw or roasted lupin supplementation of grass silage for beef steers. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1994; 46(1-2): 23-35.
Veterinary Research Forum
Volume 11, Issue 1
Winter 2020
Pages 59-65

  • Receive Date 11 December 2017
  • Revise Date 03 March 2018
  • Accept Date 06 March 2018

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us