Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Veterinary Research Forum logoLink to Veterinary Research Forum
. 2017 Sep 15;8(3):203–208.

Effect of treated sunflower meal with tannin extracted from pistachio hulls on in vitro gas production and ruminal fermentation

Alireza Jolazadeh 1, Tahereh Mohammadabadi 1,*
PMCID: PMC5653883  PMID: 29085607

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to study the effects of various amounts of treated sunflower meal (SFM) with extracted tannins from pistachio hulls on in vitro gas production and ruminal fermentation in ruminants. The SFM was treated with pistachio extract concentrate (PEC), which contained 111.40 g kg-1 total phenol and 71.30 g kg-1 total tannin per dry matter of extract, at six experimental treatment levels of 0, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 g PEC per 100 g SFM on a dry matter basis. In vitro gas production, in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD), metabolizable energy (ME) and fermentative parameters of samples were measured. The PEC had no effect on fermentation rate, but asymptotic gas production was linearly decreased with increasing dose of extract. All fermentation parameters (i.e., apparent degraded substrate, short chain fatty acids, gas yield at 24 hr, partitioning factor at 96 hr, IVOMD, ME and microbial protein production (MP) linearly decreased with increasing PEC treatment. Inclusion of PEC linearly decreased ruminal ammonia nitrogen concentration (NH3-N), total protozoa population and pH in the all incubation times. In conclusion, the addition of PEC positively modified some rumen parameters such as NH3-N concentration and protozoa population.

Key Words: Fermentation, Gas production, Pistachio hull, Sunflower meal, Tannin

Introduction

When animals are fed high protein diets, it would be interesting to reduce ruminal degradability of crude protein, allowing part of this protein to reach the small intestine, thus avoiding possible losses of amino acids in the rumen due to microbial fermentation since this fermentation process is inefficient and generally presents losses up to 10%, mainly as ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N).1

Protein degradation in the ruminal environment should provide only the necessary amount of nitrogen to meet the microbial requirements, improving the bacteria growth and consequently nutrient digestion. Protection of dietary protein from ruminal microbial degradation increases the supply of amino acids to the small intestine and loss of nitrogen may be reduced by decreasing protein degradation in the rumen.2,3 Therefore, the efficiency of protein utilization by the animal should be improved.4 Sunflower meal (SFM) is a by-product obtained from sunflower oil extraction. The SFM is used as a supplemental protein in ruminant diets and is classified as a highly degradable protein source in the rumen.5 Feeding SFM is often limited by high ruminal degradability,6 but it would be possible to improve its nutritive value using diets rich in tannins for decreasing protein degradability, such as pistachio extract concentrate (PEC) extracted from pistachio hull by-products.

There are some methods to decrease protein degradation in rumen such as using tannins. Tannins have been shown to decrease ruminal degradation of crude protein (CP) and to increase the amount of CP that reaches the abomasum and small intestine.7 However, Dentinho et al. reported decreased effective rumen degradability of soybean meal (SBM) protein treated with tannin extracts from Citrus Ladanifer and decreased in vitro intestinal digestibility of protein at low phenolic doses (12.50, 25 and 50 g total phenol per kg).8 When using SBM treated with 10 to 250 g of quebracho tannins per kg, Frutos et al. also observed decreased in vitro intestinal digestibility of protein at the greatest treatment rate.9 It has been demonstrated that feeding SBM-treated PEC increases average daily gain and feed efficiency in Holstein bulls.10 Further research is needed to determine if tannin treatment of dietary protein improves its digestibility.

High amounts of pistachio by-products have been produced in Iran at an average rate of about 310,000 metric tons annually.11 Pistachio by-products are produced during de-hulling of pistachio nuts after harvesting and contain high concentrations of phenolic compounds and tannins, which can affect utilization of their nutrients by animals.12 Water has effectively been used as a solvent during extraction to decrease cost and make PEC and economically feasible treatment for animal diets.10

This experiment was conducted to assess the effects of five levels of PEC used in treating SFM extracted by water, on in vitro ruminal fermentation of SFM protein. We hypothesized that PEC treatment would improve digestive utilization of SFM protein in ruminant diets.

Materials and Methods

Animal care. All animal management and sampling procedures were conducted according to The Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching guidelines.13 All procedures and guidelines involving animals were approved by the Animal Experiment Committee at Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resource University, Molasani, Khuzestan, Iran.

Pistachio hull, tannin extraction and treatments. Pistachio hulls (Fandoghi variety) were obtained from the pistachio processing factory related to the holy shrine of Lady Fatimah Masoumeh, Qom, Iran, during the summer of 2014 and were sun-dried. A two-step extraction process was performed according to procedure by Jolazadeh et al. to obtain PEC, which contained 111.40 g per kg total phenol and 71.30 g per kg total tannin on a dry matter (DM) basis.10 Chemical composition of PEC and SFM treated with various levels of PEC are shown in Table 1. Samples of SFM and PEC were analyzed in triplicate for DM, ash and CP according to AOAC procedure numbers of 930.15, 94.05 and 984.13, respectively.14 Analysis of phenolic compounds was conducted in three replicates as described by Makkar.15 Total phenol was determined by using Folin-Ciocalteu’s reagents and the concentration was measured as tannic acid equivalent using tannic acid (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) as a standard. Total tannins were measured as described by Makkar.15

Table 1.

Chemical composition (means ± SD) of pistachio extract concentrate (PEC) and sunflower meal (SFM) treated with various levels of PEC, as dry matter basis

Treatments * Chemical composition, g per kg dry matter
Dry matter Crude protein Organic matter Ash Total phenolic Total tannin
PEC 850.00 ± 2.50 153.00 ± 0.80 777.00 ± 1.70 224.00 ± 1.70 112.00 ± 0.40 71.30 ± 0.30
SFM-0 922.00 ± 2.10 283.00 ± 0.30 921.00 ± 0.80 78.20 ± 0.40 0.00 0.00
SFM-7 917.00 ± 2.30 274.00 ± 0.40 911.00 ± 0.40 88.30 ± 0.40 78.40 ± 0.20 49.90 ± 0.40
SFM-14 912.00 ± 2.10 265.00 ± 0.30 901.00 ± 1.10 98.50 ± 0.80 156.00 ± 0.10 99.80 ± 0.60
SFM-21 907.00 ± 2.40 255.00 ± 0.60 891.00 ± 0.40 108.00 ± 0.70 235.00 ± 0.40 149.00 ± 0.50
SFM-28 901.00 ± 2.20 246.00 ± 0.10 881.00 ± 1.20 119.00 ± 1.20 313.00 ± 0.70 199.00 ± 0.20
SFM-35 897.00 ± 2.20 237.00 ± 0.50 871.00 ± 0.30 129.00 ± 0.70 392.00 ± 0.20 249.00 ± 0.40
Open in a new tab
*

SFM-0 to SFM-35 was treatments supplemented with 0, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 g PEC per 100 g of SFM, respectively.

A total amount of 100 g dried SFM was ground through a 1 mm screen for each treatment. Then, PEC was added to ground SFM to achieve ratios of 0, 70, 140, 210, 280 or 350 mg PEC per g SFM. Treated SFM was then air-dried for 12 hr to reach DM content of about 900 g per kg.

Animals and rumen liquor sampling. Two fistulated rumen of Holstein cows with body weight of about 620 ± 12 kg were used as rumen liquor donors. The cows were fed twice daily with a total mixed ration diet containing 40:60 concentrate: forage ratio and each cow received 140 g PEC per day for microbial adaptation to PEC tannins. Rumen liquor was sampled before the morning feeding at 08:30 AM from the two cows and placed immediately in warm (39 ˚C) insulated flasks under anaerobic conditions. In the laboratory, samples were pooled in equal proportions and strained through eight layers of cheesecloth under anaerobic conditions and used immediately.

In vitro gas production. Gas production kinetics for PEC-treated SFM was determined as described by Menke and Steingass.16 Prepared rumen fluid was added to the anaerobic mineral buffer solution (1:2 v/v). Buffer medium composition per liter was NaHCO3, 70.00 g; NH4HCO3, 4.00 g; Na2HPO4, 5.70 g; KH2PO4, 6.20 g; MgSO4·7H2O, 0.60 g; Na2S, 0.52 g; CaCl2·H2O, 13.20 g; MnCl2·4H2O, 10.00 g; CoCl2·6H2O, 1.00 g; resazurin sodium salt 0.01 g and 60 mL freshly prepared reduction solution containing 580 mg Na2S·9H2O, 3.70 mL and 1 mol L-1 NaOH. The mixture was kept stirred under CO2 flushing at 39 ˚C using a magnetic stirrer fitted on a hot plate. Effect of tannins on protecting of SFM was assessed by incubating approximately 200 mg experimental sample (1.00 mm screen, eight replicates) with 30 mL of rumen buffer mixture in 100 mL glass syringes based on Menke and Steingass procedures.16 Analyses were completed in eight replicates with readings of gas production at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 hr of incubation. Total gas values were corrected for the blank.

Calculations. After 96 hr of incubation with rumen buffer mixture, the culture fluid of each syringe was used for determination of NH3-N concentration using distillation method using an autoanalyzer (Kjeltec 2300; Foss Tecator AB, Hoganas, Sweden). The pH was determined immediately using a portable pH meter (Model A102-003; Sentron, Roden, The Netherlands). Protozoa were counted using a Burker counting chamber (Blau Brand, Wertheim, Germany) according to the method described by Veira et al.17 Cumulative gas production data were fitted to the exponential equation as:

Y = b (1 − e − ct )

where, b is gas production from the fermentable fraction (mL), c is the gas production rate constant (mL per hr), t is the incubation time (hr) and Y is gas produced in time t.

Short chain fatty acids (SCFA) were determined by the equation reported by Getachew et al.18 The SCFA (mmol per 200 mg DM) = 0.0222 GP − 0.00425, GP was the net gas production (mL per 200 mg DM) after 24 hr incubation. The DM degradability at 24 hr of incubation (apparent degraded substrate, ADS; mg per g DM) was calculated as the difference between DM content of substrate before incubation and its undegradable DM after incubation.19

ADS = DM content of substrate before incubation – undegradable DM after incubation metabolizable energy (ME, MJ kg -1 DM)

and in vitro organic matter disappearance (IVOMD) were estimated according to Menke and Steingass as:

OMD (g kg -1 OM) = 148.80 + 8.89 GAS + 4.50 CP + 0. 651 XA

and

ME (MJ kg per DM) = 2.20 + 0.136 GAS + 0.057 CP

where, OMD is organic matter disappearance, ME is metabolizable energy, CP is crude protein in g per 100 g DM, XA is ash in g per 100 DM and GAS is the net gas production (mL) for 200 mg of sample.16 Gas yields (GY24) were calculated as the volume of gas produced after 24 hr (mL gas per g ADS) of incubation divided by the amount of ADS (g) as:

GY 24 = mL gas per g DM per g of ADS

Microbial protein production (MP) was calculated as:

MP (mg per g of DM) = mg ADS − (mL gas × 2.20 mg mL -1 )

Where, the 2.20 mg mL-1 is a stoichiometric factor that expresses mg of C, H and O required for the volatile fatty acids’ gas associated with production of 1 mL of gas.20 The ratio of organic matter truly degraded (mg) to produced gas (mL) after 24 hr of incubation was used to estimate the partitioning factor (PF).19

Statistical analysis. All data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance in which effects of treatments (i.e., different levels of PEC) were partitioned into linear and quadratic components by orthogonal polynomials. All analyses used procedures SAS (version 9.0; SAS Institute, Cary, USA):

Yij = μ+ Si+ eij

where, Yij is the general observation, μij is the general mean, Si is the ith effect of extracts on the observed parameters and eij is the standard error term. Means were tested using Duncan’s test at p < 0.05.

Results

In vitro gas production parameters and gas volume accumulated after different hours of incubation are presented in. At all incubation times, gas production was visibly linearly decreased due to incorporation of tannin extract (Table 2). The PEC had no effect on fermentation rate (c), but asymptotic gas production (b) was linearly decreased (p < 0.01) with increasing dose of extract. Ruminal fermentation parameters of SFM treated with various levels of PEC are shown in Table 3. All fermentation parameters (i.e., ADS, SCFA, GY24, PF96, IVOMD, ME and MP) linearly decreased (p < 0.05) with increasing PEC treatment. Inclusion of PEC linearly decreased (p < 0.01) ruminal ammonia nitrogen concentration, total protozoa population (p < 0.01) and pH (p < 0.01) in all the incubation times (Table 4).

Table 2.

In vitro gas production parameters and gas volume accumulated after different hours of incubation in untreated and treated sunflower meal (SFM

Parameters Levels of treated SFM *
SEM p -value
SFM-0 SFM-7 SFM-14 SFM-21 SFM-28 SFM-35 Linear Quadratic
In vitro gas production (mL per g of DM)
Gas 12 9.63a 8.17a 5.38b 3.97bc 1.12d 2.63cd 0.89 < 0.01 0.08
Gas 24 23.38a 22.87a 18.80a 10.63b 11.05b 7.65b 1.80 < 0.01 0.15
Gas 48 35.85a 36.62a 33.33a 24.95b 24.12b 20.63b 2.07 < 0.01 0.38
Gas 72 41.95a 43.58a 40.63a 33.63b 31.85b 29.75b 1.72 < 0.01 0.35
Gas 96 44.97a 47.20a 44.33a 38.63b 36.45b 35.72b 1.54 < 0.01 0.39
Gas 120 45.30a 47.43a 45.45a 38.78b 37.67b 36.43b 1.57 < 0.01 0.83
Gas production parameters
Asymptotic gas production (mL) 61.75a 58.47a 58.96a 56.19ab 51.18b 53.23b 2.06 < 0.01 0.42
Fermentation rate (hr) 0.022 0.019 0.013 0.024 0.23 0.14 0.005 0.67 0.73
Open in a new tab
*

SFM-0 to SFM-35 was treatments supplemented with 0, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 g PEC per 100 g of SFM, respectively.

abcd

different superscript letters in each row indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.

Table 3.

In vitro rumen fermentation parameters of sunflower meal (SFM) treated with various levels of pistachio extract concentrate

Parameters Levels of treated SFM *
SEM p -value
SFM-0 SFM-7 SFM-14 SFM-21 SFM-28 SFM-35 Linear Quadratic
ADS (mg per g of DM) 98.50a 97.00ab 95.60ab 94.10ab 92.00ab 90.50b 1.59 < 0.01 0.78
PF 96 (mg ADS per mL gas) 4.35b 4.09b 4.20b 4.86a 5.04a 4.97a 0.09 < 0.01 0.19
GY 24 (mL gas per g ADS) 229.90a 240.90a 237.70a 205.60b 198.30b 201.00b 3.48 < 0.01 0.12
MP (mg per g of DM) 48.67ab 44.84b 45.61ab 51.58a 51.91a 50.51ab 1.59 0.05 0.56
SCFA ( mmol per g of DM) 1.00a 1.05a 1.00a 0.85b 0.83b 0.80b 0.38 < 0.01 0.44
ME ( MJ per kg of DM) 9.96a 10.19a 9.87a 8.86b 8.70b 8.48b 0.23 < 0.01 0.44
IVOMD ( g per kg) 68.04a 69.58a 67.49a 60.91b 59.90b 58.41b 1.46 < 0.01 0.44
Open in a new tab

ADS: Apparent degraded substrate; IVOMD: In vitro organic matter disappearance; PF96: Partitioning factor at 96 hr of incubation; MP: Microbial protein production; GY24: Gas yield at 24 hr; SCFA: Short chain fatty acids; ME: Metabolizable energy; SEM: Standard error of the mean.

*

SFM-0 to SFM-35 was treatments supplemented with 0, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 g pistachio extract concentrate per 100 g of SFM, respectively.

ab

different superscript letters in each row indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.

Table 4.

The effect of pistachio extract concentrate (PEC)-treated sunflower meal (SFM) on total protozoa numbers, pH and ammonia concentration at 24 hr incubation time

Parameters Levels of treated SFM
SEM p -value
SFM-0 SFM-7 SFM-14 SFM-21 SFM-28 SFM-35 Linear Quadratic
pH 6.82a 6.79ab 6.74bc 6.76bc 6.74bc 6.71c 0.02 < 0.01 0.56
Protozoa (10 4 mL -1 ) 19.83a 19.58a 16.66b 14.83b 9.50c 9.00dc 0.85 < 0.01 0.17
NH 3 -N (mg dL -1 ) 16.78a 16.35a 14.14b 12.81c 10.55d 9.46e 0.32 < 0.01 0.07
Open in a new tab
*

SFM-0 to SFM-35 was treatments supplemented with 0, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 g PEC per 100 g of SFM, respectively.

abcde: different superscript letters in each row indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.

Discussion

There is limited information in the literature on the use of pistachio hull extract. Treatment of SFM with PEC did not affect c, but adding PEC linearly decreased b.

It has been reported that tannin decreases cumulative gas production, probably by formation of tannin–macromolecule complexes which inhibit microbial enzymes and/or nutrient utilization by ruminal anaerobes.21,22 Similar results were obtained by El-Waziry et al., who found that adding tannic acid to SBM decreases gas production.23 Getachew et al. reported that tannic and gallic acids reduce the rate of fermentation in vitro.24 The researchers concluded that treatment with tannic acid decreases the degradation (b and c) of SBM protein.22 Reductions in digestibility have been observed in vivo only when forages containing over 5.00% DM condensed tannin are fed.25 It has been shown that tannins significantly depress gas production, probably through hampering rumen microorganisms.26

In the present study, ADS, IVOMD, gas production at 24 hr (GP24), PF96, MP and ME were decreased with increased rates of PEC treating SFM due to decreased rumen degradability and formation of the complexes between tannins and dietary protein and carbohydrates as well as reducing rumen microbial proteolysis and cellulolytic enzyme activities. It has been reported that SFM contains 18.04% non-fiber carbohydrates, 42.36% neutral detergent fiber, 26.94% acid detergent fiber, 15.42% hemicellulose, 8.57% cellulose and 6.85% lignin (% of Dry Matter) as carbohydrates concentration.27 It has been demonstrated that diet supplementation with pomegranate-peel extracts decreases ADS, but has no effect on IVOMD, ME, PF24, GY24 and MP under in vitro condition in the sheep.28 In contrast, another report has noted that addition of different doses of Leucaena leucocephala and Salix babylonica extracts (0.60, 1.20, 1.80 mL extract per g of DM) containing a low total phenolic concentration (<5% of DM) and saponins increases gas volume, GP24, ADS and MP versus the control.29

Values of SCFA and MP (mg per g of DM) in different treatments are shown in Table 3. These results are in accordance with findings of EL-Waziry et al. that reported the volatile fatty acid concentrations are significantly decreased when SBM is treated by tannic acid.23 There is a positive correlation between SCFA and gas production and gas production is a good predictor for the production of volatile fatty acid, which is positively related to microbial mass production.16,30

In this study, rumen protozoal numbers were decreased with increased rates of PEC treatment, as shown in Table 4. The antiprotozoal effect of PEC was most likely due to the phenolic structure of active compounds. Phenolic structures may disrupt protozoal membranes, inactivate protozoal enzymes and deprive protozoa of substrates and metal ions which are essential for cell metabolism.31 Results from our study confirm findings by Baah et al., who found that dietary supplementation of quebracho tannin tends to cause a decrease in the total protozoal numbers in ruminal fluid of heifers.32

In all experimental groups in the present study, the mean ruminal pH values were within the normal physiological range of 6.10 to 6.80 reported by Van Soest.33 Tannins have been reported to cause ruminal pH decrease and/or increase, however they may have no effect on it.34-36

The reduction in ammonia concentration suggests that inclusion of tannins probably reduces proteolysis, degradation of peptides and deamination of amino acids.33 This is in consistent with El-Waziry et al. findings who showed that adding tannins to SBM decreases ammonia production in vitro.22 Moreover, formation of tannin–protein complexes in the rumen likely caused a decrease in ruminal protein degradation and lowered concentration of ruminal ammonia nitrogen in vitro. These results are in accordance with findings of West et al.37 Decreased concentration of ammonia nitrogen in the rumen is typical when protozoal numbers are decreased.38

In conclusion, treating SFM with PEC decreased the concentration of ammonia and total protozoal population in the rumen fluid. In vitro gas production parameters were decreased with increasing levels of the PEC extract in the treatment. In vivo studies must be conducted to validate the in vitro results.

References

  • 1.National Research Council (NRC) Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 7th ed. Washington, USA: National Academy of Sciences; 2001. pp. 45–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pina DS, Valadares Filho SC, Tedeschi LO, et al. Influence of different levels of concentrate and ruminally undegraded protein on digestive variables in beef heifers. J Anim Sci. 2009;87:1058–1067. doi: 10.2527/jas.2008-1069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Stern MD. Ruminal protein degradation and intestinal amino acid supply. In: Proceedings: Minnesota Nutrition Conference. Livest Sci. 1981:23–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Driedger A, Hatfield EE. Influence of tannins on the nutritive value of soybean meal for ruminants. J Anim Sci. 1972;34(3):465–468. doi: 10.2527/jas1972.343465x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Economides S. The nutritive value of sunflower meal and its effect on replacing cereal straw in the diets of lactating ewes and goats. Livest Prod Sci. 1998;55:89–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Veresegyházy T, Fekete S. The effect of tannin treatment and subsequent urea supplementation of sunflower meal on the in vitro digestibility of its crude protein for ruminants. Acta Vet Hung. 1990;38:95–103. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Alipour D, Rouzbehan Y. Effects of several levels of extracted tannin from grape pomace on intestinal digestibility of soybean meal. Livest Sci. 2010;128:87–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dentinho M, Moreira O, Pereira M, et al. The use of a tannin crude extract from Cistus ladanifer to protect soya-bean protein from degradation in the rumen. Animal. 2007;1:645–650. doi: 10.1017/S1751731107689745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Frutos P, Hervás G, Giráldez FJ, et al. Digestive utilization of quebracho-treated soya bean meals in sheep. J Agric Sci. 2000;134:101–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jolazadeh AR, Dehghan-banadaky M, Rezayazdi K. Effects of soybean meal treated with tannins extracted from pistachio hulls on performance, ruminal fermentation, blood metabolites and nutrient digestion of Holstein bulls. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2015;203:33–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Behgar M, Ghasemi S, Naserian A, et al. Gamma radiation effects on phenolics, antioxidants activity and in vitro digestion of pistachio (Pistachia vera) hull. Radiat Phys Chem. 2011;80:963–967. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Reed JD. Nutritional toxicology of tannins and related polyphenols in forage legumes. J Anim Sci. 1995;73:1516–1528. doi: 10.2527/1995.7351516x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.FASS. Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in research and teaching. 3rd ed. Champaign, USA: Federation of animal science societies ; 2010. pp. 74–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Association of official analytical chemists (AOAC) Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. Washington, USA: AOAC; 1990. pp. 24–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Makkar HPS. Quantification of tannins tree and shrub foliage. Vienna, Austria: International atomic energy agency ; 2000. pp. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Menke KH, Steingass H. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim Res Develop. 1988;28:7–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Veira D, Ivan M, Jui PY. Rumen ciliate protozoa: Effects on digestion in the stomach of sheep. J Dairy Sci. 1983;66:1015–1022. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(83)81896-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Getachew G, Makkar HPS, Becker K. Stoichiometric relationship between short chains fatty acid and in vitro gas production in presence and absence of polyethylene glycol for tannin containing browses. In proceedings: EAAP satellite symposium. Gas production: Fermentation kinetics for feed evaluation and to assess microbial activity. the Netherlands: Wageningen; 1999. pp. 46–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Makkar HPS. In vitro screening of feed resources for efficiency of microbial protein synthesis. In: Verco PE, Makkar HPS, Schlink AC, editors. In vitro screening of plant resources for extra-nutritional attributes in ruminants: Nuclear and related methodologies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer ; 2010. pp. 107–144. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Blümmel M, Steingss H, Becker K. The relationship between in vitro gas production, in vitro microbial biomass yield and 15N incorporation and its implications for the prediction of voluntary feed intake of roughages. Br J Nutr. 1997;77:911–921. doi: 10.1079/bjn19970089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mc Sweeney CS, Palmer B, McNeill DM, et al. Microbial interactions with tannns: Nutritional consequences for ruminants. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2001;91:83–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Makkar H. Effects and fate of tannins in ruminant animals, adaptation to tannins, and strategies to overcome detrimental effects of feeding tannin-rich feeds. Small Rumin Res. 2003;49:241–256. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.El-Waziry AM, Nasser MEA, Sallam SMA. Processing methods of soybean meal: 1-effect of roasting and tannic acid treated-soybean meal on gas production and rumen fermentation in vitro. J Appl Sci. 2005;1(3):313–320. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Getachew G, Pittroff W, Putnama DH, et al. The influence of addition of gallic acid, tannic acid, or quebracho tannins to alfalfa hay on in vitro rumen fermentation and microbial protein synthesis. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2008;140:444–461. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Waghorn GC, Jones WT, Shelton ID, et al. Condensed tannins and the nutritive value of herbage. Proc New Zealand Grassland Assoc. 1990;51:171–176. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tabacco E, Borreani G, Crovetto GM, et al. Effect of chestnut tannin on fermentation quality, proteolysis, and protein rumen degradability of alfalfa silage. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89(12):4736–4746. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72523-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Borja MS, Oliveira RL, Lima LS, et al. Sunflower meal concentrations in Massai grass silage. Rev. MVZ Cordoba. 2012;17(2):3041–3046. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Abarghuei MJ, Rouzbehan Y, Salem AF. The influence of pomegranate-peel extracts on in vitro gas production kinetics of rumen inoculum of sheep. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 2014;38(2):212–219. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Jiménez-Peralta FS, Salem AZM, Mejia-Hernández P, et al. Influence of individual and mixed extracts of two tree species on in vitro gas production kinetics of a high concentrate diet fed to growing lambs. Livest Sci. 2011;136:192–200. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Liu JX, Susenbeth A, Südekum KH. In vitro gas production measurements to evaluate interactions between untreated and chemically treated rice straws, grass hay, and mulberry leaves. J Anim Sci. 2002;80(2):517–524. doi: 10.2527/2002.802517x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Patra AK, Saxena J. Exploitation of dietary tannins to improve rumen metabolism and ruminant nutrition. J Sci Food Agric. 2011;91:24–37. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Baah J, Ivan M, Hristov A, et al. Effects of potential dietary antiprotozoal supplements on rumen fermentation and digestibility in heifers. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2007;137:126–137. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Van Soest PJ. In: Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Ithaca, USA, Cornell University Press, editors. 1994. pp. 382–412. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bhatta R, Vaithiyanathan S, Singh NP, et al. Effect of feeding complete diets containing graded levels of Prosopis cineraria leaves on feed intake, nutrient utilization and rumen fermentation in lambs and kids. Small Rumin Res. 2007;67:75–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ben Salem H, Nefzaou A, Ben Salem L, et al. Deactivation of condensed tannin in Acacia cyanophylla Lindl foliage by polyethylene glycol in feed blocks effect on feed intake, diet digestibility, nitrogen balance, microbial synthesis and growth by sheep. Livest Prod Sci. 2000;64:51–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Yildiz S, Kaya I, Unal Y, et al. Digestion and body weight change in Tuj lambs receiving Oak (Quercus hartwissiana) leaves with and without PEG. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2005;122:159–172. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.West JW, Hill GM, Utley PR. Peanut skins as a feed ingredient for lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 1993;76:590–599. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Williams AG, Coleman GS. The rumen protozoa. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag; 1991. pp. 73–82. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Veterinary Research Forum are provided here courtesy of Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

RESOURCES