Evaluation of the Nutrient Content and Protein Fractions of Four Different Common Vetch Varieties

The objectives of this study were to determine the chemical composition, digestibility, in situ N kinetics, and by-pass protein contents of 4 different common vetch varieties grown under irrigation. Four different common vetch varieties (Emir 20/1, Nilüfer 17/1, 28/1, and Uludağ 31/4) with different characteristics were selected. The vetch plots were planted on June 15 2002 and each variety was randomly assigned to 3 replications. The vetches were harvested by hand using a clipper on September 11. All samples were analyzed for dry matter (DM), ash, crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and acid detergent insoluble nitrogen (ADIN) concentrations. In vitro dry matter digestibility, and in situ degradability of samples at given times were also determined. While the concentrations of DM and ADIN-N did not differ, concentrations of organic matter (OM), CP, NDF, and ADF varied significantly among different vetch varieties (P < 0.05). The water soluble DM content of Nilüfer 17/1 was significantly greater then that of 28/1 (P < 0.05), but in situ DM degradabilities after 48-h incubation, in vitro dry matter digestibilities, and metabolizable energy (ME) and net energy for lactation (NEL) values were statistically similar among the vetch varieties (P > 0.05). While the water soluble protein (WSP) concentration was lower, concentrations of potentially degradable protein (PDP), and by-pass CP as a percentage of total digestible CP or DM were significantly greater in 28/1 than in Nilüfer 17/1 and Uludağ 31/4 (P < 0.05). However, concentrations of non-degradable protein (NDP) and in situ CP degradabilities after 48-h incubation did not differ among the vetch varieties (P > 0.05). It can be concluded that if high by-pass protein content is desired, 28/1 and Emir 20/1 should be preferred over the other varieties. Otherwise, Nilüfer 17/1 and Uludağ 31/4 should be first choice, based on DM digestibility and CP contents, because the energy contents and percentage of non-digestible CP did not differ among the vetches.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Common vetch, digestibility, by-pass protein

Evaluation of the Nutrient Content and Protein Fractions of Four Different Common Vetch Varieties

Keywords:

Common vetch, digestibility, by-pass protein,

PDF

___

A.O.A.C.: Official methods of analysis (13thEd.). Association of
Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC. 1980.
Van Soet, P.J., Robertson J.B.: Systems of analyses for evaluation of fibrous feed. In: W.J. Pigden, C.C. Balch, M. Graham (Eds.) Proc. Int. Workshop on standardization of analytical methodology for feeds. pp. 49-60. Int. Dev. Res. Center, Ottawa, Canada.
Goering, H.K., Van Soest, P.J.: Forage fiber analyses. Apparatus, reagent, procedures and applications. USDA Agric. Handbook No. 379, 1970.
Tilley, J. M. A., Terry, R. A.: A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassl. Soc., 1963; 18: 104-111.
Marten, G.C., Barnes, R.F.: Prediction of energy digestibility of forages with in vitro rumen fermentation and fungal enzyme systems. In: W.J. Pigden, C.C. Balch, M.Graham, (Eds.) Proc. Int. Workshop on standardization of analytical methodology for feed. Int. Dev. Res. Center, Ottawa, Canada. 1980.
Türkmen, İ.İ.: Ruminant yem değerlendirme sistemleri ve karma yem maddeleri. In: H.M. Yavuz, (Ed.) Çiftlik hayvanlarının beslenmesinde temel prensipler ve karma yem üretiminde bazı bilimsel yaklaflımlar. Farmavet, İstanbul, 2001.
Farquhar, A.S.: Kinetics of alfalfa nitrogen and cell wall disappearance from ruminally-incubated dacron bags. Ph.D. Thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, 1985.
Muhalley, J.J., Waller, S.S., Moore, K.J., Moser, L.E., Klopfenstein, T. J.: In situ ruminal degradation of switchgras and smooth-bromegrass. Agron. J., 1992; 84: 183-188.
SAS User’s Guide.: Statistics, Version 5 ed. SAS inst., Inc., Cary, NC. 1985.
Caballero, R., Alzueta, C., Ortiz, L.T., Rodríguez, M. L., Barro, C., Rebolé, A.: Carbohydrate and protein fractions of fresh and dried common vetch at three maturity stages. Agron. J., 2001; 93: 1006-1013.
Smith, B.W.: Feed industry red book. Communications Marketing, Inc., MN. 1990.
Deniz, S., Nursoy, N., Yılmaz, İ., Karslı, M.A.: Vejetasyonun farklı devrelerinde hasat edilmenin bazı mısır varyetelerinde besin madde içeriği ve silaj kalitesi ile sindirilebilir kuru madde miktarına etkisi. S. Ü. Vet. Bil. Derg., 2001; 17: 43-49.
Nelson, C.J., Moser, L.E.: Factors affecting forage quality. In: Fahey, G.C., Jr., (Ed.) Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization. pp. 115-154. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Crop Science Society of America, Inc. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI. 1994.
Karslı, M.A., Russell, J.R.: Prediction of the voluntary intake and digestibility of forage-based diets from chemical composition and ruminal degradation characteristics. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 2002; 26:249-255.
Çelik, S.: Van ekolojik koflullarında yetifltirilen mısır ve macar fiği yem bitkilerinden yapılan karma silajların kaliteleri ve rumende ham besin madde yıkılmalarının belirlenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Van, 2000.