Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7744/cnujas.2012.39.3.335

Evaluation of nutritive value of chestnut hull for ruminant animals using in vitro rumen fermentation  

Jeong, Sin-Yong (Department of Animal Biosystem Sciences,Chungnam National University)
Jo, Hyeon-Seon (Chungcheongnam-Do Forest Environment Research Institute)
Park, Gi-Su (Chungcheongnam-Do Forest Environment Research Institute)
Kang, Gil-Nam (Chungcheongnam-Do Forest Environment Research Institute)
Jo, Nam-Chul (Department of Animal Biosystem Sciences,Chungnam National University)
Seo, Seongwon (Department of Animal Biosystem Sciences,Chungnam National University)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Agricultural Science / v.39, no.3, 2012 , pp. 335-340 More about this Journal
Abstract
During the manufacturing process of chestnut, 50% of biomass is produced as chestnut shell (CS) or chestnut hull (CH), a forestry by-product. Due to its high fiber content and economic benefit, there is a possibility of using chestnut hull as a supplement for a ruminant diet. Few studies, however, have been conducted on evaluating nutritive value of chestnut hull for ruminant animals. The objective of this study were thus to analyze chemical composition of CS, a by-product after the first processing of chestnut, and CH, a by-product after the second processing, and access in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics of them. For the in vitro fermentation using strained rumen fluid obtained from a fistulated Hanwoo steer, commercial total mixed ration (TMR) for dairy goat was used as a basal diet and was replaced with different proportions of chestnut shell and hull. A total number of 13 treatments were carried out in this study: 100% TMR, 100% CS, 100% CH, a mix with 50% CS and 50% of CH (MIX), TMR replaced with 5%, 10%, or 15% of CS, CH, or MIX, respectively. For each treatment, in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) and pH after 48 hours of rumen fermentation were measured. Gas production at 6, 12, 24, 48 hours of incubation was also analyzed. Compared to CH, CS contains higher level of fiber (NDF, ADF, lignin) and consequently has a lower amount of non-fiber carbohydrate, but no difference was observed in the other nutrients (i.e. crude protein, crude fat, and ash). IVDMD was significantly (p<0.05) the highest in 100% CH (71.97%) and the lowest in 100% CS (42.80%). Addition of CH by replacing TMR did not affect IVDMD, while an increase in the proportion of CS tended to decrease IVDMD. The total gas production after 48 hours of incubation and the rate of gas production were also the highest in 100% CH and the lowest in 100% CS (P<0.05). Likewise, the pH after 48 hours of fermentation was significantly (p<0.05) the lowest in 100% CH (6.33) and the highest in 100% CS (6.50), and no significant difference in gas production was observed when TMR was replaced with CS or CH up to 15% (P>0.05). In conclusion, CH may successfully be used for a supplement in a ruminant diet. The nutritive value of CS is relative low, but can replace, if not 100%, low quality forage. This study provides valuable information about the nutritive value of CS and CH. An in vivo trials, however, is needed for conclusively accessing the nutritive value of CS and CH.
Keywords
Chestnut hull; Forestry by-product; Feed; In vitro rumen fermentation;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 AOAC. 2011. Official Methods of Analysis. 18th ed., revision 4. AOAC International
2 Deaville ER, Givens DI, Mueller-Harvey I. 2010. Chestnut and mimosa tannin silages: Effects in sheep differ for apparent digestibility, nitrogen utilisation and losses. Animal Feed Science and Technology 157: 129-138.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Doane PH, Schofield P, Pell AN. 1997. Neutral detergent fiber disappearance and gas and volatile fatty acid production during the in vitro fermentation of six forages. Journal of Animal Science 75: 3342-3352.   DOI
4 Frutos P, Raso M, Hervas G, Mantecon AR, Perez V, Giraldez FJ. 2004. Is there any detrimental effect when a chestnut hydrolysable tannin extract is included in the diet of finishing lambs?. Animal Research 53: 127-136.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Goering HK, Van Soest PJ. 1970. Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some applications). Agriculture handbook no. 379. ARS-USDA, Washington, DC.
6 Jeon BG. 1998. A study on the production of chestnut powder in the inner shell (endo carp) of a chestnut from its treatment plant. Journal of Korea Solid Wastes Engineering Society 15: 57-65.   과학기술학회마을
7 Korea Forest Service. 2010. Forest production cost survey.
8 KREI (Korea Rural Economics Institute). 2010. Agriculture Outlook.
9 McLeod MN. 1974. Plant tannins-their role in forage quality. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 44: 803-815.
10 McMahon LR, McAllister TA, Berg BP, Majak W, Acharya SN, Popp JD, Coulman BE, Wang Y, Cheng KJ. 2000. A review of the effects of forage condensed tannins on ruminal fermentation and bloat in grazing cattle. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 80: 469-485.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Mueller-Harvey I. 2006. Unravelling the conundrum of tannins in animal nutrition and health. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 86: 2010-2037.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Pell AN, Schofield. P. 1993. Computerized monitoring of gas production to measure forage digestion in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 1063-1073.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Roth S, Steingass H, Drochner W. 2001. Wirkungen von tanninextrakten auf die parameter der pansenfermentation in vitro. In Zadravec-Erjavec Days. Radenci, Slowenien. pp.64-70.
14 Statistics Korea. 2010. Livestock production cost survey.
15 Van Soest PJ. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
16 Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583-3597.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Zimmer N, Cordesse R. 1996. Digestibility and ruminal digestion of non-nitrogenous compounds in adult sheep and goats: Effects of chestnut tannins. Animal Feed Science and Technology 61: 259-273.   DOI   ScienceOn