BibTex RIS Cite

In situ yöntemle fındık küspesinin protein fraksiyonlarının soya küspesi ile karşılaştırması

Year 2001, Volume: 7 Issue: 1-2, 126 - 130, 01.06.2001

Abstract

Bu çalışma, fındık küspesinin naylon kese tekniğiyle kuru madde KM , ham protein HP yıkılabilirliliği ve protein fraksiyonlarının soya küspesi ile karşılaştırma amacıyla yapılmıştır. Besin madde içeriklerinin belirlenmesi amacıyla, etüvde kurutulmuş fındık ve soya küspesi örnekleri 1-mm büyüklüğünde öğütüldükten sonra KM, organik madde OM , eter extraktı EE , ham selüloz HS , HP ve ADIN-N içerikleri belirlenmiştir. Naylon kese yıkılım kinetiği ve protein fraksiyonlarının belirlenmesi için, öğütülmüş yonca- arpa karışımı tüketen üç erişkin rumen fıstüllü koç örneklerin inkubasyonu için kullanılmıştır. Örnekler koçların rumeninde 0. 3, 6. 12, 24 ve 48 saat süreyle inkube edilmiştir. KM. OM. EE, , HP ve ADINN içerikleri sırasıyla soya küspesi için 89.6, 93.5. 1.60, 7.28, 42.45 ve 8.45; fındık küspesi için 92.2, 94.1. 4.43, 7.33, 40.09 ve 5.52 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Fındık küspesinin, 48 saat inkubasyon hariç, tüm inkubasyon saatlerinde soya küspesinden daha yüksek KM ve HP yıkılım değerlerine sahip olduğu gözlemlenmiştir P< 0.05 . Fındık küspesinin rumen HP yıkılım hızı ve suda kolay eriyebilen HP içeriği soya küspesine oranla daha yüksek, fakat potensiyel olarak rumende yıkılabilir ve yıkılamayan protein oranları daha düşük olarak bulunmuştur P< 0.05 . Fındık küspesi UIP kaynağı proteinlerle desteklendiği sürece, yüksek verimli süt ineği veya hızlı gelişen öküz ve boğa rasyonlarında soya küspesi yerine kullanı labilineceği sonucuna varılmıştır

References

  • 1. Anonim: Başbakanlık Dış Ticaret Müsteşarlığı Ekonomik Araştırmalar Genel Müdürlüğü. Ankara, (1998).
  • 2. Yalçın S, Şehu A, Çetinkaya N: Fındık küspesi ve fındık içi kabuğunun rumende parçalanma özellikleri. Ankara Üniv Vet Fak Deıg 45:115-122,(1998).
  • 3. Kargas KK, Klopfenstein TJ, Wilkerson VA, Clonton DC: Effects of ruminally degradable and escape protein supplements on steers grazing summer native range. J Anim Sci 70:1957-1964,(1992).
  • 4. NRC: Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, (1988).
  • 5. NRC: Nutrient Requiıements of Beef Cattle (7th Ed.). National Academy Press, Washington, DC, (1996).
  • 6. Broderick GA: Desirable characteıistics of forage legumes for improving protein utilization in ruminants. J Anim Sci 73:2760-2773,(1995).
  • 7. A.O.A.C: Offıcial Methods of Analysis (13th Ed.). Association of Offıcial Analytical Chemists, Washingthon DC, (1980).
  • 8. Van Soet PJ, Robertson JB: Systems of analyses for evaluation of fıbrous feed. In: W. J. Pigden, C. C Balch, and M. Graham (Eds.) Proc. Int. Workshop on Standaıdization of Analytical Methodology for Feeds. pp. 49-60. Int Dev Res Çenter Ottowa, Canada, (1979).
  • 9. Mertens DR: Dietary fiber components: Relationship to rate and extent of ruminal digestion. Fed Proc 36:187-195, (1977).
  • 10. Wechsler FS: Mathematical models for kinetics of fiber digestion and their application to tıopical forages grown in contıolled enviroments. Ph. D. Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, (1981).
  • 11. SAS: User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 5 ed. SAS inst., Inc., Cary, NC, (1985).
  • 12. Farquhar AS: Kinetics of alfalfa nitıogen and celi wall disappearance from ruminally-incubated dacron bags. Ph.D. Thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, (1985).
  • 13. Muhalley JJ, Waller SS, Moore KJ. Moser LE, Klopfenstein TJ: In situ ruminal protein degradation of switchgrass and smooth-bromegrass. Agron J 84: 183- 188, (1992).
  • 14. Steel RG, Torrie JH: Principlee and Pıocedures of Statistics (2nd Ed.). McDonald book Co„ Inc.. New York, NY, (1980).
  • 15. Akyıldız AR: Yemler Bilgisi ve Teknolojisi. 2. Basım. Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, Ankara, (1986).
  • 16. Sarı.içek ZB: Etil alkol ile muamelenin bazı protein kaynaklarının in situ rumen parçalanabilirliği üzerine etkisi. Tr J Vet Anim Sci 23: 515-522, (1999).
  • 17. Heldt JS, Pruitt JR, Birkelo CP, Johnson PS, Wicks III ZW: Evaluation of wheat middlings as a supplement for beef cows grazing native winter range with differing forage availabilities. J Anim Sci 76: 378- 387, (1998).
  • 18. Krishnamoorthy U, Muscato TV, Sniffen CJ, Van Soest PJ: Nitrogen fractions in selected feedstuffs. J Dairy Sci 65: 217- 225,(1982).
  • 19. Weakley DC, Stem MD, Satter LD: Factors affecting disappearance of feedstuffs from bags suspended in the rumen. J Anim Sci 56: 493-507, (1983).
  • 20. Broderick GA: Çuantifying forage quality. In: G C., Jr., Fahey (Ed.) Forage Çuality, Evaluation, and Utilization. pp. 200-229. American Society of Agronomy, İne. Crop Science Society of America, Inc. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI, (1994).
  • 21. Wolth JE, Sniffen CJ, Hoover WH: Measıırement of protein solublity in common feedstuffs. J Daiıy Sci 56: 1052-1057, (1973)

Comparison of protein fraetions of hazelnut-meal with soybean -meal by using in situ technique

Year 2001, Volume: 7 Issue: 1-2, 126 - 130, 01.06.2001

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare ruminal dry matter DM and crude protein CP degradation kinetics, and protein fraetions of hazelnııt-meal with soybean-meal by using in situ technique. To determine the Chemical compositions of samples, oven-dried samples of hazelnut-meal HZM and soybean-meal SBM were ground through a 1-mm sereen and theıı, analyzed for DM, organic matter OM , ether extract EE , crude fiber CF , CP, and acid detergent insoluble nitrogen ADİN concentrations. To estimate in situ degradation kinetics and fraetions of CP, three mature fıstulated rams fed ground alfalfa hay plus barley were used for incubation of samples in this study. Samples were incubated in the rumen of rams for periods of 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h. The concentrations of DM, OM, EE, CF, CP, and ADIN-N were 89.6, 93.5, 1.60, 7.28, 42.45, 8.45 for SBM and 92.2, 94.1, 4.43, 7.33, 40.09, 5.52 for HZM, respeetively. Hazelnut-meal had signifıcantly higher P< 0.05 in situ ruminal DM and CP degradability compared with SBM at ali incubation times,except 48-h incubation time. The rate of CP degradation k and water soluble protein WSP concentration were higher, but concentrations of potantially degradable PDP , non-digestible NDP , and escape protein EPP were lower in HZM compared with SBM P< 0.05 . It was concluded that hazelnut-meal may be substituted with soybean-meal as a protein supplement for ruminants as long as supplemented with protein sources which is high in undegradable intake protein UIP when fed to high producing dairy cows or last growing beef steer and bulls

References

  • 1. Anonim: Başbakanlık Dış Ticaret Müsteşarlığı Ekonomik Araştırmalar Genel Müdürlüğü. Ankara, (1998).
  • 2. Yalçın S, Şehu A, Çetinkaya N: Fındık küspesi ve fındık içi kabuğunun rumende parçalanma özellikleri. Ankara Üniv Vet Fak Deıg 45:115-122,(1998).
  • 3. Kargas KK, Klopfenstein TJ, Wilkerson VA, Clonton DC: Effects of ruminally degradable and escape protein supplements on steers grazing summer native range. J Anim Sci 70:1957-1964,(1992).
  • 4. NRC: Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, (1988).
  • 5. NRC: Nutrient Requiıements of Beef Cattle (7th Ed.). National Academy Press, Washington, DC, (1996).
  • 6. Broderick GA: Desirable characteıistics of forage legumes for improving protein utilization in ruminants. J Anim Sci 73:2760-2773,(1995).
  • 7. A.O.A.C: Offıcial Methods of Analysis (13th Ed.). Association of Offıcial Analytical Chemists, Washingthon DC, (1980).
  • 8. Van Soet PJ, Robertson JB: Systems of analyses for evaluation of fıbrous feed. In: W. J. Pigden, C. C Balch, and M. Graham (Eds.) Proc. Int. Workshop on Standaıdization of Analytical Methodology for Feeds. pp. 49-60. Int Dev Res Çenter Ottowa, Canada, (1979).
  • 9. Mertens DR: Dietary fiber components: Relationship to rate and extent of ruminal digestion. Fed Proc 36:187-195, (1977).
  • 10. Wechsler FS: Mathematical models for kinetics of fiber digestion and their application to tıopical forages grown in contıolled enviroments. Ph. D. Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, (1981).
  • 11. SAS: User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 5 ed. SAS inst., Inc., Cary, NC, (1985).
  • 12. Farquhar AS: Kinetics of alfalfa nitıogen and celi wall disappearance from ruminally-incubated dacron bags. Ph.D. Thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, (1985).
  • 13. Muhalley JJ, Waller SS, Moore KJ. Moser LE, Klopfenstein TJ: In situ ruminal protein degradation of switchgrass and smooth-bromegrass. Agron J 84: 183- 188, (1992).
  • 14. Steel RG, Torrie JH: Principlee and Pıocedures of Statistics (2nd Ed.). McDonald book Co„ Inc.. New York, NY, (1980).
  • 15. Akyıldız AR: Yemler Bilgisi ve Teknolojisi. 2. Basım. Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, Ankara, (1986).
  • 16. Sarı.içek ZB: Etil alkol ile muamelenin bazı protein kaynaklarının in situ rumen parçalanabilirliği üzerine etkisi. Tr J Vet Anim Sci 23: 515-522, (1999).
  • 17. Heldt JS, Pruitt JR, Birkelo CP, Johnson PS, Wicks III ZW: Evaluation of wheat middlings as a supplement for beef cows grazing native winter range with differing forage availabilities. J Anim Sci 76: 378- 387, (1998).
  • 18. Krishnamoorthy U, Muscato TV, Sniffen CJ, Van Soest PJ: Nitrogen fractions in selected feedstuffs. J Dairy Sci 65: 217- 225,(1982).
  • 19. Weakley DC, Stem MD, Satter LD: Factors affecting disappearance of feedstuffs from bags suspended in the rumen. J Anim Sci 56: 493-507, (1983).
  • 20. Broderick GA: Çuantifying forage quality. In: G C., Jr., Fahey (Ed.) Forage Çuality, Evaluation, and Utilization. pp. 200-229. American Society of Agronomy, İne. Crop Science Society of America, Inc. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI, (1994).
  • 21. Wolth JE, Sniffen CJ, Hoover WH: Measıırement of protein solublity in common feedstuffs. J Daiıy Sci 56: 1052-1057, (1973)
There are 21 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Mehmet Akif Karslı This is me

Hüseyin Nursoy This is me

Publication Date June 1, 2001
Published in Issue Year 2001 Volume: 7 Issue: 1-2

Cite

APA Karslı, M. A., & Nursoy, H. (2001). Comparison of protein fraetions of hazelnut-meal with soybean -meal by using in situ technique. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(1-2), 126-130.
AMA Karslı MA, Nursoy H. Comparison of protein fraetions of hazelnut-meal with soybean -meal by using in situ technique. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi. June 2001;7(1-2):126-130.
Chicago Karslı, Mehmet Akif, and Hüseyin Nursoy. “Comparison of Protein Fraetions of Hazelnut-Meal With Soybean -Meal by Using in Situ Technique”. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 7, no. 1-2 (June 2001): 126-30.
EndNote Karslı MA, Nursoy H (June 1, 2001) Comparison of protein fraetions of hazelnut-meal with soybean -meal by using in situ technique. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 7 1-2 126–130.
IEEE M. A. Karslı and H. Nursoy, “Comparison of protein fraetions of hazelnut-meal with soybean -meal by using in situ technique”, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 7, no. 1-2, pp. 126–130, 2001.
ISNAD Karslı, Mehmet Akif - Nursoy, Hüseyin. “Comparison of Protein Fraetions of Hazelnut-Meal With Soybean -Meal by Using in Situ Technique”. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 7/1-2 (June 2001), 126-130.
JAMA Karslı MA, Nursoy H. Comparison of protein fraetions of hazelnut-meal with soybean -meal by using in situ technique. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2001;7:126–130.
MLA Karslı, Mehmet Akif and Hüseyin Nursoy. “Comparison of Protein Fraetions of Hazelnut-Meal With Soybean -Meal by Using in Situ Technique”. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 7, no. 1-2, 2001, pp. 126-30.
Vancouver Karslı MA, Nursoy H. Comparison of protein fraetions of hazelnut-meal with soybean -meal by using in situ technique. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2001;7(1-2):126-30.