Yem Bezelyesinin Yonca Otu Yerine Kullanımının Ruminant Rasyonlarında Sindirilebilirlik, Metan ve Mikrobiyal Protein Üzerine Etkileri

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Samsun Ladik koşullarında yetiştirilen yoncanın (Medicago sativa), farklı düzeylerde (%0, %10, %20, %30) yem bezelyesi (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) kuru otu ile ikamesinin, Tam Karışım Rasyonları (TKR) üzerindeki in vitro ruminal fermantasyon parametreleri, metan üretimi ve mikrobiyal protein sentezi üzerine etkileri araştırılmıştır. Araştırmada, kontrol rasyonu (%0 ikame) tamamen yonca kuru otu içerecek şekilde hazırlanmıştır. Deneme rasyonları ise yonca kuru otunun ağırlık bazında kuru madde üzerinden sırasıyla %0 (Kontrol), %10 (%10YB), %20 (%20YB) ve %30 (%30YB) oranlarında yem bezelyesi kuru otu ile ikame edilmesiyle oluşturulmuştur. Rasyonlar, izokalorik (2400 kcal KM) ve izonitrojenik (%17 HP) olacak şekilde formüle edilmiş; gaz üretimi (GÜ), metan (CH₄), gerçek sindirilebilir kuru madde (GSKM), gerçek sindirim derecesi (GSD), taksimat faktörü (TF), mikrobiyal protein (MP) ve mikrobiyal protein sentezleme etkinliği (MPSE) ölçülmüştür. Bulgulara göre toplam gaz (97,67–101,67 ml) ve mutlak metan üretimi (14,51–15,51 ml) ikame düzeylerinden istatistiksel olarak etkilenmemiştir (P>0,05). Ancak sindirilebilirlik parametrelerinde önemli farklılıklar ortaya çıkmış; GSKM ve GSD’de kübik etki (P<0,01) gözlenmiştir. En yüksek sindirilebilirlik değerleri %10 ikame düzeyinde (GSKM: 385,40 mg; GSD: %76,17) elde edilirken, en düşük değerler %20 ikame düzeyinde (GSKM: 350,83 mg; GSD: %69,44) kaydedilmiştir. Mikrobiyal protein üretimi açısından kontrol grubuna göre düşüş göstermiştir (P<0,05). MPSE ise gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılık göstermemiştir. Bu sonuçlar, yem bezelyesi kuru otunun %10 düzeyinde yonca yerine kullanıldığında ruminal sindirilebilirliği (%5,02 artış) ve mikrobiyal protein üretimini iyileştirdiğini göstermektedir. Daha yüksek ikame oranları (%20 ve üzeri) ise sindirilebilirliği ve mikrobiyal protein sentezini olumsuz etkilemiştir. Metan üretimi tüm gruplarda benzer seviyelerde kalmıştır. Sonuç olarak, %10 yem bezelyesi ikamesi, ruminal verimliliğin iyileştirilmesinde avantajlı görünmektedir. Bununla birlikte, metan üretiminin azaltılması için ek stratejilerin (örneğin tanen veya yağ asidi katkıları) uygulanması gerektiği, ayrıca elde edilen bulguların in vivo çalışmalarla doğrulanmasının önemli olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yonca
• yem bezelyesi
• in vitro gaz
• metan üretimi
• mikrobiyal protein

Destekleyen Kurum

Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi

Proje Numarası

BAP08-2025-5561

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi tarafından desteklenmiştir, Proje numarası: BAP08-2025-5561

Effects of Replacing Alfalfa Hay with Field Pea Hay on Digestibility, Methane Production, and Microbial Protein in Ruminant Diets

Öz

This study investigated the effects of substituting alfalfa (Medicago sativa) with different levels (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%) of field pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) hay under the ecological conditions of Samsun-Ladik on the in vitro ruminal fermentation parameters, methane production, and microbial protein synthesis of Total Mixed Rations (TMR). In the experiment, the control ration (0% substitution) was prepared to contain only alfalfa hay. The experimental rations were formulated by replacing alfalfa hay on a dry matter basis at rates of 0% (Control), 10% (10YB), 20% (20YB), and 30% (30YB) with field pea hay. The rations were formulated to be isocaloric (2400 kcal DM) and isonitrogenous (17% CP). Gas production (GP), methane (CH₄), truly digestible dry matter (TDDM), true digestibility (TD), partitioning factor (PF), microbial protein (MP), and microbial protein synthesis efficiency (MPSE) were measured. According to the results, total gas production (97.67–101.67 ml) and absolute methane production (14.51–15.51 ml) were not significantly affected by substitution levels (P>0.05). However, significant differences were observed in digestibility parameters, showing a cubic effect (P<0.01) for TDDM and TD. The highest digestibility values were obtained at the 10% substitution level (TDDM: 385.40 mg; TD: 76.17%), while the lowest were recorded at the 20% level (TDDM: 350.83 mg; TD: 69.44%). Microbial protein production decreased compared to the control group (P<0.05), whereas MPSE did not differ significantly among treatments. These findings indicate that replacing alfalfa hay with 10% field pea hay improved ruminal digestibility (by 5.02%) and microbial protein synthesis. Higher substitution levels (20% and above) negatively affected digestibility and microbial protein production. Methane production remained similar across all groups. In conclusion, a 10% substitution of field pea hay appears advantageous for enhancing ruminal efficiency. However, additional strategies (e.g., tannin or fatty acid supplementation) may be required to reduce methane emissions, and in vivo studies are recommended to validate these results.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• alfalfa
• field pea
• in vitro gas
• methane production
• microbial protein

Proje Numarası

BAP08-2025-5561

Kaynakça

1. AOAC. Official Method of Analysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 15thEdition, Washington, DC, USA, 1990.
2. Beauchemin KA., Kreuzer M., O’Mara F., McAllister TA. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: A review. Animal Production Science, 2008; 48(2): 21–27. https://doi,org/10,1071/EA07199
3. Blümmel M., SteingaβH., 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. British Journal of Nutrition 1997a, 77(6): 911-921. https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn19970089
4. Blümmel M., Ørskov ER., Makkar HPS., Becker K. In vitro gas production: A technique revisited. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 1997b; 77(1-5): 24–34. https://doi,org/10,1111/j,1439-0396,1997,tb00734,x
5. Dahl WJ., Foster LM., Tyler RT. Review of the health benefits of peas (Pisum sativum L,). British Journal of Nutrition 2012; 108(S1): S3-S10. https://doi,org/10,1079/BJN2002792
6. Duncan DB. Multiple range and multiple F tests, Biometrics, 1955; 11(1): 1–42.
7. Goel G., Makkar HP., Becker K. Effects of Sesbania sesban and Carduus pycnocephalus leaves and Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L,) seeds and their extracts on partitioning of nutrients from roughage-and concentrate-based feeds to methane. Animal Feed Science and Technology 2008; 147(1–3): 72–89.
8. Johnson KA., Johnson DE. Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 1995; 73(8): 2483-2492. https://doi,org/10,2527/1995,7382483x

9. Jung HG., Allen MS. Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and digestibility of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 1995; 73(9): 2774-2790. https://doi,org/10,2527/1995,7392774x
10. Li Q., Wang R., Ma ZY., Zhang XM., Jiao J., Zhang ZG., Ungerfeld EM., Yi K., Zhang B., Long L., Long Y., Tao Y., Huang T., Greening C., Tan Z., Wang M. Dietary selection of metabolically distinct microorganisms drives hydrogen metabolism in ruminants. The ISME Journal 2022; 16(11): 2535–2546. https://doi,org/10,1038/s41396-022-01294-9
11. Menke KH., Raab L., Salewski A., Steingass H., Fritz D., Schneider W. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. The Journal of Agricultural Science 1979; 93(1): 217–222.
12. Menke KH., Steingass H. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid, Animal Research and Development 1988; 28: 7–55.
13. Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel, Retrieved from https://office,microsoft,com/excel 2016.
14. Mueller-Harvey I., Bee G., Dohme-Meier F., Hoste H., Karonen M., Kölliker R., Terrill TH. Benefits of condensed tannins in forage legumes fed to ruminants: Importance of structure, concentration, and diet composition. Crop Science 2019; 59(3): 861–885. https://doi,org/10,2135/cropsci2017,06,0369
15. National Research Council. NRC, Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle (7th rev, ed,), National Academies Press,2011. https://doi,org/10,17226/9825
16. Soto-Navarro SA., Encinias AM., Bauer ML., Lardy GP., Caton JS. Feeding value of field pea as a protein source in forage-based diets fed to beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 2012; 90(2): 585–591. https://doi.org/10.2527/JAS.2011-4098
17. SPSS. IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 20,0, New York: IBM Corp 440, 2011,
18. Titze N., Krieg J., Steingass H., Rodehutscord M. In situ crude protein and starch degradation and in vitro evaluation of pea grains for ruminants. Archives of Animal Nutrition 2021; 1–13. https://doi,org/10,1080/1745039X,2021,1994831
19. Vahdani N., Moravej H., Rezayazdi K., Dehghan-Banadki M. Evaluation of nutritive value of grass pea hay in sheep nutrition and its palatability as compared with alfalfa. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 2014; 16(3): 537–550. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20143170193
20. Van Soest PJ. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant (2nd ed,) Cornell University Press, 1994.
21. Van Soest PV., Robertson JB., Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition, Journal of Dairy Science 1991; 74(10): 3583-3597. " Vercoe PE., Makkar HP., Schlink AC. (Eds,), In vitro screening of plant resources for extra-nutritional attributes in ruminants: Nuclear and Related Methodologies 2010; 247, Heidelberg: Springer.
22. Yi S., Zhang XM., Zhou J., Gao C., Ma ZY., Wang R., Tan Z., Wang M. Fermentation of increasing ratios of grain starch and straw fiber: effects on hydrogen allocation and methanogenesis through in vitro ruminal batch culture. PeerJ 2023: 11: e15050. https://doi,org/10,7717/peerj,15050