Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Response to dietary tannin challenges in view of the browser/grazer dichotomy in an Ethiopian setting: Bonga sheep versus Kaffa goats

Kechero Yisehak, Yoseph Kibreab, Tolemariam Taye, Marta Ribeiro Alves Lourenço and Geert Janssens UGent (2016) TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION. 48(1). p.125-131
abstract
It has been suggested that goats (typical browser) are better adapted to digest tannin-rich diets than sheep (typical grazer). To evaluate this, Bonga sheep and Kaffa goats were used in a 2x3 randomized crossover design with two species, three diets, and three periods (15-day adaptation+7-day collection). The dietary treatments consisted of grass-based hay only (tannin-free diet=FT), a high-tannin diet (36 % Albizia schimperiana (AS)+9 % Ficus elastica (FE)+ 55 % FT (HT)), and HT+polyethylene glycol 6000 (PEG). Animals were individually fed at 50 g dry matter (DM)/kg body weight (BW) and had free access to clean drinking water and mineralized salt licks. Nutrient intake, apparent nutrient digestibility, nutrient conversion ratios, and live weight changes were determined. Condensed tannin concentrations in AS and FE were 110 and 191 g/kg DM, respectively. Both sheep and goats ate 47 % more of HT than FT, and dry matter intake further increased by 9 % when PEG was added, with clear difference in effect size between goats and sheep (P<0.001). The effects of the tannin-rich diet and PEG addition were similarly positive for DM digestibility between sheep and goats, but crude protein (CP) digestibility was higher in HT+PEG-fed goats than in sheep fed the same diet. However, PEG addition induced a larger improvement in growth performance and feed efficiency ratio in sheep than in goat (P<0.001). The addition of PEG as a tannin binder improved digestion and performance in both species, but with the highest effect size in sheep.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
Goat, Digestibility, Nutrition, Polyethylene glycol, Sheep, Tannin, SALIVARY PROTEINS, BOS-INDICUS, FEEDS
journal title
TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION
Trop. Anim. Health Prod.
volume
48
issue
1
pages
125 - 131
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000369009100016
JCR category
AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
JCR impact factor
0.912 (2016)
JCR rank
24/58 (2016)
JCR quartile
2 (2016)
ISSN
0049-4747
DOI
10.1007/s11250-015-0931-3
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have retained and own the full copyright for this publication
id
7259651
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-7259651
date created
2016-06-17 11:36:02
date last changed
2016-12-19 15:45:25
@article{7259651,
  abstract     = {It has been suggested that goats (typical browser) are better adapted to digest tannin-rich diets than sheep (typical grazer). To evaluate this, Bonga sheep and Kaffa goats were used in a 2x3 randomized crossover design with two species, three diets, and three periods (15-day adaptation+7-day collection). The dietary treatments consisted of grass-based hay only (tannin-free diet=FT), a high-tannin diet (36 \% Albizia schimperiana (AS)+9 \% Ficus elastica (FE)+ 55 \% FT (HT)), and HT+polyethylene glycol 6000 (PEG). Animals were individually fed at 50 g dry matter (DM)/kg body weight (BW) and had free access to clean drinking water and mineralized salt licks. Nutrient intake, apparent nutrient digestibility, nutrient conversion ratios, and live weight changes were determined. Condensed tannin concentrations in AS and FE were 110 and 191 g/kg DM, respectively. Both sheep and goats ate 47 \% more of HT than FT, and dry matter intake further increased by 9 \% when PEG was added, with clear difference in effect size between goats and sheep (P{\textlangle}0.001). The effects of the tannin-rich diet and PEG addition were similarly positive for DM digestibility between sheep and goats, but crude protein (CP) digestibility was higher in HT+PEG-fed goats than in sheep fed the same diet. However, PEG addition induced a larger improvement in growth performance and feed efficiency ratio in sheep than in goat (P{\textlangle}0.001). The addition of PEG as a tannin binder improved digestion and performance in both species, but with the highest effect size in sheep.},
  author       = {Yisehak, Kechero and Kibreab, Yoseph and Taye, Tolemariam and Ribeiro Alves Louren\c{c}o, Marta and Janssens, Geert},
  issn         = {0049-4747},
  journal      = {TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION},
  keyword      = {Goat,Digestibility,Nutrition,Polyethylene glycol,Sheep,Tannin,SALIVARY PROTEINS,BOS-INDICUS,FEEDS},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {125--131},
  title        = {Response to dietary tannin challenges in view of the browser/grazer dichotomy in an Ethiopian setting: Bonga sheep versus Kaffa goats},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11250-015-0931-3},
  volume       = {48},
  year         = {2016},
}

Chicago
Yisehak, Kechero, Yoseph Kibreab, Tolemariam Taye, Marta Ribeiro Alves Lourenço, and Geert Janssens. 2016. “Response to Dietary Tannin Challenges in View of the Browser/grazer Dichotomy in an Ethiopian Setting: Bonga Sheep Versus Kaffa Goats.” Tropical Animal Health and Production 48 (1): 125–131.
APA
Yisehak, Kechero, Kibreab, Y., Taye, T., Ribeiro Alves Lourenço, M., & Janssens, G. (2016). Response to dietary tannin challenges in view of the browser/grazer dichotomy in an Ethiopian setting: Bonga sheep versus Kaffa goats. TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION, 48(1), 125–131.
Vancouver
1.
Yisehak K, Kibreab Y, Taye T, Ribeiro Alves Lourenço M, Janssens G. Response to dietary tannin challenges in view of the browser/grazer dichotomy in an Ethiopian setting: Bonga sheep versus Kaffa goats. TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION. 2016;48(1):125–31.
MLA
Yisehak, Kechero, Yoseph Kibreab, Tolemariam Taye, et al. “Response to Dietary Tannin Challenges in View of the Browser/grazer Dichotomy in an Ethiopian Setting: Bonga Sheep Versus Kaffa Goats.” TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION 48.1 (2016): 125–131. Print.