Advertisement

Digestibility, nitrogen balance and weight gain in sheep fed with diets supplemented with different seaweeds

  • Sonia Rjiba-Ktita
  • Amor Chermiti
  • Carmen Valdés
  • Secundino LópezEmail author
Article

Abstract

Three completely randomised design experiments examined the effects of the inclusion of three seaweed species (Ruppia sp., Ulva sp. or Chaetomorpha sp.) into the diet on digestibility and nitrogen balance in Barbarine sheep. Diets were composed of oat hay ad libitum supplemented with 600 g of concentrate. Seaweeds were incorporated into the concentrate at increasing levels (0, 200, 300 or 400 g seaweed kg−1 concentrate, dry matter (DM) basis) in replacement of other ingredients. Feed intake and water consumption were increased (P < 0.01) linearly with Ruppia supplementation. As the proportion of Ruppia was increased in the diet, the digestibility of organic matter decreased linearly (P < 0.01) from 0.698 (no seaweed) to 0.642 (400 g seaweed kg−1 concentrate). Increasing the level of inclusion of Chaetomorpha up to 300 g kg−1 did not affect the intake of concentrate. Organic matter digestibility decreased linearly (P < 0.001) from 0.685 with the control diet to 0.622 with the diet containing 400 g Chaetomorpha kg−1 concentrate. The level of inclusion of Ulva did not affect feed intake or water consumption, but decreased linearly (P > 0.001) organic matter digestibility from 0.637 with the control diet to 0.599 with the diet containing 400 g Ulva kg−1 concentrate. In all the experiments, nitrogen balance was positive and there were no differences among levels of seaweed supplementation in N retention or daily weight gain. These results suggest that seaweeds such as Ruppia, Ulva or Chaetomorpha can be incorporated into sheep concentrates up to 30% (DM basis) without adverse effects on feed digestibility or growth performance.

Keywords

Seaweed Sheep Feeding Digestibility Feed 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the contribution of the director and the workers in the livestock industry of Tabarka (North of Tunisia). Special thanks to Mr. Boussbiaa and Mr. Mabrouk for their involvement.

Compliance with ethical standards

The experiments were carried out at the Small Ruminants Research Unit of the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique de Tunisie (INRAT) in strict accordance with good animal practices as defined by national authorities and European Union Directive 2010/63/EU. The experimental animal procedures complied with the institutional guidelines of INRAT and were conducted by trained specialised personnel to ensure animal welfare.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Al-Shorepy SA, Al Hadramy GA, Jamali IA (2001) Effect of feeding diets containing seaweed on weight gain and carcass characteristics of indigenous lambs in the United Arab Emirates. Small Rumin Res 41:283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altomonte I, Salari F, Licitra R, Martini M (2018) Use of microalgae in ruminant nutrition and implications on milk quality – a review. Livest Sci 214:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AOAC (1984) Official methods of analysis, 14th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Aquino RS, Landeira-Fernandez AM, Valente AP, Andrade LR, Mourao PA (2005) Occurrence of sulfated galactans in marine angiosperms: evolutionary implications. Glycobiology 15:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arieli A, Sklan D, Kissil G (1993) A note on the nutritive value of Ulva lactuca for ruminants. Anim Sci 57:329–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baghurst PA, Baghurst KI, Record SJ (1996) Dietary fiber, non starch polysaccharides and resistant starch - a review. Food Aust 48:3–35Google Scholar
  7. Burt AWA, Bartlett S, Rowland SJ (1954) The use of seaweed meals in concentrate mixtures for dairy cows. J Dairy Res 21:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabrita ARJ, Maia MRG, Oliveira HM, Sousa-Pinto I, Almeida AA, Pinto E, Fonseca AJM (2016) Tracing seaweeds as mineral sources for farm-animals. J Appl Phycol 28:3135–3150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cabrita ARJ, Correia A, Rodrigues AR, Cortez PP, Vilanova M, Fonseca AJM (2017) Assessing in vivo digestibility and effects on immune system of sheep fed alfalfa hay supplemented with a fixed amount of Ulva rigida and Gracilaria vermiculophylla. J Appl Phycol 29:1057–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carvalho AFU, Portela MCC, Sousa MB, Martins FS, Rocha FC, Farias DF, Feitosa JPA (2009) Physiological and physico-chemical characterization of dietary fibre from the green seaweed Ulva fasciata Delile. Braz J Biol 69:969–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casas-Valdez M, Serviere-Zaragoza E, Lluch-Belda D, Marcos R, Aguila-Ramirez R (2003) Effect of climatic change on the harvest of the kelp Macrocystis pyrifera at the Mexican Pacific coast. Bull Mar Sci 73:445–456Google Scholar
  12. Darcy-Vrillon B (1993) Nutritional aspects of the developing use of marine macroalgae for the human food industry. Int J Food Sci Nutr 44:23–35Google Scholar
  13. Dhanoa MS, López S, France J (2008) Linear models for determining digestibility. In: France J, Kebreab E (eds) Mathematical modelling in animal nutrition. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 12–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans FD, Critchley AT (2014) Seaweeds for animal production use. J Appl Phycol 26:891–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleurence J (1999) Seaweed proteins: biochemical, nutritional aspects and potential uses. Trends Food Sci Technol 10:25–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fleurence J, Le Coeur C, Mabeau S, Maurice M, Landrein A (1995) Comparison of different extractive procedures for proteins from the edible seaweeds Ulva rigida and Ulva rotundata. J Appl Phycol 7:577–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaillard C, Bhatti HS, Novoa-Garrido M, Lind V, Roleda MY, Weisbjerg MR (2018) Amino acid profiles of nine seaweed species and their in situ degradability in dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 241:210–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godard M, Décordé K, Ventura E, Soteras G, Baccou JC, Cristol JP, Rouanet JM (2009) Polysaccharides from the green alga Ulva rigida improve the antioxidant status and prevent fatty streak lesions in the high cholesterol fed hamster, an animal model of nutritionally induced arthrosclerosis. Food Chem 115:176–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hentges JF, Salveson RE Jr (1970) Processed aquatic weeds for cattle nutrition. In Proceedings of Aquatic Plant Research Conference, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA pp 62–67Google Scholar
  20. Hopkins DL, Clayton EH, Lamb TA, Van de Ven RJ, Refshange G, Kerr MJ, Bailes K, Lewandowski P, Ponnampalm EN (2014) The impact of supplementing lambs with algae on growth, meat traits and oxidative status. Meat Sci 98:135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. INRA (1988) Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiménez-Escrig A, Sanchez-Muniz FJ (2000) Dietary fibre from edible seaweeds: chemical structure, physicochemical properties and effects on cholesterol metabolism. Nutr Res 20:585–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jordan P, Vilter H (1991) Extraction of proteins from material rich in anionic mucilages: partition and fractionation of vanadate dependent bromoperoxidases from the brown algae Laminaria digitata and L. saccharina in aqueous polymer two phase system. Biochim Biophys Acta 1073:98–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuda T, Tsunekawa M, Gotoa H, Araki Y (2005) Antioxidant properties of four edible algae harvested in the Noto Peninsula, Japan. J Food Compos Anal 18:625–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lamminen M, Halmemies-Beauchet-Filleau A, Kokkonen T, Jaakkola S, Vanhatalo A (2019) Different microalgae species as a substitutive protein feed for soya bean meal in grass silage based dairy cow diets. Anim Feed Sci Technol 247:112–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Linn JG, Goodrich RD, Otterby DE, Meiske JC, Staba EJ (1975) Nutritive value of dried or ensiled aquatic plants II. Digestibility by sheep. J Anim Sci 41:610–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mabeau S, Fleurence J (1993) Seaweed in food products: biochemical and nutritional aspects. Trends Food Sci Technol 4:103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Makkar HPS, Tran G, Heuze V, Giger-Reverdin S, Lessire M, Lebas F, Ankers P (2016) Seaweeds for livestock diets: a review. Anim Feed Sci Technol 212:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Misurcová L (2012) Chemical composition of seaweeds. In: Kim S-K (ed) Handbook of marine macroalgae: biotechnology and applied phycology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 171–192Google Scholar
  30. Mora N, Casas M, Marín A, Águila RN, Sánchez I, Hernández H, Sanginés L (2009) The kelp Macrocystis pyrifera as nutritional supplement for goats. Rev Cient FCV-LUZ 19:63–70Google Scholar
  31. Moreda-Pineiro A, Pena-Vásquez E, Bermejo-Barrera P (2012) Significance of the presence of trace and ultratrace elements in seaweeds. In: Kim S-K (ed) Handbook of marine macroalgae: biotechnology and applied phycology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 116–170Google Scholar
  32. Potty VH (1996) Physico-chemical aspects, physiological functions, nutritional importance and technological significance of dietary fibers – a critical appraisal prospects. J Food Sci Technol 33:1–18Google Scholar
  33. Renn DW (1990) Seaweeds and biotechnology-inseparable companions. Hydrobiologia 204:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rjiba-Ktita S, Chermiti A, Mahouachi M (2010) The use of seaweeds (Ruppia maritima and Chaetomorpha linum) for lamb fattening during drought periods. Small Rumin Res 91:116–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rjiba-Ktita S, Chermiti A, Bodas R, France J, Lopez S (2017) Aquatic plants and macroalgae as potential feed ingredients in ruminant diets. J Appl Phycol 29:449–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SAS (1987) Statistical Analysis System Institute, SAS/STAT user’s guide, 6th edn. SAS, CaryGoogle Scholar
  37. Tayyab U, Novoa-Garrido M, Roleda MY, Lind V, Weisbjerg MR (2016) Ruminal and intestinal protein degradability of various seaweed species measured in situ in dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 213:44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Underwood EJ, Suttle NF (1999) The mineral nutrition of livestock, 3rd edn. CABI Publishing, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non starch carbohydrates in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ventura MR, Castanon JIR (1998) The nutritive value of seaweed (Ulva lactuca) for goats. Small Rumin Res 29:325–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ventura MR, Castanon JIR, McNab JM (1994) Nutritional value of seaweed (Ulva rigida) for poultry. Anim Feed Sci Technol 49:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams AG, Withers S, Sutherland AD (2013) The potential of bacteria isolated from ruminal contents of seaweed-eating North Ronaldsay sheep to hydrolyse seaweed components and produce methane by anaerobic digestion in vitro. Microb Biotechnol 6:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wong WH, Leung KL (1979) Sewage sludge and seaweed (Ulva sp.) as supplementary feed for chicks. Environ Pollut 20:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Woodward N (1951) Seaweeds as a source of chemicals and stock feed. J Sci Food Agric 2:477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yaich H, Garna H, Besbes S, Paquot M, Blecker C, Attia H (2011) Chemical composition and functional properties of Ulva lactuca seaweed collected in Tunisia. Food Chem 128:895–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zitouni H, Arab R, Bundry C, Bousseboua H, Beckers Y (2014) Chemical and biological evaluation of the nutritive value of Algerian green seaweed Ulva lactuca using in vitro gas production technique for ruminant animals. Int J Adv Res (Indore) 2:916–925Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire des Productions Animales et FourragèresInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique de Tunisie (INRAT)ArianaTunisia
  2. 2.Direction Générale de la Production Agricole (DGPA)Ministère de l’Agriculture des Ressources Hydrauliques et de la PècheTunisTunisia
  3. 3.Instituto de Ganadería de Montaña, CSIC-Universidad de León, Departamento de Producción AnimalUniversidad de LeónLeónSpain

Personalised recommendations