Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 51, Issue 8, pp 2465–2471 | Cite as

Use of bean meal (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in goat rations for meat production

  • Milenna Alves dos Santos
  • Amanda Estefanir Cordeiro
  • Dielen Janaira Menezes da Silva
  • Mario Adriano Avila Queiroz
  • Glayciane Costa Gois
  • Daniel Ribeiro Menezes
  • Salete Alves de Moraes
  • Tadeu Vinhas Voltolini
  • Karina Costa Busato
  • Rafael Torres de Souza RodriguesEmail author
Regular Articles

Abstract

Bean meal (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) may be a viable alternative in ruminant feeding, mainly as a source of protein due to its high crude protein content. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of substitution of cottonseed cake (Gossypium hirsutum) with different levels of bean meal in goat feedlot rations on dry matter intake, digestibility, feeding behavior, performance, carcass characteristics, and hematological parameters. Twenty castrated male Repartida goats with an average initial weight of 14.7 ± 2.0 kg were allocated in a randomized block design with four treatments. The initial body weight was used to define the blocks. The treatments were different substitution levels of cottonseed cake by bean meal (0, 27.75, 64.63, and 100%) in the concentrate on a dry matter basis. The diets had a roughage:concentrate ratio of 50:50. Chopped elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) was used as roughage, while the concentrate was composed of ground corn, mineral mix, and different levels of bean meal and cottonseed cake. There were no treatment effects on dry matter intake, feed conversion, slaughter weight, carcass weight and yield, non-carcass component yield, and hematological parameters (P > 0.05). However, for both dry matter digestibility (P = 0.001) and daily weight gain (P < 0.001), there was a negative quadratic relationship between cottonseed cake and bean meal content in the diet. Bean meal can be used in goat diets to replace cottonseed cake as the only source of protein concentrate, since it did not affect the main performance characteristics.

Keywords

Alternative feeds By-product Cottonseed cake Goats Phaseolus vulgaris Protein concentrate 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Statement of animal rights

The experimental procedures followed the animal care of the Committee of the UNIVASF (0006/170417).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Al-Bulushi, S., Shawaf, T. and Al-Hasani, A., 2017. Some hematological and biochemical parameters of different goat breeds in Sultanate of Oman “A preliminary study”, Veterinary World, 10, 461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AOAC, 1990. Official methods of analysis, fifteenth ed., (Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Washington)Google Scholar
  3. Carvalho, G.G.P., Rebouças, R.A., Campos, F.S., Santos, E.M., Araújo, G.G.L., Gois, G.C., Oliveira, J.S., Oliveira, R.L., Rufino, L.M.A., Azevedo, J.A.G. and Cirne, L.G.A., 2017. Intake, digestibility, performance, and feeding behavior of lambs fed diets containing silages of different tropical forage species, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 228, 140–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casali, A.O., Detmann, E., Valadares, F.S.C., Pereira, J.C., Henriques, L.T., Freitas, S.G. and Paulino, M.F., 2008. Influence of incubation time and particles size on indigestible compounds contents in cattle feeds and feces obtained by in situ procedures, Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 37, 335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castro, W.J.R., Zanine, A.M., Souza, A.L., Ferreira, D.J., Geron, L.J.V., Leão, A.G., Negrão, F.M. and Ferro, M. M, 2016. Inclusion of different levels of common-bean residue in sheep diets on nutrient intake and digestibility, Semina: Ciências Agrárias, 37, 369–380Google Scholar
  6. Chizzotti, M.L., Valadares Filho, S.C., Tedeschi, L.O., Chizzotti, F.H.M. and Carstens, G.E., 2007. Energy and protein requirements for growth and maintenance of F1 Nellore × Red Angus bulls, steers, and heifers, Journal of Animal Science, 85, 1971–1981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cochran, R.C., Adams, D.C., Wallace, J.D. and Galyean, M.L. 1986. Predicting digestibility of different diets with internal markers: evaluation of four potential markers, Journal of Animal Science, 63, 1476–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colomer-Rocher, F., Morand-Fehr, P., Kirton, A.H., Delfa, R., and Sierra, A.I., 1988. Métodos normatizados para el estudio de los caracteres cuantitativos y cualitativos de las canales caprinas y ovinas, (Ministerio da Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Madrid)Google Scholar
  9. EFSA, 2012. Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP); Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of Urea for ruminants, EFSA Journal, 10, 2624,  https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feldman, B.F., Zink, J.G., Jain, N.C. and Schalm, O.W., 2000. Schalm’s Veterinary Hemetology, fifth ed., (Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA)Google Scholar
  11. Ferro, M.M., Zanine, A.M., Ferro, R.M. and Souza, A.L., 2017. Kinetics in vitro ruminal fermentation of diets with inclusion of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) residue replacing cottonseed meal, Archivos de Zootecnia, 66, 325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferro, M.M., Zanine, A.M., Souza, A.L., Ferreira, D.J., Santos, E.M., Alves, G.R., Geron, L.J.V. and Pinho, R.M.A., 2018. Residue from common bean in substitution of cottonseed cake in diets for sheep, Biological Rhythm Research,  https://doi.org/10.1080/09291016.2018.1535566
  13. Fonseca, A.A., Zanine, A.M., Ribeiro, M.D., Leonel, F.P., Ferreira, D.J., Souza, A.L., Silva, F.G., Correa, R.A. and Corrêa Neto, C.R., 2016. Growth performance and blood parameters of dairy cows subjected to grazing and to a supplementary diet of bean residues, Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 51, 76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garg, M.R., 1998. Role of bypass protein in feeding ruminants on crop residue based diet – Review, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 11, 107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goes, R.H.T.B., Klein, K.W., Martinhago, L.H., Oliveira, E.R., Brabes, K.C.S., Gressler, M.G.M., Yoshiraha, M.M., Oliveira, R.T. and Santos, E.M.L., 2013. Common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in the rations for cattle in feedlot, Agricultural Sciences, 4, 774–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hidosa, D., Tolera, A. and Nurfeta, A., 2018. Effect of lablab and pigeon pea leaf meal supplementation on performance of goats fed a basal diet of haricot bean haulms, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 50, 1271–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmes, J.H.G., Dixon, R.M., Domingo, J.A., Garcia, E., Ismartoyo, Lodebo, B., Paduano, D.C., Pomares, C. and Woldetsadick, F., 1991. Grain legumes (lupins, lablab beans, cowpeas and navy beans) as supplements for sheep and goats. http://livestocklibrary.com.au/handle/1234/19671. Accessed 20 Nov 2018
  18. IBGE, 2016. Produção pecuária municipal, (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Rio de Janeiro)Google Scholar
  19. IBGE, 2019. Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola. https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/1618#resultado. Accessed 05 Apr 2019
  20. Jennings, J.S., Meyer, B.E., Guiroy, P.J. and Cole, N.A., 2018. Energy costs of feeding excess protein from corn-based by-products to finishing cattle, Journal of Animal Science, 6, 653–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lopes, L.S., Martins, S.R., Chizzotti, M.L., Busato, K.C., de Oliveira, I.M., Machado Neto, O.R., Paulino, P.V.R., Lanna, D.P.D. and Ladeira, M.M., 2014. Meat quality and fatty acid profile of Brazilian goats subjected to different nutritional treatments, Meat Science, 97, 602–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Madruga, M.S., Torres, T.S., Carvalho, F.F., Queiroga, R.C., Narain, N., Garrutti D., Souza Neto, M.A., Mattos, C.W. and Costa R.G., 2008. Meat quality of Moxoto and Caninde goats as affected by two levels of feeding, Meat Science, 80, 1019–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Magalhães, A.L.R., Zorzi, K., Queiroz, A.C., Mello, R., Detmann, E. and Pereira, J.C., 2008. Residue from common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) processing in the rations for milking cows: intake, digestibility, milk production and composition and feeding efficiency, Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 37, 529–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marcondes, M.I., Valadares Filho, S.C., Detmann, E., Valadares, R.F.D., Costa e Silva, L.F. and Fonseca, M.A., 2009. Degradação ruminal e digestibilidade intestinal da proteína bruta de alimentos para bovinos, Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 38, 2247–2257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mertens, D.R., 2002. Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beaker or crucibles: collaborative study, Journal of AOAC International, 85, 1217–1240Google Scholar
  26. NRC, 2007. Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: Sheep, goats, cervids, and new world camelids, (National Academy Press, Washington)Google Scholar
  27. Palmieri, A.D., Carvalho, G.G.P., Tosto, M.S.L., Leite, V.M., Santos, S.A., Borja, M.S., Azevêdo, J.A.G., Freitas Júnior, J.E., Leite, L.C. and Rufino, L.M.A., 2017. Feeding behavior of finishing goats fed diets containing detoxified castor meal, co-product of the biodiesel industry, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 49, 389–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rangel, F.C., Villalobos, G.V., Díaz, D.D. and Gutiérrez, J.A.O., 2017. Dietary level of cull pinto beans on nutrient digestibility and animal performance of finishing hair lambs, Revista Brasileira Zootecnia, 46, 400–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ribeiro, M.N., Ribeiro, N.L., Bozzi, R. and Costa, R.G., 2018. Physiological and biochemical blood variables of goats subjected to heat stress – a review, Journal of Applied Animal Research, 46, 1036–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. SAS, 2003. User’s guide: version 9.1., (SAS Inc, Cary)Google Scholar
  31. Silva, J.L., Guim, A., Ferreira, M.A. and Soares, L.F.P., 2016. Tanniniferous fodders in the production of goats and sheep, Archivos de Zootecnia, 65, 605–614Google Scholar
  32. Silva, R.N.P., Alves, A.A., Garcez, B.S., Moreira Filho, M.A., Oliveira, M.E., Moreira, A.L., Azevêdo, D.M.M.R. and Parente, H.N., 2017. Ruminal degradability of shell of pods of the lima bean (“Phaseolus lunatus” L.) ammoniated with urea, Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal, 18, 26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milenna Alves dos Santos
    • 1
  • Amanda Estefanir Cordeiro
    • 1
  • Dielen Janaira Menezes da Silva
    • 2
  • Mario Adriano Avila Queiroz
    • 2
  • Glayciane Costa Gois
    • 3
  • Daniel Ribeiro Menezes
    • 3
  • Salete Alves de Moraes
    • 4
  • Tadeu Vinhas Voltolini
    • 4
  • Karina Costa Busato
    • 5
  • Rafael Torres de Souza Rodrigues
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.College of Veterinary MedicineUniversidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco – UNIVASFPetrolinaBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Animal ScienceUniversidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco – UNIVASFPetrolinaBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Veterinary Sciences in SemiaridUniversidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco – UNIVASFPetrolinaBrazil
  4. 4.Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária – Semiarid EmbrapaPetrolinaBrazil
  5. 5.Department of Animal ScienceUniversidade Federal de Viçosa – UFVViçosaBrazil

Personalised recommendations