| Literature DB >> 27429009 |
Pavlína Hloucalová1, Jiří Skládanka2, Pavel Horký3, Bořivoj Klejdus4, Jan Pelikán5, Daniela Knotová6.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to determine phytoestrogen content in fresh-cut legume forage. This issue has been much discussed in recent years in connection with the health and safety of feedstuffs and thus livestock health. The experiments were carried out on two experimental plots at Troubsko and Vatín, Czech Republic during June and July in 2015. Samples were collected of the four forage legume species perennial red clover (variety "Amos"), alfalfa (variety "Holyně"), and annuals Persian clover and Alexandrian clover. Forage was sampled twice at regular three to four day intervals leading up to harvest and a third time on the day of harvest. Fresh and wilted material was analyzed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Higher levels ( p < 0.05) of isoflavones biochanin A (3.697 mg·g (-1) of dry weight) and formononetin (4.315 mg·g (-1) of dry weight) were found in red clover than in other species. The highest isoflavone content was detected in red clover, reaching 1.001% of dry matter ( p < 0.05), representing a risk for occurrence of reproduction problems and inhibited secretion of animal estrogen. The phytoestrogen content was particularly increased in wilted forage. Significant isoflavone reduction was observed over three to four day intervals leading up to harvest.Entities:
Keywords: Medicago; Trifolium; biochanin A; formononetin; isoflavones; phytoestrogens
Year: 2016 PMID: 27429009 PMCID: PMC4961999 DOI: 10.3390/ani6070043
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Figure 1Formononetin metabolism in sheep.
Figure 2Biochanin A metabolism in sheep.
Figure 3Medicago sativa L. growing on the experimental plot.
Figure 4Trifolium pratense L. growing on the experimental plot.
Figure 5Trifolium alexandrinum L. growing on the experimental plot.
Figure 6Trifolium resupinatum L. growing on the experimental plot.
Sampling terms and phenophase for individual species.
| Sampling Order | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sampling 1 | 2 June 2015 | 2 June 2015 | 24 June 2015 | 24 June 2015 |
| Sampling 2 | 5 June 2015 | 5 June 2015 | 27 June 2015 | 27 June 2015 |
| Sampling 3 | 8 June 2015 | 8 June 2015 | 30 June 2015 | 30 June 2015 |
| Sampling 1 | 28 May 2015 | 28 May 2015 | 19 June 2015 | 19 June 2015 |
| Sampling 2 | 1 June 2015 | 1 June 2015 | 22 June 2015 | 22 June 2015 |
| Sampling 3 | 4 June 2015 | 4 June 2015 | 25 June 2015 | 25 June 2015 |
Content of biochanin A, formononetin, genistein, ononin, sissotrin, daidzein, and daidzin in dry matter of Trifolium pratense, Medicago sativa, Trifolium resupinatum, and Trifolium alexandrinum (mg·g−1).
| Factor | Content of Isoflavones mg·g−1 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biochanin A | Formononetin | Genistein | Ononin | Sissotrin | Daidzein | Daidzin | ||
| Species | ||||||||
| | 12 | 3.697 ± 1.40 a | 4.315 ± 1.55 a | 0.177 ± 0.06 a | 0.943 ± 0.35 a | 0.462 ± 0.20 a | 0.232 ± 0.11 a | 0.185 ± 0.07 a |
| | 12 | 0.105 ± 0.11 b | 0.141 ± 0.12 b | 0.014 ± 0.01 b | 0.173 ± 0.07 b | 0.071 ± 0.02 b | 0.057 ± 0.02 b | 0.005 ± 0.01 b |
| | 12 | 0.072 ± 0.03 b | 0.202 ± 0.07 b | 0.011 ± 0.01 b | 0.218 ± 0.04 b | 0.057 ± 0.01 b | 0.051 ± 0.01 b | 0.004 ± 0.00 b |
| | 12 | 0.314 ± 0.20 b | 0.106 ± 0.06 b | 0.033 ± 0.02 b | 0.129 ± 0.02 b | 0.186 ± 0.10 b | 0.161 ± 0.09 a | 0.016 ± 0.01 b |
| | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| Wilting | ||||||||
| Fresh forage | 24 | 0.928 ± 1.48 | 1.033 ± 1.59 | 0.056 ± 0.07 | 0.369 ± 0.36 | 0.165 ± 0.13 | 0.108 ± 0.07 | 0.046 ± 0.07 |
| Wilted forage | 24 | 1.166 ± 1.90 | 1.349 ± 2.32 | 0.061 ± 0.08 | 0.363 ± 0.41 | 0.223 ± 0.25 | 0.142 ± 0.13 | 0.058 ± 0.10 |
| | 0.220 | 0.140 | 0.647 | 0.907 | 0.076 | 0.116 | 0.220 | |
| Sampling | ||||||||
| 1. | 16 | 1.278 ± 2.06 | 1.413 ± 2.34 | 0.069 ± 0.09 | 0.430 ± 0.48 | 0.212 ± 0.26 | 0.136 ± 0.13 | 0.064 ± 0.10 |
| 2. | 16 | 1.153 ± 1.82 | 1.200 ± 1.98 | 0.061 ± 0.08 | 0.360 ± 0.37 | 0.200 ± 0.18 | 0.128 ± 0.09 | 0.058 ± 0.09 |
| 3. | 16 | 0.710 ± 1.10 | 0.960 ± 1.64 | 0.045 ± 0.05 | 0.308 ± 0.28 | 0.170 ± 0.15 | 0.110 ± 0.08 | 0.036 ± 0.06 |
| | 0.050 | 0.226 | 0.149 | 0.168 | 0.556 | 0.596 | 0.050 | |
| Study plot | ||||||||
| Vatín | 24 | 1.180 ± 1.82 | 1.421 ± 2.30 a | 0.060 ± 0.08 | 0.339 ± 0.32 | 0.202 ± 0.17 | 0.128 ± 0.09 | 0.059 ± 0.09 |
| Troubsko | 24 | 0.914 ± 1.59 | 0.960 ± 1.60 b | 0.057 ± 0.08 | 0.393 ± 0.44 | 0.186 ± 0.22 | 0.122 ± 0.12 | 0.046 ± 0.08 |
| | 0.172 | 0.034 | 0.701 | 0.300 | 0.628 | 0.755 | 0.184 | |
Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between means are indicated by different superscripts (a,b) within columns.
Total isoflavone content in forage of Trifolium pratense, Medicago sativa, Trifolium resupinatum, and Trifolium alexandrinum (% of dry matter).
| Species | Overall Representation of Isoflavones |
|---|---|
| 1.001 | |
| 0.056 | |
| 0.061 | |
| 0.094 |
Figure 7Wilting’s influence on contents of biochanin A (a); formononetin (b); genistein (c); ononin (d); sissotrin (e); daidzein (f); and daidzin (g) from Sampling 1 to Sampling 3 (mg·g−1 of dry matter) in Medicago sativa (Med.), Trifolium pratense (Tr.p.), Trifolium resupinatum (Tr.r.), and Trifolium alexandrinum (Tr.a.). Error bars indicate 95% confidence interval.
Figure 8Percentages of isoflavones determined in Trifolium pratense, Medicago sativa, Trifolium resupinatum, and Trifolium alexandrinum.