| Literature DB >> 35327095 |
Małgorzata P Majewska1, Renata Miltko1, Grzegorz Bełżecki1, Aneta Kędzierska1, Barbara Kowalik1.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare two sources of tannins on fatty acids (FA) composition in rumen. Treatments were (g tannins/kg diet as-feed-basis) as follows: (1) no supplemental tannin addition (CON), (2) addition of 13 g of oak bark extract (OAK), and (3) 4 g of tannic acid (TAN). The basal diet contained 55:45 forage to concentrate ratio. Net consumption of tannins (g/d) was 4 g for both tannins sources. The study was performed on three Polish Mountain ewes fitted with rumen cannulas, and was divided into three experimental periods (I, II, and III). Both sampling time and animal diet had a significant effect on FA profile in the rumen fluid. In general, FA concentrations were higher before feeding in comparison to samples collected 2 and 4 h after feeding. In terms of dietary effect, it was shown that TAN addition had a greater influence on FA profile in the ruminal fluid than the OAK diet. Briefly, in the TAN group significantly increased concentrations of C18:2 c9c12 (linoleic acid, LA) 8 h after feeding (vs. control, CON and OAK), C18:3 c9c12c15 (α-linolenic acid, LNA) 4 h after feeding (vs. OAK), C20:3 n-6 before feeding (vs. CON), C20:4 before feeding (vs. CON and OAK) and 8 h after feeding (vs. OAK) were recorded. In contrast, OAK addition significantly reduced C20:3 n-6 concentration 2 h after feeding (vs. CON). In conclusion, increased concentrations of both LA and LNA in the rumen indicated that supplemental tannic acid may inhibit the initial stage of FA biohydrogenation in the rumen.Entities:
Keywords: biohydrogenation; fatty acid; oak bark extract; rumen; sheep; tannic acid
Year: 2022 PMID: 35327095 PMCID: PMC8944490 DOI: 10.3390/ani12060699
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Composition of sheep diets 1.
| Item | CON | OAK | TAN |
|---|---|---|---|
| Components (g/kg DM) | |||
| Meadow hay | 588 | 581 | 586 |
| Barley meal | 294 | 290 | 293 |
| Soybean meal | 98.0 | 96.8 | 97.7 |
| Polfamix 2 | 19.6 | 19.4 | 19.5 |
| Oak bark extract | - | 12.6 | - |
| Tannic acid | - | - | 3.91 |
| Chemical composition (g/kg DM) | |||
| Dry matter | 887 | 887 | 887 |
| Crude protein 3 | 110 | 109 | 109 |
| Crude fat | 21.8 | 21.8 | 21.7 |
| Starch | 222 | 219 | 221 |
| NDF | 442 | 436 | 440 |
| ADF | 371 | 366 | 369 |
| ADL | 35.7 | 35.4 | 35.6 |
| Crude ash | 34.4 | 34.2 | 34.3 |
| Nutrient intake (g/d) | |||
| Dry matter | 905 | 917 | 908 |
| Crude protein | 112 | 112 | 112 |
| Crude fat | 22.2 | 22.5 | 22.2 |
| Starch | 226 | 226 | 226 |
| NDF | 451 | 451 | 451 |
| ADF | 378 | 378 | 378 |
| ADL | 36.4 | 36.5 | 36.4 |
| Crude ash | 35.1 | 35.3 | 35.1 |
CON, control diet; OAK, diet with oak bark extract addition; TAN, diet with tannic acid addition; DM, dry matter; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; ADL, acid detergent lignin. 1 diet formulated according to the recommendations for ruminants [34]; 2 Polfamix O-K (Trouw Nutrition Polska, Grodzisk Mazowiecki, Poland) in kilograms: g: Ca 240, Na 60, P 120, Mg 65, Zn 2.5, Mn 3.0, vit. E 1.5, Se 0.003, Co 0.015; IU: vit. A 300.000, vit. D3 30.000; 3 expressed as N × 6.25.
Fatty acid composition of the additive and diet (mg FAME/kg).
| Item | CON | OAK | TAN |
|---|---|---|---|
| FA composition (mg FAME/kg additive) 1 | |||
| C14:0 | - | 25.4 | 15.8 |
| C16:0 | - | 400 | 117 |
| C16:1 | - | - | - |
| C18:0 | - | 228 | 201 |
| C18:1 | - | 111 | - |
| C18:2 | - | 439 | - |
| C18:3 | - | - | - |
| C20:0 | - | - | - |
| C20:3 n-6 | - | - | - |
| C24:0 | - | - | - |
| Total FA | - | 1203 | 334 |
| FA composition (mg FAME/kg diet) 2 | |||
| C14:0 | 33.8 | 34.1 | 33.9 |
| C16:0 | 728 | 733 | 728 |
| C16:1 | 6.99 | 6.99 | 6.99 |
| C18:0 | 239 | 242 | 240 |
| C18:1 | 107 | 109 | 107 |
| C18:2 | 739 | 744 | 739 |
| C18:3 | 694 | 694 | 694 |
| C20:0 | 11.8 | 11.8 | 11.8 |
| C20:3 n-6 | 13.3 | 13.3 | 13.3 |
| C24:0 | 4.73 | 4.73 | 4.73 |
| Total FA | 2 578 | 2593 | 2579 |
CON, control diet; OAK, diet with oak bark extract addition; TAN, diet with tannic acid addition. 1 FA composition calculated only per kilogram of additive (tannic acid or oak bark extract); 2 The amounts of the individual FAs concentrations in the diets were calculated according to their content in each component and animal diet composition.
Fatty acid composition of the ruminal fluid in sheep (mg FAME/100 g).
| Fatty Acid | Diet (D) | Sampling Time (T) | SEM | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 h | 2 h | 4 h | 8 h | T | D | T × D | |||
| C14:0 | CON | 4.40 | 3.37 | 2.96 | 3.10 | 0.121 | <0.001 | 0.798 | 0.556 |
| OAK | 3.77 | 3.03 | 3.14 | 2.84 | |||||
| TAN | 3.90 | 3.09 | 2.64 | 3.09 | |||||
| C14:1 | CON | 3.18 | 2.47 | 2.97 | 3.17 | 0.096 | <0.001 | 0.563 | 0.022 |
| OAK | 3.64 a | 2.09 b | 2.31 b | 2.52 b | |||||
| TAN | 3.05 | 2.33 | 2.47 | 3.00 | |||||
| C16:0 | CON | 52.4 | 41.7 | 45.4 | 48.7 | 0.04 | 0.056 | 0.414 | 0.928 |
| OAK | 46.6 | 34.3 | 34.8 | 45.2 | |||||
| TAN | 52.2 | 43.8 | 48.1 | 47.8 | |||||
| C16:1 | CON | 1.42 | 1.32 | 0.57 | 0.92 | 0.044 | 0.098 | 0.809 | 0.006 |
| OAK | 1.14 | 0.80 | 1.09 | 0.80 | |||||
| TAN | 1.78 | 1.74 | 1.03 | 1.10 | |||||
| C18:0 | CON | 79.2 | 58.9 | 65.4 | 69.5 | 2.36 | 0.056 | 0.538 | 0.949 |
| OAK | 70.8 | 48.6 | 52.3 | 66.4 | |||||
| TAN | 77.0 | 51.8 | 57.2 | 61.8 | |||||
| C18:1 | CON | 6.57 | 5.31 | 5.83 | 6.16 | 0.150 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.734 |
| OAK | 5.51 | 3.97 | 4.10 | 4.65 | |||||
| TAN | 5.95 | 4.38 | 4.45 | 4.91 | |||||
| C18:1 | CON | 12.8 | 12.4 | 10.9 | 9.30 | 0.464 | 0.225 | 0.564 | 0.215 |
| OAK | 9.70 | 8.98 | 8.93 | 11.5 | |||||
| TAN | 13.5 | 12.2 | 10.9 | 10.3 | |||||
| C18:2 | CON | 10.9 a,b | 10.8 a,b | 14.9 a | 9.42 b,x | 0.050 | <0.001 | 0.045 | <0.001 |
| OAK | 8.37 | 9.84 | 12.0 | 10.8 x | |||||
| TAN | 9.76 a | 12.1 a | 14.1 a | 23.4 b,y | |||||
| CLA | CON | 0.88 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.056 | 0.001 | 0.223 | 0.003 |
| OAK | 1.46 a | 0.42 b | 0.74 b | 0.88 a,b | |||||
| TAN | 1.22 a,b | 0.90 a | 0.59 a,b | 1.35 b | |||||
| C18:3 | CON | 1.50 | 1.63 | 1.45 x,y | 1.30 | 0.063 | 0.325 | 0.008 | 0.086 |
| OAK | 1.59 | 1.02 | 1.13x | 1.48 | |||||
| TAN | 1.78 | 1.53 | 2.05 y | 2.01 | |||||
| C20:0 | CON | 1.00 | 0.63 | 0.82 | 0.68 | 0.032 | 0.201 | 0.844 | 0.889 |
| OAK | 0.97 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.90 | |||||
| TAN | 1.39 | 0.62 | 0.74 | 0.82 | |||||
| C20:1 | CON | 0.95 a | 0.49 b | 0.76 a,b | 0.86 a | 0.035 | <0.001 | 0.134 | <0.001 |
| OAK | 0.68 | 0.77 | 0.94 | 0.95 | |||||
| TAN | 1.04 a | 0.47 b | 0.57 b,c | 0.83 a,c | |||||
| C20:3 n-6 | CON | 0.45 a,x | 0.84 b,x | 0.36 a | 0.54 a | 0.018 | 0.002 | 0.021 | <0.001 |
| OAK | 0.63 a,b,x,y | 0.40 a,y | 0.52 a,b | 0.76 b | |||||
| TAN | 0.87 a,y | 0.54 b,y | 0.56 b | 0.60 ab | |||||
| C20:4 | CON | 0.68 x | 0.39 | 0.60 | 0.73 x,y | 0.036 | 0.668 | 0.001 | <0.001 |
| OAK | 0.54 x | 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.62 x | |||||
| TAN | 0.96 y | 0.89 | 0.70 | 1.01 y | |||||
| C24:0 | CON | 0.92 a,b | 0.61 a | 0.65 a | 0.99 b | 0.032 | 0.013 | 0.449 | 0.001 |
| OAK | 0.81 | 1.13 | 0.95 | 0.93 | |||||
| TAN | 0.83 | 1.03 | 0.83 | 1.04 | |||||
| Total FA | CON | 177 | 142 | 155 | 156 | 4.5 | <0.001 | 0.441 | 0.904 |
| OAK | 156 | 117 | 125 | 151 | |||||
| TAN | 175 | 137 | 147 | 163 | |||||
CON, control diet; OAK, diet with oak bark extract addition; TAN, diet with tannic acid addition; SEM, standard error of mean; FAME, fatty acid methyl esters. Different letters in a row (a,b,c p ≤ 0.05) show differences between sampling time (0, 2, 4, 8 h). Different letters in a column (x,y p ≤ 0.05) show differences between diet (CON, OAK, TAN).