The Determination of Chemical Characteristics, Rumen Fermentation and Digestibility of Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.) Seeds, Pods and Seed Hulls by In Vitro Methods

Document Type : Ruminant Nutrition


1 Department of Animal Science , Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabili, Iran.

2 Department of Animal Science, Mohaghegh Ardabili University, Ardabil, Iran


Introduction[1] Pulses are important crops belonging to the Leguminosae family. Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) production has a long history of numerous and valuable uses in feed and food. Faba beans have been successfully used as a substitute for soybean meal or rapeseed meal in dairy cow rations. Faba bean pods can be used as feed for ruminants. Good quality silage can be made from faba bean plants. Technological treatments may have an impact on the degradability of nitrogen of faba bean. Molasses-urea mixed is a liquid feed supplement suitable for adding into the dry part of the diet or any other component during the processing of complete mashes or feeds. The purpose of the study was the determination of nutritional value of pods, seed hulls and seeds of faba bean (vicia faba L.) and survey the effect of different levels of urea and molasses on nutritional value faba bean pods silage using in vitro methods.
Materials and Methods In order to determine the chemical composition and in vitro ruminal degradability pods, seed hulls and seeds of faba bean cell wall, nylon bag and test gas technique were applied. After preparation of faba bean and isolating pods, seed hulls and seeds and drying, chemical composition analysis for dry matter, crude protein, ether extract, organic matter, ash, neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and acid detergent fibre (ADF) were done as AOAC. This research was carried out in a completely randomized design with 10 treatments and 3 replicates per treatment in two runs including: 1- faba bean pods of untreated (control), 2- faba bean pods of processed molasses (1.5% DM), 3- faba bean pods processed with molasses (3% DM), 4 - faba bean pods of processed molasses (4.5% DM), 5 - pods processed with urea (1.5% DM), 6- faba bean pods processed with molasses + urea (1.5% and 1.5% DM), 7 - faba bean pods of processed caraway with molasses + urea (3 and 1.5% DM, respectively), 8 - faba bean pods of processed with molasses + urea (4. 5% and 1.5% DM), 9- seeds hulls of faba bean and 10- faba bean seeds. Faba bean pod processing with urea and molasses was performed according to Chaudhry method (2000a) and Hue et al (2008) method. The digestibility of rumen according to Holden (1999) method and digestibility of intestinal according to Mc Niven method were investigated inside the simulator’s (DiasyII Incubator) digestive tract incubated. Amount and rate of gas production were estimated according to Orskov and McDonald model. The amount of DMD, OMD, DOMD (in percentage terms) and ME (in MJ/kg) for the amount of gas production at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours after incubation were recorded and the average parameters of fermentation with gas production (ml /200 mg DM), in vitro OMD (percent), ME (MJ/kg DM) and short-chain fatty acids (mmol) were calculated. This experiment was conducted in a completely randomized design with 10 treatments and 3 replicates by 2 run in each treatment and analyzed using Mixed procedure of SAS.
Results and Discussion There was a significant difference between treatments in the chemical composition of different parts of faba bean. Treatment compounds 5, 6 and treatment compound 7 were the highest and the lowest ADF, respectively. Processing faba bean pods with 3% of DM molasses +1.5% of DM urea reduced ADF due to at the same time the provision and suitable carbon skeleton and nitrogen materials and in the other words lead to increasing digestibility faba bean pods. Also results in this experiment showed that the ruminal DM and CP digestibility of treatments were significant. The highest DM digestibility was related to faba bean seeds and pods of processed with molasses and urea (3-1.5) and (4.5-1.5), respectively, and the lowest DM digestibility was related to seed hulls. With increased levels of molasses, total the digestive tract DM digestibility of bean pods had increased. The post ruminal digestibility was not significantly different between treatments of bean pod silage except for treatments 3 and 4 compared to control.
The comparison of the process gas produced (ml/200 mg DM) of showed that the highest amount of gas produced was in the 24 hours after incubation in faba bean pod treatments in molasses (1.5% dry matter) resulting in more ME compared to control treatment. Among all treatments, the highest produced gas in the 96 hours after incubation was related to faba bean seeds due to (60.3 ml/200 mg DM), and therefore, the ME was higher, and the lowest amount was related to faba seed hulls (20.3 ml/200 mg DM). Probably one of the reasons for lowering the amount of gas produced in the faba seed hulls compared to the bean seeds is related to the highest cell wall of hulls.
Conclusion The variation in the results of opposite studies with the results of this experiment on the nutritional value of the different faba bean components depends on the level and quality of the processing and the amounts of rapidly digested carbohydrate for facilitating the synergy of nutrient supply. In this experiment, the chemical composition, potential and rate of gas production, OMD, ME, SCFA and MP were significantly different between different bean components. Although more studies are needed to determine the best percentage of addition of molasses to different levels of urea or the use of other compounds that are able to bind to possible anti-nutritional compounds, but bean pod processing with 3% molasses and 1.5% urea caused a decrease in the amount of ADF, in other words, its digestibility, due to its coherent and suitable synchronicity with the carbon frames and nitrogenous materials. The seed of faba bean had the heist nutritional value than other parts of faba bean and amount of NDF was the highest in seed hulls. Totally seed of faba bean with 24.71% CP and 8.94 Mj/kg ME is a valuable nutritional source for feeding of animal. But the bean pods also have a good nutritional value as a non-forage fiber source for ruminants.


1- Ammar, H., S. Lopez, and J. S. Gonzalez. 2005. Assessment of the digestibility of some Mediterranean shrubs by in vitro techniques. Journal of Animal Feed Science and Technology, 119(3-4): 323 –331.
2- ANKOM Technology. 2008. Procedures for fiber and in vitro analysis. Available at http://www.ankom. com. Accessed November 2018.
3- Anonymous. 2012. Iranian Agricultural Statistics. General Department of Statistics and Information of the Ministry of Agriculture. Available at http://www. keshavarzi /itemlist/tag.
4- AOAC International. 2000. Official methods of analysis. 17th ed. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MD.
5- Blummel, M., H. P. S. Makkar, and K. Becker. 1997. In vitro gas production: A technique revisited. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 77(1-5): 24 -34.
6- Boda, K. 1990. Non convention feedstuff in the nutrition of farm animals. Elsevier Applied Science Publisher Co, New York.
7- Broderick, G. A., N. D. Luchini, S. M. Reynal, G. A. Varga, and V. A. Ishler. 2008. Effect on production of replacing dietary starch with sucrose in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(12): 4801 -4810.
8- Chaudhry, A. S. 2000. Rumen degradation in sacco in sheep of wheat straw treated with calcium oxide, sodium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide plus hydrogen peroxide. Journal of Animal Feed Science and Technology, 83(3-4): 313 -323.
9- Crepon, K., P. Marget, C. Peyronnet, B. Carrouee, P. Arese, and G. Duc. 2010. Nutritional value of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) seeds for feed and food. Field Crops Research, 115(3): 329-339.
10- Czerkawski, J. W. 1986. An introduction to rumen studies. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK
11- Dalvand, M., M. H. Beiranvand, and B. Yarahmadi. 2016. The use of faba bean spilt waste on livestock performance. The 6th Iranian Pulse Crops Symposium. Agricultural and Natural Research and Education Center of Lorestan Province. Khorramabad. Iran. (In Persian).
12- Delavar, M, and M. Danesh Mesgaran. 2003. Determination of chemical and digestive (ruminal and intestinal) parameters of alfalfa treated with urea and sulfuric acid and its effect on the production and composition of milk in lactating cows. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 17(2): 219-231 (In Persian).
13- Di Grigoli, A., G. Tornambe, A. Bonanno, and G. Di Miceli. 2005. Effects of protein concentrate different from soya bean on growth performances and meat quality of 130 days lambs. Rencontre Recherche Ruminants, 12(1): 392-398.
14- Dixon, R. M, and B. J. Hosking. 1992. Nutritional value of grain legumes for ruminants. Nutrition Research Reviews, 5(1): 19 -43.
15- Getachew, G., E. J. DePeters, P. H. Robinson, and J. G. Fadel. 2005. Use of an in vitro rumen gas production technique to evaluate microbial fermentation of ruminant feeds and its impact on fermentation products. Journal of Animal Feed Science and Technology, 123–124: 547 -559.
16- Getachew, G., H. P. S. Makkar, and K. Becker. 1998. The in vitro gas coupled with ammonia measurement for evaluation of nitrogen degradability in low quality roughages using incubation medium of different buffering capacity. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 77(1): 87-95.
17- Guney, M., M. Demirel, S. Celik, Y. Bakici, and T. Levendoglu. 2007. Effects of urea, molasses and urea plus molasses supplementation to sorghum silage on the silage quality, in vitro organic matter digestibility and metabolic energy contents. Journal of Biological Sciences, 7(2): 401 - 404.
18- Gurbaz, Y. 2007. Determination of nutritive value of leaves of several Vitis vinifera varietieties as a source of alternative feedstuff for sheep using in vitro and in situ measurements. Small Ruminant Research, 71(1-3): 59 -66.
19- Hidayat, Hillman, K., C. J. Newbold, and C. S. Stewart. 1993. The contribution of bacteria and protozoa to ruminal forage fermentation in vitro as determined by microbial gas production. Journal of Animal Feed Science and Technology, 42(3-4): 193 -208.
20- Holden, I. A. 1999. Comparison of method of in vitro dry matter digestibility for ten feeds. Journal of Dairy Science, 82(8): 1791-1794.
21- Hue, Kh. T., D. T. Thanh, and I. Ledin. 2008. Effect of supplementing urea treated rice straw and molasses with different forage species on the performance of lambs. Small Ruminant Research, 78(1-3): 134 –143.
22- Keskun, B, and Ü. H. Yilmaz. 2005. Effects of urea or urea plus molasses supplementation to silages with different sorghum varieties harvested at the milk stage on the quality and in vitro dry matter digestibility of silages. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 29(5): 1143 -147.
23- Khanum, S. A., T.Yaqoob, S. Sadaf, M. Hussain, M. A. Jabbar, H. N. Hussain, R. Kausar, and S. Rehman. 2007. Nutritional evaluation of various feedstuffs for livestock production using in vitro gas method. The Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 27(3): 129-133.
24- Lopez, S., M. S. Dhanoa, J. Dijkstra, A. Bannink, E. Kebreab, and J. France. 2007. Some methodological and analytical considerations regarding application of the gas production technique. Journal of Animal Feed Science and Technology, 135(1): 139 - 156.
25- Mahala, A. G, and A. N. F. Elseed. 2007. Chemical composition and in vitro gas production characteristics of six fodder trees leaves and seeds. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 3(1): 983 -986.
26- Makkar, H. S. P. 2004. Recent advances in the in vitro gas method for evaluation of nutritional quality of feed resources. Assessing quality and safety of animal feeds. FAO, 160: 55-86.
27- Mateos-Aparicio, I., A. Redondo-Cuenca, M. J. Villanueva-Suarez, and M. A. Zapata-Revilla. 2010. Pea pod, broad bean pod and okara, potential sources of functional compounds. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 43(9): 1467-1470.
28- McDonald, P., A. R. Henderson, and S. J. E. Heron. 1991. The Biochemistry of Silage. 2nd ed. Chalcombe Publications, Marlow, Bucks, UK.
29- McNiven, M. A., E. Prestløkken, L. T. Mydland, and A. W. Mitchell. 2002. Laboratory procedure to determine protein digestibility of heat-treated feedstuffs for dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Feed Science and Technology, 96(1): 1 -13.
30- Menke, K, and H. Steinggass. 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value from chemical analyses and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development, 28(1):7-55.
31- Menke, K.., L. Raa, H. Steingass, D. Fritz, and W. Scheider. 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolisable energy content of ruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production technique when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge, 93(1): 217 -222.
32- Moore, K. J, and J. H. Cherney. 1986. Digestion kinetics of sequentially extracted cell components of forages. Journal of Crop Science, 26(6): 1230 -1235.
33- Navid Shad, B, and A. R. Jafari Saiyadi. 2006. Animal Nutrition. Haghshenas Press, Rasht, Iran. (In Persian).
34- Nocek, J. E. 1988. In situ and other methods to estimate ruminal protein and energy digestibility: A Review. Journal of Dairy Science, 71(8): 2051 -2069.
35- National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
36- Ørskov, E. R, and I. McDonald. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge, 92(2):499 - 503.
37- Pasandi, M. 2014. Determination of digestibility and utilization of ensiled broad bean stover on performance of fattening Dalagh lambs. Animal Science (Pajouhesh & Sazandegi), 27(104): 17-24. (In Persian).
38- Pasandi, M., N. M. Torbatinejad, H. Golam, and M. H. Okhovvat. 2009. Effects of wheat straw and molasses addition silage characteristics of broad bean residues. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 16(1):76-81. (In Persian).
39- Paya, H., A. Taghizadeh, H. Janmohammadi, and G. A. Moghadam. 2007. Nutrient digestibility and gas production of some tropical feeds used in ruminant diets estimated by the in vivo and in vitro gas production techniques . American Journal Animal and Veterinary Science, 2 (4): 108-113.
40- Rahimi, A., A. Naserian., S. H. Ebrahimi, Z. Zarnegar, M. R. Amini, M, Jorian, and S. Roshandel. 2016. Determination of the nutritional value of different parts of Vicia faba and shell of different kinds of citrus using in vitro gas production technique. Page 1-5 in Proc. 7th Iranian Congress of Animal Sciences, Collage of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran. (In Persian).
41- Romos Morales, E., M. R. Sanz Sampelayo, and E. Molina Alcaide. 2010. Nutritive evaluation of legume seeds for ruminant feeding. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 94(1): 55-64.
42- SAS Institute Inc., 2003. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) User's Guide, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.
43- Sibel, C., C. Budag, M. Demirel, Y. Bakici, and S. Celik. 2009. The Effects of Adding urea and molasses to corn harvested at dough stage on silage fermentation quality, in vitro organic matter digestibility and metabolic energy contents. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 8(10): 1921 -1924.
44- Songsak, C., C. Anut, and C. Piyante. 2007. Chemical compositions and nutritional evaluation of energy feeds for ruminant using in vitro gas production technique. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 6(6): 607-612.
45- Vakili, S. A., M. Danesh Mesgaran, and A. M. Tahmasbi. 2008. Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad press, Mashhad, Iran. (In Persian).