NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF SUNFLOWER

MEAL FOR RUMINANTS

by

ROBERT KINGSLEY RATCLIFF, B.S.

A THESIS

IN

ANIMAL NUTRITION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Approved

<r

December, 1977

/+ n :\AwJ L^ U

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express sincere gratitude to Dr. Robert C.

Albin for his counseling and guidance in the preparation

of this thesis, as well as the other members of my graduate

committee. Dr. Leland F. Tribble and Dr. Fred Buddingh for

their deliberations. I also wish to express my thanks

for the help obtained from Dr. C. R. Richardson, Plains

Co-op Oil Mill, Lubbock Cotton Oil Company, Levelland

Vegetable Oil Mill, and the National Cottonseed Product

Association for their help in compiling this data. Lastly,

I wish to express my gratitude to my wife, Su, for her

support and consolation in the many months of work which

went into this research.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES iv

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 4

Composition of Sunflower Meal 4

Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal for Monogastric Animals 10

Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal for Ruminants 14

Statistical Analysis of Variation for Digestion and Metabolism Trials . . . . 16

III. NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF SUNFLOWER MEAL FOR

RUMINANTS 2 3

Summary 23

Introduction 24

Experimental Procedure 26

Results and Discussion 29

LIST OF REFERENCES 39

111

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Fatty Acid Composition of Sunflower Varieties Grown in the South 5

2 Composition of Sunflower Meal 7

3 Amino Acid Content of Sunflower Meal on the Basis of Percent of Protein 9

4 Mineral Value of Selected Meals 11

5 Analysis of Variance: One-Way Classification 18

6 Analysis of Variance: Two-Way Classification 20

7 Analysis of Variance: 4 x 4 Latin Square Design 22

8 Ration Composition for Sunflower Meal Experiment 27

9 Chemical Composition of Rations Utilized in the Sunflower Meal Study 28

10 Apparent Digestion Coefficients and Nitrogen Balance Values for Rations Containing Sun­flower Meal 30

11 Composition of Sunflower Meal 33

12 Percent Digestibility by Difference for Sunflower Meal 34

13 Mean Squares and "F" Values for Latin Square Versus Randomized Complete-Block Design . . 37

IV

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The importance of the sunflower, Helianthus annuus, in

the United States is increasing in terms of oil production

and high quality feed by-products. The estimated acreage

to be harvested in the United States in the 1977 growing

season is 2,025,000 acres (U.S.D.A.-Economic Research

Service, personal communication, 1977). The annual world

wide production of sunflower seed has been about 11 million

metric tons (USDA, FAS, World Agricultural Production and

Trade, August, 1974). One reason for this production is

the high quality industrial vegetable oil extracted from

the seed (Robertson, 1975). Animal feeders are becoming

interested in the by-product meal. This meal provides an

efficient source of protein and energy for the feeding of

ruminant animals (Pearson et al., 1954; Kercher et al.,

1974).

Historically, sunflowers are native American wild

flowers, belonging to the family Compositae. Nutritionally,

the first evidence of sunflower usage for food in the

United States was by Indians at Roanoke Island, North

Carolina in 1586. It was also used later, 1615, by New

England colonists for hair oil (Robertson, 1975) . Since

that time sunflowers have established their own economic

base in the world agricultural market. In the 1830's,

Russia developed a feasible process for oil extraction

from sunflower seed and began to utilize it as a field

crop. This carried over into the United States, and by

194 3, there was avid commercial sunflower production in

Missouri, Kansas, and California. There was a demise in

production of sunflower crops when soybean meal and oil

became established and sunflower seed returned to a primary

use in bird seed and confectionary production markets

(Trotter et al., 1970). In 1967, high oil content sun­

flowers were grown commercially for the first time in the

United States, restimulating the concern for sunflower

oil production. As a result of this oil production, the

industry was also interested in uses of the by-product

meal. Little sunflower meal is being used in human nutri­

tion at this time due to a lack of basic research on the

product (V. L. Huffman et al., 1975). Researchers have

found sunflower meal to be an acceptable feed for several

types of domestic animals.

Realizing the potential of sunflower seed meal, the

National Cottonseed Products Association of Memphis,

Tennessee, has investigated and reviewed the nutritional

and feeding value of sunflower meal (Smith, 1968; Kinard,

1975). As a result of their interest, Texas Tech University

was endowed to investigate the nutritional value of sun­

flower meal for ruminants.

Objectives of the research reported in this thesis

were:

1. determination of comparative digesti­

bility and nitrogen balance values for rations

containing either cottonseed meal and/or sun­

flower meal;

2. determination of digestion coefficients

for sunflower meal calculated by difference;

3. determination of the roughage replace­

ment value of sunflower meal as compared to

cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls in a

ruminant finishing ration; and

4. to compare the relative efficiency of

designs of randomized complete-block, two-way

analysis of variance versus 4 x 4 Latin square

analysis of variance for determining digesti­

bility and nitrogen balance values for feeder

steers.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research concerning the utilization of sunflower meal

for ruminant diets is limited. The following literature

review will present available information concerning the

composition and use of sunflower meal as a dietary resource

for monogastric and ruminant animals.

Composition of Sunflower Meal

Oil Content and Quality

Typical high oil content sunflower seeds contain

about 40 to 50% oil. The oil, once dewaxed, is a light

yellow color. The greatest use for this oil is as an

edible product for human consumption due primarily to

the high ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to saturated

fatty acids (Trotter et al., 1970), and its low linolenic

acid content (Anderson, 1970). Fatty acid composition

data for sunflower oil is presented in Table 1. The

primary unsaturated fatty acids are linoleic and oleic

acid. The saturated fatty acids consist of low levels

of palmitic and stearic acids and small amounts of palmi-

toleic, linolenic, arachidic, beheuic, and lignoceric

acids (Robertson, 1975). The low level of saturated fatty

TABLE 1. FATTY ACID COMPOSITION OF

SUNFLOWER VARIETIES GROWN IN

a/ THE SOUTH-'

Growing area

Clemson, S. C.

Crossville, Ala.

Experiment, Ga.

Tifton, Ga.

Baton Rouge, La.

College Sta. Tx.

No. b/ Composition of oil, (%, area avg)

Saturates Oleic Linoleic

10

11

22

19

8

22

1 1 . 0

1 1 . 3

1 1 . 6

1 1 . 2

1 0 . 1

9 . 7

4 3 . 6

4 4 . 8

4 4 . 8

5 3 . 0

5 4 . 2

5 7 . 6

4 5 . 6

4 3 . 5

4 3 . 3

3 5 . 3

3 4 . 4

3 2 . 2

Average 10.8 49,7 39.7

a/ -^C. H. Neufeld H., Proc. Fourth Int. Sunflower Conf

p. 38; 1970.

—^Oil seed varieties.

acids makes sunflower oil acceptable to those supporting

the possibility of a link between dietary fat intake and

heart disease (Vergoessen, 1970).

Uses for sunflower oil are many and varied and are

broken down into edible and inedible products. Among the

edible products are salad and cooking oil, margarine and

shortening (baking and frying fats) (Trotter et al.,

1970) . On the other hand, inedible products include

animal feeds and paint bases (Anderson, 1970).

Processing

Processing of high oil type sunflower seed is pre­

dominantly carried out by three methods. These are 1)

direct solvent extraction, 2) prepress solvent extraction,

and 3) expeller or screw extraction. As a result of

processing, sunflower meal composition may vary greatly.

This is due to the amount of heat used in processing and

extracting the meal (Clandinin et al., 1950). Table 2

contains data for the composition of sunflower meal pro­

cessed by two different techniques.

Protein

Protein quality and quantity are two of the primary

considerations in animal nutrition for the use of a

particular feedstuff. The crude protein value of extracted

sunflower meal ranges from 32% to 37%. The protein appears

TABLE 2. COMPOSITION OF

SUNFLOWER MEAL

(%, DRY BASIS)

Item Types of Processing

Pre-press solvent extracted

Expeller extracted

Dry matter

Crude protein

Ash

Ether extract

Crude fiber

92.7

34.6

6.6

1.1

25.8

93.5

32.1

N/A

N/A

26.8

to be about 82% digestible, which compares with the digesti­

bility of soybean meal at 82% (Stake et al., 1972). When

amino acids are considered, sunflower meal is considered

to be rich in tryptophan, arginine, and especially methio­

nine, but low in lysine (Delic et al., 1963). In 1966,

Smith reported that lysine was the first limiting amino

acid in sunflower meal. In addition, Howe et al. (1965)

reported that supplementation with L-lysine and DL-threonine

gave a higher PER response in rats than could be attributed

to lysine supplementation alone. Table 3 shows the amino

acid composition of sunflower meal (Cater et al., 1970).

Energy

The gross energy value of sunflower meal compares

favorably with soybean meal and cottonseed meal; 4,117

kcal/kg, 4,719 kcal/kg and 4,540 kcal/kg, respectively.

These values for gross energy will vary due to the amount

of residual oil and hulls after processing (Kinard, 1975).

Vitamins and Minerals

Little work has been done with the analysis of

vitamins in sunflower meal. Research suggests that the

B-vitamin content may be adequate (Day et al., 1945; Rad

et al,, 1974). Day and Levin (1945) reported increased

growth in chicks with supplementary riboflavin and thia-

TABLE 3, AMINO ACID CONTENT OF SUNFLOWER

MEAL ON THE BASIS OF PERCENT OF PROTEIN-^

Amino acid Percent

Lysine 3.15

Histidine 2.20

Arginine 9.16

Methionine 2,05

Threonine 3.59

Valine 5.15

Isoleucine 4.45

Leucine 6,45

Tyrosine 2,84

Phenylalanine 4.67

— Hexane extracted meal

10

mine, when fed together. However, no acceleration of

growth rate was noted when thiamine and riboflavin were

fed individually, Brummett et al. (1972) reported that

sunflower meal was a rich source of vitamin A.

The mineral content of sunflower meal has been rel­

atively well documented by several sources. The mineral

content of sunflower meal, soybean meal and cottonseed

meal may be found in Table 4.

Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal for Monogastric Animals

Poultry

The greatest bank of research on the nutritional

value of sunflower meal has probably been with poultry.

In 1944, Pettit et al. reported that sunflower meal

could be used to satisfactorily replace up to 5% meat

meal in chick starter rations. Pettit also found that

egg production and hatchability results indicated that

sunflower meal could adequately replace part or all of the

soybean oil meal, or half the meat meal, or half the fish

meal in laying and breeding ration. He indicated that

sunflower meal could replace all of the soybean meal plus

half of the meat meal simultaneously without serious de­

creases in egg production or hatchability.

Later studies by Grau et al. (1945) reported that

sunflower meal, when allowed to provide 20% of the protein

11

TABLE 4. MINERAL VALUE OF SELECTED

MEALS (%, DRY BASIS)

Item

Calcium

Phosphorus

Magnesium

Potassium

Sodium

Copper

Manganese

Iron

Cottonseed meal \/

.17

1.30

.60

1.51

.04

.00002

.00002

.032

Soybean meal 1 /

.36

.75

,30

2.21

.38

.00004

.00003

.013

Sunflower meal

.48

.84

.44

3.49

.015

.003

.002

,01

—'Values for soybean and cottonseed meal were taken from the United States - Canadian Tables of Feed Composition (Second Revision) Publication 1684, Natl, Acad. Sci. Washington, D.C. 1969.

12

requirement in a chick diet, was a complete source of the

essential amino acids required by the chick for growth.

However, in response to Grau's finding, McGinnis et al.

(1947) observed the nutritional deficiencies of sunflower

meal for chicks. McGinnis indicated that: 1) both soy­

bean oil meal and sunflower meal are deficient in an un­

identified growth factor for chicks; 2) the principal

deficiency of a practical type of chick diet containing

sunflower meal as the only source of supplementary protein

appears to be lysine; and 3) that a practical type of

chick diet containing sunflower meal does not require

additional supplementation with methionine.

In 1956, Klain et al. reported that when expeller

processed sunflower meal was used to replace soybean meal

in a chick diet, a significant decrease in growth was seen.

Additional supplementation of sunflower meal rations with

lysine gave increased growth, but did not equal growth

results from soybean meal. However, Temperton et al. (1965)

indicated that sunflower meal satisfactorily replaced

soybean meal in growing chick rations.

Later work by Rose et al. (1971) observed the re­

placement value of sunflower seed meal to be 50% of that

of soybean meal for laying hens without adversely affecting

hen performance. When soybean meal was totally replaced

13

by sunflower meal, a significant decrease in egg production

and feed efficiency was observed. Rose noted characteristic

egg shell stains which were apparently due to the chloro-

genic acid content of sunflower meal. Studies by Rad et al.

(1974) confirmed Rose's finding of a maximum 50% replace­

ment value of sunflower meal for soybean meal, without

adverse effects on gain and feed conversion.

The only available data on turkeys reported that there

was a severe deficiency of lysine when sunflower meal was

used as the dietary protein supplement (Slinger et al.,

1949) .

Swine

The nutritional value of sunflower meal for swine

resembles that of poultry. Pearson et al. (1954) reported

that soybean meal and peanut meal performed better than

sunflower meal as a protein source in a corn alfalfa diet.

Pigs given diets containing sunflower meal developed

dermatitis, presumably due to the low lysine level of sun­

flower meal. Research reported by Delic et al. (1964)

noted that performance in growing swine was greater with

soybean meal than with sunflower or fish meal.

Work by Seerley et al. (1974) observed the effects

of processing temperature in conjunction with the replace­

ment of soybean meal with sunflower meal, Seerley found

14

that hexane extracted sunflower meal heated to 127C before

extraction performed better than similar diets containing

sunflower meal heated to pre-extraction temperatures of

75 to lOOC, Seerley also indicated that 25% expeller ex­

tracted sunflower meal, heated to 127C before extraction,

was equivalent to soybean meal for gains, but showed a

decrease for feed efficiency.

Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal for Ruminants

Sunflower meal has been well received as an economical

source of protein, fiber, and energy within the realm of

ruminant nutrition. Some limited research has been pub­

lished on different species of ruminants and their ability

to utilize sunflower meal.

Sheep

Research on the feeding of sunflower meal to sheep

is limited. Amos et al. (1974) reported nitrogen retention

in a group of wethers to be higher for sunflower meal than

for soybean meal: 32% and 27.2%, respectively. In a later

study, Kercher et al. (1974) observed that the digestibility

of soybean meal and corn surpassed that of sunflower meal:

64.6, 65.9, and 56.1%, respectively. Kercher reported

higher nitrogen retention values for soybean meal than

sunflower meal.

15

Dairy Cattle

Use of sunflower meal as a protein supplement in

lactating dairy cattle rations seems to be acceptable.

Recent studies by Schingoethe et al. (1976), indicated

that protein from sunflower meal was equivalent to that

from soybean meal for lactating cows. In another study,

Yugoslavian experiments showed a slight increase in milk

production for cows fed sunflower meal as opposed to

isonitrogenous portions of alfalfa hay (Ockolic et al.,

1972). Early results from Radeva (1959) report no dif­

ferences in milk yield, composition, or butterfat contents

from cows fed three or five kilograms of sunflower seed

cake when replacing linseed cake.

Beef Cattle

Use of sunflower meal in growing and finishing rations

is becoming well established in the cattle feedlot com­

munity. Some of the initial research with beef cattle

was done by Pearson et al. (1954). They observed that

sunflower meal, though slightly unpalatable, was equal to

cottonseed meal as a protein supplement for growing beef

cattle. In a later study, Kercher et al. (1974) indicated

no significant differences between sunflower meal and soy­

bean meal in performance trials using average daily gain

and feed efficiency as indicators.

16

Statistical Analysis of Variation for Digestion and Metabolism Trials

One of the researcher's greatest tools for evaluating

observations obtained from experiments, is statistical

analysis. The first formalization of this science was

done by Karl Pearson (1857-1936), a mathematical physicist,

when he founded the journal Biometrika. Pearson spent some

50 years devoted to advancing the science of statistics.

However, for the scientist, statistics really began about

1925 with the advent of Sir Ronald A. Fisher's book.

Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Fisher and his

students gave a great deal of effort to developing the

practical application of statistics for the fields of

agriculture, biology, and genetics. This particular use

of statistical analysis for biological data is now commonly

known as biometry.

Statistics deals with three primary areas of research;

collection, analysis and interpretation of data. The

first area, collection of data, is a widespread, almost

infinite area to cover. For this reason, three methods

of analysis and interpretation of data were considered:

1) one-way analysis of variance, 2) two-way analysis of

variance and 3) Latin square analysis of variance.

17

One-way Analysis of Variance

This method of analysis was developed by Sir Ronald

Fisher and is essentially a way of partitioning observed

effects into components associated with certain known

sources of variation. This is a common tool in analyzing

completely random data when all experimental units are

alike or homogeneous. The variation among like individuals,

or experimental units, is small and variation may be at­

tributed solely to effects due to treatments being tested

or to some sort of experimental error. The total variation

is divided into: 1) the effects among treatments; and 2)

the effects within treatments (error). The symbolic re­

presentation of the partitioning of these effects is re­

presented in Table 5 (Steel et al., 1960).

Two-Way Analysis of Variance

One-way classification of data applies the concept

to a completely random design since all experimental units

were essentially homogeneous, and variation could be

attributed to one main effect, treatment. However, two-

way classification of data works with a randomized complete-

block design. This design is used when experimental units

can be grouped into subgroups being equal to or a multiple

of, the number of treatments to be tested. Such subgroups

are known as replicates or blocks. This produces a two-

18

TABLE 5. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

ONE-WAY CLASSIFICATION

Source of variation

Degrees of freedom

Definition formula for sums of squares

Total rt - 1 I (Xij - x..)^ ID

Treatments t - 1 r I (Xi. - X..)

Error t(r - 1) I (Xij - x.)^ ij

19

way classification, since any observation is classified by

the treatment which it received and the replication to

which it belonged (Snedecor et al., 1967).

In two-way classification of data, variation is

analyzed as a function of three effects; variation among

treatments, variation among blocks, and variation within

blocks by treatments. Thusly, two-way analysis serves

to arithmetically remove the effect of blocks from

appearing in the variation within treatments by blocks

(error). This removes the likelihood that one block of

experimental units will react differently than any other

block to known external factors during the test period.

The symbolic representation of the partitioning of these

effects is represented in Table 6.

Latin Square Analysis of Variance

Latin square analysis is a method for controlling

additional sources of variation that are predictive, to

some degree, and that would otherwise be viewed as experi­

mental error. Thusly, this technique yields an increase

in the precision of an experiment. Snedecor et al. (1967)

points out that in animal nutrition trials, the effects

of both litter and condition of the animal may be removed

from the estimates of treatment means by the use of a

Latin square design. The total variation observed can be

20

TABLE 6, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TWO-WAY CLASSIFICATION

Source of variation

Degrees of freedom

Definition formula for sums of squares

Total rt - 1 I (Xij - X..) ID

Blocks r - 1 _ 2

t I (x.j - X..)

Treatments t - 1 r I (xi. - X..)

Error (r-1)(t-1) I (Xij - x.j - xi. + X..) ID

21

partitioned into four sources; 1) variation among treat­

ments, 2) variation among subjects (columns), 3) variation

among order of subjects (rows), and 4) experimental error.

This method of analysis increases the confidence of the

researcher in determining whether the variation is due

to treatments or error. The symbolic representation of

the partitioning of these effects is represented in Table 7

22

TABLE 7. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

4 x 4 LATIN SQUARE DESIGN

Source of variation

Total

Degrees of freedom

Definition formula for sums of squares

r - 1 I (Xij - x..)^ ID

Rows r - 1 r I (Xi. - x. .) 1

Columns r - 1 r I {x.j - X. ,)

D

Treatments r - 1 r I (xt - X..) t

Error (r-1)(r-2) I (Xij - xi. - x.j - xt + 2x..)

CHAPTER III

NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF SUNFLOWER

MEAL FOR RUMINANTS

Summary

Replicated 4 x 4 Latin square digestion and metabolism

trials were used to compare sunflower meal (SFM) with

cottonseed meal (CSM) and cottonseed hulls (CSH) in iso-

fibrous, isonitrogenous diets for feeder steers. Sunflower

meal was substituted for cottonseed meal and cottonseed

hulls into a feedlot finishing diet at levels of 0, 5.5,

11 and 22%; constituting rations A, B, C and D, respec­

tively. Chemical composition, digestibility and nitrogen

balance values were determined. In addition, direct di­

gestibility of sunflower meal by difference, and comparisons

of randomized complete-block versus Latin square design

were conducted.

Eight Holstein feeder steers, weighing 296 kg were

adjusted to each ration for 18 days prior to 5 day col­

lections. Intake was limited to 6.8 kg/head/day. Water

was provided free choice.

No differences (P < .05) were found for the digestion

coefficients and N balance values among rations A, B and C

for any variable examined. Ration D was different (P < .05)

from rations A, B, and C, respectively, in organic matter,

23

24

(72.9 vs 64.2, 66.2, 66.1); and crude protein, (61.2 V£

44.2, 49.4, 46.4). However, the increased digestible

protein was not utilized since no differences (P < .05)

were found among treatments for nitrogen balance values.

These results indicate that no differences exist

between sunflower meal and cottonseed meal when fed in

rations for feeder steex's containing recommended crude

protein levels.

Introduction

Sunflower varieties with high oil content were first

grown commercially in the United States in 1967. The by­

product meal from this crop has great potential for animal

feeds, particularly as a source of protein and energy for

ruminant species. However, relatively little research

has been conducted on the nutritional value of the meal.

In a time when feed supplies are costly, and the profit

margin is slight, development of low cost, high quality

feed courses is imperative.

Pearson et al, (1954) indicated that sunflower meal,

though slightly unpalatable, was equal to cottonseed meal

as a protein supplement for growing beef cattle.

Amos et al. (1974) reported that percent nitrogen

retention in a group of wethers was higher for those animals

fed diets containing sunflower meal as opposed to those

containing soybean meal; 32.0 and 27.2 percent, respectively

25

In 1976, Schingoethe et al. published that protein

from sunflower meal was equivalent to that from soybean

meal for lactating cows.

Ockolic et al. (1972) observed that diets containing

sunflower meal showed a slight increase in milk production

over those diets containing isonitrogenous portions of

alfalfa hay.

Kercher et al. (1974) found no significant differences

between sunflower meal and soybean meal in steer perform­

ance trials for average daily gain and feed efficiency.

It is apparent from these data that sunflower meal

can be used as a protein and energy source for ruminant

animals.

The objectives of this study were:

1. determination of comparative digesti­

bility and nitrogen balance values for rations

containing either cottonseed meal and/or sun­

flower meal;

2. determination of digestion coefficients

for sunflower meal calculated by difference;

3. determination of the roughage replace­

ment value of sunflower meal as compared to

cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls in a

ruminant finishing ration; and

26

4. to compare the relative efficiency of

designs of randomized complete-block, two-way

analysis of variance versus 4 x 4 Latin square

analysis of variance for determining digesti­

bility and nitrogen balance values for feeder

steers.

Experimental Procedure

Eight Holstein feeder steers weighing 296 kg were

used in four replicated Latin square digestion and meta­

bolism trials. Steers were adjusted to each ration under

feedlot conditions for 18 days prior to a four day stall

adjustment period and a five day total collection period.

All steers were housed in an enclosed building during

the stall adjustment and collection periods. A typical

cattle feedlot finishing ration was used for the basal

formulation. All diets were formulated to meet or exceed

National Research Council (NRC) recommendations. Ingredient

and chemical composition of the experimental rations are

listed in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. Rations A, B, and

C were formulated to contain similar crude protein and

crude fiber levels, based upon chemical analyses conducted

on the feed ingredients prior to initiating the feeding

study. Ration D was formulated to contain twice the sun­

flower meal of ration C in order to determine the effects

27

E H 2

W CM X H

H :5 o

W

p:: o fa

o H EH H W O CM

o u

o M

00

W

< E H

fd

H fd

CAO

S •H •P

u

PQ

<

IT)

o

in

00

in

CO

• 00

S

t

o o

o o

o o

O in

o o CM

(U

-p 8

o o

o o

o o 00

o

fd r-i

I ^ 1

01

s •4->

8

o o in

CM O O

O O

O

in

in

o o

-P

rH O

O o

• o o

in o o

in rg

in

U

(d 2

-P

o o

• o o

o o

o o

• o o

o o o

• o o

(0

ro

s

o ro

•H B rd -P •H >

o

£ fd u G^

in

ro

0 c:

•H fd -p c • o w o d

c: w o

•H 4-» O fd o

13 O CM

< fd

28

Q H N H K I H EH D

W Z o M EH

s fa o z o H EH M W O CM S o u K:I < u H

s: fa ffi u

>H Q D EH

K^ <

g

cc; w ^ o I-? fa s :D

w fa ffi EH

:3 M

fa

EH

:l u

•H fd

tn

O

•J s

Q

O

CQ

cn ^

V

o a\

CN *

ro rH

rH "^

• •

ro

CN o

• • « *

o in

•

o ' r

• •^

» o r-{

<

CM

O

r^

o rH

CN

o

• ^

ro o

c\

ro *

o o

CJ^

» ro

in ro

CO

KD a\

• (T» 00

CO •

o rH

r-i i H

» ro

ro CN

• ^

in "<

•

in ro

• ro

w 00

-Cn

4J

Q

OP

s CM

0

fd CJ

^

& u ^ § CO U)

Gro

<A0

V

•rH U

Cal

o\o cW>

29

of high levels of sunflower meal feeding. Therefore,

crude protein and crude fiber values for ration D were

not similar to the other rations.

Consumption of all rations was limited to 6.8 kg per

head daily, fed in two equal feedings. Water was provided

free choice. Rations were sampled regularly; total wet

feces were weighed, sampled (10% aliquot) and the samples

composited daily. Total daily urine was diluted to a con­

stant volume from which a 200 ml aliquot was composited

for later analysis. Prior to analysis, fecal samples were

dried at 50C, and urine samples were frozen. Proximate

analysis of feed and feces, and urinary nitrogen analysis

were conducted by Association of Agricultural Chemists

(AOAC) (1970) methods. Gross energy determinations were

made with an oxygen bomb, adiabatic calorimeter. True

digestibility of crude protein was calculated using the

value of .45 g metabolic fecal nitrogen per 100 grams dry

matter intake (Blaxter, 1964). Statistical analyses were

by analysis of variance and mean comparisons according to

Steel et al. (1960).

Results and Discussion

Comparative Digestibility and Nitrogen Balance Values

Results of the four, replicated Latin square digestion

and metabolism trials are shown in Table 10, No significant

30

fa u 2: < ^^ < CQ

IS fa O o cc; EH H ^

Q 2 <C CO ^ ^ fa H U H fa fa fa o u ^ o M EH CO fa O H D

^

RE

N

<: CM CM <

• o i H

fa K^ CQ <; H

-^

X

'^ '—

^ < fa

Cc fa ^ o 1 ^ fa s; D CO

O S M ^ H < EH

2; O U

CO ^ O M EH <C

cc; o fa

UE

S

t^

< >

- CO H CO > ^A < S <

M S < D O CO

^ H H < K l

CO

g

U s u fa

I -P CO

o

CQ

<

^ CN >£> vo i n

CN CM

fd fd fd CO ro IJ3 ro r

• • • • • O rH ro O ro r r vD CO r

r- o « •

" o CN CN

r o o CT> CN cr\

r o i n CTv r o CO ( ^ VD ^ r-- U3

r o * * • •

o (y> CN f-\

Cvl CO r H Cy> U3

CM fv) VD cr> r--*X) VD ^ VX) VD

o o CM CN

oV>

CJ o\o

cr» ro rH t-{

KO CO

•^ in

in rH ro ro CO r o U3 r-- rH rH vo v£> r r- r

^ \D

o o CN CN

i n i n

CM KO i n rvj

CM rH i n ro

"^ in • •

r o i n i n CN

0 u c fd u

- H MH - H

• H CO

t-\ i n fd o D •

•H -P V (0

•H CM -P ^ fd 4J • CO 0

0 -H +J .H O C 0 0 g

TJ fd w

CO -p 0

•H -P 5H u n to o 0 10 CM C •m fd CO 0

-P U i •H C ^ O

CO (d

fd 0

^

31

differences were detected (P < .05) among rations A, B,

and C for any variable evaluated. This would support the

hypothesis that sunflower meal is similar to solvent ex­

tracted cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls, when fed on

an equal crude protein and crude fiber basis, in a sorghum

based finishing ration for beef cattle. This would agree

with those results observed by Pearson et al., (1954).

However, a significant difference (P < .05) was detected

between ration D and rations A, B, and C. Ration D had

significantly higher digestion coefficients for dry matter,

organic matter, crude protein, and true digestibility of

protein. No significant differences were found (P < .05)

for gross energy digestibility among all four rations.

The increased digestibility of ration D is difficult

to explain. Church (1976) points out that there is not a

good correlation between degradation of protein in the

rumen and nitrogen utilization by the ruminant animal. A

recent paper by Neville et al. (1977) reported similar

findings of increased nutrient digestibility in conjunction

with high protein levels. However, researchers offered

no explanation for this observation.

There were no significant differences (P < .05) among

rations for nitrogen retention values, neither grams N per

day nor as a percent of N intake. Since nitrogen retention

32

values for ration D were not higher than for the other

rations, this indicates that the steers were receiving

all the nitrogen they required from rations A, B, and C,

and the extra nitrogen available to the body cells from

ration D, due to the increased digestibility, was not

utilized and was excreted in the urine.

No differences were noticed in acceptability by the

steers among the four rations employed in this study.

Table 11 contains composition data for the meal.

Digestibility by Difference

The digestion coefficients for sunflower meal as

calculated by difference may be found in Table 12. These

values were calculated from procedures described by

Schneider et al., (1975). As Schneider points out,

digestibility by difference is, at best, an approximate

measure of digestibility due to associative or mutual

effects between feeds, and experimental error in sampling

and analysis. These figures show a general trend of lower

digestibility when the percentage of sunflower meal is

increased in the ration. This would suggest a possible

associative effect between sunflower meal and cottonseed

meal, or sunflower meal and the basal diet for dry matter,

organic matter, and crude and true digestibility of protein

However this effect might also be due to the differences

TABLE 11. COMPOSITION OF SUNFLOWER MEAL

(DRY MATTER BASIS)

Item Mean Values

33

Dry matter, %

Crude protein.

Ash, Q. •5

Ether extract.

Crude fiber. %

g. "5

%

Calcium, %

Phosphorus, %

Gross energy, kcal/g

93.3

30.0

6.6

1.1

27.0

.4

.8

4.1

34

TABLE 12. PERCENT DIGESTIBILITY BY

DIFFERENCE FOR SUNFLOWER MEAL

Item Rations B C D

Dry matter 81.7 73,4 62.2

Organic matter 102.8 93.4 56.2

Crude protein 115.5 57.4 125.9

True protein 130.2 82.3 117.4

Gross energy 91.9 105.9 95.3

35

between protein content of the two supplements. The

average digestion coefficients of rations B, C, and D for

the respective fractions are:

1) Dry matter digestibility - 72.44%

2) Organic matter digestibility - 84.01%

3) Crude protein digestibility - 99.61%

4) True digestibility of protein - 109.99%

5) Gross energy digestibility - 97.71%

Roughage Replacement Value

It is difficult to discuss direct substitution or

replacement of a feedstuff in a ration containing more

than two constituents. However, since practical rations

generally consist of more than one constituent, assum.ptions

must be made on this basis. There were no differences

noted in digestibility or acceptibility among rations when

5.5% sunflower meal, (approximately 27% crude fiber), was

used to replace the fiber and protein from 4.0% cotton­

seed meal and 1.5% cottonseed hulls in ration B. The

findings were similar for ration C when 11.0% sunflower

meal was used to replace the fiber and protein in 8.0%

cottonseed meal and 3% cottonseed hulls. This would in­

dicate no real differences in feeding sunflower meal as

opposed to cottonseed meal and cottonseed hulls in a ration

for growing steers when isonitrogenous and isofibrous con­

ditions are imposed.

36

Latin Square Versus Randomized Complete-Block Design

Experimental results from the previous trials were

analyzed in three different designs to compare their

relative efficiency in providing reliable digestibility

coefficients. The designs employed were: 1) randomized

complete-block (two trials), 2) replicated randomized

complete-block (four trials) and 3) Latin square. Results

of these comparisons can be found in Table 13.

The most effective design tested was the Latin square

analysis. Latin square analysis showed significant treat­

ment effects for all digestibility components tested,

while showing no significance among treatments for nitrogen

balance values. Randomized complete-block, for both two

trials and four trials, gave similar results with the

exception of gross energy digestibility. Randomized

complete-block, two trials and four trials, indicated no

significance among treatments for gross energy digesti­

bility, whereas Latin square analysis detected significance

among the four treatments. Error mean squares were analyzed

for the three designs tested and revealed that the Latin

square design resulted in smaller error mean squares which

was the reason for observed discrepancies in significance

among designs. An example is that treatment mean squares

for gross energy were very close for randomized complete-

37

2 O H CO fa Q

o fa « CO

fa

> fa

O H J CQ

I fa

fa

Q O

p fa

CO t o

o Q

CO :z; < : CO fa D

CO

fa >

ro

CQ a < ; CO

w 1 - ^

a

fa

u a

CO 0 u fd

CO

fd 0

'^t

p

fd CN CQ

0 4J

T3 3 in n3 r-- o • •

ro in

K "^ in r^ in CM • •

ro T:r

T! Ti CN ro CN r . .

in o rH

T3 *^ in KD 00 . .

r-^ CO

o •

rH V

o •

r-i V

O •

i-{

V

o •

r-\ V

T i

•^ vo

in

00 CM

CTi CO

CO

i n

CN

-^ ro

rH

Ti CO Ti CM "^ « .

"^ ro

rH r-• •

r rH rH rH

O •

rH V

r-\

^ m

VD

O ro •

in

CO <T> •

CN CM

O •

f-\

V

r-] ro *

CN CN

o *

rH V

CM CTi •

O ro

CM in in vo

CO ro ko i n r o - ^

CN

v£> i n cr>

o^ " ^ ro " ^ r o r -

• * in in • ^ CM

CM *x> in ro

ro

ro ro

in

i n

ro

cr»

ro

00

CO

00

o

i n

C3

ro

m

VD

CN rH

CO rH fd

•H u

- p

CM

I

u o

I 0 -p 0

r-{ CM B O

o

0 N

•H O C fd Pi

CO

fd

• H

4J

- ^

I

^i u o I

0 4-» 0

rH CM

O U

0 N

•H

g o fd

fd XI

0 u fd

CO

• H - P fd

CO 4-> O 0

MH IW 0

-P C 0 B -P fd 0 V -P

-P C fd u

-H 4H •H

•H CO

CO 0 4J O C 0 Q

O T5

CO 0 5H

(d 13 cr CO

fd 0 B

-p c: 0 B P fd 0

EH

CO 0 U (d

CO

fd 0 B

u o u u fa

CO

E H

CO

fa

38

block, two and four trials, and Latin square, 33.1, 45.4

and 33.5, respectively; but the error mean squares for

gross energy were 43.5, 34.8 and 6.4, respectively. These

data suggest that the Latin square design removed some

sources of variation that were attributed to error in the

randomized complete-block design. However, it must be

kept in mind that the experiments were initially designed

for Latin square, and trials two, three and four were not

truly random, according to randomized complete-block design

In conclusion, Latin square designed experiments are

more reliable than randomized complete-block designs for

providing digestibility coefficients. No difference in

efficiency was noted between randomized complete-block

designs, whether two or four trials were employed in the

procedure.

LIST OF REFERENCES

A.O.A.C. 1970. Official Methods of Analysis (11th Ed.). Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Washington, D.C.

Amos, H, E., D, Burdick, and T. L. Huber. 1974. Effects of Formaldehyde Treatment of Sunflower and Soybean Meal on Nitrogen Balance in Lambs. J. Ani. Sci. 38:702.

Anderson, L. R. 1970. Potential Utilization of Sunflower Oil in the United States. Proc. 4th Int. Sunflower Conf. p. 23.

Blaxter, K. L. 1964. Metabolism and Metabolic Size: A Study with Cattle and Sheep. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Sp. Rep. 43:8.

Brummett, B. J. and E. E. Burns. 1972. Pigment and Chromogen Characteristics of Sunflower Seed, Helianthus annuus. Food Sci. 37:1.

Cater, C. M., S. Gheyasuddin, K. F. Mattil and B. M. Colvin 1970. Recent Developments in the Production of Sun­flower Protein Isolates. Proc. 4th Int. Sunflower Conf. p. 91.

Church, D. C. 1976. Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of Ruminants. Metropolitan Printing Co., Portland, Oregon. 1:232.

Clandinin, D. R. and A. R. Robblee. 1950. The Effects of Method of Processing on the Nutritive Value of Sun­flower Meals. Poult. Sci. 29:753.

Day, H. G. and E. Levin. 1945. The Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal. Poult. Sci. 29:753.

Delic, I., T. Bokorov, A. Sreckovic and M. Bioloska Nikolic. 1964. Biological Value of Sunflower Oil-meal as a Protein Feed for Fattening Pigs. Nutr. Abstrs, and Rev. 34:596.

Fisher, R. A. 1925. Statistical Methods for Research Workers.

Grau, C. R. and H. J. Alquist. 1945. Value of Sunflower Seed Protein. Proc. Soc. Exptl. Biol. Med. 60:373.

39

40

Howe, E. E., E. W. Gilfillan and Max Milner. 1965. Amino Acid Supplementation of Protein Consent Rates as Related to the World Protein Supply. Amer. J. Clin. Nutr. 16:321.

Huffman, V. L., C. K. Lee and E. E. Burns. 1975. Selected Functional Properties of Sunflower Meal. J. Food Sci. 40:70.

Kercher, C. J,, S. Maxfield, L. Paules, W. Smith and G. Costel. 1974. Sunflower as a Source of Protein for Ruminants. Proc. Western Sect, of Amer. Soc. of Anim. Sci. 25:328.

Kinard, D. H. 1975, Feeding Value of Sunflower Meal and Hulls. Feedstuffs. Nov. 3, p. 26.

Klain, G. J., D. C. Hill, H. D. Branion and Jean A. Gray. 1956. The Value of Rapeseed Oil Meal and Sunflower Oil Meal in Chick Starter Rations. Poult. Sci. 35:1315

McGinnis, J., Peny Tung Heu and J. S. Carver. 1947. Nutritional Deficiencies of Sunflower Seed Oil Meal for Chicks. Poult. Sci. 27:389.

National Academy of Sciences. 1970. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, fourth edition. Publication Number 1754, Washington, D.C,

Neufeld, C. H. H. 1970. U.S.D.A., Ag. Research Service. Proc. 4th Int. Sunflower Conf. p. 35.

Neville, W. E., R. E. Hellwig, R. J. Ritter, III and W. C. McCormick. 1977. Effect of Diet Protein Level on Weight Gains of Early Weaned Beef Calves. J. Anim. Sci. 44:4:687.

Ockolic. S., G. Velickovic and D. Pejic. 1972. Sunflower Seed Meal as a Protein Source in Winter Rations for Dairy Cows and Its Effect on Feed Utilization and Quantity and Quality of Milk. (Translated Title) Poljoprivrenda Znaustvena Smotra. 29:635. (Dairy Sci. Abstr. 34:4)

Pearson, A. M., H. D. Wallace and J. F. Hentges, Jr. 1954. Sunflower Seed Meal as a Protein Supplement for Beef Cattle and Swine. University of Florida Agr. Res. Exp. Sta. Bull. 533.

41

Pettit, J. H., S. J, Slinger, E. V, Evans and F. N. Marcellus. 1944, The Utilization of Sunflower Seed Oil Meal, Wheat Distillers Dried Grains and Rapeseed Oil Meal in Poultry Rations. Sci, Agr. 24:201.

Rad, F. H. and K. Kershavarz. 1974. Evaluation of the Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal and the Possibility of Substitution of Sunflower Meal for Soybean Meal in Poultry Diets. Poult. Sci. 55:1757.

Radaeva, I. A, 1959. Effect of Sunflower Seed Cake and Maize Silage in the Rations of Cows on the Quality of Dried Milk. Nutr. Abstr. and Rev. 29:1388.

Robertson, J. A, 1975. Use of Sunflower Seed in Food Products. Critical Reviews in Food Sci. and Nutr. 6:2:201.

Rose, R. J., R. N. Coit, and J. L. Sell. 1971. Sunflower Seed Meal as a Replacement for Soybean Meal Protein in Laying Hen Rations. Poult. Sci. 51:960.

Schingoethe, D. J., J. A. Rook and F. Ludens. 1976. Evaluation of Sunflower Meal as a Protein Supplement for Lactating Cows. J. Diary Sci. 56:783.

Schneider, B. H. and W. P. Flatt. 1975. The Evaluation of Feeds through Digestibility Experiments. University of Georgia Press, Ahtens, Georgia.

Seerley, R. W., D. Burdick, W. C. Russom, R. S. Lowrey, H. C. McCampbell and H. E. Amos. 1974. Sunflower Meal as a Replacement for Soybean Meal in Growing Swine and Rat Diets. J. Anim. Sci. 38:5:947.

Slinger, S. J., D. C. Hill, K. M. Garthy and H. D. Branion. 1949. Soybean Oil Meal and Sunflower Seed Oil Meal in Rations for Broad-breasted Bronze Turkeys. Poult. Sci. 28:534.

Smith, K. J. 1968. A Review of the Nutritional Value of Sunflower Meal. Feedstuffs. June 8, 40(23) :20.

Smith, R. E. 1966. Importance of an Accurate Reference Diet in the Evaluation of Proteins for Chick Growth Using Plasma Amino Acid Titers. J. of Nutr. 89:271.

Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press; Ames, Iowa. (6th Ed.).

42

Stake, P. E,, M. J, Owens and D. J, Schingoethe. 1972. Rapeseed, Sunflower and Soybean Meal Supplementation of Calf Rations. J, Dairy Sci, 56:783-788.

Steel, R, G. D. and J, H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Practices of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.; New York, Toronto and London.

Temperton, H., F, J. Dudley and G. J. Pickering. 1965. Phosphorus Requirements of Poultry for the Effects of Growing Pullets of Feeding Diets Containing no Animal Protein or Supplementary Phosphorus. Nutr. Abstr. and Rev. 35:1185.

Trotter, W. and W. Givan. 1970. Economics of Producing Sunflowers for Oil in the United States. Proc. 4th Int Sunflower Conf. p. 23.

United States - Canadian Tables of Feed Composition (2nd Revision). 1969, Publication 1684, Natl, Acad. Sci. Washington, D.C.

Vergoessen, A. J. 19 70. The Relationship Between Dietary Fat and the Prevention of Atlerosclerosis. Proc. 4th Int. Sunflower Conf. p. 219.