- Email: [email protected]
The Amino Acid Content and Availability of Different Strains of Grain Sorghum to the Chick1
The Amino Acid Content and Availability of Different Strains of Grain Sorghum to the Chick1 E. L. STEPHENSON, J. O. YORK, D. B. BRAGG2 AND C. A. IVY 3 Departments of Animal Sciences and Agronomy, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 (Received for publication September 3, 1970)
RAIN sorghum is becoming increasingly important to the broiler industry in the United States. The widespread production of this feedstuff and the use of computer formulation in the poultry industry has made it necessary that more information relative to its amino acid content and availability be obtained. At present there is a considerable amount of conflicting information relative to the nutritive value of the various hybrids. Chang and Fuller (1964), and Fuller et al. (1966) reported that grain sorghum with high tannin content had reduced feeding value. They also reported that grain sorghum varieties which had a brown seed color and open heads were characteristically high in tannin and had reduced feeding values. Stephenson et al. (1968) and Damron et al. (1968) found that the seed coat color and tightness of the heads were not good indices on which to grade nutrient value. Several of the hybrids which had the brown seed color and open heads were quite high in nutritive value when fed to chicks. Petersen (1969) found that feed consumption was depressed when the grain sorghum hybrids contained high levels of tannin. Shoup et al. (1968) compared the effects 1
Supported in part by National Institutes of Health, Grant No. NIH AM 07690-01. 2 Present address: Department of Poultry Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. 3 Present address: Department of Poultry Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 581
of level of nitrogen fertilization and irrigation upon the nutritive value of grain sorghum. In one out of three years they obtained significant differences. Waggle et al. (1967) studied the nutritive value of sorghum grain as measured by chick performance, and then attempted to relate the results to the amino acid composition of the grain. These workers obtained samples containing 8.3, 10.5, and 12.1 percent protein, and incorporated them into chick diets. The relative amino acid composition of the protein was similar in each sample. Based on their analyses methionine and glycine were calculated to be limiting amino acids in the diets, but the performance of chicks was not affected by protein levels when the grain was incorporated into diets on an equal protein basis. The study reported herein was initiated to study the amino acid content and the availability of different grain sorghum hybrids when evaluated with the chick. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Twenty-four grain sorghum hybrids were produced on experimental plots in such a manner that all samples received the same amount of irrigation and fertilizer treatments. They were also harvested at the same stage of maturity. After harvesting the samples were analyzed for total amino acids by the method of Piez and Morris (1960) as modified by the Technichon Instruments Corporation. Amino acid availability was determined by the method of Bragg et al. (1969) and statistical mea-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Bath, Library on June 25, 2015
G
582
E.
L.
STEPHENSON, J.
0.
YORK, D.
B. BRAGG AND C. A. IVY
TABLE 1—Amino acid content of different grain sorghum hybrids Sorghum Hybrid
Asp.' Thre.
%
Ser.
Ala.
Val.
%
Glut. Prcl.
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
.352 .396 .363 .355 .370 .348 .376 .418 .340 .384 .356 .379 .325 .384 .350 .330 .356 .328 .411 .329 .357 .342 .418 .448
1.191 1.244 1.200 1.101 1.159 1.140 1.082 1.169 1.107 1.069 1.018 1.107 1.130 1.210 1.069 1.151 1.193 .965 1.177 1.009 1.279 .951 1.150 1.253
.565 .602 .559 .529 .575 .552 .500 .531 .526 .487 .497 .404 .512 .549 .511 .533 .514 .477 .540 .482 .565 .408 .431 .452
.208 .236 .220 .222 .232 .239 .242 .186 .223 .220 .209 .174 .212 .216 .219 .211 .187 .236 .181 .234 .227 .214 .204 .164
.199 .229 .220 .196 .208 .195 .192 .209 .175 .186 .168 .241 .194 .198 .154 .186 .187 .160 .242 .171 .196 .213 .239 .234
.459 .463 .453 .416 .450 .443 .394 .433 .423 .389 .396 .290 .415 .437 .404 .429 .425 .388 .420 .366 .456 .304 .316 .365
1.753 1.909 1.737 1.577 1.710 1.664 1.602 1.694 1.655 1.532 1.525 1.233 1.719 1.725 1.581 1.728 1.479 1.539 1.740 1.515 1.876 1.268 1.398 1.430
.468 .488 .461 .442 .469 .465 .427 .493 .468 .428 .417 .409 .472 .501 .443 .481 .411 .432 .497 .907 .510 .369 .400 .456
.560 .563 .541 .604 .555 .570 .498 .629 .529 .498 .504 .445 .553 .577 .508 .566 .493 .507 .633 .524 .683 .429 .448 .493
.300 .311 .294 .294 .301 .294 .272 .264 .271 .268 .272 .243 .256 .298 .301 .277 .317 .293 .258 .307 .278 .275 .270 .309
.232 .277 .239 .245 .249 .248 .220 .286 .231 .234 .232 .193 .235 .237 .227 .247 .237 .226 .284 .241 .249 .196 .204 .211
.399 .440 .410 .412 .408 .382 .366 .452 .352 .377 .392 .281 .381 .433 .416 .398 .415 .386 .453 .404 .406 .357 .330 .285
.366 1.134
.516
.214
.200
.408 1.617
.452
.539
.285
.236
.390
DeKalb F-63 T-E 68 RS624 RS610 AKS 614 Lindsey 755 T-E 66 RS608 DeKalb C-44a RP220 Ga609 RS626 T-E 77 RS 622 Ark 62002 RS 616 Ark 61002 RS 640 RS 617 R P 288 RS 621 Ark 62003 RS 625 AK 300IR
835= 888 822 783 746 792 762 908 836 708 743 808 827 851 809 782 809 759 800 746 868 744 859 858
.356 .424 .374 .345 .352 .356 .328 .391 .333 .311 .325 .405 .355 .373 .315 .325 .330 .296 .385 .283 .373 .276 .292 .323
.503 .588 .556 .494 .466 .532 .475 .566 .467 .459 .460 .462 .528 .555 .478 .477 .480 .429 .545 .434 .560 .405 .419 .476
3.192 3.161 3.162 2.920 3.133 3.166 3.001 3.169 2.993 2.731 2.758 2.790 3.117 3.205 2.862 3.132 2.884 2.843 3.268 2.835 3.598 2.559 2.863 3.146
.994 .839 1.044 .994 1.036 .990 .975 1.040 .951 .968 .972 .869 .955 1.014 .884 1.024 .877 .916 .991 .973 1.143 .885 .852 1.079
Mean
808
.343
.493 3.029
.973
Cyst. Meth. Isol. Leuc. Tyro. PhAl. Lys.
Hist.
Arg
1
Abbreviations as follows: Asp.—aspartic acid, Thre.—threonine, Ser.—serine, Glut.—glutamic acid, Pro].—proline, Gly.glycine, Ala.—alanine Val.—valine, Cyst.—cystine, Meth.—methionine, Isol.—isoleucine, Leuc.—leucine, Tyro.—tyrosine, PhAl.phenylalanine, Lys.—lysine, Hist.—histidine, Arg.—arginine. 2 An average of three analyses which varied not more than 5 % f rom the mean.
surements were made according to Duncan (1955) andSnedecor (1956).
amino acids there were no individual hybrids which were especially strong in all, or even in those which are sometimes conRESULTS AND DISCUSSION sidered limiting. The differences in the availability of the The amino acid content of the various hybrids is given in Table 1, and the amino amino acids (Table 2) were even greater acid availability of said hybrids is pre- than was the variability of the total consented in Table 2. The results suggest that tent. An examination of these data reveals the amino acid content of the different hy- that there was a wide variation in the availbrids varied considerably. This is especially ability of all amino acids. The greatest extrue with those amino acids which are con- tremes were observed in the case of proline, sidered first limiting in chick diets. It will which was only 19.4 percent available in Ark be noted that the methionine content 61002; yet 93.3 percent was available in RS ranged from .154 percent in the case of Ark 640. In the other amino acids the difference 62002 to .242 percent in the case of RS 617. was not as great; yet the highest in availThe other sulfur amino acid cystine varied ability would be almost twice that of the in approximately the same magnitude, but lower ranking hybrid. Four hybrids were the strains which were low in methionine found to be generally low in availability of were not necessarily the lowest in cystine. all amino acids. These were Ark 61002, Ga Lysine also varied, but on a percentage basis 609, RS 617, and Ark 62003. It will also be the variation was not as great as was that of noted that hybrids such as Lindsey 755, RS the two previously mentioned amino acids. 622, RS 640 and AK 3001R were relatively The amount of threonine also varied greatly high in availability of all amino acids. As previously stated, the samples of grain when considered on a percentage basis. When considered on the basis of essential sorghum hybrids were grown in the same
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Bath, Library on June 25, 2015
Gly.
%
%
Prol.
53.4 96.1
87.9 19.4 93.3
78.3
88.9 d ef 94.6 d ef 96.If 88.5 d ef 92.6 0 def 83.9 0 d e f 86.7 c def 94.1edf 85.0 C 77.2cd 95.4 d e f 89.8 d e f 94.4 e d f 88.4def 95.8et 90.6 e f 91.9cdef 83.2 c def 93.6 e d f 88.5def 64.5b 50.2b 83.5 c d e f 94.3def 91.0 o d e f 7 9 . 5 c d e 91.3ef 94.4 d ef 91.8 c d e f 80.0 c d e 90.2cf 94.0 c df 53.4a 19.4a 93.3f 95.2 d ef 67.3b 41.6b 89.lcd 81.9edef 90.9 0 def 86.9 c def 67.8b 49.5b 89. 6cde 74.8 C 93.6 c d f 90.4 e f
%
Glut.
40.8 90.7
75.8
86.3gh 86.0„ h 74.6efE 81.9 ef gi, 80.4 efB i, 81.7 e f g h 78.5 e f g &2.%Seh 74.0 e f g 85.2 e fgb 58.7 b c d 80. Cefgli 71.0 c d e 81.8 e f g i, 81.5 e fgh 82. 7efgi, 40.8a 85.6( g i, 52.4ab 73.4 ef g 76.5 e f g 58.2be 72.7def 90.7h
%
Gly.
53.9 94.2
85.4
92.2cd 94.2d 88.9 d bc 92.8d 84.2b0 92.3cd 91.70d 92.6d 90.4bcd 93.5d 60.4a S0.6bed 86.6bed 93.2d 90.2 b cd 90.9cd 53.9a 91.5 c d 63.7a 82.5b 89.8bed 63.2a 83.9bc 92.0od
%
Ala.
%
Cyst.
%
Meth.
52.4 94.6
82.4 67.5 98.3
91.1 55.1 98.0
88.6
94.6f 96.Ode 95.3 B Mj 94.6 f 95.9de 97.5ij 85. lbodef 92.7 c de 98.8efgh 88.0bcdef 95.3de 9 4 . 2 f g h u 91.3 0 de 8 5 . 4 d e 84.0 b c d 98.2 e 95.1f g h ii 90.4 c def 88.5bedef 96.6 d e 92. 7efgi,i 9 5 . 2 d 0 95. S Bllij 90.5 cd ef 86.6bcdef 94.6 d e 92. 8efgi, 90.4„lef 95.5 d e 94.9fghii 61.6 a 74.6 ! l b 6 4 . 4 1 92.9 c d e 9 4 . 5 f g h i j 81.7 b e 83.9bcde 92.6de 91.3e? e 94.8 d e 94-ifghij 90.1 c def 86.2bcdef 93.8 c de 89.6 e ,g" 95.2 d e 92.3 e f g bi 90.4 0 def 7 6 . 0 a b o 55. l a 52.4 a 98.0ij 98.3e 93.4def 67.5a 69.f b c 53.3a 9 2 . 2 c d e 87.2 e f 83.3bcd 86.lbcdef 94.4 d „ 90.2 e f g 54.2 a 7 7 . 6 a b 77.7 c d 77.4b 8 9 . 3 b c d 50.f e t g 92. If 96.9de 97.3bi]
%
Val.
50.9 95.2
83.8
93.5 e 95.2 C 88.2bcde S0.3bcde 83.9 b cd 92.3de 89.Sbede 93. le 88.8bcde 91.2ede 61.4„ 81.7b 87.4 b c de 9.15Je 88.5bcde 90.9 b cde 50.9a 94.2 e 61.0a 85. 4bcde 87.8bcdc 51.7. 81.7bc 91.Ode
%
Isol.
1 Abbreviations as follows: Asp.—aspartic acid, Thre.—threonine, Ser.—serine, Glut.—-glutamic acid, Prol.—proline, Gly.—glycine, A Isol.—isoleucine, Leuc.—leucine, Tyro.—tyrosine, PhAl.—phenylalanine, Lys.—lysine, Hist.—histidine, Arg.—arginine. 2 Values followed by the same subscript letter are not significantly different (P<0.05). 3 An average of eight individual replicates.
81.6
42.6 93.4
77.9
46.8 91.8
84.8
56.3 94.5
Mean
91.7de 93.4e 56.7 c de 90.7 e 81.5ed 92.6 e 87.7 d e 91.Ode 85.l c de 86.7de 56.6b 85.3 c de 84.8cde 91.2de 85.6 0 de 88.5de 42.6a 92.0 e 57.9b 81.3ed 84.9cde 55.2b 74.6 C 91.2 c e
%
Ser.
Range
%
Thre.
89.9 e f g 91.8fg 82. Idefg 84.9defg 81.2 d e f 86.3dofg 79.6 d ef 86.8defg 81.1def 86.4 de f B 55.6 a b 79.9de 79.6defg 87.8defg 75. l o d 91.5g 46.8a 89.2efe 51.5al> ' -> • 2cde 84.4defg 51.lab 65.3bc 87. Idefg
2 3
%
Asp.
TABLE 2.—The availability of amino acids in different strains of grain sorghum when e
93.6 e 94.5e 88.9bce 88. 8bce 83.6bc 92.0 b ce 89.9 b ce 93.4ce 87.7 b ce 92.2 b c e 63.8„ 88. lbce 88.2bce 92.8bce 87.9bce 92.6 b ce 57.2a 93.4 e 56.3„ 82.1b 88.2bce 63.2a 83.5b 92.3e
DeKalb F-63 T-E 68 RS 624 RS 610 AKS 614 Lindsey 755 T-E 66 RS 608 DeKalb C-44 R P 220 Ga 609 RS 626 T-E 77 RS 622 Ark 62002 RS 616 Ark 61002 RS 640 RS 617 R P 288 RS 621 Ark 62003 RS 625 AK 300IR
Sorghum Hybrid
1
from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Bath, Library on June 25, 2015
584
E. L. STEPHENSON, J. O. YORK, D. B. BRAGG AND C. A. IVY
SUMMARY
Twenty-four grain sorghum hybrids were evaluated relative to their amino acid content and its availability to the chick. These hybrids were found to vary somewhat in amino acid content and to vary markedly in amino acid availability. REFERENCES Bragg, D. B., C. A. Ivy and E. L. Stephenson, 1969. Methods for determining amino acid
availability of feeds. Poultry Sci. 48: 21352137. Chang, S. I., and H. L. Fuller, 1964. Effect of tannin content of grain sorghum on their feeding value for growing chicks. Poultry Sci. 4 3 : 3035. Damron, B. L., G. M. Prine and R. H. Harms, 1968. Evaluation of various bird-resistant and non-resistant varieties of grain sorghum for use in broiler diets. Poultry Sci. 47: 1648-1650. Duncan, D. B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11: 1-42. Fuller, H. L., D. K. Potter and A. R. Brown, 1966. The feeding value of grain sorghums in relation to their tannin content. Georgia Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul.N. S. 176. Petersen, V. E., 1969. A comparison of the feeding value for broilers of corn, grain sorghum, barley, wheat, and oats, and the influence of the various grains on the composition and taste of broiler meat. Poultry Sci. 48: 2006-2013. Piez, K. A., and L. Morris, 1960. A modified procedure for the automatic analysis of amino acids. Anal. Biochem. 1: 187-201. Shoup, F. K., C. W. Deyoe, P. T. Sanford and L. S. Murphy, 1968. Comparison of high versus low fertilization and irrigated versus dry land produced grain sorghum. Poultry Sci. 47: 1719. Snedecor, G. W., 1956. Statistical Methods. 5th edition, Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. Stephenson, E. L., J. O. York and D. B. Bragg, 1968. Comparative feeding values of brown and yellow grain sorghum. Feedstuffs, 40 (21) 112 and 114. Waggle, D. H., C. W. Deyoe and P. E. Sanford, 1967. Relationship of protein level of sorghum grain to its nutritive value as measured by chick performance and amino acid composition. Poultry Sci. 46: 655-659.
NEWS AND NOTES (Continued from page 572) W. E. Guenther, formerly Feed Products Manager for the Southern Region to the new position of National Accounts Sales Manager; J. M. Twine, formerly Product Manager, Poultry Feed Products, to Sales Manager, Eastern Region ; T. T. Tressler, formerly Animal Health Products Supervisor, East Central Division, to Sales Manager, North Central Region; C. E. Wall, formerly Feed Products Manager,
Central Region, to Sales Manager, Central Region; F. I. Breck, formerly Animal Health Products Supervisor, Southern District, to Sales Manager, Southeastern Region; J. E. Knight, formerly Animal Health Products Supervisor, West Central District, to Sales Manager, Southwestern Region; H. W. Salquist, formerly Feed Products Manager, Western Region, to Sales Manager, Western Region; and
(Continued on page S91)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Bath, Library on June 25, 2015
area, and received the same treatments of fertilization and irrigation. Also, they were harvested at the same stage of maturity; thus, these factors should not have affected the relative values. Thus, it is assumed that the differences in amino acid availability and content were genetic in nature. The differences in availability were especially great, and if one were trying to use an average value for available amino acid content of grain sorghums in computer formulation, there would be a large amount of error. These data suggest that both the plant geneticist and the nutritionist will need to consider the genetics of the sorghum hybrid used in order to evaluate its feeding value. The data presented herein suggest that the variation in nutritive value of different grain sorghums to the chick is better explained by genetic strain than by rate of irrigation, amount of nitrogen fertilization, or tannin content.
RAIN sorghum is becoming increasingly important to the broiler industry in the United States. The widespread production of this feedstuff and the use of computer formulation in the poultry industry has made it necessary that more information relative to its amino acid content and availability be obtained. At present there is a considerable amount of conflicting information relative to the nutritive value of the various hybrids. Chang and Fuller (1964), and Fuller et al. (1966) reported that grain sorghum with high tannin content had reduced feeding value. They also reported that grain sorghum varieties which had a brown seed color and open heads were characteristically high in tannin and had reduced feeding values. Stephenson et al. (1968) and Damron et al. (1968) found that the seed coat color and tightness of the heads were not good indices on which to grade nutrient value. Several of the hybrids which had the brown seed color and open heads were quite high in nutritive value when fed to chicks. Petersen (1969) found that feed consumption was depressed when the grain sorghum hybrids contained high levels of tannin. Shoup et al. (1968) compared the effects 1
Supported in part by National Institutes of Health, Grant No. NIH AM 07690-01. 2 Present address: Department of Poultry Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. 3 Present address: Department of Poultry Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 581
of level of nitrogen fertilization and irrigation upon the nutritive value of grain sorghum. In one out of three years they obtained significant differences. Waggle et al. (1967) studied the nutritive value of sorghum grain as measured by chick performance, and then attempted to relate the results to the amino acid composition of the grain. These workers obtained samples containing 8.3, 10.5, and 12.1 percent protein, and incorporated them into chick diets. The relative amino acid composition of the protein was similar in each sample. Based on their analyses methionine and glycine were calculated to be limiting amino acids in the diets, but the performance of chicks was not affected by protein levels when the grain was incorporated into diets on an equal protein basis. The study reported herein was initiated to study the amino acid content and the availability of different grain sorghum hybrids when evaluated with the chick. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Twenty-four grain sorghum hybrids were produced on experimental plots in such a manner that all samples received the same amount of irrigation and fertilizer treatments. They were also harvested at the same stage of maturity. After harvesting the samples were analyzed for total amino acids by the method of Piez and Morris (1960) as modified by the Technichon Instruments Corporation. Amino acid availability was determined by the method of Bragg et al. (1969) and statistical mea-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Bath, Library on June 25, 2015
G
582
E.
L.
STEPHENSON, J.
0.
YORK, D.
B. BRAGG AND C. A. IVY
TABLE 1—Amino acid content of different grain sorghum hybrids Sorghum Hybrid
Asp.' Thre.
%
Ser.
Ala.
Val.
%
Glut. Prcl.
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
.352 .396 .363 .355 .370 .348 .376 .418 .340 .384 .356 .379 .325 .384 .350 .330 .356 .328 .411 .329 .357 .342 .418 .448
1.191 1.244 1.200 1.101 1.159 1.140 1.082 1.169 1.107 1.069 1.018 1.107 1.130 1.210 1.069 1.151 1.193 .965 1.177 1.009 1.279 .951 1.150 1.253
.565 .602 .559 .529 .575 .552 .500 .531 .526 .487 .497 .404 .512 .549 .511 .533 .514 .477 .540 .482 .565 .408 .431 .452
.208 .236 .220 .222 .232 .239 .242 .186 .223 .220 .209 .174 .212 .216 .219 .211 .187 .236 .181 .234 .227 .214 .204 .164
.199 .229 .220 .196 .208 .195 .192 .209 .175 .186 .168 .241 .194 .198 .154 .186 .187 .160 .242 .171 .196 .213 .239 .234
.459 .463 .453 .416 .450 .443 .394 .433 .423 .389 .396 .290 .415 .437 .404 .429 .425 .388 .420 .366 .456 .304 .316 .365
1.753 1.909 1.737 1.577 1.710 1.664 1.602 1.694 1.655 1.532 1.525 1.233 1.719 1.725 1.581 1.728 1.479 1.539 1.740 1.515 1.876 1.268 1.398 1.430
.468 .488 .461 .442 .469 .465 .427 .493 .468 .428 .417 .409 .472 .501 .443 .481 .411 .432 .497 .907 .510 .369 .400 .456
.560 .563 .541 .604 .555 .570 .498 .629 .529 .498 .504 .445 .553 .577 .508 .566 .493 .507 .633 .524 .683 .429 .448 .493
.300 .311 .294 .294 .301 .294 .272 .264 .271 .268 .272 .243 .256 .298 .301 .277 .317 .293 .258 .307 .278 .275 .270 .309
.232 .277 .239 .245 .249 .248 .220 .286 .231 .234 .232 .193 .235 .237 .227 .247 .237 .226 .284 .241 .249 .196 .204 .211
.399 .440 .410 .412 .408 .382 .366 .452 .352 .377 .392 .281 .381 .433 .416 .398 .415 .386 .453 .404 .406 .357 .330 .285
.366 1.134
.516
.214
.200
.408 1.617
.452
.539
.285
.236
.390
DeKalb F-63 T-E 68 RS624 RS610 AKS 614 Lindsey 755 T-E 66 RS608 DeKalb C-44a RP220 Ga609 RS626 T-E 77 RS 622 Ark 62002 RS 616 Ark 61002 RS 640 RS 617 R P 288 RS 621 Ark 62003 RS 625 AK 300IR
835= 888 822 783 746 792 762 908 836 708 743 808 827 851 809 782 809 759 800 746 868 744 859 858
.356 .424 .374 .345 .352 .356 .328 .391 .333 .311 .325 .405 .355 .373 .315 .325 .330 .296 .385 .283 .373 .276 .292 .323
.503 .588 .556 .494 .466 .532 .475 .566 .467 .459 .460 .462 .528 .555 .478 .477 .480 .429 .545 .434 .560 .405 .419 .476
3.192 3.161 3.162 2.920 3.133 3.166 3.001 3.169 2.993 2.731 2.758 2.790 3.117 3.205 2.862 3.132 2.884 2.843 3.268 2.835 3.598 2.559 2.863 3.146
.994 .839 1.044 .994 1.036 .990 .975 1.040 .951 .968 .972 .869 .955 1.014 .884 1.024 .877 .916 .991 .973 1.143 .885 .852 1.079
Mean
808
.343
.493 3.029
.973
Cyst. Meth. Isol. Leuc. Tyro. PhAl. Lys.
Hist.
Arg
1
Abbreviations as follows: Asp.—aspartic acid, Thre.—threonine, Ser.—serine, Glut.—glutamic acid, Pro].—proline, Gly.glycine, Ala.—alanine Val.—valine, Cyst.—cystine, Meth.—methionine, Isol.—isoleucine, Leuc.—leucine, Tyro.—tyrosine, PhAl.phenylalanine, Lys.—lysine, Hist.—histidine, Arg.—arginine. 2 An average of three analyses which varied not more than 5 % f rom the mean.
surements were made according to Duncan (1955) andSnedecor (1956).
amino acids there were no individual hybrids which were especially strong in all, or even in those which are sometimes conRESULTS AND DISCUSSION sidered limiting. The differences in the availability of the The amino acid content of the various hybrids is given in Table 1, and the amino amino acids (Table 2) were even greater acid availability of said hybrids is pre- than was the variability of the total consented in Table 2. The results suggest that tent. An examination of these data reveals the amino acid content of the different hy- that there was a wide variation in the availbrids varied considerably. This is especially ability of all amino acids. The greatest extrue with those amino acids which are con- tremes were observed in the case of proline, sidered first limiting in chick diets. It will which was only 19.4 percent available in Ark be noted that the methionine content 61002; yet 93.3 percent was available in RS ranged from .154 percent in the case of Ark 640. In the other amino acids the difference 62002 to .242 percent in the case of RS 617. was not as great; yet the highest in availThe other sulfur amino acid cystine varied ability would be almost twice that of the in approximately the same magnitude, but lower ranking hybrid. Four hybrids were the strains which were low in methionine found to be generally low in availability of were not necessarily the lowest in cystine. all amino acids. These were Ark 61002, Ga Lysine also varied, but on a percentage basis 609, RS 617, and Ark 62003. It will also be the variation was not as great as was that of noted that hybrids such as Lindsey 755, RS the two previously mentioned amino acids. 622, RS 640 and AK 3001R were relatively The amount of threonine also varied greatly high in availability of all amino acids. As previously stated, the samples of grain when considered on a percentage basis. When considered on the basis of essential sorghum hybrids were grown in the same
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Bath, Library on June 25, 2015
Gly.
%
%
Prol.
53.4 96.1
87.9 19.4 93.3
78.3
88.9 d ef 94.6 d ef 96.If 88.5 d ef 92.6 0 def 83.9 0 d e f 86.7 c def 94.1edf 85.0 C 77.2cd 95.4 d e f 89.8 d e f 94.4 e d f 88.4def 95.8et 90.6 e f 91.9cdef 83.2 c def 93.6 e d f 88.5def 64.5b 50.2b 83.5 c d e f 94.3def 91.0 o d e f 7 9 . 5 c d e 91.3ef 94.4 d ef 91.8 c d e f 80.0 c d e 90.2cf 94.0 c df 53.4a 19.4a 93.3f 95.2 d ef 67.3b 41.6b 89.lcd 81.9edef 90.9 0 def 86.9 c def 67.8b 49.5b 89. 6cde 74.8 C 93.6 c d f 90.4 e f
%
Glut.
40.8 90.7
75.8
86.3gh 86.0„ h 74.6efE 81.9 ef gi, 80.4 efB i, 81.7 e f g h 78.5 e f g &2.%Seh 74.0 e f g 85.2 e fgb 58.7 b c d 80. Cefgli 71.0 c d e 81.8 e f g i, 81.5 e fgh 82. 7efgi, 40.8a 85.6( g i, 52.4ab 73.4 ef g 76.5 e f g 58.2be 72.7def 90.7h
%
Gly.
53.9 94.2
85.4
92.2cd 94.2d 88.9 d bc 92.8d 84.2b0 92.3cd 91.70d 92.6d 90.4bcd 93.5d 60.4a S0.6bed 86.6bed 93.2d 90.2 b cd 90.9cd 53.9a 91.5 c d 63.7a 82.5b 89.8bed 63.2a 83.9bc 92.0od
%
Ala.
%
Cyst.
%
Meth.
52.4 94.6
82.4 67.5 98.3
91.1 55.1 98.0
88.6
94.6f 96.Ode 95.3 B Mj 94.6 f 95.9de 97.5ij 85. lbodef 92.7 c de 98.8efgh 88.0bcdef 95.3de 9 4 . 2 f g h u 91.3 0 de 8 5 . 4 d e 84.0 b c d 98.2 e 95.1f g h ii 90.4 c def 88.5bedef 96.6 d e 92. 7efgi,i 9 5 . 2 d 0 95. S Bllij 90.5 cd ef 86.6bcdef 94.6 d e 92. 8efgi, 90.4„lef 95.5 d e 94.9fghii 61.6 a 74.6 ! l b 6 4 . 4 1 92.9 c d e 9 4 . 5 f g h i j 81.7 b e 83.9bcde 92.6de 91.3e? e 94.8 d e 94-ifghij 90.1 c def 86.2bcdef 93.8 c de 89.6 e ,g" 95.2 d e 92.3 e f g bi 90.4 0 def 7 6 . 0 a b o 55. l a 52.4 a 98.0ij 98.3e 93.4def 67.5a 69.f b c 53.3a 9 2 . 2 c d e 87.2 e f 83.3bcd 86.lbcdef 94.4 d „ 90.2 e f g 54.2 a 7 7 . 6 a b 77.7 c d 77.4b 8 9 . 3 b c d 50.f e t g 92. If 96.9de 97.3bi]
%
Val.
50.9 95.2
83.8
93.5 e 95.2 C 88.2bcde S0.3bcde 83.9 b cd 92.3de 89.Sbede 93. le 88.8bcde 91.2ede 61.4„ 81.7b 87.4 b c de 9.15Je 88.5bcde 90.9 b cde 50.9a 94.2 e 61.0a 85. 4bcde 87.8bcdc 51.7. 81.7bc 91.Ode
%
Isol.
1 Abbreviations as follows: Asp.—aspartic acid, Thre.—threonine, Ser.—serine, Glut.—-glutamic acid, Prol.—proline, Gly.—glycine, A Isol.—isoleucine, Leuc.—leucine, Tyro.—tyrosine, PhAl.—phenylalanine, Lys.—lysine, Hist.—histidine, Arg.—arginine. 2 Values followed by the same subscript letter are not significantly different (P<0.05). 3 An average of eight individual replicates.
81.6
42.6 93.4
77.9
46.8 91.8
84.8
56.3 94.5
Mean
91.7de 93.4e 56.7 c de 90.7 e 81.5ed 92.6 e 87.7 d e 91.Ode 85.l c de 86.7de 56.6b 85.3 c de 84.8cde 91.2de 85.6 0 de 88.5de 42.6a 92.0 e 57.9b 81.3ed 84.9cde 55.2b 74.6 C 91.2 c e
%
Ser.
Range
%
Thre.
89.9 e f g 91.8fg 82. Idefg 84.9defg 81.2 d e f 86.3dofg 79.6 d ef 86.8defg 81.1def 86.4 de f B 55.6 a b 79.9de 79.6defg 87.8defg 75. l o d 91.5g 46.8a 89.2efe 51.5al> ' -> • 2cde 84.4defg 51.lab 65.3bc 87. Idefg
2 3
%
Asp.
TABLE 2.—The availability of amino acids in different strains of grain sorghum when e
93.6 e 94.5e 88.9bce 88. 8bce 83.6bc 92.0 b ce 89.9 b ce 93.4ce 87.7 b ce 92.2 b c e 63.8„ 88. lbce 88.2bce 92.8bce 87.9bce 92.6 b ce 57.2a 93.4 e 56.3„ 82.1b 88.2bce 63.2a 83.5b 92.3e
DeKalb F-63 T-E 68 RS 624 RS 610 AKS 614 Lindsey 755 T-E 66 RS 608 DeKalb C-44 R P 220 Ga 609 RS 626 T-E 77 RS 622 Ark 62002 RS 616 Ark 61002 RS 640 RS 617 R P 288 RS 621 Ark 62003 RS 625 AK 300IR
Sorghum Hybrid
1
from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Bath, Library on June 25, 2015
584
E. L. STEPHENSON, J. O. YORK, D. B. BRAGG AND C. A. IVY
SUMMARY
Twenty-four grain sorghum hybrids were evaluated relative to their amino acid content and its availability to the chick. These hybrids were found to vary somewhat in amino acid content and to vary markedly in amino acid availability. REFERENCES Bragg, D. B., C. A. Ivy and E. L. Stephenson, 1969. Methods for determining amino acid
availability of feeds. Poultry Sci. 48: 21352137. Chang, S. I., and H. L. Fuller, 1964. Effect of tannin content of grain sorghum on their feeding value for growing chicks. Poultry Sci. 4 3 : 3035. Damron, B. L., G. M. Prine and R. H. Harms, 1968. Evaluation of various bird-resistant and non-resistant varieties of grain sorghum for use in broiler diets. Poultry Sci. 47: 1648-1650. Duncan, D. B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11: 1-42. Fuller, H. L., D. K. Potter and A. R. Brown, 1966. The feeding value of grain sorghums in relation to their tannin content. Georgia Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul.N. S. 176. Petersen, V. E., 1969. A comparison of the feeding value for broilers of corn, grain sorghum, barley, wheat, and oats, and the influence of the various grains on the composition and taste of broiler meat. Poultry Sci. 48: 2006-2013. Piez, K. A., and L. Morris, 1960. A modified procedure for the automatic analysis of amino acids. Anal. Biochem. 1: 187-201. Shoup, F. K., C. W. Deyoe, P. T. Sanford and L. S. Murphy, 1968. Comparison of high versus low fertilization and irrigated versus dry land produced grain sorghum. Poultry Sci. 47: 1719. Snedecor, G. W., 1956. Statistical Methods. 5th edition, Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. Stephenson, E. L., J. O. York and D. B. Bragg, 1968. Comparative feeding values of brown and yellow grain sorghum. Feedstuffs, 40 (21) 112 and 114. Waggle, D. H., C. W. Deyoe and P. E. Sanford, 1967. Relationship of protein level of sorghum grain to its nutritive value as measured by chick performance and amino acid composition. Poultry Sci. 46: 655-659.
NEWS AND NOTES (Continued from page 572) W. E. Guenther, formerly Feed Products Manager for the Southern Region to the new position of National Accounts Sales Manager; J. M. Twine, formerly Product Manager, Poultry Feed Products, to Sales Manager, Eastern Region ; T. T. Tressler, formerly Animal Health Products Supervisor, East Central Division, to Sales Manager, North Central Region; C. E. Wall, formerly Feed Products Manager,
Central Region, to Sales Manager, Central Region; F. I. Breck, formerly Animal Health Products Supervisor, Southern District, to Sales Manager, Southeastern Region; J. E. Knight, formerly Animal Health Products Supervisor, West Central District, to Sales Manager, Southwestern Region; H. W. Salquist, formerly Feed Products Manager, Western Region, to Sales Manager, Western Region; and
(Continued on page S91)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Bath, Library on June 25, 2015
area, and received the same treatments of fertilization and irrigation. Also, they were harvested at the same stage of maturity; thus, these factors should not have affected the relative values. Thus, it is assumed that the differences in amino acid availability and content were genetic in nature. The differences in availability were especially great, and if one were trying to use an average value for available amino acid content of grain sorghums in computer formulation, there would be a large amount of error. These data suggest that both the plant geneticist and the nutritionist will need to consider the genetics of the sorghum hybrid used in order to evaluate its feeding value. The data presented herein suggest that the variation in nutritive value of different grain sorghums to the chick is better explained by genetic strain than by rate of irrigation, amount of nitrogen fertilization, or tannin content.