Mean performance of the two alfalfa cultivars for crude protein fractions at different maturitz dates and different cutting intervals
Comparison of the mean performance indicated significant differences in all protein fractions among the two cultivars. The results indicate that alfalfa
cv G + 13R + CZ was higher in CP content and rapidly degradable PA fraction. Among the sub fractions of true protein, K 28 registered higher mean of PB
1 and the slowly degradable PB
3 fraction while the cultivar G+13R+CZ had higher mean PB
2, an intermediately degraded protein fraction associated with the cell wall. Significant differences could be observed in respect of rumen degradable protein (RDP) and rumen undegradable protein (RUP) content among the two cultivars under investigation. K 28 cultivar recorded a higher mean of RDP while the other cultivar G+13R+CZ registered high mean RUP content (Table 4).
Composition of the crude protein (CP) fractions of the two alfalfa cultivars cut at different stages of maturity and cutting intervals
Stage of maturity had a profound effect on proportions of the protein fractions. The results indicated that as maturity of the cultivar advanced, crude protein and slowly degradable fraction (PB
3) decreased (p<0.01). The mean value of PB
3 fraction did not differ significantly between EBL and MB stage. However, the content of the rapidly degradable protein (PB
1) and undegradable protein fraction increased (p<0.01). A highly rapidly degradable PA fraction increased from FB stage to EBL and after that content of this fraction decreased (p<0.01), whereas the intermediately degradable PB
2 fraction decreased from FB stage to the EBL, and after that content of this protein fraction increased (p<0.01) with maturation. With regard to RUP content, increasing trend was observed at C
1 during the crop cycle. However, RDP decreased from early bloom stage (EBL) to Mid-bloom (MBL) and continued to exhibit a decreasing trend as the crop advanced to mid bloom stage.
Alfalfa cultivars differed in CP and protein fractions content (p<0.01) between cuts. The highest content of CP, PA and PB
3 was found in cut IV and the lowest in cut I (p<0.01). The concentration of PB
2 in cuts II and III was similar (p>0.01), and significantly differed in comparison with cuts I and IV. The level of PB
1 in the alfalfa samples of cut III was the highest (p<0.01) and PC fraction was the highest in the alfalfa samples of cut I, but the lowest in the samples of cut III (p<0.01). The highest content of alfalfa RUP was in cut I and the lowest in cut III, with significant differences between cuts (p<0.01; Table 4).
Correlation analysis between different fractions of proteins in alfalfa cultivars
Fraction PA was negatively correlated with PB
2 (r = -0.747) and RUP (r= -0.592) but positively correlated with RDP (r= 0.592). PC fraction was negatively correlated with RDP (r= -0.650) and crude protein was negatively correlated with PC fraction (r= -0.615). The true protein fraction PB
2 registered a negative and non significant association with RDP (r= -0.338), PC (r= -0.219) and PB
3 (r= -0.018), while the association between PB
2 and RUP was positive and non-significant (r= 0.338) (Table 5).
Principal component analysis for protein fractions at four different cuts in the two alfalfa cultivars
The PC scores for the first axis (40% of the total variation) defined a contrast RUP, PB
1, PB
2 and PC versus CP, PA and RDP. On the second axis (27% of the total variation), there was also a contrast PA, PB
1 and PC versus CP, PB
2 and PB
3 (Fig 1). For both cultivars, the PCA indicated a close relationship between the RUP and PC fraction. This is confirmed by the high positive and significant correlations between RUP and PC fraction. Furthermore, RUP value was negatively correlated with PA fraction.
The present study gives a deeper insight on the changes in CP fractions during the growth period of forage legume species which may be used to optimize the management of forage legumes. The decline in protein concentration with advancing maturity occurs both because of decreases in protein in leaves and stems and because stems, with their lower protein concentration, make up a larger portion of the herbage in more mature forage.
However, the earlier reports by
Elizalde et al., (1999) indicated that the protein fraction PA was not influenced by forage maturity. Further, it was reported that neither the forage species nor maturity of the crop had an impact on fraction PA content. Our results show that proportions of PA fraction in alfalfa was not static, but changes with maturity. After flowering the remobilization of the stored N in the vegetative plant parts take place
(Hirel et al., 2007) and consequently, the proportion of CP fraction PA decreases.
Soluble protein fractions PA and PB1 are rapidly degraded in the rumen and available in the RDP pool
(Sniffen et al., 1992). The higher concentration of fraction PB1 explains the higher total soluble CP in alfalfa. The results obtained by
Yu et al., (2003) indicated that alfalfa had a highly rapidly degradable PA fraction and that fraction PB
1 is the lowest, except at the third stage of development, which is in agreement with our results. Insoluble protein fraction PB
2 is presumed to have an intermediate ruminal degradation rate and PB
3 a slow ruminal degradation rate. Varying amounts of these two rumen-insoluble fractions escape ruminal degradation and move to the lower digestive tract
(Lanzas et al., 2007; Sniffen et al., 1992). In our study, values for PB
2 in alfalfa were the largest PB fraction and higher than those reported by
Sniffen et al., (1992). Undegradable protein fraction PC is regarded as completely unavailable for the ruminanat. PC of investigated alfalfa cultivars in our study were substantially higher than earlier reported values for alfalfa harvested at different growth stages
(Yari et al., 2012).
Our results confirm that there is significant variability in protein fractions and protein degradability among alfalfa cultivars.
Tremblay et al., (2000) reported differences among 27 alfalfa cultivars for whole plant
in vitro RUP but protein fractions were not measured. In the study conducted by
Tremblay et al., (2003) fractions PB
2, PB
3 and PC accounted for 494, 22 and 41 g kg
-1 CP, respectively. On the other hand, differences in plant RUP cannot always be atributed to leaf and stem RUP. Hence, plant RUP concentration is not only a function of leaf and stem RUP, but also depends on the proportion of leaves and stems. Results obtained in the investigation of
Tremblay et al., (2003) showed that RUP concentration was, on average 15% higher in leaves than in stems.