Do goats have a salivary constitutive response to tannins?

Figures & data

Table 1. Chemical composition (means ± s.dev.) of feeds used in the experiment (g/kg DM except where stated).

	P. purpureum	L. latisiliquum	Balanced feed^a
g DM/ kg FB	300.3	466.1	893.2
CP	49.6 ± 2	154.2 ± 14	164 ± 6
NDF	753.2 ± 19	527.3 ± 33	391.3 ± 17
ADF	490.2 ± 10	387.6 ± 22	199.8 ± 15
Lignin	90.8 ± 5	230.6 ± 12	n.a.
Ash	52.6 ± 5	53.93 ± 4	74.5 ± 3
CTs	0	55.5 ± 4	0

Notes: CP: crude protein, NDF: neutral detergent fibre, ADF: acid detergent fibre, n.a. not analysed.

CTs measured as per Vanillin method of Price et al., (1978).

^aFeed formula based on maize grain, wheat bran, soybean meal and mineral premix.

Table 2. Dry matter intake of Criollo goats in the experimental period (g DM/day).

	Period 1 (week 5)				Period 2 (week 8)
Intake	CG	TS	TL	SE	CG	TS	TL	SE
LW (Kg)	15.5	17.1	17.9	–	17.7	18.9	20.2	–
Total (g DM/d)	475^b	558^a	562^a	11.1	562^a	532^a	716^b	21.6
Total (g DM /Kg LW ^0.75)	61.0^a	66.7^b	65.1^ab	1.1	65.3^a	58.7^c	75.8^b	2.3
L. latisilliquum (g DM/d)	–	140.6^a	137.8^a	4.1	–	–	226.5	–
L. latisiliquum (g DM/Kg LW^0.75)	–	8.3^a	7.3^a	0.5	–	–	11.4	–

Notes: CG = control treatment, TS = treatment short-term tannin stimulus, TL = treatment with long-term tannin stimulus, SE = standard error.

Different letters in row are significantly different p < .05.

Table 3. Saliva CP content (µg CP/ml saliva) in Criollo goats during experimental periods.

Week	CG (SE)	TL (SE)	TS(S.E)	SE
0	58.1 (±8)	71.9 (±9)	84.2 (±10)	5.6
5	52.5 (±4)	51.9 (±6)	52.2 (5)	2.7
8	67.7 (±14)	43.2 (±8)	73.1 (±7)	6.1

Note: CG = control treatment, TL = treatment with long-term tannin stimulus, TS = treatment short-term tannin stimulus, SE = standard error.

Table 4. Change of turbidity (Δ%) in saliva of Criollo goats during experimental periods.

	Tannic acid
Week	CG	TL	TS	SE
0	3.52	2.33	3.57	0.45
5	5.16	4.20	4.36	0.28
8	2.78	2.93	2.77	0.43
	L. latisiliquum extract
Week	CG	TL	TS	SE
0	0.46	0.49	–1.08	0.74
5	–0.19	–1.24	–1.45	0.55
8	0.21	0.01	0.04	0.25

Notes: CG = control treatment, TL = treatment with long-term tannin stimulus, TS = treatment short-term tannin stimulus, SE = standard error.

Effects treatment P = .2382, time P = .0225, treatment*time P = .8411 with tannic acid.

Effects treatment P = .0995, time P = .0019, treatment*time P = .7783 with L. latisiliquum extract.

Table 5. PTI in saliva of Criollo goats during experimental periods.

	Tannic acid
Week	CG	TL	TS	SE
0	1047.9^a	607.1^a	782.6^a	142.2
5	1721.0^a	1460.6^a	1582.4^a	131.4
8	1106.5^ab	1299.3^a	636.6^b	153.5
	L. latisiliquum extract
Week	CG	TL	TS	SE
0	136.8^a	77.0^a	–162.9^a	151.1
5	–102.2^a	–448.1^a	–530.5^a	126.3
8	139.4^a	167.4ª	–160.0^a	78.0

Notes: Different letters in row are significantly different p < .05.

CG = control treatment, TL = treatment with long-term tannin stimulus, TS = treatment short-term tannin stimulus, SE = standard error.

Effects treatment P = .2952, time P = .0012, treatment*time P = .3526 with tannic acid.

Effects treatment P = .2048, time P = .03, treatment*time P = .9020 with L. latisiliquum extract.

Price ML, Van Scoyoc S, Butler LG. 1978. A critical evaluation of the vanillin reaction as an assay for tannin in sorghum grain. J Agric Food Chem. 26:1214–1218. doi: 10.1021/jf60219a031

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar