Loading...

Indian Journal of Animal Research

Nutritional evaluation of Senegalia greggii and Prosopis juliflora as browse supplements for sheep 

DOI: 10.18805/ijar.v0iOF.8479    | Article Id: B-647 | Page : 1304-1308
Citation :- Nutritional evaluation of Senegalia greggii and Prosopis juliflora as browse supplements for sheep .Indian Journal of Animal Research.2018.(52):1304-1308

Roque G. Ramirez-Lozano,  Humberto Gonzalez-Rodriguez and Rogelio A. Ledezma- Torres

humberto.gonzalezrd@uanl.edu.mx
Address :

Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Carretera Nacional No. 85, km 145, Linares, N.L. 67700, México.

Submitted Date : 1-11-2016
Accepted Date : 19-04-2017
First Online:

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of leaves of two shrubs on digestion and nitrogen retention by sheep. Twelve rumen-fistulated castrated male sheep (Pelibuey x Rambouillet) of 42.2±1.3 kg live weight were randomly assigned to three diets (four sheep/diet): diet 1 containing 77% of Cynodon plectostachyus straw and 23% Medicago sativa hay, diet 2 containing 70.7% C. plectostachyus straw and 26.3% Senegalia greggii leaves, and diet 3 containing 76.3% C. plectostachyus straw and 14.3% Prosopis juliflora leaves. Medicago sativa hay was used as control feed of good nutritional quality. The intakes of dry matter and the fiber components of sheep were not significantly different between sheep fed the diets containing the M. sativa hay or S. greggii leaves, but both were significantly higher than sheep fed the P. juliflora leaves. The in vivo digestibility coefficients of dry matter and the fiber components were not different (P>0.05) between sheep fed the all diets; however, the digestibility of CP was higher (P<0.05) for sheep fed the M. sativa diet compared with sheep on other diets. The N intake was similar (P>0.05) between sheep fed diets containing M. sativa hay or S. greggii leaves, but both were higher than sheep containing P. juliflora leaves. A similar pattern as N intake was registered in fecal and urine N excretions. The N balance was higher (P<0.05) and positive in sheep fed the M. sativa hay diet followed by S. greggii and sheep on P. juliflora were lowest and negative. Senegalia greggii leaves may have potential as an economical supplementary feed for sheep fed diets based on roughages. 

Keywords

In vivo Digestion Nitrogen Balance Prosopis juliflora Senegalia greggii Sheep

References

  1. Acero, A., Muir, J.P. and Wolfe, R.M. (2010). Nutritional composition and condensed tannin concentration changes as browse leaves become litter. J. Science Food Agr., 90: 2582-2595.
  2. AOAC (2012). Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, (Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA).
  3. Barlow, C. (2000). The Ghosts of Evolution: Nonsensical fruit, missing partners and other ecological anachronisms. Basic Books: N.Y., USA.
  4. Brown, D., Ng’ambi, J.W. and Norris, D. (2016). Voluntary intake and palatability indices of pedi goats fed different levels of Acacia karroo leaf meal by cafeteria method. Ind. J. Anim. Res., 50: 41-47. 
  5. Datt, Ch., Datta, M. and Singh, N.P. (2008). Assessment of fodder quality of leaves of multipurpose trees in subtropical humid climate of India. J. For. Res., 19: 209-214. 
  6. Domínguez-Gómez, T.G., Ramírez Lozano, R.G., Estrada Castillón, A.E., Scott Morales, L.M., González Rodríguez, H. and Alvarado, M. Del S. (2012). Importancia nutrimental en plantas forrajeras del matorral espinoso tamaulipeco. CIENCIA UANL, 15: 77-93.
  7. Guerrero, M., Cerrillo, S.M.A., Ramírez, R.G., Salem, A.Z.M., González, H. and Juárez, R.A.S. (2012). Influence of polyethylene glycol on in vitro gas production profiles and microbial protein synthesis of some shrub species. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 176: 32-39.
  8. González-Rodríguez, H., Domínguez-Gómez, T.G., Cantú-Silva, I., Gómez-Meza, M.V., Ramírez-Lozano, R.G., Pando-Moreno, M. and Fernández, C.J. (2011). Litterfall deposition and leaf litter nutrient return in different locations at Northeastern Mexico. Plant Ecol., 212: 1747-1757. 
  9. Hughes, J.B., Sousa, J.S., Barreto, R.A., Silva, A.R., Souza, C.S., Silva, V.D.A., Silva, B.M.P., Freitas, S.R.V.B., Costa, M.F.D., El-    Bacha, R.S., Batatinha, M.J.M., Tardy, M., Velozo, E.S. and Costa, S.L. (2005). Cytotoxic effects of an extract containing alkaloids obtained from Prosopis juliflora Sw. D.C. (Algaroba) pods on glioblastoma cells. Rev. Bras. Sau. de Prod. Ann., 6: 31-41.
  10. Kushwaha, R., Rai, S.N., Singh, A.K., Chandra, G., Vaidya, M.M., Sharma, V.K., Pathan, M.M. and Kumar, S. (2011). Tanniniferous feed resources in dairy animals: A review. Agri. Reviews, 32: 267-275. 
  11. Madzonga, Z. and Mogotsi, K. (2014). Production, harvest and conservation of Lablab purpureus (L) sweet forage in semi arid livestock regions: The case of east central Botswana. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 24: 1085-1090.
  12. Makkar, H.P.S. (2003). Quantification of tannins in tree and shrub foliage. A Laboratory Manual. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Alphen and den Rijn. The Netherlands, pp. 59-60.
  13. Mogotsi, K., Nyangito, M.M. and Nyariki, D.M. (2011). The perfect drought? Constraints limiting Kalahari agro-pastoral communities from coping and adapting. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 5: 168-177.
  14. Nakano, H., Nakajima, E., Hiradate, S., Fujii, Y., Yamada, K., Shigemori, H. and Hasegawa, K. (2004). Structure-activity relationships of alkaloids from mesquite (Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC.). Plant Growth Regul., 44: 207-210.
  15. Oppong, S.K., Kemp, P.D. and Douglas, G.B. (2008). Browse shrubs and trees as fodder for ruminants: A review on management and quality. J. Sci. Technol., 28: 65-75.
  16. Pasiecznik, M.N. (2001). The Prosopis juliflora-Prosopis pallida Complex: A Monograph, HIDRA Coventry UK. p.120.
  17. Patra, A.K. (2009). Meta-analysis on effects of supplementing low-quality roughages with foliages from browses and tree fodders on intake and growth in sheep. Livest. Sci., 121: 239-249. 
  18. Patra, A.K. (2010). Effects of supplementing low-quality roughages with tree foliages on digestibility, nitrogen utilization and rumen characteristics in sheep: a meta-analysis. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nut., 94: 338-353.
  19. Rafique, S., Wallace, J.D., Holechek, J.L., Galyan, M.L. and Arthun, D.P. (1992). Effects of forb and shrub diets on ruminant nitrogen balance. I. Sheep Studies. Small Rumi. Res., 45: 113-122.
  20. Ramirez-Lozano, R.G. and Garcia-Castillo, C.G. (1996). Nutrient profile and in situ digestion of forage from Leucaena leucocephala and Acacia berlandieri. Forest, Farm, and Community Tree Network, 1: 27-31.
  21. Ramirez, R.G. (1996). Feed value of browse. VI International Conference on Goats. Vol. 2. International Academic Publishers. pp. 510-528. Beijing, China.
  22. Ramirez, R.G. (1999). Feed resources and feeding techniques of small ruminants under extensive management conditions. Small Rumin. Res., 34: 215-230.
  23. Reed, J.D. and Woodward, A. (1990). Fodder tree and straw diets for sheep intake, growth, digestibility and the effects of phenolics on nitrogen utilization. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 30: 39-50.
  24. SAS (2000). SAS/STAT® User’s Guide (8.1Edition). SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
  25. Shelton, H.M. (2004). Importance of tree resources for dry season feeding and the impact on productivity of livestock farms. In: ‘t Mannetje L, Ramirez L, Ibrahim M, Sandoval C, Ojeda N, Ku J (eds). The importance of silvopastoral systems in rural livelihoods to provide ecosystem services. Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Silvopastoral Systems, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán, México.
  26. Van, D.T.T. (2006). Some animal and feed factors affecting feed intake, behavior and performance of small ruminants. Doctoral thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
  27. Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B. and Lewis, B.A. (1991). Methods for dietary, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstartch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Symposium: carbohydrate methodology, metabolism, and nutritional implications in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 74: 3583-3597.
     

Global Footprints