|
|
|
|
|
| In vitro Ruminal Gas Production Kinetics of Four Fodder Trees Ensiled With or Without Molasses and Urea |
| Abdelfattah Z M Salem, ZHOU Chuan-she, TAN Zhi-liang, Miguel Mellado, Moises Cipriano Salazar, Mona M M Y Elghopur , Nicholas E Odongo |
1.Faculty of Veterinary and Livestock, Autonomous University of the State of Mexico, Toluca P.O. 50000, Mexico
2.Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences,Changsha 410125, P.R.China
3.Department of Animal Nutrition, Autonomous Agrarian University Antonio Narro, Saltillo 25315, Mexico
4.Faculty of Veterinary and Livestock, Autonomous University of Guerrero, Altamirano P.O. 40660, Mexico
5.Animal Production and Health Section, Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna P.O. 100, Austria |
|
|
|
摘要 This study investigated if the addition of urea (U), molasses (M) or their 1:1 (v/v) mixture during ensiling increases the nutritional value of forage from four fodder trees (Prunus persica, Leucaena esculenta, Acacia farnesiana, and Prunus domestica). Forage samples of fodder trees were collected in triplicate (three individual samples of each species) and subjected to an in vitro gas production (GP) procedure. Fermentation at 24 h (GP24), short-chain volatile fatty acids (SCFA), and microbial crude protein production (MCP), in vitro organic matter digestibility (OMD), metabolizable energy (ME) and dry matter degradability (DMD) were estimated. Forage samples were incubated for 72 h in an incubator at 39ºC and the volume of GP was recorded at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h of incubation using the reading pressure technique. The rumen fermentation profiles were highest for P. persica, which showed the highest (P<0.0001) DMD, ME, OMD, SCFA, GP24 and MCP. On the other hand L. esculenta had the lowest (P<0.0001) DMD, SCFA, MCP; P. domestica had the lowest (P<0.0001) OMD. The addition of M to silage increased (P<0.0001) ME and OMD, as well as GP. However, the addition of U and the mixture of U and M reduced (P<0.0001) DMD, ME, OMD, SCFA, GY24 and MCP. These results show that P. persica has the highest nutritive value and L. esculenta the lowest for ruminants. Additionally, the addition of M to forage from fodder trees increases rumen GP and fermentation, which may improve nutrient utilization in ruminants.
Abstract This study investigated if the addition of urea (U), molasses (M) or their 1:1 (v/v) mixture during ensiling increases the nutritional value of forage from four fodder trees (Prunus persica, Leucaena esculenta, Acacia farnesiana, and Prunus domestica). Forage samples of fodder trees were collected in triplicate (three individual samples of each species) and subjected to an in vitro gas production (GP) procedure. Fermentation at 24 h (GP24), short-chain volatile fatty acids (SCFA), and microbial crude protein production (MCP), in vitro organic matter digestibility (OMD), metabolizable energy (ME) and dry matter degradability (DMD) were estimated. Forage samples were incubated for 72 h in an incubator at 39ºC and the volume of GP was recorded at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h of incubation using the reading pressure technique. The rumen fermentation profiles were highest for P. persica, which showed the highest (P<0.0001) DMD, ME, OMD, SCFA, GP24 and MCP. On the other hand L. esculenta had the lowest (P<0.0001) DMD, SCFA, MCP; P. domestica had the lowest (P<0.0001) OMD. The addition of M to silage increased (P<0.0001) ME and OMD, as well as GP. However, the addition of U and the mixture of U and M reduced (P<0.0001) DMD, ME, OMD, SCFA, GY24 and MCP. These results show that P. persica has the highest nutritive value and L. esculenta the lowest for ruminants. Additionally, the addition of M to forage from fodder trees increases rumen GP and fermentation, which may improve nutrient utilization in ruminants.
|
|
Received: 19 October 2012
Accepted:
|
| Fund: This work was supported by the SEP (PROMEP), Mexico (PROMEP 103.5/09/4195). |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Correspondence Abdelfattah Z M Salem, Tel: +521-722-2965542, Fax: +521-722-1806194, E-mail: asalem70@yahoo.com
E-mail: asalem70@yahoo.com
|
Cite this article:
Abdelfattah Z M Salem, ZHOU Chuan-she, TAN Zhi-liang, Miguel Mellado, Moises Cipriano Salazar, Mona M M Y Elghopur , Nicholas E Odongo.
2013.
In vitro Ruminal Gas Production Kinetics of Four Fodder Trees Ensiled With or Without Molasses and Urea. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 12(7): 1234-1242.
|
| [1]Aganga A A, Tshwenyane S O. 2003. Feeding values andanti-nutritive factors of forage tree legumes. PakistanJournal of Nutrition, 2, 170-177[2]Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1997. OfficialMethods of Analysis. 16th ed. AOAC Intl., GaithersburgMD.Blümmel M, Makkar H P S, Becker K. 1997. In vitro gasproduction: a technique revisited. Journal of AnimalPhysiology and Animal Nutrition, 77, 24-34[3]Carro M D, Miller E L. 1999. Effect of supplementing a fibrebasal diet with different nitrogen forms on ruminalfermentation and microbial growth in an in vitro semicontinuousculture system (RUSITEC). British Journalof Nutrition, 82, 149-157[4]Chaudhry A S. 1998. Biological and chemical procedures toupgrade cereal straw for ruminants. Nutrition Abstractsand Reviews, 68, 319-331[5]Cone J W, van Gelder A H. 1999. Influence of proteinfermentation on gas production profiles. Animal FeedScience and Technology, 76, 251-264[6]Cowan M M. 1999. Plant products as antimicrobial agents.Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 12, 564-582[7]Dalzell S A, Kerven G L. 1998. A rapid method for themeasurement of Leucaena spp. proanthocyanidins bythe proanthocyanidin (butanol/HCl) assay. Journal ofthe Science of Food and Agriculture, 78, 405-416[8]Devendra C. 1990. The use of shrubs and tree fodders byruminants. In: Devendra C, ed., Shrub and Tree Foddersfor Farm Animals. International Development ResearchCenter, Ottawa, Ont, Canada. pp. 24-29[9]Dzowela B J, Hove L, Topps J H, Mafongoya P L. 1995.Nutritional and anti-nutritional characters and rumendegradability of dry matter and nitrogen for somemultipurpose tree species with potential for agroforestryin Zimbabwe. Animal Feed Science and Technology,55, 207-214[10]Estell R E. 2010. Coping with shrub secondary metabolitesby ruminants. Small Ruminant Research, 94, 1-9[11]France J, Dijkstra J, Dhanoa M S, Lopez S, Bannink A.2000. Estimating the extent of degradation of ruminantfeeds from a description of their gas production profilesobserved in vitro: derivation of models and othermathematical considerations. British Journal ofNutrition, 83, 143-150[12]Freeland W J. 1991. Plant secondary metabolites:biochemical coevolution with herbivores. In: Palo R T,Robbins C T, eds., Plant Defenses Against MammalianHerbivory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 61-81[13]García I M, Ruiz D Y, Moumen A, Alcaide E M. 2006. Effectof polyethylene glycol, urea and sunflower meal onolive (Olea europaea var. europaea) leaf fermentationin continuous fermentors. Small Ruminant Research,61, 53-61[14]Getachew G, Blummel M, Makkar H P S, Becker K. 1998. Invitro gas measuring technique for assessment ofnutritional quality of feeds: a review. Animal FeedScience and Technology, 72, 261-281[15]Getachew G, Grovetto G M, Fondevila M, KrishnamoorthyU, Singh B, Spanhero M, Steigass H, Robinson P H,Kailas M M. 2002. Laboratory variation of 24 h in vitrogas production and estimated metabolizable energyvalues of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science andTechnology, 102, 169-180[16]Goering H K, van Soest P J. 1970. Forage Fiber Analyses.ARS. USDA Agric. Handbook No. 379. United StatesGovernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C, USA. p.20.Hart K J, Yáñez-Ruiz D R, Duval S M, McEwan N R,Newbold C J. 2008. Plant extracts to manipulate rumenfermentation. Animal Feed Science and Technology,147, 8-35[17]Haslam E. 1998. Practical Polyphenolics: From Structureto Molecular Recognition and Physiological Action.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Hu W L, Liu J X, Ye J A, Wu Y M, Guo Y Q. 2005. Effect oftea saponin on rumen fermentation in vitro. AnimalFeed Science and Technology, 120, 333-339[18]Kaensombath L, Frankow-Lindberg B E. 2012. Effect ofharvesting interval on biomass yield and chemicalcomposition of taro (Colosasia esculenta (L.) Schott)for feeding pigs in Laos. Field Crops Research, 128,71-75[19]Khan M A, Iqbal Z, Sarwar M, Nisa M, Khan M S, Lee W S,Lee H J, Kim H S. 2006. Urea treated corncobs ensiledwith or without additives for buffaloes: ruminalcharacteristics, digestibility and nitrogen metabolism.Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 19,705-712[20]Kumar R, Singh M. 1984. Tannins: their adverse role inruminant nutrition. Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry, 32, 447-453[21]Kumar R, Vaithiyanathan S. 1990. Occurrence, nutritionalsignificance and effect on animal productivity oftannins in tree leaves. Animal Feed Science andTechnology, 30, 21-28[22]Lopez-Guisa J M, Satter L D, Panciera M. 1991. Utilizationof ensiled corn crop residues by Holstein heifers.Journal Dairy Science, 74, 3160-3166[23]Makkar H P S. 2003. Effects and fate of tannins in ruminantanimals, adaptation to tannins, and strategies toovercome detrimental effects of feeding tannin-richfeeds. Small Ruminant Research, 49, 241-256[24]Makkar H P S, Blümmel M, Becker K. 1998. Potential andlimitations of in vitro gas method for studying theeffects of plant defensive components on rumenfermentation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd InternationalWorkshop on Antinutritional Factors in Legume Seedsand Rapeseed. July 8-10[25]Wageningen Pers, TheNetherlands.Makkar H P S, Singh B. 1993. Effects of storage and ureaaddition on detannification and in sacco dry matterdigestibility of mature oak (Quercus incana) leaves.Animal Feed Science and Technology, 41, 247-259[26]McSweeney C S, Palmer B, McNeil D M, Krause D O. 2001.Microbial interactions with tannins: nutritionalconsequences for ruminants. Animal Feed Science andTechnology, 91, 83-93[27]Menke K H, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D,Scheider W. 1979. The estimation of digestibility andmetabolizable energy content of ruminant feedstuffsfrom the gas production when they incubated withrumen liquor in vitro. The Journal of AgriculturalScience (Cambridge), 92, 217-222[28]Min B R, Barry T N, Attwood G T, McNabb W C. 2003. Theeffect of condensed tannins on the nutrition and healthof ruminants fed fresh temperate forages: A review.Animal Feed Science and Technology, 106, 3-19[29]Mlambo V, Sikosana J L N, Mould F L, Smith T, Owen E,Mueller-Harvey I. 2007. The effectiveness of adaptedrumen fluid versus PEG to ferment tannin-containingsubstrates in vitro. Animal Feed Science andTechnology, 136, 128-136[30]Nahed J, Sánchez A, Grande D, Pérez-Gil F. 1998. Evaluationof promissory tree species for sheep feeding in thehighlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Animal Feed Scienceand Technology, 73, 59-69[31]Norton B W, Waterfall M H. 2000. The nutritive value ofTipuana tipu and Calliandra calothysus assupplements to low-quality straw for goats. SmallRuminant Research, 38, 175-182[32]NRC. 1985. Nutrient Requirements of Sheep. 60th Reviseded. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Perevolotsky A, Landau S, Kababya D, Ungar E D. 1998.Diet selection in dairy goats grazing woodyMediterranean rangeland. Applied Animal BehaviourScience, 57, 117-131[33]Priolo A, Bella M, Lanza M, Galofaro V, Biondi L, BarbagalloD, Ben Salem H, Pennisi P. 2005. Carcass and meatquality of lamb fed fresh sulla (Hedysarum coronariumL.) with or without polyethylene glycol or concentrate.Small Ruminant Research, 59, 281-288[34]Ranilla M J, Carro M D, López S, Newbold C J, Wallace R J.2001. Influence of nitrogen source on the fermentationof fiber from barley straw and sugarbeet pulp by ruminalmicroorganism in vitro. British Journal of Nutrition,86, 717-724[35]Rop O, Jurikova T, Mlcek J, Kramarova D, Sengee Z. 2009.Antioxidant activity and selected nutritional values ofplums (Prunus domentica L.) typical of the WhiteCarpathian Mountains. Scientia Horticulturae, 122,545-549[36]Rubanza C D K, Shem M N, Otsyina R, Bakengesa S S, IchinoheT, Fujihara T. 2005. Polyphenolics and tannins effect onin vitro digestibility of selected Acacia species leaves.Animal Feed Science and Technology, 119, 129-142[37]Rubanza C D K, Shem M N, Bakengesa S S, Ichinohe T,Fujihara T. 2007. Effects of Acacia nilotica, A.polyacantha and Leucaena leucocephala leaf mealsupplementation on performance of Small East Africangoats fed native pasture hay basal forages. SmallRuminant Research, 70, 165-173[38]Rubio-Covarrubias O A, Brown P H, Weinbaum S A, JohnsonR S, Cabrera R I. 2009. Evaluating foliar nitrogencompounds as indicators of nitrogen status in Prunuspersica trees. Scientia Horticulturae, 120, 27-33[39]Russell R W, Lolley J R. 1989. Deactivation of tannin inhigh tannin milo by treatment with urea. Journal DairyScience, 72, 2427-2430[40]Salem A Z M, Salem M Z M, El-Adawy M M, Robinson PH. 2006. Nutritive evaluations of some browse treefoliages during the dry season: secondary compounds,feed intake and in vivo digestibility in sheep and goats.Animal Feed Science and Technology, 127, 251-267[41]SAS Institute. 2002. SAS/STAT Users‘s Guide, Version 8.vols. 1, 2, and 3. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Scandellari F, Ventura M, Gioacchini P, Antisari L V,Tagliavini M. 2010. Seasonal pattern of net nitrogenrhizodeposition from peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch)trees in soils with different textures. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment, 136, 162-168[42]Schofield P, Mbugua D M, Pell A N. 2001. Analysis ofcondensed tannins: a review. Animal Feed Science andTechnology, 91, 21-40[43]Shelton H M, Lowry J B, Gutteridge R C, Bray R A, WildinJ H. 1991. Sustaining productive pastures in the tropics.7. Tree and shrub legumes in improved pastures.Tropical Grasslands, 25, 119-128[44]Staples C R, Fahey Jr G C, Berger L L, Rindsig R B. 1981.Evaluation of dairy waste fiber as a roughage sourcefor ruminants. Journal Dairy Science, 64, 662-671[45]van Soest P J, Robertson J B, Lewis B A. 1991. Methods fordietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarchpolysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. JournalDairy Science, 74, 3583-3597[46]Soto R C, Muhammed S A, Newbold C J, Stewart C S, WallaceR J. 1994. Influence of peptides, amino acids and urea onmicrobial activity in the rumen of sheep receiving grasshay and on the growth of rumen bacteria in vitro. AnimalFeed Science and Technology, 49, 151-161[47]Theodorou M K, Williams B A, Dhanoa M S, McAllan A B,France J. 1994. A simple gas production method using apressure transducer to determine the fermentationkinetics of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science andTechnology, 48, 185-197[48]Tolera A, Khazaal K, Ørskov E R. 1997. Nutritive evaluationof some browses species. Animal Feed Science andTechnology, 67, 191-195[49]Varel V H, Jung H G, Krumholz L R. 1991. Degradation ofcellulose and forage fiber fractions by ruminalcellulolytic bacteria alone and in coculture with phenolicmonomer-degrading bacteria. Journal of AnimalScience, 69, 4993-5000[50]Vitti D M S S, Abdalla A L, Bueno I C S, Silva Filho J C,Costa C, Bueno M S, Nozella E F, Longo C, Vieira E Q,Cabral Filho S L S, et al. 2005. Do all tannins have similarnutritional effects? A comparison of three Brazilianfodder legumes. Animal Feed Science and Technology,119, 345-361[51]Wachenheim D E, Blythe L L, Craig A M. 1992.Characterization of rumen bacterial pyrrolizidine alkaloidbiotransformation in ruminants of various species.Veterinary and Human Toxicology, 34, 513-517[52]Wong E. 1973. Plant phenolics. In: Butter G W, Bailey R W,eds., Chemistry and Biochemistry of Herbage. vol. 1.Academic Press, London, UK. pp. 265-322[53]Yáñez-Ruiz D R, Moumen A, Martín-García A I, Molina-Alcaide E M. 2004. Ruminal fermentation anddegradation patters, protozoa population and urinarypurine derivates excretion in goats and wethers fed dietsbased on olive leaves. Journal of Animal Science, 82,3006-3014. |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
