1
Nutritive value of Adenodolichos rhomboideus leaves compared to Leucaena leucocephala and
2
Stylosanthes guianensis forage in indigenous goats at Lubumbashi (D.R. of Congo).
3
4
Valeur nutritive du fourrage de Adenodolichos rhomboideus en comparaison de fourrages de
5
Leucaena Leucocephala et de Stylosanthes guianensis chez la chèvre locale à Lubumbashi (R.D.
6
du Congo).
7
8
Tshibangu Muamba Innocent 1*, Nsahlai Ignatius Verla 2, Kiatoko Mangeye Honoré 3 and Hornick
9
Jean Luc4
10
1*
11
Congo. itmk2001@yahoo.fr
12
2
13
Agribusiness, South Africa. nsahlaii@un.ac.za
14
3
15
honorekiatoko@gmail.com
16
4
17
jlhornick@ulg.ac.be
University of Lubumbashi, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of animal production, D.R. of
University of KwaZulu-Natal , Animal and Poultry Science, School of Agricultural Sciences &
University of Kinshasa, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of animal production D.R. of Congo
University of Liège, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of animal production, Belgium.
18
19
Abstract
20
21
Forage from three species (Adenodolichos rhomboideus, Leucaena leucocephala, Stylosanthes
22
guianensis) were evaluated by determining chemical composition, voluntary intake and apparent in
23
vivo digestibility of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fibre
24
(NDF) and acid detergent fibre (ADF). Six goats (17.1±0.7 kg) were used in 3 x 3 double latin square
25
design to determine the digestibility and intake of the three forages. Forage from S. guianensis had
26
lower (p<0.001) CP content than L. leucocephala forage and A. rhomboideus leaves. Fibres content
27
(ADF and NDF) were lower (p<0.001) in L. leucocephala (35%) forage than A. rhomboideus (59.5%)
28
leaves and S. guianensis forages (56.5%). L. leucocephala forage was superior in CP, Ash, EE
29
concentrations, digestibility and voluntary intake of CP. A. rhomboideus leaves had lower (p<0.05)
30
apparent digestibility and intake of DM. Digestible CP intake were similar between A. rhomboideus
31
leaves and S. guianensis forages. Low digestibility and voluntary intake of A. rhomboideus leaves
32
may be due to negative effect of anti-nutritional factor such as tannin. Digestible CP was similar for A.
33
rhomboideus leaves and S. guianensis forage.
34
Keys words: Adenodolichos rhomboideus, Leucaena leucocephala, Stylosanthes guianensis, Goats,
35
digestibility, intake.
36
1
37
Valeur nutritive de feuilles de Adenodolichos rhomboideus en comparaison de fourrages de
38
Leucaena Leucocephala et de Stylosanthes guianensis chez la chèvre locale à Lubumbashi (R.D.
39
du Congo).
40
41
Les fourrages de trois espèces végétales (Adenodolichos rhomboideus, Leucaena leucocephala,
42
Stylosanthes guianensis) ont été étudiés pour la détermination de la composition chimique, de la
43
consommation volontaire et de la digestibilité apparente de la matière sèche(MS), la matière
44
organique(MO), protéines brutes (PB), fibres insolubles dans le détergent neutre (NDF) et fibres
45
insolubles dans le détergent acide (ADF). A cette fin, six chèvres mâles (17,1±0,7) ont été utilisées
46
dans un dispositif en double carré latin 3x3.
47
Le fourrage de S. guianensis a présenté une faible teneur en PB (p<0.001) par rapport aux feuilles de
48
A. rhomboideus et de fourrages de L. leucocephala. Les teneurs en fibres (ADF and NDF) ont été plus
49
faibles (p<0.001) dans le fourrage de L. leucocephala que dans les feuilles de A. rhomboideus et le
50
fourrage de S. guianensis. Le fourrage de L. leucocephala a montré de teneurs élevées en PB, MM et
51
EE. La digestibilité apparente et la consommation volontaire de PB ont été les plus élevées pour L.
52
leucocephala et les plus faibles pour les feuilles de A. rhomboideus (p<0.05). La quantité des protéines
53
brutes digestibles ingérée a été semblable entre les feuilles de A. rhomboideus et de S. guianensis. Les
54
faibles digestibilités et consommations de feuilles de A. rhomboideus peuvent être dues aux effets
55
négatifs de certains facteurs anti-nutritionels comme les tanins. La teneur en protéines digestibles a
56
été similaire pour les trois fourrages.
57
Mots-clés: Adenodolichos rhomboideus, Leucaena leucocephala, Stylosanthes guianensis, chèvres,
58
ingestion
59
60
1. Introduction
61
Ruminants’ livestock in the southeastern region of Congo (DR), especially the indigenous goats which
62
are the most productive in the Democratic Republic of Congo, suffer from inadequate nutrition during
63
the dry season. This situation is caused by the scarcity of natural vegetation - primary source of forage
64
- owing to lengthiness of the dry season that lasts for more than six months and during which the straw
65
is more available. However, during this period, some species retain their green leaves and are available
66
as fodder for ruminants. Among these feed sources are A. rhomboideus, L. leucocephala and S.
67
guianensis.
68
A. rhomboideus is an herbaceous legume, which is well adapted to local ecosystems and widespread in
69
the region, growing on normal and trace metal contaminated soil (Meert, 2008). Its nutritional value
70
for ruminants has never been investigated. L. leucocephala is a shrub with high nutritional value and
71
its availability is limited by its tree height during the dry season. The digestible energy (DE) value of
2
72
Leucaena forage varies from 11.6 to 12.9 MJ kg−1 DM, the total apparent digested crude protein
73
(TADCP) reported ranged from 64.7 to 78.0%. A model developed in one source suggested 42%
74
rumen degradable protein (RDP), with 48% of the undegradable protein (UDP) being digested post
75
ruminally, giving a TADCP value of 70% (Garcia et al, 1996).
76
S. guianensis is a herbaceous legume having good nutritional value but its use in the dry season is
77
limited by lignification. The metabolizable energy (ME), OMD, CP and DMD values of S. guianensis
78
79
forage varies around 5.34MJ/kg, 42.06%, 13.3 to18% and 51.7% (Ajayi and Babayemi 2008).
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
Several digestibility methods are known to assess the nutritional value of forage, but qualitative
methods, such as in vitro and in sacco methods, may lead to some erroneous conclusions if not
supported by feeding trials (Norton, 1998). Forage legumes with low digestibility and high palatability
could thus be rejected by animals. The form in which the leaves are fed (fresh, wilted or dry) is also
known to affect both intake and digestibility in some species (Palmer and Schlink, 1992). Since there
are no known techniques which predict palatability and intake, the nutritive value of forage species
can only be accurately determined by feeding trials; in as such method gives information on animal
health and productivity. The objective of this study was the assessment of the nutrient contain, intake
and digestibility of A. rhomboideus forage compared to L. leucocephala and S. guianensis fed to
indigenous goat.
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Diets, animals and experimental design
93
94
Three different forages were tested from 15 June to 18 August 2010 and comprised A. rhomboideus
95
leaves, L. leucocephala and S. guianensis forage. One to two months re-growth of A. rhomboideus
96
leaves was harvested at area golf Meteorology of Lubumbashi (D. R. of Congo), 11°37’58.2” latitude
97
south, 27°24’54.5’’ longitude east, 1266m of altitude.
98
L. leucocephala was harvested from old trees (over 10 years old) at the University of Lubumbashi in
99
the Faculty of Agriculture (agronomic faculty), 11°36’38” latitude south, 27°28’29.6’’ longitude east,
100
1296m of altitude.
101
S. guianensis forage was obtained from experimental fields, established in December 2009, of the
102
farm of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of the University of Lubumbashi, 11°42’46.2” latitude
103
104
south, 27°32’31.2’’ longitude east, 1216m of altitude.
105
These three forages were offered green. Leaves from each species were harvested daily, mixed
thoroughly before being offered to the goats as the only feed.
106
A. rhomboideus and L. leucocephala samples were collected as leaves alone with petiole, while S.
107
guianensis was mown at the height of 15 cm approximately.
3
108
To facilitate the good chewing, S. guianensis forage was chopped and A. rhomboïdes and L.
109
leucocephala were sorted to remove hard petiole and dry leaves before distributing it to the animals.
110
Six local yearling male goats with live weight 17.1kg± 0.73 were used. These animals were separated
111
into two Latin squares of three animals each. Diets were offered twice in three periods of 21 days each
112
(63 days), comprising 15 days of adaptation, followed by seven days of data collection. Each group of
113
animal was subjected to each forage according to the period.
114
Voluntary intake and in vivo apparent digestibility of the three forages were studied. Voluntary intake
115
was determined by the difference between the quantity of consumed and excreted dry matter.
116
Apparent digestibility was determined by complete collection in vivo digestibility trials (Jetana et
117
2010) in pens 120cmx80cmx70cm.
118
Digestibility (g/kg) =
Nutrient in feed - Nutrient in feces
Nutrient in feed
x 1000
119
120
Water and trace mineral blocks were provided throughout the experimental period.
121
The animals were weighed to 0.1 kg on the initial day of the experimental period. Daily feed intake
122
and total fecal production was also measured for each animal. Total daily fecal production for each
123
animal was stored frozen until completion of the collection period. The bulked fecal output from each
124
animal was immediately weighed, mixed thoroughly and sub-sampled for analyses. One sample of the
125
offered forages was taken every day, dried in a forced air oven at 60°C during 72 hours and ground
126
through a 1-mm screen in IKA WERKE type M20 machine.
127
Organic matter of forage and feces was determined by placing the samples in a muffle furnace at
128
560°C for one night. Dry matter of forage and feces was determined by placing samples in an oven at
129
105°c for 24h. Protein content of forage and feces was determined in the Hach digesdahl digestion
130
apparatus (Réf. n° 23130-21) using the method described by Scott (1992) and cell walls of forage and
131
feces constituents (neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and acid detergent fibre (ADF) were determined
132
based on the Gerhardt FibreBag Method established by Van Soest et al. (1991). Ether extract of forage
133
and feces (lipid content) was determined by soxtec system method (Matsler and Siebenmorgen, 2005).
134
135
2.2. Data analyses
136
The design was a 3 x 3 double Latin Square, where each of the three feeds was tested six goats in three
137
groups of two animals per group in three periods. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance, using
138
the general linear model (GLM) procedure of SAS (Statistical Analysis System Institute, 2010).
139
Comparisons between feeds were made using Student’s t-test. The model for analysis included the
140
effects of the different forage, period, square and animal. The effects due to periods, square and animal
141
were not significant.
142
4
143
3. Results
144
The chemical composition of the three forages is presented in Table 1. The chemical composition for
145
all nutrients of these three forages were very different (p<0.001). L. leucocephala was richer in crude
146
protein, ether extract and ash than A. rhomboideus and S. guianensis forages. Forage from S. guianenis
147
had higher value for dry matter content, while A. rhomboideus had higher concentrations of OM, ADF
148
and NDF content than any other forage.
149
All variables differed (p<0.01) among the three forage in term of forage intake (Table 2). The
150
voluntary intake of L. leucocephala and S. guianensis forages were higher than forage from A.
151
rhomboideus for organic matter, dry matter and ether extract (p<0.01). L. leucocephala had higher
152
voluntary intake than S. guianensis and A. rhomboideus for CP (p<0.001). NDF an ADF intake was
153
higher for S. guianensis forage than L. leucocephala and A. rhomboideus forages (p<0.01).
154
Apparent digestibility coefficients of different forages fed to indigenous goats are presented in Table
155
3. Forage from S. guianensis and L. leucocephala had higher organic matter, dry matter and crude
156
protein digestibility than A. rhomboideus forage (p<0.001). Forage from L. leucocephala and A.
157
rhomboideus had lower apparent digestibility coefficients of ADF (p<0.001), NDF (p<0.001) and
158
ether extract (p<0.05) than forage from S. guianensis.
159
160
161
Table 1. Chemical composition of A. rhomboideus, L. leucocephala and S. guianensis forage feed by
162
indigenous goat at Lubumbashi.
163
Tableau 1. Composition chimique de fourrage de A. rhomboideus, L. leucocephala and S. guianensis
164
consommé par la chèvre locale à Lubumbashi.
Forages
Parameter
SEM P > F
A. rhomboideus
L. leucocephala
S. guianensis
Dry matter (% FM)
36.7a
35a
71.4b
1.1
***
Organic matter (%MS)
95.3c
91a
94b
0.08
***
Crude protein (%DM)
15.12b
28.8c
11.9a
0.6
***
ADF (%DM)
48.1c
20a
39.2b
1.03
***
NDF (%DM)
59.5b
35a
56.5b
0.9
***
Ether extract (%DM)
1.7a
4.4c
2.8b
0.05
***
165
166
167
Values followed with different letters in a line are significantly different from each other (P <0.05).
*significant (p<0.05)
5
168
** Highly significant (p<0.01)
169
*** Very highly significant (p0.001)
170
171
Daily digestible intake for indigenous goats feed A. rhomboideus. L. leucocephala and S. guianensis
172
forage are given in Table 4. All variables differed significantly among the forages. L. leucocephala
173
and S. guianensis forage had higher (p<0.01) digestible intake than A. rhomboideus forage for organic
174
matter and dry matter. Forage from L. leucocephala had higher (p<0.001) digestible intake of crude
175
protein than A. rhomboideus and S. guianensis. Forage of S. guianensis had higher (p<0.001)
176
digestible intake of ADF and NDF than L. leucocephala and A. rhomboideus. Ether extract digestible
177
intake were higher (p<0.001) for L. leucocephala followed in order by S. guianensis and A.
178
rhomboideus.
179
180
Table 2. Daily Voluntary Intake of A. rhomboideus. L. leucocephala and S. guianensis forage by
181
indigenous goats at Lubumbashi.
182
Tableau 2. Ingestion volontaire journalière de A. rhomboideus. L. leucocephala and S. guianensis
183
chez la chèvre locale à Lubumbashi.
184
Parameter
Forages
A. rhomboideus
L. leucocephala
S. guianensis
SEM
P>F
Voluntary Intake (g DM/head/day)
Dry matter
192a
337b
384b
18.5 **
Organic matter
183a
306b
361b
17.2 **
Crude protein
29a
97b
47a
4.7 ***
ADF
94b
67a
151b
7.0 **
NDF
114a
118a
216b
9.0 **
Ether extract
3.3a
14.8b
10.8b
0.70 **
Voluntary Intake (g DM/kg W0.75/day)
185
186
187
Dry matter
23.0a
40.0b
45.5b
2.05 **
Organic matter
22.0a
36.0b
43.0b
1.90 **
Crude protein
3.5a
11.5b
5.5a
0.53 ***
ADF
11.1a
8.0a
18.0b
0.80 ***
NDF
13.5a
14.0a
25.6b
0.99 **
0.4a
1.8b
1.3b
0.08 **
Ether extract
Values followed with different letters in a row and an effect are significantly different from each other
(P <0.05).
Les valeurs suivies de différentes lettres, dans une ligne, sont différentes (P<0,05)
6
188
*significant (p<0.05)
189
** Highly significant (p<0.01)
190
*** Very highly significant (p0.001)
191
192
7
193
Table 3. Apparent digestibility coefficient (%) of A. rhomboideus. L. leucocephala and S. guianensis
194
forage consumed by indigenous goat at Lubumbashi.
195
Tableau 3. Coefficient de digestibilité apparente (%) de A. rhomboideus. L. leucocephala and S.
196
guianensis chez la chèvre locale à Lubumbashi.
197
Forages
Parameter
198
199
200
A. rhomboideus
L. leucocephala
S. guianensis
SEM
P >F
Organic matter
61.2a
75.0b
73.0b
1.02
***
Dry matter
58.4a
73.0b
72.0b
0.93
***
Crude protein
42.0a
67.5b
58.3b
2.30
***
ADF
48.0a
45.0a
66.7b
2.60
***
NDF
50.0a
58.4b
68.5c
1.24
***
Ether extract
51.0a
52.7a
67.7b
2.80
*
Values followed with different letters in a line and an effect are significantly different from each other
(P <0.05).
Les valeurs suivies de différentes lettres, dans une ligne, sont différentes (P<0,05)
201
*significant (p<0.05)
202
** Highly significant (p<0.01)
203
*** Very highly significant (p0.001)
204
205
206
207
208
8
209
Table 4. Daily Digestible Nutrient Intake of A. rhomboideus. L. leucocephala and S. guianensis
210
forage by indigenous goat.
211
Tableau 4. Ingestion journalière de nutriments digestibles de fourrage de A. rhomboideus. L.
212
leucocephala and S. guianensis chez la chèvre locale
Parameter
Forages
A. rhomboideus
L. leucocephala
S. guianensis
SEM
P>F
Digestible Intake (g/head/day)
Organic matter
113a
229b
264b
13.4
**
Dry matter
113a
246b
278b
14
**
Crude protein
12a
66b
28c
3.7
***
ADF
47a
30a
100.8b
5.5
***
NDF
57a
69a
148b
6.2
***
1.7a
10.0c
5.8b
0.50
***
Ether extract
0.75
Digestible Intake (g/kg W
213
214
/day)
Organic matter
13.4a
27.0b
31.0b
1.50
**
Dry matter
13.4a
29.0b
33.0b
1.56
**
Crude protein
1.4a
7.8b
3.4c
0.42
***
ADF
5.6a
3.6a
12.0b
0.65
***
NDF
6.8a
8.2a
17.6b
0.70
***
Ether extract
0.2a
1.2c
0.7b
0.06
***
Values featuring different letters in a row and an effect are significantly different from each other (P
<0.05). Les valeurs suivies des différentes lettres, dans une ligne, sont différentes (P<0,05)
215
*significant (p<0.05), ** Highly significant (p<0.01), *** Very highly significant (p0.001)
216
Table 5.
217
guianensis forage for indigenous goats at Lubumbashi.
218
Tableau 5. Teneur en nutriments digestibles (g/kgMS) de A. rhomboideus, L. leucocephala and S.
219
guianensis pour la chèvre locale à Lubumbashi.
dDM
dOM
dCP
dCF
dADF
dNDF
dEE
dFNE
dAsh
Digestible nutrients contents (g/kg DM) in A. rhomboideus, L. leucocephala and S.
A. rhomboideus
214a
583a
63a
231a
237.6b
296b
8.7a
683b
14a
L. leucocephala
256a
680b
195b
27b
91.4a
205.5a
29.8c
561ab
187b
S. guianensis
516b
685.5b
72a
191a
261.6c
386.6c
14.8b
493a
229b
9
SEM
10.7
7
5.9
21.7
13.5
10.8
1.01
29.7
15.8
Effect
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
**
***
220
221
222
223
Digestible dry matter (dDM), Digestible organic matter (dOM), Digestible crude protein (dCP),
Digestible neutral detergent fibre (dNDF), Digestible acid detergent fibre (dADF), Digestible ether
extract (dEE), Digestible nitrogen-free extract (dNFE)
Values followed with different letters in a row are significantly different from each other (P <0.05).
224
Les valeurs suivies des différentes lettres, dans une rangée, sont différentes (P<0,05).
225
*** Highly significant (p0.001)
226
227
4. Discussion
228
229
Dry matter of green forage classically varies between 12 to 50 % fresh matter (Lebas, 2007; Martin-
230
Rosset, 1990). The dry matter content for all three forages in this experiment was high and linked to
231
the fact that the study was conducted in dry season. The CP for all three forages exceeds the range of 7
232
to 8 % CP suggested as a lower limit below which consumption by ruminants and microbial activity in
233
the rumen would be affected (Van Soest, 1994). It has been shown that the crude protein concentration
234
of L. leucocephala can vary between 22.03 to 30% (Garcia et al., 1996). The values of CP found in
235
this study are in the upper range of previous values and similar to those given by Amjad et al. (2002)
236
because forages used in this study were leaves (petiole and blade) without stems. Garcia et al. (1996)
237
reported a mean value of CP for leaves of 29.2 % versus 22.03% for stem.
238
In studies of Peters, 1992 and Mani et al., 1992, the crude protein concentration of S.
239
guianensis forage varied between 6.3 and 10.6% DM in the dry season. Our value falls in the upper
240
range of previous values but is lower than those given by Risopoulos (1966) for forage of this species
241
from Yangambi in Congo (DR), highlighting the important regional differences in soil type, age and
242
climatic conditions in such comparisons. These values are in the same order of magnitude as the
243
values found in Nigeria by other authors for A. paniculatus forage in dry season (Wolfgang, 1990;
244
Omokanye et al, 2001). In this study the crude protein concentration of A. rhomboideus was lower
245
than that of L. leucocephala but higher than that of S. guianensis. This difference may arise from the
246
fact that both L. leucocephala and A. rhomboideus species are plants that well develops in the dry
247
season while S. guianensis is a seasonal plant, and CP concentrations between these browses are
248
probably due to differences in protein accumulation during growth. In the case of mature herbage,
249
nutrient concentrations are generally highest in young material but then decline with advancing
250
maturity can be both substantial and very rapid.
251
According to Garcia et al. (1996), L. leucocephala forage is rich in acid detergent fibre (34.1 -
252
36.1%) and neutral detergent fibre (49.3 - 64.4 %). This study found lower value than those reported
253
by Garcia et al. (1996), Abubaker et al. (2008) and Ngwa et al. (2000), that are similar to those
254
reported by Boukila et al. (2005) and higher than those found by Mtenga and Laswai (1994) for NDF.
255
The ADF values found in this study are similar to those reported by Boukila et al. (2005) and lower
256
than those of Ngwa et al. (2000). The differences found in this study are probably due to soil types,
10
257
varieties, climate and parts of plant used. The leaves which are lower in fiber than stems were used.
258
The ADF and NDF concentrations of S. guianensis forage vary between 37 to 61% and between 42-
259
72%, respectively (Ladeira et al., 2001; Matizha et al., 1997; Mani et al., 1992; Valarini and Possenti,
260
2006). Our results fall in these intervals. The ADF and NDF concentrations of A. rhomboideus forage
261
found in this work are higher than those found by Wolfgang (1990) for A. paniculatus. These
262
differences may arise from the difference between species, soil and climate conditions.
263
The results obtained in this study show that A. rhomboideus and to a lesser extent S.
264
guianensis contain recommended amount by contrast to L. leucocephala. The ADF fraction for all
265
forage (A. rhomboideus, L. leucocephala and S. guianensis) was about 50% of the NDF which is
266
indicative of high levels of hemicellulose.
267
Digestibility values were generally high, best in L. leucocephala and S. guianensis forage.
268
Crude protein digestibility is related to the crude protein in forage (Lopez et al., 1998). Furthermore
269
Martin and Bryant (1989) observed a protein digestibility of 61.9% in sheep for diets with 10.5% CP
270
and the digestibility declined to 36.1 % in sheep with a decrease in diet CP to less than 7.5%. These
271
values are not in agreement with the finding in present study which revealed higher CP digestibility in
272
S. guianensis (58.3%) than CP digestibility of A. rhomboideus forage (42%) though the CP content of
273
A. rhomboideus leaves was significantly higher than that S. guianensis forage. The first explanation is
274
that the nitrogen in A. rhomboideus may be associated with lignified cell wall to form a bulk of rumen
275
undegradable protein which is unavailable for post-ruminal digestion. A second explanation is that cell
276
wall degradability of the forage may also affect the overall CP digestibility. Third explanation is that
277
tannin component was at a level that could impact some qualities of ruminal undegradable protein by
278
enhancing the utilization of its protein due to a potentially higher amino acid flow to the small
279
intestine (Meissner, 1997). This was demonstrated in the tannin component of Sanguisorba minor
280
which depressed ruminal CP degradation but increased the passage of non-ammonia N in the small
281
intestine (Acheampong-Boateng, 1991).
282
Organic matter and dry matter digestibility were higher for L. leucocephala and S. guianensis than A.
283
rhomboideus. This results were higher than those reported by Garcia et al. (1996) and Abubeker et al.
284
(2008) but similar to those given by Nguyen (1998) for L. leucocephala. In subhumid Nigeria Peters
285
(1992) found that the dry matter digestibilities of S. guianensis and S. hamata averaged 50% or less
286
throughout the dry season. Little et al. (1984) reported S. guianensis dry-matter digestibility of
287
approximately 50% (range 20–71). Dry matter digestibility found in this study is higher than the value
288
given by others (Little et al., 1984). Wolgang (1990) in its studies on a leguminous forage plant of dry
289
season, belonging to the same genus Adenodolichos paniculatus, found a value lower than that found
290
in this study for A. rhomboideus.
291
NDF digestibility gives us accurate estimates of total digestible nutrients (TDN) net energy
292
(NE) and feed intake potential (Karen, 2003). Karen (2003) found that increased NDF digestibility
293
will result in higher digestible energy and forage intake, but the results, in present study, is in
11
294
disagreement with this statement; despite S. guianensis had a significantly higher NDF and ADF
295
digestibility than L. leucocephala (table 3) there was no significant difference in DM intake (table 2)
296
297
and digestible DM (table 4) between these two species.
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
Thus, increased NDF digestibility will result in higher digestible energy and the digestibility
of plant material in the rumen is related to the proportion and lignification of plant cell walls (NDF).
Forages with a low NDF content (20-35%) are usually of high digestibility and species with high
lignin contents are often of low digestibility. Linn and Kuehn (1993) reported that diets containing
21% NDF from high quality forages will return more milk production and reduce off-farm feed costs.
In this study ADF and NDF digestibility were higher for S. guianensis than for other forages and are
similar to those reported by Mani et al. (1992) for S. guianensis but higher than those reported by
Abubeker et al. (2008) for L. leucocephala. The digestibility of cell walls is a function of lignin
concentration and composition. The nutritive value of forage was also considered in terms of nutrients
intake. Organic matter and dry matter intake of A. rhomboideus forage was low for L. leucocephala
and S. guianensis forage which were similar. Crude protein intake on A. rhomboideus was similar to S.
guianensis but low for L. leucocephala because of the lower crude protein content of A. rhomboideus
and S. guianensis. Van Soest (1994) demonstrated that the intake of DM is negatively correlated with
rumen retention time and positively correlated ruminal volume and feed digestibility. High intake has
been associated with a reduction in the extent of ruminal digestion due to decreased ruminal residence
time (Staples et al., 1984). Factors other than the rate of digestion in the rumen determine the
voluntary intake of foliage by ruminants. Low intakes associated with high feed digestibility may be
related to the presence of compounds which are appetite depressants (tannins, alkaloids, etc) (Frutos et
al 2004). High feed intakes and low feed digestibility may be related to rapid rates of passage of feed
through the rumen. Feed intake increases with the concentration of crude protein in the diet (Faverdin,
1999). However, crude protein intake was similar to L. leucocephala forage and high compared to A.
rhomboideus and S. guianensis forage. According to Journet et al. (1983) voluntary intake of ADF and
NDF Gliricidia sepium forage was similar to S. guianensis forage and high for L. leucocephala and A.
rhomboideus forage. Digestible crude protein intake was higher for L. leucocephala and S. guianensis
to those on A. rhomboideus. A. rhomboideus forage can be used for the maintenance and to a lesser
extent for growth whose requirement are estimated between 0.74 to1.96 g.kg BW -0.75 day-1 and
between 0.26 to 2.2 g. g-1 live weight gain (ILCA. 1979).
325
5. Conclusion
326
This study shows that A. rhomboideus has a crude protein content higher than that of S. guianensis, but
327
forage is slightly consumed compared to L. leucocephala and S. guianensis forage.
328
The intake and apparent digestibility of all nutrients from A. rhomboideus are lower than those of two
329
other fodder, L. leucocephala and S. guianensis. This is probably due to anti-nutritional factors that
330
would be contained in A. rhomboideus forage.
12
331
New study can be focalized in supplementation of grass hay by this forage to evaluate live weight gain
332
by goats and the characterization of the nutritional anti factors (saponins, tanins, alkaloids, etc).
333
334
References
335
Abubeker H., Rethman N.F.G., Apostolides Z. & Van Niekerk W.A., 2008. Forage production and
336
potential nutritive value evaluation of twenty-four shrub type indigofera accessions grown under
337
field conditions. Trop Grasslands. 42, 96–103.
338
Acheampong-Boateng O., 1991. The nutritive value of sainfoin (Onobrychiis vicifolia) and sheep’s
339
burnet (Sanguisorba minor) in relation to Lucerne (Medicago sativa). M.Sc (Agriculture)
340
treatise, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
341
Ajayi F T and Babayemi O J 2008: Comparative in vitro evaluation of mixtures of Panicum maximum
342
cv Ntchisi with stylo (Stylosanthes guianensis), Lablab (Lablab purpureus), Centro
343
(Centrosema pubescens) and Histrix (Aeschynomene histrix). Volume 20, Article #83. Retrieved
344
Mars 4, 2011, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/6/ajay20083.htm
345
346
347
Amjad A. C., Iqbal Z., Afzal M. & Mushtaque M., 2002. Seasonal variation in chemical composition
of Ipil-Ipil( L. leucocephala). Pakistan J Forest. 52(2),109-114.
Boukila B., Pamo T. E., Fonteh F. A., Kana J. R., Tendonkeng F. & Betfiang M. E., 2005. Effet de la
348
supplémentation de quelques légumineuses tropicales sur la valeur alimentaire et la
349
digestibilité in-vitro des chaumes de maïs. Livest Res Rural Dev. Volume 17, Article
350
351
#146. Retrieved October 22, 2013, http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/12/bouk17146.htm
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
Faverdin, 1999. The effect of nutrients on feed intake in ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society, 58, 523–531
Frutos P., Hervas G., Giraldez F. J., & Mantecon A. R., 2004. Review, Tannins and ruminant
nutrition. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2 (2), 191-202.
Garcia G. W., Ferguson T.U., Neckles F.A. & Archibald K.A.E., 1996. The nutritive value and forage
productivity of L. leucocephala. Anim Feed Sci Technol 60, 29-41.
ILCA (INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK CENTRE FOR AFRICA), 1979. Small ruminant production
in the humid tropics. Systems Study, Addis Abeba. Ethiopia.
Jetana T., Vongpipatana C., Thongruay S., Usawang S. & Sophon S., 2010. Apparent digestibility,
360
nitrogen balance, ruminal microbial nitrogen production and blood metabolites in Thai Brahman
361
cattle fed a basal diet of rice straw and supplemented with some tropical protein-rich trees.
362
Asian-Aust. J. of Anim. Sci., 23, 465-474
363
Journet M., Champredon C., Pion R. & Vérité R., 1983. Physiological basis of the protein nutrition of
364
high producing cows. Critical analysis of the allowances. Protein Metabolism and Nutrition. 4th
365
International Symposium. European Association for Animal Production Publication no. 31,
366
433–448. Paris: INRA.
13
367
368
369
Karen Dupchak, 2003. NDF Digestibilities: a New Analysis to Evaluate Forage Quality. Agr. Food
and Rur. Init. Volume 14 n°1.
Ladeira M.M., Rodriguez N.M., Gonçalves L.C., Borges I.,Benedetti E., Teixeira E.A., Lara L.B.,
370
2001. Consumo e digestibilidades aparentes total e parciais do feno de S. guianensis. Arq. Bras.
371
Med. Vet. Zootec. 53, 2 Belo Horizonte.
372
373
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-09352001000200018
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
Lebas F., 2007. Plantes tropicales utilisables pour le lapin. in DJAGO A.Y., KPODEKON M., LEBAS
F., 2007. Méthodes et Techniques d'élevage du Lapin. Elevage du lapin en milieu tropical. Doc
mis en ligne le 18 août 2007
Linn J. and Kuehn C., 1993. The effects of forage quality on performance and cost of feeding lactating
dairy cows. University of Minnesota, Department of Animal Science, 1364 Eckles Avenue, St –
Paul, Minnesota 5508-6120, USA http://www.wcds.afns.ualberta.ca/Proceedings/1997/ch0497.htm
Little D. A., McIvor J.G. and McLean R.W., 1984. The chemical composition and nutritive value of
Stylosanthes. In: Stace H. M. and Edye L. A. (eds), The biology and agronomy of Stylosanthes
species. Academic Press, Sydney, Australia. pp. 381–403.
Lopez A., Maiztegui, J. and Cabrera, R., 1998. Voluntary intake and digestibility of forages with
different nutritional quality in alpacas (Lama pacos). Small Ruminant Res, 29, 295-301.
Mani R.I., Kaufmann R. V., Egan A.R., Dixon R. M. & Holmes J.H.G., 1992. Development of
386
grazing and utilization strategies for stylo-based pasture supplies adapted to cattle production
387
systems. In Stylosanthes as forage and fallow crop. Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on
388
the Use of S. in West Africa held in Kaduna, Nigeria, 26–31 October 1992.
389
390
391
392
393
Martín-Rosset W., 1990. L’alimentation des chevaux, collection techniques et pratiques, éd. Quae,
INRA, France pp. 232.
Martin S. F. and Bryant, 1989. Nutrition of domesticated South American Ilamas and alpacas. Small
Ruminant Res, 2, 191-216.
Matizha W., Ngongoni N.T., Topps J.H., 1997. Effect of supplementing veld hay with tropical
394
legumes Desmodium uncinatum, S. guianensis and Macroptilium atropurpureum on intake,
395
digestibility, outflow rates, nitrogen retention and live weight gain in lambs. Animal Feed Sci
396
Tech 69,187-193.
397
398
399
Matsler A.L. and Siebenmorgen T.J., 2005. Evaluation of Operating Conditions for Surface Lipid
Extraction from Rice Using a Soxtec System. Cereal Chem 82(3):282-286.
Meerts P., 2008. Flore du cuivre SCI.
Iconothèque numérique. Université Libre de Bruxelles.
400
http://bib18.ulb.ac.be/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/bst003&CISOPTR=4&CIS
401
OBOX=1&REC=2.
402
Meissner H.H., 1997. Recent research on forage utilization by ruminant livestock in South
14
403
Africa. Anim Feed Sci Technol 69, 103–119.
404
Mtenga L.A. and Laswai G.D., 1994. L. Leucocephala as feed for rabbit and pig: detailed chemical
405
composition and effect of level of inclusion on performance. For Ecol and Manage. 64 (2-3),
406
249- 257.
407
Nguyen Thi Hong Nhan., 1998. Effect of Sesbania grandiflora, L. leucocephala, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis
408
and Ceiba pentadra on intake, digestion and rumen environment of growing goats. Livest Res
409
Rural Dev. Volume 10, Number 3,
410
411
412
413
414
Ngwa A.T., Nsahlai I.V. and Bonsi M.L.K., 2000. The potential of legume pods as supplements to low
quality roughages. S Afr J Anim Sci, 30 (Supplement 1)
Norton B.W., 1998. Anti-nutritive and Toxic Factors in Forage Tree Legumes. Ch. 4.3 in Gutteridge,
R.C. and Shelton, H.M. (eds). Forage Tree Legumes in Tropical Agriculture. The Trop
Grassland Society of Australia Inc.
415
Omokanye A.T., Balogun R.O., Onifade O.S., Afolayan R.A. and Olayeni M.E., 2001. Assessment of
416
preference and intake of browse species by Yankasa sheep at Shika, Nigeria. Small Ruminant
417
Res 42, 203-210.
418
419
420
Palmer B. and Schlink, A.C., 1992. The effect of drying on the intake and rate of digestion of the
shrub legume Calliandra calothyrsus. Trop Grasslands 26, 89-93.
Peters M., 1992. Evaluation of tropical pasture legumes for fodder banks in subhumid Nigeria. PhD
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
thesis, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.
Risopoulos S.A., 1966. Amenagement et utilisation des pâturages : Pâturages et cultures
fourragères.Etude n°1 ; FAO, RD Congo.
Scott V.B., 1992. Acid Digestion using the Hach Digesdahl Digestion Apparatus. Sample preparation
for protein and element analysis. Technical Information. Series-Booklet n°14.
Staples C. R., Fernando, R.L., Fahey, G. C., Berger, L.L. and Jaster, E. H., 1984. Effect of intake of
mixed diet by steers on digestion events. J Dairy Sci. 67, 995-1006.
Valarini M. J. and Possenti R. A., 2006. Research note: Nutritive value of a range of tropical forage
legumes. Trop Grasslands. Volume 40, 183 –187.
Van Soest P.J., 1994. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY,
476pp.
Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B. and Lewis, B.A., 1991. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent
fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 74, 3583–3597.
Wolfgang B., 1990. Use of native browse by Fulani cattle in central Nigeria. Agroforest Syst 12, 217228.
436
437
15
Innocent TSHIBANGU