Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T09:31:36.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In situ degradability of organic matter, crude protein and cell wall of various tree forages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. Kamatali
Affiliation:
Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Unité de Biochimie de la Nutrition, Catholic University of Louvain, Place Croix du Sud 2, B1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
E. Teller
Affiliation:
Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Unité de Biochimie de la Nutrition, Catholic University of Louvain, Place Croix du Sud 2, B1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
M. Vanbelle
Affiliation:
Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Unité de Biochimie de la Nutrition, Catholic University of Louvain, Place Croix du Sud 2, B1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
G. Collignon
Affiliation:
Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Unité de Biochimie de la Nutrition, Catholic University of Louvain, Place Croix du Sud 2, B1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
M. Foulon
Affiliation:
Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Unité de Biochimie de la Nutrition, Catholic University of Louvain, Place Croix du Sud 2, B1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Get access

Abstract

Leaves of Leucaena leucocephala, Sesbania sesban and Calliandra callothyrsus were harvested in Rwanda from young shoots at 8 weeks after the first cutting. They were dried, ground and incubated at the same time in polyester bags in three non-lactating Holstein-Friesian cows each fitted with a ruminal cannula. The bags were removed at 0, 2, 4, 8, 24, 48, 72 and 144 h after the start of incubations. The different parameters characterizing extent and rate of ruminal degradation of organic matter (OM), neutral-detergent fibre (NDF), and crude protein (CP) were calculated. In vitro digestibility of residual protein after 24 h and 48 h incubation was also determined. Sesbania sesban had lowest cell wall contents and gave highest ruminal degradability for OM, NDF and CP. Leucaena leucocephala was degraded to a lesser extent, but its undegraded protein had a somewhat higher in vitro digestibility. In contrast, protein of Calliandra callothyrsus was poorly degraded and digested. The proportion and composition of cell wall could not explain these differences in digestion characteristics and other measurements, such as tannins, were incriminated. Increased ruminal incubation time augmented the extent of ruminal degradation and reduced in vitro digestibility of undegraded protein but did not affect the undigestible protein fraction.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acamovic, T. and D'Mello, J. P. F. 1981. Determination of mimosine by ion-exchange chromatography. Journal of Chromatography 206: 416420.Google Scholar
Adeneye, G. A. 1979. A note on the nutrient and mineral composition of Leucaena leucocephala in Western Nigeria. Animal Feed Science and Technology 4: 221225.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984. Official methods of analysis. 14th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, USA.Google Scholar
Bailey, R. W. and Jones, D. I. H. 1971. Pasture quality and ruminant nutrition. III. Hydrolysis of rye grass structural carbohydrates with carbohydrases in relation to rumen digestion. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 14: 847854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, T. N., Manley, T. R. and Duncan, S. J. 1986. The role of condensed tannins in the nutritional value of Lotus pedunculatus for sheep. 4. Sites of carbohydrate and protein digestion as influenced by dietary reactive tannin concentration. British Journal of Nutrition 55:123137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diagayete, M. 1981. Tannin contents of African pasture plants and their effect on analytical results and in vitro digestibility. Landwirtschaftliche Forschungsberichte 37: 416426.Google Scholar
D'Mello, J. P. F. and Acamovic, T. 1989. Leucaena leucocephala in poultry nutrition — a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 26:128.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analyses. Agricultural handbook, US Department of Agriculture, No. 379. Washington USA.Google Scholar
Göhl, B. C. 1982. Tropical feeds. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome.Google Scholar
Jones, R. J. 1979. Leucaena leucocephala dans l'alimentation des bovins sous les tropiques. Revue Mondiale de Zootechnie 31:1322.Google Scholar
Kamatali, P. 1991. L'ingestion volontaire d'ensilages dherbe, 1'efficience digestive et le comportement alimentaire et mérycique chez les bovins. Ph. D. Thesis, Catholic University ofLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuvc, Belgium.Google Scholar
Kumar, R. and Vaithiyanathan, S. 1990. Occurence, nutritional significance and effect on animal productivity of tannins in tree leaves. Animal Feed Science and Technology 30: 2128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lechner-Doll, M., Kaske, M. and Engelhardt, W. von. 1991. Factors affecting the mean retention time of particles in the forestomach of ruminants and camelids. In Physiological aspects of digestion and metabolism in ruminants (ed. Tsuda, T., Sasaki, Y. and Kawashima, R.), pp. 455482. Academic Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, I. 1981. A revised model for the estimation of protein degradability in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 251252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, D. R. 1977. Dietary fiber components: relationship to the rate and extent of ruminal digestion. Federation Proceedings 36: 187192.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. R. and Ely, L. O. 1979. A dynamic model of fiber digestion and passage in the ruminant for evaluating forage quality. Journal of Animal Science 49:10851095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, D. R. and Ely, L. O. 1982. Relationship of rate and extent of digestion to forage utilization — a dynamic model evaluation. Journal of Animal Science 54: 897905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, S., Spackman, D. H. and Stein, N. H. 1958. Chromatography of amino acids on sulfonated polystyrene resins. An improved system. Analytical Chemistry 30: 11851190.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Leucaena: promising forage and tree crop for the tropics. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hovell, F. D. De B. and Mould, F. 1980. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Tropical Animal Production 5:195213.Google Scholar
Reed, J. D., Soller, H. and Woodward, A. 1990. Fodder tree and straw diets for sheep: intake, growth, digestibility and the effects of phenolics on nitrogen utilization. Animal Feed Science and Technology 30: 3950.Google Scholar
Singh, B., Makkar, H. P. S. and Negi, S. S. 1989. Rate and extent of digestion and potentially digestible dry matter and cell wall of various tree leaves, lournal of Dairy Science 72: 32333239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1982. SAS users guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary.Google Scholar
Teller, E., Vanbelle, M., Kamatali, P., Collignon, G., Delfosse, P. and Hadjiandreou, S. 1990a. Differences between animals and effect of basal diet for the in situ degradability of grass silage. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 64: 233239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, E., Vanbelle, M., Kamatali, P., Collignon, G., Page, B. and Matatu, B. 1990b. Effects of chewing behavior and ruminal digestion processes on voluntary intake of grass silages by lactating dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 68: 38973904.Google Scholar
Vervack, W. 1973. Analyse des aliments-methodes courantes d'analyses. Publication de 1'Unite de Biochimic de la Nutrition, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. and Reed, J. D. 1989. Influence des substances polyphénoliques sur la valeur nutritive des fourrages ligneux: synthése des recherches menees par le CIPEA. Bulletin du CIPEA no. 35, pp. 113.Google Scholar