Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T09:07:24.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritive value of tropical tree leaf meals in adult sows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

P. Leterme ,
M. Botero ,
A. M. Londoño ,
J. Bindelle  and
A. Buldgen
P. Leterme*
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, sede Palmira, Carrera 32, Palmira (Valle), Colombia
M. Botero
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, sede Palmira, Carrera 32, Palmira (Valle), Colombia
A. M. Londoño
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, sede Palmira, Carrera 32, Palmira (Valle), Colombia
J. Bindelle
Affiliation:
Faculté Universitaire des Sciences Agronomiques, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium
A. Buldgen
Affiliation:
Faculté Universitaire des Sciences Agronomiques, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium
*
†Corresponding author present address: Prairie Swine Centre, 2105 – 8th Street East, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7H 5N9, Canada. E-mail: pascal.leterme@usask.ca
Get access

Abstract

Tree leaf meals (TLM) are increasingly used in the tropics to feed pigs. The nutritive value of the TLM of cocoyam (Xanthosoma saggitifolium), mulberry (Morus alba) and Trichanthera gigantea, their effect on the digestive tract and their fermentation rate in the large intestine, were determined in adult sows given diets containing 150 or 300 g TLM per kg. The TLM contained from 8·5 to 12·0 MJ digestible energy per kg dry matter (DM) and from 60 to 125 g digestible protein per kg DM. The digestibility was not affected ( P>0·05) by their rate of incorporation in the diet. The apparent ileal protein digestibility of the diets containing 300 g TLM per kg was also determined by the slaughtering method. It reached 80% for the basal diet and 54, 70 and 74% for the Trichanthera-, mulberry- and cocoyam-based diets, respectively. No diet effect ( P>0·05) was observed on the weight and length of the gastro-intestinal tract, with the exception of a heavier caecum in sows given the Trichanthera-based diet ( P<0·01). The pH of the gastric fluid of these sows was also higher ( P<0·001). The fermentation of the dietary fibre in the large intestine was evaluated by the gas technique using syringes. The cocoyam leaves presented the highest amount of total gas produced after fibre fermentation ( P<0·001). The ranking order of gas production was identical to that observed for the digestibility coefficients: Trichanthera <mulberry <cocoyam. In conclusion, TLM can represent up to 0·3 of a diet for sows. Their use in sow nutrition may be considered in tropical regions where protein sources are scarce.

Keywords

digestibilitynutritive valuepigstree leaf mealtropical forage
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 175 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

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

An, L. V., Thu Hong, T. T. and Lindberg, J. E. 2004. Ileal and total tract digestibility in growing pigs fed cassava root meal diets with inclusion of fresh, dry and ensiled sweet potato (Ipomea batatas L.) leaves. Animal Feed Science and Technology 114: 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anugwa, F., Varel, V., Dickson, J., Pond, W. and Krook, L. 1989. Effects of dietary fiber and protein concentration on growth, feed efficiency, visceral organ weights and large intestine microbial populations of swine. Journal of Nutrition 119: 879–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boisen, S. and Fernandez, J. 1997. Prediction of the total tract digestibility of energy in feedstuffs and pig diets by in vitro analyses. Animal Feed Science and Technology 68: 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudry, C., Buldgen, A., Anciaux, B., Ruiz Peña, M. and Leterme, P. 2004. Mise au point d'une méthode de détermination in vitro du taux de fermentation des fibres dans le gros intestin du porc. Journées de la Recherche Porcine en France 36: 219–225.Google Scholar
Buck, L., Lassoie, J. and Fernandes, E. 1999. Agroforestry in sustainable agricultural systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. and Englyst, H. 1987. Fermentation in the human large intestine and the available substrates. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 45: 1243–1255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dung, X. N., Manh, L. and Udén, P. 2002. Tropical fibre sources for pigs: digestibility, digesta retention and estimation of fibre digestibility in vitro. Animal Feed Science and Technology 102: 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
France, J., Dhanoa, M. S., Theodorou, M. K., Lister, S. J., Davies, D. R. and Isac, D. 1993. A model to interpret gas accumulation profiles associated with in vitro degradation of ruminant feeds. Journal of Theoretical Biology 163: 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furukawa, A. and Tsukahara, H. 1966. On the acid digestion method for the determination of chromic oxide as an index substance in the study of digestibilibity of fish fed. Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries 32: 502–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leakey, R. 1999. Potential for novel food products from agroforestry trees: a review. Food Chemistry 66: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Goff, G. and Noblet, J. 2001. Comparative digestibility of dietary energy and nutrients in growing pigs and adult sows. Journal of Animal Science 79: 2418–2427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leterme, P., Buldgen, A., Estrada, F., Londoño, A. 2006. Mineral content of tropical fruits and unconventional foods of the Andes and the rain forest of Colombia. Food Chemistry 95: 644–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leterme, P., Garcia, M., Londoño, A., Rojas, M., Buldgen, A. and Souffrant, W. 2005a. Chemical composition and nutritional value of pejibaye (Bactris gasipaes Kunth) in rats. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 85: 1505–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leterme, P., Londoño, A., Estrada, F., Souffrant, W. and Buldgen, A. 2005b. –1732.Google Scholar
Leterme, P., Rosales, A., Valencia, A., Mera, R., Souffrant, W., Londoño, A., Sarria, P. and Buldgen, A. 2003. Effect of intake of tree foliage and aquatic plant on the rate of ingestion and fecal and ileal digestibilities in pigs. In Proceedings of the ninth international symposium on the digestive physiology of the pig, University of Alberta, Edmonton, pp. 370–372Google Scholar
Leterme, P. and Théwis, A. 2004. Effect of pig bodyweight on ileal amino acid endogenous losses after ingestion of a protein-free diet enriched in pea inner fibre isolates. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development 44: 407–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ly, J., Reyes, J., Macias, M., Martinez, V., Domínguez, P. and Ruiz, R. 1998. Ileal and total tract digestibility of leucaena meal in growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 70: 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, K. H. and Steingass, H. 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed valued obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28: 7–55.Google Scholar
Noblet, J. and Van Milgen, J. 2004. Energy value of pig feeds: effect of pig body weight and energy evaluation system. Journal of Animal Science 82: 229–238.Google ScholarPubMed
Ocampo, L., Leterme, P. and Buldgen, A. 2005. A survey of pig production systems in the rain forest of the Pacific coast of Colombia. Tropical Animal Health and Production 37: 315–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phuc, B., Ogle, B. and Lindberg, J. 2000. Effect of replacing soybean protein with cassava leaf protein in cassava root meal based diets for growing pigs on digestibility and N retention. Animal Feed Science and Technology 83: 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvant, D., Perez, J. -M. and Tran, G. 2002. Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d'élevage. INRA Publications, Versailles.Google Scholar
Shayo, C. Udén P. 1999. Nutritional uniformity of crude protein fractions in some tropical browse plants estimated by two in vitro methods. Animal Feed Science and Technology 78: 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 1999. User's guide: statistics version 8.0. SAS Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Van Wieren, S. 2000. Digestibility and voluntary intake of roughages by wild boar and Meishan pigs. Animal Science 71: 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar