Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:24:34.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In vitro gas production of leaves from fodder trees and shrubs from mid-hills of Nepal using cow, sheep and goat rumen liquor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2010

A. A. DEGEN ,
M. KAM ,
S. B. PANDEY ,
C. R. UPRETI ,
S. EL-MECCAWI  and
N. P. OSTI
A. A. DEGEN*
Affiliation:
Desert Animal Adaptations and Husbandry, Wyler Department of Dryland Agriculture, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva84105, Israel
M. KAM
Affiliation:
Desert Animal Adaptations and Husbandry, Wyler Department of Dryland Agriculture, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva84105, Israel
S. B. PANDEY
Affiliation:
Nepal Animal Science Research Institute (NASRI), Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Kathmandu, Nepal
C. R. UPRETI
Affiliation:
Nepal Animal Science Research Institute (NASRI), Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Kathmandu, Nepal
S. EL-MECCAWI
Affiliation:
Research and Development of Negev Bedouin, PO Box 999, Hura85730, Israel
N. P. OSTI
Affiliation:
Nepal Animal Science Research Institute (NASRI), Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Kathmandu, Nepal
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: degen@bgu.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In vitro gas production (GP) of substrate incubated with cow rumen liquor is commonly used to evaluate feed nutritional quality; GP is correlated with organic matter digestibility and metabolizable energy content. The hypothesis tested was that GP differs among liquors of ruminant species and is dependent on the natural dietary intake of the donors. Measurements were of 24 h GP of seven browse species using rumen liquor from a large (cow) and small (sheep) grazer and from a small intermediate feeder (goat). Mean GP for browse with goat liquor (7±2·4 ml per 200 mg substrate) was significantly (P=0·019) higher than that with cow liquor (5±1·9 ml), and GP with sheep liquor (6±1·1 ml) was intermediate, not significantly different from the cow liquor (P=0·197) and the goat liquor (P=0·061). There was a significant correlation in the ranking of the browses between goat and sheep (P=0·013) liquor using a Mantel test with 9999 permutations, which indicated a similar ranking of browses when using rumen liquor of either of these small ruminants. There were trends between both cow and sheep (P=0·096) and cow and goat (P=0·092) liquors. It was concluded that the dietary habits of ruminant species donors may affect in vitro nutritional studies when using rumen liquor.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 148 , Issue 4 , August 2010 , pp. 445 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

REFERENCES

Ammar, H., Lopez, S., Andres, S., Ranilla, M. J., Bodas, R. & Gonzalez, J. S. (2008). In vitro digestibility and fermentation kinetics of some browse plants using sheep or goat ruminal fluid as the source of inoculum. Animal Feed Science and Technology 147, 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (1990). Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edn.Arlington, VI: AOAC.Google Scholar
Austin, P. J., Suchar, L. A., Robbins, C. T. & Hagerman, A. E. (1989). Tannin-binding proteins in saliva of deer and their absence in saliva of sheep and cattle. Journal of Chemical Ecology 15, 1335–1347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begovic, S., Dusic, E., Sacirbegovic, A. & Tatro, A. (1978). Examination of variations of tannase activity in ruminal content and mucosa of goats on oak leaf diet and during intraruminal administration of 3 to 10% tannic acid. Veterinaria 27, 445–457.Google Scholar
Bohra, H. C. (1980). Nutrient utilization of Prosopis cineraria (Kheri) leaves by desert sheep and goats. Annals of Arid Zone 19, 73–81.Google Scholar
Bueno, I. C. S., Cabral Filho, S. L. S., Gobbo, S. P., Louvandini, H., Vitti, D. M. S. S. & Abdalla, A. L. (2005). Influence of inoculum source in a gas production method. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bustan, A., Pasternak, D., Pirogova, I., Durikov, M., Devries, T. T., El-Meccawi, S. & Degen, A. A. (2005). Evaluation of saltgrass as a fodder crop for livestock. Journal of the Science and Food Agriculture 85, 2077–2084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrò, S., López, S., Piccolo, V., Dijkstra, J., Dhanoa, M. S. & France, J. (2005). Comparative analysis of gas production profiles obtained with buffalo and sheep ruminal fluid as the source of inoculum. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, N. L., McDowell, R. E. & Van Soest, P. J. (1991). Ranking twenty-two tropical browse species from Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Turrialba 41, 615–625.Google Scholar
Degen, A. A., Becker, K., Makkar, H. P. S. & Borowy, N. (1995). Acacia saligna as a fodder tree for desert livestock and the interaction of its tannins with fibre fractions. Journal of the Science and Food Agriculture 68, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degen, A. A., Blanke, A., Becker, K., Kam, M., Benjamin, R. W. & Makkar, H. P. S. (1997). The nutritive value of Acacia saligna and Acacia salicina for goats and sheep. Animal Science 64, 253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Distel, R. A. & Provenza, F. D. (1991). Experience early in life affects voluntary intake of blackbrush by goats. Journal of Chemical Ecology 17, 431–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Domingue, B. M. F., Dellow, D. W. & Barry, T. N. (1991 a). Voluntary intake and rumen digestion of a low-quality roughage by goats and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 117, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domingue, B. M. F., Dellow, D. W., Wilson, P. R. & Barry, T. N. (1991 b). Comparative digestion in deer, goats, and sheep. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Science 34, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutilleul, P., Stockwell, J. D., Frigon, D. & Legendre, P. (2000). The Mantel test versus Pearson's correlation analysis: assessment of the differences for biological and environmental studies. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 5, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gihad, E. A., El Bedawy, T. M. & Mehrez, A. A. (1980). Fiber digestibility by goats and sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 1701–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, G., Puniya, A. K. & Singh, K. (2007). Phenotypic characterization of tannin-complex degrading bacteria from faeces of goat. Small Ruminant Research 69, 217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, I. J. (2003). Browsing and grazing ruminants: are they different beasts? Forest Ecology and Management 181, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hervás, G., Ranilla, M. J., Mantecón, Á. R., Tejido, M. L. & Frutos, P. (2005). Comparison of sheep and red deer rumen fluids for assessing nutritive value of ruminant feedstuffs. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 85, 2495–2502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, R. R. (1988). Morphophysiological evolutionary adaptations of the ruminant digestive system. In Aspects of Physiology of Digestion in Ruminants, Proceedings of a Satellite Symposium of the 30th International Congress of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (Eds Dobson, A. & Dobson, M. J.), pp. 1–20. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hofmann, R. R. (1989). Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78, 443–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R. J., Meyer, J. H. F., Bechaz, F. M., Stolts, M. A., Palmer, B. & van der Merwe, G. (2001). Comparison of rumen fluid from South African game species and from sheep to digest tanniniferous browse. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayouli, C., Jouany, J. P., Demeyer, D. I., Ali-Ali, , Taoueb, H. & Dardillat, C. (1993). Comparative studies on the degradation and mean retention time of solid and liquid phases in the forestomachs of dromedaries and sheep fed on low-quality roughages from Tunisia. Animal Feed Science and Technology 40, 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, J. & Fox, B. J. (1996). A review of the Mantel test in the dietary studies: effect of sample size and inequality of sample sizes. Wildlife Research 23, 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkar, H. P. S. & Becker, K. (1993). Behaviour of tannic acid from various commercial sources towards some chemical and protein precipitation assays. Journal of the Science and Food Agriculture 62, 295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantel, N. A. & Valand, R. S. (1970). A technique for non-parametric multivariate analysis. Biometrics 26, 547–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menke, K. H. & Steingass, H. (1988). Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28, 7–55.Google Scholar
Menke, K. H., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D. & Schneider, W. (1979). The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mould, F. L., Kliem, K. E., Morgan, R. & Mauricio, R. M. (2005). In vitro microbial inoculum: A review of its function and properties. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123–124, 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nsahlai, I. V., Deka Siaw, & Osuji, P. O. (1994). The relationships between gas production and chemical composition of 23 browses of the genus Sesbania. Journal of the Science and Food Agriculture 65, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odenyo, A. A., McSweeney, C. S., Palmer, B., Negassa, D. & Osuji, P. O. (1999). In vitro screening of rumen fluid samples from indigenous African ruminants provides evidence for rumen fluid with superior capacities to digest tannin-rich fodders. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 1147–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouédraogo-Koné, S., Kaboré-Zoungrana, C. Y. & Ledin, I. (2006). Behaviour of goats, sheep and cattle on natural pasture in the sub-humid zone of West Africa. Livestock Science 105, 244–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Barberia, F. J., Gordon, I. J. & Illius, A. W. (2001). Phylogenetic analysis of stomach adaptation in digestive strategies in African ruminants. Oecologia 129, 498–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porter, L. J., Hrstich, L. N. & Chan, B. C. (1986). The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25, 223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priebe, J. C., Brown, R. D. & Swakon, D. (1987). Comparative in vitro digestive efficiency of cattle, goats, nilgai antelope, and white-tailed deer. Texas Journal of Science 39, 341–348.Google Scholar
Salem, A.-F. Z. M. (2005). Impact of season of harvest on in vitro gas production and dry matter degradability of Acacia saligna leaves with inoculum from three ruminant species. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123–124, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. (1984). Scaling: Why is Animal Size so Important? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. J. (1980). Rethinking allometry. Journal of Theoretical Biology 87, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed