Nuh OCAK, Adem KAMALAK, Euloge OGOUKAYODE AKAMBİ OLOMONCHİ, Ali Vaiz GARİPOĞLU

Nutritional values and in vitro fermentation parameters of some fodder species found in two rangeland areas in the Republic of Benin

In the present study, the nutritional values and in vitro rumen parameters of three browse forages (Leucaena leucocephala (LL), Cajanus cajan (CC) and Khaya senegalensis (KS)) and five grasses (Andropogon gayanus (AG), Panicum maximum C1 local (PMCL), Panicum maximum C1 ameliorate (PMCA), Pennisetum purpureum (PP), and Brachiaria ruziziensis (BR)) grown in the Republic of Benin were investigated. With this aim, it was determined dry matter (DM), ash, acid detergent fibre (ADF), neutral detergent fibre (NDF), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), metabolizable energy (ME), dry matter intake (DMI), dry matter digestibility (DMD) and relative feed value (RFV) as nutritive values, gas production (GP), methane production (MP), organic matter digestibility (OMD) as in vitro rumen fermentation parameters. Strained and anaerobically prepared rumen fluid was used for determining GP and OMD. Additionally, the correlations between chemical composition and fermentation characteristics were studied. The samples were collected in two rangeland areas in the Republic of Benin. The lowest and highest ADF contents were determined for CC (30.85%) and PMCA (43.14%). The lowest NDF content was found for CC (48.62%). The highest GP (33.8%) and ME (6.85 MJ/kg DM) have been determined for BR. The CC had the highest DMD (64.9%) and RFV (124.1). The lowest MP (mL) was recorded in PMCA, whereas the highest MP was recorded in AG. The crude protein (CP) content of forages was positively correlated with OMD, DMD, DMI, and RFV, while NDF was negatively correlated with GP, MP, OMD, DMD, DMI, and RFV. However, ADF was negatively correlated with GP, DMD, DMI, and RFV, whereas positively with ME. These results show that all the plant materials used in the present study can be used as alternative forage sources in ruminant rations.

PDF

___

1. Arzani H, Basiri M, Khatibi F, Ghorbani G. Nutritive value of some Zagros Mountain rangeland species. Small Ruminant Research 2006; 3 (65): 128-135.
2. Uzun F, Ocak N. Some vegetation characteristics of rangelands subjected to different grazing pressures with single-or multispecies of animals for a long time (A case of Zonguldak province, Turkey). Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 2019; 34 (3): 360-370.
3. Adjolohoun S, Dahouda M, Adandedjan C, Toleba SS, Kindomihou V, Sinsin B. Evaluation of biomass production and nutritive value of nine Panicum maximum ecotypes in Central region of Benin. African Journal Agricultural Research 2013; 4 (8): 1661-1668.
4. Teklu B, Negesse T, Angassa A. Effects of Farming Systems on Floristic Composition, Yield and Nutrient Content of Forages at the Natural Pasture of Assosa Zone (Western Ethiopia). Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 2010; 2 (12): 583-592
5. Adjolohoun S, Bindelle J, Adandédjan C, Buldgen A. Some suitable grasses and legumes for ley pastures in Sudanian Africa: the case of the Borgou region in Benin. BASE [En ligne], 2008 ; 4 (12): 405-419.
6. Koura BI, Dedehouanou H, Dossa HL, Kpadonou BV, Houndonougbo F et al. Determinants of crop-livestock integration by small farmers in Benin. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences 2015; 9 (5): 2272-2283.
7. Musco N, Koura IB,Tudisco R, Awadjihè G, Adjolohou S et al. Nutritional characteristics of forage grown in south of Benin. Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences 2016; 29 (1): 51.
8. Algan D, Aydın I, Ocak N. Economic analysis of fertilization based on the nutritional value of rangeland: A new opinion. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Science 2018; 1 (33): 246-253.
9. Akinfemi A, Adua MM, Adu OA. Evaluation of nutritive values of tropical feed sources and by-products using in vitro gas production technique in ruminant animals. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 2012; 24 (4): 348-353.
10. AOAC. Official methods of analysis, 18th ed. Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 2000.
11. Olomonchi OAE, Kiliç Ü, Garipoğlu AV, Erişek A. Comparison of Forage Quality and in vitro Digestibilities of Fodder Beet (Beta vulgaris var. rapa) Fresh Material and Silage. Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research 2019 ; 6 (11): 172-178.
12. AOAC. Official methods of analysis, 7th ed. Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1990.
13. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 1991; 74: 3583- 3597. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2.
14. Menke KH, Steingass H. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and development 1988; 28: 7-55.
15. Goel G, Makkar HPS, Becker K. Changes in microbial community structure, methanogenesis and rumen fermentation in response to saponin‐rich fractions from different plant materials. Journal of Applied Microbiology 2008; 105 (3): 770-777.
16. Van Dyke NJ, Anderson PM. Interpreting a forage analysis. Circular (USA) 2000
17. Maccarana L, Cattani M, Tagliapietra F, Bailoni L, Schiavon S. Influence of main dietary chemical constituents on the in vitro gas and methane production in diets for dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 2016; 7 (3): 1-54.
18. Soliva CR, Zeleke AB, Clement C, Hess HD, Fievez V et al. In vitro screening of various tropical foliages, seeds, fruits and medicinal plants for low methane and high ammonia generating potentials in the rumen. Animal Feed Science Technology 2008; 147 (2): 53-71.
19. Tefera S, Mlambo V, Dlamini BJ, Dlamini AM, Koralagama KDN et al. Chemical composition and in vitro ruminal fermentation of common tree forages in the semi-arid rangelands of Swaziland. Animal Feed Science Technology 2008; 142 (4): 99-110.
20. Babatounde S, Oumorou M, Tchabi VI, Lecomte T, Houinato M et al. Ingestion volontaire et préférences alimentaires chez des moutons Djallonké nourris avec des graminées et des légumineuses fourragères tropicales cultivées au Bénin. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences 2010; 4 (1): 4.
21. Yousuf MB, Belewu MA, Daramola JO, Ogundun NI. Protein supplementary values of cassava, leucaena and gliricidia leaf meals in goats fed low quality Panicum maximum hay. Livestock research for rural development 2007; 19 (1): 2.
22. Ouédraogo-Koné S, Kaboré-Zoungrana CY, Ledin I. Effect of feeding some West African browse foliages on growth and carcass composition in sheep. Tropical animal health and production 2009; 41 (7): 1243-1252.
23. Zayed MZ, Zaki MA, Ahmad FB, Ho WS, Pang SL. Comparison of mimosine content and nutritive values of Neolamarckia cadamba and Leucaena leucocephala with Medicago sativa as forage quality index. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research 2014; 3 (8):146-150.
24. Hao NV, Ledin I. Performance of growing goats fed Gliricidia maculata. Small Ruminant Research 2001; 39 (2): 113-119.
25. Sanchez NR, Stig L, Inger L. Biomass production and chemical composition of Moringa oleifera under different management regimes in Nicaragua. Agroforest System 2006; 66 (1): 231-242.
26. Amarteifio JO, Munthali DC, Karikari SK, Morake TK. The composition of pigeonpeas [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] grown in Botswana. Plant Foods Human Nutrition 2002; 57 (2): 173- 177.
27. Olomonchi OAE, Garipoğlu AV. Effect of nitrogen fertilization rate of various forage sources on rumen parameters: Review. In: Proceedings of International Congress of the New Approaches and Technologies for Sustainable Development. Isparta, Turkey: ICNATSD; 2017; 4 (4): 256-262.
28. Rao SC, Phillips WA, Mayeux HS, Phatak SC. Potential grain and forage production of early maturing pigeon pea in the southern Great Plains. Crop Science. 2003; 43 (1): 2212-2217.
29. Srivastava N, Vadez V, Upadhyaya HD, Saxena KB. Screening for intra and inter specific variability for salinity tolerance in pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) and its related wild species. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research 2006; 2 (1): 1-12.
30. Melesse A, Steingass H, Schollenberger M, Holstein J, Rodehutscord M. Nutrient compositions and in vitro methane production profiles of leaves and whole pods of twelve tropical multipurpose tree species cultivated in Ethiopia. Agroforestry systems 2019; 93 (1): 135-147.
31. Hungate RE. Rumen and its microbes. In Rumen and its microbes. Academic Press 1966; 105 (3): 770-777.
32. Kamalak A, Canbolat O, Gurbuz Y, Erol A, Ozay O. Effect of maturity stage on chemical composition, in vitro and in situ dry matter degradation of tumbleweed hay (Gundelia tournefortii L). Small Ruminant Research 2005; 58 (2): 149-156.
33. Uslu OS, Kurt O, Kaya E, Kamalak A. Effect of species on chemical composition, metabolizable energy, organic matter digestibility and methane production of some legume plants grown in Turkey. Journal of Applied Animal Research 2018; 46 (1): 1158-1161.
34. Blümmel M, Orskov ER. Comparision of in vitro gas production and nylon bag degradability of roughages in predicting of food intake in cattle. Animal Feed Science Technology 1993; 40 (1): 109-119.
35. McDonald P, Edwards RA, Greenhalgh JFD, Morgan CA. Animal Nutrition, 5th ed. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow; 1995; 34 (1): 164.
36. Kimihiro H, Matsui H. Diversity of fumarate reducing bacteria in the bovine rumen revealed by culture dependent and independent approaches. Anaerobe 2008; 14 (4): 87-93.
37. Kim SH, Choi SM, Ju HJ, Jung JY. Mesophilic co-digestion of palm oil mill effluent and empty fruit bunches. Environment Technology 2013; 34 (2): 13-14.
38. Getachew G, Blümmel M, Makkar HPS, Becker K. In vitro gas measuring techniques for assessment of nutritional quality of feeds: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 1998; 72 (3-4): 261-281.
39. NRC. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 6th rev. ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
40. Meuret M, Boza J, Narjisse N, Nastis A. Evaluation and utilization of rangeland feeds by goats. In: Morand-Fehr, P (Editors). Goat Nutrition, PUDOC. Wageningen, The Netherlands 1990; 161-170.
41. Papachristou TG, Nastis AS. Influence of decidues broadleaved woody species in goat nutrition during the dry season in Northern Greece. Small Ruminant Research 1996; 20 (5): 15- 22.
42. Njidda AA. Chemical composition, fibre fraction and antinutritional substances of semi-arid browse forages of NorthEastern Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 2010; 18 (4): 2.
43. Tolera A, Khazaal K, Ørskov ER. Nutritive evaluation of some browse species. Animal Feed Science and Technology 1997; 67 (4): 181-195.
44. Soltan YA, Morsy AS, Sallam SM, Lucas RC, Louvandini H et al. Contribution of condensed tannins and mimosine to the methane mitigation caused by feeding Leucaena leucocephala. Archives of Animal Nutrition 2013; 67 (3): 169-184.
45. Bonsi C, Rhoden E, Woldeghebriel A, Mount P, Solaiman S, Noble R et al. Kudzu-Goat Interactions A Pilot Study. In: Solaiman, Sandra G; Hill, Walter A. eds. Using Goats to Manage Forest Vegetation, A Regional Inquiry. Tuskegee, AL, Tuskegee University Agricultural Experiment Station 1992. pp 84-88.
46. Hughes CE. Monograph of Leucaena (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae). Syst Bot Monogr 1998; 55: 1-244.
47. Kubkomawa IH, Ogundu MA, Okoli IC, Udedibie ABI. Biochemical profiling of the values of dry season feed resources in pastoralcattle environment in Nigeria. International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry 2017; 4 (4): 23-36.