Printer Friendly

Effects of tropical high tannin non legume and low tannin legume browse mixtures on fermentation parameters and methanogenesis using gas production technique.

INTRODUCTION

Goat production in Sri Lanka is becoming popular especially among small holders as a main livelihood activity mainly to produce meat. However, the level of production from local goats is generally low and this is primarily due to poor feeding practices especially during dry periods. In the traditional feeding systems non legume and legume foliages of trees and shrubs are the main feed resources for goats (Seresinhe and Marapana, 2011). Leguminous tree foliage is potential source of protein and minerals and could be employed as supplements to non legumes to increase the level of production. However, the presence of tannins in both legumes and non-legumes limits utilization of both species as they can reduce the feed intake, nutrient digestibility and protein availability (Silanikove et al., 2001). Nevertheless, some tanniniferous feeds have beneficial effects in ruminant diets by improving nitrogen utilization efficiency and amino acid absorption. Condensed tannins also have biological effects on the control of gastro-intestinal parasites; possible direct effects could be mediated through CT-nematode interactions, which reduce nematode viability (Nguyen et al., 2005).

A management strategy to reduce negative effects of tannins in fodder trees could be to feed mixtures of low and high tannin content species, which could create positive effects on in vitro gas production, rumen degradation and digestibility of diets (Castro-Gonzales and Alayon-Gamboa, 2008). A better understanding of the effects of low and high tannin foliage mixtures on nutrient digestibility and methane mitigation properties would improve management of such resources. This knowledge would be of considerable importance to Sri Lanka for the efficient utilization of tree forage and research must be established to develop feeding strategies to overcome undesirable effects when using tanniniferous foliage. This study evaluated the suitability of several mixtures of high tanniniferous non legume foliage mixed with low tanniniferous legume foliage on in vitro gas production and rumen degradability characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forages used and proximate analysis

Edible forage samples (leaves and tender stems) from plant species given in Table 1 were hand harvested. Standard methods as described by AOAC (1990) were used for determination of dry matter, ash and crude protein. Fiber components (neutral detergent fiber, NDF; acid detergent fiber, ADF) were determined by methods of Van Soest (1967). Acid detergent residue was treated with 72% H2SO4 for lignin estimation.

Analyses of tannins

Tannins were analyzed by first weighing of 200 mg of feed into a 50 ml conical flask. The feed sample was extracted with 70% aqueous acetone in an ultrasonic bath for 2 h and the contents were centrifuged for 20 min at 5,000xg and the supernatant was collected for tannin analyses.

Total phenols were estimated by the Folin-Ciocalteu reaction (Makkar, 2003). For the condensed tannin (CT) fraction, the extract was treated with Butanol-HCl in the presence of ferric ammonium sulphate, and CT expressed as leucocyanidin equivalent as

[A.sub.550nm] x 782.6/ Weightof sample dry mater

Where [A.sub.550nm] is absorbance at 500 nm assuming that the effective E 1 cm, 550 nm of leucocyanidin is 460 (Porter et al., 1986).

Insoluble polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP; 100 mg) was weighed into 100 mmx 12 mm test tubes. Distilled water, 1 ml, and then 1 ml tannin containing extract were added and vortexed. The tube was kept at 4[degrees]C for 15 min, vortexed again, then centrifuged (3,000xg) for 10 min and the supernatant collected. The phenolic content of the supernatant was measured by Folin-Ciocalteau reaction and this was regarded as the non tannin phenol (NTP).

Total tannin phenols (TTP) were calculated as the difference of TP and NTP. Hydrolysable tannins (HT) were calculated as the difference between TTP and CT.

Experimental design

Eight treatments were examined in a randomized complete block design using four non legumes with high tannins and two shrub legumes with low tannins at a ratio of 3:1. Treatment combinations of high tannin non-legume and low tannin legumes used for the experiment are given in Table 2.

In vitro gas production

In vitro gas production was determined as described by Menke and Steingass (1988). Rumen fluid was collected before feeding in the morning from two fistulated donor bulls at the experimental farm of the Faculty of Agriculture. Rumen fluid was strained through four layers of gauze into a pre-warmed, insulated bottle. All laboratory handling of rumen fluid was carried out under a continuous flow of C[O.sub.2] .

Samples (200 mg) consisting of 150 mg high tannin non-legume+50 mg low tannin legume) of the oven-dry feedstuffs were accurately weighed into 100-ml glass syringes fitted with plungers. Syringes were filled with 30 ml of medium consisting of 10 ml of rumen fluid and 20 ml of buffer solution as described by Menke and Steingass (1988). Two blank samples containing 30 ml of medium only were included. The syringes were placed in an incubator (39[degrees]C) and the syringes rotated during first 4 h. Gas production was recorded after 4, 8, 12, 24 and 48 h of incubation. In all experiments, each incubation was repeated on three different days so that each treatment was conducted in triplicate.

In vitro dry matter digestibility

At the end of the fermentation period, the fermented residues were filtered into pre-weighed filter dried for 24 h at 105[degrees]C and weighed and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) was calculated using the standard formula.

Ammonia production

Ammonium concentration in fermentation liquid was determined using Kjeldhal method. Only distillation and titration steps were followed.

Methane production

Methane (C[H.sub.4]) was analyzed in the Dept of Animal Science laboratory of ETH, Zurich using Hewlett Packard Gas Chromatograph (Model 5890, Series II, Avondale, PA, USA).

Protozoa and bacteria counts

Protozoal and bacterial counts were counted with Burker counting chambers (0.1 and 0.02 mm depth, respectively; Blau Brandw, Wertheim, Germany).

Statistical analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on Chemical composition, in vitro digestibility and gas production data. The statistical significance of the differences between means was tested using the Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT). Correlation coefficients were calculated using MS EXCEL version 2007.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Nutritive value of forages, in vitro gas production and dry matter degradability

The chemical composition of forages is presented in Table 3; the entire legumexnon legume mixtures used in the current study had a CP content more than 14% as confirmed by Seresinhe et al. (2003). We observed that the CP content of both leguminous species used in this study was significantly higher than that of all non leguminous species (Table 3). However, in this study the low level (= 8%) of CP in non-legume species could be compensated by combination of legume species with high (= 20%) CP content as evident from N[H.sub.3]-N production (Table 5). It was shown that non leguminous species, C. perntandra and A. heterophyllus had higher (p<0.05) CP comparable with other non-legumes (Table 5). N[H.sub.3]-N concentrations in the present study ranged from 5.66 to 9.13 ml/200 mg DM (p>0.05). N[H.sub.3] concentration is balanced between degradation of feed protein and uptake of ammonia for synthesis of microbial protein. Although not significant, the higher N[H.sub.3]-N concentration observed in A. heterophyllus +L. leucocephala (Trt7) is likely due to higher CP content.

In contrast, non legume foliage contains significantly higher NDF, ADF and ADL contents as compared with leguminous foliage (Table 3). Among non legumes, C. integerrima and A. lindeliyana contained higher (p<0.05) NDF, ADF and ADL as compared with Ceiba perntandra and Artocarpus heterophyllus. Combinations of C. perntandrax LL and A. heterophyllusx LL mixtures contained higher (p<0.05) CP as compared with the same combinations with GS (Trt 6, Trt 8). The CP contents of mixtures of C. integerrimax LL and A. lindeliyanax LL (Trt 1, Trt 3) were also higher as compared with the same combinations with GS. Supplementation with tree foliage rich in CP and low in NDF, ADF and ADL aimed to compensate the limitations in nutrients in non leguminous species.

The condensed tannin content of non-legume and legume combinations ranged between 2.84 to 3.99 (Table 4). The beneficial effects of forage mixtures containing low levels of tannins could be due to the protection of proteins from microbial degradation thus increasing the amount of undegraded protein entering the small intestine (Barry et al., 1986). However, higher concentrations of tannins in the diet are associated with the reduction in organic matter digestibility. Feedstuffs that are inherent in certain anti- nutritive factors had been reported to be low in organic matter digestibility (Aregheore and Abdulrazak, 2005).

There was a steady increase in the gas production for over a period of 48 h as well as significant differences between forage mixtures in net gas volume (Table 5). The highest net gas production was observed in C. perntandra+GS (Trt 6) and A. heterophyllus+LL (Trt 7) but not significantly different from either with C. perntandra +LL (Trt 5; or A. heterophyllus+GS (Trt 8). However, net gas production of C. integerrima and A. lindeliyana either with LL (Trt 1, Trt 2) or GS (Trt 3, Trt 4) mixtures were lower but not significant from each other. There are many factors that may determine the amount of gas produced during fermentation including the nature and level of fiber, the presence of secondary metabolites (Babayemi et al., 2004) and potency of the rumen liquor for incubation. It is possible to attain the potential gas production of feedstuffs if the donor animal from which rumen liquor is collected for incubation has met it's nutrient requirements. Generally, gas production is a function of and a mirror of degradable carbohydrate therefore, the amount depends on the nature of carbohydrates (Blummel and Becker, 1997).

The correlation ([R.sup.2)] between in vitro gas production after 48 h incubation and condensed tannin content was 0.67. More than 60% variation in the in vitro gas production on incubation was explained by condensed tannins. The findings are consistent with Njidda and Ikhimioyza (2010), Tolera et al. (1997) and Getachew et al. (2002) who found strong correlations between CT and gas production. The results also suggest the relationship ([R.sup.2) = 0.61) of CP content and in vitro gas production is also high (Figure 1). It has been reported that the high content of CP and low content of condensed tannin (CT) is associated with degradability of feed, resulting in the higher values for the potential gas production (Ahmed et al., 2007). Further they reported that a negative correlation of potential gas production with ADF and CT may be due to the reduction of microbial activity from increasingly adverse environmental conditions.

The results of the IVDMD are shown in Table 5. Highest (p<0.05) IVDMD was observed in Trt 7. The IVDMD of other treatments were not different among each other. In tree leaves, tannins are present in the NDF and ADF fractions and are tightly bound to the cell wall and cell protein and seem to be involved in decreasing digestibility (Reed et al., 1990). According to the present results it could be suggested that feeds containing high levels of CP and low levels of tannins could generate more methane in the rumen. Soliva et al. (2008) indicated that plants known to contain plant secondary metabolites e.g. tannins are able to suppress methanogenesis. Work done by Balogun et al. (1998), Seresinhe and Iben (2003) and Ammar et al. (2004) pointed out that there were significant (p<0.001) negative correlations between IVDMD and cell wall constituents (ADF and NDF) and also between IVDMD and CT (Kamalak, 2005). Moreover, Seresinhe and Iben (2003) reported the existence of a correlation between IVDMD and CP content which was further confirmed by Kamalak et al. (2005). Chenost et al. (2001) further confirmed the inherent direct relationship between CP and digestibility using seventy nine different forages with four replicates.

Methane production, bacteria and protozoa counts

Methane production (ml/200 mg DM) (Table 6) ranged from 2.57 to 4.79 ml among forage mixtures the least and highest being from A. lindeliyana+LL (Trt 4) to C. perntandra+LL (Trt 5). Also it is evident that the treatments show a high capacity for total gas production to be synonimous for high methane production. Methane production indicates an enenrgy loss to ruminants and many tropical feedstuffs have been implecated with increased methonogenensis. Carlos and Lascano (2003) confirmed that the inclusion of tannin-rich legumes such as Calliandra calothyrsus and Flemingia macrophylla in forage-based diets significantly reduced methane release but also negatively affected nutrient degradation and N turnover. However, in the present study the tannin content was reduced due to combining effect of high and low tannin forages but a more or less similar range of methane production was observed as compared with semi arid browses like Ficus polita and F. thonningii in Nigeria (Njidd and Ikhimioya, 2010). Carlos and Lascano (2003) further hypothesized that to take advantage of the methane suppressing effect of tannin-rich legumes without affecting nutrient degradation and N turnover it was necessary to combine them with legumes low or free of tannin. He further suggested that future work should concentrate in defining the optimal type and proportion of tannin rich legumes in these mixtures as we did in the present study. Further, Tjahyono and Santoso (2010) reported that the positive or negative effects of tannin on methane production may vary depending on the amount of tannin in the plant. Highest (p<0.05) bacteria population was found in C. perntandra+ GS (Trt 6) followed by A. heterophyllus+LL (Trt 7) as compared with other treatments. Protozoa populations ranged between 20 and 55x[10.sup.3] ml. Although not significant, same trend as in the bacteria population was observed as well. The protozoa populations found in this study were in similar ranges as observed by Hariadi and Santoso (2009). The results confirm that lowest level of tannins in Trt 6 could increase the protozoa and bacteria populations in the fermentation liquid support the results of Hess et al. (2003) who reported that tannins may cause significant shifts in rumen microbial populations.

Supplementing high tannin non leguminous foliage by incremental substitution of L. leucocephala and G. sepium foliage increased gas production parameters, IVDMD, and microbial populations in the fermentation liquid due to reduction in tannins as well as an increase in CP content of non-legume and legume combinations. Methane production was low in all treatments but no significant effect was found due to the presence of tannins or higher levels of CP.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors greatly acknowledge the financial and laboratory assistance and guidance given by Prof. Michael Kreuzer and Dr. Carla Soliva in the Department of Agricultural and Food Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Authors also appreciate the assistance of Messieurs D. S. Wijewardhana, S. Karunathilaka and M. P. Kapila Premakumara.

doi:10.5713/ajas.2012.12219

REFERENCES

AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed., Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.

Ahmed, G. N., M. A. Abdel Nasir and E. Fadel. 2007. Chemical composition and in vitro gas production characteristics of six fodder trees leaves and seeds. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 3:983-986.

Ammar, H., S. Lopez, J. S. Gonzalez and M. Ranilla. 2004. Comparison between Analytical methods and biological assays for the assessment of tannin-related antinutritive effects in some Spanish browse species. J. Sci. Food Agric. 84:1349- 1356.

Aregheore, E. M. and S. A. Abdulrazak. 2005. Estimation of organic matter digestibility and metabolizable energy content of agro-industrial wastes using in vitro gas production Nigerian. J. Anim. Prod. 32:79-87.

Babayemi, O. J., D. Demeyer and V. Fievez. 2004. Nutritive value and qualitative assessment of secondary compounds in seeds of eight tropical browse, shrub and pulse legumes. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci. 69:103-110.

Balogun, R. O., R. J. Jones and J. H. G. Holmes. 1998. Digestibility of some tropical browse species varying in tannin content. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 76:77-88.

Barry, T. N., T. R. Manley and S. J. Duncan. 1986. The role of condensed tannins in the nutritive value of Lotus peduculatus for sheep 4 sites of carbohydrate and protein digestion as influenced by dietary reactive tannin concentration. Br. J. Nutr. 55:123-137.

Blummel, M. and K. Becker. 1997. The degradability characteristics of fifty-four roughages and roughage neutral detergent fibers as described by in vitro gas production and the relationship to voluntary feed intake. Br. J. Nutr. 77:757-768.

Carlos, E. and Lascano. 2003. Tropical grasses and legumes: Optimizing genetic diversity for multipurpose use (Project IP5), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT).

Castro-Gonzales, A. and J. A. Alayon-Gamboa. 2008. Affects of Brosimum alicastrum and Lysolima latisiliquum mixtures on voluntary intake, nutrient digestibility and nitrogen balance in sheep fed tropical pastures. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 141: 246-258.

Chenost, M., J. Aufrere and D. Macheboeuf. 2001. The gas-test technique as a tool for predicting the energetic value of forage plants. Anim. Res. 50:349-364.

Getachew, G., H. P. S. Makkar and K. Becker. 2002. Tropical browses: Contents of phenolic compounds in vitro gas production and stoichiometric relationship between short chain Fatty acid and in vitro gas production. J. Agric. Sci. 139: 341-352.

Hariyadi, B. T. and B. Santoso. 2010. Evaluation of tropical plants containing tannin on in vitro methanogenesis and fermentation parameters using rumen fluid. J. Sci. Food Agric. 90:456-461.

Hess, H. D., l. M. Monsalve, C. E. Lascano, C. E. Carulla, T. E. Diaz and M. Kreuzer. 2003. Supplementation of a tropical grass diet with forage legumes and Sapindus saponaria fruits: effects of in vitro ruminal nitrogen turnover and methanogenensis. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 54:703-713.

Kamalak, A. 2005. Chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility of leaves of Vitis Vinifera. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 17:68.

Kamalak, A., O. Canbolat, Y. Gurbuz, O. Ozzy and C. O. Ozkose. 2005. Chemical composition and its relationship to in vitro gas production of several tannin-containing trees and shrub leaves. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 18:203-208

Makkar, H. P. S. 2003. Quantification of tannins in tree and shrub foliage. A Laboratory Manual. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Menke, K. H. and H. Steingass. 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim. Res. Dev. 28:7-55.

Nguyen, T. M., D. Van Binh and E. R. Orskov. 2005. Effect of foliages containing condensed tannins and gastrointestinal parasites. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 122:77-87.

Njidda, A. A. and I. Ikhimioya. 2010. In vitro gas production and dry matter digestibility of semi-arid browses of north eastern Nigeria. Slovak J. Anim. Sci. 43:154-159.

Porter, I. P., I. N. Hrstich and B. G. Chan. 1986. The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyanidin and delphinidin. Phytochemistry 25:223-230.

Reed J. D., H. Soller and A. Woodwar. 1990. Fodder tree and straw diets for sheep: intake, growth, digestibility and the effects of phenolic on nitrogen utilization. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 30:39-50.

Seresinhe, T. and R. A. U. J. Marapana. 2011. Goat farming systems in the southern province of Sri Lanka: Feeding and management strategies. World J. Agric. Sci. 7:383-390.

Seresinhe, Y. D. J. W., T. Seresinhe and K. K. Pathirana. 2003. Assessment of the feeding value of five shrub legumes of local interest. In: Proceedings of the second academic session, University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka, Jan 23. pp. 43-48.

Seresinhe, T. and C. Iben. 2003. In vitro quality assessment of two tropical shrub legumes in relation to their extractable tannins content. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 87:109-115.

Silanikove, N., N. Gilboa and Z. Nitsan. 2001. Effects of condensed tannins in carob leaves (Ceratonia siliqua) on rumen volume and passage rate of liquid and particulate matter along the digestive tract in goats. Small Rumin. Res. 40:95-99.

Soliva, C. R., A. B. Zeleke, C. Clement, H. D. Hess, V. Fievez and M. Kreuzer. 2008. In vitro screening of various tropical foliages, seeds, fruits and medicinal plants for low methane and high ammonia generating potentials in the rumen. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 147:53-71.

Tjahyono, B. and H. B. Santoso. 2010. Evaluation of tropical plants containing tannin on in vitro methanogenesis and fermentation parameters using rumen fluid. J. Sci. Food Agric. 90:456-461.

Tolera, A., K. Khazaal and E. R. Orskov. 1997. Nutritive evaluation of some browse species Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 67:181-195.

Van Soest, P. J. 1967. Development of a comprehensive system of feed analysis and its application to forages. J. Anim. Sci. 26: 119-128.

T. Seresinhe *, S. A. C. Madushika, Y. Seresinhe, P. K. Lal and E. R. Orskov (1)

Dept. of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna, Kamburupitiya, Sri Lanka

* Corresponding Author: Thakshala Seresinhe. Tel: +94-41-229 2200, Fax: +94-41-2292387, E-mail: thakshas@ansci.ruh.ac.lk 1 James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB158QH, UK.

Submitted Apr. 20, 2012; Accepted Jul. 3, 2012; Revised Jul. 27, 2012

Table 1. Leguminous and non-leguminous forage species used for
the experiment

Family           Common name     Botanical name

Rhizophoraceae   Dawata          Carallia integerrima
Euphorbiaceae    Kebella         Aporosa lindeliyana
Boraginaceae     Imbul           Ceiba perntandra
Moraceae         Jak fruit       Artocarpus heterophyllus
Leguminoseae     Ipil ipil       Leucaena leucocephala
Leguminoseae     Glirizidia      Gliricidia sepium

Table 2. Treatment combinations of high tannin non-legume and
low tannin legumes used for the experiment

Treatment      Combination

Treatment 1    C. integerrima+L. leucocephala
Treatment 2    C. integerrima+G. sepium
Treatment 3    A.lindeliyana+L. leucocephala
Treatment 4    A. lindeliyana+G. sepium
Treatment 5    C. perntandra+L. leucocephala
Treatment 6    C. perntandra+G. sepium
Treatment 7    A. heterophyllus+L. leucocephala
Treatment 8    A. heterophyllus+G. sepium

Table 3. Proximate composition of forages

Botanical name                                    DM %

Non-legumes
Carallia integerrima (Dawata)            32.1 (a) [+ or -] 1.02
Aporosa lindeliyana (Kebella)            29.9 (b) [+ or -] 0.78
Ceiba perntandra (Imbul)                 27.7  (b) [+ or -] 0.81
Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jak fruit)     30.0 (ab) [+ or -] 0.97
Legumes
Leucaena leucocephala (Ipil ipil)        31.0 (a) [+ or -] 0.85
Gliricidia sepium (Glirizidia)           26 .0 (b) [+ or -] 1.98
Sig.                                              ***

Botanical name                                    CP %

Non-legumes
Carallia integerrima (Dawata)            8.0  (c) [+ or -] 0.97
Aporosa lindeliyana (Kebella)            9.0  (c) [+ or -] 0.78
Ceiba perntandra (Imbul)                 17.6 (b) [+ or -] 0.98
Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jak fruit)     15.9 (b) [+ or -] 0.07
Legumes
Leucaena leucocephala (Ipil ipil)        26.8 (a)  [+ or -] 0.56
Gliricidia sepium (Glirizidia)           20.0 (ab) [+ or -] 1.33
Sig.                                               *

Botanical name                                    CT %

Non-legumes
Carallia integerrima (Dawata)            6.2 (a) [+ or -] 0.35
Aporosa lindeliyana (Kebella)            6.4 (b) [+ or -] 0.01
Ceiba perntandra (Imbul)                 4.9 (b) [+ or -] 0.06
Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jak fruit)     5.4 (a) [+ or -] 0.32
Legumes
Leucaena leucocephala (Ipil ipil)         1.6 LT [+ or -] 0.06
Gliricidia sepium (Glirizidia)           0.8 LT (d) [+ or -] 0.21
Sig.                                               *

Botanical name                                   NDF %

Non-legumes
Carallia integerrima (Dawata)            56.7 (a) [+ or -] 4.31
Aporosa lindeliyana (Kebella)            50.2 (ab)[+ or -] 3.18
Ceiba perntandra (Imbul)                 46.1 (b) [+ or -] 6.43
Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jak fruit)     46.5 (b) [+ or -] 1.77
Legumes
Leucaena leucocephala (Ipil ipil)        33.5 (c) [+ or -] 0.636
Gliricidia sepium (Glirizidia)           35.1 (c) [+ or -] 0.98
Sig.                                              ***

Botanical name                                   ADF %

Non-legumes
Carallia integerrima (Dawata)            47.0 (b) [+ or -] 3.21
Aporosa lindeliyana (Kebella)            51.3 (a) [+ or -] 1.70
Ceiba perntandra (Imbul)                 33.8 (de) [+ or -] 0.71
Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jak fruit)     43.8 (c) [+ or -] 1.77
Legumes
Leucaena leucocephala (Ipil ipil)        23.6 (e) [+ or -] 0.71
Gliricidia sepium (Glirizidia)           35.9  (d) [+ or -] 0.72
Sig.                                              ***

Botanical name                                   ADL %

Non-legumes
Carallia integerrima (Dawata)            25.8 (a) [+ or -] 3.25
Aporosa lindeliyana (Kebella)            27.2 (a) [+ or -] 1.48
Ceiba perntandra (Imbul)                 15.8 (c) [+ or -] 0.78
Artocarpus heterophyllus (Jak fruit)     18.8 (b) [+ or -] 0.49
Legumes
Leucaena leucocephala (Ipil ipil)        8.5 (cd) [+ or -] 0.35
Gliricidia sepium (Glirizidia)           5.1 (d) [+ or -] 0.55
Sig.                                              ***

Data are mean values of four replicates. DM = Dry matter;
CP = Crude protein; CT = Condensed tannin; NDF = Neutral detergent
fiber; ADF = Acid detergent fiber; ADL = Acid detergent lignin.
Means within the same column with differing superscripts
(a, b, c and d) are significantly different (*
p<0.05, *** p<0.001).

Table 4. Proximate composition of forage mixtures

Botanical name                            DM %

Carallia integerrima              31.5 (a) [+ or -] 1.10
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 1)
Carallia integerrima              29.1 (a) [+ or -] 0.98
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 2)
Aporosa lindeliyana               30.5 (a) [+ or -] 0.86
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 3)
Aporosa lindeliyana               28.0 (a) [+ or -] 0.89
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 4)
Ceiba perntandra                  29.4 (a) [+ or -] 0.97
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 5)
Ceiba perntandra                  26.9 (a) [+ or -] 0.99
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 6)
Artocarpus heterophyllus          30.5 (a) [+ or -] 0.86
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 7)
Artocarpus heterophyllus          28.0 (a) [+ or -] 0.79
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 8)
Sig.                                       *

Botanical name                            CP %

Carallia integerrima              17.4 (c) [+ or -] 0.89
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 1)
Carallia integerrima              14.0 (d) [+ or -] 0.89
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 2)
Aporosa lindeliyana               17.9 (c) [+ or -] 0.77
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 3)
Aporosa lindeliyana               14.5 (d) [+ or -] 0.88
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 4)
Ceiba perntandra                  22.2 (a) [+ or -] 0.98
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 5)
Ceiba perntandra                  18.8 (b) [+ or -] 0.77
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 6)
Artocarpus heterophyllus          21.4 (ab) [+ or -] 0.86
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 7)
Artocarpus heterophyllus          18.0 (bc) [+ or -] 0.95
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 8)
Sig.                                       *

Botanical name                         Condensed
                                          CT %

Carallia integerrima              3.9 (a) [+ or -] 0.41
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 1)
Carallia integerrima              3.5 (a) [+ or -] 0.32
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 2)
Aporosa lindeliyana               4.0 (a) [+ or -] 0.40
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 3)
Aporosa lindeliyana               3.6 (a) [+ or -] 0.35
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 4)
Ceiba perntandra                   3.3b [+ or -] 0.33
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 5)
Ceiba perntandra                   2.8c [+ or -] 0.37
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 6)
Artocarpus heterophyllus          3.5 (a) [+ or -] 0.22
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 7)
Artocarpus heterophyllus          3.1 (ab) [+ or -] 0.31
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 8)
Sig.                                       *

Botanical name                           NDF %

Carallia integerrima              45.1 (a) [+ or -] 3.67
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 1)
Carallia integerrima              39.8 (c) [+ or -] 2.98
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 2)
Aporosa lindeliyana               39.8 (c) [+ or -] 3.01
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 3)
Aporosa lindeliyana               40.6 (b) [+ or -] 2.67
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 4)
Ceiba perntandra                  41.8 (b) [+ or -] 2.89
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 5)
Ceiba perntandra                  42.6 (ab)  [+ or -] 2.87
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 6)
Artocarpus heterophyllus          40.0 (c) [+ or -] 2.67
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 7)
Artocarpus heterophyllus          40.8 (bc) [+ or -] 2.97
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 8)
Sig.                                       *

Botanical name                           ADF %

Carallia integerrima              35.3 (b) [+ or -] 1.02
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 1)
Carallia integerrima              33.7 (c) [+ or -] 2.05
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 2)
Aporosa lindeliyana               33.7 (c) [+ or -] 2.78
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 3)
Aporosa lindeliyana               39.9 (ab) [+ or -] 2.34
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 4)
Ceiba perntandra                  28.7 (d) [+ or -] 2.56
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 5)
Ceiba perntandra                  34.9 (bc) [+ or -] 2.04
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 6)
Artocarpus heterophyllus          37.5 (b) [+ or -] 2.45
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 7)
Artocarpus heterophyllus          43.6 (a) [+ or -] 2.01
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 8)
Sig.                                      ***

Botanical name                           ADL %

Carallia integerrima              18.6 (a) [+ or -] 2.67
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 1)
Carallia integerrima              15.5 (b) [+ or -] 2.13
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 2)
Aporosa lindeliyana               17.8 (a)  [+ or -] 2.11
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 3)
Aporosa lindeliyana               16.1 (ab) [+ or -] 1.98
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 4)
Ceiba perntandra                  12.1(b)  [+ or -] 1.87
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 5)
Ceiba perntandra                  10.5 (d) [+ or -] 1.09
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 6)
Artocarpus heterophyllus          16.1 (ab) [+ or -] 1.25
xLeucaena leucocephala (Trt. 7)
Artocarpus heterophyllus          14.4 (b) [+ or -] 1.45
xGliricidia sepium (Trt. 8)
Sig.                                      ***

Data are mean values of four replicates. DM = Dry matter;
CP = Crude protein; CT = Condensed tannin; NDF = Neutral
detergent fiber; ADF = Acid detergent fiber ADF;
ADL = Acid detergent lignin. Means within the same column
with differing superscripts (a, b, c and d) are significantly different
(* p<0.05, *** p<0.001).

Table 5. In vitro gas production (IVGP), ammonia
production (%) and dry matter degradability (IVDMD %)
of forage combinations

Treatment                                          IVDMD %

Trt1: C. integerrima + L. leucocephala      47.8 (b) [+ or -] 7.98
Trt2: C. integerrima + G. sepium            49.9 (b) [+ or -] 5.43
Trt 3: A. lindeliyana + L. leucocephala     38.3 (b) [+ or -] 4.67
Trt 4: A. lindeliyana + G. sepium           38.4 (b) [+ or -] 7.79
Trt 5: C. perntandra + L. leucocephala      46.6 (b) [+ or -] 5.25
Trt 6: C. perntandra + G. sepium            44.5 (b) [+ or -] 3.70
Trt7: A. heterophyllus + L. leucocephala    56.3 (b) [+ or -] 22.9
Trt8: A. heterophyllus + G. sepium          49.9 (b) [+ or -] 5.27
Sig.                                                  *

Treatment                                    Mean gas production
                                             (ml/200 mg DM) ****

Trt1: C. integerrima + L. leucocephala     37.5 (bc) [+ or -] 3.32
Trt2: C. integerrima + G. sepium           38.5 (bc) [+ or -] 4.93
Trt 3: A. lindeliyana + L. leucocephala     34.5 (c) [+ or -] 3.87
Trt 4: A. lindeliyana + G. sepium          36.0  (c) [+ or -] 2.00
Trt 5: C. perntandra + L. leucocephala     41.3 (ab)  [+ or -] 4.57
Trt 6: C. perntandra + G. sepium           44.0 (a)  [+ or -] 1.83
Trt7: A. heterophyllus + L. leucocephala   44.0 (a)  [+ or -] 1.83
Trt8: A. heterophyllus + G. sepium         43.0 (a)  [+ or -] 3.16
Sig.                                                  **

Treatment                                       N[H.sub.3]-N
                                             (ml/200 mg DM) ****

Trt1: C. integerrima + L. leucocephala        7.4  [+ or -] 0.99
Trt2: C. integerrima + G. sepium              5.7 [+ or -] 0.76
Trt 3: A. lindeliyana + L. leucocephala       5.9 [+ or -] 0.72
Trt 4: A. lindeliyana + G. sepium             7.9 [+ or -] 0.68
Trt 5: C. perntandra + L. leucocephala        8.3 [+ or -] 0.06
Trt 6: C. perntandra + G. sepium              8.9 [+ or -] 0.473
Trt7: A. heterophyllus + L. leucocephala      9.1 [+ or -] 0.35
Trt8: A. heterophyllus + G. sepium            8.5 [+ or -] 0.60
Sig.                                                  NS

Means in the same column with differing superscripts (a, b and c)
are significant in IVDMD %, Mean gas production and N[H.sub.3]-N.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01.
NS = Not significant. Data are mean values of three replicates
(twenty four samples).
**** Amount of gas produced in ml as a result of incubation
of 200 mg substrate of dry matter.

Table 6. Methane production, bacteria and protozoa counts after
48 h (incubation)

Treatment                                     C[H.sub.4] production
                                               (ml/200 mg DM) ****

Trt1: C. integerrima+L. leucocephala           3.3  [+ or -]  0.12
Trt2: C. integerrima+G. sepium                  3.7 [+ or -] 0.33
Trt 3: A. lindeliyana+L. leucocephala           2.6 [+ or -] 0.18
Trt 4: A. lindeliyana+G. sepium                 2.6 [+ or -] 0.09
Trt 5: C. perntandra+L. leucocephala            4.8 [+ or -] 0.09
Trt 6: C. perntandra+G. sepium                  4.2 [+ or -] 0.11
Trt7: A. heterophyllus+L. leucocephala          4.5 [+ or -] 0.38
Trt8: A.heterophyllus+G. sepium                 3.8 [+ or -] 0.16
Sig.                                                    NS

Treatment                                    Bacteriax[10.sup.3]
                                                ([Ml.sup.-1])

Trt1: C. integerrima+L. leucocephala          225 (b) [+ or -] 52.50
Trt2: C. integerrima+G. sepium                150 (c) [+ or -] 39.68
Trt 3: A. lindeliyana+L. leucocephala         175 (b) [+ or -] 67.22
Trt 4: A. lindeliyana+G. sepium               240 (b) [+ or -] 22.00
Trt 5: C. perntandra+L. leucocephala          155 (c) [+ or -] 99.21
Trt 6: C. perntandra+G. sepium                300 (a) [+ or -] 17.81
Trt7: A. heterophyllus+L. leucocephala        272 (a) [+ or -] 26.33
Trt8: A.heterophyllus+G. sepium              217 (bc) [+ or -] 13.12
Sig.                                                    *

Treatment                                      Protozoax[10.sup.3]
                                                   ([Ml.sup.-1])

Trt1: C. integerrima+L. leucocephala            35.0 [+ or -] 3.52
Trt2: C. integerrima+G. sepium                  20.0 [+ or -] 1.16
Trt 3: A. lindeliyana+L. leucocephala           40.0 [+ or -] 5.57
Trt 4: A. lindeliyana+G. sepium                 30.0 [+ or -] 1.73
Trt 5: C. perntandra+L. leucocephala            40.0 [+ or -] 6.66
Trt 6: C. perntandra+G. sepium                  55.0 [+ or -] 1.15
Trt7: A. heterophyllus+L. leucocephala          48.0 [+ or -] 3.46
Trt8: A.heterophyllus+G. sepium                 40.0 [+ or -] 4.58
Sig.                                                    NS

Means in the same column with differing superscripts (a, b and c)
are significant in Bacteria count. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01,
NS = Not significant.
Data are mean values of three replicates (twenty four samples).
COPYRIGHT 2012 Asian - Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Seresinhe, T.; Madushika, S.A.C.; Seresinhe, Y.; Lal, P.K.; Orskov, E.R.
Publication:Asian - Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9SRIL
Date:Oct 1, 2012
Words:5380
Previous Article:Chemical composition, in vitro gas production, ruminal fermentation and degradation patterns of diets by grazing steers in native range of north...
Next Article:Transfer of orally administered terpenes in goat milk and cheese.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters