Aboreal forage digestibility in cattle using metabolic cages
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22579/22484817.578Keywords:
digestibility, energy, metabolismAbstract
To optimize animal production in tropical areas, it is necessary to improve the nutritional quality forage. Besides to maintenance of soil and environmental conditions excellent. The objective was to evaluate the forage potential of five arboreal forages adapted to Meta department of Colombia by testing in vivo digestibility in cattle. Five steers were used with an average weight of 350 ± 18.5 kg, were housed in cages. The treatments were: Grass (Brachiaria decumbens) (T0), five kg of Gliricidia sepium (T1), five kg of Erythrina glauca (T2), five kg of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis (T3), five kg of Trichanthera gigantea (T4) and five kg of Erythrina poeppigiana (T5). The food Consumption, excretion of feces and urine were measured. The digestible energy (DE), metabolic energy (ME), net energy of maintenance (NEm) and net energy of production (NEp) were also calculated. Metabolic cages had feeders, drinkers and mesh floor to collect feces, they had a tilt angle, avoiding contact with urine. In the Animal Nutrition Laboratory analyze to feed and feces: Dry matter (DM), protein, fat, crude fiber (CF), ash, nitrogen free extract (EFN), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (FDA) to determine digestibility coefficients (cod). The experimental model was a completely randomized design with ten replicates and 6 treatments were applied Tukey tests. The cod of all nutrients were lower in the T0 (P> 0.05), as well as total digestible nutrients (56.4%). H rosa-sinenesis and T gigantea showed the highest digestibility (p<0,05) compared to other treatments. T0 got less (p>0.05) NEp (16.52%), compared to H. rosa-sinenesis (18.77%) T gigantea (18.21%). These two forages showed less losses in feces, urine and metabolic heat. It is concluded that protein and energy are used to a high degree when supplemented with these two forage crops, which shows their excellent nutritional quality.
References
Álvarez C. SPSS 10 (programas para computador) | estadística spss 10 para windows (programas para computador) |Análisis de datos [CD-Rom]. Madrid: Unversidad Complutense. 2001.
AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis (18th) Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arligton, VA. Washington, D.C. 2006.
Arosema, J. Efecto de la altura y épocas corte sobre la calidad y producción de la biomasa de nacedero (T. gigantea). Panamá, IDIAP. 2008.
Bowman GR, Beauchemin KA, Shelford JA. Fibrolytic enzymes and parity effects on feeding behavior, salivation, and ruminal pH of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2003. 86 (2): 565-575.
Galindo J, Marrero Y. Manipulación de la fermentación microbiana ruminal. Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agrícola. 2005. 39: 439-450.
Gómez E, Rodríguez L, Murgueitio E, Rios C, Molina C, Molina E, Molina P. Árboles y arbustos forrajeros utilizados en la alimentación animal como fuente proteica. CIPAV. Cali, Colombia. 2002: 146.
Jiménez G, López M, Nahed J, Ochoa S, De Jong G. Árboles y arbustos forrajeros de la región norte-tzotzil de Chiapas, México. Vet. Méx [online]. 2008: 39: (2) 199-213 [citado 2011-11-01], Disponible en: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0301-50922008000200009&lng=es&nrm=iso
National Research Council (NRC). The Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th ed. Revised Edition. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 2001: 381.
National Research Council (NRC). The Nutrient Requirements of beef Cattle, 7th ed. Revised Edition. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 2000: 234.
Perez l, Perez B. Informe final proyecto: Evaluación agronómica y productiva de especies forrajeras en la Orinoquia Colombiana. CORPOICA. CI La Libertad. Villavicencio. Meta. 2003:45.
Pérez AG, Abadía B, Arreaza L.C Aplicación De Una Metodología Para Cuantificar La Digestibilidad Intestinal Proteica En Rumiantes REV CORPOICA. 2005: 6:1:8.
Polo E. Preparando a los pequeños y medianos ganaderos para la competitividad; manejo de especies forrajeras arbustivas que incrementan beneficios en los sistemas doble propósito en Panamá. Panamá. PROMEGA. 2008: 32.
Rincón A, Cuesta P, Perez R, Bueno G, Pardo O, Gomez J. Manual técnico Producción y utilización de recursos forrajeros en sistemas de producción bovina de la Orinoquia y el Piedemonte Caqueteño. CORPOICAFEDEGAN-MADR. Santa fe de Bogotá. Colombia. 2002: 76.
Urdaneta M, Kaas, Rosero O, Parra N, Quintero A. Composición química y Digestibilidad de nuevas especies arbustivas utilizando dos métodos de secado. Rev Cient, FCV-LUZ. 1997: 7 (1): 17-22.
Van Lier E, Regueiro M. Digestión en retículo-rumen. Departamento de producción animal y pasturas. Universidad La República. Montevideo, Uruguay 2008: 30p.
Villalobos JC. Interrelación de suplementos proteicos y energéticos con la calidad de forraje de animales en pastoreo. VIII Congreso Internacional de Nutrición Animal. Chihuahua, México. 2000: 3-44.
Yang W.Z., Beauchemin K.A., Rode L.M. A comparison of methods of adding fibrolytic enzymes to lactating cow diets. J. Dairy Sci. 2000. 83: 2512-2520.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2011 Revista Sistemas de Producción Agroecológicos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Esta revista y sus artículos se punlican bajo la licencia Creative Commons (CC BY – NC-ND 4.0), que permite el uso, distribución y reproducción sin restricciones en cualquier medio o formato, siempre que se acredite el autor y la fuente originales; no usar bajo propósitos comerciales.
