Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T09:35:38.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NUTRITIONAL EVALUATION AND PALATABILITY TRIAL OF ENSILED CONOCARPUS GREENERY RESIDUES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2011

ZAINAB BAROON  and
MOHAMED ABDU RAZZAQUE
ZAINAB BAROON*
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, P. O. Box 24885, Safat 13109, Kuwait
MOHAMED ABDU RAZZAQUE
Affiliation:
Department of Aridland Agriculture and Greenery, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Safat, Kuwait
*
‡Corresponding author. E-mail: zbaroon@kisr.edu.kw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Conocarpus lancifolius is an ornamental tree planted in Kuwait, resulting in more than 120 t of residual by-products daily. These residues could be utilised as ensiled feed. A total premix of 24 t of silage was prepared in six pilot-scale trench silos for 30 days, after which triplicate samples were taken from each trench silo, which were analysed for nutritional contents and microbial populations. Mean pH value was 4.2 ± 0.12, where mean of dry matter (DM), crude protein, crude fats, crude fibre, organic matter, lactic and acetic acids and total water soluble carbohydrate concentration were 35.10 ± 4.0%, 11.18 ± 0.07%, 2.47 ± 0.21%, 20.85 ± 0.95%, 19.53 ± 0.53%, 4.95 ± 0.32%, 1.47 ± 0.01% and 20.86 ± 0.56% on DM basis, respectively. Means of aerobic bacteria, fungi (yeast and moulds) and lactic acid bacteria counts were 1.8 ×104 ± 0.15, 1.1 × 104 ± 0.09 and 7.3 × 108 ± 0.12 colony forming units per gram of fresh silage, respectively. An animal performance trial was conducted on 60 Holstein Friesian heifers with initial live weights ranging from 262 to 275 kg, grouped in six dietary treatments for a 148-day feeding trial. The diets contained different ratios of Conocarpus silage, which ranged from 10 to 60% on DM basis partially replacing conventional roughage (alfalfa hay, straw). DM intake of heifers ranged between 11.40 ± 2.14 kg and 13.61 ± 2.54 kg. Daily live-weight gain ranged from 0.99 ± 0.38 kg to 1.20 ± 0.31 kg. From the results, Conocarpus silage could be suggested as a replacement for conventional roughage in rations for growing heifers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 138 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Al-Surrayai, T. and Baroon, Z. (2005). Investigation of the Chemical and Microbiological Quality of Fresh Plants, Silages and Calves Meat. Technical Report KISR 7764. Safat, Kuwait: Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research.Google Scholar
AOAC (1995). Official Methods of Analysis, 16th edn.Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
AOAC (2002). Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edn.Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Baroon, Z., Abbas, S., Razzaque, M. A. and Bedair, M. (2006). Greenery Residues as Livestock Feed. Phase II: Pilot-Scale Production of Silage and Animal Response Studies. Progress Report KISR 8177. Safat, Kuwait: Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research.Google Scholar
Baroon, Z., Razzaque, M. A. and Al-Anjari, H. (2001). Evaluation of Greenery Residues for Animal Feeding. Chemical and Microbiological Studies on Plants and Silages. Technical Report KISR 6163. Safat, Kuwait: Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research.Google Scholar
Baroon, Z., Razzaque, M. A., Bedair, M. and Abbas, S. (2003). Greenery Residues as Livestock Feed. Phase II: Pilot-Scale Production of Silage and Animal Response Studies. Progress Report KISR 7892. Safat, Kuwait: Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research.Google Scholar
Baroon, Z., Razzaque, M. A. and Mufleh, A. (2004) Ensilage of Greenery Residues as Animal Feed. Phase I: Pilot-Scale Production and Palatability Studies. Final Report Technical KISR 7194. Safat, Kuwait: Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research.Google Scholar
Barrière, Y., Dias Gonçalves, G., Emile, J. C. and Lefèvre, B. (2004). Higher intake of DK265 corn silage by dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 87:1439–1445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhat, N. R., Suleiman, M. K., Al-Menaie, H., AL-Mulla, L., Christopher, A., Lekha, V. S., Ali, S. I. and George, P. (2009). Polyacrylamide polymer and salinity effects on water requirement of Conocarpus lancifolius and selected properties of sandy loam soil. European Journal of Scientific Research 25:549–558.Google Scholar
Bolsen, K. K. (1997). Issues of top spoilage losses in horizontal silos. In: Silage: Field to Feedbunk. Proceedings of Silage: Field to Feedbunk North American Conference, Hershey, PA, USA, February 11–13, 137–150.Google Scholar
Bolsen, K. K., Ashbell, G. and Wilkinson, J. M. (1995) Silage additives. In: Biotechnology in Animal Feeds and Animal Feeding, 33 (Eds Chesson, A. and Wallace, R. J.). Weinhein, Germany: VCH Press.Google Scholar
Bolsen, K. K., Sonon, R. N., Dalke, B., Pope, R., Riley, J. G. and Laytimi, A. (1992). Evaluation of inoculant and NPN silage additives: A summary of 26 trials and 65 farm-scale silages. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Report of Program 651:101–102 (Kansas State University, KS, USA).Google Scholar
Carvalho, L. P. F., Cabrita, A. R. J., Dewhurst, R. J., Vicente, T. E. J., Lopes, Z. M. C. and Fonseca, A. J. M. (2006). Evaluation of palm kernel meal and corn distillers grains in corn silage-based diets for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89:2705–2715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chizzotti, F. H. M., Pereira, O. G., Valadares Filho, S. C., Chizzotti, M. L., Leão, M. I., Pereira, D. H. and Tedeschi, L. O. (2009). Intake, digestibility, ruminal parameters, and microbial protein synthesis in crossbred steers fed diets based on Brachiaria grass silage and sorghum silage. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia 61:1328–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, H. P., Pereira, O. G., Silva, B. C., Leão, M. I., Valadares Filho, S. C. and Garcia, R. (2008). Nutrient intake and digestibility and ruminal parameters in beef cattle fed diets containing Brachiaria brizantha silage and concentrate at different ratios. Animal Feed Science and Technology 140:52–66.Google Scholar
Dewar, F. and McDonald, P. (1961). Determination of dry matter in silage by distillation with toluene. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12:790–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F test. Biometrics 11:1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. D., Dillon, P., Shalloo, L., Wallace, M. and Garrick, D. J. (2004). An economic comparison of dual-purpose and Holstein-Friesian cow breeds in a seasonal grass-based system under different milk production scenarios. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 43:1–16.Google Scholar
Haigh, P. M. (2006). Effect of herbage water-soluble carbohydrate content and weather conditions at ensilage on the fermentation of grass silages made on commercial farms. Grass and Forage Science 45:263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. B., Jennings, J. P., Lewis, B. A. and Robertson, J. B. (2000). Evaluation of starch analysis methods for feed samples. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 81:17–21.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICBA (2009). Strategic Plan 2008–2012, a Research Mandate. Dubai, UAE: International Center for Biosaline Agriculture.Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. G. (1993). Alternative Finishing Strategies for the Production of High Quality Beef. MRC Report for DAN.040. Cambridge, UK: MRC.Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. G., Piltz, J. W., Burns, H. M. and Griffiths, N. W. (2004). Successful Silage, 2nd edn., 419 pp. ISBN 0347 15835. Orange, NSW, Australia: Dairy Australia and NSW Department of Primary Industries.Google Scholar
Knickey, M. (2005). Possibilities to Improve Silage Conservation, Effects of Crop, Ensiling Technology and Additives. Doctoral Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. ISSN 1652-6880.Google Scholar
Kung, L. and Ranjit, N. K. (2001). The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and other additives on the fermentation and aerobic stability of barley silage. Journal of Dairy Science 84:1149–1155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marley, C. L., Fychan, R., Fraser, M. D., Sanderson, R. and Jones, R. (2007). Effects of feeding different ensiled forages on the productivity and nutrient-use efficiency of finishing lambs. Grass and Forage Science 62:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P., Henderson, A. R. and Heron, J. E. (1991). The Biochemistry of Silage, 2nd edn., 340 pp. Marlow, UK: Chalcombe.Google Scholar
Muck, R. E., Savoie, P. and Holmes, B. J. (2003) Factors Influencing Density in Bunker Silos. Research Report US Dairy Forage Research Center 2002, 11–13. Prairie du Sac, WI: US Dairy Forage Research Center.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) (2001). Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th edn.Washington, DC: National Academic of Sciences.Google Scholar
Nkosi, B. D., Meeske, R., Palic, D., Langa, T., Leeuw, K. J. and Groenewald, I. B. (2009) Effects of ensiling whole crop maize with bacterial inoculants on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and growth performance of lambs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 154:193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohmomo, S., Tanaka, O. and Kitamoto, H. K. (1993). Analysis of organic acids in silage by high-performance liquid chromatography. Bulletin of National Grass Research Institute 46:51–56.Google Scholar
Payne, R. L., Lavergne, T. K. and Southern, L. L. (2005). A comparison of two sources of phytase in liquid and dry forms in broilers. Poultry Science 84:265–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pereira, D. H., Pereira, O. G., Siva, B. C., Leao, M. I., Filho, S. C. V. and Garcia, R. (2008). Nutrient intake and digestibility and ruminal parameters in beef cattle fed diets containing Brachiaria brizantha silage and concentrate at different ratios. Animal Feed Science and Technology 140:52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razzaque, M. A. and Al-Nasser, A. (2003). Status of Animal Production Subsector and Animal Origin Foods in Kuwait and Recommended Measures for Improvement. Report No. KISR 6722. Safat, Kuwait: Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, M. A. M., Fonseca, A. J. M., Sequeira, C. A. and Dias-da-Silva, A. A. (2002). Digestion kinetic parameters from an in vitro gas production method as predictors of voluntary intake of forage by mature ewes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 95:133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruppel, K. A., Pitt, R. E., Chase, L. E. and Galton, D. M. (1995) Bunker silo management and its relationship to forage preservation on dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 78:141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selmer-Olsen, I., Henderson, A. R., Robertson, S. and McGinn, R. (2006) Cell wall degrading enzymes for silage. 1. The fermentation of enzyme-treated ryegrass in laboratory silos. Grass and Forage Science 48:45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shehata, S. M., El Shimi, S. A., Elkattan, M. H., Ali, B. E., El-Housseini, M., El Sayad, S. A., Mahmoud, M. S., Zaki, A. M., Hamdi, Y. A., and El-Nawawy, A. S. (2004). Integrated waste management for rural development in Egypt. Journal of Environmental Science and Health 39:341–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suleiman, M. K., Bhat, N. R., Abdal, M. S. and Bellen, R. R. (2005). Testing newly introduced ornamental plants to the arid climate of Kuwait. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 51:469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wensvoort, J. (2008). Browse silage in the UAE. Wildlife Middle East News 3(1). (ISSN 1990-8237, UAE).Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M. (2005). Silage. Lincoln, UK: Chalcombe.Google Scholar
Woolford, M. and Pahlow, G. (1998). The silage fermentation. In: Microbiology of Fermented Foods, 73–102 (Ed Wood, B. J. B.). London: Blackie Academic and Professional.CrossRefGoogle Scholar