Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:18:32.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nutritive value of Acacia saligna and Acacia salicina for goats and sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. A. Degen ,
A. Blanke ,
K. Becker ,
M. Kam ,
R. W. Benjamin  and
H. P. S. Makkar
A. A. Degen
Affiliation:
Desert Animal Adaptations and Husbandry, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel
A. Blanke
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics (480), University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
K. Becker
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics (480), University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
M. Kam
Affiliation:
Desert Animal Adaptations and Husbandry, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel
R. W. Benjamin
Affiliation:
Desert Animal Adaptations and Husbandry, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel
H. P. S. Makkar
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics (480), University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
Get access

Abstract

Acacia saligna and A. salicina phyllodes, harvested in autumn from young and mature trees, were fed as sole diets to goats (20·3 (s.d. 4·8) kg; no. = 16) and sheep (32·6 (s.d. 4·9) kg; no. = 16). Crude protein of phyllodes from mature trees was 111 g/kg dry matter (DM) and from young trees ranged between 121 and 132 g/kg DM. Condensed tannins and ash content were about twice as high in young trees as in old ones and gross energy was higher in old trees than in young ones. DM intakes by goats from both tree species were low: 24·8 and 13·7 g/kg M0·75 per day for mature and young trees, respectively. Corresponding intakes by sheep were 20·4 and 11·5 g/kg M0·75 per day. Metabolizable energy intakes were up to 125 and 99 kj/kg M0·75 per day for goats and sheep, respectively and were higher for phyllodes from mature trees than for young trees. Goats lost up to 219 glday and sheep up to 346 g/day and both species were in negative nitrogen balance. DM, organic matter and energy apparent digestibilities were low for all diets but were generally higher for goats than sheep. It is concluded that neither A. saligna nor A. salicina could be used as a sole food for small ruminants because of low intakes and negative nitrogen balances. This appears to be due to high tannin content.

Keywords

Acacia speciesfood intakegoatsnitrogen balancesheeptannins
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 253 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Armstrong, G. 1992. A necessary evil? The Port Jackson (Acacia saligna) could be a valuable agroforestry tree for disadvantaged landholders. Veld and Flora, March 1992, pp. 10–13.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edn.Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Barry, T. N. 1989. Condensed tannins: their role in ruminant protein and carbohydrate digestion and possible effects upon the rumen ecosystem. In The role of protozoa and fungi in ruminant digestion (ed. Nolan, J. V., Leng, R. A. and Demeyer, D. I.), pp. 153–169. Penambul Books, Armidale.Google Scholar
Bas, F. J., Ehle, F. R. and Goodrich, R. D. 1985. Evaluation of pelleted aspen foliage as a ruminant feedstuff. Journal of Animal Science 61:1030–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennison, J. J. and Paterson, R. T. 1993. Use of trees by livestock. 2: Acacia. Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, A. N. 1989. Nutrient utilization of acacia, haloxylon and atriplex species by Najdi sheep. Journal of Range Management 42: 28–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, G. J. 1989. The diversity and potential value of shrubs and tree fodders. In Shrubs and tree fodders for farm animals (ed. Devendra, C.), pp. 2–11. IDRC, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Boers, T. M. and Ben-Asher, J. 1982. A review of rainwater harvesting. Agricultural Water Management 5:145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohra, H. C. 1980. Nutrient utilization of Prosopsis cineraria (Khejri) leaves by desert sheep and goats. Annals of Arid Zone 19: 73–81.Google Scholar
Bruins, H. J., Evenari, M. and Nessler, U. 1986. Rainwater-harvesting for food production in arid zones: the challenge of the African famine. Applied Geography 6:13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, T. P., Provenza, F. D., Burritt, E. A., Reichardt, P. B. and Bryant, J. P. 1990. Ecological implications of condensed tannin structure: a case study. Journal of Chemical Ecology 16: 2381–2392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coley, P. D. 1986. Costs and benefits of defense by tannins in a neotropical tree. Oecologia 70: 238–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, H. 1992. Acacia saligna—for dryland fodder and soil stabilization, pp. 92–103. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Paia, USA.Google Scholar
Degen, A. A. and Kam, M. 1991. Energy intake, nitrogen balance and water influx of Dorper sheep when consuming different diets. Journal of Arid Environments 21: 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degen, A. A., Makkar, H. P. S., Becker, K. and 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 of Food and Agriculture 68: 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dement, W. A. and Mooney, H. A. 1974. Seasonal variation in the production of tannins and cyanogenic glucosides in the chaparral shrub, Heteromeles arbutifolia. Oecologia 15: 65–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devendra, C. 1989. The use of shrubs and tree fodders by ruminants. In Shrubs and tree fodders for farm animals (ed. Devendra, C.), pp. 42–60. IDRC, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Distel, R. A. and Provenza, F. D. 1991. Experience early in life affects voluntary intake of blackbrush in goats. Journal of Chemical Ecology 17:431–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Mello, J. P. F. 1992. Chemical constraints to the use of tropical legumes in animal nutrition. Animal Feed Science and Technology 38: 237–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumancic, D. and Le Houerou, H. N. 1980. Acacia cyanophylla Lindl, as supplementary feed for small stock in Libya. In Browse in Africa (ed. Houerou, H. N. Le), pp. 321–325. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa.Google Scholar
Dumancic, D. and Le Houerou, H. N. 1981. Acacia cyanophylla Lindl, as a supplementary feed for small stock in Libya. Journal of Arid Environments 4:161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economides, S. and Hadjidemetrion, D. 1974. The nutritive value of some agricultural by-products. Agricultural Research Institute technical bulletin no. 18, Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
El-Lakany, M. H. 1987. Use of Australian Acacias in North Africa. In Australian Acacias in developing countries (ed. Turnbull, J. W.), ACIAR proceedings no. 16, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
El-Lakany, M. H. and Mahmoud, S. 1991. Agroforestry as a desert farming system; biomass production and feeding quality of Acacia saligna. Advances-Desert-Arid-Land- Technology-Development, Chur, Switzerland 5:423–433.Google Scholar
Felker, P. 1981. Uses of tree legumes in semiarid regions. Economic Botany 35: 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furstenburg, D. and Hoven, W. van. 1994. Condensed tannin as anti-defoliate agent against browsing by giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) in the Kruger National Park. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 107A: 425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fibre analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some applications). Agricultural handbook no. 379. ARS, USDA, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Hanley, T. A., Robbins, C. T., Hagerman, A. E. and McArthur, C. 1992. Predicting digestible protein and digestible dry matter in tannin-containing forages consumed by ruminants. Ecology 73: 573–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearl, L. C. 1982. Nutrient requirements of ruminants in developing countries. International Feedstuffs Institute, Utah Agricultural Experimental Station, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.Google Scholar
Leroy, E. C., Dann, P. R., Wildin, J. H., Wesley-Smith, R. N. and McGowan, A. A. 1992. Trees and shrubs as sources of fodder in Australia. Agroforestry Systems 20: 117–139.Google Scholar
Louca, A., Antoniou, T. and Hatzipanayiotou, M. 1982. Comparative digestibility of feedstuffs by various ruminants, specifically goats. Proceedings of the third international conference on goat production and disease. University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Lovenstein, H., Berliner, P. R. and Keulen, H. van. 1991. Runoff agroforestry in arid lands. Forest Ecology and Management 45:59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahyuddin, P., Little, D. A. and Lowry, J. B. 1988. Drying treatment drastically affects feed evaluation and feed quality with certain tropical forage species. Animal Feed Science and Technology 22: 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkar, H. P. S. 1993. Antinutritional factors in foods for livestock. In Animal production in developing countries (ed. Gill, M., Owen, E., Pollott, G. E. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production, no. 16, pp. 69–85.Google Scholar
Makkar, H. P. S. 1994. Quantification of tannins — a laboratory manual. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Aleppo, Syria.Google Scholar
Makkar, H. P. S., Dawra, R. K. and Singh, B. L. 1988. Changes in tannin content, polymerization and protein precipitation capacity in oak (Quercus incana) leaves with maturity. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 44: 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkar, H. P. S., Dawra, R. K. and Singh, B. L. 1991. Tannin levels in leaves of some oak species at different stages of maturity. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 54: 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nastis, A. S. and Malecheck, J. A. 1981. Digestion and utilization of nutrients in oak browse by goats. Journal of Animal Science 53:283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Academy of Sciences. 1980. Acacia saligna. In Firewood crops: shrub and tree species for energy production, pp. 100–101. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Nunez-Hernandez, G., Holechek, J. L., Wallace, J. D., Galyean, M. L., Tembo, A., Valdez, R. and Cardenas, M. 1989. Influence of native shrubs on nutritional status of goats: nitrogen retention Journal of Range Management 42: 228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunez-Hernandez, G., Wallace, J. D., Holecheck, J. L., Galean, M. L. and Cardenas, M. 1991. Condensed tannins and nutrient utilization by lambs and goats fed low-quality diets. Journal of Animal Science 69:1167–1177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palo, R. T., Sunnerheim, K. and Theander, O. 1985. Seasonal variation of phenols, crude protein and cell wall content of birch (Betula pendula Roth.) in relation to ruminant in vitro digestibility. Oecologia 65: 314–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, J. L. D., Soller, H. and Woodward, A. 1990. Fodder tree and straw diets for sheep: intake, growth, digestibility and the effects of phenolics on nitrogen utilization. Animal Feed Science and Technology 30: 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skerman, P. J., Cameron, D. G. and Riveros, F. 1988. Tropical forage legumes. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. JMP user's guide. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Topps, J. H. 1992. Potential composition and use of legume shrubs and trees as fodders for livestock in the tropics. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 118:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. D. 1977. The digestibility and voluntary intake of the leaves of trees and shrubs by sheep and goats. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 28: 501–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar