Nutritional value, feeding behavior, physiological parameters, and performance of crossbred Boer goat kids fed butterfly pea hay and cactus pear meal
Abstract
Aim of study: To evaluate diets with different proportions of butterfly pea hay (BH) and cactus pear meal (CM) on the intake and digestibility of nutrients, productive performance, feeding behavior and physiological parameters of crossbred Boer kids.
Area of study: Northwest of Brazil.
Material and methods: 32 crossbred Boer intact male goats were distributed in a randomized block design, with four treatments with different proportions of BH and CM in the diets, partially replacing elephant grass on a total dry matter (DM) basis: 0% BH + 0 % CM as a control, 83% BH + 17% CM, 67% BH + 33% CM, and 50% BH + 50% CM. Each treatment group included eight animals. The experiment lasted 84 days preceded by 15 days of adaptation.
Main results: Kids fed the control diet had the greatest intake of neutral detergent fiber, hemicellulose, water intake via food, time to feed and the lowest feed conversion (p<0.05) compared to BH+CM diets. Diet 83% BH+17% CM provided less digestibility of neutral detergent fiber, greater efficiency of DM intake and lower efficiency of DM and neutral detergent fiber rumination (p<0.05) compared to other diets. Diet 67% BH+33% CM resulted in greater digestibility of dry and organic matter, weight gains and longer (p<0.05) chewing time (seconds/cud) compared to other diets. Diet 50% BH+50% CM showed lower (p<0.05) intake of acid detergent fiber, time for rumination, efficiency of ingestion of neutral detergent fiber and rectal temperature, and longer (p<0.05) idle times compared to other diets.
Research highlights: Partial substitution of elephant grass with 67% BH and 33% CM increased digestibility and weight gain of crossbred Boer kids, without changing nutrient and water intake in the finishing.
Downloads
References
Abreu MLC, Vieira RAM, Rocha NS, Araujo RP, Glória LS, Fernandes AM et al., 2014. Clitoria ternatea L. as a potential high quality forage legume. Asian-Austral J Anim Sci 27: 169-178. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13343
Aguilar-Yáñez MI, Hernández-Mendo O, Guerrero-Legarreta I, Ramírez-Bribiesca JE, Aranda-Osorio G, Crosby-Galvan MM, 2011. Productive response of lambs fed with fresh or dehydrated spineless cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica L.). J Prof Assoc Cactus Dev 13: 23-35. http://www.jpacd.org/jpacd/article/view/86
Albuquerque IRR, Araújo GGL, Voltolini TV, Moura JHA, Costa RG, Gois GC et al., 2020. Saline water intake effects performance, digestibility, nitrogen and water balance of feedlot lambs. Anim Prod Sci 60: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN19224
Andrade SFJ, Batista AMV, Carvalho FFR, Lucena RB, Andrade RPX, Lima Júnior DM, 2016. Fresh or dehydrated spineless cactus in diets for lambs. Acta Scient Anim Sci 38: 155-161. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascianimsci.v38i2.29329
AOAC, 2016. Official methods of analysis, 20th Ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists International. Washington DC. 3100 pp.
Araújo TGP, Furtado DA, Nascimento JWB, Medeiros AN, Lopes Neto JP, 2017. Thermoregulatory responses and adaptability of Anglo-nubian goats maintained in thermoneutral temperature and under heat stress. J Anim Behav Biometeorol 5: 106-111. https://doi.org/10.31893/2318-1265jabb.v5n3p106-111
Bürger PJ, Pereira JC, Queiroz AC, Silva JFC, Valadares Filho SC, Cecon PR, Casali ADP, 2000. Ingestive behavior in Holstein calves fed diets with different concentrate levels. Rev Bras Zootec 29: 236-242. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982000000100031
Carvalho GGP, Pires AJV, Silva RR, Veloso CM, Silva HGO, 2006. Ingestive behaviour of sheep fed with ammoniated or non-ammoniated elephantgrass silage and agro industrial by-products. Rev Bras Zootec 35: 1805-1812. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982006000600031
Church DC, 1976. Digestive physiology and nutrition of ruminants: Digestive physiology, 2nd Ed., O & B Books Publishing, Corvallis. 349 pp.
Crampton EW, Donefer E, Lloyd LE, 1960. A nutritive value index for forages. J Anim Sci 19: 538-544. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1960.192538x
Deshmukh S, Jadhav V, 2014. Bromatological and mineral assessment of Clitoria ternatea Linn. leaves. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 6: 244-246.
Gebremariam T, Melaku S, Yami A, 2006. Effect of wilting of cactus pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) on feed utilization in sheep. Trop Sci 46: 37-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/ts.27
Hall MB, 2003. Challenges with non-fiber carbohydrate methods. J Anim Sci 81: 3226-3232. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.81123226x
Jusoh S, Nur Hafifah CS, 2018. Nutritive value, palatability and selectivity of 10 different legume herbages by rabbits. Malaysian J Anim Sci 21: 69-75.
Licitra G, Hernandez TM, Van Soest PJ, 1996. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fracionation of ruminant feed. Anim Feed Sci Techn 57: 347-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3
Lopes LA, Ferreira MA, Batista AMV, Maciel MV, Andrade RB, Munhame JA et al., 2020. Intake, digestibility, and performance of lambs fed spineless cactus cv. Orelha de Elefante Mexicana. Asian-Austral J Anim Sci 33: 1284-1291. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.19.0328
Lu CD, Kawas JR, Mahgoub OG, 2005. Fibre digestion and utilization in goats. Small Rum Res 60: 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.06.035
Magalhães ALR, Sousa DR, Nascimento Júnior JRS, Gois GC, Campos FS, Santos KC et al., 2019. Intake, digestibility and rumen parameters in sheep fed with common bean residue and cactus pear. Biol Rhy Res 52: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09291016.2019.1592351
Matias AGS, Araújo GGL, Campos FS, Moraes SA, Gois GC, Silva TS et al., 2020. Fermentation profile and nutritional quality of silages composed of cactus pear and maniçoba for goat feeding. J Agric Sci 158: 304-312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859620000581
Mertens DR, 1987. Predicting intake and digestibility using mathematical models of ruminal function. J Anim Sci 64: 1548-1558. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1987.6451548x
Morshedy SA, Mohsen AEA, Basyony MM, Almeer R, Abdel-Daim MM, El-Gindy YM, 2020. Effect of prickly pear cactus peel supplementation on milk production, nutrient digestibility and rumen fermentation of sheep and the maternal effects on growth and physiological performance of suckling offspring. Anim 10: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091476
Moura MSC, Guim A, Batista AMV, Maciel MV, Cardoso DB, Lima Júnior DM, Carvalho FFR, 2020. The inclusion of spineless cactus in the diet of lambs increases fattening of the carcass. Meat Sci 160: e107975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107975
Moyo M, Nsahlai IV, 2017. Rate of passage of digesta in ruminants; are goats different? In: Goat science; Kukovics S (ed.). pp: 39-74. IntechOpen, London. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69745
Nobre IS, Araújo GGL, Santos EM, Carvalho GGP, Souza BB, Ribeiro OL et al., 2018. Ingestive behavior and thermoregulation in sheep fed forage cactus silage undergoing intermittent water supply. Semina: Ci Agr 39: 1683-1694. https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2018v39n4p1683
NRC, 2007. Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: sheep, goats, cervids, and New World camelids, 7th ed. National Research Council, Nat Acad Press, Washington DC. 384 pp.
Oliveira FA, Carvalho GGP, Assis DYC, Oliveira RJF, Nascimento CO, Tosto MSL et al., 2019. Quantitative and qualitative traits of carcass and meat of goats fed diets with cactus meal replacing corn. Trop Anim Health Prod 51: 589-598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-018-1733-1
Pereira FDS, Menezes DR, Araújo EJB, Rodrigues RTS, Andreo N, Mattos CW et al., 2020. Diets containing cunhã (Clitoria ternatea L.) hay and forage cactus (Opuntia sp.) meal on production and meat quality of Boer crossbred goat. Trop Anim Health Prod 52: 2707-2713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-020-02225-6
Pulina G, Avondo M, Molle G, Francesconi AHD, Atzori AS, Cannas A, 2013. Models for estimating feed intake in small ruminants. Rev Bras Zootec 42: 675-690. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982013000900010
Reece WO, 2017. Dukes - Fisiologia dos Animais Domésticos, 13th ed. Roca, Barueri, SP, Brazil. 740 pp.
Rosa PR, Araújo GGL, Turco SHN, Moraes SA, Alves JN, Gois GC et al., 2019. Ingestive behavior and physiological parameters of Sindhi heifers receiving saline water. J Agric Sci 11: 381-394. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v11n4p381
Sá WCCS, Santos EM, Oliveira JS, Araújo GGL, Perazzo AF, Silva AL et al., 2020. Fermentative characteristics and chemical composition of cochineal nopal cactus silage containing chemical and microbial additives. J Agric Sci 158: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859620000829
Santos KC, Magalhães ALR, Silva DKA, Araújo GGL, Fagundes GM, Ybarra NG, Abdalla AL, 2017. Nutritional potential of forage species found in Brazilian semiarid region. Liv Sci 195: 118-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2016.12.002
Santos JRS, Cezar MF, Sousa WH, Cunha MGG, Pereira Filho JM, Sousa DO, 2011. Carcass characteristics and body components of Santa Inês lambs in feedlot fed on different levels of forage cactus meal. R Bras Zootec 40: 2273-227. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982011001000030
Silva JFC, Leão MI, 1979. Fundamentos de nutrição de ruminantes, 1st ed. Livroceres, Piracicaba, 380 pp.
Sniffen CJ, O'Connor JD, Van Soest PJ, 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. J Anim Sci 70: 3562-3577. https://doi.org/10.2527/1992.70113562x
Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA, 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74: 3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
Vieira DS, Oliveira JS, Santos EM, Santos BRC, Pinto LFB, Zanine AM et al., 2022. Microbiological composition of diets of cactus pear-based with increasing levels of buffel grass hay and relationship to nutritional disorders in sheep. Anim 12: e500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12040500
Copyright (c) 2022 Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
