In Situ and in Vitro Nutritive Value Assessment of Styrax Officinalis L. as an Alternative Forage Source for Goat Feeding

Year 2022, Volume: 28 Issue: 2, 181 - 188, 25.04.2022

Selim Esen , Fisun Koc , Levent Özdüven , Hüseyin Eseceli , Evren Cabi , Harun Karadağ

https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.871650

Abstract

The current study aimed to determine Styrax officinalis L. (SO) leaf's nutritive value, collected at four phenological stages, pre-flowering (PF), flowering (FL), seed linkage (SL), and fruiting (FR) by in situ and in vitro experiments. The ruminal degradability of dry matter (DM) and crude protein (CP) and in vitro gas production (GP) of SO leaves were measured using three rumen fistulated mature Saanen goats. Significant differences between chemical compositions of the SO leaves collected at different phenological stages were observed (P<0.001). The DM, CP, ether extract (EE), and ash values of SO leaves ranged between 29.16 to 45.63%, 10.11 to 19.79%, 3.40 to 5.85%, and 4.71 to 6.49% during the different phenological stages (PF, FL, SL and FR, respectively). Cell wall components of SO leaves showed a cubic trend due to their capability to form new shoots after grazing. The effective DM and CP degradability of SO leaves ranged between 66.91 to 77.93% and 64.92 to 84.57%, which means an average value for animals fed at approximately maintenance level when rumen outflow rate (r) is equal to 0.02 h−1. Significant differences between the SO leaves collected at different phenological stages were observed in GP at all incubation times (P<0.05 and P<0.001). After 96 h incubation, the gas produced ranged between 20.68 to 27.53 mL/200 mg DM of the substrate. The research findings clearly indicate that degradability of DM, CP, and ME content of SO leaves ranged between moderate to high and significantly affected by phenological stages, however, they could be utilized until the end of the FL stage as forage sources.

Keywords

Styrax officinalis L. leaves, ruminal degradability, digestibility, gas production, chemical composition

Supporting Institution

The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)

Project Number

218O159

Thanks

This study was funded by Tubitak (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey), Scientific Research Project # 218O159.

References

• Abdulrazak S A, Fujihara T, Ondiek J K & Ørskov E R (2000). Nutritive evaluation of some acacia tree leaves from Kenya. Animal Feed Science and Technology 85(1-2): 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00133-4
• Ammar H, Lopez S & Gonzalez J S (2005). Assessment of the digestibility of some Mediterranean shrubs by in vitro techniques. Animal Feed Science and Technology 119(3-4): 323-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.12.013
• AOAC (1990). Official Methods of Analysis. 15th Edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Washington DC
• Apori S O, Castro F B, Shand W J & Ørskov E R (1998). Chemical composition, in sacco degradation and in vitro gas production of some Ghanaian browse plants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 76(1-2): 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(98)00205-3
• Ataşoğlu C, Canbolat Ö, Şahin S & Baytekin H (2010). Potential nutritive value of browse foliages from Pinus pinaster, Prunus amygdalus and Ulmus glabra. Journal of Animal Production 5(1): 1-7
• Boubaker A, Kayouli C, Boukary A & Buldgen A (2004). Nutrition and feeding strategies of sheep and goats under harsh climates. In: Ben Salem H, Nefzaoui A & Morand-Fehr P (Eds). CIHEAM (Options Méditerranéennes: Série A, Séminaires Méditerranéens, No: 59) Zaragoza, Spain, pp. 147-151.
• Bruno-Soares A M, Matos T J S & Cadima J (2011). Nutritive value of Cistus salvifolius shrubs for small ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 165(3-4): 167-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.02.021
• Dziba L E, Scogings P F, Gordon I J & Raats J G (2003). Effects of season and breed on browse species intake rates and diet selection by goats in the false thornveld of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Small Ruminant Research 47(1): 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(02)00235-3
• Ertekin İ, Atış İ, Yılmaz Ş, Can E & Kızılşimşek M (2019). Comparison of shrub leaves in terms of chemical composition and nutritive value. KSU Journal of Agriculture and Nature 22(5): 781-786. https://doi.org/10.18016/ ksutarimdoga.v22i45606.530946
• Getachew G, Blümmel M, Makkar H P S & Becker K (1998). In vitro gas measuring techniques for assessment of nutritional quality of feeds: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 72(3-4): 261-281 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(97)00189-2
• Givens D I, Owen E, Auford R F E & Omend H M (2000). Forage evaluation in ruminant nutrition. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom, p. 283
• Goering H K & Van Soest P J (1970). Forage fiber analyses: apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some applications (No. 379). Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.
• González-Pech P G, Ventura-Cordero J, Torres-Fajardo R A, Jaimez-Rodríguez P R, Torres-Acosta J F J & Sandoval-Castro C A (2021). Comparing the browsing behavior of inexperienced kids versus adult goats on heterogeneous vegetation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 236: 105240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105240
• Jaradat N (2020). Phytochemistry, traditional uses and biological effects of the desert plant Styrax officinalis L. Journal of Arid Environments 182: 104253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2020.104253
• Kaitho R J, Tamminga S & Bruchem J (1993). Rumen degradation and in vivo digestibility of dried Calliandra calothyrsus leaves. Animal Feed Science and Technology 43(1-2): 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(93)90139-B
• Kamalak A (2006). Determination of nutritive value of leaves of a native grown shrub, Glycyrrhiza glabra L. using in vitro and in situ measurements. Small Ruminant Research 64(3): 268-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.04.027
• Kamalak A, Canbolat O, Ozay O & Aktas S (2004). Nutritive value of oak (Quercus spp.) leaves. Small Ruminant Research 53(1-2): 161-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2003.09.003
• Karabulut A, Canbolat O, Ozkan C O & Kamalak A. 2006. Potential nutritive value of some Mediterranean shrub and tree leaves as emergency food for sheep in winter. Livestock Research for Rural Development 18(6):81
• Khan N A, Habib G & Ullah G (2009). Chemical composition, rumen degradability, protein utilization and lactation response to selected tree leaves as substitute of cottonseed cake in the diet of dairy goats. Animal Feed Science and Technology 154(3-4): 160-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.08.011
• Kökten K, Gürsoy O, Tukel T & Hatipoğlu R (2010). Yield and nutritive value of anti-Taurus Mountain rangeland shrubs in Turkey. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 9(4): 716-720. https://doi.org/10.3923/javaa.2010.716.720
• Lee M J, Hwang S Y & Chiou P W S (2000). Metabolizable energy of roughages in Taiwan. Small Ruminant Research 36(3): 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(99)00124-8
• Łyczko J, Pawlak A, Augustyński I, Okińczyc P, Szperlik J, Kulma A, Różański H, Obmińska-Mrukowicz B & Szumny A (2020). Chemical profiling and cytotoxic activity of 150-year old original sample of Jerusalem Balsam. Food and Chemical Toxicology 138: 111183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2020.111183.
• Mahall B E, Thwing L K & Tyler C M (2010). A quantitative comparison of two extremes in chaparral shrub phenology. Flora-Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants 205(8): 513-526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2009.12.011
• Menke K H, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D & Schneider W (1979). The estimation of digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedstuffs from the gas production when they incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. Journal of Agricultural Science 93(1): 217-222. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600086305
• Metera E, Sakowski T, Słoniewski K & Romanowicz B (2010). Grazing as a tool to maintain biodiversity of grassland-a review. Animal Science Papers and Reports 28(4): 315-334
• Moujahed N, Mustapha C B & Kayouli C (2005). Sustainable Grazing, Nutritional utilization and quality of sheep and goat. In: Molina Alcaide E, Ben Salem H, Biale K (Eds). CIHEAM (Options Méditerranéennes: Série A, Séminaires Méditerranéens, No: 67) Zaragoza, Spain. pp. 413-417
• Mountousis I, Papanikolaou K, Stanogias G, Chatzitheodoridis F & Roukos C. 2008. Seasonal variation of chemical composition and dry matter digestibility of rangelands in NW Greece. Journal of Central European Agriculture 9(3): 547-555
• Ndlovu L R & Nherera F V (1997). Chemical composition and relationship to in vitro gas production of Zimbabwean browsable indigenous tree species. Animal Feed Science and Technology 69(1-3): 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(97)81627-6
• Norman H C, Revell D K, Mayberry D K, Rintoul D E, Wilmot M G & Masters D G (2010). Comparison of in vivo organic matter digestion of native Australian shrubs by sheep to in vitro and in sacco predictions. Small Ruminant Research 91(1): 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.11.019
• Ørskov E R & McDonald I (1979). The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science 92(2): 499-503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600063048
• Parissi Z M, Papachristou T G Nastis A S (2005). Effect of drying method on estimated nutritive value of browse species using an in vitro gas production technique. Animal Feed Science and Technology 123-124(1): 119-128 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.04.046
• Perevolotsky A, Landau S, Kababya D & Ungar E D (1998). Diet selection in dairy goats grazing woody Mediterranean rangeland. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57(1-2): 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00120-2
• Rogosic J, Pfister J A, Provenza F D & Grbesa D (2006). Sheep and goat preference for and nutritional value of Mediterranean shrubs. Small Ruminant Research 64(1-2): 169-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.04.017
• Salem A Z M, Salem M Z M, El-Adawy M M & Robinson P H (2006). Nutritive evaluations of some browse tree foliages during the dry season: secondary compounds, feed intake and in vivo digestibility in sheep and goats. Animal Feed Science and Technology 127(1-2): 251-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.04.017
• SAS (2016). JMP Version 13.2. SAS Institute Incorporation, Cary, NC, 1989-2019.
• Sileshi Z, Emyr O, Mewa S & Micheal K T (1996). Prediction of in situ rumen dry matter disappearance of Ethiopian forages from an in vitro gas production technique using a pressure transducer, chemical analyses or in vitro digestibility. Animal Feed Science and Technology 61(1-4): 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(96)00948-0
• Şimşek N & Kamalak A (2019). Bazı ağaç yapraklarının anti-metanojenik özelliklerinin in vitro gaz üretim tekniği ile belirlenmesi. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture 2(1): 1-5
• Sun B, Ricardo-da-Silva J M & Spranger I (1998). Critical factors of vanillin assay for catechins and proanthocyanidins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 46(10): 4267-4274. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf980366j Tölü C (2009). Farklı keçi genotiplerinde davranış, sağlık ve performans özellikleri üzerine araştırmalar. PhD thesis, University of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart, Çanakkale, Turkey.
• Tolunay A, Adiyaman E, Akyol A & Ince D (2009). Herbage growth and fodder yield characteristics of kermes oak (Quecus coccifera L.) in a vegetation period. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 8(2): 290-294
• Van Soest P J, Robertson J B & Lewis B A (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74(10): 3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
• Van Soest P J (1994). Nutritional Ecology of Ruminants. 2nd ed. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA, p. 476
• Yesilyurt M K & Cesur C (2020). Biodiesel synthesis from Styrax officinalis L. seed oil as a novel and potential non-edible feedstock: A parametric optimization study through the Taguchi technique. Fuel 265: 117025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117025