4.6 Article

Chemical composition, in situ ruminal degradability and post-ruminal disappearance of dry matter and crude protein from the halophytic plants Kochia scoparia, Atriplex dimorphostegia, Suaeda arcuata and Gamanthus gamacarpus

期刊

ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 141, 期 3-4, 页码 209-219

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.06.014

关键词

halophytic plants; chemical composition; degradability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Samples of Kochia (K. scoparia), Atriplex (A. dimorphostegia), Suaeda (S. arcuata) and Gamanthus (G. gamacarpus) were collected and analyzed for chemical composition including crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), ash, neutral detergent fiber (NDFom), acid detergent fiber (ADFom), non-protein N (NPN), Ca, P, Na, K, Cl, Mg, Fe, Cu and Se. In addition, in situ ruminal degradability and post-ruminal disappearance of dry matter (DM) and CP of the samples using a mobile bag technique were determined. Results indicate that the chemical composition of Kochia and Atriplex was notably different from those of Suaeda and Gamanthus. All of these halophytic plants had high concentrations of Na, K, Cl, Cu and Se, and low levels of Ca, P and Mg. The rapidly degradable fractions and CP (g/g) of Kochia (0.31 and 0.35, respectively) and Atriplex (0.39 and 0.50, respectively) were lower than for Suaeda (0.53 and 0.55, respectively) and Gamanthus (0.56 and 0.66, respectively). Ruminal DM and CP disappearance of Kochia (444 and 517 g/kg, respectively) and Atriplex (472 and 529 g/kg, respectively) were lower (P<0.05) than those of Suaeda (553 and 577 g/kg, respectively) and Gamanthus (663 and 677 g/kg, respectively) (P<0.05) using the mobile bag technique. Suaeda had the lowest (P<0.05) NDFom and ADFom disappearance (214 and 232 g/kg, respectively) in the rumen. Kochia scoparia and Atriplex dimorphostegia have more beneficial chemical nutritive components and digestible values versus Suaeda arcuata and Gamanthus gamacarpus. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据