4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Tannin content, nutritive value and dry matter digestibility of Lonchocarpus capassa, Zizyphus mucronata, Sclerocarya birrea, Kirkia acuminata and Rhus lancea seeds

期刊

ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 91, 期 1-2, 页码 107-113

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00235-8

关键词

tannin content; nutritive value; digestibility; browse seeds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tree seeds are a potentially valuable source of nutrients for livestock in Botswana but their use has been limited by scant research on their chemical and nutritional properties. Seeds of five browse trees from the hardveld region of Botswana were analysed for condensed tannins, proximate composition, in vitro dry matter digestibility and mineral elements. Content (% DM) of condensed tannins as determined by the butanol-HCl method were 2.62, 3.09, 3.10, 4.26 and 5.07 for Sclerocarya birrea, Zizyphus mucronata, Kirkia acuminata, Lonchocarpus capassa and Rhus lancea, respectively. The seeds contain low crude proteins (% DM) at 7.08, 6.17, 10.96 and 7.79 for, Z. mucronata, S. birrea, K. acuminata and R. lancea, respectively, except L. capassa with 54.2% crude protein. The dry matter digestibility (%) ranged from 7.95 for S. birrea to 72.34 for L. capassa. This coupled with low condensed tannin content suggests that some of them may be valuable protein supplements in ruminant diets. The NDF (%) and ADF (%) ranged from 24.53 and 8.70 in L. capassa to 80.33 and 67.10 in S. birrea, respectively. In general, the seeds had adequate quantities of phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron and copper to meet requirements for beef, sheep and goat production. The content of sodium, manganese and zinc (except in L. capassa) were below recommended levels required by ruminants for growth and productivity. The study suggested that these browse seeds serve as potential nutrient sources for free grazing animals on the ranges in Botswana. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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