4.4 Article

Yield components and nutritive value of Robinia pseudoacacia and Albizia julibrissin in Arkansas, USA

期刊

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS
卷 72, 期 1, 页码 51-62

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10457-007-9098-x

关键词

black locust; crude protein; in vitro dry matter digestibility; mimosa; mimosine; nitrogen; pollard; robinin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ranchers need alternative livestock feeds when herbaceous forages become limiting in summer. Our objectives were to determine: (1) leaf and stem biomass components, (2) nutritive value [in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), total nonstructural carbohydrate (TNC), N, and N digestibility] of leaves for animal browse, (3) concentration of the secondary metabolites robinin and mimosine, and (4) in vitro leaf and bark toxicity for black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) and mimosa (Albizia julibrissin Durz.), respectively, pollarded at 50 cm in Arkansas, USA. Black locust exceeded mimosa for every yield component (leaf mass tree(-1), leaves shoot(-1), shoots tree(-1), shoot mass tree(-1), stem basal area, and biomass tree(-1)) except mass leaf(-1). Projected yields were 1,900 and 1,600 kg leaves ha(-1) for black locust and mimosa, respectively, assuming a population of 12,300 trees ha(-1). Mimosa leaves had greater IVDMD, TNC, and N digestibility than black locust. Mimosa leaves exceeded the nutritional N requirements of growing cattle (Bos taurus L.) and goats (Capra hircus L.), but protein supplementation would be needed for growing goats grazing black locust leaves. Tissue concentrations of secondary metabolites robinin and mimosine were below detectable limits in black locust and mimosa, respectively. The extract of black locust bark, but not leaves, was toxic to bioassayed African green monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops L.) cells. Either black locust or mimosa could provide moderate quantities of high quality, rotationally grazed forage for goats during summer months when herbaceous forage may in short supply.

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

4.4
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