Screening of tree leaves for bioactive components and their impact on in vitro fermentability and methane production from total mixed ration

  • Pompi Deuri
  • N. Sood
  • M. WadhwaEmail author
  • M. P. S. Bakshi
  • A. Z. M. Salem


This study was taken up to assess the effect of supplementing tree leaves [Eucalyptus globules (Safeda), Populus tremula (Poplar), Ficus bengalensis (Banyan), Saraca asoca (Ashoka), Acacia nilotica (Kikar), Phoenix dactylifera (Khajoor), Aegle marmelos (Bael), Murraya koenigii (Curry), Cassia fistula (Amaltas), Bauhinia variegata (Kachnar), Mangifera indica (Mango) and Psidium guajava (Guava)] at 1–3% on fermentability and in vitro methane production from total mixed ration (TMR). The globulins content was highest in Aegle, while albumin was highest in Psidium leaves. Prolamin was highest in Ficus (17.3%), while glutelin was the highest in Phoenix (6.50%). Ficus (15.2%) and Psidium (10.7%) leaves contained highest level of condensed tannins. Eucalyptus and Mangifera leaves showed the highest antioxidant activity and flavonoid content respectively. Supplementation of TMR with leaves of Acacia, Psidium and Cassia resulted in higher (P < 0.05) DM digestibility, whereas NDF digestibility was highest in TMR supplemented with Mangifera and Acacia leaves. The VFAs concentration varied (P < 0.05) from 4.4 to 6.07 mM/dl in TMR supplemented with Eucalyptus and Saraca leaves. Bauhinia leaves supplementation resulted in the lowest (P < 0.05) methane production from TMR. It was concluded that TMR supplemented with leaves of M. indica, A. nilotica, P. guajava, C. fistula, E. globules and P. dactylifera at 1% has great potential to improve digestibility and or decrease methane production.


Methane Metabolizable energy Secondary metabolites Tree leaves Rumen fermentation  



  1. AOAC (2000) Official methods of analysis, 7th edn. Association of Analytical Chemists, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  2. Aregheare EM, Abdulrazak SA (2005) Estimation of organic matter digestibility and metabolizable energy content of agro-industrial wastes using in vitro gas production. Nig J Anim Prod 31: 79–87 (CROSS REF Asian Aust J Anim Sci vol. 25, no. 10, pp 1404–1410 October 2012. Effects of tropical high tannin non legume and low tannin legume browse mixtures on fermentation parameters and methanogenesis using gas production technique. Seresinhe T, Madushika SAC, Seresinhe Y, Lal PK, Ørskov ER)
  3. Argos P, Pederson K, Marks MD, Larkins BA (1982) A structural model for maize zeinproteins. J Biol Chem 257:9984–9990Google Scholar
  4. Baccou JC, Lambert F, Sanvaire Y (1977) Spectrophotometric method for the determination of total steroidal sapogenin. Analyst 102:458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakshi MPS, Wadhwa M (2004a) Effect of herbal feed additives on the nutrient utilization in buffalo calves, Bubalusbubalis. J Buffalo Sci Tech 10: 65–70. (CROSS REF: Modifying gut microbiomes in large ruminants: Opportunities in non-intensive husbandry systems Article April 2016.
  6. Bakshi MPS, Wadhwa M (2004b) Evaluation of forest tree leaves of semi-hilly arid region as livestock feed. Asian Aust J Anim Sci 17:777–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bakshi MPS, Singh MP, Wadhwa M, Singh B (2011) Nutritional value of forest tree leaves as livestock feed in sub mountainous region of India. Indian J Anim Sci 81: 276–281.
  8. Balabaa SI, Zake AY, Elshamy AM (1974) Total flavonols and rutin contents of the different organs of Sophora japonica. L. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 57: 752–755.
  9. Baran M, Zitnan R (2002) Effect of monensin sodium on fermentation efficiency in sheep rumen. Arch Tierz 45:181–185. Google Scholar
  10. Barry TN, Manley TR (1984) The role of condensed tannins in the nutritional value of Lotus pedunculatus for sheep. 2. Quantitative digestion of carbohydrates and proteins. Br J Nutr 51:493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blümmel M, Becker K (1997) The degradability characteristics of fifty-four roughages and roughage neutral-detergent fibre as described by in vitro gas production and their relationship to voluntary feed intake. Br J Nutr 77:757–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blümmel M, Makkar HPS, Becker K (1997) In vitro gas production: a technique revisited. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 77:24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blümmel M, Vellaikumar S, Devulapalli R, Nigam SN, Upadhyaya HD, Khan A (2005) Preliminary observations on livestock productivity in sheep fed exclusively on haulms from eleven cultivars of groundnut. Int Arachis Newsl 25: 54–57.
  14. Budzinski IGF, Moon DH, Linden P, Moritz T, Labate CA (2016) Seasonal variation of carbon metabolism in the cambial zone of Eucalyptus grandis. Front Plant Sci. Google Scholar
  15. Chandaramoni CMT, Haque NM, Murari-Lal JS, Khan MY (2002) Energy balance in faunated and defaunted sheep on a ration high in concentration to roughage (good quality) ratio. Pak J Nutr 1:31–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cottyn BG, Boucque CV (1968) Rapid methods for the gas chromatographic determination determination of volatile acids in rumen fluid. J Agric Food Chem 16:105–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Czerkawski JW (1986) An introduction to rumen studies. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 221–222Google Scholar
  18. Davidson PM, Naidu AS (2000) Phyto-phenols. In: Naidu AS (ed) Natural food antimicrobial systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 265–293Google Scholar
  19. Demeyer DI (1991) Quantitative aspects of microbial metabolism in the rumen and hindgut. In: Jouany JP (ed) Rumen microbial metabolism and ruminant digestion. INRA Editions, Paris, pp 217–237Google Scholar
  20. Dubois M, Gilles KN, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA, Smith F (1956) Colorimetric method for the determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem 28:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dung DD, Godwin IR, Nolan JV (2011) Intake digestibility and rumen parameters of sheep fed commercial pellets or supplemented with Barley grain, or freeze-dried barley sprouts or fresh barley sprouts. In: Proceedings of 36th conference on Nigerian society for animal production University of Abuja, Nigeria, pp 526–528Google Scholar
  22. FDA (2004) Food and drug administration of the US, Substances used as GRAS in food, 21 CFR 184Google Scholar
  23. Garcia-Gonzalez R, Lopez S, Fernandez M, Gonzale JS (2006) Effect of addition of some medicinal plants on methane production in a stimulating fermenter (RUSITEC). Int Congr Ser 1293:172–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greathead H (2003) Plants and plant extracts for improving animal productivity. Proc Nutr Soc 62:279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hancock KR, Ealing PM, White DWR (1994) Identification of sulphur rich proteins which resist rumen degradation and are hydrolyzed rapidly by intestinal proteases. Br J Nutr 72:855–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hegarty RS, Nolan JV (2007) Estimation of ruminal methane production from measurement of volatile fatty acid production. In: Makkar HPS, Vercoe PE (eds) Measuring methane production from ruminants. University of New England Publishing Unit, Armidale, pp 69–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hook SE, Northwood KS, Wright ADG, McBride BW (2009) Long-term monensin supplementation does not significantly affect the quantity or diversity of methanogenes in the rumen of the lactating dairy cow. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:374–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hundal JS, Wadhwa M, Bakshi MPS (2016a) Effect of supplementing essential oils on the in vitro methane production and digestibility of wheat straw. J Anim Nutr USA1 (3):14.,
  29. Hundal JS, Wadhwa M, Bakshi MPS (2016b) Methane mitigation potential of tannins and their impact on digestibility of nutrients in-vitro. Anim Nutr Feed Technol 16:505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. IAEA (2000) Quantification of tannins in tree foliage a laboratory manual for the FAO/IAEA co-ordinated research project on ‘use of nuclear and related techniques to develop simple tannin assays for predicting and improving the safety and efficiency of feeding ruminants on tanniniferous. Tree Foliage’ pp 4–6Google Scholar
  31. Jagota SK, Dani HM (1982) A new colorimetric technique for the estimation of vitamin C using Folin phenol reagent. Anal Biochem 127(1):178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jayanegara A, Leiber F, Kreuzer M (2012) Meta-analysis of the relationship between dietary tannin level and methane formation in ruminants from in vivo and in vitro experiments. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 96:365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kumaran A, Karakumaran J (2007) In vitro antioxidant activities of methanol extracts of five Phyllanthus species from India. LWT Food Sci Technol 40:344–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee SS, Hsu JT, Mantovani HC, Russell JB (2002) The effect of bovicin HC50, a bacteriocin from Strptococcusbovis HC50, on ruminal methane production in vitro. FEMS Microbiol Lett 217:51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ (1951) Protein measurement with the folin–phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 193:265–275Google Scholar
  36. Makkar HPS (2003) Effects and fate of tannins in ruminant animals, adaptation to tannins and strategies to overcome detrimental effects of feeding tannin rich feeds. Small Rumin Res 49:241–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Makkar HPS, Blummel M, Borowy WK, Becker K (1993) Gravimetric determination of tannins and their correlations with chemical and precipitation methods. J Sci Food Agric 61:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McAllister TA, Okine EK, Mathison GW, Cheng KJ (1996) Dietary, environmental and microbiological aspects of methane production in ruminants. Can J Anim Sci 76:231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Menke KH, Steingass H (1988) Estimation the energetic feed value obtained by chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim Res Dev 28: 7–55.
  40. Menke KH, Raab L, Salweski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Scheider W (1979) The estimation of digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J Agric Sci Camb 93:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mishra AK, Sahu N, Mishra A, Ghosh AK, Jha S, Chattopadhyay P (2010) Phytochemical screening and antioxidant activity of essential oil of Eucalyptus leaf. Pharmacogn J 2:25–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mohamed H, Ons M, Yosra ET, Rayda S, Neji G, Moncef N (2009) Chemical composition and antioxidant and radical scavenging activites of periplocalaevigata root bark extracts. J Sci Food Agric 89:897–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Monteiro PV, Tirupaksha TK, Rao DR (1982) Proteins of Italian millet: amino acid composition solubility, fractionation and electrophoresis of protein fractions. J Sci Fd Agric 33:1072–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moss AR, Jouany JP, Newbold J (2000) Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Ann Zootech 49:231–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neelam Rani, Wadhwa M, Kaushal S, Bakshi MPS (2006) Herbal feed additives and performance of buffalo calves. Anim Nutr Feed Technol 6: 147–151.
  46. NRC (1989) Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 6th edn. National Research Council, National academy of sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  47. Ørskov ER (1975) Manipulation of rumen fermentation for highest food utilization. World Rev Nutr Diet 22: 153–182.
  48. Patra AK, Saxena J (2009) Dietary phytochemicals as rumen modifiers: a review of the effects on microbial population. J Antonie van Leewenhock 96:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Patra AK, Saxena J (2011) Exploitation of dietary tannins to improve rumen metabolism and ruminant nutrition. J Sci Food Agric 91:24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Porter LJ, Hrstich LN, Chan BG (1986) The conversion of procyanidins and prodelphinidins to cyaniding and delphinidin. Phytochem 25:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rana KK, Wadhwa M, Bakshi MPS (2006) Seasonal variations in tannin profile of tree leaves. Asian Aust J Anim Sci 19:1134–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reed JD, Soller H, Woodward A (1990) Fodder tree and straw diets for sheep: intake, growth, digestibility and the effects of phenolics on nitrogen utilization. Anim Feed Sci Technol 30:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Santra A, Saikia A, Baruah KK (2012) Scope of rumen manipulation using medicinal plants to mitigate methane production. J Pharm 3: 115–120.
  54. Shon MY, Kim TH, Sung NJ (2003) Antioxidant and free radical scavenging activity of phillinusbaumil (phillinus of Hymens Chaeloceae) extract. Food Chem 82:593–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1994) Statistical methods. Oxford and IBH Publications, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  56. Soltan YA, Morsy AS, Sallam SMA, Louvandini H, Abdalla AL (2012) Comparative in vitro evaluation of forage legumes (Prosopis, Acacia, Atriplex, and Leucaena) on ruminal fermentation and methanogenesis. J Anim Feed Sci 21:759–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. SPSS (2007) Statistical packages for social sciences, version 16. SPSS Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  58. Systat (1996) Systat 6.0.1 for windows: statistics. SPSS Inc., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  59. Tan HY, Sieo CC, Abdullah N, Liang JB, Huang XD, Ho YW (2011) Effects of condensed tannins from Leucaena on methane production, rumen fermentation and populations of methanogens and protozoa in vitro. Anim Feed Sci Technol 169:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. UNFCCC (2014) Global warming potentials. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  61. Ungerfeld EM, Rust SR, Boone DR, Liu Y (2004) Effect of several inhibitors on pure cultures of ruminal methanogenes. J Appl Microbiol 97:520–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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 74:3583–3597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wadhwa M, Bakshi MPS (2006) Herbal feed additives-impact on the rumen environment in buffaloes. Indian J Anim Nutr 23: 102–109.
  64. Wadhwa M, Kaur N, Bakshi MPS (2010) Degradability of protein fractions of conventional and non-conventional protein supplements. Anim Nutr Feed Technol 10: 235–243.
  65. Widiawati Y, Thalib A (2009) Comparison of fermentation kinetics (in vitro) of grass and shrub legume leaves: the pattern of VFA concentration, estimated CH4 and microbial biomass production. Indones J Agric 2: 21–27.
  66. Williams YJ, Popovaski S, Rea SM, Skillmam LC, Toovey AF, Northwood KS, Wright ADG (2009) Avaccine against rumen methanogens can alter the composition of archeal population. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:1860–1866CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional A. I. CentreBokakhatIndia
  2. 2.BiotechnologyPunjab Agricultura UniversityLudhianaIndia
  3. 3.Department of Animal NutritionGuru AngadDev Veterinary and Animal Sciences UniversityLudhianaIndia
  4. 4.Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y ZootecniaUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de  MéxicoTolucaMexico

Personalised recommendations