Advertisement

Economic Botany

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 23–30 | Cite as

Nutritive value of papyrus (Cyperus papyrus, Cyperaceae), a tropical emergent macrophyte

  • F. M. Muthuri
  • J. I. Kinyamario
Article

Abstract

Papyrus (Cyperus papyrus, Cyperaceae) covers large areas in tropical African wetlands. Analysis of its nutritive value has revealed that crude protein is higher in umbels than culms. Ruminai dry matter digestibility of papyrus is, however, higher in culms than umbels. Both the crude protein and ruminai dry matter digestibility decrease with increasing age of the plant. Values for crude protein and ruminai dry matter digestibility are similar to those reported for the range grasses that constitute the greatest percentage of forage in East Africa. In general, papyrus has some grazing potential and could be used as fodder especially in the dry season when other forage is scarce and of low nutritive value.

Keywords

Crude Protein Economic Botany Aquatic Macrophyte Crude Protein Content Okavango Delta 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Zusammenfassung

Der Futterwert von Papyrus (Cyperus papyrus),einem tropischen Macrophyten. Papyrus (Cyperus papyrus,) bedeckt im tropischen Afrika grosse Feuchtgebiete. Futterwertanalysen ergaben, dass der Gehalt an Rohprotein in den Dolden höher als in den Sprossen ist. Der verdaubare Anteil der Trockenmasse von Papyrus ist für Wiederkäuer jedoch in den Sprossen höher als in den Dolden. Die Verdaubarkeit von Rohprotein wie auch der Trockenmasse sinkt mit steigendem Alter der Pflanze. Die Werte für Rohprotein und verdaubare Trockenmasse sind ähnlich denen, die für die Hauptfuttergräser semiarider Gebiete in Ostafrika angegeben werden. Insgesamt besitzt Papyrus einiges Potential für Beweidung und könnte, besonders in der Trockezeit, wenn anderes Futter rar und von geringem Nährwert ist, verfüttert werden.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Allen, S. E., H. M. Grimshaw, J. A. Parkinson, and C. Quarmby. 1974. Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. AOAC (Association of Official Agricultural Chemists). 1960. Methods of analysis. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Auclair, A. N. D., A. Bouchard, and J. Pajaczkowski. 1976. Plant standing crop and productivity relations in aScirpus-Equisetum wetland. Ecology 57:941–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beadle, I. C. 1974. The inland waters of tropical Africa. Longman, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd, C. E. 1968. Fresh-water plants: a potential source of protein. Econ. Bot. 22:359–368.Google Scholar
  6. —. 1969. The nutritive value of three species of water weeds. Econ. Bot. 23:123–127.Google Scholar
  7. —. 1970. Production, mineral accumulation and pigment concentrations inTypha latifolia andScirpus americanus. Ecology 51:285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. —, and R. D. Blackburn. 1970. Seasonal changes in the proximate composition of some common aquatic weeds. Hyacinth Contr. J. 8:42–44.Google Scholar
  9. Gaudet, J. J. 1977. Uptake, accumulation and loss of nutrients by papyrus in tropical swamps. Ecology 58:415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hakanen, R. 1984. Preliminary study of suitability of ureaphosphate treatment in fodder conservation in tropical developing countries. Research Report to Emil Aaltonen Foundation, Tampere, Finland.Google Scholar
  11. Hansen, R. M., D. L. Whittington, R. D. Child, and J. M. Wanyama. 1984. Ruminai digestion consistency of Zebu cattle. J. Range Managem. 37:283–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, M. K., H. Wofford, and W. Mitchell. 1982. Contamination during nylon-bag digestion trials. J. Wildl. Managem. 46:253–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones, M. B. 1983. Papyrus: a new fuel for third world. New Sci. 99:419–421.Google Scholar
  14. Karue, C. N. 1974. The nutritive value of herbage in semi-arid lands of East Africa. 1. chemical composition. E. African Agric. Forest. J. 70:89–95.Google Scholar
  15. Kinyamario, J. I., R. D. Child, and D. F. Burzlaff. n.d. Nodal tillering in two East African grasses,Themeda triandra Forsk. andCenchrus ciliaris L. Proceedings of 2nd International Rangeland Congress, Adelaide, Australia. (In press)Google Scholar
  16. Kothmann, M. M. 1980. Nutrition of livestock grazing on range and pasture lands. Pages 56–90in D. C. Church, ed., Digestive physiology and nutrition of ruminants. Vol. 3. O & B Books, Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
  17. Little, E. C. S. 1968. Handbook of utilization of aquatic plants. Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  18. Lusk, J. W., C. B. Browning, and J. T. Miles. 1962. Small sample in vivo cellulose digestion procedure for forage evaluation. J. Dairy Sci. 45:69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Muthuri, F. M. 1985. The primary productivity of papyrus(Cyperus papyrus L.) in relation to environmental variables. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  20. Polisini, J. M., and C. E. Boyd. 1972. Relationships between cell-wall fractions, nitrogen and standing crop in aquatic macrophytes. Ecology 53:483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sinclair, A. R. E. 1975. The resource limitation of trophic levels in tropical grassland ecosystems. J. Anim. Ecol. 44:497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thompson, K. 1976a. Swamp development in the head-waters of the White Nile. Pages 177–196in J. Rzoska, ed., The Nile, biology of an ancient river. Dr. W. Junk B. V., Publishers. The Hague, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. —. 1976b. The primary productivity of African wetlands with particular reference to the Oka-vango Delta. Pages 67–79in Proceedings of a Symposium on the Okavango Delta and its future utilization. The Botswana Society, Gaborone.Google Scholar
  24. —, P. R. Shewry, and H. W. Woolhouse. 1979. Papyrus swamp development in the Upemba Basin, Zaire: studies of population structure in Cyperus papyrus stands. J. Linn. Soc, Bot. 78:299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ulehlova, B., S. Husak, and J. Dvorak. 1973. Mineral cycles in reed stands of Neyst fishpond in southern Moravia. Polish Arch. Hydrobiol. 20:121–129.Google Scholar
  26. van Dyne, G. M. 1962. Micro-methods for nutritive evaluation of range forages. J. Range Managem. 15:303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. —, F. M. Smith, R. L. Czaplewski, and R. G. Woodmansee. 1974. Analyses and syntheses of grassland ecosystem dynamics. Pages 1–79in Structure, functioning and management of ecosystems: proceedings of the First Internationl Congress of Ecology. The Hague, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  28. Westlake, D. F. 1963. Comparisons of plant productivity. Biol. Rev. 38:385–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. —. 1975. Primary production of freshwater macrophytes. Pages 189–206in J. P. Cooper, ed., Photosynthesis and productivity in different environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. M. Muthuri
  • J. I. Kinyamario
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of NairobiNairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations