Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 167–175 | Cite as

Promoting intake of Cratylia argentea as a dry season supplement for cattle grazing Hyparrhenia rufa in the subhumid tropics

  • M. Ibrahim
  • M. Franco
  • D. A. Pezo
  • A. Camero
  • J. L. Araya

Abstract

Cratylia argentea, a drought tolerant shrub, is known to produce significant amounts of fodder during the dry season but little is known of its nutritive value for feeding animals. Two studies of quality and intake of Cratylia argentea, as an arboreal protein supplement for crossbred dual purpose cattle grazing Hyparrenhia rufa in the dry season, were carried out in San Miguel de Barranca, Puntarenas, Costa Rica (January–May). The first experiment was a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement of two forms of C. argentea foliage presentation: 1) fresh or wilted; and 2) sprayed or not with sugarcane molasses diluted in water. Wilting did not affect crude protein content and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) but treating fresh C. argentea with molasses increased IVDMD by from 55.6 to 60.8% (P < 0.01). Intake of fresh C. argentea increased by 32% with wilting and by 43% with molasses treatment. Pooling data across treatments, a quadratic relationship between dry matter intake of H. rufa (y) and the amount of N consumed in C. argentea (x) was found (y = 1.25 + 0.095x – 0.001x2). In the second experiment, milk production from the following treatments was evaluated: 1) chicken litter and molasses (D1); 2) chicken litter, sugar cane and wheat bran (D2); and 3) C. argentea, sugar cane and wheat bran (D3). Milk yields averaged 6.0 kg cow−1 day−1 and there were no significant differences between treatments. Milk fat was lower for D2 (2.7%), which had a higher amount of sugar cane in the diet, but differences were not significant. On the other hand, non-fat solids and lactose concentration of milk was higher (P < 0.05) for D2. Wilting or molasses treatment were effective management strategies for increasing dry matter intake of C. argentea. A higher dry matter intake of C. argentea was associated with increased intake of the fibrous H. rufa grass. Diets with C. argentea as the main protein source gave similar milk production levels and quality to those with chicken litter.

Costa Rica crude protein dual purpose cattle feeding strategies in vitro dry matter digestibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alagon HG (1990) Comparación del poró (Erythrina poeppigiana) con otras fuentes nitrogenadas de diferente potencial de escape de la fermentación ruminal como suplemento de vacas lecheras alimentadas con caña de azúcar (Saccharum offcinarum). MSc Thesis, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa RicaGoogle Scholar
  2. Argel PJ (1995) Evaluación agronómica de Cratylia argentea en México y Centroamérica. In: Pizarro EA and Coradin L (eds) Potencial del Género Cratylia como Leguminosa Forrajera. Memorias Taller de Trabajo sobre Cratylia efectuado en Brasilia, 19–20 julio 1995, pp 75–82. EMBRAPA/CENARGEN/CPAC/CIAT. Brasilia, BrasilGoogle Scholar
  3. Camero AR, Ibrahim MA and Kass M (2001). Improving rumen fermentation and milk production with legume-tree fodder in the tropics. Agroforestry Systems (this volume)Google Scholar
  4. Church DC and Pound WG (1994) Fundamentos de nutrición y alimentación de animales. UTEHA. Noriega editores. MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  5. Fassler OM and Lascano CE (1995) The effect of mixtures of sun-dried tropical shrub legumes on intake and nitrogen balance by sheep. Tropical Grasslands 29: 92–96Google Scholar
  6. Franco MH (1997) Evaluación de la calidad nutricional de Cratylia argentea como suplemento en el sistema de producción doble propósito en el trópico subhúmedo de Costa Rica. MSc Thesis, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa RicaGoogle Scholar
  7. Göering HK and Van Soest PJ (1970) Análisis de fibra en forrajes [Forage Fiber Analysis. USDA-ARS Agricultural Handbook No. 379. Transl. by D. Pezo]. Universidad Nacional Agraria, La Molina, Lima, Perú. Programa de Forrajes. Boletín No. 10Google Scholar
  8. Goodchild AV and McMeniman NP (1994) Intake and digestibility of low quality roughages when supplemented with leguminous browse. Journal of Agricultural Science 122: 151–160Google Scholar
  9. Higgins SJ, Tabrett SJ, Poppi DP and Norton BW (1992) Duodenal protein supply in cattle grazing signal grass (Brachiaria decumbens) and glenn joint vetch (Aeschynomene americana). Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 19: 52Google Scholar
  10. Holmann F and Estrada RD (1997) Alternativas Agropecuarias en la Región Pacifico Central de Costa Rica: Un modelo de simulación aplicable a sistemas de doble propósito. In: Lascano CE and Holmann F (eds) Conceptos y Metodologias de Investigación en Fincas con Sistemas de Producción Animal de Doble Propósito. CIAT/Consorcio Tropleche, pp 134–150. CIAT, Cali, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Humphreys LR (1991) Tropical Pasture Utilisation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK)Google Scholar
  12. Kass M and Rodríguez G (1993) Evaluación nutricional de alimentos. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa RicaGoogle Scholar
  13. Kenney PA, Black JL and Colebrook WF (1984) Factors affecting diet selection by sheep. III. Dry matter content and particle length of forage. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35: 831–838Google Scholar
  14. Lucas HL (1983) Design and analysis of feeding experiments with milking dairy cattle. Chapt. 16, pp 1–51. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Miles JW and Lapointe SL (1992) Regional germplasm evaluation: a portfolio of germplasm options for the major ecosystems of Tropical America. In: Pastures for the Tropical Lowlands: CIAT's Contributions, pp 9–28. CIAT, Cali, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  16. Minson DJ (1990) Forage in Ruminant Nutrition. Academic Press, San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Norton BW, Kamau FK and Rosevear R (1992) The nutritive value of some tree legumes as supplements and sole feed for goats. In: Reodecha C, Sangid S and Bunyavetchewin P (eds) Recent Advances in Animal Production, Proceedings of the Sixth AAAP Animal Science Congress, vol 3, p 151. Sukothai Thammathirat, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  18. Palmer B and Schlink AC (1992) The effect of drying on the intake and rate of digestion of the shrub legume Calliandra calothyrsus. Tropical Grasslands 26: 89–93Google Scholar
  19. Perez M, Harrison D and Elliott R (1981) Rumen fermentation and kinetics on diets of sugar cane juice and molasses. Tropical Animal Production 6: 359–363Google Scholar
  20. Poppi DP and Norton BW (1995) Intake of tropical legumes. In: D'Mello D and Devendra JPF (eds) Tropical Legumes in Animal Nutrition, pp 173–190. CAB International, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Preston TR and Leng RA (1990) Ajustando los sistemas de producción pecuaria a los recursos disponibles: Efectos básicos y aplicados del nuevo enfoque sobre la nutrición de rumiantes en el trópico. CONDRIT, Cali, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  22. Raaflaub M and Lascano CE (1995) The effect of wilting and drying on intake rate and acceptability by sheep of the shrub legume Cratylia argentea. Tropical Grasslands 29: 97–101Google Scholar
  23. Tergas LE, Blue GW and Moore JE (1971) Nutritive value of fertilized jaragua grass (Hyparrhenia rufa) Ness Stapf in the Wet-Dry Pacific Region of Costa Rica. Tropical Agriculture 48: 1–8Google Scholar
  24. Urriola DM (1994) Efecto de la edad de rebrote sobre la composición química y digestibilidad in vitro de algunos forrajes tropicales. MSc Thesis, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa RicaGoogle Scholar
  25. Valerio S (1994) Contenido de taninos y digestibilidad in vitro de algunas forrajeras tropicales. Revista Agroforestería en las Americas 1(3): 10–13Google Scholar
  26. Xavier DF and Carvalho MM (1995) Availacao agronomica de Cratylia argentea na zona de Mata de Minas Gerais. Trabajo presentado en el taller de Cratylia, 19–20 de Julio de 1995 en Brasilia, D.F., BrasilGoogle Scholar
  27. Xavier DF, Carvalho MM and Botrel MA (1990) Curva de crecimiento e acumulucao de proteina bruta de leguminosa Cratylia floribunda. Pasturas Tropicales 12(1): 35–38Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Ibrahim
    • 1
  • M. Franco
    • 2
  • D. A. Pezo
    • 3
  • A. Camero
    • 4
  • J. L. Araya
    • 5
  1. 1.Area of Agroforestry, CATIETurrialbaCosta Rica
  2. 2.SENAColombia
  3. 3.University of Costa RicaSan JoseCosta Rica
  4. 4.Area of Agroforestry, CATIETurrialbaCosta Rica
  5. 5.Pacific Region, Ministry of AgricultureCosta Rica

Personalised recommendations