Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Nutritional Components, Ruminal Degradation Characteristics and Feed Value from Different Cultivars of Alfalfa Hay
Next Article in Special Issue
The Economic Impact of Parasitism from Nematodes, Trematodes and Ticks on Beef Cattle Production
Previous Article in Journal
Defining Short-Term Accommodation for Animals
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/ani13040733
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Potential Use of Kasedbok (Neptunia javanica Miq.) on Feed Intake, Digestibility, Rumen Fermentation, and Microbial Populations in Thai Native Beef Cattle

by
Pongsatorn Gunun
1,
Anusorn Cherdthong
2,
Pichad Khejornsart
3,
Sineenart Polyorach
4,
Walailuck Kaewwongsa
5 and
Nirawan Gunun
5,*
1
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Natural Resources, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, Sakon Nakhon Campus, Sakon Nakhon 47160, Thailand
2
Tropical Feed Resources Research, Development Center (TROFREC), Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
3
Department of Agriculture and Resource, Faculty of Natural Resources and Agro-Industry, Kasetsart University, Chalermphakiat Sakon Nakhon Campus, Sakon Nakhon 47000, Thailand
4
Department of Animal Production Technology and Fisheries, Faculty of Agricultural Technology, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok 10520, Thailand
5
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Technology, Udon Thani Rajabhat University, Udon Thani 41000, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(4), 733; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040733
Submission received: 21 January 2023 / Revised: 12 February 2023 / Accepted: 17 February 2023 / Published: 18 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Improving Sustainability of Ruminant Agriculture: New Strategies and Tools)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Kasedbok (Neptunia javanica Miq.) is a fodder tree legume that grows successfully in a range of tropical and subtropical regions. Kasedbok could be used as a protein source in beef cattle’s concentrate diet, which would lower the cost of feeding. We evaluated the effect of the Kasedbok levels in the diets on feed intake, digestibility, rumen fermentation, and the microbial population in beef cattle. The findings indicated that using up to 240 g/kg Kasedbok in concentrate diets does not affect feed utilization, rumen characteristics, or microbial population, lowering feed costs.

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to determine the influence of Kasedbok (Neptunia javanica Miq.) on the feed utilization, rumen fermentation, and microbial population in Thai Native beef cattle. Four animals with a mean body weight of 295 ± 15 kg were randomly arranged in a 4 × 4 Latin square design. There were four treatments, utilizing 0, 80, 160, and 240 g/kg Kasedbok in concentrate. Local feed resources, including cassava chips, rice bran, palm kernel meal, and soybean meal, were utilized to formulate the concentrate diets, which contained between 11.8 and 12.0% crude protein (CP). The trial was conducted for four periods of three weeks each. The first two weeks consisted of an adaptation period, while the final week was a sampling period. The findings of the current study reveal that feed intake, dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF) digestibility were similar between treatments. In addition, there was no effect of Kasedbok levels on rumen pH, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) concentration, or volatile fatty acid. However, increasing the inclusion level of Kasedbok linearly decreased CP digestibility and ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) concentration (p = 0.04). In contrast, the population of fungal zoospores improved significantly (p = 0.03), while the bacterial and protozoal counts remained unchanged (p > 0.05). Furthermore, when the level of Kasedbok was increased from 0 to 80, 160, and 240 g/kg DM, the cost of concentrate decreased by 4.1, 7.8, and 10.6 USD/100 kg DM, respectively. The results of this experiment suggest that utilizing 240 g/kg of Kasedbok in a concentrated mixture will not affect feed utilization, rumen fermentation, improve microbial population, and reduce feed cost in Thai native beef cattle.

1. Introduction

Ruminants that are raised in the tropics depend mostly on seasonal feed sources that lack quality in crude protein (CP) but are high in crude fiber (CF) [1]. High-protein concentrate diets are commonly used as a supplement in livestock feeding to significantly improve animal productivity [2]. Nevertheless, price increases and uncertain availability have induced a search for alternative feeds [3,4]. Therefore, farmers have sought alternative protein sources and utilized local feed resources to reduce feed costs and enhance animal productivity and efficiency [5,6]. Legume trees and fodder shrubs have grown in popularity as supplementary feeds due to their high protein levels, minerals, and plant secondary compounds, containing condensed tannins (CTs) and saponins (SPs) [7,8,9].
Numerous legume trees and shrubs have reportedly been utilized effectively as leaf meal, silage, pellets, and/or fresh cut. Examples of such feeds include the utilization of Flemingia macrophylla in dairy cow [10], beef cattle [11], Cnidoscolus aconitifolius in dairy bulls [12], Sesbania sesban in lamb [8], and dairy cow [13], and Indigofera tinctoria L. in beef cattle [6]. Moreover, Kasedbok (Neptunia javanica Miq.) is one of the fodder tree legumes that grows successfully in a wide range of tropical and subtropical regions, including Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, and Vietnam [14]. Kasedbok is a prostrate, terrestrial shrub with small leaflets and ten-stamen flowers. It inhabits salty mud flats and grassy fields on heavy clay below 650 m in altitude [15]. According to Cruz-Garcia and Price [16], Kasedbok is a kind of wild edible plant that contributes to rice farmers’ food and nutritional security in northeast Thailand. It is widely distributed throughout the region, resulting in a large amount of it along roadsides and in vacant areas, leading to excessive production, especially during the rainy season [17]. According to Gunun et al. [18], Kasedbok harvested at 2, 4, and 6 months contains 25.0%, 20.0%, and 19.0% CP; 56.3%, 64.3%, and 69.4% neutral detergent fiber (NDF); 6.3%, 8.8%, and 12.2% acid detergent fiber (ADF); and 6.2%, 8.4% and 12.2% lignin, respectively. As a result of its high nutritional value, Kasedbok has the potential to substitute soybean meal in diets, lowering feed costs. Anantasook et al. [17] found that Kasedbok meal has the potential to be used as a protein source in concentrate diets and can substitute soybean meal up to 60% in an in vitro study. Nevertheless, there is limited information related to the use of Kasedbok as a feed in an in vivo study. Our hypothesis is that using Kasedbok will enhance rumen fermentation and the microbial population in beef cattle while maintaining feed utilization.
Thus, the purpose of the current trial was to determine the influence of Kasedbok in concentrate on feed utilization, rumen characteristics, and microorganisms in beef cattle.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals, Diets, and Experimental Design

The study was conducted at the farm of the Animal Science Department in the Faculty of Technology, Udon Thani Rajabhat University, Udon Thani, Thailand. The trials and plan strictly followed the norms of the Thailand Ethics of Animal Experimentation from the National Research Council (record No. U1-02456-2559). Kasedbok (leaf and stem) was harvested from a Kasedbok pot along a roadside or in a vacant area in Udon Thani province, Thailand. Young stem, leaf, and branch were chopped to 3–5 cm in length. Before adding them to the concentrate, they were sun-dried for three days.
Four Thai native beef cattle with a starting body weight (BW) of 295 ± 15 kg were randomly assigned to one of four dietary treatments in a 4 × 4 Latin square design. Animals were fed diets containing Kasedbok at 0, 80, 160, and 240 g/kg of dry matter (DM) in concentrate. The dietary treatments were formulated according to the WTSR [19] to meet the requirements of beef cattle in Thailand, which contains 12.0% CP and 60.0% total digestible nutrients (TDNs). The animals were fed a concentrate at 0.7% of BW in two equal meals at 07:00 h and 16:00 h, with free water and mineral lick blocks. All animals were given rice straw by allowing 10% of DM to be refused. The list of ingredients and chemical compositions of Kasedbok and concentrate are detailed in Table 1.
This trial was conducted for four periods of three weeks each. The first two weeks consisted of an adaptation period, while the final week was a sampling period. Intake was measured for the first 14 days, and individual feces were collected daily for the last seven days of each period. Mineral blocks and clean water were always accessible.

2.2. Feed Cost Analysis

The price of the diet, including Kasedbok, was determined using an input budgeting method according to Serrapica et al. [20]. However, our calculations were based on the standard prices of feed ingredients at the nearby supplier’s gate. The prices of feed were adjusted in accordance with their DM and transformed from THB to USD using 0.0306 THB. The feed prices (USD/kg DM) were as follows: cassava chips at 0.30, rice bran at 0.37, palm kernel meal at 0.34, soybean meal at 1.07, Kasedbok at 0.09, urea at 0.45, molasses at 0.25, mineral and vitamin mixture at 0.61, sulfur at 0.45, and salt at 0.31.

2.3. Data Collection and Chemical Analysis

The experimental diets were randomly collected twice a week for DM analysis [21]. During the final week of each period, samples of rice straw, concentrate, Kasedbok, and feces were collected daily. Rectal grab sampling was used to collect a sample of approximately 200 g of feces during the morning feeding (08:00 h). When feces were collected at 3 h intervals, the samples were mixed and utilized as a single sample to estimate nutrient digestibility [22]. The DM, CP, and crude ash were evaluated after drying at 60 °C and milling to 1 mm with a Cyclotech Mill and Tecator [21]. Fiber contents, including those of NDF and ADF, were analyzed according to Van Soest et al. [23]. The CT content of the Kasedbok was evaluated using a modified vanillin-HCl approach based on Burns [24]. SPs were quantified using methanol extraction as modified by Kwon et al. [25] and Poungchompu et al. [26].
On the final day of each period, samples of rumen fluid and blood were collected at 0 and 4 h after morning feeding. Approximately 10 mL of blood from the jugular vein was analyzed for blood urea nitrogen (BUN) using the method described by Crocker [27]. Rumen fluid pH was measured immediately, and it was then analyzed for ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) with AOAC [21] and volatile fatty acids (VFAs) according to Mathew et al. [28]. The second portion of the filtered fluid sample was fixed in a sterilized 0.9% saline solution with a 10% formalin solution before being analyzed using total direct counting methods for bacteria, protozoa, and fungal zoospores [29].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

All the data were subjected to variance analysis using a 4 × 4 Latin square design utilizing the GLM model technique in the SAS program [30]. The treatment trends were statistically compared using orthogonal polynomial contrasts (linear and quadratic). Tukey’s test was used to detect differences between treatment means, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Feed Cost and Chemical Composition of Diets

The cost of feed and the chemical composition of experimental diets are detailed in Table 1. As a result, feed costs ranged above 29.1 to 39.7 USD/100 kg DM. The safe costs for replacing soybean meal and palm kernel meal with 80, 160, and 240 g/kg of Kasedbok were −4.1, −7.8, and −10.6 USD/100 kg DM, respectively. The Kasedbok contains 24.1% of CP, 54.3% of NDF, 32.8% of ADF, 9.2% of CT, and 10.9% of SP. The concentrate was formulated using regional feed resources, which contained between 11.8 and 12.0% CP. The NDF and ADF levels increased following the addition of Kasedbok to the concentrate.

3.2. Feed Intake and Digestibility

The results of dietary treatment on feed intake and nutrient digestibilities are presented in Table 2. The intake of rice straw and concentrate, as well as total intake, was similar among treatments (p > 0.05). While the increasing levels of Kasedbok decreased CP digestibility linearly (p = 0.04), it had no impact on the digestibility for DM, OM, NDF, and ADF (p > 0.05).

3.3. Rumen Fermentation and Blood Metabolites

Table 3 shows the parameters of ruminal pH, NH3-N concentration, and blood metabolites. The results revealed that 4 h after feeding, levels of NH3-N concentration decreased (p = 0.04). However, Kasedbok levels did not influence rumen pH or BUN concentration (p > 0.05).

3.4. Volatile Fatty Acid (VFA) Profiles

Table 4 shows the results of the VFA profiles. Rising levels of Kasedbok had no effect on the total amount of VFA, as well as the concentrations of acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid (p > 0.05).

3.5. Microbial Populations

The results of the microbial populations affecting experimental diets are shown in Table 5. The addition of Kasedbok did not alter the population of bacteria and protozoa, both entodiniomorphs and holotrichs (p > 0.05). In contrast, the population of fungal zoospores in cattle-fed Kasedbok concentrate increased linearly (p = 0.03) after 4 h of feeding.

4. Discussion

4.1. Feed Cost and Chemical Composition of Diets

Kasedbok is a tropical tree legume, and its leaves have been consumed as a vegetable [14]. According to Gunun et al. [18], Kasedbok has nutrients with the ability to be utilized as ruminant feed. However, research into the feeding of ruminants has been extremely limited. In the current study, the CP in Kasedbok was 24.1% DM, and the amounts of NDF and ADF were 54.3% and 32.8% DM, respectively. Concentrate diets using Kasedbok as an ingredient show a lower cost, which is the salvation of livestock farmers. Therefore, the main value of using Kasedbok as an alternative protein in the diet could be a reduction in the cost of feeding beef cattle. As a result, we agree with Gunun et al.’s [6] conclusion that including 10% legume tree (Indigofera tinctoria L.) in concentrate diets could lower feed costs.

4.2. Feed Intake and Digestibility

Dry matter intake can contribute significantly to livestock productivity and can be affected by a variety of factors, along with chemical composition, and physical and chemical properties [31]. Generally, feed intake and digestibility decrease when fiber content in the diet increases [6,32,33] or supplementation of plants containing high levels (>55 g/kg DM) of CT and SP [34,35,36,37]. This discovery is made clear by the fact that such a point of feed consumption restriction because of gut fill is dependent on fiber content [38,39], or that a decrease in palatability and digestion rate is dependent on CT content in feed [34,40]. In the present study, the nutritive value of the concentrate indicated that the addition of Kasedbok increased the concentration of fiber. However, the increased fiber content in the diet had no effect on rice straw, concentrate, or total feed intake. Moreover, DM intake was not affected by Kasedbok addition, which may be due to the low amount of CT intake at 14.7, 29.4, and 44.2 g/kg DM when inclusion of Kasedbok was at 80, 160, and 240 g/kg DM, respectively. This result was similar to those of Farghaly et al. [8], who discovered that feeding Sesbania sesban to growing lambs had no influence on feed consumption, and Totakul et al. [12] found that feeding Cnidoscolus aconitifolius leaf pellets to growing crossbred bulls had no impact on feed intake.
In contrast, beef cattle would be less able to digest CP when fed Kasedbok-containing feed. A reduction in CP digestibility was the focus of Gunun et al. [35], who included tannins in goats’ diets. A decrease in CP digestion when Kasedbok is included can be explained by tannin–protein complexes, especially in the presence of alkaline and stable hydrogen bonding with pH values of 3.5–7.0 [41,42]. This action could increase bypass protein by decreasing rumen-digestible protein, causing protein to flow in the small intestine [43]. Therefore, the small intestine is able to absorb high-quality protein from feed [44]. This is consistent with the findings of Barry and Manley [45], who discovered that the CT extract of Lotus pedunculatus can increase the post-ruminal transport of nitrogen and amino acids, thus increasing the amount of rumen bypass protein. In addition, the inclusion of CT in the diets may increase the suppression of bloat and daily weight gain in lambs [43].

4.3. Rumen Fermentation and Blood Metabolites

This study demonstrated that ruminal pH did not differ between treatments. This pH range (6.6 to 7.0) was suitable for fermentation in the rumen, microbial growth, and the activity of microorganisms [46,47]. However, the NH3-N concentration declined linearly when the level of Kasedbok increased. As a result, NH3-N concentrations correlate with the digestion of CP in the rumen. This could be due to the CT producing a protein–tannin complex, which decreases the ability of dietary protein digestion and NH3-N output throughout the fermentation [48]. Gunun et al. [49] indicated that supplementing Antidesma thwaitesianum Muell.Arg. pomace containing CT at 300 g/h/d to dairy cows decreased the amount of NH3-N in their rumen. Furthermore, Gunun et al. [35] found that NH3-N concentration decreased with increasing the level of plant-containing CT in goats. Nevertheless, the BUN concentration in the current study was normal and comparable to the findings of Bhatta et al. [50] and Phesatcha et al. [51], who supplemented tree leaf pellets with fodder. They discovered that the BUN value was between 10.1 and 15.1 mg/dL. In the present study, BUN ranged from 11.5 to 13.8 mg/dL, indicating that cattle fed a Kasedbok-based diet had no negative effect on BUN.

4.4. Volatile Fatty Acid (VFA) Profiles

Total VFAs are the major product of microbial fermentation in the rumen [52], which are evaluated in energy metabolism in ruminants [53]. Many studies have found that the VFA profiles change via various leguminous fodder shrub. For example, Wanapat et al. [54] demonstrated that the amount of propionate was increased by Crotalaria juncea, L. silage in beef cattle. Furthermore, Özelçam et al. [55] demonstrated that Paulownia spp. leaves increase VFA production. Its concentrations vary depending on many factors, including feed ingredient, nutrients, or plan containing secondary compounds, which can affect feed intake, digestibility, rumen ecology, and passage rate [56,57]. According to Khonkhaeng et al. [47], high-sugar feed can serve as a source of fermentable carbohydrates for the production of propionate. In addition, Gunun et al. [6] discovered that when animals were fed high-fiber legume tree, their propionate levels decreased while their acetate levels increased. Moreover, Gunun et al. [35] suggested that goats fed Terminalia chebula Retz. containing CT and SP may also have a rise in propionic acid and a decline in acetic acid. However, in the current study, the total VFA production and VFA profile were not changed by Kasedbok’s addition. These results indicate that the inclusion of 240 g/kg Kasedbok in concentrate is appropriate for rumen fermentation in beef cattle without being affected by fiber content or plant secondary compounds.

4.5. Microbial Populations

The increasing level of Kasedbok in the diets had a stimulatory effect on the fungal zoospore population, while the bacteria and protozoa were unchanged. Accordingly, Phesatcha et al. [11] demonstrated that the addition of fodder tree legume (Flemingia macrophylla) had a significant impact on the population of fungal zoospores. In contrast, Totakul et al. [12] reported that growing crossbred bulls fed fodder tree (Cnidoscolus aconitifolius) leaf pellet up to 8% of DM intake did not change the number of fungal zoospores. The rumen fungi produce high concentrations of cellulases and hemicellulases and are capable of hydrolyzing or solubilizing the entire plant cell wall. In addition, rumen fungi are capable of degrading the more resistant plant walls in roughage [58]. However, although the population of fungal zoospores in this trial increased linearly with the inclusion of Kasedbok, this did not alter fiber digestibility. This could be influenced by various factors, including the proportion of roughage to concentrate, concentration of digestible carbohydrate and protein, and feeding frequency, as reported by Koike and Kobayashi [59] and Kang et al. [60].

5. Conclusions

The inclusion of Kasedbok in the concentrate had an effect on the CP digestibility and NH3-N concentration. However, increasing the level of Kasedbok did not affect feed intake, pH, BUN, or VFA concentration, while it enhanced fungal zoospore populations and reduced the cost of the concentrate. The addition of 240 g/kg of Kasedbok to the concentrate demonstrated that it could serve as a protein source and maintain cattle production while also lowering the feed cost. However, this study was limited in that it did not examine growth performance, carcass, or meat quality. Further experiments are needed to evaluate the influence of Kasedbok on the growth rate, carcass, and meat quality of beef cattle.

Author Contributions

Planning and design of the study, N.G. and P.G.; conducting and sampling, N.G. and P.G.; sample and statistical analysis, N.G., P.G. and P.K.; manuscript drafting, N.G. and P.G.; manuscript editing and finalizing, N.G., P.G., A.C., W.K. and S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work received financial support from the Research and Development Institute, Udon Thani Rajabhat University (contract code: 2560FUND12TE02-AM2).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study and plan strictly followed the norms of the Thailand Ethics of Animal Experimentation of the National Research Council (record No. U1-02456-2559).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge, with gratitude, the use of experimental facilities by the Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Technology, Udon Thani Rajabhat University, and the Faculty of Natural Resources, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, Sakon Nakhon Campus.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflict of interest declared by the authors.

References

  1. Pesatcha, B.; Wanapat, M.; Phesatcha, K.; Ampapon, T. Effect of Flemingia macrophylla (FLM) as a protein source on rumen fermentation and microbial population in dairy steers. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Sustainable Animal Agriculture for Developing Countries, Pattaya, Thailand, 27–30 October 2015; Dusit Thani Pattaya Hotel: Chon Buri, Thailand, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  2. Makkar, H.P.; Beever, D. Optimization of feed use efficiency in ruminant production systems. In Proceedings of the FAO Symposium, Bangkok, Thailand, 27 November 2012; FAO Animal Production and Health Division: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  3. Guglielmelli, A.; Calabrò, S.; Cutrignelli, M.; Gonzalez, O.; Infascelli, F.; Tudisco, R.; Piccolo, V. In vitro fermentation and methane production of fava and soybeans. In Energy and Protein Metabolism and Nutrition; Crovetto, G.M., Ed.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 457–460. [Google Scholar]
  4. Mammi, L.M.E.; Buonaiuto, G.; Ghiaccio, F.; Cavallini, D.; Palmonari, A.; Fusaro, I.; Massa, V.; Giorgino, A.; Formigoni, A. Combined inclusion of former foodstuff and distiller grains in dairy cows ration: Effect on milk production, rumen environment and fiber digestibility. Animals 2022, 12, 3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ouppamong, T.; Gunun, N.; Tamkhonburee, C.; Khejornsart, P.; Kaewpila, C.; Kesorn, P.; Kimprasit, T.; Cherdthong, A.; Wanapat, M.; Polyorach, S.; et al. Fermented rubber seed kernel with yeast in the diets of tropical lactating dairy cows: Effects on feed intake, hematology, microbial protein synthesis, milk yield and milk composition. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gunun, N.; Kaewpila, C.; Khota, W.; Polyorach, S.; Kimprasit, T.; Phlaetita, W.; Cherdthong, A.; Wanapat, M.; Gunun, P. The effect of indigo (Indigofera tinctoria L.) waste on growth performance, digestibility, rumen fermentation, hematology and immune response in growing beef cattle. Animals 2023, 13, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ouedraogo, S.; Sanou, L.; Savadogo, P.; Kabore-Zoungrana, C.Y. Comparative nutritional evaluation of the two leguminous fodder trees Prosopis africana and Piliostigma thonningii: Effects of different levels of pod-based supplementation on the growth performance of Djallonke sheep. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2022, 16, 1831–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Farghaly, M.M.; Youssef, I.M.I.; Radwan, M.A.; Hamdon, H.A. Effect of feeding Sesbania sesban and reed grass on growth performance, blood parameters, and meat quality of growing lambs. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2022, 54, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wanapat, M.; Kang, S.; Polyorach, S. Development of feeding systems and strategies of supplementation to enhance rumen fermentation and ruminant production in the tropics. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2013, 4, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Viennasay, B.; Wanapat, M. Enhancing lactating dairy cow rumen fermentation and production with Flemingia silage containing phytonutrients. Livest. Sci. 2020, 241, 104201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Phesatcha, B.; Viennasay, B.; Wanapat, M. Potential use of Flemingia (Flemingia macrophylla) as a protein source fodder to improve nutrients digestibility, ruminal fermentation efficiency in beef cattle. Anim. Biosci. 2021, 34, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Totakul, P.; Viennasay, B.; Sommai, S.; Matra, M.; Infascelli, F.; Wanapat, M. Supplemental effect of Chaya (Cnidoscolus aconitifolius) leaf pellet on rumen fermentation, nutrients digestibility and microbial protein synthesis in growing crossbred bulls. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 20, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gebreyowhans, S.; Zegeye, T. Effect of dried Sesbania sesban leaves supplementation on milk yield, feed intake, and digestibility of Holstein Friesian X Zebu (Arado) crossbred dairy cows. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 949–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bean, A.R. A revision of Neptunia Lour. (Leguminosae: Subfamily Caesalpinioideae, Mimosoid clade) in Australia and Malesia. Austrobailey 2022, 12, 59–106. [Google Scholar]
  15. Nielsen, I.C. Neptunia. In Mimosaceae (Leguminosae–Mimosoideae). Flora Malesiana 11(1): 186–190; Rijksherbarium/Hortus Botanicus; Leiden University: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cruz-Garcia, G.S.; Price, L.L. Ethnobotanical investigation of ‘wild’ food plants used by rice farmers in Kalasin, Northeast Thailand. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2011, 7, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Anantasook, N.; Gunun, P.; Cherdthong, A.; Wanapat, M.; Kaewwongsa, W.; Phom-in, J.; Sirisut, L.; Srihomchan, S. Utilization of Leucaena leucocephala and Neptunia javanica meal as protein source in concentrate diets on degradability and in vitro gas production. Khon Kaen AGR J. 2015, 43 (Suppl. S1), 392–397. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gunun, N.; Gunun, P.; Ruttanaprasert, R.; Kaewwongsa, W.; Cherdthong, A.; Wanapat, M.; Polyorach, S. Effect of Harvesting Time on Yield and Chemical Composition of Neptunia Javanica Miq; Thai National AGRIS Centre, Kasetsart University: Bangkok, Thailand, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  19. The Working Committee of Thai Feeding Stand for Ruminant (WTSR). Nutrient Requirment of Beef Cattle in Thailand; Department of Livestock Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives: Bangkok, Thailand, 2008; p. 193. [Google Scholar]
  20. Serrapica, F.; Masucci, F.; De Rosa, G.; Calabrò, S.; Lambiase, C.; Di Francia, A. Chickpea can be a valuable local produced protein feed for organically reared, native bulls. Animals 2021, 11, 2353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 19th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cavallini, D.; Palmonari, A.; Mammi, L.M.E.; Ghiaccio, F.; Canestrari, G.; Formigoni, A. Evaluation of fecal sampling time points to estimate apparent nutrient digestibility in lactating Holstein dairy cows. Front. Vet. Sci. 2023, 9, 1065258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Van Soest, P.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 7, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Burns, R.E. Method for estimation of tannin in the grain sorghum. Agronomy J. 1971, 163, 511–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kwon, J.H.; Belanger, J.; Pare, M.R.; Yaylayan, V.A. Application of the microwave-assisted process (MAPTM) to the fast excretion of ginseng saponins. Food Res. Int. 2003, 36, 491–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Poungchompu, O.; Wanapat, M.; Wachirapakorn, C.; Wanapat, S.; Cherdthong, A. Manipulation of ruminal fermentation and methane production by dietary saponins and tannins from mangosteen peel and soapberry fruit. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 2009, 63, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Crocker, C.L. Rapid determination of urea nitrogen in serum or plasma without deproteinization. Am. J. Med. Technol. 1967, 33, 361–365. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mathew, S.; Sagathevan, S.; Thomas, J.; Mathen, G. An HPLC method for estimation of volatile fatty acids in ruminal fluid. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 67, 805–807. [Google Scholar]
  29. Galyean, M.L. Laboratory Procedure in Animal Nutrition Research; New Mexico State University: Las Cruces, NM, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  30. Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS). SAS/STAT User’s Guide. In Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, 5th ed.; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  31. Baumont, R. Palatability and feeding behavior in ruminants. INRA Prod. Anim. 1996, 9, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Harper, K.J.; McNeill, D. The role iNDF in the regulation of feed intake and the importance of its assessment in subtropical ruminant systems (the role of iNDF in the regulation of forage intake). Agriculture 2015, 5, 778–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Xue, Z.; Mu, L.; Cai, M.; Zhang, Y.; Wanapat, M.; Huang, B. Effect of using banana by-products and other agricultural residues for beef cattle in southern China. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2020, 52, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Beauchemin, K.A.; Kreuzer, M.; O’Mara, F.; McAllister, T.A. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008, 48, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gunun, P.; Cherdthong, A.; Khejornsart, P.; Wanapat, M.; Polyorach, S.; Kang, S.; Kaewwongsa, W.; Gunun, N. The effect of phytonutrients in Terminalia chebula Retz. on rumen fermentation efficiency, nitrogen utilization, and protozoal population in goats. Animals 2022, 12, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Orzuna-Orzuna, J.F.; Dorantes-Iturbide, G.; Lara-Bueno, A.; Mendoza-Martínez, G.D.; Miranda-Romero, L.A.; Lee-Rangel, H.A. Growth Performance, Meat Quality and Antioxidant Status of Sheep Supplemented with Tannins: A Meta-Analysis. Animals 2021, 11, 3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Orzuna-Orzuna, J.F.; Dorantes-Iturbide, G.; Lara-Bueno, A.; Mendoza-Martínez, G.D.; Miranda-Romero, L.A.; Hernández-García, P.A. Effects of Dietary Tannins’ Supplementation on Growth Performance, Rumen Fermentation, and Enteric Methane Emissions in Beef Cattle: A Meta-Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shaver, R.O.; Satter, L.D.; Jorgensen, N.A. Impact of forage fiber content on digestion and digesta passage in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1988, 71, 1556–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Detmann, E.; Gionbelli, M.; Huhtanen, P. A meta-analytical evaluation of the regulation of voluntary intake in cattle fed tropical forage-based diets. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 92, 4632–4641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mueller-Harvey, I. Unravelling the conundrum of tannins in animal nutrition and health. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2006, 86, 2010–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Naumann, H.D.; Tedeschi, L.O.; Zeller, W.E.; Huntley, N.F. The role of condensed tannins in ruminant animal production: Advances, limitations and future directions. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2017, 46, 929–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Tseu, R.J.; Junior, F.P.; Carvalho, R.F.; Sene, G.A.; Tropaldi, C.B.; Peres, A.H.; Rodrigues, P.H.M. Effect of tannins and monensin on feeding behaviour, feed intake, digestive parameters and microbial efficiency of Nellore cows. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 19, 262–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Min, B.R.; Barry, T.N.; Attwood, G.T.; McNabb, W.C. The effect of condensed tannins on the nutrition and health of ruminants fed fresh temperate forages: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2003, 106, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Beauchemin, K.A.; McGinn, S.M.; Martinez, T.F.; McAllister, T.A. Use of condensed tannin extract from quebracho trees to reduce methane emissions from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 85, 1990–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Barry, T.N.; Manley, T.R. The role of condensed tannins in the nutritional value of Lotus pedunculatus for sheep. 2. Quantitative digestion of carbohydrates and proteins. Brit. J. Nutr. 1984, 51, 493–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Gunun, N.; Khejornsart, P.; Polyorach, S.; Kaewpila, C.; Kimprasit, T.; Sanjun, I.; Cherdthong, A.; Wanapat, M.; Gunun, P. Utilization of Mao (Antidesma thwaitesianum Muell. Arg.) pomace meal to substitute rice bran on feed utilization and rumen fermentation in tropical beef cattle. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Khonkhaeng, B.; Wanapat, M.; Wongtangtintharn, S.; Phesatcha, K.; Supapong, C.; Suntara, C.; Yuangklang, C.; Vasupen, K.; Khotsakdee, J.; Chanjula, P.; et al. Tropical plant phytonutrient improves the use of insect protein for ruminant feed. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Makkar, H.P.S. 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. 2003, 49, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gunun, P.; Gunun, N.; Khejornsart, P.; Ouppamong, T.; Cherdthong, A.; Wanapat, M.; Sililaophaisan, S.; Yuangklang, C.; Polyorach, S.; Kenchaiwong, W.; et al. Effects of Antidesma thwaitesianum Muell. Arg. pomace as a source of plant secondary compounds on digestibility, rumen environment, hematology, and milk production in dairy cows. Anim. Sci. J. 2019, 90, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bhatta, R.; Vaithiyanathan, S.; Singh, N.P.; Shinde, A.K.; Verma, D.L. Effect of feeding tree leaves as supplements on the nutrient digestion and rumen fermentation pattern in sheep grazing on semi-arid range of India–I. Small Rumin. Res. 2005, 60, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Phesatcha, B.; Phesatcha, K.; Viennaxay, B.; Thao, N.T.; Wanapat, M. Feed intake and nutrient digestibility, rumen fermentation profiles, milk yield and compositions of lactating dairy cows supplemented by Flemingia macrophylla pellet. Trop. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 44, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Castillo-González, A.R.; Burrola-Barraza, M.E.; Domínguez-Viveros, J.; Chávez-Martínez, A. Rumen microorganisms and fermentation. Arch. Med. Vet. 2014, 46, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Wang, L.; Zhang, G.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y. Effects of high forage/concentrate diet on volatile fatty acid production and the microorganisms involved in VFA production in cow rumen. Animals 2020, 10, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Wanapat, M.; Totakul, P.; Viennasay, B.; Matra, M. Sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea, L.) silage can enrich rumen fermentation process, microbial protein synthesis, and nitrogen utilization efficiency in beef cattle crossbreds. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Özelçam, H.; İpçak, H.H.; Özüretmen, S.; Canbolat, Ö. Feed value of dried and ensiled paulownia (Paulownia spp.) leaves and their relationship to rumen fermentation, in vitro digestibility, and gas production characteristics. R. Bras. Zootec. 2021, 50, e20210057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bica, R.; Palarea-Albaladejo, J.; Lima, J.; Uhrin, D.; Miller, G.A.; Bowen, J.M.; Pacheco, D.; Macrae, A.; Dewhurst, R.J. Methane emissions and rumen metabolite concentrations in cattle fed two different silages. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 5441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Palmonaria, A.; Cavallinia, D.; Sniffenb, C.J.; Fernandesc, L.; Holderc, P.; Fusarod, I.; Giammarcod, M.; Formigoniaand, A.; Mammi, L.M.E. In vitro evaluation of sugar digestibility in molasses. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 20, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Akin, D.E.; Borneman, W.S. Role of rumen fungi in fiber degradation. J. Dairy Sci. 1990, 73, 3023–3032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Koike, S.; Kobayashi, Y. Fibrolytic rumen bacteria: Their ecology and functions. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 22, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kang, J.; Zeng, B.; Tang, S.; Wang, M.; Han, X.; Zhou, C.; Yan, Q.; He, Z.; Liu, J.; Tan, Z. Effects of Momordica charantia saponins on in vitro ruminal fermentation and microbial population. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 29, 500–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Ingredients and chemical compositions of the diets.
Table 1. Ingredients and chemical compositions of the diets.
ItemRice StrawKasedbok Levels of Kasedbok in Diet
(g/kg of DM)
080160240
Ingredient, g/kg of DM
Cassava chip 408363361340
Rice bran 327321249228
Palm kernel meal 11111312698
Soybean meal 85543322
Kasedbok 0.080160240
Urea 23232323
Molasses 27272930
Minerals and vitamins 9999
Pure sulfur 5555
Salt 5555
Total feeding costs, (USD/100 kg DM) 39.735.631.929.1
Safe costs (vs 0 g/kg Kasedbok), (USD/100 kg DM) 0−4.1−7.8−10.6
Chemical composition
Dry matter, %95.251.395.895.895.995.1
Organic matter, % of DM87.293.493.293.793.693.0
Crude protein, % of DM2.424.112.011.911.911.8
Neutral detergent fiber, % of DM75.854.342.050.053.054.4
Acid detergent fiber, % of DM41.432.828.831.632.632.9
Total Digestible Nutrients, % of DM--60.060.060.660.8
Condensed tannin, % of DM-9.2----
Crude saponin, % of DM-10.9----
Table
Table 2. Feed Intake and digestibility of Thai native beef cattle.
Table 2. Feed Intake and digestibility of Thai native beef cattle.
ItemLevels of Kasedbok in Diet (g/kg of DM)SEMContrast
080160240 LinearQuadratic
DM intake
Rice straw
kg/d5.55.65.25.20.140.270.89
%BW1.91.91.81.80.040.300.97
%BW0.7577.377.573.273.11.270.220.95
Concentrate
kg/d2.02.02.02.00.020.530.22
%BW0.70.70.70.60.020.290.14
%BW0.7527.127.527.526.50.270.420.21
Total
kg/d7.57.67.27.20.110.270.72
%BW2.62.62.52.40.030.200.77
%BW0.75104.4105.0100.8100.61.380.220.76
Digestibility coefficients, %
Dry matter54.854.453.353.40.670.450.85
Organic matter58.257.856.656.80.760.460.83
Crude protein47.1 a43.0 b40.4 c40.8 c0.550.040.57
Neutral detergent fiber53.154.654.854.50.360.470.48
Acid detergent fiber32.531.830.031.40.870.410.69
a,b,c Values on the same row with different superscripts differed (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 3. Rumen fermentation and blood metabolites of Thai native beef cattle.
Table 3. Rumen fermentation and blood metabolites of Thai native beef cattle.
ItemLevels of Kasedbok in Diet (g/kg of DM)SEMContrast
080160240 LinearQuadratic
Ruminal pH
0 h-post feeding6.87.07.07.00.080.310.53
4 h-post feeding6.67.06.86.70.110.170.48
NH3-N concentration, mg/dL
0 h-post feeding14.313.612.214.90.510.820.14
4 h-post feeding16.1 a14.3 b13.3 c13.1 c0.220.040.20
BUN concentration, mg/dL
0 h-post feeding11.811.513.011.50.430.970.50
4 h-post feeding12.812.313.812.30.400.870.56
a,b,c Values on the same row with different superscripts differed (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 4. Ruminal volatile fatty acid profile of Thai native beef cattle.
Table 4. Ruminal volatile fatty acid profile of Thai native beef cattle.
ItemLevels of Kasedbok in Diet (g/kg of DM)SEMContrast
080160240 LinearQuadratic
Total VFA, mmol/L
0 h-post feeding120.4116.9116.2118.31.410.620.45
4 h-post feeding123.7120.6118.0119.11.380.240.12
VFA, mol/100 mol
Acetic acid
0 h-post feeding72.773.975.075.20.980.310.49
4 h-post feeding70.070.271.772.40.780.250.63
Propionic acid
0 h-post feeding17.117.416.116.20.460.660.64
4 h-post feeding20.219.818.018.00.760.830.47
Butyric acid
0 h-post feeding10.28.78.98.60.990.900.42
4 h-post feeding9.810.010.39.60.610.760.46
Acetic/propionic acid ratio
0 h-post feeding4.34.24.74.60.210.660.57
4 h-post feeding3.53.54.04.00.190.220.76
Table
Table 5. Microbial population in the rumen of Thai native beef cattle.
Table 5. Microbial population in the rumen of Thai native beef cattle.
ItemLevels of Kasedbok in Diet (g/kg of DM)SEMContrast
080160240 LinearQuadratic
Direct count, (cell/mL)
Total bacteria, ×108
0 h-post feeding6.96.26.36.10.360.500.77
4 h-post feeding6.36.06.56.30.370.931.00
Protozoa, ×105
Entodiniomorph1.51.51.81.30.250.180.28
0 h post feeding1.51.91.71.50.140.230.47
4 h-post feeding
Holotrich
0 h post feeding2.52.02.72.00.310.820.19
4 h-post feeding1.81.91.52.00.160.540.17
Total Protozoa
0 h post feeding4.03.54.53.30.350.450.78
4 h-post feeding3.33.82.53.50.470.610.52
Fungi, ×104
0 h-post feeding5.96.47.77.80.790.390.93
4 h-post feeding6.3 b6.0 b7.0 b8.5 a0.400.030.17
a,b Values on the same row with different superscripts differed (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gunun, P.; Cherdthong, A.; Khejornsart, P.; Polyorach, S.; Kaewwongsa, W.; Gunun, N. Potential Use of Kasedbok (Neptunia javanica Miq.) on Feed Intake, Digestibility, Rumen Fermentation, and Microbial Populations in Thai Native Beef Cattle. Animals 2023, 13, 733. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040733

AMA Style

Gunun P, Cherdthong A, Khejornsart P, Polyorach S, Kaewwongsa W, Gunun N. Potential Use of Kasedbok (Neptunia javanica Miq.) on Feed Intake, Digestibility, Rumen Fermentation, and Microbial Populations in Thai Native Beef Cattle. Animals. 2023; 13(4):733. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040733

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gunun, Pongsatorn, Anusorn Cherdthong, Pichad Khejornsart, Sineenart Polyorach, Walailuck Kaewwongsa, and Nirawan Gunun. 2023. "Potential Use of Kasedbok (Neptunia javanica Miq.) on Feed Intake, Digestibility, Rumen Fermentation, and Microbial Populations in Thai Native Beef Cattle" Animals 13, no. 4: 733. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040733

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop