Next Article in Journal
Hematology, Biochemistry, and Protein Electrophoresis Reference Intervals of Western European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) from a Rehabilitation Center in Northern Portugal
Next Article in Special Issue
Fermentation Patterns, Methane Production and Microbial Population under In Vitro Conditions from Two Unconventional Feed Resources Incorporated in Ruminant Diets
Previous Article in Journal
The Naked Neck Gene in the Domestic Chicken: A Genetic Strategy to Mitigate the Impact of Heat Stress in Poultry Production—A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fermentation Quality, In Vitro Digestibility, and Aerobic Stability of Ensiling Spent Mushroom Substrate with Microbial Additives
 
 
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 6
10.3390/ani13061008
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:
Technical Note

Influence of the Season on the Nutritive Value and Gas Production of Opuntia ficus-indica and Agave americana L. in Ruminant Feed

by
Cristiana S. A. M. Maduro Dias
*,
Helder P. B. Nunes
,
Carlos F. M. Vouzela
,
João S. Madruga
and
Alfredo E. S. Borba
Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Research and Technology (IITAA), Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of the Azores, 9700-042 Angra do Heroísmo, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(6), 1008; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13061008
Submission received: 13 January 2023 / Revised: 18 February 2023 / Accepted: 8 March 2023 / Published: 10 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Second Edition of Advances in Animal Novel Alternative Feed)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The Opuntia ficus-indica, and the Agave americana L., are invasive plants, widespread across various countries, that are used by farmers as an alternative water source for ruminants in the summer. The goal of this study is to assess their nutritive value and potential throughout the year, so that their use in diets can be optimized. Both plants are very rich in water, minerals, and energy, but low in crude protein and fibre. Although a decrease in digestibility is observed in the summer, both plants can be a viable feed supplement for ruminants in both the winter and the summer, providing a cheap and eco-sustainable alternative water source. Opuntia ficus-indica, and the Agave americana L., can be fed to ruminants when associated with dried fodder, or incorporated into high crude protein diets for ruminants.

Abstract

Using invasive plants in animal production can provide an economical and eco-sustainable competitive advantage in a globalized market. The Opuntia ficus-indica and the Agave americana L. are invasive plants historically used by Azorean farmers as an alternative ruminant water source in the summer. This study aims to better understand their properties and how they vary throughout the year, so their use to complement animal diets can be optimised. Six samples of each species were collected on the Terceira Island during 2 growth seasons: winter (January 2021) and summer (September 2021), and their chemical composition, in vitro digestibility, and gas production, were determined. Significant (p < 0.05) differences were found in all parameters between the summer and the winter, with larger variations in both fibre (NDF and ADF) and digestibility parameters found between the Opuntia and the Agave. Gas production was greater in the summer for Opuntia and in the winter for Agave. Even though the digestibility was lower in the summer, we found that both plants offer a viable ruminant feed complement in both seasons, providing a cheap and eco-sustainable alternative water source, that can be associated to dry forage and compound feeding stuff with a high crude protein content when designing ruminant diets.

1. Introduction

Interest in plants whose metabolic pathway for the synthesis of carbohydrates is the crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) has been increasing in the scientific community in recent times. The interest stems essentially from two reasons. The first is the elevated tolerance these plants have to high temperatures, UV-B radiation, and drought or irregular rain conditions, by virtue of their ability to quickly take up and store water in above ground succulent tissues, while tolerating large losses in water mass fraction [1]. Their phenological and physiological adaptations allow these species to be very water efficient and to thrive in arid and semi-arid regions [2], especially during dry spells [3], when the production of more succulent food plants is severely limited. The second reason to study CAM plants is their ability to adapt to the most diverse types of climatic environment, as illustrated by the fact that these plants are widely distributed in various countries across the world, either as indigenous, alien, wild, or domesticated species [4]. Given their resilience and adaptability as invasive plants, CAM plants are of great concern, as they are difficult to control and compete with endemic vegetation, adversely affecting the production and quality of forages [5,6]. However, from an animal production perspective, their high palatability, production potential, and considerable survival propagation capacity under harsh dry conditions can make them a valuable resource for farmers that have access to them, as an emergency forage to prevent the disastrous consequences of droughts [7]. Indeed, they can be used as a complementary water source and, if combined with a protein source, constitute a complete feed [8].
The islands of Macaronesia contain a variety of invasive plants, including CAM plants, notably the genera Agave (Agavaceae) and Opuntia (Cataceae) that, to a greater or lesser extent, endanger its natural forest. Furthermore, the region is, like the rest of the world, suffering the effects of climate change, with the islands facing increasing periods of drought. As a result, several authors have been studying ways of taking advantage of CAM plants to complement animal feeds, namely as fibre and water sources in an effort to both contain their spread and, simultaneously, gain economic and environmental benefit [9].
Opuntia ficus-indica, in particular, has been gradually gaining economic importance in the international scientific community, through FAO, which contributes to the diffusion of this cultivation [10]. Ever since its introduction in the Iberian Peninsula, Opuntia ficus-indica, commonly known in Portugal as “figueira da índia”, has taken a prominent position from botanical, economical, and agricultural perspectives [11]. In turn, the Agave americana L., commonly known in Portugal as ”agave”, “piteira”, or “babosa”, was introduced in the Azores as an ornamental plant, but quickly spread as an invasive species in some islands, namely Graciosa and, especially, Santa Maria, occupying vast ranges of fallow lands.
The goal of this study is to evaluate Agave americana L. and Opuntia ficus-indica, present in the three archipelagos of Maraconesia’s European portion (Canary Islands, Azores and Madeira), as a possible animal feed complement, analysing their chemical composition and how it varies over two seasons of the year: winter and summer.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection and Preparation

This study was conducted at the Animal Nutrition Lab, Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of the Azores, located in Angra do Heroísmo, Terceira, Azores, Portugal. The Azores are an archipelago of volcanic origin, located in the North Atlantic, whose soils can be characterised as andosols, having originated from modern volcanic materials, and evolved under temperate and humid Atlantic climate conditions [12]. For this study, plant samples were harvested on the Terceira Island, the third island of the Azorean archipelago in terms of size (402 km2), during 2 growth seasons: winter (January 2021) and summer (September 2021). Six plants of each species were collected in each season. In the case of Opuntia, cladodes were collected on the middle of the plant, whereas, with Agave, the whole blade was used. The minimum, maximum, and average temperature (°C), as well as the accumulated precipitation (mm) were also collected for one year, between October 2020 to September 2021 (Figure 1), to provide additional context to the study. The climatic data were obtained by the Portuguese Institute for Sea and Atmosphere, I. P. (IPMA, IP) in Angra do Heroísmo.

2.2. Chemical Composition

The plant samples were dried in a forced-air oven at 65 °C until constant weight. They were then ground through a 1-mm screen using a Retsch mill. The chemical characterisation of the plants was carried out using the Weende system. The dry matter (DM, method 930.15), crude protein (CP, method 954.01), ether extract (EE, method 920.39), and total ash (method 942.05) were determined according to the standard methods of [13]. The determination of the neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) were carried out according to [14]. Both NDF and ADF are expressed without residual ash.

2.3. In Vitro Methods

The in vitro dry matter digestibility and organic matter digestibility was measured according to the method of [15], modified by [16].
Gas production was measured as described by [17]. Two hundred mg of sampled dry matter was weighed in triplicate and placed in a glass syringe to which 30 mL of a mixture of rumen liquor (Menke medium mixture) was added and kept in CO2. The inoculant medium was prepared using the buffer solutions, and the rumen fluid as described by Menke et al. [17], mixing rumen fluid with buffer solutions (reduced and mineral solutions) in a ratio of 1:2 v/v.
Subsequently, the glass syringe was incubated at 39 ± 0.5 °C in an electrically heated isothermal oven equipped with a rotor, which rolled continuously at 1–2 rpm. Gas production was measured at 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h after the onset of incubation. Differences in the composition and activity of the rumen liquor were controlled by nine parallel measurements, a blank test, and incubation of a roughage and a concentrate standard.
Data for gas production were fitted to the gas production kinetics curve of Ørskov and McDonald (1979) [18]: y = a + b 1 − e − c t .
Where y is the gas production at time t; a is the gas production of the immediately soluble fraction (mL 200 mg−1 DM); b is the gas production of the insoluble fraction (mL 200 mg−1 DM); c is the gas production rate constant for the insoluble fraction (mL h−1), and Lag time is the incubation time (in hours).
The rumen fluid for each experiment (digestibility and gas production) was collected as described by Borba et al. [19] in the local slaughterhouse, where the following conditions were observed: for each experiment, rumen was collected from 5 healthy dairy cattle, the animals had been fed ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) and silage-based corn. Rumen fluid was collected within 10 min of slaughter, filtered of cheesecloth, and preserved at 39 °C under anaerobic conditions, being delivered to the animal nutrition laboratory within 30 min after being collected [20].

2.4. Data Analysis

All data were tested for normality used Shapiro–Wilk test in order to comply with the ANOVA conditions. The nutritive value and digestibility data were subjected to analysis of variance using the following model: Y i = µ + Z i + S j + P k + R E i j k , where Y is the dependent variable, µ is the seasonal variations of the different parameters of overall mean, Zi is the species effect, Sj is the season effect, Pk is the interaction between species and season, and REijk is the random residual error assumed to be normally and independently distributed. The Tukey test was used to determine mean differences at p ≤ 0.05. The gas production variation metrics were not normally distributed and could not be normalised by transformation to allow for parametric analysis. Consequently, non-parametric methods were used for gas production, namely Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks and multiple comparisons between the samples with Kruskal–Wallis. Mean differences were considered statistically significant when the p-value obtained was lower than the significance level, which was set to 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed by IBM SPSS Statistics v24 program (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

The results of the chemical composition and dry and organic matter digestibility for the two species being studied, for both the winter and the summer, are present in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
The minimum DM content (7.12%) was found during the summer for Opuntia ficus-indica, while the maximum dry matter value was 11.70% for Agave americana L., during the winter period. The fibre content (NDF), as expected, reached the maximum values during the summer for both plants. The minimum value of ADF (12.46%) was found in the summer period, in Opuntia ficus-indica, whereas the maximum content for Agave americana L. was 24.71%, also in the summer. Significant differences (p < 0.05) between species and period were observed in the DM, ADF, and NDF. Out of the chemical parameters that were studied, the high levels of ash present in both plants, which varied between 10.97% and 17.00% for Opuntia ficus-indica and for Agave americana, respectively, stand out.
Both plants showed dry matter digestibility above 80% during the winter. During the summer, both %DMD and %OMD decreased compared to the winter period, with the minimum OMD value being 58.12% for Opuntia ficus-indica. Significant dry and organic matter digestibility differences (p < 0.05) were found between species and periods.
The accumulated values of gas production by each of the plants over 96 h are shown in Figure 2. The gas production curves of Opuntia ficus-indica have a very similar behavior in both periods. The volume of gas produced by Agave americana L. in winter is higher than that observed in the summer.
Out of the parameters evaluated in the kinetics of in vitro gas production (Table 3), no significant differences were observed between the lag time values. Except for parameter b, for Opuntia ficus-indica, all the other parameters differed (p < 0.05) statistically between the two seasons of the year under analysis.
After adjusting the curve to the gas production model proposed by Ørskov and McDonald [18] (Table 4), we observe that, except for the 4 and 72 h, there were no significant (p < 0.05) differences between the periods in the case of Opuntia ficus-indica. Regarding Agave americana L., the gas production varies significantly (p < 0.05) over the 96 h of gas production.
Different letters next to the respective value indicate significant differences in the nutritive parameters among sampling dates.

4. Discussion

Plants are made up of an insoluble fraction, the cell wall, which is resistant to ruminant digestion and has lower degradation potential, and a soluble fraction, the cell content, with high digestibility. Non-conventional plants typically present a higher percentage of cell wall compared to cell content than other forages, like ryegrass and clovers. Besides the species, other factors influence the plant quality, such as the state of maturity, the handling, and the quality of the soil, which impacts the leaf area and photosynthetic capacity of the plants [21]. An increase of the cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, typically occurs during the dry seasons, making the forage more resistant, due to an increase of the cellulose and lignin connections, which makes the processes of ingestion, rumination, and fermentation by microorganisms harder [22]. CAM plants can produce up to 5 times more DM per millimetre of rainfall when compared to other plants, with [23] noting that, besides being an excellent water source, Opuntia also features high dry matter digestibility coefficients and is a high energy source, which is corroborated by [24] in a study made in north-eastern Brazil. Likewise, [25] reports that Agave has high water content and is a high energy source, in a study made with different species of the plant. As a result of these features and their resilience, CAM plants have historically played an important role in regions of arid and semi-arid environments [26], being used as a supplement in animal feed [27,28,29], in the context of both subsistence crops and market-oriented agriculture, thus increasing the food security of populations in agriculturally marginalized areas [24].
The chemical composition between the two species being studied, in two different periods of the year, is compared in Table 1. In line with the findings of [30], who noted CAM plants are characterised by a high water and ash content and low CP and NDF, both plants were found to have low DM content, with Opuntia averaging 7.12% in the winter and 7.48% in the summer, which are similar to the values reported by [31], of DM values varying between 7 and 15%.
In turn, the DM variation registered in Agave between the two seasons was only 0.5%, being 11.65% in the summer and 11.70% in the winter. Looking at the climate data, it can be observed that the amount of precipitation during the month of December was below average, whereas the precipitation during the summer and especially in August was quite abundant and well above average, even surpassing that of December. The combination of high precipitation and ideal temperature for growth allowed for the plants to develop more than usual, minimizing differences between seasons regarding certain parameters like cell content. The crude protein content found in these CAM plants was extremely low, independent of the season, with the maximum value being 6.30% for Agave in the summer. All values were below 7%, which is usually considered the minimum required value for normal function of ruminal microorganisms [32,33]. In the case of Opuntia, [34] reported that varieties could have variable amounts of CP and found that some clones from Brazil had over 11% DM of CP.
As can also be seen in Table 1, both Agave americana and Opuntia ficus-indica presented low values of NDF, with the particularity of there being an increase between the winter and the summer. For Agave, the observed values were 25.56% DM in the winter and 32.14% DM in the summer. For Opuntia, the values were 19.75% DM in the winter and 33.12% DM in the summer. This difference is broader than that reported by [30,35], who observed values ranging between 23.88% DM and 31.4% DM.
Although we found that both plants have a low nutritional value, they have good palatability and a high-water content [36], making sense to use them as a complementary source of water [37] in periods of shortage of feed or lack of water for animals, since water is one of the main limiting factors in animal production [30].
Regarding dry and organic matter digestibility (DMD and OMD, respectively), the values were found to be high in both summer and winter (Table 2). The similarity can be explained by the high rainfall in August and in the previous spring, which allowed the CAM to store considerable amounts of water and, consequently, to have greater digestibility.
For Agave, the DMD varied between 81.30% DM in the winter and 71.36% DM in the summer, while the OMD varied between 79.85% DM in the winter and 68.99% DM in the summer, in the same range of results found by [38], in a study of nutritional potential of some invasive species of Macaronesia for ruminants. Both plants had statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between the summer and the winter for NDF, ADF, DMD, and OMD (Table 1 and Table 2). Opuntia is highly digestible [30,38]. Its results of DMD varied between 83.13% in the winter and 67.55% DM in the summer and 71.5% DM and 58.12% DM for OMD, respectively. These values are consistent with those reported by [39], who obtained values of 65% DM for Opuntia.
The amount of gas produced in in vitro fermentation reflects the extent of fermentation and digestibility of a forage [39] and is directly linked to the rate at which the substrate is degraded [40]. According to [41], the fermentation of the soluble and quickly fermentable fraction of the substrate, i.e., the soluble carbohydrates, and the synthesis of the microbial protein, both happen during the initial stages of incubation. Once this stage is complete, the fermentation of the insoluble fraction with degradation potential, such as the NDF fraction, begins.
The in vitro gas production simulates the ruminal fermentation process and has been used to assess the greenhouse gas production potential of feeds. It is similar to the ruminal process, since the gas (CO2 and CH4) is produced by the carbohydrate fermentation. The results of the in vitro gas production for both Opuntia and Agave are shown in Table 3, where we can see that Agave has a lag time of 0h in the winter, which indicates that the fermentation starts as soon as the element is incubated. Some authors note the high saponin content in this plant [42,43], therefore it would be interesting to determine anti-nutritive substances in future works. The value of the a constant of the reaction kinetics in Agave varied between 3.63 mL/0.2 g DM in the winter and −1.47 mL/0.2 g DM in the summer, with statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between the seasons. Conversely, there was no statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference in the case of Opuntia, with a value of −4.87 mL/0.2 g DM registered in the winter and −6.06 mL/0.2 g DM in the summer. A positive a indicates that the component started to degrade quickly, whereas a negative value means there was an initial stage without cell wall degradation, called lag phase [44]. The Agave had an elevated soluble fraction in the winter (3.63) in comparison to the other results, which is reflected in the initial gas production amount which was found to be over 20 mL/200 g DM.
For parameter b, both Opuntia and Agave showed significant (p < 0.05) differences between seasons, which is an indicator of different fermentation patterns [45].
The cumulative fitted gas production value, summarized in Table 4 and Figure 2, showed significant (p < 0.05) differences being between seasons for the Agave, with a noticeably higher gas production in the winter, whereas Opuntia had a higher production in the winter, at 4 h, 72 h, and 96 h. In the case of Opuntia, it was observed that 85% of the gas recorded after 72 h was produced in the first 24 h. This is consistent with the findings of [46,47,48], who state that cactus nutrients are degraded rapidly in the rumen between 6 h and 12 h, with little nutrient degradation after 24 h.

5. Conclusions

Opuntia and Agave are very rich in water, and can be used in animal feed, especially during periods of severe food shortages or in drought situations, where water is scarce. The introduction of these plants in animal feed implies that the animals have a protein supplementation, due to the low protein and fibre content of both plants.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, formal analysis, conceptualization, investigation, C.S.A.M.M.D.; writing—review and editing, H.P.B.N., C.F.M.V. and J.S.M.; supervision, A.E.S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work has been funded by INV2MAC Project (Potencial aprovechamiento de biomasa generada a partir de especies vegetales invasoras de la Macaronesia para uso industrial, MAC2/4.6d/229), has been approved in the first call of the territorial cooperation programme MAC towards FEDER funds and the Regional Directorate of Science and Technology of the Azorean Regional Secretariat for the Sea, Science and Technology.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Martínez-Torres, J.; Barahona-Perez, F.; Lappe-Oliveras, P.; Colunga, G.; Magdub-Mendez, A.; Vergara-Yoisura, S.; Larqué-Saavedra, A. Ethanol production from two varieties of henequen (Agave fourcroydes Lem). GCB Bioenergy 2011, 3, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Borland, A.M.; Griffiths, H.; Hartwell, J.; Smith, J.A.C. Exploiting the potential of plants with crassulacean acid metabolism for bioenergy production on marginal lands. J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60, 2879–2896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kaur, M.; Kaur, A.; Sharma, R. Pharmacological actions of Opuntia ficus indica: A Review. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 2, 15–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Guevara, J.C.; Suassuna, P.; Felker, P. Opuntia Forage production systems: Status and prospects for rangeland application. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 62, 428–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Scott, L.; Robbins, K. Invasive Plants That are Toxic to Livestock; Ministry of Agriculture and Lands: Kelowna, BC, Canada, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  6. Panter, K.E.; Ralphs, M.H.; Pfister, J.A.; Gardner, D.R.; Stegelmeier, B.L.; Lee, S.T.; Welch, K.D.; Green, B.T.; Davis, T.Z.; Cook, K. Plants Poisonous to Livestock in the Western States; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory: Logan, UT, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gebremarian, T.; Melaku, S.; Yami, A. Effect of different levels of catus (Opuntia ficus-indica) inclusion on feed intake digestibility andbody weight gain in tef (Eragrostis tef) straw-based feeding of sheep. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2006, 131, 42–51. [Google Scholar]
  8. García, J.J.L.; Rodríguez, J.M.F.; Rodríguez, R.A. Production and use of Opuntia as forage in Northern Mexico. In Cactus (Opuntia spp.) as Forage; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2001; pp. 29–36. [Google Scholar]
  9. Silliman, B.R.; Mozdzer, T.; Angelini, C.; Brundage, J.E.; Esselink, P.; Bakker, J.P.; Gedan, K.B.; Van de Koppel, J.; Baldwin, A.H. Livestock as a potential biological control agent for an invasive wetland plant. Peer J. 2014, 2, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Galati, E.M.; Tripodo, M.M.; Trovato, A.; Miceli, N.; Monforte, M.T. Biological effect of Opuntia ficus indica (L.) Mill. (Cactaceae) waste matter. Note I. Diuretic activity. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2002, 79, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Blasco, M. Opuntia ficus-indica (L-Mill., 1768) en el mundo. Producciόn y uso. In Livro de Resumos das Jornadas Ibéricas da Figueira-da-Índia; IPCB: Castelo Branco, Portugal, 2014; pp. 13–15. [Google Scholar]
  12. Pinheiro, J.; Madeira, M.; Monteiro, F.; Medina, J. Características e classificação dos Andossolos da Ilha do Pico (Arquipélago dos Açores). Rev. Ciências Agrárias 2001, 24, 48–60. [Google Scholar]
  13. Horwitz, W.; Latimer, G. AOAC—Association of Official Analytical Chemists. In Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed.; Association OF Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  14. Goering, H.K.; Van Soest, P.J. Forage fiber analyses. In Agricultural Handbook nº379; Agricultural Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tilley, J.M.A.; Terry, R.A. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 1963, 18, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alexander, R.H.; McGowan, M. The routine determination of in vitro digestibility of organic matter in forages. An investigation of the problems associated with continuous large-scale operation. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 1966, 21, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Menke, K.H.; Raab, L.; Salewski, A.; Steingass, H.; Fritz, D.; Schneider, W. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J. Agric. Sci. 1979, 92, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Ørskov, E.R.; McDonald, P. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J. Agric. Sci. 1979, 92, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Borba, A.E.S.; Correia, P.J.A.; Fernandes, J.M.M.; Borba, A.F.R.S. Comparison of three sources of inocula for predicting apparent digestibility of ruminant feedstuffs. Anim. Res. 2001, 50, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Nunes, H.; Maduro Dias, C.; Borba, A. Bioprospecting essential oils of exotic species as potential mitigations of ruminant enteric methanogenesis. SSRN 2023, 9, e12786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Marcelino, K.R.A.; Nascimento Junior, D.; Silva, S.C.; Euclides, V.P.B.; Miranda da Fonseca, D. Característica morfogênicas e estruturais e produção de forragem do capim Marandu submetido a intensidades e frequências de desfolhação. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2006, 35, 2243–2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Dove, H. The Ruminant, the Rumen and the Pasture Resouce: Nutrient Interactions in Grazing Animal. In The Ecology and Management in Grazing Systems, 2nd ed.; CAB International: London, UK, 1998; p. 466. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gusha, J.; Halimani, T.E.; Katsande, S.; Zvinorova, P.I. The effect of Opuntia ficus indica and forage legumes based diets on goat productivity in smallholder sector in Zimbabwe. Small Rumin. Res. 2015, 125, 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. De Andrade Ferreira, M.; Patto Novaes, L.; María Herrera Ângulo, A.; Christina Bernardo de Siqueira, M. Spinless Forage Cactus: The Queen of Forage Crops in Semi-Arid Regions. Grasses and Grassland—New Perspectives; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  25. Alibes, X.; Tisserand, J.L. Tables of the Nutritive Value for Ruminants of Mediterranean Forages and By-Products; Options Méditerranéennes: Série B Etudes et recherches, 4. Ciheam 152; Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Mediterraneennes: Paris, France, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  26. Andrade-Montemayor, H.M.; Cordova-Torres, A.V.; García-Gasca, T.; Kawas, J.R. Alternative foods for small ruminants in semiarid zones, the case of Mesquite (Prosopis laevigata spp.) and Nopal (Opuntia spp.). Small Rumin. Res. 2011, 98, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rekik, M.; Ben Salem, H.; Lassoued, N.; Chalouati, H.; Ben Salem, I. Supplemntation of Barbarine ewes with spineless cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica F. inermis) cladodes during late gestation- early suckling: Effects on mammary secretions, blood metabolites, lamb growth and postpartum ovarian activity. Small Rumin. Res. 2010, 90, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Degu, A.; Melaku, S.; Gebreyohannes, B. Supplementation of isnotrogenous oil seed cakes in cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica)-tef straw (Eragrostis tef) based feeding of Tigray Highland sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2009, 148, 214–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Costa, G.R.; Beltro Filho, M.E.; Nunes de Medeiros, A.; Naves, G.; Egypto Queiroga, R.R.; Melo, S.A.A. Effects of increasing levels of cac- tus pear (Opuntia ficus-indica L. Miller) in the diet of dairy goats its contribution as a source of water. Small Rumin. Res. 2009, 82, 62–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Reynolds, G.S.; Arias, E. Background on Opuntia. In Cactus (Opuntia Spp.) as Forage; Mondragόn-Jacobo, C., Salvador, P.-G., Eds.; FAO Plant production and Protection Paper (169); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  31. Tegegne, F.; Kijora, C.; Peters, K.J. Study on the optimal level of cactus pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) supplementation to sheep and its contribution as source of water. Small Rumin. Res. 2007, 72, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Van Soest, P.J.; 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, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Lazzarini, I.; Detmann, E.; Sampaio, C.B.; Paulino, M.F.; Valadares Filho, S.C.; Souza, M.A.; Oliveira, F.A. Dinâmicas de trânsito e degradação da fibra em detergente neutro em bovinos alimentados com forragem tropical de baixa qualidade e compostos nitrogenados. Arq. Bras. Med. Veterinária E Zootec. 2009, 61, 635–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gregory, R.A.; Felker, P. Crude protein and phosphorus contents of 8 contrasting Opuntia forage clones. J. Arid. Environ. 1992, 22, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Vilela, M.S.; Ferreira, M.A.; Azevedo, M.; Modesto, E.C.; Farias, I.; Guimarães, A.V.; Bispo, S.V. Effect of processing and feeding strategy of the spineless cactus (Opuntia fícus-indica Mill.) for lactating cows: Ingestive behavior. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 125, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Suñigiga, C.H. Utilizacion Del Maguey Como Suplemento En El Crecimiento De Becerras Holstein; ITESM: Monterrey, Mexico, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  37. Negesse, T.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Nutritive value of some non-convencional feed resources of Ethiopia determined by chemical analyses and in vitro has methode. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2009, 154, 204–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Maduro Dias, C.S.A.M.; Vouzela, C.F.M.; Rosa, H.J.D.; Madruga, J.S.; Borba, A.E.S. Nutritional Potential of Some Invasive Species of Macaronesia for Ruminants. Am. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 5, 102. [Google Scholar]
  39. Getachew, G.; Blümmel, M.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. In vitro gas measuring tecniques for assessment of nutritional quality of feeds: A review. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 1998, 72, 261–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dhanoa, M.S.; Lopez, S.; Dijkstra, J.; Davies, D.R.; Sanderson, R.; Williams, B.A.; France, J. Estimating the extent of degradation of ruminant feeds from a description of their gas production profiles observed in vitro: Comparison of models. Br. J. Nutr. 2000, 83, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Groot, J.C.J.; Cone, J.W.; Williams, B.A.; Debersaques, F.M.A.; Lantinga, E.A. Multiphasic analysis of gas production kinetics for in vitro fermentation of ruminant feeds. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 1996, 64, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yokousa, A.; Mimaki, Y.; Kuroda, M.; Sashida, Y. A new steroidal saponin from the leaves of Agave americana. Planta Med. 2000, 66, 393–396. [Google Scholar]
  43. Leal-Díaz, A.M.; Santos-Zea, L.; Martínez-Escobedo, H.C.; Guajardo-Flores, D.; Gutiérrez-uribe, J.A.; Serna-Saldivar, S.O. Effect of Agave Americana and Agave Salmiana Ripeness on Sapoin Content from Aguamiel (Agave Sap). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 3924–3930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chesson, A.; Forsberg, C.W. Polysaccharide degradation by rumen microorganisms. In The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem; Hobson, P.N., Ed.; Elsevier Applied Science: London, UK, 1988; pp. 251–284. [Google Scholar]
  45. García-Rodriguez, A.; Mandaluniz, N.; Flores, G.; Oregui, L.M. A gas production technique as a tool to predict organic matter digestibility of grass and maize silage. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2005, 123–124, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Malsberger, B. Cactus as a resource for cattle and wildlife. Management 1996, 30, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
  47. Shoop, M.C.; Alford, E.J.; Mayland, H.F. Plains prickly pear is a good forage for cattle. J. Range Manag. 1977, 30, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nefzaoui, A.; Salem, H.B. Opuntia spp A strategic fodder and efficient tool to combat desertification in the WANA region. In Cactus (Opuntia Spp.) as Forage; Mondragon-Jacobo, C., Perez-Gonzalez, S., Eds.; FAO plant Production and Protection Paper 169; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2001; pp. 73–90. [Google Scholar]
Animals 13 01008 g001 550
Figure 1. Climatic parameters for minimum, maximum and average temperature (°C), and accumulated precipitation (mm).
Figure 1. Climatic parameters for minimum, maximum and average temperature (°C), and accumulated precipitation (mm).
Animals 13 01008 g001
Animals 13 01008 g002 550
Figure 2. Cumulative fitted values of gas production of the different plants in the two periods.
Figure 2. Cumulative fitted values of gas production of the different plants in the two periods.
Animals 13 01008 g002
Table
Table 1. Chemical Composition of the different plants to the different periods.
Table 1. Chemical Composition of the different plants to the different periods.
ParameterOpuntia ficus-indicaAgave americana L.SEMp-Value
PeriodPeriodSpeciesPeriodSpecies × Period
WinterSummerWinterSummer
DM (%)7.12 a7.48 a11.70 b11.65 b0.713>0.05>0.05<0.05
CP (%DM)4.15 a4.19 a5.16 a6.30 a0.224>0.05>0.05>0.05
NDF (%DM)19.75 a33.12 b25.56 c32.14 b1.41<0.05<0.05<0.05
ADF (%DM)14.80 a12.46 b22.51 c24.71d1.74<0.05<0.05<0.05
ADL (%DM)3.47 a3.84 a4.68 a4.04 a0.544>0.05>0.05>0.05
EE (%DM)1.33 a1.11 a1.57 a1.73 a0.023>0.05>0.05>0.05
Ash (%DM)16.61 a17.00 a11.00 a10.97 a0.633>0.05>0.05>0.05
DM: dry matter, CP: crude protein, NDF: neutral detergent insoluble fiber, ADF: acid detergent insoluble fiber, ADL: acid detergent lignin, EE: ether extract. SEM: standard error of the mean. Different letters next to the respective value indicate significant differences in the nutritive parameters among sampling dates. p < 0.05 significant differences were found.
Table
Table 2. Percentage dry matter digestibility (%DMD) and percentage organic matter digestibility (%OMD) of the different plants to the different periods.
Table 2. Percentage dry matter digestibility (%DMD) and percentage organic matter digestibility (%OMD) of the different plants to the different periods.
ParameterOpuntia ficus-indicaAgave americana L.SEMp-Value
PeriodPeriodSpeciesPeriodSpecies × Period
WinterSummerWinterSummer
DMD (%)83.13 a67.55 b81.30 c71.36 d1.17<0.05<0.05<0.05
OMD (%)71.5 a58.12 b79.85 c68.99 d1.89<0.05<0.05<0.05
DMD: dry matter digestibility, OMD: organic matter digestibility. SEM: standard error of the mean. Different letters next to the respective value indicate significant differences in the nutritive parameters among sampling dates. p < 0.05 significant differences were found.
Table
Table 3. In vitro gas production kinetics parameters of the different plants in the two periods.
Table 3. In vitro gas production kinetics parameters of the different plants in the two periods.
ParameterOpuntia ficus-indicaAgave americana L.
PeriodPeriod
WinterSummerWinterSummer
a (mL/0.2 g DM)−4.87 a−6.06 a3.63 a−1.47 b
b (mL/0.2 g DM)40.64 a47.70 b45.38 a35.40 b
c (mL/h)0.0389 a0.0355 a0.175 a0.041 b
Lag Time (h)3.18 a3.82 b0 a1 a
RSD1.562.231.401.11
a: gas production of the immediately soluble fraction (mL/0.2g DM), b: gas production of the insoluble fraction (mL/0.2 g DM), c: gas production rate constant for the insoluble fraction (mL/h); Lag t: time it takes to produce gas (h); RSD = residual standard deviation. Different letters next to the respective value indicate significant differences in the nutritive parameters among sampling dates.
Table
Table 4. Cumulative fitted values of gas production of the different plants in the two periods.
Table 4. Cumulative fitted values of gas production of the different plants in the two periods.
Incubation Time
(h)		Opuntia ficus-indicaAgave americana L.
PeriodPeriod
WinterSummerWinterSummer
41.024 a0.398 b22.680 a3.830 b
86.056 a5.698 a32.675 a8.340 b
1210.340 a10.442 a38.290 a12.170 b
2419.762 a21.228 a45.290 a20.550 b
4829.286 a32.892 a48.415 a28.880 b
7233.050 a37.882 b48.905 a32.020 b
9634.580 a40.022 b48.990 a32.210 b
Different letters next to the respective value indicate significant differences in the nutritive parameters among sampling dates.
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

Dias, C.S.A.M.M.; Nunes, H.P.B.; Vouzela, C.F.M.; Madruga, J.S.; Borba, A.E.S. Influence of the Season on the Nutritive Value and Gas Production of Opuntia ficus-indica and Agave americana L. in Ruminant Feed. Animals 2023, 13, 1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13061008

AMA Style

Dias CSAMM, Nunes HPB, Vouzela CFM, Madruga JS, Borba AES. Influence of the Season on the Nutritive Value and Gas Production of Opuntia ficus-indica and Agave americana L. in Ruminant Feed. Animals. 2023; 13(6):1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13061008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dias, Cristiana S. A. M. Maduro, Helder P. B. Nunes, Carlos F. M. Vouzela, João S. Madruga, and Alfredo E. S. Borba. 2023. "Influence of the Season on the Nutritive Value and Gas Production of Opuntia ficus-indica and Agave americana L. in Ruminant Feed" Animals 13, no. 6: 1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13061008

APA Style

Dias, C. S. A. M. M., Nunes, H. P. B., Vouzela, C. F. M., Madruga, J. S., & Borba, A. E. S. (2023). Influence of the Season on the Nutritive Value and Gas Production of Opuntia ficus-indica and Agave americana L. in Ruminant Feed. Animals, 13(6), 1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13061008

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