2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2020.104426
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can spineless forage cactus be the queen of forage crops in dryland areas?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
19
0
3

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
2
19
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…High dietary levels of rapid fermentation carbohydrates can result in lower ruminal pH, reducing fiber degradation due to the decreased population or activity of the cellulolytic microorganisms [34], for which pH values between 6.00 and 6.10 are considered a threshold [35]. The lower NDF digestibility observed when GC was provided is in accordance with the findings of Rocha Filho et al [3], who observed lower NDF digestibility for GC when five genotypes of cactus were evaluated: GC, MC, SC, Orelha de Elefante Africana (Opuntia), and OEMC in sheep diets at 400 g/kg DM. Moreover, they observed lower ruminal pH when GC was provided, with pH values between 6.10 and 6.26 after feeding, despite NFC intake being similar among the cactus genotypes.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…High dietary levels of rapid fermentation carbohydrates can result in lower ruminal pH, reducing fiber degradation due to the decreased population or activity of the cellulolytic microorganisms [34], for which pH values between 6.00 and 6.10 are considered a threshold [35]. The lower NDF digestibility observed when GC was provided is in accordance with the findings of Rocha Filho et al [3], who observed lower NDF digestibility for GC when five genotypes of cactus were evaluated: GC, MC, SC, Orelha de Elefante Africana (Opuntia), and OEMC in sheep diets at 400 g/kg DM. Moreover, they observed lower ruminal pH when GC was provided, with pH values between 6.10 and 6.26 after feeding, despite NFC intake being similar among the cactus genotypes.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The usage of forage cactus has proved essential for the maintenance of livestock activity in these regions, as it has adaptive characteristics which ensure that its development progresses under arid conditions [2]. In fact, the forage cactus is deemed to be the queen of forage crops in dryland areas due to its high nutritional value and the energy and water content produced per unit area, compared with conventional crops recommended for semiarid regions (e.g., sorghum silage, buffel grass, and corn silage) [3]. Additionally, due to its high moisture content, forage cactus also meets most of the nutritional needs of the animals, minimizing a major livestock problem in these regions [4].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gigante 1 Harvest 2 years Chemical 11.9 [37] Manual labor (summer weeding and hoe) Due to drought resistance and high efficiency in rainwater use, forage cactus planting is neglected in terms of soil fertility; which is a mistake. In semiarid regions and adequate climatic conditions, it is an unbeatable crop in terms of productivity and quality as an energy feed, for that it can be called The Queen of Forages in the Semiarid Region [43]. So, it must occupy the best fertile soil on the property.…”
Section: Clone Control Type Dmp (T/ha) Referencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, they are equal to the potential for ME production/ha of forage cactus, which was 55,434 Mcal/ha (23,690 kg DM; 2.34 Mcal/kg DM). The average productivity of the forage cactus species was considered in the paper of [43]. The ME values of the various forages were taken from the Brazilian Tables of Feed Composition for Cattle [73].…”
Section: Spinelles Cactus As Forage and Desertification Mitigationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reduction of the need for off-farm manure or chemical fertilizers: Nyambati et al, 2006;Douxchamps et al, 2010Douxchamps et al, , 2014Schultze-Kraft et al, 2018;Boddey et al, 2020 C. Decreased use of chemical weed and pest control: Xuan et al, 2006;Njeru et al, 2020D. Decreased water requirements: Ríos et al, 2006Nefzaoui et al, 2014;Mayer and Cushman, 2019;Rocha Filho et al, 2021…”
Section: Input Reductionmentioning
confidence: 99%