Evaluation of various feedstuffs of ruminants in terms of chemical composition and metabolisable energy content

Abstract

Aim:The aim was to determine the chemical composition and metabolisable energy (ME) content of feedstuffs used in ruminant animals using in vitro method. Materials and Methods: A total of 18 feedstuffs used for ruminant feeding including cultivated non-leguminous fodders like maize, sorghum, pearl millet, and oat; leguminous fodders like cowpea and berseem; agro-industrial by-products such as wheat bran, deoiled rice bran, rice polish, wheat straw, and concentrates such as mustard oil cake, groundnut cake, soybean meal, cotton seed cake, grains like maize, oat, wheat, and barley were taken for this study. Chemical compositions and cell wall constituents of test feeds were determined in triplicate. The crude protein (CP) content was calculated as nitrogen (N) × 6.25. True dry matter digestibility (TDMD), true organic matter digestibility (TOMD), ME, and partitioning factor (PF) values were determined by in vitro gas production technique (IVGPT). Results: The CP content of non-leguminous fodders varied from 7.29% (sorghum) to 9.51% (maize), but leguminous fodders had less variation in CP. Oilseed cakes/meals had high CP and ether extract (EE) content than other feedstuffs except rice polish, which had 12.80% EE. Wheat straw contained highest fiber fractions than the other ingredients. ME content was highest in grains (wheat-12.02 MJ/kg) and lowest in wheat straw (4.65 MJ/kg) and other roughages. TDMD of grains and oilseed cakes/meals were higher than the fodders and agro-industrial by-products. The same trend was observed for TOMD. Conclusions: It was concluded that the energy feeds showed a great variation in chemical composition and ME content. The results of this study demonstrated that the kinetics of gas production of energy feed sources differed among themselves. Evaluation of various feedstuffs is helpful in balanced ration formulation for field animals and under farm conditions for better utilization of these commonly available feed resources.

In vitro evaluation of ruminant feed from West Sumatera based on chemical composition and content of rumen degradable and rumen undegradable proteins

“…The protein content of each forage varied from 13.13% ( P. purpureum ) to 31.22% ( I. zollingerian ). The protein levels of legume plants were found to be higher than those of grasses and concentrates [1,10,11].…”

“…The main purpose of feed chemical analysis is to predict the response of livestock to the feed when it is given as rations. Therefore, information about the chemical composition of feed ingredients is essential in the preparation of livestock rations [1].…”

Cottonseed Press Cake as a Potential Diet for Industrially Farmed Black Soldier Fly Larvae Triggers Adaptations of Their Bacterial and Fungal Gut Microbiota

“…Its global production is about 14.7 million tons per year ( Heuzé et al, 2019 ). Whereas most agricultural side products are rich in cellulose, pectin, lignin and other indigestible fibers, CPC is highly nutritious, comprising 27–51% protein and 8% fat as a proportion of dry matter ( He et al, 2015 ; Kumar et al, 2015 ). However, cottonseeds also contain the toxic polyphenolic compound gossypol, at a concentration of 0.4–1.5% free gossypol and 2–4% bound gossypol ( Pons and Eaves, 1967 ).…”

​Nutritive Value and Meat Characteristics of Sheep Fed Toona sinensis (A. Juss.)

“…Both were rich in crude protein, minerals, and amino acids. Mature leaves of T. sinensis had higher crude protein than grains such as maize (9.51%), wheat (11.71%) and barley (10.18%); and agro-industrial by-products, such as wheat bran (14.46%), rice polish (12.80%) and wheat straw (3.39%) (Kumar et al, 2015); and were comparable to the legumes Clitoria ternate (18.38%), Dolichos lablab (18.39%), and Macroptilium bracteatum (18.89%) (Hartutik et al, 2012).…”

“…Since arable land is limited, more attention has recently been focused on exploiting woody trees and shrubs that can grow in marginal land and be used as ruminant feeds (Musco et al, 2016). Some studies have characterized the nutrient value of locally available woody-feed resources, such as Leucaena leucocephala, Moringa oleifera, and Prosopis juliflora (Kumar et al, 2015;Musco et al, 2016;Ramirez-Lozano et al, 2018). However, their feeding effects on meat quality remain, to a wide extent, unclear.…”