DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of Some Aquatic Plants from Bangladesh through Mineral Composition, In Vitro Gas Production and In Situ Degradation Measurements

  • Khan, M.J. (Department of Animal Nutrition, Bangladesh Agricultural University) ;
  • Steingass, H. (Institute of Animal Nutrition, University of Hohenheim) ;
  • Drochner, W. (Institute of Animal Nutrition, University of Hohenheim)
  • Received : 2001.07.24
  • Accepted : 2001.11.07
  • Published : 2002.04.01

Abstract

A study was conducted to evaluate the nutritive potential value of different aquatic plants: duckweed (Lemna trisulaca), duckweed (Lemna perpusila), azolla (Azolla pinnata) and water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) from Bangladesh. A wide variability in protein, mineral composition, gas production, microbial protein synthesis, rumen degradable nitrogen and in situ dry matter and crude protein degradability were recorded among species. Crude protein content ranged from 139 to 330 g/kg dry matter (DM). All species were relatively high in Ca, P, Na, content and very rich in K, Fe, Mg, Mn, Cu and Zn concentration. The rate of gas production was highest in azolla and lowest in water-hyacinth. A similar trend was observed with in situ DM degradability. Crude protein degradability was highest in duckweed. Microbial protein formation at 24 h incubation ranged from 38.6-47.2 mg and in vitro rumen degradable nitrogen between 31.5 and 48.4%. Based on the present findings it is concluded that aquatic species have potential as supplementary diet to livestock.

Keywords

Aquatic Plants;Mineral Composition;Gas Production;Rumen Degradable Nitrogen;In Situ Degradability

References

  1. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). Washington, DC.
  2. Gangadhar, M. A., J. R. Prasad and N. Krishna. 1993. Chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of important conventional and unconventional energy supplements. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 63:1004-1005.
  3. Rusoff, L. L., E. W. Blakeney and D. D. Cully Jr. 1980. Duckweeds (Lemnaceae spp.): A potential source of protein and amino acids. J. Agric. Feed Chem. 28:848. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf60230a040
  4. Sultana, N. 1992. Study on yield, nutrient concentration of duckweed as affected by species, nutrient loading frequency and light intensity. M. S. Thesis, Dept of Animal Nutrition, BAU, Mymensingh.
  5. Topps, J. H. 1992. Potential, composition and usage of legume shrubs and trees as fodder for livestock in the tropics (a review). J. Agric. Sci. (Camb). 118:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600067940
  6. Negi, S. S., B. Singh and H. P. S. Makkar. 1989. Influence of method of calculation and length of period of rumen fermentation on the effective degradability of dry matter and nitrogen in some tree forages. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 26:309-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(89)90043-6
  7. Khan, M. J., M. A. Razzaque and A. M. M. Tareque. 1981. Effect of feeding water-hyacinth in combination on the growth of bullocks. Bang. J. Agric. 6(1):16-22.
  8. Chaturvedi, O. H. and T. K. Walli. 1995. Ruminal dry matter and protein degradability of some concentrate ingredients using nylon bag technique. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 12:133-139.
  9. Raab, L., B. Cafantaris, T. Jilg and K. H. Menke. 1983. Rumen protein degradation and biosynthesis 1. A new method for determination of protein degradation in the rumen fluid in vitro. Br. J. Nutr. 50:569-582. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19830128
  10. Abdulrazak, S. A., T. Fujihara, J. K. Ondiek and E. R. Orskov. 2000. Nutritive evaluation of some Acacia tree leaves from Kenya. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 85:85-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00133-4
  11. Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods, 6th ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
  12. Singh, Y. P., D. G. Naik and G. C. Sharma. 1983. Nutritive value of water fern (Azolla anabeena). Indian J. Anim. Res. 17:98.
  13. Orskov, E. R., F. D. Hovell and F. Mould. 1980. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Trop. Anim. Prod. 5:195-213.
  14. Holm, L. G., D. L. Plunknett, J. V. Pancho and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The worlds worst weeds. Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.
  15. Spears, J. W. 1994. Minerals in Forages. In: Forage Quality, Evaluation and Utilization (Ed. Jr. G. C. Fahey). National Conferences on Forage quality, Evaluation and Utilization, Lincoln, pp. 281-317.
  16. Chesson, A. and E. R. Orskov. 1984. Microbial degradation in the digestive tract. In straw and other fibrous by-products as feed. (Ed. F. Sundstol and E. Owen). Elsevier, Amsterdom, pp. 305-339.
  17. Khan, M. J., T. Nishida, T. Mijashige, K. Hodate, H. Abe and Y. Kawakita. 1998. Effects of protein supplements sources on digestibility of nutrients, balance of nitrogen and energy in goats and their in situ degradability in Cattle. Asian-Aus. J. Anim. Sci. 11(6):673-679. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.1998.673
  18. Labri, A., J. W. Smith, I. O. Kurdi, I. O. Adekunle, A. M. Raji and D. O. Lapido. 1998. Chemical composition, rumen degradation characteristics of some multipurpose fodder trees and shrubs during wet and dry season is the humid tropics. Anim. Sci. Feed Technol. 72:81-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(97)00170-3
  19. Gijzen, H. J. and M. Khondker. 1997. An overview of the ecology, physiology, cultivation and application of duckweed. Report 08909.
  20. Mertens, D. R. 1993. Rate and extent of digestion. In: Quantative Aspects of Ruminant Digestion and Metabolism (Ed. J. M. Forbes and J. France). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. pp. 13-51.
  21. Dolberg, F., M. Saadullah and M. Huque. 1981. A short review of the feeding value of water plants. Trop. Anim. Prod. 6:322.
  22. Menke, K. H. and H. Steingass. 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim. Res. Dev. 28:7-12.
  23. Getachew, G., H. P. S. Makker and K. Becker. 1998c. The in vitro gas coupled with ammonia nitrogen measurement for evaluation of nitrogen degradability in low quality roughages using incubation medium of different buffering capacity. J. Food Sci. Agric. 77:87-95. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199805)77:1<87::AID-JSFA7>3.0.CO;2-X
  24. Vries, T. F. de and Van de Wal. 1998. Duckweed in Bangladesh. A synthesis report of studies by the duckweed research project. Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Bangladesh.
  25. Matai, S. and D. K. Bagchi. 1980. Water-hyacinth: a plant with profile bioproductivity and photosynthesis, In: Applications of Solar Energy (Ed. A. Gnanam et al.). Proc. Internat Symp on Biol. MacMillan Co., India, Madrass. pp. 144-148.
  26. Khan, M. J., H. Steingass and W. Drochner. 2001. Nutritive evaluation of some aquatic plants from Bangladesh. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. (Under process).
  27. Khandaker, Z. H. and A. M. M. Tareque. 1996. Studies on protein degradabilities of feed stuffs in Bangladesh. Asian-Aus. J. Anim. Sci. 9(6):637-642. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.1996.637
  28. Chowdhury, S. A., N. Sultana, K. S. Huque and Q. M. E. Huque. 2000. Manure based duckweed production in shallow sink:Effect of genera on biomass and nutrient yield of duckweed under the same nutritional and management condition. Asian-Aus. J. Anim. Sci. 13(5):686-693. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2000.686
  29. Blethen, D. B., T. J. E. Wohl, D. K. Jasaitis and J. L. Evons. 1990. Feed protein fractions: Relationship to nitrogen solubility and degradability. J. Dairy Sci. 73:1544-1551. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(90)78823-6
  30. McDonald, I. 1981. A revised model for the estimation of protein degradability in the rumen. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 96:251-252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600032081

Cited by

  1. Duckweed in Irrigation Water as a Replacement of Soybean Meal in the Laying Hens’ Diet vol.20, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2018-0737