Chemical composition and in vitro ruminal fermentation of pigeonpea and mulberry leaves
Mulberry and pigeonpea trees are two widely distributed trees in southwest regions of China, and grow well in summer and winter season respectively. The present study is to investigate the nutritive value of mulberry and pigeonpea leaves by using in vitro ruminal fermentation. Pigeonpea leaves were...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Agroforestry systems 2020-08, Vol.94 (4), p.1521-1528 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1528 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 1521 |
container_title | Agroforestry systems |
container_volume | 94 |
creator | Kang, Jinhe Wang, Rong Tang, Shaoxun Wang, Min Tan, Zhiliang Bernard, L. A. |
description | Mulberry and pigeonpea trees are two widely distributed trees in southwest regions of China, and grow well in summer and winter season respectively. The present study is to investigate the nutritive value of mulberry and pigeonpea leaves by using in vitro ruminal fermentation. Pigeonpea leaves were harvested in February, October, November and December, while mulberry leaves were harvested in May, July, September, October. Comparisons of chemical composition, kinetics of in vitro gas production, methane production, dry matter degradation and VFA production of pigeonpea and mulberry leaves were performed by using in vitro ruminal batch culture system. Pigeonpea and mulberry leaves had crude protein varying from 186 to 208 and 209 to 269 g/kg dry matter, respectively, and neutral detergent fiber ranging from 395 to 456 and 252 to 336 g/kg dry matter, respectively. In vitro fermentation indicated that pigeonpea leaves had lower in vitro dry matter degradation and theoretical maximum of gas production, but greater initial fractional rate of degradation and acetate to propionate ratio in comparison with mulberry leaves. Meanwhile, harvest time influenced the acetate to propionate ratio of both leaves. In conclusion, pigeonpea and mulberry leaves have protein content larger than 180 g/kg dry matter, and can be alternative protein resource for ruminants. In addition, harvest time significantly affect the fermentation pathway of these two leaves. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10457-019-00410-7 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2237716461</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2237716461</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-53103f9ddc59efc85e2b212f132c462c22af64af8e810b8e2c65ce728e75b1fa3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1KxDAURoMoOI6-gKuC62hu0ibtUgb_YMCN4jKkmZsxQ9vUpB2Yt7dOBXeu7uacj8sh5BrYLTCm7hKwvFCUQUUZy4FRdUIWUChOK1myU7JgIBXNhZTn5CKlHWOskqpckI_VJ7bemiazoe1D8oMPXWa6Tea7bO-HGLI4tr6bAIexxW4wRyK4rPdbDF2P5oi3Y1NjjIesQbPHdEnOnGkSXv3eJXl_fHhbPdP169PL6n5NrYBqoIUAJly12diiQmfLAnnNgTsQ3OaSW86Nk7lxJZbA6hK5lYVFxUtURQ3OiCW5mXf7GL5GTIPehTFO7ybNuVAKZC5hovhM2RhSiuh0H31r4kED0z8B9RxQTwH1MaBWkyRmKU1wt8X4N_2P9Q2u2nRt</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2237716461</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Chemical composition and in vitro ruminal fermentation of pigeonpea and mulberry leaves</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Kang, Jinhe ; Wang, Rong ; Tang, Shaoxun ; Wang, Min ; Tan, Zhiliang ; Bernard, L. A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kang, Jinhe ; Wang, Rong ; Tang, Shaoxun ; Wang, Min ; Tan, Zhiliang ; Bernard, L. A.</creatorcontrib><description>Mulberry and pigeonpea trees are two widely distributed trees in southwest regions of China, and grow well in summer and winter season respectively. The present study is to investigate the nutritive value of mulberry and pigeonpea leaves by using in vitro ruminal fermentation. Pigeonpea leaves were harvested in February, October, November and December, while mulberry leaves were harvested in May, July, September, October. Comparisons of chemical composition, kinetics of in vitro gas production, methane production, dry matter degradation and VFA production of pigeonpea and mulberry leaves were performed by using in vitro ruminal batch culture system. Pigeonpea and mulberry leaves had crude protein varying from 186 to 208 and 209 to 269 g/kg dry matter, respectively, and neutral detergent fiber ranging from 395 to 456 and 252 to 336 g/kg dry matter, respectively. In vitro fermentation indicated that pigeonpea leaves had lower in vitro dry matter degradation and theoretical maximum of gas production, but greater initial fractional rate of degradation and acetate to propionate ratio in comparison with mulberry leaves. Meanwhile, harvest time influenced the acetate to propionate ratio of both leaves. In conclusion, pigeonpea and mulberry leaves have protein content larger than 180 g/kg dry matter, and can be alternative protein resource for ruminants. In addition, harvest time significantly affect the fermentation pathway of these two leaves.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-4366</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1572-9680</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10457-019-00410-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Acetic acid ; Agriculture ; Batch culture ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Cattle ; Chemical composition ; Degradation ; Dry matter ; Fermentation ; Forestry ; Gas production ; Leaves ; Life Sciences ; Nutritive value ; Oil and gas production ; Organic chemistry ; Pigeonpeas ; Propionic acid ; Proteins ; Trees</subject><ispartof>Agroforestry systems, 2020-08, Vol.94 (4), p.1521-1528</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2019</rights><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2019.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-53103f9ddc59efc85e2b212f132c462c22af64af8e810b8e2c65ce728e75b1fa3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-53103f9ddc59efc85e2b212f132c462c22af64af8e810b8e2c65ce728e75b1fa3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3645-7315</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10457-019-00410-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10457-019-00410-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kang, Jinhe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Rong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tang, Shaoxun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Min</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Zhiliang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bernard, L. A.</creatorcontrib><title>Chemical composition and in vitro ruminal fermentation of pigeonpea and mulberry leaves</title><title>Agroforestry systems</title><addtitle>Agroforest Syst</addtitle><description>Mulberry and pigeonpea trees are two widely distributed trees in southwest regions of China, and grow well in summer and winter season respectively. The present study is to investigate the nutritive value of mulberry and pigeonpea leaves by using in vitro ruminal fermentation. Pigeonpea leaves were harvested in February, October, November and December, while mulberry leaves were harvested in May, July, September, October. Comparisons of chemical composition, kinetics of in vitro gas production, methane production, dry matter degradation and VFA production of pigeonpea and mulberry leaves were performed by using in vitro ruminal batch culture system. Pigeonpea and mulberry leaves had crude protein varying from 186 to 208 and 209 to 269 g/kg dry matter, respectively, and neutral detergent fiber ranging from 395 to 456 and 252 to 336 g/kg dry matter, respectively. In vitro fermentation indicated that pigeonpea leaves had lower in vitro dry matter degradation and theoretical maximum of gas production, but greater initial fractional rate of degradation and acetate to propionate ratio in comparison with mulberry leaves. Meanwhile, harvest time influenced the acetate to propionate ratio of both leaves. In conclusion, pigeonpea and mulberry leaves have protein content larger than 180 g/kg dry matter, and can be alternative protein resource for ruminants. In addition, harvest time significantly affect the fermentation pathway of these two leaves.</description><subject>Acetic acid</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Batch culture</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Chemical composition</subject><subject>Degradation</subject><subject>Dry matter</subject><subject>Fermentation</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Gas production</subject><subject>Leaves</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Nutritive value</subject><subject>Oil and gas production</subject><subject>Organic chemistry</subject><subject>Pigeonpeas</subject><subject>Propionic acid</subject><subject>Proteins</subject><subject>Trees</subject><issn>0167-4366</issn><issn>1572-9680</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1KxDAURoMoOI6-gKuC62hu0ibtUgb_YMCN4jKkmZsxQ9vUpB2Yt7dOBXeu7uacj8sh5BrYLTCm7hKwvFCUQUUZy4FRdUIWUChOK1myU7JgIBXNhZTn5CKlHWOskqpckI_VJ7bemiazoe1D8oMPXWa6Tea7bO-HGLI4tr6bAIexxW4wRyK4rPdbDF2P5oi3Y1NjjIesQbPHdEnOnGkSXv3eJXl_fHhbPdP169PL6n5NrYBqoIUAJly12diiQmfLAnnNgTsQ3OaSW86Nk7lxJZbA6hK5lYVFxUtURQ3OiCW5mXf7GL5GTIPehTFO7ybNuVAKZC5hovhM2RhSiuh0H31r4kED0z8B9RxQTwH1MaBWkyRmKU1wt8X4N_2P9Q2u2nRt</recordid><startdate>20200801</startdate><enddate>20200801</enddate><creator>Kang, Jinhe</creator><creator>Wang, Rong</creator><creator>Tang, Shaoxun</creator><creator>Wang, Min</creator><creator>Tan, Zhiliang</creator><creator>Bernard, L. A.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3645-7315</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200801</creationdate><title>Chemical composition and in vitro ruminal fermentation of pigeonpea and mulberry leaves</title><author>Kang, Jinhe ; Wang, Rong ; Tang, Shaoxun ; Wang, Min ; Tan, Zhiliang ; Bernard, L. A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-53103f9ddc59efc85e2b212f132c462c22af64af8e810b8e2c65ce728e75b1fa3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Acetic acid</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Batch culture</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Chemical composition</topic><topic>Degradation</topic><topic>Dry matter</topic><topic>Fermentation</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Gas production</topic><topic>Leaves</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Nutritive value</topic><topic>Oil and gas production</topic><topic>Organic chemistry</topic><topic>Pigeonpeas</topic><topic>Propionic acid</topic><topic>Proteins</topic><topic>Trees</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kang, Jinhe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Rong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tang, Shaoxun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Min</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Zhiliang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bernard, L. A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Agroforestry systems</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kang, Jinhe</au><au>Wang, Rong</au><au>Tang, Shaoxun</au><au>Wang, Min</au><au>Tan, Zhiliang</au><au>Bernard, L. A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Chemical composition and in vitro ruminal fermentation of pigeonpea and mulberry leaves</atitle><jtitle>Agroforestry systems</jtitle><stitle>Agroforest Syst</stitle><date>2020-08-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>94</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1521</spage><epage>1528</epage><pages>1521-1528</pages><issn>0167-4366</issn><eissn>1572-9680</eissn><abstract>Mulberry and pigeonpea trees are two widely distributed trees in southwest regions of China, and grow well in summer and winter season respectively. The present study is to investigate the nutritive value of mulberry and pigeonpea leaves by using in vitro ruminal fermentation. Pigeonpea leaves were harvested in February, October, November and December, while mulberry leaves were harvested in May, July, September, October. Comparisons of chemical composition, kinetics of in vitro gas production, methane production, dry matter degradation and VFA production of pigeonpea and mulberry leaves were performed by using in vitro ruminal batch culture system. Pigeonpea and mulberry leaves had crude protein varying from 186 to 208 and 209 to 269 g/kg dry matter, respectively, and neutral detergent fiber ranging from 395 to 456 and 252 to 336 g/kg dry matter, respectively. In vitro fermentation indicated that pigeonpea leaves had lower in vitro dry matter degradation and theoretical maximum of gas production, but greater initial fractional rate of degradation and acetate to propionate ratio in comparison with mulberry leaves. Meanwhile, harvest time influenced the acetate to propionate ratio of both leaves. In conclusion, pigeonpea and mulberry leaves have protein content larger than 180 g/kg dry matter, and can be alternative protein resource for ruminants. In addition, harvest time significantly affect the fermentation pathway of these two leaves.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10457-019-00410-7</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3645-7315</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0167-4366 |
ispartof | Agroforestry systems, 2020-08, Vol.94 (4), p.1521-1528 |
issn | 0167-4366 1572-9680 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2237716461 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Acetic acid Agriculture Batch culture Biomedical and Life Sciences Cattle Chemical composition Degradation Dry matter Fermentation Forestry Gas production Leaves Life Sciences Nutritive value Oil and gas production Organic chemistry Pigeonpeas Propionic acid Proteins Trees |
title | Chemical composition and in vitro ruminal fermentation of pigeonpea and mulberry leaves |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T20%3A05%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Chemical%20composition%20and%20in%20vitro%20ruminal%20fermentation%20of%20pigeonpea%20and%20mulberry%20leaves&rft.jtitle=Agroforestry%20systems&rft.au=Kang,%20Jinhe&rft.date=2020-08-01&rft.volume=94&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1521&rft.epage=1528&rft.pages=1521-1528&rft.issn=0167-4366&rft.eissn=1572-9680&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10457-019-00410-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2237716461%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2237716461&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |