PAT June, 2014; 10 (1): 144-150 ISSN: 0794-5213

Online copy available at

www.patnsukjournal.net/currentissue

Potential of Some Browse Plants For Ruminants In Hot Humid

Environment of Lafia
*Barde, R. E., Abimiku, H. K., Hassan, D.I and Maiangwa, A.O
Animal Science Department, College of Agriculture, Lafia.
*rowebarde.rb@gmail.com
Abstract
Five samples of browse plants: Swietenia mahogany, Mangnifera indica, Gmelina arborea, Vitex
doniana and Ficus thoningii were collected from hot humid environment of Lafia. The samples were
analyzed in triplicates for proximate components, fibre fractions, some minerals and phytohemicals in a
completely randomized design. All values analyzed were significant (P<0.05). Proximate and acid
detergent lignin values for Mangnifera indica were significantly (P<0.05) higher than values of other
browse plants in this study. However, all browse plants met the minimum crude protein content of 8%
and minimum 20% of NDF for optimum rumen microbial growth, multiplication and optimal roughage
digestion for the ruminant animal. Mineral content (Na, K, Ca, Mg, P, Fe, Cu, Mn and Zn) determined
were within the recommended requirements for maintenance and proper functioning of physiological
systems of ruminant animals. The significant (P<0.05) phytochemicals (Tannin, saponin, alkaloid and
oxalate), CP and NDF components recorded for these browse plants could be beneficial to the ruminant
animal.
Keywords: Browse, proximate, fibre, phytochemical, ruminant, Lafia

Introduction
Browse plants provide protein, energy, vitamins and mineral elements which are
inadequate in grass land pastures. There year round evergreen presentation and
nutritional abundance provides for year round provision of fodder. It also provides
standing feed reserve to be built so that herd can survive critical periods of shortfall, or
even prolonged period of drought without remarkable losses (Oji and Isilebo, 2000).
These browse plants furnish not only essential energy, proteins, vitamins, minerals and
fibre in ruminant diets; provide high-quality feed for livestock while at the same time
improving soil quality and reducing green house gas emission. Some workers (Akbar
and Alam 1991 ; Ajayi et al.,2005 ; Burte et al.,2006) have showed that browse plants
(Mangifera indica, Gmelina aborea and Ficus thonnigii ) improves intake and live
weight gain in supplemented ruminant diets.
Tropical forages contain phytochemical substances; it could have both adverse and
beneficial, nature effects depending on their concentration and nature (Makkar et al.,
2007). Benefits of tropical forages have improved nutrition of ruminant animals and
subsequently greater production as the cheapest sources of feedstuff. Therefore, there is
the need for continuous screening of browse plants to identify those with good
potentials as livestock fodder and which could serve as alternatives (Fadiyima et al.,

PAT 2014; 10 (1): 144-150: ISSN: 0794-5213; Barde et al; Potential of Some Browse Plants For Ruminants .145

2006).
It is against this backdrop that this study was designed to determine the chemical
composition of Vitex doniana, Swietenia mahogany, Mangifera indica, Gmelina aborea
and Ficus thonnigii as potential browse plants for ruminants.
Materials and Methods
Collection of sample
Samples of the five browse plants: Swietenia mahogany, Mangnifera indica, Gmelina
arborea, Vitex doniana and Ficus thoningii were collected from hot humid environment
of Lafia. Sampling was done by hand, using scissors to cut the sample into 2-3 pieces,
then subsampled using the quartering method (Zhang and Redfearn, 1990).The forages
were dried at room temperature under shade to a constant weight for five days and taken
to laboratory for chemical analysis in triplicate.
Experimental site
The study was conducted at the Farm Unit of the College of Agriculture, Lafia, Nigeria
located Latitude N080 29'8.66''; Longitude E080 29' 49.10''and Altitude 164.5m; in the
guinea savannah vegetation, with its sandy loam soil texture (Akwa et al., 2007).
Chemical Analysis
Crude protein (CP) was determined as Kjeldhal nitrogen x 6.25. Ether extracts (EE),
crude fibre (CF) and ash determined according to (AOAC, 2005) method. Neutral
detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF) and acid detergent lignin (ADL) was
determined using the method described by Van Soest et al. (1991). Concentrations of
minerals: Ca, P, Na, Mg, K, Fe, Cu, Mn and Zn of samples were determined by Atomic
Absorptions spectrophotometer (GBC 908 AA). Photochemical analysis of, tannins,
saponnins, alkaloids, oxalate and glycoside concentrations in the forages were
determined according to A.O.A.C.(1984).
Statistical analysis
Experimental design employed was complete randomized design (Steel and Torrie,
1980). Data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance where significant
differences occurred, the means were separated using Duncans multiple range test
(SPSS, 2007).
Results and Discussions
Proximate composition of the browse plants
The proximate composition of the browse plant samples are presented in table 1 and
shows significant (P<0.05) different values of all proximate components. Content of CP
(18.92%), EE (3.55%), CF (19.48%), Ash (11.37%) and DM (90.00%) for Mangnifera

PAT 2014; 10 (1): 144-150: ISSN: 0794-5213; Barde et al; Potential of Some Browse Plants For Ruminants .146

indica were all significantly (P<0.05) better than values of other browse plants.
Sweitenia mahogany, Gmelina arborea, Vitex doniana, Ficus thoningii indicated 16.43,
17.71, 16.93 and17.44% of CP contents respectively. Though there is species variation
in CP values, all browse plants met the minimum crude protein of 8% required by
ruminants for optimum rumen microbial growth and multiplication (Machen, 2012). In
order to develop acceptable and alternative feeding systems, it is necessary to relate
information on the nutritional characteristics of feed resources to animal requirements.
Table 1: Proximate Composition of experimental browse plants
Sweitenia
Mangnifera Gmelina Vitex
Ficus
%
mahogany indica
arborea
doniana
thoningii
e
a
b
d
16.43
18.92
17.71
16.93
17.44c
CP
3.23d
3.55a
3.40c
3.47b
2.97e
EE
b
a
ab
ab
17.83
19.48
18.94
18.54
17.94b
CF
42.15a
36.74d
37.67c
39.73b
42.44a
NFE
9.69e
11.37a
10.94b
10.78c
9.97d
Ash
89.31e
90.00a
89.63c
89.44d
89.75b
DM
a
e
c
b
10.69
10.00
10.37
10.56
10.25d
M

SEM
0.225
0.550
0.236
0.624
0.167
0.068
0.068

Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly (p0.05) different SEM- Standard Error of mean
CP - Crude Protein EE - Ether Extract CF - Crude Fibre NFE - Nitrogen Free Extract DM - Dry Matter M - Moisture

A,b,c,d,e

Fibre fraction of browse plants

The fibre fractions of the browse plants presented in table 2 showed significant (P<0.05)
values. Mangnifera indicas acid detergent lignin was significantly (12.38%) higher than
values obtained for other forages in this study. Lignin content is negatively correlated to
the digestibility of the feedstuff, so the higher the lignin content in the samples the
lower the feed value (Khan et al., 2003). Due to the wide variation in chemical analyses
for CF and NFE, the detergent fiber system was developed, which better reflects true
carbohydrate digestibility in ruminants. The NDF values (table 2) recorded 42.69,
44.60, 43.27, 42.70 and 41.91% respectively for Swietenia mahogany, Mangifera
indica, Gmelina aborea, Vitex doniana and Ficus thonnigii. In order to maintain
optimal roughage digestion, ruminant diet must contain minimum of 20% NDF (David,
2012). The result recorded in this study could indicate some potential of the browse
plants as ruminant feed resources.

PAT 2014; 10 (1): 144-150: ISSN: 0794-5213; Barde et al; Potential of Some Browse Plants For Ruminants .147

Table 2: Fibre Fractions of browse plant

%
Sweitenia
Mangnifera Gmelina Vitex
mahogany
indica
arborea doniana

Ficus
thoningii

SEM

NDF

42.69c

44.60a

43.27b

42.70c

41.91d

0.241

ADF

27.41d

29.17a

28.38b

27.57c

26.81e

0.220

ADL

11.25d

12.38a

11.68b

11.53c

11.56e

0.116

Hemicellulose

15.28b

15.44a

14.89d

15.28b

15.10c

0.050

0.108

Cellulose
A,b,c,d,e

NDF

16.16

16.80

16.70

16.04

15.98

Means on the same row different superscripts are significantly (p0.05)different SEM Standard Error of Mean
Neutral Detergent Fibre ADF Acid Detergent Fibre ADL Acid Detergent Lignin

Mineral content of browse plants

Table 3 shows some mineral contents of the five browse plants in this study. Significant
(P<0.05) differences were observed among the browse plants but, they all met the
recommended minimum requirement (Na, 0.2%; K, 0.8-2.0%; Ca, 0.3-0.8%; Mg, 0.20.4% and P, 0.25-0.4%) for maintenance and proper functioning of physiological
systems of the ruminant animal as reported by some workers ( Gimerenze, 2004;
Rashid, 2008).
Table 3: Minerals concentration of browse plants
Sweitenia Mangnifera Gmelina
mahogany indica
arborea
c
bc
0.30
0.34
0.36abc
Na (%)
0.44c
0.64abc
0.49ab
K (%)
c
bc
0.79
0.79
0.81a
Ca (%)
b
b
0.30
0.33
0.30b
Mg (%)
0.42b
0.46ab
0.50a
P (%)
c
bc
38.53
38.73
40.87a
Fe(mg/kg)
4.70c
5.33bc
4.87c
Cu(mg/kg)
b
ab
19.83
20.60
19.77b
Mn(mg/kg)
24.20b
25.07ab
24.07b
Zn(mg/kg)
A,b,c,d,e

Vitex
doniana
0.41a
0.45bc
0.80ab
0.34b
0.48a
39.70b
5.60ab
21.23a
25.00a

Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly (p0.05) different
SEM - Standard Error of Mean

Ficus
thoningii
0.38ab
0.51a
0.81a
0.42a
0.51a
41.40a
5.90a
21.60a
26.07a

SEM
0.012
0.009
0.002
0.015
0.010
0.330
0.133
0.233
0.259

PAT 2014; 10 (1): 144-150: ISSN: 0794-5213; Barde et al; Potential of Some Browse Plants For Ruminants .148

Phytochemical content of browse plants.

Significant (P<0.05) contents of phytochemicals in the browse plants (table 4) were
observed in this study. Phytochemicals have been of great interest among nutritionists
and rumen microbiologists to modify rumen fermentation and decrease methane
emission favourably. The significant (P<0.05) higher phytochemicals (Tannin, saponin,
alkaloid and oxalate) were recorded in samples of Mangnifera indica leaves. Its
beneficial effects depending on concentration could be superior with this browse plant
(Makkar et al., 2007).
Table 4: Phytochemical content of browse plants
%

Sweitenia Mangnifera Gmelina Vitex

Ficus
SEM
Mahogany Indica
arborea doniana thoningii

Tannin

0.037bc
0.150

Alkaloid

0.096

bd

Oxalate

0.018c

Saponin

A,b,c,d,e

0.051a
0.213

0.115

0.029a

0.047ab
0.165

0.104

0.020bc

0.045abc

0.034c

0.022

0.141

0.008

0.108

0.077

0.003

0.023b

0.014d

0.001

0.208

Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly (p0.05) different
SEM
- Standard Error of Mean

Conclusion
Proximate and acid detergent lignin values for Mangnifere indica were all significantly
higher than values of other browse plants in this study. But Major and minor mineral
contents of the five browse plants were significant but also met the recommended
minimum requirements for maintenance and proper functioning of physiological
systems of the ruminant animal.
References
A.O.A.C (1984) 14th edition. Pg 187-188. North Nineteenth street, suite 210
Arlington VA222-114.
A.O.A.C. (2005 ). Association of Official Analytical Chemist. Official method of
analysis.18th ed. AOAC Washington DC USA .
Ajayi, D.A, J.A. Adeneye and F.T. Ajayi (2005). Intake and nutritive utilization of
west African dwarf goats fed mango (Mangnifera indica) ficus (Ficus

PAT 2014; 10 (1): 144-150: ISSN: 0794-5213; Barde et al; Potential of Some Browse Plants For Ruminants .149

thoningi) glicidia (Glicidia spepium) foliages and concentrates as supplement to

basal diet of guinea grass (Penicum maximum). World J. Agric. Sci. 1 (2): 184
189
Akbar, M.A., Alam, M.N. (1991). Effect of feeding mango (Mangifera indica) and
Shaora (Streblus asper) tree leaves to Black Bengal goats of Bangladesh small
Rumin Res, 6 (1-2): 25 30
Akwa ,V. L.,Binbol,N.L., Samaila K.I and Marcus N.D (2007). Geographic Perspective
of Nasarawa State. Department of Geography Nasarawa State University.157pp.
Burte, R.G. Raut, My, Jadhav, S.S, Wandaka V.V. and Yadav, D.N. (2006).
Nutritive value of shivan (gmelina arborea) tree leaves for goats. Indian journal
of small ruminants Vol. 12 No 1 pp. 110 112
David, L. (2012). Nutritive Value of Feeds for Beef Cattle. Oklahoma Cooperative
Extension Fact Sheets. http://osufacts.okstate.edu
Fadiyimu, A.A., A.N. Fajemisin and J.A. Alokan (2006). Department of animal
production technology, federal college of agriculture Akure Nigerian
yemifadiyimu@yahoo.com
Gimerenez, D.M. (2004). Nutrients Requirements of Sheep and Goats.
Extension System. ANR-812. Alabama Cooperative, Alabama A & M
University and Auburn University ,USA
Khan, M.A. Mahr-un-nisa and Sarwar, M. (2003). Techniques Measuring
Digestibility for the Nutritional Evaluation of Feeds. Int. J. Agri. Bio.
Vol. 5, No. 1, 2003 http://www.ijab.org
Machen , R. (2012) .Goat Nutrition Energy, Small Ruminant Series. Texas
Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A & M University System.
Makkar,H.P.S., G.Francis and K. Beeker (2007). Bioactivity of Phytochemicals in
some lesser-known plants and their effect and potential applicationin
livestock and aquaculture production systems. The Animal
Consortium 2007 1:9,Pp1371-1391.
Oji.U.I. and Isilebo J.O. (2000). Nutrient Characteristics of Selected Browse Plants in
Humid Tropics. Proceedings on 20th annual Conference of Animal
Productin.19- 23rd March, 2000 Umudike, Nigeria pp54-56
Rashid, M. (2008). Goats and their Nutrition. Manitoba Agricultural Food and Rural
Initiative Publication. www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock
SPSS (2007). Statistical Package for Social Science.16.0version. www.spss.com
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H.(1980). Principles and procedure of statistics. A
biometrics approach. 2nd edition McGraw Hill Boo co. Inc. New York.
Van Soest, P. J.; J. B. Robertson and B. A. Lewis (1991). Methods for dietary
fiber
neutral detergent fiber and non starch polysaccharides in relation to to rate of
passage. J. Agric. Sci. 92: 499-503.

PAT 2014; 10 (1):144-150: ISSN: 0794-5213; Barde et al; Potential of Some Browse Plants For Ruminants .150

Zhang, H and Redhfearn,D.(1990). Collecting Forage Samples for Analysis.

Cooperative
and
Extension
Services,
Okalahoma
State
University.http:/osufacts.okstate.ed