[en] This study aimed to compare digestive and metabolic characteristics in Sahelian (S) and Majorera (M) goat breeds. Six lactating females from each breed, with an average weight 27.0 ± 1.93 and 23.7 ± 1.27 kg, respectively, were used. Cowpea hay, variety 58/74, was offered as sole feed ingredient, at a rate of 2 kg of fresh matter per animal per day. The animals were placed in metabolic cages and a digestibility test was conducted according to an adaptation period of 15 days and a collection period of 7 days. The daily chemical components offered and refused and recovered faeces, urine and milk were measured in order to assess energy and nitrogen utilization. The M and S goats had similar levels of dry matter (DM) intake as well as nutrient digestibility. On a metabolic weight basis, dry matter intake, gross energy intake, metabolizable and energy intake, digestible energy and energy lost as methane production were significantly higher (p < 0.01) in M than in S goats. Urinary energy excretion was similar (p = 0.9) between breeds, while faecal energy output was higher in M than in S goats. The milk energy output from the M goats was higher than that the S goats (p < 0.05). However, metabolizable to net energy conversion efficiency (klm) was not affected by breed (p = 0.37), while N intake, milk N yield and faecal N losses, relative to metabolic weight, were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in M than in S goats. Similarly, the percentage of dietary N intake excreted in urine (UNIN) was higher in S than in M breeds. The breed factor had no effect on N retained, N digestibility, urinary N and N use efficiency. In conclusion, the M and S goats were similar in terms of energy and nitrogen use efficiency, despite higher daily milk production and DM consumption in the M goat. This suggests that the M breed is possibly more dependent on a dense nutrition diet than the S breed but requires less maintenance nitrogen.
Moula, Nassim ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Dpt. de gestion vétérinaire des Ressources Animales (DRA) > GIGA Research (AFT)
Cabaraux, Jean-François ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Dpt. de gestion vétérinaire des Ressources Animales (DRA) > Ecologie de la santé et des productions animales
Missohou, Ayao
Hornick, Jean-Luc ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Dpt. de gestion vétérinaire des Ressources Animales (DRA) > Nutrition animale en milieu tropical
Language :
English
Title :
Comparative Study of Intake, Apparent Digestibility and Energy and Nitrogen Uses in Sahelian and Majorera Dairy Goats Fed Hay of Vigna unguiculata
Labouche, C.; Mainguy, P. Aspects physiologiques et nutritionnels de l ’ alimentation du bétail en Afrique tropicale. Revue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays tropicaux 1954, 7, 221–307. [CrossRef]
Valenza Jean, P.J.; Boudergues, R. Digestibilité de quelques foins et pailles de la république du Sénégal. In Proceedings of the Conférence Régionale FAO pour l’Etablissement d’un Programme de Recherches Agronomiques sur des Bases Ecologiques en Afrique, Rome, Italy, 11–15 November 1968; p. 8.
Missohou, A.; Nahimana, G.; Bosco, S.; Mbacké, A. Elevage caprin en Afrique de l’Ouest: Une synthèse. Goat Breed in. West Africa A Rev. Rev. Elev. Med. Vet. Pays Trop. 2016, 69, 3–18. (In French) [CrossRef]
Sangaré, M.; Pandeyt, V.S. Food intake, milk production and growth of kids of local, multipurpose goats grazing on dry season natural Sahelian rangeland in Mali. Anim. Sci. 2000, 71, 165–173. [CrossRef]
Souza, A.P.; Medeiros, A.N.; Carvalho, F.; Costa, R.; Ribeiro, L.; Bezerra, A.; Branco, G.; Silva, C. Energy requirements for maintenance and growth of Canindé goat kids. Small Rumin. Res. 2014, 121, 255–261. [CrossRef]
Stubbs, A.; Abud, G. Dairy Goat Manual; Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC): Canberra, Australia, 2002; p. 44.
Makun, H.J. Effect of supplementation with different protein sources on the feed intake and growth in red sokoto and sahelian goats. J. Anim. Prod. Res. 2016, 28, 263–274.
Missohou, A.; Diouf, L.; Sow, R.S.; Wollny, C.B.A. Goat milk production and processing in the NIAYES in Senegal. South Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 34, 151–154.
ANSD. Situation Economique et Sociale du Sénégal; ANSD: Dakar, Senegal, 2017.
Kawashima, T.; Sumamal, W.; Pholsen, P.; Chaithiang, R.; Terada, F. Comparative Study on Energy and Nitrogen Metabolism of Brahman Cattle and Sheep Given Ruzi Grass Hay with Different Levels of Soybean Meal. Jpn. Agric. Res. Q. 2007, 41, 253–260. [CrossRef]
Rippstein, M.; Diouf, G.; Sao, A. Développement des Cultures Fourragères dans le Bassin de L’arachide au Sénégal: Motivations et Facteurs D’adoption des Soles Fourragères par les Paysans; Animal Production Research: Banjul, The Gambia, 2004; p. 34.
Morou, G.; Rippstein, I. Développement des Cultures Fourragères dans le Bassin de L’arachide au Sénégal: Typologie des Paysans, Production de Fourrages; Animal Production Research: Banjul, The Gambia, 2004; p. 53.
Younoussa, H.D. Etude des Composantes de Rendement et de la Qualité Fourragére de Quelques Variétés de Niébé (Vigna Unguiculata); Université Abdou Moumouni de Niamey: Niamey, Niger, 1995; p. 119.
McDermott, J.; Staal, S.; Freeman, H.; Herrero, M.; Van De Steeg, J. Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livest. Sci. 2010, 130, 95–109. [CrossRef]
Boyazoglu, J.; Hatziminaoglou, I.; Morand-Fehr, P. The role of the goat in society: Past, present and perspectives for the future. Small Rumin. Res. 2005, 60, 13–23. [CrossRef]
Capote, J.; Delgado, J.; Fresno, M.; Camacho, M.; Molina, A. Morphological variability in the Canary goat population. Small Rumin. Res. 1998, 27, 167–172. [CrossRef]
Félix-Bernal, J.A.; Estrada-Angulo, A.; Angulo-Escalante, M.A.; Castro-Pérez, B.I.; Landeros-López, H.; López-Soto, M.A.; Barreras, A.; Zinn, R.A.; Plascencia, A. Feeding value of supplemental Jatropha curcas crude oil in finishing diets for feedlot lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 3875–3882. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nsahlai, I.V.; Goetsch, A.; Luo, J.; Johnson, Z.; Moore, J.; Sahlu, T.; Ferrell, C.; Galyean, M.; Owens, F. Metabolizable energy requirements of lactating goats. Small Rumin. Res. 2004, 53, 253–273. [CrossRef]
Ferro, M.M.; Tedeschi, L.O.; Atzori, A.S. The comparison of the lactation and milk yield and composition of selected breeds of sheep and goats. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2017, 1, 498–506. [CrossRef]
Cameron, A.G. Forage and Grain Cowpeas; Agnote: Sydney, Australia, 2003; pp. 1–3.
Sauvant, D.; Perez, J.M.; Tran, G. Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d’élevage (Porcs, volailles, ovins, caprins, lapins, chevaux, poissons), 2nd ed.; INRA: Paris, France, 2004; p. 301.
Jardstedt, M.; Hessle, A.; Nørgaard, P.; Richardt, W.; Nadeau, E. Feed intake and urinary excretion of nitrogen and purine derivatives in pregnant suckler cows fed alternative roughage-based diets. Livest. Sci. 2017, 202, 82–88. [CrossRef]
Blaxter, K.L.; Clapperton, J.L. Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. Br. J. Nutr. 1965, 19, 511–522. [CrossRef]
Santos, S.; Prates, L.L.; Carvalho, G.G.P.; Dos Santos, A.C.S.; Filho, S.D.C.V.; Tosto, M.; Mariz, L.D.S.; Neri, F.D.S.; Sampaio, M.D.Q. Creatinine as a metabolic marker to estimate urinary volume in growing goats. Small Rumin. Res. 2017, 154, 105–109. [CrossRef]
Helrich, K. AOAC Official Methods of Analysis; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 1990; Volume 1, pp. 136–138.
Barbosa, A.L.; Voltolini, T.V.; Menezes, D.; Nascimento, J.C.S.; De Moraes, S.A.; Rodrigues, R.T.D.S. Intake, digestibility, growth performance, and enteric methane emission of Brazilian semiarid non-descript breed goats fed diets with different forage to concentrate ratios. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2017, 50, 283–289. [CrossRef]
Romero-Huelva, M.; Ramos-Morales, E.; Molina-Alcaide, E. Nutrient utilization, ruminal fermentation, microbial abundances, and milk yield and composition in dairy goats fed diets including tomato and cucumber waste fruits. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 6015–6026. [CrossRef]
Blaxter, K.L. Energy Metabolism; Report of Sub-Committee on Constants and Factors; Academic Press: London, UK, 1965.
Piñeiro-Vazquez, A.T.; Jiménez-Ferrer, G.O.; Chay-Canul, A.; Casanova-Lugo, F.; Díaz-Echeverría, V.F.; Ayala, A.; Solorio-Sánchez, F.J.; Aguilar-Pérez, C.F.; Ku-Vera, J. Intake, digestibility, nitrogen balance and energy utilization in heifers fed low-quality forage and Leucaena leucocephala. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 228, 194–201. [CrossRef]
Sauvant, D. La production de méthane dans la biosphére: Le role des animaux d’élevage. Courr. L’Environ. 1992, 18, 65–70.
Nozière, L.D.P.; Sauvant, D. INRA Feeding System for Ruminants; INRA: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018.
Ramanzin, M.; Aguado, M.; Ángeles, P.; Ferragina, A.; Sturaro, E.; Semenzato, P.; Serrano, E.; Clauss, M.; Albanell, E.; Cassini, R.; et al. Methodological considerations for the use of faecal nitrogen to assess diet quality in ungulates: The Alpine ibex as a case study. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 82, 399–408. [CrossRef]
Vasta, V.; Nudda, A.; Cannas, A.; Lanza, M.; Priolo, A. Alternative feed resources and their effects on the quality of meat and milk from small ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 147, 223–246. [CrossRef]
Nielsen, M.O.; Kiani, A.; Tejada, E.; Chwalibog, A.; Alstrup, L. Energy metabolism and methane production in llamas, sheep and goats fed high-and low-quality grass-based diets. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 2014, 68, 171–185. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Augustine, O.; Eyiwunmi, F.A.; Bolanle, A.S. Practical Growth Performance and Nutrient Utilization of Catfish Clarias gariepinus Fed Varying Inclusion Level of Fermented Unsieved Yellow Maize. J. Nat. Sci. Res. 2020, 10, 43–50.
Jalali, A.; Nørgaard, P.; Weisbjerg, M.; Nielsen, M. Effect of forage quality on intake, chewing activity, faecal particle size distribution, and digestibility of neutral detergent fibre in sheep, goats, and llamas. Small Rumin. Res. 2012, 103, 143–151. [CrossRef]
Ferreira, L.M.; Hervás, G.; Belenguer, A.; Celaya, R.; Rodrigues, M.A.M.; Garcia, U.; Frutos, P.; Osoro, K. Comparison of feed intake, digestion and rumen function among domestic ruminant species grazing in upland vegetation communities. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2016, 101, 846–856. [CrossRef]
Sabia, E.; Claps, S.; Napolitano, F.; Annicchiarico, G.; Bruno, A.; Francaviglia, R.; Sepe, L.; Aleandri, R. In vivo digestibility of two different forage species inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhiza in Mediterranean red goats. Small Rumin. Res. 2015, 123, 83–87. [CrossRef]
Peyrat, J. Digestion de L’amidon et des Parois Végétales du Maïs Fourrage Chez les Ruminants: Conséquences sur L’évaluation de sa Valeur Nutritive; Université Blaise Pascal: Clermont-Ferrand II, France, 2014; p. 286.
Khan, M.A.; Un Nisa, M.; Sarwar, M. Techniques Measuring Evaluation of Feeds Digestibility for the Nutritional Evaluation of Feeds. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2003, 5, 91–94.
Sauvant, D.; Giger-Reverdin, S.; Meschy, F.; Puillet, L.; Schmidely, P. Actualisation des recommandations alimentaires pour les chèvres laitières. INRA Prod. Anim. 2012, 25, 259–276. [CrossRef]
