SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.14 número3Efectos de la suplementación con hesperidina en la codorniz japonesa Cordonix cordonix japonica sobre la química sanguínea, la capacidad antioxidante, la histopatología intestinal y la microflora fecalParámetros, correlaciones y tendencias genéticas de caracteres reproductivos en ganado Holstein de México índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • No hay artículos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Revista mexicana de ciencias pecuarias

versión On-line ISSN 2448-6698versión impresa ISSN 2007-1124

Rev. mex. de cienc. pecuarias vol.14 no.3 Mérida jul./sep. 2023  Epub 08-Sep-2023

https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v14i3.6122 

Articles

Supplementation of goats with mesquite pod meal in deferred (Urochloa mosambicenses) grass pasture in the semiarid region

Diego da Hora Soutoa 

Mara Lúcia Albuquerque Pereiraa 

Taiala Cristina de Jesus Pereiraa 

Herymá Giovane de Oliveira Silva

Paulo José Presídio Almeidaa 

Leandro Borges Sousaa 

Fernando Oliveira Barretoa 

Larisse Borges Sousaa 

Karine Pinheiro Oliveiraa 

Gleidson Giordano Pinto de Carvalhob 

a State University of Southwest Bahia. Postgraduate Program in Animal Science. Campus of Itapetinga, BR 415, Km 03, 45700-000, Itapetinga, Bahia, Brazil.

b Federal University of Bahia. School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science. Adhemar de Barros Avenue, 500, Ondina, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.


Abstract

Supplementation emerges as a simple strategy to improve animal productivity in systems that adopt deferred grass pasture as the basic diet. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of levels of supplementation of mesquite pod meal on intake, digestibility of nutrients, and body weight (BW) gain of goats in grazing deferred. Thirty-five (35) goat males (24.0 ± 2.9 kg BW) were distributed in a completely randomized design, with five treatments and seven replications. Treatments constituted a supplement control (0.05% BW of protein-mineral salt) and increasing levels at 0.5; 1.0; 1.5, and 2.0% BW of supplementation with mesquite pod meal. Dry matter intake and nutrients of the forage and total diet increased linearly (P<0.0001) as a function of the levels of the supplement. A quadratic effect was observed (P<0.0001) for the digestibility variables, except for ethereal extract and non-fiber carbohydrates, which presented an increasing linear effect (P<0.0001). Supplementation levels increased linearly on the performance variables (P<0.05). It is recommended the concentrate supplementation at 2.0% BW with mesquite pod meal at 30 % in its composition for promoting the reduction of the productive cycle of goats in deferred Urochloa grass pastures.

Keywords Alternative supplementation; Animal production; Pasture management; Prosopis juliflora; Semiarid; Weight gain

Resumen

La suplementación surge como una estrategia simple para mejorar la productividad animal en sistemas que adoptan praderas diferidas de pasto como dieta básica. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar el efecto de los niveles de suplementación de harina de vaina de mezquite sobre la ingesta, la digestibilidad de los nutrientes y la ganancia de peso corporal (PC) de caprinos en pastoreo diferido. Treinta y cinco (35) caprinos machos (24.0 ± 2.9 kg PC) se distribuyeron en un diseño completamente al azar, con cinco tratamientos y siete repeticiones. Los tratamientos consistieron en un control de suplemento (0.05 % de PC de sal proteico-mineral) y niveles crecientes a 0.5; 1.0; 1.5 y 2.0 % de PC de suplementación con harina de vaina de mezquite. La ingesta de materia seca y nutrientes del forraje y la dieta total aumentaron linealmente (P<0.0001) en función de los niveles del suplemento. Se observó un efecto cuadrático (P<0.0001) para las variables de digestibilidad, excepto para el extracto etéreo y los carbohidratos no fibrosos, que presentaron un efecto lineal creciente (P<0.0001). Los niveles de suplementación aumentaron linealmente las variables de rendimiento (P<0.05). Se recomienda la suplementación del concentrado al 2.0 % de PC con harina de vaina de mezquite al 30 % en su composición para promover la reducción del ciclo productivo de los caprinos en praderas diferidas de pasto Urochloa.

Palabras clave Suplementación alternativa; Producción animal; Manejo de praderas; Prosopis juliflora; Semiárido; Ganancia de peso

Introduction

Goats breeding for meat production in the northeast region of Brazil is predominantly extensive and seasonal because the rainfall distribution is irregular and the adverse edaphoclimatic characteristics affect the forage production1. The quantity and the quality of the food become obstacles to the productive chain, especially during the dry season. In this critical period, animals lose body weight, thus delaying the age at slaughter, causing losses to producers and to the economy in general.

These conditions left the use of pasture management techniques such as deferral, which consists in selecting a pasture area of the property and excluding grazing, usually at the end of the rainy season2, so that forage accumulation occurs to be grazed during the dry period, minimizing the negative effects of seasonal forage production on animal productivity3. Nonetheless, changes in pasture structure occur during the deferment period and are also characterized by low nutritional value as a consequence of changes in environmental conditions and of the forage plant phenology itself, which tend to reduce the performance of ruminants4.

Supplementation emerges as a simple strategy used for both an attempt to address the nutritional deficiencies of the pasture, by providing the balance of the animal’s diet, and also to reduce the risk caused by fluctuating pasture dry matter production5,6. However, the effect of adding highly degradable carbohydrates to forage-based diets can be beneficial or undesirable, depending on the source used and, above all, the amount eaten by the animals7. The constant search for alternative feeds to corn, which is the most used energy concentrate in animal production systems, is fundamental, especially in regions distant from those producing grain.

The use of mesquite pod meal (Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) D.C.) as a substitute for corn becomes an alternative due to its easy accessibility in semiarid regions and its use in diets for small ruminants has shown better productive indices compared to corn8-13. However, the consumption of P. juliflora pods as the main source of food causes intoxication in animals14-16. In this context, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect levels of concentrate with mesquite pod meal on the performance of goats in deferred Urochloa grass pastures.

Material and methods

Ethical principles of experimentation

All the animal care and handling procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Use f the State University of Southwest Bahia - UESB, with protocol number 23/2017.

Experimental area

The experiment was conducted at the Research Center for Sheep and Goat, located in the Iaçu municipality, State of Bahia, Brazil. The experimental period was from April 2018 to July 2018 with mean rainfall at 31.2 mm. The climate of the region is characterized as a tropical climate with a dry season17.

Experimental procedures, animals, and diets

The total pasture area was 4.4 ha composed exclusively of Urochloa grass (Urochloa mosambicensis (Hack) Daudy). The pasture was fenced for 110 d and used from April of the same year until July 2018 (92 d). The employed grazing method was continuous stocking with a variable stocking rate. The evaluated treatments were five supplements: protein-mineral salt and levels of concentrate containing mesquite pod meal. The structural variables of the deferred pasture were evaluated every 23 d during the whole usage period. Pasture height was measured with a graduated ruler in centimeters, with 100 readings performed per picket at the average curvature height of the leaves. Forage mass was estimated by cutting close to the forage soil (12 samples) with a square of 0.25 m2 as described by McMeniman18 and the pasture composition was measured (Table 1).

Thirty-five uncastrated male goats of the Boer breed, at approximately 4-mo old, an initial body weight (BW) of 24.0 ± 2.9 kg were used, distributed in a completely randomized design with five treatments and, 7 replicates were adopted. The animals were kept in a Urochloa grass pasture under continuous stocking during the day (0007 to 1600 h) and housed in sheds in collective stalls during the night where they received: protein-mineral salt at fixed at 0.05% BW (control) and increasing levels at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0% BW of mesquite pod meal as an energy supplement.

Table 1 Pasture composition 

Green leaf, g kg-1 240.38
Green stem, g kg-1 530.00
Senescent material, g kg-1 670.44
Leaf/stem ratio 0.460
Availability of dry matter (DM), kg ha-1 3.264
kg DM leaf ha-1 795.76
kg DM stem ha-1 1.729.92
kg DM senescent material ha-1 737.99

The supplements were formulated to meet the protein requirements for maintenance and to provide an average daily gain of 150 g, according to the NRC19. Table 2 shows the chemical composition of the supplements and Urochloa grass. A 15-d adaptation period was used for the animals to acclimatize to the supplement and to the research facilities, followed by 92 d of the experiment divided into four subperiods of sample collection that lasted 5 d.

Table 2 Composition (g 100 g-1 of DM) of the supplements in ingredients and nutritive value of protein-mineral salt, Urochloa grass and concentrate containing mesquite pod meal 

Ingredient Supplement
Concentrate Protein-mineral salt
Corn meal 45.0 33.6
Soybean meal 22.0 20.0
Mesquite pod meal 30.0 -
Urea 2.0 9.1
Mineral salta 1.0 13.6
Ammonium sulfate - 1.0
Sodium chloride - 22.7
Total 100.0 100.0
Nutrient Protein-mineral salt Urochloa grass Concentrate
Dry matter 88.6 91.3 86.1
Organic matter 72.2 89.1 98.8
Crude protein 41.2 13.7 20.3
Ether extract 1.5 1.9 2.6
Total carbohydrates 29.4 73.5 75.9
Non-fiber carbohydrates 44.3 13.1 45.4
NDF free of ash protein 13.2 60.4 36.2
Acid detergent fiber 7.6 43.0 28.2
Indigestible NDF 2.9 12.4 4.8
Lignin 1.4 7.6 13.7
Ash 27.8 10.9 1.2

a Quantity/kg of product: Calcium (max.)= 120 g; phosphorus= 87 g; copper= 590 mg; cobalto= 40 mg; iodine= 80 mg; manganese= 1,300 mg; molybdenum= 300 mg; fluorine (max)= 870 mg.

NDF= neutral detergente fiber.

Mature pods were obtained after harvesting in the ground, manually selected, discarding those attacked by insects, fungi, and of a small development. The pods were dried sun drying was used. And then, processed in a Wiley knife mill (A. H. Thomas, Philadelphia, PA, USA) using a 1-mm sieve, to obtain the pod meal.

Evaluation of intake, digestibility, and live weight gain

The dry matter (DM) intake of forage and digestibility of nutrients was estimated from the fecal output, with the use of Enriched and Purified Isolated Lignin from Eucalyptus Grandis (LIPE®; Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil) as an external marker20, and indigestible acid detergent fiber (iADF) as an internal marker. The DM intake per supplement was estimated using titanium dioxide. The titanium dioxide (TiO2) was analyzed according to the methodology described by Titgemeyer21. Titanium dioxide was mixed with the supplement and supplied in the amount of 5 g per animal. LIPE® capsule oral administration for each animal happened for 7 consecutive days; the first 2 d were to stabilize the fecal excretion of the marker20,22. Fecal samples were collected directly from the rectum twice a day (0800 and 1700 h), for 5 d, and stored in a cold chamber at -10 °C.

The concentration of iADF in supplement samples, consumed forage, and feces were obtained after incubation in situ for 264 h according to Casali et al23. The voluntary intake of DM was estimated by the ratio between fecal excretion and indigestibility from the internal indicator iADF, as described above, using the equation proposed by Detmann24:

DMI = {&#091;(FE × MCF) - CIS&#093; /CIFOR} + DMIS

Where: DMI= dry matter intake (kg d-1); FE= fecal excretion (kg d-1); MCF= marker concentration in the animal feces (kg kg-1); CIS= concentration of iADF in the supplement (kg d-1); CIFOR = concentration of iADF in forage (kg kg-1); and DMIS= intake of supplement DM (kg d-1).

Supplement intake was measured by the quantity supplied divided by the number of animals in the treatment. The estimate of the quality of forage consumed was performed by analyzing the samples, using the technique for manual simulation of grazing25, by visual observation of the animals.

The animals were weighed at the start, every 23 d, and at the end of the experiment. At the beginning of the experimental period, the animals were subjected to a 16-h solid fast and weighed to determine initial body weight (IBW). Total weight gain (TWG) was estimated as the difference between final body weight (FBW) and initial body weight (IBW): TWG= (FBW - IBW). Average daily gain (ADG) was calculated by dividing TWG by the total number of days in the experiment: ADG= TWG/days in the experiment. Finally, the feed conversion ratio was calculated as the ratio between dry matter intake (kg d-1) and TWG (kg d-1).

Sample processing and laboratory analyses

The contents of DM (method INCT-CA G - 003/ 1), ash (method INCT-CA M-001/1), crude protein (CP) (method INCT-CA N-001/1), ether extract (EE) (method INCT-CA G-004/1) were determined in the forage and supplement samples, according to the recommendations described by AOAC26. For the neutral detergent fiber (NDF) analyses, the samples were treated with thermostable alpha-amylase, without the use of sodium sulfite, and corrected for residual ash27. The correction of NDF for the nitrogen compounds and the estimate of the concentration of nitrogen-neutral detergent insoluble compounds (NDIN) and acid (ADIN) were performed according to Licitra28.

Total carbohydrates (TC) were estimated according to Sniffen29, non-fibrous carbohydrates were calculated according to the methodology proposed by Hall30, using NDFap and total digestible nutrients (TDN) were calculated according to Weiss31, but using NDF and NFC corrected for ash and proteins.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis of the data was achieved by the MIXED procedure of the SAS statistical computer program (SAS, 2006), considering a mixed model. The data were submitted for analysis of variance (ANOVA) and was realized the contrast between the control treatment with supplementation levels of concentrate. Also, the polynomial contrast and regression analysis were performed for supplementation levels (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0% BW), adopting a 5 % to 10 % probability for type 1 error.

Results

The DM intake and of the nutrients of the total diet, forage (deferred Urochloa grass), and supplements were greater (P<0.0001) for the animals who received the supplementation mesquite pod meal, independently of the levels, compared to animals fed only with protein-mineral salt, due to the higher supply of nutrients from concentrate (Tables 3, 4, and 5). The nutrient concentrations were proportionally unchanged as a function of DM intake, independent of supplementation levels since the concentrate supplement was the same.

Table 3 Nutrient intakes of the diet of goats on grazing of deferred Urochloa grass with supplementation levels 

Item Supplementation SE P value
PMS Concentrate level (% BW) Contrast L Q
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Total intake (g d-1)
DM 353.008 506.3 936.4 1196.6 1738.2 93.6 <0.0001 <0.0001a 0.5907
CP 52.9 80.0 151.6 196.7 286.7 15.8 <0.0001 <0.0001b 0.6140
EE 6.6 10.6 20.1 26.0 37.8 2.1 <0.0001 <0.0001c 0.6089
NFC 51.2 113.3 235.8 316.0 464.2 27.4 <0.0001 <0.0001d 0.6631
NDFap 206.2 270.5 480.6 603.2 872.2 45.3 <0.0001 <0.0001e 0.5633
TND 80.0 260.0 640.0 890.0 1390.0 80.0 <0.0001 <0.0001f 0.5168
Total intake (g kg-1 BW)
DM 13.8 17.4 31.7 40.1 54.0 2.9 <0.0001 <0.0001g 0.9583
NFCap 8.0 9.3 16.3 20.2 27.1 1.4 <0.0001 <0.0001h 0.9836
Total intake (g kg-1 BW0.75)
CP 4.6 6.3 12.0 15.4 21.2 1.2 <0.0001 <0.0001i 0.9549
NFC 4.5 9.0 18.6 24.7 34.3 2.0 <0.0001 <0.0001j 0.9976

PMS= protein-mineral salt; SE= mean standard error; Contrast= PMS vs supplementation levels; L= linear effect; Q= quadratic effect; BW= body weight; DM= dry matter; CP= crude protein; EE= ether extract; NFC= non-fiber carbohydrates; NDFap= neutral detergent fiber corrected for ash and protein; TDN= total digestible nutrients; Significant * (P<0.0001); ** (P<0.001); *** (P<0.01); **** (P<0.05); ns (P>0.05); aŶ= 110.68ns + 792.82 X *; bŶ= 12.4414ns + 133.69X *; cŶ= 1.8056 ns + 17.5525 X *; dŶ= (0.5534ns + 226.31X *; eŶ= 77.0549 ns + 387.13X *; fŶ= - 0.099 *** + 0.725X *; gŶ= 5.7387ns + 24.3310 X *; gŶ= 3.6930 **** + 11.7801 X *; hŶ= 12.1673ns + 58.1458X *; iŶ= 15091ns + 9.8537X *; jŶ= 0.7727ns + 16.8385X *

Table 4 Nutrient intake of forage of goats on grazing of deferred Urochloa grass with supplementation levels 

Item Supplementation SE P value
PMS Concentrate level (% BW) Contrast L Q
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Forage intake (g d-1)
DM 338.2 361.0 586.3 704.0 1006.5 47.4 <0.0001 <0.0001a 0.5011
CP 46.5 49.7 80.6 96.8 138.4 6.5 <0.0001 <0.0001b 0.5011
EE 6.4 6.8 11.1 13.3 19.0 0.9 <0.0001 <0.0001c 0.5011
NFC 44.3 47.3 76.9 92.3 131.9 6.2 <0.0001 <0.0001d 0.5011
NDFap 204.2 218.0 354.0 425.0 607.7 28.6 <0.0001 <0.0001e 0.5011
Forage intake (g kg-1 BW)
DM 13.2 12.5 19.9 23.6 31.3 1.5 <0.0001 <0.0001f 0.9504
NDFap 7.9 7.5 12.0 14.3 18.9 0.9 <0.0001 <0.0001g 0.9504
Forage intake (g kg-1 BW0.75)
CP 4.1 4.0 6.4 7.6 10.3 0.5 <0.0001 <0.0001h 0.8407
NFC 3.9 3.8 6.1 7.2 9.8 0.5 <0.0001 <0.0001i 0.8407

PMS= protein-mineral salt; SEM= mean standard error; Contrast= PMS vs supplementation levels; L= linear effect, Q= quadratic effect, BW= body weight; DM= dry matter; CP= crude protein; EE= ether extract; NFC= non-fiber carbohydrates; NDFap= neutral detergent fiber corrected for ash and protein; TDN= total digestible nutrients; Significant * (P <0. 0001); ** (P <0.001); *** (P <0.01); **** (P <0.05); ns (P >0.05); aŶ= 152.70 *** + 414.60X *; bŶ = 21.0037*** + 57.0255X *; cŶ = 2.8887 *** + 7.8429X ****; d= 20.0181 *** + 54.3495X *; eŶ = 92.1912 *** + 250.30 X *; fŶ = 6.6600*** + 12.3386X *; gŶ = 4.0208*** + 7.4491 X *; hŶ = 2.0117*** + 4.0883 X *; iŶ = 1.9173 *** + 3.8965X *

Table 5 Nutrient intake of concentrate of goats on grazing deferred Urochloa grass pasture with supplementation levels 

Item Supplementationn SE P value
PMS Concentrate level (% BW) Contrast L Q
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Concentrate intake (g d-1)
DM 15.6 145.2 350.1 492.6 731.6 47.2 <0.0001 <0.0001a 0.7327
CP 6.4 29.4 71.0 99.8 148.3 9.4 <0.0001 <0.0001b 0.7327
EE 0.2 3.7 8.98 12.6 18.8 1.2 <0.0001 <0.0001c 0.7327
NFC 6.9 66.0 159.0 223.7 332.2 21.4 <0.0001 <0.0001d 0.7327
NDFap 2.1 52.5 126.6 178.1 0.73 17.2 <0.0001 <0.0001e 0.7327
Concentrate intake (g kg-1 BW)
DM 0.6 5.0 11.8 16.5 22.7 1.5 <0.0001 <0.0001f 0.8462
NDFap 0.07 1.8 4.3 6.0 8.2 0.6 <0.0001 <0.0001g 0.8462
Concentrate intake (g kg-1 BW0. 75)
CP 0.6 2.3 5.6 7.8 10.9 0.7 <0.0001 <0.0001h 0.9460
NFC 0.6 5.2 12.5 17.5 24.5 1.6 <0.0001 <0.0001i 0.9460

PMS= protein-mineral salt; SE= mean standard error; Contrast= contrasts between the SP and the levels of supplementation; L= linear effect, Q= quadratic effect; BW= body weight; DM= dry matter; CP= crude protein; EE= ether extract; NFC= non-fiber carbohydrates; NDFap= neutral detergent fiber corrected for ash and protein; * P<0. 0001; ** P<0.001; *** P<0.01; **** P<0.05; ns P>0.05; aŶ= - 43.8774 ns + 379.65 X *; bŶ = - 8.8931ns + 76.9487X *; cŶ = - 1.1263ns + 9.7457 X *; dŶ = - 19.9255 ns + 172.41X*; eŶ = - 15.8682 ns + 137.30X *; fŶ = -0.9681 ns +12.0713X*; gŶ = - 0.3501 ns + 4.3656X*; hŶ = - 0.5191 * + 5.7915 X; iŶ = - 1.1631ns + 12.9761 X *

The dry matter digestibility and of the other nutrients were greater (P<0.0001) for supplementation levels compared to protein-mineral salt. There was a quadratic effect for the digestibility of most nutrients, except for EE and NFC which showed a linear increase (Table 6). Maximum points were calculated for digestibilities of DM, OM, CP, and NDF near the upper limit of supplementation (2.0% BW), with the same response for the variation of TDN content. Therefore, it was not possible to estimate the maximum point because the range of the supplementation levels studied was restricted to a range of the quadratic fit in which the rate of increase in digestibility coefficient was not proportional to the supplement increment, that is, it was in points previous to curve inflection.

Table 6 Nutrient digestibility (g 100 g-1 of DM) of goats on grazing deferred Urochloa grass pasture with supplementation levels 

Item Supplementation SE P value
PMS Concentrate level (% BW) Contrast L Q
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
DM 21.8 45.6 66.2 73.2 80.0 3.8 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0011a
OM 21.9 48.1 68.3 74.7 81.0 3.8 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0008b
NDFap 23.7 43.2 63.0 69.7 77.5 3.5 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0081c
EE 40.4 43.9 60.3 68.1 76.4 2.7 <0.0001 <0.0001d 0.2183
CP 31.1 48.8 68.1 75.8 79.4 3.3 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0002e
NFC 10.7 57.5 82.4 86.3 90.4 5.3 <0.0001 <0.0001f 0.0056
TDN 21.6 47.1 67.0 73.6 79.9 3.8 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0008g

PMS= protein-mineral salt; SEM= mean standard error; Contrast= PMS vs supplementation levels; L= linear effect; Q= quadratic effect; BW= body weight; DM= dry matter; CP= crude protein; EE= ether extract; NFC= non-fiber carbohydrates; NDFap= neutral detergent fiber corrected for ash and protein; TDN= total digestible nutrients; Significant **(P<0. 0001); ** (P<0.001); *** (P<0.01); ****(P<0.05); ns (P>0.05); aŶ= 20.099* + 58.357 X * - 14.294 X2 **; bŶ= 23.499* + 56.554 X * - 13.993 X2 **; cŶ=19.817 ** + 52.997 X * - 12.166 X2 ***; dŶ= 39.7744* +/ 18.596 X *; eŶ= 23.452 * + 58.868 X * - 15.490 X2 **; fŶ= 72.547* + 8.996 X *; gŶ= 22.343* + 56.718 X* - 14.070 X2 **

The supplementation levels with the energy source containing mesquite pod meal provided greater final body weight (FBW), average daily gain (ADG), and total weight gain (TWG) when compared to the protein-mineral salt supplementation (Table 7). There was a linear effect for supplementation levels on the performance variables (P<0.05). Supplementation levels promoted a linear increase (P<0.0001) in feed conversion and the level at 0.5% BW was efficient considering 92 d of pasture supplementation to reach 35 kg for slaughter weight.

Table 7 Performance of goats on grazing deferred Urochloa grass pasture with supplementation levels for 92 days 

Item Supplementation SE P value
PMS Concentrate level (% BW) Contrast L Q
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
IBW 23.3 24.1 24.2 23.7 24.4 0.5 0.4669 0.9372 0.7711
FBW 28.9 34.6 34.6 37.6 40.3 0.8 <0.0001 0.0004a 0.3039
BW 26.1 29.4 29.4 30.7 32.4 0.6 0.0001 0.02802b 0.4471
BW0.75 11.5 12.6 12.6 13.0 13.6 0.2 0.0002 0.02810c 0.4437
TWG 5.7 10.5 10.4 13.9 15.9 0.7 <0.0001 0.0003d 0.3311
ADG 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.01 0.0001 0.0003e 0.3312
FC 22.7 4.4 8.1 8.0 10.0 3.4 0.3877 < 0.0001f 0.1987

PMS= protein-mineral salt; SE= mean standard error; Contrast= PMS vs supplementation levels; L= linear effect; Q= quadratic effect; BW= body weight; IBW= initial body weight (kg); FBW= final body weight (kg); TWG= total weight gain (kg); ADG= average daily gain; FC= feed conversion (kg DMI/ kg BW); Significant *(P<0.0001); ** (P<0.001); ***(P<0.01); ****(P< .05); ns (P>0.05); aŶ= 31.560 * + 4.263X *; bŶ= 27.812* + 2.132 X ****; cŶ= 12.112 * + 0.681X ****; dŶ= 3.016 * + 4.273X *; eŶ= 0.574 ns + 0.047 X *; fŶ= 0.666 *** + 1.234 X*

Discussion

The concentrate supplement provided an improvement of nutrient supply to the ruminal microbiome, leading to greater digestion of the fiber, which consequently promoted an increase in total and forage DM intake characterizing the additive effect (Tables 3, 4, and 6). Moore32 stated that if supplement intake does not influence forage intake, the substitution coefficient is zero and, when positive, it means that forage intake was increased by supplementation. This fact can be explained by the relationship between the total digestible nutrients and the crude protein (TDN/CP) of the forage, which were 0.4, 1.8, 3.3, 4.0, and 4.7 for respective supplementation levels.

However, the increase in DM intake of forage supplemented with concentrate 0.5% BW was 6 % higher than protein-mineral salt supplementation. Still, when corrected for BW, the DM intake of forage was 5 % lower. It indicates that the supplementation at 0.5% BW was insufficient to avoid the ingestion's empty physical effect. Due to the increase in DM intake, the nutrient intake of CP, NDFap, and NFC also increased (Table 4).

For concentrate supplementation levels, there was an increase in forage intake of 12.3 g kg-1 BW for each concentrate percentual unit. As the supply of concentrate was controlled, it can be evidenced that the 0.5% BW supplied would not be indicated to increase the forage intake, despite the improvement of fiber and other nutritional components' digestibilities (Table 6). The forage proportions were 95.59, 71.31, 62.61, 58.83, and 57.91 % in the respective diets with protein-mineral salt and concentrate levels.

In the deferred pasture, there is usually a decrease in CP and fiber digestibilities, because of the maturation process. In this study, the CP content of the Urochloa grass was 13.7 % and 85.8 % was in the NDF fraction, presenting a lower rumen degradation rate, especially when the microbial growth was affected by the lower content of soluble nutrients. The forage contributed to decreasing proportion of CP according to the supplementation levels, whose respective values were 13.1; 9.8; 8.6; 8.1, and 7.9 %. Likewise, the proportional values of NDF from forage also decreased: 57.7; 43.1; 37.8; 35.5, and 35.0 %, respectively.

The concentrate supplementation levels provided an increase in CP, NFC, and TDN intakes, being that the CP concentration in the total DM ingested was similar when comparing the supplementation with protein-mineral salt and levels of concentrate (Table 3). In addition, it was observed that, regardless of the use of protein-mineral salt or concentrate levels, goat’s kids did not change the composition of the forage consumed, with an average of 13.7 % CP, 13.1 % NFC, and 60.4 % NDFap, characterizing non-selectivity during grazing (Table 4).

The greater supply of concentrate containing mesquite pod meal at 30 %, improved the rumen fermentation and digestibility of nutrients. The maximum points for digestibility were estimated for DM, OM, NDF, and CP in the range of 1.9 % to more than 2.0% BW in supplementation, with the same changing, for the TDN concentration. The quadratic fit was possible because the digestibility did not change proportionally to the increase in supplementation, probably due to the increase in the rumen passage rate. The linear increase in the digestibility of EE and NFC is consistent with the fact that there was an increase in the intake of these nutritional components, due to the levels of supplementation and, thus, the increment of intestinal utilization.

It can be inferred that the rumen passage rate affected the CP and NDF digestibilities because the highest proportion of CP from forage belongs to the fibrous fraction. The greater passage rate can reduce the extent of ruminal degradation of the fibrous fraction of the diet when the DMI rises. Considering that this fraction of the diet is not effectively digested in the small intestine.

To increase the intake of forage, it is necessary to manipulate the diet through two mechanisms, increasing the ruminal digestion rate and/or accelerating the rate of passage of indigestible components33,34. In this study, it was observed that the supplementation with concentrate provided an increase in forage intake, as a consequence of both increased ruminal digestion rates, since the NDF digestibility increased. The supplementation with concentrate has an associative effect with the pasture, that is, it entails changes in digestibility (Table 6) and/or in forage intake (Table 3), which may have additive and substitutive effects. An additive effect was observed because there was an increase in TDN intake as a consequence of a greater intake of concentrate, without a decrease in forage intake (Table 3).

The major intake of mesquite pod meal occurred at 2% supplementation showing an average of 219.5 g d-1, which is equivalent to 126.2 g kg-1 of total DM consumed. Studies have reported that the use of mesquite pod meals in diets should not exceed 200 g kg-1 of DM consumed in goats, both for BW gain and for better lactating performance. Therefore, in this study, the toxic effect of mesquite pod meal did not occur, since the level of 2.0% BW of the concentrate supplement showed a greater ADG (Table 7).

There was a linear effect of supplementation levels on the performance variables (P<0.05) because the concentrate supplementation levels increased the total DM intake and improved the digestibility, reflecting a greater ADG.

The supplementation with protein-mineral salt resulted in reduced ADG as a response to the restriction of its intake and the advanced stage of maturation of the Urochloa grass, which presented high contents of NDF indigestible and CP bound to the fibrous fraction (Table 1). However, animals kept in grazing under semiarid conditions usually present a loss of BW during the critical period of forage production. Thus, the use of simple technology, such as supplementation with protein-mineral salt, softens the effects of low availability and quality of biomass. Additionally, the supplementation levels with concentrate provided higher ADG when compared to protein-mineral salt supplementation, and the levels of 1.5% and 2.0% BW provided 155 and 176 g in the ADG, respectively.

The DM intake has an influence on performance, as it determines the number of nutrients ingested, which are necessary to meet the requirements of maintenance and animal production. The feed conversion at 0.5% BW of mesquite pod meal supplementation did indicate the best productive response than the other levels since the goat kids reached the ideal slaughter weight (35 kg) at 92 d of supplementation.

Conclusions and implications

The use of deferred pasture enables a high forage supply in the dry season of the year, even if it is of low quality; and when combined with minimum supplementation levels (0.5% BW), it is possible to increase the rate of average daily gain contributing to the reduction of the productive cycle. The mesquite pod meal supplementation at 2.0% BW provides a higher average daily gain and slaughter body weight at 92 d under grazing, enabling greater gain per pasture area.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the State University of Southwest Bahia for providing the physical infrastructure and staff necessary for this study. We are also grateful and financial support and grants from the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq).

Literature cited

1. Gurgel ALC, Difante GS, Emerenciano Neto JV, Roberto FFS, Zaros LG, Costa MG, Ítavo LCV, Ítavo CCBF. Impact of supplementation with different protein sources on the parasitological profile of ovine matrices and development of lambs. Biosci J 2020;36(2):496-506. [ Links ]

2. Shio AR, Veloso CM, Silva FF, Ìtavo LCV, Mateus RG, Silva RR. Ofertas de forragem para novilhas nelore suplementadas no período de seca e transição seca/águas. Acta Sci Anim Sci 2011;33(1):9-17. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascianimsci.v33i1.9112. [ Links ]

3. Santos MER, Castro MRSA, Gouvêia SC, Gomes VM, Fonseca DM, Santana SS. Contribuição de perfilhos aéreos e basais na dinâmica de produção de forragem do capim-braquiária após o pastejo diferido. Biosci J 2014;30(1):24-430. [ Links ]

4. Euclides VPB, Montagner DB, Macedo MCM, Araújo AR, Difante GS, Barbosa RA. Grazing intensity affects forage accumulation and persistence of Marandu palisadegrass in the Brazilian savannah. Grass Forage Sci 2019;74:450-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12422. [ Links ]

5. Fernandes LS, Difante S, Montagner DB, Emerenciano Neto JV, Araújo IMM, Campos NRF. Structure of massai grass pasture grazed on by sheep supplemented in the dry season. Grassl Sci 2017;1-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/grs.12165. [ Links ]

6. Geron LJV, Mexia AA, Garcia J, Silva MM, Zeoula LM. Suplementação concentrada para cordeiros terminados a pasto sobre custo de produção no período da seca. Semina: Ciênc Agrár 2012;33(2):797-808. https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2012v33n2p797. [ Links ]

7. Nascimento ML, Paulino MF, Detmann E, Leão MI, Valadares Filho SC, Henriques LT. Fontes de energia em suplementos múltiplos para novilhos em pastejo durante o período das águas. Rev Bras Zootec 2010;39(4):861-872. [ Links ]

8. Santos EJ, Pereira MLA, Cruz JF, Figueiredo MP, Almeida PJP, Novaes EJ, Souza ACS, Alencar DO, Sousa LB, Pereira TCJ. Crude protein levels in diets containing pelleted concentrate for lactating goats: intake, digestibility, milk production and composition. Semina: Ciênc Agrár 2015;36(4):2849-2860.https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2015v36n4p2849. [ Links ]

9. Santos EJ, Pereira MLA, Almeida PJP, Pereira TCJ, Chagas DMT, Silva TVBS. Excreções de derivados de purina obtidos por duas metodologias de coleta de urina em ovinos alimentados com farelo da vagem de algaroba em substituição a silagem de capim Elefante. Rev Eletr Nutritime 2015; 12. [ Links ]

10. Pereira TCJ, Pereira MLA, Almeida PJP, Carvalho GGP, Silva FF, Silva HGO, Santos AB. Substitution of corn for mesquite pod meal in diets for lambs. Ital J Anim Sci 2014;13:3278. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2014.3278. [ Links ]

11. Santos AB, Pereira MLA, Silva HGO, Pedreira MS, Carvalho GGP, Ribeiro LSO, Almeida PJP, Pereira TCJ, Moreira JV. Nitrogem metabolism in lactating goats fed with diets containing different protein sources. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 2014;27(5):658-666. https://doi.org/10.5713 / ajas.2013.13493. [ Links ]

12. Pereira TCJ, Pereira MLA, Oliveira CAS, Argôlo LS, Silva HGO, Pedreira MS, Almeida PJP, Santos AB. Mesquite pod meal in diets for lactating goats. Rev Bras Zootec 2013:42(2):102-108. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982013000200004. [ Links ]

13. Almeida PJP, Pereira MLA, Silva FF, Santos AB, Pereira TCJ, Santos EJS, Moreira JV. Santa Inês sheep supplementation on Urochloa grass pasture during the dry season: intake, nutrient digestibility and performance. Rev Bras Zootec 2012;41(3):668-674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982012000300029. [ Links ]

14. Silva VDA, Silva AMM, Silva JHC, Costa SL. Neurotoxicity of Prosopis juliflora: from natural poisoning to mechanism of action of its piperidine alkaloids. Neurotox Res 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12640-017-9862-2. [ Links ]

15. William K, Jafri L. Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora): livestock grazin, its toxicity and management. J Bior Management 2015;2(2):49-58. https://doi.org/10.35691/JBM.5102.0021. [ Links ]

16. Tabosa IM, Riet-Correa F, Barros SS, Summers BA, Simões SVD, Medeiros RMT, Nobre VMT. Neurohistologic and ultrastructural lesions in cattle experimentally intoxicated with the plant Prosopis juliflora. Vet Pathol 2006;43(5):695-701. https://doi.org/10.1354/vp.43-5-695. [ Links ]

17. Thorthwaite CW. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geogr Rev 1948;38:55-94. [ Links ]

18. McMeniman NP. Methods of estimating intake of grazing animals. In: Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia. Juiz de Fora. Anais Juiz de Fora: Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia. 1997;34:131-168. [ Links ]

19. National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: Sheep, goats, cervids and New World camelids. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 2007. [ Links ]

20. Saliba EOS, Faria EP, Rodriguez NM, Moreira GR, Sampaio IBM, Saliba JS, Gonçalves LC, Borges I, Borges ALCC. Use of infrared spectroscopy to estimate fecal output with Marker LIPE®. Int J Food Sci Nutri 2015;S4:001:1-10. https://dx.doi.org/10.19070/2326-3350-SI04001. [ Links ]

21. Titgemeyer EC, Armendariz CK, Bindel DJ, Greenwood RHCA, Loest CA. Evaluation of titanium dioxide as a digestibility marker for cattle. Animal Sci J 2001;79(4):1059-1063. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7941059x. [ Links ]

22. Freitas TB, Felix T, Pedreira MS, Silva RR, Silva FF, Silva HGO, Tigre JS. Replacement of soybean meal with treated castor bean meal in supplements for grazing lambs. Rev Bras Saúde Prod Anim 2017;18(3):465-478. https://doi.10.1590/s1519-99402017000300007. [ Links ]

23. Casali AO, Detmann E, Valadares Filho SC, Pereira JC, Henriques LT, Freitas SG, Paulino MF. Influência do tempo de incubação e do tamanho de partículas sobre os teores de compostos indisgestíveis em alimentos e fezes bovinas obtidos por procedimento in situ. Rev Bras Zootec 2008;37(2):335-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982008000200021. [ Links ]

24. Detmann E, Paulino MF, Zervoudakis JT, Valadares Filho SC, Euclydes RF, Lana RP, Queiroz SQ. Cromo e indicadores internos na estimação do consumo de novilhos mestiços suplementados a pasto. Rev Bras Zootec 2001;30(5):1600-1609. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982001000600030. [ Links ]

25. Euclides VPB, Macedo MCM, Oliveira MP. Avaliação de diferentes métodos de amostragem sob pastejo. Ver Bras Zootec 1992;21(4):691-702. [ Links ]

26. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 16th ed. Association of Official Analysis Chemists, Arlington, Virginia. 1995. [ Links ]

27. Mertens DR. Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beakers or crucibles: collaborative study. J AOAC Int 2002;85(6):1217-1240. [ Links ]

28. Licitra G, Hernandez TM, Van Soest PJ. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fracionation of ruminant feed. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1996;57(4):347-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3. [ Links ]

29. Sniffen CJ, O´Connor JD, Van Soest PJ, Fox DG, Russell JB. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. J Anim Sci 1992;70(11):3562-3577. https://doi.org/10.2527 / 1992.70113562x. [ Links ]

30. Hall MB. Neutral detergent-soluble carbohydrates. Nutritional relevance and analysis. Gainesville: University of Florida. 2003. [ Links ]

31. Weiss W. Energy prediction equations for ruminant. 1999. In: Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers, 61. Ithaca. Proc Cornell University. Ithaca. 1999:176-185. [ Links ]

32. Moore JE, Brant MH, Kunkle WE, Hopkins DI. Effects of supplementation on voluntary forage intake, diet digestibility, and animal performance. J Anim Sci 1999;77(Suppl 2):122-135. [ Links ]

33. Costa VAC, Detmann E, Valadares Filho SC, Paulino MF, Henriques LT, Mantovani HC. Degradação in vitro da fibra em detergente neutro de forragem tropical de baixa qualidade em função de suplementação com proteína e/ou carboidratos. Rev Bras Zootec 2008;37(3):494-503. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982008000300015. [ Links ]

34. Costa VAC, Detmann E, Valadares Filho SC, Paulino MF, Henriques LT, Mantovani HC. Degradação in vitro da fibra em detergente neutro de forragem tropical de alta qualidade em função de suplementação com proteína e/ou carboidratos. Rev Bras Zootec 2009;38(9):1803-1811. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982009000900024. [ Links ]

Received: December 16, 2021; Accepted: February 21, 2023

Author for correspondence: marauesb@yahoo.com.br

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License