FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Arch Anim Breed / Use of palm bran (Nopalea cochenillifera (L.) Salm-Dyck) in ...
Archives animal breeding2021; 64(1); 273-282; doi: 10.5194/aab-64-273-2021

Use of palm bran (Nopalea cochenillifera (L.) Salm-Dyck) in partial replacement of concentrate in maintenance equine diets – a pilot study.

Abstract: Forage palm is extremely suitable as animal fodder due to its high tolerance to the climatic rigors of the semiarid region and its ability to withstand the harsh physical-chemical limitations of poor soils. Thus, in this study, the effects of the partial replacement (0 %, 5 %, 10 % and 15 % replacement) of a molasses- or oat-based commercial concentrate with forage palm bran (FPB) on the acceptability, apparent digestibility and glycemic response of horses at maintenance were evaluated. The ratio of concentrate to roughage (Tifton 85 hay) was , and the dry matter (DM) intake was 2 % of body weight (BW). For the preference test, 10 barren Mangalarga Marchador mares were used. The experimental diets were offered simultaneously to determine the consumption preference and the intake ratio. For the digestibility test, four mixed-breed geldings were used and were distributed in a Latin square experimental design ( ). For the glycemic response, blood samples were collected 30 min before and 30, 60, 90, 120, 180 and 240 min after supplying the feed. The preference test indicated that feed containing 0 % and 5 % FPB was preferred by the animals. Nutrient digestibility coefficients did not differ among the experimental diets. Blood glucose was lower at 180 min in the 7.42 % FPB inclusion diet ( ); this was estimated using the following equation: . It is concluded that the incorporation of up to 15 % of forage palm bran as a substitute for concentrate in the maintenance diet tested did not negatively influence feed intake, nutrient digestibility or glycemic index; however, inclusion values above 5 % reduced diet acceptability.
Copyright: © 2021 Paula Gomes Rodrigues et al.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-06-21 PubMed ID: 34189255PubMed Central: PMC8223016DOI: 10.5194/aab-64-273-2021Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research conducted a pilot study on the effects of partially replacing commercial concentrate with forage palm bran (FPB) in horse diets. These effects included diet acceptability, nutrient digestibility, and glycemic response, and concluded that up to 15% of concentrate replacement with FPB had no negative impacts. Nonetheless, diets including more than 5% FPB were less acceptable to the horses.

Study Design and Methodology

  • The research team evaluated the effects of replacing varying percentages of commercial concentrate in horse diets with forage palm bran (FPB), an animal fodder known for its resilience in harsh climates and poor soil conditions. The extent of substitution included 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% replacement of either a molasses- or oat-based concentrate.
  • Fixed ratios were maintained for the concentration and roughage (Tifton 85 hay), while the intake of dry matter was set at 2% of the horse’s body weight.
  • Two tests were conducted: a preference test and a digestibility test. The preference test involved 10 Mangalarga Marchador mares and entailed concurrently offering the test diets to assess the horses’ relative preferences and consumption rates. For the digestibility test, four mixed-breed geldings were used; their assignment followed a Latin square experimental design.
  • The glycemic response of the horses was measured by collecting blood samples at multiple intervals before and after the feed was provided. The sampling times were 30 minutes pre- and post-feeding, followed by additional samplings every 30 minutes for the first two hours, and then at 180 minutes and 240 minutes.

Findings and Conclusions

  • The preference test revealed that the horses preferred feed containing 0% and 5% FPB over the ones with higher FPB content. Hence, increased FPB percentages lowered the acceptability of the diet.
  • No significant variations in nutrient digestibility coefficients were found among the different experimental diets. This indicates that the partial substitution of concentrate with FPB did not affect the digestibility of the nutrients in the feed.
  • Blood glucose levels were lower at 180 min in the diet with a 7.42% FPB inclusion. Therefore, the concentration of FPB did not affect the glycemic response adversely, indicating potential suitability for equine diets unique to the requirements.
  • The overall findings suggest that the substitution of commercial concentrate with up to 15% FPB did not negatively impact feed intake, nutrient digestibility, and glycemic index. However, FPB inclusion values beyond 5% reduced the appeal of the diet to the horses, revealing a sensory or palatability limitation.

Cite This Article

APA
Rodrigues PG, Garcez DSM, Silva CM, Santana CCS, Santana JCS, Lopes CDC, Muniz EN, de Oliveira Júnior GM, Silva de Moura R, de Souza JC. (2021). Use of palm bran (Nopalea cochenillifera (L.) Salm-Dyck) in partial replacement of concentrate in maintenance equine diets – a pilot study. Arch Anim Breed, 64(1), 273-282. https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-64-273-2021

Publication

Archives animal breeding
ISSN: 2363-9822
NlmUniqueID: 101701238
Country: Germany
Language: English
Volume: 64
Issue: 1
Pages: 273-282

Researcher Affiliations

Rodrigues, Paula Gomes
  • Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristovão 49100-000, Brazil.
Garcez, Diana Silva Maynard
  • Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristovão 49100-000, Brazil.
Silva, Camilla Mendonça
  • Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristovão 49100-000, Brazil.
Santana, Camilla Cristina Santos
  • Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristovão 49100-000, Brazil.
Santana, Juliana Caroline Santos
  • Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristovão 49100-000, Brazil.
Lopes, Claudia da Costa
  • Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Rio Grande of Norte, Macaíba 59.280-000, Brazil.
Muniz, Evandro Neves
  • Embrapa Tabuleiros Costeiros, Aracaju 49040-490, Brazil.
de Oliveira Júnior, Gregório Murilo
  • Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristovão 49100-000, Brazil.
Silva de Moura, Raquel
  • Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras 37-200-000, Brazil.
de Souza, José Camisão
  • Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras 37-200-000, Brazil.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 36 references
  1. Andriguetto JM, Perly L. Nutrição animal. São Paulo, Brazil: Nobel Publications; 1981.
  2. . Official Methods of Analysis. AOAC Int edn. 19. Gaithersburg, Michigan, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 2012.
  3. Borghi RT, Rodrigues PG, Moura RS, Almeida LS, Fontes GC, Fidêncio CF, Santos CA, Marchesin WA, Oliveira Júnior GM, Souza JC. Digestibility of Nutrients and Digestive Health in Horses Submitted to Moderate Exercise and Supplemented With Diets Formulated With Soybean Hulls. J Equine Vet Sci 2017;59:118–125.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.10.003google scholar: lookup
  4. Carvalho CBM, Edvan RL, Carvalho MLAM, Reis ALA, Nascimento RR. Uso de cactáceas na alimentação animal e seu armazenamento após colheita. Arch Zootec 2018;67:440–446.
    doi: 10.21071/az.v67i259.3803google scholar: lookup
  5. Casalecchi FL, Etchichury M, Gonzaga IVF, Gobesso AAO. Digestibilidade aparente total e resposta glicêmica de dietas para equinos contendo milho submetido a diferentes processamentos. Braz J Vet Res Anim Sci 2012;49:232–238.
  6. Dittrich JR, Melo HA, Afonso AMCF, Locatelli-Dittrich R. Comportamento ingestivo de equinos e a relação com o aproveitamento das forragens e bem-estar dos animais. R Bras Zootec 2010;39:130–137.
    doi: 10.1590/S1516-35982010001300015google scholar: lookup
  7. Elghandour MMY, Khusro A, Salem AZM, Mariezcurrena-Berasain MA, Camacho Díaz LM, Cipriano-Salazar M. Role of dose dependent Escherichia coli as ruminal anti-microflora agent to mitigate biogases production in prickly pear cactus flour based diet.. Microb Pathog 2018 Feb;115:208-215.
    doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.12.053pubmed: 29278783google scholar: lookup
  8. Ferreira DF. SISVAR: A computer analysis system to fixed effects split plot type designs. Rev Bras Biom 2019;37:529–535.
    doi: 10.28951/rbb.v37i4.450google scholar: lookup
  9. Frape DL. Nutrição e alimentação de equinos. São Paulo, Brazil: Roca; 2008.
  10. Gobesso AO, Etchichury M, Tosi H. Respostas plasmáticas de glicose e insulina em equinos alimentados com diferentes fontes de amido. Braz J Vet Res Anim Sci 2009;46:324–331.
  11. Goodwin D, Davidson HPB, Harris P. Sensory variety in concentrate diets for stabled horses: effects on behaviour and selection. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2005;90:337–349.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.013google scholar: lookup
  12. Henneke DR, Potter GD, Kreider JL, Yeates BF. Relationship between condition score, physical measurements and body fat percentage in mares.. Equine Vet J 1983 Oct;15(4):371-2.
    pubmed: 6641685doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1983.tb01826.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  13. Hoffman RM, Wilson JA, Kronfeld DS, Cooper WL, Lawrence LA, Sklan D, Harris PA. Hydrolyzable carbohydrates in pasture, hay, and horse feeds: direct assay and seasonal variation.. J Anim Sci 2001 Feb;79(2):500-6.
    doi: 10.2527/2001.792500xpubmed: 11219461google scholar: lookup
  14. Inácio DFS, Rezende ASC, Saliba EOS, Silva RHP, Maruch S, Lana ÂMQ, Ralston SL. Dry matter intake and apparent digestibility of nutrients in the ration of Mangalarga Marchador weanling horses fed sorghum silage versus grass hay. J Equine Vet Sci 2017;49:87–91.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2016.09.011google scholar: lookup
  15. Jacob SI, Geor RJ, Weber PSD, Harris PA, McCue ME. Effect of age and dietary carbohydrate profiles on glucose and insulin dynamics in horses.. Equine Vet J 2018 Mar;50(2):249-254.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12745pubmed: 28833406google scholar: lookup
  16. Janczarek I, Wilk I, Pietrzak S, Liss M, Tkaczyk S. Taste Preferences of Horses in Relation to Their Breed and Sex.. J Equine Vet Sci 2018 May;64:59-64.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.02.010pubmed: 30973154google scholar: lookup
  17. Julliand S, Martina A, Julliand V. Effect of live yeast supplementation on gastric ecosystem in horses fed a high-starch diet. Livest Sci 2018;215:25–29.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2008-1602google scholar: lookup
  18. Martin P, Batéson P. Measuring behavior: an introductory guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
  19. Meilgaard M, Civille GV, Carr BT. Sensory evaluation techniques. Florida, USA: CRC Press; 1991.
  20. Merrit MA, Julliand V. Gastrointestinal physiology. In: Geor RJ, Harris PA, Coenen M, editors. Equine applied and clinical nutrition. Oxford, UK: Elsevier; 2013. pp. 3–32.
    doi: 10.1016/C2009-0-39370-8google scholar: lookup
  21. Neto JP, Soares PC, Batista AMV, Andrade SFJ, Andrade RPX, Lucena RB, Guim A. Balanço hídrico e excreção renal de metabólitos em ovinos alimentados com palma forrageira (Nopalea cochenillifera Salm Dyck). Pesquisa Vet Brasil 2016;36:322–328.
    doi: 10.1590/S0100-736X2016000400012google scholar: lookup
  22. NRC (National Research Council). Nutrient requirements of horses. Washington, USA: National Academy Press; 2007.
  23. Nunes CS. Usos e aplicações da palma forrageira como uma grande fonte de economia para o semiárido nordestino. Revista Verde 2011;6:58–66.
  24. Oliveira GJC, Lima JAF, Araújo KV, Fialho ET, Bertechini AG, Pérez JRO, Freitas RTF. Influência da adição de pectina e farelo de soja sobre a digestibilidade aparente de nutrientes, em eqüinos. R Bras Zootec 2002;31:1184–1192.
  25. Olley RB, Carslake HB, Ireland JL, McGowan CM. Comparison of fasted basal insulin with the combined glucose-insulin test in horses and ponies with suspected insulin dysregulation.. Vet J 2019 Oct;252:105351.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2019.105351pubmed: 31554591google scholar: lookup
  26. Parra-Garcia A, Salem AZM, Elghandour MMY, Camacho LM, Odongo NE. Potential impact of prickly pear cactus flour and Salix babylonica extract on cecal fermentation and methane production in horses. Agroforest Syst 2018;92:1145–1154.
    doi: 10.1007/s10457-016-0051-8google scholar: lookup
  27. Pascoal LAF, Silva KAGD, Watanabe PH, Brito JMF, Silva JFD, Dantas Jr PR, Almeida JMDS. Forage cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica Mill) meal in rabbit diets in the growth phase. Rev Bras Saúde Prod Anim 2020;21:e2121102020.
    doi: 10.1590/S1519-99402121102020google scholar: lookup
  28. Peixoto MJA, Carneiro MSS, Amorim DS, Edvan RL, Pereira ES, Costa MRGF. Características agronômicas e composição química da palma forrageira em função de diferentes sistemas de plantio. Arch Zootec 2018;67:35–39.
    doi: 10.21071/az.v67i257.3489google scholar: lookup
  29. Rivera NLM, Risolia LW, Sabchuck TT, Félix AP, Maiorka A, Scapinello C. Digestibilidade e palatabilidade de dietas com extrato de própolis para cães. Ciência Animal Brasileira 2019;20:1–9.
    doi: 10.1590/1089-6891v20e-47503google scholar: lookup
  30. Rodiek AV, Stull CL. Glycemic index of ten common horse feeds. J Equine Vet Sci 2007;27:205–211.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2007.04.002google scholar: lookup
  31. Silva ETDS, Melo AASD, Ferreira MDA, Oliveira JCVD, Santos DCD, Silva RC, Inácio JG. Acceptability by Girolando heifers and nutritional value of erect prickly pear stored for different periods. Pesquisa Vet Brasil 2017;52:761–767.
    doi: 10.1590/s0100-204x2017000900008google scholar: lookup
  32. Sousa NM, Oliveira JS, Silva DS, Santos EM, Medeiros AN, Ramos JPF, Brito EA. Levels of neutral detergent fiber in diets with forage palm for dairy goats. Arq Bras Med Vet Zoo 2018;70:1595–1604.
    doi: 10.1590/1678-4162-10181google scholar: lookup
  33. Torres LCL, Ferreira MA, Guim A, Vilela MS, Guimarães AV, Silva EC. Substituição da palma-gigante por palma-miúda em dietas para bovinos em crescimento e avaliação de indicadores internos. R Bras Zootec 2009;38:2264–2269.
    doi: 10.1590/S1516-35982009001100028google scholar: lookup
  34. Tribucci AMO, Brandi RA, Balieiro JCC, Titto EAL, Bueno ICS. Palatability of horse diets containing citrus pulp (Citrus Sinensis) through the preference test. Ital J Anim Sci 2013;12:17–29.
    doi: 10.4081/ijas.2013.e33google scholar: lookup
  35. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition.. J Dairy Sci 1991 Oct;74(10):3583-97.
    pubmed: 1660498doi: 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(91)78551-2google scholar: lookup
  36. Velázquez AE, Kholif AE, Elghandour MMY, Salem AZM, Jiménez RMO, Pliego AB, Odongo N, Bórquez JL, Cipriano M, Olivares J. Effect of partial replacement of steam rolled corn with Soybean hulls or Prickly pear cactus in the horse's diet in the presence of live Saccharomyces cerevisiae on in vitro fecal gas production. J Equine Vet Sci 2016;42:94–101.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2016.04.008google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.