DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

In vitro and in vivo evaluation of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) as a roughage source for beef cattle

  • Oh, Seongjin (Department of Animal Science, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Mbiriri, David Tinotenda (Department of Animal Science, University of Zimbabwe) ;
  • Ryu, Chaehwa (Department of Animal Science, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Lee, Kangheon (Department of Animal Science, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Cho, Sangbuem (Department of Animal Science, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Choi, Nag-Jin (Department of Animal Science, Chonbuk National University)
  • Received : 2017.11.28
  • Accepted : 2018.03.13
  • Published : 2018.10.01

Abstract

Objective: The goal of this study was to evaluate kenaf as a roughage source in vitro and its effects on meat quality of Hanwoo (Korean native) cattle. Methods: Three roughage materials, rice straw silage, ryegrass silage, and kenaf silage, were tested in a batch culture and feeding trial. Rumen fermentation parameters, including gas, pH, volatile fatty acid (VFA), and ammonia were analyzed. In the feeding trial, Hanwoo steers ($373.5{\pm}5.1kg$, n = 36, 11 month of age) were divided into three feeding groups (n = 12 each). Animals were fed with each silage and concentrate until the fattening stage. Results: Crude protein, ether extract, and non-structural carbohydrates were greater in kenaf silage. Total gas production was higher in ryegrass silage, followed by kenaf silage and rice straw silage (p<0.05). Total VFA and individual VFA (acetate, propionate, and n-butyrate) were greater in kenaf silage than rice straw silage (p<0.05). In vitro dry matter digestibility showed a similar trend to that of total gas and VFA production; it was higher in ryegrass silage and lower in rice straw (p<0.05). Throughout the feeding trial, the rice straw silage group showed significantly greater average daily gain than did the others (p<0.05). The feed conversion ratio in the group fed kenaf silage was significantly greater than that of others (p<0.05). No significant differences were observed in yield or quality traits, including carcass weight, ribeye area, backfat thickness, and scores for marbling, meat color, and fat color (p>0.05). Conclusion: The results indicated that no negative effects on growth performance and carcass characteristics occurred across treatments. Therefore, kenaf could be substituted for rice straw, which is most widely used as a roughage source in Korea.

Keywords

Carcass Characteristics;Growth Performance;Hanwoo;Kenaf;Roughage

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Rural Development Administration

References

  1. Danalatos NG, Archontoulis SV. Growth and biomass productivity of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus, L.) under different agricultural inputs and management practices in central Greece. Ind Crops Prod 2010;32:231-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.04.013
  2. Chantiratikul A, Chaikong C, Chinrasri O, Kangkun P. Evaluation of yield and nutritive value of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus) at various stages of maturity. Pakistan J Nutr 2009;8:1055-8. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2009.1055.1058
  3. Sgwane TS, Teleni E, Gardiner CP. Kenaf seeds as a potential supplement to sheep. In: Proceedings of Australian Rangeland Society 15th Biennial Conference. 2008 Sep 26-Oct 2: Charters Towers, QLD, Australia: Australian Rangeland Society; 2008.
  4. Rajashekher AR, Rao PV, Reddy VR. Chemical composition and nutritive value of Ambadi (Hibiscus cannabinus) meal for layers. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1993;44:151-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(93)90044-K
  5. Phillips WA, Reuter RR, Brown MA, et al. Growth and performance of lambs fed finishing diet containing either alfalfa or kenaf as the roughage source. Small Rumin Res 2002;46:75-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(02)00176-1
  6. Rude BJ, Baldwin BS, Hanson KC. Performance and nutrient utilization of steers consuming kenaf, pearl millet, or mixed grass. Prof Anim Sci 2002;18:74-8.
  7. Kim BW, Sung KI, Nejad JG, Shin JS. Nutritive value and fermentation quality of the silage of three Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinas L.) cultivars at three different growth stages. J Kor Grassl Forage Sci 2012;32:353-60. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2012.32.4.353
  8. Tilley JMA, Terry AR. A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass Forage Sci 1963;18:104-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x
  9. McDougall EI. Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochem J 1948;43:99-109. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0430099
  10. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Assoc Off Anal Chem. Arlington VA, USA: AOAC International; 1990.
  11. 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;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  12. Mamvura CI, Cho S, Mbiriri DT, Lee HG, Choi NJ. Effect of encapsulating nitrate in sesame gum on in vitro rumen fermentation parameters. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2014;27:1577-83. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2014.14280
  13. Erwin ES, Marco GJ, Emery EM. Volatile fatty acid analyses of blood and rumen fluid by gas chromatography. J Dairy Sci 1961;44:1768-71. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(61)89956-6
  14. Chaney AL, Marbach EP. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clin Chem 1962;8:130-2.
  15. Moore JE. Procedure for the two-stage in vitro digestion of forage. In: Harris LE, editor. Nutrition research techniques for domestic and wild animals, Vol. 1. Logan, UT, USA: Utah State University; 1970.
  16. Buxton DR, Redfearn DD. Plant limitations to fiber digestion and utilization. J Nutr 1997;127:814S-8S. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/127.5.814S
  17. Baumont R, Prache S, Meuret M, Morand-Fehr P. How forage characteristics influence behavior and intake in small ruminant: a review. Livest Prod Sci 2000;64:15-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00172-X
  18. Han KJ, Albrecht KA, Muck RE, Kim DA. Moisture effect on fermentation characteristics of cup-plant silage. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2000;13:636-40. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2000.636
  19. Kim DH, Amanullah SM, Lee HJ, et al. Effects of different cutting height on nutritional quality of whole crop barley silage and feed value on Hanwoo Heifers. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2016;29:1265-72. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.16.0099
  20. Kang CH, Yoo YJ, Choi KH, et al. Analysis of ecotype, growth and development, yield and feed value of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) genetic resources. Korean J Plant Res 2014;27:556-66. https://doi.org/10.7732/kjpr.2014.27.5.556
  21. Han SE, Sung KI, Kim BW. Changes of dry matter yield and nutritive value of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabis L.) cultivars on different harvest dates in Chunchon area. Ann Anim Resour Sci 2017;28:122-33. https://doi.org/10.12718/AARS.2017.28.3.122
  22. Firdous R, Gilani AH. Effect of stage of growth and cultivar on chemical compostion of whole maize plant and its morphological fractions. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 1999;12:366-70. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.1999.366
  23. Xie ZL, Zhang TF, Chen XZ, Li GD, Zhang JG. Effects of maturity stage on the nutritive composition and silage quality of whole crop wheat. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2012;25:1374-80. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12084
  24. Bowman JGP, Sowell BF, Surber LMM, Daniels TK. Nonstructural carbohydrate supplementation of yearling heifers and range beef cows. J Anim Sci 2004;82:2724-33. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.8292724x
  25. Tan ZL, Lu DX, Hu M, et al. Effect of dietary structural to nonstructural carbohydrate ratio on rumen degradability and digestibility of fiber fractions of wheat straw in sheep. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2002;15:1591-8. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2002.1591
  26. Phillips WA, Rao S, Tungeln DLV, Fitch GQ. Digestibility of freshly harvested, ensiled, and mature kenaf by sheep. Prof Anim Sci 1996;12:99-104.
  27. Cho SB, Lee SM, Kim EJ. Effect of different forages on growth performance, meat production and meat quality of Hanwoo steers: Meta-analysis. J Kor Grassl Forage Sci 2012;32:175-84. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2012.32.2.175