Velázquez-Martínez M, López-Ortiz S, Hernández-Mendo O, Gallegos SJ

Language: Spanish
References: 8
Page: 24-29
PDF size: 241.95 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The aim was to determine the chemical-nutritional characteristics of 34 herbaceous, woody and semi-ligneous species, which were grazed by heifers on a site with native species diversity. The study was conducted in northern Veracruz State, and used 12 heifers Bos taurus x Bos indicus. We used the method of counting bits to determine the botanical composition of the diet. About 75% of the herbaceous, shrubs/subshrubs, and trees vegetation had 17%, 22% and 17% crude protein, respectively. Herbaceous species had lower neutral detergent fiber (34.0 ± 7.4%) and acid detergent fiber (25.8 ± 5.0%), that shrubs/subshrubs, and trees species. Generally speaking, IVDMD ranged from 21 to 71%, however the herbaceous species on average had higher IVDMD at 72 hours (58.3 ± 12.7%). It was concluded, that most species of herbaceous and shrubs/subshrubs, and trees in this study, have higher nutritional quality than those conventional traditional forages, and therefore, they could be an excellent alternative for feeding animals in tropical areas.

REFERENCES

1. AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis of the association of official analytical chemist. Vol 1.15th ed. Asso. Offic. Anal. Chem. Washington, D.C. 69-88 pp.

2. CARRANZA-MONTAÑO, M.A., Sánchez-Velásquez, L.R., Pineda-López, M.R., Cuevas-Guzmán, R. 2003. Calidad y potencial forrajero de especies del bosque tropical caducifolio de la sierra de Manantlán, México. Agrociencia 37:203-210.

3. GARCÍA, E. 1988. Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Köppen (para adaptarlo a las condiciones de la República Mexicana). 4ª ed. México D.F. pp 217.

4. LACA, E. A., Distel, R.A., Griggs, T.C., Demments, M.W. 1994. Effects of canopy structure on patch depression by grazers. Ecology. 75: 706-716.

5. NRC, 2000. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition: Update 2000. National Academies Press at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9791.html.

6. SANDERS, K. D., Dahl, B. E., and Scott, G. 1980. Bite-Count versus fecal analysis for range animal diets. J. Range Manage. 33:146-149.

7. SAS/STAT. 2004. SAS systems for windows. Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Campus Drive, Cary, North Carolina 27513.

8. SOSA, R.E.E., Pérez R.D., Ortega R.L., Zapata B.G. 2004. Evaluación del potencial forrajero de árboles y arbustos tropicales para alimentación de ovinos. Téc Pecu Méx; 42(2), 129-144.