Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T16:29:40.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Divergence in nutrient concentration, in vitro degradation and gas production potential of spineless cactus genotypes selected for insect resistance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2018

R. D. Santos Open the ORCID record for R. D. Santos [Opens in a new window] ,
A. L. A. Neves ,
D. C. Santos ,
L. G. R. Pereira ,
L. C. Gonçalves ,
A. L. Ferreira ,
C. T. F. Costa ,
G. G. L. Araujo ,
C. B. Scherer  and
L. E. Sollenberger
R. D. Santos*
Affiliation:
Embrapa Semi-Arid, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), Petrolina, Pernambuco, Brazil
A. L. A. Neves
Affiliation:
Embrapa Dairy Cattle, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
D. C. Santos
Affiliation:
Agronomic Institute of Pernambuco (IPA), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
L. G. R. Pereira
Affiliation:
Embrapa Dairy Cattle, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
L. C. Gonçalves
Affiliation:
Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
A. L. Ferreira
Affiliation:
Embrapa Dairy Cattle, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
C. T. F. Costa
Affiliation:
Federal Institute of Sertao Pernambucano, Floresta, Pernambuco, Brazil
G. G. L. Araujo
Affiliation:
Embrapa Semi-Arid, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), Petrolina, Pernambuco, Brazil
C. B. Scherer
Affiliation:
Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
L. E. Sollenberger
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
*
Author for correspondence: R. D. Santos, E-mail: rafael.dantas@embrapa.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Forage cactus is an important dry-season feed source for livestock in semi-arid regions, but in north-eastern Brazil, its contribution is limited by susceptibility to the carmine cochineal [Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell)] insect. New cactus germplasm shows superior agronomic performance, but the nutritive value of this material has not been adequately described. The objective of the current study was to assess the divergence in chemical composition and rate and extent of in vitro degradation of these genotypes. The treatments were 13 spineless cactus genotypes, eight of which were insect resistant types, two semi-resistant and three susceptible to the carmine cochineal. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design and were replicated three times. Nutritional divergence was assessed using canonical variate analysis and hierarchical agglomerative clustering, using the variables: crude protein, total and non-fibrous carbohydrates, degradation rate and potential dry matter degradation. Five distinct nutritional groups were identified: Group I (OO), Group II (F-13 and F-15), Group III (OEA, OEM, COP, IPA 20 and GG), Group IV (V-16 and F-08) and Group V (Miuda, IS and F-21). Group II (F-13 and F-15; resistant genotypes) showed a chemical composition degradability in vitro suggesting it may have the greatest nutritive value as ruminant feed, while Group I had the least. Spineless cactus genotypes resistant to the carmine cochineal showed nutritional characteristics similar to or better than traditionally used cactus genotypes, such as Gigante and IPA 20, which can expand the range of options for using this forage.

Keywords

dry landsforage cropmultivariate analysissemi-aridsupplementation
Type
Animal Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 156 , Issue 3 , April 2018 , pp. 450 - 456
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abidi, S, et al. (2009) Ruminal fermentation of spiny (Opuntia amyclae) and spineless (Opuntia ficus indica f. inermis) cactus cladodes and diets including cactus. Animal Feed Science Technology 149, 333–340.Google Scholar
Agrawal, AA and Heil, M (2012) Synthesizing specificity: multiple approaches to understanding the attack and defense of plants. Trends in Plant Science 17, 239–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Almeida, AA, et al. (2011) Problemas fitossanitários causados pela cochonilha do carmim a palma forrageira no cariri ocidental paraíbano. Revista Verde de Agroecologia e Desenvolvimento Sustentável 6, 98–108.Google Scholar
AOAC (2005) Official Methods of Analysis. Arlington, VA, USA: AOAC.Google Scholar
Ayadi, MA, et al. (2009) Cladodes from Opuntia ficus indica as a source of dietary fiber: effect on dough characteristics and cake making. Industrial Crops and Products 30, 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batista, AM, et al. (2003 a) Effects of variety on chemical composition, in situ nutrient disappearance and in vitro gas production of spineless cacti. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 83, 440–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batista, AMV, et al. (2003 b) Chemical composition and ruminal dry matter and crude protein degradability of spineless cactus. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 189, 123–126.Google Scholar
Ben Salem, H (2010) Nutritional management to improve sheep and goat performances in semiarid regions. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 39(Supp), 337–347.Google Scholar
Ben Salem, H, Nefzaoui, A and Ben Salem, L (2002) Supplementing spineless cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica f. inermis) based diets with urea-treated straw or oldman saltbush (Atriplex nummularia) effects on intake, digestion and sheep growth. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 138, 85–92.Google Scholar
Conrad, HR, Pratt, AD and Hibbs, JW (1964) Regulation of feed intake in dairy cows. I. Change in importance of physical and physiological factors with increasing digestibility. Journal of Dairy Science 47, 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, RG, et al. (2013) Feeding behavior and performance of sheep fed cactus pear in substitution of corn. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 42, 785–791.Google Scholar
de Vasconcelos, AGV, et al. (2009) Seleção de clones de palma forrageira resistentes à cochonilha-do-carmim (Dactylopius sp). Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 38, 827–831.Google Scholar
Dubeux, JCB, et al. (2006) Productivity of Opuntia ficus indica (L.) miller under different N and P fertilization and plant population in north-east Brazil. Journal of Arid Environments 67, 357–372.Google Scholar
Gebremariam, T, Melaku, S and Yami, A (2006) Effect of different levels of cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica) inclusion on feed intake, digestibility and body weight gain in tef (Eragrostis tef) straw-based feeding of sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 131, 43–52.Google Scholar
Guevara, JC, Suassuna, P and Felker, P (2009) Opuntia forage production systems: status and prospects for rangeland application. Rangeland Ecology and Management 62, 428–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kottek, M, et al. (2006) World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 15, 259–263.Google Scholar
Luz, YS, et al. (2014) In vitro ruminal fermentation kinetic of diets containing forage cactus with urea and different starch sources. Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina 35, 1501–1514.Google Scholar
Mauricio, RM, et al. (1999) A semi-automated in vitro gas production technique for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 79, 321–330.Google Scholar
MINITAB (2013) Minitab User's Guide. Harrisburg, PA, USA: Minitab Inc.Google Scholar
Misra, AK, et al. (2006) Intake, digestion and microbial protein synthesis in sheep on hay supplemented with prickly pear cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill.) with or without groundnut meal. Small Ruminant Research 63, 125–134.Google Scholar
Mondragón-Jacobo, C and Pérez-González, S (2002) Cactus (Opuntia spp.) as Forage. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 169. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Nefzaoui, A and Ben Salem, H (2002) Opuntia spp.- a strategic fodder and efficient tool to combact desertification in the Wana region. In Mondragón-Jacobo, C and Pérez-González, S (eds), Cactus (Optunia spp.) as Forage, FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 169. Rome, Italy: FAO, pp. 73–89.Google Scholar
Nobel, PS (2002) Ecophysiology of Opuntia ficus-indica. In Mondragón-Jacobo, C and Pérez-González, S (eds), Cactus (Optunia spp.) as Forage. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 169. Rome, Italy: FAO, pp. 13–20.Google Scholar
Pereira, LGR, et al. (2009) Relationship between volume and pressure for installation of the semi-automated in vitro gas production technique for semi-arid feeds evaluation. In Jobim, CC and Scapinello, C (eds). Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Brazilian Society of Animal Science. Maringá, Santa Catarina, Brazil: Brazilian Society of Animal Science, pp. 305–308.Google Scholar
Pinos-Rodríguez, JM, et al. (2010) Effects of cladode age on biomass yield and nutritional value of intensively produced spineless cactus for ruminants. South African Journal of Animal Science 40, 245–250.Google Scholar
Rocha, JES (2012) Palma Forrageira no Nordeste do Brasil: o Estado da Arte. Embrapa. Documents Series, 106. Sobral, Brazil: Embrapa.Google Scholar
Santos, DC and Albuquerque, SG (2002) Opuntia as fodder in the semi-arid northeast Brazil. In Mondragón-Jacobo, C and Pérez-González, S (eds), Cactus (Optunia spp.) as Forage. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 169. Rome, Italy: FAO, pp. 37–50.Google Scholar
Santos, HG, et al. (2013) Sistema Brasileiro de Classificação de Solos. Brasília, DF, Brazil: Embrapa.Google Scholar
SAS Inc. (2013) SAS® User's Guide: Statistics, Version 9.1 Edition. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Inc.Google Scholar
Schofield, P, Pitt, RE and Pell, AN (1994) Kinetics of fiber digestion from in vitro gas production. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2980–2991.Google Scholar
Silva, CD, et al. (2013) Dactylopius opuntiae: impactos causados e métodos alternativos utilizados em Opuntia ficus-indica no município de Santo André-PB. Scire 2, 1–13.Google Scholar
Silva, DMP, et al. (2009) Resistance of in vitro grown forage cactus clones to Dactylopius opuntiae (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae). Acta Horticulturae 811, 299–302.Google Scholar
Snedecor, GW and Cochran, WG (1989) Statistical Methods, 8th Edn. Ames, IA, USA: The Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Sniffen, CJ, et al. (1992) A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3562–3577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tegegne, F, Kijora, C and Peters, KJ (2007) Study on the optimal level of cactus pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) supplementation to sheep and its contribution as source of water. Small Ruminant Research 72, 157–164.Google Scholar
Tilley, JMA and Terry, RA (1963) A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass and Forage Science 18, 104–111.Google Scholar
Tosto, MSL, et al. (2015) In vitro rumen fermentation kinetics of diets containing oldman saltbush hay and forage cactus, using a cattle inoculum. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinaria e Zootecnia 67, 149–158.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warumby, JF, et al. (2005) Pragas da palma. In Menezes, RSC, Simões, DA and Sampaio, EVSB (eds), A Palma no Nordeste do Brasil: Conhecimento Atual e Novas Perspectivas de Uso. Recife, Brazil: UFPE, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar