نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری تغذیه دام گروه علوم دامی، دانشگاه بیرجند، ایران
2 استاد، گروه علوم دامی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بیرجند، ایران.
3 استاد،گروه علوم دامی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بیرجند، ایران.
4 استادیار،گروه علوم دامی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه بیرجند، ایران.
چکیده
در این پژوهش، ارزش غذایی گونه‌های مرتعی مورد چرای شتر از چهار گونه خارشتر، زردتاغ، اشنان و سرخ‌گز در سه مرحله فنولوژیکی رویشی، گلدهی و بذردهی مراتع شهرستان بیرجند ارزیابی شد. از گونه‌های مذکور در مراحل مختلف رشد به صورت تصادفی نمونه برداری و ترکیب شیمیایی آن‌ها اندازه گیری شد. گوارش پذیری شکمبه‌ای ماده خشک با استفاده از یک شتر فیستوله گذاری شده بررسی شد. میزان پروتئین خام خارشتر و اشنان بالاتر از سایر گونه‌ها بود و پایین‌ترین میزان الیاف نامحلول در شوینده خنثی، الیاف نامحلول در شویند اسیدی و تانن در اشنان مشاهده شد (p <0/05). بخش کند تجزیه، ثابت نرخ تجزیه و تجزیه پذیری موثر ماده خشک اشنان بالاتر از سایر گونه ها بود(p <0/05). اشنان با بالاتر بودن پروتئین خام و تجزیه پذیری موثر ماده خشک و پایین تر بودن الیاف نامحلول در شوینده خنثی و اسیدی نسبت به سایر گونه ها با ارزش تر بوده و جایگزین یونجه در سه سطح صفر، 50 و 100 درصد در جیره شترهای شیریشد. تغذیه اشنان سبب ایجاد تفاوت معنی دار در عملکرد تولید و ترکیب شیمیایی شیر نشد. مصرف ماده خشک با افزایش سطح جایگزینی اشنان کاهش ولی مقدار پروتئین و نیتروژن اوره ای شیر افزایش یافت(p <0/05). با توجه به نتایج این آزمایش جایگزینی یونجه با گونه مرتعی اشنان در تغذیه شترهای شیری با حفظ عملکرد تولیدی دام منجر به کاهش هزینه تغذیه شتر و اقتصادی تر شدن پرورش این دام با ارزش می شود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Evaluation of camel rangeland plants in south Khorasan & investigation the effect of substitution of alfalfa hay by Seidlitzia rosmarinus on performance of dairy camels
نویسندگان [English]
- Seyyed Ahmad Hosseini 1
- Mohammad Hassan Fathi Nasri 2
- Homayoon farhangfar 3
- masood didarkhah 4
1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Animal Science, University of Birjand, Iran
2 Department of Animal Science- Univesrsity of Birjand
3 Professor, Department of Animal Science, University of Birjand, Iran
4 Assistant professor
چکیده [English]
In this study, the nutritional value of four camel rangeland plants, including Alhaghi Sp (AS), Haloxylon persicum (HP), Seidlitzia rosmarinous (SR) and Tamarix Gallica (TG) in different phenological growth stages including vegetating, flowering and seeding were evaluated. Rangeland species were randomly sampled and their chemical composition were measured. Rumen digestibility of dry matter was assessed using a fistulated camel. The results showed that the amount of crude protein of AS and SR was higher than that of other species, Also, the lowest levels of natural detergent fibers, acid detergent fibers and tannins were observed in SR (P <0/05). Slowly degradable fraction, degradation rate and effective degradability of SR was significantly higher than other species (P <0/05). Results of this study showed that SR was better than other rangeland species due to its high crude protein content and lower acid detergent fiber and phenolic compounds, so it was used instead of alfalfa at three levels of zero, 50 and %100 in camel’s diet. Feeding SR did not affect milk yield and its components including fat, lactose and total solids. Dry matter intake of dairy camels decreased with increasing of SR in diet, but milk protein and urea nitrogen increased (P <0/05). The results of this study indicated that replacement of alfalfa hay with SR in feeding dairy camels while maintaining camel production performance, reduce the cost of feeding camel and made it more economical to rear this valuable livestock.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Camel
- Milk yield and composition
- Nutritional value
- Rangelands plants
- Seidlitzia rosmarinous
and Sohrabi H (2010) Relative palatability of
plant species for camels in the desert areas of
southwest Birjand. Rangeland Scientific
Journal, 3: 448-443. (In Persian).
2. Ahmadi E and Sangdel E (2011) Evaluation of
nutritional value of saline species in Zandi sheep
grazing diet in Abbas Abad desert rangelands of
Qom. Journal of Range and Watershed
Management, 63(3): 277-285. (In Persian)
3. Al Haj O and Al Kanhal H (2010)
Compositional, technological and nutritional
aspects of dromedary camel milk. International
Dairy Journal, 20 (12): 811-821.
4. Al-Jaloud A and Al-Saiady A (2001) Some
halophyte plants of Saudi Arabia their
composition and relation to soil properties.
Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 5:
531- 534
5. Al-saiady M, Mogawer H, Faye B, Al-mutairi
sT Bengoumi M, Musad A and Gar-elnabi A
(2012) Some factors affecting dairy she-camel
performance. Emirates Journal of Food and
Agriculture, 85-91.
6. AOAC (1997) Official Methods of Analysis.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
Arlington, VA.
7. Arzani H (2010). Forage quality and daily
requirement of livestock in pasture. University
of Tehran Publications. 1: 354. (In Persian)
(2006) Nutritive value of some Zagros
mountain rangeland species. Journal of Small
Ruminant Research, 65: 128-135.
9. Aslani MR, Movassaghi AR, Najarnezhad V,
Pirouz HJ and Bami MH (2011) Acute oxalate
intoxication associated to ingestion of eshnan
(Seidlitzia rosmarinus) in sheep. Tropical Animal
Health and Production, 43(6): 1065-1068.
10. Barbano D, Melilli C, Overton T, Woolpert M,
Dann H and Grant R (2015) New milk mid-
FTIR metrics for dairy cattlre management.
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. W. H. Miner
Agricultural institute, Chazy, NY.
11. Bashtini J (2008) Effect of pruning of Alhaghi
herb on sheep and goat yield. Final Research
Project Report. Khorasan Razavi Agricultural
and Natural Resources Research Center. (In
Persian)
12. Dadvar P, Mohammadabadi T, Sari M and
Fayazi J (2019) Investigation of rumen
fermentation parameters and some blood
metabolites of dromedary camels fed with
C3 and C4 forages. Veterinary Research
Forum, 10(3): 241-248.
13. Dereje M and Uden P (2005) The browsing
dromedary camel behaviour, plant preference and
quality of forage selected. Journal of Animal
Feed Science and Technology,121(3-4): 297-308.
14. FAO (2008) Camel milk. Retrieved from.
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/dairy/c
amel.html.
15. Farah Z (1996) Composition and characteristics
of camel milk. Review article. Journal of Dairy
Research, 60: 603-626.
16. Khodaye S (2008) Camel Conservation
Principles. First Edition. Danesh Negar
Publications. (In Persian)
17. Macdonald A and Grinhal M (2000) Animal
Nutrition. Translation by Siavashi R,
Janmohammadi. Tabriz Publications.
18. Makkar HPS (2000) Quantification of Tannins
in Tree Foliage. A Laboratory Manual for the
FAO/IAEA Co-ordinated Research Project on
Use of Nuclear and Related techiquea to
Develop Simple Tannin Assaysfor Predicting
and Improving the safety and Efficiency of
Feeding Ruminants on Tanniniferous Tree
Foliage.Joint FAO/IAEA, FAO/IAEA of
Nuclear Techniques in Food and
Agriculture.Animal Production and Health
Sub-program, FAO/IAEA Working Document.
IAEA, Vienna, Austria.
19. Mostafa TH, El-Malky OM, Abd El-Salaam AM
and Nabih AM (2017) Some Studies on Milk
Production and its Composition In Maghrebi
She-Camel Under Farming And Traditional
Pastoral Systems In Egypt International Journal
of Horticulture & Agriculture.
20. Safaian N and Shikari M (1997) Research report
on the role of phenology in palatability and
nutritional value of Mazandaran Rangeland
Plants. Faculty of Natural Resources,
Mazandaran University. (In Persian)
21. Shehab-El-Deen M, Al-Dobaib N and Al-
Sobayil K (2020) Metabolic Changes in the
Blood of Dromedary Camel at Early Postpartum.
Published by Canadian Center of
Science and Education. Journal of Agricultural
Science, 12(1).
22. Van Soest PV, Robertson J and Lewis B
(1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral
detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides
in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy
Science, 74: 3583-3597.
23. Yousef Elahi M, Piravi M, Mirzaei H and
Chashnidel Y (2015) Determination of
nutritional value of five saline species of Sistan
plain using nylon bag and gas production
techniques. Animal Production Research, 5(9):
51-68. (In Persian).
)