medigraphic.com

2008, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Vet Mex 2008; 39 (2)

Fodder trees and shrubs of the north-tzotzil region of Chiapas, Mexico

Jiménez-Ferrer G, López-Carmona M, Nahed-Toral J, Ochoa-Gaona S, Jong B

Language: English/Spanish
References: 81
Page: 199-2213
PDF size: 305.00 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Trees and shrubs have been recognized as a strategic resource to improve cattle systems. The objective of the present study was to identify woody species with fodder potential for the cattle systems in the northern mountains region of Chiapas, Mexico, incorporating the farmers’ perceptions, chemical-nutritional analysis, and in vitro and in situ digestibility assays of the foliage. Through participatory workshops, the farmers recognized 60 useful woody species within the grazing areas. Of these, 18 are consumed by the cattle and they have multiple uses. Based on the perception and qualifi cation of the farmers, the most promising fodder trees with the potential to be incorporated in a silvopastoral system were identified: Pithecellobium dulce, Guazuma ulmifolia, Leucaena leucocephala, Leucaena esculenta, Gliricidia sepium, Saurauia scabrida, Chromolaena sp, Erythrina chiapasana, Acacia pennatula, Acacia angustissima, Eysenhardtia adenostylis, Calliandra houstoniana and Mimosa albida. Samples of tree foliage from two seasons of the year and from different grazing areas were collected, chemical composition and in vitro digestibility parameters of the foliage of these trees differed signifi cantly between the wet and dry season. By means of a digestibility in situ assay with bovines, foliage of: Acacia angusstisima, Acacia pennatula, Eysenhardtia adenostylis, Chromolaena sp, and Saurauia scabrida was evaluated and it was shown that among them there is a high variation in the potential of degradation, rate of degradation and effective degradability of the dry matter. Four species are promising for the tropical part of the region (Pithecellobium dulce, Guazuma ulmifolia, Leucaena leucocephala and L. esculenta), two for the temperate zone (Saurauia scabrida and Chromolaena sp) and three that can be used in a large altitudinal range (Erythrina chiapasana, Acacia angustissima and Eysenhardtia adenostylis).


REFERENCES

  1. 1.Sinclair FL, Walker DH. A utilitarian approach to

  2. the incorporation of local knowledge in agroforestry

  3. research and extension. In: Buck LE, Lassoie JP, Fernandes

  4. EC, editors. Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural

  5. Systems. New York: Lewis Publishers, 1999:

  6. 245-275.

  7. 2.Mosquera-Losada MR, McAdam C, Rigueiro AR. Silvopastorlism

  8. and sustainable land management, Lugo

  9. (Spain): CAB Int, 2005.

  10. 3.Parra VM, Díaz B, Los Altos de Chiapas: Agricultura y

  11. Crisis Rural. Tomo 1. Los Recursos Naturales. San Cristóbal

  12. de Las Casas, Chiapas, México: El Colegio de la

  13. Frontera Sur, 1997.

  14. 4.López CM, Jiménez-Ferrer G, De Jong B, Ochoa S,

  15. Nahed TJ. El sistema ganadero de montaña en la

  16. Región norte-tzotzil de Chiapas, México. Vet Méx 2001;

  17. 32: 93-102.

  18. 5.Murgueitio E. Silvopastoral systems in the Neotropics.In: Mosquera MR, McAdam J, Rigueiro-Rodriguez A,editors. International Silvopastoral and Sustainable Land Management, Lugo (Spain): CAB Int, 2005: 24-29.

  19. 6.Le Houérou HN. Chemical composition and nutritive value of browse in West Africa. In: Le Houérou HN, editor. Browse in Africa. Addis Ababa (Etiopía): ILCA, 1980:261-90.

  20. 7.Thapa B, Walker DH, Sinclair FL. Indigenous knowledge of the feeding value of tree fodder. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1997; 67: 97-114.

  21. 8.Roothaert RL, Franzel S. Farmers’ preferences and use of local fodder trees and shrubs in Kenya. Agroforestry Syst 2001; 52:239-252.

  22. 9.Nahed JT, Villafuerte L, Grande D, Perez-Gil, RF,Aleman TS, Carmona J. Fodder shrub and tree species in the Highlands of Southern Mexico. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1997; 68: 213-223.

  23. 10.Soto-Pinto ML. Plantas útiles de cuatro comunidades de Chiapas: perspectivas en el uso sostenible de la tierra. Fitotecnia Mex 1990; 13:149-168.

  24. 11.Nahed TJ, Sanchez A, Grande D, Perez-Gil F. Evaluation of promissory tree species for sheep feeding in The Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1998; 73: 59-69.

  25. 12.Steep RS. Mountain ethnobiology and development in highland Chiapas, Mexico. Mountain Res Dev 2002; 20 (3): 218-219.

  26. 13.Toledo VM, Batiz A, Becerra R, Martínez E, Ramos HC.La selva útil: Etnobotánica cuantitativa de los grupos indígenas del trópico húmedo de México. Interciencia 1995: 20:177-187.

  27. 14.Camacho D, Nahed J, Ochoa S, Jimenez G, Soto L,Grande D et al. Traditional knowledge and fodder potential of the genus Buddleia in the Highland of Chiapas, Mexico. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1999; 80:123-134.

  28. 15.Guillén J, Jiménez-Ferrer G, Nahed TJ, Soto-Pinto L.Ganadería indígena en el norte de Chiapas, En: Hernández L, editor. Historia ambiental de la ganadería en México. Xalapa, Ver: Instituto de Ecología AC, 2001, 276 p.

  29. 16.López-Merlín D, Soto-Pinto L, Jiménez-Ferrer G,Hernández-Daumás S. Relaciones alométricas para la predicción de biomasa forrajera y leña de Acacia penatula y Guazuma ulmifolia en dos comunidades del Norte de Chiapas, México. Interciencia 2003; 28: 334-339.

  30. 17.Jiménez-Ferrer G. Árboles y arbustos con potencial forrajero en el Norte de Chiapas México (tesis doctoral). Mérida (Yucatán) México: Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, 2000. Breedlove DE. Introduction to the Flora of Chiapas.

  31. 18.San Francisco (California): Academy of Science, 1981.

  32. 19.Grupo de Estudios Ambientales. Evaluación Rural Participativa: Una Propuesta Metodológica. México (DF):WRI/GEA, A.C., 1993.

  33. 20.International Institute for Environmental and Development.Rapid Rural Appraisal. Special Issue on livestock.RRA Notes 20. London (UK): IIED, 1994.

  34. 21.Offi cial Methods of Analysis of the Association of Offi -cial Analytical Chemist. 15th ed. Washington, D.C,(USA): AOAC, 1990.

  35. 22.Van Soest, PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fi ber, neutral detergent fi ber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74: 3583-3597.

  36. 23.Orskov ER, McDonald I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighed according to rate of passage. J Agric Sci 1979;92:449-503.

  37. 24.Rowett Research Institute. Software for Feeds Ruminal Degradation. version 2000. Aberdeen (UK): RRI, 1995.

  38. 25.SAS Institute. SAS/STAT, Cary (NC) USA: SAS Institute Inc, 1990.

  39. 26.Borel R. Aspectos críticos de las metodologías de evaluación nutritiva de árboles y arbustos forrajeros. En:Ruiz M y Ruiz, editores. Nutrición de rumiantes: Guía metodológica de investigación, San José (Costa Rica): IICA-RISPAL, 1990: 21-30.

  40. 27.Flores OI, Bolívar DM, Botero JA, Ibrahim MA. Parámetros nutricionales de algunas arbóreas leguminosas y no leguminosas con potencial forrajero para la suplementación de rumiantes en el trópico. Livest Res Rural Dev. 1998;10: 1-10.

  41. 28.Norton B. The nutritive value of tree legumes. In: Gutteridge C, Shelton H, editors. Forage Tree Legumes in Tropical Agriculture. Queensland (Australia): CAB Int, 1994:177-192.

  42. 29.Ramirez RG, Garcia CG. Nutrient profi le and in situ digestion of forage from Leucaena leucocephala and Acacia berlandieri. Forest, Farm, and Community Tree Research Reports, Arkansas (USA): Winrock, International 1996: 27-31.

  43. 30.Ku-Vera J. Nutritive value of trees and shrubs for ruminants. In: Mosquera MR, McAdam J, Rigueiro-Rodriguez A, editors. International Silvopastoral and Sustainable Land Management, Lugo (Spain): CAB Int,2005: 83-86.

  44. 31.Kaitho RJ, Umunna NN, Nsahlai IV, Tamminga S,Bruchem JV, Hanson J et al. Palatability of multipurpose tree species: effect of species and length of study on intake and relative palatability by sheep. Agroforestry Syst 1996;33: 249-261.

  45. 32.Odenyo AA, Osuji PO, Reed JD, Smith AH, Mackie RI,McSweeney CS et al. Acacia angustissima: Its anti-nutrients constituents, toxicity and possible mechanisms to alleviate the toxicity – a short review. Agroforestry Syst 2003; 59:141-147.

  46. 33.Chambers R. Methods for Analysis by Farmers: The professional Challenge. Farming Syst Res-Extension 1993; 4:88-101.

  47. 34.Witcombe JR, Joshi KD, Sthapit BR. Farmer participatory crop improvement. Exp Agric 1996;32: 453-468.

  48. Sinclair FL, Walker DH. A utilitarian approach to the incorporation of local knowledge in agroforestry research and extension. In: Buck LE, Lassoie JP, Fernandes EC, editors. Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems. New York: Lewis Publishers, 1999: 245-275.

  49. Mosquera-Losada MR, McAdam C, Rigueiro AR. Silvopastorlism and sustainable land management, Lugo (Spain): CAB Int, 2005.

  50. Parra VM, Díaz B, Los Altos de Chiapas: Agricultura y Crisis Rural. Tomo 1. Los Recursos Naturales. San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, México: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, 1997.

  51. López CM, Jiménez-Ferrer G, De Jong B, Ochoa S, Nahed TJ. El sistema ganadero de montaña en la Región norte-tzotzil de Chiapas, México. Vet Méx 2001; 32: 93-102.

  52. Murgueitio E. Silvopastoral systems in the Neotropics.In: Mosquera MR, McAdam J, Rigueiro-Rodriguez A,editors. International Silvopastoral and Sustainable Land Management, Lugo (Spain): CAB Int, 2005: 24-29.

  53. Le Houérou HN. Chemical composition and nutritive value of browse in West Africa. In: Le Houérou HN, editor. Browse in Africa. Addis Ababa (Etiopía): ILCA, 1980:261-90.

  54. Thapa B, Walker DH, Sinclair FL. Indigenous knowledge of the feeding value of tree fodder. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1997; 67: 97-114.

  55. Roothaert RL, Franzel S. Farmers’ preferences and use of local fodder trees and shrubs in Kenya. Agroforestry Syst 2001; 52:239-252.

  56. Nahed JT, Villafuerte L, Grande D, Perez-Gil, RF,Aleman TS, Carmona J. Fodder shrub and tree species in the Highlands of Southern Mexico. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1997; 68: 213-223.

  57. Soto-Pinto ML. Plantas útiles de cuatro comunidades de Chiapas: perspectivas en el uso sostenible de la tierra. Fitotecnia Mex 1990; 13:149-168.

  58. Nahed TJ, Sanchez A, Grande D, Perez-Gil F. Evaluation of promissory tree species for sheep feeding in The Highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1998; 73: 59-69.

  59. Steep RS. Mountain ethnobiology and development in highland Chiapas, Mexico. Mountain Res Dev 2002; 20 (3): 218-219.

  60. Toledo VM, Batiz A, Becerra R, Martínez E, Ramos HC.La selva útil: Etnobotánica cuantitativa de los grupos indígenas del trópico húmedo de México. Interciencia 1995: 20:177-187.

  61. Camacho D, Nahed J, Ochoa S, Jimenez G, Soto L,Grande D et al. Traditional knowledge and fodder potential of the genus Buddleia in the Highland of Chiapas, Mexico. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1999; 80:123-134.

  62. Guillén J, Jiménez-Ferrer G, Nahed TJ, Soto-Pinto L.Ganadería indígena en el norte de Chiapas, En: Hernández L, editor. Historia ambiental de la ganadería en México. Xalapa, Ver: Instituto de Ecología AC, 2001, 276 p.

  63. López-Merlín D, Soto-Pinto L, Jiménez-Ferrer G,Hernández-Daumás S. Relaciones alométricas para la predicción de biomasa forrajera y leña de Acacia penatula y Guazuma ulmifolia en dos comunidades del Norte de Chiapas, México. Interciencia 2003; 28: 334-339.

  64. Jiménez-Ferrer G. Árboles y arbustos con potencial forrajero en el Norte de Chiapas México (tesis doctoral). Mérida (Yucatán) México: Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, 2000. Breedlove DE. Introduction to the Flora of Chiapas.

  65. San Francisco (California): Academy of Science, 1981.

  66. Grupo de Estudios Ambientales. Evaluación Rural Participativa: Una Propuesta Metodológica. México (DF):WRI/GEA, A.C., 1993.

  67. International Institute for Environmental and Development. Rapid Rural Appraisal. Special Issue on livestock.RRA Notes 20. London (UK): IIED, 1994.

  68. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemist. 15th ed. Washington, D.C,(USA): AOAC, 1990.

  69. Van Soest, PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fi ber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74: 3583-3597.

  70. Orskov ER, McDonald I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighed according to rate of passage. J Agric Sci 1979;92:449-503.

  71. Rowett Research Institute. Software for Feeds Ruminal Degradation. version 2000. Aberdeen (UK): RRI, 1995.

  72. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT, Cary (NC) USA: SAS Institute Inc, 1990.

  73. Borel R. Aspectos críticos de las metodologías de evaluación nutritiva de árboles y arbustos forrajeros. En:Ruiz M y Ruiz, editores. Nutrición de rumiantes: Guía metodológica de investigación, San José (Costa Rica): IICA-RISPAL, 1990: 21-30.

  74. Flores OI, Bolívar DM, Botero JA, Ibrahim MA. Parámetros nutricionales de algunas arbóreas leguminosas y no leguminosas con potencial forrajero para la suplementación de rumiantes en el trópico. Livest Res Rural Dev. 1998;10: 1-10.

  75. Norton B. The nutritive value of tree legumes. In: Gutteridge C, Shelton H, editors. Forage Tree Legumes in Tropical Agriculture. Queensland (Australia): CAB Int, 1994:177-192.

  76. Ramirez RG, Garcia CG. Nutrient profile and in situ digestion of forage from Leucaena leucocephala and Acacia berlandieri. Forest, Farm, and Community Tree Research Reports, Arkansas (USA): Winrock, International 1996: 27-31.

  77. Ku-Vera J. Nutritive value of trees and shrubs for ruminants. In: Mosquera MR, McAdam J, Rigueiro-Rodriguez A, editors. International Silvopastoral and Sustainable Land Management, Lugo (Spain): CAB Int,2005: 83-86.

  78. Kaitho RJ, Umunna NN, Nsahlai IV, Tamminga S,Bruchem JV, Hanson J et al. Palatability of multipurpose tree species: effect of species and length of study on intake and relative palatability by sheep. Agroforestry Syst 1996;33: 249-261.

  79. Odenyo AA, Osuji PO, Reed JD, Smith AH, Mackie RI,McSweeney CS et al. Acacia angustissima: Its anti-nutrients constituents, toxicity and possible mechanisms to alleviate the toxicity – a short review. Agroforestry Syst 2003; 59:141-147.

  80. Chambers R. Methods for Analysis by Farmers: The professional Challenge. Farming Syst Res-Extension 1993; 4:88-101.

  81. Witcombe JR, Joshi KD, Sthapit BR. Farmer participatory crop improvement. Exp Agric 1996;32: 453-468.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com