NUTRITIVE VALUE OF PINEAPPLE FRUIT WASTE

ENSILED WITH BEAN HULLS AND FORAGE TREE

LEAVES

Simanga Clement Tsabedze

Supervisor : Dr. T. S. Sgwane

 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background information
 Two billion people depend on livestock products as sources of
nutrients (Idomakoro et al., 2016).

 Farmers often caught unprepared by winter feed shortages.

 Importation of grass hay for maintenance (MOAC, 2014).

 Several studies are carried out for improving of agro- industrial

and crop by-products as animal feed.

 Some forage trees (Leucaena leucocephala & Toona ciliata)

are high in protein.
 L. leucocephala T. ciliata

Figure 1. Leucaena leucocephala and Toona ciliata.

 1.0 introduction cont – remove
1.2 Problem statement

 Scarcity of winter forage & grazing resources led to death of

cattle in Swaziland (Magagula, 2014).

 High feed costs in local feed companies.

 Agro-industrial and crop by-products rich in fermentable

carbohydrates, low in CP content (Krueger et al., 1992).

 Nutritive value of silage improved by forage trees rich in CP.

 1.0 introduction cont.
1.3 Justification
 Agro-industrial by-products provide farmers with cheap source
of winter feed for ruminant animals.

 Pineapple fruit waste (PFW) and bean hulls readily available

for feeding ruminant animals.

 Forage trees rich in CP can improve nutritive value of PFW and

bean hull silage.
 1.0 introduction cont. – remove &
shift up
1.4 Objectives
General objective

 To investigate the nutritive value of PFW ensiled with ground

bean hulls alone or with either L. leucocephala or T. ciliata

Specific objectives

 To determine the chemical composition of PFW ensiled with

ground bean hulls alone or with either L. leucocephala or T.
ciliata
 Objective cont.

 To determine the feed intake and digestibility of goats fed

PFW ensiled with ground bean hulls alone or with either L.
leucocephala or T. ciliata.

 To determine the body weight gain of goats fed PFW ensiled

with ground bean hulls alone or with either L. leucocephala or
or T. ciliata.

1.6 Limitations

 Use of goats as model for ruminants due to costs of large

ruminant & feed, size of metabolic crates.
 1.0 introduction cont.
1.5 Hypothesis

Chemical composition

H0: The chemical composition of PFW ensiled with ground bean

hulls alone or with either L. leucocephala or T. ciliata was similar.

H1: The chemical composition of PFW ensiled with ground bean

hulls alone or with either L. leucocephala or T. ciliata was
different.
 Hypothesis cont.
Animal performance

H0: Feed intake, digestibility and body weight gain of animals fed
PFW ensiled with ground bean hulls alone or with either L.
leucocephala or T. ciliata were similar.

H1: Feed intake, feed digestibility and body weight gain of animals
fed PFW ensiled with ground bean hulls alone or with either L.
leucocephala or T. ciliata were different.
 2.0 Methodology
2.1 Study site
 Metabolism unit at UNISWA, Luyengo farm.

2.2 Experimental design

 Completely randomized design.

 Twelve castrated indigenous goats, three dietary treatments

 Goats randomly allocated to each treatment.

 2.0 Methodology cont.
2.3 Feed ingredients

 Pineapple fruit waste from The Rhodes Food Group at

Malkerns.

 Bean hulls from Malkerns Research Station.

 L. leucocephala sourced from Tabankulu,T. cilata sourced

from around Luyengo campus.
 2.0 Methodology cont.

Experimental diets were as follows;

1. Silage A: 85% PFW + 15% ground bean hulls.

2. Silage B: 85% PFW+ 10% L. leucocephala + 5% bean hulls.

3. Silage C: 85% PFW + 10% T. ciliata + 5% bean hulls

 2.0 Methodology cont.

2.4 Ensiling procedure – add more information in

chronological order

 Metal drums were used to ensile feed material for 21 days.

 Drums were manually filled, compacted, covered with

polyethylene plastic & crushed stone on top to exclude oxygen.
 2.5Animal management
 Upon arrival, goats were dewormed
& kept in a grass paddock. Why sentence not complete
Also label figure
 Placed in metabolic crates
& fed respective diets.

Goat in a metabolic crate

 2.6 Feeding & feed intake
 Adaptation for 14 days.
 Feed offered & feed refused were weighed.
 Given to the animals ad libitum.
 Adjustments, 10% feed refusals allowed.

VFI (g/day) = Feed offered- Feed refused

DMI (g/day) = Feed offered (g) - Feed refused (g)

2.7 In vivo digestibility & nitrogen balance

 Digestibility was determined by total collection method by

Mcdonald et al. (2001).

 Faecal and urine samples collected before morning feeding

during seven days of collection.

Digestibility (%)= Nutrient in feed (g) - Nutrient in faeces (g)

Nutrient in feed (g)

N balance (g/day)= N intake (g) – N output (urine + faeces) (g)

 2.0 Methodology cont.
2.8 Chemical analysis

 Dry matter - oven drying at 65°C for 72 hours (AOAC,1999).

 Crude protein (CP) was analyzed by Kjeldahl method.

 Acid detergent fiber & Neutral detergent fiber (Van soest,

1991).
 Ash – furnace at 550°C for 3 hours.

 Ether Extract – extracting with unhydrous ether – Soxhlet

apparatus.
 2.0 Methodology cont.
2.9 Statistical analysis
 Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.

 Difference between initial & final weight - Independent sample

t-test.

 Animal performance, ensiling material, silages and chemical

composition- one way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
 Statistical analysis cont.

 Statistical model- Yij = µ + ai + eij

 Yij = the record of the jth individual

 µ = the overall mean common to all observation

 ai = fixed treatment effect

 eij = random error

 3.0 Results

Table 1. Chemical composition of feed ingredients

Dry matter basis (%)
As fed DM
CP EE ASH CF NFE ADF NDF
BH 89.50a 12.00a 1.88a 4.93a 36.02a 48.45a 50.90a 69.20a

LL 89.11a 25.92b 4.25b 7.03b 20.96b 40.11b 30.78b 55.60b

TC 87.02a 19.56c 3.76b 7.61b 23.12c 45.38a 20.80c 53.68b

PFW 14.21b 3.77d 1.94a 1.64c 12.67d 75.74c 21.6c 61.92b

SEM 1.11 1.12 0.59 0.86 0.76 1.86 2.82 4.62

P- 0.001 0.001 0.033 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.087

value

EXPLAIN ABBREVIATION AT THE BOTTOM OF TABLE

Table 2. Chemical composition of silages
Dry matter basis (%)
As fed CP EE Ash CF NFE ADF NDF
pH DM
Silage A
0 days 5.01a 30.95a 7.60a 2.67a 5.26a 25.18a 49.38a 40.21a 49.83a
21 days 4.20b 28.02b 7.61a 2.52b 4.74b 23.89b 49.69a 40.47a 49.69a

Silage B
0 days 5.19c 33.07c 12.00b 2.79c 4.81b 22.53c 53.49c 38.38b 53.49c
21 days 4.36d 32.27d 10.10c 2.59b 4.63b 22.15c 53.49c 38.21b 48.07a

Silage C
0 days 5.02a 30.98a 9.83ac 2.70c 5.83a 21.42d 54.84d 38.15b 54.84c
21 days 4.45d 30.46a 8.96a 2.32b 4.90b 20.77d 51.65ac 37.65c 51.65d

SEM 0.172 0.846 2.621 0.345 0.832 0.992 0.887 1.324 0.842
P-value 0.001 0.232 0.001 0.202 0.243 0.018 0.019 0.001 0.001
 3.2 Animal performance
Table 3. Intake and digestibility

Treatments
Measurement Silage A Silage B Silage C SEM P-value

Intake (g/d)

Feed intake 1337.85a 2664.28b 1515.17c 64.75 0.001

DMI 377.27a 859.76b 459.24a 76.86 0.001

Water intake (Kg/d) 518.97a 474.10a 518.97a 84.92 0.332

Digestibility (%)

Dry matter 72.02a 70.49a 71.03a 4.66 0.232

Crude protein 71.86a 65.86b 71.06a 3.99 0.025

 3.2 Animal performance

Table 4. Live weight and FCR

Treatments
Measurement Silage A Silage B Silage C SEM P-value
Live weight (kg)
Initial weight 21.38a 22.68a 21.59a 21.59a 0.841
Final weight 21.87a 25.11b 21.86a 21.86a 0.034
Weight gain (kg/d) 0.018 0.087b 0.009a 0.009a 0.001
superscript
FCR 0.013 0.033b 0.006c 0.006c 0.001
superscript

Explain silage A, B, and C

 3.2 Animal performance

Table 5. Nitrogen balance of goats

Treatment
Measurements Silage A Silage B Silage C SEM P-value
N balance (g/d)
N-intake 4.59a 13.90b 6.58c 0.08 0.001

N-faeces 1.29a 4.74b 1.90c 0.04 0.001

N-urine 1.01a 1.75b 1.10ab 0.02 0.011
N-retained 2.29a 7.40b 3.56c 0.09 0.013
 4.0 Discussion
 Silage A had slightly low DM content compared to
silage B and C. make font size 24 in text for all slides

 Bean hulls have limited capacity to absorb moisture

compared to other absorbers (Nkosi and Mseeke,
2010).

 Higher DM in silage B and C may be attributed to

inclusion of dried forage leaves.

 Recommended moisture content of ensiling materials

is 65-70% (Gowda et al., 2015).

 This enables proper fermentation and preservation.

 The high CP content of silage B may be associated
with the inclusion of L. leucocephala.

 Widely used as a protein supplement especially for

ruminant animals (Kakengi et al., 2001).

 T. ciliata was also found to have high CP (19.5%).

 used as animal fodder in countries like India before it

was classified as an endangered species (Li et al.,
2015).
 Carbohydrates contribute 60-70% of the net energy
used for maintenance and production in ruminants
(Gowda et al., 2015).
 Fermentation process lowered the pH of the silages
in this study. Avoid empty slides like this?

 May be due to breakdown of soluble carbohydrates in

the pineapple fruit waste resulting to the production of
lactic acid (Sruamsiri et al., 2007).
 High feed intake in silage B associated to high CP
content.

 DM digestibility of silages suggested that DM was

highly digestible (70%).

 High body weight of goats fed silage B could be

associated with the high CP content.

 Nitrogen balance useful in assessing value of protein

to ruminant animals (Saha et al., 2008).
 Rufino et al. (2016) stated that the overall N
availability on ruminant metabolism is associated with
adequate status of feed N.

 Supported by the results (positive relationship of input

and output).
 5.0 Conclusion

 Preservation of feed was achieved through

fermentation of soluble carbohydrates found in
pineapple fruit.

 Incorporating L. leucocephala in pineapple waste

silages improved the nutritional composition of silages,
feed intake and weight gain of goats.
 6.0 Recommendations

 Alternation of the absorbents. (think & write

reasonable recommendation)

 Growing L. leucocephala in order to mitigate the

problem of high cost of protein sources such as Soy
bean meal in ruminant feed.
 7.0 Literature cited
 Idamokoro, E.M., Masika, J. P., Muchenje,V . Vichellia karroo leaf meal a promising
nonconventional feed resource for improving goat production in low-input farming
systems of Southern Africa. African Journal of Range and Forage Science DOI:
10.2989/10220119.2016.

 Kakengi, A. M., Shem, M. N., Mtengeti, E.P. and Otsyina, R. (2001). Leucaena
leucocephala leaf meal as supplement to diet of grazing dairy cattle in semiarid
Western Tanzania. Journal of Agroforestry Systems 52: 73–82, 2001

 Krueger, D.A., Krueger, R.G. and Maciel. J., (1992), “Composition of Pineapple
Juice”, Journal International AOAC, 75(2), pp. 280-282.

 Li, P., Zhan, X. Que, Q. Qu, W. Liu ,M. Ouyang, K., Li, J. Deng,. Zhang, J. Liao, B.
Pian, R. and Chen, X. (2015). Genetic Diversity and Population Structure of Toona
Ciliata Roem. Based on Sequence-Related Amplified Polymorphism (SRAP)
Markers. Forests 4:1094-1106.
 7.0 Literature cited cont…
 Mcdonald, P., Edwards, R. A., Greenhalgh, J. F. D. and Morgan, C. A. (1995). Animal
Nutrition. 4th edition. Longman Publishers, London: United Kingdom.

 Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, MOAC (2014). Annual Report. Department

of Veterinary and Livestock Services. Manzini, Swaziland.

 Mcdonald, P., Edwards, R. A., Greenhalgh, J. F. D. and Morgan, C. A. (1995). Animal

Nutrition. 4th edition. Longman Publishers, London: United Kingdom.

 Ukanwoko, A. I. and Igwe, N.C. (2012). Proximate composition of some grass and
legume silage prepared in a humid tropical environment. International Research
Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science 2: 068- 071.

 Saha, H.M., Kahindi, R.K. and Muinga, R.W. (2008). Evaluation of manure from
goats fed panicum basal diet and supplemented with madras thorn, leucaena or
gliricidia. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 8: 251 – 257.
Thank you