Chemical composition and carbohydrate fractionation of forage palm under different irrigation strategies

Authors

Abstract

The objective was to evaluate the chemical composition and carbohydrate fractionation of Opuntia stricta submitted to different irrigation strategies. A block design was adopted with a 5 x 2 x 4 factorial scheme, with 5 irrigation depths (0, 20, 40, 70 and 100 % of the real irrigation required - IRN) and 2 methods for estimating evapotranspiration (Penman-Monteith and Hargreaves Samani), with 4 repetitions. The chemical composition was quantified and carbohydrate fractionation was performed using the CNCPS model. Means and interactions were compared using the 5 % Tukey test. The fibrous components, crude protein and lignified fraction of carbohydrates showed interaction (P<0.05) between the equations and the irrigation depths. Crude protein contents were higher in lower irrigation depths. TDN values varied from 69 to 71 % in all treatments, without differing between depths. The fodder palm cultivar elephant ear has an adequate chemical composition even when grown in rainfed conditions, or in low irrigation depths. It is recommended to use an irrigation depth of 20 % of the IRN along with the model proposed by Hargreaves & Samani.
Keywords: cactaceae; evapotranspiration; Opuntia stricta; nutritional value.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Cândido MJD, Gomes GMF, Lopes MN, Ximenes LJF. Cultivo de palma forrageira para mitigar a escassez de forragem em regiões semiáridas. Informe Rural ETENE, Fortaleza: Banco do Nordeste do Brasil/ETENE; 2013;7(3):1-7. Available from: https://www.bnb.gov.br/s482-dspace/handle/123456789/922

2. Souza RA, Carvalho RG, Pimentel AJB, Inácio JG, Lima Silva J. Desempenho produtivo e qualidade nutricional de forrageiras do gênero Urochloa no Oeste da Bahia. Agrarian. 2021 Dec 15;14(54):392-403. Available from: https://doi.org/10.30612/agrarian.v14i54.14841

3. Silva LM, Fagundes JL, Viegas PAA, Muniz EN, Albuquerque Rangel JH, Moreira AL, et al. Produtividade da palma forrageira cultivada em diferentes densidades de plantio. Ciência Rural. 2014 Nov;44(11):2064-2071. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20131305

4. Tosto MSL, Araújo GGLD, Oliveira RL, Bagaldo AR, Dantas FR, Menezes DR, et al. Composição química e estimativa de energia da palma forrageira e do resíduo desidratado de vitivinícolas. Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal. 2007 Jul-Sep;8(3):239-249. Available from: https://revbaianaenferm.ufba.br/index.php/rbspa/article/view/39527

5. Valdez CAF. Produccion industrializacion y comercialización del nopal como verdura en México. 18th ed. Chapingo: Violeta Hernández Quintero; 1994. 23 p.

6. Ferreira MA, Pessoa RAS, Silva FM. Utilização da palma forrageira na alimentação de ruminantes. In: I Congresso Brasileiro de Nutrição Animal; 2008; Anais. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/8630807.pdf

7. Matos LV, Donato SLR, Kondo MK, Lani JL. Sistemas tradicionais de produção de palma forrageira ‘Gigante’ em agroecossistemas do Semiárido Baiano. Revista Brasileira de Geografia Física. 2021;14(2):554-590. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26848/rbgf.v14.2.p554-590

8. Cascone S, Coma J, Gagliano A, Pérez G. The evapotranspiration process in green roofs: a review. Building and Environment. 2019 Jan;147:337-355. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.10.024

9. Fernandes DS, Heinemann AB, Paz RL, Amorim AO. Evapotranspiração: uma revisão sobre os métodos empíricos. Santo Antônio de Goiás: Embrapa Arroz e Feijão; 2010 Dec. 44 p. (Documentos, 263). Available from: http://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/handle/doc/879913

10. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Rome: FAO; 1998. 300 p. (FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper, 56).

11. Paredes P, Pereira LS, Almorox J, Darouich H. Reference grass evapotranspiration with reduced data sets: parameterization of the FAO Penman–Monteith temperature approach and the Hargreaves–Samani equation using local climatic variables. Agricultural Water Management. 2020 Oct;240:106210. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106210

12. Araújo Júnior GDN, Gomes FT, Silva MJ, Jardim AMFR, Simões VJLP, Izidro JLPS, et al. Estresse hídrico em plantas forrageiras: uma revisão. Pubvet. 2019 Jan;13(1):1-10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.31533/pubvet.v13n01a241.1-10

13. Bezerra FMS, Lacerda CF, Giroldo AB, Cavalcante ES, Michelon N, Pennisi G, et al. Deficit irrigation of forage cactus (Opuntia stricta) with brackish water: impacts on growth, productivity, and economic viability under evapotranspiration-based management. Agronomy. 2024;14(7):1445. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071445

14. Saraiva FM. Desenvolvimento e acúmulo de nutrientes de palma forrageira (Nopalea) em diferentes sistemas de cultivo [dissertação]. Recife: Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco; 2014. 104 f. Available from: http://www.tede2.ufrpe.br:8080/tede2/handle/tede2/7023

15. Association of Analytical Communities (AOAC) International. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 19th ed. Gaithersburg (MD): Association of Analytical Communities; 2012. 2610 p.

16. Mertens DR. Análise da fibra e sua utilização na avaliação de alimentos e formulação de rações. In: Simpósio Internacional de Ruminantes; 1992; Lavras. Anais. Lavras: SBZ-ESAL; 1992. p. 188 -219. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/636/63612750006.pdf

17. Barbosa MM, Detmann E, Rocha GC, Franco MDO, Filho SDCV. Evaluation of laboratory procedures to quantify the neutral detergent fiber content in forage, concentrate, and ruminant feces. Journal of AOAC International. 2015;98(4):883-889. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5740/jaoacint.14-156

18. Cappelle ER, Valadares Filho SDC, Silva JFCD, Cecon PR. Estimativas do valor energético a partir de características químicas e bromatológicas dos alimentos. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 2001;30(6):1837-1856. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982001000700022

19. Sniffen CJ, O’Connor JD, Van Soest PJ, Fox DG, Russell JB. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science. 1992 Nov 1;70(11):3562-3577. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2527/1992.70113562x

20. Hall MB. Calculation of non-structural carbohydrate content of feeds that contain non-protein nitrogen. Gainesville: University of Florida; 2000. 25 p. (Bulletin 339). Available from: https://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/IR/00/00/16/13/00001/AN08700.pdf

21. SAS, Statistical Analysis System. Software, version 9.0. Cary: SAS Institute, 2000.

22. National Research Council (NRC). Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 2001.

23. Alves AR, Pascoal LAF, Cambuí GB, Silva Trajano J, Silva CM, Gois GC. Fibra para ruminantes: aspecto nutricional, metodológico e funcional. Pubvet. 2016 Jul;10(7):568-579. Available from: https://doi.org/10.22256/pubvet.v10n7.568-579

24. Rezende FM, Véras ASC, Siqueira MCB, Conceição MG, Lima CL, Almeida MP, et al. Nutritional effects of using cactus cladodes (Opuntia stricta Haw.) to replace sorghum silage in sheep diet. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2020 Jan 18;52(4):1875-1880. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-020-02213-w

25. Araújo SAC, Vasquez HM, Campostrini E, Netto AT, Deminicis BB, Lima ESL. Características fotossintéticas de genótipos de capim-elefante anão (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.) em estresse hídrico. Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences. 2010 Mar 31;32(1):1-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4025/actascianimsci.v32i1.8961

26. Magalhães ALR, Teodoro ALT, Oliveira LP, Gois GC, Campos FS, Andrade AP, et al. Chemical composition, fractionation of carbohydrates and nitrogen compounds, ruminal degradation kinetics, and in vitro gas production of cactus pear genotypes. Ciência Animal Brasileira. 2021 Oct 25;22:e69338. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-6891v22e-69338

27. Munhame JA, Batista ÂMV, Monnerat JPIS, Maciel MV, Lopes LA, Silva TGP, et al. Intake, digestibility, ingestive behavior and performance of goats fed spineless cactus genotypes resistant to carmine cochineal. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia. 2021 Oct;73(5):1209-1216. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4162-12381

28. Valente TNP, Lima EDS, Henriques LTD, Machado Neto OR, Gomes DÍ, Sampaio CB, Costa VAC. Anatomia de plantas forrageiras e a disponibilidade de nutrientes para ruminantes. Veterinária e Zootecnia. 2011;18(3):347-358. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11449/141104

29. Palhares JCP, Roman ADJ. Balanço de nitrogênio e fósforo de propriedades pecuárias de uma microbacia hidrográfica. Revista em Agronegócio e Meio Ambiente. 2021 Dec 1;14(2):1-13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17765/2176-9168.2021v14supl.2.e8860

30. Silva APG, Souza CCE, Ribeiro JES, Santos MCG, Souza Pontes AL, Madruga MS. Características físicas, químicas e bromatológicas de palma gigante (Opuntia ficus-indica) e miúda (Nopalea cochenillifera) oriundas do estado da Paraíba. Revista Brasileira de Tecnologia Agroindustrial. 2015 Dec 10;9(2):1810-1820. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3895/rbta.v9n2.1616

31. Du Toit A, Wit M, Hugo A. Cultivar and harvest month influence the nutrient content of Opuntia spp. cactus pear cladode mucilage extracts. Molecules. 2018 Apr 16;23(4):916. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23040916

32. Rocha Júnior VR, Valadares Filho SDC, Borges ÁM, Magalhães KA, Ferreira CCB, Valadares RFD, et al. Determinação do valor energético de alimentos para ruminantes pelo sistema de equações. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 2003 Apr;32(2):473-479. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982003000200028

33. Silva AL, Sousa DB, Amorim DS, Santos MS, Silva KB, Nascimento RR. Carboidratos de plantas forrageiras para ruminantes: uma revisão. Nucleus Animalium. 2019 May 30;11(1):1-12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3738/21751463.2945

34. Pessoa DV, Andrade AP, Magalhães ALR, Teodoro AL, Santos DC, Araujo GGL, et al. Forage nutritional differences within the genus Opuntia. Journal of Arid Environments. 2020 Oct;181:104243. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2020.104243

Downloads

Published

2026-02-19

How to Cite

GARCEZ, Bruno Spindola; COSTA, Paulo César Andrade da; BEZERRA, Francisco Mardones Servulo; LACERDA, Claudivan Feitosa de; MACEDO, Karina Dakell Araújo de; SOUSA, Dávilla Augusta Mota de; SÉRVOLO, Alisson Aurélio; CAETANO, Milena Almeida. Chemical composition and carbohydrate fractionation of forage palm under different irrigation strategies. Brazilian Animal Science/ Ciência Animal Brasileira, Goiânia, v. 27, 2026. Disponível em: https://revistas.ufg.br/vet/article/view/82096. Acesso em: 22 feb. 2026.

Issue

Vol. 27 (2026): Continuous publication

Section

ANIMAL SCIENCE

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Brazilian Animal Science/ Ciência Animal Brasileira

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Data statement

  • The research data is contained in the manuscript