Research Article

 

Influence of Irrigated Soil on Nutrients Composition of Camel Browse Vegetations

 

Asad Ali Khaskheli1*, Muhammad Ibrahim Khaskheli2, Allah Jurio Khaskheli3, Arshad Ali Khaskheli4

1Department of Animal Nutrition, Sindh Agriculture University, Tando Jam, Pakistan; 2Department of Plant Protection, Sindh Agriculture University, Tando Jam, Pakistan; 3Department of Biotechnology, Sindh Agriculture University, Tando Jam, Pakistan; 4Department of Poultry Husbandry, Sindh Agriculture University, Tando Jam, Pakistan.

 

Received | June 20, 2020; Accepted | July 15, 2020; Published | August 03, 2020

*Correspondence | Asad Ali Khaskheli, Department of Animal Nutrition, Sindh Agriculture University, Tando jam, Sindh, Pakistan; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Khaskheli AA, Khaskheli MI, Khaskheli AJ, Khaskheli AA (2020). Influence of irrigated soil on nutrients composition of camel browse vegetations. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 8(9): 951-958.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2020/8.9.951.958

ISSN (Online) | 2307-8316; ISSN (Print) | 2309-3331

Copyright © 2020 Khaskheli et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

 

Introduction

 

Tando Allahyar is a major irrigated district of Pakistan. The irrigated soil of this famous city is well known for the production high quality for agricultural products. Tomatoes, Chili, sugarcane, wheat, onion, maize, barley and cotton are commonly cultivated as cash crops in this region. This city was previously a taluka of district Hyderabad, while from 5th May 2005 this taluka was separated and regarded as a separate district (Anonymous, 2016). Tando Allahyar district lies in 680 34’ 23” to 680 57’ 35” east longitudes and 250 12’ 24’’ to 250 45’ 17’’ north latitudes. Weather of this district is much pleasant and comfortable. Climate remains neither too cold in winter nor too hot in summer. June and July months are considered as hottest during summer, while December and January the coldest during winter (Manzoor et al., 2013).

 

Favorable climate and ample sources of irrigation water favor several kinds of crops, vegetables and fruits such as wheat, cotton, sugarcane, maize, tomato, chili, mango etc (Iqbal and Khan, 2001). Additionally, various species of cow, sheep, goat and camels are also found which are normally used for the production of milk, meat, wool and hair. Regarding camels it has been reported that camel herders mostly rear the camels under open environment. They allow the camels for grazing during morning and evening. Camels generally prefer to browse the natural vegetations which are rarely found in the district, as most of lands are commercially used for cash crops where browsing of camels is not allowed and that results camels particularly suffer from shortage of high quality feed among all livestock animals (Sarwar et al., 2009).

 

It is also well documented that nutrients composition of dietary forages have prominent influence on the health status and production of camels and in this regards various studies have been conducted in the different parts of the world. As Towhidi (2007) reported nutrients composition of few camel browse vegetations in Iran such as Alhagi persarum, Artemisia seiberi, Atriplex letiformis, Hammada salicornica, Haloxylon ammodendron, Saueda fruticosa, Salsola tomentosa, Salsola yazdiana, Seidlitzia rosmarinus, Tamarix kotschyi and Tamarix aphylla. Ibrahim et al. (2017) reported nutrients level of few forage species browsed by camels (camelus dromedarius) in the as Zaria whereby nutritional composition of leaves from eight different forage species like Dalbergia sisso, Ziziphus mauritania, Khaya senegalensis, Lephatadenia hastala, Ziziphus var-spinachristi, Acacia hoskii and Dichrostachys cineria was assessed in term of crude protein, ether extract, crude fiber, acid detergent fiber neutral detergent fiber and nitrogen free extract. Ahmed et al. (2009) reported the order of usefulness of plants as Seidlitzia rosmarinus, Tamarix stricta, Salsola arbuscula, Alhagi camelorum, Halostachys spp., Tamarix tetragyna, Suaeda fruticosa, Hammada salicornica and Haloxylon ammodendron. Rathore (2009) reported nutritive compositions of different rangelands at Southern Darfur, Sudan.

 

Although worldwide various compositional studies have been conducted on camel browse vegetations but unfortunately such kinds of studies have rarely been invested in the Pakistan, especially in the Sindh Province. Particularly focusing the irrigated soil of Tando Allahyar district of Sindh Province such type of studies have never been carried out yet. Current study was therefore planned in order to study the commonly available camel browse vegetations in Tando Allahyar district and assess the influence of irrigated soil major nutrients components.

 

Materials and Methods

 

Place of study

The main portion of research was carried out at Animal Nutrition laboratory, in the faculty of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science, Sindh Agriculture University, Tando jam. Further, five different villages of Tando Allahyar district of Sindh province were included to monitor and collect the samples of commonly available camel browse vegetations.

 

Experimental procedure

Current investigation was carried out during the year 2019 whereby study was subjected into 2 phases. In first phase, comprehensive survey was performed at different villages from a major irrigated district of Sindh province (Tando Allahyar) in order to gather the data regarding availability of different camel browse vegetations. While in the second phase of study major nutrients among camel browse vegetations grown at irrigated areas were analyzed. A total of 13 different camel browse vegetations were sampled. Few vegetations are shown in the Figure 1. To have replicated data composite sampling was performed from all five villages. All the samples were brought to the Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Sindh Agriculture University Tando jam. Sample were dried under air circulation oven (65°C) and stored till analysis. For the examination of dry matter and inorganic/mineral (ash) matter contents, fresh samples were processed.

 

Moisture content was analyzed using evaporation method (AOAC, 2000) whereby sample of each camel browse vegetation (2g) was measured in pre-weighed empty dried aluminum dish and kept in hot air oven at 105±1°C for 24hrs. It was then desiccated, weighed and re-dried in the hot air oven for further 30 min. Dry matter of sample was determined using same method as for moisture. Total organic matter was computed by difference method. Percent of inorganic matter was subtracted from hundred to calculate the percent of total organic matter. Ether extract content was determined through Soxhlet method (AOAC, 2000). Ground sample (2g) in thimble was extracted with diethyl ether (200ml) into pre-weighed clean and dry fat beaker for six hrs. Crude protein content was analyzed by Kjeldhal method. 1g sample was weighed in the Kjeldhal flask. 0.2g Copper sulfate and 2g sodium sulfate were also transferred to the flask as catalyst. Further, 25ml of H2SO4 was poured and mixture was digested in till become transparent. Then solution was transferred to the volumetric flask of 250ml, flask filled up to mark with distilled water. 5ml diluted sample was distilled with equal volume of 40% NaOH using Micro-Kjeldhal distillation unit. Steam was distilled over 2% boric acid solution (5ml) containing an indicator. Trapped ammonia in boric acid was titrated with 0.1N HCl and used volume of HCl was noted. Nitrogen percent was calculated by formula. Crude fiber was determined using Van Soest method (AOAC, 2000). Ether extracted sample (2g) was boiled in pre-heated H2SO4 having normality 0.2N (200ml) for about 30min.

 

Contents of beaker were filtered through buchner funnel and rinsed with 50ml boiling water. Residues were transferred back into the beaker and boiled with NaOH having normality 0.3N (200ml) for 30min. Contents were filtered as above and washed with 25ml of boiling H2SO4 (0.2N) and with 50ml H2O.The residues were dried at 65oC for 24hrs and weighed. Residues were transferred into a pre-weighed crucible and ashed for 4hrs. Crucible containing sample was desiccated and weighed using analytical weight balance. The recorded observations were fixed in the following formula to compute the crude fiber percent. Nitrogen free extract was analyzed by difference method whereby sum of crude protein, ether extract, crude fiber and ash content was subtracted from Hundred. Percent of nitrogen free extract and crude fiber was summed together to calculate the total carbohydrate content. Inorganic matter was examined using Gravimetric method whereby sample (2g) in pre-weighed crucible was ignited in muffle furnace (600°C) for 6hrs, desiccated for one hour and then weighed. The ash percent was computed using formula.

 

Statistical analysis

Data from experimental procedures was gathered and analyzed using a statistical software namely Statistix (SXW), Version 8.1 (Copyright 2005, Analytical Software, USA). Statistical test i.e. completely randomized analysis of variance (ANOVA) under linear models was applied in order to observe any significant difference among the means. In case of significant difference occurred among means, the data were further analyzed by applying least significant difference (LSD) test (Gomez and Gomez, 1984).

 

Results and Discussion

 

Moisture and dry matter content

Results regarding the influence of irrigated soil on the moisture content, dry matter, organic matter and inorganic/mineral matter contents are presented in Table 1. Haloxylon salicornicum (82.40%) held significantly high (P˂0.05) moisture content, whereas Prosopis cineraria (44.95%) shows comparatively low. Results further revealed that Trifolium alexandrinum (78.05%) versus Zea mays (77.90%) and Prosopis juliflora (67.75%) versus Ziziphus nummularia (67.55%) had no comparable (P<0.05) variation in moisture contents, however, both of these set of plants varied in moisture contents to each other as well as other plants. Regarding total dry matter content results found vice versa with moisture content, where Prosopis cineraria pertained maximum and Haloxylon salicornicum minimum concentration of dry matter (55.05 and 17.60% respectively). The percent of dry matter content in Acacia nilotica (48.90%), Acacia jacquemontii (46.05%), Capparis deciduas (36.45%), Tamarix passerinoides(35.95%) and Alhagi maurorum (35.45%) contrast to Salvadora oleiodes (28.65%), Suaeda fruticose (18.10%) and Haloxylon salicornicum (17.60%) recorded at moderate level with significant variation to each other. Moreover, Ziziphus nummularia (32.45%) compared to Prosopis juliflora (32.25%), and Zea mays (22.10%) versus Trifolium alexandrinum (21.95%) indicated no substantial differences but compared to other camel browse vegetations both set found statistically different (P˂0.05). Result regarding the Ziziphus nummularia, dry matter content in current investigation appeared in agreement with different studies (Farooq et al., 2018; Chandra and Mali, 2014; Khanum et al., 2007). Moreover, percent of dry matter in Capparis deciduas recorded in the present study found dissimilar with the reported results of Gull et al. (2015) who reported ~ 1.7 fold higher dry matter in Capparis deciduas. Nevertheless, findings of dry matter in Salvadora oleiodes found comparble with the study of Samreen et al. (2016) who reported 61.6% dry matter in Salvadora oleiodes at Darazinda FRDI Khan, Pakistan. Percent of dry matter content of Acacia nilotica did not match with that of reported by Khanum et al. (2007) i.e. 60.4 ± 1.9%. Moisture content of Acacia nilotica, Ziziphus nummularia, Capparis deciduas in the current study did not appear in line with that of reported studies of different authors (Abdulrazak et al., 2001; Towhidi and Zhandi, 2007; Ashraf et al., 2013; Ullah et al., 2013; Abdullah et al., 2017; Farooq et al., 2018) and found quit different, while in Prosopis juliflora, Salvadora oleiodes, and Zea mays it was in accordance with different reported studies (Murray et al., 2000; Mabrouk et al., 2008; El-Amier and Abdullah, 2015; Samreen et al., 2016).

 

Results further revealed that the concentration of both organic and inorganic matter in Acacia nilotica, Ziziphus nummularia, Acacia jacquemontii, Prosopis juliflora, Prosopis cineraria, Alhagi maurorum, Capparis deciduas, and Zea mays did not vary to each other (P˃0.05), but significantly different (P˂0.05) from that of observed in Trifolium alexandrinum, Salvadora oleiodes, Suaeda fruticosa, Haloxylon salicornicum and Tamarix passerinoides though also did not differ from each other. Nevertheless, former set of plants found significantly high in organic matter contents compared to latter set of plants, while for Inorganic/mineral matter trend appeared opposite, where latter set was significantly abundant (P <0.05) from that of former set of plants (Table 1). The level of organic matters recorded in the present study for Acacia jacquemontii, Capparis deciduas, Prosopis juliflora, Prosopis cineraria and

 

Table 1: Influence of irrigated soil on moisture, dry matter, organic matter and inorganic matter of camel browse vegetations.

 

Camel browse vegetations	Moisture (%)	Dry matter
		Total (%)	Organic matter (% over dry matter)	Inorganic matter (% over dry matter)
Acacia nilotica	51.10j	48.90b	88.85a	11.15b
Trifolium alexandrinum	78.05c	21.95i	81.85b	18.15a
Ziziphus nummularia	67.55e	32.45g	89.15a	10.85b
Acacia jacquemontii	53.95i	46.05c	90.15a	9.85b
Prosopis juliflora	67.75e	32.25g	92.35a	7.65b
Prosopis cineraria	44.95k	55.05a	89.85a	10.15b
Alhagi maurorum	64.55f	35.45f	90.05a	9.95b
Salvadora oleiodes	71.35d	28.65h	79.80b	20.20a
Capparis deciduas	63.55h	36.45d	88.90a	11.10b
Suaeda fruticosa	81.90b	18.10j	80.70b	19.30a
Haloxylon salicornicum	82.4a	17.60k	77.05b	22.95a
Tamarix passerinoides	64.05g	35.95e	79.30b	20.70a
Zea mays	77.9c	22.10i	88.70a	11.30b
LSD (0.05)	0.2966	0.2966	6.2751	6.2751
SE±	0.1373	0.1373	2.9046	2.9046

 

Ziziphus nummularia found relatively in accordance with that of reported in different studies (Mohsen et al., 2011; Ullah et al., 2013; Chandra and Mali, 2014; El-Amier and Abdullah, 2015; Heuzé et al., 2016, 2016; Rasool et al., 2017; Farooq et al., 2018; Kathirvel and Kumudha, 2011). Nevertheless, slight variation occurred among them. This minor difference may be concerned with the environmental changes or variety distinction. However, the level of organic matter in Acacia nilotica and Salvadora oleiodes in current study totally disagreed with that of stated by different authers (Murray et al., 2000; Towhidi and Zhandi, 2007; Ashraf et al., 2013; Chandra and Mali, 2014; Bwai et al., 2015; Samreen et al., 2016). Present results of inorganic/mineral matter in Salvadora oleiodes and Acacia nilotica did not appear in accordance with that of reported in different studies (Murray et al., 2000; Abdulrazak et al., 2001; Ullah et al., 2013; Samreen et al., 2016; Abdullah et al., 2017). While findings regarding inorganic matter in Prosopis cineraria, Prosopis juliflora, Capparis deciduas, Acacia jacquemontii and Ziziphus nummularia in the current study found in line with that of reported by different authors (Towhidi, 2009; Mohsen et al., 2011; Chandra and Mali, 2014; Mabrouk, 2014; Rasool et al., 2017; El-Amier and Abdullah, 2015; Abdullah et al., 2017; Chandra and Mali, 2014; Farooq et al., 2018).

 

Crude protein content

Results regarding the assessment of crude protein content in different camel browse vegetations sampled from irrigated soil are shown in the Figure 2 which indicates that the Suaeda fruticosa (33.81%) had significantly maximum concentration of crude protein following Trifolium alexandrinum (25.13%) and Haloxylon salicornicum (24.13%) amongst all other camel browse vegetations. Salvadora oleiodes (20.05%), Ziziphus nummularia (17.80%) and Prosopis cineraria (13.27%) also differed significantly to each other. Moreover, crude protein in Tamarix passerinoides (16.36%) versus Acacia jacquemontii (15.95%) did not show any significant variation while difference in crude protein of Tamarix passerinoidesversus Zea mays existed statistically significant (P˂0.05). Results further indicate that difference in crude protein content of Prosopis juliflora (12.12%) versus Acacia nilotica (12.07%) and Capparis deciduas (22.79%) versus Alhagi maurorum (21.94%) appeared statistically non-significant (P˃0.05), but these sets of plants found significantly different from each other in crude protein content. Crude protein content in Capparis deciduas recorded in the present study found statistically similar to that of reported by Gull et al. (2015), while Abdullah et al. (2017) did not support it, their findings looks quite dissimilar from the present results. The level of crude protein content in Salvadora oleiodes appeared dissimilar with that of observed by Towhidi (2009) and Samreen et al. (2016) but their concentration seems to be somewhat close to reported findings of Abdullah et al. (2017). The level of crude protein contents in Ziziphus nummularia, Acacia nilotica and Prosopis cineraria in present findings existed in agreement with that of reported results of different authors (Farooq et al., 2018; Chandra and Mali, 2014). Further, the level of crude protein content in Prosopis juliflora, Prosopis cineraria and Acacia jacquemontii are very much different compared to that of reported in different studies (Mabrouk et al., 2008; Ullah et al., 2013; Rasool et al., 2017).

 

 

 

Ether extract content

Ether extract content of different camel browse vegetations sampled from irrigated soil is presented in the Figure 3. Results showed that Zea mays (6.40%) had significantly high and Suaeda fruticose (1.15%) comparatively low, while Salvadora oleiodes (1.60%) and Ziziphus nummularia (3.05%) prominently different percent of ether extract contents compared to Trifolium alexandrinum (3.45%), Prosopis juliflora (3.55%), Acacia jacquemontii (2.75%), Tamarix passerinoides (2.60%), Capparis deciduas (2.55%), Prosopis cineraria (2.45%), Alhagi maurorum (2.45%), Haloxylon salicornicum (2.05%) and Acacia nilotica (2.00%). Results further reveals that difference in ether extract contents of Trifolium alexandrinum versus Prosopis juliflora, Acacia nilotica versus Haloxylon salicornicum, Acacia jacquemontii versus Capparis deciduas, Tamarix passerinoidesand Capparis deciduas, Prosopis cineraria versus Alhagi maurorum, Capparis deciduas and Tamarix passerinoides existed non-significant (P˃0.05) but each set found statistically different from one another (P˂0.05). The concentration of ether extract content in Prosopis juliflora, Acacia nilotica, Capparis deciduas, Prosopis cineraria and Ziziphus nummularia observed in the current study were in line with that of reported in different studies (Abdulrazak et al., 2001; Shawn et al., 2001; Towhidi and Zhandi, 2007; Mabrouk et al., 2008; Mohsen et al., 2011; Ashraf et al., 2013; Chandra and Mali, 2014; El-Amier and Abdullah, 2015; Abdullah et al., 2017; Farooq et al., 2018), while percent of ether extract in Alhagi maurorum, Salvadora oleiodes, Acacia jacquemontii recorded in current study found somewhat different from reported studies (Ullah et al., 2013; Samreen et al., 2016; Rasool et al., 2017).

 

 

Carbohydrate content

Table 2 represents the nitrogen free extract, crude fiber and total carbohydrate percent in different camel browse vegetations sampled from irrigated soil. It was observed that percent of nitrogen free extract among Acacia nilotica (55.14%), Prosopis juliflora (54.89%) and Prosopis cineraria (54.24%) existed relatively similar (P˃0.05), and found considerably (P˂0.05) high from that of recorded in Alhagi maurorum (46.52%), Ziziphus nummularia (45.35%), Acacia jacquemontii (45.20%), Tamarix passerinoides (40.30%), Zea mays (38.00%), Capparis deciduas (37.76%), Salvadora oleiodes (35.40%), Trifolium alexandrinum (31.42%), Haloxylon salicornicum (25.77%) and Suaeda fruticosa(19.95%). In Tamarix passerinoides no significant (P˃0.05) dissimilarity in nitrogen free extract was noted against Ziziphus nummularia, Acacia jacquemontii, Zea mays, Capparis deciduas and Salvadora oleiodes (35.40%), while compared to other vegetations differences existed statistically significant (P˂0.05). Likewise, Trifolium alexandrinum held no significant (P˃0.05) variation in nitrogen free extract content compared to Salvadora oleiodes and Haloxylon salicornicum. However, compared to other camel browse vegetations Salvadora oleiodes and Trifolium alexandrinum pertained considerable (P˂0.05) dissimilarity. Nitrogen free extract percent in Haloxylon salicornicum did not vary from that of recorded in Suaeda fruticosaand Trifolium alexandrinum, while percent in these plants significantly (P˂0.05) varied from all camel browse vegetations. In contrast to current study, the findings of nitrogen free extract contents in Acacia nilotica and Ziziphus nummularia found dissimilar with that of reported studies (Towhidi and Zhandi, 2007; Abdullah et al., 2017; Farooq et al., 2018). However, Nitrogen free extract of Prosopis cineraria existed in agreement with that of reported studies of different authors (Mohsen et al., 2011; Chandra and Mali, 2014; Abdullah et al., 2017). It could be argued that environment of localities had significant impact on the percent of nitrogen free extract and total carbohydrate contents of different vegetations under present investigation. Results regarding crude fiber content of camel browse vegetations are shown in the Table 2. It indicates that the Zea mays (29.15%) had significantly (p˂0.05) rich concentration of crude fiber followed by Acacia jacquemontii (26.25%), while Alhagi maurorum (19.15%) possessed comparatively poor percent of crude fiber compared to all camel browse vegetations examined under present study. Further, Capparis deciduas (25.80%) versus Suaeda fruticosa (25.80%), Ziziphus nummularia (22.95%) and Salvadora oleiodes (22.75%), and Trifolium alexandrinum (21.85%) versus Prosopis juliflora (21.80%) did not show considerable variation in crude fiber contents, but contrast to other vegetations they all possessed comparable concentration. Similarly, the concentration of crude fiber in Tamarix passerinoides (20.05%) against Prosopis cineraria (19.90%) and Acacia nilotica (19.65%) versus Prosopis cineraria (19.90%) showed no prominent Prosopis julifloraation to each other (Table 2).

 

Further, results showed that the Prosopis juliflora (76.69%) and Acacia nilotica (74.79%) acquired prominently high (P˂0.05) concentration of total carbohydrate content compared to that of Ziziphus nummularia (68.30%), Zea mays (67.15%), Alhagi maurorum (65.67%), Capparis deciduas (63.56%), Tamarix passerinoides (60.35%), Salvadora oleiodes (58.15%), Trifolium alexandrinum (53.27%), Haloxylon salicornicum (50.87%) and Suaeda fruticosa (45.75%). Zea mays (67.15%) pertained no prominent dissimilarity with Acacia jacquemontii (71.45%), Ziziphus nummularia (68.30%), Alhagi maurorum (65.67%) and Capparis deciduas (63.56%), while compared to other vegetations examined in the present study, the difference in total carbohydrate contents occurred comparable (P˂0.05). Alhagi maurorum (65.67%) held no considerable variation contrast to Acacia jacquemontii, Ziziphus nummularia, Zea mays, Capparis deciduas and Tamarix passerinoidesbut it possessed prominent (P<0.05) variation compared to other remaining vegetations. Total carbohydrate concentration in Capparis deciduas (63.56%) existed non-significant with Ziziphus nummularia, Zea mays, Alhagi maurorum, Tamarix passerinoidesand Salvadora oleiodes, but in comparison with that of in other camel browse vegetations, differences recorded significant (P˂0.05). Tamarix passerinoides was not prominently vary in total carbohydrate content from that of Alhagi maurorum, Capparis deciduas and Salvadora oleiodes but from another camel browse vegetations it appeared significantly different (P˂0.05). Total carbohydrate content in Salvadora oleiodes was not considerably different from that of in Capparis deciduas, Tamarix passerinoidesand Trifolium alexandrinum, while from other vegetations it was prominently different. Haloxylon salicornicum possessed no considerable variation in carbohydrate contents with that of Trifolium alexandrinum and Suaeda fruticosabut held prominent difference contrast to Salvadora oleiodes. However, compared to other camel browse vegetations Trifolium alexandrinum (53.27%), Haloxylon salicornicum (50.87%) and Suaeda fruticosa (45.75%) possessed significant (P<0.05) distinction. For instance, Mabrouk et al. (2008) reported quite relevant results regarding the total carbohydrate level in Prosopis juliflora, while Rifat et al. (2018) reported little bit different concentration of carbohydrate content in Prosopis cineraria compared to current study. This difference among the results might be related with the variety, environmental distinction and soil composition. Differences in the results could also be related with the sample part of plant as in current study homogenous sample of leaves, seeds, pods were used, while in reported study of Rifat et al. (2018) only pods were focused.

 

Conclusion

 

Present study concludes that the Trifolium alexandrinum, Suaeda fruticosa, Haloxylon salicornicum, Zea mays, Salvadora oleiodes noted to be high moistured vegetations, Acacia jacquemontii appeared considerably rich in organic matter contents while Salvadora oleiodes in total inorganic/mineral matter. Capparis deciduas and Suaeda fruticosaboth pertained considerable concentration of crude protein contents. Zea mays and Salvadora oleiodes possessed high ether extract whereas Zea mays revealed remarkably maximum percentage of crude fiber.

 

Table 2: Influence of influence of irrigated soil on nitrogen free extract, crude fiber and total carbohydrate of camel browse vegetations.

 

Camel browse vegetations	Carbohydrate
	Nitrogen free extract (%)	Crude fiber (%)	Total (%)
Acacia nilotica	55.14a	19.65h	74.79a
Trifolium alexandrinum	31.42ef	21.85f	53.27gh
Ziziphus nummularia	45.35bc	22.95e	68.30b-d
Acacia jacquemontii	45.20bc	26.25b	71.45a-c
Prosopis juliflora	54.89a	21.80f	76.69a
Prosopis cineraria	54.24a	19.90gh	74.14ab
Alhagi maurorum	46.52b	19.15i	65.67c-e
Salvadora oleiodes	35.40de	22.75e	58.15fg
Capparis deciduas	37.76d	25.80c	63.56d-f
Suaeda fruticosa	19.95g	25.80c	45.75i
Haloxylon salicornicum	25.77fg	25.10d	50.87hi
Tamarix passerinoides	40.30cd	20.05g	60.35ef
Zea mays	38.00d	29.15a	67.15cd
LSD (0.05)	6.0799	0.3494	6.2064
SE±	2.8143	0.1617	2.8728

 

Acknowledgement

 

Authors are thankful to the all staff members of the Department of Animal Nutrition, Sindh Agriculture University Tando jam for providing the research facility and conducive environment for current research project.

 

Authors Contribution

 

Asad Ali Khaskheli: Performed research experiments, wrote abstract, methodology, results and discussion.

Muhammad Ibrahim Khaskheli and Asad Ali Khaskheli: Conceived the research idea, designed experiments and provided technical inputs at every step of study.

Allah Jurio Khaskheli: Overall management of the article and data entry in SPSS and analysis.

Arshad Ali Khaskheli: Data collection and write-up of conclusion and references.

 

Conflict interests

 

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

 

References

 

• AOAC (2000). Official methods of analysis. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. Int. Maryland, USA.

• Abdullah M, Rafay M, Sial N, Rasheed F, Nawaz MF, Nouman W, Ahmad I, Ruby T, Khalil S (2017). Determination of forage productivity, carrying capacity and palatability of browse vegetation in arid rangelands of cholistan desert (pakistan). Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 5: 623-637. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1504_623637

• Abdulrazak SA, Orden EA, Ichinohe T, Fujihara T (2001). Chemical composition, phenolic concentration and in vitro gas production characteristics of selected Acacia fruits and leaves. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 13: 935-940. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2000.934

• Ahmad S, Yaqoob M, Hashmi N, Zaman M, Tariq M (2009). Economic importance of camel: Unique alternative under crisis. Pak. Vet. J. 30: 191-197.

• Ashraf MA, Karamat M, Wajid A, Qureshi AK, Gharibreza M (2013). Chemical constituents of Haloxylon salicornicum plant from Cholistan desert, Bahawalpur. Pak. J. F. Agric. Environ. 11: 1176-1182.

• Bwai MD, Uzama D, Abubakar S, Olajide OO, Ikokoh PP, Magu J (2015). Proximate, elemental, phytochemical and anti-fungal analysis of Acacia nilotica fruit. Pharm. Biol. Eval. 2: 52-59.

• Chandra J, Mali MC (2014). Nutritional evaluation of top five fodder tree leaves of mimosaceae family of arid region of Rajasthan. Int. J. Inn. Res. Rev. 2: 14-16.

• Anonymous (2015-16). Economic survey of Pakistan. Economic advisor’s wing, finance division, GoP, Islamabad, Pakistan.

• El-Amier YA, Abdullah TJ (2015). Evaluation of nutritional value for four kinds of wild plants in Northern sector of Nile Delta, Egypt. Open J. Appl. Sci. 5: 393-402. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojapps.2015.57039

• Farooq MU, Marwat RUK, Qamar IA, Ahmad S, Razaq A, Tiwana UA (2018). Seasonal variation in nutritional characteristics of forage species in Rakh Choti Dalana in District Dera Ghazi Khan Pakistan. Basic Res. J. Agri. Sci. Rev. 6(3):21-26.

• Gomez K, Gomez A (1984). Statistical procedures for agricultural research institute. Second edition, Los Banos Philipines: Jhon Wiley Sons Inc.

• Gull T, Mahmood Z, Anwar F, Sultana B, Nouman W, Shahid SA, Iqbal MZ (2015). Variation of proximate composition and minerals within different parts of Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Edgew as a function of harvesting seasons. Pak. J. Bot. 47: 1743-1748.

• Heuzé V, Thiollet H, Tran G, Hassoun P, Bastianelli D, Lebas F (2016). Gum arabic tree (Acacia senegal). Feedipedia, a programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO., http://www.feedipedia.org/node/342. Retrived on July 4, 2018, 17:00.

• Ibrahim H, Mohammed AK, Ibrahim OA, Ishiyaku YM, Ahmed SA, Abdullah M (2017). Nutritional composition of some forage species consumed by one-humped camels (camelus dromedarius) in zaria sub-humid region of Nigeria. J. Anim. Prod. Res. 29: 365-370.

• Iqbal A, Khan BB (2001). Feeding behaviour of camel. Pak. J Agric. Sci. 38: 58-63.

• Kathirvel P, Kumudha P (2011). Chemical composition of Prosopis juliflora (SW.) DC (mosquito bean). Int. J. Appl. Biol. Pharm. Tech. 2: 5-14.

• Khanum SA, Yaqoob T, Sadaf S, Hussain M, Jabbar MA, Hussain HN, Kausar R, Rehman S (2007). Nutritional evaluation of various feedstuffs for livestock production using in vitro gas method. Pak. Vet. J. 27: 129-133.

• Mabrouk H, Hilmi E, Abdullah M (2008). Nutritional value of Prosopis juliflora pods in feeding nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fries. Arab Gulf J. Sci. Res. 26(1-2): 49-62.

• Mabrouk H, Hilmi E, Abdullah M (2014). Nutritional assessment of Prosopis juliflora at different locations Sudan. Arab Gulf J. Sci. Res. 25(4): 160-170.

• Manzoor M, Sultan J, Nisa M, Bilal M (2013). Nutritive evaluation and in-situ digestibility of irrigated grass. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 23: 1223-1227.

• Mohsen MK, El-Santiel GS, Gaafar HMA, El-Gendy HM, El-Beltagi EA (2011). Nutritional evaluation of berseem. 2. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on berseem fed as silage to goats. Arch. Zootech. 14: 21-31.

• Murray SS, Schoeninger MJ, Bunn HT, Pickering TR, Marlett JA (2000). Nutritional composition of some wild plant foods and honey used by Hadza foragers of Tanzania. J. F. Comp. Anal. 14: 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1006/jfca.2000.0960

• Rasool F, Ishaque M, Yaqoob S, Tanveer A (2017). Chemical composition and ethnobotanical uses of Acacia jacquemontii Benth. in the Thal desert in Pakistan. Bois Forêts Trop. 331: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.19182/bft2017.331.a31327

• Rathore M (2009). Nutrient content of important fruit trees from arid zone of Rajasthan. J. Hortic. Forest. 1: 103-108.

• Rifat UKM, Farooq MU, Qamar IA, Ahmad S, Razaq A, Tiwana UA (2018). Seasonal variation in nutritional characteristics of forage species in Rakh Choti Dalana in District Dera Ghazi Khan Pakistan. Basic Res. J. Agric. Sci. Rev. 6: 21-26.

• Samreen U, Ibrar M, Badshah L, Ullah B (2016). Nutritional and Elemental Analysis of Some Selected Fodder Plants of Darazinda FRDI Khan. Pak. Adv. Plant Agric. Res. 4: 1224-1230.

• Sarwar M, Javaid A, Mahr-Un-Nisa, Bhatti SA (2009). Food security from existing resources. Proc. Agriculture: Challenges, opportunities and options under free trade regime. Organized by WTO and Agriculture policy forum held at University of Agriculture, Faisalabad on May 28-29.

• Shawn S, Okullo P, Hafashimana D, Byabashaija DM (2001). Diversity and composition of trees and shrubs in Kasagala forest: A semiarid savannah woodland in Central Uganda. Afr. J. Ecol. 48(1): 111-118.

• Towhidi A, Zhandi M (2007). Chemical composition, in vitro digestibility and palatability of nine plant species for dromedary camels in the province of Semnan, Iran. Egypt. J. Biol. 9: 47-52.

• Towhidi A (2009). Nutritive value of some herbages for dromedary camel in Iran. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 10: 167-170. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2007.167.170

• Ullah Z, Baloch MK, Khader JA, Baloch IB, Ullah R, Abdeislam MN, Noor S (2013). Proximate and nutrient analysis of selected medicinal plants of Tank and South Waziristan area of Pakistan. Afr. J. Pharm. Pharm., 7: 179-184. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJPP12.766