Feedipedia
Animal feed resources information system
Feedipedia
Feedipedia

Combretum (Combretum aculeatum)

Datasheet

Description
Click on the "Nutritional aspects" tab for recommendations for ruminants, pigs, poultry, rabbits, horses, fish and crustaceans
Synonyms 

Combretum denhardtiorum Engl. & Diels, Combretum leuconili Schweinf., Combretum ovale G.Don, Combretum stefaninianum Pamp., Commiphora holstii Engl. - non Combretum holstii Engl., Poivrea aculeata (Vent.) DC., Poivrea hartmanniana Schweinf. - non Combretum hartmannianum Schweinf., Poivrea ovalis (G.Don) Walp. (USDA, 2009)

Feed categories 
Related feed(s) 
Description 

Combretum aculeatum Vent. is a small tree or shrub up to 4 m high. It has elliptic alternate and more or less pubescent leaves (Orwa et al., 2009). It is a notable browse tree in several African countries.

Distribution 

Combretum aculeatum is native to Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Sudan, Guinea, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Somalia and Uganda. It grows in dry savannah on sandy or loamy soils.

Nutritional aspects
Ruminants 

This tree is highly sought after by animals, which consume the leaves, flowers and young shoots. It is one of the most valued fodders by cattle, goats, sheep and camels in eastern Kenya (Anttila et al., 1993). The browse provided is very rich in protein. The trees withstand repeated browsing (Toutain, 1980). Annual forage production ranges from 150 to 600 kg DM/ha with an average of 45-60 kg protein/ha (Le Houérou, 1980).

It is reported to be more digestible than Leucaena leucocephala for goats and sheeps, and it is recommended to supplement chopped sorghum with dried leaves of this shrub (Bosma et al., 1995). A diet with 30% dried leaves of Combretum aculeatum was as digestible as one supplemented with agro-industrial by-products and allowed the absorption of more OM, especially by goats (Bosma et al., 1997). In Niger, Oudah rams fed on poor quality forage who could browse Combretum aculeatum foliage during 60 or 120 minutes a day had higher overall DM intake. However, the digestibility of red bush willow was lower than that of control and the animals allowed to browse Combretum aculeatum had decreased herbage intake, live weight gain than animals fed on controls or browsing Ziziphus mauritiana. These results could be explained by the high level and the nature of tannins contained in Combretum aculeatum foliage (Sangaré et al., 2003).

Nutritional tables
Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value 

Avg: average or predicted value; SD: standard deviation; Min: minimum value; Max: maximum value; Nb: number of values (samples) used

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 47.8   28.5 60.7 4  
Crude protein % DM 13.4 4.4 7.4 29.8 47  
Crude fibre % DM 24.4 5.8 16.8 36.2 26  
Neutral detergent fibre % DM 40.4 8.3 26.3 66.3 31  
Acid detergent fibre % DM 31.6 7.7 19.4 51.1 31  
Lignin % DM 9.4 4.9 4.4 27.3 31  
Ether extract % DM 3.4 1.7 1.2 8.1 29  
Ash % DM 10.5 2.8 6.4 20.9 47  
Insoluble ash % DM 2.9 2.8 0.8 8.7 7  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 18.1         *
               
Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Calcium g/kg DM 17.7 8.4 3.8 36 11  
Phosphorus g/kg DM 2.4 1.2 0.7 4.9 12  
Potassium g/kg DM 14.4 5.9 5.3 23.4 9  
Sodium g/kg DM 0.21   0.04 0.34 4  
Magnesium g/kg DM 2.9 0.6 1.7 3.5 8  
Manganese mg/kg DM 89   64 117 3  
Zinc mg/kg DM 49   31 75 3  
Copper mg/kg DM 24   21 26 3  
Iron mg/kg DM 376       1  
               
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Tanins, condensed (eq. catechin) g/kg DM 0.1   9.999999E-02 0.2 2  
               
In vitro digestibility and solubility Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
In vitro DM digestibility (pepsin-cellulase) % 60 13 37 82 17  
In vitro OM digestibility (pepsin-cellulase) % 58 13 36 80 17  
               
Ruminants nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 66.5         *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 63.6         *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 11.5         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 9.3         *

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Calabro et al., 2007; CIRAD, 1991; Diagayété et al., 1986; Dougall et al., 1964; Doulkom, 2000; Sangaré et al., 2003

Last updated on 06/11/2019 15:42:25

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Dry matter % as fed 94       1  
Crude protein % DM 17.1       1  
Crude fibre % DM 35.3       1  
Neutral detergent fibre % DM 55.3       1  
Acid detergent fibre % DM 43.6       1  
Lignin % DM 13.7       1  
Ether extract % DM 15.6       1  
Ash % DM 4.3       1  
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 22.4         *
               
Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
Tanins, condensed (eq. catechin) g/kg DM 0       1  
               
In vitro digestibility and solubility Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
In vitro DM digestibility (pepsin-cellulase) % 49       1  
In vitro OM digestibility (pepsin-cellulase) % 47       1  
               
Ruminants nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max Nb  
OM digestibility, ruminants % 48.3         *
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 46.1         *
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 10.3         *
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 8.2         *

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

CIRAD, 1991

Last updated on 06/11/2019 15:57:06

References
References 
Datasheet citation 

Heuzé V., Tran G., 2019. Combretum (Combretum aculeatum). Feedipedia, a programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://www.feedipedia.org/node/705 Last updated on November 6, 2019, 15:19

English correction by Tim Smith (Animal Science consultant) and Hélène Thiollet (AFZ)