<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJAS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Animal Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2161-7597</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojas.2016.61006</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJAS-62794</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Nutritional Evaluation and Palatability of Major Range Forbs from South Darfur, Sudan
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>afiz</surname><given-names>Abdalla Mohamed Ali</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Abu</surname><given-names>Bakr Omer Ismail</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mohammed</surname><given-names>Fatur</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Faisal</surname><given-names>Awad Ahmed</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>El</surname><given-names>Hadi Omer Ahmed</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Magda</surname><given-names>Elmahdi Elbushra Ahmed</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Deputy Dean, Graduate College, University of Bahri, Khartoum, Sudan</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Sinnar University, Sinnar, Sudan</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Ministry of Science and Technology, Range and Animal Research Station, Khartoum, Sudan</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Ministry of Science and Technology, Khartoum, Sudan</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>hafizabdo@hotmail.com(AAMA)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>12</day><month>01</month><year>2016</year></pub-date><volume>06</volume><issue>01</issue><fpage>42</fpage><lpage>48</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>11</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>12</month>	<year>January</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>15</day>	<month>January</month>	<year>2016</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  The nutritive value of rangelands in Southern Darfur, Sudan could be improved by introduction and multiplication of nutritious forbs with the objective of increasing livestock production in the area. The present study was conducted to evaluate the nutritive value and palatability of eleven range forbs collected at flowering stage from Gahzal Gawazat, Southern Darfur, Sudan using chemical analysis. The crude protein (CP) ranged from 6.8% in 
  <em>Oxygonum atriplicifolium</em> with lowest digestible crude protein (DCP) 2.8% to 16.4% in 
  <em>Zornia diphylla</em> with highest DCP 11.73%. The highest and the lowest crude fiber (CF) values were obtained in 
  <em>Commelina</em> spp (56.4%) and 
  <em>Sesamum alatum</em> (25.9%), respectively. NDF and DMI values were maximum and minimum for 
  <em>Zornia diphylla</em> (44.9 and 2.67%) and Alysicarpus glumaceus (35.3 and 3.4%), respectively. The total digestible nutrients (TDN) ranged from 57.1% in 
  <em>Blepharis linariifolia</em> to 69.3% in Tribulus terrestris with highest digestible energy (DE) in later while the lowest DE was obtained in 
  <em>Commelina</em> spp (2.4%). The calculated in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) was highest for the Canavalia ensiformis (50.27%) and lowest value (43.17%) for 
  <em>Commelina</em> spp. 
  <em>Zornia diphylla</em>, 
  <em>Tribulus terrestris</em> and 
  <em>Sesamum alatum</em> showed highest nutritive value, while 
  <em>Alysicarpus glumaceus</em>, 
  <em>Oldenlandia senegalensis</em> and 
  <em>Chrozophora brocchiana</em> showed highest palatability. It is concluded that these rangeland forbs are palatable and their CP and energy contents are sufficient to support different classes of livestock in South Darfur, Sudan.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Forbs</kwd><kwd> Nutritive Value</kwd><kwd> Palatability</kwd><kwd> Relative Feed Value</kwd><kwd> Energy Value</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Sudan is, as one of the largest countries in Africa, characterized by multi-environmental regions which permit different types of plants to grow naturally to meet the requirements of various types of livestock [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref1">1</xref>] . The total area of rangelands in South Darfour is about 466.5 ha and annual rainfall is 428 mm [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref2">2</xref>] . As per recent estimate, South Darfour had 11.2 million livestock consisting 4.2 million cattle, 3.8 million sheep, 3 million goats and 0.2 million camels [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref3">3</xref>] .</p><p>Rangeland is defined as uncultivated land that sustains animals through grazing and browsing [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref4">4</xref>] and contributes substantially in national economy by means of animal products for local consumption and exports. Under Sudan’s Savannah environment, the pasture is composed predominantly of annual grasses with some forbs. In general, the majority of the ruminants in sub-Saharan Africa are raised on rangelands where feed resources are mostly natural grazing grasses, forbs with some browse shrubs and trees [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref5">5</xref>] . To improve the nutritive value of rangelands introduction and multiplication of nutritious forbs is important to increase the livestock production. Keeping this in view, 11 dominant forbs of Gahzal Gawazat (Southern Darfur State) were evaluated for nutritive value and palatability attributes (intake, relative feed value).</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Area</title><p>The samples have been collected from Ghazal Gawazat Livestock and Range Research Station in 2013 rainy season, South Darfur spread in 51.2 Km<sup>2</sup> area, divided by fire-lines into twenty (20) equal grazing paddocks of 2.56 Km<sup>2</sup> each, covering an area of about 5310 ha [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref6">6</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Samples Collection</title><p>The plants species of natural range were collected from Gahzal Gawazat by line transect method of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref7">7</xref>] when herbs start set a flowering stage.</p>Line Transect Method<p>Equipments used:</p><p>(1) one meter tape ( 100 m );</p><p>(2) loop (3/4 inches);</p><p>(3) recording sheet.</p><p>The number of samples being used in this experiment depends largely on the approximate count of the most common species available in the area. Since it is rather difficult to measure or count the entire species population. In this method, numbers of samples were determined by plotting the number of species and samples recorded in vertical and horizontal axis respectively (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>) using many random transects across the study area. A general vegetation survey-list was obtained for the most commonly repeated range vegetation species in the study area.</p><p>As shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>, the number of species recorded was about 74 species in each 500 observation per each paddock where no more new species were recorded.</p><p>The numbers of samples taken were recorded in the horizontal axis of the curve. As the curve indicates when the number of samples increases the number of new species recorded increases till no new species found, the curve remain still or started to decline with the increase of sample’s number. This point is called “point of diminishing returns” where no new species were recorded with the increased number of samples.</p><p>The method of counting of the vegetation included recording of information being observed such counts were taken every one-meter along the 100 meter tape using &#190; inch loop. Resulting information’s were listed in the recording sheet.</p><p>The harvest was at a height of 5 cm using scissor, for each herb separately as shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Sample Preparation</title><p>The samples were air dried under shade and then in oven at 65˚C and the dried samples were ground to pass through a 1mm screen using grinding mill. About 250 gram of each sample was kept in plastic bag for analysis.</p><fig id="fig1"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> Vegetation measurement by area curve method</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1400362x7.png"/></fig><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Botanical, family name and local name of range forbs</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Scientific Name</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Family name</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Local name</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Alysicarpus glumaceus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Papilionoideae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abu Niggaigira</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blepharis linariifolia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acanthaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bighail</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Canavalia ensiformis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lubia El Feel</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chrozophora brocchiana</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Euphorbiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Argise</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Commelina spp</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Commelinaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Biead</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Indigofera spp</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Papilionoideae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ashrot</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Oldenlandia senegalensis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Garagoub</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Oxygonum atriplicifolium</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Polygonaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Um Hamid</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sesamum alatum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pedaliacae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Simsim El gumal</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tribulus terrestris</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zygophyllaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Deraisa</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zornia diphylla</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Losaik</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Chemical Analysis</title><p>Proximate analyses were determined according to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref8">8</xref>] . Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were estimated as per procedure of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref9">9</xref>] .</p><p>The digestible crude protein (DCP) was estimated as DCP% = 0.93CP − 3.52 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref10">10</xref>] and the in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) was estimated using the regression equation: Y = 57.49 − 0.232X − 0.725Z [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref11">11</xref>] . Where Y is the true IVOMD, X is the crude fiber, and Z is the ether extract. While the total digestible nutrients (TDN), digestible energy (DE), net energy for lactation NE<sub>L</sub>, net energy for maintenance NE<sub>M</sub>, net energy for growth NE<sub>G</sub>, dry matter intake (DMI), dry matter digestibility (DMD) and relative feed value RFV were determined by using following formulas :</p><disp-formula id="scirp.62794-formula40"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1400362x8.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.62794-formula41"><graphic  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1400362x9.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Equations given by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref12">12</xref>]</p><disp-formula id="scirp.62794-formula42"><label>(1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1400362x10.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.62794-formula43"><label>(2)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1400362x11.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.62794-formula44"><label>(3)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1400362x12.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.62794-formula45"><label>(4)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1400362x13.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.62794-formula46"><label>(5)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1400362x14.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Equations given by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref13">13</xref>]</p><disp-formula id="scirp.62794-formula47"><label>(6)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/6-1400362x15.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where CC is cell contents, NDF the neutral detergent fiber and ADF the acid detergent fiber [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref14">14</xref>] .</p><p>Each data point was obtained by making at least 3 independent measurements. The results were expressed as mean &#177; SD (Standard deviation).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results and Discussion</title><p>The organic matter contents in forbs species ranged from 66.7% (Tribulus terrestris) to 97% (Canavalia ensiformis) with mean value of 90.1% (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). The highest percentage of CP was recorded in Zornia diphylla (16.4%) and lowest was in Oxygonum atriplicifolium (6.8%) ad these values are within the range of CP values reported for forbs by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref5">5</xref>] . Reference [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref15">15</xref>] reported mean CP content of herbaceous species in rangeland is 10.6% during the main growing season also substantiate our results. Earlier studies on a wide variety of naturally growing native herbaceous in East Africa [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref16">16</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref17">17</xref>] indicated CP content in the range of 9.5% - 35.9%. The mean of eleven species evaluated in present study was within this range. The CP content of herbaceous plants within the range of 6% - 8% is adequate for ruminants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref18">18</xref>] . On the contrary, [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref19">19</xref>] argue that the critical level of CP content for tropical herbaceous species should be greater than 10.6%.</p><p>The highest percentage of crude fiber was recorded in Commelina spp (56.4) and lowest in Sesamum alatum (25.9%). However, the mean value of ether extract in forbs species was ranged from 1.5% (Blepharis linariifolia) to 2.7% (Oxygonum atriplicifolium). Neutral detergent fiber is the most important determinant for overall quality and digestibility of forage (Linn 2004). The NDF contents in the forbs species varied from 35.3% (Alysicarpus glumaceus) to 44.9% (Zornia diphylla) with a mean value of 40.4%. These values of NDF are lower than reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref1">1</xref>] , and this variation in NDF contents may be due to difference in maturity stage of forbs. The ADF contents of herbs ranged from 27.4% (Tribulus terrestris) to 38.6% (Commelina spp), among selected species and their mean was 34.1% and these results are similar to the findings of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref20">20</xref>] .</p><p>Energy value and palatability attributes of forbs were shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>. Total digestible nutrients of forbs were lowest in Commelina spp (54.7) with highest in Tribulus terrestris (69.3%). Mean values of DE and DCP of rangeland herbs were 2.7 Kcal/g and 6.18%, which ranged between 2.4 - 3.06 Kcal/g and 2.8% - 11.73% among the evaluated forbs. Net energy value for maintenance, growth and lactation varied amongst the forbs from 1.45 - 1.88, 0.58 - 1.0 and 1.4 - 1.85 Kcal/g, respectively. Highest in vitro organic matter digestibility was recorded in Canavalia ensiformis (50.27%) and the lowest was in Commelina spp (43.17%), while the mean value of IVOMD for herbs was 47.25%.</p><p>The DMI of the forbs were as low as 2.65% in Tribulus terrestris and as high as 3.4% in Alysicarpus glumaceus with mean value of 3%.</p><p>Mean (DMD%) of the forbs was 56. 3 with maximum value of 59.53% for Alysicarpus glumaceus. Since the intake is the function of crop chemical composition and its digestibility. Judging from the calculated coefficients of dry matter digestibility, all of these species have digestibility values above 45% which is considered adequate for high animal performance on pastures [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref22">22</xref>] . On the same hypothesis hybrids with more CP and low fiber along with higher digestibility exhibited higher dry matter intake [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref23">23</xref>] . The RFV of forbs ranged from 108.3 for Commelina spp to 156.9 for Alysicarpus glumaceus, with its mean value of 130.7%.</p><p>The results of study revealed that Zornia diphylla had highest nutritive value, but not highest palatability. This is because beside its nutritive value in terms of chemical composition contents, it may tends to consist of some aromatic smells and it tends to a very fast attachment on the animal’s skin causing some injuries, that, repels grazing animal from being of their priority preference during selective grazing. Reference [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref24">24</xref>] argued that many</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Chemical compositions (%) of forbs on dry matter basis</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Forbs</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >OM</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CP</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CF</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >EE</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >NDF</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >ADF</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Alysicarpus glumaceus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >07.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blepharis Linariifolia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >09.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Canavalia ensiformis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chrozophora brocchiana</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >08.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Commelina spp</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >07.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Indigofera spp</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Oldenlandia senegalensis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >08.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Oxygonum atriplicifolium</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >06.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sesamum alatum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tribulus terrestris</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zornia diphylla</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>DM = Dry matter, OM= Organic matter, CP = Crude protein, CF = Crude fiber, EE = Ether extract, NDF = Neutral detergent fiber, ADF = Acid detergent fiber.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Energy value and palatability attributes of forbs</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Forbs</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >TDN %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >DE Kcal/g</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >NE<sub>M </sub> Kcal/g</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >NE<sub>G </sub> Kcal/g</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >NE<sub>L </sub> Kcal/g</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >DMI %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >DMD %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >RFV %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >IVOMD %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >DCP %</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Alysicarpus glumaceus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >156.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.46</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blephariis Linariifolia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >143.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Canavalia ensiformis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >117.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.73</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chrozophora brocchiana</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >145.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.48</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Commelina spp</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >108.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.46</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Indigofera spp</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >139.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.52</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Oldenlandia senegalensis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >149.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.47</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Oxygonum atriplicifolium</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >118.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sesamum alatum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >134.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.62</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tribulus terrestris</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >116.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.64</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zornia diphylla</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >108.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.73</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >130.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>TDN = Total digestible nutrients, DE = Digestible energy, NEM = Net energy for maintenance, NEG = Net energy for growth, NEL = Net energy for lactation, DMI = Dry matter intake, DMD = Dry matter digestibility, RFV = Relative feed value, IVOMD = In vitro organic matter digestibility and DCP = Digestible crude protein.</p><p>forage species known to be highly nutritious in terms of chemical content may lack palatability and thus have lesser value as animal feed. The chemical composition of forage in itself is an incomplete measure of nutritive value of forage [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.62794-ref15">15</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusion</title><p>Forbs are important components of grassland ecosystem of the semi-arid and dry sub-humid savannas of West Africa. It can be concluded from the results of this study that these rangeland forbs are palatable and their CP content is high and promising to support different classes of livestock .The forbs appear promising in terms of their energy content for supporting production in South Darfur.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Hafiz Abdalla MohamedAli,Abu Bakr OmerIsmail,MohammedFatur,Faisal AwadAhmed,El Hadi OmerAhmed,Magda Elmahdi ElbushraAhmed, (2016) Nutritional Evaluation and Palatability of Major Range Forbs from South Darfur, Sudan. Open Journal of Animal Sciences,06,42-48. doi: 10.4236/ojas.2016.61006</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.62794-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Balgees</surname><given-names> A.A. and Hawa D. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2011</year>)<article-title>Nutritive Evaluation of Some Pasture Plants in Early and Late Rainy Season in Mosai (Southern Darfur State)</article-title><source> Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences</source><volume> 5</volume>,<fpage> 2065</fpage>-<lpage>2070</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">RPA (2012) Range and Pasture Administration. Report Sources of Forage Conditions in Sudan-Future Vision, Khartoum, Sudan.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">SBAR (2011) Statistical Bulletin for Animal Resources. Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries, Issue No. 20, Sudan.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Holechek, J.L., Pieper, R.D. and Herbel, C.H. (2004) Range Management, Principles and Practices. Fifth Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Awad</surname><given-names> O.A. and Elhadi O.A. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2010</year>)<article-title>Seasonal Variability in Nutritive Value of Ruminant Diets under Open Grazing System in the Semi-Arid Rangeland of Sudan (South Darfur State)</article-title><source> Agricultural and Biology Journal of North America</source><volume> 1</volume>,<fpage> 243</fpage>-<lpage>249</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hunting Technical Services Limited (1976) Savannah Development Project Phase II, Livestock and Range Investigations. Gahzal Gawazat, Borsham Wood, Cambridge, England, 21-23.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Canfield</surname><given-names> R.H. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1941</year>)<article-title>Application of Line Interception Method in Sampling Range Vegetation</article-title><source> Journal of forestry</source><volume> 39</volume>,<fpage> 388</fpage>-<lpage>394</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">AOAC (1990) Association Official Analytical Chemists. 13th Edition, Official Methods of Analysis, Washington DC.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B. and Lewis, B.A. (1991) Method for Dietary Fiber, Neutral Detergent Fiber and Non-Starch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal Nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3583-3597. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Demmewguilly, C. and Weiss, P. (1970) Tabieau de pa valeur alimmennfaire des Fourrages Et. No. 42, Versailles.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Geri, G. and Sottini, E. (1970) Compositione degerabilita in vitro dei germoglie edelle fogilie di alcune piante della machia mediterranea, firenza, Alementaz. Anim, 14, Cited by Le Houerou, N.H., 1980.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fonnesbeck, P.V., Clark, D.H., Garret, W.N. and Speth, C.F. (1984) Predicting Energy Utilization from Alfalfa Hay from the Western Region. Proceeding of American Society of Animal Sciences (Western Section), 35, 305-308.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Undersander, D., Mertens, D.R. and Theix, N. (1993) Forage Analysis. National Forage Testing Association, USA.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Van Soest</surname><given-names> P.J. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1967</year>)<article-title>Development of a Comprehensive System of Feed Analysis and Its Application to Forages</article-title><source> Journal of Animal Science</source><volume> 26</volume>,<fpage> 119</fpage>-<lpage>128</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Habtamu Teka, I., Madakadze, C., Angassa, A. and Hassen, A. (2012) Effect of Seasonal Variation on the Nutritional Quality of Key Herbaceous Species in Semi-arid Areas of Borana, Ethiopia. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 29, 324-332.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dougall, H.W. and Bogdan, A.V. (1966) The Chemical Composition of Some Leguminous Plants Grown in the Herbage Nursery at Kitale Kenya. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal, 32, 45-49.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gihad</surname><given-names> E.A. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1976</year>)<article-title>Studies on the Nutritional Value of Pasture Species in Zambia</article-title><source> East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal</source><volume> 41</volume>,<fpage> 335</fpage>-<lpage>339</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ganskopp, D. and Bohnert, D. (2001) Nutritional Dynamics of 7 Northern Great Basin Grasses. Journal of Range Management, 54, 640-647. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4003664</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Minson, D.J. (1990) Forage in Ruminant Nutrition. Conha, T.J., Ed., Academic Press, Inc., Javanorich Publishers, USA, 60-263.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Valarini, M.J. and Possenti, R.A. (2006) Nutritive Value of a Range of Tropical Forage. Tropical Grasslands, 40, 183-187.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">McDowell, L.R. (1972) Improvement of Livestock Production in Warm Climates. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, USA, 492.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Holt, E.C. (1977) Meeting the Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle with Forage. In: Staudmann, J.A., Huffman, D.L., Purchel, J.C., Walker, O.L., Eds., Forage-Fed Beef: Production and Marketing Alternatives in the South (Bulletin 220), Southern Cooperative Series, West Virginia, 262-285.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Singh, S. and Shukla, G.P. (2010) Genetic Diversity in the Nutritive Value of Dual Purpose Sorghum Hybrids. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology, 10S, 93-100.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.62794-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mahala, A.G., Nsahlai, I.V., Basha, N.A.D. and Mohammed, L.A. (2009) Nutritive Evaluation of Natural Pasture at Early and Late Rainfall Season in Kordofan and Butana, Sudan. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3, 4327-4332.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>