Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:43:19.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritive value of the olive leaf: effects of cultivar, season of harvesting and system of drying

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. Cabrera-Gomez ,
A. Garrido ,
J. E. Guerrero  and
V. Ortiz
A. Cabrera-Gomez
Affiliation:
Departamento de Productión Animal, Universidad de Córdoba, Apartado 3048, 14080 Córdoba, Spain
A. Garrido
Affiliation:
Departamento de Productión Animal, Universidad de Córdoba, Apartado 3048, 14080 Córdoba, Spain
J. E. Guerrero
Affiliation:
Departamento de Productión Animal, Universidad de Córdoba, Apartado 3048, 14080 Córdoba, Spain
V. Ortiz
Affiliation:
Departamento de Productión Animal Pastos y Forrajes, DGIEA, Apartado 204, 14080 Córdoba, Spain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Leaves of olive trees (Olea europaea L.) of eight cultivars, Manzanilla, Picual, Hojiblanca, Edremit, Conservolia, Picholine-Marroqui, Chemlali and Frantoio, were collected in different seasons and years in Córdoba, Spain. Their chemical composition and in vitro organic matter digestibility values were determined. Differences in composition and nutritive value between cultivars, years and seasons were studied in Manzanilla, Picual and Hojiblanca, the three most important local cultivars. There were significant differences both between cultivars and seasons (P < 0·05) and a non-significant difference between years.

The effect of various drying procedures (fresh, oven-dried, air-dried indoors or air-dried outdoors) on chemical composition, in vitro digestibility and in vivo digestibility in sheep was also examined. The in vivo organic matter digestibility of fresh leaves was significantly higher than that of dried leaves. No difference was found between leaves air-dried indoors and oven-dried leaves. However, leaves air-dried outdoors were significantly less digestible. Quick drying in an oven reduced the digestibility of crude protein and acid detergent fibres compared to air drying indoors. There was a significant decrease in digestibility of 11% when leaves were dried separated from the branches as compared to leaves dried on the branches.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 119 , Issue 2 , October 1992 , pp. 205 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Association Of Official Analytical Chemists (1970). Official Methods of Analysis 11th edn, pp. 122–131. Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Co.Google Scholar
Bergen, W. G. (1970). Osmolarity and rumen function in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 31, 236. (Abstract).Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C. & Jarrige, R. (1981). Panorama des méthodes de prévision de la digestibilité et de la valeur énergétiquedes fourrages. In Prevision dela valeur nutritive des aliments des ruminants, pp. 41–59. Versailles: INRA.Google Scholar
Fao, (1982). FAO Statistics Series no. 40. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Fao, (1983). Seminaire International sur la Valorisation des Sous-produits de l'Olivier. Madrid: FAO.Google Scholar
Fao, (1984) Valorisation des Sous-produits de l'Olivier. Madrid: FAO.Google Scholar
Gomez-Cabrera, A., Garrido-Varo, A., Olivares-Gonzales, A. & Guerrero-Ginel, J. E. (1986). Chemical and nutritional features of olive residue. In International Symposium on Olive By Products Valorization, pp. 373–401. Madrid: FAO.Google Scholar
Makkar, H. P. S., Singh, B. & Negi, S. S. (1989). Relationship of rumen degradability with microbial colonization, cell wall constituents and tannin level in some tree leaves. Animal Production 49, 299–303.Google Scholar
Marquez, J. A. & Rallo, L. (1986). Influencia del número y la distribution de las inflorescencias, de la relatión hojainflorescencia y del anillado en el cuajado y distribution de materia seca en ramas fructi'feras de olivo. Abstract II Congreso Nacional de Ciencias Horticolas, p. 21. Escuela Técnica Superior Ingenieros Agrónomos, Unversity of Córdoba, Spain.Google Scholar
Maymone, B., Sblendorio, A. & Ceci, Ginestrelli D. (1950). Ricerche sulla composizione chimica, sulla digestibilitá e sul valore nutritivo delle foglie di olivo (Olea Europea L.) verdi, essiccate, insilate. Annales Instituto Sperimentale Zootecnico 4, 1–19.Google Scholar
Mcleod, M. N. (1974). Plant tannins - their role in forage quality. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, B 44, 803–815.Google Scholar
Nefzaoui, A. & Zidani, M. (1987). Les sous-produits de tolivier. Special number. Sfax, Tunisia: Institut de L'Olivier.Google Scholar
Parellada-Vilella, J., Gomez-Cabrera, A., Garridovaro, A. & Ocaña-Luzon, F. (1984). Obtención del ramón de olivo y utilization en alimentation animal. In uevas Fuenles de Alimentospara la Producción Animal II (Eds Gómez, A., Guerrero, J. E. & Garrido, A.), pp. 95–114. University of Cordoba, Spain.Google Scholar
Priestley, C. A. (1977). The annual turnover of resources in young olive trees. Journal of Horticultural Science 52, 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rexen, F. & Thomsen, K. W. (1976). The effect of digestibility of a new technique of alkali treatment of straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology 1, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. B. & Van Soest, P. J. (1981). The Analysis of Dietary Fiber (Eds James, W. P. T. & Theander, O.), pp. 123–158. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Sansoucy, R. (1985). Utilization of olive by-products as animal feed in the Mediterranean basin. Animal Production and Health no. 43. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute. (1982) SAS User's Guide. Carey, Statistical Analysis System Institute.Google Scholar
Stafford, H. (1988). Proanthocyanidins and the lignin connection. Phytochemistry 27, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Es, A. J. H. & Van Der Meer, J. M. (1980). Methods of analysis for predicting the energy and protein value of feeds from farm animals. Lelystad, Holland: Institute for Livestock Feeding and Nutrition Research (IVVO).Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Corvallis, USA: O & B Books.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Conkling, N. L. & Horvath, P. J. (1987). Tannins in Foods and Feeds. Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers, pp. 115–122. East Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Marriot.Google Scholar