Nutritional Analysis of Browse and Common Feed Items With an Emphasis on Starch Content
Abstract
Introduction
There has been a recent awareness of the presence of soluble complex carbohydrates in animal diets. One particular aspect has been the use of starches in ruminant feeds. Starches have been implicated as a possible underlying factor in numerous medical issues in captive wild ruminants. Consumption of high levels of concentrates with high levels of starches, are a known cause of ruminal acidosis in domestic ruminants, affecting intake, feed digestibility, milk production, hoof health, and overall animal health.3,4 An experimental study in cattle was conducted in which starches were infused directly into the duodenum of cattle. Two of the four cattle became acutely ill with one animal needing to be euthanatized.1 The clinical signs were consistent with anaphylaxis. An experimental feed with less starch than a traditional zoo ruminant ration was shown to allow weight gain and decreased blood levels of non-esterified fatty acids in five of six captive giraffes.2 An evaluation of common feed items including browse items that included starches was performed. Representative feed items were shipped to a commercial feed lab (Dairy One Forage lab, Ithaca, NY, USA). Tables [CLKB10] 1, 2, and 3 [CLKB11] show the details of this analysis.
Table 1. Nutritional analysis of browse materials fed at Busch Gardens including starch and sugar analysis
|
|
Hibiscus
|
Bamboo
|
Spanish moss
|
Mulberry
|
Acacia w/stems
|
False acacia w/stems
|
Water Hyacinth
|
Romaine
|
|
|
As fed
|
DM
|
As fed
|
DM
|
As fed
|
DM
|
As fed
|
DM
|
As fed
|
DM
|
As fed
|
DM
|
As fed
|
DM
|
As fed
|
DM
|
|
Moisture (%)
|
81.3
|
|
52.3
|
|
75.4
|
|
73
|
|
53.2
|
|
47.8
|
|
94.7
|
|
92.4
|
|
|
Dry matter (%)
|
18.7
|
|
47.7
|
|
24.6
|
|
27
|
|
46.8
|
|
52.2
|
|
5.3
|
|
7.6
|
|
|
Crude protein (%)
|
2.9
|
15.4
|
6.1
|
12.9
|
1.8
|
7.5
|
6.9
|
25.7
|
6.4
|
13.6
|
5.3
|
10.2
|
0.8
|
14.5
|
1.8
|
23.3
|
|
ADF (%)
|
4.5
|
23.9
|
16.9
|
35.4
|
10
|
40.8
|
3.9
|
14.5
|
13.8
|
29.5
|
23
|
44.1
|
1.7
|
32.8
|
1.1
|
15.1
|
|
NDF (%)
|
10.1
|
53.9
|
31.1
|
65.1
|
15.7
|
64
|
9.1
|
33.6
|
21.6
|
46.1
|
29.6
|
56.7
|
3.0
|
56.7
|
1.4
|
19.1
|
|
Lignin (%)
|
1.2
|
6.5
|
4.0
|
8.5
|
1.9
|
7.5
|
0.9
|
3.5
|
4.9
|
10.4
|
7.5
|
14.4
|
0.4
|
7.3
|
0.2
|
3.1
|
|
NFC (%)
|
3.0
|
15.8
|
5.7
|
12
|
4.4
|
18
|
9.3
|
34.6
|
16.3
|
34.8
|
15.1
|
28.9
|
0.6
|
12.0
|
3.5
|
46
|
|
NSC (%)
|
1.3
|
7.1
|
3.4
|
7.2
|
0.6
|
2.4
|
4.4
|
16.3
|
2.5
|
5.4
|
3.4
|
6.5
|
0.2
|
3.2
|
2.8
|
36.8
|
|
Starch (%)
|
0.7
|
3.9
|
0.1
|
0.3
|
0.1
|
0.3
|
0.8
|
3.1
|
0.4
|
0.8
|
1.1
|
2.1
|
0.0
|
0.7
|
0.2
|
2.2
|
|
Sugar (%)
|
0.6
|
3.2
|
3.3
|
6.9
|
0.5
|
2.1
|
3.6
|
13.2
|
2.1
|
4.6
|
2.3
|
4.4
|
0.1
|
2.5
|
2.6
|
34.6
|
|
Crude fat (%)
|
1.2
|
6.5
|
1.9
|
4
|
1
|
3.9
|
1.1
|
4
|
1.5
|
3.1
|
1.3
|
2.5
|
0.1
|
1.8
|
0.3
|
3.3
|
|
Ash (%)
|
3.16
|
16.8
|
5.5
|
11.6
|
1.87
|
7.63
|
3.1
|
11.5
|
4.5
|
9.6
|
3.2
|
6.0
|
1.1
|
20.9
|
0.89
|
11.8
|
|
TDN (%)
|
11
|
56
|
24
|
51
|
14
|
55
|
19
|
69
|
26
|
56
|
25
|
49
|
2
|
44
|
5
|
72
|
|
Calcium (%)
|
0.62
|
3.3
|
0.5
|
1.08
|
0.47
|
1.91
|
0.58
|
2.1
|
1.4
|
2.99
|
0.85
|
1.63
|
0.1
|
3.10
|
0.04
|
0.57
|
|
Phosphorus (%)
|
0.14
|
0.7
|
0.1
|
0.28
|
0.02
|
0.06
|
0.11
|
0.4
|
0.11
|
0.24
|
0.09
|
0.17
|
0.02
|
0.36
|
0.03
|
0.44
|
|
Magnesium (%)
|
0.08
|
0.4
|
0.1
|
0.38
|
0.07
|
0.29
|
0.1
|
0.3
|
0.15
|
0.32
|
0.11
|
0.21
|
0.02
|
0.35
|
0.02
|
0.32
|
|
Potassium (%)
|
0.41
|
2.1
|
0.3
|
0.74
|
0.18
|
0.74
|
0.67
|
2.4
|
0.49
|
1.05
|
0.51
|
0.97
|
0.09
|
1.78
|
0.32
|
4.3
|
|
|
0.23
|
1.27
|
0.01
|
0.02
|
0.12
|
0.49
|
0.00
|
0.01
|
0.05
|
0.11
|
0.10
|
0.20
|
0.03
|
0.58
|
0.02
|
0.326
|
|
Sodium (%)
|
9
|
7
|
2
|
5
|
|
|
4
|
5
|
3
|
2
|
7
|
4
|
1
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
Iron (ppm)
|
24
|
126
|
133
|
278
|
69
|
281
|
52
|
192
|
22
|
47
|
31
|
59
|
32
|
598
|
6
|
73
|
|
Zinc (ppm)
|
5
|
27
|
13
|
26
|
8
|
34
|
8
|
3
|
8
|
18
|
10
|
19
|
26
|
494
|
3
|
40
|
|
Copper (ppm)
|
2
|
10
|
7
|
14
|
3
|
12
|
2
|
9
|
4
|
9
|
3
|
6
|
2
|
36
|
1
|
2
|
|
Manganese (ppm)
|
4
|
20
|
8
|
18
|
6
|
23
|
5
|
18
|
2
|
5
|
2
|
4
|
7
|
137
|
2
|
33
|
|
Molybdenum (ppm)
|
0.1
|
0.6
|
1.6
|
3.3
|
0.1
|
0.2
|
0.3
|
1.1
|
2.9
|
6.2
|
1
|
1.9
|
0.1
|
2.4
|
0.1
|
0.2
|
|
Sulfur (%)
|
0.06
|
0.3
|
0.1
|
0.38
|
0.03
|
0.12
|
0.06
|
0.2
|
0.07
|
0.15
|
0.07
|
0.14
|
0.03
|
0.47
|
0.02
|
0.26
|
|
Chloride ion (%)
|
0.41
|
2.1
|
0.2
|
0.53
|
0.06
|
0.24
|
0.11
|
0.4
|
0.25
|
0.54
|
0.33
|
0.63
|
0.12
|
2.01
|
0.09
|
1.14
|
Table 2. Nutritional analysis of commercial feeds fed at Busch Gardens including starch and sugar analysis
|
|
Browser pellet
|
Elephant feed
|
Sweet feed
|
Leafeater
|
|
|
As fed
|
DM
|
As fed
|
DM
|
As fed
|
DM
|
As fed
|
DM
|
|
Moisture (%)
|
9.0
|
|
12.0
|
|
10.9
|
|
8
|
|
|
Dry Matter (%)
|
91.0
|
|
88.0
|
|
89.1
|
|
92
|
|
|
Crude Protein (%)
|
15.6
|
17.1
|
21.3
|
24.3
|
15.9
|
17.8
|
24.3
|
26.4
|
|
ADF (%)
|
26.3
|
28.9
|
12.9
|
14.6
|
11.1
|
12.5
|
16.7
|
18.2
|
|
NDF (%)
|
38.3
|
42.1
|
24.6
|
27.9
|
24.9
|
27.9
|
25
|
27.2
|
|
Lignin (%)
|
4.4
|
4.8
|
4.0
|
4.6
|
2.4
|
2.7
|
1.2
|
1.3
|
|
NFC (%)
|
27.8
|
30.6
|
30.1
|
34.2
|
41.4
|
46.5
|
36.7
|
39.9
|
|
Starch (%)
|
5.1
|
5.6
|
11.4
|
12.9
|
25.3
|
28.4
|
16.8
|
18.3
|
|
Sugar (%)
|
12.9
|
14.2
|
7.9
|
8.9
|
6.9
|
7.7
|
6.7
|
7.3
|
|
Crude Fat (%)
|
4.3
|
4.7
|
4.2
|
4.8
|
3.0
|
3.3
|
3.8
|
4.2
|
|
Ash (%)
|
7.59
|
8.34
|
10.73
|
12.20
|
6.24
|
7.0
|
6.64
|
7.21
|
|
TDN (%)
|
62
|
68
|
61
|
69
|
66
|
74
|
72
|
79
|
|
Calcium (%)
|
1.30
|
1.43
|
1.47
|
1.67
|
0.88
|
399
|
1.04
|
1.13
|
|
Phosphorus (%)
|
0.86
|
0.93
|
0.83
|
0.94
|
0.77
|
0.86
|
0.75
|
0.81
|
|
Magnesium (%)
|
0.43
|
0.48
|
0.27
|
0.31
|
0.33
|
0.37
|
0.19
|
0.20
|
|
Potassium (%)
|
1.03
|
1.13
|
1.81
|
2.06
|
1.31
|
1.47
|
1.03
|
1.12
|
|
Sodium (%)
|
0.314
|
0.345
|
1.004
|
1.141
|
0.212
|
0.238
|
0.295
|
0.321
|
|
Iron (ppm)
|
643
|
707
|
611
|
695
|
493
|
554
|
520
|
565
|
|
Zinc (ppm)
|
130
|
143
|
347
|
394
|
262
|
294
|
142
|
155
|
|
Copper (ppm)
|
13
|
14
|
51
|
57
|
62
|
70
|
21
|
23
|
|
Manganese (ppm)
|
136
|
150
|
229
|
260
|
246
|
276
|
111
|
120
|
|
Molybdenum (ppm)
|
20.9
|
23.0
|
1.9
|
2.1
|
2.4
|
2.7
|
3.7
|
4.0
|
|
Sulfur (%)
|
0.19
|
0.21
|
0.26
|
0.3
|
0.23
|
0.26
|
0.28
|
0.3
|
|
Chloride ion (%)
|
0.57
|
0.63
|
1.62
|
1.84
|
0.36
|
0.4
|
0.43
|
0.47
|
Table 3. Nutritional analysis of hay fed at Busch Gardens including starch and sugar analysis
|
|
Legume
|
Timothy
|
Bermuda
|
Orchard
|
|
|
As Fed
|
DM
|
As Fed
|
DM
|
As Fed
|
DM
|
As Fed
|
DM
|
|
Moisture (%)
|
8.9
|
|
8.6
|
|
7.7
|
|
8
|
|
|
Dry matter (%)
|
91.1
|
|
91.4
|
|
92.4
|
|
92
|
|
|
Crude protein (%)
|
14.2
|
15.5
|
6.5
|
7.1
|
6.8
|
7.3
|
14.5
|
15.7
|
|
ADF (%)
|
33.9
|
37.2
|
38.6
|
42.2
|
33.1
|
35.9
|
29.1
|
31.6
|
|
NDF (%)
|
44.5
|
48.8
|
60.9
|
66.7
|
66.7
|
72.3
|
47.2
|
51.3
|
|
Lignin (%)
|
8.6
|
9.5
|
5.8
|
6.3
|
5.1
|
5.5
|
5.5
|
6
|
|
NFC (%)
|
25.8
|
28.3
|
20.3
|
22.2
|
16.4
|
17.8
|
23.5
|
25.5
|
|
Starch (%)
|
0.8
|
0.9
|
1.4
|
1.6
|
4.4
|
4.8
|
1.7
|
1.8
|
|
Sugar (%)
|
5.8
|
6.3
|
10.9
|
11.9
|
4.1
|
4.4
|
15.4
|
16.8
|
|
Crude fat (%)
|
1.5
|
1.6
|
1.5
|
1.7
|
1
|
1.1
|
3.1
|
3.3
|
|
Ash (%)
|
7.45
|
8.18
|
4.19
|
4.58
|
4.84
|
5.24
|
7.89
|
8.58
|
|
TDN (%)
|
50
|
55
|
52
|
57
|
51
|
56
|
56
|
61
|
|
Calcium (%)
|
|
114
|
|
78
|
|
78
|
|
116
|
|
Phosphorus (%)
|
1.04
|
1.14
|
0.43
|
0.47
|
0.37
|
0.4
|
0.53
|
0.58
|
|
Magnesium (%)
|
0.23
|
0.25
|
0.17
|
0.19
|
0.2
|
0.21
|
0.2
|
0.22
|
|
Potassium (%)
|
0.11
|
0.12
|
0.1
|
0.11
|
0.13
|
0.14
|
0.17
|
0.18
|
|
Sodium (%)
|
2.47
|
2.71
|
1.24
|
1.35
|
1.39
|
1.51
|
1.35
|
1.47
|
|
Iron (ppm)
|
0.063
|
0.069
|
0.004
|
0.004
|
0.017
|
0.018
|
0.011
|
0.012
|
|
Zinc (ppm)
|
89
|
97
|
80
|
87
|
117
|
127
|
153
|
166
|
|
Copper (ppm)
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
24
|
25
|
27
|
32
|
35
|
|
Manganese (ppm)
|
5
|
5
|
9
|
9
|
9
|
9
|
7
|
8
|
|
Molybdenum (ppm)
|
25
|
28
|
51
|
56
|
40
|
43
|
68
|
74
|
|
Cobalt (ppm)
|
1
|
1.1
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.9
|
1
|
|
Chloride ion (%)
|
0.12
|
0.13
|
0.08
|
0.09
|
0.24
|
0.26
|
0.17
|
0.18
|
Discussion
Complex carbohydrates are not found in abundance in non-agricultural food items, with the exception of seeds,1 and hence many animals have not evolved appropriate measures for digesting them. As a result, various inflammatory problems may develop. One major manufacturer of zoo animal feeds has already recognized this and has begun integration of low starch feeds into their line of products. A recent workshop on giraffe nutrition recommended starch levels of less than 5% be fed to giraffes.6 Starches can be found in many different feeds and the health care team at any zoological collection should be aware of the potential health problems this may cause. Other non-ruminant herbivores may also have the potential to develop health issues related to excessive dietary starches.
Reprinted with permission of the Comparative Nutrition Society (CNS). 2006. Proc. Sixth Biennial Conference, Keystone, Colorado. Information in the CNS abstracts is not peer reviewed and cannot be considered endorsed by the society.
Literature Cited
1. Bissel HA. Post-ruminal starch infusion in dairy cattle: Implications for inflammatory response and animal health. Master’s Thesis, University of Florida. 2002.
2. Kearney C, Hall MB. An update on giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) response to dietary fiber form and carbohydrate profile: Implications for animal health. In: Proceedings of the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians Annual Meeting. 2005:18.
3. Krajcarski-Hunt H, Plaizier JC, Walton J-P, Spratt R, McBride BW. Short Communication: Effect of subacute ruminal acidosis on in situ fiber digestion in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2002;85:570–573.
4. Nocek JE. Bovine acidosis: Implications on laminitis. J Dairy Sci. 1997;80:1005–1028.
5. Robbins CT. Wildlife Feeding and Nutrition. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.; 1993:248.
6. Schmidt D. Proceedings of the Giraffe Nutritional Workshop. Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL. 2005:23.