Manila tamarind (Pithecellobium dulce)

Datasheet

Description

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

Common names

Manila tamarind, blackbead, guayamochil, Madras thorn, camachile, sweet inga [English]; guamúchil, chiminango, payandé, espina de Madras [Spanish]; huamúchil, cuamúchil [Spanish/Mexico]; yacure [Spanish/Venezuela]; pois sucré, tamarin de Manille, tamarin d'Inde [French]; cuamochitl [Nahuatl]; kamatsile, kamatsili [Tagalog]; opiuma [Hawaian Creole]; जंगल जलेबी [Hindi]; മാനിലപ്പുളി [Malayalam]; Манильский тамаринд [Russian]; సీమ చింత [Telugu]; มะขามเทศ [Thai]; me nước, me keo [Vietnamese]; 金龜樹 [Chinese]

Species

Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth. [Fabaceae]

Synonyms

Mimosa dulcis Roxb.

Related feed(s)

Description

Manila tamarind (Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth.) is a small to medium-sized semi-evergreen leguminous tree, 5 to 20 m high (Ecocrop, 2011; FAO, 2011). Manila tamarind is a fast growing tree that may reach a height of 10 m in 5-6 years in favourable conditions (Duke, 1983). Manila tamarind has a short, stout, greyish trunk (30-100 cm in diameter) that bears low irregular branches and forms a broad crown (Ecocrop, 2011; FAO, 2011). The leaves are paripinnate with 4 leaflets (2.0-3.5 cm long x 1.0-1.5 cm wide). Small thorns (2.0-15.0 mm long) are inserted on each side of the leaf pedicels, though some varieties are thornless. While tree appears evergreen, the leaflets are deciduous and shed in succession. The inflorescences are axillary panicles which bear spherical glomerules (1 cm in diameter) of small, white-greenish, slightly flagrant flowers. Fruits are greenish-brown to red-pinkish, indehiscent pods. Pods are rather thin, 10-15 cm long x 1-2 cm wide, and set in a spiral of 1 to 3 whorls. The pods contain 10 seeds. The seeds are flattened, black and shiny (1 cm in diameter) (FAO, 2011).

Manila tamarind is a multipurpose tree. Its pods are edible and contain a thick sweetish acidic pulp. They can be eaten raw or processed into a soft drink similar to lemonade. Oil can be extracted from the seeds and is used for cooking or for making soaps (FAO, 2011).

Manila tamarind oil meal, pods and leaves are useful livestock feeds. The by-product of oil extraction is a protein-rich meal (30% protein) that can be fed to animals. Pods are also relished by all classes of livestock and Manila tamarind leaves can withstand heavy browsing. It is commonly browsed by horses, cattle, goats and sheep (NAS, 1980). In some places in Latin America, Manila tamarind is one of the most important browse species and is primarily used as a fodder during the dry season (FAO, 2011; Le Houérou, 1980).

Manila tamarind provides valuable hardwood timber for construction, paneling, boxes and posts but should not be used for fuel since it is very smoky. The tree is planted for shade, shelter, thorny hedges and as an ornamental tree (Ecocrop, 2011).

Distribution

Manila tamarind originated from a large Central American area, stretching from Southern California to Colombia and Venezuela. It was introduced to Indonesia and the Philippines by the Portuguese and the Spanish (Duke, 1983), and is also found in Malaysia and Thailand (Sunarjono et al., 1991). It was successfully planted in small areas in the South Sahelian and North Sudanese ecozones (FAO, 2011). It is now widespread (planted and naturalized) in tropical regions where it can be found along rivers and roadsides, in dry thickets or forests, from sea level up to an altitude of 1800 m and in areas where annual rainfall ranges from 400 mm to 1500 mm (Ecocrop, 2011; FAO, 2011; Sunarjono et al., 1991). In Hawaii, it has been declared a weed (Duke, 1983).

Manila tamarind grows in a wide range of soils and temperatures (it is nevertheless frost sensitive) and survives dry periods ranging from 3 up to 8 months (Ecocrop, 2011; FAO, 2011; Orwa et al., 2009). It prefers full sunlight but can withstand considerable shade (Orwa et al., 2009).

Environmental impact

Soil improver and afforestation

Manila tamarind is an N-fixing legume that can survive dry periods and grow in most types of soil. It is also tolerant of salinity and will grow in brackish water (Selvam, 2007). Manila tamarind may be used in afforestation (Orwa et al., 2009).

Living fences

Manila tamarind makes thorny living fence posts and hedges (FAO, 2011). However, it does not appear to be totally goat-proof (Sunarjono et al., 1991). Manila tamarind also provides dense shade (Orwa et al., 2009).

Nutritional aspects

Potential constraints

The thorns of Manila tamarind can cause the same hurts to people and animals as barbed-wire (Morton, 1962).

Ruminants

Foliage

Manila tamarind can be used for lopping and browsing, to be fed as the sole forage or as a supplement (Göhl, 1982).

In yearling female lambs, the DM intake of dry and fresh leaves ranged from 3.93 to 4.55% body weight with a slightly higher intake and significantly higher digestibility for fresh leaves (Harish et al., 2003). Similar level of intake (4.55 kg DM/100 kg BW) was registered with 6 month-old goats fed young leaves, resulting in an average daily gain of 50 g/day (Kundu et al., 1983).

Several studies have reported beneficial effects of Manila tamarind foliage used as a supplement (Fall Touré et al., 1998; Kahindi et al., 2007; Paengkoum et al., 2010; Saha et al., 2008). In 6 month-old East African goats consuming Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum), an increase in supplementation level (from 7.5 to 22.5 g DM/kgW^0.75) resulted in higher crude protein, DM intake and weight gain (from 8 to 43 g/day). However, a supplementation level higher than 22.5 g DM/kgW^0.75depressed intake and caused N losses. From this study, the recommended level for optimal production is in the 40-50% diet DM range (22.5 g DM/kg W^0.75) (Kahindi et al., 2007). In another study with cross-bred goats, Manila tamarind foliage replaced 45-50% of the crude protein from soybean meal without affecting productive performance, rumen fermentation and microbial protein yield (Paengkoum et al., 2010).

Pods

Early research suggests that pods are very palatable to livestock (Göhl, 1982).

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

Manila tamarind (Pithecellobium dulce), leaves and stems, fresh

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	35.8		30.6	41.0	2
Crude protein	% DM	21.3		19.2	23.5	2
Crude fibre	% DM	25.1		23.1	27.0	2
NDF	% DM	40.2				1
ADF	% DM	29.4				1
Lignin	% DM	12.3				1
Ether extract	% DM	3.7		3.0	4.3	2
Ash	% DM	8.4		5.0	11.8	2
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	18.8					*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	36.3				1
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	1.4				1

Secondary metabolites	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Tannins (eq. tannic acid)	g/kg DM	2.8				1
Tannins, condensed (eq. catechin)	g/kg DM	0.1				1

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	70.2					*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	67.1					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	12.6					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	10.0					*

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

References

CIRAD, 1991; Russell, 1947

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:33

Manila tamarind (Pithecellobium dulce), leaves, fresh

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	28.1		25.0	31.1	2
Crude protein	% DM	20.2	3.6	15.9	29.0	10
Crude fibre	% DM	24.2	3.6	17.5	27.5	6
NDF	% DM	43.9	2.5	41.0	47.4	7
ADF	% DM	29.1	1.4	26.7	31.1	7
Lignin	% DM	10.4	0.7	9.6	11.8	7
Ether extract	% DM	7.2	2.3	4.4	12.5	9
Ash	% DM	10.3	1.8	5.6	12.1	10
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	19.2					*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	9.6		7.8	11.4	2
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	3.5				1

Secondary metabolites	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Tannins (eq. tannic acid)	g/kg DM	6.3	5.9	2.3	19.4	7

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, Ruminant	%	71.1					*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	68.0					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	13.0					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	10.3					*

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

References

Abdulrazak et al., 2006; CIRAD, 1991; Russell, 1947

Last updated on 24/10/2012 00:44:33

References

Abdulrazak, S. A. ; Kahindi, R. K. ; Muinga, R. W., 2006. Effects of Madras thorn, Leucaena and Gliricidia supplementation on feed intake, digestibility and growth of goats fed Panicum hay. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 18 (9)
Daodu, M. O. ; Babayemi, O. J., 2009. Utilization of some edge-row plants as forage in Nigeria. Pakistan J. Nutr., 8 (8): 1269-1274
Dhok, A. P.; Rekhate, D. H.; Wankhade, S. G., 2005. Mineral status of goats in relation to common tree leaves fed in the Akola district. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 75 (1): 77-80
Duke, J. A., 1983. Handbook of Energy Crops. NewCROPS web site, Purdue University
Ecocrop, 2011. Ecocrop database. FAO
Elevitch, C. R. ; Wilkinson, K. M., 2000. Introduction to integrating trees into Pacific Islands farm systems. Agroforestry guides for Pacific Islands, 5
Fall Touré, S. ; Friot, D. ; Michalet-Doreau, B. ; Richard, D., 1996. Influence du séchage sur la digestibilité des feuilles de deux légumineuses arbustives. Ann. Zootech., 45 (Suppl.): 81
Fall Touré, S. ; Michalet-Doreau, B. ; Traore, E. ; Friot, D. ; Richard, D., 1998. Occurrence of digestive interactions in tree forage-based diets for sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 74 (1): 63-78
FAO, 2011. Grassland Index. A searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes. FAO, Rome, Italy
Garcia, D. E. ; Medina, M. G., 2006. Chemical composition, secondary metabolites, nutritive value and relative acceptability of ten fodder trees. Zootecnia Tropical, 24 (3): 233-250
Göhl, B., 1982. Les aliments du bétail sous les tropiques. FAO, Division de Production et Santé Animale, Roma, Italy
Harish, R. S. ; Rajora, N. K. ; Yadav, C. M., 2003. Voluntary intake, nutrient digestibility and nutritive value of ingadulcis (Pithecellobium dulce) leaves in sheep. Indian J. Small Rumin., 9 (1): 29-31
Kahindi, R. K. ; Abdulrazak, S. A. ; Muinga, R. W., 2007. Effect of supplementing Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) with Madras thorn (Pithecellobium dulce) on intake, digestibility and live weight gains of growing goats. Small Rumin. Res., 69 (1-3): 83-87
Kundu, H. ; Panda, N. C. ; Sahu, B. K., 1983. Leaves of inga dulcis (Manila tamarind; Pithecellobium dulce) as a fodder for goats. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 53 (6): 669-671
Le Houérou, H. N., 1980. Browse in Africa. The current state of knowledge. Papers presented in the International Symposium on Browse in Africa, Addis Ababa, April 8-12, 1980, International Livestock Center for Africa
Morton, J. F., 1962. Ornamental plants with toxic and/or irritant properties. II. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 75: 484-491
NAS, 1980. Firewood crops: Shrub and tree species for energy production. NAS, Washington D.C., USA
Orwa, C.; Mutua, A.; Kindt, R.; Jamnadass, R.; Anthony, S., 2009. Agroforestree Database: a tree reference and selection guide version 4.0. World Agroforestry Centre, Kenya
Paengkoum, P. ; Paengkoum, S., 2010. Effects of supplementing rice straw with Leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala) and Madras thorn (Pithecellobium dulce) foliages on digestibility, microbial N supply and nitrogen balance of growing goats. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr., 94 (5): 59–65
Russell, F. C., 1947. The chemical composition and digestibility of fodder shrubs and trees. In: The use and misuse of shrubs and trees as fodder. Imperial Agricultural Bureaux. Joint Publication No. 10, 185-231
Saha, H. M. ; Kahindi, R. K. ; Muinga, R. W., 2008. Evaluation of manure from goats fed Panicum basal diet and supplemented with Madras thorn, Leucaena or Gliricidia. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst., 8: 251-257
Selvam, V., 2007. Trees and shrubs of the Maldives. RAP Publication No. 2007/12, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific
Sunarjono, H. H. ; Coronel, R. E., 1991. Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth. Record from Proseabase. Verheij, E. W. M. and Coronel, R. E. (Eds). PROSEA (Plant Resources of South-East Asia) Foundation, Bogor, Indonesia
Waghorn, G. C., 2008. Beneficial and detrimental effects of dietary condensed tannins for sustainable sheep and goat production - progress and challenges. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 147 (1/3): 116-139

Datasheet citation

Heuzé V., Tran G., Archimède H., 2015. Manila tamarind (Pithecellobium dulce). Feedipedia, a programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://feedipedia.org/node/263 Last updated on October 13, 2015, 16:36

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

Image credits

Sponsored by

Automatic translation

Feed categories

Scientific names

Tools

Resources

Manila tamarind (Pithecellobium dulce)