<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article
  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.1/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.1" specific-use="sps-1.9" xml:lang="es" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
	<front>
		<journal-meta>
			<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">av</journal-id>
			<journal-title-group>
				<journal-title>Abanico veterinario</journal-title>
				<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">Abanico vet</abbrev-journal-title>
			</journal-title-group>
			<issn pub-type="ppub">2007-428X</issn>
			<issn pub-type="epub">2448-6132</issn>
			<publisher>
				<publisher-name>Sergio Martínez González</publisher-name>
			</publisher>
		</journal-meta>
		<article-meta>
			<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21929/abavet2021.35</article-id>
			<article-id pub-id-type="other">00405</article-id>
			<article-categories>
				<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
					<subject>Notas cortas</subject>
				</subj-group>
			</article-categories>
			<title-group>
				<article-title>Contenido de proteína y fibra en forrajes tropicales no afecta la preferencia en conejos de engorda</article-title>
			</title-group>
			<contrib-group>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0001-7541-1814</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Milla-Luna</surname>
						<given-names>María</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-7442-6069</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Cruz-Bacab</surname>
						<given-names>Luis</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c1"><sup>*</sup></xref>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-7800-7283</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Ramírez-Vera</surname>
						<given-names>Santiago</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0003-4625-5650</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Arjona-Jiménez</surname>
						<given-names>Guadalupe</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0003-4322-8438</contrib-id>
					<name>
						<surname>Zapata-Campos</surname>
						<given-names>Cecilia</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
			</contrib-group>
			<aff id="aff1">
				<label>1</label>
				<institution content-type="original">División Académica de Ciencias Agropecuarias - Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco. Tabasco, México. </institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv1">División Académica de Ciencias Agropecuarias</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<state>Tabasco</state>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="MX">México</country>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff2">
				<label>2</label>
				<institution content-type="original"> Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia “Norberto Treviño Zapata” - Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas. Carretera Victoria-Mante Km 5, Cd Victoria Tamaulipas. México. </institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv1">Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia “Norberto Treviño Zapata”</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<city>Cd Victoria Tamaulipas</city>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="MX">México</country>
			</aff>
			<author-notes>
				<corresp id="c1">
					<label><sup>*</sup></label>Autor para correspondencia: Carretera Villahermosa-Teapa, km 25, R/A. La Huasteca 2ª Sección, Villahermosa, Tabasco, México. CP 86280. E-mail: <email>lecb82@gmail.com</email>, <email>luna.angieh@hotmail.com</email>, <email>sarave2@hotmail.com</email>, <email>lupitarjona29@gmail.com</email>. cezapata@docentes.uat.edu.mx</corresp>
			</author-notes>
			<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
				<day>28</day>
				<month>02</month>
				<year>2022</year>
			</pub-date>
			<pub-date date-type="collection" publication-format="electronic">
				<season>Jan-Dec</season>
				<year>2021</year>
			</pub-date>
			<volume>11</volume>
			<elocation-id>e405</elocation-id>
			<history>
				<date date-type="received">
					<day>02</day>
					<month>05</month>
					<year>2021</year>
				</date>
				<date date-type="accepted">
					<day>06</day>
					<month>09</month>
					<year>2021</year>
				</date>
			</history>
			<permissions>
				<license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" xml:lang="es">
					<license-p>Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons</license-p>
				</license>
			</permissions>
			<abstract>
				<title>RESUMEN</title>
				<p>El objetivo de esta investigación fue evaluar la preferencia de forrajes empleados comúnmente en la alimentación animal en zonas tropicales de México. El forraje de guasimo (<italic>Guazuma ulmifolia)</italic>, cocohite (<italic>Gliricidia sepium)</italic>, pasto remolino (<italic>Paspalum notatum)</italic>, pasto Egipto (<italic>Brachiaria mutica)</italic> y pasto humidicola (<italic>Brachiaria humidicola)</italic> fueron ofrecidos simultáneamente a 24 conejos Nueva Zelanda durante 14 días. En esta investigación se demostró que <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> y <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic> fueron preferidos en comparación con <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia, Paspalum notatum y Brachiaria humidicola</italic> (P&lt;0.05). El consumo de proteína cruda, fibra detergente ácido, y fibra detergente neutro fueron mayores con <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> y <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic> (P&lt;0.05). En conclusión, <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> fue preferido por conejos de engorda. El contenido de nutrientes no tuvo relación con la preferencia de consumo. El estudio de la preferencia de forrajes y su relación con su contenido nutricional es necesario para la inclusión de recursos tropicales en la alimentación de conejos.</p>
			</abstract>
			<kwd-group xml:lang="es">
				<title>Palabras clave:</title>
				<kwd>Brachiaria</kwd>
				<kwd>consumo</kwd>
				<kwd>Gliricidia sepium</kwd>
				<kwd>Guazuma ulmifolia</kwd>
				<kwd>Paspalum notatum</kwd>
			</kwd-group>
			<counts>
				<fig-count count="0"/>
				<table-count count="8"/>
				<equation-count count="0"/>
				<ref-count count="26"/>
				<page-count count="1"/>
			</counts>
		</article-meta>
	</front>
	<body>
		<sec sec-type="intro">
			<title>INTRODUCCIÓN</title>
			<p>Las necesidades de proteína de origen animal en países en desarrollo ha generado interés creciente en el estudio de fuentes de alimentos alternativas, baratas y disponibles para la producción animal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Nieves <italic>et al</italic>, 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Malavé <italic>et al,</italic> 2013</xref>). En zonas tropicales de todo el mundo se han identificado una amplia variedad de especies vegetales con potencial para la alimentación de herbívoros, como el conejo, considerando su disponibilidad, producción de biomasa y composición química (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Nieves <italic>et al</italic>, 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Malavé <italic>et al,</italic> 2013</xref>). Distintos estudios realizados en América Latina y el mundo, demuestran que la inclusión de forrajes tropicales en la alimentación de conejos de engorde permite obtener rendimientos productivos satisfactorios (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Nieves <italic>et al</italic>, 2011</xref>); sin embargo, la información generada sobre la preferencia de estos recursos en conejos aún es escasa (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Safwat <italic>et al</italic>, 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Hafsa <italic>et al</italic>, 2016</xref>). El consumo y la preferencia de alimentos en conejos se han evaluado en condiciones de granja y laboratorio, demostrando que está influenciado por múltiples factores, entre los que se encuentran el contenido de fibra, energía digestible, grasa, composición de aminoácidos, llenado intestinal y la forma física del material consumido y condiciones ambientales (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Prebble &amp; Meredith 2014</xref>). El método de ofrecimiento simultáneo de forrajes es el más cercano a la realidad para determinar la preferencia de los forrajes en conejos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Safwat <italic>et al</italic>, 2014</xref>). El estudio de la preferencia de los forrajes puede favorecer el desarrollo de la producción de conejos basada en recursos locales en zonas tropicales (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Safwat <italic>et al</italic>, 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Ozakwe &amp; Ekwe, 2017</xref>).</p>
			<p>El objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar la preferencia de forrajes tropicales en conejos de engorde y la relación con la composición química.</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="materials|methods">
			<title>MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS</title>
			<sec>
				<title>Área de estudio</title>
				<p>El estudio se realizó en la zona tropical del sureste de México (17°58'20&quot; de Latitud Norte y 92°35'20&quot; de Longitud Oeste, a una altitud promedio de 0 metros; temperatura media anual de 27°C y precipitación media anual de 2550 mm. El experimento se llevó a cabo en las instalaciones del área de producción y estudios cunícolas de la División Académica de Ciencias Agropecuarias de la Universidad Autónoma Juárez de Tabasco, México.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>Animales y procedimientos experimentales</title>
				<p>Se emplearon veinticuatro conejos machos Nueva Zelanda de ocho semanas de edad y 1±0.25 kg de peso vivo, fueron alojados individualmente en jaulas de 60 x 40 x 80 cm, equipadas con un comedero plástico y bebedero automáticos; se realizó un periodo de adaptación de 7 días y un periodo de evaluación de 15 días de acuerdo con <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Somers <italic>et al</italic>, (2008)</xref>. Se evaluó el forraje de guasimo (<italic>Guazuma ulmifolia), cocohite (Gliricidia sepium), pasto remolino (Paspalum notatum), pasto Egipto (Brachiaria mutica)</italic> y pasto humidicola (<italic>Brachiaria humidicola)</italic>. Los animales recibieron diariamente 40 g de alimento comercial para cubrir el requerimiento de energía digestible para mantenimiento reportada por <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Xiccato y Trocino (2010)</xref> (102.77 kcal/kg peso vivo<sup>0.75</sup>). Los forrajes evaluados se ofrecieron diariamente y de manera simultánea, 50 g de cada forraje fresco, suspendidos del techo de la jaula por bandas elásticas; una vez consumido el 85 % del forraje ofrecido, se añadieron 10 g para asegurar la disponibilidad.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>Análisis químicos y variables estudiadas</title>
				<p>Se realizó el análisis químico proximal a muestras del alimento comercial y los forrajes (tabla 1). Para la determinación de la materia seca (MS) las muestras se procesaron en un horno de aire forzado a 50-60 °C durante 48 h. Una alícuota de estas muestras se colocó en un horno a 110 °C para determinar la humedad total, y posteriormente se trituraron para pasar una criba de 1 mm utilizando un molino Wiley (Modelo 4; Arthur H. Thomas Co. Philadelphia, Pa., Estados Unidos). La Proteína cruda (PC) (método 954.05), se determinó mediante el procedimiento macro-Kjeldahl (N x 6.25) (AOAC 1990). La fibra detergente ácida (FDA) y la fibra detergente neutra (FDN) se realizaron de acuerdo con lo descrito por <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">Van Soest (1963)</xref> y <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">Van Soest <italic>et al.</italic> (1991)</xref>.</p>
				<p>Las variables estudiadas fueron consumo en fresco, consumo de materia seca y consumo de las fracciones de PC, FDA y FDN; además, el índice de preferencia relativa (IPR) se estimó de acuerdo con <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Ben Salem <italic>et al,</italic> (1994)</xref> empleando el alimento comercial como material de referencia. Los parámetros se definieron como sigue: ingesta de alimento en el día 1 (FI1), consumo promedio de alimento comercial para el primer periodo de 5 días (FI5), consumo promedio de alimento comercial para el segundo periodo de 5 días (FI10), consumo promedio de alimento comercial en el tercer periodo de 5 días, ingesta de forraje en el día 1 (I1), consumo promedio de forraje durante los primeros 5 días (I5), consumo promedio de forraje para el segundo periodo de 5 días (I10), consumo promedio de forraje para el tercer periodo de 5 días (I15), cantidad de alimento ofrecido el día 1 (OF1), cantidad promedio de alimento ofrecido en el primer periodo de 5 días (OF5), cantidad promedio de alimento ofrecido en el segundo periodo de 5 días (OF10), cantidad promedio de alimento ofrecido en el tercer periodo de 5 días (OF15), cantidad de forraje ofrecida el día 1 (D1), cantidad de forraje ofrecida en los primeros 5 días (D5), cantidad de forraje ofrecida en el segundo periodo de 5 días (D10) y cantidad de forraje ofrecida en el tercer periodo de 5 días (D15).</p>
			</sec>
			<sec>
				<title>Cálculo y análisis estadístico</title>
				<p>Los resultados obtenidos se analizaron mediante estadística descriptiva y análisis de varianza (ANOVA) completamente al azar; asimismo se utilizó la correlación de Pearson para examinar la asociación entre la composición química y el consumo total de los forrajes utilizando el programa estadístico STATGRAPHICS 5.1. El índice de preferencia relativo fue determinado a partir de la proporción para el día 1, IPR 1 = ((I1/D1) / (FI1/OF1)); para el primer periodo de 5 días, IPR 2= ((I5/D5)/(FI5/OF5)), para el segundo periodo de 5 días, IPR<sub>3</sub> =((I10/D10)/(FI10/OF10)) y para el tercer periodo de 5 días, IPR4= ((I15/D15)/(FI15/OF/15)).</p>
			</sec>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="results">
			<title>RESULTADOS</title>
			<p>En la <xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">tabla 1</xref>, se observa que el mayor contenido de PC en los forrajes correspondió a <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic> (17.70 %), seguido de <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> (15.84%); el contenido de PC más bajo se encontró en <italic>Brachiaria humidicola</italic> (9.00%). En cuanto al contenido fibroso, el género <italic>Brachiaria</italic> presentó los valores más altos de FDA (40.80-48.55%), <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic> tuvo el valor más bajo de FDA con 22.72%; asimismo, el contenido de FDN fue mayor en los forrajes del género <italic>Brachiaria</italic> (67.7-70.45%); los forrajes <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic> y <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> obtuvieron valores de 37.61% y 41.74% respectivamente.</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t1">
					<label>Tabla 1</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Análisis químico proximal de alimento comercial y forrajes tropicales ofrecidos a conejos de engorda</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							
						
						<tr>
								<th align="center">Variables (%)</th>
							<th align="center">Alimento comercial</th>
							<th align="center">Guasimo <italic>(Guazuma ulmifolia)</italic></th>
							<th align="center"><italic>Cocohite (Gliricidiasepium)</italic></th>
							<th align="center"><italic>Pasto remolino (Paspalum notatum)</italic></th>
							<th align="center"><italic>Pasto humidicola (Brachiariahumidicola)</italic></th>
							<th align="center"><italic>Pasto Egipto (Brachiaria mutica)</italic></th>
						</tr></thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Materia seca</td>
								<td align="center">87.73</td>
								<td align="center">32.44</td>
								<td align="center">94.50</td>
								<td align="center">24.70</td>
								<td align="center">74.00</td>
								<td align="center">92.90</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Proteína cruda</td>
								<td align="center">20.59</td>
								<td align="center">17.70</td>
								<td align="center">15.84</td>
								<td align="center">14.20</td>
								<td align="center">9.00</td>
								<td align="center">11.65</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Fibra detergente ácido</td>
								<td align="center">38.95</td>
								<td align="center">22.72</td>
								<td align="center">32.12</td>
								<td align="center">37.00</td>
								<td align="center">40.80</td>
								<td align="center">48.55</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Fibra detergente neutro</td>
								<td align="center">21.89</td>
								<td align="center">37.61</td>
								<td align="center">41.74</td>
								<td align="center">66.90</td>
								<td align="center">67.70</td>
								<td align="center">70.45</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>En la <xref ref-type="table" rid="t2">tabla 2</xref> se observa que <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> fue la especie de mayor consumo con 51 g (p &lt;0.05) por día, seguida por el alimento comercial (37 g) y <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic> (36 g); el consumo más bajo se observó con <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic> y <italic>Paspalum notatum</italic>. Asimismo, <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> mostró una mayor ingesta total de MS de 16.5 Kg y una ingesta total de proteína cruda de 2.7 Kg (p &lt;0.05). <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic> fue la segunda ingesta total de MS 11.20 Kg. Con respecto a la ingesta de FDN y FDA, <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic> mostró el mayor consumo total con 8.49 Kg y 5.85 Kg respectivamente (p &lt;0.05), comparado con las otras especies evaluadas.</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t2">
					<label>Tabla 2</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Consumo de forrajes tropicales, materia seca, proteína cruda, FDA y FDN en conejos de engorda</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							
						
						<tr>
								<th align="center">Variable</th>
								<th align="center">Alimento comercial</th>
								<th align="center"><italic>Guasimo (Guazuma ulmifolia)</italic></th>
								<th align="center"><italic>Cocohite (Gliricidia sepium)</italic></th>
								<th align="center"><italic>Pasto remolino (Paspalum notatum)</italic></th>
								<th align="center"><italic>Pasto humidicola (Brachiaria humidicola)</italic></th>
								<th align="center"><italic>Pasto Egipto (Brachiaria mutica)</italic></th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Consumo total Kg (14 días)</td>
								<td align="center">12.42<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">7.65<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">17.09ª</td>
								<td align="center">7.47<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">7.70<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">12.06<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Consumo promedio por animal Kg (14 días)</td>
								<td align="center">0.564<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.34<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.777a</td>
								<td align="center">0.34<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.350<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.548<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Consumo diario promedio g</td>
								<td align="justify">37<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="justify">23<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="justify">51<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="justify">14<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="justify">23<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="justify">36<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Consumo total MS Kg</td>
								<td align="center">10.89<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">2.48<sup>C</sup></td>
								<td align="center">16.15<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.84<sup>C</sup></td>
								<td align="center">5.70<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">11.20<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Consumo total PC Kg</td>
								<td align="center">2.56<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.35<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">2.70<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.06<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.69<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.40<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Consumo total FDA Kg</td>
								<td align="center">4.83<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.73<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">5.49<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">2.76<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">3.14<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">5.85ª</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Consumo total FDN Kg</td>
								<td align="center">2.71<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">2.87<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">7.13<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">4.99<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="justify">5.21<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">8.49<sup>a</sup></td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN1">
							<label><sup>a, b, c</sup></label>
							<p> Literales diferentes en la línea columna P&lt;0.05</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>La <xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">tabla 3</xref> muestra que el coeficiente de correlación entre el consumo total de forraje y el contenido de PC, FDN y FDA es bajo (P&gt; 0.05); por lo cual no existe una relación entre los elementos.</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t3">
					<label>Tabla 3</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Coeficiente de correlación de Pearson entre consumo total, I1, I5, I10, I15 y el contenido de Proteína Cruda, Fibra Detergente Neutro y Fibra Detergente Acido de forrajes tropicales suministrados a conejos de engorda</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="center"> </th>
								<th align="center">Elemento</th>
								<th align="center">Coeficiente de correlación</th>
								<th align="center">r2</th>
								<th align="center">Valor P</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Consumo total</td>
								<td align="justify">Proteína cruda</td>
								<td align="center">0.12</td>
								<td align="center">3.74</td>
								<td align="center">0.7552</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"> </td>
								<td align="justify">Fibra detergente neutro</td>
								<td align="center">0.33</td>
								<td align="center">10.04</td>
								<td align="center">0.6034</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"> </td>
								<td align="justify">Fibra detergente ácido</td>
								<td align="center">0.03</td>
								<td align="center">0.89</td>
								<td align="center">0.8798</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Consumo del día 1 (I1)</td>
								<td align="justify">Proteína cruda</td>
								<td align="center">-0.374</td>
								<td align="center">13.99</td>
								<td align="center">0.5351</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"> </td>
								<td align="justify">Fibra detergente neutro</td>
								<td align="center">0.4466</td>
								<td align="center">21.71</td>
								<td align="center">0.4289</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"> </td>
								<td align="justify">Fibra detergente ácido</td>
								<td align="center">0.0676</td>
								<td align="center">0.4577</td>
								<td align="center">0.9139</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Consumo del primer periodo de 5 días (I5)</td>
								<td align="justify">Proteína cruda</td>
								<td align="center">-0.1966</td>
								<td align="center">3.868</td>
								<td align="center">0.7512</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"> </td>
								<td align="justify">Fibra detergente neutro</td>
								<td align="center">0.2347</td>
								<td align="center">5.5108</td>
								<td align="center">0.7039</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"> </td>
								<td align="justify">Fibra detergente ácido</td>
								<td align="center">-0.1509</td>
								<td align="center">2.2796</td>
								<td align="center">0.8085</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Consumo del segundo periodo de 5 días (I10)</td>
								<td align="justify">Proteína cruda</td>
								<td align="center">0.1052</td>
								<td align="center">1.1075</td>
								<td align="center">0.8663</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"> </td>
								<td align="justify">Fibra detergente neutro</td>
								<td align="center">-0.1222</td>
								<td align="center">1.4947</td>
								<td align="center">0.8447</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"> </td>
								<td align="justify">Fibra detergente ácido</td>
								<td align="center">-0.4282</td>
								<td align="center">18.336</td>
								<td align="center">0.4719</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Consumo del tercer periodo de 5 días (I15)</td>
								<td align="justify">Proteína cruda</td>
								<td align="center">-0.0164</td>
								<td align="center">0.0269</td>
								<td align="center">0.9791</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"> </td>
								<td align="justify">Fibra detergente neutro</td>
								<td align="center">0.0464</td>
								<td align="center">0.2154</td>
								<td align="center">0.9409</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"> </td>
								<td align="justify">Fibra detergente ácido</td>
								<td align="center">-0.2979</td>
								<td align="center">8.8761</td>
								<td align="center">0.6264</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>Con respecto al índice de preferencia relativa, en la <xref ref-type="table" rid="t4">tabla 4</xref> se muestra que <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> tuvo la mayor preferencia de consumo (P&lt;0.05), mientras que los forrajes de <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic>, <italic>Brachiaria humidicola</italic>, <italic>Paspalum notatum</italic> y <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic> no presentaron variaciones significativas (P&gt;0.05), en la preferencia de consumo durante el periodo experimental.</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t4">
					<label>Tabla 4</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Índice de preferencia relativo de consumo de <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic>, <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic>, <italic>Brachiaria humidicola</italic>, <italic>Paspalum notatum</italic> y <italic>Guazuma Ulmifolia</italic> en conejos de engorda</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col span="5"/>
							<col/>
							<col span="3"/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
						
						
						<tr>
								<th align="justify"></th>
								<th align="center" colspan="4">Consumo (MS kg día-1) </th>
								<th align="justify"> </th>
							<th align="center" colspan="3">Consumo (% ofrecido) </th>
								<th align="justify"> </th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="center">Forraje</th>
								<th align="center">I1</th>
								<th align="center">I5</th>
								<th align="center">I10</th>
								<th align="center">I15</th>
								<th align="center"> </th>
								<th align="center">I1/D1</th>
								<th align="center">I5/D5</th>
								<th align="center">I10/D10</th>
								<th align="center">I15/D15</th>
							</tr></thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"><italic>Cocohite (Gliricidia. Sepium)</italic></td>
								<td align="center">27.43</td>
								<td align="center">29.21</td>
								<td align="center">35.11</td>
								<td align="center">35.11</td>
								<td align="center"> </td>
								<td align="center">0.55<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.79<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.95<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.95<sup>a</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"><italic>Pasto Egipto (Brachiaria Mutica)</italic></td>
								<td align="center">23.41</td>
								<td align="center">18.23</td>
								<td align="center">9.20</td>
								<td align="center">13.71</td>
								<td align="center"> </td>
								<td align="center">0.47<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.79<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.25<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.37<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"><italic>Pasto humidcola (Brachiaria Humidicola)</italic></td>
								<td align="center">20.04</td>
								<td align="center">18.53</td>
								<td align="center">15.51</td>
								<td align="center">16.85</td>
								<td align="center"> </td>
								<td align="center">0.40<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.50<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.42<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.46<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"><italic>Remolino (paspalum notatum)</italic></td>
								<td align="center">6.23</td>
								<td align="center">5.78</td>
								<td align="center">5.42</td>
								<td align="center">5.77</td>
								<td align="center"> </td>
								<td align="center">0.12<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.16<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.15<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.16<sup>c</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"><italic>Guasimo (Guazuma Ulmifolia)</italic></td>
								<td align="center">7.29</td>
								<td align="center">7.97</td>
								<td align="center">7.45</td>
								<td align="center">6.22</td>
								<td align="center"> </td>
								<td align="center">0.15<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.22<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.20<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.17<sup>c</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center">Forraje</td>
								<td align="center">IPR1</td>
								<td align="center">Rank</td>
								<td align="center">IPR 2</td>
								<td align="center">Rank</td>
								<td align="center">IPR 3</td>
								<td align="center">Rank</td>
								<td align="center">IPR4</td>
								<td align="center">Rank</td>
								<td align="justify"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"><italic>Cocohite (Gliricidia. Sepium)</italic></td>
								<td align="center">0.59</td>
								<td align="center">1</td>
								<td align="center">0.85</td>
								<td align="center">1</td>
								<td align="center">1.03</td>
								<td align="center">1</td>
								<td align="center">1.03</td>
								<td align="center">1</td>
								<td align="center"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"><italic>Pasto Egipto (Brachiaria Mutica)</italic></td>
								<td align="center">0.51</td>
								<td align="center">2</td>
								<td align="center">0.53</td>
								<td align="center">3</td>
								<td align="center">0.27</td>
								<td align="center">3</td>
								<td align="center">0.40</td>
								<td align="center">3</td>
								<td align="center"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"><italic>Pasto humidcola (Brachiaria Humidicola.)</italic></td>
								<td align="center">0.43</td>
								<td align="center">3</td>
								<td align="center">0.54</td>
								<td align="center">2</td>
								<td align="center">0.45</td>
								<td align="center">2</td>
								<td align="center">0.50</td>
								<td align="center">2</td>
								<td align="center"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"><italic>Remolino (paspalum notatum)</italic></td>
								<td align="center">0.13</td>
								<td align="center">5</td>
								<td align="center">0.17</td>
								<td align="center">5</td>
								<td align="center">0.16</td>
								<td align="center">5</td>
								<td align="center">0.17</td>
								<td align="center">5</td>
								<td align="center"> </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"><italic>Guasimo (Guazuma Ulmifolia)</italic></td>
								<td align="center">0.16</td>
								<td align="center">4</td>
								<td align="center">0.23</td>
								<td align="center">4</td>
								<td align="center">0.21</td>
								<td align="center">4</td>
								<td align="center">0.18</td>
								<td align="center">4</td>
								<td align="center"> </td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN2">
							<p>IPR1= (I1/D1)/(FI1/OF1).; IPR2 = ((I5/D5)/(FI5/OF5); IPR3 = (I10/D10)/(FI10/OF10); IPR 4=(I15/D15)/(FI15/OF/15)</p>
						</fn>
						<fn id="TFN3">
							<p><sup>a, b, c</sup> Literales diferentes en la misma columna P&lt;0.05</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="discussion">
			<title>DISCUSIÓN</title>
			<p>En el presente estudio se utilizó el método de ofrecimiento simultáneo de forrajes y el índice relativo de preferencia para medir la preferencia de consumo. El forraje del árbol <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> tuvo un mayor consumo y preferencia en comparación con el pasto <italic>Brachiaria mutica,</italic> el árbol <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia,</italic> y los pastos <italic>Paspalum notatum y Brachiaria humidicola</italic> (P &lt;0.05). (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Kontsiotis <italic>et al</italic>, 2015</xref>), así como (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Clauss &amp; Hatt, 2017</xref>), mencionan que la composición de la dieta de conejos silvestres está integrada por diferentes plantas y tipos de alimentos (pastos, arbustos, hierbas y hojas), dependiendo en gran medida de la disponibilidad y la calidad de los recursos alimenticios en el ambiente. De acuerdo con los resultados de (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">DeJaco &amp; Batzli, 2013</xref>), los conejos cola de algodón (<italic>Sylvilagus floridanus</italic>) prefieren en su dieta herbáceas como: <italic>Trifolium pratense, medicago sativa, Persicaria vulgaris, Aster ericoides y Viola pranticola;</italic> así como plantas leñosas, las cuales puede consumir preferentemente en función de su disponibilidad. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Ozakwe &amp; Ekwe, 2017</xref>) indican que la preferencia medida a través del consumo de forraje (palatabilidad) en conejos, es un fenómeno influenciado por factores dietéticos y ambientales. Sin embargo, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Bobadilla <italic>et al,</italic> 2020</xref>) señala que la selección trófica de los conejos es positiva para hierbas, mientras que los pastos y arbustos son evitados; no obstante en estos animales el consumo de plantas más nutritivas (ricas en proteína) puede resultar de gran importancia en ecosistemas donde las plantas disponibles tienen bajo valor nutricional. En este sentido, se ha demostrado que el consumo de especies leñosas por parte de los conejos incrementa cuando la disponibilidad de hierbas decrece, debido a variaciones estacionales.</p>
			<p>Con respecto a la relación entre el consumo y la composición química de las dietas, según (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Franz <italic>et al</italic>, 2011</xref>) y (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Somers <italic>et al</italic>, 2008</xref>) los conejos son consumidores selectivos, por lo que prefieren partes con alto contenido de proteínas, ya que en la naturaleza el consumo de materiales ricos en proteínas garantiza un mayor valor nutricional de una dieta baja en energía. Por su parte (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Crowell <italic>et al</italic>, 2018</xref>), señala que en vida silvestre los conejos pigmeos (<italic>Brachylagus idahoensis</italic>) y los conejos cola de algodón (<italic>Sylvilagus nuttallii</italic>) emplean estrategias conductuales para consumir materiales con características específicas, como baja o alta cantidad de fibra de acuerdo con la disponibilidad en la pradera, o con mayor contenido de proteína cruda para disminuir los tiempos de exposición a depredadores y obtener alimento de mayor calidad nutritiva; o para regular o disminuir la cantidad de metabolitos secundarios presentes en las plantas que consumen. De acuerdo con (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Wallage Drees &amp; Deinum, 1985</xref>), la composición nutricional de la dieta de conejos silvestres representa niveles de fibra bruta (FC) del 25% al 30% (MS) y niveles de fibra detergente neutra (FDN) del 50% al 60%. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Ogbuewu <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Ozakwe &amp; Ekwe, 2017</xref>) indican que existe una relación entre el contenido de proteína bruta y la preferencia de los conejos en términos de consumo. Los autores encontraron que los forrajes con alto contenido de proteína cruda como <italic>Centrosema pubescencia</italic>, <italic>Calopogonium mucunoides</italic> y <italic>Elaeis guinensis</italic> fueron los más consumidos en un ensayo de cafetería. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Lush <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>) reportan que los conejos prefieren los pastos cortos con menor concentración de fibra y seleccionan los forrajes por mayor calidad en lugar de mayor cantidad para cubrir sus necesidades nutricionales. Sin embargo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Safwat <italic>et al</italic>, 2014</xref>) y (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Abubakar <italic>et al</italic>, 2015</xref>) informaron una gran variabilidad en la respuesta de los conejos a la suplementación con forraje; no obstante, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Kontsiotis <italic>et al</italic>, 2015</xref>) y (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Lush <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>), señalan que los cambios en las estrategias de alimentación son probablemente una adaptación a los cambios estacionales impuestos por las condiciones ambientales, que afectan tanto la disponibilidad como la calidad del forraje y que la dieta de los mamíferos herbívoros como los conejos, puede ser afectada por una gran cantidad de factores como la disponibilidad de recursos, calidad del forraje, superficie disponible para forrajear y la presencia de depredadores. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Lush <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>) señalan que los lagomorfos como conejos y liebres son consumidores selectivos, capaces de consumir grandes cantidades de alimento de baja calidad y adaptarse a la disponibilidad de recursos con mayor calidad nutricional.</p>
			<p>En el presente estudio, el contenido de proteína cruda, fibra detergente ácido y fibra detergente neutro en los forrajes estudiados (proteína cruda, FDA y FDN) no afectó la preferencia en términos de consumo en ninguno de los periodos de consumo evaluados (I1, I5, I10, I15) (P&gt; 0.05); lo cual es contrario a lo reportado por (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Ulappa <italic>et al</italic>, 2014</xref>), quienes señalan que las probabilidades de que se consuma un forraje aumentan 1.64 veces por cada 1% de aumento en el contenido de proteína cruda. Según (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Somers <italic>et al</italic>, 2008</xref>), la selección de dietas de mayor calidad nutricional es una adaptación conductual mediante la cual los herbívoros maximizan su ingesta de nutrientes al seleccionar plantas con alto contenido de proteína bruta. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Schmalz <italic>et al</italic>, 2014</xref>) reporta que el conejo pigmeo (<italic>Brachilagus Idahoensis</italic>) prefiere alimentarse de artemisa (<italic>Artemisa vulgaris</italic>); la cual posee mayor contenido de proteína cruda y menor contenido de fibra (FDA-FDN); dicha preferencia se puede asociar más con la densidad energética que presenta, al ser más rica en proteína que en fibra, lo cual puede ser especialmente importante durante el invierno cuando las dietas de conejo pigmeo son 99.1% de artemisa, porque las necesidades de energía son especialmente altas para la termorregulación a bajas temperaturas, lo que podría ser contrario en las zonas tropicales donde las temperaturas son altas. Por otra parte (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Hernández <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>) y (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">Carpio <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>) señala que las diferencias observadas en la preferencia de consumo en conejos, puede relacionarse con la presencia de metabolitos secundarios como saponinas, flavonoides, compuestos fenólicos totales y taninos, en cultivos de cobertura y algunas frutas, los cuales no fueron cuantificados en los alimentos estudiados en el presente trabajo. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Malavé <italic>et al,</italic> 2013</xref>) y (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Ogbuewu <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>) apuntan que el estudio y el uso de recursos con alto contenido de proteínas en áreas tropicales, representan una opción viable para la alimentación de conejos sin depender de alimentos comerciales.</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="conclusions">
			<title>CONCLUSIONES</title>
			<p>El contenido de PC, FDN y FDA de los forrajes tropicales no modifica la preferencia de consumo en los conejos de engorda. El forraje de <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> fue preferido por los conejos de engorde, en comparación con los forrajes de <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic>, <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic>, <italic>Paspalum notatum y Brachiaria humícola</italic>. El estudio de la preferencia de forrajes en conejos y su relación con el contenido de nutrientes, es necesario para mejorar el uso de esos recursos en las zonas tropicales.</p>
		</sec>
	</body>
	<back>
		<ref-list>
			<title>LITERATURA CITADA</title>
			<ref id="B1">
				<mixed-citation>Abubakar M, Ibrahim U, Yusuf AU, Muhammad AS, Adamu N. 2015. Growth performance, carcass and organ characteristics of growing rabbits fed graded levels of <italic>Moringa oleifera</italic> leaf meal in diets. <italic>Bayero Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences</italic>. 8: 7-9. ISSN: 2006-6996. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/bajopas.v8i2.2</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Abubakar</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ibrahim</surname>
							<given-names>U</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Yusuf</surname>
							<given-names>AU</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Muhammad</surname>
							<given-names>AS</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Adamu</surname>
							<given-names>N.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2015</year>
					<article-title>Growth performance, carcass and organ characteristics of growing rabbits fed graded levels of Moringa oleifera leaf meal in diets</article-title>
					<source>Bayero Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences</source>
					<volume>8</volume>
					<fpage>7</fpage>
					<lpage>9</lpage>
					<issn>2006-6996</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4314/bajopas.v8i2.2</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B2">
				<mixed-citation>AOAC (1990) Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analysis Chemists. EUA.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>AOAC</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>1990</year>
					<source>Official Methods of Analysis</source>
					<publisher-name>Association of Official Analysis Chemists</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>EUA</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B3">
				<mixed-citation>Ben Salem H, Nefzaoui A, Abdouli H. 1994. Palatability of shrubs and fodder trees measured on sheep and dromedaries: 1. Methodological approach. <italic>Animal Feed Science and Technology</italic>. 46: 143-153. ISSN: 0377-8401. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(94)90072-8</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Ben Salem</surname>
							<given-names>H</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Nefzaoui</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Abdouli</surname>
							<given-names>H.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1994</year>
					<article-title>Palatability of shrubs and fodder trees measured on sheep and dromedaries: 1. Methodological approach</article-title>
					<source>Animal Feed Science and Technology</source>
					<volume>46</volume>
					<fpage>143</fpage>
					<lpage>153</lpage>
					<issn>0377-8401</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/0377-8401(94)90072-8</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B4">
				<mixed-citation>Bobadilla SY, Marchetta A, Dacar MA, Ojeda RA, Cuevas MF. 2020. Food habits of European rabbit and its role as seed dispersal of two Mosqueta roses: Facilitation among non-native species in a semiarid protected area of Argentina. <italic>Biological Invasions</italic>. 22: 1565-1571. ISSN: 1387-3547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02205-9</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Bobadilla</surname>
							<given-names>SY</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Marchetta</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Dacar</surname>
							<given-names>MA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ojeda</surname>
							<given-names>RA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Cuevas</surname>
							<given-names>MF.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2020</year>
					<article-title>Food habits of European rabbit and its role as seed dispersal of two Mosqueta roses: Facilitation among non-native species in a semiarid protected area of Argentina</article-title>
					<source>Biological Invasions</source>
					<volume>22</volume>
					<fpage>1565</fpage>
					<lpage>1571</lpage>
					<issn>1387-3547</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s10530-020-02205-9</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B5">
				<mixed-citation>Clauss M, Hatt JM. 2017. Evidence-based rabbit housing and nutrition. <italic>Veterinary clinics: exotic animal practice</italic>. 20: 871-884. ISSN: 1094-9194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvex.2017.04.006</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Clauss</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hatt</surname>
							<given-names>JM.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Evidence-based rabbit housing and nutrition</article-title>
					<source>Veterinary clinics: exotic animal practice</source>
					<volume>20</volume>
					<fpage>871</fpage>
					<lpage>884</lpage>
					<issn>1094-9194</issn>
					<publisher-loc>10.1016/j.cvex.2017.04.006</publisher-loc>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B6">
				<mixed-citation>Carpio JA, Soriano MA, Guerrero - Casado J, Prada LM, Tortosa FS, Lora A, Gómez JA. 2017. Evaluation of an unpalatable species (<italic>Anthemis arvensis</italic> L.) as an alternative cover crop in olive groves under high grazing pressure by rabbits. <italic>Agriculture, ecosystems and environment</italic>. 246:48-54. ISSN: 0167-8809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.05.028</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Carpio</surname>
							<given-names>JA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Soriano</surname>
							<given-names>MA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Guerrero - Casado</surname>
							<given-names>J</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Prada</surname>
							<given-names>LM</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Tortosa</surname>
							<given-names>FS</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Lora</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gómez</surname>
							<given-names>JA.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Evaluation of an unpalatable species (Anthemis arvensis L.) as an alternative cover crop in olive groves under high grazing pressure by rabbits</article-title>
					<source>Agriculture, ecosystems and environment</source>
					<volume>246</volume>
					<fpage>48</fpage>
					<lpage>54</lpage>
					<issn>0167-8809</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.agee.2017.05.028</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B7">
				<mixed-citation>Crowell MM, Shipley LA, Forbey JS, Rachlow JL, Kelsey RG. 2018. Dietary partitioning of toxic leaves and fibrous stems differs between sympatric specialist and generalist mammalian herbivores. <italic>Journal of mammalogy</italic>. 99(3): 565-577. ISSN 0022-2372https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyy018</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Crowell</surname>
							<given-names>MM</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Shipley</surname>
							<given-names>LA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Forbey</surname>
							<given-names>JS</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Rachlow</surname>
							<given-names>JL</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kelsey</surname>
							<given-names>RG.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Dietary partitioning of toxic leaves and fibrous stems differs between sympatric specialist and generalist mammalian herbivores</article-title>
					<source>Journal of mammalogy</source>
					<volume>99</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>565</fpage>
					<lpage>577</lpage>
					<issn>0022-2372</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/jmammal/gyy018</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B8">
				<mixed-citation>Dejaco CE, Batzli GO. 2013. Palatability to small mammals in nonnative grasslands of eas-central Illinonis. <italic>Journal of mammalogy</italic>. 94 (2): 427-435. ISSN 0022-2372. https://doi.org/10.1644/12-MAMM-A-157.1</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Dejaco</surname>
							<given-names>CE</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Batzli</surname>
							<given-names>GO.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2013</year>
					<article-title>Palatability to small mammals in nonnative grasslands of eas-central Illinonis</article-title>
					<source>Journal of mammalogy</source>
					<volume>94</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>427</fpage>
					<lpage>435</lpage>
					<issn>0022-2372</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1644/12-MAMM-A-157.1</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B9">
				<mixed-citation>Franz R, Kreuzer M, Hummel J, Hatt J M, Clauss M. 2011. Intake, selection, digesta retention, digestion and gut fill of two coprophageous species, rabbits (<italic>Oryctolagus cuniculus</italic>) and guinea pigs (<italic>Cavia porcellus</italic>), on a hay‐only diet. <italic>Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition</italic>. 95: 564-570. Online ISSN: 1439-0396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2010.01084.x</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Franz</surname>
							<given-names>R</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kreuzer</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hummel</surname>
							<given-names>J</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hatt J</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Clauss</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2011</year>
					<article-title>Intake, selection, digesta retention, digestion and gut fill of two coprophageous species, rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus), on a hay‐only diet</article-title>
					<source>Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition</source>
					<volume>95</volume>
					<fpage>564</fpage>
					<lpage>570</lpage>
					<issn>1439-0396</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1439-0396.2010.01084.x</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B10">
				<mixed-citation>Hafsa S A, Salem A Z M, Hassan A A, Kholif A E, Elghandour M M Y, Barbabosa A, López S. 2016. Digestion, growth performance and caecal fermentation in growing rabbits fed diets containing foliage of browse trees. <italic>World Rabbit Science</italic>. 24: 283-293. ISSN: 1257-5011. http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2016.4359</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Hafsa</surname>
							<given-names>S A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Salem</surname>
							<given-names>A Z M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hassan</surname>
							<given-names>A A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kholif</surname>
							<given-names>A E</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Elghandour</surname>
							<given-names>M M Y</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Barbabosa</surname>
							<given-names>A</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>López</surname>
							<given-names>S.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2016</year>
					<article-title>Digestion, growth performance and caecal fermentation in growing rabbits fed diets containing foliage of browse trees</article-title>
					<source>World Rabbit Science</source>
					<volume>24</volume>
					<fpage>283</fpage>
					<lpage>293</lpage>
					<issn>1257-5011</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4995/wrs.2016.4359</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B11">
				<mixed-citation>Hernández-hernández E, López - Ortiz S, Villaruel-Fuentes M, Pérez-Hernández P., Velasco-Velasco J, Salinas Ruíz J. 2017. Feeding rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) with tree fruits from tropical deciduous forest. <italic>World Rabbit Science</italic>. 25: 135 - 145. ISSN: 1257-5011. https://doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2017.3838</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Hernández-hernández</surname>
							<given-names>E</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>López - Ortiz</surname>
							<given-names>S</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Villaruel-Fuentes</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pérez-Hernández</surname>
							<given-names>P.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Velasco-Velasco</surname>
							<given-names>J</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Salinas Ruíz</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Feeding rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) with tree fruits from tropical deciduous forest</article-title>
					<source>World Rabbit Science</source>
					<volume>25</volume>
					<fpage>135 </fpage>
					<lpage> 145</lpage>
					<issn>1257-5011</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4995/wrs.2017.3838</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B12">
				<mixed-citation>Kontsiotis VJ, Bakaloudis DE, Merou T, Xofis P. 2015. Trophic ecology of the European wild rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus on the mediterranean island of Lemnos, Greece. <italic>Ecologycal Research</italic>. 30: 683-691. Online ISSN: 1440-1703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-015-1269-z</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Kontsiotis</surname>
							<given-names>VJ</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Bakaloudis</surname>
							<given-names>DE</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Merou</surname>
							<given-names>T</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Xofis</surname>
							<given-names>P.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2015</year>
					<article-title>Trophic ecology of the European wild rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus on the mediterranean island of Lemnos, Greece</article-title>
					<source>Ecologycal Research</source>
					<volume>30</volume>
					<fpage>683</fpage>
					<lpage>691</lpage>
					<issn>1440-1703</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s11284-015-1269-z</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B13">
				<mixed-citation>Lush L, Ward AI, Wheeler P. 2017. Dietary niche partitioning between sympatric brown hares and rabbits. <italic>Journal of zoology</italic>. 303(1): 36-45. Online ISSN: 1469-7998. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12461</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Lush</surname>
							<given-names>L</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ward</surname>
							<given-names>AI</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Wheeler</surname>
							<given-names>P.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Dietary niche partitioning between sympatric brown hares and rabbits</article-title>
					<source>Journal of zoology</source>
					<volume>303</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>36</fpage>
					<lpage>45</lpage>
					<issn>1469-7998</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/jzo.12461</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B14">
				<mixed-citation>Malavé AA, Córdova RL, García RA, Méndez NJ. 2013. Composición bromatológica de la carne de conejos suplementados con mataratón y cachaza de palma aceitera. <italic>Revista MVZ Córdoba</italic>. 18: 3452-3458. ISSN-L: 0122-0268. https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.167</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Malavé</surname>
							<given-names>AA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Córdova</surname>
							<given-names>RL</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>García</surname>
							<given-names>RA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Méndez</surname>
							<given-names>NJ.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2013</year>
					<article-title>Composición bromatológica de la carne de conejos suplementados con mataratón y cachaza de palma aceitera</article-title>
					<source>Revista MVZ Córdoba</source>
					<volume>18</volume>
					<fpage>3452</fpage>
					<lpage>3458</lpage>
					<issn>0122-0268</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21897/rmvz.167</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B15">
				<mixed-citation>Nieves D, Terán O, Cruz L, Mena M, Gutiérrez F, Ly J. 2011. Digestibilidad de nutrientes en follaje de árnica (<italic>Tithonia diversifolia</italic>) en conejos de engorde. <italic>Tropical and subtropical Agroecosystems</italic>. 14: 309-314. E-ISSN: 1870-0462. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/urn:ISSN:1870-0462-tsaes.v14i1.483">https://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/urn:ISSN:1870-0462-tsaes.v14i1.483</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Nieves</surname>
							<given-names>D</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Terán</surname>
							<given-names>O</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Cruz</surname>
							<given-names>L</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Mena</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gutiérrez</surname>
							<given-names>F</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ly</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2011</year>
					<article-title>Digestibilidad de nutrientes en follaje de árnica (Tithonia diversifolia) en conejos de engorde</article-title>
					<source>Tropical and subtropical Agroecosystems</source>
					<volume>14</volume>
					<fpage>309</fpage>
					<lpage>314</lpage>
					<issn>1870-0462</issn>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/urn:ISSN:1870-0462-tsaes.v14i1.483">https://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/urn:ISSN:1870-0462-tsaes.v14i1.483</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B16">
				<mixed-citation>Ogbuewu IP, Emenalom OO, Okoli IC. 2017. Alternative feedstuffs and their effects on blood chemistry and haematology of rabbits and chickens: a review. Comparative Clinical Pathology. 26: 277-286. <italic>Electronic</italic>. ISSN: 1618-565X. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00580-015-2210-0</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Ogbuewu</surname>
							<given-names>IP</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Emenalom</surname>
							<given-names>OO</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Okoli</surname>
							<given-names>IC.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Alternative feedstuffs and their effects on blood chemistry and haematology of rabbits and chickens: a review</article-title>
					<source>Comparative Clinical Pathology</source>
					<volume>26</volume>
					<fpage>277</fpage>
					<lpage>286</lpage>
					<comment>Electronic</comment>
					<issn>1618-565X</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00580-015-2210-0</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B17">
				<mixed-citation>Osakwe II, Ekwe OO. 2017. Variation in relative palatability of different forages fed to rabbits. <italic>Animal Research International</italic>. 4: 608-610. eISSN: 1597-3115. https://doi.org/10.4314/ari.v4i1.40801</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Osakwe</surname>
							<given-names>II</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ekwe</surname>
							<given-names>OO.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Variation in relative palatability of different forages fed to rabbits</article-title>
					<source>Animal Research International</source>
					<volume>4</volume>
					<fpage>608</fpage>
					<lpage>610</lpage>
					<issn>1597-3115</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4314/ari.v4i1.40801</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B18">
				<mixed-citation>Prebble JL, Meredith AL. 2014. Food and water intake and selective feeding I rabbits on four feeding regimes. <italic>Journal Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition</italic>. 98: 991-1000. Online ISSN: 1439-0396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12163</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Prebble</surname>
							<given-names>JL</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Meredith</surname>
							<given-names>AL.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>Food and water intake and selective feeding I rabbits on four feeding regimes</article-title>
					<source>Journal Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition</source>
					<volume>98</volume>
					<fpage>991</fpage>
					<lpage>1000</lpage>
					<issn>1439-0396</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/jpn.12163</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B19">
				<mixed-citation>Safwat AM, Sarmiento-Franco L, Santos-Ricalde RH, Nieves D. 2014. Determination of tropical forage preferences using two offering methods in rabbits. <italic>Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science</italic>. 27(4):524-529. ISSN: 1011-2367. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13163</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Safwat</surname>
							<given-names>AM</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Sarmiento-Franco</surname>
							<given-names>L</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Santos-Ricalde</surname>
							<given-names>RH</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Nieves</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>Determination of tropical forage preferences using two offering methods in rabbits</article-title>
					<source>Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science</source>
					<volume>27</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>524</fpage>
					<lpage>529</lpage>
					<issn>1011-2367</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5713/ajas.2013.13163</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B20">
				<mixed-citation>Schmalz JM, Wachocki B, Wright M, Zeveloff SI, Skopec MM. 2014. Habitat selection by the pigmy rabbit (<italic>Brachylagus Idahoensis</italic>) in Northeastern Utah. <italic>Western North American Naturalist</italic>. 74: 456-466. ISSN: 1527-0904. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/24644914">http://www.jstor.org/stable/24644914</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Schmalz</surname>
							<given-names>JM</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Wachocki</surname>
							<given-names>B</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Wright</surname>
							<given-names>M</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Zeveloff</surname>
							<given-names>SI</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Skopec</surname>
							<given-names>MM.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>Habitat selection by the pigmy rabbit (Brachylagus Idahoensis) in Northeastern Utah</article-title>
					<source>Western North American Naturalist</source>
					<volume>74</volume>
					<fpage>456</fpage>
					<lpage>466</lpage>
					<issn>1527-0904</issn>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/24644914">http://www.jstor.org/stable/24644914</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B21">
				<mixed-citation>Somers N, D’Haese B, Bossuyt B, Lens L, Hoffmann M. 2008. Food quality affects diet preference of rabbits: experimental evidence. <italic>Belgian Journal of Zoology</italic>. 138 (2): 170-176. ISSN: 0777-6276. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/431142">https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/431142</ext-link>
				</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Somers</surname>
							<given-names>N</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>D’Haese</surname>
							<given-names>B</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Bossuyt</surname>
							<given-names>B</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Lens</surname>
							<given-names>L</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hoffmann</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2008</year>
					<article-title>Food quality affects diet preference of rabbits: experimental evidence</article-title>
					<source>Belgian Journal of Zoology</source>
					<volume>138</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>170</fpage>
					<lpage>176</lpage>
					<issn>0777-6276</issn>
					<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/431142">https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/431142</ext-link>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B22">
				<mixed-citation>Ulappa AC, Kelsey RG, Graham GF, Rachlow JL, Shipley LA, Bond L, Pu X, Sorensen FJ. 2014. Plant protein and secondary metabolites influence diet selection in a mammalian specialist herbivore. <italic>Journal of mammalogy</italic>. 95(4): 834-842. ISSN: 0022-2372. https://doi.org/10.1644/14-MAMM-A-025</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Ulappa</surname>
							<given-names>AC</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Kelsey</surname>
							<given-names>RG</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Graham</surname>
							<given-names>GF</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Rachlow</surname>
							<given-names>JL</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Shipley</surname>
							<given-names>LA</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Bond</surname>
							<given-names>L</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pu</surname>
							<given-names>X</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Sorensen</surname>
							<given-names>FJ.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>Plant protein and secondary metabolites influence diet selection in a mammalian specialist herbivore</article-title>
					<source>Journal of mammalogy</source>
					<volume>95</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>834</fpage>
					<lpage>842</lpage>
					<issn>0022-2372</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1644/14-MAMM-A-025</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B23">
				<mixed-citation>Van Soest PV. 1963. Use of Detergents in the Analysis of Fibrous Feeds. II. A Rapid Method for the Determination of Fiber and Lignin. <italic>Journal of Association of Official Agricultural Chemists</italic>. ISSN 1944-7922. 46(5):829 - 835.https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/46.5.829</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Van Soest</surname>
							<given-names>PV.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1963</year>
					<article-title>Use of Detergents in the Analysis of Fibrous Feeds. II. A Rapid Method for the Determination of Fiber and Lignin</article-title>
					<source>Journal of Association of Official Agricultural Chemists</source>
					<issn>1944-7922</issn>
					<volume>46</volume>
					<issue>5</issue>
					<fpage>829 </fpage>
					<lpage> 835</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/jaoac/46.5.829</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B24">
				<mixed-citation>Van Soest PV, Robertson JB, Lewis B. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. <italic>Journal of dairy science</italic>. 74(10): 3583-3597. ISSN 0022-0302. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Van Soest</surname>
							<given-names>PV</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Robertson</surname>
							<given-names>JB</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Lewis</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1991</year>
					<article-title>Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition</article-title>
					<source>Journal of dairy science</source>
					<volume>74</volume>
					<issue>10</issue>
					<fpage>3583</fpage>
					<lpage>3597</lpage>
					<issn>0022-0302</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B25">
				<mixed-citation>Xiccato G, Trocino A. 2010. Energy and protein metabolism and requirements. In: De Blas C, Wiseman J, editors. Nutrition of the rabbit, 2nd edition. London UK, CABI. P. 93 - 118. ISBN-13: 978-1845936693</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Xiccato</surname>
							<given-names>G</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Trocino</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2010</year>
					<chapter-title>Energy and protein metabolism and requirements</chapter-title>
					<person-group person-group-type="editor">
						<name>
							<surname>De Blas</surname>
							<given-names>C</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Wiseman</surname>
							<given-names>J</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<source>Nutrition of the rabbit</source>
					<edition>2</edition>
					<publisher-loc>London UK</publisher-loc>
					<publisher-name>CABI</publisher-name>
					<fpage>93 </fpage>
					<lpage> 118</lpage>
					<isbn>978-1845936693</isbn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B26">
				<mixed-citation>Wallage-Drees JM, Deinum B. 1985. Quality of the diet selected by wild rabbits (<italic>Oryctolagus cuniculus</italic>) in autumn and winter. <italic>Netherlands Journal of Zoology</italic>. 36(4):438-448. ISSN: 0028-2960. https://doi.org/10.1163/002829686X00162</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Wallage-Drees</surname>
							<given-names>JM</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Deinum</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1985</year>
					<article-title>Quality of the diet selected by wild rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in autumn and winter</article-title>
					<source>Netherlands Journal of Zoology</source>
					<volume>36</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>438</fpage>
					<lpage>448</lpage>
					<issn>0028-2960</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1163/002829686X00162</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
		</ref-list>
		<fn-group>
			<fn fn-type="other" id="fn1">
				
				<p>Clave: e2021-25.</p>
			</fn>
		</fn-group>
	</back>
	<sub-article article-type="translation" id="s1" xml:lang="en">
		<front-stub>
			<article-categories>
				<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
					<subject>Short communication</subject>
				</subj-group>
			</article-categories>
			<title-group>
				<article-title>The protein and fiber content of tropical forages does not affect its preference by fattening rabbits</article-title>
			</title-group>
			<abstract>
				<title>ABSTRACT</title>
				<p>The objective of this research was to evaluate the preference for forages commonly used in animal feed in tropical areas of Mexico. Forages of Guasimo (<italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic>), Cocohite (<italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic>), Swirl grass or Bahiagrass (<italic>Paspalum notatum</italic>), Egypt grass (<italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic>), and Humidicola grass (<italic>Brachiaria humidicola</italic>) were offered simultaneously to 24 New Zealand rabbits for 14 days. In this investigation it was shown that <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> and <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic> were preferred compared to <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia, Paspalum notatum</italic> and <italic>Brachiaria humidicola</italic> (P &lt;0.05). The consumption of crude protein, acid detergent fiber, and neutral detergent fiber were higher with <italic>Gliricidia sepium and Brachiaria mutica</italic> (P &lt;0.05). In conclusion, fattening rabbits preferred <italic>Gliricidia septum</italic>, and Nutrient content was not related to consumption preference. Forage preference study and its relationship with nutritional content are necessary to include tropical resources in rabbit feeding.</p>
			</abstract>
			<kwd-group xml:lang="en">
				<title>Keywords:</title>
				<kwd>Brachiaria</kwd>
				<kwd>Gliricidia sepium</kwd>
				<kwd>Guazuma ulmifolia</kwd>
				<kwd>intake</kwd>
				<kwd>Paspalum notatum</kwd>
			</kwd-group>
		</front-stub>
		<body>
			<sec sec-type="intro">
				<title>INTRODUCTION</title>
				<p>The need for animal protein in developing countries has generated growing interest in the study of alternative, cheap and available food sources for animal production (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Nieves <italic>et al</italic>, 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Malavé <italic>et al,</italic> 2013</xref>). In tropical areas around the world, a wide variety of plant species with potential for feeding herbivores, such as rabbits, have been identified, considering their availability, biomass production and chemical composition (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Nieves <italic>et al</italic>, 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Malavé <italic>et al,</italic> 2013</xref>). Different studies conducted in Latin America and the world, show that the inclusion of tropical forages in the feed of fattening rabbits allows obtaining satisfactory productive yields (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Nieves <italic>et al</italic>, 2011</xref>); however, the information generated on the preference of these resources in rabbits is still scarce (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Safwat <italic>et al</italic>, 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Hafsa <italic>et al</italic>, 2016</xref>). Feed consumption and preference in rabbits have been evaluated under farm and laboratory conditions, demonstrating that it is influenced by multiple factors, including fiber content, digestible energy, fat, amino acid composition, gut fill, and the physical form of the consumed material and environmental conditions (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Prebble &amp; Meredith 2014</xref>). The simultaneous forage offering method is the closest to reality for determining forage preference in rabbits (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Safwat <italic>et al</italic>, 2014</xref>). The study of forage preference may favor the development of local resource-based rabbit production in tropical areas (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Safwat <italic>et al</italic>, 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Ozakwe &amp; Ekwe, 2017</xref>).</p>
				<p>The objective of the present study was to evaluate the preference of tropical forages in fattening rabbits and the relationship with chemical composition.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="materials|methods">
				<title>MATERIAL AND METHODS</title>
				<sec>
					<title>Study area</title>
					<p>The study was carried out in the tropical zone of southeastern Mexico (17°58'20&quot; North Latitude and 92°35'20&quot; West Longitude, at an average altitude of 0 meters; mean annual temperature of 27°C and mean annual precipitation of 2550 mm. The experiment was carried out in the facilities of the production area and rabbits studies of the Academic Division of Agricultural Sciences of the Universidad Autónoma Juárez de Tabasco, Mexico. </p>
				</sec>
				<sec>
					<title>Animals and experimental procedures</title>
					<p>Twenty-four male New Zealand rabbits of eight weeks of age and 1±0.25 kg live weight were used, they were housed individually in cages of 60 x 40 x 80 cm, equipped with an automatic plastic feeder and waterer; an adaptation period of 7 days and an evaluation period of 15 days were carried out according to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Somers <italic>et al</italic>, (2008)</xref>. Forage of guasimo (<italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic>), cocohite (<italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic>), bahiagrass (<italic>Paspalum notatum</italic>), Egypt grass (<italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic>) and humidicola grass (<italic>Brachiaria humidicola</italic>) was evaluated. The animals received 40 g of commercial feed daily to cover the digestible energy requirement for maintenance reported by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Xiccato and Trocino (2010)</xref> (102.77 kcal/kg live weight<sup>0.75</sup>). The forages evaluated were offered daily and simultaneously, 50 g of each fresh forage, suspended from the cage ceiling by elastic bands; once 85 % of the offered forage was consumed, 10 g were added to ensure availability.</p>
				</sec>
				<sec>
					<title>Chemical analysis and variables studied</title>
					<p>Proximal chemical analysis was performed on samples of commercial feed and forages (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t5">Table 1</xref>). For dry matter (DM) determination, the samples were processed in a forced air oven at 50-60 °C for 48 h. An aliquot of these samples was taken from the commercial feed and forages (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t5">Table 1</xref>). An aliquot of these samples was placed in an oven at 110 °C to determine total moisture, and subsequently crushed to pass a 1 mm sieve using a Wiley mill (Model 4; Arthur H. Thomas Co. Philadelphia, Pa., USA). Crude protein (CP) (method 954.05) was determined by the macro-Kjeldahl procedure (N x 6.25) (AOAC 1990). Acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) were determined according to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">Van Soest (1963</xref>) and Van Soest <italic>et al.</italic> (1991).</p>
					<p>
						<table-wrap id="t5">
							<label>Table 1</label>
							<caption>
								<title>Proximate chemical analysis of commercial feed and tropical forages offered to fattening rabbits</title>
							</caption>
							<table>
								<colgroup>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
									<col/>
								</colgroup>
								<thead>
									
								
								<tr>
										<th align="center">Variables (%)</th>
									<th align="center">Commercial feed</th>
									<th align="center">Guasimo <italic>(Guazuma ulmifolia)</italic></th>
									<th align="center"><italic>Cocohite (Gliricidia sepium)</italic></th>
									<th align="center"><italic>Swirl Grass (Paspalum notatum)</italic></th>
									<th align="center"><italic>Humidicola Grass (Brachiaria humidicola)</italic></th>
									<th align="center"><italic>Egypt Grass (Brachiaria mutica)</italic></th>
									</tr></thead>
								<tbody>
									<tr>
										<td align="justify">Dry matter</td>
										<td align="center">87.73</td>
										<td align="center">32.44</td>
										<td align="center">94.50</td>
										<td align="center">24.70</td>
										<td align="center">74.00</td>
										<td align="center">92.90</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="justify">Crude protein</td>
										<td align="center">20.59</td>
										<td align="center">17.70</td>
										<td align="center">15.84</td>
										<td align="center">14.20</td>
										<td align="center">9.00</td>
										<td align="center">11.65</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="justify">Acid detergent fiber</td>
										<td align="center">38.95</td>
										<td align="center">22.72</td>
										<td align="center">32.12</td>
										<td align="center">37.00</td>
										<td align="center">40.80</td>
										<td align="center">48.55</td>
									</tr>
									<tr>
										<td align="justify">Neutral detergent fiber</td>
										<td align="center">21.89</td>
										<td align="center">37.61</td>
										<td align="center">41.74</td>
										<td align="center">66.90</td>
										<td align="center">67.70</td>
										<td align="center">70.45</td>
									</tr>
								</tbody>	
							</table>
						</table-wrap>
					</p>
					<p>The variables studied were fresh consumption, dry matter consumption and consumption of CP, ADF and NDF fractions; in addition, the relative preference index (RPI) was estimated according to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">Ben Salem <italic>et al,</italic> (1994)</xref> using commercial feed as reference material. The parameters were defined as follows: feed intake on day 1 (FI1), average commercial feed intake for the first 5-day period (FI5), average commercial feed intake for the second 5-day period (FI10), average commercial feed intake for the third 5-day period, forage intake on day 1 (I1), average forage intake during the first 5 days (I5), average forage intake for the second 5-day period (I10), average forage intake for the third 5-day period (I15), amount of feed offered on day 1 (OF1), average amount of feed offered in the first 5-day period (OF5), average amount of feed offered in the second 5-day period (OF10), average amount of feed offered in the third 5-day period (OF15), amount of forage offered on day 1 (D1), amount of forage offered in the first 5 days (D5), amount of forage offered in the second 5-day period (D10) and amount of forage offered in the third 5-day period (D15).</p>
				</sec>
				<sec>
					<title>Calculation and statistical analysis</title>
					<p>The results obtained were analyzed by descriptive statistics and analysis of variance (ANOVA) completely at random; Pearson's correlation was also used to examine the association between chemical composition and total forage consumption using the STATGRAPHICS 5.1 statistical program. The relative preference index was determined from the ratio for day 1, RPI1 = ((I1/D1)/(FI1/OF1)); for the first 5-day period, RPI2= ((I5/D5)/(FI5/OF5)), for the second 5-day period, RPI3 =((I10/D10)/(FI10/OF10)) and for the third 5-day period, RPI4= ((I15/D15)/(FI15/OF/15)).</p>
				</sec>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="results">
				<title>RESULTS</title>
				<p>
					<xref ref-type="table" rid="t5">Table 1</xref> shows that the highest CP content in forages corresponded to <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic> (17.70%), followed by Gliricidia <italic>sepium</italic> (15.84%); the lowest CP content was found in <italic>Brachiaria humidicola</italic> (9.00%). Regarding fibrous content, the genus <italic>Brachiaria</italic> presented the highest values of ADF (40.80-48.55%), <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic> had the lowest value of ADF with 22.72%; also, the FDN content was higher in the genus <italic>Brachiaria</italic> forages (67.7- 70.45%); the forages <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic> and <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> obtained values of 37.61% and 41.74%, respectively.</p>
				<p>
					<xref ref-type="table" rid="t6">Table 2</xref> shows that <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> was the species with the highest intake with 51 g (p&lt;0.05) per day, followed by commercial feed (37 g) and <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic> (36 g); the lowest intake was observed with <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic> and <italic>Paspalum notatum</italic>. Likewise, <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> showed a higher total DM intake of 16.5 kg and total crude protein intake of 2.7 kg (p &lt;0.05). <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic> was the second highest total DM intake 11.20 kg. With respect to NDF and ADF intake, <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic> showed the highest total intake with 8.49 kg and 5.85 kg, respectively (p &lt;0.05), compared to the other species evaluated.</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t6">
						<label>Table 2</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Consumption of tropical forages, dry matter, crude protein, ADF and NDF in fattening rabbits</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="center">Variable</td>
									<td align="center">Commerci al feed</td>
									<td align="center"><italic>Guasim(Guazuma ulmifolia)</italic></td>
									<td align="center"><italic>Cocohite (Gliricidia sepium)</italic></td>
									<td align="center"><italic>Swirl grass (Paspalum notatum)</italic></td>
									<td align="center"><italic>Humidicola grass (Brachiaria humidicola)</italic></td>
									<td align="center"><italic>Egypt grass</italic><italic>(Brachiaria mutica)</italic></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Total consumption Kg (14 days)</td>
									<td align="center">12.42<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">7.65<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">17.09ª</td>
									<td align="center">7.47<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">7.70<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">12.06<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Average consumption per animal Kg (14 days)</td>
									<td align="center">0.564<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.34<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.777a</td>
									<td align="center">0.34<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.350<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.548<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Average daily consumption g</td>
									<td align="center">37<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">23<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">51<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">14<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">23<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">36<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Total DM consumption Kg</td>
									<td align="center">10.89<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">2.48<sup>C</sup></td>
									<td align="center">16.15<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.84<sup>C</sup></td>
									<td align="center">5.70<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">11.20<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Total CP consumption Kg</td>
									<td align="center">2.56<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.35<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">2.70<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.06<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.69<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.40<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Total ADF consumption Kg</td>
									<td align="center">4.83<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.73<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">5.49<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">2.76<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">3.14<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">5.85ª</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Total NDF consumption Kg</td>
									<td align="center">2.71<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">2.87<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">7.13<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">4.99<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">5.21<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">8.49<sup>a</sup></td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN4">
								<label><sup>a</sup></label>
								<p><sup>, b, c</sup> Different letters in the same column P&lt;0.05</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>
					<xref ref-type="table" rid="t7">Table 3</xref> shows that the correlation coefficient between total forage intake and CP, NDF and ADF content is low (P&gt; 0.05); therefore, there is no relationship between the elements.</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t7">
						<label>Table 3</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Pearson's correlation coefficient between total intake, I1, I5, I10, I15 and Crude Protein, Neutral Detergent Fiber and Acid Detergent Fiber content of tropical forages fed to fattening rabbits</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="justify"> </th>
									<th align="center">Element</th>
									<th align="center">Correlation coefficient</th>
									<th align="center">r2</th>
									<th align="center">P Value</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Total consumption</td>
									<td align="justify">Crude protein</td>
									<td align="center">0.12</td>
									<td align="center">3.74</td>
									<td align="center">0.7552</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="justify">Neutral detergent fiber</td>
									<td align="center">0.33</td>
									<td align="center">10.04</td>
									<td align="center">0.6034</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="justify">Acid detergent fiber</td>
									<td align="center">0.03</td>
									<td align="center">0.89</td>
									<td align="center">0.8798</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Consumption on day 1 (I1)</td>
									<td align="justify">Crude protein</td>
									<td align="center">-0.374</td>
									<td align="center">13.99</td>
									<td align="center">0.5351</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="justify">Neutral detergent fiber</td>
									<td align="center">0.4466</td>
									<td align="center">21.71</td>
									<td align="center">0.4289</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="justify">Acid detergent fiber</td>
									<td align="center">0.0676</td>
									<td align="center">0.4577</td>
									<td align="center">0.9139</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Consumption of the first 5-day period (I5)</td>
									<td align="justify">Crude protein</td>
									<td align="center">-0.1966</td>
									<td align="center">3.868</td>
									<td align="center">0.7512</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="justify">Neutral detergent fiber</td>
									<td align="center">0.2347</td>
									<td align="center">5.5108</td>
									<td align="center">0.7039</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="justify">Acid detergent fiber</td>
									<td align="center">-0.1509</td>
									<td align="center">2.2796</td>
									<td align="center">0.8085</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Consumption of the second 5-day period (I10)</td>
									<td align="justify">Crude protein</td>
									<td align="center">0.1052</td>
									<td align="center">1.1075</td>
									<td align="center">0.8663</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="justify">Neutral detergent fiber</td>
									<td align="center">-0.1222</td>
									<td align="center">1.4947</td>
									<td align="center">0.8447</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="justify">Acid detergent fiber</td>
									<td align="center">-0.4282</td>
									<td align="center">18.336</td>
									<td align="center">0.4719</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Consumption of the third 5-day period (I15)</td>
									<td align="justify">Crude protein</td>
									<td align="center">-0.0164</td>
									<td align="center">0.0269</td>
									<td align="center">0.9791</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="justify">Neutral detergent fiber</td>
									<td align="center">0.0464</td>
									<td align="center">0.2154</td>
									<td align="center">0.9409</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="justify">Acid detergent fiber</td>
									<td align="center">-0.2979</td>
									<td align="center">8.8761</td>
									<td align="center">0.6264</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>With respect to the relative preference index, <xref ref-type="table" rid="t8">Table 4</xref> shows that <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> had the highest consumption preference (P&lt;0.05), while <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic>, <italic>Brachiaria humidicola</italic>, <italic>Paspalum notatum</italic> and <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic> forages did not show significant variations (P&gt;0.05) in consumption preference during the experimental period.</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t8">
						<label>Table 4</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Relative consumption preference index of <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic>, <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic>, <italic>Brachiaria humidicola</italic>, <italic>Paspalum</italic> notatum and <italic>Guazuma Ulmifolia</italic> in fattening rabbits</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col span="5"/>
								<col/>
								<col span="3"/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								
							
							<tr>
								<th align="justify"> </th>
									<th align="center" colspan="4">Consumption (DM kg day<sup>-1</sup>) </th>
									<th align="justify"> </th>
									<th align="justify" colspan="3">Consumption (% offered) </th>
									<th align="justify"> </th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th align="justify">Forage</th>
									<th align="justify">I1</th>
									<th align="justify">I5</th>
									<th align="justify">I10</th>
									<th align="justify">I15</th>
									<th align="justify"> </th>
									<th align="justify">I1/D1</th>
									<th align="justify">I5/D5</th>
									<th align="justify">I10/D10</th>
									<th align="justify">I15/D15</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"><italic>Cocohite (Gliricidia. Sepium)</italic></td>
									<td align="justify">27.43</td>
									<td align="justify">29.21</td>
									<td align="justify">35.11</td>
									<td align="justify">35.11</td>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="justify">0.55<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="justify">0.79<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="justify">0.95<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="justify">0.95<sup>a</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"><italic>Egypt grass (Brachiaria Mutica)</italic></td>
									<td align="center">23.41</td>
									<td align="center">18.23</td>
									<td align="center">9.20</td>
									<td align="center">13.71</td>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="center">0.47<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.79<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.25<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.37<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"><italic>Humidcola grass (Brachiaria Humidicola)</italic></td>
									<td align="center">20.04</td>
									<td align="center">18.53</td>
									<td align="center">15.51</td>
									<td align="center">16.85</td>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="center">0.40<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.50<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.42<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.46<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"><italic>Swirl grass (paspalum notatum)</italic></td>
									<td align="center">6.23</td>
									<td align="center">5.78</td>
									<td align="center">5.42</td>
									<td align="center">5.77</td>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="center">0.12<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.16<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.15<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.16<sup>c</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"><italic>Guasimo (Guazuma Ulmifolia)</italic></td>
									<td align="center">7.29</td>
									<td align="center">7.97</td>
									<td align="center">7.45</td>
									<td align="center">6.22</td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
									<td align="center">0.15<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.22<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.20<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.17<sup>c</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Forage</td>
									<td align="center">RPI1</td>
									<td align="center">Rank</td>
									<td align="center">RPI 2</td>
									<td align="center">Rank</td>
									<td align="center">RPI 3</td>
									<td align="center">Rank</td>
									<td align="center">RPI 4</td>
									<td align="center">Rank</td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"><italic>Cocohite (Gliricidia. Sepium)</italic></td>
									<td align="center">0.59</td>
									<td align="center">1</td>
									<td align="center">0.85</td>
									<td align="center">1</td>
									<td align="center">1.03</td>
									<td align="center">1</td>
									<td align="center">1.03</td>
									<td align="center">1</td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"><italic>Egypt grass (Brachiaria Mutica)</italic></td>
									<td align="center">0.51</td>
									<td align="center">2</td>
									<td align="center">0.53</td>
									<td align="center">3</td>
									<td align="center">0.27</td>
									<td align="center">3</td>
									<td align="center">0.40</td>
									<td align="center">3</td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"><italic>Humidcola grass Brachiaria Humidicola.)</italic></td>
									<td align="center">0.43</td>
									<td align="center">3</td>
									<td align="center">0.54</td>
									<td align="center">2</td>
									<td align="center">0.45</td>
									<td align="center">2</td>
									<td align="center">0.50</td>
									<td align="center">2</td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"><italic>Swirl grass (paspalum notatum)</italic></td>
									<td align="center">0.13</td>
									<td align="center">5</td>
									<td align="center">0.17</td>
									<td align="center">5</td>
									<td align="center">0.16</td>
									<td align="center">5</td>
									<td align="center">0.17</td>
									<td align="center">5</td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"><italic>Guasimo (Guazuma Ulmifolia)</italic></td>
									<td align="center">0.16</td>
									<td align="center">4</td>
									<td align="center">0.23</td>
									<td align="center">4</td>
									<td align="center">0.21</td>
									<td align="center">4</td>
									<td align="center">0.18</td>
									<td align="center">4</td>
									<td align="center"> </td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN5">
								<p>RPI1= (I1/D1)/(FI1/OF1).; RPI 2 = ((I5/D5)/(FI5/OF5); RPI 3 = (I10/D10)/(FI10/OF10); RPI4=(I15/D15)/(FI15/OF/15)</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN6">
								<label><sup>a</sup></label>
								<p><sup>, b, c</sup> Different letters in the same column P&lt;0.05</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="discussion">
				<title>DISCUSSION</title>
				<p>In the present study, the simultaneous forage offering method and the relative preference index were used to measure consumption preference. <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> tree forage had higher consumption and preference compared to <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic> grass, <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic> tree, and <italic>Paspalum notatum</italic> and <italic>Brachiaria humidicola</italic> grasses (P &lt;0.05). (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Kontsiotis <italic>et al</italic>, 2015</xref>), as well as (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Clauss &amp; Hatt, 2017</xref>), mention that the diet composition of wild rabbits is composed of different plants and food types (grasses, shrubs, herbs and leaves), depending largely on the availability and quality of food resources in the environment. According to the results of (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">DeJaco &amp; Batzli, 2013</xref>), cottontail rabbits (<italic>Sylvilagus floridanus</italic>) prefer in their diet herbaceous plants such as: <italic>Trifolium pratense</italic>, <italic>Medicago sativa</italic>, <italic>Persicaria vulgaris</italic>, <italic>Aster ericoides</italic> and <italic>Viola pranticola</italic>; as well as woody plants, which it may preferentially consume depending on their availability. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Ozakwe &amp; Ekwe, 2017</xref>) indicate that preference measured through forage consumption (palatability) in rabbits, is a phenomenon influenced by dietary and environmental factors. However, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Bobadilla <italic>et al,</italic> 2020</xref>) points out that the trophic selection of rabbits is positive for grasses, while forages and shrubs are avoided; however in these animals the consumption of more nutritious plants (rich in protein) can be of great importance in ecosystems where the available plants have low nutritional value. In this sense, it has been shown that the consumption of woody species by rabbits increases when the availability of grasses decreases, due to seasonal variations.</p>
				<p>Regarding the relationship between consumption and chemical composition of diets, according to (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">Franz <italic>et al</italic>, 2011</xref>) and (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Somers <italic>et al</italic>, 2008</xref>) rabbits are selective consumers, so they prefer parts with high protein content, since in nature the consumption of protein- rich materials guarantees a higher nutritional value of a low-energy diet. For their part (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Crowell <italic>et al</italic>, 2018</xref>), points out that in the wild, pygmy rabbits (<italic>Brachylagus idahoensis</italic>) and cottontail rabbits (<italic>Sylvilagus nuttallii</italic>) employ behavioral strategies to consume materials with specific characteristics, such as low or high amount of fiber according to the availability in the meadow, or with higher crude protein content to decrease exposure times to predators and obtain food of higher nutritional quality; or to regulate or decrease the amount of secondary metabolites present in the plants they consume. According to (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Wallage Drees &amp; Deinum, 1985</xref>), the nutritional composition of the diet of wild rabbits represents crude fiber (CF) levels of 25 to 30% (DM) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) levels of 50 to 60%. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Ogbuewu <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Ozakwe &amp; Ekwe, 2017</xref>) indicate that there is a relationship between crude protein content and the preference of rabbits in consumption terms. The authors found that forages with high crude protein content such as <italic>Centrosema pubescence</italic>, <italic>Calopogonium mucunoides</italic> and <italic>Elaeis guinensis</italic> were the most consumed in a cafeteria trial. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Lush <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>) report that rabbits prefer short grasses with lower fiber concentration and select forages for higher quality rather than higher quantity to meet their nutritional needs. However (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Safwat <italic>et al</italic>, 2014</xref>) and (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Abubakar <italic>et al</italic>, 2015</xref>) reported a large variability in the response of rabbits to forage supplementation; besides, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Kontsiotis <italic>et al</italic>, 2015</xref>) and (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Lush <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>), note that changes in feeding strategies are likely an adaptation to seasonal changes imposed by environmental conditions, which affect both forage availability and quality and that the diet of herbivorous mammals such as rabbits, can be affected by a myriad of factors such as resource availability, forage quality, area available for foraging and the presence of predators. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">Lush <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>) note that lagomorphs such as rabbits and hares are selective consumers, capable of consuming large amounts of low quality food and adapting to the availability of resources with higher nutritional quality.</p>
				<p>In the present study, the content of crude protein, acid detergent fiber and neutral detergent fiber in the forages studied (crude protein, ADF and NDF) did not affect the preference in terms of consumption in any of the consumption periods evaluated (I1, I5, I10, I15) (P&gt; 0. 05); which is contrary to that reported by (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Ulappa <italic>et al</italic>, 2014</xref>), who point out that the odds of a forage being consumed increase 1.64 times for every 1% increase in crude protein content. According to (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Somers <italic>et al</italic>, 2008</xref>), the selection of higher nutritional quality diets is a behavioral adaptation by which herbivores maximize their nutrient intake by selecting plants with high crude protein content. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Schmalz <italic>et al</italic>, 2014</xref>) reports that pygmy rabbits (<italic>Brachilagus Idahoensis</italic>) prefer to feed on sagebrush (<italic>Artemisa vulgaris</italic>); which has higher crude protein and lower fiber content (ADF-NDF); such preference may be associated more with the energy density it presents, being richer in protein than fiber, which may be especially important during winter when pygmy rabbit diets are 99.1% sagebrush, because energy requirements are especially high for thermoregulation at low temperatures, which could be contrary in tropical areas where temperatures are high. On the other hand (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Hernández <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>) and (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">Carpio <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>) point out that the differences observed in consumption preference in rabbits, may be related to the presence of secondary metabolites such as saponins, flavonoids, total phenolic compounds and tannins, in cover crops and some fruits, which were not quantified in the foods studied in the present work. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Malavé <italic>et al,</italic> 2013</xref>) and (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Ogbuewu <italic>et al</italic>, 2017</xref>) point out that the study and use of resources with high protein content in tropical areas, represent a viable option for rabbit feeding without relying on commercial feeds.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="conclusions">
				<title>CONCLUSIONS</title>
				<p>The CP, NDF and ADF content of tropical forages did not modify the consumption preference in fattening rabbits. <italic>Gliricidia sepium</italic> forage was preferred by fattening rabbits compared to <italic>Brachiaria mutica</italic>, <italic>Guazuma ulmifolia</italic>, <italic>Paspalum notatum</italic> and <italic>Brachiaria humicola</italic> forages. The study of forage preference in rabbits and its relationship with nutrient content is necessary to improve the use of these resources in tropical areas.</p>
			</sec>
		</body>
		<back>
			<fn-group>
				<fn fn-type="other" id="fn2">					
					<p>Code: e2021-25.</p>
				</fn>
			</fn-group>
		</back>
	</sub-article>
</article>