Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T08:52:34.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foliage of the tree legumes gliricidia, leucaena, and sesbania as supplement to napier grass diets for growing goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. E. van Eys ,
I. W. Mathius ,
P. Pongsapan  and
W. L. Johnson
J. E. van Eys
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Production, P.O. Box 210 Bogor, Indonesia
I. W. Mathius
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Production, P.O. Box 210 Bogor, Indonesia
P. Pongsapan
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Production, P.O. Box 210 Bogor, Indonesia
W. L. Johnson
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Animal Production, P.O. Box 210 Bogor, Indonesia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Three experiments were conducted to determine the value of foliage from three tropical legume trees as low level protein supplements to napier grass diets for growing ‘Kacang’ goats. The average crude protein concentration in the napier grass was 12%.

Napier grass and foliage of the legume trees Gliricidia maculata, Leucaena leucocephala and Sesbania grandiflora were subjected to in situ microbial fermentation and subsequent treatment with acid-pepsin solution. The levels of N solubilized after 2 h incubation were 46 and 43% for napier grass and sesbania respectively, which were higher (P < 0·05) than those for gliricidia and leucaena (27%). Rates of protein disappearance between 2 and 24 h incubation in the rumen averaged 2·6%/h for the legumes and 1·0%/h for napier grass. The proportion of water-insoluble, rumendegradable protein from the legumes was larger (P < 0·05) than that from napier grass.

Napier grass intake by goats supplemented with gliricidia or leucaena at 15% of the dry-matter intake from napier grass was lower (P < 0·05) than that of controls receiving no legume supplement. Napier grass intake did not differ between controls and sesbania-supplemented goats. There was no difference among diets in total dry-matter intake, intake of cell wall constituents or digestibility. Average daily gain for control goats was – 1 g/day as compared with 21 g/day for supplemented goats.

The feeding of formaldehyde-treated soya-bean meal (F-SBM) as a supplement to either napier grass or napier grass–legume diets increased (P < 0·05) intake of dry matter and weight gain of goats. Napier grass intake of animals supplemented with only F-SBM was higher (P < 0·05) than that of control animals. The efficiency of N utilization from F-SBM was higher than that in the legumes, but replacement of legumes by F-SBM above 4% F-SBM feeding had no effect on weight gain or efficiency of utilization.

It was concluded that napier grass of 6–8 weeks' regrowth with 12% crude protein did not provide sufficient protein for growing goats owing to inefficient protein utilization. The increase in efficiency of protein utilization on supplemented diets is mainly associated with the larger proportion of water insoluble, rumen degradable protein and possibly acid-pepsin soluble protein in tropical tree legumes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 107 , Issue 2 , October 1986 , pp. 227 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

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

References

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Aii, T. & Stobbs, T. H. (1980). Solubility of the protein of tropical pasture species and the rate of its digestion in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 5, 183–192.Google Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1975). Official Methods of Analysis, 12th edn.Washington D.C.: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Flores, J. F., Stobbs, T. H. & Minson, D. J. (1979). The influence of the legume Leucaena leucocephala and formal-casein on the production and composition of milk from grazing cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. & van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook, no. 39.Google Scholar
Jayasuriya, M. C. N., Wijeyatunge, C. & Perera, H. G. D. (1982). Rumen and post-rumen fermentation of spent tea loaf protein and other protein sources studied by the nylon bag method. Animal Feed Science and Technology 7, 221–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. J. (1979). The value of Leucaena leucocephala as a feed for ruminants in the tropics. World Animal Review 31, 13–33.Google Scholar
Leng, R. A. & Preston, T. R. (1983). Nutritional strategies for the utilization of agro-industrial byproducts by ruminants and the extension of the principles and technologies to the small farmer in Asia. Proceedings of the Vth World Conference on Animal Production, Tokyo, Japan, vol. 1, pp. 310–318.Google Scholar
Lowry, J. B., Ashari, T., Tiolina, S. & Petheram, R. J. (1983). Composition of some village ruminant feedstuffs in Indonesia. Proceedings of the Vth World Conference on Animal Production, Tokyo, Japan (vol. 2), pp. 599–600.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. & Milford, R. (1967). The voluntary intake and digestibility of diets containing different proportions of legume and mature Pangola grass (Digitaria decumbens). Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 7, 546–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (1981). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. Number 15. Nutrient Requirements of Goats. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Corse, E. L. (1970). The effect on protein utilization of feeding different protein supplements via the rumen or via the abomasum in young growing Bheep. British Journal of Nutrition 24, 803–809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prabowo, A., van Eys, J. E., Mathius, I. W. & Soekanto, L. (1983). Trace mineral status and effect of mineral supplementation in Javanese thin-tail sheep. Proceedings Vth World Conference on Animal Production, Tokyo, Japan (vol. 2), pp. 389–390.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Stobbs, T. H., Minson, D. J. & McLeod, M. N. (1977). The response of dairy cows grazing nitrogen fertilized pastures to a supplement of protected casein. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 137–142.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. F. & Minson, D. J. (1973). The relationship between apparent retention in the rumen, voluntary intake and apparent digestibility of legume and grass diets in sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 889–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Eys, J. E., Mathius, I. W., Rangkuti, M. & Johnson, W. L. (1985). Gliricidia, leucaena and sesbania supplementation of chopped napier grass for growing lambs. Tropical Animal Production (in the Press).Google Scholar
van Soest, P. J. (1982). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Corvallis, Oregon: O & B Books.Google Scholar