Palatability of multipurpose tree species: effect of species and length of study on intake and relative palatability by sheep
- 141 Downloads
The potential forage value and appropriate length of study on intake and relative palatability ranking of 40 multipurpose tree species (MPTs) were determined using 24 sheep blocked on live weight and age. As the MPTs had different dry matter contents, intakes were also expressed as a ratio of quantity offered (Ai/Di). Using daily Eragrostis tef straw offer (TD) and intake (T), relative palatability indices were calculated as Ri = (Ai/Di)/(Ti/TDi).
There was a significant (P < 0.0001) decrease in correlation of intake measured in day 1 and subsequent days (r = 0.88, 0.81 and 0.79 for days 2–4, days 5–8 and days 9–12, respectively). A similar trend was observed on corresponding palatability indices. Individual animal preference and blocking did not affect intake and palatability indices significantly (P > 0.05), however significant (P < 0.0001) tree species differences were observed. Results on linear regression, correlation coefficients, palatability ranking and standard errors of means (adjusted palatability indices) indicate that, if palatability is done to predict long-term intake of MPTs, at least 5 days are appropriate in palatability assessment for sheep.
Using mean palatability index (days 2–12), the MPTs were grouped into four clusters. The MPTs such as Leucaena leucocephala and Sesbania sesban which are known to have good nutritive value had high palatability. In the same classification group, there were less known species such as Acacia venosa, A. persiciflora, A. melanoxylon, A. hockii, A. polycantha, Tamarindus indica, Chamaecytisus palmensis, Tipuana tipu, Indigofera arrecta and Atriplex nummularia. Flemingia macrophylla, Erythrina abyssinica, Acacia salicina, Acacia coriacea, Albizia schimperiana, Ceratonia siliqua, Casuarina glauca and Erythrina burana had poor palatability. These species seem to have little forage value for animals with short-term adaptation periods. Gliricida sepium and Calliandra calothyrsus although currently being used by farmers had a medium palatability ranking.
Key wordspalatability multipurpose trees and shrubs intake sheep
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Ben Salem H, Nefzaoui A and Abdouli H (1994) Palatability of shrubs and fodder trees measured on sheep and dromedaries: 1. Methodological approach. Anim Feed Sci Technol 46: 143–153Google Scholar
- Brewbaker JL (1986) Leguminous trees and shrubs for Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. In: Blair GJ, Ivory DA and Evans TR (eds) Forages in Southeast Asian and South Pacific Agriculture, pp 43–50. ACIAR Proceedings No 12, ACIAR, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- Burley J and von Carlowitz P (eds) (1984) Multipurpose Tree Germplasm. Proceedings of a Planning Workshop to Discuss International Cooperation. International Council for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya, 318 ppGoogle Scholar
- Cannon SK, Urness PJ and DeByle NV (1987) Habit selecting foraging behaviour and dietary nutrition of Elk in burned aspen forest. J Range Manage 4056: 433–438Google Scholar
- Carew BAR (1983) Gliricidia sepium as a sole feed for small ruminants. Trop Grassl 17: 181–184Google Scholar
- Devendra C (1990) Shrubs and tree fodders for farm animals. In: proceedings of a workshop in Denpasar, Indonesia, 24–29 July 1989. pp 42–60. Ottawa, Ontario, IDRCGoogle Scholar
- ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa) (1985) ILCA forage germplasm catalogue 1985, 3: 1–43. ILCA, Adis Ababa, EthiopiaGoogle Scholar
- Johnston WH (1988) Palatability to sheep of the Ergrostis curvula complex. 3. A comparison of naturalised and selected taxa. Aust J Exp Agric 28: 43–56Google Scholar
- Kaitho RJ (1992) Evaluation of dried Calliandra calothrsus leaves in Ruminants. MSc Thesis. Wageningen Agricultural University, 98 ppGoogle Scholar
- Kamara CS and Haque I (1988) Characteristics of upland soils at ILCA Research sites in Ethipia Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 83 ppGoogle Scholar
- Larbi A, Osakwe II and Lambourne JW (1993) Variation in relative palatability to sheep among Gliricida sepium provenances. Agrofor Syst 22: 221–224Google Scholar
- Le Houèrou HN (ed) (1980) Browse in Africa: the Current State of Knowledge. International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 486 ppGoogle Scholar
- Lusigi WJ, Nkurunziza ER and Masheti S (1984) Forage preference of livestock in the arid lands of Northern Kenya. J Range Manage 376: 542–548Google Scholar
- Marten GC (1978) The animal-plant complex in forage palatability phenomena. J Anim Sci 465: 1470–1477Google Scholar
- Mill E, Kenemeyer J, Matter HE and Steinbach J (1990) Methodology for determining the available nutrients in the various vegetation strata of Northern and Southern Africa. Anim Res Dev 31: 22–30Google Scholar
- Mtenga LA, Komwihangilo DM and Kifaro GC (1994) Selectivity in sheep and goats fed Albizia, Gliricidia, Leucaena and Tamarind multipurpose trees. Small Ruminant Research Network. Proc of 2nd biennial conference of the African Small Ruminant Research Network, AICC, Arusha, Tanzania 7–11 Dec 1992, pp 151–155 ILCAGoogle Scholar
- Olson KC (1991) Diet sample collection of oesophageal fistula and rumen evacuation techniques. J Range Manage 445: 515–519Google Scholar
- Palmer B and Schlink AC (1992) The effect of drying on the intake and rate of digestion of the shrub legume Calliandra calothyrsus. Trop Grassl 26: 89–93Google Scholar
- Palmer B, Schlink AC and Ibrahim T (1991) Supplementary feeding value of five tropical shrub legumes to sheep fed buffel grass hay (Cenchrus ciliaris). In: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores, pp 40–41Google Scholar
- Personius TL, Wambolt CL, Stephens JR and Kelsey RG (1987) Crude terpenoid influence on mule deer preference for sagebrush. J Range Manage 40 (1): 84–88Google Scholar
- Rios S, Correal E and Robledo A (1989) Palatability of the main fodder and pasture species present in S.E. Spain. I. Woody species, trees and shrubs. Proc 16th Intern Grassl Cong Nice, October 1989, pp 1531–1532Google Scholar
- SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems Institute) (1987) Procedures guide for personal computers version, 6th edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar