Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 1271–1277 | Cite as

Effect of lablab and pigeon pea leaf meal supplementation on performance of goats fed a basal diet of haricot bean haulms

  • Denbela Hidosa
  • Adugna Tolera
  • Ajebu Nurfeta
Regular Articles
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of lablab and pigeon pea leaf supplementation on feed intake, digestibility, weight gain, and carcass characteristics of goats fed a basal diet of haricot bean haulms. Thirty-two yearling intact male goats with an average initial body weight of 14.4 ± 1.04 kg (Means ± SD) were assigned to one of the four treatments in a randomized complete block design. The dietary treatments were 17.5% lablab + 17.5% pigeon pea leaf + 63% wheat bran (T1), 35% pigeon leaf + 63% wheat bran (T2), 35% lablab leaf + 63% wheat bran (T3), and 88% wheat bran + 10% noug seed cake (T4). In addition, all treatment diets contained 1 and 1% limestone. The feeding trial lasted for 90 days followed by 7 days of digestibility trial. Carcass evaluation was conducted at the end of the feeding trial. Final body weight ranged from 16.3 kg for T4 to 21.1 kg for T3. The total dry matter (DM) intake for T3 was higher (P < 0.05) than T2 and T4. The total crude protein (CP) intake for T2 was greater (P < 0.05) than T3 and T4. Goats supplemented with T3 diets had the highest (P > 0.05) digestibility of DM, organic matter, and CP and attained the highest (P < 0.05) average daily gain, the heaviest (P < 0.05) hot carcass weight, and the highest (P < 0.05) rib-eye muscle area than those supplemented with T1, T2, and T4 diets. In conclusion, 35% lablab leaf meal and 63% what bran (T3) were found to be a very promising supplement in sheep fed low-quality crop residues under the condition of the current experiment.

Keywords

Body weight gain Digestibility Feed intake Forage legumes Woyto-Guji goats 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the financial support from Pastoral, Agro-pastoral and Emerging Regions Directorate of Southern Nations, Nationalities and Regional State. The corresponding author would like to thank the NORAD project for granting the research leave during the final write-up of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of animal rights

The national guidelines for the care and use of animals have been followed.

References

  1. Abebe, H. and Tamir, B., 2016. Effects of supplementation with pigeon pea (Cajanus cajun), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and lablab (Lablab purpureus) on feed intake, body weight gain and carcass characteristics in Wollo sheep fed grass hay. International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences, 3(2), 280–295.Google Scholar
  2. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington.Google Scholar
  3. Beyero, N. and Kassu, Y., 2015. Participatory valuation of dual purpose Pigeon Pea (Cajanus Cajan) leaves for sheep feeding. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Health Care, 5(13), 224–230. Google Scholar
  4. Dereje, T., Urge, M., Animut, G., and Mekasha, Y., 2016. Growth and carcass characteristics of three Ethiopian indigenous goats fed concentrate at different supplementation levels. Springer Plus, 5, 414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diribsa, M., Urge, M. and Duguma, G., 2016. Effects of Supplementation with Cajanus Cajan, Lablab Purpureus or their mixture on feed utilization, growth and carcass characteristics of Horro sheep fed a basal diet of natural grass hay. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Health Care, 6 (17), 101–114.Google Scholar
  6. Harper, K.J., McNeill, D. M., 2015. The role iNDF in the regulation of feed intake and the importance of its assessment in subtropical ruminant systems (the role of iNDF in the regulation of forage intake). Agriculture, 5, 778–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hidosa, D. Ayele, B., and Mengistu, M., 2015. Participatory on-farm evaluation and demonstration of improved legume forage species in Bena-Tsemay Woreda. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 5(21), 127–131.Google Scholar
  8. Lemecha, F., Thiengtham, J., Tudsri, S., Prasanpanich, S., 2013. Survey of goat feed sources and supplements in Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia, Kasetsart Journal (Natural Science), 47, 712–719.Google Scholar
  9. Mandal, A. B., Paul, N. S. S., Mandal, G. P., Kannan, A.and Pathak, N. N., 2004. Deriving nutrient requirements of growing Indian goats under tropical conditions. Small Ruminant Research, 58, 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McDonald, P., Edwards, R., Greenhalgh, J., Morgan, C., Sinclair, L., and Wilkinson, R., 2010. Animal Nutrition, 7th edition, Prentice hall, Harlow.Google Scholar
  11. Megersa, T., Urge, M., Nurfeta, A., 2013. Effects of feeding sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) vines as a supplement on feed intake, growth performance, digestibility and carcass characteristics of Sidama goats fed a basal diet of natural grass hay. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 45: 593–601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Mengistu, S., Melaku, S., Tolera, A., 2008. Supplementation of cottonseed meal on feed intake, digestibility, and live weight and carcass parameters of Sidama goats. Livestock Science, 119:137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. National Research Council (NRC), 2007. Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids and New World Camelids. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. Nurfeta, A., Churfo, A. and Abebe, A., 2013. Substitution of pigeon pea leaves for noug seed (Guizotia abyssinica) cake as a protein supplement to sheep fed low quality tropical grass hay. Ethiopian Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 4, 1–13.Google Scholar
  15. Shenkute, B., Ebro, A. Amen, N., 2013. Performance of Arsi-Bale kids supplemented with graded levels of pigeon pea in dry season in Mid Rift Valley of Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 8 (20), 2366–2370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Statistical Analysis System (SAS). 2002. SAS/STAT Version 9.0 users Guide to SAT. INST., Carry, North Carolina. USA.Google Scholar
  17. Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B., Lewis, B. A, 1991. Methods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3583–3597. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Van Soest P J, Robertson J B. 1985. Analysis of forage and fibrous foods. A laboratory manual for Animal Science 613 Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jinka Agricultural Research CenterSouthern Agricultural Research InstituteJinkaEthiopia
  2. 2.Schools of Animal and Range Sciences, College of AgricultureHawassa UniversityHawassaEthiopia

Personalised recommendations