Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 241–247 | Cite as

Substituting sunflower seed-cake with Moringa oleifera leaves as a supplemental goat feed in Tanzania

  • S.V. Sarwatt
  • S.S. Kapange
  • A.M.V. KakengiEmail author
Article

Abstract

Scarcity of animal feed resources, particularly during the dry season, is a major constraint to livestock production in the tropics. Animal feed supplement such as sunflower seed cake (SSC) are too expensive for most farmers. Therefore, alternative resources need to be investigated. Moringa oleifera Lam (Moringaceae) is a multipurpose tree, the leaves of which are used as animal feed in many places; but its potential as an animal feed supplement has not been documented. The effect of substituting SSC with different levels of M. oleifera (MOOL) on dry matter intake (DMI), dry matter digestibility (DMD) and growth performance of small, East African goats fed low-quality Chloris gayana hay was investigated in Morogoro-Tanzania. The supplementary treatments were different levels of MOOL, so that the proportions of MOOL to SSC were 0:100, 25:75, 75:25 and 100:0. All animals were fed with low-quality Chloris gayana hay as a basal ration. After a preliminary feeding period of 14 days, DMI data were collected for 21 days. Restricted feeding, and collection of urine and faecal samples for analysis were carried within 7 days of the preliminary period and 14 days of data collection. A significantly higher DMI and metabolisable energy intake (MEI) were observed at 75 and 100% MOOL supplementary levels. Increased replacement levels of SSC with MOOL increased the digestibility of DM (dry matter) and NDF (neutral detergent fibre). Goats fed 25 MOOL (T2) had significantly higher nitrogen retention than goats in the other treatments. The treatments were not different in terms of effect on the growth rates of the goats. The results suggest that MOOL could be used as a substitute for SSC, the conventional supplemental feed.

Chloris gayana Feed intake Goat growth Intake digestibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Association of Agricultural Chemists 1980. Official Methods of Analysis. 9th edn. AOAC, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  2. Calub B.M. 1990. Evaluation of multipurpose trees for fodder production. In: Jaylor D.A. and MacDicken K.G. (eds), Research in Multipurpose Tree Species in Asia. Proceedings of International Workshop November 19th-23rd 1990. Los Banos, Philippines, pp. 24-33.Google Scholar
  3. Crowder L.V. and Chheda H.R. 1982. Tropical Grassland Husbandry., London, 513-515 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Elliot R.C. and Topps T.H. 1963. Voluntary intake of low protein diets by sheep. Animal Production 5: 269-276.Google Scholar
  5. Faverdin P., Boumont R. and Igvantsen K.L. 1995. Control and prediction of feed intake in ruminants. In: Recent Development in the Nutrition of Herbivores. Proceedings of the IV International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores. 95-120 INRA-Editions, Paris.Google Scholar
  6. Kakengi A.M.V., Shem M.N., Otsyina R. and Mtengeti E. 2000. Performance of Grazing Cattle in Semi-arid Areas of Western Tanzania and the Marginal Productivity of Leucaena Leucocephala Leaf Meal Supplement. Agroforestry Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, (In press).Google Scholar
  7. Kimbi E.F.C. 1997. Effects of Substituting Leucaena Leucocephala Forage for Cotton Seed Cake as Protein Supplement for Urea Treated Maize Stover on Performance of Weaner Goats, 67-68 pp. MSc Dissertation, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania.Google Scholar
  8. Milford and Minson 1967. The relation between the crude protein and digestible crude protein content of tropical pasture plants. Journal of British Grassland Society 20: 177-179.Google Scholar
  9. Norton B.W. 1995. Browse legumes as supplements. In: Gutteridge R.C. and Shelton H.M. (eds), Forage Tree Legumes in Tropical Agriculture. CAB Int., Wallingford, U.K., pp. 245-257.Google Scholar
  10. Pralomkarn W.K., Saithanoo S. and Norton B.W. 1995. Energy and protein utilization for maintence and growth of Thai native and Anglo Nubian Thai native male weaner goats. Small Ruminant Research 16: 13-20.Google Scholar
  11. Preston R.J. and Leng R.A. 1987. Matching Ruminant Production Systems with Available Resources in the Tropics and Sub-tropics. Panambul Books Ltd. Armidale, N.S.W., Australia.Google Scholar
  12. Reed J.D., Soller H. and Woodward A. 1990. Fodder tree and straw diets for sheep. Intake, growth, digestibility and the effects of phenolics on nitrogen utilization. Animal Feed Science and Technology 30: 39-50.Google Scholar
  13. Robbles A.Y., Bellyea R.L., Martz F.A., Weiss and Mans R.W. 1981. Intake, digestibility, ruminal characteristics and rate of passage of orchard grass diets fed to sheep. J. Anim. Sc. 53: 489-493.Google Scholar
  14. Sarwatt S.V. 1989. Feed intake, Growth Rate and Digestibility Coeffients of growing sheep fed hay supplemented with Crotalaria orchroleuca. Animal Feed Science Technology 28: 51-59.Google Scholar
  15. SAS 1990. Statistical Analysis System. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Statistical Analysis Institute, Inc., Carry, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Schiene J.B. and Ibrahim M.N.M. 1989. Feeding of Urea-ammonia Treated Rice Straw. A Compilation of Miscellaneous Re-ports Produced by a Straw Utilization Project (SriLanka). Pu-doc, Wageningen, 125 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Sutherland J.P., Folklard G.K. and Grant W.D. 1996. Natural coagulation for appropriate water treatment. A Novel Approach, Waterlines 8(4): 30-32.Google Scholar
  18. Van Soest P. 1994. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminants. O and B Books, Corallis, Oregon, 374 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Science and ProductionMorogoroTanzania

Personalised recommendations