Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 175–189 | Cite as

Effect of Supplementation of a Basal Diet of Maize Stover with Erythrina variegata, Gliricidia sepium or Leucaena leucocephala on Feed Intake and Digestibility by Goats

  • E.M. Aregheore
  • D. Perera


Two 4×4 Latin square design experiments were carried out. In experiment 1, four mature Anglo-Nubian×Fiji local goats, pre-experimental body weight 25.0±0.6 kg, 22– 24 months old, were used to study the effect of supplementation of a basal diet of maize stover with Erythrina variegata (EV), Gliricidia sepium (GS) and Leucaena leucocephala (LL) on dry matter intake (DMI) and nutrient digestibility. Maize stover treated with urea was used as a control diet. E. variegata was higher in crude protein content than LL or GS. The DMI of the urea treated stover diet was significantly lower (p<0.05) than that of the diets of untreated stover supplemented with forage legumes. The DMI was significantly lower (p<0.05) in the GS diet than in the EV or LL diets. Significant (p<0.05) differences existed between the urea-treated stover and the diets of stover supplemented with forage legumes in the digestibility of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fibre (NDF), organic matter (OM) and energy. In experiment 2, four mature goats, pre-experimental body weight 27.0±0.3 kg, 24– 28 months old, were used to measure their response when the urea-treated maize stover and the maize stover and forage legume diets were sprayed with molasses. The intake of the urea-treated stover diet sprayed with molasses was significantly lower (p<0.05) that that of the maize stover/forage legume diets sprayed with molasses. The DMI of the diets improved with the addition of molasses. The DMI among the goats offered the maize stover/forage legume diets + molasses did not differ significantly. (p>0.05). Statistically significant (p<0.05) differences were obtained in this second study between the urea-treated stover and the stover supplemented with forage legumes in the digestibility of DM, CP, NDF, OM and energy. The stover supplemented with forage legumes had a higher (p<0.05) nutrient digestibility. The present studies demonstrated that the use of forage legumes as protein supplements improved the feed quality of maize stover in the diets of mature goats. It is suggested that molasses should be sprayed on fresh leaves of Gliricicia sepium and other forage legumes that are initially rejected, in order to improve acceptance and DMI when fed to ruminant animals in confinement or in a cut-and-carry system of production.

digestibility feed intake forage legumes goats maize molasses stover urea 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdulrazak, S.A., Muinga, R.A., Thorpe, W. and Ørskov, E.R., 1996. The effects of supplementation with Gliricidia sepium or Leucaena leucocephala forage on intake, digestion and live-weight gains of Bos taurus x Bos indicus steers offered napier grass. Animal Science, 63, 381-388Google Scholar
  2. AOAC, 1995. Official Methods of Analysis, 16th edn, (Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA)Google Scholar
  3. Aregheore, E.M. and Manueli, P., 2000. Chemical evaluation of some indigenous and introduced browse species from the Pacific Island countries. Proceedings of the 3rd All Africa Conference on Animal Production and 11th Conference of the Egyptian Society of Animal Production, Alexandria, 58 (Abstract)Google Scholar
  4. Aregheore, E.M. and Yahaya, M.S., 2001. Nutritive values of some browses as supplements for goats. Malaysian Journal of Animal Science, 7, 29-36Google Scholar
  5. Aregheore, E.M., Makkar, H.P.S. and Becker, K., 1997. Effect of quallaja saponins and yucca extract on binding of ammonia during urea-ammoniation of straw and fermentation kinetics of the treated straw: a novel application of saponin-rich plant materials. XXXII International Symposium on Animal Production: Advances in Technology, Accuracy and Management, Milan, 227-233Google Scholar
  6. Banda, L.L. and Ayoade, J.A., 1986. Leucaena leaf hay (Leucaena leucocephala cv. Peru) as protein supplement for Malawian goats fed chopped maize stover. In: T.R. Preston and M.Y. Nuwanyakpa (eds), Towards Optimal Feeding of Agricultural By-Products to Livestock in Africa, Proceedings of Workshop, University of Alexandria, October 1985, (ILCA, Addis Ababa), 124-128Google Scholar
  7. Castrillo, C., Fondevilla, M., Guada, J.A. and de Vega, A., 1995. Effect of ammonia treatment and carbohydrate supplementation on the intake and digestibility of barley straw diets by sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 51, 73-90Google Scholar
  8. Crampton, E.W., Donefer, E. and Llory, L.E., 1960. Nutritive value index for forage. Journal of Animal Science, 19, 538-544Google Scholar
  9. Devendra, C., 1983. The nutritive value of Leucaena leucocephala cv Peru in balance and growth studies with goats and sheep. Nutrition Abstracts and Review Series B, 53, 800Google Scholar
  10. Devendra, C., 1990. The use of shrubs and tree fodders by ruminants. In: C. Devendra (ed.), Shrubs and Tree Fodders for Farm Animals, Proceedings of a workshop in Denpasar, Indonesia, (IDRC, Ottawa), 42-60Google Scholar
  11. Dutta, N., Sharma, K. and Hasan, Q.Z., 1999. Effect of supplementation of rice straw with Leucaena leucocephala and Prosopis cineraria leaves on nutrient utilization by goats. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 12, 742-746Google Scholar
  12. Frye, T.M., Fontenot, J.P. and Webb, K.E., 1977. Relative acceptability of supplemental magnesium oxide by beef cows. Journal of Animal Science, 44, 919-926Google Scholar
  13. Getachew, G., Said, A.N. and Sundtøl, F., 1994. The effect of forage legume supplementation on digestibility and body weight gain by sheep fed on a basal diet of maize stover. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 46, 97-108Google Scholar
  14. Goering, H.K. and Van Soest, P.J., 1970. Forage Fibre Analysis, Agricultural Handbook No. 379, (Agricultural Research Services, US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, USA), 1-20Google Scholar
  15. Goodchild, H.K. and McMeniman, N.P., 1994. Intake and digestibility of low quality roughages when supplemented with leguminous browse. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge), 122, 151-157Google Scholar
  16. Kaitho, R.J., Nsahlai, I.V., Williams, B.A., Umunna, N.N., Tammiga, S. and Van Bruchem, J., 1998. Relationships between preference, rumen degradability, gas production and chemical composition of browses. Agroforestry Systems, 39, 129-144Google Scholar
  17. Masama, E., Topps, J.H., Ngongoni, N.T. and Massdorp, B.V., 1997. Effects of supplementation with foliage from tree legumes Acacia angustissima, Cajanus cajan, Calliandra calothyrus and Leucaena leucocephala on feed intake, digestibility and nitrogen metabolism of sheep given maize stover ad libitum. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 69, 233-240Google Scholar
  18. Minson, R. and 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, 546-551Google Scholar
  19. Mosi, H.K. and Butterworth, M.H., 1985. The volunary intake and digestibility of a combination of cereal crop residues and legume hay for sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 12, 241-251Google Scholar
  20. Ng'ambi, J.W., 1999. Influence of molasses on intake of browse by goats. UNISWA Journal of Agriculture, 8, 39-43Google Scholar
  21. Ng'ambi, J.W. and Ngosa, M., 1995. Palatability as a constraint to voluntary intake of wheat straw and stargrass hay by growing goats. University of Swaziland Research Journal, 9, 389-410Google Scholar
  22. NRC, 1981. Nutrient Requirement for Goats, (National Academy Press, Washington DC)Google Scholar
  23. NRC, 1989. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 6th revised edn, (National Academy Press, Washington DC)Google Scholar
  24. Orden, E.A., Abdulrazak, S.A., Cruz, E.M., Orden, M.E.M., Ichinohe, T. and Fujihara, T., 2000. Leucaena leucocephala and Gliricidia sepium supplementation in sheep fed with ammonia treated rice straw: effects on intake, digestibility, microbial protein yield and live-weight changes. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Sciences, 13, 1659-1666Google Scholar
  25. Owen, E., 1985. Crop residues as animal feeds in developing countries, use and potential use. In: M. Waipat and C. Devendra (eds), Relevance of Crop Residues as Animal Feeds in Developing Countries, Proceedings of International Workshop held in Khoukhen, Thailand, (Funny Press, Bangkok), 25-42Google Scholar
  26. Phiri, D.M., Coulman, B., Steppler, H.A., Kamara, C.S. and Kwesiga, F., 1992. The effect of browse supplementation on maize husk utilization by goats. Agroforestry Systems, 17, 153-158Google Scholar
  27. Richards, D.E., Brown, W.F., Ruegsegger, G. and Bates, D.B., 1994. Replacement value of tree legumes for concentrates in forage-based diets. 11. Replacement value of Leucaena leucocephala and Gliricidia sepium for lactating goats. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 30, 39-50Google Scholar
  28. Smith, T., Manyuchi, B. and Mikayari, S., 1990. Legume supplementation of maize stover. In: B.H. Dzowela, A.N. Said, Asrat Wenden-Agenchu and J.K. Kategile (eds), Utilization of Research Results on Forage and Agricultural By-Product Materials as Animal Feed Resource in Africa, Proceedings of 1st Joint Workshop, Lilongwe, Malawi, (PANESA/APNAB, ILCA, Addis Ababa), 302-320Google Scholar
  29. Steel, R.G.D. and Torric, J.H., 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, (McGraw-Hill, New York)Google Scholar
  30. Stewart, J.L., Dansdon, A.L., Kass, M., Lopez Oritz, S., Larbi, A., Premaratne, Tangendjaja, B., Wina, E. and Vargas, J.E., 1998. Acceptability, intake, digestibility and live weight gain in small ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 75, 111-124Google Scholar
  31. Sudana, I.B. and Leng, R.A., 1986. Effects of supplementing a wheat straw diet with urea or urea molasses block and/or cottonseed meal on intake and live-weight change of lambs. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 16, 25-35Google Scholar
  32. Suttie, J.M., 2000. Dryp crop residues. In: Hay and Straw Conservation, for Small-scale Farming and Pastoral Conditions, FAO Plant Production and Protection Series No. 29, (FAO, Rome), 153-169Google Scholar
  33. Topps, J.H., 1992. Potential, composition and use of legume shrubs and trees as fodders for livestock in the tropics. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge), 118, 1-8Google Scholar
  34. Umunna, N.N., Osuji, P.O., Khalili, H. and Mohamed-Saleem, M.A., 1995. Effect of supplementing oat hay with Lablab, Sesbania, Tagastate or wheat middlings on voluntary intake, nitrogen utilisation and weight gain of Ethiopian Menz sheep. Small Ruminant Research, 18, 113-120Google Scholar
  35. Weston, R.H. and Davis, P., 1986. Low palatability as a constraint to the intake of wheaten straw diet by sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of Australia, 11, 172-175Google Scholar
  36. Woodward, A. and Reed, J.O., 1989. The influence of polyphenolics on the nutritive value of browse: a summary of research conducted in ILCA, (Bulletin 35, International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), Addis Ababa), 2-11Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • E.M. Aregheore
    • 1
  • D. Perera
    • 2
  1. 1.Animal Science Department, School of AgricultureThe University of the South Pacific, Private Mail Bag, Alafua CampusApiaWestern Samoa
  2. 2.The University of the South Pacific, Private Mail Bag, Alafua CampusApiaWestern Samoa

Personalised recommendations