Skip to main content
Log in

Energy Supply to Livestock from Tropical Rangeland during the Dry Season

  • Published:
Tropical Animal Health and Production Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nine key forage species (grasses and legumes), together with two types of crop residues, usually fed by farmers to their livestock, were collected from a rainfed area in western Sudan during the dry season (May–April). The grasses investigated were Leptadena pyrotechnia, Cenchrus setigrus, Arista pallida, Eragrotis tremula, Schoenefeldia gracilis, Chloris vergata and Cenchrus biflorus. The crop residues investigated were the grasses, sorghum straw (Sorghum bichlor) and millet straw (Pennisetum typhodium) and the legumes Stylosanthes flavicans and Cajanus cajana. Estimates of organic matter (OM) degradability were done using the nylon bag technique, which was fitted into the model Y = a + b (1 – e–ct), in which the asymptote (a + b) represented the total potential degradability. Organic cell wall constituents and hence both metabolizable energy and total digestible energy or nutrients (TDN) were determined. S. flavicans showed the best organic matter degradability, and sorghum straw was better degraded than millet straw. The rest of the grasses showed poor OM degradability. Acid detergent insoluble nitrogen was inversely related to TDN, the latter falling within a narrow range for the different forages. Fermentable metabolizable energy differed only slightly, while the legume S. flavicans had the highest effective rumen digestible protein. Undegraded proteins were high for the straws and the grasses L. pyrotechnia and C. setigerus. Metabolizable protein and microbial protein were highest in the sorghum straw, C. setigerus and S. flavicans.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Abe, A., Horii, S. and Kaeoka, K., 1979. Application of enzyme analysis with gluco-amylase, proteinase and cellulase to various feeds of cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 48, 1483-1490

    Google Scholar 

  • AFRC, 1993. Energy and Nitrogen Requirements of Ruminants, (Advisory manual prepared by the Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients; CAB International Wallingford, UK)

    Google Scholar 

  • Drrage, A. and Fadl ElMula, M., 1994. The role of range rehabilitation on desertification control. Workshop Seminar, May 1994, Khartoum

  • Georing, H.K. and Van Soest, P.J., 1970. Forage fiber analysis. Agricultural Handbook, (ARS, USDA)

  • Hogan, J.P., 1988. Assessment of nutritional value of forages for animal production in the tropics. In: Isotope Aided Studies on Livestock Productivity in Mediterranean and North African Countries, Rabat, (FAO/IAEA), 287-301

  • Ørskov, E.R. and McDonald, L., 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 92, 499-503

    Google Scholar 

  • Ørskov, E.R., Hovell, F.D. and Mould, F., 1980. The use of nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feed stuffs. Tropical Animal Production, 5, 195-231

    Google Scholar 

  • Terada, F., Iwasaki, K., Tano, R., Itoh, M. and Kaeoka, K., 1987. Energy metabolism of farm animals, (European Association for Animal Production Publications, No. 32), 130-133

  • Reppert, J.N., 1960. Forage preference and grazing habits of cattle at Eastern Colorado Range Station. Journal of Range Measurement, 13, 58-62

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS, 1989. Statistical Analysis System Institute. SAS/STAT User's Guide Version, 6th edn, (SAS, Cary, NC)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ahmed, M., El Hag, F. Energy Supply to Livestock from Tropical Rangeland during the Dry Season. Tropical Animal Health and Production 35, 169–177 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022829719848

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022829719848

Navigation