Crop–Livestock Interaction for Improved Productivity: Effect of Selected Varieties of Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) on Grain and Straw Parameters

Conference paper
First Online:

Abstract

Straws from peas are richer in protein, calcium and magnesium than cereal straws, and if sustainably harvested, they are useful roughage feeds for ruminant animals. However, the available information on the nutritive and varietal effects on the dry matter (DM) yield of legume straws is scarce compared with that on cereal straws or grass hays despite the efforts to increase food production from peas. This study was therefore conducted with the objective of determining the chemical composition, digestibility and degradability of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties. The study was conducted at Haramaya University Campus and Hirna Experimental Station, Ethiopia, during the 2011 cropping season. The experiment was established as a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four replications. Five selected varieties were grown: Tegenech, G22763-2C, Markos, Adi and Local pea. Among the parameters determined were the leaf to stem ratio, straw DM yield, harvest index (HI), potential utility index (PUI), chemical composition, in vitro DM, in sacco DM, organic matter (OM) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) degradability. The result showed varietal differences in grain yield, straw DM yield and straw quality. This indicated the possibility of selecting for varieties that combine high grain yield and desirable straw characteristics. According to the result of the experiment, Tegenech was identified as having a high yields in grain and straw DM. Local pea at Haramaya and Tegenech at Hirna were significantly (P < 0.05) higher in PUI than the remaining varieties. The value of PUI ranged from 29.2 to 41.7. The varieties were significantly different in the in vitro DM degradability at Haramaya whereas there was no significant difference at Hirna. At Haramaya, the variety G22763-2C had significantly higher in vitro DM degradability than Tegenech and Adi. There were also significant differences among the varieties for the plant cell wall. Except for the rate of degradability there was significant difference (P < 0.001) among the varieties for DM degradability both at Haramaya and Hirna, OM and NDF degradability at Haramaya.

Keywords

Variety Field pea Dry matter Chemical composition Nutritional quality 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we are greatly indebted to Haramaya University for sponsoring this work and to CIALCA for organizing the conference and publicizing the research findings. We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation for covering the cost of conference participation.

References

  1. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1990) Official methods of analysis, 5th edn. AOAC Inc., Arlington, 1298 pGoogle Scholar
  2. Bediye S (1995) Evaluation of nutritive of herbaceous legumes, browse species and oilseed cakes using chemical analysis, in vitro digestibility and nylon bag technique. An M.Sc. thesis presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, p 209Google Scholar
  3. Bediye S, Sileshi Z (1989) The composition of Ethiopian feeds. IAR Research reports. IAR (Institute of Agricultural Research), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 34 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Bediye S, Sileshi Z (1998) Utilization of tef straw as livestock feed, research review. In: Proceedings of the 5th national conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production, Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 15–17 May 1997, pp 173–185Google Scholar
  5. Bediye S, Sileshi Z, Tesfaye M (1996) Tef (Eragrostis tef) straw quality as influenced by variety and locations. In: Proceedings of the 4th annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 18–19 Apr 1996, p 150Google Scholar
  6. Birhanu A (2004) The effect of seed rates and stage of harvesting on forage yield and quality of oats (Avena sativa L.) vetch (Vicia villosa R.) mixture. M.Sc. thesis presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University, p 84Google Scholar
  7. Bruno-Soares AM, Abreu JMF, Guedes CVM, Dias-da-Silva AA (1999) Chemical composition, dry matter and neutral detergent fiber degradation kinetics in rumen of seven legume straws. Anim Feed Sci Technol 83:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butt MN, Donart GB, Southward MG, Pieper RD, Mohammad N (1993) Effect of defoliation on plant growth of Napier grass. Trop Sci 33:111–120Google Scholar
  9. Chapman SR (1982) Crop production principle and practices. Montana State University, Kamala Nagar, p 49Google Scholar
  10. Coxworth E, Kerning J, Knipfel J, Thorlacius O, Crowle L (1981) Review: crop residues and forages in Western Canada; potential for feed use either with or without chemical or physical processing. Agric Environ 6:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eshete G (2002) An assessment of feed resources, their management and impact on livestock productivity in the Ginchi watershed area. M.Sc. thesis presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University, p 172Google Scholar
  12. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (1999) FAO production yearbook, vol 52-1998. FAO, Rome, Italy, p 233Google Scholar
  13. Fekede F (2004) Evaluation of potential forage production qualities of selected oats (Avena sativa L.) genotypes. M.Sc. thesis presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University, p 190Google Scholar
  14. Fleischer JE, Barnes AR, Awubila B (1989) Grain yield and nutritive value of crop residues from three varieties of maize (Zea mays L.) crop. In: Said AN, Dzowela BH (eds) Overcoming constraints to efficient utilization of agricultural by-products as animal feed. Proceeding of 4th annual workshop held at the Institute of Animal Research. Mankon Station, Bamenda, Cameroun. Africa Research Network for Agriculture byproducts (ARNAB), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 20–27 Oct 1987, pp 239–255Google Scholar
  15. Geberhiwot L, Mohamed J (1989) The potential of crop residues, particularly wheat straw, as livestock feed in Ethiopia. In: Said AN, Dzowela BH (eds) Overcoming constraints to the efficient utilization of agricultural by-products as animal feed. International Livestock Center for Africa, Addis Ababa, p 144Google Scholar
  16. HUA (Haramaya University of Agriculture) (1998) Proceedings of the 15th annual research and extension review meeting, Haramaya, Ethiopia, 2 April 1998, pp 24–30Google Scholar
  17. Igbasan FA, Guenter W (1996) The evaluation and enhancement of the nutritive value of yellow, green and brown seeded pea cultivars for un-pelleted diets given to broiler chickens. J Anim Feed Sci Technol 63(64):10Google Scholar
  18. Jones DI, Wilson AD (1987) Nutritive quality of forage. In: Hacker JB, Ternouth IH (eds) The nutritive of herbivores. Academic, Australia, pp 65–89Google Scholar
  19. Jutzi S, Haque I, Abate Tedla (1987) The production of animal feed in the Ethiopian highlands: potential and limitations. In: First national livestock improvement conference. IAR, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp 141–142Google Scholar
  20. Kossila V (1984) Location and potential feed use. In: Sundstøl F, Owen E (eds) Straw and other fibrous by-products as feed. Developments in animal and veterinary sciences, vol 14. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V, Amsterdam, p 9Google Scholar
  21. McDonald I (1981) A revised model for the estimation of protein degradability in the rumen. J Agric Sci (Cambridge) 96:251–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meissner HH, Zacharias PJK, Reagain PJ (2000) Forage quality (Feed value). In: Tainton NM (ed) Pasture management in South Africa. University of Natal press, Pietermaritzburg, pp 66–68Google Scholar
  23. Melaku S (2001) Evaluation of selected multi-purpose trees as feed supplements in tef (Erogrostis tef) straw based feeding of Menz sheep. Ph.D. thesis, Humboldt University, Verlag Dr. Koster, Berlin, Germany, p 194Google Scholar
  24. MSTAT-C (1989) A micro-computer statistical program for experimental design, data management and data analysis. Crop and Soil Sciences, Agricultural Economics and Institute of International Agriculture, Michigan State University, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Nsahlai IV, Umunna NN (1996) Comparison between reconstituted sheep faeces and rumen fluid inocula and between in vitro and in sacco digestibility methods as predictors of intake and in vivo digestibility. J Agric Sci 126(2):235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Onwueme IC, Sinha TD (1991) Field crop production in Tropical Africa. Technical Centre for Agriculture and Rural Cooperation, Wageningen, pp 297–301Google Scholar
  27. Reed JD, Kebede Y, Fussell LK (1988) Factors affecting the nutritive value of sorghum and millet crop residues. In: Reed LD, Capper BS, Neate PJH (eds) Plant breeding and the nutritive value of crop residues. Proceedings workshop held at ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, ILCA, Addis Ababa, 7–10 December 1987, pp 233–251Google Scholar
  28. SAS (1998) SASS/ STAT version 7. Guide to personal computers, statistical analysis system institute Inc., NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Shirley RZ (1986) Nitrogen and energy nutrition of ruminants. Academic, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  30. Singh GP, Oosting SJ (1992) A model for describing the energy value of straws. Indian Dairyman XLIV:322–327Google Scholar
  31. Tarawali SA, Tarawali G, Larbi A, Hanson J (1995) Methods for the evaluation of legumes, grasses and fodder trees for use as livestock feed. ILRI manual. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, p 51Google Scholar
  32. Tilley JMA, Terry RA (1963) A two-stage technique for in vitro digestion of forage crops. J Br Grassland Soc 18:104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tolera A, Berg T, Sundstol F (1999) The effect of variety on maize grain and crop residue yield and nutritive value of the stover. Anim Feed Sci Technol 79:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Soest PJ (1982) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. O and B Books, Corvallis, p 373Google Scholar
  35. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB (1985) Analysis of forages and fibrous feeds. A laboratory manual for animal science 613. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods of dietary fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Debre Birhan UniversityDebre BirhanEthiopia
  2. 2.Tigray Agricultural Research InstituteTigrayEthiopia
  3. 3.Haramaya UniversityDire DawaEthiopia

Personalised recommendations