acceptability of gliricidia sepium as protein supplement to … › archive › v6i2 ›...

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN (Online): 2319-7064

Index Copernicus Value (2015): 78.96 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391

Volume 6 Issue 2, February 2017 www.ijsr.net

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

Acceptability of Gliricidia sepium as Protein Supplement to Panicum maximum by West African

Dwarf (WAD) goats in Sierra Leone Sheku. K. Moiforay1, Sanpha. Kallon2, Abdul Rahman. Sesay3, Tamba. S. Sonda4

1, 2, 3Department of Animal Science, School of Agriculture, Njala University, Freetown Sierra Leone

4Institute of Food Technology, Nutrition and Consumer Studies, School of Agriculture, Njala University

Abstract: Acceptability of Gmelina arborea, Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena leucocephala by WAD goats was determined using pen feeding system for 12 days at Njala University, Sierra Leone between April and May 2016 to identify a protein supplement (s) for sustainable year round intensive keeping of goats. Feeding in two rounds in a hourly period per feed (concentrate-Panicum maximum-fresh and dry Leucaena-fresh and dry Gliricidia-fresh and dry Gmelina) for six days of round one and (fresh and dry Gliricidia-fresh and dry Gmelina- fresh and dry Leucaena- concentrate-Panicum maximum) for another six days of round two,the initial average weight of the animals (11.6 kg)increased to 12.3 kg after 6 days of round one experimental period. The final average weight of the animals was 12.9 kg on the 12th day of round two of the acceptability feeding trial. The purpose of the trial being to compose a ration that would meet the protein requirements of the microbes and the animal for maintenance and production in the intensive system, the protein value of the diet calculated as 145.1g/kg DM (14.51%), and the protein content of the tree leaves above 20%, acceptability (coefficient of preference ≥ 1) of any of the tree foliages shows higher prospect as protein supplement. The behavioral and intake studies showed that fresh Gmelina arborea and Leucaena leucocephala were the most preferred tree leaves with average dry matter intake (DMI) of 0.5 and 0.2 kg and coefficient of preference (COP) of 1.3 and 1.4 respectively. The DMI of dry Gmelina arborea and Leucaena leucocephala were 0.9 kg and 0.5 kg which were lesser than the fresh forms. Fresh and dry Gliricidia sepium gave the least DMI (0 kg and 0 kg) and COP of (0 and 0) ways to enhance the highest acceptability must be explored. The study then concluded that Gliricidia sepium is the least preferred (rejected) by WAD goats that are not adapted to it unlike Gmelina and Leucaena leucocephala.

Keywords: Acceptability, Coefficient of preference, Gliricidia sepium, Panicum maximum, West African Dwarf (WAD) goat

1. Introduction

Importance of goat keeping in Sierra Leone In Sierra Leone, small ruminants are quite common and are reared by nearly all known farm families (predominantly crop farming) comprising about 80% of the country’s population. The animals also bear along association with transhumance pastoralists and urban/peri-urban dwellers, and have attracted recently the attention of community farmers’ cooperatives(Moiforay et al. 1996)14.Sheep and goats are reared by various forms of extensive systems; they are mostly tethered in open fields near homesteads (small sized flocks) or left to freely browse along roadsides, in or around the village/town; a few families keep them indoors and are zero grazed, a system that is practiced in cities and villages with stringent laws against free-running management system. In between, household refuses such as cassava, plantain, and yam peels are offered whenever available. Usually, the animals return to the homes in the evening to spend the night in the compound. Women and children are entrusted with the care of small ruminants. The only breed available is the West African dwarf sheep and goat, and they are often identified by their color pattern and body conformation. Studies conducted in Sierra Leone in selected Chiefdoms by Moiforay et al. (1996)14identified three systems of small ruminant production. The cooperative extensive system; the cattle farmers’ extensive system and the crop farmers’ extensive system.

Despite the prospects of the community initiative on cooperative ownership of the goat enterprise in an integrated production system with thepotentialfor increasing

productivity, the crucial element of sustainable feeding of high-quality diet adequately throughout the year remained to be addressed. Grazing stock on native grassland was and is still faced with numerous challenges, in particular with regard to adequately providing the required quantity and quality of fodder throughout the year. The nutritive quality and amount of range forage is highly variable and is often on the downside. It is often below the nutrient requirement of the rumen microbes (6-10% CP) of the ruminant animal in question. Grazing stock therefore on a fixed area of native pasture would sooner or later result in degradation of the range and reduction in goat productivity. Further, the extensive system of goat production was predominantly practiced by the three goat production systems identified, and feed availability and affordability through the year was a constraint to the community association, the transhumance farmers and the traditional crop farmers alike. Thus, the current feeding system of goat production in Sierra Leone is highly unsustainable. There is need to provide a feeding system(s) for WAD goats that support optimum productivity and economic maximum for farmers and commercial enterprises. The only plausible option is an integrated system (intensive and extensive) where the stock spends 2/3rds of the day inside on legumes/mineral licks/ and the 1/3 on extensive grazing (most preferred) to feeding grass forages/crop residues intensively even with supplementation (Minor and Hovell (1979)12, Kabaija (1985)9, Ademosum et al (1988)1, Smith et al (1989)25. Gliricidia sepium is chosen as the browse plant for evaluation because of the plant’ snumerous merits in terms of non-forage and forage uses.

Paper ID: ART2017742 DOI: 10.21275/ART2017742 910

and dry Gmelina- fresh and dry Leucaena- concentrate-Panicum maximum) for another six days of round two,the initial average weight of the animals (11.6 kg)increased to 12.3 kg after 6 days of round one experimental period. The final average weight of the animals was

day of round two of the acceptability feeding trial. The purpose of the trial being to compose a ration that would meet the protein requirements of the microbes and the animal for maintenance and production in the intensive system, the protein value of the diet calculated as 145.1g/kg DM (14.51%), and the protein content of the tree leaves above 20%, acceptability (coefficient of DM (14.51%), and the protein content of the tree leaves above 20%, acceptability (coefficient of DM

of any of the tree foliages shows higher prospect as protein supplement.of any of the tree foliages shows higher prospect as protein supplement.of any of the tree foliages shows higher prospect as protein supplement The behavioral and intake studies showed that fresh Gmelina arborea and Leucaena leucocephala were the most preferred tree leaves with average dry matter intake (DMI) of 0.5 and 0.2 kg and coefficient of preference (COP) of 1.3 and 1.4 respectively. The DMI of dry Gmelina arborea and Leucaena leucocephala were 0.9 kg and 0.5 kg which were lesser than the fresh forms. Fresh and dry Gliricidia sepium gave the least DMI (0 kg and 0 kg) and COP of (0 and 0) ways to enhance the highest acceptability must be explored. The study then concluded that Gliricidia sepium is the least preferred (rejected) by WAD goats that are not adapted to it unlike Gmelina and Leucaena leucocephala.

Acceptability, Coefficient of preference, Gliricidia sepium, Panicum maximum, West African Dwarf (WAD) goat

Importance of goat keeping in Sierra Leone In Sierra Leone, small ruminants are quite common and are reared by nearly all known farm families (predominantly

comprising about 80% of the country’s

population. The animals also bear along association with transhumance pastoralists and urban/peri-urban dwellers, and have attracted recently the attention of community

cooperatives(Moiforay et al. 1996)14.Sheep and goats are reared by various forms of extensive systems; they are mostly tethered in open fields near homesteads (small sized flocks) or left to freely browse along roadsides, in or around the village/town; a few families keep them indoors

productivity, the crucial element of sustainable feeding of high-quality diet adequately throughout the year remained to be addressed. Grazing stock on native grassland was and is still faced with numerous challenges, in particular with regard to adequately providing the required quantity and quality of fodder throughout the year. The nutritive quality and amount of range forage is highly variable and is often on the downside. It is often below the nutrient requirement of the rumen microbes (6-10% CP) of the ruminant animal in question. Grazing stock therefore on a fixed area of native pasture would sooner or later result in degradation of the range and reduction in goat productivity. Further, the extensive system of goat production was predominantly practiced by the three goat production systems identified,

www.ijsr.net

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/





Gliricidia sepium is a vital Nitrogen fixing tree species with non-forage and forage properties. For instance, Gliricidia is widely used to provide crop shade for cocoa, coffee and other shade –loving crops, living fence posts for pasture and property boundaries, and fuel wood. The Spanish called it “Madre de cacao” to describe its use as a cocoa shade.The toxic properties of its seeds and bark give rise to the generic epithet (Gliricidia = mouse killer) as well as some common names (e.g. mata-raton) (Standley and Steyermark 194627,Simons and Stewart, 199424).

Further,Gliricidia sepiumas browse has been identified as one of the trees with thepotential to supplement grass forages and crop residues, due to its higher protein content (> 20% in the tree foliages).The only challenge in introducing the browse to ruminants for the first time is total rejection of the foliage by WAD goats, sheep, and N’dama Cattle. The smell of the leaves has been implicated in this initial reluctance of animals to eat Gliricidia, but once adapted, there appears to be no long-term detrimental effects on goat, sheep, and cattle (Wong and Sharudin 198628,Sriskandarajah, 198726; Nochebuena and O’Donovan198615; Preston and Leng 198720; Lowry 199010; Perino 197919; Carew 19836; Brewbaker 19864; Chadhokar 19827)

Generally, Gliricidia sepium has higher comparative advantage over other browse plants as potential protein supplement to forage grasses and crop residues because of its rapid growth pattern, tolerance to fire and persistent cutting (Conteh and Moiforay 20168) etc. However, it is observed that WAD goats refuse Gliricidia sepium browse and reject it when unadapted animals are freely grazed extensively. Further, although there are abundant grasses and legume trees in the native range and extensive production system, the level of acceptability of Gliricidiatree foliage compared to other tree leaves that are commonly browsed have not been determined.Thus, intensifying goat production that would require making available rations of high quality and acceptability using Gliricidia sepiumis currently faced with many challenges, particularly so when there is complete absence of output data showing the response of WAD goats to well-defined goat diets based on Panicum maximumgrass forage and Gliricidia sepium tree foliage as protein supplement. Without acceptability figures of feeds on offer, farmers will tend to confine their goats and present them with ill-defined diet.

High acceptability of Gliricidia sepium would facilitate the adoption of the intensive goat production system and use of various grass forages and crop residues,thereby ensuring year round availability of required feed quality. This would help promote settled agriculture by making available goat manure thereby reducing pressure on intensive land use, combatting deforestation from charcoal production and shifting cultivation farming practices etc.

2. Objectives of the Study

The overall purpose of the study is to enhance goat productivity through intensive management of goats and using Gliricidia sepiumleavesas protein supplement and Panicum maximum grass as basal diet. The specific objectiveis todeterminethe coefficient of preference

(acceptability) of fresh and dry Gliricidia sepiumtree foliage compared with Leucaena leucocephala and Gmelina arboreaas protein supplements to Panicum maximum as basal diet.

3. Materials and Methods

Description of the study area The study was conducted on Njala Campus, Njala University, Kori Chiefdom, Moyamba District in the Southern Province of Sierra Leone. Njala Campus is approximately 125 miles south of the capital Freetown. It is located between latitude 8⁰ 6 West and longitude 12⁰ 6 with an elevation of 50m above sea level. This agro-ecological zone of Sierra Leone receives a mean annual rainfall between 115.0” and 120” and experiences mean minimum and maximum temperature of 78⁰ F to 84⁰ F.

The rainfall in this zone is usually sufficient for crop production and thus characterized as one with a high crop and livestock production potential mainly maize and goat.

The vegetation type in the region ranges from savanna comprising of semi-open woodlands and a mixture of grassland and shrubs. The tree species: Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala, Gmelina arborea, etc. are commonly dispersed across this region. Similarly, Andropogon gayanus, Panicum maximum, Pennisetum purpureum, Brachairia mutica grow fairly well in varying ecological zones across the area.

Description of the experimental site The experiment was conducted at the protein bank experimental site in a constructed building for the purpose aimed at improving and strengthening researcher-farmer relation in the animal agriculture/settled agriculture farming system of Sierra Leone.

The dimensions of the building were 7m x 3m. This was divided into two rows of a set of 8 pens each measuring 1m x 1.5m on either side of the passage separating the two pens.

The pens were designed in such a way that the animalsare able to access feed and water in troughs through a slot (15” x 5”) that is sufficient for the head to pass. Each of the pens has a door and two head openings for feeding.

Local materials including sticks, timber boards, nails, and thatch were used for the construction of the building used for the animal experimentation. The floor was designed such that small openings between the sticks and boards allow passage of feces (palliates) and urine. Thatch was used for roofing as one of the options in terms of local materials available for roofing. The building and the pens were provided with locks for closing the building and pens at the end of the day.

Experimental Feeds Three species of protein bank forages (Gliricidia sepium,Leucaena leucocephala, and Gmelina arborea were used in the experiment. The fresh and dry forms were collected from the established protein bank on Njala Campus towards the end of the dry season (March-April). Panicum maximum as


adapted, there appears to be no long-term detrimental effects on goat, sheep, and cattle (Wong and Sharudin 198628,

; Nochebuena and O’Donovan

; Preston and Leng 198720; Lowry 199010; Perino ; Brewbaker 19864; Chadhokar 19827)

Gliricidia sepium has higher comparative advantage over other browse plants as potential protein supplement to forage grasses and crop residues because of its rapid growth pattern, tolerance to fire and persistent cutting (Conteh and Moiforay 20168) etc. However, it is observed that WAD goats refuse Gliricidia sepium browse and reject it when unadapted animals are freely grazed extensively. Further, although there are abundant grasses and legume trees in the native range and extensive production system, the level of acceptability of Gliricidiatree foliage compared to other tree leaves that are commonly browsed have not been determined.Thus, intensifying goat production that would require making available rations of high quality and acceptability using Gliricidia sepiumis currently faced with many challenges, particularly so when there is complete absence of output data showing the response of WAD goats to well-defined goat diets based on

grass forage and Gliricidia sepium tree foliage as protein supplement. Without acceptability figures of feeds on offer, farmers will tend to confine their goats and

production and thus characterized as one with a high crop and livestock production potential main

The vegetation type in the region ranges from savanna comprising of semi-open woodlands and a mixture of grassland and shrubs. The tree species: Leucaena leucocephala, Gmelina arborea,commonly dispersed across this region. Similarly, Andropogon gayanus, Panicum maximum, Pennisetum purpureum, Brachairia mutica grow fairly well in varying ecological zones across the area.

Description of the experimental site The experiment was conducted at the protein bank experimental site in a constructed building for the purpose aimed at improving and strengthening researcher-farmer relation in the animal agriculture/settled agriculture farming system of Sierra Leone.

The dimensions of the building were 7m x 3m. This was divided into two rows of a set of 8 pens each measuring 1m x 1.5m on either side of the passage separating the two pens.

The pens were designed in such a way that the animalsare able to access feed and water in troughs x 5”) that is sufficient for the head to pass. Each of the

www.ijsr.net






basal feed was also collected from the alleys of the protein banks.To compete the ration in formulation, a concentrate comprising ground maize (25% and rice bran (75%) was fed as one of the ingredients. The proximate composition of the ingredients were determined in order to estimate the protein value of the ration

Study period The experiment was carried out at the end of the dry season (March- April), where only 2% of the annual rainfall occurs during this period. The experiment lasted for 7 days ofacclimatization and 12 days of acceptability feeding trial using foliages from three protein banks (Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala and Gmelina arborea).

Experimental animals Nine West African Dwarf goats weighing on average 10kg (range: 10-14kg) between 1 and 3 years old were used in the experiment. The goats were provided through the support of the DelPHE project 772 – Strengthening Farmer-Researcher Linkage in Sierra Leone through protein banks.After treating the animals for external and internal parasites, they were acclimatized to the building by feeding them for a period of seven days prior to start of the experiment. For the acclimatization period, the goats were individually hosted per pen from the least to the highest in terms of weight and fed with chopped grass, legume, and kitchen rejects in feeding troughs.

Acceptability feeding trial The study was done in two rounds, and during each round feedingof the animals started at 8:00 am every day and final reading taken at 6:00pm. In one hourly feeding period, the feeds were given in this order for round one that lasted for 6 days: ground corn/rice bran concentrate mixture given ad libitumfor one hour followed by: Panicum maximum, fresh and dry Leucaena leucocephalaleaves,fresh and dry Gliricidia sepium leaves,fresh and dry Gmelina arborealeaves;Round two continued with freshand dry Leucaena leucocephalaleaves for one hour and also followed by:fresh and dry Gliricidia sepium leaves, fresh and dry Gmelina arborea leaves;ground corn/rice bran concentrate mixture, and Panicum maximum.Feeds were periodically placed in individual feeding troughs per animal from measured

quantities and fed for one hour for each feed. The leftovers were collected, weighed, recorded and then discarded and followed by another type of feed. This was to determine the acceptability level of each feed compared to the otherfrom the determined amounts of dry matter intakes. Samples of feed were taken every day and pooled for the twelve days of the experiment,and this was used for proximate analysis.

Data collection Data was recorded for analysis and these included: i) feeding period per feed; ii) weight of feed offered and rejected (kg); iii) dry matter feed intake (kg);iv) proximate composition of feed; v) calculated proportion of each ingredient that makes up the total ration and the protein value of the ration.

Data analysis The daily dry matter intake (DMI) of each feed was determined as the difference of amount of feed offered and the left over and this was used to calculate the coefficient of preference (COP) which indicates the level of choice for each ingredient included in the study according to Babayemi (2006b)2. The formula reported by Babayemi (2006b)2 was used to calculate the COP of each feed, which is given as the ratio between intakes of individual forages, divided by the average intake of the forages. This formula was applied after summarizing the data: quantity of feed rejected was subtracted from that offered to obtain the daily dry matter intake; average DMI for the 12 days was used to determine the COPs. This was tabulated and used to produce charts and graphs in my report.

COP = Ratio between the intakes of the different forages/average intake of the forages. Forage is inferred to be relatively acceptable when Coefficient of Preference is equal to or greater than unity

4. Results

Figure 1 shows the difference in the level of DMI between the three tree foliages. Fresh Gmelina has the highest DMI followed by freshLeucaena.FreshGliricidia has the least, and dry Gliricidia has zero DMI.


– Strengthening Farmer-Researcher – Strengthening Farmer-Researcher –

Linkage in Sierra Leone through protein banks.After treating the animals for external and internal parasites, they were acclimatized to the building by feeding them for a period of seven days prior to start of the experiment. For the acclimatization period, the goats were individually hosted per pen from the least to the highest in terms of weight and fed with chopped grass, legume, and kitchen rejects in

Acceptability feeding trial The study was done in two rounds, and during each round feedingof the animals started at 8:00 am every day and final reading taken at 6:00pm. In one hourly feeding period, the feeds were given in this order for round one that lasted for 6 days: ground corn/rice bran concentrate mixture given ad

for one hour followed by: Panicum maximum, fresh Leucaena leucocephalaleaves,fresh and dry

leaves,fresh and dry Gmelina arboreaRound two continued with freshand dry Leucaena

leaves for one hour and also followed by:fresh Gliricidia sepium leaves, fresh and dry Gmelina

ground corn/rice bran concentrate mixture, Feeds were periodically placed in

individual feeding troughs per animal from measured

preference (COP) which indicates the level of choieach ingredient included in the study according to Babayemi (2006b)2. The formula reported by Babayemi (2006b)used to calculate the COP of each feed, which is given as the ratio between intakes of individual forages, divided by the average intake of the forages. This formula was applied after summarizing the data: quantity of feed rejected was subtracted from that offered to obtain the daily dry matter intake; average DMI for the 12 days was used to determine the COPs. This was tabulated and used to produce charts and graphs in my report.

COP = Ratio between the intakes forages/average intake of the forages. Forage is inferred to be relatively acceptable when Coefficient of Preference is equal to or greater than unity

4. Results

Figure 1 shows the difference in the level of DMI between the three tree foliages. Fresh Gmelina followed by freshLeucaenafollowed by freshLeucaenafollowed by fresh .Freshand dry Gliricidia has zero DMI.

www.ijsr.net






Figure 1: Dry matter intake of fresh and dry forms of Leucaena leucocephala, Gliricidia sepiumand Gmelina arborea

The figure (2) shows the COP of the tree foliages including Gliricidia sepium. Fresh and dry Gmelina were the most preferred followed by freshLeucaena. Gliricidia whether fresh or dry was not preferred. The animals showed no

interest in the consumption of both fresh and dry Gliricidia sepium.

Figure 2: Coefficient of preference of selected tree foliages (freshLeucaena, dry Leucaena, fresh Gliricidia, dry Gliricidia,fresh Gmelina and dry Gmelina leaves.

.


Dry matter intake of fresh and dry forms of Leucaena leucocephala, Gliricidia sepium

The figure (2) shows the COP of the tree foliages including Fresh and dry Gmelina were the most

preferred followed by freshLeucaena. Gliricidiapreferred followed by freshLeucaena. Gliricidiapreferred followed by fresh whether fresh or dry was not preferred. The animals showed no

interest in the consumption of both fresh and dry sepium.

www.ijsr.net






Table 1: Average daily dry matter intake (DMI in kg) and the determined coefficient of preference (COP)

Key: I = Dry matter intake; P = Coefficient of preference; Con = Concentrate; PM = Panicum maximum;L(F) = Fresh Leucaena leucocephala;L(D) = dry Leucaena leucocephala, G(F) = Fresh Gliricidia sepium; G(D) = dry Gliricidia sepium; A(F) = Fresh Gmelina arborea; A(D) = Dry Gmelina arborea;I(T) = Total dry matter intake.

Table 1 gives the average daily dry matter intake (DMI in kg) and the determined coefficient of preference (COP) for

the ingredients making up the ration. In table 1, the least and the highest COP was found for Gliricidia sepium(0.0 kg) and Gmelina arborea (1.0 kg) and Leucaena leucocephala (1.0 kg) respectively. Average DMI ranges from 0.0kg -0.5kg among the tree foliages. The average DMI (0.3 kg) and COP (0.91 approximately 1) for the basal diet (Panicum maximum)and the ground maize–rice bran concentrate (0.1 kg and 1.0) were constant and therefore considered acceptable

Table 2: Proportion of foliage DMI (%) of the selected forages making up the daily ration

In table 2 the proportion of freshGmelina was highest (36% -56%) among the tree foliages in all the daily rations followed by freshLeucaena and dry Leucaena leaves, although dry Gmelina was still above the former. Gliricidia

sepium were almost entirely rejected by the animals, even though on the eight day an intake of 9% fresh foliage was observed.

Table 3 shows Average inclusion level of ingredients and determined protein value of daily ration fed to WAD goats.

The table shows that the daily ration contains 145.1 g crude protein per kg feed or 14.1% crude protein. This amount of


Leucaena leucocephala;L(D) = dry Leucaena , G(F) = Fresh Gliricidia sepium; G(D) = dry

A(F) = Fresh Gmelina arborea; A(D) = ;I(T) = Total dry matter intake.

Table 1 gives the average daily dry matter intake (DMI in kg) and the determined coefficient of preference (COP) for

kg) and Gmelina arborea (1.0 kg) and leucocephala (1.0 kg) respectively. Average DMI ranges from 0.0kg -0.5kg among the tree foliages. The average DMI (0.3 kg) and COP (0.91 approximately 1) for the basal diet (Panicum maximum)and the ground maizeconcentrate (0.1 kg and 1.0) were constant and therefore considered acceptable

Table 2: Proportion of foliage DMI (%) of the selected forages making up the daily ration

In table 2 the proportion of freshGmelina was highest (36% -56%) among the tree foliages in all the daily rations

Leucaena and dry Leucaena leaves, was still above the former. Gliricidia

sepium were almost entirely rejected by the animals, even though on the eight day an intake of 9% fresh foliage was observed.

www.ijsr.net






protein consumed is adequate for meeting protein requirements for maintenance, growth/pregnancy/lactation of 30-40kg West African Dwarf goat.

5. Discussion

Preference assessment otherwise called acceptability is a fast and cheap means of assessing folder plants in a short period of time (Sandoval – Castrol et al. 2005)22. The study reporting the level of acceptability of three tree foliages (Leucaena, Gliricidia and Gmelina), in other words coefficient of preference (COP) showed the degree of acceptability of these plants by WAD goats. As expressed in the literature, knowledge of choice of various forages aids in better ration formulation and animal performance. The study showed that fresh Gmelina is most preferred among the different forms of feeds offered, followed by freshLeucaena(second) and dry forms of Gmelina and Leucaena (third). Fresh and dry forms of Gliricidia sepiumgave zero level of acceptability with daily DMI of zero and COP zero. Daily and average DMI that was used in calculation of COP for the various foliages studied for protein supplementation support the result reported in table 1.

Higher COP for Gmelina came as no surprise. The selected animals were already adapted to the foliage. Goats around Njala are known for eating every part of Gmelina accessible including the leaves, twigs, fruits, seeds and bark. Only the wood has not been found to be consumed by WAD goats and other ruminants. The proportion of Gmelina making the ration (57%) shows the highest preference demonstrated in the study (Table 2). The nutritive value and feeding property of Gmelinastudied in the literature also support the strong preference by WAD goats for this foliage.

In table 1, the result showed that goats obtained an average DMI of 0.2kg and 0.1kg of fresh and dry Leucaenarespectively. The average coefficient of preference for fresh and dry Leucaena were 1.0 and 0.5 respectively, making it the second most preferred foliage over the 12 days experimental period. The results also revealed that goats were observed to be nonchalant to the initial consumption of dry Leucaena, but greater interest was shown after the 4th

day. Leucaena had been reported to enhance livestock performance (Babayemi, 2006b)2. Comparative studies of its chemical analysis and feeding trials have ranked it as high in crude protein content ranging from 20-25% and digestibility of 57.68% (Bamikolo and Babayemi, 2004)3. On the contrary, tannins in the leaves and stems have been reported to reduce digestibility and intake (Odeyinka 199917; Odedire and Babayemi 2008)16. However, goats in the Njala community were observed to eat fruits, flowers and leaves of this tree species. The results obtained from this study also revealed that Leucaena was reasonably palatable to the animals.

Unlike Gmelina arborea and Leucaena leucocephala, Gliricidia sepiumwas not eaten by the animals. The study showed that WAD goat donot like Gliricidia sepium. From table 1, the DMIs and COPs of both fresh and dry Gliricidia sepium were zero.This seemed to be supportive to some literature reported by (Babayemi 2006)2, that acceptability of Gliricidia sepium depends on adaptability. Feeding of

Gliricidia sepium to animals that are not adapted to it don’t readily accept it. The animals will consume it after a period of introduction and when introduced with an animal that is already adapted. In this study, intakes (fresh Gliricidia sepium 0.76g/day and dry Gliricidia sepium 0.00g) were even lower than those reported by Onwunka (1986)18

(176.83g/day/animal) and Mba et al, (1982/84)11-12, 233.80g/day/animal. Although other studies have shown that Gliricidia sepium has high nutritive values, whose crude protein content was given as 18 -30% and digestibility of 60-65%, variability in nutritive quality has still not been assessed. In this study, it was observed that some palatability problems depend on prior experience. The animals seemed to refuse leaves on the basis of smell, often rejecting them without tasting. Other studies also stated that the low intakes of Gliricidia leaf meals could probably be related to the presence of relatively higher concentrations of tannins in the leaves (Babayemi et al 2006 b)2. The study showed that the two foliages (Gmelina and Leucaena) seemed to be preferred equally based on their average COP (1.0). Animals generally showed willingness to consume Gmelina and Leucaena while less interest was shown in feeding on Gliricidia.

Finally, the diet showed no negative effect on the weight of the animals. Starting with an initial average weight of 11.72 kg (range 8.6 -15.5 kg), the average weight increased to 12.43 kg (range: 9.5 -16.0 kg) on the sixth day and to 12.86 kg (range: 10 -16.7 kg) on the 12th and last day of the trial. This is an indication that the ration was satisfactory in terms of meeting the nutrient requirements of the animals.

6. Conclusions

The conclusions made are given: 1) The use of Panicum maximum as basal diet and corn-

rice-bran mixture as energy/mineral supplement and selected browse plants were effective in maintaining the WAD goats

2) Gmelina arborea posed no difficulty so far feeding to WAD goats was concerned as there were no daily leftovers, having giving the highest COP among the tree foliages

3) Acceptability of fresh and dry forms of Leucaena has great potential for feeding WAD goat as protein supplement as the COP was above unity

4) Considerable difficulties were encountered in the consumption of Gliricidia sepium throughout the experiment having zero DMI and COP for this study

7. Recommendation

Some recommendations are suggested here: 1) Fresh forms of Gmelina and Leucaena could form major

component of rations for WAD goats without restriction 2) There is need to conduct more studies on feeding and

consumption of dry forms of Leucaena and Gmelina3) Further studies should be explored earnestly to enhance

the highest acceptability ofGliricidia sepium(fresh and dry forms)by WAD goats.

4) Optimal level of fresh and dry Gliricidia leaves for supplementation of fresh and dry Panicum maximum,


acceptability with daily DMI of zero and COP zero. Daily and average DMI that was used in calculation of COP for the various foliages studied for protein supplementation support the result reported in table 1.

Gmelina came as no surprise. The selected animals were already adapted to the foliage. Goats around Njala are known for eating every part of Gmelina accessible including the leaves, twigs, fruits, seeds and bark. Only the wood has not been found to be consumed by WAD goats and other ruminants. The proportion of Gmelina making the ration (57%) shows the highest preference demonstrated in the study (Table 2). The nutritive value and feeding property

studied in the literature also support the strong preference by WAD goats for this foliage.

In table 1, the result showed that goats obtained an average DMI of 0.2kg and 0.1kg of fresh and dry Leucaenarespectively. The average coefficient of preference for fresh

were 1.0 and 0.5 respectively, making it the second most preferred foliage over the 12 days experimental period. The results also revealed that goats were observed to be nonchalant to the initial consumption of

, but greater interest was shown after the 4th

had been reported to enhance livestock performance (Babayemi, 2006b)2. Comparative studies of its

preferred equally based on their average COP (1.0). Animals generally showed willingness to consume Leucaena while less interest was shown in feeding on Gliricidia.

Finally, the diet showed no negative effect on the weight of the animals. Starting with an initial average weight of 11.72 kg (range 8.6 -15.5 kg), the average weight increased to 12.43 kg (range: 9.5 -16.0 kg) on the sixth day and to 12.86 kg (range: 10 -16.7 kg) on the 12This is an indication that the ration was satisfactory in terms of meeting the nutrient requirements of the animals.

6. Conclusions

The conclusions made are given: 1) The use of Panicum maximum

rice-bran mixture as energy/mineral supplement and selected browse plants were effective in maintaining the WAD goats

2) Gmelina arborea posed no difficulty so far feeding to WAD goats was concerned as there were no daily leftovers, having giving the highest COP among the tree foliages

3) Acceptability of fresh and dry forms of great potential for feeding WAD goat as protein

www.ijsr.net






other grasses and crop residues for use by farmers need further investigation.

References

[1] Babayemi O.J. Bamikole M.A. 2006b. Supplementary value

[2] Babayemi O.J., Bamikole M.A. 2004. Feeding Goats with Guinea grass

[3] Brewbakerr, J.L. 1986. Leguminous trees and shrubs for Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. In: Blair, G.J. Ivory, D.A. and Evans T.R. (eds). Forages in Southeast Asia and South Pacific Agriculture. ACIAR Proceedings No. 12, ACIAR, Canberra, pp. 43-50

[4] Brewbakerr, J.L. 1986. Nitrogen –fixing trees for fodder and browse in Africa. In: Alley farming in the humid and sub-humid tropics. Kang, B.T. and Reynolds, L. (eds). IDRC 271e, Ottawa, Canada. Pp 55-70

[5] Carew, B.A.R. 1983. Gliricidia sepiumas a single feed for small ruminants. Tropical Grasslands 17. 181-184

[6] Chadhokar, P.A. 1982. Gliricidia maculate: a promising legume fodder plant. World Animal Review 44. 36-43

[7] Conteh A and Moiforay S.K. 2016. Persistence of Gliricidia sepium, Moringa oleifera and Leucaena leucocephala to uncontrolled fire incidences on Njala Terrestrial Habitat. Dissertation for the B.Sc. Degree in Agriculture with Honors in Animal Science, Njala University

[8] Kabaija E. 1985. Factors influencing mineral content and utilization of tropical forages by ruminants. PhD Thesis. University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

[9] Low J.B. 1990. Toxic Factors and Problems. Methods of Alleviating them in animals: In Devendra , C. Ed.: Shrubs and Tree Fodders for Farm Animals -Proceedings of a workshop in Denpasor, Indonesia. July24-29, 1989. PP76-88.

[10] Mba et al. 1982. Use of Gliricidia sepiumas forage feed in small ruminant production – A report. ILCA Ibadan, Nigeria

[11] Mba et al. 1984. Influence of concentrate supplementation with browse plants (Gliricidia sepium)on nutrient utilization and growth of WAD kids. Nigerian journal of animal production 9 (2): 63-73

[12] Minor S and Hovell D.F. 1979. Rate of rumen digestion of different protein sources using the in vitro nylon bag technique with cattle fed sugar Cane. Tropical Animal production 4: 105-106

[13] Moiforay, S. K. Musa S. 1996. Small ruminant production systems in Sierra Leone. Personal Communication

[14] Nochebuena and O’Donovan. 1986. The nutritional value of high protein forage from Gliricidia sepium.World Animal Review 57, 48-49

[15] Odedire J.A. and Babayemi O.J. 2008. Comparative studies on the yield and Chemical composition of Panicum maximum and Andropogon Gayanus as influenced by Tephrosia candida and Leucaena leucocephala. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 20 (2) 1-8

[16] Odeyinka S.M. 1999. Utilization of Leucaena diet by West African dwarf Sheep and goat. Tropical Journal ofAnimal Science

[17] Onwunka, C.F.I. 1986. Gliricidia sepiumas dry season feed for goat production in Nigeria. In: Haque I., Jutzis,and Neate P.J.H (ed), Potential of forage Legume in Sub-saharan Africa

[18] Perino J.M. 1979. Rehabilitation of a denuded Watershed through the introduction of Gliricidia sepium(Kakawate) Slyvatrop 4 pp 49-68

[19] Preston T.R. and Leng R.A. 1987. Matching Ruminant Production systems with available resources in the tropics and sub-tropics. Penambul Books, Amadale,Australia

[20] Robertson B.M 1988. The Nutritive value of five browse legumes fed as supplements to goats offered a basal rice straw diet. Master of Agricultural Science thesis. The University of Queensland

[21] Sandoval-Castrol, Carlos A, Henry L, Lizrraga-Sanchez J and Solorio-Sanchez. 2005. Assessment of tree fodder preference by cattle using chemical composition, in vitro gas production and in situ degradability. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 123-124, 277-289

[22] Shelton H.M. and Brebaker J.K., 1994. Leucaena leucocephala the most widely used forage tree legume. In: forage tree legume in tropical Agriculture by Gutteridge R.C. and Shelton H.M pp 15-30.

[23] Simons, A.J and Stewart J.L. 1994. Gliricidia sepium –A multipurpose forage Tree Legume in : Forage Tree Legumes in Tropical Agriculture. R.C. Gutteridge and H.M. Shelton Ed. Tropical grassland Society of Australia. www.fao.org/ag/AGP/agpc/doc/PUBLICAT/Gutt-shel

[24] Smith O.B and Adegbola A.A. 1989. ComparativeRumen Degradability of Forages, browse, crop residues and agricultural by-products. In: Wilson R.T and Azeb Melaku Ed.: African Small Ruminant Researdh and Development. Proceedings of a conference held at Bamenda, Cameroon, 18-25 january 1989. African Small Ruminant Research Network ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa). Adiss Ababa, Ethiopia. PP 204-218.

[25] Sriskandarajah N. 1987. Forage yield from Gliricidia sepium in Papua New Guinea. NFT Research Reports 5, pp 49-50

[26] Stanley and Steyermark. 1946. Flora of Guatemala Leguminosae. Fieldiana Botany 24 part v, PP 264-266

[27] Wong C.C. and Sharudin M.A.M. 1986. Forage productivity of three forage shrubs in Malaysia. Mardis Research Bulletin


for small ruminants. Tropical Grasslands 17. 181-184 Chadhokar, P.A. 1982. Gliricidia maculate: a promising legume fodder plant. World Animal Review 44. 36-43Conteh A and Moiforay S.K. 2016. Persistence of Gliricidia sepium, Moringa oleifera and Leucaena leucocephala to uncontrolled fire incidences on Njala Terrestrial Habitat. Dissertation for the B.Sc. Degree in Agriculture with Honors in Animal Science, Njala

Kabaija E. 1985. Factors influencing mineral content and utilization of tropical forages by ruminants. PhD Thesis. University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Low J.B. 1990. Toxic Factors and Problems. Methods of Alleviating them in animals: In Devendra , C. Ed.: Shrubs and Tree Fodders for Farm Animals -Proceedings of a workshop in Denpasor, Indonesia. July24-29, 1989. PP76-88. Mba et al. 1982. Use of Gliricidia sepiumas forage feed in small ruminant production – A report. ILCA Ibadan, – A report. ILCA Ibadan, –

Mba et al. 1984. Influence of concentrate supplementation with browse plants (Gliricidia sepium)on nutrient utilization and growth of WAD kids. Nigerian journal of animal production 9 (2): 63-73Minor S and Hovell D.F. 1979. Rate of rumen digestion of different protein sources using the in vitro nylon bag

Feed Science and Technology. 123-124, 277-[22] Shelton H.M. and Brebaker J.K., 1994.

leucocephala the most widely used forage tree legume. In: forage tree legume in tropical Agriculture by Gutteridge R.C. and Shelton H.M pp 15-

[23] Simons, A.J and Stewart J.L. 1994. A multipurpose forage Tree Legume in : Forage Tree Legumes in Tropical Agriculture. R.C. Gutteridge and H.M. Shelton Ed. Tropical grassland Society of Australia. www.fao.org/ag/AGP/agpc/doc/PUBLICAT/Gutt-shel

[24] Smith O.B and Adegbola A.A. 1989. ComparativRumen Degradability of Forages, browse, crop residues and agricultural by-products. In: Wilson R.T and Azeb Melaku Ed.: African Small Ruminant Researdh and Development. Proceedings of a conference held at Bamenda, Cameroon, 18-25 january 1989. Small Ruminant Research Network ILCA Livestock Centre for Africa). Adiss Ababa, Ethiopia. PP 204-218.

[25] Sriskandarajah N. 1987. Forage yield from sepium in Papua New Guinea. NFT Research Reports 5, pp 49-50

[26] Stanley and Steyermark. 1946. Flora of Guatemala Leguminosae. Fieldiana Botany 24 part v, PP 264-

[27] Wong C.C. and Sharudin M.A.M. 1986. Forage

www.ijsr.net


http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/agpc/doc/PUBLICAT/Gutt-shel

acceptability of gliricidia sepium as protein supplement to … › archive › v6i2 ›...

Documents