4.4 Article

Effects of supplementation of Panicum maximum with four herbaceous forage legumes on performance, nutrient digestibility and nitrogen balance in West African dwarf goats

Journal

ANIMAL SCIENCE JOURNAL
Volume 79, Issue 6, Pages 673-679

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2008.00579.x

Keywords

apparent digestibility; forage legume; nitrogen balance; Panicum maximum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of supplementing a basal diet of guineagrass (Panicum maximum cv Ntchisi) (diet 5) with Stylosanthes guianensis (diet 1), Lablab purpureus (diet 2), Aeschynomene histrix (diet 3) and Centrosema pubescens (diet 5) on West African dwarf goats were evaluated. Parameters measured were feed intake, nutrient digestibility and nitrogen balance. Voluntary intake (g/kg W0(.75)/day) of dry matter (DM) 138.73, crude protein (CP) 25.86, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) (96.29) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) (65.73) of diet 1 were not significantly different (P > 0.05) from the other diets with legume supplements. The feed intake of goats on diet 5 was lower (P < 0.05), having corresponding values of DM (108.21), CP (17.33), NDF (77.68), and ADF (53.55). Weight gain (g/day) differed (P < 0.05) in goats placed on the diets. The lowest weight gain was obtained in diet 5. The digestibilities of DM, CP, ADF and acid detergent lignin (ADL) differed (P < 0.05) in diet 1-5 except for NDF digestibility. Nitrogen balance (g/kg W (0.75)/day) ranged from 0.29 in diet 5 to 0.83 in diet 2 (P < 0.05). Similarly, nitrogen retention percentage was highest in diet 2 (35.17), with the lowest value in diet 5 (20.71). It could be concluded that a diet consisting of Panicum maximum with Lablab purpureus supplementation gave the highest performance in weight gain, nitrogen digestibility and nitrogen utilization. However, any of the herbaceous legumes in this study would lead to increased productivity of ruminant livestock.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available