JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Nutritive Value and Utilization of Perennial Grasses Intercropped with Soybean Fodder by Crossbred Heifers in Humid-subtropics of Himachal Pradesh
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Nutritive Value and Utilization of Perennial Grasses Intercropped with Soybean Fodder by Crossbred Heifers in Humid-subtropics of Himachal Pradesh
Radotra, Sudesh; Katoch, B.S.;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
A study was carried out to investigate the nutritive value and utilization of hybrid sorghum and perennial grass species viz. setaria (Setaria anceps) and hybrid napier when intercropped with soybean by growing Jersey crossbred heifers. Fifteen growing crossbred heifers (JerseyRed Sindhi) of between 7-10 months age and pre-trial average body weight of 49-50 kg were divided on the basis of weight in to three treatment groups viz. -hybrid sorghum+soybean, -setaria+soybean and -hybrid napier+soybean in a completely randomized block design. Intercropped forages were harvested fresh, chaffed and mixed before they were offered to the heifers. Chemical composition of the herbage, dry matter intake (DMI), body weight gain and nutrient digestibility co-efficients were estimated. The herbage mixtures had crude protein (CP) content in the range of 11.87 to 13.86% and ether extract (EE) contents were 2.91 to 3.11%, respectively. The herbage mixtures were rich in minerals (ash). The gross energy (kcal/g DM) was higher in hybrid napier+soybean, while hybrid sorghum+soybean and setaria+soybean herbage mixtures had lower value for gross energy. The hybrid sorghum+soybean and setaria+soybean herbage mixtures had higher contents of NDF, ADF, cellulose, lignin and silica as compared to that of hybrid napier+soybean herbage mixture. The heifers fed hybrid napier+soybean herbage mixture had significantly (p<0.05) higher () as compared to hybrid sorghum+soybean () and setaria+soybean () herbage mixtures. Nutrients digestibility, DCP percent, DCP intake and nitrogen balance were significantly (p<0.05) higher in the heifers fed on hybrid napier+soybean herbage mixture. There was a significant (p<0.05) difference among different herbage mixtures in TDN. The heifers on setaria+soybean herbage mixture had lower average body weight gain (g/day) than those on hybrid sorghum+soybean and hybrid napier+soybean herbage mixtures. Data obtained in this experiment demonstrated that herbage mixture of hybrid napier+soybean was better than hybrid sorghum+soybean and setaria+soybean herbage mixtures in the nutrition of growing heifers. It had highest nutritive value, better digestibility co-efficients which showed better growth rate and higher feed efficiency. In ranking, hybrid napier+soybean herbage mixture was better followed by hybrid sorghum+soybean and setaria+soybean in nutritive value in the parameters studied. For future wasteland development program in humid-sub tropics of Himachal Pradesh hybrid napier and its intercropping with soybean is recommended for general adoption because of its better adaptability and higher nutritive value.
 Keywords
Perennial Grasses;Intercropping;Chemical Composition;DMI;Growth Rate;Feed Efficiency;Digestibility;Cattle;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Agegheore Eroarome Martin. 2001. Nutritive value and utilization of three grass species by crossbred Anglo-Nubian goats in Samoa. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 14:1389-1393.

2.
AOAC. 1995. Official Method of Analysis, 16th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Virginia.

3.
Besle, J. M., A. Cornu and J. P. Jouany. 1995. Role of structural phenyl propanoids in forage cell wall digestion. J. Sci. Food Agric. 64:171-190. crossref(new window)

4.
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York.

5.
Desy, R. 1993. Nutritional Evaluation of Guinea and Green panic Grasses. M.V.Sc thesis. Himachal Pradesh Agriculture University, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, India.

6.
Dougall, H. W. and A. V. Bogdon. 1958. The chemical composition of the grasses of Kenya. E. Aferican Agric. J. 24:17.

7.
Egan, A. R. 1977. Nutritional status and intake regulation in sheep. VIII. Relationship between the voluntary intake of herbage by sheep and the protein energy ratio in digestion products. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 28:907-915. crossref(new window)

8.
Faverdin, P. R., Baumont and K. L. Ingvartsen. 1995. Control and prediction of feed intake in ruminants. In proceeding IVth International Symposium. Nutrition of Herbibore. INRA editions, Paris, France, pp. 95-120.

9.
Humphries, E. C. 1973. Mineral components and ash analysis. In: Morden Methods of Plant Analysis (Ed. K. Peach and M. V. Tracey). Vol. 1. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp. 481-483.

10.
National Research Council. 1989. Nutrient Requirements of cattle. 10th Ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

11.
Norton, B. W. 1994. Tree legumes as dietary supplements for ruminants. In: Forage Tree Legumes in Tropical Agricultural. (Ed. R. C. Gutleridge and H. M. Shelton). CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

12.
Pachauri, V. C. and P. S. Pathak. 1989. Effect of feeding Leucaena leueocephala in combination with hybrid napier on growth and nutrient utilization in crossbred calves. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 6:158-161.

13.
Patil, B. D., P. M. Talpada and P. C. Shukula. 1983. Effect of the intercropping lucern on the fodder and nutrient production of guinea grass. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 40:737-739.

14.
Rao, B. S. P., M. R. Reddy, G. V. N. Reddy and K. T. V. Rangamanner. 1998. Effect of mixed cropping of forage sorghum (SSG59-3) and sunhemp on fodder yield and chemical composition. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 5:333-336.

15.
Reid, R. L., G. A. Jung, J. M. Cox-Ganser, B. F. Rybeck and E. C. Townsend. 1990. Comparative utilization of warm and cool season forages by cattle, sheep and goats J. Anim. Sci. 68:2986-2994.

16.
Sharma, D. D. and S. S. Thakur. 1991. Nutritional requirement of crossbred cattle. In proceedings of the first International Animal Nutrition Workers Conference for Asia and Pacific Sep. 23-28, 1991. Banglore, India. pp. 271-291.

17.
Singh, V., Y. P. Joshi and S. S. Verma. 1978. Grow hybrid napier intercropped with legume for regular green forage supply. Indian Farmer Digest. 11:37-40.

18.
Snedecor, G. W. and W. C. Cochran. 1989. Statistical Methods. 8th Ed. Lowa State University Press, Ames, Lowa.

19.
Thakuria, K. and C. K. Sarma. 1998. Seasonal variation in DM and CP production of guinea grass based intercropping systems. Range Management and Agroforestry. 19:146-148.

20.
Tripathi, S. N. 1989. Mixed cropping of forage species in relation to herbage yield and quality Indian J. Agric. Res. Dev. 4:68-72.

21.
Van soest, P. J. 1994. Nutritional Ecology of Ruminants. 2nd Ed, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA.

22.
Wilson, J. R. 1993. Organization of forage plant tissues. In: Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility (Ed. N. G. Jung, D. R. Buxtan, R. D. Hat field and J. Ralph). ASA-CSSASSSA, 677 S. Segoe Rd; Madison, W 1 53711, USA, pp. 1-32.