1

SILAGE QUALITY AND DIETARY PREFERENCES OF SELECTED

FORAGES BY GOATS AND SHEEP

THANT MON PAING

2019-65210
MASTER OF SCIENCE OUTLINE

SUBMITED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY

OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BANOS IN PARTIAL FULFILLEMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER
(Animal Science)

Mid - Year, 2019-2020

University of the Philippines Los Banās
 2

INTRODUCTION

Small ruminant production is a very significant component of livestock production

throughout the world and more specifically in the developing countries (Ketema, 2007; Thornton

et al., 2009). Goat has the ability not only to survive different environmental conditions but also

able to utilize poor quality feed (Abedo et al., 2013). The productivity of goats in the (sub)tropics

is limited by acute shortages of good quality feed, especially during the dry season (Lupwayi and

Haque, 1997; Gupta and Atreja, 1999; Hove et al., 2001). Feeds available during this period are

usually of very poor quality (low in protein and high in fiber), which results in low voluntary

intake and poor digestibility (Tolera et al., 2000). Poor nutrition leads to low reproductive

performance, slow growth, loss of body condition and increased susceptibility to parasitic and

other diseases. Thus, feeding of ruminants with conserved forages has become an important

feeding strategy since they could be made available throughout the year. In addition, the nutritive

values of the feed would be more consistent for daily feeding.

The availability of green forage is mostly seasonal, only in rainy season, when plant

growth is high. The seasonal scarcity can considerably be reduced by conserving the surplus

forage during high fodder availability period. Silage making has great potential to solve the

seasonal shortage of feed for ruminants by preserving excess forage produced during the wet

season for use at the dry period (Olorunnisomo and Adesina, 2014).

Legumes are a rich source of protein (both as forage and as seeds), are useful as cover

and green manure crops, are self-reliant in terms of acquiring nitrogen and are known to improve

soil structure and the quality of pastures when seeded with grasses. Legumes offer a renewable

source of nitrogen supplementation compared to most conventional protein sources due to low

cost of production by smallholder farmers (Osuji et al., 1993).

 3

The utilization of leguminous forages to feed ruminants in the tropics has been suggested

as a means to increase animal production, efficiency of nutrients utilization, and decrease

dependency on imported and high-carbon footprint feeds. Legume forages could be fed to the

animals by direct grazing, cut and carry, or stored and conserved as hay or silage(Castro-

Montoya and Dickhoefer, 2018) .

Additionally, fresh feeding of legumes is limited by the seasonality of rain, and this

reduces the independence from protein-rich feedstuffs during the dry season. Moreover, legumes

feeding as hay may be restricted by high dry-matter (DM) losses occurring during drying,

transport and storage, and because of the practical implications of season and plant physiology

that may prevent a timely harvest/drying at the optimal time for hay making (Titterton &

Bareeba, 1999). The limitations of leaf shattering, harvest timing and availability in the dry

season are minimized when forages are conserved as silage, making this probably the most

suitable option to feed tropical legumes to ruminants.

The problem of low quality feeds and forage scarcity during the dry season can be

reduced drastically by utilizing tree legumes like Leucaena leucocephala and Centrosema

pubescens. Silages could be used as a buffer to overcome feed gap that arises from seasonal

fluctuations in other feed sources.

Legume forages usually make poor silage due to their low content of carbohydrates and

their high buffering capacity (Wilkins 2001) hence they require addition of readily fermentable

carbohydrates (RFC) in order to obtain good silage. Therefore, utilizing added legume forage can

enhance fermentation and improve energy concentration. Ensiling browse legumes with king

grass increased N content in the feed. Both silage mixtures grass and legumes silages improved
 4

DMI, N digestibility, retained N and N-use efficiency of sheep compared with feeding grass

silages(Santana et al., 2019).

It is well known that animals choose different plant species to meet their nutritional

requirements. Species preference differs according to various factors, such as animal species,

forage availability and accessibility and the nutritional and physiological state of the animals.

Ruminants select nutritious diets from a diverse array of plant species.(Kongmanila, n.d.2012)

They possess a degree of nutritional wisdom in the sense that they generally select feeds that

meet nutritional needs and avoid feeds that cause toxicosis, particularly goats and sheep

(Provenza, 1995; Provenza et al., 1994a; Provenza et al., 1994b).

Goats can utilise a wide range of native range plants, including foliage from trees and

shrubs (browse), forbs, Legumes and grasses throughout the year. They are able to select a

relatively high quality diet from a variety of available feeds (Ramirez, 1999). Method of

presentation of feed is also an important factor for animal-selected diets.

An optimal intake of nutrients by grazing animals could be more easily achieved and

controlled if their dietary habits and preferences were better understood. In the traditional

system, factors such as quality and quantity of forage ingested, time spent during grazing and the

skill of the herdsman play a great role in the productivity of the flock (Ngwa et al., 2000).

Therefore, knowledge of the feeding behaviour and an understanding of diet selection in

ruminants are of fundamental importance for the determination of opportune feeding strategies

(Claps et al., 1997).

 5

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The results of this study could provide alternative protein supplements for ruminants

which are locally available. Forage legumes can also help to reduce the costs associated with

buying concentrates and supplements. This study will provide documentation and as well

contribute to sensitization on the need for conservation of desirable forage legume species. The

seasonal scarcity can considerably be reduced by conserving the surplus forage during high

fodder availability period. Silage making will have great potential to solve the seasonal shortage

of feed for ruminants by preserving excess forage produced during the wet season for use at the

dry period.
 6

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The overall objective of this study is to test the preference of sheep and goats between

fresh forages and silages, which differed in their chemical composition, whilst controlling for, as

much as possible, morphological and phonological differences.

The specific objectives of this study are to:

(1)To investigate the different preference of sheep and goats on selected fresh forages

and silages

(2)To compare the nutritional quality of fresh foliage from different tropical species and

compare their intake , preference and digestibility

(3)To examine the effects of ensiling a mixture of napier grass forage and legumes, either

L. leucocephala or Centrosema pubescens, on DMI and digestibility of sheep and goats

The hypothesis for this study is that inclusion of a forage-legume component with king

grass for ensiling will be improved feed intake, digestibility. Different forages will show

considerable differences in their feed quality, feed intake and digestibility.

 7

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Goals of protein nutrition in ruminants

Feedstuffs contain several sources of true protein and non-protein nitrogen compounds.

Proteins are large molecules that differ in size, shape, function, solubility, and amino acid

composition. It is important to keep in mind that amino acids and not protein per se are the

nutrients required by ruminants. Absorbed amino acids are vital nutrients for maintenance,

growth, health, reproduction, and lactation, and are used mainly as building blocks for protein

synthesis, as well as precursors for glucose and fatty acids synthesis. More specifically, amino

acids are involved in tissue growth and repair, enzymatic activity, transport of molecules, genetic

storage, immune function and cell differentiation. Therefore, supplying adequate amounts of

amino acids is necessary to maintain the basal metabolism in ruminants. As previously

mentioned, amino acids are the compounds required by the animals, but in the present article, the

terms amino acid and protein nutrition will have and be used with the same meaning.

Protein is important for many functions in the animal’s body. With inadequate protein

intake, vital organs and systems including mammary gland activity, reproductive and immune

functions do not operate properly.

More specifically for the ruminant, adequate protein level (> 7% CP) in the diet is

required for maximal growth and activity of ruminal microorganisms, thus producing desired

MCP amounts and maximizing ruminal fermentation. In contrast, feeding diets with protein

content ≤ 7% CP may result in impaired growth of ruminal microorganisms, fermentative

functions, ruminal synthesis of MCP and amount of MCP absorbed in the small intestine. This is

extremely important because MCP is the main protein source for ruminants, and inadequate
 8

protein levels may negatively impact ruminal function, performance, and subsequent

productivity of the animal (Bruno I. Cappellozza, 2019).

Ruminant protein feeding aims at providing adequate amounts of rumen-degradable

protein (RDP) to optimize rumen function and to attain the desired productivity with a minimum

amount of dietary CP. Optimizing use of dietary CP requires use of complementary feed proteins

and NPN supplements that will meet requirements of rumen microbes for maximal synthesis of

MCP; also the types and amounts of RUP should optimize the profile and amounts of absorbed

AA (NRC, 2001).

Given the differences in forage legume composition, there is a possibility rations from

forage legumes could be formulated that optimize productivity for a given physiological

function, for example growth, which could be an aspect to investigate in future research.

2.2. Roles of forage legumes in improving protein utilization in ruminants

The protein contained in forages provides both ruminal degraded protein (RDP) for

microbial protein synthesis and ruminal undegraded protein (RUP) that escapes microbial

breakdown (Broderick, 1995b). Forage N occurs as both protein and nonprotein N (NPN).

The properties of a protein in forage determine the proportion of its CP that is RDP and

RUP. If degradation of protein is fast, all the amino acids and ammonia released cannot be

utilized efficiently and less protein is synthesized than is degraded (Broderick, 1995b). The

quantity of microbial protein formed in the rumen is related to dietary digestible energy (DE)

rather than protein (Broderick and Merchen, 1992).

Forages high in water soluble carbohydrates (WSC) may improve balance and synchrony

of the carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) (Miller et al., 2001) and increase microbial protein production

in the rumen and animal productivity (Parsons et al., 2011). When nonstructural carbohydrates
 9

(NSC) were increased in alfalfa, there was a significant reduction in ruminal pH (6.85 vs. 7.08)

and NH3-N concentration in an in vitro continuous culture system (Berthiaume et al., 2010),

increased in vivo protein synthesis by rumen bacteria (Brito et al., 2009) and improved milk yield

of dairy cows in late lactation (Brito et al., 2008).

The nutritional value of forage legumes for feeding ruminants can be improved by: (1)

reducing the rate and extent of ruminal protein degradability; (2) reduction of proteolysis and

NPN formation in the silo; and (3) increased microbial protein formation in the rumen

(Broderick, 1995). The implication is that silages from different forage legumes may have

different nutritive value and this may be different from grazed fresh material; blending legumes

may be beneficial during ensiling (Broderick, 1995b).

2.3.Leucaena leucocephala

Leucaena leucocephala is a protein rich tropical legume indigenous and now widely

distributed in the high rainfall region of central America, Africa, Asia and northern Australia,

widely grown in tropics as a fodder plant for livestock.(Haque et al., 2008) . It is a multipurpose

tree species, which is vigorous, rapidly growing, drought tolerant, highly palatable, protein rich

and high yielding and can be grown on a wide range of soils (Gupta and Atreja, 1999).

High proteinaceous legumes in animal fed with poor quality feed would increase the

animal feed nutritional value. Proteinaceous legumes such as Leucaena leucocephala and

Manihot esculenta are abundantly found in the tropics and were considered as high quality

leguminous forage due to its high protein content with good amino acid profile.(Harun et al.,

2017).

However, the potential attributes of L. leucocephala are limited by the presence of the

toxic amino acid, mimosine. In many tropical regions of the world, consumption of L.
 10

leucocephala by ruminants results in poor growth, alopecia, mouth and esophageal lesions,

depressed thyroxine levels and goiter (Ram et al., 1994), while in Brazil, Hawaii, Indonesia,

Philippines and parts of India, ruminants consume L. leucocephala without adverse effects

because of ruminal micro-organisms that degrade mimosine.(Kanani et al., 2006)

Leucaena can be fed to goats as an alternative source or cheaper substitute for

conventional protein feed supplements (e.g. oilseed cake meals), which are often expensive or

unavailable in more remote or extensive production systems (Clavero and Razz 2003; Leketa

2011).

As part of a goat ration, leucaena provides both protein and roughage. Reports indicate a

sole diet of leucaena fed to goats has digestibility coefficients for dry matter (DM) of 57–66%

(form not specified), organic matter of 59–67%, crude protein (CP) of 62% (Mtenga and Shoo

1990) to 65% (Girdhar et al. 1991), and total digestible nutrient concentration of 59% (Girdhar et

al. 1991).

Chemical composition of leucaena is superior to that of other leguminous feeds, as leaf

contains more CP (27.5%) and lower neutral detergent fiber (NDF, 24.4%) than lucerne

(Medicago sativa), lablab (Lablab purpureus) and desmanthus (Desmanthus bicornutus) (20.3–

21.5% CP and 23.6–36.9% NDF; Kanani et al. 2006).

2.4. Napier

Napier grass originated from sub- Saharan tropical Africa (Clayton et al., 2013). It has

been introduced as forage into most tropical and subtropical regions worldwide. Napier grass is

fast growing and has a high annual productivity that depends on the climatic conditions,

especially temperature and rainfall (Aroeira et al., 1999). It is a very versatile species that can be

grown under a wide range of conditions and systems: dry or wet conditions, smallholder or larger
 11

scale agriculture. It is a valuable forage and very popular throughout the tropics, notably in cut-

and-carry systems (Mannetje, 1992; FAO, 2015).

One of the most widely used grasses in tropical ruminant production systems is Napier

known as King grass Pennisetum purpuphoides (Herrera et al. 2006).It can produce high dry

matter (DM) yields relative to other tropical grass species (Araya-Mora and Boschini 2005;

Evitayani et al. 2005). Napier grass is mainly used in cut-and-carry systems (i.e. zero-graze) and

fed in stalls, or preserved as silage and fed to ruminants during the periods of feed deficit (Santos

et al. 2001; Lounglawan et al. 2014).

Ruminant performance can be limited by low nitrogen (N) content in tropical grass silage

However, feeding napier grass or silage alone may not achieve ruminant nutrient requirements

for production, mainly because of its low nitrogen (N) content (~1.12 g N/kg DM; Santana et al.

2015).. Diets based on forages with low N content may reduce the amount of ruminal ammonia

available for microbial growth and, hence, nutrient digestibility and DM intake (DMI) (Brookes

and Nicol 2007).

Therefore,One strategy to address this issue is the use of protein supplements. This option

is rarely adopted in practice, owing to the high price of purchasing protein supplements

(Wanapat et al. 2006, Promkot et al. 2007). Adding or ensiling legumes with forages of low N

content is another method to increase N content of the diet. For example, adding the foliage of

the browse tree legumes Erythrina variegata L., gliricidia (Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Walp) and

leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala) (Lam.) de Wit) increased N content in a maize-stover-based

diet, and improved its DMI and nutrient digestibility by goats (Aregheore and Perera 2004).

Similarly, Zhang et al. (2015) showed that ensiling high-N-content lucerne (Medicago

sativa L.) together with low-N-content sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) improved in vitro DM
 12

digestibility (DMD) compared with ensiling sorghum alone. However, limited data are available

on the effects of feeding king grass–legume mixed silage on DMI, DMD, N digestibility and N

balance of sheep.

2.5.. Trichanthera gigantea

Tricanthera gigantea is one of the protein-rich foliages widely distributed in humid

tropical regions, the leaves and twigs of which are used as livestock feed during drought and feed

scarcity(Balraj et al., 2018).Trichantera gigantea, also known as nacedero or madre de agua,

which was introduced into the country from South America. It is a non-legume species of fodder

tree that is adapted to Philippine condition.

It grows well in a wide range of soil types and at elevations up to 1800 meters above sea

level. When planted at a density of 20,000/ha, it can yield 40-60 tons of fresh foliage. It can be

rejuvenated repeatedly and still produce the same or even higher yield (Manaig, 2017). Its leaves

contain 18-22% crude protein on dry matter basis making it a potential protein source (dela Cruz,

2011). Trichantera can be easily propagated by cuttings; it has rapid growth rate, good regrowth

ability, high stem-leaf ratio and ability to thrive even under unfavorable environmental

condition- some of the characteristics that should be considered when selecting fodder crop

(Diaz, 2012).

Among the nutrients needed by animals, protein is the most expensive. Smallholder

animal production efficiency is limited by the high cost and, sometimes, the lack of available

commercial protein supplements (Martens, 2012). Different levels of crude protein content of

Trichantera leaf meal had been recorded such as 26.30% (Ly et. al, 2001), 23.9% (Sarwatt et al.,

2003, 20.1% (Leterme, et al., 2006),18.21% (Jaya et al., 2008) and 25% (Martens, et al., 2012)

on dry basis.
 13

The thin stems are included as they are also consumed by the animals. The crude protein

content of the leaves varies from 15 to 22% and apparently most of this is true protein. The

calcium content has been found to be particularly high compared to other fodder trees (Rosales

and Galindo, 1987., Rosales et al., 1992)

Analysis of its carbohydrate fraction revealed that this plant had the greatest amounts of

water soluble carbohydrates, total and reducing sugars when compared with other fodder trees

and shrubs. It also showed a surprisingly high amount of starch and its neutral detergent fibre

was found to be the lowest. The high amounts of non-structural and storage carbohydrates,

combined with the low amounts of structural carbohydrates, may explain the good biological

results found with monogastrics.

In feeding trials with 35-day-old New Zealand rabbit’s commercial concentrate was

substituted with Trichanthera gigantea at 10, 20 and 30% levels. The best biological responses

were obtained when replacing at the 30% level. At this level the live weight gain was 32.12

g/day and the feed conversion was 4.29 compared with a live weight gain of 32.29 g/day and a

feed conversion of 3.49 obtained when concentrate was used alone (Arango, 1990).

Live weight gain of 9 g day and 4.7 feed conversion have been obtained in guinea pigs

Cavia porcellus fed with Trichanthera foliage, sugar cane juice and 30 g of protein supplement

(40% protein) (CIPAV, 1996).

Live weight gain of growing hens fed a diet of maize, earthworms and Trichanthera was

8.4 g/day. Those fed with maize, earthworms, soya bean and Trichanthera gained 16.8 g/day.

The gain of the control group (commercial concentrate) was 17.4 g/day, but this had the highest

production costs (CIPAV, 1996).

 14

Pigs eat it well, especially during pregnancy. However, when eaten in amounts that

theoretically supply all the protein needs (about 3 Kg/day), pregnant pigs rapidly lost body

condition when given only Trichanthera as a supplement to sugar cane juice. Up to 30%

replacement of the soya bean protein by Trichanthera appears to be feasible (Preston, 1995).

Results, in terms of litter size and gain to weaning, from replacing 75% of the soya bean

meal with Trichanthera in cane juice diets for pregnant sows have been very encouraging. Litter

size did not differ from that of the control group and gain to weaning was slightly higher, with

high levels of the leaves (Mejia, 1989).

In another experiment, leaves from Trichanthera gigantea were used as a partial

replacement for soya bean (extracted meal or cooked whole seeds) during the pregnancy phase of

sows fed a basal diet of sugar cane juice. Trichanthera was offered ad libitum and complemented

with either soya bean meal or cooked whole soya bean seeds. The control treatment received

only cooked whole soya bean seeds as the protein source.

There were no significant differences in productive traits (days empty, numbers, weights

and growth rate of the piglets) due to treatment. Protein conversion rate (kg protein/kg of weaned

piglets) was best on the Trichanthera+cooked soya beans (0.425) and worst on

the Trichanthera+soya bean meal. The control treatment was intermediate (0.608). It is

concluded that the leaves of Trichanthera gigantea can provide about 30% of the protein (about

1 kg/day of fresh leaves) of the diet of pregnant sows fed cane juice (Sarria, 1994).

Results with growing pigs have been less satisfactory. Performance was reduced at all

levels of substitution of soya bean meal by Trichanthera. Rate of live weight gain decreased

(625, 584, 522 and 451 g/day) and feed conversion deteriorated (3.04, 3.27, 3.63 and 3.89) with

increasing substitution (0, 5, 15 and 25%) of soya bean protein by Trichanthera leaves. Intake of
 15

cane juice, protein and of total dry matter decreased with increasing substitution

by Trichanthera leaves (Sarria et al., 1991).

A cafeteria trial using foliage of Trichanthera gigantea and Leucaena leucocephala was

carried out with weaned lambs (African hair sheep breed) to establish their preference. Relative

intakes (kg DM/100 kg live weight/day) were: Gliricidia sepium 1.84, Trichanthera

gigantea 0.73, and Leucaena leucocephala 0.19. Mejia and Vargas, 1993 suggested that the

factor which most influenced intake of a particular tree foliage was the degree to which the

animals were accustomed to eating it and highlighted the need to give the animals an adequate

time to adapt to such feeds before they are able to consume appreciable quantities .

Feleciano R.,2017 suggested that growth performance, egg production and egg qualities

of quails were affected with different percentage levels of Trichanthera gigantean leaf meal

(TGLM) in terms of final and gain weights, feed consumption, feed conversion, water

consumption, point of lay, percent egg production, return of investment, project viability, egg

weight, egg length, egg shape, shell thickness, surface area, breaking strength, yolk color and

cholesterol content.

Studies conducted on the effect of feedingTG leaves (TGL) have revealed variable

response in different livestock species (Sarwatt et al., 2003; Wanapat, 2009; Avril et al., 2012).

Barbados Blackbelly sheep, a tropical hairy meat breed, known for prolificacy and good weight

gain (FAO, 1978) are widely used for mutton production in Trinidad and Tobago and other

Caribbean countries.

2.6. Feed selection and dietary preferences of small ruminants

It is important to distinguish between what the animals ‘want’ to eat and what they

actually eat because of some external constraint (Parsons et al., 1994). The first of these can be
 16

defined as ‘preference’ (Parsons et al., 1994, ‘‘what the animals select given the minimum

physical constraints’’), whereas the second can be defined as ‘selection’ (Hodgson, 1979,

‘‘preference modified by environmental circumstances’’).

According to Steele (1996), the anatomical characteristics of goats, with small mouths

and split upper lips, enable them to select even very small parts of a plant. However, goats are

also considered to be very fastidious and even when they have a very large selection to choose

from, they only consume the most nutritious feed available (Fajemisin et al., 1996), and the more

selective feeding behaviour of goats results in lower feed intake compared with sheep

(Abijaoudé et al., 2000).

In general, shrubs are preferred and selected over other types of vegetation by small ruminants in

extensive production systems (Ramirez, 1999). The shoots and leaves are generally preferred to

stems when goats are allowed to select (Steele, 1996), and goats spend 383 minutes of every 24

hours on eating activity (Keskin et al., 2005).. Van et al. (2005) and Samkol (2003) suggested

that hanging up the foliage was the best way to improve feed intake and eating rate of local goats

fed jackfruit, Flemingia, acacia and Muntingia (Muntingia calabura) foliage. Method of

presentation of feed is also an important factor for animal-selected diets

2.6.1..Palatability

Palatability refers to those characteristics of a feed that elicit a sensory response in the

animal and is considered to be the corollary of the animal’s appetite for the feed (Baumont,

1996). Palatability is a conditional plant characteristic that is dependent on animal species and

their physiological status (Horadagoda et al., 2009). Relative palatability shows the ranking of

forages to which the animal has access and is a means of preliminary identification of preferred

species, so as to manage a mixed species sward of forages, favoring one species over others.
 17

Hence knowing forage preference is crucial in controlling pasture species balance (Horadagoda

et al., 2009).

When ruminants are faced with a complex array of plant materials differing in nutrient

type and quality from which they make a propitious combination in order to maximize their

biological performance. Goats and sheep in particular are known for feeding on a wide spectrum

of feeds and are said to select those that meet their nutritional needs and avoid those that can

cause toxicosis (Provenza 1995).

Feed selection depends on palatability and the latter depends on both plant and animal

factors. Plant factors that influence palatability include species, intraspecific variation, chemical

composition, morphology or physical traits, succulence or maturation and form of the forage

(Marten 1978).Animal factors include the senses, species or breeds, individual variation,

previous experience and physiological condition (Marten 1978). Flavour (taste and odour) is

considered to be the most important food cue (Garcia 1989) and according to Personius et al.

(1987), herbivores are able to detect some toxic compounds by smell before eating or

immediately after the first bite.

A number of trials have been carried out to evaluate the palatability of browses during

grazing (Becker and Lohrmann 1992). However, other authors pointed out that conventional

methods used to assess classic forage preference (oesophageal fistula technique, stomach content

and faecal analyses) are not convenient for evaluating palatability because they are laborious,

costly and complicated. Methods based on direct feeding observation and intake of plant species

either on pasture or in stall feeding seem to be more suitable for palatability studies (Ben Salem

et al. 1994; Kaitho et al. 1996).

 18

CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Experimental site

The study will be carried out at UPLB. Four feeds, Napier (Pennisetum purpureum),

Trichanthera gigantean, Centrosema pubescens, and Leucaena leucocephala will be used in the

first experiment. In the second, silage from different forages will also be included as the four

feeds. The experiments will be run for a period of 15 days each. The parameters will be

determined by using 6 goats and 6 sheep in each experiment.

Experiment-1 Experiment-2(Silage)

T1= Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) T1=Napier silage

T2= Trichanthera gigantea T2=(Napier + Trichanthera gigantean)Silage

T3=L. leucocephala T3=(Napier + L. leucocephala)Silage

T4= Centrosema pubescens T4=(Napier+ Centrosema pubescens)Silage

32. Source and method of handling fresh forages

Napier (Pennisetum purpureum), Trichanthera gigantean, Centrosema pubescens, and

Leucaena leucocephala will be obtained daily on cut-and-carry basis from IAS farm. Rice straw

will be achieved from within the locality from households areas where the materials abundant.

3.3. Preparation of silage

The forage crop will be chopped to 2 - 4cm in length. The mixtures will be ensiled in 4-

litre plastic buckets (mini silos) for laboratory analysis and for acceptability study. Silages will
 19

be impacted manually, sealed with polythene sheets and pressed with sandbags to exclude air

from the silage. Four silage mixtures will be produced.

3.4. Silage examination and laboratory analysis

At 21 days of ensiling, the silos will be opened and the silages will be visually assessed.

The physical parameters (color, smell (odor), texture, moldiness) will be recorded. Temperature

of the fermented product at different depths of the container will be observed and recorded using

the compost thermometer. The pH of the silage mixtures from different mini silos will be

measured by using PH meter. A representative silage sample from plastic mini-silo will be taken

into labeled poly bag for proximate analysis using AOAC (1990) method. Dry matter (DM) will

be determined using a forced draught oven at 65oC, correcting values for the loss of volatile

compounds by multiplying with the factor of 1.056 (Fox and Fenderson, 1978). During

sampling, which was done in triplicate, the silages will be visually assessed and compared in

terms of physical properties, adapted and modified by the procedure of Hassan (2004).

3.5. Acceptability / preference study

Six goats and six sheep will be used for the preference trial. For the test, the animals will

be individually placed in a rectangular pen (5x7m) with 4 feeders, will be identified from 1 to 4,

will be distributed equidistant from one another, on each side of the pen, positioned so that the

animal entering the pen will be initially chose any of the feeders. Before the start of the

experiment, all animals will be trained for 3 days to become familiar with the location of the

feeders in the stall and to consume the various foods offered in the feeder.

The preference and acceptability trial will be lasted for 15 days with 5- day adjustment

and 10- day collection periods, respectively and will be carried out using cafeteria method (Larbi
 20

et al., 1993). The animals will be fasted for at least 12 hours before the test. Every day each food

will be rotated to a different feeder, and the animals will be exposed to the experimental diet for

4 h each day between 08:00- 12:00 noon. Feed refused after 4 h will be weighed at the end of

each day. The difference between the feed offered and feed refused will be used to determine

feed intake of each experimental diet in g/day.

The coefficient of preference (COP) of each experimental diet will be determined by the

procedure described by Karbo et al. (1996) as the ratio between the intakes of each experimental

feed divided by the total intake on dry matter basis. The results from these will be used to rank

the various diets. When values are equal to 1 or greater, the forage will be considered to be

acceptable to the animals but when values are less than 1, the forage will considered being

unacceptable (Babayemi, 2007).The number of visits, number of bites and the time spent (sec)

per visit eating the randomly placed diets will be recorded by using a stop watch.

3.6. Digestibility

During the digestibility phase, feces will be collected with canvass bags and a 20%

aliquot will be saved in plastic bags and will be stored frozen at −20 ◦C. Urine will be collected

into plastic buckets containing 100 ml of a 10% (vol/vol) sulfuric acid solution, with a 10%

aliquot stored at −20 ◦C. Feed refusals will be sampled daily, and a composite sample for each

animal will be formed. Thawed feces, feedstuff, and refusal samples will be dried at 60◦C to a

constant weight and ground to pass a 1-mm screen. These partially dried samples will be

analyzed for dry matter (DM) at 105 ◦C, ash, nitrogen (N) by the Kjeldahl procedure (AOAC,

1990), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin

(ADL) according to Van Soest et al. (1991). The N concentration in urine will be determined as

well.
 21

3.7. Video Recording for Behavioral activities of animals fed by experimental diets

The behavior of animals will be recorded with two video cameras on the last two days of

the experiment. Video recordings continuously observed visually for each animal within

experimental period (8 to 12 h).

Recorded activities will be registered together with their beginning and ending times.

Data for each activity will be reported as the total time, expressed in minutes, in which the lamb

maintained this specific activity.

Chewing behavior will be divided into eating and ruminating.

(a)Eating when the animal have its head in the feed bunk or is chewing or swallowing food with

its head over it will be defined as an observation.

(b)Ruminating will be included regurgitation, mastication and swallowing of the bolus.

(c)Drinking when the animals have his mouth in the water bowl or was swallowing the water

will be recorded as an activity.

(d)Self-grooming will be defined as non-stereotyped licking of the body or scratching with a

hind limb.

(e)Oral behaviors included the act of licking or biting the fixtures.

(f)Resting was recorded as occurring when no chewing behavior and no apparent activity were

being performed.

(g) Social behavior will be registered when a animal is licking or nosing a neighbouring animal

with the muzzle or horning.

 22

3.8. Chemical analysis

Daily representative grab samples of feed offered and refusals within the 5-d collection period

will be collected in a sample bag and kept in an oven for 48 h at 600C for DM determination.

Proximate analysis will be determined according to AOAC (1990) procedures.

3.9. Statistical analysis

The experimental data will be laid out using factorial arrangement with completely

randomized design with 4 treatments (feeds) and 6 replications by using Statistic X(version

8).Treatments means will be compared using Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at 5%

probability level.

EXPERIMENTAL LAYOUT
 23

LITERATURE CITED

Abijaoudé, J.A., Morand-Fehr, P., Tessier, J., Schmidely, P. & Sauvant, D. (2000). Diet effect on
the daily feeding behaviour, frequency and characteristics of meals in dairy goats.
Livestock Production Science 64(1), 29-37.
Arango, J. F. 1990. Evaluacion de tres niveles de nacedero Trichanthera gigantea en ceba de
conejos Nueva Zelanda. Tesis de Grado. Zootecnia. Universidad Nacional de Colombia,
Palmira.

Avril, D., Lallo, C., Mlambo, V. and Bourne, G. 2012. Growth performance and carcass
characteristics of growingfinishing Barbados Blackbelly lambs fed varying sources and
quantities of dietary supplements. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture 30: 171-179.
Avril, D., Lallo, C., Mlambo, V. and Bourne, G. 2012. Growth performance and carcass
characteristics of growingfinishing Barbados Blackbelly lambs fed varying sources and
quantities of dietary supplements. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture 30: 171-
179.
Centro para la Investigacion en Sistemas Sostenibles de Produccion Agropecuaria (CIPAV).
1996. Arboles utilizados en la alimentacion animal como fuente proteica. Cali,
Colombia, 123 pp.

Claps, S., Rubino, R. & Fedele, V. (1997). Feeding behaviour of grazing and zerograzing goats
fed with the same herbage. Seminar of the FAO-CIHEAM Network of Cooperative
Research on Sheep and Goats, Subnetwork on Nutrition, Rabat (Morocco), 24-26 Oct
1996. http://ressources.cihean.org/om/pdf/a34/97606118.pdf.
Dela Cruz R. T. (2001): Trichantera: cheaper feed substitute to soybean oil meal BAR Digest
January-March 2001 Issue (Vol. 3 No.1). Bureau of Agricultural Research, Department
of Agriculture, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
Diaz, L. A. G. (2012): Improving nutritive value of tropical forages rich in anti-nutritional
factors - Some Cuban experiences. Presentation. November 15th, 2012 Symposium
'Fibrous feed resources for livestock in the tropics”. University of Ghent
Diaz, L. A. G. (2012): Improving nutritive value of tropical forages rich in anti-nutritional
factors - Some Cuban experiences. Presentation. November 15th, 2012 Symposium
'Fibrous feed resources for livestock in the tropics”. University of Ghent
 24

Fajemisin, B., Ganskopp, D., Cruz, R. & Vavra, M. (1996). Potential for woody plant control by
Spanish goats in the sagebrush steppe. Small Ruminant Research 20(3), 229-238.
FAO, 1978. Prolific Tropical Sheep. http://www.fao.org/ decree/004/ X6517E/X6517E02 .htm,
accessed on September 2, 2015
Feleciano R. Bejar,2017, Trichanthera gigantean Leaf meal as fed to quails with Aloe Vera
Extract and Acis cheese whey fermentation
Jaya, A.F., Soriano, M.L.L., Vallador, D.M., Intong, R.L. and Carpentero, B.B. (2008):
Utilization of madre de agua (Trichanthera gigantea var. Guianensis) leaf meal as feed
for growing-finishing pigs. Abstract. Philippine J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 34(2): 117-126.
Keskin, M., Sahin, A., Bicer, O., Gul, S., Kaya, S., Sari, A. & Duru, M. (2005). Feeding
Behaviour of Awassi Sheep and Shami (Damascus) Goats. Turkish Journal of Veterinary
and Animal Sciences 29 435-439.
Leterme, P., Botero, M., London, A. M., Bindelle, J. and Buldgen, A. (2006): Nutritive value of
tropical tree leaf meals in adult sows. Animal Science 82: 175–182. Q 2006 British
Society of Animal Science.
Mejia, C. E. 1989. Observaciones sobre el uso del follaje de Nacedero (Trichanthera gigantea)
como supplemento proteico en dietas de jugo de cana para cerdas gestantes. In: Reporte
Anual de Investigacion (I Semestre), CIPAV. July 1989. 122 pp

Ngwa, A.T., Pone, D.K. & Mafeni, J.M. (2000). Feed selection and dietary preferences of forage
by small ruminants grazing natural pastures in the Sahelian zone of Cameroon. Animal
Feed Science and Technology 88(3– 4), 253-266.
Provenza, F.D. (1995). Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference
and intake in ruminants. Journal of Range Management 48(1), 2-17.
Provenza, F.D. (1996). Acquired aversions as the basis for varied diets of ruminants foraging on
rangelands. Journal Animal Science 74 2010-2020
Provenza, F.D., Lynch, J.J. & Nolan, J.V. (1994b). Food aversion conditioned in anesthetized
sheep. Physiology & Behavior 55(3), 429-432.
Provenza, F.D., Lynch, J.J., Burritt, E.A. & Scott, C.B. (1994a). How goats learn to distinguish
between novel foods that differ in postingestive consequences. Journal of Chemical
Ecology 20(3), 609-624.
 25

Ramirez, R.G. (1999). Feed resources and feeding techniques of small ruminants under extensive
management conditions. Small Ruminant Research 34(3), 215-230.
Ramirez, R.G. (1999). Feed resources and feeding techniques of small ruminants under extensive
management conditions. Small Ruminant Research 34(3), 215-230.
Rosales, M., Preston, T.R., Vargas, J.E. 1992. Advances in the characterization of non
conventional resources with potential use in animal production. British Society of
Animal Production. Animal Production in Developing Countries. Occasional Publication
No.16. pp. 228-229.

Samkol, P. (2003). Effect of method of offering Muntingia (Muntingia calabura) foliage to goats
on intake and feeding behaviour. Livestock Research for Rural Development 15.
Sarria, P. 1994. Efecto del nacedero (Trichanthera gigantea) como reemplazo parcial de la soya
en cerdas en gestacion y lactancia recibiendo una dieta basica de jugo de cana. Livestock
Research for Rural Development 6(1):62-73.

Sarwatt, S.V., Laswai, G.H. and Ubwe, R. 2003. Evaluation of the potential of Trichanthera
gigantea as a source of nutrients for rabbit diets under small-holder production system in
Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural D e v e l o p m e n t . 1 5 ( 1 1 ) A r t i c l e # 8 2
, http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/11/sarw1511.htm, accessed on September 8, 2015.
Sarwatt, S.V., Laswai,G.H. and Ubwe, R. (2003): Evaluation of the potential of Trichanthera
gigantea as a source of nutrients for rabbit diets under small-holder production system in
Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development 15 (11) 2003
Steele, M. (1996). Goats. The Tropical Agriculturalist. Macmillan Education, Between Towns
Road, Oxford.
Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B., Lewis, A.B., 1991. Methods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent
fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74,
3583–3597.
Van, D.T.T., Mui, N.T. & Ledin, I. (2005). Tropical foliages: effect of presentation method and
species on intake by goats. Animal Feed Science and Technology 118(1–2), 1-17.
Wanapat, M. 2009. Potential uses of local feed resources for ruminants. Tropical Animal Health
and Production 41: 1035-1049.