Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:40:12.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voluntary food intake, live-weight change and lactation performance of crossbred dairy cows given ad libitum Pennisetum purpureum (napier grass var. Bana) supplemented with leucaena forage in the lowland semi-humid tropics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. W. Muinga ,
W. Thorpe  and
J. H. Topps
R. W. Muinga
Affiliation:
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Regional Research Centre, PO Box 16, Kikambala, Kenya
W. Thorpe
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, PO Box 80147 Mombasa, Kenya
J. H. Topps
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
Get access

Abstract

Scarce and poor-quality food resources limit smallholder dairy production in the tropics. Food resources for zerograzing may be improved by intercropping Pennisetum purpureum (napier grass) with Leucaena leucocephala leguminous hedgerows. To evaluate dairy cow performance from this alley cropping system, 36 Ayrshire/Brown Swiss × Sahiwal cows in a 2×3 factorial design were individually fed from the 3rd week of lactation for 14 weeks on diets of napier fodder harvested at 1·0 m or 1·5 m and offered ad libitum, supplemented with 0, 4 or 8 kg fresh weight leucaena fodder. Average daily milk yield during the 2nd week of lactation was a covariate in the analyses of milk yield, and post-partum live weight a covariate in the analyses of dry matter (DM) intake and live-weight change.

Napier harvesting height and leucaena level had independent effects on performance. Napier height (1·0 m or 1·5 m) significantly (P < 0·01) affected daily napier DM intake (9·3 and 6·8 kg), total daily DM intake (10·5 and 7·9 kg), daily live-weight losses (165 and 490 g) and daily milk yield (8·6 and 6·9 kg respectively). Leucaena supplementation (0, 4 or 8 kg) significantly (P<0·01) increased total daily DM intake (7·8, 9·3 and 10·4 kg), reduced daily live-weight loss (560,235 and 175 g), and increased daily milk yield (7·3, 7·7 and 8·3 kg respectively). The results show that reasonable dairy performance can be achieved in the tropics by supplementing a napier fodder basal diet with leucaena forage, and highlight the importance of the stage of harvesting of the napier fodder. The results are discussed in relation to the nutrient requirements for milk production given by the Agricultural Research Council (1980 and 1984).

Keywords

dairy cowsforagelive weightmilk productiontropical Africa
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , December 1992 , pp. 331 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1980. Official methods of analysis. 13th ed. Associatio n of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1984. Report of the protein group of the Agricultural Research Council working party on the nutrient requirements of ruminants. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. H. and McGowan, M. 1986. The routine determination of in vitro digestibility of organic matter in forages — an investigation of the problems associated with continuous large scale operation. Journal of the British Grassland Society 21: 140–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anindo, D. O. and Potter, H. L. 1986. Milk production from Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) in a zero grazing system. East African Agriculture and Forestry fournal 52: 102–111.Google Scholar
Attah-Krah, A. N. and Sumberg, J. E. 1988. Studies with Gliricidiea sepium for crop/livestock production systems in West Africa. Agroforestry Systems 6: 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Agricultural Council. 1990. Feeding standards for Australian livestock. Ruminants. AAC Ruminants subcommittee, CSIRO, Australia.Google Scholar
Combellas, J. and Martinez, N. 1982. Intake and milk production of cows fed choppe d elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and concentrate. Tropical Animal Production 7: 57–60.Google Scholar
Gregory, K. E. and Trail, J. C. M. 1981. Rotation crossbreeding with Sahiwal and Ayrshire cattle in the tropics. Journal of Dairy Science 64: 1978–1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulman, B., Owen, E. and Preston, T. R. 1978. Comparison of Leucaena leucocephala and groundnut cake as protein sources for beef cattle fed ad libitum molasses/urea in Mauritius. Tropical Animal Production 3: 1–8.Google Scholar
Jaetzold, R. and Schmidt, H. 1983. National conditions and farm management information. Farm management handbook of Kenya. East Kenya. Vol. 2 C.Google Scholar
Kang, B. T., Reynolds, L. and Attah-Krah, A. N. 1990. Alley farming. Advances in Agronomy 43: 315–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P., Edwards, R. A. and Greenhalgh, J. F. D. 1988. Animal nutrition. 4th ed. Longman Group, UK.Google Scholar
Muinga, R. W., Thorpe, W. and Topps, I. H. 1992. The lactational performance of Jersey cows given Napier fodder (Pennisetum purpureum) with and without protein concentrates in the semi-humid tropics. Tropical Animal Health and Production In press.Google Scholar
Ørskov, R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambrige 92: 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1987. Guide for personal computers, version 6 edition, pp. 551–640. SAS Institute, Gary, NC.Google Scholar
Walshe, M. J., Grindle, J., Nell, A. and Bachmann, M. 1990. Dairy development in Sub-Saharan Africa: a study of issues and options. World Bank technical paper no. 135. Africa Technical Department Series, Washington, DC.Google Scholar