Evaluation of nutritional composition and in vitro digestibility of dairy cattle feed resources in Bungoma County, Kenya

The aim of this study was to evaluate the nutritional value of the main dairy cattle feed resources through proximate and in-vitro digestibility analyses. The feeds were grouped into 25 diets using a completely randomized design. The chemical analysis was done to determine the nutrient composition. The in-vitro organic matter digestibility was determined using the gas production method for all experimental diets. Data collected on proximate analysis, was subjected to the analysis of variance in a completely randomized design using the General linear model procedure of Statistical Analysis System version 9.4. From the results, roughages displayed a diverse range of dry matter content, varying from 904.1 g/kg DM to 936.1 g/kg DM. Super Napier was highest in crude protein content at 149.3 g/kg DM, and neutral detergent fiber content at 733.3 g/kg DM, and maize silage had the lowest at 56.1 g/kg DM. The groundnut residue had the highest crude protein content at 114.6 g/kg DM among the crop residues, while sugarcane tops had the lowest crude protein content at 27 g/kg DM. At 24 and 48 hours of fermentation, the rate of gas production was highest in fodder crops and trees, particularly Lucerne, at 12.7%, and 10% while crop residues such as sugarcane tops had the lowest at 1.60%. This study concludes that fodder trees and legumes have better nutritional profiles, while crop residues are of low quality.

Illustrations explain the paper; charts are replotted from the paper's own table values.

AI-generated illustration

↗ Enlarge

Nutritional Quality HierarchyClose ×

AI-generated conceptual illustration (dairy cattle feed resources (fodder trees, legumes, roughages, and crop residues)). It explains the idea and does not show study data.

Open full-size image ↗

Replotted from source data

↗ Enlarge

CF: Kikuyu grass vs Bracharia vs Boma Rhodes vs Panicum vs Super NapierClose ×

Replotted from Table 1 (page 3) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

Introduction

Approximately 10,000 farmers in Bungoma County, Kenya, rely on the dairy business for their living, and the sector makes a sizable contribution to the regional economy (Were, 2017) [24] . The region's farmers depend substantially on various feed resources to maintain their herds and maximize milk output in dairy cattle farming, a fundamental aspect of agricultural activities. The nutritional value and quality of the feed resources affect herd health, milk production, and farm profitability (Emukule, 2019) [7] . To develop balanced diets that satisfy the dietary needs of dairy cattle, it is critical to comprehend the nutritional composition and digestibility of feed resources (Tona, 2018) [20] . Using locally available feed resources efficiently is crucial for sustained dairy production in Bungoma County (Tona, 2018) [20] . For optimization of feeding and enhancement of animal performance, scientific analysis of feed resources is essential, even if traditional knowledge and empirical observations generally dictate feed selection and management techniques. Proximate analysis and in-vitro digestibility experiments are two essential techniques used to determine the nutrient composition, digestibility, and energy content of feedstuffs. Protein, fiber, fat, and ash levels are some of the most fundamental nutritional components of feeds that may be quantified by proximate analysis (Mertens & Grant, 2020) [13] . A practical way to estimate feed digestibility and anticipate nutrient availability is to use in-vitro digestibility assays, which mimic the digestive processes that occur in the rumen of cattle. Despite the significance of these analytical methods, more in-depth research needs to be done into the nutritional value of feed supplies for dairy cattle in Bungoma County, Kenya. Past studies have neglected the importance of feed quality in maximizing the well-being and output of dairy animals in favor of more generalized agricultural and socioeconomic considerations. Hence, the primary objective of this research was to determine the nutritional value of the main dairy cattle feed resources used by farmers in Bungoma County, Kenya, through in-vitro digestibility and proximate analyses.

Materials and Methods Feed Sample Preparation

Five hundred grams (500 g) each of the feed samples, namely roughages, concentrates, crop residues, total mixed rations, fodder trees, and legumes, were collected from different farmers in Kaptama and Kitinda milk collection centers (MCCs) and transported in khaki bags to Egerton University's Animal Science Laboratory for nutrient analysis. The feed samples were dried in a draft oven at 105oCand then shredded using a shredder to pass through a 1 mm screen for in-vitro digestibility and chemical analysis (AOAC, 2012) [4] . a. Maize stover b. Milled maize stover c. Saccharum officinarum tops

Chemical Analysis

The proximate analysis was conducted using standard methods of AOAC (2005) [28] . The Dry matter (DM), (AOAC, 2005: 934.01) [28] organic matter (OM) (AOAC, 2005: 942.05) [28] , and crude protein (CP) (AOAC, 2005: 984.13) [28] . Neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) were determined according to the methods of Van Soest et al. (1991) [22] .

Rumen Fluid Sampling and In-Vitro Digestibility

The in-vitro gas production was determined for all experimental diets with strict adherence to the guidelines outlined by Getachew et al. (2004) [8] . Rumen liquor from randomly selected cows was extracted using a stomach tube connected to a suction pump before morning feeding and two days before the end of the feeding trial. The liquor was filtered through a two-layered cheesecloth and the fluid was put in a thermos flask where it was continuously flushed with carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) to remove impurities. The milled samples weighing 200mg were placed in 100ml glass syringes in triplicate. The rumen fluid was mixed with a buffer solution in a 1:2 ratio following which 30ml of the mixture was added to each syringe. A pair of blank syringes only contained 30 ml of fluid-buffer and no feed sample. All the syringes were incubated at the same time in a water bath at 39 o C (controlled thermostatically). The recordings of the gas production were done at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 36, 48, 72, and 96 hours by reading the calibration of the piston. The average volume of the gas produced from the blanks was subtracted from the diet-based sample's volume of produced gas. The data on the net volumes of gas was then transferred into Ørskov and McDonald's (1979) [16] model. In-vitro organic matter digestibility (OMD) was then determined from the model below: -The exponential equation was -Y= a+b (1-e -ct ), Where, Y -gas produced at the time t a+b -potential gas produced (ml), c is the gas production rate constant, and t is the incubation time.

Statistical Analysis

Data collected on proximate analysis, was subjected to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) in a completely randomized design (CRD) using the General linear model procedure of statistical analysis system (SAS, 2002) [17] version 9.0. Means were separated using LSD at (p<0.05). The model was as follows:

Where: Y ij = dependent variable µ = overall mean T i = effect of the treatment Ԑ ij = random error term

Results and Discussion

The results for the proximate composition of sampled feed roughages are shown in Table 1. The roughages displayed a diverse range of dry matter (DM) content, varying from 904.1 g/kg DM to 936.1 g/kg DM. The ash content of different roughages varied significantly (p<0.05), with panicum having the highest value at 130.8 g/kg DM. Conversely, oats had the lowest amount at 27.0 g/kg DM. Super Napier had the highest crude protein (CP) content at 149.3 g/kg DM, slightly lower than the 84.4 g/kg DM reported by Dombar et al. (2022) [6] . The CP content of maize silage was 56.1 g/kg DM, and this can be due to changes in maize quality and harvesting stages, as previously documented by Mandić, et al. (2018). The fiber content of different roughages varied, with Super Napier having the highest neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content at 733.3 g/kg DM and maize silage having the lowest at 474.7g/kg DM. ADF ranged from 277.3 g/kg DM to 492.1 g/kg DM for brachiaria and oats, respectively. These results aligned with the findings reported by Adnew et al. (2019) [3] . The crop residues exhibited varying chemical compositions, with dry matter (DM) ranging from 888.3 g/kg DM (potato peels) to 942.6 g/kg DM (banana leaves), as shown in Table 2. The ash content of groundnut residues was the highest at 161.9 g/kg DM, while sugarcane tops had the lowest ash content at 62.9 g/kg DM. Similarly, the groundnut residue had the highest crude protein (CP) content at 114.6 g/kg DM, which is lower than the 181.0 g/kg DM reported by Koura et al. (2016) [11] . On the other hand, sugarcane tops had the lowest CP content at 27 g/kg DM, which is lower than that reported by Wangila (2021) [23] . The fiber composition of crop residues exhibited significant variation, with bean residues having the highest NDF content at 732.1 g/kg DM. Potato peels had the lowest NDF level at 92.2 g/kg DM. Comparable patterns were noted in ADF and acid detergent lignin (ADL). The nutritional features of fodder trees and legumes remained consistent with the findings of previous studies (Castro-Montoya & Dickhoefer, 2020) [5] , as shown in Table 3. The samples exhibited DM, ash, crude fiber, and CP levels within the documented range. The CP content varied between 240.7 g/kg DM and 183.4 g/kg DM. These findings emphasize the significance of comprehending the nutritional composition of different feed resources. They also emphasize elements such as plant species, harvesting stages, and planting methods that affect their chemical profiles. This information is crucial for optimizing livestock feeds and ensuring the health and efficiency of animals.

Parameter	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Sample	DM	Ash	EE	CF	CP	NDF	ADF	ADL
Sesbania	925.6def	61.6l	25.2gh	273.0h	240.7a	742.0a	605.1a	185.7m
Leuceana	933.4bcd	50.2m	60.5c	170.1j	201.4c	308.2m	110.1m	20.9k
Calliandra	894.8l	121.7e	14.7jkl	201.6i	228.0b	620.3ef	469.6c	53.7ih
Lucerne	928.6cdef	95.4h	21.2hij	196.1i	195.0c	397.9l	319.4h	67.5efg
Desmodium	904.2k	170.2a	78.3b	293.2fg	197.3c	517.0h	248.5j	66.5fg
Sweet Potato vines	916.9ghij	70.4k	41.9de	188.9ij	183.4d	443.4k	209.5k	34.9j
Maize Bran	932.6bcd	14.7p	90.4a	87.1m	89.1j	483.0i	225.4jk	18.9kl
Dairy Meal	923.6efgh	83.8j	63.1c	172.2j	116.3f	280.3m	152.1l	16.9kl
Total mixed ration	928.7cdef	26.9o	42.2de	116.8l	102.4gh	373.4l	177.1l	20.9k
p-value	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001
SEM	0.16	0.07	0.16	0.35	0.21	0.56	0.52	0.16

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 3Close ×

Chemical composition of fodder trees, legumes, concentrates, and total mixed rations (g/KgDM)

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

—	Parameter	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Sample	DM	Ash	EE	CF	CP	NDF	ADF	ADL
Bean Residue	938.9ab	124.2e	23.7ghi	490.1a	60.8k	717.2abc	615.1a	105.1c
Millet Residue	915.1hij	116.1f	6.5l	361.0bc	55.6k	658.7d	399.2ef	58.8gh
Groundnut residue	921.1fgh	161.9b	11.0kl	203.4i	114.6f	474.7ij	390.1fg	67.8ef
Potato Peels	912.1ijk	64.9l	11.0kl	115.8l	95.5hij	92.2n	70.5n	11.9l
Maize Stover	930.8bcde	34.0m	8.7kl	336.4e	59.0k	451.7jk	238.1j	35.6j
Sugarcane Tops	935.1abc	62.9l	46.2d	362.5bc	27.8l	645.9de	427.9d	71.6ef
Banana Leaves	942.6a	122.2e	39.2de	139.8k	110.0fg	732.1ab	586.7a	135.2b
Banana stems	928.3l	152.3c	30.5fg	278.4a	5.73k	566.9g	415.8def	80.4d
p-value	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001
SEM	0.16	0.07	0.16	0.35	0.21	0.56	0.52	0.16

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 2Close ×

Chemical analysis for Crop Residues in g/Kg-1DM

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

—	Parameters	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Sample	DM	Ash	EE	CF	CP	NDF	ADF	ADL
Kikuyu grass	932.8bcd	97.8gh	15.0jkl	307.9f	146.4e	693.2c	424.7de	75.5ed
Bracharia	936.1abc	85.4ij	39.7de	340.5de	107.1fgh	617.4ef	277.3i	48.7i
Boma Rhodes	910.2jk	88.4i	16.2ijk	362.0bc	89.7ij	526.3h	390.6f	20.8k
Panicum	936.0abc	130.8d	16.5ijk	357.2cd	101.3hij	598.5f	506.4b	70.6ef
Super Napier	920.8fghi	115.2f	42.0de	379.8b	149.3e	733.3ab	432.0d	63.7fg
Elephant Grass	925.1defg	101.3g	34.2ef	333.5e	86.8j	710.2bc	390.4f	66.7fg
Oat grass	904.1k	27.0o	60.9c	349.9cde	107.6fg	626.5ef	492.1bc	72.3def
Maize Silage	935.9abc	69.7k	19.7hij	341.0de	56.1k	474.7ij	361.7g	64.7fg
p-value	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001
SEM	0.16	0.07	0.16	0.35	0.21	0.56	0.52	0.16

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 1Close ×

Chemical composition for roughages in g/Kg-1DM

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

In-vitro gas production Fodder trees and legumes

There were significant differences in gas production among feed resources collected from different farmers. The In-vitro gas production and Gas production trends for legumes and fodder trees are presented in Table 4 and Figure 1, respectively. The initial gas production (A) and rates of gas production (C) differed (p<0.05) among all the feed resources. The results from in-vitro gas production measured from 0 to 96 hours for all the fodder legumes and trees, including leuceana, lucerne, sweet potato vines, calliandra, sesbania, and desmodium. At 24 hours of fermentation, the rate of gas production was highest in lucerne at 12.70, while leuceana recorded the lowest at 5.88%. On the other hand, lucerne recorded the highest OMD. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) for OMD values for desmodium, calliandra, and sweet potato vines. The observed discrepancies among species in the present investigation may be attributed to the accumulation of fiber, which is influenced by factors such as stage of maturity. This is in line with the fact that the gas production rates (C) and initial gas production (A) varied significantly among the tree resources and feed legumes gathered from different farms. Previous studies have shown that the increased protein and carbohydrate content of legumes allows them to produce more gas than tree fodders (Abraham et al., 2023) [1] . The research also backs up the conclusions drawn by Tunkala et al. (2023) [21] , who found that the chemical composition of substrates significantly affects the parameters of fermentation and the values of the protein percentage in legumes. Previous research has highlighted Lucerne's nutritional superiority for ruminant animals (Wangila, 2021) [23] , and this study's results, especially its superior organic matter digestibility (OMD) compared to other fodder resources, are in line with those findings. Although this study did not find a significant variation in OMD among desmodium, calliandra, and sweet potato vines, other factors, including maturity at harvest and processing techniques, can affect the digestibility of these feed resources (Ngunjiri, 2020) [15] . [16] ; a, b, c,d Means with the same letter superscript in a column are not significantly different (p<0.05). OMD: Organic Matter Digestibility; RSD: Residual Standard Deviation; SCFA: Short Chain Fatty Acids; A is the initial gas produced; B is the actual gas produced during DM degradation; A+B is the total gas produced during fermentation

↗ Enlarge

Figure 1Close ×

Gas production trends for legumes and fodder trees

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper figureSource PDF · page 4 ↗

Sample	24	48	A	B	C	A+B	RSD	% OMD	ME	SCFAs
Calliandra	8.92bcd	1.67c	0.47a	2.80b	0.17a	3.27b	3.35bc	21.31c	7.76c	0.19bcd
Desmodium	10.38ab	1.64c	1.74a	2.49b	0.04b	4.23ab	3.87ab	21.11c	9.09a	0.23ab
Leuceana	5.88d	6.95b	0.21a	4.50a	0.06ab	4.71ab	2.19c	26.04b	7.83bc	0.13d
Lucerne	12.70a	10.06a	0.46a	5.45a	0.10ab	5.91a	4.57ab	28.88a	7.71c	0.28a
Sweet Potato Vines	7.03cd	2.17c	2.81a	2.95b	0.11ab	5.75a	4.91a	21.52c	7.12d	0.15cd
Sesbania	9.56abc	9.02a	0.66a	4.56a	0.09ab	5.21a	3.54abc	28.17a	8.21b	0.21abc
SEM	0.65	0.27	0.61	0.29	0.02	0.39	0.30	0.24	0.08	0.01
p-value	0.0006	<.0001	0.0810	0.0003	0.0440	0.0067	0.0025	<.0001	<.0001	0.0006

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 4Close ×

In-vitro gas production (ml/200mg DM) at 24 and 48hrs and fermentation characteristics of legumes and fodder trees

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 4 ↗

Crop Residues

At 24 and 48 hours of fermentation for the crop residues, the rate of gas production was highest in maize stover at 12.27%, followed by the banana stem with 10.59%, sugarcane tops, and millet residue recorded the lowest with 1.60% and 0.54%, respectively, as illustrated in Table 5 and Figure 2. Sugarcane tops and millet residue have comparatively high levels of structural carbohydrates, such as cellulose and lignin, which are less susceptible to degradation by bacteria than nonstructural carbohydrates present in other feed components. This structural complexity makes it more difficult for microbes in the rumen to break down these components efficiently, resulting in less gas generation. These results corroborate with Zhao et al (2020) [27] who discovered that sugarcane has high levels of cellulose and lignin which make them difficult for microbes to digest. The ME, OMD, and SCFA values (32.10 MJ/kg DM, 32.15%, and 0.27 µmol) observed in this study were higher (p<0.05) for maize stover. These values were higher than 7.25-10.10 (ME, MJ/kg DM), lower than 51.87-80.19 (OMD%), and lower than 0.74-1.22 (SCFA, µmol) observed for various forages reported by Yusuf et al., (2013) [26] , respectively. The gas produced by the maize stover was slightly lower than 16.00 -22.67 ml/200 mg DM, as reported by Tona et al. (2018) [20] . The findings indicated that maize stover possesses better nutritional value when included in ruminant feed compared to bean residue and banana residues. In contrast, sugarcane tops exhibited the lowest nutritional value because of lowered fiber content.

↗ Enlarge

Figure 2Close ×

Patterns of in vitro cumulative gas production of crop residues

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper figureSource PDF · page 5 ↗

Sample	24	48	A	B	C	A+B	RSD	OMD	ME	SCFAs
Banana leaves	6.56d	3.81cd	0.42ab	2.41cd	0.12bc	2.84cd	2.30ef	22.65cd	22.65a	0.14a
Banana stem	10.59b	2.23de	0.23b	3.48bc	0.15ab	3.71bc	3.79c	20.90de	20.90b	0.23b
Bean hualms	6.30d	7.87b	0.25b	4.23b	0.06cd	4.48b	2.79de	26.13b	26.13c	0.14c
Groundnut hualms	9.11c	5.90bc	0.25b	4.40b	0.11bc	4.65b	2.97d	24.60bc	24.60a	0.20a
Maize stover	12.27a	14.40a	0.41ab	7.62a	0.07cd	8.03a	5.46a	32.15a	32.15b	0.27b
Millet straw	0.54e	3.26d	0.68ab	1.17d	0.11bc	1.85d	1.53g	21.84d	21.84e	0.01e
Potato peels	12.00a	0.88e	1.24a	2.68c	0.19a	3.92bc	4.79b	19.55e	19.55a	0.26a
Sugarcane tops	1.60e	6.39b	0.92ab	2.91c	0.04d	3.84bc	2.14f	24.58bc	24.58d	0.03d
SEM	0.29	0.48	0.19	0.24	0.01	0.23	0.11	0.44	0.04	0.01
p-value	<.0001	<.0001	0.0201	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 5Close ×

In-vitro gas production (ml/200mg DM) at 24 and 48hrs and fermentation characteristics crop residues

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 5 ↗

Therefore, these diets significantly affect milk production quality, quantity, and the well-being of ruminants; hence, they should not be used as the sole source of feed for dairy animals. [16] ; a, b, c,d Means with the same letter superscript in a column are not significantly different (p<0.05). OMD: Organic Matter Digestibility; RSD: Residual Standard Deviation; SCFA: Short Chain Fatty Acids; A is the initial gas produced; B is the actual gas produced during DM degradation; A+B is the total gas produced during fermentation. 6 and Figure 3. Different roughages have different fermentation properties, such as OMD, ME, and SCFAs. When compared to other roughages, kikuyu grass demonstrated the highest levels of OMD (7.70%), ME (29.67%), and SCFAs (6.53%). The variation in gas production among the roughages from this study may be due to differences in chemical composition, for instance, high starch and CP but low NDF. These findings are in line with findings by Spanghero et al. (2017) [18] , who discovered that the effects, at least on early colonization of the feed materials by microbes, will be subsequent substrate fermentation. Kikuyu grass, known for its rapid growth and high productivity, has been consistently reported to exhibit favorable fermentation characteristics in ruminants. This is attributed to its relatively high fiber digestibility, which is reflected in the high organic matter digestibility (OMD) observed in the current study. Additionally, the high levels of metabolizable energy (ME) and short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) are further consistent with previous research findings (Abu et al., 2022) [2] , which demonstrated that Kikuyu grass exhibits superior fermentative properties compared to other roughages. The low gas production in the maize silage reflected the contrasting silage qualities. Differences in the type of substrate available for fermentation greater cell wall content along with decreasing contents of water-soluble carbohydrates and CP in the poorly made maize silage were expected to affect the pattern of fermentation and DM fermentation. These studies corroborate findings by Khan et al. (2015) [9] , who emphasized the importance of harvesting maize meant for silage at the right stage with the right DM content. Previous studies have also indicated that elephant grass, oats, and maize silage exhibit varying degrees of fermentation properties (Yuan et al., 2013) [25] . While elephant grass and oats demonstrated intermediate levels of gas production and fermentation parameters, maize silage consistently displayed lower values, as evidenced by its lower gas production and comparatively lower OMD, ME, and SCFA levels. This might be due to materials used to make the silage as well as the stage of harvesting as explained by Tauqir et al ( 2008) [19] . (Ørskov & McDonld, 1979) [16] ; a, b, c,d Means with the same letter superscript in a column are not significantly different (p<0.05). OMD: Organic Matter Digestibility; RSD: Residual Standard Deviation; SCFA: Short Chain Fatty Acids; A is the initial gas produced; B is the actual gas produced during DM degradation; A+B is the total gas produced during fermentation

↗ Enlarge

Figure 3Close ×

Gas production trends for from different roughages farmers

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper figureSource PDF · page 6 ↗

Concentrates and Total mixed Ration

At 24 and 48 hours, maize bran produced the highest amounts of gas (12.57 ml/200 mg DM and 18.89 ml/200 mg DM), followed by Total mixed ration (TMR) (7.89 ml/200 mg DM and 3.68 ml/200 mg DM) as shown in Table 7 and Figure 4. Dairy meal, on the other hand, produced the least gas (7.50 ml/200 mg DM and 0.54 ml/200 mg DM). Maize bran had the highest levels of OMD (9.45%), ME (6.18%), and SCFAs (36.46%). Maize bran's high fermentable carbohydrates and soluble fiber likely contributed to increased gas production. The variations in fermentation characteristics seen in this study among maize bran, dairy meal, and TMR (comprising maize silage and maize bran) can be partially explained by the disparities in highly fermentable dietary fibers and their fermentation processes (Muqier et al., 2023) [14] . In the TMR, in vitro, fermentation patterns and product levels mirrored maize silage. These findings align with those of Kidane et al. (2020) [10] , who discovered that it is possible to argue that the lack of any interaction effects between the type of concentrate feed and the quality of the maize silage in these diets is the result of either a batch culture system artifact or the concentrate feeds' inability to modulate the maize silages differently at the forage-to-concentrate mixing ratio that was utilized in this study. The results on concentrates, particularly the dairy meal used in this study, underscore the importance of having a good quality dairy meal for dairy cows. Additionally, maize silages and their mixtures with concentrate feeds highlight the importance of maize silage quality as modulated by cutting age. (Ørskov & McDonld, 1979) [16] ; a, b, c,d Means with the same letter superscript in a column are not significantly different (p<0.05). OMD: Organic Matter Digestibility; RSD: Residual Standard Deviation; SCFA: Short Chain Fatty Acids; A is the initial gas produced; B is the actual gas produced during DM degradation; A+B is the total gas produced during fermentation.

↗ Enlarge

Figure 4Close ×

Gas production trends for concentrates and others from different farmers

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper figureSource PDF · page 7 ↗

Sample	24	48	A	B	C	A+B	RSD	% OMD	ME	SCFAs
Dairy Meal	7.50b	0.54c	0.74a	1.84c	0.20a	2.58c	3.00c	19.65c	6.58b	0.16a
Maize Bran	12.57a	18.89a	-0.27b	9.72a	0.08a	9.45a	6.18a	36.46a	7.93b	0.27ac
TMR	7.89b	3.68b	-0.04b	3.89b	3.26a	3.85b	3.96b	22.48b	5.70a	0.17a
SEM	0.43	0.52	0.12	0.08	1.02	0.15	0.07	0.49	0.11	0.01
p-value	0.0057	<.0001	0.0151	<.0001	0.2513	<.0001	<.0001	0.0001	0.0010	0.0057

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 7Close ×

In-vitro gas production (ml/200mg DM) at 24 and 48hrs and fermentation characteristics of concentrates and TMR from different

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 6 ↗

Conclusion

This study concludes that fodder trees and legumes have better nutritional profiles, while crop residues are of low quality. Roughages on the other hand had moderate nutritional quality. The analysis of these feed sources reveals significant insights into their nutritional composition and implications for dairy farming.

Recommendation

This study recommends the incorporation high-quality fodder trees and legumes into the diet formulations for dairy cattle. The superior nutritional profiles and high crude protein content observed in fodder species like Lucerne, Sesbania, and Calliandra can significantly improve the overall diet quality and support better milk production. Also, optimize the utilization of crop residues by strategic supplementation with concentrate feeds or other protein-rich ingredients. While crop residues like maize Stover exhibited better nutritive value compared to other residues, their inclusion as a sole feed source may not meet the nutritional requirements of dairy cattle. Combining them with supplements can enhance their overall feeding value. Moreover, regularly evaluate the nutritional composition and digestibility of the available feed resources, as variations can occur due to factors like maturity stage, harvesting time, and processing methods.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgmentWe acknowledge the generous funding for this project by FORQLAB through CoELIB of Egerton University and the eager dairy farmers in Bungoma County for their cooperation and participation.

Figures and tables from the paper

Sample	24	48	A	B	C	A+B	RSD	OMD	ME	SCFAs
Brachiaria	8.97ab	9.50bc	5.39ab	5.39bcd	0.07cd	5.42bc	3.49ab	27.88bc	5.87b	0.19ab
Elephant grass	10.19ab	2.68d	4.18ab	4.18de	0.14a	4.15cd	3.22bc	21.48d	5.55bc	0.22ab
Kikuyu grass	11.20a	11.20a	7.13a	7.13a	0.08c	7.70a	4.17a	29.67a	6.53a	0.24a
Maize silage	5.86c	8.53c	4.86ab	4.86bcd	0.06d	5.23bcd	2.53c	26.71c	4.15d	0.13c
Oat grass	10.98a	3.30d	3.64ab	3.64e	0.14a	3.80d	3.84ab	22.16d	6.78a	0.24a
Panicum	8.48b	9.54bc	5.97ab	5.97abc	0.07cd	6.26ab	3.17bc	27.89bc	5.34c	0.18c
Boma Rhodes	10.23ab	10.23ab	6.59a	6.59ab	0.07cd	7.09a	3.85ab	28.47ab	5.35c	0.22ab
Super Napier	9.17ab	2.70d	4.68b	4.68cde	0.12b	4.49cd	2.70c	21.83d	6.77a	0.20ab
SEM	0.49	0.29	0.12	0.31	0.00	0.31	0.15	0.26	0.08	0.01
p-value	<.0001	<.0001	0.0038	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.0001	<.001	0.0001

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 6Close ×

In-vitro gas production (ml/200mg DM) at 24 and 48hrs and fermentation characteristics of roughages for different farmers

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 6 ↗

1. Abraham G, Kechero Y, Andualem D. Potential of indigenous legume fodder tree and shrubs to animal feed and mitigation of methane emission in the semi-humid condition of southern Ethiopia. Legume Science. 2023; e200.
2. Adnew W, Tsegay BA, Tassew A, Asmare B. Effect of Harvesting stage and Altitude on Agronomic and Qualities of six Brachiaria grass in Northwestern Ethiopia. AgroLife Scientific Journal. 2019;8(1).
3. Castro-Montoya JM, Dickhoefer U. The nutritional value of tropical legume forages fed to ruminants as affected by their growth habit and fed form: A systematic review. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2020;269:114641.
4. Dombar R, Ramachandra B, Thirumalesh T, Kulkarni S, Suranagi MD, Patil V, et al. Dry matter intake, nutritive value and digestibility of Super Napier fed to adult Kenguri sheep. Cellulose. 2022;32:8-67.
5. Getachew G, Robinson PH, DePeters EJ, Taylor SJ. Relationships between chemical composition, dry matter degradation, and in vitro gas production of several ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2004;111(14):57-71.
6. Khan NA, Yu P, Ali M, Cone JW, Hendriks WH. Nutritive value of maize silage in relation to dairy cow performance and milk quality. J Sci Food Agric. 2015;95(2):238-252.
7. Koura IB, Calabrò S, Dossa LH, Musco N, Cutrignelli MI, Houinato MRB. Nutritional Value of Cereal and Legume Crop Residues Fed to Ruminant in Republic of Benin. J Nutr Ecol Food Res. 2016;3(2):151-160.
8. Mandić V, Bijelić Z, Krnjaja V, Simić A, Petričević M, Mićić N, et al. Effect of harvesting time on forage yield and quality of maize. Biotechnol Anim Husb. 2018;34(3):345-353.
9. Mertens DR, Grant RJ. Digestibility and intake. In: Forages: the science of grassland agriculture. 2nd ed. 2020. p. 609-631.
10. Muqier X, Eknaes M, Prestløkken E, Jensen RB, Eikanger KS, Karlengen IJ, Kidane A. In vitro Rumen Fermentation Characteristics, Estimated Utilizable Crude Protein and Metabolizable Energy Values of Grass Silages, Concentrate Feeds and Their Mixtures. Animals. 2023;13(17):2695.
11. Ngunjiri VW. Evaluation of Performance of Growing Dairy Goats Fed Rhodes Grass Hay, Supplemented with Dried Calliandra Leaves and Common Vetch Hay [Doctoral dissertation]. Egerton University; 2020.
12. Ørskov ER, McDonald I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J Agric Sci. 1979;92:499-503.
13. Spanghero M, Magni G, Boselli E, Piombino M, Mason F, Cozzi G. Prediction of metabolisable energy content of commercial total mixed rations (TMR) for lactating dairy cows based on gas production measured into two TMR fractions. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2017;226:65-70.
14. Tauqir N, Nisa M, Sarwar M, Bhatti S. Impact of varying moisture levels, different additives, and fermentation periods on the nutritive value of leguminous and nonleguminous fodder silages in lactating nili-ravi buffaloes. Pak J AgnSc. 2008;45(2).
15. Tona GO. Current and future improvements in livestock nutrition and feed resources. Anim Husb Nutr. 2018;147169.
16. Tunkala BZ, DiGiacomo K, Hess PSA, Gardiner CP, Suleria H, Leury BJ, et al. Evaluation of legumes for fermentability and protein fractions using in vitro rumen fermentation. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2023;305:115777.
17. Van Soest PV, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991;74(10):3583-3597.
18. Wangila AJ. Biomass Yield and Quality of Fodder from Selected Varieties of Lablab in Nandi South Sub-county, Kenya [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Nairobi; 2021.
19. Yuan X, Yu C, Li Z, Shimojo M, Shao T. Effect of inclusion of grasses and wet hulless-barley distillers' grains on the fermentation and nutritive quality of oat straw-and straw-grass silages in Tibet. Anim Prod Sci. 2013;53(5):419-426.
20. Yusuf KO, Isah OA, Arigbede OM, Oni AO, Onwuka CFI. Chemical composition, secondary metabolites, in vitro gas production characteristics and acceptability study of some forage for ruminant feeding in SouthWestern Nigeria. Niger J Anim Prod. 2013;40(1):179190.
21. Zhao D, Momotaz A, LaBorde C, Irey M. Biomass yield and carbohydrate composition in sugarcane and energy cane grown on mineral soils. Sugar Tech. 2020;22(4):630-640.