Evaluation of fodder yield, chemical composition and prediction of nutritive value of some leguminous fodder crops by SEDS

The experiment was conducted to evaluate leguminous fodder crops: Horsegram, Field bean, Cluster bean, Cowpea for their green fodder yield (GFY) and dry matter yield (DMY). The same were subjected for proximate, fibre fraction andenergy values were calculated by summative equations of detergent system. The highest GFY and DMY was for cowpea. Dry matter percentage in Horsegram and Cluster bean ranged from 19.6 to 21.7 but in Field bean and Cowpea, the dry matter percentage was around 16. The CP content was significantly (p

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

AI-generated illustration

↗ Enlarge

Recommendation MatrixClose ×

AI-generated conceptual illustration (Cowpea and Horsegram plants). It explains the idea and does not show study data.

Open full-size image ↗

Replotted from source data

↗ Enlarge

Horsegram and Field bean and more: GFY (t/ha) vs DMY (t/ha)Close ×

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

Open full-size image ↗

Replotted from source data

↗ Enlarge

Fibre fraction (%): Horsegram vs Field bean vs Cluster bean vs CowpeaClose ×

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

Open full-size image ↗

Introduction

Livestock forms an integral component of the agricultural production system and plays a vital role in the nation's economy. However, severe feed shortages in India have become a critical constraint, limiting livestock productivity and the ability to meet domestic demand. One promising approach to mitigate this scarcity is the cultivation of high-quality fodder crops. Among these, legumes are particularly valuable, as they provide animals with essential nutrients, including high-quality protein, minerals, and vitamins. Notably, sugarcane trash has been found to possess a nutritional composition comparable to common crop residues. When treated with urea ammoniation, sugarcane trash demonstrated a voluntary intake of 2% of body weight, highlighting its potential as a viable forage resource (Jaishankar et al., 2021) [10] . Incorporating leguminous forages into straw-based rations has been shown to improve feed digestibility and overall ruminant performance (Khan et al., 1992; Akbar et al., 2003) [11,2] . Legume crops are versatile, cultivated not only for grains, pulses, and vegetables but also as high-quality fodder for livestock. They exhibit rapid growth and consistently produce nutrient-dense biomass. A study was undertaken to evaluate the green fodder yield, dry matter yield, proximate composition, and fiber fractions of selected annual leguminous fodder crops, including Horsegram (Macrotyloma uniflorum), Cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba), Field bean (Vicia faba), and Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). For dairy cows, precise assessment of the energy density of feed is essential to ensure consistent performance (Robinson, 2007) [17] . The study also aimed to assess the suitability of the Summative Equations of the Detergent System (SEDS) for predicting the nutritive value of these leguminous fodders, as SEDS is widely recognized for evaluating ruminant feedstuffs (Nataraja et al., 1998).

Materials and Methods

Some leguminous fodder crops, such as Horsegram (Macrotyloma uniflorum), Cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba), Field bean (Vicia faba), and Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), were sown in separate plots (5 x 12 m 2 ) on open furrows spaced 60 cm apart. The total quantity of fertilizer, which included phosphorus and nitrogen in the form of triple super phosphate and urea, was applied at the time of sowing. Every other conventional farming method was implemented in the same way to every plot. Depending on the amount of rainfall, sprinklers were used to irrigate the fodder crops every three to four days. The fodder was handharvested at the appropriate stage for use as green fodder.

Green fodder and dry matter yields were calculated using sample harvests at one square meter in four different sections of the plot. The fodder yield derived from the net plot area converted into ton ha -1 , and sampling was carried out using the quartering method (Campos-M and Campos-C, 2017). Following harvesting, a sample of the fodder crops was taken, dried in a forced-air oven at 60 °C until the weight remained constant, and then ground using a Willey mill through a 1 mm screen. The ground samples were kept in airtight receptacles until a further examination.

Chemical analysis

Samples of various leguminous fodders were examined for their chemical and proximate compositions. A thorough analysis was conducted on the following contents: dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), ether extract (EE), crude protein (CP), crude fiber (CF), nitrogen free extract (NFE), and total ash (AOAC, 2016 There is significant difference between the leguminous fodder crops (p<0.01) for GFY and DMY. There was a direct relationship between GFY and DMY. This is because the DM yield was calculated based on the DM content of the green fodder. As the green fodder yield increased, the dry atter yield was also increased. As forages taken for study were of different varieties, these changes do occur with respect to agronomical parameter because of their genetic makeup, nutrition and environmental factors (Cornelissen et al., 2003) [4] . Average green fodder and dry matter yield (t / ha) for Cowpea was greater than the yield (27.16 and 5.21) reported by Lohithaswa et al. (2013) [14] . Similar green fodder and dry matter yield (t / ha) for Field bean and Cluster bean were noticed in the study conducted by Fraser et al. (2001) [6] and Pandey et al. (2018) [16] respectively. Variation in yield (green fodder and dry matter) cannot be attributed to single factor where multiple factors are involved influencing the yield (Kusvuran et al., 2015) [13] . [7,12,18] . Fibre fraction: leguminous and non leguminous annual fodder crops: NDF content of Field bean was 53.67 per cent, which is significantly (p<0.01) higher than other leguminous fodder crops whereas, the same fodders also had significantly (p<0.01) higher ADF. NDF yield and ADF yield were significantly (p<0.01) higher in Cowpea followed by Field bean, Horsegram and Cluster bean and this variation in fodders might be due to the difference in varieties and stage of harvest. NDF, ADF and ADL (as per cent DM basis) observed in the current study for Cowpea and Cluster bean are similar to the values reported by Garg et al., (2012) [7] and Pandey et al., (2018) [16]

Chemical composition and composition yield of leguminous annual fodder crops

Chemical composition and composition yield of leguminous annual fodder crops

Summary and conclusion

Among the selected leguminous annual fodder crops evaluated in the experiment, cowpea recorded the highest yield, with a green fodder yield (GFY) of 38.24 t/ha and a dry matter yield (DMY) of 6.24 t/ha. It also exhibited superior nutritional quality, particularly in terms of crude protein (CP) and ether extract (EE) content. Consequently, cowpea produced the highest crude protein yield (28.18), making it highly suitable for enhancing animal productivity. The overall performance of the leguminous fodders, based on yield and nutrient contribution, followed the order: cowpea > field bean > horsegram > cluster bean. The predicted digestibility and energy values estimated using SEDS were highest in horsegram, although these values were largely comparable among the other three leguminous fodders studied. Based on agronomic performance and chemical composition, cowpea can be recommended when the objective is to maximize green fodder yield. However, considering that energy values and crude protein contents were broadly comparable, horsegram demonstrated relatively higher total digestible nutrient (TDN) value. Therefore, horsegram can be recommended for inclusion in ruminant diets to meet the nutritional requirements for growth and milk production.

Figures and tables from the paper

Fodder crop	—	Horsegram	Field bean	Cluster bean	Cowpea	SEM	P value
Fodder yield (t/ha)	GFY (t/ha)	24.17b	33.27c	19.55a	38.24d	0.158	<0.01
	DMY (t/ha)	4.73b	5.60c	4.25a	6.24d	0.029	<0.01
Composition (%)	DM	19.57c	16.85ab	21.73d	16.30a	0.186	<0.01
	OM	91.5c	91.61cd	88.21ab	87.09a	0.358	<0.01
	ASH	8.92a	9.88b	11.77d	10.96c	0.044	<0.01
	EE	2.60b	3.19c	1.38a	3.98d	0.079	<0.01
	CP	18.44c	17.58b	16.61a	23.40d	0.223	<0.01
	NFE	27.97b	26.96ab	27.43b	25.52a	0.439	<0.01
Composition yield (t/ha)	CP	0.87b	0.99c	0.71a	1.46d	0.01	<0.01
	EE	0.12b	0.18c	0.06a	0.25d	0.005	<0.01
	NFE	1.32b	1.51c	1.17a	1.59cd	0.024	<0.01
Fibre fraction (%)	NDF	46.03b	53.67d	43.92a	49.90c	0.34	<0.01
	ADF	44.87c	45.33cd	36.32a	41.28b	0.369	<0.01
	ADL	8.723abc	8.37a	9.19d	8.68ab	0.113	<0.01
Fibre fraction yield (t/ha)	NDF yield	2.18b	3.01c	1.86a	3.11d	0.029	<0.01
	ADF yield	2.13b	2.54c	1.54a	2.57c	0.018	<0.01

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 ×

Forage yield, Chemical composition, composition yield, fibre fraction and Fibre fraction yield (t/ha) of some leguminous annual

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

Fodder crop	Horsegram	Field bean	Cluster bean	Cowpea
SS (%)	4.26	4.76	4.26	4.26
BS (%)	1.6	2.1	1.92	1.52
TDDM (%)	65.27	60.12	62.21	61.8
ADDM (%)	46.65	40.09	42.75	42.28
TDN (%)	48.74	42.92	40.78	43.92
ME (MJ/kg DM)	7.37	6.48	6.16	6.64

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 composition, predicted digestibility and energy

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

1. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 20th ed. Association of Analytical Chemists; 2016.
2. Akbar MA, Islam MS, Bhuiya MSU. Effect of fodder production in rice field on soil nutrient status and of supplementing fodder with rice straw-based diets of dairy cows for milk production. Tropical and SubTropical Agro Ecosystem. 2003;3(1-3):33-37.
3. Campos-M M, Campos-C R. Applications of quartering method in soils and foods. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications. 2017;7(1):3539.
4. Cornelissen JH, Lavorel S, Garnier E, Díaz S, Buchmann N, Gurvich DE, et al. A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal of Botany. 2003;51(4):335-380.
5. Datt C, Singh NP. Nutritional evaluation of cultivated fodder crops grown under agro-climate of Tripura. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2009;79(11):11431148.
6. Fraser MD, Fychan R, Jones R. The effect of harvest date and inoculation on the yield, fermentation characteristics and feeding value of forage pea and field bean silages. Grass and Forage Science. 2001;56(3):218-230.
7. Garg MR, Kannan A, Shelke SK, Phondba BT, Sherasia PL. Nutritional evaluation of some ruminant feedstuffs by in vitro gas production technique. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2012;82(8):898-901.
8. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agricultural Handbook No. 379. Washington DC: ARS, USDA; 1970. International Journal of Agriculture and Nutrition https://www.agriculturejournal.net
9. Hasan MR, Akbar MA, Khandaker ZH, Rahman MM. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on yield contributing character, biomass yield and nutritive value of cowpea forage. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science. 2010;39(1-2):83-88.
10. Jaishankar N, Ramachandra B, Thirumalesh T. Effect of urea ammoniated sugarcane trash based diets on growth potentiality of Nari Suwarna × Kenguri F1 lambs. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(11):138-142.
11. Khan MJ, Tareque AMM, Shajalal M. Effect of inoculation and nitrogen fertilizer on yield, chemical composition, in vitro organic matter digestibility and energy content of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) forage. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition. 1992;9(3):177-180.
12. Kumar D, Datt C, Das LK, Kundu SS. Evaluation of various feedstuffs of ruminants in terms of chemical composition and metabolizable energy content. Veterinary World. 2015;8(5):605-609.
13. Kusvuran A, Parlak EL, Saglamtimur T. Biomass yield of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) and its mixture with some grasses (Poaceae). Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences. 2015;2:178-184.
14. Lohithaswa HC, Krishnappa MR, Shekara BG, Chikkarugi NM, Manasa N. MFC-09-1: A new forage cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) variety for South Zone of India. International Grassland Congress Proceedings. University of Kentucky; 2013.
15. Nataraja MB, Krishnamoorthy U, Krishnappa P. Assessment of rumen in vitro incubation (gas production) technique and chemical analyses by detergent system to predict metabolizable energy content in mixed diets of lactating cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 1998;74(2):169-177.
16. Pandey AK, Singh M, Thakur SS, Kumar R, Meena RK, Basak N, et al. Yield and chemical composition of fodder guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L.) as affected by harvesting stage and zinc application. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition. 2018;35(2):186-190.
17. Robinson PH. A new look at energy discounts: Using published studies to calculate discounted net energy values for dairy cows fed ad libitum. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 2007;87(1):57-70.
18. Suliman AIA, Daghash HA, Abd-Elati MNM, Mokhtar MH. Productive performance of growing Farafra lambs fed guar forage or guar silage. Journal of Animal and Poultry Production. 2017;8(3):41-47.
19. Van Soest PJ. Estimation of nutritive value from laboratory analysis. Proceedings of Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers. 1971;106-117.
20. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods of dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science. 1991;74:3583-3597.