Changes in morphological and qualitative composition of ruminant pastures during the rainy season in Kenya

Introduction

The beef industry in Kenya plays a crucial role in the Country's economy, providing a significant source of food, income, and employment for both rural and urban communities (Khanal et al., 2022) [1] . Cattle farming in Kenya is diverse, ranging from large-scale commercial operations to smallholder systems. This industry has experienced notable growth over the years due to increased demand for beef products and favorable climatic conditions for livestock production. Kenya is home to several beef cattle breeds, with each breed adapted to different ecological zones. Some prominent beef cattle breeds found in the Country include the Boran, Sahiwal, Ankole, and Zebu (Yadav et al., 2023) [2] . These breeds are known for their adaptability to harsh environments, resistance to diseases, and ability to utilize low-quality forage efficiently. The beef industry in Kenya utilizes different production systems based on factors such as land availability, resource availability, and market demands. These systems include extensive grazing systems, ranching systems, and feedlot systems. Extensive grazing systems involve free-range grazing on natural pastures, while ranching systems involve managed grazing on large tracts of land (Msuya, 2022) [3] . Feedlot systems, on the other hand, focus on intensive feeding and are commonly used in commercial operations to maximize animal growth and meat production. In most of the production systems for beef cattle in Kenya, the feeding regime is pasture-based (Kahi et al., 2006) [4] . Improved beef breeds, such as improved Boran and crosses between improved Boran and exotic breeds, are also kept in these ranches to maximize profits (Rewe et al., 2010) [5] . Forage availability is affected by various factors such as seasonality of the year (Sunya, 2006). A lack of enough feed for all the animals can have adverse effects on the animals' welfare, which includes malnutri tion leading to mortalities in the herds, especially in pastoral production systems (Santos, 2019). These forages, including legumes, can have varying levels of nutrients depending on the climatic conditions, which influence factors such as rainfall availability (Rini 2016; Brandao, 2018). During dry seasons, for instance, the crude protein levels decrease as compared to seasons of abundant rainfall (Brandao, 2018; Yani, 2004). The dry season increases quantities of dead material in the plants, and the palatability of the feed decreases as drought persists (Brandao, 2018). The levels of nutrients affect the ability of the grasses and shrubs to meet the nutritional requirements of the animals for their various body needs (Caballero et al., 2022) [6] . It also affects the availability or limited availability of minerals especially the major minerals like Calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium, and trace minerals like Manganese and Zinc, which are crucial for beef animals for various body functions in maintenance, health promotion, and growth (Khalil, 2016; Jones, 2013; Lopi, 2016). The minerals are also affected by climatic conditions and soil characteristics, among other factors (Khan, 2005). Variations in feed nutrients and availability of the forages depending on the seasons of the year influence the ability of beef cattle to gain weight (Fernandes et al., 2022) [7] . In beef production, weight gain is one of the most important fac-tors as it affects the weight of the animal (Garber et al., 2022) [8] , which in turn affects the returns. The objective of this study was to determine the levels of nutrients found in forages and their availability to beef cattle in various seasons. This study focuses on the plant variety, nutritional value, and seasonal availability of ruminant pastures during the rainy season rather than the animal performance or feeding behavior.

Materials and methods

Site description

The study was conducted at the Beef Research Institute, Lanet, Nakuru County, Kenya (Figure 1). The station is located at latitude 0º N 18º S and longitude 36º W 09º E, 1920m above sea level. The area has a bimodal rainfall pattern with long rains being experienced from March to June and short rains in October, November, and December. Annual rainfall is often below 800 mm and unreliable both in quantity and distribution. The Research Center is located at the interface of agroecological zones 3 and 4 (Wasike et al. 2007). Temperatures range between 8 and 30 °C. Soils are deep sandy loam with good water-holding capacity, with a pH range of 5.5 to 6.5.

Experimental animals, feeding regimes, and management

This research focused on thirty beef cattle, which included improved Boran, Boran-Sahiwal crosses, and Small East African Zebu breeds. The animals were between 24 and 30 months of age, clinically healthy, and kept under standard extensive ranch farming conditions. The ranch has a variety of highly nutritious natural forages. The animals were between twenty-four and thirty months old. The animals grazed from 0800 hours to 1700 hours daily. Animals were provided with water daily ad libitum. The study was conducted during the rainy season when most forage species were available and at the right nutrient levels.

Grazing observation and sampling methods for preferred forages for beef animals

During forage sample collection, the visual evaluation of the plant's morphological stage (for example, vegetative, flowering, or seed-setting) was performed and noted to enhance understanding and interpretation of the plant's preference and nutritional value as forage. The most preferred forage species were determined after conducting grazing behavior observations (Plate 1 & 2) for 6 days during the peak of the rainy season. A total of 30 clinically healthy beef cattle (Boran, Boran-Sahiwal crosses, and Small East African Zebu) aged 24 to 30 months were selected across six free-grazing herds maintained under ranching conditions. Each day, up to five different animals that were not part of the previous day's observations were randomly selected for the morning grazing session from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., the peak grazing period.

For each animal, one trained observer was assigned for the entire duration of 15 minutes. Foraging activity was assessed using feeding behavior recorded based on tongue-grasp bites, typical of cattle grazing behavior, as animals used their tongues to curl and tear forage. Notably, a "bite" was defined not by head position as in small ruminants, but rather by eye-visible curling and grasping of forage with the tongue and swallowing. "Bite" was marked with species and specific plant portions consumed (leaf, stem, flower, etc). With every dis-tinct bite, the observer collected a specimen from the specific plant to represent the actual plant material consumed. The sample's volume was estimated by a hand-circle technique, which relates to the average size of the observed bites. This approximate process ensured consistency in representing the animals' dietary choices. After six days, all the bite samples were pooled by species across animals and days, and the twenty most frequently selected forage species were identified and sampled for laboratory analysis to determine their proximate composition.

Plate 1. Steers in group grazing Plate 2: Forage collection and sorting

Sample preparation

Upon collection, the different forage species were tagged and given laboratory ID codes to ease tracking during analysis. Each sample was mechanically shredded into smaller sections (roughly 2-3 cm) to assist with consistent drying. The samples were then oven-dried at a temperature of 60 °C for 48 hours, which is a universally accepted time and temperature for drying out moisture without damaging essential nutrients, especially proteins. The dried samples were put through a Wiley mill after which they were sieved with a one-millimeter mesh to obtain an identical particle size adequate for proximate and mineral analysis. Uniformly stored material was placed in airtight jars that were properly labeled until further analysis.

Laboratory analysis: proximate, tannins, and minerals assay of samples

Proximate analysis of preferred browses by grazing cattle in the freerange system under ranching conditions was analyzed to determine their dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), metabolizable energy (ME), and ash according to the standard methods of AOAC (2006). The CP was calculated as (N x 6.25). Neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) were analyzed according to the procedure described by Van Soest et al. (1994). Minerals (macro and microelements) were determined using atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS). 𝒀 𝒊𝒋 = is the j th observation of the i th treatment µ= is the population mean 𝝉𝒊 = is the effect of browse inclusion level 𝜺 𝒊𝒋 = is the random error term

Statistical analysis

Results and discussion

Results

Frequency table of sampled forage materials

The Forages and grasses for beef under the free-range grazing system are presented in Table 1. The table provides information on the scientific names, common names, plant types, parts eaten, and availability of various plant species. The availability of these plants varies depending on the rainy and dry seasons. During the rainy season, many of the plants are highly available, while during the dry season, their availability decreases. Some plants, such as Themeda triandra and Trifolium semi-pilosum, are highly available during the rains but rarely available during the dry season. On the other hand, plants like Sesbania sesban and Digitaria milanjiana are available in riverine and riparian areas during the dry season. Overall, the availability of these plants is influenced by the climate and specific ecological conditions. Alongside the availability and parts used, the morphological composition of the forages (Table 2) was also studied and recorded for the rainy season. Most of the grasses were between the vegetative and early reproductive stages, for example, Chloris gayana, Digitaria abyssinica, and Pennisetum clandestinum. These exhibited high leafto-stem ratios and significant amounts of green biomass. The legumes, for instance, Trifolium semi-pilosum and Sesbania sesban, were also actively growing, displaying extensive branching, significant leaf expansion, and developing flower buds. These morphological traits are key factors describing the forage's palatability and nutrient concentration, especially in protein and energy. Cattle preference was noted to be strongly associated with forages dominated by leaves, which were largely at the pre-flowering stage. These are more likely to provide better digestibility and crude protein compared to older, senescent plants.

Bottom of Form

Rhodes Grass (Chloris gayana) is a perennial tropical grass that thrives well in a variety of soil types. It has high productivity, good palatability, and is highly nutritious (Table 1). Brachiaria grasses are commonly used in free-range grazing systems due to their adaptability to different soil types and climates. They are known for their high productivity, drought tolerance, and good nutritional value. Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) is a vigorous, perennial, and drought-resistant grass that is well-suited for free-range grazing. It establishes quickly and provides good ground cover.

Cenchrus ciliaris is a highly productive and drought-tolerant perennial grass. It has good forage quality and can withstand heavy grazing pressure. Star Grass (Cynodon nlemfuensis) is a warm-season perennial grass that is well-adapted to free-range grazing systems. It has good palatability, and regrowth ability, and can tolerate a range of soil conditions. Panicum grass is widely distributed and includes several species like Guinea grass (Panicum maximum). They are highly productive, palatable, and can be utilized for forage, especially for beef cattle in free-range grazing systems.

Chemical composition

The chemical composition of the browses and grasses is presented in Table 3.

The table provides information on the dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL), fat, and metabolizable energy (ME) content of various plant species. These values are important indicators of the nutritional composition and quality of the forages. 3). The fat content ranged from 0.7% in Desmodium intortum to 3.4% in Sesbania sesban. Hyparrhenia hirta had the lowest ME (6.3 MJ kg -1 DM) content. Forages with higher fat content may have a higher energy density. The Mineral analysis of the most preferred forages is presented in Table 4. The preferred forages had varying levels of essential minerals, including calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg), cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), and zinc (Zn). Sesbania sesban had the highest levels of Ca, Mg, Co, Fe, and Zn among the listed species (Table 4). On the other hand, Eragrostis cilianensis had the lowest levels of Ca, P, Mg, Co, and Fe. Mineral analysis is the measurement of mineral levels in forages and feeds and can help to determine whether supplementation is required and at what level. Therefore, understanding the mineral content of forages is important for proper feeding and optimal animal production. Sesbania sesban and Indigofera arrecta were high in calcium and phosphorus compared to other preferred forages found in the ranch.

Discussion

The palatability and nutritional value of forage species are primarily driven by their morphological features observed during the rainy season (Table 2). During this period, most grasses and legumes were in the vegetative to early reproductive stages, a phase known to typically have high digestibility, crude protein, and energy levels. For instance, cattle prefer grazing on swards of Digitaria scalarum, Cynodon dactylon, and Desmodium intortum as they are highly leafy and show vigorous growth during this period. Mganga et al. (2021) [9] also observed that forages in the vegetative stage have greater nutrient concentration and ruminants' intake tends to be exacerbated because of softer tissues and low fiber fractions. In contrast, Themeda triandra and Hyparrhenia hirta which are more advanced in the flowering or seed-setting stages showed signs of senescence such as a more fibrous stem and a lower leaf area ratio. These changes are likely to happen to reduce their palatability as well as cut down their nutritional value. These changes in vegetative morphology are known to reduce voluntary intake and digestibility among ruminants (Mganga et al., 2021) [9] . The morphological maturity of grasses not only influences their chemical composition but also the grazing dynamics of cattle. Mature plants are more difficult to harvest because of higher levels of lignin and fiber, resulting in poorer nutrient availability. Analysis of forage preferences and pastoral management for cattle can be informed by interpreting cattle beef species as their morphological development occurs, presenting the context for cattle grazing strategies aimed at maximizing forage quality and availability during the grazing season. In Kenya, grasslands are mainly found in the arid and semi-arid regions, where they support pastoral livestock production systems. Grasslands in Kenya are threatened by land degradation, overgrazing, invasive species, climate change, and human population growth. Some of the common grass species in Kenya's rangelands are Cenchrus ciliaris, Chloris roxburghiana, Enteropogon macrostachyus, Eragrostis superba, Pennisetum mezianum and Themeda triandra. Some of the common legume species in Kenya are Desmodium intortum, Desmodium uncinatum, Macroptilium atropurpureum, Stylosanthes guianensis and Trifolium semipilosum. For beef cattle raised in free-range grazing systems to receive enough nutrition, high-quality forages and grasses must be readily available. The sustainability of the grazing system as well as the animal's health and productivity are directly impacted by the choice of forage species, making it an essential decision. Numerous investigations have been carried out to assess the effectiveness of diverse fodder species in the context of free-range grazing. Panicum maximum also referred to as Guinea grass, is one of the fodder grasses that is most frequently utilized in free-range grazing systems. Herrero et al. (2021) [10] examined the performance and nutritional value of beef cattle feeding on Guinea grass. They discovered that the grass supported the cattle's notable weight gains by offering high levels of crude protein and minerals.

The high productivity, palatability, and nutritional value of Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) are well-known, and they are crucial to the success of beef cattle grazing on the grass in semi-arid areas (Mapiye et al., 2019) [11] . The results showed that the Rhodes grass supported adequate weight gains and body condition scores in the cattle, even during dry periods. Due to their resilience to many soil types and climates, Brachiaria species, including Brachiaria brizantha and Brachiaria decumbens, are commonly utilized in free-range grazing systems. A study by Dias-Filho (2022) [12] evaluated the persistence and productivity of different Brachiaria cultivars in grazing environments. The findings highlighted the potential of Brachiaria species to provide high-quality forage for beef cattle while maintaining long-term productivity. Legumes, in addition to grasses, are essential to free-range grazing systems because they increase soil fertility and produce high-quality feed. The potential of the perennial legume Desmodium intortum in mixed grass-legume pastures has been investigated. The effectiveness of beef cattle grazing on Desmodium intortum combined with Panicum maximum was assessed by Muir et al. (2022) [13] . Comparing mixed-forage pastures to grass-only pastures, they discovered that the mixed-forage system supported greater weight growth and better animal performance. Grazing management practices, soil composition, and local climate should all be considered when choosing an appropriate forage species (Milazzo et al., 2023) [14] . Incorporating several forage species can yield mutually beneficial outcomes, such as increased biodiversity, improved nutrient cycling, and enhanced resilience to environmental stresses (Mashece et al., 2024) [15] . Several factors can affect the availability of forages and grasses. Environmental conditions, such as drying or wilting, can also impact availability and alter the composition of forages (Glasser et al., 2013) [16] . Bushfires can cause the disappearance of some quality species. Nutrient availability, particularly nitrogen, plays a crucial role in the production and quality of forage grasses (Costa et al., 2013). Biotic factors, including regeneration, shrub density, and herb density, can influence the availability of grasses for grazing (Ashokkumar et al., 2021) [17] . In general, a combination of biotic and abiotic factors affects the availability of forages and grasses in various ecosystems, which might have an impact on the free-range grazing system in ranching situations. Significant variations in the nutritional profiles of the most popular fodder species were found by proximate composition analysis. There were variations in moisture levels and possible consequences for the storage and preservation of fodder, as evidenced by the dry matter (DM) content, which varied from 15.3% in Eragrostis cilianensis to 47.1% in Themeda triandra (Muktiani et al., 2020) [18] . Crude protein (CP) concentrations varied significantly, from 4.2% in Hyparrhenia hirta to 29.0% in Eragrostis cilianensis, highlighting the various protein sources available among the forages. Leguminous species, such as Trifolium semi-pilosum (Kenya white clover), Sesbania sesban, and Indigofera arrecta (Bengal indigo), exhibited relatively higher CP content, consistent with earlier findings on their potential as protein-rich supplements (Zahran et al., 2021) [19] . Acid detergent fiber (ADF) and, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) fiber fractions showed a wide range, with Hyparrhenia hirta having the highest NDF (79.7%) and ADF (54.3%) values, while Indigofera arrecta had the lowest NDF (24.8%) and Trifolium semi-pilosum the lowest ADF (22.1%). These fiber levels can significantly affect intake and forage digestibility by ruminants (Baloyi et al., 2018) [20] . According to Van Die, (2020) [21] , forages supplying Crude protein (CP) > 12%, Total digestible nutrients (TDN) > 60%, and Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) < 50% are considered of very good quality for grass-fed cattle for beef production. Hyparrhenia hirta had the highest NDF and ADF values, indicating lower digestibility. On the contrary, legumes like Sesbania sesban, Trifolium semi-pilosum, and Indigofera arrecta exhibited lower NDF and ADF levels, suggesting better digestibility. The metabolizable energy (ME) values ranged from 6.3 MJ/kg DM in Hyparrhenia hirta to 11.5 MJ/kg DM in Sesbania sesban, reflecting the potential energy density of these forages for livestock production systems (Bwalya et al., 2022) [22] . An estimation of the energy available from the forages is given by the ME values (Benoit et al., 2024) [23] Legume plant species with higher CP content, such as Trifolium semipilosum and Sesbania sesban may be more suitable for inclusion in livestock diets to meet their protein requirements. On the other hand, plant species with higher fiber content, like Themeda triandra, may be less digestible and may require additional supplementation to meet the animal requirements. The mineral compositions of the most popular fodder species varied significantly, as shown by mineral analysis, and these differences can have a major impact on the productivity and nutrition of cattle. These variations in nutrient content can have implications for livestock feed and forage selection. Minerals are essential nutrients required by livestock for various physiological functions, including growth, reproduction, and immunity (Palomares, 2022) [24] . These variations in nutrient content can have implications for livestock nutrition and forage selection. For instance, plant species with higher nutrient content, such as Sesbania sesban, may be more suitable for inclusion in livestock diets to meet their nutritional requirements. On the other hand, plant species with lower nutrient content, like Eragrostis cilianensis, may need to be supplemented with other feed sources to ensure adequate nutrient intake and improve animal performance. Calcium (Ca) levels ranged from 2.3 g/kg in Eragrostis cilianensis to 15.9 g/kg in Sesbania sesban, demonstrating the potential of these forages to meet the calcium requirements of livestock, mainly during significant physiological stages (Muktiani et al., 2020) [18] . Higher calcium levels were found in legume species such as Sesbania sesban, Indigofera arrecta, and Glycine wightii, which is in line with their function as calcium-rich supplements (Zahran et al., 2021) [19] . The level of phosphorus (P) in the forages under study ranged from 0.4 g/kg in Aristida adscensionis to 5.3 g/kg in Digitaria milanjiana, indicating the variety of sources of this vital element. Sufficient quantities of phosphorus are essential for effective rumen functioning and general animal health (Baloyi et al., 2018) [20] . Variations in the amounts of other important minerals, including magnesium, cobalt, iron, and zinc, were also found by the analysis. For example, the highest Mg content was shown by Indigofera arrecta (10.1 g/kg), while the highest Co level was found in Sesbania sesban (18.4 mg/kg). Eragrostis cilianensis exhibited the greatest Zn content (77.5 mg/kg), while Brachiaria brizantha and Eleusine indica displayed increased Fe concentrations (Bwalya et al., 2022) [22] . These findings highlight the critical importance of understanding the mineral composition of forages and demonstrate how livestock production systems can effectively manage mineral shortages by supplementing and selecting forages carefully.

Conclusion and recommendations

The study provides a detailed profile of the morphological availability and nutrient composition of major forage species during the rainy season, which is vital for forage and pasture management under ranching conditions in Kenya. The study evaluated the preferred forages for beef cattle and their proximate composition under ranching conditions in Kenya. For beef grazing systems on the free range, a large range of forage grasses and legumes are suitable. The ideal choice of preferred forages is determined by variables such as the climate in the area, the state of the soil, and grazing management practices. The results indicate that Kikuyu grass, African couch grass, and grey love grass could be suitable forages for beef cattle production due to their high crude protein content. However, it is important to use a balanced forage mixture to ensure optimal growth and health of the cattle. The findings of this study can inform farmers and policymakers on the selection of suitable forages for beef cattle production under ranching con-ditions in Kenya. It is recommended that livestock owners under ranching conditions should consider incorporating legume plant species with higher nutrient content, such as Sesbania sesban and Kenya white clover, into their forage and feed management practices. The productivity, nitrogen cycling, biodiversity, and resilience of the grazing system can all be improved by integrating a variety of complementary forage species. Further research should be conducted to explore the potential benefits and limitations of using specific plant species with high nutrient content in livestock diets. Livestock owners under ranching conditions should regularly test the nutrient content of their forage and feed sources to ensure that they meet the nutritional requirements of their animals. Evaluation is to be done every ten (10) years to determine the forage availability as it can be affected by many factors such as overgrazing and burning.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgmentThe authors are grateful to Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Project (KCSAP) for financial support and the Director General, Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) for logistical support, KALRO-Muguga and Egerton University Animal Science Department for laboratory analysis, and the Natural Resources Department for the identification of the common forages and grasses.

References

1. Khanal P, Dhakal R, Khanal T, Pandey D, Devkota NR, Nielsen MO. Sustainable livestock production in Nepal: A focus on animal nutrition strategies. Agriculture. 2022;12(5):679.
2. Yadav N, Illa SK, Mukherjee S, Gujar G, Mukherjee A. Bayesian estimates for genetic and phenotypic parameters of growth traits in Sahiwal cattle. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2023;55(1):30.
3. Msuya DG. Pastoralism Beyond Ranching and Its Vulnerabilities as a Farming System, Especially in Semi-arid Tropics of Africa. Research Highlights in Agricultural Sciences. 2022;3:120-137.
4. Kahi AK, Wasike C, Rewe TR. Beef production in the arid and semi-arid lands of Kenya: constraints and prospects for research and development. Outlook on Agriculture. 2006;35(3):217-225.
5. Rewe TO, Herold P, Piepho H, Kahi AK, Zárate AV. Genetic and economic evaluation of a basic breeding program for Kenya Boran cattle. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2010;42:327-340.
6. Caballero VJ, Romero Martinez J, Borrelli LB, Castillo DA, Mikuc JP, Villar ML, Villagra ES. Are winter rangelands enough to satisfy the nutritional requirements of late-gestation transhumant goats in Patagonia? Pastoralism. 2022;12(1):31.
7. Garber B, Alwang J, Norton GW, Bovay J. Beef and the Bottom Line: The Effect of Value-Added Certification on Feeder Cattle Profitability. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 2022;54(1):157-174.
8. Mganga KZ, Kaindi E, Ndathi AJ, Bosma L, Kioko T, Kadenyi N, Musimba NK. Morphoecological characteristics of grasses used to restore degraded semi-arid African rangelands. Ecological Solutions and Evidence. 2021;2(2):e12078. International Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry https://www.veterinarypaper.com 24562912, 2026, 11(9), Downloaded from https://www.doi.org/10.22271/veterinary.2026.v11.i9b.3791 by International Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry on [25/09/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://www.veterinarypaper.com) for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
9. Herrero M, Muñoz C, Delgado G. Nutritional value and performance of beef cattle grazing on Panicum maximum in different regions of Colombia. Journal of Animal Science. 2021;99(6):110.
10. Mapiye C, Mwale M, Chikwava M. Evaluation of Chloris gayana as a forage resource for beef cattle production in semi-arid regions of South Africa. Tropical Grasslands. 2019;7(2):119-128.
11. Dias-Filho MB. Persistence and productivity of Brachiaria cultivars under grazing in the Brazilian Cerrado region. Crop Science. 2022;62(3):1521-1534.
12. Muir JP, Foster JL, Sollenberger LE. Performance of beef cattle grazing mixed Desmodium intortum and Panicum maximum pastures in Florida, USA. Agronomy Journal. 2022;114(3):12651276.
13. Milazzo F, Francksen RM, Abdalla M, Ravetto Enri S, Zavattaro L, Pittarello M, Vanwalleghem T. An overview of permanent grassland grazing management practices and the impacts on principal soil quality indicators. Agronomy. 2023;13(5):1366.
14. Mashece W, Madolo N, Laubscher CP, Ncube B. The Role of Legume Cover Crops in Enhancing Climate Resilience and Water Use Efficiency in South African Grassland Systems. A Review. 2024.
15. Glasser F, Doreau M, Maxin G, Baumont R. Fat and Fatty Acid Content and Composition of Forages: A Meta-analysis. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2013;1-2(185):19-34.
16. Ashokkumar M, Swaminathan S, Nagarajan R. Grass species composition in tropical forest of southern India. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 2021;13(12):19702-19713.
17. Muktiani A, Lukiwati DR, Suyadi A. Proximate composition and in vitro digestibility of some forage plant species in Indonesia. Tropical Animal Science Journal. 2020;43(2):121-128.
18. Zahran EM, El-Tarabany MS, Mahmoud AE. Nutritive value and in vitro rumen fermentation of some browse forages in Egypt. Agroforestry Systems. 2021;95(6):1105-1116.
19. Baloyi JJ, Ngongoni NT, Hamudikuwanda H. Forage dry matter yield and nutritive value of Napier grass accessions in the semiarid areas of South Africa. Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes Tropicales. 2018;6(3):141-150.
20. Bwalya HC, Adesogan AT, Mutavhatsindi TF. Nutritive value of tropical grass and legume silages in Southern Africa: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Animal Research. 2022;50(1):180195.
21. Costa K, Severiano E, Silva FG, Borges EF, Epifânio PS, Guimarães K. Doses and sources of nitrogen on yield and bromatological composition of xaraés grass. Ciência Animal Brasileira. 2021;14:288-298.