ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to evaluate the effect of varying NPK 15;15:15 levels on the forage yield and quality of Brachiaria ruziziensis and performance of Yankasa rams fed different ration of the forage and Concentrate in a total mixed ratioin the Northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. The experiment was laid in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) in a 4×3 factorial arrangement comprising of four rates (0,20,40 and 60 kg/ha) of NPK 15:15:15 replicated three times and age of harvest were 10,12 and 14weeks after sowing. The growth components showed that plant height (74.9 cm) and leaf length (33.3 cm) were significantly (P<0.05) higher at 60kg/ha and 40kg/ha, respectively.Number of tillers (23) weremore (P<0.05) at 12 weeks after sowing (WAS). Varying fertilizer levels significantly (P<0.05) affected fresh forage yield with the highest value (15.8t/ha) recorded at 60kg/ha. Age of cutting also had significant (P<0.05) effect on both fresh forage and dry matter yields. The highest fresh weight yield (16.3t/ha) was recorded at 12 weeks after sowing (WAS) where as dry weight (4.3t/ha) was recorded at 14 weeks after sowing (WAS).Proximate compositions ofcrude protein, crude fiber and nitrogen free extract were significantly (P<0.05) affected by the varying levels of fertilizer, whereas Dry matter, crude protein, crude fibre, ether extract, andnitrogen free extract were significantly (P<0.05) affected by age of cutting. The highest DM (94.3%), CP (8.99%) and CF (39.39%) were recorded at 10, 12 and 12 weeks after sowing (WAS), respectively. ether extract (7.88%) and ash (7.67%) were significantly (P<0.05) higher at 12 weeks after sowing. Calcium content of the forage and Calcium (Ca): Phosphorus (P) ratio were significantly (P<0.05) affected as the level of fertilizer application varied with 60kg/ha rate recording the highest percentage (1.62%) and ratio (6.23:1), respectively. Calcium (Ca), Phosphorus (P) and Ca: P ratio were similar (P>0.05) at different cutting intervals. It can be concluded from the result of this study that NPK 15:15:15 compound fertilizer rate 60 kg/ha on Brachiaria ruziziensis gave the better forage yield, Crude protein was higher when harvested at 12 weeks after sowing, mineral composition (Ca and P) was also optimum. Therefore, NPK 15:15:15 rate of 60 kg/ha is recommended for higherBrachiaria ruziziensis forage yield and nutrient composition for smallholder farmers and livestock owners. In the Second experiment a feeding trial which lasted for (12) weeks was carried out to determine feed intake, nutrient digestibility and nitrogen balance of growing Yankasa rams fed different mixture of Brachiaria ruziziensis/concentrate in a total mixed ration. Sixteen healthy Yankasa rams with an average live weight of 21.75kg±1kg were randomly allocated to four treatments with four replicates in a Complete Randomized Design (CRD). The treatment diets were ratio of Brachiaria ruziziensis to concentrate: (90:10), (80:20), (70:30) and (60:40)mixtures. Feed intake (57.19kg), Daily feed intake (635.48g/day), Average daily gain (61.11g/day), and feed conversion ratio (10.47) were significantly higher (P<0.05) in animals’ fed (60:40) ratio of B.ruzizienss to concentrate mixture and showed a decline across the treatments as the quantity of concentrate inclusion in the mixture decreased. Feed conversion ratio (10.47) was significantly (P<0.05) lower in animals fed (60:40) ratio of B.ruziziensis to concentrate mixture. The DM, OM, CP, CF, EE NFE and ADF digestibility showed significant variation (P<0.05) across the treatments. The Crude protein digestibility (CPD) was significantly (P<0.05) higher (84.25%) in (60:40) ratio B.ruziziensis to concentrate mixture while the least value of 76.12% was recorded in rams fed
viii
B.ruziziensisto concentrate mixture (90:10) ratio. Nitrogen intake, nitrogen absorbed, nitrogen retained and absorbed as percentage of intake (61.28%, 59.16%, 57.58%, 93.75% and 96.48%) respectively were significantly higher (P<0.05) in animals fed (60:40) ration. Rumen pH (6.80), TVFA (Total volatile fatty acid) (44.87 Mmol/100ml), Rumen Ammonia nitrogen (NH4-N) (16.18 mg/100ml) significantly (P<0.05) differed across the treatments and animals fed (60:40) ratio of B.ruziziensis to concentrate mixture ratio recorded the highest value. It can be concluded from this work that feeding Yankasa rams with 60:40 ratio of B.ruziziensis to concentrate mixture in a total mixed ration improved digestibility, utilization resulted in the highest weight gain (5.5kg) and highest revenue (₦4887.7). Feeding of B.ruziziensis to concentrate at a ratio of 60:40 in a total mixed ration is hereby recommended for smallholder farmers and livestock owners in the Northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover page ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… i
Title page ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ii
Declaration ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iii
Certification ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… v
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… vi
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. vii
List of tables ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… xiv
Plates ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. xvi
List of plates ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… xvi
Acronyms and abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………………………. xvii
CHAPTER ONE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
1.2 Justification for the Study. ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
1.3 Objectives of the study……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
1.4 Hypothesis: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
CHAPTER TWO ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
2.0 Literature review ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
2.1 History of Brachiaria………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
2.2 Adaptation and distribution of Brachiaria ruziziensis …………………………………………………….. 7
2.3 Morphological description of Brachiaria ruziziensis ……………………………………………………… 8
2.3.1 Genetics and breeding…………………………………………………….. …………………….. 9
2.3.2 Varieties and cultivars………………………………………………………………………….. 11
2.3.3 Brachiaria ruziziensis as a forage crop……………………………………. ………………….. 12
2.4 Environmental requirements ……………………………………………………………………………………… 13
x
2.4.1 Soil requirements…………………………………………………………… ………………… 13
2.4.2 Temperature requirement…………………………………………………. ………………….. .14
2.4.3 Light requirement………………………………………………………………………………. 14
2.4.4 Moisture requirement……………………………………………………… ………………….. 15
2.5.0 Land preparation, establishment and management …………………………………………………….. 16
2.5.1 Method of sowing………………………………………………………… …………………… 17
2.5.2 Sowing of Brachiaria ruziziensis……………………………………………………………… 17
2.5.3 Establishment of Brachiaria ruziziensis………………………………….. …………………… 17
2.5.4 Growth vigour of Brachiaria ruziziensis…………………………………. …………………… 18
2.5.5 Weeding and fertility management of Brachiaria ruziziensis……………. …………………… 18
2.6 Cropping system and crop management practices of Brachiaria species ………………………… 19
2.6.1 Compatibility of Brachiaria ruziziensis with other grasses and legumes……………………… 20
2.6.2 Pests and diseases of Brachiaria ruziziensis species……………………… ………………….. 21
2.6.3 Nutritive value and digestibility of Brachiaria ruziziensis species……….. ………………….. 22
2.7.0 Production potential of Brachiaria ruziziensis ………………………………………………………….. 23
2.7.1 Fresh and dry-matter yields………………………………………………. …………………… 23
2.7.2 Tillering and seed production (Seed yield, processing and storage)………. …………………. 24
2.8 Utilization of Brachiaria ruziziensis …………………………………………………………………………… 25
2.8.1 Animal production on Brachiaria ruziziensis…………………………….. …………………… 25
2.8.2 Grazing management of Brachiaria ruziziensis………………………….. …………………… 26
2.8.3 Utilization of Bracharia species for silage and hay……………………… ……………………. 29
2.8.4 Poisonous aspects of Brachiaria…………………………………………….. ……………….. 29
CHAPTER THREE …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHOD ………………………………………………………………………………. 31
xi
Experiment 1: Effect of NPK 15:15:15 rates on the agronomic characteristics ofBrachiaria ruziziensis. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
3.1 Experimental Site and Climate ………………………………………………………………………………….. 31
3.2 Meteorological data of the experimental site ……………………………………………………………….. 31
3.3 Soil sampling and analysis. ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
3.4Experimental plot, land preparation and experimental design. ………………………………………… 33
3.5Data collection. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
Experiment 2: Performance of Yankasa rams fed mixture ratios of Brachiaria ruziziensis and concentrate ration ………………………………………………………………………………………… 34
3.6Location of study ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34
3.7 Curing and preparation of hay …………………………………………………………………………………… 34
3.8 Management of experimental animals ………………………………………………………………………… 37
3.9 Experimental design, treatments and feeding ………………………………………………………………. 37
3.10 Live weight changes ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38
3.11 Digestibility trial ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38
3.12 Chemical analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38
3.13 Cost benefit analysis of feeding Brachiaria ruzizienisis to the yankasa rams …………………. 39
3.14 Statistical analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39
CHAPTER FOUR ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41
4.0 RESULTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
4.1 Experiment 1: Effect of Fertilizer rates on Forage Yield and Quality of (Brachiaria ruziziensis)…………………………………………………………………………………41
4.1.1Soil characteristics of the experimental Site ………………………………………………………………. 41
4.1.2 Effect of fertilizer rates on growth and yield components of Brachiaria ruziziensis……..43
4.1.3 Effect of fertilizer rates and age of cutting on fresh and dry forage yield… ………………….. 45
xii
4.1.4 Proximate Composition of Brachiaria ruziziensis hay……………………. ………………….. 47
4.1.5 Effect of NPK fertilizer rates on mineral composition of Brachiaria ruziziensis. ………….. 49
4.2 Experiment 2: Performance of Yankasa rams fed Brachiaria Ruziziensis to concentrate ratios in a total mixed ration……………………………………………………………..51
4.2.1 Chemical composition and energy content of Brachiaria ruziziensis and concentrate ratio in a total mixed ration……………………………………………………… …………………. 51
4.2.2 Growth performance of Yankasa rams fed Brachiaria ruziziensis and concentratemixture ratios in a total mixed ration………………………………………………. ………………….. 53
4.2.3 Nutrient digestibility of Brachiaria ruziziensis and concentrate mixture ratio dietfed to Yankasa rams………………………………………………………………………………55
4.2.4 Nitrogen balance in Yankasa rams fed Brachiaria ruziziensis and concentrate mixture ratios in a total mixed ration………………………………………………………. ………………… 57
4.2.5 Effects of feeding Brachiaria ruziziensis to concentrate mixture ratios in a totalmixed ration on some rumen metabolites of Yankasa rams…………………….. ……………………. 59
4.2.6 Cost benefit analysis of feeding Brachiaria ruziziensis and concentrate mixtureratio diets to Yankasa rams………………………………………………………….. 61
CHAPTER FIVE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63
5.0 DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63
Experiment 1: Effect of Fertilizer rates on Forage Yield and Quality of (Brachiariaruziziensis). ………………………………………………………………………………………… 63
5.1.1 Effect of fertilizer rates on yield components……………………………. …………………… 63
5.1.2 Effect of fertilizer rates and age of cutting on fresh and dry forage yield… ………………….. 63
5.1.3 Proximate composition of Brachiaria ruziziensis hay……………………. …………………… 64
5.1.4 Effect of fertilizer rates and age of cutting on mineral composition……….. ………………… 65
5.2 Experiment 2: Performance of Yankasa rams fed Brachiaria ruziziensis to concentrate ratios in a total mixed ration……………………………………………………………66
5.2.1 Chemical composition and energy content of Brachiaria ruziziensis tconcentrate ratio in a total mixed ration…………………………………………………………. ………………….. 66
xiii
5.2.2 Growth performance of Yankasa rams fed Brachiaria ruziziensis toconcentrate mixture ratio diet in a total mixed ration………………………………………….. …………………… 66
5.2.3 Nutrient digestibility of Brachiaria ruziziensis to concentrate mixtures ratios fedto Yankasa rams…………………………………………………………….. 67
5.2.4 Nitrogen balance in Yankasa rams fed Brachiaria ruziziensis to concentrate mixture ratios in a total mixed ration……………………………………………………. ……………………. 68
5.2.5 Effects of feeding Brachiaria ruziziensis to concentrate mixtures ratios in a total mixed ration on some rumen metabolites of Yankasa rams…………………….. ……………………. 69
5.2.6 Cost analysis of feeding Brachiaria ruziziensis to concentrate mixtures ratios to Yankasa rams …………………………..……………………………………………………………70
CHAPTER SIX …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 72
6.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ……………………………………. 72
6.1 SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 72
6.2 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 74
6.3 RECOMMENDATION ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 75
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 76
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Small ruminants play a key role in bridging the wide gap in the supply of animal protein for human consumption (Osinowo et al., 1991) because of their special features with relatively short generation interval as compared to cattle and they have high reproductive rate and low production cost. Given the estimated population of 34.5 million goats and 22.1 million sheep and specifically about 70 percent of the sheep and goat populations are concentrated in the northern region of the country(FDLPCS, 1992). Concentration of Nigeria’s livestock-base in the northern region is mostly influenced by the climate of the region, which is characterized by low rainfall duration, lighter sandy soils and longer dry season. Therefore, the importance and advantages of small ruminants in northern Nigeria cannot be over looked.
Feed scarcity is one of the major constraints to livestock production in the West African Sub-region (Glatzle, 1992). The poor quality of feed resources available to ruminants results into a low plane of nutrition (Doma et al., 1999)and low productivity of our indigenous animals (Otchere et al., 1987). Similarly,a major constraint to livestock production in developing countries such as Nigeria is the scarcity and fluctuating quantity and quality of all year-round feed supply. The hope of feeding the rapidly growing human population will depend on the enhanced and efficient utilization of unconventional resources that cannot be used as food for humans or for livestock (Ørskov,1999). The major challenge to livestock production is ensuring adequate feed supply throughout the year in terms of quality and quantity (Kallah. et al.,1997).Ruminants depend largely on crop residues during the long dry periods of the year for maintenance as well as production of
2
meat, milk, skin and fibre. Ruminants are fed mainly on agro-industrial by- products containing a large portion of ligno-cellulose feeds such as cereal crop residues, straws,stovers and native pastures and other related feeds. These feeds are usually poor in protein, energy, minerals and vitamins (Kapu, 1975; Bogoro, 1997).Ruminants in the tropics are raised predominantly on grasses which are inherently poor in digestibility, nutritive value and unavailable in the dry-season (Babayemi, 2009). Feeding grains to ruminants is unrealistic, because of the stiff competition from man, industrial raw materialsand monogastric animals. On the other hand, ruminants are characterized by their ability to convert low quality roughage to products that are useful to man e.g. meat, milk natural fibers, leather and manure. Ideally, ruminants should graze on arable areas, utilize crop residues when crops are harvested, Crops such as maize, sugarcane, grains, sorghum, wheat, millet, rice, cowpea and vegetables are usually utilized in animal feeding.
The main feed resources for ruminant animals are pastures, crop residues and other agro-industrial by-products. In the dry season and post-harvest periods, these feed resources become the main sources of energy for ruminants when poor quality forages from the range land prevail (Kibon and Ørskov, 1993). The quantity and quality of available feedstuffs are the major factors influencing productivity of ruminants in many parts of the world, especially in regions with high animal numbers.Cropresidues are potential feed resources especially during the dry season. However, cereals cropresidues are generally low in digestibility, because of their high fibre content and are deficient in nitrogen, minerals and vitamins. The cell walls of low-quality roughages are generally high in indigestible
3
fractions of lignin and silica (Jayasuriya, 1986).However, animal performance with such feedstuffs may be poor due to low voluntary intake and digestibility, which result from low protein concentrations and high levels of indigestible or slowly degradable fibre (Abdel- Hameed et al., 2013).The feeding value of a grass particularly if related to percentage of crude protein (CP), acid detergent fibre (ADF) and neutral detergent fibre (NDF), as well as invitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), depend on the age and the part of the plant that is analysed, the time of the year it is harvested and the soil fertility conditions. Importantly,one of the major constraints of small ruminant production in Nigeria is nutrition, in which feeding constitutes about 85% of total cost of production (Alawa and Umunna, 1993). Therefore, feeding strategies are needed to increase animal performance using tropical grasses (Eugene et al., 2010). The feed shortage for ruminants can be alleviated by deliberately cultivating forages. Availability of high-quality sown forages is important in the sense that their potential values lie in the provision of protein, vitamins and also the mineral elements that are lacking in natural pastures during the dry season (Bamikole et al., 2004).Similarly, ruminants in the tropical and sub-tropical countries are likely to depend almost entirely on pasture and agricultural by-products of relatively poor nutritional status. Improvement in ruminant production will therefore require increased effort in investigating the different possible ways and means of upgrading poor roughages through increasing their digestibility and voluntary intake (Fadel, 2004).
Brachiaria is one of the most important forage grass for pastures in the tropics (Singh, 2009).Brachiaria is a genus of grass originating from the savannas of Eastern Africa and several species are widely used as livestock feed. Brachiaria species are either annual or
4
perennial grasses, with most of the species lacking rhizomes. The inflorescence has panicle branches composed of racemes and the entire plant usually do not grow higher than 1m. Brachiaria is a C4 plant which tolerates drier conditions and more light exposure than many other plants (Watson and Dallwitz, 2008).
(Silva et al. 2004) reported that species of the genus Brachiaria are frequently used in no-till systems because these plants are highly adaptable and tolerant to limiting conditions that would affect other forage species negatively. B. ruziziensis has a good nutritive value and is more palatable than most other Brachiaria spp. Its crude protein (CP) content commonly ranged from 7–13% and up to 20% with dry matter digestibility of 55–75%. A B. ruziziensisgrasshay cut 45 days after seeding in northeast Thailand, hadIVDMD, crude fibre, NDF and ME concentrations of 61%, 80.5%, 72.8% and 7.9 MJ/kg, respectively. Selective grazing, heavy grazing pressure and low soil fertility can result in the loss of B. ruziziensisgrass(Schultze-Kraft and Teitzel, 1992).
Brachiariaspecies have been known since the 1950’s inBrazil, but the actual acreage expansion occurred in the ’70s and ’80s, mainly in tropical regions. Of the genus Brachiaria, the species B. brizantha, B.ruziziensis and B. decumbens are the most widely used in Brazil (Zimer et al., 1995).Brachiaria cultivars have impacted the economy of various countries in the tropics because of their ability to grow so well in low fertility acid soils and still able to produce highly nutritious forage for many ruminants. In the past 25-30 years,Brachiaria cultivation and export has become a major component of sown pastures (Singhet al., 2009). In South America, Brazil represents the leading user of Brachiaria forage. Brachiaria grass has a rapid growth especially in the wet season. Its compatibility
5
with Stylosanthes humilis and S. hamata is highly noted and also its ease of establishment (Miles et al., 1996). Brachiaria ruziziensis combines well with other grasses and legumes.
1.2 Justification for the Study.
The feed shortage and quality are the main problems of ruminant animals and this often leads to clashes between farmers and herders as a result of encroachment into the farmlands. Ruminants in such areas depend largely on availability of crop residues most especially during the long dry season of the year. This can be met by deliberately cultivatingforage plants to feed animals which may offer solution. Availability of high-quality sown forages is important in the sense that their potential values lie in the provision of protein, vitamins and also the mineral elements that are inadequate in natural grassland pastures during the dry season (Bamikole et al., 2004). Brachiaria cultivars have impacted the economy of Brazil and Zaire, because the plant has the ability to grow so well in low fertility acid soils of the countries and is also able to produce highly nutritious forage for many ruminants. Its crude protein (CP) content commonly ranged from 7-13% and sometimes to 20%, with dry matter digestibility of 55-75%. In the past 25-30 years, Brachiaria cultivation and export has become a major component of sown pastures in the tropics (Singh, 2009).
1.3 Objectives of the study
The general objective of this study was to determine the effect of varying levels of NPK 15:15:15 fertilizer on the forage yield, quality and nutrient digestibility of B.ruziziensis in the provision of protein, vitamins and mineral elements that are inadequate in natural grazing lands of the semi-arid zone of Nigeria.
6
The Specific objectives include:
To determine the growth components, dry matter yields and chemical composition of Brachiaria ruziziensis as affected by different levels of NPK 15:15:15.
To determine the feed intake, performance and nutrient digestibility of Yankasa sheep fed mixture ratios of Brachiaria ruziziensis and concentrate in a total mixed ration.
1.4 Hypothesis:
Experiment 1:Effect of fertilizer rates on the agronomic characteristics of Brachiaria ruziziensis. HO: Varying levels of NPK 15:15:15 have no effect on forage yield and quality of Brachiaria ruziziensis. HA: Varying levels of a NPK 15:15:15 havean effect on forage yield and quality of Brachiaria ruziziensis. Experiment 2:Performance of Yankasa rams fed varied ratios of Brachiaria ruziziensis: concentrate in a total mixed ration. HO: Feed ratios of Brachiaria ruziziensisto concentrate mixture in a total mixed ration have no effect on performance and Nutrient digestibility of Yankasa rams. HA: Feed ratios of Brachiaria ruziziensisto concentrate mixture in a total mixed ration have effect on performance and nutrient digestibility of Yankasa rams
IF YOU CAN'T FIND YOUR TOPIC, CLICK HERE TO HIRE A WRITER»
