Home > Environmental studies essays > Effect of Using Sesbania sesban and Its Mixtures with some Summer Fresh Grasses on Lambs Productive Performance in New Reclaimed Soil

Essay: Effect of Using Sesbania sesban and Its Mixtures with some Summer Fresh Grasses on Lambs Productive Performance in New Reclaimed Soil

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): Environmental studies essays
  • Reading time: 20 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 16 June 2021*
  • Last Modified: 22 July 2024
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 2,239 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 9 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 2,239 words.

Abstract: The objective of this work was to study cultivation sesbania and its mixtures with sorghum or millet in reclaimed sandy soil, then utilization the green forages in feeding of growing lambs for 16 weeks in two stages (The 1st cut was fed in the 1st stage through the first 8 weeks and 2nd cut was fed in the 2nd stage through the last 8 weeks).Twenty four Ossimi lambs averaged 22.5 kg body weight were divided into four groups (6 in each) to evaluate the following rations: Ration A (control): 100% from requirements of CP according to NRC(1985) from Concentrate Feed Mixture (CFM) + Rice straw ad lib., Ration B: 50% from requirements of CP according to NRC from CFM + Sesbania ad lib., Ration C: 50% from requirements of CP according to NRC from CFM + Sesbania-Sorghum mixture (1:1) ad lib. and Ration D: 50% from requirements of CP according to NRC from CFM + Sesbania-Millet mixture (1:1) ad lib. Digestibility trials were conducted to evaluate the experimental rations using 12 rams (3 in each). The rumen parameters were measured and forage yield was determined. Results showed that DM and CF% were lower and CP% was higher in Sesbania than Sorghum, Millet, Sesbania-Sorghum mixture and Sesbania-Millet mixture. The differences among all rations in digestion coefficients of DM, OM, CP, NFEand TDN% of tested rations were not significant. The ruminal parameters explained that the pH of control was significantly higher than other groups at all times in 2nd stage, while the differences among other groups were not significant. The differences of ammonia-N at 2hrs after feeding were not significant among groups, while ammonia-N of control was significantly higher than other groups at 4hrs, and the differences among other groups were not significant at the same time. The differences number of TVFA’s among groups were not significant in 1st stage. The differences of protozoa at 4 hrs post feeding were not significant among all groups. The differences of microbial protein were not significant among all groups in the 1st stage. The highest cost value of feed consumption was recorded with control. The daily body gain(DBG) were 156.1, 150.3, 154 and 154.8 gm/h/d for lamb groups which fed rations A, B, C and D respectively and the differences of DBG among four groups were not significant. The best feed conversion and economical efficiency were recorded with ration D. The green forage yield of Sesbania pure, Sesbania-Sorghum mixture and Sesbania-Millet mixture were 10.85, 15.31 and 15.30 ton/feddan, dry yield were 2.22, 3.32 and 3.34 ton/feddan, and crude protein yield were 403, 451 and 478kg/feddan, respectively.
Keywords: Sesbania, Sorghum, Millet, Rams, Lambs, Digestion coefficients, Rumen, DBG, Feed conversion, yield.
INTRODUCTION
The animals suffer from shortage of feed especially during summer season in Egypt. Most of animal feeding in this period depends on concentrate feed mixtures and agricultural residues. The expensive price of energy sources as grains or protein sources as Soybean meal and Cotton seed meal tend to increase feed cost of animals. The green forage is cheap food for ruminant feeding. The most green forages in summer season in Egypt are grasses as Sorghum, Sudan grass and Millet. Grasses have higher yield than legumes, but they are considered poor in quality due to low protein content and essential amino acids, therefore sowing legumes in mixtures with grasses improves the quality of forage by increasing protein content and reducing crude fiber content.
Some practical studies were carried out to utilization some mixtures of legumes and grasses in ruminant feeding in summer season such as cowpea with sorghum (Gabra et al.1991), cowpea with millet (Fathia et al, 2008 and Abd El-Hamid et al.2008), Sesbania with Teosinte (Soliman et al.1997 and Soliman and Haggag, 2002), and sesbania with sudan grass (Fathia et al.2008 and Abd El-Hamid et al.2008). Generally, some studies were carried out for cultivation Sesbania sesban as a new legume crop in clay soils pure or its mixtures with some grasses in Egypt (Soliman etal.1997, Haggag etal.2000, Fathia A.Ibrahim etal.2008 and Abd El-Hamid et al.2008).
The objective of this work is cultivation of Sesbania Sesban pure and its mixtures with sorghum or millet in reclaimed sandy soil and its utilization instead of a part from concentrate feed mixture in feeding of sheep.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was carried out at Ismailia Research Station (Ismailia governorate) and Animal Nutrition Unit of Ismailia (Animal Production Research Institute), Agricultural Research Center and Research laboratories, Faculty of Agricultural, Suez Canal University, Egypt. Cultivation was practiced in reclaimed sandy soil of Ismailia Research Station farm.
The green forages were cultivated during summer season. Pure Sesbania, Sesbania-Sorghum mixture and Sesbania-Millet mixture were cultivated for feeding sheep. The normal recommended agronomic practices of forages in sandy soil as fertilization and irrigation were applied. Two cuts from green forages were taken. The 1st cut were done after about 60 days from planting. The 2nd cut were taken after about 45 days from the 1 st Cut. The yield of Sesbania, Sesbania-Sorghum mixture and Sesbania-Millet mixture were estimated.
Four experimental rations were used as the follows:
Ration A (control): 100 % Concentrate Feed Mixture (CFM) as requirements of CP according to NRC (1985) + Rice straw ad lib.
Ration B: 50% CFM of requirements of CP according to NRC + Sesbania ad lib.
Ration C: 50% CFM of requirements of CP according to NRC + Sesbania-Sorghum mix. (1:1) ad lib.
Ration D: 50% CFM of requirements of CP according to NRC + Sesbania-Millet mix. (1: 1) ad lib.
Four digestibility trials were conducted to evaluate the experimental rations using 12 rams (3 in each), 2-3 years age and an average weight of 40 kg. Rams were individually housed in metabolic cages, Preliminary period was 15 days and a collection period was 5 days, followed 3 days of ruminal studies.
Composite samples of different forages and feces were dried at 60oC for 24 hrs then milling to pass through a 1 mm screen and stored for chemical analysis. Chemical composition of representative samples of CFM, RS, forages, refusals and feces were determined according to AOAC (1985) procedures.
Rumen fluid samples were taken using a stomach tube at 0 time (before feeding), 2hr and 4hr post feeding. These samples were filtered through three layers of surgical gauze without squeezing. Ruminal pH was immediately estimated by digital pH meter. Rumen ammonia-N was determined according to Conway (1957). Total volatile fatty acids (TVFA���s) were measured by the steam distillation method as described by Warner (1964). Total number of protozoa was counted by using Fuchs Rosenthal chamber. Microbial protein was determined by sodium tungestate method according to Shultz and Shultz (1970).
Twenty four growing Ossimi lambs averaged 22.5 kg body weight were divided into four groups (6 in each) and were randomly assigned to evaluate the productive performance of lambs fed the four rations.
The CFM was daily offered in two equal portions at 8 am and 4 pm. The green forages were weighed and offered ad lib. Residual were collected and weighed daily. Drinking water was available all time. The growth experiments lasted 16 weeks, which included two stages as 8 weeks in 1 st cut (1st stage) and 8 weeks in 2 nd cut (2nd stage).The experimental lambs were weighed every two weeks. Feed conversion and economical efficiency were calculated.
All data were subjected to analysis was performed using the General linear Models procedure of the SAS (2002). Mean differences were compared using Duncan ‘ multiple range test (Duncan, 1955). Data were analyzed using the following mathematical model:
Yij = �� + Ti + eij
Yij = Individual observation.
��=theoverall mean for the trial under consideration.
Ti = the effect of the ith treatment.
eij=Random residual error.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Chemical Composition: The chemical composition of successive cuts of green forages and concentrate feed mixture (CFM) + rice straw (RS) are presented in Table 1. The DM, and CF% were lower in Sesbania than Sorghum, Millet, Sesbania-Sorghum mixture and Sesbania-Millet mixture in 1st and 2nd cuts. The CP content in Sesbania was nearly double CP in Sorghum. While CP content in Sesbania was slightly higher than its mixtures. EE content was higher in Sesbania than Sorghum and millet, while mixtures of Sesbania with Sorghum were slightly higher than Sesbania pure. NFE Content of Sorghum was slightly higher than Sesbania and its mixtures. Ash content of Sesbania was lower than Millet and Millet-Sesbania mixture. Chemical Composition values of Sesbania obtained in this study within the chemical composition data obtained by Abdel-Rahman et al.(1995), Singh et al.(1980), El-Nahrawy and Soliman, (1998), Haggag et al.(2000) and Soliman and Haggag (2002). However the chemical composition of mixtures depends on the kind of plants and mix percentages. Similar results were reported by Manaye etal. (2009) in Napier grass + Sesbania. Fathia et al. (2008) found that DM percent of Sesbania-Sudan grass mixture were 23.31 and 25.13% in 1st and 2nd cuts. The CP content in this studyof Sesbania mixtures with Sorghum or Millet take the same trend obtained by Fathia et al. (2008) with Sesbania-Sudan grass mixture. Chemical Composition of the tested rations (Table 1) explained that the ration contained CFM + Sesbania had high level of CP and NFE than rations contaied CFM+Sesbania-Sorghum mixture or CFM+Sesbania-Millet mixture. The three tested rations had similar values in EE and ash content. Similar trend was reported by Soliman and Haggag, (2002). Who found that the mixtures of Sesbania+Teosinte (4:6 ratio) +CFM had CP 15.85, NFE% 50.68 and CF 19.43%. Generally, the calculated chemical composition differ with different in green forage intake. The CP% was lower and NFE% was higher in control ration than rations contained green forage.
Digestibility trials:
Feed intake: The values of DM intake (Table 2) as kg/h/d, %LBW and g/kg w0.75 were significantly higher in control ration than rations contains CFM and green forages. The lowest values of DM intake was showed by rams fed ration B. The differences between rations C and D were not significant. The values of DM intake (% of LBW) in this study were nearly similar with values recorded by El-Nahrawy and Soliman (1998) and Haggag et al. (2000). Soliman et al. (1997) found that average DM intake from Sesbania + CFM, Sesbania + Teosinte + CFM were 3.03, 2.70% of LBW of goats.
Digestion coefficients: The differences among all rations in digestion coefficients of DM, OM, CP and NFE% of tested rations were not significant (Table 2). The CF digestibility of rations C and D were significantly higher than ration B or control in the 1st stage, while the differencesamong all rations in 2nd stage were not significant. The DM and OM digestibility agreed with those obtainedby Soliman and Haggag (2002). The CF and NFE digestibility were nearly similar with Rekib and Shukla (1995). On the other hand DM and OM digestability in this study were lower than that obtained by Soliman et al. (1997), El-Nahrawy and Soliman (1998) and Fathia etal. (2008).
The CP digestibility in agreement with those obtained by Fathia et al. (2008) and Ahmed et al. (2009), while the CP digestibility was higher than that obtained by Soliman et al. (1997), El-Nahrawy and Soliman (1998) and Soliman and Haggag (2002). The CF digestibility in this study was nearly similar with results obtained by Soliman and Haggag, (2002). Generally, digestion coefficients are affected by different factors as animal species, activities of rumen microbes, feed components and associated effect.
Nutritive values: The differences of TDN among four rations were not significant, the DCP of ration B was significantly higher than other rations (Table2). The highest value of DCP of Sesbania ration may be due to high digestibility of CP. This results agreed with those obtained by Soliman etal. (1997) with goats fed Sesbania+CFM. However, the TDN and DCP% of Sesbania-Millet mixture in this study was nearly similar with those obtained by Fathia et al. (2008) and Soliman and Haggag (2002). El-Nahrawy and Soliman (1998) found that TDN and DCP% of Sesbania+CFM fed by sheep were 69.90 and 14.30 %, respectively. Generally TDN% is differ with different in chemical composition and nutrient digestibility, and DCP% depend on crude protein in the rations and digestion coefficients of CP.
Table (1): Chemical composition, % of successive cuts of green forage, Concentrate feed mixture, rice straw and calculated rations (on DM basis).
Items DM% Chemical composition(% on DM basis)
OM CP EE CF NFE Ash
Green forage, 1st cut
Sesnania 19.12 92.08 19.39 2.66 17.45 52.58 7.92
Sorghum 20.66 92.27 8.16 2.11 25.73 56.27 7.73
Millet 21.26 90.58 11.18 2.04 27.38 49.98 9.42
Sesbania-Sorghum mix. 20.46 92.28 14.11 3.38 28.67 46.12 7.72
Sesbania-Millet mix 21.02 90.17 15.87 2.40 28.05 43.85 9.83
Green forage, 2nd cut
Sesnania 22.21 91.76 16.65 2.99 20.55 51.57 8.24
Sorghum 24.32 92.97 9.24 2.39 26.75 54.59 7.03
Millet 23.56 89.38 8.09 2.01 27.41 51.87 10.62
Sesbania-Sorghum mix. 23.27 92.04 12.94 3.51 28.77 46.82 7.96
Sesbania-Millet mix 22.89 89.80 12.37 2.50 27.63 47.30 10.20
Concentrate feed mixture 94.78 89.98 17.39 3.21 13.35 56.03 10.02
Rice straw 88.87 87.04 4.57 1.40 24.86 56.21 12.96
Calculated rations
1st stage (1st cut)
Ration A (Control) 93.14 89.04 13.31 2.63 17.01 56.09 10.96
Ration B 30.4 90.82 18.19 2.99 14.99 54.65 9.18
Ration C 31.35 91.16 15.71 3.30 21.18 50.97 8.84
Ration D 31.95 90.08 16.58 2.78 21.16 49.56 9.92
2nd stage (2nd cut)
Ration A (Control) 93.04 88.91 12.73 2.55 17.53 56.10 11.09
Ration B 31.19 90.78 17.06 3.11 16.59 54.02 9.22
Ration C 32.34 91.15 14.87 3.38 22.08 50.82 8.85
Ration D 31.96 89.88 14.75 2.84 20.85 51.44 10.12
Table (2): Intake, digestion coefficients and nutritive values% of experimental rations fed by rams.
Items Ration A (control) B Ration C Ration Ration D
Dry matter intake, 1st stage (1st cut)
CFM (Kg/h/d) 1.07 0.52 0.51 0.52
RS (Kg/h/d) 0.61 – – –
Forages (Kg/h/d) – 0.34 0.53 0.58
Total (Kg/h/d) 1.68a 0.86c 1.04b 1.09b
Total DM intake,(% LBW) 4.04a 2.11c 2.64b 2.73b
DM intake,(g / kg W 0.75) 102.53a 53.21c 65.80b 68.79b
Dry matter intake, 2nd stage (2nd cut)
CFM (Kg/h/d) 1.12 0.53 0.49 0.51
RS (Kg/h/d) 0.52 – – –
Forages (Kg/h/d) – 0.44 0.64 0.56
Total (Kg/h/d) 1.64a 0.97c 1.13b 1.07bc
Total DM intake, (%LBW) 3.53a 2.31c 2.98ab 2.73bc
DM intake, (kg / kg W 0.75) 92.10a 58.69c 73.70b 68.33b
Digestion coefficients%, 1st stage(1st cut)
DM 58.32a 59.34a 58.62a 62.68a
OM 64.86a 66.82a 64.23a 69.96a
CP 72.27a 80.35a 75.68a 78.02a
CF 46.87ab 30.10b 51.91a 59.01a
EE 83.54a 63.15b 75.93ab 74.23ab
NFE 67.94a 72.60a 64.99a 71.70a
Digestion coefficients%, 2nd stage (2nd cut)
DM 61.14a 60.49a 56.81a 64.76a
OM 66.89a 67.96a 62.42a 69.62a
CP 77.03a 77.61a 73.60a 78.06a
CF 50.43a 49.54a 51.93a 62.82a
EE 88.60a 81.25ab 71.42c 73.32bc
NFE 68.45a 69.82a 63.10a 69.80a
Nutritive values %, 1st stage (1st cut)
TDN 60.33a 63.05a 61.68a 65.60a
DCP 9.22c 14.62a 11.89b 12.94b
Nutritive values%, 2nd stage(2nd cut)
TDN 62.47a 64.90a 59.91a 65.20a
DCP 10.26c 13.24a 10.95bc 11.51b
a, b and c means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05).
Ruminal parameters: Ruminal parameters are presented in Table3.
Ruminal pH values: The maximum pH values were recorded at 0 hr (before feeding) with all groups then significantly decreased with advanced time (2 and 4 hrs) post feeding in all treatments. Similar trend was observed by Soliman etal. (1997), Haggag et al. (2000) and Fathia et al. (2008). The pH value of group fed ration B was significantly higher than control and insignificantly higher than other groups at 2 hrs in 1st stage, while the pH of group fed ration C was insignificantly higher than that fed ration D and significantly higher than other groups at 4hrs in the same stage. However, the pH of control was significantly higher than other groups at all times in 2nd stage, while the differences among other groups were not significant. However, the obtained pH values after feeding ranged from 5.88 to 6.45. This values are within the normal ranges for normally functions in rumen (5.5 to 7.3) as recorded by Hungate (1966).
Ammonia-N (NH3-N): The NH3-N were significantly higher post feeding than before feeding. The same trend was showed by soliman etal. (1997), Haggag et al. (2000) and Fathia et al. (2008). The differences among all groups at 2 hrs after feeding were not significant. The NH3-N of control was significantly higher than other groups at 4hrs, while the differences among other groups were not significant at the same time.
Nearly similar values of NH3-N of Sesbania + Tosinte + CFM was showed by Soliman etal. (1997) and with Sesbania-Sudan grass mixture + CFM which showed by Fathia etal. (2008). generally, ammonia level depend on CP in the rations and degradability degree of CP in the rumen.
Table (3): Rumen fluid parameters of rams fed on experimental rations fed by rams.
Rumen fluid parameters Stages hrs.post
feeding Experimental rations
Ration A (control) Ration B Ration C Ration D
pH stage 1st 0 7.18Aa 7.46Aa 7.44Aa 7.39Aa
2 6.37Bb 6.71Ba 6.51Bab 6.48Bab
4 6.28Bb 6.38Cb 6.68Ba 6.51Bab
2ndstage 0 7.18Aa 6.83Ab 6.82Ab 6.86Aab
2 6.45Ba 5.96Bb 5.88Bb 5.95Bb
4 6.30Ba 6.07Bb 6.11Bab 5.99Bb
Ammonia-N
(mg/100 ml rumen fluid) stage 1st 0 19.04Ba 13.49Cb 13.67Bb 12.46Cb
2 33.37Aa 29.07Aa 26.37Aa 31.87Aa
4 34.58Aa 23.43Bb 23.38Ab 25.90Bb
2ndstage 0 16.94Bb 17.50Bb 23.47Ba 18.99C
2 31.26Aa 29.87Aa 33.18Aa 32.15Ba
4 34.39Aa 27.53Ab 29.03Ab 29.71Ab
T VFA���s (meq/100ml rumen fluid) stage 1st 0 4.25Ba 4.20Ba 4.35Ba 4.60Ba
2 5.92Aa 5.90Aa 5.63Aa 6.40Aa
4 5.52Aa 6.20Aa 6.17Aa 6.50Aa
2ndstage 0 4.13Ba 4.63Ba 4.17Ba 4.20Ba
2 5.73Ab 6.70Aab 7.00Aa 6.33Aab
4 5.52Ab 6.03Aab 6.12Aab 6.72Aa
Number of protozoa (106 /ml rumen fluid) stage 1st 0 0.61Bbc 0.93Aa 0.55Bc 0.79Bab
2 1.70Aa 1.29Aab 0.90ABb 1.12ABb
4 1.91Aa 1.66Aa 1.29Aa 1.43Aa
2ndstage 0 0.55Bb 0.78Ba 0.64Bab 0.82Ba
2 2.13Aa 1.55Aa 1.66Aa 1.71Aa
4 2.22Aa 1.53Aa 1.72Aa 1.55Aa
Microbial protein(g/100ml rumen fluid) 1st stage 4 0.50a 0.61a 0.62a 0.60a
2ndstage 4 0.55a
0.55a
0.45b
0.50ab
A,B and C means in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05).
ab and c means in the same rows with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05).
The rams in 1st stage which fed green forage were fed 1st cut.
The rams in 2nd stage which fed green forage were fed 2nd cut.
Total volatile fatty acids (TVFA’s): The lowest total VFA’s was recorded at 0 hr, then significantly increased at 2hrs and 4 hrs post feeding, and the differences of TVFA’s at 0 hr among treatments were not significant. The differences among treatments at 2 and 4 hrs post feeding were not significant in 1st stage. The TVFA’s of group fed ration C (2nd stage) was significantly higher than control and insignificantly higher than other groups at 2 hrs, while group fed ration D (2nd stage) was significantly higher than control and insignificantly higher than other groups at 4 hrs. The values of TVFA���s in this study are lower than that obtained by Soliman et al. (1997), Haggag etal. (2000) and Fathia et al. (2008) in goats.
Total number of protozoa: The minimum number of protozoa were showed at 0 hr with all groups then significantly increased with advanced time at 2 and 4 hrs post feeding. The total number of protozoa of control was insignificantly higher than ration B and significantly higher than other rations (1st stage) at 2 hrs, while the differences at 4 hrs were not significant among all rations. The differences among all rations in 2nd stage were not significant. Generally, the number of protozoa in all rations was very high which might indicate that all rations were good balanced as reported by Hungate (1966). He reported that the number of protozoa was higher with a good balanced rations than poor rations.
Microbial protein: The results indicated that similar values of microbial protein of all rations with not significant differences except the ration C (2nd stage) was insignificantly lower than ration D and significantly lower than other rations. Similar results were obtained by Soliman et al. (1997) and Fathia et al. (2008) by goats.
Growth performance of growing lambs:
Feed intake of lambs: The estimated concentrate feed mixture intake of control lambs were nearly duplicated the CFM intake of other treatments according NRC (1985). The average forages intake of rations B, C and D were nearly similar (Table4). The total DM intake of control was higher than other groups, while the DM intake of other groups were nearly similar. These results in harmony with those obtained by Reedm et al. (1990), Soliman, et al. (1997), Abd El-Hamid, et al (2008), Ahmed, et al. (2009) in Sesbania forage and Fathia etal. (2012) in Sesbania silage. The TDN intake of lambs fed control ration was relatively higher than that fed other rations, and the values of TDN intake of other rations were nearly similar. The DCP intake by lambs fed ration B was relatively higher than other rations, may be due to the high percent DCP of Sesbania. Fathia etal. (2012) found that TDN intake of lambs from CFM + Sesbania silage and CFM + silage of Sesbania-Millet x Napier hybrid was 607 and 658 gm/h/d.
Body weight gain: Live body weight of initial experiment of four groups were nearly equal. Final body weight of experiment in all treatments were nearly similar and the differences among four groups were not significant. Daily body gain (DBG) were 156.1, 150.3, 154 and 154.8 gm/h/d for lamb groups which fed control, ration B, ration C and ration D, respectively, and the differences of DBG among four groups were not significant as shown in Table4.
Similar values were obtained by Abd El-Hamid etal (2008) and Ahmed etal.(2009) of lambs fed CFM + Sesbania-Sudan grass mixture and was higher than Fathia etal.(2012) with lambs fed on CFM + silage containing Sesbania or Sesbania- Millet x Napier hybrid.
Feed conversion: The best feed conversion as Kg DM/Kg gain were recorded with ration D and the bad feed conversion recorded with control as shown in Table4. Feed conversion in this study was nearly similar withthat obtained by Soliman etal. (1997) in ration containing Sesbania + Teosinte + CFM, Abd El-Hamid etal (2008) in Sesbania-Sudan grass mixture + CFMand Fathia etal.(2012) in silage Sesbania- Millet x Napier hybrid + CFM and Sesbania silage + CFM.
Feed cost and economical efficiency: The highest cost value of feed consumption (LE/h/d) was recorded with control and the lowest cost of feed consumption was recorded with rations C and D as shown in Table4. The feed cost/kg weight gain take the same trend of cost feed consumption. The best economical efficiency was showed in ration D, and the bad economical efficiency was recorded with control.
Yield and cost of green forages: The obtained results in Table5 indicated that the green forage yield (1st cut + 2nd cut) of Sesbania pure (10.85 ton/feddan) was lower than Sesbania-Sorghum mixture (15.31 ton/feddan) and Sesbania-Millet mixture (15.30 ton/feddan). The same trend was observed with dry matter yield (2.22, 3.32 and 3.34 ton/ feddan, respectively). The same trend was obtained in yield of CP, TDN and DCP. The yield obtained in this study was higher than the Sesbania yield obtained by Soliman et al. (1997), and was lower than Sesbania yield obtained by El-Nahrawy and Soliman (1998) and Haggag etal. (2000). However, the yield of green forage is affected by different factors as cultivation regions of plants, kinds, varieties, number of cuts, soil fertility and agricultural processes (as irrigation, fertilization���etc.). The total cost/ton of Sesbania was higher than Sesbania-Sorghum mixture or Sesbania-Millet mixture as shown in Table5.
CONCLUSION
It could be concluded that the rations contained 50% CFM + Sesbania- Sorghum mixture or Sesbania-Millet mixture were better than control and group fed 50% CFM + Sesbania pure and the best ration which contained 50% CFM + Sesbania-Millet mixture. Therefore, this mixture could cultivated in new reclaimed sandy soil in summer season then utilization in feeding of growing lambs and consequently reduce the high price of feed.
Table (4): Intake, body gain, feed conversion and economical efficiency of lambs fed experimental rations.
Items Ration A (control) B Ration C Ration Ration D
No. of animals 6 6 6 6
Initial weight (Kg) 22.19a��1.01 22.50a��1.20 22.92a��1.39 22.83a��1.13
Final weight (Kg) 39.67a��2.04 39.33a��1.71 40.17a��1.72 40.17a��1.25
Dry matter intake, 1st stage (0-8 weeks)
CFM (Kg/h/d) 0.907 0.460 0.461 0.459
RS (Kg/h/d) 0.328 – – –
Forages (Kg/h/d) – 0.532 0.584 0.585
Total (Kg/h/d) 1.234 0.992 1.045 1.044
Total DM intake,(% LBW) 4.73 3.79 3.92 3.91
DM intake,(g / kg W 0.75) 107 86 89 89
Dry matter intake, 2nd stage (8-16 weeks)
CFM (Kg/h/d) 1.162 0.479 0.480 0.479
RS (Kg/h/d) 0.467 – – –
Forages (Kg/h/d) – 0.794 0.813 0.804
Total (Kg/h/d) 1.629 1.273 1.293 1.283
Total DM intake, (%LBW) 4.79 3.68 3.67 3.63
DM intake, (kg / kg W 0.75) 116 89 89 88
Feed units intakes, 1st stage (0-8 weeks)
TDN intake, Kg/h/d 0.74 0.63 0.64 0.68
DCP intake, g/h/d 113 145 124 135
Feed units intakes, 2nd stage (8-16 weeks)
TDN intake, Kg/h/d 1.04 0.83 0.77 0.84
DCP, intake g/h/d 171 169 142 148
Average body gain
Total body gain,Kg/h/d(1st stage) 7.73 7.33 7.42 7.75
Daily body gain,gm/h/d(1st stage) 138.0 130.9 132.5 138.4
Total body gain,Kg/h/d(2nd stage) 9.75 9.50 9.83 9.59
Daily body gain,gm/h/d(2nd stage) 174.1 169.6 175.5 171.3
Total body gain,kg/h/d 17.48 16.83 17.25 17.34
Average daily body gain,gm/h/d 156.1 150.3 154.0 154.8
Average feed conversion (0-16 weeks)
Kg DM/Kg gain 9.3 7.54 7.63 7.52
Feed cost and economical efficiency (0-16 weeks)
Total feed cost (LE/h/d) 2.86 1.75 1.60 1.60
Price weight gain LE/h/d) 5.46 5.26 5.39 5.42
Economical efficiency 1.91 3.01 3.35 3.39
The lambs in 1st stage which fed green forage were fed 1st cut.
The lambs in 2nd stage which fed green forage were fed 2nd cut.
Table (5): Yield and cost of Sesbania pure, Sesbania-sorghum mixture and Sesbania-Millet mixture which cultivated in reclaimed sandy soil.
Items Sesbania pure Sesbania-Sorghum mix. Sesbania – Millet mix.
1st cut 2nd cut Total 1st cut 2nd cut Total 1st cut 2nd cut Total
Yield (ton/feddan)
Green forage yield 6.20 4.65 10.85 8.75 6.56 15.31 8.74 6.56 15.30
Dry yield 1.19 1.03 2.22 1.79 1.53 3.32 1.84 1.50 3.34
CP yield 0.231 0.172 0.403 0.253 0.198 0.451 0.292 0.186 0.478
TDN yield 0.750 0.669 1.419 1.104 0.917 2.021 1.207 0.978 2.185
DCP yield 0.174 0.136 0.310 0.213 0.168 0.381 0.238 0.173 0.411
Total cost, LE/ton
green forages – – 160 – – 114 – – 114
Dry matter – – 784 – – 524 – – 521
Crude protein – – 4318 – – 3858 – – 3640
TDN – – 1226 – – 861 – – 796
DCP – – 5613 – – 4567 – – 4233
Total cost/feddan were 1740 LE in summer season included rent value, seeds and other cultivated practices
REFERENCES
Abd El-Hamid, A.A. Fathia A.Ibrahim, M.E. Ahmed and E.S, Soliman (2008). Performance of growing lambs fed two cuts of some summer green forage mixtures of legumes and grasses. Egyptian J.of sheep and goat Sci. 3(2): 53-64.
Abdel-Rahman, K.M., A.A. Kandil, S. El-Kasseheb and S. Al-Debee (1995). Chemical and nutritional studies on some forage shrubs adapted in arid region. J.Agric.Sci.Mansoura Univ., 20(8):3669.
Ahmed, M.E., A.A. Abd El-Hamid, Fathia A.Ibrahim and E.S. Soliman (2009). Nutritional and economical studies of growing lamb sand lactating goats fed different legume-grass mixtures.Egyptian, J. Nutrition and feeds, 12 (3) Special issue: 263-270.
AOAC, Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1985). OfficialMethods of Analysis, 14th ED. Washington, D.C, USA.
Conway, E.J. (1957). Microdiffusion analysis and Volumetric Error Rev.Ed. Lockwood, London.
Duncan, D.B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F-test. Biometerics, 11: 1- 42.
El-Nahrawy, M.A. and E.S. Soliman (1998). Response of Sesbania productivity and forages quality to seeding rates and planting dates. J.Agric.Sci.Mansoura Univ., 23(1):11-17.
Fathia A.Ibrahim, M.E. Ahmed and E.S. Soliman (2008). Cultivation and evaluation of some green forage mixture and its utilization in feeding of lactating Zaraibi goats. Egyptian J. Nutrition and Feeds; 11 (2): 329-341.
Fathia A.Ibrahim, E.S, Soliman, A.A. Abd El-Hamid and M.E. Ahmed (2012). Growth performance and feed utilization efficiency of rahmani lambs fed some legume and/or grass silages. Egyptian J. of sheep and goat sci. 7 (2): 1-10.
Gabra,M.A., A.E.M.Khinizy and M.R.M.Moustafa (1991). Chemical and nutritional evaluation of some varieties of sorghum sown singly or intercropped with cowpea. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ. 16 (12): 2807- 2816.
Haggag, M.El-H., E.S. Soliman, E.M. Gaafer and M.I. Salem (2000). Effect of phosphate fertilizer levels and seeding rates on yield, quality and nutritional evaluation of Sesbania forage by goats. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ. 25 (7): 3901-3909.
Hungate, R.E. (1966). The rumen and its microbes. Acad. Press, NY, lond.
Manaye, T., A.Tolera, and T. Zewdu (2009). Feed intake, digestibility and body weight gain of sheep fed Napier grass mixed with different levels of Sesbania sesban. Livestock Science 122, 24���29.
NRC (1985). Nutrient Requirements of sheep. 6th ED; National Academy of Science, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Reedm, J.D., H. Soller and A.Woodward (1990). Fodder tree and straw diets for sheep intake, growth, digestibility and the effects of phenolics on nitrogen utilization. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 30: 39-50.
Rekib, A. and N.P. Shukla (1995). Evaluation of Sesbania Sesban as protein supplement to low grade roughage (barly bhusa) for growing calves. Indian J. of Anim. Sci. 65 (1): 113116-.
SAS, (2002). SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Release 8.1. Statistical Analysis System. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
Schultz, T.A. and E. Schultz (1970). Estimation of rumen microbial nitrogen by three analytical methods. J.Dairy Sci., 53: 781-784.
Singh, C.P. Kumar and A. Rekib (1980). Note on some aspects of the feeding value of Sesbania aegyptica fodder in goats. Indian J. of Anim. Sci. 50(11):1017-1020.
Soliman, E.S., A.E.M. Khinizy, Bahira K. Mohammed and M.El-H.Haggag (1997). Studies on using Sesbania and Teosinte forages in feeding of growing zaraibi goats. Egypt. J. Appl. Sci., 12 (5): 63- 74.
Soliman, E.S., and M. El-H. Haggag (2002). Effect of feeding green forage mixtures of Sesbania and Teosinte instead of concentrate feed mixture on lactating goats. Egypt. J. Appl. Sci., 17 (5): 31- 42.
Warner, A.C.J. (1964). Production of volatile fatty acids in the rumen. Methods of measurements. Nutr. Abstr. & Rev. B 34: 339.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
���������� �������������� �������� ���������������� ���������������� ���� ������ ������������������ ������ ������������ ���������������� �������������� ���� �������������� �������������� ������������������
�������� ������ ������������ �������� ������** �������� �������� ����������* ���������� ������ ������������ �������������� **���������� ������������ �������� ������������**
* ������ �������������� ����������������- �������� �������������� – ���������� �������� ������������- ������
** �������� �������� �������������� ���������������� – �������� ������������ ���������������� ��� ������
���������� ������ �������������� �������� ���������� ���������� ������ �������������� �������������� �������������� ������ ���������������� ������������������ ���� ���������������� ���������������� ������������������ ������������ ���� �������� ���������� ��������������. ������ �������� ������ �������������� �������������� ���� �������� �������������� ����������:
���������������� ������������: �������� �������� ���������������� ��������������
���������������� ��������������: �������� �������� ���������������� ���� �������� �������������� ������������ ���������� (1:1)
���������������� ��������������: �������� �������� ���������������� ���� �������� ���������� ������������ ���������� (1:1 )
�������� �������������������� ���� ���������� �������������� ���� ������������ ��������������. ������ ���� ���������� �������������� ������������ ���� ���������������� ����������������.
������ �������������� ���������� ���������� �������������� ������ ���������� ������������:
�������������� �� )������������ 100% (: ������ �������� �������� ���������������� ���������������� ���������� �� +NRC 1985���� ������ ����������.
�������������� ��: 50% ������ �������� ���� �������������� ���������������� ���������� �� +NRC 1985���������������� ����������.
����������������: 50% ������ �������� ���� �������������� ���������������� ���������� �� +NRC 1985���������� ���������������� �������������������������� (1:1)����������.
�������������� ��:50% ������ �������� ���� �������������� ���������������� ���������� �� +NRC 1985���������� ���������������� ������������ ���������� (1:1)����������.
������ ����������4 ���������� ������ ������������ �������������� ������������������ ����������������12 ������ (3)���� ���� ������������ ������������ ������40 ������ ������ ������ �������������� �������������� ������������������ ������ ���� ������ ���������� ���� �������� ���������� ������������ ������������ ���������� ������������ ����������. ������ ���������� ���������� ������ ������ ������ �������������� ������������������ �������������� ������ ���� ��������������24 ������ �������� ������������ ������22,5 ������ ����4 ������������ (6 ���� ���� ������������).�������� ������������ �������������� ������������ ������������ ������������ ���� ������ ���������� ���������� �������������� �������������� ���������������� �������������������� �������������� ������������������. ������ �������������� ���������� ���������� 16 ���������� ������ �������������� ���� ����������8 �������������� ������ �������������� ���������� ������������ ���� �������������� �������������� ���� �������������� ������������ ���������������� ���������� �������������� ���� �������������� ��������������. ������������ �������������� �������� ���� ������������ ���������� ������ ����������:
�������� �������� ������������ ������������ ���� ����������������19,12% ���� ���������� ������������ ��22,21% ���� ���������� �������������� ������ ���������� ���������������� ���������������� ��������20,46% ���� ���������� ������������23,27% ���� ���������� �������������� ������ ���������� ���������������� ������������21,02% ���� ���������� ������������ ��22,89% ���� ���������� ���������������� ���������� �������� ���������������� ���������� ���� ����������������19,3% ���� ���������� ������������ ��16,65% ���� ���������� �������������� ������ ���������� ���������������� ���������������� ��������14,11% ���� ���������� ������������ ��12,94% ���� ���������� �������������� ������ ���������� ���������������� ������������ ��������15,87% ���� ���������� ������������ ��12,37% ���� ���������� ��������������.
�������� ������������ ���� �������������� ������ ������������ ������������ �������������� �������������� ������������������ ���������� ������������������ ������������ ���� ������������ ���������� ���������������� ������������ ���������������� ������ ������������. ���������� �������� ������������ �������������� ���������������� ���������� �������������� ���� �������������� �� �������� ������������ ���� �������������� ������������������ ������������. ���������� ������������ ���������� ���� pH ���� �������������� �������������� ������ ������������ ������������ ���� ���������������� ���� �������� �������������� ������ �������� �������������� ���������� ������������ ���������� ������4 ���������� ������������ ������������ ���� ���������������� ���� �������� �������������� ���������� ���� ������ ���������� �������� ������������ ������ ������ ��������������. ���������� ������������ ���� ���������� �������������� �������������� �������������� ������ ������������������ ���� �������������� ������������ ������ ������������, ������ �������������� �������������� �������� ���������� �������������� �������������� �������������� ���� �������������� �� ������������ ������������ ���� ���������������� ������ ������������ �������������� ���������� ������ ���� �������������� �� ������������ ������������ ���� ���������������� ������ ������������ ��������������. ������ �������� �������������������� ���� ���������� ���������������� �������������������� ������ ������������ ������ 4 ���������� ������ �������� �������������������� ���� ���������������� ������������������ ������ ������������ ���� �������������� ������������.
������������ �������������� ���� �������������� ���������������� ������������������ �������������� �������� �������������� �������� ���������� ���������������� ������������. ���������� �������������� ���� �������� ���������� ������������ ���� ������ ���������� �������������� �������� ���������� ���������������� ������������ �������� �������� ���������� ������������ ���� ���������� ������������������ 156,1���� ���������������� �� 150,3 ���� ���������������� ��154 ���� ���������������� ��154,8 ���� ���������� ���� ����������. �������� �������� �������������� �������������� �������� ���� �������������� �������������� ������ �������������� �� ���� �������� ��������������. ������ �������� �������� ���������� ������������ ������������ ���������������� ���������� ������ ���������� ������������ ������ ���� �������������� �� �� ��. ���������� �������������� �������������������� ���� �������������� �� �� �� �������� ���� �� ������ ���������������� ���������� �������������� �� �������� ���������� ���� �������������� ��.
���������� �������������� �������������� ���� �������������� ���������� ������������ �������������� ���� ���������������� ������������10,85 ������������ ���������������� ����������������15,31 ������������������ ������������ 15,30����/�������� ������ �������������� ������ ������������ ������������ �������� 2,22 ��3,32 ��3,34 ����/�������� ������ ��������������. ���������� ���������� ���������� �������� ���� ������������ ������������ 784��524 ��521 �������� ������ ��������������.
������ �������������� �������� ���� ������������ ���������� �������� ���� ������������ ���� �������������� �������� ���������� ���� 50% ���� ���������� ������������+���������� ���������������� ���������������� ���� ���������� ���������������� ������������ �������� �������� ���� ���������� ���������������� ���������������� ������ 100% ������ �������� ���� ������ ���������������� ������50% ���� ���������� ������������+ ���������������� ������������ �������� ���������� ���������������� ������������ �������� ���������� ���� ���������� ���������������� ���������������� �������� �������� ������������ ���� �������������� �������������� ������������������ ���� ������ ���������� ������������������ ���� ���������� ���������� �������������� �������� ������������ �������������� �������������� ���������������� ����������.

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Effect of Using Sesbania sesban and Its Mixtures with some Summer Fresh Grasses on Lambs Productive Performance in New Reclaimed Soil. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/environmental-studies-essays/effect-of-using-sesbania-sesban-and-its-mixtures-with-some-summer-fresh-grasses-on-lambs-productive-performance-in-new-reclaimed-soil/> [Accessed 20-04-26].

These Environmental studies essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on EssaySauce.com and/or Essay.uk.com at an earlier date than indicated.