Main Article Content
Aims: In this experiment, evaluation of intake, digestibility and growth performances of local growing bulls by feeding Jumbo-green, Para and German grass based on Index (Mf) of Maize are considered and ranked this fodder accordingly.
Study Design: Completely randomized block design.
Place and Duration of Study: Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute (BLRI), Savar, Dhaka, between July 2016 and September 2016.
Methodology: Biomass production efficiency (Xddm), animal production efficiency (Xap), CH4 emission deduction efficiency (XCH4) and benefit to cost efficiency (Xbc) was considered to identify the biological characteristics of four fodders. Statistical analysis was done through SPSS-17 to evaluate the intake, digestibility and growth of animal. Rank of each fodder was calculated through the equation of Maize index (Mi) = (Xddm + Xap + XCH4 + Xbc)/4.
Results: Aggregation of four arithmetic average efficiency; Jumbo-green, Para and German got 0.42, 0.40 and 0.72 point out of 1.0 point of Mi, respectively. Among four fodders German grass performed best in terms of average daily gain (107 gm/d) and feed conversion ratio (46.9) compared to maize silage (64 gm/d & 58.4, respectively). Weight loss of bulls fed Jumbo and Para has occurred unexpectedly.
Conclusion: In combination of mathematical calculation and statistical evaluation, the rank of four fodders measured as Maize>German>Jumbo-green>Para.
Huque KS, Roy BK, Amanullah SM, Sultana N. Biometrical ranking of available fodder crops. Proceedings of the Annual Research Review Workshop, BLRI, Savar, Dhaka-1341, Bangladesh. 2015;9-10.
NRC. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th Ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC; 2000.
Arthur PF, Archer JA, Johnston DJ, Herd RM, Richardson EC, Parnell PF. Genetic and phenotypic variance and covariance components for feed intake, feed efficiency and other post-weaning traits in Angus cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2001;79:2805-2811.
Basarab JA, Price MA, Okine EL. Commercialization of net feed efficiency, Memo. Western Forage Group. Alberta Agric. Food and Rural Development Ctr. Lacombe, Alberta; 2002.
Devendra C. Sustainable animal production from small farm systems in South East Asia, FAO Animal Production and Health Paper. 106, FAO, Rome, Italy; 1993.
Huque KS, Sarker NR. Feeds and feeding of livestock in Bangladesh: Performance, constraints and options forward. The paper is presented in a seminar on Livestock feeding and nutrition-global perspective and options for Bangladesh, BLRI, Bangladesh; 2013.
IPCC. Emissions from livestock and manure management. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006;10.
Rohweder DA, Barnes RF, Jorgensen N. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. J. Anim Sci. 2014;43(1):337-342.
AOAC. Official methods of analysis, central edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Wasington DC; 2004.
Goering HK. Van Soest PJ. Forage Fiber Analysis (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures and Some Application). Agricultural Handbook No. 379, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1970.
Fisher RA. Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika. 1915;10(4):507-521.
Rahman SME, Islam MA, Rahman MM, Deog-Hwan Oh. Effect of cattle slurry on growth, biomass yield and chemical composition of maize fodder. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2008;21(11):1592-1598.
Amole TA, Oduguwa BO, Jolaosho AO, Arigbede MO. Nutrient composition and forage yield, nutritive quality of silage produced from maize-lablab mixture. Mal. J. Anim. Sci. 2013;16(2):45-61.
Aston K. Tayler JC. Effects of supplementing maize and grass silages with barley, and maize silage with urea or ammonia, on the intake and performance of fattening bulls. Animal Production. 1980; 31:243-250.
Rahman MZ, Ali MY, Afroz MF, Karim MR, Talukder MAI. Effect of intercropping on high yielding fodder production in bathan areas of Sirajgonj district. Bang. J. Anim. Sci. 2015;44(1):21-25.
Sarker NR, Huque KS, Roy A, Hossain SMJ, Das NG. A report on Comparative study on agronomy and nutrition of commercially available Jumbo cultivars. Prepared By: Computer & GIS Unit, BARC; 2015.
Garrett WN, Worker Jr. CF. Comparative feeding value of silage made from sweet and dual purpose varieties of sorghum. J. Animal Sci. 1965;24:782.
Balwani TL, Johnson RR, McClure KE, Dehority BA. Evaluation of green chop and ensiled sorghums, corn silage and perennial forages using digestion trials and VFA production in sheep. J Anim. Sci. 1969;28:90-97.
Kanak AR, Khan MJ, Debi MR, Khandakar ZH Pikar MK. Comparison on biomass production of three fodder germplasms. Bang. J. Anim. Sci. 2013;42(1):35-39.
Pikar K. A study on the phenotypic characteristics, productivity and nutrient content of different fodder germplasm. MS thesis. Department of Animal Nutrition, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh; 2010.
Sath K, Pauly T, Holtenius K. Mineral status in cattle fed rice straw and para grass combined with different levels of protein derived from cassava foliage. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2013;26: 59-64.
Nielsen NI, Volden H. In: NorFor - The Nordic feed evaluation system (Ed. H. Volden). EAAP publication No. 130. Wageningen Academic Publishers. The Netherlands. 2011;85-112.
Habib M, Pollott GE, Leaver JD. Effect of cattle genotype and variable feed supply on forage intake and digestibility. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2008;21(10):1435- 1440.
Huque KS, Roy BK, Das NG. Biometrical ranking of fodder crops for sustainable Livestock and clean air production. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences. 2017;ISSN: 2321–1571:5(03).