Utilization of pods of Prosopis juliflora, an invasive tree, as a replacement to concentrate feed for goats in Ethiopia

Kidane Hintsa, Mulubrhan Balehegn and Emiru Birhane¹

Mekelle University, Department of Animal, Range and Wildlife sciences, PO box 231, Mekelle, Ethiopia
kidanehintsa@gmail.com
¹ Mekelle University, Department of Land Resources Management and Environmental Protection, P.o.box 231, Mekelle, Ethiopia

Abstract

Prosopis juliflora is an invasive species steadily affecting dryland rangelands of East Africa. This study tried to develop an economic utilization of the species by determining the level of replacement of commercial concentrate by dried ground Prosopis juliflora pods (PJP) on the feed intake, live weight gain and carcass parameters of local goats. Twenty goats; aged 6-12 months & weighting 13.8 + 2.8 Kg were used in randomized complete block design (RCBD) experiment with five dietary treatments. In the control treatment (PJP-0), goats were fed 100% concentrate mix, while in PJP-10, PJP-20, PJP-30, and PJP-40, 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% of the concentrate mix was replaced by PJP, respectively. Data on feed intake and live weight gain were recorded daily and weekly, respectively for 90 days.

At the end of the experiment, representative animals (03) from each treatment were slaughtered and analyzed for different carcass components. PJP contained 88.30% dry matter (DM), 12.58% crude protein (CP), 19.51% crude fiber (CF), 1.91% ether extract (EE) and 1.92% ash. Intakes for total DM, CP, EE and CF of PJP-0 and PJP-10 were significantly higher than PJP-20, PJP-30and PJP-40, while body weight gain (BWG) , feed conversion efficiency (FCE), fasting live weight, carcass and non-carcass components, hot carcass weights, and commercial meat cuts, edible and non-edible offals did not show difference among the treatments. The present study suggested for up to 40 % replacement of concentrate feed with PJP without any effect on growth performance and carcass characteristics.

Keywords: body weight gain, carcass parameter, feed intake

Introduction

Prosopis juliflora is an evergreen tree native to South America, Central America and the Caribbean. It is a multipurpose tree/shrub that is used for feeding the livestock, shade, windbreak, charcoal, live fence, and firewood as well as house construction (Shiferaw et al 2004). Prosopis juliflora is known for invading millions of hectares of land which were under different land use systems in Africa, Asia, Australia and South America (Pasiecznik 1999, Haile 2008). Prosopis juliflora was introduced to eastern Ethiopia, for the purpose of degraded rangeland reclamation, but it turned out to be a very noxious invader, invading farmlands, rangelands, irrigation canals, narrowing roads (Pasiecznik 1999, Matthews and Brand 2004). About one million hectare is already covered by Prosopis juliflora in Ethiopia, of which 700,000 ha is in the rangelands of Afar (Ryan 2011). Even if, it is invasive,Prosopis juliflora is appreciated for its high biomass production and tolerance to soil infertility (Pasiecznik et al 2001), and a potential for providing a significant input into the feed of small ruminants in the pastoral areas (Abedelnoor et al 2010). Koech et al (2010), for instance, reported that Prosopis juliflora pod contained 88.4% (DM), 18.5% (CP), 83.2% (OM), 51.8% (NDF), 29.8% (ADF) and 5.2% Ash; make it potentially usable for feeding ruminant animals. Pasiecznik et al. (2001), and Anttila et al (1993) also claimed that Prosopis juliflora pods are sweet, nutritious, have low concentrations of tannins and a protein content of up to 20%, making it a potential feed source for ruminants. On the other hand however, others for instance Lyon et al (1988) stated that the leaf of Prosopis juliflora is unpalatable for livestock feed because of its tannins, flavonoids and polyphenols content and that incorporating P.juliflora foliage in the diet of small ruminants reduced animals’ feed intake at levels above 10% of a total ration (Shukla et al 1984). These opposing claims indicate lack of empirical knowledge on the palatability and effect on growth of Prosopis juliflora pods on animals.

Owing to its widespread presence in different edaphic and agro-climatic conditions, its invasiveness causing social and biological problems, finding different ways of intensive utilization of the species is not only important from the point of view of increasing availability of animal feed, but will also be a laudable practice of environmental protection by contributing to the control of a noxious invasive species. This study was therefore conducted to investigate the effect of replacement of commercial concentrate mix by grounded, sundried Prosopis Juliflora pods on the productivity of local goats in northern Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Description of the study site

The feeding experiment was conducted at Mekelle university small ruminant farm. The Mekelle University is located at 13⁰ 27 N 39 ⁰ 01E, and at an altitude range of 2000 to 2200 m.a.s.l. The area has a semi-arid climate with annual rainfall range between 500 and 700 mm, relative humidity of 50 % and annual average maximum and minimum temperature of 40 and 20^oc. Prosopis juliflora pods were collected from Bala district, southern zone of Tigray Regional State in Ethiopia.

Animals, experimental design and treatments

Twenty 6 - 12 months old local male goats with live body weight 13.8 + 2.8 Kg (mean±SD) were used in randomized complete block design (RCBD) experiment with five dietary treatments administered to five experimental groups each containing five goats. Goats were grouped based on their initial body weight into four blocks of five animals and the five dietary treatments were randomly assigned to animals in the block independently.Prosopis juliflora pods for the feeding trials were collected from Bala district, Northern Ethiopia. The PJP were collected during the fruit production season and were stored in an open, cool and dry shade. Pods were allowed to air dry and were grounded in a miller before mixing the diets. The experimental animals were fed grass hay (Cynodon dactylon) as basal diet. The hay was harvested at the end of the growing season. A local commercial concentrate mix composed of maize (35%), wheat bran (32%), cotton seed cake (32%), and common salt (1%) at 2% of their body weight, as also used in Balehegn et al (2014) was used in the experiment. The mixed concentrate was replaced by 0 % (PJP-0), 10% (PJP-10), 20% (PJP-20), 30% (PJP-30) and 40% (PJP-40) of grounded Prosopis juliflora pods. Grass hay and water were offered ad libitum. Animals were dewormed with albendazole (ALBENDA- QK) and injected ivermectin (Tecmectin) for ecto and endo parasite control and vaccinated against common local diseases (Ovine pasteurollosis and Anthrax).

Voluntary feed intake

This experiment was conducted for 90 days with the first two weeks as an adaptation period. The feed offered and refused were recorded daily and daily feed intake (DFI) were calculated as the difference of offered and refused. Samples of daily feed offered and refused were taken and stored in plastic bags pending laboratory analysis. Sub-samples of feed offered and refused were taken for each treatment group. The dry matter (DM) and nutrient intakes were determined as a difference between the amounts offered and refused for each feed and treatment.

Live weight changes and feed conversion efficiency

The initial body weights (IBW) of the experimental animals were taken at the beginning of the experiment after overnight fasting. Body weight (BW) of animals was measured at weekly interval for 90 days. All weights were taken early in the morning before feeding and watering. The average daily weight gains (ADG) was calculated on a weekly basis as the difference between final live weight and initial live weight divided by seven (the number of days in a week). Feed conversion efficiency (FCE) was measured as proportion of average daily weight gain (ADG) to daily feed intake (DFI).

Carcass parameters

At the end of the experimental feeding period, total of 15 goats (three per treatment) were randomly selected and slaughtered for the evaluation of carcass characteristics after a 24 h period of fasting with free access to water. Fasting live weight was recorded immediately before slaughter. During slaughter, the weights of non-carcass components and the hot carcass were recorded. The non-carcass components weighed were (blood, head + horn, skin + tail, feet, testicles + penis, thoracic organs (heart, diaphragm, lungs trachea), and viscera (digestive tract, liver, spleen and kidneys). Empty body weights were determined by subtracting the gut content from the slaughter weight. Total edible offal components were taken as the sum total weight of blood, heart, liver, empty gut, testis, tongue. The sum total weight of hot carcass, total edible offal components and skin were taken as total usable product. Total non-edible offal components were taken as the sum of the weight of lung, trachea, skin, penis, spleen, feet and gall bladder. Hot carcass weight was computed by excluding thoracic, abdominal and pelvic cavities, head, skin, feet and tail from the slaughtered animal.

Chemical analysis

Experimental feed offer and refusals were analyzed for their proximate components. Dry matter (DM), ether extracts (EE), crude fiber (CF) and crude protein (CP) using formal procedures of Association of Official Analytical Chemists (William 2000).

Statistical analysis

ANOVA using the General Linear Model (GLM) in a JMP 5 statistical software (SAS 2002) was used to look for differences among treatments. Mean comparison among significant treatments was done using pair of student’s t test at P ≤ 0.05. The model used in this study was : Y_ij=m + a_i + b_j + e_ij Where, Y_ij= The observation in the i^th treatment and j ^th block, m = The overall mean, a_i = The treatment effect, b_j = The block effect and e_ij= The experimental error associated with Y_ij

Results and discussion

Chemical composition

Chemical composition of different feeds and treatments used in this experiment are shown in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. The CP content of PJP was high compared with grass hay (GH). The CP content of PJP used in the present (12.58%) was lower than values of 14%, 14.9% reported by Mahgoub et al (2005), and Ali et al (2012) respectively. The CF (19.51%) of PJP obtained in the present study is comparable with values of 19.23% and 18.99% reported by Reddy et al (1990) and Talpada and Shukla (1988), respectively. This CF content is within the range of tolerable by ruminants (Minson 1990). Therefore it indicates the potential of PJP for use in ruminant feeding.

Dry matter and Nutrient Intake

There was a significant difference in grass hay DM intake amongst the treatment groups with highest value of 318.49 for PJP-10 and lowest value of 253.11 for PJP-20 (Table 3). The higher DM intake of 67.96 in PJP-40 compared to 58.24 in PJP-0 to 62.60 in PJP-30 (Table 3), could be attributed to the higher nutritive value (in terms of CP) of PJP compared to the most of the ingredients (Maize, Wheat bran) in PJP-40 than the rest of the treatments. The reason for difference observed in DMI of goats among different dietary supplements was probably due to variation in intake of the grass hay component.

The total feed intake observed in this study were in the range reported for black goat kids fed sesame hulls and Prosopis juliflora Pods ( Abdullah et al 2011). Goats from the control group had lowest DMI value of 58.24 comparing with other supplemented treatments (Table 3). This is probably due to the fact that this group offered higher CP content feed and therefore was able to satisfy its nutrient requirement using smaller amount of intake as the feed was rich in protein (Das and Ghosh 2007, Tesfay and Tesfay 2013). Conversely, the goats in other treatments had to ingest larger mass of feed with relatively lower CP content in order to satisfy similar nutrient requirement as those in the control group.

Live-weight Change and Feed Conversion Efficiency (FCE)

The level of replacement of concentrates with PJP did not affect the average body weight gain of experimental animals (Figure 1). This implies that PJP can be used as a replacement to costly commercial concentrates up to 40% without drastically affecting the productivity or weight gain of goats. Similar non-significant effect of replacement of concentrates by JPJ on body weight of experimental animals up to 30-45% (Habit and Saavedra 1988) and 10-50% (Sawal et al 2004). In other observation, the replacement of sugarcane molasses with P. juliflora pods at the levels of 300-450 g/kg brought about positive weight changes of goats (Habit and Saavedra 1988). Moreover, in the current study, the FCE of different treatments was not affected by the level of replacement of commercial concentrates by PJP. This generally indicates the favorable nutritional content of PJP, which is comparable to that of commercial concentrates.

Figure 1. Live weight of goats fed a concentrate feed containing of wheat bran, maize and cotton seed cake and replacing by Prosopis juliflora pods dry matter in different proportions

Carcass characteristics

The average values of hot carcass weight, edible and non-edible offal were not significantly different among the different treatments (Table 4). The average values of hot carcass weight, edible and non-edible carcass offal were not significantly different among the different treatments (Table 4). Similarly, Obeidat and Aloqaily (2010) and Abdullah and Hafes (2004) did not observe any difference in carcass components due to the replacement and inclusion of PJP in varying percentages in to the diets of experimental animals. Therefore, the results indicated the possibility of replacing nutrient rich concentrate feeds by Prosopis juliflora pods up to 40% in goats’ diet without affecting carcass characteristics, non-carcass components and carcass cuts proportions.

Commercial carcass cuts

There was no significant difference in the weight of different commercial cuts among the different treatments (Table 5). Likewise, Obeidat et al (2008) and Abdullah and Hafes (2004) did not observe significant differences in the values of different commercial cuts, on experimental animals fed diets containing different proportions of PJP.

Conclusion

• The results of this study showed the potential of using Prosopis juliflora pods as a replacement for expensive concentrate feed for growing goats without adverse effects on growth performance and carcass composition.
  
  
• Prosopis juliflora pods could be used to replace costly commercial concentrates up to 40 % (weight basis) without causing any negative consequences on productivity of local goats in northern Ethiopia.

References

Abdullah A and Hafes B A 2004 Inclusion of Prosopis juliflora pods in finishing Awassi lamb diets, Proc. 11th AAAP Animal Science Congress

Abdullah A Y, Obeidat B S, Muwalla M M, Matarneh S K and Ishmais M A A 2011 Growth Performance, Carcass and Meat Characteristics of Black Goat Kids Fed Sesame Hulls and Prosopis juliflora Pods. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 24 9: 1217-1226.

Abedelnoor T, Talib N, Mabrouk A, Mohamed M, El-Mahi M and Abu-Eisa H 2010 The use of alternative animal feeds to enhance food security and environmental protection in the Sudan (The case for Prosopis Juliflora).

Ali A S, Tudsri S, Rungmekarat S and Kaewtrakulpong K 2012 Effect of Feeding Prosopis juliflora Pods and Leaves on Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Afar Sheep. Kasetsart J. (Nat. Sci.), 46: 871 - 881

Anttila L, Alakoski-Johansson G, Johansson S, Odera J, Luukkanen M, Kaarakka V and Mugah J 1993 Browse preference of Orma livestock and chemical composition of Prosopis juliflora and nine indigenous woody species in Bura, Eastern Kenya, Forestry in irrigation schemes with special reference to Kenya. Helsinki University Printing House.

Balehegn M, Eik L O and Tesfay Y 2014 Replacing commercial concentrate by Ficus thonningii improved productivity of goats in Ethiopia. Tropical animal health and production, 46 5: 889-894.

Das A and Ghosh S 2007 Effect of partial replacement of concentrates with jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus) leaves on growth performance of kids grazing on native pasture of Tripura, India. Small Ruminant Research, 67 1: 36-44.

Habit M and Saavedra J 1988 The Current State of Knowledge on Prosopis juliflora.

Haile Z M 2008 Invasion of prosopis juliflora (SW.) DC and Rural Livelihoods the case of Afar Pastoralists at Middle Awash Area of Ethiopia.

Koech O, Kinuthia R, Wahome R and Choge S 2010 Effects of Prosopis juliflora Seedpod Meal Supplement on Weight Gain of Weaner Galla Goats in Kenya. Research Journal of Animal Sciences, 4 2: 58-62.

Lyon C K, Gumbmann M R and Becker R 1988 Value of mesquite leaves as forage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 44 2: 111-117.

Mahgoub O, Kadim I T, Forsberg N E, Al-Ajmi D S, Al-Saqry N M, Al-Abri A S and Annamalai K 2005 Evaluation of Meskit (Prosopis juliflora) pods as a feed for goats. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 121 3: 319-327.

Matthews S and Brand K 2004 Africa invaded: the growing danger of invasive alien species. Africa invaded: the growing danger of invasive alien species.

Minson D 1990 Forage in ruminant nutrition. Animal Feeding and Nutrition.,

Obeidat B and Aloqaily B 2010 Using sesame hulls in Awassi lambs diets: Its effect on growth performance and carcass characteristics and meat quality. Small Ruminant Research, 91 2: 225-230.

Obeidat B S, Abdullah A Y and Al-Lataifeh F A 2008 The effect of partial replacement of barley grains by< i> Prosopis juliflora</i> pods on growth performance, nutrient intake, digestibility, and carcass characteristics of Awassi lambs fed finishing diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 146 1: 42-54.

Pasiecznik N 1999 Prosopis-pest or providence, weed or wonder tree?

Pasiecznik N M, Felker P and Association H D R 2001 The'Prosopis Juliflora'-'Prosopis Pallida'Complex: A Monograph, HDRA Coventry.

Reddy G, Reddy M and Rao A 1990 Effect of Particle Size on Physical Characters and Nutrient Utilization of Prosopis juliflom Pods in Sheep. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 7 2: 123-126.

Ryan F 2011 US forest service technical assistance trip to Ethiopia: Invasive species management, US Forest Service.

SAS 2002 SAS/STAT software, version 9.1, SAS Institute Inc Cary, NC.

Sawal R, Ratan R and Yadav S 2004 Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) pods as a feed resource for livestock-A review. Asian Australas J Anim Sci, 17 719-725.

Shiferaw H, Teketay D, Nemomissa S and Assefa F 2004 Some biological characteristics that foster the invasion of Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC. at Middle Awash Rift Valley Area, north-eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments, 58 2: 135-154.

Shukla P, Talpada P and Pande M 1984 Prosopis juliflora pods, a new cattle feed source. Technical Bulletin. Animal Nutrition Department, Gujarat Animal University, Anand, Anand,

Talpada P and Shukla P 1988 Study on sugar and amino acids composition of Prosopis juliflora pods. Gujarat Agricultural University Research Journal, 14 1: 32-35.

Tesfay T and Tesfay Y 2013 Partial replacement of dried Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit leaves for noug (Guizotia abyssinica)(Lf) Cass. seed cake in the diet of highland sheep fed on wheat straw. Tropical animal health and production, 45 2: 379-385.

William H 2000 Official methods of analysis of AOAC international. USA, AOAC International Suite, 500 481.

Received 23 June 2015; Accepted 5 August 2015; Published 1 September 2015

Go to top