Nutritive value, methane production and energy efficiency for animal  functions of dual purpose sorghum hybrids

Sultan Singh; Deepika Gehrana; G P Shukla

doi:10.56093/ijans.v82i8.23020

Authors

Sultan Singh Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
Deepika Gehrana Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India
G P Shukla Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v82i8.23020

Keywords:

Carbohydrate profile, Energy efficiency, Methane, Palatability, Sorghum hybrid

Abstract

Dual purpose sorghum hybrids (20) were developed using 8 male sterile lines and 18 advanced breeding selected lines. Hybrids were grown under similar agronomic and soil conditions and evaluated for their nutritional composition, palatability attributes and energetic efficiency for animal production. Mean CP contents of hybrids were 9.50%, ranging from 12.0% (673A × EC 507815) to 7.2% (673A × CSV 15). Cell wall polysaccharides (NDF, ADF and cellulose) varied from 55.71–70.53, 31.84–42.88 and 25.43–33.32%, respectively, across the hybrids. Mean EE and lignin contents were 1.40 and 4.73% in the evaluated hybrids. Hybrids had mean values of 60.91 and 57.47% for digestible dry matter (DDM) and in sacco dry matter digestibility (ISDMD), respectively. Relative feed value (RFV) and dry matter intake (DMI% body weight) of hybrids 682A × 62404 and 699A × ICSR 93039 were highest among the tested genotypes. Non-fibrous carbohydrates (NFC) were highest in 682A × 62404 and 699A × ICSR 93039 hybrids. Energy value in terms of total digestible nutrients (TDN) and digestible energy (DE) was higher for 673A × GD 65 and 699A × ICSR 93039 hybrids. Net energy efficiency for maintenance (NEM), milk production and body weight gain (NEG), (NEL) was higher for 682A × 62404 and 699A × ICSR 93039 hybrids, respectively. Methane production (g/k DDM) of hybrids varied from 45.61 (679A × IS697) to 73.45 (673A × PC-6). Hybrids 673A × GD 65, 674A × JHV 12 and 699A × ICSR 93039 had higher CP, less fiber contents, more dry matter digestibility, higher palatability and net energy efficiency for different animal functions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AOAC. 1992. Official Methods of Analysis.14th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D C.

Bani P, Minuti A, Obonyo Luraschi A, Ligabue M and Ruozzi F. 2007. Genetic and environmental influences on in vitro digestibility of alfalfa. Italian Journal of Animal Sciences 6 (2): 251–53.

Barriere Y, Guillet C, Goffner D and Pichon M. 2003. Genetic variation and breeding strategies for improved cell wall digestibility in annual forage crops. Animal Research 52:193– 228.

Caravetta J, Cherney J H and Johnson K D. 1990. Within row spacing influences on divers sorghum genotype. 2. Dry matter yield and forage quality. Agronomy Journal 82: 210–15.

Colombo D, Crovetto G M, Colombini G and Rapetti L. 2007. Nutritive value of different hybrids of sorghum forage determined in vitro. Italian Journal of Animal Science 6 (3): 289–91.

Fonnesbeck P V, Clark D H, Garret W N and Speth C F. 1984. Predicting energy utilization from alfalfa hay from the Western Region. Proceedings of American Society of Animal Sciences (Western Section) 35: 305–08.

Hall A J .2000. Sorghum utilization and the livelihoods of the poor in India: A review of findings and recommendations. Proceedings of a workshop, 4–5 February 1999, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India, Pp: 41.

Kelley T and Parthasarathy Rao P. 1994. Yield and quality characteristics of improved and traditional sorghum cultivars: Farmers’ perceptions and preferences. In: Variation in the quantity and quality of fibrous crop residues: Proceedings of a National Seminar on BAIF Development Research Foundation, Pune, Maharashtra, India. pp. 133–45. (Eds.) Joshi A L, Doyle P T and Oosting S J. Pune, Maharashtra, BAIF, India.

Khalil J K, SawayaW N and Hyder S Z. 1986. Nutrient composition of Atriplex leaves grown in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Range Management 39: 104–07.

Mahanta S K and Pachauri V C. 2005. Nutritional evaluation of two promising varieties of forage sorghum in sheep fed as silage. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Science 18 (12): 1715–20.

Mohamed M I and Mohamed M A. 2009. Evaluation of newly developed sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) genotypes for

some forage attributes. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science 6 (4): 434–40.

Neumann M, Restle J, Filho D C A, Brondani I L, Pellegrini de L G and Freitas de A K. 2002. Nutritional evaluation of the plant and silage of different sorghum hybrids (Sorghum bicolor, L. Moench). Research Brasil Zootech 31 (1): 293–301.

NRC. 2001. Nutrients Requirements of Dairy Cattle. National Academy Press, Washington, D C.

Ouda J O, Njehia G K, Moss A R, Omed H M and Nsahlai I V. 2005. The nutritive value of sorghum genotypes developed for the dry tropical highlands of Kenya as feed resource for ruminants. South African Journal of Animal Sciences 35 (1): 55–60.

Orskov E R, Hovell, F D, De B and Mould F. 1980. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feed stuffs. Tropical Animal Production 5: 195–213.

Rattunde H F W, Zerbini E., Chandra S and Flower D J. 2001. Stover quality of dual purpose sorghums: genetic and environmental sources of variation. Field Crops Research 71: 1–8.

Santoso B, Kume S, Nonaka K, Kimura K, Mizokoshi H, Gamo Y, Takahashi J. 2003. Methane emission, nutrient digestibility, energy metabolism and blood metabolites in dairy cows fed silages with and without galacto-oligosaccharides supplementation. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 16: 534–40.

Seven P T and Cerci I H. 2006. Relationships between nutrient composition and feed digestibility determined with enzyme and nylon bag (in situ) techniques in feed resources. Bulgarian Journal of Veterinary Medicine 9: 107–13.

Singh S, Prasad S V S and Katiyar D S. 2003. Genetic variability in fodder yield, chemical composition and disappearance of nutrients in brown mid rib and white mid rib sorghum genotypes. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 16: 1303–08.

Singh S and Shukla G P. 2010. Genetic diversity in the nutritive value of dual purpose sorghum hybrids. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology 10S: 93–100.

Singh S, Kushwaha B P, Nag S K, Mishra A K, Bhattacharya S, Gupta P K and Singh A. 2011. In vitro methane emission from Indian dry roughages in relation to chemical composition. Current Science 101 (1): 57–65.

Snedecor G W and Cochran W G. 1968. Statistical Methods. 8th edn, Iowa State University Press, Iowa, USA.

Stalling Charles C. 2005. Tests available for measuring forage quality. Forage Testing, Virginia Tech. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA. www.ext.vt.edu.

Steven Barnhart K. 2007. Short- term and supplemental forages. Iowa state University, www.iowabeefcenter.org.

Takahashi J. 2001. Nutritional manipulation of methanogenesis in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 14: 131–35.

Torrecillas M, Cantamutto M A and Bertoia L M. 2011. Head and stover contribution to digestible dry matter yield on rain and dual purpose sorghum crop. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5 (2): 116–22.

Undersander D, Mertens D R and Theix N. 1993. Forage Analysis. National Forage Testing Association, USA.

Van Soest P J, Robertson J B and Lewis B A .1991. Method for dietary fibre, Neutral detergent fibre and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Sciences 74: 3588–97.