PROXIMATE AND CELLWALL COMPOSITION OF SUPER NAPIER GRASS (PENNISETUM PURPUREUM) HARVESTED AT DIFFERENT GROWTH STAGES
563 / 1386
Keywords:
Cell – wall fractions, Growth stages, Proximate composition, Super Napier grassAbstract
The investigation was conducted to find out and compare the proximate composition of Super Napier grass harvested at different growth stages which were 45 days, 60 days and 75 days during the months of January and February, 2022. The plant samples were collected at fodder unit of LFC, CVSc, Tirupati. Then, the samples were dried and ground before being analyzed for proximate composition (Moisture, Ash, Crude protein, Crude fiber, Ether extract and Nitrogen free extract) and fibre fractions (Neutral detergent fibre, Acid detergent fibre, Hemicellulose, Cellulose and Acid detergent lignin). Results of the present study indicated that, increasing the cutting interval (i.e., advancing age of maturity) increased drymatter and nutrient yields significantly (P < 0.05). In terms of nutrient content, it also increased the per cent of crude fiber (23.5, 27.1 and 30.2), acid detergent fiber (39.22, 40.08 and 41.32), neutral detergent fiber (67.12, 71.01 and 73.84), Hemicellulose (27.9, 30.93 and 32.52), Cellulose (33.52, 35.7 and 37.11) and acid detergent lignin (5.12, 5.94 and 6.62) in the plant. However, per cent of crude protein (9.78, 8.32 and 7.05) and ash (11.92, 9.56 and 7.99) was markedly decreased as the cutting interval increased. Therefore, the Super Napier at 45 days age growth is the best for harvesting which provides high nutritive value of the animal feed
References
1. 20th Livestock Census. 2019. All India Reports.
2. Department of Animal Husbandry and
3. Dairying, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal
4. Husbandry and Dairying, Government of
5. India. PP. 16.
6. AOAC. 2012. Official Methods of Analysis, (19
7. th Ed.). Association of Official Analytical
8. Chemists. Washington D.C.
9. Jagadeesh, C. H., Reddy, Y. R., NagaLakshmi,
10. D., Mahender, M., Kumari, N. N., Sridhar,
11. K and Devi, K, B. 2017. Effect of stage
12. of harvest on the yield, chemical
13. composition, invitro and in-sacco
14. digestibility of hybrid Napier (Pennisetum
15. purpureum) variety APB N 1. Indian
16. Journal of Animal Research.51:16-20.
17. Kebede, G., Feyissa, F., Assefa, G., Mengistu,
18. A., Minta, M and Tadesse, T. 2016.
19. Agronomic performance and nutritive
20. values of napier grass (Pennisetum
21. purpureum (L.)schumach) accessions in
22. the Central Highland of Ethiopia.
23. International Journal of Development and
24. Research.6: 17-26.
25. Kushwaha, M., Singh, M., Kumar, R., Tyagi, N.,
26. Soni, P.G., Choudhary, S and Makarana,
27. G. 2018. Yield and quality of multicut
28. fodder sorghum as affected by nutrient
29. levels and biofertilizer application. Indian
30. Journal of Animal Nutrition. 35: 82-89.
31. Lounglawan, P., Wassana, L. and Wisitiporn,
32. S. 2014. Effect of cutting interval and
33. cutting height on yield and chemical
34. composition of King Napier grass
35. (Pennisetum purpureum x Pennisetum
36. Americanum). APCBEE Procedia.8: 27
37. 31.
38. SPSS. 2015. IBM SPSS statistics for windows,
39. version 23.0 Armonk, Ny: IBM
40. corporation.
41. Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B and Lewis, B.
42. A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral
43. detergent fibre and non-starch
44. polysaccharides in relation to animal
45. nutrition. Journal of Dairy Sciences.74:
46. 83-97.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The author owns the article's copyright until the article is accepted for publication. After acceptance, the author(s) assigns the article's copyright jointly to both the authors and the Publishers of the Journal of Research ANGRAU (ANGRAU) and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.