2020 SCIENCELINE

O nline J ournal of A nimal and F eed R esearch

Volume 10, Issue 6: 313-320; November 27, 2020

ISSN 2228-7701

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2020.42

EFFECT OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENTED COWPEA (Vigna unguiculata)

HAY AS REPLACEMENT OF CONCENTRATE ON PERFORMANCE AND

ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF ABERGELLE GOATS



Bewketu AMARE¹and Ayalew GIRMAY²

Sekota Dry Land Agriculture Research Center, P.o.box 62, Sekota, Ethiopia



Email: bewketa21@gmail.com;

: 0000-0002-5739-7438

^Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: The study were conducted at Sekota district using twenty four yearling male Aberegelle goats for

100 days to evaluate the effect of substitution of concentrate mix with cowpea hay on biological and economic

benefits. The treatments were natural grass hay alone (T1) and supplemented with 100% concentrate mix (T₂),

75: 25% (T₃), 50:50% (T₄), 25:75% (T₅) concentrate mix: cowpea hay and 100% cowpea hay (T₆) per head per

day. Randomized complete block design with six treatments and five replications was used. The crude protein

(CP) content of grass hay, concentrate mix and cowpea hay were 6.80, 16.30 and 19.62%, respectively. Daily

hay dry matter (DM) intake of the control was significantly higher (P<0.05) than other treatments. Apparent DM,

organic matter (OM), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), CP digestibility and body weight

change of supplemented treatments were significant (P<0.001) as compared to the control, however there were

no significant differences in intake, digestibility, linear body measurement and growth performance of goats fed

different proportion of concentrate and cowpea hay. However, sole cowpea hay supplementation performs better

in terms of net return and farmers’ preference. Therefore, supplementation of sole cowpea hay would be both

biologically, economically and socially acceptable level for Abergelle goats bred.

Keywords: Cowpea, Digestibility, Feed intake, Ruminant.

INTRODUCTION

In Ethiopia feeding of ruminant depend on crop residues and poor quality hay. As a result, the digestibility and intake of

these feeds are low which results in poor performance (Mekuriaw and Asmare, 2018; Wamatu et al., 2019 ). Despite the

potential economic benefits, cereal grain and concentrate supplementation to low-quality feeds is unaffordable by

smallholder farmers in addition to scarcity and its use as human food. Therefore, there is a need to look for protein

sources that farmers could get from their own farm with minimum cost. One potential way could be through the use of

fodder trees, shrub and herbaceous legumes. One of such fodder legumes is cowpea which is relatively drought-resistant

plant (Paul et al., 2020 ). Sekota dry land research center had recommended two varieties of cowpea which have potential

to produce high biomass ranging from1.8 to 2.1 DM t/ha (SDARC, 2008). And most of the farmers grown local cultivar for

seed production, biomass during dry season and used the haulm for feeding selected animals such as ill, lactating and

castrated animals. This illustrates cowpea is an excellent source of protein ranging from 19.5-26% which could be a

substitute for more expensive concentrates (Owolabi et al., 2012 ).

However, in Ethiopia information on feeding value of cowpea hay in relation to goat performance is scanty especially

as a substitute to conventional protein supplement. Therefore, the objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of

substitution of concentrate mixture with cowpea hay on feed intake, digestibility and weight change of Abergelle goats

and to determine the economic feasibility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of the study area

The study was conducted in Sekota district, Ethiopia. It is located between 12⁰23' and 13⁰16^'north and 38⁰44^'and

39⁰21^'east (CSA, 2014). The altitude ranges from 1340-2200 meters above sea level (WZAD, 1995 ). Annual rainfall

ranges between 350-650 mm (AMAREW, 2006 ).

Feed intake, body weight and linear body measurement

Natural pasture grass hay was purchased from farmers and hand chopped to a size of about 1-10 cm. Cowpea were

planted in Sekota research center farm and harvested at 50% blooming. The concentrate mixture was composed of 70%

wheat bran and 30% Noug seed cake. The feed were offered in two equal proportions at 0800 and 1600 hour. The feed

313

Citation: Amare B and Girmay A (2020). Effect of dietary supplemented cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) hay as replacement of concentrate on performance and economic

efficiency of Abergelle goats. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10(6): 313-320. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2020.42

was formulated based on metabolizable energy and crude protein requirements for maintenance and growth of

Aberegelle goat (Bewketu Amare et al., 2015) weighting 15-20 kg and with expected 70g/day weight gain. Grass hay was

offered ad libitum allowing 20% refusal. Water and salt licks had available free choice. Daily feed offers and refusals per

goat were collected and weighted to determine daily feed intake. Samples of feed offered and refused were collected,

bulked and sub-samples were taken after thoroughly mixing for determination of nutrient composition. Live body weights

of goat were measured every 10 days after overnight fasting. Average daily weight gain was calculated as the difference

between final and initial weight divided by 90 days. Metabolizable energy intake were estimated as follows: ME (MJ/kg) =

0.0157* digestible organic matter intake (AFRC, 1993 ): Microbial N production=1.34* Metabolizable energy intake (ARC,

1984 ). Linear body measurements were measured using tape meter (Deboer et al., 1974 ). The total gain was calculated

as the difference of initial and final measurement.

Experimental animal’s management and treatments

Twenty four intact yearling male Aberegelle goats were purchased from local market. Age of goat was determined

by looking at their dentition and information gathered from the owners. All goats were de-wormed, injected against

internal and external parasite as well as vaccinated against disease. Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) was

used. Treatments were a basal diet of natural pasture grass hay alone (T₁) and supplemented with 100% concentrate mix

(T₂), 75:25% (T₃), 50:50% (T₄), 25:75% (T₅) concentrate mix: cowpea hay and 100% cowpea hay (T₆) per head per day.

Digestibility trial

Digestibility trial was conducted after the end of feeding trial. All goats were fitted with fecal collection bags for five

days of adaptation period before the resumption of actual collection of feces for nine consecutive days. The daily feces

output of each goats were collected and weighted. After thorough mixing, 30% of the daily fecal excretion of each goat

were sampled and stored at -20 °C. After nine days, feces were thawed and sub-sample from each plastic bag and pooled

per goat. Apparent digestibility of nutrients was calculated as the proportion of the difference between nutrient consumed

and nutrient in feces to nutrient consumed.

Chemical analysis

Samples of feed offer, refusal and feces were dried in an oven at 60°C for 72 hours and ground to pass through

1mm sieve. All samples were analyzed for DM, ash, OM and N contents (AOAC, 1995). Neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid

detergent fiber (ADF) and acid detergent lignin (ADL) contents were analyzed according to the procedure of VanSoest and

Robertson (1985). Hemicelluloses, cellulose and soluble matter were calculated as NDF minus ADF, ADF minus ADL and

100 minus NDF, respectively.

Economic analysis and farmers assessment of the feeding trial

Partial budget analysis was performed using the procedure of Upton (1979). In the tradition of Sekota farmers,

natural pasture grass and cowpea hay were sold with local name of Mewogeya and Shekeme, respectively. They sold a

single Mewogeya and Shekeme with 80 and 45 birr. A single Mewogeya and Shekeme weights on average of 70 kg and

25 kg then after translate in to selling price of hay per kilogram, respectively. The buying and selling price of each goat

was determined by inviting well experienced goat dealers who know market price of different size of goat in the area. The

feed, labor, load and unload, transport and medicament cost were considered as total variable costs. The net return was

calculated by subtracting total variable cost (TVC) from total return (TR). The marginal rate of return (MRR) measures the

increase in net return (ΔNR) associated with each additional unit of expenditure (ΔTVC). The gross margin analysis was

also used to examine the relative contribution of price, weight and their interaction from the gross return (Baur et al.,

1989 ). Sensitivity analysis was also done to capture the likely change in prices of input (feed) and fattened goats. In

Ethiopia, the price of animal feed for the last five years has shown an average of 20% increment (USAID, 2013 ). Thus,

sensitivity analysis was hypothesized for 20% increase in feed cost and 20% decrease in selling price of goats. After

finishing the feeding trial, a field day was organized and farmer perceptions toward the technology were assessed.

Statistical analysis

Data on feed intake, digestibility, growth and economic parameters were analyzed using the General Linear Model

(GLM) procedure of SAS (2003). Mean values were compared by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (Duncan, 1955 ). The

model, Y_ij= µ + T_i+ B_j+ e_ijwas used, where: Y_ij= Individual observation; µ = Overall mean; T_i= Treatment effect; B_j=

Block effect and e_ij= Random error

RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

Chemical composition of treatment feeds

Except natural pasture grass hay, all other ingredients had medium and high CP contents (Table 1). The CP content

of cowpea hay in the current experiment is within the range of 19.4 to 26% reported by Alexander et al. (2007) and 18.78

20.22% for different level of fertilizer supplemented cowpea forage (Hasan et al., 2010). The CP content of grass hay in

314

Citation: Amare B and Girmay A (2020). Effect of dietary supplemented cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) hay as replacement of concentrate on performance and economic

efficiency of Abergelle goats. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10(6): 313-320. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2020.42

this experiment is higher than 5.15% CP (Ajebu Nurfeta., 2010), respectively. However, it was lower than 7.5-10.9% CP of

harvested native pasture hay at 90 and 170 days from Andasa area (Yihalem et al., 2004). This difference in nutrient

content of hay could be due to variation plant species, sampling, and method of preparation, climate, plant fraction and

stage of maturity at harvesting.

Table 1 - Chemical composition of treatment feeds

Nutrient (% DM)

Type of feed

DM %

Ash

NDF

ADF

ADL

19.99

15.50

6.60

13.30

8.61

Natural grass hay

Cowpea hay

Wheat bran

Noug seed cake

Concentrate mix

90.00

91.00

89.00

88.00

88.70

10.00

14.00

10.00

12.80

90.00

86.00

90.00

87.20

6.80

75.00

57.77

68.88

42.22

60.88

44.44

31.11

13.33

33.33

19.33

30.56

26.66

55.55

8.89

24.45

15.61

6.73

20.03

10.72

25.00

42.23

31.12

57.78

39.12

19.62

11.88

26.62

16.30

41.55

Refusal hay

T₁

T₂

T₃

T₄

T₅

T₆

90.00

8.75

8.50

8.00

7.75

8.50

91.25

91.50

92.00

92.25

91.50

6.56

6.90

6.52

6.58

8.09

7.07

76.11

73.89

74.44

71.85

74.99

73.89

53.33

52.78

52.22

52.59

56.94

56.11

25.27

24.44

30.83

29.25

28.05

32.77

22.78

21.11

22.22

19.26

18.06

17.78

28.06

28.34

21.39

23.34

28.89

23.34

23.89

26.12

25.56

28.15

25.00

26.12

DM=dry matter; OM= organic matter; CP = crude protein; NDF=neutral detergent fiber; ADF = acid detergent fiber; ADL= acid detergent lignin;

HC=hemicelluloses; C=cellulose; SM=soluble matter. T₁= natural grass hay alone; T₂= natural grass hay + 0% cowpea hay: 100% concentrate

mix:; T₃= natural grass hay + 25% cowpea hay: 75% concentrate mix; T₄= natural grass hay + 50% cowpea hay: 50% concentrate mix; T₅=

natural grass hay + 75% cowpea hay:25% concentrate mix; T₆= natural grass hay + 100% cowpea hay: 0% concentrate mix

Dry matter and nutrients intake

Supplementation resulted in significantly greater DM, OM, CP and ME intake compared to the control however,

statistically similar among supplemented treatments (Table 2). The non-significant difference in NDF and ADF could be

due to the higher fiber content of the basal diet in the control. Similarity, substitution rate obliviously due to similar intake

of basal diet among supplemented treatments and substituting concentrate mixture with cowpea hay had no negative

effect on basal diet intake. Similarly, Patra et al. (2006) observed does fed concentrate containing soybean and leaf

mixtures had similar DM, OM and CP intake among treatments with basal diet of wheat straw. On the other hand, Foster

et al. (2009) found reduced DM and OM intakes with increasing levels of pigeon pea hay as a supplement to grass hay

compared with the control. Moreover, the total DM intake per body weight in all treatments was within the range of 2–6%

recommended for goats (ARC, 1980 ). The higher intake of hay for the control might be due to the deficiency of nutrients

in the hay and is an attempt for goat trying to satisfy their nutrient requirement through relatively more hay intake. All

treatments were above the minimum CP and energy requirement for maintenance and rumen function of 33 g/day CP

and 3.31 MJ/day ME, respectively for 15 kg goats (Kearl, 1982). The microbial nitrogen production in the supplemented

group was greater than 10.2-10.9 g/day of Adilo sheep (Ajebu Nurfeta et al., 2013 ).

Table 2 - Dry matter and nutrients intake of Abergelle goat fed on natural pasture grass hay and supplemented with

different proportion of cowpea hay and concentrate mix

Treatments

Intake (g/day)

T₁

T₂

T₃

T₄

T₅

T₆

765.97^b

SEM

P-value

0.0001

Hay DM

885.07^a

769.51^b

692.38^b

740.46^b

178.64^c

148.37^c

710.75^b

276.72^b

75.00^d

20.38

Cowpea hay DM

Concentrate mix DM

Total DM

93.71^d

225.00^b

1011.09^b

356.54^a

29.21

24.05

22.39

0.0001

295.42^a

1064.93^ab

885.07^c

1067.46^ab1062.47^ab

1122.52^a

Total OM

796.56^c

60.19^e

663.80^b

393.32^b

11.26^b

8.40^b

950.17^ab

100.48^d

756.99^a

399.08^b

15.69^a

11.72^a

0.39^a

903.68^b

102.15^cd

710.41^ab

380.34^b

14.89^a

11.12^a

0.60^a

956.56^ab

109.59^bc

748.87^a

413.31^ab

15.23^a

11.36^a

0.44^a

5.45^ab

954.13^ab

114.85^ab

738.59^ab

416.44^ab

15.59^a

11.63^a

0.49^a

5.26^b

1010.27^a

122.04^a

780.46^a

451.32^a

15.76^a

11.76^a

0.34^a

20.07

4.46

14.12

8.41

0.39

0.29

0.05

0.11

0.0001

0.001

0.0001

0.01

Total CP

Total NDF

Total ADF

EMN

EME (MJ/day)

Substitution rate

% live body weight

5.96^a

5.18^b

4.89^b

5.47^ab

0.01

a-e

Means within a row not bearing a common superscript are significantly different; SEM=standard error of mean; DM=dry matter;

OM=organic matter; CP=crude protein; NDF=neutral detergent fiber; ADF =acid detergent fiber; EME=estimated metabolizable energy;

EMN=estimated microbial nitrogen; T₁= natural grass hay alone; T₂= natural grass hay + 0% cowpea hay: 100% concentrate mix:; T₃= natural

grass hay + 25% cowpea hay: 75% concentrate mix; T₄= natural grass hay + 50% cowpea hay: 50% concentrate mix; T₅= natural grass hay +

75% cowpea hay: 25% concentrate mix; T₆= natural grass hay + 100% cowpea hay:0% concentrate mix.

315

Citation: Amare B and Girmay A (2020). Effect of dietary supplemented cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) hay as replacement of concentrate on performance and economic

efficiency of Abergelle goats. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10(6): 313-320. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2020.42

Apparent digestibility

Apparent DM, OM, ADF, NDF and CP digestibility of supplemented treatments were significant (P<0.001) as

compared to control group, however similar among supplemented treatments. This might suggest that supplementation

of cowpea and concentrate mixture might have favored comparable and high rumen fermentation and increased

production of rumen biomass (McDonald et al., 2002 ). The DM digestibility values obtained in supplemented treatments

fell within the range of 70% to 79% deemed as indicative of high digestible level (Lee, 2008 ), and that of control was

found within the range of 60% to 65% regarded as moderately acceptable digestibility for average animal performance

(Devendra and McLeory, 1982 ).

Table 3 - Apparent digestibility of nutrients in Abergelle goat fed on natural pasture grass hay and supplemented with

different proportion of cowpea hay and concentrate mix

Treatments

Digestibility (%)

T₁

T₂

T₃

T₄

T₅

T₆

SEM

1.26

1.18

2.07

1.47

1.54

P-value

0.0001

0.001

NDF

ADF

65.58^b

67.31^b

50.66^b

63.68^c

57.50^b

77.85^a

78.68^a

76.19^a

76.48^ab

68.01^a

77.93^a

78.56^a

74.43^a

77.53^a

69.77^a

75.05^a

75.80^a

72.07^a

70.42^abc

62.45^ab

77.07^a

77.74^a

73.09^a

74.29^ab

69.44^a

73.21^a

74.36^a

70.42^a

69.69^bc

62.71^ab

0.01

^a-cMeans within a row not bearing a common superscript are significantly different; SEM= standard error of mean; DM=dry matter; OM=

organic matter; CP = crude protein; NDF=neutral detergent fiber; ADF=acid detergent fiber; T₁= natural grass hay alone; T₂= natural grass hay

+ 0% cowpea hay: 100% concentrate mix; T₃= ad libitum natural pasture grass hay + 25% cowpea hay: 75% concentrate mix; T₄= natural

grass hay + 50% cowpea hay: 50% concentrate mix; T₅= natural grass hay + 75% cowpea hay: 25% concentrate mix; T₆= natural grass hay +

100% cowpea hay: 0% concentrate mix.

Body weight change

Supplementation significantly improved (P<0.001) final weight, weight gain and feed conversion efficiency as

compared to the control, however statistically similar among supplemented treatments. Despite the CP and ME intake of

the control used in this experiment was above the minimum nutrient requirement for maintenance of goats (Kearl, 1982),

goats were unable to maintain body weight fed hay alone. This might be presumably have due to high fiber content, low

digestibility, higher minimum nutrient requirement for maintenance of this breed and higher urinary loss. Moreover, the

similarity in body weight change among supplemented treatments reflects that the supplements are comparable in their

nutrient supply. Similar weight gain was also reported when cotton seed cake substituted Leucaena leucocephala at

varying levels (Ndemanisho et al., 1998). However, forage to concentrate ratio was reported to affect average daily gain in

kids where increasing the concentrate portion (Haddad, 2005). Furthermore, Karachi and Zengo (1998) and Keba (2009)

reported increased body weight gain by increasing the amount of pigeon pea leaves which is not consistent with the

current experiment. Generally, cowpea hay can be comparable supplementary value as sole or mixture with concentrate

and provide similar performance as compared with concentrate mix. This is important in the areas where concentrate is

not available especially for smallholder farmers.

Table 4 - Body weight change and feed conversion of Abergelle goat fed on natural pasture grass hay and

supplemented with different proportion of cowpea hay and concentrate mix

Treatments

Digestibility (%)

T₁

T₂

T₃

T₄

T₅

T₆

SEM

0.37

0.59

0.51

5.64

0.01

P-value

0.06

0.0001

Initial body weight

Final body weight

Total weight gain

Daily gain (g/day)

FCE

16.20

14.85^b

-1.35^b

-15.00^b

-0.017^b

16.45

20.70^a

4.25^a

47.22^a

0.044^a

15.90

20.80^a

4.90^a

54.44^a

0.054^a

14.60

19.57^a

4.97^a

55.19^a

0.052^a

15.85

20.20^a

4.35^a

48.33^a

0.045^a

15.90

20.75^a

4.85^a

53.89^a

0.049^a

^a-bMeans within a row not bearing a common superscript are significantly different; SEM = standard error of mean; FCE=feed conversion

efficiency; T₁= natural grass hay alone; T₂= natural grass hay + 0% cowpea hay:100% concentrate mix:; T₃= natural grass hay + 25% cowpea

hay:75% concentrate mix; T₄= natural grass hay + 50% cowpea hay:50% concentrate mix; T₅= natural grass hay + 75% cowpea hay:25%

concentrate mix; T₆= natural grass hay + 100% cowpea hay:0% concentrate mix.

Linear body measurement

Most traits of supplemented goats were higher (P<0.05) linear body measurement than control (Table 6). This could

be due to supplementation caused muscle and fat cover accumulation around the vertebrae, in the loin and leg region as

well as skeletal development (Tesfa et al., 2013). The average values for final HG and BL of current study were

comparable with Abergelle goats under on farm condition (Halima Hassen et al., 2012 ).

Economic analysis of the feeding trial

Even though the analysis revealed that feeding with supplementation in the trial was profitable, goats fed entirely

sole hay (T₁) lost 22.33 ETB which was in line with Jemberu et al. (2010) for Simada sheep (-30 ETB/sheep). The reasons

316

Citation: Amare B and Girmay A (2020). Effect of dietary supplemented cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) hay as replacement of concentrate on performance and economic

efficiency of Abergelle goats. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10(6): 313-320. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2020.42

for the negative net return might be due to relatively lower body weight, poor body condition and conformation as a result

of lower nutrient intake. There is only significant difference when the level of cowpea hay was above 50% of the

supplement as compared with the control. Moreover, the higher net return and rate return in T₆was due to lower cost of

feed per live weight gain as a result of availability of cowpea hay in the area. In addition to weight gain, time of purchasing

feeds, time of buying and selling price of goats were a major contributor for improving profitability. Generally, the result of

this study suggested that the importance of formulating cheap feed source that can substitute expensive industrial by-

products and supplementation of natural grass hay with sole cowpea hay was economically beneficial than sole

concentrate mix or mixture with cowpea hay for Abergelle goats.

Table 5 - Linear body measurement of Abergelle goat fed on natural pasture grass hay and supplemented with

different proportion of cowpea hay and concentrate mix

Treatments

Parameters

T₁

T₂

T₃

T₄

T₅

T₆

SEM

P-value

Final HG (cm)

Final BL (cm)

Final HW (cm)

Final PW (cm)

57.25^b

56.75^c

56.63^c

9.00^b

64.13^a

62.75^ab

64.00^ab

11.25^a

64.63^a

62.75^ab

64.38^ab

11.50^a

63.67^a

62.67^ab

61.17^b

11.83^a

64.75^a

63.88^a

64.88^a

12.00^a

63.75^a

59.88^b

62.75^ab

11.75^a

0.68

0.75

0.77

0.31

0.0001

0.01

Final CW (cm)

12.50^b

19.81^b

12.08^b

0.00^b

0.00^c

0.00^b

14.50^a

22.19^a

18.34^a

6.88^a

6.00^ab

7.38^ab

2.25^a

2.00^a

2.38^a

6.26^a

14.38^a

22.36^a

18.66^a

7.38^a

6.00a^b

7.75^ab

2.50^a

1.88^a

2.55^a

6.59^a

13.83^ab

22.03^a

17.32^a

6.00^a

7.67^a

4.67^b

2.50^a

1.17^ab

2.08^a

13.75^ab

22.40^a

18.70^a

7.50^a

7.13^a

8.25^a

3.00^a

1.25^ab

2.59^a

13.75^ab

22.06^a

17.78^a

6.50^a

3.13^b

6.13^ab

2.75^a

1.25^ab

2.25^a

5.70^a

0.22

0.24

0.63

0.68

0.81

0.78

0.35

0.25

0.24

0.65

0.06

0.0001

0.001

0.0001

0.01

Final CD (cm)

Final BV (cm³)

Total HG gain (cm)

Total BL gain (cm)

Total HW gain (cm)

Total PW gain (cm)

Total CW gain (cm)

Total CD gain (cm)

Total BV gain (cm³)

0.01

0.0001

4.90^a

6.63^a

0.001

^a-cMeans within a row not bearing a common superscript are significantly different; SEM = standard error of mean; HG=heart girth; BL=body

length; HW=height at whiter; PW=pelvic width; CW=chest width; CD=chest depth; BV=body volume; T₁= natural grass hay alone; T₂= natural

grass hay + 0% cowpea hay:100% concentrate mix:; T₃= natural grass hay + 25% cowpea hay:75% concentrate mix; T₄= natural grass hay +

50% cowpea hay:50% concentrate mix; T₅= natural grass hay + 75% cowpea hay:25% concentrate mix; T₆= natural grass hay + 100%

cowpea hay:0% concentrate mix.

Table 6 - Economic analysis of the feeding trial Abergelle goat fed on natural pasture grass hay and supplemented

with different proportion of cowpea hay and concentrate mix

Treatments

Parameters (birr)

T₁

42.98^a

T₂

38.13^b

T₃

T₄

T₅

T₆

SEM

1.08

3.74

5.69

4.69

0.25

P-value

0.001

0.0001

Grass hay cost

33.62^b

11.44^d

51.37^b

96.42^b

9.96^b

35.96^b

21.79^c

33.87^c

91.63^b

10.51^ab

33.81^b

33.91^b

17.12^d

84.85^c

10.35^ab

37.19^b

43.51^a

80.71^c

11.06^a

Cowpea hay cost

Concentrate mix cost

Feed cost (1+2+3)

Feed loan and unload

67.61^a

105.75^a

10.63^ab

42.98^d

8.59^c

Feed transport

Total feed cost (4+5+6)

Labor

Medicament cost

TVC (7+8+9)

Initial goat purchase

Total cost (10+11)

Selling price

Net return

AFRR (%)

MRR from control

Marginal rate of return

17.19^e

68.77^f

58.33

3.24

130.33^f

337.50

467.83^c

445.50^b

-22.33^b

-19.04^b

69.34^a

185.72^a

58.33

54.54^b

160.93^b

58.33

2.36

221.62^b

369.17

590.78^ab527.65^bc

635.35^a

44.57^ab

33.21^ab

0.73

41.48^c

143.62^c

58.33

2.36

204.31^c

27.22^d

122.42^d

58.33

14.88^f

106.65^e

58.33

4.44

8.69

0.00

0.17

8.63

13.40

17.45

21.39

12.46

9.93

0.0001

0.06

0.0001

0.06

0.0001

0.01

2.36

246.41^a

382.22

628.63^a

652.93^a

24.30^ab

14.71^ab

0.22

183.1^d

351.11

534.22^b

602.87^a

68.65^a

53.67^a

1.72

167.34^e

373.33

540.67^b

634.05^a

93.38^a

73.24^a

3.13

323.33

593.97^a

66.32^a

53.17^a

1.16

0.22

-0.16

-1.09

-0.25

-1.57

^a-fMeans within a row not bearing a common superscript are significantly different; SEM= standard error of mean; AFRR=annual financial

rate of return; Δ=change; TVC=total variable cost; MRR=marginal rate of return; T₁= natural grass hay alone; T₂= natural grass hay + 0%

cowpea hay: 100% concentrate mix:; T₃= natural grass hay + 25% cowpea hay: 75% concentrate mix; T₄= natural grass hay + 50% cowpea

hay: 50% concentrate mix; T₅= natural grass hay + 75% cowpea hay: 25% concentrate mix; T₆= natural grass hay + 100% cowpea hay: 0%

concentrate mix.

317

Citation: Amare B and Girmay A (2020). Effect of dietary supplemented cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) hay as replacement of concentrate on performance and economic

efficiency of Abergelle goats. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10(6): 313-320. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2020.42

Different components of the gross margin

The contribution of weight and price change for gross return is described in the Table 7. The current result of gross

margin as percentages of financial return indicates that weight gain, as a whole, accounted for 55.46% of the gross

margin while price changes and the interactions accounted for 26.06 and 18.48%, respectively. This suggests that weight

change over the feeding periods relatively played an important role in the determination of profitability

Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis of the current result is done in Table 8. Relatively speaking, the analysis indicated that

profitability was highly affected by changes in selling price of goat. Generally, T₆was better to resist the fluctuation of the

enterprise.

Table 7 - Gross margin of the feeding trial in Abergelle goats fed on natural pasture grass hay and supplemented with

different proportion of cowpea hay and concentrate mix

Treatments

T₁

T₂

T₃

T₄

T₅

T₆

Mean

SEM

Price

53.60

19.12

19.42

21.26

19.44

18.92

26.06

6.03

Weight

32.58

61.76

61.15

57.48

61.11

62.17

55.46

4.75

Interaction

13.82

19.12

19.42

21.26

19.45

18.96

18.48

1.90

0.06

SEM= standard error of mean; T₁= natural grass hay alone; T₂= natural grass hay + 0% cowpea hay:100% concentrate mix:; T₃= natural grass

hay + 25% cowpea hay:75% concentrate mix; T₄= natural grass hay + 50% cowpea hay:50% concentrate mix; T₅= natural grass hay + 75%

cowpea hay:25% concentrate mix; T₆= natural grass hay + 100% cowpea hay:0% concentrate mix.

Table 8 - Sensitivity analysis of the feeding trial in Abergelle goat fed on natural pasture grass hay and supplemented

with different proportion of cowpea hay and concentrate mix

Treatments

Parameters (birr)

T₁

T₂

T₃

T₄

T₅

T₆

SEM

P-value

0.01

0.06

NR₀

NR₁

NR₂

NR₃

NR₁(%)

NR₂(%)

NR₃(%)

-22.33^b

-30.93^b

-111.43^b

-120.03^ab

9.83

24.30^ab

3.15^ab

-106.29^b

-127.43^b

16.59

44.57^ab

25.28^ab

-82.50^ab

-101.79^ab

-5.48

66.32^a

48.00^a

-52.47^ab

-70.80^ab

34.83

68.65^a

51.68^a

-51.93^ab

-68.89^ab

30.40

93.38^a

77.24^a

-33.43^a

-49.57^a

30.24

12.46

12.13

10.58

10.47

10.67

83.74

94.12

98.40

108.20

113.00

129.60

-28.40

-33.90

223.30

258.10

214.80

245.20

220.60

250.80

^a-dMeans within a row not bearing a common superscript are significantly different; SEM = standard error of mean;; NR₀= Initial net return;

NR₁= Net return with 20% increase in feed price without a change in selling price; NR₂= Net return with 20% decrease in selling price without

changes in feed price; NR₃= Net return with 20% increase in feed price and 20% decrease selling price; Δ=change; TCP=total cost of

production; TVC=total variable cost; T₁= natural grass hay alone; T₂= natural grass hay + 0% cowpea hay:100% concentrate mix:; T₃= natural

grass hay + 25% cowpea hay:75% concentrate mix; T₄= natural grass hay + 50% cowpea hay:50% concentrate mix; T₅= natural grass hay +

75% cowpea hay:25% concentrate mix; T₆= natural grass hay + 100% cowpea hay:0% concentrate mix.

Farmers assessment of the feeding trial

Among supplemented group farmers prefer treatment 6, however control group were least selected. This shows that

T₆was not only better economically, but also was recognized by farmers as a preference choice. Farmers around Zekolla

were impressed with the technology being demonstrated. Because of notable improvement in growth performance, body

condition, conformation, libido, locally availability of cowpea hay and health status were the major observations compiled

from the respondents. The drawbacks for the feed supplementation raised by farmers were the amount and frequency of

feed given to the animal per day is too much that may cause animal health; fattening without castration and younger age

of goats may reduce the response to feeding; unavailability of concentrate fed and lack of finance to undertake the

technology; high cost and labor intensive; indoor feeding not consider farmer practice. Therefore in agreement with

Baltenweck et al. (2020), to make the farmers adopt this feeding practice the cowpea hay preparation method should be

available; provision of adequate credit is necessary; extension worker should be committed to popularize the technology

specially for pre-urban and urban area in which they have fattening experience; awareness creation through training is

essential that long period fattening affect quality of meat and total return from production; fattening at younger age

highly preferred by abattoirs and fast growth in lean meat and overall body condition. Strengthening market linkage with

abattoir for better market value is essential. The farmer expects a minimum rate of return of 50% if he/she is to adopt a

new practice as compared to the practice he/she used to do. In this experiment, the rate of return was above the

recommendation of CIMMYT (1985). However, further evaluation under on farm condition should be done in order to

maximize the profit and easy adoption of the technology.

318

Citation: Amare B and Girmay A (2020). Effect of dietary supplemented cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) hay as replacement of concentrate on performance and economic

efficiency of Abergelle goats. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10(6): 313-320. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2020.42

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The present study revealed that there were no significant differences in intake, digestibility, linear body measurement and

growth performance of goats fed different proportion of concentrate and cowpea hay. However, sole cowpea hay

supplementation performs better in terms of net return and farmers’ preference. Therefore, supplementation of sole

cowpea hay would be both biologically and economically the optimum level for Abergelle goats bred. Moreover, the result

suggests that cowpea hay could replace concentrate mix in goats feeding in which concentrates are not available or

expensive for smallholder farmers in the rural area.. Therefore, intervention in disseminating the use of cowpea hay is

essential as the forage could be a useful feed in improving the productivity of goat under intensive production system.

Verification of the proposed feeding regime under smallholders is essential as well as the performance and economics of

length of stay in feedlots should be further study in the future

DECLARATIONS

Authors’ contribution

All authors contributed equally to this research work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The Authors would like to thank Sekota dry land agricultural research center for their support during data recording

and feeding of animal.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that we have not conflict of interest. Bewketu Amare and Ayalew Girmay have declared and

agree the rule of the journal and put the signatures on the declaration form. Bewketu Amare is first Author whereas

Ayalew Girmay is second Author of the papers. The contribution of the Author Bewketu Amare is from initiation of the

paper until final write up. But, Ayalew Girmay was contributed for presentation of the paper in regional review.

REFERENCES

AFRC (Agricultural Food and Research Council) (1993). Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by

the Agricultural Food and Research Council technical committee on responses to nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK,

342pp. https://books.google.com/books/about/Energy_and_Protein_Requirements_of_Rumin.html

Ajebu N, Meseret T and Aster A (2012). Effects of substituting maize with kocho on intake, digestibility, nitrogen utilization and body

weight gain in sheep fed a basal diet of Rhodes grass hay. Ethiopian journal of applied Science Technology, 3(2):13-24.

http://journals.ju.edu.et/index.php/ejast/article/view/861

Alexander G, Ravi D, Reddy RCh, Saxena KB, Hanson JU, padhyaya HD, Blümmel M. (2007). Forage yield and quality in pigeon pea

germplasm lines.

An open access Journal .International crop research institute for semi-arid tropics, 3(1) 1-3.

http://oar.icrisat.org/id/eprint/2879

AMAREW (Amhara Micro-enterprise development, Agricultural Research, Extension and Watershed Management) (2006). Unpublished.

Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, 45pp. https://www.oecd.org/countries/ethiopia/42319183.pdf

AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) (1995). Animal Feed: Sample preparation (950.02) and Official methods of analysis.

16^thedition. Association of Analytical Chemists, Viriginia, USA. http://www.aoac.org/techprog/Intro98.htm

ARC (Agricultural Research Council) (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

https://www.amazon.com/Nutrient-Requirements-Ruminant-Livestock-Agricultural/dp/0851986196

Baltenweck I, Cherney D, Duncan A. et al (2020). A scoping review of feed interventions and livelihoods of small-scale livestock keepers.

Nature Plants, 6: 1242–1249 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-00786-w

Baur H, Sissoko K and Debrah S (1989). The economics of peasant cattle fattening in Mali. African Research Network for Agricultural by-

products (ARNAB). Overcoming constraints to the effective utilization of agricultural by-products as animal feed. Proceeding of the

fourth annual workshop held at the institutes of animal research, Mankon station, Bameeda, Cameroon, ARNAB, Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia, 49-60pp. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/50032/Overcoming_Constraints.pdf

Bewketu A, Tewoderos A and Likawent Y (2015). Evaluation of body weight change and carcass characteristics of Abergelle and Abergelle

X Baka cross (50%) goat fed hay supplemented with different level of concentrate mixture. In press: proceedings of the annual

regional conference of completed livestock research activities. Amhara regional Agricultural Research institute (ARARI), Bahir Dar,

Ethiopia. www.arai.gov.et

CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center) (1985). From Agronomic Data to Farmers Recommendations. Economics

Programme. Mexico. 32pp.

http://repository.cimmyt.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10883/830/13803.pdf

CSA (Central Statistics Authority, 2014). Report on livestock and livestock characteristics statistics. l(2), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 417pp.

http://www.csa.gov.et/ehioinfo-internal

De Boer H., Dumont B.L., Pomeroy R.W. and Weninger J.H (1974). Manual on E.A.A.P. reference methods for assessment of carcass

characteristics in cattle. Livestock Production Science. 1: 151-164. http://aei.pitt.edu/50083/1/B0053.pdf

Devendra C. and Mcleroy B.G (1982). Goat and sheep production in the tropics. Long man, London and New York, 84pp.

http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8451618

Duncan,

(1955).

Multiple

range

and

multiple

tests.

Biometrics,

11:1−42.

http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1977/A1977DM02600001.pdf

Foster JL, Adesogan AT, Carter JN, Blount AR., Myer RO and Phatak SC (2009). Intake, digestibility, and nitrogen retention by

sheep supplemented with warm-season legume hays or soybean meal. Journal Animal Science, 87(9):2891–2898

https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1637

Haddad SG. (2005). Effect of dietary forage: concentrate ratio on growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing Baladi kids.

Small Ruminant Research, 57(1): 43-49 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2004.05.001

319

Citation: Amare B and Girmay A (2020). Effect of dietary supplemented cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) hay as replacement of concentrate on performance and economic

efficiency of Abergelle goats. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10(6): 313-320. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2020.42

Halima H, Michael B, Barbara R and Markos T (2012). Phenotypic characterization of Ethiopian indigenous goat populations. African

Journal of Biotechnology, 11(73), 13838-13846, https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB12.2092

Hasan M.R., Akbar M.A., Khandaker Z.H. and Rahman M.M (2010). Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on yield contributing character, biomass

yield and nutritive value of cowpea forage. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science, 39(1&2): 83

https://doi.org/10.3329/bjas.v39i1-2.9680

–

88.

Jemberu D, Solomon M, Firew T, and Kurt J (2010). Effect of supplementation of Simada sheep with graded levels of concentrate, mix on

feed intake, digestibility and live weight parameters. Tropical Animal Health Production, 42(5):841-848.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-009-9496-3

Karachi M and Zengo M (1998). Legume forages from pigeon pea, leucaena and sesbania as supplements to natural pastures for

goat production in western Tanzania Agro forest System,39: 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005859617603

Kearl LC (1982). Nutrient requirements of ruminants in developing countries. International feed stuff Institute, Uttah, USA, 120pp.

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/4183

Keba F (2009). Sheep production system in Damot Gale Woreda and supplementary value of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) and

sweet potato root (Ipomoea batatus) in sheep fattening diets. Master of scienceThesis, Hawassa University, Ethiopia.

Lee R (2008). Ruminant nutrition for glaziers. ATTRA national sustainable agricultural information service. www.attra.ncat.org , 7-15pp.

McDonald R.E., Edward R.A., Greenhalgh J.F.D. and Morgan G.A (2002). Animal nutrition. 6^thedition. Pearson Educational Limited.

Edinburgh, Great Britain, 544pp, ISBN13: 9780582419063; ISBN10: 0582419069, https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/animal-

nutrition-peter-mcdonald/1100484409

Mekuriaw Y, and Asmare B (2018). Nutrient intake, digestibility and growth performance of Washera lambs fed natural pasture hay

supplemented with graded levels of Ficus thonningii(Chibha) leaves as replacement for concentrate mixture. Agriculture & Food

Security, 7:30. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0182-4

Ndemanisho, EE, Mtenga, LA, Kimbi, EFC, Kimambo, AE, Mtengeti, EJ (1998). Substitution of dry Leucaena leucocephala (DLL)

leaves for cotton seed cake (CSC)as a protein supplement to urea treated maize stover fed to dairy weaner goats. Animal Feed

Science Technology, 73(3-4): 365-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(98)00139-4

Owolabi AO, Ndidi US, James UD, and Amune FA (2012). Proximate, Antinutrient and Mineral Composition of Five Varieties (Improved and

Local) of Cowpea, Vigna unguiculata, Commonly Consumed in Samaru Community, Zaria-Nigeria. Asian Journal of Food Science and

Technology, 4:70-72. 4(2):70-72 .ISSN: 2042-4876.

Patra AK, Sharma K, Dutta N and Pattanaik AK (2006). Effect of partial replacement of dietary protein by a leaf mixture on nutrient

utilization

goats

pre-and late

gestation.

Small Ruminant Research, 63(1-2):

66-74.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.02.008

Paul BK, Groot JC, Maass BL, Notenbaert AM, Herrero M, Tittonell PA (2020). Improved feeding and forages at a crossroads: Farming

systems approaches for sustainable livestock development in East Africa. Outlook on Agriculture, 49(1): 13-20. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0030727020906170

SAS (Statistical Analysis System) (2003). Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc.cary, NC. Science. Uppsala, Sweden.

SDARC (Sekota dry land agriculture research center) (2013). Annual report of research center in 2013.

Tesfa G, Tegene N, Girma A and Arth L. G (2013). Effect of supplementing grazing Arsi-Bale sheep with molasses-urea feed block on

weight gain and economic return under farmers’ management condition. Journal of Cell and Animal Biology, 7(10):125-131.

https://doi.org/10.5897/JCAB11.030

Upton M (1979). Farm management in Africa: The principle of production and planning. Oxford University press, UK. 282-298pp.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/products/isbn/9780192156464/30743147345

USAID (United States Agency for International Development of the United States Government) (2013). Agricultural Growth Project -

Livestock

Market

Development.

Value

chain

analysis

for

Ethiopia.

USAID

bulletin,

150pp.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/AGP-LMD

Van Soest PJ, and Robertson BJ (1985). Analysis of forage and fibrous food. A laboratory manual for animal science 613. Cornell

University, Ithaca, New York, USA. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/223471931

Wamatu J, Alkhtib A, and Gardi M (2019). Leveraging traditional crops for food and feed: a case of hulless barley (hordeum vulgare)

landraces

http://dx.doi.org/10.18006/2019.7(1).42.50

WZAD (Waghimra Zone Agricultural Department

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_Hemra_Zone

Ethiopia.

Journal

Experimental

Biology

and

Agricultural

Sciences

7(1):42-50.

Office)

(1995).

Waghimra

Zone

Baseline

Data. 65pp.

Yihalem D, Berhan T and Solomon M (2004). Effect of harvesting date on composition and yield of natural pasture in northwestern.

Ethiopia Tropical Science, 45(1):19-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ts.40

320

Citation: Amare B and Girmay A (2020). Effect of dietary supplemented cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) hay as replacement of concentrate on performance and economic

efficiency of Abergelle goats. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10(6): 313-320. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51227/ojafr.2020.42