Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 949–955 | Cite as

Effect of dried Sesbania sesban leaves supplementation on milk yield, feed intake, and digestibility of Holstein Friesian X Zebu (Arado) crossbred dairy cows

  • Solomon GebreyowhansEmail author
  • Tsadkan Zegeye
Regular Articles


This experiment was conducted to investigate effect of dried Sesbania sesban leaves supplementation on milk yield, feed intake and digestibility of Holstein Frisian X Zebu (Arado) crossbred dairy cows. Twelve cows at midlactation (155.83 ± 4.49 days of lactation), second parity, and 442.21 ± 3.40 kg average live body weight were randomly assigned to one of four dietary treatments according to a randomized complete block design. Cows were blocked according to their daily milk yield into three blocks of four animals each. Cows were fed a basal diet (control) or a basal diet supplemented with 1.25 kg/day dried Sesbania sesban leaves, 2 kg/day dried Sesbania sesban leaves and 2.75 kg/day dried Sesbania sesban leaves on a dry matter basis for 8 weeks. Total dry matter intake, nutrient intake, milk yield, dry matter digestibility, and nutrient digestibility showed significant variation among treatments. Cows supplemented with the highest level of Sesbania sesban (2.75 kg/day) had higher total dry matter and nutrient intake. Similarly, cows supplemented with 2 and 2.75 kg/day had higher milk yield than the nonsupplemented cows (up to 11.3 and 16.2%, respectively). Digestibility was lower for the nonsupplemented cows compared to cows supplemented with 2 and 2.75 kg/day dried Sesbania sesban leaves but statistically similar to the cows supplemented with 1.25 kg/day dried Sesbania sesban leaves. Supplementation with 2.75 kg/day Sesbania sesban resulted in higher organic matter digestibility (OMD) compared to the control. Crude protein digestibility (CPD), neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDFD), and acid detergent fiber digestibility (ADFD) were significantly affected by Sesbania sesban supplementation. The nonsupplemented cows had lower CPD, NDFD, and ADFD. These results indicate that dried Sesbania sesban leaves supplementation to dairy increases total DM intake, digestibility, and milk yield.


Digestibility Milk yield Nutrient intake Sesbania sesban 



We would like to thank Mekelle Agricultural Research Center for granting the laboratory analysis and final write-up of the manuscript. We wish also to acknowledge Holeta Agricultural research center, particularly animal nutrition laboratory staff members for their valuable help in conducting the chemical analysis of feed, feces, and urine samples.

Funding information

This study is financially supported by the Tigray Agricultural Research Institute.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of animal rights

The national guidelines for the use and care of animals have been followed.


  1. AOAC, 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th Association of Office Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Auldist M. J., Grainger C., Macmillan K. L., Marett, L. C., M. Hannah, Leury, B. J. and Wales W. J., 2011. Feed conversion efficiency and marginal milk production responses of pasture-fed dairy cows offered supplementary grain during an extended lactation. Animal Production Science, 51, 204–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekele W., Melaku S., Mekasha Y., 2013. Effect of substitution of concentrate mix with Sesbania sesban on feed intake, digestibility, body weight change, and carcass parameters of Arsi-Bale sheep fed a basal diet of native grass hay. Tropical Animal Health and Production 45:1677–1685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Etana Debela, Adugna Tolera, Lars O. Eik and Ranger Salte, 2011. Nutritive value of morphological fractions of Sesbania sesban and Desmodium intortum. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystem, 14:793–805.Google Scholar
  5. Desta, T. Gebreslassie, G., Hailai, H., Shumuye, B., 2016. Effect of Supplementation Dried Sesbania Sesban (L.) Leaf on Performance of Abergelle Rams. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare.Google Scholar
  6. Franzel, S., Carsan, S., Lukuyu, B., Sinja, J., Wambugu, C., 2014. Fodder trees for improving livestock productivity and smallholder livelihoods in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6:98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hannele Khalili and Tuomo Varvikko, 1991. Effect of replacement of concentrate mix by wilted sesbania ( Sesbaniasesban) forage on diet digestibility, rumen fermentation and milk production in Friesian x Zebu (Boran) crossbred cows fed low quality native hay. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 36, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Luciano dos Santos Lima, Ronaldo Lopes Oliveira, Adriana Regina Bagaldo, Américo Fróes Garcez Neto, Larissa Pires Barbosa, Máikal Souza Borja, 2011. Production performance of lactating dairy cows at pasture fed concentrate supplemented with licuri oil. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 40, 2852–2857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McDonald P., Edwards R.A., Greenhalgh J.F.D. and Morgan C. A., 2002. Animal Nutrition, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, London.Google Scholar
  10. Mekoya A., S.J. Oosting, S. Fernandez-Rivera, S. Tamminga, A. Tegegne, A.J. Van der Zijpp, 2008. Effect of supplementation of Sesbania sesban on post-weaning growth performance and sexual development of Menz sheep (Ethiopia). Livestock Science. 121, 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mekoya A., Oosting S.J., Fernandez-Rivera S., Tamminga S., Van der Zijpp A.J., 2009. Effect of supplementation of Sesbania sesban to lactating ewes on milk yield and growth rate of lambs. Livestock Science, 121, 126–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Negewo T., Melaku S., Bimrew Asmare B., Tolera A., 2018. Performance of Arsi-Bale sheep fed urea treated maize cob as basal diet and supplemented with graded levels of concentrate mixture. Tropical Animal Health and Production 1–9.Google Scholar
  13. Oosting S.J., A. Mekoya, S. Fernandez-Rivera, A.J. van der Zijpp, 2011. Sesbania sesban as a fodder tree in Ethiopian livestock farming systems: Feeding practices and farmers’ perception of feeding effects on sheep performance. Livestock Science. 139, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Quang D.V., Ba NX, Doyle P.T., 2015. Effect of concentrate supplementation on ruminant digestibility and growth of Brahman crossbred cattle fed a basal diet of grass and rice straw. Journal of Animal Science and Technology. 57, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Samkol P. Sath K., Pate M., Holtenius K., 2017. Effects of supplementing different levels of sun-dried groundnut foliage on intake, apparent digestibility and nitrogen metabolism in cattle offered a basal diet of a mixture of rice straw and para grass. Tropical Animal Health and Production 49:1495–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. SAS, 2000. The Statistical Analysis System. Version 9. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  17. Shumuye and Yayneshet, 2011. Effect of Feeding Treated Acacia saligna (Labill.) H.L.Wendl. Leaves on Growth Performance and Digestibility in Goats. Journal of the Drylands 4(2): 341–347.Google Scholar
  18. Van Soest P. J, Robertson J. B and Lewis B. A, 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Young J. R., O’Reilly R. A., Ashley K., Suon S., Leoung, V.I., Windsor, P. A. and Bush R. D. 2014. Impacts on rural livelihoods in Cambodia following adoption of best practice health and husbandry interventions by smallholder cattle farmers, Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 61, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mekelle Agricultural Research CenterTigray Agricultural Research InstituteMekelleEthiopia

Personalised recommendations