KHON KAEN AGR. J. 41 SUPPL. 1 : (2013).

369

KHON

KAEN41AGR.
J.41
SUPPL.
1 : (2556).
1 : (2013).

The use of lablab bean (Lablab purpureus L. Sweet) as high quality

roughage on sheep productive performance

1*, 1 , 1 1
Chunjit Kaewkunya 1*, Watcharawit Meenongyai 1, Duanjai Vaduancai 1
and Wiliporn Puttaisong 1

:
( x x ) 16 25
.
.. 2553 .. 2554 4 (RCBD)
1) 100 % () (T1) 2) :
20:80 (T2) 3) : 35:65 (T3) 4) :
50:50 (T4) 12.27 % 1 %
84

(P > 0.05) 3 4
NDF ADF 1 2 (P<0.05)
2, 3 4 1
50 : 50

:
ABSTRACT : The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the effect of using lablab bean as high quality roughage on sheep productivity performance. Sixteen crossbreed lambs (Santa Ins x Dorper x Native) which average 25 kg
of body weights. The research was operated at the Faculty of Natural Resources and Agro-Industrys farm Kasetsart
University Chalermphrakiat Sakhon Nakhon Province Campus during Jul. 2009 Jan. 2010. Were allotted into 4
treatment diets in a randomized completely block design (RCBD). Each treatment received roughage as followed : 1)
pangola grass hay 100 % (control) (T1), 2) pangola grass hay with lablab bean hay at a ratio 80 : 20 (T2), 3) pangola
grass hay with lablab bean 65:35 (T3), and 4) pangola grass hay : lablab bean hay 50:50 (T4). Every treatment were
supplemented with concentrate (CP =12.27 %) at the rate of 1 % of body weight throughout duration of the experiment
of 84 days. The results showed that dry matter intake (DMI), dry matter intake as percentage of live weight (DMI/

47000
Program in Agro-Resources, Faculty of Natural Resources and Agro-industry, Kasetsart University, Chalermphrakiat
Sakhon Nakhon Province Campus 47000
* Corresponding author : csncjk@ku.ac.th
1

370

41 1 : (2556).

LW), average daily gain (ADG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were not significantly different among treatment
(P>0.05). The digestibility showed that digestibility of dry matter (DDM), digestibility of Neutral detergent fiber
(NDF) and Acid detergent fiber (ADF) in T3 and T4 were significantly higher than T1 and T2 (P<0.05). The crude
protein intake (CPI) and digestibility of protein (DCP) showed that T2, T3 and T4 were significantly higher than T1.
These results indicated that the use of lablab bean hay with pangola grass hay of 50:50 as high quality roughage for
sheep significantly-increased crude protein intake and digestibility.
Keywords: sheep, lablab bean, pangola grass

(Ovis aries)



10
% (,
2547)

(forage
legumes)

(Lablab
bean)


26 % (Anonymous, 2006) 75
CP, NDF ADF = 15.0, 46.61
37.84 % ( , 2552)

(silage)

(hay)
(Andrea and Pablo, 1999)

(NARO,1997) Eduvie et al. (2002)

DM, CP, NDF
ADF 93.0,13.5,57.0 38.7 %

4111.4 /
1271.8 /

40 CP, CF,
EE (TDN) = 10.0, 29.0,
2.3 59.0 % DM ( ,
2545) 30
16 % 2 %
ADG = 96 // FCR
= 7.19
( , 2549)

371

KHON KAEN AGR. J. 41 SUPPL. 1 : (2013).

x x
4-7 25 .
16

(Ivermectin) 1 . / 50
. ..-.. 2553
14
70 84

Highworth 75
5-10 .
( 5-7 )

2 84

25-30 ./

12.27 %
1 % 2.5 %
2 -

4

Table 1

Randomized Complete Block Design

4 4

4
1 : : 0:100
2 : : 20:80
3 : : 35:65
4 : : 50:50

(dry
matter, DM) (Ash) (ether extract, EE)
(crude protein, CP)
AOAC (1985) NDF, ADF ADL
Goering and Van Soest (1970)


(dry matter intake, DMI)
(DMI/LW)
Cr2O3 (external marker)
Cr2O3 1 %
Bondi (1987) Cr2O3
(2523) Cr2O3
7 57-63
4 60-63
06.00, 10.00,
14.00 18.00


2

(Average Daily
Gain ; ADG)


(Feed Conversion
Ratio ; FCR)

 41 1 : (2556).4

372
Table 1 Nutrient composition of supplementary feeds (% Dry matter).
Components

DM

CP

EE

NDF

ADF

ADL

Ash

Concentrate

85.02 12.27

0.38

51.61 14.13

4.25

1.91

Lablab bean hay (100 %)

92.64 15.95

0.95

60.90 39.04 11.27

1.74

Pangola grass hay (PG) (100%) (T1)

89.47

4.30

0.81

69.53 35.09

9.92

1.14

Lablab bean (LB):Pangola grass (PG) (20:80) (T2) 90.09

6.63

0.84

67.80 35.88 10.19

1.26

Lablab bean (LB):Pangola grass (PG) (35:65) (T3) 90.58

8.38

0.86

66.51 36.47 10.39

1.35

Lablab bean (LB):Pangola grass (PG) (50:50) (T4) 91.06 10.13

0.88

65.22 37.07 10.60

1.44

(CPI) (84 //
(Analysis of Variance)
(Analysis )
of
Variance)
( P<0.01) (Table 2)
DMRT Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 1998)
DMRT NRC (1985)
Statistical Analysis System (SAS,
1998)
50 .
CP 95 /
Lee (2009)

25-30 .

125-130
//

(DMI)

(DMI(%BW))
(P >0.05) (Table
2)

(hay)

(P<0.05)
Table
2 %

4 (T1-T4)
% DM

89.47-91.06
NDF
65.22-69.53
DM (Table

%(DMI)
1)

NRC
(2001)

(DMI (%BW)) (DMD) (CPD)

>0.05)

30-70%

NDF

(P
(Table
2)

ADF(NDFD,
ADFD)

4 (LB : PG ; 50:50 ) 770 // 2.58 %

LB :PG (50:50) LB
(CPI) (84 //)
(hay)

4 (Table
(T1-T4)
% DM
:PG ( NRC
35:65)

LB:PG
(0:100)

( P<0.01)
2)

(1985)

50 .
89.47-91.06
NDF
65.22

CP%

95 /

Lee (2009)

25-30 .
69.53
% DM
(Table
1) 125-130
//

(NDF)

(P<0.05)

Table
2

(DMD)

(CPD)

NDF

ADF
(NDFD,
ADFD)

LB
:PG
(50:50)
NRC (2001) Foster et al (2009)

LB :PG ( 35:65)

LB:PG
(0:100)

(haylage)

(NDF)

30-70% 50 % 8
Foster et al (2009) (haylage) 50 %

8%
%

(Total
DMIntake)

(P<0.05)

(Total
DM
Intake)

4 (LB : PG ; 50:50 ) (P<0.05)

770 // 2.58 %


Table 3 4 (ADG)
KHON

J. 41
(FCR)
1
50 / / 22.55 5
KAEN AGR.
SUPPL.
: (2013).
373
ADG FCR ADG 50-60 / /
(Kaushish
et al.,intake
1990)and

digestibility

Table 2 Feed
apparent
of
sheep
fed different
feeds. 160 /
/ (Johnson et al.,1986) 3.45 ./
Items NDF
T1
T2
T3
T4 SEM
P-value

DM
Intake
(g/head/day)
730
720
750
770
60.0
(CPI) 0.90

DM
Intake
(%BW)
2.45
2.43
2.50
2.53
0.18
0.69
31-84 // (Table 2) c

bc
b
a
CP
Intake
(g/head/day)
31
47
62
84
< 0.01
ADG FCR 7.0
Apparent
digestibility
(%)
c
aba
b
DM
78.48
82.80
85.03
1.19 2)
<0.01
(CPI)

87.58

(Table
b
a
a
a
CP
66.15
82.00
85.53
88.25
4.90
(2547)
bc
a 0.04

c
ab
NDF
79.45
83.38
85.30
87.75
1.37
0.01
c 1:1 bc ADG
FCR a
ab
ADF
73.23
78.08
80.58
84.10 1.73

(2543)
<0.01

abc
means
in
the
same
row
with
different
superscripts
differ
significantly
(P<0.05)
FCR (100 : 0) FCR
Lablab
bean
(LB):
grass (PG)
(0:100),
bean(LB):
grass 31.12
(PG) (20:80),
=T1=
14.60

Pangola

T2=
Lablab
FCR
Pangola
(19.34, 27.60,
37.30)
T3=
Lablab
bean
(LB):
Pangola
grass
(PG)
(35:65),
T4=
Lablab
bean
(LB):
Pangola
grass
(PG)
(50:50)

Table 3 Growth performance of sheep fed different feeds.

Table 3 4 (ADG)
Items
T1 T2
T3 50T4/ /SEM
P-value
(FCR)

22.55

Initial
weight
(kg/head)
26.9
26.3
25.4
26.2
0.75
0.06
ADG FCR ADG 50-60 / /
Final weightet (kg/head)
29.6 29.6
29.2
0.09 /
(Kaushish
al., 1990)

30.2
0.85
160
daily gain
(g/head/day)
40
5050 3.4560
0.47
Average
/ (Johnson
et al.,1986)

./ 1.0

BW
change
((kg/head)
2.7
3.3
3.8
4.0
0.53
NDF 0.15

FCR
30.4
22.6
18.5
18.7
5.02
0.35
(CPI)
T1=
bean(LB):
:100),T2=
bean (LB):
grass
(20:80),
Lablab
31-84
//Pangola
(Tablegrass
2) (PG)
(0
Lablab

Pangola

(PG)

T3=
Lablab
bean
(LB):
Pangola
grass
(PG)
(35:65),
T4=
Lablab
bean
(LB):
Pangola
grass
(PG)
(50:50)
ADG FCR

(CPI)

(Table
2)

(CPI)

Table
3
(2547)

31-84
1:1 ADG FCR
4 (ADG) // (Table 2)
(2543)

(FCR)

FCR

(100
: 0)
FCR

50
//

37.30)

=
14.60

FCR
(19.34,
27.60, 31.12

22.55 ADG FCR ADG FCR

Table
performance
fed different
feeds.
ADG3Growth
50-60
/of/sheep
(Kaushish
et al.,
Items T1
P-value
1990)
T2 T3T4 SEM

(kg/head) 160
26.9 /26.3
26.20.75
0.06
Initial
weight

/ 25.4
(CPI)

weight (kg/head)
29.6
29.2 30.2
0.09
Final
(Johnson
et al.,1986) 29.6

0.85
(Table 2)
Average
daily
gain
(g/head/day)
40
50
50
60
1.0
3.45 ./ (2547) 0.47

BW change ((kg/head)
2.7
3.3
3.8
4.0
0.53
0.15

5.02
0.35

FCR
30.4 NDF
22.6 18.5
18.7
Lablab

grass

T2=
Lablab
bean

Pangola
grass

T1=
bean (LB):
Pangola
(PG) (0:100),
(LB):
(PG)(20:80),

bean
(LB):

(35:65),

1:1
grass
(PG)
(50:50)
ADG FCR
T3=
Lablab
Pangolagrass
(PG)
T4= Lablab
bean(LB):
Pangola

374

41 1 : (2556).

(2543)
FCR

(100 : 0)
FCR = 14.60
FCR (19.34, 27.60,
31.12 37.30)

50:50
/ (DMI)
(DMI ;
%BW)
(CPI)
(P<0.05)

NDF

12.27
% CP

84.10-87.58 %

(..)

, , ,
, , ,
. 2545.
. , ,
, .
. 2552.


.

,
, .
. 2547. .
, .
. 2549.
.
2549. , ,
, .
, . 2547.
.
2547. , ,
.
. 2523.
.
, .
, .
2543. .
2543. , ,
, .
Andrea, M.M and E.C. Pablo. 1999. Tropical forage
Solution to quality ruminant diets : A review of Lablab
purpureus. (Online). Available : Available:www.cipar.
org.co/lrrd/ lrrd11/2/colu 112. Htm. Accessed Nov.
1, 2000.
Anonymous. 2006 . Lablab purpureus (Lablab),
Lablab fact sheet for Grain and Graze-May 2006.
Available:wa.gov.au. Accessed Apr. 23, 2010.
AOAC. 1985. Official Methods of Analysis. Association
Official Analysis Chemist, Washington, D.C.USA.
Bondi, A. A. 1987. Animal Nutrition. John Wiley and Sons
Ltd., Chichester, U.K.

KHON KAEN AGR. J. 41 SUPPL. 1 : (2013).

Eduvie, L.O., P.P. Barje, E.K. Bawa, O.W.

Ehoche, H.J.Makun, V.O.Sekoni, P.I.Rekwot,
N.P.Chiezey, J.O.Bale,A.E.O.Malau-Aduli,
C.U.Osuhor,C.B.I.Alawa, P.O.Okaiyeto,
S.A.S.Olorunju. 2002. Evaluation of forage legume
Lablab purpureus as a supplement for lactating
bunaji cows. Available: www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/
aph/public/iaea-tecdoc-1294.pdf. Accessed Feb.
15, 2010.
Foster, J. L., A.T. Adesogan, J.N. Carte, A.R. Blount, R.O.
Myer and S.C. Phatak. 2009. Intake, digestibility,
and nitrogen retention by sheep supplemented with
warm-season legume haylages or soybean meal.
J.Anim. Sci. 87: 2891-2898.
Goering, H. K., and P. J. Van Soest. 1970. Forage Fiber
Analysis. A. R. S. Hand Book No. 379 United State
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.USA.
Johnson, W.L.,J.E. van Eys, and H.A. Fitzhungh. 1986.
Sheep and goats in tropical and subtropical
agriculture systems. J. Anim. Sci. 63: 1587-1599.

375
Kaushish, S.K.,P.S. Rawat, and S.C. Sharma.1990.
Performance of native sheep (Malpura) and its
crosses with Avikalin under semi arid condition. Wld
Rev. Anim. Prod. 25: 44-46.
Lee I. Chiba. 2009. Animal Nutrition Handbook Section
16 : Sheep Nutrition and Feeding. Available:www.
ag.auburn.edu/~chibale/animalnutrition.html.
Accessed Jan. 16, 2013.
NARO.1997. Improving animal productivity with lablab
purpureus hay. Available: www.arenet.or.ug/
uploads/Lablab%20 purpureus%20 hay.doa.
Accessed Nov. 28, 2012.
NRC.1985. Nutrient Requirements of Sheep 6th Rev. Ed.
Natl. Acad. Sci. Washington, DC.USA.
NRC.2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy 7th Rev. Ed.
Natl. Acad. Sci. Washington, DC.USA.
SAS.1998. SAS/STAT Programme. SAS Institute Inc. Cary,
NC, USA.