NUTRITIONAL RESPONSE OF GOAT (Capra hircus) FED WITH

DIFFERENT RATIOS OF IPIL-IPIL (Leucaena leucocephala)

AND NAPIER GRASS (Pennisetum purpureum)

JAY-R JUANITE DAPAR

An Undergraduate Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of the
College of Agriculture and Forestry
Mindanao State University at Naawan
9023, Naawan Misamis Oriental
In Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the
Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Agriculture major in Animal Science

May 2019

i
The Undergraduate Thesis attached hereto entitled “NUTRITIONAL RESPONSE OF
GOAT (Capra hircus) FED WITH DIFFERENT RATIOS OF IPIL-IPIL (Leucaena
leucocephala) AND NAPIER GRASS (Pennisetum purpureum) ”prepared and
submitted by JAY-R J. DAPAR in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Bachelor of Science in Agriculture major in Animal Science was
successfully defended and approved on May, 2019.

JERICO M. CONSOLACION MSc. MECHIE ANN S. CLAR-FLORIDA MSc.

Member Member

RICHELE A. NIEPES MSc.

Adviser

The College of Agriculture and Forestry endorses the acceptance of this

Undergraduate Thesis as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Bachelor of Science in Agriculture major in Animal Science.

ERIC JOHN D. FLORIDA MSc.

Chairperson, College of Agriculture and Forestry

This Undergraduate Thesis is hereby officially accepted as partial

fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in
Agriculture major in Animal Science.

MECHIE ANN S. CLAR-FLORIDA MSc.

Dean
College of Agriculture and Forestry

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to extend his deepest gratitude to the following individuals:

Ms. Richelle A Niepes, his adviser, for the patience and effort in criticizing, advising
and for sharing her time editing the manuscript; giving more encouragement to further
improve and finish the paper;

Mr. Jerico M. Consolacion and Mrs. Mechie Ann S. Clar-Florida for the time, and effort
to further edits, corrects, comments, suggestions and review of the paper;

To his friends, classmates and roommates, Bryan, Boybestfriend, and Boy

Kulos,Pitang Geralyn, and Jayson for extending their support in times of crisis,
emptiness, failure, disappointments and confusion;

To his parents and siblings and other family members, Nanay Maritcho, Tatay Arnel,
Marnel and Rakim and ante elvie and uncle lando Ansale family, Buntag family for the
encouragement, advice, financial and moral support and guidance not only on his
study but also in everything;

And above all, to the Holy, Gracious and Almighty Father in heaven, the source of his
life, strength, love, wisdom and faith, the creator of everything and provider of his
needs, the light of his path from the very beginning of his journey, the protector and
his merciful God.

JAY-R J. DAPAR

iii
 BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

Name : Dapar Jay-r J.

Home Address : Brgy San Roque, Socorro, Surigao, Del Norte
Date of Birth : November 27, 1996
Parents : Maritcho J. Dapar
: Arnel R. Dapar

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Elementary : Nueva Esterlla Central Elementary School

Nueva Estralla Socorro Surigao Del Norte
March 2008

Secondary : Nueva Esterlla National High School

Nueva Estralla Socorro Surigao Del Norte
March 2012

Tertiary : Bachelor of Science in Animal Science

Mindanao State University at Naawan
Naawan, 9023, Misamis Oriental
June 2019

iv
 Dapar Jay-r J. Mindanao State University at Naawan-College of
Agriculture and Forestry. May 2019. NUTRITIONAL RESPONSE OF
GOAT (Capra hircus) FED WITH DIFFERENT RATIOS OF IPIL-IPIL
(Leucaena leucocephala) AND NAPIER GRASS (Pennisetum purpureum)

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to find out the nutritional response of goat fed with
Ipil-ipil (Leucaena leucocepala) and Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) at different
ratios. For this purpose, a total of twelve matured does were distributed under
completely randomized design in four treatment groups with three replicate per
treatment, i.e., T1 (control) with 100% Ipil-ipil, T2 with 90:10 Ipil-ipil and Napier, T3 with
80:20 Ipil-ipil and Napier and T4 with 70:30 of Ipil-ipil and Napier grass. Data were
analyzed using one-way ANOVA and treatment means were compared using Tukey’s
Honest Significant difference. Body condition scores were analyzed using Wilcoxon
Signed non-parametric test. Results showed that the feeding of 70:30 ratio significantly
improved the body condition score of the animal. There were no significant difference
(P>0.05) between treatments in terms of body weight gain, feed conversion ratio,
average daily gain and voluntary feed intake. Although not significantly different, the
ratio of 90:10 improved over-all growth performance of the goat. It may be
recommended that the combination of grass and legume in feeding would improve the
nutritional response.
Keywords: Leucana leucocepala , Pennisetum purpureum, feed ratio, body condition
scores, growth performance

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
..
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
..
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
..
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
.

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
.
1.1 Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
.
1.3 Significance of the study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
.
1.4 Scope and limitation. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Definition of terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

..

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

. 5
2.1 Goat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
.. 6
2.1.1. Goat Industry of the Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
.
7
2.1.2. Common Goat Breeds in Philippines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 7
2.1.3 Nutritional Requirements of Goats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
. 9
2.2. Napier Grass (Pennisetum purpureum). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
. 11
2.2.1. Nutritive Content of Napier Grass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 12
2.3. Ipil-Ipil (Leucaena leucocephala). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
.
2.3.1. Nutritive Content of Ipil-Ipil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
.
2.4. Combination of Grass and Legumes as Ration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
.
2.5. Voluntary Feed Intake (VFI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6. Growth Performance of Goat fed with Forage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
2.6.1. Influence of Grass and Legumes Feeding On
Average Daily Gain (ADG). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..

vi
 2.6.2. Legumes Feeding Effects On Body weight gain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
2.6.3. Effect of the Grass aand Legumes Combination on Feed
conversion ratio (FCR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
2.7. Diet Feeding On Body Condition Score. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

..
3.1 Site and Duration of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
..
3.2 Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
..
3.3 Treatments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4 Experimental design and layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
..
3.5 Preparation of Cage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.6 Stocking of Experimental Animals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
..
3.7 Collection forage and Preparation of Animals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
.
3.8 Feeding Management and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
.
3.8.1 Feeding Calculation of Goat . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 21
..

3.9 Data Gathered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.10 Voluntary Feed Intake . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
.
3.11. Growth Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
..
3.11.1 Data to be computed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.12 Body Condition Scoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
..
3.13 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
.

4. RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
.
4.1 Voluntary Feed Intake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
. 25
26

vii
 4.2 Growth performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
.. 27
4.2.1. ADG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
. 29
4.2.2 BWG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
4.2.3 FCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
4.3 Body Condition Score (BCS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
4.3.1 Final Body Condition Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..

5. DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
.
5.1 Voluntary Feed Intake . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
.
5.2. Growht Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
.
5.3. BSC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

7. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

.

LITERATURE CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
..
APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 41

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Description Page

1 Requirements Mature Does Maintenance, 110 vs. 132 lb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

.
2 Acceptable Quantity of Macro and Micro minerals in a Goat’s Diet . . . . . . . . 7
.
3 Nutritional Composition of Napier grass). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
.
4 Nutritional Composition of Ipil-Ipil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
.
5 Daily Feeding Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
.
6 Mean (mean±SD) values of voluntary feed intake of goat (Capra hircus) with
different feeding ratios of Ipil-Ipil (Leucaena leucocephala) and Napier grass
(Pennisetum purpureum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 24
..
7 Mean (mean±SD) values of growth performance of goat (Capra hircus) with
different feeding ratios of Ipil-Ipil (Leucaena leucocephala) and Napier grass
(Pennisetum purpureum) . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
.
8 Mean of body condition score (BCS) of goats (Capra hircus) fed with different
levels of Ipil-Ipil (Leucaena leucocephala) and Napier grass (Pennisitum
purpureum) ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
.

9 Mean (Mean±SD) values of final body condition score (BCS) of goats (Capra
hircus) fed with different levels of Ipil-Ipil (Leucaena leucocephala) and Napier
grass (Pennisitum purpureum) ration . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 29
.

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Description Page

1 Description of BCS 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2 Description of BCS 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3 Description of BCS 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4 Description of BCS 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5 Description of BCS 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

6 Location of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

7 Experimental design and layout (Completely

Randomize Design (CRD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
8 The weekly voluntary feed intake (g) of goat . . . . . . 25
..
9 The weekly average daily gain (kg) of goat . . . . . . . . 26

10 The weekly body weight gain (kg) of goat . . . . . . . . . 27

11 The weekly feed conversion ratio of goat . . . . . . . . . 28

x
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Description Page

1 ANOVA: Growth performance parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2 ANOVA: Body Condition score . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3 Fed preparation, weighing of goats, Categorize of Goat (BSC) 45

4 Mean (SD) values of growth performance parameters of goats
between weeks in different ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

xi