Forage Res., 43 (4) : pp. 314-318 (2018) http://forageresearch.

in

EFFECT OF FEEDING AZOLLA (AZOLLA PINNATA) BASED TOTAL

MIXED RATION ON GROWTH PERFORMANCE AND NUTRIENTS
UTILIZATION IN GOATS
SAJJAN SIHAG1, ZILE SINGH SIHAG1, SUSHIL KUMAR1 AND NARENDER SINGH2
1
Department of Animal Nutrition,
2
Department of Livestock Production Management,
College of Veterinary Sciences, LUVAS, Hisar-125004, Haryana, India
*(e-mail : chahar53@gmail.com)
(Received : 4 February 2018; Accepted : 5 March 2018)

SUMMARY

Sixteen crossbred weaned female kids (4-5 months) having body weight 12.82±0.65 kg were
divided into four experimental groups (T1, T2, T3 and T4) of four each. The kids subjected to different
groups were fed for three months. The kids of control group (T1) were fed total mixed ration consisting
berseem hay and concentrate mixture in the ratio of 60:40 to meet out the requirements as per feeding
standards ICAR, 2013. In the total mixed ration (TMR) of kid’s groups T2, T3 and T4, the concentrate
mixture was replaced with sundried Azolla on equi-weight basis at levels of 10, 15 and 20 percent,
respectively. A metabolism trial was conducted after 30 days of feeding for 6 days including 2 days
adoption period to determine feed intake, nutrients digestibility, nutritive value and nitrogen balance.
Nutrient digestibility, body weight gain and dry matter, DCP & TDN intake in goat’s kids are not affected
by replacing 15% concentrate mixture with sundried Azolla in their berseem hay based total mixed
ration. Nutritive value of TMR in terms of DCP & TDN percent are not affected at 15% replacement of
concentrate mixture with Azolla. Nitrogen balance was not affected up to 15% replacement level. There
was net saving of Rs. 7.90 and 5.16, for feed cost per kg weight gain of goat by replacing concentrate
mixture with Azolla. It was concluded that dried Azolla can be incorporated up to 15 % of the concentrate
mixture of kids to economize the ration without any adverse effect.

Key words : Azolla, growth perfoemance, nutrients, goat

Inadequate availability of good quality feed as it can readily colonize areas of fresh water, and grow
in developing country like India, is considered as a at great speed doubling its biomass every two to three
major constraint to the prevalent livestock production days.
system. The conventional feed ingredients, particularly Azolla is very rich in proteins, essential amino
protein supplements are expensive and are not always acids, vitamins (vitamin A, vitamin B 12 , Beta
available at affordable prices for livestock feeding. Use Carotene), growth promoter intermediaries and
of animal protein feed ingredients in animal’s diet is minerals like calcium, phosphorous, potassium,
not preffered by the livestock farmers. This leads to a ferrous, copper, magnesium etc. and on a dry weight
search for cheap and easily available alternate protein basis, is constituted of 25-35% protein content, 10-
sources. Aquatic plants have long been used in many 15% mineral content and 7-10%, a combination of
developing countries as a feed source for livestock amino acids, bio-active substances and biopolymers
and poultry. Recently there is an increased emphasis (Kathirvelan et al., 2015). Carbohydrate and oil
on the use of aquatic plants in livestock rations because content in Azolla is very low. Thus the biocomposition
the protein and other nutrient content in them are of Azolla, makes it one of the most economic and
comparable to certain leguminous plants. efficient feed substitutes for livestock. Moreover,
Azolla is a floating fern in shallow water. It Azolla can be easily digested by livestock, owing to
floats on the surface of water by means of numerous, its high protein and low lignin content. Azolla has been
small, closely overlapping scale like leaves, with their successfully tried as a feed for broiler chicken (Balaji
roots hanging in the water. Azolla form a symbiotic et al., 2009; Dhumal et al., 2009; Bolka, 2011), goats
relationship with the blue green algae, which fixes (Samanta & Tamang, 1993) and buffalo calves (Indira
atmospheric nitrogen and convert to plant nitrogen. et al., 2009). Azolla was also used in diets for sows
This had led to the plant being dubbed a “super plant”, (Leterme et al., 2010) and as partial replacement of
 EFFECT OF FEEDING AZOLLA IN GOATS 315

protein source for growing fattening pigs (Becerra et ICAR, 2013. The concentrate mixture was comprised
al., 1995). Furthermore, it was also tried as a protein of Maize grain (50), groundnut cake (35), wheat bran
supplement for Rabbits (Sadek et al., 2010). According (12), mineral mixture (2) and common salt (1 part). In
to Ambade et al., (2010), milk yield was increased by the total mixed ration (TMR) of kid’s groups T2, T3
15 to 20% after feeding azolla in the diet of dairy cows. and T4, the concentrate mixture was replaced with
Sanginga and Van Hove (1989) reported that the main sundried Azolla on equi-weight basis at levels of 10,
character influencing the value of azolla as its feed is 15 and 20 percent, respectively. The body weights and
its amino acid composition. Singh et al. (1983) feed intake were recorded at 15 days intervals for two
conducted growth cum digestibility trial on crossbred consecutive days to find out growth rate and feed
heifers and concluded that the sun-dried Azolla could intake during different period of experiment. A
replace concentrate mixture in the diet to the tune of metabolism trial was conducted after 30 days of
100 per cent. Nik-Khah and Motaghi-Talab (1992) feeding for 6 days including 2 days adoption period
reported that the Azolla can be incorporated in the to determine feed intake, nutrients digestibility,
concentrate mixture of lactating cows at the level of nutritive value and nitrogen balance. During the trial
up to 35%. They also indicated that the differences representative samples of feed offered, residue left,
between milk yields and milk constituents (fat, protein, and feces and urine voided were preserved and
ash, lactose and total solids) were not statistically analyzed for proximate principles (AOAC, 2005) and
significant (P>0.05). Gavina (1993) revealed that there fiber fractions (Van Soest et al., 1991). Data were
was no significant difference in the average final analysed statistically (Snedecor and Cochran, 1994).
weight, feed consumption and feed conversion Chemical analysis showed that Azolla meal contained
efficiency of pigs fed diets containing Azolla up to 40 (%DM) 22.93% crude protein, 11.63% crude fibre,
per cent. Sreemannaryana et al. (1993) incorporated 2.82% ether extract, 15.59% ash, 47.03 % NFE,
10, 15 and 20 per cent of Azolla in commercial feed 40.47% NDF and 32.55% ADF (Table 1). All the diets
mixture of New Zealand and Russian Grey Giant were iso-nitrogenous.
rabbits and observed highest average daily weight gain
of 27.3 g in 20 per cent inclusion level compared to
control, 10 and 15 per cent levels. Tamang and
Samanta (1993) indicated that the sun-dried azolla can
be incorporated up to 20 per cent of concentrate
mixture of goat kids without any deleterious effects
on the performance, digestibility of various nutrients,
carcass characteristics, haematological and
biochemical parameters
In view of the above facts, the objective of
the present study was to evaluate the use of Azolla
meal as feed supplement in the diet of kids.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fig. 1. Azolla production in pond
The study was conducted at the Lala Lajpat RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences
(LUVAS), Hisar, Haryana, India. The Azolla was The chemical composition of berseem hay,
produced in a pond in Animal Feed Technology section concentrate mixture, Azolla and different total mixed
of Department of Animal Nutrition, COVS, LUVAS rations is presented in Table 1. The results of the study
(Fig. 1). Sixteen crossbred weaned female kids (4-5 revealed that the mean values of dry matter intake
months) having body weight 12.82±0.65 kg were through total mixed rations during the experimental
divided into four experimental groups (T1, T2, T3 and period of 1 to 30 days, 31 to 60 days, 61 to 90 days
T4) of four each. The kids subjected to different groups and 1 to 90 days did not differ significantly due to
were fed for three months. The kids of control group replacement of concentrate mixture with sun dried
(T1) were fed total mixed ration consisting berseem Azolla (Table 2). Similarly the mean values of dry
hay and concentrate mixture in the ratio of 60:40 to matter intake per 100 kg weight were 3.27, 3.28, 3.22
meet out the requirements as per feeding standards and 3.17 kg in T1, T2, T3 and T4, respectively, indicating
316 SIHAG, SIHAG, KUMAR AND SINGH

TABLE 1
Chemical composition (%DM basis) of sun-dried Azolla, berseem hay, concentrate mixtures and different total mixed rations

Attribute Berseem Hay Conc. mix. Azolla TMR-I TMR-II TMR-III TMR-IV

DM 89.43 93.01 90.70 91.90 92.26 92.51 92.32

OM 86.28 91.27 84.41 87.16 86.96 86.90 86.88
CP 14.27 20.55 22.93 17.33 17.36 17.42 17.50
EE 02.98 4.20 2.82 3.64 3.65 3.57 3.38
CF 22.69 7.83 11.63 17.06 17.14 17.36 17.53
NFE 46.34 58.69 47.03 49.13 48.81 48.21 48.21
Ash 13.72 8.73 15.59 12.84 13.04 13.44 13.38
NDF 43.91 21.26 40.47 33.05 33.85 34.76 35.88
ADF 34.58 12.51 32.55 24.16 25.71 25.82 27.79
Hemicellulose 9.33 8.75 7.92 8.89 8.14 8.94 8.09

TABLE 2
Effect of different levels of Azolla on feed intake (DM basis) and growth performance in goats during progressive period of age

Parameter Treatments CD

T1 (0% Azolla) T2 (10% Azolla) T3 (15% Azolla) T4 (20% Azolla)

Feed intake
DMI (g/d)
Day 1 - Day 30 434.17±5.63 433.66±13.64 419.33±7.78 409.91±6.72 NS
Day 31 - Day 60 465.41±2.07 469.58±12.93 455.17±8.04 453.92±11.07 NS
Day 61 - Day 90 518.25±3.47 520.00±12.85 503.87±8.43 493.50±8.70 NS
Day 1 - Day 90 480.16±2.22 484.21±12.75 469.57±8.97 458.72±8.85 NS
DMI (%BW kg) (g) 3.27±0.05 3.28±0.07 3.22±0.10 3.17±0.10 NS
Growth Performance
Initial B. wt. (kg) 12.73±0.22 12.80±0.65 12.88±0.70 12.88±0.64 NS
Final B. wt. (kg) 17.12a±0.21 17.35a±0.70 17.02ab±0.74 16.67b±0.57 1.41
B. wt. gain (kg) 4.40ab±0.04 4.55b±0.08 4.17a±0.08 3.80c±0.07 0.23
DWG (g/d)
Day 1 - Day 30 51.67a±0.96 48.33a±2.15 44.91ab±2.08 41.69b±0.98 5.13
Day 31 - Day 60 46.66a±1.36 53.33a±2.36 49.16a±2.09 40.83b±0.83 5.51
Day 61 - Day 90 48.33a±0.96 50.00a±1.36 46.95a±1.39 42.12b±0.79 3.59
Day 1 - Day 90 48.89a±0.45 50.55a±0.96 46.95a±1.39 42.22b±0.79 2.98
FCR (DMI/kg gain) 9.82a±0.13 9.58a±0.19 10.01a±0.12 10.87b±0.79 0.68
Cost/ kg gain (Rs) 127.26 119.36 122.10 130.00 -
Net Saving - 7.90 5.16 -274 -

Mean values with different superscripts in a row differ significantly (P<0.05).

no significant differences among them. The daily increased level of Azolla in the experimental diets, at
weight gain of kids during progressive period of age the same time body weight gain also reduced with
were significantly (P<0.05) less when 20% concentrate increased level of Azolla in the diet. There was net
mixture was replaced with sundried Azolla in the saving of Rs. 7.90 and 5.16 for 1 kg body weight gain
berseem hay based total mixed ration. However, up to by replacing 10 and 15% concentrate mixture with sun
15% replacement daily weight gain did not differ dried Azolla, respectively, in TMR of growing goats.
significantly. Better FCR was performed by the kids Nutrients digestibility, nutrients intake,
fed 10% sundried Azolla (T2) followed by T1 (control) nutritive value and nitrogen balance in growing goats
and T3 (15% Azolla) which among themselves did not under different dietary treatments has been presented
differ statistically. The FCR value was significantly in Table 3. The dry matter digestibility decreased with
(P<0.05) poor in kids fed 20% sundried Azolla in place increasing level of Azolla in the diet. This may be due
of concentrate mixture of their total mixed ration. to diarrhoea in the experimental kids fed on TMR
Though the total dry matter intake decreased with containing higher levels of Azolla. Highest digestibility
 EFFECT OF FEEDING AZOLLA IN GOATS 317

TABLE 3
Nutrients digestibility, nutrients intake, nutritive value and nitrogen balance in growing goats under different dietary treatments

Parameter Treatments CD

T1 (0% Azolla) T2 (10% Azolla) T3 (15% Azolla) T4 (20% Azolla)

Nutrients Digestibility (%)

DM 70.01a±0.54 70.98a±0.53 69.08ab±0.55 67.46b±0.81 1.94
OM 70.61a±0.33 71.21a±0.39 69.64ab±0.56 67.75b±0.86 1.78
CP 74.29ab±0.80 74.52a±0.41 72.57bc±0.48 71.57bc±0.49 1.74
CF 60.27ab±0.53 61.00a±0.47 58.91b±0.53 56.75c±0.61 1.67
EE 76.36±0.75 77.96±0.65 77.67±0.47 76.03±0.88 NS
NFE 72.47a±0.53 73.62a±0.65 72.55a±0.76 69.57b±1.25 2.62
NDF 57.84±0.43 57.58±0.63 56.68±0.49 56.18±0.79 NS
ADF 51.42±0.52 51.59±0.61 50.35±0.54 50.17±0.81 NS
Nutrients Intake (g)
DMI/d 459.75±4.18 458.78±13.23 442.77±6.17 436.44±9.49 NS
DMI/100kg wt 3.22±0.06 3.23±0.07 3.14±0.11 3.10±0.13 NS
DMI/Kg W0.75 60.68 ±0.93 62.64±0.64 60.94±1.42 60.77±1.77 NS
DCPI 59.84a±0.70 60.09a±1.51 57.09ab±0.47 55.79b±1.03 3.14
TDNI 299.32a±10.00 304.79a±11.86 286.61ab±5.48 270.91b±4.25 21.61
Nutritive value (%)
DCP 13.01ab±0.15 13.10a±0.11 12.89bc±0.10 12.79c±0.12 0.19
TDN 65.11a±0.30 66.38a±0.68 64.74a±0.98 62.11b±0.82 2.3
Nitrogen Balance
N intake (g/d) 12.89±0.12 12.91±0.32 12.59±0.12 12.48±0.24 NS
Faecal N (g/d) 3.32a±0.11 3.29a±0.09 3.45ab±0.08 3.54b±0.10 0.16
Urinary N (g/d) 3.51±0.09 3.54±0.10 3.57±0.10 3.60±0.06 NS
N digested (g/d) 9.58a±0.12 9.62a±0.24 9.13ab±0.08 8.93b±0.16 0.51
N retention (g/d) 6.07a±0.14 6.08a±0.28 5.57ab±0.05 5.33b±0.21 0.59
N retention (%) 47.12ab±1.23 47.02a±1.00 44.25ab±0.65 42.69b±1.03 3.11

Mean values with different superscripts in a row differ significantly (P<0.05).

was observed in T2 group and lowest dry matter It was observed that replacement of
digestibility was observed in T4. No significant concentrate mixture with sundried Azolla did not affect
differences were observed between T1, T2, and T3, but N intake, however, nitrogen excreted in faecal was
was significantly (P<0.05) less in kids fed 20% significantly (P<0.05) more in experiment kids fed
sundried Azolla (T 4) as compared to T 1 and T 2. concentrate mixture having 20% Azolla as compared
Similarly the digestibility values of CP , OM, CF and to control group. It was also noted that part of the
NFE values were significantly (P<0.05) less in goats nitrogen ingested by animals was significantly
of T4 as compared to T1, and T2, however, these value (P<0.05) higher in treatment groups T1 and T2 as
did not differ significantly among T1, T2 and T3 compared to T4, Similarly, N retention g per day and
treatment groups. The digestibility values of other percent nitrogen retention values were significantly
nutrients like ether extract, NDF and ADF did not (P<0.05) low on addition of 20% Azolla in concentrate
differ significantly among different dietary treatments. mixture of goats. The results of the study revealed that
The daily digestible crude protein intake and N ingestion and retention are not affected due to
DCP percent value of ration was significantly (P<0.05) replacement of concentrate mixture with Azolla up to
less when concentrate mixture was replaced at 20% level 15% levels, in berseem based total mixed ration of
with sun dried Azolla in total mixed ration of growing growing goats. These findings indicated that dried
goats, though at 10 and 15% levels did not differ Azolla can be incorporated up to 15 % of the
significantly. The total digestible nutrient intake and TDN concentrate mixture of kids without any adverse effect.
percent in different diets were at par in treatment groups
T1, T2 and T3, however, were significantly (P<0.5) less CONCLUSION
in T4 group, indicating that 20 percent replacement
decreases energy intake and energy value of ration. It could be concluded that dried Azolla can
318 SIHAG, SIHAG, KUMAR AND SINGH

be incorporated up to 15 % of the concentrate mixture Delhi, India.

of kids to economize the ration without any adverse Indira, D., R. K. Sarjan, J. Suresh, N. K. Venugopal, and A.
effect on growth performance. Ravi, 2009 : Azolla (Azolla pinnata) as feed
supplement in Buffalo calves on Growth
performance. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 26 : 345-348.
REFERENCES
Leterme, P., A. M. Londono, D. C. Ordonez, A. Rosales, F.
Estrada, J. Bindelle, and Buldegen. 2010 :
Ambade, R. B., S. N. Jadhav, and N. B. Phalke. 2010 : Nutritive value and intake of aquatic ferns (Azolla
Impact of azolla as a protein supplement and its fillicoides Lam. and Salvinia molesta Mitchell) in
Influence on feed utilization in livestock. Livestock sows. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 155 : 55-64.
line. 4 : 21-23. Nik-Khah, A. and M. Motaghi-Talab. 1992 : The use of
AOAC. 2005 : Official methods of analysis, 18th Azolla in lactating cows. Iranian J. Agric. Sci. 23
Edition.Association of Official Analytical : 47-56.
Chemists, Washington. D. C. Sadek, M. F., G. Ahmed, A. M. Hanan, Hassanein, M.
Balaji, K., A. Jalaludeen, C. R. Richard, P. A. Peethambaran, Marvat, Arafa, and M. Elham, 2010 : Using of
and S. Senthilkumar. 2009 : Effect of dietary azolla silage in growing rabbits feeding. Egyptian
inclusion of azolla (Azolla pinnata) on production Journal of Rabbit Science. 20 : 67-82.
performance of Broiler chicken. Indian J. Poult. Samantha, G. and Y. Tamang. 1993 : Feeding value of azolla
Sci. 44 : 195-198. (Azolla pinnata) an aquatic fern in Black Bengal
Becerra, M., T. R. Preston, and B. Ogle. 1995 : Effect of goats. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 63 : 188-190.
replacing whole boiled soya beans with Azolla in Sanginga, N., and C. Van Hove. 1989 : Amino acid
the diets of growing ducks. Livestock Research for composition of azolla as affected by strain and
Rural Development. 7(3). population. Plant & Soil. 117 : 263-267.
Bolka, P. C. 2011 : Nutritional evaluation of Azolla Singh, Y. P., D. G. Naik, and G. L. Sharma. 1983 : Nutritive
(Azollapinnata) in broilers and layers. Ph.D. Thesis value of a water fern (Azolla anabaena). Indian J.
submitted to Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Anim. Res. 17 : 98-102.
Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1994 : Statistical
Dhumal, M. V., M. F. Siddiqui, M. B. A. Siddiqui, and P. E. Methods. 6th edn. The Iowa State University Press,
Avari. (2009). Performance of broilers fed on Ames, Iowa, USA.
different levels of Azolla meal. Indian J. Poult. Sreemannaryana D., K. Ramachandraiah, K. M. Sudarshan,
Sci. 44 : 65-68. N. V. Romanaiah, and J. Ramaprasad, 1993 :
Gavina, L. D. 1993 : Swine-duck-fish-azolla integration in Utilization of Azolla as a rabbit feed. Indian Vet.
sky ponds of La Union Philippines. Philippine- J. 70 : 285-286.
Technology. 18 : 23-30. Tamang, Y. and G. Samanta. 1993 : Feeding value of azolla
Kathirvelan, C., S. Banupriya, and M. R. Purushothaman. (Azolla pinnata) an aquatic fern in Black Bengal
2015 : Azolla- An Alternate And Sustainable Feed goats. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 63 : 188-191.
For Livestock. Int. J. Sci., Environ. and Tech. 4 : Van Soest, P. V., J. B. Robertson, and B. A. Lewis, 1991 :
1153-1157. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber
ICAR. 2013 : Nutrient Requirements of Sheep and Goats. and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74 : 3583-3597.