forage production, forage quality , forage preservation

2. Recent trends in forage production,
quality and preservation
Sachin, K S
Sr. M.Sc. (Agri.)
MA1TAG0224

3.  Introduction
 Classifications of forage crops
 Problems and prospectus of forage production in India
 Supply and demand scenario of forage and roughages
 Recent trends in forage production
 Quality and preservation of forage crops
 Research studies
 Conclusion
Sequence of presentation

4. Introduction
 Livestock sector accounts for 24.72 per cent of agricultural GDP
and about 4.36 per cent of total GDP
 India has huge livestock population of 470.8 million (17 % of
world’s livestock population)
 According to NCA recommended area under fodder production
should be 10 per cent of aerable land (16. 5 m ha).
 Present area is 4.4 per cent (8.3 m ha)
 The challenges before us is to bridge the gap between a demand
of about 900 m t and supply of 550 m t. (Anon., 2015).

5. What is forage ?

6. Classifications of forage crops
Based on life span :
1) Annuals - Kharif annuals. Eg : Cowpea, Maize
- Rabi annuals. Eg : Oat, Berseem
- Summer annuals. Eg : Maize
2) Biennial - Eg : Forage carrot.
3) Perennial - Eg : Para grass, Anjan grass, Lucerne
Based on growth habits:
1) Herbs a) Grasses- Eg : Guinea grass
b) Legumes- Eg : Cowpea
2) Shrubs – Eg : Subabul, Glyricidia
3) Multi purpose trees – Eg : Ficus religiosa
Ficus bengalensis

7. Problems of forage production in India
 Non availability of suitable land.
 Growing in rainfed condition
 Non availability of good seed and planting material
 Lack of high yielding varieties
 Lack of improved production technologies
 Low productivity of forage crops
 Shrinking of grazing land

8. Table 1. Supply and demand scenario of forage (million tonnes)
Year
Supply (m t) Demand (m t) Deficit (m t)
Green Dry Green Dry Green Dry
2000 384.5 428 988 549 604 (61.10) 121(21.93)
2005 389.9 443 1025 569 635 (61.96) 126(22.06)
2010 395.2 451 1061 581 666 (62.76) 138(23.46)
2015 400.6 466 1097 609 696(63.50) 143(23.56)
2020 411.3 488 1170 650 759 (64.87) 162(24.92)
Anon., 2015

9. Sl. No. Particulars Green fodder
(m t)
Dry fodder
(m t)
Total
(m t)
1 Demand 121.75 23.86 145.61
2 Supply 85.00 15.00 100.00
3 Deficit 30 % 37 % 31.32 %
Table 2. Scenario of forage availability in Karnataka
Anon., 2015

10. Table 3. Area under different forage crops in Karnataka
Season Major crops Varieties
Area (lakh ha)
Irrigated Rainfed
Kharif
crops
Sorghum Local - 0.63
Maize African tall - 0.73
Bajra Local - 0.31
Cow pea Local - 0.16
Napier NB-21,CO-3l 0.2 -
Rabi
Sorghum Local - 0.3
Lucerne T-9 - 0.03
Maize African tall
/local
- 0.2
Anon., 2015

11. Recent approaches of forage production
technology

12. Sowing or planting
Seed priming
Optimum dates of sowing
 Staggered sowing
 Paired row planting
 Nursery
Nutrient management
Optimum dose of N ,P2O5, K2O
Micro nutrient application
Water management
Drip irrigation
Use of poor quality water
Improved agrotechniques

13. Table 4. Seed rate, fertilizer requirements, spacing and
yield of major forage crops
Crop Seed rate
(kg ha-1)
RDF
( N: P2O5 : K2O)
Spacing
(cm)
Yield (t ha-1)
Sorghum 40 30:20:20 30 x 10 36
Maize 40 60:40:20 30 x 10 42
Napier
hybrid
40000
rooted slips
50:50:40 50 x 50 25-300
Guniea
grass
3 kg seeds,
66000
rooted slips
50:50:40 50 x 30 50-60
Cowpea 40 25:40:20 30 x 10 18-20
Lucerene 20 25:120:40 25 x 5 70-80
Anon., 2015

14. Table 5. Important forage crops and their improved varieties
Forage crop Variety Special features Green fodder yield
(t ha-1)
Bajra
GFB-1 Multicut 50
Avika bajra chari
Entire growing
tract
36
Sorghum
Co FS 29 Multicut 150
CSH 24 MF Multicut 90
PCH 5 Multicut 80
Oat
Harita
(RO 19)
Entire country 60
Bundel jai 99 1 Entire country 32
Cowpea
Bundle lobia-1 (NC
Entire country
32
UPC 625
Entire country
35
Anon., 2012

15. Intensified forage production systems
 Round the year forage production system
 Food-fodder production systems
 Forages in non- food crop production system
 Forage production during lean period
 Perennial crop based forage-food production system

16. Production systems Green fodder yield
(t ha-1 year-1)
 Food fodder production system
Sorghum + fodder cowpea in paired row 17.3
Wheat + lucerene/ berseem (3:1) 4.6-7.8
 Forages in non food crop production system
Sugarcane + berseem/ lucerene 40-60
 Forage production during lean periods
Pearl millet + cluster bean (3:2) 30-35
 Orchard based production system
Guinea grass in coconut plantation 135
Congo signal gram in coconut plantation 75
 Perennial crop based forage-food production system
Pennisetum trispecific hybrid + Leucae Leucocephala
(fodder sorghum + pigeonpea)
53.27
Table 6. Intensive forage production systems
Anon., 2012

17. Forage production in coconut garden

18. Production potential of forage crops in rice
fallows
Sorghum + cowpea (3:1) Sorghum + mung bean (3:1)

19. Continued…
 Use of unproductive lands forage cultivation
eg: Problematic soils, degraded lands
 Forage production on terrace risers or bunds
eg: hilly regions
 Tree legume forages
eg: Subabul , Glyricidia
 Use of unconventional forage resources
eg: Raintree leaves, bamboo leaves
 Increased productivity of pasture and range in India
 Hydroponic fodder production
 Establishment of protein parks

20.  The word “hydroponics” - Greek language – Working water
 It is the method of growing plants in water media, with
dissolved nutrients without soil.
 Hydroponics was practiced many centuries ago in Amazon,
Babylon, Egypt, China and India.
 Later, when plant physiologists started to grow plants with
specific nutrients, they gave the name “nutriculture.”
Hydroponic fodder production

21. Hydroponic green fodder - why?
1. Efficiency
2. Space
3. Fodder yield and quality
4. Consistency of feeds

22. What can be grown as a hydroponic fodder
Moth bean Foxtail millet
Maize
Little millet
Jowar Ragi

23. Forage quality
Factors affecting forage quality
• Plant species
• Plant part
• Climate
• Stage of maturity
• Fertilization
• Diurnal fluctuations
Animal factors influencing forage quality
• Palatablity
• Ruminant digestion
• Forage constituents
Many ways to assess forage quality
• Human eye
• Laboratory

24. Fig. 1. Quality parameters of forage

25. Why we need to conservation forages
 To preserve forage when it is available in excess
 To maintain optimum nutritional value of forage
 To shift available forage from the present to the future.
 To move forage from one location to another location.
 To assist pasture management.

26. Why forage preservation on modern lines is
essential?
 Traditional farming imposed a continuous low
intensity management
 Better animal performance
 Reproductive performance
 Milk production
 More economic returns

27. Methods of conservation
Hay and silage are the main methods of
conserving forage
Hay is preserved by drying and will
generally keep while it is kept dry
Silage involves natural fermentation,
which produces lactic and other acids,
which ‘pickle’ or preserve the forage

28. Recent trends in hay making
Long, loose hay
1. Declined sharply in recent years
2. High labor cost
3. Too bulky for mechanized feeding
Loaf like staked hay
 Hay is transported to barn or stack, mechanically
pressed in to loaf shaped haystacks
Chopped hay
Two kinds
1. Green chop: 50-60 per cent moisture
2. Dry chop: 30-40 per cent moisture

29. Bales
• Rectangular bales 60-140 lbs
• Large round bale 850-2,000 lbs
• Large square bales, large rectangular
bales
Cubes
• Stationary or mobile cubers
• Mobile cubers pick up windrows of
forage and produce dense high-quality
forage cubes
• Add water to stick cubes together
• Have to dry cubes on a slab before
transporting
• Lower transportation, storage cost than
long hay
Pellets
• Pellet forages finely ground, then
condensed
• Recommend minimum of ¼ inch chop

30. Steps involved in silage making
Harvest forage at proper stage of maturity
Chop to proper length
Control of moisture content in raw materials
Control of water soluble carbohydrates
Filling packing and sealing

31. Principle of silage making
Phase-1: Aerobic phase
Phase-2: Fermentation phase
Phase-3: Stable phase
Phase-4: Feed out phase or aerobic spoilage
Sugars + oxygen Carbon di oxide + water + heat

32. Fig. 2. Chemical changes during fermentation
Days after ensiling
Singh et al.,2013

33. Silos
Stack silo Bunker silo
Plastic bag silo Tower silo

34. Table 8. Evaluation of silage quality
Parameter Properties
 Colour • Pale yellow
 Smell • Sweet sour pleasant
 Taste • Sour
 pH • 3.7 - 4.7
 Lactic acid • >50 % of total acids
 Propionic acid • <0.2-0.35 % of DM
 Acetic acid • >3-4 % of DM
Singh., et al 2011

35. Enhancement the quality of silage
• Ensile the forage when it has the proper moisture content (35 % DM).
• Filling a silo should be a continuous process : - The last load of the day
should be packed particularly well to reduced oxygen penetration
• Add dry matter to reduce moisture content
• Add water to increase moisture content
• Adding of molasses
• Acidifying the silage
• Inhibition of bacteria and mold growth
• Increasing the nutrient content of silage

36. Recent trends in silage
 Making silage package
which is transportable
 Small bag silages
 Drum silage
 Compressed bale silage
 Wrapped bales of silage

37. Research studies

38. Soaking
(hrs)
Volume of water
Half Equal Double Mean
Control 66.33 66.33 66.33 66.33
1 75.17 77.83 78.17 77.06
2 80.50 82.50 83.83 82.28
4 72.00 67.00 65.00 68.00
8 68.33 57.17 36.33 53.94
16 64.00 31.50 21.50 39.00
CD
(P=0.05)
1.24 1.76 3.05
Table 9. Effect of seed hydro priming on seedling
establishment fodder cowpea
Mor et al ., 2014Hissar

39. Varieties
Green
forage yield
(q ha-1)
Dry matter
yield (q ha-1)
Leaf-stem
ratio
Crude
protein yield
(q ha-1)
BNH-10 1431.41 269.02 0.76 18.41
NHN-9 1124.80 209.05 0.7 14.13
TNCN-07-3 1045.24 198.51 0.55 13.33
DHN-12 941.06 176.31 0.54 12.15
TNCN-07-1 907.04 171.54 0.61 12.06
TNCN-07-2 942.28 178.66 0.67 10.49
CO-3 972.04 183.52 0.64 12.51
PNB-233 1337.71 260.88 0.72 16.81
Mean 1083.25 204.87 0.64 13.99
S.Em+ 45.82 10.61 0.05 1.45
CD at 5% 135.16 31.29 0.15 4.28
Table 10. Performance of Bajra napier hybrid varieties in
Southern Dry Zone of Karnataka
V. C. Farm, Mandya Shashikanth et al., 2013

40. Effect of genotypes on yield and quality of multicut
sorghum
Hissar Satpal et al ., 2017

41. Treatments Green fodder yield (kg ha-1) Dry fodder
yield (kg ha-1)
HCN
(ppm)
T1 42627 13648 40.80
T2 41885 12597 40.65
T3 39847 12760 40.75
T4 39291 11824 40.70
T5 46333 14122 42.16
T6 40773 13168 40.18
T7 42256 13511 40.95
T8 36696 12047 39.24
T9 40959 12288 39.48
T10 40403 12074 39.50
T11 35769 11639 36.38
CONTROL 24649 7747 28.65
C.D (P=0.05) 6429.5 2233 2.332
Table 14. Effect of micronutrients application on fodder yield and HCN content in
fodder sorghum
Koushik et al. (2010)Udaipur
T1: RDF + 25 kg ZnSO4 ha
-1
soil
T2 : RDF + 25 kg FeSO4 ha
-1
soil
T3 : RDF + 0.2 % ZnSO4 foliar spray
T4: RDF + 0.5 % FeSO4 foliar spray
T5: RDF + 15 kg ZnSO4 ha
-1
soil + 0.2 % ZnSO4 foliar spray
T6: RDF + 15 kg FeSO4 ha
-1
soil + 0.5 % foliar spray of FeSO4
T7: RDF + 15 kg ZnSO4 + 15 kg FeSO4 ha
-1
soil
T8: RDF + 0.2 % ZnSO4 foliar spray + 0.5 % FeSO4 foliar spray
T9: RDF + 15 kg ZnSO4 ha
-1
soil + 0.5 % FeSO4 foliar spray
T10:RDF + 15kg FeSO4 ha
-1
soil+0.2%ZnSO4 foliar spray
T11: RDF alone( 40:20:20)
T12: Control

42. Treatments
Plant
height
(cm)
Green
fodder
yield q ha-1
Dry matter
yield q ha-1
T1- control 215.6 296.6 85.0
T2- RDF ( 80 kg N :30 kg P2o5) 248.6 471.6 133.3
T3- RDF + 0.5 % ZnSO4 foliarspray @ 35 DAS 253.3 480.0 138.3
T4- RDF + 0.5 % ZnSO4 foliarspray @ 45 DAS 255.6 486.6 140.0
T5- RDF + 0.5 % ZnSo4 FOLIAR SPRAY @ 35 DAS & 45 DAS 257.0 488.3 14.6
T6 - RDF + 0.5 % FeSo4 foliar spray @ 35 DAS 249.0 476.6 13.0
T7- RDF+0.5%Feso4 foliar spray @ 45 DAS 250 478.3 136.6
T8- RDF+0.5%FeSO4 foliar spray @ 35 das & 45 das 255.0 486.6 140.0
S. Em+ 3.4 7.1 3.3
CD at 5% 10.5 21.9 10.2
Table 15. Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on forage yield of forage
sorghum
HISSAR Rana et al ., 2014

43. Table 16 . Green forage yield, seed yield and straw yield of lucerne
influenced by different micronutrient levels
Rahuri
Treatment Green forage yield
(q ha-1 )
Seed yield
(q ha-1 )
Straw yield
(q ha-1 )
Molybdenum levels (kg ha-1 )
M-0 251 2.55 25.11
M-0.5 264 2.92 27.47
M-1.0 267 3.18 31.58
S.Em± 2.05 0.07 1.09
C .D(P=0.05) 5.86 0.19 3.11
Boron levels ( kg ha-1 )
B-0 258 2.51 24.90
B-2 260 2.91 28.70
B-4 264 3.22 31.48
S. Em± 2.05 0.07 1.10
C .D (P=0.05) 5.87 0.20 3.14
Pathan et al.(2012)

44. Table 17. Intensive Forage production through silvipasture system under rainfed ecosystem
Treatment
Green
Forage yield
(q ha-1)
Dry matter
yield (q ha-1)
Crude Protein
yield (q ha -1)
Net monetary
return
(Rs .ha -1)
B:C ratio
Subabul + Cenchrus ciliaris 193.00 42.5 5.78 7471 1.85
Subabul + Stylosanthes 305.93 64.99 13.50 18299 2.56
Subabul + Desmenthus virgatus 320.60 70.12 14.20 1954 2.85
Subabul + Cenchrus ciliaris
+Stylosanthes (3:1)
220.6 35.85 7.39 9288 1.99
Subabul + Cenchrus ciliaris +
Desmenthus (3:1)
245.62 50.81 9.04 12408 2.35
Subabul+Sorghum+ Horsegram
(3:1)
334.70 73.56 9.62 16043 2.47
Subabul +Pearl millet +
Horsegram (3:1)
410.93 87.58 10.25 22009 2.99
Subabul (Sole) 47.20 9.74 3.11 1487 1.34
S.EM± 18.1 5.62 0.66 - -
CD (P=0.05) 52.49 16.29 1.92 - -
Shekar et al., 2013V. C. Farm, Mandya

45. Table 18. Effect of dry matter intake and digestibility of nutrients and nutritive value
hydroponic fodder maize
Parameters Hydroponic fodder Conventional fodder
Mean BW (intial) 435.48 449.12
Dry matter intake (kg day-1)
Concentrate mixture 4.62 4.62
Green fodder 0.59 1.19
Jowar straw 3.64 3.89
Total roughage* 4.23 5.08
Total dm* 8.85 9.70
Roughage :concentration ratio* 48:52 52:48
Dm intake 100 kg-1 bw 2.05 2.17
Digestibility and nutritive value (%)
Dry matter 65.39 61.15
Organic matter 68.47 64.19
Crude protein* 72.46 68.86
Ether extract 87.69 82.05
Crude fiber* 59.21 53.25
Nitrogen free extract 70.47 67.37
Dcp* 9.65 8.61
TDN 68.52 64.00
Naik et al., 2014Goa Significantly different (p<0.05)

46. Table 19. Effect on milk yield, feed conversion ratio and economics of
feeding hydroponic fodder
Parameters Hydroponic fodder Conventional fodder
Milk yield kg day-1 4.64 + 1.21 4.08 + 0.11
 Feed conversion ratio (kg feed kg-1 milk yield)
Dry matter (on fresh basis) 2.12 + 0.40 2.37 + 0.08
Crude protien 0.29 + 0.06 0.30 + 0.00
Digestable CP 0.21 + 0.05 0.20 + 0.01
Total digestable nutrient 1.45 + 0.27 1.52 + 0.05
 Economics of feeding
Cost of feed 144.88 + 4.55 137.51 + 5.02
Feed cost kg milk-1
production
34.98 + 7.14 33.369 + 0.53
Cost of milk (@ Rs. 36kg-1) 166.92 + 43.73 146.88 + 3.85
Net profit animal -1 day-1 22.04 + 40.98 9.37 + 2.08
Naik et al., 2014Goa Significantly different(p<0.05)

47. Treatments
GREEN FODDER
YIELD
(GFY kg-1of seed)
DRY MATTER
YIELD
(DFY kg-1of seed)
CRUDE FIBRE
CONTENT %
CRUDE FIBRE
YIELD
(CFYkg-1of seed )
C1-Fodder maize 5.48 720.77 7.23 52.11
C2-Grain maize 5.37 704.96 7.17 50.55
C3-Fodder bajra 2.73 304.61 4.60 13.99
C4-Grain bajra 2.69 300.05 4.25 12.74
C5-Barley 3.19 382.05 6.17 23.57
C6-Wheat 3.14 372.68 6.12 22.79
C7-Oat 3.12 368.88 6.08 22.9
C8-Foddercowpea 4.20 502.28 6.92 22.41
C9 –Grain cowpea 5.29 692.53 7.16 34.73
C10-Horse gram s 5.24 689.80 7.18 49.55
C11-Soyabean 0.00 0.00 0.0 49.54
C12 Lucerne 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
S. Em+ 0.20 0.01 0.20 0.01
C D at 5% 0.42 0.02 0.42 0.02
Table 20. Performance of different crops under hydroponics
fodder production system
coimbatore Rajesh jolad et al.,2018

48. Wheat Moisture Crude
protein**
Ether
extract*
Ash NFE** Fresh
yield** (kg)
Seed 8.20±0.26 10.00a ± 0.06 1.80a ± 0.10 2.40 ± 0.09 83.40g ± 0.26
Day 1 48.60± 1.12 10.05a ± 0.29 1.90ab ± 0.10 2.42 ± 0.06 82.83fg 0.26 3.56a ± 0.09
Day 2 52.76±0.96 10.75a ± 0.14 2.00bc ± 0.06 2.44 ± 0.06 81.90 f ± 0.14 3.88a ±0.06
Day 3 67.00±2.14 12.20b ± 0.72 2.13cd ± 0.09 2.50 ± 0.10 80.17e ± 0.29 4.26b ± 0.09
Day 4 70.56±1.28 12.25b ± 0.36 2.24d ± 0.16 2.53 ± 0.09 79.81e ± 0.26 5.09c ± 0.09
Day 5 82.38±4.44 13.12c ± 0.12 2.41e ± 0.06 2.61 ± 0.12 78.36d ± 0.12 5.67d ± 0.11
Day 6 83.29±0.52 14.07d ± 0.26 2.59 f ± 0.12 2.67 ± 0.12 76.47c ± 0.19 6.40e ± 0.14
Day 7 86.36 ± 1.26 15.03e ± 0.38 2.72g ± 0.12 2.88 ± 0.09 74.67b ± 0.11 7.10t ± 0.12
Day 8 87.66 ± 1.26 15.75e ± 0.44 2.80g ±0.09 3.00 ± 0.09 73.25a ± 0.26 7.12f ± 0.26
Conventio
nal Wheat
Fodder
72.26 ± 3.14 11.02 ± 0.32 2.02 ± 0.06 8.28 ± 0.12 52.97 ± 0.44
Table 21. Chemical composition (% DM basis) of hydroponics wheat fodder
Kanthale et al., 2017Nagpur
Means bearing abc differs significantly ** (P<0.01), * (P<0.05)

49. Treatments Dry matter(%) pH TOTAL
ASH(%)
ACID
INSOLULE
ASH %
CRUDE
PROTEIN(%)
CRUDE
FIBRE(%)
 Season
Rabi 3963. 4.27 8.46 1.79 4.46 40.44
Kharif 39.72 4.24 8.20 2.06 4.20 40.30
CD NS NS NS NS NS NS
 Fodder crops
Hybrid napier 35.09 4.35 6.65 1.79 5.66 41.11
Guniea grass 44.26 4.17 10.0 2.06 2.99 39.64
CD at 5% 3.2 NS 1.44 NS 1.04 NS
 Silage additives
Urea 1% 36.79 4.29 7.21 1.66 4.72 40.04
Urea 2% 43.04 4.17 7.99 1.78 4.4 39.38
Urea 1%
+jaggery1%
38.61 4.38 8.31 2.21 3.79 41.91
Tapioc flour 1% 41.0 4.38 8.58 1.73 4.46 40.98
JAGGERY 2% 38.9 4.05 9.56 2.26 4.14 39.54
S. Em+ 3.8 2.83 5.23 6.99 7.28 3.68
CD at 5% NS NS 1.44 1.437 NS NS
Table 22. Effect of season, grass and additives on quality parameters of silage
kerala usha et al.,2018

50. Parameter Silage1
(maize fodder only)
Silage2
(maize fodder +
4%molasses)
Silage3
(maize fodder +
4%molasses+ 2%
urea)
pH 4.66b 4.08a 4.69b
DM (%) 21.51b 17.40a 18.28a
CP (%) 9.78a 9.80b 10.59c
CF (%) 34.04b 33.50b 28.23a
EE (%) 2.55a 2.64b 4.05c
ASH (%) 15.40 15.71 15.50
NFE (%) 38.23a 38.35b 41.63c
ME (kcal/kg) 1741.78a 1753.07b 1991.71c
Table 23. Effect of silage additives on different maize fodder
silage (g 100g-1 dm)
Khatun et al.,2015Chittagong

51. Treatments Dry matter
content(%)
pH Total ash
(%)
Acid insoluble
ash (%)
Crude
Protein (%)
Crude fibre %
BN hybrid + Urea 1% 30.75 4.38 5.92 1.843 5.63 41.2
BN hybrid + Urea 2% 36.95 4.04 6.12 1.52 5.22 41.44
BN hybrid + Urea 1%+ Jaggery
1%
33.73 4.29 7.27 1.96 5.07 40.45
B. BN hybrid+Tapioca flour 1% 38.67 4.47 7.41 1.84 6.15 39.33
BN hybrid+Jaggery 2% 35.33 4.54 6.5 1.81 6.24 43.68
Guinea grass+Urea 1% 42.83 4.21 8.51 1.47 3.81 38.88
Guinea grass + Urea 2% 49.13 4.30 9.82 2.04 3.85 37.31
Guinea grass + Urea1% + Jaggery
1%
43.5 4.48 9.35 2.46 2.52 43.37
C. Guinea grass + Tapioca flour
1%
43.33 4.29 9.75 1.62 2.78 42.63
Guinea grass + Tapioca flour 1% 42.5 3.57 12.62 2.72 2.03 35.99
C.D.(P=0.05) NS 0.28 1.07 0.305 0.733 NS
S. Em± 3.8 2.83 5.23 6.99 7.28 3.68
Table 24. Interaction effect of grasses and additives on quality parameters of silage
Usha et al., 2018Kerala

52. Tree leaves
Ingredients
DM
(%)
Ash (%) EE (%) CP (%) CF (%) NEF (%) ME (kcal
kg-1 DM)
Rain tree
leaves
30 9 2 11 31 34 1601
Mahogany
leaves
31 7 11 13 25 27 2104
Water
hyacinth
17.25 10.23 2.4 10.70 18.50 58.17 2418
Bamboo
leaves
25 14.5 1.0 9.2 24 51.3 2038
Jack fruit
leaves
27 13.5 1.2 12.5 25.30 47.5 2061
Dhaincha
leaves
24 7.5 4.5 25.5 18.5 44 2594.44
Table25.Chemical composition of selected tree leaves (g 100g-1)
Khatun et al., 2015Chittagong

53. CONCLUSION