AJPS  Vol.12 No.6 , June 2021
Studies on Biomass Yield, Morphological Characteristics and Nutritive Quality of Napier Cultivars under Two Different Geo-Topographic Conditions of Bangladesh
Abstract: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of Napier cultivars in terms of forage yield, plant morphology and nutrient contents under two different agro-ecology and geo-topographic conditions. Three Napier cultivars being conserved by Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute (BLRI), namely-BLRI-Napier 1, (BN-1), BLRI-Napier 3 (BN-3) and Merkeron (BN-5) were selected to cultivate in severe drought prone areas (called Barind) and non-drought area at Savar (Modhupur terrace). Stem cuttings were planted in rows apart from 70 cm and 35cm spacing between plants. Data of 6 consecutive harvests from a period of approximately one year were collected and analyzed statistically by “R” software. The results showed that cultivar and location had a significant (P < 0.001) effect on biomass yield, plant height and leaf-stem ratio (LSR), while number of tillers were significantly varied with locations. BN-3 yielded the highest biomass (33.32 t/ha/harvest) at non-drought location (42.98 t/ha/harvest). The highest plant height was obtained in BN-1 (171.2 cm) at non-drought location (174.6 cm). Number of tillers per hill ranged from 25.4 to 26.3 among cultivars (P > 0.05) and the highest tillers were found at non-drought location (28.1 no). The best LSR was estimated from BN-5 (0.86) at drought location (0.95). The proximate analysis showed that CP, ADF and NDF in whole plant were varied significantly (P < 0.001), being the highest contents in BN-1 (10.69%, 46.20% and 54.58%, respectively). On the other hand, DM and ash contents did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) among cultivars which ranged from 15.80% to 17.13% and 13.10% to 14.58%, respectively. The highest CP content in whole plant was obtained at non-drought location (11.89%), while the lowest ash (10.57%) and NDF (52.71%) contents were obtained at the same location. The highest CP contents in leaf were found at non-drought (15.03%) and the lowest ash (9.86%) at the same location. The highest CP contents (5.90%) in stem were found at non-drought location, while the lowest ash (11.28%) and NDF (54.59%) contents were obtained at the same location. Finally, the experiment reveals the superiority in biomass yield and nutritional quality (in terms of CP content) with the ranking orders of BN-3 > BN-1 > BN-5 and BN-1 > BN-3 > BN-5. Therefore, it may be concluded that BN-1, BN-3, and BN-5 cultivars were well adapted in both drought and non-drought conditions, although performance showed better in later conditions. However, in terms of forage yield and overall nutrient composition, the performance of BN-3 was the best irrespective of locations.
Cite this paper: Sarker, N. , Habib, M. , Yeasmin, D. , Tabassum, F. and Mohammed, R. (2021) Studies on Biomass Yield, Morphological Characteristics and Nutritive Quality of Napier Cultivars under Two Different Geo-Topographic Conditions of Bangladesh. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 12, 914-925. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2021.126061.

[1]   Bayer, W. (1990) Napier Grass-A Promising Fodder for Smallholder Livestock Production in the Tropics. Plant Research for Development, 31, 103-111.

[2]   Staal, S., Chege, L., Kenyanjui, M., Kimari, A., Lukuyu, B., Njubi, D., Owango, M., Tanner, J., Thorpe, W. and Wambugu, M. (1987) A Cross Sectional Survey of Kiambu District for the Identification of Target Groups of Smallholder Dairy Producers. KARI/ILRI Collaborative Project Research Report, Nairobi, Kenya.

[3]   Anderson, W.F, Dien, B.S, Brandon, S.K. and Peterson, J.D. (2008) Assessment of Bermuda Grass and Bunch Grasses as Feed Stocks for Conversion to Ethanol. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 145, 13-21.

[4]   Toker, C., Canci, H. and Yildirim, T. (2007) Evaluation of Perennial Wild Cicer Species for Drought Resistance. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 54, 1781-1786.

[5]   Deikman, J., Petracek, M. and Heard, J.E. (2012). Drought Tolerance through Biotechnology: Improving Translation from the Laboratory to Farmers’ Fields. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 23, 243-250.

[6]   Dey, N.C., Alam, M.S., Sajjan, A.K., Bhuiyan, M.A., Ghose, L., Ibaraki, Y. and Karim, F. (2011). Assessing Environmental and Health Impact of Drought in the Northwest. Journal of Environmental Science and Natural Resources, 4, 89-97.

[7]   Habiba, U., Shaw, R. and Yukiko Takeuchi, Y. (2011) Drought Risk Reduction through a Socio-Economic, Institutional and Physical Approach in the Northwestern Region of Bangladesh. Environmental Hazards, 10, 121-138.

[8]   AOAC (2005) Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 21st Edition, AOAC, Washington DC.

[9]   Van Soest, P., Robertson, J. and Lewis, B. (1991) Methods for Dietary Fiber, Neutral-Detergent Fiber and Non-Starch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal Nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3583-3597.

[10]   RStudio Team (2020) RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio. MA URL, PBC, Boston.

[11]   Soumya, P. (2011) Evaluation of Promising Hybrid Napier Cultivars under Varying Plant Population. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, 73 p.

[12]   Rengsirikul, K., Ishii, Y., Kangvansaichol, K., Sripichitt, P., Punsuvon, V., Vaithanomsat, P., Nakamanee, G. and Tudsril, S. (2013) Biomass Yield, Chemical Composition and Potential Ethanol Yields of 8 Cultivars of Napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach) Harvested 3-Monthly in Central Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems, 3, 107-112.

[13]   Maleko, D., Mwilawa, A., Msalya, G., Pasape, L. and Mtei, K. (2019) Forage Growth, Yield and Nutritional Characteristics of Four Varieties of Napier Grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach) in the West Usambara Highlands, Tanzania. Scientific African, 6, e00214.

[14]   Tessema, Z.K., Mihret, J. and Solomon, M. (2010) Effect of Defo-Liation Frequency and Cutting Height on Growth, Dry-Matter Yield and Nutritive Value of Napier Grass (Pennisetum purpureum (L.) Schumach). Grass and Forage Science, 65, 421-430.

[15]   Pandey, K.C. and Roy, A.K. (2011) Forage Crops Varieties. Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute (IGFRI), Jhansi, India.

[16]   Kumar, V. (2013) Napier Grass (Elephant Grass) Variety.

[17]   Thomas, C.G. (2008) Forage Crop Production in the Tropics. 2nd Editon, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 333 p.

[18]   Wangchuk, K., Rai, K., Nirola, H., Thukten Dendup, C. and Mongar, D. (2015) Forage Growth, Yield and Quality Responses of Napier Hybrid Grass Cultivars to Three Cutting Intervals in Himalayan Foothills. Tropical Grasslands, 3, 142-150.

[19]   Mtengeti, E.J., Phiri, E.C.J.H., Urio, N.A., Mhando, D.G., Mvena, Z., Ryoba, R. and Lorken, T. (2008) Forage Availability and Its Quality in the Dry Season on Smallholder Dairy Farms in Tanzania. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A— Animal Science, 58, 196-204.

[20]   Elanchezhian, N. and Reddy, D.V. (2009) Nutritional Evaluation of CO3 Grass in Goats. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 79, 252-253.

[21]   Turano, B., Tiwari, U.P. and Jha, R. (2016) Growth and Nutritional Evaluation of Napier Grass Hybrids as Forage for Ruminants. Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes Tropicales, 4, 168-178.