Ipil-ipil
Common name: Leucaena, White lead tree
Scientific name: Leucaena leucocephala
Feed categories: Legume tree forage
Production/Availability
Ipil-ipil (Leucaena leucocephala) is a fast-growing, evergreen, long-living perennial, high-quality, and palatable legume fodder tree in the tropics. Leucaena leucocephala is native to southern Mexico and Central America (Belize and Guatemala). In the 16th century, Ipil-ipil was introduced in the Philippines and Southeast Asia and spread throughout the Asia-Pacific region. An average annual temperature and rainfall of 25–30 °C and 1,500 mm, respectively, are suitable for optimum growth and production. The fodder is suitable only for ruminants but is toxic to pigs and horses on account of mimosine, a toxic amino acid. When grown for fodder purposes, the first cut (5-10 cm above ground) can be taken within 6-9 months of sowing and the subsequent cuts may be obtained at intervals of about 4 months. It grows rapidly in summer but slow in winter. It produces well with an average rainfall of 600 to 1700 mm throughout the year. Ipil-ipil is not affected by drought and can survive for up to 8 months even without rain. Ipil-ipil generally grows well in loamy and upland soils. It obtained the best yield when the soil pH is between 6.0 -7.5.
Saplings can be planted in the land at 1.0 x1.0 meter spacing during Ashad-Shravan month. Planting at other times of the year requires sufficient water. Apart from this, seeds can be sown directly on the land. In that case, 20-25 kg of seeds are required per hectare. But if planted in line, 10-20 kg of seeds per hectare is enough. After the sapling stage, Ipil-ipil becomes less bushy compared to the second year. Ipil-ipil can be collected four times along with leaf tips from May to October of the year at 6-8 week cutting interval. Ipil-ipil can be collected at least once during the rest of the year. Average annual biomass production is ranges from 3 to 30 tons DM/ha, depending on the soil health, environmental temperature, cutting interval and moisture conditions.
Collection and Use as animal feed:
In the first year of planting, Ipil-ipil leaves can be collected once at a height of 1.50 m along with soft branches. The same height can be cut at least five times a year from the following year. The soft part of the branches of Ipil-ipil tree contains 28-30 percent of dry matter. The dry matter of that part contains 90-92 percent organic matter and 23-24 percent protein and the ratio of calcium and phosphorus is about 5:1.
Leaves with soft stem of Ipil-ipil fed mixed with hay or other forage, the body weight of bull calves increases at the rate of 300 grams per day. Adding10% molasses to the said mixture will increase the body weight by more than 400 grams. Generally, ruminants (cattle, sheep, and goats) are better at tolerating Leucaena than non-ruminants (horses, pigs and poultry) due to the presence of micro flora in the rumen. Ipil-ipil leaves can be dried in the sun and fed to cows and calves at a rate of 40-50% with other feed, besides it is fed on a fresh basis. In the first stage, cattle, goat or sheep should be fed little, then more can be fed without any adverse effects.
Nutrient Composition
|
Main analysis |
Unit |
Avg |
SD |
Min |
Max |
Nb |
|
Dry matter |
as Fresh |
27.8 |
4.58 |
21.7 |
36.8 |
14 |
|
Dry matter |
% as fed |
90.3 |
1.45 |
88.6 |
92.2 |
6 |
|
Crude protein |
% DM |
23.8 |
5.36 |
20.0 |
26.1 |
29 |
|
Crude fibre |
% DM |
13.4 |
4.80 |
5.08 |
19.8 |
10 |
|
NDF |
% DM |
39.8 |
1.10 |
38.7 |
40.9 |
2 |
|
ADF |
% DM |
24.5 |
6.83 |
20.7 |
33.7 |
4 |
|
Lignin |
% DM |
9.8 |
1.41 |
8.8 |
10.8 |
2 |
|
Ether extract |
% DM |
4.21 |
1.08 |
2.43 |
5.70 |
9 |
|
Ash |
% DM |
8.5 |
2.20 |
4.70 |
14.0 |
511 |
|
Gross energy |
MJ/kg DM |
19.9 |
1.09 |
18.5 |
21.2 |
4 |
|
ME(Metabolizable energy) |
MJ/kg DM |
10.5 |
0.34 |
9.75 |
10.5 |
4 |
|
Calcium |
g/kg DM |
8.15 |
3.33 |
4.20 |
12.2 |
5 |
|
Phosphorus |
g/kg DM |
1.87 |
0.80 |
0.97 |
2.80 |
5 |
NDF= Neutral Detergent Fiber; ADF= Acid Detergent Fiber.
Nutritional aspects of Ipil-ipil
Ipil-ipil can fix a large amount of N (150–300 kg/ha), thus making it promising for use in grass or maize production (Ecoport 2009). It is incredibly palatable for cattle, sheep, and goats and grows well in association with different tropical and subtropical grasses (Cook et al. 2005). It contains mimosine (up to 9% DM in young shoots) than roots (0.1%) and wood (0.4%), a toxic amino acid that has detrimental effects on non-ruminants; however, mimosine is detoxified by rumen microbes (3,4 and 2,3 dihydroxy-pyridine). Ipil-ipil is a good source of CP (25%–35%), β-carotene, amino acids (isoleucine, leucine, phenylalanine, and histidine), branched-chain fatty acid, calcium, phosphorus, sulphate, peptides and other minerals (Hume 1970, Vietmeyer et al. 1977, Ter Meulen et al. 1979, Elliott and Armstrong 1982, Brewbaker et al. 1985, Cotta and Hespell 1986, Scapinello et al. 2000, Figueredo et al. 2019, Lou et al. 2019). This makes fodder comparable to alfalfa, soybean meal, and fish meal (D’Mello and Thomas 1977, Ndlove and Buchanan-Smith 1985). However, it is generally deficient in sodium (Brewbaker et al. 1985, Garcia et al. 1996, Figueredo et al. 2019). Supplementation with Ipil-ipil may increase OM intake and digestibility (Bamualim et al. 1984). This indicates that rumen microbial activities are promoted. It contains bioactive compounds such as tannins and saponins in the leaves and stem, which reduce DM digestibility but enhance by-pass proteins (FAO 2009, Soltan et al. 2012, De Angelis et al. 2021) and reduce CH4 production (Soltan et al. 2012, Rusmana Wijaya Setia Ningrat et al. 2019). Additionally, increased OM digestibility results in faster rumen fermentation and produces a significant proportion of propionate in total volatile fatty acids (VFAs) (Pacheco et al. 2014, Van Lingen et al. 2016). This is associated with decreased enteric CH4 emissions, given the negative relationship between propionate formation and enteric CH4 production.
Supplementing Ipil-ipil with poor quality roughages increased the live weight of ruminants compared to grass pastures during the dry or winter season (Jones, 1979). The average daily gain ranged from 0.36 kg (315-d period) to 1.10 kg (90-d period), even reaching 1.44 kg when the diet contained a high concentration of Ipil-ipil, without the detrimental effects of mimosine (Shelton and Brewbaker 1998). In dairy animals, milk production has increased by 10–14%, and milk fat and protein have also increased (Paschal and Agnes 1997). Ipil-ipil foliage is also a promising feedstuff for sheep and goats, resulting in better replacement of concentrate, DM intake, weight gain, and reproductive performance (Espinoza et al. 2005, Kanani et al. 2006).
References
Bamualim A, Weston RH, Hogan JP, Murray RM (1984). The contributions of Leucaena leucocephala to post ruminal digestible protein for sheep fed tropical pasture hay supplemented with urea and minerals. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production.15, 255-258.
Brewbaker JL, Hedge N, Hutton EM, Jones RJ, Lowry JB, Moog F, Van derBelt R (1985). Leucaena: Forage production and use; NFTA, Cornell University: New York, NY, USA, p- 39.
Cook BG, Pengelly BC, Brown SD, Donnelly JL, Eagles DA, Franco MA, Hanson J, Mullen BF, Partridge IJ, Peters M, Schultze-Kraft R (2005). Tropical forages. CSIRO, DPI and F(Qld), CIAT and ILRI, Brisbane, Australia.
Cotta MA, Hespell RB (1986). Protein and amino acid metabolism of rumen bacteria. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants (Eds LP, Milligan WL, Grovum & A. Dobson), pp. 122-136. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, Banff, Canada, September 10-14, 1984. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
D’Mello JPF, Thomas D (1977). Animal feed. In leucaena: Promising forage and tree crops for the tropics; Rushkin FR, Ed.; National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, p-302.
De Angelis A, Gasco L, Parisi G, Danieli PP (2021). A multipurpose leguminous plant for the Mediterranean Countries: Leucaena leucocephala as an Alternative Protein Source: A Review. Animals 11, 2230.
Ecoport (2009). Ecoport database. Ecoport http://www.ecoport.org
Elliott R, Armstrong DG (1982). The effect of urea and urea plus sodium sulphate on microbial protein production in the rumens of sheep given diets high in alkali-treated barley straw. Journal of Agricultural Science 99(1), 51-60.
Espinoza F, Diaz Y, Argenti P, Quintana H, Leon L (2005). Use of leucaena meal (Leucaena leucocephala) on the post-weaning lamb feeding during dry season. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomia, Universidad del Zulia 22 (1), 42-53.
FAO (2009). Grassland Index. A searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Figueredo ES, Rodrigues RC, de Araújo RA, dos Santos Costa C, de Sousa Santos FN, da Silva IR, Ribeiro de Jesus AP, dos Santos Araújo J, da Silva Cabra L, Ribeiro Araújo IG (2019). Maturity dependent variation in composition and characteristics of potentially digestible tissues of leucena. Semina: Agrarian Sciences 40(6Supl2), 3133–3142.
Garcia GW, Ferguson TU, Neckels FA, Archibald KAE (1996). The nutritive value and forage productivity of Leucaena leucocephala. Animal Feed Science and Technology 60, 29–41.
Hume ID (1970). Synthesis of microbial protein in the rumen. III. The effect of dietary protein. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 21, 305-314.
Jones RJ (1979). The value of Leucaena leucocephala as a feed for ruminants in the tropics. World Animal Review 31, 13-23.
Kanani J, Lukefahr SD, Stanko RL (2006). Evaluation of tropical forage legumes (Medicago sativa, Dolichos lablab, Leucaena leucocephala and Desmanthus bicornutus) for growing goats. Small Ruminant Research 65 (1-2), 1-7.
Lou SN, Hou FJ, Ren JZ (2019). Evaluation of grassland agricultural productivity by food equivalent unit. Acta Prataculturae Sinica 28(12), 1-16.
Ndlovu L, Buchanan-Smith J (1985). Utilization of poor-quality roughages by sheep: effects of alfalfa supplementation on ruminal parameters, fibre digestion and rate of passage from the rumen. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 65, 693–703.
Pacheco D, Waghorn G, Janssen PH (2014). Decreasing methane emissions from ruminants grazing forages: a fit with productive and financial realities? Animal Production Science 54,1141–54. 27.
Paschal 0. Osuji, Agnes A. Odenyo (1997). The role of legume forages as supplements to low quality roughages - ILRI experience. Animal Feed Science and Technology 69, 27-38.
Rusmana Wijaya Setia Ningrat, Mardiati Zain, Erpomen, Ezi Masdia Putri, Malik Makmur (2019). Effects of Leucaena leucocephala supplementation to total mixed ration based on ammoniated rice straw on fiber digestibility and rumen fermentation characteristics in vitro. International Journal on Advanced Science Engineering Information Technology 9(3), 916-921.
Scapinello C, Furlan AC, Jobim CC, de Faria AG, Figueiredo DF, Hernandes AB (2000). Valor nutritivo e utilizaçao do feno de leucena (Leucaena leucocephala cv. Cunningham) para Coelho semcrescimento. Acta Scientiarrum 22, 829–833.
Shelton HM, Brewbaker JL (1998). Leucaena leucocephala - the most widely used forage tree legume. In: Gutteridge RC, Shelton, M.(eds), Forage tree legumes in tropical agriculture. Tropical grassland society of Australia Inc.
Soltan YA, Morsy AS, Sallam SMA, Louvandini H, Abdalla AL (2012). Comparative in vitro evaluation of forage legumes (prosopis, acacia, atriplex, and leucaena) on ruminal fermentation and methanogenesis. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 21(4), 759–772.
Ter Meulen U, Struck S, Schulke E, El-Harith EA (1979). A review on the nutritive value and toxic aspects of Leucaena leucocephala. Tropical Animal Production 4(2), 113–126.
Van Lingen HJ, Plugge CM, Fadel JG, Kebreab E, Bannink A, Dijkstra J (2016). Thermodynamic driving force of hydrogen on rumen microbial metabolism: a theoretical investigation. PLoS ONE 11, e0161362.
Vietmeyer N, Cottom B, Ruskin FR (1977). Leucaena, promising forage and tree crop for the tropics; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, p-115.