ANIMAL FEED

SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY

ELSEVIER Animal Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41

The nutritive value and forage productivity of

Leucaena leucocephala
G.W. Garcia a, T.U. Ferguson b, F.A. Neckles ‘, K.A.E. Archibald d
a Tropical Foruge- Animal Production Laboratory, Department oflivestock Science, Faculty ofAgriculture.
The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidud and Tobago
b Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine.
Trinidud and Tobago
’ Sugurcune Feeds Centre, Pokhor Road, Longdenville, Trinidud and Tobago
d Ministry of Agriculture, Bassetrre, Saint Kitty, Suint Kitts and Nevis

Received 22 November 1994; accepted 16 October 1995

Abstract

65 publications on Leucaena for nutritive value and forage productivity (1946- 1992) were
reviewed. The median chemical composition for leucaena leaf meal [g 100 gg ’ dry matter (DM
basis)] was calculated to be 4.15 nitrogen (NJ, 29.2 crude protein (CP), 4.3 mimosine, 19.2 crude
fibre (CF), 10.5 ash, 1.01 tannin (Tn), 1.9 calcium (Ca>, 0.23 phosphorous (P>, 0.34 magnesium
(Mn), 1.7 potassium (K), 237.5 ppm carotene. The median chemical composition (g 100 g- ’ DM
of Leucaena forage was 3.52 N, 22.03 CP, 2.14 mimosine, 3.5 CF, 39.5 neutral detergent fibre
(NDF), 35.1 acid detergent fibre (ADF), 4.71 hemicellulose, 18.3 ash, 1.05 tannin, 0.22 sulphur,
1.80 Ca, 0.26 P, 0.33 Mg, 1.45 K, 169.5 mg kg-’ zinc (Zn>, and 26 mg kg-’ copper (Cu) and
88 1.6 mg kg- ’ oxalate. The digestible energy (DE) value of Leucaena forage varied from 11.6 to
12.9 MJ kg- ’ DM, the total apparent digested crude protein (TADCP) reported tanged from 64.7
to 78.0%. A model developed in one source suggested 42% rumen degradable protein (RDP), with
48% of the undegradable protein (UDP) being digested post ruminally, giving a TADCP value of
70%. Leucaena forage productivity indicated that the optimum harvesting interval or age at
harvest should be about 8 weeks or just before the onset of flowering.

Keyword.y: Leucaena; Nutritive value, leucaena; Proteins; Degradation

1. Introduction

Leucuena leucocephalu (leucaena) is native to neutral and alkaline soils of Southern

Mexico and Central America and the plant is now naturalised throughout the tropics

0377.8401/96/$15.00 0 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDf 0377-8401(95)00922-I
30 G.W. Garcia et al./Animal Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41

between 30”N and 30% latitudes, on the less acid soils and at elevations up to 1500 m
above sea level (Hill, 1971). Leucaena is broadly classified into three types and shows
wide genetic variation in growth habit. The first is the “Hawaiian”, consisting of small
highly branched trees and growing up to 6 m in height and normally flowering within
six months of growth. Secondly, the “Salvador” or the “Giant” type is the selection
referred to as the Hawaiian Giant, which is actually a selection (or a group of selections)
of the “Salvador” types collected from expeditions. These were then brought to the
University of Hawaii where the selection was made. These are fast growing trees which
attains heights of 20 m. “Peru” is the third type, which combines the vegetative vigour
of the “Salvador” with the extensive low branching and reduced relative woodiness of

Table 1
The chemical composition of leucaena forage [leaf (petiole and blade) and stem] and leaf meal

Chemical fraction dry matter Forage Leaf meal

basis % dry matter (DM)
Range Median Range Median
27.00-34.00 30.50
% DM basis (g 100 g- ’ DM)
Nitrogen (N) 2.24-4.80 3.52 4.00-4.30 4.15
Crude protein (CP) 10.00-30.05 22.03 24.00-34.40 29.20
Mimosine 0.70-3.59 2.14 I .40-7. I9 4.30
Crude fibre (CF) 32.00-28.00 35.00 18.00-20.40 19.20
Neutral detergent fibre (NDF) 34.00-42.00 39.50
Acid detergent fibre (ADF) 34.10-36.10 35.10
Hemicellulose 2.01-7.40 4.71
Cellulose I 1.OO-25.70 18.30
Lignin 4.20- I I .70 1.90
Ash 6.62-9.46 8.04 I o.OO- I I .oo 10.50
TamnIl 0.51-1.60 1.05 I.01
Sulphur 0.14-0.29 0.22
Calcium 0.80-2.90 1.80 1.90
Phosphorus 0.14-0.38 0.26 0.23
Magnesium 0.17-0.48 0.33 0.34
Sodium 0.02-2.66 I .34 0.02
Potassium 0.79-2. I I 1.45 1.70
(mg kg- ’DM)
Copper 2.00-32.00 26.00 8.00- 1 I .40 9.70
Iron 187.58-575.00 381.30 907.40
Zinc 30.00-308.95 169.50 19.20-32.80 26.00
Manganese 55.16-875.00 465.08 59.90
Iodine 33.00-90.00 61.50
Chloride 0.15-0.09 0.17
Oxalate 881.6
Xanthrophyll 741 .oO-766.00 753.00
Leutein 529.00-557.00 543.00
Zeaxanthin 1 lO.OO- 146.00 128.00
Carotene 227.00-248.00 237.50

Source: Jones ( 1979); D’Mello and Taplin (I 978); Brewbaker and Hutton ( 1979); Pillot et al. ( 1976); Meulcn
et al. (1979); Hulman et al. (1978); Alvarez et al. (1978a); Akbar and Gupta (1984a and Akbar and Gupta,
1984b); Adeneye (1991); Aletor and Omodara (1994).
 G.W. Garcia et al./Animul Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41 ?I

the Hawaiian types (Brewbaker and Hutton, 1979). All types are now present in the
Caribbean (Batson, 19871, and at least the “Peru” and “Salvador” types are present in
Africa (Wandera et al., 1991) and India (Sobale et al., 1978). The objectives of this
paper are to develop a composite table on the nutritive value of leucaena leaf and forage
meal, to highlight ruminant animal performance when fed leucaena forage and to
highlight leucaena forage protein productivity. The composite table on the nutritive
value of leucaena forage assembled in this paper, through the review of publications on
leucaena with regard to nutritive value and forage productivity (spanning 1946- 19951,
could be used in future editions of nutrient feed composition tables. The present tables
do not have much on the nutritive value of this important tropical forage crop.

2. Nutritive value

The chemical composition of leucaena forage and leucaena leaf meal as reported in
the literature is summarised in Table 1. Leucaena leaf is higher in crude protein (CP>
than leucaena forage [leaf (petiole and blade) and stem]. The leaf meal has a median
CP(g 100 g- ’) value of 29.2 and the forage 22.03. This is comparable to Alfalfa meal
and leucaena forage has about 40% the CP value of soyabean meal. Leucaena forage is
however high in fibre, with Acid Detergent Fibre (ADF) values ranging from 34.1 to
36.1 (g 100 g- ’ DM). The literature also indicated that leucaena forage has a median
value (g 100 gg ’ DM) of 0.22 sulphur (S), 1.80 calcium (Cal, 0.26 phosphorus (PI, 0.33
magnesium (Mg), 0.06 sodium (Na) and 1.45 potassium (K). This indicates that the
forage is a good source of minerals but that it is low in P. The leaf meal is high in
carotene, which makes the plant a good source of Vitamin A for ruminants. Leucaena
forage contains tannin, 0.51-l .60 g 100 g-’ DM. This characteristic may be of value

Table 2
Digestibility of protein and digestible energy (DE) values for leucaena forage
Fraction Digestibility Notes Source
coefficient as
a percentage

Rumen degradable protein (RDP) 42.0 The model proposed by this Garcia (1988)
author suggests that only 48%
of the UDP is digested post
Undegraded protein (UDP) 58.0 ruminally
Total apparently digested
crude protein (TADCP) 70.0
TADCP 78.0 Upadhyay et al. (I 974)
TADCP 74.0 Work ( 1946)
TADCP 73.3 Sobale et al. ( 1978)
TADCP 64.7 Kharat et al. (1980)
Digestible energy (DE)
[MJ kg- ’ DM]
DE Il.6 Estimated from TDN of 63% Sobale et al. (1978)
DE 12.9 Estimated from a TDN of 70.2% Upadhyay et al. (1974)
32 G.W. Gurcia et al./Animal Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41

Table 3
The chemical composition g 100 g- ’ DM of leucaena forage harvested at different ages grown on an acid
ultisol in Trinidad, West Indies
Chemical Month of harvest/Age (months)
composition
February March April May June Average

(3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

DM (g 100 g-’ DM) 33.2 24.3 34.3 35.5 28.7 31.2

CP 34.2 25.8 20.5 19.4 20.5 24.1
NDF 56.8 49.3 58.2 60.0 64.4 57.8
Ash 8.6 7.6 6.3 5.5 6.1 6.8
Estimated DE (MJ kg-’ DM) 10.6 10.4 6.3 6.0 7.1 8.1

Source: Garcia ( 1988).

with regard to providing protein with protection from degradation in the rumen, thus
making it more available in the small intestine (Van Soest, 1982).
Table 2 indicates that the total apparently digestible CP (TADCP) of leucaena forage
ranges from 64.7 to 78.0% (Kharat et al., 1980 and Upadhyay et al., 1974 respectively).
Garcia (1988) reported a rumen degradable protein value (RDP) of 42%. In addition the
digestible energy (DE) value was estimated to range from 11.6 to 12.9 MJ kg- ’ dry
matter (Sobale et al., 1978). Garcia (1988) reported that the estimated DE and the %CP
of this forage declined with age, (Tables 3 and 4 respectively). Takahashi and Ripperton
(1949) reported that as the harvesting interval went from 60 to 90 to 120 days the CP on
a DM basis declined from 22.2 to 17.6 to 14.6 g 100 g-l DM, respectively (Table 4).
Pizarro and Sousa Costa (1983) in the Cerrados region of Brazil, which like most
countries of the Caribbean has a 5-6 month dry season, reported a mean annual forage
CP composition of 18-19 g 100 g-’ DM.

Table 4
Effect of time (months) between regrowth harvests of leucaena forage on CP content (g 100 g- ’ DM)
Months of % CP of leucaena forage
regrowth
3 months a 4 months a Takahashi and Average ’ wet Wet Dry
1st harvest 1st harvest Ripperton ( 1949) b and dry season season season
1 27.90 26.10 - _
2 23.70 19.70 22.21 18.72 18.25 19.18
3 18.10 21.10 17.58 18.05 18.83 17.28
4 14.60 _ 13.26 -
4.5 _ _ 15.79

a Material harvested during establishment at Sugar-cane Feed Centre (SFC), Longdenville.

b Averages of repeated harvests over 3 years.
’ Material harvested in a wet and dry season of the same year at the SFC, Longdenville with the leucaena fully
established.
Source: Garcia ( 1988).
 G.W. Gurcia et al./Animal Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41 33

Upadhyay et al. (1974) indicated that the digestibility of DM, CP, ether extract (EE),
crude fibre (CF), and nitrogen free extract (NFE) of good quality leucaena forage were
71, 78, 48, 57, and 81%, respectively. These coefficients indicated a TDN value of 70%
or an approximate DE value of 12.9 MJ kg- ’ DM. Rosas et al. (1980), reported a DE
value of 10.13 MJ kg-’ DM for leucaena leaf meal fed to cattle. Yerena et al. (1978)
reported a 59% DM digestibility with a 46.9% nitrogen retention which is high in
contrast to that of 27% reported by Sobale et al. (1978). In vitro DM digestibility of
leucaena of 49.5 and 61.9% reported by Hulman et al. (1978) appear low in comparison
to the in vivo reports of Upadhyay et al. (1974).
There is the presence of a toxic amino acid, mimosine [b-N-(3-hydroxy-4-pyridone)],
which constitutes about 1.40-7.19 g 100 g” DM in the leucaena leaves and 0.70-3.59 g
100 g - ’ DM in the leucaena forage (Table 1). Mimosine has been responsible for some
animal disorders, and mimosine toxicity from leucaena has been reviewed by Jones
(1979), Brewbaker and Hutton (19791, and Meulen et al. (1979). In ruminants, the major
effects of mimosine toxicity are alopecia (hair loss), loss of appetite, excessive saliva-
tion, incoordination of gait, enlarged thyroid glands, poor reproductive performance and
the production of goitrous calves that may die soon after birth. The degree of each of
these effects reported has varied. Jones (1979) suggested that this may be as a result of
different amounts of mimosine intakes. The mimosine concentration of the diets fed has
not been measured in many of the experiments reported, and although leucaena may
provide toxic levels of mimosine, there have been no known reports of death directly
caused from leucaena feeding (Jones, 1979 and Meulen et al., 1979). Jones and Megarity

Table 5
Comparative amino acids composition of soybean meal, fish meal, alfalfa and leucaena (mg g- ’ N)
Amino acid mgg -’ nitrogen
Soybean Fish Alfalfa Leucaena Leucaena Leucaena
meal meal seeds leaves pods
Cvstine 106 69 I? 79 42-88 21
Aspartic acid 756 625 I 643 864 432
Methionine 88 175 96 64 88-100 42
Threonine 244 269 290 138 266 133
Serine 331 256 - 206 279 139
Glutamic acid 1138 813 - 911 640 320
Proline 300 244 222 305 152
Glycine 275 400 285 278 139
Alanine 215 394 205 311 155
Valine 300 325 356 204 255-338 127
Isoleucine 294 256 290 148 244-653 122
Leucine 488 475 494 283 444 222
Tyrosine 238 232 162 208-263 104
Mimosine 0 0 0 763 343 172
Phenylalanine 319 256 307 197 250-294 125
Lysine 388 500 368 324 313-349 157
Histidine 181 139 158 112-135 56
Aginine 463 375 357 493 294-349 147

Adapted from Meulen et al. (19791, and Brewbaker and Hutton (1979).
34 G.W. Garcia et al./Animal Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41

(1981) suggested differences in mimosine metabolism in animals from different geo-

graphic locations. Their findings suggested that ruminal metabolism of mimosine and its
derivate 3-hydroxy-4 (lH)-pyridone (DHP) in Hawaii differed from that in Australia.
Low DHP levels of the urine were found in goats fed leucaena in Hawaii, India, West
Timor, Brazil, and the Philippines. The Hawaiian fed goats had DHP levels of 0.08 g
100 g-’ DM in the urine, while the Australian samples had 1.10 g 100 g- ’ DM. Badve
et al. (198.5), suggested that the mimosine and DHP are broken down to non-toxic
compounds, thus preventing toxicity. No reports on mimosine toxicity have been
reported in the Caribbean. In Barbados, Quintyne (1987) fed fresh or dehydrated
leucaena to Barbados Blackbelly sheep (a breed of tropical hair sheep) for extended
periods of time and reported gains between 22.7 and 68.1 g day-‘. No marked evidence
of mimosine toxicity was reported. The mimosine content of the fresh leucaena forage
can be decreased when it is heated to temperatures greater than 70°C and the addition of
ferrous sulphate to rations containing unheated leucaena leaf meal reduces mimosine
toxicity (National Academy of Sciences, 1977). Meulen et al. (1979) reported that
water-soaking of the leucaena leaf meal for 36 hours reduced the mimosine content.
D’Mello (1992) have indicated that the transfer of DHP degrading bacteria from the
rumen of animals in Hawaii to Australia cattle have been done with complete success.
This work has been earlier reported on by Jones (1985).
The amino acid composition of leucaena seeds, leaves, and pods is compared with
that of soyabean meal, fish meal, and alfalfa in Table 5. There is the indication that the
sulphur-containing amino acids are limiting. If sulphur is not a limiting factor in the
ruminant’s diet, microbial protein production can adequately supplement these amino
acids. If sulphur is limiting in the diet it is essential that leucaena diets be supplemented
with a source of sulphur.
There is an absence of, or limited information, on the composition of the leucaena
forage, with regard to the Cornell net carbohydrate and protein system (CNPS), as
suggested by Russell et al. (1992); Sniffen et al. (1992); Van Soest et al. (1991). This is
an area which now needs some attention. But recent work by Bonsi et al. (1995), has
addressed the effect of drying on the NDF, ADF and NDF-nitrogen concentration of
leucaena forage; no effect was found on leucaena forage. They also addressed the
nitrogen degradabilities and in vitro gas production.

3. Animal production

Animal performance data (live-weight gains and milk production) reported in the
literature have varied from observations of traditional farming systems (Jones, 1979) to
leucaena forage with molasses-urea [Pillot et al. (1976); Teeluck et al. (1982); Hulman
et al. (1978); Alvarez et al. (1977); Salias et al. (1977)]. Leucaena forage has also been
fed with freshly chopped sugar-cane [Alvarez and Preston (1976); Alvarez et al. (1978a)
and Alvarez et al. (1978b); Siebert et al. (1976) and Garcia (198811 or with
leucaena/grass pastures [Hill (1971); Jones (1973) as cited by Jones (1979); Flores-
Ramos (1979); Partridge and Rancou (1974); Stobbs (197211. High daily live-weight
gains observed in animal performance studies with leucaena have been 0.85 kilograms
 G.W. Garcia et al./Animal Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41 35

Table 6
Chemical composition of the silages of leucaena forage (at flowering a, variety CF95)

Treatment DM pH CP Ethanol Acetic acid Lactic acid

(g 1oog-’ (g 1OOg-’ (g 1oog-’ (g 1oogg
DM) DM) DM) DM)
Fresh a 34.5 6.3 20.7
Control b 33.2 5.2 21.0 0.5 0.4 0.7
5% molasses ’ 33.4 4.4 18.6 0.9 0.6 1.0
10% molasses d 33.7 4.4 26.0 1.7 0.7 1.8

Source: Pouchette (1988) (unpublished).

a Leucaena harvested about eight weeks regrowth (at flowering).
b The control silos contained the chopped forage ensiled on its own
’ Leucaena forage ensiled with 5% molasses.
d Leucaena forage ensiled with 10% molasses.

per day (kg d-‘) with leucaena in molasses-urea-based diets (Hulman et al., 1978); 0.93
kg dd’ with leucaena and Maria anceps pasture (Jones (1973) as cited by Jones
(1979)); and 1.7 kg d- ’ with leucaena leaf meal, maize stovers and maize bran [Jones
(1979) citing Thomas and Addy (1977)]. Alvarez and Preston (1976) and Alvarez et al.
(1978a) reported that leucaena (restricted grazing) supplemented with rice polishings fed
with freshly chopped sugarcane resulted in milk yields in the dry season of 6.19 to 6.90
kg dd ’ with no loss in liveweight by the cow and positive calf live-weight gains using
restricted suckling. Leucaena planted as hedge rows in pasture with about 2-3 m of
grass between the hedges, improved the performance of grazing animals because the
protein content of the diet increased (Hill, 1971). Jones (1979) have found that leucaena
should first be grazed when about 1.5 m in height; the grazing should be light and only
to about 0.75 m in order to stimulate lateral branching.
When leucaena was fed alone, voluntary intakes were reported to be low to moderate
(1.7-2.7% DM intake (DMI) as a percentage of body weight). Intake was also variable,
depending on the other dietary components with which the leucaena was fed [Alvarez et
al. (1978a & Alvarez et al., 1978b)l. The literature suggests that leucaena should not be
used as the only source of feed for ruminants, and this may in part be due to the toxic
effects of the mimosine present, the high dietary fibre content (and thus moderate level
of DE), which is affected by stage of maturity and the low content of the sulphur
containing amino acids present in leucaena. Leucaena’s high % ADF makes it un-
favourable as the sole protein source in diets containing high levels of sugarcane forage
(> 70% sugarcane in the diet DM), as sugarcane forage is already high in ADF (Garcia,
1988). Leucaena can also be ensiled, but needs the addition of 5% molasses for proper
ensiling (Alli et al., 1983) (Table 6). Leucaena silage has been successfully fed to steers
in mixed diets with gains of 0.57 kg day-’ (Quintyne, 1987).

4. Forage productivity

Leucaena was described by Brewbaker and Hutton (1979) as being the highest
producer of forage protein among tropical legumes. There is, however, still a wealth of
36 G.W. Garcia et al./Animal Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41

Tropical forage legume germplasm to be evaluated. Work done has indicated that
leucaena has demonstrated an annual forage DM production ranging from 10 to 19.5
tonnes per hectare (t ha-’ > (Brewbaker et al., 1972; Takahashi and Ripperton, 1949; and
Guevarra et al., 1978). The upper level of DM production indicates a potential annual
CP production in excess of 3 t ha-’ as reported by Takahashi and Ripperton (1949) and
Guevarra et al. (1978) in Hawaii where the soils are alkaline and leucaena is native.
Work done in the Caribbean and Latin America have lent support to the above; Ruiz and
Febles (19871 and Menendez et al. (1988) in Cuba; Sanchez et al. (1988) in Mexico.
There is however great variability in forage yield due to genetic, environmental, and
agronomic factors (Brewbaker and Hutton, 1979). Genetic effects on forage production
have been reported by Guevarra et al. (19781, Brewbaker et al. (19721, Oakes and Skov
(1967) and Batson (1987) who have all reported higher forage yields by the Salvador
type. Brewbaker et al. (1972) reported 19.5 and 10.5 t ha-’ per annum forage DM yield
for the K8 (Salvador) and K63 (Peru), respectively, in Hawaii.
The most important environmental factors affecting leucaena establishment and
production are soil pH and level of Aluminium (Al) saturation or Ca availability
(Takahashi and Ripperton, 1949; Hutton, 1980; Halliday, 198 I>. Hutton (1980) reported
that evidence to date indicated that it was very difficult to find ecotypes of L.
leucocephalu tolerant to highly acid Oxisols and Ultisols (pH 4.0-4.5) with a high Al
saturation (70-90%). Hutton (1984) has reported that Ca absorption is more important
than Al toxicity for leucaena growth in acid soils. Hutton and de Sousa (1985) later
reported that the Cunningham (Peru type) leucaena responded to the application of 200
kg ha- I single superphosphate and Ca as dolomite (200 kg ha- ’).
Agronomic factors affecting the production of leucaena forage are plant population
density, cutting interval and height of cut (Brewbaker, 1976). Guevarra et al. (1978)
citing Guevarra (19761, have reported that an increase in plant population density from
44000 plants ha-’ to 133 000 plants ha- ’ increased annual forage yield from 17.1 t
ha-’ to 19.6 t ha-‘. Increasing the cutting height for the K341 and K8 cultivars from 55
cm to 155 cm increased the annual forage CP yield from 28 13 to 3975 kg ha-’ per
annum (Guevarra et al., 1978). Krishnamurthy and Gowda (1983) reported that maxi-
mum yield of herbage for the Hawaiian Giant K8 was obtained with a cutting frequency
of 70 days and a cutting height of 150 cm. Garcia (1988) suggested that leucaena should
be harvested at flowering, which takes place at about 8 weeks re-growth. The frequency
of harvesting or grazing must be adjusted to suit the variety in order to maximise protein
production (Brewbaker and Hutton, 1979).
In the dry season in Trinidad, Garcia et al. (1987) and Garcia (1988) reported that the
yield (kg ha-‘) of whole plant CP and DM, increased between the second harvest made
at one and three months, regardless of the age at first harvest. This trend in whole plant
or forage CP yield (kg ha-’ ) with increasing age of the regrowth was in agreement with
Takahashi and Ripperton (19491, though the yields reported by the former authors in the
Caribbean were generally lower (Table 7). The yields of the latter were obtained from
repeated harvesting over three years on Hawaiian neutral to alkaline soils as compared
with the acid and moisture limited soils in Trinidad during the dry season from where
the former emanates. The results obtained by Garcia et al. (19871, and Garcia (19881, for
three months of regrowth fell within the range reported by Logan (1979) and Devers and
 G.W. Garcia et al./Animul Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41 31

Table 7
Effect of time (months) between regrowth harvests of leucaena on the forage yield (kg ha- ’) of crude protein
Harvesting Age of first harvest
interval Devers and SFC dry
3 month 1st 4 month 1st Takahashi and Logan
(months) Keoghan season
Harvest Harvest Ripperton ( 1949) ( 1979)
Hawaii Jamaica (I 978) Antigua
1 142.37 116.93
2 135.64 373.50 640.0 _ _ 432.75
3 371.19 797.77 972.5 250.00 458.00 371.36
4 _ 986.7 _ _
4.5 _ _ _ _ 955.19

Source: Garcia (1988).

Keoghan (19781, in Jamaica and Antigua, respectively, on neutral to alkaline soils.

Logan (1979), and Devers and Keoghan (1978) have indicated 250 and 458 kg ha-’ of
forage CP, respectively, at three months regrowth, which were lower than the value
reported by Takahashi and Ripperton (1949) in Hawaii (Table 7). There is room
therefore for improving the performance of leucaena for forage CP production in the
Caribbean. Other reports on Leucaena forage production in the Caribbean have been by
Oakes and Skov (1967) in the US Virgin Islands; Proverbs (1984) and Quintyne (1987)
in Barbados. These works have centred on agronomic evaluations with leucaena giving
yields greater than most of the other introduced forage species. Batson et al. (1984)
summarised the status of leucaena research in the Caribbean, and suggested that
leucaena had not been fully exploited under farm conditions. They further suggested
ways in which leucaena could be utilised in livestock production systems in the
Caribbean. Batson (1987) evaluated the leucaena germplasm available in the English-
speaking Caribbean. Earlier Pound and Martinez Cairo (1983) had done a comprehen-
sive review on leucaena cultivation. At the Sugarcane Feeds Centre (on an Acid Ultisol)
in Trinidad, several plots of leucaena have persisted (“Peru” type) under repeated hand
harvesting with machetes at 2-4 month intervals for over 15 years. Cutting heights have
been done up to 1- 1.5 m.

5. Some considerations for more widespread use of leucaena as a forage

Garcia (1988) reported on simulated forage production models based on work done at
the Sugarcane Feeds Centre on an acid Ultisol in Trinidad. Acid Ultisols form one of the
major soil types of tropical Latin America, the Caribbean and several other parts of the
tropics. The following were the conclusions:
potential annual forage CP production from leucaena grown under central Trinidad
rainfall conditions on an acid Ultisol was calculated to range between 2.3 and 5 t
ha-’ per annum;
leucaena’s animal carrying capacity was limited by it’s low DE content;
it will be necessary in the future to give attention to some of the agronomic and
management problems which could arise with leucaena under systems of monocul-
ture for forage protein production.
38 G.W. Garcia er al./Animal Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41

In actual practice these high levels of CP and indirectly DM production are very
difficult to achieve on acid soils using the existing varieties available without irrigation
in the dry season and without timely harvesting and management. Takahashi and
Ripperton (1949), have reported that forage CP yields per annum of the Hawaiian type
leucaena tended to decrease with increasing the days to harvest from 60 to 120 days;
3.84 and 2.96 kg ha-’ per annum, respectively. In the absence of irrigation in the dry
season capitalization on the seasonal surpluses must be done. Data calculated from
Garcia (1988), indicated that leucaena forage under a one or two month harvesting
regime under rain fed conditions in central Trinidad could produce about 80% of its
protein and dry matter during the wet season months from May to December. Conrad
(1978), reported in a review of literature on forage production under Trinidad soil
conditions that pangola grass (Digitaria decumbens) production during the wet season
was 60% of the potential annual production. The experiences in Trinidad and Tobago
suggest that very much less than 40% of the annual forage produced is actually available
during the dry season. This is also a feature characteristic of the Humid Tropics, with
distinct wet and dry seasons, semi-arid and Monsoon-type climates.
Some important considerations arise if leucaena forage is to be harvested and
managed for maximum/optimum production of CP ha-’ per annum. The method of
harvesting has to be selected to minimise problems due to wet season inundated soil
conditions, and therefore some engineering solutions would be required. Additionally,
with leucaena having stems which increase in diameter with age, a different harvesting
sequence may be required. Furthermore, the plant nutrient requirements of leucaena
under a repeated harvesting regime are unknown. Another important consideration is the
method of forage utilisation. It could be fed fresh along with other feed ingredients to
promote an acceptable level of animal performance.
Leucaena experiences weed competition at establishment (on acid tropical soils) and
demonstrates slow early growth. Establishment can therefore be costly and this makes
leucaena a somewhat unattractive forage proposition to the ruminant livestock farmer
whose holding tends to be small and are low investment systems. On the other hand, in
areas where leucaena is native, establishment would be easier. However, under these
circumstances leucaena has been seen as a noxoius, undesirable weed. This perception
would have to be overcome through education. Varieties tolerant to acid soils would be
needed in the former instance, and seed made easily available to all farmers. However,
in the other areas of the Caribbean, Central America, Asian and Pacific states where the
soils are neutral to alkaline, the existing varieties could be used. The literature further
suggests that in the tropics, leucaena has been identified as a superior forage species
(Koushki et al., 1994 in India; Wandera et al., 1991, in Kenya; Aletor and Omodara,
1994 in Nigeria and Ferguson and Garcia, 1992). If establishment is to be accelerated
direct seeding could be done if the leucaena is planted with a companion crop which
would not compete directly with the leucaena, e.g. maize and leucaena. The immediate
promotion of leucaena and other nitrogen fixing trees with potential for forage utiliza-
tion would require widespread establishment efforts for the production and/or propaga-
tion of seeds and/or seedlings in large quantities which could be made available to
farmers at an affordable price. This approach would be useful as it would afford the
widespread introduction of multi-purpose plants on farms which would be of both
 C.W. Gurcia et al./Animul Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41 30

ecological and economic benefit to the farmer, as leucaena is an important sustainable

tropical feed resource which would not need to be replanted for more than 15-20 years.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Ms. Gail Young, Research Technician,
Tropical-Forage Animal Production Laboratory, Department of Livestock Science,
Faculty of Agriculture, The University of the West Indies, for assistance in the
preparation of this manuscript.

References

Adeneye, J.A., 1991. Mimosine content in various fractions of Leucuenu leucocephulu grown in Western
Nigeria. J. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 33: 349-353.
Akbar, M.A. and Gupta, P.C., 1984a. Effects of feeding Leucuenu leucocephalu on the growth rate, nutrient
utihsation, ruminal metabolites, and some blood parameters in buffalo calves. (Abstract) Leucaena Res.
Rep., 5: 12-13.
Akbar, M.A. and Gupta, P.C., 1984b. Nutrient composition of different cultivars of Leucuenu leucoccphulu.
(Abstract) Leucaena Res. Rep., 5: 14- 17.
Aletor, V.A. and Omodara, O.A., 1994. Studies on some leguminous browse plants, with particular reference
to their proximate, mineral and some endogenous anti-nutritional constituents. J. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.,
46: 343-48.
Alli, I., Baker, B.E. and Garcia, G., 1983. The ensilage of chopped, whole plant leucaena. V World Conf. on
Animal Production, Tokyo, Japan, 14-19 August 1983, Free Commun. VI-3, p. 256 (Abstracts).
Alvarez, F.J. and Preston, T.R., 1976. Leucuenu leucocephnlu as a protein supplement for dual purpose milk
and weaned calf production on sugarcane-based rations. Trop. Anim. Prod., I: 112- 118.
Alvarez, F.J., Wilson, A. and Preston, T.R., 1977. Leucuenu leucocephulu as a combined source of protein
and roughage for steers fattened on molasses/urea. Trop. Anim. Prod., 2: 288-291.
Alvarez, F.J., Wilson, A. and Preston, T.R., 1978a. Leucuenu leucocephalu as a protein supplement for dual
purpose milk and weaned calf production on sugarcane-based diet: comparisons with rice polishings. Trop.
Anim. Prod., 3: 51-55.
Alvarez, F.J., Wilson, A. and Preston, T.R., 1978b. Digestibility and voluntary intake of sugarcane-based diets.
Leucumu leucocephulu and rice polishings. Trop. Anim. Prod., 3: 132- 135.
Badve, V.C., Joshi, A.L., Rangnekar, D.V. and Waghware, B.S., 1985. Mimosine metabolism in cattle fed
Leucuenu leucocephulu. Leucaena Res. Rep., 6: 22.
Batson, H.F., 1987. Classification and evaluation of indigenous and introduced leucaena germplasm in the
Caribbean. M. Philos. Thesis, Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, UWI, St. Augustine,
Trinidad, WI.
Batson, H.F., Ferguson, T.U. and Archibald, K.A.E., 1984. Variability in leucaena and its potential in the
Caribbean. 2nd Ann. Meet. OAS/Caribbean Leucaena Project, January 16-17, 1984, Kingston, Jamaica.
Bonsi, M.L.K., Osuji, P.O. and Tuah, A.K., 1995. Effect of supplementing teff straw with different levels of
leucaena or sesbania leaves on the degradability of teff straw, sesbania, leucaena, tagasaste and vemonia
and on certain tumen and blood metabolites in Ethiopian Menz sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 52:
101-129.
Brewbaker, J.L., 1976. Establishment and management of leucaena for livestock production. Production de
Forrajes-Seminario Intemacional de Gunaderia Tropical. Acapulco, Mexico, pp. 165- 18 1.
Brewbaker, J.L. and Hutton, M.E., 1979. Leucaena. In: G.A. Ritchie (Editor), New Agricultural Crops, AAAS
Selected Symposium 38, West View Press, Colorado, Chapter IO.
40 G.W. Garcia et al./Animul Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41

Brewbaker, J.L., Plucknett, D.L. and Gonzales, V., 1972. Varietal variation and yield trials of Leucaena
leucocephalu (kao haole) in Hawaii. Hawaii Agri. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull., 166.
Conrad R., 1978. An economic analysis of the use of Sugarcane feed for milk production on small scale
farmers in Trinidad. M.Sc. Anim. Sci. Thesis, MacDonald College, McGill Universities, Quebec, Canada.
D’Mello, J.P.F. and Taplin, D.E., 1978. Leucaena leucocephala in poultry diets for the Tropics. World Rev.
Anim. Prod., XVI (3).
D’Mello, J.P.F., 1992. Chemical constraints to the use of tropical legumes in animal nutrition. Anim. Feed Sci.
Technol., 38: 237-261.
Devers, C. and Keoghan, J.M., 1978. Some aspects of quality in contrasting forage legumes and grass
accessions growing under Antiguan conditions. 2nd Reg. Livest. Plan. Conf., Barbados, West Indies.
Ferguson, T.U. and Garcia, G.W., 1992. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Leucaena, July 10-13, 1989, Faculty of
Agriculture, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad, W.I.
Flores-Ramos, J.F., 1979. Leucaena leucocephala for milk production: effect of supplementation with
leucaena on cows grazing grass pastures. Trop. Anim. Prod., 4: 55-60.
Garcia, G.W., 1988. Production of Leucaena (Leucaena leucocephalu) and Cassava (Manihot esculenta)
forages and their nitrogen utilisation by growing dairy cattle fed sugarcane based diets. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept.
Livest. Sci., Faculty of Agriculture, University of the West Indies.
Garcia, G.W., Neckles, F.A. and Archibald, K.A.E., 1987. The cultivation, production and utilisation of
Leucaena leucocephalu for beef production. 1st AM. Seminar Agric. Res. (October 1-3, 1987). Nat. Inst.
Higher Education Res. Sci. and Technol., Trinidad and Tobago, 1: 161-172.
Guevara, A.B., Whitney, AS. and Thompson, J.R., 1978. Influence of &a-row spacing and cutting regimes
on the growth and yield of leucaena. Agron. J., 70: 1033- 1037.
Halliday, J., 1981. Nitrogen fixation by leucaena in acid soils. Leucaena Res. Rep., 2: 71.
Hill, G.D., 1971. Leucaena leucocephala for pastures in the Tropics. Review Article. Herbage Abstr., 41:
111-119.
Hulman, B., Owen, B. and Preston, T.R., 1978. Comparison of Leucaena leucocephab and groundnut cake as
protein sources for beef cattle fed ad libitum molasses/urea in Mauritius. Trop. Anim. Prod., 3: l-8.
Hutton, M.E., 1980. Breeding leucaena for acid tropical soils. Leucaena Res. Rep., 1: 7.
Hutton, M.E., 1984. Breeding and selecting leucaena for acid tropical soils. Pesquisa Agropecuatia Erasileira,
19: 263-274.
Hutton, M.E. and deSousa, F.B., 1985. Acid-soil tolerant leucaena especially for Brasilian cenados. Leucaena
Res. Rep., 6: 17-19.
Jones, R.J., 1979. The value of Leucaenu leucocephula as a feed for ruminants in the Tropics. World Anim.
Rev., 31: 13-23.
Jones, R.J., and Megarity, R.G., 1981. Contrasting responses of goats fed leucaena in Australia and Hawaii.
Leucaena Res. Rep., 2: 15.
Jones, R.J., 1985. Leucaena toxicity and the ruminal metabolism of mimosine. In: A.A. Seawright, M.P.
Hegarty, R.J. Jones and R.F. Keeler (Editors), Plant Toxicology, Queensland Poisonous Plant Committee,
Brisbane, Australia, pp. 11l- 119.
Kharat, S.T., Prasad, V.L., Sobale, B.N., Sane, M.S., Joshi, A.L. and Rangnekar, D.V., 1980. Note on
comparative evaluation of Leucaena leucocephala, Desmanthus virgatus, and Medicugo sutiva for cattle.
Ind. J. Anim. Sci., 50: 638-639.
Koushki, M.R., Gupta, M.P. and Orga, J.L., 1994. Nutritional evaluation of non-conventional feed resources
from wasteland and its effect on yield, chemical composition, and inter-relationships between constituents
of goat milk. Ind. J. Anim. Sci., 64: 399-404 (Abstract).
Krishnamurthy, K. and Gowda, M.K.M., 1983. Forage yield of leucaena var K8 under rainfall conditions.
Leucaena Res. Rep., 4: 25.
Logan, J., 1979. Grass/legume for animal production. Res. Seminar, June 1979, Ministry of Agriculture,
Jamaica, West Indies.
Menendez, J., Tang, M. and Vega, S., 1988. Perspectivas para el uso de las Leguminosas en la Ganaderia
Cubana. Resumenes XI Reunion de Alpa, La Habana, IS-25 April, 1988 (Abstract).
Meulen, U’ter, Struck, S., Schulke, E. and El-Marith, E.A., 1979. A review on the nutritive value and toxic
aspects of Leucaena leucocephala. Trop. Anim. Prod., 4: 114-126.
 G.W. Gurciu et ul./Animul Feed Science Technology 60 (1996) 29-41 41

National Academy of Sciences, 1977. Leucaaena: promisin g forage and tree crop for the Tropics. National
Academy of Science, Washington, DC, I15 pp.
Oakes, A.J. and Skov, O., 1967. Yield trials of leucaena in the US Virgin Islands. J. Agric. Uni. Puerto Rico,
51: 176-181.
Partridge, I.J. and Rancou, E., 1974. The effect of supplemental Leucuenu leucocephulu browse on steers
grazing Dichunrhium curicosum in Fiji. Trop. Grass., 8: 107-l 12.
Pillot, G., Leclesio, P. and Wong Yon Cheong, Y., 1976. Performance of two breeds of cattle fed high levels
of molasses/urea and protein supplements. Trop. Anim. Prod., I: 202-203.
Piaarro, E.A. and Sousa Costa, N.M., 1983. Dry matter production of leucaena in the Cerrados. Leucaena Res.
Rep., 4: 9-10.
Pouchette, M., 1988. Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Natural Sciences, The University of the West
Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago (unpublished material).
Pound, B. and Martinez Cairo, L., 1983. Leucaena: Its Cultivation and Uses. Overseas Development
Administration, London, Editora Conipio, C. Por A., Santo Domingo, Republica Dominicana.
Proverbs, G., 1984. Leucaena a versatile plant. Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute.
Coles Printery Ltd., Barbados.
Quintyne, R.C., 1987. Utilization of Leucaena leucocephulu as a Livestock Feed in Barbados. I st Caribbean
Leucaena Industries Symp., Kingston, Jamaica.
Rosas, H., Wuintero, S.O. and Gomez, J., 1980. Nutrient evaluation of the arboreous legume leucaena in
Panama. Leucaena Newsletter, 1: 18.
Ruiz, T.E. and Febles, G., 1987. Leucaena (Leucnena leucocephalu) (Lam) de Wit. Una option para la
alimentacion bovina en el tropic0 y subtropico. Editorial del Instituto de Ciencia Animal. La Habana,
Cuba.
Russell, J.B, O’Connor, J.D., Fox, D.G. Van Soest, P.J. and Sniffen, C.J., 1992. A net carbohydrate and
protein system for evaluating cattle diets: 1. Ruminal fermentation. J. Anim. Sci., 70: 3551-3561.
Salias, F.J., Sutherland, T.M. and Wilson, A., 1977. Effect on animal performance of different sources of
forage in diets based on molasses and urea. Trop. Anim. Prod., 2: 15% 162.
Sanchez, A.R., Carrete, C.F. and Eguiarte, V.J., 1988. Production de Forraje en DOS Variedades de Leucaena.
(Abstract) In Resumenes Xi Reunion de Alpa, La Habana. 18-25 April, 1988.
Siebert, B.D., Hunter, R.A. and Jones, P.S., 1976. The utilisation by beef cattle of sugarcane supplemented
with animal and plant protein or non protein nitrogen and sulphur. Austr. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb., 16:
789.
Sniffen, C.J, O’Connor, J.D., Van Soest, P.J., Fox D.G. and Russell, J.B., 1992. A net carbohydrate and
protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. J. Anim. Sci., 70:
3562-3577.
Sobale. B.N., Kharat, S.T., Prasad, V.L., Joshi, A.L., Rangnekar, D.V. and Deshmukh, S.S., 1978. Nutritive
value of Leucuenu leucocephulu for growing calves. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., IO: 237-241.
Stobbs, T.H., 1972. Suitability of tropical pastures for milk production. Trop. Grassl., 6: 67-69.
Takahashi, M. and Ripperton, J.C., 1949. Kao haole (Leucumu gluucu), its establishment, culture, and
utilization as a forage crop. Hawaii Agricultural Experimental Station, Bulletin 100.
Teeluck, J.P., Hulman, B. and Preston, T.R., 1982. Leucaena forage and elephant grass as roughage and
protein sources in a molasses/urea based diet for fattening Zebu cattle. Trop. Anim. Prod., 7: 241-245.
Upadhyay VS., Rekib, A. and Pathak, P.S., 1974. Nutritive value of Leucuena leucoccphulu. Ind. Vet. J., 5 1:
534-537.
Van Soest, P.J., 1982. The Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. 0 & B Books, OR.
Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B. and Lewis, B.A., 1991. Methods of dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and
non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci., 74: 3583-3597.
Wandera, F.P. Dzoweia, B.H. and Karachi, M.K., 1991. Production and nutritive value of browse species in
semi-arid Kenya. Trop. Grasslands, 25: 349-355.
Work, S.H., 1946. Digestible nutrient content of some Hawaiian feeds and forages. University of Hawaii
Agricultural Experimental Station Technical Bulletin No. 4, Honolulu, December, 1946.
Yerena, F., Ferreiro, H.A.M., Elliott, R., Godoy, R. and Preston, T.R., 1978. Digestibility of ramon (Brosimum
dicrrstrum). Leucuenu leucocephulu buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliure), sisal pulp and sisal bagasse ( Apme
,fiwucroydes). Trop. Anim. Prod., 3: 27-29.