Skip to content
Home▶ Journals▶ Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology▶Archive▶Vol. 22 No. 1 (2026)▶Nutrient Profiling and In-Vitro Fermentation Dynamics of…
Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology
Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology ›
Print ISSN 2394-0247 · Online ISSN 2395-1176
Submit your paper About the journal
Research Article

Nutrient Profiling and In-Vitro Fermentation Dynamics of  Maize, Bajra, Soybean Meal, and CoFS-31 Fodder used in  Stall-Fed Sheep Systems

, , , , ,
Pavan — Department of Animal Nutrition, Veterinary College, Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar-585226, Karnataka, India
Ravindra Dombar — Department of Animal Nutrition, Veterinary College, Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar-585226, Karnataka, India
K S Giridhar — Department of Animal Nutrition, Veterinary College, Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar-585226, Karnataka, India
Prakashkumar Rathod — Department of Animal Nutrition, Veterinary College, Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar-585226, Karnataka, India
Chikkagoudara Kotresh Prasad — Department of Animal Nutrition, Veterinary College, Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar-585226, Karnataka, India
Abhishek Maroor — Department of Animal Nutrition, Veterinary College, Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar-585226, Karnataka, India
Published 10 Jan 2026 Vol. 22 No. 1 (2026), pp. 115-119 ● Open access
❝ How to cite 🔗 https://doi.org/10.48165/ijvsbt.22.1.23
Download PDF

Abstract

Efficient lamb production relies on balanced rations using local feed resources. The present study evaluated the proximate composition,  fibre fractions, and in-vitro metabolizable energy (ME) using standard laboratory protocols for commonly used feed ingredients such as  maize, bajra, soybean meal (SBM), and CoFS-31 fodder used in stall-fed sheep production systems in northern Karnataka. Crude protein  (CP) varied widely from 4.10% in CoFS-31 to 46.06% in SBM. Maize and bajra showed comparable CP contents (8.29% and 8.33%) and low  crude fibre (2.21-2.29%), indicating their high energy potential. Gas production increased with incubation time in all samples, showing  a rapid rise between 4 to 12 h and stabilizing thereafter. Net gas production (mL/g DM) was higher for maize (324.95), followed by bajra  (311.55), SBM (243.05), and CoFS-31 (152.10). Corresponding ME values (MJ/kg DM) were 12.62, 12.22, 12.34, and 7.19, respectively.  SBM recorded the higher digestibility (IVDMD 73.08%; IVOMD 79.33%), while CoFS-31 exhibited high fibre (NDF 59.73%) and lower ME,  confirming its role as structural roughage. Overall, maize and bajra are rich in fermentable carbohydrates, SBM is an excellent protein  source, and CoFS-31 provides essential fibre. A balanced combination of these feeds offers a region-specific, economical, and nutritionally  efficient ration to enhance sheep productivity in northern Karnataka. 

 

KeywordsBajra, CoFS-31, Maize, Metabolizable energy, Proximate composition, Soybean meal

The full text of this article is available as a PDF.

Download PDF
  1. Abiose, S., & Ikujenioia, V. (2014). Chemical composition of maize grain used in livestock feed. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science, 4(3), 112–117.
  2. AOAC. (2023). Official methods of analysis (22nd ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
  3. Dombar, R., Ramachandra, B., Thirumalesh, T., Kulkarni, S., Suranagi, M. D., Patil, V., & Jaishankar, N. (2022). Dry matter intake, nutritive value and digestibility of Super Napier fed to adult Kenguri sheep. Cellulose, 32, 8–67.
  4. Dombar, R., Giridhar, K. S., Kathirvelan, C., Umashankar, B. C., Kharate, A., Adeppa, J., Chouraddi, R., & Kapase, G. (2023). Evaluating the chemical composition of COFS-29 fodder harvested at various stage of maturity. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 12(10), 235–238.
  5. Hayavadana, G. R., Sangam, P., Jaishankar, N., Chethan, K. P., Shivakumar, M. C., Ramachandra, B., Guruprasad, R., & Gowda, K. H. (2024). Utilization of perennial fodder COFS-29 as sole roughage source in Hassan sheep lambs under intensive rearing system. International Journal of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, 9(1), 76–78.
  6. ICAR. (2013). Nutrient requirements of animals – Sheep, goat and rabbit. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India.
  7. Janocha, A., Milczarek, A., Pietrusiak, D., Łaski, K., & Saleh, M. (2022). Efficiency of soybean products in broiler chicken nutrition. Animals, 12(3), 294.
  8. Kishore, N., Lohan, O. P., Chahal, S. M., & Rathee, C. S. (1993). Effect of various processing techniques on the nutritive value and digestibility of pearl millet (Pennisetum typhoideum). Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 64, 66–70.
  9. Kumar, S., Singh, R., & Yadav, S. (2012). Nutritional evaluation of pearl millet (bajra) in ruminants. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 29(3), 242–246.
  10. Lagos, L. V., & Stein, H. H. (2017). Chemical composition and amino acid digestibility of soybean meal produced in the United States, China, Argentina, Brazil, or India. Journal of Animal Science, 95(4), 1626–1636.
  11. Langyan, S., Bhardwaj, R., Kumari, J., Jacob, S. R., Bisht, I. S., Pandravada, S. R., Singh, A., Singh, P. B., Dar, Z. A., Kumar, A., & Rana, J. C. (2022). Nutritional diversity in native germplasm of maize collected from three different fragile ecosystems of India. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9, 812599.
  12. McDonald, P., Edwards, R. A., Greenhalgh, J. F. D., Morgan, C. A., Sinclair, L. A., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2011). Animal nutrition (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, UK.
  13. Menke, K. H., & Steingass, H. (1988). Estimation of the energetic feed value from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development, 28, 7–55.
  14. Ndukwe, O. K., Edeoga, H. O., & Omosun, G. (2015). Varietal differences in some nutritional composition of ten maize (Zea mays L.) varieties grown in Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research and Reflection, 3(5), 1–11.
  15. Patil, S., Yadav, P., & Choudhary, D. (2022). Proximate composition of multi-cut forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) varieties. In Abstract book of the Global International Research Initiative on Sustainable Development Agriculture (GIRISDA-2022) (pp. 79–80).
  16. Ramesh, K., Prasad, J. R., & Suresh, J. (2017). Nutritional evaluation of compound feed mixtures in small ruminants. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants, 23(2), 215–220.
  17. Sharma, Y., Wadhawan, N., Lakhawat, S., Jain, S. K., & Babel, R. (2022). Analysis of nutritional composition of popular maize varieties. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 11(10), 238–241.
  18. Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods for dietary, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3583–3597.
  19. Verma, A. K., Pathak, N. N., & Singh, P. (2016). Nutritional evaluation of complete feeds based on crop residues for growing lambs. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 33(1), 53–59.
  20. Zagorakis, K., Liamadis, D., Milis, C., Dotas, V., & Dotas, D. (2015). Nutrient digestibility and in situ degradability of alternatives to soybean meal protein sources for sheep. Small Ruminant Research, 124, 38–44.

Looking up citing articles…

    Creative Commons License

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

    Copyright © 2026 Indian Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Biotechnology