







































 
 

 

36 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 
 

Agriculture and Food Sciences Research 
Vol. 11, No. 2, 36-42, 2024 

ISSN(E) 2411-6653/ ISSN(P) 2518-0193 
DOI: 10.20448/aesr.v11i2.5699 

© 2024 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 
 

 
 
 
Effect of different additives on nutrient parameter and palatability of ensiled water 
hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) 

 
Netra Prasad Pokharel1         

Keshav Dhakal2                                  

Pravin Panth3                                        

Rajan Koirala4                  

 

 

 
( Corresponding Author) 

1,2,3,4Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Paklihawa Campus, Tribhuvan University, Nepal. 
1Email: netrapokharel73@gmail.com 
2Email: dhakalkeshav786@gmail.com  
3Email: prabinpant92@gmail.com  
4Email: rajankoirala567@gmail.com  

 
Abstract 

Water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes, is an invasive aquatic weed that covers major water bodies in 
Nepal, and its silage has great potential to be used as ruminant’s feed. An experiment was 
conducted with an aim to explore its ensiling attributes along with palatability test for cattle was 
conducted at Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Rupandehi in a completely randomized 
experimental design with three replications. The quality and palatability of water hyacinth silage 
prepared with additives such as rice straw, molasses, wheat flour, and rice bran were assessed. The 
treatments included: water hyacinth with rice straw(T1); water hyacinth with rice straw and rice 
bran(T2); water hyacinth with rice straw and wheat flour(T3); water hyacinth with rice straw and 
molasses(T4); water hyacinth with rice straw, wheat flour and molasses(T5); water hyacinth with 
rice straw, wheat flour and rice bran(T6) and water hyacinth with rice straw, wheat flour, 
molasses and rice bran(T7). The results showed, crude protein (CP), crude fiber (CF), ether 
extract (EE), total ash (TA), pH, and palatability had significant differences across all treatments 
(p<0.05). CP (15.13) and CF (23.73) were found to be highest under control whereas rice straw, 
wheat flour and rice bran had the highest EE (12.74), TA (15.13), pH (3.87), palatability (100%), 
and considerably high CP (12.40) and CF (19.75). Hence, silage of water hyacinth with rice straw, 
wheat flour, and rice bran has high nutrient content, palatability and can be used as a feed 
alternative to solve the problem of feed scarcity. 

 
Keywords: Crude fiber, Crude protein, Ether extract, Feed alternatives, Nutrient content, Palatability, Silage, Water hyacinth. 

 
Citation | Pokharel, N. P., Dhakal, K., Panth, P., & Koirala, R. 
(2024). Effect of different additives on nutrient parameter and 
palatability of ensiled water hyacinth (Eichhornia 
crassipes). Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 11(2), 36–42. 
10.20448/aesr.v11i2.5699 
History:  
Received: 25 March 2024 
Revised: 29 April 2024 
Accepted: 13 May 2024 
Published: 5 June 2024 
Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 

Attribution 4.0 License  
Publisher:  Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 
 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.    
Institutional Review Board Statement: The Ethical Committee of the 
Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Paklihawa, Tribhuvan 
University, Nepal has granted approval for this study on 23 April 2023 (Ref. 
No. 3114). 
Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, 
accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the 
study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned 
have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing 
interests. 
Authors’ Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception 
and design of the study. All authors have read and agreed to the published 
version of the manuscript. 

 

Contents 
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 
2. Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................................................................... 37 
3. Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................... 39 
4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 41 
References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 41 
 

 

 

mailto:netrapokharel73@gmail.com
mailto:dhakalkeshav786@gmail.com
mailto:prabinpant92@gmail.com
mailto:rajankoirala567@gmail.com
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://www.doi.org/10.20448/aesr.v11i2.5699
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9237-3992
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0422-084X
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9591-2236
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0663-2380


Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2024, 11(2): 36-42 

37 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Contribution of this paper to the literature 
The research provides information that differs in palatability and chemical quality of silage 
from other similar research and is a unique study against ensiled water hyacinth. The paper 
adds the knowledge of how different additives can be utilized as feed alternative to solve the 
problem of feed scarcity. 

 
1. Introduction 

Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes Martius) is one of the most common weed species among floating water 
weeds in tropical and subtropical locations around the world due to its rapid development [1]. It originated in the 
Amazon Basin and quickly spread over Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific region by 1950 [2]. 
Water hyacinth appeared for the first time in Ethiopia in 1965, near Koka Reservoir as well as the Awash River 
Ayana [3]. Fessehaie [4] and Taye, et al. [5] reported water hyacinth infestations in Gambela Regional State, 
the Blue Nile from Lake Tana to Sudan, and Lake Ellen near Alem Tena. According to the International Union for 
Conservation of Nature, these plants are among the 100 most harmful invasive species and the top ten worst weeds 
worldwide [6]. Of the 182 foreign flowering plants found in Nepal, 27 are regarded as invasive [7]. 

There is an immediate rise in livestock production to fulfill the requirements for animal protein for the world’s 
growing population [8]. The need for animal protein in the tropics has been escalating. There was a 31% deficit in 
dry matter content required for the well-being of existing cattle and poultry in Nepal. Scarce feed resources, 
particularly during the colder months from October to May, lack of understanding regarding feed nutrient 
composition, absence of expertise in feed formulation, and improper utilization of feed resources based on 
physiological requirements collectively impede the growth of Nepal's livestock sector [9]. This scarcity hampers 
the timely production of high-quality research due to inadequate research infrastructure and facilities. The aquatic 
nuisance known as water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) poses a significant threat due to its tendency to obstruct 
water bodies such as rivers, lakes, marine routes, and sewage lagoons. This is particularly prominent in tropical and 
subtropical regions worldwide [10]. Water hyacinth has recently received a lot of interest because of its potential 
uses as animal feed, aqua feed, water filtration, fertilizer, biogas generation, and potentially human nourishment, 
among other things [11, 12]. Fresh water hyacinth contains 2.38% crude protein, 0.27% crude fat, 0.91% crude 
fiber, and 3.7% nitrogen-free extract. Water hyacinth's dry matter, which is mineral-rich and contains 10-20% crude 
protein, can be used to substitute some protein in feed and roughage Sharma [13]. Biswas and Mandal [14] 
discovered that water hyacinth comprised 15.58% crude protein, 19.97% crude fat, 1.33% crude fiber, and 1.85% 
crude ash after drying and chopping, whereas the leaves contained 16.04% crude protein and 14.97% crude fat. 
Abdelhamid and Gabr [15] demonstrated that water hyacinth boasts a crude protein value of 20% on a dry basis, 
thereby making it a suitable option for animal feed. Impressively, water hyacinth can produce 6–10 times more 
protein per unit area compared to soybeans, hinting at its potential as ruminant feed in regions abundant with water 
hyacinth.  The research site has an abundance of rivers and ponds, which leads to the creation of enormous numbers 
of water hyacinths. A sizable section of the pond is covered with water hyacinth. Once the chemical makeup and 
nutritional value of water hyacinth are known, farmers may utilize it as an unusual feed for their animals, which will 
save feed costs and boost output. Water hyacinth has high quantities of cellulose and hemicellulose, which may be 
utilized as ruminant energy sources [16]. Because of the low amount of dry matter in water hyacinth, yellowing is 
often preferred to avoid silage losses [17]. Water hyacinth may be effectively ensiled using feed additives and 
organic acids, and ruminants have indicated that the silages are enjoyable. Dairy calves have been fed an ensiled 
combination of water hyacinth, grain straw, urea, and molasses. This has enhanced milk output [18]. Therefore, the 
purpose of this study was to determine the chemical makeup, nutritional value, and use of water hyacinth during a 
feed shortage.  
 

2. Materials and Methods 
2.1. Site Selection 

The research was carried out at the horticulture farm of Paklihawa campus, Nepal, started in May 2023. The 
study area is located at 27.4829°N and 83.4457°E. Figure 1 illustrates study location which was chosen owing to 
the existence of suitable ponds, water reservoirs, and lowlands for the collection of Eichhornia crassipes. 
 

 
Figure 1. GIS map showing the study area. 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2024, 11(2): 36-42 

38 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

2.2. Research Design and Layout  
Research was carried out in a complete randomize design (CRD) with seven treatments and three replications. 

Wilted water hyacinth along with additives were used as a treatment. Table 1 presents the details of treatments 
used during experimentation. 
 
Table 1. Details of treatments used in research. 

Treatments Treatment details 

T1  Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) (Control)  

T2  Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Rice bran (10%)  

T3  Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour (10%)  

T4  Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Molasses (10%)  

T5  Wilted water hyacinth+ Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour (10%) + Molasses (10%)  

T6  Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour (10%) + Rice bran (10%)  

T7  Wilted water hyacinth+ Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour (10%) + Rice bran (10%) + Molasses 
(10%)  

  

2.3. Silage Preparation  

• Water hyacinth was harvested from the Dande River of Paklihawa. After removing the roots, it was 
thoroughly washed and allowed to wilt in the shade for about 2 days.  

• Both the petiole and leaf fractions were cut into 4-5 cm pieces and mixed with additives according to the 
above-mentioned protocols in the polythene bags, each containing hyacinth with different additives of 3 kg, 
and vacuumed before it was left to ensile.   

• Prepared bags were kept in an isolated place (free from rodents), maintaining temperature for 45 days.  

• Regular monitoring was done to check for undesirable conditions.  

• After 45 days of preparation, representative silage samples were taken for a laboratory test. A palatability test 
was also done on the farm.  

 

2.4. Preparation of a Plant Sample  
A sample from each treatment of silage was taken. The sample was dried immediately in an oven at 70˚C (60-

80˚C) and kept for 24 hours. While drying, the samples should be thinly spread in the oven. The dried sample was 
ground in a mixture, and 0.20 g of plant sample was weighted, taken in a filter paper, and dropped as a package into 
a 100-ml digestion flask or a tube, adding 2 g of digestion mixture along with 10 ml of concentrated H2So4. The 
material was digested at low temperatures until foaming ceased. The temperature was raised to 400˚C, causing the 
acid to condense about one-third of the way into the center of the digesting flask. The flask was spun often, and 
digestion proceeded until carbonaceous particles formed and the color changed to green-blue. Before the solution 
solidified, the flask was refrigerated and 40 mL of filtered water was added. The solution was transferred to a 100-
ml volumetric flask by rinsing the digestion flask with 3-4 batches of tiny volumes of distilled water and making up 
the volume. Four drops of mixed indicator solution were added to 20 milliliters of 4-percent boric acid solution in 

125 milliliters, and the flask was then put under the condenser. A 20-ml aliquot of the digested solution was 
transferred to a distillation flask, and 100 ml of distilled water was added. Keeping the flask at a 45-degree angle, 
20 milliliters of a solution containing 40 percent of sodium hydroxide were poured down the neck until it reached 
the bottom without mixing. The flask was quickly affixed to the distillation equipment and stirred to mix. The 
boiling temperature of the distillation flask prevented the boric acid from being drawn back. The distillate was 
created after about 75 milliliters of distillation. The nitrogen content was determined by titrating the distillation 
product with 0.05N HCl. At the end, the mixed indicator's hue simply changes from blue to reddish. For every 
batch of 21 samples, run the blank using all of the ingredients and procedures, excluding the plant sample.  

                                      % N = 
(S−B) × n × 7 

𝑊
 

Where,   
S= Volume of standard acid (ml) used up by sample.  
B= The volume of standard acid (ml) used up by blank.            
n = Normality of the standard acid.  
W = Oven dry weight of sample.  
14= Equivalent weight of nitrogen.  
20= Aliquot.  
  

2.5. Ether Extract (Crude Fat)  
First, a filter paper thimble was created, put on a weighing scale, and its weight was recorded. A silage sample 

was ground. 2 g of sample was taken into the thimble, and cotton was placed to cover the sample. A thimble was 
folded to enclose the sample. A cellulose thimble was taken and labeled with a sample number. A clean and dry flat 
bottom flask was taken. The weight of the flask was also taken. A Soxhlet extraction unit was setup placing, the 
sample was placed in it, and a sufficient amount of n-Hexane was added. Through the condenser of the Soxhlet 
extractor, water was run. The Soxhlet extractor was run for 6 hours. After 6 hours, thimble was taken out, and 
wastage n-Hexane was collected. A sample was taken out of the thimble, and wastage n-Hexane was collected from 
the thimble. By condensation, the rest of n-Hexane was collected from the flask. The flask was rotated to evaporate 
the excess n-Hexane from it. Inside the flask, extracted oil was seen. To remove moisture and hexane, a flask was 
placed inside the oven. The temperature was set at 110˚C and dried for 30 minutes. After 30 minutes, dried flask 
was taken out, and placed, and cooled in the desiccator. After cooling, the final weight of the flask with fat was 
taken.  



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2024, 11(2): 36-42 

39 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Weight of Sample = Ws. 
Weight of Flask = W1.  
Weight of Flask with Fat = W2.    
Now,  

Crude Fat (%) = 
(W2− W1)

Ws
×  100 

 

2.6. Crude Fiber  
2.6.1. Boiling in Acid  

A 2 g oven-dried sample was weighed before adding 200 ml (0.158M) of sulfuric acid to the cylinder and 
pouring it into a conical flask. The sample was added to the flask shown above. Following 30 minutes of boiling, a 
flask was put on a hot plate and shook by hand. The trash flask was placed inside a funnel lined with cotton fabric. 
The boiling sample was filtered to remove the acid solution. The flask was thoroughly cleaned with hot water to 
eliminate any remaining acid residue. A 200 mL 0.313 M NaOH solution was measured.  
 

2.6.2. Boiling in Base  
The NaOH solution was put into the conical flask to clean the filtrate. The flask was shaken to mix before being 

put on a heated plate. After 30 minutes of boiling, the flask was shook with one hand. The trash flask was placed 
next to a funnel lined with cotton fabric. The base solution was drained from the boiling sample using filtration. 
The flask was thoroughly cleaned with hot water to eliminate the base residue, and fiber was collected in the 
crucible. 

  

2.7. Drying of Fiber  
The crucible was put on a heated plate to evaporate any extra water. The obtained fiber was dried in an oven at 

105℃ for 2 hours. After drying, the crucible was weighed and the result was recorded.  
 

2.8. Incineration of Fiber  
The crucible was placed in a muffle furnace and fiber was burnt at 550℃ for 2-4 hours. After burning, the 

crucible was cooled using a dessicator. After 10-20 minutes, the crucible was taken from a dessicator and weighed.  
Wt. of sample = Ws. 
Wt. of crucible with fiber = W1. 
Wt. of crucible with ash = W2. 
Now,  

Crude Fiber = 
(W1−W2) 

Ws
 ×  100  

  

2.9. Ash Content  
The crucible was weighted, and its weight was noted to 4 decimal places. 2 g of sample was weighted in a 

crucible, and the weight was recorded to 4 decimal places. The sample was placed in muffle furnance at 600˚C for 2 
hours. After that, it was cooled in the dessicator and weighed within 1 hour after reaching room temperature. The 
sample was now weighed and recorded at 4 decimal points.  

% Ash = 
ashed wt.  – crucible wt.

crucible and sample wt.−crucible wt.
 ×100 

2.10. Palatability Test  
Representative 12 cattle of the same breed were fed 2 kg of silage from each treatment for 3 consecutive days 

from each replication, and feed intake was noted. The first day of the trial was done by feeding 1.5 kg of silage from 
each treatment. The cattle were allowed to feed on a given silage weight (W1). After 15 minutes, the left-over feed 
(W2) was recorded. 

Percentage left over feed = 
𝑊2

𝑊1
 × 100% 

  

2.11. Ph Test  
Representative samples were taken to the lab and grinded into fine dust, then weighed at 5 g each. Then each 

sample was dissolved in 20 ml of distilled water and left for 10 minutes. Data were collected by using a pH meter in 
the lab.   
 

2.12. Data Analysis and Statistical Tools  
The tabulation and processing of data were done using MS Excel 2016, and the data were statistically analyzed 

following an analysis of variance (ANOVA) using R-Studio (R 4.3.2). The significant differences between treatment 
means were compared by the least significant difference (LSD) at the 5% level of probability. Arc GIS was used for 
making a topographic map of the study area.  
 

3. Results and Discussion 
3.1. Physical Quality Parameter 

After 45 days, the silage in each treatment was ready for use. pH is one of the primary quality parameters for 
silage. Silage is often categorized as very good (pH 3.8 to 4.2), excellent (pH 4.2 to 4.5), and fair (pH >4.5) 
depending on pH [19]. In the experiment, wilted water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) + rice bran (10%) and wilted 
water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) revealed very good quality with pHs of 4.51 and 4.21, respectively (Table 2). The 
odor of wilted water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) + molasses (10%) was rated excellent with a brownish green 
color. Nearly all treatments have a pH of less than 4, with wilted water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) + wheat flour 
(10%) + rice bran (10%) having the best pH. 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2024, 11(2): 36-42 

40 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Table 2. Effects of different feed additives on pH, color, and odor of silage after 45 days. 

Treatments pH Color odor 

Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) (Control) 4.51±0.06a Dark brown Bad 
Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Rice bran (10%) 4.21±0.09b Brown Bad 
Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) +Wheat flour (10%) 3.67±0.27cd Brown Good 
Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Molasses (10%) 3.16±0.05e Brownish green Very good 
Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour (10%) + 
Molasses (10%) 

3.39±0.04de Golden brown Good 

Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour (10%) + Rice 
bran (10%) 

3.87±0.03bc Brownish green Good 

Wilted water hyacinth+ Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour (10%) + Rice 
bran (10%) + Molasses (10%) 

3.70±0.07cd Golden brown Good 

LSD (P<0.05) 0.36***   

CV% 5.32   
Grand mean 3.80   
Note:  CV: Coefficient of variation; LSD: Least significant difference followed by the same letter in a column are significantly different. ***= treatment 

means are significantly different at a 0.1% level of significance. In a column, the different letters represents data differs significantly at 5% level of 
probability. 
a presented: Highest significant mean among treatments. 
b presented: Second highest significant mean among treatments.  
c presented: Significant mean after a and b. 
d presented: Lowest significant means among treatments. 

 
The water-soluble carbohydrates included in food additives influence silage fermentation [20]. Molasses has 

700 grams of carbs per kilogram of dry matter, whereas rice bran has just 53 grams [21, 22]. Molasses increased 
the fermentation process more than rice bran. As pH is a valid metric of fermentation, increasing the pH of the rice 
bran-added compounds may imply a slower pace of fermentation [23]. Good silage tends to be a yellow-green to 
brownish green hue [24] having an agreeable sweet, sour, and smelling [19]. 
 

3.2. Chemical Quality of the Silage 
The effect of different additives on the chemical quality of silage is presented in Table 4. Crude protein is the 

measure of approximate protein content in silage. Wilted water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) has the highest crude 
protein content (15.13%), followed by wilted water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) + wheat flour (10%) + rice bran 
(10%) + molasses (10%). The crude protein content of wilted water hyacinth, rice bran, and molasses was found to 
be 174, 53, and 33 gram per kg respectively [25]. Our findings contradicted the findings of Indulekha, et al. [19], 
who found a reduction in the nutrient composition of silage with the addition of straw. 

The silages supplemented with rice straw had the greatest crude fiber content. Additionally, the quantity of 
crude fiber rose with the inclusion of rice bran. The combination of wilted water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) and 
wilted water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) + rice bran (10%) has the greatest fiber content. With a crude fiber 
content of 23.73 and 21.88 percent respectively (Table 3). The addition of straw and bran enhanced the crude fiber 
content of silage. When wheat bran is added to silage, the amount of crude fiber and crude fat increases, as stated by 
[26].  

The maximum ether extract was recorded in wilted water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) + wheat flour (10%) + 
rice bran (10%), followed by wilted water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) + wheat flour (10%) + rice bran (10%) + 
molasses (10%). The wheat flour and rice bran have enhancing effects on the ether extract. The maximum total ash 
content was recorded in wilted water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) + wheat flour (10%) + rice bran (10%), followed 
by wilted water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) + rice bran (10%). Total ash content is an index for measuring total 
inorganic matter in food samples, which reflects the quantity of minerals present [27]. The higher ash content may 
be because the root sections used in the ensiling procedure have the ability to absorb different minerals from the 
water component. Although the effects of giving high ash diets to ruminant animals are not fully known, high ash 
levels in dairy cow diets or forages may operate as a covert antagonist against the effectiveness of dairy nutrition 
programs [28]. 
 
Table 3. Effects of different feed additives on crude protein, crude fiber, ether extract, and the total ash content of silage after 45 days. 

Treatments Crude protein 
(%) 

Crude fiber 
(%) 

Ether extract 
(%) 

Total ash (%) 

Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) (Control) 15.13±0.20a 23.73±0.84a 11.83±0.09cd 12.11±0.05c 
Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Rice bran (10%) 10.10±0.19d 21.88±0.76b 11.39±0.22d 14.22±0.16b 
Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) +Wheat flour 
(10%) 

11.06±0.11cd 21.04±0.03bc 12.12±0.05bc 11.69±0.03cd 

Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Molasses (10%) 8.09±0.13e 21.01±0.01bc 12.38±0.23ab 11.52±0.29d 
Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour 
(10%) + Molasses (10%) 

9.83±0.37d 18.13±0.20d 11.87±0.08cd 14.17±0.20b 

Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour 
(10%) + Rice bran (10%) 

12.41±0.50bc 19.75±0.44c 12.74±0.16a 15.13±0.13a 

Wilted water hyacinth+ Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour 
(10%) + Rice bran (10%) + Molasses (10%) 

12.59±1.20b 17.33±0.66d 12.39±0.25ab 11.76±0.15cd 

LSD (P<0.05) 1.49*** 1.60*** 0.51** 0.50*** 
CV% 7.42 4.40 2.36 2.18 
Grand mean 11.32 20.41 12.10 12.94 

Note:  CV: Coefficient of variation; LSD: Least significant difference followed by the same letter in a column are significantly different. ***= treatment 
means are significantly different at a 0.1% level of significance. In a column, the different letters represents data differs significantly at 5% level of 
probability. 
a presented: Highest significant mean among treatments. 
b presented: Second highest significant mean among treatments. 
c presented: Significant mean after a and b. 
d presented: Lowest significant means among treatments. 
 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2024, 11(2): 36-42 

41 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

3.3. Palatability of Silage 
The palatability of silage is one of the major criteria when considering its quality. The estimated left-over silage 

after 3 days of feeding is presented in Table 4. The pH value of 3.87 has the highest palatability percentage, i.e. 
100%, in wilted water hyacinth + rice straw (10%) + wheat flour (10%) + rice bran (10%). The addition of rice 
straw primarily decreases the palatability percentage, followed by the addition of wheat flour and rice bran. The 
preservative content, pH, and cattle acceptance of silage are positively correlated [29]. The pH of water hyacinth 
silage without additives was 7.33, indicating low quality. However, silage with 15% maize bran or molasses added 
had a pH of 4.1 and 4.2, respectively, and was well-liked by goats and young steers [30]. 
 
Table 4. Effects of different feed additives on the palatability percentage of silage. 

Treatments Left over feed after 3 
days of feeding (%) 

Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) (Control) 48.23±6.00a 
Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Rice bran (10%) 4.00±2.65c 
Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) +Wheat flour (10%) 8.00±5.29bc 
Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Molasses (10%) 15.93±10.50b 
Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour (10%) + Molasses (10%) 3.53±2.60c 
Wilted water hyacinth + Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour (10%) + Rice bran (10%) 0.00±0.00c 
Wilted water hyacinth+ Rice straw (10%) + Wheat flour (10%) + Rice bran (10%) + Molasses (10%) 3.40±3.40c 
LSD (P<0.05) 11.79*** 
CV% 55.83 
Grand mean 11.87 

 

Note: CV: Coefficient of variation; LSD: Least significant difference followed by the same letter in a column are significantly different; ***= treatment 
means are significantly different at a 0.1% level of significance. In a column, the different letters represents data differs significantly at 5% level of 
probability. 
a presented: Highest significant mean among treatments. 
b presented: Second highest significant mean among treatments. 
c presented: Lowest significant mean among treatments. 

 

4. Conclusion  
From the investigation, it can be concluded that a higher palatability of water hyacinth silage was recorded 

with rice bran, wheat flour, and molasses by decreasing the pH value. The food additives supplemented with water 
hyacinth lower pH, enhance odor, and improve palatability thereby increasing the nutrient content of silage. Hence, 
it can be used as a feed alternative to solve the problem of feed scarcity. However, multiyear trials with other 
different feed additives were recommended to check their validity as well as enhance silage feed value. 

 
References   
[1] H. De Groote, O. Ajuonu, S. Attignon, R. Djessou, and P. Neuenschwander, "Economic impact of biological control of water 

hyacinth in Southern Benin," Ecological Economics, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 105-117, 2003.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-
8009(03)00006-5 

[2] S. Patel, "Threats, management and envisaged utilizations of aquatic weed Eichhornia crassipes: An overview," Reviews in 
Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 249-259, 2012.  

[3] B. Ayana, "Economic importance, impacts and possible mitigation measures of aquatic water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes 
Martius) in Ethiopia," Journal of Environment and Earth Science, vol. 11, no. 3, 2021.  https://doi.org/10.7176/JEES/11-3-01 

[4] R. Fessehaie, "Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes): A review of its weed status in Ethiopia," Arem (Ethiopia), vol. 6, pp. 105-111, 
2005.  

[5] T. Taye, F. Rezene, Y. Firehun, T. Derje, and T. Tamado, "Review invasive weed research in Ethiopia," Increasing Crop Production 
Through Improved Plant Protection, vol. 2, pp. 381-407, 2009.  

[6] D. S. Badal et al., "Effect of organic manures and inorganic fertilizers on growth, yield and its attributing traits in garlic (Allium 
sativum L.)," Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 587-590, 2019.  

[7] B. B. Shrestha and K. K. Shrestha, "Invasions of alien plant species in Nepal: Patterns and process," Invasive Alien Species: 
Observations and Issues from Around the World, vol. 2, pp. 168-183, 2021.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119607045.CH20  

[8] A. A. Mako and O. O. Ikusika, "Utilization of Pleurotus sajor-caju biodegraded water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in a solid 
state fermentation by West African Dwarf goats in the humid tropics," Tropical Agriculture, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 173–185, 2020.  

[9] C. R. Upreti and B. K. Shrestha, Nutrient contents of feeds and fodder in Nepal. Khumaltar, Nepal: Animal Nutrition Division, NARC, 
2006. 

[10] S. Zeringue, L. Rusoff, and B. Wolverton, "Water hyacinth-a source of roughage for lactating cows," Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 
62, pp. 200-200, 1979.  

[11] M. H. T. A. D. Ogle, Generose Mulokozi, Leif Hambraeus, Britta, "Micronutrient composition and nutritional importance of 
gathered vegetables in Vietnam," International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 485-499, 2001.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/713671806 

[12] L. E. Grivetti and B. M. Ogle, "Value of traditional foods in meeting macro- and micronutrient needs: The wild plant connection," 
Nutrition Research Reviews, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 31–46, 2000.  https://doi.org/10.1079/095442200108728990 

[13] A. Sharma, "Eradication and utilization of water hyacinth–a review," Current Science, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 51-55, 1971.  
[14] P. Biswas and L. Mandal, "Use of fresh water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in the ration of growing calves," The Indian Veterinary 

Journal 1988, vol. 65, pp. 496–500, 1991.  
[15] A. Abdelhamid and A. Gabr, "Evaluation of water hyacinth as a feed for ruminants," Archiv für Tierernaehrung, vol. 41, no. 7-8, pp. 

745-756, 1991.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17450399109428519 
[16] R. Mukherjee and B. Nandi, "Improvement of in vitro digestibility through biological treatment of water hyacinth biomass by two 

Pleurotus species," International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 7-12, 2004.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0964-
8305(03)00112-4 

[17] P. McDonald, R. A. Edwards, J. F. D. Greenhalgh, C. A. Morgan, L. A. Sinclair, and R. G. Wilkinson, Evaluation of foods: 
Digestibility, animal nutrition, 7th ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited, 2011. 

[18] B. Chakraborty, P. Biswas, L. Mandal, and G. Banerjee, "Effect of feeding fresh water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) or its silage 
on the milk production in crossbred cows," Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 115-118, 1991.  

[19] V. Indulekha, C. G. Thomas, and K. Anil, "Utilization of water hyacinth as livestock feed by ensiling with additives," Indian Journal 
of Weed Science, vol. 51, no. 1, p. 67, 2019.  https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2019.00014.5 

[20] Q. Liu, J. Zhang, S. Shi, and Q. Sun, "The effects of wilting and storage temperatures on the fermentation quality and Aerobic 
stability of stylo silage," Animal Science Journal, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 549-553, 2011.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-
0929.2011.00873.x  

[21] P. Lowilai, K. Kabata, C. Okamoto, and M. Kikuchi, "Effectsof rice bran and wheat bran on fermentation quality chemical 
composition of water hyacinth silage," ScL, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 271–277, 1994.  

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00006-5
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00006-5
https://doi.org/10.7176/JEES/11-3-01
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119607045.CH20
https://doi.org/10.1080/713671806
https://doi.org/10.1079/095442200108728990
https://doi.org/10.1080/17450399109428519
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0964-8305(03)00112-4
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0964-8305(03)00112-4
https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2019.00014.5
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2011.00873.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2011.00873.x


Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2024, 11(2): 36-42 

42 
© 2024 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

[22] P. McDonald, R. A. Edwards, J. F. D. Greenhalgh, C. A. Morgan, and L. A. Sinclair, Animal nutrition, 4th ed. Essex: Longman 
Scientific and Technical, 1988. 

[23] L. Ngoan, L. An, B. Ogle, and J. Lindberg, "Ensiling techniques for shrimp by-products and their nutritive value for pigs," Asian-
Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1278-1284, 2000.  https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2000.1278 

[24] R. N. Gallaher and W. D. Pitman, Conservation of forages in the tropics and subtropics, In tropical forage plants. Boca, Raton: CRC Press 
LLC, 2000. 

[25] H. T. Tham and P. Udén, "Effect of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) silage on intake and nutrient digestibility in cattle fed 
rice straw and cottonseed cake," Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 646–653, 2013.  
https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12498 

[26] J. D. Li, J. X. Liu, Y. M. Wu, and J. A. Ye, "Rumen fermentation characteristics of ensiled water hyacinth," Journal of Applied 
Animal Research, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 137–142, 2011.  

[27] D. J. McClements, J. Weiss, A. J. Kinchla, A. A. Nolden, and L. Grossmann, "Methods for testing the quality attributes of plant-
based foods: Meat-and processed-meat analogs," Foods, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 260, 2021.  https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020260 

[28] W. Thepyothin, S. Thartrak, and S. Wittayakun, "Enrichment of ensilage quality and nutrients of whole-plant water hyacinth 
(Eichhornia crassipes) based silages," Journal of Experimental Agriculture International, pp. 114–122, 2021.  
https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2021/v43i1130763  

[29] J. Baldwin, J. Hentges Jr, L. Bagnall, and R. Shirley, "Comparison of pangolagrass and water hyacinth silages as diets for sheep," 
Journal of Animal Science, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 968-971, 1975.  https://doi.org/10.2527/JAS1975.405968X 

[30] P. L. Woomer, R. Muzira, D. Bwamiki, D. Mutetikka, A. Amoding, and M. A. Bekunda, "Biological management of water hyacinth 
waste in Uganda," Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 181-196, 2000.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2000.9754841 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 
Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article. 
 

https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2000.1278
https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12498
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020260
https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2021/v43i1130763
https://doi.org/10.2527/JAS1975.405968X
https://doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2000.9754841

