Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp1 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Diversity analysis of proximate principles, macro and micro nutritional traits in fodder cowpea

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.11581
Submitted
1 September 2025
Published
28-01-2026

Abstract

Assessing nutritional diversity in fodder cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) is essential for genetic improvement of fodder quality. Nutritional diversity analysis helps to identify superior genotypes that enhance livestock nutrition and overall productivity. This study evaluated twenty-two fodder cowpea genotypes to quantify variation in proximate principles and mineral nutrient   composition. Results revealed significant variation among the genotypes for different nutritional traits. Proximate traits such as dry matter, crude protein and crude fibre content ranged from10.99 - 24.43 %, 8.26 - 23.54 % and 23.67 - 35.79 %, indicating considerable nutritional diversity. Macro- (Calcium, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Potassium) and micro-nutrient (Zinc, Iron, Copper) concentrations also varied widely among genotypes. Principal component analysis for proximate principles revealed that PC1 & PC2 together contributed 54.83 % of total variability whereas for macro and micronutrients PC1 & PC2 components together contributed 56.66 % of total variability. Exploiting nutritional diversity through systematic breeding and selection strategies could contribute to the development of superior fodder cowpea cultivars with improved feed value, thereby supporting sustainable livestock production.

References

  1. 1. Dagar JC. Potentials for fodder production in degraded lands: approaches towards fodder security in India. New Delhi: Studera Press; 2017. p.333-64.
  2. 2. Rathod P, Dixit S. Green fodder production: a manual for field functionaries. Patancheru: Int Crop Res Inst Semi-Arid Tropics; 2019. p:6.
  3. 3. Relwani LL. Cropping patterns for high milk production. Indian Farm. 1970;9:26-31.
  4. 4. Gerrano AS, van Rensburg WSJ, Adebola PO. Nutritional composition of immature pods in selected cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) genotypes in South Africa. Aust J Crop Sci. 2017;11:134-41. https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.17.11.02.p72
  5. 5. Evans GC. The quantitative analysis of plant growth. Vol 1. Oxford: Blackwell Sci Publ; 1972.
  6. 6. Thiex N, Novotny L, Crawford A. Determination of ash in animal feed: AOAC official method 942.05 revisited. J AOAC Int. 2012;95:1392-7. https://doi.org/10.5740/jaoacint.12-129
  7. 7. Mariotti F, Tome D, Mirand PP. Converting nitrogen into protein-beyond 6.25 and Jones' factors. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2008;48:177-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408390701279749
  8. 8. Thiex NJ, Anderson S, Gildemeister B, et al. Crude fat, diethyl ether extraction, in feed, cereal grain and forage (Randall/Soxtec/submersion method): collaborative study. J AOAC Int. 2003;86:888-98. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/86.5.888
  9. 9. Jones JB. Laboratory guide for conducting soil tests and plant analysis. 1st ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2001. p. 384. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420025293
  10. 10. Gopinath PP, Parsad R, Joseph B, Adarsh VS. GRAPES: general Rshiny based analysis platform empowered by statistics. Thrissur: Kerala Agric Univ; 2020.
  11. 11. Hammer O, Harper D, Ryan P. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron. 2001;4:1-9.
  12. 12. Kaur H, Goyal M, Singh DP. Comparative evaluation of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) genotypes for nutritional quality and antioxidant potential. Range Manag Agrofor. 2018;39:260-8.
  13. 13. Velu G, Crespo HL, Guzman C, Huerta J, Payne T, Singh RP. Assessing genetic diversity to breed competitive biofortified wheat with enhanced grain Zn and Fe concentrations. Front Plant Sci. 2019;9:1971-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01971
  14. 14. Timsina J, Jat ML, Majumdar K, McDonald AJ. Nutrient management strategies for enhancing crop productivity and resilience to climate change. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2020;118:67-81.
  15. 15. Singh B, Ajeigbe HA, Tarawali SA, Fernandez-Rivera S, Abubakar M. Improving the production and utilization of cowpea as food and fodder. Field Crops Res. 2021;123:143-58.
  16. 16. Gerrano AS, Adebola PO, van Rensburg WS, Venter SL. Genetic variability and heritability estimates of nutritional composition in the leaves of selected cowpea genotypes (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.). HortScience. 2015;50:1435-40. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.50.10.1435
  17. 17. Singh M, Choudhary N, Khatik SK. Nutritional evaluation of commonly used fodders and concentrates in semi-arid region. Indian J Anim Res. 2019;53:1192-8.
  18. 18. Soharu A, Mittal RK, Sood VK, Dhaliwal YS, Sharma S. Evaluation of proximate composition, cooking quality and texture profile analysis in Himalayan landraces of black gram (Vigna mungo). Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 2024;53:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-024-01227-1
  19. 19. Kumari P, Kharor N, Pahuja SK, Phogat DS. Morphological and biochemical traits attribution for fodder yield and quality in forage sorghum using principal component analysis. Vegetos. 2024;37:2059-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42535-024-01017-9
  20. 20. de Carvalho RG, de Souza RA, de Lima Silva J, Pimentel AJB, de Andrade Ferreira M, de Siqueira MCB, et al. Principal component analysis applied to the study of yield and nutritional characteristics of forage cultivars. Trop Grassl Forrajes Trop. 2022;10:109-15. https://doi.org/10.17138/tgft(10)109-115
  21. 21. Inamoto K, Hase T, Doi M, Imanishi H. Effects of duration of bulb chilling on dry matter distribution in hydroponically forced tulips. Sci Hortic. 2000;85:295-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4238(00)00128-X
  22. 22. Riaz M, Farooq J, Sakhawat G, Mahmood A, Sadiq MA, Yaseen M. Genotypic variability for root/shoot parameters under water stress in some advanced lines of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Genet Mol Res. 2013;12:552-61. https://doi.org/10.4238/2013.February.27.4
  23. 23. Awaan MF, Ahmed S, Nazar ZA, Akram F, Shahzad A, Samiullah TR, et al. Gene action for various grain and fodder quality traits in Zea mays. J Food Nutr Res. 2014;2:704-17. https://doi.org/10.12691/jfnr-2-10-9
  24. 24. Dahanayaka LW, Mapa MMST, Kadigamuwa CC, Udayanga D. Impact of geographical variation on nutritional and antioxidant properties of Basella alba L. from Sri Lanka. BMC Plant Biol. 2025;25:118-23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-025-06143-3
  25. 25. Mashifane DC, Chiulele RM, Gwata ET. Diversity in selected grain mineral and protein among pigeonpea landraces. Appl Sci. 2024;14:573-8. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14020573
  26. 26. Demirbas A. Micro and macronutrients diversity in Turkish pea (Pisum sativum). Int J Agric Biol. 2018;20:701-10.
  27. 27. Boghara MC, Dhaduk HL, Kumar S, Parekh MJ, Patel NJ, Sharma R. Genetic divergence, path analysis and molecular diversity analysis in cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.). Ind Crops Prod. 2016;89:468-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.05.049
  28. 28. Pattanaik L, Das S, Jena B, Swain S, Suvadra JS, Mishra A. Evaluation of fodder pearl millet genotypes for improved nutritional quality in coastal plain zone of Odisha. Int J Adv Biochem Res. 2025;9:300-5. https://doi.org/10.33545/26174693.2025.v9.i3d.3952
  29. 29. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 18th ed. Arlington (VA): Assoc Off Anal Chem; 2005.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.