Next Article in Journal
The Potential of Hydroponic Seed Minituber Enrichment with the Endophyte Bacillus subtilis for Improving the Yield Components and Quality of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
Previous Article in Journal
Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception of Students Regarding Renewable Energies in Agriculture in Guilan, Iran
Previous Article in Special Issue
Intensive Meadows on Organic Soils of Temperate Climate–Useful Value of Grass Mixtures after the Regeneration
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/agriculture13081625
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Fodder Radish as a Potential Alternative Feed Source for Livestock in South Africa

by
Lwando Mbambalala
1,*,
Zikhona Theodora Rani
1,
Thamsanqa Doctor Empire Mpanza
2,
Makiwa Simeon Mthana
3,
Lusanda Ncisana
4,5 and
Ntuthuko Raphael Mkhize
1
1
Animal and Poultry Science, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01 Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa
2
Agricultural Research Council-Animal Production, P/Bag X02, Irene 0062, South Africa
3
Department of Animal Science, School of Agriculture, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Science, North-West University, Mahikeng Campus, Private Bag X2046, Mmabatho 2735, South Africa
4
Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01 Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa
5
Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, University of Limpopo, Sovenga, Polokwane 0727, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(8), 1625; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13081625
Submission received: 17 July 2023 / Revised: 14 August 2023 / Accepted: 16 August 2023 / Published: 18 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Studies in Improving the Nutritional Status of Forage Crops for Better Livestock Productivity)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The agricultural sector receives substantial support from livestock, which greatly contributes to the well-being of rural communities. Livestock offers animal-derived products, such as meat and milk, which serve as abundant protein sources for human consumption. While the majority of South Africa’s agricultural land is suitable for livestock farming within the smallholder sector, these farmers often face a variety of challenges. Among these challenges, there is insufficient access to superior forage resources, resulting in the limited availability of high-quality feed. Traditional nutrient sources for ruminants, such as soybean meal, grain, sunflower meal, and fish meal, are employed as supplementary feeds to provide exceptional nutrition and improve animal performance. Nonetheless, they present logistical, economic, and environmental challenges. To circumvent these challenges, smallholder producers have turned to leguminous trees, including Vachellia species and other locally available feed resources. They are utilized as feasible and cost-effective alternatives to supplement livestock, especially during periods of extended drought. However, these locally available feed resources exhibit inherent limitations, including thorn presence, high fiber content, low digestibility, and the presence of anti-nutritional and toxic factors. Cool season forage crops such as fodder radish present promising alternatives as autumn and winter forages for these farmers. Despite being widely used globally as a supplement for livestock during winter, fodder radish remains relatively underutilized, particularly among smallholder farmers. There is a scarcity of comprehensive information regarding its chemical composition, nutrient utilization, and remarkable potential to revolutionize livestock production, especially within the smallholder sector. Most of the available literature demonstrates the positive effects of fodder radish on soil structure, soil carbon and nitrogen levels, weed suppression, and other benefits. This paper systematically reviews the current state of knowledge on the nutritive value, opportunities, and challenges associated with the utilization of this crop in the cooler eastern regions.

1. Introduction

The agricultural industry holds great potential for improving the welfare of rural communities on a global scale, with livestock farming being a fundamental component. For many years, livestock production has been recognized as the keystone of agriculture, playing a crucial role in supporting the livelihoods of people in rural areas [1,2]. The significance of livestock farming in the agricultural community cannot be overstated, given its essential contribution to food security and rural development worldwide [3]. Livestock plays a crucial role as a significant supplier of animal-derived food, including meat and milk, which serve as protein sources for human consumption [4]. The livestock sector accounts for about 40% of the global agricultural GDP and employs over one billion people worldwide [5]. Moreover, the industry provides employment opportunities for at least 1.3 billion individuals and serves as a significant source of income for one billion smallholder farmers living in impoverished areas of developing regions [6,7,8]. Livestock producers frequently face a variety of obstacles, with the utilization of low-quality animal feed being one of the foremost hindrances [9].
Commercially available supplemental feeds, such as soybean meal, yellow maize, sunflower meal, fish meal, and others, are used for high-quality nutrition to improve animal performance, especially in commercially managed herds [10,11]. These popular high-protein and energy supplements are extensively used in livestock production for several decades [11,12,13]. They are incorporated into feed formulations for poultry, swine, and ruminants, as they enable these animals to efficiently utilize dietary nutrients [14,15,16,17,18], making these feed sources well-rounded ingredients that have helped to support optimal animal growth, health, and productivity for years. Despite the obvious benefits, these commercially available feed ingredients confront smallholder livestock farmers with some logistical, economic, and environmental difficulties. For example, they place a significant financial strain on livestock producers, frequently surpassing 70% of their overall operational expenses [10]. The over-reliance of the animal feed industry on fossil fuels raises questions regarding the environmental sustainability of these ingredients [11]. These factors work in concert with many others, rendering commercially available feed ingredients inaccessible to smallholder farmers, who are the majority of livestock farmers in South Africa (SA) [11,12].
Smallholder farmers have utilized trees and browse species for centuries as a feasible forage alternative and nutritious supplement, especially during dry seasons when rangeland vegetation is dormant [13,14,15]. The incorporation of leguminous trees, like Gliricidia sepium, Sesbania sesban, and Vachelia species, and other locally available forage resources into livestock diets is gaining popularity in SA with the aim of not only boosting rumen digestion but also controlling internal parasites and reducing methane production in ruminants [16,17,18]. Nevertheless, several limitations restrict the use of locally available forage resources. For example, the presence of thorns and spines on Vachellia karroo and many other browse species may cause injury to the animals or make it difficult for them to consume the foliage [19,20]. Moreover, excessive fiber content and ant-nutritive factors like tannins and toxic compounds also negatively affect feed intake, organic matter digestibility, and net energy in locally available forage resources, especially in woody species [19,21].
Drought-tolerant forage crops can effectively address fodder shortages typically experienced in winter, either independently or when used alongside browse materials. Cool-season forage crops, particularly fodder radish (also known as Japanese radish), have been identified in the literature as an alternative forage option during autumn and winter for livestock farmers, providing high-quality forage biomass in situations where browse species fall short of supplying sufficient feed to livestock [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. These crops alleviate the need for stored feeds during winter by offering abundant high-quality forage biomass [22,29]. Within the category of cool-season forage crops, Brassica crops stand out as highly valuable for ruminants due to their nutritional richness, adaptability to diverse soils and climates, and ability to fill the feed gap during fall and winter [29,30,31]. Common Brassica crops utilized for this purpose include turnips, rape, kale, swedes, and fodder radish [32]. Azo et al. [33] presented evidence supporting the viability of Brassica crops as alternative forage sources, enabling the extension of the grazing season to enhance ruminant productivity. Fodder radish, a pivotal annual or biennial vegetable crop within the Brassicaceae family, is commonly employed as animal fodder [34,35].
Fodder radish exhibits various cultivars that maintain high productivity, even in autumn and winter, with short growth cycles [36]. This productivity, combined with its ability to produce nutritious forage rapidly, has elevated it to a significant crop globally [37,38]. Fodder radish is used as a cover crop, a monoculture crop, and as part of mixed crops with small grains like winter wheat, oats, rye, and triticale, as well as warm-season annual crops, such as millet, sorghum, sudangrass, and sorghum-sudangrass hybrids [39]. Its potential as a stand-alone grazing fodder could empower farmers to improve livestock productivity and reduce feed costs, which is essential for sustainable and profitable livestock farming. Despite the demonstrated positive effects of fodder radish on soil structure, carbon and nitrogen levels, weed suppression, and other benefits, there remains a notable scarcity of comprehensive information concerning its chemical composition, nutrient utilization, and the significant potential to transform livestock production, particularly within SA’s smallholder sector. This underutilization is in contrast to the notable forage breeding progress made in developing cultivars that were specifically tailored to flowers later in the dry season under SA conditions [22,23].
This review aims to offer valuable insights into the practical utilization of fodder radish, enhancing its recognition among livestock producers in SA. To achieve this objective, the paper systematically compiles a concise profile of this forage crop and updates its current and potential use as a cover crop. Additionally, this review explores the current understanding of the nutritive value, opportunities, and challenges associated with the utilization of this crop in the cooler eastern regions of SA.

2. Description, Origin, and Environmental Fit of Fodder Radish

Fodder radish (Raphanus sativus) is an annual or biennial vegetable crop belonging to the Brassicaceae family [24,25]. According to Fenwick et al. [26], this plant is categorized as a root crop because of its specialized structures known as hypocotyls, which allow the fodder radish to thrive either entirely or partially underground, resembling true roots in shape and facilitating the storage of starch and other compounds [27]. Fodder radish can display a range of surface colours, spanning from white in Asia to red in Europe, and encompassing shades like purple, green, and black [28]. However, the flesh of fodder radish found in the European and Asian cultivars is predominantly white [29]. It is a fast-growing plant with broad leaves and a large fleshy taproot that can absorb nutrients and roots measuring approximately 3–6 cm in diameter and 15–30 cm in length [30,31]. Although taxonomists consider the origin of fodder radish to be in China, certain studies have revealed that the greatest diversity of this crop can be traced back to the Eastern Mediterranean region and areas in close proximity to the Caspian Sea. [32,33]. Fodder radish is classified as a cool-season crop that thrives at moderate temperatures and can grow in different environments, from semi-arid to humid areas. Altman et al. [34] highlighted that fodder radish has the exceptional ability to withstand freezing temperatures and sustain growth, unlike many other grasses and legumes. In Figure 1, one can observe the large fleshy taproot of broad leaves in the fodder radish.
Before significant crop improvement, the Japanese radish that was widely grown in SA as a single graze forage [35,36] faced limitations due to commercially available cultivars lacking regrowth capacity after grazing. These varieties featured prickly leaves and stem trichomes, reducing the palatability of radish as forage [37]. Additionally, a significant hindrance to the use of fodder radish was its early flowering behaviour, which was recorded among the commercially available genotypes [38,39], leading to a rapid decline in forage quality as flowering progressed, limiting its flexibility for grazing later in the dry season. To address these challenges, extensive collaborative breeding and selection efforts were directed towards improving the traits of this forage crop [39]. After nearly two decades of research, radish genotypes with smoother leaves, the ability to recover from multiple grazing regimes, rapid development, and, crucially, late winter flowering were developed [22,23]. These genotypes are available in the market and present livestock farmers with a unique opportunity to access winter feed for their sheep, cattle, and goats while enjoying the additional benefits of fodder radish. Beyond its capability to thrive as forage in less fertile soils under dryland conditions, radish is utilized for purposes such as winter manure, crop rotation, and other agricultural uses.

3. Fodder Radish Benefits as Cover Crop

Fodder radish is used as a cover crop that helps to sustain the fertility and productivity of cropland soil by mitigating soil compaction, minimizing nitrate (NO3) leaching, suppressing weeds, and controlling erosion [30,40]. In the winter season, fodder radish creates pores in the soil surface, which aids in water infiltration and reduces the occurrence of run-off [41]. The deep roots of fodder radish can help alleviate soil compaction and other cropland concerns by penetrating compacted soil layers with its thick taproot [42]. As fodder radish grows deeper, it can extract nitrogen (N) from deeper soil layers, thus potentially benefiting subsequent crops [43]. Fodder radish has a greater resilience under challenging conditions than other Brassica crops (rape and forage turnips) due to its ability to enhance root reserves by responding to high fertility levels [39]. Given the information presented on the benefits of using fodder radish as a cover crop to mitigate run-off, it is imperative for farmers to prioritize the cultivation of this crop. Table 1 provides a summarized overview of the key advantages of using fodder radish as a cover crop.

4. Fodder Radish Benefits as a Feed Source for Livestock Production

Inadequate and low-quality forage poses a major threat to livestock production by smallholder farmers in SA [51]. The utilization of dry-season forage crops becomes a feasible alternative when natural pastures fail to supply an adequate amount of forage [52]. Fodder radish, as one of the dry season plants, can produce nutritious forage in a period of 90 to 180 days depending on the cultivar [30,53]. Fodder radish exhibits adaptability across various climatic conditions and soil types, along with a short duration from sowing to reaching maturity [54]. The short growing period of fodder radish could play a pivotal role in reducing economic losses caused by diseases in fodder radish plants. Some pathogens survive in plant debris or soil, waiting for the next planting season to infect new crops [55]. With a short growing period of fodder radish, there is less time for the buildup of disease inoculum, which is essential for disease transmission. However, a rapid growth period could restrict the production of forage, thereby constraining its potential use as a livestock forage resource. This is due to the fact that, once a plant reaches maturity, its growth ceases, marking the conclusion of its development, and it subsequently dries up [56]. Research has been carried out on fodder radish across various regions globally to explore its potential for production, as well as its utilization as livestock feed [57,58]. The outcome of this study showed that the cultivar Ceres Graza established rapidly, was tolerant to the virus, produced relatively good quality forage, and was persistent in grazing as compared to Hunter and Paska cultivars grown in New Zealand [57]. This study also showed that cultivars (Hunter brassica and Graza radish) were able to produce 8.6 and 10.5 t/ha when grown in Mexico, respectively [57]. Furthermore, the study showed that cultivars (Hunter brassica and Graza radish) were able to produce 8.6 and 10.5 t/ha when grown in Mexico, respectively [58]. Biomass yield ranging from 4.2 to 7.3 t/ha on radish cultivars when grown in Canada are illustrated in Table 2. The chemical composition and mineral contents of different fodder radish cultivars evaluated under different agro-ecological zones are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. Under simulated grazing conditions, the combined yield of forage rape, turnip, and forage radish reached an average of 4.4 and 5.7 t/ha across three harvesting dates [59]. This may be advantageous for the establishment of fodder radish, especially when used for grazing in zones with marginal growing conditions like SA, which are characterized by increasing aridity, while ambient temperature increases. Goats can consume both the leaves and tubers of fodder radish, which are highly edible with relative nutritive value [60]. The forage (i.e., leaves) of fodder radish cultivars contains relatively good (13.23–26.7%) crude protein content, which makes it a suitable alternative forage as a protein source for livestock ruminants in particular. Forage materials with protein content at this range are suitable to be utilized as protein source for animals, particularly in smallholder farming systems [61]. Protein in a feed plays a vital role in stimulating rumen microbes to ferment the ingested feed, and feed with a protein content below 70 g/kg negatively affects the functioning of rumen microbes, which leads to a reduction in feed digestibility [56].

5. Animal Response on Fodder Radish Diets

Studies on the performance of animals when they are provided with fodder radish as part of their feed have yielded inconsistent outcomes. Feeding cover crops that contain fodder radish, such as Raphanus sativus L., Brassica napus, and Brassica rapa, did not have any effects on animals’ performance in terms of feed intake and weight gain of Angus steers [64]. Nonetheless, animals that consumed a diet containing fodder radish had an impact on the colour of meat, causing it to shift towards a reddish tan/brown hue, which is considered an undesirable shade for meat appearance [64]. The animals’ response to the radish fodder diet exhibited inconsistent outcomes in terms of their feed intake, milk production, and milk quality. The Holstein-Friesian dairy cows that were provided a diet comprising either forage radish or summer turnip experienced decreased feed intake, leading to a notable decline in feed conversion efficiency; as a result, there was no enhancement in milk yield [65]. However, interesting results were observed in animals that were fed a forage rape diet, where the acetic: propionic acid ratio significantly reduced compared to animals that were fed control or summer turnip diets [65]. These results are consistent with Johnston [38], who concluded that radish was more palatable than turnips for sheep. However, this did not translate into milk production since a lower acetic: propionic ratio indicates the availability of energy for production [66]. Nonetheless, a study by Keim et al. [67] showed an improvement in milk yield and feed use efficiency, whereas feed intake was unaffected in the Holstein-Friesian dairy cows that were fed a fodder radish (forage rape) diet.
On the other hand, Zhou et al. [68] reported a significant increase in feed intake and digestibility on Mediterranean x Nili-Ravi hybrid lactating buffaloes when fed a diet containing forage rape silage in replacement of corn silage. The increasing ratio of acetic: propionic acids in the rumen of the buffalos fed a forage rape diet means less energy was available for milk production; thus, milk did not improve compared to animals that were fed a control diet. However, milk quality increased linearly with increasing mono-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) and casein in milk [68]. Alternatively, the study recorded a linear increase in milk solids, whereas milk fat was not affected and that translated into more milk protein synthesis in buffalo milk [68]. In the various literature sources cited here, it is clear that incorporating fodder radish into animal diets did not negatively affect production, even though no significant improvement in production was recorded. Hence, incorporating fodder radish as a feed source for animals yields a positive outcome, as it maintains production levels while significantly lowering production costs. If farmers in SA can produce fodder radish by themselves, it will help in reducing the need to buy supplements, particularly during the dry season period, and that will contribute to lowering production costs.

6. Antinutritional Factors Associated with Utilization of Fodder Radish

Griffiths et al. [69] stated that most Brassica crops, including fodder radish, contain antinutritional factors (ANFs). A study conducted by Ehsen et al. [70] revealed that ANFs are biologically active compounds and are categorized as secondary metabolites in plants. The major ANFs found in fodder radish that have adverse effects on animals include s-methyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide (SMCO), glucosinolates, and nitrate [71]. The severity of complications caused by these compounds varies depending on the specific compounds formed when livestock graze on fodder radish [72]. The issues of the feeding value and safety of these compounds in fodder radish highlight the problems they present in ruminants. S-methyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide (SMCO) can degrade into dimethyl disulfide, which in turn accumulates within the tissues of animals [70]. This leads to loss of appetite, constipation, depression, and death of animals, depending on the amount consumed. D’mello [73] stated that SMCO also hinders protein digestion and digestion, which in turn reduces the growth rate and decreases milk production in dairy cows. Some studies highlighted that SMCO can have an impact on the taste and flavour of animal-derived food like meat and milk [74,75]. However, the concentration of SMCO differs among various Brassica species and cultivars, and there is significant genetic diversity within each species to enable the development of varieties with reduced SMCO levels through breeding [76].
Glucosinolates are known as a large group of plant secondary metabolites with biologically active compounds and nutritional effects and are mainly found in the Brassica family, including fodder radish [77]. Upon degradation by animals, glucosinolates release compounds, such as oxozolidene-2-thiones and thiocyanate, also known as goitrogens, which interfere with thyroid gland function [9,77]. These compounds reduce iodine secretion from the thyroid gland, which has a negative effect on the metabolic function of the animal [77].
Plants naturally contain nitrate, which serves as the primary nitrogen source in soil [78]. Nitrate toxicity is a serious problem that creates a health hazard for both humans and animals [79,80,81]. According to Rashid et al. [78], Brassica crops are known as the most notorious accumulators of nitrate. Furthermore, the study also noted that elevated nitrate levels exceeding 0.5% (5000 ppm) in animal feed can have adverse effects on the health and productivity of ruminants [78]. Nitrate toxicity in ruminants can lead to methemoglobinemia, which is characterized by the oxidation of iron in hemoglobin, reducing its ability to bind and transport oxygen [82]. Nitrates in ruminants are reduced to nitrite by rumen microbes, which act as a nitrogenous source by converting it into ammonia [83]. The reduction process of nitrate (NO3) in the rumen follows a sequence of steps, leading to the formation of nitrite (NO2), ammonia (NH3), and finally microbial proteins [84]. Then, the accumulation of nitrite occurs, and it enters the bloodstream, where it combines with the ferrous ion (Fe2+) present in hemoglobin (Hb) to create met-hemoglobin (met-Hb) [78]. This leads to various adverse effects, including unexpected mortality, termination of pregnancies, reduced lactation output, disruption of carotene-to-vitamin A conversion, and impaired growth rates [85]. Therefore, ruminants should be gradually introduced to fodder radish and given restricted daily access, preferably not exceeding 70% of their total diet dry matter [72]. Effective grazing management practices that encompass proper strategies can help mitigate nitrate poisoning in cattle [86,87]. Likewise, farmers should prioritize prevention over treatment since, once an animal displays symptoms of nitrate toxicity, there is a limited timeframe to rescue the animal due to rapid deterioration in its health [87].

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, the agricultural industry’s essential livestock component has a significant potential to enhance rural well-being globally, including food security and rural development. Drought-tolerant forage crops, such as fodder radish and other cool-season Brassica crops, offer high-quality biomass during autumn and winter, addressing fodder shortages and reducing reliance on stored feeds. This review increases the recognition of fodder radish among South African livestock producers, providing insights into its utilization, nutritive value, opportunities, and challenges, especially in the cooler eastern regions. Fodder radish’s adaptability, unique root structure, and late-flowering, re-growth-capable genotypes address the limitations associated with fodder trees, offering a valuable winter feed option and additional agricultural benefits. This is a promising solution to address inadequate and low-quality forage in South African livestock production. With its fast growth, adaptability, and high nutritive value, fodder radish offers significant potential to improve livestock feeding efficiency, enhance animal performance, reduce economic losses, manage soil-borne diseases, and promote sustainable agricultural practices. More comprehensive research and data are required to fully unlock the benefits of fodder radish in the context of South African livestock production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization L.M. and M.S.M.; design of the research, L.M., T.D.E.M., N.R.M. and Z.T.R.; writing—original draft, L.M.; writing—review and editing, L.M., L.N., M.S.M., T.D.E.M., N.R.M. and Z.T.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study received financial support from the Agricultural Research Council-Animal Production and the FoodBev SETA Bursary.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mapiye, O.; Chikwanha, O.C.; Makombe, G.; Dzama, K.; Mapiye, C. Livelihood, food and nutrition security in Southern Africa: What role do indigenous cattle genetic resources play? Diversity 2020, 12, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nouman, W.; Basra, S.; Ahmed, M.; Siddiqui, M.T.; Yasmeen, A.; Gull, T.; AlScayde, M.A.C. Potential of Moringa oleifera L. as livestock fodder crop: A review. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2014, 38, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mirón, I.J.; Linares, C.; Díaz, J. The influence of climate change on food production and food safety. Environ. Res. 2023, 216, 114674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Henchion, M.; Moloney, A.; Hyland, J.; Zimmermann, J.; McCarthy, S. Trends for meat, milk and egg consumption for the next decades and the role played by livestock systems in the global production of proteins. Animal 2021, 15, 100287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Salmon, G.R.; MacLeod, M.; Claxton, J.; Ciamarra, U.P.; Robinson, T.; Duncan, A.; Peters, A. Exploring the landscape of livestock ‘Facts’. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 25, 100329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sekaran, U.; Lai, L.; Ussiri, D.A.; Kumar, S.; Clay, S. Role of integrated crop-livestock systems in improving agriculture production and addressing food security—A review. J. Agric. Food Res. 2021, 5, 100190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Thornton, P.K. Livestock production: Recent trends, future prospects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2853–2867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Herrero, M.; Grace, D.; Njuki, J.; Johnson, N.; Enahoro, D.; Silvestri, S.; Rufino, M.C. The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal 2013, 7, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kamalzadeh, A.; Rajabbaigy, M.; Kiasat, A. Livestock production systems and trends in livestock industry in Iran. J. Agri. Soc. Sci. 2008, 4, 183–188. [Google Scholar]
  10. Delgado, C.; Rosegrant, M.; Steinfeld, H.; Ehui, S.; Courbois, C. Livestock to 2020: The next food revolution. Outlook Agric. 2001, 30, 27–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Steinfeld, H. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  12. Koneswaran, G.; Nierenberg, D. Global farm animal production and global warming: Impacting and mitigating climate change. Environ. Health Perspect. 2008, 116, 578–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Paterson, R.; Karanja, G.; Nyaata, O.; Kariuki, I.; Roothaert, R. A review of tree fodder production and utilization within smallholder agroforestry systems in Kenya. Agrofor. Syst. 1998, 41, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Raj, A.K.; Kunhamu, T.; Jamaludheen, V.; Chichaghare, A. Upscaling fodder tree integration in humid tropical agroforestry systems–Prospects and constraints. Indian J. Agrofor. Spec. Issue 2022, 37, 46. [Google Scholar]
  15. Salem, H.B.; Makkar, H.; Nefzaoui, A. Towards better utilisation of non-conventional feed sources by sheep and goats in some African and Asian countries. Options Méditerranéennes Série A 2004, 59, 177–187. [Google Scholar]
  16. Brown, D.; N’gambi, J.; Norris, D. Feed potential of Acacia karroo leaf meal for communal goat production in southern Africa: A review. JAPS J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2016, 26, 1178–1186. [Google Scholar]
  17. Farghaly, M.M.; Youssef, I.M.; Radwan, M.A.; Hamdon, H.A. Effect of feeding Sesbania sesban and reed grass on growth performance, blood parameters, and meat quality of growing lambs. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2022, 54, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Rusdy, M.; Baba, S.; Garantjang, S.; Syarif, I. Effects of supplementation with Gliricidia sepium leaves on performance of Bali cattle fed elephant grass. Livest. Res. Rural. Dev. 2019, 31, 84. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mapiye, C.; Chimonyo, M.; Marufu, M.; Dzama, K. Utility of Acacia karroo for beef production in Southern African smallholder farming systems: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 164, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brown, D.; Ng’ambi, J.W.; Norris, D. Voluntary intake and palatability indices of Pedi goats fed different levels of Acacia karroo leaf meal by cafeteria method. Indian J. Anim. Res. 2016, 50, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hlatini, V.; Ncobela, C.; Zindove, T.; Chimonyo, M. Use of polyethylene glycol to improve the utilisation of leguminous leaf meals in pigs: A review. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 48, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ammann, S.; Nash, D.; Goodenough, D. Fodder radish for autumn and winter: Technology. Dairy Mail 2009, 16, 70–71. [Google Scholar]
  23. Rakau, P. New fodder radish varieties can boost dairy production. In Food for Thought; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ayres, L.; Clements, B. Forage brassicas–quality crops for livestock production. Agfact P2 2002, 1, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnston, J.S.; Pepper, A.E.; Hall, A.E.; Chen, Z.J.; Hodnett, G.; Drabek, J.; Lopez, R.; Price, H.J. Evolution of genome size in Brassicaceae. Ann. Bot. 2005, 95, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fenwick, G.R.; Heaney, R.K.; Mullin, W.J.; VanEtten, C.H. Glucosinolates and their breakdown products in food and food plants. CRC Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1983, 18, 123–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Zierer, W.; Rüscher, D.; Sonnewald, U.; Sonnewald, S. Tuber and tuberous root development. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2021, 72, 551–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Chauhan, V.B.S.; Mallick, S.N.; Pati, K.; Arutselvan, R.; Nedunchezhiyan, M. Status and Importance of Underexploited Tuber Crops in Relation to Nutritional Security and Economic Prosperity. In Compendium for Winter School on “Unexpected Vegetables: Unexplored Treasure Trove for Food, Nutritional and Economic Security”; ICAR-Indian Institute of Vegetable Research: Varanasi, India, 2022; pp. 246–264. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, O.N.; Park, H.Y. Assessment of genetic diversity in cultivated radishes (Raphanus sativus) by agronomic traits and SSR markers. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 223, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fourie, J.; Howell, C.; Masekwana, N. Selection of grass and broadleaf crops as catch crops where winery wastewater is used for irrigation: A review. South Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2021, 42, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Clark, A. Managing Cover Crops Profitably; Diane Publishing: Darby, PA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kong, Q.; Li, X.; Xiang, C.; Wang, H.; Song, J.; Zhi, H. Genetic diversity of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) germplasm resources revealed by AFLP and RAPD markers. Plant Mol. Biol. Report. 2011, 29, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yamane, K.; Lü, N.; Ohnishi, O. Chloroplast DNA variations of cultivated radish and its wild relatives. Plant Sci. 2005, 168, 627–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Altman, B.; Hayes, M.; Janes, S.; Forbes, R. Wildlife of westside grassland and chaparral habitats. In Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington; Oregon State University Press: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2001; pp. 261–291. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rethman, N.; Heyns, G. Grazing of Raphanus sativus. L (Japanese radish). J. Grassl. Soc. S. Afr. 1987, 4, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Verschoor, A.; Rethman, N. Forage potential of Japanese radish (Raphanus sativus) as influenced by planting date and cultivar choice. J. Grassl. Soc. S. Afr. 1992, 9, 176–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stewart, A. A review of Brassica species, cross-pollination and implications for pure seed production in New Zealand. Agron. N. Z. 2002, 32, 63–82. [Google Scholar]
  38. Johnston, T. Breeding aspects of Raphanus and Brassica. Cru. Ferae Newsl. 1977, 2, 13. [Google Scholar]
  39. Stewart, A.; Moorhead, A. The development of a fodder radish suitable for multiple grazing. Agron. NZ 2004, 34, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  40. Muzangwa, L.; Chiduza, C.; Muchaonyerwa, P. Feasibility of winter cover crop production under rainfed conditions in the eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 2013, 21, 173–184. [Google Scholar]
  41. Seif, A.; Nyambo, B. Integrated Pest Management for Brassica Production in East Africa; ICIPE Science Press: Nairobi, Kenya, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  42. Weil, R.; Kremen, A. Thinking across and beyond disciplines to make cover crops pay. J. Sci. Food Agri. 2007, 87, 551–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sapkota, T.B.; Askegaard, M.; Lægdsmand, M.; Olesen, J.E. Effects of catch crop type and root depth on nitrogen leaching and yield of spring barley. Field Crops Res. 2012, 125, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chen, G.; Weil, R.R. Root growth and yield of maize as affected by soil compaction and cover crops. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 117, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Baraibar, B.; Hunter, M.C.; Schipanski, M.E.; Hamilton, A.; Mortensen, D.A. Weed suppression in cover crop monocultures and mixtures. Weed Sci. 2018, 66, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lawley, Y.E.; Weil, R.R.; Teasdale, J.R. Forage radish cover crop suppresses winter annual weeds in fall and before corn planting. Agron. J. 2011, 103, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Elhakeem, A.; Porre, R.J.; Hoffland, E.; Van Dam, J.C.; Drost, S.M.; De Deyn, G.B. Radish-based cover crop mixtures mitigate leaching and increase availability of nitrogen to the cash crop. Field Crops Res. 2023, 292, 108803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Salazar, O.; Nájera, F.; Tapia, W.; Casanova, M. Evaluation of the DAISY model for predicting nitrogen leaching in coarse-textured soils cropped with maize in the Mediterranean zone of Chile. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 182, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. De Baets, S.; Poesen, J.; Meersmans, J.; Serlet, L. Cover crops and their erosion-reducing effects during concentrated flow erosion. Catena 2011, 85, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sihag, M.; Kumar, V.; Rana, M.; Srivastava, S.; Singh, S. Biofumigation: Prospects for control of soil borne plant diseases. J. Biopestic. 2022, 15, 136–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Malusi, N.; Falowo, A.; Hosu, Y.; Idamokoro, E. Prevalent constraints towards production and commercialization of cattle owned by small-holder farmers in south africa—A review. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2022, 10, 659–675. [Google Scholar]
  52. Sulc, R.M.; Tracy, B.F. Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems in the US Corn Belt; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  53. MacLaren, C.; Swanepoel, P.; Bennett, J.; Wright, J.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K. Cover crop biomass production is more important than diversity for weed suppression. Crop Sci. 2019, 59, 733–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sheldrick, R.; Fenlon, J.; Lavender, R. Variation in forage yield and quality of three cruciferous catch crops grown in southern England. Grass Forage Sci. 1981, 36, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tsedaley, B. Review on early blight (Alternaria spp.) of potato disease and its management options. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2014, 4, 191–199. [Google Scholar]
  56. Mpanza, T.D.E.; Hassen, A.; Akanmu, A.M. Evaluation of Stylosanthes scabra accessions as forage source for ruminants: Growth performance, nutritive value and in vitro ruminal fermentation. Animals 2020, 10, 1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Reta Sánchez, D.G.; Sánchez Duarte, J.I.; Ochoa Martínez, E.; González Cifuentes, A.I.; Reyes González, A.; Rodríguez Hernández, K. Yield and nutritional value of forage brassicas compared to traditional forages. Rev. Mex. De Cienc. Pecu. 2023, 14, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Omokanye, A.; Hernandez, G.; Lardner, H.A.; Al-Maqtari, B.; Gill, K.S.; Lee, A. Alternative forage feeds for beef cattle in Northwestern Alberta, Canada: Forage yield and nutritive value of forage brassicas and forbs. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2021, 49, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bonnet, A. Inheritance of some characters in radish (Raphanus sativus L.). Cruciferae Newsl. 1979, 4, 31. [Google Scholar]
  60. Azam, A.; Khan, I.; Mahmood, A.; Hameed, A. Yield, chemical composition and nutritional quality responses of carrot, radish and turnip to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 3237–3244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Mpanza, T.D.E.; Hassen, A. Effects of Stylosanthes scabra Forage Supplementation on in Vitro Gas Production and Fiber Degradation of Eragrostis Grass Hay. Agric. Sci. 2023, 14, 522–540. [Google Scholar]
  62. Steddom, K.; Ong, K.; Starr, J. Efficacy of various brassica varieties for the suppression of root knot, ring, and stunt nematodes. Phytopathology 2008, 98, S150. [Google Scholar]
  63. Villalobos, L.; Brummer, J. Evaluation of Brassicas for fall forage. In Proceedings of theWestern States Alfalfa and Forage Symp, Reno, NV, USA, 12 December 2013. [Google Scholar]
  64. Bakker, C.; Hite, L.; Wright, C.; Smart, A.; Dinh, T.; Blair, A.; Underwood, K.; Grubbs, J.K. Impact of feeding cover crop forage containing brassicas to steers during backgrounding on palatability attributes of beef strip steaks. Foods 2021, 10, 1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Castillo-Umaña, M.; Balocchi, O.; Pulido, R.; Sepúlveda-Varas, P.; Pacheco, D.; Muetzel, S.; Berthiaume, R.; Keim, J.-P. Milk production responses and rumen fermentation of dairy cows supplemented with summer brassicas. Animal 2020, 14, 1684–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ma, J.; Shah, A.M.; Shao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zou, H.; Hu, R.; Peng, Q.; Kang, K.; Wanapat, M. Effects of yeast cell wall on the growth performance, ruminal fermentation, and microbial community of weaned calves. Livest. Sci. 2020, 239, 104170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Keim, J.; Daza, J.; Beltrán, I.; Balocchi, O.; Pulido, R.; Sepúlveda-Varas, P.; Pacheco, D.; Berthiaume, R. Milk production responses, rumen fermentation, and blood metabolites of dairy cows fed increasing concentrations of forage rape (Brassica napus ssp. Biennis). J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 9054–9066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Zhou, D.; Abdelrahman, M.; Zhang, X.; Yang, S.; Yuan, J.; An, Z.; Niu, K.; Gao, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, B. Milk Production responses and digestibility of dairy buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) partially supplemented with forage rape (Brassica napus) silage replacing corn silage. Animals 2021, 11, 2931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Griffiths, D.; Birch, A.; Hillman, J. Antinutritional compounds in the brasi analysis, biosynthesis, chemistry and dietary effects. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 1998, 73, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ehsen, S.; Qasim, M.; Abideen, Z.; Rizvi, R.F.; Gul, B.; Ansari, R.; Khan, M.A. Secondary metabolites as anti-nutritional factors in locally used halophytic forage/fodder. Pak. J. Bot. 2016, 48, 629–636. [Google Scholar]
  71. Bell, L.W.; Watt, L.J.; Stutz, R.S. Forage brassicas have potential for wider use in drier, mixed crop–livestock farming systems across Australia. Crop Pasture Sci. 2020, 71, 924–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ruiz, H.; Lacasta, D.; Ramos, J.J.; Quintas, H.; Ruiz de Arcaute, M.; Ramo, M.Á.; Villanueva-Saz, S.; Ferrer, L.M. Anaemia in Ruminants Caused by Plant Consumption. Animals 2022, 12, 2373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. D’mello, J. Antinutritional factors and mycotoxins. Farm Anim. Metab. Nutr. 2000, 383. Available online: http://sherekashmir.informaticspublishing.com/345/1/9780851993782.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2023).
  74. Smith, R. S-Methylcysteine sulphoxide, the brassica anaemia factor (a valuable dietary factor for man?). Vet. Sci. Commun. 1978, 2, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Prache, S. Haemolytic anaemia in ruminants fed forage brassicas: A review. Vet. Res. 1994, 25, 497–520. [Google Scholar]
  76. Whittle, P.J.; Smith, R.H.; McIntosh, A. Estimation of S-methylcysteine sulphoxide (kale anaemia factor) and its distribution among brassica forage and root crops. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1976, 27, 633–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Prieto, M.; López, C.J.; Simal-Gandara, J. Glucosinolates: Molecular structure, breakdown, genetic, bioavailability, properties and healthy and adverse effects. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2019, 90, 305–350. [Google Scholar]
  78. Rashid, G.; Avais, M.; Ahmad, S.S.; Mushtaq, M.H.; Ahmed, R.; Ali, M.; Naveed-ul-Haque, M.; Ahmad, M.; Khan, M.A.; Khan, N.U. Influence of Nitrogen Fertilizer on Nitrate Contents of Plants: A Prospective Aspect of Nitrate Poisoning in Dairy Animals. Pak. J. Zool. 2019, 51, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ward, M.H.; Kilfoy, B.A.; Weyer, P.J.; Anderson, K.E.; Folsom, A.R.; Cerhan, J.R. Nitrate intake and the risk of thyroid cancer and thyroid disease. Epidemiol. Camb. Mass. 2010, 21, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Burow, K.R.; Nolan, B.T.; Rupert, M.G.; Dubrovsky, N.M. Nitrate in groundwater of the United States, 1991–2003. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 4988–4997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Manassaram, D.M.; Backer, L.C.; Moll, D.M. A review of nitrates in drinking water: Maternal exposure and adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes. Environ. Health Perspect. 2006, 114, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cortese-Krott, M.M. Red blood cells as a “central hub” for sulfide bioactivity: Scavenging, metabolism, transport, and cross-talk with nitric oxide. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2020, 33, 1332–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lee, C.; Beauchemin, K.A. A review of feeding supplementary nitrate to ruminant animals: Nitrate toxicity, methane emissions, and production performance. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 94, 557–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Knight, A.P.; Walter, R.G. A guide to plant poisoning of animals in North America. In A Guide Plant Poisoning Anim. North America; International Veterinary Information Service: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  85. McIlwain, P.; Schipper, I. Toxicity of nitrate nitrogen to cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1963, 142, 502–505. [Google Scholar]
  86. Geurink, J.; Malestein, A.; Kemp, A.; Korzeniowski, A.; Van’t Klooster, A.T. Nitrate poisoning in cattle. 7. Prevention. Neth. J. Sci. 1982, 30, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bolan, N.S.; Kemp, P. A review of factors affecting and prevention of pasture-induced nitrate toxicity in grazing animals. Proc. N. Z. Grassl. Assoc. 2003, 65, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 13 01625 g001
Figure 1. Leaf (a) and tuber (b) of fodder radish in Pietermaritzburg, Cedara Research Station, KwaZulu Natal Province, South Africa. Photos taken by L. Mbambalala.
Figure 1. Leaf (a) and tuber (b) of fodder radish in Pietermaritzburg, Cedara Research Station, KwaZulu Natal Province, South Africa. Photos taken by L. Mbambalala.
Agriculture 13 01625 g001
Table 1. Potential benefits of fodder radish as a cover crop.
Table 1. Potential benefits of fodder radish as a cover crop.
Potential BenefitsDescriptionReference
Effects on soil structureFodder radish roots exhibit superior capability for penetrating compacted soil in comparison to rapeseed and cereal rye. When radish cover crops are employed, corn roots penetrate compacted subsoil at a rate twice that of cereal rye, and both cover crops significantly enhance rooting when compared to leaving the land bare. This indicates that fodder radish could serve as a viable biological alternative to mechanical techniques such as deep ripping in order to alleviate soil compaction.[44]
Effects on weedsFodder radish reduces weed growth during and after their active growth periods. It is recommended to sow radish early, at least six weeks before frost, and at a relatively high density of more than five plants per square foot, into a well-prepared seed bed in order to complete weed control.[45,46]
Effects on nitrogen leachingDuring the fallow season in autumn and winter, agricultural soils are particularly susceptible to the danger of nitrogen (N) leaching. However, the use of fodder radish can be beneficial as it has a deep root system and quickly extends its roots, making it an excellent scavenger of residual N. This crop is capable of absorbing N from both topsoil and deeper soil layers.[47,48]
Effects on mineral accumulationFodder radish has also been found to be excellent accumulators of both phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) due to their unique root system. As they grow, they absorb P and K from the soil and store them in their roots, making these nutrients readily available to other plants in the soil. [42]
Effects on soil erosion and run-offFodder radish serves as an effective means to manage soil erosion and run-off by enabling water infiltration.[49]
Effects on nematodesRadish has also been found to control soil-borne diseases such as nematodes. For example, a recent study indicated that incorporating various brassica crops resulted in beneficial nematode population reductions. Some radish crops tested stood out, exhibiting the most significant reduction in root-knot nematode populations. During harvest, radish plots had fewer ring nematodes compared to bare plots, with the lowest reproduction rate among all treatments.[50]
Table 2. Chemical composition of different cultivars of fodder radish (% DM).
Table 2. Chemical composition of different cultivars of fodder radish (% DM).
CultivarsPPYieldCPCFNDFADFAshTCEEReference
NBH-White QueenL 13.2319.92--11.5347.543.41[48]
Giant white globeL-23.5---27.7-3.1[52]
Icheom Ge-GeolT12.221.351.11--1.55-0.27[52]
KoreanT8.550.750.71--0.65-0.19[52]
FiglL-26.728.4--16.716.73.5[52]
MinoT-8.7923.75--23.42-1.43[62]
KwandongL719.5230.22--19.7325.402.70[52]
YongdongL7.421.7933.13--20.6024.052.81[52]
ChongilpungL7.223.0329.29--17.7227.092.82[52]
TamsureumL7.120.8434.34--18.7323.291.62[52]
MinongdanbaekL12.4320.0926.76--16.0726.720.19[52]
Hunter brassicaL8.618.78-27.7021.04---[58]
Daikon radishL7.315.9-32.924.6---[58]
Malwira turnip rapeL4.318.1-24.717.3---[58]
Purple top turnipL4.221.5-28.921.1---[58]
Tillape radishL6.413.4-51.634.5---[58]
WinfredL6.819.3-29.821.7---[58]
Graza radishL10.519.84-45.6628.07---[58]
PP: plant part, L: leaves, T: tuber, CP: crude protein, CF: crude fiber, NDF: neutral detergent fiber, ADF: acid detergent fiber, TC: total carbohydrates TH, EE: ether extract.
Table 3. Mineral composition of different cultivars of fodder radish (mg/kg DM).
Table 3. Mineral composition of different cultivars of fodder radish (mg/kg DM).
CultivarsPPCaPMgKNaReference
Giant White GlobeT48995838209668,096752[52]
L18,724344240365605496[52]
MinoT8700-690035,100-[62]
JarolaT157-1032799192[63]
MiyashigeT130-872621238[63]
Daikon radish L77003700250023,100400[58]
Malwira Turnip rapeL17,6002900330031,900300[58]
Purple top turnipL30,1003300560039,7003100[58]
Tillape radishL16,9002600500020,9001900[58]
WinfredL19,5003500750032,6002500[58]
PP: plant part, L: leaf, T: tuber, Ca: calcium, P: phosphorus, Mg: Magnesium, K: potassium, Na: sodium.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mbambalala, L.; Rani, Z.T.; Mpanza, T.D.E.; Mthana, M.S.; Ncisana, L.; Mkhize, N.R. Fodder Radish as a Potential Alternative Feed Source for Livestock in South Africa. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1625. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13081625

AMA Style

Mbambalala L, Rani ZT, Mpanza TDE, Mthana MS, Ncisana L, Mkhize NR. Fodder Radish as a Potential Alternative Feed Source for Livestock in South Africa. Agriculture. 2023; 13(8):1625. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13081625

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mbambalala, Lwando, Zikhona Theodora Rani, Thamsanqa Doctor Empire Mpanza, Makiwa Simeon Mthana, Lusanda Ncisana, and Ntuthuko Raphael Mkhize. 2023. "Fodder Radish as a Potential Alternative Feed Source for Livestock in South Africa" Agriculture 13, no. 8: 1625. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13081625

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop