Animal Dung as a Feed resource

Document Sample
Animal Dung as a Feed resource Powered By Docstoc
					 Effect of Animal Dung as
    Feed on production
performance of Cattle and
           Buffalo
          M. Nauman Manzoor
              2001-ag-1467
             dhanak29@yahoo.com

  Institute of Animal Nutrition and Feed
               Technology
 University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
                                                   1
          Introduction
Pakistan is facing feed shortage

Required CP & TDN are 10.9 & 90.36
million tons respectively but available are
6.7 & 69 only

Our animals are deficient 38.1 % in CP and
24.02 % in TDN


                                 Continue….   2
Animals are getting their nutrients from:

Fodders & crop residues 51 %
Rangelands 38 %
Post harvest grazing 3 %
Cereal by products 6 %
and
Oil cakes 2 %


                                    al.,
                         (Sarwar et al., 2002)
                                                 3
 Animal Excreta as feed
Animal Dung can be more valuable and
economical as feed for ruminants

The economical value of animal dung
as feed component in balanced ration
for several classes of ruminants may
be 3 to 10 times greater than their
value as plant nutrients
                                        al.,
                    (Hadjitanayiotou et al., 1993)   4
Chemical Composition of
    Buffalo Dung
    10-
DM 10-25 %
    8-
CP 8-18 %
     14-
NFE 14-48 %
   1-
EE 1-3 %
   23-
CF 23-52 %
      50-
NDF 50-63 %
     35-
ADF 35-42 %
           15-
Cellulose 15-23 %
               16-
Hemicelluloses 16-21 %
        9-
Lignin 9-21 %
     3-
Ash 3-21 %               (Jakhmola, 1988)   5
Chemical Composition of
     Broiler Litter
DM 80.5 %
CP 24.9 %
TDN 50 %
CF 23.4 %
Ash 24.7 %
Ca 2.3 %
P 1.6 %
Cu 473 ppm
Mg 348 ppm

                         al.,
               (Jacob et al., 1997)
                                      6
Processing methods of Animal
          Excreta
  Screening                    al.,
                   (Johnson et al., 1982)



  Drying         (El-         al.,
                 (El-Ashry et al., 1985)



  Heat Treatment                       al.,
                            (Harmon et al., 1974)



  Chemical treatment (Lamm et al., 1979)
                              al.,



  Ensiling                  al.,
               (Jakhmola et al., 1984)
                                                    7
  Fermentation of animal
         waste
Anaerobic conditions and lactic acid
production restrict the growth of Clostridia
and Coliform bacteria

                         (Pathak and Jakhmola, 1983)



Fermentation improves animal acceptability,
lower nutrient losses, eliminates pathogens
    de-
and de-odorize animal waste

                                        al.,
                             (Harmon et al., 1975)
                                                       8
     Usage of Animal Waste
Animal waste can be beneficial in terms of
   fixing N in poor quality roughages like:

   Wheat Straw (Chaudhry et al., 1996)
                                 al.,

   Rice Straw (Kwak et al., 2004)
                        al.,

   Rye Straw (Cornman et al., 1981)
   Rice Hulls (Kwak et al., 2004)
                       al.,

   Ground Hay (Lamm et al., 1979)
                            al.,

   Corn Cobs (Smith & Lindhal, 1978)
                                              9
    Influence of varying levels of fermented wheat
       straw on nutrients intake in buffalo calves
Items Kg/day        Diets (%)
                    FWS 0 FWS       FWS       FWS         S.E.
                          15        25        35
Dry matter          4.25  4.85      5.75      5.94        0.35
Organic matter      3.73  4.19      5.01      5.13        0.31
Crude protein       0.514 0.582     0.69      0.713       0.08
Neutral detergent   1.98  2.33      2.81      2.82        0.23
fiber
Acid detergent      1.27    1.5     1.79      1.82        0.17
fiber
Ether extract       0.127   0.145   0.172     0.178       0.03
Energy (Mcal/day) 9.52      10.86   12.88     13.30       1.23
                                                 al.,
                                      (Sarwar et al., 2006)   10
                                          Continue….

   Influence of varying levels of fermented wheat
  straw on nutrients digestibilities in buffalo calves
Items %         Diets
                FWS 0    FWS 15 FWS 25 FWS 35 S.E.

Dry matter      63.75    64.31    64.50      64.45     4.56
Organic matter 66.5      67.21    66.76      66.85     5.98
Crude protein   71.85    71.92    72.21      72.01     5.98
NDF             61.32    61.02    60.95      61.33     4.85
ADF             54.3     55.01    54.12      55.32     3.87
Ether extract   75.62    74.92    75.54      75.41     6.12


                                                         11
      Digestibility of Nutrients by crossbred cattle
      calves fed varying levels of FWS with 4 %
      molasses, 4 % urea and 30 % cattle dung
Items             FWS 0 % FWS 20 FWS 30 FWS 40
                            %      %      %
Dry Matter        65.9      66.2      65.8       65.09
Organic Matter    68.89     69.39     69.01      68.9
Crude Protein     72.6      73.0      73.2       72.3
NDF               61.29     61.09     60.89      60.31
ADF               56.01     56.09     55.49      56.64
Ether Extract     74.92     74.8      74.62      74.91

                                        (Afzal, 2004)    12
     Average DM and NDF digestibility of Untreated
           and Manure treated Wheat Straw
Trails   A: Untreated Wheat Straw          B: Manure Ensiled Wheat
                                              Straw

         DM              NDF               DM                NDF
           Digestibility   Digestibility     Digestibility     Digestibility

I        13.77           42.7              15.33             58.3


II       13.66           40.17             15.53             56.9


Mean     13.71           41.43             15.43             57.6



                                                    (Qadir, 2004)        13
 Ruminal characteristics of cannulated Buffalo bulls
  fed diets containing different levels of fermented
               wheat straw at 3 hours
Items              FWS 0    FWS 10 FWS 20 FWS 30
NH3-N (mg/dl)      18.29    21.1     24.35     26.91
pH                 6.1      6.3      6.6       6.7
Total VFAs         149      139      135       132
  (mol/100mol)
Acetate            66.1     65.1     61.3      60.1
Propionate         20.92    19.32    19.01     19.3
Butyrate           7.9      7.7      7.8       7.7

                                    (Hasan, 2004)      14
                                       Continue….
 Ruminal characteristics of cannulated Buffalo bulls
  fed diets containing different levels of fermented
               wheat straw at 6 hours
Items              FWS 0   FWS     FWS        FWS 30
                             10      20
NH3-N (mg/dl)      17.82   19.14   22.4       23.10
pH                 6.1     6.3     6.6        6.7
Total VFAs         145     140     143        147
  (mol/100mol)
Acetate            61.9    62.3    65.9       66.8
Propionate         21.94   18.01   19.11      20
Butyrate           7.8     7.9     8          8.10
                                                       15
                                              Continue….
 Nitrogen balance and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) in
 buffalo bulls fed diets containing different levels of
                fermented wheat straw
Items               FWS 0   FWS      FWS 20    FWS 30
                              10
Nitrogen intake     153.2   153.6    154.5     153.44
Fecal Nitrogen      50.65   50.53    49.58     49.07
Urinary balance     78.88   79.9     80.2      80.5
Nitrogen balance    23.67   23.17    24.72     23.87
% of Digestible N   23.15   22.55    23.5      23
  Intake
BUN (mg/dl)         19.3    20       19.5      21.01
                                                        16
 Influence of varying levels of fermented wheat straw
         on Nitrogen balance in buffalo calves
Items                      Diets
                           FWS 0   FWS 15 FWS 25    FWS 35     S.E.
Nitrogen intake (g/day)    82.24   93.12   110.4    114.08     6.15
Faecal nitrogen (g/day)    16.89   18.85   20.90    21.03      1.89
% of intake                20.54   20.24   18.93    18.43      1.56
Apparent absorption (g/d) 65.35    74.27   89.50    93.05      8.95
% of intake                79.46   79.76   81.07    81.56      1.55
Urinary nitrogen (g/day)   8.56    9.21    10.89    11.02      2.16
Apparent retention (g/day) 56.79   65.06   78.61    82.03      8.65
% of intake                69.05   69.87   71.20    71.90      1.05
Nitrogen balance (g/day)   25.45   28.06   31.79    32.05      3.46
% of intake                30.97   30.13   28.79    28.09      0.21

                                                      al.,
                                           (Sarwar et al., 2006)   17
                                         Continue….


Influence of varying levels of fermented wheat straw
 on weight gain and feed efficiency in buffalo calves

   Items           Diets
                   FWS FWS        FWS    FWS    S.E.
                   0   15         25     35
          gain/d
   Weight gain/d   495     572    645    672    22.5
   (gm)
   Feed            8.58    8.48   8.91   8.80   1.32
   conversion
   ration


                                                       18
Weight gain, feed efficiency, energy efficiency, FCR,
and cost of unit live weight gain by cross bred cattle
calves fed varying levels of fermented wheat straw
with 4 % molasses, 4 % urea and 30 % cattle dung
Items                 FWS 0 FWS 20 FWS 30 FWS 40


Weight Gain/day (g)   350     449.62     485.51        491.76
DMI/Kg LWG (Kg)       8.91    8.45       8.71          8.66
Energy/Kg LWG (MCal) 19.91    18.93      19.51         19.40
D.E/Kg LWG (MCal/Kg) 13.15    12.53      12.84         12.62
FCR                   0.112   0.118      0.114         0.116
Cost/Unit LWG (Rs.)   40.5    34.38      32.91         30.08
                                       (Afzal, 2004)           19
   Performance of lactating cows fed different
  amounts of processed Poultry Excreta in total
                 mixed rations
Items              0%     5.9 %     11.7 %     17.4 %

BW (Kg)            583    621       548        573
DMI (Kg/100 Kg BW) 3.4    3.3       3.6        3.4

DMI (Kg/day)       19.8   20.6      19.6       19.4

Milk (Kg/day)      28.2   28.6      26.9       27.2

Fat (Kg/day)       0.91   1.03      0.95       0.91

FCM (Kg/day)       25     26.8      25         24.5


                                            al.,
                                  (Arave et al., 1990)   20
                                  Nili-
   Milk yield and composition of Nili-Ravi buffalo fed
        diets containing different levels of FWS
Items                   FWS 0   FWS 10   FWS 20      FWS 30
Milk yield Kg/day       9.16    9.81     9.98        10.18
Milk yield 4 % FCM      10.37   11.47    11.67       11.94
Fat %                   4.91    5.11     5.81        5.51
Protein %               2.75    3.4      4.77        3.49
Total Solids %          14.25   14.12    15.1        14.41
Solids not Fat %        9.94    9.75     10.54       9.94
Fat kg/day              0.44    0.5      0.58        0.56
Protein kg/day          0.28    0.39     0.56        0.42
Total Solids kg/day     1.47    1.63     1.76        1.72
Solids not Fat kg/day   1.03    1.12     1.23        1.19
Milk Urea Nitrogen      21.66   24.29    26.94       28.11
   (mg/dl)

                                         (Hasan, 2004)       21
Environmental Concerns of
      Animal Waste
Animal waste causes N and P leaching to
the soil, water and air

Excess of N and P from animal manure
may spread out from the area of animal
production and cause Nitrate pollution in
drinking water for humans and livestock

                                       al.,
                           (Jacques et al., 1989)
                                                    22
          Health Risks
            E-
Salmonella, E-Coli and Campylobacter
were checked but not detected in
processed broiler litter
                                     al.,
                         (Jeffrey et al., 1998)

There may be a severe risk to health of
animals and consumers due to wrong
processing techniques. Extra care must be
taken when using Animal Dung/Poultry
Litter as Feed for Livestock

                           (Haapapuro, 1997)      23
          Conclusions
Fermented Animal dung is a good and
economical source to improve nutritive
value of roughages

Animal dung does not improve digestibility
and FCR significantly but improves
Nutrients Intake, Ruminal Characteristics,
Weight gain, milk quantity and quality

Processing of Animal Waste is helpful to
eliminate pollution caused by Animal
excreta
                                           24
25

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:121
posted:2/15/2011
language:English
pages:25
Description: How to recycle animal dung and re-feed to animals