effect of animal dung as feed on production performance of cattle and buffalo (by m. nauman manzoor)

8/7/2019 Effect of Animal Dung as Feed on Production Performance of Cattle and Buffalo (by M. Nauman Manzoor)

1/25

11

Effect of Animal Dung asEffect of Animal Dung as

Feed on productionFeed on productionperformance of Cattle andperformance of Cattle and

BuffaloBuffalo

M. Nauman Manzoor

2001-ag-1467Institute of Animal Nutrition and Feed

TechnologyUniversity of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan


2/25

22

IntroductionIntroductionPakistan is facing feed shortagePakistan is facing feed shortage

Required CP & TDN are 10.9 & 90.36Required CP & TDN are 10.9 & 90.36

million tons respectively but available aremillion tons respectively but available are

6.7 & 69 only6.7 & 69 only

Our animals are deficient 38.1 % in CP andOur animals are deficient 38.1 % in CP and24.02 % in TDN24.02 % in TDN

Continue.Continue.


3/25

33

Animals are getting their nutrients from:Animals are getting their nutrients from:

Fodders & crop residues 51 %Fodders & crop residues 51 %

Rangelands 38 %Rangelands 38 %

Post harvest grazing 3 %Post harvest grazing 3 %

Cereal by products 6 %Cereal by products 6 %

andand

Oil cakes 2 %Oil cakes 2 %

(Sarwar(Sarwaret alet al., 2002)., 2002)


4/25

44

Animal Excreta as feedAnimal Excreta as feed

Animal Dung can be more valuable andAnimal Dung can be more valuable and

economical as feed for ruminantseconomical as feed for ruminants

The economical value of animal dungThe economical value of animal dung

as feed component in balanced rationas feed component in balanced ration

for several classes of ruminants mayfor several classes of ruminants maybe 3 to 10 times greater than theirbe 3 to 10 times greater than their

value as plant nutrientsvalue as plant nutrients

(Hadjitanayiotou(Hadjitanayiotou et alet al., 1993)., 1993)


5/25

55

Chemical Composition ofChemical Composition of

Buffalo DungBuffalo DungDM 10DM 10--25 %25 %CP 8CP 8--18 %18 %

NFE 14NFE 14--48 %48 %

EE 1EE 1--3 %3 %CF 23CF 23--52 %52 %

NDF 50NDF 50--63 %63 %

ADF 35ADF 35--42 %42 %

Cellulose 15Cellulose 15--23 %23 %

Hemicelluloses 16Hemicelluloses 16--21 %21 %

Lignin 9Lignin 9--21 %21 %

Ash 3Ash 3--21 %21 % (Jakhmola, 1988)(Jakhmola, 1988)


6/25

66

Chemical Composition ofChemical Composition of

Broiler LitterBroiler LitterDM 80.5 %DM 80.5 %CP 24.9 %CP 24.9 %

TDN 50 %TDN 50 %

CF 23.4 %CF 23.4 %Ash 24.7 %Ash 24.7 %

Ca 2.3 %Ca 2.3 %

P 1.6 %P 1.6 %

Cu 473 ppmCu 473 ppm

Mg 348 ppmMg 348 ppm

(Jacob(Jacob et alet al., 1997)., 1997)


7/25

77

Processing methods of AnimalProcessing methods of Animal

ExcretaExcretaScreeningScreening (Johnson(Johnson et alet al., 1982)., 1982)

DryingDrying(El(El--AshryAshry et alet al., 1985)., 1985)

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

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

EnsilingEnsiling (Jakhmola(Jakhmola et alet al., 1984)., 1984)


8/25

88

Fermentation of animalFermentation of animal

wastewasteAnaerobic conditions and lactic acidAnaerobic conditions and lactic acidproduction restrict the growth of Clostridiaproduction restrict the growth of Clostridiaand Coliform bacteriaand Coliform bacteria

Fermentation improves animal acceptability,Fermentation improves animal acceptability,

lower nutrient losses, eliminates pathogenslower nutrient losses, eliminates pathogensand deand de--odorize animal wasteodorize animal waste

(Pathak and Jakhmola, 1983)(Pathak and Jakhmola, 1983)

(Harmon(Harmon et alet al., 1975)., 1975)


9/25

99

Usage of Animal WasteUsage of Animal Waste

Animal waste can be beneficial in terms ofAnimal waste can be beneficial in terms of

fixing N in poor quality roughages like:fixing N in poor quality roughages like:

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

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

Rye StrawRye Straw (Cornman(Cornman et al.,et al., 1981)1981)

Rice HullsRice Hulls (Kwak(Kwak et alet al., 2004)., 2004)

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

Corn CobsCorn Cobs (Smith & Lindhal, 1978)(Smith & Lindhal, 1978)


10/25

1010

Influence of varying levels of fermented wheatInfluence of varying levels of fermented wheat

straw on nutrients intake in buffalo calvesstraw on nutrients intake in buffalo calves


Items Kg/dayItems Kg/day Diets (%)Diets (%)

FWS 0FWS 0 FWSFWS

1515

FWSFWS

2525

FWSFWS

3535

S.E.S.E.

Dry matterDry matter 4.254.25 4.854.85 5.755.75 5.945.94 0.350.35

Organic matterOrganic matter 3.733.73 4.194.19 5.015.01 5.135.13 0.310.31

Crude proteinCrude protein 0.5140.514 0.5820.582 0.690.69 0.7130.713 0.080.08

Neutral detergentNeutral detergent

fiberfiber

1.981.98 2.332.33 2.812.81 2.822.82 0.230.23

Acid detergentAcid detergent

fiberfiber

1.271.27 1.51.5 1.791.79 1.821.82 0.170.17

Ether extractEther extract 0.1270.127 0.1450.145 0.1720.172 0.1780.178 0.030.03

Energy (Mcal/day)Energy (Mcal/day) 9.529.52 10.8610.86 12.8812.88 13.3013.30 1.231.23


11/25

1111

Influence of varying levels of fermented wheatInfluence of varying levels of fermented wheat

straw on nutrients digestibilities in buffalo calvesstraw on nutrients digestibilities in buffalo calvesItems %Items % DietsDiets

FWS 0FWS 0 FWS 15FWS 15 FWS 25FWS 25 FWS 35FWS 35 S.E.S.E.

Dry matterDry matter 63.7563.75 64.3164.31 64.5064.50 64.4564.45 4.564.56Organic matterOrganic matter 66.566.5 67.2167.21 66.7666.76 66.8566.85 5.985.98

Crude proteinCrude protein 71.8571.85 71.9271.92 72.2172.21 72.0172.01 5.985.98

NDFNDF 61.3261.32 61.0261.02 60.9560.95 61.3361.33 4.854.85

ADFADF 54.354.3 55.0155.01 54.1254.12 55.3255.32 3.873.87

Ether extractEther extract 75.6275.62 74.9274.92 75.5475.54 75.4175.41 6.126.12

Continue.Continue.


12/25

1212

Digestibility of Nutrients by crossbred cattleDigestibility of Nutrients by crossbred cattle

calves fed varying levels of FWS with 4 %calves fed varying levels of FWS with 4 %

molasses, 4 % urea and 30 % cattle dungmolasses, 4 % urea and 30 % cattle dungItemsItems FWS 0 %FWS 0 % FWS 20FWS 20

%%

FWS 30FWS 30

%%

FWS 40FWS 40

%%

Dry MatterDry Matter 65.965.9 66.266.2 65.865.8 65.0965.09

Organic MatterOrganic Matter 68.8968.89 69.3969.39 69.0169.01 68.968.9

Crude ProteinCrude Protein 72.672.6 73.073.0 73.273.2 72.372.3

NDFNDF 61.2961.29 61.0961.09 60.8960.89 60.3160.31

ADFADF 56.0156.01 56.0956.09 55.4955.49 56.6456.64

Ether ExtractEther Extract 74.9274.92 74.874.8 74.6274.62 74.9174.91

(Afzal, 2004)(Afzal, 2004)


13/25

1313

Average DM and NDF digestibility of UntreatedAverage DM and NDF digestibility of Untreated

and Manure treated Wheat Strawand Manure treated Wheat Straw

(Qadir, 2004)(Qadir, 2004)

TrailsTrails A: Untreated Wheat StrawA: Untreated Wheat Straw B: Manure Ensiled WheatB: Manure Ensiled WheatStrawStraw

DMDM

DigestibilityDigestibility

NDFNDF


DMDM


NDFNDF


II 13.7713.77 42.742.7 15.3315.33 58.358.3

IIII 13.6613.66 40.1740.17 15.5315.53 56.956.9

MeanMean 13.7113.71 41.4341.43 15.4315.43 57.657.6


14/25

1414

Ruminal characteristics of cannulated Buffalo bullsRuminal characteristics of cannulated Buffalo bulls

fed diets containing different levels of fermentedfed diets containing different levels of fermented

wheat straw at 3 hourswheat straw at 3 hours

(Hasan, 2004)(Hasan, 2004)

ItemsItems FWS 0FWS 0 FWS 10FWS 10 FWS 20FWS 20 FWS 30FWS 30

NHNH33--N (mg/dl)N (mg/dl) 18.2918.29 21.121.1 24.3524.35 26.9126.91

pHpH 6.16.1 6.36.3 6.66.6 6.76.7

Total VFAsTotal VFAs

(mol/100mol)(mol/100mol)

149149 139139 135135 132132

AcetateAcetate 66.166.1 65.165.1 61.361.3 60.160.1

PropionatePropionate 20.9220.92 19.3219.32 19.0119.01 19.319.3

ButyrateButyrate 7.97.9 7.77.7 7.87.8 7.77.7


15/25

1515

Ruminal characteristics of cannulated Buffalo bullsRuminal characteristics of cannulated Buffalo bulls

fed diets containing different levels of fermentedfed diets containing different levels of fermented

wheat straw at 6 hourswheat straw at 6 hours

ItemsItems FWS 0FWS 0 FWSFWS

1010

FWSFWS

2020

FWS 30FWS 30

NHNH33--N (mg/dl)N (mg/dl) 17.8217.82 19.1419.14 22.422.4 23.1023.10pHpH 6.16.1 6.36.3 6.66.6 6.76.7

Total VFAsTotal VFAs

(mol/100mol)(mol/100mol)

145145 140140 143143 147147

AcetateAcetate 61.961.9 62.362.3 65.965.9 66.866.8

PropionatePropionate 21.9421.94 18.0118.01 19.1119.11 2020

ButyrateButyrate 7.87.8 7.97.9 88 8.108.10

Continue.Continue.


16/25

1616

Nitrogen balance and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) inNitrogen balance and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) in

buffalo bulls fed diets containing different levels ofbuffalo bulls fed diets containing different levels of

fermented wheat strawfermented wheat straw

ItemsItems FWS 0FWS 0 FWSFWS

1010

FWS 20FWS 20 FWS 30FWS 30

Nitrogen intakeNitrogen intake 153.2153.2 153.6153.6 154.5154.5 153.44153.44

Fecal NitrogenFecal Nitrogen 50.6550.65 50.5350.53 49.5849.58 49.0749.07

Urinary balanceUrinary balance 78.8878.88 79.979.9 80.280.2 80.580.5

Nitrogen balanceNitrogen balance 23.6723.67 23.1723.17 24.7224.72 23.8723.87% of Digestible N% of Digestible N

IntakeIntake

23.1523.15 22.5522.55 23.523.5 2323

BUN (mg/dl)BUN (mg/dl) 19.319.3 2020 19.519.5 21.0121.01

Continue.Continue.


17/25

1717

Influence of varying levels of fermented wheat strawInfluence of varying levels of fermented wheat straw

on Nitrogen balance in buffalo calveson Nitrogen balance in buffalo calves

ItemsItems DietsDietsFWS 0FWS 0 FWS 15FWS 15 FWS 25FWS 25 FWS 35FWS 35 S.E.S.E.

Nitrogen intake (g/day)Nitrogen intake (g/day) 82.2482.24 93.1293.12 110.4110.4 114.08114.08 6.156.15

Faecal nitrogen (g/day)Faecal nitrogen (g/day) 16.8916.89 18.8518.85 20.9020.90 21.0321.03 1.891.89

% of intake% of intake 20.5420.54 20.2420.24 18.9318.93 18.4318.43 1.561.56

Apparent absorption (g/d)Apparent absorption (g/d) 65.3565.35 74.2774.27 89.5089.50 93.0593.05 8.958.95


Urinary nitrogen (g/day)Urinary nitrogen (g/day) 8.568.56 9.219.21 10.8910.89 11.0211.02 2.162.16

Apparent retention (g/day)Apparent retention (g/day) 56.7956.79 65.0665.06 78.6178.61 82.0382.03 8.658.65


Nitrogen balance (g/day)Nitrogen balance (g/day) 25.4525.45 28.0628.06 31.7931.79 32.0532.05 3.463.46




18/25

1818

Influence of varying levels of fermented wheat strawInfluence of varying levels of fermented wheat straw

on weight gain and feed efficiency in buffalo calveson weight gain and feed efficiency in buffalo calves

Continue.Continue.

ItemsItems DietsDiets

FWSFWS

00

FWSFWS

1515

FWSFWS

2525

FWSFWS

3535

S.E.S.E.

Weight gain/Weight gain/dd

(gm)(gm)

495495 572572 645645 672672 22.522.5

FeedFeedconversionconversion

rationration

8.588.58 8.488.48 8.918.91 8.808.80 1.321.32


19/25

1919

Weight gain, feed efficiency, energy efficiency, FCR,Weight gain, feed efficiency, energy efficiency, FCR,

and cost of unit live weight gain by cross bred cattleand cost of unit live weight gain by cross bred cattle

calves fed varying levels of fermented wheat strawcalves fed varying levels of fermented wheat straw

with 4 % molasses, 4 % urea and 30 % cattle dungwith 4 % molasses, 4 % urea and 30 % cattle dung

(Afzal, 2004)(Afzal, 2004)

ItemsItems FWS 0FWS 0 FWS 20FWS 20 FWS 30FWS 30 FWS 40FWS 40

Weight Gain/day (g)Weight Gain/day (g) 350350 449.62449.62 485.51485.51 491.76491.76

DMI/Kg LWG (Kg)DMI/Kg LWG (Kg) 8.918.91 8.458.45 8.718.71 8.668.66

Energy/Kg LWG (MCal)Energy/Kg LWG (MCal) 19.9119.91 18.9318.93 19.5119.51 19.4019.40

D.E/Kg LWG (MCal/Kg)D.E/Kg LWG (MCal/Kg) 13.1513.15 12.5312.53 12.8412.84 12.6212.62

FCRFCR 0.1120.112 0.1180.118 0.1140.114 0.1160.116

Cost/Unit LWGCost/Unit LWG(Rs.)(Rs.) 40.540.5 34.3834.38 32.9132.91 30.0830.08


20/25

2020

Performance of lactating cows fed differentPerformance of lactating cows fed different

amounts of processed Poultry Excreta in totalamounts of processed Poultry Excreta in total

mixed rationsmixed rations

(Arave(Arave et alet al., 1990)., 1990)

ItemsItems 0 %0 % 5.9 %5.9 % 11.7 %11.7 % 17.4 %17.4 %

BW (Kg)BW (Kg) 583583 621621 548548 573573

DMI (Kg/100 Kg BW)DMI (Kg/100 Kg BW) 3.43.4 3.33.3 3.63.6 3.43.4

DMI (Kg/day)DMI (Kg/day) 19.819.8 20.620.6 19.619.6 19.419.4

Milk (Kg/day)Milk (Kg/day) 28.228.2 28.628.6 26.926.9 27.227.2

Fat (Kg/day)Fat (Kg/day) 0.910.91 1.031.03 0.950.95 0.910.91

FCM (Kg/day)FCM (Kg/day) 2525 26.826.8 2525 24.524.5


21/25

2121

Milk yield and composition of NiliMilk yield and composition of Nili--Ravi buffalo fedRavi buffalo fed

diets containing different levels of FWSdiets containing different levels of FWS

(Hasan, 2004)(Hasan, 2004)

ItemsItems FWS 0FWS 0 FWS 10FWS 10 FWS 20FWS 20 FWS 30FWS 30Milk yield Kg/dayMilk yield Kg/day 9.169.16 9.819.81 9.989.98 10.1810.18

Milk yield 4 % FCMMilk yield 4 % FCM 10.3710.37 11.4711.47 11.6711.67 11.9411.94

Fat %Fat % 4.914.91 5.115.11 5.815.81 5.515.51

Protein %Protein % 2.752.75 3.43.4 4.774.77 3.493.49

Total Solids %Total Solids % 14.2514.25 14.1214.12 15.115.1 14.4114.41

Solids not Fat %Solids not Fat % 9.949.94 9.759.75 10.5410.54 9.949.94

Fat kg/dayFat kg/day 0.440.44 0.50.5 0.580.58 0.560.56

Protein kg/dayProtein kg/day 0.280.28 0.390.39 0.560.56 0.420.42

Total Solids kg/dayTotal Solids kg/day 1.471.47 1.631.63 1.761.76 1.721.72

Solids not Fat kg/daySolids not Fat kg/day 1.031.03 1.121.12 1.231.23 1.191.19

Milk Urea NitrogenMilk Urea Nitrogen

(mg/dl)(mg/dl)

21.6621.66 24.2924.29 26.9426.94 28.1128.11


22/25

2222

Environmental Concerns ofEnvironmental Concerns of

Animal WasteAnimal WasteAnimal waste causes N and P leaching toAnimal waste causes N and P leaching to

the soil, water and airthe soil, water and air

Excess of N and P from animal manureExcess of N and P from animal manure

may spread out from the area of animalmay spread out from the area of animal

production and cause Nitrate pollution inproduction and cause Nitrate pollution indrinking water for humans and livestockdrinking water for humans and livestock

(Jacques(Jacques et alet al., 1989)., 1989)


23/25

2323

Health RisksHealth Risks

Salmonella, ESalmonella, E--Coli and CampylobacterColi and Campylobacterwere checked but not detected inwere checked but not detected in

processed broiler litterprocessed broiler litter

(Haapapuro, 1997)(Haapapuro, 1997)

(Jeffrey(Jeffrey et alet al., 1998)., 1998)

There may be a severe risk to health ofThere may be a severe risk to health of

animals and consumers due to wronganimals and consumers due to wrong

processing techniques. Extra care must beprocessing techniques. Extra care must betaken when using Animal Dung/Poultrytaken when using Animal Dung/Poultry

Litter as Feed for LivestockLitter as Feed for Livestock


24/25

2424

ConclusionsConclusions

Fermented Animal dung is a good andFermented Animal dung is a good andeconomical source to improve nutritiveeconomical source to improve nutritivevalue of roughagesvalue of roughages

Animal dung does not improve digestibilityAnimal dung does not improve digestibilityand FCR significantly but improvesand FCR significantly but improvesNutrients Intake, Ruminal Characteristics,Nutrients Intake, Ruminal Characteristics,Weight gain, milk quantity and qualityWeight gain, milk quantity and quality

Processing of Animal Waste is helpful toProcessing of Animal Waste is helpful toeliminate pollution caused by Animaleliminate pollution caused by Animalexcretaexcreta


25/25

2525

effect of animal dung as feed on production performance of cattle and buffalo (by m. nauman manzoor)

Documents