Energy balance and methane production in sheep fed chemically treated wheat straw

Sahoo, B.; Saraswat, M. L.; Haque, Nazmul; Khan, M. Y.

doi:10.1016/s0921-4488(99)00059-0

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Increased straw digestibility due to urea treatment has been well documented previously (Chenost and Kayouli, 1997;Madrid et al, 1997). Improvements in straw apparent digestibility as a result of treatment with calcium hydroxide and urea in combination have also been reported by Zaman and Owen (1990) and Sahoo et al (2000). Since the rumen is the primary site for fibre digestion, the increases in apparent digestibility of the treated straw were presumably due to increased rumen degradability resulted from increased susceptibility of structural carbohydrates of straw cell walls to rumen fermentation as well as more energy being made available for better growth of rumen microbes which degrade straw (Silva and Ørskov, 1988;Rai and Mudgal, 1988).…”

Section: Feed Intake and Nutrients Digestibilitysupporting

confidence: 52%

Effect of rice straw treatment on feed intake, rumen fermentation and milk production in lactating dairy cows

Wanapat¹,

Kang²,

Hankla³

et al. 2013

Afr. J. Agric. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of urea and urea-calcium hydroxide treated rice straws on feed intake, rumen fermentation and milk production in lactating dairy cows. Three multiparous Holstein crossbred dairy cows, mid-lactation with 365 ± 30 kg BW, were randomly assigned to receive three kinds of rice straw according to 3 × 3 Latin square design: untreated (T1), 2 × 2% ureacalcium hydroxide treated (T2) and 3% urea treated (T3). Based on the present findings, urea-calcium hydroxide could enhance the nutritive value of rice straw. In addition, dry matter intake (DMI) and nutrient digestibility (DM, CP, OM, NDF and ADF) were significantly increased by straw treatments (P<0.01), however, no difference between urea and urea-calcium hydroxide treatments was found. In contrast, ruminal pH and temperature were similar among treatments (P>0.05). Ruminal NH 3 -N concentration was increased in both treated straw groups while BUN was similar. While TVFA and C3 were improved in cows receiving urea and urea-calcium hydroxide treated rice straw, C2 and C4 remained stable. Furthermore, total bacterial and fungal zoospores were higher in the treated groups, while protozoa were not different. Ruminal viable bacterial groups were higher in the urea and ureacalcium hydroxide treated, except for proteolytic bacteria. Cows received treated rice straw consumed more N intake as well as N absorption (P < 0.05). Remarkably, the PD, microbial protein and EMPS were enhanced by treated straw. Urea-calcium hydroxide treated rice straw significantly (P < 0.05) increased milk yield and milk compositions. Based on this study, either 2 + 2% urea-calcium hydroxide or 3% urea treated rice straw could be fed to lactating dairy cows as for improvement of feed intake, nutrient digestibility, rumen fermentation and milk production, thus be recommended for use by dairy farmers.

show abstract

Section: Feed Intake and Nutrients Digestibilitysupporting

confidence: 52%

Effect of rice straw treatment on feed intake, rumen fermentation and milk production in lactating dairy cows

Wanapat¹,

Kang²,

Hankla³

et al. 2013

Afr. J. Agric. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, increased feeding of green oat fodder and berseem forage with the wheat straw diets lowered CH 4 production by 8% to 23% and 20% to 30%, respectively, depending on the ratios of green fodders in diets (Singh 2001). The urea-treated straw has also shown to lessen CH 4 emissions in sheep (Sahoo et al 1999). The use of molasses/urea multinutrient blocks has been found to be a cost-effective diet supplementation strategy with potential to reduce CH 4 emissions by 10% to 25% (Bowman et al 1992;Srivastava and Garg 2002) and to increase milk production at the same time.…”

Section: Supplementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enteric methane mitigation technologies for ruminant livestock: a synthesis of current research and future directions

Patra

2011

Environ Monit Assess

199

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enteric methane (CH(4)) emission in ruminants, which is produced via fermentation of feeds in the rumen and lower digestive tract by methanogenic archaea, represents a loss of 2% to 12% of gross energy of feeds and contributes to global greenhouse effects. Globally, about 80 million tonnes of CH(4) is produced annually from enteric fermentation mainly from ruminants. Therefore, CH(4) mitigation strategies in ruminants have focused to obtain economic as well as environmental benefits. Some mitigation options such as chemical inhibitors, defaunation, and ionophores inhibit methanogenesis directly or indirectly in the rumen, but they have not confirmed consistent effects for practical use. A variety of nutritional amendments such as increasing the amount of grains, inclusion of some leguminous forages containing condensed tannins and ionophore compounds in diets, supplementation of low-quality roughages with protein and readily fermentable carbohydrates, and addition of fats show promise for CH(4) mitigation. These nutritional amendments also increase the efficiency of feed utilization and, therefore, are most likely to be adopted by farmers. Several new potential technologies such as use of plant secondary metabolites, probiotics and propionate enhancers, stimulation of acetogens, immunization, CH(4) oxidation by methylotrophs, and genetic selection of low CH(4)-producing animals have emerged to decrease CH(4) production, but these require extensive research before they can be recommended to livestock producers. The use of bacteriocins, bacteriophages, and development of recombinant vaccines targeting archaeal-specific genes and cell surface proteins may be areas worthy of investigation for CH(4) mitigation as well. A combination of different CH(4) mitigation strategies should be adopted in farm levels to substantially decrease methane emission from ruminants. Evidently, comprehensive research is needed to explore proven and reliable CH(4) mitigation technologies that would be practically feasible and economically viable while improving ruminant production.

show abstract

“…The reduction of methane emission varied depending on the material used and the treatment. Sahoo et al (2000) observed that wheat straw treated with urea alone or with urea plus calcium hydroxide and stored for 21 days reduced methane production per kilogram digested organic matter per day in sheep. A study in Nellore Guzera beef steers fed sugarcane based diets showed that addition of 22 g nitrate/kg dry matter in the diet reduced methane emission by 32% and increased rumen ammonia concentration (Hulshof et al, 2012).…”

confidence: 96%

“…Urea is also the most used agent by smallmedium holder farmers, as it is not quite expensive and for ease in application (Malik et al, 2015). Fiber content of wheat straw treated using chemical as reported by Sahoo et al (2000Sahoo et al ( , 2002 is presented in Table 4. The crude protein and cellulose contents were increased as an addition of urea and storage for 21 days before feeding, while hemicellulose and lignin contents were decreased.…”

Section: Physical/mechanical Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural by-Products as Feed for Ruminants in Tropical Area: Nutritive Value and Mitigating Methane Emission

Yanti

Yayota

2017

RAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy balance and methane production in sheep fed chemically treated wheat straw

Cited by 17 publications

References 7 publications

Effect of rice straw treatment on feed intake, rumen fermentation and milk production in lactating dairy cows

Effect of rice straw treatment on feed intake, rumen fermentation and milk production in lactating dairy cows

Enteric methane mitigation technologies for ruminant livestock: a synthesis of current research and future directions

Agricultural by-Products as Feed for Ruminants in Tropical Area: Nutritive Value and Mitigating Methane Emission

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About