evaluacion nutricional ensilaje heces y melaza

7/27/2019 Evaluacion Nutricional Ensilaje Heces y Melaza

1/8

.Animal Feed Science Technology 70 1998 257264

Nutritional evaluation of cattle manure silage withmolasses for ruminants

A.M.M. Martnez-Avalos a,), G.D. Mendoza b, M.A. Cobos b,S. Gonzalez b, C.M. Garca-Bojalil b, R. Barcena b

aInstituto Nacional de Inestigaciones Forestales Agrcolas y Pecuarias, km 15.5 Carretera Mexico-Toluca,

Palo Alto, Mexico D.F. 05110, Mexicob

Colegio de Postgraduados, Programa de Ganadera, Montecillo, Estado de Mexico 56230, Mexico

Accepted 12 December 1996

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the nutritional quality of cattle manure silage for

ruminants. In experiment 1 a silage containing 50% cattle manure, 20% cane molasses containing.0.4% urea mixed with water in a 1:1.5 ratio, and 30% corn stover replaced 0, 50, 75 and 100% of

. .corn stover in isonitrogenous diets 1.92% N containing 70 or 80% corn stover dry matter DM. ..basis in a 4=2 factorial arrangement. Forty lambs 34.5"3.2 kg body weight BW were used

to measure apparent digestibility and nitrogen balance in a completely randomized design with .factorial arrangement 4=2 with five lambs per treatment. The cattle manure silage was also

.evaluated in growing Holstein heifers 212"32 kg BW replacing 0, 25 or 37.5% of corn stover .with cattle manure silage in isonitrogenous diets 2.24% N . Apparent digestibility of DM, organic

. . .matter OM , neutral detergent fibre NDF and acid detergent fibre ADF were not affected.

According to these results, digestibility is not affected by the level of cattle manure silage;

however, intake was depressed at the highest levels of silage in lambs. Cattle manure silage maybe considered as a potential by-product to be included in heifers diet up to 37.5%, apparently

without affecting performance. Recycling cattle manure through silage for ruminants is a viable

alternative. q 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Cattle manure; Silage; Digestibility; Lambs; Sheep

1. Introduction

Cattle manure is an important low quality product which can be used as a feed for

ruminants to reduce feeding costs and to reduce animal waste pollution. To utilize cattle

)

Corresponding author.

0377-8401r98r$19.00 q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. .PII S 0 3 7 7 - 8 4 0 1 9 7 0 0 0 0 7 - 2


2/8

( )A.M.M. Martnez-Aalos et al.rAnimal Feed Science Technology 70 1998 257264258

.manure as a feedstuff, different processes dehydration, compost, and silage have been . .employed Muller, 1984 ; however, Arndt et al. 1979 concluded that ensiling offered

.more advantages than other processes and improves product palatability Brady, 1966 .

Three methods commonly used for ensiling cattle manure are the wastelage process . . Brady, 1966 , excremielage Hardy and Elas, 1974 and biofermel Alvarez et al.,

.1979 . All are anaerobic fermentations and use cattle manure, molasses, and lignocellu- .losic by-products in different proportions. Cobos 1987 developed a mixture to obtain a

desirable fermentation process of cattle manure. Using the mixture recommended by .Cobos 1987 to ensile cattle manure, two experiments were conducted to evaluate the

nutritional value of diets with different proportions of cattle manure silage. The first trial

was to evaluate apparent digestibility in lambs at two proportions of forage in the diet,

and the second was to evaluate the performance of growing heifers with cattle manure

silage in the ration.

2. Materials and methods

.Fresh manure from lactating dairy cows Holstein fed corn silage and commercial .concentrate 50:50 forage:concentrate ratio was collected in the morning and mixed

with molasses, urea and water in the following proportions: cattle manure, 50%; corn

stover, 30%; molassesurea solution, 20%. Urea was added to the molasses at 0.4%, and .then this combination was mixed with water in a 1:1.5 ratio. On a dry matter DM

basis, silage comprised 13.6% cattle manure, 50.0% corn stover and 36.3% molasses 3.

urea. The silage process was carried out in concrete silos 1.7 m . Corn stover was .chopped 3 cm before addition. Silage was opened after 45 days of fermentation.

Dry matter of silage was determined by toluene distillation, and organic matter andnitrogen were analyzed by standard methods Association of Official Analytical

. .Chemists, 1980 . Gross energy was determined by bomb calorimetry Hill et al., 1958 . . .Neutral detergent fiber NDF , acid detergent fiber ADF , and acid detergent insoluble

.N were determined by the procedures outlined by Goering and Van Soest 1970 .

Immediately after opening the silage, the pH was registered, then the lactate concentra- . . .tion Barnett, 1951 and volatile fatty acids VFA Erwin et al., 1961 were measured.

Ammonia nitrogen was determined by steam distillation Association of Official Analyt-.ical Chemists, 1980 and soluble N by the method suggested by Krishnamoorthy et al.

.1982 .

2.1. Experiment 1

..Forty Suffolk lambs 34.5"3.2 kg initial body weight BW were randomly .assigned to treatments Table 1 . Cattle manure silage was used to substitute corn stover

. .in complete diets 0, 50, 75 and 100% at two levels of forage in the diet 70 or 80% . .Rations were formulated to contain 12% crude protein CP .

Collection of total feces was carried after sheep were fed a constant amount of feed,allowing 10% refusal, for 21 days. Urine was collected in containers with HCl to avoid

ammonia-N losses. Feed, orts, urine and total feces were collected as described by .Harris 1972 to determine apparent digestibility and nitrogen balance.


3/8

( )A.M.M. Martnez-Aalos et al.rAnimal Feed Science Technology 70 1998 257264 259

Table 1 . aComposition of the diets % in experiment 1

b70:30 80:20

c0% 50% 75% 100% 0% 50% 75% 100%

Cattle manure silage 35.0 52.5 70.0 40.0 60.0 80.0

Corn stover 70.0 35.0 17.5 80.0 40.0 20.0

Sorghum grain 12.7 15.8 17.4 18.9 1.6 5.1 6.8 8.6

Soybean meal 17.3 14.2 12.6 11.1 18.4 14.9 13.2 11.4

( )Analyses %

DM 94.5 68.2 60.7 54.9 94.7 65.4 61.2 52.9

OM 93.2 92.1 90.8 91.4 92.5 91.6 91.9 90.6

CP 12.0 11.9 11.3 11.2 11.8 12.0 11.2 10.7

NDF 70.7 67.8 64.1 64.7 73.0 66.2 62.2 66.9

ADF 34.8 33.6 30.4 30.0 40.6 38.3 36.0 34.0

a

Dry matter basis.bForage:concentrate ratio.

cPercentage of corn stover replaced by cattle manure silage.

Data were analyzed according to a completely randomized design Steel and Torrie,. .1980 with a factorial arrangement of treatments 4=2 using the GLM procedure

.Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., 1985 . Factors were levels of cattle manure

Table 2

.a

Analyses of cattle manure silage and composition of the diets % in experiment 2Cattle manure silage Diets

Ingredient

Cattle manure silage 37.5

Corn stover 50.0 25.0 12.5

Sorghum grain 29.0 32.1 33.2

Soybean meal 21.0 17.9 16.8

.Analyses %

DM 47.4 92.5 76.2 67.9

OM 85.2 94.9 92.2 89.4

CP 7.4 14.4 15.1 5.2NDF 51.3 37.2 37.9 37.1

ADF 42.0 22.4 24.7 23.8

y1 .VFA g l

Acetate 1.8

Propionate .9

Butyrate .6

Lactate 4.1

.Nitrogen fraction % of total N

Soluble 52.8 40.4 36.2 29.0Insoluble 47.2 59.6 63.8 70.9

N-ADF 47.5 1.3 1.2 1.4

aDry matter basis.


4/8


silage and proportion of forage in the diet. Mean treatments were compared with the

Tukey test. Response variables were also analyzed by regression as a function of cattle .manure silage levels Steel and Torrie, 1980 .

2.2. Experiment 2

.Fifteen Holstein growing heifers 212"32 kg initial BW were randomly assigned to .treatments Table 2 . Cattle manure silage was used to substitute corn stover in complete

.diets 0, 50 and 75% in diets with 50% forage. Rations were formulated to contain 14%

CP. Total mixed diets were fed to allow 10% refusal. .The adaptation period was 13 days. Animal weight was registered 14 h fasting

every 15 days in 2 consecutive days. The experimental period lasted 60 days. Water and

mineral supplement were available ad libitum throughout the trial. Dry matter intake was

measured in individual crates. On day 60, a ruminal fluid sample was taken through the

esophagus.Data were analyzed according to a completely randomized design Steel and Torrie,

.1980 with five replications, using the GLM procedure of the Statistical Analysis .Systems Institute Inc. 1985 .

3. Results and discussion

After 45 days of fermentation, manure silage presented adequate characteristics such

.as color, odor and pH 4.9 . To obtain desirable fermentation characteristics in silage, .the proportions of urea nitrogen , soluble carbohydrates and water should be taken into

.account; Cobos 1987 reported that fresh dairy cow manure can be ensiled properlywhen DM in the mixture is lower than 40%, and the ratio of soluble carbohydrates from

. .molasses to urea is between 12 and 20:1. Williams 1979 indicated that 40% DM and

58% of soluble carbohydrates in water stimulate lactic fermentation in silage. .The crude protein content of the silage was low Table 2 compared with similar

.silages Conrman et al., 1981; Jakhmola et al., 1984 . The differences can be associated

with the composition of the fresh manure used in the silage. The insoluble nitrogen

fraction is associated with ADF, and therefore is not available for the animal Van Soest,.1982 . However, values obtained for the other nutrients are similar to reported values

.Cobos, 1987 .

3.1. Experiment 1

.Using values of metabolizable energy ME for sheep for sorghum grain, soybean .meal and corn stover NRC, 1975 , assuming methane loss to be 8% of energy intake

. y1 .Blaxter, 1962 and a loss of 5.4 kcal g N excreted in urine McDonald et al., 1979 ,

an ME value of 2.4 Mcal kgy1

for cattle manure silage was estimated in this trial. This y1 .value is higher than that estimated 2.04 Mcal kg DM from in vitro digestibility trials

.carried out by Cobos 1987 with the same type of silage. However, associative effects

make it difficult to determine with precision the energy value of the silage.


5/8


Table 3

Intake, digestibility and nitrogen balance of lambs feed with cattle manure silage at two levels of forage in

experiment 1

a70:30 80:20

b c0% 50% 75% 100% 0% 50% 75% 100% SEM

d y1 .DMI kg day 1.31a 1.22ab 1.14abc 0.92cd 1.14abc 1.00bcd 1.04bcd 0.87d 0.14 .Digestibility %

DM 62.0ab 55.9bc 58.6bc 53.0c 60.0abc 60.6abc 65.6a 60.1abc 3.5

OM 64.7ab 59.4b 61.3ab 59.8b 62.2ab 62.6ab 68.8a 63.2ab 2.8

CP 68.3a 54.0c 58.5ab 51.5c 64.7ab 66.0ab 68.0a 56.2bc 6.2

NDF 67.0a 57.5ab 57.0ab 54.6b 65.6ab 57.9ab 68.0a 63.4ab 4.8

ADF 48.5abc 42.3bc 42.5bc 39.1c 58.5a 56.0a 58.9a 53.3ab 7.3

Energy 59.7ab 54.6b 50.7ab 56.1ab 58.6ab 59.3ab 65.5a 59.3ab 4.0y1 .Nitrogen g day

Intake 28.8a 26.0ab 22.5b 17.4ef 24.8bc 22.3cd 21.2de 15.4f 4.1

Fecal 9.2ab 11.5a 9.4ab 8.66ab 8.8ab 7.6b 6.9b 6.8b 1.4

Urine 11.3a 7.5ab 7.4ab 6.1ab 9.3ab 9.9ab 8.3ab 5.4b 1.8

Retained 8.3 7.1 5.8 2.8 6.7 4.9 6.0 3.3 1.7

aForage:concentrate ratio.

bPercentage of corn stover replaced by cattle manure silage.

c .Standard error of the means ns5 .d

Dry matter intake. .Means in rows followed by different letters are different P-0.05 .

.Lambs fed a diet with a forage:concentrate ratio of 80:20 had lower P-0.05 intake .than those fed a diet with a 70:30 ratio. Intake was linearly P-0.05 reduced as cattle

.manure silage was increased in the ration Table 3 . Several studies have shown atendency to reduce intake at elevated proportions of manure silages Jakhmola et al.,

.1984; Mendoza et al., 1992 , and this has been associated with the concentration of

indigestible cell wall components in the manure and its effect on ruminal fill and .retention time Staples et al., 1981; Johnson et al., 1982 .

.The digestibility of diets with 30% concentrate was lower P-0.05 than that of .diets with 20% concentrate Table 3 . Negative associative effects of concentrate on

forage digestibility have been reported elsewhere Mould et al., 1983r1984; Plata et al.,.1994 and are associated with a decrease in pH, which is considered to affect the

.cellulolytic activity of ruminal bacteria Russell and Dombrowsky, 1980 . .Regression analyses showed a negative effect P-0.05 of cattle manure silage level

on digestibility of DM, CP, NDF, ADF, and energy. Other differences among treatments

are presented in Table 3. The highest level of cattle manure silage in rations with a .70:30 forage:concentrate ratio had the lowest digestibility. Conrman et al. 1981 did not

find any effect of cattle manure silage on digestibility among levels of 2535% and .Cobos 1987 detected differences between a control diet and a treatment with 65.5% of

cattle manure silage which is similar to the maximum level used in this trial. .Nitrogen intake was linearly P-0.05 decreased as cattle manure was added to the

ration, and was associated with a lower DM intake. Nitrogen excreted was also reduced; . .however, differences in nitrogen balance were not detected Table 4 . Cobos 1987


6/8


Table 4

Ruminal fermentation and performance of heifers fed with cattle manure silage in experiment 2

a50:50

b c0% 50% 75% SEM

Ruminal pH 6.2 6.2 6.3 0.12y1 .Ammonia-N mg dl 27.7 28.6 29.4 1.44

Molar percentage

Acetate 63.1 63.4 62.6 0.65

Propionate 18.9 17.6 17.8 1.14

Butyrate 17.9 19.0 19.6 1.40d y1 .DMI kg day 9.49 9.01 8.63 0.70

y1 .Avg. daily gain kg day 0.92 0.88 0.71 0.17

Feed conversion 10.4 10.2 13.4 2.92

aForage:concentrate ratio.

bPercentage of corn stover replaced by cattle manure silage.

c .Standard error of the means ns5 .d

Dry matter intake.

found a negative nitrogen balance only when cattle manure silage was at 65.5%.

Although there were no negative balances in this study, the amount of nitrogen retainedis low, as observed in other experiments Newton et al., 1977; Conrman et al., 1981;

.Staples et al., 1981 .

3.2. Experiment 2

Differences in animal performance were not detected and this could be partially

explained by the reduced number of experimental units, as there was a tendency to

reduce intake and average daily gain as cattle manure silage was increased in the diet .Table 4 . Similar effects were detected with the same type of animals and silage by

.Mendoza et al. 1992 . Also in other experiments, increasing cattle manure silagereduced intake and average daily gain Newton et al., 1977; Harpster et al., 1978;

.Johnson et al., 1982 . .

Ruminal pH, ammonia-N and VFA pattern were similar among treatments Table 4 .Levels of ruminal ammonia-N concentration were sufficient to meet microbial require- .ments, estimates of which vary from 5 mg NH -N per 100 ml Satter and Slyter, 19743

.to 23 mg NH -N per 100 ml Mehrez et al., 1977 . Using the same type of cattle manure3 .silage, Cobos 1987 did not observe variations in the VFA pattern; however, other types

.of silages have shown increases in the acetic:propionic ratio Alvarez et al., 1979 .

4. Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that cattle manure silage can be used to feed

ruminants. However, inclusion levels of over 50% of total DM reduce intake, digestibil-

ity, and nitrogen balance. The performance results indicate that cattle manure silage has


7/8


the potential to be included in heifers rations up to 37.5% of DM. Processing cattle

manure by ensiling could reduce feeding costs and the recycling of animal waste may

help to reduce pollution.

References

Alvarez, R., Pacheco, V., Perez-Gavilan, J.P.E., Pouson, I., Viniegra, G., 1979. Sustitucion de maz por .Biofermel melaza, estiercol fermentados en dietas para bovinos. Rev. Cubana Cienc. Agric. 13, 8391.

Arndt, D.L., Day, D.L., Hatfield, E.E., 1979. Processing and handling of animal excreta for re-feeding. J.

Anim. Sci. 48, 157162.

Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1980. Official Methods of Analysis, 14th ed. AOAC, Washing-

ton, DC.

Barnett, A.J.G., 1951. The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in silage. Biochem. J. 49, 527529.

Blaxter, L.K., 1962. Metabolismo Energetico de los Animales. Acribia Publishers, Zaragoza, Spain.Brady, A.W., 1966. Utilization of animal waste as feed for ruminants. Proc. Natl. Symp. on Animal Waste

Management, Michigan, USA, pp. 109112.

Cobos, P.M.A., 1987. Evaluacion nutricional de ensilados a base estiercol, melaza y rastrojo de maz en la alimentacion de bovinos. Tesis Maestra en Ciencias, Centro de Ganadera, Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo, Edo. de Mexico.

Conrman, A.W., Lamm, W.D., Webb, K.E. Jr., Fontenot, J.P., 1981. Ensiling cattle waste with rye straw as a

diet supplement for ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 52, 12331239.

Erwin, E.S., Marco, G.J., Emery, E., 1961. Volatile fatty acid analysis of blood and rumen fluid by gas

chromatography. J. Dairy Sci. 44, 17681776.Goering, H.K., Van Soest, P.J., 1970. Forage Fiber Analysis Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures and Some

.Applications . USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 379, Washington, DC, pp. 137.

Hardy, C., Elas, A., 1974. Una nota sobre algunas caractersticas qumicas del ensilaje de excreta y miel final in vitro. Rev. Cubana Cienc. Agric. 8, 293297.

Harpster, H.W., Long, T.A., Wilson, L.L., 1978. Comparative value of ensiled cattle for lambs and growing

finishing cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 46, 238248.

Harris, L.E., 1972. Metodos para el analisis qumico y la evaluacion biologica de alimentos para animales. University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 50015301.

Hill, W.H., Seals, J., Montiegel, E., 1958. Destruction of animal and vegetable tissue by combustion in the

Parr oxygen bomb. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 19, 378.

Jakhmola, R.C., Kamra, D.N., Singh, R., Pathak, N.N., 1984. Fermentation of cattle waste for animal feeding.

Agric. Wastes 10, 229235.

Johnson, W.L., Rodrguez, F., Oliveira, E., Mercio, T., Wilk, J.C., 1982. Reffeding value of screened bovinemanure solids. J. Anim. Sci. 55, 700715.

Krishnamoorthy, N., Muscato, T.V., Sniffed, C.J., Van Soest, P.J., 1982. Nitrogen fractions in selected

feedstuffs. J. Dairy Sci. 65, 217223.

McDonald, P., Edwards, R.A., Greenhalgh, J.F.D., 1979. Nutricion animal. 2a Ed. Acribia, Zaragoza, Spain.Mehrez, A., Orskov, E.R., McDonald, I., 1977. I. Rates of rumen fermentation in relation to ammonia

concentration. Br. J. Nutr. 38, 437.

Mendoza, M.G.D., Cobos, P.M., Ricalde, V.R., 1992. Ensilados a base de estiercol de ganado lechero, melazay rastrojo de maz en la alimentacion de becerras Holstein. Cienc. Agrop. FAUANL 5, 37.

Mould, F.L., Orskov, E.R., Mann, S.O., 1983r1984. Associative effects of mixed feeds. I. Effects of type and

level of supplementation and the influence of the rumen fluid pH on cellulolysis in vivo and dry matter

digestion of various roughages. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 10, 15.

Muller, Z.O., 1984. Feed from animal wastes: feeding manual. Anim. Prod. Health Pap. 28, FAO, Rome, pp.

124.

Newton, G.L., Utley, P.R., Ritter, R.J., McCormick, W.C., 1977. Performance of beef cattle fed wastelage and

digestibility of wastelage and dried waste diets. J. Anim. Sci. 44, 447451.


8/8


NRC, 1975. Nutrient Requirements of Sheep. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, pp. 811.Plata, P.F., Mendoza, G.D., Barcena, G., S. Gonzalez, M., 1994. Effect of a yeast culture Saccharomyces

.cereisiae on neutral detergent fiber digestion in steers fed oat straw diets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 49,

203210.

Russell, J.B., Dombrowski, D.B., 1980. Effect of pH on the efficiency of growth by pure cultures of rumen

bacteria in continuous culture. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 39, 604610.

Satter, L.D., Slyter, L.L., 1974. Effect of ammonia concentration on rumen microbial protein in vitro. Br. J.Nutr. 32, 199208.

Staples, C.R., Fahey, G.C. Jr., Rindsig, R.B., Berger, L.L., 1981. Evaluation of dairy wastes fiber as a

roughage source for ruminants. J. Dairy Sci. 64, 662671.

Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., 1985. SAS Users Guide: Statistics. Version 5 ed. SAS Institute

Inc., Cary, NC.

Steel, R.G., Torrie, J.H., 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach, 2nd ed.

McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 132168.

Van Soest, P.J., 1982. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Ruminant Metabolism, Nutritional Strategies, the

Cellulolytic Fermentation and the Chemistry of Forage and Plant Fibers. O&B Books, Corvallis, OR.

Williams, L.J., 1979. Nutritional aspects of re-feeding cattle manure to ruminants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27,

413.

evaluacion nutricional ensilaje heces y melaza

Documents