Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Utilization of oil palm co-products as feeds for livestock in Malaysia 247TABLE 6Effect of urea level at ensiling on chemical composition,fermentation characteristics, voluntary intake anddigestibility of oil palm frond silageParameterUrea level (% in DM)0 3 6Chemical compositionDry matter (%) 30.1 ab 30.7 a 28.6 bPercentage of dry matterCrude protein 6.7 c 11.4 b 17.2Organic cell contents 20.8 a 20.0 ab 13.0 cNDF 73.2 b 73.9 b 80.3 aFermentation characteristicspH value 3.78 a 4.89 b 7.81 cTotal acids (DM percent) 3.68 b 4.76 b 8.96 aComposition of acids (%)Lactic acid 91.0 a 37.4 b 13.0 cAcetic acid 6.1 c 25.8 b 72.9 aPropionic acid 0.1 b 3.8 a 0.8 bButyric acid 0.9 c 30.9 a 6.7 bAmmonia (% DM) 0.0 c 0.6 b 1.1 aVoluntary DM intake (g/day)Digestibility (%) 39.9 a 32.1 a 24.0 bDry matter 45.3 46.8 35.7Organic cell contents 100 91.7 86.1NDF 29.1 37.5 30.2TDN (DM%) 45.5 49.2 37.5Notes: DM = dry matter; NDF = neutral-detergent fibre; TDN = totaldigestible nutrient; a, b, c = means with different letters in a row differ(P
248Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesTABLE 9Intake and growth performance of beef cattle raised on OPF pellet based dietTreatmentMean DMI(kg/day)DM digestibility(%)Initial LW(kg)Final LW(kg)LWG(kg)Mid-abdomen(cm)10% CP 6.40 55.7 242.5 328.5 0.50 181–21412% CP 5.94 68.6 234.8 324.0 0.52 172–22614% CP 5.88 56.8 231.5 283.4 0.30 182–19215% CP 5.94 52.7 236.6 312.6 0.44 171–212Notes: DMI = dry matter intake; LW = live weight; LWG = live weight gain; CP = crude protein.Source: Wan Zahari et al., 2000, 2002.215.3 kg and 5.0 to 6.6 kg, respectively. The meat to boneratio ranged from 0.7:1 to 3:1.Distended rumen was reported in beef heifers fedpellets made from ground OPF at a 30 percent inclusionlevel (Wan Zahari et al., 2002). This is associated withthe rapid rate of passage of finely ground materials fromthe pellet, which is unfavourable for optimum rumenfermentation. Faster passage of feed through the rumenis known to depress DMD. Hence, rumen retention timeshould be reduced to stimulate better digestibility. Longerparticle size (>15 mm) should be considered for makingcomplete diets based on OPF. One option to make OPFcube, a process that does not require grinding (Hayakawaand Ariff, 2000). Small particle size of the diet is alsoknown to depress the population of protozoa in therumen, but what particle size is best for the protozoato stimulate optimum fermentation is another issue. Ahigh protozoan population density could also increaserequirements for supplementary protein. Additionally,reducing the protozoan population in the rumen generallyincreases animal productivity on low-protein diets.Moreover, an optimal ratio of nitrogen to sulphur is vitalfor efficient ruminal microbial growth for diets based onfibrous materials like OPF. Contrary to what has beenthought, distension of the rumen was not associated withbolus formation, which has been found in growing sheepraised on OPF silage and urea molasses mineral blocks(Wan Zahari, unpublished). Irrespective of the treatments,there seemed to be large variations between animalsfor the weight of the rumen, intestine and other organs(Table 10). There were also no abnormalities with regardto the structural and physical appearances of organs andother body tissues. The meat and organs were safe forconsumption and of superior quality due to less depositionof body fat (Wan Zahari et al., 2000, 2002). The averageconcentration of lead (Pb) residues in OPF feed was lowerthan the concentration specified for the maximum residuallimit level (3000 ppb) (Faridah et al., 2002).The LWG of Brahman × KK male cattle fed diets containing70 percent OPF + 30 percent cassava fodder was significantlyless than for those fed 70 percent OPF + 30 percentconcentrate or 70 percent OPF + 15 percent cassava fodder+ 15 percent grain concentrates (Tung et al., 2001). TheTABLE 10Body composition of beef cattle raised on oil palm frondsbased dietParameter Bulls HeifersLive weight before slaughter (kg) 274.0–407.0 186.0–238.0Carcass weight (hot) (kg) 130.9–215.3 98.7–136.4Rumen weight (empty, kg) 7.5–10.4 4.2–5.8Intestinal weight (full, kg) 10.85–13.30 8.0–11.0Intestinal weight (empty) 6.0–9.0 3.8–7.0Liver (kg) 2.15–4.40 1.92–3.96Spleen (kg) 0.758–1.172 0.71–1.82Kidney (kg) 0.508–0.714 0.175–0.304Mesenteric fat (kg) 5.00–6.60 2.60–5.50Fat in carcass (kg) 3.50–10.10 1.52–4.47Sirloin (kg) 1.36–3.40 0.74–2.00Loin (kg) 2.60–9.30 2.52–4.10Meat:Bone ratio 2.70–3.10 2.42–3.10Notes: The animals were Kedah-Kelantan × Charolais crosses. SOURCE:Wan Zahari et al., 2000, 2002.values for DMI (kg/head/day), N retention (% of N intake)and LWG (g/head/day) for the respective treatments were4.01, 4.78 and 4.66; 15.49, 19.04 and 17.93; and 277.8,412.7 and 373.0 respectively.Feeding dairy cattleResearch and development on OPF feeding for dairy cattlereflects the intensive system of rearing that is suitable forMalaysia, considering the high cost of pasture land. Severalexperiments have been conducted that were aimed atdeveloping feeding programmes based on OPF pellets orOPF cubes.A study was conducted to evaluate ground OPF-baseddiets as a complete ration for lactating Sahiwal-Friesiansdairy cows. The lactation performance and LW change ofthe animals fed 30 percent OPF pellet ration is shown inTable 11. Milk yields of cows used in this experiment variedfrom 11.1 to 20.3 L/day for the duration of the trial. Thehighest recorded 28-day milk yield period was 609 litres,equivalent to an average daily yield of 21.75 litres. Theoverall milk fat was 3.5 percent, and daily supplementationwith 100 g long hay was insufficient to increase the fatcontent to the level of 4.6–4.8 as obtained when feedingconcentrate-grass mixture or dairy cattle pellets (Abu Bakaret al., 2001).
Page 1 and 2:
BIOFUEL CO-PRODUCTS AS LIVESTOCK FE
Page 3:
Recommended citationFAO. 2012. Biof
Page 6 and 7:
vco-products to swine - Feeding cru
Page 8 and 9:
viiCHAPTER 22Use of Pongamia glabra
Page 10 and 11:
ixPrefaceHumans are faced with majo
Page 13 and 14:
xiiCBMCBSCCDSCCKCDOCDSCFCFBCFRCGECI
Page 15 and 16:
xivHCHOHClHCNHisH-JPKMHMCHPDDGHPDDG
Page 17 and 18:
xviPPbPCVPDPEMPFADPhePJPKCPKEPKMPKO
Page 19 and 20:
xviiiWBPWCGFWDGWDGSWDGSHWPCWTWWWNSK
Page 21 and 22:
2Biofuel co-products as livestock f
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
10Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 54 and 55:
35Chapter 3Impact of United States
Page 56 and 57:
Impact of United States biofuels co
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 120 and 121:
101Chapter 6Hydrogen sulphide: synt
Page 122 and 123:
Hydrogen sulphide in cattle fed co-
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 174 and 175:
155Chapter 8Utilization of crude gl
Page 176 and 177:
Utilization of crude glycerin in be
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216: 196Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 228 and 229: 209Chapter 11Co-products from biofu
Page 230 and 231: Co-products from biofuel production
Page 246: Co-products from biofuel production
Page 265: 246Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 294 and 295: 275Chapter 15Sustainable and compet
Page 296 and 297: Sustainable and competitive use of
Page 310 and 311: 291Chapter 16Scope for utilizing su
Page 312 and 313: Scope for utilizing sugar cane baga
Page 314 and 315: Scope for utilizing sugar cane baga
Page 316 and 317:
Scope for utilizing sugar cane baga
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
303Chapter 17Camelina sativa in pou
Page 324 and 325:
Camelina sativa in poultry diets: o
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
311Chapter 18Utilization of lipid c
Page 332 and 333:
Utilization of lipid co-products of
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 370 and 371:
351Chapter 21Use of detoxified jatr
Page 372 and 373:
Use of detoxified jatropha kernel m
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Page 398 and 399:
379Chapter 22Use of Pongamia glabra
Page 400 and 401:
Use of Pongamia glabra (karanj) and
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414 and 415:
Page 416 and 417:
Page 418 and 419:
Page 420 and 421:
Page 422 and 423:
403Chapter 23Co-products of the Uni
Page 424 and 425:
Co-products of the United States bi
Page 426 and 427:
Page 428 and 429:
Page 430 and 431:
Page 432 and 433:
Page 434 and 435:
Page 436 and 437:
Page 438 and 439:
Page 440:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Page 471 and 472:
Page 473 and 474:
Page 475 and 476:
Page 477 and 478:
Page 479 and 480:
Page 481 and 482:
Page 483 and 484:
Page 486 and 487:
467Chapter 26An assessment of the p
Page 488 and 489:
An assessment of the potential dema
Page 490 and 491:
Page 492 and 493:
Page 494 and 495:
Page 496 and 497:
Page 498 and 499:
Page 500 and 501:
Page 502 and 503:
483Chapter 27Biofuels: their co-pro
Page 504 and 505:
Biofuels: their co-products and wat
Page 506 and 507:
Page 508 and 509:
Page 510 and 511:
Page 512 and 513:
Page 514 and 515:
Page 516 and 517:
Page 518 and 519:
Page 520 and 521:
501Chapter 28Utilization of co-prod
Page 522 and 523:
Utilization of co-products of the b
Page 524 and 525:
Page 526 and 527:
Page 528 and 529:
Page 530 and 531:
Page 532 and 533:
Page 534 and 535:
Page 536 and 537:
Page 538 and 539:
Page 540 and 541:
Page 542 and 543:
523Contributing authorsSouheila Abb
Page 544 and 545:
Contributing authors 525for the Fee
Page 546 and 547:
Contributing authors 527Friederike
Page 548 and 549:
Contributing authors 529Sustainable
Page 550 and 551:
Contributing authors 531During the
Page 552:
Contributing authors 533(Hons.) and
show all

Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?