Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Use of detoxified jatropha kernel meal and protein isolate in diets of farm animals 367meal from the non-toxic jatropha genotype in the diets ofother fish species.The results of Makkar and Becker (1999) demonstratethat the availability of protein from the unheated jatrophameal is higher than from heat-treated jatropha meal.Furthermore, the nutritional value of jatropha meal of thenon-toxic genotype is high, and potential exists for its incorporationinto the diets of monogastrics and aquaculturespecies.USE OF JATROPHA PLATYPHYLLA KERNEL MEALAS A PROTEIN SOURCE IN AQUA FEEDImpacts of Jatropha platyphylla kernel meal(heat treated) on growth performance of NiletilapiaThe kernel meal of J. platyphylla contains 65–70 percentcrude-protein with a well-balanced EAA profile, in additionto heat labile antinutrional factors, trypsin inhibitor andlectin. The heat treated (121 °C at 66 percent moisture for15 minutes) kernel meal (H-JPKM) was fed to Nile tilapia(Oreochromis niloticus L.) for 12 weeks with two levelsof replacement (50 percent and 62.5 percent) of fishmealprotein). H-JPKM-based diets were supplemented withphytase (500 FTU per kg feed) to mitigate the adverseeffects of phytate. The utilization of proteins from H-JPKMand fishmeal was similar (P >0.05). Also, growth performanceof H-JPKM-fed groups was similar; indicating thatavailability of protein (amino acids) from the H-JPKM forprotein synthesis was similar to that from fishmeal. Thesefindings showed that H-JPKM is a good quality dietary proteinsource for Nile tilapia feed. The level of NSPs in H-JPKMwas about 16 percent; however, no detrimental effectswere observed. The anti-nutritional effects of NSPs are notyet fully understood in fish. However, these compoundsare assumed to cause increased intestinal viscosity in fishsimilar to that in poultry. Usually, NSPs in diets for Atlanticsalmon tended to reduce digestibility of protein and lipiddue to increased intestinal viscosity and reduced diffusionand activity of the digestive enzymes (Refstie et al., 2000).However, Makkar et al. (2011), Kumar et al., (2011c) andAkinleye et al. (2011) did not observe any such adverseeffects in Nile tilapia after feeding H-JPKM as the proteinsource. Retention of protein and lipid in the whole bodyof Nile tilapia were similar (P >0.05) for H-JPKM-fed andfishmeal-fed groups (Kumar et al., 2011c; Akinleye et al.,2011). These results suggest that H-JPKM containing dietswere ideal for fish growth.Impacts of Jatropha platyphylla kernel meal(heat treated) on energy budget and health ofNile tilapiaIn a feeding trial performed by Kumar et al. (2011c) whereinNile tilapia were fed H-JPKM-based diet (62.5 percentfishmeal protein replaced by H-JPKM) and a control diet(fishmeal-based diet), no significant difference (P >0.05)for oxygen consumption, average metabolic rate, energyretention, energy expenditure and metabolizable energywere observed among the groups. The energy retention forgrowth was 35 percent, energy expenditure 40 percent andmetabolizable energy 74 percent for the H-JPKM-based diet(Kumar, Makkar and Becker, 2011c). This finding suggeststhat dietary protein sources H-JPKM can be efficiently utilizedfor growth of Nile tilapia, and the efficiency is as highas that for fishmeal.Inclusion of H-JPKM in the diet elicited no adverseeffects on biochemical changes such as metabolic enzymes(ALP and ALT) and electrolytes and metabolites (ureanitrogen, bilirubin, calcium, potassium and sodium in theblood) (Akinleye et al., 2011). The prominent changesinclude increased RBC count, haematocrit content andblood glucose concentrations, and decreased cholesterolconcentration in plasma when compared with the controlgroup (Akinleye et al., 2011). However, haematologicalparameters were within normal ranges for fish (Ghittino,1983; Rosenlund et al., 2004).The results showed that H-JPKM can replace fishmealwith no negative impacts on growth, feed utilizationand physiological parameters (Makkar et al., 2011;Kumar, Makkar and Becker, 2011c; Akinleye et al., 2011).Conclusively, the H-JPKM can replace fishmeal protein upto 62.5 percent in the diet of Nile tilapia without any unfavorableeffects on growth performance, nutrient utilization,energy budget and biochemical activities in the fish, and itcan be utilized in Nile tilapia diet as a good quality proteinsource. Further research should be conducted to examinethe possibility of increasing the inclusion of H-JPKM beyond62.5 percent fishmeal protein replacement in the diet ofNile tilapia. Also studies on the utilization of H-JPKM inother fish species are required.USE OF DETOXIFIED JATROPHA CURCASPROTEIN ISOLATE IN COMMON CARP FEEDImpacts on feed intake and growthperformanceKumar, Makkar and Becker (2011d) observed that detoxifiedjatropha protein isolate (DJPI)-based diets had excellentpalatability for common carp and there was no wastage offeed during the experiment. Common carp fed a diet containinga lower level of DJPI (50 percent replacement of fishmealprotein) grew significantly better (P 0.05) to that with the control diet(Table 13) (Kumar, Makkar and Becker, 2011d; Nepal etal., 2010). Since overall growth performance, and protein
368Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesTABLE 13Growth performance, nutrient utilization, digestibility measurements, digestive enzyme activities and haematologicalparameters of common carp (Cyprinus carpio L) fed DJPI-based dietsParametersControlJatropha50% (J 50) 75% (J 75)Initial body mass (g) 20.3 ± 0.12 20.3 ± 0.11 20.2 ± 0.08Final body mass (g) 124 a ± 9.0 118 a ± 13.5 118 a ± 13.5Feed conversion ratio 1.36 a ± 0.06 1.31 a ± 0.03 1.39 a ± 0.10Protein efficiency ratio 1.91 a ± 0.11 2.01 a ± 0.05 1.86 a ± 0.14Protein productive value (%) 30.4 c ± 2.84 34.2 b ± 1.37 33.7 b ± 2.83Nutrient digestibility and digestive and metabolic enzymes activityProtein digestibility (%) 90 b ± 1.03 93 a ± 1.57 89 b ± 2.01Lipid digestibility (%) 94 a ± 1.58 95 a ± 1.67 94 a ± 2.53Energy digestibility (%) 88 b ± 1.28 91 a ± 1.64 89 b ± 2.08Amylase (U/g protein) 20.1 a ± 3.36 18.6 a ± 5.81 18.4 a ± 4.40Protease (U/g protein) 40.0 a ± 2.82 37.1 a ± 3.91 32.7 a ± 3.04Lipase (U/g protein) 7.8 a ± 1.39 8.4 a ± 0.46 8.5 a ± 0.85Alkaline phosphatase (U/L) 65.7 a ± 13.3 62.7 a ± 3.5 68.3 a ± 7.4Alanine transaminase (U/L) 74.3 a ± 17.2 79.0 a ±11.8 68.0 a ± 10.1Blood parametersRed blood cells (10 6 cells/mm 3 ) 1.1 c ± 0.02 1.3 b ± 0.03 1.4 a ± 0.01Albumin (mg/dl) 2.1 b ± 0.2 2.5 a ± 0.1 2.6 a ± 0.3Globulin (mg/dl) 0.6 b ± 0.2 0.8 a ± 0.2 0.9 a ± 0.1Lysozyme activity (IU/ml) 384 b ± 24 419 a ± 18 431 a ± 34Cholesterol (mg/dl) 139 a ± 14 116 b ± 22 93 c ± 15Glucose (mg/dl) 67.0 a ± 8.0 61.0 a ± 11.8 87.0 a ± 25.2Notes: Values are mean ± standard deviation. Mean values in the same row with different superscript differ significantly (P 0.05) apparent protein andlipid digestibility, which could be attributed to the absenceof a trypsin inhibitor and lectin, the presence of lower levelsof NSPs (NSPs in DJPI were 10 percent), and the addition ofphytase to mitigate the effects of phytate, if any (Kumar,Makkar and Becker, 2011d; Nepal et al., 2010). Energydigestibility of the DJPI protein-based diets was considerablylower than protein digestibility (Kumar, Makkar andBecker, 2011d; Nepal et al., 2010).Dietary inclusion of DJPI did not (P >0.05) alter the intestinaldigestive enzyme (amylase, protease and lipase) activities(Table 13). Phytate content in DJPI was 2.9 percent,and the DJPI-based feeds were supplemented with 500 FTUphytase/kg. This level of phytase appears to be sufficient tohydrolyse the phytate in the DJPI-based diets. No changein activities of digestive enzymes could be attributed tothe absence of trypsin inhibitors and lectins and additionof phytase (500 FTU phytase/kg) in the DJPI-based diets(Kumar, Makkar and Becker, 2011d).Impacts on nutrients retentionsInclusion of DJPI in feed exhibited higher (P
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:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 228 and 229:
209Chapter 11Co-products from biofu
Page 230 and 231:
Co-products from biofuel production
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 294 and 295:
275Chapter 15Sustainable and compet
Page 296 and 297:
Sustainable and competitive use of
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
291Chapter 16Scope for utilizing su
Page 312 and 313:
Scope for utilizing sugar cane baga
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
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:
Utilization of lipid co-products of
Page 336 and 337: Utilization of lipid co-products of
Page 342: Utilization of lipid co-products of
Page 345 and 346: 326Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 370 and 371: 351Chapter 21Use of detoxified jatr
Page 372 and 373: Use of detoxified jatropha kernel m
Page 398 and 399: 379Chapter 22Use of Pongamia glabra
Page 400 and 401: Use of Pongamia glabra (karanj) and
Page 422 and 423: 403Chapter 23Co-products of the Uni
Page 424 and 425: Co-products of the United States bi
Page 436 and 437:
Co-products of the United States bi
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?