DE MENEGHI, Daniele

Kanwe, A. B.

Ladetto, Giuseppe

Mattoni, Mario

Schiavone, Achille

Tarantola, Martina

English

Institutional Research Information System University of Turin

318 ITAL.J.ANIM.SCI. VOL. 6 (SUPPL. 1), 318-320, 2007Effect of urea treatment on the nutritivevalue of local sorghum and millet straw:a comparative study on growingperformance of Djallonke rams M. Mattoni1, A. Schiavone1, M. Tarantola1, G. Ladetto1,D. De Meneghi1, A. B. Kanwe21 Dipartimento di Produzioni Animali Epidemiologia ed Ecologia. Università di Torino, Italy 2 Centre International de Recherche Développement sur l’Elevage en zone sub-Humide.Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina FasoCorresponding author: Mario Mattoni. Dipartimento di Produzioni Animali Epidemiologia ed Ecologia.Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria, Università di Torino. Via Leonardo da Vinci 44, 10095 Grugliasco(TO), Italy - Tel. +39 011 6709236 - Fax: +39 011 6709240 - Email: mario.mattoni@unito.itABSTRACT: Two tons of and chopped millet and sorghum straws have been treated with an urea solution at5% (100 kg of straw, sprinkled with 50 lt. of solution). Treated straws were used as basic diet (900 g day) associ-ated to 100 g of cotton cake for 24 growing Djallonke rams in comparison to non treated straws. Four groups ofanimals were fed for 98 days with: urea treated sorghum (UTSS), not treated sorghum straw (NTSS), treated mil-let (UTMS), non treated  millet straw (NTMS). Treated straws presented an increase of NDF of about 9%, of  totalnitrogen from 2 to 3 times while digestibility of dry matter increased respectively by 8,8% and 23,0% respective-ly in treated sorghum and millet. Also dry matter intake increased by 4,5% and 15,5% for treated sorghum andmillet respectively compared to non treated. Mean weekly weight gain were significantly higher (P<0.05) forUTSS e UTMS compared to NTSS e NTMS. While the weekly weight gain, did not differed between UTSS vs.UTMS and NTSS vs. NTMS. At the end of the trial the UTSS and UTMS group presented a weight gain of about40% and 38.7%, of their initial weight; while the gain for both NTSS and NTMS was respectively of  31.1% and29.5%.Key words: Africa, Sheep, Straw, Urea.INTRODUCTION – The climate of the sub-humid zone of west Africa is characterized by a rainy season of 4months and a long dry one of 8. During the dry season livestock feeding becomes a major issue although, cerealcrops, grown for human consumption, produces a lots of crop residues which are largely available throughout thedry period of the year. Burkina Faso the Ministry of Agriculture indicate an availability of cereal crops residuesof about 10 millions tons per year. However, these straws are characterized by a low nutritional value due to apoor nitrogen content and low digestibility. Many treatments: such as the use of ammonia or sodium hydroxidehave been proposed to enhance their nutritional value (Chaudhry, 1998), however, in tropical countries, these tech-niques remain scarcely applied at farmers due to various technical, economic and environmental reasons (Nguyen,2001). Nevertheless, by applying a simple chemical treatment with urea (Jackson, 1978), which is largely avail-able at a reasonable cost in many developing countries, the nutritional value of straws and other crop residuescould be improved. Urea in presence of water and ureases, naturally present on straws and soils, and  tempera-ture around 20°C, is completely hydrolysed into ammonia and carbon dioxide As result of the treatment, strawsshould be more digestible, have a higher nitrogen content, and voluntary ingestion of dry matter should increase(Chenost, 1977). Based on this we have carried out a nutritional trial on Djallonke rams to verify to which extentmillet and sorghum straws treated with urea can help to overcome the feeding problems for ruminants during thedry season in the sub-humid zone of west Africa.PROC. 17th NAT. CONGR. ASPA, ALGHERO, ITALYITAL.J.ANIM.SCI. VOL. 6 (SUPPL. 1), 318-320, 2007 319MATERIAL AND METHODS – Two tons of crop residues (sorghum and millet straw) were treated followinga 100/50/5 sprinkling scheme (100 kg of straw, 50 litres of water solution at 5% of urea) and offered as diet to 24Djallonké growing rams for a 14 weeks period. Straw was hand chopped, distributed in successive well pressed lay-ers, then placed in two silos of 10.2 m3, each built with “laterite” bricks. Then, each layer was watered with the ureasolution before spreading and pressing the following one which was watered in turn. The silos were therefore cov-ered with a plastic film, and kept sealed for 3 weeks. The whole process was accomplished in two days by two work-ers. Both sorghum and millet straw were tested prior and after the treatment to define dry matter (DM), organicmatter (OM), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and total nitrogen (TN) contents. Dry matter digestibility (DMd) anddry matter ingestion (DMi) were also measured through feces collection for a period of 7 days for all groups start-ing 5 weeks after the beginning of the trial. DMi was calculated as g of ingested dry matter on the metabolic weight(gDM/kgP0.75). Twenty-four Djallonké rams of 12±2 months of age, 18.7±2.2 kg average weight, were penned in indi-vidual cages and allotted to 4 groups of 6 animals each. Animals were allowed a 7 days adjustment period to cageand feeding scheme. During the adaptation period animals were progressively offered an increasing amount oftreated straws to reach 100% of the respective feeding regime at day 7. Starting from day 0 groups were respec-tively fed with Urea Treated Sorghum Straw (UTSS), Non Treated Sorghum Straw (NTSS), Urea Treated MilletStraw (UTMS) and Non Treated Millet Straw (NTMS). All rams were also complemented daily with 100 gr. of cot-ton cake, while water and mineral blocks were available ad libitum. Each group was offered daily 900 gr. of eitherUTSS, NTSS, UTMS or NTMS. Feed stuff was distributed twice a day and what left over before the following for-age distribution was weighed. To measure weight changes rams were weighed once a week. Data on gDM/kgP0.75,weight changes, mean weekly gain were analyzed by one way ANOVA.RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS – The effect of the treatment on sorghum and millet straw are outlined inTable 1. As can be noticed the treatment has increased NDF% by 9% in both treated sorghum and millet comparedto the untreated straws.Table 1. Effect of urea treatment at 5% on chemical composition of sorghum and mil-let straw.Straws Groups DM % OM % NDF % TN % CP % DMd% DMi(gDM/kgP0.75)sorghum treated 95.4 92.3 75.9 1.87 11.7 34.5 44.3±6.7anon treated 95.0 90.2 69.3 0.43 2.6 31.7 42.2±6.3aMillet treated 95.7 88.5 78.9 1.07 6.7 40.0 49.2±6.1bnon treated 95.5 86.6 72.2 0.60 3.7 32.5 42.6±6.0aDM = Dry Matter, OM= organic Matter, NDF = Neutral Detergent Fibre, TN= Total Nitrogen, CP = CrudeProtein, DMd%= Dry Matter digestibility, DMi= g*DM ingestion/kg of metabolic weight. Figures in the same column with different superscript statistically differ by P<0.05.Also TN% on the DM increased, making CP% over 3 and almost 2 times higher respectively for treated sorghumand millet straws vs. non treated. In conclusion the effect of the treatment on the straws is similar to that obtainedby Larwence (2000) and and Chenost (1997), although the treatment lasted only 3 weeks An increase of dry mat-ter digestibility (DMd) and dry matter ingestion were also obtained. DMd of treated vs. non treated sorghum wasenhanced of about 9% whereas for treated non treated millet the increase was of 23%. Dry matter ingestion wasrespectively 4.97% and 15.5% higher for treated sorghum and millet compared to the corresponding non treatedstraws. On average forage left over ranged between 25% and 30%. DMi of UTMS was respectively 11.0%, 16.5 %and 15.4 (P<0.05) higher compared UTSS and NTSS, or NTMS.Both UTSS and UTMS groups had higher (P < 0.05) mean weekly weight gain and mean net gain compared to theircontrol groups, NTSS and NTMS respectively (Table 2). No differences were observed between UTSS and UTMS orNTSS and NTMS. At the end of the trial the rams of the UTSS group increased on average by 40% their initialweight; similar, although with a lower magnitude to the gain of  the UTMS group (38.7%). Both control groups(NTSS and NTMS) had a lower weight increase of 31.1% and 29.5% respectively. The fact that the UTMS group hadhigher DMi per kg of metabolic weight compared to UTSS group could be due to the fineness of millet straw com-PROC. 17th NAT. CONGR. ASPA, ALGHERO, ITALY320 ITAL.J.ANIM.SCI. VOL. 6 (SUPPL. 1), 318-320, 2007pared to that of sorghum. The similar weight gain of UTSS and UTMS groups thought DMi of the UTSS (44.3±6.7)was 11.06% lower in comparison with the UTMS (49.2±6.1) is likely due to the higher CP content of the treatedsorghum (11.7%) compared to the treated millet (6.7%). A cost analysis shows that: with 50 kg of urea purchasableat about 19.00 ¤ on the rural markets , 1000 kg of straws (free of charge since available at farmers level) can be effi-ciently treated at an actual cost 0.019 € per kg of forage. Considering that animals intake was about 500 g of treat-ed straw per day, the daily expense for forage was 0,0095 € which multiplied by the days of the trial (98) gives anoverall expenditure of 0.931 € per animal. To define whether there is a cost effective benefit in the long run for both:weight gain and animal body condition, the treatment should be protracted throughout the dry season.Table 2. Weight changes of Djallonké rams feed for 14 weeks with urea treated andnon treated sorghum and millet straw.Straws Groups Mean individual Mean individual Mean weekly Mean net gain inbody weight at body weight at weight gain in g kgweek 0 in kg week 14 in kgSorghumtreated 18.5±2.1 26.1±2.1 540±240a 7.5±0.9anon treated 18.6±2.8 24.4±2.4 420±280b 5.8±0.5bMillettreated 18.6±2.2 25.8±1.3 510±330a 7.2±1.0anon treated 19.3±2.0 25.0±2.0 410±350b 5.7±0.7bFigures in the same column with different superscript statistically differ by P<0.05.This would permit to determine the effect on the animal  appearance which is very important under African mar-ket situation where animals are sold by head and not by weight. In addition, in the region (Nianogo, 1992) over 50%of the sheep lamb from April to June, carrying out large part of the gestation during the during harsh period of theyear. Treated straws might sustain pregnant ewes during the dry season. Supplementary research should be con-ducted to define the most effective urea concentration (3%, 5%, 10%) according to the available variety of straws.The research was supported by Regione Piemonte: “Programma di sicurezza alimentare e lotta alla povertà nelSahel”. And carried our jointly by DPAEE and CIRDES.REFERENCES - Chaudhry, A. S., 1998 Chemical and biological procedures to upgrade cereal straws forruminants. Nutritional Abstracts and Reviews. Volume 68:319-331. Chenost, M., 1997 Utilisation des fourragesgrossier en régions chaudes. Etude FAO Production et santé animale,135. Jackson, M., G., 1978 Treating straw foranimal feeding. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper, Paper No 10. Larwence, A., Triki, S., Chabaca, R.,Rezzoug, A., 2000 Proposition d’une méthode subhumide de traitement des pailles à l’urée. Ann. Zootechie. 49:479-485. Nguyen, X., T., Magne, M., Cu Xuan D., 2001. Effects of treatment of rice straw with lime and/or urea onresponses of growing cattle. Livestock Research for Rural Development (13) 5. Nianogo, A., J., 1992 Productiontraits of Mossi sheep in Gampela. Proceedings of the First Biennial Conference of the African Small RuminantResearch. ILRAD, Nairobi, Kenya 10-14 December 1990.

Effect of urea treatment on the nutritive value of local sorghum and millet straw: a comparative study on growing performance of Djallonke rams

https://iris.unito.it/bitstream/2318/47809/1/Mattoni%20et%20al%202007.pdf

Effect of urea treatment on the nutritive value of local sorghum and millet straw: a comparative study on growing performance of Djallonke rams

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Institutional Research Information System University of Turin