Effect of Chickpea Straw Silage Processing with Urea, Molasses and Cellulase Enzyme on Chemical Composition, Gas Production, Ruminal and intestinal Digestibility

پژوهشهای علوم دامی ایران

Article 3, Volume 16, Issue 3 - Serial Number 59, September 2024, Pages 347-365   

Document Type: Research Articles

DOI: 10.22067/ijasr.2024.85302.1182

Authors

Zahra Abbasinavand; Jamal Seifdavati^* ; Mojtaba Alipour einaldin; hossein abdibenemar; Farzad Mirzaei Aghjehgheshlagh; reza seyedsharifi

Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: The limitation of animal feed resources has increased the tendency to use agricultural residues such as straws in feeding ruminants. It has been reported that livestock production decreases when using low-quality crop residues due to the low palatability, energy level and protein of these feed materials. In other hand, high consumption of straws decreases ruminant's performance because of feed intake restriction, low digestibility and the presence of anti-nutritional factors such as silica, tannin and lignin in straws. The use of fibrolytic enzymes of foreign origin increases the usability of forage, which results in increased production. One of the most important methods of processing wooden materials is the use of chemicals, especially alkaline materials, especially urea. Adding molasses as an energy-generating part and urea as a non-protein nitrogen source simultaneously provides the rumen microorganisms with a source of energy and protein. In general, the addition of enzymes to the diet is used for the purpose of supplementing and compensating the defects of the enzyme system of the ruminant’s digestive system, removing anti-nutritional substances and increasing the availability of nutrients in the animal body. The purpose of this research was to investigate the effect of processing chickpea straw with urea, molasses and enzymes on chemical composition, ruminal and intestinal digestibility, gas production and disappearance under laboratory conditions. So that the results of this research can be optimally used in animal nutrition.
Materials and Methods: This research was conducted on processed chickpea straw with urea, molasses and, enzyme source of fungal cellulase and rumen liquid. The tested feed material was chickpea straw, which was processed with urea, molasses and enzymes. Enzymes included fungal cellulase and rumen liquid. The tested feed ingredients were ground using a special mill with a sieve with 2 ml pores and then sieved using a 50 micrometer sieve to remove particles smaller than 50 micrometers.
To perform the gas test, first, the sample of the tested feed (chickpea straw enriched with urea, molasses and enzyme) was ground with a 1 mm grid. Measurements of chemical composition and gas production were carried out by standard methods and the determination of the digestibility of samples was done with Daisy ^ǁ device and Gargalo's three-step method. After performing the initial calculations and collecting all the data, statistical analysis of the data was done using the SAS statistical software in the form of a completely random design and a 4x4 factorial experiment with the GLM procedure.
Results and Discussion: According to the results, processing chickpea straw with urea, molasses, and enzymes increased the percentage of dry matter and the amount of crude protein in the treatments. However, it decreased the percentage of cell wall and cell wall without hemicellulose. The processing of chickpea straw with urea, rumen liquid and a mixture of two enzymes and the combination of all three enzymes with a level of 4% molasses increases the digestibility of dry matter in the total digestive system, and the addition of molasses and the combination of rumen liquid and a mixture of two enzymes with different levels of molasses were increased the digestibility of crude protein in the rumen (P<0.05). Adding all three enzymes to chickpea straw at 2, 4, 6, and 8 hours, but with rumen juice from 12 to 96 hours, has led to an increase in gas production. The combination of molasses levels of 2 and 4% with a mixture of two enzymes increased gas production in all hours of incubation (P<0.05). The average constant rate of disappearance and gas production potential of chickpea straw was significantly different among all treatments (P < 0.05). The results showed that molasses and enzyme increased the constant rate of disappearance and 4% molasses and enzyme increased the gas production potential. The combination of molasses with fungal cellulase and the mixture of two enzymes decreased the constant rate of disappearance and gas production potential. The average laboratory digestibility of organic matter, metabolizable energy, lactation energy and short chain fatty acids were significant in all chickpea straw treatments (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: In general, based on the obtained results, the use of urea, molasses, and enzyme sources including fungal cellulase and rumen liquid has successfully increased the nutritional value, gas production parameters, and digestibility of chickpea straw. Among the experimental treatments, processing chickpea straw with 3.5% urea, 4% molasses, and fungal cellulase enzyme improved the nutritional value the most. Further animal experiments are needed to confirm these results. More research is required in the field of using agricultural waste in animal nutrition.
 



 

 




 

Keywords

Digestibility; Metabolizable energy; Nutritional parameters; Nutritional value

References

1. Alam, M. K., Ogata, Y., Sato, Y., & Sano, H. (2016). Effects of rice straw supplemented with urea and molasses on intermediary metabolism of plasma glucose and leucine in sheep. Asian-Australas Journal Animal Science, 29(4), 523–529. https://doi.org/10.5713/ ajas.15.0358.
2. Alikhani, M., Alamooti, A. A., Ghorbani, G., & Sadeghi, N. (2005). Effect of urea, molasses and a bacterial inoculants on chemical composition and dry matter degradability of sunflower silage. Journal of Crop Production, 9(3), 171-183.
3. Alvarez, G., Pinos-Rodriguez, J. M., Herrera, J. G., Garcia, J. C., Gonzalez, S. S., & Barcena, (2009). Effects of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes on ruminal digestibility in steers fed high fibre rations. Livestock Science, 121, 150-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livs ci.20 08.05.024.
4. Annison, G. (1993). The role of wheat non- starch polysaccharides in broiler nutrition. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 44, 405-422. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR993 0405
5. Banchorndhevakul, S. (2002). Effect of urea and urea-gamma treatments on cellulose degradation of Thai rice straw and corn stalk. Radiation Physics and Chemistry,64, 417-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-806 X (01)00678-8
6. Beauchemin, K. A., Colombatto, D., Morgavi, D. P., & Yang, W. Z. (2002). Use of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes to improve feed utilization by ruminants. Journal Animal Science, 81, E37-E47. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.8114_suppl_2E37x
7. Beauchemin, K. A., Rode, L. M., Maekaw, M., Morgavi, D., & Kampen, R. (2000). Evaluation of a nonstarch polysaccharides feed enzyme in dairy cow diets. Journal Dairy Science, 83, 543-553. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (00)74914-9.
8. Bedford, M. R., & Schulze, H. (1998). Exogenous enzymes for pigs and poultry. Nutrition Research Reviews, 11(1), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1079/NRR19980007
9. Bueno, I. C. S., Sergio Calbral Filho, S. L. S., Gobbo, S. P., Louvandini, H., Vitti, D. M. S. S., & Abdalla, A. L. (2005). Influence of inoculum source in a gas production method. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 124, 95- 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci. 2005 .05.003
10. Celik, K. I., Ersoy, E., & Savran, F. (2003). Feeding of urea treated wheat straw in Saanen goat male kids. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 2, 258-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2003.258.261.
11. Chaudhry, A. S. (2000). Rumen degradation in sacco in sheep of wheat straw treated with calcium oxide, sodium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide plus hydrogen peroxide. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 83, 313-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401 (99)00134-0
12. De Figuerido, M., & Marais, J. P. (1994). The effect of bacterial inoculants on kikuyu silage quality. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge), 122, 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600065795
13. Dong, Y., Bae, H. D., McAllister, T. A., Mathison, G. W., & Cheng, K. J. (1999). The effect of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes, α-bromoethanesulfonate and monensin on digestibility of grass hay and methane production in the Rusitec. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 79, 491–498. https://doi.org/10.4141/A99-024
14. Dryhurst, D., & Wood, C. D., (1998). The effect of nitrogen source and concentration on in vitro gas production using rumen micro-organisms. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 71, 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401 (97)00124-7
15. Ehsani, P., Teimouri, Yansari, A. A., Chashnidel, Y., & Ghorbani, G. (2019). The effect of Particle size and harvesting steps of forage corn on silage characteristics, digestibility and Nutrients consumption of Holstein dairy cows. Journal Animal Environment, 11(2), 53-62.
16. Elghandour, M. M. Y., Salem, A. Z. M., Gonzalez-Ronquillo, M., Borquez, J. L., Gado, H. M., Odongo, N. E., & Penuelas, C. G. (2013). Effects of exogenous enzymes on in vitro gas production kinetics and ruminal fermentation of four fibrous feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 179, 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.11.010
17. Ensminger, M. E., Oldfield, J. E., & Heinemann, W. W. (1990). Feed and Nutrition. Second edition. Ensminger publishing company, p. 388-389.
18. France, J., Dhanoa, M. S., Theodorou, M. K., Lister, S. J., Davies, D. R., & Isac, D. (1993). A model to interpret gas accumulation profiles associated with in vitro degradation of ruminant feeds. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 163, 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1993.1109
19. Gado, H. M., Salem, A. Z. M., Odongo, N. E., & Borhami, B. E. (2011). Influence of exogenous enzymes ensiled with orange pulp on digestion, blood metabolites and growth performance in lambs. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 165, 131-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. anifeedsci.2011.02.016
20. Gado, H. M., Salem, A. Z. M., Robinson, P. H., & Hasan, M. (2009). Influence of exogenous enzymes on nutrient digestibility, extent of ruminal fermentation as well as milk production and composition in dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 154, 36-46. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.07.006
21. Garcia-Martinez, A., Albarran-Portillo, B., Castelan-Ortega, O. A., Espinoza-Ortega, A., & Arriaga-Jordan, J. M. (2009). Urea treated maize straw for small-scale dairy systems in the highlands of central Mexico. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 41(7), 1487–1494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-009-9337-4
22. Gargallo, S., Calsamiglia, S., & Ferret, A. (2006). Technical note: A modified three-step in vitro procedure to determine intestinal digestion of proteins. Journal of Animal Science, 84, 2163- 2167. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2004-704
23. Gemeda, B. S., Hassen, A., & Odongo, N. E. (2014). Effect of fibrolytic enzyme products at different levels on in vitro ruminal fermentation of low quality feeds and total mixed ration. Journal Animal Plant Science, 24(5), 1293-1302. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/43587
24. Getachew, G., Makkar, H. P. S., & Becker, K. (1998). The in vitro gas coupled with ammonia measurement for evaluation of nitrogen degradability in low quality roughages using incubation medium of different buffering capacity. Journal Science Food Agriculture, 77, 87- 95. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199805)77:1<87::AID-JSFA7>3.0.CO;2-X
25. Ghiasvand, M., Rezayazdi, K., & Dehghan Banadaki, M. (2012). The effects of different processing methods on chemical composition and ruminal degradability of canola straw and its effect on fattening performance of male Holstein calves, Journal of Animal Science Research, 22(1), 93. (In Persian)
26. Gunun, P., Wanapat, M., & Anantasook, N. (2013). Effects of physical form and urea treatment of rice straw on rumen fermentation, microbial protein synthesis and nutrient digestibility in dairy steers. Asian-Australas Journal Animal Science, 26(12), 1689–1697. https://doi.org/ 10.5713/ajas.2013.13190
27. Hervas, G., Frutusos, P., Giraldez, F. J., Mora, M. J., Fernandez, B., & Mantecon, A. R. (2005). Effect of preservation on fermentative activity of rumen fluid inoculum for in vitro gas production techniques. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 123-124(1), 107-118. https://doi. org / 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.05.004
28. Hristov, A. N., McAllister, T. A., & Cheng, K. J. (1996). Exogenous enzymes for ruminants. Proceedings of 17th Western Nutrition Conference. Edmonton, Alberta, pp. 51-61.
29. Hristov, A. N., McAllister, T. A., & Cheng, K. J. (1998). Effect of dietary or abomasal supplementation of exogenous polysaccharide-degrading enzyme supplementation on rumen fermentation and nutrient digestibility. Journal of Animal Science, 76, 3146–3156. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/1998.76123146x
30. Khorasani, H., Shojaeian, K., Yousef, M., Lahi, E., & Sharifi M. (2014). Effects of urea, molasses and fibrolytic enzymes on nutritional value of date palm leaves silage. Annual Research and Review in Biology, 4(24), 4305-4313. http://dx.doi.org/10.9734/ARRB/2014/7307
31. Kung, L. J. R., Lazartic, J., Wuerfel, R. L., Rode, L. M., Beauchemin, K. A., & Treacher, R. J. (2000a). The effect of various combinations of fibrolytic enzymes on the feeding value of a TMR fed to lactating cows. Journal Dairy Science, 83(Suppl. 1), 297.
32. Kung, L. J. R., Treacher, R. J., Nauman, G. A., Smagala, A. M., Endres, K. M., & Cohen, M. A. (2000b). The effect of treating forages with fibrolytic enzymes on its nutritive value and lactation performance of dairy cows. Journal Dairy Science, 83, 115-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(00)74862-4
33. Lewis, G. E., Hunt, C. W., Sanchez, W. K., Treacher, R., Pritchard, G. T., & Feng, P. (1996). Effect of direct-fed fibrolytic enzymes on the digestive characteristics of a forage-based diet fed to beef steers. Journal of Animal Science, 74(12), 3020–3028. https://doi.org/10.2527/1996. 74123020x
34. Mahmoodi, A., & Aliarabi, H. (2012). Effect of using different levels of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes on performance of early lactation Holstein cows. Animal Science Research, 22(2), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2015.09.001
35. Mashayekhi, M. R., Fazaeli, H., & Zahedifar, M. (2007). Effect of urea-molasses on the nutritive value of roughage based ration incubated in buffaloe rumen liquor. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 6, 454-457. http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2007.s2.454
36. Mc Donald, L., Henderson, N., & Heron, S. (1990). The biochemistry of silage. 2nd ed., Chalcombe Pub., UK.
37. Mehdikhani Bazehoze, J., Yazdani, A. R., Torbatinegad, N. M., & Ghorbani, B. (2009). Effect of treating wheat straw with urea and molasses on crude protein and crude fiber of it and blood metabolites of Dalagh lamb. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 16((Special Issue 2)), 333-337. (In Persian)
38. Mehramiri, I., Chaji, M., Tabatabaei Vakili, S., Mohammadabadi, T., & Sari, M. (2017). The effects of replacement of mung bean (Vigna radiate) straw with wheat straw or corn silage on performance, rumen fermentation and blood parameters of finishing male lambs. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research, 9(3), 300-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.22067/ijasr.v9i3.52536
39. Menke, K., & Steinggass, H. (1988). Estimation of the energetic feed value from chemical analyses and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research Development, 28, 7-55.
40. Mir, Z., & Mir, P. S. (1994). Effect of the addition of live yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on growth and carcass quality of steers fed high-forage or high-grain diets and on feed digestibility and in situ degradability, Journal of Animal Science, 72, 3, 537–545. https://doi.org/10. 2527/1994.723537x
41. Mohammadabadi, T., & Chaji, M. (2011). Effect of exogenous enzyme on in vitro fermentation of sesame straw by rumen bacteria culture. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 39, 161-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2011.565227
42. Mould, F. L., Kliem, K. E., Morgan, R., & Mauricio, R. M. (2005). In vitro microbial inoculum: A review of its function and properties. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 123-124(1), 31-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.04.028
43. Muwalla, M. M, Haddad, S. G., & Hijazeen, M. A. (2007). Effect of fibrolytic enzyme inclusion in high concentrate fattening diets on nutrient digestibility and growth performance of Awassi lambs. Livestock Science, 111(3), 255–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci. 2007.03.003
44. Newbold, J. (1997). Proposed mechanisms for enzymes as modifiers of ruminal fermentation. In: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, Gainesville, FL, USA, pp. 146–159.
45. Nocek, J. E. (1988). In situ and other methods to estimate ruminal protein and energy digestibility, A Review. Journal of Dairy Science, 67, 2599-2612. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(88)79781-7
46. Pan, I., Suzuki, T., koike, S., Ueda, K., Kobayashi, Y., Tanaka, K., & Okubo M. (2003). Effects of urea infused into the rumen on liquid and particle associated fibrolytic enzyme activities in steers fed low-quality grass hay. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 104, 13-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(02)00324-3
47. Parand, E., & Taghizadeh, A. (2011). Examination of digestibility of processed barley grain with different methods, using gas production technique with two sources of inocola. Animal Science Research, 4(2), 1-13.
48. SAS / STAT User's Guide. Version 9.1 Edition. 2003. SAS Inst. Cary, NC.
49. Shahraki, E., & Saravani, M. (2013). A study on the effects of urea and molasses on the nutritional value of nutgrass (Cyperus rotundus) forage silos of Sistan region. International Research Journal Applied Basic Science, 6(12), 1793-1800.
50. Shoryabi, Z., (2014). Study of chemical composition and nutritive value of treated sesame straw by using in vitro gas production method. Journal of Novel Applied Sciences. -ISSN 2322-5149.
51. Soltani Naseri, K., Ghanbari, F., Bayat Kouhsar, J., & Taliey, F. (2018). Effect of chemical and biological processing methods on chemical composition, gas production parameters and in vitro digestibility of Cicer arietinum Research on Animal Production, 9(22), 72-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/rap.9.22.72
52. Storm, E., Orskov, E. R., & Smart, R. (1983). The nutritive value of rumen micro-organisms in ruminants. 2. The apparent digestibility and net utilization of microbial N for growing lambs. The British Journal of Nutrition, 50(2), 471–478. https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn19830115
53. Stsnton, T. L., & Whittier, J. (2007). Urea and NPN for cattle and sheep. Colorado state university. Extension. Http://ext.Colostate.ed/ pubs/livestock/ 01608.htm.No.1. P: 608.
54. Sujani, M., Piyasena, T., Seresinhe, T., Pathirana, I., & Gajaweera, C. (2016). Supplementation of rice straw (Oryza sativa) with exogenous fibrolytic enzymes improves in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 41, 4. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-1503-8
55. Tahmasebi, R., Dayani, O., & kezre, A. (2011). Determination of physical, chemical and digestibility of some agricultural by-products. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research, 3(4), 412-421. http://dx.doi.org/10.22067/ijasr.v3i4.12549
56. Tengyun, G. (2000). Review: Treatment and utilization of crop straw and stover in China. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 12, 1.
57. Titi, H. H., & Lubbadeh, W. F. (2004). Effect of feeding cellulase enzyme on productive responses of pregnant and lactating ewes and goats. Small Ruminant Research, 52, 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488 (03)00254-2
58. Van Soest, P. J. (1994). Nutrition ecology in the ruminants. Cornel University Press. Ithaca, New York, Comstock publishing associate. pp. 156-176.
59. Van Soest, P. J. (2006). Rice straw, the role of silica and treatments to improve quality. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 130, (3-4), 137-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.20 06.01.023
60. Wang, Y., Spratling, B. M., ZoBell, D. R., Wiedmeier, R. D., & McAllister, T. A. (2004). Effect of alkali pretreatment of wheat straw on the efficacy of exogenous fibrolytic enzymes. Journal Animal Science, 82, 198-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/2004.821198x
61. Wolin, M. J. (1960). A theoretical rumen fermentation balance. Journal Dairy Science, 43, 1452-1459.
62. Xing, L., Chen, L. J., & Han, L. J. (2009). The effect of an inoculants and enzymes on fermentation and nutritive value of sorghum straw silages. Journal Bio- Resource Technology, 100, 488-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.06.017
63. Yang, H. E, Son, Y. S., & Beauchemin, K. A. (2011). Effects of exogenous enzymes on ruminal fermentation and degradability of alfalfa hay and rice straw. Asian-Australasian Journal Animal Science, 24, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2011.90369
64. Yang, W. Z., Beauchemin, K. A., & Rode, L. M. (1999). Effects of an enzyme feed additive on extent of digestion and milk production of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 82, 391-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (99)75245-8
65. Yang, W. Z., Beauchemin, K. A., & Rode, L. M., (2000). A comparison of methods of adding fibrolytic enzymes to lactating cow diets. Journal Dairy Science, 83, 2512-2520. https://doi. org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (00)75143-5
66. Yu, P., Mckinnon, J. J., & Christensen, D. A. (2005). Improving the nutritional value of oat hulls for ruminant animals with pre-treatment of a multi-enzyme cocktail: In vitro Journal of Animal Science, 83, 1133-1141. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/2005.8351133x
67. Yulistiani, D., Jelan, Z. A., Liang, J. B., Yaakub dan, H., & Abdullah, N. (2007). The use of in vitro gas production technique to evaluate molasses supplementation to mulberry (Morus alba) and rice straw mixed diets. Jurnal Ilmu Ternak Dan Veteriner, 12(4), 255-261. http://medpub.litbang.pertanian.go.id/index.php/jitv
68. Zinn, R. A. & Salinas, J. (1999). Influence of fibrozyme on digestive function and growth performance of feedlot steers fed a 78% concentrate growing diet. p. 313–319 in Proc. 15th Annual Symposium Biotechnology in the Feed Industr Loughborough, Leics, UK.