| Livestock Research for Rural Development 36 (5) 2024 | LRRD Search | LRRD Misssion | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
The objective of the experiment was to evaluate the effect of supplementing crossbred sheep with straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM) on their LW gain in southwest Bangladesh. Twelve crossbred sheep in total were split up into four treatment groups, each consisting of three replicates. Groups T1, T 2 and T3 were allowed to feed SUM for 1-h, 1.5-h and 2-h, respectively, in addition to 10-h grazing, while the control group (T0) only grazed for 10 h daily. Based on randomized complete block design (RCBD), the experimental setup was implemented. SUM contained 36.7% dry matter (DM), 8.47% crude protein (CP), 26.3% crude fiber (CF), 1.06% ether extract (EE), 17.4% ash, and 46.8% nitrogen-free extract (NFE). Empty body weight was measured every week morning, before they were fed SUM and allowed to graze. Computer software R was used to analyze the data. Average DM intakes from SUM were 0.18, 0.24 and 0.29 kg per sheep per day for sheep groups access to SUM supplementation for 1-h, 1.5-h and 2-h, respectively ( p <0.01). At weeks 5, 7 and 11, the highest LW gain (g, per day) was observed in the group of sheep fed 2-h SUM (T3) among all treatment groups ( p < 0.05). Among all the treatment groups, the highest LW gain was also observed at 9, 10 and 12 weeks as 90.5, 80.9 and 90.5 g per day respectively in the treatment group fed SUM for 2-h ( p < 0.01). Average LW gain over the entire experiment period (90 days) was ranged from 33.67 to 89.48 g per day with the highest in the 2-h SUM supplemented sheep group and the lowest in the no supplemented group ( p < 0.01). It can be concluded that feeding SUM for 2-h is suitable for optimal LW gain of crossbred sheep.
Keywords: body weight, dry matter intake, live weight gain
In Bangladesh, livestock form an essential part of the agricultural sector and they contribute a lot to the growth and development of the agricultural sector in various ways. The country is significantly dependent on livestock, which not only contributes to high quality meat and milk production but also provides a large number of employment opportunities (Begum et al 2012). Bangladesh has a severe shortage of feed and fodder, which is the country's main constraint on livestock production. Most of its land is devoted to rice production, and the by-products of this crop, such as rice straw, are the only source of feed that is affordable and readily available for ruminants. As a result, rice straw, which is both low in digestibility and low in nutritional value, is consumed as their main source of nutrition (Saha 2018). To achieve maximum animal productivity in Bangladesh, it is essential to make efficient use of rice straw, which is less digestible due to its low nitrogen concentration and high levels of lignin, silica and oxalate (Islam et al 2018).
Increasing the amount of nitrogen in rice straw with urea treatment is a popular technique for enhancing its quality (Khang and Dan 2001; Sheikh et al 2014). Because of their digestibility and the fact that the chemicals are reasonably cheap and their methods of use are quite straightforward, they seem most feasible for use at the farmer level. In contrast, using urea-treated rice straw as the sole feed resulted in voluntary feed intake that was lower in lambs due to lower dry matter intake (energy and crude protein), resulting in lower feed intake, growth rate and poor reproductive performance (Hue & Ledin 2008). Straw combined with urea and molasses is called straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM). An advantage of using a mixture of urea and molasses is the fact that it can reduce the amount of time required for treatment as well as reduce the strong fragrance of free ammonium. In addition, molasses improves feed palatability and acts as a rapidly available energy source for rumen bacteria, which promotes the ability to use ammoniacal nitrogen for protein production. Molasses is used to improve palatability and energy content for ruminal microflora, resulting in greater utilization of ammonia nitrogen for protein synthesis. Therefore, using a mixture of urea and molasses has the advantage of improved utilization rice straw (Sheikh et al 2017). Understanding the effect of urea molasses treated rice straw utilization on sheep growth performance has implications for providing cost-effective feeding alternatives, optimizing nutrient utilization, improving rumen health, promoting sustainable agriculture, and increasing livestock productivity and food security. The feeding trial was conducted to achieve the following objectives:
The study was conducted in the Field Laboratory of Agrotechnology Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, Bangladesh. Twelve male crossbred sheep of one year age, were split up into four treatment groups, each containing three replicates. The experimental animals underwent individual weighing, were divided into four groups according to their initial live weight, and were randomized to receive straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM) feeding for three distinct time periods. One group (control: T0) was allowed to graze for 10-h per day without SUM feeding. Among the treatment groups, three different periods of SUM feeding were 1-h, 1.5-h and 2-h in addition to 10-h grazing in the control group. Randomized complete block design (RCBD) served as the foundation for the trial design.
The sheep were kept in a house with a slate floor. There was plenty of fresh water inside the sheep shed. In addition, each animal group had its own waterer in the enclosure. The sheep shed had adequate ventilation. The living space was kept as dry as possible and the entire shed, including feeders and waterers, was regularly cleaned daily. Experimental sheep received vaccinations and deworming. To deworm the animals, an injection of the anti-helminthic drug A-Mectin Plus was given. Peste des petits ruminants (PPR) vaccine was administered subcutaneously at a rate of 1 ml per sheep.
During the day, all the experimental sheep were allowed to graze in the natural grassland near the Agrotechnology Discipline Field Laboratory and at the Khulna University campus playground. They were confined to the shed at night. The experimental sheep were allowed to graze from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm every day.
|
| Photo 1. Grazing of the experimental sheep on the playground of Khulna University |
To prepare straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM), rice straw, urea and molasses were used at the rate of 82%, 3% and 15%, respectively.
The procedures of preparing 10 kg SUM are given below:
· An average of 8.2 kg of dry and clean straw was cut into small pieces and spread on polythene sheets.
· Three hundred grams of urea and 1.5 kg of molasses were properly mixed with 4 liters of pure drinking water in a bucket.
· Half of the urea-molasses mixture was poured over the straw with a sprinkler and mix well to ensure even distribution.
· The straw was turned and the other half of the solution was spread evenly over the straw.
· The prepared SUM was covered with a polyethylene sheet to prevent evaporation of nitrogen.
Proximate composition of prepared SUM was determined according to AOAC (1990). Proximate composition of prepared SUM is presented in Table 1.
|
Table 1. Proximate composition (%) of straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM) |
|
|
Proximate components |
Mean (%) |
|
Dry matter (DM) |
36.7 |
|
Crude protein (CP) |
8.47 |
|
Crude fiber (CF) |
26.3 |
|
Ether extract (EE) |
1.06 |
|
Ash |
17.4 |
|
Nitrogen-free extract (NFE) |
46.8 |
 |
| Photo 2. Sample of complete mixed straw-urea-molasses (SUM) supplement |
Straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM) feeding was gradually adapted over a period of 7 days without feeding at once. Following the adaptation phase, the animal's intake returned to that actually prescribed. Setting a time limit on how long an animal could access the SUM was a simple way to control uptake during the adaptation phase. Typically, we offered them 30 minutes per day for the first three days and then gradually increase.
Sheep in three treatment groups T1, T2 and T3 were given access to straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM) three time periods a day – 1.0-h, 1.5-h and 2.0-h respectively. Control group was not allowed to feed SUM. Every morning SUM was given for allotted time. Three groups fed urea molasses straw: T1 group fed it from 7 am to 8.00 am, T 2 group ate it from 7 am to 8.30 am and T3 group fed it from 7 am to 9.00 am and after that, they were allowed to graze.
Each experimental animal was weighed individually. Every seven days, the weight of the sheep was measured and recorded by a digital scale. Each animal was assigned a unique number which was used for identification. The following parameters of sheep were recorded during the feeding trial:
Body weight (kg), average daily gain (g) and dry matter intake from straw-urea-molasses
Information on deworming, vaccination and medication was also regularly recorded in a register. Body weight was measured on an empty stomach every seven days, four times a month in the morning. The LW gain (g per day) was calculated by deducting the prior weight from the present weight and dividing by the number of days.
Data were recorded and analyzed using R software on a computer. Analysis of variance was utilized to examine the impact of urea molasses straw on sheep growth rate, and DMRT was employed to compare treatment means, with a significance level of p < 0.05. The study's objectives were attained by tabulating and analyzing the data using a descriptive statistical method.
The average DM intake from straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM) is presented in Table 2. It was found that the average DM intake from SUM supplementation was between 0.18 and 0.29 kg per sheep per day, which was the highest in the sheep group had the access to SUM for 2-h and lowest for 1-h group (p<0.01). On the other hand, average DM intake from SUM based on % BW was also highest in the 2-h SUM supplemented group (1.31%) and lowest in the 1-h group (0.97%) (p< 0.001).
|
Table 2. Average dry matter intake from straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM) supplementation for different time periods |
||||||
|
DM intake straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM) |
SUM feeding period |
SEM |
p |
|||
|
1-h |
1.5-h |
2-h |
||||
|
Average DM intake from SUM (kg/sheep/day) |
0.18c |
0.24b |
0.29a |
0.02 |
<0.01 |
|
|
Average DM intake from SUM (% BW) |
0.97b |
1.24a |
1.31a |
0.16 |
<0.001 |
|
|
SUM = Straw-urea-molasses mixture;
|
||||||
 |
| Figure 1. Relationship between access to straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM), hours per day and DM intake, kg per sheep per day |
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between supplementation of straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM), hours per day and DM intake, kg per sheep per day. It was shown that DM intake increased linearly with increasing hours of access to SUM supplements.
LW gain of crossbred sheep is presented in Table 3, which displays the data at weekly intervals. These LW gain (g, per day) are presented under different SUM feeding periods. The LW gain of sheep across their fifth, seventh, eighth and eleventh weeks exhibited changes (p < 0.05) based on the SUM supplementation they were given. Moreover, there was a difference in mean LW gain of sheep in their ninth, tenth and twelfth weeks between SUM supplemented and non-supplemented group (p < 0.01). This indicated that supplying sheep with SUM for two hours was more effective in promoting greater rates of growth. At week 5, LW gain of crossbred sheep were ranged from 27.1 to 104.8 g per day being highest in the group that had a 2-h of SUM feeding period while the SUM non-supplemented group had the lowest (p<0.05). At week 7, LW gain ranged from 26.7 to 85.7 g per day, with the highest growth rates observed in the 2-h SUM feeding period group and the lowest in the SUM non-supplemented group (p<0.05). At 8 weeks, growth rates ranged from 32.9 to 90.5 g per day, with the highest growth rate in the 2-hour SUM feeding group and the lowest in the SUM non-supplemented group (p<0.05). At 11 weeks, growth rates ranged from 33.3 to 100.0 g per day, with the highest growth rate in the 2-h SUM feeding group and the lowest in the SUM non-supplemented group (p<0.05). LW gain at 9 weeks was highest ( p <0.01) in lambs fed 2 hours with SUM (90.5g), followed by 1.5-h (58.1g), 1-h (50.9g), and for the group that did not receive SUM (40.5g). At 10 weeks, the highest LW gain were observed for the group fed SUM 2-h (80.9g), followed by 1.5h (78.6), 1-h (52.4g), and for the group that did not receive SUM (26.2g). Similarly, at 12 weeks, the highest (p<0.01) LW gain was observed for sheep fed 2-h with SUM (90.5g), followed by 1.5-h (76.2g), 1-h (71.4g), and the group that did not receive SUM (30.9g). For the entire test period of 90 days, the average LW gain was 33.67, 56.92, 70.85 and 89.48 g per day for the sheep group without any supplementation and the 1-h, 1.5-h and 2-h SUM supplemented groups, respectively ( p < 0.01). Haque (2016) reported that the weekly live weight gain of indigenous sheep was 0.21 kg and 0.54 kg (p < 0.001) for straw-urea-molasses mixture supplementation group and no supplementation group at the end of the 9-week trial period. Average daily gain of Corriedale sheep fed urea-molasses treated rice straw and urea-molasses-enzyme treated paddy straw was (p<0.01) higher than that of untreated straw fed group (Sheikh et al 2017) which is in agreement with the present findings. In contrast, there was no substantial difference in LW gain of local Karadi lambs fed urea treated straw (56.5g) and urea-molasses treated straw groups (56.1g) (Resol et al 2020). LW gain of Awassi lambs was reported by Al-Abbassi et al (2022) to be 297 g and 115 g respectively for the treatment group fed Alfalfa hay stalks with urea-molasses and non-supplemented group respectively (p<0.01).
|
Table 3. LW gain(g, per day) of sheep fed straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM) for different time periods |
||||||
|
LW gain (g, per day) |
SUM feeding period |
SEM |
p |
|||
|
No SUM |
1-h |
1.5-h |
2-h |
|||
|
Week 1 |
41.4 |
48.6 |
56.2 |
95.2 |
13.218 |
0.540 |
|
Week 2 |
34.8 |
45.2 |
68.1 |
73.3 |
6.514 |
0.086 |
|
Week 3 |
34.3 |
64.3 |
69.1 |
82.9 |
7.452 |
0.107 |
|
Week 4 |
36.7 |
55.2 |
60.5 |
80.0 |
7.795 |
0.293 |
|
Week 5 |
27.1b |
60.0ab |
66.7ab |
104.8a |
10.525 |
<0.05 |
|
Week 6 |
27.6 |
47.6 |
73.8 |
95.2 |
10.260 |
0.069 |
|
Week 7 |
26. 7b |
53.8ab |
59.5ab |
85.7a |
7.642 |
<0.05 |
|
Week 8 |
32.9b |
50.9b |
58.1b |
90.5a |
7.334 |
<0.05 |
|
Week 9 |
40.5b |
50.9b |
58.1a |
90.5a |
7.037 |
<0.01 |
|
Week 10 |
26.2b |
52.4ab |
78.6a |
80.9a |
7.682 |
<0.01 |
|
Week 11 |
33.3b |
64.3ab |
90.5a |
100.0a |
9.156 |
<0.05 |
|
Week 12 |
30.9b |
71.4a |
76.2a |
90.5a |
7.638 |
<0.01 |
|
Week 13 |
40.5 |
61.9 |
69.1 |
80.9 |
5.821 |
0.061 |
|
Total period |
33.67c |
56.92bc |
70.85ab |
89.48a |
6.907 |
<0.01 |
|
SUM = Straw-urea-molasses mixture;
|
||||||
 |
| Figure 2. Relationship between access to straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM), hours per day and LW gain, g per day |
Figure 2 shows the relationship between straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM), hours per day and LW gain, g per day. The figure illustrates the linear and progressive relationship between straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM), hours per day and LW gain, g per day. This indicates that LW gain of crossbred sheep increased with increasing time to access straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM) supplementation.
According to the results, a large change in LW gain of crossbred sheep (g per day) was observed for straw-urea-molasses mixture (SUM) supplementation. In crossbred sheep, LW gain (g, per day) was increased with increasing duration of SUM feeding. Therefore, it can be concluded that to ensure optimal growth of crossbred sheep, they should be provided with SUM for two hours daily in addition to the grazing.
Research protocols involving animal subjects in this study followed ethical standards and no unnecessary pain or disturbance was inflicted on experimental animals.
Al-Abbassi M S A A, Lazim J S, Hussein, M K 2022 Response of Awassi lambs feeding to fattening on rations of Alfalfa hay stalks treatment with urea or addition of molasses. International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(10), 710–721. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS10.13598
AOAC 1990 Official Methods of Analysis. 15th Edition, Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Washington DC.
Begum I A, Alam, M J, Buysse J, Frija A, Van Huylenbroeck G 2012 Contract farmer and poultry farm efficiency in Bangladesh: a data envelopment analysis. Applied Economics, 44(28), 3737-3747. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.581216
Haque, M E 2016 Comparison of feeding straw supplemented molasses, urea and rice gruel on the production performance of sheep. MS Thesis, Department of Animal Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chittagong Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Chittagong-4225, Bangladesh. http://dspace.cvasu.ac.bd/bitstream/123456789/2085/2/MS%20Thesis%20%20Md.%20Emdadul%20Haque.pdf
Hue, K T, Ledin I 2008 Effect of supplementing urea treated rice straw and molasses with different forage species on the performance of lambs. Small Ruminant Research, 78(1-3), 134-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.05.010
Islam O, Akter S, Islam, M A, Jamee D K, Khan R I 2018 Preparation of wastelage with poultry droppings and rice straw (Oryza sativa L.) as a cattle feed. Asian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 4(3), 251-258. https://doi.org/10.3329/ajmbr.v4i3.38463
Khang D T, Dan C X 2001 Chemical composition of several crop by-products as animal feeds in Vietnam. In Proceeding of a Workshop on Improved Utilisation of By-Products for Animal Feeding, NUFU Project, Nauy, Vietnam (pp. 1-5).
Resol A H S, Muhamad S M N, Aziz N M, Mustafa N A 2020 Response of local Karadi lambs for feeding by adding molasses and date to urea treated straw. Plant Archives, 20(2), 1122-1125. http://www.plantarchives.org/SPL%20ISSUE%2020-2/171__1122-1125_.pdf
Saha N G, Akter Q S, Chowdhury M R H, Tareq K M A, Fouzder S K 2018 Effect of urea molasses straw on beef fattening at rural areas in Chattogram district. International Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 5(3), 9-15. https://ijnss.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/IJNSS-V5I3-2-pp-09-15.pdf
Sheikh G G, Ganai, A M, Sheikh F A, Bhat S A, Masood D, Mir S, Bhat M A 2017 Effect of feeding urea molasses treated rice straw along with fibrolytic enzymes on the performance of Corriedale Sheep. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 5(6), 2626-2630. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322243707
Sheikh G G, Sarkar T K, Gania A M, Ahmed H A, Islam S. 2014 Effect of feeding urea-molasses impregnated paddy straw on nutrient utilization, milk yield and economics of feeding in crossbred cows. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 31(2), 152-155. https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:ijan&volume=31&issue=2&article=009