Nutritional evaluation of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) trash as dry fodder source for cattle


Keywords:
Cattle, Digestibility, Fodder, Mineral absorption, Sugarcane dry trash Present address, 1, 2, 7, 8Principal Scientist (sbnrao@gmail.com, nksgowda@rediffmail.Abstract
The present experiment was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) trash (ST), rice (Oryza sativa) straw (RS) and finger millet (Eleusine corocana) straw (FMS), and their respective diets comprising 70% dry ST, 20% paragrass (Brachiara mutica) and 10% concentrate mixture were evaluated by in vitro gas production techique (IVGPT). The gas production, DMD and OMD were less in ST followed by RS and FMS. Significantly lower acetate, propionate, butyrate, total volatile fatty acids and A:P was recorded in ST followed by RS and FMS. Similar trend was noticed in case of total mixed rations (TMR). In the second phase, ST based total mixed ration was evaluated against conventional FMS based ration. Crossbred cattle (10; average BW 318±19 kg) were divided into 2 groups. Group I was offered TMR comprising 70% FMS whereas in group II, FMS was replaced by ST. The digestibility of DM, OM and NFE was lower in cattle fed ST as compared to FMS. Digestible CP of the diets remained same in both groups, however, TDN value was more in case of FMS based TMR. Ca, P, Zn absorption was found to be similar in both the groups. However, Mg and Cu absorption was more in ST based TMR. We can conclude that overall nutritive value of ST was lower than FMS, hence, ST is recommended for feeding as an alternate dry fodder under scarcity situations.Downloads
References
AOAC. 2010. Official Methods of Analysis. 18th edn. AOAC International, Washington, USA.
Arthington J D and Brown W F. 2005. Estimation of feeding value of four tropical forage species at two stages of maturity. Journal of Animal Science 83(7): 1726–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/2005.8371726x
Hassoun P, Fulcheri C and Nabeneza S. 2002. Feeding dairy heifers untreated or urea-treated fibrous sugarcane residues: effect on dry matter intake, growth, and metabolic parameters. Animal Feed Science and Technology 100: 31–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(02)00143-8
Hungate R E. 1966. The Rumen and its Microbes, pp. 84–85. Academic Press, New York and London.
ICAR. 2013. Nutrient Requirements of Cattle and Buffalo. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
Kamra D N, Sawal R K, Pathak N N, Kewalramani N and Agarwal N. 1991. Diurnal variation in ciliate protozoa in the rumen of black buck (Antilope cervicapra) fed green forage. Letters in Applied Microbiology 13: 165–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.1991.tb00598.x
Ortiz-Rubio M A, Orskov E R, Milne J and Galina H M A. 2007. Effect of different sources of nitrogen on in situ degradability and feed intake of Zebu cattle fed sugarcane tops. Animal Feed Science and Technology 139: 143–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.01.016
Menke K H and Steingass H. 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research Development 28: 7–55.
Naseevan M R. 1988. Sugarcane tops as animal feed. Proceedings of the ‘FAO Expert Consultation, 1986’. (Eds) Sansoucy R, Aarts G and Preston T. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. pp.106–21.
Park G E, Oh H N and Ahn S Y. 2009. Improvement of the ammonia analysis by the phenate method in water and wastewater. Bulletin of the Korean Chemical Society 30: 2032– 38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5012/bkcs.2009.30.9.2032
Rao S B N and Soren N M. 2015. Determination of rumen ammonia nitrogen. Recent Trends in Feed and Fodder Evaluation for Assessing Feed Quality and Safety. (Eds) Samanta A K and Bhatta R. 2nd edn. ICAR-NIANP, Bengaluru, pp. 97–98.
Sharma V K, Tomar S K, Kundu S S, Jain P, Jha P, Kumar M and Lata M. 2012. Chemical composition and effect of feeding different levels of sugarcane tops with concentrate mixture/ mustard cake on digestibility in buffalo calves. Indian Journal of Dairy Science 65: 393–98.
Snedecor G W and Cochran W G. 1994. Statistical Methods. 8th edn. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co, Calcutta, India.
Singh S, Kushwaha B P, Nag S K, Mishra A K, Singh A and Anele U Y. 2012. In vitro ruminal fermentation, protein and carbohydrate fractionation, methane production and prediction of twelve commonly used Indian green forages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 178: 2–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.08.019
Suma R and Savitha C M. 2015. Integrated sugarcane trash management: A novel technology for sustaining soil health and sugarcane yield. Advances in Crop Science and Technology 3: 160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-8863.1000160
Suzuki T, Sakaigaichi T, Matsuoka Y T M, Kamyia Y and Tanaka M. 2010. Chemical composition and in situ degradability of two varieties of sugarcane at different growth stages in subtropical Japan. Grassland Science 56: 134–40 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-697X.2010.00185.x
Van Soest P J. Robertson J B and Lewis B A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
Downloads
Submitted
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of the articles published in The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences is vested with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, which reserves the right to enter into any agreement with any organization in India or abroad, for reprography, photocopying, storage and dissemination of information. The Council has no objection to using the material, provided the information is not being utilized for commercial purposes and wherever the information is being used, proper credit is given to ICAR.