Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T06:51:45.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison under temperate conditions of the nutritive value of straw for cattle following treatment using either ammonia from urea or via direct injection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. Macdearmid ,
P. E. V. Williams  and
G. M. Innes
A. Macdearmid
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
P. E. V. Williams
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
G. M. Innes
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Get access

Abstract

A series of experiments was conducted to examine the potential of using ammonia released from the hydrolysis of urea for alkali treatment of straw.

In an initial experiment (1) the effect on urea hydrolysis of adding either hydrochloric acid (HC1) or the surfactant alkyl phenyl ethylene oxide to straw of differing dry matter (DM) concentration was examined. The inclusion of HC1 or surfactant failed to improve the proportion of urea hydrolysed at straw DM concentrations of 450, 600 or 750 g/kg.

In experiment 2, straw was prepared and treated with urea, at a level of 20 (U2), 50 (U5), 70 (U7) g/kg straw DM and ammonia 40 (A4) g/kg straw DM to compare with untreated straw (S). Samples of the straws were milled and degradability at 60 h was estimated using the nylon bag technique. DM loss was significantly higher for all treated straws compared with untreated straw (P < 0·001). However, the proportion of added nitrogen retained from all urea treatments was less than 0·33 but U7 and U5 were approximately double that obtained from A4.

In experiment 3, 3-t batches of straw equivalent to treatments U2, U7, A4 and S were treated during September and later offered to steers in digestibility and food intake trials. Straws were ground through a 40-mm screen and offered to steers in digestibility stalls, in a balanced incomplete-block design. There were increases in the digestibility of DM (+0·08 g/kg), organic matter (+0·08 g/kg), and acid-detergent fibre (+0·09) of U7 and A4 straw compared with values for untreated straw (P < 0·01).

In a subsequent food intake trial treatment of long straw, with 20 g urea per kg straw DM (U2) failed to prevent moulding, however digestible organic matter intake (DOMI) of U7 and A4 straws increased by 0·42 and 0·27 kg/day respectively compared with intakes of untreated straw (P < 0·01). The application of 70 g urea per kg straw DM gave results comparable with treatment with 40 g ammonia per kg straw DM in improving digestibility of ground straw and the DOMI and preservation of long straw.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , June 1988 , pp. 379 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Borhami, B. E. A., Sundstøl, F. and Garmo, T. H. 1982. Studies on ammonia treated straw. II. Fixation of ammonia in treated straw by spraying with acids. Animal Feed Science and Technology 7: 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesson, A. 1981. Effects of sodium hydroxide on cereal straws in relation to the enhanced degradation of structural polysaccharides by rumen microorganisms. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32: 745–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloete, S. W. P. and Kritzinger, N. M. 1984. The fixation of nitrogen in urea ammoniated wheat straw by means of different acids. South African Journal of Animal Science 14: 173–176.Google Scholar
Dowman, M. G. and Collins, F. C. 1982. The use of enzymes to predict the digestibility of animal feeds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 33: 689–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadjipanayiotou, M. 1982. The effect of ammoniation using urea on the intake and nutritive value of chopped barley straw. Grass and Forage Science 37: 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernan, J. A., Crowle, W. L., Spurr, D. T. and Coxworth, E. C. 1979. Straw quality of cereal cultivars before and after treatment with anhydrous ammonia. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 59: 511–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawlor, M. J. and O'shea, J. 1979. The effect of ammoniation on the intake and nutritive value of straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology 4: 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lufadeju, E. A., Blacket, G. A. and Ørskov, E. R. 1985. The effect of variety of spring barley straw and of ammonia treatment on nutritive value. Procedings of the Nutrition Society 44: 97A (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Macdearmid, A., Williams, P. E. V. and Innes, G. M. 1983. Turnips with chemically-treated straw for beef production. 1. The effects on the growth of steers. Animal Production 37: 97–104.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hovell, F. D. Deb. and Mould, F. 1980. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Tropical Animal Production 5: 195–213.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Tait, C. A. G. and Reid, G. W. 1981. Utilisation of ammonia- or urea-treated barley straw as the only feed for dairy heifers. Animal Production 32: 388 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Sadullah, M., Haoue, M. and Dolberg, F. 1981. Effectiveness of ammonification through urea in improving the feeding value of rice straw in ruminants. Tropical Animal Production 6: 30–36.Google Scholar
Schmidt, L., Weissbach, F., Kwella, M., Prym, R., Stromeyer, H., Scherbarth, L. and Unger, W. 1983. [Preserving square big bales of straw with urea.] Tagungsbericht, Akademie der Lundwirtschaftswissenschaften der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik 217: 113–122.Google Scholar
Solaiman, S. G., Horn, G. W. and Owens, F. W. 1979. Ammonium hydroxide treatment of wheat straw. Journal of Animal Science 49: 802–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundstøl, F. and Coxworth, E. M. 1984. Ammonia treatment. In Straw and other Fibrous By-Products as Feed (ed. Sundstøl, F. and Owen, E.), pp. 196–247. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sundstøl, F., Coxworth, E. and Mowat, D. M. 1978. Improving the nutritive value of straw and other low-quality roughages by treatment with ammonia. World Animal Review 26: 13–21.Google Scholar
Williams, P. E. V., Innes, G. M. and Brewer, A. 1984a. Ammonia treatment of straw via the hydrolysis of urea. I. Effects of dry matter and urea concentrations on the rate of hydrolysis of urea. Animal Feed Science and Technology 11: 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, P. E. V., Innes, G. M. and Brewer, A. 1984b. Ammonia treatment of straw via the hydrolysis of urea. II. Additions of soya bean (urease), sodium hydroxide and molasses; effects on the digestibility of urea-treated straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology 11: 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar